This article was downloaded by: University of TorontoOn: 06 Nov 2018Access details: subscription number 11282Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Byzantine World

Paul Stephenson

What is a Byzantine Icon? Constantinople Versus Sinai

Publication detailshttps://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203817254.ch21

Bissera V. PentchevaPublished online on: 15 Feb 2010

How to cite :- Bissera V. Pentcheva. 15 Feb 2010, What is a Byzantine Icon? Constantinople VersusSinai from: The Byzantine World RoutledgeAccessed on: 06 Nov 2018https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203817254.ch21

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete oraccurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

First published 2010 by Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge

270 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10016

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,an informa business

© 2010 Paul Stephenson for selection and editorial matter;individual chapters, their contributors

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted orreproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic,mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter

invented, including photocopying and recording, or in anyinformation storage or retrieval system, without permission in

writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataA catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN: 978–0–415–44010–3 (hbk)

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2011.

To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’scollection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.

ISBN 0-203-81725-7 Master e-book ISBN

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

W H AT I S A B Y Z A N T I N E I C O N ?C O N S TA N T I N O P L E V E R S U S S I N A I

Bissera V. Pentcheva

We tend to associate the word “icon” with a portrait of a holy figure on woodpanel, painted with tempera or encaustic (wax-based medium).1 This brief

essay will challenge this established notion and argue for the diversity of meaningsof eikon in Byzantium and for the site-specific character of icons.2 In our modernunderstanding of the history of eikon we have sought its origins in the Egyptianpainting tradition of panels of the gods or of portraits of the deceased drawnon wood boards or cloth and colored with tempera or encaustic. The evidence forthis practice emerges in the Hellenistic period but continues throughout the lateRoman imperial times.3 Similarly, we have looked for answers for the originsof icons in the rise of the cult of saints and pilgrimage in Palestine.4 Earthen orlead tokens from the Holy Land and Syria with the imprinted portrait of the saint(Figure 21.1), or an image of the architecture or of the hallowed event that took

Figure 21.1 Clay token of St Symeon the Younger, after Vikan 1982: fig. 22.

265

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

place at the site, gave the faithful a continual return to the sacred source ofpower.5

Rather than our modes equating with an “image”, “eikon” in Byzantium in theperiod before Iconoclasm meant enactment, a descent of spirit in matter. Thepilgrims’ tokens and the cult of the stylite saints (from stylos, column, for theyspent long years standing on a column) enabled the establishment of this essentialistunderstanding of eikon as body/matter penetrated by the Holy Pneuma:

An eikon of God is the human being who has transformed himself according tothe image (eikon) of God, and especially the one who has received the dwelling(enoikesin) of the Holy Spirit. I justly give honor to the icon of the servants ofGod and proskynesis to the house of the Holy Spirit.6

With these words the eighth-century Pseudo-Leontios of Neapolis identified asGeorge of Cyprus explained eikon as human body receiving the Spirit; the enoikesis(dwelling) of the Spirit in matter created the true eikon.

How was this enoikesis manifested? In a threefold manner: first throughthe corporeal example of the stylite saints; second through the images and inscrip-tions on the tokens produced and distributed at these sites; third through the practiceof burning incense on top of them. Tokens from the sanctuary of St Symeonthe Stylite the Younger (521–92) at the Magic Mountain (today in south-westernTurkey) depict the saint standing on his column (Figure 21.1). The inscriptionrunning along the rim presents the word “eulogia,” blessing.7 This token servedas a magical amulet, encapsulating the process of embedding spirit in matter,known as empsychosis (en-, in, psyche-, soul, spirit). Its inscription and imagesare characteres, incised and imprinted on the surface. Character comes fromcharatto, which means “to cut,” “to engrave,” “to incise;” it is also associatedwith magic, denoting the process of imbedding spirit in matter.8 Their powerwas activated when incense was burned on top of them.9 The wafting smell of thisthymiama marked the presence of the Holy Spirit.10 It is important to recognisehow this ritual practice of burning incense transformed the clay eulogiai intoconduits of divine pneuma.

EIKON DURING ICONOCLASM: THE FORMATIONOF THE CONCEPT OF AN “IMAGE”

Byzantine Iconoclasm (726–843) challenged this understanding of eikon as a site ofpneuma dwelling in matter. So far, we have viewed this crisis through the prism of thesixteenth-century Reformation, imagining the destruction of churches, murals,mosaics and panels. By contrast, the Byzantine phenomenon appears to have beenmore of a process of narrowing of the meaning of eikon: from an identification witha body (an essentialist theory manifested in the stylite cults) to an eikon understoodas the imprint – typos – of visual characteristics on matter (a formalist, non-essentialist theory). At the core of this non-essentialist definition stood the pilgrims’tokens.

Our modern term “iconoclasm” is a misnomer, stemming from our own narrowidentification of icon with a painted panel. The Byzantine conflict, by contrast,

–– B i s s e r a V. P e n t c h e v a ––

266

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

mostly expressed itself as debate on the meaning of the term eikon. The “opposition”party was frequently called eikonomachoi, “debaters,” not destructors of icons.Neither party denied the validity of eikones, yet each defined their identity indifferent terms. For the eikonomachoi of the reigns of Leo III and Constantine V(717–75), a true eikon was only the Eucharist: matter penetrated by the Holy Spiritin a sacerdotally administered empsychosis of the Holy Spirit.11

By contrast, for the early eikonophiloi “icon” was all matter receiving the Spirit,without the need of sacerdotal sanction. For them such enoikesis became possiblethough the Incarnation of Christ. Thereby, all matter became sanctified through thisdescent of Pneuma. John of Damascus (born in the late seventh century, died in the750s) formulated the clearest expression of this position in his Oration I contraimaginum calumniatores orationes tre:

Of old, God the incorporeal (asomatos) and formless (aschematistos) was neverdepicted (eikonizeto), but now God has been seen in the flesh and has associatedwith human kind, I render in icon (eikonizo) the material entity of God seen byhumans. I do not venerate (proskyno) matter (hyle), I venerate the fashioner(demiourgon) of matter, who became matter for my sake and accepted to dwellin matter and through matter worked my salvation, and I will not cease fromreverencing matter, through which my salvation worked. I do not reverence it asGod – far from it . . . Therefore I reverence the rest of matter and hold in respectthat through which my salvation came, because it is filled with divine energyand grace.12

Already the first sentence juxtaposes the Old Testament God to the New TestamentChrist, leading from the formless and incorporeal Godhead, to the materiality ofChrist achieved through the Incarnation of the Logos. In this core Damascene the-ory, the Incarnation justified and validated matter: from relics, liturgical objects, tothe Eucharist itself. The icon was envisioned as part of that economy of matter. Inrejecting the icon, Christians would reject materiality.

It is this essentialist definition that the eikonomachoi attacked, linking matter/hyleexclusively with the deceit (plane) of pagan figural painting/graphe. In the course ofthe early ninth century, they gradually centered the identity of eikon on a concreteobject; for them it was the cross. The eikonomachoi expressed their position on thenew façade of the imperial gate, the Chalke, in 814–15. Here five epigrams stated thenew non-essentialist, non-figural identity of eikon.13 The composition consisted of across set at the center and five poems: one placed at its foot and four others in thefour cardinal points (Figure 21.2). In this cross-wise configuration, the epigramsrepeated the shape of the stauros and aggressively argued through spatial arrange-ment and acrostics that eikon was equivalent to only two forms: (1) graphe under-stood as “letter” and (2) typos defined as the shape of the cross. In fact, both typosand graphe collapsed in one symbol: the cross composed of letters/acrostic. Oneepigram of the Chalke is enough to show the forcefulness and clarity of this aniconictheological/political position:

–– c h a p t e r 2 1 : T h e p e r f o r m a t i v e i c o n : o n c e a g a i n ––

267

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

The confessors of God write “Christ” in gold (chrysographousi) according to theprophets’ voice, not relying on the visible things below. Speaking in equal terms(isegoron) is hope and faith in God, as opposed to painting in shadows (skiogra-phon) a recurring deceit (palindromon planen).

With those, who trample upon it, for it is hated by God, being in agreement,the ones carrying the crowns, raise on high the Cross in a pious judgment.14

Written by John the Grammarian (patriarch of Constantinople, 834–43), the poemcompares Logos and graphe. Christ as the Logos could only be expressed throughthe text and materially through the cross. Painting, marred by deceit (plane) andcreated through the art of shadows (skiagraphia) and application of color, has failedto convey the divinity. To speak of God requires equal terms (isegoroeo), which isonly offered by language, the word and the logos. Anything less than the word willcompromise the divinity of the prototype. So, in using only the word, the eikonoma-choi present an example of faith and hope.

The first, middle and last letters of each line of the first epigram are arranged toform the following phrase: the Passion of Christ is the hope of John.15 This phrase

Figure 21.2 A reconstruction of the eikonomachoi façade of the Chalke Gate at 815.B. Pentcheva.

–– B i s s e r a V. P e n t c h e v a ––

268

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

strengthens John’s position that the cross is the only legitimate figure, offeringthe true path to Salvation. Not only the words, but also their visual position in spaceform the shape of this cross (Figure 21.2). The words “Christ,” “Passion” and“John” are all composed of letters placed in vertical columns, intersected by thehorizontal line: “Hope.” The poem thus “figures” the cross by means of both contentand form. Even more so, it depicts the cross entirely through letter configurations/acrostic. The Logos-graphe has thus become, or better, has subsumed, the eikon,becoming the enfleshment of divinity in matter: an aniconic manifestation of theIncarnation.

The eikononophiloi responded to this letter-centered definition of eikon with asimilar non-essentialist model, collapsing eikon with graphe, and identifying bothwith typos understood however not just as the cross, but as the imprinted image: anintaglio stamped on matter. Theodore Soudites (759–826), the abbot of the Stoudiosmonastery, a writer and intellectual, gave the most expressive summary of these ideasin his Antirrheticus I–III discourses.16 Like the iconoclast typos, which signified thegeneric form of the cross and bore formal likeness to the Life-giving Cross, so too didthe icon according to the Stoudite definition acquire veneration because it bore theimprint (typos) of Christ’s likeness (homoioma) and form (morphe): a relationshipwith the prototype established on the basis of form, not essence.17

Likewise, as much is said about the representation (typos) of the cross asabout the cross itself. Nowhere does Scripture speak about figure (typos) orimage (eikon), since these have the same meaning, for it is illogical to expectsuch a mention, inasmuch as for us the effects share in the power of thecauses. Is not every image (eikon) a kind of a seal (typos) bearing in itself theproper appearance of that after which it is named? For we call the representa-tion (aposphragisma, “imprint”) “cross” because it is also the cross, yet thereare no two crosses, and we call the image (eikon) of Christ “Christ,” yet thereare no two Christs (Antirrheticus I, sect. 8, trans. Roth, underlined words myaddition).18

Theodore opened the discourse with the equivalence of typos and eikon. Boththe typos as cross and the typos as eikon he defined as imprints and sealings of aprototype. In appropriating typos for his iconic theory, Theodore Stoudites extractedthe word from its iconoclast, non-anthropomorphic signification. He thus built histheory on the basis of the iconoclast typos, yet he adapted it to mean the iconophileeikon: a figural representation.

A habitual engagement with mechanical production practices informed Theodore’stheoretical model. The making of a seal stood at the core of his argument of equiva-lence of typos and eikon. Seals were widely used in the household to protect goods orseal written missives.19 All one needed was a set of iron pliers and a lead seal blank.The pliers had an intaglio relief incised on the valves. Once the lead blank wassoftened on the wick of a burning candle, it was placed between the valves. Then thepliers were drawn shut by the hit of a hammer. The negative intaglio impressed itselfon the molten surface of the lead (Figure 21.3).

For Theodore, likeness was predicated and transmitted on the basis of mechanicalreproduction rather than imitation. The icon was thus a seal (sphragis) and typos,

–– c h a p t e r 2 1 : T h e p e r f o r m a t i v e i c o n : o n c e a g a i n ––

269

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

Figure 21.3 Iron pliers and a lead seal with the image of St Nikolaos, after Zacos and Veglery1972: pl. 4.

–– B i s s e r a V. P e n t c h e v a ––

270

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

made by the imprint of character on matter. As such eikon assimilated the iconoclasttypos:

For what closer comparison has the icon of Christ than the typos/copy of thecross? For through its likeness (emphereia) the icon [refers back] to the proto-type. By analogy we call “icon” of the life-giving cross the copy (ektypoma) [ofthe cross], so too [we call] the imprint (ektypoma) of Christ his “icon.” For eikonetymologically means “to look like” (eoikos). And to “look like” is likeness(homoion), and likeness is perceived, spoken of and seen in the typos [copy ofthe cross] and in the eikon.20

Theodore argued that the icon was not just equivalent to the typos of the cross, butbeing an imprint of likeness, it directly led back to the prototype. Even more so,eikon allegedly derives from eoikos, so both phonetically and semantically the word“icon” manifested likeness. And it is not any type of likeness, but the mechanicallyreproduced one: the imprinted, sealed resemblance on matter.

This new non-essentialist theory insisting on the definition of eikon as the imprintof form on matter emerges in the miniatures of the mid-ninth-century KhludovPsalter (Moscow, State Historical Museum, ms. gr. 129, fol. 4) (Figure 21.4). Thisimage shows a medallion icon of Christ set at the center of a cross.21 King Davidpointing toward it announces: “the light of thy countenance, O Lord, has beenimprinted (esimeiothe) on us” (Psalm 4:7).22 The Davidic words have becomeimages, which proleptically configure the coming of Christ. The prophecy is realizednot just through the image of the Cross; it is superseded by the image of the figuralicon. The composition negotiates the meaning of the word “semeion”: formerly asynonym for the aniconic (1) eikonomachos’ typos (cross) and (2) sealing (sphragisunderstood as “blessing gesture”).23 The figure of the cross is now incorporated inthe icon of Christ’s face. This visual composition thus argues how the meaningof semeion has become the anthropomorphic ektyposis of Christ’s face.

The composition of this miniature unfolds like a series of imprints: the faceimprinted on the icon, the cross stamped on the halo and the medallion embedded inthe cross. The viewer falls into a mise-en-abyme of imprints, all of them subsumed inthe radiating fiery light of gold. The configuration evokes the new post-843iconophile Chalke Gate, where the Chalkites icon of Christ dominated the center ofthe cross.24 This visual program asserted the supersessionist power of the eikon overthe cross, celebrating the end of Iconoclasm.

By creating a typos-based theory of the image, Theodore in fact shifted the icondiscourse away from the Damascene Incarnational economy. The latter focused onthe legitimacy of Christ’s morphe: the visible form (character), and thus answeredwhy representation (graphe) was possible. By contrast, Theodore developed the“economy” of the typos, and thus explained what made the icon legitimate. TheStoudite eikon, by being the product of a double imprint: (1) the character, whichresembles a “snow angel” made by the imprint of morphe, and (2) a typos as asealing of this character on matter, displayed the final, correctly presented throughdouble imprinting physical manifestation of Christ’s morphe.

The eikon as typos, understood as a seal and imprint, firmly established plasticarts (relief) over graphic arts (painting). This change had a profound impact on the

–– c h a p t e r 2 1 : T h e p e r f o r m a t i v e i c o n : o n c e a g a i n ––

271

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

Figure 21.4 Khludov Psalter, Moscow, State Historical Museum, ms. gr. 129, fol. 4, afterShchepkina 1977.

–– B i s s e r a V. P e n t c h e v a ––

272

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

middle Byzantine icon production and appearance. Bas-relief achieved throughimprint, engraving, incision, repoussé or enameling took priority over painting.Graphe acquired a dominant meaning as typos and sphargis: an imprinted surface.

ENAMEL, POIKILIA AND MOVING EYES

Enamel best exemplifies this typos-centered theoretical model of eikon. It is a form ofimprint made by fire, for its figures are formed of metal paste set in molds (the goldencloisons or the sunken bed of gold) and transformed by fire into a luminous gemlikesurface. In the course of the tenth and eleventh centuries, Byzantium became a leaderin the production of this medium, creating objects whose splendor of gold, trans-lucency of glass and complexity of workmanship dazzled foreign courts.

These were luxury mixed-media relief icons – poikilai eikones – displaying anarray of artistic techniques (enamel, repoussé, filigree) and shifting chameleonic sur-faces. The enamel, especially the green one, possessed an iridescence that becamemanifest in movement, sunlight and under the flicker of candlelight. Through itsopalescent appearances, the metal mixed-media icon conveyed a sense of living,breathing matter: the quintessential empsychos graphe (en-, in, psyche, spirit) inByzantium.25 It acted like fish-scales in ruffled waters playing out a rainbow ofcolors, or like the incessant, always-changing flame of fire, or the polychromacity ofByzantine porphyreos, whose multiplicity and instability of hues displayed thevortex of stormy seas or gushing blood.26

The Byzantines designated this polymorphity as poikilos or poikilia (diversity):phenomenal effects sensually experienced.27 Poikilia was understood as animation:the spirit present in matter. It is this power of poikilia – the spectacle of changingappearances, polychromacity and opalescence corporeally experienced – that themixed-media relief icon gathered into one gemlike structure of gold, pearls andtranslucent glass.

The rise of such luxury relief icons in Constantinople in the tenth and eleventhcenturies expressed an aesthetic pursuit for the phenomenal, opposed to pictorialnaturalism and painting. The moving diurnal and candlelight across these richmaterial surfaces create highlights and shadows, giving rise to myriad appearances.The Constantinopolitan mixed-media eikon-typos has a meaning in flux, consolidat-ing and unraveling in the phenomenal world of breathing space, flickering andmoving light, and drafts of air. It is the human voice and movement that bring aboutanimation in the icon. With each gesture, or word, or simple breath, the faithfulcauses the flame of candles to flicker, bringing about the shimmering splendor of thegold and the dance of shadows across the complex surfaces of the image. It is thisdynamic poikilia that endows the object with life, transforming it into an empsychosgraphe, both literally and physically in-spirited.28

The face of the bas-relief icon Archangel Michael kept at the treasury of SanMarco, Venice performs this poikilia of shifting appearances (Figure 21.5).29 If acandle is brought and moved left and right, up and down in front of the image, thehead changes expression. His eyes, formed in repoussé gold, capture the flicker oflight in bright, shining accents. His burning gaze rotates as the candlelight moves,creating the sense of living eyes, searching and following the viewer.30 Life – psycheand pneuma – emanates from this animated gaze.

–– c h a p t e r 2 1 : T h e p e r f o r m a t i v e i c o n : o n c e a g a i n ––

273

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

Moreover, the repoussé bas-relief face presents a fiery vision and enacts whatseeing meant for a Byzantine audience.31 According to the prevalent extramissionmodel, the eye sends fiery rays which touch the surface of objects and return backcarrying the memory of this tactile experience.32 Yet, not only the eyes of the

Figure 21.5 Mixed-media relief icon of the Archangel Michael, Venice, Treasury of SanMarco. Art Resource, New York; photo: Cameraphoto.

–– B i s s e r a V. P e n t c h e v a ––

274

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

beholder “touch/kiss” the rich surfaces of these icons, but the radiant enamel orrepoussé eikones act like this very eye – casting nets, pulling in the spectator in theluminous play of their shimmering and reflective surfaces.

I call this quality of the mixed-media poikile eikon “performative,” because whilebeing apsychos graphe (a- without, psyche, spirit), it gives a performance of empsy-chosis, engages the phenomenal through its surfaces and acquires life by proxy, byreflection and by skiagraphia (the play of spatial shadows). It is the potential forchange lurking in the object. The performative icon is thus firmly tied to its space,engaged in a symbiosis, interaction, or to use the Byzantine Eucharistic terms, itparticipates (metecho and metalambano) in its environment.33

THE RETURN TO GRAPHE AS PAINTING

Inanimate (apsychos graphe) matter, lacking presence, should only be given honor-able/relative veneration (timetikos/schetikos proskynesis). In prioritizing exteriorityand phenomenal poikilia, the middle Byzantine luxury mixed-media eikones typoiprecipitated a crisis of misapplied latreutikos proskynesis (adoration) leading to anew iconoclast outbreak 1081–95. This Komnenian Iconoclasm faced the problemof confusing presence effects for divine presence. Yet, the true cause for the ensuingiconoclast crisis lay elsewhere, in the imperial appropriation and melting of churchtreasuries.34

An opposition headed by Leo, the bishop of Chalcedon, arose against this policy.By pairing iconic matter (eikonike hyle) with the character in the definition of eikon,Leo ensured the inalienability of the material substance and thus the inviolateness ofthe icon itself as an object.35

Icon is said in the case of Christ, the Virgin, the venerable angels, and all saintsand holy men to be both, i.e., the matter (hyle) and the character imparted inthem. The hypostaseis imparted in the icons of all the others [Virgin, angels andsaints] are to be venerated relatively and honorably, and be kissed.36

And again:

For always the iconic matter (eikonike hyle) is matter dedicated (anatetheimene)to God, as a divine dedication [votive gift] (anathema), and the character ofChrist is always Christ and God; who is contemplated through the mind yetbeing circumscribed (kechorismenos) in matter.37

According to Leo, matter, eikonike hyle, is what makes the character/form visible;it is inalienable, a material necessity for the existence of eikon. As a votive gift, ananathema, it is also protected from attempts at expropriation.38

Leo’s insistence on eikonike hyle as part of the definition of eikon was immedi-ately challenged by the imperial party. The semeioma of 1095 proclaimed that iconwas just “likeness” (homoioma):

And again the emperor asked: “What do you call icons: the iconic materialsubstances (eikonikas hylas) or the likenesses (homoiomata) made visible

–– c h a p t e r 2 1 : T h e p e r f o r m a t i v e i c o n : o n c e a g a i n ––

275

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

(phainomena) in them?” And every one responded: “The likenesses(homoiomata) made visible in the material substances (hylais).” Should the like-ness (homoioma) of Christ, which is made visible in matter receive adorational(latreutikos) proskynesis?” And they said “No!” And the emperor said: “This isthe truth what you have just said.” Then the bishop of Claudiopolis said: “Somesay that the icons do not partake in divine grace.” The emperor togetherwith everyone else responded: “Anathema to the one who says that, for the iconspartake in divine grace, yet they are not of the same substance (homophyeis) astheir prototypes.” . . . The emperor asked: “The likeness of Christ represented(graphomenon) in matter, is this his divine nature (theia physis)?” Every oneresponded: “No, for divine nature (theia physis) is beyond representation(aperigraptos).”39

The imperial definition narrowly limited the icon to just the likeness (homoioma),excluding the material in which it was fashioned. By excising the eikonike hyle fromwhat makes an icon, this statement denied the role of matter. By shifting the dis-course from imprint (typos) to likeness (homoioma), the new definition made theicon primarily concerned with the reproduction of similarity, not with a spectacleof phenomenal poikilia. In clinching icon to likeness, the Komnenian formulationeventually cleared the path to pictorial naturalism.

Connecting icon production to the medium of painting, the Komnenian definitionestablished the inalienability of likeness. Painting on wood panels cannot be recycledlike the metal relief icons, hence painting has an advantage over the mixed-mediatypoi. At the same time, the metal revetments, made of gold and silver, could easily betaken down from a painted icon. As simple anathemata, human gifts, these metalsheaths no longer carried the likeness of the holy figure. In separating likenessfrom the precious metals and gems, the Komnenian interpretation of eikon slowlyensured the move away from graphe as typos to graphe as painting. This stimulatedthe production of painted icons with metal revetments, which in turn secured thecontinued state access to these metal deposits, while preserving the inviolateness ofthe image.40 The metal-revetted painted icons rose in fulfilment of this neat Komne-nian separation of eikon from its material anathemata. The Palaiologan productionpreserves many such examples of neatly paired homoioma with anathema, such asthe late thirteenth-century icon of the Mother of God Psychosostria (Savior-of-Souls)from Ohrid, Macedonia (Figure 21.6).

SINAI AND THE DOMINANCE OF THEPAINTED PANEL

In contrast to Constantinople, Sinai, which lay outside the Byzantine borders afterthe mid-seventh century, never experienced the rise of luxury metal relief icons.Instead it manifests a continual and stable understanding of eikon as painting. Sinaipurposefully created a very place- and medium-specific definition of icon, as a site ofoptical experience theophany and receptor of divine orders.

Rocks of pink granite, sand, dry winds and dazzling light shape the arid landscapeof Sinai. Here, paradoxically, visions of God were projected onto the barren land. AtSinai Moses saw the burning bush and received the command to lead the Israelites

–– B i s s e r a V. P e n t c h e v a ––

276

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

out of Egypt (Exodus 3:1–10). Here again he climbed Mt Sinai to receive the tabletsof the law (Exodus 24), and when he came down the mountain he condemned theIsraelites for their idolatrous worship of the golden calf. Sinai thus became the site ofreformed sight and obedience, as defined by the First Commandment:

Figure 21.6 Painted icon with silver-gilt-enamel revetment of the Mother of GodPsychosostria, Ohrid, Icon Gallery. Art Resource, New York; photo: Erich Lessing.

–– c h a p t e r 2 1 : T h e p e r f o r m a t i v e i c o n : o n c e a g a i n ––

277

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

You shall not make for yourselves any graven image (eidolon), or any likenessof anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is inthe water underneath the earth. You shall not bow yourself down to them orserve them.

(Exodus 20:4–5, Deuteronomy 5:8–9)41

The Greek defines the forbidden object as idol (eidolon). The word in patristic Greekrefers to images of the pagan gods, destroyed by Christ. As a secondary meaning, itrefers to phantom of the mind and ghost. The Latin uses “carving” (sculptilis). It thusemphasizes surface and relief. The same word sculptilis appears again in Psalm 105(106):19, which again refers to the idolatrous actions of the Jews at Mt Sinai.42 TheLatin sculptilis has a Greek equivalent – glyptos. In both the Latin West and theByzantine East sculptilis/glyptos evoked sculpture: statues or bas-reliefs, imagescarved by human hand. It is this sculptilis/glyptos that was banned on Sinai.

This emphasis on seeing as an optical, non-tactile experience is strangely mirroredin the actual collection of icons at the monastery. Most panels rely on optical effectsof chrysography (highlights marked by the application of gold lines). The collectionalso does not hold metal relief icons, or ivory and enamel. In addition, no metalrevetments for icons are preserved. Last but not least, no miraculous icons featureamong the over 2,000 panels. The objects gathered all conform to the definition ofeikon as a wooden board with tempera or encaustic images. By rejecting the metalrelief icon, and with it tactility of the middle Byzantine Constantinopolitan poikilostypos, Sinai brought out the painted image. The entire collection addresses itself as asite of optical experience, shunning glyptos and asserting graphe as painted eikon.

This programmatic emphasis on sight, vision and radiance is embedded in thesubject matter of the panels, especially the ones produced on Sinai, showing howsite-specific the history of the icon was in the Middle Ages. One panel bears out thisoptical iconic identity: the thirteenth-century icon of John the Baptist (Figure 21.7).43

At first glance, the icon appears quite strange, for none of the figures faces the viewer.John the Baptist is turned to the side, engaged in a dialogue with Christ. The eyes ofthe Forerunner, however, connect to a different realm: the small centrally placedroundel presenting the scene of the Baptism of Christ. This becomes the signaturemoment in John’s identity: his prescient sight, recognizing Christ’s divinely humannature and his sacrifice for the sake of humanity. The Baptism roundel is linked on avertical axis to the purple scroll unfolded in John’s hand: “Look! The lamb of God,who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).44

The purple parchment refers to flesh, incarnation and sacrifice; it carries the colorof blood. And this sacrificial message is confirmed and strengthened by the word“lamb of God.” The purple scroll also establishes a connection with the severed headof the Forerunner hovering on the surface of the font’s water, represented to theright. Blood and water are intermixed in a vision of sacrifice, which evoke both thedecapitation of John the Baptist and the Crucifixion of Christ.

Right above John’s severed head with eyes closed in death stand the last words ofa long inscription: “. . . your holy icon we venerate.” Which holy icon is referred tohere? Is it the entire panel, but this problematic for the icon lacks stasis: an arrestinggaze. Could it be the severed head? Yet it fails to establish eye contact because its eyesare closed. Or is it Christ and his Baptism, the true icon: the very moment which sets

–– B i s s e r a V. P e n t c h e v a ––

278

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

Figure 21.7 Painted icon of St John the Baptist, Mt Sinai, monastery of St Catherine.Reproduced through the courtesy of the Michigan-Princeton-Alexandria Expedition

to Mt Sinai.

–– c h a p t e r 2 1 : T h e p e r f o r m a t i v e i c o n : o n c e a g a i n ––

279

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

in motion the journey of Christ leading to his Crucifixion, Death and Anastasis? TheBaptism is indeed the scene of transformation grasped though the power of oneman’s divinely inspired sight. John’s seer’s eyes foresaw the coming of the Messiah.The holy icon (septe ikona) is the very vision he saw: the miniature central roundel ofthe Baptism of Christ.

Emphasis here is placed on seeing, understood as a trajectory leading from theclosed eyes of John’s severed head, across the open scroll and his speaking hand,finally to the Forerunner’s upturned face gazing at the vision of salvation: Christ’sBaptism. Given its strong rhetorical stance for divinely inspired sight, this iconfits perfectly into the programmatic defense of theophany as the milestone of Sinaiticreligious identity.

The special status of this Baptismal scene is also reinforced by its position; it isset inside the arch in a hallowed, golden ground, and thus separated by the other twomedallions, which are placed outside the architectural frame. The iconic scene of theBaptism is connected to the command: “Behold, Look!” (Ide).

Sight is shown as judgment, while hearing is presented as a means to conveyand obey divine commands. These ideas emerge in the two long inscriptions. The oneon the right starts with the question “Do you see?” and links to the command Ide(behold) written on the purple scroll. The long text continues:

Do you see what they do, O divine Logos, the ones who do not bear the reproachof darkness? For behold those who cover with dirt my head, which they cut offwith the sword. But as the ones who restored it from the awful place back tolight by means only you know of, for them I beseech you, preserve them in life,for they venerate my holy icon.45

This prayer carries the visceral, abrasive power of John the Baptist; there is no middleground, the world is divided into those who transgress without repentance, unable tocarry the reproach of darkness and those who follow the right path. Death is metedout to the sinful, salvation to the righteous. The icon becomes the site of judgment,for the Forerunner asks Christ to see and thus condemn and punish the evildoers.The axe and the severed head only intensify the sheer anger and fury of John’s speech.

The word “reproach” (elegmos) is laden with meaning, for it refers both to thetrial by water (elegmos tou hydatou: Numbers 2:18–31) and to John the Baptist’swashing of the sins of the repentant. The Virgin herself was subjected to this trial bywater when Joseph questioned her purity after her encounter with the ArchangelGabriel.

Elegmos/reproach connects the right side of the panel to the left. The left side ofthe icon forms a visual and textual model for bearing the good fruits of repentance.At the top Zacharias receives the news of the conception of his son, below Maryoffers a purple cloth to the Baptist, followed by a quotation from the Gospel(Matthew 3:10) and an image of a tree and an axe. The inscription emphasizes thatonly the trees bearing good fruit will be spared the axe and fire of destruction:

And even now the axe is laying at the root of the trees – therefore every tree thatis not bearing good fruit is to be cut down and thrown into the fire.

(Matthew 3:10)46

–– B i s s e r a V. P e n t c h e v a ––

280

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

Bearing the good fruit is understood as the act of repentance (Matthew 3:8). John theBaptist had ushered the path of repentance through water, inviting humanity topartake in it. Through him “trees” have started to bear good fruit. It is these goodoffspring who discovered the severed head of the Forerunner. On their behalf, Johnthe Baptist now beseeches Christ to see and to offer them eternal life. “To see” and“to save” become equivalent. The immediate lack of a direct eye contact with any ofthe depicted figures on this icon thus acquires a deeper meaning, for it suggeststhe reversal of viewing strategies. Rather than the beholder looking at the panel,it is the panel itself that bears the stamp of the all-seeing divine eye, awoken by theForerunner’s request to see and mete out judgment: the eye of God at Sinai. Grapheis here understood first and foremost as scripture, only secondly is it translatedin figural form. The miniature visualization “reads” like a manuscript illumination,illustrating a text: the word dominates the image.

CONCLUSION

Sinai’s unique collection of painting on wood panels, starting in the sixth century,offers an unprecedented opportunity to study the history of the medieval pictorialtradition. At the same time, it has seduced scholars to equate the Sinai painted panelwith the normative Byzantine icon. This has led to our modern identification of eikonwith wood panel in tempera or encaustic.

By contrast, Constantinople had a different history of the icon, privileging themixed-media relief object, the poikile eikon, in the period from the end of Icono-clasm to the late eleventh century. In separating the icon from zographia and inlinking it with imprint (typos), the Byzantines raised the relief icon to the higheststatus. Theirs was a different hierarchy in which the plastic image in metal, enamel,stone and ivory presented the perfect iconic form, performing presence throughchameleonic appearances of spatial shadows, radiance and opalescence acrosscomplex surfaces.

NOTES

1 Belting 1994.2 Pentcheva 2006b; Pentcheva 2010.3 Bierbrier 1997; Walker 1997, 2000; Doxiadis 1995. On the eikones of pagan gods, Mathews 2001.4 Vikan 2003.5 Vikan 1982.6 ΕκHν του θεου (στιν ; κατ εκνα του θεου γεγονH α, νθρωπο κα µαλιστα κ πνεµατο α2 γου

νοκησιν δεξαµενο. ∆ικαω οIν τν εκνα των του θεου δολων τιµω κα προσκυνω κα τν

ο'κον του α2 γου πνεµατο, PG 93: 164C, D. Pseudo-Leontios of Neapolis identified as George ofCyprus, eighth century.

7 Grabar 1958; Elsner 1997.8 On charatto and magic, Pentcheva 2010: ch. 1.9 Vita St Symenis Stylitae, ch. 231, vv. 72–3, ed. Van den Ven 1962; Pentcheva 2010: ch. 1.

10 Harvey 2006.11 Pentcheva 2010: ch. 3.12 Παλαι µ5ν ; θε ; α σ4µατ τε κα α σχηµατιστο ο)δαµω εκονζετο, νυν δ5 σαρκ φθ&ντο

θεου κα τοι ανθρ4ποι συναναστραφ&ντο εκονζω θεου τ ;ρ4µενον. Ο) προσκυνω τ? 3λ?,προσκυνω δ5 τν τη 3λη δηµιουργν, τν 3λην δι µ5 γενµενον κα ν 3λ? κατοικησαι

καταδεξαµενον κα δι , 3λη τν σωτηραν µου ργασαµενον , κα σ&βων ο) πασοµαι τν 3λην, δι

–– c h a p t e r 2 1 : T h e p e r f o r m a t i v e i c o n : o n c e a g a i n ––

281

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

η C σωτηρα µου ε'ργασται. Σ&βω δ5 ο)χ J θεν – α, παγε· [. . .] Τν δ& γε λοιπν 3λην σ&βω κα

δι αδου α, γω, δι 2η C σωτηρα µου γ&γονεν, J θεα νεργεα κα χαριτο %µπλεων. John ofDamascus, Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tre, I, sect. 16, ed. Kotter 1969–88; Englishtrans. Louth 2003: 29.

13 PG 99: 435–78.

14 Χρυσογραφουσι ΧρισΤν ο" θεηγροΙ

2Ρ-σει προφητων, µ βλ&πΟντε το ι κατΩ. Ισηγρων γαρ ΕΛΠΙΣ C θεοπιστΑ

Σκιογραφων δ5 τν πΑλνδροµον πλανηΝ

Τρανω πατουσιν J Θε ˆω µισουµ&νηΝ

Ο ι συµπν&οντε ο" φΟρουντε τα στ&φΗ, Υψουσι φαιδρω Σταυρν ε)σεβει κρσεΙ.

PG 99: 436B.15 Χριστου τ παθο λπ 2 Ιωανν?, PG 99: 436 B.16 PG 99: 327–436. English trans. Roth 1981.17 Theodore Stoudites, Antirrheticus III, ch. 3, sect. 5: PG 99: 421D.18 L Επε κα π τπου σταυρου, Mσαπερ αN ν περ α)του σταυρου π&φανται. Ο)δαµου δ5 περ τπου κα

εκνο, ε κα τατν α µφτερα τ? σηµασO· α συλλγιστον γαρ τ ζητειν J συνντων αP µα

δυναµει ν τοι καθ Cµα των ατιατων τοι ατοι. ´Η ο)χ πασα εκHν σφραφ τ στι κα

κτπωσι ν .αυτ? φ&ρουσα τ κριον εRδο τουθ Mπερ κα λ&γεται; Σταυρν τε γαρ λ&γοµεν τ

α ποσφραγισµα, Mτι κα σταυρ· κα ο) δο σταυρο· κα Χριστν τν του Χριστου εκνα, Mτι κα

Χριστ κα ο) δο Χριστο, Theodore Stoudites, Antirrheticus I, sect. 8: PG 99: 337C.19 Vikan and Nesbitt 1980.20 Τ γαρ γγτερον Χριστου εκων ε παραδειγµα, > τπο σταυρου, ;πτε τη a)τη (µφερεα C

εκHν πρ τ κτπωµα; Κα γαρ του ζωοποιου σταυρου εκνα λ&γοµεν καταχρησιν, τ α)του

(κτπωµα· κα Χριστου (κτπωµα τν α)του εκνα· C γαρ εκHν κατ τυµολογαν, τ οικ δηλοι·τ δ5 οικ το Mµοιον· τ δ, Mµοιον κα π τη εκνο, κα π του τπου κα νενηται κα

λ&λεκται κα τεθ&αται, Theodore Stoudites, Antirrheticus II, ch. 23: PG 99: 368B, C. Another Englishtrans. Roth 1981: 57.

21 Corrigan 1992 and Shchepkina 1977.22 σηµει4θη φ Tµα τ φω του προσ4που σου Κριε, Psalm 4:7.23 On semeion and sphragis, Reijners 1965: 118–87.24 Frolow 1963.25 Pentcheva 2010: ch. 4.26 Pentcheva 2006b: 643–8.27 Pentcheva 2006b; Pentcheva 2009.28 Pentcheva 2010: chs 5–6.29 Pentcheva, 2006b; Pentcheva 2009, with all the photographic documentation of the icon’s

performance.30 Pentcheva 2010b: ch. 5.31 Pentcheva 2006b; Pentcheva 2010.32 Frank 2000b: 98–115; Nelson 2000a; Barber 2007: 94–9.33 Pentcheva 2006b; Pentcheva 2010.34 Pentcheva 2009: ch. 7. See also Stephenson in this volume ch. 2.35 On Leo’s letter to Nikolaos, bishop of Adrianopolis, 1093/4, see Carr 1995: 580–2, Barber 2007:

131–43, with references.36 ΕκHν λ&γεται π τε Χριστου κα τη Θεοτκου κα των τιµων α γγ&λων κα παντων των α2 γων κα

των ;σων α νδρων κα τ συναµφτερον· Uτοι C 3λη τε κα ; τατ? γγραφε χαρακτ-ρ· κα των

µ5ν α, λλων παντων α" <ποστασει ται εκσιν γγραφµεναι, τιµητικω κα σχετικω

προσκυνουνται κα α σπαζονται, Leo’s letter to Nikolaos, bishop of Adrianopolis, 1093/4, Lavriotes1900: 415, 446.

37 Αε γαρ C εκονικ 3λη στν α νατεθειµ&νη τ ˆω Θε ˆω, J θειον α ναθηµα κα ; χαρακτρ του

Χριστου, α ε Χριστ στι κα Θε· κεχωρισµ&νω τη 3λη νοοµενο, Leo’s letter to Nikolaos,bishop of Adrianopolis, 1093/4, Lavriotes 1900: 414, 446.

–– B i s s e r a V. P e n t c h e v a ––

282

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tor

onto

At:

01:2

5 06

Nov

201

8; F

or: 9

7802

0381

7254

, cha

pter

21, 1

0.43

24/9

7802

0381

7254

.ch2

1

38 Ται µ5ν γαρ α, λλαι εκσι τιµητικ- τε κα σχετικ προσκνησι α πον&µεται, κα α σπασµ

Vσπερ κα τοι λοιποι αναθ-µασι δια τν κοινν ∆εσπτην, Leo’s letter to Nikolaos, bishop ofAdrianopolis, 1093/4, Lavriotes 1900: 415.

39 Παλιν Wρ4τησεν ; βασιλε(, «Εκνα ποα λ&γετε; τα εκονικα 3λα > τα ν ταται φαινµενα

;µοι4µατα;» Κα εRπον αP παντε, «Τα ;µοι4µατα ν ται 3λαι φαινµενα.» Κα α)θι Wρ4τησε,«∆ναται τ ;µοωµα του Χριστου τ ν τ ˆη 3λ? ;ρ4µενον λατρευτικω προσκυνεισθαι;» κα εRπον,«Ο)χ.» Κα εRπεν ; βασιλε, «Ο3τω %χει C α λ-θεια, J ε'πατε.» ΕRπε δ5 ; Κλαυδιουπλεω,Mτι «Τιν5 ο) µετ&χειν λ&γουσι θεα χαριτο τα α2 γα εκνα.» Κα εRπεν ; βασιλε( µετα

παντων, « Αναθεµα τX ο3τω λ&γοντι· θεα µ5ν γαρ χαριτο µετ&χουσιν α" αP γιαι εκνε, ;µοφυει

δ5 τοι πρωτοτποι οIκ εσι. » . . . ΑYθι Wρ4τησε, «Τ ν τη 3λ? γραφµενον ;µοωµα του

Χριστου, τουτο στν C θεα φσι;» Κα εRπον αP παντε, «Ο)χ· C γαρ θεα φσι α περγραπτο.»From the Semeioma of Alexios I Komnenos, council of Blachernai 1094/5: PG 127: 971–84, esp.981A.

40 Pentcheva 2009.41 ο) ποι-σει σεαυτX ε'δωλον ο)δ5 παντ ;µοωµα, Mσα ν τ ˆω ο)ραν ˆω α, νω κα Mσα ν τ? γ?

κατω κα Mσα ν τοι 3δασιν <ποκατω τη γη. ο) προσκυν-σει α)τοι ο)δ5 µ λατρεσ? α)τοι.42 Κα ποησαν µσχον ν Χωρβ, κα προσεκνησαν τX γλυπτX (Ps. 105:19).

Et fecerunt vitulum in Choreb et adoraverunt sculptile (Ps. 105:19).Glyptos and sculptilis appear again in the same context, Ps. 105 (106):36.

43 Nelson and Collins 2006: 147, no. 10; Carr 2007 with emphasis on the Eucharistic symbolism.44 L Ιδε ; α µν του θεου ; α'ρων τν α2 µαρταν του κσµου, John 1:29.45 ;ρα Zσα πραττουσιν [ Θεου λγε·/ ο" το( λεγµο( µ φ&ροντε/ του σκτου· δο( γαρ οYτοι τν

µν/ τατην καραν· κρπτουσιν ε γην τX ζφει/ τετµηκτε· α λλ Vσπερ α)τν ξ α φα/νου του

τπου· ε φω (παν-γαγε/ οR οRδα τρποι· ο3τω δυσω/πω σωσον α)το( ν βX·/ το( τν

µν σ&βοντα/ σεπτν εκνα.46 L Ηδη δ κα C α ξ/ν πρ τ-ν \ζαν του δ&ν/δρου κειται· παν ουν δ&νδρον µ ποιο(ν καρπν

καλν κ/κπτεται κα/ ε πυρ βαλλεται.

–– c h a p t e r 2 1 : T h e p e r f o r m a t i v e i c o n : o n c e a g a i n ––

283