Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror - A History

    Uploaded by

    Giovanni Giovannetti
    87 views17 pages
    thing

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    thing

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    87 views17 pages

    Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror - A History

    Uploaded by

    Giovanni Giovannetti
    thing

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 17
    Tn the Semblance of God Despite its irregularities and imperfections, the mirror was considered a wondrous instrument by our ancestors, allowing ‘man not only to discover his own image and know himself bet ter, but also, by means of the visible, to perceive the invisible. In the conceptual system of the Middle Ages, which was strongly influenced by Platonism, sight was the favored means ‘of acquiring knowledge; through it one could experience the beautiful. The mirror was invested with exceptional symbolic importance because of its capacity to enhance visual acuity and to radiate light, the source of all beauty. Nonetheless this marvelous object was also a disturbing one. Because it does not duplicate reality exactly—in the mirror the right hand becomes the left—the reflection poses questions about image and resemblance; it returns an image that closely re~ lates to, yet differs from, the reflected object itself. And just where does the image reside? At the same time both present and else where, the perceived image has an unsettling ubiquity and depth, located at an uncertain distance. Looking into a mirror, an image for the most part seems to appear behind a solid screen, so that the observer may wonder if he is seeing the surface ofthe mirror or looking through it. The reflection creates the sensation of an ethereal world looming beyond the mirror, inviting the eye to ‘The Mircor cross through to it Like a prism, the mirror can disrupt the field of vision because it hides as much as it shows. "These baffing questions suggest thatthe mirror offers an enig- atic and divergent way of knowing. Before it helps to put the ‘world in order and maintain the conscious self, looking into the sminrr leads one’ gaze on an indirect course marked by ethos and analogies, a course that seems to attest to an invisible “elsewhere" in the heart ofthe visible, Form without substance, subtle and im- able, the mirror image manifests a diaphanous purity a reve- ae ofthe divine vote, om which all ikenes emanates ‘Antiquity and the Mirror's Image The World of Images ‘The source of philosophical meditation on the mirror image in Wester culture is Plato, Before him, the reflection was an ani- rated and living form, a double luring Narcissus from the bot- tom ofa pool! At its origin, this myth can be read as an archaic belief in the existence of a double, or ofa soul taking on sub- stance, a concept that ethnology has found in many "primitive" cules and even among cles in or owe er Homer tb uted a double existence to man, one in his pezceptible, physical being, the other in an invisible semblance unleashed only at his death (Odyssey X1, 495, XUL, 222). Narcissus was capable of be- lieving in the presence of a living being at the bottom of the pool, a sudden emergence of his spirit or double. His confusion is not as strange as it may appear to us, as numerous folklore tra~ ditions contain similar stories. In ancient Greece, looking at ‘one’s reflection could invite death because the reflection cap- tured the soul? It was not until later in the classical period in Greece that the reflected image lost its magical aspect and ac- quired its status as mere replica or semblance, soni dT The ancients put forward all sorts of hypotheses concerning the formation of images and reflections, including schemes of both direct and reflected vision, According to Euclidian theory, the eye emitted rectilinear visual rays that would extend toward an object and bring back from it shape and color; this theory was reprised by Ptolemy and remained the most widely ac~ cepted for quite some time.* For the Greek philosopher Dem- ccritus and the Romain philosopher Lucretius, on the contrary, the image stemmed from the object itself, which emits very fine corpuscles called simulacra, appearances, or forms (eidala), which issue forth in all directions and then pull together at the ‘moment they meet up with the eye: “In mirrors, in water and any polished surface, we see simulacra that resemble the refl- ected objects perfectly and can therefore be formed only by im- ages emanating from them.” If an image appeared reversed, it ‘was surmised that “after striking the lat surface, the image does not come back the same, for while bounding back, it tumbles over like a plaster facade applied to a structure when still too moist."* In a synthesis of these two points of view, Plato in- sisted on light’s mediation in his dialogue Timacus. The eye is a sun that sends out rays, and daylight must encounter these vi- sual streams—like meeting like—so that an image can form. ‘These theories wouldn't be modified until the eleventh century, when the Arab Al Hazen discovered the persistence of retinal ‘mages even when the eye is closed. ‘Whatever they believed, the ancients were certain of one thing: the image originates from physical contact, from an im- print made from the eye to the object, through rays or forms— thus the mythical basilisk could be killed by its own poisonous stare. In his De Insomnis, Aristotle explained that sight exercises a certain action on an object, in much the same way that & mirror or a shiny surface has a dizzying effect on anyone who looks upon it, citing as an example the mirror soiled by the 8zes of women who look into it while menstruating. For the 193 ‘The Mirsor Greeks, the world of images had a tangible existence by repro~ ducing and resembling the real; this realm was a precise imita- tion of the actual one, although of an inferior and altogether different nature, Specular Hlusion ‘The mirror reflection, however, does not correspond to any real- ity because, even iit creates an image that appears more faithful than a painted reproduction, this image has neither foundation nor consistency. The reflection escapes every sense but vision, and in particular touch, which forms the basis of our tangible e- ality. “You can take a mirror and turn it in all directions: from Jess than nothing you will have the sun and the stars in the sky, yourself and different animals, furniture and plants, and all ehe “objects you just mentioned. Yes, all of these apparent objects, without any reality to them whatsoever.” In The Republic (K 496), Plato condemns the reflection’s deception by noting the distortion between a being and its unreal, fleeting double.* Even while discrediting specular illsion, which Plato ranked as the lowest degree of knowledge, beneath even painting since it lacks the tangible reality of the image, he admitted that the reflection, by its very immaterialty and its resemblance, lent it- self well to another analogical and spiritual sort of conscious- ness, Far beyond just presenting an enactment, the reflection invites the mind to free itself from the tangible and focus on cause rather than effect—in other words, to contemplate the world with the clarity of understanding, returning to the essence. Like the moving shadows that drive the wise man to leave the cave, the reflection is no longer a trompe T'oel, but an indication, a shell of meaning, a manifestation of something hidden, more of an apparition than a physical appearance, De- prived of reality, the reflection brings us closer to the symbolic. ‘When the mirror ceases to plagiarize the tangible world and gives up all attempts at furnishing a mimetic equivalent, its 104 soni oT shimmering light lends itself instead to a divinatory knowledge, to interpretations and revelations, indeed to enchantment. The sparkle of the reflecting surface, inthe bedazzlement that it pro- ‘vokes, incites all sorts of hallucinations. Many ancient texts cal to mind the uses of catoptromancy, or divination by mirrors, which unveils, as do dreams, that which escapes the visible, Artemidorus, for example, in his Treatise on Dreams, devotes several paragraphs to reading the future with mirror images.® Magic and scientific thought remained intimately linked. In De Insomnis, Aristotle explains that the element “air” is responsi- ble for the modification of images on the surface of mirrors. In ‘Meteorologia he explains that a man who does not enjoy good eyesight might occasionally see his double flash before his eyes: weak “sight rays” may come up against an obstacle (like misty air) thus reflecting back an image like a mirror. From the mirror mirage to the mirzor of revelation, from the illusory reflection to the visionary symbol, optical metaphors ‘were used so widely as to invert their meanings. Man looks at himself in the mirzor in order to see himself, but the mirror in which he sees himself offers him, above and beyond appearances, an enigmatic and transfigured knowledge of himself. Pausanias, a Geek living in Asia Minor in the second century 4.D. and author of a guide to Greece, stated that a mirror decorated the entry to the temple of Lycosura in Arcadia and anyone who peered into it discovered an obscured and strange image of himself. ‘The man entering into the sanctuary shed his own appearance in order to reclothe himself in a new identity before the gods. Know Thyself ‘To know oneself, as the Delphic principle invites us to do, is to retreat from the sensory appearances of the common mirror— reflection, appearance, shadow, or phantasm—to one’s own soul. ‘Man, according to Plato, must care for the soul that constitutes his essence. Like the eye, the soul must have a reflection in order 15 ‘The Mizzoe to sce itself, Like the eye, the soul cannot sec itself unaided. To study himself, Alcibiades couldn't be satisfied with the mirror that Cratylus, the follower of Heracleitus in Plato's dialogues, ‘used, where only a replica appears—a substitute for his forms and colors, but lacking both voice and thought.” Thus the true ‘mirror, loyal, constant, alive, is the one presented by the lover or friend who offers his eyes and his own soul as mirrors. Socrates and Alcibiades constitute living mirrors for each other, mirrors in which they discover much more than the mirror image of Cratylus could have told them. “The misfortune of Narcissus, whose story has been retold so ‘often since Ovid, was to have chosen the lowest degree of knowl- edge, that of his reflection. He was punished by Nemesis for hav- ing scorned Echo's love, for having refused the mediation of the other in the construction ofthe self. There was certainly not yet a psychological implication to the fable in antiquity, but only the passing of a moral judgment on a young man overtaken by mad~ ness and excess, confusing illusion with reality and making hiza- self his own aim rather than investing himself in the polis.* If well used, however, the mirror can aid moral mediation be- tween man and himself. Socrates, we are told by Diogenes, urged young people to look at themselves in mirrors so that, if they were beautiful, they would become worthy of their beauty, and if they were ugly, they would know how to hide their dis- grace through learning? The mirror, «tool by which to “know thyself” invited man to nof mistake himself for God, to avoid pride by knowing his limits, and to improve himself. His was thus not a passive mirror of imitation but an active mirror of ‘transformation. Diogenes added that Socrates offered a mirror to drunkards so that they might see reflected in it their faces disfigured by swine.) The mirror therefore reflects not only physical traits but also interior bearing. As a factor in moral life it must help man. ‘conquer his vices. It shows him simultaneously what he is and 106 soni oT ‘what he ought to be. Seneca placed a mirror in the hands of the angry man because the growing ugliness of the soul altered physical traits.!” The same theme was developed and popular~ ized by a character in Plautus’s comedy Epidicus: an old man reads the mistakes of his past life in a mirror.!? The mirror of introspection shines light on the past, the present and the future all at once, The Trial ofthe Mirror ‘As a deceiving image, a vain appearance, the likeness offered by the mirzor both attracts and misleads when it is not reflecting the divine. Clven to man so that he might know his soul and ti= tumph over his vices, the mirror was corrupted and used towaed shamefilly material ends, Through antiquity onward, the mir- rors status was on til on these moral and religous grounds Seneca devoted several pages of his Natural Questions (I, 1) to the properties of the mirror and took up Socrates’ arguments, Nature itself, with its pools of spring water and brilant stones, invites man to look at himself so that the capacity of seeing his own visage might guide him through life: in his prime it shows the vigor ofa body capable of feats of bravery, and in his old age, the white-haired apparition alerts him to prepare for death. But luxury, debauchery, and the empire of the senses diverted the mirzor’ use. It became the extravagant tool of women’s coquetry and even an instrument of pleasure that certain Roman citizens, like Hostus Quadra liked to surround themselves with to mal ‘iply and increase their lovers sexual atibutes. These new tasks weighed heilon the ior in hese of py gpa ance it enbances, by a game of deforming reflections, the decep- tions ofthe somes a: To the contrary, Apuleius placed a defense ofthe mirror atthe bens ois pti MI) He abs the obj of suspicion and revealed his wonder atthe exactitude of the image it repro- diced. Where Plato saw simulacra and Seneca vanity, Apuleius 107 ‘The Mirror saw efficient resemblance, the creative power (opie) of an in- strument that, beter than the most subtle of paintings, was capa- ble of restoring life and movement. Nature itself, in giving children the traits of their parents so that parents might contem- plate themselves through their offspring, values the notion of likeness. Like his predecessors, Apuleius invoked Socrates's teaching mirros, noting that Demosthenes practiced his speeches ‘before one. When he himself was accused of practicing magic, his defense ofthe mirror’ place inthe natural world became ‘more adamant. He insisted on developing a technical account o ‘the optical mechanism, Thus is the mirror rehabilitated in both its moral and scientific implications. From then on, any en- counter with the self must confront this duality of the reflection, at once both a liar and guide The Mirror in Medieval Spivituality The Vision ‘in the Mirror” ‘The mirror became part ofthe religious vocabulary Pa the Ba le Ages, which developed its symbolic meanings from scrip meting Nepean te pat tion Be ‘writings of the church fathers). The utilitarian and self-reflexive use of the object is more or less ignored by these texts, as it also ‘was in medieval iconography, both of which envisaged the mir~ ror image as either “an idealized vision oF a pejorative projec- tion,” either a reflection of God or an instrument of the devil ‘Asa model ofthe transformation of matter into form and as instrument of resemblance, the mirror of medieval spirituality ‘bore witness to the presence of an immaterial realty in the visible atthe same time that it designated the means and levels of now edge, ftom “speculation” to perfect vision: to know is to a ‘pass from a tangible vision to the contemplation of the invisible. 108 soniM aT Genesis says that God created man “in is image and his like- ness.” The likeness conveys meaning to the image, forthe image is nothing by itself. Because sin darkened the mirror, one has to look at the divine model in order to restore the lost resemblance ‘The Bible is “the unstained mirroc” (Prov. 7:27), intended to ed ‘cate man. In front of this mirror, the subject looks for his only possible identity his spiritual identity, outside the earnal and contingent envelope of his body. ‘Two Christian texts frame all medieval understanding of the ‘mirror and establish its ambivalence. The first is the verse in which Saint Paul explains that the knowledge man has of God haere on earth is visible “through a glass darkly” (per speculum in

    You might also like