A “Mistake” in Byzantine Icons?
Posted by Eric (May 4, 2006 at 9:47 pm)
I hate to complain about Relevant Radio—they’ve given a lot of time to our own Fr. Tom Loya to speak on the Theology of the Body, and they’ve plugged his “Light of the East” program—but today I heard a remark that I can’t let pass.
I was listening to the end of the Drew Mariani Show, and his guest was Steve Bolitierri, talking about the Shroud of Turin. Bolitierri was explaining why the fingers on the Shroud are so preternaturally long—something to do with X-rays—and he commented that “the Byzantines made that mistake in their icons, painting Jesus with long fingers.”
First, the idea that there is something “mistaken” in the symbolism used in icons of Christ is both offensive and ridiculous. Second, I’ve never heard anything to suggest that iconographers were using the Shroud as a model (assuming that it’s authentic in the first place). Third, the point of icons isn’t to paint naturalistically anyway; in fact, nothing could be more obvious. You need only behold an icon to see that.
Is it really necessary to say that the point of an icon is to convey spiritual truth? Yes, I suppose that it is necessary. In the case of the long fingers sometimes used in icons of Christ, Mary and other, the point is to symbolize spiritual intensity and gracefulness (grace-full-ness).
Now, I have nothing against the Shroud of Turin. I’ve seen it myself, during a pilgrimage to Rome in 2000. We landed in Milan on our way home to Chicago and went through hell and high water (literally; there was historic flooding in northern Italy that day) to see the Shroud. It was moving to say the least, and I’d sooner it were authentic than not.
But when a proponent of the Shroud goes so far as to use the image thereupon to claim that our icons contain a “mistake,” I become skeptical. Sadly, this kind of attitude is all too common among the advocates of particular devotions.
I don’t want to make a new Iconoclastic Controversy out of this, but I was disappointed by Bolitierri’s uninformed remark.
Eric,
I was also disappointed by Bolitierri’s remark about our “mistaken iconography.” Another example of Latin hegemony that the our Orthodox brethren will zero in on.
John
Comment posted May 6th, 2006 at 6:07 am
A teaching moment for BEMA!
Most folks don’t understand the “perspective” of iconography, especially w/ regard to icons depicting scenes, for example, why the person/object in the middle is written large, etc.
Comment posted May 6th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I suggest a note be sent to Drew, along with a link to Eric’s excellent post. While we’re at it, we could tell Sean Herriot that Easter eggs are indeed Christian symbols.
I love Relevant Radio, but they could use a fact-checker.
Comment posted May 7th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Actually, there have been some studes done on the impact of the Shroud of Turin on Eastern Christian iconography, especially as it pertains to the face of Christ. Scientific studies have evidently confirmed that the icon of Christ from St. Catherine’s Monastery in Egypt follows the pattern of the Shroud (which at the time was known as the “Image of Edessa”).
That aside, the “long fingered” remark was out of place. You don’t hear us bashing the effeminate Sacred Heart statues on the radio, do you? :-)
Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
And, here is a very interesting paper written on his subject (sans the finger references):
http://www.shroud.it/DAMON.PDF
Gordo
Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
” You don’t hear us bashing the effeminate Sacred Heart statues on the radio, do you? :-)”
No, but as a Latin rite Catholic, and a woman, I would completely understand, and agree with you ;-)
It’s the pink nightgown, I guess.
I’ll tell you the truth, I think this ties in with the “emasculation” of the Liturgy from which our rite suffers. We’ve gone from men in lace who look like they could kick your ass if it needed kicking, surrounded by architecture and art that almost frightening it was so awe-inspiring, to the accompaniment for music that spoke of Mystery; to sacds of soft guys (and officious women) wearing polyester picnic tablecloths, desparate not to offend ANYONE or ANY opinion (or sin,) surrounded by bland happy-shiny “environments”, to the accompaniment of insipid tunes.
It’s enough to make a saint weep, and lesser mortals seek salvation elsewhere.
Comment posted May 22nd, 2006 at 10:17 am
Well, it’s always hard to convey the difference between slavish naturalism (always us the adjective ’slavish’ for maximum rhetorical efficiency) and what art historians call conceptual or idealized presentations of the body. Post-1000 Byzantine icons are highly conceptual.
Sadly, most of my students no longer have any preconceptions about Byzantine art; I used to think I needed to convince them that it ‘wasn’t flat.’ Turns out they didn’t know they were supposed to think it was flat. *sigh*
Comment posted May 22nd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
That offends me as a wanna-be iconographer. Sounds like someone really didn’t do their homework…
Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 11:36 pm
This type of comment is precisely why, when I had had enough of 30+ years of Protestant ‘dis-organized’ ecclesiastical structure (i.e. ‘church’), I left to find the Church. My journey has lead me to the Orthodox Church (Rus’ jurisdiction). My forbears were Ukrainian Greek Catholics, but coming to America, which has historically fought both outright and with subterfuge our Slavic Faith, our 3rd generation knows nothing of it. Of their grandchildren on myself has found the way back to our Faith. I could not, by conscience sake, join myself to a Rome that has so innovated the Apostolic Faith, and tossed an historic understanding…as quoted in the comment above. May all be well, S Bohom, Mikhail
Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 5:12 am
Sorry to jump in late here, but I would encourage Mike Ross to reconsider his last sentence. As a Latin Rite Catholic who spent two years as a member of the choir of Epiphany of Our Lord Byzantine Catholic Church in Northern Virginia and who has great respect for the Eastern churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, I think it is only fair to point out that many, many Latin Rite Catholics have mistaken ideas about Byzantine iconography, liturgy, etc. Such mistakes, however, are not necessarily the fault of Rome but of the general ignorance of Americans (even those who attend Mass) of all things religious (pointed out so well by )
Trust me, neither John Paul II nor Benedict would have made the mistake that Bolitierri made.
Great site, by the way. And I’m an avid listener to Light of the East. We live up in Rockford, so it’s a little too far to drive down to Homer Glen every Sunday (especially with six children), but I look forward to visiting Annunciation someday.
Comment posted July 1st, 2006 at 10:56 am