DOI article:
Sulikowska, Aleksandra: The Old-Believers' Images of God as the Father: Theology and Cult
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18949#0120
One of the exceptional descriptions of God the Father in the 01d-Believers’
literaturę is a fragment in Pomorskie Otvety where the figures of the Lord of
Hosts and that of the “Ancient Youth Jesus Christ” are clearly separated.”
At the same time, the standpoint of some of the 01d-Believers’ groups -
significantly, those which denounced representation - suggests that it was
really understood as the image of God the Father.36 This interpretation
accords with the view taken on the issue both by the council of 1667 and
the Holy Synod.’ However, at the root of this interpretation seems to lie an
earlier, 16th century way of reception of the image.
The name “the Ancient of Days” appearing in liturgical texts had
a christological meaning.38 Until the 15th century in Greek, Bałkan and Russian
painting the figurę of the old Ancient of Days often represented Christ (as
one of his images) while the depictions of the Son of God could be accompanied
by the text of the cherubs’ song referring to God from the Isaiah’s revelation
(Is 6:3).j9 At the same time, images of Paternitas of unmistakably trinitarian
significance were created, whereon the figurę of an old man holding Christ
Emmanuel on his lap had to be identified with God the Father.40 However,
it was only in metropolitan Makariy’s pronouncement at the council of
1553-1554 that the images of the First Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity
were deemed prophetic and eąuipped with theological explanation.41 This
transformation is further proven by the inscription “the Ford of Hosts”
(“Iftb CaBacocfyŁ”) which accompanied the images sińce the 16rh century,42
pertaining to the Lord of Heavenly Powers from the Old Testament:
“Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be
your dread” (Is 8:14). “For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall
disannul it? And his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?”
(Is 14:27).
This transformation, apart from others taking place in Russian iconography
during that period, can be related to popularisation of the symbolic theology
of Pseudo-Dyomsius the Areopagite. His writings enjoyed tremendous
authority and were ąuoted by virtually all the authors in the 16th as well as
many in the 17rh century who interpreted these texts literally and considered
their literał metaphoric illustrations to be a correct embodiment of Pseudo-
35 Pomorskie otvety, op. cit., p. 38-39.
36 Dąb-Kalinowska, op. cit., p. 76.
’ Ouspensky, op. cit., p. 359.
38 Ibid., pp. 347, 350-352.
39 Avner, op. cit., p. 459ff; A. Grabar, La Peinture religieuse en Bułgarie, Paris 1928, p. 118, 306;
C. Grozdanov, Studii za okhridskot zhwopis, Skopje 1990, p. 133; G.I. Vzdornov, Volotovo.
Freski cerkvi Uspeniya na Volotovom pole bliz Nougoroda, Moscow 1989, p. 33.
40 On an Novgorod Paternitas icon from the late 14th century there is an inscription: “Father
and Son and the Holy Ghost”. Lazarev, op. cit., ill. 31; cf. Smirnova, Laurina, Gordienko,
op. cit., cat. 54; Retkovskaya, op. cit., p. 245.
41 Ouspensky, op. cit., pp. 350-352
42 VI. Antonova, N.E. Mneva, Katalog dreunerusskoy zhwopisi. Opyt istoriko-khudozhestuennoy
klasifikacyi, I, Moscow 1963, p. 94, footnote 1.
118
literaturę is a fragment in Pomorskie Otvety where the figures of the Lord of
Hosts and that of the “Ancient Youth Jesus Christ” are clearly separated.”
At the same time, the standpoint of some of the 01d-Believers’ groups -
significantly, those which denounced representation - suggests that it was
really understood as the image of God the Father.36 This interpretation
accords with the view taken on the issue both by the council of 1667 and
the Holy Synod.’ However, at the root of this interpretation seems to lie an
earlier, 16th century way of reception of the image.
The name “the Ancient of Days” appearing in liturgical texts had
a christological meaning.38 Until the 15th century in Greek, Bałkan and Russian
painting the figurę of the old Ancient of Days often represented Christ (as
one of his images) while the depictions of the Son of God could be accompanied
by the text of the cherubs’ song referring to God from the Isaiah’s revelation
(Is 6:3).j9 At the same time, images of Paternitas of unmistakably trinitarian
significance were created, whereon the figurę of an old man holding Christ
Emmanuel on his lap had to be identified with God the Father.40 However,
it was only in metropolitan Makariy’s pronouncement at the council of
1553-1554 that the images of the First Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity
were deemed prophetic and eąuipped with theological explanation.41 This
transformation is further proven by the inscription “the Ford of Hosts”
(“Iftb CaBacocfyŁ”) which accompanied the images sińce the 16rh century,42
pertaining to the Lord of Heavenly Powers from the Old Testament:
“Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be
your dread” (Is 8:14). “For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall
disannul it? And his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?”
(Is 14:27).
This transformation, apart from others taking place in Russian iconography
during that period, can be related to popularisation of the symbolic theology
of Pseudo-Dyomsius the Areopagite. His writings enjoyed tremendous
authority and were ąuoted by virtually all the authors in the 16th as well as
many in the 17rh century who interpreted these texts literally and considered
their literał metaphoric illustrations to be a correct embodiment of Pseudo-
35 Pomorskie otvety, op. cit., p. 38-39.
36 Dąb-Kalinowska, op. cit., p. 76.
’ Ouspensky, op. cit., p. 359.
38 Ibid., pp. 347, 350-352.
39 Avner, op. cit., p. 459ff; A. Grabar, La Peinture religieuse en Bułgarie, Paris 1928, p. 118, 306;
C. Grozdanov, Studii za okhridskot zhwopis, Skopje 1990, p. 133; G.I. Vzdornov, Volotovo.
Freski cerkvi Uspeniya na Volotovom pole bliz Nougoroda, Moscow 1989, p. 33.
40 On an Novgorod Paternitas icon from the late 14th century there is an inscription: “Father
and Son and the Holy Ghost”. Lazarev, op. cit., ill. 31; cf. Smirnova, Laurina, Gordienko,
op. cit., cat. 54; Retkovskaya, op. cit., p. 245.
41 Ouspensky, op. cit., pp. 350-352
42 VI. Antonova, N.E. Mneva, Katalog dreunerusskoy zhwopisi. Opyt istoriko-khudozhestuennoy
klasifikacyi, I, Moscow 1963, p. 94, footnote 1.
118