HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

Reviews 205In Part 2 (six chapters) Sendler begins with the findings of Tits, Gusev, Raushenberg,and Zhegin to introduce the geometrical principles underlying the structure ofthe image, the interaction of the circle, triangle, cross, and grid in determining proportionand position within the frame. He devotes considerable space to perspective,contrasting the more familiar linear and isometric perspectives with Byzantineinverted perspective, according to which the vanishing point or points of logicallyparallel lines are to be located in the eye of the beholder and not the pictorial horizonof the picture plane. When discussing various theoretical approaches to inverted perspective,Sendler underscores the artist's apparent attempt to represent ideas, notnature. Coverage of the aesthetic elements of the icon concludes with a generalaccount of color and light symbolism in icon painting and the profound influence ofthe works of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in the Byzantine formulation.The four chapters that comprise Part 3 seem primarily intended for contemporaryicon painters. The brief descriptions of physical icon construction soon give way totechnical instructions and hints at achieving the best results with various glues,grounds, varnishes, and color sources. The author reviews the stages of icon painting(first layer, redrawing, highlighting, finishing process, varnishing), provides a chartof the most common Greek and Slavonic alphabet styles and abbreviations, and concludesthe final part with notes on the color palette and painting technique.Sendler's book is remarkable for its broad approach to the icon. There are anumber of introductions that present a much more detailed and nuanced history ofthe image and its theology in Eastern thought (e.g., Belting 1990, Barasch 1992), butnone since Onasch (1968) explicates as many of the structural and physical aspectsof the icon so frequently ignored. Nonetheless, the book would be improved with theinclusion of a detailed section on the cosmic organization of Byzantine churchdecoration (cf. Demus 1948), the development and meaning of the Orthodox iconostasis,and a characterization of the icons of the major feasts and the saints of theEastern Church (cf. Ouspensky and Lossky 1982). Furthermore, although most ofthe images presented and discussed are Russian, Sendler is silent on the role of theicon in Slavic Orthodoxy in general, leaving the naïve reader with the erroneousidentification of Byzantine and Russian social, political, and religious structures.This same reader would profit from the addition of maps of the Byzantine world, aglossary of names and technical terms, and a historical and cultural chronology. Theinclusion of images other than Greek and Russian would also be helpful, along witha general upgrading of the quality of the reproductions.With few exceptions Bigham's translation from the French is fluid and exact.The original la perspective inversée, for example, is better translated inverted orinverse perspective than Bigham's inversed perspective. The French La cène shouldbe rendered The Last Supper, not The Mystical Supper. Transliteration of Russiannames ought to be in an English or American system, instead of the French, thusUshakov or USakov, not Uchakov; Zhegin or Zegin, not Zheguine. Some of theRussian-language entries in footnotes and the bibliography are badly mangled andinconsistently transliterated, e.g., Teofan, real'novo, ïivopis'novo, postroenia, iazykinstead of correct or consistent Feofan, real'nogo, iivopisnogo, postroenija, jazyk.Epiphanius the Wise (p. 181) becomes Epiphane Premoudri (p. 193), in keeping