Art and Spirituality of the Russian Orthodox Tradition

One of the features of Russian Orthodoxy that most strikes Westerners when they encounter Orthodoxy is the prominence of icons, or sacred images. The Russians inherited from Byzantine Orthodoxy a sense of the importance of images in worship, both public and private, that had been enhanced by the 3 iconoclast controversy of the eighth to ninth centuries, and the final defeat of iconoclasm. This controversy, far more important in Byzantium than in the West, made icons a required aspect of Orthodox practice. It also involved the acceptance of an understanding of the place of religious images as ways of disclosing invisible realities, but also a way in which the material found an important place in religious practice, and indeed came to be held to be entailed by God’s assumption of humanity in the Incarnation. Because of the ‘linguistic filter’, all of this became hugely important within the world of Slav Orthodoxy. Orthodox devotion revolved around icons, and, as in Byzantium, they played a role in the defence of the Orthodox nations against attack. Legends traced icons back to the time of Christ; the Vladimir icon of the Mother of God being claimed as the work of St Luke the Evangelist (a claim Byzantine had made for the Hodigitria icon of the Mother of God). Particular icons—especially of the Mother of God—were associated with different places and had their own cult. Icons also provided a way of linking the public worship of the Church with the private devotions of Orthodox Christians: homes came to have a small domestic shrine, the ‘beautiful corner’, krasny ugol.

One of the features of Russian Orthodoxy that most strikes Westerners when they encounter Orthodoxy is the prominence of icons, or sacred images. The Russians inherited from Byzantine Orthodoxy a sense of the importance of images in worship, both public and private, that had been enhanced by the 3 iconoclast controversy of the eighth to ninth centuries, and the final defeat of iconoclasm. This controversy, far more important in Byzantium than in the West, made icons a required aspect of Orthodox practice. It also involved the acceptance of an understanding of the place of religious images as ways of disclosing invisible realities, but also a way in which the material found an important place in religious practice, and indeed came to be held to be entailed by God’s assumption of humanity in the Incarnation. Because of the ‘linguistic filter’, all of this became hugely important within the world of Slav Orthodoxy. Orthodox devotion revolved around icons, and, as in Byzantium, they played a role in the defence of the Orthodox nations against attack. Legends traced icons back to the time of Christ; the Vladimir icon of the Mother of God being claimed as the work of St Luke the Evangelist (a claim Byzantine had made for the Hodigitria icon of the Mother of God). Particular icons—especially of the Mother of God—were associated with different places and had their own cult. Icons also provided a way of linking the public worship of the Church with the private devotions of Orthodox Christians: homes came to have a small domestic shrine, the ‘beautiful corner’, krasny ugol.

The icon tradition is rooted in timeless theological truths, which are summarized in the formula of St Athanasius the Great that God became man so that man, by grace, can become god. These truths have informed not only the use but also the style of Orthodox icons over the centuries. This unity of purpose and inspiration explains why we can so readily distinguish an icon from other types of painting of religious subjects. And yet within this unity there is also great variety of style. The icon tradition is not static, as though the icon painter is restricted to precise copying from a set body of work. The realities and events that icons depict are so profound that no one culture, epoch or individual can express their meaning exhaustively. This is why a central tenant of Orthodox spirituality is that each culture should live and express life in Christ in its own unique way, whilst retaining unity of belief and sacrament with the whole Church. This 4 enculturation is a natural continuation of Pentecost, where the twelve apostles preached the same Gospel but in different languages. At its conversion, for example, Russia adopted from of its parent Byzantine culture the forms of its church architecture, iconography and music. But very soon it adapted what it adopted. Architects transformed the round dome into the onion dome; Russian iconographers began to model their figures less than the Byzantines and instead concentrated on the contrast of flat areas of colour; and Znameny chant grew out of Byzantine chant. In this lecture we will first summarize the theological basis of the icon tradition – what is unchanging, and then consider some of the Russian icon schools, their characteristics and what may have produced their particular forms.

The icon tradition is rooted in timeless theological truths, which are summarized in the formula of St Athanasius the Great that God became man so that man, by grace, can become god. These truths have informed not only the use but also the style of Orthodox icons over the centuries. This unity of purpose and inspiration explains why we can so readily distinguish an icon from other types of painting of religious subjects. And yet within this unity there is also great variety of style. The icon tradition is not static, as though the icon painter is restricted to precise copying from a set body of work. The realities and events that icons depict are so profound that no one culture, epoch or individual can express their meaning exhaustively. This is why a central tenant of Orthodox spirituality is that each culture should live and express life in Christ in its own unique way, whilst retaining unity of belief and sacrament with the whole Church. This 4 enculturation is a natural continuation of Pentecost, where the twelve apostles preached the same Gospel but in different languages. At its conversion, for example, Russia adopted from of its parent Byzantine culture the forms of its church architecture, iconography and music. But very soon it adapted what it adopted. Architects transformed the round dome into the onion dome; Russian iconographers began to model their figures less than the Byzantines and instead concentrated on the contrast of flat areas of colour; and Znameny chant grew out of Byzantine chant. In this lecture we will first summarize the theological basis of the icon tradition – what is unchanging, and then consider some of the Russian icon schools, their characteristics and what may have produced their particular forms.

The traditional date in the Christianization of Russia is 988, the year of the baptism of Prince Vladimir of Kiev. Vladimir received Christianity from the Byzantine Empire (traditionally, after investigating the religious beliefs and practices of neighbouring countries). By the tenth century, Byzantine Christianity was an elaborate construction of beliefs, practices both liturgical and ascetic, philosophy, art and culture, and everything that had come to be associated with the monastic life, which played an especial role in the Eastern Church. With the example of Bulgaria (and probably Serbia)—as well as more anciently Georgia—behind them, the Byzantines brought to Kiev Byzantine Christianity in a Slav dress (unlike the West, where Christianization entailed Latinization). This meant that there was what might be called a ‘linguistic filter’: the Slavs absorbed more readily aspects of Byzantine Christianity that did not need translation—the ceremony of the liturgy, the art of icons, music (though we know little about this), and the practice of monasticism—rather than the complexities of Byzantine theology and philosophy, with the result that Slav Orthodoxy had a different complexion from its parent Byzantine Orthodoxy. Within Slav Orthodoxy, icons and ceremonial, in particular, assumed greater significance than within Byzantine Orthodoxy, as the intellectual culture fell into the background. The sense that Slav Orthodoxy was dependent on Byzantine Orthodoxy remained significant, and led to the Nikonian reforms of the seventeenth century, when the Slavonic liturgical and iconographic traditions were adjusted to correspond with current Greek practice. Many refused to accept these changes, and became known as ‘Old Ritualists’ or ‘Old Believers’, a persecuted minority, whose preservation of ancient iconographic traditions is now greatly valued.

The traditional date in the Christianization of Russia is 988, the year of the baptism of Prince Vladimir of Kiev. Vladimir received Christianity from the Byzantine Empire (traditionally, after investigating the religious beliefs and practices of neighbouring countries). By the tenth century, Byzantine Christianity was an elaborate construction of beliefs, practices both liturgical and ascetic, philosophy, art and culture, and everything that had come to be associated with the monastic life, which played an especial role in the Eastern Church. With the example of Bulgaria (and probably Serbia)—as well as more anciently Georgia—behind them, the Byzantines brought to Kiev Byzantine Christianity in a Slav dress (unlike the West, where Christianization entailed Latinization). This meant that there was what might be called a ‘linguistic filter’: the Slavs absorbed more readily aspects of Byzantine Christianity that did not need translation—the ceremony of the liturgy, the art of icons, music (though we know little about this), and the practice of monasticism—rather than the complexities of Byzantine theology and philosophy, with the result that Slav Orthodoxy had a different complexion from its parent Byzantine Orthodoxy. Within Slav Orthodoxy, icons and ceremonial, in particular, assumed greater significance than within Byzantine Orthodoxy, as the intellectual culture fell into the background. The sense that Slav Orthodoxy was dependent on Byzantine Orthodoxy remained significant, and led to the Nikonian reforms of the seventeenth century, when the Slavonic liturgical and iconographic traditions were adjusted to correspond with current Greek practice. Many refused to accept these changes, and became known as ‘Old Ritualists’ or ‘Old Believers’, a persecuted minority, whose preservation of ancient iconographic traditions is now greatly valued.

Het Amsterdam Centre for Eastern Orthodox Theology (ACEOT) en de Hermitage Amsterdam organiseren een bijzondere reeks academische lezingen (Engelstalig) op vier zaterdagmiddagen tijdens de tentoonstelling Glans en glorie. In deze reeks staan de kunst en de spiritualiteit van de Russisch-orthodoxe traditie centraal.

Het Amsterdam Centre for Eastern Orthodox Theology (ACEOT) en de Hermitage Amsterdam organiseren een bijzondere reeks academische lezingen (Engelstalig) op vier zaterdagmiddagen tijdens de tentoonstelling Glans en glorie. In deze reeks staan de kunst en de spiritualiteit van de Russisch-orthodoxe traditie centraal.

General description of the lecture series plus bibliography.

General description of the lecture series plus bibliography.