Journal of Icon Studies Volume 1 jis_v1 | Seite 25

16 th century. Nevertheless these conflicts were reflected in Russian iconography, not just
in representations of Saint Nicholas, but in other subjects. 38
It is quite likely that not only the inscription on our icon, but also its new iconography
with a wreath of representations celebrating the image of the great miracle-worker, was
determined by the religious atmosphere that developed in Russia in the 16 th century, by
the urge to glorify the revered saint, and thus to resist the attacks of the heterodox.
Artistic features. Time and place of execution.
The icon’s precise structure, compositional symmetry and accentuation of the corners
depend not only on the symbolical intention of the compilers of the iconographical
program, who, as we have seen, made the composition resemble the cover of an altar
Gospel and introduced other important associations, but also on the style of the 16 th
century, the time when it was executed. In Russian painting of the 16 th century, unlike
the art of the earlier period, one often finds a strictly regulated structure, very different
from unrestricted spontaneity. Yet in many other respects the icon is remarkably close
to earlier Russian icon painting. The concentrated face of the central image reflects the
great tradition of representing the wise Church Fathers in Byzantine and Russian art.
The plastic form, expressive movements, rich colors and large figures in the corner
representations, particularly the angels, three-dimensional, plastic, almost sculptural,
recall vividly the images of 15 th -century Novgorodian icons and through them even
earlier ones, from the Byzantine classicism of the Paleologan age.
The very presence of the four angels, their significant role in the composition, the
silhouettes of their unfurled, pointed wings also reflect the special features of 16 th -century
Russian painting, where the “angel theme” is often found. A good example is the mid-16 th -
century icon “Blessed be the Host of the King of Heaven” (“The Church Triumphant”)
from the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin (Moscow, Tretyakov Gallery), 39
where multitudes of angels, the Virgin’s messengers, are flying above the procession of
holy warriors.
The most likely time when our icon was painted is the second quarter or middle of the
16 th century. The master who executed it was still far removed from the schematism that
began to be found increasingly in Russian icon painting of the second half of the 16 th
century. It is enough to look at the gradations of movement and the inner state of the
figures. The Savior and Virgin Mary, serene in the heavenly heights, incline only slightly
to lift the insignia, which seem incredibly light in their hands (Figures 5, 6 above). Their
faces are finely drawn, their figures surrounded by pink festoons of clouds, and the
38 They made themselves felt, in particular, in Byzantine and later in Russian iconography of Saint Luke the Icon-
painter. According to Byzantine tradition, in early times he was depicted in a serene pose, bent over like a scribe,
a compiler of the Gospel. Under the influence of the Catholic world, however, which strove to reinforce the case
for the holiness of the religious image, including the depiction of the Madonna posing and an angel helping the
artist, new treatments also arose in Orthodox art. In Russian art the composition of Domenikos Theotokopoulos
(El Greco) was reflected in an icon of 1560-1567, where Luke is depicted in the casual pose of the “artist” with an
angel at the top in the clouds. Another n ew Russian version is also known—with the figure of the Virgin Mary from
which Luke is painting his icon (E.S. Smirnova, “К вопросу об изображениях евангелиста Луки, пишущего
икону Богородицы. Русские реплики поствизантийских образцов”, Искусство христианского мир, Issue no.
XI, (Moscow, 2009), pp. 320-335).
39 V.I. Antonova, N.E. Mniova,. Государственная Третьяковская Галерея. Каталог древнерусской живописи.
Опыт историко-художественной классификации, Vol. 2, (Moscow, 1963), Cat. 521, pls. 37-41.
16
Journal of Icon Studies