188 Part Two: Epigrams in Context
they describe. First of all, there are a number of doublets: epigrams dealing
with the same iconographic scene (see nos. 37–40, 54–55 and 69–70). As works
of art usually do not bear more than one verse inscription, it is reasonable to
assume that these redundant doublets are simply epigrams that play with the
literary conventions of the genre. Secondly, the highly individualistic charac-
ter and the personal touch of many of the epigrams are not very appropriate
for verse inscriptions. In many epigrams, especially those on the Old Testa-
ment, the lyrical subject of the epigrams participates actively in the scenes
that are depicted. There is an “I” that intrudes into the pictorial scenes: an
obtrusive “eye” gazing at the pictures and interpreting their message in a
highly personal manner. The poet is emotionally involved in what he sees: for
instance, “O Passion, O Cross, O Blood that dispels the passions, cleanse my
soul from all wickedness” (no. 54) or “On the threshold of my soul is the
redemptive blood of the Lamb. Away, pernicious Satan, come not near”
(no. 57).
In many of the Old Testament epigrams the poet addresses us directly. Do
we not understand what we see? Can we not grasp the meaning of the picture?
It is a t7poß. It is a prefiguration of Christ’s presence on earth – a faint shadow
of what will only become manifestly clear in the New Testament. This is
illustrated, for instance, by no. 65 (on Abraham): “Abraham takes his son to be
sacrificed to God. Be merciful! What sacrifice does the mind see, of which this
picture is a type?” The answer is, of course, the sacrifice of the Son of God. For
another example, see no. 58 (on Gideon’s Fleece): “First the fleece is moist and
gives dew to the bowl, but then this very fleece is dry. Hide hidden things in
your mind”. Despite the cautious reminder not to reveal what the fleece stands
for, most Byzantine readers will have immediately recognized its symbolic
meaning: the immaculate virginity of the Mother of God. Typology is a com-
monplace hermeneutic stratagem of Byzantine theologians to explain away the
sometimes unorthodox and, therefore, potentially subversive stories of the Old
Testament. This is why epigrams on Old Testament scenes usually allude to the
symbolic interpretations which became attached to its iconography over time.
However, there are only a few epigrams as explicitly “typological” as the ones
at AP I, 57–73. Time and again the poet invites the viewers to read the message
of the Old Testament pictures symbolically, so often that when he finally
returns to New Testament scenes, he warns them at no. 75 (on the Samaritan
Woman) that here a symbolic interpretation is really not necessary: “No type,
but a God and bridegroom here saves his Gentile bride, whom he saw beside the
water”.
Epigram no. 75 refers back to nos. 61 and 69–70, on the wife of Moses and
on Rebecca, respectively. Like the Samaritan woman, Rebecca and Moses’ wife
are expressly identified as “Gentile brides”. It is remarkable to see how often
the poet uses the words Çqnoß and ™qniköß or selects biblical figures of non-