Symbolic. Metaphoricality and symbolic images in the poetry of Russian symbolists

Symbolic image

Along with the mimetic aspect of art, Byzantine thinkers, both ecclesiastical and secular, paid considerable attention to it symbolic meaning, symbolic images. In this they relied, on the one hand, on the traditions of ancient allegory, and on the other, on the rich experience of Judeo-Christian exegesis. Artistic practice provided a variety of material for reflection in this direction. In Byzantium throughout history, secular allegorical art of the Hellenistic type existed. Early Christian images, as a rule, had a symbolic-allegorical character, and individual allegorical elements of these images were then preserved in the iconography of mature Byzantine and all Orthodox church art. And it itself, especially icon painting, developed mainly along the path of creating not illusionistic illustrations of Scripture, but complex, multi-valued symbolic images that required deep penetration into their innermost meaning. In addition, the actual mimetic images in Byzantium had, as a rule, not only a literal, but also a figurative meaning.

One of the main forms of thinking in Byzantine culture was the principle of allegory. It well expressed the spirit of the times and indirectly served as a sign of high education. Allegories were used by both secular and clergy in their writings and oral speeches. For a more expressive and effective presentation of their thoughts, writers and historians of the X-XII centuries. often resorted to the technique of describing fictional paintings with subsequent interpretation of their allegorical meaning. Nikita Choniates, for example, uses a similar technique. In his “Chronography” he describes an allegorical picture, allegedly depicted at the direction of Andronikos Komnenos on the outer wall of the Temple of the Forty Martyrs: “<…>in a huge picture he (Andronicus. - V.B.) depicted himself not in royal vestments and not in golden imperial attire, but in the guise of a poor farmer, in clothes of blue color, going down to the waist, and wearing white boots that reach to the knees. In his hand this farmer had a heavy and large crooked scythe, and he, bending down, seemed to be catching with it the most beautiful young man, visible only up to the neck and shoulders. With this picture he clearly revealed his lawless deeds to passers-by, preached loudly and made it appear that he had killed the heir to the throne and, along with his power, appropriated his bride to himself” (Andr. Sotp. II6).

An allegorical perception of art was also characteristic of many Christian church writers of Byzantium. Characteristic in this regard is the description and at the same time interpretation by the early Byzantine author Eusebius Pamphilus of a painting placed above the entrance to the imperial palace: “In the painting, put on display for everyone to see, high above the entrance to the royal palace, he (Emperor Constantine - V.B.) depicted above with his head own image a saving sign, and under our feet in the image of a dragon falling into the abyss - a hostile and warlike beast, through the tyranny of the atheists, persecuting the Church of God; for the Scriptures in the books of the divine prophets call him a dragon and a treacherous serpent. Therefore, through the image of a dragon written in wax under the feet of him and his children, struck by an arrow in the very belly and cast into the abyss of the sea, the king pointed out to everyone the secret enemy of the human race, whom he represented as cast down into the abyss of destruction by the power of the saving sign that was above his head. And all this was depicted in the picture with colored paints. I am amazed at the high wisdom of the king: he, as if by divine inspiration, drew exactly what the prophets once announced about this beast, who said that God would raise a great and terrible sword against the dragon, the escaping serpent, and destroy him in the sea. Having drawn these images, the king, through painting, presented a faithful imitation of the truth” (Vit. Const. Ill 3).

So, quite in the spirit of the classical ancient tradition, painting is called an imitation of truth. However, now truth is understood not as a picture of the visible forms of the material world, but as a certain spiritual, noumenal content, which Neoplatonists, Gnostics, and early Christians spoke about at that time. Imitation of truth is interpreted by the church historian Eusebius as a symbolic and allegorical image. For him, a pictorial image is an almost literal illustration of an allegorical text, and therefore the technique of traditional interpretation of biblical texts is transferred to it.

Judging by Eusebius’ description, the painting had two main pictorial levels. Its central part was occupied by a “portrait” image of Constantine and his sons, usual for the imperial culture of Rome, and as if outside the frame of the family portrait (above and below it) the symbols of Christ (apparently a cross) and Satan (a serpent or dragon) were depicted. It is important to note that the Christian writer is not interested in the central “portrait” part of the image, but in the “peripheral,” symbolic, and it is in this, and not in the illusionistic portrait of the emperor, that he sees “imitation of the truth.” In this description, the path to a new understanding of the essence of fine art is already clearly visible.

Seeing a non-literal allegorical, hidden meaning in a text or work of art is, in general, a characteristic feature of any religious worldview. And in this regard, Byzantine Christianity is not original. In this case, we are interested in specific forms and methods of symbolic understanding of art. Along with the ancient allegory, we find in the same Eusebius, for example, a completely different turn of symbolic thinking. Having described the temple in Tire in sufficient detail, emphasizing the “brilliant beauty” and “inexpressible grandeur” of the entire building and the “extraordinary grace” of its individual parts, Eusebius points out that such a temple serves to glorify and adorn the Christian Church. First of all, those who are accustomed to fixing their minds “on appearance alone” are surprised by him. However, “the miracle of miracles are the prototypes and their spiritual prototypes and divine models, the images of the divine and mental home in our souls.” The soul itself appears to Eusebius as the house and temple of God, higher and more perfect than the material temple.

In addition, the entire society of people, the entire society, appears in the understanding of Eusebius as a living temple. The builder of this temple is the Son of God himself, who likened some people to the fence of the temple, placed others like external columns, endowed others with the functions of the vestibule of the temple, established others as the main pillars inside the temple, etc. In short, “gathering the living from everywhere and everywhere.” , solid and strong souls, He built them into a great and royal house, full of splendor and light inside and outside.” This entire temple and its parts are filled with deep spiritual content for Eusebius, for its builder “with every part of the temple expressed the clarity and brilliance of the truth in all its fullness and diversity,” establishing “on earth a mental image of what is on the other side of the heavenly spheres.”

The world of created existence appears in Eusebius as a system of temples reflecting spiritual truths, and above all, a temple of spiritual beings that constantly glorify the Creator. The main temple of the system is the Universe and human society as a whole; Next comes the soul of each person as the temple of God, and, finally, the church building itself, created specifically as a place of worship. All these temples perform the same functions - worshiping God, honoring him and glorifying him.

Thus, quite traditional for ancient world An in-depth understanding of works of art developed in the early Byzantine period among one of the first Christian writers into a new, philosophically and theologically rich theory of art, in fact, into a philosophy of art, which in many ways anticipated the artistic practice of the Middle Ages.

As another example of a symbolic understanding of architecture, we can point to the 6th century Syrian hymn dedicated to the temple at Edessa. Describing this apparently small, square-shaped, domed structure, the author of the hymn focuses not on the structural features of the temple, but on its symbolic significance both as a whole and individual architectural elements. What seems remarkable to the author is precisely the fact that such a “small-sized structure contains huge world" “Its vault extends like the heavens - without columns, curved and closed and, moreover, decorated with a golden mosaic like the vault of heaven with shining stars. Its high dome is comparable to the “sky of heavens”; it is like a helmet, and its upper part rests on the lower part.<…>The temple has identical facades on each side. The form of all three is one, just as the form of the Holy Trinity is one. Moreover, a single light illuminates the choir through three open windows, proclaiming the mystery of the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit." The remaining windows, bringing light to everyone present in the temple, are represented by the author of the hymn as apostles, prophets, martyrs and other saints: the five doors of the temple are likened to five intelligent virgins with lamps from gospel parable, the columns symbolize the apostles, and the bishop's throne and the nine steps leading to it "represent the throne of Christ and the nine ranks of angels." “Great are the mysteries of this temple,” it is sung at the end of the hymn, “both in heaven and on earth: in it the highest Trinity and the mercy of the Savior are figuratively represented.”

The building of the temple appears to the author of the hymn as a complex image of the cosmos (material and spiritual), and the Christian community (in its historical existence), and the Christian God himself. Ekphrasis here consists of two levels: figurative and symbolic. The figurative interpretation gravitates towards late antique allegory and is based primarily on visual associations and analogies. For him, the understanding of domed architecture as an image of the visible material cosmos (the earth and the firmament with luminaries) becomes stable and traditional. Sign-symbolic interpretation develops mainly in the traditions of Christian interpretation of biblical texts. These two levels, or two types, appear in one form or another in many Byzantine descriptions of works of art.

Byzantine poet of the 10th century. John the Geometer, in his poetic descriptions of Christian churches, weaves together a figurative and symbolic understanding of architecture. On the one hand, he sees in the temple “an imitation of the universe” in all its diverse beauty. Here is the sky with its stars, and the ether, and the endless expanses of the sea, and water streams pouring down from the mountains, and the whole earth is like a beautiful garden of unfading flowers. On the other hand, architectural images clearly reveal to him the entire “mental cosmos” headed by Christ. It is in the temple, according to John, that the unity (and union) of two worlds (cosmos) - earthly and heavenly - is realized:

The figurative and symbolic levels of John’s interpretation of the temple space are not just possible options for approaching understanding Christian temple, but both are necessary to reveal the full spiritual content, the deep meaning of the architectural image. Its essence, as can be seen from the poem of John the Geometer (and here he follows the tradition already established in the Byzantine world), is that for people the temple is the center of unity of the spiritual and material worlds, the focus of all beauties.

In post-iconoclastic Byzantium, the figurative-symbolic approach extended to painting. The already mentioned Nikolai Mesarit saw two levels in the wall paintings of churches: pictorial, phenomenal, and semantic, noumenal. He explains this by describing the image “The Raising of Lazarus”: “The right hand (of Jesus. - V.B.) is stretched out, on the one hand, to the phenomenon - to the tomb containing the body of Lazarus, on the other - to the noumenon - to hell, now the fourth day as having consumed his soul” (26). Everyone sees the phenomenon (the coffin) depicted on the wall of the temple, but the noumenon (hell) remains behind the image; it can only be represented in the mind by a trained viewer.

For an educated Byzantine, the phenomenal level of painting was most often of interest only insofar as it contained and expressed a hidden meaning, comprehended only by the mind. Its always assumed presence allowed the medieval artist to create a phenomenal level, or a visually expressive series, according to the highest artistic and aesthetic standards, and the viewer to openly enjoy the beauty of temple painting. Now, in the eyes of Christian ideologists, it did not contradict, as it seemed to many early Christian Fathers of the Church, the spirit of the official religion; on the contrary, it actively served it, expressing in artistic and aesthetic form the foundations of the medieval worldview.

Any, even seemingly insignificant, element of the phenomenal level of the image was endowed with deep meaning and was presented as a sign or symbol of some position of religious doctrine. So, for example, the blue, and not golden, color of Pantocrator’s clothes, according to Mesarita, “calls on everyone with the hand of the artist” not to wear luxurious clothes made of expensive multi-colored fabrics, but to follow the Apostle Paul, who exhorted fellow believers to dress modestly.

Ptocrator, Mesarit further explains, is depicted in such a way that it is perceived differently various groups spectators. His gaze is directed at everyone at once and at each individual. He looks “favorably and friendly at those who have a clear conscience and pours the sweetness of humility into the souls of the pure in heart and the poor in spirit,” and for the one who does evil, the eyes of the Almighty “sparkle angrily,” aloof and hostile, he sees his face “angry, terrible and full of menace." The right hand of Pantocrator blesses those who walk the right path and warns those who turn away from it, keeping them from an unrighteous lifestyle (14). Painting can convey in one image the opposite states of the inner world of the depicted character, focused on different people. The specificity of the perception of the image by different groups of spectators, developed in his time by Maximus the Confessor for the liturgical image, which we will talk about later, is now applied by Mesarit to the pictorial image.

In the picture, as in the biblical text, there are no minor elements or details. If the artist wrote them, it means that he endowed them with some kind of meaning, and the viewer (like the reader of sacred texts) is obliged to understand it, if not in its entirety, but at least to realize its presence. Religious utilitarianism and the spirit of global symbolism, characteristic of medieval aesthetics, did not allow either the master or the viewer of that time to allow the presence of random (even the most insignificant) elements in the image.

Often carried away, as we have already seen, by describing the realistic details of the image, Mesarit never forgets about the noumenal level, towards the expression of which, in his deep conviction, the entire pictorial system of painting is oriented. Realistic elements are significant primarily as expressers of some other meaning. The expressive poses of the students in the Transfiguration emphasize, according to Nikolai, the unusualness of the event; he reports about the miraculous resurrection of Lazarus or the walk of Christ on the waters not only in direct text, but also by describing the reaction of the surrounding characters to these phenomena; Mesarit does not forget to interpret the episode with Peter cutting off the ear of the slave Malchus during the capture of Christ and the subsequent miracle of the healing of the slave by Jesus as the healing of the slave from spiritual blindness, etc. To emphasize the originality of the events depicted, Metropolitan Nicholas sometimes resorts to paradoxes traditional for Byzantine culture. Continuing, for example, the biblical tradition, he invites readers to see the voice coming from heaven in the Transfiguration. Above the heads of the depicted figures, he writes, “directly in heaven nothing else is visible except that voice with which God the Father confirmed the truth of sonship” on the Jordan. “See how a voice from the top of the dome, as if from heaven, falls like a life-giving rain on the still dry and unfruitful souls of young men, so that during times of heat and thirst, that is, doubts about the passion and resurrection, they do not find themselves in danger of unexpected misfortune” (16 ). Let us leave it to art historians to decide whether the master of the Church of the Holy Apostles tried to depict this voice in any way. Most likely, we are talking about the text on the image itself or about the rays of golden light. It is important for us that the educated Byzantine hierarch of the 12th century. I wanted to see this voice not only with my physical vision (which is very problematic), but above all with the gaze of my mind. Mesarit remembers the latter throughout the entire description of the mosaics.

The symbolic understanding of art arose in Byzantium, as has already been pointed out, not out of nowhere. It was based, on the one hand, on the centuries-old artistic practice of early Christianity and Byzantine art, and on the other hand, on the theological and philosophical theory of symbolism, which was quite detailed and deeply developed in Byzantium. When developing it, the Byzantine Fathers of the Church actively used the experience of the Greco-Roman philosophical and philological traditions, especially Neoplatonism, the exegesis of the Hebrew sages, Philo of Alexandria and the early Christians. Patristic symbolism included a whole series of, although close, but inadequate concepts, such as image , image , similarity , symbol , sign , which in Byzantine culture had direct relation and to the field of art.

We find interesting thoughts about the image and symbol in the Bishop of Cyrrhus Theodoret (5th century), who paid a lot of attention to the figurative and symbolic interpretation of the texts of the Holy Scriptures, believing that biblical symbolism goes back to God himself. “Since the nature of God is formless and ugly, invisible and immense, and it is completely impossible to create an image of such an essence, he commanded that symbols of his greatest gifts be placed inside the ark. The tablets meant the law, the rod - the priesthood, manna - food in the desert and bread not made by hands. And purification was a symbol of prophecy, because from there there were prophecies” (Quaest. in Exod. 60). These divine institutions inspired Christian theorists and practitioners of the symbolic interpretation of the texts of Scripture and the entire Universe as a whole.

The greatest theologian of the 4th century paid special attention to the image. Gregory of Nyssa. In literary and pictorial images, that is, in images of art, he clearly distinguished between the external form of a work and its content, which he called a “mental image,” an idea. Thus, in his opinion, in biblical texts, a fiery love for divine beauty is conveyed by the power of “mental images” contained in descriptions of sensual pleasures. In painting and verbal arts, the viewer or reader should not stop at contemplating the color spots covering the picture, or the “verbal colors” of the text, but should strive to see the idea (eidos) that the artist conveyed with the help of these colors.

Following Plotinus, Gregory does not condemn works of art as unworthy copies or “shadows of shadows.” On the contrary, in their ability to preserve and transmit “mental images” he saw the dignity and justification for the existence of art. It was this function of art that turned out to be fundamental and significant for Christianity. At the same time, Gregory of Nyssa saw it both in the verbal arts, and in painting and music, putting all these types of art on the same level and evaluating only by the ability to embody and convey “mental images”, eidos.

The judgments of Gregory of Nyssa about the image largely prepared the theory of the greatest thinker at the turn of the 5th-6th centuries, the author of the “Areopagitik” (texts signed with the name of the legendary disciple of the Apostle Paul Dionysius the Areopagite), or Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, as he is more often called in modern science. On their basis, he made deep philosophical and theological conclusions that had a significant impact on Christian medieval theology, philosophy, and aesthetics. The geoseological justification for the theory of symbol and image by the author of the Areopagitik was the idea that in the hierarchical system of transferring knowledge from God to man, it is necessary to carry out a qualitative transformation of it at the boundary of “heaven - earth”. Here an essential change occurs in the bearer of knowledge: from the spiritual (the lowest level of the heavenly hierarchy) it turns into a materialized one (the highest level of the earthly hierarchy). A special kind of “light information” (fotodosia - “light giving”) is hidden here under the veil of images, symbols, signs.

In Pseudo-Dionysius, the symbol acts as the most general philosophical and theological category, including image, sign, image, beauty, a number of other concepts, as well as many objects and phenomena real life and especially cult practices as their specific manifestations in one area or another. In a letter to Titus (Ep. IX), a summary of the lost treatise “Symbolic Theology,” the author of the Areopagitik points out that there are two ways of transmitting knowledge of truth: “One is unspoken and secret, the other is explicit and easily knowable; the first is symbolic and mysterious, the second is philosophical and publicly accessible” (Ep. IX1). The highest unspoken truth is conveyed only in the first way, which is why the ancient sages constantly used “mysterious and bold allegories,” where the unspoken was closely intertwined with the expressed (Ibid.). If a philosophical judgment contains a formal logical truth, then a symbolic image contains an incomprehensible one. All knowledge of the highest truths is contained in symbols, “for it is impossible for our mind to rise to the immaterial imitation and contemplation of the heavenly hierarchies otherwise than through the medium of its inherent material guidance, considering visible beauties an image of invisible beauty, sensual fragrances - the imprint of spiritual penetrations, material lamps - an image immaterial illumination, extensive sacred teachings - the fullness of spiritual contemplation, the orders of local decorations - a hint of the harmony and orderliness of the divine, the reception of the divine Eucharist - the possession of Jesus; in short, everything about heavenly beings is super-decently conveyed to us in symbols” (SN13). The texts of Scripture, various images, and sacred Tradition are symbolic. The names of the members of the human body may be used as symbols to denote spiritual or divine powers; to describe the properties of the heavenly ranks, designations of the properties of almost all objects of the material world are often used.

Symbols and conventional signs arose, according to Pseudo-Dionysius, not for their own sake, but with a specific, and, moreover, contradictory purpose: to simultaneously reveal and hide the truth. On the one hand, the symbol serves to designate, depict and thereby reveal the incomprehensible, ugly and infinite in the finite, sensually perceived (for those who know how to perceive this symbol). On the other hand, it is a shell, cover and reliable protection of the unspoken truth from the eyes and ears of the “first comer” who is unworthy of knowing the truth.

What in a symbol allows these mutually exclusive goals to be achieved? Apparently, there are special forms of storing truth in it. The Areopagite refers to such forms, in particular, as “beauty hidden inside” the symbol and leading to the comprehension of the super-essential, spiritual light (Er. IX 1; 2). So, the non-conceptual meaning of a symbol is perceived by those striving to comprehend it, first of all, purely emotionally in the form of “beauty” and “light”. However, we are not talking about the external beauty of forms, but about a certain generalized spiritual beauty contained in any symbols - verbal, pictorial, musical, object, cult, etc. This beauty is revealed only to those who “know how to see.” Therefore, it is necessary to teach people this “seeing” of the symbol.

Pseudo-Dionysius himself considers it his direct task to explain, to the best of his ability, “the whole variety of symbolic sacred images,” for without such an explanation many symbols seem to be “incredibly fantastic nonsense” (Ep. IX 1). Thus, God and his properties can be symbolically expressed by anthropomorphic and zoomorphic images, in the form of plants and stones; God is endowed with women's jewelry, barbaric weapons, and the attributes of artisans and artists; he is even depicted as a bitter drunkard. But in understanding symbols one should not stop at the surface; it is necessary to penetrate them to the very depths. At the same time, none of them should be neglected, since in their visible features they show “images of unspeakable and amazing sights” (Ep. IX 2).

Each symbol (= sign = image) can have a number of meanings depending on the context in which it is used and on the personal properties (“nature”) of the contemplator. However, even with this polysemy, “sacred symbols should not be confused with each other”; each of them must be understood according to its own causes and its being. Full knowledge of the symbol leads to inexhaustible exquisite pleasure from contemplating the indescribable perfection of divine wisdom (Ep. IX 5), that is, practically, to the aesthetic completion of the process of knowledge.

The symbol is understood by the author of the Areopagitik in several aspects. First of all, he is a bearer of knowledge that can be contained in him: a) in a symbolic form, and then its content is accessible only to initiates; b) in a figurative form, understandable in general to all people of a given culture and realized primarily in art; and c) directly, when the symbol not only denotes, but also “really represents” what it denotes. The third aspect was only outlined by Pseudo-Dionysius and developed by subsequent thinkers in connection with liturgical symbolism. This symbolism largely determined the attitude of Orthodoxy as a whole towards the icon, which actively functioned both in church activities and in the entire Orthodox culture, and this will be discussed further.

The author of the Areopagitik himself dwells in more detail on the theory of the image. Images, in his opinion, are necessary to introduce a person “ineffably and incomprehensibly to the unspeakable and unknowable” (DN11), so that he “through sensory objects ascends to the spiritual and through symbolic sacred images - to the simple perfection of the heavenly hierarchy”, “which has no sensory image" (SN 13).

The Areopagite develops a harmonious hierarchy of images, with the help of which true knowledge is transmitted from the level of the heavenly world to the level human existence. Literary and pictorial images occupy their place in it specific place- at the level of the sacraments, that is, somewhere between the heavenly and earthly (church) levels of the hierarchy. The “immaterial” rank of hierarchy is depicted in them through “material images” and “collections of images” (SN 13). Depending on the way these “figurative structures” are organized, the meaning of the same “sacred images” can be different. Accordingly, knowledge in this system is multi-valued. Its quality and quantity also depend on the subjects of perception (“in accordance with each person’s ability for divine insights.” - CH IX 2).

The polysemantic image was the main element in the system of Byzantine knowledge. In the understanding of the Fathers of the Church, not only the sacred hierarchy, but also the entire structure of the universe is permeated with the intuition of the image. An image is the most important way of communication and correlation between fundamentally incompatible and incoherent levels of being and super-being.

Pseudo-Dionysius, relying on his system of designating God, distinguished two methods of depicting spiritual entities and, accordingly, two types of images that differ in character and principles of isomorphism - similar, “similar” and “dissimilar” (SNII3).

The first method is based on cataphatic (affirmative) theology and is still in line classical philosophy and aesthetics. It consists in “capturing and revealing spiritual essences in images that correspond to them and, if possible, related, borrowing these images from beings that are highly revered by us, as if immaterial and higher” (SN II2); that is, “similar” images must represent a set of highly positive properties, characteristics and qualities inherent in objects and phenomena of the material world. They are called upon to represent certain perfect in all respects, depictable (in words, paints or stone) images - the ideal limits of the conceivable perfection of the created world. For Pseudo-Dionysius, all “visible beauties” and positive evaluative characteristics are concentrated in “similar” images. In this regard, God is called “word”, “mind”, “beauty”, “light”, “life”, etc. However, these images, despite all their ideality and sublimity, are truly “far from resembling a deity. For it is above every being and life; cannot be any light, and every word and mind is incomparably removed from resemblance to it” (SN II3). Compared to God, even these “visible beauties”, the most revered among people, are “unworthy images” (Ibid.).

The author of the Areopagitik values ​​“unlike resemblances” (SN II4), which he develops in line with apophatic theology, much more highly, believing that “if in relation to divine objects negative designations are closer to the truth than affirmative ones, then for revealing the invisible and inexpressible dissimilar images are suitable” (SN II3). Here Pseudo-Dionysius continues the line of the Alexandrian theological school, based on Philo (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa). He draws theoretical conclusions based on the extensive exegetical material of this school, which confirms the vitality of its traditions for the entire Byzantine culture.

Dissimilar images must be built on principles diametrically opposed to ancient ideals. In them, according to Pseudo-Dionysius, there should be a complete absence of properties perceived by people as noble, beautiful, light-like, harmonious, etc., so that a person, contemplating the image, does not imagine the archetype as similar to rough material forms(even if among people they are considered the noblest) and did not stop his mind on them. To depict higher spiritual beings, it is better to borrow images from low and despised objects, such as animals, plants, stones and even worms (SNII5), while divine objects depicted in this way are given, according to the Areopagite, much more glory. This interesting theological-aesthetic concept is not his invention. It goes back to early Christian symbolism.

The idea of ​​great figurative and symbolic significance of insignificant, nondescript and even ugly objects and phenomena is often found among early Christian thinkers, who expressed the aspirations of the “nondescript”, disadvantaged part of the population of the Roman Empire. It fit well into the radical revaluation of many traditional ancient values ​​carried out by early Christianity. Everything that was considered valuable in the world of the Roman aristocracy (including wealth, jewelry, external beauty and significance, ancient arts) lost its meaning in the eyes of the early Christians, and everything unprepossessing and despised by Rome was endowed with high spiritual meaning. Hence the fairly widespread ideas about the nondescript appearance of Christ, characteristic of the first centuries of Christianity.

Pseudo-Dionysius, in the system of his antinomian thinking, came to the conscious use of the law of contrast to express sublime phenomena. Dissimilar images have a special kind of sign-symbolic nature. Imitating low objects of the material world, they must carry in such an unworthy form information that has nothing to do with these objects. By the very “inconsistency of images”, dissimilar images amaze the viewer (or listener) and orient him towards something opposite to what is depicted - towards absolute spirituality. Because everything related to spiritual beings, Pseudo-Dionysius emphasizes, should be understood in a completely different, as a rule, diametrically opposite sense than it is usually thought of in relation to objects of the material world. All carnal, sensual and even obscene phenomena, desires and objects can mean in this regard phenomena of the highest spirituality. Thus, in descriptions of spiritual beings, anger means “a strong movement of the mind,” lust means love for the spiritual, the desire for contemplation and unification with the highest truth, light, beauty, etc. (SN II4).

Dissimilar images, in the view of the Areopagite, should “by the very dissimilarity of the signs excite and elevate the soul” (SN II3). Hence the images themselves are called elevating (apagogical) by Pseudo-Dionysius. The idea of ​​elevating (?????????) the human spirit with the help of an image to Truth and Archetype became from that time one of the leading ideas of Byzantine culture. Such ideas opened up unlimited possibilities for the development of Christian symbolic and allegorical art in all its forms and substantiated the need for its existence in Christian culture.

Canon 82 of the Council of Trullo abolished allegorical depictions of Christ, but it had virtually no effect on the general spirit of symbolism in Byzantine culture in general and in artistic practice in particular. And although the polemics of iconoclasts and icon-worshippers revolved around mimetic images, and it is with them that the main theoretical research of the defenders of icons is connected, they could not do without understanding and the symbolic basis of the pictorial image. The very conventional symbolic spirit of the cult images of the Byzantines did not allow many of them to stop only at the visible surface of these images.

One of the active defenders of icons is the famous theologian, philosopher and church poet John of Damascus (c. 650 - d. before 754) main function Following Pseudo-Dionysius, he considered symbolic images to be apagogic - the elevation of the human spirit to “smart contemplation” of the archetype itself, its knowledge and unity with it. These ideas were also close to the fighters for icon veneration of the next generation. Thus, Patriarch Nicephorus (d. c. 829) convinced the iconoclasts that symbolic images were given to us by “divine grace” and paternal wisdom to raise our minds to contemplate the properties of symbolically depicted spiritual entities and imitate them as far as possible.

In general, the Byzantine theory of symbol united the main spheres of Christian spiritual culture - ontology, epistemology, religion, art, literature, ethics. And this unification was carried out, which is characteristic of Byzantine culture, on the basis of the religious and aesthetic significance of the symbol. Performing a wide variety of functions in spiritual culture, the symbol or image was ultimately turned to the innermost foundations of the human spirit, to its universal source. By this very appeal and penetration into the deep world, inaccessible to the superficial observer, the symbol aroused spiritual pleasure, testifying to consonance, agreement, connection at the essential level of the subject of perception (man) with the object expressed in the symbol or image, ultimately - of man with God.