Features of the Composition in the Iconography of the Crucifixion on the example of the works of Old Russian iconography of the late XV - early XVI centuries

Startsev Anton Vladimirovich ORCID: 0000-0002-8030-1297 Associate Professor, Department of Tempera Painting Restoration, Ilya Glazunov Russian Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture 101000, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Myasnitskaya, 21 starcev2022@gmail.com

In our work, we do not seek to give an exhaustive analysis of the evolution of the iconographic development of the image, rather we want to consider the iconographic features of individual images existing within the framework of a common iconographic scheme and identify, by their example, the principles of the formation of the compositional structure and the significance of the compositional means used.

"As you know, for a person of the Middle Ages, the icon was a historical work that gave a true depiction of the events of sacred history and revealed the symbolic meaning contained in them. Hence, the most characteristic feature of iconography is the extraordinary stability of the iconographic tradition, because the inviolability of the iconographic scheme maintained the inviolability of the historical image…Iconography determined the framework of the composition of the plot, the artist's share remained its nuance. The main thing in his hands were such powerful means of artistic expression as color and line. With their help, icon painters, starting from the same "sample", created completely dissimilar, deeply creative works" ^{[1, p. 75]}.

Indeed, when considering icons belonging to the same iconographic scheme, the difference of images catches the eye. On the one hand, we see a common compositional scheme implying the existence of a single sample, on the other - the transformation of the compositional scheme within the framework of a common iconography. The difference in compositional solutions presents extensive material for study.  Due to the paucity of historical information, we cannot say with certainty how one compositional scheme spread in a multitude of images. Also, we cannot imagine exactly what kind of sample the artist had before his eyes. Here all the arguments turn out to be conjectural. However, relying on some individual compositional features, it is still possible to assume the priority of certain samples. Here, the dating of icons can serve as a basis for approval. The main interest for us is how the change in the compositional scheme affects the content plan of the image.

In most of the Russian icons of this period, we observe the established compositional scheme. It is obvious that it was based on a separate image, one icon, which received recognition as a model for subsequent images of this iconography. "General observations on ancient and miraculous icons convince us of one extremely important guiding fact, namely, that the main type of ancient icons has been preserved with extraordinary accuracy for centuries, thanks to artisan, mechanical copying," writes N. P. Kondakov ^{[2, p. 156]}. The glorified miraculous image has always been a shrine for believers, hence, quite understandable, the need for its most accurate reproduction by an iconographer. Apparently, in connection with this fact, the tradition of icon painting developed initially with the intention of reproducing and distributing the shrine, excluding the introduction of something external to it. However, the idea of a copy of that time was very different from the modern one, as I. A. Kochetkov writes in detail ^{[3, pp. 68-70]}. In addition to the general compositional principles developed for the image of the Crucifixion, from the moment of the first images, such as the symmetry of the image, the balance of its two halves formed and simultaneously separated by the vertical cross, the presence of the wall of Jerusalem and the cave with the skull of Adam, by the XIV century, the number of figures depicted, their location and gestures, colors had already been established on Byzantine samples clothes , etc . Byzantine samples served as the basis for the development of Russian iconography of the Crucifixion. There are several iconographic types depicting the Crucifixion, of which there are three main ones: "with robbers; with the Mother of God and John the Theologian coming to the cross; with two groups coming: the Mother of God with the holy women on one side of the cross (usually on the left), John and Longinus the centurion – on the other. All three schemes were formed early and existed in parallel" ^{[4, p. 230]}. The icons in question belong to the third iconographic type, the most common in Russian iconography of the XV-XVI centuries.

1. The icon of the Crucifixion from the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery.   

Figure 1. The icon "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of the Assumption Cathedral of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery.

The icon was painted at the end of the XV century, around 1497. G.V. Popov discovers iconographic proximity to the composition of the Crucifixion of the two-sided Sofia icon tablets, emphasizing graphic and rigid modeling. However, along with the Novgorod influence, he notes the capital's artistic tradition, according to his thoughts, Novgorod masters worked on the iconostasis together with Moscow masters, who perceived the capital's brilliance and "sublimity of language" from the latter ^{[5, p.61]}. Other art historians, as the closest iconographic analogue, in addition to the tablet from St. Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod, point to the image from the iconostasis of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin "The Cyril icon belongs to one of the most concise and stable iconographic schemes that have been widespread in Byzantine and Russian art since the XIV century" ^{[6, p. 128]}.

This image is characterized by a very rigid and precise compositional scheme, the opening of this icon shows us a kind of unshakable frame filled with especially bright and condensed colors. The composition of the icon is distinguished by monumentality: the location of the figures and the distances between them, their movements in the visual space, the number and location of gaps on personal writing and clothes, the interpretation of architecture, the utmost laconism and expressiveness of gestures – all evidence of a monumental visual language. In the same sense, we can talk about the architectonics of the icon, starting with the construction of the cross itself, which already sets a certain structure for the entire image, and ending with the construction of folds on clothes, with their numerous bends and repetitions. The rhythms of the pictorial forms are interconnected, sometimes acting in harmony, then contrasting with each other, for example - rhythmic repetitions of the bream at the foot of the cross emphasize its powerful elevation, and the articulations of architecture are perceived as echoes of the vertical and horizontal of the cross, the direction of the folds on the maforia of the Virgin continues in the bend of the Savior's body, creating a diagonal permeating the entire image and emphasizing the connection between the Mother of God and the son.

The main compositional aspect is the interaction of the image of the Crucifixion with the rest of the surrounding image. From this position, all icons of this iconography should be considered. The meaning of the whole composition, in our opinion, depends on the solution of this topic.

The figures of the upcoming ones are removed from the Crucifixion, which gives the compositional structure constructiveness, the necessary conventionality or schematism characteristic of icon composition in general. Here, figures or groups of figures are read as signs implying the presence of space around them, primarily this refers to the image of the Crucifixion as the main iconic composite figure. The Crucifix itself seems to free up the necessary space for itself, shifting or pressing the figures of the upcoming ones closer to the edges of the format. In this distance there is a certain solemnity and enhanced expressiveness of the plastic form of the cross with the figure of the Savior stretched out on it. At the same time, the space around the cross becomes active and tense due to the interaction with the shape of the cross itself. This is a really necessary pause, like a condensed void. Thus, it seems that the icon shows us an event that is happening right now in front of us, as if in a single moment, in which its artistic realism manifests itself. This is especially evident when comparing the Cyrillic image with the image of the "Dionysian" letter. There is more speculative, Christ is crucified now, but more in eternity, as if hovering over the whole world. In the Cyril's image, emotional experience is more vividly expressed, reflected primarily in the strong movements of figures and directions: angels rush to the cross, the folds of John the Theologian's clothes fall down in multiple fractures, the figure of the Savior is bent with sharp movements, gestures are tense, the visual space seems to be permeated with powerful force flows.  The whole image seems to be captured in a single tragic moment.

 The figures of flying angels concentrate the viewer's attention on the face of Christ, again they enhance spatial and plastic "condensation". Architecture, with its vertical-horizontal articulations, creates a certain rhythm, which, in interaction with the shape of the cross, contributes to its upward movement, its solemn elevation. The main "energy" point, to which most of the lines converge, is the middle cross with the image of the face of Christ. 

Figure 2. The icon "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of the Assumption Cathedral of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery.
The gaps on the figure of Christ are not evenly and calmly arranged, but they concentrate on certain points, as if drilling out small areas of the gap. In their arrangement and activity, in contrast with the dark sankir, in their interaction with the general tense plasticity of the form, the energy force is manifested. The gaps seem to gather shape, become its power centers. All artistic means are directed in one direction – creating the most plastically expressive dramatic image.

Everything in this icon is full of stability, and, at the same time, mobile. There is a certain closeness of each figure to itself, the upcoming figures are also rigidly connected into two closed groups. From this closeness, the gesture of the Savior's outstretched hands acquires greater openness. The restrained gestures of the upcoming ones save space for the central gesture of Christ, they are like the scenes for the main event. This is in general, perhaps, the main plastic theme of the iconography of the Crucifixion. In the restraint of gestures, in the steady setting of figures, in the rhythmic repetitions of folds and architectural forms, in compositional balance and symmetry, there is a certain solemnity inherent, in general, in the entire compositional organization of the image.

The black windows of the Jerusalem wall create the brightest tonal contrast, indicating spatial depth. At the same time, they give the image an anxious mood. The upper row of windows divides the icon horizontally into two unequal parts. The cross with the figure of Christ fits almost perfectly into the circle. The border formed by the lower crossbar of the cross is the border of the hidden circle, the upper part of which is indicated by the half-figures of angels and the top of the cross. The lower window does not find itself symmetrical – which contributes to the movement of our gaze upward – to the compositional center. This happens both due to the elongated, vertical shape of the window, and due to its location on the left side of the icon. Located here, it delays attention, anticipating the movement of the viewer's gaze, focuses it on itself and contributes to its further direction. Imagine the existence of a window on the right side of the cross – in this case, the compositional emphasis would shift to the "final zone of perception", here our gaze would complete its movement - a dark tonal spot would become a compositional and visual stop. It would not contribute both to strengthening the movement of the vertical of the cross, and to concentrating our attention (first of all) on this movement – on the development of the vertical. In these speculative arguments, we rely on the research of R. Arnheim, who described the geometry of the gaze contemplating the picture ^{[7, pp. 42-44]}. If we imagine the existence of a window symmetrical to the lower one, the composition will first of all lose the necessary asymmetric moment, which sets not only the specifics of perception, but also a certain artistic sophistication. The image itself will also change, it will lose some compositional complexity, it will become more correct and symmetrical. The lower part of the composition will close and become heavier, it will no longer contribute to the perception of the upper part, that is, it will partially lose its service function.

So, the artist who created the image in question, although starting from a given iconographic scheme, however, created an independent work of art with a particularly finely and precisely calibrated composition.

                             2. The icon of the Crucifixion of Dionysius.

Figure 3. Dionysius. The icon "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral of the Pavlo-Obnor monastery. GTG.

"In the work of Dionysius, the ideal upper world is reproduced, before the sensual eye is what was seen by the inner eye" ^{[8, p. 33]}.

 The icon was part of the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral of the Pavlo-Obnor Monastery and was painted around 1500. It is not known which icon or icons Dionysius used when creating a new image. V. N. Lazarev believes that Dionysius relied on the legacy of the masters of the Rublev era: "In the arrangement of figures on the sides of Christ, Dionysius quite accurately follows the "Crucifixion" from the Trinity iconostasis, he borrowed the figure of centurion Longinus from the icon of the Annunciation Cathedral, executed by Prokhor from Gorodets" ^{[9, p. 47]}. G.V.Popov echoes him: "Iconographically, the Crucifixion combines variants of the Annunciation (1405g.) and Trinity (1425-1427g.) festive icons, not being an exact repetition of any of them.

Figure 4. The icon "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

Figure 5. The icon "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin.

Comparison with them shows how far the master left his teachers at the turn of the century, not only stylistically, but also in understanding the plot" ^{[5, p. 98]}.  The compositional scheme of the icon is close, according to I. A. Kochetkov, to the Byzantine image from the collection (GTG) of the last third of the XIV century. ^{[3, p. 72]}. The elongated icon format, the arrangement of figures around the Crucifixion (first of all, this is a group of wives with the Virgin, rarely found in such a fashion on Russian icons (apparently, the formation of the Russian iconography of the Crucifixion was influenced by other Byzantine samples)), also the low line of the Jerusalem wall and other compositional nuances indicate, rather, in favor of the third hypotheses. It is also possible that the first specialists were simply not familiar with the Byzantine model. It can be said that Dionysius entirely borrowed the composition of the Greek original, but the image he created differs very significantly from the sample used. History has given us the opportunity, relying on the closest iconographic analogue, to imagine the process of the emergence of an image, the transformation of an iconographic scheme into a completely new image, which nevertheless remains within the framework of existing iconography. Let's try to analyze the similarities and differences in the composition of the two icons. In Dionysius, first of all, a smooth line embracing the entire image catches the eye, following which, as it were, you get into another temporal and spatial dimension. The line is here as a means of hypnosis.

Figure 6. The icon "Crucifixion" from the collection of the GTG. Byzantium.

Figure 7. Dionysius. The icon "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of the Pavlo–Obnor monastery. GTG.

In the Greek sample we find rather an illustrative approach with the enumeration of figures and other pictorial components, in Dionysius everything is different - the form seems to involve the viewer in a kind of mystery in which the image, thanks to the form, is reborn into a mystical reality.  We recognize an event not by a conventional gesture, not by appearance, but through a symbolic artistic form. A fairly detailed comparative analysis of these icons is found in I.A. Kochetkov: "Let's consider the use of a sample when writing a festive icon on the example of the "Crucifixion" from the Pavlo-Obnor monastery, perhaps the best icon of Dionysius. His sample was close to the Byzantine icon of the last third of the 14th century from the Maraev collection (GTG). Dionysius copied the left group of the upcoming ones with the utmost precision, down to the smallest folds at the wrists and at the ends of the chiton…In the right group of the upcoming ones, with a general tendency to accurately copy poses, gestures and figure drawing, Dionysius makes minor changes, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously. In the sample, John's right hand is tightly pressed to his chest, as if in an attempt to calm the excitement, and John points down with his slightly raised left hand, maybe at Adam's skull. The meaning of these gestures turned out to be incomprehensible or alien to Dionysius, and he writes both hands in gestures of impotence, which conveys a deep relaxation. On the sample, John's left leg, which is set aside, leaves no room for Longinus' right leg, which turns out to be hidden. Dionysius is not satisfied with such an important character standing on one leg, and he writes the second leg, but for this he had to turn John's left leg in the same plane as the right one and lift the edge of the chiton. The goal was achieved, but John's pose was unstable. On the Byzantine icon, the drawing of the figure of John corresponds to the pose, and the folds of the clothes correspond to their character and body shapes. In Dionysius, the himatium on his left hand looks like a sewn sleeve, a pattern of folds 

Figure 8. The icon "Crucifixion" from the collection of the GTG. Byzantium. Fragment.

Figure 9. Dionysius. The icon "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral of the Pavlo-Obnor monastery. GTG. Fragment

Figure 10. The icon "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Fragment.

it comes into conflict with the forms of the body. Here the inability of Russian icon painters to draw a figure correctly and drape it affects" ^{[3, pp. 72-73]}. Indeed, the left group of the upcoming ones was copied or reproduced by Dionysius quite close to the Greek model, but there are also significant deviations: the direction of the figure of the Mother of God is different, in the Greek icon her figure is slightly tilted towards the Crucifixion and is perceived much more stable, in Dionysius it loses stability, deviating from the center of the icon, as if in a fall, and here gestures The hands of myrrh-bearing wives supporting the Mother of God are more justified. It should be noted that the instability in the position of the figures is a characteristic feature of all Dionysian images in general, he usually depicts feet with low-hanging socks, which gives the feeling that the figures are not standing on the ground, but seem to hover above it. The nature of the movement of the figure of the Virgin, the movements of the hands of the myrrh-bearing women in the Crucifixion from the Trinity iconostasis is closer to the image of Dionysius, so it seems that the master analyzed both monuments in detail, using the most harmonious and coordinated forms and movements in his icon. As for the right group of the upcoming ones, it is also possible to disagree with the quoted author in everything. It seems that the instability of John's figure has little to do with the artist's inability to bring the figure's drawing into line with her pose. The instability of the figure could serve to convey the emotional state of the beloved disciple of Christ, because emotions are expressed in Dionysius by the slightest movements of the lines outlining the figures. The position of the figure of John from the Trinity iconostasis is much closer to the Greek model, with a high degree of confidence it can be argued that the Trinity master was guided by this image.

Figure 11. The icon "Crucifixion" from the collection of the GTG. Byzantium. Fragment.

Figure 12. Dionysius. Icon "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of the Trinity

the Cathedral of the Pavlo-Obnor Monastery. GTG. Fragment

Figure 13. The icon "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Fragment.

Unlike the Cyril image, the Crucifixion of Dionysius is also organized in a fundamentally different way. First of all, smooth lines dominate here, there are no sudden movements and kinks of forms, there is no rigidity and stability in the formulation of figures. The plastic forms created by Dionysius seem to be on the verge of existence, their instability and immateriality are too great. At the same time, the overall organization of the composition is finely coordinated, the interaction of its visual elements (plastic, tonal and color) is verified and flawless. Despite ignoring the seemingly spectacular and expressive techniques – rigid contour, bright distortion, tonal contrast, manifested volume and dynamic plastic lines and forms, the work turns out to be artistically perfect. It is precisely in this rejection of "profitable" artistic techniques that the skill of Dionysius is manifested. In this he approaches Rublev, dematerializing, thinning to the last limit the depicted physical form. In general, Dionysius, as a great master, is characterized by a rethinking of a given or existing iconography (recall the image of the Hodegetria originating from the iconostasis of the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin of the Ferapontov Monastery). And here, too, the author, starting with the elongated format of the icon, the increased diversity of the figures of Christ and the upcoming ones, the appearance of additional images of angels, and ending with a special plastic language, really presents a newly meaningful image. The verticalism of the composition (partly characteristic of the entire work of the master), which affected, in particular, the elongated proportions of the figures, is emphasized. The smooth contour outlining the figures and especially manifested in the outline of the figure of Christ dominates the authentic reproduction of the form. The anatomical parts of the figure are completely subordinated to the arbitrary movement of the line, this is especially evident when looking at the improbably curved hands of the Savior.  In other words, the movement of the line is subject primarily to an artistic requirement, rather than a requirement for a convincing transfer of form. And this is all the more surprising if you pay attention to the scale of the artist. After all, in many icons of unknown artists of that time we will find a much more plausible image. As a result, the plasticity of the form is only partially justified by the plausibility of the image, but mainly it is organized according to its own law. Of course, there is some immanent regularity in her movement, a plastic logic inherent in the artistic image in general.

Already in one movement of the line outlining the figure of Christ, a fundamentally different attitude to the interpretation of the form is revealed. As noted above, Dionysius avoids the most spectacular ways of depicting, as if deliberately limiting his artistic possibilities. This affects his relationship to Rublev. As V.A. Plugin writes about Rublev's style of writing, which Dionysius would later borrow: "Very restrained in reproducing direct emotions, he designates the relationship of characters by the symbolism of color spots, the nature of linear constructions" ^{[1, p. 65]}. It seems that a little more and all these forms will float, will be washed away, will lose their constructiveness, which is already almost absent. It is here that Dionysius' mastery lies in his extreme pictorial restraint. For this reason, apparently, no one can copy his icons or make at least a relatively good list. There are too many nuances here, both in color and tonal, and in the plastic solution, a slight deviation from its line turns the image into an inept drawing. This virtuosity of performance is seen as devoid of the desire for self-expression, but humbly listening to the innermost meaning. Compositional consistency is based on subtle deviations of the lines, on their elusive relationship.

Figure 14. Dionysius. The icon "Crucifixion" from the Pavlo-Obnor monastery. GTG.  Scheme.
However, let us turn to the perceptible evidence of harmony. First of all, let's analyze the geometric organization of pictorial forms. The main characteristic feature of the composition is the highly exalted cross with the Crucified Christ. Christ ascends through the suffering of the cross into the realm of eternity, separating himself from the earthly world. Here, as in the previous image, the upper part of the image, including the figure of Christ and the flying angels, turns out to be inscribed in a circle, M.V. Alpatov notes that the figures of angels form a kind of wreath around the cross, outline an invisible circle in which the figure of Christ is enclosed ^{[10, p. 48]}. In this subordination of the image to a harmonious geometric figure, of course, there is a necessary principle that organizes our perception of the image. The accentuation of perception is transferred mainly to the space surrounding the figure of the crucified Christ. Flying angels with symbols of churches play a special role here, they not only and not so much fill the empty space, but, above all, organize it, do not condense it, like the upper angels in the Cyril image, but, on the contrary, according to the artist I. Ya. Sokolov, they push or expand, so that Christ seems to embrace the whole world. The interaction of the figure of Christ, the Crucifixion itself, with the surrounding space becomes the main artistic action.   I. A. Kochetkov attributes the appearance of new characters to the presence of a separate sample in the artist: "Dionysius hardly used several samples at the same time. Most likely, he had some kind of icon at his disposal, where the image of the crucifixion had figures of allegories of churches in the upper part" ^{[3, p. 73]}. N.V. Pokrovsky mentions the first known image of a church woman and a synagogue woman at the cross, which existed on a Byzantine enamel plate of the X century from the former collections of A.V. Zvenigorodsky ^{[11, p. 364]}. Of the iconographic analogues of the Crucifixion with the symbols of the church and synagogue, an icon of the end of the XV century from the museum is known. Andrei Rublev, it's true that they are depicted here in angelic, not female images. We have not met an icon close iconographically to the Crucifixion of Dionysius, however, if we follow the thought of I. A. Kochetkov, Russian masters could not do without a sample, even in the case of its active processing ^{[3, p. 73]}. V. N. Lazarev connects the appearance of allegories of churches with the creative will of the artist: "Apparently responding To combat the heresy of the Jews, Dionysius introduced the personification of the New Testament and Old Testament synagogues into the "Crucifixion". The first, accompanied by an angel, flies up to Christ, the second moves away from him, and the angel pushes her out, as it were. This interpretation hinted at the triumph of Orthodoxy over Judaism" ^{[9, p. 47]}. G.V. Popov writes that the figures of the churches emphasize the universal scale of the event: "The appearance of the scene of the triumph of the New Testament Church over the Old Testament Synagogue in the form of groups floating on the sides of the cross finally freed the interpretation of the scene from the elements of personal tragedy (the tragedy of the elect), turned it into an event in world history" ^{[5, p. 98]}.

Figure 15. Icon "Crucifixion" Rostov. The Central Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art named after Andrey Rublev.
The lower part of the icon also contributes to the perception of the Crucifixion. The Jerusalem wall behind the cross and the figures tonally converges with the golden background, is deprived of contrasting cutting and spaces, as well as window openings, that is, it becomes spatially neutral, allowing the cross to ascend calmly. The light space of the background merges with the lower space of the wall, as if one follows from the other, as a result, the space surrounding the cross increases (in the Crucifixion from the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery, the Jerusalem wall is also tonally close to the gold of the background). The smooth contours of the figures and their slopes contribute to the flow of space, in general, its movement. The verticalism of the icon and the movement of the cross receive additional reinforcement. The vertical of the cross is the lonely core of the composition. The cross is not supported by the rhythms of architecture, as in the previous image, but on the contrary is surrounded by a light background space. The base of the cross is maximally dematerialized, its shape and proportions are exquisitely refined. "The unusually high and unusually thin cross of the Crucifixion turned into a narrow line – a symbol against a background of shining white and gold" ^{[12, p. 286]}. Rather, it depicts not a former historical Crucifixion, but what is happening, not completed, this feeling arises, probably, due to the slow rhythm set by Dionysius throughout the image. This feature of the artist's visual language has been noted by many: G.V. Popov speaks of smooth and slow motion, obeying an invisible rhythm ^{[13, p. 14]}, L. Lyubimov mentions a solemn, strictly measured "slowness" ^{[14, p. 254]}.

The movement of figures, due to smooth lines and silhouettes, acquires some slowness. In general, it should be noted that a rounded or smooth line has a different speed of movement in our perception. The zigzag line consists of several segments, at each break point it acquires a new impetus, a new beginning of development, a certain new acceleration. Thus, the movement becomes more energetic, the line perceived by the viewer receives enhanced energy. A smooth line does not have many points of "acceleration" that accentuate its energy, but bends around the shape with a uniform, constant speed, due to which it is perceived as slow.

In Dionysius, the lines outlining the figures are practically devoid of kinks, extremely calm, the pictorial plastic is devoid of drama, it is rather characterized by a kind of stay, a state of prolonged calm movement.  Indeed, the Crucifixion does not seem to take place here, it is practically devoid of action, rather it is an event that has already happened or is eternally taking place, only taking place in a different rhythm, unusual for consciousness. E. S. Smirnova writes: "there is no dramatic action in the work of Dionysius, in the "Crucifixion" from the Pavlov Obnor Monastery, the predominance of the spirit over the flesh is revealed; instead of the tragedy of death, heavenly bliss reigned" ^{[8, p. 35]}. Thus, the uniqueness of the artistic language existing within the framework of the general iconographic scheme shows us a special interpretation of the plot, which is meaningful by the author. From a theological point of view, the Crucifixion, like other evangelical events, is not only temporary historical actions. They are repeated not only in our experience and perception, but also mystically, in another, timeless dimension. From this point of view, each image is also not only an illustration of the past, but also a "window" into another dimension. In Dionysius, all artistic means are directed to just such a perception of the event.

3. Icon of the Crucifixion (Novgorod tablet)

Figure 16. Icon tablet "Crucifixion" from the iconostasis of St. Sophia Cathedral. Novgorod.
V.N. Lazarev suggested that the saints were created under Archbishop Gennady (1485-1504), who was a protege of the Moscow prince in Novgorod, revealing both Novgorod and Moscow features in the tablets. G.I. Vzdornov finds that the style of the tablets "is firmly connected with the Novgorod art school, which appreciated the beautiful, but perhaps too minted, sometimes even an obviously rigid form" ^{[15, p. 16]}.

Novgorod tablet icons may be wrongly compared with iconostasis icons, due to their different size and purpose, but it is this image of the Crucifixion that is a vivid example of painting from the beginning of the XVI century with a very characteristic artistic solution. This image differs significantly from those previously considered, and by contrasting them, it allows you to best assess the artistic features of each icon. The first thing that distinguishes the Novgorod image is a bright and festive flavor. The main theme is the triumph of victory over death. And although Christ is still being crucified, the world is already rejoicing in its Salvation. In the Novgorod tablet, the visual space is filled, figures and architecture fill the format fairly evenly, the space separating the figures is reduced. It should be noted that this icon is executed with a lively direct feeling.  Unlike the previous refined artistic solutions, here, at first glance, it is naive and direct.

 The Novgorod tablets show the features of naive art, although it cannot be defined as purely naive. Valuable in naive art is a liberated artistic intuition, not constrained by a learned technical craft. Unexpected artistic solutions are often revealed in the direct transmission of a particular plot.

In this icon, the general proximity of the image to the viewer indicates a lively perception of the event, a desire to be present in it. There is no lengthy artistic analysis here, on the contrary there is a "speed" of the image, the performance of "how the hand went". In the construction and development of architecture, in the uniform enumeration of architectural elements, there is some "schooliness" of execution. The basic tone of the architecture is darker than the sankir on the personal, and the space is again more contrasting. Thus, the image of the figure of Christ is surrounded by a contrasting structure of architecture and the cross itself (also heavily decorated). The overall light tone of the figure stands out, and, on the one hand, makes it more weightless and immaterial, on the other, thanks to careful study of the architecture, the figure approaches the upcoming ones. Architecture does not allow the cross to rise, but, as it were, fixes it on the ground, connects it with the upcoming figures. There are fewer vertical rhythms in the architecture itself, it is rather emphasized horizontal.

The balanced proportions of the figure of Christ and the coming ones, as well as the proportions of each individual figure, indicate a human scale, a kind of realism of perception. The movement of the figures here is not solemnly calm, but rather lively and dynamic. This reads the direct desire of the author to express his own attitude to the event. The author's empathy seems to be expressed through the gestures of the upcoming ones. The color of the icon is festive and bright, the cutting of clothes and architecture are ornamental. The clothes of John the Theologian are laid out in such a way that the figure is practically lost to perception, dissolving into the cutting of architecture - thus, the ornamentation of the decoration comes to the fore. The ornamentation is reflected in bringing the image to one plane, in its flatness, which is also greatly facilitated by the contrasting interpretation of architecture. The author's passion for the image is evident in everything, whether it is the transfer of gestures or the wearing of clothes and architecture. The image is harmonious, filled with spiritual awe and empathy, it is the sensual attitude that dominates the perception of the image.

Conclusion. As a conclusion, it should be noted that the choice of the analyzed monuments illustrates the variety of variations within the narrow iconography. The canonicity of the scheme provides theological accuracy and certainty of recognition, and an individual solution in the geometric organization of the composition and plastic nuances expand the possibilities of artistic language and emphasize the uniqueness of the artistic form. The interpretation of the image is based not just on copying a sample, "blind" execution of the gospel plot, but on a deep rethinking of the idea of the Crucifixion. As a result, iconographic versions are born with the author's reading of the image, combining a timeless, intimate understanding with a lively, emotional perception of the theme. Polyphony in the interpretation of the form created in the context of the developing Russian culture serves as a source of images embodying Byzantine properties and national artistic features.