I History of the icon

2. Early history of icon painting

3. Persecution of icons

4. Reasons for the oblivion of the Russian icon

5. Recognition of the enormous artistic significance of the ancient Russian icon and the revival of interest in it

6. Two eras of Russian icon painting

II FEATURES OF RUSSIAN ICON PAINTING

1. Features of Russian Icon Painting

2. The meaning of colors

3. Psychology of icon painting

III LANGUAGE OF ICONS

1. Subjects of ancient Russian icon painting

2. Images of the Savior

3. Images of the Virgin Mary

IV Creativity of Andrey Rublev

1. Andrey Rublev - Biography with white spots

2. The most significant works of A. Rublev

V conclusion

Vi application

V II bibliography

An icon is a picturesque, less often a relief image of Jesus Christ, the Mother of God, angels and saints. It cannot be considered a painting; it reproduces not what the artist has before his eyes, but a certain prototype that he must follow.

There are several directions in the approach to icon painting. Some authors focused all their attention on the factual side of the matter, on the time of the emergence and development of individual schools. Others are interested in the visual side of icon painting, that is, its iconography. Still others try to read its religious and philosophical meaning in ancient icon painting.

HISTORY OF THE ICON

1. The roots of ancient Russian icon painting

The interest in ancient Russian painting in our country is now enormous, and the difficulties of perceiving it for those who turn to it today are no less enormous. Almost everyone experiences them - both teenagers and adults, and even people who are otherwise well educated, although in Ancient Rus' her painting was accessible to everyone. The fact is that these difficulties are rooted not simply in the lack of knowledge of an individual, their reason is much broader: it is in the dramatic fate of ancient Russian art itself, in the dramas of our history.

Christianity in Rus' is just over a thousand years old, and the art of icon painting has equally ancient roots. The icon (from the Greek word meaning “image”, “image”) arose before the birth of ancient Russian culture and became widespread in all Orthodox countries. Icons in Rus' appeared as a result of the missionary activity of the Byzantine Church at a time when the importance of church art was experienced with particular force. What is especially important and what was a strong internal motivation for Russian church art is that Rus' adopted Christianity precisely in the era of the revival of spiritual life in Byzantium itself, the era of its heyday. During this period, nowhere in Europe was church art as developed as in Byzantium. And at this time, the newly converted Rus' received, among other icons, as an example of Orthodox art, an unsurpassed masterpiece - the icon of the Mother of God, which later received the name of Vladimir.

Through fine art, ancient harmony and a sense of proportion become the property of Russian church art and become part of its living fabric. It should also be noted that for the rapid development of the Byzantine heritage in Rus' there were favorable preconditions and, one might say, already prepared soil. Recent research suggests that pagan Rus' had a highly developed artistic culture. All this contributed to the fact that the cooperation of Russian masters with Byzantine ones was extremely fruitful. The newly converted people turned out to be able to accept the Byzantine heritage, which nowhere found such favorable soil and nowhere gave such results as in Rus'.

Since ancient times, the word “Icon” has been used for individual images, usually written on a board. The reason for this phenomenon is obvious. Wood served as our main building material. The overwhelming majority of Russian churches were wooden, so not only mosaics, but also frescoes (painting on fresh wet plaster) were not destined to become a common decoration of church interiors in Ancient Rus'. With their decorativeness, ease of placement in the church, the brightness and durability of their colors, icons painted on boards (pine and linden, covered with alabaster primer - gesso) were the best suited for decorating Russian wooden churches.

It was not without reason that it was noted that in Ancient Rus' the icon was the same classical form of fine art as relief was in Egypt, sculpture was in Hellas, and mosaic was in Byzantium.

Old Russian painting - the painting of Christian Rus' - played a very important and completely different role in the life of society than modern painting, and its character was determined by this role. Rus' was baptized by Byzantium and with it inherited the idea that the task of painting is to “embody the word” and to embody Christian teachings in images. Therefore, the basis of ancient Russian painting is the great Christian “word”. First of all, this is the Holy Scripture, the Bible (“Bible” in Greek - book), books created, according to Christian doctrine, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

It was necessary to embody the word, this grandiose literature, as clearly as possible - after all, this incarnation was supposed to bring a person closer to the truth of this word, to the depth of the creed that he professed. Byzantine art, Orthodox world- all countries included in the sphere of cultural and religious influence of Byzantium - solved this problem by developing a deeply unique set of techniques, creating something unprecedented and never to be repeated artistic system, which made it possible to embody the Christian word in a picturesque image in an unusually complete and clear way.

For many centuries, ancient Russian painting brought to people, embodying them unusually brightly and fully in images, the spiritual truths of Christianity. It was in the deep revelation of these truths that the painting of the Byzantine world, including the painting of Ancient Rus', the frescoes, mosaics, miniatures, icons created by it, acquired extraordinary, unprecedented, unique beauty.

2. Early history of icon painting.

From the first centuries christian church, persecuted and persecuted at this time, many conventional or symbolic images have come down to us, but on the contrary, there are very few clear and direct ones.

This happened because Christians were afraid to expose themselves with these images to the pagans (at the time of the birth of the idea of ​​Christianity, the preachers of this religion and its paraphernalia were severely persecuted by the pagans), and also because many Christians themselves were against direct images of God and angels and saints. Most ancient symbolic images have reached us

Jesus Christ as the good shepherd. Drawings were made on the walls of underground tomb caves, on tombs, vessels, lamps, rings and other objects; they are found in all countries of the Christian world.

The most ancient images of the “good shepherd” were found in the catacombs of Rome. In these underground caves, Christians escaped from the pagans, and there they performed divine services.

The first paintings were found in the underground cemetery of Ermia, with which icon painting probably began. There are images of the “good shepherd” healing the “possessed youth”, Jonah thrown ashore by the Whale and others. In the catacomb of Marcellinus and Peter there is an image of the Magi worshiping the Infant of God held by the Blessed Virgin.

In addition to the image of the Savior under the guise of the “good shepherd,” it was also common to depict him under the guise of Fish. The fish served as an image of Christ, because its Greek name, consisting of five letters, contains the first letters of five Greek words, which in Russian mean: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior. It served as a symbol of Christ, “baptizing with water and giving his flesh in food,” that is, it was a symbol of the sacraments of baptism and communion. One such image is found in the underground Roman tomb of Lucina in Rome and dates back to the end of the first or second century. Often the Savior was depicted in the guise of a lamb. This image was taken from the Old Testament. (St. John the Baptist called Jesus Christ the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world).

3. Persecution of icons.

Since ancient times, Christians have revered holy icons or sacred images of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity - the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, saints, angels and God's people. But at the beginning of the eighth century, Leo III the Isaurian ascended the throne of the Greek Empire. After 10 years of his reign, in 726, he issued a decree that forbade Christians to prostrate themselves on the ground in prayer before icons, and after this many icons were placed high. so that you can't kiss them. Five years later, he issued another decree, in which he commanded to completely stop venerating icons and remove them from public places. He thought that through the abolition of icons, the rapprochement of Jews and Mohammedans with the Church and the Greek Empire would follow. His son Constantine Copronymus, for 34 years (from 741 to 755), persecuted the readers of holy icons with even greater cruelty. His grandson Lev Khazar (775-780) followed the path of his father and grandfather. But they achieved the opposite consequences - not only did they not please either the Jews or the Mohammedans, but they aroused the people of their own empire against themselves. The Roman popes, then independent of the Greek emperors, and the three Eastern patriarchs: Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, already under the rule of the Mohammedans, did not want to have spiritual or ecclesiastical communion with Constantinople, and although the Eastern Christians suffered under the yoke of the Mohammedans, they had the opportunity to pray fearlessly in front of the icons, since the Mohammedan caliphs did not interfere in the affairs of the churches under their control.

After the persecution of icons in the Greek Empire, which lasted for about 60 years, under the great-grandson of the first iconoclast king Constantine VI and his mother Queen Irene, in 787, the Seventh Ecumenical Council was convened in the city of Nicaea, at which the veneration of icons was approved. 25 years after this decree, the Greek Emperor Leo V the Armenian, who ascended the throne, again began a brutal persecution of icons, which continued under his successors; After this new thirty-year persecution, Queen Theodora restored the veneration of holy icons in her kingdom. Moreover, on February 19, 842. A holiday of Orthodoxy was established and is still celebrated in the first week of Lent. From that time on, icons were unanimously revered by Christians in all churches of the East and West for seven centuries, despite the fact that in 1054. The Western Church completely separated from the Eastern, since the Eastern Patriarchs did not want to recognize the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the entire Church.

Having adopted Christianity in 988, the ancient Russian state found itself involved in the powerful flow of Byzantine culture. The process of comprehension and creative processing of the heritage of the Eastern Roman Empire, combined with its own cultural traditions, subsequently gave birth to original and distinctive ancient Russian art. It is closely connected with the historical conditions in which it was formed and reflected the pressing problems and aspirations of medieval man. The form, themes, and content of ancient Russian art were closely related to religion and were under the strict control of the church.

In particular, in painting there were rules and techniques that every artist had to follow - canons. Types of images, compositional schemes, symbolism were approved and illuminated by the church.

The worldview and worldview of medieval people differed from modern ones and had certain features, without knowledge of which it is impossible to fully perceive works of ancient Russian art.

The oblivion of the language of icons occurred partly under the influence of Western art and is directly related to the secularization of society. Iconography is ascetic, harsh and completely illusory. Unlike secular painting, it has always gravitated towards fundamental otherness, the depiction of a different, transformed unreal world.

A sign, a symbol, a parable is a way of expressing truth that is well known to us from the Bible. The language of religious symbolism is capable of conveying complex and deep concepts of spiritual reality. Christ, the apostles and prophets resorted to the language of parables in their sermons. A vine, a lost drachma, a withered fig tree, etc. - images that have become meaningful symbols in Christian culture.

The first Christians did not know icons in our understanding of the word, but the developed imagery of the Old and New Testaments already contained the rudiments of iconology.

When determining the artistic features of an icon, it is necessary to remember that for a person of the Middle Ages, an icon was not a painting, but an object of worship. Its purpose is to remind you of the image of God, to help you enter the psychological state necessary for prayer.

For a believer, there has never been a question whether he likes the icon or not, how or how artistically it is made. Its content was important to him. At that time, many did not know how to read, but the language of symbols was instilled in any believer from childhood. The symbolism of color, gestures, and depicted objects is the language of the icon.

One of the church fathers, Neil of Sinai, wrote that icons are in churches “for the purpose of instructing in the faith those who do not know and cannot read the Holy Scriptures.”

The basis for the emergence of Russian painting were examples of Byzantine art. It was from there that the canons came to Rus'.

The canon did not at all fetter the thoughts of the medieval painter, but it disciplined him and forced him to pay careful attention to details.

Considering the educational role of icon painting, a unified system of signs was very important, helping viewers navigate the plot and internal meaning of the work.

The philosophical meaning of the canon is that the “spiritual world” is immaterial and invisible, and therefore inaccessible to ordinary perception. It can only be depicted using symbols. The icon painter did not strive for external formal realism; on the contrary, he in every possible way emphasizes the difference between the depicted heavenly world with the saints who have joined it and the earthly world in which the viewer lives. To achieve this, proportions are deliberately distorted and perspective is disrupted.

The use of reverse perspective or a uniform, impenetrable background seemed to bring the viewer closer to the depicted image; the space of the icon seemed to move forward along with the saints placed on it.

The face (face) in an icon is the most important thing. In the practice of icon painting, the background, landscape, architecture, clothes were first painted; they could also be painted by a second-hand master - an assistant, and only then the main master began painting the face. Compliance with this order of work was important, because the icon, like the entire universe, is hierarchical. The proportions of the face were deliberately distorted. It was believed that the eyes are the mirror of the soul, which is why the eyes on the icons are so large and soulful. Let us recall the expressive eyes of pre-Mongol icons (for example, “The Savior Not Made by Hands” Novgorod, 12th century). The mouth, on the contrary, symbolized sensuality, so the lips were drawn disproportionately small. Starting from Rublev's time at the beginning of the 15th century. the eyes no longer wrote so exaggeratedly large, nevertheless they are always given great attention. On Rublev’s icon “The Savior of Zvenigorod,” what is first striking is the deep and soulful gaze of the Savior. Theophanes the Greek depicted some saints with their eyes closed or with empty eye sockets - in this way the artist tried to convey the idea that their gaze was directed not at the outside world, but inward, at the contemplation of divine truth and inner prayer.

The figures of the depicted biblical characters were painted less densely, in few layers, deliberately elongated, which created the visual effect of their lightness, overcoming the physicality and volume of their bodies. They seem to float in space above the ground, which is an expression of their spirituality, their transformed state.

The actual image of a person occupies the main space of the icon. Everything else - chambers, mountains, trees - play a secondary role, their iconic nature is brought to the maximum conventionality. However, they also carry a certain semantic load (the mountain symbolizes man’s path to God, the oak tree is a symbol of eternal life, the cup and vine are symbols of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the dove is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, etc.). The older the icon, the fewer secondary elements it contains.

For the perception of icon painting by a modern viewer, it is important to remember that an icon is very complex work in its internal organization, artistic language, no less complex than, for example, a Renaissance painting. However, the icon painter thought in completely different categories and followed a different aesthetic.

Since the spread of Christianity in the West and the East took place under different historical conditions, church art also developed in different ways. IN Western Europe Christianity was preached among the barbarians who captured the Western Roman Empire. For them, the icon had to show and tell as truthfully as possible gospel story, hence the realism, the gradual transformation of the icon into a painting with a religious plot. The Eastern Roman Empire - Byzantium, on the contrary, preserved traditions ancient culture and developed them, here the icon remained as a symbolic text and served not to excite the imagination, but for internal comprehension and contemplation. The sign and symbol are the alphabet of the medieval spectator.

It is curious that in the 19th century. icons were considered to be primitive art due to the fact that realism had a strong influence on the aesthetic perception of painting. Old Russian icon painters were accused of ignorance of anatomy and techniques for constructing direct perspective. Subsequently, at the beginning of the 20th century, many avant-garde artists, K. Petrov-Vodkin, V. Kadinsky and others, carefully studied and themselves tried to adopt the expressive means of the ancient masters. Henri Matisse recognized the significant influence of the Russian icon on his work.

Through modernism and the avant-garde, not only Russia, but also the West are returning to the symbolic nature of art, using local colors, silhouettes and schematics as means of expression.

The iconographic canon is a separate topic that requires special study. Here are some basic rules:

• Proportions. The width of ancient icons correlates with the height 3:4 or 4:5, regardless of the size of the icon board.
• Dimensions of figures. The height of the face is equal to 0.1 of the height of his body (according to Byzantine rules, a person’s height is equal to 9 head measures). The distance between the pupils was equal to the size of the nose.
• Lines. There should be no torn lines on the icon; they are either closed, or emanate from one point, or connect to another line. The lines of the face are thin at the beginning and end, and thickened in the middle. The lines of architecture are of equal thickness everywhere.
• The use of reverse perspective - consisting only of close and medium plans, the long shot was limited to an opaque background - gold, red, green or blue. As they move away from the viewer, objects do not decrease, but increase.

Special rules stipulated the application of paints, the use of certain colors, etc.

All painters resorted to the symbolism of colors, each color carrying its own meaning.

• Gold is a color that symbolizes the radiance of Divine glory in which the saints abide. The golden background of the icon, the halos of the saints, the golden radiance around the figure of Christ, the golden clothes of the Savior and the Mother of God - all this serves as an expression of holiness and eternal values ​​belonging to the world.
• Yellow, or ocher, is the color closest in the spectrum to gold, often simply a substitute for it, and is also the color of the highest power of angels.
  
• White is a color symbolizing purity and innocence, involvement in the divine world. The clothes of Christ are painted white, for example in the composition “Transfiguration”, as well as the clothes of the righteous on icons depicting the Last Judgment.
• Black is a color that in some cases symbolizes hell, the maximum distance from God, in others it is a sign of sadness and humility.
• Blue, the color of the Mother of God, also meant purity and righteousness.
• Blue is the color of greatness, symbolizing the divine, heavenly, the incomprehensibility of mystery and the depth of revelation.
• Red is the royal color, a symbol of power and might (the cloak of Michael the Archangel - the leader of the heavenly army and St. George - the conqueror of the serpent); in other cases it could be a symbol of atoning blood, martyrdom.
• Green - symbolized eternal life, eternal bloom, is also the color of the Holy Spirit.

The medieval painter did not know the palette, did not mix colors during work, the colors were drawn up in advance and were mandatory. The paint recipes of different schools did not coincide, but, as a rule, they were ground on egg yolk and were very durable and bright.

Gestures also had a symbolic meaning. A gesture in an icon conveys a certain spiritual impulse and carries certain spiritual information:

• hand pressed to the chest - heartfelt empathy;
• a hand raised up is a call to repentance;
• a hand extended forward with an open palm is a sign of obedience and submission;
• two hands raised up - a prayer for peace;
• hands raised forward - a prayer for help, a gesture of request;
• hands pressed to the cheeks - a sign of sadness, grief.

The objects in the hands of the depicted saint were also of great importance, as signs of his service. Thus, the Apostle Paul was usually depicted with a book in his hands - this is the Gospel, less often with a sword, symbolizing the Word of God. Peter usually has keys in his hands - these are the keys to the kingdom of God. Martyrs are depicted holding a cross in their hands or a palm branch - symbols of belonging to the Kingdom of Heaven; prophets usually hold scrolls of their prophecies in their hands.

And this is far from exhaustive material on the symbolism of color and gestures. It is no coincidence that icons were called “theology in colors.”

“In the lines and colors of the icon we have beauty that is primarily semantic,” wrote the philosopher E. Trubetskoy in 1916. In his now famous work “Speculation in Colors,” he deeply developed this idea, arguing that ancient Russian masters reflected on the meaning of life and provided answers to the eternal questions of existence “not in words, but in colors and images.”

The discovery of ancient Russian painting at the beginning of the 20th century and the recognition of its artistic significance revived the understanding of its true spiritual meaning. Thus, the philosopher and priest Sergei Bulgakov, a contemporary of Trubetskoy, in his autobiography compares European and Russian painting. When Bulgakov first saw Raphael's Sistine Madonna, the painting made a strong impression on him. However, later, when he became familiar with ancient Russian art, he suddenly saw the main thing that the “Sistine Madonna” lacks: although she depicts the Mother of God, one cannot pray in front of her. If a secular artist, when painting a picture, strived for maximum artistic expression, he is, first of all, an author, then the monk-icon painter did not think about aesthetics - he thought about the prototype, he believed that God was guiding his hand.

The main guide for creating icons for painters was ancient originals brought from Byzantium. For many centuries, canonical painting fit into strictly defined frameworks, allowing only the repetition of iconographic originals.

The images were strictly regulated in space, poses, and a certain plot outline was observed. To help painters, there were special vaults with drawings of images of Orthodox saints and their verbal descriptions. At the end of the 17th century. Even a consolidated edition of the originals appeared, collecting most of the stories accumulated over the centuries, as well as reference materials, lists of terms and objects.

The main characters of the icons are the Mother of God, Christ, John the Baptist, apostles, forefathers, prophets, holy companions and great martyrs. The images could be:

• main ones (face only),
• shoulder-length (up to the shoulders),
• waist-length (to the waist),
• in full height.

Saints were often painted surrounded by separate small compositions on the themes of their lives - the so-called hagiographical marks. Such icons told about the Christian feat of the character.

A separate group consisted of icons dedicated to evangelical events, which formed the basis of the main church holidays, as well as icons painted on the basis of Old Testament stories.

Let's look at the basic iconography of the Mother of God and Christ - the most important and revered images in Christianity.

Images of the Mother of God.

Hodegetria (Guidebook) This is a half-length image of the Mother of God with the Child Christ in her arms. The right hand of Christ is in a blessing gesture, in his left he has a scroll - a sign of the Holy Teaching. The Mother of God holds her son with one hand and points to him with the other.

Eleusa (Tenderness) This is a half-length image of the Mother of God with a baby in her arms, bowed to each other. The Mother of God hugs her son, he presses his cheek to hers.

Oranta (Praying) This is a full-length image of the Mother of God with her hands raised to the sky. When a round medallion with the infant Christ is depicted on Oranta’s chest, this type in iconography is called the Great Panagia (All-Holy).

Sign or Incarnation This is a half-length image of the Mother of God with her hands raised in prayer. As in the Great Panagia, on the chest of the Mother of God there is a disk with the image of Christ, symbolizing the incarnation of the God-man.

In total, there were about 200 iconographic types of images of the Mother of God, the names of which are usually associated with the name of the area where they were especially revered or where they first appeared: Vladimir, Kazan, Smolensk, Iverskaya, etc. The love and veneration of the Mother of God among the people inextricably merged with her icons, some of them are recognized as miraculous and there are holidays in honor of them.

The most famous icon of the Mother of God is the Vladimir icon (belongs to the “Tenderness” type); scientists date it to the 12th century; according to chronicle evidence, it was brought from Constantinople. Subsequently, the Mother of God of Vladimir was rewritten several times; there were many copies of her from the 14th-15th centuries. For example, the famous repetition of “Our Lady of Vladimir” was created at the beginning of the 15th century. for the Assumption Cathedral in the city of Vladimir, to replace the ancient original transported to Moscow.

The famous Mother of God of the Don, supposedly painted by Theophanes the Greek himself and which became the main shrine of the church founded in the 16th century, also belongs to the “Tenderness” type. Moscow Donskoy Monastery.

One of the best icons of the “Hodegetria” type is considered to be “Our Lady of Smolensk,” created in 1482 by the great artist Dionysius. It is called Smolenskaya because, according to chronicle legend, the oldest of the Hodegetria copies brought to Rus' was kept in Smolensk, and it was from it that all subsequent icons were made.

The main and central image of ancient Russian painting is the image of Jesus Christ, the Savior, as he was called in Rus'.

Image of Christ.

Pantocrator (Almighty) This is a half-length or full-length image of Christ. His right hand is raised in a blessing gesture; in his left he holds the Gospel - a sign of the teaching he brought into the world.

Savior on the throne this is an image of Christ in the robes of a Byzantine emperor seated on a throne (throne). With his right hand raised in front of his chest, he blesses, and with his left he touches the opened Gospel.

In addition to the usual composition of “The Savior on the Throne,” there were also images in ancient Russian art where the figure of Christ seated on the throne was surrounded by various symbolic signs indicating the fullness of his power and the judgment he carried out on the world. These images formed a separate set and were called Savior is in power.

Spas Bishop the Great an image of Christ in a bishop's robe, revealing him in the image of a New Testament high priest.

Savior Not Made by Hands this is one of the oldest images of Christ, where only the face of the Savior is depicted, imprinted on fabric.

Savior Not Made by Hands in a Crown of Thorns one of the varieties of this image, although it is rare; this type of image appears in Russian icon painting only in the 17th century.

Relatively rare is the image of Christ in infancy, calledEmmanuel ("God is with us").Even less common is the image of the infant Christ with a star-shaped halo, personifying Christ before the incarnation (i.e., before birth), or Christ in the form of an archangel with wings. Such icons are calledAngel of the Great Council .

The most numerous were the icons that reproduced the Image Not Made by Hands. The oldest surviving one is the Novgorod “Savior Not Made by Hands,” created in the 12th century. and owned today by the State Tretyakov Gallery. No less famous is the “Savior Not Made by Hands” from the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, dating back to the 15th century.

There were also numerous images of the “Savior Almighty”. The famous “Zvenigorod Spas” by Andrei Rublev from this series is one of greatest works ancient Russian painting, one of the best creations of the author.

In Rus', icon painting was considered an important, state matter. Chronicles, along with events of national significance, noted the construction of new churches and the creation of icons.

There was ancient tradition- only monks are allowed to paint icons, and those who have not stained themselves with sinful deeds. The Stoglavy Council of 1551, among other issues, paid attention to icon painting. The Council decided that the icon painter must be a person of righteous, pure life, and his craft is service to God and the church. Thus, the greatest icon painters of ancient Rus', Andrei Rublev and Daniil Cherny, according to the collection “Tales of the Holy Elders,” were righteous and “exceeded everyone in virtues,” for which they were awarded their unusual talents.

For many centuries, icons in Rus' were surrounded by an aura of enormous moral authority. Work on the icon began with fervent prayer, not only of the performing monk, but of the entire monastery. It was considered a great sin to throw away or burn icons. If the image darkened or faded (this happened often: in the old days it was customary to cover the image on top with drying oil, due to which they darkened over time), it was “recorded” with a new painting. There was also a custom of floating damaged and unusable icons down the river face down after a preliminary prayer service. Some ancient icons were especially revered and were considered miraculous, i.e. capable of performing miracles. The history of such miraculous icons included many legends about miraculous salvations and healings brought to believers.

Thus, the main shrine of Novgorod - the icon of Our Lady of the Sign from the Church of Hagia Sophia supposedly saved the city from a siege. Chronicles tell how in 1169 the Novgorod Saint John, having learned that the Suzdal people were going to war against Novgorod, began to pray earnestly, and suddenly heard a voice: he was ordered, when the siege began, to go out to the Suzdal people with the icon of the Mother of God of the Sign. They did so, after which the Suzdal people were defeated.

The famous icon of Our Lady of Vladimir is credited with saving Moscow from Tamerlane in 1395, when he unexpectedly interrupted his campaign against the city and returned to the steppe. Muscovites explained this event by the intercession of the Mother of God, who allegedly appeared to Tamerlane in a dream and ordered him not to touch the city. The icon of “Our Lady of the Don”, according to legend, was with Dmitry Donskoy on the Kulikovo field in 1380 and helped to win the victory over the Tatars.

According to legend, the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God helped Minin and Pozharsky liberate Moscow from the Poles in 1612.

Belief in the miraculous power of icons is still strong today; the tradition of their veneration is preserved by the modern church. The icon as a spiritual phenomenon is increasingly attracting attention, not only in the Orthodox, but also in the Catholic world. IN Lately An increasing number of Christians appreciate the icon as a common Christian spiritual heritage. Today, it is the ancient icon that is perceived as the revelation necessary for modern man.

Icon painting is of no less interest to historians and art critics. Today, no one has to prove the aesthetic value of an icon, however, in order to understand its true spiritual value, comprehend the artistic language of the author, and unravel its deep meaning, it is necessary to continue the study of this most interesting layer of ancient Russian art.

Ph.D. ist. Sciences, Art. teacher
Department of Social Sciences and
regional studies of Russia
State Institute
Russian language named after. A.S. Pushkin
Kuprina I.V.

“Beyond discoveries in the field of materiality, we can discover the Creator for ourselves, just as we can recognize the author of a poem, a painting, an icon or a piece of music. We don’t confuse him with anyone, but listen and say: “Oh, only so-and-so could have written this.” This is also true in relation to God” - the words of Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh about his view of the world in his .

And there is awe in it, and the power of inspiration!
Before the face is a heart in sweet fire...
Icon - a creation of human hands -
Capturing the spirit on canvas

L. Golubitskaya-Bass

Any icon is inevitably an incomplete image of Christ, the Mother of God, this or that saint: only the person himself is the true image of himself. But every icon painter communed with God, learned something about God through communion, in communion, and captured his experience on canvas or wood. Each icon conveys something absolutely authentic, but through the perception of a specific icon painter.

In a sense, this is how we perceive Christ in His Incarnation. We paint icons that differ greatly from each other, and none of them reproduce Christ Himself absolutely accurately, but depict Him as I see Him, as I know Him. The remarkable thing is that we have no photographic image of Christ, which would give us a momentary and extremely limited idea of ​​His appearance and would make Him alien to anyone who knows Him differently.

Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh

You can learn more about the bishop’s spiritual testament by reading in more detail the series of conversations, where in the last nine months of parish meetings the Metropolitan opens up completely to the listener, as if wanting to leave nothing unsaid before his departure.

Today we will talk about those who captured living images and memory on the canvas of icons - about icon painters. Who are they? What works do we know? Where can you see their creations with your own eyes?

In Ancient Rus' it was believed that being an icon painter was an entire ascetic, moral and contemplative path.

“It was Russia that was given the opportunity to reveal that perfection of the artistic language of the icon, which most powerfully revealed the depth of the content of the liturgical image, its spirituality. We can say that if Byzantium gave the world primarily theology in the word, then theology in the image was given by Russia.”

Leonid Uspensky, theologian, icon painter

1. Theophanes the Greek (about 1340 - about 1410)

The name of Theophanes the Greek is in the first rank of ancient Russian icon painters; his outstanding talent was already recognized by his contemporaries, calling him “a very cunning philosopher,” that is, very skillful. He made a huge impression not only with his works, but also as a bright personality.

The exact years of the artist’s life are unknown; he was presumably born in Byzantium in 1340 and for many years he painted the temples of Constantinople, Chalcedon, Galata, Kafa, and Smyrna. But worldwide fame Feofan was brought icons, frescoes and paintings made specifically in Rus', where he arrived as an already established master of his craft at the age of 35 - 40 years.

Before coming to Rus', the Greek worked on big amount cathedrals (about 40).

The first and only completely preserved work of his, whose authorship has been confirmed, is the painting of the temple Transfiguration of the Savior on Ilyin street in Veliky Novgorod, where Feofan the Greek stayed for about 10 years.

It is mentioned in the Third Novgorod Chronicle: “In the summer of 6886 (1378 A.D.) the Church of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ was signed in the name of the magnificent Transfiguration…. And it was signed by the Greek master Feofan.” The remaining works of the icon painter are determined only by the signs of his creativity.

Venerable Macarius the Great, fresco from the Church of the Transfiguration on Ilyin Street,
Veliky Novgorod

The famous icon painter's frescoes are easily recognizable by the pastel colors and white highlights on top of the dark red-brown tone, which are used in the depiction of the hair of the saints and the draperies of their clothes, and his style is also characterized by rather sharp lines. Feofan's bright creative individuality is manifested in a free, bold, extremely generalized, at times almost sketchy style of writing. The images created by Feofan are distinguished by inner strength and enormous spiritual energy.

He left a significant contribution to Novgorod art, in particular to masters who professed a similar worldview and partly adopted the master’s style.

The most grandiose image in the temple is the chest-to-chest image of the Savior Almighty in the dome.

Theophanes the Greek strives to convey the saint at the moment of religious feat or ecstasy. His works are characterized by expression and inner strength.

The subsequent events of Feofan's life are poorly known, according to some information, in particular from a letter Epiphany of the Wise Abbot of the Athanasiev Monastery Kirill Tverskoy, the icon painter worked in Nizhny Novgorod(the paintings have not survived), some researchers are inclined to believe that he also worked in Kolomna and Serpukhov. Arriving in Moscow around 1390, he had many orders and was known as a skilled miniaturist. Researcher B.V. Mikhailovsky wrote about him:

“Theophan’s works amaze with their virtuoso skill, the boldness of a confident brush, exceptional expressiveness, and the brilliant freedom of individual creativity.”

Theophan the Greek led the painting of a number of Moscow churches - this is the new stone Church of the Nativity of the Virgin in 1395, together with Semyon Cherny and his disciples, the Church of St. Archangel Michael in 1399, the painting of which burned out during the invasion of Tokhtamysh, and the Church of the Annunciation together with Elder Prokhor from Gorodets And Andrey Rublev in 1405.

In the work of Theophanes the Greek, the two poles of Byzantine spiritual life and its reflection in culture were most fully expressed and found their ideal embodiment - the classical principle (the glorification of earthly beauty as a Divine creation, as a reflection of the highest perfection) and the aspiration to spiritual asceticism, rejecting the external, spectacular , beautiful.

In the icon painter's frescoes, sharp gaps, as if recording the moment of a mystical vision, piercing flashes of light, falling with sharp blows on faces, hands, clothes, symbolize the divine light piercing matter, incinerating its natural forms and reviving it to a new, spiritualized life.

The limited range of colors (black, reddish-brown with many shades, white, etc.) is like an image of a monastic, ascetic renunciation of the diversity and multicolor of the world.

Figures of archangels in the Church of the Transfiguration on Ilyin Street,
Veliky Novgorod

The Byzantine master found a second home in Rus'. His passionate, inspired art was in tune with the worldview of the Russian people; it had a fruitful influence on the contemporaries of Theophanes the Greek and subsequent generations of Russian artists.

Daniil Cherny (about 1350 - about 1428)

Daniil Cherny, whose biography has not been preserved in complete reliable sources, had the strongest talents, namely the gift psychological characteristics and colossal pictorial skill. All his works are harmonious to the smallest detail, holistic and expressively colorful. The perfection of drawing and liveliness of movement distinguish his works from among the most talented masters.

Teacher and mentor of Andrei Rublev. He left behind a rich legacy of frescoes, mosaics, icons, the most famous of which are “Abraham’s Bosom” and “John the Baptist” (Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir), as well as “Our Lady” and “Apostle Paul” (Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Sergiev Posad, Moscow region).

Fresco "Abraham's Bosom". Assumption Cathedral, Vladimir

By the way, the fact that Daniil always worked in collaboration with Andrei Rublev creates the problem of separating the work of the two artists.

Where did this nickname come from - Black?

It is mentioned in the text “Tales of the Holy Icon Painters,” written at the end of the 17th - early XVI II century. These chronicles are evidence and clear proof that Daniel painted the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir together with Andrei Rublev. In the sources, the name of Daniil is called first before the name of Rublev, which once again confirms the seniority and experience of the first. Not only does “The Tale of the Holy Icon Painters” indicate this, Joseph Volotsky also calls Daniel the teacher of the famous Rublev.

By coincidence, or, most likely, due to an epidemic, Daniel died at the same time as his comrade-in-arms in 1427 from a certain “pestilence” (fever). Both famous authors are buried in the Spaso-Andronikov Monastery in Moscow.

Andrei Rublev (about 1360 - about 1428)

World-famous Russian icon painter, monk-artist, canonized. For hundreds of years it has been a symbol of the true greatness of Russian icon painting. He was canonized in the year of the millennium of the Baptism of Rus'.

The year of birth of the Monk Andrei Rublev is unknown, as is his origin; historical information about him is scanty. The presence of his nickname-surname (Rublev) makes it possible to assume that he came from educated circles of society, since in that era only representatives of the upper strata had surnames.

The earliest known work by Rublev is considered to be the painting of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin in 1405, jointly with Theophanes the Greek and Prokhor from Gorodets.

In his works, one can trace the special Moscow style that had already developed by that time. icon painting style. The Monk Andrei himself lived for many years, and after his death he was buried in the capital's Andronikovsky Monastery on the banks of the Yauza, where a museum named after him now operates.

Living in a highly spiritual atmosphere, Monk Andrei learned from historical examples of holiness and examples of ascetic life that he found in his environment. He deeply delved into the teachings of the Church and the lives of the saints whom he portrayed, followed them, which allowed his talent to achieve artistic and spiritual perfection.

In the life of the monk Sergius of Radonezh said:

“Andrey is an excellent icon painter and surpasses everything in green wisdom, having honest gray hair.”

Fresco "The Savior Not Made by Hands", Spassky Cathedral of the Andronikov Monastery,
State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow

Rublevsky Spas- this is the embodiment of typically Russian good looks. Not a single element of Christ’s face is overly emphasized - everything is proportional and consistent: he is Russian, his eyes are not exaggerated, his nose is straight and thin, his mouth is small, the oval of his face, although elongated, is not narrow, there is no asceticism at all, his head has a thick mass hair rises with calm dignity on a strong, slender neck.

The most significant thing about this new look is the look. It is directed directly at the viewer and expresses lively and active attention to him; he feels a desire to delve into a person’s soul and understand him. The eyebrows are freely raised, which is why there is no expression of either tension or sorrow, the gaze is clear, open, and benevolent.

Rublev's unsurpassed masterpiece is traditionally considered icon of the Holy Trinity, written in the first quarter of the 15th century. The plot is based on a biblical story about the appearance of deity to righteous Abraham in the form of three beautiful young angels. Abraham and his wife Sarah treated the strangers under the shade of the Mamre oak, and Abraham was given to understand that the deity in three persons was embodied in the angels.

They are depicted seated around a throne, in the center of which is a Eucharistic cup with the head of a sacrificial calf, symbolizing the New Testament lamb, that is, Christ. The meaning of this image is sacrificial love. The left angel, signifying God the Father, blesses the cup with his right hand. The middle angel (Son), depicted in the gospel clothes of Jesus Christ, with his right hand lowered onto the throne with a symbolic sign, expresses submission to the will of God the Father and readiness to sacrifice himself in the name of love for people.

The gesture of the right angel (the Holy Spirit) completes the symbolic conversation between the Father and the Son, affirming the high meaning of sacrificial love, and comforts the doomed to sacrifice. Thus, the image of the Old Testament Trinity (that is, with details of the plot from the Old Testament) turns into the image of the Eucharist (the Good Sacrifice), symbolically reproducing the meaning of the Gospel Last Supper and the sacrament established at it (communion with bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ). Researchers emphasize the symbolic cosmological significance of the compositional circle, into which the image fits laconically and naturally.

There are no unnecessary details on this icon and each element carries special theological symbolism. To create such a masterpiece, it was not enough to be a brilliant artist. The Trinity, like all of Rublev’s work, became the pinnacle of Russian icon painting, but, in addition, it is evidence of the spiritual height that St. Andrew reached with his monastic feat.

Dionysius (about 1440 - 1502)

Leading Moscow icon painter and isographer of the late 15th - early 16th centuries. Considered a continuator of traditions Andrey Rublev and his most talented student.

The earliest known work of Dionysius is the miraculously preserved painting of the Church of the Nativity of the Mother of God in the Pafnutievo-Borovsky Monastery near Kaluga (15th century).

The work of Dionysius in northern Russia deserves special mention: around 1481 he painted icons for the Spaso-Kamenny and Pavlovo-Obnorsky monasteries near Vologda, and in 1502, together with his sons Vladimir and Theodosius, he painted frescoes for the Ferapontov Monastery on Beloozero.

Icon of St. Demetrius of Prilutsky, Ferapontov Monastery,
Kirillo-Belozersky historical-architectural and Art Museum nature reserve, Arkhangelsk region.

One of the best icons of Dionysius is Icon of the Apocalypse from the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The creation of the icon was associated with the end of the world expected in 1492. The full name of the icon: “Apocalypse or revelation of John the Theologian, a vision of the end of the world and the Last Judgment.”

Multi-tiered compositions are depicted: crowds of believers in beautiful clothes, captured by the united power of prayer, bowed before the lamb. Majestic pictures of the Apocalypse unfold around the worshipers: behind the walls of white-stone cities, translucent figures of angels contrast with the black figures of demons. Despite the complexity, multi-figured, crowded and multi-tiered composition, the icon of Dionysius “Apocalypse” is elegant, light and very beautiful in color scheme, like traditional icon painting of the Moscow school from the time of Andrei Rublev.

Simon Ushakov (1626 - 1686)

A favorite of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the favorite and only icon painter of the top officials of the state, who reflected in his works the most important historical and cultural processes of the 17th century.

Simon Ushakov, in a certain sense, marked with his creativity the beginning of the process of “secularization” of church art. Fulfilling orders from the Tsar and Patriarch, the Tsar’s children, boyars and other important persons, Ushakov painted more than 50 icons, marking the beginning of a new, “Ushakov” period of Russian icon painting.

Quite a lot of icons painted by Ushakov have reached us, but most of them were distorted by later records and restorations. He was a highly developed man for his time, first of all a talented artist who had an excellent command of all the means of technology of that era.

The first signed and dated works of Ushakov date back to the 50s of the 17th century, and the earliest of them is the icon “Our Lady of Vladimir” from 1652. He does not just choose the famous ancient miraculous image, he reproduces it “by measure and likeness.”

Simon Ushakov. Our Lady of Vladimir,
on the reverse is the Calvary Cross. 1652

In contrast to the rule adopted at that time “to paint icons according to ancient models,” Ushakov was not indifferent to Western art, the trend of which had already spread greatly in Rus' in the 17th century. Remaining on the basis of the original Russian-Byzantine icon painting, he wrote both according to the ancient “patterns” and in the new so-called “Fryazhsky” style, invented new compositions, looked closely at Western models and nature, and tried to impart character and movement to the figures.

Icon "The Last Supper" (1685) Assumption Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra,
Moscow region

In his work, he strove for a more realistic presentation of the human face and figure. At the same time, in his compositions he still adhered to the old patterns and rules, which is why the duality in his art is visible. He painted the image many times Savior Not Made by Hands, trying to give the face living human features: an expression of suffering, sadness; convey the warmth of the cheeks and the softness of the hair. However, it does not go beyond the rules of icon painting.

Savior Not Made by Hands,1678 g

Another important historical feature of Ushakov’s work is the fact that, unlike the icon painters of the past, Ushakov signs his icons.

At first glance, an insignificant detail essentially signifies a serious change in the public consciousness of that time: if previously it was believed that the Lord himself guides the icon painter’s hand (at least for this reason the master does not have the moral right to sign his work), now the situation is changing to the completely opposite and even religious art acquires secular features.

Ushakov was a teacher for many artists of the 17th century. and stood at the head of the artistic life of Moscow. A significant part of icon painters followed in his footsteps, gradually freeing painting from old techniques.

Feodor Zubov (about 1647 - 1689)

Zubov Fedor Evtikhievich is a prominent, gifted icon painter who lived in the 17th century. He wrote his works in the Baroque style.

Icon "Elijah the Prophet in the Desert", 1672

Like Simon Ushakov, he worked at the royal court as a flag bearer in the Armory Chamber and was one of the five “compensated icon painters.” Having worked in the capital for more than 40 years, Fyodor Zubov painted a huge number of icons, among which were images of the Savior Not Made by Hands, John the Baptist, Andrew the First-Called, the Prophet Elijah, St. Nicholas and many other saints. He worked on wall paintings of the Kremlin cathedrals.

Interesting fact: a “paid icon painter” of the royal court, that is, a master who receives a monthly salary and through this - a certain confidence in tomorrow, Fyodor Zubov began to follow the principle “if there was no happiness, but misfortune would help.” The fact is that in the early 1660s, Zubov’s family was left with virtually no means of subsistence, and the icon painter was forced to write a petition to the tsar.

The main features of the creative execution of his works are the calligraphic style characteristic of Ustyug icon painters, with a predominance of the finest decorative “patterns”. Zubov tried to unite best achievements icon painting of the 17th century with the achievements of more ancient traditions.

Researchers of Russian icon painting agree that the main merit of Fyodor Zubov was the desire to restore spiritual significance and purity to the depicted faces of saints. In other words, Zubov tried to combine the best achievements of 17th-century icon painting with the achievements of more ancient traditions.

3ubov introduces several plots into one work, among which one is the main one, and the rest are secondary, but interpreted carefully, with all the fullness of artistic and substantive persuasiveness. This is how one of the 19th century researchers poetically described Zubov’s early work - an icon "John the Baptist in the Desert"(around 1650, Tretyakov Gallery):

“... The sacred Jordan River winds there, trees grow there, the leaves of which are nibbled by deer; lions drink from the river there, a holy desert dweller draws water from the same river, and a deer lies peacefully next to him. Golden pines outline their silhouettes against the dark background of the forest, and the real sky smokes above their tops.”

The example of this work by Zubov shows how the future picturesque landscape was born in the depths of icon painting.

Iconography. Russian icon.

Preparing the board for the icon.

The basis of any icon, as a rule, is a wooden board. In Russia, linden, maple, spruce, and pine were most often used for these purposes. The choice of wood type in different regions of the country was dictated by local conditions. Thus, in the north (Pskov, Yaroslavl) they used pine boards, in Siberia they used pine and larch boards, and Moscow icon painters used linden or imported cypress boards. Of course, linden boards were preferable. Linden is a soft, easy-to-work wood. It does not have a pronounced structure, which reduces the risk of cracking of the board prepared for processing. The base of the icons was made of dry, seasoned wood. The individual parts of the board were glued together with wood glue. Knots found in the board were usually cut out, since the gesso cracked in these places when drying. Inserts were glued in place of the cut knots.
Until the second half of the 17th century, a small depression was chosen on the front of the board, which was called an “ark” or “trough,” and the ledge formed by the ark was called “husk.” Already from the second half of the 17th century, boards, as a rule, were made without an ark, with a flat surface, but at the same time the fields framing the image began to be painted over with some color. In the 17th century, the icon also lost its colored fields. They began to be inserted into metal frames, and in iconostases they were framed with a frame in the Baroque style.
To prepare the board for the ground ("gesso"), craftsmen used animal glue, gelatin or fish glue. The best fish glue was obtained from the bladders of cartilaginous fish: beluga, sturgeon and sterlet. Good fish glue has great astringent strength and elasticity.
A layer of fabric (pavolok) was glued onto a carefully processed and glued board. For these purposes, fabric made from flax and hemp fiber, as well as a durable type of gauze, was used. To prepare the fabric for gluing, it was first soaked in cold water, then boiled in boiling water. Pavolok, pre-impregnated with glue, was applied to the glued surface of the board. Then, after thoroughly drying the pavolok, they began to apply gesso.

SOILS, THEIR COMPOSITION AND PROPERTIES

It is known that even 4 thousand years BC. e. The ancient Egyptians, trying to provide the dead pharaohs and their entourage with life in the afterlife, embalmed the body and placed it in a wooden sarcophagus covered with cloth. The sarcophagus was primed with a composition similar to gesso and the face of the deceased was painted with tempera paints. Obviously, the skill and tradition of applying gesso to wood came from there.
Gesso was prepared from well-sifted chalk mixed with fish glue. Although gypsum, alabaster, and whitewash were sometimes used to make gesso, chalk is preferable in this case, since it produces a very high-quality soil, characterized by whiteness and strength.
Nowadays, restoration workshops use soil, the preparation of which begins with heating fish glue to a temperature of 60°C and adding small portions of finely ground dry chalk to it. The composition is thoroughly mixed with a metal spatula. A small amount of polymerized linseed oil or oil-resin varnish is added to the resulting composition (a few drops per 100 ml of mass).
To apply soil to the board, a wooden or bone spatula was used - a “spatula”, as well as bristle brushes. The gesso was applied to the board in a thin layer. Each layer was thoroughly dried. Sometimes craftsmen applied up to 10 layers.
The layers of primer were applied very thinly; the thinner, the lower the risk of cracking. After final drying, the soil was leveled with various blades and smoothed with pumice, sawn into flat pieces. The surface of the gesso was polished with stalks of horsetail, which contains a large amount of silicon, allowing it to be used as a polishing material.
Towards the end of the 17th and early 18th centuries, soil began to be laid directly on the board. This was due to the fact that tempera began to be replaced oil paints and oil and drying oil were added to the soil. Sometimes gesso was prepared with egg yolk, glue and a lot of butter. This is how the base prepared for painting was obtained.

THE DIFFERENCE OF AN ORTHODOX FROM A CATHOLIC ICON

Experts in art history and religion find the difference between Orthodox icons and Catholic ones in the same difference that exists between iconography and painting. The icon painting traditions of Catholics and Orthodox Christians have a huge gap; they developed independently over several centuries, so it is not difficult to distinguish icons from each other.
The school of Orthodox icon painting is based on the Byzantine tradition, which professes strict monumentality, smoothness and slowness of movements. Her icons are full of triumph and heavenly joy; they serve for prayer. This is an image behind which there is always a Prototype - God.
Catholic icons are not an image, but a picture, an illustration on a religious, biblical theme. It is very picturesque and often has an instructive and edifying character. The Orthodox icon does not teach or tell about anything, only pointing to another world; from it the believer himself draws a meaning that is understandable and visible only to him. Therefore, such an icon always requires decoding. Its writing is subject to a strict canon that does not allow deviations in color or method of depicting individuals.
Another difference is the perspective: on a Catholic icon it is straight, but on an Orthodox icon it is reversed.

LIGHTING ICONS

Nowadays, according to tradition, icons, after being painted or made, are consecrated in the temple. The priest reads special prayers and sprinkles the image with holy water. An icon is holy because it depicts the Lord, the Mother of God or saints.
For many centuries, there was no special rite for the consecration of icons. The icon was created in the Church, was inseparable from the Church and was recognized as holy by its compliance with the iconographic canon, that is, a set of rules according to which the authenticity of a sacred image is determined. Since ancient times, an icon has been recognized as a holy image due to the inscription on the icon of the name of the person depicted.
The modern rite of consecration of icons arose in the era of impoverishment of Orthodox icon painting, during borrowings from secular and Western painting, which were included in the Orthodox icon. At this time, to confirm the holiness of what was depicted, icons began to be consecrated. Actually, this rank can be understood as a testimony from the Church about the authenticity of the icon, that the one depicted is the one who is inscribed.
Nowadays, embroidered icons are often brought to be blessed, but those who decide to take this seriously need to talk to the priest and take a blessing for the upcoming lesson, and inquire about the icon painting canons. Creating icons is serious work that requires spiritual preparation. You can't treat it as an exciting hobby.
For a believer in medieval Rus', there was never a question whether he liked an icon or not, how or how artistically it was made. Its content was important to him. At that time, many did not know how to read, but the language of symbols was instilled in any believer from childhood.

Symbolism of color, gestures, depicted objects- this is the language of the icon, without knowing which it is difficult to assess the meaning of icons.
Clothing on icons is not a means to cover bodily nudity, clothing is a symbol. She is a fabric from the deeds of a saint. Interesting information about the nature of the clothes and vestments in which the characters of the icons dress. Each image has clothes that are characteristic and unique to it. One of the important details is folds. The nature of the arrangement of folds on the clothes of the saints indicates the time of painting of the icon. In the 8th – 14th centuries, folds were drawn frequently and small. They talk about strong spiritual experiences and a lack of spiritual peace. In XV – 16th centuries folds are drawn straight, long, and sparse. All the elasticity of spiritual energy seems to break through them. They convey the fullness of ordered spiritual forces.
Around the head of the Savior, the Mother of God and the holy saints of God, the icons depict a radiance in the shape of a circle, which is called a halo.
A halo is an image of the radiance of light and Divine glory, which transforms a person who has united with God.
There are no shadows on the icons.
Each item in the icon is a symbol:

SYMBOLICS OF GESTURES

Hand pressed to the chest - heartfelt empathy.
A hand raised up is a call to repentance.
A hand extended forward with an open palm is a sign of obedience and submission.
Two hands raised up - a prayer for peace.
Hands raised forward - a prayer for help, a gesture of request.
Hands pressed to the cheeks are a sign of sadness, grief.

COLOR IN ICON:

Trying to imagine as clearly as possible what stands behind such ancient Russian terms as master, scribe, image painter, icon painter Moreover, what generally constitutes the concept of “creative personality” in the era of the developed Middle Ages in Rus', we must first of all keep in mind one idea fundamental to the aesthetics of that time. It lies in the fact that in terms of concepts medieval culture about its own origins, the place of its founder and head certainly belonged to God the Creator Himself, the “Poet of Heaven and Earth,” as His name can be translated in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, or the “Principal Artist,” the “Prime Artist” of all existence, as some call Him Old Russian texts devoted to icon painting. Since, as stated in the latter, He Himself created man “in His image and likeness” - as a kind of icon (Greek e„kin 'image'), then He, as an “image-maker”, should be considered the discoverer and inventor of the “icon trick” ( from cunning‘artisan, skilled craftsman’), that is, the art of representation, icon painting. Hence, both in Byzantium and in the Byzantine tradition of Ancient Rus', every creative act, every artistic activity was consistently sacralized in nature and was, in fact, a sacred act, and the icon painters themselves enjoyed, almost on an equal basis with clerics, especially emphasized social reverence.

This is perfectly expressed in a kind of final document related to the assessment of the role of icon painting in Russia, as the famous “Charter of the Three Patriarchs”.

In the “Certificate”, in particular, it is stated that the art of icon painting surpasses all other arts in honor, just as the sun surpasses the planets, like fire - other elements, and spring - other seasons, like an eagle - all birds, and a lion - all animals. Therefore, it is necessary and natural to honor the most skillful icon painters with special honor and give them their due, since the “icon writer” is a servant of the Church and a narrator of all sacred and secular stories and affairs, superior to an ordinary writer who uses the word. Hence the practical consequences: it was forbidden to “reproach” artists for their activities, to involve them, on an equal basis with others, in carrying out civil duties, or to force them to write “simple things”, that is, to carry out artistic orders on “worldly”, secular themes. Any violation of these prohibitions was fraught with church and royal curse for the perpetrators.

The main reason for such an emphatically respectful attitude towards icon painters was the same likening of their work to the “creativity” of God: the honor thus bestowed on the most skillful artists goes to the Creator, who decorated the sky with images of animals (that is, the signs of the zodiac), who covered the earth with a bright robe , colored with flowers, and created a “verbal soul” - a person as a “small image of the great world.”

Particular importance was attached to the art of icon painting (and, accordingly, to icon painters) by the perception of the creative act itself as rooted in the ancient patristic Tradition of the Church, this “Heaven on earth,” and at the same time as miraculously representing the “descent” of this same Heaven onto the sinful earth. The first was confirmed by the fact that the “initial” Christian artist was always revered by the holy Apostle Luke himself, who created exemplary images of the Mother of God (directly “from life”); the second is that in the Orthodox cultural tradition creative inspiration itself was perceived as help from above. It is not without reason, as a number of hagiographic texts testify, that hymn and icon painters were often helped in their works by heavenly forces - Angels and Archangels. Sometimes the most beautiful hymns of the Church were perceived as such - as given to us by Heaven itself. Let us recall here at least the history of the song in honor of the Mother of God - “It is Worthy to Eat”, when, according to legend, a celestial being - the Archangel Gabriel himself - appeared to the Athonite monk - and after singing in front of the cell icon (in the future - the glorified image of the Mother of God “It is Worthy to Eat”) the wonderful words of this hymn he inscribed them in the absence of a charter and ink with his finger on stone!

The fact that in Rus' the miraculous power of both the church word and the Orthodox image was to a certain extent felt as imprinted by Divine Truth and as a gift from above, found clear expression already in the literary monuments of Ancient Kiev - and in the sermons of St. Cyril of Turov, and on many pages of the famous Kiev-Pechersk Patericon. In the Patericon, in particular, there is a short story about helping the famous Pechersk monk-icon painter Venerable Alypius Angel in writing a local miraculous icon Dormition of the Mother of God, “shining brighter than the sun.” Having fallen ill, Alypiy could not finish the icon on time; the customer “began to bother the blessed one.” And so, as the Patericon relates, “a certain bright young man appeared” and, taking a brush, began to paint an icon. Alypius thought that the person who ordered the icon was angry with him - the monk who was delayed due to illness - and now he sent another icon painter (because he looked like a common person), and only the speed with which he worked showed that he was incorporeal. “Either he covered the icon with gold, then he rubbed paints on stone and wrote with them, and in three hours he painted the icon and said: “O Kaluger! Is there anything missing or have I made a mistake?” The monk said: “You did a good job. God helped you paint this icon so skillfully, and through you he created it.” Evening came, and the young man became invisible...” The next day, the “god-loving” customer, having discovered the newly painted icon in the temple, came together with the Pechersk abbot to the already dying Alypiy, and “the abbot asked him: “Father, how and by whom was the icon painted?” He told them everything that he had seen, saying: “An angel wrote it, and now he is standing next to me and wants to take me with him.” And having said this, he gave up the ghost.”

Such historical legends of an emphatically symbolic nature were all the more natural for the cultural context of Rus', since it always went without saying: icons are created with the most direct and obligatory Divine help. It is not without reason that either Sophia Herself, the Wisdom of God, or Her messenger-Angel, are often represented on icons and book miniatures depicting the moment of divinely inspired creativity of the holy Evangelists writing down New Testament texts, or the holy Apostle Luke writing the icon of the Mother of God.

The Orthodox idea of ​​“co-working”, cooperation of the celestials, moreover, the grace of the Holy Spirit Himself with the masters is the creative truth of the Church; Isn’t that why we feel in ancient icons not only their “external”, earthly beauty, but also their “internal”, “heavenly” beauty, all their extraordinary spiritual power? Is this not why those Divine energies that Saint Gregory Palamas teaches so often, judging by the chronicles and other historical evidence, manifested themselves through icons, either in acts of exorcism - driving out demons, or in truly miraculous cases of helping the sick and suffering?

It was precisely as the place where Heaven meets earth, as an inexhaustible source of Divine grace, that the icon was perceived in Rus'. And therefore it is not surprising that in some ancient Russian legends even the icon painter’s brush itself sometimes acquired healing properties, and the artist suddenly found himself endowed with the talent of a doctor. So, in the same “Kievo-Pechersk Patericon” there is another story about the Monk Alypius - precisely on this topic. A certain rich resident of Kyiv fell ill with leprosy “for his unbelief.” And so, having come to his senses, he came with repentance to Alypius, who, “having taught him much about the salvation of the soul, took<…>brush and multi-colored paints with which he painted icons, painted the patient’s face<…>giving the leper his former appearance and good looks. Then he brought him to the Divine Church of Pechersk, gave him communion of the Holy Mysteries and ordered him to wash himself with the water with which priests wash themselves, and immediately his scabs fell off and he was healed. Look at the mind of the blessed one<…>not only cleansed him from physical, but also from spiritual leprosy.” Behind this very picturesque story one can easily discern the most characteristic feature of the attitude of ancient Russian society towards the icon painter as a spiritual doctor filled with Divine grace (at least ideally!), healing with his brush (and even more so with his icons consecrated by the Church) the wounded human soul distorted by sin , as if returning her to her original Divine - and hence human- image.

In Rus', an icon painter is a “philosopher”, a sage, a “vigilant” scientist, a spiritual healer, a “vitia” preacher who preaches with “scripture” (that is, painting) with icons. That is why icons here were sometimes created even by representatives of the episcopate. Among them are such famous church and cultural figures as the Metropolitans of Moscow: St. Peter (XIV century), St. Macarius and St. Athanasius (XVI century), who “wrote many miraculous holy icons” (“The Tale of the Holy Icon Painters”; icon painter There was also St. Theodore, Archbishop of Rostov, nephew of St. Sergius of Radonezh, whose icon, as you know, he painted. It is not surprising, therefore, that the same “Charter of the Three Patriarchs” equates the dignity of an icon painter with the dignity of a king, asking the following rhetorical question: why not give an example kings and leading princes, who did not disdain art as a matter indecent to their dignity, but considered it the greatest honor for themselves to keep in right hand not only a scepter, but also a painter’s brush, filled with various colors? Finally, it is also stated there that an artist can gain “praise with an icon brush” no less than “others with a sword and a sharp spear.” All this led to the fact that the most famous icon painters in Rus' enjoyed considerable social weight and a fairly independent financial position, and their consent to carry out creative orders was sought - often not without difficulty - even by appanage princes and local bishops. Of course, the possession and use of such high rights imposed on the medieval icon painters themselves certain, and very strict, restrictions on both spiritual, moral, personal, and artistic and creative responsibilities.

In some ancient texts, sometimes included in the so-called “iconographic originals,” the icon painter is sometimes compared to a priest; Thus, in one of the “originals” there is the following very remarkable statement: “as a priest, serving, forms the Flesh with Divine words (that is, the Eucharistic Body of Christ - Yu. M.), with which we partake for the remission of sins,” and “the icon painter, instead of words, draws and depicts the flesh and animates” it, embodying in the icon those images “which we worship out of love” for the “prototypes.” In other words, ideally, the icon painter is almost like a priest, a creator of figurative and symbolic “artistic flesh”, in which he clothes the Divine-human flesh that he reveals, that is, the incarnate Hypostasis, or Personality, of the God-Man Jesus Christ. After all, behind the godlike artistically His Divine Prototype always stands, to which we partake through our vision - both physical and spiritual.

However, only a morally pure and responsible, but at the same time independent, internally free person can convey through the means of art any sacred “prototype” without much distortion. Therefore, the icon painter, - the same “original” teaches, - should be “pure or married and live according to the law,” should be, like a priest, “free, and not a slave (not to be someone’s slave, or “serf”, as well as not to engage in any extraneous craft - Yu. M.) <…>and live virtuously,” and if the icon painter creates images “unartistically,” then make him promise not to paint icons in the future “and learn other needlework.”

But just as the priest was always supervised by the local bishop, in the same way the icon painter was obliged to remain under the supervision and work under the watchful eye of the bishop. It was the bishop who had to be recognized by the master as the spiritual leader of his creativity, so that without his blessing and constant supervision he could not engage in art at all.

Such supervision by church authorities had a dual purpose. On the one hand, he to a certain extent contributed to the moral purity and spiritual growth of Orthodox artists, which also ensured the necessary share of the religious and creative viability of icon painters. On the other hand, he excluded any excesses of creative individualism, incompatible with the strictly canonical regulation of a single (figurative-symbolic and formal-artistic) system of icon painting. Such episcopal supervision, albeit quite strict, ensured both the immutability of the very structure of artistic canons and the inviolability of the dogmatic foundations of church art in general.

The artist’s definitely subordinate (taking into account the hierarchy of church-wide spiritual values) position in the system Orthodox culture was clearly expressed in the decrees of the VII Ecumenical Council, which said that “icons are created not by the invention of the painter, but by virtue of the inviolable law and Tradition Universal Church” and that “to compose and prescribe is not the work of the painter, but of the Holy Fathers” - they “belong to the right of the composition of icons, and the painter - only their execution” (as part of the technical, that is, drawing, coloring, external, almost “mechanical” work ). In fact, precisely because of this very rigoristically expressed position of the episcopate (although real life was quite far from it) and there were collections of graphic drawings - “translations” in the form of iconographic “originals” with almost standard compositions on any Christian themes. With such orthodox fundamentalism of medieval religious art, any icon painter - from an artisan to a genius - invariably recognized himself, first of all, as an obedient instrument in the hand of God, a humble servant of God, an exponent not so much of a personal artistic idea as of the patristic, conciliar mind of the Universal Church. In this way, the artist’s perception of himself as a creative personality was radically different from the emphatically autonomous, purely authorial artistic position inherent in Western European cultural masters, especially from the period of developed and late Middle Ages. On the contrary, in the Christian East, the Church itself was the subject of Orthodox art (while remaining at the same time its object!), due to which it turned out to be the guarantee and guardian of the inner authenticity of any creative act performed in its depths (even inspiration itself as such), the spiritual clarity of creativity “ the elements of this world." It is not for nothing that Saint Simeon of Thessaloniki (XV century) wrote in his “Dialogue against Heresies”: “Depict with colors according to Tradition; this is true painting, like the writing in books, and the grace of God rests on it, because what is depicted is holy.”

For the ancient Russian icon painter, the well-known individualistic concepts: “I see this way,” “I feel and understand this way” were completely excluded. The creative freedom of the artist was perceived not as an unhindered expression of his personality, his Self, but as liberation from worldly passions, in other words, it was the freedom about which the holy Apostle Paul spoke: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor 3: 17). The iconographic canon was the only guiding principle on the way to it.

The canon “is the form in which the Church puts the subordination of the human will to the will of God, their combination, and this form gives the individual the actual opportunity not to be subordinate to his sinful nature (Moreover, this same characteristic of the latter, from the Orthodox point of view, also covers the artistic nature, creative - Yu. M.), but to master it, subjugate it to yourself, to be “master of your actions and free” (Reverend John of Damascus)<…>In this way, the free creativity of a person is maximized, the source of nutrition of which is the grace of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, only church creativity is direct participation in the Divine act, an action that is fully liturgical, and therefore the most free.

The degree of liturgical quality of art is proportional to the degree of spiritual freedom of the artist.”

The indispensable and unceasing following of icon painters from century to century Sacred Tradition, canonical rules, naturally, created a very special art, which, by no means being completely impersonal, much less faceless (any icon in artistic sense always individual), strived, however, for conscious anonymity as a sign of “creative humility.” Hence the almost complete anonymity of Old Russian icon painting, at least until the end of the 16th century. (masters, as a rule, did not sign their names on icons).

In such canonical, cathedral art, the artist’s personality could be revealed mainly only through the nuances and accentuation of individual elements of the generally accepted aesthetic system, in which arbitrary flights of fancy were absolutely unacceptable. It was extremely difficult to individualize this art, and yet, as the centuries-old development of ancient Russian painting showed, true talent, true artistic creativity The iconographic canon did not at all serve as an obstacle to the revelation of personal creative individuality. As one of the first researchers of the spiritual meaning of icon painting, Father Pavel Florensky, aptly noted, “difficult canonical forms in all areas of art have always been the touchstone on which nonentities are broken and real talents are sharpened.” To a true artist it was enough to make a number of conscious, albeit small, deviations from the traditional model, so that in a new work on the same familiar theme it would receive a completely new sound, and sometimes significantly enriched internal content, as if turned towards the viewer with previously unknown facets. The living, most immediate human feeling always appears in the icon through the rigid canon; any scene conveyed in it, any iconographic image is inevitably colored by the artist’s personal worldview - that special deep feeling, since ancient times inherent in the Russian person, which N. Gogol once defined as “extraordinary lyricism - the birth of supreme sobriety of mind.”

But not only living feeling and living faith were the initial components of every work of icon painting; and in the icon, and in wall paintings, and in book miniatures, along with stable “gospel” iconography, individual elements surrounding the artist were often reflected historical reality. We sometimes find in ancient Russian monuments images of real life (in hagiographic scenes), and architectural structures of that time, and even scenes of Russian history, both ecclesiastical and secular, interpreted Christianly by the icon painter.

Although the Church forbade artists to create “from self-thinking” (that is, according to their own imagination) and to paint images of Christ, the Mother of God and saints, using “natural models”, as was typical for Western European art, it was still sometimes manifested in Rus' (for the sake of desires for historical accuracy) the desire to create icons of local saints using either nature, or at least descriptions of appearance given by people who knew them. Over the course of the 14th–16th centuries, several cases of the creation of “portrait” icons are known (both “from the memory” of eyewitnesses and “from nature”), for example, of such famous ascetics as the Venerable Sergius of Radonezh, Pachomius of Nerekhta, Kirill of Belozersky (his “still living “existence” was written by the Monk Dionysius Glushitsky; now this icon is kept in the Tretyakov Gallery), Nil Sorsky. Sometimes artists even created icons after the discovery of the incorruptible relics of saints: for example, in the life of a saint in the 15th century. St. George of Shenkursky reports that the representative of Tsar Ivan III, Mikhail Khvorostinin, “excavated and found unharmed” the relics of George and ordered, “looking at him, to paint the image of the saint.” Some icons of saints were painted after the appearance the latest to the artist in a “dream vision” - this was written at the beginning of the 16th century. the image of the Venerable Euphrosynus of Pskov, and the truth of the newly painted icon was confirmed by the coincidence of the face depicted on it with the soon discovered lifetime portrait of the ascetic, made “on a charter” by a certain local icon painter Ignatius.

The fact that the canonicity of the artistic forms of icon painting did not at all prevent the manifestation in it of the creative personality of any truly talented artist, confirm many pages of the cultural chronicle of Ancient Rus'. Let us recall at least such famous masters of the 14th–15th centuries as Theophanes the Greek, the Monk Andrei Rublev, or the master of the turn of the 15th–16th centuries Dionysius with his sons Theodosius and Vladimir. Not only did they reflect all of them with extraordinary brightness and completeness in their creative biographies the main spiritual, religious and aesthetic trends of ancient Russian painting, but also embodied the most characteristic types Orthodox icon painter in general. In this sense, the written evidence about them from contemporaries and those church writers, who tried to evaluate them later - as an edification to all artists of Ancient Rus'.

Thus, the type of a passionate master (for all the spiritual dispassion of the saints he portrays, which he proclaims), an impulsive, energetic master is shown to us by the great Theophanes the Greek (second half of the 14th – early 15th centuries).

The dynamic, unusually expressive character of Feofan (a Russified Greek for northerners), the brilliant spontaneity of his creativity, the internal freedom of his personality - moreover, completely churched - apparently amazed his contemporaries so much that famous writer beginning of the 15th century Epiphanius the Wise even considered it necessary to specifically talk about his meetings with him in a letter to a certain Kirill Tverskoy. Epiphanius writes with delight about Theophanes: “When I was in Moscow, the famous sage, very skillful philosopher, Theophanes the Greek, book isographer (artist, miniaturist - Yu. M.) an experienced and excellent painter among icon painters<…>when he<…>painted or painted, no one saw him ever look at the samples, as some of our icon painters do, who, out of lack of understanding, constantly peer at them, moving their gaze from here and there, and do not so much paint with paints as look at the samples. He, it seems, is painting an image with his hands, and on his feet, in motion, he talks with those who come, and with his mind he ponders the lofty and wise, and with his sharp, intelligent eyes he sees kindness (that is, beauty - Yu. M.) <…>marvelous and famous person” .

Another type of artist, filled with a truly monastic spirit of humility and inner harmony, is represented by the Monk Andrei Rublev (c. 1360 - c. 1427), who, together with his teacher and friend Daniil Cherny, found a source of creative inspiration in deep contemplative prayer, in constant conversation with God .

As the Monk Joseph of Volotsky writes about him in the famous “Tale of the Holy Fathers” (Chapter 1 from the “Charter of Joseph’s Monastery”, early 16th century), both monks constantly directed their souls “to the heights”, “in order to be worthy of Divine grace and only to succeed in Divine Love, so as never to remain in the earthly, but always to lift the mind and thought to the Immaterial and Divine Light; The sensual eye should always be raised to the images of the Lord Christ and His Most Pure Mother of God and all the Saints painted in real colors. So on the very feast of the Bright Resurrection of Christ they sat on their seats and, having before them the Divine and all-honorable icons, they steadily looked at them, filled with Divine joy and lordship. And not only on that day they did this, but also on other days - when they were not painting.”

Finally, another type of ancient Russian icon painter is represented by Dionysius, who worked almost a century later than St. Andrew.

Although in his work Dionysius is still trying to follow the path of his great predecessor, he himself is already a person of a relatively new formation - a “free artist”, constantly traveling around Rus' to fulfill various orders. With all his fidelity to the traditional icon-painting canons, with all his extraordinary talent and personal skill, reflected in the special grace of his artistic style, this is a more worldly in spirit both a master and a person, and not even devoid of some hedonism. It is not for nothing that in his biography there was an almost anecdotal, but, in fact, fulfilled, as they said in the old days, inlet(from church glory. parable) meaning, is a regrettable case of his breaking his fast while fulfilling an order in the monastery of St. Paphnutius of Borovsky (the artists who worked here naturally had to obey these rules). Having violated the commandment of the abbot of the monastery, the master, together with his assistants, once tried to quietly dine within the monastery walls with a “meat” - a leg of lamb baked with eggs, but, as the medieval author of the Life of St. Paphnutius narrates, the food suddenly turned out to be spoiled, and Dionysius himself immediately fell ill as punishment “ severe illness” - he could not move from his place, and he was “attacked by scabies”; Only after immediately repenting before the Monk Paphnutius did he get up in the morning completely healthy. It is completely unthinkable to imagine that something like this would happen to Reverend Andrei Rublev.

Although Dionysius humbled his somewhat overly free-thinking spirit by working in numerous monasteries in Rus', he is generally a representative of a different era, more nationalized, more regulated and etiquette. He is always a brilliant esthete artist, and sometimes a spiritual artist (although the latter is less common). Essentially, this is the last significant representative of the great ancient Russian icon-painting tradition: only in following it does he find solid support for his (sometimes, perhaps, even too refined) art; he often still strives to reproduce the best artistic examples of the past, but, however, he himself is no longer always a seer of the revelations of the Holy Spirit, as Theophan and St. Andrew invariably remained in their work.

Rus' received from Byzantium not only the Orthodox artistic system, a single icon-painting canon, but also the general principles of organizing the icon-painting business itself.

Initially, from the end of the 10th century, groups of fresco painters and icon painters were led here, for the most part, by visiting Byzantine Greeks in artels, or “squads,” in which Russian artists played the role of apprentices. But already from the XII–XIII centuries. in Rus', the primary role is played by their own local craftsmen (in Kyiv, Novgorod, Pskov, in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality), and more and more often and consistently they use the traditional artel method of work for the Middle Ages - with division according to professional characteristics: the head of such an artel ( boss, elder), as a rule, he determined the general compositional principles of mural painting or an icon temple complex (sometimes even a separate icon), he also outlined the general drawing - “graphics”; members of the squad painted background parts or gilded them, conveying the “Divine Light” of the heavenly world (such backgrounds were called light, Sveta), they usually painted buildings, clothes, draperies and various minor details. Then the chief master corrected, clarified everything written and completed the work by completing the most important part - the personal letter, that is, all the naked parts of the human body, and most importantly - faces, or faces. Judging by chronicles and the results of art historical research, two or three or four mural painters could work on relatively small temple paintings, and for very large works - up to fifteen to twenty artists (when several leading masters teamed up with their students) and even much more !

In large local workshops, a similar principle of “cathedral” creativity operated in relation to icon painting: they could paint dozens of icons simultaneously (sometimes even with a set of the same repeating subjects), in which a certain member of the artel from year to year performed only his part: clothes, architectural structures, landscape backgrounds, and the leading master determined the composition, made a drawing - famous icon and then wrote mainly only personal.

With the artel approach to icon painting, it was the nature of artistic tastes, the nature of the creative personality of the chief master that determined the face of the entire artel. Therefore, in museum and art history practice, such concepts (associated with the names of the most famous masters) as the “workshop” or, even more broadly, the “school” of Feofan, Rublev, Dionysius, and, to some extent, Ushakov, are now justifiably used. In turn, groups of artists who united (due to their adherence to a particular style direction) around this or that master existed within larger regional formations with fairly clearly defined local stylistic features- that is, such “schools” as, for example, Moscow, Tver, Novgorod, Pskov. All the icon-painting and book-writing workshops that existed either at monasteries (monastic), or at bishops (lordly, metropolitan), at appanage princes (princely) and under the Grand Duke of Moscow (grand-ducal workshop) operated within the framework of local schools. In the second half of the 16th century, with the growth of absolutism in Russia and the establishment of the institution royal power, a royal workshop appeared in Moscow, where thousands of icons and handwritten books decorated with magnificent miniatures were created according to sovereign orders.

In Rus', small urban and even rural icon-painting workshops also existed everywhere, owned by single masters, who sometimes employed several students (sometimes the children of the master himself); Although such “icon painters” were usually artists of what is called mediocre, they fully satisfied the needs of the local population for icons.

All these schools, artels, workshops created a huge number of icons. How impressive the scale of icon-painting activity in Rus' was in the 16th–17th centuries (not least thanks to support from the state) is evidenced by the following fact: in the repository of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich alone there were about ten thousand (!) icons, and in some individual In the cathedrals of the capital, their number reached three thousand in each.

It should be emphasized that neither the state nor society as a whole has ever skimped on the decoration of churches and monasteries; bishops, metropolitans and economic divisions of the “sovereign court” purchased and prepared huge quantities necessary materials for paintings: lime for murals, wooden boards for icons, mineral and vegetable paints, turpentine, bleached wax, hemp and linseed oils for a protective coating for painting, eggs for binders, bristles for brushes, gold for “backgrounds.” Therefore, artwork was unusually expensive. In addition, very significant sums and natural products were released from the state and church treasuries to pay artists, because their work was sometimes highly valued. For example, in one of the chronicles it is especially noted that for the creation of an icon Deesis tier for the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, Dionysius and his assistants received a payment of 100 rubles - and for 20 rubles in those days you could buy a village with a large plot of land!

Such costs for icon painting are quite understandable, since it can be said with confidence that nowhere and never (even in Byzantium) did an icon have such importance as in Orthodox Russia. Icons here have long been an indispensable part of every building - church, social and civil, and simple, even the most wretched housing; icons stood along roads, at crossroads, in city squares - both in chapels and on covered pillars - “cabbage rolls”. They took icons with them on long journeys, they went with them on military campaigns; the most important church and state acts were performed before them; They began any business with prayer in front of the icon; Parents blessed their children with it.

However, with all this ubiquity of the icon, with such universal acceptance of it in Russia with both soul and heart, we still know very little about how the phenomenon itself was perceived here in ancient times. sacred image(and the icon-painting creativity associated with it), so to speak, “with the mind” - from the point of view of the intellectual understanding of its artistic and symbolic meaning.

Since the baptism of Rus', many generations of icon painters for centuries have worked in the most natural way on the basis of the living Tradition of the Church; in it they found all the “theory” they needed for creativity. Over time, icon painting developed more and more, artistic tastes and the stylistic trends they determined changed, local original schools arose and died out, but the very foundations of the perception of the icon and its spiritual reality symbolic meaning remained the same, at least until the second half of the 17th century, until Orthodox patristic aesthetics (like the entire ancient Russian culture as a whole) began to gradually erode, distorted under the influence of alien cultural elements of a purely secular, “humanistic” (in other words - not of the divine-human, but of the human-divine) sense.

Probably, initially the natural rooting of artists in Tradition did not require special theoretical works related to icons and icon painting. Only with the appearance in Rus' in the XIV–XV centuries. individual heretical groups - and always of an iconoclastic nature - a need arose for such written evidence of the truth. Therefore, we can say with relative confidence that until the very turn of the 15th–16th centuries. any detailed and specially compiled treatises testifying to a distinct and clear (always, naturally, existing) understanding ancient Russian man icon painting was not created with any socio-religious significance.

Only starting with the anti-heretical and polemical “Enlightener” of the Monk Joseph of Volotsk (1440–1515) with the “Message to the Icon Painter” included in this collection (in three “Words” in defense of icon veneration), Rus' at the turn of the 15th–16th centuries tried to state its point relatively clearly view of the Orthodox image - completely in line with the patristic teaching on the icon and with a fairly clear idea of ​​the range of Eastern Christian written sources that existed at that time related to this topic.

Since St. Joseph’s interpretation of the phenomenon of icon veneration (which absorbed quite a lot from the iconophile theory of the Holy Fathers) then formed the basis for most of the same works of subsequent authors, it makes sense to give here a brief summary of the statements of the Volotsk abbot about icons - as exemplary for his time.

From the pages of the “Message to the Icon Painter” by St. Joseph of Volotsky

Comments on the meaning and essence of icon veneration are found in different places in the works of the Monk Joseph, but if we bring together the most important of his reasonings, they form the following fairly harmonious system.

1. Touching at first the Old Testament times of Moses, the Monk Joseph explains that images and likenesses were prohibited - so that no one would call them gods and so that no one would begin to create like the Hellenes (that is, more broadly, pagans. - Yu. M.), bad idols. “And if someone creates images and likenesses that God Himself commanded to be created for His glory, and for the sake of this the mind is raised to God and worships them and honors them, then this is a good and godly deed. Just you shouldn’t deify them like the Greeks, but you should do it like Moses, who created a tabernacle made of many things, and tablets carved from stone, and worshiped them, and revered them, but did not call them gods, but in honor and glory to the True God he created them and honored God who commanded them to be built” (ll. 222–223).

But, according to the thought of the Monk Joseph, all this is just as applicable to New Testament times: “he who worships the Church of God worships the Lord God Himself” (l. 237); “If the church is the church of the Lord God Almighty, then it is honest and holy. And things created in honor and glory of God, as God Himself commanded, are also holy and honest and worthy of honor and worship - if only they were not called gods! For not everything worthy of worship is worthy of deification: after all, we have many things that we worship, but still do not call them gods. For we worship both kings and princes, but we do not call them gods; We worship each other, but we don’t call them gods. And if we worship kings and princes and each other, then how much more fitting is it to worship and honor: in the Old Testament for the Jews - the tabernacle and the church created by Solomon, and in them the Divine things that the Lord God commanded to be created for His glory, in the New Testament for Christians - The honest Divine image of the Heavenly King of our Lord Jesus Christ and other Divine and sacred things that our Lord Jesus Christ commanded to be created for His glory and all the Saints who pleased Him” (ll. 242–243).

2. Further touching on the idea, beloved by the heretics of that time, about the alleged idol-likeness of the icon, the Monk Joseph asserts: “we do not create idols, we do not say about holy icons: “here are our gods,” we do not create a silver god and a golden god. But if we create the Holy and Life-Giving Cross or Divine icons from gold and silver or from other things, then we call them holy and honorable; we worship and serve them, and do not call them gods, but we worship in honor and glory of God and His Saints<…>We worship the Honorable Cross and Divine icons and other Divine and consecrated things that were created in the honor and glory of God: not gold, not paints, not wood and other things - but Christ and His Saints” (ll. 244–245).

“You should understand what is an icon and what is an idol. For the holy icons that we Christians venerate have many differences from the vile idols revered by the Hellenes. For the prototype depicted on Divine icons is holy and honest; the idol’s prototype is the most vile and unclean and a demonic invention” (ll. 246–247). “You venerate the sacred objects of the Old Testament,” continues St. Joseph, “because the grace of God comes through them. In the same way, now the grace of God deigns to come to us for the sake of holy icons, the Honest and Life-giving Cross and other Divine and consecrated things. And just as God could have saved Noah without the ark, for all things are possible to Him, and just as He created salvation for Noah with a soulless and man-made thing, so He created salvation for us with these soulless Divine things. Likewise, God could have saved the Jew from a snakebite without the copper serpent, but by His ineffable destinies He deigned to save him from death with the copper serpent. So now the Lord our God has created spiritual salvation for us for the sake of these visible holy icons and other Divine things, although they are soulless and hand-made; we were delivered from the sinful flood and from the spiritual bite of the serpent through the incarnation of God the Word” (ll. 247–248).

3. Speaking further about the veneration of saints and sacred relics associated with them (their relics or even the remains of their vestments), the Monk Joseph, in essence, moves on to summary the very idea of ​​the Orthodox image. First of all, he explains that through these Divine things we give honor to God, and not to soulless objects. And when we paint images of saints on icons, we do not honor a thing, but from this material image our mind and thought soar to the desire for the Divine and love for God, and because of this, the grace of God performs unspeakable miracles and healings (l. 251). Worshiping, for example, the icon of the Most Holy Trinity, thanks to the icon image we spiritually contemplate what is impossible for us to see with our bodily eyes (l. 255). In the same way, by drawing the “Godlike and Most Pure Image” of the Savior, we raise our minds to His immaterial Divinity (l. 257). At the same time, continues the Monk Joseph, one should not think that His Most Pure Image is transformed into His Divine Essence, for it is impossible for the Divine Essence to be seen by either angels or people, much less to think that the image of the Savior is Christ in the flesh. The divine nature of Christ is indescribable, and it is impossible to see it now - unless He comes at His Second Coming; but it should be understood that the icons depict the human nature of Christ (l. 258). It is precisely since the indescribable God was vouchsafed for our sake to be a describable Man, that we can worship His icon, remembering His Prototype, for the honor given to the icon passes on to the Prototype; and in icons Truth is revered and worshiped (ll. 258–259). And when we depict the Most Holy Trinity, we worship the Divine and Most Pure likeness of the Indescribable by nature, the Ineffable and the Incomprehensible, who, by mercy and immeasurable mercy, appeared to the forefathers and prophets, patriarchs and kings in the form of substitute shadows and images. And just as the Most Holy Trinity appeared then, so now we depict and write It on all-honorable icons. Through such an image on earth the trisagion hymn of the Trisagion, Consubstantial and Life-giving Trinity, ascending with immeasurable love and spirit to the “likeness” - the image of the incomprehensible Prototype. And from this material image, St. Joseph never tires of repeating, our mind and thought flies to the love and desire of the Divine, and we do not honor a thing, but a visible image of the beauty of the Divine, for (and here he again recalls the words of St. Basil the Great) the honor given to the icon , goes to the Archetype (ll. 216–217).

Following the “Message to the Icon Painter,” other small treatises appear that touch on issues of icon painting: the work of St. Maximus the Greek, whose views on icon painting and the position of the icon painter (together with the “Enlightener” Joseph Volotsky) clearly influenced later the cathedral decrees on icon painting in Moscow in the middle XVI century; then - the writings of the monks Ermolai-Erasmus, Elder Artemy and Zinovy ​​​​of Otensky, where to some extent echoes of the writings of the Venerable Joseph and Maxim are also felt; and already at the end of the century, a treatise on icon veneration was published in line with the anti-Protestant polemic that had begun then, compiled by Vasily Surazhsky (Malyushitsky).

If the work of the Volotsk ascetic was devoted to more, so to speak, theoretical aspects of icon painting in Rus', then the short notes of St. Maxim the Greek are connected mainly with the practice of icon veneration and even with purely everyday aspects of the life of the icon painters themselves. The statements of St. Maximus were later often used in various compilative works of the 16th–17th centuries concerning icon painting; Old Believers also loved to quote their texts (since the reasoning of the Monk Maxim was included in “The Helmsman”); in the same environment, fragments of his small work “On Holy Icons” were included in later lists (XVIII-XIX centuries) of both the “Ancient Written Helmsman” and icon-painting originals. These brief notes by Svyatogorets on icon painting were re-printed by N.K. Gavryushin in full relatively recently (in 1993), taking into account three lists, but, unfortunately, without translation into modern Russian; Therefore, it seems useful to present our translation here, thereby making this interesting text of the second quarter of the 16th century. the property of wider circles of all those interested in the history of our national icon painting.

Reverend Maxim the Greek. About holy icons

Chapter 1. About the holy icons that should be venerated

Since some are trying to find out from whom the worship of icons began, we answer them: originally and from ancient times - like Paul, the Divine Apostle and chosen vessel, denouncing the Jews, speaks of the Cherubim overshadowing the altar in the tabernacle, that is, in the Holy of Holies, at the top of the holy ark If the holy ark, overshadowed by the Cherubim, shows us this, then clearly it is for the praise and worship of the Heavenly God. And we’ll say the same thing again. When God appeared in the flesh, then He Himself turned to the Jews, asking them: whose image is on the denarius and whose name? They answered Him: Caesar's. He said to them: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. What is Caesarean? Only tribute and fear. What about God? Honor and worship. And he did not say: do not create an image, but give like to like, since even then there were images, but not all were equal and identical: some - for the sake of perpetuating memory, like the image of Menader and others, others - because they sacred, as evidenced here by the Cherubim of glory. Therefore, neither in the teachings of the apostles does the Lord say: do not create an image, nor is this proclaimed in the evangelists. Because possessing an image is necessary and completely natural for the primitive nature of man, and whoever is born on earth cannot be ugly. Consider carefully and perceive this wisely: if the Roman Caesars, according to the word of the Evangelist, were depicted on denarii, on gold coins and on boards, then do not doubt the written images of other kings and strong and glorious men, as the story tells about the Pillar of Heraclius. About the Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, after His incarnation, how and who can say to leave and not paint His images of the most pure and Divine flesh? If the most pure image of Him, that is, the Savior Christ, is appropriate to be painted, then is it possible for it to be without honor and be confused with simple images? As the Apostle Paul says: what confusion has light with darkness, and Christ with Belial? . The image of His Most Pure Mother of God and the images of all His Saints should be perceived in the same way. For the Lord Himself says: Where I am, there will My servant also be. And it should also be said about the iconic image of God that everyone has always worshiped it because of our nature, and not according to the Tradition of the Law, because God initially created man in His image and likeness. What does this mean when it says: in His image and likeness? This similarity is quite clearly defined - as the Evangelist says: be generous, as your Heavenly Father is generous (more precisely: be merciful, as your Heavenly Father is merciful. - Yu. M.) . And Paul again calls: be like me, as I am Christ.

The image of the Life-Giving and Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - mind, word and spirit. For without mind, word and spirit, a person cannot exist - neither faithful nor unfaithful. That is why all people worship each other, because they worship not the flesh, but the image of God. If only flesh were worshiped, then every animal, that is, horse, ox, and other dumb nature would be worshiped; but we differ from them in this way, in other words, we are higher and more honorable than them, because we carry the image of God within ourselves and worship it, because the mind, word and spirit, as the invisible image of the invisible God in our visible flesh, receives glory, honor and worship. When, through the incarnation of the Word of God, human flesh was deified, as it is said: “and the Word became flesh,” then the visible image of the flesh of the visible God becomes depictable, and we worship him; and thus we bring honor to the Primordial Essence. And whoever does not worship the image of God who appeared in the flesh does not believe that God the Word took flesh from the Most Pure Ever-Virgin Mary and was a perfect God and a perfect Man.

Chapter 2. The Legend of Icon Painters, What They Should Be

It is fitting for isographers, that is, icon painters, to be pure, to live a spiritual life, and to adorn themselves with good morals, humility and meekness, and to do good in everything, and not to be a foul-mouthed person, a blasphemer, a fornicator, a drunkard, a slanderer, or any other of those who follow customs bad because so holy cause such people are forbidden, as in ancient times the Lord said to Moses when he filled Bezalel with the Spirit of God. This same Bezaleel built the tabernacle of the testimony of the Old Law. How much more appropriate in the present (that is, relating to the era of the New Testament - Yu. M.) grace to those who painted the image of the Savior Christ our God and His Most Pure Mother of God and His Saints to strive to acquire the Spirit of God.

The icon painter should be knowledgeable in likeness (that is, in generally accepted exemplary images - Yu. M.) ancient “translations” that came down from the first masters, godly men, who from the beginning were told about every miracle or phenomenon that happened somewhere - how they manifested themselves; and the icon painter himself would not add a single iota of anything new, even if it seemed to someone that he was very reasonable, but beyond the Tradition of the Holy Fathers - do not dare! If someone is very skilled in depicting holy icons, but lives ungodly, such people are not ordered to paint icons. And one more thing: if someone has a spiritual life, but cannot beautifully depict holy icons, such people should not be allowed to paint holy icons either, but let them earn their living by other handicrafts - whatever they want.

Chapter 3. About the fact that in addition to holy icons
Orthodox icon painter -do not write anything to the isographer

If someone in such a holy task as icon painting is worthy of being skilled in everything, then it is not appropriate for him to draw anything other than holy images, that is, to depict, for the empty amusement of people - neither an animal image, nor a snake, nor any other crawling or kind reptiles, except somewhere in the “acts” that happened (that is, in hagiographic scenes - Yu. M.), which happen to be illustrated when it is appropriate and appropriate for the given occasion.

Chapter 4. About icons placed above doors

It is not appropriate for Orthodox Christians to place images of animals, snakes, or any unfaithful brave men above the doors of their houses. But let Orthodox Christians place holy icons or honest crosses, which, when entering or leaving a house, we worship and thereby honor the Primordial Essence, as our fathers handed down to us, for this is the sign of the faithful. It is proper for saints and priests, spiritual superiors to supervise and teach all this, as the Apostle says: submit to your instructors. And on the disobedient and disobedient - with penances, impose a ban, as the Divine rules command.

More about icon painters

Worthy icon painters, who have been worthy of such holy work, should be honored and seated at seats and at feasts near the saints, with respected people, just like other clerics.

Chapter 5. About the fact that icons painted by the hands of infidels
do not accept, and do not give holy icons into the hands of infidels

It is not appropriate for Orthodox Christians to accept icon images from infidels and foreign Romans and Germans. If it is by chance from ancient times where it is found in our faithful countries - that is, in Greek or Russian, and it will be written only after church schism Greeks with Romans (that is, after the schism of 1054 - Yu. M.), then, even if the icon image has a likeness and is skillfully executed, it should not be worshiped, since it was depicted by the hands of infidels: although it was made in the likeness, the conscience of those who wrote is unclean. Paul, the Divine Apostle, writes about such people, saying: everything is pure, but to those who are defiled and unfaithful, nothing is pure, for their mind and conscience are defiled; They say that they know God, but by deeds they deny Him, being vile and disobedient and incapable of any good deed. But infidels and foreigners, especially, say, the wicked and filthy Armenians, should not paint holy icons or exchange them for silver and gold, for it is written: “Do not give holy things to dogs.”

Chapter 6. About what things to write and depict on
holy icons, and which ones should not be written on?

It is allowed to paint and depict holy icons - as the Holy and God-bearing Fathers commanded at the VII Council - on any tree and stone, and on pillars, and on walls, and on church vessels that are strong in substance, that is, in their material. And do not write or depict holy icons on glass, as it breaks easily.

About holy icons do not burden the price of silver

It is appropriate for honest iconographers to know this.

If someone lives reverently and, moreover, is worthy of imitating the earnest and excellent icon painting of the ancient, godly isographers, then let him not burden the holy icons with the price of silver (that is, do not take an unnecessarily expensive price for them. - Yu. M.), but will be pleased to accept from those who have money for food and clothing and for preparing a supply of paints.

About not “impoverishing” the isographer

In the same way, every devout Christian who trusts an icon painter to paint someone’s holy image must not impoverish (that is, not deprive him of a worthy payment for his work - Yu. M.), but generously reward the honest isographer - as he should and as much as possible, so that he does not worry about any of his necessary needs.

In general, both in this work (especially in the 1st chapter), and in a number of his other Words, St. Maxim continues the patristic tradition in understanding the ontological and epistemological aspects of the Orthodox image; He often uses the statements of his closest predecessor, St. Joseph of Volotsky. So, for example, wanting to follow him in emphasizing the soteriological aspect of church art, he directly quotes his words from “The Enlightener”: “Our Lord and God, for the sake of visible holy icons and other Divine things, mentally create salvation.” However, unlike St. Joseph, he pays much more attention to various symbolic interpretations, being, as one of his modern researchers, “a typical representative of medieval symbolism”; No wonder he translates many articles from the famous dictionary of the 10th century. Courts.

The increasing interest of artists in the allegorical interpretation of Orthodox teaching in the middle of the century was reflected in the literary monuments of the era. But if in his treatise on the Holy Trinity the monk Ermolai-Erasmus, like previous authors, basically expounded and systematized all the same previously known statements of Byzantine defenders of icon veneration, then, perhaps, the more creatively bright and deep, hesychast-minded writer of the same At the time, abbot Artemy was already striving for a purely symbolic, anagogical understanding of existence as it was reflected in church art - in the spirit of the famous “Areopagitica”. It was precisely the most important Areopagite ideas about symbols and images that he based his writings on, trying, in the light of these ideas, to interpret all church creativity as a process of “elevating” man through symbolic images“to the immaterial beginnings” - from the “canopy” (that is, from the shadow, external appearance) comprehending “even in images”, so that “from the images to look at the truth itself (Truth - Yu. M.)” .

The same line was generally continued by the monk Zinovy ​​Otensky (died in 1571 or 1572), although his symbolism is marked by much greater (and, so to speak, morally colored) rigorism and even greater “symbolic realism.” It should be especially noted that in Zinovy’s statements sometimes even the notes of metaphysical (somewhat didactically sharpened) rationalism characteristic of the second half of the century begin to sound. At the same time, he was, of course, a very broadly and precisely thinking writer.

It is curious that in his denunciations of pagan “idol charm” Zinovy, based on the religious and philosophical understanding of evil as the absence of all being, goes much further than the Monk Joseph, who interpreted “idols” only as images of evil and false prototypes, arguing that idols have no prototypes, and therefore they are not “images” at all and do not have any internal meaning: “and these are idols; Therefore, idols do not carry images, because a thing is empty (an empty thing is Yu. M.) is an idol, a lacking archetype.”

To summarize what has been said, it can be argued that by the middle - third quarter of the 16th century. Old Russian artists had a sufficiently detailed, accurately and clearly stated doctrine of the Orthodox image. And yet, the gradually advancing secularization of medieval religious consciousness gradually began to manifest itself in an increasingly rationalistic and spiritually superficial perception of this patristic teaching, which, in turn, led to an excessive enthusiasm for icon painters (as well as their customers) for the allegorical-didactic principle in the church. art; thereby, the understanding of the very tasks and meaning of Orthodox creativity became increasingly distorted.

These trends, unfortunately, also affected a number of decisions of the Moscow Councils of the mid-century: the cathedral decrees of that time did not bring the necessary dogmatic clarity to the further development of ancient Russian art, and many of the questions that arose then (especially in the field of the desirability and admissibility of certain iconographic subjects) remain unresolved finally and to this day. These Councils gave practical benefit mainly only in the field of more precise definition social status and the moral duties of the icon painters themselves, which, however, was also of no small importance.

A leading role in streamlining the icon painting business in Rus' was played by the famous saint Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow, under whose leadership two Councils were held in the capital, at which issues of icon painting were addressed: in 1551 - the Council of “Stoglav” (so named after the number of chapters with conciliar decisions), which documented the actual ecclesiastical and social significance of the icon painter in Russian society and strictly regulated the requirements for the artist, and a little later, in 1553–1554. - A council associated with the so-called “Viskovaty case”, which came out in defense of more traditional themes in religious painting and Orthodox “symbolic realism” in general - against the emerging passion for artistic allegorism.

The issues of icon painting in Rus' were directly illuminated and relatively clearly resolved (albeit from the outside) at Stoglav, in the 43rd chapter of whose regulations it was strictly stated, in particular, “what kind of painters should be.”

Here are excerpts from this lengthy conciliar document, which later became a kind of “law on icon painters,” and sealed with the signatures of St. Macarius and Tsar Ivan the Terrible - a document that seemed to sum up, from the official state point of view, the result of the long development of icon painting.

The conciliar decrees end with two strict demands. The first is the same unchanging order to follow Tradition: bishops must take care that “good icon painters and their students paint from ancient models and do not describe the Divinity out of self-thinking and guesswork,” in other words, that they depict only the God-man made human, incarnate Jesus, without being carried away by “complicated” allegorical images of Him. “For Christ our God is described according to the flesh, but not described according to the Godhead.” The second admonition again concerns the moral side of the matter: the Council threatens with a curse those masters who hide their talent and their creative skills, therefore the participants of the Council call: “painters, teach your students without any deceit, so as not to be condemned to eternal damnation” .

The desire of the Church and the state to clearly streamline the activities of icon painters, expressed in the decisions of Stoglav and the Council of 1554, fits well into the picture of the beginning secularization of ancient Russian society in the late Middle Ages. By their resolutions, the members of both Councils, as if anticipating the coming crisis of traditional Orthodox aesthetic consciousness, sought to stop the further process of secularization of art. But such attempts could only slow it down for a while: Rus' was already gradually preparing to enter a new era - the era of Modern Time, with a completely different system of spiritual and aesthetic values, increasingly turning towards a predominantly anthropocentric Western European worldview and attitude. And although the artistic life of Russia in the mid-second half of the 16th century is characterized by particularly rapid development and the scale of creative tasks, culture and art are now becoming more a matter of half-imperial, half-church ideology than a manifestation of the once spiritual and highly intellectual potential of icon painters and philosophers.

In parallel with the growth of the power and wealth of the Muscovite kingdom, the royal art workshop was expanding more and more, having absorbed a little earlier - around the middle of the century - many of the best artists from the previously so famous workshop of Metropolitan Macarius; V XVII century It was this royal workshop that was destined to become the main core of a huge artistic department in the Moscow Kremlin - the famous Armory Chamber. By the end of the 16th century. such rich patrons and customers appeared as, for example, the Stroganov family of merchants in Usolye, in the north of Rus', who ordered hundreds, if not thousands, of icons for their churches and even had their own art workshops. The names of dozens of icon painters increasingly appear in documents: art henceforth ceases to be anonymous in the medieval way. But with the departure of creative artistic humility, the gradual disappearance from the very works of ancient Russian icon painters of the former sublime cathedral spirit of the great art of Orthodox Holy Russia becomes more and more noticeable. In the new Russian culture, in general, the place of Heaven is increasingly taken by vain earth, and the place of God is increasingly taken by fallen man.

For the former, truly god-like for the art of our national icon painting, this became a spiritual tragedy - the beginning of the end of its great tradition; for an increasingly secularized society, this was only a manifestation of the natural course of an irresistible historical process.

1. Although the “Charter” refers to the final stage of the Old Russian Middle Ages - to 1668, it sets out basically the same Orthodox understanding of church art, which remained almost unchanged - at least in theory - throughout the existence of Rus', starting with its baptism in 988. The text of the letter was published: Pekarsky P. Materials for the history of icon painting in Russia // News of the Imperial Archaeological Society. T. V. Issue. 5. St. Petersburg, 1865. - Stlb. 321–329.
   © Yu. G. Malkov, 1998
2. Kaluger - from Greek. kalТghroj ‘elder, monk’.
3. Kiev-Pechersk Patericon // Monuments of Literature of Ancient Rus' (hereinafter referred to as PLDR). XII century. M., 1980. - pp. 597–599.
4. Right there. - Ss. 591–593. Noteworthy is the extraordinary skill of the wonderful icon painter, who managed to depict a healthy face on features distorted by leprosy.
5. For a more detailed list of icon painters according to the “Tale,” see: Masters of Art about Art. T. 6. M., 1969. - pp. 14–16, 23–24.
6. Pekarsky P. Materials for the history of icon painting in Russia. - Stlb. 321–322, 329.
7. The original is a spiritual and thematic guide for artists with a description of “exemplary” icon compositions, sometimes accompanied by outline drawings of them - the so-called “translations”, or “drawings”; drawings of a similar type (the so-called exemplum) were also in circulation among medieval artists in the West.
8. Iconographic original / Ed. S. T. Bolshakova, ed. A.I. Uspensky. M., 1903. - P. 7.
9. Right there.
10. PG 115, 113D
11. Uspensky L.A. The meaning and language of icons // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1955. No. 7. - P. 64.
12. Florensky P. A. Iconostasis. M., 1994. - P. 76.
13. Gogol N.V. Selected passages from correspondence with friends. XXXI // Gogol N.V. Spiritual prose. M., 1993. - P. 217.
14. Userdov M. Life of George Shenkursky and the letter of the Right Reverend Barnabas // Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. Part 1. January. Dept. 3. M., 1883. - P. 12.
15. Serebryansky N. I. Life of St. Euphrosynus of Pskov // Monuments ancient writing and art. CLXXIII. 1909. - Ss. 65–67. For more details about the portrait origins of a number of icon images of saints of Ancient Rus', see: Dmitriev Yu. N. On the work of an ancient Russian artist // Proceedings of the department of ancient Russian literature. Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the USSR Academy of Sciences (hereinafter TODL). T. XIV. M.–L. 1958. - Ss. 551–556; Archimandrite Macarius (Veretennikov). The first image in the iconography of Russian saints // Orthodoxy and Russian folk culture. Book 6. M., 1996. - pp. 5–22.
16. Letter from Epiphanius the Wise to Kirill Tverskoy // PLDR. XIV–mid-XV centuries. M., 1981. - P. 445.
17. The text was published in the collection: Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (hereinafter CHOIDR). 1847. No. 7. Mixture. - P. 12.
18. Data on such a scale of art cooperatives can be quite accurately reconstructed on the basis of historical documents of the 16th–17th centuries.
19. Lviv Chronicle under 1481 // Complete collection of Russian chronicles (hereinafter referred to as PSRL). T. XX. 1st half. St. Petersburg, 1910. - P. 347.
20. See about this initial period of Old Russian aesthetics and about its written sources: Bychkov V.V. Russian medieval aesthetics of the 11th–17th centuries. M., 1995; Malkov Yu. G. Theme of icon veneration in ancient Russian literature XI–XIII centuries // Alpha and Omega. 1997. No. 1(12). - Ss. 317–335 (extended text of the report of the same name, read at the annual Theological Conference of the Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute in January 1994).
21. See: Rev. Joseph Volotsky. Message to the icon painter. M., 1994 (reprint reproduction of the publication: “The Enlightener.” The work of our reverend father Joseph, abbot of Volotsky. 3rd edition. Kazan, 1896).
22. In relation to the statement of the Monk Joseph: “Behold, for this is Christ in the flesh” (l. 258), it can be assumed that here Joseph meant two meanings: firstly, he argued that the image of Christ is not “Christ in the flesh” Himself, that is, that the icon for the Orthodox is not a self-sufficient idol, but a sacred image, and, secondly, he emphasized that the icon of the Savior depicts not only the human nature of Christ and that, although this is the “image of Him according to humanity” visible to us (or , as St. Joseph writes in another place (l. 220), “according to carnal vision”), behind this image stands and must be seen the entire Theanthropic Fullness of the Hypostasis of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
23. Maxim Grek. About holy icons // Philosophy of Russian religious art of the 16th–20th centuries. Anthology. M., 1993. - pp. 45–48.
24. See Popov A. Book of Erasmus on the Holy Trinity // CHOIDR. Book 4. M., 1880. - pp. 1–124; about him, see: Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Vol. 2. Part 1. L., 1988. - pp. 220–225.
25. ]See: Messages of Elder Artemy, 16th century // Russian Historical Library (hereinafter referred to as RIB). T.VI. Book 1. St. Petersburg, 1878. About him, see: Dictionary of Scribes... Vol. 2. Part 1. - Ss. 71–73.
26. See Andreev N. Monk Zinovy ​​on icon veneration and icon painting // Seminarium Condacovianum. VIII. Prague, 1936. - Ss. 259–278; about him, see: Dictionary of Scribes... Vol. 2. Part 2. L., 1989. - pp. 354–358; Archimandrite Macarius (Veretennikov). Monk Zinovy ​​Otensky - Novgorod theologian of the 16th century // Alpha and Omega. 1997. No. 1(12). - Ss. 134–149.
27. See his “Little Book in 6 Sections”. Ostrog, 1588. Also published: On a single faith // RIB. T. VII (Monuments of polemical literature in Western Rus'). St. Petersburg, 1882. - Stlb. 601–938. About him, see: Materials for the “Theological-Church Dictionary” // Theological Works. Sat. 28. M., 1987. - P. 352
28. In particular, the indicated treatise was previously published (without translation and indication of the authorship of St. Maxim) as part of the text of the mentioned “Bolshakovsky original” - see: Iconographic original / Ed. S. T. Bolshakova... - Ss. 20–22, 25–27.
29. The translation was carried out according to two versions of the publication of the author's text: according to the list published by N.K. Gavryushin (Old Believer manuscript of the 19th century, GIM. Khlud. 75. - Lol. 772–774 vol.) - taking into account two more lists (without any special discrepancies ), and according to the text in the “Bolshakovsky Original”, where there are a number of small differences. Some discrepancies are indicated in footnotes - with the following designation: Khlud. (list published by N.K. Gavryushin) and PB (Original icon painting...). Additional explanatory words are given in parentheses. Let us note in passing that one of the three lists known to N.K. Gavryushin, in his opinion, goes back to the 123rd chapter of the “Ancient Written Helmsman” (Philosophy of Russian Religious Art of the 16th–20th centuries..., p. 386) - the treatise of Svyatogorets was included in it , probably already in the mid-third quarter of the 16th century. But the text in the “Bolshakovsky Original” allows us to clarify this question: so, if the 1st chapter of the work of the Monk Maxim does not have any inscriptions here, then the 2, 4, 5 and 6th chapters are accompanied by inscriptions - respectively as 124, 125, 126 and Chapter 127 of “The Helmsman”; from here we can assume that the 1st chapter was listed there as the 123rd, and the 2nd and 3rd chapters initially formed a single whole, entering the “Helmsman” in the form of its 124th chapter.
30. Wed. 2 Cor 6:14–15.
31. Wed. John 12:26.
32. Here in both versions: “compelling by nature.”
33. Wed. Luke 6:36. Giving a hidden quotation from the Gospel of Luke, the Monk Maxim (a “Russian-speaking” Greek) unconventionally uses here the word “generous” (sumpaq”j) instead of the generally accepted “merciful” (o„kt…rmwn), since both of these words had meaning in Greek similar semantic meaning, and in ancient Russian writing they could equally be attached to such concepts as “responsive, compassionate, sympathetic” (in particular, the ancient Russian “generous” is translated as “compassionate”, and “generosity” - as “mercy” Archpriest G. Dyachenko - see his “Complete Church Slavonic Dictionary.” M., 1993. - P. 834). It is curious that in another of his works - “The Controversy about the Known Monastic Residence” (Works of St. Maxim the Greek. Part 2. Kazan, 1860. - P. 113) - Svyatogorets quotes the text of Luke 6:34–36, where verse 36 is again given in an unconventional translation, when he equates the concept of “generosity” with the concept of “mercy”: “Be ever more generous, as your Heavenly Father is generous”; Moreover, the adjective “heavenly” here is an obvious “remembering” of the text of Matthew 5:48, which is similar in construction.
34. About Moscow Cathedrals of the mid-16th century. in connection with icon painting, see: Andreev N. E. About the “case of clerk Viskovaty” // Seminarium Condacovianum. T.

    V. Prague, 1932. - pp. 191–242 [republished (abridged) in the book: Philosophy of Russian religious art of the 16th–20th centuries. Anthology... - Ss. 292–317]; Podobedova O.I. Moscow school of painting under Ivan IV. M., 1972; Uspensky L.A. Decree op. - Ss. 253–267; Saltykov A. Fragen der kirchlichen Kunst auf der Hundertkapitelsynode von 1551 // Zeitschrift fur Ostkirchliche Kunst. Hermeneia. 7. Jg., Heft 2/3, 1991. - SS. 71–92; Sarabyanov V.D. Iconographic content of commissioned icons of Metropolitan Macarius // Questions of art history. Vol. 4/93. M., 1994. - pp. 243–285; Archimandrite Macarius (Veretennikov). Stoglavy Cathedral 1551 // Alpha and Omega. 1996. No. 1(8). - Ss. 88–104.

35. Wed. the following excerpts from the publication: From Stoglav, a conciliar answer about painters... // Original icon painting. - Ss. 18–21.