Pimen Sofronov: The Icon Painter from Paradise. This is a literal translation of the Russian title of this bilingual art book dedicated to Sofronov, an Old Believer artist from Estonia and arguably one of the most significant iconographers of the twentieth century.
The title plays on the name of Raja (Est.) or Rajushi (Russian), a village on the shore of Lake Peipus (Chudskoe ozero) inhabited by the Old Believers from the eighteenth century. This was a centre of the Theodosians (fedoseevtsy), a conservative Old Believer concord. Sofronov (1898-1973) came to Raja as a pupil of Gavriil Florov (1854-1930), a spiritual father, iconographer and writer: together, they painted the iconostasis of the Old Believer church in Raja in the 1920s. The journey of Sofronov from Raja to Western Europe and later the USA is a story of the rediscovery of the traditional art of icon-painting in the twentieth century and of Orthodoxy in the West. The book consists of an extended biographical essay and expert commentary on the style, symbolism, religious subjects and artistic choices of Sofronov’s works, which are preserved in different locations across Europe and the USA.
The author of the book, the Estonian art historian Mari-Liis Paaver, takes us on a journey from Estonia to Riga, Prague, Belgrade, Rome, Paris, Chevetogne and New Jersey. She has studied, photographed and identified many works by Sofronov, including those which were not signed by him. While the book is undoubtedly a weighty contribution to art history, it is also to a great interest to church historians who study Old Belief, Orthodoxy and ecumenical relations between churches.
As old Russian icons, including Rublev’s Trinity, were rediscovered in the early twentieth century, scholars and the educated public began to appreciate Old Believer icons, which during the 1800s had been denigrated as dark and primitive. The book shows that the pupils and consumers of Sofronov’s art after he left his home in Estonia in the early 1930s were largely outside Old Believer circles, and included both Russian émigrés and Western Christians. Icons were becoming fashionable: Sofronov received orders from non-Orthodox, members of European elites and even the Vatican.
Sofronov’s art was dynamic: he did not just paint in the manner of his teacher Florov, one which reflected the traditional old Russian style, but also refined his knowledge of the Byzantine iconography by studying albums published by Nikodim Kondakov and frescos in Serbian monasteries and Italian churches. The influences of Balkan and Roman styles are discernible in the works of that period.
Kazanskaia Mother of God, 1930s Chevetogne
Yet, despite these influences, Sofronov remained very strictly bound to tradition, both in terms of representation and technique. This put him in an awkward position vis-à-vis Russian emigres who tried to reinterpret iconographic art through modernist styles. These interpretations can be seen in the works of Dmitrii Steletskii, Leonid Uspenskii, Mother Maria Skobtsova, Grigorii Krug (another artist who lived in Estonia before moving to Paris), Julia Reitlinger (Mother Ioanna) and Archimandrite Sofronii (Sakharov). Paaver touches upon this problem by quoting Mother Ioanna, who critically described Sofronov’s style as ‘blind fanaticism’ and the result of ignorance about the icon as an art object. Reitlinger’s remark demonstrates that Parisian circles of Russian emigres did not accept Sofronov: indeed, his position was quite marginal, even though some members of émigré communities, including the wife of the priest Alexander Elchaninov, attended his courses. Paaver, however, demonstrates that Sofronov influenced the followers of the Benedictine monk Dom Lambert Beaduin, the founder of an ecumenical community in Belgium (first in Amay-sur-Meuse and then, from 1939, in Chevetogne): he tried to build a bridge between Western and Eastern Christianity, adopting the rites of the Eastern Church and studying the Eastern tradition without either becoming Greek Catholic or following the proselyting aims of the Vatican Pro Russia commission. Soronov stayed in the monastery in 1939 and painted a very fine Deesis (Greek: δέησις, ‘prayer’ or ‘supplication’, a triptych of Christ, Mother of God and St John the Baptist) that decorates the refectory of the abbey. He also taught the monks to paint icons.
Sofronov’s iconostasis in the church of St Dimitry Solunskii in Lazarevac, Serbia, 1939.
Paaver traces the mutual influences between Sofronov and the Roman Catholic world in her analysis of the painter’s Italian period. He stayed in Rome during the Second World War and originally planned to finish a five-tiered iconostasis for the Vatican. This commission did not take place and only 54 icons were completed. Nonetheless, in 1941, the Pontific Oriental Institute organised a personal exhibition of Sofronov that was quite favourably received by the Italian press. Paaver takes the praise of the Italian journalists with a pinch of salt, pointing out that the quality of icons painted in Italy was not very high.
The art of iconography is passed from a master to a disciple. Safronov’s courses on icon painting were very popular, attended by priests, priests’ wives, monks, nuns, bishops, artists, and many talented women, such as Princess Natalia Jashvil, who became Sofronov’s life-long friend. Sofronov’s disciples, who came from various ethnic and confessional backgrounds, developed their own styles and created their own schools of iconography: these include Hieronimus Lessing from Belgium, Robert de Caluwé (1913–2005) from Finland, and others whose personal artistic trajectories are yet to be traced.
Christ Pantocrator with saints, 1930s
In 1947, Sofronov moved to the USA, where he settled in Mellville, New Jersey. While he attended an Old Believer parish, he painted icons and frescos for various Orthodox groups in the USA, including American and Greek Orthodox churches and Uniate parishes. He taught the old Russian style in the Jordanville seminary, having painted 30 churches across the USA. Sofronov’s biggest achievements are the churches in Ansonia and Syracuse (New York State).
Sofronov visited his native Estonia in 1969, meeting his family and his old friend Ivan Zavoloko. Many leaders of Old Believer communities were repressed during the Soviet occupation of the Baltic, being executed or deported to Siberia where they served sentences in the gulag: Sofronov managed to avoid this fate and continued to perfect his style, transmitting traditional Orthodox art to Western and émigré audiences. The illustrations of Sofronov’s work, which Paaver masterfully and lovingly presents in this book provide an objective retrospective of the highlights and low points in Sofronov’s art. The reader learns that Sofronov is undoubtedly a unique figure who has been undeservingly undervalued.
While the book is well researched, I feel that some pieces of the mosaic are missing: for example, the archives in Pushkinskii Dom (St Petersburg), which include correspondence between Sofronov and Vladimir Malyshev, have not been used, perhaps due to various restrictions. This reader would also like to know more about Gavriil Florov, who had a formative influence on Sofronov. Florov’s family, originally from Starodub’e, studied iconography in several centres in Russia: their influence on Baltic Old Believer iconography needs to be traced.
The book is beautifully edited and executed: the Russian and Estonian texts run in parallel, the illustrations, many of which are photos made by the author in different locations, tell a story of traditional art in different cultural contexts, allowing the reader to follow developments and changes in tartistic style. There are also rare photographs from the archive of the Raja community and Sofronov’s archive in the USA.
Review by Irina Paert.