The Paradoxes of Lady Justice’s Blindfold

Abstract

Of all the issues involved in the representation of Lady Justice, that of her blindfold is undoubtedly the most disputed one. Sightlessness is problematic: is it a sign of disability, or a token of impartiality? One way of contributing to this issue is to show how the blindfold itself is polysemic. Its nature is ambivalent: Justitia must see, she is oculatissima. According to the Renaissance thinker Cælius Rhodiginus, the eye is the symbol of justice, iustitiæ servator (Lady Justice’s servant) and Chrysippus (279-206 BC), quoted by Aulus Gellius, emphasised the glance of her eyes. At the end of the fifteenth century, Lady Justice’s blindfold was used as a negative attribute. The earliest known representation of a blindfolded Lady Justice is a satirical woodcut for Sebastian Brant’s Das Narrenschiff (The Ship of Fools, 1494), in which the author criticised the abuse of trials and the foolishness of court quarellings. However, Lady Justice’s blindfold is not necessarily meant as a negative attribute. The act of blindfolding Justitia is a paradoxical gesture, and as such it deserves a detailed analysis. The paradoxical nature of the blindfold is very productive: Is it a sign of blindness? A necessary avoidance of lucidity? A momentaneous disregard of the evidence put before the eyes? A mark of ecstasy? A shameful stigma? A trick? A game? A mark of derision? The list of questions shows the many ways of reading this sign, dependent on its viewers, contexts, and intentions.

This article/book benefitted from a fellowship at the Paris Institute for Advanced Studies (France), with the financial support of the French State, programme “Investissements d’avenir” managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-LABX-0027-01 Labex RFIEA+).