Theological Aspects of the Formation of the Theory of the Artistic Image in Byzantium IV—XIV Centuries.

Feshchenko Vera Sergeevna PhD in Art History Post-graduate student of the Depatment of General History of Art at Ilya Glazonouv Russian Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture 107150, Russia, Moscow, Ivanteevskaya str. 1, bld. 5, ap. 12 vera-f27@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The study of the ecclesiastical and artistic tradition of Christian art shows that from the beginning of its origin and in the course of further development it was inseparable from theology. An important stage of Christian aesthetics was the formation of the theological theory of the image, which began in the early Byzantine era, after the proclamation of Christianity as the state religion. The shift of the center of power to the east contributed to the synthesis of the artistic traditions of ancient Greece and Rome with Eastern cultural traditions, which actualized the problem of depicting the Christian image. "The path of formation of the canonical artistic language was difficult, sometimes conflicting,— writes O. S. Popova. — The art of the Christianized Roman Empire, Western and Eastern, huge, multinational, multilingual, was based on completely different artistic traditions" ^{[1, p. 43]} — the Italian and Greek traditions proclaimed classical principles, the eastern — spiritualistic and more allegorical than anthropomorphic. The task of the new art was to artistically rethink the symbolism and allegorism of early Christian painting, the naturalism and physicality of ancient art, to create new forms and fill them with new content. "In the IV century, two worlds collide with each other: Hellenism and Christianity,— G. V. Florovsky characterizes the problems of the time. — The Church does not reject or deny ancient culture, but Hellenism does not accept Christianity [...]. It was too early to talk about the final victory. Pagan temples were also opened. Pagan teachers also taught, and they polemicized with Christianity" ^[2]. There were disputes in the patristic environment, the key of which were questions about the "consubstantiality" of the persons of the Holy Trinity, about the "two-fold" nature of Christ. Religious fine art of this period was still closely connected with the ancient pagan tradition, however, in the light of the acquisition of official status by the creed and new tasks, iconographic types of images of Evangelical and Old Testament plots and characters are beginning to be developed and studied. The art of the new faith needed "a style that would best embody the spiritualistic ideals of Christianity. All the creative efforts of Christian artists were directed towards the development of this style" ^{[3, p. 38]}. The image of Christ himself was uncertain in the process of overcoming the symbolic and allegorical tradition of catacomb painting - His images coexisted in parallel in the image of the "ideal" and in the "slave's eye". The tradition of depicting Christ as young and beardless, which was more common on sarcophagi, was preserved. There are images of Him of the "Nazarene type" — with long blond hair parted in the center (on mosaics of the IV—V centuries), blue eyes with a forked beard (mosaics of the mausoleum of St. Nicholas Constantia in Rome in the IV century and in miniatures of the Syrian Gospel of the Paris National Library in the VI century), with a short one-piece beard (St. Peter's Church The Pudenzians in Rome, an uncreated image of the Lateran Basilica in Rome), with a black beard and short hair (according to John of Damascus, Constantine the Great ordered to paint Christ in accordance with the descriptions of ancient historians — with black hair and beard; this type is depicted in the Syriac Gospel of 586); some artistic traditions demanded to depict Christ in a "beautiful" of course, others want to write a fundamentally "ugly Christ." The problem also concerned the decoration of the temple's decor — whether to preserve the ancient spirit of decorating walls with water motifs, birds and fish, catching animals or to write biblical stories and holy martyrs. In a broad sense, the disagreement concerned the very attitude towards religious depiction: as worthy of worship or as a pious illustration explaining the teachings of the church. The epoch of the IV—VI centuries. for the Christian religion was a time of difficult theological issues, the struggle against heresies, but at the same time it was the heyday of Christian spiritual life. As L. notes The pillars of the church were no longer martyrs, but "fathers and teachers of the church and ascetic monks. [...] It was from this time that theology (theoretical and experientially experienced) became the source that nourishes church art" ^{[4, p.51]}.

In the IV century, in philosophical works created on the basis of the doctrine, referred to as the "Theological Feat", such Church fathers as Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian, not only controversial issues about the unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity were resolved and justified, but also ideas related to the establishment of the iconographic canon were laid. In the "Conversations" ^[5] of Basil the Great, in the question of substantiating the unity of the essences and nature of God the Father and the Son, examples are given that laid the foundation for the defense of the veneration of icons, as well as related to the understanding of the created image in its relation to the Prototype. "Whoever [...] looks at the royal image," he writes, "and says that what is depicted in the painting is the king, he does not recognize two kings, [...] and if, pointing to the written one, he says: "This is the King," will not deprive the prototype of the royal name; rather, by recognizing the image, it confirms the honor given to the king. [...] Wood and wax and the art of the painter produce a corruptible image — imitation of the corruptible" [...], but when you hear the word "image", understand the "radiance of glory"." The image, explains Basil the Great, according to the apostle is "the image of the Hypostasis" (Heb.1.3). "Therefore, the Hypostasis is identical to glory, and the image is identical to radiance. In this case, the concept of the image, taken in a godly way, leads us to the unity of the Deity" ^[5]. From what has been said, it follows that the veneration of the corruptible image (painted in colors), "taken in a godly manner," does not deprive the glory of the Primordial Image. The example of light and radiance in the ratio of the unity of the Father and the Son as an image and hypostasis is also comprehended by Gregory of Nyssa: "... the image shows the hypostasis, the hypostasis is known by the image [...]. If there was no Radiance, there was no shining one, [...] it is impossible to imagine a glory that does not emit brilliance, a hypostasis that does not have an image, [...] there would be no image, then, of course, there would be no hypostasis" ^{[6, p. 373]}. Here, as in the words of Basil the Great, in addition to the dogmatic formulations associated with the trinitarian doctrine, there is a parallel with the pictorial aspect, affirming the connection of the living image with the iconographic image not only in the context of its perception, but also in the comparative artistic characteristics themselves, associated with the shining light, the radiance of glory.

The attitude towards pictorial depiction as the most vivid representation of the edifying nature of Christian preaching is also characterized by Basil the Great's call to depict the martyrdom of saints in more concrete and living features. Thus, in conversations on the memorial day of the Martyr Barlaam, he writes: "... Glorious painters of ascetic merit! Add this incomplete image of the military commander with your art! [...] I will look at this more accurately depicted struggle of the hand with fire. I will look at this wrestler, more vividly depicted in your painting" ^[5]. An explanation for such a call for the frank expression of suffering can be found in D. V. Ainalov. Touching upon the topic of understanding the role and significance of temple painting among the "great Cappadocians", he writes: "Vasily the Great's assessment of painting resembles ancient art. He likens painting to the glorification of speech and agrees in this case with Quintilian, who found that painting sometimes even surpasses the power of speech. "What the spoken word gives to the ear," Vasily Ainalov quotes, "silent painting shows through imitation" ^{[7, p. 63]}. A similar understanding of painting as a "silent pictorial message" — — is found in Gregory of Nyssa. He wrote that "painting silently knows how to speak on walls and deliver the greatest benefit" ^{[4, p. 52]}. According to his own perception of the image and impression of the power of the transmitted biblical story, St. Gregory noted that he could not pass by the painted scene "The Sacrifice of Abraham" without tears ^{[6, p. 375]}. Ainalov also draws attention to Basil the Great's use of the word — "imitation" — in which he notes the ancient view of the nature of art. According to other researchers of the works of the "great Cappadocians" — G. V. Frolovsky, N. P. Kondakov, A.V. Martynov — the Christian philosophy of these theologians, formed on the basis of the ancient Alexandrian school, was the overcoming of Neoplatonism, as well as the ideological crisis of antiquity and became the basis for medieval culture and art. In the formation of the theory of the image, as well as in the fight against heresies, an important aspect was the borrowing of the scientific thought of ancient philosophers and its theological reinterpretation in the works of Cappadocian theologians. As Ouspensky writes: "The Byzantine Fathers of the Church [...] were brought up on Greek philosophy; however, it was perceived by them as a purely intellectual discipline, mental training, as a threshold to theology, the basis of which was the Holy Scriptures" ^{[4, pp. 164-165]}. The aggravated theological disputes "prompted the Church to reveal the Orthodox doctrine of the deification of man and to provide a theological justification for the enlightenment of man by the Holy Spirit with conciliar definitions" ^{[4, p. 163]}. G. Florovsky designates the problem in these words: "Arianism has set a philosophical task for the theological consciousness. And in philosophical terms and words, the Church responded to the Arian temptation" ^[2]. According to the researcher of the life and works of St. Gregory of Nyssa, A.V. Martynov ^{[8, p. 388]}, he had great respect and turned to the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle, explored the philosophy of Plotinus; the idealism of Plato and the Neoplatonists most corresponded to his introspective nature. In the work of Gregory of Nyssa "On the Human Constitution" ^{[9, p. 162]}, one can trace a connection with the Aristotelian idea of matter and form, where form, as the essence of an object existing inside things, can be realized only in conjunction with matter, and matter can gain certainty only through form, since one cannot exist without the other. Gregory of Nyssa writes about such an indissoluble unity of image and Hypostasis, i.e. the image as the material embodiment of an immaterial essence — Hypostasis; Christ as the image of the hypostasis of God. "... If there were no image, then of course there would be no hypostasis" ^{[6, p. 380]}, he writes. Just as form characterizes matter, and hypostasis characterizes the image, so, according to theologians, the specificity of the created human nature created in the image and likeness of God is revealed, and in the context of depiction, this inseparable duality is expressed in the antinomy of the real image and the Prototype enclosed in it, in a symbolic context. In the chapter "On the fact that man is the likeness of God's royal power", St. Gregory writes: "in order for the beauty of the original to be accurately depicted in the list [...] imagine that our Founder, as if by applying some colors, [...] colored the image to the likeness, [...] in order to show his own in us His superiors" ^{[9, p. 169]}. This theologically meaningful connection between the image and the Prototype, in the anthropological and pictorial aspects, will in the future become the basis for the assertion of the dogma of icon worship.

The theme of the deification of human nature, as the main goal of the Incarnation, which, according to Hilarion (Alfeev), occupies a central place in the teachings of Gregory the Theologian, was important in the issue of depiction. "(Christ) made me god through His human nature" ^[10], "The deified and the Deified are one God" ^[11], writes St. Gregory. This trend of theological thought also contributed to overcoming the Neoplatonic theory of the body as a prison of the earthly world and, in the light of the deification of human nature by the Spirit, became the basis for the idea of transformed matter, which became an important element in the fight against iconoclastic heresy.

In the visual arts of the fifth century, the symbolic aspect is associated with "an extensive theological system, with the entire sacred history" ^{[1, p. 50]}, ancient forms acquire new features, "manifested not so much in the schematization of artistic style (it is minimal), as in the expression of faces, their inspiration or sometimes deep inner self—absorption"^{[1, p. 50]}, nevertheless, the images of this period were still far, as O. S. Popova writes, "from the ascetic content and intense expressiveness of the Christian image" ^{[1, p. 55]}. A significant influence on the shift of emphasis in religious art from naturalism to spiritualistic depiction was exerted by the theoretical works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who presumably worked in the V—VI centuries. Subsequently, his ideas formed the basis for the formation of theological theories in defense of icon worship. In particular, the issue of depiction was influenced by the works "On the heavenly Hierarchy" and "On Divine Names". The theoretical basis of his reasoning was formed on the thesis of the limited possibilities of human nature, unable to "directly ascend to the contemplation of spiritual objects" and therefore in need of "similarities peculiar to us and decent to our nature, which would represent the unimaginable and supersensible in images understandable to us" ^[12]. In this regard, it is no coincidence that disembodied beings are represented in visual art in specific images and outlines. Studying this issue from the point of view of the most accurate approximation to the archetype, Dionysius considers the image from two positions. "One (type of interpretation. — F. V.)," he writes, "consists in images that are as similar as possible to sacred objects; the other is in images that are dissimilar" ^[12]. As an example of similar or similar images, Dionysius, exploring the Holy Scriptures, cites such names of God as "word", "mind", "being", "light", "life". These direct characteristics are "more decent and sublime than sensual images," he concludes, "but they are far from being an accurate reflection of the highest Deity. For the Deity is above all being and life; no light can be an expression of Him" ^[12]. It is more typical "... for spiritual and rational beings to find so-called dissimilar similarities in the material world; because in spiritual beings everything that is attributed to sensual beings must be understood in a completely different form" ^[12]. Dionysius confirms this position with fragments from the Holy Scriptures depicting God with dissimilar features, calling Him "invisible", "boundless" and "incomprehensible". These characteristics reinforce the fact that "God has no resemblance to anything existing" ^[12]. In this regard, the author concludes that the "negative image of expression" in relation to Divine objects conveys the truth more closely and more accurately than the affirmative one, and when transmitting images of invisible and incomprehensible beings, it is better to use images that are dissimilar to them. "... Dissimilar likenesses elevate our mind more," Dionysius writes, —and in this, I think, none of the prudent will argue. For some would rather be deceived by the noblest images, imagining heavenly beings as golden-haired, some kind of men luminous, lightning-fast, beautiful in appearance, dressed in light robes, emitting harmless fire, or under some other similar forms in which Theology depicts heavenly minds. Therefore, in order to warn those who in their concepts do not ascend beyond visible beauties, the holy Theologians, in their wisdom, which elevates our mind, resorted to such obviously dissimilar similarities with that holy purpose, in order to prevent our sensual nature from forever dwelling on low images; but in order to excite and elevate our mind by the very dissimilarity of images, so that even with all the attachment of some to the material, it seemed to them indecent and incongruous with the truth that higher and Divine beings really are like such low images" ^[12].

In the treatise "On Divine Names", Dionysius the Areopagite, considering one of the names of God recorded by the Evangelist John the Theologian, "God is light", introduces such a concept as "mental Light". This phenomenon is a Divine outpouring of light, enlightening from its fullness "all the above-worldly, near the world and in the world abiding minds <...> gathering the illuminated, uniting, perfecting and turning them to Truly Exist ... gathering to one true, pure, one-visible knowledge, filling with a single connecting Light" ^[13]. These considerations gave rise to the development of theological theories about the inner aesthetics of light in the depiction of holy images. On the issue of the formation of the theory of the image, in the subsequent period in the theological environment, special attention was paid to the mysticism of uncreated Divine light, which was a fundamental aspect in the transmission of spiritualism and hieratism of the sacred image.

A contemporary of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, the Monk Maximus the Confessor, wrote a peculiar interpretation based on the teachings of the Areopagite, which he apparently took directly from him. "I can only state what has been preserved in memory, which I can only vaguely comprehend and even more vaguely express" ^[14], the theologian writes in his work "Mystagogy". In this work, he gives a theological explanation about the image of the Church, the meaning of man, the soul, the essence of church liturgical rites and sacraments. Despite the fact that there is no direct mention of artistic depiction in the work, his teaching on the "liturgical image", which is based on the interpretation of the Eucharistic divine service, in the perspective of combating heresies became a projection on the theological theory of icon worshippers. In the discussion of St. Maximus on the symbolic "contemplation of spiritual realities through symbols or images ... [reveals] ... the connection of the image and the prototype" ^[15]. Referring to the words of the apostle Paul, he writes: "The divine Apostle says, "For His invisible things ... from the creation of the world through the contemplation of creatures are visible" (Rom. 1:20). And if the invisible is seen through the visible, as it is written, then it will be easier for those who succeed in spiritual contemplation to comprehend the visible through the invisible. For the symbolic contemplation of the intelligible through the visible is both spiritual knowledge and speculation of the visible through the invisible" ^[14].

Maxim the Confessor can in many ways be considered a follower of the Neoplatonic ideas of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, however, there are significant differences in the doctrine of the "liturgical image" of St. Maximus, which transformed the teaching of the Areopagite and subsequently formed the basis of the theory of the iconographic image. According to the ideas of Pseudo-Dionysius, the elevation from sensual images to divine ones, in the context of the liturgy, does not imply dynamics, the ratio of the material and the divine does not tolerate any change. In the system of St. Maximus the Confessor, the Eucharistic act is a movement towards the Prototype, as a movement towards "deification". "In the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite," writes V. M. Zhivov, "deification is always mediated and conditionally communicated to a person in accordance with what place he occupies in the earthly (church) hierarchy. [...] the connection with God remains completely inaccessible to man. Therefore, the transfiguration of Gifts turns out to be a symbolic action for the Areopagite" ^[15]. The essence of deification, according to Maxim the Confessor, is the penetration of divine energies into a being alien to them, i.e. into sin-stricken human nature, however, according to the theologian, Divine energy and saints have one nature and one energy, from which it follows that "deification is the main characteristic of the existence of transformed people" ^[15]. In this regard, the theoretical concept in defense of icon painting receives a logical formalization: to honor icons means to realize the possibility of deification, "the penetration of divine energies into human nature; to deny this possibility means to deny the movement of man to salvation" ^[15].

Thus, approaching the era of iconoclastic disputes of the VIII—IX centuries, it can be concluded that for the defenders of iconoclasm, the "soil" was prepared by the great theologians of the Cappadocian school, who in turn converted and reinterpreted the Neoplatonic teachings of Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who transformed their ideas into a christocentric doctrine of salvation.

Anticipating the coverage of the works of the icon-venerating fathers, it is necessary to mention how important the conclusions of the Fifth and Sixth Council of Trul, held in 592, were in the formulation of dogmas concerning the pictorial and Christological basis of the sacred image. In particular, the 82nd rule of this council was the first teaching of the Church about the icon, it revealed the advantage of the sacred meaning of the anthropomorphic image over the symbolic one, gave instructions on what the church image should be, and laid the foundation for the formation of the basic principles of the iconographic canon. An important idea that lay in this rule was the justification for the perception of the artistic image of Jesus Christ as an image worthy of worship, namely, as an icon. His image was supposed to display not only historical, portrait features, but also include divine characteristics indicating His divine Glory. "The teaching of the Church — as L. writes. Ouspensky emphasizes the importance and significance of historical realism and recognizes a realistic image made in a certain manner, indicating a spiritual reality, as the only one expressing Orthodox teaching" ^{[4, p. 66]}. Also, the symbolism of church art in general "should not be in the plot itself, not in what is depicted, but in how this plot is depicted, in the manner of the image" ^{[4, p. 65]}. Thus, the artist's task was to "correctly convey a specific image and reveal another reality in it — a spiritual and prophetic reality" ^{[4, p. 66]}, guided by the techniques of "symbolic realism". "In search of the style most suitable for expressing the spiritualistic content of the image, O. S. Popova writes, two main trends are already being identified in art of this early time. One of them is the creation of a soulful image through the use of old classical means, by slightly modifying them. The second is the replacement of the classical ancient artistic language, sensual at its core, with some other, much more strict and already far from antiquity" ^{[1, p. 113]}. Examples of the artistic style of this period are, for example, the mosaic decorations of the Church of St. Demetrius in Thessaloniki (620), the church of Panagia Angeloktissa in Cyprus (the first half of the seventh century), the Basilica of Euphrasia in Porec (the middle of the sixth century). "In the sixth century, solemn and imposing art prevails with severe, often detached images, created by lapidary artistic language. In the art of the VII century, lighter, softer images are created, the style is full of Hellenistic memories" ^{[1, p. 113]}. This era of the heyday of Byzantine art in the VIII—IX centuries. It is entering a period of deep crisis related to the conflict between iconoclasts and iconoclasts. The key importance in resolving this confrontation was rendered by the works and effective participation of some of the most prominent fathers of the Church of the VII—VIII century John of Damascus, Herman of Constantinople and Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nikephoros.

The early stage of iconoclasm in 726-787 is associated with the patriarchate of Herman of Constantinople, author of the Three Epistles in Defense of Holy Icons, under the iconoclastic Emperor Leo III. As patriarch, he openly deviated from the exhortations of Emperor Leo Isaurus to abandon the veneration of icons and stood his ground to the last, but realizing the futility of his efforts, he resigned his dignity, since he did not think of making such a decision without an Ecumenical Council. "... Herman, with the quietness of his disposition, was a dam that restrained the brewing iconoclasm in the church" ^[16]. The Patriarch adhered to the positions on the divine image in the context of its historical Incarnation, adopted at the Council of Trul. "Always having in mind the life of our Lord Jesus Christ in the flesh," argued Herman, "His sufferings, saving death and the redemption of the world that resulted from all this, we have adopted the tradition of depicting the Lord in His human form, this is in his visible theophany, realizing that in this way we exalt the humiliation of God of the Word" ^{[17, p. 66]}.

After Patriarch Herman renounced his dignity, the opposition to iconoclasm was led by St. John of Damascus. In his work "Three Defensive Words in defense of Icon worship", one can see that he largely builds evidence of his rightness on the basis of the teachings of Maximus the Confessor, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great and other holy fathers of the Church. Damascene destroys the arguments of the iconoclasts about the prohibition of images referring to the Old Testament text with the same quotations written in Deuteronomy: "Keep firmly in your souls that you did not see any image on the day when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of fire (Vt 4:15); lest you become corrupted and do to yourself statues, images of any idol representing any man or woman, images of any cattle that are on the earth, images of any winged bird" (Vt 4:16-17), as well as in Exodus "May you have no other gods before my face. Do not make for yourself an idol or any image of what is in heaven above, and what is on the earth below, and what is in the water below the earth" (Exodus 20:3-5). Damascene explains, "that one goal is that we do not serve the creature instead of the Creator and, except for the Creator alone, do not render service worship [...] You see that in order to avoid idolatry, Moses forbids the writing of images and that it is impossible for a God without qualities, and indescribable, and invisible to be depicted" ^{[18, pp. 33-34]}. Bringing the idea to its logical limit, Damaskin writes: "when you see a disembodied person become human for your sake, then make an image of His human form. When the invisible, clothed in flesh, becomes visible, then depict the likeness of the One Who Appeared" ^{[18, p. 35]}. The first word contains one of the most famous arguments of Damascene, who spoke in defense of the holy icons: "Now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived with man, I depict the visible side of God. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who became matter for my sake, deigned to settle in matter and through matter, who made my salvation" ^{[18, p. 40]}. John of Damascus also explains why in Old Testament times temples were not built and worship and festivals were not held in memory of the holy people of Israel: "For the nature of people was still under a curse, and death was a sentence (i.e. punishment)..., and the body of the deceased was considered unclean. Ever since the Deity... reunited with our nature, our nature has been glorified and turned into incorruptible. Therefore, the death of saints is celebrated, and temples are erected to them and images are inscribed" ^{[18, p. 61]}. In the same passages from the Old Testament, Damascene finds evidence of the sacred significance of the "substance", recalling how God instructed Moses to create the tabernacle of the covenant: "... everyone shall bring an offering to the Lord, gold, silver, copper, blue, purple and scarlet wool, and fine linen, goat's hair..." (Exodus 35 411). "Here is a truly precious substance," the author writes, referring to the iconoclasts, "although you consider it worthy of contempt. For what is more insignificant than goat's hair or paints? Isn't the paint scarlet, and purple, and blue?" Thus, in accordance with the theologian's thought, it can be concluded that "(in Damascene) matter has to do with spiritual content, the whole question is what kind of matter and what kind of spirit are we facing [...] not all matter and not all matter is beautiful, moreover, after the fall of man, not only his image, but the whole matter also became muddied and sinful. [...] here (in Damascene) the most important thing is said (great, in this case religious, art) depicts transformed matter [...]. It is impossible to correctly see and depict real, but transformed matter, if one does not go back to the prototype," notes V. G. Arslanov ^{[19, pp. 200-201]}. The importance of matter as matter, Damascene emphasizes throughout the divine creation, paying attention to how visible things physically express those objects that have no form, "so that they are at least vaguely comprehended by the mind" ^{[18, p. 36]}. In all earthly creation there are "images that covertly show us divine reflections" ^{[18, p. 92]}, that is, their primordial images, while man is the highest reflection of God. "God Himself was the First to make the image, and He showed the images. For He created the first man in the image of God" ^{[18, p. 70]} — the theologian writes. If a person is an image of God, "who originated through imitation (likeness)" ^{[18, p. 91]}, and can be depicted, "will I not," the author asks, "make images of Someone Who appeared carnal for me? And will I not worship and honor Him by honoring and worshipping his image?" ^{[18, p. 96]}.

The arguments of these holy fathers had their influence on the completion of the first period of iconoclasm, which was marked by the Seventh Ecumenical (Second Nicene) Council, and where the dogmatic foundations of the veneration of icons were approved. Posthumous charges were dropped against Herman of Constantinople and John of Damascus, and their anathema by Constantine V at the Iconoclastic Council in Ieria, the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council proclaimed Eternal memory to them, "these heroes of truth" ^[16]. In particular, the decree on icon veneration for the icons themselves read: "... we, walking as if in a royal way and following the God-gracious teaching of our Holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church [...], determine with every care and circumspection: like the image of the honest and life-giving cross, to place in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and garments, on on the walls, in houses and on the paths there are honest holy icons painted and made of mosaics and other suitable substances, icons of the Lord, and God, and our Savior, Jesus Christ, and our immaculate Lady, the Holy Virgin, as well as honest angels, and all saints, and reverend men [...]. For the honor paid to the image goes back to the prototype, and the worshipper of the icon worships the being (hypostasis) depicted on it. This is contained in our Holy Fathers, that is, the tradition of the Catholic church, which accepted the Gospel from the end of the earth" ^{[18, pp. 22-23]}. However, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, not all the Christological propositions formulated at the Council in Jeriah were refuted; some of them required a more convincing refutation. The development of a comprehensive set of arguments in favor of veneration of icons, initiated by Patriarch Herman I and John of Damascus, was carried out by the major theologians of the second period of iconoclasm, Theodore Studit and Patriarch Nikephoros. Before the iconoclast Leo V the Armenian came to power, Theodore the Studite was a zealous defender of piety: he rebelled, in particular, against the remarriages of emperors, arguing that in this way the whole church was struck by the sin of adultery, and openly protested to the patriarchs who blessed these marriages, and to the emperors themselves, for which he was repeatedly sent into exile and they were beaten. With the advent of a new wave of the iconoclastic movement, Theodore from exile "led the fight against iconoclasts with his letters, emphasizing fundamentally the violence of the state against the church" ^[16]. Theodore actively defended the veneration of icons, dedicating three "Objections" to iconoclasm, treatises and letters. In an effort to affirm the reality of the humanity of Christ, accessible to the image, he almost approached falling into Nestorianism, but this was caused by the great need at that time for measures to prove His descriptibility. In his anti-iconoclastic writings, Theodore partially refers to the categories of Aristotle: "Christ was definitely not a simple man; it would also be unorthodox to say that he perceived (the appearance) of one of the people, and not the whole nature in its entirety. It should be said, however, that this integral nature was contemplated individually — for how else could this nature be visible in a way that allowed it to be visible and depicted ... that allowed it to eat and drink..." ^{[17, p. 66]}. According to the logic of Theodore Studit, from the indescribability of Christ, the conclusion followed that He was disembodied, but the icon is "not only "the image of the "man Jesus", but also the incarnate Logos." "The meaning of the Christian Gospel," I. Meyendorff comments on the thought of Theodore the Studite, "consists precisely in the fact that the Logos has adopted all human features, including descriptability, and his icon is a constant testimony to this fact. The humanity of Christ, which makes icons possible, is a "new humanity", it has been completely restored for communion with God, burned [...] This fact should be reflected in iconography as an art form..." ^{[17, p. 71]}. According to Theodore Studit, the fact that man is the image and likeness of God indicates that "iconography is a divine act." Therefore, by creating an icon of Christ, the iconographer creates an "image of God", for he is the deified humanity of Jesus.

In the question of hypostatic unity, Theodore, following the thought of the Apostle Paul, as well as Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, understands the depiction of Christ only in the context of His Hypostasis — "the ultimate source(s) of individual, personal being, which in Christ is both Divine and human" ^{[17, p. 70]}, but not of nature, "for the image of nature is incomprehensible." As Gregory of Nyssa wrote, "if there were no image, then of course there would be no hypostasis" ^{[6, p. 374]} and, according to Basil the Great, "the image, according to the apostle, is the "image of the Hypostasis" (Heb.1.3) ... the concept of the image, taken in a godly way, leads us to the unity of the Deity" ^[20].

Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople, in his proofs of the deified humanity of Christ, not as dematerialized, in accordance with iconoclastic thought, but real matter, resorts to direct evidence from the Gospel: "Jesus suffered from fatigue, hunger, thirst, like any other person," the compromise of the Divine nature with the human in Christ, according to Nicephorus, was that that he "accepted all aspects of human existence including ignorance: "He agreed to act, to have desires, to be ignorant and to suffer as a human being … This fullness of humanity also implies descriptability" ^{[17, p. 72]}.

The great fathers of the Church, Patriarch Nikephoros and Theodore Studit, made a significant contribution through their works to the restoration of the veneration of the man—made image, but for several decades after their demise, a struggle was waged, which ended with the Local Council of 843, which proclaimed victory over iconoclastic heresy and marked as the triumph of Orthodoxy. "The disputes of the VIII and IX centuries showed that in the light of the Incarnation, art cannot maintain a "neutral" function — it can and even should express faith. Thus, ... icons have become an expression and a source of comprehension of Divine Wisdom" ^{[17, p. 76]}. "Three theses emerged from the doctrine of icon worship, which were essential for the decoration system. An image created in the correct manner is a magical copy of the Prototype. The image is worthy of worship, since the image does not exist outside of connection with the worshipper. Each image has its place in the sacred hierarchy. The first and main condition for the existence of images in accordance with these theses was frontal as the beginning of face-to-face communion with God" ^{[21, p. 277]}. "The theory of veneration of icons," concludes V. M. Zhivov, "naturally acts as a special case of the general theory of the image, the previous development of which, developing the teachings of the Cappadocians, at the same time radically transformed neoplatonic positions and views (Evagria, Ps.-Dionysius), bringing them into the framework of the basic christocentric-soteriological directions of patristic thought" ^[15].

The art of the post-iconoclastic period was focused on the search for a new artistic language that would correspond to established dogmas. In the light of theological thought, which proclaimed the embodied corporeality of the Deity, the main course was taken in the classical direction, however, by the second half of the tenth century. The material density of images began to give way to inner spirituality, which influenced the change in the form itself. Artistic creativity now sought "to be freed from all external elements and to highlight what was of undoubted value for expressing the essence of the Christian image" ^{[1, p. 238]}. In the second half of the X — early XI centuries, art, according to O.S. Popova, plunges into "a transformed world of sublime images, [...] cleansed from earthly associations of artistic language." The figures in the miniatures of this period "do not move or live, but reside in an infinitely deep, golden, that is, saturated with Divine light space" ^{[1, p. 240]}. In "light flattened forms permeated with golden rays of assist [...], there is no place for anything sensual and mundane" ^{[1, p. 240]}.

Since Byzantine art was sensitive at all times to theological thought, it would be appropriate to touch on the works of Simeon the New Theologian, who lived at the turn of the X—XI centuries. His position on the Divine light, which can be comprehended through the eyes of the mind, is close to the idea of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who wrote in his treatise on Divine Names about God as a "Mental light". In terms of the height of the spiritual content, Simeon's works are placed on a par with Gregory the Theologian ^[22] and John the Theologian, whose works also feature the theme of Light, which played an important role in the artistic transmission of the transformed matter of the divine image. "What the sun is for sensual beings, God is for mental ones; it illuminates the visible world, and He is invisible; it makes bodily eyes sun—shaped, and He makes mental natures God—like," writes Gregory the Theologian, comparing God with the sun ^[23]. "For just as in order to see visible creatures," Simeon the New Theologian echoes, "sensual light is needed, so in order to see mental things, intelligent light is needed. Why are there two luminaries that shine: the sensual and visible luminaries — the sun, which gives light to the eyes of the body, so that they see the sensual and visible, and the intelligent luminary — the sun of truth, our Lord Jesus Christ, who gives light to the intelligent eyes of the soul, so that they mentally see the mental and invisible" ^{[24, pp. 223-224]}. Thus, theologians distinguished two types of "light" and their two sources — "sensual" ("created") and "intelligent", "internal" (interior). In this system, the inner light transforms not only the spiritual, but also the bodily structure, giving matter a special visible radiance. In his "Word on the union of God with the soul and soul with the body," the monk says that "having become all fire in the soul, he [man. — V.F.] transmits to the body from the light-leaf acquired inside, just as sensual fire transmits its action to iron" ^[25]. Based on the conclusions of theologians about the divine light in its relation to the human hypostasis of Christ, it can be concluded that light modeling is essential for the sacred image. An image painted, speaking in the categories of Dionysius, in a similar manner, close to mundane realistic models and having an optically natural modeling of chiaroscuro (since incident light, "created", is the antithesis fixed in the works of Gregory the Theologian and Simeon the New Theologian about "sensual" sunlight, designed to illuminate visible objects of the material world), it is devoid of the implicit component of the transformed nature, which in turn distances the Divine image from its likeness.

Christian art could not but reflect this theological theory, and in Byzantium in the XI century. a style was born that can fully be considered a pictorial expression of the concepts mentioned above. The 30-40s of this century were marked by the highest concentration of the spiritual content of images that were oriented towards strict ascetic attitudes. "This is an art that is strict, often even harsh, and places high demands on the person contemplating it" ^{[1, p. 241]}. It was addressed, as Simeon wrote, to "intelligent spiritual eyes" capable of seeing the mental, the invisible. Classicist tendencies are receding, replaced by convention and symbolic realism. Examples of such paintings are the mosaics of the monastery of Osios Lucas in Phokida (1030-1040), the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev, St. Sophia in Ohrid, the catholicon of Nea Moni in Chios. The theme of Divine light in these mosaics acquires the highest sound. "Streams of light in such a painting," writes O.S. Popova, "create the structure of the figure and at the same time seem to penetrate it through [...] replace the matter itself, forming instead a continuous strong glow ^{[1, p. 250]}. [...] Osios Lucas mosaics impress with the extraordinary intensity of color, light, contrasts [...] the robes are permeated with such wide streams of light that they appear white, and the figures are pillars of light [...] The fabric itself, the matter here is clearly secondary to light, filling everything with itself and as if replacing matter" ^{[1, p. 256]}. The very concept of light is characterized by her as "the victorious theme of Transformation" ^{[1, p. 262]}.

The problem of the mysticism of light was developed in the teachings of the main theorist of hesychasm, Gregory Palamas, who became an authoritative spokesman for the views of the entire Athos monastic community. In the monastic environment, the second quarter of the XIV century. It is marked by a return to hesychasm, the early Byzantine experience of God—knowledge through "intelligent prayer". As L.A. Uspensky writes, "for Palamas and the Athos monks, the position of proving another — an irrational way of knowing the divine mysteries" was fundamentally important ^{[4, p. 140]}, which found its culmination in a special teaching about the nature of the Divine Light revealed to the apostles at the time of the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. The idea of the followers of Palamas was that the essentially incomprehensible Divine energy opened up to the world and man, deifying and making his whole nature akin to himself, which led to proof of the possibility of "communion with God and knowledge of God not in a symbolic, indirect way, through natural phenomena, but through grace communicated by the Holy Spirit..." ^{[4, p.140]}. Perceiving the body of Christ as a source of Divine light, Palamas sought to prove, first of all, its "fundamental uncreation", as well as to convince of its "simultaneous inaccessibility and accessibility, in its fundamental incomprehensibility and at the same time sensory perceptibility up to physical vision, in its simultaneous transcendence and immanence to the created world" ^{[26, p. 72]}. "One of the ways to explain this paradox," explains Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), —in the Eastern Christian tradition was the concept of "actions" or energies of God, different from the essence of God. If the essence of God is invisible, the energies can be visible; if the essence is unnameable, the energies can be named; if the essence of God is incomprehensible, then the energies can be comprehended by reason" ^[27]. Archpriest John Meyendorff wrote that "it is this light that permeates the created human nature of the Savior and is made available to us because 'divinity', that is, uncreation, is a 'quality' capable of being transmitted from one nature to another. This is the meaning of the traditional concept of deification: a creature, communing with God, acquires "divinity", becomes "uncreated", and partakes of eternal life" ^[28]. The "non-possessive" life, the creation of unceasing prayer, and "intelligent doing" are capable of transforming human nature, restoring to it the primordial luminous nature that it lost during the fall. Thus, according to I. Meyendorff, "energies are communicated to individuals ... as if they are "hypostatized" in individuals. When we honor the saints, we actually honor the divine presence in this or that righteous person" ^[29]. Gregory Palamas' opponent in this matter was a Greek monk from Italy, Barlaam, who denied the idea of Divine energies; intense disputes were conducted between them, in connection with which the time of the second quarter of the XIV century is considered to be the "period of ecclesiastical disputes." This atmosphere was reflected in the church art of that time by the birth of images filled with excitement, drama and acute emotional tension, which are expressed in faces, dynamic folds of clothes, complex angles.

The penetration of the advanced ideas of Constantinople into Russia, which experienced the hardest times after the invasion of the Tatars, occurred only at the end of the XIII century. "It was the Russian school of painting [...] that became the recipient of the great Byzantine heritage, which it fertilized and enriched with living folk art, whose spring was drying up more and more on the parched Byzantine soil" ^{[30, p. 9]}. However, the deepest response in the soul of the Russian people was not the philosophical and religious ideas of the Byzantine theologians, but their artistic and aesthetic culture. Russian Russian art "The difference between Greek and Russian art consists in the great simplicity of the artistic language, (and) the lesser severity of Russian images" ^{[21, p. 14]}. As L. A. Uspensky notes, Russia mainly theologized not in word, but in image. Although in Byzantium theology was constantly imprinted in worship and image, but in Russia the idea of thinking through images — "speculations in colors" — becomes "the fundamental form of national identity" ^{[21, p. 8]}. In general, "far (and as a rule) not every Byzantine or Old Slavonic master knew the theory itself [of the image. — F.V.] in all its diverse nuances and, working on another icon, kept it in mind," says V.V. Bychkov. — The theory of the image inspired Byzantine artistic creativity indirectly and as if from within, [the masters. — V.F.] lived in a spiritual atmosphere saturated with ideas and eidos of this theory, and unconsciously guided them in their work" ^{[31, pp. 91-92]}. Realizing this makes it possible to feel that even the theoretical, rhetorical justification of the iconographic image did not directly affect the artist, but enriched him spiritually in the semantic space of the medieval world.

From the first half of the XV to the end of the XVII century. Russian art gradually freed itself from Greek influence, gained independence and distinctive national features. The new age, on the eve of the Peter the Great era, poses new tasks for church art that could no longer be solved by the techniques of medieval painting.

The study of the theological theory of the image is an important element in determining the fidelity of the artistic transmission of the essence of the doctrine and understanding of the sacred content of medieval temple painting, as well as a necessary guideline for modern iconographers, allowing them to choose in their work a system of expressive means corresponding to theological dogmas.