Theology icons of the Orthodox Church. Distance course "theology of the icon"
Leonid Alexandrovich Uspensky
Born in 1902 in the village of Golay Snova, Voronezh Province (father's estate). He studied at the gymnasium of the city of Zadonsk. In 1918 he joined the Red Army; served in the Redneck Cavalry Division. In June 1920 he was taken prisoner by the Whites and assigned to the Kornilov artillery. Was evacuated to Gallipoli. Then he ended up in Bulgaria, where he worked at a salt factory, at road construction, in vineyards, until he entered the Pernik coal mine (here he worked until 1926). Under a contract, he was recruited to France at the Schneider plant, where he worked at a blast furnace. After an accident, he left the factory and moved to Paris.
Art education L.A. Ouspensky received it at the Russian Art Academy, which opened in 1929. In the mid 30s. joined the stauropegial Brotherhood of St. Photius (Moscow Patriarchate). Here he was especially close to V.N. Lossky, brothers M. and E. Kovalevsky, N.A. Poltoratsky and G Krug (the future monk Gregory),
with whom he in the late 30s. left painting and began to engage in icon painting.
During the German occupation, he was in an illegal position. Since 1944, after the liberation of Paris, he taught iconography at the Theological Institute of St. Dionysius, and then, for 40 years, in the Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate. When the theological-pastoral courses were opened under the Exarchate (from 1954 to 1960), L. Uspensky was instructed to teach iconology (as a theological discipline).
Having gone from militant atheism to the Church, L.A. Ouspensky devoted himself entirely to her figurative language - the Orthodox icon. His main occupations were icon painting, icon restoration and woodcarving. Writing was alien to him, and he wrote his articles and books (published at different times and in different languages) only in order to reveal church art in the light of Orthodox tradition. He considered his work only the beginning of the theological understanding of the icon and the icon-painting canon, hoping that others would continue it after him.
This work is the Russian original read by L.A. Dormition course of iconology (modified and supplemented). It was published in French in Paris in 1980. An English version is being prepared for publication in New York.
L.A. Ouspensky regularly visited his homeland. The Russian Church appreciated his work and awarded him the Order of St. Vladimir I and II degree.
Died L.A. Uspensky on December 11, 1987 and buried in the Russian cemetery in St. - Genevieve de Bois.
Introduction
The Orthodox Church possesses an invaluable treasure not only in the field of worship and patristic creations, but also in the field of ecclesiastical art. As you know, the veneration of holy icons plays a very important role in the Church; because an icon is something much more than just an image: it is not only a decoration of a temple or an illustration of Holy Scripture: it is a complete correspondence to it, an object that is organically included in liturgical life. This explains the importance that the Church attaches to the icon, that is, not to any image in general, but to that specific image that she herself developed during her history, in the struggle against paganism and heresies, to the image for which she, in the iconoclastic period, paid with the blood of a host of martyrs and confessors, - an Orthodox icon. In the icon, the Church sees not just one aspect of the Orthodox dogma, but the expression of Orthodoxy in its entirety, Orthodoxy as such. Therefore, it is impossible to understand or explain ecclesiastical art outside the Church and her life.
The icon, as a sacred image, is one of the manifestations of Church Tradition, along with written Tradition and oral Tradition. The veneration of the icons of the Savior, the Mother of God, angels and saints is a dogma of the Christian faith, formulated by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, a dogma that follows from the main confession of the Church - the incarnation of the Son of God. His icon is evidence of His true, and not a ghostly incarnation. Therefore, icons are rightly often called "theology in colors." The Church constantly reminds us of this in her services. Most of all, the meaning of the image is revealed by the canons and stichera of the holidays dedicated to various icons (for example, the Savior Not Made by Hands on August 16), especially the service of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. From this it is clear that the study of the content and meaning of the icon is a theological subject, just like the study of Holy Scripture. The Orthodox Church has always fought against the secularization of church art. With the voice of her Councils, saints and believing laity, she defended him from the penetration of elements alien to him, characteristic of worldly art. We must not forget that just as thought in the religious field was not always at the height of theology, so artistic creativity was not always at the height of genuine icon painting. Therefore, any image cannot be considered an infallible authority, even if it is very ancient and very beautiful, and even less so if it was created in an era of decline, like ours. Such an image may or may not correspond to the teachings of the Church, it may mislead, instead of instructing. In other words, the teaching of the Church can be distorted in the image as well as in the word. Therefore, the Church has always fought not for the artistic quality of its art, but for its authenticity, not for its beauty, but for its truth.
This work aims to show the evolution of the icon and its content in a historical perspective. In its first part, this book reproduces abridged and somewhat modified the previous edition in French, published in 1960 under the title: "Essai sur la théologie de l "icone". The second part is composed of separate chapters, most of them published in Russian in journal "Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate".
I. The origin of the Christian image
The word "icon" is of Greek origin. The Greek word eikôn means "image", "portrait". During the period of the formation of Christian art in Byzantium, this word denoted any image of the Savior, the Mother of God, a saint, an Angel, or an event in Sacred History, regardless of whether this image was a sculptural1 monumental painting or easel, and regardless of what technique it was executed. Now the word "icon" is applied primarily to a prayer icon painted, carved, mosaic, etc. It is in this sense that it is used in archeology and art history. In the Church, we also make a certain difference between wall painting and an icon painted on a board, in the sense that a wall painting, fresco or mosaic, is not an object in itself, but is one with the wall, enter into the architecture of the temple, then like an icon painted on a blackboard, it is an object in itself. But essentially their meaning and meaning are the same. We see the difference only in the use and purpose of both. Thus, speaking of icons, we will have in mind the church image in general, whether it is painted on a board, executed on a wall in fresco, mosaic, or sculpted. However, the Russian word "image", as well as the French "image", have a very broad meaning and refer to all these types of images.
First of all, we will have to briefly dwell on the differences that exist in the question of the origin of Christian art and the attitude of the Church towards it in the first centuries. Scientific hypotheses about the origin of the Christian image are numerous, varied and contradictory; they often contradict the point of view of the Church. The view of the Church on this image and its emergence is the only one and unchanged from the beginning to the present day. The Orthodox Church affirms and teaches that the sacred image is a consequence of the Incarnation, it is based on it and therefore inherent in the very essence of Christianity, from which it is inseparable.
The contradiction to this ecclesiastical view has been spreading in science since the 18th century. The famous English scholar Gibbon (1737-1791), author of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, stated that the early Christians had an irresistible aversion to images. In his opinion, the reason for this disgust was the Jewish origin of Christians. Gibbon thought that the first icons appeared only at the beginning of the 4th century. Gibbon's opinion found many followers, and his ideas, unfortunately, in one form or another live to this day.
Undoubtedly, some Christians, especially those who came from Judaism, based on the Old Testament prohibition of the image, denied the possibility of it in Christianity, and this is all the more so since Christian communities were surrounded on all sides by paganism with its idolatry. Given all the destructive experience of paganism, these Christians tried to protect the Church from the infection of idolatry, which could penetrate it through artistic creativity. It is possible that iconoclasm is as old as iconoclasm. All this is very understandable, but could not have been of decisive importance in the Church, as we shall see.
A person involved in icon painting regularly has to deal with a special iconic mythology - a complex of prejudices, stereotypes and pseudo-pious fantasies, sometimes bordering on superstition, and even occultism.
Photo strana.ru
I will not sin against the truth if I say that almost all popular literature devoted to icon painting cultivates this mythology in one way or another. Who has not heard about the special "spiritual" technique of Orthodox icon painting, which is opposed to the "fallen" Western European realism, or about the so-called. reverse perspective, about enlightened faces that “have no shadows”, but “glow from within”? Some kind of beautiful and esoteric-sounding stamps. And although the works of professional art historians and restorers create a completely different picture, mythology lives its own life and even claims the proud title of "theology of the icon."
I, as an icon painter, constantly have to answer various, mostly of the same type, questions related to this very “theology”. In search of the original source - both questions and the stereotypes that give rise to them - I almost always came, in the end, to the same fairly well-known names, whose authority is now almost not questioned. But one of these names is perhaps the most famous ...
Today it is difficult to find a monograph on the theology of the icon that does not mention the name of the priest Pavel Florensky or that does not use his ideas. They are so deeply rooted in the understanding of the icon, which is now dominant in the literature on icon painting, that it is impossible to underestimate the importance of Florensky's works (1) .
Another question is about the qualitative results of this value.
In this article, I would like to consider the ideas of Fr. Pavel Florensky, his methodology and specific worldview in the context of the Orthodox icon. Life path and tragic fate religious philosopher we will not touch upon in this essay.
Theology and "theology of the icon"
Paradoxically, theology, etc. "theology of the icon" - these things are not at all identical. In essence, patristic theology defines, what exactly shown on the icon. The question is how exactly depicted (i.e., the issue of icon-painting technique), concerns theology to a much lesser extent.
But it is precisely this subject that is considered by the "theologians" from the icon as the key one, it is in this subject that the main near-icon myths took root, and it was this subject that Florensky himself attached special, almost sacred significance.
The opinions of the priest Pavel Florensky are reproduced mainly from his work The Iconostasis (1922), however, we also used his other works, directly or indirectly related to the icon: Reverse Perspective (1919), Temple Action as a Synthesis of Arts (1922) and Heavenly Signs. (Reflections on the Symbolism of Flowers)" (1922).
So, the word to Fr. Pavel:
“In the consistency of the paint, in the way it is applied to the corresponding surface, in the mechanical and physical structure of the surfaces themselves, in the chemical and physical nature of the substance that binds the paints, in the composition and consistency of their solvents, as well as the paints themselves, in varnishes or other fixatives of the written work and in its other “material causes” that metaphysics, that deep worldview, is already directly expressed, which the creative will of the artist strives to express in this work as a whole” (2).
In other words, the artist's attitude, according to Florensky, is expressed not so much by what he writes, but by what he writes it and how he writes it. Further, an image, in order to be an icon, must be painted with special materials and in special ways. Without these conditions, the icon cannot be real, or, in the words of Fr. Paul, it will not correspond to the “spirit of icon-painting technique” (3). In this sense, the technique of icon painting, according to Florensky, is not something secondary, but, on the contrary, the most necessary condition for creating a “correct” Orthodox icon. This is exactly what is now most often understood in popular literature by the concept of "icon-painting canon".
This topic is most fully revealed by Florensky in his program (in relation to icon painting) work "Iconostasis".
For an unprepared reader who is not familiar with the technical side of painting, reading Florensky is quite difficult. His presentation of icon-painting technique is a heap of information gleaned from various, often unequal sources, generously seasoned with the author's remarks and mystical-romantic digressions. It is often fascinating to read Florensky, but, firstly, he is extremely subjective and usually does not bother to substantiate his own theses (here it is appropriate to quote the words of Archpriest Georgy Florovsky, said about another program work of Father Paul - "The Pillar and Ground of the Truth", but very suitable and for this occasion: “The Book of Florensky intentionally and deliberately subjective… He always speaks for himself. He remains subjective even when he would like to be objective. And therein lies its ambiguity. He presents the book of personal elections as a confession of conciliar experience” (4)).
And secondly, the author appeals more to the emotions than to the logic of the reader. One of Florensky's critics, B. Yakovenko, expressed this in a peculiar way: Florensky’s theoretical centers, all aimed at emotionally striking, capturing, enticing, previously and incidentally entertaining attention with a mass of excerpts and borrowings from sacred books, and from theological interpretations, and from philosophical sources, and from individual sciences, especially linguistics and mathematics , as well as the endless repetition of the same insufficiently ordered and in some kind of whirlwind rushing thoughts and experiences” (5).
The icon according to Florensky and the icon in reality
So, to the icon of St. Pavel Florensky makes a number of demands:
1. Materials. The icon is written on a board covered with cloth and gesso (primer based on chalk and glue). For the letter itself, egg tempera is used. The finished icon is covered with drying oil.
2. Actually technique. The icon painter moves from shadow to light. First, the contours of the future image are covered with dark paint, over which lighter layers are successively superimposed.
The way the paint is applied also matters. In particular, when writing faces, the modeling of the form occurs by manipulating liquid paint spilled over the surface (the so-called melt). This method (for those who are interested) is described in detail, in particular, by the nun Juliana (Sokolova) (6). Writing with strokes or in any other way is unacceptable (7).
But let's try to look at Florensky's statements in the light of the actual data on icon painting:
Novgorod tablet icon. 1484–1504
Materials.
In fact, wood has never been the only material for an icon. Recall, for example, the so-called. the tablets are Novgorod icons of the 15th-16th centuries. They were written on canvas, heavily primed on both sides. The resulting tablet was enclosed in a wooden frame. Unlike icons painted on wood, the tablets were more fragile, but they did not warp like a wooden board.
Egg tempera was also not the only icon painting technique. The first icons were painted in, in which the paint was kneaded on wax, and not on egg yolk. Wax painting existed until the 12th century (8). At the same time, we are now talking only about painting with paints and do not even touch on such a technique as mosaic.
The covering layer of the icon in the same way was not always drying oil. Actually, under the "linseed oil" in Russia they understood a fairly large range of materials - both oil varnishes and drying oil itself. And, by the way, this same drying oil was far from the best coating for the icon: unlike Byzantium, the Balkans and pre-Mongolian Russia, starting from the 13th century, Russian icon painters began to add so-called desiccants (9) to the oil base (auxiliaries to speed up the drying process ), which meanwhile contributed to the rapid darkening of the drying oil, sometimes to such an extent that the image itself on the icon could no longer be distinguished.
Technique.
The method of applying paint (from dark to light), described by Florensky, is endowed with a special meaning. One of the main ideas about Paul is the opposition of the medieval eastern icon to the realistic western painting. Sometimes it looks like an obsession.
So, if there is a certain phenomenon in realism, then in the icon, according to Florensky, everything should be exactly the opposite: “The artist goes from light to shadow, or from illuminated to dark ... there is also a reverse philosophy, and therefore, there must be the corresponding art. Right, if iconography did not exist, іl faudrait l "inventer [it would be necessary to invent it (fr.)]. But it exists - and is as ancient as humanity. The icon painter goes from dark to light, from darkness to light "( ten).
In this statement, Florensky's methodology is clearly manifested: it is not the facts that are the basis on which the conclusions are built, but, on the contrary, first an idea is born, then the facts are adjusted to it (“it would be necessary to invent it”).
In reality, however, the method of writing described by Fr. Pavel, was also not exceptional in icon painting.
The most typical example is face painting. Florensky, in fact, describes the so-called. sankir method of writing: “A sankir or sankir is the main paint composition for laying the face ... Next comes the melting of faces ... The bright places of the personal - the forehead, cheeks, nose - are covered with liquid flesh-colored paint, which includes ocher or, in icon painting, vohra; hence this whole part of iconography is called vokhrene” (11).
Savior not made by hands. Domongolian Rus. XII century. Bessanky writing technique
However, this method of writing appears no earlier than the 13th century, and only in the 14th century did Russian icon painting finally adopt it (12). Until that time, the so-called sankir-free method was used: “A layer of “flesh-colored” color was applied over white ground ... After the first drawing, over this layer (and not under it, as some authors claim) with paint resembling sankir in color ... they painted shadow areas ”( 13).
As you can see, the method of writing so denied by Florensky (from light to dark) is quite classical and even more ancient than that described by him.
Can an icon be realistic?
In discussions about Paul about icon painting, you can find a number of other categorical statements. For example, about the fact that the icon image should be flat, that the shadow in the icon is impossible, that the icon painter must avoid any closeness to nature, any “living likeness”, etc.
Opinion versus facts
At the same time, the works of professional researchers of medieval icon painting provide a huge amount of facts that do not fit into the framework of such categoricalness.
Compare.
Florensky:“In icon painting, a brushstroke is impossible, glazing is impossible (14), just as there are no halftones and shadows” (15).
Art critic:“The character of writing in the Sinai icon from the point of view of artistic techniques is the development of a transparent, glazing method of applying strokes in layers in strict accordance with the deep, three-dimensional construction of the relief” (16).
Sinai icon of the Savior. 6th century
"Faces - rounded, sculpturally convex - are molded with wide planes of color and delicate transparent glazes" (17). “Transparent thin glazes are multi-layered, they are executed with the finest color gradations” (18). “The contrasts of chiaroscuro become the leading means in the formation of a cast, as it were carved, or ideally rounded volume” (19).
"Free painting technique, using delicate halftones." “Faces are processed with light, transparent shadows” (20).
Yes, oh Pavel put forward and defended the idea that in icon painting the volume is allegedly conveyed not with the help of light and shadow (as in "Western painting"), but is depicted "by the light itself" (sic). Moreover, this light is not external, but “internal”, as if emitted by the very subject of the image: “Modeling ... volume through enlightenment” (21).
It certainly sounds beautiful. And if we compare it with the Light of Tabor, spiritual enlightenments, insights and the like, then the thesis will look even more “spiritual”. But in fact, the idea does not stand up to scrutiny. In this case, the same far-fetched antagonism between medieval icon painting and realistic painting takes place: “The painter wants to understand the subject as something in itself real and opposed to light; by his struggle with light - that is, shadows, with the help of shadows, he reveals himself to the viewer as a reality. Light, in the pictorial sense, is only an occasion for the self-discovery of a thing. On the contrary, for the icon painter there is no reality other than the reality of the light itself and what it will produce” (22).
Florensky opposes any naturalism. The icon, in his private opinion, a priori cannot depict the real appearance of the object, but is intended to be only a symbol of spiritual realities. And even such a seemingly earthly object as the folds of clothes must also avoid all sorts of realism. Here is what Florensky says about this in the context of the “secularization” (in his opinion) of 17th-century icon painting: instead of serving as a symbol of the supersensible” (23).
But what if entire generations of Byzantine icon painters, long before Florensky criticized the 17th century, by no means avoided “nature”, illusoryness, including in the folds of clothing: volume, there is no hint of enlargement or stylization in the interpretation of fabrics - they are completely illusionistic, “life-like” (24).
Exactly the same story emerges with the famous “reverse perspective”, from which Fr. Pavel Florensky brought out a whole theory.
He has a separate work of the same name devoted to this topic. The main idea, again, is the obsessive opposition of icon painting to realism. And if in realism the rules of linear (direct) perspective apply (objects decrease proportionally as they move away from the foreground), then in icon painting everything should certainly be the other way around.
Of course, it would be strange to say that medieval masters struggled with a phenomenon that had not yet been discovered (and the discovery of a direct perspective, we recall, occurred only in the 14th century in Italy). If we consider the construction of space on the icons of different eras, it will be obvious that there is, of course, no perspective as a system (direct or "reverse"). Meet various options constructing space - for example, axonometry and even elements of direct perspective (in its medieval sense, of course) (25).
Reading Florensky, you feel a certain cognitive dissonance - the real icon is so different from everything that Fr. Paul. It seems that he is describing some other phenomenon, talking about some other icon.
What is the reason? We will talk about this in the second part of our article.
Dmitry Marchenko
Notes:
1. In fact, the "unconditional authority" of Fr. Pavel Florensky became not so long ago and not for everyone. This is one of the most controversial thinkers of his time. Estimates of his work have always been quite polar - from enthusiastic to derogatory. For example, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) expressed himself quite sharply: “Either I don’t understand anything else in philosophy, or this is just Khlyst’s nonsense!” (S. A. Volkov. P. A. Florensky. Quoted from P. A. Florensky: proetcontra. St. Petersburg 1996. P. 144).
2. Florensky P. Iconostasis. In the collection: Priest Pavel Florensky. Works in 4 volumes. T. 2. S. 473.
3. Ibid. S. 507.
4. Prot. Georgy Florovsky. Ways of Russian theology. M., 2009. S. 626.
5. Yakovenko B. Philosophy of despair. Quoted from P. A. Florensky: proetcontra. SPb. 1996. S. 256.
6. Nun Juliania (M. N. Sokolova). The work of an icon painter. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. 1998.
7. Florensky P. Iconostasis. In the collection: Priest Pavel Florensky. Works in 4 volumes. T. 2. S. 473, 505.
8. New encyclopedic dictionary of fine arts. St. Petersburg, 2004–2009.
9. Grinberg Yu. I. Painting technique. M., 1982.
10. Florensky P. Iconostasis. In the collection: Priest Pavel Florensky. Works in 4 volumes. T. 2. S. 510.
11. Ibid. S. 507.
12. Grinberg Yu. I. Painting technique. M., 1982.
13. Ibid.
14. Glazing - the technique of applying translucent paints over the base color.
15. Florensky P. Iconostasis. In the collection: Priest Pavel Florensky. Works in 4 volumes. T. 2. S. 505.
16. Kolpakova G. Art of Byzantium. early and middle periods. SPb., 2010. S. 239.
17. Kolpakova G. Art of Byzantium. late period. SPb., 2004. S. 32.
18. Ibid. S. 40.
19. Ibid. S. 130.
20. Lazarev VN History of Byzantine painting. M., 1986.
21. Florensky P. Iconostasis. In the collection: Priest Pavel Florensky. Works in 4 volumes. T. 2. S. 510.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid. pp. 489–490.
24. Kolpakova G. Art of Byzantium. late period. SPb., 2004. S. 102.
25. See for example: Raushenbakh B.V. Spatial constructions in ancient Russian painting. M., 1975.
Preface.
R The Russian Orthodox icon is one of the highest universally recognized achievements of the human spirit. Now it is difficult to find such a church (Catholic and Protestant) in Europe, where there would not be an Orthodox icon - at least a beautiful reproduction on a board made of good, carefully crafted wood, placed in the most prominent place.
At the same time, Russian icons became the subject of speculation, smuggling, and forgeries. It is amazing that despite the many years of plundering such a heritage of our national culture, the flow of Russian icons still does not dry up. This testifies to the grandiose creative potential of the Russian people, who have created such great wealth over the past centuries.
However, in an abundance of icons, it can be quite difficult for a person to figure out and understand what is a truly spiritual creation of religious feeling and faith, and what is an unsuccessful attempt to create an image of the Savior, the Mother of God or a saint. Hence the inevitable fetishization of the icon and the reduction of its lofty spiritual purpose to an ordinary object of Orthodox worship.
When we look at the icons of different centuries, we need explanations from specialists, just as when examining an ancient cathedral, we need a guide who will point out to us the differences between the ancient parts of the building and later additions, pay attention to subtle at first glance, but very important characteristic details that distinguish this or that time and style.
In the study of icons, in an effort to better understand these creations of the human spirit, the experience of people who combine professional art history education with a significant length of life in the Church becomes extremely important. This is what distinguishes the author of the textbook offered to the attention of the respected reader. In a lively and accessible form, it tells about the first Christian images. Initially, these are symbols: fish, anchor, cross. Then the transition from the symbol to the icon: the good shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders. And, finally, the early icons themselves are a synthesis of ancient painting and the Christian worldview. Explanation of the meaning of the icon image from the early Byzantine to Russian-original masterpieces and distinguish them from unsuccessful attempts at imitation.
Today, when in the new conditions of the end of the 20th century Russia is called to a spiritual revival, the realization of the best and most valuable in the Christian, and especially in the Orthodox, tradition is absolutely necessary to create a fruitful atmosphere in which the revival of the old and the emergence of new paths in the modern world will become possible. religious art.
Introduction.
And Kona is an integral part of the Orthodox tradition. It is impossible to imagine the interior of an Orthodox church without icons. In the home of an Orthodox person, icons always occupy a prominent place. Going on a journey, an Orthodox Christian also takes with him, as is customary, a small marching iconostasis or fold. So in Russia it has been customary for a long time: a person was born or died, got married or started some important business - he was accompanied by an icon-painting image. The whole history of Russia has passed under the sign of the icon, many glorified and miraculous icons have become witnesses and participants in the most important historical changes in its fate. Russia itself, having once received baptism from the Greeks, entered the great tradition of the Eastern Christian world, which is rightfully proud of the richness and diversity of the icon-painting schools of Byzantium, the Balkans, and the Christian East. And in this magnificent crown, Russia wove its golden thread.
The great heritage of the icon often becomes the subject of exaltation of the Orthodox over other Christian traditions, whose historical experience has not kept it pure or has rejected the icon as an element of cult practice. However, often a modern Orthodox person does not extend his apology for the icon beyond the blind defense of tradition and vague arguments about the beauty of the divine world, thereby turning out to be an untenable heir to his wealth. In addition, the low artistic quality of the icon production that flooded our churches bears little resemblance to what is called an icon in the patristic tradition. All this testifies to the deep oblivion of the icon and its true value. This is not so much about aesthetic principles, as they are known to have changed over the centuries and depended on regional and national traditions, but about the meaning of the icon, since the image is one of the key concepts of the Orthodox worldview. After all, it is no coincidence that the victory of the iconodules over the iconoclasts, finally approved in 843, went down in history as the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. The concept of icon veneration became a kind of apogee of the dogmatic creativity of the holy fathers. This put an end to the dogmatic disputes that shook the Church from the 4th to the 9th century.
What did the admirers of icons defend so zealously? We can observe the echoes of this struggle even today in the disputes between the representatives of the historical churches and the apologists of the young Christian movements, which are at war with the obvious and imaginary manifestations of idolatry and paganism in Christianity. The discovery of the icon again at the beginning of the 20th century forced us to take a fresh look at the subject of the dispute, both supporters and opponents of icon veneration. The theological understanding of the icon phenomenon, which continues to this day, helps to reveal previously unknown deep layers of divine Revelation.
The icon as a spiritual phenomenon is increasingly attracting attention, not only in the Orthodox and Catholic world, but also in the Protestant one. Recently, an increasing number of Christians have been evaluating the icon as a common Christian spiritual heritage. Today, it is the ancient icon that is perceived as the actual revelation necessary for modern man.
This course of lectures is intended to introduce listeners into the complex and ambiguous world of the icon, to reveal its significance as a spiritual phenomenon deeply rooted in the Christian, biblical worldview, to show its inextricable connection with dogmatic and theological creativity, the liturgical life of the Church.
Icon from the Point of View of the Christian Worldview and Biblical Anthropology.
And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.
Gen. 1.31
H It is human nature to appreciate beauty. The human soul needs beauty and seeks it. All human culture is permeated with the search for beauty. The Bible also testifies that beauty lay at the heart of the world and man was originally involved in it. Expulsion from paradise is an image of lost beauty, a person's rupture with beauty and truth. Once having lost his heritage, man yearns to regain it. Human history can be presented as a path from lost beauty to sought after beauty, on this path a person realizes himself as a participant in Divine creation. Leaving the beautiful Garden of Eden, symbolizing its pure natural state before the fall, a person returns to the garden city - Heavenly Jerusalem,
(Rev. 21.2). And this last image is the image of the future beauty, about which it is said:“new, coming down from God, out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband”
(1 Cor. 2.9).“Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him”
All of God's creation is originally beautiful. God admired His creation at various stages of its creation.
- these words are repeated in the 1st chapter of the book of Genesis 7 times and they clearly have an aesthetic character. This is where the Bible begins and ends with the revelation of a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1). The Apostle John says that"And God saw that it was good"
(1 John 5.19), thus emphasizing that the world is not evil in itself, but that the evil that has entered the world has distorted its beauty. And at the end of time, the true beauty of the Divine creation will shine - purified, saved, transfigured."the world lies in evil"
The concept of beauty always includes the concepts of harmony, perfection, purity, and for the Christian worldview, good is certainly included in this series. The separation of ethics and aesthetics occurred already in modern times, when culture underwent secularization, and the integrity of the Christian worldview was lost. Pushkin's question about the compatibility of genius and villainy was already born in a divided world, for which Christian values are not obvious. A century later, this question sounds like a statement: “aesthetics of the ugly”, “theater of the absurd”, “harmony of destruction”, “cult of violence”, etc. - these are the aesthetic coordinates that determine the culture of the 20th century. Breaking aesthetic ideals with ethical roots leads to anti-aesthetics. But even in the midst of decay, the human soul does not cease to strive for beauty. The famous Chekhovian maxim “everything in a person should be beautiful...” is nothing but nostalgia for the integrity of the Christian understanding of beauty and the unity of the image. The dead ends and tragedies of the modern search for beauty lie in the complete loss of value orientations, in the oblivion of the sources of beauty.
Beauty is an ontological category in the Christian understanding, it is inextricably linked with the meaning of being. Beauty is rooted in God. It follows that there is only one beauty - the True Beauty, God Himself. And every earthly beauty is only an image that reflects the Primary Source to a greater or lesser extent.
(John 1.1-3). The Word, the Inexpressible Logos, Reason, Meaning, etc. - this concept has a huge synonymous range. Somewhere in this series, the amazing word “image” finds its place, without which it is impossible to comprehend the true meaning of Beauty. Word and Image have one source, in their ontological depth they are identical.“In the beginning was the Word ... through Him everything came into being, and without him nothing came into being that came into being”
Image in Greek - ?????. This is where the Russian word "icon" comes from. But just as we distinguish between the Word and words, we should also distinguish between the Image and images, in a narrower sense - icons (in Russian colloquial speech, it is not by chance that the name of icons - “image” has been preserved). Without understanding the meaning of the Image, we cannot understand the meaning of the icon, its place, its role, its meaning.
God creates the world through the Word, He Himself is the Word that came into the world. God also creates the world by giving an image to everything. He Himself, having no image, is the prototype of everything in the world. Everything that exists in the world exists due to the fact that it carries the Image of God. The Russian word "ugly" is a synonym for the word "ugly", it means nothing more than "without- about figurative”, that is, not having the Image of God in itself, non-essential, non-existent, dead. The whole world is permeated with the Word and the whole world is filled with the Image of God, our world is iconological.
God's creation can be imagined as a ladder of images that, like mirrors, reflect each other and, ultimately, God as the Prototype. The symbol of the stairs (in the old Russian version - “ladders”) is traditional for the Christian picture of the world, starting from the ladder of Jacob (Genesis 28.12) and up to the “Ladder” of the Sinai Abbot John, nicknamed the “Ladder”. The symbol of the mirror is also well known - we find it, for example, in the Apostle Paul, who speaks of knowledge like this:
(1 Cor. 13.12), which in the Greek text is expressed as follows: "as a mirror in divination." Thus our cognition is like a mirror dimly reflecting true values which we can only guess. So, God's world is a whole system of images of mirrors built in the form of a ladder, each step of which reflects God to a certain extent. At the basis of everything is God Himself - the One, Beginningless, Incomprehensible, having no image, giving life to everything. He is everything and everything is in Him, and there is no one who could look at God from the outside. The incomprehensibility of God became the basis for the commandment forbidding the depiction of God (Ex. 20.4). The transcendence of God, revealed to man in the Old Testament, exceeds human capabilities, so the Bible says:"now we see, as if through a dull glass, guessingly"
(Ex. 33.20). Even Moses, the greatest of the prophets, who communicated directly with Jehovah, heard His voice more than once, when he asked to show him the Face of God, received the following answer:"Man cannot see God and stay alive"
(Ex. 33.23)."You will see me from behind, but my face will not be seen"
Evangelist John also testifies:
(John 1.18a), but then adds:"God has never been seen"
(John 1.18b). Here is the center of the New Testament revelation: through Jesus Christ we have direct access to God, we can see His face."The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed"
(John 1.14). Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, the incarnate Word is the only and true Image of the Invisible God. In a certain sense, He is the first and only icon. The Apostle Paul writes:“The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and we beheld his glory”
(Col. 1.15), and“He is the image of the Invisible God, born before every creature”
(Phil. 2.6-7). The appearance of God into the world occurs through His belittling, kenosis (Greek ???????). And at each subsequent step, the image reflects the Prototype to a certain extent, thanks to this, the internal structure of the world is exposed."Being in the form of God, He took the form of a servant"
The next step of the ladder we have drawn is a person. God created man in His image and likeness (Gen. 1.26) (???' ?????? ???????? ??? ???' ????????), highlighting thereby him out of all creation. And in this sense, man is also an icon of God. Rather, he is meant to be. The Savior called the disciples:
(Mt. 5.48). Here is revealed true human dignity, revealed to people by Christ. But as a result of his fall, having fallen away from the source of Being, man in his natural natural state does not reflect, like a pure mirror, God's image. To achieve the required perfection, a person needs to make efforts (Matt. 11.12). The Word of God reminds man of his original calling. This is also evidenced by the Image of God, revealed in the icon. In everyday life it is often difficult to find confirmation of this; looking around and impartially looking at himself, a person may not immediately see the image of God. However, it is in every person. The image of God may not be manifested, hidden, clouded, even distorted, but it exists in our very depths as a guarantee of our being. The process of spiritual development consists in discovering the image of God in oneself, revealing, purifying, restoring it. In many ways, this is reminiscent of the restoration of an icon, when a blackened, sooty board is washed, cleaned, removing layer after layer of old drying oil, numerous later layers and inscriptions, until the Face eventually emerges, the Light shines, the Image of God manifests itself. The apostle Paul writes to his disciples:"be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect"
(Gal. 4.19). The Gospel teaches that the goal of a person is not just self-improvement, as the development of his natural abilities and natural qualities, but the revelation in himself of the true Image of God, the achievement of God's likeness, what the holy fathers called "about about zhenie" (Greek ??????). This process is difficult, according to Paul, it is the pangs of birth, because the image and likeness in us are separated by sin - we receive the image at birth, and we achieve the likeness during life. That is why in the Russian tradition the saints are called "reverend", that is, those who have attained the likeness of God. This title is awarded to the greatest holy ascetics, such as Sergius of Radonezh or Seraphim of Sarov. And at the same time, this is the goal that every Christian faces. It is no coincidence that St. Basil the Great said that "Christianity is likening God to the extent that this is possible for human nature."“My children! for whom I am again in the throes of birth, until Christ is formed in you!”
The process of about zheniya", the spiritual transformation of man - is Christocentric, as it is based on likeness to Christ. Even following the example of any saint is not limited to him, but leads, first of all, to Christ.
- wrote the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 4.16). So any icon is initially Christocentric, no matter who is depicted on it - whether the Savior Himself, the Mother of God or one of the saints. Holiday icons are also Christocentric. Precisely because we have been given the only true Image and role model - Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Incarnate Word. This image in us should be glorified and shine:"Imitate me as I imitate Christ"
(2 Cor. 3.18).“Yet we, with open face, as in a mirror, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord”
A person is located on the verge of two worlds: above a person - the divine world, below - the natural world, because of where his mirror is deployed - up or down - it will depend on whose image he perceives. From a certain historical stage, the attention of man was focused on the creature and the worship of the Creator faded into the background. The misfortune of the pagan world and the wine of modern culture is that people
(1 Cor. 1.21-25).“Knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, and were not thankful, but were futile in their speculations ... and they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like corruptible man, and birds, and quadrupeds, and reptiles ... replaced the truth with a lie and worshiped and served the creature instead of the Creator"
Indeed, a step below the human world lies the created world, which also reflects, in its measure, the image of God, like any other creature that bears the stamp of its Creator. However, this can only be seen if the correct hierarchy of values is observed. It is no coincidence that the holy fathers said that God gave man two books for knowledge - the Book of Scripture and the Book of Creation. And through the second book, we can also comprehend the greatness of the Creator - through
(Rom. 1.20). This so-called level of natural revelation was available to the world even before Christ. But in creation the image of God is even more diminished than in man, since sin has entered the world and the world lies in evil. Each underlying step reflects not only the Prototype, but also the previous one; against this background, the role of a person is very clearly visible, since"viewing creations"
and"the creature did not submit voluntarily"
(Rom. 8.19-20). A person who has corrected the image of God in himself distorts this image in all creation. All the ecological problems of the modern world stem from this. Their decision is closely connected with the inner transformation of the person himself. The revelation of the new heaven and the new earth reveals the mystery of the future creation, for"waiting for the salvation of the sons of God"
(1 Cor. 7.31). One day, through the Creation, the Image of the Creator will shine in all its beauty and light. The Russian poet F. I. Tyutchev saw this prospect as follows:"the image of this world passes"
When the last hour of nature strikes,
The composition of the earthly parts will collapse,
Everything visible around will be covered by water
And God's Face will be displayed in them.
And, finally, the last fifth step of the ladder we have drawn is the icon itself, and more broadly, the creation of human hands, all human creativity. Only when included in the system of images-mirrors described by us, reflecting the Prototype, the icon ceases to be just a board with plots written on it. Outside this ladder, the icon does not exist, even if it was painted in accordance with the canons. Outside of this context, all distortions in icon veneration arise: some deviate into magic, crude idolatry, others fall into art veneration, sophisticated aestheticism, and still others completely deny the use of icons. The purpose of the icon is to direct our attention to the Archetype - through the only Image of the Incarnate Son of God - to the Invisible God. And this path lies through the revelation of the Image of God in ourselves. The veneration of the icon is the worship of the Archetype, the prayer before the icon is the standing before the Incomprehensible and Living God. The icon is only a sign of His presence. The aesthetics of the icon is only a small approximation to the beauty of the imperishable future age, like a barely visible contour, not quite clear shadows; contemplating the icon is similar to a person gradually regaining his sight, who is healed by Christ (Mk. 8.24). That's why o. Pavel Florensky argued that an icon is always either larger or smaller than a work of art. Everything is decided by the inner spiritual experience of the future.
Ideally, all human activity is iconological. A person paints an icon, seeing the true Image of God, but an icon also creates a person, reminding him of the image of God hidden in him. A person tries to peer into the Face of God through the icon, but God also looks at us through the Image.
(1 Cor. 13.9,12). The conditional language of the icon is a reflection of the incompleteness of our knowledge of the divine reality. And at the same time, it is a sign indicating the existence of the Absolute beauty, which is hidden in God. The famous saying of F. M. Dostoevsky “Beauty will save the world” is not just a winning metaphor, but the exact and deep intuition of a Christian brought up on a thousand-year-old Orthodox tradition of searching for this beauty. God is true Beauty, and therefore salvation cannot be ugly, formless. The Biblical image of the suffering Messiah, in which there is no“We know in part and we prophesy in part, when the perfect comes, then that which is in part will cease. Now we see, as if through a dull glass, guessingly, but at the same time, face to face; Now I know in part, but then I will know, just as I am known.
(Is. 53.2), only emphasizes what was said above, revealing the point at which the belittling (Greek ???????) of God, and at the same time the Beauty of His Image, reaches the limit, but from the same point the ascent begins up. Just as the descent of Christ into hell is the destruction of hell and the leading of all the faithful to the Resurrection and Eternal Life."neither appearance nor majesty"
(1 John 1.5) - this is the image of the True Divine and saving beauty."God is Light and there is no darkness in Him"
The Eastern Christian tradition perceives Beauty as one of the proofs of the existence of God. According to a well-known legend, the last argument for Prince Vladimir in choosing a faith was the testimony of the ambassadors about the heavenly beauty of Sophia of Constantinople. Knowledge, as Aristotle argued, begins with wonder. So often the knowledge of God begins with wonder at the beauty of God's creation.
(Ps. 139.14). The contemplation of beauty reveals to man the secret of the relationship between the external and the internal in this world.“I praise You, because I am wonderfully made. Wonderful are Thy works, and my soul is fully aware of this.
...So what is beauty?
And why do people deify her?
Is she a vessel in which there is emptiness?
Or fire flickering in a vessel?
(N. Zabolotsky)
For the Christian consciousness, beauty is not an end in itself. It is only an image, a sign, an occasion, one of the paths leading to God. There is no Christian aesthetics in the proper sense, just as there is no "Christian mathematics" or "Christian biology". However, for a Christian it is clear that the abstract category of "beautiful" (beauty) loses its meaning outside the concepts of "good", "truth", "salvation". Everything is united by God in God and in the name of God, the rest is without about figuratively. The rest - and there is pitch hell (by the way, the Russian word "pitch" and means everything that remains except, that is, outside, in this case outside of God). Therefore, it is so important to distinguish between external, false beauty, and true, internal beauty. True Beauty is a spiritual category, imperishable, independent of external changing criteria, it is incorruptible and belongs to another world, although it can manifest itself in this world. External beauty is transient, changeable, it is just external beauty, attractiveness, charm (the Russian word “charm” comes from the root “flattery”, which is akin to a lie). The Apostle Paul, guided by the biblical understanding of beauty, gives this advice to Christian women:
(1 Peter 3:3-4).“Let your adornment be not external weaving of hair, not golden headdresses or elegance in clothes, but a man hidden in the heart in the imperishable beauty of a meek and silent spirit, which is precious before God”
So, “the imperishable beauty of a meek spirit, valuable before God” is, perhaps, the cornerstone of Christian aesthetics and ethics, which constitute an inseparable unity, for beauty and goodness, beauty and spirituality, form and meaning, creativity and salvation are essentially inseparable, as one at its core Image and Word. It is no coincidence that a collection of patristic instructions, known in Russia under the name "Philokalia", in Greek is called ????????? (Philocalia), which can be translated as "love for the beautiful", for true beauty is the spiritual transformation of a person in whom the Image of God is glorified.
Word and Image.
Artistic and symbolic language of the icon
The icon is the visible, invisible and without an image, but bodily depicted for the sake of the weakness of our understanding.
St. John of Damascus
AT In the system of Christian culture, the icon occupies a truly unique place, and yet the icon has never been considered only as a work of art. An icon is, first of all, a doctrinal text designed to help comprehend the truth. In this sense, according to Fr. Pavel Florensky, an icon is either larger or smaller than a work of art. The doctrinal function of the icon was emphasized by the holy fathers, referring iconography to the field of theology. “What the word of narration offers to the ear, silent painting shows through images,” said St. Basil the Great. Defending the need for icon veneration, especially for the novice in the Church, Pope Gregory the Dialogist called church images “The Bible for the illiterate,” for what one who knows how to read extracts from a book, one who cannot learn through visible images. St. John of Damascus, the largest Orthodox apologist for icon veneration, argued that the invisible and difficult to comprehend are conveyed in the icon through the visible and accessible, "for the sake of the weakness of our understanding." This attitude towards the icon became the basis for the decisions of the 7th Ecumenical Council, which approved the victory of the iconodules. The Fathers of the Council, justifying the need for icon veneration for the Orthodox tradition, ordered the creation of the icon to theologians, leaving the artists to embody the idea in the material. Concerned primarily about the doctrinal side of icon painting, the Cathedral says nothing about the artistic criteria of images, or about expressive means, or about the preference for one or another material, etc., giving the artist freedom of choice in this. The icon-painting canon developed gradually, over the centuries, growing out of the theological understanding of the image, so the canon was not conceived as an external framework that limited the freedom of the icon painter, but rather as a core, thanks to which the icon exists as a work of art. However, the Orthodox tradition sees the text in the icon, but not the scheme, so the artistic side of the icon is just as important as the ideological side. An icon is a complex organism, where the theological idea is expressed by certain artistic means, similar to a tree rooted in the soil of Christian revelation, the branches of this tree are the personal mystical experience and artistic talent of the icon painter. Not infrequently, the theologian and the artist were united in one person, as was the case, say, in the case of Andrei Rublev or Theophan the Greek. At the peak of its heyday, the icon combined strict theology and high art, which allowed Evg. Trubetskoy called the icon "speculation in colors".
Christianity is the religion of the Word, this determines the specifics of the icon. Contemplation of an icon is not an act of aesthetic admiration, although aesthetic values play an important role in Christian culture. But in the first place is communion with the Word. The contemplation of an icon is, first of all, an act of prayer, in which the comprehension of the meaning of beauty passes into the comprehension of the beauty of meaning, and in this process the inner man grows, and the outer man diminishes. This feedback does not allow icon painting to become "art for art's sake", to which any kind of artistic activity gravitates. Art in the Church is in the full sense of the word “servant of theology,” but this does not belittle its significance, but clarifies its functions and makes it more purposeful and effective. Even the ancient Greeks believed that the purpose of art is purification, catharsis (Greek ????????). For Christian art, this is all the more true, because through the icon we can not only purify our souls, but the icon contributes to the transformation of our entire nature. Hence the idea of miraculous icons. The Russian word “healing” has the same root as the word “whole”, “whole”, the contemplation of an icon involves the gathering of a person to what is most important in him, to his center, to the image of God in him.
(1 Thessalonians 5:23).“And may the God of peace Himself sanctify you in all its fullness, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved without blemish at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”
The icon was originally conceived as a sacred text. And, like any text, it requires a certain reading skill. Even in the early Church, for a better assimilation of Holy Scripture, the principle of reading at several levels was assumed. It is mentioned by Bl. Augustine, naming the steps in the following order: literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical. To a certain extent, this principle also applies to reading icons as text. At the first level, acquaintance with the plot takes place (who or what is depicted, the plot fully corresponds to the text of the Bible or the life of a saint, liturgical prayer, etc.). At the second level, the meaning of the image, symbol, sign is revealed (it is important here how it is depicted - color, light, gesture, space, time, details, etc.). At the third level, the connection of the image with the upcoming one is revealed (why, what does this tell you personally, the feedback level). The fourth level is anagogy (from the Greek erection, ascent), the level of pure contemplation, the transition from the visible to the invisible, to direct communication with the Prototype (at this stage, a deep meaning is revealed - in the name of which the icon exists).
For a modern person, brought up outside of Christian traditions, even the first step turns out to be difficult to overcome. The second stage corresponds to the level of the catechumens in the Church and requires some preparation, a kind of catechism. At this level, the icon itself is a catechism, the same "Bible for the illiterate," as St. fathers. The fourth level corresponds to the ordinary ascetic and prayerful life of a Christian, in which not only intellectual efforts are required, but above all spiritual work, the creation of the inner man. At this stage, we no longer perceive the image, but the image begins to act in us. Here the icon as a text becomes not so much a carrier of information as a source of information within the contemplator. The fourth level opens at the highest steps of prayer. St. Gregory Palamas suggested that new beginnings needed some icons, others for laymen, others for monks, while a true hesychast contemplates God beyond any visible image. As you can see, a certain ladder is being built again, climbing up which we again come to the Incomprehensible Antitype - God, who gives everything a beginning.
So, in order to understand what an icon is, let's focus on the first two steps - literal and allegorical.
The icon is a kind of window into the spiritual world. Hence its special language, where each sign is a symbol denoting something greater than itself. With the help of a sign system, an icon conveys information in the same way that a written or printed text conveys information using an alphabet, which is also nothing more than a system of conventional signs. The language of an icon is not much more difficult to comprehend than any of the existing languages, for example, a foreign language, but it seems more difficult to a modern person due to the fact that our aesthetic perception was strongly influenced by realism (in our country - social realism) and cinema, with their total illusion. The art of the icon is completely opposite to this - the icon is ascetic, severe and completely anti-illusory. The language of the icon was also forgotten under the influence of Western art, in which a certain aesthetic ideal had been established since the Renaissance. But through modernism and the avant-garde, the West returned to the iconic nature of art, including church art, and our church aesthetics continue to be dominated by sweet naturalistic images that have neither artistic nor spiritual value. An icon is a revelation about a new creature, about a new heaven and a new earth, therefore it has always gravitated towards fundamental otherness, towards depicting the otherness of the transfigured world.
A sign, a symbol, a parable - this way of expressing the Truth is well known from the Bible. The language of religious symbolism is capable of conveying complex and deep concepts of spiritual reality. Jesus willingly resorted to the language of parables in His sermons. Vine, lost drachma, widow's mite, leaven, withered fig tree, etc. the images were taken by the Savior from real life, from the reality surrounding Him. Close, accessible images have become multi-valued symbols through which the Lord taught His disciples to see further and deeper than everyday reality. The prophets also spoke the language of parables: Ezekiel’s vision of God’s glory, Isaiah’s coal, Joseph interpreting dreams, etc. The Bible is the source of the great poetic Christian tradition, and the symbolism of the icon originates from it.
The first Christians, as is known, did not have their own temples, did not paint icons, they did not have any cult art. They gathered in houses, in synagogues, in cemeteries, in catacombs, often under the threat of persecution, they felt like wanderers on earth. The first teachers and apologists of Christianity waged an irreconcilable dispute with pagan culture, defending the purity of the Christian faith from any idolatry.
- called the Apostle John (1 Jn. 5.21). new religion it was important not to get lost in a pagan world filled with idols. After all, the attitude to the ancient heritage of people of the 1st-3rd centuries. and our contemporaries are very different. We admire ancient art, admire the proportions of statues and the harmony of temples, but the first Christians looked at all this with different eyes: not from an aesthetic point of view, but from a spiritual position, “with the eyes of faith”. For them, the pagan temple was not a museum, it was a place where sacrifices were made, often bloody and even human. And for a Christian, contact with these cults was a direct betrayal of the Living God. The pagan world deified everything, even beauty. Therefore, the writings of the early apologists are characterized by anti-aesthetic tendencies. The pagan world also deified the personality of the emperor. The first Christians rejected any, even the formal performance of the state cult, which was often nothing more than a test of loyalty. They preferred to be torn to pieces by lions than to be involved in any way with idolatry. However, this does not mean that the early Christian world completely rejected aesthetics and had a negative attitude towards culture. The extreme position of Tertullian, who asserted that there is nothing acceptable for a Christian in the pagan heritage, was opposed by the moderate attitude of most of the Church. For example, Justin the Philosopher believed that all the best in human culture belongs to the Church. Even the Apostle Paul, while looking at the sights of Athens, highly appreciated the monument to the Unknown God (Acts 17.23), but he emphasized not its aesthetic value, but as evidence of the search for the true faith and worship by the Athenians. Thus, Christianity carried in itself not a denial of culture in general, but a different type of culture, aimed at the priority of meaning over beauty, which was the exact opposite of ancient aestheticism, carried away, especially at a later stage, by external beauty with complete moral decay. One day Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees"Children, keep yourselves from idols!"
(Mt. 23.27) - this was a sentence to the entire ancient world, which during the period of decline became like a painted coffin, something dead, empty, ugly was hidden behind its external beauty and grandeur. Externalization - this is what the emerging Christian culture feared most of all."coffins littered"
The first Christians did not know icons in our understanding of the word, but the developed imagery of the Old and New Testament already carried the rudiments of iconology. The Roman catacombs preserved drawings on their walls, indicating that biblical symbolism found expression in pictorial and graphic performance. A fish, an anchor, a boat, birds with olive branches in their beaks, a vine, a monogram of Christ, etc. - these signs carried the basic concepts of Christianity. Gradually, Christian culture mastered the language of ancient culture, as the latter decomposed, Christian apologists were less and less afraid of the assimilation of Christianity by the ancient world. The language of ancient philosophy was well suited for the presentation of the dogmas of the Christian faith, for theology. The language of late antique art at first turned out to be acceptable for Christian fine art. For example, the plot “The Good Shepherd” appears on the sarcophagi of noble people - this allegorical image of Christ is a sign that these people belong to the new faith. In the 3rd century, relief images of gospel stories, parables, allegories, etc. began to spread. But the icon was still far away. Christian culture has been looking for an adequate way of expressing Christian revelation for several centuries.
The first icons resemble a late Roman portrait, they are painted energetically, pasty, in a realistic manner, sensually. The earliest of them were found in the monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai and belong to the V-VI centuries. As was customary in antiquity, they were written in the encaustic technique. Stylistically, they are close to the frescoes of Herculaneum and Pompeii, as well as to the Fayum portrait. Some researchers tend to consider the Fayum portrait as a kind of protoicon. These are small tablets with the faces of dead people written on them; they were placed on sarcophagi during burial so that the living would keep in touch with the departed. Indeed, the Fayum portraits have an amazing power - expressive faces with wide open eyes look at us from them. And at first glance, the resemblance to the icon is significant. But the difference is also significant. And it's not so much about visual means- they changed over time, how much the inner essence of both phenomena. The funeral portrait was painted in order to keep in the memory of the living the portrait features of a loved one who has gone to another world. And this is always a reminder of death, its inexorable power over a person, which is resisted by human memory, which preserves the appearance of the deceased. The Fayum portrait is always tragic. The icon, on the contrary, is always evidence of life, its victory over death. The icon is written from the point of view of eternity. An icon can retain some portrait characteristics of the person depicted - age, gender, social status, etc. But the face on the icon is a face turned to God, a person transformed in the light of eternity. The essence of the icon is Easter joy, not parting, but meeting. And the icon in its development moved from the portrait - to the face, from the real and temporary - to the image of the ideal and eternal.
The face in the icon is the most important thing. In the practice of icon painting, the stages of work are divided into “personal” and “private”.
First, “dolichny” is written - background, landscape (lofts), architecture (chambers), clothes, etc. In large works, this stage is performed by a master of the second hand, an assistant. The chief master, the signer, writes “personal”, that is, what relates to the individual. And the observance of this order of work was important, because the icon, like the whole universe, is hierarchical. “Little” and “personal” are different levels of being, but in “personal” there is one more step - the eyes. They are always highlighted on the face, especially in early icons. “The eyes are the mirror of the soul” is a well-known expression, and it was born in the system of the Christian worldview. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says:
(Matt. 6.22). Let us recall the expressive eyes of the pre-Mongolian Russian icons "The Savior Not Made by Hands" (Novgorod, XII century), "Angel with Golden Hair" (Novgorod, XII century).“the lamp for the body is the eye, and if your eye is clean, then your whole body will be light; but if your eye is evil, your whole body will be dark.”
Archangel Gabriel (Angel-Golden hair) XII century.
Starting from the time of Rublev, the eyes no longer write so exaggeratedly large, but nevertheless they are always given great attention. Let us recall the deep, penetrating look of the Savior of Zvenigorod (n. XV century), infinitely merciful and at the same time adamant. In Theophanes the Greek, some pillars are depicted with closed eyes or no eyes at all. By this, the artist emphasizes the importance of looking not outward, but inward, at the contemplation of the divine light. Thus, we see the importance of the eyes in the icon painting. The eyes define the face.But "personal" is not only the face and eyes. But also the hands. For a person's hands say a lot about a person's personality. In the Orthodox liturgy, the custom is preserved to take sacred objects with covered hands, so as not to desecrate the shrine. In some Eastern traditions, from ancient times it was necessary for the bride to cover her hands during marriage, so that outsiders would not determine her age, would not find out about her past unmarried life. So in many cultures it is known that hands carry information about a person. Sign language is known to be widely used in some countries. The gesture in the icon is comprehended in its own way, it conveys a kind of spiritual impulse - the blessing gesture of the Savior, the prayerful gesture of Oranta with arms raised to heaven, the gesture of accepting the grace of the ascetics with open palms on their chests, the gesture of the Archangel Gabriel conveying the Good News, etc. Each gesture carries certain spiritual information, each new situation corresponds to its own gesture (similarly to this in the liturgy - the gestures of the priest and deacon). Also of great importance is the object in the hands of the depicted saint as a sign of his service or glorification. So, the Apostle Paul is usually depicted with a book in his hands - this is the Gospel, of which he is an apostle, and at the same time his own messages, which make up the second significant part of the New Testament after the Gospel (in Western tradition, it is customary to depict Paul with a sword, which symbolizes the Word of God, Heb 4.12). The Apostle Peter usually has the keys in his hands - these are the keys of the Kingdom of God, which the Savior handed him (Matt. 16.19). The martyrs are depicted with a cross in their hands or a palm branch: the cross is a sign of co-crucifixion with Christ, the palm branch is belonging to the Kingdom of Heaven. Prophets usually hold scrolls of their prophecies in their hands, Noah is sometimes depicted with an ark in his hands, Isaiah with a burning coal, David with a Psalter, etc.
The icon painter, as a rule, writes out the face and hands (carnation) very carefully, using the techniques of multi-layer melting, with a sankir lining, browning, swirling, lights, etc. Figures are usually written less densely, few layers and even lighter, so that the body looked weightless and incorporeal. The bodies in the icons seem to float in space, hovering above the ground without touching the earth with their feet; in multi-figure compositions this is especially noticeable, since the characters are depicted as if stepping on each other's feet. This ease of soaring brings us back to the gospel image of man as a fragile vessel (2 Cor. 4.7). Christianity was born on the periphery of ancient culture, during the period of domination of completely different ideas about man. The motto of the ancient classics "A healthy mind in a healthy body" is most clearly expressed in sculpture, where energetic physicality is conveyed through the plasticity of athletic beauty. All Greek gods are outwardly beautiful. Beauty and health are indispensable attributes of the ancient ideal. On the contrary, Christ comes into the world in the form of a humble, slave (
, Phil. 2.6-7;"He, being the image of God, humbled himself, taking the form of a servant"
, Is. 53.3). But this non-winning appearance of Christ only emphasizes His inner strength, the strength of His Spirit and His Word,"a man of sorrows who has known sickness"
(Matt. 7.29)."for he taught them as one having authority, and not as scribes and Pharisees"
This combination of external fragility and internal power seeks to convey an iconic image (
, 2 Cor. 12.9)."The power of God is made perfect in weakness"
The bodies on the icons have elongated proportions (the usual ratio of the head and body is 1:9, in Dionysius it reaches 1:11), which is an expression of the spirituality of a person, his transformed state.
Dionysius. crucifixion. 1500
Christianity is usually credited with the saying "The body is a dungeon for the soul." However, it is not. Late antique thought came to such a conclusion, when antiquity was already declining and the human spirit, exhausted in self-adoration, felt itself in the body as if in a cage, trying to break out. The pendulum of culture once again swung in the opposite direction with the same force: the cult of the body was replaced by the denial of the body, the desire to overcome human corporality by dissolving the flesh and spirit. Christianity is also familiar with such fluctuations; the ascetic tradition in the East knows powerful means of mortifying the flesh - fasting, chains, desert, and so on. Nevertheless, the original goal of asceticism is not getting rid of the body, not self-torture, but the destruction of the sinful instincts of human fallen nature, in the final analysis, the transformation, and not the destruction of the physical being. For Christianity, a whole person (chaste) is valuable, in his unity of body, soul and spirit (1 Thess. 5.23). The body in the icon is not humiliated, but acquires some new precious quality. The Apostle Paul repeatedly reminded Christians:(1 Cor. 6.19). It emphasizes not only the most important role of the body, but also the high dignity of the person himself. Unlike other religions, especially Eastern ones, Christianity does not seek disincarnation and pure spiritualism. On the contrary, its goal is the transformation of man, about about motion, including the body. God Himself, having incarnated, took on human flesh, rehabilitated human nature, having gone through suffering, bodily pain, crucifixion and Resurrection. Appearing to the disciples after the Resurrection, He said:“Don’t you know that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who lives in you”
(Luke 24:39). But the body is not valuable in itself, it acquires its meaning only as a receptacle of the spirit, therefore the Gospel says:“Look at My feet and My hands, it is Myself; touch me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see with Me.”
(Matt. 10.28). Christ also spoke of the temple of His Body, which would be destroyed and rebuilt in three days (John 2:19-21). But a person should not leave his temple in neglect, God Himself produces destruction and creation, therefore the Apostle Paul warns:
(1 Cor. 3:17). In essence, this is a new revelation about man. The Church is also likened to a body - the Body of Christ. These mutually intersecting associations of body-temple, church-body provided Christian culture with rich material for creating form both in painting and architecture. From this it becomes clear why in the icon a person is depicted differently than in realistic painting.“If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will punish him, for the temple of God is holy, and this temple is you”
The icon shows us the image of a new man, transfigured, chaste. “A soul is sinful without a body, like a body without a shirt,” wrote the Russian poet Arseny Tarkovsky, whose work is undoubtedly saturated with Christian ideas. But on the whole, the art of the 20th century no longer knows this chastity of a human being, expressed in an icon, revealed in the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word. Having lost a healthy Hellenic beginning, having gone through the ascetic extremes of the Middle Ages, having become proud of himself as the crown of creation in the Renaissance, having decomposed himself under the microscope of the rational philosophy of modern times, a person at the end of the second millennium of our era became completely at a loss regarding his own "I". This was well expressed by Osip Mandelstam, sensitive to universal spiritual processes:
I was given a body, what should I do with it -
So single and so mine?
For the quiet joy to breathe and live
Who, tell me, should I thank?
Painting of the 20th century presents many examples expressing the same confusion and loss of a person, complete ignorance of his essence. The images of K. Malevich, P. Picasso, A. Matisse are sometimes formally close to the icon (local color, silhouette, iconic character of the image), but infinitely far in essence. These images are just amorphous deformed empty shells, often without faces or with masks instead of a face.
A person of Christian culture is called to keep in himself the image of God:
(1 Cor. 6.20). The Apostle Paul also says:"Glorify God in your bodies and in your souls, which are God's"
(Phil. 1.20). The icon allows the distortion of proportions, sometimes deformations of the human body, but these “oddities” only emphasize the priority of the spiritual over the material, exaggerating the otherness of the transformed reality, reminding us that our bodies are temples and vessels."Christ shall be magnified in my body"
Usually the saints in the icon are represented in robes. Robes are also a certain sign: hierarchal robes (usually cross-shaped, sometimes colored), priestly, deaconial, apostolic, royal, monastic, etc., are distinguished, that is, corresponding to each rank. Rarely, the body is presented naked.
For example, Jesus Christ is depicted naked in passionate scenes (“Flagelling”, “Crucifixion”, etc.), in the composition “Theophany”, “Baptism”. Saints are also depicted naked in scenes of martyrdom (for example, the hagiographic icons of St. George, Paraskeva). In this case, nudity is a sign of complete surrender to God. Ascetics, stylites, hermits, holy fools are often depicted naked and half-naked, for they took off their shabby clothes, providing
(Rom. 12.1). But there is also an opposite group of characters - sinners, who are depicted naked in the Last Judgment composition, their nakedness is the nakedness of Adam, who, having sinned, was ashamed of his nakedness and tried to hide from God (Gen. 3.10), but the all-seeing God overtakes him. Naked a man comes into the world, naked he leaves it, he appears unprotected even on the day of judgment."bodies for a living sacrifice, acceptable"
But for the most part, the saints on the icons appear in beautiful robes, for
(Rev. 7.14). The symbolism of the color of clothes will be discussed below."they washed their clothes and made their clothes white in the blood of the Lamb"
The actual image of a person occupies the main space of the icon. Everything else - chambers, slides, trees play a secondary role, designate the environment, and therefore the symbolic nature of these elements is brought to a concentrated convention. So, in order to show the icon painter that the action takes place in the interior, he throws a decorative fabric - velum over the architectural structures depicting the exterior of buildings. Velum is an echo of ancient theatrical scenery, this is how interior scenes were depicted in the ancient theater. The older the icon, the less secondary elements it has. Rather, there are exactly as many of them as needed to designate the scene. Starting from the XVI-XVII centuries. the importance of the detail increases, the attention of the icon painter, and accordingly the viewer, moves from the main to the secondary. By the end of the 17th century, the background becomes magnificently decorative and the person dissolves in it.
The background of the classical icon is golden. Like any painting, an icon deals with color. But the role of color is not limited to decorative tasks, the color in the icon is primarily symbolic. Once upon a time, at the turn of the century, the discovery of the icon caused a real sensation precisely because of the amazing brightness and festivity of its colors. Icons in Russia were called "black boards", because the ancient images were covered with darkened drying oil, under which the eye could barely distinguish contours and faces. And suddenly, one day, a stream of color gushed out of this darkness! Henri Matisse, one of the brilliant colorists of the 20th century, recognized the influence of the Russian icon on his work. The pure color of the icon was a life-giving source for Russian avant-garde artists as well. But in the icon, beauty is always preceded by meaning, or rather, the integrity of the Christian worldview makes this beauty meaningful, giving not only joy to the eyes, but also food to the mind and heart.
In the color hierarchy, gold occupies the first place. It is both color and light. Gold denotes the radiance of Divine glory, in which the saints abide, it is the light of the uncreated, not knowing the dichotomy "light - darkness." Gold is a symbol of Heavenly Jerusalem, about which it is said in the book of Revelations of John the Theologian that its streets
(Rev. 21.21). This amazing image is most adequately expressed through a mosaic that conveys the unity of incompatible concepts - “pure gold” and “transparent glass”, the radiance of precious metal and the transparency of glass. The mosaics of St. Sophia and Kahriye-Jami in Constantinople, St. Sophia of Kyiv, the monasteries of Daphne, Hosios-Lukas, St. Catherine at Sinai. Byzantium and pre-Mongolian Russian art used a variety of mosaics, shining with gold, playing with light, shimmering with all the colors of the rainbow. The colored mosaic, just like the golden one, goes back to the image of Heavenly Jerusalem, which is built of precious stones (Rev. 21.18-21)."pure gold and clear glass"
Gold in the system of Christian symbols occupies special place. The Magi brought the gold to the born Savior (Matt. 2.21). The Ark of the Covenant of ancient Israel was adorned with gold (Ex. 25). Salvation and transfiguration of the human soul is also compared to gold, refined and refined in a furnace (Zech. 13.9). Gold, as the most precious material on earth, is the expression of the most valuable spirit in the world. The golden background, the golden halos of saints, the golden radiance around the figure of Christ, the golden clothes of the Savior and the golden assist on the clothes of the Virgin and angels - all this serves as an expression of holiness and belonging to the world of eternal values. With the loss of a deep understanding of the meaning of the icon, gold turns into a decorative element and ceases to be perceived symbolically. Already Stroganov's letters use gold ornamentation in icon painting, close to jewelry technology. Masters of the Armory in the 17th century used gold in such abundance that the icon often becomes literally a precious work. But this ornamentation and gilding focus the viewer's attention on external beauty, splendor and wealth, leaving the spiritual meaning in oblivion. The baroque aesthetics, which has dominated Russian art since the end of the 17th century, completely changes the understanding of the symbolic nature of gold: from a transcendent symbol, gold becomes a purely decorative element. Church interiors, iconostases, icon cases, salaries abound with gilded carvings, wood imitates metal, and in the 19th century foil was also used. In the end, a completely secular perception of gold triumphs in church aesthetics.
Gold has always been an expensive material, so in the Russian icon the gold background was often replaced by other, semantically close colors - red, green, yellow (ocher). Red was especially loved in the North and in Novgorod. Red background icons are very expressive. The red color symbolizes the fire of the Spirit, with which the Lord baptizes His chosen ones (Luke 12.49; Matt. 3.11), the gold of holy souls is smelted in this fire. In addition, in Russian the word "red" means "beautiful", so the red background was also associated with the imperishable beauty of the Mountainous Jerusalem.
Prophet Elijah. Late 14th century Novogorodsk letter
Green color was used in the schools of Central Russia - Tver and Rostov-Suzdal. Green symbolizes eternal life, eternal flowering, it is also the color of the Holy Spirit, the color of hope. Ocher, yellow background - the color closest in spectrum to gold, is sometimes just a substitute for gold, as a reminder of it. Unfortunately, over time, the background on the icons becomes more and more dull, just as the human memory of the original meanings given to us through visible images to comprehend the Invisible Image becomes more dull.The closest in semantics to gold is white. It also expresses transcendence and is also color and light at the same time. But white is used much less often than gold. The clothes of Christ are written in white (for example, in the composition "Transfiguration" -
, Mk. 9.3). The righteous are dressed in white robes in the Last Judgment scene (“His clothes became shining, very white, like snow, as a whitener on earth cannot bleach”
, Open 7.13-14)."they ... made their clothes white with the blood of the Lamb"
Transformation. Theophanes the Greek (?) Beg. 15th century
Gold is the only color of its kind, as the only Deity. All other colors are lined up according to the principle of dichotomy - as opposite (white - black) and as complementary (red - blue). The icon proceeds from the integrity of the world in God and does not accept the division of the world into dialectical pairs, or rather, overcomes it, since through Christ everything previously divided and hostile is united in antinomic unity (Eph. 2.15). But the unity of the world does not exclude, but presupposes diversity. The expression of this variety is color. Moreover, the color is purified, revealed in its original essence, without reflections. The color is given locally in the icon, its boundaries are strictly determined by the boundaries of the subject, the interaction of colors is carried out at the semantic level.White color (aka - light) - the combination of all colors, symbolizes purity, purity, involvement in the divine world. It is opposed by black as having no color (light) and absorbing all colors. Black color, as well as white, is rarely used in icon painting. It symbolizes hell, the maximum distance from God, the Source of Light (Blessed Augustine in his "Confession" denotes his separation from God in this way:
). Hell in the icon is usually depicted as a black gaping abyss, abyss. But this hell is always defeated“And I saw myself far away from You, in a place of dissimilarity”
, Os. 13.14; 1 Cor. 15.55). The abyss opens up under the feet of the Risen Christ, standing on the broken gates of hell (composition "Resurrection. Descent into Hell"). From Hell, Christ brings Adam and Eve, the forefathers, whose sin plunged humanity into the power of death and slavery to sin."Death! where is your pity? hell! where is your victory?
Resurrection (Descent into Hell). Late XIV - early XV century.
In the composition “Crucifixion”, a black hole is exposed under the Calvary Cross, in which Adam’s head is visible - the first man, Adam, sinned and died, the second Adam is Christ,, sinless, resurrected, opening the way out for everyone"death tramples death"
(1 Pet. 2.9). A cave is drawn in black, from which a snake crawls out, struck by St. George ("Miracle of George about the serpent"). In other cases, the use of black is excluded. For example, the contour of figures, which at a distance seems black, is actually usually written in dark red, brown, but not black. In the transfigured world there is no place for darkness, for"darkness into wondrous light"
(1 John 1.5)."God is light and there is no darkness in Him"
George's miracle about the snake. 14th century
Red and blue colors form an antinomic unity. They usually perform together. Red and blue symbolize mercy and truth, beauty and goodness, earthly and heavenly, that is, those principles that are divided and oppose in the fallen world, but unite and interact in God (Ps. 84.11). The clothes of the Savior are written in red and blue. Usually it is a chiton of red (cherry) color and a blue himation. The mystery of the Incarnation is expressed through these colors: red symbolizes earthly, human nature, blood, life, martyrdom, suffering, but at the same time it is also a royal color (purple); blue color conveys the beginning of the divine, heavenly, the incomprehensibility of mystery, the depth of revelation. In Jesus Christ, these opposite worlds are united, just as two natures, divine and human, are united in Him, for He is perfect God and perfect Man.The colors of the clothes of the Mother of God are the same - red and blue, but they are arranged in a different order: a blue robe, over which there is a red (cherry) dress, maforium. Heavenly and earthly in it are connected differently. If Christ is the Eternal God who became a man, then she is an earthly woman who gave birth to God. The God-manhood of Christ is, as it were, mirrored in the Mother of God. The mystery of the Incarnation is what makes Mary the Theotokos. The last step of God's descent into the world is the first step of our ascent to Him, at this step we are met by the Mother of God. In the combination of red and blue in the image of the Virgin, another secret is revealed - the combination of motherhood and virginity.
The combination of red and blue can be seen in the icons, which in one way or another relate to the mystery of the Incarnation - “The Savior in Strength”, “Burning Bush”, “St. Trinity” (for details on the semantics of these icons, see other chapters).
Red and blue are found in the image of angelic ranks. For example, often the archangel Michael is depicted in such clothes, which symbolically conveys his name "Who is like God." Images of seraphim are blazing in red (“seraphim” means fiery), cherubim are written in blue.
The red color is found in the clothes of the martyrs as a symbol of blood and fire, communion with the sacrifice of Christ, a symbol of fiery baptism, through which they receive the incorruptible crown of the Kingdom of Heaven.
“Color in painting,” according to St. John of Damascus, - attracts to contemplation and, like a meadow, delighting the eyesight, imperceptibly pours divine glory into my soul.
Color in an icon is inextricably linked with light. The icon is painted with light. Icon technology involves certain stages of work, which correspond to the imposition of colors from dark to light: for example, to paint a face, first they put sankir (dark olive color), then they make a deepening (overlaying ocher from dark to light), then comes the blush and the last queue write spaces, whitening engines. The gradual lightening of the face shows the effect of divine light, transforming the personality of a person, revealing light in him. About about Life is likeness to light, for Christ said of Himself:
(John 8:12), and to His disciples He said the same:"I am the light of the world"
(Mt. 5.14)."you are the light of the world"
The icon does not know chiaroscuro, as it depicts the world of absolute light (1 John 1.5). The source of light is not outside, but inside, for
(Luke 17.21). The world of the icon is the world of Heavenly Jerusalem, which does not need"The kingdom of God is within you"
him (Rev. 22.5)."neither in the lamp nor in the light of the sun, for the Lord God illuminates"
Light is expressed in the icon primarily through the gold of the background, as well as through the luminosity of the faces, through halos - the radiance around the head of the saint. Christ is depicted not only with a halo, but often with a radiance around his entire body (mandorla), which symbolizes both His holiness as a man and His absolute holiness as God. The light in the icon permeates everything - it falls like rays on the folds of clothes, it is reflected on the slides, on the wards, on objects.
The focus of light is the face, and on the face are the eyes (
(Matt. 6.22). Light can stream from the eyes, flooding the entire face of the saint with light, as was customary in Byzantine and Russian icons of the 14th century, or glide with sharp rays of lightning, like sparks flashing from the eyes, as the Novgorod and Pskov masters liked to portray, or maybe like an avalanche pour out on the face, hands, clothes, any surface, as we see in the images of Theophan the Greek or Cyrus Emmanuel Eugenik. Be that as it may, light is the “protagonist” of the icon, the pulsation of light is the life of the icon. The icon "dies" when the concept of inner light disappears and it is replaced by the usual pictorial chiaroscuro."the lamp for the body is the eye"...
Light and color determine the mood of the icon. The classic icon is always joyful. An icon is a holiday, a celebration, a testimony of victory. The sad faces of late icons testify to the loss of Easter joy by the Church. The very word "Gospel" is translated from Greek as Good, that is, joyful news. And the great icon painters confirmed this. Let's take, for example, the icon of Dionysius "The Crucifixion" from the Pavlo-Obnorsky Monastery - the most dramatic episode of Christ's earthly life, but as the artist depicts it, it is light, joyful, not teary. The death of Christ on the Cross is at the same time His victory. The Cross is followed by the Resurrection, and the joy of Easter shines through sorrow, making it bright. “Joy came to the whole world through the Cross,” is sung in a church hymn. This pathos is driven by Dionysius. The main content of the icon is light and love: the light that comes into the world, and love is the Lord Himself, who embraces humanity from the Cross.
The fascination with dark-faced late icons, the interest in the gloomy aesthetics of darkened images, sometimes slipping through our literature, is nothing but decadence, evidence of the decline of modern Orthodoxy, the oblivion of the gospel and patristic traditions, non-church romanticism.
The space and time of the icon are built according to their own specific laws, different from the laws of realistic art and our everyday consciousness. The icon reveals a new being to us, it is written from the point of view of eternity, therefore layers of different times can be combined in it. Past, present and future seem to be concentrated and exist simultaneously. The icon can be likened to a film unfolding in front of the viewer. This is an association of modern man, and in ancient times another image was found, which is echoed by the icon - the sky, folded into a scroll (Rev. 6.14). So, for example, in the composition “Transfiguration”, in addition to the central episode on Mount Tabor, it is often depicted how Christ and the apostles ascend the mountain and descend from it. And all three moments coexist before our eyes at the same time. Another example is the icon "Nativity of Christ" - not only episodes of different times are combined here: the birth of a baby, the gospel to the shepherds, the journey of the Magi, etc. But also what is happening in different places is brought together, the scenes seem to flow into each other, forming a single composition .
Nativity. Second half of the 16th century
The icon shows us a holistic world, a transfigured world, so something in it may contradict ordinary earthly logic. So, for example, in the icon “Beheading of St. John the Baptist” often depicts the head of the Baptist twice: on his shoulders and on a platter. This does not mean that the prophet has two heads, it only means that the head exists, as it were, in various temporal and semantic guises: the head on a platter is a symbol of the sacrifice of the Forerunner, a prototype of the sacrifice of Christ, the head on his shoulders is a symbol of his holiness, chastity, truth in God, Mf. 10.28). Having sacrificed himself, John the Baptist remains intact."Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul"
The space and time of the icon are outside of nature, they are not subject to the laws of this world. The world on the icon appears as if turned inside out, we do not look at it, but it surrounds us, the look is directed not from the outside, but as if from within. This creates a "reverse perspective". It is called reverse, as opposed to direct, although it would be more correct to call it symbolic. Direct perspective (antiquity, Renaissance, realistic painting of the 19th century) builds all objects as they move away in space from large to small, the vanishing point of all lines is on the plane of the picture. The existence of this point means nothing else than the finiteness of the created world. In the icon, on the contrary: as they move away from the viewer, objects do not decrease, and often even increase; the deeper we go into the space of the icon, the wider the range of vision becomes. The world of the icon is infinite, just as the knowledge of the divine world is infinite. The vanishing point of all lines is not on the plane of the icon, but outside it, in front of the icon, in the place where the contemplator is. Or rather, in the heart of the contemplative. From there, lines (conditional) diverge, expanding his vision. "Direct" and "reverse" perspectives express opposite ideas about the world. The first describes the natural world, the other - the Divine world. And if in the first case the goal is the maximum illusory, then in the second - the ultimate conventionality.
The icon, as we have already noted, is built on the basis of the text - each element is read as a sign. We know the main signs of the icon-painting language - color, light, gesture, face, space, time - but the process of reading an icon does not consist of these signs, as of cubes. The context is important, within which the same element (sign, symbol) can have a fairly wide range of interpretation. The icon is not a cryptogram, so the process of reading it cannot consist in finding a one-time key; long contemplation is needed here, in which both the mind and the heart take part. The vanishing point, which we talked about above, is literally located at the intersection of two worlds, on the verge of two images - a person and an icon. The process of contemplation is similar to the flow of sand in an hourglass. The more purposeful (chaste) a person contemplating an icon is, the more he discovers in it, and vice versa: the more a person is revealed in an icon, the deeper the changes in him. It is dangerous to ignore the context, to pull out a sign from a living organism, where it interacts with other signs and symbols. The semantic range of any sign can include different levels of interpretation, up to the opposite ones. So, for example, the image of a lion can be interpreted as an allegory of Christ (
, Open 5.5) and at the same time as a symbol of the Evangelist Mark (Ezek. 1), as the personification of royal power (Prov. 19.12), but also as a symbol of the devil ("lion of the tribe of Judah"
, 1 Pet. 5.8). The context will help to understand in which of the meanings the sign or symbol is used. At the same time, the context is built from the interaction of individual signs."the devil walks about like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour"
In turn, the icon is also included in a certain context, that is, in the liturgy, in the temple space. Outside this environment, the icon is not entirely clear. About how the icon exists inside the temple-liturgical space, the next chapter.
Icon in the Liturgical Space.
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
And I, John, saw the holy city of Jerusalem, new, coming down from heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
I did not see a temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is His temple, and the Lamb.
open 21.1-2, 22
L iturgia in Greek means "common cause". The icon is born from the liturgy, it is liturgical in essence and is not understandable outside the context of the liturgy. The icon reflects the conciliar consciousness (personal revelation, as well as the talent of the icon painter, is not excluded, but included in this consciousness), it is not the work of a single author, but the work of the Church, which is executed by a specific artist. That is why icon painters never signed their works (information about authorship is usually drawn from indirect sources), nevertheless, icon painters have always been highly revered by the Church.
An icon is a work more prayerful than artistic. It is created by prayer and for the sake of prayer. Its natural environment is the temple and worship. An icon in a museum is nonsense, it does not live here, but only exists as a dried flower in a herbarium or as a butterfly on a pin in a collector's box. An icon artificially torn from its environment is mute.
Fr. Pavel Florensky called Orthodox worship a synthesis of the arts; everything here - architecture, painting, singing, preaching, theatricality of action - works to create a single image of another world, transfigured, in which God reigns. The temple is an image of the Heavenly Jerusalem and a kind of model of the world.
The basis of the liturgy is the Word of God. In Orthodox worship, we see, as it were, various “hypostases” of the Word: the Word that sounds (reading the Gospel and the Apostle, prayers, sermons, singing), the Word visibly manifested (frescoes, mosaics, icons), finally, the Word, the Living God, present among the people, gathered in His name, and through Communion made by His Body, the Body of Christ.
The temple in the Orthodox mind is conceived as an image of the world. The world is also St. the fathers often compared it with the temple, which was created by God, as the greatest Artist and Architect (cosmos, ??????, in Greek means “decorated, arranged”). At the same time, man in the New Testament is called a temple (1 Cor. 6.19). Thus, the Christian picture of the world conditionally resembles a system of matryoshka dolls, nested in each other is the cosmos-temple, the church-temple, the temple-man.
The first Christians did not have special churches, they performed their services - agapes - at home or on the graves of the martyrs, in the catacombs. After the Edict of Milan (313), announced by Emperor Constantine, which legalized Christianity, Christians began to build churches for the celebration of the liturgy. But at the end of time, when heaven and earth pass away, the need for a temple will also disappear, as it is written in the Revelation of John the Theologian:
(Rev. 21.22). But while the Church is sailing to the shores of Heavenly Jerusalem, Christians need a temple. It is necessary not only as a place of meetings (synagogue, ????????, meeting, ekklesia - ???????? - meeting), but also as an image of the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Heaven, to which we aspire."The Lord God Almighty is his temple, and the Lamb"
The image of the Kingdom of God was preserved in Christian worship even when there was no temple as such, but those gathered in the name of Christ felt themselves to be His Body, partakers of the Kingdom that is in us and among us (Luke 17:21).
This principle of the “kingdom within” remained even when Christians learned to build temples, for any Christian temple, no matter how beautiful it is on the outside, contains the most important thing inside, all its wealth and splendor inside. This Christian temple differs from pagan temples. For example, the temples of ancient Greece were built with an absolute focus on the facade. Any Greek temple - the Parthenon, the Erechtheion, the temple of Zeus, etc. is an altar in front of which divine services, mysteries, sacrifices, holidays, processions are performed on the square. The portico with a majestic colonnade was an excellent stage for religious and civil events. Inside the temple, as a rule, there was nothing but a statue of a deity. The temple served as a kind of casket for this lonely statue, which only the priest sees.
When Christians needed to build churches, they did not focus on pagan forms of churches, but took as a basis the principle of a civil building - the basilica. Firstly, the pagan cults themselves were so unacceptable in spirit to Christians that they did not want to have anything to do with them, even in the sense of architectural traditions. And the principle of the basilica (from the word "royal", state) - buildings for civil assemblies, quite approached Christian assemblies. Basically, these were oblong buildings with flat ceilings. Over time, Christians added a dome to the basilica, which made it possible to expand its space and comprehend the upper part as a vault of heaven. Domed basilicas became the basis of Christian religious architecture both in the West and in the East. Only Western Christianity developed the basilica system, the temples took the form of an elongated Latin cross, and the towers and spiers gave them an energetic vertical takeoff. In the East, on the contrary, the basilica strove for more calm forms of the Greek equal cross in plan, and the development of the idea of the dome gave the temple a sense of cosmicity. This is how cross-domed architecture was born, which came from Byzantium to Russia.
The man-made temple is a reflection of the temple not made by hands, that is, the cosmos, the universe. The anthropomorphism of the temple can also be traced in its forms, especially in early Russian churches: the temple has a head (head) and neck (drum), shoulders (vaults), there are even “brows” - arches above the windows, etc. Christian culture was born at the junction of ancient and Old Testament cultures, therefore, Christians' ideas about the world were influenced by both the Old Testament and ancient philosophy. The Western model of the temple is closer to the biblical ideas about the world as the path to God, the Exodus, hence the dynamics of architectural forms, which captivates those who are in the temple with a powerful stream to the altar. Antique performance about the world as space, more static and contemplative, formed the image of the temple in the Christian East - from Byzantium to Armenia.
But both models of temples reflect to a certain extent the structure of the Jerusalem temple, which was divided into three parts: the courtyard, the temple and the holy of holies. These three parts are preserved in the structure of the Christian church: the vestibule, the temple (naos, nave) and the altar.
The temple was often likened to Noah's Ark, in which the faithful are saved amid the stormy waters of this world, or Peter's Boat, in which the disciples of Christ are gathered, sailing together with the Savior to a new harbor - to Heavenly Jerusalem. The image of a ship has long been a symbol of the Church. It is no coincidence that the main space of the temple is called "nave" or "naos", which in Greek means "ship".
All Christian churches, as a rule, are oriented to the east. The altar is located in the eastern part of the temple. The person facing the altar looks in the direction from which the sun rises, which symbolizes the turning towards God, for Christ is the Sun of Truth. In the morning service, the priest proclaims: "Glory to Him who showed us the light!"
The eastern part is opposite the western. The priests are in the altar. Previously, when the institution of catechumens was active in the Church, catechumens stood in the western part, in the vestibule. At the exclamation of "doors, doors," "come out, catechumens," the doors of the temple were closed, leaving only the faithful inside. The middle part of the temple, the naos, is intended for the faithful.
Vertically, the temple is divided into two zones - mountainous and valley. The upper, domed space is the celestial sphere (in the wooden northern temples this part is called “sky”), the quadrangle is the earthly world. According to this division, the murals are also located.
Temple decoration (frescoes, mosaics) took shape gradually, but by the 10th century theologians had comprehended it as a very harmonious system. One of the interesting interpreters of the monumental paintings was Patriarch Photius of Constantinople. In principle, each temple has its own system of murals, a developed theological program, but there is also some general scheme that was followed when painting churches in Byzantine-oriented countries, including Russia.
Temple decoration begins to develop from above, from the dome. In ancient temples, the composition “Ascension” was placed in the dome, which indicates that the domed space was perceived as the real sky, where Christ retired during His Ascension and from where He will come on the day of the Second Coming. Less often, the scene "Baptism" was located in the dome. Gradually, the image of Christ the Pantocrator was fixed in the canon. Usually this is a half-length composition, in one hand Christ holds the Book, the other blesses the world. We can see such an image in St. Sophia of Kyiv, St. Sophia of Novgorod and in other churches, up to our time. Pantocrator (???????????, in Greek means Almighty, this image shows us God the Creator and Savior, holding the world in His hand.
Savior-almighty. End-XI
Around Christ is the radiance of glory. In the circle of glory are the heavenly powers: Archangels, cherubim, seraphim, etc., they stand before the Heavenly Throne, “singing, crying, crying out and saying: holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts.”Further, the prophets are depicted in the drum. These are the Old Testament chosen ones who heard the voice of God and communicated to the chosen people the will of God.
The dome is connected to the quadrangle with the help of sails - hemispherical structural elements that fill the corners formed at the junction of the cubic body of the temple and the cylindrical drum. The sails are also interpreted symbolically, as a connection between the heavenly and earthly spheres, they usually have images of the evangelists, who also connected heaven and earth, spreading the Good News around the world.
Arches are like bridges between the worlds; they usually depict the apostles, whom the Lord sent into the world to preach the Gospel to all creation (Mark 16.15).
Arches and vaults rest on pillars. They depict holy ascetics - martyrs and warriors, who are called the "pillars" of the Church. By their feat they hold up the Church, just as pillars hold up the vaults of a temple.
On the vaults and walls are scenes from the New and Old Testaments, the lives of the Virgin and the saints, from the history of the Church. The composition of the scenes depends on the theological program of the temple. So, say, in a church dedicated to the Mother of God, scenes from the life of the Virgin Mary, the theme of the Akathist will prevail (for example, the painting of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin in Ferapontovo). The St. Nicholas Church will contain scenes from the life of St. Nicholas, Sergievsky - from the life of St. Sergius, etc.
The paintings are arranged in tiers, which indicates the hierarchy of the world. The upper registers are reserved for the main events - the life of Christ and the Virgin, a little lower - the Old Testament, hagiographic scenes, even lower - ecumenical councils, as a reflection of the life of the Church.
The lower tier is often built from single figures - these are either the holy fathers - the theological, intellectual "foundation" of the Church, or the holy princes, monks, pillars, warriors - those who stand guard over the Church in spiritual warfare. In the Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, which served as the tomb of the Moscow princely house, Moscow princes are depicted in the bottom row - and not only saints. Thus, the real history of the state was included in the sacred history and the history of the Church.
Below, along the perimeter of the temple, there are decorative “towels” with a circling ribbon - this is a symbolic reminder that the temple, no matter how vast and magnificent it is, has the Jerusalem upper room as its prototype, where Christ together with the disciples celebrated the Last Supper.
The murals of the eastern part differ from the murals of the western. The eastern one is dedicated to Christ and the Mother of God. The spherical shape of the apse is symbolically interpreted as the Bethlehem cave in which the Savior was born, and at the same time - the tomb from which the Resurrected Christ came out. The apse also resembles the catacombs of the first Christians, where Christians often served the liturgy on the graves of the martyrs, hence the custom of sewing up a piece of relics into the antimension, which relies on the throne, has been preserved. In early temples, when the altar barrier was low, at the end of the apse was the main temple image - Christ the Pantocrator, often on a throne, in the form of the King of Kings, or the Mother of God, in the form of Oranta or seated with the Child on the throne as the Queen of Heaven. Suffice it to recall the image of "Our Lady of the Indestructible Wall" from St. Sophia of Kyiv. Later, when the iconostasis completely closed the space of the apse from the eyes of the worshipers and the interior of the altar could be contemplated only when the Royal Doors were opened, the composition “The Resurrection of Christ” took the place of the altar image.
The Eucharist is celebrated in the altar, so the composition “Communion of the Apostles” or “The Last Supper” naturally appears on the eastern wall. This is essentially the same plot, only in the first version its liturgical interpretation is given, in the second - historical. In some churches, the composition “Liturgy of St. fathers." When the iconostasis appeared, the scene of the Eucharist was transferred to its facade and is located above the Royal Doors.
The lower tier was often occupied by the figures of St. fathers, creators of the liturgy, hymnographers, theologians; they seem to surround the throne, celebrating the liturgy together with the priest.
On the eastern wall, on its flat part, as a rule, the Annunciation is depicted: on the right is the Archangel Gabriel, on the left is the Mother of God (for example, St. Sophia in Kyiv in the 11th century, the Martha and Mary Convent in Moscow, in the 20th century).
The eastern wall in the semantic plan is opposed by the western one. If the topics related to the Incarnation and Salvation are concentrated in the eastern part, then in the western part - the beginning and end of the world. Often here are depicted compositions on the theme of Shestodnev. But the most important theme of the western wall is the Last Judgment composition. Its meaning is that a person, leaving the temple, must remember the hour of death and his responsibility before God. However, in a historical perspective, some interesting pattern can be traced: the older the temple, the more lightly the theme of the western wall is interpreted, and vice versa - in later temples, the theme of punishing sinners becomes more and more obvious. Let us recall, for example, the interpretation of the western part of the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir by Andrei Rublev. His "Last Judgment" is written as a bright joyful expectation of the coming Savior. In the Church of the Trinity in Nikitniki, the western wall is completely solved in an original way: gospel parables are written here, in which which one is revealed? meaning of the Judgment of Christ. On the contrary, the Yarovo and Kostroma murals of the 17th century. depict the torment of sinners very subtly.
So, temple paintings represent an image of the world, which includes history (Sacred history, the history of the Church and the country), metahistory (Creation of the world and its end), symbolically conveys the structure and hierarchy of the world, carries the gospel, reflects the history of salvation by the Word. Painting is a book from which a person learns important things, receives food for the mind and heart. Now we do not specifically dwell on the artistic merits of certain monumental ensembles, because in this case it is not so much aesthetics that is important as theology. Although, in fairness, it is worth saying that they are directly dependent.
In Byzantium, where a system of temple decoration, common in the Eastern Christian world, developed, fresco and mosaics played an exceptional role. There were few icons in the true sense of the word (although from a theological point of view, an image in monumental art is the same icon) in churches. They were located along the walls and on a low altar barrier. It was the same in early, pre-Mongolian Russian churches. But over time, the role of the actual icons in Russia increases. This is due to several reasons. Firstly, the icon is simpler in technology, more accessible, cheaper. Secondly, the icon is closer to the one who prays, closer contact is possible with it than with a fresco or mosaic monumental image. Thirdly, and this is perhaps the most important thing, the icon as a theological text performed its functions not only as a prayer image, but also as instruction and teaching in faith. In Byzantium, book knowledge had priority, but in Russia, the icon taught faith.
In Russian churches, the iconostasis plays a huge role. The high iconostasis was formed gradually. In pre-Mongolian times, single-tier low altar barriers were common, similar to Byzantine templons. By the turn of the XIV-XV centuries. the iconostasis already had three rows. In the XVI century. a fourth is added, in the 17th century. - fifth. At the end of the XVII century. attempts were made to increase the number of tiers - up to 6-7, but these were isolated cases that did not lead to a system. Thus, the classic Russian high iconostasis has five rows - ranks, each of which carries certain theological information.
The iconostasis is a typical Russian phenomenon, and many researchers consider it a great achievement of ancient Russian culture and an important element of church tradition. Indeed, thanks to the iconostasis, we have first-class works by Andrei Rublev, Theophan the Greek, Dionysius, Simon Ushakov and many other remarkable icon painters. But, on the other hand, the iconostasis had a strong influence on the Russian liturgical tradition, and not always positive. Turning into an impenetrable wall (and as a result of this, the design of churches also changed, which began to be built with a solid eastern wall, to which a small apse clings), the iconostasis isolated the altar from the main space of the temple, finally dividing the single church people into “clergy” and “world” . The liturgy becomes static, the people become more passive (there were many more active elements in Byzantine worship: the clergy went out to the middle of the temple, the Great Entrance marched through the entire space of the temple, etc.). O. Pavel Florensky, and after him many researchers, for example. L. Uspensky, put a lot of effort to prove the spiritual usefulness of the iconostasis. In particular, Florensky writes: “the iconostasis does not hide something from the believers... but, on the contrary, points them, half-blind, to the secrets of the altar, opens them, lame and crippled, the entrance to another world, locked from them by its own inertia, shouts to them into deaf ears about the Kingdom of Heaven. To a certain extent, we can agree with this, because the semantics of the iconostasis is really harmonious and consistent, and the main goal of this entire structure is the preaching of the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless, historical retrospection shows that the growth of the altar barrier is in direct proportion to the impoverishment of faith among the people of God, and a tightly closed altar does nothing to awaken this faith. And vice versa, at the beginning of our century, when the first tendencies of spiritual awakening were outlined in the Church, there appeared a craving for low iconostases, revealing to the gaze of the forthcoming and praying flock what the priest does in the altar. Let us recall the best examples of church architecture of that time: the Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv, the Marfo-Mariinsky Convent in Moscow, the Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Sokolniki in Moscow. Today the Church also feels an urgent need for the mutual openness of the altar and the naos, which reveals the liturgical connection of all those who pray in the temple, as a single living organism of the Church.
At a certain historical stage, the iconostasis nevertheless played a huge positive role, performing the most important doctrinal function. In a certain sense, the iconostasis duplicates the church paintings, but reveals the image of the world differently, in a more concentrated form, focusing the attention of those who are coming on the coming Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us consider in detail the meaning of each row of the iconostasis.
The iconostasis is built in tiers, which, like the register in traditional temple paintings, symbolizes the hierarchy of the world. In Old Russian terminology, a row is called a "rank".
The first, lowest, rank is local, locally venerated icons are usually located here, the composition of which depends on the traditions of each temple. However, some of the icons of the local row are fixed by a common tradition and are found in any temple.
In the center of the local rank are the Royal Doors. They are called royal because they symbolize the entrance to the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is revealed to us through the Good News, so the Annunciation theme is depicted on the Royal Doors twice: the scene of the Annunciation with the Virgin Mary and the Archangel Gabriel, as well as the four evangelists preaching the gospel to the world. Once upon a time, to the liturgical exclamation “Doors, doors!” the ministers closed the outer doors of the temple, and they were called Royal, for all believers are the royal priesthood, but now the doors of the altar are closed. The Royal Doors are also closed during the Eucharistic Prayer, so that those who thank the Lord for His atoning sacrifice are, as it were, on opposite sides of the altar barrier. But in order to connect those who stand outside the altar and what is happening in the altar, the icon of the Last Supper (or the Communion of the Apostles) is placed above the Royal Doors.
Sometimes on the wings of the Royal Doors are placed images of the creators of the liturgy of Sts. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom.
Royal doors. School of Dionysius. First quarter of the 16th century
To the right of the Royal Doors is the icon of the Savior, where He is depicted with a Book and a blessing gesture. On the left is an icon of the Mother of God (as a rule, with the Infant Jesus in her arms). Christ and the Mother of God meet us at the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven and lead us to salvation throughout our lives. The Lord said about Himself:(John 14.6);“I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me.”
(John 10.7). The Mother of God is called Hodegetria, which means “guide” (usually an iconographic version of the Mother of God Hodegetria is placed here)."I am the door to the sheep"
Icon of the Mother of God Hodegetria
The icon next to the image of the Savior (to the right in relation to the upcoming ones) depicts a saint or a holiday, after which this temple is named. If you entered an unfamiliar temple, just look at the second icon to the right of the Royal Doors to determine which temple you are in - in the Nikolsky Church there will be an image of St. Nicholas of Myra, in Trinity - the icon of the Holy Trinity, in the Assumption - the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the church of Cosmas and Damian - the image of Sts. unmercenaries, etc.In addition to the Royal Doors, the deacon's doors are also located in the bottom row. As a rule, they are much smaller and lead to the side parts of the altar - the altar, where the Proskomedia is performed, and the deacon or vestry, where the priest dresses before the liturgy and where the vestments and utensils are stored. Deacon doors are usually depicted either as archangels, symbolizing the angelic ministry of the clergy, or as the first martyrs, Archdeacons Stephen and Lawrence, who set a true example of serving the Lord.
The second rank is festive. The earthly life of Christ and the Mother of God is represented here. As a rule, the core of the row is made up of the twelfth feasts, and usually the icons are arranged in this row in the order in which they appear in the church year. Less common is the arrangement of icons in chronological order. For better memorization, we list the "holidays" in chronological order. The rite begins with the image of the “Nativity of the Most Holy Theotokos” (as is known, the church year also begins with this holiday), followed by: “The Entrance of the Virgin into the Temple”, “Annunciation”, “Nativity of Christ”, “Baptism / Epiphany”, “Transfiguration ”, “The Resurrection of Lazarus”, “Entrance to Jerusalem”, “Crucifixion”, “The Resurrection of Christ / Descent into Hell”, “The Ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ”, “Pentecost / Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles” (sometimes instead of this icon they place an image Holy Trinity), “Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos” (with this icon the festive rite ends, just as the church year ends with the feast of the Assumption). Often the "Exaltation of the Cross", "Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos" and other holidays are included in the festive row.
If there are several altars in the temple, they build their own altar barrier in front of each and several iconostases appear, most often the order of the holidays is not repeated, but they try to vary. For example, in the Church of the Trinity in Nikitniki, in addition to the large iconostasis of the main altar, there is a small iconostasis of the Nikitsky aisle, where in the festive row there are icons dedicated to events that are commemorated in the post-Easter time (the so-called “Colored triode”): “Myrrh-bearing women at Holy Sepulcher”, “Healing of the Paralytic”, “Conversation with a Samaritan Woman at the Well of Jacob”, etc.
The third row is occupied by the Deesis rank (from the Greek words ??????, deisis - prayer). This is the main theme of the iconostasis, and the icon "The Savior in Strength" located in the center is a kind of "keystone" of this whole grandiose symbolic structure. "The Savior in Strength" shows us the image of the Lord Jesus Christ at His second Coming in power and glory. He sits on the throne as Judge, as Savior of the world, as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. On the right and on the left are the saints and the powers of heaven, as well as all who come to judgment. Closest to Christ is the Mother of God, She is at the right hand (that is, on the right hand) of the Son, She intercedes before Him for the entire human race.
End of free trial.
Foreword
It is recognized by all that the Russian Orthodox icon is one of the highest achievements of the human spirit. Now it is difficult to find such a church in Europe (Catholic or Protestant) where there would not be an Orthodox icon, at least a good reproduction on a board made of processed wood, placed in the most prominent place.
At the same time, Russian icons became the subject of speculation, smuggling, and forgeries. It is amazing that, despite the many years of plundering such a heritage of our national culture, the flow of Russian icons does not dry out. This testifies to the grandiose creative potential of the Russian people, who have created such great wealth over the past centuries.
However, with such an abundance of icons, it is rather difficult for a person to figure out and understand what is a truly spiritual creation of religious feeling and faith, and what is an unsuccessful attempt to create an image of the Savior, the Mother of God or a saint. Hence the inevitable fetishization of the icon and the reduction of its high spiritual purpose to an ordinary revered object.
When getting acquainted with the icons of different centuries, we need explanations from specialists, similar to the story of a guide who will show us, examining the ancient cathedral, the differences between the ancient parts of the building and later extensions, pay attention to subtle at first glance, but very important details characteristic of a particular time. or style.
In the study of icons, in an effort to better understand these creations of the human spirit, the experience of people who combine professional art history education with a significant length of life in the Church becomes extremely important. This is what distinguishes the author of the book offered to the attention of a respected reader. In a lively and accessible form, the book tells about the first Christian images. Initially, these were symbols: a fish, an anchor, a cross. Then came the transition from a symbol to an icon, if we recall the image of the good shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders. And finally, early icons appeared - a synthesis of ancient painting and the Christian worldview. The explanation of the meaning of the icon image from early Byzantine to Russian helps to understand what an icon is, what its style, symbolism, and artistic language are. Knowing this language, we can understand the true meaning of genuine masterpieces and distinguish them from unsuccessful attempts at imitation.
Today Russia is once again called to a spiritual rebirth. Awareness of the best and most valuable in the Christian, and especially in the Orthodox tradition, is absolutely necessary to create a fruitful atmosphere in which the revival of old and the emergence of new paths in religious art will become possible.
Archpriest Alexander Borisov
Preface to the second edition
In the Orthodox tradition, the icon occupies an exceptional place. In the minds of many people around the world, Orthodoxy is identified primarily with Byzantine and ancient Russian icons. Few people are familiar with Orthodox theology, few know the social teachings of the Orthodox Church, and few go to Orthodox churches. But reproductions from Byzantine and Russian icons can be seen both in the Orthodox, and in the Catholic, Protestant and even non-Christian environment. The icon is a silent and eloquent preacher of Orthodoxy not only within the Church, but also in a world alien to her, and even hostile to her. According to L. Uspensky, “if during the period of iconoclasm the Church fought for the icon, then in our time the icon is fighting for the Church.” The icon fights for Orthodoxy, for truth, for beauty. Ultimately, she fights for the human soul, because the salvation of the soul is the purpose and meaning of the existence of the Church.
Much has been written about the theology of the icon to date, and it is difficult to say anything fundamentally new on this subject. The “discovery” of the icon at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when ancient images began to be removed from their frames and cleared away, gave rise to an extensive literature: among the most significant icon studies works of the first half of the 20th century, one should include “Three Essays on the Russian Icon” by E. Trubetskoy and "Iconostasis" of St. Pavel Florensky. In the second half of the 20th century, "Russian Paris" gave a fundamental study "The Theology of the Icon in the Orthodox Church", written by L. A. Uspensky. Among the most significant works on the theology of the icon that appeared in the last decades of the 20th century, one should also mention the brilliant study of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn "The Icon of Christ", the book by Hieromonk Gabriel Bunge "The Other Comforter", dedicated to the iconography of the Holy Trinity, and the "Conversations of the icon painter" by the archimandrite Zeno (Theodora). In the same row is the brilliant study of I. K. Yazykova “Co-creation of the image. The Theology of the Icon”, which is now in its second edition.
The book by I.K. Yazykova was written as a textbook for theological schools and came out in a large edition, which has already sold out, since this book turned out to be in demand by icon painters, students of secular educational institutions and just people interested in Orthodox art. And reader interest in it does not dry out. If ten years ago attention to the topic was due to the reader's need to fill in the lack of spiritual information, today the interest in the topic of the icon is already explained by reasons of a deeper order. Every year there is a growing understanding of the need to preserve traditional Christian values that the world is losing. Along with this, there is a growing understanding of the significance of the Church and church culture for Russia. But modern man needs a guide to the world of tradition, the language of which, like any language, must be mastered before accepting the wealth that Orthodoxy has accumulated over two millennia of its history. In this great heritage, the icon occupies a special place.
The Holy Fathers called the icon the Gospel for the illiterate. Today, our compatriots, despite the fact that almost all of them are literate, do not always understand what the Gospel is talking about, they experience difficulties when reading biblical texts. The icon helps in revealing the deep meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
Of course, the icon cannot be taken as a simple illustration of the Gospel or of events in the life of the Church. “The icon depicts nothing, it reveals,” says Archimandrite Zinon. First of all, it reveals to people the Invisible God - a God whom, according to the evangelist, “no one has ever seen”, but who was revealed to mankind in the person of the God-Man Jesus Christ (John 1:18). And in this sense, the icon-painting, appealing not only to the mind, but also to the heart of the viewer, is designed to help, through the contemplation of the image, to get closer to the Prototype. The images of the icon accustom our eyes to seeing not only physical things, but the mind is tuned to the contemplation of the mountain world.
Orthodoxy understands the icon as one of the types of theology. So, E. Trubetskoy called the icon "speculation in colors". In the icon, with the help of artistic means, the main dogmas of Christianity are transmitted: about the Holy Trinity, about the Incarnation, about the salvation and deification of man. It reveals what is inaccessible to the understanding of rational consciousness, but opens beyond words.
The icon is liturgical in its purpose, it is an integral part of the liturgical space - the temple - and an indispensable participant in worship. “In its essence, an icon… is by no means an image intended for personal reverent worship,” writes Hieromonk Gabriel Bunge. “Her theological place is first of all the liturgy, where the gospel of the Word is supplemented by the gospel of the image.” Outside the context of the temple and the liturgy, the icon largely loses its meaning. But sometimes it is the icon that helps modern man to enter the temple.
The icon is mystical. It is inextricably linked with the spiritual life of a Christian, with his experience of communion with God, the experience of contact with the heavenly world. At the same time, the icon reflects the mystical experience of the entirety of the Church, and not just of its individual members. Through the contemplation of an icon, a person joins the prayerful experience of the saints and learns to pray himself, and prayer, even the simplest, is ultimately communion with God. “An icon is an embodied prayer,” says Archimandrite Zinon. “It is created in prayer and for the sake of prayer, the driving force of which is love for God, striving for Him as perfect beauty.”
I. K. Yazykova's book tells about these and many other meanings of the icon. The book is addressed to the widest readership and is written in a language understandable to a modern person, because the Good News, expressed in an icon, is intended not for a narrow circle of theologians, but for all mankind. The task of the Church at all times is the same - to convey the Word about God, the message of salvation, the truth about Christ to everyone and everyone.
The second edition of the book reminds us that our world today is looking for a way out of those spiritual problems and dead ends that are commonly referred to as "postmodern". In difficult times, a person seeks answers to his questions, but they often lie outside this world, which, according to the Apostle, “lies in evil” (1 Jn 5:19). The icon, being a window into another world, can help our contemporaries understand themselves and their destiny in the world. Each icon carries a powerful moral charge, reminding modern man that in addition to the world in which he lives, there is another world; in addition to the values preached by non-religious humanism, there are other spiritual values; in addition to the moral standards that a secular society sets, there are other norms. By discovering the world of the icon, the reader, even the most inexperienced in theological matters, will discover for himself the world of love, beauty, holiness, which means he will see the light that can transform himself.
Hilarion,
Metropolitan of Volokolamsk
Doctor of Philosophy, Chairman of the DECR
Introduction
The icon is an integral part of the Orthodox tradition. It is impossible to imagine the interior of an Orthodox church without icons. In the home of an Orthodox person, icons always occupy a prominent place. When setting out on a journey, an Orthodox Christian, as usual, takes with him a small camping iconostasis, or fold. So it has long been customary in Russia: a person was born or died, got married or started some important business - he was accompanied by an icon-painting image. The whole history of Russia has passed under the sign of the icon, many glorified and miraculous icons have become witnesses and participants in the most important historical changes in its fate. Russia itself, having once accepted baptism from the Greeks, inherited the great tradition of the Eastern Christian world, which is rightfully proud of the richness and diversity of the icon-painting schools of Byzantium, the Balkans, and the Christian East. And in this magnificent crown, Russia wove its golden thread.
The richness of icons often becomes a reason for exalting the Orthodox over other Christians, whose historical experience has not preserved the tradition in all its purity or rejected the icon as an element of cult practice. However, often a modern Orthodox person does not extend his apology for the icon beyond the blind defense of tradition, vague arguments about the beauty of the divine world, and turns out to be an untenable heir to his wealth. In addition, the low artistic quality icon production that flooded our churches bears little resemblance to what is called an icon in the patristic tradition. All this testifies to the oblivion of the icon and its true value. This is not so much about aesthetic principles, as they are known to have changed over the centuries and depended on regional and national traditions, but about the meaning of the icon, since the image is one of the key concepts of the Orthodox worldview. After all, it is no coincidence that the victory of the iconodules over the iconoclasts, finally approved in 843, went down in history as the feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. The dogma of icon veneration became a kind of apogee of the dogmatic creativity of the holy fathers. This put an end to the dogmatic disputes that shook the Church from the 4th to the 9th centuries.
What did the admirers of icons defend so zealously? Not only beauty, but truth. They defended the opportunity to stand before God face to face. We can observe the echoes of this struggle even today in the disputes between the representatives of the historical churches and the apologists of the young Christian movements, which are at war with the obvious and imaginary manifestations of idolatry and paganism in Christianity. The discovery of the icon at the beginning of the 20th century forced both supporters and opponents of icon veneration to take a fresh look at the subject of the dispute. The theological understanding of the icon phenomenon, which continues to this day, helps to reveal previously unknown deep layers of divine Revelation and patristic tradition.
Recently, an increasing number of Christians have valued the icon as a common spiritual heritage. It is the ancient icon that is perceived as an actual revelation necessary for modern man. The icon as a spiritual phenomenon is increasingly attracting attention, not only in the Orthodox world, but also in the Catholic and even Protestant.
This book is the second and supplemented edition of the course of lectures given in many educational institutions, spiritual and secular, in Russia and abroad. The book is intended to introduce listeners into the complex and ambiguous world of the icon, to reveal the meaning of the icon as a spiritual phenomenon deeply rooted in the Christian, biblical worldview, to show its inseparable connection with dogmatic and theological creativity, the liturgical life of the Church.
Chapter 1
Icon from the point of view of the Christian worldview and biblical anthropology
And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.
It is human nature to appreciate beauty. The human soul needs beauty and seeks it. All human culture is permeated with the search for beauty. The Bible also testifies that beauty lay at the heart of the world and man was originally involved in it. The expulsion from paradise led to the loss of beauty, the rupture of man with beauty and truth. Once having lost his heritage, a person longs to return it, to find it again. Human history can be presented as a path from lost beauty to sought after beauty, on this path a person realizes himself as a participant in the Divine creation of the world. Leaving the beautiful Garden of Eden, symbolizing its pure natural state before the fall, a person returns to the garden city - Heavenly Jerusalem, “new, coming down from God, from heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev. 21:2). And this image last book The Bible is an image of future beauty, about which it is said: “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, and it has not entered into the heart of man, which God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Corinthians 2:9).
All of God's creation is originally beautiful. God admired his creation at various stages of its creation. “And God saw that it was good” - these words are repeated in the 1st chapter of the Book of Genesis seven times, and they clearly have an aesthetic character. This is where the Bible begins. And it ends with the revelation of beauty - the new heaven and the new earth (Rev. 21:1). The world is beautifully designed by God. The Apostle John says that “the world lies in evil” (1 John 5:19), thus emphasizing that the world (that is, creation) is not evil in itself, God did not create evil, but it, having entered the world, distorted it beauty. And at the end of time, the true beauty of God's creation will shine - perfect, redeemed, transfigured.
The concept of beauty always includes the concepts of harmony, perfection, purity, and for the Christian worldview, good is certainly included in this series. In Slavic, “kindness” means “beauty” and “good” at the same time. The separation of ethics and aesthetics took place already in modern times, when culture underwent secularization and the integrity of the Christian world view was lost. Pushkin's question about the compatibility of genius and villainy was already born in a divided world, for which Christian values are not obvious. A century later, this question sounds like a statement: “aesthetics of the ugly”, “theater of the absurd”, “harmony of destruction”, “cult of violence”, etc. - these are the aesthetic coordinates that largely determined the culture of the 20th century. And in the 21st century, this is only getting worse. The rupture of aesthetic ideals with ethical roots leads not only to anti-aesthetics, but also directly to Satanism. However, even in the midst of decay, the human soul does not cease to strive for beauty. The famous Chekhovian maxim “everything in a person should be beautiful ...” is nothing but nostalgia for the integrity of the Christian understanding of beauty and the unity of the image. The dead ends and tragedies of the modern search for beauty lie in the complete loss of value orientations, in the oblivion of the sources of beauty.
Beauty in the Christian understanding is an ontological category, it is inextricably linked with the meaning of being. Beauty is rooted in God. The Bible teaches that there is only one beauty - True Beauty, God Himself. And every earthly beauty is only an image that reflects the Primary Source to a greater or lesser extent.
“In the beginning was the Word… through him all things were made, and without him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:1-3). The Word, the Inexpressible Logos, Reason, Meaning, etc. - this concept has a huge synonymous range. In the same row, the word “image” also finds its place, without which it is impossible to comprehend the true meaning of beauty. Word and Image have one source, in their ontological depth they are one.
The image in Greek is εἰκών (eikon), the Russian “icon” also comes from this word. But just as we distinguish between the Word and words, we should also distinguish between the Image and images, in a narrower sense - icons (in Russian colloquial speech, it is not by chance that the name of icons - “image” has been preserved). Without understanding the meaning of the Image, we cannot understand the meaning of the icon, its place, its role, its meaning.
God creates the world through the Word, He is the Word that came into the world, that is, it acquired the Image. God creates the world, giving an image to everything, it is no coincidence that in Russian it means - forms the world. He Himself, having no image, is the prototype of everything in the world. Everything that exists in the world exists because it bears the image of God. The Russian word “ugly”, a synonym for the word “ugly”, means nothing more than “shapeless”, that is, not having the image of God in itself, non-essential, non-existent, dead. The whole world is permeated with the Word, and the whole world is filled with the Image of God, one can say: our world is iconological.
All of God's creation can be imagined as a ladder of images that, like mirrors, reflect each other and ultimately reflect God as the Archetype and Antitype of everything. The symbol of the stairs (in the old Russian version - “ladders”) is traditional for the Christian picture of the world, starting from the ladder of Jacob (Genesis 28:12) and up to the “Paradise ladder” of John, the Abbot of Sinai, nicknamed the “Ladder”. The symbol of the mirror is also well known - we meet it, for example, in the Apostle Paul, who speaks of knowledge: "Now we see, as if through a dim glass, guessingly" (1 Cor 13:12), which in the Greek text is expressed: "as by a mirror in divination." So, our knowledge resembles a not too clear mirror, vaguely reflecting the true values that we can only guess about. And God's world is a whole system of images-mirrors built in the form of a ladder, each step of which reflects God in its measure. At the basis of everything is God Himself, the One, Beginningless, Incomprehensible, having no image, giving life to everything. He is everything and everything is in Him, and there is no one who could look at God from the outside. The incomprehensibility of God became the basis for the commandment forbidding depictions of Him (Ex 20:4). The transcendence of God, revealed to man in the Old Testament, exceeds human perception, so the Bible says: "Man cannot see God and remain alive" (Ex 33:20). Even Moses, the greatest of the prophets, who communicated directly with Jehovah, who heard His voice more than once, when he asked to show him the face of God, received the following answer: “You will see Me from behind, but My face will not be seen” (Ex 33:23).
The Evangelist John also testifies: “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18a), but further adds: “He has manifested the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father” (John 1:186). Here is the center of the New Testament revelation: God comes into the world, descends from heaven to earth, binds them. Through Jesus Christ we have direct access to God, in Him we can see the face of God that we could not see before. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and we seen his glory" (John 1:14). Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, the incarnate Word is the only and true Image of the Father - God the Invisible. In a certain sense, Jesus Christ is the first and only icon. The apostle Paul writes: “He is the image (Greek εικόν) of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (Col 1:15), and “being in the form of God, He took the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:6–7). The appearance of God into the world occurs through His belittling, kenosis (Greek κένωσις). And at each stage of being there is its own disclosure of the image that reflects the Proto-Image, thanks to this, the internal structure of the world is built. Christ as the image of God is the second rung of the ladder we have drawn.
The next step is the human. God created man in his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26–27), thereby distinguishing him from all creation. And in this sense, man is also an icon of God. Rather, it is conceived as such and is intended to be so. The Savior told the disciples: “Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Mt 5:48). This is true human dignity, revealed to people by Christ. But as a result of the fall, having fallen away from the source of Being, a person in his natural state of nature does not reflect God, like a pure mirror, he is not in a perfect image, he is really like a clouded glass through which light does not pass. To achieve perfection, a person needs to make efforts (Matthew 11:12), overcome the resistance of his fallen nature, strive upward. The Word of God reminds man of his original calling. This is also evidenced by the Image revealed in the icon. In everyday life, it is often difficult to find confirmation of this. Looking around and impartially looking at himself, a person may not immediately see the image of God in his neighbors and in himself. However, it is in every person. The image of God may not be manifested, hidden, clouded, even distorted, but it exists in our very depths as a guarantee of our being.
The process of spiritual development consists in discovering the image of God in oneself, revealing, purifying, restoring it. In many ways, this is reminiscent of the restoration of an icon, when a blackened, sooty board is washed, cleared, removing layer after layer of the old darkened drying oil, numerous later layers and inscriptions, until the Face eventually emerges, the Light shines, the Image appears. The Apostle Paul (long before the canons of icon painting were formed) writes to his disciples: “My children! for whom I am again in the throes of birth, until Christ is formed in you!” (Gal 4:19). This is how Christian asceticism understands the highest art. The Gospel teaches that the goal of a person is not just self-improvement, as the development of his natural abilities and natural qualities, but the revelation in himself of the true Image of God, the achievement of God's likeness, what the holy fathers called "deification" (Greek θεόσις). This process is difficult; according to Paul, these are birth pangs, because the image and likeness in us are separated: God planned to create a person in the image and likeness (Genesis 1:26), but created only in the image (Genesis 1:27), so the image was given to us, and similarity is given. Everyone receives an image at birth, and we achieve similarities throughout life. That is why, in the Russian tradition, saints are called “reverend”, that is, those who have attained the likeness of God. This title is awarded to the greatest holy ascetics, such as Sergius of Radonezh or Seraphim of Sarov. And at the same time, this is the goal that every Christian faces. It is no coincidence that St. Basil the Great said that "Christianity is likening God to the extent that this is possible for human nature."
The process of "deification", the spiritual transformation of a person is Christocentric, as it is based on likeness to Christ. Even following the example of any saint is not limited to him, but leads first of all to Christ. “Imitate me, as I am Christ,” says the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 4:16). So any icon is initially Christocentric, no matter who is depicted on it: whether the Savior himself, who revealed the Father to us (John 14:9), whether the Mother of God, through whom Christ was incarnated, or one of the saints in whom Christ shone. Plot icons are also Christocentric, especially holiday icons, because they depict the event in which Christ was glorified. Precisely because we have been given the only true Image and role model - Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Incarnate Word. This image should be glorified and shine forth in every person: “But we, with unveiled face, as in a mirror, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:18).
A person lives on the verge of two worlds: above a person is the divine world, below is the natural world, it will depend on where the mirror of his soul is turned, up or down, whose image he will perceive. After the fall, human attention became focused on the creature, and the worship of the Creator faded into the background. The misfortune of the pagan world and the fault of the modern culture is not that people do not know God, but that “having known God, they did not glorify Him as God, and did not give thanks, but were futile in their speculations ... and they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like corruptible man, and birds, and quadrupeds, and reptiles… exchanged the truth for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature instead of the Creator” (1 Cor 1:21-25).
Man is a created being and lives inside the created world. And this world also reflects, to its extent, the image of God, like any creation that bears the stamp of its creator. This is another rung of the ladder we are exploring. However, the image of God is visible in this world only if the correct hierarchy of values is observed, just as through binoculars, when the correct focus is placed, objects remote from the eyes are visible. And the created world bears witness to God. It is no coincidence that the holy fathers said that God gave man two books for knowledge - the Book of Scripture and the Book of Creation, the first reveals to us the mercy of the Savior, the second - the wisdom of the Creator. We read the book of creation by "considering the creations" (Rom. 1:20). This so-called level of natural revelation, and it was available to the world before Christ. But in creation the image of God is even more diminished than in man, since sin has entered the world and the world lies in evil. Each lower step reflects not only the Archetype, but also the previous one; against this background, the role of man is very clearly visible, since “the creation did not submit voluntarily” and “waits for the salvation of the sons of God” (Rom. 8:19–20). A person who has corrected the image of God in himself distorts this image in all creation. All the ecological problems of the modern world stem from this. Their decision is closely connected with the inner transformation of the person himself. The revelation of the new heaven and new earth reveals the mystery of the future creation, for "the image of this world is passing away" (1 Cor 7:31). But one day the Image of the Creator will shine through the creation in all its beauty and light. The Russian poet F.I. Tyutchev saw this prospect as follows:
When the last hour of nature strikes,
The composition of the earthly parts will collapse,
Everything visible around will be covered by water
And God's Face will be displayed in them.
And finally, the last, fifth step of the ladder we have drawn is the icon itself, and more broadly, the creation of human hands, all human creativity. Ideally, all human creativity is iconological, should become a mirror of the glory of God. Today, only an icon can claim this. But it also becomes such only when it is included in the system of mirror-images described by us, reflecting the Proto-Image; in this case, the icon ceases to be just a board with plots written on it, but becomes a window to the heavenly world. Outside this staircase, the icon is incomprehensible, it does not fulfill its purpose, even if it was painted in compliance with all the canons. Misunderstanding of this spiritual hierarchy leads to distortions in icon veneration: some deviate into magic, crude idolatry, others fall into art veneration, sophisticated aestheticism, others perceive the icon simply as a tribute to tradition, without delving into its content. The purpose of the icon is to direct our attention to the Archetype - through the only Image of the Incarnate Son of God - to the Invisible God. On this path, we discover the Image of God in ourselves, we begin to see God’s plan in the world and in our lives, and then the Lord is glorified in our deeds and in everyday reality the features of the Kingdom of God appear, which, according to the Savior’s word, is among us.
But understanding the meaning of an icon and honoring an icon-painting image are not the same thing. This is where many see a stumbling block. But, as the icon-worshipping fathers emphasized, when we venerate an icon, we do not pay honor to the board and paints, but to the One Who is painted with paints on this board. The veneration of the icon is the worship of the Archetype, the prayer before the icon is the standing before the Incomprehensible and Living God. The icon is a sign of His presence. It does not in any way replace the Living God and does not claim to fully reveal the secret of the future age. The aesthetics of the icon is only a small approximation to the incorruptible beauty of the Kingdom of God, like a barely visible contour, not quite clear shadows and signs; contemplating the icon is like a person who is gradually regaining his sight, who is healed by Christ (Mk 8:24). That's why o. Pavel Florensky argued that an icon is always either larger or smaller than a work of art. Here, the inner spiritual experience of the future is of decisive importance. If a person is ready to hear, God speaks; if a person is ready to see, the Image will be revealed to him.
A person paints an icon, seeing the true Image of God, but an icon also creates a person, reminding him of the image of God hidden in him. A person tries to peer into the Face of God through the icon, but God also looks at us through the icon image. The icon teaches us to stand before God face to face. “For we know in part and we prophesy in part. When the perfect comes, then that which is in part will cease.<…>Now we see, as it were, through a dull glass, guessingly, but at the same time face to face; Now I know in part, but then I will know just as I am known” (1 Cor 13:9,10,12). The conditional language of the icon is a reflection of the incompleteness of our knowledge of the divine reality. And at the same time, it is a sign indicating the existence of absolute beauty, which is hidden in God. Dostoevsky's famous saying "Beauty will save the world" is not just a good metaphor, but the precise and deep intuition of a Christian brought up on a thousand-year-old Orthodox tradition of searching for this beauty. God is true Beauty, and therefore salvation cannot be ugly, shapeless. The biblical image of the suffering Messiah, in whom there is "neither form nor majesty" (Isaiah 53:2), only emphasizes what has been said above, revealing the point at which the belittling of God, and at the same time the belittling of His Image and His Beauty, comes to limit. But from the same point, the upward ascent begins, the restoration of a new Image and a new Beauty in all creation. After all, the death and resurrection of Christ in the Orthodox tradition is conceived as a descent into hell, which is the destruction of hell (as the limit of all ugliness) and the leading of all the faithful into resurrection and eternal life, into the Kingdom of God, from darkness into true and eternal light. “God is Light and there is no darkness in Him” (1 Jn 1:5) – this is the image of true divine and saving beauty.
One of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century, both artistically and spiritually, is the Orthodox icon. Recall that this “discovery” happened on the eve of historical upheavals: the First World War and subsequent revolutions and wars, on the eve of “a whole thunderous period of world history, which will reveal to the world horrors hitherto unseen and unheard of,” E. Trubetskoy wrote in 1916 . It is during this “stormy period” that the icon is revealed as one of the greatest treasures of world art, for some as a legacy of the distant past, for others as an object of aesthetic admiration; for the third, this “discovery” prompted them to comprehend the icon, in the light of it, to comprehend the ongoing events. And one must think that the long process of its gradual “discovery” is being providentially drawn up to this time. If a deep spiritual decline has affected the oblivion of the icon, then the spiritual awakening caused by catastrophes and upheavals pushes us to return to it, to understanding its language and meaning, brings it closer, makes it feel: it not only opens up as the past, but also comes to life as the present. . To characterize it, there are already completely different words. A slow penetration into the spiritual meaning of the ancient icon begins. A spirit was discovered in her, immeasurably higher than one's own, acquired in "enlightenment". It is no longer perceived only as an artistic or cultural value, but also as an artistic revelation of spiritual experience - “speculation in colors”, also manifested in years of confusion and disasters. It is during these days of sorrow that modern upheavals begin to be understood in the light of the spiritual power of the icon and comprehended by it. “Mute for many centuries, the icon spoke to us in the same language as it spoke to our distant ancestors.”
And “again, an amazing coincidence between the fate of the ancient icon and the fate of the Russian Church. Both in life and in painting the same thing happens: both here and there the darkened face is freed from age-old layers of gold, the soot of inept, tasteless writing. That image of the world-encompassing temple, which shone before us in a purified icon, is now miraculously reborn in the life of the Church. In life, as in painting, we see the same undamaged, untouched for centuries image of the Cathedral Church. However, these fates of the Russian Church, having led her out of "worldly splendor" and "well-being", directed her to the path of trials on the cross.
With the establishment of Soviet power, a new worldview is being introduced, generated by the same de-churched culture, but shedding the guise of Christianity. Worldview? it becomes state. In the eyes of the state, all beliefs, including the Church, are reduced to the general concept of "religion", and this "religion" is perceived as a "reactionary ideology", "deception", "opium for the people." This last formula "is the cornerstone of the Marxist view of religion." The church is regarded as a foreign body in the state, alien to it, as the bearer of a worldview hostile to it. The state takes care not only of the material well-being of the people, but also of their upbringing, "the formation of a new man." On the one hand, "... Soviet legislation on freedom of conscience is imbued with the spirit of ensuring the right of citizens to profess any religion or not to profess any"; on the other hand, "an uncompromising struggle against religious views incompatible with the materialistic worldview, social and scientific and technological progress, is the most important prerequisite and decisive condition for the formation of a new person. Thus, the fight against religion is waged in the name of the principle of freedom of conscience, and this freedom is exercised by a series of prohibitions. In particular, any acquaintance with religion outside of worship is prohibited as religious propaganda, and "the teaching of the dogma [...] in churches, prayer houses and private houses to persons who have not yet reached the age of 18 is prohibited."
Both in the Church and in the icon there is a process of purification: everything that was connected with it by obligatory ritual service falls away from the Church. Everything that was layered on the icon is also swept aside. Mechanical production also disappears, which, as we have seen, neither the members of the Committee, nor even the emperor himself could cope with. Icon-painting enterprises of the factory and handicraft type are also being liquidated.
Since religion is understood as an obsolete past that has no place in the new society, everything that was created in this past is accepted only as a cultural heritage and only as such is subject to preservation and study. Everything that has been preserved in churches, including icons, becomes state property, and already in 1918 the state takes it under its care. State restoration workshops are opened, private collections of icons are nationalized, and exhibitions are organized. And at the same time, the hostile attitude of the dominant worldview towards the Church encompasses everything related to it, including the icon. And if in the XVIII-XIX centuries vandalism came from indifference and misunderstanding, now the mass destruction of churches and icons is already happening for ideological reasons. The work of an icon painter becomes, from the point of view of the dominant ideology, not only useless, but also harmful to society.
After centuries of oblivion and retreat from the icon, on the one hand, it is subject to destruction, on the other hand, its discovery goes far beyond the borders of Orthodoxy, into the very world whose heterodoxy and culture caused the enlightened society to depart from it and its oblivion in Orthodoxy itself. The colossal work done by the restorers, who brought the ancient icon back to life, is currently accompanied by an unprecedented number of illustrated publications in different languages, scientific and theological, Orthodox authors, non-Orthodox and atheists. And the penetration of the icon itself into the world of Western culture is proceeding on an extraordinary scale through the mass export of icons from Orthodox countries, their appearance in museums, the distribution of private collections and permanent exhibitions in various cities of the Western world. The Orthodox icon attracts both believers and non-believers. Interest in it is extremely diverse: a fascination with antiquity or in general collecting, the main thing is the craving for the icon in terms of religion, the desire to understand it, and through it to understand Orthodoxy. “For our strongly visually oriented epoch,” writes E. Benz, “it is recommended [...] to turn to the eye, to look at the image. This path to understanding the Eastern Orthodox Church is all the more appropriate because in it the figurative representation of the world of saints, the icon, occupies a central place. And further: “The significance of the icon for Orthodox piety and its theological justification opens the way to the most important points of Orthodox dogma. Because the concept of an icon is a dogmatically central concept that recurs in all aspects of theology. In the eyes of ordinary non-Orthodox believers, an icon is perceived consciously as evidence of Orthodoxy or as an expression in art, outside of a conscious confessional context, of true Christianity in practical prayer terms: in contrast to the distortion of this side in the Roman Catholic image, the icon “induces prayer.” “In icons, everyone will find peace for their soul; they can tell us infinitely much, Westerners, and they can produce in us a holy conversion to the supernatural.” Here the boundaries of time are erased, and interest is shown in the ancient icon along with the later and even modern, albeit for the most part eclectic in nature, but still not deviating from the canonical system. Because the Orthodox icon is the only art in the world that, at any artistic level, even a craft one, bears a revelation of the enduring meaning of life, the need for which is awakening in the modern world.
It is in this respect that the question of the icon was raised more officially by representatives of the Anglican Confession in connection with their attitude to the Seventh Ecumenical Council. At a meeting with the Orthodox in Rymnik (Romania) in July 1974, the question was put by the Anglicans in its true theological context. At the same time, the hope was expressed that the dogma of icon veneration would be expressed by the Orthodox in application to modern reality, since “a deeper understanding of the principles of icon painting, which reveal the truth and consequences of the incarnation of the Word of God, can today help Christians to more correctly assess the Christian teaching about man and the material world. ".
This very formulation of the question testifies to the fact that in our “visually oriented era” there is an urgent need, both for the heterodox and for the Orthodox themselves, to delve into the essence of the dogma of icon veneration and its significance for modern Christianity. In the West, the dogma of the Seventh Council has never penetrated into the consciousness of the Church, and in Orthodoxy itself, during the decline of the icon and the loss of understanding of its theological content, its understanding has become dulled and its capital significance has, as it were, faded away. After all, entire generations of Orthodox were brought up on art, which, hiding behind the dogma of icon veneration, in fact did not correspond to it in any way. Let us recall once again that already in the 17th century, all the doctrinal content of the image was excluded from the Synodic of the Triumph of Orthodoxy. And in our time, on the day of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, one can only, as an exception, hear in a sermon about the connection of this holiday with the icon. In the dogma of icon veneration, the conciliar consciousness of the Church condemned the rejection of the image as a Christian heresy, and the image retained its place in church life; however, its vital significance was no longer perceived in all its inherent fullness, and this gave rise to indifference to its content and role.
In our time, to delve into the essence of the dogma of icon veneration means to comprehend the icon itself not only as an object of prayer and decoration of the temple; it means comprehending what it carries within itself, understanding its consonance with modern man, comprehending the testimony of spiritual experience transmitted from the depths of Orthodoxy, the enduring significance of Christian revelation.
Meanwhile, not only in heterodoxy, but also in the Orthodox environment, one has to face a view that, even in those cases when it is completely well-intentioned, directs the understanding of the icon on a false path. It boils down to the following: the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which revealed the dogma of icon veneration, did not determine the nature of the image, and “the theology of the defenders of icon veneration does not contain dogmatization of style.” In other words, the Church has not canonized any style or kind of art. For a person of modern culture, who often does not have a clear consciousness of the Church, such a view gives reason to believe and even argue that, in addition to the canonical icon, allegedly associated with a certain era and culture, other types or styles of art can exist in the Church, reflecting other eras. .
This attitude is greatly facilitated by contemporary art history. Science pronounced its verdict: iconography, a product of the Middle Ages with its obsolete worldview, ended in the 17th century. Medieval culture has disappeared, and with it the icon has gone into the past. This position, contrary to evidence, is the main one in modern science, which, like the science of the 19th century, sees in the icon a certain stage of cultural development (Byzantine, Russian ...). At the same time, it is curious: the new worldview is considered to be different, breaking the obsolete old one, and the new art generated by this new worldview is incomprehensibly considered to be the development of the old one, from which it allegedly proceeds in the order of succession. Science, free from dogmas, having introduced the icon into the stream of global art, fixed its creativity in the realm of culture and tore it away from the Church. It must be said that already in the age of enlightenment, the Church succumbed to the suggestion that artistic creativity was not her element, and dutifully agreed with this, betraying art to secular culture. But after all, for three centuries the icon survived and continues to live, of course, not because of adherence to medieval culture, but precisely as an expression of faith.
For centuries, the Church has been the creator and bearer of culture. Since theology dominated all areas of life, faith was a common property, and the whole life of people was comprehended and directed by this faith. Art was the expression of this faith, that is, the revelation that the Church brings and which formed the worldview corresponding to it, giving rise to church culture. Revelation remains the same now; our faith remains the same. Church culture continues to exist. But what an icon contains, what it carries, does not depend on even church culture. Culture provides only means of expression, revealing the correspondence of the icon to the Gospel. In this sense, it is characteristic that the Oros of the Seventh Council concludes with the same plan “whether it be the Gospel, or the image of the Cross, or icon painting, or the holy remains of the martyrs.” After all, neither the Gospel, nor the Cross, nor the relics of the saints have anything to do with culture. Consequently, icon painting is also regarded as a sacred property, worked out in the depths of the Catholic Tradition of the Church: “Icon painting [...] is an approved statute and tradition of the Catholic Church, for we know that it is the Holy Spirit living in it” (Oros). And during the period of iconoclasm, the bloody struggle was not only for the right to depict God and the saints, but for the image that carries and reveals the truth, that is, precisely for a certain style of art that expresses conformity with the Gospel, just as confessors went to battle for the same truth. torment for the sake of the words that express it. From the beginning, the artistic language of the icon developed by the Church becomes the property of the Christian peoples, beyond any national, social or cultural boundaries, because its unity is achieved not by a common culture and not by administrative measures, but by a common faith and worldview. At the time of the Seventh Council, the artistic language of the Church was the same as later, although still insufficiently refined and purposeful. The style of the icon was the property of the entire Christian world for 1000 years of its history, both in the East and in the West: there was no other style. And his whole path is only the disclosure and refinement of his artistic language, or, on the contrary, his decline and retreat from it. Because this style itself and its purity is determined by Orthodoxy, a more or less integral assimilation of Revelation. And this language, of course, is subject to changes, but changes within the iconic style, as we see it throughout its almost two thousand years of history.
The attitude to the icon as a legacy of the past and only one of the possible forms of art in the Church contributes to a large extent to the fact that for the majority of believers, the clergy and the episcopate, no discovery of it actually happened. True, it must be said that there was actually nothing to open from a church point of view: there were icons in churches (although most of them were written down, but there were and are also not written down) and people prayed in front of them - so it would be more correct in this case to talk about conversion to the icon. The veneration of the icon has been preserved. Its place in worship and church life has also been preserved. But the doctrinal side of the icon, that is, the Orthodox relationship between the image and the dogma, expressed in conciliar definitions, patristic writings and divine services, disappeared from church consciousness. Therefore, the teaching of the Church applies to any image of a religious plot. Such an attitude towards the icon, characteristic of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, froze in its inviolability, just as another era froze in the Old Believers. The image itself in its Orthodox appearance is used not to be seen and not even to be interested in it. And the appeal to this image after centuries of decline occurs, paradoxically, especially slowly, we repeat, precisely in the ecclesiastical environment. And in itself, the slowness of this appeal to the meaning and content of the icon testifies to the depth of separation from it. “In the meantime, believers and those who belong to the Church diligently look for psychological and other aids to Orthodoxy and empathize with El Greco, Chekhov, and anyone else. If only not to focus on the fullness of the church. And quite conscientiously they are aware of this. But what is surprising here, when until quite recently the eyes of people were simply completely closed to church art ”(from a private letter from Russia). "Just not to focus on the fullness of the church" - that's the point. One of the main reasons for the insensitivity of the icon as an image of the Revelation, and, moreover, of the Revelation perceived by life, is an equally profound insensitivity and misunderstanding of the Church. For many, the Church itself is one of the cultural values (or even spiritual values); it is a kind of appendage to culture and must justify its existence as a stimulus for artistic activity, a factor in achieving social justice, and so on. In other words, here is the same temptation about the "Kingdom of Israel" to which the Apostles fell.
The path of a modern enlightened person to the realization of the Church is the same as to the realization of the icon. And there, and here the same stages of searching, delusions and, finally, insight (speculation in colors). To paraphrase Archpriest A. Schmemann, we can say that in order to feel in the icon something more than a work of art or an object of personal piety, “it was necessary to see and feel in the Church itself something more than a community of believers.”
A believer, even if he is fascinated by an icon, often hesitates: he is not sure that not a pictorial image, but a canonical icon is an expression of what he believes in. He sees icons in museums, and it seems to him that if the temple is decorated only with iconography without paintings, then it has been turned into a museum (we have heard this). Moreover, for the majority, the difference between an icon and a religious painting is often defined as the difference, again, in style: old - new, even Old Believer - Orthodox.
In addition to the above point of view, for which the icon is only one of the possible styles of church art, we note another, which, in fact, is the rationale for the first; it is so widespread that it is reflected in the materials of the pre-conciliar meeting. The approach here is imbued with doctrinal and pastoral care. “Icon painting is an expression of Orthodoxy with its dogmatic moral teaching [...], the revelation of life in Christ and the mysteries of God’s dispensation about the salvation of people.” It's hard to say exactly. But further: "The picturesque realistic direction is a verbal milk for the common people." This setup raises a number of perplexing questions. First of all, the division of the church people along cultural lines is incomprehensible and strange. Is it not the task of the Church to reveal the secrets of God's dispensation to all its members, both civilized and uncultured? After all, Revelation is addressed to a person regardless of his cultural level; in the same way, independently of him, he perceives this Revelation and grows spiritually.
Further: if icon painting “reflects Orthodoxy most fully and exhaustively in all possible depth and breadth”, then, therefore, the “painterly realistic trend” does not possess such properties, that is, it is not a “disclosure of life in Christ”, or, in any case , damages it. Does this mean that “the secrets of God's economy about the salvation of people” are not for the “common people”? But has the Church ever damaged or reduced its teaching to the level of understanding of this or that stratum of the people, introducing people to the mysteries of salvation to a greater or lesser extent? After all, the pictorial realistic trend, being a product of an autonomous culture, is an expression of the autonomous existence of the visible world in relation to the divine world, an expression of life “according to the elements of this world”, even if idealized by the artist’s personal piety. Being limited by the humanity of Christ, it, like any other art in general, except for the canonical icon, cannot reveal life in Christ and indicate the path of salvation. After all, the way to save man and the world does not in any way consist in accepting their current state as normal and conveying it in art, but in revealing how the fallen world differs from the Divine plan about it, what is the salvation of man, and through him and peace. “For if a saint (as he is depicted in a realistic direction) is in everything like himself (that is, a believer), then what is his strength? How can he help a person immersed in his worries and sorrows? The author of these words, an art historian, approaching practically, argues in terms of simple logic, which prompts the correct decision (although in his eyes the icon is “the image of a legend”, “fiction”). The author understands the difference between the content and meaning of the icon and the pictorial image more accurately than many believers and the clergy. And it is impossible to dissuade here that logic is one thing, and faith is another. After all, an icon is not made for God, but specifically for a believer, and simple logic is not a hindrance here. When St. Basil the Great says that “he who raises the lying one must certainly be higher than the fallen one,” then this is also simple logic, and it refers specifically to spiritual life. After all, the pictorial image is the fruit of that free creativity, not bound by the dogmas of the Church, which the innovators of the 17th century so strenuously sought. If in terms of faith it does not express the Orthodox teaching about salvation, then in terms of spirituality, the work of the artist, autonomous from the Church, based on his idea of spiritual life, that is, on his imagination, can be destructive. But here we will give the floor to persons more competent in this area. “The ability of the imagination,” says Bishop Ignatius (Bryanchaninov), “is in a special development among passionate people. She acts in them according to her mood, and changes everything sacred into passionate. Paintings depicting sacred faces and events by famous but passionate artists can convince us of this.
These artists endeavored to imagine and depict holiness and virtue in all its forms; but full and saturated with sin, they portrayed sin, one sin. Refined voluptuousness breathes from the image in which the brilliant painter wanted to depict chastity and Divine love unknown to him [...]. Passionate spectators admire the works of such artists; but in people anointed with the spirit of the Gospel, these brilliant works, as imprinted with blasphemy and the filth of sin, give rise to sadness and disgust. The artist-creator in the modern sense of the word, adds priest P. Florensky, “depicting chastity and Divine love unknown to him,” can even be guided by pious intentions and feelings. But using only semi-conscious memories of the icon, such artists “mix the statutory truth with their own self-creation, take on the most responsible work of St. Fathers, and, not being such, self-proclaim and even bear false witness. Another modern icon is a crying perjury publicly proclaimed in the temple. And the point here is not only in the personality of the artist, but in the fact that this art, borrowed from Roman Catholicism and alien to the dogmatic premises and spiritual experience of Orthodoxy, applies its means of expression to what they cannot convey, applies them in areas where they are not applicable. . The introduction of this art into Orthodoxy was the result of spiritual decline, and not the result of a distortion of dogma; in relation to the latter, it remained a superficial element, a foreign body, cut off from Tradition and, consequently, from the spiritual heritage of the historical Church. And this art, a product of a de-churched culture, which not only cannot be justified by the Seventh Council, but generally falls outside the scope of its definitions, was proposed, under the name of a milk, to legalize conciliarly in the Church on a par with an icon!
A serious argument in favor of the existence of the pictorial style, along with iconography, is the presence of miraculous images in it. "Both types of church art are acceptable for the expression of Christian truths in Orthodoxy on the basis of the phenomenon of miracles in both types of church iconography." So, if the pictorial style does not express the fullness of the truths of salvation, then this is, as it were, compensated by the presence of miraculous images. This argument raises a basic and fundamental question: can miracles be considered a guiding principle in the life of the Church, whether in her whole, or in any of her manifestations (in this case, in her art)? Are miracles the criterion here? This question, as we have already noted, arose in the 17th century, but in the reverse order: miracles were rejected as a criterion in relation to canonical icon painting, moreover, precisely by supporters of a new, realistic trend in art.
In a miracle, the rank of nature is conquered; the order established by God is violated by Him for the salvation of man. Miracles happen by the mercy of God and within the framework of the commandments and canons, they also happen in violation of the Divine commandment and church canons. God can work miracles besides icons, just as He acts “unworthy”, just as He works miracles with the forces of nature. But a miracle, by its very definition, cannot be the norm: it is the miracle that goes beyond the norm.
The foundation of the entire life of the Church is undoubtedly the decisive and everything-determining miracle for her: the incarnation of God and the deification of man. “It is a marvelous miracle in heaven and on earth that God is on earth and man is in heaven.” This miracle is precisely the norm of life of the Church, enshrined in its canon, which is opposed to the present state of the world. It is precisely on this that the entire liturgical life of the Church is based: its annual cycle is determined by the stages and aspects of this main miracle, and by no means by private miracles, even those performed by the Savior Himself. The Church lives not by what is transient and individual, but by what is unchanging. Is it because miracles have never been a criterion for her in any of the areas of her life and this life has never been equal to them? And it is no coincidence that conciliar decrees prescribe to paint icons based not on miraculous models (because the miracle-working of an icon is an external temporary, and not its permanent manifestation), but as the ancient icon painters wrote, that is, according to the icon-painting canon. This, we emphasize, refers to the Orthodox canonical image, that is, to the full expression of "the mysteries of God's dispensation for the salvation of people."
As for the pictorial style, how can an image become ecclesiastical if it does not express the teachings of the Church, an image that does not carry the “revealing of life in Christ”, and how, by virtue of its miraculous work, does it become acceptable for expressing “Christian truths in Orthodoxy” and is placed on the same level with the image that expresses them? Such an image, if, of course, in its iconographic plot it does not contain a contradiction to the Orthodox dogma, that is, it is not heretical, can serve as the basis for the emergence of a new type of canonical icon (provided, of course, that the miracle is authentic), that is, be churched.
When applied to modern reality, the dogma of icon veneration has significance not only in terms of creed, but also in terms of non-religious. On the one hand, acquaintance with Orthodoxy and the return to the origins of Christianity, so characteristic of our time, inevitably leads to a meeting with an image, an icon, and this means
- to a meeting with the original fullness of the Christian Revelation in word and image. On the other hand, the testimony that an Orthodox icon bears is consonant with the problems of our time, because this problematic is of a pronounced anthropological nature. The central question of our time is man, led into a blind alley by the secularized humanism that has risen on Roman Catholic soil.
The decay of culture and a number of scientific and technological revolutions have led the world to the fact that the question is already being raised about the preservation of man's very humanity, moreover
- about the preservation of humanity itself. Scientific and technological progress is aimed at the benefit of man, at releasing his creative energy, and this progress is marked by hitherto unprecedented achievements. But at the same time, paradoxically, in this world of unprecedented development of science and technology, in the world of modern ideologies, also aimed at the welfare and progress of mankind, there is an irresistible craving for external and internal savagery; instead of the spiritualization of animal life - to the bestiality of the spirit.
A person turns into an instrument of production, and his main value is not in his personality, but in his function. In the daily life of a person, the dominance of falsehood and ersatz, crushing, reaching decomposition in all areas, leads a person to a loss of spiritual and physical balance, the search for an artificial paradise, up to drugs. “Humanity, which we observe and which we are, is a broken humanity. It is broken first of all in each of us [...]. We are upside down, and there is no center that would pacify all this. Divided within ourselves, we are divided among ourselves...” This man, divided in himself, turns out to be the measure of all things in the modern world, and this exaltation, as Archpriest A. Schmemann notes, is paradoxically combined with a belittling of man himself, with a distortion his calling and God's plan for him. The era is anthropocentric, and man, its center, is petty and insignificant. The autonomous man of modern, that is, humanistic, culture has refused to be likened to his Archetype, has not accepted the image of Glory, revealed in the humiliated body of Christ. And with the renunciation of this image of ineffable glory, our [...] civilization began, it began with what, by theological analogy, should be called the second fall into sin. By cutting down his humanity, man has violated the hierarchy of being and thereby perverted his role in relation to the surrounding world, subordinating himself, instead of the Divine will, to the material nature over which he is called to dominate. Having renounced the Creator God, man, declaring himself the creator, creates other gods for himself, more greedy for human sacrifice than the pagan gods were.
On the spiritual plane, open and hidden theomachism evokes a reaction of faith, disintegration and decay - the search for unity, falsehood - a gravitation towards authenticity. In this world of decay, when the question is raised, how can one believe, in whom and what, for what purpose to believe, a person is looking for the meaning of his existence.
And here again there is an amazing coincidence between the fate of the Orthodox Church and the fate of the Orthodox icon. If in the synodal period the leading role belonged to the Russian Local Church, associated with a powerful state, now none of the Churches is in such a position. The rapid development of a dechurched culture has led the Church to limit the means of its influence. But just suppressed by active atheism or heterodoxy, weakened by schisms and discords, Orthodoxy comes out. Today, in the order of mission, it is no longer this or that Local Church that comes to the fore, but Orthodoxy as the revelation to the world of that Revelation, which is the Church herself and which she brings to the world. The very nature of the mission is also changing; it is no longer only the preaching of Christianity to unenlightened peoples, but, mainly, opposition to its dechurched world with its decaying culture. Orthodoxy is opposed to the culture of decay and falsehood as its antithesis, as truth, unity and authenticity, because the very nature of the Church, her catholicity, is the opposite of separatism, disunity, division, individualism.
The Christian Revelation brings a major revolution in the relationship of man with God, on the one hand, and the existing world order, on the other; it brings the restoration of the Creator's plan for the world, or otherwise, the abolition of the inconsistency of the world with the Divine plan about it. “For My counsels are not, as your counsels are, as my dear ones are lower than your ways, says the Lord. But as heaven is separated from earth, so is my way from your ways, and your thoughts from my thought” (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Christianity is not addressed to this or that category of people, class, society, institution, national or social group; it is not an ideological means for improving the fallen world, for establishing the "Kingdom of God" on earth. It is the revelation of the Kingdom of God not in external conditions, but within man himself. “Repent”, that is, “turn” - metanoiete - in the sermon of John the Baptist requires the rejection of the old path and the perception of the new, the opposite of sinful. Whoever is in Christ is a new creation. The old has passed away, now everything is new (2 Cor. 5:17). The entire thrust of the gospel sermon (all the parables about the Kingdom of God, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.) finds its expression in opposition to the paths of the fallen world. The evangelical perspective, as an expression of the very essence of Christianity, is a denunciation of the position that considers natural the decay and decay that reigns in the world. As a reality, truth and the way of salvation, it is opposed to the law of the prince of this world, to that sinful state that is considered normal, is understood as natural, inherent in the creation of God (“such is nature” - the usual justification). But the world, as a creation of God, is good; sinfulness and corruption, division and decay are not his essence, but a state imposed on him by man. Therefore, Christianity does not bring a denial of the world, but vice versa: through a person, healing him, bringing a person himself and the world around him to unity with the Creator. The world of evil, violence and bloody turmoil is opposed to the image of the world transformed in the Humanity of Christ, in other words, its comprehension in the perspective of its final destination.
And in our time, with the emergence of Orthodoxy into this world turned upside down, there is a meeting of two radically different orientations of man and his creativity: secularized anthropocentrism, non-religious humanism and Christian anthropocentrism. On the paths of this meeting, one of the main roles belongs to the icon. The main significance of its discovery in our time seems not to be that it has come to be valued or more or less correctly understood, but in the testimony that it bears to modern man: evidence of the victory of man over all decay and decay, evidence of a different plane of being, which puts a person in a different perspective in relation to the Creator, in a different direction in relation to the world lying in sin, gives him a different knowledge and vision of the world.
Turning to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, it must be said that, in essence, it did not reveal anything new; he only captured the original meaning of the Christian image. Here we will only briefly note those of its main provisions that are directly related to various aspects of modern problems.
Both in the oros and in its judgments, the Council connects the icon primarily with the Gospel, that is, with theology in its most primary sense, revealed, in the words of St. Gregory Palamas, "The self-truth of Christ, Who is the eternal God, became a theologian for us."
Here we are first of all confronted with the Christian concept of the image and with its meaning in theology, and, consequently, with its meaning in the life of a person created in the image of God. “Since man is verbal, that is, in the image of the Word, the Logos, then everything that relates to the destinies of man - grace, sin, redemption by the Word of God, which became Man - everything should also relate to the theology of the image. The same can be said about the Church, about the sacraments, about the spiritual life, about sanctification, about the ultimate goal. There is no area of the study of theology that can be completely separated from the problem of the image without the risk of separating it from the living tree of Christian Tradition. It can be said that for any theologian of the catholic tradition, both in the East and in the West, if he is faithful to the basic principles of patristic thinking, the theme of the image (in its double meaning: the image as the principle of Divine Revelation and the image as the basis of man's relationship with God) must be inherent in the essence of Christianity. “God-enrichment, which is the basic dogmatic fact of Christianity, links theology and image so closely that the expression “theology of the image” seems almost pleonasmic, provided, of course, that theology is understood as the knowledge of God in His Word, which is the consubstantial Image of the Father.”
So, since in the incarnation the Word and Image of the Father is revealed to the world in the one Divine Person of Jesus Christ, theology and the image constitute a single verbal-figurative expression of the revealed Revelation. In other words, figurative theology and verbal theology represent an otological unity and thus a single guide on the paths of accepting the revealed Revelation by man, on the paths of his salvation. Consequently, the image is included in the creedal fullness of the Church as one of the fundamental truths of Revelation.
Justifying the icon by the Incarnation, that is, the Christological dogma, the Council stubbornly and repeatedly refers to the existence of icon veneration since apostolic times, that is, to the continuity of the Apostolic Tradition. True, modern man (with his faith not so much in science as in the infallibility of science) is inclined to be skeptical about this statement, especially since references to antiquity often served as proof of authenticity without sufficient grounds. But in this case, the Fathers of the Council were not based on the data on which modern science is based, but on the essence of Christianity: on the appearance in the created world of “the Image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation” (Col. 1:15 - reading on the day of the icon Holy Savior). When God the Word became flesh, says St. Irenaeus, "He revealed the true image, since He Himself became what was His image [...] and restored the likeness, likening man to the invisible Father." This Image of the invisible God, imprinted in matter, evidence of “the true, and not imaginary God of the Word (oros of the Cathedral), opposes, on the one hand, the absence of the image of God in the Old Testament, on the other hand, the false image in paganism - the idol. In contrast to this false image of God, created in the image of man, Christianity brings into the world the image of the Creator, that archetype covered by the fall, according to which man was created. This image lives in Tradition, which “is the internal, charismatic or mystical memory of the Church. It is, first of all, “unity of spirit,” a living and uninterrupted connection with the mystery of Pentecost, with the mystery of the Upper Room of Zion.” Hence the stubbornness of the Fathers of the Council in referring to the Apostolic Tradition. Since Christian Revelation was from the beginning revealed in a double way, in word and image, the Council, “following the teaching of St. Our Father and the Tradition of the Catholic Church” (oros), affirms the original existence of the image and not only its necessity, but its natural belonging to Christianity, arising from the incarnation of the Divine Personality. Therefore, iconoclasm, despite its also original existence and opposition to the image, which arose on the basis of the Old Testament prohibition and in the spiritualistic currents of the Origenist direction, ran into an insurmountable obstacle and served only to reveal and affirm the truth of Revelation.
For our time, the importance of the Seventh Council lies primarily in the fact that, in response to open iconoclasm, it revealed the icon for all time as an expression of the Christian faith, as an integral part of Orthodoxy. And the dogma of icon veneration is the answer to all heresies (iconoclasm is "the sum of many heresies and delusions," says the Council), by which this or that side of God-manhood and God-manhood itself as a whole, and thereby Christian anthropology. With the dogma of icon veneration, the Fathers of the Seventh Council protect Christian anthropology, that is, the relationship between God and man, manifested in the Person of Christ, and place the center of gravity not on theoretical constructions, but on the concrete experience of holiness. Because "if the incarnation of God's word, as the realization of a true Man, is primarily an anthropological event, then the revelation of the Holy Spirit and His presence in man is also an anthropological event." Therefore, in the victory over iconoclasm, the conciliar consciousness of the Church affirmed the icon as the triumph of Orthodoxy, as the Church's testimony to the revealed truth, because Christian anthropology found its most vivid and direct expression precisely in the Orthodox icon. After all, it is in it, which reveals the “truth and consequences of the Incarnation,” that the Christian doctrine of the relationship between God and man, man and the world is most fully and deeply expressed. Therefore, to exclude the image from Christian anthropology means not only to exclude the visible evidence of the incarnation of God, but also the evidence of man's likeness to God, the reality of economy, that is, to damage the testimony of Orthodoxy about the truth.
Since an icon is an image of a person indicated by its own name (whether it be the Divine Person of Christ or the person of a person), the truth of the icon is determined primarily by its authenticity, historical authenticity because “the image is a likeness with distinctive features of the prototype”, and charismatic authenticity: God, indescribable by Divinity, unites "inseparably and inseparably" (Chalcedonian dogma) with described humanity. Man connects his describable humanity with the indescribable Divinity.
As we have already noted, the image of the Person of Christ, as evidence of the Incarnation, for the apologists of icon veneration is thus evidence of the reality of the Mystery of the Eucharist. Consequently, the authenticity of the image and its content is revealed in its correspondence to the Sacrament. The faith of the Church differs from all other faiths in that it concretely, physically participates in its object. And this faith in concrete communion becomes vision, knowledge, community of life with Him. This community of life is realized in the Eucharist. Prayer in front of the Chalice is addressed to a specific Personality, because only through an appeal to a Personality, through communication with It, it is possible to partake of what this Personality carries, what is incarnated in it. And this appeal itself requires an image because it does not refer to some imaginary Christ, not to an abstract Deity, but precisely to the Person: “Thou art truly Christ, this is thy Body" In the Eucharist, bread and wine are transmuted by the Holy Spirit into the Divine Body and Blood of Christ resurrected and glorified (Christianity does not know any spiritual resurrection outside the body), salvation has occurred and is occurring through the body "The Eucharist itself is our salvation precisely because it is the body and humanity." Therefore, the image of the Person of Christ corresponds to the Sacrament only if it represents a body over which death no longer has power (Rom. 5:8-9), that is, the Body of Christ resurrected and glorified. Thus, the reality of the glorified Body in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is necessarily combined with the authenticity of a personal image, because the body of Christ described in the icon is the same "Body of God, shone with Divine glory, incorruptible, holy, life-giving." Here the image, as evidence of the incarnation, is combined with eschatology because the glorified Body of Christ is the Body of the Second Coming and Judgment. Hence the warning of Canon 3 of the Council of 869-870.” "If anyone does not honor the icon of the Savior Christ, let him not see His sign at the Second Coming." In other words, only the double realism of the image, which combines the pictorial and the unpicturable, is conjugated with the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And this correlation of the Sacrament with the image excludes any image that reveals only a servile specter or an abstract concept.
Just as the truth of the icon of Christ, so the truth of the icon of a holy man, its authenticity, lies in its correspondence to its prototype. And since the personal experience of deification consists in the union of the described humanity with the indescribable Divinity, when, according to the word of St. Ephraim the Syrian, a person, “having enlightened the eyes of the heart, always sees the Lord in himself as in a mirror” and in “the same image is transformed” (2 Cor. 3:18), then he is also described not according to the image of corruptible flesh, but according to the image and likeness of the glorified Body of Christ.
A caveat should be made here. Theology does not deal with abstract concepts, like philosophy, but with a concrete fact given in Revelation and transcending the ways of human expression. Iconography faces the same fact. Since the Christian Revelation transcends both words and images, neither its verbal nor figurative expression in itself can express God, communicate an adequate concept of Him, His direct knowledge. In this sense, they are always a failure, because they are called upon to convey the incomprehensible in the comprehensible, the inconceivable in the pictorial, to convey something different, alien to the creature. But their value lies precisely in the fact that both theology and the icon reach the heights of human capabilities and turn out to be insufficient. After all, God is revealed by the Cross, that is, the ultimate failure. It is through this very failure, inconsistency, that both theology and the icon are called to testify and make tangible the presence of God, comprehensible in the experience of holiness.
In this area, V. Lossky said in his lectures, both in theology and in icon painting, there are two heresies that are opposite to one another. The first heresy is "humanization" (immanentization), the reduction of Divine transcendence to the level of our worldly concepts. In art, the Renaissance can serve as an example; in theology, rationalism, which reduces Divine truths to human philosophy. It is theology without failure and art without failure. This is a beautiful art, but it limits the humanity of Christ and in no way reveals the God-man. The second heresy is the deliberate inclination to failure, the rejection of all expression. In art, this is iconoclasm, the denial of the immanence of the Deity, that is, the very incarnation. In theology, this is fideism. In the first heresy, we have impious art and impious thought; in the second, impiety is covered with the appearance of piety.
These two positions, opposite in their manifestations, have the same anthropological premises as their starting point. If “in the Eastern patristic perspective, participation in the divine life is what makes a person human, not only in the final accomplishment, but from his very creation and at every moment of his life”, then “Western theology traditionally considers it proven that the very act of creation presupposes that man is not only other-natural to God, but that he is given an existence that is autonomous as such: God-seeing may be the goal of the individual experience of some mystics, but it is not a condition for the true humanity of man. There are two fundamentally different understandings of the purpose of a person, his life and creativity: on the one hand, Orthodox anthropology, understood as the realization by a person of God-likeness, which is revealed in an existential, vital, creative way and thereby determines the content of the Orthodox image. On the other hand, there is the anthropology of Western confessions, which affirm the autonomy of man from God; man, although created in the image of God, but, being autonomous, does not correspond with his Prototype. This is the basis for the development of humanism with its autonomous from the Church, already de-Christianized anthropology of modernity, where the difference between man and other creatures is conceived only in natural categories: man is a “thinking animal”, “social”, etc.
As we have already noted, with the introduction of the Filioque and, in the future, with the belittling of the personal principle, along with the doctrine of the creatureliness of grace (see the previous chapter), a different, non-Orthodox relationship between man and God, man and the world is affirmed. The autonomy of man from God affirms the autonomy of his mind and other aspects of his activity. Already Thomas Aquinas recognized natural reason as completely independent and independent of faith. And “it is from Thomas Aquinas that the break between Christianity and culture must be led, which turned out to be so fatal for the entire Christian culture of the West [...], the entire tragic meaning of which has now been revealed with full force.”
As for artistic creativity, already the Caroline Books, in contradiction with the Seventh Ecumenical Council, tearing it away from the conciliar experience of the Church, affirmed its autonomy and thereby predetermined its entire future path. The essence of the provision of the Seventh Council, which affirmed the icon as a path of salvation equivalent to the word of the Gospel, was completely incomprehensible to the Frankish theologians of Charlemagne, alien and therefore unacceptable. Formally, Roman Catholicism recognizes the Seventh Ecumenical Council and professes the dogma of icon veneration. But in essence and in practice the position expressed in the Caroline Books is his official position to this day.
If in the West back in the 12th and partly in the 13th centuries the image correlates with Christian anthropology, then its gradual distortion leads art to a final break with it. Autonomous from the Church, art is limited to what does not exceed the natural properties of man. Since there is no penetration of the uncreated into the created, then grace, as a created gift of God, can only improve the natural properties of man. The transmission of the illusion of the visible world, from which Christianity resolutely turned away from the beginning, is now becoming an end in itself. Since the inconceivable is conceived in the same categories as the visible, the language of symbolic realism disappears and Divine transcendence is reduced to the level of worldly concepts; what Christianity brings is minimized, adapted to human perception. The temptation of good luck "living likeness" floods art in the Renaissance. And with the enthusiasm for antiquity, instead of the transformation of the human body, the cult of the flesh is being established. The Christian doctrine of the relationship between God and man is being led to the wrong path, and Christian anthropology is being undermined. The whole eschatological perspective of man's cooperation with God is cut off. “To the extent that the human takes root in art, everything is petty and profaned; what was a revelation is reduced to an illusion, the sign of the sacred is erased, a work of art is already only a means of pleasure and convenience: a person in his art has met himself and worships himself. The image of revelation is replaced by "the transient image of this world." And the lie of "living life" lies not only in the fact that the traditional image is replaced by fiction, but also in the fact that with the preservation of religious themes, the boundaries between the visible and the invisible are erased, the difference between them is abolished, and this leads to a denial of the very existence of the spiritual world. The image is deprived of its Christian meaning, which ultimately leads to its denial and open iconoclasm. "Thus, the iconoclasm of the Reformation is justified, justified and relativized because it refers not to a genuine sacred art, but to the degeneration of this art in the medieval West."
In this art, which affirms the existing world order, the laws of optical or linear perspective are developed, which is considered not only normal, but also the only scientifically correct method of transferring the space of the visible world, just as the visible state of this world itself is considered normal. This perspective, as priest P. Florensky showed, appears “when the religious stability of the worldview decays, and the sacred metaphysics of the common national consciousness is corroded by the individual discretion of an individual with his separate point of view [...]. Then the perspective characteristic of a detached consciousness appears. This happened in the West during the Renaissance, and in the Orthodox world in the 17th century. This same perspective, in turn, is decomposing in our time, when the humanistic worldview that gave rise to it is decomposing, and with it the culture and art generated by it are decomposing.
Having made church art dependent on the artist, and himself dependent on the era and fashion, the Roman Catholic “Church never considered any style to belong to it, but allowed, in accordance with the nature and conditions of the peoples and the needs of various rites, that typical of every era. "So, there is no religious style or ecclesiastical style." In relation to art, the Church is only a patron, as in other areas of cultural activity. As a result, the meaning of the image as an expression of the conciliar experience of the Church of Christian Revelation turned out to be closed to Western confessions. As is known, the Seventh Ecumenical Council adopts the establishment of iconography to the Holy Fathers, led by the Holy Spirit. “The saints [...] left their biographies for our benefit and salvation, and they handed over their deeds to the Catholic Church through pictorial narratives.” These "feats of salvation" are a vital expression of the correspondence of the icon to the gospel sermon. This is the testimony of St. Fathers "the power and the right to express or formulate the experience and faith of the Church" is the power of teaching. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, removes the power of teaching from St. Fathers and Doctors of the Church and gives it to the artist. “You artists,” says Pope Paul VI, receiving American artists, “you can read the Divine Gospel and interpret it to people.” Thus, in fact, the development of a person's natural qualities (in this case, artistic abilities) is sufficient to make him a "bearer of the divine gospel." This is the same position as in the general direction of theological thought, since Western “modern theology is mainly concerned with discovering God in human experience as such; this leads to the humanization of God and immediately contradicts the patristic knowledge.” By virtue of its fundamental position, Roman Catholicism, following the variability of autonomous culture, accepted, just as in its time, the vitality of the Renaissance, and modern art, which, destroying to the ground old world forms and concepts, came to fragmentation, resulting in decomposition, and sometimes in blasphemy and open demonism. “Contemporary art shows us an image of the world being carried away to a new lot and, as it were, corroded by a thirst for renunciation in order to accelerate its transition into the future [...]. The dizziness of emptiness and the languor of non-being, which for our spirit is absurd, are the echoes of those topics that modern philosophy of existentialism, in particular Sartre, addresses.
And at the moment of the irreversible collapse of this art and the environment that gave birth to it, the icon enters this world of decay and decay as the banner of Orthodoxy, as an appeal to the free will of man, created in the image of God. As evidence of God's incarnation, the icon contrasts genuine Christian anthropology - the anthropology distorted in Western confessions, and the anthropology of de-Christianized modern culture.
As opposed to revealing the properties, even if they are higher, of the spiritual-soul-bodily composition of an autonomous person, the icon, like the word of the Gospel, has the original and constant function of Christian art: the disclosure of the true relationship between God and man.
And just as from the beginning the upheaval introduced into the world by Christ in the flesh, who came, was perceived as a temptation and madness (1 Cor. 1:23), so at the present time in the world, “which did not understand the wisdom of God” (ibid., 21), the icon goes into the world of deceit and self-delusion as a “violence of preaching” (ibid.). It bears in this confused world evidence of the authenticity of the reality of a different being, other norms of life relations introduced into the world by the incarnation of God and unknown to man, subject to biological laws, a different gospel of God, man and creature, a different perception of the world. It shows what a person is called to, what he should be, puts him in a different perspective. In other words, the icon carries a denunciation of the ways of man and the world, but at the same time it is an appeal and a call to a person, showing him other ways. The perspective of the visible world is contrasted in it with the Evangelical perspective, the world lying in sin is a transfigured world. And the whole structure of the icon is aimed at introducing a person to the Revelation that is revealed to the world in Christianity, to reveal in visible forms the essence of the revolution he has brought. And the expression of this revolution requires a special construction of the image, its own special means of expression, its own style.
In this system, with its so-called reverse perspective, “first of all, it strikes a number of features of the form, which sometimes seem like an unsolvable riddle” for a person of new European culture. Therefore, usually these features of the form are perceived as deformation. But this deformation exists only in relation to the eye, accustomed to direct or linear perspective, and in relation to that perception of the world, which in our time is considered normal, that is, in relation to the forms that express our contemporary vision of the world. In fact, this is not a deformation, but a different artistic language - the language of the Church. And this deformation is natural and even necessary in the content that the icon expresses: for the traditional icon painter, both in the past and in the present, this structure of the icon is the only possible and necessary. Growing out of the liturgical experience of the Church (together with other types of church art), it is the opposition of the conciliar experience of the Church to the "separate consciousness" of an autonomous person, the individual experience of the artist with his "separate point of view." Neither linear perspective nor chiaroscuro are excluded from icon painting, but they cease to be means of conveying the illusion of the visible world and are included in the general system, in which the reverse perspective dominates. Here, first of all, it must be said that in this conditional technical term “reverse perspective”, the concept of reverse is incorrect, since there is no direct opposite, a mirror image of the linear perspective. In general, there is no reverse perspective system analogous to the linear perspective system. The rigid law of linear perspective is opposed by another law, as a different principle of constructing an image, which is determined by its content. This principle includes a whole system of techniques, thanks to which the image is (depending on the meaning) either in a position opposite to illusoryness, or otherwise in relation to it. And this system, multi-variant and flexible, and thus free enough for the artist, is carried out steadily, expediently and purposefully.
According to modern science, “it turns out that we don’t see up close the way Raphael painted [...]. Up close, we see everything as Rublev and the ancient Russian masters painted. Let us clarify this position somewhat. Raphael painted differently than Rublev, but he saw the same way, since the natural law of visual perception operates here. The difference is that Raphael passed the natural properties of the human eye through the control of his autonomous mind and thereby deviated from this law, subordinating the visible to the laws of optical perspective. Icon painters, however, did not deviate from this natural property of human vision, because the meaning of what they depicted not only did not require, but also did not allow going beyond the natural perception of the foreground, to which the construction of the icon is limited.
Let us try to illustrate this correspondence of the construction of the icon with its content by several examples.
The spatial construction of the icon differs in that, being three-dimensional (the icon is not a flat art), it limits the third dimension to the plane of the board, and the image is turned to the present space. In other words, in relation to the illusory construction of space in depth, the construction of the icon shows the opposite. If the picture, built according to the laws of linear perspective, shows a different space, in no way connected with the real space in which it is located, in no way correlated with it, then in the icon it is the other way around: the depicted space is included in the real space, there is no gap between them. The image is limited to one foreground. The faces depicted on the icon, and the faces coming to her, are combined in one space.
Since Revelation is addressed to man, the image is also addressed to him.
Building in depth is, as it were, cut off by a flat background - light in the language of icon painting. In the icon there is no single source of light: here everything is permeated with light. Light is a symbol of the Divine. God is light, and His incarnation is the manifestation of light in the world: “Thou hast come, and thou hast appeared, O unapproachable Light” (kontakion of Theophany). But, as St. Gregory Palamas, "God is called Light not by His Essence, but by His energy." Therefore, light is Divine energy, and therefore we can say that it is the main semantic content of the icon. It is this light that underlies its symbolic language. Here it is necessary to make a reservation: the meaning of the symbol of light does not depend on the background color of the icon, but its most adequate image is gold. Although gold is alien to colors and is not comparable with them, nevertheless, the use of colors for the background - light - does not contradict its meaning, which remains the same, although the colorful background, in comparison with gold, reduces its significance. Gold gives, as it were, the key to understanding the background as light.
The glitter of gold is a symbol of Divine glory, and this is not an allegorism and not an arbitrarily chosen similitude, but an adequate expression. Because gold radiates light, but at the same time its luminosity is combined with impenetrability. These properties of gold are related to the spiritual being it is meant to express, or to the meaning of what it is meant to convey symbolically, that is, the properties of the Divine. “God is called light, not according to His essence,” because this Essence is unknowable. “We affirm,” says St. Basil the Great, - that we know our God by actions, but we do not promise to get closer to the Essence itself. For although His actions reach us, His Essence remains impregnable. This impregnability of the Divine is called darkness. “The darkness of God is this unapproachable light, in which, as it is said, God dwells” (1 Tim. 6:16).
So, impregnable light is "darkness, which is brighter than light," blinding, and therefore impenetrable. And so gold, combining blinding brilliance with impenetrability, symbolically adequately expresses the Divine light - impenetrable darkness, that is, something essentially different from natural light, which is opposite to natural darkness.
In relation to what is depicted, this light is the action of God, that is, the energy of His Essence, the revelation of God outside. And “he who is involved in the Divine energy, himself in in a certain sense becomes light," because "the energies bestowed on Christians by the Holy Spirit are not an external cause, but grace, an inner light that transforms nature by adoring it." When this Divine light shines on the whole person, according to the word of St. Simeon the New Theologian, “man unites with God spiritually and bodily; because neither his soul is separated from his mind, nor his body from his soul. God enters into union with all man. And man, in turn, becomes a carrier of light for the outside world.
Thus, light and its action are comprehensible and cognizable, and therefore representable; its source remains incomprehensible and unknowable, covered with impenetrable light-darkness. In accordance with the meaning and content of the icon, we allow ourselves to assert that this property of the background of the icon must be understood as a symbolic expression of the thesis of apophatic theology about the perfect unknowability of the Divine Essence, which remains inaccessible, that is, as the limit set by the creature in the knowledge of God. The Divine Essence always remains beyond the scope of human cognition and understanding, and these frameworks of knowledge and understanding are the result not of dialectical reasoning, but of the experience of Revelation, participation in the uncreated light.
According to the teachings of St. Fathers greatness of man lies not in the fact that he is a microcosm, a small world in a big one, but in his purpose, in that he is called to become a big world in a small, created god. Therefore, everything in the icon is focused on the image of a person. A person autonomous from God, closed in himself, having lost the integrity of his nature, is opposed in it by a person who has realized his god-likeness, a person in whom decay has been overcome (in himself, in humanity and in all visible creation). To the little man, who has lost his unity with the rest of creation, lost in the vast and sinister world, the icon opposes the big man, surrounded by a small world in relation to him, a man who has restored his royal position in the world, who has transformed his dependence on him into the dependence of the world on the Spirit living in him. And instead of the horror that a person inspires in the creature, the icon testifies to the fulfillment of its aspirations, its deliverance from the “slavery of decay” (Rom. 8:21).
Divine energy - light, uniting and shaping everything, overcomes the barrier between the spiritual and the physical, between the created world (visible and invisible) and the Divine world. The whole world depicted on the icon is imbued with the life-giving power of uncreated light. The creature is not closed in itself; but here there is no confusion of the created world with the uncreated. The difference between the two worlds, the Divine and the created, is not abolished (as in the art of living likeness); but vice versa is emphasized. The visible and pictorial world and the intelligible, Divine, inconceivable world differ from each other in techniques, forms, colors. And the penetration into the created being of the light of the other-natural and uncreated brings overcoming the temporal-spatial categories, unites and includes what is depicted in a different plane of being, where the creature is no longer subject to the conditions of being of the fallen world. This is the "Kingdom of God which has come in power" (Mark 9:1), that is, a world that participates in eternity. It is not some unearthly or imaginary world that is depicted, but precisely the earthly world, but brought to its hierarchical order, rank, renewed in God by the penetration into it, we repeat once again, of the uncreated Divine grace. Therefore, both in the construction of the whole and in the details, the methods of constructing an icon exclude any illusory nature, whether it be the illusion of space, the illusion of natural light, human flesh, etc. From the point of view of a believer, there is no breakage of space and distortion of perspective, but on the contrary, there is a correction of perspective, because the world is seen here not in the perspective of a “separated consciousness” and many points of view of an autonomous artist, but from a single point of view of the Artist-Creator , that is, as the fulfillment of the Creator's plan for the creature.
What the icon shows is realized as the firstfruits in the Eucharistic essence of the Church. “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” is the exclamation with which the liturgy begins. This kingdom is different from the kingdom of Caesar and opposite to the kingdom of the prince of this world. Worship, on the other hand, is the entry of the Church into a new time, a new creation, where the disintegration of time into past, present and future is abolished; temporal-spatial categories give way to another dimension. And just as the space depicted on the icon is connected with the present space, so the event that took place in the past tense is united with the present time. The action depicted on the icon and the action performed in the divine service are one in time (the Virgin today gives birth to the Most Substantial...”, “Today the Lord of creation and the King of glory is nailed on the Cross”), the present here is conjugated with the timeless eschatological reality: “Suppers Your Secret today [...] accept me as a communicant.” There is no temporal-spatial gap between the depicted communion of the Apostles and the communicants in the temple. Through communion with the Body of Christ, resurrected and glorified, which the icon shows, the Body of the Second Coming, the Church, visible and invisible, is united, and in a multitude of personalities, living and dead, the unity of blessed nature is realized in the image of the Divine Trinity.
The content of the icon determines not only the methods of its construction, but also the technique and materials. As priest P. Florensky notes, “neither the technique of icon painting, nor the materials used here can be accidental in relation to the cult [...]. It is hard to imagine, even as a formal aesthetic study, that an icon could be painted with anything, on anything, and with whatever techniques you like.” Indeed, just as the authenticity of the image is connected with the Eucharist, so is the authenticity of any substance included in the cult necessarily connected with it. “Your from Yours I bring to You ...” - these words are taken from David’s prayer over the materials collected by him for the construction of the temple: “For Yours is everything and from Yours I give to You.” The Church has preserved this principle, which received in it the fullness of its understanding in the Eucharist: the matter redeemed by the Incarnation of God is drawn into the service of God. Therefore, in the icon, the question of substance is not only a question of strength and good quality, but, first of all, a question of authenticity. In other words, the icon is included in the whole complex of the offering of a person, by which the purpose of the Church is carried out - to sanctify through a person and transform the world, heal a sin-stricken substance, turn it into a path to God, into a way of communication with Him.
As we tried to show, the structure of an icon, its purposefulness and vitality are entirely determined by the content of the image, just like the material used in creating the icon. And “icon painting itself is both a feat of art and a religious feat, full of prayerful tension (which is why the Church knows the special order of saints - icon painters, in whose person art is thus canonized as a way of salvation).” And since this path of salvation is a vital involvement in the depicted reality, it can be argued that it is precisely this involvement that determines the superiority of the icon over the art of modern times in the wealth of ways to express the system of its construction, developed by masters who did not know either the laws of visual perception or the geometry of multidimensional spaces.
Only an Orthodox icon bears witness to the fullness of the Revelation of the trinitarian economy, because the knowledge of God in the incarnate Word, which is the Image of the Father, that is, the economy of the second Hypostasis, receives its revelation only in the economy of the third Person of the Holy Trinity, in the light of the mystery of Pentecost. All the artistic creativity of the Church after the iconoclastic period was directed towards this, and its peak was the revival of hesychasm.
Until recently, ecclesiastical artistic creativity was perceived in art history as “bound by the dogmas of the Church”, subject to a strict canon. And the canon is conceived as a certain sum of external rules, council prescriptions, originals, etc., imposed by the church hierarchy, enslaving the artist's work, requiring him to passively submit to existing models. In a word, the free art of painting is opposed to icon painting bound by canons. Meanwhile, if we talk about rules and regulations, then the opposite is more true: after all, it was in realistic painting that the sum of the rules that the artist had to obey and that he was taught in schools (perspective, anatomy, interpretation of chiaroscuro, composition, etc.) .d.). And it is curious that the artists obviously did not feel this system of rules at all as connectedness and subordination; they used them in their free creativity, which they tried to serve the Church. The icon-painting canon not only does not know such rules, but even such concepts; and yet it was from him that they sought to free themselves. Progressive artists, fascinated by the West, began to perceive the canon not only as an obstacle to their creative freedom, but as oppression. As we saw in the last chapter, it was precisely from the Church, from her dogmas, that they sought liberation, they sought to be excluded from her conciliar work. They were freed not so much from faith, but in the order of dechurching consciousness. For an autonomous artist, the Church, its canon (by the way, we emphasize - unwritten), its concept of freedom, became oppression from the outside. Creativity becomes individual and thus isolates itself. Since the alien began to be depicted in the categories of the natural, the content of the canonical icon becomes incomprehensible; her symbolic language and her creativity become incomprehensible and alien.
And so the chaotic innovation of our contemporary trends in art with their cult of historical novelty, in the icon, is opposed by traditional forms of Orthodox art; the isolated creativity of an autonomous artist is opposed by a different principle of artistic creativity, the individual - by the cathedral. In the Church, everything is determined not by style, but by the canon: all creativity, in order to be ecclesiastical, is inevitably included in the canon. “The canonical is ecclesiastical, the ecclesiastical is conciliar,” says priest P. Florensky. In other words, the artist's work is included in the same evangelical perspective. Because Revelation is not a one-sided action of God upon man; it necessarily presupposes the assistance of man, calls him not to passivity, but to an active effort of cognition and penetration. Man, created in the image of God, in his work, as a worker of God, is valuable only as the bearer and executor of the Divine plan. And the creativity of a person is carried out in a combination of his will with the will of the Divine, in the synergy of two actions: Divine and human. And in this perspective, the artistic language of the Church, as an expression of the Christian faith, is determined in its character by the norm developed by the conciliar mind of the Church - the icon-painting canon in the proper sense.
This norm is the found form of the most adequate expression of Revelation, in which the creative relationship between God and man is clothed. And the canon presupposes not isolation, but precisely inclusion in the conciliar work of the Church. In this conciliar work, the personality of the artist realizes himself not in the affirmation of his individuality, but in self-giving; and its highest manifestation here is that it suppresses in itself the traits of isolation.
The concept of freedom is included in the same evangelical perspective. The Church does not know the abstract concept of freedom, just as she does not know abstract constructions in general. Freedom may not be in general, as such, but from something specific. For the Church, it consists in liberation from the distortions of human nature generated by the fall. A person ceases to be in subjection to his nature, but possesses it, subjugates it to himself, becomes "master of his actions and free." On this path, creativity in the canon is perceived by the artist not as an expression of his individual perception of the world and faith, but as an expression of church faith and life, as a service. He expresses the life in which he participates, that is, he includes his life and work in the totality of other areas of church life, guided by the canon. And in order to be authentic, his work must be in harmony with them, organically included in them. "The Church has many languages, but each of them is the language of the Church only insofar as it corresponds to other true expressions of the Christian faith." In various areas of church life and creativity, the canon is the means in which the Church clothes the path of man's salvation. In the canon, icon-painting tradition fulfills its function as the artistic language of the Church.
So, the icon-painting canon is not a rigid law and not an external prescription or rule, but an internal norm. It is this norm that puts a person in front of the need to participate in what is depicted. This communion is carried out in the Eucharistic life of the Church. Here the unity of revealed truth is combined with the diversity of personal experience of its perception. Hence the impossibility of enclosing the icon-painting canon within the framework of the definition. Therefore, the Stoglavy Cathedral limited itself to the prescription to follow the ancient icon painters and the rules of morality. This canon (norm) ensures the transmission of truth to any degree of participation in it, even if the communion is only formal. The canon is followed by both the artist-creator and the craftsman, both in the past and at the present time. Therefore, the canonical icon is a testament to Orthodoxy, despite the empirically often encountered inconsistency of the bearers of truth, the Orthodox themselves (the canon, we repeat, protects the icon from this inconsistency). At any spiritual and artistic level, and even at a low craft level, the canonical icon, both old and new, testifies to the same truth. Conversely, that part of art that freed itself from the canon, regardless of the talents of artists, never reached that height of artistic merit, not to mention the spiritual height at which iconography stood; it ceased to be a witness to Orthodoxy altogether.
As we have already noted, the Seventh Ecumenical Council did not reveal anything new: it only imprinted the faith of previous Councils in the dogma of icon veneration; because the dogmatic disputes of the past, Christological and Trinitarian, all presuppose the question of the relationship between the Divine and humanity, that is, they concern Christian anthropology. For Orthodoxy, the dogma of icon veneration is the eternal truth of the Christian faith and teaching, enshrined in the Ecumenical Council. Therefore, in the icon we must see the same thing that the Fathers and Councils saw in it: the triumph of Orthodoxy, the testimony of the Church about the truth of the Incarnation. But in iconoclasm, we must also see what the defenders of the icon saw in it: not just the rejection of the image and its destruction, but a force that opposes Christianity, “Christoclasm,” in the words of St. Patriarch Photius. Because if the roots of ancient iconoclasm go back, as Archpriest G. Florovsky showed, to Hellenism, which has not been outlived in Christianity, then its essence was not in the particular case of the struggle with icons: its “basis was that in essence it was about Orthodoxy itself”, that is, the Church. Direct iconoclasm, which was the end of the heresies of the Christological period, led to the opposite: to its condemnation by the catholic consciousness of the Church as a heresy of disincarnation and to the establishment of icon veneration. After the Triumph of Orthodoxy, this seemingly quiet heresy smolders all the time and pours out into all subsequent centuries, changing its mask, changing its forms. After all, iconoclasm can be not only malicious and open: taking advantage of misunderstanding and indifference, it can also be unconscious, unintentional and even pious (after all, the ancient open iconoclasm fought for the purity of the Christian faith, just like later Protestantism). The distorted Roman Catholic image, as we have seen, led Protestantism to a pious rejection of the image, that is, to the rejection of the visible, material evidence of the incarnation, to the "image of the void." This "image of emptiness" has contributed to contemporary theomachism within Christianity itself. At present, "many, especially from the liberal part of Protestantism, consider it indifferent to the existence of Christian preaching whether Christ was God or not, whether His resurrection is a historical fact or not." Such a position naturally ends with "the theology of the death of God," that is, sheer nonsense for both the believer and the atheist.
In Orthodoxy, from contact with heterodoxy in the past, it was the image that turned out to be the most vulnerable. Misunderstanding and indifference to its content led to the fact that during the synodal period, Orthodox icons were thrown out and destroyed from churches as “barbarism”, and replaced with imitations of the non-Orthodox, but enlightened West. Borrowed pictorial realistic trend, "justified" by "semi-conscious recollection of the icon", introduced "perjury", in the words of the priest P. Florensky, perjury about Orthodoxy. This perjury could only confirm unbelievers in unbelief, and inspire believers with a distorted understanding of Orthodoxy and contribute to the de-churching consciousness. Let us recall that for the same reason and in the same period, the intellectual work that nourished Orthodox iconography during its heyday was “destroyed like an infection and destruction,” in the words of Metropolitan Philaret, suffered persecution and was accused of heresy.
So, overt or covert, deliberate or even pious, any iconoclasm, in whatever form it manifests itself, contributes to disincarnation, undermining the dispensation of the Holy Spirit in the world, de-churching the Church. Thus, in essence, we are always talking about Orthodoxy itself. And the struggle for the image of God has never stopped, and in modern times it is especially aggravated because iconoclasm manifests itself not only in the deliberate destruction of icons and in the rejection of them in heresies of the Protestant type; it is also reflected in the desire to destroy the image of God in man, in the most diverse economic, social, philosophical and other ideologies.
The present position of Christianity in the world is usually compared with its position in the first centuries of its existence. “Is not the godless non-believing world of our time, in a certain sense, precisely this pre-Christian world, renewed in all the motley interweaving of pseudo-religious, skeptical, or God-fighting moods?” But if in the first centuries Christianity had the pagan world before it, then today it stands before the de-Christianized world, which grew up on the soil of apostasy. And now, in the face of this world, Orthodoxy is “called to witness” - the testimony of the Truth, which it bears with its worship and icon. Hence the need to realize and express the dogma of icon veneration as applied to modern reality, to the needs and quests of modern man. The awareness of the image as an expression of one's faith is, first of all, the awareness of Orthodoxy itself, the church unity given in Christ. As an expression of the common faith and life of the Church, the icon stands above the empirical divisions of the life and activity of the Orthodox. And the figurative evidence of this unity is important in our time both in the face of the world external to Christianity and in the face of heterodoxy, because the verbal form of expressing Orthodoxy alone is not enough to answer contemporary problems. Namely, "now, more than ever, the Christian West stands in expanded perspectives, as a living question addressed to the Orthodox world." And this question concerns ways out of the impasse in which the Christian West, in particular Roman Catholicism, has found itself. “The Roman Catholic Church,” writes Prelate K. Gamber, “only then will overcome modern errors and come to a new flowering when she manages to join the main forces of the Eastern Church: her mystical theology, built on the great Fathers of the Church, and her liturgical piety [ ...]. One thing seems certain: the future is not in approaching Protestantism, but in internal unity with the Eastern Church, that is, in constant spiritual communion with her, with her theology and piety. And in our deep conviction, it is the dogma of icon veneration and the introduction of the icon into heterodox confessions that will help overcome the main vices of Western confessions, the main differences and inconsistencies with the Orthodox dogma: the doctrine of the creatureliness of grace and philioquisism. Because the icon necessarily presupposes the Orthodox understanding of the individual and the Orthodox confession of the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, and consequently Orthodox ecclesiology.
And it is not at all accidental that in our time the icon is penetrating into the non-Orthodox world. The icon begins to enter the consciousness of a Western person, and if the infection of Orthodoxy by Western art was introduced in a Roman Catholic guise, now the opposite is true: the icon is being introduced into Roman Catholicism and Protestantism as evidence of Orthodox dogma, as an expression of the Christian faith and the path of salvation. “The Christian must,” writes G. Wunderle, “get comfortable with the realism that the icon presents to him; otherwise he will never get close to her secret, and she will be for him only a soulless scheme. For the one to whom it is given to contemplate the Divine in a holy icon, it becomes an unmistakable path to transfiguration in Christ.” In terms of prayer, a believing Christian, regardless of his confession, the icon causes a direct reaction. Due to its clarity, it does not require translation into another language, like a sacred text.
But it is especially important that the revival of the icon begins in Orthodoxy itself, and this revival is a vital necessity of our time. Meanwhile, just like the discovery of the icon, it still goes beyond theological thought and liturgical piety, goes, so to speak, outside its context. If in theology there is nevertheless a gradual liberation from scholasticism, then in relation to the image and its understanding, the inexhaustible heritage of past centuries still affects. As far as liturgical piety is concerned, this inexhaustible heritage is especially evident here, because for many the Tradition of the Church has come to be identified with simple conservatism.
The revival of the icon, we repeat, is the vital necessity of our time. Because no matter how valuable the works that led to the discovery of the icon, what is revealed in it comes to life only in its life realization. In the Church, everything is renewed, and the icon is also renewed. “The Church, always alive and creative, does not at all seek protection for the old forms as such, does not oppose them to the new ones as such. The ecclesiastical understanding of art was, and is, and will be one thing: realism. This means that the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth, requires only one thing - the truth. An icon not only can, but must be new (after all, we distinguish icons from different eras precisely because they were new in their time in relation to the previous ones). But this new icon must be the expression of the same truth. The modern revival of the icon is not an anachronism, not attachment to the past or folklore, not yet another attempt to “revive” the icon in the artist’s studio, but an awareness of Orthodoxy, an awareness of the Church, a return to a genuine artistic transmission of patristic experience and knowledge of Christian Revelation. As in theology, this revival is conditioned and characterized by a return to patristic Tradition, and “fidelity to Tradition is not fidelity to antiquity, but a living connection with the fullness of Church life”, a living connection with patristic spiritual experience. This revival bears witness to a return to fullness and holistic perception doctrine, life and creativity, that is, to that unity, which is so necessary for our time. As an expression of the everlasting truth of Revelation, the modern icon, like the ancient one, bears witness to salvation “prepared before the face of all people”, the vital realization of the revolution that the appearance of the Church in it brought into the world - “the light for the revelation of tongues and the glory of people” of the new Israel . Revelation addressed to man is given to the Church and the Church is being carried out. She is the revelation to the world. And the image of revelation that she brings to this world is the image of the glorified Body of Christ - the image of the Church, the testimony of her faith and holiness, the testimony of the Church about herself. And the whole structure of the Orthodox icon is aimed at pointing out the possibilities, and the paths, and the limits of Christian knowledge, to reveal and comprehend the existence of man in history, his purpose and the path to the ultimate goal.
Trubetskoy E. Two worlds in Russian icon painting. Contemplation in colors. Paris, 1965, p. 111
Ibid, p. fifty.
Trubetskoy E. Russia in its icon Paris, 1965, p. 161
Sedulin A. Legislation on religious cults M., 1974, p. 6
Ibid, p. 46
Ibid, p. 41 See also Zots V. Invalid Claims M.1976, p. 135-136
SU Ukrainian SSR 1922 No. 49, art. 729 Op. according to A. Sedyulin. Op.cit., p.32
Decree “On registration, registration and protection of monuments of art and antiquity” See. Antonova V.I., Mneva N.E. Catalog of ancient Russian painting of the Tretyakov Gallery. M., 1963, v. 1, p. 26.
Benz E. Geist und Leben der Ostkirche. Hamburg, 1957, S. 7.
In the same place, from 21.
For a critical review of the German edition of L. Uspensky and V. Lossky's The Meaning of Icons, see: Catholic Thought. February 14, 1953, No. 75-76 (in French).
In France, in Paris alone, there are at least six icon-painting schools, some with several decades of experience, including the school of the Jesuits, who at one time made especially great efforts to destroy traditional icon painting.
Report of the subcommittee "Authority of the Ecumenical Councils" // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. Paris, 1974, No. 85-88, p. 40. This question continued to be discussed by the same subcommittee in 1976 in Zagorsk.
So, to the question of a Protestant theologian about the significance of icon veneration in Orthodoxy, an Orthodox bishop answers: “We are so accustomed to it” ... From the 18th century. iconography passed into the jurisdiction of a secular artist, free from the dogmas of the Church, and then the study of the icon passed into the jurisdiction of a science free from the dogmas. Only the pious habit of praying in front of an icon was really left to the share of church people. But it happens even worse (this is from private conversations): “Listen to you, one might think that Orthodoxy cannot exist without an icon,” says the Orthodox bishop. “The image belongs to the very essence of Christianity,” writes the Protestant pastor (see: J. Ph. Ramseyer, La Parole et Ílmage, Neuchdtel, 1963, p. 58). As you can see, roles sometimes change: what you expect to hear from an Orthodox bishop is understood and said by a Protestant pastor, and vice versa. Thus, the age-old separation from the image led the pastor to an Orthodox understanding of it. The age-old distortion of the image led the Orthodox bishop to a Protestant attitude towards him.
True, over the past centuries, the Orthodox hierarchy was generally, as we have seen, freed from the need to know anything in the field of church art, the secular authorities and the Academy of Arts decided for it.
Church archeology is taught in theological schools; the creedal content of the image has not yet been taught. For the first time, a course in iconology as a theological subject was introduced at the Seminary of the Western European Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate in Paris in 1954. The clergy have to draw information about the content of the image in scholarly works on the history of art, sometimes with unexpected digressions into “theology.” This, of course, does not mean that we deny the importance of scientific work in the field of knowledge of the icon. On the contrary, we consider them a useful component in the education of the clergy. But they are only secondary and auxiliary material. The basis of knowledge should be the creed content of the image. It is not necessary for anyone to know the history of art; but to know what a person believes in, to know whether the image to which he prays conveys his faith is the duty of every believer, especially the clergy.
If in the 19th century an intellectual was “ashamed to believe”, now “a real intellectual is ashamed to go to church. A lot needs to be cleared in the Church, updated, reorganized so that it becomes accessible to modern consciousness” (priest Dudko D. On our hope Paris, 1975, p 155) The intellectual believes, but wants to adapt the faith of the Church to “modern consciousness”, not to understand the Church, but to adapt it to his own misunderstanding and thereby even save her. we have already noted (see the previous chapter, note 118), by no means a product of our time. As early as the first half of the 5th century, St. Vincent of Lerins wrote “They are not satisfied with the traditional rules of faith adopted from antiquity But day by day they want novelty and more novelty They are always eager to add, change or abolish something in religion” (Commonitorium XXI, French ed. Namur, 1960 , p. 97) So, “whoever speaks and says, this is new, already is in the places that were before us” (Ecclesiastes, 1, 10)
Schmemann, A. Introduction to Liturgical Theology Paris, 1960, p. twenty
See Journal of the Moscow Patriarchy, 1961, No. 1
It is curious that if earlier iconography, as the art of the “common people”, was considered “lack of culture”, now, on the contrary, it turns out that it is intended for the cultural layer, while the “picturesque direction”, which is called “milk for the common people”, is considered lack of culture.
If the Church in her history observed gradualness in communion with the mysteries of God's dispensation, then this was in no way connected with the concept of "common people" and concerned people who were preparing to receive baptism, catechumens
Kornilovich K. From the chronicle of Russian art M-L, 1960, p. 89
Creations Ed. 3rd, Sergiev Posad, 1892, part 4, p. 76
Bishop Ignatius (Bryanchaninov) Works Ed. 3rd corrected and supplemented St. Petersburg, 1905, Ascetic experiments, vol. 3, p. 76
Florensky P. Iconostasis // Theological Works. M., 1972, No. 9, p. 107 (on painting by Vasnetsov, Nesterov and Vrubel).
We note an amusing attempt to present the introduction of Roman Catholic art into Orthodoxy as a “gradual modification of Byzantine art”, and it turns out that Baroque and Rococo were successful for “the majority of the population of Russia”, that Russian masters “did not leave [...] the accepted Orthodox tradition”, expressing a Franciscan type of Christianity. This instructive digression into the history of art ends with the advice "to learn from the era that had the privilege of grace" (that is, from the age of "enlightenment"? from the Franciscans?). (See: J.P. Besse. Affinites spirituelles du baroque russe // Contacts, Paris, 1975, 91, o, 351-358.)
Materials of the Pre-Council Meeting // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchy, 1961, No. 1.
See Art of the 17th century. Ch. fourteen.
Abba Falassius On Love, Temperance and Spiritual Life to Presbyter Paul. Paragraph 98 // Philokalia M., 1888, v. 3, p. 319
It must be said that, in general, the range of miracles in qualitative terms is very large, along with genuine, blessed ones, there are “miracles” based on mental neurosis, on innocence, “miracles” are also known that are simple deception, as well as miracles of devilish origin (see Mt. 24:24; just as now they are performed outside the Church
Clement O. Questions sur I'homme Paris, 1972, p. 7
Schmemann A. Is it possible to believe being civilized? // Bulletin of the RSHD, Paris, 1974, No. 107, p. 145-152
For Israel, the coming into the world of the expected Messiah turned out to be a temptation because the promised kingdom of the Son of David turned out to be a kingdom not of this world, and even a kingdom inside a person, the path to which lies through the cross
Cit. by Archimandrite Amphilochius (Radovich) The Mystery of the Holy Trinity by St. Gregory Palamas of Thessaloniki, 1973, p. 144 (in Greek)
Lossky V. Theology of the image, p. 123 (in French)
Ibid., p.129
But if the word ceases to correlate with the visible image, a gap occurs between them, various ways of expressing the truth are separated, and the fullness of Revelation is damaged. The name "theology in colors" or "speculation in colors", which is customarily attributed to an icon, is applicable only when it corresponds to theology in its patristic understanding - as theology, communion with God. Otherwise, patristic terminology can be applied to the image by virtue of a simple phrase, we already encountered this in the 17th century
Against heresies, V, 16, 2
Florovsky G Theological passages//The Way, Paris, 1931, No. 31, p. 23
Both the word and the image live only in Tradition Outside Tradition, the Gospel turns, as it happened, into a historical monument of the first centuries of Christianity, the Old Testament into the history of the Jewish people, and the Church dissolves in the general concept of religion, because "the denial of the significance of Tradition is, in essence, the denial of the Church as the body of Christ, insensitivity and belittling of it "(see Florovsky G. Father's House // Way, Paris, 1927, No. 27, p. 78)
German summary of the book by Archimandrite Amfilochius (Radovich) “The Mystery of the Holy Trinity according to St. Gregory Palamas” see ibid., p. 231
John of Damascus The first word in defense of the holy icons, ch. 9
We note a rather peculiar interpretation of the icon and Oros of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in the book L "An de grace du Seigneur - Un commentaire de l" annee liturgique byzantine par un moin de ÍEghse d "Orient Beyrouth, 1972, t. 2, p. 169 "Recall here , - says the author, - some basic concepts about icons First of all, an icon is not an image, a likeness ”However, according to patristic teaching, an icon is precisely a portrait and precisely a likeness of a prototype, from which it differs in its nature. If an icon is“ not an image and not a likeness ”, then how, according to the author himself, does it still have as its theme “The Person of Christ, the Mother of God” and saints in general "Further, the author tries to convince the reader that "the role of the icon in Christian piety should not be exaggerated. The Church has never obligated believers to have icons in their homes or give them a certain place in personal prayer or piety. But the Orthodox Church never “obliges” anything (the very concept of “obligation” is not characteristic of Orthodoxy, but to Roman Catholicism), it makes determinations for the benefit of its members. So, in the Oros of the Council it says “We determine to believe in God's churches, on sacred vessels and clothes, on walls and on boards, in houses and on paths, it is more honest to honor holy icons with kisses and reverent worship "
See the chapter "Great Moscow Cathedral and the Image of God the Father" See also Meyendorff and Christ in Byzantine Theology Paris, 1969, p. 260 (in French)
Christianity not only does not “dematerialize matter, but, on the contrary, it is extremely materialistic.” From the very beginning, it not only rehabilitates the body, but affirms its salvific ability, affirms the transfiguration of human nature and its resurrection in the body in matter “I do not worship matter,” writes St. John of Damascus, “but I worship the Creator of matter, who became matter for my sake and through the medium of matter made my salvation, and I will not cease to honor the matter through which my salvation took place (First word in defense of the holy icons, chapter XVI and Second word, chapter XIV)
Meyendorff I. Decree. op.
VII Ecumenical Council // Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Kazan Theological Academy Kazan, 1873, v. 7, p. 538
See chapter Post-iconoclastic period
Psalter, or God-thought reflections M., 1904, paragraph 51, p. 107
Meyendorff J. Philosophy, Theology, Palamism and “Secular Christianity” // St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Ns. 4, 1966, Crestwood N. Y., p. 205
Zenkovsky V. Fundamentals of Christian Philosophy Frankfurt am Main, 1960, v. 1, p. 9 and 10
Onimus J. Reflexions sur I'art actuel. Paris, 1964, p. 80
Clement O. Un ouvrage important sur I'art sacre // Contacts, Paris, 1963, no. 44, p. 278.
Florensky P.A. Reverse perspective // Proceedings on sign systems III Tartu, 1967, p. 385.
The Constitution of the Second Vatican Council on Divine Liturgy. Ch. VII Sacred Art and Religious Objects, paragraph 123. French ed.: Paris, 1966, p. 100.
