Evolution of Icons in the Byzantine Church
During the formative centuries of the Byzantine Church, great church thinkers and leaders felt a pressing need to formulate the theology of their faith in a way that would explain the underlying fundamentals of their belief system. They faced many problems elucidating the basic principles of Christianity, such as the nature of the trinity as a monotheistic doctrine and the exposition of Christ’s two natures. In response to this quest, many scholars put forth explanations for review by the Ecumenical Councils. When the explanations presented did not meet with the approval of the councils, they decried it as a heresy; a great challenge to Orthodoxy. To ensure the triumph of Orthodoxy, the art created in this tumultuous period was devised in ways that would support the decisions of the councils, and re-emphasize to the faithful exactly what to believe.
In 451 the Fourth Ecumenical Council met at Chalcedon and decried Monophysitism, one of the opposing positions to Orthodoxy (Perl, 43). This position held that Christ was a union between God and man, but, at the time of conception, the divine nature overtook the human nature, with the result that Christ was a man in human form, with only the nature of the divine, not of man (Perl, 42). Though the council had made its ruling, the battle continued over Monophysitism. A less radical position, the doctrine of Monothelitism, was put forth in an attempt to calm the controversy. Aimed at comprise between the position of the Monophysites and that of Orthodoxy, Monothelitism posited that, “although Christ did have two natures (divine and human) He nevertheless, acted as God only. In other words, His divine nature made all the decisions and His human nature only carried and acted them out,” (Greek). However, the Sixth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 680 censured this position as it had done with the last (Greek). In 692 the Quinisext Ecumenical Council upheld and reiterated the falseness of Monophysitism and Monothelitism (Mango, 139). From that point forward, themes in the artwork were changed to reflect this decision by down playing all images of Christ except those which emphasized his human form.
An icon of John the Baptist, originally from Sinai, now housed in Kiev, is an example of the way the decisions of the church had a direct effect on the art produced for the faithful. It was probably created in the sixth century, right in the midst of the Monophysite controversy (Corrigan, 2). The primary focus of this icon is on the relationship between John the Baptist and Christ (Corrigan, 3). Christ looms over John’s right shoulder, while John gazes up at him, gesturing with his right hand (Corrigan, 3). In his left hand, John holds a scroll that reads, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” (John 1:29) (Corrigan, 3). In this context, John functioned as a witness to a human Christ, and their intimate positioning reflects the intimate relationship between Christ and God. What makes this icon unique is that it is one of the first examples of Christ illustrated as human in his capacity as redeemer. In early Byzantine art, Christ had usually been depicted as an actual lamb in the context of “lamb of God.” In an effort to emphasize the humanity in Christ, the very nature Monophysites denied, the church discouraged the use of the lamb, and advocated the human depiction instead (Corrigan, 3).
A later example of the effort to change the images of John the Baptist and Christ to strongly reflect the distinct two natures within Christ can be seen in the naos of the Katholikon of Hosios Loukas, a Greek monastery dating from the tenth century. In the last of the four squinches in the naos depicting Christ’s life is a scene of Christ’s baptism in the Jordan River, administered by John the Baptist. Christ’s naked body submerged in the river is used as a testament to his humanity. However, on his left, two angels await his exit from the river with towels in hand, testifying to his other, divine nature (Maguire, 132). This later example illustrates that the shift in depiction of Christ as human had been solidified as the proper way to represent him by the tenth century.
Like the portrayals of Christ in general, another example of art changing as the attitude and doctrines of the church changed can be seen in the evolution of the image of the Crucifixion. Prior to the second half of the sixth century, very few images of the Crucifixion were produced (Kartsonis, 155). In its earliest forms, illustration of the Crucifixion heavily employed the overall themes of the story. The images of Christ on the cross were created in such a way as to emphasize his divinity through depictions of strength in the face of brutality (Kartsonis, 155).
An example of this early method of portrayal can be seen in an early fifth century ivory now housed in the British Museum. It depicts Christ on the cross, but his body is fully erect as though even gravity had no effect over him. To the left of the crucifixion scene, Judas is shown in sharp contrast. He is hanging from a tree, dead. The tree branch bows under the weight of his body, which is also slumped down. This contrast further defines the divinity of Christ, for even though his death on the cross was extremely brutal, he remains strong (Kartsonis, 155).
As time progressed into the era of the great controversies, where battling heretics was a very serious priority, the use of the image of the Crucifixion began to change. The figure of Christ began to be depicted as suffering on the cross rather than its earlier robust form. Through these sorts of images, the church could fully express the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, and the saving grace for the faithful that accompanied it (Kartsonis, 163). These changes probably began in the early seventh century, and continued into the early eighth century (Kartsonis, 163). A late seventh century figure named Anastasius of Sinai especially encouraged the use of such Crucifixion illustrations in combating heretics. He said, “The words of the scriptures and fathers are useful, but can be corrupted; it is, therefore, preferable to use, whenever possible, material representations, objections and proofs – such as the image of the crucifixion,” (Kartsonis, 164). Clearly, when the church encountered new difficulties in changing time, it relied on the reconfiguration of an image based on the contemporaneous revisions made within the church to aid in its causes.
As the church modified its icons in response to change, it also adjusted its architecture in a similar fashion. In his visit to the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople in the thirteenth century, Antony of Novgorod reported on the many things he saw there. Specifically, he made a reference to curtains in the ciborium, and their changing use over time. Though T. F. Mathews would disagree on this matter, Antony of Novgorod said, “In ancient times the curtains on the ciborium used to enclose it completely so that the celebrant would not be distracted by the congregation, but heretics took advantage of this concealment to profane the Eucharist,” (Mathews, 167). Whether or not the curtains ever actually enclosed the entire ciborium is unclear, however for the purposes of this paper it will be assumed that they did, in ancient times. This is a clear example of the church reforming its practices in response to heretics. From Antony of Novgorod’s statement, it seems clear that heretics profaned the Eucharist at least semi-regularly. He goes on to explain that this was such a problem, an archdeacon had to placed near the patriarch, metropolitan and bishop in order to ensure they did not defile the Eucharist (Mathews, 168).
As times and beliefs evolved through history, the artwork and architecture of Byzantium changed along with it. From depictions of Christ in icons to the evolution of the image of the Crucifixion to the alteration of architectural features in the Hagia Sophia, it is evident that Byzantium molded its artwork around the problems it faced in the period. The central themes of the artwork clearly reflect the specific doctrinal concerns the clergy faced while attempting to define Orthodoxy. This process has continued even into the modern age, leaving us not only with the icons we see today, but a visual historical record of how church doctrine has shaped the artwork and architecture of the Byzantine Church.
