Next Article in Journal
The Muslim Gaze and the COVID-19 Syndemic
Next Article in Special Issue
Crucified with the Brother from Galilee: Symbol of the Cross in Modernist Yiddish Imagination
Previous Article in Journal
Using Social Media to Assess Expressions of Gratitude to God: Issues for Consideration
Previous Article in Special Issue
La Vera Cruz: Wills, Confraternities, Catholic Reconquest and Reform in Sixteenth-Century Gibraltar
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Visual Threats and Visual Efficacy: Ideas of Image Reception in the Arguments of Lucas Tudense about the Changes in the Crucifixion (c.1230)

Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35139 Padova, Italy
Religions 2022, 13(9), 779; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13090779
Submission received: 15 June 2022 / Revised: 2 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 25 August 2022

Abstract

:
In this paper, I examine the ideas regarding image reception that can be extracted from the De altera uita, a theological treatise written by the Iberian bishop Lucas de Tui in ca. 1230. In this book, he devotes one chapter to rejecting the changes that were taking place at the time in the image of the Crucifixion, especially concerning the variation in the number of nails and the shape of the cross. I will show that this text provides illuminating references regarding image reception, mainly through Lucas’s concerns about the visual misleading of the faithful and their devotional responses to artworks. By examining this work, which I will set against the theological and devotional background of its time, I will argue that this treatise reflects the importance of sight within the religious experience of late-medieval Europe.

1. Introduction

When studying art from the past, we come across certain phases of history that critics have been accustomed to calling “transitional”. These peculiar liminal contexts are mainly characterised by major changes in all the spheres of society that are accompanied by a series of variations in the artistic domain, resulting in the coexistence of old and new customs. One of these moments of transition will be the focus of this paper: the thirteenth century, a context in which old visual patterns were sharing spaces with new visual models that emerged from a changing social and spiritual reality. The object of study will be the central image of Christianity: Christ on the Cross, an image that in the thirteenth century was undergoing a series of variations that came to culminate in the following centuries with the generalisation of the suffering Christ, which emphasised his humanity and violent death on the cross. These renewed images were promoted by the Church itself in response to the new spiritual and devotional needs that arose in a context of increasing participation of laypeople within religious life and the rise of religious diversity.
An important—and fascinating—part of these “transitional” histories, that is often hidden, are the debates between the promoters and detractors of the new visual trends, especially relevant when these debates are taking place within the Church itself. In a context such as late-medieval Europe, in which the display and visualisation of sacred iconographies had a crucial role in mediating between the faithful and the divine, as well as serving as a focus for meditation and the consequent internalisation of religious stories, introducing innovations and variations in images could be particularly controversial, and even for some people a dangerous threat.1
This paper aims to examine how visual innovations were received in the thirteenth century and to study the role given to sight and perception as a means to internalise passion imagery. The starting point of the investigation will be the thirteenth-century De altera uita fideique controuersiis aduersus Albigensium errores (henceforth DAV), an anti-heretical theological treatise written by the Iberian Bishop Lucas de Tui (d. 1249) in ca. 1230.2 In this book, Lucas devotes a chapter to arguing against the innovations in the depiction of the crucified Christ, particularly against the change in the number of nails, from four to three: Contra illos qui dicunt, tres tantum clauos fuisse fixos in manibus et pedibus Saluatoris (Book II, Chapter XI).3 Sources such as this one are rare, making this text an exceptional piece of evidence for our understanding of the resistances that visual innovations encounter within the Church.4 In addition to showing his repudiation of certain visual novelties, Lucas also refers in this chapter—albeit in a perhaps more veiled way—to the new arguments that were being posited by other theologians regarding the functions of images, as well as to the crucial role of sight and visuality within the religious experience.

2. Contra Illos Qui Dicunt …

In order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the context and reasons that led Lucas Tudense to write a whole chapter of his book about the changes in the crucifixion iconography, it is necessary to sketch an overview of what was happening at the time with regard to the image of the crucified Christ.
In Western Europe, from the second half of the twelfth century, the iconography of Christ on the cross experienced a range of significant changes which defined a new type of representation that can be understood as divergent from its precedents. The embodiment of the higher attention given at the time to Christ’s humanity over his divinity led to a move from the triumphant depictions that characterised the previous centuries towards more suffering representations, which define the late-medieval period (Thoby 1959; Schiller [1966] 1972; Derbes 1996; Viladesau 2006). Amongst these changes was the turn to the depiction of the dead Christ, an emphasis on suffering, the introduction of a series of new motifs such as the crown of thorns, and the shift from four to three nails.5 Consequently, this new type presents a dead and bloody Christ hanging from the cross with his legs and feet crossed and nailed with a single nail (Figure 1). In many cases, images even go so far as to carve or exaggerate the wounds to make them more visible, representing large pools of blood or individualising each drop. In addition to these visual changes that focus the attention on the human and suffering Christ, other strategies aimed at bringing the spiritual reality closer to the viewers started to be employed, including the use of paintings or sculptures within liturgical dramatizations, some of them even with devices to simulate the bleeding of the side wound. The late-medieval centuries also saw the development of devotions specifically centred on fragmentary elements from the Passion of Christ, such as the devotion to the wounds or the Arma Christi, which found their corresponding artistic evolution with the isolation of these elements in the visual realm (Figure 2).6
Thus, during the last two centuries of the Middle Ages, these innovative typologies of crucifixes tended to emphasise Christ’s suffering and death, finding the new religious sentiment its corresponding visual manifestation in the popularisation of images that showed a more accessible incarnated God. An excellent example of this reality is the fourteenth-century crucifix known as crucifixus dolorosus (de Francovich 1938; Franco Mata 2002; Kalina 2003), a type of image that triggered, through its visual features, an empathetic response in the faithful. In this sense, the beholders’ engagement with the representations of their dead God would be, during the late Middle Ages, quite different from the responses that the majestic and triumphal depictions might have provoked during the previous centuries (Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5).
This visual reality has its counterpart in the devotional literature of the period, which also focused on the humanity of Christ, in line with the theological trends of the time.7 Admittedly, the development of this accessible God and its visual and textual materialisation has been related to the creation and growth of the Mendicant orders, which monopolised most of the devotional trends of the time (Derbes 1996). The new devotional literature produced in the thirteenth century shows the use of a significant emotional vocabulary that emphasises aspects such as suffering, pain, tears, wounds, or blood (Bestul 1996, pp. 43–56; Mazzon 2018). These texts usually provide highly detailed descriptions of the violence endured by Christ during his Passion, exhorting the beholders to imagine themselves within the scenes and to accompany Christ in his suffering, thus finding the promotion of a highly visual kind of meditation achieved through mental images experienced with the internal, or spiritual, senses even within the textual production. Such emotionally charged allusions to the Passion can be found in thirteenth-century texts such as St Francis’ Office of the Passion, St Bonaventure’s Officium de Passion Domini or De perfectione vitae ad sorores, Pseudo-Beda’s De meditatione passionis Christi per septem diei horas libellus, or a little later in the well-known Meditationes Vitae Nostri Domini Jesu Christi attributed to Johannes de Caulibus (mid-fourteenth century) (Newman 2005; Karnes 2007; Flora 2009; McNamer 2009).
The new crucifix model became widespread from the middle of the thirteenth century onwards, replacing the previous type, with a period in which both models coexisted and were indifferently adopted.8 Regarding the nails—which is the central focus of Lucas de Tui’s refutation—, the variation in their number is primarily the consequence of the total lack of references to them in the Bible, being theorised later by the Church Fathers (Pickering 1980, p. 12).9 The introduction of the three nails in the Crucifixion did not cause any broader discussion at first, since this issue had little importance before the thirteenth century (Binski 2004, pp. 221–23). Until then, representations of the crucified Christ showed several methods employed to fasten the body of Christ to the cross. In some crucifixes the hands are nailed, but the feet are not, either because they appear to be completely free or because they are tied rather than nailed (Figure 6);10 other cases can be found with the feet displayed parallel but nailed with a single nail with a merely functional purpose; and, finally, there are cases in which the feet were not even nailed at all (Munns 2016, p. 172).11 However, innovations in sacred art are complex, especially when it comes to the central dogma of the Christian faith, so it does not come as a surprise that this issue later became problematic. Therefore, in the thirteenth century, the number of nails, along with other innovations, became a central point of debate, becoming notably important after Pope Innocent III refuted the belief in the three nails (Munns 2016, p. 173), which likely led Lucas Tudense to compose his work (Binski 2004, pp. 221–23).12
The fact that Lucas devoted a whole chapter of his treatise to discussing the new variations in the Crucifixion is evidence of the importance this issue had, not just to him but almost certainly reflecting a broader concern. In fact, he starts the chapter by claiming that “since there is discussion among many about the number of nails that were sunk into the Lord’s body”, referencing a wider debate that was taking place in this context of “transition”.13 In this chapter, Lucas defends the idea that Christ was crucified with four nails and attacks those who claim there were only three and those who depict the Crucifixion according to this belief.14 In addition, Lucas also refers to another change that was taking place: the use of different shapes for the cross, going specifically “against those who say that the Lord’s cross had only three arms”.15 This issue is also addressed in Chapter XI when referring to the Volto Santo of Lucca—believed to be an authentic depiction of Christ on the cross carved by Nicodemus—as proof of the number of nails and the actual shape of the cross. Besides, Lucas also devotes Chapter X (Book II) to arguing about De forma crucis Christi, theorising that the cross had four arms and referring to the several parts that compose it: stipes, patibulum, suppedaneum and titulus.16
Scholars have widely highlighted the clear interest that Lucas had in the use and reception of art, with three aspects regarding his understanding of images that have been studied so far in the scholarly literature: (1) the type of veneration that can be rendered to religious artworks (Gilbert 1985; Boto Varela 2009); (2) his censorship of certain iconographic solutions (Gilbert 1985; Moralejo Álvarez 1994; Binski 2003; Carreño López 2019; Henriet 2020); and (3) his argument about the functions of sacred images (Gilbert 1985; Moralejo Álvarez 1994; Henriet 2020). These two last issues will be the centre of my argument since they constitute crucial evidence to approach the role of sight and visual perception in the rationale of this Iberian bishop.

3. Visual Threats

Lucas composed DAV as a statement rejecting heresy, showing his concerns about the alleged existence of Cathars in León, from where he would have written this book.17 In his treatise, the Tudense associates the origin of the abovementioned innovations in the Crucifixion with this spiritual divergency.18 Previous literature on this subject has underlined how Lucas shows in his works a great concern about how the heretics and the painters can create blasphemous images (Gilbert 1985).19 Throughout Lucas’s works, the author reflects on his fear of the visual misleading of the faithful and how they can be confused by looking at representations that deviate from the norm. This last idea is evident in Lucas’s explanation of how the Albigensians used artworks to shake the authority of the Church, asserting that they would recur to images to try to mislead the faithful, fundamentally by introducing new features in the depictions and hence leading to the veneration of false symbols (Gilbert 1985, p. 128): “Another means used by heretics to deceive the people are paintings… They paint most distorted pictures of the saints. As a mockery and insult to the Cross they represent the crucified Christ with one foot above the other and pierced by one nail” (Camille 1989, p. 211).20
However, the Albigensians would not have been the creators of the three-nailed crucifix; in fact, there are earlier references to the three nails tradition, demonstrating that it was known across Europe before the twelfth century and the rise of Catharism (Cames 1966, p. 189; Munns 2016, p. 175). Most likely, Lucas blaming them was his way of condemning the innovations in this iconography by connecting the new crucifix with a heterodox movement that was a threat and a grave concern to the Church. Thus, Lucas uses this connection as a strategy to increase the sense of danger associated with these depictions. Schapiro already stated, when dealing with this rejection of the three nails as Albigensian, that it was “much like those who criticise Expressionist painting as Kulturbolschewismus [Cultural Bolshevism]” (Schapiro 1939, p. 331), a term used in Nazi Germany to attack modern artistic manifestations, which were considered to be revolutionary divergences that went against traditional authority.
Lucas’s text can be understood as an example of the rejection of a particular clerical orthodoxy against visual updates, as they were aware of the power that images commanded. Moreover, for them, symbols and images had to be recognisable to properly function, hence being under strict regulation and careful control, avoiding changes that could lead to idolatry (Camille 1989, pp. 211–24; Binski 2003, p. 348). Lucas’s work shows a constant concern about the visual perception and the reception of images, which are understood as a means to internalise precepts and dogmas by the faithful. The bishop himself states that the purpose of his writing is “to spread the knowledge … among the faithful”, an issue mentioned several times in his work. In this regard, Bynum stresses that during the late-medieval period, it was precisely the materialisation of piety and devotion that created problems and debates both outside and within the Church, since “Holy matter was (…) both radical threat and radical opportunity” (Bynum 2011, p. 20). Thus, it is not surprising that in these centuries of visual and material outbursts, along with the promoters of the new objects and visual trends we can find some individuals who ardently opposed them.
For the Tudense the crucifix was not the only problematic (and threatening) representation; there are three iconographic formulas that he censured: (1) the already-mentioned the three-nailed crucifix; (2) the profile representation of the Virgin “with only one eye”; and (3) the anthropomorphic Trinity. In this latter case, when talking about the anthropomorphic representation of the Holy Trinity, he claims that this portrayal “will compel simple people to believe in three Gods of a single will” (Gilbert 1985, p. 136) (Figure 7).21 Thus, as previously argued, Lucas recognises the power of images, their role in visual access to the understanding of dogmas, and how their misuse can be harmful. However, he is also aware of how changing the representation of a central symbol such as the crucifix can be dangerous. He understands how religious images are visual referents to theological thoughts, not just products but also active agents in the discourse, playing an effective role in the exploration of theological ideas, as well as an active part as instruments of salvation (McGinn 2006).
However, changes in images existed because the institutional Church accepted them, despite figures such as Lucas who openly opposed the assimilation of the new models. In fact, several innovations in medieval visual culture have been understood as clerical reactions against heretical or divergent movements. For instance, the promotion of the historical representation of the Crucifixion in the Quinisext Council of Constantinople (692), which established that Christ’s sacrifice should be represented not symbolically (e.g., the Mystical Lamb) but through his human form, has been understood as a reaction against the development of Monophysitism in Byzantium, which downplayed the human nature of Christ. Later, at the end of the eighth century, the image of the dead Christ on the cross started to be developed in environments where conceptualizations established by the Schools of Metz and Rheims were adopted, a novelty that has been linked to the conflict provoked by the Adoptionist movement, which denied Christ’s divine nature. Thus, following these theories, the Crucifixion, and the visual emphasis on Christ’s humanity through his death on the cross, were used as responses against the movements that rejected Christian orthodox belief. This image became the place of convergence of the different positions within the controversies over the definition of the natures of Christ (Schiller [1966] 1972, pp. 96–98; Belting [1990] 2009, p. 162). In the case of the Albigensians, Prehn (1968, pp. 1–3, 17–36) proposed precisely that the changes that were taking place in sacred art at the time, which established a more direct relationship with the faithful, were a means used to argue against the heretical doctrines of the Cathars.22
The visual innovations that were taking place during the thirteenth century would have been promoted by the Church itself so that its messages were adapted to the systemic changes in society, updating sacred art to meet the new spiritual and devotional needs. In fact, Lucas refers to the renewal of visual dynamics to avoid boredom (“nouitate in consuetudinibus succedente, fastidium releuetur”) (see footnote 32). In this regard, preachers of this period were highly concerned with indifference, which they found as dangerous as heresy (Lipton 2005, p. 1199).23 Bearing this in mind, Lucas’s text may reflect a division within the Church regarding both the appearance and the functions of images. In this way, the text would not capture a polarity between Albigensians and ecclesiastical authority, but rather differences within the institution itself with sides promoting and following different aesthetic paths. In this respect, Gilbert (1985, p. 148) already referred to a similar dichotomy when dealing with Lucas’s text, dividing them into “the strict and the mainstream church”. If so, Lucas would be identifying the innovations as heretical to defend the orthodox side in the face of this possible debate within the Church. The institutional Church would need to control the modifications on religious imagery—especially when it comes to its central iconographies—since deviation from visual orthodoxy would imply the Church’s loss of hegemony over the visual access to the sacred (Camille 1989, p. 211). In fact, Lucas insists on his defence of tradition throughout the whole chapter devoted to the number of nails, in a spirited defence of the papacy and the immutable traditions of the Roman Church.

4. Visual Efficacy

In DAV, Lucas also includes a brief treatise on the purpose of figurative decoration in churches (Book II, Chapters XX–XXI). He proposes four functions that would justify the presence of images: the defence of the faithful (fidelium defensionem), teaching (doctrinam), encouragement of good examples (imitationem), and decoration (decorem).24 These four arguments are a derivation of the justifications for the use of sacred art that were established by Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604), to which Lucas himself directly refers in Book II, Chapter XXI (Boto Varela 2009, p. 42; Henriet 2020, p. 67).25
Throughout the Middle Ages, the justifications for the presence of artworks in churches derived fundamentally from the argumentation defined by Gregory the Great in his correspondence with bishop Serenus of Marseilles and the anchorite Secundinus (d. 600).26 In these letters, Gregory justifies the use of images because they are effective tools through which sacred stories are visually transmitted, since through their visualisation they could be fixed in the memory of people. His main suggestion was that images were the “Bible for the illiterate”, understanding that images would be a suitable medium of communication to transmit the message to those who could not read.27 These assertions marked the attitude towards images for most of the Middle Ages, finding a continuity in later authors. Even when this argumentation is later supplemented with new purposes, Gregory’s initial assertion will continue to hold (Duggan 2005).
During the thirteenth century, these proposals were implemented with a new function rarely found in earlier authors: the arousal of devotion and the generation of empathetic responses on the beholders. This new purpose for images emerged in a context when ecclesiastics showed a growing interest in the devotees’ engagement, acknowledging the crucial role that sight could have. These new formulations regarding the use of sacred art show a more affective theory of visual practice along with a renewed functionality of objects as the focus of meditation and personal devotion (Camille 1989, p. 206). Parallel to this was the development of the mendicant orders, which grew to be the greatest advocates of bringing religion closer to the people, playing a decisive part in this visual renovation. They radically changed the dynamics of previous monastic life in favour of direct contact with the urban reality, where they carried out their famous mass preachings (Derbes 1996; Cannon 2013).
Following two of the greatest theologians of this century, the Franciscan Bonaventure (d. 1274) and the Dominican Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), images had three primary purposes: to instruct the unlettered, to fix in the memory the examples of the saints and the mysteries of the Incarnation, and to stimulate the feeling of devotion. Regarding this latter aspect, Bonaventure, in his commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, asserts that religious images “are introduced also by the lulling of the feelings [affectus tarditatem], that is, so that those who are not stimulated to devotion [excitantur ad devotionem] by the things Christ did for us when they hear of them [aure percipient], may be excited when they notice the same things in statues and pictures [figuris et picturis], as if they were made present to the eyes of the body [praesentia oculis corporeis cernunt]. Our feeling is more excited by the things we see than by the things we hear [excitatur affectus noster per ea quae videt, quam per ea quae audit] (…) for things that are only heard fade away more easily than those that are seen”.28 For his part, Thomas Aquinas, also starting from the Sentences of Peter Lombard, states that images are used “to excite the feeling of devotion [excitandum devotionis affectum], which are more effectively aroused by things seen than by things heard [visis efficacius incitatur quam ex auditis]”.29 In these passages, both Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas refer—as other contemporaries would do—to the idea that a person is more successfully moved through sight than through hearing, an idea with a long history that already appeared in Horace’s Ars poetica (c.19 BCE). In fact, both in Antiquity and during the Middle Ages, the senses were ranked in a hierarchy where sight and hearing were the higher and more intellectual senses (Bagnoli 2016; Beaven 2020, p. 155). These arguments confirm the potential of sight to create an impact on the viewers and by doing so to fix concepts in their memory (Hahn 2006), a new function of visual reception that can be easily connected with the images that were being developed at the time.30
However, Lucas does not refer to this idea when presenting his arguments about sacred art, not including any reference to devotion or the empathetic agency of images, even if he is writing just a couple of decades before those other theologians just mentioned. Lucas’s proposal may be considered more conservative or traditional, anchored in the precepts seen in authors from the previous centuries, possibly derived from a perspective that sees the appeal to the senses as too close to idolatry (Camille 1989, p. 206). Nevertheless, even if he maintains this traditional position when presenting image functions in De imaginibus (Book II, Chapter XX), he comes near to his contemporaries in other parts of his book.
Firstly, he states that “therefore we should worship sacred images as the holy scriptures, because when they are contemplated, they stimulate holy devotion and teach the doctrine of salvation to believers”.31 Moreover, when speaking of images of the saints, he asserts that “these images should be made with subtle fitting, so that they represent the beauty of honesty to the beholder and inspire the devotion of piety [deuotionem excitant pietatis]”.32 These quotes demonstrate that Lucas recognised the image’s ability to impact the beholders and arouse their devotion, but he only does so when speaking about other sacred depictions (e.g., saints), but not about those of Christ.
If we circle back to Chapter XI, when he talks about the recent changes taking place in the Crucifixion, Lucas alludes to the risks of using visual art to arouse devotion when it comes to the figuration of Christ. This author states that, at the time, there were people who considered that sacred images could be changed to increase devotion by visually presenting depictions of the Passion of Christ that showed a greater intensity of His suffering. For him, those other people “want the customs of the church to be changed so that the devotion of the people be aroused [populi deuotio excitetur] before the greater bitterness of the Passion of Christ [maiori acerbitate passionis], and, after the renewal of the customs, boredom may be avoided”.33 Lucas refers in this passage—as he did in the other ones mentioned above—to the new function given to artworks during the late Middle Ages: the stimulation of devotion, but he does so by rejecting it for the figurations of Christ.
Thus, when discussing the variations in the Crucifixion iconography, this Iberian bishop recognises the power of images to affect the faithful and generate an empathetic response in them. He does so by alluding to specific solutions that visually convey a higher sense of pain and suffering, hence recognising the introduction of innovations in the visual production with an expressive purpose that intentionally sought to achieve a greater impact on viewers. It is clear that he rejected the visual and stylistic modification of sacred images for these purposes, as he was aware that changing the image of a central symbol, such as the crucifix, to seek a greater impact on the viewer could be dangerous. However, this proves that the appearance of an object might impact the beholder’s response in different ways, in the case of late-medieval sacred art, triggering an empathetic response and affecting the viewers more effectively, that is to say, creating a higher emotional bond between them and the image they gazed at.
There are other medieval accounts that indicate how the new Crucifixion type would have been received, showing how its emphasis on the suffering body of Christ could discomfort some unaccustomed viewers. In this respect, the thirteenth-century Meditation from the Belgian charterhouse of Diest, signals the intensity of the visual responses that could be felt before a crucifix, showing that devotees could still be shocked and distressed by the appearance of the portrayal of the dying Jesus (Lipton 2005, pp. 1185–86). In a similar way, in thirteenth-century Italy, the Franciscan tertiary Angela of Foligno (1248–1309) was so strongly affected when gazing at Passion imagery that in her Memorial it is recorded that she even became physically ill: “whenever I saw the Passion of Christ depicted in art, I could not beat it; a fever would overtake me and I would become sick” (Lunghi 2000, pp. 13–38; Warr 2007, p. 218). As happens with Lucas, the intensified pathos on the Passion imagery could lead to an unsettling feeling on the faithful, reflecting on the effectivity of the new images. These episodes are proof of the somatic responses that the visual perception of an artwork could trigger in viewers, and how the act of looking was already associated in the Middle Ages with physical effects on the devotee in a complex interaction between visuality and image (Warr 2007, p. 226).34
It must be considered that Lucas, and the other above-mentioned theologians, wrote in a context when so-called affective piety was being developed.35 This renewed form of piety promoted meditation on and mental re-enactment of Christ’s torments, for which a variety of objects were often employed as triggers during these Passion meditations. In fact, during the late Middle Ages the widespread meditative practices that encouraged the mental re-enactment of sacred events—as can be seen in the large devotional literature of the time—prompted the proliferation of Passion imagery intended for this purpose, as a means to internalise the events. Images were crucial tools during the first stages of these meditations, since through the trigger of empathetic reactions on the viewers they would imprint on their memory the images that they could then visualise in their mind (Murat 2022 forthcoming).
Lucas also refers in his text (Book II, Chapter XX) to how sensorial inputs would move the inner senses towards the divine realm. He asserts—almost certainly influenced by Abbot Suger’s ideas on Church decoration—that: “for the house of God ought to shine with various ornaments, so that its exterior beauty (…) raises their mind [of the devotees] to the seeking of heavenly beauty by representing the beauty of the heavenly land”.36 He then claims that “the outward beauty of the house, while it soothes the eyes from the outside, sometimes draws the inner self to the Lord”.37 Lucas—and his contemporaries—show the distinction between corporeal and spiritual vision, and how things perceived with the eyes of the body could be transferred to the eyes of the mind, in a progression from corporeal to spiritual vision. Medieval theologians—such as Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Suger, Hugh of Saint-Victor, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, among others—maintained that visual perception has an initiatory role in the process of internalising ideas, ascending from sight, through imagination, to finally reach the intellect or understanding (Biernoff 2002; Warr 2007, pp. 218–19; Williamson 2013, pp. 21–31). This process, that starts from a sensory stimulus triggered by the physical and visual perception of objects, would lead the devotee through a series of successive stages of abstraction that seeks the final interiorisation of knowledge. Thus, knowledge would originate in a sensory input, which the intellect then digests through cognitive processes which involve abstraction and imagination (Murat 2022 forthcoming).38

5. Conclusions

Society was changing rapidly in Western Europe during the first half of the thirteenth century, with the development of new devotional practices and visual trends. This paper has investigated the reaction of clerical orthodoxy to the innovations that were taking place within the visual realm during this liminal period, focusing specifically on the image of the Crucifixion, and by doing so it has shown how variations in iconography were noted and commented upon. By examining the conservative claims regarding religious figurations that the Iberian bishop Lucas Tudense displays in his anti-heretical treatise De altera uita, it has reflected on the complex relationship between devotion and images within late-medieval spirituality. In fact, reactions to and interactions with religious images were not always well received by the ecclesiastical authorities, and sometimes changes in their aesthetic were perceived as dangerous visual threats that could have a negative effect on the viewers, especially within the context of the religious controversies of the 13th century.
The debates which erupted regarding changes to sacred art during this century emphasise the central role that sight and visuality had within the religious experience. Sculptures, paintings, miniatures, and other kinds of visual materialisations, all were valid and crucial tools to access the divine, mediating the relationship between the faithful and God. Sacred art and its visualization, especially during the late-medieval centuries, was also expected to have an empathetic impact on the viewers in order to stimulate their devotion. Sight, therefore, had a central role within the religious life of people, with sensory stimuli at the basis of a complex cognitive process that would fixate imagery within the faithful’s minds.

Funding

This scientific publication is part of a project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant agreement No. 950248). The project, entitled “The Sensuous Appeal of the Holy. Sensory Agency of Sacred Art and Somatised Spiritual Experiences in Medieval Europe (12th–15th century)-SenSArt” (PI Prof. Zuleika Murat) is being carried out at the Department of Cultural Heritage of the University of Padua in 2021–2026.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

I thank Zuleika Murat, Valentina Baradel, and Micol Long for their comments on the manuscript. I would also like to show my gratitude to my two anonymous reviewers and the editor of this issue for their insights and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Notes

1
During the thirteenth century, based on Aristotelian empiricism, a new debate arose about the body and the material world, which came to be considered a valid means of access to knowledge. Consequently, this debate impacted images because they came to be regarded as a path of access to the sacred, but also because the representation of the body and physical suffering underwent a series of variations in their treatment (Mowbray 2009, pp. 13–14).
2
Different dates have been proposed for its composition: 1227–1239 (Gilbert 1985); 1235–1236/7 (Henriet 2001; Falque Rey 2009b); 1233–1235 (Falque Rey 2011). The title and division into three books belong to the first edition of the book by Juan de Mariana (1609). No medieval manuscript of this text survives, and there is only a sixteenth-century manuscript preserved at the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid: Lucas. Obispo de Tui: Adversus Albigenses sui temporis haereticos disputatio tribus distinta libris (BN 4172). The manuscript comes from the Dominican Library of Plasencia and has marginal comments by Mariana. See Falque Rey (2009a), pp. xliii–liii. Regarding the author, Lucas’s origins are unclear. It was believed that he was from León since he referred to it as “nostra ciuitate”, but other theories have been proposed placing him in Italy or France (Linehan 2001, pp. 201–7; Linehan 2002, p. 23). Regarding his presence in Tui, it is not documented until 1242 (Linehan 2002, p. 30).
3
Lucas’s text has been largely referred to within scholarly literature, especially regarding its anti-heretical overtone and its concern with the use of religious images. See (Coulton 1923; Schapiro 1939; Moralejo Álvarez 1994; Gilbert 1985; Falque Rey 2011; Boto Varela 2009; Carreño López 2019; Henriet 2020). Along with the chapters devoted to religious images, the treatise also deals with other significant issues, fundamentally focused on the afterlife and heresy. The first book deals with eschatological content, e.g., the relationship between the living and the dead, the punishments, and the rewards. The second book is composed of several independent treatises in which the author reflects on subjects such as the sacraments and sacramentals, the lifestyle of the clergy, and the Cathar movement. Finally, the third book focuses mainly on heresy and the tactics used by the spiritual dissidents (Falque Rey 2009a, p. xv).
4
The Tudense’s testimony offers an exceptional piece of evidence regarding image rejection. Some images, especially the Trinity, were often subjects of debate or censorship—as will be mentioned later in this work–, but for the case of the Crucifixion, we cannot find another source as the one under examination. In this regard, I would like to thank one of the reviewers of this article, who has highlighted the originality of Lucas’s approach by searching in the databases Corpus Corporum and the Library of Latin Texts for the expression quat* clav*, confirming that Lucas’s focus on the four nails is certainly novel.
5
It was initially considered that the beginning of this variation occurred around the year 1250; however, the three nails are already adopted in some artworks from the previous century. Thus, this scheme’s origins are dated—for the medieval West—to the middle of the twelfth century (Cames 1966, p. 186).
6
See The Arma Christi in Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture (Cooper and Denny-Brown 2014).
7
The thirteenth century saw the development of theological debates centred on the suffering associated with Christ’s humanity, reflecting on the degree of affliction that Christ would have undergone during his Passion. These ideas surrounding pain helped contemporary theologians emphasise that Christ was indeed a human being. (Mowbray 2009, pp. 31–41), see also (Bynum 1995).
8
This coexistence of the two types has led to cases with the display of the two variants within the same work. The most common scenario is finding the four nails in the Crucifixion, while only three appear in the depiction of the Arma Christi, as can be seen in the Verdun Altar (1181, Klosterneuburg Abbey) or the Ingeborg Psalter (ca. 1195, Ms. 9 Olim 1695, Musée Condé de Chantilly). A similar case can be found in the Landgrave Psalter (1211–1213, HB II 24, Württembergische Landesbibliothek), where on the Crucifixion the author used three nails, while the Trinity as the Throne of Grace depicted four.
9
There is a total absence of references to the nails in the Crucifixion episode described in the Gospels. Their use is, however, deduced from other parts of the Bible, such as the foreshadowing in Psalm 21 (16–17) or the episode of the Incredulity of Thomas in the Gospel of John (20, 27). As for the causes that led to this change in the central image of Christianity, these remain uncertain. A synthesis of the different hypotheses is provided by Cames (1966), who suggests that perhaps the three-nailed crucifix was introduced into the West after the Second Crusade (1147). In this regard, the Crusades marked the arrival to Western Europe of both Passion relics and Byzantine artworks, and thus the spread of Passion devotions and the assimilation of Eastern visual codes.
10
See the Crucifixion of the Muiredach Cross of Monasterboice (tenth century, Co. Louth, Ireland) (Figure 6) or that of the Lorsch Sacramentary (tenth century, Musée Condé of Chantilly).
11
Good examples are the altar cross of abbess Mathilde in Essen (973–982, Münsterschatzmus, Germany), the crucifix of Hermann and Ida in Cologne (ca. 1050, Kolumba Museum), and the Monmouth Processional Cross (twelfth century, National Museum of Wales).
12
For the papal refutation see Innocent III, Sermon IV, (‘Common of One Martyr’, Patrologia Latina 217: 612). Lucas alludes to the words of Innocent III in his text: “There were four nails in the Passion of the Lord with which the hands and feet were pierced (…) Two feet and two hands, so four nails must be used by the Christian” (“Fuerunt (…) in passione Domini quatuor claui, quibus manus affixae sunt et pedes affixi (…) Duos pedes et duas manus, quatuor clauis debet configere Christianus”). DAV, CC CM 74A, II, 11, 14–17. Hereafter I will use this abbreviation to quote DAV from the Corpus Christianorum edition of Falque Rey (2009a).
13
“Quoniam de clauorum numero, qui fixi fuerunt in corpore Dominico, contentio uertitur inter plures” (DAV, CC CM 74A, II, 11, 4–5). DAV is the only text with references to this issue. Precisely because of its exceptional nature, it is difficult (or impossible) to draw a more widely or generally applicable conclusion. In any case—and being aware of the speculative nature of this hypothesis—, it is plausible that the variation in the image of the crucified Christ aroused some debate since for the medieval visual system, characterised by highly encoded images, this would be a significant change which entails a high level of renewal on this iconography. Besides, it was being applied to the representation of one of the central dogmas of the Christian faith: the sacrifice of Christ on the cross to save mankind and offer them the possibility of eternal salvation.
14
It is common to find references to image theory or arguments about representation in discourses against heretical movements. Several changes in the depiction of religious episodes have been understood as responses to tenets advocated by these spiritual dissenters. A well-known case is the Canon 82 of the Quinisext Council of Constantinople (691–692), in which was established that “in the future, the figure of the Lamb of God, the Saviour … should be replaced in pictures by the image of Christ in His humanity; for Grace and Truth are to be preferred to figures and shadows, typology and symbolism”. This canon was understood as a reaction against heretical movements of the time that rejected Christ’s humanity (Ladner 1953, p. 19).
15
“Haec contra illos qui dicunt crucem Dominicam tria brachia solummodo habuisse” (DAV, CC CM 74A, II, 10, 109–110). The Castilian ecclesiastic Diego García de Campos also debated in his work Planeta (1218) on the shape of the cross, showing another example of the reactions generated by the changes in images (Palacios Martín 1982, p. 227).
16
An excellent example of a polemic regarding innovations on the shape of the cross is the Conyhope Cross case (Heslop 1987; Binski 2003). These events took place at a parish church in London, where, following the Annales Londinenses, in the year 1305, “a certain terrifying cross [Crux horribilis] was taken to the chapel of Conyhope, and on the following day called Good Friday was adored by many [adorabatur a multis]” (Heslop 1987, p. 26; Binski 2003, p. 343). The crucifix was referred to as “incorrectly made” since it did not represent the “true shape” of the cross as it did not have a patibulum, being interpreted as an arbitrary invention but not the proper shape of the cross. Berliner (1945, pp. 263–88) deduced that it would have been a crucifix following the German typology of the Gabelkreuz, already familiar in Germany and Italy but not in other territories. In fact, the Conyhope cross was made by a German sculptor called Thydemann (Camille 1989, p. 212).
17
The scholarly community has widely discussed the existence of Cathars in León, with some authors arguing that Lucas was calling Cathars what would have been lay “rioters and troublemakers” (Fernández Conde 2005, p. 411). Concerning the geo-cultural focus of DAV, Martínez Casado (1983) and Falque Rey have already pointed out how this treatise does not show a local perspective, including just a few references to León, for example, mentioning the arrival to this city of a French heretic named Arnaldo, who forged opuscules of the Holy Fathers (Falque Rey 2009a, p. xviii). However, these local-based stories are narrated along with other cases from beyond the Pyrenees. It is worth noting the broad knowledge that Lucas has of the reality of his time, resulting from his several travels through Europe, which allowed him to get in contact with some of the most important centres and thinkers of his time, for example, his visits to Rome and Paris—especially to Saint-Denis–, and his contact with the Franciscan Elias of Cortona, who from 1221 was Vicar General of the Order of Friars Minor. His sources for DAV also show his great acquaintance with Western European theology, finding references to authors such as Gregory the Great, Augustine of Hippo, Saint Jerome, Isidore of Seville, Pope Innocent III, and Thomas of Celano. This makes Lucas Tudense a figure whose thinking can be set against the broad framework of Western Christianity, as previously highlighted by Henriet (2020, p. 67). Nevertheless, even if Lucas’s ideas can be studied from a global perspective—that of Western Christianity—his thinking would have had a local-based impact on artistic production. In this regard, Moralejo Álvarez (1994, p. 341) already emphasised how in León, there are no anthropomorphic Trinities and how the funerary series of León Cathedral has avoided the use of the three-nails Crucifixion, even when this was already the generalised model.
18
For an overview of the previous studies that have dealt with the heretical link, (see Henriet 2020, pp. 68–71). The Albigensians were dualists, so they condemned the material world, considering it evil. In this sense, they rejected the sacraments, the resurrection of the flesh, and the humanity of Christ. A revealing reference in this regard appears in the Historia Albigensium (ca. 1215–1218), where there is a reflection on their rejection of the host and the Eucharist, asserting that the host does not differ from lay bread and that Christ’s body would not be big enough so that it would have been already consumed by those eating it (Rubin 1991, p. 321). For them, the human body of Christ was never crucified, he never suffered in the flesh, hence they also rejected the veneration of the cross and the crucifix. In Lucas’s defence of the ecclesiastical institution against this dissident movement, he refers to the “divine” authorities and the Roman Church, praising Pope Innocent III whom he refers to as the “persecutor of heretics”. This Pope fiercely opposed the Albigensians, not just in a dialectic way, but promoting the military campaign known as the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229) to eradicate Catharism (Pegg 2008). For an approach to the Cathars, (see Sennis 2016; Shulevitz 2018).
19
In his Chronicon Mundi (c. 1238), when speaking of the Trinity Lucas claims: “(…) haereticus seu pictor desinet per imaginem blasphemiae fabricare” (“The heretic and the painter will cease to fabricate an image of blasphemy”). (Gilbert 1985, p. 151).
20
There are, in fact, accounts of how the Cathars invented miraculous images so that they could later expose them as frauds. Following the Chronicle of Laon (1154–1219), in Braine, in 1204, “Nicolas, the most famous painter in all France”, was burned by order of the Bishop of Rheims after being accused of being a Cathar heretic (Berliner 1945, p. 282; Heslop 1987, pp. 26–33; Camille 1989, p. 212).
21
Similar concerns can be found in other authors, especially regarding the Trinity, which would be the most controversial figuration. Saint Antonino, in fifteenth-century Florence, showed his concerns regarding this image: “Reprehensibiles etiam sunt, quum faciunt Trinitatis imaginem unam personam cum tribus capitibus, quod monstrum est in rerum natura”, along with other iconographies: “vel in Annuntiatione Virginis parvulum puerum formatum, scilicet Jesum, mitti in uterum Virginis, quasi non esset de substantia Virginis eius corpus assumtum; vel parvulum Jesum cum tabula litterarum, quum non didicerit ab homine”. (Gilbert 1959, pp. 80–83; Baradel 2018, p. 187).
22
There are also several studies examining how visual programmes were used to transmit messages against Catharism. (See: Cahn 1987; Goss 1990; Segal 2010).
23
The field of Neurosciences demonstrates how empathy directs visual attention to emotionally salient stimuli, since they elicit immediate neural responses on the brain (Wilkinson et al. 2021). In this sense, it could be understood that depictions of suffering—such as those developed during the thirteenth century—would more successfully call the attention of viewers.
24
“Certain images are painted or carved in the church of Christ for the defence of the faithful, for doctrine, for imitation, and adornment. Some are doctrine, imitation and likewise for adornment, and some are for adornment only. Some are indeed for doctrine, so that in them men may learn to fear to behave sinfully”, translation by Gilbert (1985, p. 136). “Depinguntur uel sculpuntur imagines in ecclesia Christi quaedam ad fidelium defensionem, doctrinam, imitationem et decorem. Quaedam similiter ad doctrinam, imitationem et decorem, et quaedam ad decorem tantum, quaedam etiam ad doctrinam, ut in eis timere praue agere discat homo” (DAV, CC CM 74A, II, 20, 7–11). Regarding “decorem”, Moralejo Álvarez refutes Gilbert, for whom it would just imply mere decoration, while Moralejo Álvarez understands it as a synonym for “honour and decorous” (Moralejo Álvarez 1994, p. 345).
25
Falque Rey already stressed the importance of Gregory the Great for the work of Lucas, finding several references to this Pope throughout the book (Falque Rey 2009a, pp. xxii–xxvii).
26
Several scholars have studied these letters. (See Jones 1977; Peterson 1984; Kessler 1985; Schmitt 2002; Duggan 2005). Medieval image theory and the justifications given for the existence of religious images is a more complex subject widely studied by other scholars. For a broader analysis see e.g.,: (Ladner 1953; Kitzinger 1954; Camille 1989; Duggan 2005; Freedberg 1989; Belting [1990] 2009; Schmitt 2002).
27
This Pope asserted in these letters: “Pictures are used in churches so that those who are ignorant of letters may at least read by seeing on the walls what they cannot read in books” (“Idcirco enim pictura in ecclesiis adhibetur, ut hi qui litteras nesciunt saltem in parietibus uidendo legant, quae legere in codicibus non ualent”); and “What writing does for the literate, a picture does for the illiterate looking at it, because the ignorant see in it what they ought to do; those who do not know letters read in it. Thus, especially for the nations, a picture takes the place of reading… Therefore, you ought not to have broken that which was place in the church in order not to be adored but solely in order to instruct the minds of the ignorant” (“Nam quod legentibus scriptura, hoc idiotis praestat pictura cernentibus, quia in ipsa ignorantes uident quod debeant, in ipsa legunt qui litteraas nesciunt; unde praecipua gentibus pro lectione pictura est… Frangi ergo non debuit quod non ad adorandum in ecclesiis sed ad instruendas solummodo mentes fuit nescientium collacatum”). Translations by Duggan (2005, p. 63).
28
“In fact, the images were introduced for a threefold reason, namely, for the ignorance of humble people, so that those who cannot read the Scriptures may read the sacraments of our faith in sculptures and paintings, as one would do more manifestly in writings. They are introduced also by the lulling of the feelings, that is, so that those who are not stimulated to devotion by the things Christ did for us when they hear of them, may be excited when they notice the same things in statues and pictures, as if they were made present to the eyes of the body. Our feeling is more excited by the things we see than by the things we hear (…) because of the unreliability of memory, for things that are only heard fade away more easily than those that are seen (…) Therefore it has been established by the grace of God that images appear especially in churches, so that, on seeing them, we will be reminded of the benefits that have been granted to us and of the worthy works of the saints”, translation by Hamburger (2006, p. 15). “Dicendum, quod imaginum introductio in Ecclesia non fuit absque rationabili causa. Introductae enim fuerunt propter triplicem causam, videlicet propter simplicium ruditatem, propter affectuum tarditatem et propter memoriae labilitatem.—Propter simplicium ruditatem inventae sunt, ut simplices, qui non possunt scripturas legere, in huiusmodi sculpturis et picturis tanquam in scripturis apertius possint sacramenta nostrae fidei legere.—Propter affectus tarditatem similiter introductae sunt, videlicet ut homines, qui non excitantur ad devotionem in his quae pro nobis Christus gessit, dum illa aure percipiunt, saltem exitentur, dum eadem in figuris et picturis tanquam praesentia oculis corporeis cernunt. Plus enim excitatur affectus noster per ea quae videt, quam per ea quae audit. Unde Horatios: ‘Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem, quam quae sunt oculis subiecta fidelibus, et quae Ipse sibi tradit spectator”.—Propter memoriae libilitatem, quia ea quae audiuntur solum, facilius traduntur oblivioni, quam ae quae videntur. Frequenter enim verificatur in multis illud quod consuevit dici: verbum intrat per unam aurem et exit per aliam. Praeterea, non semper est praesto qui beneficia nobis praestita ad memoriam reducat per verba. Ideo dispensatone Dei factum est, ut imagines fierent praecipue in ecclesiis, ut videntes eas recordemur de beneficiis nobis impensis et Sanctourm operibus virtuosis” (Bonaventura, III, IX, 1.2, p. 203).
29
“There were three reasons for the institution of images in the churches. First, for the instruction of the simple people, because they are instructed by them as by books. Secondly, the mystery of the Incarnation and the examples of the saints might be more active in our memory by being daily represented to our eyes. Thirdly, to excite the sentiments of devotion, which are more effectively aroused by things seen than by things heard” (“Fuit autem triplex ratio institutionis imaginum in Ecclesia. Primo ad instructionem rudium, qui eis quasi quibusdam libris docentur. Secundo ut incarnationis mysterium et sanctorum exempla magis in memoria essent, dum quotidie oculis reprœsentatur. Tertio ad excitandum devotionis affectum qui ex visis efficacius incitatur quam ex auditis”). (Thomas Aquinas, III Sententiarum, lib. III dist. 9, q. 1, art. 2, q. 2).
30
On medieval memory, (see Carruthers 1990).
31
“Adorare igitur debemus sicut diuinam Scripturam imagines sacras, quae aspicientibus sanctam deuotionem excitant et doctrinam edocent salutarem credentes” (DAV, CC CM 74A, II, 21, 189–191).
32
“Hae imagines subtili debent fieri congruitate, ut pulchritudinem honestatis aspicientibus repraesentent et deuotionem excitent pietatis” (DAV, CC CM 74A, II, 20, 27–29).
33
“But someone may say: ‘In this respect, we affirm that the Lord was crucified with a single nail with one foot on the other, and we want the customs of the church to be changed so that the devotion of the people be aroused before the greater bitterness of the Passion of Christ, and, after the renewal of the customs, boredom may be avoided. For these things do not concern the substance of the sacraments or the articles of faith, and they may vary from day to day according to the taste of each one. It is sufficient for salvation to believe that Christ was crucified, and it is indifferent to consider that he was hung on a four-armed or three-armed cross, that he was nailed with four or three nails and that his right or left side was pierced with a lance’” (“Sed dicit aliquis: ‘Ad hoc uno pede super alio uno clauo Dominum dicimus crucifixum et consuetudines Ecclesiae uolumus immutari, ut maiori acerbitate passionis Christi populi deuotio excitetur et, nouitate in consuetudinibus succedente, fastidium releuetur. Non enim sunt ista de sacramentorum substantia uel articulorum fidei et possunt quotidie ad libitum uariari. Sufficit ad salutem Christum credere crucifixum et pro indifferenti habere in cruce illum quatuor uel trium brachiorum fuisse positum, quatuor uel tribus clauis confixum et dextrum uel sinistrum latus eius lancea uulneratum. Etiam aliqua fingenda sunt pro loco et tempore, quamuis uera non sint, ut Christi nominis gloria diletatur’”) (DAV, CC CM 74A, II, 11, 147–157). For the translation of this passage, I relied both on the Latin edition and the Spanish translation of Falque Rey (2011).
34
These theories postulated by medieval authors can be studied nowadays with new tools developed in other disciplines that approach the functioning of the human brain, such as Neuroscience or Psychology. Regarding corporal sensations triggered through visual perception, it has been established that both emotional and cognitive responses can lead to feeling visceral responses, since they are represented in the somatosensory cortex (Zaidel 2005, p. 172). In this sense, empathetic responses can be understood as both haptic and optic since visual stimuli are experienced with the eyes, but also with other body parts, especially common in the case of skin reactions and muscle sensations.
35
“Affective piety” is a form of spirituality that from the twelfth century onwards gave a greater emphasis to the inner emotions and the devotion to the humanity of Christ. (Bartlett and Bestul 1999; Megna 2020).
36
“Debet namque domus Dei cultu uario resplendere, ut ipsa eius exterior pulcritudo homines ad se ducat et taedium non inferat assistentibus, mentem subleuet ad coelestia expetanda pulcritudine sua decorem coelestis patriae repraesentans”. (DAV, CC CM 74A, II, 20, 29–32).
37
“Domus Dei exterior pulcritudo dum oculos de foris mulcet, nonnunquam interiorem ad Dominum trahit” (DAV, CC CM 74A, II, 20, 33–34).
38
On medieval theories of cognition, and of how cognitive processes were thought to operate, (see Karnes 2011).

References

  1. Primary Sources

    Bonaventure. Doctoris seraphici S. Bonaventurae opera omnia, III: Commentaria in quatuor libros sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi. Rome: Quarrachi. 1887 edition. Available online: https://archive.org/details/doctorisseraphic03bona/page/204/mode/2up?view=theater (accessed on 21 March 2022).
    Falque Rey, Emma, ed. 2009a. Lucae Tudensis. De altera uita. Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Medievalis, 74A. Turnhout: Brepols.
    Thomas Aquinas, III Sententiarum. Centre Traditio Litterarum Occidentalium, CETEDOC, and Brepols (Firm). 2000. Library of Latin Text, Series A. Series A. Turnhout: Brepols. Available online: http://clt.brepolis.net/LLTA/ (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  2. Secondary Sources

  3. Bagnoli, Martina. 2016. Making Sense. In A Feast for the Senses: Art and Experience in Medieval Europe. Edited by Martina Bagnoli. Baltimore: The Walters Art Museum, pp. 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baradel, Valentina. 2018. Immagini per "mouver divozione" a Venezia all’inizio del Quattrocento. In Pregare in casa. Oggetti e documenti della pratica religiosa tra Medioevo e Rinascimento. Edited by Giovanna Baldissin Molli, Cristina Guarnieri and Zuleika Murat. Roma: Viella. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bartlett, Anne Clark, and Thomas H. Bestul. 1999. Introduction. In Cultures of Piety: Medieval English Literature in Translation. Edited by Anne Clark Bartlett and Thomas H. Bestul. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  6. Beaven, Lisa. 2020. Seeing and Feeling. In The Routledge History of Emotions in Europe, 1100–1700. Edited by Susan Broomhall and Andrew Lynch. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 151–68. [Google Scholar]
  7. Belting, Hans. 2009. Imagen y Culto. Una Historia de la Imagen Anterior a la era del Arte. Madrid: Akal. First published 1990. [Google Scholar]
  8. Berliner, Rudolf. 1945. The Freedom of Medieval Art. Gazette des Beaux-Arts 6: 263–88. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bestul, Thomas H. 1996. Texts of the Passion. Latin Devotional Literature and Medieval Society. The Middle Ages Series; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Biernoff, Suzannah. 2002. Sight and Embodiment in the Middle Ages. Series The New Middle Ages; Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  11. Binski, Paul. 2003. The Crucifixion and the Censorship of Art around 1300. In The Medieval World. Edited by Peter Linehan and Janet L. Nelson. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 342–60. [Google Scholar]
  12. Binski, Paul. 2004. Becket’s Crown. Art and Imagination in Gothic England, 1170–1300. Serie Studies in British Art; New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Boto Varela, Gerardo. 2009. Sobre las persuasivas imágenes de culto. Encomios y escrutinios desde la Edad Media hispana. In Imágenes Medievales de culto. Tallas de la Colección ‘El Conventet’. Edited by Gerardo Boto Varela. Murcia: Consejería de Cultura y Turismo de Murcia, pp. 37–43. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bynum, Caroline Walker. 1995. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity: 200–1336. New York: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bynum, Caroline Walker. 2011. Christian Materiality. An Essay on Religion in Late Medieval Europe. New York: Zone Books. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cahn, Walter. 1987. Heresy and Interpretation of Romanesque Art. In Romanesque and Gothic: Essays for George Zarnecki, II. Edited by Neil Stratford. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, pp. 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cames, Gérard. 1966. Recherches sur les origines du crucifix à trois clous. Cahiers archéologiques: Fin de l’Antiquité et Moyen Age 16: 185–202. [Google Scholar]
  18. Camille, Michael. 1989. The Gothic Idol. Ideology and Image-Making in Medieval Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cannon, Joanna. 2013. Religious Poverty, Visual Riches. Art in the Dominican Churches of Central Italy in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Carreño López, Sara. 2019. La imagen escultórica del Crucificado en la Galicia del siglo XIV. Tipos, usos y significados. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  21. Carruthers, Mary J. 1990. The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cooper, Lisa H., and Andrea Denny-Brown, eds. 2014. The Arma Christi in Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture. Farnham: Ashgate. [Google Scholar]
  23. Coulton, George G. 1923. Art and the Reformation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  24. de Francovich, Géza. 1938. L’origine e la diffusione del Crocifisso gotico doloroso. Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 2: 143–261. [Google Scholar]
  25. Derbes, Anne. 1996. Picturing the Passion in Late Medieval Italy. Narrative Painting, Franciscan Ideologies, and the Levant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Duggan, Lawrence G. 2005. Was Art Really the "Book of the Illiterate"? In Reading Images and Texts. Medieval Images and Texts as Forms of Communication. Papers from the Third Utrech Symposium on Medieval Literacy, Utrecht, 7–9 December 2005. Edited by Mariëlle Hageman and Marco Mostret. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 63–107. [Google Scholar]
  27. Falque Rey, Emma. 2009b. De altera uita: Una obra olvidada de Lucas de Tuy. In La filología latina. Mil años más, II. Edited by Pedro Conde Parrado and Isabel Velázquez Soriano. Burgos and Madrid: Fundación Instituto Castellano y Leonés de la Lengua-Sociedad de Estudios Latinos, pp. 959–68. [Google Scholar]
  28. Falque Rey, Emma. 2011. La iconografía de la crucifixión en un tratado escrito en latín en el s. XIII por Lucas de Tuy. Laboratorio de arte. Revista del Departamento de Historia del Arte 23: 19–23. [Google Scholar]
  29. Fernández Conde, Francisco Javier. 2005. La Religiosidad Medieval en España. Plena Edad Media (Siglos XI–XIII). Gijón: Ediciones Trea. [Google Scholar]
  30. Flora, Holly. 2009. The Devout Belief of the Imagination. The Paris ‘Meditationes Vitae Christi’ and Female Franciscan Spirituality in Trecento Italy. Series Disciplina Monastica, 6; Turnhout: Brepols. [Google Scholar]
  31. Franco Mata, Ángela. 2002. Crucifixus dolorosus. Cristo crucificado, el héroe trágico del cristianismo bajomedieval, en el marco de la iconografía pasional, de la liturgia, mística y devociones. Quintana. Revista do Departamento de Historia da Arte 1: 13–39. [Google Scholar]
  32. Freedberg, David. 1989. The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gilbert, Creighton. 1959. The Archbishop on the Painters of Florence, 1450. The Art Bulletin 41: 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gilbert, Creighton. 1985. A Statement of the Aesthetic Attitude around 1230. Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts 13: 125–52. [Google Scholar]
  35. Goss, Vladimir P. 1990. Art and Politics in the High Middle Ages: Heresy, Investiture Contest, Crusade. In Artistes, Artisans, et Production Artistique au Moyen Âge, III: Fabrication et Consummation de L’oeuvre. Edited by Xavier Barral I. Altet. Paris: Picard, pp. 525–45. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hahn, Cynthia. 2006. Vision. In A Companion to Medieval Art. Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe. Edited by Conrad Rudolph. Blackwell Companions in Art History. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 44–64. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hamburger, Jeffrey F. 2006. The Place of Theology in Medieval Art History: Problems, Positions, Possibilities. In The Mind’s Eye. Art and Theological Argument in the Middle Ages. Edited by Jeffrey F. Hamburger and Anne-Marei Bouché. Series Publications of the Department of Art and Archaeology, 25; Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 11–31. [Google Scholar]
  38. Henriet, Patrick. 2001. Sanctissima patria: Points et themes communs aux trois aeuvres de Lucas de Tuy. Cahiers d’Études Hispaniques Médiévales 24: 249–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Henriet, Patrick. 2020. Lucas et les images. Tradition et modernité, monde hispanique et monde extérieur. Codex Aquilarensis 36: 65–90. [Google Scholar]
  40. Heslop, Thomas Alexander. 1987. Attitudes to the Visual Arts: The Evidence from Written Sources. In Age of Chivalry. Art in Plantagenet England 1200–1400. Edited by Jonathan Alexander and Paul Binski. London: Royal Academy of Arts, pp. 26–32. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jones, William R. 1977. Art and Christian Piety: Iconoclasm in Medieval Europe. In The Image and the Word. Confrontations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Edited by Joseph Gutmann. Missoula: Scholars Press for the American Academy of Religion, pp. 75–106. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kalina, Pavel. 2003. Giovanni Pisano, the Dominicans, and the Origins of the ‘crucifixi dolorosi’. Atribus et Historiae 24: 81–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Karnes, Michelle. 2007. Nicholas Love and Medieval Meditations on Christ. Speculum. A Journal of Medieval Studies 82: 380–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Karnes, Michelle. 2011. Imagination, Meditation, and Cognition in the Middle Ages. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kessler, Herbert. 1985. Pictorial Narrative and Church Mission in the Sixth-Century Gaul. Studies in the History of Art 16: 75–91. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kitzinger, Ernst. 1954. The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8: 83–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ladner, Gerhart B. 1953. The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7: 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Linehan, Peter. 2001. Dates and Doubts about D. Lucas. Cahiers d’Études Hispaniques Médiévales 24: 201–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Linehan, Peter. 2002. Fechas y sospechas sobre Lucas de Tuy. Anuario de Estudios Medievales 32: 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lipton, Sarah. 2005. ‘The Sweet Lean of His Head’: Writing about Looking at the Crucifix in the High Middle Ages. Speculum. A Journal of Medieval Studies 80: 1172–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lunghi, Elvio. 2000. La Passione degli Umbri. Crocifissi di legno in Valle Umbra tra Medioevo e Rinascimento. Foligno: Orfini Numeister. [Google Scholar]
  52. Martínez Casado, Ángel. 1983. Cátaros en León. Testimonio de Lucas de Tuy. Archivos Leoneses 74: 263–312. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mazzon, Gabriella. 2018. Pathos in Late-Medieval Religious Drama and Art. A Communicative Strategy. Ludus. Medieval and Early Renaissance Theatre and Drama, 15. Leiden and Boston: Brill-Rodopi. [Google Scholar]
  54. McGinn, Bernard. 2006. Theologians as Trinitarian Iconographers. In The Mind’s Eye. Art and Theological Argument in the Middle Ages. Edited by Jeffrey F. Hamburger and Anne-Marei Bouché. Series Publications of the Department of Art and Archaeology, 25; Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 186–207. [Google Scholar]
  55. McNamer, Sarah. 2009. The Origin of the Meditations Vitae Christi. Speculum. A Journal of Medeival Studies 84: 905–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Megna, Paul. 2020. Dreadful Devotion. In The Routledge History of Emotions in Europe, 1100–1700. Edited by Susan Broomhall and Andrew Lynch. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 72–85. [Google Scholar]
  57. Moralejo Álvarez, Serafín. 1994. D. Lucas de Tuy y la “actitud estética” en el arte medieval. Euphrosyne. Revista de Filología Clássica 22: 341–46. [Google Scholar]
  58. Mowbray, Donald. 2009. Pain and Suffering in Medieval Theology. Academic Debates at the University of Paris in the Thirteenth Century. Woodbridge and Rochester: The Boydell Press. [Google Scholar]
  59. Munns, John. 2016. Cross and Culture in Anglo-Norman England: Theology, Imagery, Devotion. Serie Bristol Studies in Medieval Cultures. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. [Google Scholar]
  60. Murat, Zuleika. 2022. Seeing with the Eyes of the Soul. Pacino di Bonaguida’s Scenes from the Life of Christ and the Life of Blessed Gerard of Villamagna (New York, The Morgan Library & Museum, M.643). Rivista di Storia della Miniatura 26. in press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Newman, Barbara. 2005. What Did I Mean to Say ‘I Saw’? The Clash Between Theory and Practice in Medieval Visionary Culture. Speculum. A Journal of Medieval Studies 80: 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Palacios Martín, Bonifacio. 1982. La circulación de los cátaros por el Camino de Santiago y sus implicaciones socioculturales. Una fuente para su conocimiento. En la España Medieval 3: 219–30. [Google Scholar]
  63. Pegg, Mark G. 2008. A Most Holy War: The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for Christendom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  64. Peterson, Joan M. 1984. The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in their Late Antique Cultural Background. Series Studies and Texts of the Pontifical Institute, 69; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, pp. 189–91. [Google Scholar]
  65. Pickering, Frederick. 1980. The Gothic Image of Christ. The Sources of Medieval Representations of the Crucifixion. In Essays on Medieval German Literature and Iconography. Anglica Germanica Series 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–30. [Google Scholar]
  66. Prehn, Eric T. 1968. Visual Perception in XIII-Century Italian Painting. Rome: Tip Risorgimento. [Google Scholar]
  67. Rubin, Miri. 1991. Corpus Christi. The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  68. Schapiro, Meyer. 1939. From Mozarabic to Romanesque in Silos. The Art Bulletin 21: 313–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schiller, Gertrud. 1972. Iconography of Christian Art. 2 vols. London: Hund Humphries. First published 1966. [Google Scholar]
  70. Schmitt, Jean-Claude. 2002. Le corps des Images. Essais sur la Culture Visuelle au Moyen Âge. Serie Le temps des images; Paris: Gallimard. [Google Scholar]
  71. Segal, Einat. 2010. Sculpted Images from the Eastern Gallery of the Saint-Trophime Cloister in Arles and the Cathar Heresy. In Difference and Identity in Francia and Medieval France. Edited by Meredith Cohen and Justine Firnhaber-Baker. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 43–76. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sennis, Antonio, ed. 2016. Cathars in Question. Series Heresy and Inquisition in the Middle Ages; Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer. [Google Scholar]
  73. Shulevitz, Deborah. 2018. Historiography of Heresy: The Debate over Catharism in medieval Languedoc. History Compass 17: e12513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Thoby, Paul. 1959. Le Crucifix des Origines au Concile de Trente: Étude Iconographique. 2 vols. Nantes: Bellanger. [Google Scholar]
  75. Viladesau, Richard. 2006. The Beauty of the Cross. The Passion of Christ in Theology and the Arts from the Catacombs to the Eve of the Renaissance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  76. Warr, Cordelia. 2007. Re-reading the Relationship between Devotional Images, Visions, and the Body: Clare of Montefalco and Margaret of Città di Castello. Viator 38: 217–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wilkinson, Zane, Róisín Cunningham, and Mark. A. Elliott. 2021. The Influence of Empathy on the Perceptual Response to Visual Art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts; American Psychological Association. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-78152-001 (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  78. Williamson, Beth. 2013. Sensory Experience in Medieval Devotion: Sound and Vision, Invisibility and Silence. Speculum. A Journal of Medieval Studies 88: 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zaidel, Dahlia W. 2005. Neuropsychology of Art: Neurological, Cognitive and Evolutionary Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Crucified Christ, Album de dessins et croquis, Villard de Honnecourt, thirteenth century (Français 19093, fol. 2v). Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits (Paris). (Source: gallica.bnf.fr/BnF: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10509412z/f6.item.zoom) (accessed on 5 May 2022).
Figure 1. Crucified Christ, Album de dessins et croquis, Villard de Honnecourt, thirteenth century (Français 19093, fol. 2v). Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits (Paris). (Source: gallica.bnf.fr/BnF: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10509412z/f6.item.zoom) (accessed on 5 May 2022).
Religions 13 00779 g001
Figure 2. Devotional Booklet, c. 1330–1340. Victoria and Albert Museum (London). (Source: V&A Web, https://collections.vam.ac.uk/) (accessed on 18 July 2022).
Figure 2. Devotional Booklet, c. 1330–1340. Victoria and Albert Museum (London). (Source: V&A Web, https://collections.vam.ac.uk/) (accessed on 18 July 2022).
Religions 13 00779 g002
Figure 3. Majestad de Travesseres, 1200–1250. Museu Nacional d’Art de Calalunya (Barcelona). (Source: Web del Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya de Barcelona, https://www.museunacional.cat) (accessed on 5 May 2022).
Figure 3. Majestad de Travesseres, 1200–1250. Museu Nacional d’Art de Calalunya (Barcelona). (Source: Web del Museu Nacional d’Art de Catalunya de Barcelona, https://www.museunacional.cat) (accessed on 5 May 2022).
Religions 13 00779 g003
Figure 4. Crucifix, 1250–1300, Museo Nacional de Escultura (Valladolid). (© Museo Nacional de Escultura, Valladolid (Spain); Photograph: Javier Muñoz y Paz Pastor).
Figure 4. Crucifix, 1250–1300, Museo Nacional de Escultura (Valladolid). (© Museo Nacional de Escultura, Valladolid (Spain); Photograph: Javier Muñoz y Paz Pastor).
Religions 13 00779 g004
Figure 5. Crucifix, 1300–1330, Museo Nacional de Escultura (Valladolid). (© Museo Nacional de Escultura, Valladolid (Spain); Photograph: Javier Muñoz y Paz Pastor).
Figure 5. Crucifix, 1300–1330, Museo Nacional de Escultura (Valladolid). (© Museo Nacional de Escultura, Valladolid (Spain); Photograph: Javier Muñoz y Paz Pastor).
Religions 13 00779 g005
Figure 6. Crucifixion, Muiredach Cross at Monasterboice (tenth century, Co. Louth, Ireland). (Photograph: the author).
Figure 6. Crucifixion, Muiredach Cross at Monasterboice (tenth century, Co. Louth, Ireland). (Photograph: the author).
Religions 13 00779 g006
Figure 7. Trinity, Breviari d’Amor, Matfré Ermengaud, fourteenth century (Res/203, fol. 9r). Biblioteca Nacional de España (Madrid). (Source: Biblioteca Digital Hispánica, BNE: http://bdh.bne.es/bnesearch/detalle/bdh0000135155) (accessed on 27 May 2022), Imagen procedente de los fondos de la Biblioteca Nacional de España.
Figure 7. Trinity, Breviari d’Amor, Matfré Ermengaud, fourteenth century (Res/203, fol. 9r). Biblioteca Nacional de España (Madrid). (Source: Biblioteca Digital Hispánica, BNE: http://bdh.bne.es/bnesearch/detalle/bdh0000135155) (accessed on 27 May 2022), Imagen procedente de los fondos de la Biblioteca Nacional de España.
Religions 13 00779 g007
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Carreño, S. Visual Threats and Visual Efficacy: Ideas of Image Reception in the Arguments of Lucas Tudense about the Changes in the Crucifixion (c.1230). Religions 2022, 13, 779. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13090779

AMA Style

Carreño S. Visual Threats and Visual Efficacy: Ideas of Image Reception in the Arguments of Lucas Tudense about the Changes in the Crucifixion (c.1230). Religions. 2022; 13(9):779. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13090779

Chicago/Turabian Style

Carreño, Sara. 2022. "Visual Threats and Visual Efficacy: Ideas of Image Reception in the Arguments of Lucas Tudense about the Changes in the Crucifixion (c.1230)" Religions 13, no. 9: 779. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13090779

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop