The Representations of the Virgin on Cretan Icons in Serbian Churches in Bosnia-Herzegovina

Introduction

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the island of Crete, which had been under Venetian occupation since 1204, became the most important artistic centre in the Greek Orthodox world. Many scholars and artists who had fled to Crete from Turkish-occupied territories even before the fall of Constantinople contributed to this blossoming. The development of a style which is a direct descendant of the more idealizing and classicizing tendency of Constantinopolitan painting can be traced from the beginning of the 15th century. In Crete religious painting developed into an independent “Post-Byzantine” school. Artists were organized into a guild, the Scuola di San Luca, which in the second half of the 15th century consolidated its own artistic principles and iconographic standards in a program of instruction and apprenticeship that gave it continuity and coherence for at least 250 years. A considerable amount of information, from archives and icons, made it possible to determine the formation and development of this school of painting, which is the only one of Orthodox artistic schools that had a legitimate right to the title during this period.¹

The development of art on Crete was directly dependent on the development of Cretan towns as important commercial and shipping centers. Documents from archives show that Cretan painters received many commissions from foreign traders, mainly Venetians; from Catholic bishops of the Greek territories occupied by Venice; from Orthodox monasteries, like those of Sinai and Patmos; and from Greek and Venetian nobles and other citizens of the Republic. Thus Cretan painters turned almost exclusively to the production of portable icons.

In comparison with other parts of former Yugoslavia, the largest number of Cretan icons can be found in Dalmatia and Bosnia. This can be explained by strong trade and other connections between Crete and Venice, since many of mercant ships surely made stops at diferent Dalmatian ports. At the same time, important trade roads from Bosnia led over Herzegovina to Dalmatia. During the hard times of Turkish occupation in Bosnia, many rich Serbian merchant families were buying and presenting icons to their Orthodox churches, which they considered the only defenders of their national identity. This was especially the case in bigger centers such as Sarajevo and Mostar, were the largest collections of icons were in fact to be found. Apart from that, many of family icons were often placed in churches to be preserved in the dangerous times of living under the Turks, as their owners hoped that they would be able to get them back and keep them in their homes one day again.²

Works of the most important Cretan painters, such as Andreas Ritzos and his son Nicholaos, whose activity is documented in the 15th century,³ have been preserved in Ston (Dalmatia), Mostar (Herzegovina) and Sarajevo (Bosnia). ⁴ Geographical position of these towns shows exactly the mentioned trade links between Bosnia and the Adriatic coast.⁵ These painters and their famous contemporaries, who had workshops and considerable numbers of apprentices, created icon prototypes for the following generations, strongly embedded in Palaeologan and earlier Byzantine tradition. The Virgin, in the types of Hodegetria, Glykophiloysa or the Virgin of Passsion, was among the most popular subjects copied from such common iconographical models. An important group of Cretan icons from the middle of the 15th to the beginning of the 16th century have their own particular character and a distinguishing technical execution. The painters of these works, masters of the technique inherited from Palaeologan art, frequently displayed an eclecticism that enabled them to include elements from Italian art in their painting. They preserved iconographic types of the Virgin from traditional Byzantine art, and yet made new prototypes, which were extensively repeated during the 16th and 17th centuries. Commisions for the Virgin icons from Cretan painters were among the most popular ones. Best example of this is an order from Venice for nine hundred Virgin icons, placed in 1499.⁶ Other documents testify to a direct transference of “models” for various figures of saints among Cretan 15th century painters.⁷ All this, apart from the eclectic nature of stylistic variants, makes the dating of icons from the second half of the 15th century onwards even harder. There are examples of specific dated works from the 15th and 16th centuries that are hundred years apart and yet are astonishingly similar.⁸

The iconographic types of the Virgin with the Child, found in the Orthodox churches in Bosnia,⁹ all belong to the types that were most popular in Cretan painting. Yet, some of them (nos. 10, 12, 14 and 19) show combinations of two or more popular types that are rarely found on known Cretan icons. Slight variations of classical Byzantine prototypes do occur in Cretan Virgins anyway, but they are never so far-reaching as to disturb one of the basic principles of Greek icon painting—that each icon is derived from a very distinct archetype which always has to remain recognizable.

The earliest representations of the Virgin as mother are found in the Roman catacombs.¹⁰ Like other Christian subjects represented in the catacombs, the pictures of Mary are simple illustrations of biblical themes or verses. They are private expressions of faith, here specifically funerary, in a period when the church had not yet established an official line regarding which or what kind of images were appropriate in a devotional context. The Hodegetria type is one of the oldest images of the Virgin in Byzantine art. The appearance of the famous icon of the Virgin with the Child, called the Hodegetria, which for centuries was to be almost a palladium of the Eastern Empire, is recorded in the first half of the 5th century, probably in the years following the Council of Ephesus, which proclaimed Mary the Mother of God, thus favoring all the various cults of the Virgin. The cult of these icon portraits could have been established or could have become widespread at that time, perhaps before the cult of the portrait images of Christ (texts of the second half of the 6th and the early 7th century deal particulary with portraits of Christ).¹¹ About the year 400 or in the first decades of 5th century, the cult of portraits of saints, the including Virgin, existed in different cities of the Christian Empire. The qualities of the Virgin emphasized at the time were still primarily abstract or theological.¹² By the 5th century the Church had incorporated Mary into its art only as Theotokos—“the One Who Bore God.”

The formal and the intimate representation of the mother stand for the two visual poles that are found in Byzantine religious depictions of Mary. The change of emphasis from the Virgin and Protectress to Mother is seen in the period immediately after Iconoclasm.¹³ The general effort after Iconoclasm to emphasize Christ’s human nature was partly done by stressing Mary’s humanity. ¹⁴ With the demise of Iconoclasm, theologians and artists took a fresh look at the Virgin and began to develop the human and maternal sides of her personality. These qualities, which had been present but dormant in the earlier centuries, made her a perfect intercessor between God and the faithful.¹⁵ The importance of the Virgin’s role as a protector and intercessor between Christ and men that was well in accordance with Byzantine theology,¹⁶ and consequently the importance of prayer for the development of icon painting, encoureged numerous and various representations of the Virgin. The faithful were more ready to address the Mother and Protector than the Christ Pantocrator, the Almighty and the King of the Universe. The cult that the Church has rendered to the Mother of God, whose name Theotokos, as John Damascus says, contains the whole history of the Divine economy in the world, glorifies her above saints and angels.¹⁷ As the maternal dimension of Virgin’s personality was developed, she became even more accessible, as the ordinary woman who undestood humankind. The intimacy between mother and child, the emotional interplay, is conveyed through actions or gestures, such as feeding (no. 11), embracing (nos. 6, 7, 8, 10), or playing (no. 9). Numerous types were established for the image of the Virgin and different human feelings are manifested on them—calm grandeur (Hodegetria or Enthroned Virgin), melancholy, serenity, tenderness (Glycophilousa or Galactotrophousa), suffering and compassion (Virgin of Passion).

Byzantine artists commonly turned to inscriptions in their paintings, either as epigrams or labels, when a specific or new meaning, not immediately perceivable through iconography, was to be read in an image. These epithets add another dimension to the iconographic type. While, for example, the Hodegetria shows her son who symbolizes the way to be taken by faithful (representing therefore a Christologic doctrine), the Glycophilousa in all its variants stresses Mary’s maternal side.

But all of the themes, each in its own way, exist still on another level— they are all to be “reflected incessantly on the miror of the beholder’s soul, to keep that soul pure, to lift those who bend down, and to give them hope, for they contemplate the eternal prototype of beauty,” as suggested in medieval Painter’s Manual.¹⁸

Virgin Hodegetria

• 1. THE VIRGIN HODEGETRIA (Figure R-1¹⁹)

  15th century

  52 × 39.5 cm

  Tuzla. Bishopric Museum

• 2. THE VIRGIN HODEGETRIA ( Figure R-2)

  Late 15th—Early 16th century

  68.9 × 52 cm

  Sarajevo. Old Orthodox Church

The most venerated icon in Constantinople was one of the Virgin called the Hodegetria after the Monastery of the Hodegon near the imperial palace, where it was kept. As the name Hodegon translates as “Sanctuary of the Pointer of the Way,” this type of icon came to mean the “Guiding Virgin.”²⁰ Texts from the 4th–the beginning of the 5th century tell us that this famous icon of Theotokos with the Child, Hodegetria, was sent to Constantinople to the sister of Theodosius II (408–50), Pulcheria, by the soverign’s wife Eudocia, from the Holy Land, where she discovered it.²¹ From the time of its arrival in the capital it was the object of a cult, the palladium of the city, carried in processions and in battles. According to tradition it was painted by St. Luke as a portrait taken from life. Among several hundreds of icons that were held miraculous and believed to be done by St. Luke himself, the Hodegetria, Eleousa and Orant (without the Child) types are most frequently found.

The original, lost in the sack of Constantinople in 1453, depicted a standing Virgin holding the Christ Child in her left arm. The best copies we have are a series of the 10th century ivories with imperial portraits, such as the one now in the Archepiscopal Museum in Utrecht.²² These ivory reliefs assumed the same function as objects of worship as the painted icons.²³ According to historians, Byzantine emperor John Comnen (1118–43) used to walk after an icon of Hodegetria every Friday in a procession in the Royal pallace.²⁴ A processional icon of Hodegetria from the 12th century, one of the masterpieces of Byzantine painting, is kept today in the Archaeological Collection in Kastoria (Greece).²⁵

One of the earliest reflections of the Hodegetria type was found in a monument which belongs in the orbit of Jerusalemite art, a miniature of the Rabula Gospels from 586.²⁶ In his fundamental work on the iconography of the Virgin, Kondakov had suggested that Hodegetria type appeared in Palestine or Egypt as early as the pre-Justinian period and became generally popular throughout the Orthodx world from the beginning of the 6th century.²⁷ This has been proved by discoveries of Early Christian encaustic icons of the Virgin with the Child in the type of Hodegetria, such as the Sinai icon from the 6th century,²⁸ or the Pantheon icon made in Rome presumably in 609.²⁹ In the first half of the 7th century, the Hodegetria type is also found as a mosaic in the apse of the Church at Kiti in Cyprus.³⁰ The formal representation of the Virgin Hodegetria was often chosen for decoration of an apse or for the wall icon in larger churches with the mosaic decoration where paintings of an official nature were required rather than emotional and intimate ones.

In the Hodegetria archetype Christ Child is seated on the Virgin’s left arm as in the innumerable copies derived from it, though he was often depicted sitting on the right arm as well.³¹ The famous original icon showed a full-length figure of the Virgin, and both the Virgin and the Child were represented frontally. The full-length figure was gradually superseded in popularity by a half-length figure of the Virgin, though the full-length type continued to exist alongside.³²

Two icons of Hodegetria—from Tuzla (no.1) and Sarajevo (no. 2)—show the Christ Child seated on the Virgin’s left arm, holding a scroll (the logos) in the left hand and blessing with the right, which were the usual gestures for this type. They reveal the traditional Byzantine idea of Christ being almost self-contained and more spiritually than physically connected with the Virgin. ³³ But, instead of the complete frontality of the older more hieratic type, on our icons the Child is turned in a three-quarter profile towards the Virgin and she is represented as turning and inclining her head towards him. This shift of postures and directions introduces a note of humanity and sorrow, an implied premonition. This influence of motherly qualities is somewhat different from the triumphant and superhuman impression made by traditional Hodegetria. ³⁴

Beginning with the 12th, and especially in the course of the 13th century, there occurred a representation of a closer and tenderer relationship between the Mother and the Child, which hints at the Glycophilousa type (Virgin of Tenderness). This can be seen on the mosaic icons of the Virgin with the Child from Constantinople (12th century) and the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai (c. 1200).³⁵ This variant of Hodegetria, with a composition of mutual tenderness and affection, was introduced in Cretan painting by Andreas Ritzos in the second half of the 15th century. Both icons from Bosnia (no. 1 and 2) are of the same iconographic type as the Virgin Hodegetria in the Vatican Museum and the Museum in Trieste, done by the famous Cretan painter.³⁶ The only difference is that the angels from the top corners in Ritzos’ icons are not depicted on our icons.

On the icons from Tuzla and Sarajevo, the Virgin is wearing a maphorion with a narrow golden border along its edge, and on the first icon it is also decorated with golden tassels on her sleeve and three stars on her forehead and shoulders. The three stars often adorn the maphorion of the Virgin. As early as the 5th century there appears a cross on the part that falls over her forehead and later, but still within the early Christian period, two more crosses were added on her shoulders.³⁷ By the middle Byzantine period, the three crosses on the maphorion have become a common element in the representations of the Virgin in various compositions and media, including coins and seals, and continued to appear throughout Byzantine art. The cross was formed either of straight lines, or of four dots, or of four lozenges. At times it appears as a glorified, luminous cross, when ornamented rays are adeed. The cross on the forehead is associated with the custom that the early Christians had of displaying this symbol on their forehead (as a Christian testimony, a source of Christ’s light and a talisman), and the three crosses would allude to the Trinity.³⁸ It has also been suggested that their persistent appearance on the forehead and the shoulders may have something to do with the practice of crossing oneself whereby Christians touch the three crosses with their fingers, thus declaring their faith in the Trinity and drawing strength from the cross. During the middle Byzantine period there appear examples with the three stars in place of the crosses. These stars are not variations of the crosses, as proved by the existence of the examples which combine the cross and the star, as seen on the Tuzla icon. It has been assumed that these three stars, which were more popular in the late and Post-Byzantine periods and which present numerous variations, continue to carry the Trinitarian symbolism and that in fact they can be explained as a decorative development of the cross.³⁹

A specific interpretation of common decorative symbolism on both Virgin’s and Christ’s robes is given by a 15th century literary piece—ekphrasis of John Eugenikos, published in the 19th century.⁴⁰ The long text about an icon of the Virgin and Child describes the costume of the Virgin:

The Pantanassa Mother wears over her head, as was customary among Syrian women of her time, a light purple chiton whose colour merges into the blue of the iris... The hem of the robe, the various golden tassels and the like, wherever they are, are tokens of delicacy and grace and sure signs that the Divine Bride sprang from a royal root. Nevertheless the three shining stars appearing on the forehead and the shoulders should not be considered as having a secondary significance. They are symbols of the Grace of the luminous Trinity which as soon as it dwelt in her caused the One to be revealed from her.⁴¹

Same colors and ornaments as described above are seen on most icons with this subject, as well as on the Tuzla icon. The author of ekphrasis also sees the Trinity in the fingers of the blessing Child and proposes a most elaborate symbolism, which he pursues in the costume of the Child. On the Tuzla icon, Christ is wearing a white-blue tunic patterned with small golden motives (fleur-de-lis) and a orange-ochre himation lavishly decorated with delicate gold webbing. On the icon from Sarajevo he is dressed in a bright ochre himation and dark green chiton with rich gold striation. According to the interpretation of ekphrasis, the ornaments and colors (which are repeated on most Cretan icons discussed here) manifest the celestial, cosmic aspects of the Creator:

The inner part (meaning Christ’s chiton) covering the breast has the colour of a blue flower that quietly changes into white because the Child came from heaven; He is divine and the Creator of heaven. I think this is also the meaning of adorning it with rays like those of the sun. This too is beautiful and not without wisdom, because the One Word, Jesus Christ, is adorned, as it is written, with two natures, the divine and the human; (or better said) his pre-existing divine nature was adorned with the human which he assumed later, having mingled them exceedingly but without confusion.⁴²

The icons from Tuzla and Sarajevo are connected with 15th century Cretan painting by their style and technique, and both belong to a classical Cretan tradition of the first post-Byzantine period of the late 15th and the early 16th centuries.⁴³ The icon from Tuzla, which is much better preserved than the one from Sarajevo, has all the hallmarks of a Cretan masterpiece of the late 15th century, with strong roots in Palaeologan art. The sad and serious gaze of the Virgin, her well-drawn brows, broad cheeks and the care shown in the modelling of her hands, with their long fingers, can all be found in the works of Andreas Ritzos. Composition as a whole, the modelling of the face with the elements of Western sensitivity, the rendering of the features and the geometric treatment of the drapery, all connect two icons from Bosnia with the art of Andreas Ritzos and his immediate followers. A number of early 16th century icons are very close in their style and iconography to the icon from Tuzla and probably belong to the same artistic cycle: the Virgin Hodegetria from the Nikolenko Gallery in Paris,⁴⁴ the icon from Trieste,⁴⁵ and especially the one from the Church of Holy Trinity in Vienna⁴⁶ (where the punched decoration of the haloes is also identical). A delicate pattern of floral tracery which is stippled on the haloes on the icon from Tuzla is characteristic of a group of Cretan icons of Virgin with Child done in the15th century.⁴⁷ Same elaborate decoration in the haloes was used by Andreas Ritzos too. But the strongest support for dating of the Tuzla icon is the 15th century icon of Virgin Hodegetria from the Byzantine Museum in Athens,⁴⁸ which is in all respects the closest paralel to our icon. Apart from the two angels that are depicted in top corners on the icon from Athens, everything else is the same to the smallest detail. Very significantly, on both icons is the Palaeologan type of young Christ with large forehead, short nose with rounded top and fat hands.

Virgin Glycophilousa

• 3. THE VIRGIN GLYCOPHILOUSA ( Figure R-3, Figure R-4)

  16th century

  51.4 × 39.8 cm

  Tuzla. Bishopric Museum

• 4. THE VIRGIN GLYCOPHILOUSA

  16th century

  45.2 × 36.2 cm

  Tuzla. Bishopric Museum

• 5. THE VIRGIN GLYCOPHILOUSA (ELEOUSA) ( Figure R-5)

  Second half of the 17th century

  74 × 56 cm

  Hadžići. Church of The Birth of the Virgin

On the three icons from Tuzla and Hadžići (no. 3, 4 and 5) the Virgin is represented holding with her left hand the Child, who puts his cheek against his mother’s and who grasps her right hand with his left. In this type of representation where the Mother and the Child are shown cheek to cheek (the feature determining the Glycophilousa type), Byzantine art achieved a more human relationship between them than in any other type. Iconography of this kind of representation is connected with texts related to the Mass of the Holy Week (held before Easter). The meaning of the icon is centered upon the Virgin’s grief after the revelation of her Son’s destiny. The Child holds tight to his mother. This subject of the Virgin’s (symbolizing the Church) love towards Christ and her Lord became very important in the iconography of Cretain painting in a historically difficult period for the Greeks. They identified the Virgin’s grief with their own in the times of slavery under the Turks.⁴⁹

The Virgin had been represented as Glycophilousa (the Sweetly-kissing One or Virgin of Tenderness) even before the iconoclastic period, but in the Comnenian and Palaeologan period the Constantinopolitan image of the Virgin of Tenderness was highly esteemed.⁵⁰ It was later copied nearly everywhere from Cappadocia to the Balkans and very often used by Cretan painters during the 15th and 16th centuries. This type of Glycophilousa is directly associated with the Virgin of the Passion painted by Andreas Ritzos (Christ’s pose and the position of hands and feet are the same). The most famous examples of Glycophilousa that served as prototypes for numerous Cretan Virgins, as well as for the three icons from Bosnia (no. 3, 4 and 5), were painted by Andreas Ritzos and kept at Milan, Trani and Belgrade.⁵¹ Apart from Ritzo’s icon, in the same collection in Belgrade (Zbirka Sekulić) another Cretan 16th century icon of Glycophilousa is to be found.⁵² Early representations of Glycophilousa in the Cretan 15th century painting are also kept at Patmos⁵³ and in the Lichatchev Collection in St. Petersburg.⁵⁴

On the Cretan icons from Bosnia (no. 3, 4 and 5), the Virgin holding the Child is represented against the golden ground on which the abbreviations of their names are written in red capital letters. The haloes of both figures are punched with floral decoration of a typical Venetian character.

The icon from Tuzla (no. 3) is stylistically very close to the icon of the Glycophilousa from the Monastery of the Theologian on Patmos,⁵⁵ dated in the second half of the 16th century. The modelling through broad lighted areas on both of these icons creates full faces with cold brown shadows that are in a strong but subtle contrast with the warm pale pink color of the flesh. The facial type of the Virgin is marked by her expressive sad eyes that are set apart from each other and the long arched eyebrows which frame a strong shadow to the root of the nose. The drapery of the fleshy bodies (especially Christ’s) is organically composed, which was also common for some Cretan icons, like the mentioned one from Patmos.

The icon from Hadžići (no. 5) is inscribed Eleousa (the Merciful), which is the epithet of a poetic nature. In spite of the assumption that an icon of the Virgin with the inscription Eleousa was kept in the church of the Virgin Eleousa in Constantinople, founded by the Emperor John Comnen before 1136, preserved monuments show that the same epithet Eleousa could have been written on different iconographical types of the Virgin.⁵⁶ In the top corners of the icon from Hadžići there are miniature portraits of the archangels Michael and Gabriel with veiled hands. This icon shows a cold linear treatment of geometrizied forms that are rough stylizations of a much more subtle treatment in the earlier post-Byzantine art. The unknown Cretan painter wanted to follow his famous predecessors. This icon shows that the iconographical tradition of the Virgin Glycophilousa was still popular by the end of the 17th century.

• 6. THE VIRGIN GLYCOPHILOUSA (PHANEROMENI) (Figure R-6)

  Early 16th century

  34.5 × 27 cm

  Sarajevo. Old Orthodox Church

In the Cretan icons of Glycophilousa we can see an amazing variety of poses, movements and placement of the hands, while the common meaning of the subject always remains the same. Many of these variants can be found in Cretan icons preserved in Bosnia too (nos. 6–10). Because of such a big variety of details that characterizes this iconographic theme, it is very difficult to specify when exactly those changes took place. This difficulty becomes even greater because of the fact that Cretan painters constantly repeated even the slightest details of their iconographic prototypes for more than two hundred years.⁵⁷

On the icon from Sarajevo, the Virgin is represented against the golden background holding on her right arm the Child who is pressing his cheek against hers. They are both looking toward the spectator. Christ is holding a scroll in his right arm and caressing his mother’s chin with his left. The vivacity inherent in the Child’s posture reflects the type of Glycophilousa which is often characterized by a playful attitude and greater liveliness of the child and is called in Russian Vzygranye, which means “in a state of playing.” Such representations of the Virgin with the Playing Child are usually found with the Christ grasping the edge of his Mother’s maphorion instead of her face, both symbolizing his need for her protection. They can be traced back at least to the 13th century.⁵⁸ The earliest representations of Christ pressing his cheek to the Virgin’s and caressing her chin, in Italy date from around 1300 and are found on a number of 14th century panels by Tuscan, Sienesse and Florentine masters.⁵⁹ The Child’s body is absorbed within the outline of his Mother’s form, and its complicated posture with the upward and downward pressures of the hand and the foot reveals an unusual degree of dynamic force, contrasting with the quiet tenderness of the Mother as she presses her Child to her breast and touches his cheek.

This type became very popular in the Cretan 15th and 16th centuries painting. The same variant of Glycophilousa is to be found on the icon of Andreas Ritzos from the second half of the 15th century which is kept in Paris⁶⁰ and which was obviously the prototype for the Sarajevo icon. This icon from Sarajevo is a particulary fine work of Cretan painting. The faces are modelled with a subtle rendering of light and shade and the soft drawing of the features of the faces and Christ’s hair. The Virgin who in church poetry is referred to as “bottomless pit of grace and source of compassion” is represented as thougtful and sad with the strength of expression which could be achieved only by great masters. Her sorrow is emphasized by Christ’s innocent and playful gesture of reaching for her face. The sole of his foot is turned outward which is symbolically connected with his Passion.

Slight iconographic peculiarity is seen in the folded top part of Christ’s himation which is fluttering behind his back and which is also depicted on the above-mentioned Ritzos icon from Paris. This element has its origin in mosaic representation of the Virgin from the Kariye Camii, the former monastery of Chora in Constantinople, made at the high point of Palaeologan art.

On the upper part of the Sarajevo icon, apart from abbreviations of the Virgin’s and Christ’s names, there are two written epithets of the Virgin. One of them says KIRIA which means Our Lady, and another one FANEROMENI. Most of the time the epithets which often accompany the figures of the Virgin in Byzantine art are of a mystic or poetic nature.⁶¹ But some of them, like the one on the Sarajevo icon, indicate special icons of the Virgin which were worshipped in famous religious establishments. Epithet Phaneromeni is connected with the icon that was believed to be miraculous and comes from the Kapudag peninsula in the Sea of Marmara. This icon was celebrated on the 15th of July. There is an icon of the Virgin Hodegetria from the 12th–13th century which has the written epithet Phaneromeni that is connected with the name of the church of Phaneromeni in Nicosia, where it is kept.⁶² Otherwise, Phaneromeni is oftenly used name for many villages in Greece and Anadolia, where, according to a legend, the Virgin used to show her miraculous powers. The exact same variant of the Virgin Glycophilousa as on the Sarajevo icon can be found on the Cretan icons from the 15th century in the Lichatchev Collection in St. Persburg,⁶³ or the one from the 16th century from a Serbian church in Prijepolje.⁶⁴ The same iconography is also repeated on the Virgin icon from the Benaki Museum in Athens, done by the famous Cretan painter Emmanuel Lambardos in 1609.⁶⁵

• 7. THE VIRGIN GLYCOPHILOUSA (Figure R-7)

  16th century

  53 × 37 cm

  Sarajevo. Old Orthodox Church (No. 71)

• 8. THE VIRGIN GLYCOPHILOUSA

  16th century

  22.6 × 19.5 cm

  Sarajevo. Old Orthodox Church (No. 121)

Two icons from Sarajevo (nos. 7 and 8) show the Virgin holding the Child in a distorted, unnatural position with his legs crossed. This iconographic variant of Glycophilousa appears on Cretan icons of the 16th and the begining of the 17th centuries, as seen on two 16th century Virgins with Child from the Historical Museum and the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow.⁶⁶ The first icon from Sarajevo (no. 7) shows a deeply thoughtful Virgin with small eyes and somewhat lifted eyebrows, while the other one (no. 8) stresses her sadness. On both icons modelling of the face is done very gently with light shadows and barely visible white highlights. The second icon (no. 8) shows a deviation from the traditional icons of this type, because the scroll in Christ’s right hand is open. This is connected with the Western influence and is also seen on both abovementioned icons from Moscow.

One of the earliest surviving depictions in which the Virgin holds the Child pressed against her cheek in a tender embrace is on a wall icon in the New Church of Tokali, dating from the 10th century.⁶⁷ It is not known whether a specific meaning was attached to the theme of the embrace at this period, but it seems that this type of tender relationship of the Virgin with her child became a favored subject in Cappadocian churches during the 10th and 11th centuries. A large number of these depictions in Cappadocian churches, expressing Virgin’s intimate relationship with her child, are clearly votive icons.⁶⁸ During the 14th century in Italy (Florence, Siena) the Child was represented in the Virgin’s hands, with his body in a natural position slightly turned inward, extending his right hand upward to her neck and clutching the border of her robe.⁶⁹ This pattern formed by the Child’s right arm extended to his Mother’s neck is that of the Child who blesses upward, but the action of the hand has been changed from hieratic to naturalistic. The same mental attitude of the human and affectionate relationship between the Virgin and the Child is stressed even more on the representations of tender embrace on the Sarajevo icons, where the Christ reaches for his mother’s maphorion with his left hand. His action of reaching for her neck and clutching the border of her robe in any case suggests the deeper implication inherent in the act of suckling.

• 9. THE VIRGIN GLYCOPHILOUSA (PELAGONITISSA) ( Figure R-8)

  16th century

  56 × 43 cm

  Sarajevo. Art Gallery of Bosnia and Herzegovina (No. 3668)

Icons that were held to be miraculous were often copied because it was believed that in time these copies will also gain miraculous powers. Such replicas would usually inherit the toponym epithets of their originalas, especially if they stayed arround the same place. One of the famous examples of this is the icon of Virgin Pelagonitissa that was copied in Macedonia many times. The oldest known example of this iconographical type is the so-called Vzygranye, which includes all the different representations of the Virgin with the Playing Child (where Pelagonitissa also belongs). If Christ and his Mother are represented cheek to cheek, as they are on the icon of Pelagonitissa from Sarajevo (no. 9), then it also belongs, in a broader context, to the Glycophilousa type. The type of Vzygranye had exhisted before it became so popular and venerated in Macedonia in the 14th century. The oldest known variant of this iconography is found in a Syrian manuscript, the Book of Psalms, from 1203. This example testifies that different iconographical types of icons exhisted independently from their toponim or other epithets, which were given to them by believers in specific times or places.⁷⁰

The icon of Virgin Pelagonitissa, whose prtotype become popular somewhere in Pelagonia in the vicinity of Bitolj, was getting its replicas for a long time. Some of these icons had the toponym Pelagonitissa inscribed, while others did not. On the icon from Sarajevo (no. 9) the epithet is not inscribed, though its dependence on the iconography of Pelagonitissa is obvious. This theme, which occurs in a Byzantine icon on Sinai dating from the period of the Crusaders,⁷¹ is also known from the icons and frescoes of Serbian 14th century churches.⁷²

On the Sarajevo icon the Virgin is represented in a dark maphorion against the gold ground. She is holding the Child in her right arm and her left is raised in an attitude of prayer. Delicate rendering of forms is seen in the soft shading and the discrete striation of the lighted areas. The Child is very lively, with his back turned towards the viewer and stretching both arms around the face of the Virgin. His head is thrown back so that it is at the right angle to that of his mother. He is wearing a white chiton embroidered with gold fleur-de-lis and a sash of red material tied at the waist and passed over his shoulders like a pair of braces. His himation was obviously once richly decorated with gold webbing, which is now seen only in traces. It has slipped down his body, and covers only its lower part, leaving his right leg bare. The traditional antique garb in Byzantine art was considered especially appropriate for the depictions of the Christ Child in most scenic representations from the Gospel and, even more, in hieratic iconic schemes, such as that of the Virgin and Child. From the end of the 12th century onwards, in many depictions of the Virgin and Child, this rendering gave way to a more intimate approach that implied an attire of Christ more suitable for an infant (as we see on the Sarajevo icon). Thus, in the fresco panel of the Virgin Arakiotissa in Cyprus, done in 1192, Christ wears only a short tunic that leaves one leg bare and the tunic is also decorated here with a transversal sash and shoulder bands of the same material.⁷³ Similar features of the dress, recalling Christ Anapeson, are found in the earliest variations of the type of the Glycophilousa, such as that in a 12th century icon from the Byzantine Museum in Athens.⁷⁴

This baby’s attire for Christ in the depictions of the Virgin and Child constitutes an integral part of the iconographic type of the Virgin Kykkotissa, named after the miraculous prototype which, according to tradition, was sent by Alexois Comnenos to the Monastery of Kykkos in Cyprus in 1092.⁷⁵ In this type the Child wears only a short sleeveless tunic, allowing arms and legs to be exposed and revealing that he kicks with his left foot. On all the later copies of Kykkotissa we see a sash around the waist or a sash with additional bands extending over the shoulders, and this feature is differentiated from the tunic in both texture and color (in the same way as on the Sarajevo icon). That this particular type of the Virgin and Child enjoyed wide popularity both in the Island and in other areas—including Sinai, Russia, and Italy—may account for the frequent appearance of this detail both in the East and in the West, especially from the 13th century on.⁷⁶

On the Sarajevo icon the sandal on Christ’s left foot hangs loose as a result of the movement of the feet, which is symbolically connected with his destiny and is usually depicted in the same way on the icons of the Virgin of the Passion (such as no. 13). His unconstrained posture and affectionate gestures reflect the close relationship between him and his mother, and his wholly human character is here enchanced by the absence of a halo, which is usually the case on similar representatios.

The Virgin, absorbed in thoughts, is tenderly leaning towards the Child and directing her eyes at the observer. The moving mixture of the Child’s palyful innocence and his Mother’s deep anxiety, which is seen in her silent sorrowful look, gives special psychological tension to this iconographic type. The same iconography as we see on the Sarajevo icon is found on the icon from the Byzantine Museum in Athens, signed by the famous Cretan painter Angelos in the middle of the 15th century.⁷⁷ This icon has the inscription KARDIOTISSA, which points to Crete, where there are still many monasteries dedicated to the Virgin Kardiotissa. Angelo’s icon was often repeated in Cretan painting of the second half of the 15th century. The icon from Sarajevo repeats not only the iconography (the only difference is two small busts of angels praying at the top of Angelo’s panel), but also has the same stylistic features and colors as Angelo’s icon.

• 10. THE VIRGIN GLYCOPHILOUSA

  16th century

  32 × 24 cm

  Tuzla. Bishopric Museum (No. 195)

The icon from Tuzla (no. 10) shows a very interesting mixture of different elements and in some ways the unique use of eclectic style in combination with the iconograpical type. The Virgin is represented in the type of the Glycophilousa in the way that is well known from the icon of the Virgin of Vladimir at the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. This specially venerated icon depicted the Virgin holding the Child on her right hand, with their close relation stressed through the cheek to cheek position and the placement of Christ’s arms around his Mother’s neck, who inclines her head towards him. The famous, numerous times repeated prototype of this characteristic portrayal of tenderness and loving kindness, was painted in Constantinople and around 1131 sent to Kiev. From there it went to Vladimir, where it received the toponym Vladimirskaya, and finally it came to the Kremlin in 1315.⁷⁸ As a type, it has been called Eleousa, the Merciful. The same iconography of the famous Russian Vladimir Virgin is found on the 12th century icon from Nicosia⁷⁹ which proves that this type was widely spread in the Byzantine world. The earliest representation of this tender embrace is seen in a 9th century Coptic ivory relief in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, which is believed to be reflected by a well-known icon.⁸⁰

The earliest representation of the Child embracing his Mother and pressing his cheek to hers in Italy is seen in an illustration from a South Italian Exultet Roll dating ca. 1115.⁸¹ The type is first represented in Italian panel painting around 1240 and is frequently met with during the second half of the century. In Venice, this type is known on a 13th century Byzantine marble relief from S. Marco and three panels from the late 13th and 14th centuries attributed to Venetian School.⁸²

However, for some reason Cretan painting did not accept this type. One of the rare similar representations that are found in Cretan painting is the Virgin of Tenderness from Patmos. On this early 16th century icon Virgin is represented holding the Child on her left arm who is embracing her.⁸³ Comparison of the Tuzla icon with the Glycophulousa from Patmos (that basically has the same iconographical concept, except that the Virgin holds the Child on the opposite arm), shows how stylistically far away from its Greek prototype the icon from Tuzla really is.

The icon from Tuzla apparently fuses two popular types of the Virgin—that of Glycophilousa (in its variant of Vladimir Virgin) and the Italian type of Madre di Consolazione (shown on icons no. 17 and 18), which was extremely popular on Cretain icons. The iconography of the Tuzla icon belongs to the Glycophilousa type (because of the placement of the figures cheek to cheek), but its style and decorative elements are typically Catholic, with all the characteristics that we find on numerous Madre di Consolazione icons. This leeds to the assumption that it was probably done by the Western artists, who were always more ready to fuse separated iconographical types of the Virgin.⁸⁴

The features that we find on the Tuzla icon, which are characteristic of Madre di Consolazione, include decoration with a gold band with pseudo-Arabic letters along the edges of the Catholic maphorion worn by the Virgin, as well as along the edges of Christ’s himation, and above all, the Late Gothic style in which the two figures are painted. Maybe the best and one of the earliest representatives of a large group of icons portraying the Virgin and Child as Madre di Consolazione, with the same features of Italo-Cretan painting, is the icon done by the famous 15th century painter Nikolaos Tzafouris, kept in Athens.⁸⁵ One of the reasons why this type was so popular in Cretan painting is that it met the requirements of both Catholic and Orthodox Churches until the 17th century. This is attested by the archival sources, which refer to countless icons of the Virgin painted a la italiana, and by the large number of them that survived in Greece and elsewhere.

Other notable features of the Tuzla icon (no 10) that connect it with the best representations of Madre di Consolazione are the bright red color of Christ’s himation; the drapery, strongly lit at the peaks of the folds of Virgin’s maphorion; the soft, stylized folds crowning her face and the special care taken in the fine gold decorative details on both the Virgin’s and Christ’s draperies. Furthermore, the deep red maphorion of the Virgin displays the ample curves and soft deep folds typical of the Venetian Late Gothic drapery. This excellent plastic rendering of the folds and the meticulous execution connect the Tuzla icon to similar icons dated around 1500.⁸⁶ Taken together, the stylistic and typological features of this icon suggest a date in the late 15th—early 16th century.

The Virgin’s and Christ’s hands on the icon from Tuzla were later, probably in the 19th century, covered with silver plates. It is hard to say whether haloes originally existed or they were left out in order to stress the human nature of the mother and the child, appropriate for this composition.

Virgin Galactotrophousa

• 11. THE VIRGIN GALACTOTROPHOUSA ( Figure R-9)

  First half of the 17th century

  49 × 40 cm

  Sarajevo. Old Orthodox Church (No. 426)

The Virgin is depicted against gold ground almost frontally, with a somewhat protruding right sholuder. Her head is little tilted towards the Child whom she holds on her left arm. The Christ is shown as sucking at his Mother’s breast, holding her hand with one arm and blessing with the other. The oldest representation of the Virgin as Galactotrophousa (Virgo Lactans, nursing her Child), is found in a 2nd century catacomb fresco, where the seated Virgin holds the Child, whom she feeds at her breasts.⁸⁷ This type figured both in Early Christian art and in Coptic miniatures of the 9th and 10th centuries.⁸⁸ Galactotrophousa, originating as an icon type on Egyptian soil, soon became widely spread in Christian art. Brought from Egypt, it was already known to the West and Byzantium, not as an established icon scheme, but as a simple genre motif springing from Early Christian and Late Hellenistic art. The Virgin’s breast was always reduced to the utmost degree possible, making it hardly visible to the spectator.

In the Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council (717–41), Pope Gregory mentioned “the images of his Holy Mother holding in her arms our Lord and God and nourishing him with her milk,” which proves that icons of Galactotrophousa existed in the 8th century.⁸⁹ But Virgin Galactotrophousa was never commonly accepted in Byzantium. It was far more popular in Greek provinces and in the countries of the Christian East than in Constantinople. On the other side, Italy contributed to the popularization of this image in the Christian East from the 14th to the 16th century. Since the suckling Child seated in the Virgin’s arms was the most popular of the many types of the Virgin and Child represented by Italian masters of the 14th century,⁹⁰ maybe this subject was accepted by Cretan painters through Venice. Example of this iconographic type in 14th century Venice is represented by Caterino Veneziano and his painting from the Warcester Art Museum.⁹¹

The icon of Galactotrophousa from Sarajevo shows a work of a very gifted Cretan painter from the late period of the post-Byzantine painting. The colors that he uses for the flesh of the figures are somewhat darker than usually, warm ochre-brown with red tints. The narrow parts of the lightened areas of the face are modeled with fine white lines. The rich floral decoration of the nimbs, as well as Christ’s slightly wavy hair, reveal Venetian influence.

An icon of the Virgin Galactotrophousa from the Swiss Private Collection in Kolliken⁹² shows striking similarities with the icon from Sarajevo, both in terms of style and iconography. The dimensions of both icons are the same. The punched decoration of their haloes is identical. The small ornaments on Christ’s gray-blue chiton are done in black and gold on both icons. Their iconography is the same almost to the smallest details—the only difference is that on the Switzerland icon the top part of Christ’s himation is not fluttering behind his back as on the Sarajevo icon and that it has a thin bordering strip with a punched ornament, which is not seen on the Sarajevo icon. The stylistical elements are clearly the same, most evident in the modelling of the faces, the drawing of Christ’s hair in wide semi-circles, in the shape of faces and hands as well as in the stiff geometrizied handling of the drapery of Virgin’s maphorion. All this leads to the conclusion that both icons were made in the same artistic cycle, if not by the same master.

Virgin of the Passion

• 12. THE VIRGIN OF THE PASSION ( Figure R-10)

  16th century

  67.2 × 49.3 cm

  Sarajevo. Old Orthodox Church (No. 351)

The type of the Virgin holding the Child frightened by the angels’ display of the symbols of the Passion had been known in Byzantine painting at least since the 12th century, but this composition, which represents a prefiguration of the Passion of Christ, was very rare. In the 15th century and after, the theme is seen far more often. Since some of the best of these works bear the signature of Andreas Ritzos, the invention of the type has been attributed to him.⁹³ In fact, the composition is undoubtedly Byzantine as proved by the 12th century fresco from the Monastery of Arakas on Cyprus.⁹⁴ In the 15th century, the representations of the Virgin of the Passion were found in Kastoria.⁹⁵

Nevertheless, the structure of a numerous group of 16th and 17th century icons of the Virgin of the Passion is one of the most important achievments of Cretan School of painting. The assumptions that this type took its shape in the workshop of Andreas Ritzos are certainly well founded.⁹⁶

The icon from Sarajevo (no. 12) shows the Virgin holding the Child on her right arm, while he turns his head up towards the archangel. This figure of the descending angel with his wings spread, who in his veiled hands holds the Cross, the lance and the reed with the sponge is a characteristic detail that gained popularity on the icons of Andeas Ritzos in Candia. Christ is blessing with his right hand and holding the sphere of the world in his left. On the icon from Sarajevo (no. 12), two different iconographical types have been fused—that of the Virgin of the Passion and of the well-known Italian type of the Madre di Consolazione. Both of these types were extremely popular in Cretain painting during the 16th and 17th centuries, but they were rarely mixed together in the way we see on the Sarajevo icon. This icon is probably again (as the icon no. 10) an example of the work of a Venetian artist, who was more ready to fuse two different, established types of presenting the Virgin, than we would expect from a Greek painter.

Apart from the bust of the angel and the position of Christ’s head (turning upwards), everything else on the Sarajevo icon belongs to the Madre di Consolazione type, including the fact that the Virgin is holding the Child on her right, and not on her left arm (as seen on the icons of Passion). The characteristic features of this type include the placing of the Child in a position that provides an element of contraposto, the sphere in his left hand, his western-style shirt, the gold band with pseudo-kufic decoration along the edges of the Virgin’s Catholic maphorion buttoned up with a big golden jewel and decorated with the hart-like motives from Venetian textile. But most significant is the Late Gothic style in which the two figures are painted, obvious in modelling of the faces and the plasticity of the purple-brown drapery of the maphorion which displays ample curves and soft deep folds. Christ is clad in a chiton of black Venetian brocade, decorated with a floral motif of stylized tulips—a theme of oriental origin. His orange-ochre himation is covered with rich gold webbing.⁹⁷

The face of the Virgin on this icon shows eclecticism and mixture of styles. The rendering of light and shade in a delicate balance of colors reveals Western influences, while the features of the Virgin’s face with the characteristic narrow almond-shaped eyes, fine arched eye-brows, broad cheeks and the long straight nose are typically Cretan. In depicting the Virgin’s face, Cretain painters usually made a choice in either using Westenized features, especially for the type of Madre di Consolazione, or sticking to the traditional Greek features of her face, characteristic of the Virgin of the Passion type.

Certain clumsiness is seen in the way the artist painted the hood of the Virgin’s maphorion which is too shallow to cover her head, and the abrupt way it breaks on the left side at the hight of her eyes, as well as in a somewhat compressed composition the balance of which is disturbed by introducing just one angel, instead of two, as usualy seen on similar icons.

Abbreviations of the Virgin’s and Christ’s name, as well as the edges of their haloes, done in red, are later added over the original layer which can still be traced, following its shape and color.

• 13. THE VIRGIN OF THE PASSION ( Figure R-11)

  16th—17th century

  79 × 61 cm

  Sarajevo. Old Orthodox Church (No. 398)

This icon from Sarajevo (no. 13) closely follows the iconography of the famous prototype of the Virgin of the Passion done by Andreas Ritzos. In the 16th and 17th centuries this iconographic theme became one of the most popular subjects of Cretan iconographers and was painted by all the major painters like Damaskinos, Tzanfournaris, Lambardos, Victor, Tzanes and many others.⁹⁸

Three well-known icons dealing with this subject are signed by Andreas Ritzos, and at least two more are attributed to him.⁹⁹ A number of icons, so closely related to the style and iconography of Ritzos’s workshop that it can be supposed that they were painted arround the same time (the second half of the 15th century) and by the same artistic circles, are also to be found in different places in former Yugoslavia.¹⁰⁰

The icon from Sarajevo represents the Virgin holding the Child who is grasping his mother’s right arm with both hands. He turned his head up towards an archangel who holds the Cross in his veiled hands; a pendant figure with other arcahgel holds the pot with vinegar, the lance and reed with the sponge. All the movements and the gestures speak of Christ’s fear and agitation, which becomes symbolic in the tranquil and monumental composition with the composed faces. Almost academic character in which the form is rendered, with closed synthesis and severe structure in the volumes and garments is characteristic for this type of Virgins of the Passion icons.¹⁰¹ It also conveys a restrained tenderness in the moving attitude and gesture of the Child.

The open triangle of the maphorion at the Virgin’s neck, that allows her inner garment to be seen, is also characteristic of this iconography, although this can also be found in other types (like Hodegetria for example, no.1 and 2). Cretan painters originally added to old Byzantine subjects this element of the open triangle on their representations of the Virgin of the Passion.¹⁰² Another element which is commonly seen on this iconographic type is the pattern of embroidery on Christ’s shirt. This ornament has been connected with the decoration found on shrouds—the way it was painted in the Palaeologan period in representations of Dormition or used on the covers for the Church altar.¹⁰³ Christ is also wearing the same decorated chiton in other iconographic types of the Virgin with Child (such as no. 1, 3, 9, 11, 15), and this is always alluding to his Passion.

On his famous icons of the Virgin of the Passion Andreas Ritzos inscribed in Gothic letters the Latin text of a verse on the right side and the epithet for the Virgin on the left. These inscriptions were later often copied by Cretan painters on their representations of the same subject, but they refused to use Latin script. Instead, they wrote the same thing in Greek letters, which is also the case on the Sarajevo icon (no. 13). On the left side it reads AMOLYNTOS—which describes the pure or unsinful Virgin (Virgin Immaculata). This inscription might be connected with the name of the monastery which was built in Constantinople in 1401 by the Empress Irena Palaeolog.¹⁰⁴ The verse on the right speaks about archangel Gabriel who earlier announced to the Virgin that she was pregnant and is now showing her the symbols of her Son’s Passion, while Christ, now having the mortal body, is being afraid of his destiny watching the signs of his torture. The gold background on the Sarajevo icon was later crudely overpainted, but all the inscriptions were left visible, in their original state. Modelling of the somewhat darker faces with sharp distinctions between the light and shaded parts and fine highlights with white striation is very similar to the icon of the Virgin of the Passion done in the early 17th century¹⁰⁵. This icon from Athens could give a clue for the datation of the Sarajevo icon.

Virgin Enthroned

• 14. THE VIRGIN AND CHILD ENTHRONED ( Figure R-12)

  16th century

  99.5 × 68.5 cm

  Hadžići. Church of The Birth of the Virgin (No. 3)

The icon from Hadžići (no. 14) presents a rare variation of the popular subject of the Virgin Enthroned and a mixture of different established types in Cretan painting. Most of all it resembles the popular Italian type of Madre di Consolazione with Christ seated on the Virgin’s right side. Western influences are most obvious in her widely open Catholic maphorion¹⁰⁶ (which in Byzantine art is folded over her breast) and Late Gothic treatment of the Virgin’s robes, as well as of the faces with the partial lighting of the flesh.¹⁰⁷ The Virgin’s maphorion is sharply broken at the point where it touches the seat of the throne. It is deep red, decorated with a gold band with pseudo-cufic letters along its edges and modelled with deep dark folds and soft light, characteristic of Venetian Cretan painters, or the ones that accepted their influences. The Virgin’s blue dress has a high Renaissance waist. Her white veil is depicted very plastically, as well as the haloes with punched semi-circle ornaments of Venetian origin. Another clearly Western element is the fact that the Virgin is painted barefooted (which was never the case on Cretan icons). This is combined with obviously Byzantine way that the Child and the throne (including the duplication of the cushion) are depicted, with rich gold striation on Christ’s chiton and himation as well as on the big red cushions and the wooden part of the throne. Similar shape of the rather plain throne appears on Venetian 14th century panels of the Virgin Enthroned,¹⁰⁸ but instead of the Byzantine wooden thrones they are marble and always covered with the cloth held by angels behind the Virgin.

In the common variation of the Madre di Consolazione type, where the Virgin is represented in full figure, enthroned, she holds the Child in her lap in the same way as on the standard compositions of half-figure (as seen for example on our icons no. 17 and 18). A Cretan icon from the same period (15th–16th century) as the Hadžići icon, kept in the Historical Museum in Moscow, shows this common variation of the Madre di Conolazione sitting on the throne.¹⁰⁹ This icon also shows a mixture of Greek and Italian elements both in iconography and style, but we can easily see the differences of the Hadžići icon from this standard type. The Virgin embraces the Child putting her right arm over his shoulder in a protective gesture that is rarely so strongly expressed in the post-Byzantine painting, and never on this specific type of the Virgin Enthroned. Further iconographic peculiarity is Christ’s pose which comes from the Virgin of the Passion type. He turns his head away from the Virgin as if to see the angel displaying the symbols of his Passion, but there are no visible traces that the angel was ever depicted. The only possible explanation would be that the icon was left unfinished since Christ is never turning his head backwards in similar compositions.¹¹⁰ The connection with the Virgin of the Passion type is also stressed with the detail of Christ’s sandal, which is falling off his foot. Another inexplicable thing is that the Child is holding a scroll in his right hand and blessing with his left, instead of the other way round.

It is possible that this strange combination of different elements was produced by a Western artist who was not that familiar with strict Byzantine iconography and stylistic rules.

• 15. THE VIRGIN AND CHILD ENTHRONED ( Figure R-13)

  (THE VIRGIN LADY OF ANGELS)

  About 1607.

  118 × 80 cm

  Tuzla. Bishopric Museum (No. 224)

The representation of the Virgin with Child sitting on a throne reaches back into the period when Eastern Christianity created picture types of general validity, understood, like the koine, in all provinces of the Orthodox world. Among the earliest preserved icons, dating from the 6th century, this subject appears most frequently, as proved by the icons from Sinai and a tapestry panel from Egypt.¹¹¹ Representations of an enthroned Virgin placed in the center of the apse can be found on the mosaics from the 6th and 9th century in Poreč(Parenzo) and Rome.¹¹² Byzantine artist kept the representation of the Virgin with Child or Christ Enthroned as one of their main subjects, shown by the 10th and 12th century icons from Sinai.¹¹³

The qualities of the Virgin emphasized in this type of her representation are primarily abstract and theological. She is depicted frontally, presenting the Christ Child to the world. Except for the hand on the shoulder of the child, which could be interpreted as a motherly touch, these images more than anything else are unemotional and distant. Virgin is the Theotokos, as defined in the 5th century concept which precludes the establishment of any direct emotional connection between her and her son.¹¹⁴

Cretan masters often produced large icons of the Virgin Enthroned, in a severe, static compositions, that were put on the iconostasis of their monasteries. A famous example is the 15th century icon done by Andreas Ritzos for the Monastery of St. John the Theologian in Patmos.¹¹⁵ On the icon from Tuzla (no. 15) Virgin is represented sitting on a broad throne and softly placing her hands upon the shoulders of the little Christ who sits on her left leg. This rather rare type of the enthroned Virgin is characteristic for the placement of Christ out of the axis, as well as for the placement of the throne. The above-mentioned Andreas Ritzos type, which was followed by generations of Cretan painters, is strictly frontal and symetrical, devided by the central axis.

Wooden throne on the Tuzla icon is decorated with stones and chrysographies. On the back of the seat there is a series of turned mullions. The same shape of the throne is also used in other representations like on the 16th century icon of Christ Enthroned from Patmos.¹¹⁶ However, on our icon, the perspective projection of the throne, which is seen from the side, with the result that the left ending of the handrail of the semi-cyclical back is projected in front while the right ending is pushed back, has a special significance. The oblique position of the back of the throne is in conformity with the placement of the Child beyond the central axis and with the sideward plane formed by the lower part of the dress of the Virgin, as she brings the left leg inwards and raises it in order to support the Child. A few oblique, almost straight folds, underline this position of the legs. The inconsistency of perspective in the Tuzla icon is created by the wide base of the seat and the adjusted front of the throne, which are not positioned sidewards, but which have been left parallel to the surface of the panel.

The type with oblique planes is a creation of the middle Byzantine era, developed in the Palaeologan art and this is also confirmed by two Sinai icons of the 14th–15th centuries.¹¹⁷ Quite a few examples of the post-Byzantine period prove the survival of the type beyond the era and the expansion of the type is not limited to the Cretan cycle.¹¹⁸

The icon from Tuzla is distinguished for the purely Byzantine figure of the Virgin with only symbolic volume and no material weight, for her tall and slender silhouette, for her delicate face and small head. Her fine and long-fingered hands suit the soft flesh modelling. The drapery, with dense, agitated folds breaking in acute angles must be related to the Palaeologan prototype. The edges of the Virgin’s maphorion are subtly decorated with gold fringe ornament. The delicate floral gold ornament on the support of the throne is the only element done under Venetian influence.

This icon was done after the same prototype as the icon of the Virgin Lady of Angels, dated about 1607 and found in the Monastery of the Theologian on Patmos.¹¹⁹ Both iconography and style on these icons are very similar. The differences are observed in details such as: Christ’s white chiton with the fleur-de-lis decoration on the Tuzla icon is replaced by a plain chiton with gold striation on the other icon; richly ornamented back of the throne on the Tuzla icon has simple gold parallel lines on the Patmos icon; the Virgin’s maphorion that reveals her right feet on the Tuzla icon, covers it on the other. On our icon the Virgin is sitting on one big cushion instead of two small ones, and the platform for her feet stays flat, while it is raised on the one from Patmos. The bigest difference is seen in the shape of Christ’s head, which is more rounded and less conventional on the Tuzla icon than on the one from Patmos. Probably both of these works were done after some excellent, famous Palaeologan icon, as has already been supposed for the Patmos icon.¹²⁰ There is one more icon of the Virgin Lady of Angels done arround 1610–30 in the Monasteru of Chora on Patmos, which also closely follows the same prototype.¹²¹

• 16. THE VIRGIN ENTHRONED ( Figure R-14)

  Emmanuel Kaliaki

  Second half of the 17th century

  91 × 61 cm

  Visoko. Church of St. Procopius

The Virgin is presented sitting on a marble throne of a Venetian type, decorated with sculptural vases placed on top of the side columns. The Corinthian capitels on top of the columns are decorated with heads of angels. Similar architectural thrones with sculptural detachments on its sides belong to nothern Gothic influences in the late 14th century Venetian painting.¹²² Marble throne, a clearly Venetian detail, was introduced in the Cretan painting in its early period. We find it on Andreas Ritzos’s Virgin Enthroned, and other painters copied it later in different variants. ¹²³

The Virgin is holding the Child on her slightly raised left leg. She places her left arm on the Child, and the right one on her knee, while Christ is blessing with his right hand and holding a scroll in his left. The composition follows the established type of Virgin Enthroned, where the figures are frontally placed around the central axis. Strict frontality of the Virgin and compositional symetry is disturbed with the movement of Christ’s head.

The same iconography as we see on the icon from Visoko is found on another Cretan icon painted about the same time in the 17th century, and done by Jacob Daronas.¹²⁴

The Visoko icon stylistically belongs to the conservative trends of the 17th century Cretan painting. The late generation of Cretan painters turned towards the older traditional forms and styles. This retrogression to the Palaeologan models and their interpretations in the early Cretan School of art had many devoted followers in the generation of Cretan painters after 1600.¹²⁵ On the Visoko icon this adherence can be seen in the austere, geometric handling of the drapery, in the presence of olive green tones in the shadows, and in linear treatment of light with white striation. Pink tints on the cheeks, on the tip of the nose, and on the outlines of the eyes are also typical of the 15th century Cretan painting. Christ’s himation is lavishly decorated with delicate gold-webbing and the maphorion worn by the Virgin has a gold band with fringe ornament.

On the bottom of the icon runs a Greek inscription with a name of the painter in the middle. A prayer and the names of donors are written on the left and right side, below the legs of the throne.

Madre di Consolazione

• 17. MADRE DI CONSOLAZIONE

  16th century

  51.8 × 35 cm

  Sarajevo. Old Orthodox Church (No. 290)

• 18. MADRE DI CONSOLAZIONE

  16th century

  38.1 × 30.4 cm

  Tuzla Bishopric Museum (No. 128)

Almost simultaneously with the iconography of the Byzantine presentations of the Virgin holding the Child on her right arm and slightly bending her head towards him, the same representation appeared on frescoes and mosaics in Italy during the 11th and 12th centuries. The Romanesque-Byzantine Madonna, called Del Divin Amore, that was kept in the shrine in the vicinity of Rome which was a place of pilgrimage, repeatad in Italy the same Byzantine legend about the miraculous icon that was not done by hand. Preserved frescoes from crypts show the same iconographical type of the Virgin during 12th, 13th and 14th centuries in Italy. Beginning with the13th century, Florentine painting accepted this type with great enthusiasm for the subject of tender Madonnas. Apart from Florence, most frequent representations of Madonna with the Child on her right hand are to be found in Venice and Dalmatia, which were under strong Byzantine influence. Many replicas of the popular icon of the Virgin not-done-by-hand (that was believed to be painted by Saint Luke himself), and the one depicting the Virgin holding the Child on her right hand, are preserved in numerous Veneto-Dalmatian monuments of the 13th and 14th centuries.¹²⁶

The Virgin cradling Christ in her right arm, as we see on the two icons from Sarajevo (no. 17) and Tuzla (no. 18), is represented in the Italian type of Madre di Consolazione, a 15th century miraculous icon in the Church of Rome under the same invocation.¹²⁷ Its iconographic prototype could be an icon known in Northern Italy since 1300 which according to the local tradition was atributed to the Greek painter Philipos from Asia Minor.¹²⁸ This type is distinguished by the position of the Child on the Virgin’s right arm; for his pose, characterized by successive changes of planes and countermovements; for the position of his hands—the one blessing while the other holds the globe—and for the headdress of the Virgin, typically Catholic in style.¹²⁹ Another very characteristic feature of this type is the influence of Late Gothic tradition seen in the fine noble faces.

The deep red maphorion of the Tuzla Virgin (no. 18) displays ample curves and soft deep folds typical of the Venetian Gothic drapery, as well as the broad border along its edge decorated with golden pseudo-Arabic letters. The maphorion of the Virgin on the icon from Sarajevo is the same; the only difference is that it is brighter red and not so dark as the one on the Tuzla icon, which follows the color characteristic for this type. On both icons Christ is clad in a chiton of black brocade, the expensive Venetian fabric, with rich gold decoration that repeats the same ornament as on his Mother’s maphorion. This jewel-like ornament, slightly different on the Sarajevo and Tuzla icons, is a clearly Western element that appears on the Virgin’s maphorion in different iconographic types of Cretan icons (for example, on icon no. 12). This predilection for jewel-like ornamentation is a Gothic influence present in the Venetian 14th century painting. Similar fine golden decoration that covers the whole surface of the Virgin’s robe is seen on the Madonnas done by prominent Venetian 14th century painters, such as Paolo or Lorenzo Veneziano.¹³⁰ Exactly the same delicate stars that cover the drapery all over, as on the Tuzla icon, can be found on the Virgin’s maphorion on the Cretan icon of Madre di Consolazione dated in the15th–16th centuries, from the Staatlichen Museum in Berlin.¹³¹ On both icons from Bosnia (nos. 17 and 18), Christ is wearing a western-style transparent white shirt, visible on his right sleeve and his himation is filled with dense golden striation, typical of the Madre di Consolazione group of icons.

The type of Madre di Consolazione, as seen on the Sarajevo and Tuzla icons, was developed in Cretan painting by Nikolaos Tzafouris. According to documents preserved in the archives in Venice, Tzafouris lived and worked in the second half of the 15th century, and was no longer alive in 1501.¹³² All of his signed icons combine Italian features with the expressive means of the 15th century Cretan painting. The problem of the origins and date of a large group of Italo-Cretan icons of Madre di Cosolazione which have the same iconographic features as our icons (nos. 17 and 18), was solved by the discovery of a Madre di Consolazione done by Nikolaos Tzafouris, now in the Kanellopoulos Collection.¹³³ This type that Tzafouris developed incorporated Western elements, like the pose of the baby, the globe in his hands and the typology of the dresses, with characteristics of Cretan painting like the Greek type of the faces, the technique of egg tempera and the gold background. Cretan painters showed a remarkable preference to the Virgin of the Madre di Consolazione type which was repeated with some not very important variations during the 16th and 17th centuries. Many Cretan icons with this subject were also exported to the Mediteranian countries, Western Europe and Russia.¹³⁴

Virgin with Christ and Infant St. John

• 19. THE VIRGIN AND CHILD WITH ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST

  16th century

  92 × 75.2 cm

  Tuzla. Bishopric Museum (No. 100) ( Figure R-15)

The icon from Tuzla (no. 19) shows in many ways a rare variant of a common mixture of Renaissance and Byzantine elements in the Italo-Cretan painting. This unusual representation fuses in a strange way some of the most significant features of Renaissance and Byzantine iconography and style. The Virgin with Christ is represented in a pose similar to the Madre di Consolazione type, except that she is holding the Child on her left arm. Appearance of little John the Baptist in the lower left part, towards whom Christ is bestowing his blessing, brings a unique element in the known Post-Byzantine compositions. This very compositional scheme representing the Virgin with two children in a pyramidal arangement, was one of the many genious inventions of Leonardo da Vinci. One of his famous early drawings from Windsor, done about 1480, presents the Virgin half kneeling and holding the Child on her right, with infant St. John standing close beside her. The drawing is summary, but it still represents Leonardo’s final version of the subject, which was to become the most influential Renaissance composition. Leonardo carried the idea perhaps to a painting, but certainly to a cartoon, and this was probably the earliest representation of the Virgin and Child to include the infant St. John.¹³⁵

Between his arms, closed in prayer, St. John the Baptist holds a long stick with a cross on its top and an open scroll around it. On the scroll there is a Latin inscription: AGNUS DEI. Lamb is depicted behind the infant. This initial Christian symbol, the Lamb of God, is preserved on the famous 5th-century mosaic of Agnus Dei in the vault of S. Vitale in Ravenna.¹³⁶ Representations of St. John the Baptist with the lamb appear on a 6th century ivory from Ravenna, but the Constantinople Council in 692 forbade depicting the lamb as a symbol of Christ’s Passion.¹³⁷ After that Christ’s Passion was depicted as a baby laying on the altar.¹³⁸ On the icon from Tuzla, both the inscription referring to the lamb and the actual representation of the lamb are connected with the words that St. John the Baptist uttered when he saw Christ coming (from John, 1: 29: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world).

In the Venetian painting of the 16th century, the Virgin with Christ and infant St. John was often presented in a landscape with plump naked children with curly hair, and characteristic portrait features of the figures. On these pictures the Virgin is always wearing a rich Renaissance dress that leaves her hair and neck uncovered.¹³⁹ The major stylistic and typological features of the Tuzla icon, some of them Byzantine (gilded background, egg tempera technique, rich golden webbing on Christ’s chiton and himation, characteristic facial features, Christ’s hair) and other Western (Virgin’s Catholic maphorion, maticulous golden decoration with floral ornaments on her dress and broad border of her maphorion, plastic rendering of the folds and soft modeling of the faces, globe with a gold cross on the top in Christ’s hand, white sleeves of his shirt) in their origin, are typical of the numerous icons done on Crete from the 15th to the 17th century. Yet, this clearly Renaissance composition that includes the infant St. John, does not give a clue whether this icon was commisioned by a Catholic or Orthodox buyer or whether it was done by a Greek who was trying to cary out his order using Renaissance elements as much as possible, or by a Venetian who was trying to use models from Cretan icons as much as he could.