Theories of Ophidian Iconography
One of the main differences between Ophidism and the majority of contemporary spiritualities is the aesthetic speculation revolving around the concept of sacred icon. Ophidism is, indeed, the only modern spirituality having a proper iconography based upon a theoretical speculation on how the Deity should be represented in order to not contradict its philosophical foundations.
The fact is that, unlike the most modern spiritualities, Ophidism has perceived the necessity to define the iconographic speculation in relationship to the use of icons within our own spiritual practice. Iconographic representation are the way in which a devotee or a practitioner of a certain spirituality relate themselves to the Deity on a material level.
The first step that we have to take on our path is trying to give a definition of what an icon is. Father Patel A. Florenskij, in this regard, asserts that the «icon is metaphysic». (1) The icon is therefore not only the product of a manufacturing, but the epiphany of the events regarding sacred people (2).
The term icon comes from the Greek eikon, meaning «image». With the advent of Christianity, this term soon became a word used as the name of sacred images, created and manufactured following the indication of the Church. Indeed, as we will see later, it was the Church itself, during the VII ecumenical council, in Nicea, in 787 a.D., that defined what an icon is and how it should be realized and used within the spiritual practice.
At that time, the main problem was to understand if by venerating the icon the devotee was committing the crime of idolatry. By representing the Deity on a material support, we try to define what is, by its own nature, undefinable and infinite. Iconography represents, therefore, the ultimate attempt to define what is God and, by Its own representation, to venerate It.
The problem with iconography, as we said some lines above, is that we have to be sure that venerating the icon is not venerating the material support by which the icon is made, but venerating what can be called the model. (3)
Indeed, as it was highlighted by St. Paul «He did not venerated the scepter but He who is its master» (4). This should help us understand how the sacred object representing a Deity should be seen as a simulacrum and not as the Deity itself. In a few word, if the icon is the medium that we use to perceive the model, we have to be sure that it’s not what we are praying or invoking with our practices. The purpose of iconography, in fact, is not to venerate a piece of wood or a statue of plastic, but, on the contrary, to venerate the model on which the icon is based. This is something that is fundamental to be understood. The main aspect of a sacred icon is, in fact, the immutability of the representation: if, in fact, the artistic product is characterized by the extreme variability of the forms, deriving from personal vision of the artist, the sacred icon is unchangeable by definition. This is why, from the Second Council of Nicea we do not speak of “artist”, when it comes to sacred icons, but of “writers”. The icon is, therefore, not drawn, but written. (5)
The role of the icon, in Ophidism, is linked to the idea of hypostasis and so to the conception that God’s substance can descend into a material support. The hypostasis of God in Ophidism is, so, God’s substance but not at its pure form; on the contrary the hypostasis is to be considered as any metaphysical substance that can be reduced into a material body. This is why, on a certain level, within the acts of the Second Council of Nicea we can read that Christ is the hypostasis of God (6), because Christ was nothing less than the embodiment of God’s substance, quite obviously recalling Plotinus’ ideas on this concept.
Looking at the human history it’s quite evident that icons have always fulfilled a fundamental role in the theist relationship between the human and the Divine. A quite important example is given by the importance of theological representations in the Vedic and post-Vedic tradition in India. Specifically, the emergence of the Bhakti within the tamil culture is strictly linked to the building of stone temples and sculpted iconography. (7)
The fact that the Bhakti is therefore linked to the emergence of an aesthetic or an iconography is the symptom of a very deep relationship between faith and art, manifested not only in the Byzantine world, but even in the eastern religious thought. In fact, the main mistake when we think at iconography is to associate it only to Byzantine Christianity, when on the other hand we have a lot of other examples in the majority of theistic culture around the world.
Since it is impossible to effectively analyse all the manifestations of iconography, we will focus, in this article, only to the aforementioned Vedic and post-Vedic culture in southern India. One of the most extraordinary example of theistic iconography in that specific region of the world are the Udayagiri caverns, dated back to the Neolithic and Mesolithic period. As it did happen in the most known archeological sites of Lascaux or Altamira, the human ancestors who lived near Udayagiri started drawing on the caverns with a magical and propitiatory purpose (8).
With the passing of centuries, the complex of caverns in Udayagiri started to be characterised by
iconographic representations of the deities, as in the example of cavern n.5, where we can find a marvellous draw of Vishnu in his avatara called Varaha. The iconographic representation of Varaha in Udayagiri is very important because the posture in which we find the subject, in profile with the left leg bend to the knee, will be the posture in which Varaha will be forever depicted in all his icons.(9)
As we can deduct from this example, even in the Indian iconography the main elements of iconographic representations, which we have analysed some lines above, are kept. Apart from the historic development of icons in the different cultures, what interests us the most is definitely the role of icons in Ophidism, which as we already mentioned, is one of the few, if not the only one, new religions with a proper speculation on this subject.
The problem with the iconography in many other new spiritualities, especially in the LHP world, is that they have never deepen this subject in a proper way and therefore, they have never defined what an icon is and how it should be used within their practice. Having the iconographic representations some specific characteristics that must respected in order to be considered sacred icons, it is fundamental to respect those characteristic even in the new spiritualities.
In Ophidism, the icons are the main focus upon the altar, being the hypostatic manifestation of God in this material world. They’re used both as vessel for invocations and prayers, but even as the element that allows the devotee to break the natural order of things, since through the icon it is possible for the human to perceive the imperceptible. Iconography can be therefore seen as an instrument that men use to connect themselves to the metaphysical entity thanks to practices as contemplation, prayer and liturgy.
The importance of the icon in Ophidism is also given by the strict and precise manufacturing process, which requires a complex system of invocations, purifications and rituals. Ophidism gives not only a precise ritual practice in order to realize an icon, but also some specifics that must be followed in order to be able to talk of a “sacred icon” and not of a simple image.
The Imago Serpentis must be represented, for example, always in the same way, with specifics colors on the background due to the meaning that the icon has for the devotee: so, the red background will always be a symbol of Polemos while the blu icon will be a symbol for knowledge and so on. Everything, in the ophidian icon must be rational, perfect and balanced.
Working with an icon means to contemplate an indirect image of God Itself and, by doing so, to connect with the prototype. This is the mystery behind the icons in religion: perception of the invisible, communion between the human and the divine.
Notes:
(1) J. Lindsay Opie, prefaction to On the Icon, Archpriest Pavel Florenkij, «Eastern Churches Review», VII, 1 (1976), p. 1
(2) J. Lindsay Opie, Nel mondo delle icone, JacaBook, Milano 2014, p. 66
(3) Luigi Russo, Vedere l’invisibile: Nicea e lo statuto dell’immagine, Aesthetica, Palermo 2017, pp. 19sgg.
(4) St. Paul, Letters to the Hebrew
(5) Luigi Russo, Vedere l’invisibile: Nicea e lo statuto dell’immagine, Aesthetica, Palermo 2017, pp. 74sgg.
(6) Luigi Russo, Vedere l’invisibile: Nicea e lo statuto dell’immagine, Aesthetica, Palermo 2017, p. 74
(7) J. Lindsay Opie, Nel mondo delle icone, JacaBook, Milano 2014, p. 44
(8) C. Pieruccini, Viaggio nell’India del Nord, Einaudi, Torino 2010, p. 128
(9) C. Pieruccini, Viaggio nell’India del Nord, Einaudi, Torino 2012, p. 131