under the figure and connected with the theme of
the indestructible Christian city). 21
Figure 14. Gospel Cover. End
of the 16th century with later
additions. From the Cathedral
of Saint Sophia, Novgorod.
Figure 15. Gospel Cover.
The central and corner
plaques, Moscow 1639;
the background, Novgorod
1660s. Novgorod Museum
(from the Monastery of the
Holy Spirit in Novgorod).
There is, however, a considerable difference
between comparisons in art of the Byzantine period
and the devices of the post-Byzantine age when our
icon was produced. Whereas in early monuments
the images reproduced are “basic”, primary,
tangible ones (cup, chalice), later ones, our icon
among them, reproduce not the objects themselves,
but representational motifs which have grown up in
Christian art. What is repeated in our icon of Saint
Nicholas is a long established structure with flying
angels, and also the composition of the front cover
of altar Gospels, which in turn contains an allusion
to the outlines of the Cross. Identical features
are found in other compositions that appeared
in Russian art of the 16 th century and contain allusions to other images. Examples are
representations of “Our Lady of the Burning Bush” (Figure 18), which include the
symbolism of the star and halos with eight rays associated with the creative power of the
Divine Wisdom.
The quoting of an old representational motif—its insertion in a new context with the
aim of enriching the meaning of the new composition with additional allusions—which
we find in the newly discovered icon of Saint Nicholas, is in keeping with the tradition
of inventive iconographical production which appeared in 16 th -century Russian icon
painting and variations of the old Byzantine devices. What we have here is a case of
orientation towards a “paradigm”, which A.M. Lidov pointed out using other examples. 22
The central representation
Let us now turn to the focus of the icon. We are struck by the apparent contrast between
the central representation and what surrounds it. The figure of Saint Nicholas is serene,
static, and relatively flat. The saint’s face is inspired and contemplative, yet at the same
time aloof, his phelonion a dull flesh shade (Figure 4). Yet all the figures and scenes
around the central image stand out in sharp relief and are full of movement and energy,
shining with vivid, lively colors. As an explanation of this contrast we would advance
the cautious hypothesis that the focal image of the icon contains an allusion to a specially
revered image of Saint Nicholas. Its apparent abstraction and the devices for representing
the figure differ from the rest of the painting and were intended to convey the specific
nature of the central representation, to recall its prototype.
One unobtrusive detail, the rounded contour of the figure along the lower edge, suggests
that in producing this new work the 16 th -century master had in mind the so-called “round
image” of Saint Nicholas, the wonder-working icon (“round board”) that, legend has it,
floated to Novgorod from Kiev and healed Prince Mstislav Vladimirovich of Novgorod
21 S.S. Averintsev, “К уяснению смысла надписи над конхой центральной апсиды Софии Киевской”,
Древнерусское искусство. Художественная культура домонгольской Руси, (Moscow: Nauka, 1972), pp. 25-49
22 A. Lidov, «Образы-парадигмы» как категория визуальной культуры, in: A Lidov,. Иеротопия.
Пространственные иконы и образы-парадигмы в византийской культуры. (Moscow, 2009), pp. 293-303.
Journal of Icon Studies
9