text:
Icon

An icon is a religious work of art, most commonly a painting, in the cultures of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholic churches. The most common subjects include Jesus, Mary, saints, and angels. Although especially associated with portrait-style images concentrating on one or two main figures, the term also covers most of the religious images in a variety of artistic media produced by Eastern Christianity, including narrative scenes, usually from the Bible or the lives of saints.

Icons are most commonly painted on wood panels with egg tempera, but they may also be cast in metal or carved in stone or embroidered on cloth or done in mosaic or fresco work or printed on paper or metal, etc. Comparable images from Western Christianity may be classified as "icons", although "iconic" may also be used to describe the static style of a devotional image. In the Greek language, the term for icon painting uses the same word as for "writing", and Orthodox sources often translate it into English as icon writing.

Eastern Orthodox tradition holds that the production of Christian images dates back to the very early days of Christianity, and that it has been a continuous tradition since then. Modern academic art history considers that, while images may have existed earlier, the tradition can be traced back only as far as the 3rd century, and that the images which survive from Early Christian art often differ greatly from later ones. The icons of later centuries can be linked, often closely, to images from the 5th century onwards, though very few of these survive. Widespread destruction of images occurred during the Byzantine Iconoclasm of 726–842, although this did settle permanently the question of the appropriateness of images. Since then, icons have had a great continuity of style and subject, far greater than in the icons of the Western church. At the same time there have been change and development.

Origins in primitive Christianity in the first century
Pre-Christian religions had produced and used art works. Statues and paintings of various gods and deities were regularly worshiped and venerated. It is unclear when Christians took up such activities. Christian tradition dating from the 8th century identifies Luke the Evangelist as the first icon painter, but this might not reflect historical facts. A general assumption that early Christianity was generally aniconic, opposed to religious imagery in both theory and practice until about 200, has been challenged by Paul Corby Finney's analysis of early Christian writing and material remains (1994). His assumption distinguishes three different sources of attitudes affecting early Christians on the issue: "first that humans could have a direct vision of God; second that they could not; and, third, that although humans could see God they were best advised not to look, and were strictly forbidden to represent what they had seen".

These derived respectively from Greek and Near Eastern pagan religions, from Ancient Greek philosophy, and from the Jewish tradition and the Old Testament. Of the three, Finney concludes that "overall, Israel's aversion to sacred images influenced early Christianity considerably less than the Greek philosophical tradition of invisible deity apophatically defined", so placing less emphasis on the Jewish background of most of the first Christians than most traditional accounts.

Finney suggests that "the reasons for the non-appearance of Christian art before 200 have nothing to do with principled aversion to art, with other-worldliness, or with anti-materialism. The truth is simple and mundane: Christians lacked land and capital. Art requires both. As soon as they began to acquire land and capital, Christians began to experiment with their own distinctive forms of art".

Aside from the legend that Pilate had made an image of Christ, the 4th-century Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Church History, provides a more substantial reference to a "first" icon of Jesus. He relates that King Abgar of Edessa (died c. 50 CE) sent a letter to Jesus at Jerusalem, asking Jesus to come and heal him of an illness. This version of the Abgar story does not mention an image. A later account found in the Syriac Doctrine of Addai (c. 400?) mentions a painted image of Jesus in the story. Even later, in the 6th-century account given by Evagrius Scholasticus, the painted image transforms into an image that miraculously appeared on a towel when Christ pressed the cloth to his wet face. Further legends relate that the cloth remained in Edessa until the 10th century, when it was taken by General John Kourkouas to Constantinople. It went missing in 1204 when Crusaders sacked Constantinople, but by then numerous copies had firmly established its iconic type.

The 4th-century Christian Aelius Lampridius produced the earliest known written records of Christian images treated like icons (in a pagan or Gnostic context) in his Life of Alexander Severus (xxix) that formed part of the Augustan History. According to Lampridius, the emperor Alexander Severus ((r. 222 – 235)), himself not a Christian, had kept a domestic chapel for the veneration of images of deified emperors, of portraits of his ancestors, and of Christ, Apollonius, Orpheus and Abraham. Saint Irenaeus, (c. 130–202) in his Against Heresies (1:25;6) says scornfully of the Gnostic Carpocratians:

"They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles [pagans]."

On the other hand, Irenaeus does not speak critically of icons or portraits in a general sense—only of certain gnostic sectarians' use of icons.

Another criticism of image veneration appears in the non-canonical 2nd-century Acts of John (generally considered a gnostic work), in which the Apostle John discovers that one of his followers has had a portrait made of him, and is venerating it:

"[H]e [John] went into the bedchamber, and saw the portrait of an old man crowned with garlands, and lamps and altars set before it. And he called him and said: Lycomedes, what do you mean by this matter of the portrait? Can it be one of thy gods that is painted here? For I see that you are still living in heathen fashion."

Later in the passage John says, "But this that you have now done is childish and imperfect: you have drawn a dead likeness of the dead."

At least some of the hierarchy of the Christian churches still strictly opposed icons in the early 4th century. At the Spanish non-ecumenical Synod of Elvira (c. 305) bishops concluded, "Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration".

Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis, wrote his letter 51 to John, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 394) in which he recounted how he tore down an image in a church and admonished the other bishop that such images are "opposed[...] to our religion".

Icons in Eusebius to Philostorgius (425 AD)
Elsewhere in his Church History, Eusebius reports seeing what he took to be portraits of Jesus, Peter and Paul, and also mentions a bronze statue at Banias/Paneas under Mount Hermon, of which he wrote, "They say that this statue is an image of Jesus". Further, he relates that locals regarded the image as a memorial of the healing of the woman with an issue of blood by Jesus (Luke 8:43–48), because it depicted a standing man wearing a double cloak and with arm outstretched, and a woman kneeling before him with arms reaching out as if in supplication.

John Francis Wilson suggests the possibility that this refers to a pagan bronze statue whose true identity had been forgotten. Some have thought it to represent Aesculapius, the Greek god of healing, but the description of the standing figure and the woman kneeling in supplication precisely matches images found on coins depicting the bearded emperor Hadrian ((r. 117 – 138)) reaching out to a female figure—symbolizing a province—kneeling before him.

When asked by Constantia (Emperor Constantine's half-sister) for an image of Jesus, Eusebius denied the request, replying: "To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error." Hence Jaroslav Pelikan calls Eusebius "the father of iconoclasm".

After the emperor Constantine I extended official toleration of Christianity within the Roman Empire in 313, huge numbers of pagans became converts. This period of the Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire probably saw the use of Christian images become very widespread among the faithful, though with great differences from pagan habits. Robin Lane Fox states "By the early fifth century, we know of the ownership of private icons of saints; by c. 480–500, we can be sure that the inside of a saint's shrine would be adorned with images and votive portraits, a practice which had probably begun earlier."

When Constantine himself ((r. 306 – 337)) apparently converted to Christianity, the majority of his subjects remained pagans. The Roman Imperial cult of the divinity of the emperor, expressed through the traditional burning of candles and the offering of incense to the emperor's image, was tolerated for a period because it would have been politically dangerous to attempt to suppress it. In the 5th century the courts of justice and municipal buildings of the empire still honoured the portrait of the reigning emperor in this way.

In 425 Philostorgius, an allegedly Arian Christian, charged the Orthodox Christians in Constantinople with idolatry because they still honored the image of the emperor Constantine the Great in this way. Dix notes that this occurred more than a century before the first extant reference to a similar honouring of the image of Jesus or of his apostles or saints known today, but that it would seem a natural progression for the image of Christ, the King of Heaven and Earth, to be paid similar veneration as that given to the earthly Roman emperor. However, the Orthodox, Eastern Catholics, and other groups insist on explicitly distinguishing the veneration of icons from the worship of idols by pagans.

Theodosius to Justinian

After adoption of Christianity as the only permissible Roman state religion under Theodosius I, Christian art began to change not only in quality and sophistication, but also in nature. This was in no small part due to Christians being free for the first time to express their faith openly without persecution from the state, in addition to the faith spreading to the non-poor segments of society. Paintings of martyrs and their feats began to appear, and early writers commented on their lifelike effect, one of the elements a few Christian writers criticized in pagan art—the ability to imitate life. The writers mostly criticized pagan works of art for pointing to false gods, thus encouraging idolatry. Statues in the round were avoided as being too close to the principal artistic focus of pagan cult practices, as they have continued to be (with some small-scale exceptions) throughout the history of Eastern Christianity.

Nilus of Sinai (d. c. 430), in his Letter to Heliodorus Silentiarius, records a miracle in which Saint Plato of Ankyra appeared to a Christian in a dream. The saint was recognized because the young man had often seen his portrait. This recognition of a religious apparition from likeness to an image was also a characteristic of pagan pious accounts of appearances of gods to humans, and was a regular topos in hagiography. One critical recipient of a vision from Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki apparently specified that the saint resembled the "more ancient" images of him—presumably the 7th-century mosaics still in Hagios Demetrios. Another, an African bishop, had been rescued from Arab slavery by a young soldier called Demetrios, who told him to go to his house in Thessaloniki. Having discovered that most young soldiers in the city seemed to be called Demetrios, he gave up and went to the largest church in the city, to find his rescuer on the wall.

During this period the church began to discourage all non-religious human images—the Emperor and donor figures counting as religious. This became largely effective, so that most of the population would only ever see religious images and those of the ruling class. The word icon referred to any and all images, not just religious ones, but there was barely a need for a separate word for these.

Luke's portrait of Mary
It is in a context attributed to the 5th century that the first mention of an image of Mary painted from life appears, though earlier paintings on catacomb walls bear resemblance to modern icons of Mary. Theodorus Lector, in his 6th-century History of the Church 1:1 stated that Eudokia (wife of emperor Theodosius II, d. 460) sent an image of the "Mother of God" named Icon of the Hodegetria from Jerusalem to Pulcheria, daughter of Arcadius, the former emperor and father of Theodosius II. The image was specified to have been "painted by the Apostle Luke."

Margherita Guarducci relates a tradition that the original icon of Mary attributed to Luke, sent by Eudokia to Pulcheria from Palestine, was a large circular icon only of her head. When the icon arrived in Constantinople it was fitted in as the head into a very large rectangular icon of her holding the Christ child and it is this composite icon that became the one historically known as the Hodegetria. She further states another tradition that when the last Latin Emperor of Constantinople, Baldwin II, fled Constantinople in 1261 he took this original circular portion of the icon with him.

This remained in the possession of the Angevin dynasty who had it inserted into a much larger image of Mary and the Christ child, which is presently enshrined above the high altar of the Benedictine Abbey church of Montevergine. This icon was subjected to repeated repainting over the subsequent centuries, so that it is difficult to determine what the original image of Mary's face would have looked like. Guarducci states that in 1950 an ancient image of Mary at the Church of Santa Francesca Romana was determined to be a very exact, but reverse mirror image of the original circular icon that was made in the 5th century and brought to Rome, where it has remained until the present.

In later tradition the number of icons of Mary attributed to Luke greatly multiplied. The Salus Populi Romani, the Theotokos of Vladimir, the Theotokos Iverskaya of Mount Athos, the Theotokos of Tikhvin, the Theotokos of Smolensk and the Black Madonna of Częstochowa are examples, and another is in the cathedral on St Thomas Mount, which is believed to be one of the seven painted by Luke the Evangelist and brought to India by Thomas the Apostle. Ethiopia has at least seven more. Bissera V. Pentcheva concludes, "The myth [of Luke painting an icon] was invented in order to support the legitimacy of icon veneration during the Iconoclastic controversy" (8th and 9th centuries, much later than most art historians put it). According to Reformed Baptist pastor John Carpenter, by claiming the existence of a portrait of the Theotokos painted during her lifetime by the evangelist Luke, the iconodules "fabricated evidence for the apostolic origins and divine approval of images."

In the period before and during the Iconoclastic Controversy, stories attributing the creation of icons to the New Testament period greatly increased, with several apostles and even Mary herself believed to have acted as the artist or commissioner of images (also embroidered in the case of Mary).

Iconoclast period

There was a continuing opposition to images and their misuse within Christianity from very early times. "Whenever images threatened to gain undue influence within the church, theologians have sought to strip them of their power". Further, "there is no century between the fourth and the eighth in which there is not some evidence of opposition to images even within the Church". Nonetheless, popular favor for icons guaranteed their continued existence, while no systematic apologia for or against icons, or doctrinal authorization or condemnation of icons yet existed.

The use of icons was seriously challenged by Byzantine Imperial authority in the 8th century. Though by this time opposition to images was strongly entrenched in Judaism and Islam, attribution of the impetus toward an iconoclastic movement in Eastern Orthodoxy to Muslims or Jews "seems to have been highly exaggerated, both by contemporaries and by modern scholars".

Though significant in the history of religious doctrine, the Byzantine controversy over images is not seen as of primary importance in Byzantine history; "[f]ew historians still hold it to have been the greatest issue of the period".

The Iconoclastic period began when images were banned by Emperor Leo III the Isaurian sometime between 726 and 730. Under his son Constantine V, a council forbidding image veneration was held at Hieria near Constantinople in 754. Image veneration was later reinstated by the Empress Regent Irene, under whom another council was held reversing the decisions of the previous iconoclast council and taking its title as Seventh Ecumenical Council. The council anathemized all who hold to iconoclasm, i.e. those who held that veneration of images constitutes idolatry. Then the ban was enforced again by Leo V in 815. Finally, icon veneration was decisively restored by Empress Regent Theodora in 843 at the Council of Constantinople.

From then on all Byzantine coins had a religious image or symbol on the reverse, usually an image of Christ for larger denominations, with the head of the Emperor on the obverse, reinforcing the bond of the state and the divine order.

The tradition of (ἀχειροποίητα, literally 'not-made-by-hand') accrued to icons that are alleged to have come into existence miraculously, not by a human painter. Such images functioned as powerful relics as well as icons, and their images were naturally seen as authoritative as to the true appearance of the subject: naturally and especially because of the reluctance to accept mere human productions as embodying anything of the divine, a commonplace of Christian deprecation of man-made "idols". Like icons believed to be painted directly from the live subject, they therefore acted as important references for other images in the tradition. Beside the developed legend of the mandylion or Image of Edessa was the tale of the Veil of Veronica, whose very name signifies "true icon" or "true image", the fear of a "false image" remaining strong.

Stylistic developments
Although there are earlier records of their use, no panel icons earlier than the few from the 6th century preserved at the Greek Orthodox Saint Catherine's Monastery in Egypt survive, as the other examples in Rome have all been drastically over-painted. The surviving evidence for the earliest depictions of Christ, Mary and saints therefore comes from wall-paintings, mosaics and some carvings. They are realistic in appearance, in contrast to the later stylization. They are broadly similar in style, though often much superior in quality, to the mummy portraits done in wax (encaustic) and found at Fayyum in Egypt.

As can be judged from such items, the first depictions of Jesus were generic, rather than portrait images, generally representing him as a beardless young man. It was some time before the earliest examples of the long-haired, bearded face that was later to become standardized as the image of Jesus appeared. When they did begin to appear there was still variation. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) said that no one knew the appearance of Jesus or that of Mary. However, Augustine was not a resident of the Holy Land and therefore was not familiar with the local populations and their oral traditions. Gradually, paintings of Jesus took on characteristics of portrait images.

At this time the manner of depicting Jesus was not yet uniform, and there was some controversy over which of the two most common icons was to be favored. The first or "Semitic" form showed Jesus with short and "frizzy" hair; the second showed a bearded Jesus with hair parted in the middle, the manner in which the god Zeus was depicted. Theodorus Lector remarked that of the two, the one with short and frizzy hair was "more authentic". To support his assertion, he relates a story (excerpted by John of Damascus) that a pagan commissioned to paint an image of Jesus used the "Zeus" form instead of the "Semitic" form, and that as punishment his hands withered.

Though their development was gradual, it is possible to date the full-blown appearance and general ecclesiastical (as opposed to simply popular or local) acceptance of Christian images as venerated and miracle-working objects to the 6th century, when, as Hans Belting writes, "we first hear of the church's use of religious images". "As we reach the second half of the sixth century, we find that images are attracting direct veneration and some of them are credited with the performance of miracles". Cyril Mango writes, "In the post-Justinianic period the icon assumes an ever increasing role in popular devotion, and there is a proliferation of miracle stories connected with icons, some of them rather shocking to our eyes". However, the earlier references by Eusebius and Irenaeus indicate veneration of images and reported miracles associated with them as early as the 2nd century.

Symbolism
In the icons of Eastern Orthodoxy, and of the early Medieval West, very little room is made for artistic license. Almost everything within the image has a symbolic aspect. Christ, the saints, and the angels all have halos. Angels (and often John the Baptist) have wings because they are messengers. Figures have consistent facial appearances, hold attributes personal to them, and use a few conventional poses. Archangels bear a thin staff and sometimes a mirror.

Colour plays an important role as well. Gold represents the radiance of Heaven; red, divine life. Blue is the colour of human life, white is the Uncreated Light of God, only used for resurrection and transfiguration of Christ. In icons of Jesus and Mary, Jesus wears red undergarment with a blue outer garment (representing God becoming human) and Mary wears a blue undergarment with a red overgarment (representing a human who was granted gifts by God), and thus the doctrine of deification is conveyed by icons. Letters are symbols too. Most icons incorporate some calligraphic text naming the person or event depicted. Even this is often presented in a stylized manner.

Palladium and miracles

The historical tradition of icons used for purposes other than visual depiction are the Palladium (protective image), the Palladium (classical antiquity), the, and various "folk" traditions associated with folk religion. Of these various forms the oldest tradition dates back to before the Christian era among the ancient Greeks. The various "folk" traditions are more poorly documented and often are associated with local folk narratives of uncertain origin.

In English, since around 1600, the word palladium has been used figuratively to mean anything believed to provide protection or safety, and in particular in Christian contexts a sacred relic or icon believed to have a protective role in military contexts for a whole city, people or nation. Such beliefs first become prominent in the Eastern Churches in the period after the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, and later spread to the Western church. Palladia were processed around the walls of besieged cities and sometimes carried into battle.

Eastern Orthodox teaching
The Eastern Orthodox view of the origin of icons is generally quite different from that of most secular scholars and from some in contemporary Roman Catholic circles: "The Orthodox Church maintains and teaches that the sacred image has existed from the beginning of Christianity", Léonid Ouspensky has written. Accounts that some non-Orthodox writers consider legendary are accepted as history within Eastern Orthodoxy, because they are a part of church tradition. Thus accounts such as that of the miraculous "image not made by hands", and the weeping and moving "Mother of God of the Sign" of Novgorod are accepted as fact: "Church Tradition tells us, for example, of the existence of an Icon of the Savior during His lifetime (the 'Icon-Made-Without-Hands') and of Icons of the Most-Holy Theotokos [Mary] immediately after Him."

Eastern Orthodoxy further teaches that "a clear understanding of the importance of Icons" was part of the church from its very beginning, and has never changed, although explanations of their importance may have developed over time. This is because icon painting is rooted in the theology of the Incarnation (Christ being the of God) which did not change, though its subsequent clarification within the Church occurred over the period of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. Icons also served as tools of edification for the illiterate faithful during most of the history of Christendom. Thus, icons are words in painting; they refer to the history of salvation and to its manifestation in concrete persons. In the Orthodox Church, "icons have always been understood as a visible gospel, as a testimony to the great things given man by God the incarnate Logos". In the Council of 860 it was stated that "all that is uttered in words written in syllables is also proclaimed in the language of colors".

Eastern Orthodox find the first instance of an image or icon in the Bible when God made man in his own image (Septuagint Greek ), in Genesis 1:26–27. In Exodus, God commanded that the Israelites not make any graven image; soon afterwards, however, he commanded that they make graven images of cherubim and other like things, both as statues and woven on tapestries. Later, Solomon included still more such imagery when he built the first temple. Eastern Orthodox believe these qualify as icons, in that they were visible images depicting heavenly beings and, in the case of the cherubim, used to indirectly indicate God's presence above the Ark.

In the Book of Numbers it is written that God told Moses to make a bronze serpent, Nehushtan, and hold it up, so that anyone looking at the snake would be healed of their snake bites. In John 3, Jesus refers to the same serpent, saying that he must be lifted up in the same way that the serpent was. John of Damascus also regarded the brazen serpent as an icon. Further, Jesus Christ himself is called the "image of the invisible God" in Colossians 1:15, and is therefore in one sense an icon. As people are also made in God's images, people are also considered to be living icons, and are therefore "censed" along with painted icons during Orthodox prayer services.

According to John of Damascus, anyone who tries to destroy icons "is the enemy of Christ, the Holy Mother of God and the saints, and is the defender of the Devil and his demons". This is because the theology behind icons is closely tied to the Incarnational theology of the humanity and divinity of Jesus, so that attacks on icons typically have the effect of undermining or attacking the Incarnation of Jesus himself as elucidated in the Ecumenical Councils.

Basil of Caesarea, in his writing On the Holy Spirit, says: "The honor paid to the image passes to the prototype". He also illustrates the concept by saying, "If I point to a statue of Caesar and ask you 'Who is that?', your answer would properly be, 'It is Caesar.' When you say such you do not mean that the stone itself is Caesar, but rather, the name and honor you ascribe to the statue passes over to the original, the archetype, Caesar himself." This is thus the approach to icons; to kiss an icon of Jesus, in the Eastern Orthodox view, is to show love towards Jesus himself, not mere wood and paint making up the physical substance of the icon. Worship of the icon as somehow entirely separate from its prototype is expressly forbidden by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Icons are often illuminated with a candle or jar of oil with a wick. (Beeswax for candles and olive oil for oil lamps are preferred because they burn very cleanly, although other materials are sometimes used.) The illumination of religious images with lamps or candles is an ancient practice pre-dating Christianity.

According to Fr. Les Bundy, "The Ecumenical Counciliar dogmatic decrees on icons refer, in fact, to all religious images including three-dimensional statues. Professor Sergios Verkhovskoi, the conservative professor of dogmatics at St. Vladimir’s Seminary forthrightly condemns as heretical anyone who declares statues as unorthodox or in any way canonically inferior to paintings." Historically, the Orthodox Church has always approved of veneration of statues, for example, the statue of the Mother of God at Sokolica Monastery in Serbia, the devotional statues of St. Nil Stolbensky, and those of St. Paraskeva.

Byzantine Empire

Of the icon painting tradition that developed in Byzantium, with Constantinople as the chief city, we have only a few icons from the 11th century and none preceding them, in part because of the Iconoclastic reforms during which many were destroyed or lost, and also because of plundering by the Republic of Venice in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, and finally the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.

It was only in the Komnenian period (1081–1185) that the cult of the icon became widespread in the Byzantine world, partly on account of the dearth of richer materials (such as mosaics, ivory, and vitreous enamels), but also because an iconostasis a special screen for icons was introduced then in ecclesiastical practice. The style of the time was severe, hieratic and distant.

In the late Comnenian period this severity softened, and emotion, formerly avoided, entered icon painting. Major monuments for this change include the murals at Daphni Monastery (c. 1100) and the Church of St. Panteleimon near Skopje (1164). The Theotokos of Vladimir (c. 1115) is probably the most representative example of the new trend towards spirituality and emotion.

The tendency toward emotionalism in icons continued in the Paleologan period, which began in 1261. Palaiologan art reached its pinnacle in mosaics such as those of Chora Church. In the last half of the 14th century, Palaiologan saints were painted in an exaggerated manner, very slim and in contorted positions – a style known as the Palaiologan Mannerism, of which Ochrid's Annunciation is a superb example.

After 1453, the Byzantine tradition was carried on in regions previously influenced by its religion and culture—in the Balkans, Russia, and other Slavic countries, Georgia and Armenia in the Caucasus, and among Eastern Orthodox minorities in the Islamic world. In the Greek-speaking world Crete, ruled by Venice until the mid-17th century, was an important centre of painted icons, as home of the Cretan School, exporting many to Europe.

Crete
Crete was under Venetian control from 1204 and became a thriving center of art with eventually a Scuola di San Luca, or organized painter's guild, the Guild of Saint Luke, on Western lines. Cretan painting was heavily patronized both by Catholics of Venetian territories and by Eastern Orthodox. For ease of transport, Cretan painters specialized in panel paintings, and developed the ability to work in many styles to fit the taste of various patrons. El Greco, who moved to Venice after establishing his reputation in Crete, is the most famous artist of the school, who continued to use many Byzantine conventions in his works. In 1669 the city of Heraklion, on Crete, which at one time boasted at least 120 painters, fell to the Turks. From that time Greek icon painting went into a decline, with a revival attempted in the 20th century by art reformers such as Photis Kontoglou, who emphasized a return to earlier styles.

Russia
Russian icons are typically paintings on wood, often small, though some in churches and monasteries may be as large as a table top. Many religious homes in Russia have icons hanging on the wall in the —the "red" corner (see Icon corner). There is a rich history and elaborate religious symbolism associated with icons. In Russian churches, the nave is typically separated from the sanctuary by an iconostasis, a wall of icons.

The use and making of icons entered Kievan Rus' following its conversion to Orthodox Christianity from the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire in 988 AD. As a general rule, these icons strictly followed models and formulas hallowed by usage, some of which had originated in Constantinople. As time passed, the Russians—notably Andrei Rublev and Dionisius—widened the vocabulary of iconic types and styles far beyond anything found elsewhere. The personal, improvisatory and creative traditions of Western European religious art are largely lacking in Russia before the 17th century, when Simon Ushakov's painting became strongly influenced by religious paintings and engravings from Protestant as well as Catholic Europe.

In the mid-17th century, changes in liturgy and practice instituted by Patriarch Nikon of Moscow resulted in a split in the Russian Orthodox Church. The traditionalists, the persecuted "Old Ritualists" or "Old Believers", continued the traditional stylization of icons, while the State Church modified its practice. From that time icons began to be painted not only in the traditional stylized and nonrealistic mode, but also in a mixture of Russian stylization and Western European realism, and in a Western European manner very much like that of Catholic religious art of the time. The Stroganov School and the icons from Nevyansk rank among the last important schools of Russian icon-painting.

Romania
In Romania, icons painted as reversed images behind glass and set in frames were common in the 19th century and are still made. The process is known as reverse glass painting. "In the Transylvanian countryside, the expensive icons on panels imported from Moldavia, Wallachia, and Mt. Athos were gradually replaced by small, locally produced icons on glass, which were much less expensive and thus accessible to the Transylvanian peasants".

Serbia
The earliest historical records about icons in Serbia dates back to the period of Nemanjić dynasty. One of the notable schools of Serb icons was active in the Bay of Kotor from the 17th century to the 19th century.

Trojeručica meaning "Three-handed Theotokos" is the most important icon of the Serbian Orthodox Church and main icon of Mount Athos.

Egypt and Ethiopia
The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and Oriental Orthodoxy also have distinctive, living icon painting traditions. Coptic icons have their origin in the Hellenistic art of Egyptian Late Antiquity, as exemplified by the Fayum mummy portraits. Beginning in the 4th century, churches painted their walls and made icons to reflect an authentic expression of their faith.

Aleppo

The Aleppo School was a school of icon-painting, founded by the priest Yusuf al-Musawwir (also known as Joseph the Painter) and active in Aleppo, which was then a part of the Ottoman Empire, between at least 1645 and 1777.

Western Christianity
Although the word "icon" is not generally used in Western Christianity, there are religious works of art which were largely patterned on Byzantine works, and equally conventional in composition and depiction. Until the 13th century, icon-like depictions of sacred figures followed Eastern patterns—although very few survive from this early period. Italian examples are in a style known as Italo-Byzantine.

From the 13th century, the Western tradition came slowly to allow the artist far more flexibility, and a more realist approach to the figures. If only because there was a much smaller number of skilled artists, the quantity of works of art, in the sense of panel paintings, was much smaller in the West, and in most Western settings a single diptych as an altarpiece, or in a domestic room, probably stood in place of the larger collections typical of Orthodox "icon corners".

Only in the 15th century did production of painted works of art begin to approach Eastern levels, supplemented by mass-produced imports from the Cretan School. In this century, the use of icon-like portraits in the West was enormously increased by the introduction of old master prints on paper, mostly woodcuts which were produced in vast numbers (although hardly any survive). They were mostly sold, hand-coloured, by churches, and the smallest sizes (often only an inch high) were affordable even by peasants, who glued or pinned them straight onto a wall.

With the Reformation, after an initial uncertainty among early Lutherans, who painted a few icon-like depictions of leading Reformers, and continued to paint scenes from Scripture, Protestants came down firmly against icon-like portraits, especially larger ones, even of Christ. Many Protestants found these idolatrous.

Catholic Church view
The Catholic Church accepted the decrees of the iconodule Seventh Ecumenical Council regarding images. There is some minor difference, however, in the Catholic attitude to images from that of the Orthodox. Following Gregory the Great, Catholics emphasize the role of images as the Biblia Pauperum, the "Bible of the Poor", from which those who could not read could nonetheless learn.

Catholics also, however, share the same viewpoint with the Orthodox when it comes to image veneration, believing that whenever approached, sacred images are to be shown reverence. Though using both flat wooden panel and stretched canvas paintings, Catholics traditionally have also favored images in the form of three-dimensional statuary, whereas in the East, statuary is much less widely employed.

Lutheran view
A joint Lutheran–Orthodox statement made in the 7th Plenary of the Lutheran–Orthodox Joint Commission, in July 1993 in Helsinki, reaffirmed the ecumenical council decisions on the nature of Christ and the veneration of images:

"7. As Lutherans and Orthodox we affirm that the teachings of the ecumenical councils are authoritative for our churches. The ecumenical councils maintain the integrity of the teaching of the undivided Church concerning the saving, illuminating/justifying and glorifying acts of God and reject heresies which subvert the saving work of God in Christ. Orthodox and Lutherans, however, have different histories. Lutherans have received the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed with the addition of the filioque. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787, which rejected iconoclasm and restored the veneration of icons in the churches, was not part of the tradition received by the Reformation. Lutherans, however, rejected the iconoclasm of the 16th century, and affirmed the distinction between adoration due to the Triune God alone and all other forms of veneration (CA 21). Through historical research this council has become better known. Nevertheless it does not have the same significance for Lutherans as it does for the Orthodox. Yet, Lutherans and Orthodox are in agreement that the Second Council of Nicaea confirms the christological teaching of the earlier councils and in setting forth the role of images (icons) in the lives of the faithful reaffirms the reality of the incarnation of the eternal Word of God, when it states: "The more frequently, Christ, Mary, the mother of God, and the saints are seen, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these icons the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honored and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred objects" (Definition of the Second Council of Nicaea)."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Icon


text:
Icon (programming language)

Icon is a very high-level programming language based on the concept of "goal-directed execution" in which code returns a "success" along with valid values, or a "failure", indicating that there is no valid data to return. The success and failure of a given block of code is used to direct further processing, whereas conventional languages would typically use boolean logic written by the programmer to achieve the same ends. Because the logic for basic control structures is often implicit in Icon, common tasks can be completed with less explicit code.

Icon was designed by Ralph Griswold after leaving Bell Labs where he was a major contributor to the SNOBOL language. SNOBOL was a string-processing language with what would be considered dated syntax by the standards of the early 1970s. After moving to the University of Arizona, he further developed the underlying SNOBOL concepts in SL5, but considered the result to be a failure. This led to the significantly updated Icon, which blends the short but conceptually dense code of SNOBOL-like languages with the more familiar syntax of ALGOL-inspired languages like C or Pascal.

Like the languages that inspired it, the primary area of use of Icon is managing strings and textual patterns. String operations often fail, for instance, finding "the" in "world". In most languages, this requires testing and branching to avoid using a non-valid result. In Icon most of these sorts of tests are simply unneeded, reducing the amount of code that must be written. Complex pattern handling can be done in a few lines of terse code, similar to more dedicated languages like Perl but retaining a more function-oriented syntax familiar to users of other ALGOL-like languages.

Icon is not object-oriented, but an object-oriented extension named Idol was developed in 1996 which eventually became Unicon. It also inspired other languages, with its simple generators being especially influential; Icon's generators were a major inspiration for the Python language.

SNOBOL
The original SNOBOL effort, retroactively known as SNOBOL1, launched in the fall of 1962 at the Bell Labs Programming Research Studies Department. The effort was a reaction to the frustrations of attempting to use the SCL language for polynomial formula manipulation, symbolic integration and studying Markov chains. SCL, written by the department head Chester Lee, was both slow and had a low-level syntax that resulting in volumes of code for even simple projects. After briefly considering the COMIT language, Ivan Polonsky, Ralph Griswold and David Farber, all members of the six-person department, decided to write their own language to solve these problems.

The first versions were running on the IBM 7090 in early 1963, and by the summer had been built out and was being used across Bell. This led almost immediately to SNOBOL2, which added a number of built-in functions, and the ability to link to external assembly language code. It was released in April 1964 and mostly used within Bell, but also saw some use at Project MAC. The introduction of system functions served mostly to indicate the need for user functions, which was the major feature of SNOBOL3, released in July 1964.

SNOBOL3's introduction corresponded with major changes within the Bell Labs computing department, including the addition of the new GE 645 mainframe which would require a rewrite of SNOBOL. Instead, the team suggested writing a new version that would run on a virtual machine, named SIL for SNOBOL Intermediate Language, allowing it to be easily ported to any sufficiently powerful platform. This proposal was accepted as SNOBOL4 in September 1965. By this time, plans for a significantly improved version of the language emerged in August 1966. Further work on the language continued throughout the rest of the 1960s, notably adding the associative array type in later version, which they referred to as a table.

SL5 leads to Icon
Griswold left Bell Labs to become a professor at the University of Arizona in August 1971. He introduced SNOBOL4 as a research tool at that time. He received grants from the National Science Foundation to continue supporting and evolving SNOBOL.

As a language originally developed in the early 1960s, SNOBOL's syntax bears the marks of other early programming languages like FORTRAN and COBOL. In particular, the language is column-dependant, as many of these languages were entered on punch cards where column layout is natural. Additionally, control structures were almost entirely based on branching around code rather than the use of blocks, which were becoming a must-have feature after the introduction of ALGOL 60. By the time he moved to Arizona, the syntax of SNOBOL4 was hopelessly outdated.

Griswold began the effort of implementing SNOBOL's underlying success/failure concept with traditional flow control structures like if/then. This became SL5, short for "SNOBOL Language 5", but the result was unsatisfying. In 1977, he returned to the language to consider a new version. He abandoned the very powerful function system introduced in SL5 with a simpler concept of suspend/resume and developed a new concept for the natural successor to SNOBOL4 with the following principles;

 * SNOBOL4's philosophic and sematic basis
 * SL5 syntactic basis
 * SL5 features, excluding the generalized procedure mechanism

The new language was initially known as SNOBOL5, but as it was significantly different from SNOBOL in all but the underlying concept, a new name was ultimately desired. After considering "s" as a sort of homage to "C", but this was ultimately abandoned due to the problems with typesetting documents using that name. A series of new names were proposed and abandoned; Irving, bard, and "TL" for "The Language". It was at this time that Xerox PARC began publishing about their work on graphical user interfaces and the term "icon" began to enter the computer lexicon. The decision was made to change the name initially to "icon" before finally choosing "Icon".

Basic syntax
The Icon language is derived from the ALGOL-class of structured programming languages, and thus has syntax similar to C or Pascal. Icon is most similar to Pascal, using := syntax for assignments, the procedure keyword and similar syntax. On the other hand, Icon uses C-style braces for structuring execution groups, and programs start by running a procedure called main.

In many ways Icon also shares features with most scripting languages (as well as SNOBOL and SL5, from which they were taken): variables do not have to be declared, types are cast automatically, and numbers can be converted to strings and back automatically. Another feature common to many scripting languages, but not all, is the lack of a line-ending character; in Icon, lines that do not end with a semicolon get ended by an implied semicolon if it makes sense.

Procedures are the basic building blocks of Icon programs. Although they use Pascal naming, they work more like C functions and can return values; there is no function keyword in Icon.

Goal-directed execution
One of the key concepts in SNOBOL was that its functions returned the "success" or "failure" as primitives of the language rather than using magic numbers or other techniques. For instance, a function that returns the position of a substring within another string is a common routine found in most language runtime systems; in JavaScript one might want to find the position of the word "World" within a "Hello, World!" program, which would be done with icon, which would return 7. If one instead asks for the icon the code will "fail", as the search term does not appear in the string. In JavaScript, as in most languages, this will be indicated by returning a magic number, in this case -1.

In SNOBOL a failure of this sort returns a special value, fail. SNOBOL's syntax operates directly on the success or failure of the operation, jumping to labelled sections of the code without having to write a separate test. For instance, the following code prints "Hello, world!" five times:

To perform the loop, the less-than-or-equal operator, LE, is called on the index variable I, and if it Succeeds, meaning I is less than 5, it branches to the named label LOOP and continues.

Icon retained the concept of flow control based on success or failure but developed the language further. One change was the replacement of the labelled GOTO-like branching with block-oriented structures in keeping with the structured programming style that was sweeping the computer industry in the late 1960s. The second was to allow "failure" to be passed along the call chain so that entire blocks will succeed or fail as a whole. This is a key concept of the Icon language. Whereas in traditional languages one would have to include code to test the success or failure based on boolean logic and then branch based on the outcome, such tests and branches are inherent to Icon code and do not have to be explicitly written.

For instance, consider this bit of code written in the Java programming language. It calls the function read to read a character from a (previously opened) file, assigns the result to the variable a, and then writes the value of a to another file. The result is to copy one file to another. read will eventually run out of characters to read from the file, potentially on its very first call, which would leave a in an undetermined state and potentially cause write to cause a null pointer exception. To avoid this, read returns the special value EOF (end-of-file) in this situation, which requires an explicit test to avoid writeing it:

In contrast, in Icon the read function returns a line of text or &fail. &fail is not simply an analog of EOF, as it is explicitly understood by the language to mean "stop processing" or "do the fail case" depending on the context. The equivalent code in Icon is:

This means, "as long as read does not fail, call write, otherwise stop". There is no need to specify a test against the magic number as in the Java example, this is implicit, and the resulting code is simplified. Because success and failure are passed up through the call chain, one can embed function calls within others and they stop when the nested function call fails. For instance, the code above can be reduced to:

In this version, if the read call fails, the write call fails, and the while stops. Icon's branching and looping constructs are all based on the success or failure of the code inside them, not on an arbitrary boolean test provided by the programmer. if performs the then block if its "test" returns a value, and performs the else block or moves to the next line if it returns &fail. Likewise, while continues calling its block until it receives a fail. Icon refers to this concept as goal-directed execution.

It is important to contrast the concept of success and failure with the concept of an exception; exceptions are unusual situations, not expected outcomes. Fails in Icon are expected outcomes; reaching the end of a file is an expected situation and not an exception. Icon does not have exception handling in the traditional sense, although fail is often used in exception-like situations. For instance, if the file being read does not exist, read fails without a special situation being indicated. In traditional language, these "other conditions" have no natural way of being indicated; additional magic numbers may be used, but more typically exception handling is used to "throw" a value. For instance, to handle a missing file in the Java code, one might see:

This case needs two comparisons: one for EOF and another for all other errors. Since Java does not allow exceptions to be compared as logic elements, as under Icon, the lengthy try/catch syntax must be used instead. Try blocks also impose a performance penalty even if no exception is thrown, a distributed cost that Icon normally avoids.

Icon uses this same goal-directed mechanism to perform traditional boolean tests, although with subtle differences. A simple comparison like if a < b then write("a is smaller than b") does not mean, "if the conditional expression evaluation results in or returns a true value" as they would under most languages; instead, it means something more like, "if the conditional expression, here < operation, succeeds and does not fail". In this case, the < operator succeeds if the comparison is true. The if calls its then clause if the expression succeeds, or the else or the next line if it fails. The result is similar to the traditional if/then seen in other languages, the if performs then if a is less than b. The subtlety is that the same comparison expression can be placed anywhere, for instance:

Another difference is that the < operator returns its second argument if it succeeds, which in this example will result in the value of b being written if it is larger than a, otherwise nothing is written. As this is not a test per se, but an operator that returns a value, they can be strung together allowing things like if a < b < c, a common type of comparison that in most languages must be written as a conjunction of two inequalities like if (a < b) && (b < c).

A key aspect of goal-directed execution is that the program may have to rewind to an earlier state if a procedure fails, a task known as backtracking. For instance, consider code that sets a variable to a starting location and then performs operations that may change the value - this is common in string scanning operations for instance, which will advance a cursor through the string as it scans. If the procedure fails, it is important that any subsequent reads of that variable return the original state, not the state as it was being internally manipulated. For this task, Icon has the reversible assignment operator, <-, and the reversible exchange, <->. For instance, consider some code that is attempting to find a pattern string within a larger string:

This code begins by moving i to 10, the starting location for the search. However, if the find fails, the block will fail as a whole, which results in the value of i being left at 10 as an undesirable side effect. Replacing i := 10 with i <- 10 indicates that i should be reset to its previous value if the block fails. This provides an analog of atomicity in the execution.

Generators
Expressions in Icon may return a single value, for instance, 5 > x will evaluate and return x if the value of x is less than 5, or else fail. However, Icon also includes the concept of procedures that do not immediately return success or failure, and instead return new values every time they are called. These are known as generators, and are a key part of the Icon language. Within the parlance of Icon, the evaluation of an expression or function produces a result sequence. A result sequence contains all the possible values that can be generated by the expression or function. When the result sequence is exhausted, the expression or function fails.

Icon allows any procedure to return a single value or multiple values, controlled using the fail, return and suspend keywords. A procedure that lacks any of these keywords returns &fail, which occurs whenever execution runs to the end of a procedure. For instance:

Calling f(5) will return 1, but calling f(-1) will return &fail. This can lead to non-obvious behavior, for instance, write(f(-1)) will output nothing because f fails and suspends operation of write.

Converting a procedure to be a generator uses the suspend keyword, which means "return this value, and when called again, start execution at this point". In this respect it is something like a combination of the static concept in C and return. For instance:

creates a generator that returns a series of numbers starting at i and ending a j, and then returns &fail after that. The suspend i stops execution and returns the value of i without reseting any of the state. When another call is made to the same function, execution picks up at that point with the previous values. In this case, that causes it to perform i +:= 1, loop back to the start of the while block, and then return the next value and suspend again. This continues until i <= j fails, at which point it exits the block and calls fail. This allows iterators to be constructed with ease.

Another type of generator-builder is the alternator, which looks and operates like the boolean or operator. For instance:

This appears to say "if y is smaller than x or 5 then...", but is actually a short-form for a generator that returns values until it falls off the end of the list. The values of the list are "injected" into the operations, in this case, <. So in this example, the system first tests y < x, if x is indeed larger than y it returns the value of x, the test passes, and the value of y is written out in the then clause. However, if x is not larger than y it fails, and the alternator continues, performing y < 5. If that test passes, y is written. If y is smaller than neither x or 5, the alternator runs out of tests and fails, the if fails, and the write is not performed. Thus, the value of y will appear on the console if it is smaller than x or 5, thereby fulfilling the purpose of a boolean or. Functions will not be called unless evaluating their parameters succeeds, so this example can be shortened to:

Internally, the alternator is not simply an or and one can also use it to construct arbitrary lists of values. This can be used to iterate over arbitrary values, like:

As lists of integers are commonly found in many programming contexts, Icon also includes the to keyword to construct ad hoc integer generators:

which can be shortened:

Icon is not strongly typed, so the alternator lists can contain different types of items:

This writes 1, "hello" and maybe 5 depending on the value of x.

Likewise the conjunction operator, &, is used in a fashion similar to a boolean and operator:

This code calls ItoJ and returns an initial value of 0 which is assigned to x. It then performs the right-hand side of the conjunction, and since x % 2 does equal 0, it writes out the value. It then calls the ItoJ generator again which assigns 1 to x, which fails the right-hand-side and prints nothing. The result is a list of every even integer from 0 to 10.

The concept of generators is particularly useful and powerful when used with string operations, and is a major underlying basis for Icon's overall design. Consider the indexOf operation found in many languages; this function looks for one string within another and returns an index of its location, or a magic number if it is not found. For instance:

This will scan the string s, find the first occurrence of "the", and return that index, in this case 4. The string, however, contains two instances of the string "the", so to return the second example an alternate syntax is used:

This tells it to scan starting at location 5, so it will not match the first instance we found previously. However, there may not be a second instance of "the" -there may not be a first one either- so the return value from indexOf has to be checked against the magic number -1 which is used to indicate no matches. A complete routine that prints out the location of every instance is:

In Icon, the equivalent find is a generator, so the same results can be created with a single line:

Of course there are times where one does want to find a string after some point in input, for instance, if scanning a text file that contains a line number in the first four columns, a space, and then a line of text. Goal-directed execution can be used to skip over the line numbers:

The position will only be returned if "the" appears after position 5; the comparison will fail otherwise, pass the fail to write, and the write will not occur.

The every operator is similar to while, looping through every item returned by a generator and exiting on failure:

There is a key difference between every and while; while re-evaluates the first result until it fails, whereas every fetches the next value from a generator. every actually injects values into the function in a fashion similar to blocks under Smalltalk. For instance, the above loop can be re-written this way:

In this case, the values from i to j will be injected into someFunction and (potentially) write multiple lines of output.

Collections
Icon includes several collection types including lists that can also be used as stacks and queues, tables (also known as maps or dictionaries in other languages), sets and others. Icon refers to these as structures. Collections are inherent generators and can be easily called using the bang syntax. For instance:

Using the fail propagation as seen in earlier examples, we can combine the tests and the loops:

Because the list collection is a generator, this can be further simplified with the bang syntax:

In this case, the bang in write causes Icon to return a line of text one by one from the array and finally fail at the end. &input is a generator-based analog of read that reads a line from standard input, so !&input continues reading lines until the file ends.

As Icon is typeless, lists can contain any different types of values:

The items can included other structures. To build larger lists, Icon includes the list generator; generates a list containing 10 copies of "word". Like arrays in other languages, Icon allows items to be looked up by position, e.g.,. Array slicing is included, allowing new lists to be created out of the elements of other lists, for instance, aCat := Cats[2:4] produces a new list called aCat that contains "tabby" and 2002.

Tables are essentially lists with arbitrary index keys rather than integers:

This code creates a table that will use zero as the default value of any unknown key. It then adds two items into the table, with the keys "there" and "here", and values 1 and 2.

Sets are also similar to lists but contain only a single member of any given value. Icon includes the ++ to produce the union of two sets, ** the intersection, and -- the difference. Icon includes a number of pre-defined "Cset"s, a set containing various characters. There are four standard Csets in Icon, &ucase, &lcase, &letters, and &digits. New Csets can be made by enclosing a string in single quotes, for instance, vowel := 'aeiou'.

Strings
In Icon, strings are lists of characters. As a list, they are generators and can thus be iterated over using the bang syntax:

Will print out each character of the string on a separate line.

Substrings can be extracted from a string by using a range specification within brackets. A range specification can return a point to a single character, or a slice of the string. Strings can be indexed from either the right or the left. Positions within a string are defined to be between the characters 1A2B3C4 and can be specified from the right −3A−2B−1C0

For example, Where the last example shows using a length instead of an ending position

The subscripting specification can be used as a lvalue within an expression. This can be used to insert strings into another string or delete parts of a string. For example:

String scanning
A further simplification for handling strings is the scanning system, invoked with ?, which calls functions on a string:

Icon refers to the left-hand-side of the ? as the subject, and passes it into string functions. Recall the find takes two parameters, the search text as parameter one and the string to search in parameter two. Using ? the second parameter is implicit and does not have to be specified by the programmer. In the common cases when multiple functions are being called on a single string in sequence, this style can significantly reduce the length of the resulting code and improve clarity. Icon function signatures identify the subject parameter in their definitions so the parameter can be hoisted in this fashion.

The ? is not simply a form of syntactic sugar, it also sets up a "string scanning environment" for any following string operations. This is based on two internal variables, &subject and &pos; &subject is simply a pointer to the original string, while &pos is the current position within it, or cursor. Icon's various string manipulation procedures use these two variables so they do not have to be explicitly supplied by the programmer. For example:

would produce:

Built-in and user-defined functions can be used to move around within the string being scanned. All of the built-in functions will default to &subject and &pos to allow the scanning syntax to be used. The following code will write all blank-delimited "words" in a string:

There are a number of new functions introduced in this example. pos returns the current value of &pos. It may not be immediately obvious why one would need this function and not simply use the value of &pos directly; the reason is that &pos is a variable and thus cannot take on the value &fail, which the procedure pos can. Thus pos provides a lightweight wrapper on &pos that allows Icon's goal-directed flow control to be easily used without having to provide hand-written boolean tests against &pos. In this case, the test is "is &pos zero", which, in the odd numbering of Icon's string locations, is the end of the line. If it is not zero, pos returns &fail, which is inverted with the not and the loop continues.

many finds one or more examples of the provided Cset parameter starting at the current &pos. In this case, it is looking for space characters, so the result of this function is the location of the first non-space character after &pos. tab moves &pos to that location, again with a potential &fail in case, for instance, many falls off the end of the string. upto is essentially the reverse of many; it returns the location immediately prior to its provided Cset, which the example then sets the &pos to with another tab. Alternation is used to also stop at the end of a line.

This example can be made more robust through the use of a more appropriate "word breaking" Cset which might include periods, commas and other punctuation, as well as other whitespace characters like tab and non-breaking spaces. That Cset can then be used in many and upto.

A more complex example demonstrates the integration of generators and string scanning within the language.

Criticisms
Laurence Tratt wrote a paper on Icon examining its real-world applications and pointing out a number of areas of concern. Among these were a number of practical decisions that derive from their origins in string processing but do not make as much sense in other areas. Among them:

The decision to fail by default at the end of procedures makes sense in the context of generators, but less so in the case of general procedures. Returning to the example noted above, write(f(-1)) will not output which may be expected. However: will result in 10 being printed. This sort of issue is not at all obvious as even in an interactive debugger all the code is invoked yet x never picks up the expected value. This could be dismissed as one of those "gotchas" that programmers have to be aware of in any language, but Tratt examined a variety of Icon programs and found that the vast majority of procedures are not generators. This means that Icon's default behaviour is only used by a tiny minority of its constructs, yet represents a major source of potential errors in all the others.

Another issue is the lack of a boolean data type and conventional boolean logic. While the success/fail system works in most cases where the ultimate goal is to check a value, this can still lead to some odd behaviour in seemingly simple code: This program will print "taken". The reason is that the test, c, does return a value; that value is &null, the default value for all otherwise uninitiated variables. &null is a valid value, so if c succeeds. To test this, one needs to make the test explicit,. Tratt supposed that it detracts from the self-documenting code, having supposed erroneously that it is testing "is c zero" or "does c exist".

title: Icon (programming language)


text:
Iconology

Iconology is a method of interpretation in cultural history and the history of the visual arts used by Aby Warburg, Erwin Panofsky and their followers that uncovers the cultural, social, and historical background of themes and subjects in the visual arts. Though Panofsky differentiated between iconology and iconography, the distinction is not very widely followed, "and they have never been given definitions accepted by all iconographers and iconologists". Few 21st-century authors continue to use the term "iconology" consistently, and instead use iconography to cover both areas of scholarship.

To those who use the term, iconology is derived from synthesis rather than scattered analysis and examines symbolic meaning on more than its face value by reconciling it with its historical context and with the artist's body of work – in contrast to the widely descriptive iconography, which, as described by Panofsky, is an approach to studying the content and meaning of works of art that is primarily focused on classifying, establishing dates, provenance and other necessary fundamental knowledge concerning the subject matter of an artwork that is needed for further interpretation.

Panofsky's "use of iconology as the principal tool of art analysis brought him critics." For instance, in 1946, Jan Gerrit Van Gelder "criticized Panofsky's iconology as putting too much emphasis on the symbolic content of the work of art, neglecting its formal aspects and the work as a unity of form and content." Furthermore, iconology is mostly avoided by social historians who do not accept the theoretical dogmaticism in the work of Panofsky.

In contrast to iconography
Erwin Panofsky defines iconography as "a known principle in the known world", while iconology is "an iconography turned interpretive". According to his view, iconology tries to reveal the underlying principles that form the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical perspective, which is modulated by one personality and condensed into one work. According to Roelof van Straten, iconology "can explain why an artist or patron chose a particular subject at a specific location and time and represented it in a certain way. An iconological investigation should concentrate on the social-historical, not art-historical, influences and values that the artist might not have consciously brought into play but are nevertheless present. The artwork is primarily seen as a document of its time."

Warburg used the term "iconography" in his early research, replacing it in 1908 with "iconology" in his particular method of visual interpretation called "critical iconology", which focused on the tracing of motifs through different cultures and visual forms. In 1932, Panofsky published a seminal article, introducing a three-step method of visual interpretation dealing with (1) primary or natural subject matter; (2) secondary or conventional subject matter, i.e. iconography; (3) tertiary or intrinsic meaning or content, i.e. iconology. Whereas iconography analyses the world of images, stories and allegories and requires knowledge of literary sources, an understanding of the history of types and how themes and concepts were expressed by objects and events under different historical conditions, iconology interprets intrinsic meaning or content and the world of symbolical values by using "synthetic intuition". The interpreter is aware of the essential tendencies of the human mind as conditioned by psychology and world view; he analyses the history of cultural symptoms or symbols, or how tendencies of the human mind were expressed by specific themes due to different historical conditions. Moreover, when understanding the work of art as a document of a specific civilization, or of a certain religious attitude therein, the work of art becomes a symptom of something else, which expresses itself in a variety of other symptoms. Interpreting these symbolical values, which can be unknown to, or different from, the artist's intention, is the object of iconology. Panofsky emphasized that "iconology can be done when there are no originals to look at and nothing but artificial light to work in."

According to Ernst Gombrich, "the emerging discipline of iconology ... must ultimately do for the image what linguistics has done for the word." However, Michael Camille is of the opinion that "though Panofsky's concept of iconology has been very influential in the humanities and is quite effective when applied to Renaissance art, it is still problematic when applied to art from periods before and after."

Nuances
In 1952, Creighton Gilbert added another suggestion for a useful meaning of the word "iconology". According to his view, iconology was not the actual investigation of the work of art but rather the result of this investigation. The Austrian art historian Hans Sedlmayr differentiated between "sachliche" and "methodische" iconology. "Sachliche" iconology refers to the "general meaning of an individual painting or of an artistic complex (church, palace, monument) as seen and explained with reference to the ideas which take shape in them." In contrast, "methodische" iconology is the "integral iconography which accounts for the changes and development in the representations". In Iconology: Images, Text, Ideology (1986), W.J.T. Mitchell writes that iconology is a study of "what to say about images", concerned with the description and interpretation of visual art, and also a study of "what images say" – the ways in which they seem to speak for themselves by persuading, telling stories, or describing. He pleads for a postlinguistic, postsemiotic "iconic turn", emphasizing the role of "non-linguistic symbol systems". Instead of just pointing out the difference between the material (pictorial or artistic) images, "he pays attention to the dialectic relationship between material images and mental images". According to Dennise Bartelo and Robert Morton, the term "iconology" can also be used for characterizing "a movement toward seeing connections across all the language processes" and the idea about "multiple levels and forms used to communicate meaning" in order to get "the total picture” of learning. "Being both literate in the traditional sense and visually literate are the true mark of a well-educated human."

For several years, new approaches to iconology have developed in the theory of images. This is the case of what Jean-Michel Durafour, French philosopher and theorist of cinema, proposed to call "econology", a biological approach to images as forms of life, crossing iconology, ecology and sciences of nature. In an econological regime, the image (eikon) self-speciates, that is to say, it self-iconicizes with others and eco-iconicizes with them its iconic habitat (oikos). The iconology, mainly Warburghian iconology, is thus merged with a conception of the relations between the beings of the nature inherited, among others (Arne Næss, etc.) from the writings of Kinji Imanishi. For Imanishi, living beings are subjects. Or, more precisely, the environment and the living being are just one. One of the main consequences is that the "specity", the living individual, "self-eco-speciates its place of life" (Freedom in Evolution). As far as the images are concerned: "If the living species self-specify, the images self-iconicize. This is not a tautology. The images update some of their iconic virtualities. They live in the midst of other images, past or present, but also future (those are only human classifications), which they have relations with. They self-iconicize in an iconic environment which they interact with, and which in particular makes them the images they are. Or more precisely, insofar as images have an active part: the images self-eco-iconicize their iconic environment. "

Studies in iconology
Studies in Iconology is the title of a book by Erwin Panofsky on humanistic themes in the art of the Renaissance, which was first published in 1939. It is also the name of a peer-reviewed series of books started in 2014 under the editorship of Barbara Baert and published by Peeters international academic publishers, Leuven, Belgium, addressing the deeper meaning of the visual medium throughout human history in the fields of philosophy, art history, theology and cultural anthropology.

title: Iconology


text:
User:Isofarro

Interests: Semantic Web, web accessibility, chess, Space Exploration and World War II.

Pages I've written (my fault!)
 * Pas 78 - web accessibility (Should update this when it's replacement BS 8878 comes into effect in early December)
 * Raymond Keene -- chess.
 * Viktor Korchnoi -- chess
 * Mikhail Tal -- chess
 * Robert Hübner -- chess

Pages I've contributed to:
 * Boris Spassky -- chess
 * Anatoly Karpov -- chess
 * Theodore Tylor -- blind chess player

I'm writing mainly from recollection of all I've read about these players over the years. I spent too much time reading up on chess players so hopefully I can keep adding info about chess players.

I originally did the first overhaul rewrite of Garry Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov and Bobby Fischer sometime early last year (could be 2001 actually) -- but looking at them now, there's a definite improvement over my first meagre attempts. I am impressed.

title: User:Isofarro


text:
List of Indian massacres in North America

In the history of the European colonization of the Americas, an Indian massacre is any incident between European settlers and indigenous peoples wherein one group killed a significant number of the other group outside the confines of mutual combat in war.

Overview
"Indian massacre" is a phrase whose use and definition has evolved and expanded over time. The phrase was initially used by European colonists to describe attacks by indigenous Americans which resulted in mass colonial casualties. While similar attacks by colonists on Indian villages were called "raids" or "battles", successful Indian attacks on white settlements or military posts were routinely termed "massacres". Knowing very little about the native inhabitants of the American frontier, the colonists were deeply fearful, and often, European Americans who had rarely – or never – seen a Native American read Indian atrocity stories in popular literature and newspapers. Emphasis was placed on the depredations of "murderous savages" in their information about Indians, and as the migrants headed further west, they frequently feared the Indians they would encounter.

The phrase eventually became commonly used to also describe mass killings of American Indians. Killings described as "massacres" often had an element of indiscriminate targeting, barbarism, or genocidal intent.

According to historian Jeffrey Ostler, "Any discussion of genocide must, of course, eventually consider the so-called Indian Wars, the term commonly used for U.S. Army campaigns to subjugate Indian nations of the American West beginning in the 1860s. In an older historiography, key events in this history were narrated as battles. It is now more common for scholars to refer to these events as massacres. This is especially so of a Colorado territorial militia’s slaughter of Cheyennes at Sand Creek (1864) and the army’s slaughter of Shoshones at Bear River (1863), Blackfeet on the Marias River (1870), and Lakotas at Wounded Knee (1890). Some scholars have begun referring to these events as “genocidal massacres,” defined as the annihilation of a portion of a larger group, sometimes to provide a lesson to the larger group."

It is difficult to determine the total number of people who died as a result of "Indian massacres". In The Wild Frontier: Atrocities during the American-Indian War from Jamestown Colony to Wounded Knee, lawyer William M. Osborn compiled a list of alleged and actual atrocities in what would eventually become the continental United States, from first contact in 1511 until 1890. His parameters for inclusion included the intentional and indiscriminate murder, torture, or mutilation of civilians, the wounded, and prisoners. His list included 7,193 people who died from atrocities perpetrated by those of European descent, and 9,156 people who died from atrocities perpetrated by Native Americans.

In An American Genocide, The United States and the California Catastrophe, 1846–1873, historian Benjamin Madley recorded the numbers of killings of California Indians between 1846 and 1873. He found evidence that during this period, at least 9,400 to 16,000 California Indians were killed by non-Indians. Most of these killings occurred in what he said were more than 370 massacres (defined by him as the "intentional killing of five or more disarmed combatants or largely unarmed noncombatants, including women, children, and prisoners, whether in the context of a battle or otherwise").

List of massacres
This is a listing of some of the events reported then or referred to now as "Indian massacre".


text:
Talk:Inspector Morse

Confused and confusing Wiki entry
Inspector Morse is a literary character who has appeared in television dramatizations. In multiple places in this article, he is described by referring to the television series, as if there were no difference between the two. I think it's reasonable to say that the people who have added such information have not read the books. To make any sense, the character should be described from the books, with any difference between books and television episodes noted. For instance, in the books, Morse smokes cigarettes - or is trying to quit. Television Morse does not.

MarkinBoston (talk)

Fair use rationale for File:ThawKavanaghQC.jpg
File:ThawKavanaghQC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Education
Currently the first sentence of "Education" reads: "Although details of Morse's education are deliberately kept vague, it is hinted that he won a scholarship to study at St John's College, Oxford.[8]". However in the Endeavour (TV series) it is made clear that he attended the (fictional) Lonsdale College. Just wondering if the same is stated in any of the main Inspector Morse (novel or TV series) episodes... either way, maybe the sentence listed above may need to be amended... Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In "Dead on Time" (Season 6, Ep 1 of the TV series) Morse mentions that the murdered Oxford Don, Henry Fallon, used to be one of his lecturers- although this does not clarify anything much (lecturers' Colleges and the student's College not necessarily being the same)... Also that he used to be engaged to Professor Fallon's current wife Susan (maybe merits a mention somewhere??) before she went off and married Fallon. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the novel "The Riddle of the Third Mile" we learn that Morse was previously a student of Dr. Browne-Smith of Lonsdale College. However, at the start of Chapter Six in the book, when Morse is called in to Lonsdale we read his thought "... now when he himself had been up at St. John's ..." so that matches both of the info above. Mr splosh (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

year
is it possible to state the years where the action is set? thanks. 151.29.55.235 (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Inspector Morse