I've been very curious about why icons are "written" as opposed to "painting or drawing" them. No one at my parish could give a good answer.
I think I found out, though. I'm in a study group for Sanskrit and in one lesson the idiom used in that language for making or painting a picture is "writing" a picture.
The word for writing is Sanskrit is "likhati" the root "likh" means "to scratch".
I have heard that it is a recent American innovation to say that icons are "written." Anyone know for sure?
The explanation that I've heard for the use of the term comes from the principle that icons are a visual form of theology. And theology is written. But if you ask me, theology is not limited to words on paper, and can be oral, visual, textual, or liturgical.
Ephraem
~He who seeth his own sins, seeth not the sins of others.
I don't know whether that's an American innovation or not, but if so, it's a very odd one that is rather illogical in our grammar.
However, if the idiom originated with Sanskrit (an early Indo-European language) or with some even earlier relative of Sanskrit (like Old Avestan/Old Iranian), it makes more sense. Many Latin, Greek and certainly Slavonic words derive from Sanskrit (or Proto-Indo-European predecessor).
If the Sanskrit scenario may be true, that to "write" a picture comes from the Sanskrit "likhati" which means to scratch, you can see how to "scratch" a picture (rather than paint it) may have been more the norm during pre-historic times. The question is, does the Greek or the Slavonic idioms also say "write" an icon? If not, then there is some kind of disconnect in the English phasing where there is no idiomatic tradition of using that phrase. In that case, it would be not an innovation, but maybe an affectation.
Hexapsalms,
I found George's response...
-----Original Message-----
From: George Gabriel
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:29 AM
To: "OrthodoxyOrDeath" (gothcha!)
Subject: My corespondence on "icon writing"
Dear "OrthodoxyOrDeath" (gothcha again!), below is some corerspondence I had with a Greek-American who
insisted on the term icon writing.
Your thought?
GSG
Dear -----,
I noticed that you have at times referred to an icon as having been
"written." I wish to
correct this because I regard as error the "writing" of icons. In
contemporary English, icons are
painted or drawn, but they are not written. In old forms of English, as in
Slavonic, and Greek, to write had various meanings, all of which can be summed
up as inscribing, engraving, or affixing by the use of various instruments
and or pigments any kind of shapes and forms, letters, drawings, designs, on the
surface of various materials. In English today, however, to write means just
that, to write words, not to paint or draw. I see this error most often
being
made by (but not limited to) pretentious converts who wish to sound
erudite, well informed, and
very Orthodox. Somewhere along the way, someone let it out to converts
that
the verb in classical Greek grapho means to draw or paint. This is partly
true. It also means to write, to inscribe, engrave, scratch, etch, or
otherwise place any letters, pictures, numbers, lines, dots, etc. upon
anything. But the verb to write in modern English usage means only one
thing--to write,
to
produce letters and words but not art. The use of obsolete English usages
in Ameican Orthodoxy serves no useful purpose. Grapho in modern Greek can still
mean to impress on a surface marks of
any
kind, including art, but that is mostly due to the depth and vitality of
the Greek language, which never loses its ancient meanings. It is not the
parallel of modern English to write. You might find it
interesting to know that more often than not you will encounter a variety
of
words other than grafo in the Fathers and the Councils, most notably the
Seventh Ecumenical Council. You could do a service by telling readers on
your
lists that icons with pigments are painted, mosaics icons are made, and
reliefs are sculpted because they are indeed art and not words.
In IC XC,
George Gabriel
Dear -------,
I don't wish to pursue this beyond this note, but your defense of the
expression "writing icons" as a form of "writing theology" doesn't hold up
well. That there is theology in icons is indisputable, and you know my views
on that if you have read my book. If your argument is correct, then we should
say also that the chanter "writes" theology with music and WORDS and we
should eliminate verbs like "chant" and "sing" and "hymn" (psa'lw, a'somai,
ymnw'). We should likewise say that church architects "write" buildings
because indeed there is theology even in the form of the naos
(church-temple). We should also eliminate words like art and painting and
drawing and delineating and carving, all of which and more are to be found in
the Fathers and Councils. The Fathers called the iconographer an
artist--zographos--and not writers, zo-graphos meaning maker of images of things from
life. Are icons art? Absolutely. Ought they be done only by skilled artists who
are spiritually advanced? Absolutely, this is a dictum of the Church that is
largely disregarded on both counts today with monstrous results, especially
in America.
Moreover, if we try to suppress or dematerialize the importance of artistic
skills, then we
diminish the divine gift of the various material arts that the materially
enfleshed God has given us and transformed in the Church. The Fathers and the
Councils, after all, defended PICTURES, MATERIAL PICTURES, painted mostly by
human hands. And in any language these are called art. We as Orthodox should
not be embarassed by that word as you appear to be.
When we stop calling icons sacred painting and art, we invite every spiritual
neophyte and amateur artist to fashion monstrous works and fancy himself
an "icon writer," thus excusing his poverty of painting skills. Indeed, we've
seen more than enough of this already. Artistic talent of high quality is an
indispensible ingredient in producing an icon much as the highest quality
materials, whether pigments, precious metals and stone, mosaic tiles or tesarae
are appropriate offerings for images of the Lord.
Me tin agapi tou Christou mas,
George Gabriel
I think you might be overlooking something here. I suspect that the English usage of "writing" an I con comes from the Russian or Slavonic use of the terms. Russians use the word "pisat" when refering to an icon. In the Russian usage it is incorrect to say that an icon is painted or drawn. I'm not really sure as to the why, but I do know that is the usage.
Milla
