Russian icons are an important part of mediaeval painting.

Their aesthetic value,

however, was not fully realized until exhibitions of early icons began to be held. The first, the
Russian Mediaeval Art Exhibition, took place in 1913 in Moscow. It struck the public by the
breathtaking beauty of an art whose charm resides in pure and spontaneous feeling,
harmonious composition and extraordinarily eloquent figures. The interplay of colours was
unparalleled in luminosity and gaiety by anything in Byzantine, Roman or Gothic art.

It is only when they have been cleaned of dark varnishes and repainting that the Russian
primitives appear in their true light. But this fact was not always recognized by collectors, or
even by museums, for they did not really know the treasures in their possession. Partially
hidden by metal frames and several coats of paint, the Russian icons ]ooked dull and dreary.

They took on a new lease of life towards the end of the xtxth century when they were
systematically cleaned of retouches and varnishes. Then the darkened and obscured colours
shone radiantly as new. The long, painstaking work of the restorers revealed hundreds of icons
which are the pride of the Russian Museum, Leningrad, the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, and
the Art and History Museum, Novgorod. It is a matter for regret that icons are not very well
represented in western museums, which possess only unimportant works.

5
To have a true conception of early Russian painting one must visit the museums of the
USSR.
We have no example of Slav painting of the pre-Christian period. However, early
chronicles allude to pagan temples built of wood and decorated with paintings. When Russia
was converted to Christianity under the grand-dukes of Kiev, around 989, many stone churches
were built. The Russians, like the Byzantines, decorated their churches with frescoes, mosaics
and icons. We know that Prince Vladimir employed Byzantine master masons to direct the
building of the Dessiatinnaya Church at Kiev (989-996). Byzantine master masons also
collaborated in the building of the great cathedral of St. Sophia at Kiev (1037-1046) during the
reign of Yaroslav, son of Vladimir. As elsewhere in mediaeval Europe, workshops of
experienced artists were entrusted with important buildings. At first the painters brought from
Constantinople took charge, with Russian artists as their assistants and pupils. However, the
local painters gradually replaced their masters and the Greco Russian workshops became
purely Russian. In this way a Russian school of architecture and a Russian school of painting
came into being.

The earliest Russian icons are the Novgorod ones. In the XIIth century, with the decay of
the Kiev duchy, Novgorod obtained its independence, the power of the princes weakened and a
republican form of government was set up. Later on, the boyars got the upper hand, but they
had to reckon with the guilds, which produced the leaders of all the municipal movements.
It was in the XIIth century that Novgorod art achieved its individuality. Easel painting
was strongly influenced by the Byzantines, who were much in favour with the princes. This
trend was to die out in the following century, but it is apparent in two remarkable icons, Saint
George and the Archangel (P1. 1). The former was painted around 1170 and is now in the
Annunciation in the Kremlin. It was probably commissioned by Prince

8
George of Novgorod, the youngest son of Andrei Bogliubsky. Saint George, the prince's
patron saint, is represented as the guardian of the prince's arms, though the left hand bearing the
sword is only partially visible. His powerful torso, which occupies almost the entire surface of
the panel, stands out conspicuously against a gold background. The architectural design of this
open, youthful face with its courageous expression is quite fascinating.
The Archangel (P1. 1), like St. George, dates from the end of the xiith century. It
belonged to the "deisis", or group of heads which decorated the architrave of an iconostasis.
The ethereal expression of the face and the characteristically soft treatment of light and shade
relate this icon to xiith century works belonging indisputably to the Novgorod school, such as
the Ustyug Annunciation and the Saviour (Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow).

The large icon of the Dormition (P1. 2) is a ease on its own. Painted at the beginning of
the sixth century, it is in many ways similar to the icons in the Byzantine style, but for the first
time the figures lose their relief, bright variegated colours are used for the garments and faciaL
expressions are more natural. The Assumption is represented in complex iconographic form:
Christ is shown holding in his arms a child in a white robe symbolizing the soul of the Virgin
Mary which he is about to raise to heaven. The twelve apostles are seen descending from the
skies to bow down before the Virgin's death bed, as in the apocryphal legend. Just above the
figure of Christ four graceful angels hover against a gold ground. The painter's aim in so
placing the angels and apostles was obviously that of all the medieval Russian masters: to
center the composition and give it a flat, decorative appearance.

Aside from Kiev and Novgorod, local schools of painting sprang up in the xiith century
at Vladimir, Suzdalr Yaroslav and Pskov. It is to the Yaroslav school, which flourished in the
first third of the xiiith century, that we owe the magnificent Virgo orans (P1. 3). As in the
famous icon from the Blachernes Church, Constantinople, the Infant Jesus is depicted, arms
outstretched, in a medallion on the Virgin's breast, but the Russian version of this theme is
considerably less severe. The style is bold and dynamic, the gold bands gain in width and are
used to good decorative effect. At Yaroslav the dark Byzantine palette was superseded by
brighter and brighter colours.

While the sixtieth century witnessed the development of urban civilization in Western
Europe, it was a terrible period for Russia. In 1223 the Mongol invasions began devastating
the cities, and relations with Byzantium and the Balkans were broken off. Within Russia itself
the provinces were more and more isolated from one another. It was no time for new building
and indeed both money and labor were lacking. But the Tartars did not succeed in conquering
Novgorod and Pskov and in these two privileged cities the traditions were kept alive.

The Novgorod school reached the height of its develo ment at the turn of the XIVth
century and during the xvth, when its finest works were produced~ With the disappearance of
Byzantine influence its strong national characteristics acquired a regional flavour. Decidedly
democratic, Novgorod art bears the imprint of popular taste: expressive and concise, it avoids
the excessive symbolism so much in vogue with icon painters at a later date. Its themes are
simple and require no commentary.

Many icons were devoted to the patron saints of the peasant, for instance, the Prophet
Elijah (P1. 6), whom the people revered as the "Thunderer", or rainbearer, and the pr~ tector of
their homes. The masters of the Novgorod school generally placed him against a background
of flaming vermilion and gave him a penetrating expression. Saint 'George (Pis. 5 and 11) was
also regarded as a pr~ tector of peasants, a guardian of the herds and the embodiment of the
forces of light. The wise St. Nicholas was the object of a special cult: sick persons and travelers
addressed their prayers to him and he was asked to intercede in cases of fire - the terrible
scourge of cities and villages built of wood.
The Novgorod workshops als6 put out icons of St. Frol and St. Lavr (P1. 12), the
protectors of horses. All these images were moving in their simplicity. And even when the
Novgorod painters introduced several figures in the same icon (Pls. 4, 7, 8, 9) their
compositions were always so clear and airy that they can be understood without effort, the
secondary episodes never obscuring the main theme.
The artists of Novgorod liked to paint strong, vigorous types; they preferred faces with
well marked national traits and even with coarse features. The figures seem an integral part of
the composition as a whole. The Novgorod masters' palette consisted solely of unmixed
colours, intense and remarkably vibrant tones with flaming vermilion predominating. It was
n6t so harmonious as that of the Moscow masters; on the other hand it possessed a virile and
dynamic quality all its own. Matisse admired these colours with their unforgettable brilliance
and chromatic tension. In them the artiste taste of the Novgorod school is most completely
expressed.
Twentieth century research produced evidence of other regional schools beside
Novgorod in the xivth and xvth centuries - Tver, Pskov, Suzdal, Rostov, and even distant
Kargopol near Arkangelsk. From Kargopol we have a number of remarkable icons (PIs. 13, 14,
15, 16) which once formed a part of the iconostasis of that city's cathedral. They are
characteristic of what is called the northern school, largely influenced by that of Novgorod but
with a certain concise style. For instance, figures are stylized in the extreme, gestures are
restrained, movements slow and elements such as hills or buildings are suggested by simple
masses.
These icons are the work of a great painter and an excellent colourist. The purity and
tension of the colours bring to mind the Novgorod masters, but the Kargopol masters were
original in that they used larger patches of colour, avoiding unnecessary intersections and
distracting effects. In that way the colouring became more vibrant, especially in areas
illuminated by vermilion.

The Pskov painters used a very different colour range in which intense green and
orange-red predominated. The plain, simple faces of the Pskov icons are strikingly alive. Dead
white, they are modelled by means of light and shade effects and glow with an intense inner
life.
The beautiful icon of the Dormition (P1. 17) is attributed to the school of Tver. The
apostles and saints bowing down before the Virgin form a rhythmic parabola, echoed by the
parabola of the blue aura around Christ. The soul of Mary is symbolized by the child in
immaculate white which Christ holds in his arms. On the clouds are repeated the busts of the
apostles which appeared on the xttith century icon from Novgorod (P1. 2). In the central
medallion the Mother of God, before ascending to Heaven, is handing her red belt to the
Apostle Thomas, wh9 has just arrived. This theme, taken from apocryphal writings of the vth
century, is known in Italian art as "La Madonna della Cintola". It was introduced into Russia in
about 1313 in the wall paintings of Snetogorski monastery.

The icon of the Dormition is remarkable not only because of the complexity of its
composition, but also because of the exceptional beauty of its colours, amongst which vibrant
blues are dominant. It is known as the "Blue Assumption". Rather pale delicate colours with a
profusion of light and turquoises are characteristic of the Tver school.

It was in the xivth century that Moscow began to develop rapidly and dragged the other
Russian states into the struggle with the Tartars. After the victory of Koulikovo in 1380, the
Moscow princes assumed control of the nationalist movement to free Russia from Mongolian
bondage. Their court became a centre of attraction for painters and craftsmen from the other
principalities. It was likewise in Moscow that the artists from southern
Slav countries invaded by the Turks sought reluge. R~ lations with Byzantium, broken
off at the time of the Tartar incursions, were resumed. Thus in 1344 the Met~ politan
Theognoste was able to ask Greek masters to decorate his cathedral with frescoes. Some time
before 1395 the famous Theophanes the Greek, who had already worked in Novgorod and
Nijnl Novgorod, arrived in Moscow. Furthermore we know that Moscow possessed many
icons and devotional objects of Byzantine origin.

To begin with, the Moscow painters followed the Vladimir Suzdal school, as may be
seen by the superb icon of St Boris and St Gleb (P1. 18), supposedly by a Moscow painter.
These saints were the object of a widespread cult. Facing the spectator, they are shown in
hieratic posture, dressed in tunics and mantles and wearing princely toques edged with fur. The
cross each holds in his right hand reminds us that they died a martyr's death, the sword in the
left hand that they were revered as the patron saints' of princes and warriors. The rather heavy
proportions and stiff postures associate this icon with those of the xiiith century. Moscow was
later to borrow extensively from the rather original Byzantine art of the time of the Paleologues
(P1. 21). But the Moscow painters were to transform it out of all recognition in the course of an
evolution in which a painter of genius, Andrei Rublev (circa l36(~70 - 1430), was to play a
determining role.

With Theophanes the Greek, Ruble'~v was actually the creator of the Russian iconostasis
as we now know it. In '1405, moreover, these two masters worked in collaboration at the
Blagoveshchensky Cathedral in Moscow. They raised the height of the iconostasis so that It
completely hid the altar from the congregation. The Byzantine iconostases were relatively low,
being designed for a "deisis" of half-~length figures, and the two rows of "local" or
"occasional" icons.

In Blagoveshchensky Cathedral Theophanes the Greek replaced these half-length figures

by full-length figures of the Virgin (P1. 19) and St Michael the Archangel (P1. 20), increasing
the height of the icons to more than six feet. Ruble~v followed his example: three years later he
was to paint icons nearly ten feet high for the Cathedral of the Assumption.

Thus extended, the iconostasis acquired new artistic significance. What was originally
just a partition took on the proportions of a wall hung with several rows of large icons. To the
traditional series were added those of the Prophets, the Patriarchs, and so on. All this
constituted a monumental ensemble without precedent in Byzantium or elsewhere. Russia is
rich in forests and the painters were not sparing of wood. So the iconostasis, which functioned
as a support for a great many evangelical and hagiographic scenes, replaced mural painting to
some extent.

Most of the icons we admire in museums as works of art in their own right were
originally integral parts of a large ensemble, the iconostasis. The latter having fundamentally
an architectural construction, the painter was obliged to simplify forms, lines and volumes so
that they would be seen better at a distance. In this way the leonostaSis contributed to the
formation of that concise, unencumbered style so typical of the best xvth century icons.

A characteristic luminosity and an exceptional richness of feeling distinguish the works

attributed to Ruble~v (P1. 22, 23 and 25). Ruble~v's saints are inspired by his own conception
of moral perfection; generous to a degree, they are ever ready to help. These images move us
by their purity and poetry even today.

The Trinity (P1. 25) is the most celebrated work of Ruble~v. According to chrbnicles,
this icon was painted in memory of Sergei of Radonezh, well-known founder of the Trinity
monastery. The angels, seated at a low table, form such a closely-knit group that it is
impossible not to interpret it as embodying the ideal of peace and harmony. The whole
composition revolves around the chalice. The angels on the left and in the centre are blessing it.

Their attitude is the key which enables us to interpret the complex symbolism of the
picture. The angel in the centre represents Christ. Thoughtful, with head bent to the left, he
blesses the chalice, thus indicating that he is prepared to offer himself as a sacrifice. God the
Father (the angel on the left), whose face expresses profound grief, is encouraging him in his
sublime gesture. The angel on the right represents the power of the Holy Ghost. We have here
the enbodiment of the greatest sacrifice of which love is capable (a father commits his son to
death). But the artist goes even further: he shows the act of submission, the son accepting.

In Rublev's Trinity, as in all great works, composition, colour and line rhythms obey a
guiding principle. The angels, almost ethereal in their lightness and grace, are so placed around
the table that they form a circle. The circle theme may be regarded as the key to the whole
composition. It is evident in the central angel's head, turned leftwards, in the way the two seats
are brought together, in the curve outlining the angel on the right, in the contours of mountain
and tree. Less emphatic than the Italian "tondi", the circle theme here vibrates softly and
discreetly. The painter has no fear of breaking the circular rhythm by introducing a vertical
portico: he know his composition will gain in freedom and elasticity.

The turn of the central angel's head, which disturbs the symmetry of the upper part of the
picture, does not worry the painter, who merely moves the seat to the right to restore the
balance. The chalice, too, instead of occupying the centre of the table, is placed to the right,
where it balances the central angel's left Aurned head. This liberal use of deliberate asymmetry
gives the composition a remarkably open feeling. While the volumes remain centred and
balanced, the composition acquires complexity as a result of the many variations on the circle
theme. By fitting the composition into a simple geometneal figure, the circle, Ruble~v restricts
it almost entirely to the tridimensional plane of the panel.