CHAPTER VII

.

MEDIÆVAL ARCHITECTURE OF RUSSIA.

CONTENTS.

Churches at Kief—Novogorod—Moscow—Towers.

CHRONOLOGY.

DATES. Rurik the Varangian at Novogorod A.D. 850 Olga baptized at Constantinople 955 St. Vladimir the Great 981-1015 Yaroslaf died 1054 Sack of Kief 1168 Tartar invasion under Gengis Khan 1224 Tartar wars and domination till 1480 Ivan III. 1462-1505 Basil III. 1505-1533 Ivan IV., or the Terrible 1533-1584 Boris 1598-1605 Peter the Great 1689-1725

The long series of the architectural styles of the Christian world which has been described in the preceding pages terminates most appropriately with the description of the art of a people who had less knowledge of architecture and less appreciation of its beauties than any other with which we are acquainted. During the Middle Ages the Russians did not erect one single building which is worthy of admiration, either from its dimensions, its design, or the elegance of its details; nor did they invent one single architectural feature which can be called their own. It is true the Tartars brought with them their bulbous form of dome, and the Russians adopted it, and adhere to it to the present day, unconscious that it is the symbol of their subjection to a race they affect to despise; but excepting as regards this one feature, their architecture is only a bad and debased copy of the style of the Byzantine Empire. There is nothing, in fact, in the architecture of the country to lead us to doubt that the mass of the population of Russia was always of purely Aryan stock, speaking a language more nearly allied to the Sanskrit than any of the other Mediæval tongues of Europe, and that whatever amount of Tartar blood may have been imported, it was not sufficient to cure the inartistic tendencies of the race. So much is this felt to be the case, that the Russians themselves hardly lay claim to the design of a single building in their country from the earliest times to the present day. They admit that all the churches at Kief, their earliest capital, were erected by Greek architects; those of Moscow by Italians or Germans; while those of St. Petersburg, we know, were, with hardly a single exception, erected by Italian, German, or French architects. These last have perpetrated caricatures of revived Roman architecture worse than are to be found anywhere else. Bad as are some of the imitations of Roman art found in western Europe, they are all the work of native artists; are, partially at least, adapted to the climate, and common-sense peeps through their worst absurdities; but in Russia only second-class foreigners have been employed, and the result is a style that out-herods Herod in absurdity and bad taste. Architecture has languished not only in Russia, but wherever the Sclavonic race predominates. In Poland, Hungary, Moldavia, Wallachia, &c., although some of these countries have at times been rich and prosperous, there is not a single original structure worthy to be placed in comparison with even the second-class contemporary buildings of the Celtic or Teutonic races.

Besides the ethnographic inaptitude of the nation, however, there are other causes which would lead us to anticipate, _à priori_, that nothing either great or beautiful was likely to exist in the Mediæval architecture of Russia. In the first place, from the conversion of Olga (964) to the accession of Peter the Great (1689), with whom the national style expired, the country hardly emerged from barbarism. Torn by internal troubles, or devastated by incursions of the Tartars, the Russians never enjoyed the repose necessary for the development of art, and the country was too thinly peopled to admit of that concentration of men necessary for the carrying out of any great architectural undertaking.

Another cause of bad architecture is found in the material used, which is almost universally brick covered with plaster; and it is well known that the tendency of plaster architecture is constantly to extravagance in detail and bad taste in every form. It is also extremely perishable,— a fact which opens the way to repairs and alterations in defiance of congruity and taste, and to the utter annihilation of everything like archæological value in the building.

When the material was not brick it was wood, like most of the houses in Russia of the present day; and the destroying hand of time, aided no doubt by fire and the Tartar invasions, have swept away many buildings which would serve to fill up gaps, now, it is feared, irremediable in the history of the art.

Notwithstanding all this, the history of architecture in Russia need not be considered as entirely a blank, or as wholly devoid of interest. Locally we can follow the history of the style from the south to the north. Springing originally from two roots—one at Constantinople, the other in Armenia—it gradually extended itself northward. It first established itself at Cherson, then at Kief, and after these at Vladimir and Moscow, whence it spread to the great commercial city of Novogorod. At all these places it maintained itself till supplanted by the rise of St. Petersburg.

[Illustration: 372. Church of St. Basil, Kief. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

Though the Princess Olga was baptised in 955, the general profession of Christianity in Russia did not take place till the reign of Vladimir (981-1015). He built the wooden cathedral at Cherson, which has perished. At Kief the same monarch built the church of Dessiatinnaya, the remains of which existed till within the last few years, when they were removed to give place to a modern reproduction. He also built that of St. Basil in the same city, which, notwithstanding modern improvements, still retains its ancient plan, and is nearly identical in arrangement and form with the Catholicon at Athens (Woodcut No. 338). The plan (Woodcut No. 372) gives a fair idea of the usual dimensions of the older churches of Russia. The parts shaded lighter are subsequent additions.

[Illustration: 373. St. Irene, Kief.]

A greater builder than Vladimir was Prince Yaroslaf (1019-1054). He founded the church of St. Irene at Kief (Woodcut No. 373), the ruins of which still exist. It is a good specimen of the smaller class of churches of that date.

His great works were the cathedrals of Kief and Novogorod, both dedicated to Sta. Sophia, and with the church at Mokwi quoted above (Woodcut No. 352) forming the most interesting group of Russian churches of that age. All three belong to the 11th century, and are so extremely similar in plan, that, deducting the subsequent additions from the two Russian examples, they may almost be said to be identical. They also show so intimate a connection between the places on the great commercial road from the Caucasus to the Baltic, that they point out at once the line along which we must look for the origin of the style.

[Illustration: 374. Plan of Cathedral at Kief. Scale 100 ft. to 1 in.]

Of the three, that at Kief[254] (Woodcut No. 374) is the largest; but it is nearly certain that the two outer aisles are subsequent additions, and that the original church was confined to the remaining seven aisles. As it now stands its dimensions are 185 ft. from north to south, and 136 from east to west. It consequently covers only about 25,000 ft., or not half the usual dimensions of a Western cathedral of the same class. As will be perceived, its plan is like that of the churches of Asia Minor, so far as the central aisles are concerned. In lateral extension it resembles a mosque, a form elsewhere very unusual in Christian churches, but which here may be a Tartar peculiarity. At all events it is generally found in Russian churches, which never adopt the long basilican form of the West. If their length in an eastern and western direction ever exceeds the breadth, it is only by taking in the narthex with the body of the church.

[Illustration: 375. East End of the Church at Novogorod. (From a Drawing by A. Durand.)]

Internally this church retains many of its original arrangements, and many decorations which, if not original, are at least restorations or copies of those which previously occupied their places. Externally it has been so repaired and rebuilt that it is difficult to detect what belongs to the original work.

In this respect the church of Novogorod has been more fortunate. Owing to the early decline of the town it has not been much modernised. The interior retains many of its primitive features. Among other furniture is a pair of bronze doors of Italian workmanship of the 12th century closely resembling those of San Zenone at Verona. The part of the exterior that retains most of its early features is the eastern end, represented in the Woodcut No. 375. It retains the long reed-like shafts which the Armenians borrowed from the Sassanians, and which penetrated even to this remote corner. Whether the two lower circular apses shown in the view are old is by no means clear: but it is probable that they are at least built on ancient foundations. The domes on the roof, and indeed all the upper part of the building, belong to a more modern date than the substructure.

The cathedral of Tchernigow, near Kief, founded 1024, retains perhaps more of its original appearance externally than any other church of its age. Like almost all Russian churches it is square in plan, with a dome in the centre surrounded by four smaller cupolas placed diagonally at the corners. To the eastward are three apses, and the narthex is flanked by two round towers, the upper parts of which, with the roofs, have been modernised, but the whole of the walls remain as originally erected, especially the end of the transept, which precisely resembles what we find in Greek Churches of the period.

[Illustration: 376. Cathedral at Tchernigow. (From Blasius, ‘Reise in Russland.’)]

To the same age belong the convent of the Volkof (1100) and of Yourief at Novogorod, the church of the Ascension, and several others at Kief. All these are so modernised as, except in their plans, to show but slight traces of their origin.

Another of the great buildings of the age was the cathedral of Vladimir (1046). It is said to have been built, like the rest, by Greek artists. The richness and beauty of this building have been celebrated by early travellers, but it has been entirely passed over by more modern writers. From this it is perhaps to be inferred that its ancient form is completely disguised in modern alterations.

The ascendency of Kief was of short duration. Early in the 13th century the city suffered greatly from civil wars, fires, and devastations of every description, which humbled her pride, and inflicted ruin upon her from which she never wholly recovered.

Vladimir was after this the residence of the grand dukes, and in the beginning of the 14th century Moscow became the capital, which it continued to be till the seat of empire was transferred by Peter the Great to St. Petersburg. During these three centuries Moscow was no doubt adorned with many important buildings, since almost every church traces its foundation back to the 14th century; but as fires and Tartar invasions have frequently swept over the city since then, few retain any of the features of their original foundation, and it may therefore perhaps be well to see what can be gleaned in the provinces before describing the buildings of the capital.

[Illustration: 377. Village Church near Novogorod. (From a Drawing by A. Durand.)]

As far as can be gathered from the sketch-books of travellers or their somewhat meagre notes, there are few towns of Russia of any importance during the Middle Ages which do not possess churches said to have been founded in the first centuries after its conversion to Christianity; though whether the existing buildings are the originals, or how far they may have been altered and modernised, will not be known till some archæologist visits the country, directing his attention to this

## particular inquiry. Although the Russians probably built as great a

number of churches as any nation of Christendom, yet like the Greek churches they were all undoubtedly small. Kief is said, even in the age of Yaroslaf, to have contained 400 churches; Vladimir nearly as many. Moscow, in the year 1600, had 400 (thirty-seven of which were in the Kremlin), and now possesses many more.

Many of the village churches still retain their ancient features; the example here given of one near Novogorod belongs probably to the 12th century, and is not later than the 13th. It retains its shafted apse, its bulb-shaped Tartar dome, and, as is always the case in Russia, a square detached belfry—though in this instance apparently more modern than the edifice itself. Woodcut No. 378 is the type of a great number of the old village churches, which, like the houses of the peasants, are of wood, generally of logs laid one on the other, with their round ends intersecting at the angles, like the log-huts of America at the present day. As architectural objects they are of course insignificant, but still they are characteristic and picturesque.

[Illustration: 378. Village Church near Tzarskoe Selo. (From Durand.)]

Internally all the arrangements of the stone churches are such as are appropriate for pictorial rather than for sculptural decoration. The pillars are generally large cylinders covered with portraits of saints, and the capitals are plain, cushion-like rolls with painted ornaments. The vaults are not relieved by ribs, or by any projections that could interfere with the coloured decorations. In the wooden churches the construction is plainly shown, and of course is far lighter. In them also colour almost wholly supersedes carving. The peculiarities of these two styles are well illustrated in the two Woodcuts, Nos. 379 and 380, from churches near Kostroma in Eastern Russia. Both belong to the Middle Ages, and both are favourable specimens of their respective classes. In these examples, as indeed in every Greek church, the principal object of ecclesiastical furniture is the _iconostasis_ or image-bearer, corresponding to the rood-screen that separates the choir from the nave in Latin churches. The rood-screen, however, never assumed in the West the importance which the iconostasis always possessed in the East. There it separates and hides from the church the sanctuary and the altar, from which the laity are wholly excluded. Within it the elements are consecrated, in the presence of the priests alone, and are then brought forward to be displayed to the public. On this screen, as performing so important a part, the Greek architects and artists have lavished the greatest amount of care and design, and in every Greek church, from St. Mark’s at Venice to the extreme confines of Russia, it is the object that first attracts attention on entering. It is, in fact, so important that it must be regarded rather as an object of architecture than of church furniture.

[Illustration: 379. Interior of Church at Kostroma. (From Durand.)]

The architectural details of these Russian churches must be pronounced to be bad; for, even making every allowance for difference of taste, there is neither beauty of form nor constructive elegance in any part. The most characteristic and pleasing features are the five domes that generally ornament the roofs, and which, when they rise from the _extrados_, or uncovered outside of the vaults, certainly look well. Too frequently, however, the vault is covered by a wooden roof, through which the domes then peer in a manner by no means to be admired. The details of the lower part are generally bad. The view (Woodcut No. 381) of a doorway of the Troitska monastery, near Moscow, is sufficiently characteristic. Its most remarkable feature is the baluster-like pillars, of which the Russians seem so fond. These support an arch with a pendant in the middle—a sort of architectural _tour de force_ which the Russian architects practised everywhere and in every age, but which is far from being beautiful in itself, or from possessing any architectural propriety. The great roll over the door is also unpleasant. Indeed, as a general rule, wherever in Russian architecture the details are original, they must be condemned as ugly.

At Moscow we find much that is at all events curious. It first became a city of importance about the year 1304, and retained its prosperity throughout that century. During that time it was adorned by many sumptuous edifices. In the beginning of the 15th century it was taken and destroyed by the Tartars, and it was not till the reign of Ivan III. (1462-1505) that the city and empire recovered the disasters of that period. It is extremely doubtful if any edifice now found in Moscow can date before the time of this monarch.

[Illustration: 380. Interior of Church near Kostroma. (From Durand.)]

In the year 1479 this king dedicated the new church of the Assumption of the Virgin, said to have been built by Aristotile Fioravanti, of Bologna, in Italy, who was brought to Russia expressly for the purpose. The plan of it (Woodcut No. 382) gives a good idea of the arrangement of a Russian church of this age. Small as are its dimensions—only 74 ft. by 56 over all externally, which would be a very small parish church anywhere else—the two other cathedrals of Moscow, that of the Archangel Michael and the Annunciation, are even smaller still in plan. Like true Byzantine churches, they would all be exact squares, but that the narthex being taken into the church gives it a somewhat oblong form. In the Church of the Assumption there is, as is almost universally the case, one large dome over the centre of the square, and four smaller ones in the four angles.[255] The great iconostasis runs, as at Sta. Sophia at Kief, quite across the church; but the two lateral chapels have smaller screens inside which hide their altars, so that the part between the two becomes a sort of private chapel. This seems to be the plan of the greater number of the Russian churches of this age.

[Illustration: 381. Doorway of the Troitzka Monastery, near Moscow.]

[Illustration: 382. Plan of the Church of the Assumption, Moscow.]

[Illustration: 383. Plan of the Church of St. Basil, Moscow.]

[Illustration: 384. View of the Church of Vassili Blanskenoy, Moscow.]

But there is one church in Moscow, that of Vassili (St. Basil) Blajenny, which is certainly the most remarkable, as it is the most characteristic, of all the churches of Russia. It was built by Ivan the Terrible (1534-1584), and its architect was a foreigner, generally supposed to have come from the West, inasmuch as this monarch sent an embassy to Germany under one Schlit, to procure artists, of whom he is said to have collected 150 for his service. If, however, German workmen erected this building, it certainly was from Tartar designs. Nothing like it exists to the westward. It more resembles some Eastern pagoda of modern date than any European structure, and in fact must be considered as almost a pure Tartar building. Still, though strangely altered by time, most of its forms can be traced back to the Byzantine style, as certainly as the details of the cathedral of Cologne to the Romanesque. The central spire, for instance, is the form into which the Russians had during five centuries been gradually changing the straight-lined dome of the Armenians. The eight others are the Byzantine domes converted by degrees into the bulb-like forms which the Tartars practised at Agra and Delhi, as well as throughout Russia. The arrangement of these domes will be understood by the plan (Woodcut No. 383), which shows it to consist of one central octagon surrounded by eight smaller ones, raised on a platform ascended by two flights of stairs. Beneath the platform is a crypt. For the general appearance the reader must be referred to Woodcut No. 384, for words would fail to convey any idea of so bizarre and complicated a building. At the same time it must be imagined as painted with the most brilliant colours; its domes gilt, and relieved by blue, green, and red, and altogether a combination of as much barbarity as it is possible to bring together in so small a space. To crown the whole, according to the legend, Ivan ordered the eyes of the architect to be put out, lest he should ever surpass his own handiwork; and we may feel grateful that nothing so barbarous was afterwards attempted in Europe.

[Illustration: 385. View of Church at Kurtea d’Argyisch. (From ‘Jahrbuch der Central Com.’)]

[Illustration: 386. Plan of Church at Kurtea d’Argyisch. Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.]

[Illustration: 387. Tower of Ivan Veliki, Moscow, with the Cathedrals of the Assumption and the Archangel Gabriel.]

Though not strictly speaking in Russia itself, there is at Kurtea d’Argyisch, in Wallachia, 90 miles north-west from Bucharest, a church which is so remarkable, so typical of the style, that it cannot be passed over. It was erected in the first years of the 16th century (1517-1526) by a Prince Nyagon, and is, so far as is at present known, the most elaborate example of the style. All its ornamental details are identical with those found at Ani and other places in Armenia, but are used here in greater profusion and with better judgment than are to be found in any single example in that country. In outline it is not so wild as the Vassili Blanskenoy, but the interior is wholly sacrificed to the external effect, and no other example can well be quoted on which ornamental construction is carried to so great an extent, and generally speaking in such good taste. The twisted cupolas that flank the entrances might as well have been omitted, but the two central domes and the way the semi-domes are attached to them are quite unexceptionable, and altogether, with larger dimensions, and if a little more spread out, it would be difficult to find a more elegant exterior anywhere. As it is only 90 ft. long by 50 wide it is too small for architectural effect, but barring this it is the most elegant example of the Armeno-Russian or Neo-Byzantine architecture which is known to exist anywhere, and one of the most suggestive, if the Russians knew how to use it.[256]

TOWERS.

[Illustration: 388. Tower of Boris, Kremlin, Moscow.]

Next in importance to the churches themselves are the belfries which always accompany them. The Russians seem never to have adopted separate baptisteries, nor did they affect any sepulchral magnificence in their tombs. From the time of Herodotus the Scythians were great casters of metal, and famous for their bells. The specimens of casting of this sort in Russia reduce all the great bells of Western Europe to comparative insignificance. It of course became necessary to provide places in which to hang these bells: and as nothing, either in Byzantine or Armenian architecture, afforded a hint for amalgamating the belfry with the church, they went to work in their own way, and constructed the towers wholly independent of the churches. Of all those in Russia, that of Ivan Veliki, erected by the Czar Boris, about the year 1600, is the finest. It is surmounted by a cross 18 ft. high, making a total height of 269 ft. from the ground to the top of the cross. It cannot be said to have any great beauty, either of form or detail: but it rises boldly from the ground, and towers over all the other buildings of the Kremlin. With this tower for its principal object, the whole mass of building is at least picturesque, if not architecturally beautiful. In the Woodcut (No. 388) the belfry is shown as it stood before it was blown up by the French. It has since been rebuilt, and with the cathedrals on either hand, makes up the best group in the Kremlin.

Besides the belfries, the walls of the Kremlin are adorned with towers, meant not merely for military defence, but as architectural ornaments, and reminding us somewhat of those described by Josephus as erected by Herod on the walls of Jerusalem. One of these towers (Woodcut No. 389), built by the same Czar Boris who erected that last described, is a good specimen of its class. It is one of the principal of those which give the walls of the Kremlin their peculiar and striking character.

[Illustration: 389. Sacred Gate, Kremlin, Moscow.]

These towers, however, are not peculiar to the Kremlin of Moscow. Every city in Russia had its Kremlin, as every one in Spain had its Alcazar, and all were adorned with walls deeply machicolated, and interspersed with towers. Within were enclosed five-domed churches and belfries, just as at Moscow, though on a scale proportionate to the importance of the city. It would be easy to select numerous illustrations of this. They are, however, all very much like one another, nor have they sufficient beauty to require us to dwell long on them. Their gateways, however, are frequently important. Every city had its _porta sacra_, deriving its importance either from some memorable event or from miracles said to have been wrought there, and being the triumphal gateways through which all processions pass on state occasions.

The best known of these is that of Moscow, beneath whose sacred arch even the Emperor himself must uncover his head as he passes through; and which, from its sanctity as well as its architectural character, forms an important feature among the antiquities of Russia.

So numerous are the churches, and, generally speaking, the fragments of antiquity in this country, that it would be easy to multiply examples to almost any extent. Those quoted in the preceding pages are, architecturally, the finest as well as the most interesting from an antiquarian point of view, of those which have yet been visited and drawn; and there is no reason to believe that others either more magnificent or more beautiful still remain undescribed.

This being the case, it is safe to assert that Russia contains nothing that can at all compare with the cathedrals, or even the parish churches, of Western Europe, either in dimensions or in beauty of detail. Every chapter in the history of architecture must contain something to interest the student: but there is none less worthy of attention than that which describes the architecture of Russia, especially when we take into account the extent of territory occupied by its people, and the enormous amount of time and wealth which has been lavished on the multitude of insignificant buildings to be found in every corner of the empire.

## BOOK II.

ITALY.

##