the unprecedented development of the provinces , particularly the North and the area along the Volga . Similarly , in the sphere of culture this period is known not only for the forceful spreading of state ideology and the new iconographical variants produced in the workshops of the metropolitans and tsars , but also for the significance of local traditions , the absorbing of broad , popular ideas into church art .
Bearing these considerations in mind , we can assume that the general Russian glorification of local miracle-working icons of Saint Nicholas in the 16 th century ( for example , the image of Saint Nicholas of Velikoretsk in 1555 ), is explained not only by the initiative of Moscow , but also by the scale of the traditional veneration of this icon in the village near Vyatka . 27
Alongside the increased veneration of icons of Saint Nicholas in the provinces there was the activity of the Moscow authorities , on whose orders certain early and specially revered icons of Saint Nicolas were removed to Moscow . They included the abovementioned transfer of the “ round icon ” from Novgorod to a church in the grand prince ’ s palace in the Moscow Kremlin in 1502 and of the celebrated icon of the late 12 th century often called “ Nikola Novodevichy ” ( now in the State Tretyakov Gallery ) from a church in Novgorod to the newly founded Novodevichy Convent in Moscow . 28 There is every reason to suppose that the hagiographical icon from the late 14 th - early 15 th century in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin known from old inventories as “ Nikola Vezhitsky ” is the Novgorodian wonder-working icon from the Vyazhishsky Monastery brought to Moscow with many other sacred relics from Novgorod in the 16 th century . 29 The saint ’ s designation as wonder-worker naturally became increasingly popular , and the hagiographical cycle was enriched with more and more new scenes and details .
Yet to our mind there was another reason for the above-mentioned innovations in representations of Saint Nicholas , which lies in the intensification of the theological disputes that manifested themselves with special force in the middle of the 16 th century . The group of heretics opposed by the official Russian Church was led by a certain Matfey Bashkin , who was a boyar . In his views historians detect the influence of the ideology of the West European Reformation , while Bashkin himself said that he had got his ideas from the “ Latins ” in Lithuania . 30
The struggle against these heretics grew more active in 1553 when supporters of the heresy , the former hegumen of the Trinity-Saint Sergius Monastery Artemiy , and also Perfir ( Porfiriy ) Maloy and Sava Shakh , were invited to meet Tsar Ivan the Terrible and Metropolitan Macarius . In expounding their views , the heretics “ blasphemed against all wonder-workers who believed in Christ and performed miracles , and mocked all rules and church councils ” ( i . e ., viewed church rules and decisions of Church councils as empty
27 Makhanko , М . А . “ Икона св . Николы Великорецкого в коллекции Амброзиано Венето и почитание чудотворного образа в XVI в .”, Памятники культуры . Новые открытия . 1997 , ( Moscow , 1998 ), pp . 240-251 .
28 Государственная Третьяковская галерея . Каталог собрания , том 1 . Древнерусское искусство X-- начала XV века . Moscow 1995 , cat . 9 .
29 E . S . Smirnova , V . K . Laurina , E . A Gordienko . Живопись Великого Новгорода . XV век ., ( Moscow , 1982 ), Cat . 5 .
30 See , for example : A . I . Klibanov Реформационные движения в России в XIV – первой половине XVI в ., ( Moscow , 1960 ). pp . 265-274 ; Archimandrite Makariy ( Veretennikov ). “ Башкин Матвей Семенович ”, Православная энциклопедия , vol . IV ( Афанасий – Бессмертие ), ( Moscow , 2002 ), pp . 401-403 .
Journal of Icon Studies 13