You have downloaded a document from

The Central and Eastern European Online Library

The joined archive of hundreds of Central-, East- and South-East-European publishers,

research institutes, and various content providers

Source: Byzantinoslavica - Revue internationale des Etudes Byzantines

Byzantinoslavica - Revue internationale des Etudes Byzantines

Location: Czech Republic

Author(s): Elena Ene D-Vasilescu
Title: A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship as reflected in the icons of the
Eastern Christian (Orthodox) Church
A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship as reflected in the icons of the
Eastern Christian (Orthodox) Church
Issue: 1-2/2011
Citation Elena Ene D-Vasilescu. "A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship as
style: reflected in the icons of the Eastern Christian (Orthodox) Church". Byzantinoslavica - Revue
internationale des Etudes Byzantines 1-2:70-85.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=173226
CEEOL copyright 2020

A Face to Face Encounter:

The God-Humanity relationship as
reflected in the icons of the Eastern
Christian (Orthodox) Church

Elena Ene D-VASILESCU (Oxford)

In this article I present two devices employed by the icon painters in

Eastern Christianity to help in the process of God and humankind reach-
ing to one another through icons. These are a particular representation
of the Trinitarian model of love and a compositional technique that pro-
duces in viewers a ‘simultaneity of seeing.’
The twentieth century theologian Dumitru STA¢ NILOAE (1903-1993)
describes the dynamics of communication between God and humankind
by showing that it functions in two directions: God to humanity and
humanity to God through a continual process of descent-ascension:
Man participates in everything that God possesses as a degree of the
supreme existence, all the while remaining man. To reach this goal, or to
fulfill this meaning towards which our being tends, we not only ascend to
communion with the supreme Person, but the Personal reality also
descends to be with us. For love demands that each of those who love one
another moves towards the other. Through all things, God gives himself to
man, and man to God.1
St. Athanasius (ca. 295-373) explains that in the respective act
humans undergo a process of deification, and God one of humanization:2
ìGod became man that man might become god.î (Psalm 82: 6; St. John 10: 34).
To understand this we have to follow St. Basil the Great (ca. 330-379) in
thinking that God is both essence and energies. The essence signifies God
as he is in himself ñ his radical transcendence; the energies signify God as
he is in action ñ his immanence and omnipresence. The energies are the
way through which God has rendered himself accessible to man out of
love.3 God allowed himself to be disclosed to human beings and to be
accessible to them because he acts within creation through his energies
carried out by the Holy Spirit. This happens in spite of the fact that Godís
essence remains inaccessible. The purpose of the Incarnation was the
deification of human beings. This process is to be understood as an appro-

1 D. STA¢ NILOAE, The Experience of God, vol.1, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, tr. and
ed. I. Ioni˛a¢ ñ R. Barringer, Brookline, Mass.1998,12; my emphasis.
2 St. Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, 54:3, PG 25:192 B.
70 3 K. WARE, The Orthodox Way, Crestwood, N.Y. 1996, 22.

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship ...

priation by humans of the divine energies of God in the form of human

virtues, which means a partaking in his nature.
All humans are created in Godís image, and have the potential of
reaching his likeness. In the same manner in which God emptied himself
in order to enter a relationship with humankind (kenosis), people have to
empty themselves to enter a relationship with God. Nevertheless, God and
humans need to co-operate, i.e. to be in sinergeia. Thus humans become
co-creators of their own image. It also means that Godís attributes find a
reflection in human qualities such as love and charity, as well as creativity
and freedom, including the freedom to depict his face in order to facili-
tate a personal meeting.
Since the Holy Spirit dwells in humans, he allows them also to dwell
in ñ or rather to ascend to ñ Divinity. That is possible through words (i.e.
prayers) which are powerful since they are carriers of Godís energies, and
also through images ñ in the Eastern Christian Church through icons,
which are infused with the same energies. I will not refer here to words as
a means of communication between God and humans, but only to the
icon as a facilitator of this communication process.
When believers pray in front of an icon, they do not pray to it, but to
God as Jesus, to the Virgin, or to the saints. As they behold the icon, their
minds ascend to God in the same manner in which a mother beholds a
photo of her children. Sometimes she might even talk to them; she for-
gets that she only has in front of her a photograph. Likewise believers for-
get that they are looking at an icon, but rather think that they are in front
of the holy person depicted within it. In the lived act of prayer the icon
and the prototype are enwrapped in the same reality; the beholder expe-
riences a relationship with the prototype.
In the ëOrosí [Decisions] of the Second Council of Nicaea, 787, the
process of ëascendingí to God through an icon is described as follows:
For the more these are kept in view through their iconographic repre-
sentation, the more those who look at them are lifted up to remember and
have an earnest desire for the prototypes [Ö]. Thus, he who venerates the
icon venerates the hypostasis of the person depicted on it.4
It is important to mention that generally is the most frequent verb
used in literature in relation to icons is ëto honourí(or, in the words of
St. Theodore the Studite (759-826), to give them a ërelativeí veneration ñ
ðñïóêýíçóéò). While what the person depicted receives is a ërealí, an
ëabsoluteí veneration or adoration ñ ëáôñåßá.5

4 The ëOros [Decisions] of the Second Council of Nicaea, 787; Mansi (ed.),
Sacrum Conciliorum Nova and Amplissima Collectio, Veneti, vol. 13, Florence 1759,
377-380; D. J. Sahasí translation, Icon and Logos. Sources in Eight-Century Iconoclasm,
Toronto ñ Buffalo ñ London 1986, 178-180.
5 St. Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, trans. C. P. Roth, Crestwood. N. Y.
2001, 59-61. 71

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

Elena Ene D-Vasilescu

As early as the fifth century, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite, in his The

Mystica Theology, was aware of the instrumental function of images in the
Divine-human communication. Using Neoplatonic ideas of physical and
intelligible worlds in a Christian context, he states that ìthe divinest and
highest things seen by the eyes or contemplated by the mind are but the
symbolical expressions of those that are immediately beneath Him who is
above all. Through these, His incomprehensive Presence is manifested
upon those heights of His Holy Placesî.6 In his De ecclesiastica hierarchia
Pseudo-Dionysius elaborates on this: ìThe essences and orders which are
above usÖare incorporeal and their hierarchy is of the intellect and tran-
scends our world. Our human hierarchy, on the contrary, we see filled
with the multiplicity of visible symbols, through which we are led up, hier-
archically and according to our capacity, to the unified deification, to God
and divine virtue. [Ö] We are led up, as far as possible, through visible
images to contemplation of the divine.î7 We agree with Ernst KITZINGER
that ìTo Pseudo-Dionysius the entire world of the senses in all its variety
reflects the world of the spirit. Contemplation of the former serves as a
means to elevate ourselves towards the latter.î8 Thus, for KITZINGER, all
works of art ñ including those of liturgical nature ñ are åßêüíåò.
As shown above, the icon in the Orthodox Church, as a ritual image,
points towards its prototype in whose nature the viewers participate
through the divine energies manifest in them. In this process, as shown
above, some of the veneration directed towards the prototype ñ a relative
one ñ passes to the icon. In the words of the same Council of Nicaea:
[Sacred images are honoured] so that by means of a visible appearance
our mind will be carried away by a spiritual attraction towards the invisible
majesty of God by means of contemplation of images representing the
flesh that the Son of God thought worthy to take on for our salvation.9
Jesusí incarnation in a particular historical time is the basis of the
existence of icons. This was emphasised by theological writings, such as
those of John of Damascus (ca. 675-ca.749)10 and Theodore the Studite
(759-826),11 and officially sanctioned through the above-mentioned

6 Dionysius Areopagite, The Mystica Theologia, The mystical theology of Dionysius the
Aeropagite and poem on the superessential radiance of the divine darkness by St.
John of The Cross, Shrine of Wisdom, London 1923, 7.
7 Idem, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, l, 2, transl. E. Kitzinger, PG 3, col. 373 AB;
E. Kleinbauer (ed.), The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected Studies,
Bloomington ñ London 1976, 137-138.
8 KITZINGER, The Art of ByzantiumÖ, 138.
9 Mansi (ed.), Sacrum Conciliorum, vol. 12, 1061; Spiritual Seeing. Picturing Godís
Invisibility in Medieval Art, trans. H. L. Kessler, Philadelphia, 2000, 153.
10 St. John of Damascus, Three Treatises on the Divine Images, trans. and ed. A. Louth,
Crestwood, N. Y. 2003. Between 726 and 730, at the request of John V, Patriarch
of Jerusalem (705-735), St. John of Damascus wrote these three treatises in
defence of icons. For an interpretation on his theology see also LOUTH, St. John
Damascene: tradition and originality in Byzantine theology, Oxford ñ New York 2002.
11 Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, trans. C. P. Roth, Crestwood, N.Y. 2001,
72 31-32.

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship ...

Council. The icons are painted images of God as he showed himself to us

in his human hypostasis. Christ is the image of God, and Christ and
humans share in the same visual appearance, as the icon in fig. 1 illus-
trates. The same Council of 787 further defends images as having a spiri-
tual function ñ that of being means of a particular, higher form of seeing:
ìAnd truly by contemplating and adoring an icon of the Lord, we are
moved toward the grace of the Lord, seeing God with spiritual eyes and
vision of the heart.î12
We can conclude the discussion about the basis of the usage of icons
in Eastern Christianity with the words of the contemporary scholar
Herbert L. KESSLER. He comments on this statement by the Council,
underlining that:
The Orthodox apologetic goes further than its Western counterpart in
justifying the images not only through the usefulness to and meaning for
the beholder but through their relationship to their prototype, a trend in
the theory of the image which started being elaborated after the era of
Justinianî.13
Indeed, even though both Catholicism and Orthodoxy have espoused
the dogma of venerating religious images, the Church in Western Europe
(especially in the ëFrankishí realms) never fully accepted the decisions of
the 787 Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. As Alain BESAN«ON shows, after
Pope Adrian (772-795) sent the documents of the Second Council of
Nicaea to the Emperor Charlemagne (742-814), the emperor asked
ThÈodulfe díOrlÈans (760-821) (or, in BESANCONís opinion, Alcuin, ca.
735-804) to prepare a refutation of their content which he did, namely the
Libri Carolini.14 The main ideas of this refutation are that the images are
to be accepted in the Church for a didactic purpose: they could help
those who cannot read the Bible to understand its message. Religious
paintings could help memoria (i.e. people can recall more easily the saintsí
actions, for example, than if they do not have any visual cues), and are
ornamentum ñ i.e. are acceptable to adorn the walls. (The same ideas were
expressed in two letters sent by Pope Gregory I to Bishop Serenus.15) This

12 Mansi (ed.), Sacrum Conciliorum, vol. 12, 1061; Spiritual Seeing. Picturing Godís
Invisibility in Medieval Art, trans. H. L. Kessler, Philadelphia 2000, 153.
13 Spiritual Seeing, trans. Kessler, 153.
14 A. BESAN«ON, The Forbidden Image. An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm, transl. by
J. M. Todd, Chicago ñ London 2000, 151). Opus Caroli Regis Contra Syneduum (Libri
Carolini), [sive Caroli Magni Capitulare de imaginibus] are four books which were
written probably between 790 and 792.
15 Epistola 9, 209 to Gregorius Serenus, Episcopus Massiliensis, July 599 [The First
Epistle to the Bishop Serenus of Marseilles], Registrum Epistolarum, Libri VIII-
XIV, CCSL, 140 A, ed. Dag Norberg, Turnholti 1982, 768. In Epistolarum Tomus
ii, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, ed. L. M. Hartmann, Berlin (Berolini) 1899,
the letter is mentioned as ìEpistola IXî, 208, p. 195. There is also an Epistola II
(10) to Gregorius Serenus, Episcopus Massiliensis, October 600 [The Second Epistle to
the Bishop Serenus]. A translation of both letters has been done by C. M.
CHAZELLE, Pictures, Books, and the Illiterate: Pope Gregory the Firstís letters to Serenus of 73

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

Elena Ene D-Vasilescu

is why the painterís ìstate of mindî and personal morality are not very sig-
nificant in Catholicism, while in Orthodoxy these are essential elements
for those who paint icons.
The second important idea in Libri Carolini is that the aims men-
tioned above (didactic and decorative) are acceptable ìonly if painting is
placed within the context of the other means spiritual life has at its dis-
posal.î16 This is a point to which the Orthodox Christians would also sub-
scribe. But what is most important for them is the fact that the icons pro-
voke in people a longing for the ëfacesí of the archetypes they represent.

A Face to Face Encounter

Ideally, the human face reflects the consciousness of the relation
humans have with God. As the intimacy between a human being and God
grows, his or her face becomes gradually calmer and illuminated. This is
the case with the saints as they are depicted in icons. We shall remember
the scene in the Old Testament where Mosesí face became so luminous
that he had to cover it in order to be able to talk to his people. Paul speaks
about it in 2 Corinthians 3:13.
The climax of the communication between human persons and God
as a loving person happens when God ëappropriatesí for Himself the
human face as Christ. After this ëappropriationí people are no longer
frightened to look at a saintly face, even when that is the perfect divine
face. On the contrary, they become attracted to it, and they want to look
at it incessantly. In this new state people understand the divine face as the
model towards which their own faces shall tend; this is a part of the
process of sharing in Godís image (2 Corinthians, 3:18). It is in order to
make it possible for people to permanently gaze at Godís face that icons
are painted. In Russian the icon is called obraz (which means ëfaceí), and
sometimes in Romanian also the term fa˛a¢ ñ face ñ is used.
The fact that God has taken a human face makes each human face
become more precious. It makes people understand that they have to show
their faces openly to others. The face is the projection of the self from one
person to another; it is the desire to keep in contact among ourselves. God
showed His face when he wanted to communicate with humankind, to
express His interest in it and His love towards it. The face sometimes makes
for all words; it speaks sometimes more than the words can do ñ often

Marseilles, Word and Image 6/2 (1990) 139, respectively 873-875. She says that she
has sacrificed the style for the sake of fidelity to the Latin text. In her article (138-
154) Chazelle discusses the implications of the statements made by the Pope
Gregory the Great on holy images. C. J. Hefele has also a translation of the first
letter in A History of the Church from the Original Documents, vol. 5, T. & T. Clark,
1896, 296. The newest translation of the first letter is found in E. H. GOMBRICH,
The Uses of Images. Studies in the Social Function of Art and Visual Communication,
London 1999, 25.
74 16 BESAN«ON, The Forbidden Image, 151.

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship ...

beyond cultural and denominational differences. In addition, Christís face

issues a special kind of power and for a believer to look at an icon helps
him/her to remember that God is always there for all people.

Trinity
Throughout this communication with God it is of immense impor-
tance that the human being is an interpersonal being. Humans find their
realization in interrelations, i.e. they become ëpersonsí only through rela-
tionships. In Christianity a person is a three-personal being, and not a sin-
gularity, according to ëthe faceí of the Holy Trinity. God is a Unity-in-
Three and therefore, the human being, who is created in Godís image
(and acquires His likeness), follows Godís model, i.e. imitates His ëtrini-
tarian faceí. This is because whenever two people speak, they do so
regarding a terza parte ñ a third person (or a multitude of third (other)
persons). Things enter peoplesí preoccupation solely as objects of their
mutual interest and also whenever, consequently, they want to exchange
some of these things in one way or another.
Since the Trinity represents the prototype of a human relationship
defined by love, which is the quintessence of holiness, it is also represent-
ed symbolically in icons as, for example, in those reproduced in figs. 2, 3.
The three angels, which frequently stand as symbols for the persons of the
Trinity in such icons, are rendered as being in a relationship; iconogra-
phers attempted to show this visually by suggesting a circular movement
among the eyes of the Trinitarian persons, as will be developed later in
the article. This representation is in accordance with the Christian teach-
ing that a person cannot be defined as an isolated individual, but in terms
of interpersonal connections founded on love. Love is considered the
basis of these relationships because it invites opening to others, including
to God. Accordingly, when someone prays in front of an icon represent-
ing it, the Trinity as a totality of loving relationships, answers the prayer.
It ëpoursí its love and power over the beholder.
For the Cappadocian Fathers God is one essence in three hypostases.
Thus, Gregory of Naziansus manages the difficult task of explaining how
God in Trinity is revealed, not only to human mind and thought, but also
to human vision (the eyes are ëfilledí):
When I say God, I mean Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit [Ö] No soon-
er do I conceive of the one than I am illuminated by the splendor of the
three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one.
When I think of any of the three, I think of Him as the whole, and my eyes
are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me.17
Both the icons presented here are about Trinitarian relationships; some
theologians described the situation depicted in them using the term friend-
17 St. Gregory of Naziansus, Oratio, 45, 4; 40, 41. PG 36: 628C; 417 BC. 75

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

Elena Ene D-Vasilescu

ship. Consequently, one can say that the Trinity is the face of friendship. As
can be seen, the angels in the icons reproduced in figs, 2-3 look alike. This
is because the Trinity is a unity in diversity ñ in three manifestations (and it
is also a diversity in unity). The circular movement of the angelsí eyes in the
icons suggests the mutuality of their love. However, the role of each of the
angels within the unity is distinct, and this reality is expressed through the
depiction of a different gesture that each of them is making.
The theological explanation underlying their gestures and this ëreci-
procity of loveí, as well as the ëunity in diversityí and ëdiversity in unityí,
are further acknowledged in Kallistos WAREís argument. He develops the
discussion about the different roles that the members of the Trinity play
within that unity: ìGod the Father is the ìfountainî of the Godhead, the
source, cause or principle of origin for the other two persons. He is the
bond of unity between the three: there is one God because there is one
Father.î18 Or, as St. Gregory the Theologian (329- 389?) states, the Trinity
is ìThe union of the Father, from whom and to whom the order of the
persons runs its courseî.19 In the Trinity the other two persons are each
defined by their relationship to the Father: the Son is begotten by the
Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. In naming Christ
the Logos [the Word] of God, the Gospel further identifies the Logos as
God (theos), thus providing additional scriptural support for the idea of
Trinity (John 1:1, 14).
The second person of the Trinity is the Son of God; this reality draws
upon mutual love as between most fathers and sons. It implies that from
all eternity, God himself as a son, in filial obedience and love, renders
back to God the Father the being which the Father eternally generates in
him through paternal self-giving. It is in and through the Son that the
Father is revealed to humankind: ìI am the Way, the Truth and the Life:
no one comes to the Father, except through meî (John 14:6). He was
born on earth as a man, from the Virgin Mary, in the city of Bethlehem.
But as Word or Logos of God (John 1:14) he is also at work before the
Incarnation. He is the principle of order and of any purpose and, as such,
permeates all things, drawing them to unity unto God. This makes the
universe into a ëcosmosí, a harmonious and integrated whole. Philo (first
century AD) and St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662), among others,
show how the Creator-Logos has imparted to each created thing its own
indwelling logos or inner principle; some call it logos spermatikos ñ the sem-
inal logos. It makes things distinct in themselves and, at the same time,
draws and directs them towards God. This idea is also maintained by John
MEYENDORFF.20 Our human task in any creative act is to discern this logos

18 K. WARE, The Orthodox Way, Crestwood, NY 1996, 32.

19 St. Gregory the Theologian, Oratio, XLll, 15.
20 J. MEYENDORFF, Byzantine Theology: Historical trends and Doctrinal Themes, New
76 York 1987, 48.

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship ...

dwelling in each thing and to render it manifest; humans are meant not
to dominate, but to co-operate with God in such an act. It is even more
important to do this in regard to fellow human beings.
The third person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit, the ëbreathí of God.
Just as the Son shows the Father to the people, similarly the Spirit points
to the Son, making Him present to them. Yet the relationship is mutual.
While the Spirit makes the Son present to humans, the Son sends them
the Spirit. (It is to be noted that there is a distinction between the ëeter-
nal processioní of the Spirit and its ëtemporal missioní. I.e. as regards its
origin within the eternal life of the Trinity, the Spirit proceeds from the
Father alone, but it is the Son who sends it into the world within histori-
cal time.)
Trinitarian love manifests itself in two ways. a) On the one hand, it
exists between humankind and the three divine persons considered as a
Unity, and b) on the other hand, it is present among the persons of the
Trinity themselves.
a) In relationship to humankind this love is experienced by people
through the fact that they are being offered as a gift and a blessing the
model for building lasting relationships.
The best example in this context is marriage, in which the love
between the two partners endures if a third reality ñ Christ ñ grounds it.
Relationships founded on this type of love make people feel protected
and safe (what some of them call ëfeeling blessedí). The iconographers,
specifically here Andrei Rublev (fig. 2), found it appropriate to illustrate
this reality through the gesture that the angel in the centre of the icon
performs ñ the blessing of the Communion chalice. Following the icono-
grapherís thread of thought, one might say that the world has been cre-
ated through blessing. A viewer looking at such an icon can think of the
initial Logos, i.e. the Word of God that created the World, and the bless-
ings which He bestowed upon it (Genesis 1-2).
EVDOKIMOV comments, perhaps a little too speculatively, that in
Rublevís Troitsa, the three angels look at one another as being ìin con-
versation, possibly about a text of St. John (3:16), ëFor God so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten Son.í Now the Word of God is always
an act, and here it takes on the sacrificial form of the cup.î21 The angelsí
hands in this image seem to invite the viewer to come closer, in a gesture
of hospitality, but also following the Orthodox rules for bringing the view-
er inside the iconic space in a movement which suspends the condition of
the viewer itself. The Orthodox viewer does not look around as in an art
exhibition, but rather enters a process of communication with the person
depicted. It is like passing through a ëlooking-glassí, through the materi-
ality of the icon into a space from within which the human person might

21 P. EVDOKIMOV, The Art of the Icon: a Theology of Beauty, 247. 77

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

Elena Ene D-Vasilescu

be also seen and watched by the holy person with whom he/she has
engaged in ëdialogueí.
b) The love that the members of the Trinity show among themselves
is concretised in the continual process of the begetting of the Son from
the Father, and in the way in which the Father and the Son point to one
another for the people to witness each of them (for example, in Matthew
3:17; Mark 10: 17-18). And, as mentioned above, this is manifest also in the
Holy Spirit as being the ëbreathí of the Trinity, with all that that implies.
As we have seen, for an iconographer, this ëinternalí love can be visu-
ally represented. The respective reality within Divinity makes the love pre-
sent within the Holy Trinity even more of a model for love in general, i.e.
for the feeling humans ought to show towards God and among themselves.
The Trinity has been conceived of as the prototype of human love to
such an extent that the nineteenth century Russian theologian Nikolai
FEDOROV (1829-1903) said: ìThe Trinity is our social programme.î22 (This
idea was appropriated later by Georges FLOROVSKY, 1893-1979 .)23

God sees the human face simultaneously

In whatever way we speak of God ñ either in terms of Trinity or of a
Unity ñ He ëseesí human faces simultaneously, not only for all humans at
once, but equally He sees each individual face with all its details. St John
of Damascus (c. 675-c. 749) comments on this reality: ì[God sees distinc-
tively] with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once.î24
He sees it not only in the way in which a human being can, but from all
possible perspectives.
However strange it might seem, the way in which such a visual act hap-
pens can be illustratively shown by iconographers, as in fig. 4 in which an
icon of St. Nicholas is reproduced. Such a depiction is possible because
ìIconic art contains ësupplementary plansí which, by describing multiple
surfaces of an object simultaneously, allow the viewer to imitate ëdivine
visioní in looking at a human face.î25 For example, in the icon in fig. 4,
St. Nicholasís face is not only depicted from the front but, in addition, the
sides of his forehead are made visible. It is not possible for the human eye
to accomplish such an act of vision in reality, but only in viewing an icon.

22 N. F. FEDOROV, What Was Man Created For? The Philosophy of the Common Task:
Selected Works (LíAge díHomme), eds. and trans. E. Koutaisoff ñ M. Minto,
Lausanne 1990.
23 G. FLOROVSKY, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (= Collected
Works, vol. 1), Belmont, Mass. 1972, especially 43-44.
24 John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith, in: Writings (= Fathers of the Church 37),
trans. F. H. Chase, Jr., Washington 1958, 204.
25 C. ANTONOVA, Seeing the World with the Eyes of God: The Vision Implied by the
Medieval Icon, Hortulus.net/jurnal, vol. 1, no. 1, 2005. See also her book Space,
78 Time and Presence in Icon, Farnhem 2010.

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship ...

By representing both the front and the sides of the head in the same
plane the icon-painter intended to underline that to a timelessly eternal
God all aspects of objects can appear at the same time ñ to Him all
moments in time exist simultaneously and He is also able to ëseeí all
points in space simultaneously.
Strong support for this idea is offered by Pavel FLORENSKY (1882-1937)
who, in his essay Reverse Perspective, highlights the specificity of icons in this
respect, saying that ìthe icon often shows parts and surfaces which cannot
be seen simultaneouslyî according to the laws of normal vision. They are
ëadditionalí, ësupplementaryí or, as he calls them, ësimultaneousí plans. 26
(Art historians find similarities between them and works of Cubist art). The
almost triangular shape of the face (of Christ or the saints) in icons could
be derived by adding up planes in the upper part of the face, where the
frontal plane features aspects of profile views. The forehead therefore
becomes disproportionately wide. As FLORENSKY points out, the treatment of
the face in which the forehead is seen alongside the temple and ears causes
the planes of the face to appear ìas if [they are] spread out on the surface of
the icon.î27 In the icon of St. Nicholas, as in many others, not only are the
ìsimultaneous surfacesî of the faces represented, but they are frequently,
as FLORENSKY notices, emphasized by means of colour. The respective sur-
faces are often painted in strikingly bright colours that capture attention.
FLORENSKY points out another aspect of icons: because they employ
ëreverse perspectiveí parallel lines within them have the tendency to
diverge.28 This technique is important because it allows faces or objects
and/or their parts to grow larger the further away they are from the view-
er. This is the opposite of what happens in linear perspective and natural
vision. There has been a long debate on perspective in visual art, as it
is evident especially in the works of, among others, Oskar WUFF, L. F.
ZHEGIN, and Charles LOCK,29 but we cannot go into the details of that dis-
cussion here. I have also developed this idea in my book Between Tradition
and Modernity.30
For iconographers, the compositional technique that affords the
viewer a glimpse at how a human being is ëseení by God renders the

26 P. FLORENSKY, Reverse Perspective, in: Beyond Vision: Essays on the Perception

of Art, ed. N. Misler, trans. W. Salmond, London 2002, 201.
27 Ibidem, 201.
28 FLORENSKY, Reverse Perspective, 201-202.
29 There are a few authors who were involved in this debate and/or have writ-
ten about it. C. LOCK has a summary of it in his article Iconic Space and the
Materiality of the Sign, in: Religion and the Arts, No 1:4 (Winter 1997), Boston
College 1977. Among other things, there he draws attention to the fact that L. F.
ZHEGINís book The Language of a Pictorial Work, written in 1920ís, was published in
Russian only in 1970; it has not been yet translated into English.
30 E. ENE D-VASILESCU, Between Tradition and Modernity: Icons and Iconographers in
Romania, Foreword A. Louth, Saarbr¸cken 2009. 79

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

Elena Ene D-Vasilescu

Humankind-God encounter discernible by creating in people a reassuring

feeling of permanent love. Since a person is ëseení from and for eternity
in all the details of his/her being, it means that he/she is also ëlooked
afterí in this same way.
In addition to their suggestion of how the world might look through
ëGodís eyesí, the manner in which icon painters illustrate the Trinitarian
relations described in this article is also a helpful device for understand-
ing divine-human communication.

Bibliography

Athanasius of Alexandria, St., On the Incarnation, 54:3, Patrologia Graeca (PG),

ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1860
BESAN«ON, A., The Forbidden Image. An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm, trans. by
J. M. Todd, Chicago ñ London 2000
CHAZELLE, C. M., Pictures, Books, and the Illiterate: Pope Gregory the Firstís letters to
Serenus of Marseilles, Word and Image 6/2, 1990
DIACONESCU, M., Biserici ∫i M‚na¢stiri Ortodoxe. Orthodox Churches and Monasteries
(Album in both English and Romanian), Bucharest 1998
Dionysus Areopagite, Mystica Theologia. The mystical theology of Dionysius the
Areopagite and poem on the superessential radiance of the divine dark-
ness by St. John of the Cross, Shrine of Wisdom, London 1923
Dionysus Areopagite, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, l, 2, PG, ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1860
ENE D-VASILESCU, E., Tradition and Modernity. Icons and Iconographer in Romania,
foreword A. Louth, Saarbr¸cken 2009
EVDOKIMOV, P., trans. St. Bigham, The Art of the Icon: a Theology of Beauty,
Redondo Beach 1990
Freeman, A. ñ Meyvaert, P. (eds.), Opus Caroli regis contra synodum (Libri Caro-
lini), [sive Caroli Magni Capitulare de imaginibus], MGH, Concilia 2, suppl. 1,
Hanover 1998
FEDOROV, N. F., eds. and trans. E. Koutaisoff ñ M. Mint, What Was Man Created
For? The Philosophy of the Common Task: Selected Works (= LíAge díHomme),
Lausanne 1990
FLORENSKY, P., Reverse Perspective, in: Beyond Vision: Essays on the Perception of
Art, ed. N. Misler, trans. W. Salmond, London 2002
FLOROVSKY, G., Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (= Collected
Works, vol. 1), Belmont, Mass. 1972
GOMBRICH, E. H., The Uses of Images. Studies in the Social Function of Art and Visual
Communication, London 1999
Gregory of Naziansus, St., Oratio 42, PG, ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1860
Hartmann, L. M. (ed.), Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH), Epistolarum
Tomus ii, Berlin (Berolini) 1899
HEFELE, C. J., A History of the Church from the Original Documents, vol. 5, London
1896
80

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship ...

Fig. 1 The icon of Christ from the Deesis Mosaic, South Gallery,
St. Sophia, Istanbul (Constantinople), end of the 13th century;
E. KLEINBAUER ñ A. WHITE ñ H. MATTHEWS, Hagia Sophia,
London ñ Istanbul 2004, 76-77, caption p. 77

81

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

Elena Ene D-Vasilescu

Fig. 2 The icon of Troitsa [Holy Trinity], Andrei Rublev

(of Radonezh), 1425, tempera on panel, G. K. VAGNER ñ A SERGEEVNA,
Andronikov Monastyr: fotoalbom, Moscow 1972, illustration [120], caption
[122], (figure 18 in that album), 142x114 cm, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

82

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship ...

Fig. 3 The Supper at Mamre [Mamvri], a fragment from a fresco,

Sinaia Monastery, Prahova County, 17th century, by P‚rvu Mutu;
M. DIACONESCU, Biserici ∫i M‚na¢ stiri Ortodoxe. Orthodox Churches and
Monasteries (Album in both English and Romanian), Bucharest 1998,
illustrations and caption p. 38

83

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

Elena Ene D-Vasilescu

Fig. 4 St. Nicholas, tempera on wood, 96x67 cm,

Curtea de Arge∫ Monastery, 1512, T. VOINESCU, The Post-Byzantine Icons
of Wallachia and Moldavia, in: Weitzmann, The Icon, London 1982, 389,
caption p. 388. Now in the museum of Antim Monastery, Bucharest

84

CEEOL copyright 2020

CEEOL copyright 2020

A Face to Face Encounter: The God-Humanity relationship ...

The ëOros [Decisions] of the Second Council of Nicaea, 787; Mansi (ed.), Sacrum
Conciliorum Nova and Amplissima Collectio, Veneti, vol. 13, Florence
1759
John of Damascus, St., Three Treatises on the Divine Images, trans. and ed. Andrew
Louth, Crestwood, N. Y. 2003
John of Damascus, St., The Orthodox Faith, in: Writings (= Fathers of the Church
37), trans. F. H. Chase, Jr., Washington 1958
KESSLER, H. L., Spiritual Seeing. Picturing Godís Invisibility in Medieval Art, Phila-
delphia 2000
KITZINGER, E., (E. Kleinbauer, ed.), The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West:
Selected Studies, Bloomington 1976
KLEINBAUER, E. ñ A. WHITE ñ H. MATTHEWS, (photographs T. Aydogmus), Hagia
Sophia, London ñ Istanbul 2004
LOCK, C., Iconic Space and the Materiality of the Sign, in: Religion and the Arts,
No. 1:4 (Winter 1977), Boston College 1970
LOUTH, A., St John Damascene: tradition and originality in Byzantine theology, Ox-
ford ñ New York 2002
Mansi, G. D. (ed.), Sacrum Conciliorum Nova and Amplissima Collectio, vols. 12-
13, Veneti ñ Florence 1759
MEYENDORFF, J., Byzantine Theology: Historical trends and Doctrinal Themes, New
York 1987
Norberg D. (ed.), Registrum Epistularum, Libri VIII-XIV, CCSL, 140 A, Turnholti
1982
PELIK¡N, J., Imago Dei. The Byzantine Apologia for Icons, New Haven ñ London
1990
SAHAS, D. J., Icon and Logos. Sources in Eight-Century Iconoclasm, Toronto ñ Buffa-
lo ñ London 1986
STA¢ NILOAE D., Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol.1, The Experience of God, trans. and
ed. I. Ioni˛a¢ ñ R. Barringer, Brookline, Mass. 1998
Theodore the Studite, St., On the Holy Icons, trans. Catharine P. Roth, Crestwood
ñ New York 2001
VOINESCU, T., Post-Byzantine Icons of Wallachia and Moldavia, in: Weitzmann,
The Icon, London 1982
WARE K., The Orthodox Way, Crestwood, N.Y. 1996
ZHEGIN, L. F., The Language of a Pictorial Work, Moscow 1970 (L. F. éEGIN, Jazyk
ûivopisnogo proizvedenija, Moskva 1970).

85

CEEOL copyright 2020