151
It is well known that a special interest in the Passion cycle is already evidenced in the art of the
post–Iconoclastic period. Yet, scholars have singled out the Comnenian epoch as showing a new
and special interest in this subject within Byzantine art. The theological debates, as well as aesthetic
changes are regarded as the main inspiration for this interest.
Georgia responded to the theological discussions raging inside the Byzantine capital, but there was
one, I would say, “magisterial” theological current that had an important influence on Georgian culture
– the counter to Armenian Monophysitism, the major rival confession to Greek Orthodoxy in Georgia.
This centuries-old theological opposition between neighbors grew especially fervent during
the 12
th
century, when most Caucasian lands were brought under Georgia’s control. The impact of
this dispute upon Georgian culture can be traced throughout the centuries, but it was especially
strong during the period under consideration in this paper.
It should be noted that this heresy also became active in Byzantium through the coalition of
the Syrian and Armenian Monophysite churches occurring in the 11
th
-12
th
centuries. What makes
this coalition even more acute is the alliance of the Monophysites with the Roman Catholic Church
- in spite of the doctrinal disagreement they found in accordance with the liturgical practice of the
Eucharist. I even argue that the actuality of the Monophysite faith in the history of the theological
thought of Byzantium during this period is underestimated in scientific literature. I will not dwell
upon the Byzantine reaction to these events and will only note that the “global” scale of this heresy
can also be felt in the Georgians’ attitude toward their neighbors. Obviously Georgia was strongly
concentrated on Monophysitism, even regarding it as a theological problem of the first degree,
though always generalizing it and discussing it with the leading Christological heresies of church
history, showing the “ecumenical” context of this opposition.
Tinatin Virsaladze was the first in Georgian scholarly literature to study the immediate influence
of these disputes upon Georgian medieval painting. This approach inspired further research regarding
it as the key theme for understanding the iconographic programs of Georgian murals.
This context must have played a decisive role in the selection of the scenes of the dome
program at Ikvi. The location of the Passion scenes in the drum of the dome - the physical ‘crown’
of the whole space, so to say - assigned a conspicuous role to this subject, turning it into the main
dogmatic message of the murals. Being set out from the overall program of the decoration, the
Passion cycle is primarily perceived as an answer to the Monophysites, whose position regarding
the relationship between Christ’s human and divine natures can be formulated as such: it was the
Divine Logos Who had suffered and died on the cross.
It is not accidental that a special emphasis by its location has been given to the Transfiguration
in the ordering of the scenes. The Transfiguration was regarded as the symbolical prefiguration of
the Passion of Christ. Due to this context, it is often included in the Passion cycle (St George at
Kurbinovo, the Church of the Transfiguration at Miroje). This link is tangibly shown at Ikvi by an
angel of the Crucifixion gesturing towards the scene of the Transfiguration. But still the latter is
primarily perceived here within its theophanic context, which is even underlined by the fairly red
mandorla of Christ, an iconographical detail which is not typical of Byzantine art. The location of
the Transfiguration as the ultimate expression of the dogma of the two natures of Christ alongside
the Passion scenes would reinforce the Christological interpretation of the image, turning the dome
programme into a
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: