Archaeology Magazine - April 1972 - 77

the fortuitousexceptionsof those which
werepreservedin the secludedmonastery
of St. Catherineon Mt. Sinai.Recent researchconductedat Mt. Sinaiby George
and Maria Sotiriou and Kurt Weitzmann, amongothers,has broadenedour
knowledgeabout the entire evolutionof
iconpaintingup to the Latin occupation
of Constantinoplein a.d. 1204.The present volumeattempts to trace the evolution of icon painting from the earliest
survivingexamplesto the 17th century
beginningwith the Mt. Sinai icons (6th12th centuries) followed by Byzantine
icons in Greece (12th-16th centuries),
in Bulgaria (9th-17th centuries) and
finally in Yugoslavia (13th-17th centuries). What we actually have in this
handsomelyproduced and lavishlyillustrated volumeare four separatebooksby
four distinguished scholars, somewhat
awkwardlyintegrated under one cover.
Professor Weitzmann admirably attempts to outline the development of
icon painting up to the 12th century,
but since he is restricted to the icons
presently at Mt. Sinai, the evolution
must necessarilyremain spotty. A significantand curiousomissionis the handsome 6th century icon of Christ (publishedby ProfessorChatzidakis,"An Encaustic Icon of Christ at Sinai," Art
Bulletin 49 [1967]No. 3, Sept.) which
stands at the beginning of the long
seriesof "portraits" of Christ in Byzantine iconpainting.The descriptionof the
Hagiosoritissaas reflectinga "premonition perhapsof sufferingthe future holds
for Son and Mother alike" (page 31) is
(hardlyapplicablefor a Deesisgrouping.
The icon of St. Peter and the Crucifixion
icon (pages 5 and 6) would have been
much more impressivehad they been reproducedin color.ProfessorWeitzmann's
text, however,if very readable, and the
footnotesadd usefulreferences.
In discussingByzantineiconsin Greece
(6 iconsfrommuseumsoutsideof Greece
are included) Professor Chatzidakis
avoidsany attempt to localizethe icons
into "schools." The well-known 14th
century icon of the Archangel Michael
he suggestswas part of a Deesisgrouping. However,the Archangelis turned in
the wrong direction to serve in this capacity. He should always turn to our
right, towards "Christ the Righteous
Judge." ProfessorChatzidakis'omission
of footnotesis to be regretted, particularly sincemany»worksreferred to in his
text are not illustrated.
ProfessorMiatev,directinghis text on
Bulgarianicons towardsthe non-specialist, unfortunately,has very limited material with whichto work,both quantita-

Institute

Irish
Studies
of
1972 Summer ArchaeologySession

Opento 25 collegestudents,high schoolor collegeteachers,this six
weekcoursewill begin in Dublinwith lecturesand excursionsdealing
with Celtic Ireland. After orientationto excavationand survey techniques,studentgroupswillbe assignedto excavationsites in the South
and West of Irelandto dig under the directionof experiencedIrish
archaeologists.
Address Inquiriesto: Richard Hindley, Institute of Irish Studies
U.S. Office, Franconia, N.H. 03580

Announcement

ADVERTISERS
READERS,
AND
CONTRIBUTORS
After June
15, 1972 the editorial
of Archaeology
will move to:
260 West
Telephone;

offices

New York, N.Y. 10013
Broadway,
(212) 925-7170;
(212) 925-7138

tively and qualitatively.When he states
that the icons produced by native icon
painters were "of the same high artistic
quality as the icons created in the Byzantine capital" he is indulging in a bit
of chauvinismsincehe can offerno proof.
With few exceptionsthe Bulgarianmaterial has a strongly provincial flavor
which borders àt times on caricature
(pages 107, 130, 135, 153, etc.) sometimes the result of heavy-handedrestoration. When he states that the emotional quality of the Katafigi Virgin
(page 103), painted by a master from
Salónica,is the same as that of the Nessebri Virgin (page 99), one cannot but
wonder about the author's power of observation.Surelythis is not a translation
error. To further compare the Nessebri
Virginand Child to 15th century Italian
madonnasis unbelievable.The Nessebri
icon, perhaps due to over-painting,can
onlybe describedas provincialand completely lacking in the sophisticationof
the Kafagi icon. It certainlyhas nothing
in commonwith early Renaissancemadonnas! Althoughicons are, indeed, important in reflectingthe changingtastes
of various schoolsand cultural centers,
the limited examplesfrom Bulgaria can
hardly be said to reflectthe chief events
of 1,000 years of Bulgarian history, as
Miatev claims (page lui).

ProfessorRadoji concludesthe volume with an interesting discussionof
icons mainly in Serbia and Macedonia.
Avoidingthe controversyconcerningthe
national origin of Serbianpainting in its
earlier development,he states that "in
early Serbian art, icons were done by
Greek painters for the most part" (page
lx). Radoji cogentlyrelates the 13th
and 14th century icons from Ohrid and
Chilandar monasterywith mural painting of the period.However,withoutillustrations of the frescoes,the comparisons
have little meaningto the non-specialist.
This hold true of Miatev's text as well.
Radojic discussesat length the icon in
St. Peter's, Rome, which depicts the
SerbianKingsDragutin and Milutin but
fails to furnish an illustration.Radojic
includes a significantdiscussionon the
evolutionof the iconostasis.The importance of the later icons (15th-17th centuries), I believe,is over-emphasized.
As a total work this publicationbrings
together important visual material for
comparative and research purposes, as
well as gives the general reader several
approaches to the study of Byzantine
icons. The overall quality of the reproductions (printed in Yugoslavia)is commendablyhigh, althoughsomereproductions have inaccurate color (e.g. pages
157 and 169). The numerous details
157

Archaeology Magazine - April 1972

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - April 1972