Andrei Rublev

[Kieran P.]

Hi friends,

Is Andrei Rublev considered a saint? And if so, on what basis was he canonised given that so little is known of his life?

I don't ask this question to denigrate either him or the process, by the way, because I think his icons are remarkable and I'm sure he lived a life of heroic virtue.

The film by Tarkovski doesn't help, great though it is, since it's mainly allegory. Can anyone guide me to a good site about Andrei Rublev so I can learn more about his life?

I love his icon of the Trinity, and it seems that his work, or copies of it, are all that survive.

God bless

[Kusanagi]

The monasticism that he lived, he was inspired by St Sergius of Radonezh. He together with his fellow struggler St Daniel the Black grew in monasticism and iconography. They practically along with Theophanes the Greek defined icon painting during the time of great tumult because of the tartar invasions. St Daniel went to heaven first and he came back to invite Andrei and also he was canonised first and then Andrei. There is a book called Heroes of Icons which mentions all people that painted icons or who defended icons.

[Michael Stickles]

He is, and his feast day is July 4. I found a few accounts of his life, all very short since (as you noted) not much is known. The one from Firebird Videos mentions the reasons for his being accepted as a saint.

http://www.firebirdvideos.com/saintslives/lifeofrublev.htm

http://www.abcgallery.com/I/icons/rublevbio.html

http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/rublev.html

http://park.org/Guests/Russia/moscow/sergiev/rublev.html

Firebird's page also shows two icons of St. Andrei. On the OCA's "Lives of the Saints" page at http://www.oca.org/FSlives.asp, you can find another (St. Andrei is at the top of the list of saints for July 4).

In Christ,
Mike

[Father David Moser]

IIRC St Andrei Rublev was glorified by the Russian Church as one of group of saints at the millenium of the Russian Church (1988). In addition to the sources Mike mentioned, there was life printed in Orthodox Life 1978 #5 (my own collection doesn't go back that far so I don't have it) but I'm not sure if it is available at present.

Fr David Moser

[Kieran P.]

Thanks lads!

Mike, the links are excellent. I have the movie at home, but am slightly put off by its allegorical content.

I've heard it's still a great movie, though. As for Rublev, I'm glad he was canonised because his icon of the Trinity is truly inspired. I'd read somewhere that not everyone should attempt to paint icons, due to the mysterious way they can help us. This sounds about right! Only saints need apply.

God bless

[Kusanagi]

Because iconography is a sprititual task not everyone is called into doing this task much like not everyone is called to become monks.

[Kieran P.]

Just for the record, has anyone seen the Tarkovski movie Andrei Rublev, and can they recommend it?

I have it on dvd, but it's four hours long and it's gonna take some commitment!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Just for the record, has anyone seen the Tarkovski movie Andrei Rublev, and can they recommend it?


Yes- it's very interesting and worth having a look at. But it's more an allegory of conditions in the Soviet Union, of devastation & recovery in Russia, than an actual life of St Andrei Rublev.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

I thought this might be of some interest.

http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/lord_trinity_rublev.html

[Olga]

I love his icon of the Trinity, and it seems that his work, or copies of it, are all that survive.

Unlike conventional art, icons are not meant to be signed by the artist who painted them. Hence absolute confirmation as to whose hand painted them is often impossible. History tells us that St Andrei painted the icon of the Holy Trinity, which was commissioned to grace the monastery dedicared to the Trinity, which had been founded years earlier by St Sergius of Radonezh. The monastery is now known as the Trinity-St Sergius Lavra.

Other icons which are known to have been painted by him, or attributed to him, include:

- the Deesis (Supplicatory) series for the iconostasis of the church of the Dormition of the Mother of God at Zvenigorod (only the panels of Christ, Archangel Michael and Apostle Paul survive, and these are all quite badly damaged, especially the one of Christ). After the icon of the Holy Trinity, this series is St Andrei's most famous work.

- another Deesis series, from Vladimir-Suzdal, which is intact and in remarkably good condition. The panels are of Apostle Peter, Archangel Gabriel, Mother of God, Christ, St John the Baptist, Archangel Michael and Apostle Paul.

- Various festal icons, including the Nativity of the Lord, the Dormition of the Mother of God, and the Resurrection.

This list is by no means all of St Andrei's work.

[Florianos]

God bless!

Dear Olga!

I only want to tell you that there are some "very traditional orthodox" christians who say that it is not allowed and completly uncanonical to depict god in the form of three angels! They say every deptiction ot god even in a symbol (3 Angels) is heretic and untraditional!
I can not follow this opinion and love and honor the godinspired Icon of the Allholy Trinity very much !!

In CHRIST
Alexander

PS. Wich you all a blessed Dormition Feast!!++

[Florianos]

God bless!

Her are some quotations:

As a matter of historical fact, painting the Trinity in icons was received in the East from the Italian Renaissance, more specifically with Roman Catholicism. By the 14th century, the image of all three Persons together will begin to be painted. This art was later copied by the 15th century Russian and then, a century later, by Greek iconographers; and henceforth by others.

Concerning Rublev's "Trinity icon": Some believe that he depicts the Holy Trinity, in the form of three angels, appearing to Abraham and Sarah; thus, the title, "the Hospitality of Abraham". The traditional view is that one of these three angels is God the Son, in the form of an angel. He prefigures or typifies His Incarnation. The other two angels cannot be types of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, because they typify nothing and nowhere does the Church teach that the Father and Spirit ever took on materiality. We have never seen the Father, and the Holy Spirit has appeared only in the form of a dove or fire. Since they are immaterial, there is nothing to typify. Why is it that none of the Fathers knowing of the visitation of the three angels to Abraham never referred to them as a Theophony of the Holy Trinity? Not Saint Theodore, Saint John of Damascus or Saint John Chrysostom, etc. None of them.

The three angels signify Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Other than this, the angelic figures on this icon say nothing more about the Trinity. The three angels do not imply the actual presence of the three Persons in space and time. They are not the Three-in-one God in visible form. If they were icons, we would need prototypes. The invisible cannot be a prototype. Besides, icons involve prophecy, they point to a future historical event or person, such as the center angel in the "Hospitality," prefigures the Incarnation. This cannot be said of the Father and the Spirit.

Let us suppose "the Trinity icon" (e.g., Rublev's) is, in fact, a representation of the Trinity, why is God the Son singled out while the Father and Spirit have no mark of distinction? God the Son, nor Christ the man is not greater than the other two persons of the Trinity. If, indeed, the Three Persons appeared in the form of angels, they came as equals. Abraham bows before only one of the angels. Is this not an offense to the other Persons? Must we think the Son to be superior to the Others? Why are they not identified and worshipped by Abraham as Father and the Holy Spirit? Which of the the holy Fathers describe to us about this incident? Do they say that the three angels are a Theophany of the Trinity? That the Father and Spirit became incarnate, not as a man but as angels?

There is nothing concerning the other two angels that suggest that they are Father and Spirit, while the relationship between the center angel with Abraham and Sarah has great significance for history and theology of the Church. Moreover, the so-called "Trinity icon" (minus Abraham and Sarah) empties both this episode and its theology of its intended meaning. Thusly changing the theology of the Church.
In other words, an iconographer can not paint anything according to his/her imagination

It is of historical interest that there were no "Trinity icons" in early centuries of the Church. But even if there were, the principle that what cannot be seen cannot be depicted applies ---especially of things spiritual and divine. It would be wrong to paint the invisible then as it is now. It is not only presumptuous, but such impudence welcomes confusion and confrontation, even idolatry.


"We synodically declare that the so-called icon of the Holy Trinity, a recent [my emphasis]invention, is alien and unacceptable to the Apostolic and Catholic Orthodox Church. It was transmitted to the Orthodox Church from the Latins." According to the Council of 1666 and the council of Constantinople of 1780 the "icon" of the Trinity is referred to as "improper", "ignorant", "unbefitting" "unacceptable", and "base". It would seem contradictory to reverence such an icon so described. What sense does it make? Even if the "icon" has not been officially declared a heresy it seems by these words to be nothing else. If these words do not mean heresy then what do they mean?

The full article here:
http://www.traditionaliconography.com/


In Christ

[Andreas Moran]

I would find it hard to believe that St Nikon (St Sergius's first disciple), who commissioned the Trinity icon, was a heretic in any way. I'm no expert, but I think those who criticise this icon for representing God are failing to interpret it correctly. On one level, it is the OT story of the three angels visiting Abraham and Sarah, shown without these figures. But at a deeper level, it is an explanation of the Holy Trinity, not a depiction of God. It is not heretical to write and speak about the Trinity, so why should a pictorial explanation (at a time when most people could not read) be heretical? And, at that time in Russia, there was confusion and even heresy abroad concerning the Holy Trinity, including rejection of any notion of the three hypostases. It was against this background that St Nikon fought for the Orthodox theology of the Holy Trinity, and St Andrei's icon is a piece of theological exegesis, not a depiction of God.

[Father David Moser]

Her are some quotations:

[I]Concerning Rublev's "Trinity icon": Some believe that he depicts the Holy Trinity, in the form of three angels, appearing to Abraham and Sarah; thus, the title, "the Hospitality of Abraham". The traditional view is that one of these three angels is God the Son, in the form of an angel. He prefigures or typifies His Incarnation. The other two angels cannot be types of God the Father and the Holy Spirit,

Just want to make it clear first that I know that these are not Alexander's words, rather something that he quoted.

I think that this attempt to "assign" a particular identity to each of the three angels misses the mark of what is actually being depicted. We cannot separate the three angels (just as we cannot separate the Trinity) but we have to view them as a single whole - a communion or unity of angels as it were. The angelic manifestation is itself an icon of the Trinity - a prefiguration as it were of the manifestation of the Trinity at the Baptism of Christ. We can't ask "Which one is Christ" because that would be like asking which hand is me and which hand isn't or something like that. If we get caught up in the particularism of assigning identity to specific angels, we lose the icon of the Trinity. Even if we say that one angel was Christ and that this was still an icon of the Trinity - which angels then got to "play the role of" the Father and the Holy Spirit? ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!

The three angels as a whole are an icon of the Trinity and depicting this event in which the Trinity was prefigured is no more heretical than the book Genesis in which the event is first described.

Fr David Moser

[Andreas Moran]

Furthermore, the complex geometry of the icon expresses the unity of essence and dynamic of love in the Holy Trinity.

[Olga]

Dear Alexander

I have come across the article you posted a link to some years ago, and it is in my files. Allow me to point out to you that this article is simply the viewpoint of one iconographer, who, as it turns out, has a rather interesting interpretation of iconographic canons and Church Tradition with regard to the iconographic portrayal of the Holy Trinity. This interpretation is contrary to the clear and consistent view of the Orthodox Church, which has been well-documented as well as passed down by other means over many centuries.

I could say much more on this, but suffice to say that Paul Azkoul's article contains some serious errors in history and scriptural interpretation, and at least one of them must be considered a deliberate distortion of a pronouncement of the Council of Moscow of 1666, and other councils he refers to:

Azkoul writes:



Centuries later, the Trinity portraitures infiltrated the Church everywhere, especially in Russia. This kind of religious art was condemned by two Councils: the Great Council of Moscow in 1666 an the Council of Constantinople [1780]. To quote from the decree of the Russian Synod:

"We synodically declare that the so-called icon of the Holy Trinity, a recent [my emphasis]invention, is alien and unacceptable to the Apostolic and Catholic Orthodox Church. It was transmitted to the Orthodox Church from the Latins."

According to the Council of 1666 and the council of Constantinople of 1780 the "icon" of the Trinity is referred to as "improper", "ignorant", "unbefitting" "unacceptable", and "base". It would seem contradictory to reverence such an icon so described. What sense does it make? Even if the "icon" has not been officially declared a heresy it seems by these words to be nothing else. If these words do not mean heresy then what do they mean?


The "Trinity icons" condemned by these councils refer to the compositions portraying the Trinity as the Father as an old man, Christ, and the Holy Spirit as a dove, the so-called "New Testament Trinity". It is this image that the fathers of these councils condemn, and rightly so, NOT the "three angels" icon painted by Andrei Rublyev. It is unbecoming of any iconographer, particularly one who proclaims himself as an authority on the subject, to promote such distortions.

[Andreas Moran]

Exactly so, Olga.

[Aaron Taylor]

I agree with you, Olga, that Mr Azkoul is mistaken on this point, but having met the fellow and talked with him for an hour or so, I'm convinced he's not deliberately distorting things. I think he's misinterpreted the synods in question, and may even be simply repeating something he's picked up somewhere else. He's a sincere and (I think) honest person, but maybe a little muddle-headed. Also, he seems to have learned everything he knows about iconography from studying Kontoglou's work and scanty writings in English and from a few Old Calendarist zealots (Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Fr Gregory of Dormition Skete) who try to work in Kontoglou's style, so his perspective on the iconographic tradition seems to be a bit one-sided.