St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series V: Problems of History and Theory of Christian Art

This article deals with styles of Anglo-Saxon art arranged in chronological order with particular reference to Celtic and Scandinavian infl uences. A specifi c chapter of the article discusses three perspectives of Anglo-Saxon art, namely the mutual relationship between Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Scandinavian art; the Holy Scriptures in Anglo- Saxon art; the new approach to icons and iconology in the West (Carolingian Empire) in the Middle Ages. These perspectives clearly show how close the cultural and social connections between the peoples of the British Isles and the northern parts of Western Europe were in the Middle Ages; they also demonstrate what these connections have given to subsequent generations, namely the Holy Scripture as an artistic and religious ideal (sola Scriptura), reinterpretation of the icon in the result of the statutes of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Council in Frankfurt (794) and Libra Carolini, i.e. the artistic and theological look at the veneration of icons of the later times that originated in Aachen and spread in the Protestant milieu of Western Europe. There are three elements observed in the art of Anglo-Saxon England which were always present in artwork and artefacts, namely colour, correlation of abstract ornamentation and fi gurative painting, continuous reception of infl uences from Ireland, Scandinavia, continental Europe. The main hypothesis of the article is that the Anglo-Saxon approach to art with all its influences and periodical syncretism at the turn of the fi rst and second millenia AD has conditioned changes in the expression of the religious feeling of Germanic peoples of continental Western Europe. In the context of the Carolingian Renaissance (which included particular attention to the Holy Scriptures and Charles’ the Great ideas on iconoclasm), this conditioned the fact that in Protestant circles of the later period the Holy Scriptures are taken as the sole creed in the church, whereas icons are not venerated in the same fashion as in the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

Anglo-Saxon art, Northumbria, Wessex, Kent, Sutton Hoo, Insular style, Irish- Saxon style, Anglo-Scandinavian style, Insular art, Lindisfarn Gospel, Codex Amiatinus, Opus Anglicanum

1. Abels Richard, “The Council of Whitby: A Study in Early Anglo-Saxon Politics:, in: Journal of British Studies, 1983, № 23/1, 1–25.
2. Alexander J. G. G., Insular Manuscripts: Sixth to Ninth Century, London, 1978.
3. Anker P., The Art of Scandinavia, 1, London, New York, 1970.
4. Asa Simon Mittman, Maps and Monsters in Medieval England, New York, 2006.
5. Bailey R. N., Viking Age Sculpture in Northern England, London, 1980.
6. Bayle Maylis, “Interlace Patterns in Norman Romanesque Sculpture”, in: Regional Groups and Their Historical Background. Anglo-Norman Studies: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1982, 5, Boydell Press, 1990, 8–10.
7. Blair John P., The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society, Oxford, 2005.
8. Braun P., Успон Хришћанства на Западу, Belgrad, 2010, 568–570.
9. Bridgeford Andrew, 1066: the hidden history in the Bayeux Tapestry, London, 2005, 155–162.
10. Bruce-Mitford Rupert, “The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial: Some Foreign Connections”, in: Anglie Sassoni al di qua e al di là del mare: 26 aprile-lo maggio 1984. Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull'alto Medioevo, 32, 1986, 171–210.
11. Buaie Rezhi, Vikingi. Istorya I tzivilizatziya, St. Peterburg, 2012.
12. Budur N. V., Povsednevnaya zhizn’ vikingov. 9–11 centuries, Moscow, 2007.
13. Campbell James, “The Impact of the Sutton Hoo Discovery on the Study of Anglo-Saxon History”, in: Voyage to the Other World: The Legacy of the Sutton Hoo, Minneapolis, 1992, 79–101.
14. Cantor Norman, The Civilization of the Middle Ages: A Completely Revised and Expanded Edition of Medieval History, Harper Perennial, 1994.
15. “Charters of the New Minster, «Winchester»”, in: Anglo-Saxon Charters, 9, Oxford, 2001.
16. Chazelle Celia, “Christ and the vision of God: the Biblical diagrams of the Codex Amiatinus”, in: The mind's eye: art and theological argument in the Middle Ages, Princeton, 2006, 84–111.
17. Collins S., The Carolingian Debate over Sacred Space. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
18. Contreni John G., “The Carolingian Renaissance”, in: Renaissances before the Renaissance: cultural revivals of late antiquity and the Middle Ages, Stanford University Press, 1985.
19. Corsano Karen, “The First Quire of the Codex Amiatinus and the Institutiones of Cassiodorus”, in: Scriptorium, 41/1, 1987, 4–7.
20. Deshman R., The Benedictional of Æthelwold. Studies in Manuscript Illumination, Vol. 9, Princeton, 1995.
21. Dodwell Charles Reginald, The Pictorial Arts of the West, 800–1200. Yale University Press, 1993.
22. Fanning Steven, “Bede, Imperium, and the Bretwaldas”, in: Speculum, 66/1, 1991, 22–23.
23. Frankish Art in American Collections, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1984, 24
24. Freeman Ann,”Theodulf of Orleans and the Libri Carolini “, Speculum, 32/4, 1957, 663–705.
25. Fuglesang S. H., “Animal Ornament: the Late Viking Period”, in: Tiere, Menschen, Götter: Wikingerzeitliche Kunststile und ihre Neuzeitliche Rezeption, Göttingen, 2001, 157–194.
26. Gedeonov S. A., Variagi I Rus’. Razoblachenie normannskogo mipha, Moscow, 2012.
27. George F. Warner, Julius P. Gilson, Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collections. British Museum, London, 1, 1921.
28. Graham-Campbell J., Viking Artefacts: A Select Catalogue, London, 1980.
29. Gregorius I, Registrum Epistolarum, XI, 13.
30. Haseloff G., “Salin's Style I”, in: Medieval Archaeology, 1974, 18, 16.
31. Henderson Isabel, “Pictish art and the Book of Kells”, in: Ireland in early medieval Europe: studies in memory of Kathleen Hughes, Cambridge, 1982, 79–105.
32. Hicks Carola, The Bayeux Tapestry: The Life Story of a Masterpiece, London, 2006.
33. Higham Nicholas J., Martin J. Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World, Yale University Press, 2013, 3.
34. Johannes Brøndsted, Early English Ornament: The Sources, Development and Relation to Foreign Styles of Pre-Norman Ornamental art in England, London, 1924, 104–122.
35. Julius P. Gilson, Description of the Saxon Manuscript of the Four Gospels in the Library of York Minster, York, 1925, 4.
36. Kauffmann C. M., Biblical Imagery in Medieval England, 700–1500, London, 2003, 56.
37. Kershaw J., “The Distribution of the 'Winchester' Style in Late Saxon England: Metalwork Finds from the Danelaw”, in: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 15, 2008, 254–269.
38. Leontiev A. I., Leontieva M. V., Pokhody normannov na Rus’. Istoki Rusi iznachal’noi, Moscow, 2009.
39. Marsden R., The Text of the Old Testament in Anglo-Saxon England, Cambridge, 1995.
40. Meyvaert Paul, “Bede, Cassiodorus, and the Codex Amiatinus”, in: Speculum, 71/4, 1996, 829–837.
41. Michelle P. Brown, Manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Age, London, 2007.
42. Nelson, Janet L., “On the limits of the Carolingian renaissance”, in: Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe, Hambledon Press, 1986.
43. Pulliam Heather, Word and Image in the Book of Kells, Dublin, 2006.
44. Reproductions from Illuminated Manuscripts, Series 3. British Museum, London, 1925.
45. Richard Gameson, The Earliest Books of Canterbury Cathedral: Manuscripts and Fragments to c. 1200, London, 2008, 57–60.
46. Richard Gameson, The Earliest Books of Canterbury Cathedral: Manuscripts and Fragments to c. 1200, London, 2008.
47. Riegl A., Kain E., Problems of style: foundations for a history of ornament, Princeton, 1992, 187–206.
48. Royal Manuscripts: The Genius of Illumination. British Library, London, 2011.
49. Rud Mogens, The Bayeux Tapestry and the Battle of Hastings 1066, Copenhagen, 1992.
50. St. Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, London 2008, 1, lxi, lxxxix, xcv, 373, 443, 515, 606, 1656, 1658, 1730, 1733, 1747, 1801, 1822, 1838.
51. Stenton Frank M., Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford, 1971
52. Suzuki Seiichi, The Quoit Brooch Style and Anglo-Saxon Settlement: A Casting and Recasting of Cultural Identity Symbols, Boydell Press, 2000, 82–83.
53. Temple Elzbieta, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts 900–1066. Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles, 2, London, 1976, 23, illyustratsii 85, 86, 88, 90, 91.
54. The Age of Sutton Hoo: The seventh century in north-western Europe, Woodbridge 1992.
55. The Cambridge Illuminations: Ten Centuries of Book Production in the Medieval West, London, 2005.
56. The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, 966-1066, British Museum Publications Ltd, 1984.
57. Trompf G. W., “The concept of the Carolingian Renaissance”, in: Journal of the History of Ideas, 34/1, 1973.
58. Ullmann Walter, The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea of Kingship, Routledge, 2010.
59. Wamers Egon,”Behind animals, plants and interlace: Salin's Style II on Christian objects”, in: Anglo-Saxon/Irish relations before the Vikings, Oxford, 2009, 151–204.
60. Webster Leslie, The Franks Casket: Objects in Focus, London, 2012.
61. Wilson David M. Anglo-Saxon Art: From The Seventh Century To The Norman Conquest, London, 1984.
62. Wilson David M., Anglo-Saxon: Art From The Seventh Century To The Norman Conquest, Thames and Hudson, 1984.
63. Wissolik Richard David, The Bayeux Tapestry. A Critical Annotated Bibliography with Cross References and Summary Outlines of Scholarship, 1729–1988, Greensburg, 1989.
64. Wood Ian N. “Ripon, Francia and the Franks Casket in the Early Middle Ages”, in: Northern History, 26, 1990, 1–19.

Chairovich Ivitza, диакон

Until recently, the mosaics of the dome of Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki was dated by an inscription located in the ornamental garland running along the edge of the dome. However, the study of K. Theocharidou has shown that the inscription is a remnant of the preceding decoration and cannot serve as a basis for dating the composition of the Ascension. In this article, I try to look again at the development of Byzantine painting in the post-iconoclastic period. Drawing on the stylistic analys, I off er new dating for the mosaics. At the end of the 9th — beginning of the 10th centuries, in the art of the Macedonian Renaissance it is possible to distinguish a number of monuments in which ascetic intonations begin to gradually invade the system of classical painting. These are the mosaics in the lunette over the royal entrance in the narthex of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (886‒912), mosaics of the northern tympanum of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (after 878), mosaics in the rooms above the southwest vestibule (880‒890s), a mosaic portrait of Emperor Alexander in the northern gallery (912), as well as a number of manuscripts, namely the Christian Topography by Cosmas Indicopleustes (Vat. gr., 699), Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus (Paris, BNF. gr. 510), Book of Job (Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Codex Gr. 538), Gospel № 5 of the Skete of St. Andrew, Athos, now kept in Princeton (Garrett 6). The style of the dome mosaics logically fi ts into the range of these monuments and, alongside them, looks like a work of art in which this process reaches its fullest development. In Thessaloniki’s mosaics the ascetic tendencies already begin to dominate, whereas the classical intonations become noticeable only at a close look. The nearest analogies that allow us to specify the dating of the mosaics of the dome are found in the wallpaintings of the Cappadocia dated 913‒920, namely in the church of Ayvali Kilise, the church of the Holy Apostles in Sinasos and in the Old Church of Tokali. All this gives us the opportunity to speak of the fi rst attempt in the post-iconoclastic art of the Byzantine Empire at the end of the 9th — beginning of the 10th century to depart from the classical traditions in the direction of the ascetic, which in the future will most clearly be embodied in the art of the fi rst half of the 11th century.

mosaics of the dome of St. Sophia in Thessaloniki, Ascension, Byzantine wallpainting at the end of the 9th — beginning of the 10th centuries, Byzantine manuscripts of the late 9th — early 10th centuries, wall-painting in Cappadocia in the beginning of the 10th century, painting of the post-iconoclastic period, art of Macedonian period

1. Ainalov D. V., “Retsenziya na stat’yu Sh. Dilya i M. Le Turno vMonPiot, XVI 1908”, in: Vizantijskij Vremennik, Moscow, 1910, 535–541.
2. Akopian Z. A., “Khudozhestvennyei ikonografi cheskie istoki miniatyur Evangeliya tzaritsy Milke 862), in: Lazarevskie chteniya, Moscow, 2012, 15–38.
3. Bakirtzis Ch., Kourkuotidou-Nikolaidou Ef., Mavropoulou-Tsiumi Ch. Mosaics of Thessaloniki 4th-14th century, Athens, 2012, 212–295.
4. Cormack R., Hawkins E. J. W., “The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul: the Rooms above the Southwest Vestibule and Ramp”, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Washington, D.C., 31, 1977, 31, 175–251.
5. Cormark R., The Apse Mosaics of S. Sophia at Thessaloniki (pl. 19–22). Δελτίον XAE 10 Athens (1980–1981), 111–136.
6. Demus O., Mozaiki vizantij skikh khramov. Printsipy monumentak’nogo iskusstva Vizantii, Moscow, 2001.
7. Diehl Ch., Le Tourneau M., Saladin H., Les Monuments Chrétiens de Salonique, Paris, 1918
8. Diez E., Demus O., Byzantine Mosaics in Greece: Hosios Lucas and Daphni, Harvard University Press Cambridge, Mass., 1931, 97–98.
9. Dil’ Sh., “Chetyre braka imperatora L’va Mudrogo”, in: Vizantijskie portrety. VIII, Moscow, 1994, 96–110.
10. Feissel D., Sρieser J. M., Les inscriptions de Thessalonique, supplement. Travaux et Mémoires 7, Paris, 303–348.
11. Fonkich B. L., “Khludpvskaya Psaltir’: kodikologiya i paleographiya; istoriya rukopisi”, in: Obraz Vizantii, Moscow, 2008, 577–586.
12. Kalligas M., Die Hagia Sophia von Thessaloniki, Würzburg, 1935.
13. Kolpakova G., Iskusstvi Vizantii. Rannij i srednij periody, St Petersburg, 2004, 266–270.
14. Kondakov N. P., Makedoniya. Arkheologicheskoe puteshestvie, Moscow, 1909.
15. Lazarev V. N., Istoriya vizantij skoi zhivopisi, Moscow, 1986.
16. Le Tourneau M., Diehl Ch., “Les Mosaïques de Sainte – Sophie de Salonique”, in: Monuments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot, 16, 1909, Paris, 39–60.
17. Leveto-Jabr P., Carbon-14 Dating of Wood from the East Apse of Santa Maria at Castel Seprio, - «Gesta», XXVI / 1, Chicago, 1987, 17–18.
18. Lozovaya I. E., Fonkich B. L., “O proiskhozhdenii Khludovskoi Psaltiri”, in: Drevnerusskoe isrusstvo. Iskusstvo rukopisnoi knigi. Vizantiya. Drevnyaya Rus’, 25, St Petersburg, 2004, 7–20.
19. Mango C., Hawkins E. J. W., “The Mosaics of Saint Sophia at Istanbul. The Church Fathers in the North Tympanum”, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Washington, D.C., 1972, 26, 1–41.
20. Marava-Chatzinicolau A., Toufexi-Paschou Chr., Catalogue of the Illuminated Byzantine Manuscripts of the National Library of Greece. Athens, 3, 1978, № 5, 57–69.
21. Mentzos A., “Santa Sofi a di Salonicco: il problema della prima fase”, in: Atti del Convegno Internazionale. Bologna-Ravenna, 2007, 87–98.
22. Oretskaya I. A., “Esche neskol’ko zamechanij po povodu vizantij skikh psaltirei IX v”., in: Vizantijskij vremennik, 61, Moscow, 2002, 151–171.
23. Oretskaya I. A., “Gomilii Grigoriya Nazianzina (Biblioteca Ambrosiana cod. E49-50inf) – grecheskaya illyustrirovannaya rukopis’ IX veka: vzaimootnoshenie obrzov i teksta”, in: Iskusstvo christianskogo mira, Moscow, 2002, 16–21.
24. Oretskaya I. A., “O miniatyurakh grecheskoi rukopisi IX veka Sacra Parallela”, in: Vizаntijskij vremennik, 62(87), Мocow, 2003, 133–140.
25. Oretskaya I. A., “Stil’ miniatyur vatikanskoi Knigi Iova (Vatican, gr. 749): k probleme khudozhestvennykh traditsij ”, in: Vizantijskij mir: Iskusstvo Konstantinopolya i natsional’nye traditsii, Moscow, 2005, 109–122.
26. Panayotidi М., “La peinture monumentale en Grèce de la fi n de l’Iconoclasme jusqu’à l’avènement des Comnènes (843–1081)”, in: Cahiers archéologiques. Picard, 1986. 34, 75–108.
27. Pelekanides St., “Bemerkungen zu den Altarmosaiken der Hagia Sophia zu Thessaloniki und die Frage der Datierung der Platytera”, in: Βυζαντινά 5. Thessaloniki, 1973, 98–107.
28. Pelekanides St., “I Mosaici di S. Sophia di Salonicco”, in: Corso di Cultura sull'arte Ravennate e Bizantina. XI. Ravenna, 1964, 37–49.
29. Pokrovsky N. V., Evangelie v pamyatnikakh ikonographii, preimuschestvenno vizantij skikh i russkikh, Moscow, 2001.
30. Popova O. S., “Iskusstvo pervykh vekov christianstva. Iskusstvo Vizantii”, in: Ocherki istorii iskusstva, Moscow, 1987, 268–269.
31. Popova O. S., “Obraz Christa v vizantij skom iskusstve V–XIV vekov”, in: Vizantijskij vremennik, Moscow, 60, 2001, 165.
32. Popova O. S., Sarab’yanov V. D., Mozaiki i freski sv. Sophii Kievskoi, Moscow, 2017, 203–234.
33. Smirnov Ya. I., “Esche o vremeni mоzaiki sv. Sophii Solunskoi”, in: Vizantijskij vremennik, Moscow, 1900, VII. 1–2, 60–67.
34. Sρieser J. M., “Les inscriptions de Thessalonique”, in: Travaux et Mémoires 5, Paris, 1973, 145–180.
35. Theocharidou K., “The Architecture of Hagia Sophia, Thessalonike: from its Erection up to the Turkish Conquest”, in: British Archaeological Reports. International Series, 399. Oxford, 1988.
36. Thierry N., A propos de l'Ascension d'Ayvali kilise et de celle de Sainte-Sophie de Salonique. Peintures d'Asie Mineure et de Transcaucasie au Xe et XIes. London, 1977, 145–154.
37. Wharton A., “Tokali Kilise: Tenth-Century Metropolitan Art in Byzantine Cappadocia”, in: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Washington, D.C., 1986, 14–15.
38. Zakharova A. V., Oretskaya I. A., “Vizantijskya knizhnaya miniatyura”, in: Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya, VIII, Moscow, 267–277.

Tupitsina Ksenia

This article deals with the analysis of the representations of secular Byzantine costume in the miniatures of the illuminated manuscript of the second half of the 11th century Codex Gertrudianus. Codex miniatures are an important part of art legacy of medieval Rus’; however, the questions of dating, authorship and iconographic programme of the miniatures still remain controversial. This paper looks at some issues of the iconographic programme and authorship of the miniatures being based on the method of analysis of secular attire. The novelty of the research is conditioned by the lack of studies dealing with secular attire depicted in the miniatures. In particular, the analysis of the Byzantine secular attire allows us to argue in favour of the version according to which Gertrude’s patron St. Helene is depicted in the miniature “Gertrude is praying to Apostle Peter”. The paper off ers proofs that the artist was perfectly familiar with the Byzantine iconographic canon of depicting Byzantine imperial costume. At the same time, the paper points to the archaic, non-typical and misinterpreted elements of the Byzantine attire of the second half of the 11th century which show that the artist was probably not familiar with some peculiarities of the Byzantine imperial costume. The author of the paper proposes that the artist who painted the miniatures was not a Romaios but studied from Byzantine masters.

Codex Gertrudianus, Gertrude’s Prayer Book, Old Russian book miniature, Byzantine costume, historical costume, costume of 11th century, pictorial sources

1. Ball J. L., Byzantine dress: representations of secular dress in eighth-to twelfth-century painting, Palgrave MacMillan, 2005.
2. Dawson T., By the Emperor’s hand: Military dress and court regalia in the later Roman-Byzantine Empire, Frontline Books, 2015.
3. Kazhdan A., ed. in chief, The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium in 3 volums, New York·Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
4. Kondakov N. P., Izobrazhenia russkoi kniazheskoi sem’i v miniatiurah XI veka, St. Petersburg: Imp. Akad. nauk, 1906.
5. Kürbis B., “Miniatury – próba nowej interpretacji”, in: Molitwy księżnej Gertrudy z Psalterza Egberta z Kalendarzem, Wyd.: Małgorzata H. Malewicz, Brygida Kürbis. Kraków, 2002. (Monumenta Sacra Polonorum. T. II), 50–62.
6. Lazarev V. N., Istoriia vizantiiskoi zhivopisi, Moscow: Art, 1986.
7. Maguire H., ed., “Byzantine court culture from 829 to 1204”, in: Papers from a symposium held in April, 1994. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton oaks research library and collection, 1997.
8. Mertsalova M. N., Kostium raznyh vremen i narodov, Vol. 1, Moscow, Akademiia mody Publ.; St. Petersburg, Chart Pilot Publ., 2001.
9. Parani M., “Cultural identity and dress: the case of late byzantine ceremonial costume”, in: Jahrbuch der österreichischen byzantinistik, 57, Band, 2007, 95–134.
10. Parani M., “The romanos ivory and the Tokali Kilise: imperial costume as a tool for dating Byzantine art”, in: Cahiers Archéologiques, 49, 2001, 15–28.
11. Popova O. S., “Miniatyury kodeksa Gertrudy v krugu vizantiiskogo iskusstva vtoroy poloviny XI v.”, in: Vizantiyskii vremennik, LXVII (XCII), 2008, 176–193.
12. Sapatharakis I., The portrait in byzantine illuminated manuscripts, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976.
13. Sauerland H. V., Haseloff A., Der Psalter Erzbischof Egberts von Trier. Codex Gertrudianus in Cividale, Trier, 1901.
14. Sili Sh., “Kodeks Gertrudy: Ch. II. Utochnenie datirovki”, in: Drevniaia Rus. Voprosy medievistiki, № 4 (58), 2014, 64–74.
15. Sili Sh., “Kodeks Gertrudy: Ch.I. Novoe prochtenie ikonografi cheskoi programmy”, in: Drevniaia Rus. Voprosy medievistiki, № 3 (57), September, 2014, 90–109.
16. Smirnova E. S., “Miniatyury XI i nachala XII v. v molitvennike knyagini Gertrudy. Programma, datirovka, mastera”, in: Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Iskusstvo rukopisnoi knigi. Vizantiia. Drevnyaia Rus, St. Petersburg, 2004, 73–106.
17. Tsamakda V., The illustrated chronicle of Ioannes Skylitzes in Madrid, Leiden: Alexandros press, 2002.

Poludneva Evgeniya

This article studies the newly revealed monument of medieval monumental painting, namely the murals of the Annunciation Church (16th century) of the Holy Dormition Pskovo-Pechersky monastery. The author of the article introduces new data revealed during the restoration process. The article presents the results obtained in the course of the author’s independent work on the study of the preserved murals. It identifi es the technique of the painting as well as the degree of preservation of the paint layer. The author focuses on the harmonious unity of the decoration of the church and its architecture, establishes the time of painting the frescoes and tentatively identifi es the circle of persons involved in their creation. Special attention is paid to the study and analysis of compositions preserved in the altar part of the church, their iconographic peculiarities being revealed as well. The author primarily employs descriptive and iconographic methods of research; theological method is used in describing the dogmatic and symbolic programme of the mural. The author comes to the conclusion that the complex of plots seen in the altar part of the church generally follows the established traditional system of decoration and is designed to disclose the theme of God’s incarnation and the ideas of liturgical sacrifi ce. Finally, the author points to the necessity of an integrated approach towards a deeper study and comprehension of the general decorative system of the church, which would make possible to trace and identify a certain relationship between the frescoes of the Annunciation Church and preserved monumental art complexes of the mid-16th century.

altar mural, archangels, Annunciation Church, dogmatic programme, Old Russian frescoes, Eucharist, iconography, wall-painting, Communion of the Apostles, Pskovo- Pechersky monastery, Pskov architectural tradition, restoration, Holy Trinity

1. Bobrov Iu. G., Osnovy ikonografi i pamiatnikov khristianskogo iskusstva, Moscow, 2010.
2. Bozhestvennaja liturgija izhe vo svjatogo otca nashego Ioanna Zlatoustogo, Sluzhebnik, Moscow, 1999.
3. Episkop Kassian (Bezobrazov), Hristos i pervoe hristianskoe pokolenie, Moscow, 2006.
4. Ierej O. Davydenkov, Dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie: ucheb. posob., Moscow, 2005.
5. Kachalova I. Ia., ”Monumental'naia zhivopis' (Monumental painting)”, in: Blagoveshchenskii sobor Moskovskogo Kremlia: K 500-letiiu unikal'nogo pamiatnika russkoi kul'tury, Moscow, 1990, 21–44.
6. Kvlividze N. V., “Ikonografi cheskaia programma altarnykh rospisei moskovskikh khramov vtoroi poloviny XVI v.?”, in: Vizantiiskii mir: iskusstvo Konstantinopolia i natsional'nye traditsii, Moscow, 2005, 621–646.
7. Malkov Iu. G., “Novye materialy k istorii arkhitekturnogo ansamblia Pskovo-Pecherskogo monastyria”, in: Restavratsiia i issledovaniia pamiatnikov kul'tury, Moscow, 2, 1982, 65–81.
8. Okhotnikova V. I., ed., “Povest' o Pskovo-Pecherskom monastyre”, in: Biblioteka literatury Drevnei Rusi. XVI vek, St. Petersburg, 13, 2005, 476–533.
9. “Pskovo-Pecherskii monastyr' v 1586 g.”, in: Starina i novizna, St. Petersburg, 7, 1904, 255–272.
10. Pskovskie letopisi. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, Moscow, 5, 2003, 1.
11. Pskovskie letopisi. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei. Moscow, 5, 2000, 2.
12. Rabinovich G., “Arkhitekturnyi ansambl' Pskovo-Pecherskogo monastyria”, in: Arkhitekturnoe nasledstvo, 6, 1956, 57–86.
13. Sarab'ianov V. D., Freski drevnego Pskova, Moscow, 1993.
14. Shchennikova L. A., “Pochitanie Sviatoi Troitsy v XVI stoletii. Svoeobrazie izobrazhenii v Blagoveshchenskom sobore Moskovskogo Kremlia i v khramakh drugikh russkikh gorodov”, in: Moskovskii Kreml' XVI stoletiia. Drevnie sviatyni i istoricheskie pamyatniki, Moscow, 2, 2014, 56–109.
15. Shchennikova L. A., Sviataia Troitsa, St. Petersburg, 2014.

Hieromonk Prokhor (Andreichuk I.)

This article analyses the typology of icons in covers of the second half of the 16th — beginning of the 17th centuries with holy fi gures on frames. Precious covers were made in Kremlin workshops, many of them were commissioned by tsar. The work with archival materials has allowed us to identify a signifi cant group of non-preserved icons in precious covers. As a result of the study of both preserved and non-preserved artwork, it was established that frames with fi gures adorned icons from iconostases, frames on venerated icons that were of particular signifi cance in the sacred space of the church and were located in various places of the church. There were also numerous icons of “pyadnitsa” type (Russ. пядницы) that had various purposes: analogion icons, memorial icons, vow icons. These were mainly tzar’s donations and donations from rich ktetors close to Moscow court that were given to Kremlin churches and Russian monasteries. Figures on the frames of icons that were created in various jewellery techniques (embossing, engraving, niello) visualise and make more precise the intention of the donator. Identifying a signifi cant range of this kind of artwork has allowed us to describe the occurrence of this specifi c phenomenon of late-medieval court culture.

icon covers, 16th century, Kremlin workshops, tzar’s donation, icons, Moscow court, jewellery

1. Belting H., Obraz I kul’t. Istorija obraza do epohi iskusstva, Moscow, 2002.
2. Bykova M. A., “Chudotvornaja icona Bogomateri Umilenij e Korsunskaja iz Spaso-Preobrazhenskogo sobora Spaso-Evfi mieva monastyrja v Suzdale”, in: Iskusstvo hristianskogo mira, Vypusk 7, Moscow, 2003, 136–154.
3. A. I. Alexeev, sost. Vkladnaja i kormovaja kniga moskovskogo Simonova monastyra, Moscow, 2006.
4. B. A. Rybakov, ed., Vkladnaja kniga Troitze-Sergieva monastyra, Moscow, 1987.
5. Vorontzova L. M., “Dragotzennye ikonypjadnitzi (k voprosu o tipologii)” , in: Troitze-Sergieva lavra v istorii, kulture I duhovnoj zhizni Rossii. Materialy V mezhdunarodnoj konferentzii, Sergiev Posad, 2009, 175–190.
6. Vorontzova L. M., “Oklad na ikonu Prepodobnij Sergiy Padonezhskij iz sobranij a Sergievo-Posadskogo muzeja”, in: Troitze-Sergieva lavra v istorii, kulture I duhovnoj zhizni Rossii. Materialy VI mezhdunarodnoj konferentzii, Sergiev Posad, 2008, 289–304.
7. Gifts to the Tsars 1500–1700, Treasures from the Kremlin. 2001.
8. Gnutova S.V., sost., Relikvija roda Godunovyh: skladen’ kuzov s izbrannymi prazdnikami I svjatymi. Katalog vystavki, Moscow, 2018.
9. Grabar A., Les revetements en or et en argent des icones byzantines du Moyen Age, Venise, 1975.
10. Ikony Arhangelskogo sobora Moskovskogo Kremlja XIV – nachala XX veka. Katalog, Moscow, 2016.
11. Kloss B. M., Izbrannije Trudy, Moscow, 1998.
12. Kukolevskaja O. S., Ipat’evskij monastyr, Moscow, 2003.
13. Martynova M. V., “Oklad ikony «Bogomater’ Smolenskaya» i chernevaja gravjura XVI veka”, in: Blagoveshchenskij sobor Moskovskogo Kremlya. Materialy i issledovaniya / muzej zapovednik 'Moskovskij Kreml', Moscow, 1999, 318–335.
14. Mahan’ko M. A., “Vologodskij izvod ikony Nikola Velikoretzkij . O raznyh redaktzijah zhitijnogo variant chudotvornogo obraza”, in: Dobryj kormchij . Pochitanije svjatitelja Nikolaja v hristianskom mire, Moscow, 2010, 464–483.
15. Mahan’ko M. A., “Ikony v tzarskom dvortze Moskovskogo Kremlja serediny – vtoroj poloviny XVI veka po pis’mennym dannym” // Moskovskiy Kreml v 16 veke. Drevnie svyatyni i istoricheskie pamyatniki, Moscow, 2014, 215–250.
16. Mahan’ko M. A., Pochitanije I sobiranije drevnih ikon v istorii I kul’ture Moskovskoj Rusi XVI veka, Moscow, 2015.
17. Mahan’ko M. A., “Svedenij a o zastenkah v opisi Obraznoj palaty 1669 goda”, in: E. S. Smirnova, ed., Tzerkovnoje shit’e v Drevnej Rusi. Sbornik statej, Moscow, 2010, 83–100.
18. Nikolaeva T. V., Drevnerusskaja zhivopis’ Zagorskogo muzeja, Moscow, 1977.
19. Postnikova-Loseva M. M., “K voprosu ob otrazhenii vizantij skoj hudozhestvennoj kul’tury v zolotom I serebrjanom dele Drevnej Rusi (serebrjaniij oklad ikony Dimitrija Solunskogo 1586 goda”, in: Vizantijskij vremennik, Tom XXX, Moscow, 1969, 233–242.
20. Preobrazhenskij A. S., “Chudotvornaja Grebnevskaja ikona Bogomateri Odigitrii I ee spiski v Moskovskom Kremle”, in: Moskovskiy Kreml v 16 veke. Drevnie svyatyni i istoricheskie pamyatniki, Мoscow, 2014, 161–214.
21. Riznitza Toitze-Sergieva monastyrja, Мoscow, Tom 1, 2014.
22. Samoylova T. E., “Tzarskij e ikony-mosheviki kontza XVI veka”, in: Moskovskiy Kreml v 16 veke. Drevnie svyatyni i istoricheskie pamyatniki, Moscow, 2014, 263–282.
23. Sohranennye svjatyni Solovetzkogo monastyrja. Katalog vystavki, Moscow, 2003.
24. Sterligova I. A., Dragotzennyj ubor drevnerusskih ikon XI–XIV vekov. Proishozhdenije, simvolika, hudozhestvennyj obraz, Moscow, 2000.
25. Sterligova I. A., “Dragotzennyj ubor tzarskogo hrama” , in: Tzarskij hram. Svyatyni Blagoveshenskogo sobora Moskovskogo Kremlya, Moscow, 2003, 63–78.
26. Sterligova I. A., “Neskol’ko zamechanij k istorii dragotzennoj ikony “Bogomater’ Odigitrij a Ioasafovskaja” , in: Ikonograficheskie novacii i tradiciya v russkom iskusstve XVI veka, Moscow, 2008, 161–172.
27. Shennikova L. A., “Ikony Bogomater’ Vladimirskaja v monastyrjah Moskvy XVI veka”, in: Pravoslavnye svyatyni Moskovskogo Kremlya v istorii I kulture Rossii, Moscow, 2006, 122–135.
28. Zabelin I. E., Domashnij byt russkih tzarej I tzaritz v XVI I XVII stoletiah. Materialy, Moscow, 2003.
29. Zyuzeva S. G., “Ikonnye oklady vtoroj poloviny XVI v. S drobnitzami iz masterskih Moskovskogo Kremlja”, in: Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Ideya i obraz. opyty izucheniya vizantijskogo i drevnerusskogo iskusstva, Moscow, 2009, 443–455.
30. Zyuzeva S. G., “Zolotoj oklad ikony Troitza kontza XVI veka. Istorija sozdanija. Ikonografi cheskij e I stilisticheskije osobennosti litzevih izobrazhenij ”, in: Materialy i issledovaniya / muzej zapovednik 'Moskovskij Kreml', Vyp. 27, Moscow, 2016, 64–80.
31. Zyuzeva S. G., “Oklady dvuh krremltvskih ikon vtoroj poloviny XVI veka s litzevymi izobrazhenij ami na polja”, in: Moskovskiy Kreml v 16 veke. Drevnie svyatyni i istoricheskie pamyatniki, Moscow, 2014, 418–429.
32. Zyuzeva S. G., “Oklady bogorodichnyh ikon poslednej chetverti XVI veka iz kremlevskih masterskih s chernevymi i gravirovannymi drobnitzami na poljah”, in: Moskovskiy Kreml v 16 veke. Drevnie svyatyni i istoricheskie pamyatniki, Moscow, 2014, 365–376.

Zyuzeva Svetlana

This article examines the issues of sources, notation and history of Russian ecclesiastical singing of the last quarter of the 17th — fi rst half of the 18th centuries. It introduces the concept of polyphonic manuscripts of mixed stylistics and distinguishes two types of them, namely hook and note manuscripts. The fi rst part of the article describes twelve hook manuscripts, the second part describes eight note manuscripts. All sources are kept in Moscow archives. The article draws the attention of researchers to original documents, in which the most interesting pages of Russian music are imprinted in the period of the transition to the New Time.

church singing, polyphony, triplets, demestvo, singing culture, partsong, notation, handwritten sources, chants, history of Russian music

1. Bogomolova M. V., Znamennaya monodiya i bezlineinoe mnogogolosie na primere velikoi panikhidy, Moscow, 2005.
2. Evdokimova Yu. K., “Vechnaya zhizn’ melosnogo mnogogolosiya. Ocherk 2”, in: Muzykalnaya akademiya, 2, 2005, 134–141.
3. Frolov S. V., “Iz istorii demestvennogo raspeva”, in: Problemy istorii i teorii.
4. Gerasimova I. V., “«Vilenskie napevy» v rukopisyakh Kievskoi mitropolii I Moskovskogo patriarkhata poslednei treti 17 – nachala 18 vv.: problem transmissii I adaptatzi”, in: Ur. Pawluczuk, ed., Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej, Bialystok, 2013, Vol. 4, 187–201.
5. Gtrasimova I. V., “Novye podkhody v rekonstruktzii biografi i kompozitorov 17 veka: Nikolay Diletzky I Evstafi y Manevsky”, in: Muzykovedenie, 8, 2009, 47–56.
6. Kondrashkova L. V., Rannee russkoe strochnoe mnogogolosie, Moscow, 2013.
7. Kondrashkova L. V., “Partesnoe i bezlineinoe mnogogolosie: problem vzaimodeistviya”, in: Russkoe muzykal’noe barokko: tendentzii i perspektivy issledovaniya, 1, 2, 2016, 65–78.
8. Kondrashkova L. V., “Ponyatie «prikladnykh golosov» i problema stilisticheskoi neodnorodnosti v partesnykh rukopisyakh kontza 17 – nachala 18 veka”, in: Muzykal’naya arkheografiya, Moscow, 2017, 134–161.
9. Kondrashkova K. V., “O zapisi partesnykh kontzertov kryukami. Nakhodki v mnogofgolosnykh rukopisyakh smeshannoi stilistiki”, in: Drevnerusskoe pesnopene. Puti vo vremeni, 6, St. Petersburg, 2017, 147–153.
10. Kondrashkova L. V., “Trekhgolosnaya sluzhba Novoletiyu arkhiereiskim chinom”, in: Muzykal’naya pis’mennost’ khristianskogo mira: Knigi. Notatziya. Problemy interpretatzii, Moscow, 2017, 386–411.
11. Kondrashkova L. V., “Tipy kadansov v demestvennom mnogogolosii”, in: Uchenye zapiski Rossiiskoi Akademii muzyki im.Gnesinykh, 4 (23), 2017, 15–26.
12. Plotnikova N. Yu., Polifoniya v russkom bezlineinom i partesnom mnogogolosii 17–18 vekov, Moscow, 2015.
13. Plotnikova N. Yu., Russkoe partesnoe mnogogolosie kontza 17 – serediny 18 veka: istochnikovedenie, istoriya, teoriya, Moscow, 2015.
14. Uspensky N. D., Drevnerusskoe pevcheskoe iskusstvo, Moscow, 1971.

Kondrashkova Lada

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The problem of the “national style” that existed in Russia since the times of Peter the Great has undergone many modifi cations in the course of time. This issue became particularly acute in the latter half of the 19th century when the origins of the “Russian” in domestic architecture were found either in Byzantine and Old Russian architecture, or in the architecture of the 17th century, or in the architecture of the Russian North. Attention to the latter tradition emerged at the very end of the century and was linked to the birth of the “Neo-Russian” style. Interestingly, its manifestation took place in Paris exhibition of 1900 in the form of the Division of Russian Crafts, which was erected by members of Abramtsevo circle and represented a number of interlinked wooden structures. This article analyses these structures and identifi es the ways of their emergence in Paris exhibition; this analysis requires a detailed discussion of trends in the Russian art of the turn of the 19th century. Special attention is paid to the work of Abramtsevo circle, in the artistic milieu of which the “Neo-Russian” style originated. The article also discusses the work of Abramtsevo artists in the fi eld of scenography, as the artistic solutions they found when working on theatrical scenery was to aff ect their future architectural projects.

pavillion, Neo-Russian style, Art Nouveau, Exposition Universelle, Korovin, Bondarenko, Abramtsevo circle, Shekhtel

1. Benua A. N., ‘Pis’ma s Vsemirnoi vystavki, in: Mir iskusstva, № 17–18, 1900.
2. Bitsadze N. V., Khramy neorusskogo stilya: idei, problem, zakazchiki, Moscow, 2009.
3. Borisova E. A., Arkhitektura v tvorchestve khudozhnikov abramtsevskogo kruzhka (U istokov neorusskogo stilya), in: Khudozhestvennye protzessy v russkoi kul’ture vtoroi poloviny 19 veka, Moscow, 1984, 137–182.
4. Vsemirnaia vystavka vParizhe 1900-go goda, in: Vestnik Evropy, № 5 (mai), 1900.
5. Golovin A. Ya., Vstrehi i vpechatleniya. Pis’ma. Vospominaniya o Golovine, Leningrad, Moscow, 1960.
6. Gosudarstvennaya Tret’yakovskaya galereya. Otdel rukopisei, F. 3, 78.
7. Decorative Kunst, 12, 1900, September, 480–488.
8. Ikonnikov A. V., Istorizm v arkhitekture, Moscow, 1997.
9. Kirichenko E. I., Fedor Shekhtel’, Moscow, 1973.
10. Kirichenko E. I., “Khudozhniki abramtsevskogo kruzhka i stanovlenie arkhitektury moderna v Rossii”, in: Konstantin Korovin i ego epokha; Anna Golubkina; Materialy nauchnykh konfrentzij , Moscow, 2015, 53–63.
11. Kirichenko E. I., Russkaya arkhitektura 1830– 1910 godov, Moscow, 1978.
12. Kirichenko E. I.,Russkij stil’. Poiski vyrazheniya natsional’noi samobytnosti, Moscow, 1997.
13. Kogan D., Konstantin Korovin, Moscow, 1964.
14. Kogan D., Mamontovskij kruzhok, Moscow, 1970.
15. Konstantin Korovin. Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo, Moscow, 1963.
16. Kustarnyi otdel na vystavke 1900 g.v Parizhe: otchet, Moscow, 1901.
17. Lisovskij V., Severnyi modern. Natsional’noromanticheskoe dvizhenie v arkhitekture stran Baltijskogo morya na rubezhe 19–20 vekov, St Petersburg, 2016.
18. Mamontov S. S., “Russkie khudozhniki v chastnoi opera”, in: RGALI, L. 73.
19. Narvojt K. Yu., “Rossiya na Vsemirnoi vystavke 1900 g.”, in: Russkoe iskusstvo, 2005, № 2, 16–19.
20. Nashi plotniki v Parizhe. Iz vospominanij uchastnika EKSPO-1900, in: Politicheskij zhurnal, Arkhiv № 14 (109), 17 aprelya 2006.
21. Naschokina M. V., Lev Kekushev. Arkhitekturnoe nasledie Moskvy, Moscow, 2012.
22. Niva, № 29, 1900.
23. Nikitin Yu. A., Arkhitektura vystavochnykh pavil’onov na vsemirnykh i mezhdunarodnykh vystavkakh, in: Problema sinteza iskusstva iarkhitektury, Moscow, 7, 1977, 68–78.
24. Nikitin Yu. A., Vystavochnaya arkhitektura Rossii 19 – nachala 20 veka, St Petersburg, 2014.
25. Paston E., Abramtsevo. Iskusstvo Bcreccdj i zhizn, Moscow, 2003.
26. Polenova N. V., Abramtsevo. Vospominaniya. Musei-zapovednik “Abramtsevo”, 2013.
27. Pechenkin I. E., Russkaya arkhitektura v kul’turnom kontekste 1890–1910 gg. Ocherki russkoi kul’tury. Konetz 19 – nachalo 20 veka, 3, Moscow, 2016.
28. Uchastie Rossii v Parizhskoi Vsemirnoi vystavke 1900. Otchet general’nogo komissara Russkogo otdela, St Petersburg, 1901.

Kharitonov Аrthur

This article analyses the phenomenon of the orchestral rendering of the visible and the audible worlds. It discusses musical and poetical attributes of “orchestral natural philosophy” characteristic of many prominent masters of national schools and aesthetic trends. It also defi nes religious etymology of orchestral painting of Boris Tchaikovsky (1925‒1996), one of Russia’s greatest composers of the 20th century. B. Tchaikovsky’s symphonic aesthetics is viewed as a religious and metaphysical concept aimed at uniting man with the world of sublime values.

orchestra, timbral palette, “orchestral pantheism”, religious etymology, symphonic metaphysics, Boris Tchaikovsky

1. Gachev G., Muzyka i svetovaia tsivilizatsiia, Moscow, 2008.
2. Gesse G., Ekstsentricheskie povesti (perevod s nemetskogo G. Snezhinskoi), St. Petersburg, Moscow, 2010.
3. Zhakote F., Peizazhi s propavshimi fi gurami (perevod s frantsuzskogo A. Kuznetsovoi), St. Petersburg, 2005.
4. Kleopa (Ilie), arkhim., O snakh i videniiakh (perevod s rumynskogo Z. Peikovoi), Moscow, 2016.
5. Losskii N., Filosofiia i publitsistika. Izbrannye stati, Moscow, 2017.
6. Prp. Iustin Popovich, Filosofskie propasti (perevod s serbskogo M. Iatsenko pod red. E. Iakushkinoi), Moscow, 2005.
7. Reskin Dzh., Zakony Fiezolo (perevod s angliiskogo pod red. L. Nikiforova), Moscow, 2007.
8. Rilke R.-M., Florentiiskii dnevnik. Iz rannei prozy (perevod s nemetskogo V. Bakuseva), Moscow, 2001.
9. Sviridov G., Muzyka kak sudba, Moscow, 2002.
10. Khoking S., Mlodinov L., Vysshii zamysel (perevod s angliiskogo M. Kononova pod red. G. Burby), St. Petersburg, 2013.
11. Choran (Sioran) E., Priznaniia i prokliatiia (perevod s frantsuzskogo O. Akimovoi), St. Petersburg, 2004.

Abdokov Yuri

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.