Is an icon painted or “written”?
Is an icon painted, or “written”? That may seem an odd question, because as any sensible person can see, icons are painted; they are paint applied to a surface of some kind. Why, then, does such a question even arise?
The answer lies in
the usage by many English-speaking neo-Eastern Orthodox of a kind of affected
jargon in referring to icons. They will
say one “writes” an icon rather than “paints” it. But the reason for that peculiar usage lies
in the differences between the English and the Russian languages.
Ask a Russian how one says “write,” in his language, and he will answer “pisat’.” Then ask him how one says “paint,” and he will reply “pisat’.” That is because Russian has one word with a double meaning, and one must know the context to know whether one is writing a letter or painting a picture. English, however, has distinct words for these two actions. We “write” a letter, but we “paint” a picture. So to say one “writes” an icon in English is a poor use of language and it is inaccurate English.
Tell this to your
neighborhood convert to Eastern Orthodoxy (if you even have one, and remember
there is no zeal like the zeal of a convert), and he or she may likely tell
you, “But an icon is the Gospel in paint, and a Gospel is written, so we
Orthodox say we ‘write’ an icon.”
Well, he or she may
certainly say it, but it is not correct.
Nor do all Orthodox say it — in fact fewer and fewer maker that
mistake. The reasons given for this
mistaken usage among icon enthusiasts are the linguistic equivalent of an urban
legend. The true reason is simple: In Russian you can “write/paint” an icon, and
you can “write/paint” a copy of the Mona Lisa, but in English, if you are
creating an image with paint, you are painting it. All else is simply affected nonsense. And as for “we Orthodox,” well, time has
finally caught up with this strange notion, and a great many “Orthodox” now are
quite aware that to say “write” in English when one should say “paint” is an
“immigrant English” error one should have learned to correct by now.
Of course if you
happen to be Russian, or are speaking of the subject in Russian, it is
perfectly correct to say pisat’ in regard to icons. But when translating into English, the
correct translation is to “paint” icons, not to “write” them.
Icons Are Not “Written”
We’ve all heard,
and many of us have used, the currently popular phrase “icon writing.” Whoever
invented this expression must have noticed that in the Greek word eikonographia
and its Slavonic translation ikonopisanie the suffixes (graphí and pisánie)
very often mean “writing.” Our inventor thereupon thought it a good idea to
speak of “icon writing,” probably imagining that the sheer oddness of the
phrase would attract more attention than the prosaic “icon painting”and also
convey a greater sense of the sacredness of the act of producing an icon. Ever
since, this tortured translation has stuck to the lips of just about every
English-speaking Orthodox Christian who talks about icons.
However, the
suffixes graphí and pisánie both mean depiction, as well as writing. The
first–more to the point here than the Slavonic term, which was formed on the
basis of the Greek–is related to the verb gráphein/grápho and means any
representational delineation — such as when you write the letters of an
alphabet, but also when you sketch, say, a portrait. The precise translation
depends on the circumstances. For example, “geography” does not mean “earth
writing,” but earth description, whether verbal or pictorial. “Scenography,”
from the word skiní, meaning a shelter, by implication a tent, and by further
implication one of canvas, means the painting or other illustration of a
backdrop, on canvas or similar material, for a theatrical production (whence
our words “scene”and “scenic”); it does not mean “scene writing.” Whether the
delineation referred to is verbal or pictorial, graphí implies circumscription,
as when the Church says that God the Father is aperigraptos. That does not
mean, obviously, that God the Father is “unwritable.” It means He is
uncircumscribable, unbounded, undepictable, incomprehensible, unsusceptible to
containment within the boundaries that we must impose on anything before we can
comprehend or speak of it.
The habit of
describing icons as “written” should therefore be dropped. Not only does the expression
do violence to English and sound just plain silly, but it can introduce notions
without basis in the Greek texts — such as, that an icon is essentially a
representation of words, as opposed to a representation of things that words
represent.
The theologically
important fact that icons, which are pictorial, and Scripture, which is verbal,
are nearly equivalent can be conveyed in other ways than by torturing English.
It’s worth noting that in the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Greek
word used for an icon painter is simply zográphos (in Slavonic, zhivopísets),
meaning simply a depicter of life, or of forms taken from life: that the
subjects depicted were religious was more or less assumed. It seems that when secular artists eventually
gained higher social status than before, and zográphos could apply to them as
well as to the makers of sacred representations, the term was superseded in
Greek by the more specific agiográphos, or eikonográphos (in Slavonic,
ikonopísets).
Sources:
1)
https://russianicons.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/is-an-icon-painted-or-written/
2)
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/06/08/icons-are-not-written/
