ЧИТАЛЬНЫЙ ЗАЛ

Alexander Makhov  

Devil’s faces:
On rhetoric of visual image [1] .

In my report I shall deal with some features of devil’s image which might be regarded as at least unnatural. But can one say with good reason that devil is really supernatural? While discussing the problem of supernatural in medieval culture one introduces an idea which, in its modern understanding, is alien to this culture.

Medieval scholars used a term «supernaturalis», but its meaning differed from what we now understand as «supernatural». For us «supernatural» means something opposite to nature, something that lays outside the nature’s borders. For medieval thinkers, on the contrary, «supernaturalis» is closely connected with nature: «supernaturalis» is, so to speak, absolutely natural continuation of nature — or, otherwise, «natural» is quite natural continuation of «supernaturalis». In any case, natural and supernatural are not opposed to each other, but rather complete each other. As John Scot Erigena said (in his commentaries to «Celestial Hierarchy»), «God, who is supernatural, comes before nature» («Deus, qui supernaturalis est, praecedit naturam») [2] . Nature is realized  as continuation of «supernatural»: nature follows supernatural, their relation can be described as a mutual complement, not as an opposition or contradiction.

Describing the situation in terms of semiotics, one can say that nature provides signs for supernatural, or, according to famous statement of Hugh of Saint-Victor, «everything in nature talks of God» («omnis natura Deum loquitur») [3] . From this viewpoint natural and supernatural are two levels of one and the same language: natural functions as its sign, supernatural functions as its signified.

One more distinction can be drawn between modern and medieval understanding of supernatural. For modern man supernatural doesn’t allow any rational explanation; for medieval man, quite the contrary, supernatural is incorporated into heavenly plan, it has clear and understandable purposes and functions. As Peter Lombard says, «What are miracles for, if not for fear of God?» («Sed quid prosunt miracula, nisi ut timeretur Deus?») [4] .

Thus, to think within the opposition of natural and supernatural means to oversimplify a picture which in fact is much more complicated. In medieval imagination the supernatural is incorporated into vertical scheme: normal reality can be compared to a certain surface which lays in the middle of a vertical axe, supernatural lays above this surface — not beyond it, as for modern man. But there is one more level, that lays beneath normal reality: I mean all phenomena that belong to demonic sphere. For want of a better term I shall call this level «under-natural». The system of these three levels is characterized by increase of order from the bottom upwards: supernatural is distinguished by perfect order, — undernatural, on the contrary, is marked by almost complete loss of any order. Devil, according to Augustine, «doesn’t stay in tranquillity of order» («in ordinis tranquillitate non mansit») [5] ; he is not only alien to the order of universe, but he also tries to destroy this order. As Fulgentius said, devil «fled from undisturbable tranquillity and now is in service of disturbance» (illam imperturbabilem requiem fugerat, deinceps perturbationi serviret) [6] .

Alienation from the order of the universe is the main characteristics of devil which differs him from a man. But in what way this alienation is expressed in visual imagery? One can found this expression in a «disorder» of devil’s body, that combines different parts of man, animals, insects; moreover, parts of his body are very often connected in a strange, unnatural way. For example, his face can be placed on his belly or elbows; his horns — on his knees, his wings — on his legs, and so on.

Inner and outer parts of his body may be inverted, as in example from «Vita Mariae Oigniacensis» by Jacques de Vitry mentioned by Nancy Caciola: the demon appears before exorcist «“as if with his bowels vomited out” and carrying “all his interior parts” on his shoulders as punishment» [7] .

All these visual distortions, however different they may seem, have a single theological meaning: as a kind of visual metaphors they express the idea of devil ontological disoder, of his alienation from the order of universe. If human’s body is «well-ordered» being a mirror of divine order of universe, devil’s body is «out of order»: almost all  parts of his body are, so to speak, «out of joint», they are, as it were, involved in restless, irregular, unpredictable movement. It is not by chance that devil’s face is often placed on knees or elbows — that is, on the most unstable, most mobile parts of human body. 

Thus, devil’s body as presented in a lot of medieval pictures is a result of a number of operations whose purpose is to transform a certain natural order — order of a body. This is a point where I am coming to a comparison with classical rhetoric, since the aim of rhetoric — creation of «embellished speech» (narratio ornata) — also assumes the transformation of initial natural order of speech (narratio simplex, plana). The operations used to transform «natural» visual image into «unnatural» figure of devil are very similar to operations used to transform «natural», «simple» speech into embellished one (I mean rhetorical figures and tropes). This likeness allows us to speak about visual figures and tropes — for example, about visual metaphors.  

Let us consider the case of metaphor as a kind of rhetorical trope. Quintilian and Cicero define metaphor as a transference of a word from its proper place («ex eo loco in quo proprium est» [8] ) to the «alien» one («in alieno loco» [9] ). We see something very similar  in devil’s body when his face is transferred from its natural, proper place to improper one — for example, to belly or elbow. By this operation of visual metaphor the natural order of body is transformed into unnatural — or rather «under-natural».

Therefore, visual image of devil can be compared to a highly metaphorical  speech. If one compares man’s image with a plain, unembellished «visual speech» (let us call it «imago plana»), then devil’s image may be regarded as a kind of embellished, though in some parodic way, «visual speech» (let us call it «imago ornata»).

Now I would like to dwell upon one specific «rhetorical» device applied to visual image: I mean the device of reduplication — namely, above mentioned reduplication of faces. Unlike characters of supernatural world (angels or God) devil often has several faces. This device of reduplication of visual element corresponds to a number of rhetorical figures which are connected with reiteration of a certain verbal element (reduplicatio, gradatio, geminatio and so on).

In medieval imagery supernatural creatures never possess several faces. Only demonical characters, «under-natural» as it were, are distinguished by such a peculiarity. In what way this peculiarity is determined by inner qualities of devil, by his specific «nature»?

Devil’s «multifaceness» is just a visual expression of multiplicity inherent to his nature. «My name is Legion, for we are many», — this famous sentence was understood by church farthers as devil’s confession concerning his own nature. Multiplicity manifests itself in different aspects of demonic existence. For example, devil has «thousand names», he knows «thousand ways of doing harm» — according to the Vergil’s line which holy fathers adopted as a characteristic of devil: «tibi nomina mille, mille nocendi artes» [10] .

Of course, this multiplicity visually manifests itself in different ways, including above mentioned «multifacenes». Devil in his appearances often splits, as it were, into several figures. Before Saint Illarion he emerged as a number of fighting gladiators [11] ;  in the cell of Saint Abraam he intruded «as a great crowd (quasi turba plurima)» [12] ; in gallic «Life of Saint Roman» devil presented himself «in the form of two girls (sub duarum puellarum forma)» [13] .

What does this multiplicity mean as a characteristic feature of devil? We have to remember that for medieval man devil, as a representative of «under-natural», occupies the lowest place in a «Great Chain of Being». According to this view, devil’s multiplicity was never  regarded as a certain advantage — but, on the contrary, it was estimated as a deficiency. It’s not by chance that from all parts of devil’s body exactly the face was chosen as the most frequent object of multiplication — that is, the most unique part of the body, most closely associated with individuality.

In fact, devil lacks individuality: his multiplicity doesn’t signify ability «to possess many individualities», but otherwise, — it signifies his inability «to be one and the same». Devil is not able to exist as unity; his illusive existence  is a constant disintegration, constant splitting into unstable varieties of  «faces». To put it shortly, devil cannot possess face — he can possess only faces.

This idea has found perfect expression in above-mentioned gallic «Life of Saint Roman». When devil had appeared to monk Sabinian in a form of two girls, monk «recognized one beast under the double face (unum nosset sub specie gemina monstrum)» and said to devil with reprove: «Why do you always appear before me in various  forms? Don’t you feel shame since you always see me one and the same (unum ac solum), and never see me in another shape?».

Sabinian opposes his own permanence to devil’s mutability. This mutability seems to be a kind of deficiency: devil lacks the simple ability that any human being possesses — the ability to exist in one and the same shape, to possess one and the same face.

Devil’s «multifaceness» can be regarded not only as an intrinsic quality of his nature, but also as a part of devil’s «military strategy» — as a  device in his struggle against humanity. At that point the question of visuality has to be raised again, since the struggle between man and devil took place in the visual domain: visuality is, as it were, a «military territory», where man meets his enemy.

In this visual war man and devil use different tactics. Man tries to hold the devil constantly in visual field, since to see means to obtain control: someone who beholds devil thereby gets control on  him — and, therefore, gets a victory. Thus, Saint Anthony was accredited with following words about himself: «I have seen all devil’s traps drawn on the earth» [14] . According to a statement of a certain desert father, «blessed is a man who always sees his sins» («Beatus est qui peccatum suum semper videt») [15] . Ideal state is described as constant visual control on devil: in this state man always «has the devil before his eyes» — «ante oculos enim habemus adversarium nostrum», as Saint Syncletica puts it [16] .

Indeed, holy man, saint is very often endowed with ability to see the devil when for an ordinary man he remains invisible. Thus, Saint Martin , at the hour of his death, saw the devil standing at his bed; other monks sitting around the bed of dying saint saw nothing [17] .

The capacity of sight — I mean inner, spiritual sight, «oculus mentis» — is a kind of weapon in a man’s struggle against devil. Therefore, devil, on his side, tries to escape this visual control by deceiving  a man with false images (phantasma, simulacra, visiones etc.).

In medieval imagery, to cheat man with fallacious illusions means to make him «blind». At this point I have to introduce a very important opposition of vision and blindness. Saint or righteous man is characterized by unlimited capacity of vision: thus, according to Gregory the Great, for righteous men in paradise «there would be nothing in nature that they could not see» («nihil in creatura agitur quod videre non possint») [18] . Unlike holy man, devil is characterized as spiritually «blind». Origen was, probably, the first Christian thinker who had connected evil with blindness: devil is at the same time «evil» (poneros) and «blind» (tuflos) [19] .  What is supposed here is not a physical blindness but rather devil’s inability to participate in constant, endless and absolute mutual vision that unites God, angels and righteous men.

The fall of devil is described metaphorically as eclipse, obscuration, a loss of sight. «Where devil had exalted against God, there he was abandoned by God and became blind», said Augustin («ubi contra Deum exaltatur, ibi ab illo deseritur, et in se tenebratur») [20] .

Devil, the main «blind», who lost forever any access to vision of God, tries to make a man «blind» as well. As Peter Chrysologus said, devil «taught explorers of the world to see nothing» (speculatores mundi docuit nihil videre) [21] . Conversion to devil is described metaphorically as making blind: devil «can blind the hearts of those who begin to serve him» («diabolus... potest ... obcaecare corda eorum qui conarentur servire ei»), as Iraeneus said [22] .

Taking into account the connection between the ideas of devil’s deceive and blindness inflicted by devil one may come to a paradoxical conclusion: man who beholds images produced by devil actually sees nothing. «To see» in this case means «to be blind». Such is the main antinomy of visual relation between man and devil.

But what really happens when a man encounters a demonic vision? From psychological viewpoint he just sees something deceiving, or, as Lactantius puts it, demons «cheat men’s eyes with blinding delusions» («visus hominum praestigiis obcaecantibus fallunt») [23] .

From viewpoint of visual rhetoric the situation can be interpreted in another way. The devil presents before a man certain visual metaphors — a kind of riddles that man either can or cannot to solve.

Jesus Christ acts very much in the same way, when he displays his own fleshly image as a kind of metaphor or riddle, which devil failed to solve. Hiding his divinity in flesh as in the visual riddle and therefore using flesh as visual metaphor of divinity, Jesus Christ, according to  Saint Ambrose, committed «a pious fraud» (pia fraus)» [24] . The widespread comparison of flesh with a veil (velamen, integumentum) that hides divinity of Christ [25] cannot but remind of medieval poetological concept of «integumentum» as a false story that hides truth: «A lot of truthful things are hidden under a fallacious tegument» («plurima sub falso tegmine vera latent»),  said Theodulfus of Orlean [26] .

Being the matter of visual rhetoric, the struggle between man and devil takes the form of metaphorical exchange: man and devil acts as exegetes, trying to interpret the visual riddles presented to each other. Devil’s tactics in the moment of this visual encounter is quite simple: devil tries to persuade a man that all fantastical visions he produces are true, that visual image and truth are the same things. Appearing to Saint Martin   in the shape of Jesus Christ devil addresses the doubting saint with remarkable words: «Martin, why are you doubting? Believe, when you see! I am Jesus Christ» («Martine, quid dubitas? Crede, cum videas! Christus ego sum») [27] .

«Believe, when you see» — this devil’s words express the very essence of his visual tactics. Using the terms of visual rhetoric one can describe the situation in the following way: devil is convincing a man that demonic visions are not metaphors, that they correspond to reality and  therefore have «literal meaning». To win the devil means to realize that all his visions are nothing but metaphors of devil’s wickedness.

At the conclusion of my report I would like to quote a text which helps to clarify my point. Sulpicius Severus wrote about Saint Martin : «The devil was for him so distinct and submitted to his eyes (subiectum oculis), that Martin saw him in any shape, whether he remained in his proper substance (in propria substantia) or transferred himself in different figures of wickedness (in diversas figuras nequitiae transtulisset)» [28] .

This text describes the relations between the saint and the devil as visual. It is important that the text is permeated with the reminiscences from classical rhetoric. Sulpicius opposes devil’s «propria substantia» to his «figura»: devil can transfer (transferro) himself from «propria substantia» to «figura nequitiae». What Sulpicius describes here is absolutely analogous to rhetorical transformation of simple, unembellished speech into embellished one: «verbum proprium» (the term which corresponds to Sulpicius’ «propria substantia») when transferred (transferro — a term appropriated by Sulpicius) into improper place becomes a «figura» (this term also used by Sulpicius). The expression «subiectum oculis» perhaps also has rhetorical origin: it sounds like Quintilian’s definition of  hypotyposis (or, in latin terminology, demonstratio) — a figure of «submitting to eyes» («sub oculis subiectio» [29] ): speaker, describing a given event in details, forces a listener to see it by inner sight. Suplicius takes from classical definition the idea of moral force: speaker is able to compel a listener not only to hear, but also to see — in the same way a saint is able by force of his faith to compel devil to appear before his eyes. To sum up, we can say with a good reason that Sulpicius borrowed from rhetoric a set of terms and applied them in the domain of visual imagery.

We come to a conclusion that devil’s multiple faces were regarded as visual metaphors, as, so to speak, «figures of visual speech». Literal understanding of these metaphors leads a man to failure in his struggle with devil. A man has to overcome this multiplicity of devil’s metaphorical images, he has to realize them as teguments of devil’s proper face, his «propria substantia». We can find very exact formulation of this idea in «Apology» of Priscillian: «For whatever shapes, forms, or names the devil changes himself into, we know that he can be nothing else but the devil... whether he is regarded as a beast... or a serpent or a dragon, we know that he is the devil» [30] .

This proper face of devil in terrestrial world is hidden; very few elected, such as Saint Martin , are able to behold it. But in paradise this real face will become a joyful spectacle for all righteous: «What a spectacle it will be, when this awful beast becomes visible to the eyes of all elected», anticipates the pleasure Gregory the Great [31] . The Last Judgement will put an end to devil’s «diversa figura», to his «multifaceness»: devil will lose the ability «to be many» and obtain his proper face, final and ultimate.