Vs. Dmitriev. Epochs of Old Russian Icon Painting, Review

Collection "Russian Icon" No. 1, SPB 1914:

P. Muratov Epochs of Old Russian icon painting N.M. Shchekotov. Some features of the style of Russian icons of the XU century. July to September. Iconography at the first tsar from the house of Romanov. “Sophia” M.1914.January: N.M. Shchekotov. Old Russian sewing. (Old years.) St. Petersburg, 1913. )

Essay by P. Muratov  "Epochs of Old Russian Icon Painting"  It is an experience of characterizing the main features and epochs of iconography. Coinciding in its essential part with the divisions and definitions outlined by N. V. Pokrovsky  (Essays on Christian iconography monuments.) SPB.1894), This experience differs in the aesthetic evaluation of epochs. So, N. Pokrovsky, calling the ancient era   I don't know. characterize  “Strictness of tones, some angularity of forms, simplicity of design...” The next period, exciting centuries HU1 and HUP, the scientist admits  epoch   You've been around.   R in and t    Russian art on the basis of originality. Finally,  “Third era -  I am the one who embraces the end of the HUP century and the beginning of the HUSH century.  Leaving these divisions intact, P. Muratov significantly changes their epithets: the highest heyday is the Novgorod era.  "Picturesque"; the beginning of the decline - Moscow   "graphic"  And finally, period three.  “The complete decline of such a once beautiful art of icon painting.”

The author tries to distinguish from the Novgorod period.   I'm sorry.     and defines the centuries X1 - HS as  “Icon painting in the spirit of a broad, slightly colored drawing, very close to the understanding of painting that we find in Byzantine frescoes of the X1 – XX centuries” (p. 33). This conclusion is based on the recently purified icon of the Smolensk Mother of God from the collection of S.P. Ryabushinsky. But, of course, we think that the author himself will agree with this, there are too few icons to recognize such a definition as historically correct. Moreover, a few lines below P. Muratov seems to cross out this hypothesis and already fully joins the definition of N. Pokrovsky of the Novgorod period as  "ancient": "The style of icon painting is developed in the X1U century. He was.  I don't think so.    oh oh oh oh   Oh, and I am.    for all Russian painting” (p.33).

We have pointed out a decisive divergence in the assessments of individual periods of icon painting between N. Pokrovsky and P. Muratov, but still we can not agree with the words of the latter that: “the era of the flourishing of Russian icon painting is not determined there, where the era of Russian icon painting is not defined.”    c   her    Not in the HUP and in the HU1 centuries, but in the HU and even in the X1UWEK ... (p.33). The fact is that the reference to icon painting before the XU1 century as the era of the highest development of icon painting is not exceptional at all.  "discovery"  of our days. Let us refer at least to the work of I. Sakharov.  “Research on Russian iconography”  (SPB 1850), where it says: "In ancient times iconography was in a flourishing state ..." I'm sorry.    g    s to s to s  It began in the HU1st century.”

"Discoveries."  In fact, these days are probably still hidden.   I don't know.  At the present first steps, of course, repetition and error are inevitable. The approach that puts P. Muratov as the basis of his penetration into ancient Russian creativity is very precious now, it gives the necessary freshness and life to the study, makes us look deeper and deeper into the icon, as in the creation of beautiful art.It also shows the extreme importance of another approach, a purely historical one, which represents only material and its scientific analysis.   c b b o d d    It is so necessary for a truly comprehensive knowledge of ancient painting. Meanwhile, a certain bias of conclusions seems to be an inevitable consequence of aesthetic  (after all, it is based on personal taste).

Another essay of the same author, “Iconography under the First Tsar from the House of Romanov”, timed to the three hundredth anniversary of the House of Romanov, presents a more detailed and documented development of the last pages of the previous article. It is very important for us already mentioned.  "lively" features of the aesthetic approach, but at the same time, is not free from its shortcomings. We think that this shortcoming would be   It's not like that.    almost to the full extent, if the author stipulates the subjectivity of his conclusion, moving from purely historical research.  (such, for example, workshop pages devoted to the analysis of the connections and differences of the schools of Stroganov and Moscow)  To the hypothesis by which he wants to link the whole history of iconography. Claim that  "Moscow iconography was   I don't think so.    toward    s in and out   and     I'm sorry. I'm sorry.  (p.32), in this state of domestic iconology is undoubted.    (d) and (c) and (c)   character, but this is not noted by the author.

By the way, the second writer, whom we should touch on in this note, N.M. Shchekotov, we just find confirmation of our words about     No, no, no, no, no.   Modern knowledge is not only X1U – HU centuries, but also more well-known and accessible HU1 – HUP centuries. Amazing in design and composition, the shroud of Princess Euphrosyne Staritskaya. It's 1555.   n   individually among the samples of sewing HU1 and HUP centuries, like   d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d (Old Russian sewing, page 29). If the isolated cases do not yet completely refute the idea of the inability of the Moscow period to rebirth, then, at least his own  "mystery"  Not everything is clear to us in the last two centuries of iconography.

In the essay of N. Shchekotov, just quoted by us, the first pages seemed very successful. Concisely, cautiously and together, with great vigilance, the named author outlines the features of Byzantine sewing - "art handed over to the Russian artist in full maturity and completeness"; points out the measure of succession by Byzantium itself of the features of the ancient style, quite rightly, in our opinion, emphasizing the characteristic aspiration of Byzantine art to become   c s s s m         This is an undoubted indicator of the mighty influence of the East, especially clearly reflected in the examples of Byzantine  "high sewing."

The success of the pages given to Russian sewing, perhaps, was most hampered by the desire of their author at all costs to leave the best samples behind the line.    I don't know.    It's the 1st century. This contributed to the assessment of N. Shchekotov some inconsistency. So. the greatest monument of Russian high sewing N. Shchekotov recognized  "St. Sophia."  The author devotes 15 lines to the analysis of this sewing, between the analysis and much more enthusiastic, "The Shroud of 1545 of the Moscow Historical Museum" and "The Shroud of Princess Ephrosynia Staritskaya of 1555" -  I don't know.  It's not.

In the note.  “Some features of the style of Russian icons of the XI century” N.M. Shchekotov managed to highlight and interpret one of the charming features of the Russian icon – its rhythm and silhouette, “prayer standing of the icon composition” (page 41).

                All Dmitriev.