3(10), žŗť-ŤĢŪŁ 2001
Icons of the 1560ís associated with ĎDmytryí
Amongst Ukrainian paintings of the 16th century there exists
a previously unknown group of icons with connections with Moldavian art, which
had not occurred before. This series begins with a 1532 icon of St Nicholas by
Hryhorij Bosykovyč from Suceava, commissioned for the church of the Mylecki
monastery in Volhynia, which is also the earliest dated Ukrainian icon1.
From the middle of the 16th century there are further objects which illustrate
the connection between Ukrainian and Moldavian art, including monumental
paintings. In the frescoes of the church of St Onufry in Lavriv - the first
series of illustrations of the Akatyst of the Virgin in Ukrainian art2 -
we can see parallels with wall paintings from Moldavia, where this theme was
widely distributed3. These contacts became more firmly established in the second
half of the 16th century. The most outstanding example is a group of icons
attributed to a painter known as Dmytry4 on the basis of the icon of the
Pantocrator with Apostles (1565) from the church of the Nativity of the Virgin
in Dolyna, Ivano-Frankivsk (Stanisławów)
district. This icon is one of the most famous objects in Ukrainian painting, not
only because it is one of the earliest dated Ukrainian icons5, but also
from its high artistic quality.
In Dmytryís artistic output we can also include nine other icons which
together form the largest oeuvre of any named icon-painter of the 16th century.
Dmytryís icons have never been the subject of a separate scholarly study. They
are now kept in the National Museum in Lviv, which acquired them as a result of
Museum expeditions in 1907 and 1912.
The icons comprise the following:
1. The Pantocrator with the Apostles. 1565. 137x125x2.2cm, Inv. 1274, KV
2. The Pantocrator with the Apostles. 98x80x2.5cm, Inv. 1457, KV 123917.
3. St Nicholas with scenes from his life. 98x86x3.5cm, Inv. 2591, KV 38434.
a) Nativity of St Nicholas
b) St Nicholas rescues three men from execution
c) St Nicholas appears to the Emperor Constantine in a dream
d) St Nicholas rescues the son of Agrik from the Saracens
e) St Nicholas appears to three men in prison
f) St Nicholas rescues three men from the sea
4. St Nicholas with scenes from his life. 138x115x3.5cm, Inv. 1456, KV 38434.
a) Nativity of St Nicholas
b) St Nicholas rescues three men from execution
c) St Nicholas is brought to study
d) St Nicholas on the sea
e) St Nicholas appears to the Emperor Constantine in a dream
f) St Nicholas rescues the son of Agrik from the Saracens
g) St Nicholas appears to three men in prison
h) Death of St Nicholas
5. Nativity of the Virgin. 137x125x2.5cm, Inv. 1459, KV 123938.
6. The Archangel Michael with his deeds. 138x125x3cm, Inv. 1875, KV 288849.
a) Michael leads Adam & Eve from Paradise
b) Michael appears to the prophet Barlaam
c) Michael appears to Joshua
d) The miracle in Chonae
e) Michael appears to Moses near Sinai
f) Michael struggles with Jacob
g) Michael appears to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego
h) Michael destroys Sodom and Gomorrah
7. The Intercession of the Virgin. 59.5x49x3cm, Inv. 1284, KV 429710.
8. The Deisis. Fragment, 96x215x4.5cm, Inv. 1460, KV 12395/1.
9. The Deisis. Fragment, 98x116.5x4.5cm, Inv. 1460, KV 12395/2.
10. The Last Judgment. 209x146x2.5cm, Inv. 1451, KV 1238111.
The icon of the Intercession of the Virgin comes from the church of Dubrovyca
in Volhynia. All the others belonged to churches in the town of Dolyna.
According to their subjects they probably derive from the iconostases of three
different churches: the church of the Nativity of the Virgin, that of St
Nicholas, and that of St Michael the Archangel12. Icons from the lowest
ĎLocalí ranges of the iconostases can be assigned to three groups according
to their sizes: the Pantocrator (1565) and the Nativity of the Virgin; St
Nicholas with scenes from his life (inv. 1456) and the Archangel Michael; and
the Pantocrator (inv. 1457) and St Nicholas (inv. 2591).
On the Pantocrator (1565) is an inscription, with the name of Dmytry and a
date (now illegible) placed on the lower part of the frame. Probably in the
1920s it was still possible to read this date; according to information in
Museum documentation13 from Ilarion Svencickij, Director of the Museum, and
Myhailo Drahan, the Chief Curator14, the incomplete text read:
Three of the icons (Pantocrator (1565), the Last Judgement and Nativity of
the Virgin) were published by Svencickij in 1928, but were not attributed to
Dmytry15. His name was also omitted by Svencickij in 192916. But he did suggest that
the painter of these three icons was also responsible for the Virgin Hodegetria17,
dating from the 1560s, which he thought had
belonged to the same iconostasis as the Pantocrator (1565). But according to its
style and iconography - the Virgin is shown as the ĎNevianuchyi Tsvití (Unfading
Flower) - this icon belongs to a later period. Svencickijís suggestion was
rejected by Mieczysław Gębarowicz18. The first mention of
Dmytryís name came in 1961 from Mykola Batih19. In 1967 Vira Sventsitska
published a short description of the icons painted by Dmytry20. She noted that in
the Pantocrator (1565) there were ďbrightly
realised typical features of Ukrainian painting of the second half of the 16th
century , not those of Przemyśl or Lviv, but of some other centre of art
situated farther to the southĒ. She also considered the Nativity of the Virgin
to be by Dmytry, noting that ďthis icon arouses more interest than
Dmytryís other worksĒ, but did not specify what she meant by Ďother worksí.
She concentrated her attention on the Nativity of the Virgin, as ďone of the
first Ukrainian icons intended to show part of an interior, with the illusion of
three-dimensional spaceĒ, in which she saw the influence of Renaissance art.
This influence was combined with the older traditions, which according to
Sventstitska shows a connection with the monumental art of the Balkans and
especially that of Mount Athos. She also admitted that Dmytry did not have many
followers. The closest analogy to Dmytryís icons she found was in the church
of the Descent of the Holy Ghost in Rohatyn.
Despite the conciseness of her description, Sventsitskaís study of
Dmytryís works still remains the deepest and most complete available.
Volodymyr Ovsiychuk in 1985added that on the basis of some elements of profane
art, the painter of the Pantocrator (1565) did not belong to a religious order21.
In his opinion, the source of these elements was the icon-painting of Moldavia.
As an analogy to Dmytryís icon he instanced the Pantocrator with Apostles from
the monastery of Humor near Suceava. Even though the two icons are not
absolutely identical, Ovsijčuk considered that they had been
produced in the same centre22. He analysed the characteristic colouring of
Dmytryís icons in a book on the problems of colour in Ukrainian painting of
the 10th to the 18th centuries23,
where he singles out the Nativity of the Virgin as the best of Dmytryís works,
and notes parallels of its colouring and composition with fresco-painting.
Vira Svencicka once again refers to Dmytry in her analysis of Ukrainian art
of the 14th to the 16th centuries24,
in connection with the Last Judgement, which in her opinion was created in
Dmytryís workshop, and notes in his output ďthe very clear influence of
Balkan, especially Greek, paintingĒ. In 1997-8 two more icons were attributed
to Dmytry by scholars: the Intercession of the Virgin25 and the Pantocrator with
In 1998 Volodymyr Aleksandrovyč published a new theory about Dmytryís
signed icon of 1565. He suggested that the name Dmytry referred not to the
artist but to the donor27. This idea can be accepted on the basis of the
traditional forms of such inscriptions. The phrase
Ďaz roblenyí was used to mean Ďcommissionedí or Ďdonatedí, while
Ďispisalí or Ďnapisasiaí meant Ďpaintedí or Ďdrawní, as is
proved by texts on 16th century icons by Hryhoryi Bosykovyč28 and
Oleksij29, on the Vernicle (1577) from the church of St Paraskeva in Radruž30,
and Christ in Glory from the church of the Nativity of the Virgin in Čukva31.
On the basis of the surviving icons by Dmytry, it is possible to reconstruct
the main architectural arrangement of the Ukrainian iconostasis of the second
half of the 16th century, with large icons on the lowest, ĎLocalí range, on
both sides of the Royal Doors, a slightly smaller Deisis range above, which was
roughly twice the height of the highest ĎFeastsí range. On the Local range
there were a minimum of three icons. The Deisis includes the Apostles (a type
which became firmly established as the norm in the second half of the 16th
century). Dmytryís Deisis belonged to the variant in which all the saints were
painted on a single panel of wood, the Ďepistyleí, which was typical of
early Ukrainian iconostases but became rare by the end of the 16th century32.
Dmytryís icon of the Pantocrator with Apostles was placed in the Local
range, an unusual position for this subject. Usually this place was occupied by
the Saviour in Glory, which formed a pair with the Virgin Hodegetria33. Only a few
surviving icons can bear any analogy with Dmytryís Pantocrator; the 15th
century Pantocrator from the church of the Trinity in Ričycia, which has
parallels in Greek art34; the Saviour in the church
of the Transfiguration in Velyki Čepševyči, which like the icons from
Dolyna has parallels with Romanian icons35; the Saviour from the end of the
16th century, from Dubno, (where we see only half-length figures of the Virgin
& St John the Baptist, without the Apostles36); and a similar icon from the
church of St Michael the Archangel in Tysovycia37. An important iconographic
detail unites all the above-mentioned icons: Christís right hand is held up
with the palm turned toward his chest, with the chimation wrapped around the
arm. This feature is often seen in icons of Greek or Moldavian origin.
Of all these icons of the Saviour or Pantocrator, Dmytryís is the most
impressive, not only because of its size, but also from the monumental character
of the image. The figure of Christ with its calm majesty and individual
expression has no parallels in contemporary painting, not only that of the
Ukraine. The other icon of the Pantocrator attributed to Dmytry has a different
appearance; a less detached expression, with more detailed attention paid to the
clothing, and a smaller size. All these result in a different, more intimate
impression than the Pantocrator (1565).
On the basis of the Pantocrator (1565) it is possible to recognise the
artistís individual style, firstly in the type of faces which he preferred.
The faces have rounded cheeks and chin; the basic pigment is a greenish ochre,
enlivened with thick white strokes. The ears, the eye-lids and the nostrils are
lined in bright red. The red of the lips is contrasted with a deep shadow below
them. The painterís manner can also be recognised in his colouring: the
colours are bright and opaque, without white highlights. Christís chimation is
thickly covered with gold lines, which emphasise the folds of the drapery. The
basic colours are a contrasting red and blue on a gold ground (of all Dmytryís
icons, only the Last Judgment lacks a gold background). The technique and motifs
of the engraved plant ornaments on Christís halo are similar to the
Pantocrator from the monastery of Humor, painted at approximately the same time38.
Both the Pantocrator icons illustrate two variations of the apostolic Deisis
(the apostles are depicted in vertical rows on each side of the icon); one icon
has full figures, the other half-figures of the Apostles. The same iconographic
pattern that occurs in the 1565 icon is also found in the two fragments of the
Deisis; the order of the saints, their postures, gestures, the details of their
clothes and the combination of colours. On the basis of the inscriptions on the
Pantocrator (1565) we can reconstruct the order of the figures on the Deisis
fragments, where the inscriptions are lost. On the left side are saints Philip,
James, Simon, Luke, Matthew and Peter; on the right are Paul, John, Mark,
Andrew, Bartholomew and Thomas. In the middle was probably Christ enthroned
between the Virgin and St John the Baptist, with two angels. The Deisis icons
from Dolyna are unique in that the board is very thick (4.5cm), but each figure
has a separate carved recess, something not found in other Ukrainian icons of
this type. The wide frame round the icons is decorated with engraved ornaments
of Gothic origin: a tree-trunk with the branches cut off, and acanthus leaves.
This ornament is used on the frames of all vertical icons by this artist; the
horizontal ones have a plaited ornament. In the Deisis icons we can see
Dmytryís skill as an artist of monumental style; despite the small size of the
icons, they look like fragments of monumental wall-painting.
The same characteristics can be found in the two icons of St Nicholas. These
are very similar, and constitute a rare example of an artist copying his own
work. Some similar instances are known to scholars, but are not common39. The
icons vary only in size, so that the number of scenes from the saintís life is
different. If the Pantocrator is the most monumental of Dmytryís icons, the
most successful in terms of colouring is the Nativity of the Virgin. This icon
does not depend on bright colours, but on delicate nuances of shade and hue, for
example the brick-red chalice in the hands of a woman dressed in red, with a
pinkish wall as background. More subtle nuances appear in the white clothes of
two other women who are standing touching one another. All the womenís faces
are similar, as in other icons by Dmytry. In this icon we can also see his skill
in composing small groups of figures, one in the washing of the infant Mary,
another in preparing the cradle. In these we see the influence of Renaissance
art, which has also been noted by scholars in the use of perspective in this
icon. The same type of iconography is found in the scenes surrounding St
Another icon, St Michael the Archangel, like St Nicholas, also includes
scenes with buildings and landscapes which show the Moldavian roots of
Dmytryís art. The architecture of the buildings has analogies with frescoes in
the church of Voronets of 1548-50. The action often takes place before a
background of pinkish or grey walls and hexagonal towers shown in a birdís-eye
view. Mountains are shown as blocks of cut stone, also coloured pink. Many
elements are copied from one icon to another - for example Heaven appears in the
Expulsion of Adam & Eve in the icon of St Michael, and the scene is repeated
in the Last Judgement.
This icon of the Last Judgement has iconographic elements typical of
Ukrainian icons of the second half of the 16th century. At about this time some
elements of the traditional pattern were changing: the so-called Ďroad of
trialsí is shown not as a grass-snake but as a zig-zag with towers at the
corners; Heaven is surrounded by high walls, not simply by a circle as before;
and the Ďregistersí divide the composition with horizontal lines, rather
than diagonal ones. But the very graphic style of the painting, the absence of
colour highlights, such as carmine, and the warmer hues of the faces give rise
to doubts about the attribution of this icon to Dmytry. On the other hand, the
forms of the architecture and landscapes, and the palaeographical details
of the inscription are the same as in other icons by him. The closest parallel
to this icon is the Last Judgement (1587) in the church of St Nicholas in
Kamianka Buzhka40. In the collection of icons from this church, probably all by
the same artist, we can see the influence of Balkan and Moldavian art as well.
The icon of the Intercession of the Virgin is known to us only from
black-and-white photographs, since it was stolen from the National Museum in
1982 and its present whereabouts is unknown. The subject comes from the time of
Kievan Rusí41, but very few icons survive from before the 17th
century. This is the first known instance of this subjectís appearance in the
Feasts range of the iconostasis. In contrast with earlier examples, this icon
has an extremely symmetrical composition: in the centre of the lower part, in
front of an arch, is shown a deacon (Roman Slatkopivets) reading from a scroll;
on both are groups of figures, including Andriy the Holy Fool. In the upper part
is the Virgin in full view, with two angels above her holding a cloak. This
detail of the angels with the cloak is known in both earlier and later examples
of West Ukrainian art42.
The icons that have been examined are outstanding examples of Ukrainian art
of the second half of the 16th century, and their creator was a truly original
figure. His icons form some of the last examples of the monumental style, which
was gradually disappearing at this time. We do not have enough evidence to
determine Dmytryís exact origin; probably he was a painter from Moldavia who
worked on commissions in the Ukraine. Other icons from Volhynia show such
contacts in the 16th century. The Pantocrator with Apostles from Velyky
Tseptsevychy (mentioned above), and the Virgin Hodegetria (1595) from the church
of the Intercession of the Virgin at Strilísk, both created by the same artist
who worked on the orders of Anna Kyrdeeva Mylsíka, a member of the princely
family of Holshanski43. The Royal Doors in the church of the Dormition in Klesiv
are also attributed to this artist44. Apart from the group of icons from Dolyna,
the characteristic influence of Moldavian painting can also be seen in icons
from the church in Lybokhora, which comprise a substantial part of the
iconostasis - ten icons from the Deisis range, five from the Feasts range, and
part of the Royal Doors45. The style of painting, the type of faces, the posture
of the figures and the decoration of the background provide the closest
comparisons with the Dolyna icons. The artists of both groups came from one
centre. (For instance the arched frame round every figure in the Deisis from
Lybokhora is typical of Moldavian iconostases of the 16th century, but only
became popular in the Ukraine in the 17th century.) A few
other icons survive from Lybokhora, painted in a similar manner46. The icon of the
Deisis from the church of the Descent of the Holy Ghost in Rohatyn47 is also
reminiscent of the Deisis from Dolyna, most notably in the painting of the faces
in the round while the figures are flat. At the same time the facial features of
the Rohatyn icons are similar to the Deisis icon from the church of St Paraskeva
in Busíko, which is attributed to the Suceava artist Hryhoryi Bosykovych48. Even
if the attribution to Bosykovych is uncertain, there is no doubt about the
influence of Moldavian art.
On the basis of the surviving icons, we can see that the master from Dolyna
did not have many followers. A single example of the borrowing of the
composition of the Nativity of the Virgin from Dolyna is the large icon from the
church of Stadnyky (Volhynia)49. It is interesting that analogies of the
iconography of the Nativity of the Virgin can be found in icons of another
region - the patronal icon from Hžesk50 and one from the Feasts range from the
church of the Trinity in Potelych51, which are connected with the Sambir group of
The character of the contacts between the Ukraine and Moldavia is a problem
which has been mentioned in many separate studies, but on which no single
detailed research has been published. We return to this problem again when we
consider the icons of the second half of the 16th century, a period in which
many artefacts illustrate those contacts, contacts shown most clearly by this
analysis of the icons painted by Dmytry.
1 The earliest date on a Ukrainian icon - 1466 on the icon from the church of
Ioakym and Anna in Stanylia - does not refer to the date of production of the
icon. P. Y. Petrušak, V. Y. Svencickaja, Ikona ĎStretenie so scenami iz žizni
Mariií konca XIV - naèala XV v. iz s. Stanylia, Pamiatniki kultury. Novye
otkrytiia. Ezhegodnik, 1990, Moskva 1992, p. 211-24.
2 Rogov, A., Freski Lavrova, Vizantija. Iuzhnye slaviane i Drevniaia
Rusí. Zapadnaia Evropa, Moscow 1973, p.339-51.
3 Myslivec, J., Ikonografie Akathistu Panny Marie, Seminarium Kondakovianum.
Recueil díetudes. Archeologie. Histoire de líart. Etudes Byzantines.
Vol. 5, Prague 1932, p. 97-127. Stefanescu, I.D., Iconografia artei bizantine
si a picturii feudale romanesti, Bucarest 1973.
4 Zholtovsíkiy, P., Slovnyk khudozhnykiv, shèo praciuvaly na Ukraini v
XIV-XVIII st., Materialy z etnografii ta mystecvoznavstva, Kiev 1962,
vypusk 7-8, p. 202; Slovnyk khudozhnykiv Ukrainy, Kiev 1973, p. 75; Slownik
artystow polskich I obcych w Polsce dzialajacych. Malarze, rzezbiarze, graficy.
Vol. 2, Wroclaw, 1975, p. 140; Zholtovsíkiy, P., Slovnyk khudozhnykiv, shèo
praciuvaly na Ukraini v XIV-XVIII st., Khudozhne zhyttia na Ukraini v
XVI-XVIII st., Kiev 1983, p. 128.
5 Helytovyè, M., Datovani ikony Peremyshlískoi, Volynsíkoi ta Lvivsíkoi
shkil ukrainsíkoho maliarstva XVI stolittia, Pamíiatky sakralínoho
mystectva Volyni na mezhi tysiaèolit: pytannia doslidzhennia, zberezhennia ta
restavracii. Materialy VI Mizhnarodnoi konferencii po volynsíkomu ikonopysu.
m. Luck, 1-3 grudnia 1999 roku, Luck 1999, p. 53-60.
6 Svencickyi, I., Ikonopys Halycíkoi Ukrainy XV-XVI vikiv, Lviv 1928,
p.5, ill. 7; Svencickyi-Sviatickyi, I., Ikoni Halycíkoi Ukrainy XV-XVI
vikiv, Lviv 1929, pl. 39, ill. 57; Istoriia iskusstva narodov SSSR,
vol. 3, Moscow 1974, p. 143, ill. 132; Istoriia ukrainsíkoho mystectva,
vol. 2, Kiev 1967, p. 258, ill. 176; Lohvyn, H., Miliaeva, L., Svencicka, V., Ukrainsíkyi
serednoviènyi zhyvopys, Kiev 1976, ill. XC; Hordynskyi, S., Ukrainsíka
ikona 12-18 storièèia, Philadelphia 1973, p. 153-4, ill. 134, 136; Tkac,
St., Ikony zo 16-17 storocia na severovychodnom Slovensku, Bratislava
1982, p. 21, ill. 149; Rusza, Gy., Ikonok konyve, Budapest 1981, p. 72,
n. 138; Ovsiyèuk, V., Ukrainsíke mystectvo XIV - pershoi polovyny XVII
stolittia, Kiev 1985, p. 58; Id., Ukrainsíke mystectvo druhoi
polovyny XVI - pershoi polovyny XVII st., Kiev 1985, Ill. between p. 152-3;
Stepovyk, D., Istoriia ukrainsíkoi Volynsíka ikony X-XX stolit, Kiev
1996, p. 230, ill. 88; Otkovyè, V., Pylypíiuk, V., Ukrainsíka ikona
XIV-XVIII st. iz zbirky Nacionalínoho muzeiu u Lvovi, Lviv 1999, p. 52-3.
7 Aleksandrovyè-Pavlyèko, Ia., Maliar Dmytrii. Ikona ĎPantokrator z
apostolamyí seredyny XVI st. z m. Dolyny, Volynsíka ikona: pytannia
istorii vyvèennia, doslidzhennia ta restavracii. Materialy V naukovoi
konferencii, m. Luck, 27-28 serpnia 1998 roku, Luck 1998, p. 71-2.
8 Svencickyi, I., op. cit.,p. 67, ill. 85; Svencickyi-Sviatickyi, I., op. cit.,
pl. 49, ill. 49; Istoriia ukrainsíkoho mystectva, p. 259, ill. 177;
Slovnyk khudozhnykiv Ukrainy, p.64; Svencicka, V., Kriz viky, Ukraina.
Nauka i kultura, no. 23, Kiev 1985, p. 488; Ovsiyèuk, V., Ukrainsíke
maliarstvo X-XVIII stolit. Problemy kolíoru, Lviv 1996, p. 286-7.
9 Lohvyn, H., Miliaeva, L., Svencicka, V., op. cit., ill. LXXXIX;
Stepovyk, D., op. cit., p. 228, ill. 86; Otkovyè, V., Pylypíiuk, V., op.
cit., p. 50.
10 Aleksandrovyè-Pavlyèko, Ia., Ikona ĎPokrova Bohorodycií ser. XVI st. z
m. Dubrovyci Rivnensíkoi oblasti, Volynsíka ikona: pytannia istorii vyvèennia,
doslidzhennia ta restavracii. Dopovidi ta materialy IV naukovoi konferencii,
m. Luck, 17-18 grudnia 1997 roku, Luck 1997, p. 49-52.
11 Svencickyi, I., op. cit., p. 44, ill. 53; Svencickyi-Sviatickyi, I., op.
cit., pl. 46, ill. 65; Svencicka, V., Sydor, O.F., Spadshèyna vikiv. Ukrainsíke
maliarstvo XIV-XVIII stolit u muzeynykh kolekciiakh Lvova, Lviv 1990, ill.
41-4; Otkovyè, V., Pylypiuk, V., op. cit., p. 54.
12 Shematyzm hr. kat. dukhovenstva lvivsíkoi Arkhieparkhii na rik 1932/33,
Lviv 1932, p. 44-5.
13 Inventory of icons, No. 3, p. 3-4.
14 Drahan, M., Ukrainsíka dekoratynva rizíba XVI-XVIII st., Kiev
1970, p. 27.
15 See Note 7.
17 Svencickyi, I., op. cit., p. 1, 8, ill. 2, 9.
18 Hembarowicz, M. Portret XVI-XVII wieku we Lwowie, Wroc³aw 1969, p.
19 Batih, M., Halycíkyi stankovyi zhyvopys XIV-XVIII st. u zbirkakh
Derzhavnoho muzeiu ukrainsíkoho mystectva u Lvovi, Materialy z etnografii
ta mystectvoznavstva, No. IV, Kiev 1961, p. 158.
20 Svencicka, V., Zhyvopys XIV-XVI stolit, Istoriia ukrainsíkoho mystectva,
vol. 2, Kiev 1967, p. 257-60.
21 See Note 7.
22 Ovsiyèuk, V., Ukrainsíke mystectvo druhoi polovyny XVI - pershoi
polovyny XVII st., p. 123.
23 Id., Ukrainsíke maliarstvo X-XVIII stolit, p. 282-8.
24 Svencicka, V., Sydor, O.F., op. cit., p.16-17.
25 See Note 11.
26 See Note 8.
27 Aleksandrovyè, V., Slovnyk maliariv Volyni XVI-XVII stolit, Volynsíka
ikona: pytannia istorii vyvèennia, doslidzhennia ta restavracii. Materialy V
naukovoi konferencii Ö p. 67-8.
28 Pucko, V., op. cit., p. 375.
29 Otkovyè, V., Pylypíiuk, V., op. cit., p. 46.
30 Helytovyè, M., op. cit., p. 55-7.
31 Unpublished icon: National Museum in Lviv, Inv. 2604, KV 38447.
32 Biskupski, R., Deesis na jednym podobraziu w malarstwie ikonowym XV i
pierwszej polowiy XVI wieku, Materialy Muzeum Budownictwa Ludowego w Sanoku,
1986, no. 29, p. 106-127.
33 Helytovyè, M., ĎBlahovishèenniaí 1579 r. maliara Feduska z Sambora I
rozvytok namisnoho riadu ukrainsíkoho ikonostasu u XVI stolitti, Volynsíka
ikona: pytannia istorii vyvèennia, doslidzhennia ta restavracii. Dopovidi ta
materialy IV naukovoi konferencii, p. 52-7.
34 Pucko, V., Greèesko-vizantiiskaia ikona Khrista Pantokratora, Cyrillomethodianum,
Thessalonica 1989-90, vol. XIII-XIV, p. 111-128; Ovsiyèuk, V., Ukrainsíke
maliarstvo X-XVIII stolit, p.226.
35 Luc, V., Datovani volynsíki ikony XVI - pershoi polovyny XVIII st. z
kolekcii Rivnensíkoho kraeznavèoho muzeiu, Volynsíka ikona: pytannia
istorii vyvèennia, doslidzhennia ta restavracii. m. Luck, 29 lystopada - 1
grudnia 1995 r., Luck 1995, p. 51-3.
36 Umancev, F., Zhyvopys kincia XVI - pershoi polovyny XVII stolittia,
Istoriia ukrainsíkoho mystectvaÖvol. 2, p. 276-7, ill.194.; Luc,
V., Otkovyè, Z., Volynsíki ikony z Lvivsíkoi kartinnoi galerei (L.K.G) ta
Kharkhivsíkoho khudozhnoho muzeiu (Kh.Kh.M), Volynsíka ikona: pytannia
istorii vyvèennia, doslidzhennia ta restavracii. Tezy ta materially naukovoi
konferencii, p. 29-32.
37 Svencickyi-Sviatickyi, I., op. cit., pl. 115, ill. 190.
38 Nicolescu, C., Rumaenische Ikonen, Berlin 1973, ill. 27.
39 Aleksandrovyè, V., Dvi versii ikony svatoho Heorhiia z cerkvy Soboru Ioakyma
I Anny u Stalyni ta cerkvy Perenesennia moshèiv sviatoho Mykolaia u Staromu
Kropyvnyku: ikonohrafiènyi aspekt doslidzhennia, Sakralíne mystectvo
Boykivshèyny. Naukovi èytannia pamiati Mykhaila Drahana. Dopovidi ta
povidomlennia 25-26 èervnia 1996 roku, m. Drohobyè, Drohobyè 1996, p.
40 Sydor, O., Ikony z Kamíianky-Busíkoi v kolekcii Nacionalínoho muzeiu u
Lvovi, Halycíka brama, no. 8 (44), Aug. 1998, p. 8.
41 Aleksandrovyè, V., Ikonografiia drevneishei ukrainskoi ikony Pokrova
Bogomateri, Byzantinoslavica, vol. LIX, 1998, p. 125-35.
42 Ibid., p. 131.
43 Luc, V., Zbirka volynsíkykh ikon Rivnensíkoho kraeznavèoho muzeiu, Rodovid,
1994, pt 4(8), p. 42, 51.
44 Ibid., p. 42; Ovsijèuk, V., Ukrainsíke maliarstvo X-XVIII stolit,
45 Svencickyi-Sviatickyi, I., op. cit., pl. 80-81, ill. 116-121.
46 Ibid., pl. 78-9, ill. 113-115.
47 Hordynskyi, S., op. cit., p. 132-5, ill. 107-112.
48 Moktiy, V., Dva tvory Hryhoriia Bosykovyèa u Lvivsíkiy kartynniy halerie,
Volynsíka ikona: pytannia istorii vyvèennia, doslidzhennia ta restavracii.
Dopovidi ta materialy IV naukovoi konferenciiÖ p. 94-98.
49 Ovsiyèuk, V., Ukrainsíke maliarstvo X-XVIII stolitÖ p.286.
50 Kiwala, B., Burzynska, J., Ikony ze zbiorow Muzeum Okregowego w Przemyslu,
Krakow 1981, ill. V.
51 Helytovyè, M., Ikony XVI st. z Potelyèa, Rodovid, 1994, pt 4 (8), p.
52 Aleksandrovycz, V., Malarze poludniowo-wschodnich terenow prawoslawnej
diecezji przemiskiej w drugiej polowie XVI wieku, Sztuka cerkiewna w
dieceziej przemiskiej. Materialy z miedzynarodowej konferencji naukowej, 25-26
marca 1995 roku pod redakcja J.Gemzy, A. Stepana, Lancut 1999, p. 55-68.
¬‚Śūű | Home | —Śū‚Śū
© 2001 ¬ÓŮÚÓųŪÓŚ‚ūÓÔŚťŮÍŤť ŗūűŚÓŽÓ„ŤųŚŮÍŤť śůūŪŗŽ. All rights reserved.
ňŗŠÓūŗÚÓūŤˇ ŗŪŗŽŤÚŤųŚŮÍŤű ŤŮŮŽŚšÓ‚ŗŪŤť Õ»»Ōő» Ő » ”ÍūŗŤŪŻ.