T
tablecorner
Guest
Hello there, this is my first post and as i currently am reading a book on the theology of icons by Leonid Ouspensky , i did like to know the other side of the argument. And that is , was Pope Hadrian’s translation really inaccurate and what made it inaccurate? In my simple mind , i find it a stretch to think the pope could confuse the Latin and Greek words. i will quote it the section from the book.
The decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council was signed by the representatives of the entire Church, including the Roman Church. Having received the canons of the council , Pope Hadrian I had them translated into Latin. His translation was so inaccurate and crude that Anastasius the Librarian , a ninth-century Roman scholar , declared that is was absolutely unreadable,and wrote another one. But the first translation had unfortunate consequences and caused many misunderstandings, particularly the moderate iconoclasm of Charlemagne. One of the main blunders in this translation concerns the dogma of the veneration of icons itself, the proper attitude toward the sacred image. Wherever the Greek had used the word προσκύησις, the Latin used the word adoratio. But προσκύησις means “veneration” and not “adoration,” and the council specified and especially emphasized that the correct attitude toward the image should be one of honor and veneration , not that of true adoration (λατρεία), which befits God alone. What is really tragic is not just this translation . but the fact that it was taken seriously in the West , and that no one was aware of absurdity.
what follows is the outrage of Charlemagne and his document , the Libri Carolini.
*Edit , adding more text below to clarify the context.
Charlemagne, to whom the Pope had sent the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council ( in their Latin translation ), was outraged bu what he saw. He made a stormy protest to Hadrian I, and, in response to what he believed to be the canons of the council, sent to the Pope a document called the Libri Carolini, which had been written by his Frankish theologians. Let us give a few examples of the way in which these theologians “understood” the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
But what was most important was not this bad translation: It was the fundamental difference in attitude toward the icon that existed between the Greek and the Frankish theologians , their different way of understanding the meaning and aim of the sacred image. Thus we read in the Libri Carolini: “They ( that is the Greeks ) place almost all their hope in the icons , while we venerate the saints in their body , or , rather in their relics or clothing , following the tradition of the ancient Fathers.” But the Greeks did not show any preference to icons over relics; they only placed each in its place. " The icon cannot be placed on the same level as the cross, the sacred vases, or the Holy Scriptures," the Libri Carolini continue, since in the mind of their creators , " images are only the product of the artists’ imagination."
The decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council was signed by the representatives of the entire Church, including the Roman Church. Having received the canons of the council , Pope Hadrian I had them translated into Latin. His translation was so inaccurate and crude that Anastasius the Librarian , a ninth-century Roman scholar , declared that is was absolutely unreadable,and wrote another one. But the first translation had unfortunate consequences and caused many misunderstandings, particularly the moderate iconoclasm of Charlemagne. One of the main blunders in this translation concerns the dogma of the veneration of icons itself, the proper attitude toward the sacred image. Wherever the Greek had used the word προσκύησις, the Latin used the word adoratio. But προσκύησις means “veneration” and not “adoration,” and the council specified and especially emphasized that the correct attitude toward the image should be one of honor and veneration , not that of true adoration (λατρεία), which befits God alone. What is really tragic is not just this translation . but the fact that it was taken seriously in the West , and that no one was aware of absurdity.
what follows is the outrage of Charlemagne and his document , the Libri Carolini.
*Edit , adding more text below to clarify the context.
Charlemagne, to whom the Pope had sent the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council ( in their Latin translation ), was outraged bu what he saw. He made a stormy protest to Hadrian I, and, in response to what he believed to be the canons of the council, sent to the Pope a document called the Libri Carolini, which had been written by his Frankish theologians. Let us give a few examples of the way in which these theologians “understood” the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
But what was most important was not this bad translation: It was the fundamental difference in attitude toward the icon that existed between the Greek and the Frankish theologians , their different way of understanding the meaning and aim of the sacred image. Thus we read in the Libri Carolini: “They ( that is the Greeks ) place almost all their hope in the icons , while we venerate the saints in their body , or , rather in their relics or clothing , following the tradition of the ancient Fathers.” But the Greeks did not show any preference to icons over relics; they only placed each in its place. " The icon cannot be placed on the same level as the cross, the sacred vases, or the Holy Scriptures," the Libri Carolini continue, since in the mind of their creators , " images are only the product of the artists’ imagination."
Last edited:
