4

PAVEL FLORENSKY: lCONOSTAS!S

rhe small hours of rhe nighr when rhe Theological Academy and
rhe neighboring rown of Sergiev Posad were quier. As he spoke,
she would wrire, and occasionally she would ask questions (a
process of collaborarive clarificaran rerained in rhe work irself);
and rhen he would rewrire rhe whole imo irs presenr form.
Imagine, rhen, rhe Russian aurumn of 1922. While rhe rrium-
phanr Bolshevik regime everyday brurally insralled a monstrous
new realiry everywhere, in homes and schools and churches and
offices and farms and barracks, Fr. Pavel every nighr conrinued
rhis complex acr of spirirual arricularion, in rhe nighr-time srill-
ness ofhis srudy. Roman Sroicism centuries befare had tried to use
rhe slender rrurh of personal goodness as a defense against the
powerful les of state violence-and failed rerribly. Now, in com-
posing lconostasis, Fr. Pavel found nor a stoic defense againsr civic
nighrmare but a deeper stare of being awake: rhe srare, rhat is, of
iconic aliveness in God. A short walk from his study rhe grear
Rublev iconosrasis conrinued ro proclaim-as ir does rhis
day-such permanem aliveness.
A brief bur moving privare documenr enrirled simply "My
Will" has come clown ro us from Fr. Pavel's hand. Addressed ro his
wife and children, Fr. Pavel begins, "I beg you, my dear ones, ro
receive holy communion on rhe very day you bury me .. . and,
afrer m y dearh, rake communion more ofren." Ir is, all of ir, so lid
spirirual direcrion; and towards rhe end, he rells his children rhis:
Anyone who does things carelessly also learns ro talk carelessly. But
careless, unclear, inexact tal k drags into irs carelessness and unclariry an
idea. M y very dear, dear children: don'r ler yourselves rhink carelessly.
An idea is God's gifr and it needs ro be raken care of. To be clear in
one's ideas, and ro be responsible for them, is a token of spiritual
freedom and inrellectual joy.
The rime and place of rhis remarkable book rerribly knew rhe
violence of slavery and despair. lts abundanr spirirual freedom and
in rellecrual jo y are rherefore purest gifr.
lntroduction
1
P
avel Florensky was born January 9, 1882, in Yevlakh, Azerbai-
jan, in T ranscaucasia. His farher was a mechanical engineer
employed by rhe Transcaucasian Railroad, and born
in Armenia, was a woman who gave her husband and rheir seven
children rhe gifr (in her son's words) of"beaury and concreteness."
The realiries of pre-revolurionary Russia are roday hard ro
grasp. The grear Russian novelisrs, rhough, help us rosee. For ir is
againsr rhe background of (for example) Dosroevsky's The Broth-
ers Karamazov, where we meer characrers who blend fashionably
scienrific arheism wirh deep spiritual yearning, rhar we best un-
derstand rhe extraordinary documenr written by Pavel Florensky
abour his childhood. For rhe documenr provides a vivid glimpse
not only inro Florensky's family bur also inro spirirual
srate ofbeing in the years jusr prior ro rhe Bolshevik revolurion. Ir
is rherefore well worrh quoring at sorne lengrh:
M y parents wanted to recreare Paradise in rhe family and, especial! y, rhey
wanred the children to rema in in rhe Garden. I, in turn, loved what they
wanred, and 1 not only wanred ir, too, but 1 could also comprehend rhe
world in rhe parrern of rhe earrhly Paradise. Bur our Paradise had no
religion; ar least, it had no historically based religion. So our Paradise
was no accidental thing bur, rather, a deliberately constructed wall
separaring rhe Garden of our family's life from all orher human realiry.
Ir was nor, in rhe metaphysical sense, a denial of religion; my parenrs
never, in rheir inner consciousness, saw it as such, and especially rhey
never spoke ir as so ....
In my family, rhe essenrial spiritual teaching involved rhe conscious
elimination of any and all (eirher positive or negarive) religious under-
5
6 PAVEL H.ORENSKY: ICONOSTASJS
standing from beyond our Garden-and even from our parenrs rhem-
selves. We were never told rhar rhere is no God, or rhar religion is
superstirion, or rhar priesrs are liars; equally, we were never rold rhe
opposne.
My morher always kepr silenr abour religion, and in her silence we
children could dimly sense so me lighrer meaning in her "No." M y aunr
also kepr silenr, but in her silence 1 could feel "Y es."
M y farher, rhrough whom passed the spirirual meridian of our home,
was far freer in religious discussion. Somet mes his "No" was equivalenr
ro "Yes" while his "Yes" meant "No." Iris essenrial ro remember rhat
his Gospel was Goerhe's Faust and his Bible was Shakespeare, for we
can then hear arighr his rel igious ron e of voice. I heard in hi m a spiriwal
perspecrive expressed mosr ofren as a feeling of inflniry and, parallel
wirh ir, a feeling of man's nothingness, of his ethical and menral
weakness. Somet mes he wou Id tal k of rhe "Superior Exisrence" or "rhar
which is called God, or ro which people give rhe name, God." Sorne-
rimes he would give a cosmological proof of God's exisrence: "If rhe
whole ofhumankind has always had religion, rhen iris impossible rhar
rhis belief has no basis in realiry." He therefore considered rhe mere
denial of religion ro be superflcial-but he also believed rhar rhe realiry
of God could never be discerned in rhe hisrorically manifesr religions
of humankind ....
Farher never opposed rhe religion of anyone, bur he never recognized
rhe validiry of any. He rhoughr thar rhe healthiesr were rhe Chinese
ancesror-worship and rhe religion of Islam. He saw a lighr in Chrisri-
aniry bur rhis very lighr fllled him wirh apprehension, for (as he pur ir)
"a religion rh.1t asserrs irs own absoluteness cannor escape being a so urce
of in rolerance." ...
Rcligion was rhus, in our family, somerhing indecenr, and 1 carne ro
sce ir as rhe mosr indecenr thing of all. The religious life (so I carne ro
fecl) was sornerhing essenrially hidden, somerhing nor meanr for orhers
ro ;ce. Everyrhing in my upbringing conspired ro insrill in me rhis
essenrial diftldence .... So norhing was said, neirher for nor againsr:
"People bel ieve; ler rhem believe."
- "One musr presenr ro rhe world a wholly human face, one wirhour
arriflcial syrnbols or forged idenrities."
lntroduction
.
1
us pressures,
-"A child's mind must be nurtured wirhour any rellg'' , religion he
f
fl\
so rhar, asan adulr, he may freely choose for himsel
1
wishes." .. .
1
, always filled
Our furnily kept a few religious cusroms. Our Easter rabie\"'. wedecorared
wirh wonderful dishes all week long; we hada Christmas rree',dunrary-if
rhe house wirh green branches at Penrecost. They were all nwillingly (I
distanr-contacrs, ones rhar my parents subrnitted ro
11
My parenrs
,,.
rhought) because rhey had ro. lt was rhe sarne with bapcisrt ,Jways held at
rried ro make rhem as "unofficial" as possible, so rhey were jarher for my
home, always hidden from view, and 1 was always rhe Go' and ir surely
sisters and brothers. For me, rhe whole rhing was a burdetl
did nor rnake me like religion any better ...
So 1 grew up far from any religious connecrions.
11
yone about
1 never artended a church service, 1 never spoke ro '
1
sign of rhe
religious ideas, and 1 had no idea even how ro .make rh'.
1
place filled
cross. Nevenheless, 1 always fel t rhat a sphere of extstence .. from every
with mysrical meanings and unique acrions, a place t'
11
e by myself.
human fear-rruly exisred, and I tried ro discover this r
1
'' eirher had
For 1 felr that rhis mystical place had ro become clear,

existence,
ro conftrm God's exisrence and all the consequences of
1
r could even
or-but I never knew the meaning of rhat "or," for 1 ne"e
7
rhink the possibility of the simple negarion of God. .
. . . , . . ;tstence m rhe
What JS remarkable here IS the chdd s spmtual peT nce hiding a
face of rhe parenrs' spirirual indifference, an indiffer',ms, rhc un-
genuine anxiery, even dread. The "unofficial" bapr; che long si-
willing "contacrs," rhe distaste and rhe hiding a.ot ro profound
lences: all rhis poinrs in rhe Florensky household r's asserrion
(and never acknowledged) fear and hosriliry. His despair: an
abour Christianiry reveals, in facr, his own spinrtJ:,r escape be-
absolureness, masquerading as rolerance, rhar ca.o11
coming inroleranr.
11
tdfa rher was
Ir is imporranr ro note, roo, rhar Pavel's

made a
an Orrhodox priesr. His son Ivan (Pavel's grandfJ[ered Orrho-
fareful choice. As Pavel wrore, "He successfully coJ11l'
0
enrer rhe
dox seminary . . . bur he conceived rhe desire r
G
PAYEL ILORENSK.Y: ICONOSTASIS
standing from beyond our Garden- and even from our parenrs rhem-
selves. We were never rold rhat rhere is no God, or rhar religion is
superstition, or rhar priesrs are liars; equally, we were never rold che
oppos1te.
My morher always kept silent abour religion, and in her silence we
children could dimly sense so me lighrer meaning in her "No." M y aunr
also kept silent, but in her silence 1 could feel "Y es."
M y farher, rhrough whom passed the spirirual meridian of our home,
was far freer in religious discussion. Somerirnes his "No" was equivalen e
to "Yes" while his "Yes" meanr "No." Iris essenrial ro rernember rhar
his Gospel was Goerhe's Faust and his Bible was Shakespeare, for we
can rhen hear arighr his rel igious tone of voice. I heard in him a spiritual
perspecrive expressed mosr ofren as a feeling of inflniry and, parallel
wirh ir, a feeling of man's norhingness, of his erhical and menral
weakness. Somerimes he would tal k of rhe "Superior Existence" or "rhar
which is called God, or ro which people give rhe narne, God." Sorne-
times he would give a cosrnological proof of God's exisrence: "lf rhe
whole ofhumankind has always had religion, rhen iris impossible rhar
chis belief has no basis in realiry." He rherefore considered rhe mere
denial of religion ro be superficial-bu e he also believed rhar rhe realiry
of God could never be discerned in rhe hisrorically manifest religions
of humankind ....
Farher never opposed rhe religion of anyone, bur he never recognized
rhe validiry of any. He rhoughr rhar rhe healrhiesr were rhe Chinese
.mcesror-worship and che religion of Islam. He saw a light in Chrisri-
aniry bur chis very light filled him wirh apprehension, for (as he put ir)
"a religion rhat asserrs its own absoluceness cannot escape being a so urce
ofinrolerance." ...
Religion was chus, in our family, somerhing indecent, and 1 carne ro
see ir as che rnosr indecenr rhing of al l. The religious life (so 1 carne ro
fcel) was somerhing essenrially Ju'dden, somerhing nor meanr for others
to see. Everything in my upbringing conspired ro insrill in me rhis
essenrial diffidence .... So norhing was said, neirher for nor againsr:
- "People believe; lec rhem believe."
- One musr presenr ro che world a wholly human face, one wirhour
artificial symbols or forged idenriries."
1 n troduction
-"A child's mind muse be nurrured wirhom any religious pressures,
so rhar, as an ad ulr, he m ay free! y choose for himself any religion he
wishes." ...
Our family kept a few religious customs. Our Easrer cable was always filled
wirh wonderful dishes all week long; we hada Christmas cree; we decora red
che house wirh green branches ar Penrecosr. They were all volunrary-if
disram-conracrs, ones rhat my parenrs submitted ro unwillingly (1
rhoughr) because rhey had ro. Ir was rhe same wirh baptisms. M y parenrs
rried ro rnake them as "unofficial" as possible, so rhey were always held ar
home, always hidden from view, and 1 was always che Godfather for my
sisrers and brorhers. For me, che whole thing was a burden, and ir surely
d id not make me like religion any better ...
So 1 grew up far frorn any religious connecrions.
1 never attended a church service, 1 never spoke ro anyone about
religious ideas, and 1 had no idea even how ro make che sign of che
cross. Neverrheless, 1 always felr chata sphere of existen ce-a place filled
with mysrical meanings and unique acrions, a place far from every
human fear-truly exisred, and 1 tried ro discover chis place by myself.
For 1 felr rhat chis mystical place had ro become clear, rhat eirher 1 had
ro confirm God 's exisrence and all rhe consequences of H is exisrence,
or-but 1 never knew che meaning of rhar "or," for 1 never could even
chink che possibiliry of che simple negarion of God.
7
What is remarkable here is the child's spiritual persistence in rhe
face of the parenrs' spiritual indifference, an indifference hiding a
genuine anxiery, cven dread. The "unofficial" baptisms, the un-
willing "contacts," the distaste and the hiding and rhe long si-
lences: all this poinrs in the Florensky household ro profound
(and never acknowledged) fear and hostiliry. His father's asserrion
about Chrisrianiry reveals, in fact, his own spiritual despair: an
absoluteness, masquerading as rolerance, that cannot escape be-
coming inroleranr.
Ir is imporranr ro note, too, that Pavel's grear-grandfarher was
an Orrhodox priesr. His son !van (Pavel's grandfather) made a
fareful choice. As Pavel wrote, "He successfully completed Orrho-
dox seminary ... bur he conceived the desire ro enrer rhe
8
PAVEL FLORFNSKY: ICONOSTASIS
Milirary-Medical Academy." He did so, moving rhe whole spiri-
rual foundarion of rhe Florensky family onro a new ground:
science. Pavel said, ''Ar rimes I have rhoughr rhis abandonmenr of
rhe priesrhood for science was rhe proton pseudos [rhe grear lie] of
our whole family and rhar, unril we rerurn ro rhe priesrhood, God
will unrnake all ou r besr attemprs."
Pavel was a quier, srudious boy. A srriking phrase comes clown
ro us from a childhood friend: "a young boy plunged inro him-
self" He succeeded ar school bu r rhoughr school trivial. His real
reacher was rhe natural environmenr, a world he passionarely
loved and srudied-"always," he said, "on rhe basis of physics."
He carried out experimenrs in physics enrirely on his own, guided
and encouraged by his farher, and he assembl ed knowledge and
drew conclusions far beyond rhe scope of his provincial teachers.
"School gave me li rde," he said , "except perhaps rhe knowledge of
classical languages." Ar age 17, he graduared with highest honors.
The surnmer of his graduarion broughr ro a close his chi ld-
hood-and, in 1899, rhe ninereenrh century-wirh a genuine
spiritual crisis. He read Tolsroy and discovered (as he said) "the
limirs of physical knowledge." All ar once, and complerely, physics
ceased bcing a ground of fairh for Pavel. His response ro chis
profound ruprure was complicared and significanr: rhe emprica!
sciences increased rheir power ro perform rechnical operations
upon rhe world precisely ro rhe exrenr rhey losr rheir capaciry ro
explain rhe world. Consequendy, he could see even more finely as
he grew ever more unable ro explain whar he was seeing. In shorr,
he began ro experience rhe creared world as Mystery.
Moreover, since his farher had been his mentor in rhe empri-
ca! applicarions of science, his summer crisis carried him beyond
his farher's reachings. Hence, ro lose fairh in physics was ro lose a
spiritual relarion ro his farher. (Here, rhen, begins his search for
rhe true Farher.) Ar firsr, rhough, rhe crisis carried him ro marhe-
marics, for he felr thar rhe faws of emprica! science were con-
lntroduction 9
rained in marhemarics "as a first concrete," and rhar rherefore
mathematics could reveal rhe principies of all rhinking. He looked
for ways ro exrend rhe basis of mathemarics so as ro consrrucr
whar he called "marhemarical idealism."
He spenr rhe nexr year in his farher's house engaged in doing
rhis. By rhe following Augusr, 1900, he had been accepred inro
Moscow Universiry's marhemarics division, in rhe deparrmenr of
marh and physics. His universiry career was ar once predicrable
and surprising. Predictably, he was a srudenr genius, absorbing
highly complex marerials wirh asronishing speed and grace. In his
second year, for example, he composed and published rhe lecrures
of his reacher N .V Bugaev under rhe ride Integral Calculus. He
was regarded by everyone as one of rhe mosr brillianr srudenrs of
science in rhe Universiry's recenr hisrory.
More exrraordinary, however, was rhe deepening of his religious
awakening. He said, "My srudies in marh and physics led me ro
recognize rhe formal possibiliry rhat universally human religious
conremplation had a theorerical foundarion." The mathematical
idea of disconrinuiry, the rheory of funcrions, and number rheory
were carrying his awareness ro rhe asronishing possibiliry rhar one
could ralk (as he said) "nor abour religions bur about a religion ...
one belonging ro al! manki nd rhough raking a variery of forms." In
1903, ar age 21, he had become clase friends wirh rhe symbolisr
poer Andrei Belyi, who encouraged Pavel's unique search by bring-
ing him inro Orrhodox circles and, finally, inro rhe Orrhodox
Church. Ar 2 1, he enrered fully inro rhe Orrhodox fairh of his
grear-grandfarher. Thus, rhis brillianr srudenr of science mer rhe full
real iry of Orrhodox rrurh, and he experienced, for rhe firsr rime, rhe
full realiry of his childhood dream of"a sphere of existen ce-a place
fillcd wirh mysrical meanings and unique acrions, a place far from
every human fear." Ir rruly exisred.
His becoming Orrhodox had immediare social effecrs. His
srudenr friends and rhe science faculry regarded as bizarre his new
10
PAVFL fLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
religious life, seeing it as a betrayal of scienrific truth for rhe
ignorance of superstirion. The ordinary Orrhodox believers, on
the orher hand, found this new church member highly unserding
because of his passionare intellectual energy and incense verbal
depth and precision. He could no longerfir in' rhe world of
academic science, nor did rhe parish churches promise immedi-
ately ro be a comforrable home for him. He carne rhus to see how,
in borh worlds, rourine srandardizarions always berrayed rhe viral-
ity of rruth. When, in 1904, he graduared wirh highesr honors
(writing a marhemarical rhesis enrirled "On rhe peculiariries of
flar curves as places ofinrerrupred disconrinuiry"), he was offered
an academic post in rhe Universiry's marh departmem. He de-
clined rhe posr and instead enrered, in rhe autumn of 1904, rhe
Moscow Theological Academy.
Behind rhis decision !ay a decisive spirirual evenr. The previous
March, Pavel had gane ro his spirirual farher and confessor,
Bishop Anrhony Florenrsov, ro ask for a blessing ro enrer monasric
life. If universiry and parish life were, for differem reasons, equally
unfirting, then rhe monasrery seemed ro offer a true spirirual
solurion. Moreover, Pavel had planned ro visir rhe ancienr Solovki
monasrery rhar Bishop Anrhony had so movingly described ro
him; and, rhrough Bishop Anrhony's reachings as well as rhrough
visirs ro rhe famous Oprina monasrcry, he had fallen in lave wirh
rhar profound monasric hiddenness, rhar eradicarion of false
earrhly personaliry wherein one achieves rhe simpli city of truc
personhood in God. "I am sick of 'culruredness' and sophisrica-
tion," he said, "I want simpliciry." Also, in rhis hiddenness in
God, rhere could be rhe serring righr of his family's hiding from
God: and his childhood fear of religion would become redeemed
in rhe immensiry of divine !ove. Bishop Anrhony, however, recog-
nized rare genius and righrly discerned rhar rhe severities of mo-
nasric life would badly serve Pavel's vibranr, crearive gifrs, and so
he refused him his blessing. Pavel was devasrared. Spirirual pur-
posiveness had carried him out of rourine academic life, while
Introduction 11
vivid inrellectual and creative powers had rendered him unfir for
rhe ordinary Orrhodox lairy. Now, resrlessness, even impatience,
had closed rhe monastery ro him. Where was he ro go?
He wenr where Bishop Anrhony suggesred, ro rhe Moscow
Theological Academy: and his true parh opened. Very soon, he
met rhe man who was profoundly ro shape his whole spirituallife,
Elder Isidore of the Gethsemane Hermirage. During the nexr four
years, Pavel srudied rheology wirh brillianr disrincrion ar the
Academy-and learned compassion, gratitude, and humiliry ar
the feet of Elder Isidore. Two faded phorographs of rhe Elder
come down to us, and we see in rhem something of whar Pavel
called spiritual beauty. To worldly eyes (and rhese also included
many in rhe Church), Fr. Isidore Grusinsky was a poor, unedu-
cated lour of a peasanr who somcrimes spoke sharply ro rhoughr-
less authorities both wirhin and beyond rhe Church; ro spirirual
eyes, however, the Elder made manifest every spiritual gift. Pavel
wrote: "Everyrhing about him caused one ro marvel-his lovc,
meekness and modesry; his unprerenriousness, selflessness and
poverty; his clariry, peacefulness and spiritual deportment; and
finally, his prayer." From 1904 ro 1908, Pavel spent as much ofhis
time as possible wirh rhis remarkable man of God.
The polirical life of Russia in these years became increasingly
disrurbed. By 1905 and 1906, the revolutionary currents had
reached near tidal srrengrh; and only by the severest authoritarian
repression had rhe actual fact of revolution been averted for rhc
momenr. Elder Isidore spoke ofrcn wirh prophetic clairvoyance
about rhe impending time of darkness wherein rhe Christians of
Russia would be hunred and killed ro near exrinction. In March
of 1906, Pavel himself was briefly imprisoned for making a speech
demanding polirical jusrice. This was his first raste of whar rhe
Psalms call "the afflicrions of the righreous. " He did nor rhen, of
course, know he would have ro drink rhar cup of suffering down
to the bitter dregs of marryrdom. Then, in late January of 1908,
12
PAVEL ICONOSTASIS
his farher died. Twelve days larer, on February 3, Elder Isidore
died. In grear grief, Pavel wrore a shorr, beauriful book abour rhe
Elder called Salt of the Earth, beginning:
Father Isidore is no longer with us. He's no longer he re. He blossomed
like a flower, and how depressing ir is now that rhis flower has faded
away. He shone as bright as a small clear sun and now rhat lighr has
gone out. He was a rock offairh-where is our support?
As rhe Russian polis everywhere began to disinregrare, borh his
farhers had vanished. At rhe deprhs of his grief, Pavel found
wirhin himself rhe seed of his own yearning for farherhood. The
redemprive dream was boro in him ro become a priesr and rhe
farher of children. Here, in rhe flowering of farherhood, was rhe
way inro his truth and rhus a way pasr rhe les of rhe garhering
polirical darkness.
In ]une of 1908, he graduared from rhe Theological Academy,
again with honors, writing a thesis entided "On Religious Truth"
(rhe first version of his longesr work The Pillar and Foundation of
Truth); and, in September, he accepred a posirion ar rhe Academy
as a senior lecrurer in philosophy. Bur as professorial life serded
abour him, Pavel found himself descending inro a depression rhar
was ro lasr almosr rwo years. Ou twardly, he chafed under rhe
burdens of a busy academic post; inwardly, he grieved his losr
farhers and dreamed of rhe priesrhood and married life. His
graduarion from rhe Academy had made him a candidare for
ordinarion, but he was no nearer rhe priesrhood because he was
srill unmarried (in rhe Orrhodox Church, cusromarily only a
monk may be borh unmarried and a priesr). Then he mer rhe
21-year-old sisrer of a clase Academy friend, Anna Mikhailovna
Giatsinrov, a quiet, imelligenr, and devour reacher from a peasanr
family in Ryasan. After his discipleship wirh Elder Isidore, Pavel
found Anna Mikhailovna's Russian peasanr roots to be spirirually
true in God. So on August 17, 191 O, rhis extraordinarily brillianr
young Academy faculry member surprised everyone who knew
him by marrying rhis quiet peasam reacher from Ryasan; and
lntroduction 13
rheir marriage was a rrue marriage. The following spring, on April
23, 1911, he was ordained to rhe diaconare, and on the next day
(in Orrhodox cusrom), he was ordained priest. The proton pseudos
(the great lie) of rhe Florensky family began to find its redemption
in rhis rerurn ro rhe priesrhood as Fr. Pavel began to find his grear
work of living a life fully in God. The following autumn, on
September 28, 1911, rheir son Vasily was born. Fr. Pavel had now
manifesdy become his dream of farherhood.
Sergius Bulgakov larer said ofFr. Pavel: "The spiritual cenrer of
his personality, thar sun by which all his gifts were illumined, was
his priesrhood." Though nevera parish priest, Fr. Pavel found rhe
living cenrer of true priesthood where al! priests find ir, in rhe
celebration of the Eucharist. To carry out rhis essenrial, definitive
Christian Mystery, wherein simple bread and wine are conse-
crated into Chrisr's holy body and blood, seemed ro Fr. Pavel rhe
only true way of union and !ove. "Without !ove," he wrote, "rhe
eersonality is broken up inro a murrip1icty of fragmenrary psy-
chological momenrs and elements," adding: "rhe !ove of God is
rhat which holds the personality togerher. " His long depression
melred (as Psalm 68 says) "as wax melrs before rhe fire" as rhe
burning sun of divine !ove consumed his life bur lefr him inract,
whole, healed. As the poli rica! world everywhere hurled irself inro
the fiery darkness of the rwentieth cenrury, Fr. Pavel focused ever
more deeply on rhe spiritual rrurhs he so vividly saw. His priesr-
hood took on its profound iconic srrengrh.
His minisrry had three forms at rhis point. First, he carried on
with his professorial tasks with a srronger yer more peaceful
quality; and what had earlier seemed an intolerable burden now
became easy, even lighr ro bear. Second, he became rhe senior
editor of rhe Academy's important journal of rheology, a post rhat
gave him a commanding voice in the counrry's urgenr rheological
discussions, through borh his own writings (including a second
version in 1912 of his Academy dissertarion, now as a book) and
14
I'AVFL f-LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
rhose he published. Third, he carried Chrisr's wirness ro a social-
cultural group few saw as being spirirually wounded: the inrelli-
gensia. In rhe houses of poers, wrirers, and academic inrellecruals,
Fr. Pavel was (Bulgakov rells us) "a desired guesr and a 'knighr
interlocutor."' His exrraordinary deprhs of learning-scienrific,
rheological, historie, and artisric-were joined ro a comparably
profound fairh in Chrisr; and che spirirually srarved inrelligensia
of rhis rormenred rime and place hungered for rhe bread of rrurh
rhar Fr. Pavel so generously, even passionarely gave rhem. Bul-
gakov himself enrered rhe Church under Fr. Pavel, in rime becom-
ing a priesr, roo; so did others. What cohered al! his
work-indeed, all his Jife-was rhe eucharisric hearr of his priesr-
hood.
Russian civic Jife, meanwhile, hasrened irs pi unge inro chaos as
rhe possibiliries of historie darkness became increasingly manifesr.
In 1914, Euro pe began irs ca rastrophic war while, for rhe next
rhree years, Russia srrained ro hold in rhe furies of civil war. The
same year, Fr. Pavel presented ro rhe Academy a third and final
version of his book as his master's thesis, now called The Pillar and
Foundation of Truth. Wirh desperare, almost hysrerical rapidiry,
polirical groups and leaders and manifesros sprang up and disap-
peared; prisons filled; economies broke; borh calculared and ran-
dom killings swirled everywhere; while inside rhe Church, roo,
rhe poli ti es of disinregrarion eru pted. Yer Fr. Pavel remained
spiritually inregrated. Bulgakov said: "Ara time when che whole
counrry dreamed of revolution, and in church circles also polirical
organizarions carne and wenr, Fr. Pavel remained aparr from ir
ali...The voice of ererniry was more powerful rhan rhe call of che
ephemeral." In January of 191 5, his and Anna's son Kirill was
born; in May of 1917, rheir daughrer Oiga was born. The rrurhs
of farherhood ourweighed rhe lies of dcmonic violence.
In Ocrober of 1917, che Bolsheviks seized power and (in
Bulgakov's phrase) "catasrrophic rime" bursr upon Russia. In brief
!ntroduction 15
weeks, revolurionary fury transformed urrerly che face of Russia,
including che face of Fr. Pavel's life. The Bolshevik aurhoriries
commandeered rhe Academy buildings for rheir own uses, of
course shurring clown che journal. The Academy faculry and
srudents moved ro orher buildings in rhe ciry, and Fr. Pavel
conrinued ro give public lectures, teach rheology courses, and read
srudenr papers. Ourwardly, rhese acriviries rhat once were parr of
a coherent life seemed now merely survival reacrions, che spasms
of an ampurared limb; inwardly, and more fully, they still shone
with rhe vivid light given rhem in rhe deprhs of Fr. Pavel's inrellec-
rual concenrrarion and spirirual clariry. Bulgakov said, "He re-
mained inwardly free of rhe Srare, from which he looked for
norhing at all, either befare or after the revolurion." Fr. Pavel had
acquired the grace of spiritual dctachment: rhat is, he could give
his fullesr, most compassionare attcntion ro what was immedi-
ately at hand while remaining wholly unrouched by rhe surround-
ing srorms of darkness. The gifr would serve him well.
When rhe inicial furies subsided, rhe aurhorities quickly saw
Fr. Pavel's porenrial value ro rhem. His value !ay in rhe facr rhat,
since his 1904 graduarion in marh and physics, Fr. Pavel had kepr
up his exrraordinary scienrific work, doing original research and
publishing significanr essays in borh rechnical subjecrs and rheo-
retical explorarions, essays rhar soughr ro integrare specificiries
and rheory in new and powerful ways. Ifhe could be compelled ro
work as a scientisr for rhc regimc, rhen his religious beliefs (ren-
dered mure by rhe new laws) would be irrelevanr: so, undoubr-
edly, reasoned rhe aurhoriries. They pur rhe choice ro Fr. Pavel of
eirher doing scienrific work for rhem or going inro permanent
exile. Here, plainly, was rhe supreme decision of his life: where
and how was he ro 'fir in'?
His response was fareful. He chose rhe work-bur on his own
spirirual rerms. Pardy, che choice arase from somerhing few out-
side Russia can ever fully comprehend, rhat is, from a profound
16
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
!ove of rhe Russian homeland, irs land, clima re, people, language,
hisrory, culture, and spirirual rrurh. For many Russians, ro choose
permanenr exile would be, for us, roughly comparable ro choos-
ing ro live in a space capsule orbiring rhe moon: how soon we
would be crushingly overwhelmed wirh longings ro see rrees and
green grass and brighr sun and blue sky! In choosing againsr
permanenr exile, Fr. Pavel chose for a grounded realiry of !ove.
Moreover, in rhe firsr years of rhe Soviet regime, scienrific work
had a previously undreamed-of energy and purposiveness, a viral-
iry born of rhe revolurionary arrempr ro esrablish new and deeper
inregrarions berween long-separared fields of research. Fr. Pavel
saw rhe immense porenrialiries of rhe work and knew he could
make irs rrurh manifesr. Bur, above all , he chose rhe work because
he would do ir as he had done everyrhing in his life since April 23,
1911: as a priesr of God.
So began Fr. Pavel's mosr asrounding minisrry. By 1919, he
was head of research ar a plasrics planr in Moscow, and by 1921,
he was appoinred ro a professorship in physics and engineering in
rhe new rechnical instirure. Berween 1921 and 1927, he held a
series of imporranr posrs in borh research insritures and universi-
ries, direcring an asronishing ser of programs of borh a practica!
and a rheorerical narure. In rhis period, severa! imporranr discov-
eries and invenrions are also direcrly arrribured ro him. His scien-
rific creariviry seemed almost boundless. The Kremlin aurhoriries
were, on one leve!, delighred.
On anorher, rhey were greatly disrressed. Fr. Pavel Looked every
inch rhe priesr. In exemplary defiance of powerful arheisr masrers,
Fr. Pavel would srride inro crowded lecrure halls dressed in cas-
sock, cross, and priesr's cap. The scienrific vigor of his lecrure
could nor, for rhe aurhoriries, eradicare the image rhey saw befare
rhem; for even rhe mosr rigid of arheisrs could nor gainsay rhe
iconic realiry of his priesrhood. In such conrexrs, he did nor need
ro say or do anyrhing; his simply being rhere as he rruly was
Jntroduction
17
achieved rhe spirirual end. In rhis dilemma of delighr and disrress,
rhe aurhoriries menacingly hesirated, while Fr. Pavel carried on
wirh his exrraordinary work. Also rhough he could no longer
publish any of ir, he conrinued ro wrire rheological works, rhe
final one being rhe 1922 monograph, lconostasis. Also in 1921,
rheir fourrh child Michael was born, while in 1924 rheir lasr child
Maria was born. Farherhood was indeed his pillar and foundarion
of rrurh.
In March of 1922, rhe Soviet aurhorities banished al! dissidenr
inrellectuals, scholars, and scienrisrs-bur rhey did nor exile Fr.
Pavel. By 1926, sorne 9000 priesrs, monks, and nuns had been
killed-bur nor Fr. Pavel. Yer his persisrenr refusal ro 'fir in' earned
him everywhere rhe conrempruous epirhet of "rhe scholarly pop"
(rhe Russian word is nor endearing but vicious); and ir is always
highly dangerous ro earn rhe conrempr of brutal aurhoriries.
Bishop Anrhony's insighr sorne 23 years earlier began now ro rake
on a propheric implication: rhe young Pavel who did not 'fit in'
anywhere (not in the universiry, nor in rhe lairy, not in the
monastery) had become, by 1928, rhe priest whose spiritual pur-
pose !ay precisely in his volunrary refusal ro 'fit in.' The menacing
hesitation of rhe authoriries wenr on.
Then, in the summer of 1928, rhe blow seemed ro fall. Fr.
Pavel was removed from al! his imporranr scienrific posts and
relegared ro a trivial laborarory job in Nizhni-Novgorod. But
apparendy rhar was done merely ro make space for more indeci-
sion; for rhe following year he was reinstated ro his Moscow post
and, moreover, appoinred assisranr director of a prestigious tech-
nical institure. Plainly, rhe authorities were badly conflicted. Fr.
Pavel's scienrific brilliance conrinued from 1929 ro 1933; equally,
he conrinued to be a living icon of Orrhodox realiry, everywhere
radiating and (when any would listen) declaring spiritual rrurh
wirh a fervent deprh of hearr and mind. In a world srruck dumb
by rhe slaughter of ravaged innocence, his words-equally elo-
18
PAVEI FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
q uenr whether spoken or silenr-were food and drink ro the
spiritually starved. On May 4, 1932, he was made a member of
one of rhe highest scienrific committees. Nine monrhs later, the
real blow fell: on February 25, 1933, Fr. Pavel was arrested. Thus,
rhe conflicted authorities resolved rheir dilemma in the way ruth-
less powers always do: by exterminaring rhe one who makes them
experience rheir inner hesitarion.
The tangle of violence and fraud behind his arrest has only
recendy become known. If the realities of pre-revolutionary Rus-
sia are hard ro grasp, even more unimaginable are the exact
processes of rhe Soviet nighrmare-and for decades, they were
official secrets. But the deep perestroika thaw in the 1980s, and the
regime's August 1991 collapse, opened secret KG B files w a firsr
full scruriny: and the sight is quite terrible. In the 1930s, one of
rhe regime's primary domesric aims was to eliminare every social
elemenr deemed (and doomed) "religious and monarchist." Es-
senta! ro this policy, rhough, was rhc regime's overarching need
for irs victims ro declare themselves ro be socially conremptible.
For rhe regime sought, above all rhings, ro avoid institutionalizing
marryrdom. The presence of marryrs was nor merely poor public
rclarions. Rather, marryrs were tactically threarening in rheir
power to intensif)r social resistance. Thus, the Soviets had to make
all vicrims inro vermin worrhy of exterminaran. In Fr. Pavel's
case, rhe way to achieving this end was found in Pavel Vasilievich
Gudulianov, a professor of law at Moscow Universiry.
First, consider the regime's success: on February 28, three days
afrer his arrest, Fr. Pavel signed a one-page documenr whose crucial
scntence reads: "Having realized my many crimes against Soviet
power and the Parry, with these words I deeply repent my crime of
organizing a nationalist-fascist cenrer." Now, by 1933, historie Rus-
sian anxiery about German militarism (Tolsroy's War and Peace is
eloquenr on rhe subject) had, wirh rhe Nazi rriumph, raken on an
alarming confirmaran; and rhe worsr imaginable evil for a Rus-
!ntroduction 19
sian (and not merely a Soviet) cmzen ro comm1t 111 the early
1930s was active participation in Germany's fascist insaniry. Thus,
Fr. Pavel's words-"1 deeply repenr my crime of organizing a
narionalist-fascist cenrer"-struck rhe right rerrif)ring chord, for
any man saying this in the Russia of 1933 was indeed not helpless
vicrim bur dangerous vermin. What lay behind this destructive
admission?
The instrument ofFr. Pavel's destruction was Professor Gudulianov.
The KGB (then the OGPU) had arrested Gudulianov five years
earlier, in January of 1928, and had scnr him inro interna! exile. In
1932, they recalled him ro Moscow and proposed a deal: if he would
confess ro "counter-revolutionary convicrions" and would implicate
others they would name, he and his family could escape prison; if
he refused, rhey would sign his name ro rhe documents of accusa-
tion, and his family would suffer wirh him. In his OGPU file,
Gudulianov's lengthy secrer letter to his courtroom prosecutor
says 111 pan:
So began a sorrowful rime for me when 1 was forced ro define myself
as a parricipanr in a counrer-revolurionary organizarion ruled by rhree
professors, S.A. Chaplighin, N.N. Lusin, and P.A. Florensky. Of rhese
rhree, I had never mer Florensky.
Gudulianov initially resisted, holding on (as he says) "steadfasdy."
Then rhe racrics were swirchcd, and he was rold rhat he was a
victim (that is rhe very word used by rhe OGPU inrerrogator
Shupeiko) and that he would be released and returned to his
family and work-"but first I have to submit completely to the
OGPU." What does submission mean? "I have to announce that
T am a real member of rhis counter-revolutionary organizaran;
and if 1 accuse myself of even more scrious crimes, my repenrance
will rhen be considered e ven more tru rhful."
This configuraran of reward and rhreat proved irresistible.
Gudulianov now claimed to have been rhe organizer of the ficri-
tious center (dubbed "The Narionalisr Cenrer for Russian Re-
newal" by Shupeiko), saying rhar he himself had appoinred its
20
PAVEL RORENSKY: ICONOSTAS!S
governing commirree of Chaplighin, Lusin, and Florensky.
Gudulianov said in his public restimony, "The ideologue who
arriculared our narionalisr vision of an ancienr Orrhodox stare was
our righr-wing commirree member, rhe famous philosopher and
rheologian, Professor Florensky." This murderous fanrasy also
included cerrain rheological derails ro make ir sound plausible:
"Florensky organized cerrain Moscow priesrs and orher provincial
monasrics inro rriads similar ro rhe angelic orders in rhe celestial
hierarchy." As he wrore in his secret lerrer, rhe OGPU demanded
of him "nor rrurh bur verisimilirude." Neverrheless, Gudulianov
confessed, "my tesrimony is pure ficrion and, ar rhe very first
review, ir will all collapse like a house of cards." Bur such a review
would nor come unril 1958. In 1933, rhe resrimony served well
rhe regime's inrenrion: rhe immediate desrrucrion of Fr. Pavel,
along wirh severa! score orhers whom Gudulianov named (or was
ordered ro name) as parricipanrs in rhe non-exisrenr Narionalisr
Cenrer for Russian Renewal.
Informed of rhese accusarions at his arresr, Fr. Pavel instanrly
denied rhem. Bur rhe next day Shupeiko arranged for Fr. Pavel ro
meer his accuser for rhe first time: alone. In abare OGPU room,
Gudulianov rold Fr. Pavel the enrire circumsrances, and he ended
wirh a plea thar Fr. Pavel follow suir by publicly repenring of rhese
"crimes." For by conrinuing ro den y rhe les, Fr. Pavel would only
guaranrce rhe conrinued imprisonmenr and likely dearh of borh
Gudulianov himself and his whole family.
A momenr of supreme spiritual crisis had arrived for Fr. Pavel.
He would well have known rhat ro participare in rhe les of srare
violence robs rhe soul of every shred of spiritual inregriry, and rhar
once rruly begun, rhe desrrucrion of inregriry is nearly impossible
ro hale. Yer he would also know rhar spirirual inregriry in Chrisr
has unfarhomable deprhs, for in rhar bare OGPU room in late
February, 1933, Fr. Pavel could nor have helped bur discern in rhe
faces of rhe Soviet aurhorities rhe very faces of rhe Jerusalem rulers
lntroduction 21
who had crucified Chrisr. And whar is rhe Crucifixion aparr from
rhe willingness ro accept in uncondirionallove rhe violence rhat is
given? Moreover, Fr. Pavel would have seen before him rhe face of
his false accuser begging him for life. And if Christ in crucified
agony had prayed for his implacable murderers ro be forgiven,
whar was he todo wirh rhis cringing accuser? The universe holds
its brearh in every single spirirual crisis. Then Fr. Pavel agreed ro
sign rhe confession rhey had wrirren for him. Things now moved
briskly along rhe precise paths of state violence. A tria! was held,
and, on J une 26, 1933, he was senrenced ro ten years in the
dreaded labor camps, those places (in Solzhenitsyn's phrase) "in-
venced for destruction."
Gudulianov's sorry fate is worth noring. He concluded his
secrer letter ro rhe prosecuror rhis way:
This present letter is my secret confession, and I beg you to preserve
rhe secrecy of a confession and to keep silent. 1 am writing rhis as my
only copy, and ler ir all stay a secret and die wirh me ... Please forgive
my frankness. You know rhar 1 am always at your service.
Despite rhis plea, the prosecutor immediarely forwarded the lerrer
ro the OG PU, and there in 1990 ir was found stapled ro
Gudulianov' s file. lnreresringly, Gudulianov had penned at the
bottom rhe Larin psalmic phrase, "I have spoken and uplifted my
soul" (dixi et animam levavz). Bur while rhe confession may have
relieved his soul, ir also sealed his doom. For in 1937, he was
rearrested, and rhe lerrer was used as crucial evidence against him.
He was execured. Yer without rhe crucialletter, we would roday
know lirrle of the tangle of murderous lies behind Fr. Pavel's
arres c.
On June 27, 1933, Fr. Pavel was transponed under guard ro
Siberia. The Soviet insrirurionalizarion of sadism in the labor
camps-sysrematic torture, crushing physical labor, unceasing
semi-srarvarion, terror and lies-constirures the rheory and prac-
rice of He!!. When Fr. Pavel began his life in Hell at age 51, his
priesrhood was undoubtedly rhe primary target, for rhar is what
22
PAVEL Fl ORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
had broughr him rhere. His immecliare lor cbuld only have been
physical torture for refusal and glirrering rewarcls for compliance.
Srripped of cassock, cross ancl cap, rhe priesr's shoulder-lengrh
hair ancl beard shavecl, he submirred ro neirher pain nor pleasure;
he helcl fast, deepening inro Christ, clown pasr rhe ourward im-
ages of priesrhood and roward rhe deprhs of Chrisr's agony. For
only such heroic enclurance woulcl a year larer have earned him
imprisonmenr in rhe one camp designared for rhe incorrigible:
rhe ancienr Solovki monasrery, rhe one rhar Bishop Anrhony had
described ro rhe young Pavel in 1904 ancl now become a clreaded
gulag.
There, in 1934, Fr. Pavel found his final minisrry. The aurhori-
ties squeezed from him rhe lasr drops of scienrific creariviry,
compelling him ro work on rechnical problems of extracring
useful elemenrs from seaweed. Lerrers in rhe mid-1930s speak of
exhausring schedules of rechnical work wherein he neverrheless
rerains a nearly inexringuishable inrellectual curiosiry. In May,
1937, he wrires his morher rhat rhe "deep meaning" of rhis work
is "rhe lesson of unselfishness," hearrbreakingly adding, "bur srill
ir is exhausring."
Bur rhe deeper work of his lasr minisrry was hidden from rhe
eyes of rhe aurhoriries: he served rhe needs of rhe pooresr, mosr
ravaged prisoners. A crucial image survives rhe darkness-Fr.
Pavel saved rhe scraps ofbread from his own meagre meals ancl fed
rhem ro rhe starving ancl dying. Everything had been srripped
away from him-social meaning, digniry, freedom, family, psy-
chological well-being, and physical healrh-excepr rhis irreduc-
ible core of priesrhood in Chrisr: rhis is my body; rake, eat.
For three years at Solovki, Fr. Pavel so endured. Then in rhe
first days of December, 1937, rhcre was delivered at rhe camp
headquarrers a narrow piece of paper folded in half-and found
tlfry ycars larer in the KGB file on fr. Pavel. One half has merely
rhe idenrifying number and namc, "190, Florensky, Pavel Alexan-
In troduction 23
clrovich." Bur on rhe other half are rhe clread words, "Florensky,
Pavel Alexandrovich is ro be shor." The paper's reverse side reads:
Extraer from the minutes of rhe meeting of the Special Triad of the
UNKVD, Leningrad region no. 199, 25 November 1937. Unaminous
decision.
Secrerary ro the Triad:
Lt. G. B. Sorokin, Chief 3rd Div. UNKVD
We now know the names of his killers. The last tem in rhe file is
a brief official statemenr: "The senrence of rhe Special Triad of
rhe UNKVD concerning Florensky, Pavel Alexandrovich was
carriecl out 8 Oecember 1937." Ir is signecl by rhe UNKVD
Commandanr of rhe Leningrad region, Lr. Polikarpov. The mode
of execurion was undoubtedly rhat favored by rhe OGPU in rhe
1930s: a single shor in rhe back of rhe head; and Fr. Pavel was
probably kneeling. His body was never recovered. Ir was most
likely (along wirh hundreds of orhers) rhrown off rhe Solovki
cliffs inro rhe freezing White Sea.
One final image comes clown to us from a Solovki survivor.
When, on December 8, Fr. Pavel's body was being carried rhrough
rhe camp ro the prison gates, hundreds of prisoners risked rhe rage
of rheir caprors ro kneel as rheir spiritual farher passed by. Ten
monrhs earlier, on February 13, Fr. Pavel had written in one ofhis
last lerrers an extraordinary paragraph:
The destiny of grearness is suffering, both from rhe externa! world and
from one's own inner world. This always was, is, and will be so. Why iris
so is clear: ir is always ro be one step behind-sociery behind its social
greamess, and oneselfbehind one's own personal greamess. This is clear;
and rhe world is constitured in this way: one can give ro rhe world only by
paying for one's giving in suffering and persecurion. The more selfless rhe
giving, the severer the persecution and the harsher the suffering.
By deliberare! y in Christ stepping back from manifesring grearness,
a person and a sociery enrer inro suffering-and rhereby inro rhe
only conclirion wherein one may rruly give ro rhe world not one's
"grearness" (i.e., one's vainglorious fanrasy) bur one's only rrue
24 PAVEL. F!ORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
gift: oneself. The prisoners kneeling in the Solovki yard knew that
Fr. Pavel had wholly given them the supreme gift of himself. And
because one rruly possesses only what one wholly gives away, Fr.
Pavel had, in turn, been given back in Christ the very self he had
surrendered, now purified and radiant. As ifbefore the very Cross
itself, the Solovki prisoners on December 8, 1937 knelt in the
presence of this accomplished Mystery.
For a half cenrury, rhe Soviet regime lied first abour the fact
and then about the date of his dearh. For six years, his family were
told merely that they could no longer correspond with an incorri-
gible. Then early in 1944, his wife was informed that her husband
had died on December 15, 1943-just the bare fact, wirh no
explanation. By then, of course, Russian social realiry had drasti-
cally changed, for the armies of the Nazi destroyers were now on
Russian soil. In rhis new conrext of a noble war of patrioric
defense, one prisoner's death was merely an unfortunate incidenr
in a dark but heroic time-and not (as ir was in 1937) a vicious
murder deliberarely committed ro perpetuare a systemic policy of
vasr evil. In 1937 in fact, tens of rhousands of ecclesiasrical and
academic persons were so murdered; and rhe final figure for all
state polirical murders in rhe dozen years prior ro rhe German
invasion may well run ro seven million. Ir is rhis monsrrous fact
thar the Soviet aurhorities in the late 1930s soughr ro hide, and,
unril 1992, were successful in hiding. Bur, srrangely, rhe KGB
kept scrupulous files derailing every ourrage rhey commirred,
clown ro rhe leasr lie and most graruirous acr of violence. Ir was as
if the mere logic and rore discipline of record keeping could
somehow creare a comprehensible and therefore acceptable realiry
where, in fact, only demonic darkness reigned.
On M ay 5, 1958, rhe municipal courr of the ciry of Moscow
exonerated Fr. Pavel of all charges, fulfilling Gudulianov's 1933
predicrion thar rhe "pure fiction" ofhis restimony would "collapse
like a house of cards."
1 ntroduction
25
Today, his grandson Pavel is a monk in Moscow's Danielov
monastery, helping fulfi ll his grandfather's penirenrial "return ro
rhe priesthood." As T.S. Eliot wrote in The Four Quartets, "The
communication of the dead is rongued with fire beyond the
language of the living."
II
A powerful meaning ammg from Fr. Pavel's life informs the
essenrial meaning of his book lconostasis. We can approach rhe
meaning rhis way: a life in God resembles an icon in rhar borh are
creared not by rheir material causes in emprica! hisrory bur by
rheir final causes in sacred realiry. In this sense, we may say rhar a
life in God is 'fronr-loaded,' rhat is, ir rakes irs shape from rhe
teleological end-poinr roward which rhe whole life is moving and
within which (when ir arrives rhere) the life will reveal irs long
hidden but always dererminative purposiveness. The end-point of
Fr. Pavel's life reveals rhe shaping purposiveness mosr plainly in
his feeding rhe bread of his own scant meals ro his srarving
fellow-prisoners. Ar rhis end-poinr, everything has been stripped
mercilessly from him, and rhere is norhing he can any longer do,
or even say; he musr now simply and only be. And in rhis simplic-
ity of being, he reveals who he rruly is in Christ. Just so, rhe icon
in Fr. Pavel's undersranding is 'fronr-loaded' from final cause:
such is rhe guiding principie of lconostasis.
From this principie, rhe book uniquely seeks ro do rwo rhings
simulraneously: ro comprehend iconography in and through irs
final cause in rhe vision of God; and ro situare the icon in borh its
material and its historie dimensions in the light of this final cause.
Now, whi le rhese rwo aims have long independent histories, rhey
havc never been envisioned as achievable simultaneously-and
for undersrandable reasons. As ro the first, the cenruries of wrir-
ings by the Orrhodox sainrs, fathers, and iconographers have
bcautifully shed lighr on rhe spiritual economia of rhe icon; while
26
PAVE! I"LORENSKY: ICONOSTAS!S
as ro rhe second, rhe lasr cenrury or so of work by arr historians of
rhe West has described something of the icon's historie and tech-
nical processes. In arrempting borh ar once, Iconostasis runs rhe
double risk of, on the one hand, offending rraditional piety by
dragging in rhe 'world,' and, on rhe orher, seeming quite incom-
prehensible ro Western assumprions abour rhe causes of history
and rhe significance of arrisric marerials. As Fr. Pavel himselffor so
long did nor 'fir in,' so Iconostasis faces rhe same challenge.
Irs great success in meeting rhis challenge arises from three
relared areas. The first is prose sryle. In rhis final work of rheology,
Fr. Pavel brings ro perfecrion his well known (nor ro say, norori-
ous) prose style, one characrerized by exccedingly compli cared
synrax and densely complex connecrions, borh conceptual and
verbal. He himself knew full wcll rhe problems his prose pre-
sentcd. Roben Slesinski quores a 1906 lerrer in which rhe young
Pavel wrore rhar, in rhe painful rejecrion of his prose because ir
does not 'fir in' anywhere ("for one ir is too scholarly, for anorher
roo much 'in rhe new sryle'; for one iris roo marhemarical and so
forrh, ro anorher rhe mysrical and rheological elemenrs are loarh-
some"), he neverrheless sees "an acknowledgmenr rhar coincides
wirh my secret desires":
1 cannor please anyone, and ro change thar method, which forme seems
ro be my presenr path (rhe invesrigarion of conceprs and rhe synrhesis
of hererogeneous marerials), 1 cannot do in conscience.
This 1906 parh of conceptual synrhesis lcads srraight inro the
1922 rext of lconostasis: and rhere finds irs full flowering. For a
senrence in 1922 serves always rhe high and wholly conscious
spirirual end of affirming rhe full realiry of final cause in God.
Thus, as an issue of deepesr "conscience," rhe dynamic srruc-
rure of a senrence is never for Fr. Pavel a superficial marrer;
insread, rhe morions of rhinking rhe spaces of rhoughr musr
always perfecrly fir rhe rhyrhms of rhe senrence. We, in turn, are
always being challenged ro fir cach senrence inro a region of ideas
lntroduction 27
we may not be ar all used ro inhabiring but which, once we do,
will be seen ro shine wirh an exrraordinary deprh of lighr. In
realizing rhe "secrer desires" of 1906, rhe prose sryle of lconostasis
achieves a grear end.
The second area of the work's success les in irs subjecr. In
aniculating the final cause of iconography, lconostasis can concen-
trare on rhe icon's spirirual focticity-and so avoid the risks of his
earlier, longer work, The Pillar and Foundation ofTruth, where rhe
subjecr is spirirual ideation. The icon's irreducible facticiry gives
Fr. Pavel an unshakable foundat ion upon which ro erecta brearh-
raking structure of revelations-and, as al! good foundarions do,
ro 'rrue' rhe structure al! rhe way up. Thus, Iconostasis can show
how final cause acrs so powerfully in rhe icon that ir transfigures
inro sacred realiry even rhe leasr of rhe icon's material causes.
Board, glue, gesso, gold leaf, painrs, as well as rhe rechniques of
brushwork and gilding, participare in rhe plenum of infinire
being endowed by and in final cause. Onhodox iconography has
always known rhis hallowing of rradirional materials and rech-
niques; whar lconostasis uniquely shows is rhe ground of rhis
hallowing.
Bur sryle and subjecr are finally ancillary ro rhe rhird area of
rhe book's success: irs spirirual inregriry. This inregrity of !conosta-
sis can be perhaps besr approached by a crucialline in Psalm 78:
For rhey provoked Him ro anger wirh rheir high places, and moved
llim ro jealousy wirh rheir graven images.
This cchoes, in part, rhe powerful line from Deureronomy: "For
rhe Lord rhy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God" (4:24). Why
is God jealous; rhar is, why is jealousy an essenrial, indeed defini-
rive ami bu re of God? To be su re, rhe Hebrew verb kanna carries
rhe meaning of being zealous as well as being jealous; but rhe
explicir currenrs of angcr in both meanings leave rhe puzzle
unsolved. How is God's violenr jealousy a mode of His divine
grace?
28 l'AVH ILORf.NSKY: ICONOSTASIS
In The Pillar and Foundation of Truth, Fr. Pavel addresses rhis
question wirh powerful insighr: jealousy is rhe concrerizing force
of !ove. Thar is, rhe jealous God !oves this people, nor anorher; this
man or this woman or this child, not thar one. Furrher, God's !ove
is absolurely disrinct from desire in rhe same way rrue praise shares
norhing at alt wirh flarrery. Desire and flarrery seek ro appropriare
rhe orher person ro one's own uses, while !ove and praise confer
irreducible personhood on rhe orher at rhe very instant rhey
esrablish absolure relarion berween self and orher. The force rhar
drives divine love and praise is, says Fr. Pavel, jealousy, for it alone
is dynamicalty specific enough ro overcome isolarion and establish
vital relation. Roben Slesinski concludes his fine discussion of rhis
imporranr point by saying, "In sum, jealousy is anyrhing but
egoistic; ir is rarher rhe rrue pledge of !ove."
Now, rhe spirirual inregrity of Iconostasis is besr comprehended
as a jealous !ove of rhe icon. For rhe !ove shining in rhe book's
every senrence acrs ro manifest rhe onrological fullness of both
icon and beholder. This mutual fullness simulraneously includes,
for borh, rhe specificalty historie and rhe infinirely spiritual (i.e.,
material and final causes), a fullness rhar affirms rhar borh icon
and beholder owe rheir inrense aliveness ro rhe same immense
Love. And in rhe face of rhis Love, no leasr shadow of falsehood is
even remorely tolerable: "l hare every false way, " says rhe Psalmisr
(119:104). And from rhis Love arises rhe spirirual inregrity of
Iconostasis. Herein lies irs triumph.
! ! ! !
In translaring !conostasis we have had one overarching aim:
inreltigibiliry. We have felt rhar rhe work's difficulries are ulrimately
spiritual in nature, nor linguisric. Hence, we have soughr ro pro-
duce a verbal surface in English rhar, while inrellecrually challeng-
ing in ways resembling rhe original Russian, would neverrheless
T
lntroduction
29
permir access inro rhe work's real challenge: comprehending rhe
icon-hence, the world-in rhe fullness of spirirual inregrity.
Thar exrraordinary period called rhe Russian Renaissance or
Silver Age (roughly, 1905 ro 1922) awairs irs rrue historian. The
narrarive rask is formidable, for ir demands connecring arr, cul-
ture, polirics, and religion wirh scholarly exactness and inrellec-
rual courage-qualiries rarely found rogerher. Our belief as
rranslarors of Iconostasis is rhat when rhis great hisrory finally
comes ro be written, Fr. Pavel Florensky's li fe and work will be
seen as essenrial ro borh rhe tale rhat is rold and rhe true way to
rell ir. In being so, his work and his life will, like rhe icon, help
renew rhe spirituallife of Russia and rhe world.
Bibliographica1 Note
Much of che biographical material in chis inrroduccion is drawn primarily from one
sourcc: Sobrnnie sochrnemi/Pavel Flormskir, vol. l; pod obshchei redalmiei N.A. Srruvc
(YMCA Press: Paris. 1985). Also Roben Slesinski's splendid Pavel florensky: A Meta-
physics ofLove (St. Vladimir\ Press: Crcsrwood, NY, 1984) provided addicional marcri-
als. Also. Aleksandr l. Solzhcnirsyn's The Culag Archipelogo 111-IV. crans. Thomas P.
Whimey (Harper and Row: New York, 1975) conrains a bricf ycr powerful discussion
ofl'lorcnsky-as well as, of course, an exrensive and tccronically powerful descriprion of
rhc Soviet gulogs. Also, sorne information, and a fcw phrascs, as wcll as che opcning
scnrenccs from Sa!t of the Earth, are raken from Richard Bem' cranslacion of char work,
publishcd hy rhe St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood (Piarina CA, 1987). Finally,
information abour Horensky's arrcst and dcach is drawn from an anide in rhe maguine
Ogoniok (Moscow, Novembcr 1990). "'The Destiny of Creacness," by Vi cal y Shentalin-
sky. as well as from convcrsanons wirh Fr. Roben Slcsinski, Sergei Khorujy. and George
Kline in Julv 1992. at a confcrcncc <H Danmouch Collcgc cmided "Thc Rcncwal of
Russian Spiritual Lifc."
f
11

J
lntroduction: The Spiritual Structure of Dreams
I
n the beginning of Genesis-"God crea red the heavens and the
earrh"-we have always recognized as basic this division of all
creation into two. J ust so, when wc pray the Apostles' Creed, we
name Godas "Maker of all rhings visible and invisible." These rwo
worlds-the visible and rhe invisible-are incimately connected,
bu "('(he ir reciproca! differences are so immense that the inescapable
question arises: what is their boundary? Their
them; yet, simultaneously, it joins them. How do we understand
rhis boundary?
Here, as in any difficult metaphysical question, the best start-
ing point always is what we already know in ourselves. The life of
our own psyche, yes our own soul's liJe, is rhe truest basis upon
which we may learn about this boundary berween rhe rwo worlds.
For within ourselves, life in the visible worlcl alternares with life in
the invisible, and rhus we experience brief,
sometimes extraordmariy tleeting, sometimes even the tiniest
atom of rime-when the rwo worlds grow so very near in us that
we can see their intimare touching. At such fleering momentsl
us, the veil of visibiliry is toro apart, and through rhat rear-that
break we are still conscious of at rhat moment-we can sense that
world (still unearrhly, srill invisible)..is breath.i;g....aocl
rhat both this and another world ase inro each other.
Our life 10 such moments becomes an unceasing stream in te
same way that air when warmed srreams upward from the heat.
33
)
1
34
I'AVI L II.ORFNSI\.l': ICONOSTASIS
Dream: rhis is our first and simplcsr (in rhe sense rhar we are
fully habiruared ro ir) entry inro rhe invisible world. This entry is,
more ofren rhan nor, rhe lowesr. Yer even rhe mosr chaoric and
crude dream leads our soul inro rhe invisible, giving even ro rhe
leasr sensitive of us rhe insighr rhar rhere is somerhing in us very
differem from what we uniquely calllife. And we know this, roo:
when we stand on rhe rhreshold berween sleep and waking, when
we stand ar rhe boundary berween rhe rwo worlds, our soul is
engulfed wirh dreams.
We need not prove rhe point. Long ago ir was shown that our
deepesr sleep-whar we call sleep irself-is wholly wirhour
dreaming. Ir is only when wc sleep lighrly ar rhe boundary be-
rwecn sleep and waking rhat we are in rhe rime-more preciscly,
in rhe temporal environment-wherc dream images are born. One
undersranding (and ir is almosr righr) says rhat dream images
correspond ro rhe immediare passage from one area of psychic
acriviry ro another. And as we begin ro awaken, we begin ro
rranspose rhese dream imagcs inro daylighr consciousness where
rhcy can unfold in rhe temporal sequcnce of our visible world.
Bur, raken in rhemselvcs, rhese drcam images have a unique,
incomparable rime, a rime rhar cannor be mcasured in rhe terms
of rhe visible world, a "rranscendcnral" rime. Ler us rccall a brief
proa f.
"The sleep was brief bur rhc dream was long": such is rhe
simple formula of dream images. We al! know rhis. We sleep for,
say, a brief few minutcs-yer in rhose few minutes, we pass
rhrough days, months, even years, somerimcs even cemuries and
millennia. There can be no doubr wharcver abour rhis: sleeping is
scaled off from rhe visible world. Thus, a dreamer passes inro
.morher sysrem, anorher dimension, anorher measure wherein
rime is undersrood and experienced in ways complerely unlike rhe
ways of rime in rhe visible world. In rhis ncw experience of rime,
lntroduction: The Spirituaf Structure of Dreams
35
rhe dreamer's rime, compared ro rime in rhe visible world, runs ar
infinire speed.
Many would agree, rhen, evcn wirh knowing norhing whar-
ever about rhe principie of relariviry, rhar in differem dimensions
rhere is different rime and ir moves in differenr speeds and differ-
enr measures. Few have sufficienrly considered, however, rhe infi-
nire speed of rhe dream-time, rhe rime rhar rurns inside out, rhe
time rhat flows backward. For, indeed, very long sequences of
visible time can, in rhe dream, be wholly insranraneous-and can
flow from furure ro pasr, from effecrs ro causes. This happens in ')
our dreams precisely when we are moving from rhe visible world
ro rhe invisible, berween rhe act ual and rhe imaginary.
The firsr undersranding of insranraneous rime was advanced
by Baron Carl Duprel. A young man ar rhe rime, he rook rhe firsr
imporranr sreps in rhe righr direcrion, rhe mosr subsranrial srep
being rhe arricularion of rhe foct of ir. Bur rhe even more substan-
cial discovery-rhat rime flows backwards as well as forwards-he
failed ro make. He approached rhis discovery; bur he grew always
more and more uncerrain; he finally did not comprehend rhe
invisible rhar !ay befare him.
We can schemarize our undersranding of dreams rhis way. We
all know the dreams-we have had rhem rimes beyond all counr-
ing (rhough we have never reflecred upon rhem deeply
enough)-when some tiny externa! srimulus causes rhe dreams. A
sharp noise, or orher sound, a loudly spoken word, a blanker rhar
has slipped away, a sudden odor, a ray of lighr, and so on:
anyrhing wharever can provoke a sequence of dream images. Ir
mighr be wise, rhen, ro recognize rhar all dreams are exrernally
caused. Bur ro rhis recognirion (or asserrion) we rarely compare
rhe composirion of rhe actual dream. Mosr ofren, we do nor even
arrend ro rhe dream's conrenr, lerring our inarrenriveness be fed by
rhe opinion rhar dreams are empry and unworrhy of considera-
ran and rhoughr. Bur even rhe mosr "occasional" of dreams is, in
36
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
fact, construcred on quite differenr lines. Ler us look at such a
construcnon.
We dream (ler us say) a sequence of persons, places and evenrs
whose causal linkages reside nor in sorne 'deep comprehension' of
rhose persons, places and evenrs bur, insread, are found in rhe
emprica! surfaces of rhe dream. We plainly understand, in rhe
dream, how one evenr causes another, and how (possibly quite
absurdly) rwo or more evenrs are connecred because rhe firsr one
is causing rhe nexr ones ro occur; moreover, as rhe dream unfolds
for us, we see plainly how the whole chain of causation is leading
roward sorne conclusive evenr, sorne denouement ro rhe dream's
enrire sysrem of cause-effect. Ler us call rhis conclusive evenr X;
and ler us say, roo, rhat X occurred beca use of sorne previous evenr
T, which, in turn, was caused by S, whose cause was R, and so on:
going from effecr ro cause, from larrer ro prior, from presenr ro
pasr, unril we arrive ar rhe dream's srarring poinr, sorne usually
quite insignificanr, even meaningless evenr A: and iris rhis evenr
A rhar is undersrood in the dream as rhe firsr cause of rhe enrire
sysrem. Bur whar abour rhe riny externa! srimulus, rhe quick sharp
noise, rhe brief ray of lighr? To waking consciousness, rhis externa!
srimulus is rhe cause of rhe whole composirion: rhe cause, rhar is,
of rhe whole causally inrerlocked sysrem in which persons, places
and evenrs arose in rhe dream. Ler us call rhis externa! cause O.
Now, whar makes rhe dreamer awaken? When we look ar rhis
quesrion from rhe viewpoinr of waking consciousness, we mighr
wanr ro say rhar ir is O (rhe noise or rhe lighr) rhar awakens us.
From wirhin rhe dream, however, ir is plainly rhe conclusive
dream evenr X-rhe denouement- rhat, precisely because ir ends
rhe dream, awakens us. Taken rogerher, we can see rhar O and X
almost perfecrly coincide in such a way rhar rhe dreamed-content
and rhe wakened-cause are one and rhe same. This coincidence is
usually so exacr rhar we never even wonder abour rhe relarion ofX
......
lntroduction: The SpirituaL Structure of Dreams 37
and 0: rhe denouement is unquesrionably a 'dream-paraphrase' of
sorne externa! srimulus invading our dream from wirhour.
For example, 1 dream rhar a pisrol shor goes off, and in rhe
room near me someone is really shor, or somebody has slammed
a door. So rhere is no doubr rhar rhe dream was accidental; of
course rhe pisto! shor in rhe dream is a spiritual echo of a shot in
rhe outer world. The rwo shors are, if you wish, rhe double
perception-by rhe dreaming ear and by rhe sober ear-of one
and rhe same physical process. lf in a dream 1 should see a
mulrirude of fragrant flowers at rhe very moment someone puts a
borde of perfume under my nose, then once more it would be
wholly unnatural ro rhink thar rhe coincidence of rhe rwo fra-
grances (the flowers' fragrance in the dream and rhe perfume's in
the world) is accidental. Or 1 dream that someone falls upon me
and begins ro strangle me, and I awake in terror ro find that a
pillow has fallen on my chest. Or I dream I am attacked by a dog,
and I awake the find rhat a mosquito has birren me. There are
uncountable rhousands of such instances; in all of them, rhe
coincidence of X and 0-of, again, rhe dream's denouement and
irs externa! cause-is under no circumsrances an accidental coin-
cidence.
But note whar we are saying: rhe same evenr is being di ffer-
enrly seen by rwo consciousness: by waking consciousness, iris O,
whi le by dream consciousness, ir is X. This would scarcely be
worrh our notice at all exccpt for the exrraordinary fact that X has
a contradicrory double s t a t C ~ s in waking consciousness, ir is a
dream effect of externa! cause O while, in the dream, it is rhe final
effect of the dream's srrongly welded causal chain begun by trivial
evenr A. Thus, X concludes rwo entirely distinct lines of causa-
tion, lines whose respective starring poinrs (the externa! noise and
dream evenr A) have no connecrion wharever: plainly, O cannor in
any sense cause A ro occur. Bur we can say that if A and all its
chain of circumsrances did not exist, then the whole dream would
38
l'AVEL ILORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
nor occur, and consequenrly rhere would be no X-which means
rhar O did nor reach our consciousness.
Thus, while X is a reAecrion ofO in rhe imagery of rhe dream,
ir is clearly not sorne deus ex machina wirh no connection ro rhe
dream's logic of evenrs, sorne alien inrruder who senselessly termi-
nares rhe srream of inner imagery. No, X is a rrue denouement: ir
genuinely concludes rhe dream. In dreams, evenrs do not happen
rhe way people who are insensirive ro God's providence rhink rhey
happen, as rhe rrain crash or rhe pisrol shor terminares rhe prom-
ising life. In dreams, everyrhing happens as in a perfecr drama,
and the denouement comes because all rhe prior evems of rhe
dream have fully ripened and because ir rherefore fulfills and
unifies rhe dream's enrire drama and mcaning. The dream denoue-
ment is rherefore nor sorne indcpendenr evenr glued from rhe
ourside onro rhc dream's causal chain; in sorne unfarhomable way,
ir never inrerruprs the dream's logic and shape and whole parrern
of inrerlocked derails. A dream is unquesrionably a complete
rrurh, a self-enclosed coherence, in which rhe denouement is pre-
derermined from rhe very srarr in such a way rhar we may say rhat
the end determines borh rhe beginning and everything rhar occurs
berween rhe beginning and rhe end. A dream, in orher words, is
wholly coherenr; ir cannot be sundered anywhere wirhout de-
stroying it enrirely. Justas is always the case with the well-written
play, where a plor wirhout irs conclusive conscquences lacks al!
significance, so we may say that rhe composirion of the dream is
teleological: irs events occur because of irs denouement, in such a
way rhar rhe denouement will nor be lefr hanging in rhe air bur
will, insrcad, exhibir deep programmaric rarionaliry.
Ler us look ar sorne dreams. Here are rhose drcams rhar srem
fiom the same externa! srimulus, rhe ringing of an alarm dock
(rhese are Gilderbrand's observarions).
lntroduction: The SpirituaL Structure of Dreams 39
l.
lr's a spring morning and l'm going for a walk rhrough green
meadows, and l come ro rhe neighboring village. I see rhe villagers
dressed in Sunday clorhes, carrying rheir prayerbooks, a big crowd
of rhem all heading for rhe church. Today is Sunday and Divine
Lirurgy will soon begin. l decide ro go ro Lirurgy bur l'm a bit
warm from walking, so 1 decide firsr ro rest in the cemerery next
ro rhe church. l starr ro read rhe epitaphs, and rhen 1 norice rhe
bell ringer srart ro go u p rhe bell rower. The bell musr be rung ro
srart rhe service, bur ir srill hangs unmoving. Then rhe bell begins
ro sway and suddenly ir peals out in loud, piercing sounds-so
piercing, in fact, rhar 1 awake ro find rhar rhe piercing sound is m y
alarm dock ringing.
2.
lr's a clear wimer day, and rhe srreers are covered wirh snow.
I've promised ro go on a sleigh ride, bur 1 have ro wair a long rime.
Then l'm rold rhar rhe sleigh is ready at rhe gate. 1 make ready to
leave-1 put on my heavy fur coar; a footbag is raken our-and at
last I sir clown in the sleigh. Bur rhere's more waiting now, unril
final ly the impatienr horses are given the reins. The sleigh bells on
rhe reins starr rrembling wirh rheir famous "yanichar" music; rhey
ring out louder and ever more vigorously-unril the dream tears
open and I find rhar rhe srrong sound of sleigh bells is my alarm
dock ringing.
3.
I see rhe kirchen maid going clown the hallway ro rhe dining
room, and she's carrying a stack of rwo or three dozen porcelain
piares. 1 sense rhar rhe stack is ripping out of her hands. "Warch
out," I cry. "The whole load will fall." She argues back-inevira-
bly. "Ir's not rhe first time I've carried piares, you know. I'm used
ro ir." But I'm keeping an anxious eye on her as she goes ro the
dining room. On the threshold she rrips, and all the dishes fall
from her hands, cracking and ringing out in hundreds of Aying
40
PAVEL I'LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
pieces. Bur rhe sound keeps on, and ir's nor rhe dishes crashing
bur rhe sound-I'm now awake-of my alarm dock ringing.
Ler us rake one more example, a famous one in rhe psychology
rexrs. In rhis one, rhe dreamer experiences rhe French Revolurion,
parriciparing in rhe very beginnings of rhe Revolurion and-for
over a year inside rhe dream-goes rhrough a long, complicared
series of advenrures: persecurion, pursuir, terror, rhe execurion of
rhe King, and so on. Finally, rhe dreamer is arresred wirh rhe
Girondisrs, rhrown inro prison, inrerrogared, and rhen condemned
by rhe Revolurionary Council ro die. The wagon rolls rhrough rhe
srreers ro rhe guillotine, and he is raken from rhe wagon and his
head is flrmly placed on rhe headresr, and rhen rhe guillotine blade
falls heavily onro his neck: and he awakens in horror.
Ir is rhe final evenr rhar inreresrs us: rhe rouch of rhe blade on
his neck. Can anyone doubr rhis: rhar rhe whole dream sequence,
from rhe first srirrings of Revolurion ro rhe conclusive fall of rhe
guillotine blade, is one seamless whole? Doesn'r rhe enrire chain
direcr irself precisely ro rhar conclusive evenr (rouch of cold sreel)
rhar we termed X? To doubr rhis toral, inrerlocked coherence is ro
deny rhe very dream irself.-an improbable supposirion.
And yer rhe dreamer found, in rhe momenr of his rerrified
awakening, rhar rhe mera! bedsread of his bed had somehow
broken and had heavily srruck his bare neck. We cannor doubr rhe
coherenr wholeness of his dream, a coherence rhar srarrs from rhe
Revolurion's firsr srirrings (A) and concludes wirh rhe guillotine
blade falling (X). Equally, we cannor doubr rhar rhe sensarion of
rhe blade (X) and rhe rouch of bedsread mera! (O) are rhe very
same event: bur perceived by rwo disrinct orders of consciousness,
dream and wakened.
None of rhis would, I repear, be ar all exrraordinary if rhe
rouch of rhe bedsread (O) had awakened rhe sleeper and, in rhe
insranr of rhis awakening, rhe rouch had been enfolded by rhe
symbolic image of rhe rouch, and if rhis symbolic image (ampli-
lntroduction: The Spiritual Structure of Dreams
41
fled by rhemaric associarions wirh rhe French Revolurion) had
unfolded inro a dream of sufficienr lengrh. Bur in actual facr rhis
drearn, as wirh coundess orhers of rhe same rype, flows reversely
ro whar we expecr when we rhink in rhe Kanrian sense of rime.
We say rhar the externa! cause (0) of rhe dream (which is a single,
coherenr unir) is the rouch of rhe bedsread on rhe dreamer's neck,
and that rhis rouch is symbolized by rhe image of rhe guillotine
blade's rouch (X). Hence, rhe spirirual cause of rhe whole dream is
rhis evenr X. Thus, in daylighr consciousness and according ro rhe
scherne of daylighr causaran, rhis evenr musr precede A, which
spiritually flows from rhis evenr X. In orher words, in rhe rime of
rhe daylighr world, evenr X should be rhe srart of rhe dream's
drama and evenr A irs denouement. Bur here, in rhe rime of rhe
invisible world, ir happens inside out, and cause X appears nor
prior ro all rhe consequences of A and (in general) nor prior ro rhe
entire series of consequences (b, e, d ... r, s, r) but following rhem,
concluding rhe whole row and derermining ir nor as irs efficienr
cause bur irs final cause: TAOS.
Thus, time in rhe dream runs, and acceleraredly runs, rowards
rhe actual and against rhe movemenr of rime in waking conscious-
ness. Oream rime is turned inside out, which means rhar all irs
concrete images are also rurned inside out wirh ir: and rhar means
we have enrered rhe domain of imaginary space. The very same
evenr rhar is perceived from rhe area of actual space as actual is
seen from rhe arca of imaginary space as imaginary, i.e., as occur-
ring befare everyrhing clse in releological rime, as rhe goal or
objecr of our purposiveness. Conrrarily, rhe goal seen from here
appears (in our failure ro appreciare goals righrly) as somerhing
cherished bur lacking rhe energy of rhe ideal; bur seen from there,
rhrough rhe orher consciousness, rhe goal is comprehended as
living energy rhar shapes acrualiry as irs crearive form. So, in
general, runs rhe inner rime of organic life, rhe flow of which is
diverred from consequences ro cause-goal. Bur usually rhis inner
rime only very dimly reaches our waking consciousness.
42
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
A person I knew very well once dreamed (afrer rhe dearh of
close relarives) rhat he was walking along a cemerery, and che
orher world seemed ro him dark and gloomy. Bur all at once rhe
deceased in the cemetery--or perhaps he himself somehow un-
dersrood (1 don't remember how)-explained ro him how very
wrong such a rhought was; for, directly benearh rhe surface of rhe
earrh, foliage was growing but wirh its roots up, not clown, so that
rhe same green and succulent foliage and grass were rhere, justas
in rhe cemetery-bur even more green and succulenr; and rhe
same crees were rhere, and rheir great crowns grew clown and their
roors reached up, and rhe same birds sang in the same azure sky
where rhe same sun shone-all of ir more radiandy beauriful than
in our world on chis side.
Don't we recognize in rhis reverse world, in rhis onrological
mirror reflection of our world, rhe sphere of rhe imaginary, an
imaginary which is neverrheless actual for one who is oneself
rurned upside clown, who reaches inro rhe world's spirirual den-
siry-an imaginary rruly real in rhe way one is oneself real? Yes,
this realm is real in essence-and not in a way complerely differ-
ent from the reality of our world, for wharever God creares is
blessed inro uniry; rarher whar rhe journeyer ro rhe orher side sees
and what rhe deceased also contemplares is rhe same existence as
here. The rrue counrenances and spirirual forms of rhings are seen
by one who has himself realized his own true, original counte-
nance, thar counrenance which is rhe image of God (and the
Greek for which is LOa); for rhe ideas of rhe Existing One see,
having been themselves illumined by rhe Idea, and rhereby in and
rhrough rhemselves rhey reveal ro our world here rhe ideas of the
supreme world.
And so dreams are rhe images rhar separare rhe visible world
from rhe invisible-and at the same rime join rhem. This bound-
ary-space of rhe dream establishes rhe relarionship of rhe dream
images ro rhis world as well as ro thatworld. From rhe perspective
J. .J.
-t.
lntroduction: The Spirituaf Structure of Dreams
43
of che visible world and irs ordinary images (i.e., what we call
'acrualiry'), a dream is 'mere! y a dream,' noching-nihil visible, yes
nihil, bur visible norhing, visible and perceptible and rherefore
always approaching che images of this 'acrualiry.' Bur rime in rhe
dream-i.e. its mosr general characrerisric-runs reversely ro rime
in rhe visible world. And rherefore alrhough ir is something
perceived, che dream is wholly releological, sarurared with rhe
meanings of rhe invisible world, meanings rhat are invisible,
immaterial, eterna! yer neverrheless visibly manifest and (as ir
were) vividly material. A dream is therefore pure meaning
wrapped in the rhinnest membrane of marerialiry; ir is almosr
wholly _a -phenom.enon of che other world. The dream is rhe
common limir of bth rhe sequence of earrhly srares and rhe
sequence of heavenly srates, che boundary where rhe final derer-
minarions of earrh meet che increasing densificarions of heaven.
The dream makes inro symbols chis meeting of che lowest experi-
ences of rhe highest world with che highest experiences of rhe
lowest world; thus, che dream is che last splashes of che higher
world inro rhe lower-alrhough che perceptible patterns of rhese
heavenly splashes are prederermined by our earrhly circumstances.
For rhis reason, rhe kind and qualiry of our dreaming changes
rhrough a nighr of sleeping. Early on, our dreams are primarily
psycho-physiological in kind, garhering imagery from everyday
waking experience (usually immediare); larer on, and especially
roward dawn, our dreams are cleansed of such emprica! obses-
sions and, filled wirh nighr-consciousness, grow ever more mysri-
cally purified.
A dream, rhen, is a sign of a movement berween rwo realms-and
also a symbol: of whar? From rhe heavenly view, rhe dream symbol-
izes earrh; from rhe earrhly perspecrive, ir symbolizes heaven. A
dream rherefore occurs when-simulraneously bur with differing
orders of clariry-borh shores of exisrence are given ro conscious-
ness. We mighr say, rhen, rhar a dream happens whenever we cross
from one shore ro rhe orher: bur ir may be more accurate ro say rhat
1
,.
, 1
44
I'AVEL 1-LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
che dream...happens whenever our consciousness hugs the boundary
ofthe crossing and cherefore suscains che double percepriveness rhar
occurs whenever we eirher lighdy dream or drowsily keep awake.
For rhere is where all significanr dreaming occurs: in rhe lighr
dream or in rhe sudden separation from ordinary waking realiry.
There are, ir is true, orher possible phenomena of rhe invisible
realm. Bur for such phenomena ro occur in us, iris necessary thar
sorne powerful inward shock cake place, sorne essenrial separaran
of oneself from oneself-as if we were ro be plunged inro sorne
rwilighr of consciousness wherein we would wander rhe borders of
che two worlds bur would lack rhe power ro penetrare deeper inro
either one.
Spirtual Sobriety and the Iconic Face
Whar we say about rhe dream holds true (wirh minar changes)
abour any movemenr from one sphere ro anorher.Tn crearinga
work of arr, rhe psyche or soul of rhe arrisr ascends from rhe
earrhly realm inro rhe heavenly; there, free of all images, rhe soul
is fed In conremplafion by rhe essences of rhe highesr realm,
knowing rhe permanenr noumena of rhings; then, sariared wirh
chis knowing, ir descends again ro rhe earrhly realm. And precisely
ar rhe boundary berween rhe rwo worlds, rhe soul's spirirual
knowledge assumes rhe shapes of symbolic imagery: and iris rhese
images rhar make permanenr rhe work of arr. Arr is chus marerial-
ized dream, separared from rhe ordinary consciousness of waking
Ji fe.
In chis separaran, rhere are rwo momenrs rhar yield, in rhe
arrwork, two rypes of imagery: rhe momenr of ascenr inro rhe
heavenly realm, and rhe momenr of descenr inro rhe earrhly
world. Ar rhe crossing of rhe boundary inro rhe upper world, rhe
soul sheds-like ourworn clorhes-rhe images of our everyday
empriness, rhe psychic effluvia rhar cannor find a place above,
rhose elemenrs of our being rhar are noc spirirually grounded. Ar
Spiritual Sobriety and the Iconic Face
45
rhe point of descenr and re-entry, on che orher hand, the images
are experiences of myscicallife crysrallized out on the boundary of
rwo worlds. Thus, an arrist misundersrands (and so causes us to
misundersrand) when he puts inro his arr rhose images that come
ro him during che uprushing of his inspiracion-if, that is, it is
only rhe imagery of rhe soul's ascenr. We need, insread, his early
morning dreams, those dreams rhar carry che coolness of rhe
eterna! azure. The orher imagery is merely psychic raw material,
no matter how powerfully ir affecrs him (and us), no matter how
artistically and tascefully developed in rhe arrwork. Once we
understand chis difference, we can easily disringuish the 'momenr'
of an arrisric image: che descending image, even if incoherently
mocivared in che work, is nevcrrheless abundantly releological;
hence, ir is a crysral of rime in an imagina! space. The image of
ascenr, on the other hand, even ifbursting wirh arristic coherence,
is merely a mechanism construcred in accordance wirh che mo-
menr of irs psychic genesis. When we pass from ordinary realiry
in ro che imagina! space, naturalism generares imaginary portrayals
whose similariry ro everyday life creares an empry image of che
real. The opposire arr-symbolism-born of rhe descenr, incar-
nares in real images che experience of che highest realm; hence, )
chis imagery-which is symbolic a super-realiry.
What is true of art and dream is also rrue of mysrical experience:
a common pattern holds cvcrywhere. In mysrical experience, che
soul is raised up from rhe visible rcalm ro where visi bili ry itself
vanishes and che field of rhe invisible opens: such is rhe Dionysian
sundering of rhe bonds of rhe visible. And after soaring up into rhe
invisible, rhe soul descends again inro rhe visible-and rhen and
rhere, befare its very eyes, are rhose real appearances of rhings:
ideas. This is rhe Apollonian perspecrive on rhe spirirual world.
How rempring ir is ro cal! 'spirirual' rhose images-rhose
soul-confusing, soul-absorbing, soul-consuming dreamings-rhar
firsr appear ro us when our soul finds ics way in ro che orher world.
46
I'AVEI. 1-l.ORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
Such images are, in facr, rhe spirirs of rhe presenr age rhar seek ro
trap our consciousness in their realm. Thcse spirirs inhabir rhe
boundary berween rhe worlds; and rhough rhey are earrhly in
nature, rhey rake on rhe appearances of rhe spirirual realm. When
we approach rhe limirs of rhe ordinary world, we enrer inro
condirions rhar (like rhe ordinary) are conrinuously new bur rhar
have parrerns which differ enrirely from rhose of ordinary exisr-
ence. Here, rhen, is rhe area of our grearesr spirirual danger: ro
approach rhis boundary while srill willing earrhly arrachmenrs; or
ro approach ir wirhour a spirirual mind-eirher one's own or a
spirirual direcror's; or ro approach ir befare we are, in rhe spiritual
sense, rruly grown-up. Whar happens, ar such an encounrer of rhe
boundary, is rhar rhe seeker is engulfed in les and self-deceprions.
The world rhen ensnares rhe seeker in rhar ner of remprarion in
which-by granting him an apparenr enrry inro rhe spirirual
realm-ir acrually enslaves him ro rhe world. For iris nor at all the
case rhat every spirir guarding rhese poinrs of enrry is a true
Guardian of rhe Threshold, i.e., a good defender of rhe sacred
realms; for a spirir may well be nor a genuine being of rhe higher
realm bur rarher an accomplice of (in rhe Aposrle's phrase) "rhe
prince of rhe power of rhe air"; for such spirirs are rhe ones who
keep rhe soul on rhe boundary of rhe worlds, tangled in the
seducrions of spirirual inroxicarion.
A day of spirirual sobriery, when ir holds our soul in its power,
is so sharply differenr from rhe spirirual real m rhat ir cannot even
prerend ro be seducrive, and irs marerialiry is cxperienced nor only
as a burden bur also as a yoke good for us in rhe way graviry is
good for earrh, a yoke resrricring our movemenrs bur giving us a
fulcrum, a yoke reining in rhe swifrness wirh which our will acrs
in self-dererminarion (for both good and bad) and in general
exrcnding in rhe will irs insranr of rhc eterna!, i.e., rhe will's
angclic self-dererminarion roward rhis side or rhar, an insranr
lasring our whole life and making our carrhy life nor an empry
exisrence passively manifesring evcry possibiliry bur, rarher, rhe
T
1
SpirituaL Sobriety and the lconic Face
47
asceric exercise of aurhenric self-organizarion, rhe art of sculpting
and 'chasing our' our essence. This lor, or fare, or destiny, d.wp-
1-LVT], . .w'Lpa, i.e., rharwhich was decided from above,fotum from
fori-rhis desriny of our simulraneous weakness and srrengrh, rhis
gifr of our divine creariviry, is time-space.
Time-space sobriery on earrh is never seducrive, rhen; ncirher
is rhe angelic realm when rhc soul comes direcrly into conracr
wirh ir. Bur in berween, ar rhe boundary of rhis world, are
concenrrared a11 rhc remprarions and seducrions: rhese are rhe
phantoms rhar Tasso depicrs in dcscribing rhe Enchamed Wood.
If one only possesses rhe spirirual sreadfasrness of will ro go
rhrough rhem, neirher fcarful of nor yielding ro rheir seducrions,
rhen one finds rhar rhey will lose enrircly rheir power over rhc
soul, becoming mere shadows of scnsualiry, empry dreamings of
no value ar al!. Bur if, insread, onc's fairh in God weakens in rhe
midsr of such a spirirual siegc, rhen one looks back ar rhese
phanroms-and in so doing, one pours the realiry of one's own
soul inro rhem. Then rhc phanroms will gain grear power, seizing
rhe soul and sucking from her rhe powcr ro materialize srill more,
rhereby weakening rhe soul inro furrhcr fcar and more yielding. In
such a srare, ir is exrremely difficulr-almost impossible-ro
break rheir grip wirhout rhc imervemion of anorher spiritual
powcr. Such, rhen, are rhe elemental swamps ar rhe boundary of
rhe worlds.
This disasrrous enslavemcnr is called by rhe asceric rradirion
prelest: ir means spirirual pride or conceir, and ir is rhe direst
spirirual srare a person can be in. In commirring any orhcr sin, a
pcrson acrs in such a way rhar he falls inro a relarion wirh rhe
externa) world, wirh irs objecrive properries and laws, wirhin
which he is working againsr rhe sacrcd order of God's crearan,
hirring againsr and srriving ro break ir. Thus, an ordinary sinner
can discover in rhis relarion rhc fulcrum ro change his conscious-
48
PAVEL FI.ORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
ness and bring repenrance (to repent in Greek is flETavoELV, ro
change the rotali ry of consciousness ar rhe deepesr leve! of being).
Prelest, however, is entirely differenr. Here, rhe deluded self
does nor seek superficial sarisfacrion of rhis or rhar passion;
bur-far more dangerously-ir imagines irself ro be moving along
rhe perpendicular ro rhe sensory world, wirhdrawn from ir. Thus
complerely unsarisfied, the self-absorbed soul in prelest is held by
rhe spirirs who inhabir the boundary and who are, rhen, nour-
ished by rhe soul's own troubled, unsarisfied passions-rhar soul
airead y burning wirh rhe fires of Hell. The soul clases inro irself,
and rhen al! occasion is gane wherein rhe soul could-wirh
incense agony-awaken once more inro consciousness: rhe en-
counrer wirh rhe objecrive world of God's creation.
Prelest, of course, brings images rhar srir passions in us . Bur our
real danger lies not in rhe passions bur in our appraisal of rhem.
For we may, if caughr in prelest, rake rhe passions as somerhing
direcdy opposire ro whar rhey really are. Usually, we would see our
sinful passions as a dangerous weakness, rhereby finding rhe hu-
miliry rhat heals us of rhem. In prelest-srirred passions, however,
we see rhem as anained spiritualiry, as sacred energy, salvarion,
and holiness. Thus, where ordinarily we would seek ro break the
grip of our sinful passions-even if our attempts were weak and
furile-in prelest, driven by spiritual conceir, spirirual sensualiry,
and (above al!) spirirual pride, we seek ro righren rhe knots rhat
bind us. An ordinary sinner knows he is falling away from God; a
soul in prelest rhinks ir is drawing ever closer ro Him, and while
angering Him rhinks he is gladdening Him.
Such disasrrous confusion occurs in us because we confuse rhe
images of ascenr wirh rhe images of descenr. We may put rhe
whole matter rhis way: rhe vision that appears ro us on rhe
boundary of rhe worlds m ay be eirher ( 1) rhe absence of rhe realiry
of rhe visible world; rhar is, an incomprehensible sign of our own
inner emptiness, our own prelest-impassioned banishing of God's
T
1
Spiritual Sobriety and the Iconic Face 49
objecrive realiry; and rhen, inhabiring rhe near, empry room of
our soul, we will find rhose masks of realiry rhar are rhe rotal
renunciation of rhe real world; or rhe vision may be (2) rhe
presence of the superior realiry of rhe spiritual world.
In this sense, rhen, asceric self-purificarion also has for us the
same double significance. When spiritual nearness becomes an
end in irself, then Pharisaic self-consciousness arises and, inevita-
bly, self-admirarion. In such asceticism, rhe soul becomes empry
and, freeing irself from al! earthly anachments, grows still emp-
tier; rhen, finding this growing empriness ever more intolerable,
one's nature invites into rhe emptiness rhose spiritual forces that
prompted rhe whole Pharisaic pracrice of self-purificarion in rhe
first place, rhose greedy, rwisred, and radically impure forces. Our
Savior ralks precisely of such self-centered asceticism in His par-
able about the swept room:
When rhe unclean spirir is gone out of a man, he walketh rhrough dry
places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, 1 will return into
my house from whence 1 carne out; and when he is come, he findeth it
empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself
seven orher spirirs more wicked rhan himself, and rhey enrer in and
dwell there: and che last state of that man is worse rhan che firsr.
(Manhew 12:43-45)
Thus, what was self-consciously inrended issues finally in irs
direct opposire. This occurs because rhe man assures himself and
orhers rhar he himself, in his innermosr heart, is really good-rhat
all his misrakes and transgressions are somehow accidenrs, mere
phenomena and not essentialiries, rhings rhar somehow jusr hap-
pened; and rhat all he spirirually needs ro do is ro tidy up rhe
room a bit. Such a man is wholly desensirized ro his own radically
flawed will, inevirably seeing his actions as arising from outside
God and solely from his own effons; hence, he exhibits the
complacency of spiritual self-sarisfacrion.
But if you conrinually acknowledge your own sinfulness, you
never have the time ro rhink wherher or nor you-in your own
fi
1
50
PAVEl llORII\JSKY: ICONOSlASIS
eyes-are spirirually 'ridied up'; insread, your soul hungers and
rhirsrs for God, trembling in fear ar rhe spiritual carasrrophe of
being wirhour Him; and rhus your one real concern becomes no
longer yourself bur rhar which is rhe mosr objecrive of all: God;
and whar you genuinely now wanr is nor a clean inner room ro
congratulare yourself abour bur-in rears-for God ro visir rhe
room of your soul, rhis cven hasrily picked up place, God who can
wirh a word rransform a riny hur, even a hove], inro a splendid
palace chamber. Wirh rhis direcrion ro your inward life, a vision
will come ro you not when, by your own will, you are arrempring
ro override rhe given boundaries of your spirirual growrh, exceed-
ing rhe measure of whar is open ro you; insread, ir will come
when-mysreriously, incomprehensibly-your soul has been
lifred inro rhe invisible world by rhe very powers of rhar world
irself, and then (like rhe rainbow afrer rhe divine deluge, like "rhe
sign of rhe covenanr") rhe heavenly vision will appear in your
soul, rhe visible image of the highest realm, given ro you as borh
reminder and rhe revelarory 'news' of eterniry and as reacher of
rhe way ro incarnare rhe invisible in rhe daylighr consciousness of
your enrire life. Such a vision is more objecrive rhan rhe objecrivi-
rics of earrh, far weighrier and realer rhan rhey, for ir is rhe
fulcrum of all our earrhly creariviry, rhe crysral wherein-con-
formed ro irs own crysralline laws-is crysrallized our our earrhly
experience, rhereby becoming in irs toral srrucrure a symbol of rhe
spirirual world.
The onrological opposltlon berwcen rhese rwo rypes of vi-
sion-berween rhose arising from our empriness and rhose born
of our fullness-may be besr exprcssed by rhe opposirion berween
rhe words mask (Russian: lichina) and counrenance (lik). Bur
rhere is also rhe word foce (litzo): so ler us begin wirh ir. By foce
(litzo), we mean rhar which we see in ordinary daylighr conscious-
ness, rhar which we see as rhe recognizable appearance of rhe real
world; and we can speak-doing no violence ro ordinary lan-
guage-of all natural rhings and crearions wirh whom we are in
Spiritual Sobriety and the Iconic Face
51
conscious relarion as having a face: as, for example, we speak of
rhe face of narure. Face, we may rhus say, is nearly synonymous
wirh rhe word appearance-mcaning, however, appearance to day-
light consciousness. Bur in saying rhis, we must nor deprive rhe
word foce of all objecrive realiry; rarher, we musr see in foce a
boundary berween subjectivity and objecriviry, a boundary whose
clear disrinction is never given ro our consciousness, a boundary
whose fading away causes in us rhe perceprual circumstance
whcrein we know for cerrain rhat we are perceiving something bur
we do not know whar precisely, in rhe rhing we are seeing, is
objecrively real. In orher words, when we see a foce, we see irs
objecrive realiry only (as ir were) hiddenly, as if ir were organically
absorbing our consciousness and rhereby subconsciously forming
in us rhe basis for a furrher process of knowing. In rhis sense, a foce
is rhe perceprual raw material upon which rhe porrrair-arrisr is
now working bur whose esrheric derails are, ar rhe momenr, srill
unfinished. Once complered, rhe foce becomes (using rhe lan-
guage of lirerary criricism) an arrisric image, a perccprual porrrait
rhar is nor rhe ideal form bur is, insread, onc rhar is simulrane-
ously rypical and relarive.
Thus, rhis perceprual portrair rhat we fashion is, of course, a
quick sketch, one of many possible skerches for depicring rhe face
we are seeing; however, in rhe foce irsclf, our sketch is no more
expressed rhan are al! orher possiblc skerches; and, in rhis sense,
our sketch is somerhing externa! ro rhe foce irself, revealing ar leasr
as much if not more its own artisric self-dcrerminarion, and rhe
arrisr's own cognmve organizaran, as ir does rhe onrological
realiry of rhe foce irse! f.
On rhe orher hand, rhe countenance (lik) of a thing manifesrs
irs onrological realiry. In Genesis, the image ofGod is differenriared
from the likeness ofGod; and long ago, rhe Holy Tradirion of rhe
Church explained rhar rhe image of God musr be undersrood as
rhe onrologically actual gifr of God, as rhe spirirual ground of
52
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
ea eh crea red person; whereas rhe likeness of God must be under-
srood as rhe potentialiry ro arrain spirirual perfecrion: that is, ro
construcr the likeness ofGod in ourselves from that totaliry of our
empirical personalities called the image ofGod, to incarnate in rhe
flesh of our personaliry the hidden inherirance of our sacred
likeness ro God: and ro reveal this incarnarion in our foce (litzo).
Thus, our foce gains rhe precision of a spiritual srructure quite
differenr from our ordinary face; bur rhis difference is, in turn,
quite disrinct from our face asan artistic image or porrrair-not,
however, due ro any motivation of our own (i.e., our face's 'com-
posirion' or 'tone' or 'characrer'); rather, this difference is due ro
the material realiry of our face conforming ro rhe deepest tasks of
irs own essence. Everyrhing accidental, everyrhing caused by
rhings externa! ro rhis essence-i.e., everyrhing in our face which
is not rhe face itself-is swept away by an energy like a srrong
founrain of water breaking rhrough a rhick material husk, rhe
energy of rhe image of God: and our foce {litzo) becomes a
countenance (lik).
We are beholding a counrenance, rhen, whenever we have
before us a face that has fully realized wirhin irself its likeness ro
God: and we then righdy say, He re is rhe image of God, meaning:
Here is depicred rhe prorotype of Him. When we contemplare
rhis holy counrenance, we thus behold rhe divine protorype; for
rhose among us who have rransfigured their faces inro counre-
nances proclaim-wirhour a word and solely by rheir appearance
ro us- rhe mysreries of rhe invisible world. In Greek, we remem-
ber, countenance is called ELOOS' or LOa (i.e., idea), for LOa is
precisely rhe meaning of counrenance: rhe idea of revealed spiri-
rual being, eterna! meaning conremplatively apprehended, rhe
supreme heavenly beaury of a precise realiry, rhe highest proro-
rype, rhe ray from rhe source of all images: such are rhe meanings
of idea in Plato; and from him, rhey spread ro all philosophy and
rheology and even inro rhe popular understanding of rhe word
Spiritual Sobriety and the Iconic Pace
53
'idea'. From al! these meanings we gather and make wholly rrans-
parenr our understanding of countenance.
The absolute opposite of countenance (lik) is mask (lichina).
The firsr meaning of mask may be seen in rhe old word "larve"
(relared ro modern larva), meaning rhat which resembles a face,
being borh presenred and accepted as a face bur which is empry
inside; rhar is, ir has physical marerialiry bur no meraphysical
subsrance. By conrrasr, a countenance is rhe appearance of sorne
realiry and, as such, ir mediares berween our acr of comprehend-
ing and rhat which we comprehend in rhe sense rhat ir opens for
our specularive sighr the essence of rhar which we are seeking ro
comprehend. Thus, if rhe counrenance did nor so funcrion, ir
could not have for us any meaning. But rhis meaning would
become negative if, insread of revealing ro us rhe image of God,
rhe counrenance gave us not merely no hinr of ir but also acrively
lied ro us, falsely poinring ro non-existent rhings. Then rhe coun-
renance would be nota face bur a mask.
In using rhe term mask, we shall ignore enrirely rhe ancient
religious meanings of masks as well as all rhe corresponding
classical terms larve, persona and prosopon (and so on), because in
the ancient classical cultures, rhe masks were less masks in our
undersranding of rhe term and more a rype of icon. Bur when rhe
ancienr religions became corrupred and spirirually drained, and rhe
culric icons became correspondingly profaned, rhen from rhis blas-
phemy rhere arose rhe modern meanings of the mask: deceprive
illusion, spirirual fraudulence, and even rhe triviality of scariness.
Significantly, rhe Latn term larva had already, in rhe ancient
Roman culture, acquired the meaning of astral corpse, "empry"
(inanis) or "substance-less," rhat which is left after dearh: rhat is,
rhe larva or astral mask as rhe dark, impersonal vampire who seeks
its sustenance in fasrening onro a living face and sucking out all
rhe blood from ir, showing forrh rhe face's essence as its own. Ir is
remarkable how even quite differenr rradirions use rhe very same
54
I'AVEJ. HORENSKY: !CONOSTASIS
rerms ro express rhis false realiry of rhe astral mask: in rhe Kab-
balah, ir is ca1led rhe klipot (rhe husk), while in Theosophy ir is
rermcd rhe "shell." And iris mosr remarkable rhar rhis empriness
of rhe false realiry, rhis kernel of rhe shell, is rhe basis in folk
wisdom for rhe qualiry or attribure rermed "impure" and "evil."
Thus, in borh German and Russian fairy tales, we see rhe evil
spirir who is inwardly empry, a ho1low rube without a backbone
(hence, wirhour rhe physical basis ofbodily srrengrh), a false body
who is consequenrly a falsc enriry. Also, we see in Egyprian folk
rradirion rhc god who imitares realiry and goodness, i.e., rhc god
Osirus, depicred by rhe hieroglyph Dzedu, whose ideogramic
mcaning is rhe backbone. Evil or impure spirirs, however, in
lacking backbonc, lack subsrancc; hence, rhe subsranrial and rhe
good, beca use rhey possess backbonc, ha ve rhe very basis of being.
Such inrcrconnecrions might seem ro us quite arbirrary-unril
we rccall rhe work of posirivist philosopher Ernsr Mach. He ar
flrsr rejecred rhe norion rhar rhc human personaliry possessed a
philosophically substantive kernel or corc. Bur he saw rhar rhe
idea persisred and rhrived everywherc in human socieries; hence,
asan inrellecrually honcsr seeker of knowledge, he recognized rhe
nccessiry of flnding rhe empirical basis of rhar idea. And he found
ir cxacrly in rhar part of rhc human body which is inaccessible ro
ourward interacrions and which cannot be direcrly seen: in, rhar
is, rhe back and irs srrucrural dctermination, the backbone. Thus,
a rigorous empiricism led rhis archposirivist ro rhe very starring
poinr ofGerman psychology: ro, rhar is, rhc miraculous fairy tales
o( Caesarius of Heisrerbach (1170-1240), in Dialogus Miracu-
forum (Dialogue on Miracles, 1223).
In rhe mosr general rerms, rhcn, rhe cvil and impure has no
aurhenric subsrance. Only rhe good, and everyrhing which acrs by ir,
is real. Medieval rhoughr called the devil "rhe monkey of God";
hencc, because rhe flrst Saranic remprarion was "ro be as gods"-rhar
is, ro be a god nor subsranrively bur deccprively-ir is wholly
Spirituaf Sobriety and the lconic Face
55
accurare ro ralk nor about a monkey but abour sin: about, rhar is,
rhe mask, the illusory semblance of realiry emptied of al1 essence
and srrength. The essence of a human being is rhe image of God.
Thus, in penerraring rhe enrire strucrure ("rhe temple," in rhe
Aposde's rerms) of a human personaliry, sin acts nor only ro block
rhe ourward expression or appearance of a person's essence but
also ro hide rhe very essence itself. In such a case, rhe expressed
appearance of rhe personaliry separares from its essenrial kernel, or
cenrer; and in rhus having been exfoliared, rhe appearance be-
comes a shell. Then rhe appearance-rhe lighr by which we who
comprehend are penerrared by rhar which we comprehend-rhis
lighr of appearance becomes a darkness rhar separares and isolares
not only we who comprehend from rhar which we comprehend
bur also rhe real essence of rhe comprehended rhing from irself:
and rhe word "appearance" rhus shifrs irs meaning from rhe
Plaronic-rheological meaning of rhe disclosure or revelarion of
realiry ro rhe Kanrian-posirivisric meaning of illusory, dcceprive.
Ir would be, rhen, a grave mistake ro dcny rhe Kanrian meaning
of rhe word "appearance"; ir would be an even graver mistake ro
deny rhe Plaronic signiflcance. Bur rhe rwo meanings poi m ro rwo
distinct phases of spiritual exisrence: where rhe Plaronic meaning
poinrs (especially in rhe ecclesiasrical Weftanschauung) to good-
ness and sancriry, rhe Kanrian significance indicares rhe sinful and
the evil-and borh rherefore, as direcrions of rhoughr, posscss
their own subjecr of invesrigarion.
By exfoliaring essencc inro appearance, sin brings inw a coun-
tenance (lik)-i. e., inro rhe purest revelarion of God's im-
age-rhar which is alen w rhe countenance and, in so doing, ir
ovcrshadows rhe lighr of God: and rhc face beco mes a lighr mixcd
wirh darkness, flesh which becomes here and rhere corroded,
rhrough rhe rwisring of irs beaury, inro sores. As sin possesses a
personaliry, and as rhe face ceases ro be a window rhrough which
God's radiance shines, becoming srreaked wirh rhe always more
visible darknesses, rhe face separares from rhe personaliry-from,
ti
56
!'AVE! FLORENSKY: ICON0STASIS
rhar is, its crearive origin-and loses irs vitaliry in becoming a
chilling mask of possession by rhe passions. Dostoevsky well
understood rhis process in his characrer Sravrogin, whose face had
become a srony mask and no longer a real face: such is one of rhe
sreps in rhe disintegrarion of personaliry. Furrher, when a face has
become a mask, we can know norhing wharever abour what Kant
would call irs noumenon; neither can we (wirh rhe posirivists) find
any reason ar all ro affirm rhe real exisrence of rhar face. For (using
rhe Aposrle's phrase) "having rheir conscience seared," rhese
mask-faces are dark: nor one single ray from God's image wirhin
them reaches rhe surface of rheir personaliry: and so we cannot
know wherher or nor God's judgmenr has been wholly accom-
plished in rhem and rhar rhey have had raken away from them rhe
token, or covenanr, in rhem which is God's image. Ir may nor yer
be accomplished, and so rhe brighr gold ralenr may srill be buried
benearh rhe mounrain of dark ash. Bur ir also may be accom-
plished: if so, rhen rhe personaliry long ago became like rhose
wrairhs in rhe fairy tales who have no backbone. Conversely, high
spiritual attainmenr transforms rhe face inro a lighrbearing coun-
tenance by driving away all darkness, revealing everyrhing rhar
was under-revealed, 'chasing' everyrhing rhar was under-chased;
and rhe counrenance rhen becomes an arrisric self-portrair whose
living material derails arise from rhe arr of arrs. This arr is rhe
pracrice of selfless ascericism, wherein rhe devored practirioner,
rhe asceric, comes -nor merely by his words bur by his enrire self
rogerher wirh his words; i.e., nor absrracrly, nor by abstraer argu-
menrarion-rhe asceric comes ro bear witness and prove rhe rrurh
of aurhenric realiry. Such a circumsrance is plainly written on rhe
asceric's face: as Jesus says, "Ler your lighr so shine befare men,
rhar rhey may see your good works, and glorify your Farher which
is in heaven." (Mr. 5: 16) "Your good works": rhis is nor "good
works" in rhe Russian undersranding of rhe words-i.e., nor
philanrhropy and moralism-bur rarher ir is J.lWV T KaA
Epya, lirerally, "rhe works of your beaury", i. e., rhe lighrbearing
Spiritual Sobriety and the lconic Face
s-
and harmonious manifesrarions of spiritual personaliry and, above
all, rhe illumined face whose beaury arises from rhe dispersa! ot
inward lighr in ro rhe ourward appearance; and rhe lighr of ch1s
face so overwhelms rhose who behold ir rhar rhey glorify che
heavenly Farher whose image corresponds ro rhis brighrness be-
fore rhem. And rhis correspondence is whar rhe onlookers of che
firsr Christian wirness ro Chrisr's work saw in his face: "And all
rhar sar in rhe council, looking sreadfasdy on him, saw his face as
ir had been rhe face of an angel" (Acrs 6:15); and iris whac isseen
in all rhe holy wirnesses of Chrisr, rhe lasr of whom is Sr. Sera-
phim of Sarov, and shall always be seen; for all resrify ro rhe sacred
lighrbearing faces of rhe ascerics, ro rhe radiance surrounding
rhem like discs of sunlighr; al! who beheld rhese bearers ofblessed
li fe saw wirh rheir own eyes ar leasr rhe rudimenrs of rhis rrans-
figuration inro lighr of a face (/itzo) in ro a counrenance (lik).
Neverrheless, ir need hardly be insisred upon rhar rhe Church.
in rhus bearing wirness ro rhe bodily rransfigurarion of persons.
does not say rhar a person's essence-i.e., rhe inward image of
God-also must be transfigured. No; rhis essence is already pure
lighr; and rhus iris irself rhe crearive form by which is transfigured
rhe whole emprica] personaliry, rhe whole conrenr of a person.
including rhe physical body. For here, in rhe essenriallighr, dwells
rhe word of God, and by rhis word is esrablished rhe direccion of
ascetic and spirirual pracrice-as rhe Aposde writes
I beseech yo u rherefore, brechren, by che mercies ofGod, rhar ye present
your bodies a living sacriflce, holy, accepcable un ro God, which is your
reasonable service. And be nor conformed ro chis world: bur be ye
rransformed by che renewi ng of your mind, chac y e m ay pro ve whac :s
rhar good, and acceprable, and perfecr, will of God. For I say, rhrough
rhe grace given unto me, ro every man rhac is among you, nor ro rh mk
of himself more highly rhan he oughr ro rhink; burro rhink sober
1
1
according as God hach dealr ro every man che measure of fairh. (Rom
12: 1-3)
58
I'AVEL RORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
Thus, the Aposde insrructs thc Romans to "presenr" (or make)
their bodies inro "a living sacriflce ... unto Gcd"; for rhe making of
one's body in ro a sacriflce is a service ofthe word, i.e. , iris a service
that bears witness to the truth beca use rhe body bears wirhin it rhe
word of God. Christians speak by rheir bodies. Further, rhe
Aposde rells what, properly speaking, ir means to make the body
a sacriflce. Ir does nor, of course, mean the torture and death of
marryrdom-for in rhar kind of sacriflce, those who condemn rhe
martyrs to death are rhe ones who are presenring the Christians'
bodies as sacriflce and nor rhe Christians themselves. Whar rhe
injunction does enrail is explained by rhe Aposde: "be nor con-
formed to rhis world. " Thar is, do not share rhe world's common
scheme of rhings, its common law of life, its common way of
being in rhe world's presenr circumstances: such is rhe negative
meaning of presenring one's body as sacriflce. The positive mean-
ing is: "be ye transformed, " rhat is, be transflgured, change rhe
scheme of rhings, the law of life, rhe way of being. What does ir
mean to change the spirirual consriturion of one's body from
something conformed to rhc world inro something rransflgured;
how does one accomplish this? The Aposde goes on: "be yc
rransformed by the renewing of your mind"-i.e., the body's
rransformation, or transfigurarion, is accomplished in rhe renew-
ing of the mind, the renewing of rhe wholc essenrial cenrer. Thc
sign of such renewing is rhe doing of God's will. In other words,
to prcsenr one's body as sacrificc means to attain rhe spirirual
sensitivity of knowing God's wi ll as "good, and acceptable, and
perfccr." Bur such sancrity is, as it werc, rhe thesis to which is
opposed rhe anrithesis wherein our ycarning to so know God's
will iniciares in us a dcsire ro philosophize about ir, rhereby
replacing a rrue conracr wirh heaven wirh our own abstraer rea-
sonings. God gave cveryonc rheir measure of fairh, rhat is, "a
revelation of invisi ble rhings." And rruc rhoughr can occur only
wirhin rhe boundaries of faith; for excecding the boundaries resulrs
only in disrorting rhe rhoughr. Thc Aposde expresses this in Romans
Orthodox Services and the !con 59
12:3 wirh an almost unrranslatable aphorism: TTEp<j>OVELV
TTap' o 8 <)>povE'lv ciA.A.a <)>povE'iv ELS" T aw<)>povE'iv, turning
u pon the wholly opposite meanings of two verbs that neverrheless
share the same root: hyper-phronein and so-phronein. These verbs
are thus rwo poles that correspond: the flrst (hyper-phronein) is the
total conforming of the body to rhis world (whence splirs off the
mask, lichina), while the second is the transfiguration of the body
"according to rhe time to come"-whence shines forth one's rrue
coumenance, one's holy face (lik).
Orthodox Services and the !con
The services of the Onhodox temple are rhe way of ascent. Seen
in rhe aspect of time, a temple service is an interior movement
crearing in us an inward separation ar rhe fourrh coordinare of
depth and leading us inro the highest realm. But a temple service
is also an organized action in space, an action whose surface
"membranes" continually direct us to the central kernel; and so
temple space and temple time have, in the service, one and the
same meaning. (More precisely, they have the same meaning
along verbal and numerical coordinares, alrhough they differ
along other coordinares.) The remple's spatial center, or kernel , is
defined by "membranes": narthex, vestibule, the temple itself,
sanctuary, altar-rabie, antemension, chalice, the Holy Mysteries,
Christ, rhe Father. As has been said before, the temple is Jacob's
ladder, leading from rhe visible into the invisible. Bur rhe whole
altar is (in irs wholeness) already rhe place of the invisible, the area
ser apart from rhis world, separare, withdrawn, dedicated. The
altar in irs wholeness is heaven as sensible, as mind-apprehend-
able, as TTTOS" VOEPS" and even as TTTOS" VOT]TS", as one with (in
the phrase from the Divine Liturgy) "rhe most heavenly and
spirirual altar." The symbolic meaning of rhe altar differs accord-
ing to the different symbolic meanings of rhe temple: but rhe
various meanings converge in aligning rhe incomprehensible wirh
r-:1
60
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASJS
the acrualities of the temple itself. For example, when (following
Simeon of Salonica) we see rhe enrire temple in chrisrological
terms as Chrisr God-Man, rhen the altar signifies rhe invisible
God while rhe temple means rhe visible Man. If we use a purely
anthropological approach, then rhe altar represenrs man's psyche
or soul while rhe temple is his body. Theologically considered, rhe
altar reveals ro us rhe mysrery of rhe T riniry in its incomprehensi-
ble essence, while rhe temple signifies rhe Triniry as comprehen-
sible in rhe world's province and power. Finally, in a cosmological
interpretaran, rhe same Simeon recognizes in rhe altar rhe symbol
of heaven while, in rhe temple, he sees rhe symbol of earrh. Thus,
rhe very diversiry of rhese interpretations srrengrhens rhe onto-
logical cenrer of rhe alrar's meaning as the invisible realm.
Bur rhis realm, by irs very invisibiliry, is impossible ro look ar;
and rhe altar, as noumenon, would for rhe spiritually blind be as
impossible to see as would rhe flowing clouds ofincense be for rhe
physically blind-for the incense is a landmark which, because ir
is sensorily comprehensible, reveals the invisible world. Thus, rhe
altar is necessarily limited in arder ro be something for us; but this
limitation arises only through rhe realiries of our dualistic power
of perception. If these realities were wholly spiritual, they would
be incomprehensible ro our weak nature-and what exists in our
consciousness would rherefore nor be made better. But if these
realities were only in the visible realm, then they would be unable
ro indicare where les the boundary berween rhe visible and
invisible: nor would rhey themselves know where that boundary
exisred. Heaven and earrh, altar and temple: chis separation can
only occur through the visible witnesses of rhe invisible world,
rhose living symbols of rhe co-inherence of chis world and rhe
orher-i.e., rhrough rhe holy people. These holy persons, visible
in rhe visible, are neverrheless not conformed to rhis world, for
rhey have transformed rheir bodies and resurrected rheir minds,
rhereby attaining existence beyond chis world in the invisible.
Thus, rhey bear wirness ro rhe invisible as rhey bear wimess ro
Orthodox Services and the !con 61
rhemselves by their holy countenances. They live with us, and
they are more easily accessible ro us than we are ro ourselves. They
are not earrhly ghosrs bur persons standing firmly on our earrh,
not abstraer, not bloodless. But neirher are they held in bondage
to earth; rather, they are rhe living ideas of the invisible world.
Thus, they are (we may say) the wimesses on the boundary
berween the visible and the invisible, the symbolic images of rhose
visions rhat arise when passing from one state of consciousness
into anorher. In chis sense, rhey are che living soul of humaniry by
and through which mankind enters into rhe highesr realm; for
rhey, having left behind al! rhe delusions and fantasies of the
ascending passage, and having received the other world-they on
their return ro earrh have transfigured rhemselves into angelic
images of the angelic world. And ir is no accident rhar rhese
witnesses who, by rheir angelic countenances, have made the
invisible clase and accessible ro us have, since ancient times, been
popularly rermed angels in rhe flesh.
When air currents of differing heights and speeds make con-
raer, wavy clouds are formed at rhe poinr of conract. Ar rhe
surface of such conracr, rhe currents continue to flow contrariwise
in layers one above anorher, and rhe winds rhat formed rhe clouds
therefore cannot move rhem away-nor are rhe layers of air
currents moved by rheir own swifrly moving flows. And so fogs
are creared rhat fall ro cover rhe mounrain summits; and rhough
mountain windstorms may rage, rhe foggy cover does nor move.
Such a fog-cloud is a boundary berween rhe visible and rhe
invisible. Ir renders inaccessible ro our weak sight rhat which
nevertheless ir reveals rhe real presence of; and once we open our
spiritual eyes and raise them ro the Throne of God, we contem-
plare heavenly visions: rhe cloud rhat covers rhe top of M t. Sinai,
the cloud wherein the mysrery of God's presence is revealed by
rhat which clouds it. This cloud is (in rhe Aposde's phrase) "a
cloud of wirnesses" (Heb. 12:1), iris rhe sainrs. They surround
the altar, and they are rhe "living srones" rhat make up the living
62
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
wall of rhe iconosrasis, for rhey dwell simulraneously in rwo worlds,
combining wirhin rhemselves rhe life here and rhe life rhere. And
rheir upraised gaze bears wirness ro rhe operarion of God's mysrery,
for rheir holy coumenances in rhemselves bear wirness ro rhe sym-
bolic realiry of their spirirual sighr-and, in rhem, rhe empirical crusr
is complerely pierced by lighr from above.
The wall rhar separares rwo worlds is an iconosrasis. One
might mean by rhe iconosrasis rhe boards or rhe bricks or rhe
srones. In acrualiry, rhe iconosrasis is a boundary berween rhe
visible and invisible worlds, and ir funcrions as a boundary by
being an obstacle ro our seeing rhe altar, thereby making ir acces-
sible ro our consciousness by means of irs unified row of saines
(i.e., by its cloud of wirnesses) rhat surround the altar where God
is, rhe sphere where heavenly glory dwells, rhus proclaiming rhe
Mysrery. Iconosrasis is vision. Iconosrasis is a manifesrarion of
saims and angels-angelophania-a manifest appearance of heav-
enly wirnesses thar includes, first of all, the Morher of God and
Chrisr Himself in the flesh, wirnesses who proclaim rhar which is
from the orher side of morral flesh. lconostasis is the saints them-
selves. If everyone praying in a temple were wholly spiritualized, if
everyone praying were truly ro see, then rhere would be no
iconosrasis orher rhan standing befare God Himself, wirnessing ro
Him by rheir holy counrenances and proclaiming His rerrifying
glory by rheir sacred words.
Bur because our sighr is weak and our prayers are feeble, rhe
Church, in Her care for us, gavc us visual srrengrh for our spiritual
brokenness: the heavenly visions on rhe iconostasis, vivid, precise,
and illumined, rhar articulate, materially cohere, an image inro
fixed colors. Bur rhis spirirual prop, this material iconosrasis, does
nor conceal from rhe believer (as someone in ignoranr self-absorp-
tion mighr imagine) sorne sharp mysrery; on rhe conrrary, rhe
iconosrasis points out ro rhe half-blind rhe Mysreries of rhe altar,
opens for rhem an enrrance imo a world closed ro rhem by rheir
Orthodox Services and the !con 63
own stuckness, cres inro rheir dcaf ears the voice of the Heavenly
Kingdom, a voice made deafening ro rhem by rheir having failed
ro take in rhe speech of ordinary voices. This heavenly cry is
therefore srripped, of course, of all rhe subtly rich expressiveness
of ordinary speech: but who commirs rhe act of such srripping
when ir is we who fail ro appreciate rhe heavenly cry because we
failed first ro recognize ir in ordinary speech: what can be lefr
except a deafening cry? Desrroy rhe material iconostasis and rhe
altar itself wiU, as such, wholly vanish from our consciousness as if
covered over by an essenrially impenetrable wall. But rhe material
iconosrasis does not, in irself, take the place of rhe living witnesses,
existing instead ofthem; rather, ir points toward rhem, concenrrat-
ing rhe atrenrion of rhose who pray u pon them-a concenrrarion
of attenrion rhat is essenrial ro rhe developing of spiritual sighr. To
speak figuratively, rhen, a temple wirhour a material iconosrasis
erects a salid waU berween altar and temple; rhe iconostasis opens
windows in rhis wall, rhrough whose glass we see (those of us who
can see) whar is permanenrly occurring beyond: rhe living wit-
nesses ro God. To destroy icons thus means ro block up rhe
windows; ir means smearing rhe glass and weakening the spiritual
lighr for rhose of us who orherwise could see ir direcdy, who could
(we could figurarively say) behold ir in a transparent space free of
earthly air, a space where we could learn ro brearhe rhe pure
erhereal air and ro live in the lighr of God's glory: and when rhis
happens, rhe material iconosrasis will self-desrrucr in rhar vasr
obliteration which will dcstroy rhc whole image of rhis
world-and which will cvcn desrroy fairh and hope-and rhen
we will contemplare, in pure !ove, rhe immortal glory of God.
Thus, as beginning medica! srudenrs, we first need ro inject
in ro rhe veins of rhe body the colors that will focus our attemion
on rhe body's parhs and rendencies- in rhe same way rhar when
we firsr study geometric figures, we carefully and exacrly trace out
in different colors, in differenr rhicknesses of line and shadings,
rhe various surfaces and lines upon which we are seeking ro erect
64
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
geomerric proofs; or in rhe same way rhar when our moral educa-
rion is begun, our reachers firsr give us rhe plainesr, mosr vivid
cases of illness, disasrer, and suffering rhar arrend rhe conse-
quences of sin. Bur when our arrenriveness grows more resilienr,
and we are led pasr surfaces inro a concenrrarion upon an objecr
ofknowledge, and we ourselves, from and in ourselves, are able ro
separare out from rhe surrounding noise of emprica! expressive-
ness rhe single note rhar is rhe real objecr-and ro do so even
when ir is losr amidsr rhe orher noise rhar assails us bur rhar is
useless for our undersranding: when rhis happens, rhen rhe sensu-
ous prop is no longer needed ro focus our arrenriveness, and ir falls
away. And rhe same is true in rhe realm of meraphysical sighr: rhe
spirirual world of rhe invisible is nor sorne infinirely far off
kingdom; insread, ir everywhere surrounds usas an ocean; and we
are like crearures losr on rhe borrom of rhe ocean floor while
everywhere is streaming upward rhe fullness of a grace sreadily
growing brighrer. Bur we, from rhe habir of immarure spirirual
sighr, fail ro see rhis lighrbearing kingdom; mosr ofren, we fail
even ro assume rhar ir exisrs, and rherefore we only sense unclearly
in our hearrs rhe spirirual currenrs of whar is really happening
around us. When Chrisr was healing rhe blind man in Berhsaida
(Mk 8:22), He asked him whar he saw, and ar firsr he said, "I see
men as rrees, walking"-such is rhe way we firsr see rhe images of
our spirirual visions. We never see, however, rhe flighrs of an-
gels-nor "as rrees, walking," nor even as rhe quick shadow of a
disranr bird flying berween us and rhe sun; for, alrhough rhe mosr
sensirive of us can somerimes sense rhe powerful morions of rhe
angelic wings, we can experience rhese grear morions only as rhe
very fainresr brearhing. An icon is rhe same as rhis kind of
heavenly vision; yer ir is nor rhe same, for rhe icon is rhe oudine
of a vision. A spirirual vision is nor in irself an icon, for ir possesses
by irselffull realiry; an icon, however, because irs oudine coincides
wirh a spiritual vision, is rhar vision wirhin our consciousness;
finally, rherefore, rhe icon-aparr from irs spirirual vision-is nor
Orthodox Services and the !con
65
an icon ar al! but a board. Thus a window is a window because a
region of lighr opens out beyond ir; hence, rhe window giving us
rhis lighr is nor irself "like" rhe light, nor is ir subjectively linked
in our imaginarion with our ideas of lighr-bur rhe window is
rhar very lighr irself, in irs ontological self-identiry, rhar very lighr
which, undivided-in-itself and rhus inseparable from the sun, is
srreaming clown from rhe heavens. But rhe window all by it-
self.-i.e., aparr from irs relarionship ro rhe lighr, beyond irs
funcrion as carrier oflighr-is no longer a window but dead wood
and mere glass. The rhought is simple enough. Bur almost always
we stop in rhe middle of ir, whereas ir would be far righter eirher
ro stop long before or ro go way beyond ir; hence, our usual
understanding of a symbol as somerhing self-referentially (if con-
dirionally) true is, ar borrom, false: a symbol is eirher more or less
rhan rhar. If a symbol as carrier attains irs end, rhen ir is insepara-
ble from rhe superrealiry ir reveals: hence, ir is more rhan self-ref-
erenrial. If a symbol does nor manifesr a realiry, rhen ir attains no
end; rhus, we should nor see in ir any parrern or organizarion of
'carrying over' or rransference; and, in rhe absence of such, rhe
rhing is nora symbol-i.e., iris nora spirirual insrrument-but ir
is merely emprica! marrer. Ler us repear: rhe window in irself is
not a window-because rhe very idea of window (like any culrur-
ally construcred rhing) possesses 'carrying over' or transference,
for if ir did not, ir would nor be a rhing fashioned wirhin a
culture. Thus, a window is eirher lighr or else mere wood and
glass, bur ir is never simply a window.
Icons, roo, as Sr. Oionysus Aeropagire says, are "visible images
of mysrerious and supernarural visions." An icon is rherefore
always eirher more rhan irself in becoming for us an image of a
heavenly vision or less rhan irself in failing ro open our conscious-
ness ro rhe world beyond our senses-rhen ir is merely a board
wirh sorne painr on ir. Thus, rhe conremporary view rhar sees
iconpainting as an ancienr fine arr is profoundly false. Ir is false,
firsr of all, because rhe very assumprion rhar a fine arr possesses irs
66
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
own inrrinsic power is, in irself, false: a fine arr is eirher grearer or
less rhan irself Any instan ce of fine arr (such as a painring) reaches
irs goal when ir carries rhe viewer beyond rhe limirarions of
empirically seen colors on canvas and inro a specific realiry, for a
painring shares wirh all symbolic work rhe basic onrological char-
acrerisric of seeking ro be rhar which ir symbolizes. Bur if a painrer
fails ro arrain rhis end, eirher for a specific group of viewers or for
rhe world in general, so rhar his painring leads no one beyond
irself, rhen his work unquesrionably fails ro be arr; we rhen call ir
mere daubs of painr, and so on. Now, an icon reaches its goal
when ir leads our consciousness our inro rhe spiritual realm where
we behold "mysrerious and supernarural visions." If rhis goal is
not reached-if neirher rhe steadily empathetic gaze nor rhe
swifrly inruirive glance evokes in rhe viewer the realiry of the orher
world (as rhe pungenr scenr of seaweed in rhe air evokes in us rhe
srill faraway ocean), rhen norhing can be said of that icon excepr
rhat ir has failed ro enrer inro rhe works of spirirual culture and
rhar irs value is therefore either merely material or (ar best) archae-
ological.
Sr. Joseph of Volorsk wrires abour the grear icon by Sr. Andrei
Rublev called rhe Holy Triniry:
How rhe icon carne inro life, and how ir does so for us now, are rhings
we musr imagine and describe. And iris precisely for such a descriprion
rhar we on earrh are given rhe Thrice-Holy Hymn ro rhe One-in-Es-
sence and Life-Giving Triniry whereby our immeasurable desiring and
loving ascend in spirir ro rhe icon's incomprehensible prororype so rhar,
by means of irs material appearance, our mind's rhoughrs Ay ro rhe
heavenly Desiring and Loving where we venerare-nor rhe material
rhing-bur rhe manifesrarion of rhat which makes rhe material rhing
beauriful; hence, in a transference, we come ro venerare not rhe icon
bur rhe prororype; and in so doing, rhe Holy Spirit illumines and
enlighrens us not only now but in rhe age rhar is coming when we shall
receive rhe grear, incomprehensible gifr, rhe age when all rhe sainrs in
rheir physical bodies shall shine wirh a lighr brighrer rhan rhe very sun
itself: and ir shall happen so because, in kissing rhis icon wirh !ove, rhey
Orthodox Services and the !con 67
venerare che O ne Essence of God in rhe three angelic persons of che
icon as they pray to rhe Holy and Life-Giving Triniry-Farher, Son
and Holy Spirit-and give rhanks ro our God.
This understanding of iconpainring as a way of arraining super-
sensible perceprion, a way followed by both the great iconpainrers
and rhose who supervised rhe iconpainring process: such under-
sranding is our goal. Among rhe iconographic decisions made by
rhe Sevenrh Ecumenical Council in 787 is this: "only rhe rechni-
cal parr of icon painring belongs ro the arrist; rhe determination of
rhe icon itself i.e., its structure, arrangemenr and
whole formal pattern] plainly belongs ro the Holy Fathers." This
direct proclamation is not setring forrh sorne supposedly anri-ar-
tistic dogma againsr-or any doctrinal censorship of-iconpainr-
ing creativiry; rather, ir reveals precisely the ones whom rhe
Church has always known ro be rhe rrue iconpainrers: rhe Holy
Farhers. They creare rhe arr because rhey are rhe ones who con-
templare rhe persons and evenrs rhar rhe icon musr depicr. How
could someone creare an icon who does nor have conrinuously
befare him-who has never even glimpsed-rhe icon's proro-
rype? E ven in rhe everyday world of ordinary experience, an artisr
musr, from his earliesr childhood, ceaselessly search rhe inrricare
mulripliciry of analogous rhings ro find rhe exactly righr models
for his arr. All rhe more so, rhen, would ir nor be rhe heighr of
arrogance for people ro claim rhar rhey have depicted rhe spirirual
realm (rhar realm which even rhe sainrs behold only fragmentarily
and fleetingly) when rhey rhemselves have never seen ir ar all?
From the Renaissance on, rhe religious arr of rhe West has
been based upon estheric delusion. The Wesrern religious artisrs
have loudly proclaimed rhe nearness and rrurh of rhe spirirual
realiry rhey claim ro represenr in rheir arr; bur, lacking any genu-
ine relation ro that spirirual realiry, rhey rhink ir complerely
unnecessary ro heed even those few scanry instrucrions abour
iconpainting (hence, abour spirirual realiry) rhar rhe Roman
Church gives them. For rhe facr is: iconpainring is rhe rransfixing
68
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
of heavenly images, rhe marerializarion on a board of rhar living
cloud of wirnesses srreaming abour rhe rhrone. Icons empirically
define rhose holy counrenances rhar sacred significance has per-
meated, those hyper-empirical 'ideas' that make heavenly vision
accessible ro almosr everyone; and rhe iconpainrer becomes rhe
wirness ro rhese Wirnesses, giving us rhe images (E18r, ELXVES)
of his vision. By virrue of its formal patterns, an icon bears direcr
visual wirness ro rhe realiry of rhis parrern; an icon speaks-in
color and line. And whar ir says-written in color-is rhe Name
of God; for whar else would God's image be-whar else rhat
spirirual lighr srreaming from rhe sainr's holy counrenance-ex-
cept rhe N ame of God wrirren in rhar counrenance? In somerhing
like rhe way rhar a marryr's speech bears wirness nor ro himself
(even rhough he is rhe one speaking) bur ro rhe Lord, jusr so do
rhe iconpainrers-rhese wirnesses of rhe Wirnesses-bear wirness
nor ro rheir iconpainring, i.e., not to rhemselves, burro rhe sainrs
who, in rhemselves, are bearing witness ro rhe Lord Himself.
Thus, rhe most persuasive philosophic proof of God's existence is
rhe one rhe rexrbooks never menrion, the conclusion ro which can
perhaps best express the whole meaning: There exists rhe icon of the
Holy Trinity by Sr. Andrei Rublev; rherefore, God exists.
In rhe iconpainring images we ourselves-wholly selves-see
rhe illumined counrenances of rhe sainrs and, in rhem, behold
borh the revealed image of God and God Himself. And like rhe
Samariran woman ro Chrisr, we say ro rhe iconpainter:
Now we believe-nor because you bear wirness ro rhe sancriry of sainrs
by your icons bur beca use we ourselves can hear coming our from rhem,
rhrough your brush-work, rhe self-revelarion of rhe sainrs, and nor in
words bur in rheir holy counrenances. We ourselves can hear how rhe
supremely sweet voice ofGod' s word, rhe T rue Witness, penetrares in ro
rhe essence of rhe saines by irs supersensible sound and brings rheir
entire being inro perfecr harmony. For ir is not you, O iconpainrer,
who has creared rhese images; iris nor you who has shown ro our joyous
eyes rhese vividly alive ideas; no, rhey rhemselves have appeared wirhin
our conremplarion, and you have simply raken away rhe obsracle rhar
Orthodox Services and the !con 69
hid rheir lighr from us, for you have helped strip away rhe scales rhar
covered our spirirual sighr. And because you have helped us, we now
see-no longer your masrerpiece-bur rhe wholly real images rhem-
selves. 1 gaze into rhis icon and 1 say in myself: rhis is She Herself, nor
Her image, bur She Herself who, wirh your help, iconpainter, 1 am
conremplating. As through a window, 1 see rhe Morher of God, rhe
Morher of God Herselfl and iris She Herself rhar 1 am now praying ro
face ro face and nor ro an image. A window is only a window, and rhe
board of an icon is merely wood, paint, and flnish. Bur rhrough rhe
window 1 behold rhe Morher of God, a vision of the Most Pure. Y es,
iconpainrer, you have shown Her ro me, bur you did not creare Her;
rather, you have parted rhe veil so rhat She, who was behind ir, now
stands as a real experience nor only for me but also for you; and She
appears ro you and is found by you, but she is never invented by you
even in che strongest currents of your highesr inspirarion.
Conremporary emprica! posirivism underesrimates the icon; one
can also overestimare ir; but ir is essenrial never ro become fixared
upon irs psycho-associative power, i.e., upon rhe icon as pure arr.
Iconic art accords ro its essential symbolism and rhereby reveals its
spiritual essence in nothing other than our (the viewers') spiritual
ascenr "from image ro prototype," i.e., in our arraining onrologi-
cal conriguity wirh the prororype irself. For then, and only then,
does rhe emprica! sign become so filled wirh rhe living warers rhar
the sign (always inseparable from its prororype) is no longer
merely "arr" but is rarher the first wave called forrh-evoked-by
essenrial realiry; and all the orher ways wherein reality becomes
spirirually presenr ro usare also rhe waves rhar realiry evokes-jusr
as our whole life communicares wirh rhe essence of realiry in a
series of conrinuous waves: because we can communicare wirh an
essence only rhrough irs energies and never direcdy wirh rhe
essence irself. And because an icon makes rhe lighr of an illumined
person appear ro us, ir is an energy; more precisely, rhe grace of
God exceeds our capaciry ro rhink ir, even if our rhoughr is
self-cerrifiably "saber"; for since onrology and rhe icon are fully
conriguous, rhe icon possesses cognirive meaning.
70
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
The Councils on the !con and the Iconpainter's
Canonic Life
In this understanding we approach the conceptual term conrinuously
used in the eighth-cenrury iconoclastic struggle: remembering.
Over and over, the proponents of icons refer ro che icon's
power ro remind rhe Holy Farhers of rhe Sevenrh Ecumenical
Council say, "rhe icons remind rhose who pray of che icons'
protorypes and, through gazing upon the icons, che believers 'lift
up their minds from che images ro rhe protorypes'." These are
terms well established in theology. But many nowadays wrongly
interpret these terms ro mean something subjective and 'psycho-
logical,' rhereby radically twisting and falsif}ring the rhought of
the Holy Fathers; moreover, under the guise of defending the
icons, rhey recreare an iconoclasm more rhoroughly violent rhan
thar eighrh-century form rhe Church long ago defeared: for che
ancient iconoclasts were more rhoughrful, intricare, and courte-
ous than our contemporary "defenders of icons" who parrot and
thereby reduce ancient truth when rhey argue against Protestant
rationalists. The older iconoclasts never in che slighrest denied rhe
genuine spiritual usefulness of religious art, that arr ro which we
now assign rhe icon; contemporary iconoclasts, however, in their
insistence u pon rhe merely subjecrive psychological value of icons
as their sole value, rhereby complerely deny rhe onrological con-
necrion berween icon and prororype. And in chis denial all rhe
veneration of icons-praying ro rhem, kissing them, lighring
candles ro rhem, setting lamps before rhem, che priesr censing
them-all rhe centuries-old pracrices of Christianiry become, in
chis denial which sees in rhe icon only an 'arristic depiction' rhat
refers to irself and che viewer but never to irs prororype-all rhese
practices become criminal idolatry. For if icons are 'arristic depic-
tions,' rhen ir is sinfully absurd ro honor what is merely educa-
cional supplies, for only God Himself deserves such honor; chus
che honor given ro icons-given because of che ancient reaching
The Councils on the !con and the lconpainter s Canonic LiJe 71
rhat, in doing such honor, rhe believer ascends from image ro
proro-image-this ascending, chis ancient Church belief, be-
comes something absolutely incomprehensible. In che century of
che iconoclastic conrroversy, people knew precisely whar rhey
were srruggling for, and rhey knew clearly who was friend and
who was enemy; plainly, rhere were icon-smashers and icon-wor-
shippers. The entire matter has fallen in ro oblivion; roday, iris not
clear wherher rhe iconoclastic conrroversy rook place in rhe ninth
century-and not in che twentieth; in Byzantium-and nor in
England; wherher it was founded on rhe philosophies ofPlaro and
Arisrode-and nor on the views of Bacon, Hume, and Mili. For
into rhe patrisric terminology of che Holy Farhers rhere has
slipped rhe whole content of English sensarionalisric-empirical
psychology, thereby entirely ousring rhe onrological meaning of
Being as found in ancient idealist philosophy, with che result rhat
rhe contemporary defenders of rhe icon have won a vicrory long
ago lose by che eighrh-cenrury iconoclasts.
Thus, ler us ask what che Seventh Ecumenical Council means
in its decisions by che terms prototype, image, consciousness, remem-
bering, and so on.
An icon remembers its protorype. Thus, in one beholder, ir
will awaken in rhe bright clarities of his conscious mind a spiritual
vision rhar marches directly rhe bright clariries of che icon; and rhe
beholder's vision will be comparably clear and conscious. But in
another person, rhe icon will srir che dreams rhar lie deeper in rhe
subconscious, awakening a perception of the spiritual rhat not
only affirms rhat such seeing is possible but also brings rhe rhing
seen inro immediarely felr experience. Thus, at rhe highest flour-
ishing of rheir prayer, che ancient ascetics found rhat rheir icons
were not simply windows through which they could behold the
holy counrenances depicred on rhem but were also doorways
rhrough which rhese countenances acrually enrered rhe empirical
72
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
world. The saints carne clown from che icons ro appear befare
rhose praying co rhem.
Similar experiences have occurred less frequently (bur scill
connecredly) co persons who were noc following any asceric prac-
rice of prayer ar all: char is, a sharp penetraran of a spirirual realicy
inro rhe soul, a penetraran almosr like a physical blow or sudden
burn rhac inscanrly shocks rhe viewer who is seeing, for che firsc
rime, one of che greac works of sacred iconpainting. There is noc
che slighresc quesrion in such experiences char whac is coming
chrough rhe icon is merely rhe viewer's subjecrive invemion, so
indispurably objeccive is irs impacr upon rhe viewer, an impacr
~ q u l l y physical and spirirual. Like lighr pouring forrh lighr, rhe
icon stands revealed. And no matter where rhe icon is physically
locared in rhe space we encounrer ir, we can only describe our
experience of seeing ir as a beholding that ascmds. Our seeing rises
above everyching around us, for we recognize rhar we are, in rhis
acc of seeing, exisring in che icon's space in erernity. In such acrs of
seeing, rhe fires of our lusrs and rhe empriness of our earrhly
hungers simply and wholly cease; and we recognize rhe vision as
somerhing rhar, in essence, exceeds rhe emprica! world, as some-
rhing acring upon us from its own dominion. "Yes," we say, "rhis
icon plainly exisrs-here are rhe brush srrokes righr befare
me-bur ir's inconceivable ir exisrs, my eyes cannor believe whar
rhey're seeing": such we resrify ro rhe icon's rriumphant beaucy
overwhelming everyrhing.
Such is rhe effecr, rhen, of Sr. Andrei Rublev's grear icon of rhe
Holy Trinicy; such, roo, is che incomparable expression of rhe icon
known as rhe Holy Morher of Vladimir. Bur rhese grear
icons-rhar in a single srroke overwhelm even rhe crudesr, leasc
sensirive eyes--even chese icons do nor stand aparr from all orher
icons. Using such icons as che measure of rhe highesr in iconpaint-
ing, lec us now say preliminarily: all icons possess in rhemselves
rhe power of spiricual revelaran, rhough sorne veil ir almosr
The CounciLs on the !con and the lconpainter's Canonic LiJe 73
impenerrably. Bur rhe hour is coming when rhe spirirual srare of
every icon's beholder will besrow upon him rhe power ro experi-
ence every icon's spirirual essence even rhrough rhe mosr impene-
trable of form-disrorring veils, and rhen every icon on earrh will
live and effecr irs operaran as wirness of rhe supreme world. As
Lermonrov says in his poem:
Mocher ofGod, 1 scand now praying
Befo re chis icon of your radianc brighmess-
Noc praying tO be saved from sorne banlefield,
Noc giving chanks, noc seeking forgivcness
For my soul's sins, noc for all che souls,
Numb, joyless, and desolace in eanh
Buc 1 pray for her whom wholly I give you now:
Shield her from chis vasc world of violcncc ....
So Lermonrov-in resrlessness and anxiecy-saw revealed in
che icon rhe Morher of God. And ir is noc merely a poet's one
scanza char cesrifies ro chis mosr essenrial reaching of che Church:
all icons are miracle-working, i.e., all can be windows inro erer-
nicy, rhough nor every icon is apriori so-che very happening of
an icon so resrifies. That is, when an icon happens, ics happening
(as rhe very word indicares) means rhar somerhing has already
happened, somerhing has already entered into appearance, so rhac
we may say rhar che icon happens and appears in making happen
and appear in us rhose very appearings of hap-pened hap-iness
(i.e., rhose blessed visions) rhrough which che icon icself hap-
pened and appeared. The beholder's soul is necessarily healed in
couching, chrough che icon, che spiricual realm: bur rhar such
healing happens means, firsc of all, chac rhe icon's happening is che
having happened of miracle-working help.
Thus, every icon can be seen as rhe factual cerrainty of divine
realicy. An icon may be skillfully or poorly execured, bur, ar roor,
ir necessarify authenticates perceprion of che world beyond che
senses rhrough an always authmtic spirirual experience. Such an
icon could be che firsr rransfixing of auchenric experience in such
74
PAVEL FLORENSKY: lCONOSTASIS
a way rhar ir becomes rhe manifesr revelaran of rhat experience.
Such an icon rhen becomes (as is said) a prororypical or 'firsr-ap-
peared' icon and is rhus considered a source; ir rhereby corre-
sponds ro rhe original manuscripr wrirren by rhe one who
experienced a revelaran.
Subsequenrly, rhere are copies made of rhis protorypical icon,
ones more or less exacrly reproducing irs shapes. Bur the spirirual
conrenr of rhese copies is nor somerhing new (when compared ro
rhe prororype) nor is ir even somerhing similar; rather, rhe spiri-
rual conrenr is exactly the same (rhough ir may be in a veiled,
dimmed, or dulled medium). Moreover, exacrly because rheir
spirirual conrenr is nor merely similar ro bur acrually idenrical
wirh rhe prororype, rhe copies can modif)r and vary rhe basic . .
1nrerpreranon.
If someone copying a prororypical icon is unable ro experience
in himself rhar which he depicrs, if while following rhe original he
fails ro make conracr wirh rhe realiry of ir, rhen (being honesr) he
will rry as precisely as possible ro reproduce in his copy rhe
prororype's outward fearures; bur ir almosr always happens rhar, in
such a case, he wilJ nor comprehend rhe icon as an opening and
so, losr in copying rhe fine lines and brush srrokes, he will
inrerprer undearly rhe icon's essence. Bur if, on rhe orher hand,
rhrough rhe prororype he is opened up inro rhe spiritual realiry
depicred on ir and rhereby comes rosee ir dearly (if secondarily),
he will-because he possesses rhe living realiry of his own alive-
ness-manifesr his own viewpoinr and rhus swerve from a srricr
calligraphic adherence ro rhe original. In a manuscripr you wrire
describing a counrry someone else has previously described in an
earlier manuscripr, you will see your own words and phrases in
your very own handwriring; bur rhe living basis of your manu-
scripr is assurdedly idenrical wirh rhar of rhe earlier one: rhe
descriprion of rhe counrry. Thus, rhe variarions arising berween
successive copies of a prororypical icon indicare neirher rhe illu-
The Councils on the !con and the lconpainter's Canonic Life 75
sory subjecriviry of whar is being depicted nor the arbirrariness of
rhe iconpainting process bur exacdy rhe opposite: rhe living real-
iry which, remaining irself, neverrheless will appear wirh rhose
variarions rhar correspond ro rhe spiritual life of rhe iconpainrer
who seeks to comprehend rhar living realiry. Thus (ignoring mere
servile mechanical reproducrion), the difference berween a pro-
roprypical icon and irs iconic copy can approximate quite pre-
cisely rhat berween an explorer's accounr of a newly discovered
counrry and a later journeyer's narrative who visits rhar counrry
because of rhe firsr explorer's account; no matter rhe hisrorical
imporrance of the first accounr, rhe later narrative may well be
more exact and complete. J ust so in iconopainring: somerimes an
iconic copy can become particularly precious, one whose exrraor-
dinary indicarions confirm borh its own spiritual rrurh and its
supreme correspondence ro rhe spirirual realiry ir depicts.
But, in any case, rhe basis of every icon is spiritual experience.
As a result, we could organize icons inro four categories, depend-
ing upon rheir poinr of origin:
l. Biblical icons, rhose whose realiry is grounded in rhe re-
vealed Word of God;
2. Portrair icons, rhose arising from rhe iconpainrer's direct
experience and memory of persons and events he not only out-
wardly saw as empirical realiry but inwardly comprehended as
spiritual facr;
3. Icons from rhe Holy Tradirion, i.e., ones created from the
oral or written record of orhcr persons' spiritual experience in rhe
pasr; and
4. Revealed icons, ones wherein rhe iconpainrer records his
own spirirual experience arising from eirher direcr vision or from
mysrical dream.
These four caregories, however, by their abstraer clariry also show
us that-pracrically speaking-only the fourth caregory really
applies. For if cerrain icons are unquesrionably revealed, rhen al!
76
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
rhe icons in rhe orher rhree caregories (even rhe Biblical ones)
compel rhe same conclusion: rhe hisrorical aurhenriciry of cerrain
evenrs and persons does nor exclude rheir exisrence in ererniry;
rhus, rhe possibiliry emerges rhar we may contemplare such evenrs
and persons by raising our consciousness above time. All icons are
rherefore revealed icons. And even when rhe icon is a porrrair
icon, ir is clear rhar in order for ir ro be an icon, ir musr in rhe
iconpainrer be based in a vision (for example, a vision of spirirual
lighr in rhe person-even rhough rhar person is srill living on
earrh): rhus, rhe porrrair icon cannor be directly opposite ro a
revealed icon. Equally, rhe icons of rhe Holy Tradirion demand
rhar rhe iconpainter go beyond rhe merely abstraer accounrs of
pasr experience and see somerhing wirh his own spirirual eyes.
Nor only in rhe Easrern church was rhis understanding of rhe
visionary basis of iconpainring essenrial bur also in rhe Wesr, in
rimes and places far from mysrical conremplation, there were
rhose secredy living rhe belief rhar spiritual revelarion was rhe only
rrue ground of iconpainring and rherefore thar rhe only rruly
reverencial rhings were rhose creared nor from earrhly bur from
heavenly sources. A srriking example is rhar of rhe ltalian Renais-
sance artisr Raphael. In a lerrer ro his friend Counr Baldazar
Casralione, Raphael wrore an enigmaric senrence: "In rhe world
rhere are so few images of feminine grace rhar I have sruck ro rhe
one mysrerious image rhar somerimes visirs my soul." Whar does
he mean, "visirs my soul"? The unraveling of rhe enigma can be
found in rhe accounr by anorher friend of Raphael's, Donaro
D'Angelo Bramante:
l wrire he re for m y own delighr rhe miracle enrrusred ro me by my dear
friend Raphael and commanded ro conceal under rhe seal of silence.
Once when 1 had expressed ro him with an open and full hearr my
wonder at the ravishing images in his work of the Madonna and the
Holy Family, 1 besought him ro unravel the mystery of where in rhe
world he had seen such beaury, such rouching gazes and inimitable
expressions as were in his Holy Virgin. Wirh his youthful shyness, his
The CounciLs on the !con and the lconpainter's Canonic LiJe 77
unique humiliry, Raphael fell silenr for somerime, and rhen wirh a flood
of rears he embraced me and rold me his secrer. He said rhar from his
earliesr yourh he had had always a burning in his soul, a unique sacred
feeling for rhe Morher ofGod-and somerimes he would say Her na me
aloud, feeling a sadness sweep over his soul. From the ftrsr srirrings of
his desire ro painr, he had nourished within an overwhelming hunger
ro paint vividly a picrure of the Virgin in Her heavenly perfecrion-but
he never dared trust his abiliry. Unceasingly, night and day, his spirit
rirelessly arrempted ro picrure in his mind the rrue image of the Yirgin.
But he could never satisfy himself, for ir always seemed ro him rhat this
inward image was somehow dimmed in ro rhe gloom ofhis own mental
fanrasies. Yer somerimes ir seemed thar a divine spark of brightness
would flame in his soul and rhen this inward image of rhe Virgin would
be outlined in light exacrly as he would wanr ro paint ir-bur always ir
was a fleering instanr, and he could not hold rhis true image in his soul.
Anxiery ceaselessly rormenred his mind, conrinually growing, for he
could see this rrue image of Her fearures only in briefest passing, and
in his soul rhere arose a darkness rhar did nor even desire ro transfigure
rhe dim image inro rhe illumined one. At lasr, he could not sray his
hand, and rremblingly he began ro painr rhe Madonna. And as he
worked, his spirit grew always more flery.
Then one nighr he dreamt he was praying ro Her illumined image as
he had so ofren fleeringly beheld: and, all at once, a sudden surge of
anxiery awakened him. In rhe nighr darkness, he looked at the wall
across from his bed and saw rhat ir was barhed in lighr, and rhe light
was hanging on rhe wall, and ir was rhe unfinished image of rhe Virgin
shining in sofr radiance, perfect, an image and yer living! and diviniry
was shining everywhere from ir! Tears filled his eyes as he looked inro
Her indescribably tender face, and ir was as ifevery leasr mistake he had
made as an arrisr was being erased by rhis living vision of Her face; ir
even seemed ro him rhat She was quite lirerally moving. And mosr
wonderful of all, Raphael found in chis bright vision precisely rhar for
which he had searched all his life and rhar which he had for so long
experienced only in a dark haziness. He could nor now remember how
he had fallen back asleep, bur upon arising in rhe morning, he felr as
rhough he had been reborn. This vis ion was forever erched in ro his soul,
his emorions, and rhus carried in his soul, ir vividly guided his depic-
rions of rhe Morher of God, and whenever he looked at any of his
painrings rhat depicred rhis image of Her, he felr a sacred awe and
78
PAVEl FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
rrembling. This is whar my friend, my dearesr Raphael, rold me and I
have rhoughr rhis miracle so imporranr and remarkable, rhar for my
own delighr I have wrirren ir on rhis paper.
Thus we undersrand whar Raphael meanr in his sentence abour
rhe mysterious image rhar somerimes visired his soul.
An icon is a transf!xing, an annunciarion rhar proclaims in color
rhe spirirual world; rherefore, iconpainring is rhe occuparion of a
person who sees rhar world as sacred; and so iconpainring "arr" (ro
use rhe rerm in rhe sense ir has in rhe secular world) belongs ro no
one else bur rhe Holy Farhers. In fact, rhe consciousness of rhe
Church, especially as expressed in rhe resolurions of rhe Sevenrh
Ecumenical Council, does nor even deem ir necessary ro disringuish
berween true iconpainrers and rhe Holy Farhers, insread opposing
rhem borh ro rhe lowesr form of iconpainrer, rhe hack-copyisr, rhe
mere rraders in icons, or (as rhey were known in ancienr Russia)
rhe "iconers" who, because of rheir careless disregard for genuine
iconpainring, were also called rhe "icon-daubers". Bur such Rus-
sian rerms, rhough rhey illusrrare somerhing of rhe Counci l's
meaning, do nor reveal irs essence. Whar rhe Council plainly said
was rhar icons are creared nor rhrough rhe arrisr's own inrenrion
bur rhrough rhe immurable law and Holy Tradirion
(9Ea.w9Ea[a KaL rrapooaLs) of rhe Ecumenical Church; rhar
ro compose and 'pre-execure' icons is rhe occuparion nor of arrisrs
bur of rhe Holy Farhers; and rhar ro rhe Farhers belong rhe
integral righr of composirion while ro rhe arrisr be-
longs only its fulflllmenr in rhe rechnique
In rhc deprhs of Christian anriquiry rhere is roo red rhe under-
standing rhat rhe icon is somerhing not subjcct ro arbirrary
change; and as rhis understanding srrengthens, deepens, and
manifesrs irself in rhe succeeding centuries, ir becomes more
firmly expressed, parricularly in rhe Russian ecclesiasrical rulings
in rhe sixreenrh and sevenreenrh cenruries. Here, rhe many icon-
painring aurhenrif!carions, borh verbal and visual, resrify ro rhc
srabi li ry of the rradirional pracrice; and their essenrial terms and
The Councifs on the !con and the lconpainter's Canonic Life
79
concepts flow clown inro rhe very deprhs of Christian anriq-
uiry-although sorne of rheir elemenrs are rooted in rhe darkness
of pre-Chrisrian hisrory. Thus we can understand the deliberare
warning ro rhe iconpainter repeared many times in the aurhenrifi-
carions: anyone who ignores the Holy Tradirion and begins ro
fashion icons according ro his own rhinking will be condemned ro
eterna! rormenr.
In rhese norms of Church consciousness, secular hisrorians
and posirivisr rheologians see rhis unique conservarism of rhe
Church as rhe variery rhey know: a senile sustaining of habitual
forms in rhe circumsrances of Church arr having ended, seeing
rhe norms as obsracles rhat are preventing the emergence of new
religious arr. This fundamental misundersranding of rhe Church's
conservarism is, simulraneously, a misundersranding of arrisric
creariviry irself. To rhe rruly crearive, rhe presence of a canonical
rradition is never a hindrance, for in every sphere of art rhe
complexities of canonical forms acr as a rouchsrone thar, while ir
may break lesser talenr, will serve ro sharpen true creariviry. Lifr-
ing creariviry ro rhe very heighrs of human achievemenr, canoni-
cal rradirion frees rhe arrisr's energy for new attainmenrs, releasing
ir from rhe necessiry of srerile reperirion; rhe demands of canoni-
cal rradirion-more precisely, rhe gifr from mankind ro arrisr of
canonical rradirion-is rherefore for the arrisr nor an enslavemenr
bur a liberarion. An arrisr who in ignorance imagines rhar, wirh-
out canonical rradition, he could creare a grear work is exacdy like
a person walking on rhe earrh who comes ro imagine rhat rhe flrm
ground under his feer is hindering him, and rhar if he were only
suspended in rhe air, how much farrher he could go! In realiry,
such an arrist is rhrowing away rhe perfecrion of forms and is,
insread, taking hold subconsciously of rhe wrecked fragments of
forms whose perfecrion-now accidental and imperfecr-can
only be wholly subconscious memory; and such work is called
"crearive". The rrue arrisr, on rhe orher hand, wams nor his own
(at any cost) rrurh bur rarher rhe objecrively beauriful and arristi-
80
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
cally incarnate truth of things-and he cares nothing at all about
pride's mean-spirited question whether he is rhe first or rhe hun-
dredrh to speak this trurh. If the work is true, rhen it esrablishes
irs own value. In the same way wherein every person alive busies
himself with the living realities ofhis own life rather rhan with rhe
quesrion wherher his life resembles his neighbor's-rhar is, he
lives by and in himself for rhe truth, in rhe absolure cerrainry, firsr
that rhe trurh of his life is necessarily and essenrially unique and
individual and, second, rhat his life can be trurhful only within
the universal currenrs of human history and rhus cannot be
self-willfully invenred:-just so, the work of arr lives, and rhe
arrist who bases his work on the canonical tradirion (if ir can be
found where he is) discovers in and rhrough the canons rhe energy
to creare works wherein reality is the true objecr of rheir medira-
rion, wholly cerrain in rhe knowledge rhar his work (if free) will
never duplicare anorher's-rhough his actual concern is nor wirh
rhat issue bur with rhe rrurhfulness shown in rhe work. Thus, ro
accept the tradicional canon is ro en ter inro a relarionship wirh all
humaniry and ro realize rhat humaniry has nor lived in vain, thar
ir has nor been wirhour truth, and rhar, insread, ir has compre-
hended rruths rhar have been resred and purified by the councils
and rhe generarions; rhus, humaniry is confirmed in rhe canon.
The immediare task, rhen, is to understand rhe canon, ro en ter
inro it as inro rhe essenrial rarionaliry of humankind, spirirually
srraini ng so as ro artain rhe highesr leve! whereupon we may
determine ourselves; and rosee, too, how from rhis leve! rhe truth
of rhings rhen reveals itself ro me, rhe individual arrist; for ir is
universally acknowledged rhar such spiritual srraining, wherein
our individual reason enrers inro rhe universal forms, opens rhe
source of all crearion. Conrrarily, when an arrisr in rhe weakness
of proud self-will abandons rhe universal forms, he finds himself
on a leve! far benearh rhe spirirually arrained one, a leve] benearh
even rhe personal, one rhar is insread merely random and uncon-
scious. To use a figure: were I ro dip my finger and nor my pen in
The Councls on the !con and the lconpainter 's Canonic Life 81
rhis inkwell, 1 would nor in rhis way be exhibiring originaliry and
inspiraran even if 1 managed ro compase sorne lines of poerry.
The more complex and remate from ordinary life rhe subject in
hand is, the more the arrisr musr concentrare on rhe relared or
corresponding canonic forms, borh because only so can he be
responsible ro rhe arr irself and because only so can he make
accessible rhat which is remate.
In relation w the spirirual world, the Church-always living,
always creative-seeks neirher ro defend rhe old forms as such nor
w oppose them to new ones as such. The Church's understanding
of art was, is, and will be realism. This means rhar rhe Church,
"the pillar and foundarion of t ruth," requires only one rhing: rhe
rruth. Thus, rhe Church will never ask wherher rhe form is old or
new; rather, She will demand that rhe rhing in question be
aurhemic rrurh, and if She is sarisfied iris so, rhen She will bless it
and take ir into Her rreasury ofTruth, while if nor so sarisfted, She
will reject it.
In the case of iconpainting, if assemblies of rhe devout find in
an icon rhe accomplishmenr of rhe universal canons, rhen rhere is
formal acknowledgement rhat rhe icon in quesrion reproduces
whar is recognizably the truth or opens imo somerhing else also
rrurhful; bur when no such discovery occurs (i.e., when rhe
canons cannot be perceived in rhe work), then irisan impermis-
sible work, or else its revelarory truth srill has ro be demonstrared;
and if rhe larter, then rhc iconpainter has ro comprehend what he
has in fact done and be able ro show rhis ro orhers. Thus, rhe
carholiciry of the Church cannot refuse ro ask Vrubel, Vasnetsov,
Nesterov and orher recenr iconpainrers wherher rhey are depicting
somerhing they invenred in rheir own imaginarions or sorne rruly
exisring realiry-and, furrhermore, wherher rhey have told truth
about rhis realiry and have produced 'firsr-appeared' icons, or
wherher rhey produced yer anorher of rhose whose number ex-
ceeds in Church hisrory all rhe holy visions of rrue iconpainr-
82
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
ing-whether, rhat is, rhey have told folsehood The quesrion is not
whether an image of a woman is "skillfully" or "poorly" execured
(such measures lie merely in rhe artist's inrenrion); the question is,
is S he in reality rhe Mother of God? If an arrist is inwardly unable
ro reveal rhe spiritual self-idenrity of the person he depicrs-if ir
is, in facr, someone else alrogerher-rhen is nor what is happening
immense spirirual disorder and has nor rhe artist spoken abour rhe
Morher of God wirh a brush filled wirh falseness? When conrem-
porary arrisrs look abour for human models in arder ro painr
sacred images, rhen they are already proving rhar rhey do not
clearly see the sacred person rheir imagery depicrs; for if rhey did,
rhen every alien image from rhc earrhly world would be for rhem
a hindrance and nota help ro spiritual conremplarion. Ir seems as
rhough mosr religious arrisrs see norhing wharever, eirher clearly
or hazily, bur, instead, are superficially resraring an externa! image
along rhe lines of half-conscious mcmories of Theorokos icons,
confusing canonic Trurh wirh rhcir own arbitrariness and daring,
when rhey finish ir, ro enrirle rheir work rhe "Morher of God."
Bur if rhey cannor show rhe Trurhfulness of rheir work-if rhcy
rhemselves remain unsure of ir-rhen are rhey nor tesrifying ro
rhis very doubrfulness? Are rhey nor wrongly raking upon rhem-
selves rhe immense responsibiliry rhar belongs solely ro rhe Holy
Farhers? Are rhey nor rherefore imposrers? Are rhey nor liars?
If a rheologian were ro describe rhe life of rhe Virgin Mary in
terms ourside rhe Tradirion, would nora reader righrly demand ro
know rhe rheologian's sources? And having gotten an unsarisfac-
rory answer, would not the reader righrly accuse rhe theologian of
wriring lies? But a rheologian-iconpainrer depicring rhe Holy
Morher somehow considers such lying his privilege. Thus, while
Renan's Vi'e de jesus was never meanr ro be read in liturgical
services in place of rhe Gospels, false icons are nor only placed in
churches bur are made the objecr of lirurgical actions. For icons
manifesr the Trurh ro all persons, even rhe wholly illiterare; theol-
ogy, however, is accessible only ro rhe highly educared few and
The Councils on the !con and the lconpainter's Canonic LiJe 83
rherefore bears less responsibiliry; neverrheless, sorne contempo-
rary icons publicly cry out lies in rhe midsr of churches. Even the
arrists of rhe Renaissance West, not bound in rhe slighrest by rhe
canon, used a tiny handful of basic iconpainring rhemes, doing so
withour any ecclesiasrical demand whatever and even, now and
again, observing rhe Church Tradirion: so gready does rhe arrisr
need rhe canonic norms. For rhe Church norms, even when very
srricrly observed, exercise almosr no resrrainr upon rhe iconpain-
rer-a fact demonstrated when we compare ancient icons of rhe
same rheme, even of the same exacr drawing; never are any rwo of
rhem idenrical, and even rhe resemblance we see at first glance
only heighrens rhe originaliry of approach each icon uniquely
takes. Furrher, rhe way wherein a new iconic creation, arising
from a new experience of rhe heavenly mysreries, perfectly jits into
rhe already opened canonical forms, enrering into them as into a
fully prepared nest: this is whar we see in Sr. Andrei Rublev's icon
of rhe Holy Trinity. The iconic subjecr of rhree angels seared ata
rabie exisred wirhin rhe canonically derermined ecclesiastical arr
long before Sr. Andrei. In rhis sense, he invenred norhing new,
and (archaeologically speaking) his Triniry icon is one of a long
series of depicrions of Abraham's hospitaliry that begins some-
where in the 4th ro rhe 6th cenruries. Archaeologically, rhese
depicrions were iconic illusrrarions of a person's life (namely,
Abraham's) and, in being so, they also foreshadowed rhe revela-
rion of rhe Holy Triniry. Bur rhe Trinirarian meaningof rhese early
icons is a foreshadowing in rhc samc way rhar baprismal meaning
is a foreshadowing in rhe passage of rhc lsraelires over the Red sea,
or thar the Burning Bush is a foreshadowing of rhe Holy Morher:
for when we intendy examine even rhe perfect renderings of the
Burning Bush, we can see no hinr in them of rhe Virgin. Just so,
rhe image of rhe rhree srrangers at Abraham's rabie at Mamre
could, absrractly considered, have produced rhe dogma ofTriniry;
but ir could not, in irself, paint rhe icon.
84
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
In the fourreenrh cenrury, for a variety of reasons, rhe dogma
of rhe Trinity became rhe special objecr of Ecumenical attenrion,
and rhe Church gave ir then a precise verbal formularion. The
man who complered rhis work, crowning rhe whole of the medie-
val epoch, was "rhe worshipper of rhe mosr Holy Trinity," Sr.
Sergius of Radonezh. He was rhe one who undersrood rhe heav-
enly azure-rhat unassailable, transworldly peace which is cease-
lessly flowing inro the immorral deprhs of perfecr love-as both
rhe goal our medirarion must seek and rhe commandmenr our
lives musr incarnate; as, rhar is, the basis of borh ecdesiasrical
reality and personallife as well as rhe ground of all polirical and
social forms. He saw rhe iconic image of rhis love in rhe canonic
patrerns of Abraham's Epiphany ar Mamre. Bur Sr. Sergius' expe-
rience of rhis new vision of rhe spirirual world was seen in rhe
sainr by Sr. Andrei Rublev, who (guided by Sr. Nikon, the disciple
of Sr. Sergius) made rhen his great icon of rhe Holy Trinity "in
praise of Farher Sergei." At rhar momenr, rhe Trinity icon-series
ceased being illusrrarions of Abraham's personal life, irs relarion-
ship ro rhe Mamre experience becoming merely rudimenrary. For
rhe Rublev icon shows in the most astonishing way rhis new
vision of rhe Holy Trinity, a new revelation shining rhrough the
veils of whar are now rhe old and dearly less significanr forms. Bur
rhese old forms do nor obsrrucr the new revelaran because rhey
rhemselves were expressions of aurhenric reality and rherefore nor
mere invenrions-and also because rhe new revelaran is compa-
rably an expression of rhe very same reality and also rhus not
subjective conjecture. What was strange or unclear in rhe vision's
firsr ourline was filled densely in wirh hisrorical derails, so rhar
when, cenruries larer, rhe vision returned, rhe vision was ar lasr
understood, a process taking humankind millenia of spiritual
labor ro develop rhe necessary organs of perceprion wirhin sacred
consciousness. And at that momenr, rhe hisrorical derails all by
rhemselves fell away from rhe composirion, and Sr. Andrei 's icon
(rarher, Sr. Sergius'), both rhe ' first-appeared' and rhe reperirions
The Councils on the !con and the lconpainter's Canonic LiJe
85
of ir, borh old and new, rogerher became a new canon, a new
insrance or exemplar, one confirmed by Church consciousness
and firmly esrablished as a canonic norm by many Russian coun-
cils, including rhe 1 00-Chaprers Council.
The more rhar spirirual comprehension becomes onrologcal,
rhe more unshakably ir is accepred as somerhing long familiar;
and for a long rime, human consciousness had awaired rhar
comprehension. Thus, such comprehension rruly is a joyousmes-
sage from rhe deprhs of exisrence, from rhe almosr complerely
forgorren bur always inwardly cherished memory of our spimual
homeland. For we genuinely receive a revelarion from rhar which
has enrered our homeland, comprehending not ourwardly bur
inwardly in remembering rhar an icon is a remembering of a high
prototype. Thar is why we ourselves need nor penetrare deeply
inro rhe spirirual world, for ir, by exrraordinary means, will
enfold irself inro unusual, even mysrerious forms rhar, like so-
called rebuses, reinsrare, in rerms we can see, rhe spiritual worl d.
Ar one extreme srands purely figurarive arr ar rhe very boundary
of verbal narrarion, bur wirhour verbal clarity; ar rhe orher 1.1 rhar
degenerarive symbolism called allegory, which possesses norhmg
bur verbal clarity. Bur rhis does nor mean, however, rhar an
allegorized symbol is necessarily an absrracrion in rhe invenror's
mind. Bur its purely contemplarive visualiry, along with rhediffi-
culr indirecrness wirh which one may pass rhrough ir ro irs
prototype, makes rhe allegorized symbol accessible only ro a very
few. Moreover, in rhe same way rhar aposrasy is a separarion from
all humanity, so an allegorized symbol is opposed ro al! rrue
symbols and, in being exalred above rhe carholicity of rrue
bols, rhe allegory easily becomes rhe source of heresy, 1.e. rhe
source of all isolarion or secrarianism.
Ar rhe close of rhe sixreenth cenrury, as ecclesiasrical i:t'e fell
inro decadence, rhe spirir of allegory everywhere rook hold .. ,part
of an onrological collapse, resulring in a heaviness rhar made
86
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
grearly difficulr any rising up out from rhe merely sensory world.
And in his inabiliry any longer ro see clearly rhe supernarural
world, rhe iconpainrer arrempred ro compensare by increasing rhe
complexiry of his rheological composirions, rhereby uniring rheo-
logical rarionalism wirh purely convenrional images drawn from
rhe merely emprica! world of rhe senses. The resulr was rhar rhe
rheological rarionalism degenerared inro purely abstraer schemara
expressed primarily in rhe terms of rhe convenrionally sensory
imagery: a frivolousness borh secular and sensual. Such was rhe
sad end of rhings ar rhe close of rhe eighreenrh cenrury, a conclu-
sion made infinirely more dismal by rhe facr rhar, in Russia, rhe
figurarive arrs had attained heighrs unequalled anywhere in rhe
world.
Earlier, in rhe fourreenrh and fifreenrh cenruries, Russian icon-
painring had reached a heighr of perfecrion wirhour parallel in rhe
whole hisrory of world arr-a pinnacle shared, perhaps, only by
classical Greek sculprure (which also incarnared spirirual vision),
and (again like Greek sculprure) whose brilliance was corrupred
by rarionalism and empiricism.
Thus, at rhe heighrs of perfecrion, iconpainring is wholly alien
ro even rhe slighresr shadow of allegory, opening rhe spirir inro a
brighr vision of primordial uniry by means of forms so organically
creared rhar one can easily see in rhem rhe canons common ro all
humankind; and because rhey are firsr of all revelarions of rhe life
in Chrisr, and becausc rhey are also manifesrarions of rhe puresr
ecclesiasrical creariviry, these forms bccome rhe mosr beloved
primordial forms in all humankind. For in rhese iconic forms we
can recognize rhe separare appearances of ancient cultures: e.g.,
rhe fearures of Zeus in rhe face of Chrisr Panrocraror or rhe
fearures of Arhena and lsis in rhe Morher of God. "Wisdom is
jusrified of her children" (Mr.Il:l9), for in rhese hints and
guesses in rhe faces of Zeus and Arhena, rhe children of ancienr
The Councils on the !con and the !conpainter's Canonic LiJe
87
wisdom, we see how Holy Wisdom was using rhe whole of world
arr-history ro prepare for rhe revelarion of trurh.
Thus we say again, rhat rhe more onrological rhe vision is, rhe
more universal will be rhe human form rhis vision expresses-in
rhe same way rhar rhe mosr sacred words of rhe highesr mysteries
are always rhe humanly simplesr words: farher and son; birrh; seed
rotting and sprouting; bridegroom and bride; bread and wine;
brearh of wind; rhe lighr of rhe sun; and so on. A canonical form
is a form of supreme essence, a form which is impossible ro
simplify furrher; and while deviations from canonic forms limit
and arrificialize, canonic forms liberare: rhus, imagine how an
arrisr who is genuinely free would cry out were devianr forms ro
be esrablished as rhe norms of figurarive arr!
In canonic forms, on rhe conrrary, we can brearhe freely, for
rhey wean us from rhe srreams of inessenrialiries rhat seem always
ro disturb rhe movemenrs of rhe divine crearion. The mosr devel-
oped, rhe mosr esrablished, rhe srricresr canons express mosr
deeply and purely rhe universal spiritual needs of all humaniry; for
rhe canons, in becoming rhe Church's wisdom, become rhe carho-
lic canons of all humaniry. Thus, a soul will purify irself rhrough
rhe canons of asceric discipline, srripping away everything wirhin
irself rhar is merely subjecrive and inessenrial and allowing rhe
spirirual discipline ro open rhe soul ro rhar eterna!, primordial
trurh of human narure creared in rhe image of Chrisr (i.e., ro rhe
absolure foundarion of crearion)-rhereby finding in one's own
deepesr soul rhe very rhing long ago implied in rhe canons and
which inevirably had ro be expressed in rhe whole course of
hisrory. The asceric will rhen see-even in rhe fierce glare of rhe
fallen day's vaniries-rhe beaury of rhe divine srarry sky.
For sorne reason I remember here rhe grear elder Ambrose of
rhe Optina Hermirage. He had an icon rhar had been composed
wirh shallowness of feeling by an iconpainrer badly infecred wirh
rhe disease of naruralism, an icon portraying rhe Mulriplicarion of
88
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
rhe Loaves. Neverrheless, from rhis monk's riny cell in a very
remore monasrery in a srill more remore province, from an old,
poor, and simple man, arose an exrraordinarily powerful idea, one
conrradicring rhe whole parrern of conremporary ecclesiasrical
sophisricarion and refined synodal culture: rhar rhis poor icon
depicred rhe Good Goddess; for who else is rhe Mulriplicarrix of
Loaves, who else excepr a vision of rhe Morher of God in rhe
canonic form of rhe Morher of Loaves: Demerer. The bad icon-
painring of rhe 1880's disobeyed rrue spirirual discipline; yer,
solely by inner feeling, Ambrose could see (as can we) exacrly how
rhe Church affirmed rhar ancienr image of mellow Demerer, rhar
image wherein rhe ancienr Greeks regisrered rheir prescienr
guesses abo u r rhe Morher of God.
In rhe mosr precise sense of rhe word, only rhe sainrs can be
iconpainrers; and ir may well be rhar rhe vasr majoriry of rhe sainrs
have "painred" icons in rhe sense of direcring, rhrough rheir
spirirual experience, rhe very hands of rhose iconpainrers who
possessed borh enough rechnical skill ro depicr sacred vision and
enough spirirual inrelligence ro respond sensirively ro sainrly in-
srrucrion. Such arrisric cooperarion need nor amaze us. In earlier
periods, in rimes of grearer cultural cohesion rhan ours, arrisric
work was generally done collaborarively-somerhing we can see,
for example, in rhe workshops and srudios of rhe grear masrers,
even in rhe periods when arrisric individualiry was sharply empha-
sized. In rhe Medieval period, when arrisric consciousness was
more unified, and when rhe guidance of a spirirual director was
culrurally recognized, collaborarive iconography perhaps reached
special perfecrion. Ir may even be rhar rhe Gospels and orher
sacred Christian rexrs were srill earlier so creared: rhe Gospel of
Mark, for example, under rhe guidance of Sr. Perer, and rhe
Gospel of Luke and rhe Acrs of rhe Aposrles under rhe guidance
of rhe Aposrle. Ir is no wonder, rhen, rhar cerrain masrers of
iconpainring, obedienr ro rhe sainrs who proclaimed visions of
The Councils on the !con and the Iconpainter's Canonic LiJe 89
immorral beaury, would depicr rhar beaury under rhe direcr super-
vision and verificarion of rhe very sainrs rhemselves.
Bur rhe rechniques of rhe brush are not always inherenrly
opposed ro rhe conremplarion of spirirual vision; and rhrough rhe
whole hisrory of rhe Christian Church rhere runs (like a golden
thread) a rradirion of sacred iconpainring. Beginning wirh rhe firsr
wimesses of rhe incarnare Word and carrying rhrough all rhe
cenruries, rhere march rhose sainrs who are rhemselves iconpain-
rers along wirh rhose iconpainrers who rhemselves are sainrs. We
know rhe names (though we cannot prerend ro know all) of rhese
sainrly iconpainrers, led by rhe evangelist Sr. Luke.
To rhese iconpainrers, and ro rhose like rhem, also belong
rhose who creare rhe new or 'first-appeared' icons. Furthermore,
we must also add rhe names of iconpainrers who mulriply rhe
' firsr-appeared' evidence of rhe spiritual realm. Jusr as rhe spirirual
word needs copyisr-writers, so rhe spirirual vision needs copyisr-
iconpainrers. These copyisrs may nor need be rhe eagles in rhe
heavens, bur rhey cannor be so far removed from spirirual inren-
siry as nor ro feel rhe significance and responsibiliry of whar rhey
are doing as wimesses-or, more precisely, as assistants in rhe
wirnessing. For rhey are nor iconpainrers in rhe sense rhar rhey are
crafrsmen who happen ro be making icons as opposed ro anorher
kind of fine arr; rhey are nor skilled rechnicians who may or may
nor belong ro rhe Church. Rarher, they are holders of an unique
Church office. For in rhe consciousness of rhe Church, rhey hold
rhis special office in rhe sacred hierarchy, in rhe rrue rheocra<.:y, of
rhe Church, and, as members of rhe Church, rhey are recognized
in rheir funcrion as iconpainrers. They occupy a place midway
berween rhose who serve ar rhe airar and rhe ordinary layperson.
They live a prescribed life, almosr semi-monasric, under che direcr
supervision of rhe Merropoliran, rhe local bishop, and rhe spe-
cially designared wardens of iconpainrers. The Church honors
Her iconpainrers by giving rhem rhis unique srarus-and, in sorne
90
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
rare instances, She has even granted financia! rewards, as in rhe
exrraordinary eighreenrh-century case of one Simon Ushakov,
who was given noble rank. On rhe orher hand, rhe Church
recognizes rhe necessity ro scrurinize attentively nor only rhe work
of Her iconpainters bur rheir very lives.
An iconpainrer's life is rherefore not simple. Because rhey are
raised in rhe ecclesiasrical hierarchy above ordinary laypeople,
rhey must rherefore pracrice a grearer humility, purity and piety, a
profounder pracrice of fasring and prayer, and a more consranr
and deeper conracr wirh rheir spirirual farher. Thus, rhe bishops
consider rheir iconpainters as people "higher than rhe ordinary."
Conversely, rhen, were an iconpainrer ro violare the prescribed
Rule ofhis life, he would be immediarely dismissed from the work
under a condemnarion ro suffer in eterna! tormenr-such would
be rhe requirements in that case. But, in actual reality, iconpain-
ters always put rhemselves under disciplines srricter than any
given ro them, becoming genuine ascerics in rhe exacr sense of rhe
word.
Thus, iris nor for reasons of"law and order" (as rhe phrase has
ir) rhar rhe Church rells Her iconpainters rhat rhey should see
rheir work as acts in a high and sacred service; rarher, She is
arrempring ro link rhem ro rhe very same "golden thread" of logic
rhat runs from the flrsr Wimess-i.e., Christ Himself--to rhe
very cenrer of rhe Incarnarion that is rhe Holy Church Herself.
This arrery of iconpainring susrains the whole ecclesiasrical body
and rherefore ir can nowhere be allowed to run dry, and rhe
ccclesiasrical canons of iconpainring inrend precisely thar: ro pro-
vide rhe free flow of grace from rhe head of rhe Church (i.e.,
Chrisr) ro Her very leasr organ. And, trurh ro rell, rhe more
inrricarely ramif)ring rhc spread of rhis arterial sysrem of icon-
painring, rhe less dangerous for rhe whole ecclesiasrical body is rhe
clogging of a single capillary. Bur neverrheless even rhe leasr
icon-copy-one of rhose reproduced by rhe millions-musr bear
The Councils on the lcon and the lconpainter's Canonic Lifo 91
wirness to rhe truths of rhe orher world; for a spirirual blurriness
or inconsistency or (worse) falsehood could inflicr irreparable
damage upon one or more Christian souls, jusr as (on rhe other
hand) irs spiritual rrurh could help strengthen someone's soul.
An icon musr conform-"in imagery, likeness, and es-
sence"-ro rhe aurhenric images of spirirual exisrence. Orherwise,
rhe Holy Church cannor be cerrain rhar one or anorher of Her
viral organs will nor go dead. In this light, rhe ecclesiasrical
function of those specially appoinred wardens of iconpainring is
very clear: ro accepr rrurh-telling icons and ro reject the false-
speaking ones. In facr, an icon becomes rruly an icon only after
rhe Church recognizes rhar rhe image in it corresponds ro irs
living spiritual Prototype; in other words, ir is an icon only afrer
She rruly names ir. And rhe act of rrue naming-i.e., of estab-
lishing rhe self-idenrity of rhe person in rhe icon-belongs only to
the Church; and were an iconpainrer ro write on an icon a name
not so given in rhe Church's reaching (wirhour which an icon
cannot rruly be an icon), rhen ir would be essentially rhe same as
signing a legal document wirh nor your own but wirh someone
else's name. If I undersrand the practice correcdy, an examinaran
by an icon-warden always concluded (if afflrmative) wirh rhe
warden himself, wirh rhe bishop's blessing, writing rhe name of
rhe sainr on rhe icon irself; and evidence of rhis practice can be
seen on rhe many old icons which have arrached ro rhem metal
piares wirh rhe saints' names quickly, even carelessly wrirren in
charcoal and oil-wriring surely nor done by rhe iconpainrers
rhemselves. Ir has something of rhe air of an execurive's signarure
on correspondence composed by an inrelligent secrerary.
We might narurally conclude, rhen, rhat such a signarure
funcrions as rhe censor's sea! of approval. Bur ir is far more rhan
rhar, for ir is nor enough merely ro verif)r (or rejecr) icons afrer
rhey have been made; rhe deeper question is: if eternity musr be
wirnessed in and rhrough rhe icon, can rhis occur rhrough rhe
92
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
work of someone who is himself alienated from rrue spirirualiry?
This is precisely rhe poinr ar which rhe Church, in considering
nor merely rhe work bur rhe whole Iife of an iconpainrer, will
come ro view disregard of spirirual rule as devasraring ro rhe very
inregrity of the iconpainring culr. Hence, rhe ascetic demands
placed upon iconpainrers in the matter of their personal lives;
hence, too, the precise formulation given these demands in the
43rd chapter of the documenr known as the 100-Chapters Coun-
cil, a formulation articulared when Russian iconpainring had
already reached irs supreme heighrs:
Let chis be read in rhe royal ciry of Moscow and in all the ciries, as the
Czar so advises, to all metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops: for the
protecrion of all rhe orders of rhe Church, but pre-eminently for rhe
holy icons and rhe iconpainrers and orher orders, rhat all and every may
be prorecred as beftrs rhe sacred precepts; and rhat also ir may be made
known what rhe iconpainrer shall be, what diligence he shall possess,
so as ro depict in earrhly images Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and
His Most Pure Morher, and all the heavenly Powers, and all rhe sainrs
who have been in all ages well pleasing ro God.
Let ir be known, then, that rhe iconpainrer shall be meek, humble, and
reverenr, neirher ftlled wirh vain tal k, nor empry laughrer, nor quarrel-
some, not envious,nor a drinker of spirits, nota rhief nora murderer;
and above all rhings, that he shall susrain in grear mindfulness apure
chasriry of soul and body, and rhat ifhe cannot susrain apure chasriry
of body, he shall marry a wife by rhe lawful sacramenr of matrimony;
and rhat always and everywhere rhe iconpainters shall artend constanrly
ro rheir spirirual farhers, relling rhem everyrhing always and living
always according ro rheir teachings abour fasring and prayer and all the
asceric disciplines, doing so wirh neirher embarrassmenr nor willful-
ness, and wirh always the rrue wisdom of humiliry; and rhat rhey shall
wirh grear diligence make rhe image of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of His
Mosr Pure Morher, of all rhe holy a pos des and prophets, of all rhe holy
hierarchs and marryrs, and of all rhe righreous women and holy farhers,
each and every according ro rhe "i mage and likeness" of rhe mosr di vine
essence, looking always to rhe images of rhe ancienr iconpainrers and
always drawing from rhar good rreasure-house of rheir mosr excellenr
example.
The Councils on the !con and the Iconpainter's Canonic Life
Ler ir be also known rhar if ir shall be rhar a masrer-arrisr who has give
solemn oarh ro live in chis very way, observing truly all these comman.
ments of God and working diligently in all these labors of God, sh;..
accomplish rhe will of God in all of these things, then shall rhe Cu:
express gratitude ro chis master-artist, and rhe all-hierarchs of rf:e
Church shall grant great prorecrion ro him and in every way shall
him as elevared above all ordinary persons; and, furrher, rhat rh
master-artist shall accept disciples, examining them in all rhings ar.:
reaching them every devotion and chastiry, and shalllead rhem in um
his own spiritual father; whereupon che spiritual farher, in turn, accorC
ing ro rhe canons given him by che hierarchs, shall instrucr rhe disciplo
in how the Christian shall, by abandoning every self-willfulness, live -
every humiliry; so rhat from their masters the disciples may rruly learr
And if ir picase God thar He shall reveal che are of true iconpainring ro
one disciple or more, then shall che master lead this disciple in unto rhe
hierarch who, after examining carefully rhe work of rhe disciple anc
discerning its accordance wirh che holy "image and likeness" of Goc
and afrer derermining that che disciple lives in every obedience anc
chastity oflife and in full and humble accordance wirh every commanc-
ment of God, shall rhen bless che disciple and insrruct him ro
in rhis life of devorion and ro sustain in all diligence chis grear labor o:
God, therein granring to rhe disciple rhe like honor his teacher bea:-
in being exalred above all ordinary persons.
Further, ler ir be rhat, afrer rhe hierarch shall insrruct rhe master non,
defend any disciple whomsoever ir be-whether the masrer's own sor
or his brorher or anyone thus close ro him-to whom God did no:
granr che rrue work of che holy art, if ir shall be rhar rhe master cake rhe
work of such disciples who ha ve begun ro fashion wrong icons and t.
live in wrong fashion and, relling falsehoods by proclaimi ng rhe bac
disciples' great worrh, he shall rhen display the work of anorher as rhe
fruit of che bad disciples' labors, then shall che hierarch, having learnec
of all rhis, put chis lying master under fair prohibition, so rhar
orher iconpainter will go in great fear and nor dare do rhe same rhing
and so rhat even those bad disciples will nor dare even ro touch rh
fruir of another's labor.
AJso, let ir be rhar, ifGod reveal ro one disciple or more rhe true
of iconpainring such rhat rhese disciples begin ro live in full
with rhe commandmenrs of God, and if ir so be that the master ,.
94
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASJS
jealousy's fierce grip begin rhen ro blame such reverenr disciples, rhen
shall rhe hierarch, having learned of all rhis, pur rhis jealous master
under fair prohibirion and give ro these good disciples every grear
honor.
Again, ler ir be rhar, if sorne master in rhe arr hide away his knowledge
and nor give rhe arr's very essence unro his disciples, such a master
shall-like rhe man Our Lord speaks of as burying away his talenr-be
condemned by God Himself inro erernal rormenr; and if eirher sorne
master or sorne disciple begin ro live in unholy ways, in drinking of
spirirs or in licenriousness or in self-willful pride, rhen shall rhe hierarch
put rhem all under fair prohibiran, and he shall separare rhem from
every holy work in rhe icons, commanding rhem all nor even ro rouch
rhe tiniest part of ir, under rhe terror of the revealed word rhar cursed
be rhey who do rhe good work of God in rhe evil of carelessness.
And, again, ler prohibirion fall upon any who atrempr ro make icons
wirhour sacred srudy, fashioning rhem nor by sacred image bur by rhe
self-willed imaginarion of rheir own unletrered hearrs, and who rhen
arrempr ro sell or exchange rhem ro and wirh rhe unknowing and rhe
simple; and ler ir be commanded rhar such ones begin ro srudy wirh
the good masrers of rhe arr; and ifir shall be rhar sorne, by God's grace,
begin rhen ro make icons by image, rhese ones shall conrinue in rhe arr;
bur ifir should be rhar God nor granr rhem rhe arr, such ones shall cease
all rheir work so rhar rhe sacred N ame of God may nor be disgraced by
su eh work; and if ir so be rhar rhey refuse ro cease all rheir work, ler rhe
Czar in his anger punish all such ones; and if rhey lamenr rhar ir be rheir
one livelihood, ler rhem nor be heard in rhis sinful complainr, for they
see nor rheir sin in rheir ignoring God's grace in giving only a few rhe
gift of rrue icon-working; and say also ro rhem rhar God, in His wisdom,
has granred ro men many arrs and crafrs wherein rhey may find rheir
livelihood bur rhar rhe imagc of God may nor be disgraced by rheir
hands.
Also, ler ir be known rhar rhe archbishops .tnd bishops in every ciry and
village, and in every monasrery under rheir care, shall personally
examine every master of rhe arr, borh his life and his arr; and when he
finds, in his jurisdicrion, rhe supremely good master, rhen he shall
command such a masrer ro supervise all rhe orher iconpainrers so rhar,
among rhem, rhere nor be any bad ones; and, furrher, rhar rhe arch-
bishops and bishops shall equally inquire in ro and equally well care for
The Councils on the !con and the lconpainter's Canonic LiJe 95
rhe wardens of the icons; for in rhis fashion shall rhe iconpainrers be
righrly prorecred and honored above all ordinary persons, rhar every
man, of eirher mean or high esrare, shall reverence such arrisrs and
render rhem honor for rheir sacred iconpainring.
And, lastly, ler ir be known thar rhe hierarchs in each rheir own
jurisdicrion shall exercise grear diligence in assuring rhar rhe every
master and disciple, our of rheir own mind and ideas, shall nor ever
fashion an icon rhar arremprs ro depict rhe invisible Godhead Himself,
for Chrisr Our Lord shall be shown in rhe Aesh, nor in rhe Godhead ....
These reachings on rhe iconpainrer's high calling were, of
course, nor confined w one ciry carhedral ar one period of rime.
Throughour rhe whole hiswry of Chrisrendom we find rhe hand-
books of iconpainring suggesring, for example, even in such ap-
parendy rourine marrers as cleaning and inspecring old icons rhar:
Do nor conducr rhese rasks carelessly and inarrenrively bur wirh rever-
ence and rhe fear of God, beca use rhese are rasks pleasing ro God.
A work entided Hermeneia, or Instructions in the Art, by rhe
iconpainrer and hieromonk Oionysius of Fourna, codifies and
expounds rhe reachings of Panselinos' school. Dionysius begins
wirh clearly stating his sense of spirirual responsibiliry rhar has led
him ro compose rhe present manual. The Hermeneia gives exacr
and full insrrucrions, srep by srep, on rhe enrire process of icon-
painring: drawing rhe parrern; making charcoal, glue and gesso;
gcssoing rhe icon board; bui lding up rhe haloes in the icon;
gessoing the enrire iconostasis; preparing the poliments and gild-
ing rhe icons and iconosrasis; preparing rhe sankir (flesh color);
applying rhe highlighrs and painting rhe garments; and so
on-including how w mix pigmcnts for differenr colors, what are
rhe rrue proporrions of rhc human body, how ro do frescos, and
how ro renovare older icons. But rhar is nor by any means all.
Dionysius also gives a complete partern-book in which he ex-
plains in full derail how ro compose rhe figures from rhe Old
Tesrament rexrs as well as rhe figures of rhe Greek philosophers.
He also rells how ro compose rhe figures nor only from rhe
96
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
Gospels, Acts and Episdes bur also rhose from Jesus' parables; and
he tells how ro distinguish iconographica11y the Apocalypse from
the Second Coming. He also discusses rhe iconpainring derails of
the feasrs of rhe Theorokos, rhe imagery of rhe Akarhisrs, rhe
hisrorical feasrs of rhe Church, didacric and miraculous images,
and, lasr of all, he gives derailed insrrucrion in fresco composition:
where and what should be depicred in a church of rhis or rhat
sryle. This rich Hermeneia concludes wirh rhe dogmaric founda-
tions of iconpainring wherein Dionysius discusses rhe ancient
Church traditions abour the fearures of borh Our Saviour's Face
and rhe Holy Mother's, abour rhe posirion of rhe blessing hand in
an icon, and about what words should be writren in which icon.
At the very end, Dionysius concludes with his own brief prayer:
To the Creator of all goodness, ro our God, rhanksgiving! Having
finished chis book 1 say, Glory ro You, O God! Again 1 say, Glory ro
You, O God! And again 1 say, Glory ro You, O our God of all crearion!
Such is the richly harmonious conrenr of rhis high and magisterial
Hermeneia. Bur, reader, I ask you: do you nor feel thar somerhing
here is missing? Do not all these exacr and fu11 insrrucrions feel
suspended in air, self-enclosed and derached from rhe true arder
of iconpainring? For whar is missing in al! rhese rechnical derails
is rheir absolutely necessary condirion: prayer. The Hermeneia
would indeed be empry if ir had nor been rhe facr rhar, in rhis
accounr, I sil endy passed over the actual beginning of the book.
For here, in fu11, are Dionysius' preliminary insrructions ro any-
one who "wishes to learn rhe arr":
lf anyone wishes ro learn rhe are of iconpainring, ler rhem begin by
pracricing drawing for a rime, wirhour concern for proporrions, unril
rhe skill of drawing becomes an acquired habir. Then ler the novice
approach rhe priesr, ro have prayers said before rhe icon Hodegerria (rhe
Direcrress of rhe Way) on his behalf. The priesr musr say rhe prayers
"Biessed is our God," "O Heavenly King" and rhe resr of rhe Trisagion,
and rhen, afrer rhe megalynarion of rhe Holy Morher and rhe rroparion
of rhe Transfigurarion, rhe priesr should make rhe sign of rhe cross upon
che head of rhe novice and loudly chanr "Ler us pray ro rhe Lord," and
The CounciLs on the !con and the Iconpainter's Canonic Life 97
rhen continue wirh rhe following prayer: "O Lord Jesus Chrisr our God,
infinite in Thy divinity who, inexpressibly incarnare through Mary the
Virgin Morher, became finite for our salvation; who imprinred che
sacred shape of Thine immaculare Face on rhe holy veil and, by means
of chis, healed rhe illness of Abgar and enlightened his soul with the full
knowledge of God; who rhrough Thy Holy Spirir broughr such wisdom
to rhe Holy Apostle and Evangelist Luke that he could depict Thy
wholly sinless Mother who held Thee in Her arms saying, 'May che
grace of Him who is born of me be given ro rhis image through
me'-rhe same way, O God and Master of all rhings, enlighren and
bring wisdom ro the soul and heart and mind of this Thy servant [name]
and so direct rhese hands that they may depicr-mosr perfecdy beyond
all reproach-the forms ofThy person, ofThine AJ I-Holy Mother, and
of all rhe sai nes; to do so to rhe glory, splendor and beauty of Thy holy
church, and for rhe remission of rhe sins of all who truly revere and
devoudy kiss and so bring honor to Her; and protecr, O Lord, rhis Thy
servant from all demonic wiles as he diligently follows in his work rhe
sacred commands of Thy ministers, of Thy Holy Morher, of rhe holy
aposde and evangelist Luke, and of all rhe sainrs. Amen." Then closing
prayer and dismissal. Afrer rhis order of prayer, let rhe srudent now
begin to draw rhe holy faces in rheir exacr shape and appearance,
pracricing for a long period of rime wirh full attentiveness. Then, wirh
rhe help of God, rhe srudenr will come to fully understand rhe rrue
work of iconpainring. For 1 have seen rhis happen in my srudents.
Dionysius says that he writes al! rhis solely for the benefir of his
"fellow arrists in Chri st," from whom he asks rheir prayers for
him. And he speaks wirh grarefullove a word "ro a srudenr":
Know, my diligenr srudenr, rhar when rhe momenr arrives when you
shall plunge into rh is grear are, you musr search rirelessly to find an
experienced reacher, one you will come ro appreciate deeply if he
reaches you in rhe very way 1 have oudi ned ro you here.
Thus, Dionysius sees what rhe whole community of iconpainters
everywhere and always affirms: rhe successful accomplishment of
iconpainring technique depends enrirely upon the iconpainrer's
devorion ro prayer. Such is rhe clear air of a master iconographer
and iconpainrer in rhe first half of rhe eighteenrh century, a
period when alllife-incl uding ecclesiasri cal li fe- had fallen inro
98
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
a secularization of terrible harshness. Nevertheless, rhis devour
spirit and unique consciousness has persisred uninterrupred
among iconpainrers inro our own rime, a spirit and consciousness
sometimes informing whole villages wherein, from one genera-
ran ro rhe nexr, rhere has passed rhis spiritual self-awareness of
being workers in a high and sacred rask, a self-awareness accom-
panied by rhe transmission of semi-secrer techniques of icon-
painring, of divine processes of working. Ir is a unique and
enclosed world of wirnesses. And if ir has remained so inro our
rime, rhen we have grear difficulry even imagining righrly rhar
spirir-bearing armosphere whence, in anriquiry (when rhe whole
of earrhly life was ser in arder), rhere flowed inro rhe whole
ecclesiasrical body rhar manifestarion of divine beaury whose
spirirual principies were and are rhe unshakable axis rhar was and
is rhe Holy Mysteries of Chrisr.
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova
The History of Artistic Technique, Western and Iconic
There is norhing accidental in rhe organizaran of sacred cusrom:
neirher in rhe iconic forms nor in rhe lives of rhe iconpainrers. Ir
is quite incorrect ro assert rhar the culric arder employs eirher
iconic forms or iconpainrers from beyond irself, unaware rhar
rhey represenr its own powers. Rarher, rhe culr in irself serves ro
reveal rhe sacred faces and, again in irself, ro guide rhe lives of rhe
iconpainrers. Plainly, rhen, rhe holy images of iconpainring are
incarnared by rhese servanrs of rhe Church rhrough rhe use of
arrisric srraregies rhar are in no way alien ro rhe culric meraphysics
or rhar employ media which do nor flow from rhe sacred purpose.
Concerning rhe culr, neirher rhe rechniques nor rhe materials
rhemselves are accidental; none of rhem may be undersrood as
having simply arrived-in rhe accidents of hisrory-inside rhe
Church, as if any of rhem could be painlessly and easily replaced
by orher rechniques and orher materials. We would nor so rhink
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova
99
in relarion ro any orher art form, rhar any artistic concepr could
be execured wirh any arristic rechnique or material, as if materials
and rechniques were somehow arbitrarily connecred wirh arrisric
ideas and conceprs, somehow exrrinsic ro esrhetic essences. How
much more so, rhen, should we see norhing wharever accidental,
subjecrive or capricious abour rhe rechniques and marerials of rhar
arr wherein is revealed rhe spirirual narure of all humanity. The
field of rhis art is rherefore bounded in irself in ways beyond any
comparison ro any orher human arr, for norhing alen-no "alen
fire"-could ever be placed on irs sacred airar. Ir is impossible,
rhen, to conceive even as a purely esrheric experiment an icon
composed in an alen rechnique with alien marerials: ir could nor
possibly be an icon. Bur rhis impossibiliry becomes vividly clear
when we consider rhe spirirual essence of the icon. The arristic
srrategies and racrics of iconpainring, i.e., rhe marerials used and
rhe ways of rechnically using rhem, are rhe meraphysical modali-
ries by which rhe icon possesses incarnate life. The marerials and
techniques of an arr-any arr-are symbolic: for each single one
of them possesses irs own concretely derermined metaphysical
aliveness rhrough which ir corresponds ro a unique spirirual fact.
Bur even granring all rhis, consider rhe matter on sorne purely
emprica! issue of arrisric surfaces (affirming, of course, that there
can be norhing superficial rhar does nor also possess inward
manifestaran). The issue we shall consider is rhe consistency of
rhe painr. If we think about rhe surfaces of iconpainring-about
rhe exact biology and physics of rhe arrisric surfaces (i.e., their
chemical and physical natures), about whar precise! y coheres rhe
color-pigments as well as rheir chemical constituenrs; if we think
about what various dissolvenrs and varnishes exacrly do in rhe
icon; if, in short, we think about all rhe myriad material causes
operating in any art, rhen we are already direcrly engaged in
reflecring upon thar profoundly metaphysical disposirion which
rhe creative will expresses in and as its wholeness. Ir may well be
rhar rhe arrisr will deploy rhesc so-called material causes instinc-
100
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
rively, moving subconsciously as he fashions rhis or rhar arrisric
panern or focus; bur such insrincrive and subconscious move-
menrs nor only do nor gainsay rhe deeper meraphysics of creariv-
iry; on rhe contrary, rhey compel us ro see in creariviry somerhing
far beyond rhe merely menral arbirrariness of rarional choice; ro
see, rarher, rhe way wherein rhe powers of creariviry conrinue rhe
primary acriviry of organic organizarion, rhar acriviry rhrough and
in and of which rhe physical body is irself woven. We may say,
rhen, rhar rhe choice of media, of rhe material causes ser in
morion wirhin an arr work, is nor a choice made in rhe arbirrari-
ness of individuality-nor even if we say rhar rhe arrisr is choosing
from far wirhin rhe inward deprhs of his being; rarher, rhe choice
is solely made by rhe mind of history, by rhar collecrive mind of
narions operaring in time ro shape rhe enrire arrisric sryle of an
age. Thus, we may be quite correcr in saying rhar arrisric sryle and
arrisric marerials are rwo circles rhar everywhere inrersecr; for we
know assuredly rhar rhe material causes of a given work of arr
express far more fully rhe beliefs of an age rhan does any concepr
of sryle deduced merely from rhe shared characterisrics, or com-
mon denominaror, of rhe mosr popular arr forms.
Is ir nor complerely clear ro us rhar rhe sounds of purely
instrumental music-even rhe sound of rhe full organ-are
wholly al ien ro an Orrhodox licurgical service? Even aparr from
rheir role in a given composirion, such sounds are impossible in
an Orrhodox church. This clear impossibiliry arises direcrly from
our sense of rasre, complerely aparr from any rheoretical consid-
erarions, beca use rhe sounds of instrumental music conflicr in our
consciousness wirh rhe whole sryle of rhe Onhodox services,
breaking aparr rheir self-inregrared wholeness even if we consider
rhe services as merely arrisric uniries: isn'r rhis complerely clear?
For isn'r ir clear rhar rhese sounds, raken solely by rhemselves, are
far roo remore from rhe precision, rhe comprehension, rhe verbal
and inrellecrual energies of rhe Orrhodox services ro become rhe
material basis of rheir sonic arr? Don'r we clearly experience rhe
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova 101
sounds of the organ as roo slow, submerged and alen, roo en-
gulfed in rhe darknesses of human narure, for rhe crysralline
rransparency of Orrhodox liturgical life? 1 am attempting in rhis
not ro judge but ro comprehend rhe issue of deeper srylisric
integriry; wherher my comprehension is wholly accepred or en-
rirely rejecred is, finally, of no consequence ro me.
"Bur you are ralking abour organ sounds now when 1 rhoughr
you wanred ro be ralking abour rhe visual arrs. Have you complete! y
forgotten: isn'r rhis essay supposed ro be abour iconpainring?"
Yes, of course, bur rhe sounds of rhe organ are nor ar all
irrelevanr. Please, ler mego on, and you'll see why l'm rhinking on
rhese lines. So, about rhe organ:
Ir is a musical insrrumenr inrimarely connected ro rhar par-
ticular hisrorical period and culture called rhe Renaissance. In
ralking abour Wesrern Carholicism, most people usually forger
rhar rhe Roman Church before and afrer rhe Renaissance are rwo
vasrly differenr rhings. For in rhe Renaissance, rhe Roman Church
survived a very grave illness wherein ir gained cerrain immuniries
bur suffered immense losses, for rhe price ir paid for rhe few
immunities ir gained was rhe disrorrion of the whole of spirirual
life. Ir is therefore very doubrful wherher medieval Carholic cul-
ture would even recognize posr-Renaissance Carholicism; and all
of modern Western European culture derives precisely from rhis
posr-Renaissance Carholicism. And rhe essential sonic expression
of rhis Carholicism is the organ sound; thus, ir is by no means an
accidenr rhat rhe production of organs flourishes in rhe second
half of rhe sevenreenrh cenrury and rhe firsr half of rhe eighreenrh:
rhe period, that is, most fully manifesting and expressing rhe
essence of Renaissance culture. 1 am not attempring here merely ro
draw an analogy; no, I am reaching for a far more deeply grounded
relarion-
"Ler me guess: are you rrying ro connecr rhe sound of rhe
Renaissance organ wirh rhe oil paint on a Renaissance canvas?"
102
PAVEL rLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
Exacrly righr. The very consistency of oil painr has an obvious
affiniry wirh rhe oily-syrupy sound of rhe organ; and rhe flarness
and liquidiry of oil colors inwardly connecrs rhem ro rhe sanie
liquidiries of rhe organ. Borh rhe colors and rhe sounds are wholly
of earrh and flesh. Hisrorically, rhe arr of Renaissance oil painring
develops exacrly ar rhe poinr when rhe arr of building organs and
composing for rhem flourishes mosr srrongly; here, rhen, beyond
al! shadow of a doubr, are rwo material causes arising from rhe
same meraphysical root; for both Renaissance painting and rhe an
of rhe organ express the idenrical attitude in varying spheres-
"Wait a momenr. Let me try again ro pur this essay back on rhe
rrack ir began on, figurative arrs. You said befare that arrisric
marerials have inrrinsic arrisric meanings, including rhe very sur-
face on which the painr is applied. I think it'd be just abour
impossible ro give an example of thar. I mean, if a surface is
complerely covered wirh painred imagery, and the surface be-
comes invisible, rhen it can have no relarionship wharever wirh
anyrhing like rhe arristic spirit of a given era; and rherefore rhar
surface can be replaced by any other surface (provided, of course,
rhat rhe new surface can rake rhe painr wirhour peeling). In orher
words, rhe meaning of a surface is entirely technical and nor
srylisric."
No, rhar's not exacrly righr- in fact, it's nor right ar all. The
properries of a surface srrongly determine rhe way one applies rhe
painr and even rhe painr irself. You cannor pur jusr any painr
wharever on any given surface-you can't put oils on thin paper
nor warer-colors on mera!. Bur more rhan rhar: the characrer of a
brush stroke is derermined enrirely by rhe narure of rhe surface,
and from rhe srroke arises rhe whole esrheric rexrure of rhe painr-
ing. And far more deeply rhan rhar: rhrough rhe rexrure crea red by
rhe srroke, and rhrough rhe textura! consrrucrion creared by all
rhe colors, rhar underlying surface which is rhe painring's primary
plane becomes manifesr. Srill furrher: in becoming manifesr, rhar
A Dialogue with Sophia !vanova
103
primary plane which is rhe surface is visibly revealed ro a degree
far greater rhan befare rhe color was applied. While rhe surface is
bare, irs essential properties are asleep; when rhe painr is put on ir,
ir awakens:-ir is exactly rhe same as clorhing rhat, by covering
rhe body, reveals rhe underlying physical structure far more fully
rhan would a direct gaze ar rhe naked body, for the complicared
folds of rhe clorhing can reveal rhe body's surface irregularities in
ways no direcr observarion ever could. Firm or soft; pliably resil-
ienr or acrually flabby; smooth or rough and uneven; by one
properry or another absorbing the painr or resisting it; and so
on-every properry of the underlying surface becomes intensified
and magnified when transfigured into the texture of the work.
Moreover, every underlying surface properry creares in the mani-
fest texture a dynamic equivalent; thar is, what was hidden, pas-
sive, and inert in the surface becomes in the texture a source of
power that invades what surrounds ir. In the same way rhat the
iron filings will make the magner's invisible force-field become
somerhing we can see, so too in rhe paiming: whar is sratic in the
bare surface becomes dynamic once rhe colors are applied; and rhe
more perfect the work of art, the more rhis dynamic of manifesr-
ing declares itself. The more acure and perfective rhe intelligence
ar work in the arrist's hand, the more this inrell igence under-
srands-beyond mere ratiocinarion-rhe essent ial meraphysics of
all the inreractive forces operaring in the figurarive surface; and
the more deeply the hand's perfective intelligence is penetratcd by
rhis essential metaphysics, rhe more ir can discern in rhese inrerac-
rive forces its own spiritual structure and its own metaphysical
sryle (provided, of coursc, that rhe inrelligence has in fact chosen
materials rhat accord wirh rhe true demands of its sryle). Once ir
has comprehended rhe dynamic strucrure of rhe surface, rhe
hand's perfecrive inrelligence can manifest it in and rhrough rhe
rexrure of rhe brush srrokes. Such manifestation occurs when the
raw materials and rhe arrist's inrenrion srylisrically correspond;
but when rhey do nor, when rhe predetermined narure of things
104
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
inrrinsically precl u des such a correspondence, rhen rhe perfecrive
inrelligence will idenrif)r rhis facr in rhe acriviries of rhe surface,
and rhe arrisr will rejecr rhe surface as inappropriare and alien.
Thus, rhe meraphysics of rhe figurative surface-
''I'm sorry, I musr inrerrupr. I have ro ask you, do you really see
in a piece of canvas, srrerched on a frame, somerhing like rhe
enrire spirir of Renaissance arr? I mean, ir seems as rhough rhe
canvas, for you, is sorne sorr of toral hisrory, somerhing rhar can
bring inro parallel borh organ music and oil painring."
Is ir possible for you ro-well, I don'r wanr ro say think bur
somerhing more expressive: is ir possible for you ro fiel differenrly?
The way the arrist's hand moves, its characterisric motion in apply-
ing painr, doing ir over and over: rhis morion is connecred ro
inner life; and if rhis characreristic movemenr for sorne reason
does nor correspond ro inner life, rhereby conflicring wirh ir, rhen
ir musr inevirably be changed-and changed nor merely in rhe
pracrice of one arrisr bur in rhe arrisric pracrice of a whole people,
narion, and hisrory. Is ir even conceivable rhar rhousands of arrisrs
for dozens of cenruries somehow, during all their nearly counrless
arrisric lives, moved rheir hands in ways and rhyrhms rhar had no
inward connecrion wirh rheir souls? The choice is obvious: eirher
rhe figurarive surface will possess rhe capaciry ro generare irs own
rhyrhmic dynamics in such a way rhar rhe arrisr-individually or
hisrori cally-musr submir ro rhar surface dynamics and rhereby
risk nor becoming whar he, in rhe strucrure ofhis highesr spirirual
calling, could become; or else rhe arrisr-again, individually or
hisrorically-will insisr on rhe primacy of his own rhyrhm and
find a new surface whose properries correspond ro his rhyrhm. An
arrisr musr eirher submir ro rhe given surface or else find a new
one; for ir is beyond anyone's powers ro alter rhe meraphysics of
an exisring surface.
Now, concerning canvas: rhe srrerched surface of ir, resilienr
ycr pliable, responsive ro rhe slighresr rouch, makes ir dynamically
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova 105
equal ro rhe arrist's hand. He engages ir as his brorher, consciously
apprehending ir as a living organism and, moreover, as something
rhar can be rurned and direcred in any way he wishes, for irs
illumination is wholly dependenr u pon rhe arrist's will, and ir can
relate ro irs surrounding only as he himself desires. The icon
board: immovable, hard, unbending, ir is far roo srrict, obligarory,
and onrological for rhe hand of the Renaissance arrisr-for he is
looking for rhe way ro realize himself solely among earrhly appear-
ances, wirhour rhe obstacle of anorher world; and his h n ~ craves
rhe feeling of autonomy, of being a law unto himself, and so his
hand does not wanr ro be disrurbed by encountering something
rhat does not submir ro his will. The icon board's unyielding
surface can only remind him of those other srrongholds he would
much prefer ro forger. For naturalistic images, for depicring a
world free of God and Church where he is his own law en-
rirely-such a world demands rhe grearest possible sensuous li-
quidity, a world where al! rhe images proclaim rheir manifesr
sensuousness as loudly as possible, a world where rhese images are
placed nor on a firm bur on a highly unsrable surface-a surface
whose insrabiliry expresses rhe very unsreadiness of al! earrhly
rhings. Perhaps rhe Renaissance arrist, and rhe whole of Renais-
sance esrheric culture, never consciously rhink abour whar I am
saying here; bur his hand-and rhe collecrive hand of rhe cul-
ture-rhink unceasingly about norhing else: abour rhe relarivism
of al! exisrence, about how rhe onrology of all things is displaced
by rhe sensuous and dissolving phenomenology of al! rhings, and
abour how human beings-as relative, nononrological phenom-
ena-alone have the right ro esrablish laws in rhis world of shifring
meraphysical delusions.
The classical Renaissance perspecrive arises necessarily from rhe
Renaissance self-understanding. I cannot here explore ir in any grear
derail; bur I can say rhis: rypically in rhis oudook, there is combined a
sensuous brighrness wirh an onrological insrabiliry of exisrence, a
combinarion thar finds irs most exact arrisric expression in an arr of
106
PAVEL fLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
liquzd instabilities, an arr rhar finds irs mosr perfecr rechnical expres-
sion in the acr of applying oil painr onro a srretched canvas.
"And so (if I follow you correcrly) you would also see a
connecrion between rhe arr of engraving and rhis whole world-
view -is rhar righr? And yer rhe arr of engraving is roored in rhe
soil ofProresranrism, and rhe grearesr graphic artisrs all develop in
rhe various Proresranr secrs. I rhink especially of Germany and
England-here is roored rhe culture of engraving and erching and
prinrmaking and similar arrs. Yer doesn'r engraving also rake root
in Carholicism? I guess I am asking myself rhis quesrion, nor you;
essenrially, I find myself agrceing with whar you are saying."
Certainly engraving is roored in borh Protesranrism and Ca-
rholicism. But how remarkable ir is thar, in Carholicism, engrav-
ing and rhe relared arrs do not seek ro be genuinely graphic, and so
rhey rherefore engage nor in rhe rasks of engraving bur in rhe rasks
of oil painring. In rheir work, rhc Carholic engravers and prinr-
makers use broad srrokes rhar direcrly imitare rhe oil painrer's
brush srrokes, trying ro creare effecrs of color nor in a linear
fashion bur in rhc wide, flar bands which rhe oil painrer uses,
rhereby essenrially abandoning rhe rrue work of the graphic arrs; for
in rhe graphic arrs, painr serves only ro disringuish one surface area
from anorher and nor, srricrly speaking, ro creare color-whereas
the flar band creares if nor exacrly color ar leasr something very
like ir. In rhe rrue pracrice of engraving in Proresranr culture, rhe
line is wholly abstraer, wirhour eirher widrh or color. Unlike rhe
brush srrokes in an oil painring, where each srroke arremprs ro
become rhe sensuous double of rhe rhing depicred (ar leasr in pan
if nor enrirely), rhe lines in an engraving seek ro be free of even rhe
leasr rouch of whar is sensuously given. If an oil painring is rhe
manifesrarion of sensuousness, rhen an engraving manifesrs rhe
inrellecrual consrrucrion of images from elemenrs wholly unlike
rhe elemenrs in rhe objecr being depicred; i.e., from rhe rarional
inrellecr's combining of various affirmarions and negarions. The
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova 107
engraving is therefore a schematic image constructed on the axi-
oms of logic (idenriry, contradiction, rhe excluded rhird, and so
on); and, in this sense, engraving has a profound connecrion ro
German philosophy, for, in borh, rhe essenrial and definirive acr is
rhe deducrive dererminarion of realiry solely rhrough rhe logic of
affirmarion and negaran, a logic wirh neirher sensuous nor spiri-
rual connecrions-in shorr, rhe rask in borh is ro creare every-
rhing from norhing. Such is rhe rrue aim of engraving, and rhe
more purely ir anains irs goal-i.e., wirhour eirher sensuous or
psychological insighr-rhe more definirive irs perfecrion as an
cngraving is revealed. Bur notice rhe practice in Catholic coun-
rries: rhere is rhe ceaseless arrempt ro slip the sensuous into rhe
logic of affirmarion and negaran. And so, yes, I agree rhar rhe arr
of engraving has an inner affiniry wirh Protestanrism. And I say
again: jusr as rhere is rhis inner affiniry between Protestant ration-
alism and rhe figurarive lineariry of engraving, so rhere is also an
inner affiniry berween Carholic estheric imaginaran and rhe sen-
suous rechniques of oil painring. Prorestant rationalisr arr wants
ro schematize irs objecr by reconsrrucring ir rhrough a process of
logical clarificarion rhar, in irself, possesses neirher color nor
rwo-dimensionaliry. An engraving wholly recreares irs image
along lines rhar have no relarion ro sensuous perceprion, and ir
does so in such a way rhar rhe image's whole structure, shadows
and all (i.e., rhe srrucrure nor only as rhe image's essence bur also
as all irs living conrexrual surroundings), would be schemarically
manifested by a numbcr of rationally derermined dimensions in
space, wirh rhe resulr rhar rhere would be in rhe image norhing
else excepr rhese rarional dimensions and their correlarions.
Now, ir is a rruism ro note rhar German idealist philosophy
(especially Kant) eliminared sensuous space from philosophic
rhoughr. Bur were Kant and Hegel, Fichre and Cohen, doing
anyrhing orher rhan whar Drer had done in engraving? Nor ar
all. Consider once more rhe juxraposirion of rhe engraved line and
rhe brush srroke. The brush srroke is nor (like rhe line) rrying ro
108
I'AVFL HORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
reconsrrucr rhe image bur ro imitare ir, in effecr ro replace rhe
objecr nor by rarionally reconfiguring ir bur by sensualizing irs
image so rhar rhe objecr in rhe painring becomes somerhing more
imaginarively surprising rhan rhe objecr in realiry The brush
srroke seeks ro surpass rhe figurarive surface of rhe canvas and ro
enrer inro rhe sensuousness direcdy given ro rhe rouches of painr
or ro rhe colored relief or ro rhe painred srarue; in shorr, rhe brush
srroke imitares rhe image by inrerposing irself for rhe objecr,
rhereby enrering inro life nor by symbolic bur by emprica! fac-
rors. The ourer limir, rhen, roward which rhe arr of oil painring
rends can be seen in all rhe Carholic madonnas dressed in rhose
brighrly popular clorhes. On rhe orher hand, rhe ourer limir of rhe
arr of engraving may be (if we sharpen our rhoughr in caricature-
fashion) discerned in a purely geomerrical pattern or even in a
differenrial equarion.
"Bur I srill don'r see rhe meaning (in rhe sense we saw earlier)
of rhe figurarive surface in rhe arr of engraving. I mean, I see rhe
surface of rhe engraving as somehow accidental, as somerhing nor
connecred wirh rhe master engraver's whole way of working. I see
now rhar oil painr cannor be used on any surface wirhour rhar
surface reflecring irs whole characrer. All rhis is clear now. Bur rhis
isn'r ar al! rhe case in engraving. For an engraving can be prinred
on almosr any surface wharever wirhour changing rhe characrer of
rhe prinr (excepr maybe slighrly)- wherher on a variery of differ-
enr kinds of paper, or on si l k, or ivory, or wood, or parchmenr, or
srone, or even metal- iris all rhe same in regard ro rhe engraving's
artistic srrucrure. More rhan rhar, even rhe painr in an engraving
is more or less indifferenr if ir can be replaced by anorher
painr-if nor by a differenr color ar leasr by a differenr consis-
rency. So given rhese rwo conditional characrerisrics of rhe engrav-
ing's primary material causes- namcly, surface and painr-I am
beginning ro doubr everyrhing you have been saying; rhough I'm
sure you have noriced rhar I've raken up your whole sryle of
rhinking ... "
A Dialogue with Sophia !vanova
109
Bur 1 rhink ir's jusr rhe opposire; ir's only rhat you're not
following through wirh rhe ideas you've well begun. Consider: in
rhis freedom ro choose rhe surface and rhe painr, engraving
manifesrs rhar very deceprion ar rhe hearr of Proresranrism-irs
cry for freedom of conscience in its denial of the Church tradi-
rion-more: in its denial of rhe universally human tradirion.
What are we given by rhe prinrmaker's piare? A piece of paper, rhe
least durable rhing imaginable, for ir can be crumpled or rorn
easily, ir absorbs water, ir burns insrantly, ir grows moldy, ir cannor
even be cleaned-in shorr, the symbol of earrhly corruprion; and
ir is u pon rhis, rhe mosr perishable of all surfaces, rhar we see rhe
engraver's strokes. If we ask, are rhe srrokes acrually done on rhe
paper, we know rhar, of course, rhey are nor. Yet look ar rhe lines:
rhey plainly show rhar rhey have been drawn on a very hard
surface, one attacked and rorn and deeply cut by rhe engraver's
sharp knife. Thus, in rhe print, rhe visual appearance of rhe
engraved strokes wholly contradices rhe actual properries of rhe
prinred surface; and rhis conrradicrion serves ro make us forger
rhese properries and ro assume rhar the paper is, in fact, very hard.
In the esrherics of rhe circumsrance, rhen, we attribure ro rhe
papera durabiliry far exceeding whar ir possesses in realiry. And
thar attriburion, in rurn, makes us suppose rhat, because the
srrokes on rhe paper are nor really deep, the engraver's power is
immeasurably grearer rhan ir is: fo r we see rhar his hand, in
encounrering the extremely hard surface of rhe piare, was nor
conquered and did not shake bur remained inflexibly srrong. And
so rhe impression arises rhar the engraver does nor introduce
material changes inro rhe surface but, insread, demonsrrares rhe
"pure" (in rhe Kanrian sense) reconsrrucrive acr of form-crearing
and rhar, rherefore, rhis form can (again, as in Kanr) be easily
accepred by any surface. And so ir comes ro seem rhar rhe en-
graver's crearion of forms exceeds rhe boundaries of rhe material
he works in and rhar, rherefore, his crearion is pure in possessing
absolure freedom ro choose-even arbirrarily-rhis or rhar sur-
110
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
face. But exactfy this is the deception. To undersrand ir, ler us begin
wirh rhe fact rhat what we cal! the engraving is not rhe rhing rhat
was engraved. In rhe precise sense of rhe word, rhe engraving is
rhe mera! or wooden piare; bur we subsritute for ir rhe prim; and
so when we speak abour rhe engraving, we are acrually thinking
abour rhe prim. This confusion is no accidenr. Now, in rhe piare,
rhe texrure of rhe arr work is nor somerhing arbirrarily chosen by
rhe engraver but is, insread, rhe necessary consequence arising
from rhe properries of rhe plare's surface; for in rhe piare rhere is
nor rhe slighresr trace of rhose esrheric deceprions we described
befo re.
Historically, rhis clariry is how engraving firsr happened. In rhe
beginning, rhe arr of engraving was rhe arr of carving on metal
and wood (sometimes on srone); ir had norhing ar all ro do wirh
prinring. There was produced an arr objecr, i.e., a surface covered
wirh engraved images; bur rhere was no piece of paper. Whar we
cal! an engraving originares in a mere rechnique: afrer covering a
carved surface wirh ink or painr, ir was pressed onro a piece of
paper-and, lo and behold, a prior. Bur rhat prinr was not
originally the aim of the arr; now, however, we see the process of
making rhe piare as mere prepararion-whereas, originally, rhe
prior was made solely in arder ro have an exact copy of rhe carving
in rhe evenrualiry of rhe engraver's wanring ro reproduce ir. This
original circumsrance in engravings can be seen roday in cerrain of
our woodcarvers-for example, rhc famous Khrusrachevs of Ser-
giev Posad, a father and his sons-where rhey rake phorographs of
rheir remarkable works before rhey deliver rhem ro rhe people
who commissioned rhem.
"Yes, rhe disrincrion berween rhe engraving and rhe prinr has
been badly disrorred-rhe firsr is indeed rhe arr work, for rhe
engraved piare, even if reproducible, is always creative, while rhe
orher, rhe prim, is merely rhe marrix for generating exact reperi-
rions. We have ir the orher way abour: rhe mechanically repro-
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova 111
duced prinr has become for us rhe arr work irself, while rhe
engraving has come ro seem rhe reproducrive marrix, somerhing
only rhe primer himself cares abour."
Ler's explain our rhinking on all rhis by drawing up a rabie on
rhe origins of engraving:
1 The srarring poinr is rhe tesserae hospitales of anriquiry,
called in ancienr culrure 'symbols,' which meanr ' broken rhings,'
whose halves served as tokens of pledges. The broken coins of
lovers, ere. (Sir Walrer Scorr's The Bride of Lammermoor has a fine
example).
2. Pre-cur objecrs used as receiprs or rickers, examples of
which include rhe small wooden sricks used in rhe Yaroslavl and
Tambovsk provinces here in Russia (as in rhe Yaroslavl Museum);
also, rhe Chinese bamboo sricks.
3. Khan's mark (i.e., foorprinring in Chinese culture); finger-
printing in rhe legal and record-keeping sysrems; ere.
4. Seal imprinred on wax, including lead-relief
5. Ornamental carvings on wood and metal.
6. Seal imprinred on charcoal or painr.
7. Color proof-prinrs used ro keep a copy of an engraving.
8. Finally, enrirely sclf-suffi cienr prinrs, metal engravings, and
woodcurs as insrances of graphic art.
''All rhis, I rhink, is quite clear. But (picking up where we left off),
whar is ir rhar explicirly connecrs engraving and Proresranrism?"
Ir is rhis: rhe anisric freedom ro arbirrarily choose rhe surface
(i.e, paper, wood, and so on) and rhe painr corresponds ro Prores-
ranr individualism and freedom-or, more precisely, ro Proresranr
arbirrariness; bur rhen, upon rhese arbirrarily chosen marerials,
rhe supposedly Pure Reason (i.e., toral rarional iry srripped of any
sensuous dimension) draws irs graphic schemata of realiry, eirher
religious or emprica!. These schemara are placed on marerials rhar
have norhing in common wirh rhem, rhereby revealing Reason's
112
I'AVEL HDRENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
freedom of self-dererminarion: and so Reason comes ro enslave
rhe reason of everyrhing surrounding ir, for, in exercising irs
freedom of self-dererminarion, ir violares rhe self-dererminarion
of rhe world; while, in proclaiming irs own law, ir rhinks ir
unnecessary ro arrend ro rhar law whereby all rhings in crearion
become aurhenrically real. Proresranr individualism is rhus a me-
chanical imprinring of irs own engraved piare upon all exisrenr
beings, a piare wirh no conrenr wharever, consrrucred enrirely
rhrough binary logic. Bur rhis Proresranr freedom of choice is, in
facr, delusion: for ir is nor rhe process of applying wise spirirual
understanding ro rhe unique acriviries of individual beings (as is
aurhenric crearive freedom, fl exibly conforming irself ro given
realiries); no, Proresranr freedom does nor apply irself ro unique
individual beings bur, insread, simply and wholly neglecrs rhem,
for ir has prepared in advance of any encounrer a sramp, or sea!,
which musr be prinred wirhour rhe leasr differenriarion upon
every single soul ir meers. Proresranr freedom is rhus an attempr ar
tyranny using rhe words of freedom, words like a song perma-
nenrly cut inro rhe grooves of a record-
"And whar's rhe insrrumenr ir curs wirh?"
1 rhink your real quesrion is: whar is rhe inner faculry used by
rhe Proresranr spirir and how does ir connecr ro rhe engraver's
knife and rhe ercher's needle?
"Exacrly. "
Reason is rhe unique faculry of Proresranrism; perhaps berrcr,
reason is rhe faculry ir always proclaims as uniquely irs own. For
orhers, Reason is nor uniquely Proresranr, rhar ir is rhe very
inrellecr of humankind and nor merely a Proresranr faculry. For
Proresranrs rhemselves, Reason is somerhing like rhe imaginarion,
somerhing operating far more passionarely rhan ir does in Ca-
rholicism, somerhing burning wirh rhe spirirual fires of prelest,
somerhing srruggling againsr a surface rhar is immeasurably more
onrological rhan ir is in Carholicism.
A Dialogue with Sophia /vanova 113
"Bur jusr where are rhese (as you call ir) spirirual fires of
imaginarion?"
Whar do you mean, where? Do you mean you have never
noriced rhar imperuous fanras izing called sysremaric philosophy
which springs from Proresranr soi l? Boehm and Husserl are obvi-
ous examples, for in general all Proresranr philosophers firsr build
casrles in rhe air from norhing ar all, and rhen rhey harden rhem
in ro sreel so as ro make ferrers for all rhe living flesh of rhe world.
Even Hegal, dry as dust, writes in such a srare of drunken inrellec-
rual rage rhar Jean's remark is nor ar all a mere wirricism: in the
inroxicarion caused by nitrous oxide, one will perceive and rhink
of the world in Hegalian fashion. Protestant philosophy is rhe
situarion of being complerely drunk oneself while compelling
everyone else ro be saber.
"Bur ler's go back ro our srarring poinr: not oil painring and
engraving as such bur iconpainring. What is rhe inner connecrion
in iconpainring, how do irs rechnical properries connecr ro irs
spiri rual tasks?"
In a word, iconpainring is rhe meraphysics of exisrence-bur a
concrete, not an abstraer, meraphysics. Where rhe oil painring
will express rhc worl d in scnsuous images, and rhe Proresranr
cngraving will give us the world in rational schemata, rhe icon
makes visually manifest rhe metaphysical essence of rhe event or
person ir depicrs. And where rhe rechniques of oi l painring and
engraving developed in response to rheir respective cultural im-
perarives and rhus reprcscnr, in rhemselves, the disrillations of
searches carried on enrircly wirhin the terms of their given cul-
wres, rhe techniqucs of iconpainting arise wholly from rhe need
ro express rhe concrete mctaphysicaliry of rhe world. Thus, in
iconpainring (if I may be permirred ro say, wirhout offense,
somerhing essent ially rrue and necessary), not only are rhere no
emprica! accidenrs, rhere are also no metaphysical accidenrs.
114
PAVEL RORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
Therefore rhe world's sinfulness and perishabiliry should nor
be considered as merely emprica! accidenrs, as rhings spoiling rhe
world; instead, when considered in relarion ro rhe world's divinely
creared spiritual essence, sinfulness and perishabiliry are mera-
physical accidenrs wirhour need or necessiry; for we can discern in
rhem norhing wharever of earrh's essenrialiry bu t only irs passing
circumsrances. And iconpainring does nor seek ro express rhese
circumsrances, for rhey only overshadow rhe rrue narure of rhings;
insread, iconpainring's rrue subjecr is rhis very narure irself, rhe
world creared by God in irs rransworldly beaury. Everyrhing de-
picred in rhe icon, all rhe derails, consrirure rhe image, or reflexive
represenrarion of rhe prororypical world of sacred
beings.
"Bur granring rhar idea ro be generally rrue, musrn'r we imme-
diarely add sorne qualif)ring word or orher, like 'in general' or
'essenrially' everyrhing in rhe icon reflecrs rhe prororypical world?
I mean, even for Plato rhe guesrion arase of wherher or nor rhe
'Idea of one hair' exisred. If an icon represenrs a conremplarion
upon an idea, rhen isn'r rhe idea ro be comprehended in rhe icon's
rora! significance, while rhe derails-life evenrs, body srrucrure,
archirecrure, landscape, and so on-are externa! and accidental in
rhe sense rhar rhey are, in relarion ro rhe toral idea, devices for
expressing rhar idea? Ler me give an example. The garmenrs in an
icon don'r have meraphysical mcaning, do rhey? Aren'r rhey de-
picred so as ro give rhe icon irs inrricare, beauriful and expressive
arcas of color? I rhink rhar even rhe purely decorarive rouches in
an icon possess power, rhar rhe dcrails of ir have nor only mera-
physical meaning bur even naturalisric imporrance-look ar rhe
gold in rhe halo and in rhe golden highlighrs on Chrisr's gar-
menrs. Don'r you rhink rhis gold represenrs somerhing in rhe
actual person? I rhink so, and I rhink ir was seen as somerhing very
beauriful, and ir is, and ir picases us deeply ro see rhe church
decorared wirh many icons, especially in rhe beaurifullighr of rhe
oillamps and rhe candles."
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova
115
Iconic Clothes and the Meaning ofGold
Well, ro use Liebniz's language, you are right in your asserrions
and wrong in your negarions. Bur ler's approach the question nor
rhrough whar's righr bur whar's wrong, beginning wirh rhe com-
mon guesrion of meaning. You mosr cerrainly rhink of metaphys-
ics in a concrete way, and so do I, seeing in ideas rhe visually
manifesr faces of rhings, rhe living appearances of rhe spiritual
world, for such is rhe way al! of us see. Bur when rhe momenr
arrives of acrually applying rhese ideas ro panicular cases, l'm
afraid rhar a cerrain cowardice overrakes us: our foot is in rhe air
bur we dare not complete rhe srep-and we won't even consider
rurning back to rhe abstracrions of meraphysics and rhe meaning
of meaning, where validiry is never visual. Nor can we look abour
for sorne intermediary step in understanding, for none exisrs.
A living organism is integral, and everyrhing in ir is consri-
rured by the energy of aliveness, for if rhere were somerhing dead
in ir-even the tiniest rhing-rhen rhe organism's whole integriry
would collapse. A living organism exisrs solely as the visual mani-
fesrarion of living energy (or form-crearing idea); or else ir doesn'r
exisr ar all and the very word organism should be dropped from
rhe dicrionary. Jusr so, a work of arr is an organism: if somerhing
in iris accidental, rhen rhat accidenr bears wirness to rhe facr rhar
rhe arr work is not wholly incarnared, rhar somerhing in ir has
failed ro emerge inro rhe sunlight, rhar somerhing is still covered
by rhe veil of inert earth. The concrete rcvelarion of meraphysical
essence musr, in rhe icon, be an cnrirely visual revelaran, and rhe
icon's appearance (for an icon is norhing but irs appearing)
musr-because all irs derails constirure a unified whole-be vis-
ual; for if something in an icon were eirher purely abstraer or
merely decorarive, rhen ir would unmake rhe icon's appearance as
an inregrated uniry; and rhen rhe icon would not be an icon.
In rhis connecrion, 1 remember once 1 heard a rheologian give
a ralk on rhe resurrecrion of rhe body, in rhe course of which he
116
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
tried ro disringuish between rhe organs we will need in rhe King-
dom of God and rhose we won'r: only rhe first will be resurrecred
while rhe resr (parricularly rhe digesrive sysrem) will nor be. Well,
if we credir rhese asserrions, rhen we musr entirely discard rhe
integral connecredness of rhe living body. For whar kind of resur-
recred body are we ralking abour here, whar will ir look like after
exrracring all rhe "unnecessary" parts: a skin balloon inflared wirh
erhereal air? For if we rhink of rhe body in purely naturalistic
rerms, rhen ir has no meraphysical significance in consriruting a
spiri tually living organism; and in rhe Kingdom of God, rhe body
can have no role, neirher in parr nor in whole, and rherefore every
organ, as mere "flesh and blood," musr be cut offfrom inherirance
of rhe Kingdom of God. Bur if, on rhe orher hand, we consider
rhe physical body symbolically, rhen rhe roraliry of ir in all irs
derails visually manifesrs rhe spirirual energy, or idea, of rhe
human person; and rhen aLL rhe organs of rhe physical body,
mysrically rransfigured, will be resurrecred as wirnesses ro rhe
spirit, for jusr as every organ in rhe living body is essential ro
physical life, each one needing all rhe orhers in order ro funcrion
righrly, so also in rhe order of spiriruallife, everyrhing is needful
for everyrhing else, for each rhing serves ro manifesr rhe idea and,
wirhour each rhing, rhe idea would lose in manifesrarion. The
icon images forrh rhe coming Kingdom of God, and ir permirs us
ro see rhe images (rhough rhey shimmer as in a forrune-reller's
mirror) of rhe Kingdom rhar is coming. These shimmering images
are wholly concrete, and ro ralk abour sorne parrs of rhem as mere
accidents is ro ignore rhe very narure of rhe symbolic. For if we do
rhar, if we say rhis or rhat derail in rhe icon is accidental, rhen we
musr follow our rheologian abour rhe resurrecrion of rhe body.
"Bur are you saying thar rhere is never anyrhing accidental in
any icon wharever?"
No, I'm nor saying rhar ar all. On rhe contrary, a grear deal is
ofren entirely accidental. Bur rhe accidental (in rhe sense of rhe
A Dialogue with Sophia fvanova
117
unintentional) can be not only not secondary and minor-"one
hair," as you quore Plaro-bur precisely thar which is of para-
mount significance: and rhis can happen not merely in rhe clorhes
bur in rhe very face and even in rhe holy person's eyes. This
happens, though, only rhrough (as ir were) rhe historie accident
wherein an iconpainrer who-in clumsiness, ignorance, and arbi-
rrariness-dares ro deviare from rhe iconpainting tradirion and
rhereby brings "rhe philosophy of rhe sensuous" imo spirirual
symbolism. The accidental is rhen in rhe icon bur nor of ir; ir
instead belongs ro-or is of-rhe iconpainrer. And iris clearly rhe
case rhar, rhe more significanr sorne parr of an icon is, demanding a
far greater arrenriveness, rhe more likely ir is rhat sorne disrorrion
will enter rhe icon rhrough rhat part, sorne accidenrallines or sorne
metaphysically uncerrain rouches of color which, in relarion ro rhe
icon's spirirual essence, become like splashes of mud thrown onro a
window by sorne passing vehicle: rhar is, such accidents borh pre-
venr us from seeing inro rhe disrance and block the ourside lighr
from reaching inro us. And ir does nor matter rhat such disrorrions
may enchanr our gaze; they are merely muddy spots, nothing more;
but ir can happen rhar rhere can be so many muddy spots rhar an
icon's spiritual essence will finally become invisible. But this is nor
ro say rhar any given kind of derail-nor by irs execurion, nor by irs
'developmenr in rhe painting,' bur in irself as such-is inherenrly
accidental, expressing nothing spirirual.
"Bu r whar abo u r rhe clorhes?"
The clorhes? Rozanov is rhe only one, 1 rhink, who somewhere
says rhar in rhe Kingdom of God everyone will be naked; and
rhen, in sorne kind of hosrile spasm againsr rhe Church and rhe
idea of bodily resurrecrion, he suddenly sees in rhis sacred naked-
ness rhe circumsrance of being embarrassed, ar which poinr he
rejecrs enrirely rhe dogma of bodily resurrecrion. Bur, as you
know, rhe Church's teaching is precisely rhe opposire, and rhe
Aposrle Paul even expresses rhe fear rhar rhose of us who will
118
I'AVFL H.ORENSKY: ICONOSTAS!S
endure rhe fires of purificarion will not, in facr, become naked (1
Cor. 3:13). If Rozanov has reason to rhink rhat his personal
clorhing is inflammable, rhen he needs immediarely ro begin
rhinking more deeply-bur rhar's nor rhe reason ro rhink his
supposed 'srripping naked of rhe world' ourrageous. For in rhe
icons we see depicred rhose persons whose earrhly acrions will be
preserved in rhe fires of purificarion, acrions become only more
beaurifully highlighred in rheir lasr traces of eanhly accidem.
Such persons will probably not become nude. To express rhis at
once more figuratively and more precisely, we can call their
clorhes the covering woven by rheir acrs of spiritual discipline, or
podvig; and rhis is not mere figure but rhe exacr expression of rhe
idea that rhe saims, in and rhrough asceric podvigs, acrually gener-
are in rheir physical bodies new rissues of lighrbearing organs so
rhar rheir bodies may be broughr continually closer ro rhe grear
sphere of spiritual energies; and in rerms of visual perceprion, rhis
spirirual expansion of rhe body is symbolized by rhe clorhes. Yes,
"flesh and blood do nor inherir rhc Kingdom of God," bur rhe
clorhes do. Clorhes are pan of rhe body. In ordinary life, clorhes
are rhe body's ourward expression, analogous ro rhe fur and
fearhers of birds and animals; and rhey are added ro rhe body
semi-dynamically, and I say rhis because berween rhe clorhes and
rhe body rhere is a relarion closer rhan any orher excepr human
rouch, for in penerraring rhe rhin ourer layers of rhe body's
constiturion, clorhes become pardy roored in a living organism.
In rhc visual arder of an, clorhcs are rhe body's very appearancc,
for in rhemselves, rhrough rheir surfaces and angles, rhey disclose
rhe body's consrirurion. Clearly, rhen, if we can affirm rhar rhe
human physical body arrisrically reveals rhe human metaphysical
cssence, rhen we musr also affirm rhar clorhes possess rhe same
power, for rhe clorhes are like an amplifier for rhe body, making
loudc:r and more direcr rhe words rhe body is saying as wirness ro
irs own inner idea. Anude figure is rherefore nor obscene or ugly;
rarher, iris meraphysically less inrelligible, for in ir we discern wirh
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova 119
far grearer difficulry the essence of sacred humaniry. Bur I repear:
rhis spirirual necessiry of clorhes arises not from sorne ordinary
moralisric ground bur from the spirirual essentialiries of icon-
painting, i.e., from rhe visual symbolism of rhe icon irself.
And in rhis iconographic sense, clothes provide an extraordi-
nary insighr inro rhe spiritual sryle of a culture. For example,
consider rhe folds in rhe garmems.
Wirh a unique exactness, rhe long practice of Russian icon-
painting reveals rhe emire hisrory of ecclesiasrical spiritualiry by
the characreristic folds in iconic garmenrs, so thar one need only
glance at rhe folds to know when rhe icon was done and ro
understand the whole spirit of rhe culture reflecred in ir. In rhe
thirreenth and fourteenrh cemuries, the archaic folds-at once
naturalisric and symbolic-poim ro an immense but still uncon-
scious omology joined to sensuousness; rhey are sharply recrilin-
ear folds yer still sofdy material, wirh a great many of rhem and
showing little evidence of a srrongly experienced spiritualiry;
hence, rhey exhibir litde overall uniry, yer in rheir individual
srrengrh, each fold shows the power ro pierce rhe thickness of rhe
sensuous.
From rhe beginning of rhe fifreenrh cenrury and up to the
middle of the sixteenth, rhe folds become longer and wider and
rhey lose rheir material sofmess. In the first half of rhe fifreemh
cemury, rhe folds are straighr, somewhat shon, and joined at
angles. At first, their character is almost mineral-like, as if the
person's lines and planes werc crysrallized matter; but then, in
time, this crysralline hardness softens into somerhing of rhe resil-
ience of vegetative stems or grain stalks; and rhis sryle holds ro rhe
beginning of the sixteenth cemury, becoming long, widely spaced,
nearly straight lines whose ends seem rightened inro slighr curves
by rhe very resilience of the lines. As a resulr, whar rhe iconic
clothes now show is a spirirually resilienr energy fulfilling a devel-
oped and coherenr power.
120
PAVEL rLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
Clearly, rhen, from rhe fourteenrh ro rhe sixreenth centuries
rhere is a process of growing spiritual self-consciousness (includ-
ing a self-consciousness in and of Russia herself), a process
wherein all ofRussian life is organized ro co-inhere wirh rhe spirit
rhrough rhe collecrive asceric disciplines of rhe emerging narion, a
process rhat generalizes asceric experience into an inregrared
world-view. And, furthermore, rhe folds in rhis period grow in-
tenrionally straighr and srylized, becoming rarionally abstraer yer
wirh a srrikingly attracrive rendency ro naruralism. If we knew
norhing at all abour rhe second half of rhe sixreenrh cenrury, rhar
period we cal! The Time of Troubles, rhen-if we had rhe icons,
or even only rhe folds in rhe icons-we could undersrand what
happened in rhe great spiritual rransformarion of medieval Rus'
inro rhe Renaissance Kingdom of Moscow; for in rhe iconpaint-
ing of rhe rime already is manifesr rhar spirirual sickness ofRussia
called The Time of Troubles. But rhe healing of rhar sickness in
rhe sevenreenrh century was merely a resrorarion, a temporary
repair; and in the resrorarion, rhe new life of rhe Russian people
began wirh rhe Baroque-
"Yes, of course ir's essenrial rosee rhe folds as connecred ro rhe
icon's spirirual meaning; bur you must srill explain what is rhe
realistic role of rhe iconpainring rechniques. Wharever rheir vary-
ing characrerisrics, all kinds of folds can cxpress somerhing spiri-
rual because they exisr in rhe real world. Bur gold painr, for
cxample, or rhe gold highlighrs or rhe gold-leaf on rhe garmenrs:
all rhis corresponds ro norhing ar all, and so ir's hard ro see them
as anyrhing orher rhan purely decorarive-which means rhey
signif)r norhing excepr, possibly, rhe iconpainrer's own personal
diligence."
Oh no, on rhe conrrary. The assyst you are ralking abour, i.e.,
rhc exacring iconpainring rechnique of adhering gold-leaf in wide
bands or narrow strips, is one of rhc mosr conclusive proofs rhar
iconpainring possesses a concrerely meraphysical meaning. It is, I
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova 121
suppose, undersrandable thar rhe hisrorical characrer of go!d-assyst
seems at a superficial glance ro be unvaryingly monoronous; bur
in irs essence, in irs inrricarely refined paneros, rhe rechnique
changes almosr at rhe hisrological leve! from one sryle of icon-
painring ro anorher; rhus, rhis exrremely delicare golden nerwork
mosr expressively and conclusively manifests rhe icon's onrologi-
cal consrirurion.
"Bur why is gold used? Ir corresponds ro nothing, except maybe
ro the gold of jewelry. Isn'r ir obvious: rhe lustre of gold can't
compare, can'r correspond at all, wirh painr? I mean, ir's no accident
rhat nearly every visual art refuses ro use gold, even in a powder
form, for gold is complerely alen ro all paints. And, look, even rhe
golden rhings in painrings are never acrually painred in a gold color;
and in rhose very rare instances where a gold color is acrually used,
ir looks really terrible and les on the surface like somerhing acci-
dendy sruck onro ir. All we wanr ro do is pick ir off."
What you say is complerely rrue. Bur all you're really doing is
clarif)ring-and not rejecring-rhis tradicional rechnique, one ab-
solurely necessary ro rhe whole iconpainting rradition but nor so
in any orher art. I would make, rhough, one small change in
somerhing yo u said: besides gold, silver was for a time also used in
iconpainting, nor ofren, but when ir was, ir was always exclusively
used in garmenr folds and ornaments. However, this use of silver
did nor become part of iconic rechnique. And rhis facr, rhar silver
never entered rhe hisrory of iconpainting, gives us our starting
point in understanding gold.
To begin wirh, norice rhar silver was used in plain opposirion
ro rhe canonic rradirions of iconpainring, and ir is worrh men-
rioning rhat one intricately derailed icon (unquesrionably of aris-
rocratic origins) used both silver and gold-and, moreover, silver
highlighrs are pu t on rhe garmenrs of rhe Morher of God in places
where even gold-assyst never goes and, hence, in violarion of
assyst's symbolic meaning; so rhar rhe overall impression rhis icon
122
l'AVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
gives is one of overly conspicuous luxury, an impression arising
either from the demands of rhe person commissioning the icon
(probably as a wedding gift) or from the iconpainter himself. No
instruction manual, no text on the authemification of icons, ever
memions even an excepcional use of silver; gold, however, is
everywhere required. Nor incidemally, silver (bur not, as you
righdy say, gold) is not as amagonisric ro paim as is gold, for silver
has an inherem correspondence with sorne blue-gray and espe-
cially white colors.
Funhermore, in rhe iconpaiming from rhe period of its great
flowering in perfection, we see only gold-leaf being permissibly
used, a gold that possesses a full metallic lustre complerely alen to
paint. But as naturalism invaded iconpainting, the earthly style
displaced the gold-leaf, and rhe gold was ground imo a powdery
matte that was far closer to paim rhan rhe leaf
Now, you also point out that, in all rhe fine arts, golden
objects-and, in general, anyrhing metallic-are never depicted
by either gold itself or gold color. In iconpainting equally, can one
poim ro even a single instance where a golden object in an icon is
depicred by gold-leaf or gold color-ar even any merallic object
by sorne kind of metal? One can't. And why, if gold-leaf is always
permissible, can ir not serve as a base color for an object that, in
poim of realistic fact, has metallic lustre, a base rhat could be rhen
softened by gold paim?
"Well, you prove my poim exacdy: gold isn't used in rhe icon
when ir could actually ponray something real, nor is ir used (as in
rhis case you're describing) when ir could actually harmonize with
paim. Therefore gold is complerely meaningless, and the icon-
paimer's whole concern is ro keep rhe imperceprive spectator from
realizing it. So, as ir turns out, it's as if the iconpainter-or, better,
the whole iconpaiming tradirion-writes in capital letters on
every icon: LET HIM WHO CA!'\ SEE NEVER TRY TO SEE WHAT
THE GOLO IS DEPICTI NG, FOR THE GOLD IS POINTLESS."
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova 123
Thar's almost so; but, you know, in such maners 'almost so' is
equivalenr ro 'nor at all so.' One of iconpainting's grear rasks is to
esrablish an absolurely necessary disrance berween gold-leaf and
paim; for, by emphasizing fully rhe merallic lustre of rhe gold, rhe
whole of iconpainting seeks to prove-wirh an ultimare persua-
siveness-rhar rhe gold and rhe paint are wholly incommensura-
ble. The happiesr icon attains rhis, for in its gold we can discern
nor rhe slightesr dullness or darkness or marerialiry. The gold is
pure, 'admixrureless' lighr, a lighr impossible to pur on rhe same
plane wirh paint-for paint, as we plainly see, reflects the light:
chus, the paint and rhe gold, visually apprehended, belong to
wholly different spheres of exisrence.
Gold is therefore not a color but a tone. Absrracdy under-
stood, gold is analogous (in a certain sense) to the white line in
engraving bu t in polar opposirion ro ir. In rhe engraving, rhe
white line is, precisely and not abstracdy, whire and so ir exists on
rhe same plane wirh every orher color; therefore, the whire line
cannor be considered rhe posirive pole in relarion ro rhe genuinely
negative pole constituted by rhe black line, for the former is nota
true abstracrion, while the latrer is. The rrue positive pole to rhe
black line is rhe gold-assyst, for this is pure light in direcr comrasr
to the complete absence of lighr that constitutes rhe engraving's
network of black lines. Both rhe assyst and the black line are
abstracrions wi thou t sensuousness, which, be cause complerely
devoid of any psychological resonances, are therefore directly
relared ro the racional sphere. Ncverthelcss, despitc chis profound
correspondence, the rwo are as distincr from one another as ycs
from no: the icon's golden stroke is rhe presence of realiry while
the engraving's black line is irs absence.
"But what possible reality-that is, not what independent
realiry bur what artistically figurative realiry-could rhe s ~ y s t
represent, since (as you have plainly just said) rhe gold corre-
sponds ro nothing at al l. "
124
PAVEL fLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
Bur I did not say rhat rhe gold corresponds ro norhing ar all;
whar I was saying was rhar, because gold and paim have no
correspondence, rhat which forms rhe boundary of gold is pre-
cisely rhar which corresponds ro paint. Therefore ro discover rhar
which does not correspond ro paim, iris necessary ro find sorne
artisric means orher rhan color. If our understanding of rhe world
is wholly naruralisric such rhar rhe comem of our experience
becomes solid, unbroken sensuousness, rhen any radical splir in
rhe means of artisric represemarion is ar once condemned and
dismissed as a flagram lie; for if rhe world is solely rhe world we
can see, rhen all artisric means for represenring rhe world musr be
borh self-consisrenr and conformed ro rhe world, being wholly
sensuous. Such is rhe case in rhe fine arts of rhe Wesr, which
exclude from rheir experience everyrhing supersensuous, and
which rherefore not only exclude rhe artisric use of gold but
rremble in very fear of ir, as if gold would desrroy rhe whole
inregrity of (say) painring's style of spiriruality. Consequently,
when gold is in fact used, ir is badly used as a crude imitarion of
naturalisric meral-like, in facr, rhose bits and pieces of newspa-
per or phorographs or sardine caos sruck onro rhe so-called art-
works of recenr revolurionary artisrs. In such cases as rhese, gold is
plainly nor ar all an artisric means bur is merely an emprica) thing.
"Do you rhink, rhen, rhar rhe gold-assyst in rhe icon-like rhe
line in engraving-is trying ro reconstrucr rhe represenration in
spire of rhe visual data; rhar ir wanrs ro show rhe viral form of rhe
represenred rhing?"
We are nor afflicred, 1 rhink, wirh rhe Kanrian arrogance of
Proresranrism, rhar pride rhar will nor accepr even from God rhe
full, flowing life of rhe world, rejecring ir solely because ir is
enrirely given ro usas rhar which God creared for us bur nor by us.
And why (even if ir were possible) why should we wanr rarionally
ro reconsrrucr rhose dimensions of rhe world rhar, rhrough God's
blessings, we receive rhrough our fivc senses, apprehending rhem
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova 125
in and rhrough our essenrial fullness? In rhis, we, like rhe Roman
Carholics, do not reject rhe full trurhfulness of colors; but we
furrher know rhat, rhrough spirirual sobriety, colors are rhem-
selves made spiritual, growing always more rransparent, purer and
penetrated wirh lighr such rhar rhey abandon all earrhliness and
approach rhe condirion of precious gems, becoming in rhe end
inrense concenrrations of planetary rays.
Bur there exisrs nor only rhe visible world (albeit in a spiritual-
ized mode); rhere is also rhe invisible world wherein rhe divine
blessing, like metal melring, srreams in rhe deified reality. This
world is sensuously unapproachable and is comprehended, in-
sread, by rhe imellecr (using rhe word, of course, in rhe ancienr
and ecclesiastical senses of ir). In this sense, rhen, one could
righdy talk about the reconstruction, or deliberare fashioning, of
spiritual reality. But rhere is rhe deepest opposition berween rhis
kind of reconstrucrion and what happens in Prorestantism. In the
icon, as in Church culture as a whole, rhar which is deliberarely
constructed is rhat which is sensuously unavailable, and for which
we rherefore need at leasr sorne schematic ro assisr our visual
imagination. In Protestant culture, on rhe orher hand, rhe invis-
ible world is scarcely even menrioned, and, insread, ir turns what
is immediarely available ro sensory experience inro abstraer sche-
mara. We fulfill rhe rhirsr ro know by apprehending rhe whole of
rhe visible world and then adding ro rhis comprehension the
knowledge of rhe invisible realm; rhe Prorestant attempts ro ex-
press from himselfthat which is already before him. Moreover, rhe
ecclesiasrical act of construcrion is carried out wirhin spirirual
reality, for in rhe iconic construction light irself (that is, rhe
spiritual reality of nature) everywhere radiares. Gold, metal, and
rhe sun are all colorless because they are all almost equivalenr ro
rhe sun's light. Thar is why Vasnersov said ro me many, many
rimes-and ir is deeply rrue- rhar rhe sky cannor be represenred
by any color, rhat ir can only be depicred in gold. Look inro rhe
sky, especially at rhe area around rhe sun, and you will see vividly
126
l'AVU l LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
rhat blue is not rhe essenrial feature of sky; rather, iris a light-bear-
ingness, a sarurarion of space by light, a deprh of light that can be
expressed only in gold-and which would become flat, muddy,
and opaque were painr ro be used ro express ir. And so from purest
lighr, rhe iconpainrer carries out his consrrucrive work, fashioning
not jusr anyrhing bur only rhe invisible realm comprehended
inrellecrually, a realm wholly presenr in and as rhe non-sensuous
conrenr of our experience, and rherefore a realm rhat must be
represenred in a way distincr from al! sensuous dimensions of
experience. Ir is precisely rhe same in orher areas of Church
thoughr, especially in irs world-view, where dogmas concerning
rhe invisible world are golden formularions connecred ro-bur
nor mingled wirh-rhe color-formularions fashioned by science
and philosophy ro describe rhe visible world. Prorestant rhought,
on rhe orher hand, is like Prorestanr graphics in wanring ro
consrrucr wirhour using rhe lighr of rrue realiry, using instead rhe
absence of realiry, rhe darkness of norhingness (one is reminded
again of Cohen's work).
"Are you saying, rhen, rhar rhe golden strokes of assyst accom-
plish a metaphysics in highlighring whar is depicred? Is rhe onrol-
ogy of (say) clorhes, or books, or foorsrools-rhat is, rhe onrology
of everyrhing rhar is-being revealed chis way? I'm understanding
you ro say in rhis rhar, in rhe lines of gold-highlight (assyst), one
sees rhe invisible realm somehow become comprehensible ro us
and, furrher, irs primary energies become acrualized inro sensory
images, energies whose inreracrions consrirute rhe onrological
skeleron of a rhing. For, yes, rhen we can say rhar the assyst-lines
are rhe lines of energy consriruring rhe force-field rhar is rhe rhing
irself Thus, we can also say rhar rhese lines of pressure and tension
perceptible by rhe inrellecr bur invisible ro rhe sighr signify a
sysrem of potenrialiries; for example, rhe highlighrs on garmenrs
show rhe lines along which rhe fabric would fold."
A Diafoguewith Sophia lvanova 127
What you are saying abour lines of energy and force-fields is
exactly right: and it's also well known in rhe correcr way. Consider.
If an artisr in depicting a magnet were ro be sarisfied with showing
merely the visible aspecr (I mean, here, visible and invisible in the
common way of speaking), then he would be depicting nor a
magner but merely a piece of sreel; the real essence of the mag-
ner-rhat is, its force-field-would go not only unrepresented
bur also unindicated (rhough undoubredly we would simply
imagine ir inro rhe represenrarion). Furthermore, when we speak
of a magnet, we mean rhe force-field along with the piece of
sreel-but we don't mean rhe opposite: a piece of steel and,
secondarily, a force-field. Now, consider rhe orher approach. If an
artist were ro use sorne physics rexrbook in depicting the force-
ficld as somerhing visually equal ro the steel of the magner, he
would thereby be mingling thing and force, visible and invisible,
in his represenrarion, and in doing so he would be fashioning a
visuallie abour rhe rhing as well as misrepresenring rhe definitive
characrerisrics of the field (i.e., its invisibiliry and irs acrivaring
power); hence, he would be showing two untruths about rhe
magnet in his depicrion, none of which is rhe magnet. Clearly, in
depicring a magnet, borh rhe field and rhe steel must be shown;
bur their depicrions muse also be incommensurate, showing that
rhe magner's two dimensions belong ro two different planes. The
sreel could be shown in color while rhe field must be depicted
abstractly: only so could one avoid rhe unanswerable question of
why rhe field is shown in this color and nor that. I dare not rry ro
insrrucr the artist in how acrually ro represenr rhis unmingled
mingling of rwo planes of exisrcnce; bur 1 am enrirely certain rhat
figurarive art has rhe capaciry ro do ir.
In rhe final analysis, depicring chis unmingled mingling is rhe
represenrarion of rhe invisible dimension of the visible, rhe invis-
ible undersrood now in rhe highcsr and ultimare meaning of rhe
word as rhe divine energy rhar penetrares into rhe visible so rhar
we can see ir. This very invisible cnergy is also rhe mosr powerful
128
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASJS
force, for it is rhe mosr actual force field. And jusr as rhe invisibil-
ity of God's power infinirely exceeds rhe invisibility of rhe mag-
neric field, so too does the onrological effectiveness of His power
exceed the effectiveness of not only the magneric field, but of
every earrhly force-field as well. Analogically, then, we can say
this: rhe form of rhe visible is creared by rhese invisible lines and
paths of divine light.
"But I rhoughr a while ago you were going ro ralk abour whar
I said being 'notar all so,' but you have only spoken about ir being
'almosr so."'
Well, rhar's not quite righr. For you were usingforce-field in a
naruralisric, almosr physical sense, while I am using ir merely asan
image; and I am nor talking abour naturalform-creating forces in
realiry (although rhese might reside in the very depth of rhe
correspondanr realiry) bur abour divine forces.
"Bur isn't any force divine since God has creared ir?"
In sorne senses, yes; but in orher senses we can properly
distinguish sorne divine forces as belonging more direcrly ro God
rhan orhers. Bur rhere is no need here ro esrablish rhis essenrial
distinction because rhe very assert ion of cultic signifi cance itself
presupposes the disrincrion; and in rhe absence of the asserrion,
rhe question irself cannor arise. Similarly, one can speak of eirher
the revelation of narure or rhe revelarion of God in narure: rhe
latter can reveal rhe power of God in a more direct sense while rhe
former may reveal His power in a more specific sense; bur borh are
powers of God. And I wanr ro assert that rhe gold-assyst in icons
does not articulare rhe metaphysics of the natural order (rhough
rhis order is divinely creared), bur rhat ir insread corresponds
direcrly ::o rhe manifesr energy of God. Look very closely: in rhe
icon, rhe assyst is placed not jusr anywhere bur only upon rhar
which has a direcr relarionship wirh rhe power of God, i.e., u pon
rhar realiry which is irself nor metaphysical even in any special
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova
129
sense bur which nevertheless has entered into a direct relarionship
wirh God's manifest grace.
Therefore (ignoring rhose rare deviations from Church tradi-
rion, spontaneous and inessenrial), the assystwas placed upon: the
garments of Chrisr (eirher chi ld or adult); the Gospel held by
Chrisr or rhe saints; rhe rhrone of Chrisr; rhe rhrones of rhe
Angels in rhe representaran of rhe Holy Triniry; rhe footsteps of
Christ and rhe Angels of rhe Holy Triniry; and a few other rare
instances in rhose ancient icons where rhe spi ritual meanings were
fully comprehended-as, for instance, the altar table. In every
case, the gold clearly corresponds to the spi ritual gold thar is rhe
divine light of God.
Larer on, rhe gold is turned into a powder and takes on rhe
characteristics of paint, and iris used in later icons ro highlight rhe
garments of saints and orher rhings; but even so, ir continues ro
signify heavenly grace-alrhough a dogmatic quesrion arises
whether it is in facr in accord wirh rhe iconpainting tradition ro
transfer (even so genrly) what is inrrinsically of God ro rhe earthly
saints. Thus, rhe assyst, as rhe exact placement of gold, expresses
the energy not of ontology in general but of God in particular,
becoming the supersensuous form that penetrares the visible.
Spiritually undersrood, gold-brocade vestments-especially the
brocade woven in the traditional pattern of widely spaced golden
threads-are a material image showing rhe flesh purified through
rhe penetration of heavenly lighr in ro rhis world-
"Wair a momenr, please. I'm afraid my questions have pushed
our conversarion in severa) different direcrions at once, and be-
cause the confusion is enrirely my fault, I shall assume rhe un-
pleasant rask of calling us back inro sorne semblance of order.
What we have jusr now been saying elucidares merely one derail
of iconic rechnique; but it was supposed ro shed lighr upon rhe
entire hisrory and practice of iconpainring as an expression of
Church culture. After our illumination of Catholic painting and
130
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
Protestanr engraving, ir was only natural that we went on ro the
spiricualiry of cerrain iconic techniques (which are implicitly con-
nected ro Church cultures)-but wouldn't it be more persuasive
ro explore the explicit connections inside iconpainring itself? Is it
possible to do this?"
Yes, of course. And as witness ro the wholly unaccidenral
character of rhe tradicional iconpainring techniques, let us re-
member that we encounrer them throughout the whole of
Church history and that Church art has faithful!y observed and
honored rhem from the very beginnings in earliest anriquity. In
rhese rechniques, one can clearly see rhe basis of a universal
metaphysics and way of wisdom, a way rhat constirures rhe hu-
manly natural mode of seeing and comprehending rhe world, a
way rherefore opposed ro rhe artifi cial modes exhibired in rhe
techniques of Western arr. Attend, for example, ro rhe evidence
from rhe fourrh and fifrh centuries; in rhis evidence we plainly see
rhar rhe rechniques of rhe early period are easily and absolurely
idenrified in rhe techniques of all rhc later periods of iconpainr-
ing. Sr. John Chrysosrom (347-407), called The Enl ighrener,
once compared rhe passing of the Israelires through rhe Red Sea ro
rhe sacramenr of Baptism, seeing rhe firsr as rhe image (TTTOS")
and the second as rhe truth (dA.T)9E'La), i.e., rhe image of reality
and rhe realiry irsclf, asking: "How is ir possible ro rhink of rhe
firsr as rhe proto-image of rhe second?" and rhen responded ro his
quesrion: "You can rhink rhis when you rruly learn what an image
is and what truth is; rhen rhe explanar ion can be given."
Ler us therefore ask, What are shadow and rruth? When we
rurn ro represenrarions fashioned by grear arrisrs (ir is worrh
noricing, in passing, rhar excellenr iconpainrers in Russia and
Greece were called sographs or isographs), we notice an inreresring
facr: in arisrocraric circumstance whenever an artisr would make a
darkly-colored image (in Greek, Kuavxpwos- is rhe dark blue of
rhe nighr sky), he would trace white lines on rhe dark
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova
131
ground ro depict rhe Czar or his rhrone, his horse and armies,
spearmen, enemies, even people tied and casr down on rhe
ground. But though we have seen rhese images many rimes, we
have nor fully recognized and understood everyrhing we are see-
ing; for what is being drawn are rhe man and the horse, nor
clearly ... [There is a break here, of an unknown though probably
brief lengrh, in rhe original manuscript.]
The Ontolog;y of Making the !con
"Yes, I see rhe rruth of all rhis; it is al! very like rhe iconic
rechniques employed in thc fiftcenrh cenrury and larer. But rell me:
what do rhese techniques show us abour rhe Church world-view?"
To begin wirh , in choosing rhe figurative plane, rhe unsrable
surface of the Renaissance canvas simply does not correspond ro
rhe Church's onrology, an onrology that eguares rhe process of
making rhe icon to thc shifting appearances of circumstanrial
realiry, an ontology rhar rherefore does nor correspond even
slightly ro rhe ephemeraliries of rhe engraver's paper, for rhese
ephemeraliries give rhe illusion of casy triumph over extreme
difficulry. In rhe fine arts, rhe figurarive plane is broughr down
into rhe condicional; in rhe engraving arts, rhe figurative plane
pretends ro ascend by means of rhc arrist's legerdemain inro rhe
rcalm of pure reason. Church art seeks for itself an extremelv
stable surface, one not merely resembling stabiliry but one
srrong and unyielding; and iconic imagery rherefore must posse;s
a moment of srrengrh comparable ro this srrong surface, and
rherefore be capable of belonging direcdy to Church conscious-
ness insread of ro individual consciousncss in its momenr oi
flowing into individually crcativc feminine receptiveness.
"Then I rake ir rhat you can see in Wesrern an rhe fragmenra-
tion of iconpainring, where sorne elemenrs of iconic arr were
one-dimensionally realized in Carholic fine arrs while other ele-
menrs were taken up by Protesranr engraving. In regard ro rhe
132
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
figurarive plane, iconpainring probably realizes in realiry al! rhe
demands of engraving in such a way rhat you would undoubredly
say rhat whar an engraving hungers ro be an icon perfecrly is. Bur
rhe surface as such-i.e., rhis firm, immovable surface-is really
besr imagined as a wall, a srone wall, for rhar's rhe perfecr symbol
of onrological firmness. In rhis sense, rhen, fresco-painring meers
rhe demand; bur iconpainring mosrly-in facr, almosr always-is
nor done on a wall-"
Bur on whar, rhen?
"Well, clearly, on a board."
No, because rhe iconpainrer's firsr rask is ro rransform rhe
board inro a wall. Remember: the inirial acrs in fashioning an
icon-whar is called rhe preparation of the board-al! rogether
culminare in the backgrounding of rhe board. In rhis process of
prepararion, rhe carefully choscn board is first well dried, rhen a
depression is made on rhe front side so rhar a raised margin frames
rhe dcpressed surface, and rhen rhe wholc board is strengrhened
by rraverse splines on rhe reverse side ro prevenr larer warping.
Then rhe gessoing is done in sevcn srages. Firsr, a nail or awl is
used ro scrarch a screen-pattern on rhe front surface. Nexr, a hor,
liquid glue is applied ro rhe front and, afrer the glue drics, a piece
of linen clorh (linen canvas or widc-wale hcmp) is glued on using
a rhicker glue spread over rhe cntire front. Thcn an addirional
!ayer of glue is spread on rhe rop of rhe linen, and rhis !ayer is
allowed ro ser for twenry-four hours. Afrer rhe glue drics, rhe
board is whire-washed wirh a rhoroughly mixed liquid of glue and
chalk, which is rhen allowed ro dry complcrely. When rhe whire-
wash is dry, rhe gessoing begins, and ir is done in six or seven steps
over rhree or four days. The gesso is prepared by adding in rhe
whire-wash (two-fifrhs of which is boiling warer), a linle olifa
(i.e., boiled linseed oil), and chalk. The gesso is applied wirh a
wide sparula and, afrer each !ayer, rhe board is allowed ro dry
complerely. When a !ayer dries, ir is polished wirh a clamp pum-

A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova
133
ice-srone; and rhis is done severa! rimes, afrer each !ayer of gesso
has rhoroughly dried. And rhen ir is dry-polished wirh rhe pum-
ice-srone. The final polishing of rhe gesso is wirh rhe horserail
planr or (in our pracrices now) wirh exrremely fine sandpaper.
Now, and only now, is rhe figurative surface ready. Clearly, rhis
surface is nothing other rhan a wall-more accurarely, a wall-
niche-for rhe icon-board condenses all rhe accumulared propcr-
ries of a wall: its surface whireness, irs srrucrural fineness and
solidiry, are rhe very essence of a wall; and ir therefore permirs rhar
noblesr form of fine art, wall-painring. Hisrorically, iconpainting
arose from the rechnique of wall-painring and is irs essenrial
al iveness released from rhe stricrures of externa! dependence u pon
rhe accidenrs of archirccture.
"In wall-painting, a srylus, or orher sharp instrumenr, is used
ro trace or score rhe drawing onro rhe wall-which you would
inrerpret, I suppose, as an engravcr's act. And ir is indeed engrav-
ing; bur is rhere anyrhing thar corresponds ro ir in rhis meraphysi-
cal concenrrarion of wall-painring called iconpainring?"
Yes, rhere is, for rhe work on rhe figurarive surface begins wirh
such an acr of engraving. The iconic engraver first draws in
charcoal or pencil onro rhe gcssoed surface the pattern of rhe
iconic image (i.e. , rhe parrern recognized as sacred by rhe
Church), and rhen he curs rhe pattern in wirh a srylus, i.e., a
needle-sharp insrrumenr wirh a woodcn handle, called a graphia.
The Greek verb yp<j>w means "ro cut, scrarch, engrave" as well as
"ro wrire," and a yp<j}T) is an engraver's knife. The graphia is a
very ancienr insrrumenr whose origin is buried deep in rhe cenru-
ries; in one form or anorher, ir is rhe primary insrrument of
figurarive arr. For iconic engravers, ro use rhis insrrument for
rracing rhe pattern is an acr of awesome responsibiliry, especially
in cutting rhe folds ,Jf rhe garmenrs, because such engraving is rhe
acr of rranslaring rhe rhings of rhe orher world inro evidence
sensorily presenr ro rhousands of believers praying, evidence held
134
I'AVFL HORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
sacred by rhe Holy Church, and even rhe riniesr, mosr minute
alrerarion in rhis sensory evidence will give ir an enrirely differenr
sryle and whole orher spirirual srrucrure. Even ar rhis inirial srage,
rhen, rhe engraver feels responsible ro rhe integral wholeness of
rhe iconic rradirion, i.e., ro rhe rrurh of irs onrological evidence
even in irs simplest firsr formularions. This acr of engraving is
pure absrracrion, evenrually almosr invisible, yer ir, roo, parrakes
of rhe sensory arder. Thereforc rhe engraving musr arrain fullness
of clariry in arder ro be visual; and when rhe iconic engraver
completes his task and passes on rhe work ro rhe hands of rhe
orher differenr masrers-
"Bur rhis seems so mechanical in irs execurion, so like mass
producrion. For I doubr very much rhar rhe essence of an
icon-as a work of arr-ean have anyrhing corresponding ro rhis
passing from one pair of hands ro anorher."
You're raising a very signifi canr quesrion hcre, and 1 wanr ro
speak direcrly ro your doubr. To begin wirh, an icon is nor an
arr-work, a self-enclosed piece of arr; rarher, rhe icon is a work of
wirness rhar employs arr as well as many other rhings. What you
conrempruously call "mass producrion" is rherefore essenrial ro
iconpainring, for irs sensory evidence musr enter inro every home
and evcry family, becoming in rhe aurhenric sense popular in irs
proclaiming of rhe highesr spi ritual realiry concenrrated within
ordinary everyday life. One possibiliry in iconpainting rechnique,
rhen, is rapid execution-a possibiliry rhar can cause very fine
icons ro appear in ways rhat permit (as wirh rhe Scroganovs of our
era) rhc vanity of wealrhy accumularion, whereby sacred rhings
can become mere objecrs in a vast arr collecrion.
Bur about the specializations in iconpainring: rhey arise nor
simply rhrough externa! causes, for even a 'first-appeared' icon is
never conceived as an act of solirary creariviry; rather, every icon
belongs in essence ro rhe collective work of the Church; and even
if, by chance, a particular icon is fashioned entirely by one single
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova 135
master, sorne ideal parricipation of other iconpainrers is always
implied. Just so, every Divine Lirurgy is always served by more
rhan a single priesr serving alone; and if by chance ir is singly
served, rhen rhere is srill everywhere implied in that Liturgy the
parricipation of rhe bishop and orher priesrs, deacons and all rhe
orders of rhe clergy. In secular fine arrs, an arrisr somerimes gives
pan ofhis work inro the hands of anorher, bur rhe work neverrhe-
less everywhere implies individual creariviry; in iconpainring, on
rhe other hand, rhe iconpainter may somerimes work alone, bur
rhe collecriviry of work is necessarily implicit in the icon. In fine
arrs, an arrist's srylisric uniqueness demands the absence of orher
people; in iconpainting, rhe primary goal is always rhe clariry of a
collecrively carried and rransmitted rruth; hence, if by chance
sorne purely subjecrive view of things sponraneously creeps into
one momenr of rhe iconpainring process, ir will be balanced in rhe
final icon by other masrers mutually correcring one anorher.
And so the engraver finishes his work and che colorists begin
rheirs: and this permirs rhe colorisrs ro develop wirhin rhemselves
a special attenriveness wherein they never disrurb rhar dimension
of iconpainting which musr adhere most exacrly ro sacred Tradi-
tion. Bur rhe colorisrs are separa red into those who painr the faces,
hands and uncovered areas of the body and rhose who painr rhe
covered figures and backgrounds. This profoundly meaningful
division corresponds ro rhe principies of inward and ourward, of
'T' and "not-I," whereby the face expresses inward life while
everyrhi ng not the face serves ro manifest rhe whole world crea red
for humaniry. In iconpainring terms, the face is termed the coun-
tenance (lik), while everyrhing else-body, garments, rooms,
buildings, trees, rocks, and so on-is background, or prior sreps,
ro painting rhe face. Painting the face is called lichnoe while
painting everyrhing else is termed dolichnoe; and by lik is under-
srood rhose secondary organs of expressiveness (i.e., che "lirrle
counrenances") of hands and feer. In rhis division of rhe icon's
whole content inro rhe processes of lichnoe and dolichnoe we
136 PAYEL H.ORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
plainly see rhe Greek parrisric understanding of exisrence being
divided inro man and nature; a division wherein each is at once
disrincr and inseparable from the orher; hence, ir is a division
expressing rhe primordial paradisical harmony of inwardness and
ourwardness. On rhe orher hand, when sin rended rhe crearion
asunder, man and nature became opposed ro one anorher, an
opposirion concluding irself precisely in rhe flne-arrs division
berween landscape and porrraiture; for in landscape, man is at
flrsr suppressed, rhen made inro an accessory, and flnally wholly
excluded from the landscape, while in portrairure everyrhing sur-
rounds man and rhereby ceases ro have its own unique counre-
nance (Lik), becoming merely an environmenral atmosphere; and
flnally rhe body disappears from the portrait, leaving only a face
now alienated from rhe whole creared world-and rhe portrair's
real goal now is merely the face's expression. Thus, when we
consider rhe processes of lichnoe and dolichnoe, we must see not
only an externa! arrangemcnt of productive merhods bur also rhe
possibiliries of a polyphonic expressiveness. Similarly -rhough I
won'r explore rhem now-rhe person who applies rhe back-
ground, rhe one who applies rhe facial colors, rhe one who puts
on rhe alifa flnish, rhe person who does rhe gilding: all rhese
specializarions possess rheir own inner sense.
"Bu t, plainly, rhe primary division is berween the engraver and
rhe painrer. But rell me, who painrs rhe background for rhe figures
in rhe icon?"
To ask rhe quesrion in iconpainring rerms is ro ask who does
rhe light. I cal! your arrenrion ro rhis remarkable senrence: the icon
is executed upon light-a senrence perfecrly expressing rhe whole
onrology of iconpainring. When ir corresponds most closely ro
iconic tradirion, light shines golden, i.e., ir is pure light and nor
color. In orher words, every iconic image appears always in a sea
of golden grace, ceaselessly awash in rhe waves of divine lighr. In
rhc heart of rhis light "we live, and move, and have our being"; ir
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova
137
is rhe space of true realiry. Thus, we can comprehend why golden
lighr is rhe icon's true measure: any color would drag rhe icon ro
earrh and weaken irs whole vision. And just rhe same way rhar rhe
crearive grace of God is both cause and condirion of all earrh's
crearion, just so in rhe icon: after rhe abstraer partern is skerched,
rhe process of incarnating rhe icon begins with rhe gold-leaflng of
lighr. Furrher, in rhe same way that rhe icon begins with rhe gold
of crearive grace, ir ends in rhe highlighring wirh rhe gold of
illuminarion, assyst. In rhis visual onrology, rhe painring of the
icon repeats rhe main srages of God's crearion from absolute
norhingness ro rhe holy creation.
"1 was thinking rhe very same thing as you spoke. Bur, you
know, I have anorher rhoughr: ir seems as if the onrologies of rhe
Church and of Plato are so exrraordinarilv inrerrwined in the
1
iconpainting process (and both ro the onrology of ancient arr)
rhar rhis very interrwining must itself be explained. For I know
rhat Platonism is primarily a religious practice, rhar irs essenrial
rerminology is rhe language of mysrery, rhat its essential images
possess a consecrarive narure, and thar Plaro's Academy is some-
how relared ro rhe Eleusinian Mysreries and is thought ro be the
primary onrological archirect of ancienr idealism wherein rhe
parrerns of rhe heavens were transmitted into the divine works of
earrhly artisrs. My question is this: isn't it possible rhat onrology
itself is merely a theoretical formulation of iconpainring?"
Well, if you want ro talk about rhe deepest inner affinities
berween rhem, rhen, yes, ir is as you say. But, you know, I am
esscntially opposcd ro the conceptual unificaran of diffcrent
acrivities, for if rhe differcnces wcre mcrely appearances, rhen rhey
would not exisr in realiry, and so rhey would ha ve sprung not from
each orher bur from sorne common root. I flrmly believe thar
borh rhe canonic colors of iconpainring and rhe rheorerical for-
mularions of iconographic ideas rcveal rhe same spirirual essence,
rhar in facr rhe colors are rhe visual images of rhe ideas; at rhe very
ll!!l.
138
PAVEL HORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
least, rhere is a grear parallelism. For when, on sorne hyporherical
icon, rhere appears rhar first concreteness (i.e., firsr according ro
spirirual rank and hisrorical emergence) which is rhe golden lighr,
rhen rhe whire silhouerres receive rhe firsr level of concrereness
and acrualize whar unril rhen had been only rhe abstraer possibil-
iry of existence, a possibiliry rhar was nor, in rhe Arisrorelean
sense, a porenrialiry bur, rarher, a merely logical schemaron and
rherefore precisely a non-existent (n) ~ ELvm).
Wesrern rarionalism believes rhar ir can creare somerhing-in-
deed, everything-from rhis non-exisrence. Bur rhe onrology of
rhe Easr believes orherwise, saying rhar ex nihilo nihil and rhar
somerhing-again, everyrhing-is creared only by rhe Real One,
by rhe Crearor. In rhe iconpainring process, rhe golden color of
superqualirarive exisrence firsr surrounds rhe areas rhar will become
rhe figures, manifesring rhem as possibiliries ro be rransfigured so
rhar rhe abstraer non-exisrenrs become concrete non-exisrenrs; i.e.,
rhrough rhe gold, rhe figures become porenrialiries. These porenri-
aliries are no longer abstraer, bur rhey do nor yer have disrincr
qualiries, alrhough each of rhem is a possibiliry of nor any bur of
sorne concrete qualiry. T ox ov (rhe non-exisrenr) has become
T ~ ov (rhe porenrial). Technically speaking, rhe operaran is
one of filling in wirh color rhe spaces defined by rhe golden
conrours so rhar rhe abstraer white silhouerre becomes rhe con-
crete colorful silhouerre of rhe figure-more precisely, ir begins ro
become rhe concrete colorful silhouerre of rhe figure. For ar rhis
poinr, rhe space does nor yer possess rrue color; rarher, ir is only
not a darkness, not wholly a darkness, having now rhe firsr gleam
of lighr, rhe first shimmer of exisrence o u r from rhe dar k norhing-
ness. This is rhe firsr manifcsrarion of rhe qualiry, color, a lirrle bir
illumined by lighr. In rhe operarions of dolichnoe, chis dark
color-which, ar every srage, bears rhe ronaliry of rhe nexr !ayer of
painr-is known in Russian as raskrishka, which means borh
"opening" and "coloring." The dolichnoe painrer "opens" rhe gar-
menrs and orher solid areas of rhe icon by Aoaring rhe colors on.
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova 139
This floating of colors is a highly significant derail of rhe icon-
painring process, for ir shows rhar borh rhe painrerly brushsrroke
and rhe glazing rechnique are impossible in iconpainring, for
here, in rhe icon, rhere are no half-rones or shadows: insread,
realiry is revealed by rhe degrees of rhe manifesrarion of exisr-
ence-bur nor by putting one piece or qualiry alongside anorher.
Here, rhen, is rhe deepest technical opposirion berween rhe icon
and rhe oil painring, for in rhe oil, rhe image always is executed by
parrs and never whole.
The coloring is followed by rhe execurion of rhe folds. The
folds and orher details are darkened by using rhe color of rhe same
tone bur lighrened ro a greater intensiry so rhat rhe lines wirhin
rhe conrours now move from rhe abstraer ro rhe concrete: rhe
crearive word manifests rhe abstraer possibiliry. Nexr in rhe dolich-
noe is rhe firsr highlighring of rhe leading edges of rhe lighred
surfaces. The highlighrs are applied in rhree srages, each one
mixed wirh more whire and applied in narrower areas rhan rhe
preceding. The rhird, rhe narrowesr and brighresr, is rermed
ojivka, which in Russian means borh "highlighr" and "enlivener."
(Sorne iconpainring rerminologies call rhe firsr rwo applicarions
"cxecurion" and only rhe rhird "highlighr.") The final phase of rhe
dolichnoe process is rhe exrremely fine execurion of rhe gold-assyst
rechnique using, in rhe early hisrory oficonpainring, a special glue
made from rhickened beer bur, in larer iconpainring, employing a
liquid gold rechnique called 'fearher-like' execurion. In exacrly rhe
same manner are execured rhe highlighrs on chambers, moun-
rains, clouds, and crees: rwo or rhree applicarions of ojivka; rhe
colors are applied in a Aoaring rechnique where rhe painr is more
warery rhan rhar used in rhe garmenrs-as opposed ro painring
rhc faces, where rhe color is rhicker rhan rhar used on rhe gar-
mcnrs. Thus, rhe garmenrs esrablish a link berween rhe inner
world of rhe face and rhe ourer natural world, becoming an
intermediare realiry berween rhe rwo orher realiries, an inrcrmedi-
~
140
P V L ~ L f<LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
ate exisrence berween rhe rwo poles of crearan, humanity and
nature.
"Bur in describing rhe process of iconpainring, you have lefr
out rhe main rhing: liclmoe, rhe painring of rhe faces. This is, in
general, where painting really begins."
Yes, painring begins there. Bur iconpainring finishes with ir.
Bur befare we try ro reach any real clariry, ler's recall the primary
srages of rhe lichnoe process. The stages have essenrially rhe same
seguence as in dolichnoe. The first stage of lichnoe corresponds ro
the first application of color in rhe icon, and iris termed sankiring,
from rhe word "sankir," which is rhe primer painr used for rhe
face. The acr of sankiring determines in significanr measurc rhe
icon's main character and whole sryle. Sankir does not have a
definirive color; instead, ir is rhe porentialiry for rhe face's furure
color; and because rhe human face possesses inftnite color and is
rherefore subjecr to inftnire inrerpretarions, rhe sankir has over rhe
ages of iconpainring differed in composirion and tone. Byzanrine
sankir was grey-bl ue wirh an indigo tone; rhe ltalo-Crere sankir
was brown; while in Russia, during rhe fourreenrh and fifreenrh
cenruries, ir was at first grcen and then darkened roward brown;
and by rhe larer sixreenrh cenrury, ir had become dark robacco
brown; and so on. Egually as rhe tone changed, so did rhe
composirion of rhe sankir change: in rhe rime of rhe second
period of rhe Srroganov school, sankir was composed from umber
wirh sorne whire and ochre addcd; later, according ro Pancelios,
sankir had ro be composed of cqual pares of whire, ochre, grecn
(used for frescos), and one-quarrer pan of black; and conrempo-
rary sankir uses burnr umber, light ochre, a tiny quanriry of
Holland soor; and so on, wi rh varying composirions. The sankired
face inirially is, we may say, the face's concrete non-exisrence.
When rhe sankir dries, rhe iconpainrer execuring lichnoe retraces
in lines of color every con tour in rhc face, borh inner and ourer, in
a process call ed opis, meaning "ourlining" or "re-drawing"; as a
A Dialogue with Sophia !vano va 141
result, rhe face acguires irs ftrst dererminarion, moving from
concrete non-exisrence in ro rhe ftrst srage of visuality. The colors
used in chis re-drawing vary according ro rhe iconic sryle. Just as
with the coloring in dofichnoe, rhe more vivid the colors used in
opis, the less rhe icon expresses rhe graphic lineariry of engrav-
ing-and rhe more ir pulls away from rarionalism.
In rhe fourreenrh cenrury, rhe opis was done only on pan of rhe
face and rhen in brighr red ro conrrasr with rhe green of rhc sankir.
Then rhe opis grew darkcr, bccoming more coherent and more
brown, but the lines were srill soft in rhe sryle of fine art painring;
later, corresponding ro the rationalism of rhe fifteenthth cenrury,
rhe opis became stronger, sharper and blacker, rather like the lincs
of a pen, increasingly resembling engraving lines. Then, in rhc
sevenreenth cenrury (but earl ier in Greece), rhere appeared in rhe
opis a series of whire srrokes following rhe contours and resem-
bling the shadows in an engraving. Ir should also be said here rhar
rhe lines deftning rhe eycs, cyebrows, hair and (in maJe faces)
beard are all redrawn in a darker sankiresque color. Then the
execurion of rhe face is done in a process corresponding ro rhc
highlighring in dolichnoe. T he poinrs where light happens in
fichnoe are rhe forehead, cheeks, and nose, all of which are covered
wirh a watery paint composed of ochre or (in Russian) vochra,
whence rhe Russian iconpainting tradition derives its word ro
describe rhe execuring of rhc face in ochre: vochreniye. The vo-
chreniye color varies according ro rhe period and sryle of rhe icon:
in the fourreenth cenrury, vochreniye used a warm pink; in rhe
ftfteenth century, ir became brownish orange while, in the six-
reenrh, ir was brownish yellow; rhe sevenreenrh cenrury deliber-
arely archaized rhe vochreniye by again using a warm pink; and rhe
eighreenrh cenrury began ro employ white, probably imiraring
powder. Thus, rhe orher names for vochreniye-ones rhar do nor
bind rhe process ro a particular color-are undoubtedly more
correcr, even rhough rhese names have not become part of tradi-
cional iconic rerms: and especially righr is rhe rerm incarnation
142
PAVEL 1-LORENSKY: ICONOSTASJS
taken from French and English. Now, the first application of rhe
ochre highlighring is dilured at the edges wirh a liquid solution of
color between the ochre and rhe sankir. This dilution serves ro
soften the disjunction between sankir and ochre; and at rhese
same disjunctive edges there is also applied a mummy color mixed
with either ochre or cinnabar to indicare rosiness in the cheeks
and orher parts of rhe face. Then a second !ayer of ochre is floated,
lighrer rhan rhe first and covering all of ir, including rhe rosiness
as well as pan of the diluted edges. Then a rhird !ayer is applied in
rhe very lightest places, and sometimes rhis third !ayer is called (as
in dolichnoe) ojivka, meaning both "highlight" and "enlivener."
Finally, the fearures of the face are redrawn as well as rhe hair; and
the places of greatest significance (in rerms eirher of facial structure
or spiritual illumination) are done in pure white either as shorr,
thick lines or as long, narrow stripes: the former are called "mo-
tions" and rhe latter "marks," and somerimes togerher they are
rermed "incisions."
In sorne much larer icons, rhe edges between sankir and ochre
were furrher softened by a rhin, whire hatch-pattern. But icon-
painring rradirions have mosdy eschewed rhe rechnique as anri-
rherical to rhe spirir of iconpainring, believing rhar irs necessiry in
rhe icons employing ir arises solely from rhe iconpainrer's inabiliry
ro floar color wirh rhe requisite skill.
"Does rhis complete, then, the making of the icon?"
Yes, ir does-except for rhe soul of rhe icon, rhe written
inscriprion. Bur rhis is not rhe icon's full completion, for now rhe
whole icon is covered with alifa: wirh, rhat is, vegetable oil
boiled-as well as applied-by merhods rhat bear in the art a
grear responsibiliry (and thar therefore are closely kepr profes-
sional secrets). Wharever way ir is made and applied, rhe alifa has
an enormous impact. And, by rhe way, conremporary icon-restor-
ers make a grear misrake in seeing rhe olifa merely as a technical
means for preserving rhe colors; in realiry, irisan artistic force rhar
__,
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova 143
draws all rhe colors into a common tonaliry while simultaneously
giving rhem great depth. I am certain, too, that the alifa and its
various applications serve ro distinguish sryles of iconpainting. I
remember especially the many times 1 saw how rhe high signifi-
cance of an old icon's artisrry was entirely destroyed by removing
rhe golden warmth of rhe ancienr olifa and replacing ir wirh a
new, colorless alifa. The old icon would look merely like a back-
ground for sorne larer work.
"Ir's no doubt rhe case, too, rhat rhe meralwork in an icon-that
is, rhe riza or rhe elaborarely worked merallic frame around rhe
icon-is also pan of the icon's artistic wholeness-isn't that the
case?"
In certain cases, yes, particularly in modern instances where
rhe iconpainter himselfhas considered the matter-in these cases,
ir's not merely an artistically irrelevant expression of a patron's
luxury; even a riza's precious inlay-stones can clearly be inregrated
inro rhe icon's wholeness. But most of rhe time the riza and other
such rhings have been merely externa! ornamenration. Gold and
precious srones possess an artisric symbolism too overwhelming to
be useful to mosr iconpainrers-
"You know, we've raken rhe icon up rhrough its final stages
and we've discussed all the essential meanings of rhe acrs, bur-"
Have we left something out?
"Well, look at this and rell me: one of rhe mosr imporrant
things of all in rhe reaching of fine ares is shadows: borh theory and
pracrice give perhaps rheir greatesr attention to precisely this, to
rhe skills and means of crearing shadows; for the artists plainly
believe that rhe way rhey creare shadows determines rheir whole
arristic sryle. So, narurally, I'm a bit bewildered: how have we
gotten all rhis way in iconography and not once even mentioned
rhe word shadow?"
1
144
I'AVFL 1-LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
We haven'r forgotren ir; ir's simply rhar, in iconpainting, shad-
ows have no place. The iconpainter never enrers inro an affair
wirh darkness and so he never creares shadows in rhe icon.
"Bur why not? All iconic images stand in sorne kind of relation
ro rhings in rhe real world, and so why doesn'r rhe iconpainrer as
he depicrs rhese real rhings also depicr rheir shadows?"
Because an iconpainrer depicts the being of a real thing, even
rhe essenrial goodness of the being: a shadow, on the orher hand, is
nor being bur the absence of being. Thus, ro depicr a shadow
would be to characrerize an absence by somerhing posirive, by a
presence-and thar would be a radical disrorrion of onrology. If
rhe world is whar the Crearor creares, and if artistic creation
manifests the divine image in humankind, rhen its entirely natural
ro expect parallelism berween creariviry in essence and creativiry
in likeness. It's also enrirely natural ro expect that the different
phases of rhe art that is more universally human and sacred-that
these phases would repeat rhe primary stages of the metaphysical
onrogenesis of rhings and beings. And in rerms of psycho-physiol-
ogy, ir would be srrange indeed ro depict 'somerhing' not only
rhar one cannor see even partially or weakly but thar also is in fact
rhe whole absence of somerhing.
"Sur you can'r deny rhat, in rhe fine arrs, shadows are depicted,
especially in warercolor whcre (and rhis is quite clear) painr is not
applied ro places of lighr and is ro rhe areas of shadow. I rhink this
technique is inevitable becausc an arrist , metaphysically, moves
from lighr inro shadow, from illuminarion inro darkness. The
meraphysical opposire is plainly wrong; for in onrology as in
cognirive perceprion, omnis determinatio est negato: that is, for a
rhing ro have individualiry of form (determinatio), somerhing
musr be taken away (negato) from its fullness. Cognirion is there-
fore analysis; ir deconsrrucrs so as ro emphasize; and so we cognize
a rhing by cutting out irs perceptible boundaries from the sur-
rounding space ir inhabirs. The arrist, I rhink, does somerhing
........
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova 145
very like rhis; and, in doing so, he adheres quite closely ro the
underlying rnethodological philosophy-"
Of the Renaissance; and in rhis, I quite agree with you. But
you're ignoring the fact rhat rhere exists an absolutely opposite
philosophy and thar, as a rcsult, there exists an art corresponding ro
it. Really, you know, ificonpainting did nor exist, il foudrait l'inven-
ter, one would have ro invenr it. Bur ir does exist and it is as ancienr
as hurnanity itself The iconpainrer moves from shadow into light,
from darkness into illumination. And our entire discussion of
iconic techniques arose from this essenrial characterisric: an abstraer
schema and, surrounding it, the light that defines the silhouette
(which is potentially rhe image and its color), and then the conse-
quent revelation of rhe image, its configuraran and reconfiguraran
as the image is shaped through the process ofhighlighting; next, the
layers of paint, each lighrcr than the last and ending in special
highlights, creare rhe final image in the darkness of nonbeing-and
so this image arises from light. An arrist in oils seeks to understand
the thing he paints as something real in itself, apart from and
opposite ro the light; and through his wrestling with the light (i.e.,
his painting of shadows) he seeks to assert the realiry primarily of
himself Thus, in the fine-arrs' understanding, lighr is merely the
emprica! occasion wherein a thing manifests itself For the icon-
paianter, on the other hand, light has no emprica! realiry and so ir
cannot be an emprica! occasion.
For something to become uniquely individual, nothing need
be negated-nor is therc anything ro negare, for unril a thing is
formed by lighr, ir has no exisrencc wharever; for a rhing comes ro
possess concreteness nor by negaran bur rhe posirive act of crea-
ran: rhar is, by rhe quick play of light. Ar firsr, rhere was void;
rhen, rhrough an acr of crearion, norhingness appeared-rhar is,
positive norhingness, rhe cmbryo, rhe beginning of a rhing; rhen,
as ir is penerrared by lighr, rhe norhingness begins ro assume
shape, and ir conrinues ro do so unri l rhar which determines rhe
146
PAVFI ILORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
form more essenrially is more illumined, while rhe less significam
is illumined less. Bur: precisely upon rhar which rhe lighr comes
ro resr, rhere-in rhe measure of irs illuminarion-is rhar which
enrcrs exisrence. Concrereness, individuarion, and exisrence are
posirive. The divine Yes ro rhe world is rhe incarnare, crearive
Word, because rhe voice ofGod we see as lighr, while rhe heavenly
harmony is planetary movemenr. Ir is nor wirhour reason rhar
poers can hear sounds in lighr, for alrhough in rhe silenr speech of
God, in His fainr whispering, one may see less of lighr, ir never-
rheless remains fully lighr and never darkness: full darkness is
absolurely imperceptible because ir has no bcing and is empry
absrracrion. And iris nor wirhour reason rhar one famous conrem-
porary engraver depicrs borh deep shadows and invisible worlds
nor by depicrion but by rranslarion: rhar is, by rhe abstraer whire-
ness of the empry paper. At rhe conclusion of everyrhing, ir all
comes ro rhis: eirher we believe in rhis world's onrological primacy
and sclf-sufficiency, a world rhar self-generares and self-destrucrs;
or else we believe and acknowledge rhar rhis world is rhe direcr
crearion of God. The arr of Renaissance painring has always (if
somerimes inconsisrenrly) served rhe firsr world-view; iconpainr-
ing has always chosen rhe second. From rhis onrological difference
arises all rheir rechnical differences.
"Ir follows from all rhis rhar onc should wanr ro re-examine
how lighr acrs in Wesrern arr-works, because rhere is lighr in
rhem, even quick srrokes of lighr very likc rhe ojivki."
Yes, rhis is an essenrial quesrion. Bur ro answer ir righrly, ir is
essenrial ro remember very clearly rhar Wesrern arr (as opposed ro
iconpainring) has never from any angle-nor even in irs mosr
classicisric momenr-exhibired coherencc. Iconpainring is a
purely coherenr arr, one whercin everyrhing connecrs ro every-
rhing: subsrance and surface; drawing srylc and subjecr marrer;
rhe meaning of rhe whole and rhe way we comprehend rhar
meaning--everywhere in rhe icon a coherencc exisrs rhar corre-
.........
A DiaLogue with Sophia Ivanova 147
sponds ro rhe rich organic wholeness of Church culture. The
whole culture of rhe Renaissance, on rhe orher hand, is in irs
deepesr essence eclecric and conrradicrory; ir is an analyrically
fracciona! culture composed of conrradicrory elemenrs each of
which ceaselessly srrives for complete independence. Whar is rrue
of Renaissance culture is rrue of rhe arr: ir lives in--even as ir
negares-che rheocraric inregriry of irs own life, for ir lives in rhe
nourishmenr ir draws from irs medieval roors; and if ir were ever
ro uproot itself from rhese condirions of nourishmenr, ir would
arrive ar self-destrucrion.
For example, consider rhis very simple rhing: how much of
Renaissance art would be lefr if ir excluded all religious subjecr-
matter, if ir moved enrirely away from all ecclesiastical prompt-
ings? 1 don'r wanr ro engage rhis quesrion here in any grear lengrh;
insread, I merely wanr ro poinr out rhar Renaissance art for rhe
mosr parr views lighr as an externa!, physical energy. By conrrasr,
rhe Church undersrands lighr as an onrological force rhar mysti-
cally creares whar exisrs.
"You're saying, rhen, rhar in Wesrern arr all objecrs exisr solely
in rhemselves and rhar lighr exisrs solely in irself and rhar any
correlarions berween rhem are merely accidental; i.e., rhar any
given objecr is merely lir by rhe lighr and, rherefore, rhar rhe
brighr srrokes of lighr could be pur anywhere. These srrokes may
be accidental in relarion ro one anorher, bur rheir mutual relarions
are never accidental, for ir is rhese rhar determine rhar objecr of
objecrs, rhe lighr source.
By rhe uniry of perspecrive, rhe arrisr seeks ro express rhe
specraror's uniqueness as perceiving subjecr; bur by rhe uniry of
chiaroscuro, he seeks ro express rhe objecriviry of rhe lighr-source.
I clearly see rhis as rhe posirivisric, equalizing rask of Renaissance
arr: ro de-exist rhe hierarchy of exisrence and ro equare borh rhe
illuminarive lighr and rhe conremplarive spirir wirh rhe externa!
148
PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
objecrs, putting everyrhing on rhe plane of the condicional. Bur
how, in rhe end, can we rhink rhe inverse of all rhis?"
To begin wirh, Western arr irself swerves from its own grear
task, exceeding its own rurelary spirir. Thus, rhough rhe arr every-
where proclaims rhe rechniques of perspecrive, in its supreme
masrerpieces ir deliberarely abandons rhe norms of perspecrive;
and equally ir abandons rhe uniry of lighr. If Western arr recog-
nized lighr as solely accidental and arbirrary, rhen ir would rhink
lighr as something enrirely non-onrological, and an illumined
objecr would be merely a form rhar is lighred and not something
lighr-formed-and rhar is how we would understand what rhe
arrisr means in proclaiming rhe relarions of lighr and object as
purely spontaneous ones. Bur, in actual fact, rhe Wesrern arrist
deliberarely chooses the lighring, for he plainly considers that ir is
nor jusr any light but only this lighr which will righdy shape the
forms he is painring. One lighr will reveal while anorher will
distort rhe truth of forms, and thus, by a secret attentiveness, the
arrisr discovers thar not only the objecr's visual appearance but
also its rrue form is being given him by the acrivities oflight-and
ir can be either well or poorly given. Bur rhink: whar does "well
given" mean here except (half-consciously) "onrologically given?"
And rherefore an arrisr of sufficient deprh will deliberarely break
rhe uniries of chiaroscuro so as ro shape his forms truly and
essen rially.
"Ir appears, rhen, that rhe shaping of forms becomes an acriv-
iry oflighr."
More: rhe shaping is ftom acrs of lighr. This meraphysics of rhe
Church was more or less inruired by sorne Renaissance anisrs; bur
orhers, who did nor care at all abour adhering ro srricr Renaissance
rechniques, openly pursued rhis way of lighr-shaping and thereby
entirely abandoned rhe unities of chiaroscuro. Whar is Rem-
brandr's high relief (alto relievo) if not rhe materialiry of lighr?
Even ro raise in Rembrandt rhe issues of srricr chiaroscuro and
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova
149
perspecrive is plainly absurd. Rembrandrian space is closed and
the lighr-source is banished, all material rhings becoming unravel-
ings from an inner core of subsranrialluminescence.
"Is rhis also rrue of the icon, rhar ir also srrives for rhis inner
luminescence, like fox-fire from decaying wood?"
Of course nor, for rhe Renaissance culture of self-deificarion in
rhe world especially condemns a Rembrandt, for he stands in
relarion ro rhe sober Ourch rhe same way Jacob Boehm stands in
relarion ro Kirhgoff and Herrz.
Iconpainring depicrs objecrs as forms creared by lighr rarher
rhan as rhings lit by a lighr-source-bur in Rembrandr there is not
any light (the objecrive cause of rhings), nor are rhings created by
lighr; instead, rhere is a primordial light, which is the self-lumi-
nescence of primordial darkness; and this primordial lighr is
Boehm's Abgrund. This primordial light is, of course, panrhe-
ism-which is the polariry creared by Renaissance arheism.
"Bur it is remarkable how (in contrast ro Iralian rarionalisric
lighr-a parrial exception ro which, I suppose, would be Leonardo's
magicalisms)-it is remarkable how rhe Norrh has this general ten-
dency ro pantheisric phosphorcsence.
The definirive characrerisric is rhe sclf-deificarion of rhe world
joined ro a rejection of asceticism, proclaiming rhar rhe disciplines
of holiness are not needed for earrhly illuminarion; rhus, for rhe
German mysrics, rhe heighr and value of whar is mysrically appre-
hended is enrirely unrelared w rhe height and value of rhe spiri-
rual disciplines rhar refine rhe physical body. Reubens is a shining
insrance of rhe self-luminescence of largc, heavy flesh. I am sure
you will agree about Reubens, but I rhink you haven't sufficiendy
attended ro rhe deep affiniry rhar Rcmbrandt and Reubens have
wirh rhe spirirual basis of rhe whole Durch school, for rhe mysre-
rious Rembrandr has counrless relarives among rhe Durch srill-life
arnsrs.
150
PAVEL ILORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
And so I found ir strange ro hear you ralk abour sober Durch
burghers-for all rhese exrremely beauriful grapes and peaches
and apples, all rhese succulenr vegerables and fish: if rhese are
merely naturalisric, whar would we ever call metaphysical? Bur in
Durch srill-life, of course, we are seeing rhc idea of grapes, rhe idea
of apples, and so on. And all of ir, like in Rembrandr, is lumines-
cence from within-"
I don'r deny rhis momenr of self-luminescence in Durch srill-
life painring, bur-in opposirion ro Rembrandr-rhese fruirs and
vegerables everywhere exhibir parrly whar I call a righteous con-
nccrion ro rhe earrh: for in rhem rhcre is somcrhing of iconpainr-
ing, somerhing of rhings being creared by lighr. Bur in rhe Durch
srill-lifc, rhe unities of chiaroscuro and rhe externa! relarion of
form ro lighr are enrirely absenr; and our quesrion, as you remem-
bcr, concerns rhe dominanr tendency of Western arr ro which
rendcncy (and nor ro arr irself) we are opposing rhe rendency of
iconpainring or irs rendency (in rhis case, ir makes no difference).
lconpainring considers lighr nor as somerhing externa] ro ob-
jecrs; neirher does ir consider lighr as belonging ro sorne primor-
dial subsrance: for iconic lighr esrablishes and builds rhings,
becoming rhe objecrive cause of rheir exisrence; and, precisely
bccause ir cannot be conceived as exrernal, iconic lighr is rhe
transcendental origin of rhings, a crearivc origin rhar manifesrs
irself rhrough rhings bur does nor termina te in rhem.
"Yes, you are quite righr, rhe rcchniques and marerials of
iconpainring are such rhar rhe images rhey depicr can only be
comprehcnded as being generarcd by lighr; consequenrly, rhe
spirirual ground of every iconic image is rhar one wholly light-
bearing and transcendenrally brillianr Face. Bur I wonder: is rhis
Face only an inevitable impression, merely sorne kind of mera-
physical illusion arising from rhe iconpainring rechniques-some
enrirely uninrended consequence of rhe arrisric process-or is ir a
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova 151
genuine metaphysics rhar is being consciously and deliberarely
expressed rhrough iconpainring?"
Are you cerrain rhar you are sraring rhe dilemna correctly? You
ask wherher rhe metaphysics of rhe icon are somerhing illusory
and rherefore nor worth discussing philosophically, as if rhe meta-
physics had no rarional conrenr, or as if rhey were sorne abstraer
rheory rhar had ro be carefully applied ro rhe icon, rhereby mak-
ing rhe icon inro somerhing allegorical. The whole quesrion purs
us at a fork in a road where, no matter which way we rake, we end
up in rhe same place.
"And whar place is rhar?"
The place where rhe icon is rcjecrcd as a visual image of rhe
orher world. For if we say rhat rhe metaphysics of iconpainring are
either accidental illusion or deliberare inrenrion, we arrive ar rhe
same conclusion: rhe actual icon is soulless. That is, either way the
actual icon irself becomes mute, empirical, and externa!, while irs
viral spirirualiry becomes somerhing abstraer and wholly apart
from irs visual actualiry. If the meraphysics are illusion, then rhe
spiritualiry follows behind the visual acrualiry; if rhey are inren-
rional, rhen rhe icon's spirirualiry runs ahead of rhe visual. The
facr of rhe marrer is rhat rhe rrue sense of rhe icon is precisely in
irs visual rationaliry, or irs rational visualiry, rhar is, in irs incarna-
rion. I don'r know wherher you see how your quesrion leads us
inro rhe denial of rhe icon; bur I clearly see rhar ir does; and so,
rarher rhan denying rhe icon, I prefer ro deny your quesrion.
"But 1 had no idea rhar such carasrrophe attended my ques-
rion; and I srill cannor see where rhe grave danger lies."
Well, consider: whar is rhis racidy assumed norion we have
silenrly inrroduced abour abstraer meraphysics, abour meraphys-
ics as abstraer rhoughr? The whole assumprion is radically rejecred
by religious rhoughr; more precisely, abstraer consrrucrions per se
are nor recognized by rhe Church. The Church f1ady denies rhe
spirirual meaning of any idea rhar is nor grounded in concrete
11
1
'1
'
152
PAYEI. lLORFNSKY: ICONOSTASIS
experience, for She ceaselessly affirms rhe meraphysicaliry of life
and rhe aliveness of meraphysics. When rhe Church ralks abour
rhe purely rneraphysical conrenr of rhis or rhar visual appearance,
She undersrands rhar, in a coherenr parallelisrn, She is speaking of
two revelarions of rhe same concrete experience. You, however,
were ralking abour meraphysics on the one hand and, on rhe other
hand, iconpainring; but in rhe concrete experience of rhe icon,
rhe fulcrurn for borh iconpainring and meraphysics is neirher an
abstraer idea abour rhe nature of rhings nor rhe sensory q ualiries
of rhe emprica! colors bur, rather, rhe spirirual experience-
"But wait: do you ralk about a vision of a saint?"
Yes, cerrainly 1 do. Bur ro avoid ambiguiry in rhis, ler us rry ro
use a word rhar will bring rogerher vision and illusion, and so ler
us speak of a saint's appearance. Borh rneraphysics and iconpainr-
ing are grounded on rhe sarne rarional facr (or factual rarionaliry)
concerning a spirirual appearance: which is rhar, in anyrhing
sensuously given, rhe senses wholly penetrare ir in such a way thar
rhe rhing has norhing abstraer in ir but is enrirely incarnared sense
and cornprehended visuality. A Christian meraphysician will
rherefore never lose concrereness and so, for him, an icon is always
sensuously given; equally, rhe iconpainrer can never employ a
visual rechnique rhar has no rneraphysical sensuousness. But rhe
facr rhar rhe Christian philosopher consciously compares icon-
painring and onrology does nor lead rhe iconpainrer ro use rhe
philosopher's rerrns; rarher, rhe iconpainter expresses Christian
onrology nor rhrough a srudy of its teachings bur by philosophiz-
ing wirh his brush. Ir is no accidenr rhar rhe supreme masrers of
iconpainring were, in rhe ancienr rexrs, called philosophers; for,
alrhough rhey did nor wrire a single abstraer word, rhese masrers
(illumined by divine vision) resrifled ro rhe incarnare Word wirh
rheir hands and flngers, philosophizing rruly rhrough rheir colors.
This is rhe only way ro undersrand whar rhe parrisric rexrs cease-
lessly repear and whar rhe ecumenical councils repearedly assert:
......
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova
1
whar rhe words of rhe serrnon are for rhe ear, so rhe icons are f<,r
the eye. And rhis is so not beca use rhe icon condirionallv 'rran.
lares' sorne written text or orher bur, insread, because borh ict1
and texr have as rheir irnrnediare subject-a subjecr from wh1ch
neither seeks ro be separa red and ro rhe rnanifesting of which borh
essentially seek-: both have as rheir subject rhe same spiriru.ll
realiry. And according ro al! of rhe ancienr world, whar manife)ti
concrerely the spirirual realm is philosophy. Thus, all rrue rheok"'
gians and al! true iconpainters were equally called philosopl,m.
"And so yo u would say rhat iconpainring is rneraphysics, jusr .li
meraphysics is in a certain sense verbal iconpainring. "
Yes, and for rhis reason: we can discern in rhe work ofborh
1
r
1
unceasing parallelisrn-even rhough rhe parallelism isn'r con
sciously (better: isn't intentionally) active. For example, consider
rhe sryle of rhose verbally baroque rheologians of rhe sevenreentll
and eighreenrh centuries, for in their wrirings and sermonswn.l
11
plainly see a deliberately spiralling tangle of verbal folds moving
111
a cornplex and eleganr ceremonious dance: a perfecr verbal mime
sis of the Baroque icon; and in rhis inner correspondence fl
subjecr and sryle berween rheology and iconpainting is a marrer
awaiting scholarly exarninarion. But rny poinr here is rhe far more:
imporranr issue concerning the metaphysics of lighr, for rhis is rile
primary characterisric of all iconpainring.
" 1 know rhar, in ancient philosophic culture long before
Christ, the highest and most suprernely valued senses were sight
and hearing. Thus, when, for exarnple, Heraclirus said, "The eyes
and the ears are nor reliable wirnesses, " he was saying rhar el'm rhe
eyes and ears are wholly and rnerely sensuous. I also know rhar (,It
leasr in classical Greek rhought) sighr is more valued rhan hearing
In facr, the definitive characrerisric of Greek rhoughr is
rhe sense of sighr, and, in Platonisrn, rhe spiritual essence of a
rhing is irs appearance (ELOOS') rarher rhan its sound or smell or
tasre or rouch. Moreover, in ancienr philosophy, rhe highesr st<
1
ce
1'
154 PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
ofknowing the metaphysical ground of all existence was expressed
always as inner illumination, as inward light. All Platonic onrol-
ogy, of course, is elaborated in visual schemata, because all realiry
(Plato said) is a blend of, or juncrure between, darkness (non-ex-
istence)and appearances or ideas (existence); and rhe metaphysical
ground of rhese latter is the sun of the ideational world, which
Plaro called rhe idea of the Good-that is, the source of light. No
one who srudies Plato can fail ro see rhe concrete clarity of Plaro's
ideationallight-and see also rhat this concrete clariry, far from
accidental, is based on Plaro's mysrical experience. There is much
ro say on rhis, but I was coming ro this question: do you see
Church reaching, in the general connecting ro Platonic rradition,
within this framework of understanding?"
The Metaphysics of Light and St. PauL's Epistle to the Ephe-
szans
Y es, I do, and rhe definitive point is the word light itself. There
are at leasr a hundred compound words in Church language com-
posed of rhis word: light-bearer, lighr-giver, lighr-like, lighr-of-lighr,
light-manifesring, and on and on, not even counting the vast
instances of the single word light. Sorne rime ago, literary criticism
discovered that a work of lirerature is dominated by this or that
character, image or word; that rhe work is, in fact, creared for that
image or word; that thar image is the embryo of the work itself--
"And rhe embryonic word in all Church writings-and espe-
cially in rhe lirurgical services-is of course light. This dominant
ronaliry of lighr in rhe services cannot be denied. Bur can yo u tal k
more concrerely and (if possible) more concisely abour rhis mera-
physic of lighr?"
No one is more concise about this than rhe Apostle.
"Whar do you mean?"
nav yap T <t>avEpO!lEVOV <t>ws E<JTlV: "whatsoever doth
make manifesr is lighr" (Eph 5: 14). That is, everyrhing rhat
......
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova
155
rhe full of every existing thing,
1s lzght. Thus, anythmg that 1s not hght cannot appear, for iris nor
a realiry. Every darkness is unfruirful, and so rhe Aposde calls rhe
"works of darkness" precisely "unfruirful" (Eph 5:11 ). This unre-
ality is rhe pitch darkness locared ourside God. In God is all
existing, all fullness of realiry; outside Him stretches rhe norhing-
ness of Hell's darkness. By rhe way, in Greek rhe word Hell or
Hades (aors, ciLors) means without view, viewless, i.e., rhar which
is deprived of "view" or appearance. Realiry is appearance, idea,
countenance (lik); unrealiry is appearancelessness, Hell, darkness.
Every exisring rhing also possesses rhe active energy by which
ir manifests irs realiry; rhus, something unable ro acr so is un-
real-"only nonexistence lacks energy," the Fathers would say.
And so darkness, being fruitless, as rhe Apostle says, rherefore
lacks energy; ir is (in rhe unique sense of the word) nonbeing and
death. But suddenly a lighr will shine in ir and awaken in ir "children
oflight" who bear fruit "in all goodness and righreousness and trurh,
proving whar is acceprable unro rhe Lord" (Eph 5:9-10). Thus, the
fruir borne by rhe acrs of light is rhe "proving" or searching (OOKl-
!l( OVTES) the will of God, that is, searching rhe onrological ground
of existing. This searching is rhe manifesring of every exisring thing,
rhat is, the comprehension of rhe incommensurabiliry between rhe
earthly realm and its spiritual idea in rhe divine Counrenance; but
this manifesting occurs (as rhe Aposrle says) by light.
"The general idea rhar 'wharsoever doth make manifest is
lighr' is undoubredly correcr in Church teaching. Bur can we,
keeping ro the literal sense of rhese words ro rhe Ephcsians,
explain rheir onrological and iconic senses? 1 rhink ir's enrirely
impossible ro have conflicring views abour rheir moral meanings;
but whar abour rheir onrological meaning? Consider rhe conrcxr
of chapter 5 of Ephesians: rhe Apostle Paul is relling rhem ro 'walk
in love,' to avoid lechery and every impuriry and wantonness and
loose talk and wild laughing, and so on, and he forbids thcm ro
156 PAVEL rLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
over-indulge in wine, teaching rhem to obey one anorher in God;
rhen he skerches rhe duries of a wife ro a husband, while in
chapter 6, he reaches rhe right relarion between parem and child,
servant and master. My poinr is rhis: 'whatsoever dorh make
manifest is lighr' explains why rhe children of lighr have rhe
energy and obligarion to expose rhe works of darkness; rhe words
have this erhical and insrrucrional intention."
Your perceptions are right but not your conclusion. You creare
a comext; ler me do rhe same and locare rhis passage from chapter
five wirhin the contexr of rhe whole Epistle. But ler me first say
rhis: I am nor trying to prove a poinr bur only indicating whar 1
personally feel abour ir.
So: rhe Episrle is addressed to rhe people of Ephesus, a ciry
widely known for irs veneration of-and arr devored to-the
goddess Arremis, a cemer of borh magical pracrices and rhe pro-
ducing of idols. From rhe Acts of the Apostles, we know of rhe grear
rebellion led by one Demerrios rhe Silversmirh againsr rhe Chris-
rians of Ephesus whose teachings had grearly hurr rhe marker for
idols. Throughour rhe Episde, I feel a secret conrrasr between, on
rhe one hand, rhis soulless business of Ephesian paganism (repre-
senred by sculprure) and, on rhe orher, rhe ancienr figurarive arr
of making God incarnate by and in rhe image (rhe arr which, in
rime, becomes iconpaiming). As a highly educarcd Jew, rhe Apos-
rle could not help bur be almosr viscerally repelled by rhe idola-
rrous Ephesian sraruary-bur rhe ciry's ancienr figurarive and
relarively more symbolic arr, which was srill far from supernaru-
ralisr essence, was for him more acceprable, for irs lighr-generaring
rechnique approached borh Scriprural reachings about rhe crear-
ing of rhe world and Plaronic undersrandings abour rhe genera-
rion of ideas-understandings rhemselves {according to Philo's
tradirion) close to Judaic rheology by virrue of borh rheir essenrial
conrenr and rheir historie interacrion.
......
A Dialogue with Sophia Ivanova
157
A grear anrirhesis arises: rhe acr of seeing opposes rhe act of
touching in rhe same way rhe arr of lighr opposes the arr of darlrness.
The overwhelming tactility of pre-Chrisrian pagan art is well known,
a special link exisrs between this sense and paganism; and the Holy
Fathers even more acurely see a speciallink between racriliry (more
rhan any other sense) and rhe place where puriry is broken. All of
rhese and relared ideas rhe Aposrle could nor help bur have in his
mind (if only in sorne hidden comer of it)-nor could his Ephesian
readers. For even when he is engaged in merely erhical instrucrion, he
is holding in his mind rhis grear image of illumined arr defearing the
fruirless business of darkness-
"You were going ro poinr out rhe meaning of rhe Episrle's
erhical teaching."
This is exacrly whar l am doing. For rhe supreme image of rhe
grear Arrisr crearing by and in lighr "ro rhe praise of rhe glory ofHis
grace" (Eph 1 :6)-here is rhe image of rhe world as rhe whole
house-building of God. And when rhe Aposrle Paul ralks, in rhe
very beginning, abour our being chosen in Christ "before rhe
foundarion of rhe world" (Eph 1:4), and when he concludes wirh
admonishing us to be children of rhe lighr, revealing ro us con-
crerely rhe living image of su eh an illumined childhood, rhen is not
rhar immense process rhe very one rhe iconpaimer replicares, in
small, rhrough fashioning rhe icon, beginning wirh rhe pre-imaging
(i .e., ourlining in gold rhe furure images) and ending with rhose
picrures of rhe illumined children radiaring light shining in gold?
By rhe way, you argued jusr before against rhe omology of rhe
Aposde's words, insisring on rheir moral meaning. I answer rhar rhe
Church, in rhe highest sense, sees erhical moraliry as alien; and rhar
if one wishes ro speak in a Christian way abour behavior, one musr
speak only ontologically and never moralisrically and, above all,
never legalisrically. Seeing rhe erhical as alen disringuishes all of
rhe Aposrle's wriring bur especially rhis Episde. Bur why do we
even ralk of rhis? Who better rhan rhe Apostle knew rhe emptiness
158 PAVI: L fLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
and arrogance of "rhe business of the Law," of trying to save
oneself by moraliry? And after everything he had inwardly over-
come, could he have ever proposed erhical rules without fairh in
Christ, i.e., without the ontological nourishment of Christ's full-
ness?
The Epistle to the Ephesians has rhree features that distinguish
it from rhe other epistles. The first is rhe spiritual heighr of irs
content, along with a corresponding elevation of sryle and breadth
of concept. Sr. John Chrysostom writes:
The Apostle, they say, when he was reaching rhe people of Ephesus,
was already enrrusting rhem with rhc deepesr rrurhs of the Faith. For
rhe Epistle is fllled with rhe highesr and mosr immense medirarions;
in ir, he explains rhings he wrore abour almosr nowhere else ....
The vision of our ceaseless blessing in Jesus Christ exalts the Apostle,
and vivid feelings and ideas so abound wirhin him thar he hasn't rhe
rime ro catch them in words. Thought flows irrepressibly into
rhoughr unril rhey exhaust rhe whole subjecr that had inspired the
saint. And every word mulriplies into orher words, for he seeks only
ro outl ine every conceivable subjecr and nor to dwell specially on any
one, endowing all with the vision wherein ideas Aow in, through and
as pure consciousness. Jusr in its content, then, and in its tone of
voice, chis Epistle stands to the orher letrers of the Aposde's the way
the Gospel of Sr. John stands ro rhe other rhree Gospels.
The second distinguishing feature of rhe Epistle directly arises
from the first: universality. The Apostlc gives a general descriprion
of essential Christianiry: how, from rhe depths of ages, God chose
to save us in His Son; how rhe Son of God carne ro earrh and
established this salvarion; how all of us participare in this salva-
tion; and how, given all rhis, we must live and acr. He adduces no
specific historical conrext for all rhis, holding that everything he
says applies ro everywhere rhat Christians live. There is only one
disrinction made, rhar berween "we" (who are Jews) and "you"
(who are Gentiles) who now, in all iance with the Jews, form rhe
one body of God's holy church, rhe body thar is the starting point
A Dialogue with Sophia lvanova
159
of all rhe Aposde's inspired contemplarions. Ir is this universality
rhat has led sorne ro call the Epistle to rhe Ephesians a common
Christian carechism.
The rhird feature is rhe complete absence of all empirical
parricularities concerning eirher rhe Aposde himself or the Ephe-
sians. As Bishop Theophanes wrote: "The Aposde did not want ro
descend into ordinariness, so extraordinary were rhe contempla-
tions he susrained in writing them down." The Epistle's intent lies
in the hope thar "God will give thcm the enlightened eyes of the
hearr." The Aposde desires abovc all rhat the Ephesians will be
raised up-as far as possible for rhose on earrh-into a clear
vision of the divine order of rhings, rhe economy of salvation, for
he wishes rhem to behold what he himself beholds; "and higher
than rhe Apostle's vision, no one has ever seen nor ever will."
To attain rhis end, rhe Aposrle rells in rhe first half of rhe
mysrery of salvarion, and in rhe second he describes the growth of
rhe Body of Chrisr and irs viral life; and rhis second part is, in
borh its general meaning and irs specific derails, represenred as
concretely manifesring the ontology of salvation; and, as a golden
background to everyrhing, he susrains a stream of spiritual con-
remplarions that, throughou t rhe Episrle, make rhe empirical
derai ls of actual life seem to be furrher revelarions of rhe saving
ontology. Thus, in rhe case before us, we must understand rhe
words 'wharsoever dorh make manifesr is lighr' nor in rhe reintcr-
pretarions of moral rules; rarhcr, rheir meaning, according to the
Aposrle, is determined wholly by rhe onrology of light.
Wirh absolure exacrncss, rhe Apostle bears wirness to rhe
ontological realiry of rhe orher world, a world he beholds with his
own eyes; and he above all desires rhar his own wirness become a
seed of contemplarion for and in all believers. Thus, ir is entirely
natural rhar his parrially arriculared cvidences of spiritual visions
become rhe mosr exacr formulas for expressing rhe meaning of
'11
1
160
PAVEL FLORI:NSKY: ICONOSTASIS
rhat secondary evidence of the spirirual realm: i.e., the meaning of
. . .
1conpamnng.
Conclusion: The Egyptian Death-Mask and the Life of
the Saint
The mask is exhausted, and rhe alien-i.e., rhat which has no
spirirual implicarion-has already emered inro the death of it.
Even to touch rhe mask is defilement; whence arises rhe strict
religious prohibition against all masks and disguises. But rhe
spiritual essence of the appearances of culrure-moreover, of
Cult-does nor die; rather, rhis essence is transfigured and leads
inro new cultural images of cultural creativity, often manifesting
irself more purely and pcrfecdy in the new images than in the old.
And especially, as here, che sacred essenriality of rhe mask does
not die in the decomposition of the old image but-separating
irself from irs corpse-creates an arristic body. Ir becomes rhe
icon. Seen in rhe perspective of cultural history, the icon inherited
precisely the cultic task of the ritual mask, exalting rhis task ro
reveal, in rhe highest degree, rhe deified spirit of che deceased
resring in ererniry. And in inheriting rhis rask, rhe icon also
inherited rhe characreristic rechniques for producing the ritual
mask as well as rheir cultural manifestations- inheriting, too, the
profound originaliry of arrisric devices rhar developed through
millennia.
Historically, rhe nearesr kin ro rhe icon is rhe Egyptian mask,
for from ir arises both the icon irself and the primary iconpainring
forms. In saying this we are, of course, merely giving a schematic
formula for what is a most complex quesrion about the origins of
iconography- rhat arr inro which flow rhe highest achievemems
of world art-but in its briefer form, the schema is even more
correcr. Thus, rhe ancienr Egyptian painred sarcophagus, i.e., a
wooden case painred inside wherein is placed rhe mummy (itself
a wrapped body wirh an open face), is che progenitor of the icon;
.........
Conclusion: The Egyptian Death-M ask and the Lije of the Saint 161
and the paiming of che mummy, wrapped in srrips of linen first
soaked with glue and rhen layered with powdered gypsum, fore-
shadows iconpainring rechnique of gluing linen ?n the board and
gessoing it: for onto the hardened Iinen, rhey pamted with water-
color. Now, 1 do not know rhe composirion ofrhis Egyprian glue,
but were it an egg-based material rhen we would have an explana-
tion not only for rhe emprica! origins of iconpainting uadition
(whose appearance is impossible ro explain on a urilirarian basis)
but also for the deeper sacred symbolism of Egyptian are for in
rhe spirit of the Egyprian religion wherein rhe physical body is
resurrected afrer dearh, ir would be enrirely appropriate for rhe
dead body ro be covered wi rh egg, for rhe egg is a true symbol of
resurrection into eterna! life.
We can plainly see rhat, in painring che mummy or the sar-
cophagus, rhere was no arristic necessity ro make shadow-images
of earthy things-because mummy and sarcophagus already rep-
resented bodily rhings; rather, rhe reason for rhem is symbolic, for
with them rhe deceased enrered che kingdom oflight and became
an image of the god (the sacred formula of everlasting life in-
scribed for rhe deceased was "1 am Osiris"), assuring rherefore rhat
no damage, weakness or darkness should ever happen ro him.
Thus, rhe deceased would receive rhe god into himself and,
simultaneously retaining his individualiry, would become the im-
age of rhe god, rhe ideal cloud of his own humanness, rhe idea of
himself, of his own spiritual essence. And rhe work of the
mummy paimer was precisely ro instare rhe deceased's ideal es-
sence, for rhe one who had died was, as a god, now a true subject
of culric venerarion.
In other words, mummy painring inevirably accenred rhe
deceased's ideal features, developing rhe emprica! face so rhar irs
image would manifesr rhar face's pure humanness. Thus, rhe art
was not rhoughr of as porrrairure (which only approaches rhe
trurh of a face) bur rarher as rhe true representation of rhe very
162
PAVEL I'LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS
face itself, understanding such things as the drawing of the eyes
and rhe coloring of rhe face in rhis ancienr sense of rrue idealiza-
rion. Iconpainring rechnique equally follows rhis process of accen-
tuarion in rhe highlighting of iconic clothes and faces.
For rhe whole of iconpainring rechnique arises from rhe essen-
tial operarions of mummy painring: ro enacr the inrensificarion
wherein rhe face is creared in and by light, for only so can rhe face
attain rhe power ro oppose rhe accidenrs of shifring illuminarion
with rhe light of condirions beyond the empirical, visually mani-
festing the meraphysical-for rhe rrue form of the face is be-
srowed only by rhe light and never by chiaroscuro; and chis light
illumines not by any earrhly source but arises from rhe all-pene-
traring and form-crearing ocean of radianr energy. This is whar
Egyptian arr soughr. And jusr as Egyprian arr concenrrared upon
the sarcophagus' wooden surface, covering ir first wirh gypsum,
so, roo, iconpainring would concentrare upon rhe gessoed wooden
board-and, incidenrally, the cypress wood used by rhe ancienr
mummy painrers itself carried symbolic meaning, for rhe cypress was
rhe Egyptian symbol of erernal aliveness and incorruption.
To put it another way, for Egyptian art to free irself from
chiaroscuro, ir had ro wirhdraw irself from rhe material form of
rhe sarcophagus and ro step firmly onro rhe soil of symbolism.
Such a step gave the mummy painrer the means ro rise above rhe
mutabiliries of earrhly lighr. Also, prior ro and (larer) parallel wirh
rhc icon, Hellenisric portraiture was raking rhe same step and, in
so doing, deflecred rhe newly emerging art of iconpainring by
pushing ir onro cerrain illusionisric rracks (primarily rhrough wax,
or encaustic, rechniques)-alrhough rhe illusionisms of Hellenis-
tic porrrairure pardy do correspond with rhe ways of ancienr
idealizarion so that, perhaps, rhese porrraits do in facr trace an
intermediare srep inro iconpainring; and ir may be, rhen, rhe
illusionisms of rhe porrraits should be undersrood not as rheir
direct goal but, rather, as rudimenrary 'survivals' of rhe rechniques
Conclusion: The Egyptian Death-Mask and the LiJe ofthe Saint 163
of sarcophagic sculprure. So seen, rhe Hellenisric porrrair, in irs
srriving for symbolism and irs renouncing of flesh, did nor dare
break all ar once wirh rhe sculprural surface of rhe sarcophagus,
plainly acknowledging an obligarion ro produce sorne equivalenr
of rhis surface-alrhough rhe larer work of rhe new sacred arr
would lie precisely in freeing irself from rhis obligarory empiri-
cism. Thus iconpainring, we may say, developed, on the one
hand, from rhe affiniries ir shared wirh Hellenisric porrrairure. On
rhe other hand, we must remember that the Hellenistic portrait
was not portraiture in our sense of the word, that ir developed
along rhe symbolic path of the funerary mask. Ir is well known
rhat, alrhough the Hellenistic porrrait was reverenrly painred from
rhc living subject, its whole inner meaning was funerary, for after
death, ir was inserred as a face inside thc sarcophagus of rhc
deceased. Painred by an arrist so as to approximatc rhe appearance
of rhe deceased (sex, age, social posirion, and inner state of being
and so on-i.e., dolichnoe), the Hellenistic portrait was plainly a
kind of icon of the deceased, an icon undoubtedly rendered cultic
veneration. These funerary rituals of ancienr Egypt persisted inro
Egyptian Christianiry wherein the outward acts and inward sig-
nificances were not only not overrhrown but were, instead, con-
firmed by the Good News, infinircly reinforced and infinitely
deepened. And if, as rhe Apost!e says, al! rhe Chrisrians who fell
asleep in rhe Lord werc indeed sainrs and so are worrhy of our
veneration, then the serviccs we conduce near thc remains of these
chosen witnesses ro eterna! lifc-rhar is, rhe vespers and the
liturgical sacramenr of Chrisr's Body and Blood-nourish us in ro
eterna! life. In thc strictest sense of the word, these funcrary
portraits were manifcst!y icons.
Thus, in rhis light, when wc inquire into rhe metaphysics of
thc icon, we can inquire equally inro Egyptian, pre-Christian and
Christian iconpainring.
164 l'AVH lLORENSKY: ICONOSTASJS
If a mummified body covered by a mummy painting is under-
srood as connected with the beginning of life, then can rhis
"painring of a face" be undersrood aparr from irs relationship ro
rhe mummified face? Could we logically, in even saying rhe phrase
aloud, de-emphasize rhe immeasurably sacred, precious, and sig-
nificanr words "of rhe face" and give weighr insread ro rhe physi-
cally empry and meraphysically void word "painring"? We could
nor; no more could we show someone a funerary image and say,
"This is painr on my farher's face" or "Here is a mask of my
friend"; we would say, placing ir in rheir hands, "This is my farher,
rhis is my friend." Manifesdy, for rhe religious consciousness, rhe
painting or mask is nor apart from or opposed ro the human face;
iris undersrood as being together with rhe face, as having meaning
and value by irs relarion ro rhe face. Thus, rhe funerary mask does
not hide rhe deceased but, rather, reveals his face in irs spirirual
essence, a revelation clearer and more direcr rhan viewing rhe face
irself.
The cultic funerary mask was rruly rhe appearance of rhe
deceased, a heavenly appearance full of greamess and divine gran-
deur, an appearance wholly apart from earrhly cares and illumined
by heavenly lighr. And ancienr people knew rhat, wirh rhe mask,
rhere appeared rhe spirirual energy of rhe deceased person ir was
imaging, i.e., rhe energy of one wearing rhe mask and whose face
ir was revealing. The mask of the dcceased rherefore is rhe de-
ccased nor only meraphysically but also physically; rhe deceased
one is revealing himself ro us in rhe mask. Egyprian Chrisrendom
could have had no orher onrology rhan rhis, for rhe icon was nor
a depiction of a witness ro erernaliry, ir was rhe very wimess irself.
This is so because Egyprian iconic onrology expressed firsr of all
and everywhere an immense physical facr: rhe icon lies on rhe very
body of rhe witness himself. Any rhoughr opposing or ignoring
rhis grear facr-no matter how absrractly ponderable in relarion
ro rhis or rhar specific purpose or concrete viraliry-would be an
inrolerable conrradicrion ro rhe whole onrological way of feeling.
--
Conclusion: The Egyptian Death-Mask and the Lije ofthe Saint 165
Moreover, rhis physical fact can become refined and inrricarely
complicared, bur irs spirirual essenrialiry cannor be disrorted or
desrroyed. As rhe onrological connecrions berween rhe icon and
rhe sainr's physical body on rhe one hand, and, on rhe orher,
berween his physical body and his spirirual essence (i.e., rhe sainr
himself) are all made manifest, rhen rhe mere quanrirarive dis-
rance berween rhe icon and rhe corpse loses all irs power; and rhe
onrological connecrions cannor be annihilared by even a very
grear disrance of rhe sainr's icon from rhe remains of his body nor
by rhe fragmenrariness of rhe remains.
For no matter where on earrh rhe sainr's remains are, and no
maner whar their physical condirion, his resurrecred and deified
body lives in ererniry, and rhe icon rhar shows him forrh does nor
merely depict rhe holy wirness bur is rhe very wirness himself. Iris
nor rhe icon rhar, as a monumenr of arr, deserves our arrenrive
srudy; rarher, ir is rhe saint himself who, rhrough rhe icon, is
reaching us. And if in rhar moment when, rhrough rhe tiniesr gap
or break, rhe icon onrologically separares irself from rhc saint,
rhen rhe saint hides himself from us in rhe unapproachable
sphere, and rhe icon becomes in rhar moment merely one more
rhing among rhe world's orher rhings. In rhis terrible momenr, a
viral connecrion berween earrh and heaven disinregrares inro a
cancerous spor rhar kills rhar area oflife in us where rhe saint once
lived; and rhen rhere arises in us rhe dreadful fear rhat rhis
cancerous separarion will spread.