Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk: Late Sixteenth to the Early Nineteenth Centuries

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297

brill.com/ruhi

William Craft Brumfield Professor of Slavic Studies and Sizeler Professor of Jewish Studies, Department of Germanic and Slavic Studies, Tulane University, New Orleans [email protected]

Abstract

The history of the community associated with the White Lake (Beloe Ozero) is a rich one. This article covers a brief overview of the developing community from medieval through modern times, and then focuses the majority of its attention on the church architecture of Belozersk. This rich tradition of material culture increases our knowledge about medieval and early modern Rus’ and Russia.

Keywords

Beloozero – Belozersk – Russian Architecture – Church Architecture

The origins and early location of Belozersk (now a regional town in the center of Vologda oblast’) are subject to discussion, but it is uncontestably one of the oldest recorded settlements among the eastern Slavs. “Beloozero” is mentioned in the Primary Chronicle (or Chronicle of Bygone Years; Povest’ vremennykh let) under the year 862 as one of the five towns granted to the Varangian brothers Riurik, Sineus and Truvor, invited (according to the chronicle) to rule over the eastern Slavs in what was then called Rus’.1

1 The Chronicle text in contemporary Russian translation is as follows: “B гoд 6370 (862). И изгнaли вapягoв зa мope, и нe дaли им дaни, и нaчaли caми coбoй влaдeть, и нe былo cpeди ниx пpaвды, и вcтaл poд нa poд, и былa у ниx уcoбицa, и cтaли вoeвaть дpуг c дpугoм. И cкaзaли: «Пoищeм caми ceбe князя, кoтopый бы влaдeл нaми и pядил пo pяду и пo зaкoну». Пoшли зa мope к вapягaм, к pуcи. Te вapяги нaзывaлиcь pуcью, кaк дpугиe нaзывaютcя швeды, a иныe—нopмaнны и aнглы, a eщe иныe гoты—вoт тaк и эти.

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 261

Whatever the details of its origins and development, it is clear from the name itself that the town was always closely connected with White Lake (Beloe Ozero), a large, strategically important body of fresh water in northwestern Russia. Although much smaller than Lakes Ladoga and Onega, White Lake is a pivotal link between those two lakes and the Russian heartland. At its northwestern end the lake was fed by the short Kovzha River, from the lake of the same name. On the southeast end White Lake drains into the Sheksna, a left tributary of the Volga. Furthermore, White Like is relatively close to Lake Vozhe to the northeast, which flows due north into Lake Lacha and the Onega River.2 That river, in turn, provided a direct route to the White Sea and the So- lovetskii Archipelago. It must be emphasized that the Beloozero briefly ruled by Sineus and subsequently by Riurik occupied a very different location from the present town of Belozersk. Some accounts placed the original settlement on the north shore of Beloe Ozero (White Lake) near the later Kisnema village, also known as Troitskoe.3 According to this version the original settlement mentioned in the

Cкaзaли pуcи чудь, cлaвянe, кpивичи и вecь: «Зeмля нaшa вeликa и oбильнa, a пopядкa в нeй нeт. Пpиxoдитe княжить и влaдeть нaми». И избpaлиcь тpoe бpaтьeв co cвoими poдaми, и взяли c coбoй вcю pуcь, и пpишли пpeждe вceгo к cлaвянaм. И пocтaвили гopoд Лaдoгу. И ceл cтapший, Pюpик, в Лaдoгe, a дpугoй—Cинeуc,—нa Бeлoм oзepe, a тpeтий, Tpувop,—в Избopcкe. И oт тex вapягoв пpoзвaлacь Pуccкaя зeмля. Чepeз двa гoдa умepли Cинeуc и бpaт eгo Tpувop. И пpинял вcю влacть oдин Pюpик и пpишeл к Ильмeню, и пocтaвил гopoд нaд Boлxoвoм, и нaзвaл eгo Hoвгopoд, и ceл тут княжить, и cтaл paздaвaть мужaм cвoим вoлocти и гopoдa cтaвить—тoму Пoлoцк, этoму Pocтoв, дpугoму Бeлooзepo. Bapяги в этиx гopoдax—нaxoдники, a кopeнныe житeли в Hoвгopoдe—cлaвянe, в Пoлoцкe—кpивичи, в Pocтoвe—мepя, в Бeлooзepe—вecь, в Mуpoмe—муpoмa, и нaд тeми вceми влacтвoвaл Pюpик. Povest’ vremennykh let,—See also Polnyi svod russkikh letopisei, vol. 1, second edition (Leningrad, 1926), 19–20. It should be noted that the historical existence of Sineus and Truvor is doubted by a number of scholars. See B.A. Rybakov, Kievskaia Rus’ i russkie kniazhestva xii–xiii vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1982), 298. 2 A description of early water routes, with particular emphasis on access to the White Sea, is presented in Pamiatniki Otechestva, 30 (1993), 41–43. 3 For a typical account of the early settlements of Beloozero offered by two specialists on the history of the Russian north, see G.N. Bocharov and V.P. Vygolov, Vologda. Kirillov. Fera- pontovo. Belozersk (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1966), 259. A more detailed archeological account is provided in L.A. Golubeva, Ves’ i slaviane na Belom ozere. x–xiii vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1973). See also S.D. Zakharov, Drevnerusskii gorod Beloozero (Moscow: Indrik, 2003), 74–85. Further discussion of the riddles involved with the various locations of Beloozero is contained in Mikhail Kudriavtsev, “Poiski severnoi stolitsy,” in Pamiatniki Otechestva, 30 (1993), 30–34. Kudriavtsev’s views are echoed in K.I. Kozlov, Belozersk. Opisanie goroda, ego khramov i dos- topamiatnosti (Moscow: Severnyi palomnik, 2007), 56–62.

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

262 Brumfield

Chronicle was eroded by the encroaching waters of the lake and abandoned in search of another site. By the tenth century a new Beloozero was established on the Sheksna River not far from southeast corner of Beloe Ozero, near the subsequent village of Krokhino.4 The inhabitants of this incarnation of Beloozero were apparently a mixture of Slavs and a Finno-Ugric tribe known as Ves’ (predecessors of the Veps), with Slavs predominating by the eleventh century. Although Kiev was the political and religious center of Rus’ during this period, the vast northern territories, including the Beloozero region, were dominated by the commercial center of Novgorod. By the end of the eleventh century, however, Beloozero moved into the orbit of the Rostov-Suzdal’ principality (including the city of Vladimir), which became the major power in central Russia during the twelfth century. That power would be greatly eroded by the force of the Mongol invasion of 1237–1238. For- tunately, the Mongol armies did not reach distant Beloozero, and the town was to serve as a haven for those fleeing the devastation and subsequent decades of disorder. Among the first of these was Bishop Kirill ii of Rostov, who briefly took refuge in Beloozero in 1238 before returning to collect for burial the head- less corpse of the Rostov Prince Iurii Vsevolodovich, killed in battle with the Mongols on the River Sit’.5 With the weakening of the Rostov-Suzdal’ principality in the wake of the di- saster on the River Sit’, Beloozero assumed greater autonomy as a principality during the reign of Gleb Vasil’kovich (1237–78), designated prince of Beloozero as an infant in 1238. Despite the relative length and stability of Gleb’s reign (in the final two years of his life he also assumed the title of Prince of Rostov), Beloozero’s very remoteness mitigated against its playing a leading role in the complex and prolonged political struggle for dominance in central Russia.6

4 This site has now been flooded by the construction of the Sheksna River Reservoir in connection with the expansion of the Volga-Balt Canal, a project that effectively ended promis- ing archeological research into the settlement founded in the tenth-century. For a survey of archeological work, including that of Golubeva, at the Sheksna site, see N.A. Makarov, S.D. Zakharov, “Drevnosti zatoplennogo Beloozera,” in Iu. S. Vasil’ev, ed., Belozer’e: Istoriko- literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 1 (Vologda: Rus’, 1994), 7–15, with particular reference to 7–8. 5 Krill ii served as bishop of Rostov from 1230 until his death in 1262. See Russkii biograficheskii slovar’, vol. 8 (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia glavnogo upravleniia udelov, 1897), 663–64. 6 Medieval chronicle references to the Beloozero princes, including Prince Gleb Vasil’kovich, are compiled in Iu. S. Vasil’ev, “Russkie letopisi o belozerskikh kniaz’iakh i krae (do xv veka),” in Iu. S. Vasil’ev, ed., Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 2 (Vologda: Legiia, 1998), 47–73.

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 263

The extensive Beloozero principality, which covered much of the central area of contemporary Vologda oblast’, was soon fragmented by inheritance. By the fourteenth century it was subsumed by the rapidly expanding Moscow principality, first under the reign of Ivan Kalita (1288–1340; prince of Mos- cow from 1325) and then more firmly in the reign of Grand Prince Dmitrii Donskoi (1350–1389). A major factor in the waning of Beloozero’s autonomy was the death of most of the Belozersk princely line at the epochal battle against the Tatars on Kulikovo [Snipe] Field in 1380. In 1389 Dmitrii bequeathed the territory, as well as Mozhaisk, to his son Andrei (d. 1432), whose son Mikhail (d. 1485) deeded it to Ivan iii (the Great). Ivan received the town into his domains in 1486 and at that point Beloozero formally became a part of the Muscovite principality.7 By the second part of the fourteenth century, Beloozero’s location shifted yet again. The traditional explanation for the shift was the sudden decline of the population of the Sheksna River site following an outbreak of plague in 1352 and 1363–1364.8 However, some specialists have brought persuasive evidence for the coexistence of two towns until the fifteenth century: the “Old Town,” located on the Sheksna, and the new town, situated at the present site of Belozersk.9 This theory suggests that the earlier town reached its apo- gee not in the middle of the thirteenth century, but in the second half of the twelfth century. Its decline was accompanied by the growth of the later town, whose importance as a trading center increased irrespective of the impact of the plague. Novgorod chronicles mention that the old town was seized and burned in 1398, by which time the old settlement had retained little of its former prominence.10 As Moscow’s power increased in the fifteenth century, the new town of Beloozero gained strategic importance as a bulwark on Muscovy’s northwestern

7 On the transfer to Moscow, see N.A. Makarov, S.D. Zakharov, “Drevnosti ….” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 1, 7. See also A.A. Bronzov, “Belozerskaia Starina,” in Pamiatniki Otechestva, 30 (1993), 37. 8 An example of the “plague” explanation is contained Bocharov and Vygolov, Vologda. Kirillov. Ferapontovo. Belozersk, 259. 9 While not questioning the validity of medieval documents referring to the plague, S.D. Zakharov points to sources that indicated the simultaneous existence of two settlements See S.D. Zakharov, “Novye dannye o Beloozere xiv v.,” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 1, 16–23. See also S.A. Sharov and E.L. Khvorostova, “Arkheologiches- koe izuchenie Belozerskogo kremlia xii–xv vv.,” in Drevnosti Russkogo Severa, vypusk 1 (Vologda, 1996), 182–97. 10 For mention of the attack in the Novgorod chronicle, see Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis’ starshego i mladshego svodov (Moscow-Leningrad: Izd-vo Akademii nauk sssr, 1950), 392.

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

264 Brumfield frontier and water transportation routes. Skilled and expansionist ruler that he was, Ivan iii (the Great) understood the significance of this location, and in 1487 (the year after he acquired Beloozero) he constructed a large fortress whose earthen ramparts still stand.11 The town prospered during the middle of the sixteenth century, particularly as a source of iron goods and fish. An impressive visible reminder of that wealth is the fortress-like Church of the Dormition (see below), begun in 1553 on one of the town’s highest points. In addition to its continued importance in the north Russian trading network, Beloozero also played a role in the developments of the latter part of the reign of Ivan iv, when the town was included in his personal domain (oprichnina).12 In this capacity it served as a place of exile for those who fell from Ivan’s favor. Yet the inclusion of Beloozero into the Ivan’s domains did not prevent it from experiencing the famine and disease inflicted on so much of Muscovy. By the end of the sixteenth century the concomitant reduction and weakening of the regional population had a deleterious effect on Beloozero. Although the town initially escaped the worst effects of the Time of Troubles, the year 1612 brought a full measure of devastation to Beloozero. At that time the main Russian armies concentrated on driving Polish occupying forces from Moscow, thus leaving many north Russian towns vulnerable to attacks by groups of Pol- ish cavalry, rogue Cossacks and assorted brigands. Although Ustiuzhna to the west heroically withstood all attacks in 1609, Beloozero was not so fortunate.13 The approach of “Lithuanian” forces in July 1612 compelled a depleted Beloozero garrison of streltsy to retreat down the Sheksna River to the better defended St. Kirill-Belozerskii Monastery.14 Locat- ed some forty kilometers to the southeast of Beloozero, the monastery withstood a prolonged siege, although its outlying villages were sacked and in some cases burned. Even with its large earthen fortress, Beloozero no longer had the means to resist the marauding force, which devastated the town. After the

11 The original fortress is briefly described in Bocharov and Vygolov, Vologda. Kirillov. Fera- pontovo. Belozersk, 307. 12 V.S. Barashkova, “Torgovye liudi g. Beloozera xvi v. L. Dmitriev i V. Zhivliak,” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 1, 24–29. 13 On the 1609 attack, as well as subsequent threats through 1614, see S. Iu. Vasil’ev, “Istoricheskie realii ‘Skazaniia o nashestvii poliakov na Ustiuzhnu Zhelezopol’skuiu’,” in Ustiuzhna: kraevedcheskii al’manakh, vyp. 2 (Vologda, 1993), 173–81 See also William Brumfield, Ustiuzhna (Moscow: Tri kvadrata, 2010), 10. 14 On the taking of Beloozero in 1612, see Iu. S. Vasil’ev, “1617/18 g.—Dozornaia kniga goroda Beloozera “pis’ma i dozoru” G. I Kvashina i pod’iachego P. Dement’eva, in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 1, 37.

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 265 establishment of the Romanov dynasty in 1613, almost a decade was to pass before disorder and brigandage were suppressed In the Beloozero region.15 With the revival of trade in the seventeenth century, Beloozero’s location and natural resources again proved advantageous. As before, fishing, iron production and cattle were among the more profitable enterprises.16 During this period, the development of Arkhangel’sk, near the mouth of the Northern Dvina River, led to a shift of trade along the more easterly route composed of the Sukhona and Dvina Rivers. Nonetheless, the continued importance of Beloozero on Muscovy’s northern flank is illustrated by the construction in the late seventeenth century of the Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Savior at the center of the town kremlin. With the founding of St. Petersburg in 1703, Beloozero again found itself in a pivotal position between the Volga River Basin and the large northwestern lakes, Onega and Ladoga, the latter of which empties into the Neva River with the new capital at its delta. In relation to the existence of St. Petersburg, Peter i conceived of a grandiose water network that would link the western part of his empire with the Caspian Sea, and White Lake was to be an essential component of the plan. Transportation on the White Lake was, however, plagued by sudden storms that were frequently destructive to shipping. During an inspection visit to the area in 1711 Peter proposed to improve the reliability of the White Lake in this system, but the plan for a canal along the lake’s western and southern shores to moderate the high storm waves was not implemented until the following century. Despite the daunting physical obstacles, Beloozero benefited in the latter part of the eighteenth century from the gradual increase in waterborne commerce with northwest Russia. Throughout the eighteenth century Beloozero was designated a regional center within larger administrative units such as Novgorod Province. In 1777

15 On the Time of Troubles and its aftermath in the Russian north, see Iu. S. Vasil’ev, Bor’ba s pol’sko-shvedskoi interventsiei na Russkom Severe v nachale xvii v. (Vologda, 1985), with particular reference to Beloozero on 59–63. As a part of the country’s revival, the admin- istration of tsar Mikhail undertook surveys (dozor) of certain towns—their churches, inhabitants, property holdings, etc. The survey of Beloozero in 1617–18 (cf. supra) is an especially valuable descriptive record of the condition of the town (including its churches) and the devastating extent of its population loss. 16 Specific examples of the revival of trade between Beloozero and Vologda are examined in M.B. Bulgakov, “Vologodsko-belozerskie torgovye sviazi v pervoi polovine xvii veka,” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 1, 76–84. On iron production see M.B. Bul- gakov, “Belozerskie kuznetsy xvii veka,” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 2, 28–41. Extracts of descriptions of the town in the 1670s are presented in “Iz opisanii goroda Beloozera 1670-kh godov,” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 2, 18–27.

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

266 Brumfield

Beloozero became the main town of an uezd center within the Novgorod guberniia, and its name was changed to Belozersk. The following year Cath- erine ii launched an ambitious plan to remake Russian provincial life by rede- signing the centers of towns with administrative and commercial significance. In the case of Belozersk the natural landscape and the design process com- bined to produce a particularly fortuitous result. A natural terrace effect created by the gentle slope of ground from the south part of town toward the lake shore to the north was effectively utilized by creating a leafy boulevard (now called Soviet Prospekt) parallel to the lakeshore. The boulevard was flanked by other east-west streets, which were in turn intersected with a system of north- south streets leading to the lake. This design was dominated on the west by the high earthen walls of the kremlin, while small hills with churches anchored the south side.17 In the second half of the eighteenth century, Belozersk continued to experi- ence a modest but sustainable level of economic activity that relied heavily on fishing, with secondary sources in agriculture and forest products. The town itself had a brick factory as well as small workshops for the production of metal products, including silver items. The Belozersk area also produced a limited amount of bog iron for sale at regional markets.18 The culminating phase in the prosperity of Belozersk was connected to the enormous effort invested in the improvement and protection of the transportation route through White Lake. At its northwestern end the lake was fed by the short Kovzha River from the lake of the same name. In a project initiated in 1799 by Emperor Paul and opened to navigation in July 1810, the Kovzha River was dredged, straightened and linked with the Vytegra River as a unified waterway to Lake Onega in the northwest. The system was named the Mariin- skii Canal in honor of his wife, Empress Maria Fedorovna.19

17 The placement of the churches of Belozersk in relation to the topography is explored by O.A. Zolotova and E.N. Sokolova, “Landshaftno-arkhitekturnaia sreda Belozer’ia,” in Iu. S. Vasil’ev, ed., Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 3 (Vologda: Rus’, 2007), 246–64. 18 For a description (with population statistics and information on commerce) of the Beloz- ersk region in the late eighteenth century, see P.I. Chelishchev, “Puteshestvie po Severu Ros- sii v 1791 godu (izvlechenie),” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 1, 113–38, with specific attention to the town of Belozersk on 123–29. See also the anonymous article first published in Istoricheskii i geograficheskii mesiatseslov na 1789 god (St. Petersburg, 1788), 100–23 and republished with extensive annotation as “Opisanie goroda Belozerska” in Iu. S. Vasil’ev, ed., Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 3 (Vologda: Rus’, 2007), 62–76. 19 On the development of the Mariinskii canal system, see E N. Stromilova, I.I. Slavina and G.G. Mankuni, Volga-Balt s borta teplokhoda (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1984), 190–94.

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 267

Even with the completion of the Mariinskii Canal system, White Lake re- mained a dangerous and unreliable part of northwestern Russia’s waterways. Small, shallow draft boats that traversed the narrow canals and locks had to be reloaded to vessels suited to the large White Lake, and even that costly and time-consuming operation was no guarantee against catastrophe from the lake’s notoriously treacherous storms. The solution was to dig a canal of almost seventy kilometers that lay roughly parallel to the shore of White Lake from the Kovzha River in the northwest to Belozersk in the south and finally to the Sheksna River in the southeast. Begun in 1843 and completed in 1846, the massive undertaking was supervised by Count Peter Kleinmikhel’ (1793–1869), chief of transportation in the Russian Empire from 1842 until the death of Nicholas i in 1855. For all its limitations (including negative environmental consequences), the White Lake Canal had a noticeable impact on the economy of Belozersk in areas such as trade and transportation. Local shipping companies were concentrated in the hands of a few families such as the Kaporulins, the Baldins and the Pozdynins, names attached to a number of nineteeth-century houses in Belozersk. They in turn provided employment for skippers and other barge workers. The increase in barge traffic also meant an increase in demand for the barge haulers (burlaki), and Belozersk became a center for hiring burlaki, as well as for mediating questions of payment with merchants and shippers. Ironically, the efficiencies introduced by the Belozersk Canal strengthened competition from outside shippers to the detriment of the previous local mo- nopoly.20 Furthermore, the long-awaited completion of the White Lake Canal occurred at a time when Russia’s transportation network was being fundamen- tally altered by railroads. To this day Belozersk is remote from Russia’s extensive rail network, with a resulting decline in its importance within the Russian transportation and commercial network. By the end of the nineteenth century Belozersk had become a leading center for the production of lace, but its emphasis on handicrafts only further illustrated the town’s pre-industrial existence.21

20 For a discussion of the Belozersk Canal and its construction in the context of nineteenth- century shipping practices in the region, see I.G. Shchukin, “Sudokhodstvo na Belom ozere do i posle prorytiia Belozerskogo obvodnogo kanala,” in F. Ia. Konovalov, ed., Kirill- ov: Kraevedcheskii al’manakh, Vyp. 2 (Vologda: “Rus’,” 1997), 87–100. Information on local burlaki is provided in Stromilova et al., Volga-Balt, 245. 21 An analysis of the modest status of Belozersk in the latter half of the nineteenth century is contained in K.P. Slashchev, “Demograficheskaia situatsiia v gorode Belozerske v kontse xix veka, in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 3, 90–97. For a more subjec- tive, but nonetheless informative view in 1911 by the art historian Nikolai Makarenko

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

268 Brumfield

Belozersk’s remoteness from the sinews of Russian economic life has par- adoxically created at least the passive conditions for the preservation of the town in a “time warp,” as though little changed since the mid-nineteenth century. Of course the twentieth century brought its changes, some of them pro- foundly destructive to the town’s cultural heritage.22 Nevertheless, the scale and general view of the town show few obvious modern intrusions, and sec- tions of the town within the historic center still consist of buildings from the first half of the nineteenth century. The best vantage point for an overview (Figure 1) of historic Belozersk is the high earthen ramparts of the citadel, or kremlin—still the town’s dominant feature. The Belozersk citadel is in its general form perhaps the best preserved example of this type of earthen fortress, once widespread among the eastern Slavs. Roughly quadrilateral in shape, the fortress was formerly protected on

Figure 1 North rampart of Belozersk kremlin. View north toward White Lake with Church of Most Merciful Savior. Photograph: William Brumfield (12/29/10)

(1877–1938), see N.E. Makarenko, Putevye zametki i nabroski o russkom iskusstve, Vyp. 1, Belozerskii krai (St. Petersburg: Izd. A.A. Zhukov, 1914). 22 For a grim view of Belozersk in 1937 during the most severe period of Stalinist repres- sion, see S.N. Tsvetkov, “Repressii v Belozerske,” in Iu. S. Vasil’ev, ed., Belozer’e: Istoriko- literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 3 (Vologda: Rus’, 2007), 219–27.

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 269

Figure 2 Brick bridge (18th century) across east moat of Belozersk kremlin. Photograph: William Brumfield (6/9/10) at least two sides by a moat (Figure 2), and to this day its interior southwest portion is occupied by a pond that would have been necessary for defensive purposes in an active fortress. In the late seventeenth century the ramparts were still surmounted with a log wall containing eight towers and two gates.23 No longer of military significance, the dilapidated log wall was removed in the eighteenth century from the massive earthworks. As befitted the regional importance of Belozersk, the fortress interior was arranged around a cathedral. The Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Sav- ior now standing was begun in 1668 and completed in the late 1670s, with a narthex added in the nineteenth century. Support for this major undertaking came both from the Muscovite state and from local parishioners. The existence of a previous structure built of wood is probable. Furthermore, it is known that an earlier wooden church (sobornyi khram), dedicated to the Byzantine theologian Saint Basil the Great, had existed at the general site and reflected the traditional local veneration of Saint Basil.24

23 A detailed description of the fortress and its log walls is presented in A.I. Kulzhinskii, “Opisan- ie goroda Belozerska 1678 goda,” in Izvestiia Imperatorskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, 3(1861) vyp. 3: 223–26. See also Kozlov, Belozersk, 65. For a survey of kremlin construction in Russia, see N.S. Vladimirskaia, ed., Kremli Rossii (Moscow: Moskovskii Kreml’, 2003). 24 A historical sketch about the Transfiguration Cathedral is contained in N. Bogoslovskii, “Materialy dlia istorii, statistiki i etnografii Novgorodskoi gubernii, sobrannye iz opisanii

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

270 Brumfield

Figure 3 Left: Cathedral of St. Basil the Great and bell tower (both demolished). Right: Cathedral of Transfiguration. Northwest view from kremlin north rampart. Photograph: Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii (1909)

This church was rebuilt in 1738 as the Cathedral of Saint Basil the Great, with a second altar, dedicated to Saint Nicholas, added on the north at the turn of the nineteenth century. (Figure 3) As further evidence of the cult of Saint Basil, the 1670s Transfiguration Cathedral itself had a secondary altar (pridel) dedicated to the saint. This ensemble of two cathedrals had a separate bell tower. Both the bell tower and Saint Basil’s Cathedral were demolished in the Soviet period, leaving only the late seventeenth-century Transfiguration Cathedral. (Figure 4)

prikhodov i volostei,” in Novgorodskii sbornik, vyp. 1 (Novgorod, 1865), 9. An analysis of the Belozersk Transfiguration Cathedral and the difficulties with its preservation is contained in Kozlov, Belozersk, 74–78. On the local cult of Saint Basil the Great, see R.P. Bilanchuk, “‘Letopisets’ belozerskoi sobornoi tserkvi Vasiliia Velikogo i problemy rekonstruktsii ‘mes- tnogo teksta’ kul’tury,” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 3, 265–80.

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 271

Figure 4 Cathedral of Transfiguration. Southeast view. Photograph: William Brumfield (3/3/98)

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

272 Brumfield

In its basic form the Transfiguration Cathedral follows a sixteenth-century model typical for large churches in provincial centers, a model whose proto- type derives primarily from the late fifteenth century Dormition Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin.25 The central dome rests on a drum above the crossing of the main aisles within the church—the cross-inscribed (krestovo-kupol’nyi) plan. The four lesser domes are distributed on the diagonals. The interior vault- ing arches are supported by four large piers beneath the main drum. Despite the cupolas, the height of the Transfiguration Cathedral seems truncated, due in part to a slight sinking of the structure over the centuries into the relatively soft ground—a common occurrence with medieval churches in northwest Russia. (Figure 5) It is also possible that the builders decided not to risk a taller structure, with its increased technical demands, on such a base. On the exterior the cathedral walls are divided into three bays culminating in semicircular zakomary. The facade decoration consisted primarily of the perspective arches of the portals, as well as ornamental window surrounds that were eliminated when the windows were enlarged during a renovation of the structure in the latter part of the eighteenth century. The pilaster strips can also be considered decorative, since their segmentation of the exterior does not reflect the interior division of bays—in contrast to earlier medieval churches of this size. The walls culminate in a sloped roof, but it has been argued that the original cornice followed the outlines of the semicircular gables (zakomary) still visible at the top of the walls.26 (Figure 6) The Transfiguration Cathedral’s large cupolas provide a monumental crown- ing touch with high ornamented iron crosses. The drums beneath the cupolas are ornamented at their base with decorative gables (kokoshniki). The upper part of each cylinder is decorated in an arched figure with slender attached columns spaced every few segments. The central drum culminates in an array of ornamental brick motifs, including a band (poias) of small inset balusters, as well as inverted triangular patterns. The cathedral interior is defined by two massive square piers faced on their lower level with carved, gilded icon frames above white wainscoting. The complex dentilated cornices that cap the frames are surmounted with cartouches containing icons and surrounded with gilded ornamental figures. The piers not only provide support for the west and central cathedral vaults but also frame the view of the main section of the magnificent cathedral iconostasis.

25 For a survey of the development of the Muscovite cathedral form, see William Craft Brumfield, A History of Russian Architecture (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York, 1993), chapters five and six. 26 On the transformation of the original roof line of the cathedral, see V.P. Vygolov and N.V. Udralova, V kraiu belykh nochei (Moscow: Profizdat, 1986), 185.

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 273

Figure 5 Cathedral of Transfiguration. Southwest view from kremlin south rampart. Photograph: William Brumfield (6/9/10)

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

274 Brumfield

Figure 6 Cathedral of Transfiguration. South view from kremlin south rampart. Photograph: William Brumfield (6/9/10)

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 275

This icon screen—a stunning merger of the Baroque and neoclassical styles, of vigorous northern wooden carving with refined elements characteristic of St. Petersburg—is the most distinctive feature of the Transfiguration Cathe- dral. Even after the depredations of the Soviet period, this iconostasis has sur- vived with most of its elements intact. (Figure 7) Like the great screen at the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Gleden Monastery at Velikii Ustiug, the Trans- figuration Cathedral iconostasis exists within an unpainted interior that does not compete with the brilliant display presented by the iconostasis. Together with its stylistic exuberance, the structure and the theological significance of the Transfiguration Cathedral icon screen are unusually rich. The typical Russian Orthodox icon screen forms a grid of two dimen- sions for the ascending rows of icons, with the main portal to the altar—the Royal Gate—in the center. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, however, there appeared a more dynamic form of screen influenced by Baroque art and with a greater sense of depth in the center of surrounding the Royal Gate. The best known example of this new form is the iconostasis of the Ca- thedral of Saints Peter and Paul in the Saint Petersburg fortress. In its form one sees not only Peter the Great’s interest in western art, but also his fond- ness for the triumphal arch, which seems to have influenced early eighteenth- century Russian iconostases.27 (Figure 8) Yet the icon screen at the Belozersk Transfiguration Cathedral was created decades after the waning of the Ba- roque, perhaps at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It has recently been argued that the energetic baroque style of iconostasis reemerged in the context of high neoclassicism during the late eighteenth century.28

27 The comparison of the iconostasis of the Peter-Paul Cathedral with Peter the Great’s vic- tory arches is noted in Brumfield, A History of Russian Architecture, 211. See also color plate 54. 28 An analysis of similar late eighteenth-century icon screens (including the work of Mos- cow’s master neoclassicist Matvei Kazakov) is presented in an illuminating study of the Transfiguration Cathedral iconostasis by A.N.Trifonova, “Reznoi ikonostas kontsa xviii—nachala xix veka Spaso-Preobrazhenskogo sobora Belozerska,” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 2, 344–61. At the end of her article, Trifonova dem- onstrates that the icon screen was likely created at the turn of the nineteenth century, in contrast to the eighteenth-century date given in Bocharov and Vygolov, 308. On one of the most ancient icons from the Transfiguration Cathedral (the mid thirteenth century Belozersk Icon of the Mother of God, now in the State Russian Museum), see V.G. Putsko, “Ikona Bogomateri Belozerskoi: russkaia ikonopis’ xiii veka v evropeiskom khudozhest- vennom kontekste,” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 2, 330–43. See also V.G. Putsko, “Ikony v drevnem Belozer’e,” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 1, 236–44.

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

276 Brumfield

Figure 7 Cathedral of Transfiguration. View east toward iconostasis. Photograph: William Brumfield (8/8/09)

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 277

Figure 8 St. Petersburg. Cathedral of Sts. Peter and Paul. Iconostasis, upper tier. Photograph: William Brumfield (3/9/80)

The first impression of the icon screen is indeed its bold mixture of Baroque features within a neoclassical frame. The channeled column shafts and the elaborate Corinthian entablature, as well as sinuous decorative baroque figures, are high- lighted in gold on a white background. Angels and cherubim occupy the flanks of the structure and guard its center. Despite the loss of certain elements during

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

278 Brumfield

Figure 9 Cathedral of Transfiguration. Iconostasis, first level. Photograph: Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii (1909) the Soviet period, the iconostasis is relatively well preserved and a number of prerevolutionary photographs allow a precise reconstruction of its original form. As one moves toward the center of the wooden construction, which is lit from above by the main cathedral dome, the three-dimensional drama of the central space becomes evident through the placement of an array of sculpted figures. On the first level the corners of the central space are occupied by vigorous statues of angels, beyond which the eye discerns the curved walls leading to the Royal Gate. (Figure 9) The original design had statues of Moses, holding the Tablets of the Ten Commandments, and his brother Aaron, with the miraculous rod (zhezl), placed opposite one another on the curved walls. These two statues in a literal sense prefigure the painted cartouches originally present on the two halves of the Royal Gate: the four Evangelists, the Annunciation, and the Last Supper.29

29 Pre-revolutionary photographs of the iconostasis are contained in Trifonova, “Reznoi iconostas …,” p. 347; and in Kozlov, Belozersk, 80. (The latter photograph is from the S.M. Prokudin-Gorskii collection at the Library of Congress, Washington, dc.).

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 279

Figure 10 Cathedral of Transfiguration. Iconostasis, middle level, Christ with symbols of the Evangelists. Photograph: William Brumfield (8/8/09)

The frame for the Royal Gate ascends to a massive entablature (gold on white, with a deep blue horizontal border), on which rests the shell of a dome formed by a hemispherical section with ribs in the background and gilded draped bun- ting in the foreground. This dramatic display envelopes a sculpted figure of Christ clad in a loincloth and ascending to heaven in a cloud of glory. (Figure 10) On either side of Christ are the four symbols of the Evangelists: the lion of Saint Mark, the angel of Saint Mathew, the eagle of Saint John and the flying bull of St. Luke. At the very top of the iconostasis, ascending into the drum under the main dome, is another sculpted figure of Christ resurrected, in a glorious aura with angels, rays of light and massive candles—all associated with the Apocalypse. (Figure 11) On the top ledge at either side of the iconostasis are more figures of angels, the seven candles of the Apocalypse, and paintings of the miracles of Christ in cartouches formed of carved wood in a foliate pattern. (Figure 12) The faces of the angels have a certain naïve sweetness that can only be found in provincial art. And although the Orthodox Church generally frowned on fully sculpted figures in church art, these statues continue a long and distinguished tradition of wooden carving in the Russian north. Beyond the walls of the kremlin the most impressive monument of Beloz- ersk is located at the town’s highest point: the Church of the Dormition, built

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

280 Brumfield

Figure 11 Cathedral of Transfiguration. Iconostasis, Christ in Glory with Seven Candles of the Apocalypse. Photograph: William Brumfield (8/8/09)

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 281

Figure 12 Cathedral of Transfiguration. Iconostasis, upper level, right corner. Angel holding Book with Seven Seals. Photograph: William Brumfield (8/8/09) in 1553–1570 and thus the oldest surviving building in Belozersk. It is also one of the town’s two currently active churches. Sometimes referred to as a sobor (cathedral), the Church of the Dormition was commissioned by Ivan the Terrible on the site of the earlier Dormition Convent. As is often the case in pre-modern Russian architecture, the identity of the architects is a matter of debate, even though there is a document that purports to identify them as Goriain Grigor’ev Tsarev and Tret’iak Borisov Rostovak, both from Rostov. The same document indicates that the builders took as their model the Dormition Cathedral at the nearby Saint Kirill Belozerskii Monastery. But the substantial differences between the two churches have cast doubt on the reliability of the document.30

30 On construction of the Dormition Church and the identity of the architects, see “Po- riadnaia Goriaina Grigor’eva Tsareva i Tret’iaka Borisova Rostovki s prichtom i prik- hozhanami na stroitel’stvo kamennoi Uspenskoi tserkvi v gorode Beloozera 1552/1553 goda,” in Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 3 (Vologda: Rus’, 2007), 281–82. The attribution to these Rostov architects is, however, questioned in S.S. Pod’iapol’skii, “Uspenskaia tserkov’ v Belozerske,” in A.N. Kirpichnikov and P.A. Rappoport, eds., Kul’tura srednevekovoi Rusi (Leningrad: Nauka, 1974), 177–82, with particular reference to 181. For further discussion of the Dormition Church, with comments on the differences between

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

282 Brumfield

Like the Transfiguration Cathedral in the kremlin, the Dormition Church follows a traditional pentacupolar design, with four interior piers and barrel vaults. On the exterior the decorative scheme is laconic, with simple perspective portals and even simpler window surrounds. The façade is segmented by massive pilaster strips. The only obviously decorative touch is the brick patterns at the base of each cupola. The structure culminates in massive flared cupolas. (Figure 13) As with the Transfiguration Cathedral, there is reason to believe that the roof line originally followed the gable archivolts (zakomary), and the roof was of wooden shingles—a characteristic of Novgorod’s masonry churches during this period.31 In effect the simple, but massive form of the exterior creates the impression of a medieval donjon, or “keep”. The impression is reinforced by the treatment of the west corners. (Figure 14) On the interior the upper level of the southwest corner was enclosed with a small secondary altar (pridel) that was reached by narrow stairs within the thick west and south walls, a not unusual device in multi-storied sixteenth-century churches (cf. the Transfiguration Cathedral at Solovetskii Monastery). The northwest corner is even more complex. Its stairs— in the west and north walls—led to an upper space that supported a large clock and a bell gable (zvonnitsa). Reinforcement was provided on the exterior by thickening the upper pilasters with a layer of corbelled bricks. This upper level also has narrow angled windows reminiscent of gun ports (okna-boinitsy). There is no documentary evidence that the church was intended to serve a defensive role, yet its reinforced construction on the west side suggests that possibility. The austerity of the Dormition Church’s exterior belies the splendor of its interior. As with the Transfiguration Cathedral, the interior presents not a display of colorful frescoes but a grand iconostasis, created as part of a renovation of the church toward the end of the eighteenth century when the roof line was leveled and the windows were enlarged. As usual, a number of large icons in the first, or Local, row predated the iconostasis, but for the most part the icons in this icon screen were painted in an eighteenth-century academic style.32 (Figure 15)

this church and the monastery cathedral, see Bocharov and Vygolov, Vologda. Kirillov. Fe- rapontovo. Belozersk, 311–12. 31 For an analysis of connections with sixteenth-century Novgorod church architecture, see Pod’iapol’skii, “Uspenskaia tserkov’ v Belozerske,” 179–80. 32 For commentary on the earlier icons, see Bocharov and Vygolov, Vologda. Kirillov. Fe- rapontovo. Belozersk, 313–16. A detailed analysis of a notable seventeenth-century icon of the Dormition (subsequently transferred in 1930 from the Dormition Church to the Cherepovets Museum) is presented in V.G. Putsko, “Belozerskaia datirovannaia ikona 1660 goda i problema ikonopisnoi traditsii v sakral’nom iskusstve Russkogo Severa,” Belozer’e: Istoriko-literaturnyi al’manakh, Vyp. 3, 289–95.

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 283

Figure 13 Church of the Dormition. East view. Photograph: William Brumfield (7/22/10)

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

284 Brumfield

Figure 14 Church of the Dormition. Northwest view with reinforced upper northwest corner. Photograph: William Brumfield (3/3/98)

The structure of the iconostasis is traditional and lacks the dynamism of the Transfiguration Cathedral screen. What impresses is the sheer size of this iconostasis, with its luxuriant display of carved ornament in a baroque style. It seems to enlarge the very space of the church itself as it soars toward the Cru- cifixion in the drum of the central dome. Few church interiors in the Vologda

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 285

Figure 15 Church of the Dormition. Iconostasis Photograph: William Brumfield (8/8/09)

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

286 Brumfield

Figure 16 Church of the Epiphany. Photograph: William Brumfield (7/23/99) territory are this well preserved. Unfortunately, the interiors of most of the surviving churches in Belozersk were ransacked during the Soviet period. Adjacent to the Dormition Church is the Church of the Epiphany (also active), built in 1787 as a “winter” church whose smaller space could be heated for worship during the winter. (The capacious interior of the Dormition Church was impossible to heat in northern winters.) The archaic style of the Epiph- any Church combines simplified eighteenth-century baroque elements with a seventeenth-century plan: bell tower in the west, then a vestibule/refectory leading to the main space and sanctuary at the east end. (Figure 16) The interior has a practical, if unusual, distribution of space on two levels. The main altar is on the lower (ground) level and could be used for worship throughout the year. The upper, unheated space contained a secondary altar dedicated to Saint Dmitrii of Rostov and could only be reached through the bell tower along a passage above the ceiling of the lower vestibule.33 Despite its archaic, simple style and unusual plan, the component parts of the Epiphany Church are har- monious in proportion and create a graceful impression from the exterior. Among the other surviving parish churches in Belozersk, the Church of the Most Merciful Savior (Vsemilostivyi Spas) retains much of its original beauty on

33 On the Epiphany Church interior, see Kozlov, Belozersk, 169.

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 287 the exterior. Located near the lakeshore and clearly visible from the northeast ramparts of the Kremlin, the Savior Church was built in 1716–23 in a style that shows features of Iaroslavl’ church architecture of the preceding half century (for example, the Church of the Epiphany, 1683–1693, near the Transfigura- tion Monastery in Iaroslavl’).34 At the same time there are distinctive differences. The overwhelming majority of the parish churches in Iaroslavl’ during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries were of unstuccoed brick, structures in which the incomparable mastery of Iaroslavl’s brick masons was clearly visible. The Savior Church, however, is surfaced in whitewashed stucco. (Figure 17) This background of white walls displays with brilliant clarity the primary decorative feature of the Savior Church, the horizontal bands of ceramic tiles in green, yellow and white that encompass the upper part of the main structure. (Figure 18) (cf. the Epiphany Church in Iaroslavl’). These ceramic rows above the main windows provide a transition to the brick bands of an ornamental cornice, which supports not the roof but yet another structural level with stacked decorative gables (zakomary). This peculiar resolution of the upper structure leads to another brick cornice, above which is the roof with its five drums and flared cupolas culminating in elaborate iron crosses. The Savior Church displays a remarkable harmony of proportions not only in the idiosyncratic yet effective design of its main structure but also in the relation of the parts to the whole. The bell tower, connected to the west side by a one-story vestibule-refectory, does not overshadow the main part of the church. In its size, form and position the tower provides a graceful counter- point. And the low apse in the east, although unusually extended, merges with the east wall main structure through a distinctive sloping roof crowned with a cupola. The interior, alas, was almost completely ransacked during the Soviet era, and only traces of its baroque decoration remain. Its altars included the main one, dedicated to the Merciful Savior, and four secondary dedicated to the Pu- rification, Saint Andrew, Saint Dmitrii of Salonika and Saint Catherine. The walls are now in danger from moisture because of the seepage of ground water. Of all the challenges now facing architectural preservation in Belozersk, the situation with the Savior Church is perhaps the most urgent, particularly in

34 On the churches of Iaroslavl’, see William C. Brumfield, “Photographic Documentation of Seventeenth-Century Architectural Monuments in Yaroslavl,” Visual Resources, vol. xi (1995) 2:135–65, with particular reference to the Epiphany Church on 160–62.

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

288 Brumfield

Figure 17 Church of the Most Merciful Savior. Southwest view. Photograph: William Brumfield (6/9/10)

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 289

Figure 18 Church of the Most Merciful Savior. South facade, ceramic band. Photograph: William Brumfield (8/8/09) view of the extraordinary aesthetic value of this monument and its role as one of the town’s most visible landmarks.35 In the commercial district to the east of the Savior Church is the Church of Saints Peter and Paul, built in 1700–1718. Now deprived of its cupolas and the upper part of its bell tower, the church building serves as exhibition space for the local history museum. Pre-revolutionary photographs reveal an imposing, if rather idiosyncratic, whitewashed brick church whose main cuboid structure culminated in a flared, thicker wall with decorative panels.36 (Figure 19) This unusual solution (reminiscent of certain square fortress towers with corbelled upper levels) served as a platform for the five widely spaced cupolas. Another curious feature was the presence of a chapel (pridel) dedicated to Saints Kozma and Damian in the upper level of the bell tower. The apse of the chapel extended over the west part of the wide one-story refectory.

35 Commentary on the design of the Savior Church is contained in Bocharov and Vygolov, Vologda. Kirillov. Ferapontovo. Belozersk, 318–19. For a detailed description, see Kozlov, Belozersk, 102–109. Because of its proximity to the lakeshore and the canal, the Church was also known as the “Savior on the Canal.” 36 Information on the Church of Saints Peter and Paul and its parish is contained in N. Bogo- slovskii, pp. 17–19. See also Kozlov, Belozersk, 120–125.

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

290 Brumfield

Figure 19 Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, southeast view. Photograph: Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii (1909)

Nearby is the Church of Saint George (also known as the Nativity of the Mother of God), begun in the early eighteenth century and completed in 1762. Prerevo- lutionary photographs show it to have been a simple structure with classical detailing and an octagonal drum beneath a large dome.37 After the destruction of its cupolas and the upper part of its bell tower, the almost unrecognizable structure was converted to use as a store, a function that continues to the present. (Figure 20) On the other side of town—to the southwest of the Kremlin—stands the ruined form of the Church of the Intercession of the Mother of God, built

37 On the Church of the Nativity of the Mother of God and its parish, see N. Bogoslovskii, 21–22. Further commentary and a prerevolutionary photograph of the church are contained in Kozlov, Belozersk, 118–120.

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 291

Figure 20 Church of St. George, southwest view. Photograph: William Brumfield (7/22/10) in 1740–1752 adjacent to the earlier wooden church of Elijah the Prophet.38 (Figure 21) Photographs made in 1909 by the color photography pioneer Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii show a simple but graceful church with five cupolas and a high bell tower. Although vandalized and disfigured, the structure in the 1990s still seemed sufficiently intact for a restoration. It has since declined to a point that seems beyond feasible repair. A similar decline is evident in the small brick church popularly known as “the Savior on the Hill” (Spas na gore), built in 1764 on one of the higher eleva- tions of Belozersk. Originally associated with a small monastery, the church had altars dedicated to the Trinity and to the Miraculous Image of the Savior (Nerukotvornyi Obraz Spasa). Although much of the structure was still standing in the late 1980s, when conservation and restoration efforts began, a se- ries of mishaps led to an almost total collapse. (Figure 22) The current jumble of ruined walls gives only an approximate impression of the church’s original

38 On the Church of the Intercession and its parish, see N. Bogoslovskii, 20–21. Further information, together with a 1909 photograph of the church and the adjacent Elijah Church by Sergei Prokudin-Gorskii, is contained in Kozlov, Belozersk, 198–199. Kozlov noted the beginnings of a restoration of the church in the mid-1990s, but his hopes have not been realized.

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

292 Brumfield

Figure 21 Church of the Intercession, southeast view. Photograph: William Brumfield (6/9/10)

Figure 22 Church of the Miraculous Image of the Savior “on the hill,” southwest view. Photograph: William Brumfield (7/22/10)

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 293 form.39 Fragments of its bell tower also remain. Across a small street are a few remaining grave monuments—overturned—from a former cemetery at the church. Similarly vandalized but with greater structural preservation is the Church of Saint Paraskeva Piatnitsa, built near the lake embankment in the former Coachmen’s Quarter (Iamskaia Sloboda) in 1791–1795.40 Its design followed a typical pattern of a cuboid main structure supporting one octagonal tier with a dome leading to a lantern and small cupola. The main structure was over- shadowed by a high bell tower and steeple, but little of that remains today. (Figure 23)

Figure 23 Church of St. Paraskeva Piatnitsa, southwest view. Photograph: William Brumfield (7/22/10)

39 Commentary on the Church of the Savior on the Hill and unsuccessful attempts at its restoration in the late 1980s and 1990s is contained in Kozlov, Belozersk, 177–184. 40 A detailed description of the Church of Saint Paraskeva and its parish is contained in N. Bogoslovskii, 35–39. Concerning recent unsuccessful attempts to restore the church, see Kozlov, Belozersk, 145–149, with a further note on the regrettable situation by the book’s editor, Konstantin Lobachev.

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

294 Brumfield

In terms of its design the most interesting structure to survive the Soviet era is the Church of John the Baptist (also known as Church of the Trinity), built in 1810. (Figure 24) Although greatly disfigured by conversion for use as a factory, the basic structural components remain. Its unusually complex design seems to derive from a peculiar late eighteenth-century reemergence of Baroque design elements within a neoclassical context. This combination was particularly productive in the Moscow region, where it appears in churches such the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God at Iaropolets-Sheremetevykh (near Volokolamsk) and Moscow’s Church of the Icon of the Mother of God Comfort to All who Grieve, built by the idiosyncratic genius Vasilii Bazhenov. Indeed, V.P. Vygolov has convincingly argued that the plan of the Belozersk church should be at- tributed to Bazhenov.41 The palatial ambiance of the John the Baptist Church raises questions as to who could have financed such a major project, more imposing and sophisti- cated in its design than anything else built in Belozersk during this period—or

Figure 24 Church of John the Baptist (Trinity), south view. Photograph: William Brumfield (8/8/09)

41 For the detailed argument in support of Bazhenov’s authorship of the church design, see V.P. Vygolov, “Neizvestnaia postroika V.I. Bazhenova v Belozerske,” in V.P. Vygolov, ed., Pamiatniki russkoi arkhitektury i monumental’nogo iskusstva (Moscow: Nauka, 1983), 131–56. Vygolov presents his research on the Bazhenov connection in summary form in Bocharov and Vygolov, Vologda. Kirillov. Ferapontovo. Belozersk, 322–26.

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 295 any other, for that matter. The main part of the church no longer has its large drum and dome, and thus seems somewhat outmatched by the even larger refectory to the west. Nonetheless, the primary component, which contains the main sanctuary, is clearly marked with a tetrastyle portico (without capitals). The corners of both parts of the structure are rounded (a favorite device of Bazhenov’s) and the two parts are linked by a type of vestibule in the middle. Although it is reasonable to assume that the architect had planned a bell tower for the west end of the structure, the tower was never built. Prerevolution- ary photographs show an abrupt end to the structure, covered with a simple wooden porch. The west facade was subsequently hidden by a large addition when the structure was converted to industrial use. For all of its disfigurement, the grand monumentality of this church reminds that the best of neoclassical architecture has the power to impress even in ruined form. No analysis of the historic religious monuments of Belozersk would be com- prehensive without the remarkable log Church of Elijah the Prophet, adjacent to the now ruined Church of the Nativity of the Mother of God. Built in 1690, the Elijah Church ascends in three tiers to a large wooden cupola that is clearly visible from the southwest corner of the Kremlin. (Figure 25) Attached to the west of this solidly built cuboid structure is a vestibule and a covered porch. The spacious interior of the main structure of the Elijah Church contained a painted ceiling (nebo) and a large iconostasis. (Figure 26) The icons have been removed for preservation (for the most part at the museum of the Saint Kirill Belozerskii Monastery), and the structure itself is undergoing a thorough restoration to deal with the threat of seeping ground water.42 The preservation of this rare and ancient church should have the highest priority. It is the clearest surviving reminder that for most of its history Belozersk was a town of wooden structures, including churches whose beauty we can now only imagine. The preceding survey of religious architecture in Belozersk has not dis- cussed churches no longer extant. They include: the Cathedral of Saint Basil the Great (1738), located in the kremlin adjacent to the Cathedral of the Trans- figuration; the Church of Saint John the Divine (1706), located beyond the east rampart of the kremlin; the Church of the Resurrection (1715), the Church of the Ascension (1776) and the Church of the Annunciation (1715), all located on the elevation near the Dormition Church; and the Church of the Nativity

42 A detailed essay on the Church of Elijah the Prophet and the threats to its preservation, is presented in Kozlov, Belozersk, 187–196, with additional discussion of the situation by Konstantin Lobachev. Commentary on the church and its interior is contained in Bocha- rov and Vygolov, Vologda. Kirillov. Ferapontovo. Belozersk, 317–318.

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access

296 Brumfield

Figure 25 Church of Elijah the Prophet, southwest view. Photograph: William Brumfield (7/23/99)

russian Downloadedhistory from 44 Brill.com10/09/2021 (2017) 260-297 11:32:25PM via free access

Monuments of Church Architecture in Belozersk 297

Figure 26 Church of Elijah the Prophet, interior. Ceiling painting and upper tier of iconostasis. Photograph: William Brumfield (7/23/99) of Christ (mid eighteenth century), which stood not far from the commercial center of town.43 The extent of the damage raises familiar questions as to responsibility. Although the pressure was especially great during the 1930s, losses occurred throughout the Soviet period, and the neglect has in many cases continued because of lack of resources. Some might argue that the remaining damaged churches should be either restored or removed. Yet whatever their current condition, the ruined churches remain of value as monuments to over a half mil- lennium in the history of Belozersk.

43 These demolished churches are mentioned in Kozlov, Belozersk, which also shows them in pre-revolutionary photographs. An invaluable resource in identifying the churches of Vologda oblast’ is N.M. Makedonskaia, Tserkovno-istoricheskii atlas Vologodskoi oblasti (Vologda: Drevnosti Severa, 2007), with special reference to Belozersk in vol. 1: 19–23. See also V. Kamkin, ed., Iz tserkovnoi istorii Vologodskogo kraia (Vologda: Knizhnoe nasledie, 2008), 28–31.

russian history 44 (2017) 260-297 Downloaded from Brill.com10/09/2021 11:32:25PM via free access