a style of icon so deeply influenced by western methods as to be an unsatisfactory compromise.
Примечания
1
Kustár’ (adj. kustárny) from German Kunst means a craftsman who works on his own, whether in wood, metal, or any material, in his own house in a town or more often a village, as opposed to a manu-facturer and his employees. See, e.g., L’Art Populaire Russe à la Seconde Exposition Koustare de toute la Russie à Petrograd, 1913, pubd. by the Ministry of Agriculture, P. 1914. Text in Russian and French: 35 icons illustrated, many with prices.
2
Podubórnoe, a board painted only where the flesh parts showed through the metal riza.
3
Frydz’, a style of icon so deeply influenced by western methods as to be an unsatisfactory compromise.
4
I retain this the usual translation of Sobór, literally a ‘bringing together’; hence (1) a Synod or Great Council of Church or State; (2) an Assembly of holy persons joining in praise round the Virgin, an Archangel, etc.; (3) a service conducted by several clergy; (4) a Collegiate Church and so the principal churches of towns or monasteries, but not a Bishop’s seat, e.g. the five Sobors in the Kremlin at Moscow, the little ancient church of Spas na Boric (Our Saviour in the Pine-wood), the Great Uspénski Sobor (Dormition), Blagovêshchenski (Annunciation), Arkhángelski with the graves of the old Tsars, and Voznesénski (Ascension) with the graves of the Tsaritsas.
5
Otéchestvennÿa Dostopámyatnosti (Memorials of the Fatherland), 1823-4; I. Snegirëv and Martýnov, Pámyatniki drév-nyago Khudózhestva v Rossíi (Monuments of ancient Art in Russia), 1850 (two icons); Drévnosti Rossíyskago Gosudárstva (Anti-quités de l’Empire Russe), 1849-53 (ten icons); I. Snegirëv, Pámyatniki Moskóv-skikh Drévnostey (Monuments of Moscow Antiquities), 1841-2 (five icons); K. Tromónin, Dostopámyatnosti Moskvý (Memorials of Moscow), 1834! A. L. Vel’tman, same title, 1848; Evgeni [Bolkhovítinov], Kíevo-Pechérskaya Lávra. Kievo-Sofiyski Sobór; for his works see E. Shmúrlo, The Metropolitan Evgeni as a Scholar, P. 1888; M. Pogodin, ‘The Fate of Archaeology in Russia’, Journ. Min. Jnstr., 1869, No. 9.
6
N. I. Veselóvski, Istóriya Imperátor-skago Rússkago Arkheologícheskago Óbsh-chestva (Society), P. 1900.
7
Byt Rússkikh Tsaréy i Tsaríts, M. 1872, 2nd ed. 1915: Materiály dlya Istórii Rússkago Ikonopisániya po arkhívnym dokúmentam.
8
G. D. Filimonov, Description of the Contents of the Korobánov Museum, M. 1849. A Pódlinnik is a guide to iconography describing fully how a scene or person is to be represented; if illustrated, it is called Litsevóy Pódlinnik.
9
Zapíski (Transactions) Imp. Arkh. Obshch. (Soc), viii (1856), pp. 1-196: re-issued by A. S. Suvórin, P. 1901.
10
For this church see P. Gusev in Trans. XV (Novgorod, 1911) R. Archaeological Congress, ii, pp. 138-50, Pl. i-vI, M. 1916.
11
Newly cleaned icons: A. I. Anísimov, he Icon of S. Theodore Stratelates in his Church at Novgorod, 1922; and The Icon of Our Lady of Vladimir in the Cathedral of the Assumption at Moscow, in preparation.
12
N. P. Kondakov, Iconography of the B. V. M.: Connexions, P. 1910
13
N. P. Likhachëv, Istorícheskoe Znachénie Italo-grécheskoy Ikonopisi (Hist. Significance of Italo-Greek Icon-painting), P. 1911, takes the same line.
14
P. Murátov, ‘History of Painting, I. Introduction to the History of Old Russian Painting, II. Origin of Old Russian Painting’, in vol. vi of I. Grabar’, History of Russian Art, M. 1909-. He regards both Italy and Russia as learning side by side from the late Byzantine revival seen at Kahrie Djámi and Mistra. The illustrations to this book, including many Moscow icons, make a most valuable supplement to our selection: so do the more accessible Réau and Halle mostly founded upon it. E. H. M.
15
E. H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks, p. 538, quoting Kondakov, Russian Hoards, pp. 33 sqq.
16
Ch. Diehl, Manuel d’Art Byzantin, Paris, 1925, p. 85, f. 28.
17
I write the word icon as the accepted transliteration of íIkúv: the genitive ííkóvos has in modern Greek produced an ordinary feminine nominative, and this form passed into Russian as ikóna: Russian has also translated it as óbraz, which we can only render by ‘image’, but this in English does not readily suggest a flat.
18
W. Grüneisen, ‘The Illusionist Portrait’, Sofia (a Russian Art magazine), No. 4, 1914; Graul, Die antike Porträt-gemälde aus den Grabstätten des Fajum, Leipzig, 1888; G. Ebers, Eine Gallerie antiker Porträts, Berlin, 1889; U. Wilcken, ‘Die Hellenistische Porträts aus El Fajum’, Arch. Anzeiger., iv, 1889; Girard, Peinture Antique, Paris, 1892, pp. 249 sqq.; Th. Graf, Collection de Portraits Antiques de l’Époque Grecque en Égypte, Vienna, n. d.; P. Buberl,Gr.-Äg. Mumienbildnisse, ib. 1922.
19
By ‘Byzantine’ the author generally means ‘Constantinopolitan’, or at least truly Greek, but sometimes he falls into the ordinary vague use of the term.
20
See the controversy between S. Jerome and the Gaulish pilgrim Vigilantius who vainly tried to protest against the veneration of relics and icons, all-night watchings in martyria, and suchlike. Migne, P. L. xxii, Ep. Hieronymi, lxi, ad Vigilantium; xxiii, p. 337, Liber contra Vigilantium, A. D. 406.
21
Kondakov, Iconography B. V. M., i (1914), pp. 131-5, 153-8.
22
Latin mantele, ‘napkin’. Strictly speaking the Vernicle is the imprint of Christ’s features on the way to crucifixion, while the Greek napkin shows them yet unmarred.
23
Russian Museum, No. 1810, from the collection of N. P. Likhachëv.
24
For a summary of the whole controversy see A. I. Dobroklonski, S. Theodore, Confessor and Abbot of the Studium, i, pp. 34–47, P. 1913. The orthodox finally laid down that icons were not to receive ‘adoration in the proper sense’.
25
Dalton, Byz. Art, p. 318, f. 193, after Ph. Lauer, Mon Piot, 1906.
26
Recent cleaning is giving new material.
27
Grabar'-Muratov, p. 149; Alpátoff and Lásareff (Lázarev), Jahrb. d. Preusz. Kunstsamml., LXIV. ii, p. 146, f. 3.
28
Kondakov, Macedonia, 1909, pp. 249 sqq., Pl. V–XII.
29
The more general explanation of the term is that the mêstnÿya ikóny are ‘the icons of the locally revered Festivals and Saints’: so Anisimov defines them in his Guide to the Exhibition of Monuments of Old-Russian Icon-painting, held in the Historical Museum, Moscow, in 1926.
30
A.Popov, Survey of the Ancient Russian eleventh to sixteenth Centuries, P. 1875, Works of Controversy against the Latins, pp. 56 sqq.
