| The Degraded Iconicity of the Icon: The Icon’s Materiality and Mechanical Reproduction SOURCE: Orthodox Arts Journal By Fr. Silouan Justiniano Editor’s note: This post is the first of a series on this topic from Fr. Silouan I do not venerate matter, I venerate the fashioner of matter, who became matter for my sake and accepted to dwell in matter and through matter worked my salvation, and I will not cease from reverencing matter, through which my salvation was worked. St. John of Damascus, On the Divine Images, I: 16 There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. I Cor. 15: 40-41 And I reverence… all matter participating in divine energy and serving my salvation, and I venerate [it] because of the divine energy. St. John of Damascus, III:34 Mechanically reproduced icons are inherently ambiguous. They share certain features with the original icon but are also radically different from it. The slippery, neither here-nor-there status of these mechanical reproductions makes them hard to grasp conceptually. This makes the task of trying to clarify their role in liturgical aesthetic experience problematic, if not treacherous. They are at once real and somehow less than real icons. In focusing on the real side, we minimize the problems they introduce in the life of the Church, but in pointing out the less than real side we run the danger of overstating the case and fueling formalist ideology. In any case, the risk must be taken. Accessible and inexpensive reproductions of icons have helped the revival of icon painting. They are here to stay. Nevertheless, they raise theological questions regarding how materials and craftsmanship affect the icon’s multi-layered aesthetic and liturgical function. During the Iconoclastic debates, it was taken for granted that an icon was a work of craftsmanship, fashioned by human hands and skill. In the midst of doctrinal controversy over the nature or validity of images of Christ and the saints, there seemed to be no need to dwell too much on the icon’s manufacture. It was enough to know that an icon was, as St. Theodore the Studite says, “perhaps of wood, or paint, or gold, or silver, or some of the various materials … .” As Moshe Barasch points out: |
| Fasting I call the eating of a little bit once a day. Getting up from the table when still hungry, having his food, bread, and salt, and his drink-water, which the springs themselves bring forth. Behold the royal way of receiving food, that is, many have been saved by this path, so the Holy Fathers have said. To refrain from food for a day, or two days, three, four, five, or a week, a man cannot do always. But, so as every day to eat bread and drink, one can always do this; only, having eaten, one should be a little hungry so that the body will be submissive to the spirit and capable of labors and sensitive to mental movements, and so the bodily passions will be conquered. Complete fasting cannot mortify the bodily passions as well as poor food mortifies them. Some fast for a time and then give themselves over to delicious foods, for many begin fasting beyond their strength and also other severe labors, and then they grow weak from the lack of measure and unevenness of this labor, and they seek tasty foods and repose for the strengthening of the body. To act in this way means to build and then again to destroy, since the body through thinness from fasting is yearning for sweet things and seeks consolation, and the sweet foods ignite the passions. But if someone establishes for himself a definite measure as to how much poor food to eat in a day, he will receive great profit. However, concerning the quantity of food, one must establish a rule that it be as much as is necessary for the strengthening of oneself. Such a one can perform every kind of spiritual work. But if someone fasts beyond this, at another time he will give himself up to repose. Ascetic labor according to measure is priceless. For certain of the great Fathers also took food in measure, and everything they used in its right time, and everything had measure-ascetic labors, bodily needs, cell possessions: everything according to a definite, moderate rule. Therefore, the Holy Fathers do not command one to begin to fast above one's power and to make oneself weak. Take as your rule to eat every day; thus one may refrain in a more firm way, but if one fasts more than this, how will he refrain later from eating to the full and overeating? In no way will he be able to. Such an immoderate beginning comes either from vainglory or lack of understanding, while continence is one of the virtues, which aids in the subjugating of the flesh. Hunger and thirst are given to man for the purification of the body, from preservation from unclean thoughts and lustful passions. Everyday to eat poorly is a means to perfection, as certain ones have said, and one who eats every day at a definite hour in no way is lowered morally nor undergoes any harm of soul. St. Theodore the Studite praises such ones in his instruction on the Friday of the first week of the Great Fast where he cites in confirmation of his words the Holy God-bearing Fathers and the Lord Himself Thus we also should act. |
| Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him (Rom. 6:8) The Taking Down From the Cross. Mosaic from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Photo: A.Pospelov/Pravoslavie.ru These are the words of the holy apostle Paul, which we heard today at the Divine Liturgy in the Epistle reading, my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ. It is salvific for us, first and foremost, to know what it means to die with Christ. Of course, clearly death here is not bodily, for the apostle used the word “died” in relation to living people, but death to the world means to the passions. The same apostle speaks about this in his Epistle to the Galatians: And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts (Gal. 5:24). It is clear from this that we die with Christ only if we mortify our passions of gluttony, fornication, avarice, anger, sorrow, despondency, vanity, and pride. The mortification of the passions is an ascetic labor that can be called voluntary martyrdom. Thus taught St. Theodore the Studite, saying that monks die daily through the cutting off of their passionate, sinful will. Therefore, they inherit crowns of martyrdom as do the holy martyrs. True, these patristic words were spoken to monks. But the martyric struggle with the passions, in the thought of Apostle Paul, is unavoidable in the life of anyone who desires to be Christ-like. And indeed, how can it be otherwise, when the Lord commanded all of His followers on the narrow and thorny path, saying, And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me (Mt. 10:38). Thus, to live with Christ, we must first die with Him, that is, to slay the passions. What does it mean to live with Christ? To live with Christ means to dwell with Him in unity; and unity with Christ is nothing other than our love for Him, the desire of our hearts to ever contemplate Him, to ever prayerfully converse with Him, and to do only that which is pleasing to Him. Love for Christ, as the Lord Himself teaches, is, in essence, our keeping of His Divine commandments: If ye love me, keep my commandments (Jn. 14:15). Therefore, let us obey His commandments. |
| In 813, the second round of Iconoclastic persecutions resumed with Leo V the Armenian (813-820). He appointed Patriarch John Grammatikos as the theological voice of Iconoclasm and sought to reconvene a council to depose the icons once again. Two rivals, the former patriarch Nikephoros and St. Theodore of the Monastery of Studion, joined forces to fight against Leo. In the spring of 815, a new council was convened, condemning the Ecumenical Synod of Nicea and restoring the decisions of the one in Hieria in 754. Following this change of events, the Iconoclastic emperor, Michael II the Amorian (820-29), ascended the throne, a moderate who did not continue the persecutions against the Iconophiles and actually recalled Patriarch Nikephoros and St. Theodore from exile. The final Iconoclastic Emperor Theophilos (829-842), influenced under the tutelage of John Grammatikos, fiercely persecuted the Orthodox, targeting especially the monasteries in an attempt to destroy once and for all the preservers of the true Faith. His death on January 20, 842, led to the ascent to the throne of his wife, the famous Empress Theodora, who also served as regent of their son Michael III (842-867). Empress Theodora deposed the Iconoclastic patriarch John Grammatikos and reinstated Patriarch Methodios to his rightful see. Convening a council in 843, the Church and State permanently established the holy icons in the churches and on March 11, the first Sunday of Great Lent, the decree was solemnized as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy” in the Great Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. To this day, our Church celebrates this victory by blessing God and those saints and martyrs who fervently and unshakably supported the Orthodox Christian Faith. The Theological Positions in the Debate The theological arguments of the Church in support of the holy icons may be attributed to the writings of three important Church Fathers: St. John of Damascus (who shined during the first phase of the controversy), St. Theodore the Studite, and Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople (both of whom championed the cause during the second phase). Their theological positions may be viewed in four areas: (1) the argument about the Mosaic prohibition of idols (Ex 20.4-5); (2) the nature of the image itself; (3) the Christological argument; and (4) the issue of worship vs. veneration. |
| Visitors like Egeria carried back to their native lands the memory of what they had experienced in Jerusalem and tried to emulate it in their own liturgical practices. Thus historical commemorations and stational liturgies spread quickly throughout the Christian world, for both Holy Week and the rest of the year. For example, because of the unique situation in Jerusalem, where multitudes of pilgrims descended, they would occupy the church all night in order to have a place for matins, and similarly for the other hours of prayer. Thus, in order to keep the people occupied, services and hymns were celebrated continuously. Clearly it was impossible for the bishop to preside around the clock, so services would begin without the bishop, who would then make an entrance some time later. This practice was imitated in many places, such that ever since the latter part of the fourth century the entrance of the bishop/clergy for vespers, Liturgy, etc., has moved from the opening of the service to some point later, for Hly Week and throughout the year! Also noteworthy is that in the fourth century there developed a consensus that the full celebration of the Eucharist, always a joyful event, was inconsistent with the austerity of the fast. Instead, vespers with Communion was instituted on Wednesdays, Fridays and saints’ days, though Egeria declines to attest to the practice of presanctified Communion during Holy Week during the time of her visit. The Studite Revisions: Ninth through Fifteenth Centuries In the ninth century, two learned brothers at the Monastery of Studios in Constantinople—Theodore the Studite and Joseph the Studite, Archbishop of Thessalonica—created a work called the Triodion Covering the period from three Sundays before the start of Lent through Pentecost, including, of course Holy Week, they compiled and composed original hymnography, seeking to bring a return to biblical roots, particularly the Psalms and the Old Testament. In doing so, the Studites furthered the earlier historicizing trends and nearly obliterated baptismal themes from Lent and Holy Week texts. Their emphasis was on commemorating salvation history and drawing out ethical and ascetical teachings. |
| Maximus was born in 580. 2 According to the Greek Life of St Maximns, 3 composed in the tenth century by the Studite monk, Michael Exaboulites, he was born of noble parents in Constantinople, received a good education, 4 and in his early thirties became first secretary at the court of the Emperor Heraclius. It has been shown, however, that Michael pieced this Life together from diverse materials, and that, for Maximus’ early years, he simply paraphrased the beginning of the Life of the eighth-century reformer of the Stoudios monastery, St Theodore the Studite, omitting the proper names: from which we can infer that he had no direct evidence at all. 5 The evidence about his service under the Emperor Heraclius is, however, more secure, since it appears to be dependent on earlier material and has some independent attestation. 6 It looks as if Maximus became head of the Imperial Chancellery (the protoasecretis) in the comprehensive overhaul of the upper echelons of the civil service that would have followed Heraclius’ deposition of the usurper, Phocas, in 610. After a few years, however, Maximus renounced this post and became a monk, initially at Chrysopolis (modern Scutari) across the Bosphorus from Constantinople. The Greek Life gives two reasons for this decision: first, his unhappiness about the religious attachment of the court, and second, his love for a life of quiet prayer. The latter reason is perfectly plausible, 7 but the former is problematic. By 618 Maximus had already made sufficient progress in the monastic life to have acquired a disciple, the monk Anastasius, who was to be his companion for the rest of his life. 8 Six or seven years later (624/5), Maximus had left his monastery at Chrysopolis for the monastery of St George at Cyzicus (now Erdek, on the south coast of the Sea of Marmara). It is from this period at Cyzicus that Maximus’ earliest writings have been usually dated: several letters, including four to John the Cubicularius (one of the Palace eunuchs) in Constantinople, and several of his treatises on the spiritual life, notably The Ascetic Life and the four Centuries on Love (the second letter, to John the Cubicularius, translated below, is itself a remarkable brief treatise on love). |
| We forget how this craftsmanship expresses the image of God in man and emulates the divine Craftsman in His fashioning of an infinite variety of unique life forms. Desensitized by mass production, we no longer discern the subtle effects of unique properties of materials and textures. It becomes very difficult to distinguish diamonds from rhinestones. St. Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, First Refutation of Iconoclasm, translated by Catharine P. Roth, SVS Press, Crestwood, N.Y., 1981, p.32. M. Barasch, Icon: Studies in the History of an Idea, New York University, New York, 1995, p.6. W. Benjamin, Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, Schocken Books, New York, 1968, pp.217-252. “In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Men could always imitate man made artifacts. Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and, finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain. Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new. Historically, it advanced intermittently and in leaps at long intervals, but with accelerated intensity. Greeks knew only two procedures of technically reproducing works of art: founding and stamping. Bronzes, terra cottas, and coins were the only art works which they could produce in quantity. All others were unique and could not be mechanically reproduced. With the woodcut graphic art became mechanically reproducible for the first time, long before script became reproducible in print. The enormous changes which printing, the mechanical reproduction of writing, has brought about in literature are a familiar story. However, within the phenomenon which we are here examining from the perspective of world history, print is merely a special, though particularly important, case. During the Middle Ages engraving and etching were added to the woodcut; at the beginning of the nineteenth century lithography made its appearance.” W. Benjamin,Ibid., pp.220-21. See M. Lowell, “MUCH Cheaper Than Real”: Confronting the New Iconoclasm,Hexaemeron.org, April 9, 2012, Walter Benjamin notes, “The situations into which the product of mechanical reproduction can be brought may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated. |
| 70 Nicephorus. Antirrh., Ï PG 100:272в. 71 Там же. 328BD. 72 Nicephorus. Contra Eusebium, ed. Pitra, I, 401. 73 Antirrh., PG 100:268в. 74 Там же, 440, 447. 75 Там же, 252в. 76 Там же, 317в. 77 John of Damascus. De Haer.; PG 94:764A. 78 По преимуществу (лат.). 79 Е.Трубецкой. Умозрение в красках. М., 1915—1916: репринт, изд..: Париж: ИМКА Пресс, 1965; пер.: Icons: Theology in Color (New York: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1973). 80 Мир христиан (лат.). 81 Theodore the Studite, Ер. II, 165 (to Gregory); PG 99:1524в. 82 Theodore the Studite, Ep. I, 36 (to Euprepianus); PG 99:1032cD. 83 То есть по Втором пришествии Христа (parousia (греч.) — присутствие). 84 Петрос — камень (греч.). См.: Мф 16:18. 85 Theodore the Studite, Ep. II, 12; PG 99:1152c. 86 См., напр., S. Salaville, «La biblaute de Saint Pierre et du pape d " apres Saint Theodore Studite (759—826),» — в изд. Echos d " Orient 17 (1914), 23—42 и A. Marin, Saint Theodore (Paris: Lecoffre, 1906), p. 1. А.Марен называет Фео-дора «последним католиком Византии». К примеру, Феодор в своем письме Льву Сакелларию (PG 99:1417С) писал: «А кто они, их [апостолов] преемники? — тот, кто занимает престол Рима и является первым; тот, кто восседает на престоле Константинопольском и является вторым после них, те — в Александрии, Антиохии и Иерусалиме. Вот что такое пентархичная власть в Церкви. Это им принадлежат все решения в божественных догматах» (цитируется в кн.: F. Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman biblacy [New York: Fordham University Press, 1966], p. 101). 5 Theodore the Studite, Ep. II, 63 (Навкратию), PG 99:1281в. 87 Theodore the Studite, Ep. II, 63 (Навкратию), PG 99:1281в. 88 Theodore the Studite, Ep. II, 15; PG 99:116lAB. 89 Photius, Library, codex 8, 18, etc. 90 Представление, очерк, образец (греч.). 91 Там же, codex 109. 92 См. длинную статью о Диодоре Тарсском. — Library, codex 223, и его оценку Феодорита Кирского. — Там же, codex 46. 93 См. кодексы о Евлогии Александрийском, 182, 208, 225—227, которые, в сущности, являются подробными монографиями об этом авторе. О Ефреме Антиохийском см. Library, codex 228. |
| Ист.: Vita et conversatio Theodori Studitae a Michaele monacho conscripta [Vita B]//PG. 99. Col. 233-328; Theodori Studitae Laudatio Platonis hegumeni//Ibid. Col. 803-850; Narratio de sanctis patriarchis Tarasio et Nicephoro//Ibid. Col. 1849-1854; Ignatii Diaconi Vita Nicephori// Niceph. Const. Chronogr. 1880. P. 139-217; idem. Vita Tarasii Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani/Ed. I. A. Heikel//Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae. Helsingforsiae, 1891. Vol. 17. P. 389-439; The Synodicon Vetus/Text, transl. and notes by J. Duffy, J. Parker. Wash., 1979. P. 128; The Life of St. Philaretos the Merciful written by his Grandson Niketas/Ed., introd., transl. L. Rydén. Uppsala, 2002. Лит.: Доброклонский А. П. Преп. Феодор, исповедник и игумен Студийский. Од., 1913. Ч. 1/2. Ч. 1: Его эпоха, жизнь и деятельность. С. 350-590; Alexander P. J. The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople: Eccl. Policy and Image Worship in the Byzant. Empire. Oxf., 1958. P. 80-101; Henry P. The Moechian Controversy and the Constantinopolitan Synod of January A.D. 809//JThSt. N. S. 1969. Vol. 20. P. 495-522; Stiernon D. Notice sur S. Jean higoumène du monastère de Kathara//REB. 1970. Vol. 28. P. 111-127; O " Connell P. The Ecclesiology of St. Nicephorus I. (758-828) Patriarch of Constantinople: Pentarchy and Primacy. R., 1972; Speck P. Kaiser Konstantin VI.: Die Legitimation einer fremden und Versuch einer eigenen Herrschaft: Quellenkrit. Darst. von 25 Jahren byzant. Geschichte nach dem ersten Ikonoklasmus. Münch., 1978. 2 Bde; Niavis P. E. The Reign of the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus I (AD 802-811). Athens, 1987; Moechian Controversy//ODB. 1991. Vol. 2. P. 1388-1389; Karlin-Hayter P. A Byzantine Politician Monk: Saint Theodore Studite//JÖB. 1994. Bd. 44. S. 217-232; Афиногенов Д. Е. К-польский патриархат и иконоборческий кризис в Византии (784-847). М., 1997. С. 42-58; Pratsch Th. Theodoros Studites (759-826) zwischen Dogma und Pragma: Der Abt des Studiosklosters in Konstantinopel im Spannungsfeld von Patriarch, Kaiser und eigenem Anspruch. Fr./M. etc., 1998. |
| The Fathers of the Council easily exposed all the evildoing of the heretics, unanimously decreeing: “We affirm that we preserve all the traditions of the Church which have been decreed to us in her, whether written or unwritten, without innovation, of which one is the formation of representative images, which is perfectly concordant with the history of the Evangelical preaching unto the assurance of the true and not the imaginary Incarnation of God the Word, and which is of service to us unto a like edification. For those things which are naturally illustrative of each other most indubitably possess the outward appearance of each other… Whether images of Christ Jesus our Lord, our God and Savior, or of our spotless Lady, the Holy Mother of God, or of the Holy Angels or of all the Saints and other holy men. For in proportion as these are continually seen by representation in images, so are they who behold them moved to the remembrance of, and affection for, their prototypes.” However, the Orthodox Church enjoyed this grace-filled peace for less than thirty years. The voice of the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, inspired by the Holy Spirit, was drowned out by the growling of a new beast on the throne: Emperor Leo V the Armenian. Leo the Armenian made iconoclasm systemic, creating an atmosphere of total surveillance and denunciation. Keeping holy icons was regarded as a state crime. Imperial spies roamed everywhere; the persistent fear of persecutors compelled many to become faint-hearted and to repudiate their holy things. St Theodore the Studite During this difficult time, it was as if St. John the Forerunner himself rose as a strong-spirited warrior for Christ in the battle against heresy. As far back as the fifth century, the pious proconsul Studios had raised a magnificent church in the Royal City in honor of the Lord’s Forerunner, in which a monastery called the Studion was established. The infernal Copronymus devastated this monastery along with the others in the Royal City. When calm returned to the Church, that great ascetic struggler, St. Theodore, renewed the Monastery of the Forerunner at Stoudios. He compiled the beautiful hymnography in honor of St. John the Baptist. St. Theodore the Studite, Abbot of the Monastery of the Forerunner, opposed Leo the Armenian’s evildoing with flaming words. |
|
|
