Strides Lotapicn al (1941 (Bd The Role of Icons in Byzantine Worshio *y | Galadza IV. 20 Peter Galad: It is absolutely impossible to imagine the smauest ueurgicas nie a «ne Orthodox Church without icons. The liturgical and sacramental life of the Church is inseparable from the image.” ‘An icon divorced from a place and act of worship is a contradiction in terms. In spite of the importance of icons in Byzantine liturgy, the question is ‘generally relegated to sections or subsections of books,* and with the excep tion of some studies on the iconostasis’ no systematic treatise on the prob- Jem has yet been published. This paper attempts partially to fil this lacuna, ‘After briefly describing the role of icons in contemporary Byzantine worship "The author wishes to exprest his sincere thanks to Robert Taf, SI, for his innumerable ‘comments and suggestions * Leonid Ouspensky, The Theology of the Icon (Crestwood NY 1978) 10. > Philip Sherrard, “The Art of the Icon” in Sacrament ond Image, e, A. M. Allin (London 1967) 58. “See Constantine Cavarnos, “Iconographic Decoration inthe Orthodox Church” in A. Philippou, ed, The Orihodox Evhos~Siudies in Orthodoxy | (Oxford 1964) 169-85; Irenée- Henn Dales, lebnes et Litugie,” La Maison Diew 42 (1980) 97-05; Pal Ewdokimen, The Art ofthe lon: A Theology of Beauty (Redonéo Beach CA 1990) 175-5, George Galavatis, The Ton inthe Life ofthe Church (Leiden 1981) 5-7; Consantine D. Kalokyris, The Exsence of Orthodox Icanogrephy (Brookline MA 197!) 16-20, 290; T. Nikoisou, “The Place of the leon in the Litrgeal Life ofthe Orthodox Church” in The Theology ofthe Icon, Acts ofthe 8th “Meeting ofthe Clergy ofthe Greek Orthodox Archdiocese af West Germany (Bonn 1984) 31-44 Lin Greek; Hans-Joachim Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy (New York 1986) 50-132, Fora rch ‘and up-to-date bibliography onions in general see Gennadios Limouris, ed, Jeont—Windows ‘om Eternity Fath and Order Paper 147 (Geneva 1990) 27-24 See Joseph Dwiryk, Role de LTeonosiase dans le cute divin, Montstal 1960. This monograph is extremely dated; it attempts to defend the legitimacy of the iconostsis against ‘pre-Vatican I scholastic arguments sod the conceras of Wester pity. Two studies which discuss ‘the ionostasis more generally but with cceational references to worship and its theology are: Pavel Florensky, “Tkonosts,” Bogoslovakietrudy 9 (1972) 80-148; Leonid Ouspenst, "The Problem of the Ieonostati,” St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly 8 (1964) 186-218, . B. Kon- stantynowice, eonostans, Lviv 1989, and N. Labrecque-Pervouchine, Liconosase, une évoli= ‘on historique en Russe, Montreal 1984, provide helpful historical analyses but with fewer ‘references to liturgical sues, 113{shall analyze the historical development of this phenomenon, Subsequently, 1 will present elements of a theology of iconodulia, and conclude with critical ‘comments on the history and theology of icons in the liturgy Present Usage ‘At the present time icons are used in Byzantine worship in the following ways: 1. In preparing for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, the clergy recite specific troparia before the despotikat (Slav.: namisni) icons ofthe iconosta~ sis, that i, the icons of Christ and the Mother of God located on either side of the central doors. They also reverence and kiss these icons.* 2. During all of the incensations icons receive special attention. In fact, in ‘wo instances they are actually the focal point of the incensation: at the ‘Magnificat of Orthros the incensation either begins, or climactically pauses in front of, the main icon of the Theotokos, as the deacon pronounces the solemn exclamation: “Let us magnify in hymns the Theotokes and Mother of Light.”” And at festal Orthros, the megalynarion incensation begins in front of, and often focuses on, the icon of the feast being cekbrated.* 3. In Kievan and Muscovite usage, an actual enthronement of the festal icon takes place at each festal Orthros.’ During the singing of the polyeleos excerpts from Pss. 134-5 [LXXD, the presider processes with the festal icon, ‘which until then was enthroned on the holy table, Upon reaching the ambo he solemnly blesses the assembly with the image. He then proceeds to the idle of the nave, where the icon is enthroned on an analogion. The difference between this practice and the usual neo-Sabbaitic tradition is that the latter has the icon resting on the analogion before the beginning of the service. The Kievan/ Muscovite custom then isa further step inthe “liturgici zation” of iconography. Incidentally, this practice kas also found its way into the Ruthenian Ordo Celebrationis.® At certain Greek churches a similar rite of enthronement takes place during the lie procession of Great Vespers. * label Florence Hapgood, Serie Book ofthe Holy Orhodox-Cothole Apostolic Church, 51h eda (Englewood NJ 1975) 68, Although Hapgood’: anthology i efcien: im many ways, it is used here asa baie reference becatse of ts availabilty ad relative completeness, "Wid, 32. tid. 28 1 iis uch mare cnemmon inthe former usage than in the latter " Matthew Berko, trans, The Order forthe Celebration of Vespers, Maths end the Divine Linurgy eccordng 10 the Ruthenian Recension (Washington 1958) 4-5. 44. The iconostasis, or templon, also plays a crucial role in Byzantine liturgy. Ik forms a matrix for the entire service. The service cannot begin until either the curtain and holy doors, or at least the curtain alone, has been opened. ‘The various processions and entrances follow prescribed patterns relating to particuiar parts of the icon screen. Besides the frequent incensations already mentioned, during the various litanies the deacon ritually points to the icon of the Theotokos and then turns to the icon of Christ ashe exclaims: “Having remembered ... the ever-virgin Mary and all the saints let us commend ‘ourselves and one another and all our lives unto Christ Our God.” Also, during the first antiphon the deacon is instructed to stand in front of the icon of the Lord, while during the second, he stands in front of our Lady's image. During the prayer behind the ambo the deacon again stands in front of the icon of the Lord, pointing to it asthe priest reads the oration In some traditions, the priest himself stands in front of the Lord’s image during this prayer. Finally, it is also customary, especially among the Greeks, for the various icons on the iconostasis to be acknowledged while their prototypes are mentioned during the apolysis, or dismissal prayer, said by the priest, who crosses himself and inclines his head slightly in the direction of the respec- tive icons. 5. Besides the individual or “private” veneration of the icons before and after the liturgy, a communal proskynesis is prescribed during festal matin. During the canon the faithful approach the festal icon enthroned on the analogion, reverence it and kiss it, They are then anointed by the main celebrant and receive a portion of blessed bread.!" One should note that in Western Ukrainian parishes as well as some others, it is often the custom to include a veneration of the cross and icon on the ‘tetrapod (“sacramental table” in the nave) during the procession to com- munion. As they approach the chalice, many faithful venerate this central icon, thereby affirming their communion with the entire Body of Christ. ‘6. The sacrament of repentance is administered ideally before an icon. 17. The rite of naming a child on the eighth day after birth usually takes place ‘before an icon of the Theotokos.!? § Hapgood, Service Book, 32 thi, 286, i267 us8. Although nowhere officially prescribed, couples of East-Slavic back- ‘eround perform a solemn veneration of their wedding icons during the singing ‘of Dance, Isaiah” (“Isajie lykuj") and the accompanying procession around the retrapod. The procession is interrupted twice during each of the three circumambulations while the couple reverences the icons of Christ and Mary respectively, These are held solemnly throughout the service at the front of the church by the couple's master and mistress of ceremonies. 9. A prominent role is also given to iconography in the form of the Good Friday epitaphion (Slav. plaitanyeia), and various iconographic banners." ‘The present-day Passion rites are inconceivable without the use of this icon- ‘graphic burial shroud, which is brought out in procession at Good Friday ‘Vespers. In most traditions itis also borne in procession near the end of Holy Saturday Orthros, celebrated on Good Friday evening." 10. Finally, icons are frequently carried by the faithful during processions ‘such as that of Paschal Orthros or the Great Blessing of Waters. At the former service, the faithful kiss the icons as they approach the clergy for the paschal kis, ‘Note that I have not mentioned here the degenerate practice, performed by ‘the Laity in some churches, of walking from one icon to the next :hroughout the service in order to light candles and venerate the images. This steady stream of proskynesis usually halts only during the four or five most solemn parts of the liturgy. While this custom is nowhere prescribed or sanctioned, for many Orthodox worshippers it forms the bulk of their “active partic pation” in the liturgy.” Ul. Origins and Development 1. The Veneration of Icons Outside Worship Inspite oftheir importance in liturgy today, the veneration of icons begins ‘outside of worship. Ernst Kitzinger has summarized how icon-veneration ‘went from domestic use to public cult, By the end of the fourth century it was ‘common for Christians to perform proskynesis before representations of the thi, 300. The reference given here ito the part ofthe service during which this "mati- moni” veneration of the icon takes place. © tpi, 218. ibid 222 '” This veneration ie usually performed by those entering the church forthe it time. But ‘a Onhodox worshippers enter throughout the service, with some of them arriving as late as ‘common, the elt that of a continuous procession during mos of the service 6cross.!¥ It was also common to venerate relics.” But the veneration of images ‘per se is grounded more closely in the public reverence accorded the portrait ‘of the emperor. Indeed, one sixth-century source refers to the image of Christ 1s a lauraton, a technical term for a picture of the basileus.® According to the sixth-century Byzantine historian John Malalas, Constantine the Great had ordered a gilded wooden statue of himself to be carried in solemn proces- sion for purposes of veneration every year on the anniversary of the founding of Constantinople! Once the emperor became @ Christian it was no longer objectionable to burn incense and make obeisance before his portrait. Gre- gory of Nazianzen in fact insists on the need for veneration of the emperor's statues and pictures so that the respect shown towards the basileus might be “more insatiable and more complete." In the frst half of the fifth century we hear of propitiatory sacrifices, the burning of candles and incense, along with the pronouncement of prayers and apotropaic supplications before the statue of Constantine in the Forum Constantini.” However, during the exact same period, and in fact in the work of the same author who describes the aforementioned devotion to the em- peror, the chronicler insists that the statue of Christ at Paneas, for example, is only an object of admiration. No acts of worship or obeisance are per- formed in its presence. According to Kitzinger, itis St. Augustine who provides us with the first proof of Christians’ venerating or adoring images. In his De moribus eccle- Siae catholicae, Augustine inveighs against those who have introduced supersti- ‘tion into the church and among them he mentions “sepulcrorum et picturaram adoratores." But itis not until the first half of the sixth century that we hear of images actually being venerated in church. In the response of Bishop Hypatius of Ephesus to one of his suffragans, reference is made to proskynesis "Ernst Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images inthe Age before Iconoclasm,” Dumbarion Oaks Papers (1954) 9. » Tei, 90, ® FJ. Hamilton and E. W. Brooks, The Syrige Ohonicle Known as that of Zacharias of ‘Mitylene (London 1899) 32K; ef. Kitzinger, “The Cut of Images,” 124 2 lizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys, Roger Scoot, trans, The Chronicle of John Molalas (Melbourne 1986) 175; f. Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images." 90. ® Contra Julanum 1.80 (PG 35.605C). 2 Joreph Bidee, Philociorgive Kirchengeschiche, 2nd edn (Benin 1972) 28, no, 17 f. Kitzinge, “The Cult of Images,” 92, > Bid, 78 » De moribusecclesaecatholicee 14 (PL 32.134). 17performed before paintings inside a house of worship. While this practice is accepted without comment, concern is voiced over the propriety of placing sculptures in churches because of the scriptural prohibition against graven images. (Oar next reference to the veneration of images in church is from the Vita of S:, Pancratius, dating probably from the seventh centary. There we read thatthe apostle Peter allegedly commanded an iconographer by the name of Joseph to paint various scenes of salvation history. Subsequently, Peter man- dates that churches should be decorated with this story. From this time onward these things were given earnest attention by everyone and they were depicted on panels and parchment (chartia), and were given to bishops ‘who upon completing the construction of a church, cepicted them both beautifully and decorously, and enjoined [on the people] to honor them with great fear and reverence asf they were beholding the actual subject of the pictures (tom historion tous tupous).” As regards the practice of burning incense before icons, again we find a situation where private practice carries over to public cult. By the seventh century an incense burner has been placed before the miraculous image of (Christ at Camuliana. In the previous century lamps are also being lt before sacred images, as we sec in the life of St. Symeon the Younger (¢. 592).” 2. Veneration in Church But the first reference to the incensation of icons in church comes from an iconoclastic source, the famous letter of the emperors Mictael Il and Theoph- ilus to Louis the Pious, dated 824. There we read the complaint that the iconodules ‘expelled the venerable and life-giving crosses from the holy churches ‘and in their stead they set up images, n front of which they placed lights » Franz Diekamp, “Hypatius von Ephesus,"in Analecta Parsrica Orientalia Christiana ‘Analecta 117 (Rome 1938) 27M; f. Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images,”96 Hermann Usener, “Eine Spur des Petrascrangeliums" in Kleine Schrifien 4 (Osnabruck 1965) 418. Transition in Cyril Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1483, Medieval ‘Academy Reprints for Teaching 16 (Toronto 1986) 137. Kitzinger, "The Cult of Images," 98. > Henri Delehaye, Let Sains Siylies, Subsidia Hagiogrephica 1 (Brosses/Paris 1923) Luxe, us‘and burnt incense, and held them in the same esteem that is due to the venerable and life-giving cross. Itshould come as no surprise that the first reference to the public incen- sation of icons derives from a source opposed to such practices. Kitzinger has ‘demonstrated that in the public veneration of images there is a consistent pattern of popular practice, followed by public denunciation, followed by formulations defending the practice.®! Thus the custom of incensing icons in church existed before iconoclasm, but was apparently being performed with- ‘out any offical prescription or justification. The iconoclasts make an issue of the practice, thereby forcing the iconodules to analyze and justify their actions. ‘As to the public kissing of icons, in 656, after a theological disputation involving Maximus the Confessor and Theodosius of Caesarea, those in attendance rise, pronounce a prayer, kiss the evangeliary and cross, and then finally kiss the icons of Christ and the Virgin which apparently were dis- played during the debate.” Such osculation will become general in church in the subsequent period. 3. The Iconostasis In the eighth century ex voro images are being placed at eye level in, and closer to, the sanctuary of certain churches. By the ninth century we hear of icons being fastened to the gates and columns of the templon and being positioned even in front of the holy table. Here we are on the threshold of the origins of the so-called “iconostasis.” I say “so-celled” because as late as the fourteenth century an eikonostasion i stil usually only a stand with icons to be venerated privately in one’s home Thus we read in the fourteenth- century Book of Ceremonies that on Devemnber 24, the vigil of the Nativity, the emperor remained in his apartments, where an eikonostasion was set up, Upon this stand were placed icons of the Nativity with two others. The ‘emperor then venerated these images.** The present-day icon-sereen found in Byzantine churches was previously always referred to as a “templon.” ® Monumenta Germaniae Historic, Laws, ses. 3; Couns, vl 2, pt. 2(Hannover Lepsig 1908) 4789, Translation in Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Enpire, 187 Kitzinger, “The Cult of Image,” 86. 2 Sanctt Maxim Confesiors Acta, 1.18, 26 (PG 90.1S6AcB, 164A-B). » Julian Walter, “The Origine ofthe Ieonostsis," Eastern Churches Review 3 (1971) 260, > Thid, 251, Another domestic ikonastaion is eeferred 10 in a euchelogy of the Holy ‘Sepulchre library, Constantinople, dated 1584, where the rite over a mother after childbirth is described. See A. Dmitrieveki, Optanie turgieskith rukoplei 2 (Kiev 1901) 603. "PG 99.1796, f- 3. Verpeaux, Le Taté des ofces du Pseudo Kodinus & (Paris 1966) 189. 9The origins of this screen from a phenomenological point of view are to be found in the basic need to maintain order in crowded churches. To facil- itate free movement around the holy table, railings have been placed around the sanctuary from at least the fourth century. Already the church of Tyre built by Constantine in 317 had wooden lattices fencing off the bema, so that it “should be inaccessible to the multitude.”™ Pictures of similar railings are evident in an illustrated ninth-century manuscript of the Homilies of St. Gregory Nazianzen. The miniature obviously represents a chancel barrier pre- ating iconoclasm. One notes the absence of even columns or an architrave —not to mention icons.” Many churches of the pre-iconoclastic period did, however, have templons with columns and an architrave or epistyle, Hagia Sophia had a marble templon with twelve columns arranged in pairs forming six doublets upon which a wide epistyle was positioned. Hagia Scphia's templon was also adorned with disc-shaped images of Christ, the angels, the prophets, apos- tles, and the Mother of God.™ Cyril Mango insists that these representations Were located on the entablature and not on the columns of the screen as is sometimes stated. He suggests thatthe figure of Christ “occupied the central disc above the chancel door” According to the description by Paul the Silentiary, these images were “engraved.” Apparently then, they were bas- relief representations and not icons in the usual sense, Nor did the placement of these images conform to the deisis pattern, ic, the Theotokos and Fore~ runner interceding on either side of an enthroned Christ, which became so Widespread after the period of ieonoclasm. The Silentiary specifically men- tions that the image of the Theotokos is “elsewhere"s"' in other words, it is not juxtaposed to the figure of Christ. Another epistyle program from roughly the same period, that of St. Polyeuktos in Constantinople, also does not “indicate a unified composition with the theme of intercessory prayer.”* ™ seb, Historia ecclesasica K-44; ef, Mango, The Art ofthe Byzantine Empire 6. > Walter, “Origing.” 254, % Mango, The Art ofthe Byzantine Empite, 87; 8 alo Thomas F Mathews, The Early (Churches of Constantinople Architecture and Liturgy (Univesity Park PAY London 1971) 65, 96.8, 1098, % Mango, Art ofthe Byzantine Empire, 81,5. 154. “ Paul Friedlander, Johannes von Gaze, Poulus iemiarus und Prokopios von Gazo— Kunsbscheibungen justinianischer Zeit (1912 = Hildesbeim) New York 1969) 246, line 693; ‘wanslation in Mango, Art ofthe Byzantine Empire, 87 “Paul Friedlander, Johannes von Gaza, 247, line 79; ef. Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire 87 “© Lawrence Nees, “The Iconographic Program of Decoraied Chancel Barriers inthe pre- Teonoctati Period,” Zetchrfi fr Kunsigeschiche 46 (1983, 24. 120Here the image of the Baptist is absent, and the other figures are frontal, not oriented towards a central depiction of Christ. Its only after the period of iconoclasm that the deisis becomes the icon- ‘ographic focal point of the entire tempion. The history of Byzantine litur- sical texts helps us understand this development. By the post-iconoclastic, period prayers are being addressed almost exclusively to Christ, rather than to the Father. This new orientation is expressed and reinforced in icons: the ‘Theotokos and the Baptist are consistently portrayed interceding before an ‘enthroned Pantocrator. efore discussing how the intercolumniations came to be filed by images in the Late and Post-Byzantine period, we must note that in addition to the central deisis found on most templons of the Middle Byzantine era, the architraves also frequently included other icons such as those of the apostles and local patrons. Furthermore, a twelfth-century screen from the Panto- ‘erator monastery in Constantinople apparently also inchided the dodekaor- tion, a panel of the twelve main feasts of the Byzantine liturgical year? ‘There seems to be some evidence that in certain territories such festa icons ‘were annually removed from their position on the architrave and enthroned in the midst of the assembly on the appropriate feast day. Although the spaces between the templon columns are not generally filed in with icons until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, we detect an inter- mediary stage beginning several centuries earlier. On the basis of Patriarch ‘Nicephorus' easly ninth-century Antirrheticus, Julian Walter writes: “Icons ‘were being displayed before the choir screen, on its gates and columas, even before the sacred altar. These icons were not so displayed simply to decorate the building but for devotion, the sanctuary being par excellence the place of Prayer." Another intermediate development is the painting or placement of large roskynetaria icons on the piers flanking the templon. After iconoclasm ‘churches were generally no longer built with x-shaped templons. The sanc- ‘tuary was then enclosed in an apse, separated from the nave by a simple, linear screen exclosed on both sides by stone or brick piers. © A.W. Eptein, “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrer: Templon or Teonotatis?™ ownal ofthe Britsh Archeological Association 134 (1981) 12, 5 “Wales, “Origins,” 26, © Tid, 260; ot Nicephorus of Constantinople, Anutrheleus 11! adversus Consontinum Copronymum (PG 100 464D, 465A). “© Epseln, "Mile Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier," 24 1‘These proskynetaria icons were also frequently portable. Thus, the piers flanking the templon sometimes were hollowed in order to form niches into which these portable images could be fitted.” ‘A.W. Epstein has summarized the filling in of the space between the col- vumns thus: ‘The archeological, pictorial and documentary evidence, of lack of evi- dence, associated with Constantinople indicates that in the capital of the Empire, through the Middle Byzantine period and into the fourteenth century, the templon screen remains relatively open, the emphasis of its figural programme still on the epistyle, not on the columnar area of the screen, It is also clear that outside the capital, in the provinces of the Empire, Constantinopolitan practices were normally followed. To locate the source of the iconostasis, the opaque sanctuary closure, and to identify the time at which it became the koine of the Orthodox Church, it may be necessary to consider the juncture in the fourteenth century of Hesychast mysticism and the wood-building genius of the Russian north. ‘Two key sources cited by Epstein are the ekphrasis of Hagia Sophia written in the ate 1140s or 1150s by Michael of Thessalonika, and Symeon of Thessa- onika's De Sacro Templo. From the former itis obvious that Hagia Sophia’s templon had not changed significantly from the time of Paul the Silentiary.” ‘And the latter document proves that as late as the 1420s or 1430s Thessa- Jonika also still retained an open chancel screen.® Symeon focuses all of his attention on the architrave and makes no reference whatsoever to any images in the position of the present-day despotikal, ot namisni, icons. ‘The growth which comes to full blossom only in Russia has its sporadic beginnings in Byzantine churches. Various sources illustrate that before the fifteenth century images of the Pantocrator and the Virgin “Paraklesis” are fastened to the columns of the architrave or attached to the baldachino.* © Bid, 2. Wid 7, “Cyl Mango and John Parker, A Twelfh-Century Description of St. Sophia," Dumber tom Oaks Papers 14 (1960) 239, par. 6, line 186; cf. Epstein, “Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrie” 26,113. % Symeon of Thesslonika, De Sacro Templo (PG 155.48C-D) ct Epstein, “Middle Byean- tine Sanctuary Barrier,” 27. 9 See Walter, “Origins,” 263 12‘The theological and devotional reasons for sclecting these two subjects for such prominent exposute should be obvious. However, they were not the only subjects so honored. It is not uncommon in the fifeenth and sixteenth cen~ turies to see St. George or St, Panteleimon in the position presently allocated to Christ. These saints would find their way into the lower templon pro- ‘gram because they were patrons of the given chusch or monastery. AAs Epstein noted in her comments about the Russian north, quoted ear- lier, the ubiquitous availabilty of wood, as well as an even more concentrated focus on the fearfulness of the divine mysteries cause the Muscovites and Novgorodians to produce high and massively opaque icon-sereens. In sub- sequent centuries these find their way back to Greece and other count within the former Byzantine sphere of influence.” But N, Okunev has demon- strated that another cause of this development in some regions, e.g., Mace- donia, was the baroque. 4. Liturgical Developments With this background in mind, let us see how some of the liturgical prac tices mentioned in the first part of this paper developed. ‘The presbyteral and diaconal prayers before the iconostasis appear in the thirteenth century’ Only in the fourteenth century do we begin to discern ‘a pattern of such veneration, although the texts prescribed for this ritual are varied. Nevertheless, the troparion, “We bow in worship before your pure image, O Christ ..." is frequently found, In many euchologies the present- day troparion to the Mother of God is absent, or in some cases is replaced by other Marian texts. ‘The reason for the late development of the clergy’s preparatory proskyne- sisis obvious. Without icons regularly fixed on the templon at ground level, it would be impossible to mandate such forms of veneration. As for the usc of the Virgin's icon as a focal point of incensation during the Magnificat at Orthros, even as late as the mid-fourteenth century Dia- taxis of Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos, no reference is made to the use of 8 Bia, 256. 5 Ouspensky, “The Problem of the Iconostasis,” 198 » N. Okuney, "Atarnayapregrada XII vv Nerez,” Seminerium Kondakovianum 3 (1978) 6. Patmos library ms. 719 [text containing the entre tury of Chrysostom] in Dmiti= cvs, Opisonie 2.170. Dntievaki insists onthe thiteenth-cemtury dae in spite of Sakkelion’s suggestion thet it stems from the sixteenth century. “See Dmitrievak, “Bogodluteni v Russkoj Cerku za perv pat vekov,” Pravslavny) ‘Sobesidn (1882) 150-6, 123this icon in the way described above!—this in spite of the fact that Philo- ‘theos is intent on ordering the various incensations during Byzantine wor- ship. So the practice of centering the incensation during the ninth ode of Orthros around the Theotokos icon postdates the fourteenth century. Before Philotheos' time the incensation of icons must have been unregu- lated and diverse. For example, a twelfth-century Diataxis of the Great ‘Church, while referring to various incensations, makes no reference whatever to the incensation of icons: The same is true in the case of the twelfth- century Evergetis Typicon.® The Typicon of Messina from the same period refers only once to the incensation of icons. The ritual is performed during “God is Lord” at the presbeia service, a kind of paraklysis served instead of compline on Fridays. But suddenly, in the fourteenth century, we encounter Philotheos’ Diaraxis in which the incensation of icons seems a dominant rubrical concern, This is understandable when one realizes that Philotheos, ‘an aggressive hesychast, was concerned to spread hesychast practices, in~ cluding a pronounced iconodulia.* Of course, when new ordines take great pains to describe certain practices, itis frequently a sign that the practice is newer and therefore in need of regulation. ‘A transitional stage in the incensation of the templon may be apparent in the 1136 Typicon of the Pantocrator monastery of Constantinople. Here we read that at the beginning of matins “after having censed in the form of cross before the railing [xvy” ‘Theodore continues with even greater accolades for John. The extremly misguided supplanting of the personal by the hieratically cosmic finds its ‘consummation in this action praised by Theodore. But even more bizarre customs were practiced at Byzantium, such as the: “communion” of icons, or the mixture of splintered iconic paints with the Sacred Species. Nicholas Arseniev describes another aberration: ‘Travellers in Russia during the seventeenth century have reported that each parishioner had his own icon in the church, which he had brought from home and placed on a shelf. During the service each one turned toward his own icon and prayed before it, often without paying attention ‘to the liturgy of the Church, He allowed no one else to pray before his: icon for fear that “with his prayers” the other person might “catch for % Sermo Contra udeeos (PG 93,1604C-Dy; translation in Kitzinger, “The Cul of Images,” at © Ep 117 (PG99961B-C): translation in Mango, The Ar ofthe Byzantine Empire 745 ™ Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, 97. 132himself, like a thief, all the graces of God fiowing out of it, to which he alone was entitled, as the owner of the icon."* ‘The elimination of personal contact in favor of iconodulia reaches its climax in Galician and Transcarpathian “Uniate” churches where on Easter Sunday the paschal kiss is replaced with the veneration of the cross, gospel, ‘and festal icon. Consequently, one can suggest that while Byzantine liturgical practice has developed brilliantly as regards the cosmic, it has regressed as regards the personal. ‘Once such currents begin to dominate one can understand the desire to fil ‘the intercolumniations of the templon, But several other elements contribute to this development. In the eleventh century, for example, Nicetas Stethatos suggested that during the anaphora the laity not look at the sanctuary, for their “unsanctified glance” is unworthy of the mystery being performed there." Nevertheless, the closing of the templon doors and the drawing of curtain behind them is a custom found only in monasteries at this time. ‘And as mentioned earlier, icons appear between the columns of the templon oly later, But once people are being told to avert their gaze from the sanc- tuary it is only a matter of time before opaque barriers will be previded by the church to help them do so. ‘Another factor is important in this development, Nathan Mitctell in his book, Cult and Controversy, has drawn attention to the fundamental psycho- logical need to see. He quotes from studies done by Rene Spitz and com- mented upon by Erik Erikson. The former demonstrated how vision develops the infant's sense of reality by enabling it to understand “continuity in time ‘and coherence in space.”"? Paraphrasing Erikson, Mitchell then writes: So vital is vision to the child’s sense of reality that seeing may even ‘outdistance the infant's need for food and comfort. This has been demon- strated in experiments involving a sucking mechanism io which a projector and screen have been connected. Infants linked up with the mechanism Nicholas Arveniov, Russian Pety (London 1964) 61. "= Nioetas Stetnatos,p. 8 in J. Darrouaes, ef, Opucules et lees, Sources crétennes ‘1 (Pars 1961) 286; fal, The Great Enurance, 412; Thomas F Mathews, “Private Litway in Byzantine Architecture: Toward a Re-appraisal” Cahiers Archéologiques 30 (1982) 126 "0 Epaten, “The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrie." 26 See Tat, The Grea: Entronce, 411-16, for a more comprehensive discussion ofthe sanctuary curtain andthe “concealment of ‘the mysteries.” "= Quoted in Nathan Mitchel, Cult and Condroversy: The Worship of the Euchavist Outside ‘the Mass (New York 1982) 377 133will suck with varying intensity and speed until the image projected on ‘the screen becomes clear, providing a good visual stimulus. The exper- nents indicated that the infants were more concerned about clear visual image than about nourishment. Erikson sees in this infantile hunger for clear vision the indistinct rudiments of both consciousness (“I/not I") and religion, which “seeks for a vision of sanctioned centrality.” Mitchell subsequently states: “The fundamental human ritual of seeing and being seen, of gazing and being gazed upon lies a the root of all subsequent ritualization. Erikson suggests that this is so because of an inborn human need for “regular and mutual affirmation and certification.” Mitchell wrote this in the context of a discussion on the development of ‘eucharistic exposition in the West. As mentioned above, part of the reason for the introduction of this practice in the thirteenth century was a response to the basic human need to see and be seen. I believe that Mitchell's analysis applies a fortiori to the Byzantine tradition. If people are being told to avoid looking at the sanctuary because of the fearfulness of the mysteries, they will certainly want to look at some other sacred reality. cons serve this function perfectly. Without desiring to offer oblique criticism of the West, one must admit that visually contemplating icons is much more logical than viewing Sacred Food intended for consumption. ‘A characteristic difference between East and West emerges here. Whereas the West developed an emphasis on what has been called the “gaze that ‘saves” (the exposition of the eucharist as the real purpose of the Mass), in the East one could instead speak of the “gaze that condemns”: here, one dare not ceater to any fascination with the eucharistic elements. Mitchell has demon- strated how eucharistic exposition developed in the West precisely during the Aristotelian renaissance, when Westerners were becoming very much con- cerned with the way things work.!# \V. A Suggestion Regarding the Iconostasis In spite of the rather late development of the opaque iconostasis, it seems ‘that one might be able to strike a very good balance between the emphasis ‘on people as icons (e.g., the clergy in the sanctuary) on the one hand, and the Wi, 3778, ™ Bid 379 Tid, 361-75. 134‘human desire to contemplate sacred images and integrate the cosmic into the liturgy on the other, by employing a low, railing-type templon which would nevertheless have the two desporikai icons positioned prominently in theit usual place. Such an iconostasis exists at St. Vladimir's Seminary in Crest- ‘wood, New York. Its a good example of organic development in Orthodox ‘worship as well as a sensitivity to pastoral concerns. Such an iconostasis does not totally divorce those in the sanctuary from the rest of the church (in enabling more contact between “human icons”) and yet it nevertheless allows people to continue relating to Christ and the Theotokos via images during those parts of the service when contact between the human icons is at a ‘minimum. The icons of Christ and Mary, even when they are full length, do not really obstruct contact with the clergy—especially when the royal doors are wider, as they are at St. Viadimir’s. This latter approach seems more effective than certain other contemporary solutions. For example, a low railing with icons fitted within the space of the railing makes the images too diminutive to warrant the veneration traditionally ascribed them. In other words, when an icon is positioned at belt-level, and not eye-level, it is im- possible both literally and figuratively to look up to the subject being por- trayed. Also, the primitive open templon with columns and architrave nowadays creates the impression of a cage, especially when the m shape is employed. It seems most reasonable then to continue with a barrier which still provides at least some significant role to iconography. ‘Those, on the other hand, who argue for the complete suppression of the iconostasis™ are obviously unaware of how dangerous it is, especially in the East, merely to revert to more primitive practices and pretend that the intervening period could simply die in people's consciousness. As the quantity of literature on the subject suggests, the icon-screen touches a nerve among Eastern Christians which cannot and should not be ignored. My study has demonstrated that Ouspensky’s words quoted at the head of this paper are hardly true for any period in the history of Orthodox worship except the post-Byzantine. Before this time it was indeed possible to imagine many of the rites of the Eastern Church without icons, Nonetheless, in my opinion, any attempt to return to the austerity ofthe earlier period would be suilty of the same spiritless historicism evident in the calls for the complete suppression of the iconostasis, ™ See Walter, “Origins,” 267 138Liturgical Reform and Liturgical Renewal* by ‘W. Jardine Grisbrooke Once again, at this point, we must speak plainly: there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name today in the Catholic Church, Yesterday's liturgy was hardly more than an embalmed cadaver. What people call liturgy today is little more than this same cadaver decomposed. (Louis Bouyer, 1968)! ‘The end result of allthis will probably not be a “new liturgical creation.” it will be liturgical paralysis, the slow decomposition of the Jex suppli- ‘candi, the bringing of prayer and worship into fundamental disrepute, and the dispersal of the Church itself as a worshipping assembly. (Aidan Kavanagh, 19897 |, What has gone wrong? “The present position is scandalous in the literal meaning of the word. People are just going away” (An eminent pastoral liturgist, in a leter to the writer, 1990). What a verdict on the results of a quarter of a century of liturgical reform—and from one of the fathers of liturgical reform in Eng- land. Alas, itis true; alas, itis tragic. What has gone wrong? Why has what was intended to renew liturgical worship succeeded only in “decomposing” it, to echo the word used by both Bouyer and Kavanagh, and in driving many people away from worship altogether? (And that it has done so is obvious to all but the most blinkered of armchair liturgists; there is no disputing the facts.) * Most ofthe argument and illustrations inthis article are concerned with, or taken from, the present situation in the Roman Catholic Church, but the reader should aot fin it dificult to apply them to other denominations. The author gratefully acknowledges his debt to the ‘authors and publishers of all works from which quotations are taken. The Decomposition of Catholicism (London: Sands 1970) 99. English translation of French original, Paris: Aubier-Montaign 1968. 2 turgealIncaltration: Looking tothe Future,” Studio Linurgca 20 (1990) 98. 136