Table Of ContentTHEOLOGY OF THE ICON
Volume I
THEOLOGY OF THE ICON
Volume 1
by
LEONID OUSPENSKY
translated by
ANTHONY GYTHIEL
with selections translated by
ELIZABETH MEYENDORFF
ST. VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY PRESS
CRESTWOOD, NY 10707-1699
1992
The publication of this book has been underwritten by a generous contribution
by Dr. and Mrs: Demetre Nicoloff, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ouspensky, Léonide
[Essai sur la théologie de l’icone dans l’Eglise orthodoxe. English]
Theology of the icon / by Leonid Ouspensky; translated by Anthony Gythid with
selections translated by Elizabeth Meyendorff.
p. m.
Vol. 1 is a rev. translation of: Essai sur la théologie de l’icône dans l’Eglise or*
thodoxe; v. 2 is a translation of: La théologie de l’icône; both were translated originally
from Russian.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-88141-122-1 (v. 1). — ISBN 0-88141-123-X (v. 2) — ISBN
0-88141-124-8 (set)
1. Icons—cult. 2. Orthodox Eastern Church—Doctrines. 3. Orthodox
Eastern Church and art. 4. Icon painting. I. Ouspensky, Léonide. Théologie de
l’icône. English. 1992. II. Tide.
BX378.5.09713 1992 92-12323
246’.53—dc20 CIP
THEOLOGY OF THE ICON
Volume I
COPYRIGHT© 1978
by
ST VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY PRESS
All rights reserved
Vol. 1 ISBN 0-88141-122-1
Set (Vol. I & II) ISBN 0-88141-124-8
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Contents
Introduction..........................................................................................7
1 The Symbolism of the Church .....................................................17
2 Origins of the Christian Image.....................................................35
3 The First Icons of Christ and the Virgin.......................................51
4 The Art of the First Centuries.........................................................65
5 Sacred Art in the Constantinian Epoch.......................................81
6 The Quinisext Council:
Its Teachings on the Sacred Image..............................................91
7 The Pre-Iconoclastic Period..........................................................101
8 The Iconoclastic Period: A Synopsis............................................107
9 The Teaching of the Iconoclasts and the
Orthodox Response.............................................................119
10 The Meaning and Content of the Icon 151
Introduction
A large number of works about Christian sacred art exist in various
1 languages. This art has been studied from the historical, aesthetic,
sociological and archaeological points of view. All of these aspects are
indeed components of sacred art. But they represent only its external side
and are not concerned with its very essence, that is, that which this an
conveys. At the same time, many works are dedicated to explaining the
external and explicit connection of the image to the Holy Scriptures and
to the other liturgical texts. Other works, finally, explain this art from a
theological and philosophical point of view. But what does the Church
itself think of the art which it has created? What are its teachings on this
subject? How was sacred art understood by the holy councils and the
Fathers who were concerned with it? All of this has not been the object of
special attention. Moreover, as we shall see, certain authors go so far as to
deny the Church’s participation in the creation of its art. But can one
imagine that the Church would neglect figurative art, at least as a strong
means of influencing man? Figurative art was abundantly used in the
paganism which surrounded the Church from the first centuries, and, later,
by the Christian state. It is certain that the Church could not have ignored
it. Its entire outlook on the image is a witness to this fact, and it is precisely
with this that we shall begin our study.
It is well known that the veneration of holy icons plays a very impor
tant role in the Orthodox Church. The veneration of the icons of Christ,
of the Virgin, of angels and of the saints is a dogma of the Christian faith
formulated at the Seventh Ecumenical Council and proceeds from a basic
doctrine of the Church: its confession of the Son of God who became
man. His icon is a witness to the true and non-deceptive Incarnation of
God. In the course of its history, the Church triumphed over heresy many
times. But of all its victories, only the victory over iconoclasm, the victory
8 THEOLOGY OF THE ICON
of the icon, was solemnly proclaimed as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy,” a
victory which we celebrate each year on the first Sunday of Lent. This
demonstrates the importance which the Church attributes to the image,
and not just to any image, but to the specific image which it wrought in
its fierce struggle against paganism, against iconoclasm and against other
heresies, to the image which was paid for with the blood of a large number
of martyrs and confessors.
Why does the Church attribute such a great importance to the icon?
The icon is not just a simple image, nor a decoration, nor even an
illustration of Holy Scripture. It is something greater. It is an object of
worship and an integral part of the liturgy. The Church sees in its holy
image not simply one of the aspects of Orthodox teaching, but the
expression of Orthodoxy in its totality, the expression of Orthodoxy as
such. The icon is one of the manifestations of the holy Tradition of the
Church, similar to the written and oral traditions. As we shall see in our
study, the “icon,” according to the teaching of the Church, corresponds
entirely to the “word” of Scripture. “That which the word communicates
by sound, the painting shows silently by representation,” says St Basil the
Great.1 And the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council repeat these
words and specify that “through these two mediums which accompany
each other... we acquire the knowledge of the same realities.”2
It is absolutely impossible to imagine the smallest liturgical rite in the
Orthodox Church without icons. The liturgical and sacramental life of
the Church is inseparable from the image. Even before entering the
sanctuary to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, the priest recites a prayer of
purification before the Royal Doors (the central portal of the iconostasis)
and a declaration of faith before the “local” icons. The icon is an object of
worship embodying divine grace and forming an integral part of the
liturgy. Often, and with good reason, the icon is called “theology in
images.” It is understandable that the basis of sacred art, its meaning and
its content can only be a subject of theology similar to the study of the
Holy Scripture. Therefore, one can neither understand nor explain sacred
art outside of the Church and its life. Such an explanation would always
be partial and incomplete. In relation to sacred art itself, it would be false.
1 Hom. 19» On the 40Martyrs, PG 31: 509 A.
2 Mansi 13: 300 C.
Introduction 9
In fact, sacred art not only reflects the life of the Church in all its
complexity and in all its depth; it is an integral part of this life, just as a
branch is a part of a tree. An object of worship, the icon is not merely
provoked or inspired by the Liturgy: Together they form a homogeneous
whole. The icon completes the Liturgy and explains it, adding its influ
ence on the souls of the faithful. The contents and the meaning of the
icon and of the Liturgy are the same, and this is why their form, their
language, is also the same. It is the same symbolism, the same sobriety, the
same depth in content. This is why, as everything in the Church, sacred
art has a double dimension: Its very essence is unchangeable and eternal
since it expresses the revealed truth, but at the same time it is infinitely
diverse in its forms and expressions, corresponding to different times and
places. Our study will therefore be, on the one hand and foremost, a
theological study. On the other hand, on the historical and archaeological
level, we will use the facts provided by secular archaeologists or historians
of art.
The content and the meaning of sacred art determines one’s attitude
towards it. To understand this point more clearly, let us compare the
attitudes of the Orthodox Church and of the Roman Catholic Church
towards sacred art. The Roman Catholic Church confesses, as does Or
thodoxy, the dogma of the veneration of icons. But its attitude towards
sacred art differs considerably from the Orthodox attitude. Let us take as
an example the decision of the Council of Trent, which has until now
been the basis of all the regulations issued by the Vatican in the field of art.
All these regulations have a negative tone: They pronounce what sacred
art should not be. The following is the decision of the Council of Trent
(1563, the twenty-fifth and last session):
The Holy Council upholds that no image should be placed in the churches which
is inspired by a false dogma and which can mislead the simple people; it wills
that all impurity be avoided and that the images should not have any provocative
attributes. To assure the regard to these decisions, the Holy Council prohibits
any improper image from being placed anywhere, even in the churches which
are not subject to the visit of the ordinary, unless the bishop has first approved
it.3
This rule is repeated, some parts of it literally, in the new regulations
3 Quoted from E. Mâle, L *art religieux après le Concile de Trente (Paris, 1932), 1.
10 THEOLOGY OF THE ICON
on the subject (June 30,1952). These are the orders of a 1947 encyclical
letter of Pius XII: “The field must be left absolutely open for the art of our
time when it shows the respect and honor due to the buildings and the
sacred rites. In such a way, it will enter into the wonderfill concert which
famous men have sung to the catholic faith in past centuries...”4 The Pope
adds that “everything which is not in accord with the holiness of the place”
must be removed from the sanctuaries. As we see, neither the decision of the
council, nor the papal encyclical letter of 1947, nor the other directives of
the Roman Church set any criterion or indicate any connection with
Tradition. They only indicate what should not be in sacred art, and this in
not very clear terms. What is an “improper image”? What traits can be
considered “provocative”? All of this remains unclear. Even in the West, this
vagueness stirs up sharp criticisms which underline the negative aspect of
rules pertaining to sacred art. Some have said concerning the regulations of
1952 that they preserve only a minimum of “tradition”: just enough to keep
the faithful from confusing a church steeple with a factory chimney. Other
wise they sanction all the mistakes of the past and of the present and
proclaim that sacred art must search for a “new style.” To participate in “the
wonderful concert of famous men,” as it is put by Pius XII, the Roman
Church therefore appeals to the most famous of contemporary painters to
decorate its churches, without being in the least concerned with whether
they belong to the Church or not, or even if they are believers or atheists.
How can there even be a question of intercourse between the image and the
word of Scripture when the person who decorates a church or paints a
sacred image is an atheist or when he belongs to another religion? One
could in such a case speak only of a formal illustration of the letter of the
scriptural text or, what would be even worse, of a personal interpretation by
the painter, the application of his own ingenuity to a scriptural subject. This
is being done in the field of art This shows the extent to which the very
meaning of the sacred image has been lost in the Roman Catholic Church.
This vagueness in the directives communicates the chaotic state of
sacred art itself, which has now reached a critical point. In fact, the
Roman Catholic Church has been forced to accept secular art, which
often has a very doubtful spiritual content, or else to do without art
4 F. R Regamey, L’art sacré du XXe siècle (Paris, 1952), 432.
