Катсон Н.Л. «Симфония священства и царства». Неовизантийская алтарная преграда в духовной культуре Российской Империи¹⁸⁹¹*

Византийское наследие сыграло особую роль в русской культуре XIX – начала XX в., став важным стилеобразующим импульсом художественного пространства эпохи. Основные ценностные категории XIX столетия, связанные с напряженными поисками основ национальной самобытности, идентичности и осмысления опыта всей отечественной культуры в духе православной традиции, в архитектуре ассоциировались с «русским стилем», при этом эпоха эклектики позволяла легко проиллюстрировать определенные идеи путем сочетания разных стилей, адекватно отражая многообразную и противоречивую духовную жизнь века.¹⁸⁹²

К середине столетия ясно осознается кризис государственной системы и церковного сознания, и в связи с этим русские религиозные мыслители, представители славянофильского движения обращаются к традиции в поисках ответа на самые сложные вопросы жизни¹⁸⁹³. Новая культурная парадигма обретает форму в церковном строительстве, которое со второй четверти XIX в. становится, по общему мнению, доминирующим видом архитектуры, наглядно утверждая: в основе российского устройства лежит богоустановленность самодержавия и своеобразие религиозного сознания¹⁸⁹⁴. Противоречия между рациональной эстетикой классицизма и образно-символической природой христианского храма стали очевидными. Неовизантийский стиль и переосмысление форм русского зодчества XVI-XVII столетий возникают как национальная альтернатива классицизму в строительстве и убранстве православных храмов. Это явление Можно рассматривать в качестве репрезентации метода продвижения, сходного c translatio exemplaris, воспроизведением символически-значимого образца в культуре средневековья.

До сих пор не существует исследований, посвященных целостному раскрытию феномена неовизантинизма в церковном искусстве России второй половины XIX – начала XX в., важнейшей особенностью которого стал редкий опыт сотворчества ученых-византинистов и архитекторов. Этот эксперимент приобретает новую актуальность и практическую ценность сегодня. Ниже мы рассмотрим формы и иконографию неовизантийских алтарных преград в модусе реализации научного знания, вызванного к жизни насущными потребностями русского общества, духовные основы этого явления. При таком подходе появляется возможность описать взаимодействие иконостаса¹⁸⁹⁵ с декорацией храма как попытку восстановить утраченное за предыдущие два столетия единство архитектурных форм и литургического содержания.

Доминанта общественного сознания XIX столетия – национальная идея – вызвала углубление и расширение научного знания о прошлом отечества в получивших мировое признание трудах Ф.И. Буслаева, Е.Е. Голубинского, И.Д. Мансветова, А.А. Дмитриевского, Н.П. Кондакова, Н.В. Покровского. Совпадение государственных и духовных истоков питало развитие русской византинистики, успехи которой позволяли, в свою очередь, уточнить историческую миссию России, ее национальные задачи: «...в изучении Византии заключаются насущные потребности русской науки и нравственный долг русского народа»¹⁸⁹⁶. Созданное при этом культурное пространство охватывало прошлое и настоящее России, в органической и генетической преемственности по отношению к Византии открывалась возможность корректировки будущего. Сравнительные исследования и публикация византийских и древнерусских памятников – литературных, литургических, зодчества, иконописи – выявили особенности национальной политической теории, церковной истории, богослужения, храмового зодчества.¹⁸⁹⁷ Параллельно с изучением конкретных памятников были предприняты попытки их реставрации, и совершенно особым явлением стало участие ученых в декорации существующих храмов и строительстве новых на основе композиционных особенностей и образного решения византийских и древнерусских храмов, их иконографии и декоративного убранства.

Тенденции живого и творческого осмысления наследия в области церковного зодчества вполне проявились в таких соборах, как посвященные св. Владимиру в Киеве и Херсонесском монастыре (близ Севастополя), церкви Преображения в Баден-Бадене, во имя Александра Невского в Тифлисе, Ревеле и Варшаве, храмах Воскресения Христова (Спаса на Крови). Спаса на Водах, комплексе Федоровского городка в Петербурге и многих других, большей частью уничтоженных в недавнем прошлом. Концептуально важным для декорации этих новых храмов стало устройство в них иконостасов по образцу византийских, как они понимались наукой того времени¹⁸⁹⁸. Древние алтарные преграды в Константинополе, Риме, Иерусалиме, монастырях Афона, в Грузии, известные по литературным источникам и сохранившиеся, стали предметом тщательного изучения¹⁸⁹⁹. Знаменательными для русских зодчих были выводы о позднем происхождении русского высокого иконостаса и о первоначально открытом для взора алтаре с невысокой, в основном мраморной, преградой.¹⁹⁰⁰

Обращаясь к устройству иконостасов в большинстве храмов второй половины ХІХ в., следует отметить, что они представляют собой мраморные преграды, например, в храмах Сионском в Тифлисе, Свято-Владимирском в Киеве, Воскресения Христова (Спаса на Крови), Спаса на Водах в Петербурге. Их структура повторяет композиционные особенности древних алтарных преград, включая такие элементы, как стилобат, столбики, космитис (архитрав), восходящие к византийскому искусству. Эта структура почти буквально следует мнению И.И. Горностаева, высказанному еще в 1861 г., которое ввиду его программности приводим полностью: «...жалко то, что ни в одной из вновь строящихся в России церквей не сделано попытки соединить эстетические достоинства высоких иконостасов с археологической верностью и тщательно выдержанным сходством с древними иконостасами. Кроме того, на юге России и в столицах подобная попытка была бы еще возможнее и более кстати. Мраморный иконостас с довольно высоким стилобатом, убранным мраморными плитами, по которым шел бы обыкновенный византийский или древнехристианский орнамент из ромбов с крестами и розетками, и с невысокими царскими вратами был бы оригинален и интересен. В наше время мы уже не требуем в иконостасах криволинейных и ломаных форм XVIII века, и простые формы древних иконостасов не показались бы ни сухими, ни скучными»¹⁹⁰¹.

Степень и уровень сотворчества ученых и храмоздателей были весьма разносторонними – от обновления древнего храма до составления проекта программы росписи для только проектируемого¹⁹⁰², от общего руководства художественной декорацией до прямого участия в ее исполнении. Отмеченные особенности древних преград в 1853–1854 гг. воспроизведены были кн. Г.Г. Гагариным в древнем, основанном еще в V в., Сионском кафедрале в Тифлисе. За образец Гагарин взял найденную им алтарную преграду древней Шуамтинской церкви VIII в.¹⁹⁰³, он же расписал в 1882–1883 гг. церковь Преображения в Баден-Бадене (арх. И.В. Штром, 1881–1882 гг.), и по его же рисунку скульптор Городжи создал мраморный иконостас для нее. По проекту А.В. Прахова был создан мраморный иконостас в древней Кирилловской церкви в Киеве, иконы для которого были написаны М.А. Врубелем. Андриан Викторович Прахов также был художественным руководителем работ по внутреннему убранству Свято-Владимирского собора в Киеве (арх. А.В. Беретти, 1859–1896 гг.) и мраморных алтарных преград в нем, в их интерколумниях помещались иконы, исполненные по картонам М.В. Нестерова. Николай Васильевич Покровский составил программу росписей для храма Св. Александра Невского в Варшаве (арх. Л.Н. Бенуа, 1906–1911 гг.), уничтоженного при режиме Ю. Пилсудского. Н.В. Покровский, П.В. Чистяков и В.И. Успенский были экспертами по археологии и иконографии в храме Воскресения Христова (Спаса на Крови) в Петербурге (архим. Игнатий Малышев, арх. А.А. Парланд, 1883–1907 гг.), а мотивы преград афонских монастырей Хиландара и Ватопеда, описанные П.В. Севастьяновым, опубликованные Н.П. Кондаковым в последнем десятилетии XIX столетия, работы пенсионеров Академии художеств в Сицилии, рисунки древнерусских памятников, выполненных В.В. Сусловым¹⁹⁰⁴ и изданные Императорской Академией Художеств, могли быть почвой для создания мраморных алтарных преград этих памятников. Аналогичными были иконостасы в соборе во имя Св. Александра Невского в Тифлисе, росписи которого были исполнены в византийском стиле и алтарь, по образцу византийских церквей, как считали современники, был почти наполовину открыт, а также многие другие.

Указанная тенденция устройства мраморных алтарных преград¹⁹⁰⁵ охватывает самые различные типы храмов, как имеющие общегосударственное значение – Свято-Владимирский в Киеве, Воскресения Христова в Петербурге, так и приходские – Богоматери Милующей в Галерной гавани, монастырские – Успения, подворья Киево-Печерской Успенской лавры и домовые – церковь Воскресения Христова семьи Апраксиных, украшенная мозаикой церковь Во имя Божьей Матери Всех Скорбящих Радосте при Ксенинском институте благородных девиц в Петербурге. Знаменитый храм Спаса на Водах (арх. М.М. Перетяткович, 1910–1911 гг.) можно считать уникальным опытом совместного творчества строителей русских храмов и ученых-исследователей византийского и древнерусского искусства. История возведения этого храма, изложенная его строителем инженером С.Н. Смирновым, не только точно описывает сам памятник, но и с документальной достоверностью фиксирует научные штудии Строительной комиссии, которая, по высочайшему желанию, специально изучила с поразительной скрупулезностью и вниманием владимиро-суздальские памятники XII в. и, в первую очередь, церковь Покрова на Нерли, Успенский и Дмитриевский соборы во Владимире, начиная от плана, технико-технологических особенностей, и кончая церковной утварью и иконографией церковного креста. Изучив всю литературу вопроса, а также археологически обследовав памятники на местах, комиссия воплотила все достижения отечественной науки в практике строительства и украшения этого храма, к несчастью, уничтоженного. В итоге тщательного рассмотрения проблемы происхождения иконостаса и учитывая сведения о древних деревянных и каменных алтарных преградах, в верхнем храме был устроен «беломраморный иконостас в виде колонок с темплоном на них, между колонками сплошная преграда с орнаментами, поверх ее иконы...» Представление о ней, по мнению автора сочинения С.Н. Смирнова, могла бы дать преграда церкви Св. Луки в Фокиде¹⁹⁰⁶.

Таким образом, мы видим, что преобладает тенденция к устройству невысоких алтарных преград, сходство которых с византийскими образцами было для авторов принципиальным. В связи с важностью проблемы иконостаса для возрождения литургического понимания декорации храма в целом целесообразно рассмотреть состав и количество изображений, а также специфику иконографии алтарных преград храмов второй половины XIX – начала XX в. На них в это время обычно помещаются образы Спаса, Богоматери, на многих – иконы храмового праздника, равноапостольных Марии Магдалины, Владимира и Ольги, Константина и Елены, местночтимых святых. Такая программа отражала возобладавшее мнение о том, что в древней алтарной преграде находились иконы Спасителя, Богоматери, апостолов и праздников¹⁹⁰⁷, становясь своего рода летописью ученых споров о начальном импульсе живописного убранства древних преград. Состав изображений варьировал в зависимости от программы росписей, целостности и символике которой в это время придавалось особое значение¹⁹⁰⁸. На этих принципах основана попытка согласования живописного убранства алтарной преграды с архитектурой интерьера и стенописью в тифлисском Сионском кафедрале, одном из самых ранних примеров возрождения целостной программы храмовой декорации, где в конхе были изображения Богоматери, Евхаристии и святителей, в куполе – Пантократор¹⁹⁰⁹. На алтарной преграде мозаичные иконы: справа – «Спас на престоле», «Иоанн Предтеча», слева – храмовая икона «Успение» и Святители Николай Мирликийский и Дмитрий, Митрополит Ростовский Чудотворец (один из пяти канонизированных святых в течение синодального периода до 1903 г.)¹⁹¹⁰. Иконы алтарной преграды Свято-Владимирского собора в Киеве также входят как смысловой и художественный компонент в общую храмовую программу. На центральной мраморной алтарной преграде находятся тронные образы Христа, Богородицы и святых Владимира и Ольги, Александра Невского и Марии Магдалины. Того же типа, но в сокращенной редакции, южные и северные алтарные преграды с предстоящими равноапостольными Константином и Еленой, просветителями Кириллом и Мефодием¹⁹¹¹. В храме Воскресения Христова (Спасе на Крови) на центральной алтарной преграде помещаются мозаики «Спас на престоле» и «Богоматерь с младенцем», в южном иконостасе – «Царица Александра» и «Св. Николай», в северном – изображения равноапостольных Владимира и Ольги¹⁹¹². В алтарной преграде церкви Преображения в Баден-Бадене находились лишь иконы Спаса и Богоматери. Этот ряд продолжали равноапостольные Владимир и Ольга, свв. Александр Невский и Сергий Радонежский, изображенные в своде арки над солеей, в то время как Деисус с ветхозаветными пророками был написан в конхе апсиды, в нижних регистрах которой помещались Евхаристия и чин фронтальных фигур святителей. При этом храмовый мозаичный образ Преображения Господня находился не на алтарной преграде, а снаружи, над главным входом. Несложно заметить, что повторяются иконы святых Владимира и Ольги, связанные с 900-летним юбилеем крещения Руси, торжественно отмеченным 15 июля 1887 г. Тысячелетняя годовщина кончины словенских учителей – просветителей Кирилла и Мефодия праздновалась 6 апреля 1885 г. – образы их помещаются в алтарной преграде во Владимирском соборе¹⁹¹³. Под покровительством святой равноапостольной Марии Магдалины Александр III и его семья чудесно избежали очередного покушения. Так, иконы Марии Магдалины становятся местночтимыми и появляются в местном ряду Свято-Владимирского собора в Киеве и в храме Спаса на Крови в Петербурге. Такая «историзация» алтарной преграды имеет, по нашему мнению, параллель с «историческим» истолкованием С.А. Усовым чинов преподобных в нижних регистрах алтарных росписей Успенских соборов Москвы и Владимира в связи с важнейшими событиями Московского государства¹⁹¹⁴. Таким образом, факты современной истории церковно переживаются, возрождая традиции живого Предания.

Определенным итогом возрождения византийской традиции оформления храмов этой поры стали воззрения Н.В. Покровского, автора наиболее полного к тому времени исследования «Стенные росписи в храмах греческих и русских», «Вся роспись должна выражать символическое воззрение на храм и его составные части. Удержав основные мысли исконного обычая, допустимо отступить от него в подробностях для более строгой последовательности»¹⁹¹⁵. При этом единству и цельности внутреннего содержания росписи способствует единый масштаб, выбор места для композиций в соответствии с сюжетом¹⁹¹⁶. Эти идеи были реализованы в росписи храма во имя св. Александра Невского в Варшаве. Алтарь этого храма с мозаиками В.М. Васнецова отделяла мраморная преграда, а весь ансамбль его, украшенный росписями В.В. Беляева и мозаиками фасадов, выполненными по эскизам Н.А. Кошелева, Н.А. Бруни и других, становился вместе со «Спасом на Водах» своеобразным иконописным подлинником¹⁹¹⁷. Научное и художественное сознание в церковной археологии и практике этого периода обнаруживает стремление к единству. Например, рецензируя известное сочинение Н.В. Покровского «Евангелие в памятниках иконографии, преимущественно византийских и русских», крупный археолог и литургист А.П. Голубцов, сетуя на то, что «современным иконописцам ввиду отсутствия церковью одобренных руководств остается лишь обращаться к изданиям и сочинениям русских церковных археологов», указывал на необходимость этого процесса для того, «чтобы воспользоваться художественным опытом предыдущих столетий и возродить иератический характер иконописи»¹⁹¹⁸. Хотя программа храмовой декорации рассматриваемых памятников только отчасти соответствовала тому материалу, который в это время уже имелся в связи с исследованиями алтарных фресок Софии Киевской, Успенских соборов Владимира, Москвы, Звенигорода, Ярославля, Ростова, ясно, однако, что оформители смотрели на иконостас как на кульминацию, как на место, где собирались главные темы изображений апсиды и прилегающих к ней зон. Визуальным свидетельством смысловой связи алтарной преграды и целостной программы церковного убранства стало помещение храмовых икон в экстерьере. Кроме отмеченной выше мозаики Преображения, храмовые иконы церквей Св. Александра Невского в Ревеле (арх. М.Т. Преображенский, 1892–1897 гг.) и Варшаве, Св. Николая в Либаве (арх. В.А. Косяков, 1900–1903 гг.) освящали фасады этих соборов. Примеры такого решения были многочисленными. Так, в церкви, заложенной 16 октября 1897 г. во имя равноапостольной Марии Магдалины в Дармштадте (арх. Л.Н. Бенуа), мозаики св. Марии Магдалины на западном фронтоне и Спаса на троне в центре апсиды символически выявляли алтарное пространство во внешнем облике храма. С максимальной полнотой важные темы преграды будут осмыслены позже в экстерьере собора Воскресения (Спаса на Крови). Характерные художественные средства: живопись на металле, мозаика, восковые краски, продиктованные очевидным стремлением к преодолению иллюзионизма академической манеры, также связывают декоративные ансамбли храмов с византийским идеалом. В поисках особой достоверности, свойственной византийской и русской иконе, В.М. Васнецов, в течение десятилетней работы в Киеве в Свято-Владимирском соборе, «истощал силы на постоянном изобретении», соединяя вдохновение с четкостью рисунка, «когда нужно из воображения, а то и из души выколупывать и прикреплять к стене то глаз, то нос, целую голову, руку, палец, кусок одежды»¹⁹¹⁹.

Иконография неовизантийских алтарных преград и связанных с ними образов фиксирует особенности духовной культуры эпохи. Императорская власть, будучи изначально формообразующим элементом византийской модели, оказалась чрезвычайно жизненной на всем протяжении существования ее в России. Тема «царства» нашла свое выражение в структурно схожих и семантически близких алтарных преградах Свято-Владимирского собора в Киеве, Воскресения Христова (Спаса на Крови), Спаса на Водах в Петербурге и др. В иконостасах постоянно изображаются тронные Христос и Богоматерь, святые, тезоименитые российским императорам и императрицам. «Царский» характер святых персонажей на алтарной преграде отражает важные религиозно-политические процессы в России на рубеже столетия. В новейшем исследовании, посвященном эволюции понимания царской власти в России, отмечено, что «титул царя, усваиваемый русскому великому князю в результате перенесения на него функций византийского василевса (царя), приобретает в России отчетливо выраженные религиозные коннотации, поскольку для традиционного культурного сознания это слово ассоциируется прежде всего с Христом. Сакрализация монарха распространялась на весь синодальный период и в течение всего этого времени вступала в конфликт с традиционным религиозным сознанием. Этот конфликт в принципе был неустраним, поскольку сакрализация монарха входила в самый механизм государственного и, в частности, синодального устройства»¹⁹²⁰. Данная коллизия понималась наукой и публицистикой своего времени как уникальное своеобразие российской государственной системы, а проблема царской власти в ее взаимоотношениях с властью церковной стала предметом заинтересованного изучения. Совместные усилия ученых разного профиля, светских и церковных историков, юристов и археологов освещали харизматическую природу царской власти на Руси и в Византии в связи с развитием чинов коронации¹⁹²¹; на страницах научных изданий обсуждались вопросы, ранее не осознанные как требующие ответа, – что есть самодержавие в исторической перспективе¹⁹²²; каково происхождение царского титула и каким было участие в богослужении в восточной церкви византийских василевсов и русских князей в Киеве, Новгороде, Владимире, московских государей¹⁹²³. Публикация древнерусских памятников царского венчания показала их сходство с византийскими¹⁹²⁴, а появление и развитие чина коронации на Руси объяснялось постоянным ростом и усилением царской власти, концепцией «Москва – третий Рим»¹⁹²⁵.

Научную полемику по этим жизненно важным для России вопросам представляли позиции известных отечественных ученых. Идея царской власти и централизации церкви, характеризующая византинизм, глубоко укорененная на русской почве¹⁹²⁶, обязывала государя по мере сил осуществлять на практике христианский идеал царя¹⁹²⁷. Однако патриарх, как считал видный историк церкви Н.Ф. Каптерев, оказался в полной зависимости от царской власти, возвышение же патриарха Никона есть царский каприз: «Алексей Михайлович 10 лет управлял церковью и мог отменить патриаршество, но по примеру древних благочестивейших греческих царей поставил Иосафа»¹⁹²⁸. В итоге церковная власть и в патриарший период находилась в подчинении у светской власти и с учреждением Св. Синода никаких существенных перемен не произошло¹⁹²⁹. Таким образом, уже в конце XV в. на Руси от «богоустановленности власти переходят уже к обоготворению ее»¹⁹³⁰. Формула церковно-политической теории старца Филофея «...московский царь – царь последнего и богоизбранного мирового царства» дословно вошла в состав уложенной грамоты 1589 г. об учреждении патриаршества в России¹⁹³¹. Следствием этой идеи явились такие особенности русского чина коронации, как миропомазание и причащение в алтаре по священническому чину¹⁹³²; при Петре I была коронована и миропомазана также императрица¹⁹³³. Эти новшества сразу отразились в иконографии: в иконостасе первого кафедрального собора Санкт-Петербурга – Св. Петра и Павла – по обе стороны царских врат появились иконы Спасителя и Богородицы в царских одеждах, лики которых имеют черты портретного сходства с Петром I и Екатериной І. Сравнению и анализу подверглись евангельские и апостольские чтения во время чина коронации. Х.М. Лопарев отмечал, что специфической чертой русского обряда венчания стали Апостол (Рим.13:1–7) и Евангелие (Мф.12:15–22), которые, по его мнению, преследовали «ту мысль, что при венчании на царство надобно было указать на повиновение подданных властям и на императорскую прерогативу». Характеризуя византийский чин коронования, ученый подчеркивал, что читались Апостол (Евр.12:28–13:6), Евангелие (Ин.10:1–16), т.е. « наставление императора, а не увещание подданных ему покоряться»¹⁹³⁴. Вручение акакии, которое должно было напоминать византийскому императору о бренности его власти¹⁹³⁵, заменило поклонение отеческим гробам в Архангельском соборе. Наконец, не остались без внимания изменения в богослужении, в первую очередь, в литургии. Публикация литургических рукописей¹⁹³⁶ показала, в частности, развитие почитания персоны царя на Руси, а из исследования чина проскомидии следовало, что поминовение императоров на четвертой и пятой просфорах является специфической чертой русского Устава¹⁹³⁷. Еще в 1856 г. святитель Филарет (Дроздов) составил особый «Чин причащения Святых Тайн благочестивейшего Богом венчанного и помазанного Государя-Императора»¹⁹³⁸. К этому времени русский служебник уже предписывал священнослужителям поминать поименно всех членов царской фамилии на ектеньях и на Великом входе.¹⁹³⁹ Это литургическое проявление «симфонии священства и царства», при котором византийский монарх, а после падения Константинополя – русский, получает особую харизму единственного заступника, молитвенника православной веры, засвидетельствованную еще в «Слове о законе и благодати» митрополита Иллариона¹⁹⁴⁰.

Научная мысль рассматриваемой эпохи вполне отдавала себе отчет в противоречии между христианским универсализмом, который понимался, исходя из византийской модели, как союз церкви и государства, и национальной идеей¹⁹⁴¹, концентрированно выраженной в культе русского царствующего дома. Стремление очистить византийскую идею царской власти от позднейших искажений можно считать важным побудительным мотивом указанных исследований. Так, по поводу различий в чтениях Апостола и Евангелия, Х.М. Лопарев отмечает: «...в древней Руси, жившей довольно сходною с Византией жизнью, византийские Апостол и Евангелие были необходимы, да и в новой России они могли быть далеко не излишними: и ныне и всегда не столько к Евреям ХІІ, 28, сколько Иоанн X, 1, должно раздаваться в Московском Успенском соборе во время коронационной литургии»¹⁹⁴². Как полный интереса и жизненности ставился вопрос о взаимных отношениях церкви и государства, который, будучи одной «из самых трудных проблем истории и жизни народов», остается еще неисчерпанным вопросом¹⁹⁴³. Расхождение между идеалом и его реализацией, отсутствие параллелизма между фактами и идеями стало выводом фундаментального исследования В.Е. Вальденбергом истории русских политических учений о пределах царской власти¹⁹⁴⁴, а П.Е. Верховский, завершая рассмотрение синодального периода Русской церкви, пришел к заключению, что Петр I подчинил церковь государству и «...созданный в духе полицейского государства Синод привел русскую церковную жизнь в относительный внешний порядок, очень сильно повлияв в то же время на быстрое и неуклонное охлаждение религиозной ревности и угасание искренности одушевления»¹⁹⁴⁵.

Обязательным лейтмотивом исторических исследований этого времени была надежда на сотрудничество Церкви и Государства в настоящем: «Начинающийся новый период Русской Церкви требует нового творчества в согласии с началами древнего Православия и в соответствии с условиями переживаемого исторического момента»¹⁹⁴⁶. Уклонение от византийской государственно-церковной системы автор фундаментальной «Истории русской церкви» Е.Е. Голубинский относил к эпохе Флорентийской унии, указывая, что уже московский великий князь Василий Дмитриевич, как доносил в Константинополь митрополит Киприан, «презирал и императора и патриарха»¹⁹⁴⁷, и, в свою очередь, греки больше с иронией называют Москву благочестивой. Видный историк считал, что факт повреждения чистоты православия у позднейших греков оставался бы для наших предков несомненным: не будь собора Флорентийского, не будь взятия Константинополя турками и печатания книг греками в латинских землях – они ссылались бы на что-нибудь другое¹⁹⁴⁸. Причины упадка церковного сознания ученый видит в том, что к середине XVI столетия в России сложился «особый тип Христианского благочестия – обряды и обычаи мы приравниваем к догматам веры»,¹⁹⁴⁹ которые простой народ мало или совсем не знает¹⁹⁵⁰. Этот модус русского религиозного сознания служил фоном для важнейших событий в жизни церкви и общества: «...за исправлением Никона последовала реформа Петра Великого, представляющая собою перенесение к нам с запада так сказать еретичества государственного и бытового»¹⁹⁵¹, что и придало крепость расколу и ослабило положение церкви, косвенным образом послужило причиной упадка церковного сознания. Н.Ф. Каптерев считал, что особенностью древнерусского уклада было то, что московские цари знали церковный устав часто не хуже архиерея, упадок же московской церковности произошел сверху, начиная с Петра I, итогом чего стала рознь между церковностью и интеллигенцией¹⁹⁵². Объективный научный анализ, предпринятый ведущими учеными Духовных академий, публикация святоотеческого наследия также были направлены на преодоление разрыва между церковью и культурой: «...творения святых отцов могут послужить руководством для сближения с Церковью умов современных эллинов», в то время как современные иудеи, «конечно, сочли бы византийские религиозные воззрения новшеством и своевольными умствованиями те светлые представления о церкви Божией, которые проповедовали вселенские Учителя IV и V века»¹⁹⁵³. Возрождение монашества в XIX в.. духовная связь его с лучшими представителями русской литературы укрепляла надежды на особое служение культуры¹⁹⁵⁴.

Эпоху в жизни церкви и общества составила церковно-политическая деятельность святителя Филарета. Выше уже было сказано об исправлении им чина коронации¹⁹⁵⁵, он первым отметил, что «со второй половины XVII столетия и в следующие потом времена воспоминание имен их [августейшей фамилии] в богослужении постепенно сделалось более прежнего полным и часто повторяемым»¹⁹⁵⁶; настаивая на возврате к более простому порядку древних богослужебных книг – «по древнему греческому свитку литургии возношение только „О благочестивейших и богохранимых царех наших»»¹⁹⁵⁷. В его письме обер-прокурору Синода А.П. Толстому подсчитано, что в продолжении суточного богослужения имена императорской семьи, достигшей 23 лиц, возносятся более 20 раз, в том числе 11 раз на литургии¹⁹⁵⁸, и добился сокращения этих возношений. Процессу сакрализации монарха противились и сами российские самодержцы. Еще при царе Федоре Алексеевиче эпитет «святой» исключается из чина венчания на царство, в 1680 г. запрещается сравнивать царя в челобитных с Богом. Существовавший в чине коронации обычай, по которому русские государи «причащали себя сами из чаши» (по священническому чину), император Александр Павлович изменил и пожелал причаститься как мирянин, т.е. в царских вратах и со лжицы. Его примеру последовали Николай Павлович и Александр Освободитель¹⁹⁵⁹. В 1832 г. следует высочайшее предписание, вновь по представлению святителя Филарета, «чтобы не поставлять портретов в церквах Императора и Его Августейшей Фамилии»¹⁹⁶⁰. Как видим, византийская парадигма была прочно укоренена в русском религиозно-политическом сознании. Византинизация к началу XX века достигла того качественного уровня, при котором нуждались в исправлении церковная практика и сама богослужебная жизнь.

Кульминации этот процесс достиг в собственно церковном пространстве. Жизненно необходимыми были издания уставов, главных церковных служб¹⁹⁶¹, их толкования¹⁹⁶², поскольку, по словам Феофана Затворника, «...у нас в церкви ничего не поймешь что читают и поют», а «наши иерархи не скучают от неясности, потому что не слышат...»¹⁹⁶³. Проблемы исправления богослужебных книг, языка богослужения стали предметом обсуждения Предсоборного присутствия, созыв которого в 1906 г. был утвержден императором. Особо важным был вопрос о преодолении церковного раскола, настолько, что в связи с ним обсуждалась возможность изменения церковного устава. По мнению архиепископа Сергия, устав Великой Церкви Константинопольской мог бы заменить действующий русский устав в приходских церквях и, таким образом, примирить два противоположных течения в обществе: «Ревнители могут придти на все службы и услышать их во всей полноте. Тот же, кто не имеет желания или времени на это, может придти только утром и даже ко второй половине утрени и все-таки не лишится участия в наиболее умилительных и назидательных священнодействиях»¹⁹⁶⁴. Пристальное внимание привлек вопрос о чтении за литургией вслух евхаристической молитвы¹⁹⁶⁵. Специальную статью этому вопросу посвятил А.П. Голубцов, отметив, «что в настоящее время все молитвы литургии читаются тайно от народа»¹⁹⁶⁶. При этом в первохристианские времена гласное чтение было conditio sine qua non самой литургической службы, но с утверждением строгого различия между клиром и заурядными членами церкви по системе Дионисия Ареопагита и под влиянием disciplinae arcani священники и епископы оказались замкнутыми в круге им одним доступных служений и молитв, а мирянам осталось довольствоваться немногим¹⁹⁶⁷. За гласное чтение тайных молитв, что подняло бы молитвенный дух предстоящих, высказывались как ученые, так и церковные иерархи¹⁹⁶⁸. Доказательством того, что обширная программа реформ, касающихся языка богослужения, церковного устава, громкого чтения евхаристической молитвы, непосредственно затрагивала и иконостас, является стенограмма одного из заседаний Предсоборного присутствия, опубликованная в 1906 г. Олонецкая Духовная консистория, выступая в пользу реформ, прямо высказалась, что иконостас следует «иметь в уменьшенном виде»¹⁹⁶⁹.

Мы позволили себе столь обширный экскурс в сферу церковно-государственных отношений и общественного сознания второй половины XIX – начала XX столетия с тем, чтобы выявить ту почву, на которой культивировались византийские формы храмов и принципы устройства иконостаса в них. Очевидно, что иконостас понимался в это время с точки зрения функциональной как преграда, разделяющая священнодействующих и мирян. В то же время невысокая алтарная преграда ассоциировалась с мраморными раннехристианскими и византийскими образцами и символизировала возврат в живому преданию через возрождение евхаристического благочестия, знаменовала преодоление распада соборности¹⁹⁷⁰. Преимущественно тронные изображения Христа и Богоматери, святых, соименных членам императорской фамилии, свидетельствовали о единении кесарева начала и воли Божьей в Церкви, где «царь» есть некий «церковный чин», молитвенник и ходатай своего народа. Таким образом, царское служение виделось в исторической перспективе. Помазание, которое в ветхозаветного смысле определяло, каким быть служению – пророческим, священническим или царским, стало прообразом новозаветного и определило харизму российского императора. Важной чертой иконографии Спасителя становится также архиерейское благословение в образе Пантократора, ибо во Иисусе Христе, явившем собою всю полноту служения, даруется царственное священство народу Божию и его предстоятелям¹⁹⁷¹. Византийский идеал отношения к царской власти как к высшей природе власти не во имя свое, но во имя Божие¹⁹⁷², византийская диархия духовной и светской власти¹⁹⁷³ были осознаны такими представителями русского религиозного ренессанса, как С.Н. Булгаков и П.А. Флоренский. Симфония «священства» и «царства», зафиксированная литургическими памятниками синодального периода¹⁹⁷⁴, характеризует выбор архитектурных форм преграды, восходящих к византийским, раскрывается в идейном содержании алтарной и всей храмовой декорации.

Новаторское исследование игумена Александра Федорова, посвященное образно-символической системе древнерусского города¹⁹⁷⁵ в единстве с богословием храма, придает новое измерение изучению восточнохристианской храмовой архитектуры и декорации в целом¹⁹⁷⁶. Ключевыми здесь нам представляются выводы ученого о повышенной декоративности и нарастании вертикализма в национальной архитектуре вследствие общехристианской тенденции к вертикальности храмов, обращенности их к городу и ландшафту, и обратного процесса кристаллизации преображаемого ими пространства русского города. В этой перспективе появляется возможность понять отмеченное нами явление поклонных икон на фасадах храмов, отражающее стремление актуализировать литургическую жизнь¹⁹⁷⁷, отвечая главной цели церкви в истории – Преображению мира и человека. Монументальной репрезентацией основных смыслов эпохи стало образное решение и декор храма Воскресения Христова (Спаса на Крови) в Петербурге. Принципиальное родство этого памятника с древнерусской архитектурой справедливо было отмечено Б.М. Кириковым¹⁹⁷⁸, а замысел храма недавно впервые был рассмотрен с точки зрения иерусалимской темы Майклом С. Флайером¹⁹⁷⁹. Развивая выводы этих ученых о семантике форм и декора данного памятника, мы предлагаем интерпретировать его архитектурный образ через уподобление этого православного храма, построенного на рубеже столетий, литургическому сосуду – иерусалиму-сиону. Созданное в условиях живого сотворчества ученых и строителей, убранство этого памятника органически связано с византийской традицией изобилием мозаики, которая также удовлетворяла скрытой металлической природе конструкции, требовавшей металлического блеска. Иконография верхнего пояса изображений фасадов храма, представляющая крылатых серафимов, аналогична силам небесным в кокошниках позакомарных перекрытий малого иерусалима-сиона Успенского собора¹⁹⁸⁰. Сама конструкция евхаристических ковчегов – соединение поверхностей и членений, в которых плоскости были заполнены изображениями Деисуса и апостолов, сходна с внешним декором Спаса на Крови, представляющим собой систему дискретных табернаклей – кокошников, в которых мозаичные иконы образно-символически выявляют благодатное пространство алтаря вовне. Это образное решение, подсказанное программной ориентацией на московские и ярославские храмы XVI–XVII вв., соответствовало богословию Иконостаса, являющего таинство Евхаристии как невидимое видимым, представление, сформулированное позже, но, несомненно, сложившееся в эту противоречивую эпоху¹⁹⁸¹. Мозаики «Несение креста», «Распятие», «Снятие со креста», «Сошествие во ад» над входами храма как своего рода ярус иконостаса, несомненно, связаны с литургическими толкованиями. Напоминая о пролитой здесь царской крови и предрекая будущее русского царства¹⁹⁸², в то же время они представляют собой образ церковной процессии, освящая пространство за стенами храма¹⁹⁸³. Творчески осмысленная византийская традиция единства литургического содержания и художественной формы становилась отчетливо «произносимой» во время богослужений Страстной седьмицы, песнопения Великого входа которой зримо воплощаются на фасадах храма, а напряженная молитвенная динамика крестных ходов со св. Плащаницей и светлых Пасхальных свидетельствовала праздничную открытость евхаристического пространства алтаря. Икона как личное молитвенное общение «отступала», появлялась икона-храм, активно освящающая и каждого члена общины, и христианское сообщество в целом.

Смысловым камертоном пространственно-пластического образа храма Воскресения стала алтарная преграда, понятая в духе византийских эстетических моделей. Иконография его мраморных иконостасов развивается по разным направлениям. Северный и южный решены как невысокие алтарные преграды, а усложненный характер главного уже представляет собой сокращенную основную структуру¹⁹⁸⁴, включающую Деисус, изображения апостолов, храмового праздника, «Спаса на престоле» и тронную «Богоматерь с Младенцем», отражая понимание символики иконостаса этого времени¹⁹⁸⁵. Прозрачность, выявляющая евхаристическое пространство, вовне подчеркнута повторяющимися темами в иконостасах и в экстерьере: «Деисус» в верхней части главной преграды, тронный Христос справа от царских врат и мозаики северного и южного фасадов; иконе «Богоматерь с Младенцем на престоле» в иконостасе соответствует изображение Девы Марии как Царицы Небесной в центральной мозаике южного фасада. Иконе «Сошествие во ад» в местном ряду соответствует одноименная мозаика в тимпане над юго-западным входом и «Воскресение» в главном северном кокошнике. Принцип «прозрачности», связывающий декорацию иконостаса, интерьера и экстерьера, можно сравнить с «взаимопрозрачностью» догматов, с приемом литургической словесности – удвоением, утроением ключевых понятий и слов. Изображения свв. Владимира и Ольги, Николая и Александра также повторяются в декорации памятника и внутри, и снаружи, например, св. Николай Мирликийский и св. Александр Невский¹⁹⁸⁶ в южном и северном иконостасах и они же как предстоящие «Христу во славе» – в главном южном кокошнике. Иконы благоверных князей российского правящего дома, помещенные в огромном количестве на фасадах, предстают как совокупный образ свершителя истории, соединившего власть Христа и Кесаря в историческом пространстве России, которое обозначено мозаичными изображениями гербов русских городов. Декорируя фасад колокольни, они символизируют единственную православную империю того времени. Тема русской святости, начинаясь в образах преграды, утверждается в изображениях святых русской церкви, которым отведены верхние регистры мозаик интерьера храма. В экстерьере в кокошниках многочисленные образы князей страстотерпцев, мучеников, преподобных пребывают в сонме вселенских святых, небесных сил. Русские угодники – стояние и слава всей Церкви, и держава Российская – наследница Византии молитвами «всего сонма святых чудотворцев украшалась духовной красотой и сохранялась на высоте своего стояния – политической вершине христианского мира»¹⁹⁸⁷. Византийская традиция, по выражению К. Леонтьева, как нервная ткань, пронизывающая русскую духовную культуру, задала образное решение алтарной преграды, соединила в целостный организм литургическое пространство и декорацию храма.

1. Владимирский собор в Киеве. Арх. Беретти, 1859–1896 гг. Главный неф

2. Тифлисский Сионский собор. Иконостас. Живопись Г.Г. Гагарина. 1853–1854 гг.

3. Мраморный иконостас древней Кирилловской церкви в Киеве. Живопись М.А. Врубеля

4. М.А. Врубель. Богоматерь из мраморного иконостаса Кирилловской церкви

5. Ц. Преображения в Баден-Бадене. Арх. И. В. Штромм, 1882–1883 гг.

6. Храм Воскресения Христова («Спас на крови»). Арх. А.А. Парланд, 1883–1907. Главный иконостас. Фото 1907–1913 гг.

Список сокращений

The present collection is based on material from the International Symposium organized by the Research Centre for Eastern Christian Culture in June 1996 It contains the extensive research and publishing program devoted to the study of the symbolical language of Eastern Christian culture. The Centre has already held international symposia and published collections of articles on «Jerusalem in Russian Culture», «The Eastern Christian Church. Liturgy and Aft», and «The Miracle-Working Icon in Byzantium and Old Russia». «The Iconostasis. Origins – Evolution – Symbolism» holds a special place in this series as it deals with the most important «symbolical text» of the Orthodox tradition, a text that embodies in concentrated form the main theological and liturgical ideas.

The iconostasis was a systematically conceived and visually unified image of the whole Church as a revelation of the Heavenly Jerusalem. In this multiple icon, placed on the verge of the Holy of Holies, the heavenly and the earthly were joined in liturgical unity. Тhe high dogma of the «upper tiers» was combined forever with the historicism of the «local tier» which was connected with the concrete hopes of worshippers. Each iconostasis can be interpreted as a prayer addressed to God, the content of which is determined by the age, spiritual environment or details of the commission. The importance of the iconostasis as an historical source is hard to overestimate, for in the sacral space of the church it played the role of a kind of manifesto, the main meaning of which could be conveyed to all believers regardless of their degree of education or erudition.

In the book the iconostasis is understood broadly as the iconic decoration of the sanctuary barrier, which appeared in the early Christian era and evolved into the multi-tierred structure of the Russian high iconostasis. Perhaps no other phenomenon illustrates so clearly the deep Byzantine roots of Russian culture, on the one hand, and, on the other, the originality of the national tradition, which produced the distinctive phenomenon of the high iconostasis that has long been inseparably associated in peoplés minds with the concept of «Russia».

It is impossible in one book, albeit a large one, to cover all the aspects of the iconostasis or to give a detailed history of it. This collection does not encompass many facts and a whole complex of technological, architectural-constructional, stylistic and other questions. Attention is concentrated on the semantics, origins and evolution of the symbolical structure in its direct connection with the spiritual life of the age. The dominant subject, the «iconography» of the iconostasis is read as an historically determined text presented in visual images. The chronological and geographical scope of the material is extremely broad. We are able to trace the history of the iconostasis from the first structures of Constantine the Great to the neo-Byzantine sanctuary barriers of the 19th century. The evolution of the sanctuary barrier is examined using examples from Italy, Syria, Armenia, Cappadocia and Sinai. Considerable space is devoted to purely Byzantine subjects, first and foremost, to the art of Constantinople, which in this sphere too determined the ideas and tastes of the East Christian world. Two-thirds of the book consists of articles on Russian sanctuary barriers and high iconostases of the 11th to I9th centuries.

The articles present a whole range of methodological approaches. From this point of view it would be hard to find two works that are alike. Practically each text which studies a concrete problem or historical monument offers a new opportunity for theoretical interpretation which can be used in the further study of the iconostasis. If one were to try and define the general tendency, one might say it is the striving of the authors to examine the symbolism of the iconostasis in its liturgical context. This is fully justified, insofar as the original liturgical function of the sanctuary barrier is a natural point of departure for all historical, iconographical and even .stylistic studies on the iconostasis theme.

The first part of the article examines the main ideas of the origins and symbolism of the iconostasis which have appeared in Russian and foreign literature over the last century and a half. An attempt is made to systematize existing ideas and on their basis to form an up-to-date picture, a kind of point of departure for future research.

In the second part the author outlines some trends and current problems which require further detailed study. We should mention the main landmarks in the evolution of the iconostasis. In this respect it must be said that the history of the iconostasis coincides for the most part with the history of the barrier itself, as can be seen from the example of the 4th-century Lateran fastigium as the oldest sanctuary barrier structure. The embodiment in icon images of the most important ideologems of the age was, in all probability, the original task of sanctuary barriers. This is borne out by the iconographic programs of the pre-Iconoclastic period, among which pride of place goes to the 6th-century sanctuary barrier in St. Sophia in Constantinople, which has come down to us in Paulus Silentiarius description, Although the reconstruction of the monument's iconography is a matter of debate, there; can be no doubt as to the importance of the programme which acquired the nature of the main symbol, the importance of which was emphasized by the total absence of icon representations on the walls of Justinian St. Sophia

It is significant that already in the pre-Iconoclastic period we can sее the combination in the decoration of sanctuary barriers of two basic semantic functions. On the other hand, the ісonographical programmes embody the most important dogmatic ideas comparable in significance with the symbolical themes of the domes and altar area and on the other, the images of the sanctuary barrier have a devotional character connected with the prayers of the faithful who are stopped on the verge of the «Holy of Hollies». These two sources of symbolism, sometimes actively interacting retained their importance until the appearance of the high iconostasis, when the two-part symbolical structure of the «devotional» local tier and «doctrinal» upper tiers is reinforced.

The culminating moment of the history of the iconostasis which determined its subsequent development was the closing of the sanctuary barrier, turning it from a transparent and in many respects symbolical border into a dense curtain which concealed the service in the sanctuary from the congregation and thus created the opportunity for the appearance of a multi-tiered wall of icons. Most likely this happened in the 11th century The covering of the openings in the sanctuary barrier with curtains during the liturgy was a subject for discussion by Constantinople hierarchs and theologians in the mid-11th century. Surviving sources support the idea that the closing of the sanctuary barrier did not take the form of a canonical rule and was not obligatory for some time, right up to the l5h century. The practice became widespread in the 11th century, however, when it was supported in monastic circles by eminent theologians and even some patriarchs.

The closing of the sanctuary barrier made it possible to place icons in the space between the columns. The idea of a system of icons that would compensate for not being able to see inside the sanctuary and the decoration of the apses became more relevant. It is interesting that the 11th century saw the cinergence of developed iconographic programmes in the epistylus over the architraves of the sanctuary burner. They include the Deesis, the twelve feasts, the saints and hagiographial scenes. If one adds the representation of the «Communion of the Apostles», the images of the «Annunciation» and the creators of the liturgy on the Royal Doors, and the icon of Christ, the Virgin and the church's patron saints in the spaces between the columns, it becomes clear that all the church’s decoration is concentrated in a single multiple icon image which embodies the idea of the sacrament of the Eucharist through the visual story of salvation.

Cristopher Walter is right in connecting the evolution of the iconostasis addressed to the congregation with the appearance in the 11th century of liturgical themes in the sanctuary apse («The Communion of the Apostles» and «Officiating Bishops») which were directed mainly at the clergy. One can go even further, however, and raise the question of the influence on the process of theological ideals that appeared in connection with the Great Schism of 1054, which, we suggest had a decisive effect on the structure of Byzantine church decoration.

These ideas, as can be seen from extant texts, dominated church life in the second half of the 11h century, when the polemics over unleavened bread generated a special interest in the Eucharist and the Holy Trinity. The emphasis on the mystical nature of the sacrament expressed in the covering of the sanctuary and the interpretation of the Eucharist as the story of salvation expressed in programme of iconostases can be explained as two interconnected parts of the same spiritual process. It is interesting that the defenders of closed barriers, Niketas Stethatos and Nicholas of Aidida, were also eminent participants in the anti-Latin polemics and interpreters of the liturgy.

To understand the crucial question of the possibility of icon images appearing in the spaces between the columns of sanctuary barriers in the 11th and 12th centuries, it is essential in our opinion, to extend the limited range of Greek sources by adding Slavonic, Georgian and even Latin ones, both written and archeologісаl. The fruitfulness of such searches can be illustrated by a single example found in the well-known Latin text of the «Liber Pontificalis», which has not been examined in the history of the Byzantine sanctuary barrier. Of particular interest is the statement about the use in the main Roman cathedrals of gold embroidered icon veils arranged in the arches of the sanctuary barrier, which refers to the time of Pope Paschal I (817–824). The authoritative and ancient Roman liturgical practice of using icon veils in the sanctuary barrier must have been well known in Byzantium, although, as mid-11th century discussions show, it was not universally accepted. The tradition of embroidered icons in the sanctuary barrier would appear tο have been widespread in the East Christian world. In Old Russia it is mentioned in monastery inventories of the l6th and 17th centuries. A comparison of these late mediaeval texts with the descriptions of precious icon veils in the Liber Pontificalis shows a paradoxical closeness to and participation in the early Christian tradition of church decoration which lasted for many centuries. In our view, the history of the iconostasis should take account of this important and hitherto unknown link – the gold-cloth icon decoration which could be reconstructed from various indirect archaeological and written evidence.

To understand why the Byzantine sanctuary barrier turned into the multi-tiered iconostasis one must consult Georgian medieval monuments which until recently had not, to the best of our knowledge, been examined in a Byzantine context, in spite of the fact that they have been the subject of research for some time. The remarkably abundant and diverse Georgian evidence, mainly archaeological and iconographic, reflected the ancient East Christian, and in some cases Constantinopolian, practice of decorating the sanctuary barrier.

As well as consulting little known archaeological date, another promising area is the use of untraditional written sources. One example of a Novgorodian birchbark document of the late 12th–ear1y 13th centuries, which is a request to make icons for the sanctuary barrier. The priest asks the icon-painter Olisey Grechin, known from other charters and chronicle references of the late 12th century, to paint two icons of six-winged angels (cherubim and seraphim) to place on top of the sanctuary barrier. This type of commission is confirmed both by 12th-century artistic practice and Byzantine liturgical interpretations. The six-winged angels on the sanctuary barrier stressed the meaning of the sanctuary as the Holy of Holies and Ark containing the sacred objects. birchbark documents are extremely rare, early evidence of the relations between the commissioner and the icon-painter who together created the icon decoration of the church. The text in question enables us to ask a most important and little studied question about the terminology of the sanctuary barrier and, in particular, about the use in this connection of the concept of the Deesis, which in Old Russia could mean the whole iconostasis, a single tier or a special iconographical theme.

In terms of its importance in the history of the iconostasis only the reform of the late I4th-early 15th century, which produced the Russian high iconostasis, is comparable with the 11^th century changes. The question naturally arises as to the degree of originality in this phenomenon. The Byzantine origin of the symbolical structure is fairly obvious. Тhere can also be no doubt that on Russian soil a serious reduction arose, which was of a programme nature. The present state of research does not enable us to explain what took place as the result of a gradual evolution connected with a number of new, purely iconographic considerations. We can safely say that nearly all the iconographic themes of the Russian iconostasis were well known in Byzantium , and the explanation of the changes that took place is not to be found in the sphere of pure iconography.

To our mind, the most important meaning of the Russian reform lies in the very idea of unification in the icon decoration of the sanctuary barrier. As can be seen from the published data, such a unification did not exist in 14th-ccmury Byzantium. Even the liturgically important question of closing the space between the columns of the barrier with icons was not regulated by the upper hierarchy. Both open and closed barriers existed at the same time without any conflict.

There were also, it would seem, barriers that had no icons at all. A similar motley picture can be seen in I4th-cemtury Russian practice also.

Against the background the first high iconostasis were unusually uniform. The new type of iconostasis received canonical status almost immediately, which appears to have distinguished the Russian situation from the Byzantine. Such a reduction could only have been introduced at the highest level of the church hierarchy. Its most likely author is thought to be Metropolitan Cyprian of Moscow (1390–1406), one of the main spheres of whose activity was the all-round unification of liturgical practice. The appearance of the high iconostasis can also be seen as an organic part of this global reform of the ritual sphere. The spiritual sources of the reform lie in the close ties of Metropolitan Cyprian with Hesychast Mount Athos and his special closeness lo Patriarch Philotheus of Constantinople (1353–1355; 1364–1376). One would think that once raised as a banner, the idea of unification of the liturgical sphere would be called on to unite the riven Ortodox world. In the age of the collapse of the Byzantine Empire it had a global religious-political and historical-cultural significance. We believe that a detailed study of the iconostasis in connection with this most important spiritual process could provide the answer to many questions relating both to the origin of the Russian iconostasis and the principles of its iconographical evolution from the 15th to 17th centuries.

A comparison of the iconographic features of the high iconostasis and concrete liturgical innovations would be most useful. For example, the most original central composition of «Christ in Glory» could be examined in connection with the changes in 15th-century Russian liturgical ceremonial. In the context of our discursion it is important that this order of service appears in the Diataxis (ceremonial) of Philotheus Kokkinos and evidently came to Russia in the context of his liturgical reform.

A little-studied aspect of the Russian iconostasis is its connection with high iconostases in the Balkans, which usually have three or four tiers. These Balkan iconostases are well-known in the 15th and 16th centuries, yet early, precisely dated examples have not yet come to light. There is a widespread opinion that the Balkan variant developed under the influence of the Russian high iconostasis. This is doubtful however, because for all the outer similarity there are a number of fundamental differences. What is more, such strong influence by Russia on the Balkans in the 15th century would seem most unlikely. In the absence of detailed studios we can only assume that the Russian and Balkan traditions, which developed in parallel and independently, shared common Athonite sources and reflected the same idea that, most likely, arose in the circle of Philotheus Kokkinos, possibly during his stay on Mount Athos and drawing up of the two new Diataxis (ceremonials). In this connection the Hesychast significance of the concept becomes more comprehensible, namely, the view of the barrier as a wall of icons concealing the sacrament and at the same time giving it a new mystical image.

So-called Lateran fastigium was the gift of Constantine the Great to the Lateran basilica (now S. Giovanni in Laterano, Rome). Our only source is the Liber Pontificalis (the 6th c. life of S. Sylvester). Despite the many attempts to reconstruct it, the monument still remains quite mythological. We know little of its shape. It is impossible to imagine its earmarking, and even its position inside the basilica is questionable.

The scholarly literature on the Lateran fastigium proposes two possible looks. The first and most traditional one used to regard it as an altar ciborium (C. Rohaut de Fleury, L. Dushesne, H. Leclercq), and the second one as some kind of altar screen (M. Tisdale Smith, R. Krauthecuner, S.L. De Blaauw). There are also some examples of contamination of two views (U. Nilgeu).

The generally accepted reconstruction of the Lateran fastigium belongs to M. Tisdale Smith. According to this theory the Lateran fastigium located as a column screen in front of the apse. It had 7 bays, two extremes of which were with passages. Its central part was covered with the arch and crowned by the pediment (fastigium). The Lateran fastigium contains silver statues of Christ in sella flanked by twelve apostles facing the congregation and Christ enthroned flanked by four angels holding spears. These statues were nearly human height.

My corrections and additions:

It is beyond doubt that inside the central bay of transparent structure two figures of Christ could not be sitting. It follows that the Lateran fastigium had some solid body. If it is so, it fully corresponds to existence of many iconographic parallels among the sarcophagi. In addition, the double-sided iconography of the Lateran fastigium demonstrates its connection with the sarcophagi. So, it should be reconstructed rather as a sarcophagus than as a semi-opaque colonnade or ciborium.

For its being an opaque structure it is impossible that the Lateran fastigium could have several bays with the entrances for the people. Thus the Lateran fastigium did not completely separate the apse from the nave. The reconstruction as a colonnade seems to be too resembling to the latest high altar screen. In other words, the Lateran fastigium was a separate and independent construction just incorporated into the interior of the basilica.

To my opinion, the disposition of the figures in the structure with only 5 bays is following; in front, in the centre there were Christ and 4 apostles, in the lateral bays – two apostles in each. Behind: only the centre is occupied by all the angels with Christ. The presence of Traditio legis·confirms the connections between the Lateran fastigium and the altar area iconography. Finally, the new reconstruction of the Lateran fastigium let us insert it into altar barrier history as a departure point.

There is one more problem that has to be discussed here. On the one hand, there are numerous difficulties with the possible iconographic analogies, for nearly all these objects are dated from the end of the 5th – beginning of the 6th century (S. Appolinare Nuovo, S. Vitale, S. Michele in Afrisco). On the other hand, assuming that the text, created in 6th century, had as a goal an extrapolation of iconographic structures of the time into the Constantine era, we can solve many questions. Thus well-known incompatibility of the monument (from the text) with archeological data becomes understandable, especially in the part of the angels carrying spears.

However it would be some exaggeration to consider the text a conscious falsification or an apologetic work, whose aim was just inserting into the Constantine era the prototype for the iconography. It is quite probable that the author just described something natural and clear to him. I believe that the picture seemed to him carring conviction. If this interpretation is correct, these statements are of great significance in the iconography.

It is a fact that fastigium (pediment or arch, as well as their combination) assists at the all hierarchic compositions as a rule. What is so especially remarkable about this form, is its all-consuming character, for it is not only the monumental works – churches, mural paintings and so on – that include it, but also the small ones: ivories, miniatures etc. It proves that we really need to set up some term to describe all of these works.

The Lateran fastigium not only because of its lexicological connotations, which have been assembled in such a striking manner by M. Tisdale Smith, but also because of the exceptional character of the source that has made even its existence quite hypothetical, – could be some kind of ideal model for triumphal Christian structure. It is the best pretender to the place of the archetype for all following cases. I have in mind here that the Lateran fastigium demonstrates the extreme unity of the figurative program and the architecture iconography. In other words, it is reasonable to invent the term taking in mind as a model some real monument – if only real as the Lateran fastigium is – to feel safety about its meaning.

Thus I dare to conclude that the fastigium must be consider a perfect, ready-made pattern for the medieval frame structure. Lastly I would like to say that at least for orientation it is necessary to have some non-contradictory reconstruction of the monument. The more so as the perfect clarity in the questions under discussion still seems to be beyond reach.

A new hypothesis on the origin of the Byzantine chancel screen is advanced. It can be proved that its ancient architectural form and sacral function go back to a certain both real and symbolic prototype. The survived monuments, archeological data and early iconographic material testify that the construction of the ancient chancel screen consisted, as a rule, of four columns and an architrave, and its triple arch was curtained by a woven veil. In our opinion, this construction copied the architectural features of the entrance to the Holy of Holies of the Old Testament Tabernacle (Ex. 25–27; 36–38) repeated later by Solomon in the construction of the Jerusalem Temple. The stability of these features and their symbolic meaning contributed to the fact that the four-columned portico with three entrances and the Ark of the Covenant represented in the central aperture not only became a traditional iconographic scheme for the facade in front of the Holy of Holies and that of the Temple itself (destroyed much earlier than its first images began to appear in Jewish art) but also was conceived as a symbol of the ideal Third Temple and a new, restored Jerusalem. That is why the chancel screen which curtained off the altar – the Holy of Holies of the Christian temple and repeated the real structure and symbolism of the wall of the Tabernacle, was liken to the wall of the Heavenly Tabernacle i. e. served as an icon of Heavenly Jerusalem. The fact that Christian art has borrowed the symbolic meaning of the form and function of the Old Testament architectural construction is testified by their symbolism. All the parts of the wall of the Holy of Holies – four columns, architrave (cosmitis), three curtained passages – were interpreted in Judaism as a border between profane and sacred worlds and were given with cosmic symbolism just as the analogous interpretation made by the Fathers of the Church and the symbolic meaning of the chancel screen as a sign of mutual interaction of the temporal and eternal. All that allows us to conclude that the construction of the chancel screen and its architectural and symbolic design were elaborated in Judeo-Christian milieu where the iconography of the Temple similar to that found on the coins of the Bar Kohba period was broadly diffused and its messianic meaning was interpreted in the spirit of the New Testament epoch. The messianic symbolism of the Old Testament portico could be adopted by Christians due to an eschatological character of the early liturgy, which had great influence on the Byzantine commentaries on the church decoration of the early period. The decoration of the chancel screen shows its direct connection with that of the Old Testament Temple thus finding its explanation. Only its symbolic meaning as the entrance to the Holy of Holies permits; one to explain predominance of animals, birds, trees, cherubs, in carved decoration of the cosmitis, which remind carvings and embroidery on the walls and veils of the Jerusalem Temple (Ezek, 41) and lamps, shell, knotted columns go back to the objects used in the Jewish worship and symbolic motives of the wall of the Holy of Holies and the facade of the Temple.

The altar space of early medieval Armenian churches is not studied up to now. It is very important in this connection to investigate the fragments of the stone chancel barrier of the well-known church-martyrium Zvartnots, which was built between 642 and 662 by catholicos Narses III the Builder at the historical place of the meeting by St. Gregory the Illuminator and king Trdat III. The church belonged to the type of tetraconch with an ambulatory (or the aisled tetraconchs) and have genetic connection with the monuments of this type in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia as well as the tetraconch of Etchmiadzin. The composition and the decoration of the Zvartnots cathedral was possibly the first copy of the Anastasis rotunda in Jerusalem, reflecting the idea of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Many examples of the piers and the slabs are founded during the excavations of the complex, started in 1893. Unfortunately they were wrongly identified as an elements of parapet of the patriarchal palace at Zvartnots. After the investigation with an architect G. Nalbandian at the ruins of the church I have proposed that these examples are the elements of the chancel barrier. This suggestion makes possible to reconstruct the altar space of Zvartnots. At the excavation place I found the fragments of 10 slabs of two species (smooth or ornamental; slabs has sizes 100 × 136 cm, the length is reconstructed according proportion of ornament) and of 13 piers, 10 of which have a flat top (height is 101–102 cm) whereas the three others have the balls at the top. All the piers have the grooves at the slab's fastenings and decoration by niches at the faces. The ornamentation of the slabs consist of the wicker rings with six-petalous flowers in their centres. A type of the barrier and its decoration have close analogies not only in the Syrian examples but, even more, in the Byzantine chancel barriers of the 5th–6th centuries (fragments found at Asia Minor and Balkans). Some elements can be found in the representations of the sanctuary barriers in the wall-paintings of the 11th to 13th century.

The connection of the barrier elements with the architecture of the Zvartnots is confirmed by their design on a base of proportional system of the building (this fact is important argument for dating the barrier from the time of the building construction, along with the iconography and style of the ornamentation and also with the traces (grooves) of the barrier in the wall of the apse. These tracks, a number of other details and the position of this round structure in the centre of the tetraconch provide a possibility of the barrier reconstruction. It has U-shape plan and it enclosed not only altar apse but also almost all a central domed bay of the church. It had no less than 2 doorways, the main of which is in axis of west facade. The doors were flanked by the piers with balls and by ornamental slabs. The height of the barrier with its architrave was 128 cm.

Two important questions arose in connection with this new reconstruction of the altar space of Zvart'nots. First of them relates with interpretation of the central round structure, which was reasonably identified as the martyrium of St. Gregory the Illuminator. In connection with this question we have investigated the cylindrical ambo (now on the later altar platform), dated from the 7th century and proposed a re-interpretation of this element as an upper part of the central structure. The reconstructed central structure could have the functions of martyrium, altar table, and possibly ambo. Second question concerns the underground space of the apse, which in my opinion was originally covered by a wooden construction and was used as deaconic, it is only isolated room in the church structure (except for second store system). This underground room could not be a crypt as it was in many other churches, because the martyrium was presented in the centre of the building. The aspects of the liturgical space of Zvartnots, like the incorporation of all central area and the presence of the round memorial structure with its decorative arcade on 12 columns in the centre of the building, demonstrate that the concept of Zvartnots was to reproduce the architectural model of the Anastasis rotunda.

The design and the liturgical space of the Zvartnots are specific among other Armenian early-medieval churches. The majority of them (for instance, the seventh-century churches in Ptghni and Voskepar) used the Byzantine model, distinct from the altar spaces in the North Syrian and Mesopotamian churches. In the most of medieval Armenian churches there were no stone chancel barriers, but wooden or metal transparent enclosures. The templons as well as the ambo in the central space did not exist in Armenian churches. These principals were developed in the national church architecture of later centuries.

Цель этой статьи проанализировать алтарную преграду пещерной церкви Токали килисе в Каппадокии. Церковь находится в центре долины Гереме, которая являлась одним из самых больших монашеских поселений в Каппадокии. По мнению исследователей, Новая церковь Токали была построена и расписана в середине X в. (950–960). Роскошь оформления и стиль фресок позволяют думать, что заказчики росписей принадлежали к местной знати, связанной с Константинополем. Хотя архитектура и храмовая декорация Токали достаточно хорошо исследованы, уникальная алтарная преграда еще не получила удовлетворительного объяснения.

Первоначально Старая церковь Токали была простой однонефной капеллой, как и многие другие в этом регионе. В середине Х в. капелла была значительно расширена и дополнена большой сводчатой церковью с поперечным нефом, названной Новой Токали (капелла 7). Новая церковь Токали уникальна, поскольку в ней были сделаны две алтарные преграды, разделенные особым проходом. В восточной части храма преграда из подковообразных арок отделяет три апсиды от нефа. Каждая апсида имела каменный престол и, по всей видимости, являлась особым алтарем.

В статье показывается, что подобная структура алтарной части Новой Токали была местным творением, имеющем истоки как в более ранних, так и современных алтарных структурах. Некоторые особенности константинопольских алтарей повлияли на расположение ниши жертвенника в проходе между преградами, а не в центральном нефе. Фрески-иконы Христа и Богоматери, изображенные в нишах жертвенников, воспроизводили иконы по сторонам алтарной преграды в византийских церквах. Авторы проекта использовали некоторые архитектурные идей Константинопольских храмов, но при этом переосмысляли их в духе местной традиции и создали таким образом необычное архитектурное решение, известное только в Каппадокии.

Работа посвящена вопросу о поклонных (prokynetaria) иконах, часто размещавшихся на алтарных преградах или рядом с ними в средне- и поздневизантийскую эпоху. Эти иконы, обычно имевшие архитектурные рамы, изображали Христа, Богоматерь и святых, чаще всего тех, которым была посвящена церковь. Это явление уже было сюжетом научных дискуссий в контексте более общей проблемы о происхождении и смысле иконостаса в византийской церкви. В данной работе я стараюсь показать, что поклонные иконы в архитектурных рамах связаны с более древней традицией украшения гробниц святых. Действительно, поклонная икона может быть рассмотрена как двухмерная версия предшествующего трехмерного устройства св. раки, включавшей балдахин на колонках над гробницей и образ святого на его гробе. Хотя не сохранилось ни одного реально существующего примера такого размещения от доиконоборческой эпохи, можно привести достаточно свидетельств в поддержку моей гипотезы. Одно из самых ярких и ранних – темплон VII в. в константинопольском святилище св. Артемия. Средневизантийская традиция, известная как по письменным источникам, так и по реально существующим памятникам (кафоликон монастыря Хосиос Лукас в Фокиде), также свидетельствует, что раки святых располагались рядом с алтарными преградами и сопровождались иконными образами этих святых. В полном виде традиция представлена поздневизантийскими (рака св. Стефана Дечанского в монастыре Дечаны, Сербия) и поствизантийскими примерами (гробница св. Екатерины в Синайском монастыре и рака св. Сергия Радонежского в Троице-Сергиевой Лавре). В последнем случае мы можем видеть все основные элементы рассматриваемой традиции: рака святого с балдахином на колоннах и икона святого, по типу поклонный образ, включенная в иконостас собора. Кроме того, данный пример действующей церкви позволяет увидеть реальное «благочестивое поклонение» св. раке, граничащей с иконостасом.

The question of the origin of the high iconostasis, which appeared as a unified multi-tiered structure in the late 14th early 15th centuries, has long been of interest to scholars who have found its origin in the decoration of the Byzantine templon and noted the gradual nature of its evolution. Yet between the motley assortment of templons and the perfect composition of the first iconostases there is a gap which is hard to explain. This suggests the absence of an intermediate link. Probably, the process of the templon transformation into the iconostasis included the iconographic models within the framework of which a visual concept of the iconostasis took shape. According to the present hypothesis, one such symbolical prototype could have been the Byzantine antependium.

The antependium or altar frontal, which covered the front of the altar table, is well known in Western mediaeval art. References are found in written sources from the 4th century. One of the earliest extant examples is a gold and silver antependium of the mid-9th century from San Ambrogio in Milan, where the already formed composition is represented, with the central theophanic image of «Christ in Glory» and twelve scenes from the Christological cycle arranged in three tiers. Although the representations on the antependia were extremely diverse, the theme of the Theophany and the multi-partite composition were the dominant principle of the decor, which also retained their significance in the complex multi-tiered structures of the Romanesque age.

The phenomenon of the antependium is not described in works on Byzantine art. Nor is there any special term for it, for the concepts of the 'endyté or 'aplomá refer to the whole upper altar cover and do not relate specifically to the altar frontal icon. Yet such icons existed, although they were not obligatory (in most cases the outside of the cover was decorated with a cross or crosses with ornament). Antependia are also seen in the main churches of the empire. According to a description by Paulus Silentiarius, in the 6th century the altar of St Sophia in Constantinople was covered with a woven icon-cloth which bore gold-embroidered images of the Savior between the Apostles Peter and Paul. Christ's miracles, the triple arcade, and Justinian's buildings, with portraits of the Emperor and his wife on the side covers.

The tradition of icons on alter covers continued in the later period also. According to sources from the 9th to I2th centuries, after the entrance to the sanctuary of St. Sophia in Constantinople the Emperor and the Patriarch would kiss an icon image on the altar frontal. There are also many documentary references to Byzantine antependia. Most noteworthy is the information about an «endite of the Great church» sent by Emperor Michael Paleologus as a present to Pope Gregory X in 1261. It bore representations of Christ in Glory, the Virgin Enthroned, cherubim and seraphim, the Apostolic cycle, images of saints, and the donor's portrait of the Emperor himself being presented to Apostle Peter by Pope Gregory. There are some other descriptions of similar Byzantine altar frontals with several tiers of images.

One could also collect data on the few surviving Byzantine antependia, the most famous of which is the Pala d'oro of San Marco in Venice. In spite of all the additions and reconstructions at different periods, one can still get an idea of the original Pala (antependium) commissioned in Constantinople in 1105, which replaced on the main altar of San Marco an older, 10th-century silver antependium also commissioned in the Byzantine capital. Apart from the central image of Christ Enthroned surrounded by the four Evangelists, the original composition of the gold enamel icon included rows of angels. Apostles and Prophets, the scenes of feasts and the St Mark cycle. No matter how these representations were arranged, it is quite clear that the Pala bore a multi-tiered composition, most reminiscent of the structure of the high iconostasis which appeared some centuries later. It is significant in this context that Constantinople was the place where gold antependia with enamels were traditionally produced. This suggests the existence not only of gold-embroidered, but of altar frontal icons made entirely of gold in the richest churches of the Byzantine capital.

An important chapter in the history of the East Christian antependium could consist of Russian mediaeval embroidered icons, which may need to have their original function identified. The 12th-century Novgorodian embroidered icon of the Crucifixion from the State History Museum can be classed as an altar frontal icon. The structure of the representation and the nature of the programme, which includes framing medallions with images of Christ, the Virgin and the Apostles, have analogies in Western attar frontals. The 1389 embroidered icon of Maria of Tver and the altar cover of the late 14th century with the Deesis and four Evangelists (Novgorod Museum) should probably be considered in the same class too. The theme of the Deesis would appear to have been one of the main ones on mediaeval Russian altar covers. This is borne out by late mediaeval monuments also.

The collected written and archaeological data shows that by the end of the l4th century the antependium was a well-known phenomenon both in Byzantium and in Russia. Metropolitan Cyprian, with whom the reform of the iconostasis is increasingly associated, undoubtedly saw Constantinopolitan altar frontal icons and was familiar with Western liturgical practice. In this connection it seems highly probable that the image of Christ in Glory, which became the most important innovation in the Russian iconostasis, could have been suggested by the iconography of antependia. The idea of the celestial majesty of Christ is fully in keeping with the Byzantine interpretation of the upper altar cover as the symbolical image of the Glory of God.

The possibility of using the altar frontal icon as a model for the iconostasis in further confirmed by their deep symbolical closeness. From the liturgical point of view, they are two protective covers, separated in space, facets of the imaginary ark containing the holy objects. In the ritual of entering the sanctuary the priest kisses first the icons of the barrier and then the altar cover, thereby establishing the liturgical unity of the table and barrier which already in the 12th century were interpreted as indivisible parts of the Body of Christ. In this connection it is interesting that the altar frontal icon, which is visible for congregation at the moment when the Royal doors are opened formed a single whole with the decoration of the barrier visually as well but perhaps more importantly the icon-antependium was supposed to expose the idea of the sanctuary, that is, according to the Byzantine interpretation, create an image of the whole Church, Christ in communion with His saints. The optimal solution of this task was to create a complex and multi-tiered symbolical structure embodying the idea of the heavenly hierarchy. Generated in altar frontal icons, this structure could be projected in a concrete historical situation onto the monumental screen of the sanctuary barrier, creating the phenomenon known as the high iconostasis.

The article concerns the origin and liturgical content of the images of Christ and the Virgin Paraclesis attached to the Byzantine sanctuary barrier on the pillars or eastern wall. Written sources of the 11th – 12th centuries used to regard these images as proskynesis or proskynemata, which is witness for their special veneration in the church. The forms of such veneration and the reasons for it, however, remain questionable. According to C. Walter’s opinion, images of the Virgin Paraclesis and Christ embodied the doctrine of saints intercession and were considered as the images of «non-liturgical piety» preceding the installation of the icons in the templon intercolumnia. G. Babic, wlra considered similar images to have been replicas of certain renowned icons, shared his opinion.

The admission of non-liturgical veneration of the images attached to the altars, including the icons of the templon, to our opinion, could not exclude their involvement into the liturgy. A direct evidence can be the rite of kissing icons near the templon by priests during their first, or so-called Little entrance into the altar (in the 12th and 13th centuries), and an indirect one in the illustrations in the Jerusalem liturgical scroll (Staurou, 109, a. 1060), where the margins of the prayer pronounced at the Little entrance are illustrated by two miniatures of Christ enthroned and the Virgin Paraclesis praying to Him on the right margin. It seems that the earlier forms of the worship of icons and relics at the Little entrance to the church could initiate the tradition of veneration of the proskynesis icons at the Little entrance into the sanctuary.

It is known that in the narthex of St Sophia in Constantinople, on both sides of the Royal Doors there were two wonder-working icons of the Mother of God and Christ. As A. Lidov has recently proposed, this composition could be a prototype for the icons attached to the sanctuary barriers and related to the Royal Door of the iconostasis. We may add that in the Byzantine age the Little entrance was closely connected with this main entrance from the narthex to the nave of the Great church. Hence we may suggest that the icons attached to the sanctuary barriers not merely were the focus of «non-liturgical piety», but at the same time inherited an ancient rite of the veneration of images and relics at the entrance to the church, which later took shape of their worship during the Little entrance into the sanctuary.

The iconography of the Virgin Paraklesis holding the scroll had been formed in the Preiconoclastic period. Up to the early 12th century it already has its own settled literary programme in the shape of a dialogical text inscribed on the scroll: «So what is it that thou art begging for, Mother? – The salvation for the mortal. [But they have incensed me. Be merciful, my Son. – But they have not repented. [Bestow the mercy upon the faithful». This text existed in the Byzantine age and much later was fixed by Dionysius the Phournoagraphiotes, perhaps, could penetrate from Thessaloniki to Serbia where a Slavonic translation of the dialogue appeared about 1320. The succeeding Slavonic (Serbian and Bulgarian) sources suggest considerable variety of the text versions.

The literary source that affected the structure of the text of the Virgin Paraklesis was the Canon of St Theodore the Studite recited on the Friday services. In each of the nine canticles of the Canon there is a dialogue between a sinner begging Our Lady for the intercession before Christ, and the Virgin who addresses the request for salvation to her Son, then receives a merciful response and transfers it to the applicant. The Canon of St Theodore the Studite belongs to the «parakletikos» canon genre. Those canons, according to the tradition (the Studios ceremonial), were pronounced on the Friday eve services accompanied with special praying for the deceased. Their performance, judging by preserved manuscripts, can be dated back to the 11th and 12th centuries.

The influence of the Canon of St. Theodore the Studite on the iconography of Paraklesis can be noted in the works of the late 11th and early 12th centuries, i.c. the period of liturgical redaction of many iconographic programmes that had appeared before. It seems probable that the scroll text in the image of the Virgin Paraklesis emerged in the same context, which is similar both in shape and content to the Canon of St. Theodore the Studite. It provided the main idea of bestowing the absolution upon the sinner through his repentance and the intercession of the Virgin.

Монастырь Св. Екатерины на Синае обладает значительным собранием иконостасных тябел (эпистилиев) XI–XIII вв. Два иконостасных тябла, датируемые концом XIII в., приписываются художникам-крестоносцам, хорошо знавшим современное им венецианское искусство. Эти памятники позволяют рассмотреть вопрос о взаимоотношении искусства Востока и Запада в художественном и литургическом аспекте. На первом эпистилии изображен Деисус с различными святыми и евангелистами. Второе тябло представляет двенадцать праздников православной церкви, показанных в исторической последовательности. Содержание и размеры первого «крестоносного» тябла напоминают dossal раннюю форму итальянского ретабля. Этот синайский памятник, по всей видимости, был создан западным мастером, работавшим в православной среде. Он может быть также рассмотрен как попытка венецианского художника приспособить итальянский dossal для использования в качестве темплона. Таким образом, западная концепция была адаптирована к православному литургическому устройству. Знаменательно, что это происходит в эпоху крестоносцев, когда православные и латиняне тесно взаимодействовали на Христианском Востоке.

Второе иконостасное тябло построено на сходных принципах. Оно во всех основных чертах следует византийскому эпистилию ХІІ в. со сценами 12 великих праздников, так же находящегося в синайском собрании. Однако иконография несколько изменена. Некоторые изменения могут быть объяснены как отражение исторических событий конца ХІІІ в., другие – влиянием римско-католического богословия. Отличия от православной традиции вызывают вопросы о местонахождении и назначении этого эпистилия. Он мог находится в одной из православных капелл Синая или использоваться в капелле католического обряда, которая, как известно, также существовала в Синайском монастыре. Последнее представляется более вероятным. В Восточном Средиземноморье эпохи крестоносцев эпистилий – литургический элемент православной церкви – мог использоваться и в некоторых католических церквах. В принципе, иконостасные тябла существовали на Латинском Западе, особенно в Италии. Появление подобного темплона в католической капелле на Синае также не кажется чем-то необычным еще и потому, что тенденция отделения клира от мирян была характерна как для западного, так и для восточного христианства. Таким образом синайские эпистилии крестоносцев указывают на сходство литургического устройства православных и католических церквей, несмотря на принципиальные богословские различия.

The two 11th-century stone relief plates of the holy warriors on horseback form a single composition which embodies the idea of the triumph of the Kievan Grand Prince and the holy warriors protection of him. The plate in the St, Sophia Cathedral in Kiev shows SS. George and Theodore Stratilates, while the image of the triumphant warrior on the Tretyakov Gallery plate perhaps Prince Isyaslav Yaroslavich with his patron saint Demetrius оf Salonica. The plates were made during his reign and are connected with the date when he built the Demetrius Monastery in Kiev.

In 1997 Kiev archaeologists discovered a third stone relief plate showing a saint on horseback on the territory of the St. Michael Gold-Topped Monastery. There can be no doubt that this plate formed part of a set with the other two. This is confirmed by the place where they were found, the technological devices for working the surface, the material, the style and the devices for carving the horseman. The height of the plate is the same as that of the other plates. As on the other two, there is no inscription indicating the name of the horseman represented. We have established, however, that the plate bears a sculptural representation of St. Eustathius Placidus, rarely found in Byzantine and mediaeval art in general, in the iconographical version known in 12th- and I3th-century monuments.

The opinion that the Kievan reliefs served as sanctuary barriers in the cathedral of the Demetrius monastery was first advanced by A.I. Nekrasov. Our article confirms and develops his theory. The plates could have formed part of any of the sanctuary barrier constructions characteristic either of early Christian carved plates in the form of low parapets, on either side of the central entrance to the sanctuary or in the space of the intercolunms in the templon of the later period from the 11th to 12lh centuries, where the form of the «portico» dominated and the carved plates of the sanctuary barrier were placed between the columns supporting the architraves.

In our opinion, the closest analogy to the Kievan reliefs are the two unique sanctuary plates of Tsebelda in Abkhazia (now in the Tbilisi Museum of Art) dated to the late 8th – early 9th century. A comparison of the ideological programmes of these plates and the Kievan stone reliefs provides further evidence that the plates belonged to the sanctuary barrier in the St. Demetrius cathedral. What is more, a study of the representations on them as liturgical images in connection with the symbolism of the sanctuary space also suggests the same conclusion.

Only two icons have come down to us from the original decoration of St. Sophia cathedral in Novgorod which was finished in 1050 or 1052 and had no mural painting in the 11th century. The first one is «Christ Enthroned» the original iconography of which was reproduced in the panning of 1700 on the ancient wooden panel. The second one is «Apostles Paul and Peter» where the heads, hands and feet were repainted in the 15th century. To clear out the original selection of the icons of the cathedral, we must turn to its architecture.

The type of the five-nave churches with galleries around them prveiled in Russia since the end of 1030th up to the l060th. The best preserved of them is St. Sophia cathedral in Kiev where the ancient paintings help us to define the dedication of the different parts of the church and especially those of the chapels on the sides of the central apse. On the left there is the chapel of Saints Apostles Peter and Paul and further to the North – the chapel of St. George. On the right there is the chapel of Joachim and Anna and further to the South – the chapel of Archangel Michael.

There were four fresco icons on the Western sides of the four altar pillars in the Kiev cathedral. On the two central pillars the ancient plaster did not survive in the lowest register. We believe there were the images of Christ and of the Virgin on these surfaces, according to the well-known Byzantine tradition. We can see two other images on the same level; St. John the Baptist on the flank northern pillar, between the chapels of St. Apostles and St. George, and Virgin Orans on the flank southern pillar, between the chapel of Joachim and Anna and that of St. Michael. These four fresco images were connected with the chapel's dedication and underlined the sacred space of the cathedral, while the intecolumnia of the altar barrier were opened.

The Novgorod cathedral belongs to the same architectural type, but the details are quite different. The dedication of the apses flanking the central apse is unknown. The last flank ails do not have apses at all. But there are several chapels in the wide galleries: those of St. John the Theologian and St. John the Forerunner in the North gallery, the chapel of the Nativity of the Virgin in the South gallery – a direct analogy to the chapel of SS. Joachim and Anna in Kiev.

Grigorii Shtender and Svetlana Sivak supposed that both survived icons were placed between the columns of wooden altar barrier, leaving some space for the altar door. We think that this idea is wrong. No traces of the barrier division survived. The closed barrier is not known to be used in the 11th and even in the 12th centuries (the works of Ann Epstein and other authors). We believe that altar barrier was transparent. There were four icons placed on the western surfaces of the four pillars. on the same line like the fresco images in the Kiev cathedral, that is on the line which separated the altar area from the naos. «Christ Enthroned» was placed on the southern pillar, which supported the central dome. We have the written evidence of the· 16th century and later, that this icon had been there since very ancient times. The lost icon of the Virgin was probably placed symmetrically to the icon of Christ, near the northern pillar. The icon «SS. Apostles Paul and Peter» was in the northern zone of the cathedral, at the left northern pillar, where in Kiev there is a fresco with the figure of St. John the Baptist.

There was the fourth icon of the 11th century, symmetrical to the icon of the Apostles. The fragments of its framework were survived on the other icon in the Novgorod Museum. One may suppose that it was the icon of a saint warrior or that of St. Michael. This icon was in the southern zone of the cathedral, where the majority of the tombs were situated.

The ancient icons of the Novgorod cathedral are wider than the pilasters of the pillars (147 and 120 cm), but not wider than the pillar itself. Certainly, there are many problems in our reconstruction. The selection of the four icons seems to be well-grounded, the arrangement of these icons is more hypothetic.

One of the main problems in the study of the middle Byzantine sanctuary barrier is the time and the chronology of the transformation of the opened altar barrier into multy-tiered iconostasis. The Byzantine material is studied rather fully and thoroughly. But the sanctuary barriers in Russian churches of the 11th and 12th centuries were completely destroyed during later rebuildings. Thus, the only materials to study are the archaeological remains and also some traces of the barriers constructions, which had been discovered during recent restorations in the walls and floors of several churches in Novgorod.

The comparison of the various data gives a possibility to elucidate some regular features in the evolution of the barrier construction and its semantics. The classic Byzantine scheme was realized only in St. Sophia of Novgorod, while the structure of other known churches is absolutely uncommon. These barriers had two characteristic features; a enormous height of the templon (from 3.6 to 5 meters) and absence of the columns between the architrave and parapet. There are two types of the barrier to be distinguished among these examples.

The first group are the barriers in the cathedrals of the Antoniev monastery (1119) and monastery of St. John the Baptist in Pskov (a. 1140), the Savior church at Nereditza (1198), may be the St. Nicholas cathedral at the Jaroslav market square (a. 1113). The templon of this group crosses the space of all three apses on a height of 4–5 meters from the level of the floor. The textile screen or veil, which were probably fixed to the templon, literally connected the Novgorodian sanctuary with the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy of Holiness of the Solomon s Temple. This symbolic programme was accentuated by the frescoes, which surround the space of the sanctuary barrier (the cherubims, Aaron and Moses as the Old Testament high priests). The same type appeared in Novgorod even in the late I3th century (the St. Nicliolas church on Lipna, a. 1290).

The second type of the sanctuary barrier is revealed in the cathedral of the Mirozh monastery in Pskov (a. 1140), in the churches of the Dormition and St. George in Staraia Ladoga, and in the church of Annunciation at Arkazhi in Novgorod (1179). The second type has the same characteristics including great height of the templon and the veils, but in this variant the barrier occupies only the central apse while the side apses were opened.

The templons of the Novgorod churches, according to Byzantine tradition, were decorated with icons or painted epistyles with Deesis and the Feasts. Only few examples of the templon icons have survived, but various archaeological details show that the church clergy had regularly lifted on the templon possibly to light the lamps, which were situated in front of the icons. Most probably the icons had been attached under the templon or on its surface, as it was in some Byzantine churches, according to some documents.

The appearance of the icons or epistyles beneath the templon, in an extensive empty space between the templon and the parapet, was one of the main stimulating motives for the development of the iconostasis. The Deesis lowered down from the templon, and the templon tuned into the upper iconostasis beam. This transformation took place nearly in the middle of the 14th century. It is evident by the example of the Novgorod church of St. Theodore the Stratilates (1361), where the traces of two-tiered iconostasis construction have survived.

The article examines information from mediaeval Russian sources of the 11th to 13th century on the decoration of sanctuaries: precious sanctuary barriers, pillars, architraves, icon frames, altar covers, doors and ambo. The meaning of mediaeval Russian terms is amplified and in some cases their Greek parallels are explained. A hypothetical arrangement of icons described in the texts as «high» and «low» is advanced. The sources give no grounds for assuming that icons were placed not only on the architrave, but also between the colonnettes of the barrier. On the contrary, they mention precious cases, gold decorations, curtains and draped veils of the so-called «lосаl» icons. Concrete icons connected with the sanctuary barrier are mentioned only three lines in texts of the 12th and l3th centuries. In all cases this is a «Deesis» placed either «over the altar», «under the representations of cherubim» or in the seni (in the description of the Church of the Nativity in Bogolyubovo, in the Hypatian Chronicle under the year 1175). It is shown that the word «seni» could mean not a ciborium over the altar table, but part of the sanctuary barrier over the Royal Doors. This richly decorated seni could resemble the precious sanctuary barrier with icons shown on a miniature in a 12th-ceutury Liturgical Scroll from the National Library in Athens.

The article also analyses the only early mediaeval Russian monument already directed associated by researchers with the decoration of the sanctuary, namely, the two cast openwork bronze arches of the late 12th to the first third of the 13th century found in the ruins of a church on the Vshchizh ancient site. The author believes that the arches, which have vertical bushings for wooden supports and pins for tying on textiles formed part not of an altar table ciborium, but probably of a six-faceted ciborium over an ambo, or else they were the bases of processional icons embroidered on textiles.

The considerable attention paid by mediaeval Russian writers of the 11th to l3th century to the decorations of altar tables, ciboria over altar tables and altar covers has led the author to conclude that in this period sanctuary barriers were no closed and that at certain points in the service the beauty of the decor inside the sanctuary was visible to all.

Алтарные преграды русских церквей XIV–XVII вв. мало изучены, хотя с помощью археологии можно изучить развитие невысокой алтарной преграды византийского типа к русскому иконостасу. Давно поставленный вопрос об архитектурно оформленных алтарных преградах раннемосковской эпохи «повис в воздухе». Кажется нелишним рассмотреть некоторые материалы к изучению алтарных преград, которые и предлагаются в статье. Случай изучить конструкцию второй половины XIV – начала ХѴ в. представился при исследовании собора Богоявленского монастыря в Москве (ленточная кладка, довольно существенно выступавшая к западу от «лицевой» грани восточной пары столбов средокрестия, но не пересекавшая боковых нефов). Мысль о соответствии этой кладки каменной алтарной преграде иллюстрируется на основе немногих аналогов (соборы Михаила Архангела в Старице и Саввина Сторожевского монастыря под Звенигородом). В храме Богоявленского монастыря преграда также представляла не плоскую алтарную стенку, шедшую заподлицо западным граням столбов и предназначенную под фресковую роспись, но имела реликтовые элементы архитектурного оформления. Собор в Старице дал целый ряд литургических элементов, таких как сегментовидное каменное сооружение, вписанное в кривую апсиды жертвенника (основание специального стола для приготовления даров) – аналогичный стол существует и в Успенском соборе Звенигорода (показан на обмере Максимова), а также в жертвеннике собора Петра Митрополита в одноименном монастыре (нач. XVI в.)

Отмечается необходимость изучения раннемосковских конструкций престолов, солеи, амвона, синтронов и служебных ниш и приводится пример обнаружения последовательности престолов в южном приделе Казанского собора на Красной площади.

The multi-tiered iconostasis in an originality of the Orthodox Church. The 19th-century Russian scholars came to a right conclusion that the high iconostasis had appeared at the late 14th early 15th centuries. The theological works of Pavel Florensky had the paramount importance for the further comprehension of spiritual and artistic significance of the iconostasis. A lot of his ideas were taken and developed by Leonid Ouspensky. The questions of the spiritual meaning and the liturgical aspects of the development of the iconostasis at the end of the 14th century were studied in his articles.

L. Ouspensky developed the ideas of Igor Grabar, Victor Lazarev and Michail Alpatov. These scholars believed that the first high iconostasis had been created by Theophan the Greek, Andrey Rubljov and Prochor from Gorodetz in 1405 for the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, where it survived up to present time.

The new studies of the chronicles and extant icons, started in the 1970th and continued in the 1980th, have showed clearly that the iconostasis of the Annunciation Cathedral appeared there after the fire of the 1547 year. It consists of the icons created at different times and brought there from different churches of Old Russian towns. The Deesis tier of this iconostasis was created at the end of the 14th century by a Greek master (probably by Theophan the Greek), the icons of the Feasts were painted by a Russian master at the beginning of the 15th century. The icons of Prophets and Patriarchs were added to these two tiers of the Annunciation Cathedral in the second half of the 16th century. The further research of the problems of the high iconostasis was connected with the studies of the Deesis tier and the Feasts of the Annunciation Cathedral. Presumably, this Deesis was created for the Dormition Cathedral in Kolomna to commemorate all the Orthodox warriors killed in 1380 on the Kulikovo battle-field.

Based on these new studies two hypothesis can be proposed. According to the first of them the high iconostasis consisted of the full-length Deesis tier with the icon of Christ in Glory in the centre, of the tier of the Feasts and of the tier of the half-length images of Prophets. This multi-tiered structure could be created in Moscow by metropolitan Cyprian and Theophan the Greek. The first iconostases of this type appeared in the churches of the Moscow Kremlin and in important churches and monasteries of Muscovy at the end of the 14th century.

According to the second hypothesis, there were two stages the making of the high iconostasis. At the end of the I4th century the iconostasis consisted of two tiers, namely the full-length Deesis and the Feasts. Then at the beginning of the 15th century, under the influence of Andrey Rubljov a new tier of the half-length images of Prophets was added to these two tiers. To solve this problem it is necessary to reveal iconographical prototypes of the iconostasis as a whole and of each tier separately. For this we have to study first of all the iconostases of the Dormition Cathedral in Vladimir and of the Trinity Cathedral in the Trinity-Sergiev monastery.

The concept of the high Russian iconostasis was created in the late 14th – early 15th century, presumably, by a prominent Byzantine artist Theophan the Greek. It is characterized to a great extent by the expanded Deesis tier and the iconography of its center panel – «Christ in Glory». The assembly of saints before Christ in Glory in the Deesis corresponds to the liturgical theophany of the Future Age which is first of all reflected in the Cherubic Hymn and the Eucharistic Canon. The high iconostasis was influenced by the new system of Palaeologan church decoration which represents in its main compositions communication with God of the Future Age.

The multi-tiered templons of the middle Byzantine period, the examples of which survived in Italy, could have served as the iconographic basis of the high iconostasis: for example, three-tiered templon of the middle of the 12th century in Rosciolo near Aquila which repeats the templon of the Monte Cassino basilica commissioned in Constantinople around 1071. The multi-tiered composition of the Byzantine templons represented the image of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

The structure of the Russian high iconostasis corresponds to three or four tiers of the middle Byzantine templons, with similar composition of the main registers (the Deesis with many saints and the Great Feasts). It is noteworthy that the Russian iconostasis of the I6th-I7th centuries contains a number of carved or cast cherubs over the upper range resembling the upper angel tier of the Byzantine templons.

The concept of the high iconostasis corresponded to the eschatological mood existed both in the Byzantine and Russian society of the 14th and I5th centuries in connecyion with the expectations of the end of the world in 7000 (1492). The Eschatological theme widely affected the Russian art of that age and was presented in the works of Theophanis the Greek as one of the most characteristic examples.

The present paper concerns only the types of the iconostasis with complete program, i.e. consisting of four or five tiers. In my opinion the high iconostasis can be classified according to two main features: I) full-length or half-length figures; 2) the proportional system of the registers.

The oldest extant (in parts) Russian high iconostasis is that of the Dormition Cathedrale in Vladimir (a. 1408), including, besides the local tier, the full-length Deesis, the festival tier, and the register of the half-length prophets. A characteristic feature of this high iconostasis is the great dimensions of the Deesis, manifestly exceeding in height the other tiers. One of the first iconostasis of this type appeared in the Trinity cathedral of the Trinity Sergiev Lavra a. 1427. The characteristic of the second type of the high iconostasis is the half-length Deesis. The earliest known example is iconostasis of the Iosifo-Volokolamsky monastery, made in 1487. The proportional schemes of these two types of the Russian high iconostasis are the same. The third type of the four-tier iconostasis seems to have appeared in Saint Sophia of Novgorod, when the a full-length Prophets register was added to the previous full-length Deesis and the festival tier. There is no domination of the Deesis tier in this type.

In my opinion, the idea of the five-tier iconostasis could be inspired by the Ostrog Bible printed in 1580–1581. There are two versions of this five tier iconostasis rooted in the third type of the four-tier iconostasis. The difference between two versions was in use of the full-length or half-length figures of the patriarchs in the highest tier (The Smolensky cathedral of the Novodevichy monastery in Moscow and the Kirilo-Belozcrsky monastery respectively). The first type of the four-tier iconostasis presents an origin of the third version of the five-tier iconostasis, with the half-length Prophets and full-length Patriarch tiers. The iconostasis of the Trinity cathedral of the Trinity-Sergiev Lavra provides one of the oldest examples. Another modification of the first type of the four-tier iconostasis one can find in St. George church (1651) at Pokshensky Pogost, Arkhangelsk region. One more version of the five-tier iconostasis can be found in the Dormition cathedrale of Belozersk.

So to sum up, from the 15th to the mid-17th centuries there were three types of the four-tier and five types of the five-tier iconostasis.

This article is the first attempt to apply to the study of iconography the method of constructing genealogical schemes (stems) used in textology. It enables us to see the progression of the iconography more clearly and to draw certain conclusions of a general nature:

1) there was no firm iconographical tradition of the full-length Deesis before the Deesis of the Annuinciation Cathedral in the Moscow Kiemlin;

2) the Annunciation Deesis became the archetype for most iconographical types and the Russian version of the iconography was based on it;

3) the appearance of new archetypes is connected with a different understanding of the images or the unsatisfactory nature of the existing forms;

4) the full-length Deesis appeared simultaneously throughout the whole of Russia;

5) when painting icons for the Deesis tier Russian icon-painters reproduced images fairly closely, copying not the whole tier, but individual icons.

The structure and subjects of the feast row of the Byzantine templons were adopted in Moscow almost unchanged at the end of the 14th – the beginning of the 15th century, when the high multi-tiered iconostasis was created. Even the earliest examples of such iconostasis could have more than 20 icons in the festival tier with a wide cycle of Passions and the Eucharistic scenes. The origin of such iconostasis was connected with the liturgical worship according to the Jerusalem ceremonial adopted in Russia in the time of Moscow metropolitan Cyprian. However, the adaptation of the multi-tiered iconostasis was not simultaneous in different parts of Russia. In the Novgorod diocese it was finally accomplished apparently only after the annexation of Novgorod and Pskov to the Moscow state. The belated introduction of the developed form of iconostasis in the St Sophia cathedral in Novgorod might have been connected with the service according to the rule of St. Sophia in Constantinople, which was in use in Novgorod till the end of the 15th century. In the 16th century the multi-tiered iconostasis with the developed feast row appeared in some country (pogost) churches. The evolution of this row became almost synchronous in different Russian lands and in all its stages the leading role probably belonged to Moscow.

The content of the feast row was never determined by the Gospel narration only, but by the context of the iconostasis as a whole and by the different subjects of the daily, weekly and annual services. The choice of the new subjects for this row was connected with the significance of one or another celebration, but not only. In Russia some subjects were included in the festival tier, unknown in this register of the iconostasis in other parts of the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine world. While in the Post-Byzantine feast rows a special attention was often given to the protoevangelical cycle, i.e. the theme of incarnation, and the events after the resurrection of Christ were represented more widely than in the Byzantine time, in the festival tier of the Russian iconostasis the Easter cycle became even wider. Unknown among the foreign monuments «The Hospitality of Abraham or The Old Testament Trinity» was included there. From the beginning of the t6th century «The Rising of Cross», not connected with the earthly Jesus' life, firmly took place in the feast rows in Russia. Later on – "Pokrov or The Intercession of the Virgin» and some other scenes of the glorification of the New Testament relics were introduced. In these themes the idea of the church celebration and the continuation of the heavenly intercession in the later earthly history was expressed. At the same time the historical line of the Gospel narration was interrupted, it was impossible to include those subjects in it. But the feast row, in spite of the change of its composition, remained the single structure, each element of which was saturated with the liturgical symbolism. Another factor was the interpenetrating of different themes in single structure, similar to the principals of the Orthodox hymnography. The peculiar features of the festival tier of the Russian iconostasis can be regarded as a special contribution to the Eastern Christian iconography.

The formation of the Forefathers tier located on the top of the high iconostasis completed its evolution as the theological and figurative screen-like structure. The exact time of its creation is still a matter of debate: 16th or 17th century. According to the extant written sources the earliest trustworthy information is dated back to 1599/1600. At the beginning of the 17th century the number of the Forefathers tiers increased. Usually the Forefathers tiers were added to the existing structures. The centre of the Forefathers tier was occupied by the icon of the New Testament Trinity and seldom – The Holy Face (The Mandylion). In the second half of the 17^th century there were both the iconostases with full-length and half-length Forefathers icons.

Symbolically the Forefathers tier represents «the initial Church of the Old testament from Adam to the law of Moses». So called Podlinniks· (the icon painter’s pattern-books) included the description of 23 Forefathers icon. Only 6 of them were Jacob's sons. The number of the Forefathers icons in the row and their selection could be changed.

The persons depicted in the iconostasis could be connected with the order of their commemoration during the Proscomidia rite in the I6th century. This suggest that the Forefathers tier of the high iconostasis theoretically might appear earlier than it is considered to be at the present time. The Forefathers tier of the Annunciation Cathedral at the Moscow Kremlin presents some proves for this opinion. The row consists of fifteen icons. Twelve of them have oblong or five-cornered small panels with the old painting fitted into the larger panels of the XVII century. The half-length Forefathers framed with the architectural structures looking like hip-roofed churches on the floral backgrounds are worth to be mentioned as a unique ensemble. These 12 images are of the similar size. the same composition peculiarities, the shape of haloes, uniformed details, architectural forms, similar technical methods. The row incorporates such images as Joshua and prophet Elijah. The key feature of the I6th century art was the interest in historical subjects, especially in the illuminated Old Testament Books of the middle of the I6th century. All mentioned above testifies to the fact that these images were created in the 50th and 60th of the 16th century especially for the single ensemble. It is very likely that it was the facing panel of the so called “tyablo” The hypothesis of the formation of the Forefathers tier of the Russian iconostasis in the middle of the 16th century encourages a researcher to look for new information or any Forefathers icons dating back to this time.

The article deals with semantics of some constructive and figurative motives of design of the Royal Doors, which play an important role in forming the symbolism of the high Russian iconostasis. For the first time an attempt is made to give an interpretation to the symbolism of the architectural forms of the Royal Doors. So far as a rule only the problem of origins of initial forms of the Royal Doors have been studied as well as the symbolism of the mostly widespread iconographic images, origins and genesis of some types of the decor. However, the cause of special expressiveness and fancifulness of the architectural forms, and stable use of some elements of construction, not having a functional purpose remains unexplored.

The author scrutinizes the decoration of the Old Russian Royal Doors of the 13thІ to I7th centuries distinguishing typological groups which differ by principal peculiarities of their architectural forms, arrangement and iconography. A special attention is given to carved doors of the 15th and I6th centuries, the artistic image of which has an explicit figurativeness of the architectural forms and diversity of the motives. The article studies the rich symbolic/poetic meaning of the architectural and carved forms of the Royal Doors containing allusions of the Old Testament Shrine, the Tabernacle and the Tablets of Testament. This brings the author to the conclusion that the Royal Doors fulfilled the function of the icon, and the development and symbolism of their forms were determined by the perception of the church interior and, in particular, of the sanctuary space. The decoration of the Royal Doors emphasized the symbolical unity between the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, the interior of the church as a whole and the Tabernacle of the Old Testament.

In the iconostasis of the Russian Orthodox Church, the representation of the Last Supper is situated at a central position. i.e. above the entrance into the chancel. This key location corresponds with that of the Eucharist in the system of Christian sacraments. From the historical point of view, this icon is likely to bear witness to the complex dynamics of the Eucharistic idea. On the level of synchrony, it carries the most important meanings of the iconostasis and becomes a kind of formula for the iconostasis as a whole reflecting the current concept of the Eucharist.

In its introductory part, the article summarizes the various positions in the church occupied by the icon in the period from the 6th century until this day, highlighting the main iconographic types as well as the key differences between western and eastern traditions. The article deals in particular with the position at the Royal Door. It is assumed that the placement of the picture within the sanctuary is an indicator of its function and therefore its meaning(s) in the symbolic system of the liturgy. This functional-semantic approach becomes also determinant for analyzing the sources.

The icon is considered to function as an element of the Last Supper tradition. The cultural context, which is relevant for this tradition, applies to the history of the «Last Supper» icon. Decisive for this context was a range of meal rituals, practiced in the Mediterranean, which were all based on the theological notion of a sacrificial meal serving to restore world order. In the view of the author, the functional-semantic criterion is crucial to the selection of comparative material from the wide range of meal phenomena. The origin of the association of the «Last Supper» icon with the Royal Door is searched under those ancient meal depictions whose position in the sanctuary and semantics were similar to those of the Royal Door. As the main meaning of the Royal Door is 'the Gate to Paradisé – in fact, this is what it is also called – the subject in question are the architectural forms of representing the entrance of Paradise along with the meal depictions occurring in certain sacred buildings of antiquity. The article addresses two such depictions, the hereafter meat at the doors of ancient tombs and the farewell meal at the Torah shrine in the synagogue of Dura Europos.

Comparison of meal depictions in tombs of various Mediterranean traditions (Egyptian, Syrian, Greek, Etruscan, Roman) leads to the following results. The basic functions and meanings of cult-of-the-dead meal depictions show clear continuity well into early Christian times. The meal motif is linked to the concept of a boundary between Here and There and its architectural forms (doors, arches, gables) and bears the ambiguity of the boundary zone. The meal and its representation are designed to effect the ritually merging of the terrestrial meal of commemoration and the deceased's meal in the Hereafter and guarantee thereby the whole of the cosmos and the continuing life. Also discussed are features shared by the tomb structures and (early) Christian churches (the semantically heterogeneous two-section structure, the ritually marked section symbolizes the Hereafter, it is marked by the grave of the worshipped man-god). Based on the three common features, the sepulchral meal depictions and the «Last Supper» icon are compared at three levels – motif, placing in the sanctuary and symbolic meaning. With regard to the semantics of the Last Supper icon, this kind of comparison uncover first of all the link between Communion and the immortality meal in Paradise, which forms the connection with the eschatological Liturgy concept. Furthermore, early Christian scripts and their iconographic correlates are discussed, where the eschatological concept of the meal joins the door as the symbol for the Gate to Paradise, observing the difference between representations of Christ's Hereafter meal and those of the meal on Earth with the risen Christ. In view of the link later established between the «Last Supper» icon and the entrance to the chancel, special mention is made of the fact that the term «Royal Door» had several meanings and, depending on the type of church and the liturgical doctrine, meant the entrance to either the church or the chancel.

The other meal depiction addressed is part of the synagogical cult and, like the earliest evidences of the Last Supper iconography, has Syrian origins, as has the exegetic tradition of interpreting the Liturgy from an anamnesis viewpoint, i.e. seeing it primarily as the recall and reproduction of the life and suffering of Jesus (Theodore of Mopsuestia). This interpretation ties it with the piousness prevailing during the rule of Justin II (565–578 A.D). The anamnestic tradition, which was later to gradually replace in Russia the eschatological tradition in its leading position, appears to cause the standard positioning of the Last Supper icon above the Royal Door to the chancel.

Owing to .some peculiarities in the state of preservation, the fresco above the Torah shrine in the synagogue of Dura Europos enables us to observe the dynamics of the eschatological and the anamnestic in the synagogical tradition. The picture of the Paradise meal under the Tree of Life was successively replaced in Dura with a representation of Jacob on his death-bed blessing the thirteen tribes of Israel and predicting the birth of the King Messiah (Gen49:8). The composition was situated in the ritually marked part of the sanctuary, above the Torah shrine which, during the period following the destruction of the Temple, look over the role of the Jerusalem sanctum sanctorum as a symbol of the entrance to Paradise. Both the meal in Paradise and the farewell blessing are ways of expressing the message of salvation as the composition's key message.

With a view to scripts from the Old Testament as well as the paratestamental Book of Henoch, it is demonstrated that the blessing scene as well as the representation of the Messiah as a shepherd-musician has a strong meal dimension to it. Basing on both scripts and iconography, it is argued that the Last Supper tradition corresponds in more than one aspect with the Jewish tradition of the farewell meal. The reception of it in the scripts written by Syrian scholars goes back to the St. Paul's interpretation of sacrifice in the letter to the Hebrews and had an essential part in shaping the anamnestic notion of the liturgy. At the same time, depictions such as the Dura fresco could play a role in shaping the Last Supper iconography originating in Syria.

The side doors of the iconostasis located symmetrically on the both sides of the Royal Doors join the prothesis and diaconicon to the naos of the church. Their construction follows the logic of the three-nave plan of the church and of the triple partition of the altar. They cut through the high wall of the iconostasis and connect the naos to the altar thus assuming all symbolism of this entrance and at the same time separating the divine from mortal. By blocking the entrance to the altar they visibly testify the loss of the earthly Eden, the transcendent character of Paradise, and inaccessibility of the Kingdom of Heaven. This idea suggests that the high wall of the Russian iconostasis was conceived as the wall of the Heavenly Jerusalem, its triple entrance symbolizing the three gates on every side of the Heavenly City (Rev 21:12–13). While the image of the Heavenly Jerusalem was a symbolic prototype of the iconostasis, the architectural features and triple entrance to the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle and to the Jerusalem Temple served as its real-life historical model. That is testified by both their biblical description and Judaic iconography of the Temple, which represent it as a triumphal portico with a triple entrance. This tradition was adopted in Byzantium, where the paradigm of a triple entrance is found in exterior church portals. In ancient Rus' this paradigm was used at First for the triple entrance of the chancel screen conceived as a symbolic facade and entrance of the Holy of Holies, and since the second half of the 14th century for the three doors of the iconostasis – as a result of the process of sanctification of the space about the altar which began to be more and more associated with the inaccessible Kingdom of Heaven. Simultaneously with the transfer of the significance from the entrance gate of the church to the gates of the iconostasis the latter began to be associated with the religious feelings experienced by the believers at the entrance of the church: fear, acknowledgement of onés own sinfulness, repentance. A decisive verification of this idea is given by the representations located on the doors and by their iconographic peculiarities. The portrayals on the doors, conserving Christian symbolism of a door in general, do not permit one to consider them as sacred worship images because of a «telling» character of their decoration: by means of concise visual formulas it shows prototypes of the behavior of a person trying to reach the gates and enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Hence its so edifying and didactic character.

In our opinion, the side gates whose wooden wings substituted the woven curtains of the chancel screen, can be dated back to the 14th century. Their hereditary relation to the entrance of the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle explains the predominance of the Old Testament themes, portrayals of archangels, high priests and saint deacons in early iconography. Decorated gates began to be in wide use in the 15th and 16th centuries and only in the 17th century they occur everywhere. The formation of the door decoration, which like the side doors themselves seem to have no immediate Byzantine prototypes, was connected with the final stage of the creation of the iconostasis and its lower, local row. Changes in the liturgy and first of all in the proskomidia should be considered as the factors that led to the separating of the side compartments by the doors. The growing symbolic meaning of the proskomidia, the transfer of its liturgy to the northern part of the altar and general sanctification of all the ceremony necessitated to close the entrance to the prothesis. The iconography of the images located on the side gates took shape under the influence of some regulations of the divine service. A certain effect was produced on it by increased number of preparative and introit prayers, by particular significance of the psalm 50 and by development of the repentance prayer. A special part in the forming of the iconography was played by statutory readings, which were made just in front of the closed entrance to the prothesis. Their content and didactic character began to influence the repertoire of the gate scenes since the 16th century.

The appearance of the southern gates of the iconostasis was determined by a particular, characteristic only of the Russian divine service, use of the southern compartment of the altar for funeral services, readings of the Synodicon and of the monastic order on the departure of the soul in front of the southern doors.

The development of the high iconostasis in Russia in the fourteenth-fifteenth centuries brought with it a replication of many of the images from the apse and vaults. The Bishop's Seat, the symbol of episcopal authority in the apse behind the main altar, was lost to public view as the iconostasis expanded. Ultimately it was represented in the form of the Metropolitan's Seat, the earliest exemplar of which is the late fifteenth-century Seat located in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Moscow Kremlin.

If the iconostasis was responsible for the production of the Metropolitan's Seat, then it is indirectly responsible as well for its analogue, the Tsar's Scat or Pew, dedicated by Ivan the Terrible in 1551 as an attribute of the recently crowned Muscovite tsar. Apparently inspired structurally by the Cathedral reliquary called Sion 'Zion', the Tsar's Pew features a bas-relief narrative of Monomakh's anachronistic triumph over the Byzantines and the transference of official Byzantine regalia to the grand prince of Kiev. Accordingly, it has been treated in the literature as simply another symbol of Moscow's pretensions to be the Third Rome, the successor of Rome and Constantinople as the authoritative center of the true faith.

The present study examines the architecture of the Throne and its external decoration in an attempt to clarify its symbolic function. Apart from the theme of legitimacy clearly expressed in the Monomakh narrative, the investigation reveals a more far-reaching thematic layer of Old Testament symbolism resonant of more tangible pre-Christian iconography in the Golden Hall Throne Room. Such symbolism signals an attempt by the builder to identify Ivan with the greatest of Old Testament kings, David and Solomon, in addition to association with the Byzantine emperor. The identification is marked with the symbolic imagery neither of Rome nor Constantinople, but of Jerusalem, and thus makes implicit reference to the eschatological aspirations of the Muscovite court.

The term «iconostasis» was not common in the 17th century. Icons gathered in some groups (чины) and placed like a continuous wall in front of the altar were named «deesis» (деисус). This fact proves the exclusive role of the deesis in the Russian iconostasis. During the 17th century the most ancient type of iconostasis still existed. It consists of horizontal beams (тябла). Icons were placed close to each other, so the iconostasis was in fact a single enormous icon. In the 16th century icons sometimes were divided by vertical pillars. Such type of the iconostasis survived in the I7th century.

In the second half of the 17th century the new type – framed iconostasis – appeared. Gilded carving provided the main effect of the iconostasis: icons played role of pictorial insertions. It is known that the appearance of such iconostasis is connected with the arrival of Byelorussian carvers in Moscow in 1650–1660. They brought new instruments for making carving of high relief. The analysis of the carvers' terminology reveals that such carving has its origin in Poland and its sources can be found in Flandria. Although the comparison the so-called «flemskaya» carving with Polish and Flemish carved altars proves its originality. Main motifs – carved columns with vine, flowers and fruits, combs and cartouches – are common for West European art but their treatment does not coincide with Polish, Flemish or even Ukrainian ones.

The Russian iconostases of the second half of the 17th century have two variants: «metric» and «rhythmic». In the «metric» iconostases columns framing icons stand each upon other and together with cornices form clear metric net. Such iconostases are usual for traditional churches. In the multi-tiered churches of the last quarter of the 17th century «rhythmic» iconostases were more popular. Their structure was more interesting and suitable to the architectural composition of the church. Each type of the iconostasis demonstrates a particular type of the connection between Man and God. Joining or dividing of icons, variations of the saint's postures and gestures had deep influence upon the meaning of the iconostasis. In the I7th century the iconographic composition of the iconostasis also undertook serious changes but we take them into consideration only as far as they influenced the framework and the carving.

In the I8th century motifs and compositions of the previous iconostasis continued to exist side by side with the new type of the iconostasis. A fact of their «long life» probably can not be explained by conservative taste of the donors. The Russian carving of the second half of the 17th century was practically free from medieval reminiscences (in contrast to architecture and painting). So it easily could be used in the art of the new period.

At the end of 17th century, Russian iconostasis changed its image and gain plastic ornaments carved in the form of leaves, flowers and fruits. The structure of image and sense of these articles have not been studied so far. The author of this paper analyses one of these monuments, namely, the iconostasis of the Ascension Cathedral in the Ascension Monastery in the Moscow Kremlin, now kept in the Palace of Patriarch in the Twelve Apostles church. In order to compare and determine the possible sense of floral ornaments, the necessary materials are given by the garland framing, which is typical for West European graphics, miniature and especially easel painting of the 16th and 17th centuries. A special attention is paid to the picturesque garlands created essentially in the 17th century by the Flemish masters. The garlands around the religious scenes, around the Eucharist Cup, as well as the garlands of flower's and fruits around the fruit patterns, which are most essential in the Christian symbolism, indicate the necessity to compare them with the details of rich floral carving in later Russian iconostasis.

Certainly, the comparison should be careful as the flora of the iconostasis in late 17th and 18th centuries became a mediated reflection of the original symbolic images related to earlier traditions.

Such carved Russian iconostasis of late 17th century as the Garden of Paradise seems to be the most common interpretation of this image. The symbolic meaning of some fruit carried by the «branches» of this Garden of Paradise can be certainly determined by comparison with the allegorical sense of fruits in Hortus Conclusus iconography, which was common in the West European art from the 15th to 17th centuries. The author of the paper considers the symbolism of flowers and fruits, which were most common in the carving of iconostasis; these are pomegranates, grapes, figs and lilies.

In research of the meaning of ornamental details in the iconostasis, an inevitable question arises how deliberately the complex floral symbols could be perceived by the contemporaries. Briefly considering the main points of the problem determined as wish of the client, perception of the master, interpretation of the contemporary author, the author of this paper notes several most significant points. The most actual problem in borrowing from the Western culture is not the comparison with West European monuments but the necessity to study the features of creative mind, which were characteristic for the European culture of the 16th and 17th centuries and in many aspects was determined by development of emblematics, and its reflection in the Russian culture of late Middle Ages. We should remind the strengthening of moral, didactic and allegoric layers in the Russian art and literature, which are certainly co-reflected with the most characteristic features of the Western emblematic mind. In our opinion, it is necessary to undermine the existence of two aspects of the phenomenon of emblematics; one of them was determined by the new official art and culture in the age of Peter the Great; the second aspect was much more connected with religious/spiritual, rhetorical, moral and didactic art.

In conclusion, the author considers the text, which can make a striking example of free symbolizing of object with respect to the certain event at the end of the 17th century. This is «The Pyramid or Pillar of Father Innokentius Great», the text created by St. Dimitry of Rostov. The subjects of this work enable us to approach to the image of the contemporary iconostasis: gilded pillars with flowers and fruits around the icons.

The unique row of the Synodic icons of early 18th century was originally located beneath the local tier at the podium of the iconostasis of the Peter and Paul Church in Novgorod (now the icons are kept in the Novgorod museum). The seven icons accommodate a total of 25 subjects which illustrate the text of the Synodikon, a compilation of writings on the commemoration of the deceased.

The Synodic icons constitute a part of the general scheme of the iconostasis related to the right order of the Divine Liturgy. The location of these icons at the bottom of the iconostasis corresponds to the lower row of the particles of the communion bread displayed on the liturgical paten at the proskomide rite for the deceased. Prayers for the deceased are known in all most ancient Liturgies.

Below is a list of the Synodic icons subjects: 1) Apostles command to commemorate the deceased. 2) The Seventh Ecumenical Council. 3) Celebration of the service for the dead and the proskomidia. 4) In the course of proskomidia the angels take the bits of the liturgical bread to Heaven. 5) On veneration and the prayer for the deceased. 6) Metropolitan Luke sees a black man in the coffin who asks to commemorate him. 7) Metropolitan Luke orders the presbyters to mourn and to ask for mercy of the deceased during 40 days. 8) Metropolitan Luke finds the coffin empty. 9) Commemoration for the deceased at the prayer of the proskomidia on the third day. 10) The angel shows the soul the heavenly abodes from third to ninth day. 11) Commemoration at the Liturgy on the ninth day. 12) For the next thirty days the soul is shown torments in hell. 13) Commemoration at the Liturgy on the fortieth day. 14) Saint Martyr Thekla saves by prayer her mother Theoklina from torments. 15) St. Gregory I (Dialogos), Pope of Rome, prays to forgive the sins of Roman emperor Trajan. 16) Righteous Empress Theodora saves by prayers her husband, the iconoclast Emperor Theofilos, from the eternal torments. 17) Reverend Makarios interrogates two angels on the commemoration of the deceased. 18) Angels receive the human's soul departed from the body. 19) Reverend Makarios interrogates angels on the destiny of soul. 20–25) Story of a man who bequeathed his fatuous friend to distribute his property to churches and the poor, which the friend failed to do, and the half-witted wife of the friend who also failed to honor the dying wish of her husband to have the property distributed, then got married again and left her offspring in poverty upon her death.

Features of the Novgorod Synodic icons resemble miniatures in several Synodicons with images – collected writings of the second half of the I7th century (Russian State Library, Department of Manuscripts, fund 310, № 1159).

The most important particularity of the icons from the Peter and Paul church is their didactic character. Presumably, their appearance in Novgorod was necessitated by a need to oppose the influence of the Protestant Church which denies the practice of commemoration at the liturgy. In early 18th century in Novgorod, under auspices of Job the Metropolitan of Novgorod, the Likhud brothers of Greece created an extensive treatise condemning Protestantism. There was one more Synodic icon in Novgorod which used to be placed on the pillar of the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin at Molotkoff.

The Byzantine ideal, in the Middle Ages served as the fountainhead of the Russian imagery, again became an important style-forming element in the Orthodox art of the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. The present paper explores the forms and iconography of the chancel barriers of this period in connection with important developments in the religious and political life of that time. The Russian idea, the cult of the royal dynasty and, in particular, the new eucharistic piety, closely connected with the Byzantine universal ideals, were expressed in the most significant part of the church – the chancel barrier.

The Byzantine tradition of the unity of the liturgical content and artistic form was re-interpreted and distinctly articulated during the services of the Holy Week in the church of the Resurrection (the Savior on the Blood) in St. Petersburg. The hymns of the Great Entrance were visually presented on the facades of the church. The sacred processions with the Holy Shroud and the rituals of the Easter Week witnessed the festival openness of the eucharistic space of the Sanctuary. The icon as the object of personal communication was receded, and the church as icon had appeared, addressing to each member of the community and the church congregation as a whole.