駁毀像派 第 1 章 第 14/21 段

For no one could say that they contended apart from bodies, through which the firmness and courage, or the timidity and effeminate softness, of human souls is jointly manifested —

— whence he who is afraid turns pale, and he who is ashamed turns red, and whatever other such symptoms may appear —

— which indeed happen to be proofs of the soul's disposition, characterizing both its dispositions and its passions.

If, then, you had chosen to glorify the deeds of the saints, you would also have honored their bodies, through which their surpassing deeds were accomplished for the sake of love of the Creator, and further also the depictions of these bodies, rendered through colors or in some other way, which preserve their memory.

Therefore, the bodies, having shared here in their labors and having contended lawfully and mightily in the arenas, will together with the souls, in the age to come, be crowned together and glorified together, having served as instruments of piety and virtue — rising thereafter spiritual and incorruptible, and jointly inheriting from thence both glory and splendor.

But if somewhere the painter too, holding fast to his own art, should have occasion to say such things as are fitting to the writer of discourse, he might say as follows: “If indeed the ear is not satisfied — having, as you say, a desire, through the things written, to hear of the perfection of the saints — then you too shall hear from us that sight likewise does not know how to be satiated, longing to behold, through the things depicted, those images which likewise proclaim that same perfection.”

One might also behold, in the painting current among us, the memorials of the saints being set forth, and would gain thereby the recollection of their good deeds, since through it also their manner of life in the world is made manifest, even after death, to those who behold it —

for sight is not second to hearing, nor weaker, nor does it apprehend its proper sensible objects more dimly, nor is it deprived of possessing desire toward the things seen.

For surely we all know that sight, the most honorable and most necessary of the senses, would have a clearer and keener apprehension of the things that fall under sense-perception —

— for indeed the audible is by nature outstripped by the visible, and sight will draw one more quickly than the other senses, to the degree that it also possesses the greater power of attraction.

If, then, written things signify to us the accounts of deeds done, while images present the imitation of the very deeds and of the persons themselves — for one who has encountered them rejoices at being together with them as if they were present — then either sight will surpass hearing, or at any rate it will certainly not be ranked among secondary things.

And these things, I think, no one disputes — that is, none of those whose faculties of sight and hearing are sound.

But if it is useful to feast the hearing with beneficial words, it is no less beneficial to regale the sight with rival colors.

“But it is not our concern to depict their fleshly faces with colors on tablets, because we have no need of these” —

“but, imitating their contest, we relive their good deeds, and we depict our love toward God” —

But you might also learn in response to these things, that just as we, in painting with colors upon tablets the fleshly faces of the saints and their contests and valiant deeds, might likewise say: “it is not our concern to write on paper and with ink and on writing-tablets the encomia woven for the saints by the writers through tongue and speech” —

“because we have no need of writing-tablets and the art of calligraphy.”

Just as it is not the case that, because the painter has no need of the experience and power that comes from words, the works of the writers of discourse are therefore useless, nor is the teaching that comes from words to be abolished — so it would likewise follow to understand and to declare that neither, because the writer of discourse says those things, nor because of the usefulness of words, is the sacred depiction of the icons of the saints to be overlooked or dishonored, nor are the works of the painters concerning the painting of the saints to be judged inglorious.

It is also worth saying this: one must know for certain and be most firmly persuaded that if Amphilochius happened to be known as still living in our present times, and were to see the holy things being harmed and the shamelessness of the impious having advanced so far, he would not have kept still nor acquiesced, but would have cried out with a great and lofty proclamation that, if the peoples of the cities do not reject the authority of their rulers, but honor them in panels through colors and carve statues for them—even though they know them to be base and occupied with vain things—so that their memory may be more lasting and carried on into future time, how much more ought we, on account of our love for God, to honor also with images the shepherds of the church, inscribing on monuments their victories and good deeds as a model for those eager to emulate and to accomplish the things of their most excellent conduct, so that, when through the sight of their likenesses our mind also receives good memory (for this is more proper to say here), their good conduct might be imprinted in us like an indelible seal, and the memory of their achievements, extending far, might remain in a distinguished way.

For it is not holy to tolerate that monuments to base men be set up, through which unseemly practices are extended along with time, while the illustrious achievements of the earnest and good are despised and excluded, and their best deeds, obscured in the depths of oblivion, are silenced—so that the things from which evil sprouts are somehow permitted and let go, while the things from which virtue is achieved are overlooked ingloriously and depart along with their good memory.

But we would thus be somehow more ungrateful in our disposition toward the honor of the saints than the common and worldly among men are toward their own rulers—or rather, we would be insulting their holy memory. And these things Amphilochius proclaimed, as is fitting.

For in the time when he himself flourished, nowhere did the destruction of the sacred images appear (for everywhere at that time they were flourishing and being adorned, already being depicted), nor was war against the church breaking out, nor was the outrage and rejection of the mystery of the economy according to Christ being openly proclaimed, nor indeed were the divine sanctuaries being torn down and demolished.

For if he had anywhere observed such things happening, he would certainly not have considered them tolerable at all, but would have acted with all diligence and, using all his strength, would have contended, working for their honor and correction.

If, then, these happen to be genuine works of Amphilochius, which have been written through the use that the enemies of the saints have put forward, they must be understood thus, and it must be supposed that the sense and purport in them accord with this;

but if something has been distorted and falsified, they themselves would know.

For this is a work customary both to those of old and to those now presiding over impiety, who have once and for all fallen away from the fear of God and a right conscience.

For they have also been caught falsifying and corrupting other writings of our God-bearing fathers, and counterfeiting and patching them together to suit their own liking;

for, being peddler-like in their manner, they have not shrunk from plotting against the divinely inspired teachings and adulterating the sound and pure doctrines, making certain additions, subtractions, and alterations, as anyone would recognize who examines these things more carefully and diligently;

for even a small part of these can accomplish the whole of their purpose.

they set their own conscience up beforehand as judge;

through which the things of truth are made manifest and revealed to all who love the good.

For it was not possible for us, although we labored much, to come upon more than one single copy—and this newly written—already confined under the strictest custody, and permitted no freedom whatsoever, nor indeed ever allowed to step forth, nor even to utter any word at will.

And let these things be said thus; next they adduce sayings of the great—as they claim—Basil, from the first discourse on the genesis of man according to the image, speaking as follows:

“If He had not granted us the power to become according to likeness, we would not have received the likeness to God by our own authority.

But now He has made us capable, in potentiality, of being like God;

and having given the power for becoming like God, He left us to be workers of the likeness toward God, so that the wage of the labor might be complete, so that we might not be like images made by a painter, lying idly and in vain;

for whenever you see an image precisely formed by the variety of colors, you do not praise the image but admire the painter.”

These things, as is easily known and readily comprehended by those who understand and are not lacking in education through reasoned discourse, in no way harm the freedom of the church; but to the unintelligent, whose soul's perceptive faculties have been maimed, it seems to serve as a support for the strength of their unsound and scattered argument.

Whether, then, these happen to be treatises of the great Basil, I do not yet agree—not until his kinsman, I mean the holy Gregory, who so distinguishedly presided over the priesthood of the Nyssenes, and who above all others knew best the affairs of his own brother, ceases to say that the contemplation concerning man was wanting among the things he had contemplated for the Hexaemeron—a lack which he, like a disciple completing his teacher's work, set out as his purpose to fill.

in which work he is not found distinguishing “according to image” and “likeness” so clearly as it is written here.

Nevertheless, if this discourse contains anything contrary to the mind of the church, let us examine it more precisely and more thoroughly.

What could “so that we might not be like images made by painters, lying idly and in vain” bring toward an accusation against the image of Christ and the saints? Or what dishonor could it inflict? For we know that there are indeed images that lie idly and in vain, and especially such as those made by the Greeks, made and set up in vain, and moreover of defiled and unholy men (such as are the leaders of this apostasy and the chiefs of the other heresies)—and these are not merely idly and simply lying about, but are also detestable and execrable and worthy of being trampled underfoot.

But because of this, nothing of reproach will appear against the sacred images;

for not even if the temples and sacrifices of the Greeks are to be shunned, will those among us likewise be considered so.

But if certain enemies of the church become harsh over these things and swell in soul with anger, they ought rather to be indignant at the outrages against Christ and the saints, inasmuch as the holy things incomparably surpass and excel the accursed things.

For if images have been made for the honor of those emperors, why, out of envy, do they deprive Christ and the saints of honor? For that both the honor and the outrage done to images pass equally to the archetypes is unknown to no one, but the hierarchs of elder Rome have made it more evident to us;

for when the one who began the outrage deposed the high priest who had anointed him from his high-priesthood and honor, and removed him from his throne, as though not dreading the divine judgment, and, casting aside reverence for the hand that had been laid upon his unholy head, then they took down that man's image, though they had previously honored it, shamefully dishonoring it at that time, so that he might not escape suffering worse for the evil he had done.

Such a thing indeed is also recorded to have happened long ago in the case of Antioch, when the citizens conceived hatred toward the emperor.

And it was Theodosius who at that time held the sceptre of the Romans.

And indeed, not bearing the outrage, he would have utterly destroyed the city along with its inhabitants from its foundations (for he was already threatening to set fire to it), had not the one at that time presiding over the priesthood of the city, interceding with the most numerous prayers and supplications, stayed the emperor's wrath and had the strength to soften his anger, and thereby saved the city that was on the very verge of suffering all manner of terrible things.

Such things are also recounted to have taken place in the great city of Alexander, and indeed in other cities as well.

But we must return our discourse to the matter at hand.

For what harm could it do us that it is said that the painter, rather than the precisely crafted image, is to be admired? Then whence will the painter's talent be shown, and whence will he have admiration, unless first the completed work produced by him is admired? For indeed the most beautifully wrought form, having first drawn the viewer to itself, then refers him through art to the one who worked it—unless they would also blame the one who wrote this, as not having spoken well, when he says that from the greatness and beauty of created things their Creator is proportionately beheld.

Therefore those who, from this, think they support their own opinion will be caught out, foolishly acting in vain and idly babbling nonsense.

For this saying, too, would rather fight on our side;

for whenever we behold an image of the Lord accurately painted, we both praise the painter and, through the precise likeness, are led up to the archetype, and we do not think it painted in vain;

for we are not, like them, blind, nor are the perceptive faculties of our soul diseased, but we declare it to have been set up as a matter of usefulness and benefit for the pious.

Therefore let the images of vain and worthless things lie idly and in vain, but let the images of divine and precious things, on the other hand, be honored accordingly.

As for us, whether the foregoing happen to be genuine offspring of the great Basil or not, we will not differ about this at all;

but, setting alongside these those things which are agreed upon by all and which proclaim the force of their genuineness, let the passages that seem relevant to them be made manifest to us.

For in the letters sent to the holy Amphilochius, hierarch of Iconium, he is seen clearly elucidating the twofold meaning signified by the word “image”—that which is according to nature and that which is according to art—and moreover he proceeds, setting out from the things of art to the things of nature and using this as an example for theology, to what is proper from the identity of name and to the indivisibility of honor.

And it goes thus: that “king” is said both of the king and of the king's image, and yet there are not two kings.

For neither is the power split, nor is the glory divided;

for just as the rule and authority that governs us is one, so too the glorification from us is one and not many;

because the honor of the image passes up to the prototype.

Therefore, what the image is here by imitation, the Son is there by nature;

and just as in the things made by art the likeness is according to form, so also in the divine and uncomposite nature, the union is in the communion of the divinity.”

And this wisest man, following himself and the truth everywhere, also sets forth the same things in his discourses against the God-hated Sabellius: that the images of illustrious men do not lie idly nor in vain, but the honor bestowed upon these confirms the honor of those whose images they are.

And he demonstrates this, speaking somewhat as follows:

“For not even in the marketplace does the one who gazes intently upon the royal image and calls the figure in the panel ‘king’ thereby confess two kings—both the image and the one whose image it is—nor, if pointing to the figure painted in the panel, does he say:

‘This is the king,’ has he thereby deprived the prototype of the appellation ‘king’?

Rather, indeed, he has confirmed the honor to that one through this very confession;

for if the image is king, then it is surely much more fitting that the one who provides the cause for the image be king.”

Are these images, then, said by the father to lie idly and in vain? Or are they recognized by him as honored? Let those who have ears to hear, hear; let those who have eyes to see, see; let those who have mind, understand, and having perceived, judge.

… they ascribe to the image of Christ the honor of king—Christ, who alone is truly king and who reigns over all kings.

But if the images of those holding the sceptre obtained such honor—often even the images of those who unworthily seized power—how much more illustrious and venerable would the images of Christ himself and the saints be? Why say much more? The teacher knows the usefulness and benefit derived from these images, especially when they publicize the excellent deeds of good men, just as written accounts do, and these too rouse many to courage;

which is set forth in the encomium on the holy Forty Martyrs, and in whatever he states in the encomium on the holy martyr Barlaam;

and since these things have already been written above, let those who wish read them and derive from there what is beneficial.

Following these, they bring forward the holy Gregory, hierarch of the Nyssenes, as they suppose, teaching thus:

“No longer shape in your own faith the bodily and servile form, but the Word who exists in the glory of the Father and subsists in the form of God and is God—venerate this One, and not the form of the servant.”

Those who are bodily-minded and servile in judgment possess a servile and not free understanding concerning the incarnation of Christ, both ignorantly and impiously misunderstanding and misinterpreting the matters concerning Christ's servile form.

For the teachings of the Spirit are not, as they adulterate everything according to their custom, hawked about in that corrupted way;

for as many as are faithful and instructed in the mystery of our divine wisdom know clearly that it is not the painted image of the Savior that is indicated here (for it would be unholy to suppose so, and it stands far from the truth), but rather the human nature like ours, which the divine Word assumed, is signified;

which is the kindred and same-natured body with us.

And I think this escapes no one, except only those who are hidden from themselves and jesting, since Christ, with respect to the flesh, has been styled consubstantial with us.

Thus, then, his existing “in the form of God” would signify nothing other than the divine nature itself, according to which the same Son is believed by us to be consubstantial with God the Father—if indeed they would be persuaded by the one who says:

“who, being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and being found in appearance as a man.”

But those who are rash, ever making it their business to accuse our right doctrines and to insult Christ, deluded and erring in mind, transfer this “form” onto colors and figures, so that, having supposed these things, they might slander the glorious confession of the Christians, as though Christians were placing their faith into colors.

Yet, while seeming to put forward a plausible pretext for slandering us, they publish their own folly together with their impiety, not knowing that here the argument was taken up by the teacher not concerning icons, but for the sake of the archetype and the Lord's body.

For it is not lawful to suppose him to mean otherwise than the apostolic mind and the doctrine of the Church hold, but rather to receive apostolic things as apostolic.

But to what a degree of evil do they proceed, in that they do not even stop short at the types, but even dare to lay hands on the divine body itself!

For, being beguiled by the deceit of the Docetists, they insist that the body is neither preserved nor now coexists with the Word.

From this it follows for them that Christ is not to be depicted in an icon.

And it is no wonder at all, if, striving by every means to cast the memory of Christ out of the way, they refer their outrage to him himself, and leap upon the archetypes by means of the types, or together with the types, altogether rejecting the incarnation of God.

Rather, they shall also be filled with dishonor.

But let not the saying that enjoins us not to venerate the form of a servant trouble us.

For the mysteries concerning the divine resurrection of Christ, the Savior of us all, are great and extraordinary.

Beholding such things, the Father, treating them in a more spiritual and lofty manner, therein also introduces mention of the reverend women.

'Let there be,' he says, 'in our hands also spices — faith and conscience.'

'For this is the fragrance of Christ.'

And since he was raising the topic concerning faith, knowing that our true veneration, offered as worship, is referred — confessedly and reverently — to the super-divine and life-originating Trinity known in one Godhead and essence, and that nothing servile or created or corporeal or adventitious is beheld in it, he enjoins: 'Even if the One of that same super-essential Trinity, the divine Word, has been embodied, do not on this account suppose that he has been in any way turned into body.'

Therefore do not, in the faith you shape within yourself, form an image of the assumed servile form as worshiped for itself; nor attribute to it, individually and as by itself, the worship in spirit and truth, according to the commanding precept:

'Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve,' so that our worship might not be directed down upon a creature.

For the holy temple assumed by the Word is a creature, one of those reckoned among creatures.

But to the divine Word himself, who is in the glory of the Father and in the form of God, and by nature God, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father, offer pure and blameless worship, unmixed with any creature whatsoever and purified of all material representation, knowing him to be truly God and Lord of all, because, 'the Father,' he says, 'seeks such people to worship him in spirit and truth.'

Wherefore our faith is in no way enclosed together with a creature, nor is it humbled together with creatures.

For even though the Word entered into our poverty, he has likewise remained God, impassible and unchangeable.

Such, then, are the matters concerning the incomprehensible and super-essential Godhead — namely, that it receives the veneration-as-worship as set apart from all creation.

But that the body assumed by God the Word is, among all the faithful, venerable and worthy of all reverence, will be shown not much later.

The teacher sets forth these things especially, warding off from every side the worship of creatures that had sprung up from the ill-named Arian madmen, which at that time, flourishing, was spreading among nearly all men.

But it is necessary to know that in some of the manuscripts it is transmitted thus:

'Worship him who is in the glory of the Father and is God, having taken the form of a servant.'

And since not a few books possess agreement in this, they are already sufficient and reliable to free the faithful from cares and troubles, presenting the more genuine and proper reading, in accordance with the teaching of the Church.

Perhaps those who are accustomed to think or act wrongly concerning divine things will even dare to declare, from the patristic sayings set forth above, that the body of Christ has been cast off, according to the myths and follies of the Manichaeans; but it has not been cast away, even though it has been incomparably transformed for the better and has ascended to a more god-like condition. From this someone will very justly declare, here too, that it is indeed both circumscribed and, moreover, will be depicted in an icon. Let them hear from the teacher himself first, how, concerning the Lord's body and soul, he expounds in a manner befitting God, according to this saying: 'Again the things that had been separated grow together with one another'; and further after this: 'The Word brings his own man to the true Father.'

But indeed, also in the discourse on the Ascension of the Savior, treating the matter more clearly, he says:

'And again,' he says, 'the gates that lie above must be opened for him.'

'Our guardians receive the escort, and command that the gates above be opened for him, that he may again be glorified in them.'

'Therefore this questioning voice comes from those within, to those who are escorting him:'

'Who is this King of glory?' Then their answer is no longer:

'The strong and mighty in war,' but:

'The Lord of hosts, he who holds dominion over the universe.'

It was necessary that the uninitiated, awestruck at the filthy garment, should not fail to know that the body, ascending together with him, is present with the Word.

And not least will he confirm these things in the encomia honoring the divine protomartyr Stephen, in which he describes more clearly the things beheld by him as he contended in the arena — things surpassing speech and contemplation — saying thus:

'For he, having gone out beyond nature even before going out of the body, sees with pure eyes the heavenly gates opening for him, and the things within the inner sanctuary shining forth, and the divine glory itself, and the radiance of the glory.'

'And of the paternal glory no character at all is delineated through the word, but the radiance is beheld by the contender in the form that appeared to men, and it appears just as it was capable of being contained by human nature.'

But if the human form differs at all from the human body, let the deceived ones explain how — unless they mean that it has been purified and has become superior to passions and corruption, as has been said many times before.

I think these things are sufficient, showing through their mutual agreement with one another what opinion the Father held concerning the Lord's body.

Let the great Gregory, his namesake, also join in agreement here — in whom the concord and equal honor concerning faith and virtue is no less than the sameness of their name — holding such views concerning the same matters.

He says, then, in the discourse on Baptism:

'No longer flesh, yet not without body, by whatever manner of expression he knows for a more god-like body' — here too calling 'flesh' the fleshly sufferings, in accordance with the apostle who said:

'For even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no longer thus.'

And again, in the discourse on Pentecost:

'The bodily things of Christ have an end — or rather, the things of his bodily sojourn among us.'

'For I hesitate to say \"the things of the body,\" until no argument persuades me that it is better for the body to have been cast off.'

Let him again discourse to us concerning the ascent of the Lord's body into the heavens:

'If he ascends into the heavens, ascend together with him;'

'be with the escorting angels, or with those who receive him.'

'Command the gates to be lifted up, to become higher, so that they may receive him as one made higher by his suffering.'

'Answer those who are perplexed on account of the body and the marks of the passion, with which he ascends together, just as he did not come down without them; and who, for this reason, ask:'

'Who is this King of glory? — that he is the Lord, strong and mighty, in all things which he has ever done and does, and in the present war and trophy concerning humanity.'

'And give a double answer to the double question.'

If, then, we should wish to adduce here the voices of the Fathers advocating these things, we would unwittingly extend our discourse to infinity, whereas it is possible, being content with the evangelical words, to leave the greater part aside.

'I have power to lay down my soul of my own accord, and to take it again' — having truly encountered death, he was raised again with the body that had suffered, and appears to the disciples in such measure as it was worthy for them to behold that glory; and to those who disbelieved the resurrection, since they thought they were beholding a spirit, he shows the side and the nail-marks, so that even the disciple who touched him, being persuaded, cried out with a loud voice:

'My Lord and my God.'

He submits to eating and drinking, so that he might be believed to be the very same one, even after the resurrection.

And those reverent women touch his immaculate feet.

And having accomplished all the other things, he ascends into the heavens with the body that had suffered.