Seite - 67 - in Europäische Bild- und Buchkultur im 13. Jahrhundert

67 thE Emotional charGE and humanistic EffEct of thE crucifixion Bot þogh þe iuus þat it sau thoGht sElcuth nE [noGht] for-þi, NouþEr þai GauE man, nE þai tokE EnsampEl God þar-Bi; Bot on þe morn of þat GrEninG, LinE 16868 þE trE als ar was dri.39 To interpret how these disturbing associations came about we must understand something of the performative function of the Crucifixion in medieval art. It must first be considered as theatre and, therefore, as an enactment of a tragedy in the fullest sense of the word. It is as close to Aristotle’s definition of tragedy as can be imagined. To quote the Poetics: Tragedy, then, is mimesis of an action which is elevated, complete, and of mag- nitude; in language embellished by distinct forms in its sections; employing the mode of enactment, not narrative; and through pity and fear accomplishing the catharsis of such emotions … Since actors render the mimesis, some part of tragedy will, in the first place, necessarily be the arrangement of spectacle; … for these are the media in which they render the mimesis.40 The Crucifixion in the Robert de Lindesey Psalter is an ‘enactment’ not a narrative with the full weight of tragedy behind it. Stephen Halliwell, the translator of the Poetics for the Loeb edition, notes that the term κάθαρσις is not fully defined in the surviving works of Aristotle, but that it would be wrong to assign to it the current and modern notion of emotional outlet and release. Rather it describes the appro- priate emotional response as human beings in ethical terms to the ‘objects of the emotions’.41 Maggie Nelson, in her recent study The Art of Cruelty, has noted that this famous passage in the Poetics is ambiguous. She suggests that catharsis could be interpreted firstly as something that happens inside the audience and, secondly, that it may merely imply an understanding that the participants in the story are somehow to be viewed as achieving a state of purity. The third interpretation she offers is, perhaps, the most convincing: it is an in-between level of understanding that suggests that both the audience and the characters join together in an act of purification.42 As René Girard has pointed out, finding a performative enemy to blame can become part of this process.43 It provides an answer to injustice. Whether predestination is the agent of the injustice, or not, its consequence is that evil doing 39 Cursor mundi (cit. n. 29), p. 965, lines 16859–16869. 40 Aristotle: The Poetics …, ed. and trans. Stephen Halliwell, Cambridge (MA) / London, p. 199, reprinted with corrections, 1999, pp. 47–49. … άπαγγελίας, δι’ έλέου καὶ φόβου περαίνουσα tὴν τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτω κάθαρσiν – through pity and fear accomplis- hing the catharsis of such emotions … 41 Aristotle, Poetics (cit. n. 40), pp. 18–19. 42 Maggie Nelson: The Art of Cruelty. A Reckoning. London / New York 2012, p. 23. 43 René Girard: Violence and the Sacred, trans. Patrick Gregory, London 2013, p. 109; Gi- rard further develops the anthropological interpretation of the ‘scapegoat’ in his chapter: Guillaume de Machaut and the Jews. In: The Scapegoat, trans. Yvonne Freccero, Balti- more 1986, pp. 1–11. Fig. 19: The Tale of Adam of Bristol. Adam, son of William of Bristol, crucified and stabbed by Samuel. London, British Library, Harley 957, fol. 22r, Norwich, c. 1275–1300