A person engaged in icon painting regularly has to deal with a special icon mythology - a complex of prejudices, stereotypes and pseudo-pious fantasies, sometimes bordering on superstition and even the occult.
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 “fallen” Western European realism, or about the so-called. reverse perspective, about enlightened faces that “have no shadows”, but “glow from within”? Such beautiful and esoteric-sounding cliches. 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.”
As an icon painter, I constantly have to answer various, mostly similar questions related to this very “theology.” In my search for the primary source - both the questions and the stereotypes that give rise to them - I almost always ended up coming up with the same fairly well-known names, whose authority is now almost never questioned. But one of these names is perhaps the most famous...
Today it is difficult to find a monograph devoted to 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 that now dominates the literature on icon painting that it is impossible to downplay the significance 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. We will not touch upon the life path and tragic fate of the religious philosopher in this essay.
Preface
It is recognized by all that the Russian Orthodox icon is one of the highest achievements of the human spirit. Nowadays it is difficult to find a church in Europe (Catholic or Protestant) that does not have an Orthodox icon, at least a good reproduction on a treated wooden board, placed in the most visible place.
At the same time, Russian icons have become the subject of speculation, smuggling, and counterfeiting. It is amazing that, despite the many years of theft of such a property of our national culture, the flow of Russian icons does not dry out. This testifies to the enormous 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 quite difficult for a person to understand and understand what is a truly spiritual creation of religious feeling and faith, and what is an unsuccessful attempt to create the 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 icons from different centuries, we need explanations from specialists, similar to the story of a guide who will show us, looking at the ancient cathedral, the differences between the ancient parts of the building and later additions, and will draw attention to subtle at first glance, but very important details characteristic of a particular time or style.
In the study of icons, in the desire to better understand these creations of the human spirit, the experience of people who combine professional art history education with significant experience in life in the Church becomes extremely important. This is precisely what distinguishes the author of the book offered to the attention of our dear reader. The book talks about the first Christian images in a lively and accessible way. At first these were symbols: fish, anchor, cross. Then came the transition from symbol to 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. An 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. By knowing this language, we will be able to understand the true meaning of genuine masterpieces and distinguish them from unsuccessful attempts to imitate them.
Today Russia is again called to spiritual revival. 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 Old Russian icons. Few people are familiar with Orthodox theology, few people know the social teachings of the Orthodox Church, few people go to Orthodox churches. But reproductions of Byzantine and Russian icons can be seen in both Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant and even non-Christian environments. The icon is a silent and eloquent preacher of Orthodoxy not only within the Church, but also in a world alien to it, and even hostile to it. According to L. Uspensky, “if during the period of iconoclasm the Church fought for the icon, then in our time the icon fights for the Church”[1]. The icon fights for Orthodoxy, for truth, for beauty. Ultimately, she fights for the human soul, because the salvation of the soul is the goal and meaning of the existence of the Church.
Much has been written about the theology of icons; it is difficult to say anything fundamentally new on this topic. The “discovery” of icons at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when ancient images began to be removed from under their frames and cleared, gave rise to an extensive literature: among the most significant iconographic works of the first half of the 20th century are “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 icons that appeared in the last decades of the 20th century, we should also mention the brilliant study of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn “The Icon of Christ”, the book of Hieromonk Gabriel Bunge “The Other Comforter”, dedicated to the iconography of the Holy Trinity, and “Conversations of an Icon Painter” by Archimandrite Zinona (Theodora). In the same row is the brilliant study by I.K. Yazykova “Co-creation of an image. Theology of the Icon,” now in its second edition.
The book by I.K. Yazykova was written as a textbook for theological schools and was published in a large print run, which has already sold out, since this book turned out to be in demand by icon painters, students of secular educational institutions and simply people interested in Orthodox art. And reader interest in it does not dry up. If ten years ago attention to the topic was due to the reader’s need to fill the lack of spiritual information, today interest in the topic of icons is 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 importance 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 riches that Orthodoxy has accumulated over two millennia of its history. The icon occupies a special place in this great heritage.
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 says, and have difficulty reading biblical texts. The icon helps in revealing the deep meaning of Holy Scripture.
Of course, the icon cannot be perceived as a simple illustration of the Gospel or events in the life of the Church. “An icon does not depict anything, it reveals,” says Archimandrite Zinon[2]. First of all, it reveals to people the Invisible God - God, whom, according to the evangelist, “no one has ever seen,” but who was revealed to humanity in the person of the God-man Jesus Christ (John 1:18). And in this sense, the iconographic image, appealing not only to the mind, but also to the heart of the viewer, is intended to help, through contemplation of the image, to get closer to the Prototype. The images of the icon accustom our eyes to seeing not only physical things, and attune our minds to the contemplation of the heavenly world.
Orthodoxy understands the icon as one of the types of theology. Thus, E. Trubetskoy called the icon “speculation in colors”[3]. The icon, using artistic means, conveys the basic dogmas of Christianity: the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the salvation and deification of man. It reveals that which is inaccessible to the understanding of rational consciousness, but is revealed 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 the divine service. “An icon, by its essence... is in no way an image intended for personal reverent worship,” writes Hieromonk Gabriel Bunge. “Its theological place is, first of all, the liturgy, where the gospel of the Word is complemented by the gospel of the image.”[4] Outside the context of the temple and liturgy, the icon largely loses its meaning. But sometimes it is the icon that helps a modern person 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 entire Church, and not just its individual members. Through contemplation of an icon, a person becomes familiar with the prayer experience of the saints and learns to pray himself, and prayer, even the simplest, ultimately is 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, the desire for Him as perfect beauty”[5].
The book by I. K. Yazykova tells about these and many other meanings of the icon. The book is addressed to the widest reader and is written in a language understandable to modern people, because the Good News expressed in the icon is not intended for a narrow circle of theologians, but for all of humanity. The task of the Church at all times is the same - to convey the Word about God, the news of salvation, the truth about Christ to one and all.
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 usually designated by the word “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 John 5:19). An icon, being a window into another world, can help our contemporaries understand themselves and their purpose 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 irreligious humanism, there are also other spiritual values; In addition to the moral standards that 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 a world of love, beauty, holiness, and therefore will see the light that can transform him.
Hilarion,
Metropolitan of Volokolamsk,
Doctor of Philosophy, Chairman of the DECR
Icon according to Florensky and icon in reality
So, to the icon of St. Pavel Florensky makes a number of demands: 1. Materials. The icon is painted on a board covered with cloth and gesso (chalk and glue based primer). For the letter itself, egg tempera is used. The finished icon is covered with drying oil. 2. The actual technology. 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 applied. The method of applying paint also matters. In particular, when writing faces, modeling the shape 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 nun Juliania (Sokolova) (6). Writing using strokes or any other method is unacceptable(7).
But let’s try to look at Florensky’s statements in the light of factual data about icon painting:
Novgorod tablet icon. 1484–1504
Materials. In fact, wood has never been the only material for an icon. Let us remember, for example, the so-called. tablets – Novgorod icons of the 15th–16th centuries. They were painted on canvas tightly primed on both sides. The resulting sign was placed 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 using the encaustic technique, in which the paint was mixed with wax rather than 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 was also not always drying oil. Actually, “drying oil” in Rus' meant a fairly wide range of materials - both oil varnishes and drying oil itself. And, by the way, this very drying oil was far from the best coating for an icon: unlike Byzantium, the Balkans and pre-Mongol Rus', starting from the 13th century, Russian icon painters began to add so-called driers (9) (auxiliary substances to speed up the drying process) to the oil base ), 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 of Fr. Paul is a contrast between the medieval Eastern icon and realistic Western painting. Sometimes it looks like an obsession.
So, if in realism there is a certain phenomenon, 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 should be art corresponding to it. Really, if icon painting did not exist, il faudrait l'inventer [it would be necessary to invent it (French)]. But it exists – and it is as ancient as humanity. The icon painter goes from dark to light, from darkness to light” (10).
This statement clearly demonstrates Florensky’s methodology: facts are not the basis on which conclusions are drawn, but on the contrary, first an idea is born, then the facts are adjusted to it (“it would be necessary to invent it”).
In fact, the writing method described by Fr. Paul, was also not exceptional in icon painting.
The most typical example is the painting of faces. Florensky, in fact, describes the so-called. sankir way of writing: “Sankir or sankir is the name given to the basic paint composition for laying out the face... Next comes the melting of the faces... Bright areas of the personal area - forehead, cheeks, nose - are covered with liquid flesh-colored paint, which includes ocher or, in iconographic terms, vohra; hence this entire part of icon painting is called vortexing” (11).
Savior not made by hands. Pre-Mongol Rus'. XII century. Tankless 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 this time, the so-called non-sankir method was used: “A layer of “flesh” color was applied over the white ground... After the first drawing, over this layer (and not under it, as some authors claim) with paint reminiscent of the color of sankir... shadow areas were painted” (13) .
As we can see, the way 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 the reasoning of Fr. Paul about icon painting, one can find a number of other categorical statements. For example, that the icon image must be flat, that shadow in the icon is impossible, that the icon painter is obliged to avoid any closeness to nature, any “lifelikeness,” etc.
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 off on a journey, an Orthodox Christian, according to custom, takes with him a small traveling iconostasis, or folding bag. This has been the custom in Rus' for a long time: a person was born or died, got married or started some important business - he was accompanied by an iconographic image. The entire history of Russia passed under the sign of the icon; many famous and miraculous icons became witnesses and participants in the most important historical changes in its destiny. Russia itself, having once been baptized by the Greeks, inherited the great tradition of the Eastern Christian world, which is rightfully proud of the richness and diversity of icon painting schools of Byzantium, the Balkans, and the Christian East. And Rus' wove its golden thread into this magnificent crown.
Iconographic wealth often becomes a reason for the exaltation of 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 an icon beyond the blind defense of tradition, vague discussions about the beauty of the divine world, and turns out to be an untenable heir to the wealth that belongs to him. In addition, the icon products of low artistic quality that fill our churches bear 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; they are known to have changed over the centuries and depended on regional and national traditions, but rather about the meaning of the icon, since the image is one of the key concepts of the Orthodox worldview. It is no coincidence that the victory of the icon-worshippers over the iconoclasts, finally confirmed in 843, went down in history as the holiday 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 also truth. They defended the opportunity to stand before God face to face. We can see echoes of this struggle today in disputes between representatives of historical churches and apologists of young Christian movements who are fighting 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. Theological understanding of the phenomenon of the icon, which continues to this day, helps to reveal previously unknown deep layers of divine Revelation and patristic tradition.
Recently, an increasing number of Christians appreciate the icon as a common spiritual heritage. It is the ancient icon that is perceived as a relevant 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 ones.
This book is the second and expanded edition of a course of lectures given in many educational institutions, religious and secular, in Russia and abroad. The book is intended to introduce listeners to the complex and multi-valued 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 inextricable connection with dogmatic and theological creativity, the liturgical life of the Church.
Iconography
XII. Hesychasm and the rise of Russian art
The Christianization of Rus' was a long process that began long before its official baptism and continued for a long time after it. If, despite the stubborn resistance of paganism in some places, Christianity became the dominant religion in the 10th century, then it means that the Christian stratum of the population was quite numerous and strong. In any case, under Prince Svyatoslav (972) there were already several Christian churches in Kyiv [1]. And if there were temples, then there were icons. Were they all imported, or were there also locally produced icons? We cannot confirm the latter, but we cannot rule it out either.
Knowing the attitude towards icon reading of the initiator of the mission among the Slavs, St. Patriarch Photius, his closest collaborators and successors of his work, it can be assumed that special attention was paid to this side of Orthodoxy and the distribution of icons among converts. The presence of a rather high, as modern research shows, local artistic culture contributed to a more rapid perception and development of Christian art and the emergence of local masters. Already from the end of the 10th and 11th centuries, mixed Russian-Byzantine workshops existed in Kyiv [2]. And if Greek artists were invited to paint the first churches built after the official baptism, then along with their works, researchers note the participation of Russian masters. In this era, judging by the words of Bishop Hilarion of Kiev (11th century), addressed to the deceased Prince Vladimir, the veneration and significance of the icon had already deeply and strongly entered the consciousness: “Look finally,” says Hilarion, “and at the city, shining with majesty, at Blooming churches, growing Christianity, look at the city, sanctified with icons of saints […], resounding with praises and divine songs”[3]. And the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon (beginning of the 13th century) conveys a more ancient legend about the monk Erasmus, who spent “his property on holy icons.”
Together with Christianity, Rus' received an already established church image in its classical form, a formulated doctrine about it, and a mature technique developed over centuries. But accepting the new faith and its figurative language, created in a persistent and sometimes tragic struggle, the Russian people creatively implement them in accordance with their perception of Christianity. Already during the period of assimilation of the 11th-12th centuries, Rus' developed its own artistic language, the forms of which in the 13th century appeared in the national Russian refraction. And the very spiritual life of the Russian people, their holiness and church art receive a national imprint, as a result of a constantly new and unique experience of Christianity. The holiness of the passion-bearers Princes Boris and Gleb, the first canonized Russian saints, whose popular veneration prompted the Greeks to this act despite their doubts and resistance, is marked by a specifically Russian character. Since the 11th century, the monks of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, Alypius and Gregory, canonized as holy icon painters, have given Russian icon painting the impulse of a living and direct knowledge of Revelation. All cult Russian art (architecture, painting, music) from the very beginning is marked with the stamp of originality and originality. This originality was especially manifested in the wide variety of artistic manners (letters) that were developed in the centers of the historical life of the state during the period of its feudal fragmentation, in accordance with local conditions and character traits characteristic of the people of one or another part of Great Rus'.
The terrible Tatar invasion slowed down, but did not break the creative spirit of the Russian people. And under the yoke of the Tatars, churches were built and icons were painted, although compared to the previous period, of course, there was no longer the same scope. In 1325, under St. Metropolitan Peter, Moscow, long before becoming the capital of the state, became the ecclesiastical center of Rus'. In this era of constant internal strife between the princes and the devastating Horde invasion and individual raids, the bearer of the unity of the Russian land was the Church[4], which carried within itself the guarantee of state unity[5]. It was the Orthodox Church that embodied the aspirations and aspirations of the Russian people, their desire for unification and liberation. In the person of its best representatives, primarily St. Sergius of Radonezh and the Moscow saints, it carried out the church and spiritual unity of Great Rus' around Moscow, which preceded the unity of the state[6]. And the fight against the Tatar-Mongol yoke “was not only a national, but also a religious task”[7]. Princely civil strife and discord with the unity of faith contradicted the very nature of the Church. It is far from accidental, of course, that St. Sergius dedicated his temple specifically to the Holy Trinity; as his biographer, Epiphanius the Wise, writes, “so that by looking at the Holy Trinity the fear of the hateful discord of this world can be overcome”[8].
The XIV-XV centuries is the era of St. Sergius (1314-1392) and the immediate successors of his work, the era of the heyday of Russian holiness, the revival of monasticism and hermitage, the flourishing of art and culture, the focus of which was Russian monasteries[9]. The unification of the Russian people is taking place around Moscow. During this period of spiritual, cultural and state revival, there is an increased interest in one’s national past, in the time of independence of the Russian people, in the painting, architecture and literature of the 11th-13th centuries of Kyiv, Novgorod and Vladimir. Having survived the terrible shock of the Tatar invasion, Rus' begins to emerge from the fiery ordeal, rises and gains strength to finally overthrow the yoke. “In those days, she experienced the good news of the Gospel with a strength with which she had never experienced it before or after. In the suffering of Christ, she felt her own Golgotha, which she had just experienced; she perceived the resurrection of Christ with joy, accessible to souls who had just emerged from hell; and at the same time, the generation of saints who lived in her midst and healed her wounds, made her feel every minute the effective power of the promise of Christ: behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). This feeling of the effective combination of the power of Christ with human life and with the life of the people was expressed in all Russian art of that time”[10].
Rus' of this era lived an intense artistic life. In the general flourishing of architecture, literature and liturgical creativity, it is painting that occupies the most advanced position as an expression of the spiritual and cultural life of the Russian people. It was during this period that the figurative language of church art reaches its maximum expressiveness. It is distinguished by extraordinary expressiveness, freedom, spontaneity, purity of tone, strength and joy of color.
During this era, Rus' was well aware of what was happening in Byzantium. The revival of Orthodox Christianity, which received the name hesychasm during Byzantine disputes, its doctrinal premises and disputes in connection with its ascetic experience, found a wide response here.
As we have already said, the language of the church image was formed over the centuries based on the spiritual experience of Orthodox asceticism. It is natural, therefore, that the flowering of Russian holiness was accompanied by the flowering of church art. Communication between Russian monks dating back to the pre-Mongol period with Byzantine monasteries and spiritual centers of the Middle East suggests that smart work played a decisive role in the assimilation of Christian art and in the formation of artistic consciousness. Russian art of the 14th-15th centuries was under the direct influence of hesychasm. Its flourishing here is not connected, as in Byzantium, with dogmatic struggle. This is not a response to opposition, but a visible manifestation of the rise of spiritual life and the flowering of holiness, and one can say about it in the same words as about the saints: “Like the red fruit of Your saving sowing, the Russian land brings to You, Lord”[11].
The movement of hesychasm went to Rus' in two ways: directly from Byzantium, with which lively connections continued to be maintained, and through Athos and the Slavic South. A number of saints who led the Russian Church were closely associated with this movement (Metropolitans Theognostus, Alexy, Cyprian, Photius[12]). Introduction of the celebration of St. Gregory Palamas (the second resurrection of Great Lent) strengthened the connection of the Russian Church with Byzantine hesychasm in the liturgical field. The literature that came in large quantities to Rus' from Byzantium, from Mount Athos and the Slavic South and influenced Russian monasticism was imbued with hesychast teaching[13]. The practice of smart doing covered a wide range of students and interlocutors of St. Sergius. The Trinity-Sergius Monastery becomes the spiritual center of Rus' and the main center of the spread of hesychasm. Relations with Byzantium were especially active in the field of church art. Icons are brought from Byzantium, and a number of Byzantine artists work in Rus'. In addition to them, the South Slavs, persecuted by the Turks in the 14th century, also find refuge here. However, the movement of hesychasm in Rus' was not the result of only external connections with Byzantium, carried out through writing, visiting icon painters and imported icons. This was a deep inner response of the spiritual life of Rus' to the dogmatic struggle in Byzantium. It can be said that Russian church art of the 14th-15th centuries and partly of the 16th century is a kind of contribution to this dogmatic struggle, in which the Russian Church did not directly participate. The theology of hesychasm was reflected in the spiritual content of art, its character, and its theoretical awareness.
The art of this period was directed by people who either themselves were conductors of hesychast life, or were in one way or another connected with it. Among them, the history of art identifies three names that are more or less likely associated with famous works of art: Theophanes the Greek (XIV century), Andrei Rublev (1360 or 1370-1430) and master Dionysius (born in the 30-40s of the 15th century) century, died in the first years of the 16th century). Theophanes the Greek, in the words of Epiphanius the Wise, in his work “discovered the distant and reasonable with his mind, and saw the goodness with his sensual, rational eyes” [14], that is, he comprehended the distant spiritual with his mind, for with enlightened, spiritualized sensual eyes he saw spiritual beauty. About Andrei Rublev and his entourage, the Rev. Joseph of Volotsky wrote: “They are wonderful and notorious icon painters, Daniel and his disciple Andrei, and many others like them, and they have so much virtue and so much care for fasting and monastic life, as if they were vouchsafed Divine grace, but always raise the mind and thought to the immaterial and Divine light, and always raise the sensory eye to the hedgehog from the material ones in the written image of the Lord Christ and His Most Pure Mother of God and all the saints”[15]. Master Dionysius was also guided in his work by the theology of hesychasm and, first of all, by the teaching of mental prayer[16]. Many of them are the same; these were Russians, Greeks, and southern Slavs, formed in the orbit of the direct influence or legacy of St. Sergius, a generation of icon painters who stood at an unusually high spiritual and artistic level. In these generations, some names are known, but are not associated with certain reliable works, while most masters remain anonymous.
In Rus', the rise of spiritual life and the flowering of holiness coincided with the spread of heresies, and the flowering of church art with the iconoclasm manifested in these heresies[17].
Around the middle of the 14th century, the Strigolniki heresy arose in northwestern Rus' (according to some, in Pskov, according to others, in Novgorod). This was the first movement directed against the Church, imbued with a critical-rationalist spirit. Strigolniki denied hierarchy, church dogmas and sacraments[18]. Although their iconoclasm is not directly stated anywhere, from the general nature of this heresy we can conclude that they could not venerate icons.
In the 80s XIV century iconoclastic heresy was discovered in Rostov. Its herald was a certain Armenian Marcian. It was random and had no consequences[19].
In the 15th century, rationalism found new ground in the heresy of the Judaizers, first in Novgorod, then in Moscow. This movement, which captured the ecclesiastical and then secular elites, lasted until the beginning of the 16th century. Just like the Strigolniki, the Judaizers denied the Church with its sacraments, hierarchy and teaching; They denied both the Holy Trinity and the Divinity of the Savior. Their return to the Old Testament, from which they received their name, was expressed in cult: the celebration of the Sabbath and other Jewish holidays, and even sometimes in circumcision. The heresy of the Judaizers was not a homogeneous phenomenon; there were various, even contradictory currents in it[20], and apparently not all heretics rejected icons. Netius from the heretic, for example, substantiated their argumentation with references to icon images[21]. But the underlying iconoclasm here was clear and undeniable, and it was this that served as the starting point for the council’s judgment on them in October 1490. The conciliar verdict states: “Many of you cursed the image of Christ and the Most Pure Image written on the icons, and some of you cursed the Cross of Christ, and some of you spoke blasphemous words against many holy icons, and some of you chipped holy icons and burned them with fire [ ...], and some of you threw holy icons into the tub, and you also did a lot of other desecration of nature against the holy images written on the icons”[22].
Like the heresy of the Strigolniks, the heresy of the Judaizers was not directly reflected in art. It caused only the dissemination of one or another topic that affirmed the Orthodox faith as a counteraction. The main reaction to the heresy was written polemics, among which the presentation of the theoretical basis of church art and its creativity is especially important for us.
As we have seen, the theology of hesychasm in Byzantium, with its doctrine of Divine energies, clarified the dogmatic justification for the content of the icon. However, the Byzantine hesychasts, in those cases when they mention the icon, do not connect either its veneration or creativity with intelligent work (for example, St. Gregory Palamas speaks of the icon only within the framework of the confession of faith), perhaps because heresy, on which they answered did not cause this. This connection was revealed in Rus' in the 15th century in response to the heresy of the Judaizers and found its expression in the work called “Message to the Icon Painter,” included in “The Enlightener,” a polemical work against heresy by St. Joseph of Volotsky[23]. This message played a big role in clarifying the meaning of church art. His influence was reflected in the writings of St. Maximus the Greek, Metropolitan Macarius, monk Zinovy of Otensky and others. It consists of the Epistle itself and three Homilies about icons and their veneration. It is addressed to the “primary artist of divine and honest icon painting,” that is, to the main artist standing at the head of the icon painters. N.K., who drew attention to the hesychast character of this monument. Goleizovsky believes that, most likely, the Words included in the Message were collected by Joseph Volotsky, apparently at the request of the famous master Dionysius “for the edification of his students and Russian icon painters in general”[24]. As N.K. correctly noted. Goleizovsky, the Message to the icon painter was intended to “highlight the most significant issues arising in the course of the anti-heretical polemics, and at the same time suppress attempts to create new compositions” [25] that did not correspond to Orthodox dogma. The author of the Message was prompted to do this last, obviously, by the fact that in addition to heresy in the post-Rublev period, icon painting began to partially lose its deep spiritual and semantic basis, a fascination with the formal side of painting began, and a slight decrease in the spiritual height of the image was noticed. This couldn't help but worry. It is characteristic that the very appeal of the Message to the addressee sounds like a call for vigilance to those who stand at the head of the artists: “And this writing is important to you for the sake of it, as you yourself are the beginning of an artist.”[26] It is no coincidence that the Venerable Joseph of Volotsky, either as a reproach or as an edification to the icon painters of his time, set Andrei Rublev and Daniil Cherny as examples for them: “Never exercise yourself in earthly things […], but always raise your mind and thought to the immaterial Divine light "
In the Message to the Icon Painter, the presentation of the theological apology for icons is distinguished by restrained lyricism and the vividness of the author’s personal experience. “If […] he has little “of his own,” in contrast to the generally accepted spiritual tradition, then everything he has is independent. He lives his father’s tradition, it is alive and comes to life in him.” These words of Archpriest G. Florovsky about the work of the Venerable Nil of Sorsky[27] fit the author of the Epistle perfectly. As a truly creative church work, in connection with the response to heresy, it provides not only a justification for the very existence of the icon and its veneration, but what is especially important is an explanation of its semantic content in the light of the spiritual experience of Orthodoxy.
The first of the Words, actually polemical, is directed against the iconoclastic argumentation of the Judaizers, “who say that it is not proper to worship the creation of hands.” The Second Word, “every Christian needs it,” contains the theology of icon veneration. And finally, the third Word, both polemical and theological, is devoted to a specific subject - the image of the Holy Trinity, disputed by heretics. In the following brief analysis of the Words we will omit it and return to it in the analysis of the iconography of the Holy Trinity.
A characteristic feature of these Words is that here the teaching about the icon is never isolated from the general context of God’s economy as a whole, does not constitute a separate area: it is ontologically connected with the entire complex of Orthodox dogma, which is expounded precisely through the icon, and we are never talking about theoretical statements, but always emphasizes the spiritual and creative meaning and purpose of the image.
The polemical content of the first Word consists in a consistent refutation of the Judaizers’ argumentation, which for the most part has been known since the times of early iconoclasm: a reference to the Old Testament prohibition, confusion of an icon with an idol, confusion of the concepts of worship and veneration, denial of the veneration of saints and relics and, judging by the refutation, understanding Eucharist as an image. A lengthy argument is devoted to the topic of the holiness of the temple, which had no place in Byzantine polemics. This theme (as well as the denial of veneration of the Cross) shows how far the Judaizers went further than the Byzantine heretics in their iconoclasm. The author of the Epistle also gives a classic answer to the classical argumentation of the iconoclasts, making extensive use of the works of St. John of Damascus, Theodore the Studite and the Seventh Ecumenical Council, although without referring to them. Just like the apologists of Orthodoxy of the 8th-9th centuries, the defense of the icon begins with an explanation of the images in the Old Testament, the difference between an icon and an idol, between the worship of God and the veneration of holy people and sacred objects. The entire course of the theological argumentation of the Byzantine defenders of icon veneration finds a new refraction in the consciousness of the author of the Epistle in connection with the peculiarities of the era and situation. The main part of the argument here is based on the historicity of the Incarnation with references to the Image Not Made by Hands and icons painted by the Evangelist Luke. Giving evidence of the existence of images in the Old Testament, the author says: “How much more appropriate is it now in the new grace to venerate and worship the image of our Lord Jesus Christ written on the icon by human hands […] and to worship His deified humanity and ascend to heaven. So is His Most Pure Mother […]. It is also appropriate to write on holy icons and […] to honor and venerate all the saints […]. Those who paint the image of saints on icons do not honor the thing, but as if from this material image our mind and thought soar to divine desire and love.”[28] This is an almost verbatim repetition of the thought of St. Gregory Palama about the content of the image of Christ and the understanding of the meaning and role of the icon that is consonant with it, is generally characteristic of the spiritual orientation of the author of the Epistle.
This hesychast orientation is especially evident in the second Word. Here it is the basis from which all the topics covered are considered. Here it is necessary to make a reservation: unlike the Byzantine hesychasts, the author does not say anything about the Tabor light or about Divine energies; but it is they who form the basis of his judgments and permeate the entire course of his thoughts.
The edification of the second Word to “every Christian” begins with the need for the image of the Holy Trinity, which is the basis of Christian doctrine and life. It is necessary to depict the Trinity “for this reason, since it is impossible for us to see with our bodily eyes, we contemplate these spiritually for the sake of the icon’s imagination”[29]. The Divine Trinity is indescribable, and, although many prophets and righteous people proclaimed It, She is depicted only because Abraham “appeared sensibly and in human likeness and, as if he had wished to appear, commanded to be described and from this material form,” the author repeats, “flies up Our mind and thought towards divine desire and love is not a thing that is more venerable, but the appearance and image of the beauty of the Divine image”[30]. This appearance to Abraham of the three Divine Hypostases in the angelic image, as the only historical fact, is contrasted by the author with the variety of prophetic visions and proclamations. The icon of the Trinity (the so-called Old Testament) is based on this sensory phenomenon, in which “the one being of the Divine is venerated and kissed”[31]. The external beauty of the image is for the author synonymous with spiritual beauty, and the sensory perception of this beauty should evoke spiritual contemplation and lead to mental prayer. Connected with the icon of the Trinity, this thought extends to the icon in general, which is seen as a connection between present life and the life of the next century, since the love for what is depicted that it evokes is of such a nature that it connects earthly life with that “when the bodies of saints are more the lordships of the sun will be enlightened”[32]. This reasoning seems so important in the Epistle that it is almost entirely repeated at the end of the third Word. In the further presentation of the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, the author devotes a lot of space to the teaching about the Holy Spirit and at length refutes the doctrine of the Filioque. It can be assumed that in the general context of the Word with its presentation of the doctrine of the icon, the true confession of the Holy Spirit is not a theory for the author, but a guarantee of genuine spiritual life and creativity. According to the author of the Epistle, “a specific feature of icons is their divine meaning, which was supposed to subjugate everything external in the icon and be read immediately”[33]. At the same time, just like the image of the Trinity, the icons of the Savior, the Mother of God and the saints are always and primarily based on historical reality. The affirmation of historicism in icons, fundamental to Orthodox theology, takes on a special resonance here. An icon is a personal image, and this personal basis does not allow any confusion. It is thanks to her that the icon “befits […] to be venerated” and the depicted one “to be worshiped as one himself, and not another […] as one himself, and not another”[34]. It can be assumed that the persistent and consistent emphasis on the historical basis of the icon is aimed at refuting the positions of the heretics who asserted the identity of the icon and the idol. According to the author, the difference between them, as he says in the first Word, is determined by the difference in the prototype. An icon is evidence of the “incarnation of God’s Word,” while an idol is a “demonic invention.” Therefore, “of divine icons and the prototype is holy and honorable, but the idol’s prototype is the most filthy and unclean”[35]. On the other hand, emphasizing historicity may also refer to the vagueness in the understanding of the image, which at this time begins to appear, and is directed against fiction in the topic, which will later cause controversy and protests, like self-thinking.
Based on historical reality, the author of the Epistle with no less insistence emphasizes the spirituality and holiness of the prototype of the icon, and it is this spirituality that determines and determines the content of the icon and the attitude towards it. In this context, he often returns to the well-known position: “Behold, the honor of the icon goes back to the prototype, and in icons and with icons the truth is revered and worshiped.” This connection of the image with the prototype is experienced by the author so specifically that about images he says: “We honor and worship [their] images and think of them as living ones standing with us out of insatiable love.”[36]
The human body of God the Word “who appeared in the flesh and deigned to live with man and for the sake of the visible flesh arranged my salvation”[37] is the same body in which “the Divinity was inseparable from the flesh […] and [Christ] appeared to the disciples, already incorruptible flesh and deified after his resurrection and ascended into heaven with his flesh, and sits at the right hand of the Father with deified flesh, and not in the scattering of corruption, as we are.”[38]. Therefore, emphasizing the absolute indescribability of the Divine, he calls the image, the mark of the Savior not only most pure, which is usual, but also God-human and God-like; this is the image of “His deified humanity.” It is this combination of two realities, human and Divine, that is a necessary condition for the content of the icon as an expression of the God-manhood of Christ. Since the apologists of the 8th-9th centuries, nowhere else has this combination of two realities, created and uncreated, been presented with such persistent consistency as the necessary content of the Orthodox image. The doctrinal side of the icon, as “every Christian needs”, as indicated by the title of the second Word, is accompanied here by a purely hesychast teaching: “Whenever you worship the Lord your God […] with all your heart and mind and thought, let your visual mind ascend to the Holy Consubstantial and Life-Giving Trinity, in your thoughts and in your pure heart […] let your more sensitive eyes rise to the divine and all-honorable icon of the Holy and Consubstantial and Life-Giving Trinity, or the God-man image of our Lord Jesus Christ or His Most Pure Mother or any saints […] and bow to this with your soul in thought, and with your body in feeling […] and transfer everything to yourself to heaven”[39].
It is characteristic that the Epistle devotes a lot of space (pp. 351-360) to instruction imbued with the spirit of smart doing, giving advice for prayer and life achievement. “And you, my beloved, for where you are, either at sea, or on the way, or in the house, or walking, or sitting, or sleeping [...] pray unceasingly in a clear conscience, saying: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, and God will listen to you.”[40] Or: “Close your eyes from the visible and see the inner eye for the future”[41]. These instructions, being addressed to the icon painter, acquire special significance in the context of the Message: they show what, in the eyes of the author, should become the norm of life and guide the artist in his creative activity.
The message to the icon painter does not introduce anything fundamentally new into the doctrine of the icon. But it reveals, in the light of hesychasm, the practical side of the attitude towards it, placing the hesychast practice of mental doing as the basis of its veneration, or rather, its effective perception, and the basis of its creativity. Since the icon is ontologically connected with the Orthodox teaching about the deification of man by the uncreated Divine Light, the attitude towards it and its creativity organically follow from the prayerful practice of Christian mental work. In other words, in the light of hesychasm, the content of the image presupposes, both for its effective perception and for its creativity, the need for a certain spiritual dispensation, that is, essentially, for both, the spiritual rebirth of a person, when “by the new-creating Spirit he acquires new eyes and new ears, and no longer looks simply as a man at the sensual sensually, but as one who has become superior to man, looks at the sensual spiritually”[42].
The way the author of the Epistle understands the content of the image in the light of the teachings of hesychasm shows what high demands he places on artistic creativity. The artist must be clearly aware of the responsibility that is assigned to him when creating an icon. His work must correspond to the height of the prototype he depicts, so that what he conveys becomes an effective, living force that creates people’s worldview and their moral character. A true artist must be involved in the depicted prototype not only because of his belonging to the body of the Church, but also because of his own experience of sanctification, that is, the artist is a creator who perceives and reveals the holiness of another through his personal spiritual experience. The effective power of his work depends on this personal experience or the degree of involvement of the artist in the prototype. www.verapravoslavnaya.ru/?Uspenskii_Bogoslovie_ikony#g12
