Winter, I. J. (2000). The Eyes Have It: Votive Statuary, Gilgamesh's Axe, and Cathected Viewing in the Ancient Near East. Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance. R. Nelson (ed.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 22-44.

--------------- ... r..... Winter, I. J. (2000). The Eyes Have It: Votive Statuary, Gilgamesh's Axe, and Cathected Viewing in the Ancient Near East. Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance. R. Nelson (ed.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 22-44. CHAPTER ONE THE EYES HAVE IT Votive Statuary, Gilgamesh's Axe, and Cathected Viewing in the Ancient Near East IRENE J. WINTER For H.B.: zi-Sa,-gaJ,-la lu-dagal-du,,-ga The enlarged, staring eyes of Mesopotamian votive statues (Figs. 2-4) have often been remarked upon as a charactetistic stylistic feature, only occasionally with the proposition that their function must have been to denote attentiveness toward the presumed object of their gaze.! Yet it is now known that these statues were placed in shrines either seated within their own chapels or standing in direct visual contact with the resident deiry.? The effect is frequently enhanced by inlay: shell for the white of the eye, lapis lazuli or bitumen for the pupil. The panoply of assembled statues from the Square Temple at Tell Asmar in the third millennium H.C.E., as photographed for the University of Chicago Diyala Expedition in the 1930S, gives an almost eerie sense of absolute and focused attention (Fig. 4).3 In later periods, inscribed banded agate "eye-stones" actually bear the name of, and occasionally messages of dedication by, the donor that are literally "beamed" at the deity." All of this suggests a tradition in which visual attention is stressed, a complement to the verbal attention that is contained in letter-prayers, and even in instructions given to the statues themselves to "speak" to the deity on behalf of the devotee.s I should like to th>nk the editor, Raben Nelson, for the opportunity to participate in the present vol- ume. since the issues with which I have been concerned mesh so well with those that governed his original symposiwn in Los Angeles. I would also lilte to thank Benjamin Studevent-Hickman and Jillide Aker for close readings of an earlier version of the manuscript; and Froma Zeitlin for a series of wonderfully stimulating conversations. plus a number of sources otherwise not known to me. I am deeply indebted to the work of ThorkiId Jacobsen, with whom many of these questions were dis- cussed before his death. Finally, several of the observations contained in the present study, especially those related to Sumerian terms for sight and their l<>gogtaphic writing, owe their present form to rich exchanges with Hermann Behrens. That he did not live to receive the fruit of those exchanges has been, and will remain, a source of great sadness. 22 *  THE EYES HAVE IT * 23 Less studied has been the power of the visual experience articulated in ancient Mesopotamian texts, where the references are not merely implicitly suggested but explictly acknowledged. Indeed, exhortations to view an extraordinary phenome- non often precede description, as if the intended audience were expected to see alld experience the object of the gaze as distinct from merely processing descriptive infor- mation intellectually. Thus, the standard Neo-Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh epic opens with instructions concerning the sacred Eanna Temple precinct in Uruk: "Look at its wall that gleams like copper(?); inspect its inner wall, the likes of which no one can equal!" Then the poem further instructs: "Go up on the (city-) wall of Uruk and walk around; examine its foundation, inspect its brickwork!" - the implicit assumption being that the ensuing inspection will be sufficient to assure for the city-state of the young ruler its rightful place as the preeminent cultural center of its time." The direct relationship between exhortation and ekplrrasis immediately calls to mind classical Greek constructions, as in Euripides' Ion, where the chorus, com- prised of citizens of Athens, first views, then describes the temple of Apollo at Del- phi. A series of exhortations to look alternate with descriptions of specific aspects of the sculptural program supposeclly before them, as the iconographic program is revealed.' Nor does this event stand alone; rather, as demonstrated by Froma Zeitlin, it is part of an identifiable genre in which sightseers come to a temple precinct or another public place and feast their eyes upon an architectural or artifac- tual phenomenon." Vision and visuality have been extensively studied in connection with Greek sources, ranging from specific cases, such as the erotic transfer from beloved to rep- resentation in the Alcestis,9 to the broader "phenomenology of sight".'? That this emphasis, both cultural and scholarly, should be evident in the classical tradition will surprise no one; that parallel concepts should have been richly developed in ancient Mesopotamia, from Sumerian through Neo-Babylonian times, is, if not less expected, certainly less well known, and to date has not been explicitly studied. Yet the literary exhortations found in the Gilgamesh epic, no less than those of the Ion, serve as rhetorical invitations to share experience through a common exhortation to view. They beg the question of variable responses, presuming the mutuality of sen- sory response in the guise of a request to the audience to see what the author has determined should be seen. In royal inscriptions, which constitute the largest class of relevant documents in the Mesopotamian corpus, this presumption rakes on the role of a constitutive statement. When a palace is built, for example, and stated to be "without equal," it becomes so precisely because it has been proclaimed by royal authority to be so. More rarely, particularly in poetic literature, we are given a glimpse of visual expe- rience through direct speech. In an early_second-millennium B.C.E. fragment of the Gilgamesh epic dated to the Old Babylonian period, for example, we are able to step outside of the official corpus of often-formulaic royal inscriptions. Using the literary device of direct speech, Gilgamesh relates a dream to his mother, describing his 24 * I R EN E J. W INTE R v ision of all artif:lCt, all axe of unu sual appearallce. H e goes 0 11 to report: al/ll tr.~ 111/1a ail tad" al/ak " aral ll.~ ltI l/a Hilla aHa tifll, " I saw it, and I felt (such) joy; I loved it as (one would) a wo man ."11 T he hero the n fell to caressing the axe, declaring it his broth er (i.c., his trusted companion). N ow, for pur- poses of the epic narrative, the dream is interpreted as a fore- shadowing of the coming of Enkidu, the semi-wild man of the steppe who will becom e a companio n to him ; but what ~s imp ortant for our purposes IS the coupling of the visual experience with such a strong emo tional cathexion to the object. It w ould be a truism to 2 . Detail, Statue of lbih- il, fou nd at Mari. Early Dynastic III insist that a give n aesthe tic Period , ca. 2 500 H.C.E. (photo M. Chuzeville, courtesy object can only be expe~­ Departement des antiquites orientales, Musee du Louvre, ence d and its impact apprcCl- Paris) ated by the acts of looking and seeing, we re it not for the fact that M esopotamian tradition reinforces th e act, not merely the object. l- That there was a w ell-developed vo cabul ary for seeing a~d looking in both Sumerian and Akkadian, the langu ages of ancient M esopotanua, needs no argument . A plethora of verbs (Sume rian igi ... dUg, igi ... la., igi ... bar, igi ... gal2 ; Akkadian alllan t, banI , dagalll , hatll , natiilu, palasll [lIaplllsllj) cove r as many nuanced aspects as one could find in modem English: to see, behold (by eye hold!); to regard, look at, observe, inspect; to survey, explore, examine; to stare.P Parallel to this developed vocabulary is the number of occasions in Mesopotamian literary and historical texts in which the act of looking is described, or visual inspection is invited. These occurrences range from love po etry and heroic epics, in which the regard of the beloved or the display of the hero are woven into evaluative passages, to building accounts in which the finished product is presented to an intended audience. T he most frequent responses to an envisioned obje ct occur in association with human love or affection, the objec t then being the beloved - sexual partner or com- panion . One bilingual text describes a well- endowed young man as "one w ho is fit- ting (i.e, satisfying) to look at" (Sum. igi.bar he 2.du7 = Akk. sa alia naplusi asl/ll/). 14  T HE EYES HAV E IT * 25 In the N eo-Assyrian version of the Gilgam esh epic, wh en Gil- gamesh is described to Enkidu before the two actually meet, Enkidu first is invited to "see him , look into his face" (amur sasu utu l paniiu) . 15 O nly then does the passage go on to describe the hero. In the fol- lowing passage, Gilgamesh is called a "well-formed youth, bearing vitality; ado rne d with allure (is) his w hole body" (eltiita bani balta isi/ z u 'Lilla kllzba kalu z umriiu].16 The po etics of alliteration call for axial symmetry of each line based upon initial word sounds (vowel :b:b:vowel in the first line, z:k:k:z in the second), which delivers a sort of litany of attributes when spoken 3. Detail, Statue of Gudea, ruler of Lagash, found at Tello. aloud; but even in English , N eo-Sumerian Period, ca. 2110 B.C. E. (photo by Jill Casid, one gets a strong mental image reproduced cou rtesy Departernent des antiquites orientales, on ce w e have been instructed, Musee du Louvre, Paris) through Enkidu, to see the heroic figure . Ind eed, this ve rbal description conforms mo st closely with the rend ering of the well-formed body of the Akk adian ruler N aram-Sin (ca. 22 50 B.C. E.) on his stele found at Susa (Fig. 5), such that it has been suggested that the relationship is not accidental.'? Nor are the descriptions of Gilgamesh and his axe the only instances of picturing vision in th e epic. In the Old Babyloni an version cited above in the epi- sode with the axe, once Gilgam esh has found his companion, he is made to say in direc t speech: anattalka Enkidu kTma ilim tabaisi, " I look at you, Enkidu, (and) you are like a god." 18 In other w ords, in both cases, where descripti on could have suf- ficed (Gilgamesh is we ll formed ; Enkidu is like a god), the literary devices o f ex ho r- tation or firsthand report are employed in such a way as to focus upon the act of viewing that un derlies the visual assessme nt. In addition to the positive view if the belove d, the lover's regard is itself described positively, as in an example of Sumerian love poetry in w hich the lover says to his sister/ belove d: igi-za igi dUg-ru-na-bi ma-dug., "the gaze of your eye/your regard is pleasing to me." 19 The positive regard of gods or kings, described in tenus of glowing or shining (not unlike the English "beaming" at someone), is also seen as 26 * IR EN E J. W INTER 4. Votive statu es from the Square Temple, Tell Asmar. Early Dynastic Periods II and Ill , ca. 275o-:qoo B.C.E. (Pho to courtesy The Oriental Institu te, University of C hicago) a mark of favor: ilia biilllSl/llll namriuim I[ii ijppalsiillim , "with their shining faces, truly they looked at me"; and rulers are flattered by courtiers who speak of their desire to enter before the king "in order to see his gracious face," ana dagali panisu damqiita.2o Verbs of seeing can also be stressed, so that individuals are invited to stare/ look hard at, not merely see, particular phenomena, as in one twelfth- century bilingual Baby- lonian text concerning the image of a god: ibtarrii lIis mati lallSII elii, " [T ]he people of the land stared at his [i.e., the deity's] tall/ lofty figure."21 Thus, the relationship between being on view and appreciative visual assessment is we ll establishe d with respect to persons and imputed to deities in the literature, and indeed, th e conclusion of the line of the Babylonian text just cited is that, the people once havin g seen the god' s lofty (and fitting, and majestic, and bright) image, tlley all paid attention to him - that is, they focused upon the god himself, as well as cathecting to the im age. The aesthetic aspects of that concentration of emotional energy are dem onstrated through the qualities of fonn and stature selected for and described in conjunction wi th favor- able viewing; the importance of visual experience is indicated through being acknowledged as the necessary pathway to engagement. TIllS emphasis on vision and the subsequent process of assessment through  THE EYES H A V E I T * 27 5· Detail, Stele of Naram-Sin, found at Susa. Akkadian Period, ca. 22 50 B.C. E. (Photo co urtesy Departernent des antiquites orientales, Musee du Louvre , Paris) focused viewing can also be dem onstrated with respect to works such as tem ples, palaces, and precious objects. The Old Babylon ian Gilgamesh fragmen t cited clearly illustrates the degree to w hich visual affect was acknowledged in co njunction wit h inanimate obj ects, whe n th e hero 's dream-axe is described as having elicited such a pow erful response. Since th e majori ty of othe r textual references come from the official corpus of royal do cuments, with their own propagandistic agendas, the visual attributes recorded for royal undertakings are generally given positive value, and in such cases, the response to the specific visual stimulus is expected to be admiring. N evertheless, even throu gh these carefully managed texts, it is possible to glean a sense of th e importance of seeing, and thereby the importance of audience, for w orks we w ould call "art," as well as for anima te objects of desire. Often th e gods are the selected audience, particularly in royal inscriptions where the building of temples is recorded. When the Middle Assyrian ruler Shalmaneser I 28 * IRENE J. WINTER (1274-1245 H.C.E.) rebuilds the Assur temple after the destruction of an earlier one by fire and the god is brought in to take up residence in the new temple, the ruler describes his hope that his work will bring satisfaction in terms of the god's first see- ing and then being pleased with his new abode: epieti nimuni E, satll limurma liilda, "[M]ay he (the god Assur) see the bright/shining works of that temple and rejoice."22 The Neo-Assyrian ruler Esarhaddon (680--669 D.C.E.) also consistently concludes his temple-building accounts with the hope that the deity involved may "look joyously" upon the king's work.» In one of the more complete accounts, Esarhaddon first records the installation of the god Assur in his temple, the place- ment of other deities and various animal attributes around him, and the establish- ment of regular cnlt offerings. Then the god's reaction is provided, not as an aspira- tion but as a matter of record: epsetia damqate ken;s ippalisma eli, libbasu, "When he (Assur) looked steadfastly upon my good works, his heart rejoiced. "2. Deities are not the only audience whose gaze is invoked. On the colossal gate- way lion from the Sharrar Niphi temple in Nirnrud, Assurnasirpal II (883-859 H.C.E.) records that he built the temple "for the eternal regard of rulers and princes," ana nan{mar mJalkT.MES u3 NUN.MES sa darate epllS, and the same con- struction is used on blocks from the king's Northwest Palace at Nirnrud.z> It may well be the case that the public location of the lion inscription and the palace orthostats accounts for the particular audience addressed _ those rulers who will enter the temple or palace in later years as equals and be in a position to restore them, as expressed explicitly toward the end of the Sharrar Niphi inscriprion.> However, in the Northwest Palace inscription, no specific instructions for repairs and maintenance in the future follow; rather, afier being invited to gaze, the future ruler is simply told that the king made the palace fitting and splendid "for eternity," ana darate, installing colossal beasts of limestone and alabaster in its doorwavs.v? What these last citations provide is both the expansion of the audience beyond the gods to future generations of rulers, and also the jnxtaposition of spectacular works to the assertion that the palace has been built to be seen for eternity. A text of the Neo-Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 H.C.E.) goes even further, linking the viewing of luxurious appointments with admiration and stating its intended audience to be all peoples, not merely kings and princes: bita satim ana tabrdti uSepiSma ana dagalim kiSsat niSe lule usmalliSa, "I had that temple built for admiration, (and) for the viewing/regard of all the people I filled it with delight(s)."28 We shall return to the particular goal of provoking admiration, but for the present, the li:nkage of viewing, spectacle (in this case, the temple), and response is clearly established, as is the range of audience, from god, to future rulers, to "the people." The exhortation to view works that by Our definition would be included in the category of "art," andlor the aspiration to have such works viewed (and admired), extends to goods as well as buildings, and one can find a similar range of audiences Invoked. In a Nee-Babylonian text of Nabonidus (555-539 H.C.E.), for example, the god Shamash is enjoined to "look joyously upon the precious products of the  THE EYES HAVE IT * 29 king's hands, his auspicious works," lipitti qiitia suq,ml epsetllf1 dal1lqiita ... !JatUS naplisa"''''a, and amongst these, the "royal image" is specifically rnentioned.t? In other words, the gods are specifically invited to look upon works in which there has been artistic investment and respond joyfully, that is, favorably. In a text of Assurnasirpal I (1049-[030 B.C.E.), an ornate bed made for the inner chamber of the temple of the goddess Ishtar is elaborately described. The king tells us that the bed has been made of taskaril1llU-wood (boxwood?) and gold, adorned with precious stones, and as a result, it shines "like the rays of the snn(god)." He then closes with the assessment: "for viewing it is suited," aula n]atali asmat, a con- struction not unlike that used for the well-formed youth sa alia lIaplusi a",m, one who is "suited to being looked at," that is, worth seeing. 3D In a Neo-Babylonian text some 500 years later, Nebuchadnezzar II also speaks of having deposited within a temple "everything that is (worthy of) being looked at": ",i",,,,a sa illllattal,,31 In neither of these texts is the audience who will do the looking specified. Rather, it is the fact of being see-worthy that is emphasized, as if this in itself were a sufficient statement of the work's impact and value. The Assurnasirpal I text, being the more complete, actually provides us with the entire sequence: from construction through completion to response. First, the act of making the bed and its decoration is given attention; then, once completed, the bed shines like the sun, as a positive attribute; and finally, as such, it is worthy of regard. Similarly, in a text of Shalmaneser III of Assyria (858-824 B.C.E.), the king records a statue sa epsetusu ana dagali hliia siitllnl bllnllatlaSI~, "whose workmanship is pleasurable to behold, whose appearance is extraordinary."32 Here, too, issues of facture (its workmanship) and representation (its extraordinary appearance) are articulated, and both are linked to viewing. But perhaps even more important: If through a combination of workmanship and visual attributes value is achieved, it is also the case that thro"gh seeing, value is perceived. The Shalmaneser text further adds the emotional response of pleasure that comes as a result of seeing something satisfying. Surely, here, we come close to developed Western and South Asian notions of aesthetics as engaging sensory delight, not merely intellection. This is further attested in instances where the Assyrian kings project divine response to their acts of pious patronage. For the gods in question, it is quite explicit that seeing is the means by which satisfaction is to be ascertained. In one text, for example, Esarhaddon projects a goddess's response upon seeing his restoration work in Babylonia, when he describes the goddess Nan. as 'Joyous in her regard (of) that work," sipir sasll 'NanJ hadrr ina naplllsisa.3J The same mecha- nism is articulated as Esarhaddon describes his rebuilding of the temple of the god- dess Gula; however, there he expresses the hope that "she may then look joyfully upon this work."34 Similarly, his son, Assurbanipal (668--Q27 B.C.E.) requests the goddess Ninmah to "look joyfully upon my auspicious works," epieua damqiiti !radlS lippalis.» This formulation goes back at least into the second millennium B.C.E., as is evi- dent from the statement of Shalmaneser I that concludes his description of the r -----------IIIIIIIIIII 30 * IRENE J. WINTER rebuilding of the Assur temple, earlier destroyed by fire. The full passage reads: "When Assur, the lord, enters that temple and joyfully takes his place on the lofty dais, may he see the shining workmanship of that temple and rejoice," enuma 'Assur EN ana £2 58tu ibaJuma BARAz-su ~fra badfs irammu epieti nimruti £2 58tu iimurma lihda36 • As this study represents an initial attempt to layout the sources for the Mesopotamian visual experience, I have selected from a broad range of texts, both chronological and typological. Future research may demonstrate different attitudes toward the nature of vision and viewing, depending upon whether sources tend to be so-called historical (i.e., royal) texts or literary texts, such as epics and love poetry. One could argue that the appreciative response desired in royal texts is largely rhetorical. Indeed, there are instances when the intended quid pro quo is made quite explicit, as when Esarhaddon expresses the hope that when the goddess Nan. is 'Joyous in her viewing" of the restoration work he has done on her cult sanctuary, barns ina naplusiia, she might put in a good word for him before the god Nabil.J7 On another occasion, he addresses the same goddess directly, saying: "if/when you are joyous in your dwelling," badis ina asabiki, and then proceeds to list what benefits might come to him - that she might speak well of him, establish a good fate for him, and so forth.3s Nevertheless, the status accorded the gaze of the divine beneficiary, as the necessary act of perception prior to affirmation and benevolent patronage, reinforces the power of visual cathexion in Mesopotamian tradition. Vet another type of visual response is consistently recorded: that of "the people" to a Jru!jorwork. Whereas the reaction of 'Joy" is ascribed to gods and rulers, who are the direct beneficiaries of these works, which by our definition we call "art," lower- echelon viewers are said, rather, to respond with "admiration" and. on occasion, with "awe" (Sum. u.-di and ni,-me-gar; AIde. tabntu and qaIu). In a Sumerian text recording the dedication of a cultic vessel on behalf of Rim-Sin of Larsa (ca. 1 6 1822- 7 3 B.C.E.), for example, the sacred gate of the great courtyard of a temple to lnanna is called the "place of ad+miration of the land," ki-u.-di-kalam_ma_ka.39 I have broken the word admiration apan in the last translation in order to con- form to its Latin prefix-plus-root, because it preserves exactly the relationship of viewing/seeing (mirare) plus enhancement (ad-) which, when joined together, sig- ruty the same intensified sensory activity as does the Sumerian u.-di and its Akka- dian equivalent, tabntu (to be discussed) - that is, augmented viewing leading to positive response. On its own, the cuneiform sign for u. includes the ideographic sign for eye, igi. As a word, the Sumerian u. has lexical equivalents to the Aldcadian verbs of seeing, barn, naliilu and nap/usu.40 Indeed, Thorkild Jacobsen has shown that the base mearung of U. is the act ofIooking, and the verbal Construction u -e or u -di . . 1 th • • IS precise y e imperfective (i.e., ongoing) act of looking; so that the actual denota- tion tinuedof looking.n the u.-di-response, that of"ad+miration," is predicated precisely upon con- The Sumerian term u.-di has often been translated by modem scholars as "won-  THE EYES HAVE IT * 31 der," "marvel," "astonishment," thereby corresponding well to the Greek that/ilia ides thai, that "amazed stupor produced by seeing," or "looking in wonder and astonishment," so well documented in classical sources." I believe the Sumerian does suggest all of these things in the lexicon of experience, and for a poetic transla- tion, a single word like "wonder" would render the Sumerian (or Akkadian) well. But I would argue that for purposes of cultural analysis, only the more literal "ad+miration" captures the relationship between the visual spectacle and the specta- tor's response that is primary in the Sumerian and subsequent Akkadian/Neo-Assyr- Ian usage. It seems not irrelevant, therefore, that the components making up the Sumerian sign u. are precisely those for eye, igi (as noted) and house, e2• Although one greets most psychophilology with justified scepticism, in the present case the resultant ideogram, eye+house, seems to picture exactly the spectatorial tole here being described, and physically articulate the visual underpinning of the reaction: ad+miration. Deities and rulers can on occasion also evoke this response. The goddess Inanna, in a late third millennium hymn, is called nin u.-di-kalam-ma, "lady, [object o~ admiration of the land."43 Shulgi of Ur (2094-2047 B.C.E.) is described in a royal hymn as su.-za-gin, gaba-ku,-ga u.-di, "(king with a) dark lustrous beard, a pure/shining breast, a sight (to behold)," and implicitly, therefore, admirable, a wonder, a marvel.r' And later on in the same hymn, the king is addressed directly: mes-zi kumn,-na-gun,-a-gim u.-di-du,.-ga-me-en" "like a true mes-tree, sparkling with irridescent fruits, you are a sweet sight. "45 The description of Shulgi is not unlike that given for Durnuzi, consort of the goddess Inanna, in one of the Sumerian temple hymns, probably of the same period: once again, "he of the pure/shining breast, a sight [to behold]," u.-di."" Sjoberg, in his edition of the hymns, has translated the phrase "marvelous to behold," and indeed in context, this translation serves the sense quite well. In others of the temple hymns, the temples themselves, not their deities, are referred to in the same terms. The temple of Inanna in Kullaba is said to be u.-di gi-Ii gur,-m, lit- erally, "admirable, full of allure."47 And the temple of Numusda in Kazallu is pre- sented as u.-e gub-ba, "set up (or established) for [unending] admiration."" Finally, in the hymn recording the building of the Ekur in Nippur by Shulgi's father, Ur-Namma, respondents are introduced. We are told specifically that the king established it (the temple) "for the admiration of the multitudes," u.-di-bi-se, un-sar2-sar2-ra-ba si_im_ma_gub.49 Nowhere is the sense of visual effect clearer than in the several references by Gudea of Lagash (ca. 2127-2IIO B.C.E.) to his Eninnu temple, built for the god Ningirsu in the city of Girsu. Gudea's text represents the most eloquent account of a Sumerian temple thus far preserved. Statements of the temple's admirable qualities are repeated throughout Gudea's lengthy account of its building and consecration. In the [mit part, related to the building of the temple and known as Cylinder A, it is stated on more than one occasion that the temple was established to be admired, --------------J * J2 IRENE J. WINTER u.-di-de, ba-gub.>? In the final summary description-cum-hymn to the temple at the end of that cylinder, we are told: 29: 14 e1-a nil-gal-hi The temple, its awesome radiance IS kaJam-ma rnu-ri was cast over the land; 16 ka-tar-ra-bi its praise-song 17 kur-re ba-ti ... reached the mountains .. JO: II W-Ii gur,-a [the temple], bearing allure, 12 u.-di-de, gub-ba is establishedto be admired. It is of particular interest that the closing point in the passage, which stands for the affect of the temple as a whole, is its nature as an object worthy of what we have been calling "ad+miration." Thus, the implication in modem language, which follows clearly from the context, is that once established, the result is nothing short of astonishing, marvelous, wondrous. This is echoed further in Gudea's continuing account of his temple, known as Cylinder B, which describes the temple's consecration. After another laudatory description, we are told that not only the people but even the generic Anunna-gods "made their way to view (i.e., admire) it": da-nun_na u.-di-de, im-ma-su.-su.- ge-es,.5I That these undifferentiated, lower-level deities have journeyed to the temple and then respond positively urges us to understand that even if the underly- ing sense of the term u.-di is "to see," the implication of that seeing is a positive loading of the experience, hence "ad+rniration." The sense of semantic loading is also clearly implied in the one negative case in the literature, the text known as the "Lamentation over Sumer and Ur," in which the temple of Nanna at Ur, the god's holy dwelling, described as once fragrant with cedar and decorated with gold, silver, and lapis lazuli, has been destroyed. Using the construction we have been considering, the text then states: "[T]he house/temple, the admiration of which Was [once] so good, that admiration is (now) destroyed," e, u.-di-bi i]-du ••-ga-ri u.-di-bi ba-gul.s2 Once again We see the same pattern of composition: After the affective attributes are presented, the summary statement relates to the visual response the temple had evoked. The context makes clear that the previous visually based admiration had been charged with the positive (du,., "goodness," "sweetness"), and the loss is to be lamented. In the negative, we are able to see its opposite even more clearly - just how much the visual experience had previously been charged with positive affect. Individual parts of temples, along with cult objects in which great care was invested, are also discussed in terms of their power to elicit admiration. The main COUrtyardof the Sharnash temple in Larsa, the E.babbar, in a text of the ruler Sin- 18 18 iddinam ( 49- 4J B.C.E.), Was called the "place of admiration of the land," k(isa]l-m~ ef] e.-babb .......ra/ki_u.-di_ka1am_ma_ka.s] This is essentially the same phrase as that used for the courtyard of the E.me'urur temple in Larsa when a precious cult vessel for Inanna was set up there in honor of the ruler Rim-Sin. 54 As for objects, a cultic Jakan-vessel made by Ibbi-Sin of Ur (2028-2004 H.C.E.),  THE EYES HAVE IT * 33 artfully formed and decorated with wild bull, and snakes, is celebrated as a work "the admiration of whose adornment is without end," se-er-ga-an-du,,-ga-bi u.-di nu-til-le-darn.V' A chariot for the god EoW is further eulogized in direct speech by the ruler gme-Dagan of Isin (1953-1935 B.C.E.): "[Y]ou are admirable [i.e., a thing of wonder] to behold, your appointments are outstanding," nig,-u.-di gal,-me-en gis.su-kar,-zu dalla mal} im_e,.s. These last citations make clear that not only buildings but also precious objects can elicit responses of admiration. In addition, the Ismc-Dagan text makes a substantive out of the combination of nig, (thing) and u.-di, such that we have before us a "thing of admiration [or wonder]." The Akkadian version of the same phenomenon is an exact lexical equivalent of the Sumerian, not infrequently actually written with Sumerian logograms.57 Thus, for example, the Sumerian u.-di un-sar,-ra is the equivalent of Akkadian tab,al kissat nise, for the "admiration of all the people," with the Akkadian word kissatJl actually written with the Sumerian sign sar, (and niSi! often with the sign for un, "people"). What is more, the word tabntu is a nominal formation from the verb barn} "to see," comparable to the visual component incorporated into the Sumerian logogram for u6• Usage follows a similar pattern as well. Both Sennacherib (704--<i81B.C.E.) and Esarhaddon of Assyria make frequent use of this formulation for their palaces inscriptions - Sennacherib also singling out his grear gateway colossi as objects of admiration, if not astonishment.58 Esarhaddon, in creating the palace of the crown prince for his son Assurbanipal, further amplifies the phrase by adding that it was arlO tab,at kissat nise·MES Illte uimalli, "for the ad+miration [i.e., the admiring gaze] of all the people, I filled it with delight."'· In a text cited earlier with respect to public viewing, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon makes it even more explicit. By doubling the verbs related to sight, he emphasizes the visual experience even further: blta satim ana tabriiti lisepismo ana dagiilllm kissal "iSe IlIli! Jlsmallisa, "I had that temple built for ad+miration; for the regard of all the people, I filled it with delight(s)."6o In other words, to provoke ad+miration is a motive in his doing, and to that end, he filled the temple with delight(s) so that it would be (perpetually) gazed at by all the people. Nabopolassar (625--<io5 B.C.E.) adds another piece in the argument of intense admiration-stimulated-by-viewing, when, in speaking of his work on the temple of Marduk, he also includes the sense of "fitting" as a positive qualiry of the finished building: ana tabratim Iii Jlsiisimsu, "for (the) admiration (of the onlookers) I truly caused it to be suitable/fitting."6! Both the qualiry of being "fitting" and the admi- ration that that provokes are part of the ,ummary 'tatement of the temple. As with the accounts of Sumerian temples already cited, the statement that a work is for, or provokes, admiration is generally the closing affirmation of the work in the texts. Paul Garelli has suggested that those palaces and other works that provoke admi- ration do so through the great effort expended and the precious materials utilised.V From a survey of all instances where the construction is used, his criteria can be extended to include a wide variety of propetties related to material, skill, and scale, r: a 34 * IRENE J. WINTER I p~a ttributes of form and artful manufacture and the presence of what to us seems .. ineffable, like radiance.e- But I would argue that the sum of all of the properties IS the ability to evoke the u -di/tabritu response of intense "ad+miration." As noted, when the texts specify those who respond to works in this way, the; are neither the high gods nor rulers. The case of the Anunna-gods in Gudea s Cylinder B can be understood as hyperbole that reaches beyond the temple's earthly spectators; bur since the Anunna-gods are a class of undifferentiated lower divinities, not the named gods of the pantheon, the descriptive terminology IS still restricted to the general audience, as distinct from direct beneficiaries of the work. The only instance I have found in which a high god is so engaged is a reference III one of the Shulgi hymns of the Third Dynasty of Ur (late third millennium B.C.E.) to the goddess Inanna, who looks in ad+miration as the king enters her shrine.w This latter instance can best be understood if Shulgi's entrance into the shrine is viewed in conjunction with his performance of the "Sacred Marriage" rite, in which the bride Inanna receives her bridegroom; it is then specific to the context of the royal hymn, where the lover (the goddess) may be said to be overwhelmed by the sight of the beloved (the ruler). What is certain is that to date, no responses of the high deities to cultic objects or temples made/built on their behalf have been preserved describing their experience of the works in terms of "wonder," or "ad+miration," u,-di or tabtitu; rather, theirs is a response of 'Joy," or "delight." I believe the identification of respondents and their mfferential responses to be a not-trivial mstinction. Gods, or Icings, constitute the primary recipients of build- ing/work projects. It is with them in mind that the projects have been undertaken; they are in effect the intended beneficiaries of the undertabng, and thus, active recipients of the work. Their response is therefore described in terms of direct grati- fication: joy, pleasure, delight.65 By contrast, when "the people," or the minor deities like the Annunab reported by Gudea, stand before a m'\ior work, they con- stitute a more passive audience: not the project's direct beneficiaries, but its onlook- ers. They react to the qualities and overall affect of the particular enterprise as specta- tors; and as such, they are neither proprietary nor directly gratified; they are instead impressed, if not overwhelmed. Both responses _ joy/delight and ad+miration _ are grounded in the act of seeing; however, for the gods, seeing is the point of departure, the trigger for an emotional response in anticipation of active engage- ment, whereas for the populace, the end experience is the act of seeing itself, inten- sified as the powerful emotional reaction of admiration. A less frequendy used formula actually articulates a response comprised not only of admiration but also of awe so powerful that it reduces respondents to a state of combined jubilation-eum-speecWessness (Sum. nig.-Ole-gar; Akk, qiilu).66 In this way do the people respond to the goddess Inanna;67 but even more interesting is the combination u.-di-nig,-Ole-gar_sag_gi,,_ga, "the admiration and awe of the black-headed people (the Sumerians)," in response to the god EnIil. 68 The two are combined again in a description of the cultic Ola-gur -boat of Shulgi approaching the quay, "a thing of awe, its admiration does not end," nig,-  THE EYES HAVE IT * 35 me-gar-am, u.-di-bi nu_til,_le.69 Sjoberg has described nigz-me-gar as an unsounded intake of breath. It is an immediate and physiological response to the experience of power, as is clear in the hymn to the Ulmash temple of Inanna, where it is the temple's affect that makes awed silence fall upon (?) enemy lands, nig.-me-gar ki-bala-a DU7-DU7•70 Sjoberg has also conunented upon the close connection of nigz-me-gar with u.-di in the sense of a joined awe or anticipation plus ad-l-miration.?! Together they heighten the intensity of the viewer/reactor's response. The entity, god or work, provoking awe and admiration, is then some- thing sufficiently powerful and/or impressive that it is experienced with extremely strong emotion." I find myself tending to think of the ad+miration/awe responses in tenus of a sort of WOW! effect on the people, parallel to, but different from, the joy response of the gods. It is as if the impact of the work when viewed by the people is per- ceived as impressive, if not overwhelming, whereas when viewed by the gods, their own inherent power matches that of the work, and so their response is seen not in tenus of being overwhelmed but rather well met. What to the gods produces delight, to those on a lower level evokes admiration and awe; and therefore, vision must be understood not as an absolute but as a social phenomenon. When seen in this light, it is further possible to understand the use of the terms u.-di/ tabntu in so many royal texts as part of the ideological apparatus of the state. It is a way, after all, of calling attention to the investment in and the merit to be obtained from a given work or project, by claiming for it a powerful visual affect and/or response. I would suggest that this is why so many official texts conclude their descriptions of important projects with the summary statement of the work's ability to elicit admiration, or "wonder" _ the ultimate affirmation of an enterprise. Thus, the clos- ing passage of Gudea's Cylinder A on the building of the Eninnu moves from description of the affective properties of the temple to an assessment of its impact. And in the same way, the Assyrian building accounts also initially lay the ground- work for closure of the project by declaring the undertaking to have been done to perfection. Only then is the work in question declared to be perceived as intended, with admiration, by future princes, or by the people. In generalizing for all of Mesopotamian culture over a complex zooo-year period, during which many historical shifts and changes in dominant language occur, I have chosen to focus upon continuities, rather than differences. This seems justified both by demonstrable continuities in cultural patterns and by the fact that the present study constitutes an initial investigation of the phenomenon of visual response. It should be stated, however, that there is not always a perfect correspon- dence across periods or languages where activities or tenus related to intensified visual experience are in evidence. For one thing, it will have been nodced that exhortations to view have been cited from the Akkadian, not the Sumerian, literary corpus. For another, later Neo-Assyrian rulers seem to balance references to temple construction with accounts of palace building, both of which elicit strong VISUal --------------u * ]6 IRENE J. WINTER responses, whereas to date I have not found references to Sumerian palaces that claim to affect their viewing public in the ways descnbed above. What this differ- ence may signify, if indeed it turns out to be consistent and meaningful, is that the class of affecting works has been expanded over time and/or across the Sumenan- to-Akkadian/Assyrian historical divide. Nevertheless, a sufficiently large number of Sumerian logograms are preserved in the written versions of Akkadian terms, and enough connections can be made with individual elements _ such as the temples and cult objects eliciting strong responses, as well as the distinction between divine and popular responses to the works celebrated - that I would not want to posit any less importance accorded to vision in Sumerian, as opposed to Akkadian, tradition. For architecture and objects alike, the association of special properties with enhanced visual response forms an essential part of the account of a work, while parallels in writing and meaning of the primary terms suggest that the completed work was no less "affective" in earlier periods than it was later. Finally, in both lan- guages, Sumerian and Akkadian, we find quite comparable rhetorical strategies on the part of Mesopotamian rulers: in particular, the attribution of the people's posi- tive response of ad+miration and awe as the closing statement and ultimate affirma- tion of their enterprises.73 Let us now rerurn to the third millennium Sumerian sculptures with which we began (Figs. 2-4). I would submit that the key to their enlarged eyes does indeed lie in the votive nature of the images. But I would add that in addition to the focus of attention, what We are seeing in those eyes is literally the physical manifestation of individuals struck by the u..-di response to the deiry before him/her, a deiry whose awe-inspiring nature is then reflected in the wide-eyed stare. In this way, the enlarged eyes of the statues serve both as the expression of devo- tion and the reflection of the ad+miring response to the awe-inspiring divinity whose image would presumably have been installed in the shrine where the votive statues were placed. Here again, as in the case of the powerfully muscled right ann in the statues of Gudea of Lagash that articulates the divine empowerment of the ruler, form is directly invested with meaning.74 That the votive statue, which after all represents the pious devotee, should mani- fest this visible marker of affect makes sense when it is recalled that deities as well as works are documented as eliciting the identical response resulting from intense visual experience. In fact, if what "the people" are responding to in the works, or at least what is claimed for the works, is the same power as is inherently possessed by the gods, then it should come as no surprise that the responses should be identical. Or, inversely, if for MesoPotamia a primary role played by affective sensory (i.e., ~esthetic) experience was to touch and experience (the awesome power inherent m) the diVIne, then faced directly with the diviniry him/herself, one should expect the homologous response. Put in the proper hierarchical order, the people respond to the gods with an awe born of the impact derived from direct and intense visual experience of the sacred; and what they respond to in the work _ temple, object, or even royal abode - is precisely those properties that link it to the divine.t>  T HE EYES H AV E IT * 37 Nor sho uld this preclude find ing enlarged eyes associated with divine images in th e M esop otamian reper- toire, despite the notable scarcity of divine images in th e archaeological record.?" N ot on ly are the gods cons is- tently describ ed as "seeing" or "view- ing" the objects of their pleasure, as documented in this chapter, but they are also described as viewing th e pio us in interactions . T hus, in a text of Assurbanipal, the king records that the gods Assur and N inlil " lift their auspi- cious eyes," and "look joyfully up on the king," ilia 1115 1[11/1511111 / daniqati . . . bad,s [it]taplaslI ,77 just as, in C hristian worship, th e Virgin is invoked by the pious wors hiper in th e " Salve R egina": "turn thy co mpa ssionate eyes toward us," illos tuos misericordes occulos ad /lOS convene. In the visual record, this relationship IS best preserved in narrative relief, where we see kings standing in ritual service before a deity (e.g., the Stele of Ur-Nanuna of Ur), or in direct audi- ence with the god (as on the Stele of Hanunurabi, Fig. 6). In both cases, one Sumerian , the other Old Babyloni an, the reciprocity of visual exchange is dearly marked. That the god's "view- ing" has implications beyond mere sight toward positive acknowledgme nt and benevolence is clear from an O ld Baby- lonian hymn to the goddess Ishtar, where she is exalted: naplasuia bani bu 'am, "prosperity is created by her gaze."78 In the end, it is this prospe rity (1m'am) in Akkadian, abundance (l:!e2"g~) in Sumerian, that is the ulti- 6. Stele bearing [he Laws of H amrnu rabi, found mate gift of the gods, and thus, to have a [ SUg . O ld Babvlonian . Period. 179 1 - 175 0 II.C.E. d represented Hammurabi in the same (Pho to M . C huzevi lle . courtesy Dcpa rrcmcnt cs . '['C5 orientales annqut Musee du Lou vre, Pans) period literally eye to eye with the sun- ~. .... --------------_J 38* IRENE J. WINTER god Sharnash is tantamount to proclaiming to viewers of the stele that the king is truly in the god's favor, that his authority to propound the laws also contained on the stele derives directly from the deity, who, if order is properly maintained, will look well (sic) upon not only the king, but the kingdom."? The consequence of putting the textual material together with the sculptures has been to make clear how much stress was placed upon vision and visuality within Mesopotamian tradirion, and how well vision was understood as a cognitive and symbolic act. In the sculpture, eyes are emphasized, even disproportionally in some periods, and this would seem to signal not only the intensity of the visual bond between, say, devotee and deity but also the augmented visual experience that results. In the texts, gods and rulers see not only each other but also works _ tem- ples, cult appunenances, royal images, devotees - and they are pleased; Their hearts rejoice, their faces shine; and the hoped-for result is that they will respond benevo- lently to the patron/ruler responsible for the work in question, or to the pious sup- plicant. The generic "people" and the lower-level gods also see works _ temples, palaces, statuary, luxury goods - and are declared to respond appropriately; with the admirarion and awe that results from a powerful visual experience, the bowled-over spectator before the spedacular. In addition, individuals cathect visually to individual objects; the lover to the beloved, Gilgamesh to his dream-axe. In tum, objects and public works are declared worthy of being seen, as a way to underscore their value. In shorr, as has been argued for classical Greece and the antique in general.w so also for ancient MesoPotamia: The act of viewing arouses the spectator's responses. Visuality is coded as affective and powerful, and vision is explicitly acknowledged as the primary path to both religious and aesthetic experience. NOTES See, for example, Helen Gardner, Art 1hrough the Ages, 6rh ed. (New York; Harcourt, Brace,Jovanovich, 1975),51-2 and Figs. 2-10 to 2-12 and 2-18; "One notices at once ... how disproPOrtionately large rhe eyes are .... The reason for this is convention." "The purpose of rhese votive figures was to offer constant prayers to the gods in behalf of their donors, and rhus their open-eyed stare may symbolize the eternal wakefulness necessary if rhey are to fuJfiII rheir duty." 2 I.). Winter, .. "'Idols of rhe King'; Consecrated images of rulers in ancient Mesopotlnua, .lou"",l of Ritual Studies 6 (1992): '3-42. 3 The two hugest images in rhe Diyala group, one male holding a cup, rhe orher female, have been cOllSIderedby some scholaIs to be deities _ due to their scale and an argu- ment that rhe divine emblem on rhe base of the male figure precludes his having been an ordinary votary - alrhough my own opinion is that rhe rest of their attributes and Properties place rhem in rhe votive category (see partial disCUSSionin A. Spycket, La ~/Qtu;:ndu />rock-Orient 8 anden lHandbuch der Orientalistik, Abt. 7, Bd. I]) (Leiden: .).. ' (9 1), 54, and 10 I.). W1Oter, "Review ofSpycket, La S/Qtuaire," Journal of c.mtiform Stud,es 36 (1984): 106.  THE EYES HAVE IT * ]9 4 For the "eye-stones," see Stephen Langdon, "The Eyes of Ningal," Revile Assyri- ologique 20 (192]): 9-II; Wilfred G. Lambert, "An Eye-stone of Esarhaddon's Queen and Other Similar GeIl15," Revile d'Assyriologie 6] (1969): 65--')1;idem., "An Eyestone of Ibbi-Sin." Iraq 41 (1979): 44; B. K. Ismail, "Onyx Bead with Sumerian Vorive Inscription of Adad-apla-iddina," Sumer 37 (1981): IJ4-IS; and recent discussion in F. Tallon, ed., Les pierres predeuses de l'Orient anciefl (paris: Reunion des Musees Nationaux, 1995), 72-3 re object No. 105. There are nearly 30 such eye-stones known, from the late Neo-Sumerian period in the end of the third millennium B.C.E. to the Neo-Babylonian period in the middle of the first. The brownish color of the agate with its white center closely resembles a human eye. One of the most complete dedicatory inscriptions reads: "To Baba, her mistress, for the life of lbbi-Sin [the last ruler of the Ur III period], Aman-ili, lady of Ir-nanna, governor of Lagash, dedicated (this object)" (Lambert, Iraq 41: 44)· 5 Discussed in Winter,joumal oj Ritual Studies 6: 21. 6 TIre Epic oj Gilgamesh, trans. Maureen G. Kovacs (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1985), ], Tablet I, I. 12. 7 Euripides, [Oil, trans. W. S. Di Piero, with Introduction by Peter Burian [The Greek Tragedy in New Translations] (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), U. 164-225: Chorus: "Look! Images of the gods housed here .... Look at this! Herakles, son of Zeus." See also on this the study by Froma I. Zeitlin, "The Artful Eye: Vision, Ecphrasis and Spectacle in Euripidean Theatre," in Simon Goldhill and Robin Osborne, eds., Art atld Text ill Atlci"'l Greek ClIltlire [Cambridge Studies in New Art History and Criticism] (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1]8--96, in particular the discussion, '45, of'hyperviewing': "those moments ... [that] join word and image in pictorial language. " 8 Zeitlin, op. cit., 148. See also, her discussion, 157 and n. 50, of lphigmia in Ardis, l. 190-1, 203-5, and 232-4, where, like the Ion, the act of looking carries with it an emphasis on the emotive and aesthetic aspects of the experience: the desire to see (190-1), the joy taken in sating one's eyes with a visual spectacle (2]2-4), the particular aesthetic stimuli that arouse an astonished gaze (203, 205)· 9 See, for example, Charles Segal, "Cold Delight: Art, Death and the Transgression of Genre," in Euripides and the Poetics of Sorrow (Durham, N.C., and London: Duke Uni- versity Press, 199]), 37-50. 10 Raymond A. Prier, Thallrna Idesthai: The Ph"'ornetwlogy of Sight atld AppearOlue in 8 Archaic Greek (Tallahassee, Fla.: The Florida State University Press, 19 9). II Benjamin Foster, "Gilgarnesh: Sex, Love and the Ascent of Knowledge," in John H. Marks and Robert M. Good, eds., Love atld Death in the Amient Near East (Guilford, Corm.: Four Quarters Publishing Co., 1987),27 (= Gilg. OB Pa i ] 1--6,esp. I. ]2-]). 12 Recognition that sight is vested in the human species - indeed, in all animate species- is, of course, self-evident. The extent to which responses to partU:ular visual stimuli sim- ilarly reside in the neurophysiology of the species have yet to be determined. Some recent studies have begun to investigare these questions, dealing with both hard-wmng responses to certain patterns, forms, and compositions, and the emotional. respons~s (like awe) that ensue (see, for example, Jeremy Drortfteld, "Entering Alremanve Reali- ties: Cognition, Art and Architecture in Irish passage-Tombs," Cambridge ArchaeologIcal ]oumal 6:1 [1996]: 37---')2). Nevertheless, precisely because sight is common to the species, it is the individual cultural adaptations and artendanr valuanons that are inter- esting. As with many cultural patterns, it is important to gather cross-cultural data  ..."""'!"'------------------------_a .... 40 * IRENE J. WINTER before one can begin to discuss whether similarities are the product ~fhistorical int~r- action, independent invention within a range of possibilities, or "universals" explain- able through reference to the neurophysiology of the species. ". . T) See the bilingual tablet from Nineveh, B. Landsberger and O. R. Gurney, Igi-duh-a = tamattu, short version," Archiv fliT On'e1liforsdllmg 18 (J957): 81-6, for Sum~na.n and Akkadian equivalents. The Akkadian terms are discussed in the relevant e~tnes In the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, henceforth CAD, and in W. von Soden, Akkadlsches. Hand- lVorterlmch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowirz, 1972), henceforth AHw. For the Sumenan, .to date, most publication series have had to include their own glossaries, but see ~so bnef definitions in M. L. Thomsen, Sumerian LAnguage: All Introduction to Its HIstory and Grammatical Struaure (Copehagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1984), as well as the volumes of the fledgling Philadelphia Sumeriau Dictiollary, A I and 2 and B. (Note that Sumerian words are generally rendered in bold; Akkadian in italics or ullderlined.) 14 CAD N I: 306, naplasu, "to look, glance." IS Gilg. Nineveh I v IS· Kovacs, Gilgamesh, 10 renders the same line: "Look at him, gaze at his face." 16 Nineveh I v 16-18. Kovacs, Gilgamesh, 10: "He is a handsome youth, with freshness (?), his entire body exudes voluptuousness." 17 I. J. Winter, "Sex, Rhetoric, and the Public Monument: The Alluring Body of Naram-Sin of Agade," in Natalie B. Kampen, ed., Sexllality ill Alldent Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (996), Tl-26, esp. 18-19. Note also that on the whole monument. all eyes are on the ruler - both the soldiers that follow him over ascending terrain and the enemy whose necks bend at increasing angles the farther they are down the right-hand margin, in order to keep the victorious Naram-Stn in their line of VISIon. r8 Gilg. P. ii II, cited in CAD N2: 122, "a!iilu; see also, discussion in Foster, "Gil- gamesh," 21-42. 19 Bendt Alster, "Sumerian Love Songs," Revile d'Assyriologie 79 (1985): 14)-4 (= SRT )I: 4). 20 See Amama Letter, EA 15I: 18, cited CAD 0: 21, dagalll, and an Old Babylonian bilingual of the reign ofSamsuiluna (ca. 1749-1712 B.C.E.), the Sumerian version read- ing: igi.zaIag.ga.ne.ne.a hu.mu.si.in.har.re.eS _ cited CAD B: )20, bimu A. 21 Bilingual text of Nebuchadnezzar I of Babylon (Tl24-TlO) B.C.E.), referring to an image of the god Marduk, cited CAD B: I 15, bani, and published most recently by Grant Frame, RIIlers of &bylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyriall Domination [Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: &bylolliall Periods, vol. 2 (henceforth, RlMB 2)] (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1995),30 (= Neb I. B.2.4.9, lines 15- ). 16 The Sumerian un.ma.da igi.kar,.kar,.ra.ab e,.gars.bi sukud.da duplicates the verb, as igi.kar,.kar,. but this could be either a function of intensification or of response to the plurality implied in the people of the land, un.rna.da. The Akkadian is clear, how- ever: The verb ban; is conjugated in a fonn that provides the same intensificarion of the simple verb for seeing as "to smash" would be for the simple verb "to break." 22 A. Kirk Grayson, Royal Inseriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Period, vol. I [henceforth, RJAlA I) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), 185 (= Shalm. 1.1.14 -5 ). 8 1 23 For example,. R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons. KOllig' VOII Assyrien [henceforth S.] [AlO Belheti 9] (Osnabriick: Biblio Verlag, 1967), '20, Borsippa A 20, regarding the temple of the goddess Gula in Borsippa, also now published in Frame, RIMB 2, 74 ~,=S. 8.6·31.10, I. 20). The text relates that the king restored its ruins, then closes: [M)ay [Gula) look upon this work joyously" (i.e., with pleasure), [SipJnt(?) suati ljadiS  THE EYES HAVE IT * 41 Iippa~ismaJ. Indeed, this formulation is typical of all of Esarhaddon's temple building and restoration in Babylon: See, for example, Frame, op. cit., 177. temple for the god- dess Queen-of-Nippur; L 79, for the god Enlil; 184, for the goddess Ishtar. This was apparently formulaic, as it is used in Babylon by local rulers as well as by Assyrians: e.g., Marduk-apla-iddina II (Merodach-Baladan II, 721--'710 B.C.E.), who requests of the goddess Ishtar that when she "looks joyously upon" the work he has done, she may bestow a long life upon the king, in Frame, RIMB 2, I]8 (= B.6.2I.a, 1. 30--1). 24 Borger, Es. 5-6 = '\12,Assur A vii 18-20. 25 A. Kirk Grayson, TIle Royal Insaiptions of Mesopotamia: AsSyriall Period, vol. 2 [hence- forth, RIMA 2] (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991),296 = ANP Il.jz.ro-t I; Northwest Palace = RIMA 2, 301-2 (= ANP II.35·8). 26 RIMA 2, 297 (= ANP 1I.32.15-I8). 27 RIMA 2, 302 (= ANP 11.35.\)-"10): ""imsi "saroljsi IIIl1amiKUR-e " A.AB.BA.MES DU -SUHU sa NA puii BABBAR-e u NA4 pariite DUJ ina KAz·MES-sa usziz. J 4 28 Cited CAD D: 22, dagalH (= VAB 4 118 ii 53)· 29 Cited CAD B: 320, biilll. (= VAB 4 258 ii 21). 30 W. von Soden, "Zwci Konigsgebete an Istar aus Assyrien," ArdJiv Jiir Orieuiforsdnmg 25 (1974--'7): )7-49; cited also CAD N2: 124, lIatal". 31 Cited CAD N2: 128, lIatalH (= PBS 15 79 i 40 and duplicate CT 37 8 i 39 [NbkJ). 32 Cited CAD B: 318, blllmallu, from the Kurba'il text ofShalmaneser III, originally pub- lished J. V. Kinnier-Wilson, "The Kurba'il Statue of Shalmaneser III," Iraq 24: 94, 1. )7-8. 33 Borger, Es., 77 (= '\150, Uruk D 14-18). 34 Borger, Es., 32 and Frame, RIMB 2,177 (= '\120,Borsippa A 20), cited in n. 2I. 35 Cited CAD H: 23, ljadlS (= Streck ABP.24o.15)· 36 Grayson, RIMA 1, 185 (= Shalmaneser 1.1.148-5')' 37 Borger, Es., 75-6 (= '\148, Uruk B) and Frame, RIMB 2, 189,1. 18-20, concenung the restoration of the Ehiliana, the cella of the goddess Nanaia at Uruk. 38 Borger, Es., 76 and Frame, RIMB 2,187,1. 16-19· 39 Douglas Frayne, Royal lnsaiptions of MesopOlamia, Early periods, vol. 4 [henceforth, 2 RIME 4] (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 303 (= Rim-Sin 1.23. 7--9). 40 See Hermann Behrens and Horst Steible, Glossar ZJ4 dan altsumerisdletJ Bau- mId J¥eillin- 8 scl,riJ'en [Freiburger altorientalische Studien 6] (Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag, (9 3), 349, ciring MSL XIII 168, 14'-16'. 41 8 Thorkild Jacobsen, "Lugalbanda and Ninsuna." JCS 41 (1989): 7 re u.-<!ug. = ',a'", and its imperfective, u.-e/di. Jacobsen reads Enmerkar 63: "may the people look at me admiringly," [naml-Iu,-Iu. u. du,.-ge-es lJu-mu-un-e. and the bilingual text 4R 28 2:7, "you looked not at your house," e2-zu U6 li-b~-du] = bi"lka ul tamil', where the Akkadian, from the verb am2irn. "to see." is very clear. 42 Ptier, Thawlla Idesthai, especially 81--97· . . 43 Royal hymn of the Isin period, cited by Fran,oise Bruschweiler, l,ramma: I.A deesse tn- 8 omphante et VaillClledans fa cosmolagiesumbienne (Geneva: Universite de Geneve, (9 7), 33. 117, 120. 81 2 44 Jacob Klein, Three Sulgi Hymns (Raffiat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 19 ), 7 (= ShuIgi D.7). 45 Ibid., 72 (= ShuIgi D.33)· . 46 Ake W. Sjoberg, Sumerian Temple Hymns (Locust Valley, N.Y.: Augusnn, (969), 3° (= TH 17:217), on the temple ofDwnuzi in Badribira. elous 47 Ibid., 29 (= TH 16: 199), rranslated by Sjoberg as "marv ."  -------------- I'f' 42 * IRENE J. WINTER 48 Ibid., 40 (= TH 31:397). '. " 49 Jacob Klein, "Building and Dedication Hymns in Sumerian Llteratu~,e, Acta Snmer- ologica II (1989): 48, 51 (= Ur-N B.2I). Klein renders the same line: He displayed It for wonder among the multitudes of the people." . 50 Gudea Cyl. A 24: 17 and 24: 25; see the text edition in D. O. Edzard, Gildea and his Dyllasty [Royal Insaiptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods, vol. 3/1] (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, '997, 84). A translation of the complete cylinder also appears In Thorkild Jacobsen, TIle Harps that 01U:e: Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven, Conn., & London: Vale University Press, 1987),386-425 (this line = 419). 51 Cyl. B I: r r; Edzard, RIME 31r, 89 and Jacobsen, Harps, 426 for this line. 52 Cited Pennsylvania Sumeria1l Dictioflary (henceforth PSD) AI: 163, a-sal-bar (= Lamen- tation over Sumer and Ur 426). See also P. Michalowski, TIle Lamentation over the Destmetion tif Sumer and U, (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbraun's, 1989), 62-3. who renders the line rather differently, but retains the sense of the visual through his use of "admired" and "admiration" in English: "The admired temple that used (to receive) first class oil, its admiration was extinguished." 53 Frayne, RIME 4, 158 (= Sin-iddinaII1 1.36-7). 54 Ibid., 303 (= Rim Sin 2]: 234)). 55 H. Sreible, Die neusumerischetl &m- und WeilzifJSclm]ten, Freiburger altorientalischc Studien 9 (Stuttgart: Sreiner Verlag, '99'), Ibbi Su'en 9: 17-28. 56 Klein, Acta Sumerologica II, 37-41 (= Hmedagan 1.9-10). 57 See von Soden, AHw, 1299: tabtitu, 58 See discussion in P. Garelli, "La Conception de la beaure en Assyrie," in Tzvi Abusch et aI., eds., [jngcrillg Over Words: Studies in Anciellt Near Eastern Literature in HOllar of William L. Moran (Atlanta, Ga.: The Scholar's Press, 1990), 175. 59 Borger, £S., 72 (= ~43, Tarbisu A 43 30). Esarhaddon adds a variation as well, in his accounr of the stele he set up in Sam'aJ, a province to the West. On the stele itself he 60 declares See that it was set up ana tabrat kissat nakin, for the wondering gaze of all enemies! n. 28. 61 CAD A,: 329, asamu in the causative S-stem, siisumll (= VAB 4 64 iii 3 ), "to Cited fitting." make 0 62 175~. "La Conception Garelli, de la beaute," in Abusch et aI., eds., Lingerillg Over Words, This will be developed further in a study under preparation. See Klein, Three Shulgi Hymll5, '36 (= Sulgi X. r I). The one exception to this with which I aII1 fanliliar is a royal statement that Esarhad- den's workmen respond to the completion of their task in building the royal palace with joy and jubilation. Here, however, it could be said that the rhetorical nature of the text has governed the repon as a self-reflexive statement of celebration. 66 CAD Q: 72, qatu A, "to become silent, to stay quiet; to pay attention (with the sense of a focus of attention)." The bilingual equivalent is found in Irving L. Finkel, The Series SIG •.ALAN = NabnItu p,.faterials}Or the Sumerian Lexicon 16] (Rome: Pontifi- qcilum, Institutum cium riJatllm, resp.Bibhcum, 1982), Tablet II1.I68"'73 and IV.232: nig,-me-gar = 67 See Bruschweilet, It'''''na, 117, citing the text "The Exaltation of Inanna," nin-me- far,-n, I. 21-2. This text has been reedited by Annette Zgoll, Der Rechtsfall der EII- hedu·.1I1a im [jed Ugarit-Verlag, n;n--..14,4 [Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24 ] (Munster: 1997). 6  THE EYES HAVE IT * 43 68 From the text known as "Enlil in the Ekur," 1. 129 - the text edition made available ro me by the editors from the files of the PSD, gratefully acknowledged. 69 From the text known as "Inanna & Bilulu," 4 rev. I: 14 - see S. Langdon, Historical afld Religious texts ... Nippur [Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A, vol. 31] (Munich, 1914). 70 Sjoberg, Sumerian Temple Hymns, 47 (= TH 40: 510). 71 Ibid., '44, discussion to Temple Hymn 40. 72 I have, in fact, been present at a moment of such collective response, in the early- morning opening (dar,an) of the shrine of the ruby image of Siva Nataraja in the tem- ple of Cidambaram in South India. As is well known in Hindu tradition, the reciprocal viewing of deity and devotee constitutes an important aspect of worship - on which, see Diana Eck, Darsan: Seeing the Divine Image in It'dia, zd ed. (Chambersburg, Pa: Anima, 1985). At Cidambaram, in the period before the god was to be on view, an increasingly anticipatory silence pervaded the assembled devotees, and then, at the moment when the shrine was opened, literally everyone simultaneously drew in a deep breath as he/she experienced the powerful visual impact of the god's prese",e. That something similar was intended in the Mesopotamian context is strongly suggested by a Babylon- ian text that refers to "seeing the god's face" as a euphemism for the culric manifesta- tion of the deity through his image: a.sswn muppalsata iitamar panika, on which, see W. Mayer, Utttersuchungen zur Formenspraihe der babylonischen 'GebetsbesdlwOnmgetl' [Stu- dia PoW, Series Maiot 5] (Rome, 1976), 478-8I, re 1. '5-18. 73 Anticipated for the future would be chronological studies of the variations in terms and usage over time (and studies of variation across space!), along with a careful and sys- tematic study of these terms in direct relation to the actual works preserved to us, to see precisely how the attributes claimed in textual sources may have been manifest visu- ally as "style" in any given period. 74 On this issue, as manifest in Mesopotamian art, see 1. J. Winter, "The Affective Prop- erties of Styles: An Inquiry into Analytical Process and the Inscription of Meaning in Art History," in C. A. Jones and P. Galison, eds., Picturing Sdence, Producing Art (New York & London: Routledge, 1998), 55-'77· 75 An interesting aspect of this point that cannot be developed in the present context is the distinction between the role of vision in Mesopotamian tradition and the role of "hearing" as the means of experiencing the divine in the Hebrew Bible. Stephen A. Geller has pursued the history of the two senses as vehicles for the transmission of divine will in "Fiery Wisdom: Logos and Lexis in Deuteronomy 4," ProoJtexts 14 (1994): 103-39, where he sees a defmite development from an originally privileged role for sight, which then over time gave way to an ultimate privileging of the sense of hearing God's "word" _ see esp. 122-4, '34, and 139, n. 24· The contrast is extremely instructive for apprehending just what was entailed in the Mesopotamian visual expen- ence. The issue is also discussed by David Chidester, Word and ught: Seeing, Hearing, and Religious Discourse (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1992) - for which ref- erence I am indebted to Robert Nelson. 76 Spycket, 1.A statuaire, 77, '44, 185,203. Only a sample of divine statues will permit us to assess whether gods' eyes are as enlarged as those of votive statues"however. 77 Cited in CAD B: 320, bunu A (= Asb). Note that the verb form denves from the verbs paliisu, naplusu, the same verbs that appear frequently in assoclaoon WIth cathected viewing. That this phraseology has a long history in Babylonian texts can be demon- strated: See, for example, the text of Nebuchadnezzer I of the twelfth century B.C.E.,  2 44 * IRENE J. WINTER in Frame, R1MB 2,32 (= Neb I B.2-4.1O, L r z), noting that the Sungod "looked joy- ously (upon him)" and gave him the kingship of all people. 78 Cited CAD NI: 306, naplusu (= RA 22 170: IS). 79 See now on the relationship between god and king on the Law stele of Hanunurabi, L 1- Winter, "Art in Empire: The Royal Image and the Visual Dimensions of Assyrian Ideology," in S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting, eds., Assyria '995 (Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997), 366--7. 80 For Greece, Prier, 77,auma Idesthai, passim, and Zeitlin, "The Artful Eye ... ", 141-2. Zeitlin also cites R. Padel, "Making Space Speak," in R. Winkler and F. L Zeitlin, eds., Nothitlg to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in its Social Context (Princeton, N).: Princeton University Press, 1990) and D. Seale, Vision and Stagecraft in Sophocles (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982). For the antique in general, 1- Elsner, "Image and Ritual: Reflections on rhe Religious Appreciation of Classical Art," 71/f Classical Quarterly 46. no. 2 (1996): esp. 522; and K. Pomian, "Vision and Cognition," in C. A.Jones and P. Galison, eds., PiCtflrilIg Science, Prodncino Art, 2II-13. yISUALITY BEFORE AND BEYOND THE RENAISSANCE If Seeing as Others Saw Edited by ROBERT S. NELSON University of Chicago .""~,,, ..CAMBRIDGE ::: UNIVERSITY PRESS - - 1 PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS S,YNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRlDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRiDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 zRU, UK http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West zorh Street, New York, NY IOOII-pII, USA http://www,cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon 13,28014 Madrid, Spain lO Cambridge University Press 2000 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2000 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Bembo 11/13.5 System Quark XPress® [CHI A cotalogue recordfor this book is available from the British Ubrary library '?f COPlgress Cataloguing-in.-Publi[atioPl Data Visualiry before and beyond the Renaissance: seeing as others saw I edited by Robert S. Nelson. p. cm.- (Cambridge studies in new art history and criticism) ISBN0-521-65222-7 (hardback) I. Visual perception. 2. VisuaJ communication. 3. Art, Comparative. 4. Art and religion. I. Nelson, Robert S., 1947- II. Series. N7430·5 .V54 2000 70I'.I5-dc21 99-°53249 ISBN 0 521 652227 hardback JAN12 '01  CONTENTS List of Illustrations page IX Ust of Contributors Xlll INTRODUCTION DESCARTES'S COW AND OTHER DOMESTICATIONS OF THE VISUAL I Robert S, Nelson CHAPTER ONE THE EYES HAVE IT: VOTIVE STATUARY, GILGAMESH'S AXE, AND CATHECTED VIEWING IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST 22 Irene]. Winter CHAPTER TWO BETWEEN MIMESIS AND DIVINE POWER: VISUALITY IN THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD 45 las Elsner CHAPTER THREE THE PHILOSOPHER AS NARCISSUS: VISION, SEXUALITY, AND SELF-KNOWLEDGE IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY 7° Shadi Bartsch CHAPTER FOUR THE PILGRIM'S GAZE IN THE AGE BEFORE ICONS 'J Georgia Frank CHAPTER FIVE -" WATCHING THE STEPS: PERIPATETIC VISION IN MEDIEVAL CHINA II6 Eugene Y. Wang * vii viii * CONTENTS CHAPTER SIX TO SAY AND TO SEE: EKPHRASIS AND VISION IN BYZANTIUM 143 Robert S. Nelso .. CHAPTER SEVEN VISIO DEI: CHANGES IN MEDIEVAL VISUALITY Cy"thia Hah" CHAPTER EIGHT BEFORE THE GAZE: THE INTERNAL SENSES AND LATE MEDIEVAL PRACTICES OF SEEING 197 Michael Camille CHAPTER NINE DISPLAYING SECRETS: VISUAL PIETY IN SENEGAL 224 A lie" F. Roberts and Mary Nooter Roberts Select Bibliography 253 Index 261 xiv "* LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Kilian and Margaret (1990). She has written about medieval hagiography, pilgrim- age, and narrative for the Art Bulletin, Art History, Cesta, and other Journals. The University of Califomia Press is about to publish her study, Portrayed on the Heart. Narrative Effect in fllustrated Lives if Saints, 900-13005. Currendy she IS working on reliquaries and issues of visual meaning. Robert S. Nelson teaches Early Christian and Byzantine art and the history of art history at the University of Chicago and is chair of its Committee on the History of Culture. He has published books on Byzantine manuscript illumination and has coedited Critical Tenns for Art History (1996). Recent articles have appeared in the Art Bulletin, Art History, and Critical Inquiry. Presendy he is interested in the agency and reception of Byzantine art and is exploring the lives of Hagia Sophia as a meelieval church and as a modern monument and cultural symbol. Allen F. Roberts is Professor of World Arts and Cultures at UCLA. His exhibi- tions and books include TIre Rising if a New Moon: A Century if Tabwa Art (1985), Staffs if Life (1994), Animals in African Art (1995), and with Mary Nooter Roberts, TIre Shape if Beliif (1997) and A Sense of Wonder (1998). His research and teaching concern the expressive cultures of francophone Africa and the African eliasporas. Mary Nooter Roberts is Chief Curator of UCLA's Fowler Museum of Cultural History. Her exhibitions and books include Secrecy: "'!frican Art That Conceals and Reveals (1993); Exhibition-ism: Musfllms and African Art (1994), and with Allen F. Roberts, Memory: Luba Art and the Making if History (1996), which won the College Art Association's Alfred Barr Award for Museum Scholarship. The Robertses' exhi- bition and book, '''Passport to Paradise'. VisualiZing Islam in West Africa and the Mouride Diaspora" (2002), will result from the research on which the present paper is based. Eugene Y. Wang, Assistant Professor of the History of Art and Architecture at Harvard University, is the author of a number of articles on medieval and modern Chinese art and the translator of Roland Barthes's Fragments d'un discours amoureux into Chinese. He is currendy working on two projects. One involves the so-called transformation tableaux in meelieval China, and the other the cultural construction of sight/site, tentatively tided Snake, Stupa, and Sunset: History if a View over a Mil- letltJium. Irene J. Winter is Wm. Dorr Boardman Professor of Fine Arts at Harvard Univer- sity. Her scholarly work has concentrated on the social and cultural context of the art of the ancient Near East. Presendy she is completing a book on Mesopotamian aesthetIcs, in which ISSUesaddressed in the present article will be further developed. She IS also prepanng a second book on the great Victory Stele of Naram-Sin of Agade from Susa.