Icons. Nikodim Kondakov

scene were supplied and the composition itself based upon reality. The pilgrims, when they looked at a picture of the Baptism of Our Lord, were reminded of the hilly banks of the Jordan and its swirling water and even of the column crowned with a cross which stood to mark the actual spot; and so the icon made for the pilgrims showed all these details. So too icons of the Nativity of Our Lord would show the hills of Bethlehem, the cave, and the manger, or the Crucifixion would have the walls of Jerusalem in the background.[21]

      20. The Cross Raised on Three Levels, Iconoclastic period, 13th century. Half-dome of the sanctuary apse, Saint Irene Basilica, Istanbul.

      21. Menology from the Month of February, c. 15th century.

      Saint Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai, Egypt.

      Remarkable is a series of icons painted on the lid of a wooden box of the sixth century from the Lateran treasure, now in the Vatican. The box is about 8 inches (20 cm.) long, shallow, and filled with a mass of wax and plaster in which are embedded pebbles and other fragments from holy places in Palestine. Five small-scale compositions show the Ascension and the Resurrection (or rather the Women at the Sepulchre) above, the Crucifixion across the middle, and below the Nativity and the Baptism. In this order the pilgrim had visited the holy places: the church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives, the church of the Resurrection, the church of Golgotha in Jerusalem, the cave of the Nativity at Bethlehem and the banks of the Jordan. Each subject is characteristic both in composition and in the types of the figures, but here we are concerned only with the material setting. The theme of the Resurrection is pictured In the form of the approach of the women to the sepulchre (Mary hastens thither first of all, in agreement with the Apocrypha current at the time). Accordingly the composition shows us the gates of the small rotunda of Our Lord’s sepulchre; this looks from outside like a low octagonal tower crowned by a conical metal roof like a bell-tent, with a cross at the top: the open doors allow us to see an altar with a cross upon it in the front room of the sepulchre, now the Chapel of the Angel. The sepulchre is a cave hewn out of the rock. The cover is protected from top to bottom by a grille or trellis. Above the pointed roof hangs (from the ceiling of Constantine’s great rotunda, the church of the Anastasis) a circular candelabrum such as used to be called rota, later corona luminis, a hoop with openings in it to take lamps. To this day the pilgrims take away from Jerusalem as mementoes icons of the Resurrection with a picture of the modern marble canopy which contains the remains of the cave; out of its doors rises Christ, flying upwards according to the Catholic representation.

      The scene of the Nativity gives also an ancient recollection of the cave at Bethlehem, still open and accessible from outside to pilgrims, as it was before Constantine built his great church over it. The cave is a shallow niche hewn in the rock, above it is the star, within is the manger with the Child, at the entrance on the left Mary lies on a mattress, on the right Joseph sits sleepily. Jesus at his Baptism is figured as a child standing in the water up to his neck. John puts his hand upon him, two disciples stand behind, on the right are two Angels offering towels and above the hand of God sending down the Dove. This is a very ancient composition, as are those of the Ascension and of the Crucifixion, with the two thieves (youthful) and the figure of Christ clothed in the purple robe. This type goes back to the fourth or fifth century. Other surviving icons point to the Syro-Egyptian origins of this kind of painting. First we must mention the well-known tradition of the Vernicle, the napkin at Edessa upon which the face of Christ was imprinted. We have copies of this under the names of the Holy Mandylion,[22] ‘the image not made with hands’, and ‘the holy napkin’, in wall-paintings from the eleventh or twelfth centuries, and devotional icons of this type are very common in Russia from the fourteenth century. This tradition was clearly founded upon the Egyptian portraits painted upon mummy cloths. It is well known that the Byzantine icon that rose to prominence in the fifth to sixth centuries was afterwards brought to a sudden stop by the growth in the eighth century of the iconoclastic movement, which systematically exterminated every production of the Byzantine craft to the extent that we can do no more than guess about it and search out traces of the ancient Greco-Oriental originals in the productions of late times. We have no single example of Byzantine icon-painting older than the ninth century. Of course, for the purpose of the history of the Russian icon we need not go beyond those later Byzantine examples, Russians would see and copy no icons till the tenth and eleventh centuries, but we must not shut our eyes to the changes due to the iconoclastic persecutions. We have, for instance, during the time of the iconoclasts the curious legend of the ‘icon-toys’ of the Empress Theodora. To judge by the account of their sizes these were little panels four or six inches long, which could be used by the icon worshippers in secret, so as not to draw upon themselves the persecutions of the iconoclasts. As if on purpose, fate has preserved for us one of these toys, an icon with the head and bust of S. Stephen, the first martyr.[23] It is of the seventh or eighth century, but was half destroyed in ancient times so that of the original painting only the head of the saint remains. In the tenth or eleventh century, after the veneration of icons had been restored, the shoulders were supplied in a different style and made too large in proportion to the small, neat head of the ancient type. There are many other Greek icons of about the same small dimensions as this, but they are all of later date. So, miniature Greek triptychs were made for use on journeys or for distribution to pilgrims. Hence, it appears that though the iconoclasts caused others to hide their icons away in their houses for a season, the result was a contribution to the development of the devotional icon.

      Iconoclasm was a reaction against the spread of the veneration of icons painted upon wood because these, far more than wall-paintings, put representations of God and the saints into people’s hands and made them common objects. The arguments for this ideological position might then have been expected to give us a full account of the development of the painting of icons upon wood. But there is nothing of the kind. They merely tell us of exaggerated cases of icon worship: they called their opponents wood worshippers. The icons had become the objects of superstitious rites; the people were adorning them with decorations and with jewels; they were publicly censed in the churches; they were used for the healing of the sick; the sick were led to sleep in their presence and dream under their inspiration, a survival of the pagan incubatio. Special icons came into use to celebrate birthdays, weddings, funerals, to give form to vows and to the memory of the dead. If a well dried up, an icon was cast into it; cloth was sanctified by being spread upon an icon, they were given to the godparents at a christening; paint was scraped off an icon and mixed with bread for the Communion; the bread was laid upon an icon and used for the Communion.

      But besides these accounts of the extremes to which the venerators of icons went, we get nothing from either the attack or defence, save the commonplaces of controversy.[24] The iconoclasts, at their council of A.D. 754, gave full expression to their teaching and the accusations – they accused recent Orthodox practice of idolatry and service of idols and cited against it all that they could find in the Bible, how that the institution of icons had no justification in the teaching of Christ or his Apostles, nor yet in the tradition of the Fathers, that there did not even exist a form of prayer for consecrating icons, the icon is not to be reconciled with serving God in spirit, the icon can only represent the human nature, it cannot and must not represent the God-man, icon-painters serve the cause of the Arian, Monophysite and Nestorian heresies; there is no ground for representing angels in human form with wings. The Blessed Virgin, the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs are capable of representation, but if it is impossible to represent Christ there is no need for these other icons.

      When, after the first introduction of the reform, the churches had been purged of icons, the group of iconoclastic theologians and prelates considered that their demands were satisfied – the wooden icons in the churches had been set so high upon the walls that they were out of reach of ‘kissing’ and suchlike. But the cause of the iconoclasts was closely linked with the problems of another political struggle, that of the army and administration against the monks, their violence and

21

Kondakov, Iconography B. V. M., i (1914), pp. 131-5, 153-8.

22

Latin mantele, ‘napkin’. Strictly speaking the Vernicle is the imprint of Christ’s features on the way to crucifixion, while the Greek napkin shows them yet unmarred.

23

Russian Museum, No. 1810, from the collection of N. P. Likhachëv.

24

For a summary of the whole controversy see A. I. Dobroklonski, S. Theodore, Confessor and Abbot of the Studium, i, pp. 34–47, P. 1913. The orthodox finally laid down that icons were not to receive ‘adoration in the proper sense’.