Painting or Relief : The Ideal Icon in Iconophile Writing in Byzantium

The virtues of painting, therefore, are that its masters see their works admired and feel themselves to be almost like the Creator. Is it not true that painting is the mistress of all the arts or their principal ornament? If I am not mistaken, the architect took from the painter architraves, capitals, bases, columns and pediments, and all other fine features of buildings. The stonemason, the sculptor, and all the workshops and crafts of artificers are guided by the rule and art of the painter. Indeed hardly any art, except the very meanest, can be found that does not somehow pertain to painting. So I would venture to assert that whatever beauty there is in things, it has been derived from painting. Alberti, Della Pictura II, ch. 26.1

Painting or Relief: The Ideal Icon in Iconophile Writing in Byzantium Bissera V. Pentcheva UDK: 7.01:73.027.2:75.051.046.3 (495.02)This text is focused on the transformation of the definition of the icon in Byzantine image theory from an identification of graphe with painting in the writings of John of Damascus (ca.675-754) to the equation of graphe with typos understood as the imprint of an intaglio on matter in the theory of Theodore Studites (759-826).
The virtues of painting, therefore, are that its masters see their works admired and feel themselves to be almost like the Creator.Is it not true that painting is the mistress of all the arts or their principal ornament?If I am not mistaken, the architect took from the painter architraves, capitals, bases, columns and pediments, and all other fine features of buildings.The stonemason, the sculptor, and all the workshops and crafts of artificers are guided by the rule and art of the painter.Indeed hardly any art, except the very meanest, can be found that does not somehow pertain to painting.So I would venture to assert that whatever beauty there is in things, it has been derived from painting.
Alberti, Della Pictura II, ch. 26. 1 According to Alberti, painting interpenetrates and bonds together all other forms of art.It exceeds these crafts and becomes high art.This perception of painting as the queen of all the arts has a continuous strong hold of our imagination to the extent that we are still predisposed to equate the Byzantine icon with tempera or encaustic painting on wood panels. 2 While it is true that the majority of both the earliest and later surviving icons are painted images, this painted tradition might not have been the privileged medium right after Iconoclasm, and especially in a place like Constantinople.Only in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a relatively large corpus of painted icons was formed on Mount Sinai.I therefore 1 Leon Battista Alberti, On Painting, tr. C. Grayson, intro.M. Kemp, London 1991, 61. 2 H. Belting, Likeness and Presence.A History of the Image before the Era of Art, Chicago 1994.This summa of the iconic tradition in the East and West focuses entirely on the painted icon.The Byzantine realm is predominantly discussed on the basis of the Sinai paintedicon production.Absent from Belting's discussion is the vast metalrelief icon tradition preserved in the Republic of Georgia or the examples of Byzantine relief icons mentioned in monastic typika, or the treasury of San Marco.The significance of the relief icon in Byzantine iconic thought and production is addressed in Pentcheva, Sensual Splendor: The Icon in Byzantium (University Park, forthcoming) and eadem, The Performative icon, Art Bulletin 88/4 (2006)  631-56.would like to posit the question: was the painted tradition equally strong in Byzantium earlier on but left no material traces, or was the icon right after Iconoclasm associated with relief rather painting?If the latter is the case, then we have retrojected a false dominance of the painted image over the relief icon in the earlier periods, and thus fabricated a new memory of the past that fits better in our post-Albertian system of painting as the highest form of art.
What explains our continuing fascination with painting?According to Alberti, the esteem of painting is seen to stem from its veristic mode.Its goal is to represent things as they are seen in nature, to convey a sense of three-dimensionality by imitation: "the function of the painter is to draw with lines and paint with colors on a surface any given bodies in such a way, that at a fixed distance and with a certain, determined position of the centric ray, what you see represented appears to be in relief and just like those bodies."3This concept of painting as naturalism is equivalent to the Greek word zographia translated as "painting from life, from nature".This is the meaning of the word in Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman sources: Plato, Plutarch, Philostrates. 4Yet, naturalist painting, zographia, cannot be further removed from the Byzantine notion of graphe.
How did Byzantium reconcile zographia to its iconic tradition?The answer lies in the Iconophile separation of the icon from painting.In this article I will show how graphe in both iconodoule writing and in Post-Iconoclast icon production shifted from painting to relief and thus cancelled any links with the zographia of the Hellenistic and Roman traditions.Byzantium thus had a different hierarchy in which the relief icon -the icon in metal, enamel, ivory -presented the ideal iconic form, which conformed to the theoretical definition of the eikon as the imprint of Christ's morphe on matter.While we have privileged painting by adopting the Albertian hierarchy of pictura as the pinnacle of human artistic creation, for Byzantium this hierarchy was reversed.What we regard as minor arts -enamel, metal, steatite, ivory -constituted in fact the major and privileged iconic mode in Byzantium.
In my discussion I will focus on the writings of John of Damascus in the early eighth century and Theodore Studites in the late eighth and early ninth centuries to show the progression from painting to relief.While John of Damascus regarded the icon as painting in colors and wax, Theodore Studites propelled a new formulation: the icon as an imprint of intaglio on matter.The icon as imprint leads to the bas-relief object and thus suggests a hitherto unrecognized importance of relief in the Middle Byzantine iconic production.

John of Damascus and the Icon as Painting
John of Damascus (born ca.675, died in the Lavra of St. Sabas ca.753/754, Feast day, March 27) received an excellent education and was a member of the administrative elite of the Umayyad caliphate in Damascus before he decided to take the monastic habit.His writings were aimed at a systematization of Christian knowledge and expanded on the previous work of Theodoret of Cyrrhos.John composed his polemical treatises against heresies and especially Iconoclasm outside the borders of the Byzantine empire, hence the strength of his polemical voice against imperial policies.In his three texts on the icon, Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tre, John of Damascus associates the icon with many different forms: the image reflected in a mirror or painted with wax and pigments on wood boards. 5It is the Incarnation, Christ' acquisition human form that legitimizes the modeling of his form in matter.
For if we make an image of God who in his ineffable goodness became incarnate and was seen upon earth in the flesh and lived among humans, and assumed the nature and density and form and color of flesh, we do not go astray.For we long to see his form; as the divine apostles says 'now we see puzzling reflections in a mirror (1Cor.13, 12)'.For the image (eikon) is a mirror and a puzzle, suitable to the materiality ('density', in Louth's tr.) of our body.For the intellect greatly tired, is not able to pass beyond the bodily, as the divine Gregory says (John of Damascus, Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tre, II.5 and III.2, English tr.Louth). 6e Incarnation opens the possibility for depicting Christ in the icon.Just as he acquired flesh, so too his human body could be pictured in the icon.The image addresses itself to the body, to matter.The icon is metaphorically equated to the reflection of the carnal logos in a mirror.
John of Damascus then gets more specific when he writes that the icon is the modeling of likeness with wax and pigments on a board.Here the image reflected in a mirror is coupled with the painted tradition of zographia.Likeness is secured through veristic painting.But the naturalism of zographia also creates an anxiety with the painted image, for it can create a false impression of presence: So when I venerate the icon of Christ, I do not venerate the nature of the wood or the colors -God forbid!-but, venerating the lifeless form of Christ (apsychos charakter), through it I seem to hold and venerate Christ himself (John of Damascus, Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tre, III.87, English tr.Louth). 7hile the icon is equated to the painted likeness in encaustic on a wood board, an anxiety about this object creeps in.The zographia gives rise to a deceptive perception as if one is holding the archetype (auton Christon doko kratein).Through its seducing naturalistic mode, the painting of the lifeless (visible) form could falsely endow this form with life.The subjective, interpretative element lurks in this model.Already the skill of the painter could mar the precision in transmission of likeness, or   Historical Museum, MS gr.129, fol. 4 ( State Historical Museum)  the artistic perfection of transmission could endow the image with a false sense of the archetype's presence.
This unease with the painted image could also be sensed in the following passage: The divine beauty is not made resplendent in a certain external figure or fortunate shape through certain beautiful colors, but is beheld in the ineffable blessedness of virtue.Just as painters transfer human forms onto tablets by means of certain colors, applying corresponding paints by imitation, so that the beauty of the archetype is transferred with accuracy to the likeness (John of Damascus, Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tre, I.50 and II.46, tr.Louth). 8he first part of the passage insists on the invisibility of divine beauty, which could only be contemplated (theoretai) in the virtue developed in saints.Then in paradoxical way this invisible, ineffable beauty mapped in the virtue of saints is linked to the material form/human appearance (morphe) that is captured in the likeness (oikeia) modeled by the painter on wood boards.The elusive divine beauty is paired with human form on the one hand, while on the other, virtue is linked to likeness.Both virtue and likeness are dialectic, they are about the modeling, transformation, the mapping and delimitation of something elusive and fleeting.In the case of virtue, it is the modeling of something invisible; in the case of likeness, it is the modeling of something visible and breathing in inanimate matter.Virtue is contemplated, likeness is seen.
Perhaps as a reaction to this growing danger in the painted image to give a false impression of life due to the painter's exceeding skill or to fail in achieving likeness due to the artist's lack of skill that stirred John of Damascus to suggest a different model of the icon in his third treatise.Here he distanced himself from the definition of the icon as likeness achieved through pigments and wax on a wood, by defining it instead as the imprint of a pattern and impression (paradeigma and ektypoma).It is the word ektypoma, meaning 'impression' that would soon become the dominant understanding of the icon, and move the definition of this object from painting to bas-relief.
Similarly, in the passage, where John of Damascus discusses the miraculous image of Christ for King Abgar, he disassociates zographia from painting and links it instead with imprint.Christ created this acheiropoietos (a-, without, heir-, hand, poietos-, made) by imprinting his face on a piece of cloth.This impression functions as the perfect zographia, painting from life; painting is assimilated by the imprint: the enapomagma.9The result-ing object is outside the painter's domain; not an artifice, but an extension of Christ's face.The enapomagma of his face is a real imprint, thus immune to the fluctuations in the painter's skill of modeling likeness or the illusion of presence conveyed by the artist's gifted transmission of likeness.
It is significant that the zographia tradition in John of Damascus stems from his use of patristic texts. 10Basil of Caesareia and John Chrysostomos both employ the concept of the painter (zographos) but apply it metaphorically.For instance, in Basil's homily on the Martyr Barlaam, he linked his sacrifice to the art of the painter; just as the martyr enhances with his martyrdom the radiance of Christ, so too the painter creates a   Historical Museum, MS gr.129, fol.86 ( State Historical Museum)  evidence for the legitimacy of icons.Consequently, naturalist painting sits awkwardly with the growing anxiety about the validity of the man-made icon.This is perhaps the reason why in the segments where John of Damascus uses zographia outside the patristic tradition, as for instance in the Abgar story, he moves away from painting as the naturalistic modeling of likeness with colors on wood boards and offers instead the concept of the imprint, enapomagma.While John's move towards graphe as imprint is tentative, it becomes the rule in the iconic theory of Theodore Studites.

Theodore Studites and the Icon as Imprint
Theodore Studites (759-826) was born in the family of civil functionaries in Bythinia.At the age of twenty-one he entered the family monastery, where he later became a hegoumenos (abbot).In 798 he moved to Constantinople, where he restored and reformed the Stoudios monastery.Being opposed to imperial policy and the second outbreak of iconoclasm, he was banished from Constantinople, but then recalled in 821.His writings encompass many areas: katekheseis (teachings) on monastic life, labor and spiritual work, letters, epigrams, hymns, homilies, panegyrics, and apologiai of icons. 11I will focus on his three treatises on the icon, Antirrheticus I-III. 12Here Theodore built the most sustained theory of the icon as imprint.His model emerges clearly in Antirrheticus III, chapter 3. It is entitled: On the one and indivisible veneration of both Christ and his eikon.The icon is defined as the imprint of Christ's form (morphe, charakter) on matter (hyle): It is not the essence of the image (eikon) which we venerate, but the form (charakter) of the prototype which is stamped (aposphragithos) upon it [. ..] but the prototype is venerated together with the form and not the essence (ousia) of the image (Antirrheticus III, ch. 3, sect.2, tr.Roth). 13he intaglio (charakter) of Christ's form (morphe) is imprinted on matter.It is this intaglio that bears Christ's likeness and thus legitimizes the image by virtue of its reciprocal stamping into matter.The act of imprinting secures the legitimacy of the intaglio and links the imprint (typos) to the prototype (prototypos).
Christ, Theodore Studites establishes the validity of the icon.Just like the imprint preserves the intaglio relief unchanged, so too the icon preserves the morphe of Christ unchanged, thus securing the resemblance, which in turn legitimates the artificial, man-made image.No space is left for the guile of craft and skill, which pertain to the subjective modeling of likeness.The mechanical reproduction of likeness preserves the legitimacy of the iconic mode and the aura of the original dwells in the copy.Both archetype and copy receive the same indivisible veneration.
In contrast to Walter Benjamin's concept that the mechanically reproduced image has lost the aura of the original, 15 it is this very reproducibility that ensures the aura of the iconic copy in Byzantium.The Byzantine image theory thus asserts that the only means of preserving aura (aura in Byzantium is equivalent to skhesis, the indestructible relationship between prototype and copy), is through the mechanical imprint of charakter/morphe on matter.In fact, the power given to the mechanical reproduction in the Byzantine iconic mode has been overlooked in modern image theory because Benjamin himself was unaware of it.His discussion stops with the Greeks and resumes with the etching and woodcut of the Late Middle Ages. 16Yet, Byzantium could have served as the precedent of what Benjamin describes as the modern phenomenon, where the increased number of mechanically reproduced copies reactivate the power of the original. 17However, rather than shattering tradition, 18 the 15 "The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated.(…) One might subsume the eliminated element in the term "aura" and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art.This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art.One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition", from W. Benjamin, Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, in: Illuminations, New York 1968, 217-252, sect II, 223. 16"In principle a work of art has always been reproducible.Men could always imitate manmade artifacts.Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and, finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain.Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new.Historically, it advanced intermittently and in leaps at long intervals, but with accelerated intensity.The Greeks knew only two procedures of technically reproducing works of art: founding and stamping.Bronzes, terra cottas, and coins were the only art works which they could produce in quantity.All others were unique and could not be mechanically reproduced.With the woodcut graphic art became mechanically reproducible for the first time, long before script became reproducible by print.The enormous changes which printing, the mechanical reproduction of writing, has brought about in literature are a familiar story.However, within the phenomenon which we are here examining from the perspective of world history, print is merely a special, though particularly important, case.During the Middle Ages engraving and etching were added to the woodcut; at the beginning of the nineteenth century lithography made its appearance", from Benjamin, Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, sect.I, 220-221 17 "By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced", from Benjamin, Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, sect.II, 223. 18"One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.And in permitting the reproduction to meet the beholder or listener in his own particular situation, it reactivates the object reproduced.These two processes lead to a tremendous shatter-Byzantine multiple iconic copies preserve this very tradition.In reproducing likeness (the character), all copies lead back to the prototype: Christ's visible characteristics: his morphe.To this end Theodore Studites writes: Those things which do not have the same forms (charakter) have different kinds of veneration; but those, which have the same form also have one kind of veneration.The icon has one form with its prototype: therefore they have one veneration (Antirrheticus III, ch. 3, sect.3, tr.Roth). 19he passage explains how the shared charakter (likeness/form) imprinted on matter, allows for the shared veneration given to both prototype and copy.
Although many synonyms for imprint are deployed in Theodore's text (typos, ektypoma, ektyposis, apomagma,  apomaxis, enapomagma, aposphragisma, and ekmageion)  in order to explain the icon as impression of form (appearance), most significant in this assembly of words are those sharing the root 'typos': typos, ektyposis, ektypoma.Through typos the whole economy of the Byzantine icon comes is existence.The archetypos -Christ -is the prototype.The icon is the typos, the mechanically reproduced copy: the imprint of the morphe of the prototype on matter.The act of imprinting is the ektyposis.
By creating a typos-based theory of the image, Theodore in fact shifted the icon discourse away from the Incarnational economy.The latter explains how the pre-eternal divine could be emptied out in matter and time.Through the Incarnation, the carnal logos became the instrument of God's plan for the Salvation of humankind.The Incarnational economy thus focused on the legitimacy of Christ's morphe: the visible form (charakter as body and face) and thus answered why representation (the icon) was possible. 23By contrast, Theodore developed the 'economy' of the typos, and thus explained what made the icon legitimate.The discourse in Byzantine image theory thus shifted from John of Damascus and Patriarch Nikephoros, who legitimized Christ's morphe, to Theodore Studites, who gave validity to the imprint of his morphe on matter, i.e. -the icon.The iconic as imprint is also present in the writings of Patriarch Nikephoros (b.ca.750 -d.828), but it does not form the dominant line of his discourse.He stated: "Painting (graphe) represents the corporeal shape of the one depicted, impressing (ektypoumai) its appearance (schema) and its form (morphe) and its likeness (emphereia)." 24The form (morphe) with its likeness and appearance is impressed like an intaglio on a material surface.

The Contested Ownership of Typos
The power of the typos-based iconic theory derives from the way it appropriates words previously tightly linked with the opposing Iconoclast arguments.Typos was associated with two legitimate material forms: the diagram God sent to Moses instructing him how to build and decorate the ark of the Covenant and the figure (geσκύνησις αὐτῆς πρὸς Χριστὸν, καὶ ου διάφορος" (Theodore Studites, Antirrheticus III, ch. 3, sect.10, PG 99, col.424D). 23For the formulation and analysis of Patriarch Nikephoros's Incarnational economy, v. M.-J.Mondzain, Image, Icon, Economy.The Byzantine Origins of the Contemporary Imaginary, Stanford 2005. 24"Ἔτι ἡ γραφὴ τὸ σωματικὸν εἶδος τοῦ γραφονένου παρίστησι, σχῆμα τε καὶ μορφὴν αὐτοῦ ἐντυπουμένη καὶ τὴν ἐμφέρειαν" (Patriarch Nikephoros, Antirrheticus II. 10, PG 100, col.357D).Yet, the emphasis in Nikephoros's writings is on the Incarnational economy, not the typos-based iconic theory.neric copy) of the Life-giving Cross. 25By co-opting typos to explicate the legitimacy of the icon, Theodore neutralized and cancelled out the power of the Iconoclast argument.
The cross in the Iconoclast theory, referred to as typos or semeion, was given a prominent place in ecclesiastical spaces and iconoclast discourse. 26The monumental mosaic cross in the apse of the Church of Hagia Eirene produced in the 740s offers a good example of the iconoclast use of this symbol in the décor of the church.The legitimacy of the cross was based on the Ur-object: the Life-giving Cross sanctified by its contact with Christ's body.The iconoclast emperor Constantine V (741-775) wrote: "We bow down before the typos of the cross because of he who was stretched upon it." 27The iconoclasts called the reproductions of this Ur-Cross typoi.Their manufacture was mechanical, devoid of artists' guile.In fact the extant epigrams written around the Cross placed at the Chalke gates of the imperial palace, defined this figure as made through stamping: kharasso meaning "to stamp, seal, engrave, and carve": 28 "Leo and his son the New Constantine engraved (kharattei) the typos of the thrice-fortunate Cross on the gates of the palace as boast of the faithful." 29At the core of the Iconoclast typos is again the notion of the imprint of a die on matter.
It is not just a matter of coincidence that Theodore Studites assembled all the iconoclast poems regarding the Cross. 30His whole purpose in collecting these epigrams was to denounce them.But in rejecting the Iconoclast definitions, Theodore fully expropriated the word typos from its cross-associations and embedded it instead at the center of his iconic theory.He also took the notion of the imprint and worked it in his powerful theory of the legitimate icon as the imprint of Christ's morphe on hyle.Just like the Iconoclast typos, which signifies the generic imprint of the cross and bears likeness to the Life-giving Cross, so too in the model of Theodore Studites the icon deserves veneration because it bears the imprint of Christ's likeness. 31ikewise, as much is said about the representation (typos) of the cross as about the cross itself.Nowhere does Scripture speak about representation (typos) or image (eikon), since these have the same meaning, for it is illogical to expect such a mention, inasmuch as for us the effects share in the power of the causes.Is not every image (eikon) a kind of a seal (typos) bearing in itself the proper appearance of that after which it is named?For we call the 25 "ὅρα ποιήσεις κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δεδειγμένον σοι ἐν τῷ ορει" (Ex.25, 40).Typos in this case is defined as the divinely sanctified image: the diagram or paradigm given to Moses. 26For a discussion of the Cross in Iconoclast theory, v. Ch.Barber, Figure and Likeness.On the Limits of Representation in Byzantine Iconoclasm, Princeton 2002, 83-105. 27 "τὸν τύπον τοῦ σταυροῦ προσκυνοῦμεν διὰ τὸν εκταθέντα ἐν αὐτῷ", Constantine V Kopronymous recorded and denounced in Patriarch Nikephoros (Antirrheticus, III.34, PG 100, col.425D). 28Liddell, Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, under kharasso. 29"Λέων σὺν ὑιῷ τῷ νέῳ Κωνσταντίῳ.Σταυροῦ χαράττει τὸν τρισόλβιοντύπον, Καύχεμα πιστῶν, ἐν πύλαις ἀνακτόρων" (PG 99, col.437 C). 30 Theodore Studites, Refutatio et subversio impiorum poematum, PG 99, cols.435-478. 31Antirrheticus III, ch. 3, sect.5, PG 99, col.421D.
representation (aposphragisma,'imprint') 'cross' because it is also the cross, yet there are no two crosses, and we call the image (eikon) of Christ 'Christ', yet there are no two Christs (Antirrheticus, I.8, tr.Roth). 32n this passage Theodore Studites sets the parallel between the typos (copy of the Cross) and the typos (the icon of Christ).Both are defined as impressions, imprints, sealings of the prototype.The typos as Cross is superseded by the typos as the icon.The same argument is repeated in Antirrheticus III, ch. 3, sects.5-6 and ch. 4, sect.7.In appropriating typos for his iconic theory, Theodore Studites emasculated the typos of the Iconoclast discourse.
The collapsing of the meaning of the typos to coincide with that of the icon marks the final stage of neutralizing iconoclast terms, and transforming them into mainstream iconophile concepts.The Khludov Psalter (Moscow, State Historical Museum, MS gr.129, fols.4 and 86) of the mid-ninth-century presents two visual examples of Theodore Studites' linguistic argumentation.In both the icon supersedes the typos of the cross. 33he miniatures function as a New Testament interpretation of the psalmic verses.They prolepticly configure the coming of Christ.Yet, the prophecy is realized not just through the image of the cross, but the latter is superseded by the vision of the icon.The first miniature on fol. 4 shows king David pointing towards a medallion icon superimposed on a cross (Fig. 1).It illustrates Ps 4, 7: "The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has been manifested (esimeiothe) towards us." 34The image interprets the meaning of the word semeion, the Iconoclast synonym for typos, the cross.The interpretation steers away from symbol and sign, and in the direction of the imprinted icon: an ektyposis shown as a medallion imprint of Christ's morphe on metal.Icon and cross are unified in a new understanding of semeion: an iconic typos.
The second miniature carries a similar message (Fig. 2).It appears on fol.86 and interprets Ps. 85, 17: "Establish with me a token for good; and let them that hate me see it, and be ashamed, because Thou, O Lord, has helped and comforted me." 35 Once again the contested word is semeion, originally linked to the Iconoclast Cross, but now co-opted in the Iconophile imprinted icon: the relief icon.The miniature display king David addressing a medallion icon set at the center of a monumental cross.
cross.The Iconophile appropriation of the Cross into the icon.By collapsing the cross with the medallion, seal-like icon, a reciprocity is established between icon and sign.At the same time, the synonymity of semeion and typos allows one to activate the link between icon and typos.The latter leads to the devouring and assimilation of typos from the Iconoclast 'cross' into the iconophile 'icon'.The legitimacy of the icon thus becomes established on the model of the imprint: the typos.
The typos-based iconic theory of Theodore Studites extricates the icon from the realm of artifice and artistic guile.These were the very accusations thrown against the icon.For instance, the Iconoclasts had separated typos from graphe.In 815 they set up a typos/copy of the Life-giving Cross on the Brazen Gates leading to the palace and surrounded it with poetic verses.These epigrams juxtaposed the artifice of the painted icon to the legitimacy of the typos of the cross.In one of these Iconoclast poems addressed to the Logos/Christ, we read: "You disown being pictured on the walls (toikhographeisthai) here by means of material artifice, as clearly now as before.Behold, the great rulers have inscribed (enkharattousin) it as a victory-bringing figure (typos)." 37The legitimate imprint of the Cross is pitched against the artifice of painting: typos is set against graphe.Theodore Studites cancelled out this opposition and reversed the arguments.In his militant discourse in defense of icons he took over typos and interpreted it as the icon, thus re-invented the meaning of graphe to signify almost exclusively relief: the imprint of intaglio on matter.

The Christ Chalkites as a Relief Icon
Theodore's typos-based iconic theory acquired presence on the Bronze gates of the imperial palace.This became the battle-ground for the definition and control of typos when the Chalkites icon of Christ replaced the Iconoclast cross in 843.I have argued elsewhere that the Chalkites was a typos: a gilded bronze repoussé icon. 38he relief shape of this icon is attested in the Life of St.
Stephen the Younger (written ca.809).Here the object is defined with the word charakter (imprint, relief, and engraved surface). 39Charakter also appears in the description of the Chalkites in Theophanes' Chronographia (early ninth century). 40In the Patria (a compilation of various sources on the topography of Constantinople edit- ed ca.995) the icon was called a copper relief slab (stele chalke).These words have hitherto been interpreted as a bronze statue and discredited as corrupt information because Byzantium did not produce three-dimensional statues of Christ or the saints. 41Yet, the Byzantine choice of words is quite clear.Just as the Greek word stele used in this passage, denoted figures in low relief, so too the Byzantine Chalkites icon displayed a bas-relief of Christ on a metal surface.The new typos -the icon -was imprinted in the Brazen Gates, replacing the engraved Iconoclast copy of the Cross with the projecting relief of Christ's morphe.The icon assimilated the cross.
What is the importance of identifying the Chalkites with a metal relief icon?This was the most prominent icon in Constantinople during and after Iconoclasm.It symbolized pro-image policy.Therefore, its form would have been understood as the ideal icon.As typos, the Chalke Christ impels us to re-examine our dominant conception of the icon as painting.In fact, the extant iconic production from the ninth and tenth centuries challenges our comfortable notions.The Post-iconoclast relief icons dominate in number and demonstrate the importance of the typos in Byzantium. 42Theodore Studites did not just formulate an imprint-base model, he transformed Byzantine visual culture by canceling its links to Hellenistic painting tradition and establishing instead a new idiom: graphe as relief -metal, enamel, ivory, and steatite.In this transformation the minor arts became major.This is the very history of the Byzantine icon that awaits recognition and in-depth exploration. 43raphe in the ninth and tenth centuries became primarily associated with the imprint of form rather than the imitation of form.Mimesis thus started to denote the simulation rather than imitation of presence and drew attention to the phenomenological changes in an object.The outward dynamism and transformation of the surfaces of the relief icon brought about by the shifts in ambient air, light, and the moving body of the faithful in space created the effect of animation/life in the otherwise inanimate (apsychos) matter.Through these phenomenological changes the icon transformed into an empsychos graphe. 44The Byzantine empsychos graphe thus took over zographia.
ern History, AD 284-813, tr. and eds. C. Mango, R. Scott, Oxford 1997, 559. 41 C. Mango, The Brazen House.A Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople, Copenhagen 1959, 108-109.Albrecht  Berger has also translated the passage with 'bronze statue'.Yet, relying on the evidence of the Life of St. Stephen the Younger, he has suggested that the original Chalke image was a bronze relief, which was replaced after 843 by a mosaic, cf. A. Berger, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, Bonn 1988, 252-55. 42 Pentcheva, The Performative icon, 631-656. 43Eadem, Sensual Splendor: The Icon in Byzantium. 44For the Byzantine definition of both mimesis and empsychos graphe, v. Pentcheva, The Performative icon, loc.cit.