Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Erik Born
Access provided by New York University (10 May 2018 19:53 GMT)
Media Archaeology, Cultural Techniques,
and the Middle Ages: An Approach to the
Study of Media before the Media
Erik Born University of California, Berkeley
This article surveys recent work in media archaeology, explicates the related theory of
cultural techniques, and considers the utility of these recent developments in new German
media theory to the analysis of medieval and early modern mediality. In doing so, the arti-
cle also attends to disciplinary similarities between media studies and medieval and early
modern studies. The aim of the article is neither to suggest a hybridization of these fields
nor to systematize the approaches of media archaeology and the study of cultural techni-
ques, but rather to highlight productive points of contact, contention, and possible
exchange, and to indicate avenues for future research on insufficiently studied topics in
medieval and early modern mediality. As a point of reference for this theoretical over-
view, the article focuses on Nicholas of Cusa’s treatise On the Vision of God (De visione
Dei, 1453) and mentions other examples from medieval German literature and culture
where relevant.
Keywords: mediality, media archaeology, cultural techniques, linear perspective, reli-
gious icons, spiritual exercises, Nicholas of Cusa, De visione Dei
Of the many unusual ways of viewing an image, one of the most remarkable
comes down to us from the threshold of modernity. Asked in 1453 to explain the
opaque subject of mystical theology in more accessible terms, Nicholas of Cusa
provided the following instructions in the preface to his treatise On the Vision of
God (De visione Dei): mount a particular kind of religious icon on the wall and
have three monks observe it from the front and the sides; next, have them walk
around it in a semicircle while keeping their eyes fixed on the eyes in the icon;
and, finally, have them discuss their experience of this experiment. The eyes in
the icon should seem to follow the viewers around the room. Although each
monk may perceive the icon’s frontal gaze to be directed at him alone, the
monastic community can extrapolate from this individual experience to an
understanding of mystical theology. Just as the icon’s gaze is addressed to each
viewer simultaneously at every position in the room, so too, Cusa explains, does
the benevolent all-seeing gaze of the divine accompany all creatures everywhere
and at all times (par. 1–5).1 Why was the mediation of an image, rather than a
scholastic definition or disputation, necessary to make this conventional point of
Christian dogma about the dual nature of visio Dei, which will be the subject of
the remainder of the treatise?2
Along with the treatise On the Vision of God, Cusa also claims to have sent
a “painting” (tabellam) that he calls the “Icon of God” (eiconam Dei) to be used
in the viewing procedure (par. 2). Though this use of an image may seem to be a
solution to the problem of illiteracy (cf. Heidenreich), the instructions in the pref-
ace remain embedded within the treatise and related to the Benedictine practices
of lectio divina (see Bond). As Michel de Certeau argued in his seminal article
“The Gaze: Nicholas of Cusa,” the function of the preface is twofold—not only
to construct a sacred space for experiencing the divine but also to open up a dis-
cursive space for the treatise to follow (10–11). The preface, then, is at once an
experience and an experiment, meanings that intersect in the Latin root experior
and in the twofold meaning of a “devotional exercise” (par. 5: praxim devotio-
nis). Designed to create an experience of divine omnivoyance, the experimental
instructions in the preface are able to overcome the privileges traditionally attrib-
uted to both experiential authority and theological jargon (Certeau 11). The main
insight of Cusa’s spiritual exercise is that understanding need not precede prac-
tice: just as the interpretation of results usually follows the performance of an
experiment in a laboratory, an understanding of mystical theology should follow,
conceptually and chronologically, the practice of viewing an icon according to
the instructions in the preface. In other words, doing something becomes a con-
dition of possibility for saying something (Certeau 11).
As the monastic community turns from the treatise to the icon, the change
of medium is signalled by framing statements, at the beginning and end of the
preface, about the necessity, in any manuduction into mystical theology, of
using a “sensible figure” (par. 2: sensibilem . . . figuram) or “sensible appear-
ance” (par. 5: sensibili apparentia). In fact, the experience operationalized in the
preface obtains only owing to the mediation of an image—only for certain per-
spectival pictures under specific viewing conditions. The impression of being
followed by a painting requires the portrayed object to face the viewers, so that
when they change position, comparing the viewpoints from orthogonal and obli-
que angles, they perceive the object as continuing to face them (Koenderink
et al. 526). There has to be a picture: viewing any other object from different an-
gles will have no effect. By deploying this visual effect, novel at the time but
still operative and compelling today, Cusa’s unorthodox instructions for viewing
a religious icon subvert the typical use of this medium, thereby calling on the
potential of visual media to disrupt, defamiliarize, and dehabituate vision with
their non-human gaze.
Surprisingly, the content of the icon is less relevant for Cusa, being specified
only as “the image of someone omnivoyant, so that his face, through subtle pic-
torial artistry, is such that it seems to behold everything around it” (par. 2: imag-
ine omnia videntis . . . ita quod facies subtili arte pictoria ita se habeat, quasi
cuncta circumspiciat). Cusa’s examples of such a figure cover a wide range of
Media Archaeology, Cultural Techniques, and the Middle Ages 109
subjects and media formats, an indication that his main concern was not the
content of the icon or the rules of art but the artificial quality of the image
(Simon 64).3 In this case, the medium is the message, the material properties of
the omnivoyant figure being more important than the depicted subject. As a
medium, however, the icon in Cusa’s experiment does not function in the sense
of Marshall McLuhan’s famous understanding of media as “extensions of man,”
but as an exemplum of the divine, which serves to generate the category of the
human according to Friedrich Kittler’s dictum that “media determine our situa-
tion” (Gramophone, Film, Typewriter xxxix). Ultimately, the sacredness of the
omnivoyant icon does not lie in any concept of an icon, iconoclasm, or iconol-
ogy; it must be produced through a particular artistic technique and a specific
viewing practice. The preface to Cusa’s treatise thus raises questions about the
distinction between medium and message, the periodization of the Middle Ages
against modernity, and the priority of practice over concepts – three points that I
take up, in turn, in the following sections, in an effort to tease out ways of ad-
dressing these questions through recent developments in media studies.
In this article, I offer a brief survey of recent work in media archaeology,
explicate the related theory of cultural techniques, and consider the utility of
these recent developments in new German media theory to medieval and early
modern studies. First, I consider the controversial question of applying a modern
concept of media to the Middle Ages, a period before the realization of commu-
nication as a discourse, before the materialization of devices capable of auto-
matic storage, processing, and transmission, and before the formation of
information theory as a means of understanding and optimizing these develop-
ments. In light of these difficulties, I analyze an idiosyncratic proposal to reserve
the concept of media strictly for modernity, and to apply a different concept to
premodern mediality – namely that of Kulturtechniken, or cultural techniques
and technologies.4 Before explicating this concept and laying out its implica-
tions, I examine how debates about the applicability of terminology are informed
by questions of periodization and historiography. In recent years, media archae-
ology has become an established field for dealing with these difficulties, and is
already widely known in Anglo-American cultural studies. However, the study
of cultural techniques and technologies, another outgrowth of new German
media theory, may be even more significant for medievalists and early moder-
nists. I conclude the article with reference to recent studies of the elementary cul-
tural techniques of reading, writing, and counting in the Middle Ages and the
early modern period, suggesting where further studies may be made of cultural
techniques beyond those pertaining to images, words, and numbers. The aim of
this article is neither to systematize media archaeology and the study of cultural
techniques, which largely resist systematization, nor to suggest the adoption of
media studies as a meta-discipline, but rather to indicate productive points of
contact, contention, and possible exchange with developments in medieval and
early modern studies.
110 ERIK BORN
and scrolls, sculptures, and skin. There were air and water, the “elementary
media” required for transmitting the human voice and transporting goods and
passengers (see Peters, Marvelous Clouds 3, 19–21), as well as anthropomorphic
figures of transmission, such as angels, spirits, and messengers. Though often
overlooked, there were also science and technology in the Middle Ages, the sub-
ject of an entire field of research (e.g. White, Medieval Technology; White,
“Study”; Popplow) often treated in isolation from media studies. There were
numbers and scientific instruments for processing information, as well as lists,
catalogues, tables, and notational systems. Nevertheless, none of these premo-
dern forms of mediality fulfill the conditions of modern electronic media – at
least not in the quantitative sensu strictissimo of modern information theory –
namely the automatic storage, processing, and transmission of information
(Ernst, “‘Medien’” 347).
Dedicated to Horst Wenzel, who was responsible for pioneering interdisci-
plinary work in media studies and medieval studies in Germany, Ernst’s paper
can be understood largely as a response to Wenzel’s repeated proposal to apply
models from modern information theory to the Middle Ages (“Einleitung” 11;
“Medien- und Kommunikationstheorie” 129).6 The main obstacle for this research
agenda, as Ernst observes, is that the dominant model of modern information
theory, Claude Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication, is a difficult fit
for pre-modern mediality (“‘Medien’” 347). An electrical engineer, Shannon was
primarily interested in the efficient transmission of information, and not in seman-
tics, hermeneutics, or semiotics. This disjuncture serves as a deterrent to applying
information theory to literary and cultural studies, though it should not be under-
stood as a prohibition against doing so (Schweighauser 146). One main point of
divergence, as Ernst emphasizes, is that modern electronic media are always indif-
ferent to their contents, whereas medieval communication often contained a sym-
bolic surplus: messengers, for instance, were not expected to be as indifferent to
the contents of messages as are electronic media (“‘Medien’” 348).
In a broad sense, there were also concepts of media, information, and com-
munication in the Middle Ages, though their meanings differ from current usage
(Hoffmann 24–28). For example, the medieval concept of information initially
denoted the imparting of form to matter. In the medieval and early modern peri-
ods, “repetition and similitude are not the source for information; they are the
quintessence of its form” (Geoghegan, “Information”). Similarly, communica-
tion was a frequent topic of medieval rhetoric, politics, and theology, but com-
municatio did not signify symbolic connection, nor did it evoke modern
expectations of mutual recognition and dialogic understanding (see Peters,
Speaking 7; Kiening, “Medialität” 306). Perhaps the most similar to contempo-
rary usage, the medieval Latin term medium primarily conveyed a sense of “mid-
dle,” “median,” “means,” or “mediator,” and occasionally even a sense of “in-
betweenness,” the latter being a crucial aspect of the current understanding of
mediality as a form of dynamic, topological relation. However, the term never
referred to the material conditions of information storage, processing, and
112 ERIK BORN
historical periods and make historical differences visible (“‘Medien’” 357). This
critical gesture is at the heart of media archaeology.
Zielinski’s programmatic statement, “Do not seek the old in the new, but find
something new in the old” (3), often quoted as the foundational statement of
media archaeology, resonates surprisingly well with D. Vance Smith’s reflection
on countering the affective turn with insights from vernacular theology and the
mystical concept of self-annihilation: “We can do more than to keep rediscover-
ing ourselves in a work that wills us to die” (92). For Hans Robert Jauss, the
medievalist responsible for popularizing the concept of alterity, the printing
press was “das Ereignis, welches mehr als jedes andere die Kultur des Mittelal-
ters als ‘die Zeit davor’ für uns verschlossen hat” (16), since it enabled the cru-
cial philological equation of literary tradition with a culture of writing and
literacy. Even though Jauss’s hermeneutic category of alterity is no longer tena-
ble as a descriptive historical category (Braun 21), attention to the otherness of
material objects can provide a productive counterweight to the textuality of nar-
rative history (Ernst, “Irony” 43–51). While historical difference can authorize a
critique of the present while also allowing the past to develop as a special attrac-
tion, attention to the alterity of medieval objects and practices can provide med-
ievalists and scholars of media studies alike with a means to avoid reaching out
to touch the past and remake it in their own image.
Each of the different Anglo-American and German inflections of media
archaeology, the former interfacing more directly with literary and cultural stu-
dies than the latter, provides a robust method for dealing with the recurrence of
tropes over time – an especially relevant issue for Cusa’s text, which intervenes
in perennial debates about the nature of icons and about conventions governing
visions of the divine (McGinn). At first glance, Kittler’s study of “Isolde als
Sirene,” Claus Pias and Timon Beyes’s analysis of premodern secrecy and trans-
parency, and Markus Krajewski’s “recursive historiography,” the practice of
studying media anachronistically so that one returns to the present with increased
knowledge of the past, and vice versa, may appear commensurate with Erkki
Huhtamo’s transhistorical investigation of “media topoi” in explicit analogy to
Ernst Robert Curtius’s famous catalogue of rhetorical topoi. However, as Huh-
tamo admits, media topoi are not strictly dependent on the materiality of media,
and recursive historiography, as Krajewski emphasizes, includes reflection on
first-order operations of recursion, as in his outline of a medieval history of the
equals sign. Developing a different example, in “Telling versus Counting” Ernst
likens the practice of media archaeology to that of medieval annals in terms of
their refusal to separate “narrated time” from “calculated time” (148). If the mod-
ern historian separates narration from calculation when integrating events into a
linear discourse based on causality, the media archaeologist, like the medieval
annalist, registers events as a discrete sequence. For Ernst, the medieval practice
of “telling-as-counting” embodies an “aesthetics of computing,” an ideal mode
of media archaeology (“Irony” 45).7
Further disciplinary parallels between medieval studies and media archaeol-
ogy are evident in Kittler’s programmatic outline “The History of Communica-
tion Media,” which condenses the history of writing into two main fields of
116 ERIK BORN
study. On the one hand, the medium of writing is composed of various scripts
that act as a semiotic system of reference. In medieval studies, the study of these
historical writing systems falls under the purview of paleography. On the other
hand, the medium of writing can also be understood as a coupling of storage and
transmission processes operating on a material substrate, and thereby determin-
ing the longevity, durability, and portability of written information. According to
Kittler, “the second series of variables has received considerably less attention,
possibly because it is so material in nature,” a conviction shared by new philol-
ogy and the field of manuscript studies that developed out of the traditional disci-
pline of codicology. Nevertheless, media studies tends to ask different questions
about writing surfaces and writing implements than does codicology, manuscript
studies, or even the history of the book. Whereas new philology aims at produ-
cing readings of texts, continuing the legacy of paleography and codicology as
auxiliary disciplines to philology, Kittlerian media studies is more interested in
reading the materiality of communication for its own attractions.
If the history of the book often relies on a linear developmental narrative
(manuscript – book – hypertext), and an archaeology of the book decomposes
texts into the materiality of writing implements (quill – pen – button) and writing
surfaces (parchment – paper – pixels), a media archaeology of the book would
“circuit-bend” the latter’s insights onto the former’s assumptions, emphasizing
historical ruptures and unexpected connections among different historical peri-
ods. Citing Vincent Gillespie, for example, Ernst suggests “that the contempo-
rary user’s experience of hypertext ‘seems . . . to be similar to a medieval
reader’s experience of illuminated, illustrated and glossed manuscripts contain-
ing different hierarchies of material that can be accessed in various ways’”
(“Discontinuities” 121). Notwithstanding aesthetic continuity in the layout of
manuscripts, books, and hypertexts, the information retrieval practices involved
in working with manuscripts resemble those involved in working with hypertexts
more than either resembles practices involved in working with the printed book.
In a somewhat similar vein, Haiko Wandhoff has compared the virtual spaces of
modern computer monitors and medieval texts (“Im virtuellen Raum”; “Der
Schild als Bild-Schirm”), a trend catalyzed by Wenzel’s transhistorical work
(“Initialen”). While Wenzel identified similarities between computer icons and
manuscript initials, Stefan Heidenreich connected computer icons to religious
icons as means of training “idiots,” that is, laypeople. The danger of these com-
parisons, as with any transhistorical study, is that they can lead to drawing over-
hasty analogies between old media and new media.
To circumvent the hazards of analogy, media archaeology emphasizes that
technological media are not only the rarefied objects of historical analysis but,
even more importantly, a condition of possibility for current historiography. As
Ernst puts it, media are not only the object but also the subject of medieval his-
tory (“‘Medien’” 349–52). In other words, digital media are not merely “tools”
for research; they impose themselves on research methods and inform questions
of periodization. Ideally, media archaeology and the digital humanities may have
Media Archaeology, Cultural Techniques, and the Middle Ages 117
“the ability to transform not only how we study but what we see in the past”
(Trettien 190), though this claim need not be taken optimistically. Media archae-
ology should not only draw further attention to the mediated nature of current co-
dicological, paleographical, and editorial practices, underscoring the differences
in working with medieval artifacts in person, in critical print editions, and in dig-
ital form. It could also disclose the role of cultural techniques and technologies
in the historical development of medieval and early modern studies as a disci-
pline. One of the earliest cultural techniques for recording the history of technol-
ogy can be found in early modern catalogues and inventories of inventions
(White, “Study” 521), a technique that developed in tandem with the standard-
ization of maps, cosmographic tables, and scientific instruments (Siegert, “Ani-
mation” 119). While photography played a key role in the nineteenth-century
genesis of paleography and codicology, allowing manuscripts to be studied at
remote locations, the computer made another groundbreaking contribution to the
revaluation of these disciplines. Arguably the first project in digital humanities
was Roberto Busa’s concordance of Aquinas and related authors, a collaboration
with Thomas J. Watson at IBM (Hockey 3). As early as 1979, Bernhard Bischoff
could observe: “With the aid of technological advances paleography, which is an
art of seeing and comprehending, is in the process of becoming an art of mea-
surement” (3). Only with the advent of computing, one might argue, did manu-
script studies finally recognize itself in its objects of study, the production of
medieval manuscripts always already having involved a great deal of measure-
ment and counting. Was it a coincidence, one might further ask, that new philol-
ogy developed in tandem with the rise of hyperlinking, new advances in
cataloguing, and other early digitization projects (e.g. Gruijs; Cerquiglini 72–82)?
Old media, new media. Analog, digital. Software, hardware. Techniques,
technologies. These useful conceptual distinctions may unintentionally foreclose
the study of mediality in historical periods, forcing medievalists into writing
either a “Vorgeschichte” or a “Gegengeschichte” of media proper (Kiening and
Stercken 3–4). The problem is not merely choosing a side. In either case, modern
media tend to serve as a foil for medieval media, preserving stereotypical histori-
cal ruptures: the “revolution” of writing in the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
that of the printing press in the fifteenth century, and that of alphabetization in
the eighteenth century (Kiening and Stercken 3–4). By contrast, media archaeol-
ogy can establish its own periodizations on the basis of media themselves,
thereby complicating common references to the invention of the printing press as
evidence for a historical divide between the medieval and early modern periods.
For example, Nicholas of Cusa has long been a Janus-faced figure in debates
about periodization, starting with those about the “emergence of modernity”
among Hans Blumenberg, Ernst Cassirer, and Hans-Georg Gadamer (see Moore;
Hoff). From the perspective of media studies, on the other hand, the manuscripts
containing the treatise On the Vision of God are more conventional, since book
production was, in many respects, relatively stable from the thirteenth to the se-
venteenth centuries.8 Still, a media archaeology of Cusa’s experiment with the
118 ERIK BORN
well into the 1980s tended to turn all culture into “text,” the study of cultural
techniques that developed in the 1990s and 2000s returns to the materiality of
culture, particularly the material culture of image, script, and number (Krämer
and Bredekamp).
In the study of cultural techniques and technologies, a concept not without
its own internal contradictions (Wedell, “Einleitung” 9–11), the main dividing
lines tend to fall around objections to the concept’s expansiveness and lack of
historicity.9 So that the concept of cultural techniques does not cover every
imaginable technique, technology, and cultural practice, Harun Maye argued that
the concept is better understood as “Technik der Kultur und nicht als Kultur der
Technik, des Körpers oder des Sozialen” (135). In a similar vein, Thomas
Macho attempted to limit the concept of cultural techniques to second-order op-
erations like writing, painting, and film, which can all be self-referential, as
opposed to first-order operations like cooking, plowing, or making fire (“Sec-
ond-Order Animals” 31). For Bernhard Siegert, on the other hand, first-order
techniques can still be understood as cultural techniques, even if they cannot the-
matize themselves: cultural techniques involve dynamic, processual “chains of
operations and techniques,” rather than “static concepts of technologies and sym-
bolic work” (“Introduction” 13). Regardless of whether they are taken to be first-
or second-order operations, understanding cultural techniques as dynamic, con-
tingent processes helps move the field away from anthropological universals and
toward specific historical contexts (Wedell, Zählen 87). To this growing field of
research, then, medievalists and early modernists can contribute insights into the
historical specificity of cultural techniques.
Cultural techniques have served different purposes in different cultures –
“techniques of acculturation” being another possible translation of the term Kul-
turtechniken. As Geoffrey Winthrop-Young points out, the study of cultural
techniques pushes back against the antithesis of Kultur and Zivilisation, as in
Norbert Elias’s seminal formulation, by referring the elevated meaning of culture
back to the etymological roots of agricultural engineering (“KULTUR” 378–80).
In medieval studies, the civilizing force of cultural techniques could be examined
further with reference to C. Stephen Jaeger’s disputed theses on the origins of
courtliness, along with Joachim Bumke’s seminal work on courtly culture. The
concept of cultural techniques could help further explain the acculturation of the
German nobility through French models (Bumke 61–102), as well as the courtly
culture of architectural construction, clothing and dress, weaponry and horses,
food and drink (103–202). Festive protocols governing eating, knighting, and
jousting (203–74) would lend themselves especially well to the framework of
cultural techniques, as evident in Siegert’s preliminary studies of medieval com-
munication (“Parlêtres”) and Macho’s examination of medieval identity forma-
tion through the cultural techniques of creating calendars (“Zeit und Zahl”), or
those of impression, such as stamps, seals, badges, and pins (“Second-Order An-
imals”). Ultimately, as the editors of the recent volume Kulturtechniken des Bar-
ock emphasize, the orientation of the field to Bruno Latour’s actor–network
120 ERIK BORN
theory should not merely replace Elias’s concept of the “courtly society” with a
concept of the “courtly collective” (Nanz and Schäfer 10).
“What is so new about cultural techniques?” asks Parikka, citing parallels
between “(German) cultural techniques” and “(Anglo-American) cultural prac-
tices,” insofar as both draw on French theory: Michel Foucault’s “technologies
of the self,” Marcel Mauss’s “techniques of the body,” and Pierre Bourdieu’s
notion of “habitus” (“Afterword” 149). If there is a difference, Parikka suggests,
it lies in new German media theory’s emphasis on the interdependency of human
and non-human actors, especially technical and technological objects, in the con-
stitution of culture (151). In recent years, there have already been several exem-
plary studies of the elementary cultural techniques of reading, writing, and
counting in the Middle Ages and the early modern period (e.g. Bredekamp and
Schneider; Contreni and Casciani; Grube, Kogge, and Krämer; Krämer; Macho,
“Second-Order Animals”; Macho, “Zeit und Zahl”; Wedell, “Einleitung”; We-
dell, “Numbers”; Wedell, Zählen; Wenzel, “Einleitung”; Wenzel, “Initialen”;
Wenzel, “Medien”). For further studies of the cultural techniques of reading,
writing, and counting, Martin Steinmann’s outstanding sourcebook Handschrif-
ten im Mittelalter has recently provided many other possible primary sources,
though further studies are needed of medieval and early modern developments
beyond image, script, and number.10
Cusa’s experiment are mobile – they have to be mobile to produce the desired
effect – and as a result the image is equally legible from any position. Ultimately,
the figure they construct, at once visual and verbal, turns a representation of
space into a mapping of space, inviting us to reconsider the relation of words
and images at the threshold of modernity.
The close connection between the medieval techniques of reading words
and reading images can also be seen in the fact that Cusa sent not only a treatise
but also an icon to Tegernsee Abbey, suggesting that a similar technique of read-
ing applied here to both the words and the image (see Bond). Significantly, one
composite manuscript containing On the Vision of God (Clm 19352), produced
on parchment at Tegernsee in 1453–55, was designed to include many printed
graphics, among which was probably a woodcut in the style of the Vera Icon
mentioned by Cusa, though this and most of the images are now lost. However,
another manuscript (München ms. Clm 18711 = Tegernsee 711) still contains a
pasted-in miniature of the Holy Face, making the book itself into a devotional
object (Schmidt 163) and raising questions about what practices would have
enabled it to function in the context of Cusa’s instructions. While the practice of
including devotional images at the front of manuscripts was common for psalters
since the eleventh century, it was introduced into private prayer books only in
the fifteenth century (164), thereby generating new cultural techniques of cutting,
copying, and pasting.
While orality and literacy were once taken to be mutually exclusive terms,
perpetuating the assumption that all reading in non-typographical societies was
necessarily reading aloud, Dennis Green brought the two categories together in
his seminal study of the “mixed culture” of medieval German reading and listen-
ing practices. For Green, the mixed culture of reading and listening is captured
in the formula “lesen oder hoeren,” an indication of two possible audiences con-
sisting of readers and listeners (337). Sara S. Poor developed another productive
dual notion with her concept of the “double agency” of authorship, a reminder
that studies of the medieval practices of reading and writing should consider
both the historical person of the author and the author function of the medieval
text created in the course of multiple redactions over time (10–11). These and
other recent approaches have shown reading to be a cultural technique that pro-
duces identity in a dynamic medieval society. For example, the immediate audi-
ence for Cusa’s treatise is composed of the abbot and brothers at Tegernsee
Abbey, whom he addresses directly as the “most beloved brothers” (par. 1: dilec-
tissmis fratribus) and the “very beloved brothers” (par. 5: fratres amantissimos)
in the preface to the treatise, though the remainder of the treatise is addressed to
a singular “brother contemplative” (par. 10: frater contemplator), a gesture at a
future community of readers.
Acknowledgements
Seminar for their help in seeing this article through to completion. This article
was composed during my research stay as the Fulbright/IFK Junior Fellow at the
Internationales Forschungszentrum Kulturwissenschaften (IFK) in Vienna, Aus-
tria. I am grateful for the financial support of these institutions and for discus-
sions with my colleagues on the topic of this article and many other topics.
Notes
1 In citations of Cusa’s treatise, I refer to the paragraph numbers (par. 1–114) in Jasper Hopkin’s
English-Latin edition (100–269), which is prefaced by an interpretive study (3–97); for the
standard critical edition, see Adelaida Dorothea Riemann’s Latin “Heidelberg” edition (Nicho-
las of Cusa, Opera Omnia).
2 On the Vision of God (De visione Dei) explores two potential interpretations of the title: visio
Dei can be taken as a subjective genitive, that is, God’s vision of human beings, or as an objec-
tive genitive, that is, human beings’ vision of God (Hopkins 17–28). Within the longer tradition
of Western mysticism, Cusa’s On the Vision of God draws on the works of Pseudo-Dionysius,
Johannes Scotus Eriugena, and Meister Eckhart, though it does not fit easily into either the tra-
dition of scholasticism or that of vernacular theology (McGinn). In the context of the fifteenth-
century Devotio Moderna movement, On the Vision of God can be read as an attempt to reform
everyday visual practices through the repetition of a spiritual exercise (Bocken).
3 As examples of omnivoyant figures, Cusa refers to the pictures (pictae) of a centaur shooting the
arrow that unites heaven and earth in the constellation of Sagittarius; Roger van der Weyden’s self-
portrait, a three-quarter view turned toward the spectator amid a crowd; a “Veronica,” meaning
either the Vera Icon, that is, the holy face of Christ that Veronica shows on her cloth, or the face of
Veronica herself; and, finally, the painting of an all-seeing figure that Cusa possesses, sends to the
Benedictine abbey at Tegernsee, and calls the “Icon of God” (par. 2: mitto tabellam, figuram
cuncta videntis tenentem, quam eiconam dei appello). The common assumption (e.g. Belting;
Simon 70–72), based on Cusa’s allusion to Veronica, is that the icon was a kind of Andachtsbild, a
devotional image of one highly affective moment drawn from the narrative of the Passion. Despite
many attempts to determine the exact provenance of the image (see Wolf 255, n. 286), we will
probably never know what exact painting Nicholas of Cusa sent to Tegernsee Abbey.
4 In this article, I use the term cultural techniques, and, where relevant, cultural techniques and
technologies, as a standard translation of the German term Kulturtechniken. For an overview of
the difficulties in translating the term, see Geoffrey Winthrop-Young’s “Translator’s Note” in
Bernhard Siegert’s Cultural Techniques. An expanded version of Winthrop-Young’s note can
be found in his introduction to a special issue of Theory, Culture and Society on cultural techni-
ques. In “After Kittler,” a contribution to the same issue, Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan also
provides arguments in favour of the term cultural techniques.
5 Though names were not named in the discussion, the inventory of foundational work on media
studies featuring discussions of the Middle Ages would have to include Harold Adams Innis,
Vilém Flusser, André Leroi-Gourhan, Niklas Luhmann, Marshall McLuhan, Walter J. Ong,
Paul Virilio and arguably even Friedrich Kittler (e.g. “Universities”; “Buchstaben”). For an
excellent summary of Flusser’s, Leroi-Gourhan’s, Luhmann’s, Ong’s, and McLuhan’s ap-
proaches, particularly with regard to the question of media change, see Wenzel, “Medien- und
Kommunikationstheorie” 126–30.
6 As Christian Kiening points out in an overview of “Medialität in mediävistischer Perspektive,” few
medievalists and early modernists have actually answered Wenzel’s call to apply information
theory directly to the Middle Ages, and those who have done so have actually produced some inter-
esting insights (309–10). Furthermore, Wenzel’s call for “die Übertragung nachrichtentechnischer
Modelle” need not be understood as restricted to Shannon’s mathematical theory of communication
Media Archaeology, Cultural Techniques, and the Middle Ages 127
alone, especially since Wenzel’s interest seems to lie more in a broader sense of media. In his
paper “Zum Stand der Germanistischen Mediävistik,” delivered at the same congress as Ernst’s
paper, Wenzel admitted: “Dieser Medienbegriff erscheint zwar extrem weit in der Verbindung bio-
logischer, physikalischer, technologischer und soziologischer Aspekte, ist aber für eine kulturhistor-
ische Fragestellung auch ganz besonders produktiv” (158).
7 Although annalistic practices would change over the course of the Middle Ages, the medieval
aesthetics of computing remained evident in the late medieval technology of bells signalling
the canonical hours (Ernst, “Telling” 149) and in early modern travel writing.
8 On the Vision of God is transmitted in over thirty manuscripts (Nicholas of Cusa, Opera Omnia
xi–xxiv; Hopkins 101–05). The most significant of these is Codex Cusanus 219 (C), a collec-
tion of Cusa’s work commissioned and checked during his own lifetime that nevertheless still
contains some errors (Hopkins 45–46). As I argue below, two further manuscripts designed for
the inclusion of pasted-in woodcuts are also significant for the understanding of word–image
relations in the incunabula period.
9 As Geoghegan observes (“After Kittler,” 67), the two main understandings of cultural techni-
ques and technologies tend to fall along institutional lines, with a more robust definition being
adopted by scholars at the Humboldt University of Berlin, and a more idiosyncratic definition
in Lüneberg, Siegen, and Weimar.
10 For (new) German media theory, the Middle Ages have primarily been of interest for the inven-
tion of a notational system for music and the introduction of algebra and the Indian counting
system, a “mittelalterliche Zeichenexplosion” that blew up “die dreifaltige Einheit von Buchsta-
ben, Ziffern und Noten” (Kittler, “Buchstaben” 44).
11 To mention only one central example of a similitude, cultural techniques of reading function, in
chapter 8 of Cusa’s treatise, as another means of generating the category of the human as a
media effect: “When I open a book, for reading, I see the whole page confusedly. And if I want
to discern the individual letters, syllables, and words, I have to turn to each individually and
successively. And only successively can I read one letter after another, one word after another,
one passage after another. But You, O Lord, behold at once the entire page, and You read it
without taking any time” (par. 31: Cum aperio librum ad legendum, video confuse totam char-
tam; et si volo discernere singulas litteras, syllabas et dictiones, necesse est, ut me singulariter
ad singula seriatim convertam. Et non possum nisi successive unam post aliam litteram legere
et unam dictionem post aliam et passum post passum. Sed tu, domine, simul totam chartam re-
spicis et legis sine more temporis). While human reading practices may be based on the succes-
sive processing of linear signs, non-linear reading is the primary condition for Cusa’s definition
of the transcendent. Having three monks view the icon at the same time provides a taste of this
simultaneity and non-linearity.
Works Cited
Albertson, David. Mathematical Theologies: Nicholas of Cusa and the Legacy of Thierry
of Chartes. New York: Oxford UP, 2014. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780199989737.001.0001>.
Bal, Mieke. Travelling Concepts in the Humanities. Toronto: Toronto UP, 2002.
Balbi, Gabriele. “Old and New Media: Theorizing Their Relationships in Media Histori-
ography.” Theorien des Medienwandels. Ed. Susanne Kinnebrock, Christian Schwar-
zenegger, and Thomas Birkner. Cologne: Halem, 2014. 231–49.
Balke, Friedrich, Bernhard Siegert and Joseph Vogl. Editorial. Archiv für Mediengeschichte –
Medien des Heiligen. Paderborn: Fink, 2015. 5–9.
Belting, Hans. Florence and Baghdad: Renaissance Art and Arab Science. Trans. De-
borah Lucas Schneider. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2011.
128 ERIK BORN
Berns, Jörg Jochen. Film vor dem Film: Bewegende und bewegliche Bilder als Mittel der
Imaginationssteuerung in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. Marburg: Jonas, 2000.
Bischoff, Bernhard. Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Trans. Dáibhí ó
Cróinín and David Ganz. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990. <http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9780511809927>.
Bocken, Inigo. “Visions of Reform: Lay Piety as a Form of Thinking in Nicholas of
Cusa.” Reassessing Reform: A Historical Investigation into Church Renewal. Ed.
Christopher M. Bellito and David Zachariah Flanagin. Washington, DC: Catholic U
of America P, 2012. 214–31.
Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT P, 2000.
Bond, H. Lawrence. “The ‘Icon’ and the ‘Iconic Text.’” Nicholas of Cusa and His Age:
Intellect and Spirituality. Ed. Thomas M. Izbicki and Christopher M. Bellitto. Lei-
den: Brill, 2002. 177–97.
Braun, Manuel, ed. Wie anders war das Mittelalter? Fragen an das Konzept der Alterität.
Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2013.
Bredekamp, Horst, and Pablo Schneider, eds. Visuelle Argumentationen: Die Mysterien
der Repräsentation und die Berechenbarkeit der Welt. Munich: Fink, 2006.
Bumke, Joachim. Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages.
Trans. Thomas Dunlap. Berkeley: U of California P, 1991.
Carruthers, Mary. The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2008. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107051126>.
Cerquiglini, Bernard. Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology. Trans. Betsy
Wing. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1999.
Certeau, Michel de. “The Gaze: Nicholas of Cusa.” Trans. Catherine Porter. Diacritics
17.3 (1987): 2–38. <http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/464833>.
Chun, Wendy Hui, and Thomas Keenan, eds. New Media, Old Media: A History and
Theory Reader. New York: Routledge, 2006.
Contreni, John J., and Santa Casciani, eds. Word, Image, Number: Communication in the
Middle Ages. Florence: SISMEL, 2002.
Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations.
Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Malden: Blackwell, 2000.
Ernst, Wolfgang. Digital Memory and the Archive. Ed. Jussi Parikka. Minneapolis: U of
Minnesota P, 2013.
———. “Discontinuities: Does the Archive Become Metaphorical in Multimedia Space?”
Ernst, Digital Memory and the Archive 113–40. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/
9780816677665.003.0008>.
———. “Let There Be Irony: Cultural History and Media Archaeology in Parallel Lines.”
Ernst, Digital Memory and the Archive 37–54. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/
9780816677665.003.0003>.
———. “‘Medien’ im Mittelalter? – Kulturtechnische Retrospektive.” Goetz and Janut
347–57.
———. Review of Geschichte des Medienbegriffs, by Stefan Hoffmann. MEDIENwis-
senschaft 4 (2002): 461–64.
———. “Telling versus Counting: A Media-Archaeological Point of View.” Ernst, Digi-
tal Memory and the Archive 147–57. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/
9780816677665.003.0009>.
Media Archaeology, Cultural Techniques, and the Middle Ages 129
Jaeger, C. Stephen. The Origins of Courtliness: Civilizing Trends and the Formation of
Courtly Ideals, 939–1210. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1985. <http://dx.doi.
org/10.9783/9780812200898>.
Jauss, Hans Robert. “Alterität und Modernität der mittelalterlichen Literatur.” Alterität
und Modernität der mittelalterlichen Literatur: Gesammelte Aufsätze 1956–1976.
Ed. Helmut Pfeiffer. Munich: Fink, 1977. 9–47.
Kiening, Christian. “Medialität in mediävistischer Perspektive.” Poetica 39.3/4 (2007):
285–352.
———. “Mediologie – Christologie: Konturen einer Grundfigur mittelalterlicher Mediali-
tät.” Modelle des Medialen im Mittelalter. Ed. Christian Kiening and Martina
Stercken. Spec. issue of Das Mittelalter 15.2 (2010): 16–32. <http://dx.doi.org/
10.1524/mial.2010.0016>.
Kiening, Christian, and Martina Stercken. “Einleitung.” Modelle des Medialen im Mitte-
lalter. Ed. Christian Kiening and Martina Stercken. Spec. issue of Das Mittelalter
15.2 (2010): 3–8. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1524/mial.2010.0014>.
Kittler, Friedrich A. “Buchstaben – Zahlen – Codes.” Audiovisualität vor und nach Gu-
tenberg: Zur Kulturgeschichte der medialen Umbrüche. Ed. Horst Wenzel, Wilfried
Seipel, and Gotthart Wunberg. Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, 2001. 43–49.
———. Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. Trans. Geoffrey Winthrop-Young and Michael
Wutz. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1999.
———. “The History of Communication Media.” Ctheory 30 July 1996. 4 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=45>.
———. “Perspective and the Book.” Trans. Sara Ogger. Grey Room 5 (2001): 38–53.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/152638101317127804>.
———. “Towards an Ontology of Media.” Theory, Culture and Society 26.2–3 (2009):
23–31. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276409103106>.
———. “Universities: Wet, Hard, Soft, and Harder.” Critical Inquiry 31.1 (2004): 244–
55. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/427310>.
———. “Isolde als Sirene.” Isolde als Sirene. Tristans Narrheit als Wahrheitsereignis.
Ed. Friedrich Kittler and Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht. Paderborn: Fink, 2012. 21–39.
Koenderink, Jan J. et al. “Pointing Out of the Picture.” Perception 33.5 (2004): 513–30.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p3454>.
Krajewski, Markus. “Die Rose: Vorstudie zu einer kleinen Geschichte der Rekursion.”
Markus Krajewski’s website, 1998. 4 Apr. 2016. <http://www.verzetteln.de/Rose.
pdf>.
Krämer, Sybille. Medium, Bote, Übertragung: Kleine Metaphysik der Medialität. Frank-
furt/M.: Suhrkamp, 2008.
Krämer, Sybille, and Horst Bredekamp. “Wider der Diskursivierung der Kultur.” Bild,
Schrift, Zahl. Ed. Sybille Krämer and Horst Bredekamp. Munich: Fink, 2003. 1–22.
Leroi-Gourhan, André. Gesture and Speech. Trans. Anna Bostock Berger. Cambridge,
MA: MIT P, 1993.
Luhmann, Niklas. Love as Passion: The Codification of Intimacy. Trans. Jeremy Gaines
and Doris L. Jones. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1998.
Macho, Thomas. “Second-Order Animals: Cultural Techniques of Identity and Identifica-
tion.” Winthrop-Young, Iurascu, and Parikka 30–47. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0263276413499189>.
———. “Zeit und Zahl: Kalender- und Zeitrechnung als Kulturtechniken.” Krämer and
Bredekamp 179–92.
Media Archaeology, Cultural Techniques, and the Middle Ages 131
Maye, Harun. “Was ist eine Kulturtechnik?” Zeitschrift für Kulturtechnikforschung und
Medienphilosophie 1 (2010): 121–35.
McGinn, Bernard. “Seeing and Not Seeing: Nicholas of Cusa’s De visione Dei in the His-
tory of Western Mysticism.” Cusanus: A Legacy of Learned Ignorance. Ed. Peter J.
Casarella. Washington, DC: Catholic U of America P, 2006. 26–53.
McLuhan, Marshall. The Gutenberg Galaxy: Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: U of
Toronto P, 1962.
Moore, Michael Edward. Nicholas of Cusa and the Kairos of Modernity: Cassirer, Gada-
mer, Blumenberg. Brooklyn: Punctum, 2013.
Müller, Jan–Dirk. “Medialität: Frühe Neuzeit und Medienwandel.” Kulturwissenschaf-
tliche Frühneuzeitforschung: Beiträge zur Identität der Germanistik. Ed. Kathrin
Stegbauer, Herfried Vögel, and Michael Waltenberger. Berlin: Schmidt, 2004. 49–70.
Nanz, Tobias, and Armin Schäfer. “Einleitung.” Kulturtechniken des Barock. Ed. Tobias
Nanz and Armin Schäfer. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos, 2012. 7–19.
Nicholas of Cusa. “De visione Dei (The Vision of God).” Nicholas of Cusa’s Dialectical
Mysticism. Ed. and trans. Jasper Hopkins. 107–269.
———. De visione Dei. Vol. 6 of Opera Omnia. Ed. Adelaida Dorothea Riemann. Ham-
burg: In Aedibus Felicis Meiner, 2000.
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Routle-
dge, 1982.
Parikka, Jussi. “Afterword: Cultural Techniques and Media Studies.” Winthrop-Young,
Iurascu, and Parikka 147–59. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276413501206>.
———. “Archival Media Theory: An Introduction to Wolfgang Ernst’s Media Archaeol-
ogy.” Introduction to Ernst, Digital Memory and the Archive 1–22.
———. What Is Media Archaeology? Cambridge: Polity, 2012.
Peters, John Durham. The Marvelous Clouds: Toward a Philosophy of Elemental Media.
Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2015. <http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226253
978.001.0001>.
———. Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication. Chicago: U of
Chicago P, 1999. <http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226922638.001.0001>.
Pias, Claus, and Timon Beyes. “Transparenz und Geheimnis.” Zeitschrift für Kulturwis-
senschaften 8 (2014): 111–17.
Poor, Sara S. Mechthild of Magdeburg and Her Book: Gender and the Making of Textual
Authority. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2004. <http://dx.doi.org/10.9783/
9780812203288>.
Popplow, Marcus. Technik im Mittelalter. Munich: Beck, 2010.
Schmidt, Peter. Gedruckte Bilder in handgeschriebenen Büchern: Studien zum Gebrauch
von Druckgraphik im 15. Jahrhundert. Cologne: Böhlau, 2003.
Schweighauser, Philipp. “Information Theory.” The Routledge Companion to Literature
and Science. Ed. Bruce Clarke with Manuela Rossini. New York: Routledge, 2011.
145–56. <http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203848739.ch13>.
Siegert, Bernhard. “Animation: Phastasmen vor und nach Gutenberg.” Audiovisualität vor
und nach Gutenberg: Zur Kulturgeschichte der medialen Umbrüche. Ed. Horst Wen-
zel, Wilfried Seipel, and Gotthart Wunberg. Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum
Wien, 2001. 119–31.
———. Cultural Techniques: Grids, Filters, Doors, and Other Articulations of the Real.
Trans. Geoffrey Winthrop-Young. New York: Fordham UP, 2015. <http://dx.doi.
org/10.5422/fordham/9780823263752.001.0001>.
132 ERIK BORN
———. “Introduction: Cultural Techniques, or the End of the Intellectual Postwar in Ger-
man Media Theory.” Siegert, Cultural Techniques 1–18. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5422/
fordham/9780823263752.003.0001>.
———. “Parlêtres: The Cultural Techniques of Anthropological Difference.” Siegert,
Cultural Techniques 53–67. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823263752
.003.0004>.
Simon, Holger. “Bildtheoretische Grundlagen des neuzeitlichen Bildes bei Nikolaus von
Kues.” Concilium medii aevi 7 (2004): 45–76.
Smith, D. Vance. “The Application of Thought to Medieval Studies: The Twenty-First
Century.” Exemplaria 22.1 (2010): 85–94. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/104125710X
12670926011914>.
Steinmann, Martin. Handschriften im Mittelalter: Eine Quellensammlung. Basel:
Schwabe, 2013.
Thacker, Eugene. “Dark Media.” Excommunication: Three Inquiries in Media and Media-
tion. Alexander R. Galloway, Eugen Thacker and McKenzie Wark. Chicago: U of
Chicago P, 2014. 77–149.
———. “Wayless Abyss: Mysticism, Mediation, and Divine Nothingness.” Postmedieval
3.1 (2012): 80–96. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/pmed.2011.24>.
Thorburn, David, and Henry Jenkins, eds. Rethinking Media Change: The Aesthetics of
Transition. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 2003.
Trettien, Whitney Anne. “Circuit-Bending History: Sketches toward a Digital Schematic.”
Between Humanities and the Digital. Ed. Patrik Svensson and David Theo Goldberg.
Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 2015. 181–92.
Virilio, Paul. Speed and Politics: An Essay on Dromology. Trans. Mark Polizzotti. New
York: Semiotext(e), 1977.
Wandhoff, Haiko. “Im virtuellen Raum des Textes: Bild, Schrift und Zahl in Chrétiens de
Troyes ‘Erec et Enide.’” Wissen und neue Medien: Bilder und Zeichen von 800 bis
2000. Ed. Ulrich Schmitz and Horst Wenzel. Berlin: Schmidt, 2003. 39–56.
———. “Der Schild als Bild-Schirm: Die Anfänge der Heraldik und die Visualisierung
der Literatur im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert.” Akten des X. Internationalen Germanisten-
kongresses, Wien 2000. Ed. Peter Wiesinger et al. Vienna: Lang, 2002. 81–88.
Wedell, Moritz. “Einleitung: Grenzfälle von Bild, Schrift und Zahl.” Grenzfälle: Trans-
formationen von Bild, Schrift und Zahl. Ed. Pablo Schneider and Moritz Wedell.
Weimar: Verlag und Datenbank für Geisteswissenschaften, 2004. 9–15.
———. “Numbers.” Medieval Culture: A Compendium of Critical Topics. Ed. Albrecht
Classen. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. 1205–60.
———. Zählen: Semantische und praxeologische Studien zum numerischen Wissen im
Mittelalter. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. <http://dx.doi.org/10.13109/
9783666367168>.
Wenzel, Horst. “Einleitung.” Gespräche – Boten – Briefe. Körpergedächtnis und Schrift-
gedächtnis im Mittelalter. Ed. Horst Wenzel. Berlin: Schmidt, 1997. 9–22.
———. “Initialen. Vom Pergament zum Bildschirm.” Zeitschrift für Germanistik ns 13.3
(2003): 629–41.
———. “Medien- und Kommunikationstheorie: Ältere deutsche Literatur.” Germanistik
als Kulturwissenschaft: Eine Einführung in neue Theoriekonzepte. Ed. Claudia
Benthien and Hans Rudolf Velten. Reinbeck bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 2002. 125–51.
———. “Zum Stand der Germanistischen Mediävistik im Spannungsfeld von Textphilo-
sophie und Kulturwissenschaft.” Goetz and Janut 149–60.
Media Archaeology, Cultural Techniques, and the Middle Ages 133
White, Lynn. Medieval Technology and Social Change. New York: Oxford UP, 1962.
———. “The Study of Medieval Technology, 1924–1974: Personal Reflections.” Tech-
nology and Culture 16.4 (1975): 519–30. <http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3103433>.
Winthrop-Young, Geoffrey. “Cultural Techniques: Preliminary Remarks.” Winthrop-
Young, Iurascu, and Parikka 3–19. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276413500828>.
———. “The KULTUR of Cultural Techniques: Conceptual Inertia and the Parasitic Ma-
terialities of Ontologization.” Cultural Politics 10.3 (2014): 376–88. <http://dx.doi.
org/10.1215/17432197-2795741>.
Winthrop-Young, Geoffrey, Ilinca Iurascu, and Jussi Parikka, eds. Cultural Techniques.
Spec. issue of Theory, Culture and Society 30.6 (2013): 3–172. <http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0263276413500828>.
Wolf, Gerhard. Schleier und Spiegel: Traditionen des Christusbildes und die Bildkonzepte
der Renaissance. Munich: Fink, 2002.
Zanetti, Sandro. “Einleitung.” Schreiben als Kulturtechnik: Grundlagentexte. Ed. Sandro
Zanetti. Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2012. 7–34.
Zielinski, Siegfried. Deep Time of the Media: Toward an Archaeology of Hearing and
Seeing by Technical Means. Trans. Gloria Custance. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 2006.
“Zusammenfassung der Diskussion zu den Vorträgen von Marco Mostert, Dennis H.
Green, Ernst Bremer und Wolfgang Ernst.” Goetz and Janut 359–60.