
St. Macrina the Abbess (2010).
Introduction
In this post we will explore the important relationship between the prototype – namely the person – and the icon of him. We will speak about the most important aspect of holy icons: that they communicate the presence of the saint depicted. This aspect is vital in understanding the important role of the iconographer. Through his hand the icon becomes a meeting place between colour and the saint himself who is depicted in the icon. In other words, “[t]hrough the medium of the iconographer, heaven meets earth”.[1] This does not happen out of necessity, as though the iconographer has some power to call down the presence of those depicted. Rather, since the icon bears the likeness and name of the depicted person the actual person permits his presence, his grace – that is, the energy of God working in him – to be communicated through the icon.
Leaving aside the discussion of the icon as theology in colour, we will focus our attention on the icon’s relationship with its archetype, for, “[a]lthough the making of an icon teaches theology in plenty, it is not the icon that deserves our study, but rather it is the saint who teaches us through the icon that does.”[2] Thus we will observe three essential characteristics pertaining to this relationship. In Part A we will examine the relationship of the prototype to his image based on the depiction of his likeness. In Part B we will speak about the importance of the likeness being recognized as authentic and what it means to have the name of the saint inscribed on his icon. And lastly in Part C we will explain how the honour paid to the image belongs to the saint, that is the prototype.
A. The Relationship of the Prototype to His Icon based on Likeness
The image of the saint depicted in the icon does not possess his essence but only his likeness, as Professor Tselingidis describes: “The prototype and the icon constitute one reality according to their personal likeness and at the same time, two realities according to their essence.” [3] The likeness of the saint corresponds to the heavenly person, not his carnal body. This is why icons appear unnatural at first glance and at times even awkward; for they depict the passionless spiritual person, lacking the natural carnality of the human body. And so, strictly speaking, icons are representations of the likenesses of hypostatizes (persons) and not of physical appearances:
Now the iconic likeness is radically opposed to natural likeness… and only relates to the hypostasis, that is, the person, and to his heavenly body… In iconography, the person does not “enhypostasize” or appropriate to himself a cosmic substance like wood or colors but rather appropriates his own resemblance. The heavenly face of the person assumes the transfigured body which is represented in the icon.[4]
For this reason icons have an otherworldly appearance about them; saints are depicted in their glorified form, though at all times according to their likeness.[5]
However, we must mention that iconic depiction of the saint’s hypostatic likeness does not mean that the physical characteristics of the holy person are absent from the icon. Rather, they are depicted in a way that illustrates a transfigured body. By displaying this artistic representation the image testifies to the saint’s reaction to the world: “This non-naturalistic manner of representing in the icon the organs of sense conveys the deafness, the absence of reaction to the business of the world, impassiveness, detachment from all excitement and, conversely, the acceptance of the spiritual world by those who have reached holiness.”[6] Thus the ears and eyes are bigger while the mouth and nose are smaller.[7] Although painting icons in this form is a stylistic tradition, ultimately however, the iconographer’s ability to depict the transfigured likeness of a saint is based on the relationship of the prototype to his image: “Icons of saints are not simply memorial representations, as are photographs of relatives and friends, rather they participate in glory and sanctity due to their mystical relationship to the prototypes.”[8] Through the iconographic medium, the image, with its intrinsic relationship to its prototype, participates in the saint’s glory and sanctity.
Furthermore, the visible representation of a transformed saint results in the invisible presence of that saint in his icon. This in turn makes communion possible between the faithful and the glorified members of the Body of Christ through a holy icon. This is the ultimate purpose and power of the icon, to join the living and the dead, the struggling members with the glorified members of Christ: “Just as icons of Christ, so too icons of His saints, touch the invisible presence of their prototypes [and this is perceived] by the eyes of the faithful viewer. The saints are present in their icons. Thus, when the faithful look at icons of the saints the composition of colours are not regarded, but [rather] they express their living communion with those depicted.”[9]
The icon’s central focal point is bringing the remembrance, the life, the likeness and the very presence of the saint into the faithful’s place of worship and everyday life. St. John Damascene states, “The saints in their lifetime were filled with the Holy Spirit, and when they are [22] no more, His grace abides with their spirits and with their bodies in their tombs, and also with their likenesses and holy images, not by nature, but by grace and divine power.”[10] Thus the presence of the prototype in his depicted image is what raises iconography from the position of simply teaching theology to being theology.
However, the saint is only personally connected to the icon because it bears his likeness and his name. As Evdokimov wisely points out, we do not claim that the saint is ontologically present in his icon: Nicea II stated that “the icon carries the name of the prototype. It neither carries nor contains the prototype’s nature.” This means that the religious content, that is, the mystical essence of the icon, is only related to the hypostatic or personal presence. There is therefore no question of some ontological presence being absorbed into the matter of the icon.[11]
In Part B of this series we will examine the importance of the saint’s likeness being recognized as authentic and what it means to have the name of the saint inscribed on his icon.
[1] Proud, Icons: A Sacred Art, 8.
[2] Pavel, Iconostasis, 165.
[3] Tselengidis, Εικονογραφικές Μελετές, 37.
[4] Evdokimov, The Art of the Icon, 87.
[5] See Tselengidis, Icons as Expression, 61.
[6] Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, vol I, 178.
[7] Proud, Icons: A Sacred Art, 16.
[8] Ζησή, Οι Εικόνες της Εκκλησίας, 27.
[9] Tselengidis, Icons as Expression, 63.
[10] St. John Damasus, Apologia of Holy Images, Part 1, para. 22.
[11] Evdokimov, The Art of the Icon, 196.
Read Full Post »