DISCOVERIES Attributing the Zvenigorodsky Chin

Levon Nersesyan talks with Oxana Golovko Translated by Vera Winn

Artistic Technique were moving backward and forward. Note: On June 26, In the latter case, the final image 2017, the State Levon, tell us how you discovered rarely corresponds with the prepara- Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow held a that the Zvenigorodsky Chin was tory drawings, and there are quite a press conference on not painted by Andrei Rublev. few corrections even in the prepara- the authorship of the tory drawing itself. It is obvious that Zvenigorodskiy Chin, a A difference in painting technique the first master was accustomed to famous depiction of the Deisis (suppli- between the Zvenigorodsky Chin and working out all the details clearly and cation) featuring the the Holy Trinity is clearly visible with- neatly from the very beginning, while Archangel Michael, out the use of any scientific devices, the second created a rough sketch Christ, and St. Paul. but before we drew any conclusions, and then modified the form of the im- This triptych was long attributed to the it was necessary to analyze the tech- age in the process of painting. 14th–15th century niques used as accurately and ob- iconographer Andrei jectively as possible, and only then Careful microscopic examination and Rublev, but scientists to compare the objects visually. We microphotography of the paintings and restorers now be- lieve the icons were followed a universal, internation- enabled us to clarify the number and painted by a different ally recognized method of extensive sequence of paint layers. These tech- hand, or possibly by analysis. Radiography enabled us to niques can also be used to identify the multiple painters. examine the structure of the wooden pigment composition of the various The announcement caused a major panels, the nature of the cloth and the color mixtures, which can be verified uproar, as Rublev is method by which it was attached, and by chemical or X-ray fluorescent anal- a saint of the Russian the state of the coating. Infrared pho- ysis. Pigment composition is one of Orthodox Church tographs were extremely informative, the least reliable sources of accurate and some consider his icons, such as the exposing underlying layers such as information for attribution, however, renowned Holy Trin- the preparatory outline, which pro- because the kind of materials avail- ity, to be supporting vided an idea of the technique. able to the icon painter may have evidence of his sanc- varied. But the number, and most im- tity. Oxana Golovko’s portantly the sequence, of paint lay- interview with art The contour lines on the icons of the historian Levon Zvenigorodsky Chin are thin, straight, ers and the layering technique are the Nersesyan, who led neat, and quite long, and the final im- most decisive indicators of a master’s the research team at age follows their outline almost per- skills and his individual manner. the Tretyakov Gal- lery, first appeared fectly, especially on the icon of Christ on Pravmir.ru. the Savior. By contrast, the painter of The icons of the Zvenigorod Chin have the famous Holy Trinity searched for more layers than the Holy Trinity, and the final form. His contour lines are they are thinner and more homoge- short, wide, vibrating strokes, with nous—perhaps because the upper splotches on the ends, as if his brush layers were laid on the lower ones

The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 17 before they had completely dried. The red is hidden between layers of ocher, and under the glare of white paint, there is another preparatory layer, which is lighter than the rest of the ocher, reducing the contrast of the highlighting. In the Holy Trinity there are only two layers of ocher, transparent red is applied on top of other layers, the white brush strokes are denser and brighter, and the whole painting looks much more dense.

These differences cannot not be due to the evolution of the technique of one master, even if we assume that he was trying to simplify his methods by abandoning a detailed drawing, reducing the number of paint layers, and making them more dense. It is hard to imagine how the hand that formerly drew lines in a certain way and at a certain length, that removed the brush at a cer- tain moment, that painted in short or long strokes—along with all the other characteristics of his individ- ual style—would change so dramat- ically. We seem to be dealing with two masters, who achieved spectac- ular and absolutely flawless results, regardless of the simplicity or com- works. We discovered that his indi- Three icons of plexity of their techniques. vidual style is less apparent in his Zvenigorodsky Chin. large icons. This observation led us Icons are often the work of many to the logical conclusion that, in such hands, not of a single artist—one cases, the master was only directly master creates the design with cer- responsible for a preparatory draw- tain personal elements, other art- ing and some final corrections. Some- ists paint clothes, apprentices paint times he just signed a collective work. the background, and so on. How In his day, the signature did not in- does this affect attribution? dicate the artist’s intention to glorify himself, but it was rather a certifica- Of course, we must also take this tion of quality. issue into account, especially for later icons. So, before the opening of It is difficult to imagine that the Greek the exhibition of about fifty signed artist who painted most of the iconos- icons by Simon Ushakov, we con- tasis at the Annunciation Cathedral at ducted technological analyses and the Moscow Kremlin did it all alone. even restored some of Ushakov’s Even if apprentices painted the lux-

18 urious clothes, the background, and I don’t think this has anything to other details, I still think that there do with national pride. We are not might have been two or even three talking about something specifically masters. They employed a very simi- Greek or specifically Russian. We lar style, but each still used individual are talking about a more or less uni- techniques. Some day we will find out fied spiritual and artistic culture of what these techniques are, just as we the medieval Orthodox world, which discovered the individual differences is sometimes called the “Byzantine between the icon of Christ the Savior Commonwealth.” After all, Chris- and the two other icons of the Zvenig- tianity came to Russia from Byzan- orodsky Chin. tium in 988, bringing the Byzantine tradition of icon painting. This tradi- The Question of Nationality tion included not only a collection of models, iconographic schemes, and The author of the Zvenigorodsky extremely sophisticated artistic tech- Chin may have been Greek or Rus- niques, but also the whole complex sian—or both. Is that important? system of symbolic language, aimed

The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 19 Zvenigorod angel (left) and Trinity angel (right).

at translating supernatural spiritual the Byzantine Empire was conquered content into comprehensible images. by the Crusaders. It is interesting that It is clear that this system could not the Russian iconography of that era have been “mechanically” implanted is marked by some influence from [in Russia]. It could only have been as- medieval [Western] European art— similated through long-term dialogue especially in the western outskirts of and close cooperation. And if we are Rus’, including Novgorod and Pskov. talking about the pre-Mongolian era This period was the beginning of the [before 1223], the question of the na- independent development of Russian tionality of the masters does not make art and the formation of its regional sense at all. We simply do not have any schools. criteria to determine it—and of course skill level cannot be such a criterion, Sometimes art historians refer to the can it? It is quite possible that provin- middle and especially the last quar- cial Greek painters, whose art lacked ter of the fourteenth century as “the the brilliance of the Constantinople second meeting with Byzantium.” school, came to Rus’ [Ruthenia]. It is By then the Russian artistic tradition also possible that talented Russian icon had become more distinctive than in painters could have surpassed their pre-Mongolian period, so Byzantine Greek teachers. Both the monumental influences—or their absence—can be paintings and the few preserved panel identified more easily. Some icons icons of the pre-Mongolian period are cannot be attributed to Greek author- completely Byzantine, both in con- ship even hypothetically. Others have tent and in their purely formal artistic mixed features, and in such cases we technique. For this period, it is impos- can assume that the author was ei- sible to determine whether they were ther a Greek who had partly adapted painted by Greek or Russian masters. to the local culture or a Russian who went through Greek training. In the thirteenth century, commu- nication between the Rus’ and the Judging by the few surviving works Byzantines declined. Rus’ was cut off of art executed in the Byzantine tra- from the rest of the [Orthodox] world dition, this period was the peak of by the Tartar-Mongol invasions, and late Byzantine iconography [in Rus’].

20 It was the context for the emergence and the distribution of work on the of such an exceptional phenomenon iconostasis. The only thing that is as Andrei Rublev. Our knowledge of certain is that the central icons were Rublev’s work is based only on frag- painted with the participation of ments of frescoes and one icon—but some outstanding Byzantine mas- they fully demonstrate the extent ter—but even those researchers who of his gift and his skill, which corre- still believe this master was The- sponded to his outstanding teachers ophanes the Greek can no longer date and predecessors. the iconostasis to 1405.

So, should the history of Russian By the way, the first publications art be rewritten? In serious books on that contained detailed analysis of this subject, the icons of the Zvenig- historical sources and archaeologi- orodsky Chin are usually referred to cal materials concerning the iconos- as the peak of excellence of a mature tasis of the Annunciation Cathedral Andrei Rublev. appeared when I was still a student, and over the thirty years since then, Probably. But I do not see anything the history has been successfully “re- terrible about it. The main thing is written.” I think that, sooner or later, not to rush. Sometimes researchers the same will happen with the Zvenig- must abandon very important and orodsky Chin. Our immediate task is well-established attributions. This not to change the labels or to rewrite happened with the aforementioned art history, but to present all the de- iconostasis of the Annunciation Ca- tails of our discovery patiently, until thedral at the Moscow Kremlin, our colleagues finally get used to the which, according to the chronicles, new theory and accept it. was created in 1405 through the col- laboration of Theophanes the Greek, Who Was Andrei Rublev? Prokhor of Gorodets, and Andrei Ru- blev. There were even very detailed Surprisingly, some people became up- studies describing each painter’s in- set at the news that the artists of the dividual contributions. But archae- Zvenigorodsky Chin and the Holy ologists discovered that the origi- Trinity are different people. nal Annunciation Church—the one mentioned in the chronicles—was You know, a year ago, in a small vil- the small temple of a princely family, lage near Bergamo, I made a presen- and this iconostasis could not have tation about the Zvenigorodsky Chin to fit in it. It seems more than likely my Italian friends who admire medie- that it was moved from some other val Russian culture. Italians have very place to the [present] church, which emotional reactions and I saw how was built later. Furthermore, even if their eyes literally filled with tears the ancient icons were moved from when they heard that the master of one church to another (the Annunci- the Zvenigorodsky Chin was not Andrei ation Cathedral was rebuilt twice af- Rublev. After all, the Zvenigorodsky ter Theophanes and Rublev worked icon of Christ the Savior belongs to there), these works could hardly have world culture, and is considered by survived the Great Fire of Moscow of Christians of all confessional identi- 1547. So, in the end, we had to give ties to be not only a masterpiece but up everything—the exact dates, the even the quintessential representa- attributions to Rublev and Prokhor, tion of spiritual experience—the uni-

The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 21 22 versal prayer image, if you like. And but a little different. He did not paint Previous page: here my listeners were being told that the Zvenigorodsky Chin—so what? His Theotokos from the the Pantocratore di Rublev was not at Holy Trinity is still an absolutely per- Blagoveshchensky Chin. all di Rublev, but was painted by some fect masterpiece from an artistic and a other, unknown master. An utter ca- spiritual perspective. tastrophe! You must agree that such a picture in- But I think I was able to console them. spires more optimism and faith in hu- I said: Let’s imagine two historical manity—in its spiritual, cultural and pictures. In the first, there was a wild artistic potential. and gloomy desert, populated by hostile barbarians, who continuously The historical references to Andrei killed and raped each other with bes- Rublev are scarce. tial cruelty—something like we see in [Andrei] Tarkovsky’s film Andrei Ru- There are only four of them. Two blev. This desert had only two “bright chronicles (circa 1405 and 1408) men- angels,” who suffered from the omni- tion Rublev’s work on the Annuncia- present viciousness and cruelty. One tion Church in the Moscow Kremlin of them had fled from the perishing and on the Assumption Cathedral in Byzantium, bringing all its spiritual Vladimir. The Life of Sts. Sergius and and artistic heritage. The other, the Nikon of Radonezh describes the deco- only one equal in spirit and talent, ration of the Trinity Cathedral at the had miraculously grown on the local, Trinity–St. Sergius Lavra, and briefly graceless soil. And here they were, mentions Andrei Rublev and Daniel, working together, not understood by who were monks of the Andronikov anyone. I definitely do not like this Monastery in Moscow and worked picture, and, more importantly, it is on the Spassky Cathedral shortly be- not accurate. fore Rublev’s death.

The real situation was different. Based on the surviving works of Imagine Moscow in the last decade Andrei Rublev, we can state that of the fourteenth century. There were the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathe- a lot of Greek newcomers, not only dral was almost certainly part of its the scribes who arrived with Metro- original structure and was created politan Cyprian but also remarkable by Rublev and Daniel. As for the artists. And there were also many icon of the Holy Trinity, we can only wonderful Russian masters. They guess that it was painted at the same communicated, they worked to- time the Cathedral was built, around gether, they shared their experiences. 1425–27. We are not sure who created It was not the Dark Ages, in which the iconostasis of the Assumption Ca- people killed each other and wept thedral in Vladimir or when, and the in the mud. It was normal life, with frescoes are only partially preserved. many talented people who created It is not clear whether these frescoes one masterpiece after another. The were created at the time the cathe- young Andrei Rublev was among dral was built, by the same group of them, helping the senior masters, ob- painters, or later by other artists. By serving the ways they worked, learn- the way, the next phase of our proj- ing from them. Then he created his ect will be a technical study of the own style, no less virtuosic than in Vladimir icons, which may help us to the icons of the Zvenigorodsky Chin, solve this puzzle.

The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 23 Next page: Christ Oh, I almost forgot—in the Spassky information about their real biogra- from the Blagoveshch- Cathedral of the Andronikov Mon- phies and their artistic works. The ensky Chin. astery, ornaments were preserved on same goes for other documents of the the slopes of the windows, and under late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the floor archaeologists found pieces with their numerous references to Ru- of bituminous plaster with traces of blev. Undoubtedly, his works were frescoes. highly appreciated and collected. But it is possible that, at that time, Ru- [Other attributions are] just assump- blev’s name was used as a mark of tions and hypotheses, and easily veer quality, to indicate the highest level into speculation. Of course, these are of artistic skill, and that this approach wonderful works in which one wants was inherited by Russian and Soviet to see the hand of a great master. And historians of art. attributing these works to Rublev in- evitably raises their value. Even a sin- So, there is very little information gle mention of his name is enough for about Rublev, and there are even this. Hence the desire to see the “Ru- fewer icons whose authorship we blev School” or the “Rublev Circle” can confirm by this information. All everywhere. The person who started his biographies can be compared this trend was [modern Russian to the lives of the saints, written ac- painter and art historian] Igor Gra- cording to ecclesiastical tradition, in bar. In his opinion, these icons were which enthusiasm and reverence for so perfect and beautiful that only Ru- the saint compensated for the lack of blev, the greatest Russian artist of the facts. In Rublev’s case, this tradition early fifteenth century, could have was adopted not just by the church, been their creator. but also by art historians.

Speaking about historical data, one Rewriting History cannot help recalling the remarkable characteristics of Daniel and Rublev Why have Russian art historians as reported by Saint Joseph, a monk supported this legend? of Volotsk. In his Answer to the Curi- ous and Brief Tale about the Holy Fathers In the nineteenth century, Russian who Lived in the Monasteries of the Rus- art historians—and the entire ed- sian Land, he wrote: ucated public—became concerned about the absence in Russian culture The marvelous icon painter Daniel of great artists of the level of Raphael, and his disciple Andrei . . . had so Leonardo da Vinci, and other famous much virtue and were only striv- European masters. Comparisons of ing in fasting in the monastic life Russian and European art traditions to achieve God’s love and blossom sometimes led to contradictory con- forth in it. They never cared about clusions. On the one hand, in the eyes the material world, but focused of the pro-Western [Russian] public, their minds upon immaterial and ancient Russian icon painters were divine light while . . . they painted simple and not very skilled artisans, images of Lord Christ and his who had never achieved the heights Most Pure Mother and the Saints. of creative expression of the Euro- pean masters during or after the Re- This testimony to their spiritual state naissance. But the opposite point of and holiness adds nothing to our view was affirmed in an equally cat-

24 The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 25 egorical—and sometimes almost gro- they would later built a multitude of tesque—manner. For example, the different schools, circles, and work- famous Slavophile writer Aleksandr shops. Until recently, the whole his- Ivanchin-Pisarev, standing in front of tory of Russian art was based on these the Holy Trinity—which, by the way, same speculations. was hidden behind later painting and a riza [silver cover]—“marveled at Recent publications on the Holy the painting of the Byzantines” and Trinity are not so categorical about “was absolutely convinced that their its authorship. They say, “more than students, the Italians, even Raphael likely it was painted by Rublev.” and Leonardo da Vinci, could not even be compared to them. Not only Yes, there are alternative theories. Cimabue, Giotto, Castagna, and Ghir- We know that Daniel and Andrei Ru- landaio, but even Bellini and Perug- blev worked on the Trinity–St. Ser- ino created nothing as great as this gius Lavra in the1420s and that they icon.” frescoed the new Trinity Cathedral, erected at the behest of St. Nikon. The nineteenth century was all about Theoretically, even the simultaneity “discoveries” that would show to of these now lost paintings and the ex- the world the extraordinary achieve- isting iconostasis could be disputed— ments of the great Russian icon paint- after the frescoes were painted, it ers. Now we know that Orthodox art, would have taken some time for which was strictly canonical and for them to dry, and only then could the the most part impersonal, was based iconostasis have been installed. What on completely different principles. Its if other masters were invited to work creators were not first of all “artists,” on the iconostasis? We might also but couriers of spiritual experience guess that the icon of the cathedral’s through the Church. dedication [the Holy Trinity] was cre- ated along with the rest of the iconos- However, nineteenth- and especially tasis and not brought from an earlier twentieth-century art historians ig- temple, as some researchers believe. nored this perspective. Igor Grabar Finally, let’s not forget that Rublev’s sought to name specific painters he authorship of the Holy Trinity is based could claim were an equal match to on a rather late source, The Tale of the the great European artists. His Com- Holy Icon Painters, which was written mission on the Restoration of Works at the end of seventeenth century. of Art and Antiquities concentrated its research on the oldest pre-Mongolian But on the other hand, the Stoglavy artworks and on anything that was Church Council of 1551 proclaimed somehow connected to well-known that all icons of the Holy Trinity names. So they went to Vladimir, should be painted “after Andrei Ru- because Daniel and Rublev worked blev.” there, and they worked on the iconos- tasis of the Annunciation Cathedral Yes, but it says “after Andrei Rublev,” in the Moscow Kremlin, because the not “as Andrei Rublev painted the old chronicle mentioned that this Holy Trinity for the Trinity Cathedral iconostasis could have been created of the Trinity–St. Sergius Lavra.” Lit- by Theophanes, Prokhor, and Rublev. erally, this is not about a particular They were trying to find landmarks— icon, but about the canon of iconogra- cultural milestones—around which phy developed by Andrei Rublev.

26 How can we be sure about the authen- find on it only restorational infillings ticity of the Holy Trinity, then? Is it and tints. However, it turned out that really a painting created in the early the icon was only lightly damaged fifteenth century, or is it the result of and had been restored very little. The later renovations and restorations? original painting gave us a complete idea of how the master had worked, Many people have expressed doubts which allowed us to restore almost about the authenticity of the Holy everything that was lost. Trinity. Many of them have criticized Vasily Guryanov, who undertook a You and other art historians are now full restoration of the icon in 1904. working on a book in which the re- He cleaned it as much as possible and sults of your analyses of the icon Our then filled in the lost spots, giving the Lady of the Don will be published. icon its “splendid” look. For this rea- Did you discover something new son, in 1915, the art historian Nikolai about this icon? Sychev commented rather harshly on the restoration, saying that it did Among other things, we tried to ver- not disclose, but in fact completely ify the hypothesis put forward by concealed the Trinity for us—because Igor Grabar and supported by many the restorer painted his own version researchers that the Annunciation in place of deleted areas of painting. Deisis and Our Lady of the Don were The question is, to what extent is the created by the same master. Grabar Holy Trinity Rublev’s, considering believed that it was Theophanes the that it was modified by Guryanov’s Greek. The Moscow Kremlin Mu- infillings as well as infillings made in seum allowed one of our researchers, earlier times? Dmitry Nikolaevich Sukhoverkov—a restorer of the highest competency— There was even an incredible theory to conduct the technical part of this that the icon was practically re-writ- research. He was given the opportu- ten in 1834 by Salautin, an icon nity to view the Deisis icons up close painter from Palekh, who at that time and to take photographs. We could was supervising the renovation of the not identify any individual manner. Trinity Cathedral iconostasis. This As I already mentioned, in my opin- theory does not hold water. First, it ion there was not just one, but several demonstrates a complete lack of un- masters who worked on these icons. derstanding of the methods of the work of the restorers; and second, it However, it is quite obvious that the ignores the fact that, in the first half of Annunciation Deisis and Our Lady the nineteenth century, Palekh artists of the Don were created in the same could not have known the techniques workshop, by a team of masters who of medieval icon painters. The mass had worked together more than once. cleaning of ancient icons began only Perhaps they were learning from each half a century later, so none of those other. In any case, they used the same Palekh painters could have created set of techniques. a convincing imitation of a fifteenth- century painting. According to a widely disseminated contemporary account, the Annuncia- Questions remained, however. When tion Cathedral Deisis was moved from we started analyzing the Trinity, we the Dormition Cathedral in Kolomna, were very much afraid that we would and therefore dates back to 1392,

The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 27 when, as is mentioned in the chroni- We did not find decisive technological cle, the “signing” of the temple took evidence of simultaneity, and there- place. Since the most important art- fore it seems more likely that one of works in Moscow beginning in 1395 the masters of this team received an were produced under the direction of order for this icon upon his return to Theophanes the Greek, art historians Moscow. The customer could have have speculated that he could also been Princess Evdokia, who probably have been the head of the team that, wished to add this icon to the preex- three years earlier, had worked in isting structure in remembrance of Kolomna. But this is just an assump- her husband, Prince Dmitry Ivanov- tion, because neither his name nor ich, and his victory in Kulikovo Field. that of another leading master was Perhaps this story was later trans- mentioned in the chronicles. In ad- formed into the legend about Prince dition, it was believed that Our Lady Dmitry Donskoy carrying the icon of the Don originated from the same into the battle at Kulikov. Dormition Cathedral, and could have been painted simultaneously with It is interesting that the reverse side that cathedral’s iconostasis. of Our Lady of the Don was painted

Theotokos “Don- skaya”.

28 by a different master, apparently a You know why I do not like this word? Novgorodian by birth. In our book, It doesn’t belong to my—to our—vo- we compare the techniques of the cabulary. Researchers who engage front and reverse sides of the icon in lengthy, monotonous, and labo- and show that they were painted by rious work, and then scrupulously different masters. analyze its results, avoid this word so diligently because we are trying, A New Discovery—Not a Sensation perhaps in vain, to direct consumers of mass media to a completely differ- Why, when art historians tell the gen- ent cultural discourse, which unfor- eral public that the Zvenigorod Chin tunately seems hopelessly outdated and the Holy Trinity were painted by today. This is the only discourse that different artists, do they do it with ultimately leads to an understanding reservation? Are there any doubts? of certain cultural phenomena, in- cluding scientific discoveries. But in No, there is no doubt among special- sensational statements and in the en- ists, including the head of the Depart- suing turbulent discussions, with mu- ment for the Conservation of Tem- tual insults, no understanding occurs. pera Painting of the State Research We cannot achieve truth through Institute for Conservation, Viktor V. fights, but only in calm conversations, Baranov, who worked with us for the in which the parties hear each other— two years. But the problem is that, in as you and I are having now, for ex- today’s ideological climate, our scien- ample. tific discoveries may be not received as we would like them to be. But what if such cautiousness left your work unknown to many people? But isn’t it a sensation? That would be better than unhealthy This, of course, is a new and ex- excitement. Basically, this informa- tremely interesting discovery. But not tion requires effort to review and a sensation. A sensation is something understand. People interested in this that undermines the foundations and subject should read our interview leaves a person standing on ruins, so from beginning to end and then de- his world must be built anew. There cide whether to believe it or not. As are no ruins here. Things have been for those who run through the head- shifting for a long time, brick by brick, lines in search of sensational news, I and at some point these bricks, like a would prefer for them not to notice © 2017 The Wheel. May be distributed for mosaic, made up a new structure. Is this, because who knows what would noncommercial use. this sensational? I don’t think so. come to their minds? www.wheeljournal.com

Levon Nersesyan is a specialist in ancient Russian art. He works at the State Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow and teaches at Moscow State University. He is an author of several books on Russian iconography and an encyclopedic dictio- nary of ancient Russian art. He lives and works in Moscow and Venice.

The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 29