DOI Artikel:
Sulikowska, Aleksandra: The Old-Believers' Images of God as the Father: Theology and Cult
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18949#0125
“To wbom tben will ye liken God? or wbat likeness will ye compare unto
bim?” (Is 40:18)
Why did symbolic images of the Lord of Hosts not arouse doubts among
the majority of the 01d-Believers? This is partially explained by an earlier
presence of these images in Byzantine and southern-Slavic iconography,
especially by the influence of the latter on the transformations in Russian art
of the 15rh and 16rh centuriesY The popularity of these icons among the
believers in the “old Orthodoxy” could be related to the 01d-Believers’
eschatological ideology and, to some extent, to the need of possessing icons
with elaborated theological content which, when need be, especially during
repeated enforced migrations, could replace the temple’s high lconostas and
paintings. However, the main reason for such popularity was doubtlessly
copying of the 16th and 17th century icons and podlinniki and an exceptional
respect for Moscow, Novgorod and Stroganov models, considered to be the
most traditional and Orthodox.65 66 This way it can be explained why the
images of God the Father appeared so often in the painting of Palekh, whose
workshops specialised in icons painted according to these patterns.6
Yet another fact should be stressed here. Rublov’s The Holy Trinity icon
which, together with the Greek icons, was declared by Stoglav to be the correct
pattern of the Trinity’s68 iconography, from the point of view of Byzantine
icon theology and evangelical realism was a non-canonical depiction and,
like the image of the Lord of Hosts, depicted the Old Testament prophetic
vision. The popularity of the Rublov’s icon and especially the appreciation
of its dogmatic importance must have changed the perception of icons to
a large extent, creating a precedent of sorts for symbolic representations. In
his defence of the Trinity’s depiction in the form of three angels Iosif of
Volokolamsk wrote as early as in the beginning of the 16th century that no
depiction can render God’s glory but presents only that which man is capable
to fathom. Iosif stressed that the prophets never saw God in person sińce
he appeared to them in various images adeąuate to human power of
understanding and it is in these images that Divinity can be represented in
the icon.69 Accordingly, the council of 1553-1554, taking the Bibie and the
writings of the Fathers of the Church as its basis, declared that God appears
to men as fire, cold, an old man, a youth and one of such revelations was the
65 G.V. Popov, “Tri pamyatnika yuzhnoslavyanskoy zhivopisi XIV veka i ikh russkie kopii
serediny XVI veka”, in Vizantiya, yuzhnye slauyanie i drevnaya Rus. Zapadnaya Europa. Iskusstuo
i kultura, Moscow 1973, p. 352.
66 Bryusova, Russkaya zhiuopis..., op. cit., pp. 143-144, 150; O.Yu. Tharasov, “On the 18rh—19th
Century Icons in the Danube Pricipalites”, Revue Roumaine d’Histoire de l’Art, XXVII, 1990,
p. 69.
6 Antonova, op. cit., ill. 126, 128, 132, 136; Pokrovskiy, op. cit., p. 381; Russkie ikony X1I-XIX
vekov iz sobraniy Souetskogo Soyuza, Moscow 1988, ill. 18, 19; Russische Ikonen..., op. cit.,
cat. no. 11, 43.
68 Stoglaunyy Sobor, op. cit., p. 168.
6'‘ Iosif Volockiy, Posianie ikonopiscu, Moscow 1984, pp. 134-135.
123
bim?” (Is 40:18)
Why did symbolic images of the Lord of Hosts not arouse doubts among
the majority of the 01d-Believers? This is partially explained by an earlier
presence of these images in Byzantine and southern-Slavic iconography,
especially by the influence of the latter on the transformations in Russian art
of the 15rh and 16rh centuriesY The popularity of these icons among the
believers in the “old Orthodoxy” could be related to the 01d-Believers’
eschatological ideology and, to some extent, to the need of possessing icons
with elaborated theological content which, when need be, especially during
repeated enforced migrations, could replace the temple’s high lconostas and
paintings. However, the main reason for such popularity was doubtlessly
copying of the 16th and 17th century icons and podlinniki and an exceptional
respect for Moscow, Novgorod and Stroganov models, considered to be the
most traditional and Orthodox.65 66 This way it can be explained why the
images of God the Father appeared so often in the painting of Palekh, whose
workshops specialised in icons painted according to these patterns.6
Yet another fact should be stressed here. Rublov’s The Holy Trinity icon
which, together with the Greek icons, was declared by Stoglav to be the correct
pattern of the Trinity’s68 iconography, from the point of view of Byzantine
icon theology and evangelical realism was a non-canonical depiction and,
like the image of the Lord of Hosts, depicted the Old Testament prophetic
vision. The popularity of the Rublov’s icon and especially the appreciation
of its dogmatic importance must have changed the perception of icons to
a large extent, creating a precedent of sorts for symbolic representations. In
his defence of the Trinity’s depiction in the form of three angels Iosif of
Volokolamsk wrote as early as in the beginning of the 16th century that no
depiction can render God’s glory but presents only that which man is capable
to fathom. Iosif stressed that the prophets never saw God in person sińce
he appeared to them in various images adeąuate to human power of
understanding and it is in these images that Divinity can be represented in
the icon.69 Accordingly, the council of 1553-1554, taking the Bibie and the
writings of the Fathers of the Church as its basis, declared that God appears
to men as fire, cold, an old man, a youth and one of such revelations was the
65 G.V. Popov, “Tri pamyatnika yuzhnoslavyanskoy zhivopisi XIV veka i ikh russkie kopii
serediny XVI veka”, in Vizantiya, yuzhnye slauyanie i drevnaya Rus. Zapadnaya Europa. Iskusstuo
i kultura, Moscow 1973, p. 352.
66 Bryusova, Russkaya zhiuopis..., op. cit., pp. 143-144, 150; O.Yu. Tharasov, “On the 18rh—19th
Century Icons in the Danube Pricipalites”, Revue Roumaine d’Histoire de l’Art, XXVII, 1990,
p. 69.
6 Antonova, op. cit., ill. 126, 128, 132, 136; Pokrovskiy, op. cit., p. 381; Russkie ikony X1I-XIX
vekov iz sobraniy Souetskogo Soyuza, Moscow 1988, ill. 18, 19; Russische Ikonen..., op. cit.,
cat. no. 11, 43.
68 Stoglaunyy Sobor, op. cit., p. 168.
6'‘ Iosif Volockiy, Posianie ikonopiscu, Moscow 1984, pp. 134-135.
123