The President and Fellows of Harvard College

Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology

The Vision and Its "Exceedingly Blessed Beholder": Of Desire and Participation in the Icon
Author(s): Nicoletta Isar
Source: RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 38 (Autumn, 2000), pp. 56-72
Published by: The President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeThe President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeThe
President and Fellows of Harvard College acting through the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
EthnologyPeabody Museum of Archaeology and EthnologyPeabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20167507
Accessed: 13/12/2010 09:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pfhc.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The President and Fellows of Harvard College and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics.

http://www.jstor.org
56 RES 38 AUTUMN 2000

?^^J^^^i^

Figure 5. Christ, Chora ton z?nt?n, mosaic decoration from theTemplon

mosaics, set into the marble revetments on the western face of the
northeastern corner of the nave, Chora mid-fourteenth
Monastery, century.
Height of mosaic panel within frame: 2.52 m; width within frame: 1.01
m; height from floor to bottom of frame: 1.77 m; height of figure from top
of head to level of right toes: 2.15 m. From Raul A. Underwood, The
Kariye D'jami. Vol. 2, The Mosaics (New York: Bollingen Foundation,
1966). Reproduced by permission of Princeton University Press.
 The vision and its "exceedingly blessed beholder"1

Of desire and participation in the icon

NICOLETTAISAR

To any vision must be brought an eye adapted to what is to to medieval

exploration of Plotinus and his contribution
be seen, and having some likeness to it. Never did eye see aesthetics, which may open up a hitherto unexplored
the sun unless it had first become sunlike, and never can for a reading of an intertwined way of seeing,
possibility
the Soul have vision of the First Beauty unless itself be
which is constitutive of the ?conic vision.4
beautiful.
The purpose of this essay is not exhaustive research
Plotinus, The Enneads 1.7.9 concerning vision in Byzantium. It is not my aim here to
reconstitute systematically the transformation of the
After a long period of disregard, the icon?image and
now resurfacing in the image concept and of the vision from the sensible to the
likeness, eik?n inGreek?is
discourse on vision and visuality in painting.2 The lines
intellectual realm?a long process that can be traced in
Hellenistic and Early Christian thought from Plato to
from Plotinus's First Ennead are the ?pigraphe and a
Philo and St. Raul, and from Plotinus and Proclus to
point of departure for an essay on vision and its the Areopagite and St. John of
beholder in Byzantium. The type of vision Iam Pseudo-Dionysius
Damascus. Rather, the aim is to reshuffle the texts?from
concerned differs greatly from the models
with and
theological statements in defense of the ?mage to
technologies of vision in modernity. Itdemands neither
nor of the visual liturgical, living ritual?to build up a critical
pure optical reading any metaphors reassessment of a tradition and a cognitive theory that
involved in the variety of ocular experiences discussed
have proved incapable of explaining the ubiquity and
in connection with the "ocularcentric" cultures.3
endurance of the Byzantine scheme except through an
Instead, it insists on likeness. To attain nous, a similarity
is required: the likeness between the seer and the seen. appeal to primitivism.5 The argument will be in
opposition to a concept much used in contemporary
Itwill be my goal to define or, at least, to formulate,
discourse on painting and visuality: le regard, "the gaze,"
some general lines of a theory of participation in the
one nature
and its field of vision, the representational space. Iwill
image, that derives from the very of the
attempt to put forward an alternative model of vision in
iconic sign. By digging more deeply into the Plotinian
which vision itself is transfigured through participation.
text, tribute must be paid to Andr? Grabar's first in the icon is a function of desire,
Participation desire
for God, whose "site" is the icon. The problematic of
desire presented here differs from other scholars' view of
This is an expanded version of a paper at the Fifth Nordic
given the frame and structure of the subject. Gregory of Nyssa's
Workshop on Medieval Liturgy, Aland, Finland, oct. 1997. I should
like to thank the late Father Leonard E. Boyle, Prefect of the Vatican theological anthropology helps to demonstrate that,
to pursue my research. Iwould rather than a site of desire and absence, the icon is a site
Library, for His encouragement like
also to thank all those who helped me in various ways to of desire and of identification, a place of finding and
this text, Maria Autexier, Maria Alexandru and Sabin a
accomplish search, "presence" and a "reward" for a seeking that
Preda, Jacob Weiner, Robin Wildt Hansen and Ruth Edelstein, the
resists completion and stasis. My strategy is to contrapose
unknown readers of RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics for their
the concept of "agape" to that of "desire," as shown in
substantial response, and Francesco Pellizzi and his assistant Kirsten
Swenson, who me in the last and most difficult patristic texts up to Marion's contemporary theology.
accompanied
sequence of its completion.
1. hypereudaimones theata (Plotinus, EnneadsV.8.4).
2. N. Bryson, Vision and Painting. The Logic of the Gaze, ed. S. 4. A. Grabar, "Plotin et les origines de m?di?vale," in
l'esth?tique
Heath and C. MacCabe (London: Macmillan, 1983); D. Freedberg, The L'artde la fin de l'antiquit? et du Moyen Age (Paris:College de
Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response France, 1968), vol. 1, pp. 15-29 and Cahiers Ach?ologiques 1

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989). (1961 ):14-34. Iam also sympathetic with John Eisner's article "The
3. M. Jay, "Introduction," in Downcast Eyes. The Denigration of Viewer and the Vision: The Case of the Sinai Apse," Art History 17
Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought, of (1994):81-102.
(Berkeley: University
California Press, 1993), p. 1. 5. Bryson (see note 2), p. 50.
 58 RES 38 AUTUMN 2000

The backdrop is, of course, Byzantine culture and thereby showing that man can imitate Him,9 becoming a
tradition, but I
will deliberately resist the concept of linear likeness ("mim?tes Christou"), and make an icon of
historical narrative in favor of establishing a
typology of God. The role played by the dogma of the Incarnation in
ism and
post-iconoclastic Byzantine representational the Byzantine theory of the image was paramount: it
Semiotics' for the formalization of
perception. potential required the making and worshipping of images-icons.11
models whose structure remains largely isomorphic The imitation of God in the making of an icon is a
may therefore be retained.6 Rather than focusing on reflection upon the relationship of the image and its
historical transformations, Iwill attempt to set up a
prototype and, on the other hand, its beholder. In so far
post-iconoclastic model of vision and representation of as the icon carries with it "something divine," it
the divine in Byzantium, in opposition to a model of becomes venerable. In the Byzantine
necessarily
representation in post-cartesian perceptual ism. The discourse the honor rendered to the
against Iconoclasts,
tension between "icon" and "idol," which stands has been a
image key point of the debate. The honor
behind the process that gives significance to the iconic rendered to the image passes to the prototype, to the
sign, as well as the opposition between "icon" and model or original. This idea from the fourth-century
"representation" will give structure to my argument. Father St. Basil can be seen in the
Cappadocian
Let us make man in our after our likeness. . . .And Resolutions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787):
image,
God created man ?nHis own image: in the ?mage of God ... we decree with full
precision and care that, like the figure
created He him . . .
of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy
Genesis 1:26-27 images,whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable
material are to be exposed in the holy churches of God... .
In these verses from the book of Genesis on image and Further, people are drawn to honor these ?mages with the
likeness, the concept of imitation, mimesis, is exalted.7 offering of incense and lights.... Indeed, the honor paid to the
Its power reverberates throughout the making of the image traverses it, reaching the model; and he who venerates
icon. There should be something divine in this act, the ?mage, venerates the person represented in the image.12
which derives from the fact that man himself was made For the Fathers of the Church and the Byzantines, the
according to the image and likeness of God.8 The identification of the image and the original could not be
parallel between the image-likeness of man with God an
identity of material (wood, pigment) or of the essence
and the making of the image-icon by man is a topos in is divine; the identity was a relational one
(ousia), which
Greek patristic and Byzantine doctrines of the ?mage.
(according to schesis or pros ti.)u But for Theodore of
Moreover, through the Incarnation, logos became flesh,
revealing His image, painting His picture for us, and
9. G. B. Ladner,
"The Concept of the Image," in Images and Ideas
in the Middle Ages. Selected Studies in History and Art, (Rome:
Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1983), p. 85 on St. Irenaeus of Lyons
(Adversus HaeresesV. 16.1) and St. Methodius of Olympus
6. I think of the elements of "continuity" and "consistency," which 1.4.24).
{Symposium
remained rather stable until a and
today and give spiritual, cultural, 10. "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ" (St. Paul 1
aesthetic shape to the whole of the Byzantine Orthodox world. J. Corinthians 11.1; Ephesians 5.1).
Meyendorff, "Continuities and Discontinuities in Byzantine Religious 11. "Let this be denied, and Christ's oikonomia, the
says Theodore,
Thought," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993):69. See also L. Brubaker, of salvation, is virtually destroyed" (from Theodore's letter to
economy
"Byzantine Art in the Ninth-Century: Theory, Practice, and Culture," the Abbot Plato of Sarkudion, De cultu sacrarum [PG
imaginum
and Modern Greek Studies 13 (1989):42-55 on (the section
Byzantine 99:505A], apud. G. B. Ladner, "The Byzantine Iconoclastic
the role of tradition). in and Ideas in the Middle [Roma: Edizioni
Controversy," Images Ages
7. The opposite of the platonic concept of image, which di Storia e Letteratura, 1983], p. 65)
devalues the world of senses by separating it from that of ideas: the 12. N. P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical 2 vols.,
Councils,
real things are only ?mages of true ideas (Phaedrus 250B). Mimesis (London: Sheed & Ward; D. C:
Washington, Georgetown University
or imitation by art is thrice distanced from truth, since the artist Press, 1990), vol. 1, pp. 133-137.
not only of nature but also man
copies things things made by 13. Both terms can be translated as "relative," and
they define the
(Republic 597E, 603B). relationship established between the ?con and ?ts archetype. "Pros ti"
8. "The fact that man was made according to the ?mage and in Aristotle's but "schesis" expands the categorial
originates Categories,
likeness of God shows that in the making of an ?mage its form or idea definition of the relation, and regards the modality of the relationship.
(tes eikonourgias eidos) is something divine" (Theodore of Studion It shows how the invisible is made visible, and therefore it touches
Antirrheticus III, 2, 5, [PG 99:420A]). the beholder's vision.
upon
 Isar:The vision and its "exceedingly blessed beholder" 59

Studion,14 one of the most influential architects of the Christ is one and the same with the image of Christ, the
doctrine of the image, Christ's image /s15 identical with reverence is here, too, the same, because of the identity
Him, "kata t?n tes hypostase?s homoiot?ta,"u that is, of person, without regard to the difference of nature
to the likeness of the hypostasis (the Second between Christ and the image."22 To disregard this
according
Hypostasis or Person of Christ). Such identity between identity of person in the image would be "severing from
Christ and His image signified therefore that Christ's the image the might and glory of the model."23 The
image was supposed to participate in and imitate Christ, conception of personal identity was a keystone in
not only as man, but as God.17 "Thus one may say Theodore's theology, with great consequences for the
without is in the image and its beholder. Iwill return to this issue later on.
necessarily sinning that the divinity
icon," "Hout? kai en eik?ni einai t?n theot?ta eip?n tis In relation to the Incarnation, Greek patristic texts
ouk an hamart? tou deontos."^8 consistently make reference to a key term?ch?ra?a
Theodore's doctrine of hypostatic or personal common denominator of the Virgin and Christ.24 Ch?ra
identity
insists on the degree of divinity achieved in the image.19 is an important attribute in the representation of the
In Epist. ad Platonem, Theodore explains how the ?mage divine Itwill be at the
likeness and the Incarnation.
of Christ differs from Christ in nature, but not in person. heart of the definition of the iconic space.
The ?mage is related to the hypostasized prototype, that The concept of ch?ra, space traces its origins to
is, the individual features or "charakt?r."20 The Face, Platonic thought. InTimaeus,25 Plato speaks of three
"pros?pon" inGreek, designates the totality of an ontological genres: Being, Image, and that inwhich the
individual's exterior aspects, giving existence to image is impressed. He calls this "ch?ra," a particular
individual nature.21 Therefore, "granted that the person of kind of space. Space is, to Plato, the "room" (ch?ra) or
the container of something, which has associations with
14. In the Byzantine doctrine of the image, Theodore of Studion "ch?rein," meaning to "hold" or "have room for." This is
is the representative of the second phase of the debate a space "which exists always and cannot be It
(died 826) destroyed.
against iconoclasm and, in his defence of the images, he surpassed in
provides a location for all that come to be. It is
things
some aspects St. John Damascene (died 754), the representative of the itself apprehended by a kind of bastard reasoning that
first phase.
does not involve sense perception, and it is hardly even
15. Ladner (see note 9), p. 97.
. an object of conviction."26
16. Theodore of Studion, Antirrheticus III, 3, 1 (PG 99:420D)
17. Ladner (see note 9), pp. 97-98.
18. Antirrh. I, 12, pp. 99, 344. (of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) in one
hypostases
19. Ladner (see note 9), pp. 63-64. "Any portrait is the portrait of a nature, divine. By virtue of the Incarnation, Christ's hypostasis is

hypostasis and not of nature;" "The iconic representation is only defined both, by divine and human nature. This is highly in
important
possible according to its hypostasis not to its nature" (Pantos the definition of the icon, as "the truth of an icon lies in the person it
eikonizomenou, ouch h? physis, all'h? hypostasis eikonizetai) "How represents." (Panayiotis Nellas, Deification in Christ: Orthodox
could a nature that is not contemplated in hypostasis be represented Perspectives on the Nature of the Human Person [Crestwood, New
an kai exeikonisthei?
iconically?" (p?s gar physis m? en hypostasei York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1987], p. 33). Ultimately, it
tethe?r?men??) {Antirrh. Ill, col. 405a). concerns the human being, as man himself is understood ontologically
20. These features play a similar role in recognition as the "scars"
by the Fathers only as a theological being: his ontology is iconic (ibid.,
(houle) in the verbal e?konismos (the description of the essential p. 34). On the notion of hypostasis, see also V. Lossky, Essai sur la
features of the figures) (see G. Dagron's excellent study "Holy Images de l'Eglise d'Orient, (Paris: Les editions du Cerf,
th?ologie mystique
and Likeness," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 [1991 ]:26). 1990), pp. 49-64.
21. Hypostasis is a key theological term in Patristic discourse. 22. Theodore the Studite, Epist. ad Platonem de cultu sacrarum
Hypostasis, from the verb (to subsist), designates that imaginum (PG 99:500ff), in Cyril Mango, The Art of Byzantine
"hyphistamai"
which subsists, by contrast to that which exists in itself, that is, the Empire 312-1453, (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Enlewood Cliffs,
substance or the divine essence (ousia). The difference between ousia 1972), p. 173.
and hypostasis is like the difference between common and particular: 23. Mango (see note 22), p. 174.
ousia refers to what is common, whereas refers to the 24. G. W. H. Lampe, D. D., A Patristic
Greek Lexicon, (Oxford at
hypostasis
the concrete, or person. Patristic thought is the Clarendon Press, 1961), p. 1537. In his Homily XI, St. Cyril of
particular, hypostasis
founded on the ontological principle of the hypostasis or the person of Alexandria (V c.) hails Mary as to ch?rion tou ach?r?tou (PG 77, col.
the Father, and the monarchy of the Father. His Being is identified with 1032 D), apud. Paul A. Underwood, The Kariye Djami, Bollingen
His person. His substance is constituted or
"hypostasized" by His Series 70 (New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1966), vol. 1, p. 41.
personal existence. Substance, in the Eastern Church, is never devoid 25. 48a-53c.
(gymne) o? hypostasis. In defining the mystery of the Trinity, the Fathers 26. Timaeus, 52b. Since 1968, Jacques Derrida has dedicated
of the Church take as a point of departure the concrete, the three several incisive of deconstructionist flavor to this paradoxical
analyses
60 RES 38 AUTUMN 2000

The philosophical concept has been reshaped in the Ch?ra space: inscription against circumscription
patristic texts, among which the 101st Letter to
To the doctrineof sign (s?meion, typos) of the
Cledonius written by Gregory of Nazianze stands out:
iconoclasts, for whom
the inscription (graphe)
et qui (Fils de Dieu) finalement est aussi homme, assum? circumscribes and limits the divine infinity, Nicephoros
pour notre salut, passible selon la chaire, impassible selon opposes one of the most richly conceptual theories of
l'esprit, ? la fois terrestre et celeste, visible et accessible the pictorial inscription, as trace/print/empre/nfe and
seulement ? saisissable et insaisissable . . .
l'esprit, contained in the uncontainable choraic space. In
word,
and who (Son of God) is ultimately also man, who took Antirrheticus II,29 two concepts are defined and
upon himself (prosl?phthenta) our salvation, limited clarified: inscription (graphe) and circumscription
according to the body (perigrapton s?mati), unlimited (perigraph?).30
according to the spirit (aperigrapton pneumati), visible and According to Nicephoros, everything contained
accessible only in spirit (hor?menon kai nooumenon), within the limits of the space, as topos, is circumscribed.
contained and uncontained (ch?r?ton kai ach?r?ton).27
Everything that initiates its existence in time is
But itwas in the Patriarch Nicephoros's discourse circumscribed. Everything encompassed by thought and
the iconoclasts (circa 750-828), the speculative knowledge is circumscribed. Nicephoros defines
against
text of the Antirrheticus,28 that ch?ra was polemically circumscription in connection with the Aristotelian

engaged in the definition of the iconic space. topos, as a limitation of the body that it contains.
Circumscription operates with borders or boundaries; it
is a device of framing in space. By contrast, everything
that does not respond to these categories is
Platonic concept of being and not-being in a place. The paradoxal?ty uncircumscribable. The iconic inscription is defined by a
of the Platonic term is perplexing indeed and resists all description.
space, called ch?ra by Nicephoros.
Derrida has referred to the platonic text in a negative discourse: "On
It follows that Christ, taking on a body, is
ne peut m?me pas dire d'elle qu'elle n'est ni ceci n'\ cela ou qu'elle
est ? la fois ceci et cela . . . tant?t la ch?ra para?t n'?tre ni ceci ni cela,
circumscribed in space (topos); having no beginning but
tant?t ? la fois ceci et cela. . . ." (Ch?ra, Poikilia Etudes offertes ?j. P. Himself to a temporal He is
subjecting beginning,
Vernant [Paris: Editions de l'Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences circumscribed in time; incomprehensible, He accepts
sociales, 1987], p. 265). enclosure within the boundaries of comprehension. But
Ch?ra permanently floats between logics, between "la logique de virtue of His divine He is outlined ?n an
et celle de la participation"; it simply belongs to a "logique by nature,
l'exclusion
autre que la logique du logos." Not being a subject ("n'est pas
uncircumscribable space, abstract and infinite, in ch?ra.
chose," "n'est comme rien"), neither furnishing a stable This is a paradoxical space, ch?r?ton kai ach?r?ton, that
quelque
substance, \X/ch?ra has form insofar as, being "amorphe" (amorphon), is, "contained and uncontained," in the space and
it rests "vierge, d'une virginit? radicalement rebelle ? outside the space, and the iconic inscription, the
Be it noun (in translations, as "place," "lieu,"
l'anthropomorphisme."
graphe, is a trace that defines a space that ?sand is not
"emplacement," "region") or metaphor ("m?re," "nourrice,"
there, ach?r?ton.3^
"receptacle" or, most notably "porte-empreinte"), ch?ra proves difficult
to deal with. Receptacle (dechomenon) or (ch?ra) "ne d?signent
In ch?ra, the line, graphe, the iconic inscription?
place
pas une essence, l'?tre stable d'un eidos, puisque ch?ra n'est ni de trace and Word?reveals the endless openness of the
l'ordre de Yeidos, ni de l'ordre des mimeses, des images de Yeidos qui Word. for the the line is the limit
If, iconoclasts,
viennent s'imprimer en elle?qui ainsi n'est pas, n'appartient pas aux where
deux connus ou reconnus." ". . . c'est ? dire aussi bien Being begins and ends (perigraph?), for the
genres d'?tres
iconophiles the line generates a continuous space, the
ne pas laisser prendre ou concevoir,
se ? travers les schemes
du recevoir ou du donner" (Ibid., p. 270).
ch?ra?an idea or thought of space (he no?sis), a
antropomorphiques
27. Gr?goire de Nazianze, "Du m?me, au pr?tre Cl?donios,

lettre," Lettres T?ologiques, Introduction, texte critique,

premi?re
traduction et notes par Paul Gallay (Paris:Les Editions du Cerf, 1974),
29.
pp. 42-43; Marie-Jos? Mondzain, "Espace ?conique et territoire ? 357D-360A.
ic?ne, ?conomie: Les sources byzantine de 30. Nic?phore, Discours A II357B-360D, pp. 168-172.
gouverner," Image,
l'imaginaire contemporain, (Paris:Seuil, 1996), p. 199. 31. Gregory of Nazians, Epist. 101 (PG 37:117B): patheton sarki,
28. Nicephoros is the third theologian of the doctrine of the theoteti, perigrapton somati, aperigrapton pneumati, ton auton
?mage apathe
(758-828). Discours contre les iconoclastes, traduction, epigeion kai ouranou, horomenon kai nooumenon, ch?r?ton kai
Nic?phore,
et notes par Marie-Jos? Mondzain-Baudinet (Paris: ach?r?to; also in The Akatistos Hymnos, ?cos 8: Chaire Theou
pr?sentation
Klincksieck, 1989). ach?r?ton ch?ra.
 Isar:The vision and its "exceedingly blessed beholder" 61

place that has its own extension and configuration. It To thee (the Theotokos) Ihave dedicated this noble

ignores both the void and the fullness, because it monastery which is called by the precious name of Chora.37
places itself in an economic relationship with And Ihad this hope especially inHis mother, the virginal
aoriston, the infinity of the divine Verbe.32 Without and all-holy Hold (Chora) most broad of Him who ?s
being encircled or fixed, the Word traces its presence unholdable through and beyond all things. In her name did
and absence in an iconic paradox. Ibuilt this monastery.38
Itwastheologically imperative for the Church that the But thou, Oh Lady, hast become the instrument of this great
image triumph, and it did triumph.33 In the history of miracle (the Incarnation) which gave life to mortals; and it
Byzantium that followed the triumph of images, the ?sto bring a shrine (as a gift) to thee that Ierected this
of Chora shows, no doubt, the most
imperial monastery monastery, calling itChora after thee, the one who
complete and refined program to have survived after the contained the uncontainable, to thee the shrine of the
fall of Constantinople. Here, theological concept and immortal God.39
image come together in a powerful statement.
The disposition of the images within the structural frame of
the narthexes follows a clearly orchestrated sc?nographie
Ch?ra of the living strategy. Displayed in gold and glass tesserae, the images
lead the eyes across the outer narthex at the entrance bay
The name Chora, by which the Constantinopolitan
and into the inner narthex, where the beholder is
monastery has always been known, seems to have
been used from the beginning not as a topographical
confronted by two "dedicatory" images, "Christ Chora o?
the living"(fig. 1) and "theVirginChora of the
reference to a land estate, country, or region (choros
uncontainable" (fig. 2), placed above the doors. Through
and chorion), but in a mystical sense.34 Chora was
these doors one passes into the next space, where the
actually a place of and burial for ecclesiasts
refuge founder himself is represented kneeling before the
and opponents of the iconoclastic emperors. Such was
enthroned "Christ Chora o? the living" (fig. 3). Two
the Patriarch Germanos, who opposed the imperial
decrees condemning the veneration of icons in the inscriptions "l(esou)s Ch(risto)s h? ch?ra ton z?nt?n'" (Jesus
of the controversies Christ, the dwelling-place of the living) and "M(?t)?r
period iconoclastic (740). The
Th(eo)u h? ch?ra tou ach?r?tou'" (TheMother of God, the
patricians Bactagius and Artavasdos were imprisoned
dwelling-place of the uncontainable),40 inscribed on these
there by Constantine V, and later, in 836, iconoclasts
branded Theophanes and his brother Theodore with large mosaics depicting Christ and the Virgin, are repeated
with a frequency that cannot be explained as simply an
hot irons.35
evocation of the church's name.41 Reaching the eastern
A place of mystical resonance, as it certainly was at
point of the architecture, in front of the altar and flanking
the time of its restoration by Theodore Metochites ?n the
the iconostasis, two other pendant images of Christ and the
fourteenth century, Chora was clearly thought then to be
an epithet that defined the Virgin, conclude the program (fig. 4). To one of these
mystical qualities of Christ
and of the Theotokos.36 Some lines from Theodore
Metochites's poetry dedicated to his monastery shows
37. Dichtungen des Gross-Logotheten Theodoros Metochites, ed.
the poet-founder's unmistakable familiarity with the M. Treu, Poem A, lines 1340 ff., p. 37, apud. Underwood (see note
theology of the term ch?ra: 24), vol. 4, p. 27.
38. PoemXIX, lines 383 ff, Theodore Metochites's Poems "to
Himself," trans. J.M. Featherstone, vol. 23,
Byzantina Vindobonensia,
(Wien: Verlag Der ?sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
32. It is only the iconicspace which can contain such a 2000), p. 131.
relationship between the body and the divine Verbe: Nic?phore, 39. Poem B, lines 14 ff. (Treu [see note 37], p. 38), apud.
Discours, p. 178, note 58. Underwood (see note 24), vol 4., p. 27.
33. "Ce n'est pas le Christ, mais c'est l'univers tout entier 40. This is the object of R. Ousterhout's extensive and
qui image
s'il n'y a plus ni circonscription ni ic?ne," in Nic?phore,
disparait inspiring study "The Virgin of the Chora: An Image and Its Contexts,"
A I, 244D, p. 86. in The Sacred
Discours, Image East and West, (Urbana and Chicago: University
34. Underwood (see note 24), vol. 1, p. 4. of Illinois Press, 1994), pp. 91-109.
35. During his reign (741-775) the violent persecution of 41. In four of the mosaic is identified as the "Chora
?mage images, Christ
worship and worshippers reached its paroxysm. of the in the other two the is called the "Chora of the
living," Virgin
36. Underwood (see note 24), vol. 1, p. 4. uncontainable God."
62 RES 38 AUTUMN 2000

1. Christ Pantocrator, Ch?ra ton z?nt?n, mosaic decoration above the entrance
Figure
to the inner narthex at the church of Chora monastery, mid-fourteenth 3.63 m
century.
x 2. 15 m x 0.78 m. From Raul A. Underwood, The Kariye D'jami. Vol. 2, The Mosaics
(New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1966). Reproduced by permission of Princeton
University Press.

?mages Inow turn (fig. 5). Its?pigraphe reads: "l(esou)s What is significant in this context is not so much the
Ch(risto)s h? ch?ra ton z?nt?n," Qesus Christ, the dwelling shift, but its implication in the field of representation:
more precisely, that Christ's finger?the instrument of
place of the living). The image shows Christ standing up
and holding the open book in His left hand, while blessing pointing?in conflating speech act and visual sign,
a moment of "pure
and pointing to Himself with the other hand. Through His becomes visibility."43 I call this
gesture and His gaze, Christ seems to initiate a dialogue motion of the finger the gesture of demonstration, "an
with the beholder. The text written on the book, a quotation appeal sign," which insists that the whole image has an
from Matthew 11:28, addresses the viewer directly: "Come appeal structure and ?s not a mere ?Ilusi?n.44 Epigraphe
unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and Iwill and gesture, rhetorical motion and speech, and also the
give you rest."A simultaneous relation between the text gaze, direct you to look at a specific point within the
and the gesture, between the speaking person ("me") and picture, which coincides with the locutor himself: Christ
his audience ("you," "ye all") is instantly established. In reveals Himself to the viewer as pure presence (deixis)
literary terms, "me," like "I," always insists on the voice of in the field of sight, rather than a simple mimesis, a
the speaker; in linguistic terms, it is a shifter, with an
existential relation to the person speaking.42 43. Christ presents himself to the viewer, as the scene takes place
under the gaze of the beholder, at the time of his contemplation. The term
42. E. Benveniste, "The Nature of Pronouns," ?n Problems in "pure visibility" is borrowed from M. Foucault, Les mots et les choses
General Linguistics, (Miami: University of Miami Press, 1971), pp. (Paris: Gallimard, 1966), pp. 19-31. L.Marin calls it "reality effect."
217-20; R. Jakobson, "Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian 44. C. Gandelman, "The Gesture of Demonstration," ?n Reading
Verb," in Roman Jacobson, Selected Writings (The Hague: Mouton, Pictures, Viewing Texts (Bloom?ngton: Indiana University Press, 1991),
1971), vol. 2, pp. 130-133. pp. 14-35.
 Isar:The vision and its "exceedingly blessed beholder" 63

Figure 2. The Virgin Blachemitissa, Ch?ra tou ach?r?tou, mosaic decoration opposite the
mosaic of the Rantocrator, ?nthe lunette above the entrence door of the church, Chora
mid-fourteenth 3.60 m x 0.69 m. From Raul A. Underwood, The Kariye
monastery, century.
D'jami. Vol. 2, TheMosaics (New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1966). Reproduced by
permission of Princeton University Press.

We must think of the leading to the table as the rest from

representation. Christ's utterance, present-oriented,
numerous labors, as a life without toil, as a commerce with
makes the locutor entirely "coextensive and
God in light and in the land of the living,47 as a fullness of
contemporary the one who speaks, and
simultaneously sacred joy, as the unstinted supply of everything blessed
the listener, the faithful ('all ye')."45 Christ's iconography and good by means of which one ?s replete with happiness.
?sof Antiphonetes type, "the one who responds," who It is Jesus himself who gladdens them and leads them to the
answers back. But who ?s speaking? The identity given table, who serves them, who grants them everlasting rest,

by the ?pigraphe "Ch?ra ton z?nt?n" (Chora of the who bestows and pours out on them the fullness in beauty.48
living) is essential for the theology of the image.
Image and beholder are coextensive, they join together
The relationship between image and beholder, in a space ?nwhich the beholder is "enwrapped ?na
between Christ and the faithful, takes a theological form
mild golden glow radiating from the mosaics," where no
if the problem is addressed in terms of participation. A
contour could be discernible.49 And one should imagine
key passage from one of Pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite's letters with reference to the partaking of
47. Cf. Ps. 116: 9 ("Iwill walk before the Lord in the land of the
divine goods may be illuminating here:46
living").
48. "Letter Nine To Titus the hierarch. Asking by letter, what is the
house of wisdom, what is the mixing bowl, and what are its foods and
45. Benveniste (see note 42), p. 219. Also, R. S. Nelson, "The drinks," Pseudo-Dionysius The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid,
Discourse of Icons, Then and Now," Art History 12, no. 2, (1989):148. foreword, notes, and translation collaboration by Paul Rorem, (London:
46. R. F. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definition of the Order in SPCK, 1987), pp. 287-288
the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: A Study in the Form and Meaning of 49.1. Sevcenko, "Theodore Metochites, the Chora, and the Intellectual
the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1969), p. 158. Trends of His Time," in Underwood (see note 24), vol . 4, p. 54.
64 RES 38 AUTUMN 2000

Figure 3. The Enthroned Christ, Chora ton z?nt?n and the donor (Theodore Metochites), mosaic
decoration on the inner narthex on the axis of the church, Chora mid-fourteenth
entering Monastery,
century. 2.30 m x 1.62 m x 1.40 m. From Paul A. Underwood, The Kariye Djami. Vol. 2, The Mosaics
(New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1966). Reproduced by permission of Princeton University Press.

Metochites himself?the beholder par excellence o? and distinguishes Him from other people and therefore
Chora. His poetry alludes to this dissolution of vision, a circumscribes Him.52 The naming, just like the
field of sight inwhich beholder and ?mage become one. Incarnation, allows "the visible image to communicate
Inone of his poems, he presents himself as Metochites with the archetype" in the icon.53 Therefore, itwill be
"the egocentric,"50 and his interlocutor, Christ, Chora impossible, writes Theodore of Studion, to inscribe in
Antiphonetes. He writes: the icon other impersonal and abstract names, such as

The travails of my heart dissolved into nothing as soon as I "Divinity," "Lordship," or "Monarchy."54 In so far as He
looked at the joyful grace of the (Chora) Church; as soon as is "some-body" ("tis"), He is circumscribed55 and,
I rested my eyes on the image of Christ resembling human therefore, is iconically representable.56
beings, an ?mage from which such grace descended, and
which inspired such an ineffable admiration in the onlooker.51
52. "The name "Christ" is indicative of both divinity and
two perfect natures of the Saviour" (Acts of the Seventh
The iconic trace insists on presence, that inwhich humanity?the
Ecumenical Council [787]), inMango (see note 22), p. 172.
image and person are one, where homonymy of
Antirrheticus III, 397 D.
?pigraphe is intensified by the utterance inscribed on the 53. Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council inMango
(787), (see
scroll held by Christ. The ?pigraphe?"Christ Chora of note 22), p. 173.
the living"?is the name that defines Him hy post?t ?cal ly 54. Antirrh. Ill, 420D.
55. Antirrh. Ill, 400B.
56. For Theodore of Studion, the identity between the holy ?mage
50. As shown by Theodore Metochites's Poems "to Himself." and its prototype is defined not only according to relationship
51. Poem I,w, 165-69, apud. Sevcenko (see note 49), p. 54, n. 249. (schesis), but also by the identity of names (to hom?nymon).
 Isar:The vision and its "exceedingly blessed beholder" 65

Figure 4. Christ, Ch?ra ton z?nt?n, and theVirgin, Ch?ra tou ach?r?tou, mosaic decoration,
theTemplon Mosaics, general view looking east, Chora Monastery, mid-fourteenth century.
From Raul A. Underwood, The Kariye Djami. Vol. 2, The Mosaics (New York: Bollingen
Foundation, 1966). Reproduced by permission of Princeton University Press.

Both Incarnation and naming circumscribe the space an entire chapter against the enemies of the name, the
of the icon as a place of recognition and likeness "onomatomachs."60 The destroyers of the icons are
(homoi?sis, regio similitudinis, ch?ra). Both naming and name:
destroyers of the " the iconoclasts are equally
Incarnation provide the relation that prevents the icon "onomatomachs.
from slipping away from the archetype. They are After ?conoclasm, the identifying inscriptions became
"mediators" of a relational type (schesis).57 The named a rule and a practice in the intercession of the beholder
one (to onomasthen) and its proper name (oikeia and each image could be directly addressed in
pros?goria) meet together in the image. The relationship prayers.61 The practice of writing the name on the ?mage
between the name and the named one makes the name survived long after the fall of Constantinople, in post
itself an icon (kai hoion tis physik? eik?n tou Byzantium and Russia, even if the "reading" of the
kath'houper legetai, pephyken). Therefore, according to ?pigraphe was no longer common, because the
doxa, they cannot be separated. Neither can be their inscriptions were often given inGreek. The inscriptions
veneration split up (en hois ou dieschistai h? kata do not seem to have been really designed to be
proskyn?sin henot?s).58 The Name is power and comprehended?not as the modern reader may
presence, it is "numen praesens."59 Nicephoros directs

57. Nic?phore, Discours, A I, 240 A, p. 82, n. 54. 60. Nic?phore, A I, 309A-316B,

Disours, pp. 134-140.
58. Antirrh. I, 345B. 61. H. Maguire, 77?e Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images
59. Archimandrite Kallistos Ware, The Power of the Name. The in Byzantium (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Press, 1996),
University pp.
Jesus Prayer in Orthodox Spirituality (Oxford: Fairacres, 1974), p. 10. 40, 142, 144 (ch. "Naming and Individuality").
66 RES 38 AUTUMN 2000

approach them62?but as Uspenski points out, they were Constitutive for the definition of perception in Plotinus is
there "precisely to establish an internal, sacred (mystic) the relationship of sight to the object of contemplation.
identification and to affirm the ontological connection Sight takes place in the object, the site where the image
between the image and the name."63 is conceived and with which the artist confuses himself.
Vision takes place within: "One must bring the vision
within and see no longer in that mode of separation."69
The vison within
Ifone sees in separation, one sets oneself outside vision.
The role played by the pseudo-Dionysian, neo-Platonic, But those filled by the divine beauty "cannot remain
and Platonic elements in Byzantine theology and doctrine mere gazers: no longer is there a spectator outside
of the image has already been described on a theological as gazing on an outside spectacle."70 The beholder:
well as an aesthetic level. In approaching the mechanism of must give himself forthwith to the inner and, radiant with
vision and its beholder relative to the icon, one should not the Divine Intellections (with which he is now one), be no
fail to recognize in Plotinus the forerunner of later doctriners
longer the seer, but, as that place has made him, the seen.7^
of the image in Byzantium. Itwas Andr? Grabar who first
Two conditions are, in Plotinus's view, indispensible
emphasized the contribution of the Plotinian doctrine to
to achieve the contemplation of the divine: the
medieval aesthetics.64 Grabar's concern was mainly to
interiority of vision, which leads to the identification
outline Plotinus's model of vision, itsmechanism of
"art" and this vision's philosophical with the divine, and the recognition of the divine in
contemplating and
writes likeness?as constitutive of the self:
religious value. Most important, Grabar, "Plotinus
announces the spectator of the Middle Ages."65 ... to see the divine as something external is to be outside
Elements touching on the place of the spectator and its to
it; become it is to be most truly in beauty: since sight
deals with the external, there can here be no vision unless
object of vision are developed by Plotinus in his Fourth
Ennead on perception and memory.66 The question he in the sense of identification with the object.72

poses is,where does that vision take place? Is it in the eye And this identification amounts to a self-knowing, a self
or in the soul of the beholder, or is it in the object of vision consciousness, guarded by the fear of losing the self in the
itself? The answer he gives is an early taste of the iconic desire of a too wide awareness.73
mechanism of vision, an aesthetic formula avant la lettre:
In terms of the syntax of the image, interiority of vision
are no we have said, are not to be can be expressed as inward point of view, a reverse
Perceptions imprints,
thought of as seal-impressions on soul or mind: accepting perspective. The inverse perspective in the icon is conceived
this statement, there isone theory of memory which must to an internal viewing-point,
according from inside the
be definitely rejected.
pictorial plane. Inner orientation, or the orientation to
Inany perception we attain by sight, the object isgrasped there an inner point of view and not that of an external
where it lies in the direct line of vision; it is there thatwe attack spectator, functions as a dominant principle of sacral
it; there, then, the perception is formed, the mind looks aesthetics. Renaissance representation was conceived as a
outward;67 this is ample proof that it has taken and takes no window to the world, oriented toward an external and
inner imprint,and does not see in virtue of some mark made
"estranged" viewpoint: the position of the viewer of the
upon it like that of the ring on the wax; it need not look was that of in the representation.
outward at all if,even as it looked, italready held the image of painting nonparticipation
The making and the beholding of the icon was based on
the object, seeing by virtue of an impressionmade upon itself.68
quite an opposite principle. As B. Uspenski explains it:

62. N. Isar, "L'iconicit? du texte dans l'image post-byzantine

Medieval painting, and above all icon-painting, was oriented
moldave: une lecture h?sychaste," Byzantinoslavica 59 (1998):92-112. primarily to an inner viewpoint, i.e., to the viewpoint of an
63. B. Uspenski, The Semiotics of the Russian Icon (Lisse: The Peter implied observer within the represented world, and
de Ridder Press, 1976), p. 24, n. 25. consequently facing the viewer of the picture. In such
64. Grabar (see note 4), pp. 15-29
65. Ibid., p. 16.
66. IV 6. 1. 69. Plotinus, Enneads V.8.10 (see note 68), p. 431.
70. Ibid.
67. Emphasis mine.
68. The Fourth Ennead.On Perception and Memory (IV. 6. 1 ), 71. Ibid., p. 431-432.
The Enneads, trans. Stephen MacKenna (London: Faber and 72. Emphasis mine.
Plotinus,
Faber Limited, 1969), p. 338. 73. Ibid., p. 432.
 Isar:The vision and its "exceedingly blessed beholder" 67

instances his right hand would correspond to our left, and The term for and the idea of participation have had a
so on. Thus, when we turn to the icon-painters' podlinniki and recurrent within and outside Christian
long history
(pattern-books), i.e., the verbal commentaries to the icons, we I shall refer to those relevant for a
thought. only aspects
are able to state with certainty that in icon-painting
theory of participation of the beholder in the Byzantine
terminology the right side of an icon was regarded as the left
side and vice versa. Inother words, in deciding which is the image. The term "participation" was first used by Plato,
as participation of sensible things in the ideas and as
right and which is the left side of the picture, we have recourse
to the point of view not of the spectator, but of an observer participation of the ideas among themselves (the most
who is situated within the picture, facing the spectator.74 frequent terms are methexis and metechein). But most
significant for the theory of participation in Patristic
Inner orientation ismanifest also when applied to the is the revival of the Platonic tradition in Neo
theology
sacred space of the church. Most evocative for the Platonism. The topic of Patristic thought was derived
relationship between the sacred space and its beholder from a combination of Biblical and Neo-Platonic ideas
is the Patriarch Photios's homily on the consecration of inwhich the Christian element was dominant.77
the church of the Virgin Pharos in Constantinople. Here, in God, as much as likeness, belongs to
Participation
image and vision overlap, with their beholder within: that core of basic concepts that assures the recognition
When one has painfully torn oneself away from there and of the image. Likeness and image rely on participation;
glanced into the church itself, one is filled with a great and they are founded on the understanding of the creation of
huge delight and also with confusion and astonishment. man, kat'eikona theou, as participation in the Image of
One iswholly awed as ifone has entered into Heaven itself God (that is, the Son). As Gregory of Nyssa puts it,
with no one barring the way from any side and been "likeness" (homoi?sis) and "image" (eik?n) are both
illuminated as ifby the stars by the beauty inmany forms
based on a partaking (metoch?) o? God.78 To explain this
and partially visible everywhere. Furthermore everything
75 in connection with the icon, I should once more turn to
appears to be as in a vision and the church itself to be
Theodore of Studion and his theological statement on
spinning round. For in both their every twist and turn and
the icon, from the perspective of participation.
their ceaseless movement, which the variety of the
The most striking aspect of Theodore's theology of the
spectacle on all sides compels the spectator to experience,
one one's own into the seen.76 icon is the degree of divinity that ismanifested in the
imagines experience things
icon. This reflects upon the identity between the holy
image and its prototype according to the likeness of the
choreia hypostasis, that is, according to the person of Christ?his
Participation:
divine as well as his human nature. The conception of
Inmy reading of "Christ Chora o? the living," I hypostatic or personal identity achieved by the icon is
followed the image and its beholder, from a liturgical
clearly one of participation. The Plotinian term
perspective. The liturgical context insists on the used by Theodore in his Antirrheticus,
metal?psis,
interiority of vision, on the internal point of view of the concerns the relative (relational) participation (schetik?
beholder. Image as likeness reveals itself in a process of de metal?psis) that allows the icon to partake in the
recognition through participation. The liturgical aspect is
conditioned by and is an intrinsic part of the
Iam here thinking of the ontological 77. The theme I have already
ontological. developed by St. Paul, which
dimension of the term participation, the participation in mentioned, is that of Christians as participants of Christ, partaking of
His passions in order also to share His glory (Heb. 3.14: metochoi. . .
"the being" (ho on), where the ontological meets the
tou Christou . . .; 1 Cor. 1.9) and of their
that is, the participation in Logos and Life. sharing of the Holy Eucharist
theological, in terms of participation (1 Cor. 16-18). In his work, St.
expressed
Athanasius understands the creation of man kat'eikona theou as

participation in the Image of God (the Son) and as a partaking of the

74. B. Uspenski, "Semiotics of the Icon: An Interview with Boris in the Logos. Maximus the Confessor makes clear his
logikoi
Uspenskij," PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Dionysiac view on participation. All beings in a similar
"participate
Literature 3 (1978):540. See also B. Uspensky, "'Left' and 'Right' in way of God because they are the creation of God." II, 7 [PG
{Ambigua
Icon Painting," Semi?tica 13 (1975):33-39. 91:1080B]), apud. V. Karayiannis, Maxime Le Confesseur. Essence et
75. Emphasis mine. de Dieu (Paris: Beauchesne, 1993), p. 414.
?nergies
76. C. Mango, The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, 78. David L. Balas, METOYSIA THEOY: Man's Participation in
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 3 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, God's Perfections to Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Studia
according
1958), p. 186. Emphasis mine. Anselmiana 55 (Romae: I.B.C. Librer?a Herder, 1966), p. 18.
 68 RES 38 AUTUMN 2000

divinity (theot?s). The relational aspect of participation is anthropology, to be "at rest" is to partake in life, to recline

expressed by Theodore in terms of "grace." The icon in the light and region of living things. But to be at rest,
partakes in the divinity only by grace and veneration of that is, to partake in divine life, is to deny stasis,
the divine (schetik?de metal?psei, hoti chariti kai time "immobility towards the Good" (h? pros to agathon
tametechonta)79 akin?sia) or separation from God (ch?rismos tou theou),
In discussing the concept of the image, Ladner80 that is, the "falling off from the participation of the Good"
formulates the question of whether the influence of (tes tou agathou metousias).86 This is a state of choreia, as
emanation ist ideas can explain Theodore of Gregory of Nyssa puts it, a state of dance (chorostasia), a
Neoplatonic
Studion's claim that Christ's image is identical with Him virtual movement, a run-up in circles.87 It reverberates

according to the likeness of the hypostasis and that a throughout Pseudo-Dionysius's Celestial Hierarchy88 and
degree of divinity is present in the icon. Ladner sees the Maximus the Confessor's Scholia89 prefigured in Plato's
key point of the question in the Platonic-Aristotelian Theaetetus90 and in the Plotinian image of the dance
Ratristic contrast between thesis and physis, that is, (choreia) of the intelligibles around the One:
between imitation by art and natural or supernatural
When we do look to him, then we are at our goal and at
generation, used by the theorists of Byzantine image rest and do not sing out of tune as we truly dance our god
doctrine. Imitation of the divine concerns grace. The dance (choreian entheon) around him. . . .
inspired
partaking of the divine in the icon through grace
(schetik?de metal?psei, hoti chariti kai time ta And in this dance the soul sees the spring of life. . . .91
metechonta),m as stated by Theodore, closely echoes
The idea of "ceaseless movement" and vision
Origen's homily on Exodus, quoted by Ladner: "If an
"spinning around" from Photius's description echoes
image is said to be similar to itsmodel, this refers to the
Florenkij's definition of the "living image" (that is, the
grace that can be seen in the picture, while the
image governed by the inverse perspective) seen as a
substance images and model
of remain quite unlike."82
"pulsatory" image, an image in "permanent run," ever
The reversed perspective, by which one is drawn into
"changing" and "twisting from all parts towards the
the icon, is the place of recognition and grace that makes
beholder." The "living image" plays ceasselessly, it shines,
the divine present for the beholder, as his own image, as
pulsates, it never stops in an inner contemplation of a
an image of the other. In
being like an imprint and
"dead scheme of the object."92 This, I relate to Plotinus's
Plotinus's words, a similar intertwined way of seeing is
described as "like images seen by their own light, to be
86. Balas (see note 78), p. 78.
beheld by exceedingly blessed spectators."83 The grace 87. In Psalm., VI, 44, 508 B, J.McDonough and P. Alexander, eds.,
concerns such transfigured sight, a field of vision that Gregorii Nysseni 86, 14-17 (Leiden: Brill), 1962. Balas (see note 78),
reflects back an image of recognition and likeness.84 p. 62, V. Raduca, Antropolog?a Sfintului Grigore de Nyssa (Bucuresti,
I return one last time to our image and its beholder: 1996), pp. 230-231.
88. "This, so far as I know, is the first rank of heavenly beings. It
Christ "Ch?ra of the living" and the founder, Metochites.
circles in immediate proximity to God. Simply and ceaselessly it
"Chora o? the living" becomes the paradigm of iconic dances around an eternal knowledge of him" (Pseudo-Dionysius, "The

place, the locus of vision, the land of the living, the Celestial in Luibheid [see note 48], p. 165).
Hierarchy"
center of all things. "There, we are at rest."85 From 89. "Scoliile Sfantului Maxim Marturisitorul," Sfantul Dionisie

and Pseudo-Dionysius to Gregory of Nyssa's si Scoliile Sfantului Maxim

Plotinus Areopagitul. Opere Complete
Marturisitorul, traducere, introducere si note Dumitru Staniloae (Raidea
Bucuresti, 1996), p. 50.
90. "Theaetetus" 176 b, Plato, Complete Works, ed. J.M. Cooper
79. Antirrh. I, 344C. (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1997), p. 195,
80. Ladner (see note 9), p. 98. about man's flight from earth to heaven in his aim to become similar
81. Antirrh. I, 344C. to God.
82. In Exod. homil. VI, 5, GCS, Or?genes, VI, 196 f., apud. Ladner 91. Ennead VI, 9. 8-9. 9 (see note 83), p. 335.
(see note 9), pp. 102-103. 92. P. Florenskij, "Obratnaja perspectiva" ("The Inverse
an in Collected Works about Art (in Russian)
83. Plotin, Enneads, V.8.4, Plotinus with English translation by Perspective"), (Moskow,
A. H. Armstrong (London: Harvard University Press, 1984), p. 253. 1996), pp. 9-72, esp. 9-17, 64, 66-67. By contrast, the direct
84. The problem of participation to the divine is discussed by perspective derives from another ontology, that of a "separated" person,
Ralamas (XIV c.) in terms of grace (kat? chari') or energy (kaf with its isolated point of view: the individual consciousness and not the

energeian.) person, (ibid., p. 16) For the rediscovery of Florenskij's text, Iam
to Francesco Pellizzi, who drew my attention to him.
85. Plotin, Enneads,V\. 9. 8, (1969), p. 622. endebeted
 Isar:The vision and its "exceedingly blessed beholder" 69

theory of interiority of point of view in experiencing the Toward a post-iconoclastic model of iconic vision
divine. The image, just like vision, fills up the beholder,
What definesthe cftora-space of the ?con is the
who places himself and his experiences right "into the relational element: the relation (to pros ti) articulates,
things seen." The gap between the icon and its prototype
links up the icon to the visible Logos. "The prototype
is removed. The "beholder's share" in participation
and the image"?writes Theodore of Studion?"belong
provides the bridge between the icon and the archetype.
to the category of related things" (To pr?totypon, kai h?
Here I take L. Brubaker's view in opposition to Barber's.93
eik?n, ton pros ti h?stin). The prototype and the image
The "beholder's share" is grounded
in his participation
"exist simultaneously" and "they are understood and
and self-awareness. The knowledge (eidenai) of the
subsist together" (ha ton hama h?nta, ?mou kai nenoetai
beholder's sight makes the icon ("we know what we
kai hyphesteken). Simultaneity suspends temporal
worship") (John 4:22). This is stressed twice in
distinction: "no time intervenes between them." No
Nicephoros's text.94 The beholder's share extends the
primacy of one over the other one can exist; they "have
relational character of the iconic vision and removes the
their being, as itwere, in each other."97 "Presentness"
gap. It secures the icon from being just a representation, and "present tense" are both intensified in the icon, as
a gap between the icon and the archetype.
in the liturgy.98
Thomas F.Mathews develops similar points about the For Nicephoros, the Aristotelian pros ti defines the
identity of participation in the icon, that is, just as in the
link between the ?con and itsmodel as an uninterrupted
Eucharist, the partaking of the same grace and presence in
and simultaneous relationship.99 But schesis indicates
the icon.95 To a certain extent, Charles Barber96 agrees
the modality of this relationship, the
with his view in discussing the transformation symbolism
of the beholder in the icon. But what finally prevents the "phenomenological" character of sighting (stochasma), a
"living and intentional intimacy" between the icon and
icon from becoming the site of the beholder's
its prototype.100 The relation (schesis) iswhat radically
transformation, Barber believes, is the "imagination," the
distinguishes the icon from the idol. The idol is not a
element of projection involved in perception, inwhich
"relative," it has no model.101 If the icon is somebody's
the viewer only imagines one's own experience into the
icon, the idol is an icon of it has no ontological
seen. Barber attributes this inner to nothing,
things perception existence. The idol has no "inscription," it knows neither
desire. What prevents the realization of the transformation
visible form nor contour.102
is the fact that the experience takes place only at the level
The relation is established?according to
of a phrase functioning as a conjunction: "as if" ("as if
Nicephoros?by the gaze, a specific look that insists on
one has entered Heaven"), which leads to an
the spiritual nature of the beholder's vision (opsis noera),
interpretation of the icon as a site of "desire" and
so that the icon makes present the absent, h?s paronta,
"absence," a insistence on
"pure signifier." Nicephoros's as it is there. "As it is" (h?s) is neither simulation nor
schesis and the knowledge of seeing on behalf of the
beholder shows the limit of the dichotomy: either "the merely a phrase functioning as a conjunction, but "it has
the entire force of intention, which makes present" (the
representation of Christ" or "Christ himself." The icon ?con as a site of presence). The intensity of sighting
provides a third variant of figuration based on schesis, the is the foundation of the iconic presence,
(stochasma)
relation between the icon and the archetype. It saves the
which ascends (diabainein) toward Logos. H?s refers to
icon from being either a pure signifier, or a pure signified.
diabainein, and it is the "knowledge (eidenai) of the
look" ("le savoir du regard"), rather than the painter, that

93. Brubaker (see note 6), pp. 35-37; C. Barber, "From

Transformation to Desire:Art and Worship after Byzantine 97. Theodore of Studion, Antirrh. Ill (PG 99:429C, D).
The Art Bulletin 75 (1993):15. 98. Christ's image is identical with Him hypostatically, according to
Iconoclasm,"
94. Nic?phore, Discours, A III, 436 D, 437 A, pp. 228-229. Theodore of Studion. See also H. Belting, Likeness and Presence. A
95. T. F.Mathews, "TheTransformation in Byzantine History of the Image before the Era of Art, (University of Chicago
Symbolism
Architecture and the Meaning of the Pantokrator in the Dome," in Press, 1994), pp. 174, 179.
Church and People in Byzantium, ed. R. Morris Centre 99. Nic?phore, Discours, A I, 277D-280A.
(Birmingham:
for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of 100. Nic?phore, "Preface," Discours, p. 25.
1990), pp. 191-214. 101. Nic?phore, Discours, A I, 277 B.
Birmingham,
96. Barber (see note 93), pp. 7-16. 102. Nic?phore, Discours, A III, 360A.
70 RES 38 AUTUMN 2000

makes the icon.103 To see the icon is therefore to "know" inanimate object, but to the person (hypostasis) iconized
it, to recognize it.The principle of recognition involves there: "he who venerates the image, venerates the
more than the denotative aspect of the icon:104 the person represented in that image" (kai ho proskyn?n ten

"familiarity" of the beholder with the image is essential. eikona, proskyne? en aut? to? engraphom?nou t?n
8 After
The inverse perspective makes the icon a challenge for hypostasin) iconoclasm, the typika already
contain instructions about the kissing of the icons, and
sight, an image not simply to be looked at, not in any case
to be looked at idolatrously with metonymical desire, but the practice is still maintained in the Orthodox Church.109
to come close to in contiguity for its veneration: The kiss is the "oscular" trope of participation in
which the bodies (divine and of the beholder) are in
The more frequently they are seen ?n representational art,
absolute a kiss one becomes
the more are those who see them drawn to remember and proximity.110 By contiguous
with the materiality of the ?con as one does not kiss the
long for those who serve as models, and to pay these
image but the material itself, which is sacred. To kiss the
images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration
5 icon is to be kissed by it, to be haptically sanctified.
(aspasmon kai timet? ken proskynesin)
Therefore, the beholder is not only absorbed into the
In distinguishingbetween absolute and relative ritual act of worship, but one can say that he/she is
worship, Nicephoros sees yet another sense of schesis
"passed through the materiality of the icon."111 To reject
"in the "intimate familiarity" achieved in the veneration
the veneration of the icon would be heretical: "the one
of the icon.106 The is fundamentally a
liturgical space who rejects the veneration of the icon through a relative
"relational" space. The relation brings together the honour" h?de t?n kata timen
(hapanainomenos
object and the subject, the icon and the participants in
schetik?n proskynesin)U2 is declared heretical.
the act of veneration, of "salutation and respectful
The icon knows no spectators, nor any aesthetic
veneration" (aspasmos kai timetiken proskynesin). moment of representation. It invites and insists on
A theory of participation in the icon should no doubt no icon has a frame?not in the
participation. Therefore,
involve the materiality itself of the icon, which is fully sense of our modern conception of the frame as a
expressed in its veneration. Proskynesis, translated so far
regular enclosure isolating the field of representation.113
in the texts as "salutation," refers, in fact, to two
concrete actions reflected in the etymology of the word,
and in the practice of veneration derived from a long 108. Mansi, XIII, Canon VII Council of Nicaea 787, 377 D.
tradition.107 It implies both prostrating and kissing? 109. R. Taft, Creaf Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and

actions that are not performed in relation to an Other Pre-anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom,
Orientalia Christiana Analecta 200
(Rome: Pontifical Institutum
Studiorum Orientalium, n. 211, on diataxeis,
1975), p. 416,
prescribing the kissing of the icons on
the templon by the priest before
103. Nic?phore, Discours., p. 228, note 92/ entering the sanctuary; Belting (see note 98), p. 183; K.-M. Hofmann,
104. Dagron (see note 20), p. 26; Maguire (see note 61 ), pp. 19, 40-46. Phil?ma hagion (G?tersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1938), pp. 106ff., 141.
XIII, 377D. 110. After icons were no using the
105. Mansi, iconoclasm, longer made
106. Nic?phore, Discours, p. 196, note 26. encaustic Instead, tempera, a mixture of pigments with a
technique.
is composed same inwater, was used. E. Sendler, The Icon, Image
107. Proskynesis by the preverb pros, from the binding agent soluable
as para, peri, or pro, a preposition indicating the "movement of the Invisible: Elements of Theology, Aesthetics and Technique
family
towards" somebody or something, and the verb kyne?, wh?ch means (Chelsea, Mich., Oakwood Publications, 1988), p. 234. The
"to kiss somebody or something" Lexicon, Henry used in the of the icon alludes to the Incarnation,
{Greek-English terminology making
George Liddell D.D. and Robert Scott D.D. [Oxford: The Clarendon and therefore it can be seen as an anti-iconoclastic statement in itself.

Press, 1953], p. 1518). The old tradition of salutation, which involved The making of the icon starts with the darker shades, proplasmos (like

prostration and kissing, can be traced back to Herodotus. John of in proplasso, referring to Christ's union of natures at Anastasius Sinaita
Damascus for the first time between "latreia" and (Lampe p. 1162), and continues
[see note 24], in successive layers of
distinguishes
"proskynesis" ?n his De imaginibus, oratio III (PG 94), P. B. Kotter, Die color to light: grapsimata, sarkomata, glykasmos, psimmythies (the Old
Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 3 (Berlin: de Gruyter, Slavonic ozhivki, that is, living features).
equivalent
1975). His definitions are to be found also in the Actes of the Council 111. C. Lock, "Iconic Space and the Materiality of the Sign,"
of Nicaea II. Nichephoros to the same topic the chapter
devotes 10 in Religion and the Arts 1, no. 4 (1997): 17.
his Antirrh. Ill, 392B-392C. He distinguishes between different kinds 112. Theodore of Studion, Antirrh. I, 349D.
of proskynesis (inspired by love, fear, and law). The veneration of the 113. The raised borders of the icons (rare on Greek icons, but a
for which timetike is reserved, is a proskynesis o? norm in Russia between the twelfth and eighteenth centuries) could
images, proskynesis
honor, though relative, and distinct from proskynesis latreutike, to a change in the function of the ?mage (the hollowing space
respond
reserved for God alone. "framed" by these borders is called inOld Slavonic kovtcheg, that is,
 Isar:The vision and its "exceedingly blessed beholder" 71

The liturgical meaning is always a meaning without Christou."The exchange of gazes is actually what
frame, a meaning about to be absorbed not by the look differentiates the icon from the idol:
of representation but by participation. For the aim and
The icon lays out the material of wood and paint in such a
end of the icon is certainly not to be seen in the
way that there appears ?nthem the intention of a
"aesthetic" mode, but to be inhabited in a ritual space ... Ifman,
transpiercing gaze emanating from them. by his
of participation. What vanity is to the idol,114 charity, the ?n revert
gaze, renders idol possible, contemplation of
agape is to the icon.115 Line without closure, inscription the ?con, on the contrary, the gaze of the invisible, in
beyond representation, the iconic graphe defines a place person, aims at man. The icon
regards us, it concerns us.no

"free from all closure, because it is the threshold of

What renders the ?con complete is this intertwined,
infinity."116 The iconic graphe is therefore neither the
somehow "chiastical" disposition of gazes?a principle
limit of space, nor the limit of sound (silence), but
by which seeing is performed in a nonlinear manner.
rapture (harpag?) o? light and the exultation of gazes. and iconic vision seem to be
Icons are signs of a dialogical in Bakhtin's Typology, chiasmus,121
essence,
organized in a similar way, around a center (mesites):
terminology. They look at us and they speak to us about the Incarnation.122
the "dialogic" of seeing.117 In the act of seeing, the
What makes an image become an idol is the
viewer is not only seeing but is being seen. Iconic vision
idolatrous look, when a person gazes at it ?dolatrously. It
joins seer and seen, beholder and image, and in seeing, iswhen the icon is looked at with no other intention
the beholder is himself actually seen. He/she becomes,
than to see what is there that the image becomes an
like in the Plotinian vision, an object of contemplation,
idol. To see only what is there concerns the surface of
"like images seen by their own light, to be beheld by means of the
blessed spectators."^8 Such an event can representation?a exorcising "emptiness."
exceedingly What concerns the iconic vision is the transgression of
be described as "euphoric." In the "euphoric" gazing,
the surface. The honor paid to the image "traverses" it,
the viewers are directing their gazes to each other with
reaching the model(h? gar tes eikonos time epi to
similar intensity.119 They become One?"mim?tes
diabainei).U3 The space beyond
pr?totypon
differentiates the icon from the idol, it iswhat gives the
icon infinitude:
"ark," a term used for reliquary cases). Inmanuscripts, the borders

respond rather to an aesthetic exigence of the image ("clarity"), The ?con summons the gaze to surpass ?tself. . . .The
gaze
according to M. Shapiro, "On Some Problems in the Semiotics of can never rest or settle if it looks at an ?con; it always must
Visual Art: Field and Vehicle in Image-Signs," in Theory and
rebound upon the visible, in order to go back ?n ?tup the
Philosophy of Art: Style, Artist, and Society, Selected Papers (New York: infinite stream of the infinite.124
George Braziller, 1994), pp. 8-11.
114. The idol has nothing to do but with the "vanity of objects The icon cannot be a "pure signifier," a "signifier of
without ontological existence" (Nic?phore, Discours, A II, 360A, p.
absence," and "an autonomous depiction," a "purely
172). The Biblical Hebrew for "idols," "elilim" (pi.), like in Leviticus
19: 4 and 26: 1, comes from "elim," meaning pictorial space."125 Itbelongs to another order of
vain, nothingness.
115. Jean-Luc Marion, God Without Being, ed. Mark C. Taylor cognitive apprehension, which resists Albertian logic or
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 132-138. any other categories of modern cognition. Itcannot be an
116. Marie-Jos? "The Face of Christ, The Form of the
empty sign, more than being "empty" insofar as it is the
Baudinet,
Church," in Fragments for a History of the Human Body, part one, ed.
Michel Feher with Ramona Naddaff and Nadia Tazi (New York: Zone, place of ken?sis. The paradoxical play between presence
and absence is found on a theology of kenosis,ue which
1989), p. 152.
117. Maguire (see note 61 ), pp. 115-117. One of the most defines the kenotic emptying?the absence?as fullness.
powerful examples of what Maguire calls "the Eye of Justice" could be
the icon of Spas Jaroe Oko (The Saviour of "the Fiery Eye") from the
mid-fourteenth century (Uspenskij Sobor, Moskow). 120. Marion (see note 115), p. 19.
One of the most fascinating cases is the oracular ?con of Empress 121. J. Breck, The Shape of Biblical in the
Language: Chiasmus
Zoe answering questions by changing its chromatic color, and Beyond, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's
reported by Scripture (Crestwood, Seminary
Michael Psellus in in the eleventh century, in Belting Press, 1994).
Chronographia
(see note 98), text 16, p. 512. 122. Nic?phore, Discours, A I, 240 A, p. 82, n. 54.
118. Plotinus, Enneads, V.8.4, p. 253. Emphasis mine. 123. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (see note 12), 1:133-137.
119. A. J. Greimas, Du sens (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1970), 124. Marion (see note 115), p. 18.
pp.
282-283. in Reading 125. Barber (see note
Gandelman, "Penetrating Doors," Pictures, 93), p. 15.
Viewing Texts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), p. 44. 126. Christ's death and His triumph on the Cross.
72 RES 38 AUTUMN 2000

Emptiness and fullness, Incarnation and Resurrection are veneration, the "epektasis" or the doctrine of infinite
both "foiled" and transfigured in the icon?the "work of progress.134 Chorostasia is this state of constant movement
the spectator's gaze"127?"a kenotic practice."128 and progression towards the divine, a quest and desire for
The perspectival gaze and its linear field of vision the essence of God, which is unattainable. Gregory of
stand at the origin and the constitution of modern Nyssa's anthropology serves to argue against the definition
representation. InMartin Jay's view, "the visual model of of the icon as a site of desire and limit, and therefore a
the modern era" is identified with Renaissance notions space of stasis. The iconic vision resists stasis; it grounds
of perspective in the visual arts and the Cartesian itself in the relation that brings together beholder and
subject in philosophy.129 Linearity of vision and linearity prototype in a dynamic and undiminished ascent.
of reading, are fundamental principles by which image Desire for God maintains desire, and generates and
and the text are established inmodernity. Linear vision grants satisfaction. In the dynamic of "God's infinity and
renders the icon invisible. The gaze dissociates the man's mutability,"135 "every attainment is a real
image from the body of which it is constituted. It attainment," and "one has the sense of accomplishment
therefore reifies and separates the viewer from the image or fulfillment; yet there is no stopping." There is both
and keeps him away, at the threshold of the frame. The satisfaction and expanding desire. The same is true for
representation is a space of rationalized visual order that the icon: itmaintains desire, but does not defer
"arrests" the eye and recreates illusory objects of attainment. The icon knows no deferral of presence. It
desire.130 "Desire" is a central concept in the definition promises identity and achieves it, though there is both
of the representation inmodern vision. desire and expanding desire contained in it. Here lies the
Melancholy is a fascination with and a desire for the paradox. The icon and desire for the icon are to be

vanishing point, the point of vanity and absence in understood in the same "relational" way of participation
representation. Melancholia is the prototype for Vanity.131 and "practice of ken?sis." Participation is recognition
The gaze of melancholy "sees all and nothing, all as through likeness.136 Therefore, to see is to partake in the
nothing, all that is as ?fit were not."132 "Vanity," writes image, to be "familiar" with God and to maintain this
Marion, "marks the world with indifference" or the absence familiarity as an expanding movement of desire and
of difference between Creation and Being. A site of desire ascent.137 The icon erases the gap between the one
and absence?it cannot be true but for representation. looking and the one looked at. They move together. Here
Desire in the icon is intimately related to, and emanates again Gregory of Nyssa's anthropology shows where the
from, the desire for God. Here the theological meets the ultimate answer to the problem of desire and the
pictorial, offering a model for the problematic of desire in function of the image as "practice of ken?sis" may lie:
the ?con, to which I finally turn. InGregory of Nyssa's
The finding is the continuous search itself, for the seeking is
anthropology,133 desire for God is "progressive growth in not one thing and the finding another. But the reward of the
the participation of the divine goods." It is by nature search is the seeking itself.138
related to the dynamic character of participation and

127. Baudinet (see note 116), p. 151. 134. As called by P. Dani?lou, with reference to Philip. 3.13:
128. Ibid., p. 152. "Brethren, Ido not regardmyself as having laid hold of ityet; but one
129. M. Jay, "Scopic Regime of Modernity," Vision and Visuality, thing Ido: forgettingwhat lies behind and reaching forward towhat
ed. Hal Foster, Discussions in Contemporary Culture 2 (Seattle: Bay lies ahead."

Press, 1988), p. 4; M. Jay, "The Noblest of the Senses: Vision from 135. Everett Ferguson, "God's Infinity and Man's Mutability:
Plato to Descartes." Progress according to Gregory of Nyssa," The Greek
Perpetual
130.Bryson (see note 2), p. 94. Orthodox Theological Review 18, nos. 1-2 (1973):73.
131. "The gaze of melancholy sees in the way inwhich they 136. Like, for instance, in the lines homoi? de to homoion kalesas
beings
are not: by the escape of their vanishing point, they appear to ?tas not ("calling like by means of like") (The Akathistos Hymn, kontakion ten).
137. Gregory of Nyssa founds the real life (h? ont?s z??) ?n
being." "And Melancholy gazes at nothing other than this absent

vanishing point (point de fuite), absence of an escape, flight from any "becoming familiar with God" (he pros to theion oikei?sis) and the

flight," inMarion (see note 115), p. 134. opposite, death, in "falling off from participation of the Good" (tes tou
132. Marion (see note 115), p. 117. agathou metousias) or in "immobility toward the Good" (h? pros to
133. Vita Moysis II (PG 44:219-248); Commentary on Canticles; agathon akin?sia). Balas (see note 78), p. 78.
G. B. Ladner, "The Philosophical of saint of 138. On Ecclesiastes 7 (PG 44:720C). English translation is taken
Anthropology Gregory
Nyssa," Dumbarton Oaks Papers (1958):59-94. from Everett Ferguson (see note 135), p. 74.