DOI Artikel:
Da̜b-Kalinowska, Barbara: "Cerkiew Wojująca". Ikona czy wyobrażenie?
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48915#0030
'The Militant Orthodox Church”. Icon or Pictorial Representation?
25
of events in this world and rebellion against it
individually, which was of significance - eternity,
but underlining the weight of what occurs in the
‘here and now’ and which strives for eternity, being
subordinated to the will of God.
Of the functions defined by icon theology,
The Blessed Hosts most completely fulfilled those
of a symbolic naturę. However, the symbolism of
The Militant Orthodox Church at War is not the same
symbolism, compliance with which was required
by the Stoglav recalling the basie formulations of the
icon’s classical theology, sińce apart from religious
contents there appear in it references to real-life
events and it is these morę than any others which
are visible, while the sacral ones are almost completely
concealed and subordinated to non-sacral contents.
There are numerous motifs at odds with icon canons,
while many have lost any similarity to the archetype.
At the same time, in The Blessed Hosts reflexions
were to be found of tendencies appeareing in contem-
poraneous writings. It was in this period that the
long-enduring process of hero worshipping holy
martyrs, in whom, apart from spiritual power, the
‘beauty of power’ was increasingly recognised, while
their chivalry and preparedness to take up arms was
glorified, reached its apogee. And thus The Blessed
Hosts do not depreciate, but on the contrary elevate
and even glorify the meaning of man and sacrifice
madę by him through his own body, which had to
result in his image no longer being treated as an icon.
Even though in The Militant Orthodox Church certain
traditional iconographic motifs appear, the so-called
‘innovatory’ ones that are also present create a whole
that is difficult to interpret, being saturated with
allegories and the symbols of signs. It is precisely
these features of The Blessed Hosts which provide
prereąuisites for building an hypothesis concerning
the author of the programme according to which the
painting was composed. This is revealed in the dispute
conducted by the diak Viskovaty with the Metro-
politan Macarius and the Protopope Silvester at the
Orthodox council of 1553-4, the latter being dedicated
supporters of this kind of painting. Defending painting
of an allegorical and symbolic character against the
criticisms of Viskovaty, the Metropolitan summoned
the authority of the Pseudo-Dionysus and his theory of
symbolic paintings, of perceiving the world through
the symbols of signs and of indicating the trans-
cendentni absolute. According to the Metropolitan, the
creating of images which were supposed to be literał
translations; as it were, literary copies of metaphors,
which in reality could not be visualised, was admis-
sible. The depicting of metaphors and symbols, with
the simultaneous por-traying of dogmas, often on the
same piece of wood upon which the icon had been
composed, led to the breaking up of icon painting into
‘historie’, thus being in linę with evangelical realism,
and that which depicted above all parable. The
appearance of representations of an allegorical and
symbolical character brought to icon painting a very
strong factor of literariness and conventionality, which
led to a disturbing of its uniformity of interna!
structure, as well as the blurring of its distinetness and
explicitness of expression. This literariness, so very
strongly discernible in The Militant Orthodox Church,
is characteristic of numerous paintings arising in the
second half of the 16th century, whose iconographic
programmes were not created on the basis of homo-
geneous literary sources, while the combining in them
of numerous themes resulted from the employing of
works of varying kinds, these often being secular
or virtually secular. As in the case of The Militant
Orthodox Church, such changes in pictorial represent-
ation created the possibility and the freedom of inter-
preting the painting’s message.
Translated by Peter Martyn
25
of events in this world and rebellion against it
individually, which was of significance - eternity,
but underlining the weight of what occurs in the
‘here and now’ and which strives for eternity, being
subordinated to the will of God.
Of the functions defined by icon theology,
The Blessed Hosts most completely fulfilled those
of a symbolic naturę. However, the symbolism of
The Militant Orthodox Church at War is not the same
symbolism, compliance with which was required
by the Stoglav recalling the basie formulations of the
icon’s classical theology, sińce apart from religious
contents there appear in it references to real-life
events and it is these morę than any others which
are visible, while the sacral ones are almost completely
concealed and subordinated to non-sacral contents.
There are numerous motifs at odds with icon canons,
while many have lost any similarity to the archetype.
At the same time, in The Blessed Hosts reflexions
were to be found of tendencies appeareing in contem-
poraneous writings. It was in this period that the
long-enduring process of hero worshipping holy
martyrs, in whom, apart from spiritual power, the
‘beauty of power’ was increasingly recognised, while
their chivalry and preparedness to take up arms was
glorified, reached its apogee. And thus The Blessed
Hosts do not depreciate, but on the contrary elevate
and even glorify the meaning of man and sacrifice
madę by him through his own body, which had to
result in his image no longer being treated as an icon.
Even though in The Militant Orthodox Church certain
traditional iconographic motifs appear, the so-called
‘innovatory’ ones that are also present create a whole
that is difficult to interpret, being saturated with
allegories and the symbols of signs. It is precisely
these features of The Blessed Hosts which provide
prereąuisites for building an hypothesis concerning
the author of the programme according to which the
painting was composed. This is revealed in the dispute
conducted by the diak Viskovaty with the Metro-
politan Macarius and the Protopope Silvester at the
Orthodox council of 1553-4, the latter being dedicated
supporters of this kind of painting. Defending painting
of an allegorical and symbolic character against the
criticisms of Viskovaty, the Metropolitan summoned
the authority of the Pseudo-Dionysus and his theory of
symbolic paintings, of perceiving the world through
the symbols of signs and of indicating the trans-
cendentni absolute. According to the Metropolitan, the
creating of images which were supposed to be literał
translations; as it were, literary copies of metaphors,
which in reality could not be visualised, was admis-
sible. The depicting of metaphors and symbols, with
the simultaneous por-traying of dogmas, often on the
same piece of wood upon which the icon had been
composed, led to the breaking up of icon painting into
‘historie’, thus being in linę with evangelical realism,
and that which depicted above all parable. The
appearance of representations of an allegorical and
symbolical character brought to icon painting a very
strong factor of literariness and conventionality, which
led to a disturbing of its uniformity of interna!
structure, as well as the blurring of its distinetness and
explicitness of expression. This literariness, so very
strongly discernible in The Militant Orthodox Church,
is characteristic of numerous paintings arising in the
second half of the 16th century, whose iconographic
programmes were not created on the basis of homo-
geneous literary sources, while the combining in them
of numerous themes resulted from the employing of
works of varying kinds, these often being secular
or virtually secular. As in the case of The Militant
Orthodox Church, such changes in pictorial represent-
ation created the possibility and the freedom of inter-
preting the painting’s message.
Translated by Peter Martyn