Icons of the 1560’s associated with ‘Dmytry’

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 Dmytry’s artistic output we can also include nine other icons which together form the largest oeuvre of any named icon-painter of the 16th century. Dmytry’s 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 2531⁶.

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 ‘Local’ 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 ‘Nevianuchyi Tsvit’ (Unfading Flower) - this icon belongs to a later period. Svencickij’s suggestion was rejected by Mieczysław Gębarowicz¹⁸. The first mention of Dmytry’s 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 “brightly 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 south”. She also considered the Nativity of the Virgin to be by Dmytry, noting that “this icon arouses more interest than Dmytry’s other works”, but did not specify what she meant by ‘other works’. She concentrated her attention on the Nativity of the Virgin, as “one of the first Ukrainian icons intended to show part of an interior, with the illusion of three-dimensional space”, 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 Dmytry’s icons she found was in the church of the Descent of the Holy Ghost in Rohatyn.

Despite the conciseness of her description, Sventsitska’s study of Dmytry’s 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 Dmytry’s 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 Dmytry’s 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 Dmytry’s 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 Dmytry’s workshop, and notes in his output “the very clear influence of Balkan, especially Greek, painting”. In 1997-8 two more icons were attributed to Dmytry by scholars: the Intercession of the Virgin²⁵ and the Pantocrator with Apostles²⁶.

In 1998 Volodymyr Aleksandrovyč published a new theory about Dmytry’s 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 ‘az robleny’ was used to mean ‘commissioned’ or ‘donated’, while ‘ispisal’ or ‘napisasia’ meant ‘painted’ or ‘drawn’, 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, ‘Local’ range, on both sides of the Royal Doors, a slightly smaller Deisis range above, which was roughly twice the height of the highest ‘Feasts’ 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). Dmytry’s Deisis belonged to the variant in which all the saints were painted on a single panel of wood, the ‘epistyle’, which was typical of early Ukrainian iconostases but became rare by the end of the 16th century³².

Dmytry’s 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 Dmytry’s 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: Christ’s 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, Dmytry’s 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 artist’s 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 painter’s manner can also be recognised in his colouring: the colours are bright and opaque, without white highlights. Christ’s 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 Dmytry’s icons, only the Last Judgment lacks a gold background). The technique and motifs of the engraved plant ornaments on Christ’s 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 Dmytry’s 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 saint’s life is different. If the Pantocrator is the most monumental of Dmytry’s 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 women’s 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 Nicholas.

Another icon, St Michael the Archangel, like St Nicholas, also includes scenes with buildings and landscapes which show the Moldavian roots of Dmytry’s 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 bird’s-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 ‘road of trials’ 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 ‘registers’ 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 Rus’⁴¹, but very few icons survive from before the 17th century. This is the first known instance of this subject’s 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 Dmytry’s 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 Stril’sk, both created by the same artist who worked on the orders of Anna Kyrdeeva Myls’ka, 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 Bus’ko, 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 artists⁵².

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.

Figures

Notes