School of Novgorod, Miracle of St George and the Dragon, c.1400–1450?, Tempera and gesso on linden panel, 77.4 × 57 cm, British Museum, London
In 1959, in the village of Il’inski Pogost on the River Pinega, a tributary of the Severnaya Dvina in the far north of Russia, an icon was found serving as the shutter of a barn window. Subsequent cleaning by the conservator Adolf Ovchinnikov at the I.E. Grabar State Restoration Workshops in Moscow revealed a panel that had been overpainted several times, beneath which lay one of the finest surviving examples of late medieval Russian painting.The icon entered the British Museum in 1986, though the circumstances of its journey from the Soviet Union to London remain incompletely documented.
The panel, painted in egg tempera and gesso on wood (probably linden), measures 77.4 by 57 centimetres. It is conventionally known as ‘The Black George’ (Чёрный Георгий) after its most striking feature: Saint George, wearing a red mantle, rides a black horse to the left, transfixing a dragon beneath him with a spear held in his right hand (BM, 1986,0603.1). The background was originally a light yellow, painted in orpiment (a yellow arsenic sulphide pigment used to imitate gold leaf), though most of this has been lost during earlier restorations, with traces surviving on the right side and in patches elsewhere (Cormack, 2007, pp. 82–85). An inscription in Church Slavonic above the saint reads: Ο ΑΓΙ(oc) ΓΕΟΡ(г)ИЕ (Saint George). The dating is not entirely settled. The British Museum’s object record gives c.1400–1450, while it late fourteenth century.
The icon belongs to what Russian scholars term the concise iconographic type (краткий извод) of the Miracle of Saint George, in which only the saint and the dragon are depicted, without the princess, the city walls or witnessing figures that appear in the more detailed type (пространный извод). The concise type is the older of the two, with its earliest known examples in tenth and eleventh century Cappadocian church frescoes (Walter, 2003, p. 128). It became particularly popular in Novgorod and the Russian north, where the cult of George as warrior-saint (Георгий-змиеборец) had deep roots in popular devotion. The absence of the city of Lasya (Lacia) and of any narrative context is therefore not a decision peculiar to this painter but a well-established tradition within which he worked. What he chose, in effect, was the more austere of two available compositional formats.
The black horse is the panel’s most discussed feature. It is unusual but not unique. The British Museum entry notes parallels on a small number of other fourteenth to sixteenth century Novgorod and northern Russian icons, including a mid-fourteenth-century ‘Miracle of St George’ from the Morozov collection, now in the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow (Bruk and Iovleva, 1995, no. 21), a sixteenth-century panel of ‘St George, Nikita and the Deesis’ in the Russian Museum, St Petersburg (Likhachёv, Laurina and Pushkariov, 1980, fig. 237), and a ‘Miracle of St George and his Life’ from Ustyuzhna dating from the first half of the sixteenth century (Rybakov, 1995, fig. 214). A further Novgorod icon of ‘Saint George the Victorious on a Black Horse,’ now in the Khanty-Mansiysk Museum, dates from the second half of the fifteenth century. The black horse, then, was a recognised variant within the Novgorod and northern Russian iconographic tradition. Whether it carried specific symbolic freight, or was primarily a regional stylistic convention, remains an open question in the scholarship.
What can be said with more confidence is that the panel’s formal character belongs to a visual world quite different from the one in which contemporary or near-contemporary Western painters were working. The flat orpiment background, imitating gold, offers no illusion of spatial depth. George and the dragon are arranged as a compressed compositional unit in which legibility and symbolic clarity take precedence over narrative plausibility. The spear does transfix the dragon, so the image records the moment of victory, but the manner in which it does so is revealing. There is no struggle, no exertion, no dramatic tension between combatants. George’s posture is upright and calm, his face impassive; the dragon, though pierced, writhes with undiminished energy beneath the horse. The effect is less that of a battle concluded than of a condition made permanent. In a Western painting of the same subject, the viewer would expect to see the dragon in its death throes, the saint in the act of delivering a decisive blow, and the surrounding landscape as a stage on which an unrepeatable event takes place. Here, the absence of setting, the stillness of the rider, and the continuing vitality of the creature beneath him suggest something closer to an emblem than a narrative: not a triumph accomplished but a spiritual combat that is, by its nature, unending. The Orthodox theology of the icon, as articulated by writers from John of Damascus (c.675–749) onward, held that the sacred image should make present the prototype it depicted, functioning not as a picture to be admired but as a window onto the divine. If the icon makes the event perpetually present rather than historically past, then the dragon cannot be shown as definitively dead, because the evil it figures is not definitively overcome in the fallen world. Stylisation, in this context, was not an absence of skill but a positive discipline: the painter avoided naturalism because naturalism would domesticate the sacred, reducing miracle to anecdote (Lazarev, 1983; Cormack, 2007, pp. 14–22). The dragon that refuses to die is, on this reading, a theological statement made in formal terms.
The contrast with Western European treatments of the same subject is instructive, though it should be handled with care, since the comparison risks flattening both traditions. Antonio Pisanello (c.1395–c.1455), in his fresco of Saint George and the Princess of Trebizond (c.1436–1438, Pellegrini Chapel, Sant’Anastasia, Verona), placed the saint in a minutely observed landscape populated by horses, dogs, and hanged men, embedding the miracle in a chivalric world of courtly display and empirical detail. Vittore Carpaccio (c.1465–c.1525/1526), in his Saint George and the Dragon (c.1502, Scuola di San Giorgio degli Schiavoni, Venice), composed a theatrical panorama in which the saint charges on a white horse through a landscape strewn with dismembered body parts, the city visible behind. Both painters treated the subject as an occasion for narrative invention and visual spectacle, working within a tradition in which the image’s power was understood to reside in its capacity to persuade the eye. Carpaccio’s cycle dates from roughly a century after the Novgorod panel, so the comparison is not strictly contemporaneous, but the underlying divergence in pictorial principle had been established well before either painter was born. The Latin West, from the thirteenth century onward, moved progressively towards naturalism and spatial illusion; the Eastern Churches, for theological reasons that were articulated, debated, and in some periods violently contested, maintained the icon as an image governed by different rules.
References
Алпатов, М.В. (1956) ‘Образ Георгия-воина в искусстве Византии и Древней Руси’ [The Image of George the Warrior in the Art of Byzantium and Old Rus’], Труды Отдела древнерусской литературы (ТОДРЛ), 12, pp. 292–310. Reprinted in: Алпатов, М.В. (1967) Этюды по истории русского искусства [Studies in the History of Russian Art], vol. 1. Moscow: Iskusstvo, pp. 154–211. Available online at: https://docs.yandex.com/docs/view?url=ya-disk-public%3A%2F%2F%2BscgZfnwvFq3mlkRq1ic8Jr0YDyrbl%2B65LmBjsJz100%3D&name=%D0%AD%D1%82%D1%8E%D0%B4%D1%8B%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%20%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8%20%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0.%20%D0%92%202%D1%85%20%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%85._%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%20%D0%9C.%D0%92_1967%2C%20%D1%821-216%D1%81%2C%20%D1%822-328%D1%81.pdf (Accessed 27 July 2023)
British Museum (n.d.) The Miracle of St George and the Dragon / Black George, accession no. 1986,0603.1. Available at: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/H_1986-0603-1 (Accessed: 21 July 2023).
Брук, Я.В. и Иовлева, Л.И. (ред.) (1995) Государственная Третьяковская галерея: Каталог собрания. Древнерусское искусство X — начала XV века [State Tretyakov Gallery: Catalogue of the Collection. Old Russian Art, Tenth to Early Fifteenth Century], vol. 1. Moscow: Krasnya ploshchad
Лазарев, В.Н. (1983) Русская иконопись от истоков до начала XVI века [Russian Icon Painting from Its Origins to the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century]. Moscow: Iskusstvo
Лихачёв, Д.С., Лаурина, В.К. и Пушкарёв, В.А. (1980) Новгородская икона XII–XVII веков [The Novgorod Icon, Twelfth to Seventeenth Centuries]. Leningrad: Aurora
Овчинников, А.Н. и Кишилов, Н.Б. (1971) Живопись древнего Пскова [Painting of Old Pskov]. Moscow: Sovetsky khudozhnik, no. 16, pl. 33.
Смирнова, Э.С. (1976) Живопись Великого Новгорода: Середина XIII — начало XV века [Painting of Great Novgorod: Mid-Thirteenth to Early Fifteenth Century]. Moscow: Nauka
Ямщиков, С.В. (1966) Древнерусская живопись: Новые открытия [Old Russian Painting: New Discoveries]. Leningrad: Aurora
Cormack, R. (2007) Icons. London: British Museum Press, pp. 82–85.
Walter, C. (2003) The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition. Aldershot: Ashgate