Dog-faced St Christopher icons [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Vasiliki D.

06-03-2009, 01:10 PM

Kusanagi

06-03-2009, 04:22 PM

Michael Stickles

06-03-2009, 10:28 PM

I thought it would be a good idea to post the relevant part of Olga's post from over in the "Trivia" thread:

How St Christopher came about to be portrayed with a dog's head is an unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of the iconographer who first painted him: St Christopher came from a region in Thessaly (northern Greece) called Kynoskephalai. This place-name means "dog-headed". So poor St Christopher was painted with a dog's head, where the iconographer mistakenly thought the name "dog-headed" referred to what the saint looked like, not where he came from. Other iconographers, unaware of this error, simply copied this form of portrayal. (A bit like the icon of the Mother of God of the Three Hands, but that's another story ...)

I have also come across the story that St Christopher disfigured himself to detract from his handsomeness, lest any vanity cause him to stray from his life in Christ. This poses some problems in Orthodox thought and teaching, as self-mutilation, or the seeking of it, is generally regarded as wrong. However, irrespective of whether this story is true, it is not proper for an iconographer to portray such disfigurement in any saint. Icons are portrayals of a saint's spiritual reality, of a saint's perfected state in the eyes of God, and not of imperfections which illustrate mankind's fallen, imperfect state.

For example, a saint who wore spectacles during his earthly life should not be wearing them in icons. Examples include St John of Shanghai and San Francisco (1896-1966), Hieromartyr Benjamin of Petrograd (+1922), and St Luke the Surgeon of Simferopol (1876-1961). Another example is St Matrona of Moscow, another 20th C saint who was born blind. There are indeed many icons of her with her eyes closed (as they were in her earthly life, there are a number of photographs of her), however, the proper iconographic portrayal of her is with her eyes open. Though physically blind all her earthly life, by her life showed herself to be a model of spiritual illumination. Her physical eyes were useless, but her spiritual eyes were wide open. Thus she should be portrayed with her eyes open, to illustrate this spiritual reality

Depicting St Christopher with a dog's head, or with an otherwise disfigured face in an icon, therefore, is quite wrong.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-03-2009, 03:45 PM

Olga had written in the post quoted above:

For example, a saint who wore spectacles during his earthly life should not be wearing them in icons. Examples include St John of Shanghai and San Francisco (1896-1966), Hieromartyr Benjamin of Petrograd (+1922), and St Luke the Surgeon of Simferopol (1876-1961). Another example is St Matrona of Moscow, another 20th C saint who was born blind. There are indeed many icons of her with her eyes closed (as they were in her earthly life, there are a number of photographs of her), however, the proper iconographic portrayal of her is with her eyes open. Though physically blind all her earthly life, by her life showed herself to be a model of spiritual illumination. Her physical eyes were useless, but her spiritual eyes were wide open. Thus she should be portrayed with her eyes open, to illustrate this spiritual reality.

Lately I have been considering what the relationship is between the depiction of a saint in their icon and the saint as they are now in the presence of Christ. We know that the icon portrays real personal characteristics of that saint. But if this portrayal is accomplished in an historical manner- eg saints wearing glasses & blind, etc- then it becomes a snap-shot of the past rather than a depiction of the present. Which is quite strange in the context of the Church where we find icons of the saints claiming that they represent a cloud of witnesses. In what sense are they depictions of their active presence & witness if their depictions are from a past reality which does not show them as they are as part of the Church's present witness? How can we call an icon a faithful depiction if it does not bring us towards the saint's actual deified state before Christ?

I think then that Olga's point is very important and that we see an icon as being real and personal in terms of how the depiction of these relates to how the saints presently stand before Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

D. W. Dickens

07-03-2009, 05:00 PM

Lately I have been considering what the relationship is between the depiction of a saint in their icon and the saint as they are now in the presence of Christ. We know that the icon portrays real personal characteristics of that saint. But if this portrayal is accomplished in an historical manner- eg saints wearing glasses & blind, etc- then it becomes a snap-shot of the past rather than a depiction of the present. Which is quite strange in the context of the Church where we find icons of the saints claiming that they represent a cloud of witnesses. In what sense are they depictions of their active presence & witness if their depictions are from a past reality which does not show them as they are as part of the Church's present witness? How can we call an icon a faithful depiction if it does not bring us towards the saint's actual deified state before Christ?

What if perfection doesn't really mean what we think it means? These same icons depict some saints as elderly as well. Perhaps this is their perfect self and not a reestablishment of the prime of their youth? Or for infants, the many slaughtered in abortion, perhaps they remain as children?

It seems to me that my dad would simply not be himself without his glasses. It simply wouldn't be HIM. I don't think that such a thing is any lack of perfection, but somehow more perfect that "idyllic" perfection would be. Our bodies are not evil, we are not gnostics loathing the flesh (we mortify it to conquer the passions not because it is evil).

Will Bishops not have their robes? The monks their prayer ropes? These things are a part of them as much as their fingernails.

That which is in Christ is eternal, is preserved. Relics made incorruptable. Every song ever written to God endures because He endures. Every person in Christ endures because He is eternal. Why not glasses?

I'm sure my priest won't have to endure his diabetes and the pain he suffers in his legs, but beyond that who knows.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-03-2009, 03:48 PM

What if perfection doesn't really mean what we think it means? These same icons depict some saints as elderly as well. Perhaps this is their perfect self and not a reestablishment of the prime of their youth? Or for infants, the many slaughtered in abortion, perhaps they remain as children?

It seems to me that my dad would simply not be himself without his glasses. It simply wouldn't be HIM. I don't think that such a thing is any lack of perfection, but somehow more perfect that "idyllic" perfection would be. Our bodies are not evil, we are not gnostics loathing the flesh (we mortify it to conquer the passions not because it is evil).

Will Bishops not have their robes? The monks their prayer ropes? These things are a part of them as much as their fingernails.

That which is in Christ is eternal, is preserved. Relics made incorruptable. Every song ever written to God endures because He endures. Every person in Christ endures because He is eternal. Why not glasses?

I'm sure my priest won't have to endure his diabetes and the pain he suffers in his legs, but beyond that who knows.

There are many good points here. But there is the connected question of perfection as you say and its relation to iconography and the person.

I'm not sure though how useful this idea of perfection is for iconography. Iconography attempts to portray the deified state of a person as they are in that renewed reality before Christ. This depiction though must be kept within the context of the worshipping church so that it conveys an ecclesiastical reality, not an individual one- this latter point is critical.

This is why I do not think that the concept of perfection should come into play here, although certainly the reality of the person is inherent to an icon. Again that is because the icon is not an attempt at an individual portrait but rather is an image of that person as now found in that deified and ecclesiastical reality already referred to.

I'm short on time right now so I am unable to develop my ideas further in detail. But I want to say that the icon due its necessary use of material medium to convey itself can and must only be suggestive of the deified reality it seeks to convey. That is why the Church over time came to understand that these depictions are icons and not portraits or depictions. This is crucial or otherwise we fall into conveying this reality in a distorted sense due to what is accurate in an individual sense. This however is not what an icon depicts.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-03-2009, 07:44 PM

It occurred to me that a simpler way to put the point of my last post would be to ask the question:

why would it never be correct to venerate a photo of a person as an icon?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Kris

08-03-2009, 09:39 PM

Will Bishops not have their robes? The monks their prayer ropes? These things are a part of them as much as their fingernails.

These items relate, as Fr. Raphael said, to their ecclesiastical reality. Glasses simply do not have any such significance.

Vasiliki D.

09-03-2009, 12:50 AM

It occurred to me that a simpler way to put the point of my last post would be to ask the question:

why would it never be correct to venerate a photo of a person as an icon?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

It is that a photo will always show a person as they are prior to the Resurrection of the dead, in which Christ's promise to us is that all of Creation is *renewed* ... so, to venerate an image of an *unrenewed* body would that be like worshipping an idol since a photo does not represent us in heaven but represents us on earth hence if we venerate a photo it can not act like a window to the heavenly realm ?

D. W. Dickens

09-03-2009, 10:14 PM

These items relate, as Fr. Raphael said, to their ecclesiastical reality. Glasses simply do not have any such significance.

Depends on what you mean by significance. They have as much significance as hair does or someone's hat (assuming here that their hat wasn't already significant by your definition because of it's ecclesiastical nature).

Fr Raphael Vereshack

09-03-2009, 10:39 PM

Depends on what you mean by significance. They have as much significance as hair does or someone's hat (assuming here that their hat wasn't already significant by your definition because of it's ecclesiastical nature).

Actually I think these questions are very good. I hadn't really considered them before.

But I am confident that the focus described by Olga is that which is correct for iconography and the reality of the person that it seeks to depict.

Thus glasses are not an intrinsic part of the person since the weakness in sight that lead these to be worn is not intrinsic to the person or his nature either. On the contrary, deformation in sight represents a weakening of our nature from God's purpose which it will attain in Him.

However there may be a more subtle point in which the glasses and other things worn by the person do reflect who he is. What of this for iconography?

Notice that almost all icons do have identifiers for those depicted in them. St Dimitrios wears armor and carries a spear and sword; St Isaac of Syria wears a kind of turban. These identifiers help situate who is depicted. In a way they say: 'that person was real from an identifiable situation.'

But these identifiers also relate positively to the person depicted and do not reflect an intrinsic weakness such as weakness in sight is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Olga

09-03-2009, 10:51 PM

Much western religious art shows the saints with reference to their earthly occupation, such as "St Joseph the Carpenter". By contrast, icons generally do not show the saints with their "tools of trade", unless their means of making a living, or their station in life is also spiritually relevant. Here is a quote from the "St Joseph the Betrothed" thread:

Much western religious art shows saints with an item of their tools of trade. The Orthodox view is that a saint’s earthly occupation is only relevant when there is a theological or doctrinal meaning behind it. For instance, warrior-saints may be shown in military dress and armed. This is as much a reference to their spiritual and often physical struggle for the defence of the faith (as many were martyrs as well), as to their earthly station in life. The epistle reading for a warrior-saint is Eph. 6: 10-17: ”Put on the armour of God ….” Likewise, physician-saints are shown holding their medicament boxes and spoons (or styli), as these can represent spiritual as well as physical healing. By contrast, there is no special theological or doctrinal significance of Joseph’s trade which influenced the Orthodox view of him. Apostle Paul was a tent-maker, yet at no time have his tools of trade featured in his iconography, as they are irrelevant. It is the same with Joseph, as much as with the other carpenter-saints known to us, such as Apostle Thomas.

Following this principle, where is there room or relevance for spectacles or other such objects?

D. W. Dickens

09-03-2009, 11:27 PM

Thus glasses are not an intrinsic part of the person since the weakness in sight that lead these to be worn is not intrinsic to the person or his nature either. On the contrary, deformation in sight represents a weakening of our nature from God's purpose which it will attain in Him.

However there may be a more subtle point in which the glasses and other things worn by the person do reflect who he is. What of this for iconography?

Notice that almost all icons do have identifiers for those depicted in them. St Dimitrios wears armor and carries a spear and sword; St Isaac of Syria wears a kind of turban. These identifiers help situate who is depicted. In a way they say: 'that person was real from an identifiable situation.'

But these identifiers also relate positively to the person depicted and do not reflect an intrinsic weakness such as weakness in sight is.

I'm not sure I could draw such a clear line in my mind (even from your well-considered response). Unless I were to say that affectations or famous memorabilia might be fine, but references to human nature's faults are not.

What then of the cane that Saint Herman of Alaska is often depicted with?

Could not even warm clothing depicted on Saints from northern climates be merely because of the flesh's weakness to cold? Canes, glasses, coats, what else might imply the infirmity of the flesh that should be excluded?

Surely swords should appear as plow-shares as that is their destiny in the Eschaton according to scripture?

I still contend that certain persons would simply not be themselves without their glasses. And certainly a Saint's glasses would be no less a relic than any of their other personal effects. In fact, isn't there something just a little gnostic in denying the physical nature both of the man's experience in life (I wouldn't think of depicting a Saint who had lost a hand in life with his hand returned) and in the holiness revealed in matter?

We get excited to walk on the ground Saint's walked on, or to visit the cell of a monk. Why not the very glasses that sat on his nose for decades?

D. W. Dickens

09-03-2009, 11:35 PM

Much western religious art shows the saints with reference to their earthly occupation, such as "St Joseph the Carpenter". By contrast, icons generally do not show the saints with their "tools of trade", unless their means of making a living, or their station in life is also spiritually relevant.

This bothers me. It seems that it categorizes one's vocation into "sacred" and "secular". It has always been my appreciation that Orthodoxy does away with such Western thinking. One of the key transformations of my thinking coming from a Protestant background was the appreciation for the God who is ever present and fillest ALL things.

There is no sacred or secular vocations. Even the priestly or monastic vocations, while certainly different in their extremities are still not different in nature from being a carpenter, farmer, business man or TV repair man.

Moreover, if you want to say "some things" have some metaphorical imagery that's salvific, then it's only a matter of coming up with the right imaging to make any vocation have some salvific value. In fact, isn't one of our responsibilities as Christians to make our vocations salvific, to not only make a metaphorical connection but actually a sacramental connection with our vocations?

Olga

10-03-2009, 12:27 AM

In fact, isn't there something just a little gnostic in denying the physical nature both of the man's experience in life (I wouldn't think of depicting a Saint who had lost a hand in life with his hand returned) and in the holiness revealed in matter?

Why would it be improper to portray such a saint with his restored hand in an icon? There are many saints who were dismembered or beheaded as part of their martyrdom, or who were disfigured or maimed in their earthly lives, yet, consistently, and quite properly, they are shown whole in their icons.

This is the point I was making in my reference to St Matrona of Moscow: she was indeed blind from birth, and the bulk of the icons of her show her with her eyes closed, as they were in her earthly life. Yet this is an error (an honest, understandable one), as it denies or obscures the true reality of her spiritual insight which led to her holiness and rightful acclaim as one of the saints. I reiterate that her physical eyes were useless, but her spiritual eyes were wide open. It is the latter which should be portrayed in her icons (as would also be the case in icons of other blind saints, of course), not the imperfect and incomplete former.

Moreover, if you want to say "some things" have some metaphorical imagery that's salvific, then it's only a matter of coming up with the right imaging to make any vocation have some salvific value. In fact, isn't one of our responsibilities as Christians to make our vocations salvific, to not only make a metaphorical connection but actually a sacramental connection with our vocations?

Have you read this thread on St Joseph the Betrothed? http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=22216#poststop

While it is on a specific topic, it does have much food for thought on this matter. Fr David's post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=49274#poststop) is most instructive.

Father David Moser

10-03-2009, 12:33 AM

Thus glasses are not an intrinsic part of the person since the weakness in sight that lead these to be worn is not intrinsic to the person or his nature either.

Perhaps not "intrinsic" but they are a very deeply integrated part of a personality. As a glasses wearer myself, I can tell you that the "right" pair of glasses is just as important as the proper clothing. We depict clerical saints in their proper vestments and other saints, such as Xenia of Petersburg are depicted in particular clothing (in her case a man's military coat) because these non-intrinsic external things are part of who that person is (or was in this life).

Fr David Moser

D. W. Dickens

10-03-2009, 12:52 AM

I'm not sure Fr David is really against my position on this, though I have to let his posts speak for themselves.

I did read the other thread, but I didn't find it clarifying. Icons are complicated things. They are instructive in many different ways (and they are not always as consistent as some would like to assert).

However, it seems clear to me that without clearly identifying the person in the icon (though whatever symbolism recalls them as unique persons) the icon would not be valid. If a Saint wore glasses and was identifiable by them, they should be depicted. As is Saint Herman's cane or Saint Xenia's husband's uniform (though I have seen her in peasant garb too).

In fact, the more I think about this the more I dislike the distancing effect between Heaven and Earth. It reminds me of an Orthodox podcast I heard one time that said in the Eschaton we will all look like Christ (our physical features) instead of like ourselves.

Olga

10-03-2009, 05:32 AM

However, it seems clear to me that without clearly identifying the person in the icon (though whatever symbolism recalls them as unique persons) the icon would not be valid. If a Saint wore glasses and was identifiable by them, they should be depicted. As is Saint Herman's cane or Saint Xenia's husband's uniform (though I have seen her in peasant garb too).

Icons are not simply portraits. They are the pictorial equivalent of liturgical text and scripture, and, therefore, are not subject to the "normal" rules and conventions of other artforms. An iconographer considers scripture, the life of the saint, and, if this exists, the liturgical material associated with that saint, and any earlier, "prototype" icons which can be used as models for his works. Then, with prayer and fasting, he paints his icon.

The identification of any given saint in an icon is easiest when there is a clear inscription on the icon. This is not always the case, particularly with old icons which have suffered physical damage or deterioration over the centuries. However, with practice, and with a modicum of familiarity with the lives of saints, and particularly with the liturgical services written for them, one can gain enough knowledge to be able to reasonably accurately identify many a saint, where the inscription on the icon is damaged or obscured.

On St Xenia of Petersburg's garb: Her wearing of her late husband's coat is a direct reference to not only a physical act on her part, but it is also emblematic of her path to holiness - that most difficult path of the holy fool. Dressing in her husband's coat, and answering to his name, instead of her own, were manifestations of this. Therefore it is entirely fitting and proper to show her dressed in this distinctive way.

D. W. Dickens

10-03-2009, 06:11 AM

I've got the gist here, but I don't see the subtle line people are drawing.

Not being a portrait doesn't change the fact that Paul is depicted, consistently in a way which has some relationship to his earthly appearance (or at least the appearance iconographers have constantly used). It would seem silly to see a picture of the four Evangelists with St Luke having a long beard like St Matthew or St John the Theologian.

We identify St Luke with this shorter beard, and it appears from my recollection that his hair is curly (I'll have to look when I get to Church on Wednesday).

There are aspects of portriture in icons. So you can't say nothing like that matters. I suppose you'd find the icon of Saint Herman I mentioned before a scandle? Because it shows his cane?

I've seen icons of some Saints with a hat, without, with a hooded cloak and without. I'm sure that anyone trying to justify this would have to make something up (or at least point to different schools that have a tradition of doing it different ways, which is just as abitrary in the end).

I've looked up Saint Anastasia the Roman and can't find the reason for the jar commonly in her hand.

Saint Catherine of Alexandria has her wheel.

I just can't see the iconoclasm in glasses.

Olga

10-03-2009, 09:25 AM

St Anastasia is shown holding a vessel as she is known as Pharmakolytria (she who overcomes poisons). In her life, she was conversant with the healing arts as they were at the time, and spent much of her time attending to the needs of prisoners in many towns and cities, healing a great number of them. Healing from poisons and other such substances was something she soon became renowned for.

St Catherine of Alexandria has her wheel, but the instruments of her martyrdom (of which the wheel was only one) are generally featured in the side panels of a life icon (where the central panel of the saint is surrounded by small panels of scenes from the saint's life). It is a quite late (post-17thC) phenomenon to show saints in Orthodox icons with the instruments of their demise in the main panel, and this emergence is unmistakeably of western influence.

Western religious art for a variety of reasons began to adopt a more graphic, "passionate" character from about the 16thC, hence the appearance of paintings of St Catherine with her wheel, Apostle Thomas with a spear, etc. It seems that more emphasis was being placed in the west on the physical suffering of the saint (and, indeed, of Christ Himself), perhaps at the expense of what led that saint to holiness. This may seem rather subtle for some, but it is a very important distinction.

On St Herman of Alaska and his cane: Again, the answer to this is quite simple. He was a monk, who was sent as a missionary to Alaska, as we know. The staff he is often shown holding in his icons is that of an abbot, or an elder (starets). Again, this detail tells us yet more about his life, and his path to sainthood. Many elder-saints who were not abbots are also shown bearing such a staff, such as St Kosmas of Aetolia, a simple monk and elder who travelled all over some of the most rugged and isolated regions of northern Greece in the mid to late 1700s, preaching and performing miracles.

Herman Blaydoe

10-03-2009, 01:43 PM

Icons are not portraits in a literal sense. They are trying to portray something much more ephemera across cultures and millenia Generally speaking, most everything in an icon communicates specific spiritual meaning. Icons are Holy Tradition in pictures.

Words are important. Using the wrong word or even a less-than-appropriate word causes confusion, pick a thread here at random for some very excellent examples. This is even more true when we move to a visual venue that in some ways goes beyond words. Therefore is is also very important that the appropriate image be portrayed. Olga has been quite vigilant in helping us understand how improper icons communicate bad theology.

I don't know that things like eye-glasses have any specific meaning assigned from an iconigraphical standpoint, that makes them rather superfluous. Icons portray the eternal, not the transitory or superfluous. Unlike "western" art, iconography is not "free-form", nor is it subject to the whims and fancies of the iconographer or the dictates of popular opinion (just like our theology). There are traditions and practices that govern what is appropriate, and there should be, because icons are a very important part of our worship. How we worship is how we believe. Change how we worship and you change how we believe. Would adding eye-glasses to icons cause the downfall of Orthodoxy? Of course not, worse transgressions already exist, even some travesties and the Church survives, but that does not make them right.

Iconography communicates our theology and is not and should not be under the dictates of personal preference. Down that path is Episcopalianism.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Irene

10-03-2009, 03:39 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

10-03-2009, 04:22 PM

D. W. Dickens wrote:

There are aspects of portriture in icons. So you can't say nothing like that matters.

I think this is the point of misunderstanding. An icon is definitely not a portrait.

Yes- It does include personal characteristics but these are as found renewed within the presence of Christ and as part of that larger ecclesiological reality (ie it is no longer individualistic). That is why for example the style of painting icons is not 'naturalistic'.

Another point to consider- we are addressing this issue as if having personal and identifying characteristics makes the depiction of the person a portrait.

However if you stand back and look at the icon you will see that what is portrayed is actually a specific iconographic depiction that relates to the person. For example in 'real life' St Herman wasn't always holding his cane; nor was St Anastasia always holding a jar; nor St Catherine always on the wheel.

These then although they refer to something real are not actually naturalistic descriptions but rather symbolic references to the person in their role as martyr or elder, etc. As such they are consistent then with iconographic presentation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

D. W. Dickens

10-03-2009, 04:31 PM

On St Herman of Alaska and his cane: Again, the answer to this is quite simple. He was a monk, who was sent as a missionary to Alaska, as we know. The staff he is often shown holding in his icons is that of an abbot, or an elder (starets). Again, this detail tells us yet more about his life, and his path to sainthood. Many elder-saints who were not abbots are also shown bearing such a staff, such as St Kosmas of Aetolia, a simple monk and elder who travelled all over some of the most rugged and isolated regions of northern Greece in the mid to late 1700s, preaching and performing miracles.

Hrm, I was told he was a layman and therefore the staff seems suspect to me. It's definitely not any ecclesial staff, it looks like a plain wooden stick he's supporting himself with.

But I'm doubly questioning it given the second half of this statement. If a "staff" and metaphorically represent "wanderer" why not "glasses" "great student".

Irene's comment about the haggard portrayal is potent here as well.

I also think there is an artificial declaration about the consistency of icons going on here. But like our discussions of musical tradition in the Church there are variations. It seems there is a pre-determined interpretation going on here.

I wonder if I start offering up pictures like this one:
http://orthodoxeurope.org/images/upload/2_MG_7102.jpg

Whether I'm tempting my brothers and sisters on this board to pass judgment. Or perhaps Alexis II knows icons better than our community.

This reminds me of some of the Orthodox "convert" books I read when I was first interested in the Church. They insisted, for example, that the promotion of icons didn't allow for graven images, yet I find bronze reliefs in even my humble parish. And certainly the tradition of silver covered icons would qualify.

Forgive me if this is getting argumentative in tone. I don't mind folks disagreeing with me (I'm an ignorant new covert after all) but I came to Orthodoxy in part because of its commitment to reality and the reality is that there are different traditions in iconography.

D. W. Dickens

10-03-2009, 04:54 PM

I think this is the point of misunderstanding. An icon is definitely not a portrait.

Correct. Absolutely. But then I never said they were portraits, but rather "There are aspects of portriture in icons." This is an important distinction. Just because they share some characteristics with portraits does not make them portraits.

i.e. it is no longer individualistic

I need you to explain this because I don't know what you mean. Our individuality isn't subsumed by Christ. We are each non-repeatable uniquely suited and uniquely related to God in Christ. Icons clearly represent each Saint *distinctly* perhaps that's a better word to use.

Otherwise we are back to my previous reference of all the Saints being painted with Christ's face.

Father David Moser

10-03-2009, 04:54 PM

Hrm, I was told he was a layman and therefore the staff seems suspect to me. It's definitely not any ecclesial staff, it looks like a plain wooden stick he's supporting himself with.

St Herman was a monastic, not a layman, however he was not ordained. The staff is not "ecclesial" but is rather that of a monastic elder (who is not necessarily ordained). St Herman was indeed a spirit bearing elder who was given by God to the Aleut people as their guardian and shepherd.

Fr DavidMoser

Herman Blaydoe

10-03-2009, 05:06 PM

Hrm, I was told he was a layman and therefore the staff seems suspect to me. It's definitely not any ecclesial staff, it looks like a plain wooden stick he's supporting himself with.

But I'm doubly questioning it given the second half of this statement. If a "staff" and metaphorically represent "wanderer" why not "glasses" "great student".

It could, but it doesn't. It is not an accepted or traditional iconigraphical symbol.

Irene's comment about the haggard portrayal is potent here as well.

Well, "haggard" is an opinion. How about "aged wisdom" and "much experience through suffering"? They are not wrinkles, they are character lines.

I also think there is an artificial declaration about the consistency of icons going on here. But like our discussions of musical tradition in the Church there are variations. It seems there is a pre-determined interpretation going on here.

Absolutely. Unequivically. Call it "artificial" or even "arbitrary" if you like. I prefer to think of it as "accepted" and "traditionally understood".

I wonder if I start offering up pictures like this one:
http://orthodoxeurope.org/images/upload/2_MG_7102.jpg

I'm sure we can all come up with poor examples for icons (right Olga? ;)). That doesn't make them right.

Whether I'm tempting my brothers and sisters on this board to pass judgment. Or perhaps Alexis II knows icons better than our community.

Forgive me, but I find that a rather presumptuous statement. Do we know that he even considers it a proper icon? And even if he does, remember we don't have infallible bishops.

This reminds me of some of the Orthodox "convert" books I read when I was first interested in the Church. They insisted, for example, that the promotion of icons didn't allow for graven images, yet I find bronze reliefs in even my humble parish. And certainly the tradition of silver covered icons would qualify.

Not necessarily, but we are in danger of yet another semantic entanglement so I will simply pass on this for now.

Forgive me if this is getting argumentative in tone. I don't mind folks disagreeing with me (I'm an ignorant new covert after all) but I came to Orthodoxy in part because of its commitment to reality and the reality is that there are different traditions in iconography.

There are indeed different traditions and some of those traditions may indeed be evolvling over time. But not all change is necessarily good, and discernment counts for something, or so I'm told by discerning people. It also does not logically follow that just because someone calls a picture an icon that makes it so, even if it is painted in an "iconigraphic" style, or even if it is hung in a church.

An icon is not a portrait. It is an attempt, through visible means, to portray that which is NOT VISIBLE. It portrays not reality as the fallen world sees it, but the ultimate reality as originally intended by God (and as understood and communicated by the accepted traditions of the Holy Church).

Herman the Pooh

D. W. Dickens

10-03-2009, 07:01 PM

Call it "artificial" or even "arbitrary" if you like. I prefer to think of it as "accepted" and "traditionally understood".

Here's my problem Herman. Those terms only have meaning in real, actual circumstances. Icons aren't Platonic ideals. Icons are real things really painted by people who lived in a certain time, place, set of influences and iconographic witness.

When you use a term like "accepted" and then I show a most prominent icon in a most prominent Orthodox Church pictured in a most prominent Orthodox ceremony, "accepted" bites back against your argument.

If such an icon isn't "accepted" where is the scandal? Where is the outrage? Where's all the Orthodox blog posts condemning this?

Perhaps "accepted" doesn't mean what you think it means. You want it to mean "accepted by people Herman respects". But it doesn't mean that.

An icon is not a portrait. It is an attempt, through visible means, to portray that which is NOT VISIBLE. It portrays not reality as the fallen world sees it, but the ultimate reality as originally intended by God (and as understood and communicated by the accepted traditions of the Holy Church).

This is a theological position, not necessarily a description of what exists. This is very important to me and its more than simply being about icons. The question is whether Christianity exists and our theology, soteriology and anthropology "describe" it's existence or whether all those things "proscribe" an ideal which doesn't actually exist.

This goes for icons, Ecumenical councils, the scriptures or any other aspect of Church life and tradition. Do we actually experience God or is this all metaphor?

Sorry about that last bit of "broadening" to this matter, but icons were and are a flash-point of this larger issue. Look back at why icons were accepted in the first place. Their existence was an important part of their acceptance. And their very existence speaks to the significance of the Incarnation: Christ not as an ideal or metaphor, but as a real person who had a real body in a real time and place.

Herman Blaydoe

10-03-2009, 07:34 PM

Here's my problem Herman. Those terms only have meaning in real, actual circumstances. Icons aren't Platonic ideals. Icons are real things really painted by people who lived in a certain time, place, set of influences and iconographic witness.

I don't follow. An icon of Christ is not Christ Himself. It is an image of Christ.

When you use a term like "accepted" and then I show a most prominent icon in a most prominent Orthodox Church pictured in a most prominent Orthodox ceremony, "accepted" bites back against your argument.

If such an icon isn't "accepted" where is the scandal? Where is the outrage? Where's all the Orthodox blog posts condemning this?

I don't have enough information to accept or refute. Is that an icon? The only thing we know about Patriarch Alexii's position on the image is that he happens to be in front of it. Where is it located, specifically? Who says it is an icon?

Perhaps "accepted" doesn't mean what you think it means. You want it to mean "accepted by people Herman respects". But it doesn't mean that.

And why doesn't it mean that, exactly? Why can't it mean that? If I choose to define it in that manner it certainly can mean that, or can't you accept that?

This is a theological position, not necessarily a description of what exists. This is very important to me and its more than simply being about icons. The question is whether Christianity exists and our theology, soteriology and anthropology "describe" it's existence or whether all those things "proscribe" an ideal which doesn't actually exist.

This goes for icons, Ecumenical councils, the scriptures or any other aspect of Church life and tradition. Do we actually experience God or is this all metaphor?

O... K..., Well actually I gotta admit you totally lost me here. I am but a bear of little brain. Perhaps I should say no more, and allow better minds than mine an opportunity to respond.

Herman the out-of-his-element Pooh

Michael Stickles

10-03-2009, 09:29 PM

This is a theological position, not necessarily a description of what exists. This is very important to me and its more than simply being about icons. The question is whether Christianity exists and our theology, soteriology and anthropology "describe" it's existence or whether all those things "proscribe" an ideal which doesn't actually exist.

This goes for icons, Ecumenical councils, the scriptures or any other aspect of Church life and tradition. Do we actually experience God or is this all metaphor?

Sorry about that last bit of "broadening" to this matter, but icons were and are a flash-point of this larger issue. Look back at why icons were accepted in the first place. Their existence was an important part of their acceptance. And their very existence speaks to the significance of the Incarnation: Christ not as an ideal or metaphor, but as a real person who had a real body in a real time and place.

Looking at the last sentence, I'd say it goes beyond that. Christ, in assuming that "real body", sanctified matter. Christ didn't become flesh to say ours is OK "as-is", but to sanctify human nature so that we could become sanctified. What is portrayed in an icon is not just the material existence of the saint, but the sanctification of that existence.

What Herman described as:

"not reality as the fallen world sees it, but the ultimate reality as originally intended by God (and as understood and communicated by the accepted traditions of the Holy Church)"

is not at all "an ideal which doesn't actually exist." It does exist in the present experience of the saints. If it did not, then the Orthodox understanding of theosis would be a fiction, and both iconography and the veneration of the saints would be pointless. Or so it seems to me.

In Christ,
Michael

John Litster

12-03-2009, 02:28 AM

You should not trust everything you read on the Internet. I did research on St Christopher a few years ago and came across this article and these pictures on the net .... they disturbed me so much I asked around.

Now, I can not patristically say how or why but you should take my word that this is an urban "myth" and that this "advertising" on the internet is contrary to the Eastern Orthodox theology and it is also quite offensive to St Christopher.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Certainly the icons are bizarre, even offensive, but are you saying they are some sort of Internet "fraud" circulated around to defame Orthodoxy? These icons are well-known - a Orthodox nun I happen to know who visited Greece saw one at a church, and was understandably shocked, I have seen them in books from the 1970's onwards. Please enlighten me!

Vasiliki D.

12-03-2009, 11:44 AM

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Certainly the icons are bizarre, even offensive, but are you saying they are some sort of Internet "fraud" circulated around to defame Orthodoxy? These icons are well-known - a Orthodox nun I happen to know who visited Greece saw one at a church, and was understandably shocked, I have seen them in books from the 1970's onwards. Please enlighten me!

haha ..im sorry, its just the way I phrased that paragraph.

I dont mean its an Internet fraud ..i just mean that pre-existing information gets uploaded onto the internet ... once, to find out about something we had specific sources we woudl go to and trust that it was trustworthy ...

Now, the information is available via the Internet - who goes to the Library really when it can be googled. So, im just saying some information is credible but a lot is not .. so, it is quite easy to presume because its there its a viable source and trustworthy.

In the case of St Christopher just because some nun had a copy in Greece doesnt make it so! :) I had a copy of the Trinity which had God as an old man and the Holy Spirit as the dove ..I had no idea it is not an acceptable icon since it does not reflect our dogma until I read it here on Monachos ...

Hieromonk Ambrose

13-03-2009, 01:45 PM

I found an interesting article on St. Guinefort on http://www.beyond-the-pale.co.uk/dogsaints.htm. There is also a bizarre legend - originating not in the West, but in Russia and Greece, no less - that St. Christopher had a dog's head! This sounds like an urban legend or something, but it's not.

One Saint, Two Lives

The story of this saint's life is astoundingly different, depending upon whether one consults Orthodox or Roman Catholic sources.

http://www.fact-index.com/s/sa/saint_christopher.html

....The Western version of St. Christopher was ultimately repudiated by the Roman Catholic Church, as it was impossible to distinguish associated accounts from any number of probably fictional folk tales. Non-fantastic
details of the Western Christopher's "life" were so scant as to be essentially non-extant. [I think it is ironic that a lot of the blame for Christopher's degration by Rome in 1969 can be laid fairly and squarely at the feet of the Aurea Legenda. It sought to extend his fame and glory with fabulous tales but the Aurea Legenda laid the groundwork for his dismissal in the late 20th century, in times which are not so enamoured of pious fables.]

This is not necessarily the case for St. Christopher as he is known in the east. While surviving Eastern accounts of his life are replete with miracles and events that do not mesh well with modern historiography, enough information has been preserved to present a possible account of a St. Christopher that would be amenable to modern historical sensibilities.

The Dog's Head.....The first hurdle to consider is the idea that he was a dog-headed cannibal. This can be understood in the light that the surviving accounts of St. Christopher are contemporaneous. The practice of the time was to describe all people outside the "civilized" (Graeco-Roman-Persian) world as cannibals, dog-headed, or even more bizarre things, albeit often metaphorically. A later generation could then mistake a metaphor or hyperbole for a literal statement.

However, the man in question is also said to have been assigned to a military unit made up of Marmaritae. The Marmaritae were the independent tribes of Marmarica (now in modern Libya), who would have been pushed to the frontier region after Roman settlement. Since he was from a frontier tribe, describing him as being from the land of dog-headed people would have been a literary convention of the day.

Fr Ambrose

Hieromonk Ambrose

13-03-2009, 01:49 PM

For all the Irish out there... something you never expected existed...

Irish Passion of St. Christopher
(in English)

http://www.ucc.ie/milmart/chrsirish.html

-oOo-

-
-

Hieromonk Ambrose

13-03-2009, 02:00 PM

haha ..im sorry, its just the way I phrased that paragraph.

I had a copy of the Trinity which had God as an old man and the Holy Spirit as the dove ..I had no idea it is not an acceptable icon since it does not reflect our dogma until I read it here on Monachos ...

Well, that ain't necessarily so. I don't particularly like what is called the New Testament Trinity but the battles that wage among the Orthodox over it are unnecessary -although I am sure they will go on until Doomsday. We shouid be enormously happy that while other Christians have to fight over major issues such as, is Christ really divine, can Father Daniel marry Father Joe, all we find to fight about are really minute things.....

The Seventh Ecumenical Council:

"Eternal be the memory of those who know and accept and believe the visions of the prophets as the Divinity
Himself shaped and impressed them, whatever the chorus of the prophets saw and narrated, and who hold to the written and unwritten tradition of the Apostles which was passed on to the Fathers, and on account of this make icons of the Holy things and honour them."

"Anathema to those who do not accept the visions of the prophets and who reject the iconographies which have been seen by them (O wonder!) even before the Incarnation of the Word, but either speak empty words about having seen the unattainable and unseen Essence, or on the one hand pay heed to those who have seen these appearances of icons, types and forms of the truth, while on the other hand they cannot bear to have icons made of the Word become man and His sufferings on our behalf."

St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, in his prolegomena to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, sums up the Council's decrees on this subject as follows:

"The present Council, in the letter which it sent to the Church of Alexandria, on the one hand blesses those who know and accept, and therefore make icons of and honour, the visions and theophanies of the Prophets, as God Himself shaped and impressed them on their minds. And on the other hand it anathematizes those who do not accept the iconographies of such visions before the incarnation of God the Word. It follows that the Beginningless Father must be represented in icons as He appeared to the Prophet Daniel, as the Ancient of Days."

NB: It follows that the Beginningless Father must be represented in icons as He appeared to the Prophet Daniel, as the Ancient of Days."

-oOo-

And, from Vladimir Moss:

"The term "Ancient of Days", like "God", is applicable to all Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.

Therefore there is no contradiction between allowing that Christ can be called "the Ancient of Days", as in the hymnology for the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord, and believing that "the Ancient of Days" in the vision of Daniel is God the Father.

Hieromartyr Hippolytus of Rome (P.G. 10, 37), St. Athanasius the Great (V.E.P. 35, 121), St. John Chrysostom (P.G. 57, 133; E.P.E. 8, 640-2), St. Gregory Palamas (Homilies 14, E.P.E. 9, 390), St. Cyril of Alexandria (P.G. 70, 1461), St. Symeon of Thessalonica (Interpretation of the Sacred Symbol, p. 412), and St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite (The Rudder, Zakynthos, 1864, p. 320; Chicago, 1957, p. 420) all agree in identifying “the Ancient of Days” in the vision of Daniel with God the Father.

They interpret the vision as portraying the Ascension of Christ ("the Son of Man") to God the Father ("the Ancient of Days"), from Whom He receives the Kingdom and the Glory, together with the power to judge the living and the dead. Thus St. Cyril of Alexandria writes: “Behold, again Emmanuel is manifestly and clearly seen ascending to God the Father in heaven… The Son of Man has appeared in the flesh and reached the Ancient of Days, that is, He has ascended to the throne of His eternal Father and has been given honor and worship…” (Letter 55, in The Fathers of the Church, vol. 77, Washington: CUA Press, 1987, pp. 28, 29)."

Source: Vladimir Moss, "The Icon of the Holy Trinity" The usual caveats apply about Vladimir's writings but in this case he is accurate.

John Litster

15-03-2009, 12:12 AM

haha ..im sorry, its just the way I phrased that paragraph.

I dont mean its an Internet fraud ..i just mean that pre-existing information gets uploaded onto the internet ... once, to find out about something we had specific sources we woudl go to and trust that it was trustworthy ...

Now, the information is available via the Internet - who goes to the Library really when it can be googled. So, im just saying some information is credible but a lot is not .. so, it is quite easy to presume because its there its a viable source and trustworthy.

In the case of St Christopher just because some nun had a copy in Greece doesnt make it so! :) I had a copy of the Trinity which had God as an old man and the Holy Spirit as the dove ..I had no idea it is not an acceptable icon since it does not reflect our dogma until I read it here on Monachos ...

Again, I'm not trying to say that the dog-headed St. Christopher icon is "acceptable" in anyway - far from it, its an absurd piece of superstition to depict a saint with an animal's head, and, as you said, offensive. I'm only saying that such icons have existed, and do exist, a fact which is attested in a variety of written sources, not just Internet hearsay...

http://books.google.com/books?id=T_hAaO4HDaUC&pg=PA101&dq=St.+Christopher+dog%27s+head

http://books.google.com/books?id=BRju9VQdW3QC&pg=RA1-PA215&dq=St.+Christopher+dog%27s+head

http://books.google.com/books?id=-FF7ytyV8gQC&pg=PA207&dq=St.+Christopher+dog%27s+head&lr=#PPA206,M1

http://books.google.com/books?id=76MsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA161&dq=St.+Christopher+dog%27s+head&lr

http://books.google.com/books?id=b-5YPoia7qwC&pg=PA50&dq=St.+Christopher+dog%27s+head&lr

Olga

15-03-2009, 03:47 AM

The perpetuation of uncanonical images, such as dog-faced St Christophers, Angels of Blessed Silence, New Testament Trinities and All-seeing Eyes of God, to name a few, is nothing new. Anyone who has been on this forum long enough will know that I have long railed against the perpetuation of such images. I am glad to see that you acknowledge that the St Christopher images are absurd and wrong. Yet, sadly, there seems to me a distinct lack (or lapse) of teaching of many iconographers of the present age as to which sorts of images are acceptable as icons, and which are not.

In times past, a deficiency of doctrinal, liturgical or iconographic education, or geographic isolation, easily explains the perpetuation of such images, and their veneration by pious folk, in honest ignorance of the shortcomings of such images. There is little such excuse in our present age, though I quite agree that the internet has allowed many such images a very broad dissemination, which has, unfortunately, adversely influenced many, and will continue to do so.

How can this be curbed? Through vigilance, through a better understanding of what our Church and faith teaches, particularly through its liturgical repository (the verbal equivalent of iconography), which, after all, embodies the consensus patrum, the collective, universal "mind" of the Church. It is not easy, it takes much effort, but if each individual, clergy and laity alike, makes that effort, and this includes iconographers and their teachers, then, perhaps, uncanonical images might, just might, become a thing of the past.

Peter G.

12-05-2009, 10:44 AM

Saint Christopher was at first named Reprobus. Seeing the Christians persecuted, he rebuked the tyrants for their cruelty. Soldiers were sent to bring him to appear before the ruler; but he converted them to Christ, and with them was baptized, receiving the name Christopher. After he appeared before the ruler, he was imprisoned and two harlots were sent to seduce him, but he converted them also, and encouraged them in their martyrdom. He was subjected to torments and finally beheaded in the days of Decius.Many marvellous and mythical things are said about him out of ignorance and superstition, one of which is that it is impossible for one to die suddenly from some unexpected cause on the day on which one looks at the Saint's icon. This is the origin of that proverb that is quoted in various quarters: "If on Christopher thou shouldst gaze, thou shalt safely wend life's ways." The etymology of his name, which means "Christ-bearer," has undoubtedly moved iconographers to depict him carrying the infant Jesus on his shoulders; it is completely erro-neous, however, to depict him, as some uninformed iconographers do, having the head of a dog, because of a statement in his life that he was dog-faced, by which is meant only that his countenance was exceedingly frightful to look upon.

Peter G.

12-05-2009, 07:10 PM

St Christopher is a great Saint, and iconographers have got this wrong. First his face looking like a dog is blasphemy and second when they show him carrying Christ on his shoulders is also wrong. Here is the link where I found the info.

http://goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=47

Brendan Kulp

03-08-2009, 11:38 AM

While Im as confused as anyone as to exactly why St Christopher(and also Saint Andrew of Cynocephali apparently) has been traditionally depicted having a dog like head, as Blessed Father Seraphim Rose once said in regards to Icons depicting God the Father:

"...but there it is."

To label these Icons as somehow offensive, blasphemous or worst of all something harmful to the Orthodox Church, seems to me anyway a bit extreme.

Wouldnt the same labels then be applicable to Icons of St George slaying the dragon,which contrary to popular belief, IS a depiction of an actual event in the saints life literally and most likely symbolicaly. After all, we dont see dog headed cannibals walking about these days(not in the part of Wisconsin I live anyway, Iowa might have a few though),likewise we have no physical proof that dragons existed.

We do however have many written historical accounts of the exsistance of both, some which date back even before the birth of Christ,many of which written by men who lived amongst cultures which at that time were almost entirely cut off from the rest of the known world.

I feel that rather then dismissing or condenming these icons outright, I think the safer route would be to assume that we simply dont hold all the information.

The 2 icons of Saint Christopher that were posted at the start of this thread are not exactly typical of how he is usually portrayed(in fact out the 30 or so Icons of him Ive come across they are,in terms of unhuman appearance and artistically speaking as weel, the worst).

In the oldest Icons Ive come across of St Christopher, while his head is most certainly odd looking, its actually more similar in shape to that of a horse. Rather than having the appearance of a man with dogs head, he looks to be more like a man with a deformed head.

I also wanted to bring up that the fact that, in Russia at least, he was up until the revolution, one of that countries most popularly vernerated saints.

This point I think is rather crucial when discussing his icons.

While its tempting to dismiss his popularity among the Russians as a symptom of widespread ignorance, if put within the context of the Church, I feel it tends to render the issue of its physical or outward characteristics much, much less relevant.

So many of these old Russian Icons of St Christopher Ive come across in books have had such a genuine and profound feeling of sanctity, that regardless of any objections my brain has come up with, the fact is that the Icon is there and very much a part of our church tradition.

Just as with any other tradition, canon, or doctrine of our faith, were free to reject it and cast it out individually, but it will still regardless, remain a part of the Church as a whole.

Olga

05-08-2009, 01:33 AM

Hello Brendan, and welcome to the forum.

Regarding your concerns about the "dog-faced" St Christopher icons, here's a link to a thread which should be useful, as there are posts which address the problem of portraying physical deformity or imperfection in icons of saints:

Trivia - Monachos.net Discussion Community (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=56844#post56844)

Brendan Kulp

06-08-2009, 08:19 AM

Thanks for the welcome Olga! And thanks for directing me to that thread as well, it was very interesting. After reading some of those comments, a few other things occured to me which I felt I needed to bring up:

If its true, as was stated on that thread, that the so called mistake of painting St Christopher with a dogs head stems back to the very first Icon of him more than 1700 years ago,the unusual characteristics of his face could hardly have gone unoticed by the early church fathers(to say nothing of both the Christian population in general, and most certainly the iconoclasts),had they not been aware of something we in this day and age, do not. The fact that there are, to the best of my knowledge, no wriittings or objections to portraying St Christopher in such a way prior to the schism is, I think very telling.

Wouldnt the Orthodox church as whole, somewhere throughout history, have rendered a verdict of some sort?

The only verdict to be found however, is one made by the Catholic Church, and subsequently re-enforced by people belonging to this denomination. I mean no offense to anyone by saying this, however this also seems to be the source of nearly every agrument against, and alternate life story of the Saint Ive read so far on this site.

Another thing to consider:

Orthodox Iconography is, just as with every other aspect of our church, guided by the Holy Spirit, through the iconographers themselves. This in the case of Iconography often works is such a way that the mistakes of one misguided Iconographer, are simply corrected by another that comes along who, if so guided by the Holy Spirit, puts back in place or corrects whatever is missing or incorrect.
As an Iconographer myself(albeit a young and sinful one), I am of the opinion that had the traditional depiction truly been a mistake it would have long since been corrected. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a case where something incorrectly incorporated into the Icon of a Saint or any other part aspect of church life that has lasted 1700 years without it being challenged and resolved by the main body of the Church. Such a mistake to a Saint who had nearly equal veneration status in both of the two major Orthodox Christian empires, would be without president.

With that out of the way:

While I am certainly no authority on the life of this Saint, something about him has always intrigued me. While attempting to discover more about the Saint over the years, it has began to bother me more and more that the sources cited in articles about him seem to be entirely Catholic in origin. Because of the fact that this "monsterous oversight of the Orthodox Church(to quote from memory one such article)" can and most likely will be used as just another means to discredit the Church(much more so than now I fear), I strongly feel this issue should be given a bit more scutiny(any Orthodox Ladies Detective Agency's out there?), as it is undoubtedly a part of our Churches History.

D. W. Dickens

06-11-2009, 08:42 PM

Two things come to mind upon reading this thread.
1: Many Saints are depicted, in Icons, as either old or haggard or both from their earthly struggles; this is not their "renewed" self.
2: There are quite a number of different Icons of Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, that I have seen, and they sometimes vary quite a bit, but for some reason he is always easily recognisable. Also St John was a wearer of spectacles in life, (unless that was infrequently).

I hate to return to an old issue. But I was shown something today I never noticed before. Icons of St Seraphim of Sarov are bent over. They are because he was nearly beaten to death and walked bent over the rest of his life. How does his depiction as bent an example of the icon depicting his "glorified" nature?

This is one of the few threads on Monachos that I really never completely solved in my heart (that still had a significant matter to me spiritually). There was much talk about what icons are "supposed" to be that very many "accepted" icons are clearly not within the "rules". I'm not arguing that it should be OK to depict the Father anthropomorphically. I'm struggling with the disconnect between Orthodox praxis and doctrine in the matter of icons. Particularly the "clarity" everyone else seems to have on a subject that seems so obviously "clouded" to me.

Forgive this former protestant as he continues to work out his salvation in the Church.

Herman Blaydoe

06-11-2009, 08:54 PM

I hate to return to an old issue. But I was shown something today I never noticed before. Icons of St Seraphim of Sarov are bent over. They are because he was nearly beaten to death and walked bent over the rest of his life. How does his depiction as bent an example of the icon depicting his "glorified" nature?

This is one of the few threads on Monachos that I really never completely solved in my heart (that still had a significant matter to me spiritually). There was much talk about what icons are "supposed" to be that very many "accepted" icons are clearly not within the "rules". I'm not arguing that it should be OK to depict the Father anthropomorphically. I'm struggling with the disconnect between Orthodox praxis and doctrine in the matter of icons. Particularly the "clarity" everyone else seems to have on a subject that seems so obviously "clouded" to me.

Forgive this former protestant as he continues to work out his salvation in the Church.

Ah, but what does "renewed" mean? Perfect? What does that mean? Christ's resurrected body still has nail and spear wounds. For some, scars are badges of honor. Fact is, we do not know exactly what "glorified bodies" will look like and icons are about communicating spiritual ideas. The fact that St. Seraphim was beaten almost to death is worth communicating, and showing him carrying the marks of his life is no different than the Scriptural description of Christ after His Resurrection. Mayhaps all the saints actually look like body-sculpted 23 year-olds in Heaven, or perhaps society has defective or at least "different" ideas of what constitutes "glorified".

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the slightly scarred old Pooh

Herman Blaydoe

06-11-2009, 09:05 PM

One last example, St. John the Baptist is often portrayed along with his severed head.

http://www.lukedingman.com/imagesicon/johnfull1.jpg

I do not think he wanders around Heaven carrying an extra head around just because we shoose to emphasize his martyrdom in such a manner iconically.

D. W. Dickens

06-11-2009, 10:03 PM

Herman Blaydoe

06-11-2009, 10:46 PM

I always assumed the "beheaded" icons were of the "instructive" type, not the "personage" type. After all, he's not even looking out at us (which is also something people say "proper" icons do, though clearly many icons to no depict the persons looking at us).

ALL icons are instructive, that is why they exist! I must say I have no idea of what a "personage" icon is, never heard that term in that context before, so perhaps those with better minds than mine can educate both of us.

Still, what do you think "glorified" means, particularly in light of the scriptural witness to Christ's resurrected body and its wounds?

D. W. Dickens

07-11-2009, 02:44 AM

Herman, you mean well, but you are asking questions of the person who is already full of confusion.

First, I put "" quotes because this is merely how I think of things. There are icons of people and there are not strictly a "people". I know that there isn't some real line here, but you DO notice that some icons are just a person looking at you and others contain whole events depicted, or other things that are theological expressions (beyond the fact that every person IS theophanic).

I have been told that in "proper" icons the person depicted looks at you. I've been told all sorts of "proper" rules for icons, only to see all sorts of exceptions to those "proper" rules (except the obvious extremes).

This is not so different than other things converts struggle with that are similar. "What's the latitude" "what's economia" "what's good and bad" "when am I a heretic?" :)

As for "glorified" I mean only what was referred into previously in these thread... that we don't depict saints with their glasses on and such because they are "glorified". This thread is what is confusing me, that's why I'm using terms I don't understand.

Herman Blaydoe

07-11-2009, 03:16 AM

As for "glorified" I mean only what was referred into previously in these thread... that we don't depict saints with their glasses on and such because they are "glorified". This thread is what is confusing me, that's why I'm using terms I don't understand.

And that is what I am trying to help you with. Scars and wounds can be "glorious". Think of the battle-scarred old warrior, each scar a testimony of triumph over adversity. "This was the knife that didn't kill me...", "that was the bullet that didn't stop me..." Each one a story. Just like the wounds of Christ proved who He was to St. Thomas, and show us what He did for us. So too, the "stoop" of St. Sergius, the beating that did NOT kill him. Glasses? Not so much, so they don't get included for St. John. A scar is not a defect. The signs of age need not be scandalous except to a society that values physical flawlessness and youth over everything else. Think outside the box of modern societal mores. Look beyond the veil that the modern media has pulled over your eyes. His strength is made perfect in our weakness. We will glory in our wounds gained in His name and I suspect the saints are not ashamed to be shown that way.

Icons tend to follow certain time-honored conventions. Not all do. But they all tell a story, some better than others. The ones that tell a less-than-perfect story get called out by people like Olga. Dog-faced people and attempts to portray an "old man" Father tell a wrong story. Stooped old men wounded for Christ tell a truer story. It is not a photograph, it is a picture story.