1. Ambrose, , De sacramentis 3:15 (SC 25bis:164; FOTC 44:295): “Isti, lavish, venisti ad altare, videre coepisti quae ante non videras.” I employ the following abbreviations: ACW = Ancient Christian Writers (New York: Newman/Paulist, 1946- );Google ScholarDictSp = Dictionnaire de Spiritualité (Paris: Beauchesne); FOTC = Fathers of the Church (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947- ); SC = Sources chrétiennes (Paris: Cerf, 1942- ). I am grateful to Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Derek Krueger, Andrew Jacobs, and the journal's anonymous reviewers for commenting on earlier versions of this essay.Google Scholar

2. Ambrose, , Myst. 4.19 (SC 25bis:164; FOTC 44:11); cf. 1 Cor. 2:9.Google Scholar

3. Ambrose, , De sacramentis 3.10 (SC 25bis:66; FOTC 44:272): “Ne forte aliqui dixerit: Hoc est totum? Immo hoc est totum, uere totum.”Google Scholar

4. Ambrose, , Myst. 9.50 (SC 25bis:184; FOTC 44:23): “Forte dicas: Aliud uideo, quomodo tu mihi adseris quod Christ corpus accipiam?”Google Scholar

5. Ambrose, Sacr. 4.4.14–20, esp. 14, 20 (SC 25bis:108–12; FOTC 302–4); cf. Sacr. 6.1.2 (SC 25bis:138). Ambrose's predicament illustrates well Catherine Bell's remarks on “misrecognition” as a feature of ritual and how ritual produces “strategies for differentiating” ritual acts from quotidian ones, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 69–93, esp. 74, 82, 90–91.Google Scholar

6. Ambrose, , Sacr. 3.10 (SC 25bis:66; FOTC 44:272).Google Scholar

7. Ibid., 3.2.12 (SC 25bis:98).

8. Ibid., 3.2.12–14 (SC 25bis:98–100); cf. John 9:6–7.

9. In Ambrose's symbolic imagination, there would be no need for symbols if humans were less squeamish. In other words, if we could stand the sight of blood, then the use of wine would be unnecessary. “Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis, ut nullus horror cruoris sit et pretium tamen operetur redemptionis.” Sacr. 4.4.20 (SC 25bis:112) [emphasis added].Google Scholar

10. A useful starting point for investigating interior/spiritual senses in patristic theology is Canévet, Mariette's “Sens spirituel,” DictSp 14 (1990): cols. 599–617;Google Scholar more detailed studies of individual writers are to be found in Fraigneau-Julien, B., Les sens spirituels et la vision de Dieu selon Syméon le Nouveau Théologien (Paris: Beauchesne, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. On church orders of the first three centuries, see Bradshaw, Paul F., The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 80–92.Google Scholar For a thorough study of initiation rites, see Saxer, Victor, Les rites de I'initiation chrétienne du IIe au VIe siècle: Esquisse historique et signification d'après leurs principaux témoins (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, 1988).Google Scholar Useful introductions and translated excerpts available in Finn, Thomas M., Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: West and East Syria, Message of the Fathers of the Church (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1992).Google Scholar On the varieties of eucharistic practices, see McGowan, Andrew, Ascetic Eucharists: Food and Drink in Early Christian Ritual Meals (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar For later commentaries, see Bornert, René, Les commentaires byzantins de la divine liturgie, du VIIe au XVe siècle (Paris: Institut français d'études byzantines, 1966);Google ScholarSchulz, Hans-Joachim, The Byzantine Liturgy: Symbolic Structure and Faith Expression (New York: Pueblo, 1986), esp. 15–76. Robert Taft offers a sophisticated explanation of these developments in “The Liturgy of the Great Church: An Initial Synthesis of Structure and Interpretation on the Eve of Iconoclasm,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34–35 (1980–81): 45–75, esp. 68–75;Google Scholar reprinted in Taft, Robert, Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond. (Aldershot, U.K.: Variorum, 1995).Google Scholar

12. An expert study on these liturgical developments is Baldovin, John F., The Urban Character of Christian Worship: The Origins, Development, and Meaning of the Stational Liturgy, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 228 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987).Google Scholar

13. See Frank, Georgia, The Memory of the Eyes: Pilgrims to Living Saints in Christian Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), esp. chapters 1, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. The fluidity of Lent in the fourth century is most apparent when one compares Cyril's earlier Catecheses (ca. 350) with later descriptions of Lent, found in Egeria's diary (ca. 384) or his post-baptismal catecheses (ca. 386 or later). On changes in the Lenten calendar, see Baldovin, Urban Character, 90–93. On the implications of this change for pinpointing the date of Cyril's catecheses to 351, see Doval, Alexis, “The Date of Cyril of Jerusalem's Catecheses,” JTS 48 (1997): 129–32, esp. 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. For a concise treatment of the social and theological developments that prompted the need for catechetical literature, see Meyendorff, Paul, “Eastern Liturgical Theology,” in Christian Spirituality, vol. 1, Origins to the Twelfth Century, World Spirituality, eds. McGinn, Bernard, Meyendorff, John, and Leclercq, Jean, no. 16 (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 350–64, esp. 353–57.Google Scholar

16. E.g., Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, PG 3.424c–428a; Maximus Confessor, Mystagogia, prol. (PG 90–91). The fourth-century catechesists studied here are typical of “Antiochene” approaches to liturgy and the Bible, with a greater emphasis on historical events and the humanity of Christ. Later commentators, such as Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus, reflect the “Alexandrian” approach, with greater emphasis on symbolical interpretations and spiritual meaning. For a helpful history of the shirting hermeneutics of liturgy, see Schulz, , Byzantine Liturgy, 25–49; Taft, “Liturgy of the Great Church,” 59–65 and “Liturgy and Eucharist: East,” in Christian Spirituality, vol. 2, High Middle Ages and Reformation, World Spirituality, ed. Raitt, Jill, no. 17 (New York: Crossroad, 1989), 415–26. Translated excerpts from later liturgical commentaries are available in Sheerin, Eucharist, 116–37.Google Scholar

17. Bradshaw (Search for the Origins, 80–130) provides a useful checklist and bibliographies; see also Finn, Thomas M., The Liturgy of Baptism in the Baptismal Instructions of St. John Chrysostom (Washington: Catholic University Press, 1967);Google Scholarvan de Paverd, F., Zur Geschichte der Messliturgie in Antiocheia und Konstantinopel gegen Ende der vierten Jahrhunderts. Analyse der Quellen bei Johannes Chrysostomos, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 187 (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1970);Google ScholarPaverd, Van de, “Anaphoral Intercessions, Epiclesis and Communion-rites in John Chrysostom,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 49 (1983): 303–39.Google Scholar

18. On this transformation, see Hunt, E. D., Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire, A.D. 312–460 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982).Google Scholar

19. Whereas previous scholars date the lectures to 348–50, based on Jerome's mention of them (de Vir. Illust 112 = PL 33:707a; see Walker, Holy City, 410), Alexis Doval persuasively argues for the year 351 (“Date of Cyril of Jerusalem's Catecheses,” 129–32).Google Scholar

20. See Baldovin, Urban Character, 45–104. Jonathan Z. Smith offers a perceptive reading of the overlap between pilgrims' rituals and liturgical sensibilities in the Itinerarium Egeriae (ca. 384), To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 88–95.Google Scholar

21. E.g., Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses 4.10; 10.19; 13.4, Rupp, Joseph, ed., Sancti Cyrilli Opera, vol. 2 (Munich, 1860);Google ScholarMcCauley, Leo P. and Stephenson, Anthony A., trans., The Works of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, 2 vols. (FOTC 61, 64; Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1969–1970).Google Scholar On the value of the holy places for Cyril's political and ecclesial aspirations, see Drijvers, Jan Willem, “Promoting Jerusalem: Cyril and the True Cross,” in Drijvers, Jan Willem and Watt, John W., eds., Portraits of Spiritual Authority: Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium, and the Christian Orient, Religions in the Greco-Roman World 137 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 79–95, esp. 81–85;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWalker, P. W. L., Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes toward Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), esp. 37–38, 330–46.Google Scholar

22. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catecheses mystagogicae. Text: Piédagnel, Auguste, ed., Cyrille de Jerusalem: Catéchèses mystagogiques (SC 126; Paris: Cerf, 1966; hereafter MC). Quotations are taken from McCauley and Stephenson's translation in The Works of Cyril of Jerusalem (FOTC 64).Google Scholar

23. The debate centers on manuscripts attributing the lectures to John (386–417), differences in literary style and theology, and the liturgical practices reflected in the sermons. Swaans, W. J.'s arguments against Cyril's authorship appear in “A propos des ‘Catéchèses mystagogiques’ attribuées a S. Cyrille de Jérusalem,” Muséon 55 (1942): 1–43;Google Scholar on earlier suspicions to this effect, see Cross, F. L., St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1951), xxxv–xxxix.Google ScholarSwaans's arguments convinced A. Piédagnel, Cyrille de Jérusalem: Cat échèses mystagogiques (SC 126; 1966), 18–40, and McCauley and Stephenson, iWorks of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (FOTC 64), 2:143–49.Google ScholarYarnold, E. J.'s defense of Cyril's authorship (“The Authorship of the Mystagogic Catecheses attributed to Saint Cyril of Jerusalem,” Heythrop Journal 19 [1978]: 143–61), prompted more recent scholars to favor Cyril's authorship (e.g.), Piédagnel's reconsideration in the 1988 edition, Cyrille de Jerusalem: Catechises mystagogiques, [SC 126bis; appendix, 177–87].CrossRefGoogle Scholar Yarnold's argument is summarized in Yarnold, , “Baptismal Catechesis,” in The Study of Liturgy, eds. Jones, Cheslyn et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 91–95, esp. 92–93.Google Scholar On the debate, see Quasten, J., Patrology (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1983) 3.63–67; Bradshaw, Search for the Origins, 126–27. I am sufficiently convinced by Yarnold's claims to attribute these lectures to Cyril. My argument does not rest on this judgment, however, since there is sufficient evidence to date these eucharistic instructions to the late fourth century.Google Scholar

24. “I delayed until the present occasion, calculating that after what you saw on that night I should find you a readier audience now when I am to be your guide to the brighter and more fragrant meadows of this paradise” (MC 1.1; SC 126:82, 84; FOTC 64:153 [modified]).Google Scholar

25. Cat. 10.19. Cf. Cat 18.33, which anticipates first Communion, but mentions only what is to be heard.Google Scholar

26. Ware, Timothy (Kallistos), The Orthodox Church, rev. ed. (Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin, 1964), 278. Cf. Luke 4:18–19; cf. Isa. 61:1.Google Scholar

27. MC 3.4 (SC 126:126; 64:171–72).Google Scholar

28. On Origen and the spiritual senses, see Rahner, K., “Le début d'une doctrine des cinq sens spirituels chez Origène,” Revue d'Ascétique et de Mystique 13 (1932): 113–45;Google ScholarHarl, Marguerite, “La ‘bouche’ et le ‘coeur’ de l'apôtre: deux images bibliques de ‘sens divin’ de l'homme (‘Proverbes’ 2, 5) chez Origène,” in Forma Futuri: Studi in onore del Cardinale Michele Pellegrino (Turin: Bottega d'Erasmo, 1975), 17–42.Google Scholar On the evolution of Origen's thought, see Dillon, John M., “Aisthêsis Noêtê: A Doctrine of Spiritual Senses in Origen and Plotinus,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, eds. Caquot, A., Hadas-Lebel, M., and Riaud, J. (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 443–55, esp. 443–49.Google Scholar On Origen's place in the long history of this theory, see Canévet, , “Sens spirituel,” esp. cols. 599–600; Pierre Adnés, “Gout Spirituel,” DictSp 6 (1967): cols. 626–44; Fraigneau-Julien, Sens spirituels et la vision de Dieu, 27–43.Google Scholar

29. C.Cels. 7.34 (SC 150:90–92).Google Scholar

30. Rahner, , “Début d'une doctrine,” 116.Google Scholar

31. C.Cels. 1.48 (SC 132:202–6); cf. Prov 2:5 (cf. LXX).Google Scholar

32. E.g., C.Cels. 2.72 (SC 132:456–58); Rahner, “Début d'une doctrine,” 117–21.Google Scholar

33. On the γμναια, see Rahner, “Début d'une doctrine,” 122.Google Scholar

34. C.Cels. 7.39 (SC 150:102–4).Google Scholar

35. C.Cels. 7.33 (SC 150:88).Google Scholar

36. MC 3.3 (SC 126:124; FOTC 64:170)Google Scholar

37. This bridging of physical matter and divine presence is consistent with Cyril's theology of the holy places; see Walker, P. W. L., Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 37–38, 311–46.Google Scholar

38. Of the five sermons belonging to the MC, the noun Πληροφορια and its verbal form, Πληροφορέω, appear only in the eucharistic sermon (see MC 4.1, 3, 6, 9).Google Scholar

39. MC 4.6 (SC 126:148; FOTC 64:183 [slightly modified]; cf. 5.15, 20.Google Scholar

40. MC 4.9 (SC 126:144; FOTC 64:185–86).Google Scholar

41. . MC 5.20 (SC 126:170).Google Scholar

42. MC 4.9 (SC 126:144; FOTC 64:186); cf. 2 Cor. 3:18.Google Scholar

43. See note 37.Google Scholar

44. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 13.4 (FOTC 64:6); cf. Cat. 10.19 (FOTC 61:208–9); Cat. 16.4 (FOTC 64:78).Google Scholar

45. ò τóπος αύτòς έτι φαιενος. Cat. 4.10 (FOTC 61:124).Google Scholar

46. MC 5.6 (SC 126:152–54; FOTC 64:195–96); cf. Isa. 6:2–3.Google Scholar

47. I choose the term “imaginal” over “imaginary” as a way to underscore the power of words to generate mental images and capture the embodied origins of these interior perceptions.Google Scholar

48. MC 5.21; cf. Horn. cat. 6; Mingana, 113 on the supplicant's outstretched hand and downward gaze and the regal symbolism of the nesting hands. For biblical resonances with the outstretched hand, see Theophilus of Alexandria (d. 412), On the Mystical Supper: “Evilly did Adam stretch forth his hand, not holding in reverence my salvific command … He stretched forth his hand and made a dire exchange … of the blessed life … [for] lamentable death.” (PG 77.1016–29, esp. 1020B, trans, in Sheerin, 150–51); more positive connotations in John Chrysostom, Cat. 3.26 (ACW 31:65) on Moses' hands stretched to heaven as a type for the priest.Google Scholar

49. Cf. holy kiss at MC 5.3; in another set of baptismal homilies (SC 366:242.20–21), John Chrysostom renders the kiss of peace into architectonic imagery: he reasons that since Christians are temples of Christ, when they kiss on the mouth they kiss the temple door tenderly.Google Scholar

50. MC 5.22. On this practice, see Dölger, F.-J., “Das Segnen der Sinne mit der Eucharistie,” Antike und Christentum 3 (1932): 230–44.Google Scholar

51. Cyril refers to the Church of the Resurrection, where the rites and lectures have taken place; MC 2.4, 7, but these references are in the context of pre-eucharistic baptismal rites. Cf. McCauley, and Stephenson, 's alternative reading, The Works of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem FOTC 64:150–51.Google Scholar

52. Wharton, Annabel Jane, “The Baptistery of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem and the Politics of Sacred Landscape,” DOP 46 (1992):313–25, esp. 320–21; Smith, To Take Place, 89–95.Google Scholar

53. The larger collection is known as the Stavronikita series (hereafter, Stav.), edited by Wenger, Antoine in Jean Chrysostome: Huit catecheses baptismales SC 50 (1957);Google Scholar the shorter Papadopoulos-Kerameus series (hereafter, P-K), edited by Piédagnel, Auguste in Jean Chrysostome: Trois catéchèses baptismales SC 366 (1990), and two sermons edited by B. de Montfaucon in PG 49:223–40 (hereafter, Montf.).Google Scholar These three collections are conveniently translated by Harkin, Paul in St. John Chrysostom: Baptismal Instructions (New York: Paulist, 1963). Stav. 1–8 correspond to Instructions 1–8 in ACW; P-K 1–3 = Instructions 9–11 in ACW; Montf. 1 (= PK 1) = Instruction 9 in ACW; and Montf. 2 = Instruction 12 in ACW. Internal evidence identify Stav. 1–3 as pre-baptismal and Stav. 4–8 as post-baptismal. Quotations are from Harkin's translation (occasionally modified).Google Scholar

54. Cat. (P-K) 1.2, 29 in SC 366:114. See Harkin, John Chrysostom, 290 n. 10.Google Scholar

55. Horn, de beato Philogono (PG 48:753); trans. Mayer, Wendy and Allen, Pauline, John Chrysostom, The Early Church Fathers (London: Routledge, 2000), 192.Google Scholar

56. Cat. (Stav.) 2.14; ACW 31:48. On the connection between baptism and slavery, see Combes, I. A. H., The Metaphor of Slavery in the Writings of the Early Church: From the New Testament to the Beginning of the Fifth Century, (JSNTSup 156; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 110–20, 157–61.Google Scholar

57. Cat. (Stav.) 2.18 (SC 50:143–44; ACW 31:50). Cf. Cat. (P-K) 3.4 (SC 366:230).Google Scholar

58. Ibid., 2.20 (SC 50:145; ACW 31:51).

59. Ibid., 3.8 (SC 50:155; ACW 31:58).

60. Ibid., 3.12 (SC 50:158; ACW 31:60).

61. Ibid., 2.23 (SC 50:146–47; ACW 31:52)

62. Ibid., 3.15 (SC 50:159; ACW 31:61).

63. Ibid., 2.12 (SC 50:140; ACW 31:47).

64. Ibid.

65. Ibid., 3.15 (SC 50:159; ACW 31:61). See also n. 49.

66. Ibid., 2.12 (SC 50:139; ACW 31:47).

67. Ibid., 2.29 (SC 50:149; ACW 31:54).

68. Ibid., 2.27 (SC 50:149–50; ACW 31:53).

69. 1 Cor. 3:16–17; also worth mentioning is the role of architecture in ancient memory systems: see Carruthers, Mary, The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images, 400–1200, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 34 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 16–22.Google Scholar

70. Cat. (Stav.) 2.3–7; ACW 31:44–45.Google Scholar

71. Ibid., 2.6; ACW 31:45.

72. E.g., Chrysostom's idea that paradise before the Fall marks a time when humans were “able to listen” to God (Sertn. in Gen. 1.2 [SC 433:148]); or Ephrem the Syrian's evocative descriptions of the fragrance of paradise in Hymns on Paradise, 1.5; 4.7; 5.6; 9.17; 11.1, 9–10, 13, 15, citations taken from Harvey, Susan Ashbrook's innovative analysis in “St. Ephrem on the Scent of Salvation,” JTS 49 (1998): 109–28, esp. 122–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73. See Mango, Cyril, “On the History of the Templon and the Martyrion of St. Artemios at Constantinople” Zograf (1979): 40–43, esp. 40.Google Scholar Matters of visibility and concealment are expertly handled in Mathews, Thomas F., The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1971), 105–80,Google Scholar as well as Gerstel, Sharon's, Beholding the Sacred Mysteries: Programs of the Byzantine Sanctuary (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999), esp. 37–67, which traces the eventual graphic representation of fourth-century homiletical tropes onto twelfth-century apse decoration. I thank Dr. Glenn Peers for calling my attention to Gerstel's study. On the iconostasis see Ware, The Orthodox Church, 276–77.Google Scholar

74. Cat. (Stav.) 1.31 (SC 50:124).Google Scholar

75. Cat. (Stav.) 2.9–10 (SC 50:138), cf. 2.17, 28 (SC 50:143, 149); cf. 4.20 (SC 50:193). The term is also applied to biblical figures, such as Adam, “the firstformed man with prophetic eyes” (Cat. (Stav.) 1.13; ACW 31:27), or David, who saw with “prophetic eyes” (Cat. 3.2.25 [P-K]; SC 366:216; ACW 31:163 [= Horn. 11.2]) chose his words so as to prevent base perceptions and “[lead] your understanding upward” (Cat. 3.2.32–35 [P-K]; SC 366:218; ACW 31:163 [= Horn. 11.8]). On seeing biblical figures with the eyes of faith, see Frank, Memory of the Eyes, 102–70.Google Scholar

76. Cat. (Stav.) 2.9 (SC 50:138; ACW 31:46).Google Scholar

77. Cat. 3.3.9–22 [P-K]; SC 366:220–22; ACW 31:164 [= Horn. 11.11–12])Google Scholar

78. Cat. (Stav.) 2.9 (SC 50:138; ACW 31:46).Google Scholar

79. On the polemical role of the spiritual senses in theories of divine anthropomorphism, see esp. Dillon, “Aisthêsis Noêtê,” 445–48. My own thinking on the role of sense perception in engaging the ritual body has been shaped by the work of Bell, Catherine, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 160;Google ScholarBell, , “Performance,” in Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. Taylor, Mark C. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 205–224, esp. 208–9.Google Scholar Recent work on the function of display in ritual (or, “showing and doing”) raises interesting questions about how the physical senses might engage that process. See Driver, Tom F., The Magic of Ritual (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 88–89;Google ScholarHarvey, Susan Ashbrook, “Embodiment in Time and Eternity: A Syriac Perspective,” St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 43 (1999): 105–30;Google Scholar on the relevance of performance theory to late antique asceticism see Miller, Patricia Cox, “Desert Asceticism and ‘The Body from Nowhere,’” JECS 2 (1994): 137–53.Google Scholar

80. Cat. (Stav.) 2.28 (SC 50:149):.Google Scholar

81. Ibid., 8.6; ACW 31:121.

82. Ibid., 7.18 (SC 50:238; ACW 31:111).

83. Montf. 2 (PG 49.235 = Harkin's ACW trans., Horn. 12.23–24 [31:180]). I thank Dr. Margaret Mitchell for bringing this passage to my attention.Google Scholar

84. E.g., Cat. (Stav.) 1.25; 2.27; 3.1; 4.17–18; 7.3, 23–25, 27.Google Scholar

85. Cf. ibid., 3.12 (SC 50:158; ACW 31:60). It is interesting to note that John Chrysostom's biographer, Palladius, uses similar pigmentation metaphors to describe the effects of Chrysostom's reforms on Constantinople. The city changed color to piety. Dial. 5 (SC 341:24):

86. Bradshaw, , Search for the Origins, 122–23, esp. n. 43.Google Scholar

87. Text and translation by Mingana, A. in Woodbrooke Studies, vol. 6, Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Lord's Prayer and on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist (Cambridge: Heffer and Sons, 1933).Google Scholar

88. Horn. cat. 5; Mingana, 84.Google Scholar

89. Ibid., 5; Mingana, 85.

90. Ibid., 5; Mingana, 86.

91. Ibid., 5; Mingana, 88.

92. Ibid., 5; Mingana, 87.

93. Cf. Schulz, Byzantine Liturgy, 18–19.Google Scholar

94. Horn. cat. 5; Mingana, 85–86.Google Scholar

95. Mary Carruthers captures this dialectic between “social memory-making” and “social forgetting” in her insightful analysis of John Chrysostom's recollection of the contested sanctuary at Daphne in his panegyric on the martyr Babylas (The Craft of Thought, esp. 46–57).Google Scholar

96. I borrow the term from Spence, Jonathan's study of Jesuit missionaries and the arts of memory, The Memory Palace ofMatteo Ricci (New York: Viking Penguin, 1984).Google Scholar

97. Horn. cat. 5; Mingana, 87–88.Google Scholar

98. Ibid., 5; Mingana, 88.

99. Ibid.

100. Ibid.

101. Ibid., 5; Mingana, 95; a scene recapitulated in the opening of the following sermon, Ibid., 6; Mingana, 97–98.

102. Ibid., 6; Mingana, 99.

103. Ibid.

104. Ibid., 6; Mingana, 105.

105. Ibid., 6; Mingana, 103.

106. Ibid., 6; Mingana, 107.

107. Ibid., 6; Mingana, 108–9.

108. Ibid., 6; Mingana, 113.

109. Ibid.

110. E.g., Vasaly, Ann, Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 20, 89–102; on the link between visualization and ekphrasis, see Frank, Memory of the Eyes, 16–29.Google Scholar

111. On the importance of visualization for these descriptive techniques, see James, Liz and Webb, Ruth, ‘“To Understand Ultimate Things and Enter Secret Places’: Ekphrasis and Art in Byzantium,” Art History 14 (1991): 1–17, esp. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On this trope, see Zanker, G., “Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry,” Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 124 (1981): 297–311. Mary Carruthers offers an important reminder that enargeia appealed to all the senses and not just to vision (Craft of Thought, 132–33).Google Scholar

112. Longinus, , De subl. 15.1–2 (LCL 214–17).Google Scholar

113. I am indebted to Mary Carruthers' recent work on the role of mental imagery in Christian meditation, Carruthers, The Craft of Thought, esp. 7–99.Google Scholar

114. My thinking on this process has been shaped by the work of Elliott Wolfson's study of how rabbinic prayer depended on a carefully orchestrated series of mental images, even bodily ones, “Iconic Visualization and the Imaginal Body of God: The Role of Intention in the Rabbinical Conception of Prayer,” Modern Theology 12 (1996): 137–62, esp. 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

115. The eyes of faith come close to what theorist Catherine Bell (Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 90) would call the “strategies of differentiation” by which ritual actors differentiate a ritual act from similar, conventional acts.Google Scholar

116. The terms are borrowed from Driver's discussion of the “commitment of the body” to “display” in the context of ritual performance (Magic of Ritual, 88): “Doing and showing are so wed that the display becomes a permanent part of the body.”Google Scholar

117. Dix, Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy (New York: Seabury, 1945; reprint 1982), 305: “As the church came to feel at home in the world, so she became reconciled to time. The eschatological emphasis in the eucharist eventually faded … the Eucharist came to be thought of primarily as the representation, the enactment before God, of the historical process of redemption, of the historical events of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus by which redemption had been achieved.”Google Scholar

118. Taft, , “Historicism Revisited,” Studio Liturgica 14, 2–4 (1982): 97–109, reprinted in Taft, Beyond East and West, 31–49, esp. 33, 40–41.Google Scholar

119. Baldovin, , Urban Character, 104.Google Scholar