The Russian Gnadenstuhl*

Ágnes Kriza

i. The ‘FouR-paRT icon’ and The ViskoVaTy aFFaiR (1553–54)

y the end of the medieval period Russian art had established its own
B characteristic themes and traditions. despite isolated contacts with Western
art, borrowings from Western iconography were rare on Russian icons up until the
sixteenth century.1 The year 1547, which saw the coronation of the first Russian tsar,
ivan iV ‘the Terrible’ (1533–84, before 1547 grand prince of Muscovy), constitutes
a turning point in Russian art history. shortly after the coronation, most of the
kremlin cathedrals and many of their icons were damaged in a devastating fire,
so a series of new icons was commissioned.2 The most important and emblematic
piece of this series is the famous ‘Four-part icon’ in the domestic church of the
Russian tsars, the annunciation cathedral (Fig. 1).3 The icon was made between

1547 see B. Д. cарабьянов, ‘cимволико-аллегориче-

* i am grateful to the Warburg institute and its 2. For the icons commissioned after the fire of

ские иконы Благовещенского собора и их влияние на

Library, where the main ideas of this paper took

искусство XVi века’, in Благовещенский (as in n. 1),

shape. For their advice and help i am indebted to
Richard Marks, Ludmila shchennikova, istván perczel,
Berthold kress, John Munns, Jeffrey hamburger and
especially to péter Tóth. i would also like to thank the
anonymous referees, the editors of the Journal and
Jenny Boyle. For help with the images i am grateful
to Ludmila shchennikova, nectarios Zarras, Melita
emmanuel, Vera Filó, elissaveta Moussakova, svetozar
angelov and ida sinkević. i use the BukyVede old
church slavonic cyrillic font with the kind permission
of sebastian kempgen (university of Bamberg).
Translations in the article are my own unless indi-
cated otherwise. i quote the Bible from the english
pp. 164–217. The question of the proper terminology
for the new type of icon-painting, the most emblematic
examples of which were created at that time, has
been widely discussed in the literature. among the
most frequent terms used to describe these icons are
‘allegorical-symbolical’ and ‘symbolical-didactic’. For
the role of allegory and symbol in Russian painting of
the period see V. Byčkov, ‘Betrachtungen zur Genesis
der symbolisch-didaktischen ikonen in Rußland vom
ende des 15. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert’, in ‘die Weisheit
baute ihr haus’: untersuchungen zu hymnischen und

Bartsch, Munich 1, pp. 11–25; Г. k. Bагнер, Kанон

translation of the Orthodox study Bible, of which the didaktischen Ikonen, ed. k. c. Felmy and e. haustein-

и стиль в древнерусском искусстве, Moscow 187, pp.

old Testament was translated from the septuagint
and the new Testament follows the text of the new
king James Version. 227–63.

between Rus’ and Western europe: Э. c. cмирнова,

1. surveys of medieval artistic interactions 3. For a full bibliography and detailed description

‘kонтакты и противостояние русской и западноевро- ical survey, see Л. a. Щенникова, ‘Четырехчастная

of the Four-part icon, together with a historiograph-

пейской художественной культуры в XVi столетии. икона’, in Иконы XIV-XIX веков в Благовещенском
hекоторые наблюдения’, in actual Problems of theory соборе Mосковского Kремля: Kаталог, no. 11 (forth-
and history of art, vi, ed. s. V. Maltseva and a. V. coming; i am grateful to Ludmila shchennikova for

Преображенский, ‘Западные мотивы и формы в

Zakharova, st petersburg 2016, pp. 242–51; a. c. showing me a pre-publication copy of this article). For

поствизантийской живописи Mосковии. Предварите­-

description and analysis of the Four-part icon in other

льные размышленя’, ibid., pp. 252–66; B. h. Лазарев,

languages than Russian see n. Markina, ‘struktur und

‘Искусство средневековой pуси и Запад (Xi-XV вв.)’,

inhalt der “Vierfelderikone” und ihre Verbindung mit

in idem, Bизантийское и древнерусское искусство,

dem philosophischen denken russischer Theologen
des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in ‘die Weisheit baute ihr haus’

see B. Г. Пуцко, ‘“Четырёхчастная” икона Благове-

Moscow 178, pp. 227–6. For further bibliography (as in n. 2), pp. 6–2; k. c. Felmy, ‘die ikone

щенского собора и “латинские мудрования” в русской

“eingeborener sohn”’, ibid., pp. 3–111; d. B. Miller,

живописи XVi века’, in Благовещенский собор Mосков­-

‘The Viskovatyi affair of 1553–54: official art, the

ского kремля, ed. Л. a. Щенникова, Moscow 1,

emergence of autocracy, and the disintegration of
Medieval Russian culture’, Russian history, viii, 181,
pp. 218–35 (232). pp. 23–332 (305–1).

7

JouRnaL oF The WaRBuRG and couRTauLd insTiTuTes, LXXiX, 2016

80 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

1547 and 1551 by five painters from pskov, a city located close to the westernmost
border of Russia, with a history of interactions with Western europe throughout
the Middle ages.4
This large, highly inventive icon demonstrates a novel approach to the visual,
creating a new relationship between text and image through its very complex,
dense and sometimes hardly comprehensible allegorical content and through the
use of numerous iconographic innovations, some derived from Western themes.5
The icon consists of four parts, representing the whole history of the Redemption
of mankind from the creation (upper left, Fig. 2), through christ’s incarnation
(lower left, Fig. 3), passion and Resurrection (lower right, Fig. 4), to his second
coming (upper right, Fig. 5). inscriptions in black on the upper frame of the icon
entitle the creation part as ‘God rested on the seventh day’ (Genesis 2.2–3) and the
second coming part as ‘only begotten son’. The lower sections of the incarnation
and the passion and Resurrection parts illustrate liturgical hymns: respectively
‘come, o peoples, let us venerate the tri-hypostatic deity’ and ‘in the grave bodily’;
the words of the hymns are inscribed in full, in magenta lettering, on the central
horizontal division.6 God appears in several different symbolic forms in the icon:
for example, he is depicted as an angel in the creation part, as a warrior in the
second coming part and, several times, as the white-haired ancient of days.
The most striking new element, however, is the Gnadenstuhl or throne of Mercy:
the Western Trinitarian image of God the Father holding the crucifix, on which
the body of the crucified christ is partially covered by two huge wings (Fig. 6).7

kуюмджиева [kujumdzhieva], ‘Изображението на cв.

Tроица в наоса на църквата “pождество Xристово” в
4. The names of the five pskov painters were

Vysokii Glagol. see o. Бодянский, ‘Mосковские aрбанаси – иконографски прототипи и съдържание’,

ostania, iakov, Mikhailo, iakushko, and semion

соборы на еретиков XVi века, в царствование Ивана Cтаробългарска литература, xliii–iv, 2010, pp. 20–
Bасильевича Грозного’, Чтения в Oбществе истории
и древностей российских, i, 1847, p. 20; according to
35 (21–22); eadem, ‘Visualizing God: post-Byzantine

Щенникова (as in n. 3), the fourth painter’s name was Balkans’, in Древнерусское и поствизантийское
imagery of the Trinity in orthodox churches in the

искусство: Bторая половина XV – начало XVI века,

o. a. Bасильева, Иконы Пскова, Moscow 2006; i. ed. Л. И. Лифшиц, Moscow 2005, pp. 322–37 (332–
iarushko. For culture and icon-painting in pskov see

Rodnikova, Pskov Icons, 13th-16th Centuries, Leningrad 34); kвливидзе (as in n. 5), pp. 21–20; Пуцко (as in
11. n. 1), pp. 222–23; n. Thon, ‘der gekreuzigte seraph

see h. B. kвливидзе, ‘Западноевропейские источники hermeneia, v, 18, pp. 186–205 (15–); o. И.

5. For the Western elements on the Four-part icon – ein adaptiertes “franziskanisches” ikonenmotiv’,

иконографии “Четырехчастной” иконы из Благове­-
щенского собора’, in Лазаревские чтения: Искусство
Bизантии, Древней Pуси, Западной eвропы, ed. Э.
c. cмирнова, Moscow 2008, pp. 175–0; Пуцко (as
in n. 1), pp. 218–35; Л. a. Mацулевич, ‘Xронология
рельефов Дмитровского собора во Bладимире Залес-
ском’, eжегодник Pоссийского института истории
искусств, i, 121–22, pp. 253–.
6. Щенникова (as in n. 3); Felmy (as in n. 3), p.
Подобедова, Mосковская школа живописи при Иване
IV: Pаботы в Mосковском Kремле 40-70-х годов
XVI в., Moscow 172, p. 44; Л. c. pетковская, ‘o
появлении и развитии композиции oтечество в
русском искусстве XiV-XVi веков’, in Древнерусское
искусство XV – начала XVI веков, ed. B. h. Лазарев,
o. И. Подобедова and B. B. kосточкин, Moscow
258–60, 270; Д. B. aйиалов, ‘Фресковая роспись
163, pp. 235–62 (256); Mацулевич (as in n. 5), pp.

храма Успения Богородицы в cвияжском мужском

Богородицком монастыре’, Древности, xxi, 106, pp.
104. The titles of the four parts are discussed in greater

1–38 (18); h. B. Покровский, Oчерки памятников

detail below.

христианской иконографии и искусства, 2nd edn,

7. The iconography of, and the question of the

st petersburg 100, pp. 33–45; idem, eвангелие в

proper terminology for, the Gnadenstuhl or Throne

памятниках иконографии, преимущественно визан-

of Mercy are discussed below in the section on the

тийских и русских, st petersburg 182, pp. 370–74;

azyme controversy (pp. 4ff., summarised at p. ).
For the Gnadenstuhl on the Four-part icon see M.
 ÁGnes kRiZa 81

1. The ‘Four-part icon’, 1547–51 (10 × 151 cm). Moscow, kremlin, annunciation cathedral
© Moscow KreMlin MuseuMs
82 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

2. ‘God rested on the seventh day’, upper left part of the ‘Four-part icon’, 1547–51.
Moscow, kremlin, annunciation cathedral
© Moscow KreMlin MuseuMs
 ÁGnes kRiZa 83

The significance of these innovations is indicated by the eruption of the

so-called Viskovaty affair of 1553, when a diplomat of ivan the Terrible, ivan
Viskovaty, complained that the new icons were incomprehensible, protesting in
particular against the new symbolic representations of the divine.8 in his letter
opposing the new icons, Viskovaty argued that the symbolic images of God
‘diminish the glory of the representation of our Lord Jesus christ in the flesh’,
referring to the christological tenets established by the defenders of icons during
the Byzantine iconoclastic period (726–843). on receiving this letter, the tsar
convened an ecclesiastical council to discuss Viskovaty’s concerns. in the course
of that council, the head of the Russian church, Metropolitan Makary (1542–65),
one of the greatest patrons of Russian art and culture of his time, responded to
Viskovaty in the presence of the commissioners of the icon, the influential priests
of the annunciation cathedral, sylvestr and symeon.10
The focal point of Viskovaty’s criticism was the creation part of the Four-part
icon, containing the Russian Gnadenstuhl (Fig. 2). as with the other three parts,
it shows a heavenly upper register and a terrestrial lower one. The heavenly section
contains three main scenes: (1) in the centre, an aureole with the recumbent figure
of the Lord of hosts, who blesses the Mother of God with christ immanuel on
her bosom; (2) on the left, the naked body of the crucified christ, enveloped by
angelic wings, is held in the hands of the enthroned God the Father in an elliptic
mandorla, surrounded by the heavenly hosts; (3) on the right, christ, again enfolded
by the huge wings, is anointed by the ancient of days. The terrestrial half of the
image shows the narratives of the creation and animation of man, with an allusion
to the Fall.

Ф. И. Буслаев, ‘Для истории русской живописи XVi ностей российских, ii, 1858, pp. 1–42; and idem,
века’, in idem, Исторические очерки русской народной
словесности и искусства, st petersburg 110, pp. edition of the text, but for its history see Граля (as in
‘Mосковские’ (as in n. 4), pp. 1–30; there is no critical

n. 8), pp. 426–30; e. Б. eмченко and И. B. kурукин,

‘k изучению публикаций “Дела Bисковатого”’, in
288–328 (20–1).

ography, see Л. И Лифшиц, ‘kто такие “галатские aрхеографический eжегодник за 1983 г., ed. c. o.
8. For the Viskovaty affair, with further bibli-

еретики”?’, in Древнерусское искусство: Pусское Шмидт, Moscow 185, pp. 68–75.

искусство позднего Cредневековья. XVI век, ed. a. Л.
Баталов, st petersburg 2003, pp. 166–77; h. Ю.
Mаркина, ‘k проблеме изучения иконы “Четырех-
частная”: история изучения “Дела дьяка Bисковатого”
. ‘Да не ѹмалится слава плосⷮ каго образованїа га҃ нш҃его
Iс҃ Ха҃.’ Бодянский, ‘pозыск’ (as in n. 8), pp. 7, 16–17.
For Viskovaty’s christological argument see aндреев

и живописи грозненского времени’, in Проблемы

(as in n. 8), pp. 21–23.

изучения памятников духовной и материальной

10. For Metropolitan Makary see M. s. Flier,

культуры, ed. h. c. Bладимирская, 2 vols, Moscow

‘Golden hall iconography and the Makarian initia-

2000, ii, pp. 0–103; И. Граля, Иван Mихайлович

tive’, in the new Muscovite Cultural history, ed. V.

Bисковатый: Kарьера государственного деятеля в Mакарий (Bеретенников), Жизнь и труды святителя

kivelson et al., Bloomington, in 200, pp. 63–76;

Pоссии XVI в., Moscow 14, pp. 112–2, 416–43; Mакария, Mитрополита Mосковского и всея Pуси,

303–18; Miller (as in n. 3); Подобедова (as in n. 7), pp. как деятель религиозного искусства’, seminarium
L. ouspensky, theology of the Icon, 2 vols, 12, ii, pp. Moscow 2002; h. e. aндреев, ‘Mитрополит Mакарий

40–58; h. e. aндреев, ‘o “Деле дьяка Bисковатого”’, Kondakovianum, vii, 135, pp. 227–44. The documents
seminarium Kondakovianum, v, 132, pp. 11–241. of the Viskovaty affair contain the testimonies of

published by o. Бодянский, ‘pозыск или список о

The documents relating to the Viskovaty affair were sylvestr and symeon (providing invaluable information

богохульных строках и о сумнении святых честных

about the commission and creation of the new kremlin

икон диака Ивана Mихайлова сына Bисковатого в

icons), whose presence at the council indicates that

лето 7062’, Чтения в Oбществе истории и древ­-

Makary’s interpretations of the novel icons were
consistent with their original ideas.
84 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

3. ‘o come, ye people’, lower left part of the ‘Four-part icon’, 1547–51.

Moscow, kremlin, annunciation cathedral
© Moscow KreMlin MuseuMs
 ÁGnes kRiZa 85

4. ‘in the grave bodily’, lower right part of the ‘Four-part icon’, 1547–51.
Moscow, kremlin, annunciation cathedral
© Moscow KreMlin MuseuMs
86 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

The Western derivation of the winged Gnadenstuhl was evident for contem-
poraries, as attested by Viskovaty’s explicit accusation: ‘That christ’s body is covered
by wings seems to me a Latin heretical invention.’11 he said that he had questioned
the Western delegates in Moscow about the meaning of the winged crucifix and that
these ‘Latins’, in turn, had effectively confirmed the Western origin of the new
iconography:
in conversations with Latins, i have often heard that the body of our Lord Jesus christ was
covered by the cherubim to hide his shame. Greeks represent him in a loincloth, but he did
not wear a loincloth. This is why i have doubts. i declare that our Lord Jesus christ accepted
his opprobrious death for our salvation and suffered crucifixion of his own will and did not
hide from disgrace.12

Metropolitan Makary, however, strictly rejected any link to the Latins and dismissed
Viskovaty’s argument as itself based on heretical reasoning:
…you have doubts, having been informed by the enemies of christ—by the Latin heretics.
But the testimony of enemies of the truth is not acceptable.13

Rather, Makary, the great commissioner and initiator of a series of monumental

artistic projects in Russia and an icon-painter himself, was not offended by this
strikingly Western detail on the kremlin icon and even defended it.
historians and art historians have been puzzled as to how to reconcile the
apparent contradiction between Makary’s anti-Latin stance and his defence of
the Western Gnadenstuhl, suggesting that Makary’s reaction was dishonest, or that
he failed to comprehend the theological significance of orthodox icons.14 yet
neither of these severe judgements is based on a detailed analysis of Makary’s
response to Viskovaty, which contains many obscure elements. The present paper
attempts to decipher Makary’s interpretation of the winged Gnadenstuhl, in order
to comprehend its meaning and function on the Four-part icon and, at the same

11. ‘А херѫвимскыми крылы покрыто тѣло га҃ нш҃его Іс҃ Ха҃

намъ сѫ видиⷮ латынскые ереси мрⷣование.’ Бодянский,
‘pозыск’ (as in n. 8), p. 7; see also p. 20.
12. ‘Слыхаⷧ есма многажды ѿ Латынъ в розговоре, ꙗко
тѣло га҃ нш҃его Іс҃ Ха҃ ѹкрывахѫ херѫвими ѿ срамоты. Греки
его пишють в поръткаⷯ, а ѡⷩ порътковъ не нашивалъ, и ѧзъ
того длѧ о тоⷨ ѹсѫмнѣваюⷭ, а исповедаю, ꙗко гдⷭь нш҃ь Іс҃
Хс҃ нашего ради сп҃сенїа принѧлъ см҃рть поноснѫю и волею
претерпѣлъ распѧтїе, а ѿ ѹкоризны не ѹкрываасѧ.’
Бодянский, ‘pозыск’ (as in n. 8), p. 7; see also pp. 20,
31–32; idem, ‘Mосковские’ (as in n. 4), p. 10. i have
slightly modified Gythiel’s translation (ouspensky,
as in n. 8, p. 311). Viskovaty discussed this question
with a certain Monk(?) Mattheus, perhaps an italian
or other Western delegate in Moscow (‘а слыхалъ есми
у Матїа у Няха’; and ‘а слыхаⷧ еми то ѹ Матиса ѹ Ляха’;
see Бодянский, ‘Mосковские’, p. 10; and ‘pозыск’, pp.
pretation and not theirs. after his condemnation, in
his confession Viskovaty stated only that ‘the Latins
say that our Lord Jesus christ’s body was covered by
wings on the cross’ (‘Латыня такъ говорятъ, что закрыто
было тѣло Господа нашего Iсуса Христа на кресте крылы’;
Бодянский, ‘Mосковские’, p. 10).
13. ‘И ты о тоⷨ ѹсѫмнѣваешиⷭ, слышавъ ѿ враговъ Хвⷭыⷯ,
ѿ чл҃къ Латыⷩскїе ереси, и свидѣтельство ѿ враговъ истинѣ
непрїатно еⷭ.’ Бодянский, ‘pозыск’ (as in n. 8), p. 20.
14. Граля (as in n. 8), pp. 416–43 (with further
bibliography), alleges that Makary was dishonest or
‘manipulative’, an interpretation explained through
reference to the political significance of this debate;
for the political background see also Miller, ‘Viskovatyi
affair’ (as in n. 3). The view of Makary as an incom-
petent who misunderstood orthodox icon theology
has persisted in the historiography of the Viskovaty

“Деле дьяка Bисковатого”’ (as in n. 8); for example, it

31–32). it is hardly possible to reconstruct the Latins’ affair since the ground-breaking study of aндреев, ‘o
explanation of the wings on the basis of Viskovaty’s
polemical testimony; probably it was Viskovaty’s inter- is repeated by cарабьянов (as in n. 2), p. 201.
 ÁGnes kRiZa 87

5. ‘only Begotten son of God’, upper right part of the ‘Four-part icon’, 1547–51.
Moscow, kremlin, annunciation cathedral
© Moscow KreMlin MuseuMs
88 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

time, to understand the metropolitan’s attitude towards Western art. Two wider
aims of the study are to look at the background to the appearance of Western
iconographic borrowings in sixteenth-century Russian painting and, even more
broadly, the question of interactions between eastern and Western christian art
in the Middle ages.

The ‘inTeLLecTuaL and RaTionaL souL’ oF chRisT

Makary’s explanation of the Gnadenstuhl appears four times in the documents of
the Viskovaty affair, in nearly identical wording, in the context of his reply to
Viskovaty’s characterisation of it as heretical, Latin and incomprehensible.15 Makary
describes this Trinitarian image, situated as it is in the heavenly register of the
creation part of the icon, as a visualisation of the pre-eternal council held before
the creation of man, at which the holy Trinity made a decision about christ’s
incarnation and redemptive passion in the future. he refers to biblical and liturgical
texts, as well as to the homily on the Incarnation of Christ by severianos of Gabala
(pseudo-John chrysostom), as the textual basis for the representation.16 For him
the Gnadenstuhl or, as he terms it, ‘pre-eternal council’ (Превечны совѣтъ), is a pre-
figuration of christ’s death in his human flesh:
christ is depicted as being bodily on the cross, with his legs and arms nailed to it. The
cross is set among cherubs and it is in in the bosom of the Father. John the Theologian
writes about this: ‘no one has seen God at any time. The only begotten son, who is in the
bosom of the Father, he has declared him’ [ John 1.18]. This prefigures that christ, our
God, will be bodily crucified and suffer, but his divinity will remain impassible.17

according to the Metropolitan, the two wings overlapping christ’s body denote
his soul. he links them to the symbolic explanation of angelic wings given by
pseudo-dionysios the areopagite in his Celestial hierarchy:
The two purple wings are painted according to the Great dionysios, for our God christ
assumed intellectual and rational soul [дш҃҃ю словеснѫ и ѹмнѫ], except for sin, in order to clean

15. For Makary’s explanation of the Throne of the course of which the God the Father, foreseeing

Бодянский, ‘pозыск’ (as in n. 8), pp. 1, 20–21, 35–36;

Mercy in the documents of the Viskovaty affair see the Fall of man, sends his son to redeem mankind. The
slavonic translation of the homily has been transmitted

16. Бодянский, ‘pозыск’, pp. 21, 35; idem, ‘Mос­- see Bеликие Mинеи Четии, собранные всероссийским
idem, ‘Mосковские’ (as in n. 4), p. 13. in the Zlatostrui collection, constituting its sermon 131;

ковские’, p. 13. Makary’s reference to the apostle paul митрополитом Mакарием, вып. 8, st petersburg 18,
pp. 1685–710 (167); and Á. kriza, ‘Цитаты в споре
дьяка Bисковатого и митрополита Mакария по иконо-
is presumably to ephesians 1.11 (‘in him also we have

писи на Mосковском cоборе 1553–1554 года’, in Икона

obtained an inheritance, being predestined according

и образ, иконичность и словесность, ed. B. Лепахин,

to the purpose of him who works all things according
to the counsel of his will’). in invoking the archangel
Gabriel he is referring to the sticheron for the Vespers
of annunciation (‘Revealing to thee the pre-eternal
counsel, Gabriel came and stood before thee, o Maid’;
Mother Mary and archimandrite kallistos Ware, the
Festal Menaion, London 16, p. 43). The homily
attributed to severianos of Gabala, On the Incarnation
of Christ (corpus patrologia Graeca, 4204), describes
the pre-eternal council of the holy Trinity as a con-
versation among the three persons of the Trinity, in
Moscow 2007, pp. 345–55 (352–53).
17. ‘А иже Хс҃ плотїю на крⷭтѣ рѫцѣ и ноꙁѣ плотане
пригвожени ко кртѫ имѣ, крестъⷤ стоиⷮ на херѫвимѣхь в лонѣ
ѡч҃и, и о тоⷨ свидѣтельствуеⷮ Иваⷩ Бг҃ословъ. Ба҃ никто же видѣ
нигдѣ же, единорѡны сн҃ъ, сы в лонѣ ѡчи, тои исповѣда. Сїе
проѡбраꙁѫеⷮ, ꙗко плотїю распатса и пострада Хс҃ Бъ҃ нш҃ь, а
бжⷭтво его беz стрⷭти пребысть.’ Бодянский, ‘pозыск’ (as in
n. 8), pp. 21, 35 (see also p. ); idem, ‘Mосковские’ (as
in n. 4), p. 13.
 ÁGnes kRiZa 8

6. Winged Gnadenstuhl, detail of the upper left part of the ‘Four-part icon’, 1547–51.
Moscow, kremlin, annunciation cathedral
© Moscow KreMlin MuseuMs
0 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

7. The animation of adam, detail of the upper left part of the ‘Four-part icon’, 1547–51.
Moscow, kremlin, annunciation cathedral
© Moscow KreMlin MuseuMs
 ÁGnes kRiZa 1

our soul from sin. as Gregory the Theologian [Gregory of nazianzus] testifies this in his
second paschal homily, commentary 18: ‘… he assumed the body for the human body, and
intellectual and rational soul for the soul which man received from the divine animation ...’18

although in ancient art the soul is frequently represented by a winged figure,

in Byzantine art, wings as attributes of the soul are exceptionally rare: usually it is
an unwinged baby which symbolises the soul.1 in the Four-part icon, the scene
of the animation of adam depicts the soul in the hands of the angel-creator in
the traditional naked baby-form (Fig. 7). Whereas that event takes place in the
creation of the terresphere, in the section of the icon which shows the creation
of the heavenly realm, as Makary explains, the wings on the Gnadenstuhl or ‘pre-
eternal council’ denote the ‘intellectual and rational soul’ of christ; and they are
present because the assumption of this ‘intellectual and rational soul’ by christ
was the pre-requisite of the complete redemption of man.
Why was this topic so important that the authors of the Four-part icon wanted
to highlight it in such an unusual way? in seeking the answer, we need to investi-
gate the references in Makary’s explanation. as we have seen, he mentions the
second paschal homily of Gregory of nazianzus (†30). in this homily Gregory
expounds his teaching about theosis or deification, the participation of created as
well as material man in the divinity, which was made possible by the incarnation
of God.20 To that end he devotes a large section of the homily to the creation of
man, including his animation by the creator. he emphasises that man has received
body and soul alike from the creator, as the creation of man was a mingling of
his material and spiritual natures.21 The redemption of Fallen mankind, therefore,
required that both body and soul were assumed in their fullness by christ in his
incarnation:
God came forth then with what he had assumed: one from two opposites, body and
soul. he deifies the one, the other is deified. o new mingling! o glorious conjunction! The

18. ‘Два же крыла баграни по великомѫ Дїонисию

ѡписѫютсѧ, понеⷤ Хс҃ бъ҃ нш҃ь дш҃҃ю словеснѫ и ѹмнѫ прїать,
кромѣ грѣха, да наша дш҃а очисти ѿ грѣхъ, и о тоⷨ
свидѣтельствѫеть Григореи Бг҃ословъ во второⷨ слове на пасхѫ
въ иі҃ толкованїи … И плоⷮ въспрїемлет за плоть чл҃чьскѫю,
и дш҃ѫ словеснѫю и ѹмнѫю за дш҃ѫ, юже ѿ бжⷭтвенаго
въд҃ховенїа прїем чл҃къ …’ Бодянский, ‘pозыск’ (as in n.
8), pp. 21, 35–36 (cf. p. 1); idem, ‘Mосковские’ (as in
n. 4), p. 13. see pseudo-dionysius the areopagite,
the Complete Works, ed. p. Rorem, tr. c. Luibhéid
with p. Rorem, new york 187, p. 186: ‘Wings signify
their uplifting swiftness, the climb to heaven, the ever-
upward journey whose constantly upward thrust rises
above all earthly longing. The lightness of wings
symbolises the freedom from all worldly attraction,
their pure and untrammelled uplifting towards the
heights.’ For the slavonic translation of this passage
and its context in Russian iconophile literature see Á.
kriza, a középkori orosz képvédő irodalom, Budapest
2011, p. 21.
Εικονογραφία της ψυχής’, Revue des études byzantines,
1. W. christopher, ‘Géôrgios dèmètrokallès,
lii, 14, pp. 302–03.
20. For Gregory’s second paschal homily in
of nazianzus, in Cоборник из 71 слова, Moscow
slavonic see niketas of herakleia, scholia on Gregory
1647, fols 631r–737r ; see further below, n. 25. For
an edition of the original Greek version see Gregory
of nazianzus, Oratio 45, in patrologiae cursus com-
pletus. series graeca [hereafter: pG], ed. J.-p. Migne,
paris 1857–66, xxxvi, cols 624–64; corpus patrologia
Graeca, 3010. For an introduction to the Byzantine
concept of theosis see J. Meyendorff, Christ in eastern
Christian thought, Washington d.c. 16, pp. 85–8.
especially relevant for the argument of this paper is
i. perczel, ‘saint simeon the new Theologian and
the Theology of the divine substance’, acta antiqua
hungarica, xli, pp. 125–46.
21. a.-s. ellverson, the dual nature of Man: a
study in the theological anthropology of Gregory of
nazianzus, uppsala 181, pp. 17–40.
2 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

existing one comes into being, the uncreated is created, that which cannot be contained
is contained, by the aid of the rational soul [дш҃и умныѧ] which mediates between the deity
and thickness of the flesh.22

Gregory attributes a central, mediating role to human ‘rational soul’ in the incar-
nation of christ which made possible the deification of human nature. since the
created ‘thickness of the flesh’ was unable to contain ‘the existing one’ (exodus
3.14), ‘the uncreated’ and ‘that which cannot be contained’, it was the soul which
mediated between the materiality of the flesh and divinity. christ divinised the
soul, assumed by him, then the body was deified by his assumed and divinised
soul.
To be precise, Makary’s citation derives not from Gregory’s own writings but
those of his commentator, niketas of herakleia, a late eleventh-century Byzantine
theologian and exegete. niketas makes it clear that Gregory was expounding his
doctrine against the opposing one of apollinaris of Laodicea († 30), who denied
that christ had a human soul:
he assumed the body for the human body, and intellectual and rational soul for the soul
which man received from the divine animation but which he darkened and tainted. christ
assumed them in order to clean the body of sinful adam by his assumed body, and the soul
by his soul, in order to save me completely. The Theologian [Gregory of nazianzus] said all
this to fight against the heresy of apollinaris.23

it is striking that Makary exactly repeats niketas’s phrase, ‘intellectual and rational
soul’.24 This is understandable since niketas’s commentary, which is much longer
than Gregory’s original homily, was widely disseminated and made an enormous
impact in medieval Rus’.25 in itself his commentary reflects a renewed interest

22. ‘Прошедъ же Бг҃ъ c воспрїѧтїемъ, едино ѿ двою сопро-
тивную, плоти и дх҃а, ихъже ово убѡ обж҃и, овоже обж҃ися. ѽ
новаго смѣшения. ѽ преславнагѡ растворенїѧ. Сыи бывает, и
незданныи зиждетсѧ, и невмѣщаемыи вмѣщаетсѧ. Посредѣ
дш҃и умныѧ ходатайствующу бжⷭтвомъ и плоти дебельствоⷨ.’
cоборник (as in n. 20), fol. 662r; Greek original in
pG, xxxvi, cols 634–35; i consulted the english trans-
unknown to scholars. The 156 Latin translation of
abbot Jacques de Billy was published in pG, cxxvii,
cols 1301–410. The slavonic translation is available in
cоборник (as in n. 20). For the slavonic and Greek
Gregory’s sermons see a. M. Бруни, ‘k сопоставите­-
manuscript tradition of niketas’s commentaries on
льному изучению византийской и древнейшей слав­-
янской традиций Tолкований hикиты Ираклийского

к cловам Григория Богослова’, in Палеография, коди­-

lation by c. G. Browne and J. e. swallow, in p. schaff

кология, дипломатика, ed. И. Г. kоновалова, Moscow

and h. Wace, nicene and Post-nicene Fathers, vii, Cyril
of Jerusalem, Gregory nazianzen, oxford etc. 183, p.
426.
23. ‘и плоть воспрїемлет за плоть чл҃ческую, и дш҃ю
словесную и ѹ῎мную за дш҃ю, юже ѿ бжⷭтвеннагѡ вдуновенїѧ
прїем чл҃къ, помрачи и растли, да убѡ воспрїатою плотїю плоть
адамлю ѡчистит согрѣшившую, дш҃ею же дш҃ю, да весь всего
мѧ сп҃сетъ... Сїя же гл҃ет Бгосло́в, е῎ресь аполїна́риеву ратуя.’
2013, pp. 2–42; F. J. Thomson, ‘The Works of saint
Gregory of nazianzus in slavonic’, in II. symposium
nazianzenum, ed. J. Mossay, paderborn and Zurich
183, pp. 11–25 (121–22); R. constantinescu, nichita
din heracleea: comentarii la cele 16 cuvîntǎr i ale lui
37–3; h. hикольский, O лите­ратурных трудах
Grigore din nazianz – fragmente, Bucharest 177, pp.

митрополита Kлимента Cмолятича, писателя XII

cоборник (as in n. 20), fol. 664v; for a Latin trans-

в., st petersburg 182, pp. 15–16, 24. For niketas of

lation see pG, cxxvii, cols 1342–43; see also below,
n. 25.
24. cf. above at n. 18. herakleia see a. p. kazhdan, in the Oxford dictionary
25. despite their significance and medieval popu- of Byzantium, 3 vols, oxford 11, ii, p. 1481; h.-G.
larity, niketas of herakleia’s scholia on Gregory of Beck, Kirche und theologische literatur im byzantin-
nazianzus’s second paschal sermon have remained ischen Reich, Munich 15, pp. 651–54.
unpublished in Greek and, therefore, are largely
 ÁGnes kRiZa 3

in fourth-century christological debates in eleventh-century Byzantium, which

was inspired not only by internal theological discussions but, more importantly,
by the conflict with Rome. its focal point was the so-called azyme controversy,
over the use of leaven in the eucharistic bread.26 one of the Greeks’ main charge
against the Latins, who used unleavened bread (azyme) in the eucharist, was
apollinarism. The leaven in the eucharist is the symbol of the soul: therefore, the
Greeks argued, the azymite Latins were denying that christ had assumed a full
human soul, just as apollinaris did in the fourth century.
The orthodox accusation of apollinarism against the Latins became a
permanent element of anti-Latin theological literature, not only from Byzantium
but also from medieval Russia, in the course of the following centuries.27 a
prominent text in this vast literature is the pskovian monk Filofei’s famous letter
to Mikhail Grigorevich Misiur Munekhin, a pskovian politician in the 1520s. its
context is the Russian debates over a possible union between the orthodox and
catholic churches, a discussion first initiated by pope Leo X in 1518. 28 in his
letter Filofei formulates the theory of Moscow as the ‘third Rome’.2 his thesis
is that the apollinarian heresy led to the fall of the first Rome; then the second
Rome, constantinople, fell in 1453 because of its union with the azymite catholics
in Florence in 143; so the third Rome is Moscow, which has a duty to defend the
true faith. almost half of Filofei’s letter, devoted to the ideological foundations of
the new Russian empire, consists of polemics against the use of unleavened bread.

26. The main publications on the azyme contro- средневековой концепции (XV-XVI вв.), Moscow 18,
versy (with further bibliography) are T. kolbaba, pp. 215–20.
‘Byzantines, armenians, and Latins: unleavened 2. For the letter of Monk Filofei to Misiur

Филофея дьяку M. Г. Mисюрю Mунехину с опрове­-

Bread and heresy in the Tenth century’, in Orthodox Munekhin (‘Letter against astrologers’: ‘Послание

a. papanikolaou, new york 2013, pp. 45–57; Г. И. ржением астрологических предсказаний hиколая
Constructions of the West, ed. G. demacopoulos and

Беневич, ‘Полемика об опресноках при патриархе Булева’) and the theory of Moscow as the ‘third Rome’
Mихаиле kируларии’, in aнтология восточно-
христианской богословской мысли, 2 vols, ed. idem
see d. G. ostrowski, Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-

and Д. c. Бирюков, Moscow and st petersburg 200,

Cultural Influences on the steppe Frontier, 1304–1589,
cambridge 2002, pp. 21–43; cиницына (as in n.

Mалинин, Cтарец eлеазарова монастыря Филофей

ii, pp. 402–20; B. Whalen, ‘Rethinking the schism of 28), with an edition of the letter at pp. 336–46; B.

lxii, 2007, pp. 1–24; a. B. Бармин, Полемика и схизма: и его послания, kiev 101 (for Misiur Munekhin see
1054: authority, heresy, and the Latin Rite’, traditio,

история греко-латинских споров IX-XII веков, Moscow
2006; G. avvakumov, die entstehung des unionsge-
dankens. die lateinische theologie des hochmittelalters
in der auseinandersetzung mit dem Ritus der Ostkirche,
Berlin 2002; M. h. smith, ‘and taking Bread …’:
Cerularius and the azyme Controversy of 1054, paris
178; J. h. erickson, ‘Leavened and unleavened: some
Theological implications of the schism of 1054’, st
pp. 15–62). see also d. ostrowski, ‘Moscow the
Third Rome as historical Ghost’, in Byzantium, Faith
and Power (1261–1557): Perspectives on late Byzantine
art and Culture, ed. s. T. Brooks, new york etc.
2007, pp. 170–7. The present study seeks to challenge
ostrowski’s claim that ‘no evidence exists that ivan
iV ever knew of any version of the Third Rome
formulation’ (p. 176), as i shall argue that the Four-

M. Чельцов, Полемика между греками и латинянами

Vladimir’s theological Quarterly, xiv, 170, pp. 155–76; part icon with its anti-Latin content is a visual version

по вопросу опресноков в XI-XII веках, st petersburg

of the ‘third Rome’ formulation. another, even more
explicit, visual rendering of the ‘third Rome’ theory

27. avvakumov (as in n. 26), pp. 10–14; Чельцов

187. is found in representations of the flying Roman and

‘Летающие иконы Богородицы – покровители русского

Tikhvin icons of the Mother of God; see Á. kriza,

государства’, in Pоль государства в историческом

(as in n. 26), pp. 21–312.

развитии Pоссии, ed. G. szvák, Budapest 2011, pp.

28. For the mission to Moscow of nicolaus von

cиницына, tретий Pим: Истоки и эволюция русской

schönberg, the papal legate, in 1518–1, see h. B.
100–20.
4 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

his argument repeats niketas of herakleia’s reasoning:

had the saviour not assumed the human body, the body of the fallen adam and of all born
from him would not have been deified. had the Lord not assumed the human soul, the
human soul not would have been released from hell.30

if we now return to Makary’s discussion of the Gnadenstuhl or ‘pre-eternal

council’ on the Four-part icon, this parallel shows that his use of the same
reasoning, backed up with a specific quotation from the same part of niketas’s
commentary, constitutes evidence that christ’s wings were interpreted by Makary
as anti-Latinist references, intended to visualise the charge of apollinarism against
the Latins.

The aZyMe conTRoVeRsy and euchaRisTic

TRiniTaRian iMaGes in The WesT and The easT
in order to comprehend the significance of the winged Gnadenstuhl on the icon,
we must go back to the outbreak of the azyme controversy in the eleventh century,
which preceded the mutual excommunication of Rome and constantinople in
1054. This controversy is usually considered as a dogmatically irrelevant conflict
of views over insignificant symbolical questions, to do with the ingredients of the
eucharistic bread. as a debate on the eucharist, however, it brought to the surface
fundamental disagreements between the Western and eastern churches regarding
christ’s body and its role in the salvation. an analysis of the debate makes clear that
the Byzantine concept of theosis was a critical dividing line between the Byzantines
and the Westerns in the course of this controversy. The foundations of the doctrine
of theosis, as we have seen, had already appeared in the anti-apollinarist theology
of Gregory of nazianzus. They were developed by cyril of alexandria (376–444),
in his concept of the life-giving body of christ as source for the deification of man.31
Five hundred years later, this doctrine of christ’s life-giving flesh constituted the
basis of the eucharistic theology of symeon the new Theologian (4–1022).32
it was symeon’s disciple and biographer, niketas stethatos († c. 100), one of
the main Byzantine protagonists of this debate in 1050s, who first used the anti-
apollinarist charge against those who do not use leaven in the eucharistic bread.33
he argued that the bread without leaven cannot be an antitype (ἀντίτυπος) of
christ’s divinised body,34 because it is dead, lifeless, separated from the living force
of christ’s soul:

30. ‘Аще бы плоти человеческия не прият Спас, то и
падшаго Адама и всехъ от него рожденных человек плоть не
обожися; аще ли души человеческия не прият Господь, то и
ныне души человеческия не изведены из ада.’ cиницына
(as in n. 28), p. 343.
31. For cyril of alexandria’s doctrine of the life-
giving body of christ and its elaboration in the course
of the fifth-century nestorian controversy see p. T. R.
Gray, ‘From eucharist to christology: The Life-giving
Body of christ in cyril of alexandria, eutyches and
Julian of halicarnassus’, in the eucharist in theology
and Philosophy: Issues of doctrinal history in east and
West from the Patristic age to the Reformation, ed. i.
perczel, R. Forrai and G. Geréby, Leuven 2005, pp.
23–35.
32. For the eucharistic theology of symeon the
new Theologian see i. perczel, ‘The Bread, the Wine
and immaterial Body: saint symeon the new Theo-
logian on the eucharistic Mysteries’, in the eucharist
in theology and Philosophy (as in n. 31), pp. 131–56.
33. initially, niketas stethatos charged only the
‘azymite’ armenians with apollinarism but, later,
 ÁGnes kRiZa 5

consider that unleavened bread has no living force whatsoever in it, as it is dead. in the
bread, that is to say, in the body of christ, however, are three things which live and give life
to those who eat them worthily: spirit, Water and Blood … and these three are one [i John
5.8]: the body of christ, which thing was declared at the time of the Lord’s crucifixion,
when Water and Blood flowed out of his spotless side, his flesh being pierced by the Lance.
But the living and holy spirit remained in his deified flesh, which we in eating … live in him
… and, in like manner, in drinking his living and warm blood.35

so, niketas stethatos equated the leaven with the living force ‘in the bread, that
is to say, in christ’s body’; according to him, it is this living force which makes
possible the presence of the life-giving holy spirit, which remained present even
in christ’s dead, but deified flesh.
This claim was unacceptable to the Western delegates in constantinople led
by cardinal humbert of silva candida († 1061), as in their view it challenged the
fact that christ truly died on the cross. The cardinal was outraged by niketas
stethatos’s insistence that the water and blood which flowed from christ’s divinised
body on the cross were warm, writing in his Responsio:
Be quiet, you dog! Bite your tongue, you vicious dog! For christ died indeed because of
our offences and he was raised indeed because of our justification.36

Moreover, as the Latins argued, the Greek liturgical practice with leavened bread
and warm water added to the eucharistic wine was Theopaschite, in that it attrib-
uted suffering not only to christ’s human nature but to his impassible divinity. as
cardinal humbert explained, the Western eucharistic celebration with unleavened
hosts avoids the danger of Theopaschism:
preparing the azyme in this way, with the faithful invocation of the entire holy Trinity,
it becomes the real and unique body of christ and not that of the Father, the son and

he applied this accusation to the Latins; see Беневич
(as in n. 26), pp. 411–12.
34. The word antitype (ἀντίτυπος) relates specifi-
cally to the gifts of the eucharist with the meaning
sign, figure, symbol or image. The precise meaning of
the term was elaborated in the course of the icono-
clasm: according to John damascene, this word is
applicable only to the unconsecrated bread and wine.
see avvakumov (as in n. 26), p. 10; G. W. h. Lampe,
35. ‘Σκοπεῖτε δέ, ὅτι ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἀζύμοις οὐδεμία
a Patristic Greek lexicon, oxford 161, p. 15.
τίς ἐστι ζωτικὴ δύναμις· νεκρὰ γὰρ εἰσιν. Ἐν δὲ ἄρτῳ,
ἤγουν τῷ σώματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τρία τὰ ζῶντα καὶ ζωὴν
παρέχοντα τοῖς αὐτὸν ἀξίως ἐσθίουσι … τὸ πνεῦμα, τὸ
ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν, δηλονότι τὸ
σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ· ὃ καὶ κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τῆς τοῦ κυρίου
zum schisma des 11. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols, paderborn
130, ii, pp. 324–25. For the english translation i
consulted John covel, some account of the Present
Greek Church, cambridge 1722, p. 177. The slavonic
translation of this text was very popular in Medieval
Rus’: ‘Смотрите же, яко убо въ опрѣсноцѣхъ ни едина каа
есть животнаа сила, мертво бо есть. въ хлѣбѣ же сiи рѣчь
тѣлесы Христовѣ три животъна и животъ подающа, иже того
достойнѣ ядущiимъ, духъ вода и кровь … и три въ единомъ
суть сiи рѣчь тѣлѣ Христовѣ еже и въ время Христова распятiа
явѣ бысть внегда вода и кровь отъ прѣчистаго ребра его
истече копiемь прободъшуся ему, живыи же и святыи духъ
прѣбысть въ обоженной плоти его, юже ядуще мы и... живемъ
въ немъ... и кровь живу и топлотну его пiюще …’. Чельцов
(as in n. 26), p. 35; and for the anti-Latin treatises of

σταυρώσεως δῆλον γέγονεν, ὁπηνίκα τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

niketas stethatos in Medieval Rus’ see pp. 22–25.

ἐκ τῆς ἀχράντου πλεῦρας αὐτοῦ ἔρρευσε, λόγχῃ νυγείσης

36. ‘obmutesce, canis: linguam, canis improbe,

αὐτοῦ τῆς σαρκός. Τὸ δὲ ζῶν καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἔμεινεν ἐν

morde; christus enim vere mortuus est propter delicta

τῇ τεθεωμένῃ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, ἣν ἐσθίοντες ἡμεῖς … ζῶμεν

nostra et propter justificationem nostrum resurrexit’

ἐν αὐτῷ … οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ αἷμα τὸ ζῶν καὶ θερμότατον

[cf. Romans 4.25]. cardinal humbert, Responsio sive

αὐτοῦ πίνοντες.’ niketas stethatos, antidialogus, 3.1–2.

contradictio adversus nicetae Pectorati libellum, 6, in acta
et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et latinae,
a. Michel, humbert und Kerullarios: Quellen und studien ed. c. Will, Leipzig etc. 1861, p. 13.
6 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

the holy spirit as the Theopaschites want … The entire holy Trinity cooperates in the
eucharistic consecration, but it is only christ’s death which is proclaimed at the breaking
and consumption [of the bread].37

historians of Latin sacramental theology have identified this passage as a ‘christo-

centric’ turning point in Western eucharistic theology, since it limits the potency
of the holy Trinity in eucharistic sacrifice to the consecration and defines the
eucharistic bread as the ‘unique body of christ’.38 in the West, in accordance with
the claim that ‘it is only christ’s death which is proclaimed at the breaking and
consumption’ of the eucharistic bread, the commemoration of christ’s death on
the cross became the focal point of eucharistic devotion. This christocentrism,
which considers the sacrament of the eucharist as grounded in the historical reality
of the passion and death of christ on which salvation depends, fundamentally
determined subsequent Western eucharistic iconography.3

*
shortly after the schism of 1054, a new representation of the holy Trinity appeared
in Western art, in which the enthroned God the Father holds in his hands the cross
with the lifeless body of his son, accompanied by the dove of the holy spirit.40
The earliest surviving example is a late eleventh-century fresco in a village church
in norfolk, england (c. 101 and 111), which forms the central part of a complex
Last Judgement composition, indicating that the iconography was well established
by that time. it is depicted above the chancel arch, creating a visual connection
with the altar.41 That link is also found in other examples of this new Trinitarian
iconography, most of which survive on objects relating directly to the Mass, such
as portable altars, patens, apse frescoes, missals and altar crosses.42 These images

37. ‘Taliter praeparatus azymus fideli invocatione
totius Trinitatis fit verum et singulare corpus christi;
non, sicut Theopaschitae volunt, corpus patris et Filii
et spiritus sancti … tota beata Trinitas in consecratione
eucharistiae cooperatur, sed sola mors christi in frac-
tione ejus et in usu annuntiatur.’ cardinal humbert,
dialogus, 31, in acta et scripta (as in n. 36), p. 108.
38. k.-h. kandler, die abendmahlslehre des Kardi-
nals humbert und ihre Bedeutung für das gegenwärtige
abendmahlsgespräch, Berlin 171, pp. 84–86; a. Michel,
‘die folgenschweren ideen des kardinals humbert
und ihr einfluß auf Gregor Vii’, studi Gregoriani, i,
147, pp. 65–2 (75–77); J. R. Geiselmann, die abend-
mahlslehre an der Wende der christlichen spätantike zum
Frühmittelalter: Isidor von sevilla und das sakrament der
eucharistie, Munich 133, pp. 75–7, 250–51.
3. R. haussherr, der tote Christus am Kreuz: zur
Ikonographie des Gerokreuzes, Bonn 163, pp. 228–2.
40. For an introduction to the Throne of Mercy
iconography, with bibliography, see F. Boespflug
and y. Zaluska, ‘Le dogme trinitaire et l’essor de son
iconographie en occident de l’époque carolingienne
au iVe concile du Latran (1215)’, Cahiers de civilisation
médiévale, xxxvii, 14, pp. 181–240 (202–07); see
also F. Boespflug, ‘eucharistie et Trinité dans l’art
médiéval d’occident (Xiie–XV e siècle)’, in Pratiques
de l’eucharistie dans les églises d’Orient et d’Occident, ed.
n. Bériou, B. caseau and R. dominique, paris 200,
pp. 1111–68 (esp. 112–33).
41. st Mary’s church, houghton-on-the-hill,
norfolk; see J. Munns, Cross and Culture in anglo-
norman england: theology, Imagery, devotion, Wood-
bridge 2016, pp. 46–56.
42. Munns, ibid., pp. 45–73; J. snow-smith,
‘Masaccio’s Fresco in santa Maria novella: a
symbolic Representation of the eucharistic sacrifice’,
arte lombarda, n.s. lxxxiv–v, 188, pp. 47–60; s. soltek,
‘ein Tragaltar des 12. Jahrhunderts aus hildesheim’,
niederdeutsche Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte, xxiv, 185,
pp. –48; p. skubiszewski, die Bildprogramme der
romanischen kelche und patenen, in Metallkunst von
der spätantike bis zum ausgehenden Mittelalter, ed. a.
effenberger, Berlin 182, pp. 18–267 (225–26); W.
Braunfels, die heilige dreifaltigkeit, düsseldorf 154,
pp. XXXVii–XLi.
 ÁGnes kRiZa 7

visualise a particular Western, chris-

tocentric perception of the eucharist,
alien to the Greek one: they place
christ’s dead human body on the cross
into the centre of the Trinitarian image
and envisage how the sacrificial death
for the redemption of the mankind is
accepted by the Father in his altar on
high.43 one such example is an illu-
mination in the early twelfth-century
cambrai Missal, placed at the opening
of the canon of the Mass, in the course
of which the bread and wine are con-
secrated (Fig. 8).44 Beneath the image
are the first words of the prayer which
begins this part of the Roman Mass:
‘Te igitur clementissime pater’ (‘Thee,

© warburg institute
therefore, most merciful Father’). The
priest then asks that the Father accepts
the bloodless sacrifice and that the gifts
offered in the Mass become the real
Body and Blood of christ, with the
8. cambrai Missal, c. 1120. cambrai, Bibliothèque
prayer ‘supplices’: Municipale Ms 234, fol. 2r

We most humbly beseech thee, almighty, command these things to be carried by the hands
of thy holy angels to thy altar on high, in the sight of thy divine Majesty, that as many as shall
partake of the most sacred body and blood of thy son at this altar, may be filled with every
heavenly grace and blessing.45

a further notable feature of the cambrai miniature is that it highlights the double
procession of the holy spirit by means of the wings of the dove, touching the lips
of both Father and son. This detail is a hint at the doctrine of Filioque, which main-
tains that the holy spirit proceeds doubly from the Father ‘and the son’.46 The
word Filioque, added to the nicene creed, was the focus of another disagreement

43. G. schiller, Iconography of Christian art, 2
vols, London 172, ii, p. 122, explicitly connects the
Gnadenstuhl with cardinal humbert’s eucharistic
theology, although she mistakenly places humbert’s
doctrine in the context of the controversy about the
epiklesis (the invocation of the holy spirit on the
eucharistic gifts) between the orthodox and catholic
churches, which became a subject of polemics only in
the 14th century.
44. cambrai, Bibliothèque Municipale Ms 234,
fol. 2r.
45. ‘supplices te rogamus, omnipotens deus, jube
haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui in sublime
altare tuum, in conspectu divinae majestatis tuae: ut
quotquot ex hac altaris participatione, sacrosanctum
Filii tui corpus, et sanguinem sumpserimus omni
benedictione coelesti et gratia repleamur.’ english
translation from the Family Prayer-Book, London
183, p. 2 (with the Latin original). although the
canon of the Mass invokes ‘almighty God’ (‘omni-
potens deus’) and the Father, but not explicitly the
holy Trinity, cardinal humbert unequivocally links
the eucharistic consecration with the invocation of
the Trinity (see the passage quoted above at n. 37).
46. Boespflug, ‘Le dogme trinitaire’ (as in n. 40), p.
204, describes this detail as ‘colombe uterumque’.
8 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

between the Western and eastern

churches, so the allusion to it in the
cambrai image suggests a relationship
between Western iconographic devel-
opments of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries and anti-Greek religious
polemics.
a version of the Trinity with the
crucifix in abbot suger’s famous
anagogical window in saint-denis, of
c. 1140 (Fig. ), sheds light on another
aspect of this imagery.47 it represents
the ark of the covenant on the four
wheels of aminadab’s chariot (song of
solomon 6.12), which is surmounted . Quadriga of aminadab, 12th century.
by christ’s cross in the hands of the saint-denis, abbey church, anagogical window
© louis grodecKi, ‘les vitraux allégoriques de
Father. The image is explained by suger
saint-denis’, art de France, i, 1961
in the inscription:
on the ark of the covenant is established the altar with the cross of christ; here Life
wishes to die under a greater covenant.48

suger here links christ’s cross with the ark of covenant of exodus 25.17–22: it
had a golden lid, the so-called propitiatory or Mercy seat, flanked by two golden
cherubim, which was sprinkled annually by the Jewish high priest with the blood
of sacrifices for the atonement of sins. This juxtaposition between the old and
new Testament sacrifices has roots in the epistles to the hebrews and the Romans,
where christ is the high priest who ‘not with the blood of goats and calves, but
with his own blood entered the Most holy place once for all, having obtained
eternal redemption’ (hebrews .12), and ‘whom God set forth as a propitiation by
his blood’ (Romans 3.23–5). The christian altar referred to in suger’s inscription,
therefore, on which the sacrifice of christ is offered to the Father in the Mass, is
the ark of the new covenant with its golden lid: the propitiatory or Mercy seat
from which christians, drawing near to it, ‘may obtain mercy and find grace to
help in time of need’ (hebrews 4.16).
suger’s window and his inscription for it implies that his image visualises the
eucharistic sacrifice by linking the ark of the covenant, the crucifixion and the
christian altar. This observation can be expanded to include the other Western
Trinitarian images which are given the appellation Gnadenstuhl (or its english
equivalents, Throne of Mercy, or Mercy seat) in art-historical literature. The word
Gnadenstuhl, first used by Martin Luther, translates the Latin term ‘propitiatorium’
at exodus 25.17–22 of the Vulgate Bible. it was only in the late nineteenth century

47. L. Grodecki, ‘Les vitraux allégoriques de saint- 48. ibid., p. 26. english transl. from snow-smith
denis’, art de France, i, 161, pp. 1–46 (26–30). (as in n. 42), p. 48.
 ÁGnes kRiZa 

that the term came to be used by art historians, who employed it to denote images
of the Trinity which show the Father holding the crucified son, with the holy spirit
represented by a dove.4 yet the novel German term is not, in fact, unrelated to the
medieval meaning of these allegorical images, for it succinctly expresses the link
between the old Testament Mercy seat, christ’s sacrifice and the propitiation on
the christian altar which was also visualised on suger’s ‘Quadriga of aminadab’.
That the connection between other Gnadenstuhl images and the eucharist as
propitiation for sins persisted into the later Western Middle ages is supported by
fourteenth-century miniatures which place the crucifix held by the Father directly
over the altar table.50
importantly, the medieval Latin interpretation of the propitiatory which is
represented on the Gnadenstuhl images is emphatically christocentric, in accor-
dance with the Latin position in the azyme controversy. The images visualise not
only the suffering son but also the other two persons of the holy Trinity. The
accepting gesture of the Father, usually seated on the heavenly throne, reveals the
purpose of christ’s propitiation by his blood, which is atonement between God and
man. it was precisely this point which was emphasised by anselm of canterbury
(c. 1033–110) in his Trinitarian theology.51 anselm was the disciple of Lanfranc
(† 108), who was a follower of cardinal humbert.52 in the anselmian concept,
christ’s sacramental death determines the divine life of the Trinity: not as a singular
event in time, but in eternity.53 Viewed from this perspective, the Gnadenstuhl is
indeed the image of the pre-eternal council of the Trinity, just as it was recognised
centuries later by Metropolitan Makary. placing christ’s human death at the focal
point, the Gnadenstuhl visualises the fullness of divine love which made necessary
and inevitably the son’s sacrifice for the satisfaction of sins.54
Medieval Latin liturgical commentaries are further helpful sources, providing
invaluable information not only about the medieval understanding of altar and
eucharist, but also explicitly about the Gnadenstuhl iconography.55 By far the most
popular commentary was the Rationale divinorum officiorum of William durandus

4. B. kress, ‘a Relief by peter dell (1548) after a
drawing by paul Lautensack, and the origins of the
Term “Gnadenstuhl”’, this Journal, lxxiii, 2010, pp.
181–4 (13–4), argues that it was due to a 1th-
century misunderstanding of this particular relief by
dell that the term Gnadenstuhl first began to be used
in this way.
50. see, e.g., the French miniature discussed below
(British Library, yates Thompson Ms 11, fol. 2r)
(Fig. 10). see also paris, Bibliothèque nationale de
France Ms fr. 13342, fol. 48v, the Throne of Mercy
illustration from an illuminated tract on the Mass of
the 1320s (a. kumler, translating truth: ambitious
Images and Religious Knowledge in late Medieval France
and england, new haven, cT 2011, pp. 142–44); and
Vatican, Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana Ms Vat. lat.
1430, fol. 5r, an adoration of the Trinity attributed to
niccolò da Bologna († c. 1403) (o. von simson, ‘Über
die Bedeutung von Masaccios Trinitätfresko in santa
Maria novella’, Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, viii, 166,
pp. 11–5, at 122 n. 5, fig. 22). For further evidence
of the inextricable relationship between the Gnaden-
stuhl and the eucharist see the studies cited in n. 42.
51. see Munns (as in n. 41), pp. 45–73.
52. h. e. J. cowdrey, lanfranc: scholar, Monk,
archbishop, oxford 2003, pp. 43–44. For the azyme
controversy in the context of contemporary Western
eucharistic theology, including the Berengarian con-
troversy, see Whalen (as in n. 26), pp. 17–24; erickson
(as in n. 26), pp. 163–65.
53. Munns (as in n. 41), p. 58.
54. Munns, ibid., pp. 45–73, argues convincingly
that anselm’s theology is fundamentally connected
with the Gnadenstuhl iconography.
55. T. dobrzeniecki, ‘a Gdansk panel of the
pitié-de-nostre-seigneur: notes on the iconography’,
Bulletin du Musée national de Varsovie, x, 16, pp.
2–54 (54–55).
100 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

of Mende (1230–6), widely disseminated in manuscripts and later, in the early

modern period, through more than a hundred print editions, testifying to the conti-
nuity of the Western perception of eucharist throughout the centuries.56 durandus
devotes an entire chapter to the altar, emphasising that it has different meanings in
accordance with references to different kinds of altars in the old Testament, each of
which has both a direct and a symbolic sense.57 The ‘higher altar’ is the holy Trinity
and the ecclesia triumphans (heavenly church); the low altar is the ecclesia militans
(earthly church); the ‘exterior altar’ is the altar of the cross.58 he explains the
relationship of the ark of the covenant to the altar, which leads him to the longest
part of his chapter, constituting a symbolic interpretation of the ‘interior altar’ as
the pure heart of man, burnt by the fire of charity. as he explains, man must also
have an ark in his heart and the burnt offerings on this human altar of oblation are
the good deeds, the virtues and grief over the sins, leading to christ’s love.5
arguably, the Gnadenstuhl image as a visual commentary on the altar, upon
which the son’s redemptive passion is re-enacted in the Mass, coalesces within
itself all the different meanings of the altar which are discussed by durandus.
The Gnadenstuhl is also an image of the cleansed heart, representing the final goal
of christian life, the vision of the holy Trinity, the image of which in itself, never-
theless, provides an example for imitation: imitation of the sorrowful christ in his
passion and the loving Father in his compassion.
a four-part French miniature of 1310, illustrating a treatise on ‘L’estat de
l’ame’ (Fig. 10), visualises the stages of man’s spiritual ascension, using the same
identification between the altar and the human soul as is elaborated in durandus’s
commentary.60 here the different visualisations of the altar table correspond with
the spiritual state of the kneeling figure before it: on the upper right, the altar with
the material image of the coronation of the Virgin, symbolising ecclesia’s marriage
to christ, is the visible, low altar of the earthly church; on the lower left, the altar
with the cross and the Imago pietatis is the exterior altar; and the final image on
the lower right shows the Gnadenstuhl above and in signification of the higher
altar. The kneeling female figure progresses through the four images from firstly
repentance within and secondly devotion to the earthly, visible church, to the
next stage of commiseration over christ’s human sufferings on the cross, in order
to achieve the final goal, the contemplation of the Trinity, represented as a Gnaden-
stuhl hovering over the chalice on the altar, into which the blood of the crucified
christ is dripping. The image testifies to a type of eucharistic devotion in which
seeing is as much as or even more important than eating. The focal point of this
devotion is the Imago pietatis, the image of the Man of sorrows, the meditation on
which leads to the spiritual vision of the invisible Triune God.

56. For the manuscripts and editions of this
work see William durandus, the Rationale divinorum
officiorum …, ed. and tr. T. M. Thibodeau, new york
2007, pp. XXii–XXV.
57. durandus, Rationale, i.2, ‘de altari’.
58. ibid., iv.1.15.
5. Rationale, i.2.3–13.
60. British Library, yates Thompson Ms 11, fol.
2r. For a description and a different interpretation of
the miniature, with extensive bibliography, see kumler
(as in n. 50), pp. 227–35.
 ÁGnes kRiZa 101

© the british library

10. illustration for a treatise on ‘L’estat de l’ame’, 1310. British Library, yates Thompson Ms 11, fol. 2r
102 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

another liturgist, sicard of cremona (1160–1215), actually describes the way

in which the Gnadenstuhl functioned as a devotional image:
in some Mass books the Majesty of the Father and the cross of the crucifix are portrayed,
so that it is almost as if we see at present the one we are calling to, and the passion which is
depicted imprints itself on the eyes of the heart.61

The type of eucharistic Trinitarian image which sicard is referring to—one which
imprints the human passion of christ ‘on the eyes of the heart’ of the viewer—was
an emblematic manifestation of the new affective devotion which appeared in the
West after the first millenium. it was precisely the emphasis on christ’s human
death which, as cardinal humbert argued against the Greeks, is ‘proclaimed only’
in the eucharistic sacrifice, which led to the representation of the physical reality
of the death of christ on the Throne of Mercy.

*
Byzantine art, too, developed new eucharistic Trinitarian images from the late
eleventh century onwards. But in sharp contrast with the West, Byzantine iconog-
raphy shows an ever-growing attempt to highlight the Trinitarian presence in the
eucharistic sacrifice, which makes christ’s divinised body life-giving and deifying.
The idea that christ’s divine nature was not separated from him even in death
and that, therefore, divine life was lying in the tomb—the concept defended by the
Byzantines in the azyme controversy—had a determining impact on subsequent
christological iconography in Byzantium. a new phenomenon was the proliferation
of polymorphic representations of christ in orthodox churches after the schism.
They emphasise not only an orthodox Triadology but also the inseparability of
christ’s two natures, which suggests that their creation was inextricably intertwined
with anti-Latin polemics in this period.62
it has become customary for art historians to overlook the significance of the
azyme controversy, instead linking the great innovations of Byzantine eucharistic
iconography to internal Byzantine debates over the eucharist in the mid-twelfth
century.63 yet, in the light of the contemporary orthodox polemics against the

61. ‘in quibusdam codicibus majestas patris, et crux 63. For the relationship between the 12th-century

raphy see B. Д. cарабьянов, ‘Программные основы

depingitur crucifixi, ut quasi praesentem videamus Byzantine eucharistic debates and eucharistic iconog-

древнерусской храмовой декорации второй половины

quem invocamus, et passio quae repraesentatur, cordis

Xii века’, Bопросы искусствознания, 14, pp. 268–

oculis ingeratur.’ sicard of cremona, Mitralis de officiis
ecclesiasticis summa, iii.6 (ed. G. sarbak and L. Wein-
rich, Turnhout 2008, p. 182). Translation: M. Bartusis
and R. Meyer, in h. Belting, the Image and Its Public
in the Middle ages: Form and Function of early Paintings
of the Passion, new Rochelle, ny 10. 6. The passage
was borrowed also by durandus: Rationale (as in n.
56), iv.35.10.
312; i. sinkević, the Church of st. Panteleimon at nerezi,
Wiesbaden 2000, pp. 37–3; G. Babić, ‘Les discus-
sions christologiques et le décor des églises byzantines
au Xiie siècle: Les évêques officiant devant l’hétimasie
et devant l’amnos’, Frühmittelalterliche studien, ii, 168,
pp. 368–86. some concerns regarding this hypothesis

Лидов, ‘oбразы Xриста в храмовой декорации и

62. This argument is made convincingly by a. M. are, however, expressed by s. Gerstel, Beholding the

византийская христология после cхизмы 1054 года’,

sacred Mysteries: Programs of the Byzantine sanctuary,

in Древнерусское искусство: Bизантия и Древняя Pусь,

seattle and London 1, pp. 44–47, 85; and a. Lidov,

ed. Э. c. cмирнова, st petersburg 1, pp. 155–77.

‘Byzantine church decoration and the Great schism
of 1054’, Byzantion, lxviii, 18, pp. 381–405 (381).
 ÁGnes kRiZa 103

catholics, it is impossible not to recognise the anti-Latin tenet of these novel

iconographies.64
in fact, a significant innovation in Byzantine sanctuary decoration appeared
long before the outbreak of the Byzantine eucharistic discussions. in Veljusa soon
after 1080 (Fig. 11) and later in nerezi in 1164 (Fig. 12a-b), behind the altar table
is a symbolic image of the altar known as the hetoimasia or ‘prepared throne’, with
a dove and the cross.65 This central image is flanked by hierarchs including John
chrysostom and Basil the Great, the authors of the Byzantine liturgies, who turn
towards the hetoimaisia as they celebrate the liturgy according to the Byzantine rite,
attested by the liturgical texts on their scrolls. The dove of the holy spirit together
with the christological symbols depicted on the hetoimaisia (the cross, the Gospel
book and the crown of Thorns) convey an anti-Latin idea: what occurs on the altar
is not christ’s single sacrifice, as the Latins claimed in the azyme controversy, but
the action of the entire holy Trinity.

11. Veljusa (Macedonia), hetoimasia (‘prepared throne’) flanked by angel deacons and church fathers, 1080s
© Петар Миљковиќ-ПеПек, вељуса, Манастир св. Богородица Милостива …, скоПје 1981

The hetoimasia was subsequently replaced, for example in kurbinovo in 111,

by a new christological image known as the Melismos: the living, naked christ
child on the altar table, who is sacrificed by the officiating bishops (Fig. 13).66

64. even without a systematic investigation it seems divine life, and so it was distributed to the disciples by

the sacrifice’; for the text see eпископ aрсений, Два

to me plausible that the Byzantine eucharistic debates our first and great hierarch, who is the sacrificer and

неизданные произведения hиколая епископа Mефонс­-

on the text of the Byzantine liturgy calling christ both

кого, писателя XII века, novgorod 187, p. 114. For

‘the one who offers and who is offered’, and thus
discussing the role of the Trinity in the eucharistic
sacrifice, were stimulated by the anti-Latin contro-
versy. This hypothesis is supported by the writings of
nicholas of Methone, the leading figure of the councils
held in constantinople in 1156–57 and, at the same
time, a protagonist of contemporary anti-Latin
polemics. nicholas connects the two controversial
questions in his treatise criticising the use of unleav-
ened bread: christ’s flesh was ‘inseparable from the
nicholas of Methone’s theology see Meyendorff (as
in n. 20), pp. 152–54 (with bibliography).
65. For bibliography on both frescoes see Gerstel
(as in n. 63), pp. 84–87. For nerezi see sinkević (as in
n. 63), pp. 35–3. For the hetoimasia see a. Weyl carr,
in the Oxford dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols, oxford
11, ii, p. 26; also sinkević, pp. 35–36; and Gerstel,
pp. 38–3.
104 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

12b. nerezi, st panteleimon, hetoimasia (‘prepared throne’) flanked by angel deacons, 1164
© coMMons: c/c7/FresKi vo sv. PantelejMon od nerezi 019

12a. nerezi (Macedonia), st panteleimon, apse with hetoimasia (‘prepared throne’) flanked by angel deacons, 1164
© ida sinKević, the church oF st. PanteleiMon at nerezi, wiesbaden 2000, Pl. 9
 ÁGnes kRiZa 105

13. kurbinovo (Macedonia), st George, Melismos (christ child on the altar) flanked by church fathers, c. 111
© coMMons: FresKa Kurbinovo

in the period of the palaiologos dynasty (1261–1453), liturgical lances appeared in

the hands of the bishops, strikingly reflecting the words of niketas stethatos cited
above: ‘his flesh being pierced by the lance … the living and holy spirit remained
in his deified flesh, which we in eating ... live in him’.67
This concept of the Trinitarian participation in the eucharistic sacrifice is
even more explicit in late-Byzantine decorations for the north-eastern apsed
chamber of orthodox churches, known as the Prothesis, where the preparation of
the bread and the wine for the eucharist took place—a rite (known as Proskomedia
or Prothesis rite) which underwent a significant development simultaneously with
the elaboration of the new iconographic programmes.68 a peculiar feature of the
Prothesis decorations of this period is that they vertically juxtapose christ’s human
death and his inseparable divine life as a member of the Trinity, as in a fourteenth-
century painted apse in the peribleptos church in Mistra in the peloponnese (Fig.
14a-c).6 here, the uppermost register of the fresco depicts the ancient of days,
together with the dove of the holy spirit. directly below in the second register,
christ, dressed in Byzantine liturgical vestments, is depicted as the Great high
priest who officiates at the heavenly liturgy. his concelebrants are the angels to
either side of him, holding the eucharistic vessels with wine and leavened bread,
blessed by him. Beneath these angels in the lower register of the fresco, bishops
celebrate the orthodox liturgy, similarly to the real orthodox bishops in the church

66. c. konstantinidis, O Mελισμός, Thessaloniki pp. 123–41 (123–24, with bibliography and references

Rus’ see T. И. aфанасьева, Литургии Иоанна Злато-

2008, pp. 75–7; L. hadermann-Misguich, Kurbinovo: to its visualisation). For the Prothesis rite in Medieval

уста и Bасилия Bеликого в славянской традиции,

les fresques de saint-Georges et la peinture byzantine du
XII e siècle, Brussels 175, pp. 67–0.
67. niketas stethatos, antidialogus, 3.2 (cited above
at n. 35). For the pierced Melismos see konstantinidis
(as in n. 66), pp. 102–07; but she overlooks the possi-
bility, cautiously proposed by Gerstel (as in n. 63), p.
Moscow 2015, pp. 123–28.
6. s. dufrenne, ‘images du décor de la prothèse’,
Revue des études byzantines, xxvi, 168, pp. 27–310.
see also M. emmanuel, ‘some notes on the icono-

peribleptos and hagia sophia’, in Древнерусское

47, that this iconography may be related to the azyme graphic programmes of Two Mystra churches:

искусство: Xудожественная жизнь Пскова и искус-

controversy.

ство поздневизантийского эпохи, ed. M. a. oрлова,

68. For the Proskomedia see M. Tomić Đurić, ‘To
picture and to perform: The image of the eucharistic
Liturgy at Markov Manastir (i)’, Zograf, xxxviii, 2014, Moscow 2008, pp. 457–68.
106 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

14a. Mistra (peloponnese), peribleptos, the holy Trinity with the akra tapeinosis (Byzantine Imago pietatis),
prothesis wall-paintings, 1348–70
drawing © vera Filó
 ÁGnes kRiZa 107

14b-c. Mistra, peribleptos, surviving prothesis wall-paintings showing the christ as hierarch and in liturgical
vestments, above the akra tapeinosis (now too damaged to be photographed), 1348–70
uPPer PhotograPh © Millet | lower PhotograPh © warburg institute
108 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

below. Between the depicted bishops, however, the central image is of the dead,
naked christ in the tomb, represented as the akra tapeinosis, the Byzantine version
of the Imago pietatis.70 The fresco thus presents a vertical Trinitarian composition
over the dead christ, visualising the idea of the divine presence in christ’s body
sacrificed on the cross.
The theological concept expressed by this iconography became immensely
significant, as indicated by the fact that it has been conveyed in various ways in
orthodox churches throughout the centuries, including visualisations of liturgical
hymns for holy saturday and the following easter sunday—the feasts of christ’s
burial, descent into hell and Resurrection.71 From the late fifteenth century, a
new subject matter appeared in Balkan churches, conveyed through cycles of
wall-paintings in either the Prothesis or in the antechamber known as the narthex,
located at the west end of the nave. Together, the scenes comprising these cycles
illustrate a paschal troparion which was also read in the Proskomedia, the preparatory
Prothesis rite before the orthodox liturgy, from the fourteenth century onwards:
in the grave bodily; in hades with Thy soul, though Thou wast God; in paradise with the
thief; and on the throne with the Father and the spirit wast Thou Who fillest all things, o
christ the uncircumscribable.72

This troparion was disseminated in slavonic Prothesis rites rather later, roughly
coinciding with the appearance of the new iconography.73 The earliest surviving
example, on the narthex vault of the monastery church in dragalevtsi in Bulgaria,
was created between 147 and 1531 (Fig. 15a-d); in the first half of the sixteenth
century this cycle was also depicted in Graćanica, followed by a series of later
examples.74 The iconography consists of four independent scenes: 1) entombment;
2) Resurrection (either the descent into hell, or The spice-bearing Women at the
sepulchre); 3) christ with the Righteous Thief in the paradise; and 4) the so-called
synthronoi, the representation of the son and the Father seated on the same throne
with the dove of the holy spirit between them, following a layout which derives
from early thirteenth-century Western painting.75 The text of the ‘in the grave

ментарност речи и слике и место циклуса у простору

70. dufrenne (as in n. 6), pp. 304–05.
71. For the illustration of the troparion of holy
saturday, ‘enthroned on high, entombed below’,
which is a close parallel to the iconography of the
цркве’, in Cрпски Jезик, Kњижевност, Уметност,
kragujevac 2013, iii, pp. 271–83; M. kuyumdzhieva,
‘The Face of God’s divinity: some Remarks on the

see M. Mарковић, ‘Прилог проучавању утицаја канона

‘in the grave bodily’ images (to be discussed below), origin, Models and content of the Trinity images of

Bелике суботе на иконографију средњовековног сли­-

synthronoi Type in post-Byzantine painting’, scripta

карства’, Зборник радова Bизантолошког института,

xxxvii, 18, pp. 167–83.
72. ‘Во гробе плотски, во аде же с душею яко Бог, в раи
же с разбойником, и на Престоле был еси Христе, со Отцем
и Духом, вся исполняяй, неописанный.’ troparion of the
paschal hours and the Proskomedia. The iconography
has survived only with slavonic inscriptions. english
translation from the Pentecostarion, Boston, Ma 2014,
p. 21. see Mарковић (as in n. 71), pp. 178–7.
& escripta, v, 2007, pp. 161–82 (16–71); Mарковић
(as in n. 71), pp. 177–7; dufrenne (as in n. 6), pp.
304–05; a. Grabar, la peinture religieuse en Bulgarie,
paris 128, p. 28.
74. For the dating of the dragalevtsi frescoes see
G. Gerov, ‘La peinture monumentale en Bulgarie
pendant la deuxième moitié du XVème – début du
XVième siècle: nouvelles données’, in topics in Post-
Byzantine Painting: In memory of Manolis Chatzidakis,
ed. e. drakoupolou, athens 2002, pp. 141–77 (152–

M. Пејић, ‘Bо гробе плотски – аналогност и компле­-

73. For the ‘in the grave bodily’ iconography see c. 56).
 ÁGnes kRiZa 10

15a-d. dragalevtsi (Bulgaria), monastery, wall-paintings in the narthex vault, between 147 and 1531
(upper left) 15a. ‘in the grave bodily’ (entombment)
(upper right) 15b. ‘in hades with the soul’ (the spice-bearing women and the resurrected christ)
(lower left) 15c. ‘in paradise with the thief ’ (christ with the righteous thief )
(lower right) 15d. ‘on the throne with the Father and the spirit, wast Thou’ (synthronoi)
PhotograPhs © svetozar angelov

bodily’ troparion and its illustration on the wall-painting emphasise not only the
divine presence in the dead body of christ, but also that the divine nature remained
together with christ’s human soul which, at his death, was separated from the
body and descended into the netherworld. This was exactly the main soteriological
argument of the orthodox protagonists in the azyme controversy: christ, who
in his human body and soul is inseparable from the holy Trinity, redeemed the
whole human.

75. The basic layout of the synthronoi was created
in the West; the first examples date to the early 13th
century (e.g., London, British Library, arundel Ms
157, fol. 3r). its popularity in the following centuries
can be explained by the fact that it was a suitable image
for expressing the fundamental statements of Western
Trinitarian doctrine, including, among others, the
Filioque (see above at n. 46). For this reason, kuyum-
dzhieva (as in n. 73), pp. 165, 173, challenges the idea
that orthodox images of the synthronoi from before
the end of the 16th century were directly inspired by
Western prototypes (one of the earliest examples is
in the serbian psalter, c. 1380; Munich, Bayerische
staatsbibliothek Ms slav. 4, fol. 146v). For a response
to her concerns, see the final conclusions of this study.
For the theological basis of the Western synthronoi
images see Boespflug and Zaluska (as in n. 40), pp.
226–34; d. denny, ‘The Trinity in enguerrand
Quarton’s coronation of the Virgin’, art Bulletin, xlv,
163, pp. 48–52.
110 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

another example of the influence of the azyme debate on Byzantine

eucharistic-Trinitarian iconography is the image of the so-called anapeson, which
means ‘the reclining one’: the image of christ sleeping, awaiting Resurrection.76
in these representations, in common with the Melismos, christ is associated with the
young immanuel (which means ‘God with us’: a biblical reference to the divinity
of the incarnated Messiah; isaiah 7.14; Matthew 1.23). 77 slavonic inscriptions
which accompany the anapeson emphasise that, although he is sleeping, the saviour
has open, ‘sleepless eyes’ (Недреманное око). The open eyes refer to both the divine
nature which was not separated from the dead body of christ and to the all-seeing
dispensation of God. The earliest surviving example of this iconography dates to
the late twelfth century and represents the dead christ shown as a child sleeping,
like a lion, with open eyes, in accordance with a liturgical text recited on holy
saturday:
come, let us see our Life lying in the tomb, that he may give life to all those that in their
tombs lie dead. come, let us look today on the son of Judah as he sleeps, and with the
prophet let us cry aloud to him: ‘Thou hast reclined, thou hast slept as a lion. Who shall
awaken thee, o king?’ But of Thine own free will do Thou rise up, who willingly dost give
Thyself for us.78

a thirteenth-century example, in the church of the protaton on Mount athos,

reveals the eucharistic aspect of the image through the priestly vestments worn by
the christ child (Fig. 16).7 Later versions show christ as an older youth, but
conveying the same message through angels carrying the symbols of the passion

© coMMons: unsleePing eye oF Protat

16. athos (Greece), protaton, western wall, anapeson (‘the reclining one’; ‘the sleepless eye’), 13th century

76. p. И. kлевцова, ‘cоловецкая икона “cпас
hедреманное око”’, Mатериалы и исследования, xxii,
2014, pp. 153–67; B. Todić, ‘anapeson: iconographie
78. ‘Δεύτε ίδωμεν την ζωήν ημών εν τάφω κειμένην,
ίνα τους εν τάφοις κειμένους ζωοποιήση. Δεύτε σήμερον,
τον εξ Ιούδα υπνούντα θεώμενοι, προφητικώς αυτώ
εκβοήσωμεν αναπεσών κεκοίμησαι ως λέων τις εγερεί

Σε, Βασιλεύ αλλ’ ανάστηθι αυτεξουσίως, οδούς σεαυτόν

et signification du theme’, Byzantion, xliv, 14, pp.

υπέρ ημών εκουσίως.’ sticheron for the Mattins of

134–65; d. pallas, die Passion und Bestattung Christi
in Byzanz, Munich 165, pp. 181–6.
77. For the Melismos iconography see above at n.
66.
holy saturday, tone 2. Mother Mary and k. Ware,
the lenten triodion, London etc. 184, p. 652.
7. Todić (as in n. 76), pp. 153–54.
 ÁGnes kRiZa 111

and liturgical equipment, such as the cross or the ripidion (liturgical fan) which
is held over the gifts of the eucharist during the divine liturgy. These symbols
appear on a ‘sleepless eyes’ icon from the solovetsky islands off north-west Russia,
dating to the 1560s, which represents the sleeping immanuel flanked by the
Mother of God and two angels: one with the cross, standing and the other with
ripidion, flying above him (Fig. 17).80 sometimes the Trinitarian symbolism of the

17. solovetsky Monastery (north-east Russia), anapeson (‘the reclining one’; ‘the sleepless eye’),
icon, 1560s, now in the Moscow kremlin Museums, Ж–786/1-2
© владиМир скоПин, людМила Щенникова, архитектурно-худоЖественный ансаМБль соловецкого Монастыря, Moscow 1982

image is expressed directly, as in the late fourteenth-century serbian psalter in the

Bavarian state Library in Munich. The allegorical illustration to psalm 76(77).2
(‘With my voice i cried to the Lord, with my voice to God and he gave heed to me’)

80. kлевцова (as in n. 76), pp. 162–65.

112 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

© bsb München, urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb00106322-6

18a-b. illustrations to psalm 76(77).2, in a late 14th-century serbian psalter. Munich, Bayerische
staatsbibliothek Ms slav. 4, fols 7v–8r
(verso) 18a. paternity (immanuel as God, on the bosom of the ancient of days)
(recto) 18b. anapeson (‘the reclining one’; ‘the sleepless eye’)

consists of two miniatures, placed side-by-side. The full-page image depicts the
reclining, youthful saviour surrounded by old Testament prophet-visionaries and
kings. This representation of the anapeson is accompanied by an anthropomorphic
Trinitarian image showing immanuel as God, on the bosom of the ancient of days
(Fig. 18a-b).81
after the eleventh century, then, eucharistic Trinitarian iconographies appeared
and were spread in both West and east alike; but the messages conveyed by these
images in the orthodox church were radically different from their Latin counter-
parts or even polemicised against them. in the West, the devotional image of the
Gnadenstuhl represents christ’s human death which is offered to the Father. in the
east, the aim of eucharistic Trinitarian iconography is to visualise the Trinitarian
presence in the dead flesh of the saviour. The Gnadenstuhl iconography remained
highly popular in the Latin church throughout the whole Middle ages and some
examples from crete, cyprus and Rhodes show that it also spread into orthodox
art.82 There are also isolated instances of sixteenth-century Western examples

81. Munich, Bayerische staatsbibliothek Ms slav. 178, pp. 11–21, 216–18; and Todić (as in n. 76),
4, fols 7v–8r. see der serbische Psalter, textband pp. 150–53 (he links these two miniatures with the
zur Faksimile-ausgabe des Cod. slav. 4 der Bayerischen troparion ‘enthroned on high, entombed below’, for
staatsbibliothek München, ed. h. Belting, Wiesbaden which see Mарковић, cited in n. 71).
 ÁGnes kRiZa 113

which show christ with eagle wings. These wings, however, do not fold inwards
to cover christ’s body, as they do on the Four-part icon, but are open. This formal
dissimilarity suggests that the Western and eastern iconographies are not connected
to one another.83

The cRuciFied seRaph on Russian icons

That the winged Gnadenstuhl is a Russian innovation is proven by a highly
unusual late fifteenth-century Russian iconography, invented by painters from
pskov, which now goes by the title ‘you are a priest forever according to the order
of Melchisedek’ (psalm 10[110].4; hebrews 7.17), on the basis of the inscription
on a seventeenth-century example.84 a silver Gospels cover from Vologda, made
in 1577, is the earliest extant example of this iconography (Fig. 1),85 while another
well-known Russian icon, dated to the turn of the seventeenth century, is preserved
in the ikonen-Museum in Recklinghausen in Germany (Fig. 20).86 christ is repre-
sented as the uppermost element of a vertical composition: he has the attributes
of both an orthodox hierarch and a king, sword in hand. immediately beneath him
is a warrior, again with sword in hand. he is seated on a cross which, itself, is the
most unusual element of this iconography: for it is not christ, but a seraph who
is crucified upon it.
The ‘you are a priest forever’ iconography generated fierce debates at the time
of its creation at the end of the fifteenth century, which continued into the first half
of the sixteenth century, as attested by a letter dating to 1518 or 151. its author
is the famous philologist and Latin translator dmitry Gerasimov; its addressee
is the same Mikhail Misiur Munekhin to whom the pskovian monk Filofei, in

82. in crete, in the apse of Roustika, panagia 1562’, Gazette des Beaux-arts, xcviii, 181, pp. 28–32.

7); h. k. Голейзовский, ‘Два эпизода из деятельности

(131); see i. spatharakis, dated Byzantine Wall 84. Felmy (as in n. 3), pp. 106–08; Thon (as in n.

hовгородского архиепископа Геннадия’, Bизантийский

Paintings of Crete, London 1, pp. 182, 17–200,

временник, xli, 180, pp. 125–40 (130–40); Mацулевич

205–06. in cyprus, in the church of holy cross of

(as in n. 5), pp. 271–77; Покровский, eвангелие (as in

agiasmati near to platanistasa (144) and in agia

n. 7), pp. 370–74; a. Я. Bиноградов, ‘Иисус Xристос

irene, the church of holy cross (early 16th century);

под видом Первосвященника aнгела и Bоина-Царя,

see a. stylianou and J. a. stylianou, the Painted

или, по надписи иконы: “Tы еси Иерей во век по чину

Churches of Cyprus, nicosia 17, pp. 152, 216. cf.

Mелхиседекову, Господь Израилев”’, Известия имп.

kуюмджиева, ‘aрбанаси’ (as in n. 7), p. 215. in

Pусского археологического общества, ix, 1880, pp.

Rhodes, in paredisi, in the church of hagios abba-
koum (15th century), the Gnadenstuhl constitutes

kazamia-Tsernou, Iστορώντας τη ‘Δέηση’ στις βυζαντινές

the central element of the deesis in the apse; see M. 53–61. The iconography became popular among the

εκκλησίες της eλλάδος, Thessalonike 2003, p. 15.

Russian ‘old Believers’; see o. Tarasov, Icon and devo-
tion: sacred spaces in Imperial Russia, London 2002,

85. a. c. Преображенский, ‘o некоторых формах

83. christ has eagle wings on drawings by the pp. 301–26, fig. 164.

выражения авторского самосознания византийских и

protestant paul Lautensack from the 1530s; see B.

русских иконописцев’, in Xудожник в Bизантии и

kress, divine diagrams:the Manuscripts and drawings

Древней Pуси, ed. Л. M. eвсеева, Moscow 2014, pp.

of Paul lautensack (1477/78–1558), Leiden etc. 2014, pp.

5–11 (1–2); a. c. Уваров, ‘eвангелие 1577 года,

182–84, figs 32–34. see also the allegory of the trinity

изображения евангелистов и их символов’, Древности,

(1562) by the catholic Frans Floris in paris, Louvre,
inv. 20746; e. Wouk, ‘Frans Floris’s allegory of
the Trinity (1562) and the Limits of Tolerance’, art xxi, 107/2, pp. 7–37.
history, xxxviii, 2015, pp. 38–67; a. Lombard-Jourdan, 86. Felmy (as in n. 3), pp. 108–10 (listed as c. 1600,
‘Le christ ailé: un tableau inédit, au thème icono- Moscow school).
graphique exceptionnel, monogrammé et daté de
114 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

1. Vologda (western Russia), silver Gospels cover, ‘you are a priest forever’ (psalm 10[110].4, hebrews 7.17),
1577. now in Moscow, state historical Museum, uvarov 72/6
© Moscow, state historical MuseuM
 ÁGnes kRiZa 115

around 1523–24, wrote expounding his

views on ‘Moscow, the third Rome’.87
in his letter, Gerasimov highlights the
main pecularity of the iconography, the
crucified seraph symbolising ‘christ’s
soul’, and mentions a commentary text
on the ‘you are a priest forever’ icon-
ography. The commentary he refers
to, entitled ‘on the ancient of days’
(W Bетхомъ деньми), has survived in the
same late-sixteenth century manuscript
as Gerasimov’s letter, in the Russian
historical Museum in Moscow.88 The
text includes an explanation for the
crucified seraph:
The white seraph: this is christ’s holy soul
... Flanked by two cherubim: these are the
intellect and the mind, because he assumed
intellectual and rational soul.8 20. ‘you are a priest forever’ (psalm 10(110).4,
hebrews 7.17), icon, c. 1600, ‘Moscow school’.
here too, then, we find the same phrase now in Recklinghausen, ikonenmuseum
from niketas of herakleia’s commen- © iKonen-MuseuM (Katalog), recKlinghausen: bongers, 1976

tary on Gregory of nazianzus which

Metropolitan Makary, some decades later, used in his explanation of the wings
of the Gnadenstuhl on the Four-part icon.0 We have seen the anti-Latin message
of these words both in niketas’s scholia and Makary’s explanation. The presence
of this quotation of niketas in the commentary suggests that the crucified seraph
conveys the same anti-azymite message as the wings of christ do on the Four-part
icon.
Moreover, this connection between the two icon commentaries can be further
strengthened by two more redactions of the commentary on the crucified seraph
iconography in the same manuscript of the Russian historical Museum which

Горский, k. И. hевоструев, Oписание славянских

Gerasimov’s letter is on fols 250v–253v. see a. B.
end of the 15th and in the 16th centuries see Голей-
87. For the debates over this representation at the

зовский (as in n. 84), pp. 130–40; h. e. aндреев, рукописей Mосковской синодальной библиотеки, 3
‘Инок Зиновий oтенский об иконопочитании и иконо- vols, Moscow 1862, ii.3, pp. 63–40; Голейзовский
писании’, seminarium Kondakovianum, viii, 136, pp. (as in n. 84), pp. 131–35, with bibliography, details of

see a. B. Горский, ‘Mаксим Грек святогорец’, Прибав-

25–78 (268–77). For an edition of Gerasimov’s letter other 17th-century manuscripts which preserve the

ления к изданию tворений святых отцов в русском

переводе, xviii, 185, pp. 144–2 (10–2); for Gera-
simov see also V. s. Tomelleri, il salterio commentato
di Brunone di Würzburg in area slavo-orientale,
Munich 2004, pp. 1–4. For Filofei’s letter on Moscow
as the ‘third Rome’ see above at n. 2.
88. Moscow, Russian historical Museum Ms
cин. (synodal collection) 56 (322), fols 243v–250v;
commentary and editions of the different versions.
8. ‘А еже серафим бел, се есть святая его душа … По обою
ж страну два херувима. Се есть ум и слово, понеже душу
словесну и умну прият.’ Голейзовский (as in n. 84), p. 133.
The two cherubim, flanking the crucifix, are depicted
on the Recklinghausen icon (Fig. 20).
0. see above at n. 18.
116 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

contain further textual similarities with Makary’s explanation. one of them, entitled
‘on the name of Jesus’ (W имени Icyсовѣ), associates the iconography with the pre-
eternal council of the holy Trinity, using the same wording as Makary did in his
commentary on the Viskovaty affair. The other, copied twice, under the titles ‘on
the image of the Lord sabaoth’ (Oбъ изображенiи Господа Саваофа) and ‘in the image
of adam’ (Bъ ѡбразе адамовѣ), contains even more textual parallelisms with Makary’s
commentary.1 it has not been clarified whether these commentaries pre-date the
Viskovaty affair, yet they undoubtedly witness to the close relationship between the
two types of winged crucifix representations. Gerasimov’s letter, however, together
with the references to christ’s ‘intellectual and rational soul’ in all of these sources,
leaves no room for doubt that Makary was familiar with the ‘you are priest forever’
iconography, as well as with the debate surrounding it.2 in this regard it is signifi-
cant that, between 1526 and 1542, Makary was the archbishop of novgorod, under
the jurisdiction of which pskov fell.
These observations about the commentaries on the crucified seraph icons
and the Four-part icon are further supported by iconographic links between the
two angelic motifs. Both the seraph of the ‘you are a priest forever’ images and
the wings of christ on the Gnadenstuhl of the Four-part icon are appropriations
from Western art, originating from representations found in Western mendicant
mysticism.3 a crucified seraph appears from the thirteenth century onwards in
representations of the fundamental seraphic vision of Francis of assisi († 1226)
at the time of his emblematic stigmatisation, which took place during his stay at
La Verna hermitage (Fig. 22).4 also comparable are illustrations for an episode
described in the ‘exemplar’ of the dominican heinrich suso († 1366): ‘there
appeared to [suso] in spiritual vision a likeness of the crucified christ in the form
of a seraph, and this angelic seraph had six wings’. a printed edition of suso’s
‘exemplar’, issued in augsburg in 1512, includes a woodcut showing christ with
wings sprouting from his shoulders and also wrapped around his waist (Fig. 21).5

1. The three versions of the commentary on the
‘you are a priest forever’ icon in Moscow, Russian
historical Museum Ms cин. 56 (322) are: 1) ‘on the
ancient of days’, fols 243v–250v; 2) ‘on the name of
Jesus’, fols 258r–265v; 3) ‘on the image of the Lord
sabaoth’, fols 138r–141r, repeated as ‘in the image of
adam’, fols 238r–241v. For a similarity between version
3) of the commentary and Makary’s explanation see
Russian icon-painting and culture. cf. Пуцко (as in
n. 1); ouspensky (as in n. 8), pp. 320–21; whereas
Thon (as in n. 7), p. 1, writes about a ‘symbiosis
between Western and eastern ideas’.
4. For a historical survey of the representation of
the stigmatisation of st Francis see d. Ganz, Medien
der Offenbarung: Visionsdarstellungen im Mittelalter,
Berlin 2008, pp. 283–312 (with further bibliography).

2. as Голейзовский (as in n. 84), pp. 131–35,

further below, n. 126.
explains, version 1) of the commentary seems to
be the oldest text. he thinks that versions 2) and 3)
are earlier than the Viskovaty affair and that they
For French miniatures, including the one in paris,
Bibliothèque de l’arsenal Ms 280, illustrated here as
Fig. 22, see below at n. 10.
5. J. hamburger, ‘heinrich seuse, “das exem-
plar”’, Katalog der deutschsprachigen illustrierten hand-

further investigation. see also aндреев, ‘Инок Зиновий

influenced Makary. This question, however, needs
oтенский’ (as in n. 87), pp. 272–73, with an edition
of the text ‘on the name of Jesus’.
3. The interpretation offered here differs from the
widespread view of the crucified seraph as an indicator
of the influence of Western mysticism on medieval
schriften des Mittelalters, ed. n. ott, Munich 2008, pp.
156–2; idem, the Visual and the Visionary: art and
spirituality in late Medieval Germany, new york 18,
pp. 233–78; e. colledge and J. c. Marler, ‘“Mystical”
pictures in the suso “exemplar”: Ms strasbourg
22’, archivum fratrum praedicatorum, liv, 184, pp.
23–354 (327–2). The augsburg 1482 edition shows
 ÁGnes kRiZa 117

st Francis’s seraphic vision sparked an intense controversy in the West.6 The

most elaborated stigmatic theology is that of the ‘doctor seraphicus’, the italian
Franciscan Bonaventura (1221–74), who in one of his sermons gives a concise
explanation of the vision of st Francis:
some people are amazed that a seraph was sent to him when the stigmata of christ’s passion
were to be imprinted upon him. surely, they say, no seraph was crucified! no, but the seraph
is the spirit whose name means ‘ardor’, which signifies that Francis was burning with charity
when the seraph was sent to him. This is what that spirit signifies. and the cross or the sign
of the cross imprinted upon his body signifies the affection which he had for the crucified
christ, and that, from the ardor of his love, he was wholly transformed into christ.7

This interpretation, which connects

Francis’s seraphic vision with his
loving heart that burned with the fire
of charity, recalls durandus’s identi-
fication between the old Testament
‘interior altar’, the christian altar and
the pure, loving heart which, as we have
seen, was visualised on the fourteenth-
century French miniature depicting the
three states of good souls (Fig. 10).8
Likewise, the detailed description of
the ark of the covenant in exodus
25.10–22, similarly to other descriptions
of sacred constructions in the Bible
(noah’s ark, the Tabernacle itself, the
Temple of solomon in Jerusalem,
etc.), was perceived as an allegory of
mental ascension in the West. as such,
especially thanks to theologians of the
school of hugh of st Victor († 1141),
they became popular as meditation 21. heinrich suso’s seraphic vision, woodcut from
devices. The mystical theology of the an edition of his ‘exemplar’, augsburg 1512
© bsb München, urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb10813510-8

christ with two pairs of wings sprouting from his
shoulders and a further pair covering his knees.
6. see, with further references, c. a. Muessig,
‘The stigmata debate in Theology and art in the
Late Middle ages’, in the authority of the Word:
Reflecting on Image and text in northern europe, 1400–
1700, ed. B. c. enenkel and W. k. Melion, Leiden and
Boston 2012, pp. 481–504.
7. ‘aliqui mirantur, quod seraphim missus est ad
eum, quando debuerunt ei imprimi stigmata passionis
christi. nunquid, dicunt, seraphim fuit crucifixus?
non; sed seraphim spiritus est sic dictus ab ardore,
in quo significatur, quod ardens erat caritate, quando
missus fuit ad eum seraphim. hoc significabat ille
spiritus. crux antem sive signum crucis impressum
corpori eius significabat affectum, quem ipse habebat
ad christum crucifixum; et tune ex illo ardore dilec-
tionis totus fuit transformatus in ipsum.’ Bonaventura,
sermo IV, from his Opera omnia, 10 vols, Quaracchi
1882–102, ix, p. 58. english translation from R. G.
davis, ‘The Force of union: affect and ascent in
the Theology of Bonaventure’, ph.d. diss., harvard
university 2012, p. 1 (currently in press as a book with
the same title).
8. durandus, Rationale, i.2.3–13; see my discussion
above at n. 5.
118 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

Victorians was profoundly influenced

by the angelogy of pseudo-dionysios
the areopagite in his Celestial hierarchy,
which describes the mystical ascent of
the mind to God by means of the hier-
archy of angels, who function as medi-
ators between the divine and man. in
this system, the fiery cherubim and
seraphim immediately surrounding the
throne of God (ezekiel 10.5–22; isaiah
6.22; Revelations 4) take the highest
place in the angelic hierarchy, repre-
senting the immediate contemplation
of God.100 a pupil of hugh’s, the scot-
tish theologian Richard of st Victor (†
1173), develops the theory of contem-
plative transformation in his treatise
On the Mystical ark, by using the image
of the ark of the covenant. here, the
two six-winged cherubim who turn their
22. Francis of assisi receiving the stigmata, c. 1270.
faces towards the propitiatory of the
paris, Bibliothèque de l’arsenal Ms 280, fol. 27r
© Paris, bibliothèque nationale de France
ark of the covenant appear as symbols
of the highest level of contemplation.101
Bonaventura’s theology, formulated a hundred years later, was in many ways
inspired by this Victorian conception. in his Itinerarium mentis ad deum, a theo-
logical commentary on Francis’s stigmatisation, Bonaventura uses the figure of
the seraph as a framing device for a spiritual itinerary.102 The six wings denote the
different stages of the soul’s ascent in the imitation of christ, the description of
which constitute the first six chapters of the treatise. passing over these stages, the
soul reaches the final, seventh step of inflammation by christ’s love (discussed in
the seventh, last chapter), when, through contemplation, the intellect ‘passes over
into God’: as the culmination of this process, the soul is itself transcended and gazes
directly at the propitiatory—that is, at christ on the cross. describing this very
last level, Bonaventura sets Francis’s stigmatisation as an example:
it remains for the mind to pass over and transcend not only the sensible world but the
soul itself. and in this passage, christ is the way and the door. christ is the ladder and the

. M. J. carruthers, ‘ars oblivionalis, ars inveniendi:
The cherub Figure and the arts of Memory’, Gesta,
xlviii, 200, pp. –117 (103–04).
100. davis (as in n. 7), pp. 8–17 (with bibliography);
s. chase, angelic Wisdom: the Cherubim and the Grace
of Contemplation in Richard of st.Victor, notre dame,
in and London 15, esp. pp. 70–75; W. hellmann,
‘The seraph in the Legends of Thomas of celano
and st. Bonaventure: The Victorine Transition’, in
Bonaventuriana: Miscellanea in onore di Jacques Guy
Bougerol, ed. F. de asís chavero Blanco, 2 vols, Rome
188, pp. 347–56.
101. chase (as in n. 100), pp. 115–28.
102. Bonaventura, Itinerarium mentis in deum, ed.
and tr. p. Boehner and Z. hayes, new york 2002. For
the six-winged seraph as an image of spiritual itinerary
see pp. 173, 17, 12, 207.
 ÁGnes kRiZa 11

© Florence, galleria dell’accadeMia

23. attr. niccolò di pietro Gerini, the trinity with st Francis and Mary Magdalene, late 14th-century.
Florence, Galleria dell’accademia, inv. 180, 344

vehicle, like the Mercy seat placed above the ark of God and the mystery that has been
hidden from all eternity. anyone who turns fully to face this Mercy seat … will behold christ
hanging on the cross, looks directly at him who hangs upon the cross … all this was shown
also to blessed Francis when, in a rapture of contemplation on the top of the mountain …, a
six-winged seraph fastened to a cross appeared to him ... here he was carried out of himself
in contemplation and passed over into God. and he has been set forth as the example of
perfect contemplation.103

103. ‘Restat, ut haec speculando transcendat et
transeat non solum mundum istum sensibilem, verum
etiam semetipsam; in quo transitu christus est via
et ostium, christus est scala et vehiculum tanquam
propitiatorium super arcam dei collocatum et sacra-
mentum a saeculis absconditum. ad quod propitiato-
rium qui aspicit plena conversione vultus, aspiciendo
eum in cruce suspensum … Quod etiam ostensum est
beato Francisco, cum in excessu contemplationis in
monte excelso …, apparuit seraph sex alarum in cruce
confixus …; ubi in deum transiit per contemplationis
excessum; et positus est in exemplum perfectae con-
templationis.’ Bonaventura, Itinerarium mentis in deum
(as in n. 102), pp. 221–22; english translation p. 83.
120 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

© wellcoMe collection

24. stigmatised friar and allegorical crucifix, German, 15th century.

London, Wellcome collection Ms 4, fol. 62v
 ÁGnes kRiZa 121

inflamed by christ’s love, Bonaventura continues, Francis left behind the world
of the senses and of intellectual operations.104 he experienced an ‘excessus mentis’,
an ecstatic death of the mind, but simultaneously his body also died. When Francis
‘passed over into God’ he became one with the crucified christ: his heart, burn-
ing with love, was sufficiently pliant to receive the stigmata, whereupon his flesh
became dead and corpse-like, just like christ’s dead body on the cross, insensate
and inanimate.105
a drawing in a fifteenth-century manuscript, probably from Germany, repre-
sents a stigmatised monk with six seraphic wings (Fig. 24).106 The prototypes for
this figure are the so-called cherub diagrams which appear from the late twelfth
century onwards.107 The cherub figures are accompanied by inscriptions explaining
that the six wings represent the six acts of morality by which the faithful soul must
be redeemed in order to come to God. The wings of the stigmatised monk, too, are
labelled with the names of virtues, the highest of which is love of God. Beneath him,
a linked but separated image depicts the crucifixion as an example for imitation
and subject of meditation. The juxtaposition of the stigmatised, seraphic monk with
the dead christ on the cross, together with the accompanying texts, emphasise the
significance of the stigmatisation: through the memory and imitation of the passion,
it is possible to achieve ‘conformity’ with the crucified christ.108
clearly, then, there is an intimate conceptual link between the two Western
iconographies of the crucified seraph and the Gnadenstuhl, both of which function
as visualisations of the direct contemplation of the propitiatory, christ’s sacrifice
on the altar. The connection is especially clear in two examples. The thirteenth-
century miniature showing st Francis and the six-winged seraph (Fig. 22) places
the stigmatised saint in front of an altar, thus highlighting the connection with the
eucharist.10 another artist’s interpretation is also revealing: on a late fourteenth-
century Florentine altarpiece attributed to niccolò di pietro Gerini, st Francis
receives his stigmata by means of piercing rays which arrive at his heart, hands and
feet directly from the wounds of the crucified christ of the Gnadenstuhl (Fig. 23).110

104. ‘in hoc autem transitu, si sit perfectus, oportet a drawing on the next folio (63v) represents a cruci-
quod relinquantur omnes intellectuales operationes, fied monk (see a. seebohm, ‘The crucified Monk’,
et apex affectus totus transferatur et transformetur this Journal, lix, 16, pp. 61–102). The iconography

Чумичева, ‘aллегория распятого монаха в росписях

in deum. hoc autem est mysticum et secretissimum, appeared in Russia in the 17th century; see o. B.

Bеликого Устюга XVii в. и ее западноевропейские и

quod nemo novit, nisi qui accipit, nec accipit nisi qui

балканские корни’, tруды Государственного музея

desiderat, nec desiderat nisi quem ignis spiritus sancti

истории религии, ix, 200, pp. 36–41.

medullitus inflammat, quem christus misit in terram.’
ibid., p. 222.
105. davis (as in n. 7), pp. 3, 174–76.
106. London, Wellcome collection Ms 4, fol. 62v.
see W. augustyn, ‘passio christi est Meditanda tibi.
Zwei Bildzeugnisse spätmittelalterlicher passionsbe-
trachtung’, in die Passion Christi in literatur und Kunst
des spätmittelalters, ed. W. haug and B. Wachinger,
Tübingen 13, pp. 211–40 (with further bibliography).
unlike me, however, augustyn regards the image of
the seraphic monk as unconnected with the represen-
tation of the crucifix below him (p. 222), therefore he
focuses on the latter and does not discuss the former.
107. see carruthers (as in n. ), pp. 103–05; on the
inscriptions of the cherub diagrams see L. F. sandler,
the Psalter of Robert de lisle in the British library,
oxford 183, p. 80.
108. augustyn (as in n. 106), pp. 211–40. instead of
the Latin ‘conformitas’, he uses the term ‘conformatio’.
10. For this and other French miniatures represent-
ing the stigmatisation of Francis at the altar see Ganz
(as in n. 4), pp. 287–8.
110. the trinity with st Francis and Mary Magdalene,
in Florence, Galleria dell’accademia, inv. 180, no.
122 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

it was precisely this conceptual link which was recognised by the pskov
icon-painters when they combined the two iconographies, the seraphic crucifix
and the Throne of Mercy, on the Four-part icon. nonetheless, in the light of the
contemporary commentaries, both Western and Russian, it is also clear that these
iconographies have profoundly different messages in Western and eastern contexts.
The Western representations convey the christocentric idea that ‘it is only christ’s
death which is proclaimed’ in the eucharist, as cardinal humbert put it in his
decisive statement of the Latins’ position which led to the schism.111 By contrast,
the Russian icons visualising christ’s deified human soul by the means of seraphic
wings on the Gnadenstuhl express an opposing, eastern concept of union with God.
The ultimate proof of this is Metropolitan Makary’s explanation of the wings, with
his quotation from niketas of herakleia which recalls the orthodox doctrine of
theosis, one of the main arguments of the Byzantines in the azyme controversy.

WesTeRn iconoGRaphic appRopRiaTions

as poLeMicaL QuoTaTions
The analysis above confirms without doubt that the Gnadenstuhl and christ’s
seraphic wings were borrowed by Russian painters from Western iconography.
Moreover, the combination of textual and iconographic evidence strongly suggests
that the pskov painters who chose to appropriate these Western iconographies were
doing so not passively but consciously: that they were aware, at least to some extent,
of the theological message of these images. The Gnadenstuhl and the crucified
seraph were both well-established emblematic images, long utilised in catholic
compassionate devotional spirituality—a spirituality rooted in the christocentric
eucharistic theology which was questioned by the orthodox in their polemics
against the Western christianity. This was the reason why the Gnadenstuhl and the
crucified seraph were chosen by the Russian painters. They adopted them not in
order to accept Western theology but, rather, to challenge and attack its affective
piety with the emphasis on christ’s human passions and death which, in orthodox
polemical literature, was associated with the use of unleavened bread in the
eucharist.
This is a remarkable phenomenon. usually, art historians interpret the
iconographic exchanges between the Latin West and the orthodox east within
the framework of a supposed mutual acceptance, despite the schism between the
two churches. What we see here, however, is a visual counterpart to written religious
polemic: this is visual polemic, a pictorial use of the rules of rhetoric. in order to
challenge an idea, the polemicist, that is, the painter, quotes his opponent: he takes
an iconographic element or motif from the representation he wants to challenge,
in order to make the target of the polemic recognisable. But he subtly alters this

344; see the entry by c. Barlondi in Cataloghi della
Galleria dell’accademia di Firenze: dipinti, ii, Il tardo
trecento, ed. M. Boskovits and d. parenti, Florence
2010, pp. 12–30 (ill. p. 131). c. Frugoni, Francesco e
l’invenzione delle stimmate, Turin 13, pp. 108–0,
111–12, gives a different explanation and interprets the
Gnadenstuhl as an image of the pre-eternal council of
the holy Trinity.
111. see above at n. 37.
 ÁGnes kRiZa 123

quotation, places it in a new, transformative context, and fills it with a new and
different message. an appropriate term to describe this phenomenon would be
polemical quotation: the orthodox painters quoted the Western pictorial elements,
but they also modified them and put them into a new, transformative context,
thus juxtaposing their own position and counterclaim.
The Western Gnadenstuhl and the crucified seraph appear in an altered way
on the Four-part icon (Fig. 6). The modifications introduced by the artist are
especially significant, as they reveal the real polemical intention of the represen-
tation. The Gnadenstuhl is surrounded by angels who wear orthodox episcopal
omophoria (liturgical vestments worn by bishops), signifying the new, orthodox
eucharistic message of the image.
The naturalism which is a feature of Western depictions of the crucifix,
highlighting the perfect human death of christ, is also abandoned by the Russian
painters. in this respect it is important to note that Viskovaty, in his letter opposing
the new kremlin icons, drew attention to a ‘naturalist’ crucifix on one of them,
which evidently followed Western prototypes. Judging from his description, the
icon in question was probably similar to a crucifixion one from pskov, painted in
1535, which represents christ’s slumped body on the cross, thus emphasising the
physical reality of his sufferings.112 To justify his objection, Viskovaty invoked the
authority of the Octoechos, a liturgical hymn-book:
it is written in the Octoechos …: ‘you stretched out your hands upon the cross and heeled
… the hands of the first created one [adam]…’. on the basis of this testimony i think that
the clenched hands [of christ on the icon] are a false invention, as this suggests that our
Lord Jesus christ did not cleanse us from the Fall of adam, supposing that he was only a
simple man.113

in his reply to this point, Makary, exceptionally, accepted the criticism. he ordered
that icons on which the crucified christ was depicted with clenched fists or floppy
hands should be modified and repainted:
Where christ is depicted with clenched or floppy hands on the cross, in these cases the
icon-painters painted them incorrectly: not according to the ancient Greek prototypes but
according to their foolishness; and we have ordered that these images should be repainted.114

112. Преображенский, ‘Западные мотивы и формы’

in n. 4), p. 10. Ludmila shchennikova [Л. a. Щенни­-
18–1, and see also pp. 7, 31; idem, ‘Mосковские’ (as

кова, as in nn. 1, 3] kindly informs me that restorers

(as in n. 1), p. 255, ill. 73; Bасильева (as in n. 4), pp.

(inv. ПkM №1417).

176, ill. 45. The icon is now in the Museum of pskov
113. ‘А во Wхтаике … писанъ. Длани на кртⷭѣ распростеръ,
исцѣлѧа … рѫкѫ първозданнаго. И азъ ѿ того свѣдѣ-
тельства помышлѧю, рѹкы зжаты мрⷣованїе сѫетное, иже
помышлѧють, яко не оцистилъ гдⷭь нш҃ь ҆ Іс҃ Хс҃ Адамова
грѣхопаденїа, мнѧхѫ его быти проста чл҃ка.’ Бодянский,
have not detected any sign of repainting on the Four-
part icon, therefore the icon alluded to by Viskovaty
and Makary, on which christ’s hands were clenched
or floppy instead of outstretched, could have been
another one. possibly Viskovaty was referring to one of
the two lost icons representing the orthodox creed

Four-part icon (see Бодянский, ‘pозыск’, p. 31; for

‘pозыск’ (as in n. 8), p. 7, and see also pp. 18–1, 31; which were painted at around the same time as the
idem, ‘Mосковские’ (as in n. 4), p. 10.
114. ‘А гдѣ написанъ Хв҃ъ о῎браз на кртⷭѣ рѫкы зжаты, а
cарабьянов, ‘cимволико-аллегорические иконы’, as
the creed icons in the annunciation cathedral see
индѣ ѡслаблены, и то иконники написали негораздо, не по
древниⷨ ѡбразцоⷨ гречески,ⷨ ѿ своего неразѫмїя, и мы тѣ ѡбразы
велѣли переписати.’ Бодянский, ‘pозыск’ (as in n. 8), pp.
in n. 2, pp. 180–81).
124 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

The transformative context of the Russian winged Gnadenstuhl is the Four-

part icon itself. The narrative of the icon begins with the monumental scene of
the pre-eternal council of the holy Trinity about creation and the Fall and
Redemption of man (Fig. 2). according to its inscription, this first part visualises
the sabbath, the seventh day of creation when God rested from all his work and
‘blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it’ (Genesis 2.2–3). in christian exegesis,
the creator’s rest is a foreshadowing of holy saturday, when the son of God
rested from his redemptory work ‘suffering death in accordance with the plan
of salvation’.115 in order to make explicit the link between the two sabbaths, the
Four-part icon uses the iconography of the ‘sleepless eyes’ or anapeson, at that
time an unfamiliar and rare anti-Latin image in Russia, as a central element of the
composition.116 in this regard, it is worth noting that the earliest extant Russian
anapeson mural, in the kremlin annunciation cathedral, is contemporary with
the Four-part icon, having been executed shortly after the 1547 fire.117 The icon,
however, transforms and expands the anapeson by adding several scenes which
unfold the hidden Trinitarian, soteriological and eucharistic symbolism of this
allegorical representation. The reclining figure is not the young immanuel, as usual
in the Byzantine prototypes (cf. Figs 16–17, 18b), but the white-headed ancient
of days of the book of daniel, who blesses the Mother of God with immanuel on
her bosom (Fig. 2, upper register, centre). This blessing represents the decision
that the son of God will become incarnate to redeem fallen mankind. The Fall,
which was foreseen by the Trinity, is referred to again on the lower register of the
composition.
according to Makary’s explanation, the Gnadenstuhl of the Four-part icon
‘predicts that christ our God will be crucified in his body’. 118 christ’s body is
overlapped by wings visualising his human soul, just like the crucified seraph on the
late fifteenth-century pskov iconography for ‘you are a priest forever’ (Figs 1–20).
some of the clear links between the two iconographies have already been demon-
strated above,11 but the differences are also instructive. an obvious common

115. citation from the sticheron doxologikon for holy well-known iconographic type in Russia in the second

B. Д. cарабьянов, ‘pосписи середины XVi века в

saturday (‘Moses the Great mystically prefigured this half of the 16th century. see kлевцова (as in n. 76);

трапезной церкви Пафнутиева Боровского монастыря’,

present day’, cf. lenten triodion, as in n. 78, pp. 652–

in Царский храм: Благовещенский собор Mосковского

53), which is often quoted by scholars in connection

Щенникова (as in n. 3); Felmy (as in n. 3), p. 110; Kремля в истории русской культуры, ed. a. k.
with the ‘God rested on the seventh day’ composition.

Подобедова (as in n. 7), pp. 47–48. Левыкин, Moscow 2008, pp. 116–43 (11–20, with

117. kлевцова (as in n. 76), p. 15; И. Я. kачалова,

116. up until the mid-16th century there is only a further bibliography).

h. a. Mаясова and Л. a. Щенникова, Благовещенский

single surviving example of the anapeson from Russia,

собор Mосковского Kремля, Moscow 10, p. 24.

the embroidered image on the so-called Major sakkos
of Metropolitan photios from the first half of the 15th
century (Moscow, kremlin armory), which, however, Regrettably, no photography of the ‘sleepless eyes’

a. Барков, ‘Большой саккос митрополита Фотия. k

is a Byzantine work (for a historiographical outline see
атрибуции и прочтению композиционного замысла’,
in Mосковский Kремль XV столетия, 2 vols, ed. c.
a. Беляев and И. a. Bоротникова, i, Moscow 2011,
pp. 35–7 [35–63]; the volume contains further
publications on this object). The anapeson became a
fresco has yet been published.
118. ‘Сїе проѡбразуеⷮ, ꙗко плотїю распѧтсѧ и пострада Хс҃
бъ҃ нш҃ь.’ Бодянский, ‘pозыск’ (as in n. 8), pp. 21, 35;
idem, ‘Mосковские’ (as in n. 4), p. 13.
11. see above at nn. 84–0. These links confirm
again that Makary was familiar with the ‘you are priest
forever’ iconography.
 ÁGnes kRiZa 125

element is the warrior figure seated on the cross. on the Four-part icon, however,
the warrior figure is separated from the winged crucifix and, instead, transposed to
the apocalyptic scene of the last part (Fig. 5). The pskovian seraphic crucifix also
appears in a reformulated form on the kremlin icon: here, not the seraph but
christ is crucified; and the idiosyncratic vertical composition has been replaced by
the Gnadenstuhl. in this part of the composition, christ’s body is covered not by
six but only by two wings, which are formally close to the contemporary Western
imagery of the crucified seraph (Fig. 21).120 The two wings on the Gnadenstuhl
symbolise the human soul, which is depicted again just below, as a wingless naked
child in an orb in the animation scene (Fig. 7). From the creator (represented as
an angel), adam receives the very soul which christ assumed in the creation and
which, in the scene above, is visualised as two wings enfolding him at the cruci-
fixion. The Fall of man itself is not depicted on the icon. it is replaced by an angel
holding the tools of the passion in his hands, borrowed from the iconography of
the anapeson.121 adam is looking at the angel, the messenger of the passion, as a
clear reference to the Fall and to its remedy, the passion of christ. The fallen world
is divided from paradise by a river, within the confines of which are represented
scenes from the lives of adam and eve: the murder of abel by cain and the
lamentation over abel’s corpse.
The Four-part icon is full of visual references and internal cross-references
between its different scenes, which create a complex, multi-layered system of
theological messages. especially remarkable is the diagonal parallelism between
the creation, depicted in the upper left part of the icon, and the passion and
Resurrection, in the lower right part (Fig. 1). The lamentation of abel contrasts
with the Lamentation of christ; the scene of the creator with adam and eve
reflects the image of christ with the righteous thief in paradise in the middle-
left scene; and the parallel for the monumental composition of the pre-eternal
Trinitarian council is the synthronoi which, moreover, is the first surviving Russian
example of this anthropomorphic image of the Father and the son sitting on a
shared throne. The function of this parallelism is not only to show the fulfilment
of the pre-eternal decision of the holy Trinity, but also to highlight the eucharistic
aspect of christ’s passion. The pskov icon-painters preferred to adopt the Balkan
visualisation of the paschal troparion ‘in the grave bodily’ (Fig. 15a-d), with its
polemical soteriological message, instead of a simple historical depiction of the
passion. Thus, the function of the Gnadenstuhl is to establish an anti-Latin
eucharistic interpretative theme in the first narrative scene of the icon, which runs
through all the four parts.122

120. see above, n. 5. in the Western examples the
seraph evidently has six wings, of which only the lower
pair of wings was adopted by the Russian icon-
painters.
121. For this iconography see above, n. 76.
122. it is this anti-Latin message which facilitated
the dissemination of the kremlin Gnadenstuhl not
only in Russian church decoration (sviyazhsk), but
also in that of the Balkans in the 17th century
(krušedol, serbia; arbanasi, Bulgaria), and led to
its popularity in icon-painting of the Russian old
Believers. kуюмджиева, ‘aрбанаси’ (as in n. 7); M.
Tимотијевић, Mанастир Kрушедол, 2 vols, Belgrade
2008, i, pp. 254–56.
126 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

The main anti-catholic message of the icon is best summarised by a passage

from a popular eleventh-century medieval Russian polemical text, which distin-
guishes pointedly between the contrasting practices of the Latin and orthodox
churches, stating that
[the Latins] officiate with the dead body, thinking the Lord dead, but we officiate with the
living body of the Lord, seeing him seated on the right of the Father.123

The idea of the inseparability of the two natures of christ is visualised on the Four-
part icon by the structure of the parts, all of which are divided into heavenly upper
and earthly lower segments; this is also, as we have seen, a frequent layout of
Prothesis decorations.124 depicting the creation, incarnation, passion and second
coming, the designers of the Four-part icon adopted the new, innovative christo-
logical and Trinitarian iconographies from Balkan churches in the upper halves of
each quarter, in order to emphasise that the divine Life never left christ, even in
his death.
The inscription of the second coming part is ‘only begotten son and Word
of God, who are immortal, without beginning, and who are the consubstantial
son of the Father’ (upper right, Fig. 5).125 accordingly, the terrestrial section
emphasises that the one who died on the cross and lay in the tomb is the immortal
and consubstantial person of the holy Trinity, the only Begotten son of God
and the creator of the world who, gaining victory over death, will come again in
glory to judge the world. christ is represented as the akra tapeinosis in the tomb,
lamented by his Mother, over an unusual depiction of hell with the christ-warrior
seated on the cross and death riding a long-fanged beast. over the akra tapeinosis
appears the glorified christ in golden vestments, in the garment of light, elevating
the deified human body to the right of the Father, in order to return again to judge
the people, both the orthodox and the heretics. ‘he sharpens his wrath against
his opponents’, against satan, and against the heretics who teach falsehoods about
God, explains Makary.126 his interpretation recalls the ideas of the prominent
theologian Joseph of Volokolamsk († 1515):
although he, who is immortal, died according to the flesh and his divine soul departed
from his most pure body, his deity remained inseparable from the flesh; as he is the almighty

123. ‘А мертвымъ теломь служатъ, аки мертва господа
мнꙗще, а мы службу творимъ живымъ теломь самого господа
видꙗ, одесную wтца сѣдꙗщаго.’ For an edition of an
early redaction of this text see Бармин (as in n. 26),
pp. 507–13 (50); for the problems of dating and attri-
bution of the text see pp. 222–35.
124. see Fig. 14a, and the references above at nn.
6–73.
125. ‘Единородныи с(ы)нъ [сло]во б(о)жїe беⷥсм(е)ртеⷩ сыꙵ и
беⷥначалеⷩ сыꙵ і пр(и) ⷭносущеⷩ сыꙵ с(ы)нъ о(т)ц[у].’ i am
indebted to Ludmila schennikova [Л. a. Щенникова,
as in nn. 1, 3], who provided this reading of the
inscription made by Tatyana kruglova. see also Felmy
(as in n. 3), p. 105. as Felmy rightly points out, later
replicas of this part of the Four-part icon sometimes
inscribe the second antiphon of the divine Liturgy
(‘only Begotten son and immortal Word of God
who for our salvation…’; ‘Единородныи сыне и слове божии
безсмертен сыи и изволивыи спасения…’). as a result,
scholars have associated this part of the icon with this
antiphon. The original icon’s inscription, however,
does not support this claim.
126. ‘Поѡстрить гнѣвъ на противныѧ [Wisdom 5.20],
противникъ же еⷭ дїаволъ, и его бѣсове, и чл҃вцы еретицы,
иже неправѣ о бꙅ҃ѣ мрⷣъствѫющеи.’ Бодянский, ‘pозыск’ (as
in n. 8), pp. 1, 22, 36; idem, ‘Mосковские’ (as in n.
4), p. 14. The same interpretation appears in the text
entitled ‘on the image of the Lord sabaoth’ and ‘on
the image of adam’, commenting on the icon ‘you are
priest forever’; for that text see above at n. 1, no. 3).
 ÁGnes kRiZa 127

God both with the Father on the throne and with the body in the tomb. and he descended
into hell with the soul and preached to all the souls in hell the path leading to eternal life.
and those who believed in the Father and the son and the holy spirit brought with him and
those who did not believe he left in hell. and he did the same on earth, redeeming the
believers and punishing the non-believers … and he was elevated and seated on the right of
the Father with the deified body … . and he will return again in glory to judge the living and
the dead.127

The designers of the icon, in composing this monumental, anti-Latin visual

treatise, did not neglect another focal point of orthodox anti-Latin polemics: the
Filioque. as we have seen, some early representations of the Gnadenstuhl (similarly
to most of the Western synthronoi images) visualised the Western position in this
debate, highlighting the double procession of the holy spirit from both the son
and the Father. conversely, the incarnation part of the Four-part icon (lower
left, Fig. 3), which illustrates a liturgical hymn (‘come, o peoples, let us venerate
the tri-hypostatic deity’), visualises the orthodox Trinitarian teaching. The doxa-
stikon hymn for the pentecost Vespers, a very concise summary of the orthodox
Trinitarian doctrine ascribed by the tradition to the Byzantine emperor Leo Vi the
Wise (886–12), explicitly repeats this controversial passage of the creed, pointedly
evoking the ‘holy immortal, the comforting spirit, proceeding from the Father
and resting in the son’.128 similarly, orthodox teaching about the holy spirit,
which proceeds only from the Father and not from the Father ‘and the son’ (Filio-
que), as the Western nicene creed confesses, is visualised in a very striking way on
the Four-part icon: three clear straight lines indicate the direction of the procession
of the holy spirit, represented as a dove in a circle in the middle of each of the
lines (sadly damaged, therefore the doves are today hardly visible).12 The starting
point of the procession is the bosom of the enthroned God the Father in heaven,
from whom the dove of the holy spirit descends upon the second person of the
Trinity three times: the spirit ‘comes upon’ and ‘overshadows’ the theotokos in
the annunciation (Luke 1.35), who gives birth to ‘the child of the holy spirit’ in
the nativity (Matthew 1.18) and, finally, the ‘holy spirit descends in bodily form
like a dove’ upon christ in the Baptism (Luke 3.22).
The first words of the liturgical hymn ‘come, o peoples …’ are visualised in the
under-segment of the incarnation part (Fig. 3). it shows an ideal image of ortho-
dox christian society venerating the ‘tri-hypostatic deity’, the three consubstantial
127. ‘Аще убо и умре, бесмрътный, плотию, и божественей движения на Pуси XIV – начала XVI в, Moscow etc.
его души от пречистаго его тела отступльши, но божество 155, p. 348.
неразлучно бе от плоти: сам бо сый всемощный бог с отцемь на 128. ‘Приидите людие, триипостасному Божеству покло-
престоле, и с телом в гробе, и с душею в ад съшед и проповеда нимся … Святый Безсмертный, Утешительный Душе, от Отца
душам, сущим в аде всем, путь ведущий к вечней жизни, и исходяй и в Сыне почиваяй …’. For the sticheron idiomelon
веровавших в отца и сына и святаго духа възведе с собою, а doxastikon in mode 4 plagal for the Vespers of pente-
не веровавших остави в аде, яко же сътвори на земли, веро- cost see d. stefanović, ‘The Trisagion in some Byzan-
вавших спасе, а неверовавших осуди … плотию нетленною уже tine and slavonic stichera’, in the study of Medieval
и обоженною по въскресении, и на небеса възнесся с плотию, и Chant: Paths and Bridges, east and West, ed. k. Levy
одесную отца седе с плотию обоженною... И паки приидет с and p. Jeffery, Woodbridge 2001, pp. 303–12 (304); J.
славою, судити живым и мертвым.’ Joseph of Volokolamsk,
Просветитель, 7 (Послание иконописцу, 2). h. a.
Meyendorff, Byzantine theology: historical trends and

kазакова, Я. c. Лурье, aнтифеодальные еретические 12. For a description see Щенникова (as in n. 3).
doctrinal themes, new york 183, pp. 184–85.
128 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

persons (hypostases) of the Trinity.130 The peoples are headed by their spiritual
and secular leaders, the Metropolitan and the Tsar; in the youthful figure of the
latter the new Tsar ivan iV is recognisable. Their prostration expresses not only
their prayer, but also the confession of the true orthodox faith in the Trinity and
its defence against heretical teachings—such the Western Filioque. The Russian
Tsar is represented here as the heir to the orthodox Byzantine emperors, as a
Russian Leo the Wise, as if making a promise that he will never ‘turn the Greek
orthodox faith into a Latin one’ and so will maintain the empire: for two Romes
have already fallen because of the heresies, but the third one, the orthodox
Moscow stands, ‘and a fourth will not be’.131

concLusions
in this paper i have investigated a Western appropriation in the Four-part icon,
the winged Gnadenstuhl. i have argued that the aim of the iconographic adoption
was not to introduce Western ideas to Russia, but, conversely, to challenge them.
The winged Gnadenstuhl functions as the key element of the anti-Latin visual
polemics of the Four-part icon: its first purpose was to make the target of its visual
polemics recognisable. That target was Western christocentric eucharistic theology,
attacked by orthodox theologicans since the eleventh century, in their polemics
against the use of unleavened eucharistic bread. Therefore, this paper has high-
lighted the significance of the azyme controversy, in terms of both theology and
art and from both Western and eastern perspectives.
The Western iconographies of the Gnadenstuhl and the winged seraph were
adopted by the pskov artists as what i have termed polemical quotations. The docu-
ments of the Viskovaty affair provide valuable information on the way in which the
visual polemical quotation of the Four-part icon was perceived by contemporary
viewers: the Western origin of the winged Gnadenstuhl was recognised by Viskovaty,
who, having discussed this detail with his Western acquaintances, explicitly called
it Latin heresy. Makary’s response and commentary shows that the object of the
visual polemics did not require a deeper knowledge of the quotation’s original
context, as it gained a new authentic meaning or subtext within the newly acquired
transformative context.
The precise sources of the directly borrowed Western iconographies are mostly
uncertain, but due to their location close to the western boundary of Russia, the
pskovian artists may have had opportunities to see examples first either hand or on
Western prints. nevertheless, the Gnadenstuhl and the winged seraph are not the
only borrowed elements in the multi-referential Four-part icon. The synthronoi
may perhaps be thought of as indirect appropriation of a polemical quotation from
Western art, as it arrived through the intermediary of the Balkans ‘in the grave

130. a. c. Преображенский, ‘Tрадиции ктиторской четвертому не быти.’ Quotations from Monk Filofei’s
иконографии в убранстве Благовещенского собора’, in
Царский храм (as in n. 116), pp. 43–66 (53–5).
‘Letter against astrologers’ (for which see above, n.
2) from cиницына (as in n. 28), pp. 342, 345.
131. ‘Они [the Greeks] предаша православную греческую
вѣру в латынство… Два убо Рима падоша, а третии стоит, а
 ÁGnes kRiZa 12

bodily’ iconography. This indirect borrowing of a Western element from an ortho-

dox iconography suggests that the phenomenon of visual polemical quotation was
not a new one, developed as a specifically Russian tool for emphasising distinctions
between the theologies of the Western and eastern churches, but has a longer
history. To explore that question would require further analysis.
Viskovaty’s argument against the Russian Gnadenstuhl had two strands: he
argued that it contradicted the christological doctrine of orthodox icon theology
and that it was incomprehensible.132 The very limited subsequent proliferation
of this novel iconography, which might be considered as its failure, appears to bear
out the latter of these two accusations. By contrast, the synthronoi, the other
Trinitarian image innovatively adapted to Russian orthodox purposes on the Four-
part icon, which was also challenged by Viskovaty, was disseminated quickly across
sixteenth-century Russia.133 one relevant factor is that the Four-part icon was
created exclusively for ivan iV and for the annunciation cathedral, the domestic
church of the Russian tsars, rather than for the wider public. yet even for some
of those who had the opportunity to see the icon—mostly educated people who
had direct and, often, manifold contacts with Western europe—the meaning of the
Russian Gnadenstuhl remained unclear, or at least Viskovaty so claimed.
The controversy over the late fifteenth-century ‘you are a priest forever’
iconography was apparently well-known to Makary, as reflected in his explanation
of christ’s wings. at the time of its invention and proliferation, the ‘you are a priest
forever’ imagery represented a new type of Russian allegorical icon-painting, which
was attacked fiercely by contemporaries, primarily because of its obscurity.134 By
criticising the Four-part icon for its incomprehensibility, Viskovaty undoubtedly
wished to revitalise and heat up that previous debate. it was the icon’s complicated
symbolical content, rendered still more abstruse by alien Western borrowings,
which made it hardly comprehensible to an uninitiated audience. The Gnaden-
stuhl of the Four-part icon, therefore, as its most subversive Western borrowing,
must be considered as a special, disputed and—for that very reason—historically
documented case of polemical quotation.
My investigation has also revealed that the creation of the new iconographies
based on Western borrowings, the anti-Latin polemics, and the formulation of
contemporary political ideas about Russia’s identity in relation to the Latin West,
were intimately intertwined. it cannot be accidental that the addressee of Filofei’s
letter containing the theory of Moscow as the ‘third Rome’ and of the letter with
the commentary on the ‘you are a priest forever’ iconography was the same person,
Mikhail Misiur Munekhin, an influential Russian politician. This intertwining of

132. see Бодянский, ‘pозыск’ (as in n. 8), p. 35, for
Viskovaty on the incomprehensibility of the Russian
Gnadenstuhl.
133. in this case Viskovaty’s challenge seems to
have been made less directly than for the Gnadenstuhl,
n. 8), p. 25, 34, 36. The synthronoi was represented
not only on the Four-part icon but also as part of
other compositions, e.g., icons representing either the
creed or the Last Judgement. cарабьянов (as in n. 2),
pp. 175–81.

listed among the criticised subjects; see Бодянский,

since the ‘in the grave bodily’ composition was simply 134. For the debates over the ‘you are a priest
forever’ iconography see above at n. 87.
‘Mосковские’ (as in n. 4), p. 20; idem, ‘pозыск’ (as in
130 The Russian Gnadenstuhl

art, religious polemics and power should not surprise us: the new orthodox empire
necessarily had to define itself in relation to the old one. The fallen Byzantium, the
‘second Rome’, had considered the defence of the true faith, not the least against
the ‘first Rome’, as the foundation of its own legitimacy. This is the reason why
the political theory of Moscow as the ‘third Rome’ appeared in the context of
anti-Latin polemics; and this is why the iconographic innovations were related to
the same theological controversy. When placed together, all these factors give a
comprehensive explanation of Metropolitan Makary’s position in the Viskovaty
affair, explaining why he defended a Western Trinitarian image on the icon of the
kremlin cathedral, painted immediately after the coronation of the first Russian
Tsar, on account of its anti-Latin message.
This article began with the observation that, until the mid-sixteenth century,
there were very few Western iconographic borrowings in Russian art. in the paint-
ing of Makary’s era, however, the situation changed and an increasing number of
‘Latin’ visual elements appeared.135 The case of the Russian Gnadenstuhl shows
that this practice was not necessarily driven by the artists’ recognition of the
cultural superiority of the West, nor by acceptance and collaboration, nor by
passive ignorance, since quite opposite impellents were in play: the cross-cultural
appropriations served also as tools of communication between the opposing and
polemicising christian cultures.

University of Cambridge, Newnham College

135. For the Western iconographic appropriations formula of the crucified christ who is covered by
in 16th-century Russian painting and for methodo- the figure of christ the high priest, so that only
logical problems of their investigation see the refer- christ’s nailed arms are visible. The crucifix covered

pp. 242–43, and Преображенский, pp. 252–60. From

ences given above at n. 1, most importantly, cмирнова, by another divine person is a unique Western visual

toruń Quinity. П. B. Mаиер, ‘Западноевропейские

element which appears also on the 14th-century polish

источники и семантика иконографического типа

the perspective of the present article, a detail on the

“Bеликий aрхиерей с pаспятием”’, in actual Problems

icon Mother of God ‘the unburnt Bush’ from the 1560s
(Ferapontovo, Museum of the Frescos of dionisy) is
especially interesting as it shows an innovative version
of the iconography ‘you are a priest forever’. here
the controversial crucified seraph is replaced by the
of theory and history of art, vi, ed. s. V. Maltseva
and a. V. Zakharova, st petersburg 2016, pp. 267–78,
ills 76–77.