Seeing Through the Veil: Optical Theory and Medieval Allegory (review)

Optical theory in 13th and 14th Century Europe served purposes that went far beyond its limited technical application. It was the subject of a substantial literature of translations from Greek and Arabic and commentaries thereon, as well as more recent treatises and ad hoc collections of questions and answers. In content it encompassed the physics of light, the physiology of the human eye, and what would today be called the psychology of visual perception. At its widest extent, optical theory was regarded as a universal science which could explain causality and being, and it was towards this all-embracing view that Grosseteste and the authors of the various perspectivae, John Pecham, Roger Bacon, and Witelo, each strongly influenced by Alhazen, tended. The more restrictive view of optics regarded it as an essential but nevertheless auxiliary discipline, bounded by more important disciplines such as geometry, from which it took its methodology. This was the general view found in Aristotle and expounded in commentaries by Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great.

Beyond the primary literature and its commentary, optical theory was present in love poetry, where it provided imagery for the effects of the beloved on the poet. In sermons, optical references were used as an analogy to describe the state of grace. Such broad usage suggests that optical theory was readily understood by an educated audience. For literary historians writing today, it raises questions about the sources of various metaphors, and their precise meaning. For example, Simon Gilson, in Medieval Optics and Theories of Light in the Works of Dante (2000), provides evidence for the view that Dante was not overly familiar with any of the original treatises or the latest developments, and instead took his optical references from 13th Century encyclopaedias and particularly from the commentaries of Aquinas and Albert.

Suzanne Akbari's study of optics is related to allegory in medieval literature. She takes as her motif the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12, in the translation 'For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face,' in order to argue that allegory is an obscure way of seeing, the 'veil' of her title. 'Mirror' is related in its linguistic derivation to 'puzzle' or 'enigma,' which reinforces the analogy. Allegory, for Akbari, takes on the very broad sense of all understanding and interpretation, both figurative and literal, rather than being a mere literary device. While Gilson limits himself to specific references by Dante to optical phenomena, Akbari surveys entire works in their text and structure for broad analogies. At times Gilson is helped in his search for sources because Dante names them himself, even if Dante attributes to Aristotle what he took from the commentators. Akbari investigates named sources and also takes the more challenging path of outlining the state of knowledge at the time of the works she discusses (in Chapter 2), and looking for correspondences.

Chapters 3 to 8 contain case-studies of the work of four medieval authors. In Guillaume de Lorris's Roman de la rose, Akbari finds structural analogy with optical theory, in so far as the shape of the narrative reflects the effect of a mirror. The episode at the fountain of Narcissus is placed in the middle of the work. The events leading up to it have a certain structure which is then inverted for the subsequent events, producing symmetry about a central axis, in the same way as a mirror produces an inverted image of what is before it. Akbari believes this coherent structure is compelling evidence that Guillaume's Roman de la rose is complete in itself, rather than unfinished. The centrality of looking, and self-regarding, shows that the theme of the work is self-love, which is destined to be ill-fated.

In contrast, Jean de Meun subsumes Guillaume's poem to his own ends, by replacing the 'emblem of Narcissus' with the 'figure...