New subjects without prototypes were a temptation to deviation. The Church Council of a Hundred Chapters (Stoglav, 1551), which attempted to curb abuses and indiscipline in all areas of religious life, included among its pronouncements what hasbeen called 'the first extended, public and authoritative commentary on visual art to be found in a Russian source'.85 It reaffirmed strict rules on icon-painting, acknowledging the desirability of God-given talent, but deeming a painter's spiritual and moral qualities more important than mere technical skills. Chapter 43 stated that a painter must be irreproachably virtuous, humble, meek, pious and chaste and must always obey his spiritual father. Another requirement was to paint the holy images according to 'consecrated types'. Artists who painted not in accordance with the images, but 'out of their own invention and by guesswork', would be punished. Church hier-archs were responsible for organising inspections. The Council set great store by the example of the 'ancient painters', instructing artists to 'paint [the Trinity] from ancient models, such as the Greek icon painters, and as Andrei Rublev painted'.86 Guidance was provided in pattern books or podlinniki containing outlines of standard icon types.

These rules were not enough to reassure the state secretary I. M. Visko-vatyi, who objected at a church tribunal in 1553-54 that artists, especially those working in the Kremlin churches, were painting 'according to their own understanding', deviating from tradition, failing to include proper inscriptions and inserting 'profane' elements, including naturalistic features. Some figures were represented 'as though they were alive', in the 'Latin' manner. Others, such as God the Father depicted as an elderly man, were inadmissible.87 The church rejected Viskovatyi's complaints.

In the sixteenth century more masonry churches were constructed in Russia than in all previous centuries put together. Most, like icons, followed traditional Byzantine designs, with the incorporation of Russian features such as the now developed onion dome and tiers of decorative kokoshnik gables. But there were also striking innovations, notably in the appearance of the shater or tent-shaped roof, built over an octagonal tower. Some architectural historians maintain that these octagonal pillars were inspired by wooden church architecture, although it is impossible to verify specific paths of diffusion. With restricted interior space, they were built to be viewed from outside. A remarkable trio of

85 Cracraft, The Petrine revolution, 51, contains a useful discussion.

86 Rossiiskoe zakonodatel'stvo X-XX vekov (Moscow: Iuridicheskaia literatura, 1985), 11, 303.

87 Cracraft, The Petrine revolution, 54-5. For a fuller account, see D. B. Miller, 'The Viskovatyi affair of 1553-54. Official art, the emergence of autocracy, and the disintegration of medieval Russian culture', RH/HR 8 (1981), 293-332.

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment