The Japanese Society for Aesthetics

Aesthetics No.26 (2022): 1-16

The Exegetical Meaning of Nicolas Poussin’s
Christ Healing the Blind (The Blind of Jericho) *MOCHIZUKI Noriko
Keio University, Tokyo
Abstract: This article explores Christ Healing the Blind, painted by Nicolas Poussin in 1650. Previous studiesof this work have linked its theme of bringing sight to the blind with vision and optics, along with identified its
meta-painting meaning. As the patron of this piece, M. Reynon, was a Lyon silk manufacturer and merchant,
an allegory of vision or color may, in fact, be appropriate. Yet, given that M. Reynon was also a devout Christianand passionate about charitable activities, it is imperative to reconsider the painting’s religious aspect in greater
depth.
When the work was discussed at a conference of the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture in 1667, an
irreconcilable argument erupted over its fidelity to the Bible: whether it depicted a miracle at Jericho (Matthew20) or Capernaum (Matthew 9). Through comparisons with previous portrayals of scenes of the blind being
healed, this article suggests that Poussin’s painting recalls not only events at Jericho and Capernaum, but alsoa scene, in which Jesus healed a man born blind in Jerusalem (John 9). Moreover, semiotic associations can beobserved with Augustine and Cornelius a Lapide’s biblical exegesis of the Gospel of John, especially throughthe emblematic motif of the stone represented in the painting. Through a visual rhetoric that skillfully arranges
the semiotic elements of each form, Poussin naturally encourages the viewer to meditate on God’s revelation.
This would have been eminently suitable for a piece whose patron was passionately engaged in charitable work.
Keywords: religious painting, Jesus’ miracles, Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture, biblical exegesis,
Cesare Ripa

1. Literature Survey and the Crux of the Problem
The French artist Nicolas Poussin (1594–1665) painted Christ Healing the Blind (1650, Fig.
1), based on the New Testament of the Christian Bible, at the behest of one M. Reynon, a silkmerchant in Lyon.1
Previous studies of this work, which was produced later in the artist’s life, have linked its
theme of bringing sight to the blind with vision and optics, identifying its meta-painting meaning.
According to Oskar Bätschmann, with its use of color to express the restoration of sight to theblind, the work is an allegory of the generation of color from light and darkness (shade), as basedin color theory and contemporary optics, mainly with reference to the authority of Aristotle.

* This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP18K00192.
1
André Félibien, TABLEAU DU CABINET DU ROY..., t. 1 (Paris, 1677), 11–12; Id., ENTRETIENS..., IV (Paris,
1685), 301–302. For basic information on this work, see Pierre Rosenberg, Nicolas Poussin: Les tableaux du Louvre(Paris, 2015), 256–263; Nicolas Milovanovic, Catalogue des peintures françaises du XVIIe siècle du musée du Louvre(Paris, 2021), 188–189.

2

MOCHIZUKI Noriko

Elizabeth Cropper and Charles
Dempsey interpreted the work as anallegory of “painting” and of the“nature of vision, sight itself.”2
The work’s patron has been
identified as either Silvio I Reynon,
a silk textile manufacturer andmerchant living in Lyon, or his son,
Bernardin. As well as being
enthusiastic art collectors, theReynons were deeply concernedwith design and color in thecontext of their own occupation,
Fig. 1. Nicolas Poussin, Christ Healing the Blind (The Blind of Jericho),
1650, Oil on Canvas, 118 × 175.5 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris.
and it is thus unsurprising that
Poussin incorporated an allegory of “painting” and “the generation of color” into his work.
Nonetheless, the Reynons were also involved with the charity hospital, or general almshouse, in
Lyon and participated earnestly and devoutly in charitable activities associated with reforming
French Catholicism. Thus, a more detailed discussion of the work’s religious dimension seems
necessary.
While the scene depicted is clearly that of the blind being healed, Jesus performed this miracle
many times throughout his ministry, and the specific Gospel passage drawn on as an authority
remains uncertain. Indeed, when the work was featured at a conference of the Royal Academy of
Painting and Sculpture in 1667, an irreconcilable argument broke out about its fidelity to the Bible,
with opinions divided as to whether the work portrayed Jesus healing two blind men at Jericho(Matthew 20) or the miracle at Capernaum (Matthew 9).3
While opinions have been advanced in recent years in support of the latter possibility, thevery fact that such a discussion took place at that time points to Poussin’s audacity in employing
ambiguous representation. Not only did the painter faithfully depict a specific scene but,
presumably, he also sought to leave space for the viewer to draw associations and meditate freely
on multiple biblical passages.4
Accordingly, in this paper, any attempt to identify the scriptural basis for the work (Matthew
20 or Matthew 9) will be temporarily set aside. Attention will focus instead on the miracle that
Christ performed in healing the blind men in terms of the act itself, examining the semiotic
associations that Poussin elicits from the viewer through his use of figurative devices.
After comparing Poussin’s work with previous depictions of the blind being healed, it is2
Oskar Bätschmann, Nicolas Poussin: Dialectics of Paintings (London, 1990), 30–44; Elizabeth Cropper andCharles Dempsey, Nicolas Poussin: Friendship and the Love of Painting (New Jersey, 1996), 206–215.
3
André Félibien, CONFERENCES... (Paris, 1668), 108–144; Jacqueline Lichtenstein and Christian Michel,eds. Conférences de l’Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture, I-I (Paris, 2006), 175–195.
4
Cf. Jean Blanc, “How to Paint a Palm Tree When You Have Never Seen One? Peindre la Terre Sainte: autourde la Guérison des aveugles de Nicolas Poussin (1650),” in Donatela Bernardi and Noémie Étienne, eds. EternalTour Jerusalem (Genève, 2011), 217–224.

The Exegetical Meaning of Nicolas Poussin’s Christ Healing the Blind (The Blind of Jericho)

3

noted that associations can be found, particularly in terms of similarities with contemporary
biblical illustrations, with the story of Jesus healing a man born blind in Jerusalem related in John
9. This passage is rarely discussed as a scriptural basis for the work. In other words, in addition
to the events at Jericho and Capernaum, the work is reminiscent of the miracle that took place inJerusalem. Moreover, this paper shows that the emblematic motif of the “stone” featured in
Poussin’s work is derived from the image of Penitence in Cesare Ripa’s Iconologia (Iconologie
in the French version) and that its emblematic meaning—i.e., the purification of sin throughChrist’s charity—accords with the biblical exegesis of the Gospel of John. This semiotic
association is also closely related to the eleemosynary activities and faith of the Reynons. In lightof this analysis, it is apparent that Poussin’s work, by evoking associations with several biblicalpassages, actively encourages viewers to think and meditate on the inherent exegetical meaningof the miracle of the blind being healed.5

2. Description of the WorkLet us begin by looking at the work (Fig. 1). The scene is set outdoors in bright sunlight. In
the background, a light haze covers a sheer mountain topped with a fortress-like structure, while
the middle ground depicts a basilica with an oculus in the style of the early Christian era, a bell
tower, and Palladian architecture, as well as a series what appear to be palaces, terraces, andgardens. Around the buildings, there is a body of water with people bathing (or washing) andwalking along the shore. On the left, the water appears to be dammed by a stone wall that seems
to form an artificial reservoir (pool). A serpentine waterway wends off toward the right.
In the middle of the foreground, Jesus touches the eyelids of a blind man who kneels on the
ground, holding a cane. Behind Jesus, who is clothed in yellowish-white garb with a purple
mantle, are three of his apostles: John, Peter, and James. A second blind man rests his hand on
the shoulder of the man kneeling before Jesus, while himself being guided (or restrained) byanother young man. Behind Christ and the blind man, two Jews and a Pharisee in a turban lookon with keen interest. On the left side, viewers will notice a mother standing with a child in herarms, bearing witness to the event. At the far left, in the shadow of the doorway of a large building,there is a seated figure of a woman holding a child. In front of this building is a large square blockof stone, with a cane resting against it. The sunlight shining obliquely from the left of the painting
casts long shadows, throwing the figures of the people into sharp relief.
The solemnity and grandeur of this work, which is evident both in the group of figures andin the painting’s overall composition, was, as previous studies have indicated, learned by Poussinfrom the works of Raphael, especially the cartoons for the Sistine Chapel tapestries. Poussin also
appears to have pursued perfection by directly referencing the art of classical antiquity for the
proportions of his figures.6 The poses of Jesus and the blind man in the center of the painting
5

Cf. Nicolas Milovanovic, “Poussin et l'exégèse,” in Nicolas Milovanovic and Mickaël Szanto, eds. Poussin
et Dieu (Paris, 2015), 56–65.
6
The groping blind man is derived from a cartoon by Raphael, The Blinding of Elymas (1515–16, Victoria and4

MOCHIZUKI Noriko

recall a mural in the Catacomb of Domitilla (Fig. 2).7 The building visible in the middle groundon the left is the Villa Garzadore, designed by Andrea Palladio,8 while contemporary sketches
imply that the scenery around the basilica drew on actual views of Rome (Fig. 3).9
Thus, while Poussin made use of archaeological knowledge, he drew on Raphael andclassical antiquity for the entirety of his monumental composition and expressions of the humanfigure. Furthermore, through his fusion of buildings representative of classicism and structuresthat would have been seen in early Christian Rome, and in combination with lush greenery and a
flowing body of cool, refreshing water, the artist produced an idyllic landscape with timelessevocative force.

Fig. 2. Anonym, Paintings and Inscriptions in the Catacombof Domitilla, Rome, Drawing from the Paper Museum of
Cassiano dal Pozzo, ca.1639, Windsor Castle Royal Library,detail. Source: John Osborne and Amanda Claridge, Early
Christian and Medieval Antiquities, vol.1, Mosaics andWallpaintings in Roman Churches, The Paper Museum of
Cassiano dal Pozzo. A Catalogue Raisonné, series A, pt.2
(London: Harvey Miller, 1996), 64–68.

Fig. 3. Attributed G. A. Dosio, Sacra via, Rome, Architectura
Civile, Drawing from the Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo,
16-17th century, Windsor Castle Royal Library. Source: Ian
Campell, Ancient Roman Topography and Architecture, vol. 1,
The Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo. A Catalogue
Raisonné, series A, pt.9 (London: Harvey Miller, 2004), no. 88.

3. Commission by Reynon of Lyon, Merchant
As related by André Félibien, the work painted in 1650 was commissioned by “le sieur
Reynon, marchand de Lyon.” At the behest of the same M. Reynon, Poussin also painted The
Finding of Moses (The National Gallery, London) in the following year.10 “M. Reynon” mayrefer either to the silk manufacturer and merchant Silvio I Reynon (1580/90–1666) or to his son

Albert Museum, London). Sébastian Bourdon has identified the proportions of figures with those of ancient
sculptures: the Farnese Gladiator (Dying Gaul, The National Archeological Museum of Naples), the Apollo
Belvedere (The Vatican Museum), and the Medici Venus (The Uffizi Gallery, Florence). Félibien, CONFERENCES,
119–120; Lichtenstein and Michel, Conférences, 182–183, n.10, 11.
7
Milovanovic and Szanto, Poussin et Dieu, 394. Several drawings survive in the Paper Museum (Museo
Cartaceo) assembled by Cassiano dal Pozzo, an important patron of Poussin in Rome. John Osborne and Amanda
Claridge, Early Christian and Medieval Antiquities, vol.1, The Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo, A-2 (London,
1996), 64–68. Cf. Antonio Bosio, Roma Sotterranea (Roma, 1632), 249.
8
Andrea Palladio, I QUATRO LIBRI DELL’ARCHITETTURA, vol. 2 (Venetia, 1570), 77, 79; Anthony Blunt,
Nicolas Poussin (London, 1995), 239.
9
Ian Campell, Ancient Roman Topography and Architecture, vol. 1, The Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo,
A-9 (London, 2004), 278, 280, no. 88. Cropper and Dempsey have pointed out associations with the drawing byMarten van Heemskerck, The Vatican and St. Peter’s (The Albertina Museum, Vienna). Cropper and Dempsey,
Poussin, 209, fig. 116.
10
Félibien, ENTRETIENS, 301–303.

The Exegetical Meaning of Nicolas Poussin’s Christ Healing the Blind (The Blind of Jericho)

5

Bernardin (1613–1686).11 Silvio, a native of Naples, was somewhat older than Poussin. As ayoung man, Poussin had produced The Death of Chione (1622, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lyon) for
Silvio.12 Bernardin pursued the family business with his father and amassed considerable wealth.
From a property inventory dating from the death of Bernardin’s son in 1691, the Reynon familyis then known to have held an art collection of over 300 works.
The list of paintings in the collection (133 paintings and 13 miniatures) features the namesof Poussin and other French painters, and of Italian artists such as Bassano and Carracci.
Thematically, the works include portraits, landscapes, mythological images, and flowers andanimals. Nevertheless, religious paintings represent the highest proportion of the collection (morethan 45).13
Silvio and Bernardin, both devout Christians, were involved in the activities of the charity
hospital, or general almshouse, in Lyon and are known to have pursued their charitable interests
enthusiastically. After the establishment of the Congregation of Christian Doctrine, Silvio becamea member of the Company of the Blessed Sacrament in 1654. A private organization that playeda leading role in reforming Catholicism, the Company was a secret society that regarded ardent
Eucharistic adoration as the core of faith and relieving poverty as an important devotional activity.
Moreover, in 1655, Silvio was temporarily assigned from the charity hospital to the St. Catherine
Hospital, where he gave public instruction in Christian catechism and engaged in spiritual
practice.14 Bernardin was chosen to serve as rector of the charity hospital in 1662–63.15
Silvio also owned an extensive library of religious and secular books in Italian, Latin, andFrench and, in addition to being a reader of religious texts, was involved in their publication. At
the behest of Cardinal Richelieu, he translated texts on Christian doctrine by Charles Borromeoof Milan into French and arranged for their publication by the Lyon publishing house of Jérôme
de La Garde.
Silvio’s art collection included works associated with subjects directly related to his faith,such as Madonna and Child with St. Charles Borromeo, Roman Charity, and the Adoration of theBlessed Sacrament.16
As for Christ Healing the Blind, historical sources are silent as to whether the subject matter
was specified when the work was commissioned. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to ask what kindof ideas Poussin would have applied to a work for such a devoutly religious patron.

11
Henriette Pommier, “Richesse insoupçonnée d'une collection lyonnaise du XVIIe siècle. Les Reynon,
marchands de soie et fabricants,” Bulletin de la société de l'histoire de l'art français (2013[2014]): 41–63.
12
Pierre Rosenberg, “Nicolas Poussin's ‘The death of Chione,’” The Burlington Magazine 159 (2017): 184–
186. See also: Id., “Les cinq Poussin des Reynon,” Bulletin de la société de l'histoire de l'art français (2013[2014]):
31–39.
13
Pommier, “Richesse,” 47–51, 60–63.
14
Ibid., 43; Georges Guigue, Les papiers des dévots de Lyon, Recueil de textes sur la Compagnie secrete duSaint-Sacrement...(Lyon, 1922), 73, 82, 93, 213–215; Emile Perret de la Menue, Recherches historiques sur lesbatiments connu à Lyon sous le nom d'Hôpital des Catherines (Lyon, 1877), 23.
15
Pommier, “Richesse,” 43; René Chausse, ed. INSTITVTION DE L'AVMOSNE GENERALE DE LYON, 6èmeéd. (Lyon, 1662), 143; CATALOGVE DE MESSIEVRS LES RECTEVRS NOMMEZ, POVR L'ADMINISTRATION del'Aumosne Generale en la Ville de Lyon… (Lyon, 1672), 88.
16
Pommier, “Richesse,” 44, 50, 60–63. Cf. La DOCTRINE CHRESTIENNE Selon l'Ordre & l'Institution deSaint CHARLES BORROME'E (Lyon, 1643, reed. 1645).

6

MOCHIZUKI Noriko

4. Debate over Biblical Fidelity: Conference of the Academy
After Christ Healing the Blind (Fig. 1) was acquired by the collection of Louis XIV in 1665,
it was taken up as a matter for discussion at the seventh conference of the Royal Academy of
Painting and Sculpture held in December 1667.
This section briefly recapitulates the debate over fidelity to biblical description that occurredat the conference. This debate presupposed that Poussin, as an exemplar of the Academy, would
have undertaken an accurate depiction, suited to the decorum appropriate for the setting of amiracle and in accordance with accounts in the Gospels and by Flavius Josephus. The lecturer inthis case was the painter Sébastien Bourdon (1616–1671), who regarded the work as a portrayalof the healing of two blind men in Jericho. According to Bourdon, Poussin’s presentation ofJericho as the setting of the story was based on its portrayal by Josephus in The Jewish War.
Bourdon devoted particular attention to the carefully painted stream and verdant nature, and to
the presence of palaces and houses, arguing that Poussin had carefully read Josephus.17
When the lecture concluded and the floor was opened for discussion, one speaker—
probably Philippe de Champaigne, as the criticism here reflects Champaigne’s own painting on
the same theme (Fig. 4)18—criticized Poussin’s work for a perceived lack of fidelity to the Bible.
Specifically, he argued that, while the Bible states that “as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd
followed him” (Matthew 20:29, English Standard Version Bible: ESV),19 the people in Poussin’s
painting are far too few to merit being called a crowd. In response, a second speaker, presumed
to have been the painter Jean Nocret, sought to defend Poussin. According to this man, to achievea “general expression,” Poussin eliminated theotherwise unnecessary crowd to focus theviewers’ attention on the miraculous act ofhealing, thereby preventing confusion.20
A third speaker (most likely Charles leBrun) 21 then appeared, affirming the work’s
fidelity to biblical description and arguing thatthe scene is not that of the miracle at Jericho but
rather the healing of the two blind men atCapernaum (Matthew 9).22 His reasoning wasthat, while Josephus certainly describes Jericho Fig. 4. Philippe de Champaigne, Christ Healing the Blind atin terms of its natural beauty irrigated by a Jericho, ca. 1655–60, oil on canvas, 102.2 × 141.9 cm,
Putnam Foundation, Timken Museum of Art, San Diego.

17
Félibien, CONFERENCES, 117–118. See also LES SEPT LIVRES de Flauius Iosephus de la guerre ET
CAPTIVITÉ DES IVIFZ (Paris, 1553), feuil. CL.
18
Lichtenstein and Michel, Conférences, 184, n.13.
19
LA SAINCTE BIBLE (Paris, 1608), 1053.
20
Félibien, CONFERENCES, 124–125.
21
The identification of this third speaker is problematic. For this issue see Lichtenstein and Michel,
Conférences,188, n.16.
22
SAINCTE BIBLE, 1040.

The Exegetical Meaning of Nicolas Poussin’s Christ Healing the Blind (The Blind of Jericho)

7

spring, upon reading further one finds that “Jericho lies in the plain quite close to a mountain thatis entirely bare, sterile, and very long, a mountain so harsh that it produces nothing and is entirely
uninhabited.” This does not accord with Poussin’s depiction. Moreover, while Jericho wasrenowned as the city of palm trees, no such trees are visible in Poussin’s painting.23
Conversely, Capernaum, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, was “the capital and mostconsiderable city of Upper Galilee, very populous and filled with a host of magnificent palaces
and rich houses.” According to Josephus, it was a fertile and temperate land24. The speaker also
claimed that Poussin painted the scenery around Capernaum with reference to the depiction by
Christian van Adrichem, based on pilgrims’ accounts at the beginning of the sixteenth century, as
well as in the writings of Jean Zuallart, who actually visited the Holy Land in the late sixteenth
century. 25 Since the debate over the work’s fidelity to the Bible found no resolution, it was
abruptly concluded that “Monsieur Poussin has treated his story with great verisimilitude.”26
More recently, Cropper and Dempsey have argued that the scene is very likely to be thehealing of the blind at Capernaum, the hometown of St. Peter, because Poussin’s work features
only 3 of the 12 apostles (John, Peter, and James). Moreover, according to their interpretation,
the placement of the structures in the background may represent the symbolic origins of St. Peterand the Vatican palace.27
Poussin painted his landscape with timeless poetic and evocative force using buildings fromvarious periods. Conversely, he omitted motifs, such as palm trees and teeming crowds, thatwould identify specific biblical passages. Unsurprisingly, the discussion at the Academy did notcoalesce around a single biblical passage. It may thus be best to interpret this work as marked byan intentionality that aims to satisfy decorum in terms of some aspect other than fidelity to biblicaldescription.
5. Iconographical Traditions of the Healing of the Blind
Although the discussion at the conference questioned whether Poussin’s work depicted themiracle at Jericho or the affair at Capernaum based on the presence of at least two blind men,
Christ performed the miracle of healing the sick many times during his ministry. Cases of him
healing the blind are also mentioned in several passages in the Gospels, chief among which are
the following(1) The healing of the blind at Jericho (Luke 18:35–43, Matthew 20:29–34, Mark 10:46–52).
In Luke 18 and Mark 10, Jesus heals a single blind man by his voice alone. In Matthew
20, the passage advanced at the conference, Christ heals two blind men by touching their
23
Félibien, CONFERENCES, 135. English translation by Chris Miller, Christian Michel and Jacqueline
Lichtenstein, eds. Lectures on Art (Los Angels, 2020), 98.
24
Josephus, LES SEPT LIVRES, feuil. CXXV.
25
Christian van Adrichem, THEATRUM TERRAE SANCTAE ET BIBLICARUM HISTORIARUM (Cologne,
1590), 103–104; Jean Zuallart, LE TRES DEVOT VOYAGE DE IERVSALEM (Anvers, 1608), 61–62. Although the
speaker do not refer to Adrichem and Zuallart by name, Félibien cites these authorities in the notes to the conference
proceedings. Félibien, CONFERENCES, 137.
26
Ibid., 138. Trans. by Miller, 99.
27
Cropper and Dempsey, Poussin, 209.

8

MOCHIZUKI Norikoeyes. All three descriptions involve crowds.
(2) The miracle at Capernaum (Matthew 9:27–31). The other passage advanced at theconference. Jesus heals two blind men at a house in Capernaum by touching their eyes.
(3) The miracle at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22–26). At Bethsaida, Jesus performs the miracle ofhealing by spitting on the eyes of a blind man.
(4) The healing of a man who was born blind (John 9:1–41). Jesus exited the temple inJerusalem and, seeing a man blind from birth, anointed the man’s eyes with mud andinstructed him to wash in the pool of Siloam.
Let us now ask how the miracle of the healing of the blimd has traditionally been represented inpainting.28 On murals in early Christian catacombs, carved reliefs on sarcophagi, and Byzantine
mosaics, the focus is placed on the miraculous act itself, with close-up representations of Jesus
and the blind man. There are examples of single blind man (Fig. 2), blind men in pairs, and theblind in combination with the lame. In many such cases, Christ is touching the eyes of the blindman.
Once narrative representations began to emerge in the Middle Ages, examples appeared of(presumably) the miracles at Jericho or Jerusalem. In early depictions of the former, Christ lays
his hands on the eyes of the blind man, but examples with Jesus healing the blind through speech
gradually increase. For example, one ninth-century mural (ca. 800, wall painting from the large
cycle in the abbey of Saint John at Müstair) shows a scene from Jericho with two blind men
sitting and Christ speaking to them without touching their eyes.29 In the seventeenth century,
Philippe de Champaigne (the probable first speaker in the discussion at the Academy conference)
painted a work based on Matthew 20, the miracle at Jericho (Fig. 4). In this example, Jesus,
accompanied by a large crowd, is calling out to two blind men at the side of a road in the midstof an expansive landscape that includes palm trees and a flowing river. Bourdon, the painter who
delivered the conference address, also left a work supposedly based on Matthew 20. In this work
(Christ and two blind men of Jericho, ca. 1660s, Musée du Service de Santé des Armées, Paris),
Jesus stands beside two blind men in the midst of a crowd but does not touch their eyes.30
Conversely, representations of the story related in John 9 of Jesus healing a man born blindin Jerusalem largely tend to depict Jesus touching the eyes of the blind. The description in theGospel of John differs significantly from descriptions in other passages in several respects. For
example, Jesus heals a man who is congenitally blind and, to do so, he “made mud with the saliva
and spread the mud on the man’s eyes, saying to him, ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam’ (whichmeans Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see (John 9: 6–7, ESV).”31 Then,in the second part of this episode, in an exposition absent from the other Gospels, John relates theattitudes of Pharisees who reviled Christ for performing this miracle on the Sabbath and of Jews

28
Engelbert Kirschbaum, ed. Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, vol. 1 (Rom, Freiburg, 1990), 304–307;
Karl Künstle, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, vol. 1 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1928), 392; Louis Réau,
Iconographie de l'art chrétien, II-II (Paris, 1957), 371–373; Gertrud Schiller, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst,
vol. 1 (Gütersloh, 1966), 179–182, 452–459.
29
Ibid., 454, fig. 512.
30
Jacques Thuillier, Sébastien Bourdon (Paris, 2000), 442.
31
SAINCTE BIBLE, 1131.

The Exegetical Meaning of Nicolas Poussin’s Christ Healing the Blind (The Blind of Jericho)

9

who would not accept Christ’s miracle (John9:14–41).32
Depictions of this scene in medieval murals
and manuscripts typically show Christ, followed
by several of his apostles, touching the eyes ofthe blind. While representations of the pool of
Siloam are varied, it is often drawn in the same
panel, with the blind man washing his eyes
therein. In other words, the blind man appears Fig. 5. Healing of the Man Born Blind, Manuscriptthtwice in a single image depicting successive Illumination, 6 century, Codex Purpureus Rossanensis,
Cathedral of Rossano, Calabria, Archepiscopal Treasury.
events (Fig. 5). In some cases, the blind man
washing his eyes in the fountain is surrounded by Jewish
onlookers. This style continued to be emulated in later
periods in well-known works such as Duccio’s The
Healing of the Man Born Blind (1307/8–11, The National
Gallery, London) and El Greco’s Christ Healing the Blind(three copies, ca. 1567–70, Staatliche KunstsammlungenDresden etc.). In these works, Jesus is touching the eyesof the blind man, and the blind man is portrayed twice.
One might also consider the biblical illustrations andengravings in circulation during Poussin’s lifetime.
Previous studies have shown that Poussin referred to suchengravings and illustrations when creating his works,
while Reynon, who commissioned this piece, had a deep
interest in books. In the case of biblical illustrations, thefact that the scriptural basis is necessarily explicit allows
any differences in images for different parts of the Gospel
to be clearly ascertained.
The scene of the healing of the blind at Jericho, as
6. Antoon Wiericx after Bernardino
mentioned above, accords with Matthew 20, Mark 10, and Fig.
Passeri, A Blind Man is Healed before
Luke 18 in the synoptic Gospels, and illustrations were Jericho, in Jérôme Nadal, Evangelicae
HISTORIAE IMAGINE... (Antverpiae:
often provided for Luke 18. For example, the illustration Martinus Nutius, 1593), pl. 83.
for Luke 18 in Evangelicae Historiae Imagines (1593),
commissioned by the Jesuit missionary Jérôme Nadal, offers a depiction of Jericho (as indicatedby the palm trees) that shows Jesus, accompanied by crowds, speaking to a blind man (Fig. 6).33

32

Ibid., 1131–1132.
Jérôme Nadal, Evangelicae HISTORIAE IMAGINES… (Antverpiae, 1593), pl. 83. Other examples: Hanns
Lautensack, Christ Heals the Blind Man (Staatlich Graphische Sammlung, Munich); Virgil Solis, Christ Heals aBlind Man (Luke 18) (British Museum, London). In the latter, Christ is touching the eyes of a single blind man.
33

10

Fig. 7. Antoon Wiericx after Bernardino
Passeri, Healing of the Man Born Blind,in Jérôme Nadal, Evangelicae
HISTORIAE IMAGINE... (Antverpiae:
Martinus Nutius, 1593), pl. 57.

MOCHIZUKI Noriko

Fig. 8. Adriaen Collaert, Healing of the
Man Born Blind, in VITA IESUSALVATORIS, varijs iconibus ab
Adriano Collart expressa (Antverpiae:
Adriaen Collaert, ca.1593), pl. 30.

Fig. 9. Leonardo Parasole after Antonio
Tempesta, Healing of the Man Born Blind,in Testamentum novum, Arabice et Latine,(Roma, 1591), British Museum, London.
© The Trustees of the British Museum.

Conversely, there are numerous examples of biblical illustrations and engravings that portraythe healing of the man born blind at Jerusalem in John 9. In one example from Nadal’s book (Fig.
7), Christ is drawn touching the eyes of the kneeling blind man as his disciples bear witness tothe act. On the left are Pharisees, who question the man whose eyes have been healed. On theright, a blind man is seated near a temple, showing this to be adiachronic image. In the background on the right, the pool of
Siloam is visible against a backdrop of mountains. In anotherexample of a biblical illustration (Fig. 8), trees and buildings
are drawn in the background, with the disciples striking
various poses on either side of Christ, who touches the eyes ofa blind man in the center. The same blind man sits on the right.
In a woodcut by Leonardo Parasole and Antonio Tempesta(Fig. 9), Christ, accompanied by his disciples, touches theeyelids of a kneeling blind man. In the middle ground, theblind man, now sighted, is visible beside a pool of water andagainst a backdrop of mountains.34
Furthermore, in Figures de la saincte Bible (1614, Fig.
10), a blind man sits with a cane in hand atop a rock in frontof the temple, with Christ touching his eyelids as the disciples
10. Healing of the Man Born Blind, inwatch the spectacle from behind. On the right side are a spring Fig.
FIGVRES DE LA SAINCTE BIBLE...
and flowing water in which the blind man washes his eyes. The (Paris: Iean Le Clerc, 1614), 226.
34
Ibid., pl. 57; Marjolein Leesberg and Arnout Balis, The New Hollstein Dutch & Flemish Etchings, Engravings
and Woodcuts 1450–1700: The Collaert Dynasty, part 1 (Ouderkerk aan den Ijssel, 2005), 129, no. 136; Georg Kaspar
Nagler, Die Monogrammisten und diejenigen bekannten und unbekannten Künstler aller Schulen..., vol. 4 (München,1860), 410, no. 1256.

The Exegetical Meaning of Nicolas Poussin’s Christ Healing the Blind (The Blind of Jericho)

11

blind man can also be seen being accosted by Jews. In this case, the flowing water, Christ’s
gestures, and the arrangement and poses of the onlookers who surround the blind man are among
the compositional elements shared with Poussin.35
Biblical illustrations of scenes supposed to be the healing of the blind in Jericho include
instances of two blind men and one blind man. In many examples, Christ is speaking (healing
with his voice), and the presence of palm trees and crowds represents a key to setting the scene.
Conversely, while depictions of the healing of the man born blind at Jerusalem in John 9 show asingle blind man, he is often depicted twice in the same panel as a diachronic image, and the poolof Siloam is always shown. Christ touching the eyes of the blind man, and the depictions of the
Pharisees and Jews questioning the blind man, can be said to be typical.

6. Associations with the “Healing of the Man Born Blind” in Jerusalem in John 9
Revisiting Poussin’s work in light of the above, it is apparent that the representation includes
elements that only match the description of John 9. First, in the Gospel of John, when Christ
performs this miracle he states that: “We must work the works of him who sent me while it isday… As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world” (John 9:4–5, ESV).36 Only theGospel of John explicitly describes Christ as the light of the world. Poussin’s work depicts a scenethat takes place on a bright morning. As analyzed by Bourdon at the Academy conference,
Poussin used the colors of Christ’s raiment—yellow and white most closely manifest the qualities
of light, while robes of purple, a mixture of red and blue, take on the nature of light and air—torepresent Christ not as one who is illuminated by light but as a source of light himself.37
In addition, the events related in the latter half of John 9, specifically the indignation of the
Pharisees at Christ not observing the Sabbath and the Jews’ disbelief in the miracle, are perhaps
represented by the expressions and comportment of the Jews who observe Christ and the blindman. A preparatory drawing associatedwith this work (Fig. 11) similarly
depicts a Jew observing the healing ofa single blind man, a fact that supports
the artist’s later addition of a second
blind man in the finished work. 38 In
other words, rather than accurately
painting a specific Bible passage, it
seems conceivable that Poussin may
have envisioned the “healing of theblind” as a miracle tale associated with Fig. 11. Nicolas Poussin, Christ Healing the Blind, ca. 1650, Pen, brown
ink and traces of black chalk, 11.3 × 19.6 cm, Musée Bonnat, Bayonne,
Jesus, focusing on the act itself.
inv. 1678.
35

FIGVRES DE LA SAINCTE BIBLE… (Paris, 1614), 226.
SAINCTE BIBLE, 1131.
37
Félibien, CONFERENCES, 121. Cf. Bätschmann, Poussin, 37.
38
Pierre Rosenberg and Louis-Antoine Prat, Nicolas Poussin: Catalogue raisonné des dessins (Milano, 1994),
670–671.
36

MOCHIZUKI Noriko

12

Poussin’s work does not portray Jerusalem in geographical terms. As noted by Zuallart,
referenced at the conference, however, the fount of Siloam at the foot of Mount Zion in Jerusalem,
whose waters flow from the Gihon Spring, only intermittently produces vigorous flows of water.
The pool of Siloam, fed by underground channels, provided Jerusalem with tranquil flows ofwater, irrigating its gardens.39 The Book of Isaiah refers to “the waters of Shiloah that flow gently”(Isaiah 8:6, ESV).40 Poussin’s painting features a pool of water that might be a reservoir andfrom which a tranquil flow of water issues. This might suggest the pool of Siloam.
The Reynons were familiar with the biblical descriptions and illustrations that were thencurrent. Given the composition of Poussin’s work, the poses of the figures therein, the depictionsof the onlookers, and the reservoir or river, it is highly likely that the Reynons would have recalled
not only the miracle at Jericho but also the “healing of the man born blind” related in the Gospelof John. The absence of palm trees, which would have established the scene as the miracle atJericho, as well as the absence of a crowd, were undoubtedly elements that intentionally obscured
the identification of a specific scriptural basis for this painting.
Indeed, Poussin’s biographer Giovanni Pietro Bellori used the title Il cieco illuminato [TheBlind Man Receiving Sight] to describe this work. He observed that Christ is depicted touching
the eyes to bring vision to “cieco nato [the man who was born blind]” and noted that, behind
Christ and the blind man, an elderly Jew leans forward “in disbelief” and another Jew in a turban
spreads his hands “in amazement.” While Bellori also mentioned another blind man in the midstof his description and concluded that the scene of the painting was a town outside Jericho, thedepiction very much seems to combine elements from John 9 and Matthew 20.41

7. Biblical Exegesis of the Gospel of John
Because Poussin’s tableau depicts at least two blind men, both the discussion at the Academy
and recent studies have largely ignored any potential associations between it and the Gospel ofJohn’s account of the miracle of the healing of the man born blind. However, based on the above
iconographical analysis and the description given by Bellori, some room clearly exists to giveconsideration to John 9.
Accordingly, the following analysis of the Gospel of John emphasizes the healing of the blind
man in terms of the miracle itself. One reason for this approach is that, in addition to the similarityof their iconography, the synoptic Gospels offer little more than brief attestations that the healingof the blind took place. By contrast, the Gospel of John describes the event in detail over an entire
chapter, including the meaning of the miracle. Furthermore, as noted by Nicolas Milovanovic,
Poussin may have been particularly influenced by the Gospel of John because the artist drewheavily on the writings of St. Augustine, who placed special emphasis on the role of John the
Evangelist. St. Augustine’s works exerted extensive influence over seventeenth-century France

39

Zuallart, VOYAGE, 56.
SAINCTE BIBLE, 738.
41
Giovanni Pietro Bellori, LE VITE... (Roma, 1672), 452–453.
40

The Exegetical Meaning of Nicolas Poussin’s Christ Healing the Blind (The Blind of Jericho)

13

and played a major role in the development of French mystical thought.42
The tradition of biblical exegesis of John 9 can now be examined by considering the various
allegorical interpretations derived from depictions that evoke the account given in the Gospel ofJohn. This discussion will rely chiefly on interpretations of the Gospel of John found in St.
Augustine’s Tractatus in Evangelium Iohannis (ca. 419) and Commentarii in Evangelia (1638)
by the Flemish Jesuit Cornelius a Lapide.
According to St. Augustine’s Tractates, the man born blind symbolizes the human legacy oforiginal sin—human beings are born sightless in spiritual rather than bodily terms. Washing theeyes in the pool of Siloam implies baptism by Christ and, more specifically, that sinful humanbeings are awakened to belief and turned toward baptism through the guidance of Jesus’ light.
Siloam refers to one who has been sent, namely Jesus Christ himself. Although this sightlessness
is itself a sin, those who realize their sightlessness will have that sin taken away. Conversely,
those who claim to be sighted will remain in sin.43
A Lapide’s Commentary on John 9, which frequently cites St. Augustine, offers the following
explanation. “Siloam was the type of Christian Baptism, whereby we are spiritually enlightened.
…this man was enlightened both in body and mind by the waters of Siloam. There is great affinity
between water and light, ablution and illumination.” The waters of Siloam cleanse the eyes, i.e.,they wash away sin and bring light simultaneously to the spirit and to the eyes. “But he who isbaptized receives the light of the mind through faith, hope, and charity, which are infused into
him by God in baptism.”44
Poussin’s work stands out in terms of its portrayal of light and water, particularly in theoverall effect of the light, the flow of the water, and the reflections on the water’s surface. That
Bourdon’s address to the Academy conference began with a commentary on Poussin’s
representation of light is suggestive. Nevertheless, the relationship between Poussin’s pictorial
representations and the biblical interpretation of the Gospel of John, which interprets therelationship between light and water in terms of baptism and the washing away of sin by the lightof Christ, may still be somewhat vague. Importantly, however, the emblematic motif of stone that
Poussin incorporated into his painting strengthens its association with the commentaries on theGospel of John. This carefully drawn stone is meaningfully placed at a remove from the people,
on the left side of the canvas, where the viewer’s eye is caught by the blind man’s cane resting
against it (Fig.1).
It has been noted repeatedly that this stone represents “the cornerstone” that symbolizes
Christ, and that it serves as an important motif for strengthening the divine Providence expressedby this work.45 The Bible says “…therefore thus says the Lord God, ‘Behold, I am the one who
42

Milovanovic and Szanto, Poussin et Dieu, passim.
TOMVS IX. OPERVM D. AVRELLI AVGVSTINI HIPPONENSIS EPISCOPI, CONTINENS ILLIVS
TRACTATVS (Antverpiae, 1576), 133–135. St. Augustine: Tractates on the Gospel on John 28–54, translated by John
W. Retig, (Washington D. C., 2002), 175–186.
44
R. P. CORN. CORNELII A LAPIDE E SOCIETATE IESV, S. SCRIPTVRAE OLIM LOVANII, POSTEAROMAE PROFESSORIS COMMENTARII IN EVANGELIA, tome II (Lugduni, 1638), 387–395. Paul A. Böer, ed.
The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: The Gospel of St. John, (Columbia, 2012), 311–327, esp. 316–318.
45
Milovan Stanić, “Le mode énigmatique dans l’art de Poussin,” in Olivier Bonafait, ed. Poussin et Rome,(Paris, 1996), 93–117, esp. 100; Milovanovic, “l'exégèse,'' 59–60.
43

MOCHIZUKI Noriko

14

has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a surefoundation…’” (Isaiah 28:16, ESV), and “…Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone…”(Ephesians 2:20, ESV).46 If the stone in Poussin’s painting is reminiscent of the cornerstone, thenthe place where the stone has been laid must be Zion, i.e., Jerusalem, and must also be linked tothe pool of Siloam at the foot of Mount Zion. The pool of Siloam also “means Sent” and is in thatsense an expression of Christ himself.47
Here, it should be noted that this stone derives from the allegory of Penitence found in Ripa’s
Iconologia and that the biblical commentary on the Gospel of John and Poussin’s work wereclosely linked through the intermediary of Ripa’s work. The first Parisian edition of Iconologie(on which this discussion relies) was translated by Jean Baudoin and published in 1636 withengravings by Jacques de Bie.48 While Poussin was based mostly in Rome, he returned to Parisat the invitation of Louis XIII from 1640 to 1642. Poussin’s stay post-dated the publication of theParisian edition of Ripa’s work, and he would no doubt have had an interest in it. In 1643/44, an
expanded and revised version of the French translation was published, including the addition of
a second part as well as several new illustrations. In painting a work for the Reynons, who were
not only art collectors but also involved in publishing, might Poussin not have acquired thisrevised and expanded edition? In the entry for Penitence contained in the new second part, thetext is adapted from the Italian edition but is illustrated with an engraving not found in the Italian
edition. The production of new engravings would also likely have attracted Poussin’s attention.
According to Ripa, the stone on which the female personification of Penitence sits (Fig. 12)
is none other than Jesus Christ himself, and the waters that spring forth are the inexhaustible graceof God. By sitting on the stone, the sinner’s thoughts are directed to the contemplation of grace.
In Poussin’s work, the cane that has been abandoned is that of the blind man—a metonym for thesin symbolized by blindness. In Ripa’s work, a woman regrets her sin, and by sitting atop theFig. 12. Jacques de Bie, Pénitence, in Cesare
Ripa, ICONOLOGIE... (Paris: Mathiev
Gvillemot, 1643/44), 2nd partie, 138.
46

SAINCTE BIBLE, 752, 1227.
SAINCTE BIBLE, 1131; Tractates, 176.
48
Cesare Ripa, ICONOLOGIE (Paris, 1636).
47

Fig. 13. Nicolas Poussin, Healingof the Blind (Fig.1), detail.

The Exegetical Meaning of Nicolas Poussin’s Christ Healing the Blind (The Blind of Jericho)

15

stone representing Christ, her sin is washed away and her soul made pure.49 In Poussin’s work,
the blind man’s cane suggests sin. In Christ’s guidance one sees “the blind man” set free fromthis sin and guided from darkness into light—from sin into belief. This is a suggestion of salvation
through baptism by water, a sacrament delivered for humanity’s sake by Christ’s pure
benevolence.
In the illustration for Penitence engraved by de Bie (Fig. 12), the stone on which she sits isimmersed in waters that flow from the spring. Importantly, the ground around the rock painted
by Poussin also seems to be soaked with water (Fig. 13). It seems clear that only the area
immediately around the stone is immersed in water, given the painting’s subtle depiction of thereflection of the stone on its surface. In other words, the cane of the blind man is being cleansed
by water. Nor is it likely mere coincidence that a woman captured in profile is seated in theentrance of a building situated just above the stone.

8. Conclusion: As a Work for the Reynons
A woman standing on the right of the stone with a child in her arms bears witness to Christ’s
miracle (Fig. 1). The motif of a woman standing with a child in arms was also incorporated intoa work by Poussin three years later, namely Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery (Fig. 14),50
which depicts an episode only found in the Gospel of John. As a traditional personification ofCharity (Fig. 15),51 she looks on as the sins of the adulterous woman are absolved.52 According
to the explanation given in St. Augustine’s Tractates for the “adulterous woman,” Jesus’ act isbased on the words of Psalm 86 (“But you, O Lord, are a God merciful and gracious…” ESV).
This gives rise to the interpretation that Christ’s benevolence emphasizes his generosity in

Fig. 14. Nicolas Poussin, Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery, ca.
1653, Oil on Canvas, 121 × 195 cm, Musée du Louvre, Paris.
49

Fig. 15. Giuseppe Cesari, Carità, in Cesare Ripa,
Iconologia... (Roma: Lepido Facii, 1603), 64.

Cesare Ripa, ICONOLOGIE (Paris, 1643/44), 138–139.
Milovanovic, Catalogue, 189–190.
51
Cesare Ripa, ICONOLOGIA (Roma, 1603), 63–66.
52
Poussin might have used the illustration of Penitence (Fig. 12) for the attitude of the adulterous woman inChrist and the Woman Taken in Adultery (Fig. 14). Christophe Angebault, “Le Christ et la femme adultère de Nicolas
Poussin (1653): L'adultération de la souveraineté dans le dispositif de la représentation,” in Pierre A. Fabre et al., eds.
À force de signes (Paris, 2018), 467–480.
50

MOCHIZUKI Noriko

16

contrast to the old laws of the Pharisees who accused the adulterous woman.53
Similarly, this personification of benevolence (Charity) also appears as a witness to themiracle in Christ Healing the Blind (Fig. 1). She represents the benevolence of Christ, which
opposes the Pharisees who condemn Christ for not observing the Sabbath, as written in John 9.
She stands one step removed from the curious Jews, quietly watching the event unfold.
Poussin’s decision to depict two blind men in an ambiguous setting would have stood out. It
attests to his desire to empathically show the important miracle that Christ performed in “healing
the blind” and to recall the appearance of this miracle in several passages of the Gospels. Even ina period that favored decorum in pursuit of verisimilitude, beyond faithfully reproducing a single
event from the Bible, there was still room for free meditation on Christ’s miracles. The viewer isinvited to a philosophical consideration of the meaning of the miracle of the healing of the blind
as described in the Gospel of John. Specifically, the intention is to contemplate the allegoricalmeaning of the purification of sin by Christ’s benevolence and its association with baptism, as
explained in the biblical exegeses of St. Augustine and others. To achieve this, the following
elements are key: the composition of the canvas and the arrangement of the people, therepresentations of clear light and water and the emblematic motifs of the stone and the cane, andfinally, the links with the semiotic ramifications of the image of the woman with a child in her
arms. Through a visual rhetoric that skillfully arranges the semiotic elements of each form, theviewer is naturally encouraged to meditate on God’s revelation. Poussin’s painting was thus
eminently suitable as a work for the Reynon family, whose members were passionately engaged
in enlightenment activities and charitable work. In that sense, the painting can be described as awork that satisfied the criteria of decorum in its own fashion.

53

Tractates, 57. Milovanovic and Szanto, Poussin et Dieu, 396–398.