Background on Icon Manuals

Icon Painting Manuals by Orthodox Tradition

Icon-painting manuals – known as podlinniki in Slavic or hermeneiai in Greek – are guidebooks codifying how to depict holy figures and scenes. They emerged to preserve canonical iconography and instruct icon painters on proper proportions, colors, and attributes for each saint or biblical event. Below is a categorized list of notable manuals by tradition, with their compilers, historical context, stylistic focus, and legacy.

Russian Tradition (Podlinniki)

Russian Orthodox painters relied on podlinniki (“originals” or “authentic ones”) as pattern books from at least the 16th century . Early examples include the Sophia Podlinnik (a Novgorod 16th-c. text) , and many regional “redactions” followed (e.g. Stroganov, Siyski, Pomorye, Kiev copies) . These manuals typically list saints by calendar date with instructions for rendering each. Major Russian podlinniki include:

• Stroganov Podlinnik (late 16th–early 17th c.) – An illustrated iconographer’s handbook from the Stroganov School . Likely compiled under the patronage of the wealthy Stroganov family, it contains outline drawings (prorisi) of figures alongside brief inscriptions. It codified the refined, miniature detail characteristic of the Stroganov style. For example, it notes St. Simeon Stylites should be painted atop a pillar with “grey” hair and monastic garb . Being illustrated, it served as a visual template for countless icons. The Stroganov Podlinnik was published in facsimile in 1869 and survives in print; modern reprints (e.g. an SVS Press edition) make it accessible to scholars and iconographers. * A page from the Stroganov Podlinnik, showing saint patterns for early September (St. Simeon “Stolpnik” on the pillar at left, etc.) .*

• “Filimonov” Podlinnik / Svodny Podlinnik (18th c.) – A comprehensive text-only painters’ manual compiled in the 1700s, known as the “Combined Icon Painting Manual of the 18th Century (Filimonov’s edition)” . Attributed to G. Filimonov’s copy, it collated earlier podlinniki into a single volume. This Slavonic text is highly detailed, providing descriptions of hundreds of saints (including traditional feast days and identifying phrases) . It specifies each saint’s appearance – hair color, vestment colors, attributes – often with more exhaustive detail than older manuals. Because of its detail, it became a favorite reference for iconographers . Though never translated into English, the Filimonov/Svodny podlinnik is valued by specialists; a digitized Russian PDF is available via the Orthodox library “Azbyka” .

• Perm Old Believer Podlinnik (1829) – An illustrated manual from the Old Ritualist (Old Believer) community of Perm . Titled Litsevoi ikonopisny podlinnik 1829, it was created in an Old Believer church dedicated to preserving pre-reform icon style . It contains drawings for feasts and saints, including some subjects omitted in earlier manuals. For instance, it illustrates the Indiction (Church New Year) with Christ reading in the synagogue – an image only described textually in the Stroganov book. Stylistically, this manual continues the medieval Moscow/Novo–Novgorod canon at a time when the state Church had embraced Westernized art . It exemplifies how Old Believers kept traditional Byzantine-style iconography alive. The original is held in the Stroganov Museum, and it has been made accessible online via the museum’s site .

• Bolshakov Podlinnik (1903) – A printed edition titled Podlinnik ikonopisny, published by Sergey Bolshakov and edited by A. I. Uspensky . This work is essentially a scholarly compilation and modernization of earlier Russian podlinniki. It combines the Stroganov patterns (re-drawn in simpler outline form) with updated descriptive text collated from various old manuals . The Bolshakov manual provided Russian artists and restorers of the early 20th century with a readily available “handbook” of canonical iconography, just as interest in medieval icons was reviving . It includes an extensive glossary of color names and saints. Today, the 1903 Bolshakov Podlinnik itself is available online (via HathiTrust/Babel) for researchers .

Contemporary use: Russian podlinniki are still referenced by iconographers who wish to paint in the traditional style. While modern Russian icon painters often study academic drawing, many eventually consult the podlinniki for authentic details (saintly attire colors, hair, inscriptions, etc.) . The old manuals have been reprinted or digitized; for example, Kondakov’s 1900 publication of icon patterns (from earlier podlinniki) is accessible online for study . Thus, the legacy of these manuals persists, bridging medieval practice with modern icon revival.

Greek Tradition (Hermeneiai)

In the Byzantine and post-Byzantine Greek world, painters’ manuals called hermeneiai (ερμηνεία, “interpretation” or guide) were used to standardize iconography and technique. The tradition dates back at least to the 11th century , though knowledge was often transmitted apprentice-to-master. The most famous example is:

• Hermeneia of Dionysius of Fourna (early 18th c.) – Also known as the “Painter’s Manual” of Dionysios, this is the definitive Greek iconographic manual . Dionysius of Fourna, a monk and icon painter on Mt. Athos (c.1670–1744), compiled the hermeneia between 1728 and 1733 with his student Kyrillos of Chios . Written in Greek, it’s formally titled Ερμηνεία της Ζωγραφικής Τέχνης (“Interpretation of the Painting Art”) . The manual is comprehensive, in three parts : it covers the arrangement of scenes from the Old and New Testaments and lives of saints (in roughly chronological order), the exact inscriptions for icons, and even where each image belongs in a church . Dionysius synthesized centuries of Byzantine tradition, drawing especially on the 16th–17th c. Cretan school and older Athonite practice, while rejecting Western naturalism in favor of the Byzantine style . His Hermeneia not only describes how to paint figures (postures, garments, colors) but also includes chapters on preparatory techniques (panel preparation, pigments, brushes, etc.). It became hugely influential: dozens of copies spread across the Balkans , making it the standard guide for Greek, Balkan, and Levantine iconographers in the 18th–19th centuries . For instance, it was praised as “the most systematic and complete” painting guide of its time, often transmitted under both Dionysius’s and Kyrillos of Chios’s names in later editions . Dionysius’s hermeneia survives in many manuscripts and was first published in French by Didron (1845) . Today it’s available in multiple languages (e.g. an English translation with commentary by Paul Hetherington , which is accessible online ). Contemporary use: The Hermeneia remains a foundational text – modern iconographers still consult it for its rich iconographic canon and technical recipes. Its guidance is actively taught in icon-painting workshops, and it has been called “the bible” of traditional Greek iconography revival .

• Other Greek Hermeneiai: Prior to Dionysius, there were smaller-scale manuals and pattern collections in Greek. Monasteries on Mount Athos maintained pattern books (some dating to Byzantine times) , though these were not widely published. After Dionysius, additional contributions were made by others – for example, Kyrillos of Chios (a disciple of Dionysius) helped disseminate and possibly expand the Hermeneia . In the 19th century, Greek scholars and artists printed versions of the Hermeneia for broader use; one Greek manuscript of Dionysius’s text from 1775 is preserved in the Romanian Academy library , indicating its spread. In the 20th century, Greek iconographer Fotis Kontoglou wrote Ekphrasis of the Orthodox Iconography (1960), a two-volume hermeneia that drew on Dionysius but also his own experience . Kontoglou’s work (in modern Greek) became a key reference for the 20th-c. neo-Byzantine art movement, effectively a contemporary hermeneia. Thus, the Greek tradition of hermeneiai spans from medieval monastic guides to printed manuals to modern handbooks, all reinforcing the Byzantine iconographic canon in their eras.

Ukrainian Tradition (Kyiv and Galician Schools)

Ukraine’s icon-painting tradition developed at the crossroads of Byzantine, Slavic, and Western influence. While no single podlinnik or hermeneia achieved pan-Ukrainian renown like the Russian and Greek examples, there were local manuscripts and adapted guides in use:

• Kyiv (Kievan) Manuals: As the medieval Kyiv Pechersk Lavra was a major center of Orthodox art, it likely preserved pattern scrolls or texts for iconography. Fragments known as the “Kiev leaves” of a podlinnik are mentioned by researchers , suggesting that a Kievian copy of an iconography handbook existed (possibly a 17th c. compilation of saint portraits or festal scenes). These leaves of Kiev are an example of how the Kievan school had access to similar pattern books as Muscovite painters . Additionally, by the 18th century, Kyiv (then under the Russian Empire) would have had access to Moscow podlinniki and printed guides. For instance, the Bolshakov Podlinnik (1903) and other Imperial-era publications circulated in Ukrainian territories, helping standardize icon depictions.

• Galician and Western Ukraine: In Galicia and western Ukrainian lands (which were under Polish–Lithuanian and later Habsburg rule), iconographers balanced traditional Orthodox iconography with Baroque art trends. There is evidence of localized manuals or guidelines: for example, in the 18th century the Basilian monastic order and Lviv Brotherhood may have prepared instructional drawings for church painters. A notable Galician icon-painter, Yov Kondzelevych (late 17th–early 18th c.), led a workshop that created the magnificent Bohorodchany iconostasis – while no written manual by him survives, the consistency of style suggests a set of unwritten “rules” or patterns shared among the artisans . By the 19th century, Ukrainian painters increasingly obtained translations of established manuals. For example, Dionysius of Fourna’s Greek Hermeneia was translated into Church Slavonic and Romanian, and copies of these found their way to Ukraine. Ukrainian church painters in the 1800s could consult a Church Slavonic version of Dionysius’s manual (which was available in nearby Orthodox countries) or the Russian podlinniki reprints. Indeed, the diffusion of Dionysius’s Hermeneia in the Danubian region was facilitated by early translations – an 1805 Slavonic/Romanian edition by Archimandrite Macarie in Bucharest, and another made at Cozia Monastery by 1841 . These texts likely circulated north into Ukraine.

• Local Adaptations: Ukrainian iconographers often had to adapt manuals to local artistic sensibilities. In the 17th–18th centuries, especially in Galicia, icons show Western stylistic elements (renaissance perspective, realistic shading) combined with traditional content. There is evidence that clerics encouraged a return to Byzantine norms by using painter’s guides. For instance, 19th-century Ruthenian (Ukrainian Greek Catholic) seminaries taught icon painting using scaled copies of older icons and notes on iconography, effectively small “manuals” to counter excessive Latinization. Even folk icon painters in the Carpathians and Transylvania obtained pattern books – one report notes that by the mid-19th century, Transylvanian iconographers on glass were using the “detailed instructions” from Dionysius’s textbook (likely via a Romanian translation) to depict scenes like the Life-giving Spring . Thus, Ukrainian traditions did not produce a famous original hermeneia text, but they borrowed and localized the canonical manuals from their Greek and Russian neighbors. Today, scholars can find references to these adaptations in archives (e.g., manuscript collections in Lviv and Kyiv) and compare the icons to known pattern-book types. Ukrainian icon-painters now, especially those reviving medieval styles, often reference Dionysius’s Hermeneia or Russian podlinniki to guide their work, reconnecting with the broader Orthodox iconographic canon.

Romanian Tradition

Romanian Orthodox iconography developed under the influence of both Greek (Byzantine) and Slavic traditions, as well as later Western Baroque. Manuals and guidebooks played a crucial role especially from the  eighteenth century onward, as Romanian principalities sought to maintain Byzantine-style painting in the face of changing tastes. Key developments include:

• Use of Greek Hermeneiai: By the 1700s, Romanian painters turned to Greek manuals to standardize church art. Dionysius of Fourna’s Hermeneia became highly influential in Romanian lands . Greek copies of Dionysius’s manual were circulating “from early times” in Wallachia and Moldavia . The oldest Greek manuscript of the Hermeneia in Romania dates to 1775 (now in the Romanian Academy Library, Bucharest) . This suggests that shortly after its compilation, Dionysius’s guide reached Romanian Orthodox communities (likely via Mount Athos and Balkan connections). Romanian church authorities valued it as an authoritative guide to iconography – it was described by scholar G. Grecu in 1936 as “the newest, most systematic and complete” painters’ manual of the Byzantine tradition .

• Translations and Local Editions: Romanians didn’t just import Greek copies; they translated the Hermeneia into Romanian. The first known Romanian translation was done in 1805 by Archimandrite Macarie in Bucharest . Another translation was made by the monks of Cozia Monastery, completed in 1841 . These translations (mostly kept in manuscript) rendered the Greek iconographic terminology into Romanian, making the manual accessible to local artisans. By the late 19th century, Bishop Ghenadie published parts of these texts (in 1891) , indicating an ongoing reference to Dionysius’s work. The content guided Romanian iconographers on everything from how to paint feast scenes to the traditional “chromatic canon” (the symbolic color scheme for each figure). For example, Romanian versions of the manual instructed painters on depicting the “Izvorul Tămăduirii” (Life-giving Spring) Marian icon, a theme that became popular locally; Dionysius’s directions for that scene were closely followed by Romanian muralists and even folk glass painters in the 19th century .

• Native Manuals and Style Guides: In addition to translated hermeneiai, Romania saw some native guidebooks. One example is a mid-18th century Wallachian manuscript sometimes attributed to Dascălul (Master) Ioan of Udrea – essentially notes on preparing panels and pigments for icons, reflecting practice in local workshops. Furthermore, in Moldova, the renowned 15th-c. painter Fr. Nicodim and later artists left marginal notes in churches (like at Voroneț Monastery) about color mixes and saints’ attributes, which function as mini-manuals for successors. By the 19th century, formal art education began to supplement traditional manuals: for instance, manuals on church mural technique by Gheorghe Tattarescu (a 19th-c. Romanian church painter) were published, blending academic art with traditional iconography. However, even these academically trained artists referred back to the old hermeneia for iconographic content.

Contemporary use: Romania’s Orthodox iconographers today actively study these manual traditions. The 1800s Romanian translations of the Hermeneia have been printed in modern editions (Grecu’s Romanian edition from 1936, for example), and Dionysius’s influence persists in the curriculum for icon painters. Icons in Romanian churches often adhere to the patterns set out in the hermeneia, a testament to how fully it was integrated. Additionally, the “Erminia” of Chiril of Chios (a later Greek compilation related to Dionysius’s work ) is known and used by Romanian restorers and painters. Museums in Romania (like the Astra Museum in Sibiu) also hold copies of these manuals . Thus, Romanian tradition is characterized not by an original medieval manual of its own, but by enthusiastic adoption and transmission of the pan-Orthodox iconographic manuals, ensuring Romanian icons remained doctrinally “correct” while allowing for local artistic flair.

Other Orthodox Traditions (Bulgarian, Serbian, Georgian, etc.)

Beyond Russia, Greece, and Romania, other Orthodox cultures also utilized painting manuals or similar guides to uphold iconographic canon:

• Bulgarian Tradition: Bulgarian icon-painting in the post-Byzantine era (16th–19th centuries) was deeply influenced by Greek hermeneiai and Church Slavonic copies. Under Ottoman rule, Bulgarian and Macedonian monasteries like Ohrid, Hilandar (Mt. Athos), and Rila became conduits for transmitting manuals. Bulgarian painters often worked from hand-copied Slavonic translations of Dionysius’s Hermeneia or related texts . Recent scholarship (e.g. Ivan Bentchev, 2004) has identified thirteen Greek and Bulgarian painter’s handbook manuscripts from this period . These include unpublished manuals in Church Slavonic used by Bulgarian iconographers, containing traditional recipes for pigments, panel preparation, and proportions . They show a mix of influences – preserving medieval Byzantine formulas while also incorporating some Western technical knowledge that filtered in during the 19th-century Enlightenment . For example, manuals from Bulgarian workshops in the 1850s might mention new oil-based varnishes or perspective hints, reflecting artists’ exposure to Europe . A notable printed source in the region was the Stemmatographia (1741) by Hristofor Žefarović, which, while mainly a heraldic album, included engravings of saints that Bulgarian painters used as iconographic patterns. The Bulgarian National Revival in the 19th century saw a push to return to Orthodox authenticity in icons – painters like Zahari Zograf and Dimităr of Samokov, though known for westernized style, still kept manuals of Orthodox icon models at hand. Today, Bulgarian art historians are studying these hermeneiai; some manuscripts are held in Sofia and have been translated into modern languages , providing insight into the Balkan canon that guided Bulgarian iconography.

• Serbian Tradition: Serbian lands, especially in the Ottoman period, looked to Greek-Athonite sources for icon guidance. Serbian Orthodox painters in the 17th–18th centuries often trained in Greek or Bulgarian workshops, thus inheriting the hermeneia tradition. An example is Christopher (Hristofor) Žefarović mentioned above – he was Macedono-Bulgarian by birth but worked for the Serbian Metropolitanate, and his patterns of saints spread in Serbian territories . In the Habsburg-ruled north (like the Metropolitanate of Karlovci), Baroque influence was strong, but even there, Bishop Arsenije IVcommissioned the printing of Žefarović’s Stemmatographia precisely to furnish Orthodox iconography models (saints and historical figures) for artists . We also have records of a Serbian copy of Dionysius’s Hermeneia from the  eighteenth century – for instance, a Slavic-manuscript hermeneia was known in Montenegro and another in the Serbian Krajina, adapted into local language. Serbian manuals emphasized correct church Slavonic inscriptions and traditional composition, as a counter to the overly-Latinized art that appeared in the 1700s. By the 19th century, as Serbia gained autonomy, there was a revival of Byzantine-style iconography; Russian podlinniki and Greek hermeneiai were imported (Russia sent teachers and books to help Serbia re-establish Orthodox art education). Thus, while Serbia did not produce a unique famous manual, it made extensive use of shared Orthodox manuals, and a few hybrid guides emerged (combining, say, Russian pattern prints with Greek texts). Presently, Serbian icon painters reference these sources for restoring church icons; for example, the Sophia Podlinnik (Novgorod 16th c.) was used when repainting icons in Žiča monastery to ensure accuracy . Manuals in the Slavic Orthodox world were quite interconnected, and Serbia’s tradition is a case in point.

• Georgian Tradition: Georgia’s Orthodox art evolved somewhat independently due to language and geographic isolation, yet it adhered to the same fundamentals of Byzantine iconography. In medieval Georgia, no known written “icon manual”has been found – the transmission was likely oral/visual within family workshops (e.g., the famous 12th–14th c. Georgian iconographers from the Kakheti school). However, after the 15th century, Georgian art often followed Byzantine/Mount Athos models, implying they must have had pattern collections. Georgian monasteries did possess Byzantine hermeneiai; for instance, Georgian monks on Athos in the 19th century had Greek and Slavonic guides for fresco programs. When the Russian Empire annexed Georgia (19th c.), Russian podlinniki in Church Slavonic became available and were occasionally translated into Georgian margins by local priests. One modern example of codification is the late 19th-c. manual written (in Georgian) by Ghiorgi (George) Papashvili, which outlined how to paint icons in the newly established Art Academy in Tiflis, drawing on Russian teachings. Additionally, some Georgian scholars point out that the proportional canon for figures in Georgian frescoes (e.g., at Gelati Monastery) matches descriptions in Dionysius’s hermeneia, hinting that Georgian artists indirectly used those guidelines. In sum, while Georgia lacks a famous “podlinnik” text of its own, it contributed unique iconographic variants (especially of national saints) within the accepted Orthodox canon and increasingly utilized the established manuals from the wider Orthodox world in the  eighteenth–20th centuries. Today’s Georgian iconographers, in reviving old techniques, study both Byzantine (Greek) manuals and Russian/Slavonic sources, often translating key sections into Georgian. Museums in Tbilisi and Zugdidi now display some original sketches and notebooks of 19th-century Georgian icon painters – these are perhaps the closest equivalent to hermeneiai, serving as personal manuals that mirrored the content of Dionysian and Russian guides.

Access to Manuals

Many of these manuals have been published or digitized, allowing contemporary researchers and artists to consult them. Classic editions like Didron’s Guide de la Peinture (1845, French) and Hetherington’s Painter’s Manual of Dionysius (1974, English) are available in libraries and online archives. The Stroganov Podlinnik and others can be found in facsimile on archive sites , and resources like the Russian State Library’s digital collection host scans of podlinnik manuscripts . The Azbyka.ru digital library provides PDFs of Slavonic podlinniki (e.g., the Filimonov/Svodny manual) . In addition, museums (e.g., the Museum of Russian Icons in Clinton, MA, and the Byzantine & Christian Museum in Athens) sometimes exhibit pages of these manuals. Modern reprint books such as An Iconographer’s Patternbook: The Stroganov Tradition (translating the Stroganov podlinnik) and Erminia picturii bizantine (Romanian edition of Dionysius’s hermeneia) make these once-esoteric guides widely accessible. In practice, therefore, today’s iconographers – whether Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Romanian, or otherwise – can study these timeless hermeneiai/podlinniki to ensure their work remains rooted in the canonical forms passed down through the centuries.

Sources

• 🔗 Russian Podlinniki (icon painting handbooks), e.g. Stroganov, Perm, Svodny/Filimonov, https://mmekourdukova.livejournal.com/468822.html

• 🔗 Greek Hermeneiai, notably Dionysios of Fourna’s 18th-c. manual and its translations, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysios_of_Fourna

• 🔗 Ukrainian and regional uses of manuals, https://mmekourdukova.livejournal.com/468822.html

• 🔗 Romanian adoption of Hermeneia (Macarie 1805, Cozia 1841), https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/6719/20105#:~:text=translations%20of%20the%20same%20work,Ghenadie%201891%3A39

• 🔗 Bulgarian/Serbian manual traditions and scholarly studies, https://cool.culturalheritage.org/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/2005/0084.html#:~:text=The%20author%20Ivan%20Bentchev%20presents,in%20German%20by%20the%20author

• 🔗 Contemporary references and availability of these manuals, https://russianicons.wordpress.com/tag/icon-painters-manual/#:~:text=The%20Bolshakov%20Podlinnik%20is%20a,colors%20of%20hair%20and%20garments