Slika svetovne i duhovne vlasti u srpskoj srednjovekovnoj umetnosti

Abstract

Sačuvano je oko petnaest srednjovekovnih portretskih celina koje objedinjuju predstave srpskih vladara i crkvenih poglavara. U radu su proučene njihove idejne osnove i razmotrene ključne etape ikonografskog razvoja. Zaključeno je da je u XIII veku te slike natkriljivala izrazito eklisiološka misao o sabornom narodu Božijem, udaljena od romejskog učenja o dijarhijskom saglasju svetovne i duhovne vlasti. Do temeljne, ali ne potpune promene došlo je u XIV veku. Za predstavljanje odnosa srpskih vladara i arhijereja tada su prihvaćeni ikonografski klišei vizantijske carske umetnosti, koji su izražavali ideju simfonije dveju vlasti.

Portrait wholes which join the portraits of rulers and heads of church are preserved in several monuments of Serbian medieval visual art. The ones in Mileševa, the parekklesion of St. Simeon in Studenica and Arilje originated in the 13th century. As opposed to the previously expressed scientific opinion, these portrait wholes did not express the Byzantine idea of the dierarchical agreement, i.e. the symphony of secular and spiritual authorities. In the mentioned Serbian monuments the images of archpriests have a distinct hierarchical priority over the images of rulers. This priority was conveyed through the position of their portraits in the program and in many other iconographic details. This hierarchical prioritizing of archpriests in comparison with the representative of the dynasty was not in accordance with the Byzantine doctrine of dierarchical symphony. It stressed the symmetry of the dignity of the emperor and patriarch as well as their equal significance for the life of their subjects. Besides that, in Studenica and in Arilje, opposite a row of portraits of Serbian archbishops stood the painted images of Serbian rulers who entered the monastic order. They could not be seen as the incarnation of the earthly power in the representation which talks about the dierarchical symphony, because rulers were glorified exactly for giving up the earthly power. After becoming monks, St. Simeon Nemanja and his first heirs to the throne became subordinates of the clergy. In any case, in Serbia, like in Byzantium becoming a monk was incompatible with authority. In Arilje it is also visible that the portraits of current rulers and archbishops were not at all immediately connected in the program, although, in Byzantine understanding they were the ones who incarnated the idea of symphony. Finally, it is noticed that in Studenica and Arilje, and especially in Mileševa, the representatives of archpriests and the dynasty were not consistently divided into two separate and parallel processions. There is, therefore, a certain intertwinement between the processions, which was a consequence of the fact that the Serbian church and state were unusually closely connected especially because of the members of the royal family. A greater number of the members of the Nemanjić family represented the pillars of the national church as monks and archpriests. More than in Byzantium, where there was a dierarchical division between the 'sacralized autocracy on the one hand and church on the other', in Serbia in the 13th century prominence was given to the 'idea of the unity of people, the idea of the gathering of God's people', which was 'extremely ecclesiological in character'. Originally such a model in the Serbian setting was taken from the messianic, Old Testament tradition, comprehended in accordance with the interpretations of Orthodox church fathers. In the Serbian literary opus of this period this model was also carefully developed.