Emmanuel Moutafov, Europeanisation on Paper Treatises on Painting in Greek during the First Half of the 18th century, (2001)

Georgio Mitrofanovic, Annunciation, 1621,
Chilandri Monastery, Mount Athos, Greece

Translation by Francesco Mazzaferro
CLICK HERE FOR ITALIAN VERSION

Emmanuel Moutafov
Europeanisation on Paper
Treatises on Painting in Greek during the First Half of the 18th century

Self-Published
Sofia, 2001

(Review by Giovanni Mazzaferro)


[1] A preliminary consideration is of the utmost importance: the work is written in Bulgarian, a language I do not master at all. The final section in English (pp. 267-279) summarizes however the text, and provides interesting and useful guidance on the content. My hope is that the author will soon find a publisher allowing him to publish the book in English.

[2] The merits of the work are many. Probably one can catch them even better, if the bitter controversy is left out that developed in Italy and in France following the "discovery" of the Treaty of Dionysius of Fourna and his publication (click here for more information). We cannot really properly deal with the treatises of Dionysius or Doxaras having those discussions in the back of our mind, as they are basically the result of an unfair (and very "Western") approach to the issue. The first great merit of Moutafov is not to concede anything to these arguments (which probably, seen from Bulgaria, appear trivial things) and come straight to the crux of the problem. The author identifies three fundamental treaties to assess the process of opening of the Eastern countries to Europe: they are the Hermeneutic of Painting by Dionysius of Fourna, the Techne Zographías (Art of Painting) by Panagiotis Doxaras and the General Instructions or Hermeneia by Christophor Zhepharovich

Icon of Panagia Tricherousa from Chilandri Monastery, Mount Athos (Greece)

[3] The first truism to dispel is that the one by Dionysius of Fourna was the first ever treatise appeared in the area of iconography and technique of painting to our East. The author cites a number of important precedents:

• the Hermeneia of painting art, also known as First Jerusalem Codex, anonymous, normally attributed as to its timing to shortly after 1566, but, according to Moutafov, to be traced back to the mid-1600s;
• a Serb manuscript known as the Typikon of Church and Wall-painting of the Serb Nectarius (end of 1600);
• the Book on the Art of Icon-painting of Priest Daniel, dated 1674, also known as the Second Jerusalem Codex.

[4] That said, it is undeniable that the Hermeneutics of Painting by Dionysius marks a pivotal moment in the theoretical thinking of Eastern countries. Dionysius is monk and painter, and spends most of his life in a location of particular importance for the spiritual orthodoxy, i.e. Mount Athos. There is no doubt that the Treatise of Dionysius has a particular stance, compared to the others, and in particular compared to Doxaras, on a conservative stream of substantial compliance with the pictorial tradition of post-Byzantine painting, explicitly based on the iconographic work of Panselino. It is equally certain that in this attempt, the monk enjoys the support and the prestige of the Orthodox authorities. From here the fortune of the Treaty in the Balkans. And here we must clarify: the alleged "discovery" of the Treaty by Mr Didron was really not a new finding at all, or at least it was such only for western countries. The Hermeneutics of Painting by Dionysius had been widely circulating in the years following its completion. Moutafov cites in particular the Hermeneia by George I. Zographski, which is of particular interest to the Orthodox tradition as it was the first translation of the Treaty of the monk of Mount Athos into a Slavic language. It is particularly important because the author, in this copy, transcribes a year, 1728, which he draws from the Treaty of Dionysios and which is considered by Moutafov as the date of compilation by Fourna of the writing. Moutafov then quotes and describes a series of transcriptions and more or less varied reworked pieces appeared in the Balkans in the first half of the 1800's. All of this demonstrates a circulation of the Treaty, which is not limited to isolated areas, but was endorsed by a large part of the artists of that era.

Panagiotis Doxaras, Holy Family

[4] Panagiotis Doxaras has a quite different personal history (see Chiara Augliera, Panaghiotis Doxaras artista di frontiera nel Settecento eptanesio tra la «divota maniera» e le «ricche minere» veneziane - Panagiotis Doxaras, a border artist in the Ionian Islands during the eighteenth century, between the "devout manner" and "rich mines» of the Venetian culture). He came from those Ionian Islands which were under a much stronger influence of Venetian civilization, and his artistic work is affected by it in a decisive manner. There is no doubt that his main contribution remains the Techne Zographías, which should not be understood only as the first Greek translation of the Treatise on Painting by Leonardo and other writings by Alberti and Andrea Pozzo, but also fits with a specific didactical intention of the author (about this, it is worth reading also Chrysa Damianaki, Translation and Critical Reception of Leonardo da Vinci’s Trattato della Pittura in Greece, and in particular p. 23). And yet, writes Moutafov, it is still to assess the real impact of the writing by Doxaras in the Balkans; there is no doubt that Doxaras was the bearer of innovative elements, but those elements, because they were not incorporated into the practice of art making, remained at a theoretical level only.

[5] A particular interest, however, must be addressed to the General Instructions or hermeneia to the young willing to learn the art of icon painting, written by Christophor Zhepharovich between 1726 and 1737. Zhepharovich was considered as the first artist to have introduced Western art elements in the Balkans in the wake of Doxaras (Moutafov argues that, in his youth, he would have known Doxaras in Zakynthos or Corfu and he would have been a pupil of him). In fact, his writing turns out to be a mixture of theory along Western artistic traditions and references to Panselino and Dionysios from Fourna. Moutafov writes (p. 277): “With regard to sources, Zhepharovich’s text is viewed as a compilation of the most commonly used formulae of the Orthodox visual tradition together with elements of western artistic theory from Italy or Crete derived from Greek translations. More significantly, Zhepharovich is viewed as a model in the initial stages of Europeanisation which influenced Balkan painters’ orientation towards Central Europe: Germany and Austria (through the translations of Presbyter Theophilus), and Budapest and Moscow.”

[6] The book includes two appendices: the first presents the first chapter of the Treaty of Zhepharovich in its original Greek text with the Bulgarian translation and a commentary by Moutafov. The second appendix is ​​a concise iconography dictionary Greek-Bulgarian-English: “It contains names of iconographical scenes, epithets, materials etc. No such specialized dictionaries of the kind are to be found in either Bulgaria or Greece” (p. 278). 

[7] The volume was sent to me free of charge by the author on 31 January 2005, with his dedication displayed at p. 1. We cannot but thank him for his kindness. Also, thanks to the author we learnt that the self-funded print run was 250 copies.