georges didi huberman, confronti... - lensbased.net

Notes 303disciples set our for Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had arranged to meet them.And when they say him they fell down before him.’’ Matthew 28:16–17.126. In different versions of the legend of the Mandylion, the dazzling character of theface is attributed sometimes to Christ, sometimes to its envoy Thaddeus, sometimes tothe image itself. One can at least compare the old version of Eusebius of Ceasearea, TheEcclesiastical History, i, 13, trans. Kirsopp Lake (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 1992–94), 1:85–97, to the later versions that ‘‘invent’’ the image absent in the earlyversion of the story. See E. von Dobschütz, Christusbilder—Untersuchungen zur ChristlichenLegende, 1:102–96 and 158–249. See also C. Bertelli, ‘‘Storia e vicende dell-immagine edessena,’’Paragone 9, nos. 217/37 (1968): 3–33.127. See R. Harprath, entry no. 123 in the exh. cat. Raffaello in Vaticano (Milan: Electa,1984), 324–25. Different authors ascribe different dates to the two works, but this problemis of no concern to us here.128. Especially noteworthy are the shrouds in Lierre, Belgium, in Besançon, in theSpanish monastery of Santo Domingo de Silos (near Burgos), in Cadouin or Enxobregas,Portugal, and so on. It should be remembered that the first polemics against the photographic-miraculous‘‘rediscovery’’ of the Shroud of Turin, in 1898, came from FrenchBollandist and archeological circles. See U. Chevalier, Étude critique sur l’origine du saintSuaire de Liery-Chambéry-Turin (Paris: Picard, 1900), and F. de Mély, Le saint Suaire de Turinest- il authentique? (Paris: Poussielgue, 1902), which lists no fewer than forty-two shroudsin addition to that of Turin. In most of these forty-two documented cases, the technicalstakes indeed entailed avoidance of the brush, hence production of the image in someindexical way (pouncing, mark, projection, imprint) intended to render credible the contactof the subjectile—the shroud—with the body of Christ.129. See Lives, 2:88. We now know that it was not Ugo da Carpi who invented chiaroscurowood-block printing, as Vasari maintains in this passage, but Northern artists (forinstance, Cranach, H. Baldung Grien ).130. Ibid., 2:89 [translation altered].131. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Letters, ix, 1 1104B.132. ‘‘A ‘living’ image does not resemble its model; it aims not to render the appearance,but the thing. To reproduce the appearance of reality is to renounce life, to confineoneself to a view of reality that sees nothing but appearance, to transform the world intoa shadow. Plato recounts that the ancients chained the statues of Daedalus, fearing hemight take wing; and they were archaic works.’’ Robert Klein, ‘‘Notes on the End of theImage,’’ in Form and Meaning: Writings on the Renaissance and Modern Art, trans. MadeleineJay and Leon Wiesletier (1962; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 170. It is worthrecalling, regarding this subject, the now-classic publications of J.-P. Vernant, notably ‘‘Figurationde l’invisible et catégorie psychologique du double: Le Colossos,’’ in Mythe etpensée chez les Grecs (Paris: Maspero, 1974), 2:65–78; ‘‘Images et apparance dans la théorieplatoncienne de la Mimêsis,’’ in Religions, histoires, raisons (1975; Paris: Maspero, 1979),105–37.133. ‘‘If a painter made two images, one of which, dead, seemed in action to resemblehim more, while the other one, less like, would be living . . .’’ Cited and discussed byAgnès Minazzoli in her preface to Nicholas of Cusa, Le Tableau ou la vision de Dieu (1453),trans. A. Minazzoli (Paris: Le Cerf, 1986), 17.134. See Georges Didi-Huberman, Fra Angelico: Dissemblance and Figuration, trans. JaneMarie Todd (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).135. This last rite is still used in the Orthodox Church. The accompanying benedictionincludes a prayer that the icon receive the same virtus or dynamis possessed by the proto-