View Full Version : Iconography
Is it true that an icon must have an inscription on it, denoting the subject depicted, in order for it to be venerated? Even if the icon is very old and damaged, but the "subject" of the icon is still discernible? I raise this question as I was told recently by a priest that there are people in his parish who would refuse to venerate an icon without a legible inscription, such as Rublyev's Trinity, or the Mother of God of Vladimir, (I mean reproductions of the originals, not "faithful copies"). AMAZING! This suggests they regard the text of the inscription is more important theologically and spiritually than the pictorial content, or that the pictorial content is invalid without the text. Hmmm....
Marie-Duquette
24-04-2004, 04:13 PM
Christ is Risen! Olga,
What does it mean to "venerate an icon"?
As far as I can respond, the Icon is an exterior, visible image of an inner, invisible reality. And, the veneration of an Icon is showing reverence and respect to whomever is depicted upon the image, and not to the piece of wood, parchement or lettering.
If I am giving a kiss of peace to a living person, I do not look at the exterior accidents that depict the person, but to the whole person.
The act of veneration comes from the heart, mind and soul of the person of Faith, who sees beyond what is depicted, whether a paper-copy of an icon or one, that is considered old, authentic, miraculous and carrier of Grace and Healing.
marie_duquette
Marie
Your comments are completely correct and beautifully put. The reason for my post (no. 6) is not because I have a problem with icon veneration, but because, sadly, it seems that others do, when faced with an icon without a legible inscription. I have read widely on the subject of icons and iconography, but I can't recall coming across any mention of the absolute need for a legible inscription, where the icon is old or damaged, or where a printed copy of such an icon is made. It would be good to hear the views of any iconographers who contribute to this forum.
Marie-Duquette
27-04-2004, 01:56 PM
Olga,
Thanks for your response ... Hope you find an answer to your legitimate querry. As, for myself, I have never heard of the problem faced by some persons in conjunction with the veneration of icons. Neither have I heard or read of legible inscription being imperative to the authenticity of the icon and its veneration. If I find anything in my research I'll let you know. Hopefully iconographers will respond to your question.
Christ is Risen!
marie_duquette
Gilbert Gandenberger
28-04-2004, 01:19 AM
Marie, Olga, I've read a fair amount of the Patristic material on icons, and have never heard of anything regarding an inscription being needed. The reality of the glory of God revealed in the icons, and their associated relics, leads us to heartfelt veneration.
Venerating icons is an expression of the Church's faith that God has redeemed this created world, and we meet Him in the physical realities we are surrounded by. We show our love for Him as we love our brothers and sisters, including those who have achieved their rest, by kissing the icons of them. This natural expression of real love was seen by the Patristic teachers who defended the icons in the early centuries of our history as being a natural extension of kissing a picture we might have of a child or spouse or parent when we are separated from them for a period of time. If we are only kissing or venerating our icons because of a formal understanding that we "ought" to do this, we have not discovered the heart of our faith.
Hope this helps a bit!
Matthew Panchisin
28-04-2004, 01:28 AM
Dear Olga,
Christ is Risen!
Is it true that an icon must have an inscription on it, denoting the subject depicted, in order for it to be venerated?
The answer to your question is No.
There are many icons that do not have an inscriptions on them. Iconography is considered theology in color. Many feast day icons do not have a description of the feast day on the icon. Many murals of feast days painted on the walls of churches have no description as well.
St John of Damascus has written the below.
We use all our senses to produce worthy images of Him, and we sanctify the noblest of the senses, which is that of sight. For just as words edify the ear, so also the image stimulates the eye. What the book is to the literate, the image is to the illiterate. Just as words speak to the ear, so the image speaks to the sight; it brings us understanding.
Sandra June Hofstead
03-05-2004, 10:31 PM
Christ is Risen!
The practice of "naming" i.e. writing the name of the person or event depicted in an icon arose after the iconoclast heresy was overcome in the Church. Some Icons still exist from before this period still and are without inscriptions. It is my understanding as an iconographer that inscriptions on icons are placed to clearly identify the person or, in the case of festal icons, persons being venerated. In the icon of the Annunciation to the Theotokos for example, the event is often named as well as the Archangel Gabriel and the Holy Theotokos. The homage we give to the image passes to the person venerated (the prototype). Icons where the inscription is missing, worn away along with elements of the image itself may be venerated as long as the image is clearly recognizable. An icon so worn that the image is unrecognizable has in the strict sense ceased to be an icon and should be restored or destroyed reverently of course. I can only speculate as to why some people would object to veneration of a clearly recognizable icon with no inscription. This because other features of certain icons are clearly characteristic like the cruciform halo of Christ or the three stars on the maphorion of the Theotokos as well as the colors of their garments.
Unworthy iconographer, Alexandra
Kosmas Damianides
18-09-2005, 09:29 PM
Dear Brethren,
I have been reading a web site dedicated to some schismatic Greek Orthodox called Matthewites or GOX. They claim that maninstream Orthodoxy is Iconoclastic, because we do not allow Icons of God and prefer the "Hospitality of Abraham" instead of having Icons of God sitting on a Chair with a white beard with Christ and a dove between them (obviously influenced by the Filioque). This humanised personification of God the Father is supposed to be the prefered type for them. They claim to be Pure or Genuine Orthodox and are self-proclaimed protectors of Orthodoxy.
They also think that we are Iconoclasts because we do not depict Christ's resurrection, (the resurrectin flag in hand) coming out of the tomb. It is clear why we Orthodox do not do this, because no-one has ever seen the Ressurection for it to be described. But why do we depict the descent into Hades and entitle it the Resurrection of Christ? Why is this Icon more acceptable in our Church than the other?
It is easy to refute the canonicity of the so-called "New Testament Trinity" and its Russian variant, "Paternity", through any number of canons on iconography which expressly forbid the depiction of God the Father as an old man with a white beard. It is also improper to portray the Holy Spirit in pictorial form, other than as a dove in icons of the Theophany ONLY, as the mandorla of light surrounding Christ at His Transfiguration and Resurrection, and as the tongues of fire descending on the apostles at Pentecost. St John of Damascus, in his "On Defence of the Holy Images", probably the most authoritative written work on the subject, also expressly refutes the depiction of God the Father in this way. (I am happy to supply reference documents on request, or I can post them on the forum as attachments if people prefer.)
As for the Resurrection icon which is considered proper, it is one of the most theologically intense of all our festal icons, on a par with the canonical Holy Trinity. There is so much meaning to be absorbed from it, that the other "icon" Kosmas describes pales into insignificance. Where, in this "icon", is the destruction of the power of sin over us? Where is the redemption of Adam and Eve from their spiritual tombs? Where are the prophets and other Old Testament figures who knew of the redemption to come, but did not see it in their lifetimes? And those who follow, who now have the means, through the Son of God's sacrifice and resurrection, to partake of the kingdom of heaven? The canonical rendition of the Resurrection renders in a single pictorial form the distillation of the hymnography of the services for Easter, an awesome and inspired feat. It represents the very best of what iconography is all about. Let us always remember that iconography is theology in colour, and not simply decorative and illustrative. It is ironic, that a group which claims authenticity of doctrine, refuses to recognise these treasures. Are they, then, not iconoclasts themselves?
Leandros Papadopoulos
19-09-2005, 06:11 PM
But why do we depict the descent into Hades and entitle it the Resurrection of Christ? Why is this Icon more acceptable in our Church than the other?
The orthodox iconography presents the Resurrection according to King David's psalm 107 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Psalm%20107:1-30;&version=50;), verses 11-20:
Because they rebelled against the words of God, And despised the counsel of the Most High, Therefore He brought down their heart with labor; They fell down, and there was none to help. Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble, And He saved them out of their distresses. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death, And broke their chains in pieces. Oh, that men would give thanks to the LORD for His goodness, And for His wonderful works to the children of men! For He has broken the gates of bronze, And cut the bars of iron in two. Fools, because of their transgression, And because of their iniquities, were afflicted. Their soul abhorred all manner of food, And they drew near to the gates of death. Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble, And He saved them out of their distresses. He sent His word and healed them, And delivered them from their destructions.
The mystery of resurrection as well as the mystery of the birth of Christ is beyond created reality, although they happened "in time" and "in space" in our realm. The resurrected Christ did not exit the tomb through its door. As the Virgin is virgin (remains) after His birth, also the tomb remained closed at the moment and after the resurrection of Christ - and it opened for the apostles to testify the empty tomb after His resurrection and exit from it. He exited from the tomb in a way that is beyond comprehension and beyond verbal and picturized presentation.
The orthodox theology is iconizing reality but it is not portraying reality, because in many cases reality is uncreated and it can not be depicted.
In the same sense, we are the icons of God, but we are not the portraits God.
In this context any portrait of the Trinity (old man, son, dove) is non-orthodox. The orthodox icon of the trinity is the incarnated Son with the epigram "O WN" ("jehovah" in jewish-"Who I am" in English).
The orthodox iconography, in order to overcome this limitation in iconizing the uncreated, uses "icons" from the old testament, from prophesies and psalms that present the uncreated realities in a formal way. So, the form that is presented in the orthodox iconography is not the actual portrait of the iconized "scene", but it is an imitating pattern that intents to present a truth/reality that is seen by the heart through the eyes of the observer, not by his/hers brain.
May God bless us, all.
Fr Raphael Vereshack
19-09-2005, 06:48 PM
Dear Leandros,
You wrote,
The orthodox theology is iconizing reality but it is not portraying reality, because in many cases reality is uncreated and it can not be depicted.
It is better to say that 'reality' is both Uncreated when referring to God and created when referring to -well- what is created. Perhaps though what you mean is that it is the Uncreated God Who provides the image of what created reality is meant to attain. There is thus indeed a definite reality to the created order especially inasmuch as it is in the image of its Creator- and inasmuch as it finds its completion in its Creator.
As many of the Holy Fathers maintain, it is the fallen world in which we live that is un-real while reality is the renewed creation in God.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Leandros Papadopoulos
20-09-2005, 01:33 AM
Dear friends,
Let me agree with Sister Olga and Fr Raphael Vereshack.
Uncreated reality is not a self-existent reality. It only exists as far as it is a reality within a relation. This is the only kind of ontological reality that can exist as uncreated, everything else - being out of a relation - is created.
The “scene” of Christ’s birth, or of Christ’s resurrection is meaningless in the absence of others in relation with whom – and not just for whom - Christ is being born and being resurrected. If the others are just observers of the actions of Christ then His energies would have been created energies, but they are uncreated. Because His actions are not just “for them”, but they are performed as relational acts “in relation with them”, we are being placed in a position that we can not present Him in an icon as an agent of energies, but as a person in relation. He is a Person that does everything in relation with His Father in His Spirit. In the context of this same relation He becomes the Son of Man and acts as a human being, acting though in being the Son of God. This uncreated reality of Relation can not be depicted.
For example, a picture of mine - in my work - can not present my personal relation with my wife. But if you find an iconic way to present that I have devoted my life to my wife within our loving personal relation and that my work is not an act of an agent, but an act of a specific husband in relation with his wife that participate also in his specific work/act through their relation without being herself an actor/agent, then you would present what it is an "uncreated act" for my wife - because this is not a presentation of a created action produce by her active behavior but through a relation.
In the orthodox icon of resurrection of Christ, even “death” is presented being captured by the specific death of Christ. Nothing remained in ignorance of His resurrection. Nothing remained unrelated with Him. His resurrection was not just a revitalization of His body. No!
What brings us in front of the mystery of His resurrection is not that He came forth alive from his grave. For, there were seven resurrections (revitalizations): one by prophet Elias, two by prophet Elisaios, and four by Christ (daughter of Jairus, the son of the widow of Nain , Lazarus, and the resurrection of the dead in Friday that He was crucified) and yet “death” was not defeated by them.
But on the eighth resurrection: “Christ is Risen, and you, O death, are annihilated!” as St. John Chrysostom says in his Paschal Homily (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/resurrection_icon.aspx), because the eighth resurrected Person resurrected in being in relation with the Father in Spirit and with us. In His resurrection we have found our uncreated salvation through our relation with Him, not as a consequence of abstract human salvation but as a specific living reality of being personally related with Him: in our baptism in His death and His resurrection as we accepted Him before our immersion in the holy water, when the priest asked “do you side up with Christ?” we answered “I side up with Christ”.
The time of our baptism is not irrelevant of the time of His death and resurrection. It is actually synchronous.
St Chrysostom says in his Pascal Homily, and his words are being iconized in the orthodox Icon of Resurrection (also known as Icon of “Descent into Hades”) : “Partake, all, of the cup of faith. Enjoy all the riches of His goodness! Let no one grieve at his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free. He has destroyed it by enduring it.”
May God bless us, all.
M.C. Steenberg
20-09-2005, 11:23 AM
Dear friends,
Do let's keep in mind that there are two canonical icons of the resurrection: that which is properly called the 'descent into Hades', which has been described above; and that of the arrival of the myrrh-bearing women at the empty tomb.
INXC, Matthew
Mariamni
20-09-2005, 12:58 PM
Dear Friends,
The correct title and inscription of the icon depicting the descent into Hades is actually The Resurrection, The Anastasis. The icon of the myrrh-bearing women at the tomb is the earlier type.
I have always been taught that when painting an icon it is not finished until it has its inscription, and that it is proper for those depicted to be named. However the name or inscription does not 'validate' the image. The icon depicts 'what we have seen', and if the icon is recognisable, not to venerate it due to the lack of an inscription is to misunderstand what an icon truly is.
In XC, Mariamni
nurse-aid
20-09-2005, 03:03 PM
O Lord! My God! The only Truth! My Trust and my Refuge,
the only joyful, constant Voice, which I cannot refused…
So let it be with me all life…No meter what its brings…
According to Your will my God! Without any fears!
When I am sick and I’m in pain let’s feel that words, let’s say again!
When I am in tears and in doubts, let’s cry to You my Lord those only words!
When all betrayed me and I’m lost, let’s say again: You Will be Done, my Lord!
I’m not a host!
I’m not a host of all my life, not even tiny glance…You kept me safe,
and gave me Life, You taking care of all and in advance…
So let it done and words are cry, to You and all the time…
According to Your Will my God! Because I born for Thine!
Tim Grass
20-09-2005, 05:54 PM
Does anyone know when the title(s) of the icon of the "Resurrection"/"The Descent into Hades" date from? I was always under the impression that it was called "The Descent into Hades" first, and then later started to have the general instcription "The Resurrection." Does anyone know more about this? (Kind of like the icon now usually inscribed "The Trinity" was first called "The Hospitality of Abraham," and sometimes it still is).
Tim
Kosmas Damianides
21-09-2005, 05:13 PM
Do let's keep in mind that there are two canonical icons of the resurrection: that which is properly called the 'descent into Hades', which has been described above; and that of the arrival of the myrrh-bearing women at the empty tomb.
Yes this is true but having Jesus standing at His tomb with a flag with a red cross on it is... not quite right. I realise that the Myre bearing women did visit the empty tomb of Christ and were greeted by an angel (or 2), but the Mathewites believe that we should use the Latinised Westernised Icon of Christ standing outside His tomb.
I like the explanations all of you have given. I am glad you are all preserving the True Orthodox Faith http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif
INXC
KOSMAS
M.C. Steenberg
25-09-2005, 02:48 PM
Dear Mr Tim Grass, you wrote:
Does anyone know when the title(s) of the icon of the "Resurrection"/"The Descent into Hades" date from? I was always under the impression that it was called "The Descent into Hades" first, and then later started to have the general instcription "The Resurrection." Does anyone know more about this? (Kind of like the icon now usually inscribed "The Trinity" was first called "The Hospitality of Abraham," and sometimes it still is).
I did a bit of searching (not thorough, mind you), and was unable to find any immediate response to this question. I, like you, have also always been under the impression that the title 'The descent into Hades' predates the icon being inscribed 'The Resurrection' - but I readily admit to being under this impression because it was told to me a long time ago. I've no definitive grounding for it. Still, it has always seemed rather logical to me that it would be so, given the Church's practice in other areas of iconography (as well as in other traditions of its heritage) of taking what are first more specific instances of representation and later establishing them in the context of the larger realities expressed.
INXC, Matthew
Paul Cowan
19-01-2009, 12:39 AM
Without wanting to start a new thread, may I ask...
When looking at an icon depicting a person, they many times will have their hand (one or both) open faced towards the viewer. What does this mean? It looks as if they are nonverbally saying "stop" or "halt" or "wait". Thank you.
Paul, this gesture of the open hand, palm outward, held close to the body represents the saint's humility, renunciation of worldly life, and submission to the will of God. In many icons of the Annunciation, such as the famous Okhrid Annunciation, where the iconographer is showing the moment where the Mother of God gives her assent to God ("Be it unto me as you say"), she is shown gesturing in this way.
http://transcriptions.english.ucsb.edu/archive/courses/liu/english236/materials/icon-ohrid-annunciation.jpg
Herman Blaydoe
19-01-2009, 04:36 PM
Despite what American society has turned it into ("talk to the hand..."), the open hand has several ancient cultural meanings. It is submissive, in that the hand is exposed and shown not to have a weapon in it. It is open and not a fist. The person is showing that they are not defiant, that they are defenseless and willingly vulnerable. The open hand also connotes "giving" something. In some cases, the person is giving obedience or assent. In the case of a bishop or priest, the hand is giving a blessing. This is not specific to iconography but to many societies in general.
Herman
Paul Cowan
21-02-2009, 04:20 AM
Shifting a bit...
I had the opportunity today to visit our local Coptic Church. They are finishing the frescoes on the walls and inside of the dome. I met the iconographer. Hisnameis George. I had visited 18 months ago to bare walls. What I saw today was Heaven on earth. I was totally in awe of his work and the gift God has given him.
My question is, is it permissable for a Coptic iconogrpaher to write in an EO church? Coptic icons are distinctly different than Byzantine of which I am accustomed. Though his work was a combination of both modes. Did I say how good he is?
My parish is still needing icons to be written all over, but we do not yet have enough money to pay for the service. George is almost done with this assignment and does not know where he and his family are to go next for work. He says he will be done around mid April 2009. If anyone knows of a church that needs icons written and it is first permissable for him to work for the EO, I am happy to take photos of his work and introduce him to you.
Here is their website with photos (http://www.saintmaryhouston.org/category/image-galleries/icons-at-st-mary/dome-icons). Did I say he was gifted? He is also a very humble man. I was able to talk to him for about an hour today and he showed me his portfolio. Please pass the word, again if permissable, to any who might be looking for work of this caliber.
Thank you.
Paul
I don't question the artistry of Mr. George- these paintings are beautiful and well executed- but, at least to my taste, they reflect a bit too much the influence of Roman Catholic art. When it comes to Coptic iconography, I quite like the modern Coptic revival iconography, such as that done by Isaac Fanous (Isaac Fanous). It partly revives the old Coptic style, but infuses it with more Byzantine influence and, I dare say, a rather cartoonish touch. I suspect the Orthodox iconographer, Nicholas Papas, has been influenced by this style, and his work adorns many of the Antiochian churches near me.
Father David Moser
21-02-2009, 06:06 AM
My question is, is it permissable for a Coptic iconogrpaher to write in an EO church?
Anyone who paints icons for a Church can only do so with the blessing of the diocesan bishop. So if your bishop blesses - he can paint.
Fr David Moser
Some thoughts from a "grumpy old woman":
I quite agree with Ryan. The artistic workmanship is "beautiful", but the images are little different in content and style to those found in Roman Catholic churches. Such images, of course, may be considered entirely acceptable in a Coptic church, but this is just a guess on my part, not being overly familiar with Coptic doctrines as they relate to iconography. As this church is non-Chalcedonian, it is unlikely it would be using the canons of the Quinisext and Seventh Ecumenical Councils to inform its iconographic traditions.
Andreas Moran
21-02-2009, 01:17 PM
My question is, is it permissable for a Coptic iconogrpaher to write in an EO church?
No. Iconography is part of the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church. It cannot be separated from the Orthodox faith and orthopraxis, from our theology, liturgy, hymnography and spiritual life. The Orthodox iconographer works within the totality of our Holy Tradition. He prepares himself by prayer, fasting, confession and holy communion in accordance with the Orthodox faith as part of his service to the Church and her faithful. Iconography is one of the means by which the Holy Orthodox Church instructs and edifies her faithful. Orthodox iconodules suffered persecution for the holy icons. In a few weeks' time, we shall celebrate the Sunday of Orthodoxy. How could we sing the hymns of that Sunday in a church decorated by a non-Orthodox artist?
Conversely, I know some Orthodox iconographers have decorated non-Orthodox churches occasionally (usually of Byzantine Catholics)... is there any "rule" against this?
Conversely, I know some Orthodox iconographers have decorated non-Orthodox churches occasionally (usually of Byzantine Catholics)... is there any "rule" against this?
If an Orthodox iconographer were to paint icons of saints not venerated by the Orthodox Church, then, yes, there would be a problem. The prayer and fasting Andreas referred to includes prayers to the saint whose icon is to be painted. Would it then be proper for an Orthodox iconographer to ask for the intercessions of a non-Orthodox saint?
Paul Cowan
21-02-2009, 09:24 PM
We are all about what-ifs here, but what if an iconographer were to paint a non-orthodox church with orthodox saints and say the prayers to them adn take communion fomo his home priest? An extreme example not that it would ever happen...an Orthodox paints the inside of a baptist church with the 3 Holy Heirarchs, Pantacrator and Sts. Peter and Paul.All these are Orthodox yet in a heterodox church.
If an Orthodox iconographer were to paint icons of saints not venerated by the Orthodox Church, then, yes, there would be a problem. The prayer and fasting Andreas referred to includes prayers to the saint whose icon is to be painted. Would it then be proper for an Orthodox iconographer to ask for the intercessions of a non-Orthodox saint?
Iconographer Niko Chocheli recently installed these icons at a Roman Catholic church near me:
http://www.comeandseeicons.com/nikoinstall.htm
It looks like he only wrote icons of the Theotokos, Saint Basil, and two anonymous angels.
We are all about what-ifs here, but what if an iconographer were to paint a non-orthodox church with orthodox saints and say the prayers to them adn take communion fomo his home priest? An extreme example not that it would ever happen...an Orthodox paints the inside of a baptist church with the 3 Holy Heirarchs, Pantacrator and Sts. Peter and Paul.All these are Orthodox yet in a heterodox church.
What are the chances of a Baptist church commissioning icons of saints, Paul? A more realistic scenario would be a commission for a Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic or high-church Anglican church. As I mentioned before, the line needs to be drawn if non-Orthodox persons are to be painted. We only need to look at what has happened at a certain American monastery to see where the slippery slope can lead.
There are iconographers who decline commissions for non-Orthodox patrons or churches, irrespective of the subject matter requested. There are others who are happy to accept commissions from such patrons, but on the understanding that images not compatible with Orthodox tradition will not be painted.
It looks like he only wrote icons of the Theotokos, Saint Basil, and two anonymous angels.
The bishop-saint may well be St Basil, given his being the patron of this church, but the female figure is not the Mother of God, despite the red and blue garments she is wearing. This saint is not holding Christ, but a Gospel book (something normally only seen in icons of priest- or bishop-saints, though there are a few notable Orthodox exceptions, such as Greatmartyr Euphemia). There are no stars of perpetual virginity on her head and shoulders, and no sign of an inscription MP-ΘY. She could well be an Orthodox saint, but I suspect she may be one of the Roman Catholic saints known as Doctors of the Church, some of whom are female.
Yes, after I posted that, I looked at it again and thought, "hm, the Theotokos doesn't normally hold a book!" What female saints besides Euphemia are depicted as holding books?
Kusanagi
23-02-2009, 01:24 AM
Yes, after I posted that, I looked at it again and thought, "hm, the Theotokos doesn't normally hold a book!" What female saints besides Euphemia are depicted as holding books?
I have an icon of St Nina holding the gospel as she was enlightener of Georgia.
Michael Stickles
25-02-2009, 10:00 PM
Yes, after I posted that, I looked at it again and thought, "hm, the Theotokos doesn't normally hold a book!" What female saints besides Euphemia are depicted as holding books?
Niko Chocheli's icon of St. Macrina (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/m/cbk02.htm) at Come and See Icons matches the one on the church wall.
Some food for thought:
It is regarded as a given that Christ, the Apostles, and male saints of clerical rank may be shown bearing a gospel book in their icons. Of the matter of women bearing a Gospel book, this needs to be treated carefully. Women of the Orthodox Church cannot be ordained to the priesthood or episcopate, therefore they do not "preach the word of God" in a formal, liturgical sense, as do clergy. Therefore, on the face of it, this observation would preclude any female saint from bearing a Gospel book in her icons.
However, we have the examples of the "enlightener-saints", male and female, who brought Orthodoxy to their lands, or to "foreign" lands through their missionary work, and promoted its spread. However, most of these, such as Sts Olaf of Norway and Vladimir of Kiev, were not of clerical rank; and neither were the female enlighteners such as Sts Nina of Georgia and Olga of Kiev. The more common motif to illustrate their status is for the saint to hold a miniature church, in the same way that Apostles Peter and Paul do (being the "Pillars of the Church"), but I cannot see any real objection to an enlightener-saint, male or female, bearing a Gospel.
Greatmartyr Euphemia's "entitlement" to bear the Gospel is not based on the above principle, but on her posthumous intercession regarding the monophysite heresy at the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Here is one account of this miracle:
http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsLife.asp?FSID=102002
The troparion and kontakion to this saint are concise and elegant summaries of her efforts and stature:
You brought joy to the Orthodox
and shame to the defenders of heresy,
for you confirmed what the Fathers of the Fourth Council had correctly taught.
Glorious martyr Euphemia, fair virgin of Christ,
entreat Christ God to grant us His great mercy.
For the sake of Christ your Bridegroom
you underwent struggles struggles in both martyrdom and faith.
Now intercede with the Mother of God
that heresies and the insolent enemies of the Orthodox be placed underfoot.
You received and guarded that which was defined by the six hundred and thirty God-bearing Fathers,
all-praised Euphemia.
Similarly, Greatmartyr Catherine of Alexandria openly argued with, and repudiated the learned pagan orators and philosophers who attempted to turn her away from the Christian faith. This is repeatedly emphasised in the Vigil service to this saint, particularly in the Canon at Matins. The accounts of her efforts are well-illustrated and summarised in the troparion and kontakion written for her:
By your virtues as by rays of the sun you enlightened the unbelieving philosophers,
and like the most bright moon you drove away the darkness of disbelief from those walking in the night;
you convinced the queen, and also chastised the tyrant,
God-summoned bride, blessed Catherine.
You hastened with desire to the heavenly bridal chamber of the fairest Bride-groom Christ,
and you were crowned by Him with a royal crown;
standing before Him with the angels, pray for us who keep your most sacred memory.
Let all of us who love to honor the martyrs
form a great choir in praise of the most wise Catherine,
for she preached Christ and trampled the serpent,
despising the knowledge of the orators!
By contrast, St Macrina the Younger, sister of St Basil the Great, while an entirely worthy and venerable saint in her own right, could not be ranked as an enlightener-saint, nor was there anything in her life on a par with St Euphemia's or Catherine's repudiation of heresy which would entitle her to hold a Gospel book in icons. The vigil text, troparion and kontakion are simply the "standard" service for a female monastic. Therefore it seems that an error was made in the painting of the icon of St Macrina holding a Gospel. Honourable in intent, but still a bit wide of the mark.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.5 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.