The Research Methods of Medieval Architecture in the Estonian SSR

The Object and Its Interpretation 17

The Object and Its Interpretation: The Research Methods of Medieval Architecture in the Estonian SSR

Kersti Markus

The article views art historical writing both in the context of its time and in its later reception. While in the 1950s and 1960s the scholars at the University of Tartu continued using methods that had been practiced before the war (motif analysis, and building archaeology and archival research), the 1970s can be considered a time of innovations. Social history and studies of function arose along with the analysis of style. Scholars educated in Leningrad or scholars that entered the field through interdisciplinary research were at the forefront of the innovations. In the 1980s stylistic analysis combined with building archeology became the most prominent method of research, remaining dominant in the following decades. The author claims that the personalities of charismatic researchers were behind the choice of method, their role being particularly significant within a closed society.

Art historians constantly produce a variety of texts. We pose questions and try to solve them. We think that we are dealing with a specific problem although, when solving it, we make choices based on our previous knowledge and, naturally, the age we live in. How do we write the texts and why do we do it in one particular way and not in another?1 How much are our texts dependent on the previous traditions of writing on art, even if we think that we are not consciously influenced? To answer such questions we have to study earlier texts on art, both in the context of their time and in their later reception. In this article, I will consider the work of the leading researchers of medieval architecture of the Soviet period in terms of their approach to objects, the questions they posed while interpreting them and how relevant their method was in their

1 The history of Estonian art history has been the subject of two conferences. The results were published in: Eesti kunstiteadus ja -kriitika 20. sajandil. Toim. T. Abel, P. Lindpere. (Eesti Kunstiakadeemia toimetised 9.) Tallinn, 2002; Kuhu lähed, Eesti kunstiteadus? Pühendatud Armin Tuulse 100. sünniaastapäevale. Kunstiteaduslikke Uurimusi 2008, kd. 17 (3). kersti markus 18

time, compared to the research done in the West. Since it was a society officially dominated by the Marxist-Leninist world-view, one might assume that these ideas also influenced research on architecture; yet, in reality it was not so. The isolated society posed a much bigger problem. Only researchers with a ‘clean past’2 were allowed to travel abroad; moreover, these trips were scarce and usually limited to the socialist countries. Professional literature reached Estonia through the international exchange of the F. R. Kreutzwald State Library (now the National Library of Estonia) and the Scientific Library of the Tartu State University, or through personal contacts. The chief contacts with the outside world were through private correspondence.3 However, not all mail reached the addressee. It is, therefore, even more admirable how much determination and passion was exhibited by the researchers in developing their field and looking for opportunities to find out what was going on beyond the Iron Curtain. I have only chosen articles and monographs from academic publications as source material for the present article. Such a statement might seem strange to a modern reader, but in Soviet times the outcome of research was often published in newspaper articles, as these were the quickest way to reach the audience. The attitude of the people towards the Estonian cultural and historical heritage was then loaded with much more emotion than in the current Republic of Estonia, which explains the large circulation numbers of cultural papers in the Soviet era. National heritage was a link for the people with lost liberty. The bulk of the writing from the Soviet period concerning medieval architecture has been stored in archives (the National Heritage Board Archives, and the Tallinn Culture and Heritage Department Archives). Since the volume of fieldwork was extensive, the majority of the writing existed then in the form of reports. Therefore, the focus of my interest is the work in which researchers had opportunities to place objects of research into a broader context indicative of the writer’s way of thinking, and the examples that followed. I will limit myself to research on ecclesiastical architecture, touching only briefly on secular architecture.

2 Working-class origin, service in the Soviet Army and joining the Communist Party were advisable. Many scholars who were allowed to go abroad had agreed to cooperate with the KGB. 3 On correspondence see for instance: M. Nõmmela, A. Tuulse ja V. Vaga kirjavahetus. – Artiklite kogumik. (Eesti Ajalooarhiivi toimetised 9.) Tallinn, 2002, pp. 187–221; Villem Raam. Bibliograafia. Koost. K. Alttoa, E. Palginõmm. Tallinn: Eesti Muinsuskaitse Selts, 1991, pp. 28–29. The Object and Its Interpretation 19 Continuity Estonian academic art history was founded in the 1920s and 1930s at the University of Tartu by two Swedish researchers. The assistant professor at Lund University Tor Helge Kjellin became a professor of art history in 1922, but for economic reasons remained in Tartu for just two years.4 New elections only took place 10 years later and the assistant professor at the University of Gothenburg Sten Ingvar Karling was elected (he was a professor at the University of Tartu in 1933–1941).5 These choices were of momentous significance for the research of medieval art in Estonia. Baltic German art historians treated the medieval art in Estonia as a part of German art. However, in his report at a conference in Lübeck in 1921, Johnny Roosval, a professor at Stockholm University, linked Estonian art with a particular northern Baltic region, going back in time to the 11th–16th centuries, when different centres were dominant in different centuries (Gotland, Scania and Lübeck).6 Both Kjellin and Karling supported this approach and, therefore, viewed Estonian art within the broader context of the Baltic Sea region. Karling was the first to emphasise the role of Estonia in the synthesis of foreign impulses, pointing out the local language of architecture, master masons and materials.7 Krista Kodres has said: ‘Sten Karling was a rather typical European art historian of his time; in his opinion the historical and art historical belonged together. Yet art, in his opinion, had a history of its own: it was not so much the history of style as the history of masters, schools of thought and art regions.’8 In such an intellectual environment, the first generation of Estonian art historians was formed at the University of Tartu. Voldemar Vaga studied art history in Kjellin’s time. However, as a philologist and Francophile, he was more oriented towards Paris, where he attended lectures at the Sorbonne University in 1928/1929, including the seminar of Henri Focillon. Numerous trips abroad took him to both Finland and Sweden, as well as to most of the European countries; he also repeat- edly visited museums in Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) and Moscow.9 Armin Tuulse and Villem Raam were Karling’s students and, influenced by the atmosphere of the 1930s, were considerably more involved in the debate surrounding the German and

4 No extensive overview has been published on Kjellin’s influence on Estonian art history. However, the following articles offer some information: M. Peil, Kunstiteadlased Tartu ülikoolis 1919–1949. – Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo küsimusi 7. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool, 1979, pp. 118–126; M.-I. Eller, Tartu Ülikooli osast eesti kunstiteaduses 1920–1930-ndail aastail, I. – Kunstiteadus. Kunstikriitika 5. Tallinn: Kunst, 1983, pp. 60–75; E. Kangor, Art Historical Photograph Collection of the University of Tartu. From the Past to the Future. – Baltic Journal of Art History 2009 (Autumn), pp. 153–178; E. Kangor, Tartu Ülikooli kunstiajalooõpetuse moderniseerimisest ja kollektsioonide rollist kunstiajaloo professori valimistel aastatel 1919–1921. – Tartu Ülikooli ajaloo küsimusi 40. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool, 2012, pp. 93–119. 5 For more about the ‘Karling’ school of art history, see K. Kodres, „Aus dem Volk selbst herausgewachsen”. Sten Karling and his Book „Holzschnitzerei und Tischlerkunst der Renaissance und des Barocks in Estland”. – Art and the Church: Religious Art and Architecture in the Baltic Region in the 13th–18th Centuries. Eds. K. Kodres, M. Kurisoo. (Eesti Kunstiakadeemia toimetised 18.) Tallinn, 2008, pp. 9–19. 6 J. von Bonsdorff, Hansekonst – finns det? – Gotlandia Irredenta: Festschrift für Gunnar Svahnström. Red. R. Bohn. Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke, 1990, pp. 47–59. 7 K. Markus, Kultuuriregiooni probleem Eesti vanema kunsti uurimisel. – Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia toimetised. Humanitaar- ja sotsiaalteadused 1993, kd. 42 (3), pp. 301–308. 8 K. Kodres, Sten Karling ja Eesti kunstiajalugu. – S. Karling, Tallinn. Kunstiajalooline ülevaade. Komm. K. Markus, K. Kodres. Tallinn: Kunst, 2006, p. 9; see also K. Kodres, Freedom from Theory? An Attempt to Analyse Sten Karling’s Views on (Estonian) Art History. – Journal of Art Historiography 2010, vol. 3, pp. 1–17. 9 M. Nõmmela, Voldemar Vaga (1899–1999) ja Eesti kunsti ajalugu. Tartu: EKM Teaduskirjastus, 2008, pp. 33–35. kersti markus 20

Scandinavian influences. In 1937 Tuulse attended the University of Königsberg on a scholarship, where he took part in the lectures and seminars of Wilhelm Worringer and studied the Teutonic Order castles of Prussia under the supervision of Karl Heinz Clasen. This was preceded and followed by studies for self-improvement in Sweden. Villem Raam also took part in the 87-day Baltic course in Stockholm in 1938.10 After the occupation of Estonia by the Soviet Union in June 1940, Sten Karling stayed in Estonia and taught during the autumn semester in the re-named Tartu State University. However, as a foreigner, he was dismissed on 1 February 1941 and returned to Sweden. Villem Raam graduated from the university in 1939, spent a year in Italy on a scholarship, and returned immediately before the occupation.11 In July he became the director of the State Art Museum of the Estonian SSR; in June 1941 he was arrested and sent to a labour camp in Siberia.12 During the German occupation that followed, the university was re-named Ostland-Universität in Dorpat, and the pre-war system was restored in the academic studies; it became possible again to defend dissertations. The first doctoral dissertation on art history in the University of Tartu was defended by Armin Tuulse on 25 April 1942. In December he was appointed to the position of acting professor of art history. He worked in that position until the autumn of 1944, when he immigrated to Sweden before the entry of Russian troops. Many other prominent art historians left. Only Voldemar Vaga stayed in Tartu.13 One can speak of research on medieval architecture in the Soviet period as start- ing in the second half of the 1950s, when Raam had returned from Siberia and Vaga had survived the ideological repressions of the Stalin’s regime. They restored contacts with Armin Tuulse, who was working in Stockholm.14 Correspondence with Tuulse played a vital role in their further scientific research. Vaga’s interests were quite versatile, and the study of the medieval period had assumed a secondary role. However, in the course of writing his doctoral dissertation, it became the chief topic of his research in the late 1950s and first half of the 1960s, and the work yielded a monograph15, a lengthy article16 and the section on the medieval period of the work History of Estonian Architecture17.

10 K. Markus, Armin Tuulse ja kirikute uurimine. – Kunstiteaduslikke Uurimusi 2008, kd. 17 (3), pp. 25–28; K. Markus, Kultuuriregiooni probleem…, p. 304. 11 M.-I. Eller, Kunstiajaloolased Tartu Ülikoolis aastail 1940–1989. – Kunstiteaduslikke Uurimusi 7. Tallinn: Kunst, 1994, p. 67. 12 M.-I. Eller, Villem Raam. – Eesti kunsti ja arhitektuuri biograafiline leksikon. Peatoim. M.-I. Eller. Tallinn: Eesti Entsüklopeedikirjastus, 1996, p. 415. 13 M.-I. Eller, Kunstiajaloolased Tartu Ülikoolis aastail 1940–1989, pp. 68–69. 14 Vaga corresponded with Karling beginning in 1955, and with Tuulse beginning in 1958: M. Nõmmela, Voldemar Vaga..., p. 111; the first letters from Tuulse in Raam’s archive are from 1958, but these imply that contact had been restored earlier. National Library of Estonia (hereafter ERR), coll. 20, inv. 1, item 414. 15 B. Вага, Проблема пространственной формы в средневековой архитектуре Латвии и Эстонии. Тарту: Тартуский государственный университет, 1960. 16 V. Vaga, Tallinna keskaegne elamu. – Eesti NSV ajaloo küsimusi 1. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool, 1960, pp. 41–88. 17 Eesti arhitektuuri ajalugu. Peatoim. H. Arman. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat, 1965. The Object and Its Interpretation 21

His book on the spatial form of churches attracted the most attention. It was first published in Russian18, although Vaga immediately translated it into German19. Vaga sent the book to Tuulse and it consequently reached international circulation. Vaga’s research concerned the ‘strife between the hall church and the basilica’, i.e. the question of the dominant spatial form in Old Livonia. The issue had been topical in Latvian and Estonian research on medieval architecture before the war and, therefore, was important to both Armin Tuulse20 and the German researcher Hans Thümmler21, who received Vaga’s work from Tuulse. Neither of them commented on Vaga’s methods; they discussed dating, the spatial form of different churches and the new information revealed. Olev Prints22 and Villem Raam, however, pointed out the fact that Vaga’s research method was erroneous: he had only proceeded from visual examination without considering the historical context.23 Vaga’s method can best be described as ‘descriptive’. He described what he saw in a church or from viewing photo materials. His method was unemotional, but ex- tremely accurate. His only goal was to make the reader visualise the spatial form of the church. The roots of this approach lay in 1920s Paris, where Henri Focillon en- chanted the audiences at his lectures on art history with a completely novel method. Leaving aside the text and iconography, Focillon emphasised the importance of visual evidence and inwardly conditioned development of form.24 It is, therefore, not surprising that for Vaga architecture existed outside of context, outside of society. Interpretation of space through visual observation was important. At the same time, Vaga’s understanding of the architectural object was not Focillon-like. He was not interested in the beauty and inner development of form, but rather looked at separate motifs for parallels. This was a method characteristic of Kjellin, indicating that Vaga had thoroughly studied his teacher’s monograph of the Karja church on Saaremaa.25 The conclusion of the book presents quite a different approach. There he explains the ‘victory’ of the basilica over the hall church (which was quite unprec- edented in late medieval society) through the help of local colonial peculiarities and the class differences between the nobility and merchants. On one hand, this is an approach familiar from the works of Sten Karling. Krista Kodres has shown that Karling was influenced by the ideas of Alois Riegl and Max Dvořak, presenting

18 B. Вага, Проблема пространственной формы.... 19 V. Vaga, Das Problem der Raumform in der mittelalterlichen Baukunst Lettlands und Estlands. Tartu: Staatliche Universität Tartu, 1960. 20 A. Tuulse, V. Vaga. Problema prostranstvennoj formy v srednevekovoj arhitekture latvii i estonii. – Fornvännen 1961, årg. 56, pp. 142–146. 21 H. Thümmler, V. Vaga. Das Problem der Raumform in der mittelalterlichen Baukunst Lettlands und Estlands, Tartu 1960. – Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 1962, Jg. 25 (3/4), pp. 281–294. 22 Olev Prints was the first art historian to graduate from the Univerity of Tartu in the Soviet period (1948), yet he started his studies in 1940 with Karling. 23 О. Принц, В. Раам, Критические замечания к книге B. Вага, Проблема пространственной формы в средневековой архитектуре Латвии и Эстонии. – Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia toimetised. Ühiskonnateaduste seeria 1961, nr. 4, pp. 362–371. 24 H. Focillon, The Life of Forms in Art. Trans. C. Hogan, G. Kubler. New York: Wittenborn, 1934; W. Cahn, Henri Focillon (1881–1943). – Medieval Scholarship: Biographical Studies on the Formation of a Discipline. Vol. 3. Philosophy and the Arts. Ed. H. Damico. New York, London: Garland Publishing 2000, pp. 259–271. 25 H. Kjellin, Die Kirche zu Karris auf Oesel und ihre Beziehungen zu Gotland. Lund: Gleerup, 1928. kersti markus 22

art as a reflection of the Zeitgeist, moving towards constant change.26 On the other hand, the approach, where the introduction and conclusion have no correlation (or very little) with the main text, is quite typical of the writing of the Soviet era. It enabled Vaga to create the impression that his research followed the Marxist world- view, while also dealing with other issues. Obviously, the role of class conflict was relevant to Russian scholars. Therefore, Boris Mikhailov, a doctor of architecture from Moscow, evaluated Vaga’s writing primarily from the socio-economic aspect, but he also pointed out that, in reality, the conclusion had no connection with the work itself, since the main text failed to discuss society.27 Vaga’s research on the medieval dwellings of Tallinn, however, was completely different.28 It was based on archival materials29 and early 19th century draw- ings stored in Moscow, in the Central State Military History Archive of the USSR (presentday Russian State Military Historical Archive). Based on these, Vaga reconstructed a dwelling from 15th century Tallinn, pointing out its local peculiarities, and making it possible to speak, therefore, of the Tallinn school of architecture. Baltic German scholars (Eugen von Nottbeck and Wilhelm Neumann30) and both Karling and Tuulse31 had researched the topic before, but Vaga introduced a more complete approach. In fact, Vaga had already taken up the topic of Tallinn in his study of spatial form, offering a much more extensive development scheme for the ecclesiastical architecture of Tallinn than was presented by Karling in his manuscript of the book on Tallinn.32 This is the only part of the research which Vaga extensively based on archival materials. Since his book on spatial form lacks a dis- tinctive method, making the text difficult to follow, reviewers’ criticism left a strong negative impact on it, leaving the parts that can be considered the strongest in the book, including the Tallinn school of architecture, out of the later historiography. History of Estonian Architecture, published in 1965, shows that Vaga, in fact, carried on the spirit of Focillon. It is purely a history of architecture, completely isolated from society. In this context, it is somewhat ironic that the structure of the book precisely follows the Marxist-Leninist periodisation of Estonian history, worked out by the historian Artur Vassar in 1948, which became the basis of the new approach to history.33 The chapter presenting the Gothic period is entitled ‘The Feudal

26 K. Kodres, „Aus dem Volk selbst herausgewachsen”, p. 17. 27 Б. П. Михайлов, Научный труд по истории архитектуры народов Прибалтики. – Aрхитектура CCCP 1961, № 1, p. 65; M. Nõmmela, Voldemar Vaga…, pp. 173–74. 28 V. Vaga, Tallinna keskaegne elamu; V. Vaga, Das mittelalterliche Wohnhaus in Tallinn. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool, 1961. 29 Mostly published by the Tallinn City Archives. 30 E. v. Nottbeck, W. Neumann, Geschichte und Kunstdenkmäler der Stadt Reval. 2. Bd. Die Kunstdenkmäler der Stadt. Reval: Franz Kluge, 1904. 31 A. Tuulse, Die spätmittelalterliche Steinskulptur in Estland und Lettland. – Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen aikakauskirja / Finska Fornminnensföreningens tidskrift 49 (1948). Helsinki, 1951. 32 The manuscript in Swedish was finished in 1937, but the translation and publication were delayed. The war and change in political power put an end to all hopes of publishing the work. Copies were made of the manuscript in 1963 and these spread throughout Estonia, too. The manuscript, with comments, was published in Estonian only in 2006. See note 8. 33 A. Vassar, Eesti ajaloo periodiseerimisest. – Eesti Bolševik 1948, nr. 17, pp. 39–58; H. Lausma-Saar, Ajalooteadus Nõukogude Eestis 1944–1952. Master’s Thesis. Institute of History of Tallinn University. Tallinn, 2012, pp. 70–71. The Object and Its Interpretation 23

Decentralisation’. And yet it discusses architecture which seems to exist outside society.34 Vaga carried on with pre-war methods. Villem Raam did likewise, since the ruins of Tartu cathedral had already been researched in the 1920s with test pits and trial excavations. However, much more extensive archaeological research on churches was started in the late 1950s, changing the attitudes about the stages of construction of many churches.35 Tuulse assisted Raam by supplying literature on the methods of building archaeology and by sharing his personal experience from fieldwork on churches in Sweden.36 Of the articles by Raam on ecclesiastical architecture from that period, the most significant is the one on the Tallinn cathedral published in 1967 in the Swedish magazine Konsthistorisk tidskrift.37 It is interesting to observe how Raam approached his object. His research was based on fieldwork carried out in the cathedral in two stages and his method was the analysis of form. The analysis of the geometrical proportions of the ground plan of the church was novel in Estonia. The model for it was the book by Otto Schubert, Gesetz der Baukunst38, published in the GDR in 1954, which was available in Estonia. Later, Rober Branner also might have influenced him. In his research, Branner was able to prove that the medieval masters used geometrical forms such as the square, the triangle and the circle in constructing buildings. Branner’s 1969 book on the Chartres cathedral existed in Raam’s library.39 However, in Tuulse’s opinion, calcu- lating the proportions was very problematic. He had helped to publish the article in Sweden and shared his initial impressions with the author in a letter.40 In interpreting the object, Raam considered separate parts of the building and various details, and attempted to find functional or stylistic parallels in the area of the Baltic Sea. He linked separate stages of construction to powerful bishops. Therefore, the objects Raam dealt with were quite firmly anchored in society. This approach, nevertheless, was problematic due to the fact that, in the search for parallels to the details, the broader picture was lost. The church became the focal point. From there, references were made to society, with the aim of supporting the esti- mated dating. However, what is lacking in the approach is the analysis of why one or another bishop should be linked to a particular stage of construction. This does not provide a complete picture of the social conditions and makes dating unreliable. Summing up the research on ecclesiastical architecture in the 1960s, it is possible to say that the methods and most of the topics were similar to those of the pre-war period, and these were still of interest to scholars outside Estonia. At the

34 V. Vaga, Feodaalne killustatus. Gooti stiil 13. sajandi algusest kuni 16. sajandi keskpaigani. Linnakindlustused, linnused, kirikud, kloostrid ja ühiskondlikud hooned. – Eesti arhitektuuri ajalugu, pp. 51–180. 35 E. Russow, H. Valk, A. Haak, A. Pärn, A. Mäesalu, Medieval Archaeology of the European Context: Towns, Churches, Monasteries and Castles. – Archaeological Research in Estonia 1865–2005. Eds. V. Lang, M. Laneman. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 2006, p. 176. 36 ERR, coll. 20, inv. 1, item 414 (letters 16 December 1959, 3 January 1960). 37 V. Raam, Die Domkirche zu Tallinn und ihre baugeschichtliche Bedeutung. – Konsthistorisk tidskrift 1967, årg. 36 (3/4), pp. 74–91. 38 O. Schubert, Gesetz der Baukunst. 2 Bd. Leipzig: Seemann, 1954. 39 Raam’s library is located in the Fine Arts Information Centre of the National Library of Estonia. 40 ERR, coll. 20, inv. 1, item 414 (letter 15 October 1967). kersti markus 24

same time, there is an essential difference in the approaches presented by Vaga and Raam: Vaga remained retrospective41, whereas Raam was looking for opportunities to move forward. Where they worked played a vital role here. Vaga was at the University of Tartu, lacking colleagues with whom to exchange thoughts on medieval architecture and unable to do fieldwork. Raam, however, worked at the Scientific Restoration Workshop, which brought together the leading researchers in Soviet Estonia. Due to the institution’s practical orientation, the ideological pres- sure of the Soviet rule was less intrusive. Regarding the architectural research of the period, it is important to emphasise Tuulse’s supporting and guiding role, clearly revealed in correspondence. It was particularly active in the late 1950s and the first half of the 1960s. His elec- tion as a professor at Stockholm University in 1962 and the consequent teaching workload distanced him increasingly from the Estonian research; nevertheless, he kept his former colleagues well informed of his activities and more current research, attempting to send as many books to Estonia as possible. During the period following his debilitating illness, he no longer had a direct influence on Estonian research on the medieval period, although Estonian scholars were influenced by his publications.

Innovation

The 1970s were one of the most exciting periods in the research on medieval architecture in Estonia. Following the basic research done during the preceding decade, many publications appeared and several scholars who had been involved in different fields became interested in the Middle Ages. It is quite remarkable that three publications came out in 1971: The Kaarma Church by Villem Raam, The Church of the Holy Spirit by Mai Lumiste and The Tallinn Dominican Friary by Elfride Tool- Marran.42 Considering the conditions of the Soviet era, such a large number of si- multaneous publications is extraordinary, since usually it took years for an article or book to be published. Of Raam’s work of that period, I would point out the chapter on medieval architecture in the first volume of History of Estonian Art, published in 1975.43 Comparing Raam’s approach with Vaga’s, published ten years earlier, the differences are significant. While Vaga’s writing can be regarded as an inventory of ecclesiastical architecture based on geographical regions, for Raam the political division between

41 Owing to his correspondence with Tuulse, Vaga was, in fact, well versed in the newest trends in the research of medieval architecture. In his letter from 1958, he thanks Tuulse for three books that had reached him from the series on the churches of Sweden (Sveriges kyrkor). He stresses the importance of learning about every method used in research in continuing his work. The new approaches, however, are not reflected in Vaga’s research. See more of the correspondence published in: M. Nõmmela, A. Tuulse ja V. Vaga kirjavahetus, p. 191, 197. 42 V. Raam, Kaarma kirik. Ehitus ja sisustus. Tallinn: Eesti NSV MN Riiklik Ehituskomitee, 1971; M. Lumiste, Pühavaimu kirik. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat, 1971; E. Tool-Marran, Tallinna dominiiklaste klooster. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat, 1971. 43 V. Raam, Arhitektuur 13. sajandi teisest veerandist kuni 14. sajandi keskpaigani. Arhitektuur 14. sajandi keskelt kuni 16. sajandi teise veerandini. – Eesti kunsti ajalugu. 1. kd., I. Eesti kunst kõige varasemast ajast kuni 19. saj. keskpaigani. Peatoim. I. Solomõkova. Tallinn: Kunst, 1975, pp. 21–71. The Object and Its Interpretation 25 the Teutonic Order, the bishops and the King of Denmark became essential. At the same time, the political powers did not play a crucial role in the development of ecclesiastical architecture; it was instead the masters that came here from areas with different building traditions (Westphalia, Riga, Gotland, etc.). The connection with Karling’s work before and during the war is obvious. Art history has generally centred on the history of style, although occasionally attention has been paid to the function of the parts of the building. Regarding Raam, it is interesting to observe how his approach changed depend- ing on the object. The 1969 article on the Kiiu vassal castle44 is exceptionally versatile. An extensive presentation of fieldwork is followed by an analysis of function, involving both military defence and daily life. After that a comparative method for separate parts of the building has been applied, drawing parallels primarily with the buildings of Tallinn, and finally there are attempts to establish the possible commissioner of the castle construction, proceeding both from the political situation and from the transactions involving land ownership. In an article published a year later in the journal Ehitus ja Arhitektuur (Construction and Architecture) on the Jõhvi church45, the connection with the Kiiu research is very clear. Fortified basements, traces of a rampart walk on the western wall, the high entrance to the stairway in the wall and loopholes in the tower enabled Raam to see the defence functions more clearly than the ecclesiastical ones in the Jõhvi church. There is an extensive discussion of the potential commissioner, the Taube family, who were also the masters of several vassal castles. New in the Estonian context was the genesis of the spatial form of the church, inspired by Tuulse’s book on the Strängnäs cathedral46, which later became one of the most widely used methods of research by Raam. The two articles on the Valjala church are entirely different. Since the churches of Saaremaa were the richest in Estonia in decoration, it was possible to carry out an analysis of the style of the sculptural details and murals, along with the genesis of the spatial form. In the first half of the 1970s fieldwork was carried out in the Valjala church and churchyard, which was, in the context of the time, remarkably many-sided. In addition to test pits next to the foundations, trial excavations were made in the churchyard47, the entire church was surveyed and fragments of murals were uncovered48. Based on the recovered information, in his article published in 1976 Raam reconstructed the stages of the construction of the Valjala church, which, despite minor corrections, are still topical.49 Two years later, the focus was on a group of masters of Bohemian origin active in the second half of the 14th

44 V. Raam, Kiiu vasallilinnus. – Töid kunstiajaloo alalt 1. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool, 1969, pp. 53–77. 45 V. Raam, Jõhvi kiriku mõningatest ehitusloolistest probleemidest. – Ehitus ja Arhitektuur 1970, nr. 3, pp. 29–38. 46 A. Tuulse, Der Kernbau des Domes zu Strängnäs und sein Umkreis. (Antikvariskt arkiv 25.) Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, 1964, pp. 50–57. 47 The archaeologist Jüri Selirand from the Institute of History of the Estonian Academy of Sciences led the fieldwork. 48 The recovery of the murals in the Valjala church was led by a restorer from Moscow, Viktor Filatov. See H. Hiiop, A. Randla, Eesti kirikute keskaegsete seinamaalingute uurimisest ja restaureerimisest. – Kunstiteaduslikke Uurimusi 2009, kd. 18 (3/4), pp. 24–34. 49 V. Raam, Mõningaid uusi probleeme Valjala kiriku ehitusloost. – Restaureerimisalaste artiklite kogumik. Koost. K. Aluve. Tallinn: Valgus, 1976, pp. 72–82. kersti markus 26

century in Saaremaa, who, in addition to the Kuressaare Bishop’s Castle, also re- built the chancel of the Valjala church.50 The article can be regarded as a perfected example of stylistic analysis. The final sentence of the article best reveals Raam’s way of thinking: ‘Questions will always be questions and assumptions will be assumptions; however, they might, perhaps, help bring closer the problem itself and make the inner constructional ‘impulse’ of a few motifs of the art of the building, which have so far received little attention, more perceivable.’51 The understanding of the development of art of Dvořak, Riegl and Focillon is still reflected here, placed, however, in the context of the 1970s, which, in this case, meant taking into account the information resulting from the building archaeology and text sources. While in the case of the Kiiu castle the Tuulse-like approach to the object of research is clearly recognisable, the article on the masters from Bohemia shows dis- tancing from it. Despite corresponding with Tuulse for decades, Raam never fully adopted Tuulse’s research method52, a combination of extensive building archaeology, strong historical context and many-sided examination of functions. Both carried out thorough analyses of objects but, unlike Raam, Tuulse’s thinking was dominated by context, not detail. The more Raam studied ecclesiastical architecture, the more he withdrew from the research methods of Tuulse and grew closer to Karling’s. The difference was in the fact that, instead of building archaeology, Karling dealt with archival data. Nevertheless, the analysis of motifs and discussion of schools of art are similar.53 In the collection in which Raam wrote about the Bohemian masters, Mai Lumiste, an art historian of the younger generation, started her article with entirely different thoughts: ‘The persistence of erroneous approaches and dating in our literature on the history of architecture has, no doubt, been fostered by insuffi- cient use of the base material in archives. We still operate with the information and dates published decades ago, attempting, at best, to interpret them in our own way. It is obvious that the archived information we have been using so far unquestion- ably needs checking and complementing, for even the most competent visual observation or stylistically critical analysis can not replace the facts proceeding from a written document.’ The quotation originates from the article by Mai Lumiste and Rasmus Kangropool ‘Of a Few Questions on Dating the 15th Century Architecture of Tallinn’,54 which shook the researchers’ community quite dramatically and has still not lost its topicality. The criticism was primarily aimed at Karling’s work, which had been faithfully quoted for decades.

50 V. Raam, Valjala kiriku koorilõpmiku ajalisest määrangust ja Kuressaare piiskopilinnuse meisterkonnast. – Töid kunstiteaduse ja -kriitika alalt 2. Tallinn: Kunst, 1978, pp. 233–263. 51 V. Raam, Valjala kiriku koorilõpmiku…, p. 260. 52 Tuulse suggested that, when writing about the development of different types of churches in Tallinn, Raam should take into account the socio-political background, which Raam failed to do: ERR, coll. 20, inv. 1, item 414 (letter 17 April 1965); V. Raam, Gotik in Tallinn (Reval). – Kunst des Mittelalters in Nord- und Nordost-Europa – heute. (Homburger Gespräch 2.) Hrsg. v. E. Böckler. Bad Homburg: M. C. A. Böckler Siftung, 1980, pp. 158–173. 53 S. Karling, Riga domkyrka och mästaren från Köln. Ett bidrag till Baltikums äldsta konsthistoria. – Konsthistorisk tidskrift 1941, årg. 10, pp. 33–59 and 1942, årg. 11, pp. 23–38. 54 R. Kangropool, M. Lumiste, Mõningatest Tallinna 15. sajandi arhitektuuri dateerimise küsimustest. – Töid kunstiteaduse ja -kriitika alalt 2, pp. 264–283. The Object and Its Interpretation 27

In her very first publication on medieval architecture, Lumiste established her own method. Her book on the Holy Spirit Church, published in 1971,55 starts with an analysis of the historical background and the potential functions of the building; only after that does she carry on with the analysis of the architecture. While visual observation still played an important role in the case of the Holy Spirit Church, despite the fieldwork carried out there, the article on St Matthew’s Chapel of St Nicholas’ Church from 197656 reveals the true level of her ability to ‘read the walls’. The dedication of the author to carrying out her work stands out in the article, and her conclusions are presented clearly and logically. It is clear in Lumiste’s writing that we are not dealing with the Tartu school. She was not involved in the philosophical problems concerning the inner impulses of art; instead, she treated her object very rationally, although with obvious passion. The reason for the different approach was her studies in the I. E. Repin Leningrad Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture (the former St Petersburg Academy of Arts) in 1950– 1955. The teaching staff there still included the leading scholars from the pre-war period and, due to a wide choice of practice opportunities, a great deal of attention was paid to working with the object, whether it was an antique structure in the Crimea, a medieval manuscript, an architectural object from the Modern period or, of course, the art collection of the State Hermitage Museum.57 Mai Lumiste’s husband Rasmus Kangropool was also educated in Leningrad; he did not study art history but specialised in urban planning and economics at the Institute of Civil Engineering from 1949 to 1954.58 Working both as a civil engineer and a heritage protector, he started studyng on his own initiative the late medieval archival materials from Tallinn, achieving a remarkable level of competence in interpreting them. The journal Ehitus ja Arhitektuur published a number of articles that cast new light on the construction of the Tallinn Town Hall59, as well as the medieval premises of the Tallinn bishops on Toompea60. However, his approach is best represented in his 1972 book Tallinn in Centuries, which radically differs from his earlier writing.61 Based on the dissertation of the economic geographer Leo Tiik about the birth and development of Tallinn62 and his own research in the archives, a picture is presented of a city and its development, including its topography, street network, building laws, the activities of master masons, guild regulations of craftsmen and trade relations of the city. It is, therefore, primarily a social history. Considering Kangropool’s educational background, this is not surprising. Their joint article, mentioned above, on dating the 15th century architecture of Tallinn marked a breakthrough in Estonian art history. There, they combined

55 M. Lumiste, Pühavaimu kirik. 56 M. Lumiste, Niguliste kiriku ehitusliku kujunemise mõningatest probleemidest. – Restaureerimisalaste artiklite kogumik, pp. 60–71. 57 See the article by Helena Risthein in the present volume. 58 S. Konsa, Rasmus Kangropool. – Eesti kunsti ja arhitektuuri biograafiline leksikon, p. 161. 59 R. Kangropool, Täpsustusi Tallinna raekoja ehitusloole. – Ehitus ja Arhitektuur 1969, nr. 3, pp. 64–68. 60 R. Kangropool, Tallinna piiskoppide keskaegne kinnistu Toompeal. – Ehitus ja Arhitektuur 1971, nr. 1, pp. 43–46. 61 R. Kangropool, D. Bruns, Tallinn sajandeis. Ehituskunstiline ülevaade. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat, 1972, pp. 7–90. 62 L. Tiik, Vana Tallinn. Ajaloolis-geograafiline käsitelu linna tekkimisest ja kujunemisest. Dissertatsioon geograafiateaduste kandidaadi teadusliku astme taotlemiseks. Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool, 1957. kersti markus 28 competence in understanding archival sources with strong analysis of the object. The researchers’ different educational backgrounds became the determining factor here: neither had personal contact with the Tartu school, releasing them from the control of authority, which explains the somewhat aggressive tone towards earlier art historical writing. In a way, Helmi Üprus also came from the outside.63 Having studied art history with Karling, she was an interdisciplinary scholar who could write about ethnog- raphy, art and architecture. The Middle Ages was not her main field and she was, therefore, not influenced by one particular school of writing. Her views are best revealed in her article, published in 1974 in Ehitus ja Arhitektuur, on the significance of the social, functional and natural peculiarities in regenerating the Old Town of Tallinn.64 It summed up the long-term and extensive practical teamwork on creating the protected zone (conservation area) of the Old Town of Tallinn in the 1950s and 1960s, as a result of which Tallinn was listed as a national heritage site in 1966.65 According to Üprus, in order to study the building of a historical city, one should proceed from the views of contemporary social science, i.e. besides researching the history of architecture, it was also necessary to study the factors that had shaped the architecture. In the case of the well-known medieval Hanseatic city of Tallinn, one had to consider both the historical-political and economic contexts, leading to a better understanding of the development of certain types of buildings, as well as the circumstances conditioned by nature that helped to explain the possible struc- tural development of the city.66 Proceeding from these principles, she analysed the types of medieval dwellings in Tallinn. In 1960, relying on archival information, Vaga presented an extensive review of a typical medieval dwelling of Tallinn. However, Üprus demonstrated in 1976 that, in reality, there was no single typical dwelling; instead, there was a wide variety of different types of dwellings, depend- ing on their function or the owner’s social standing.67 In the 1970s this approach was completely new in the research on Estonian medieval architecture. Before the World War II, both Meyer Schapiro and Walter Benjamin wrote about the social function of art; however, art history truly started paying attention to the social in the 1950s.68 The breakthrough only came in the early 1970s, when the socio-political context emerged next to the social one, and the commissioner of the researched object became significant. Attention also turned to other fields, including the history of literature and general history.69 It can, therefore, be said that the approach of Üprus and her team was surprisingly modern, although the approach

63 A. Randla, Helmi Üprus 100. – Baltic Journal of Art History 2011 (Autumn) / 2012 (Spring), pp. 7–14. 64 H. Üprus, Sotsiaalsete, funktsionaalsete ja looduslike iseärasuste osatähtsus Tallinna vanalinna regenereerimisel. – Ehitus ja Arhitektuur 1974, nr. 1, pp. 12–22. 65 The project of regeneration was worked out by art historians, architects and engineers: Helmi Üprus, Rein Zobel, Fredi Tomps, Teddy Böckler, Heino Uuetalu et al.: L. Hansar, Helmi Üprus and the Old Town of Tallinn. – Baltic Journal of Art History 2011 (Autumn) / 2012 (Spring), pp. 165–173. 66 H. Üprus, Sotsiaalsete, funktsionaalsete ja looduslike iseärasuste osatähtsus…, p. 12. 67 H. Üprus, Das Wohnhaus in Tallinn vor 1500. – Häuser und Höfe der handeltreibenden Bevölkerung im Ostseegebiet und im Norden vor 1500. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Soziologie des Wohnens. Red. G. Svahnström. (Acta visbyensia 5.) Visby: Gotlands Fornsal, 1976, pp. 141–164. 68 A. Hauser, The Social History of Art. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951. 69 J. Harris, The New Art History: The Critical Introduction. 4th ed. London, New York: Routledge, 2006, pp. 1–61. The Object and Its Interpretation 29 did not stem from the theoretical writing of Western scholars but from the project for the regeneration of Tallinn. The methods of researching architecture were put into practice rather than discussed. The only exception was a theoretical piece of writing on architecture by Kaia Lehari, a postgraduate student at M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, published in 1970 in Ehitus ja Arhitektuur.70 Lehari had studied art history at Leningrad State University. In her article, she analysed the search for new research methods of architecture in the Soviet Union in the 1960s. Since most of her sources had been published after the project of the regeneration of Tallinn was finished, the scholars who worked out the methods could not have been guided by these sources. The principles, however, were similar. The leading researchers of architecture in the USSR recommended applying the method of systematic study. Previously, in the study of architecture, most attention had been paid to the building. However, systematic analysis demanded the study of the cumula- tive effects of different aspects, e.g. the functional and social. In addition, a ‘genetic’ analysis of the object was considered necessary in order to establish the historical connections between the different architectural elements which had caused or made possible changes in function.71 The 1970s saw a significant change in fieldwork. Until then, excavations had chiefly been led by architectural historians and, in the course of researching the architectural substance, no attention was paid to artefacts or cultural layers. However, now the first archaeologists specialising in the Middle Ages became involved in research on convents and churches, and their archaeological methods came into use.72 The first object studied in this manner was the Tallinn Dominican friary and the findings were published in book form.73 Looking back, it is possible to say that the 1970s were among the most prolific periods in the research on Estonian medieval architecture. In a way, each researcher contributed his/her own methods, and these were, in the broader European context, fully competitive. Since the New Art History was just emerging in the 1970s, the stylistic approach was still fully flourishing, at least in research on the Middle Ages. The best example of this is the publication of a book by Focillon’s student Jean Bony in 1979 discussing the changes in Gothic architecture through stylistic analysis.74 The book was available in Soviet Estonia.

70 K. Lehari, Arhitektuuriteooria metodoloogiast. – Ehitus ja Arhitektuur 1970, nr. 2, pp. 56–59. 71 K. Lehari, Arhitektuuriteooria metodoloogiast, p. 57. 72 E. Russow, H. Valk, A. Haak, A. Pärn, A. Mäesalu, Medieval Archaeology of the European Context, p. 163. 73 E. Tool-Marran, Tallinna dominiiklaste klooster, p. 133–150; E. Russow, H. Valk, A. Haak, A. Pärn, A. Mäesalu, Medieval Archaeology of the European Context, p. 163. 74 J. Bony, The English Decorated Style: Gothic Architecture Transformed 1250–1350. Oxford: Phaidon, 1979. kersti markus 30 Stability

The 1980s brought about stabilisation. Of the great innovators of the previous period, Üprus was deceased, and in January 1985 Lumiste died unexpectedly. In the same year, a small booklet was published on St Nicholas’ Church in a series int- roducing the sights of Tallinn75, summing up Lumiste’s long-time research on St Nicholas’ Church. This booklet was aimed at the general public. True analyses were still only to be found in fieldwork reports.76 An article on the southern portal of St Nicholas’ Church, published in 1983, is the only source providing an idea of the research methods of the period.77 The significance of the article lies in the trans- parency of the research methods. It demonstrates very clearly to the reader how Lumiste approached her object in order to get answers to the questions that were of interest to her: probing, analysis of the processing of material and proportions, followed by an analysis of function and style. Such a complex approach was rare in the research on the medieval architecture of Estonia. In fact, her method was also apparent in the booklet. The story of the development of the church is based on archaeological and archive data, taking into account both the urban and social context. Regarding the latter, Kangropool’s research on the late medieval master masons and stone carvers of the Tallinn town council78 and their joint publication on Tallinn painters and woodcarvers79 can be seen as the foundation. Sten Karling had studied the masters before the war,80 but new archival research and the critical revision of the existing stylistic attributions made the picture considerably clearer. Villem Raam continued to be the leading figure of architectural research. Taking into account the modest opportunities and long time required in the Soviet era to publish one’s work, it is quite remarkable that Raam published at least one work per year, and in some years several works. Analysing those, we can point to a few lines of development. Motif analysis is clearly dominant and, owing to decades of research on the objects, it had been perfected. Here, an article in Russian about art connections between Tallinn and Saaremaa81 and another on variations of the quad- rangular chancel82 stand out. These are quite different in nature. While the first one focuses on the master and his handwriting, i.e. certain motifs that are similar in the buildings in Tallinn and Saaremaa, the analysis of the unusual eastern arch of the

75 M. Lumiste, Niguliste kirik. Ehituskunstiajalooline ülevaade. Tallinn: Perioodika, 1985. Rasmus Kangropool compiled a thorough monograph on St Nicholas’ Church, based on his wife’s reports and his own archival research. However, the book lacks Lumiste’s skill in creating a broader picture (M. Lumiste, R. Kangropool, Niguliste kirik. Tallinn: Kunst, 1990.) 76 Fieldwork reports are located in the archives of the National Heritage Board. 77 M. Lumiste, Niguliste kiriku lõunaportaal ja selle rekonstruktsioon. – Kunstiteadus. Kunstikriitika 5, pp. 76–87. 78 R. Kangropool, Hans Kotke, Tallinna müürseppmeister ja kiviraidur 15. sajandi keskpaigas. – Töid kunstiteaduse ja -kriitika alalt 3. Tallinn: Kunst, 1980, pp. 97–109; R. Kangropool, Rae kiviraidurite- müürseppmeistrite osast Tallinna vanema arhitektuuri kujunemisloos kuni umbes aastani 1650. – Kunstiteadus. Kunstikriitika 5, pp. 118–132. 79 R. Kangropool, M. Lumiste, Tallinna maalijad ja puunikerdajad 14. ja 15. sajandil. – Kunstiteadus. Kunstikriitika 4. Tallinn: Kunst, 1981, pp. 155–176. 80 See note 32. 81 В. Раам, К вопросу об архитектурных контактах между Таллином и островом Сааремаа в средние века. – Искусство Прибалтики: статьи и исследования. Ред. И. Соломыкова и др. Tallinn: Kunst, 1981, pp. 7–38. 82 V. Raam, Nelinurkse kooritüübi mõningatest variatsioonidest Eesti keskaegses arhitektuuris. – Kunstiteadus. Kunstikriitika 5, pp. 88–117. The Object and Its Interpretation 31 chancels of churches in central Estonia rises beyond the usual stylistic study. From the master, the focus shifts to the commissioner, and from the description of details to the analysis of function. Raam wrote another article on the churches of central Estonia which is among his most important publications.83 It focuses on the spatial form of the church, although not from the perspective from which Vaga analysed it, i.e. the hall church or the basilica. Raam was interested in the indentation of space: how the tower related to the nave, how the rose window of the western façade was visually connected to the chancel, and the layout of the portals and their function. Raam’s writings are very clearly centred on art but, unlike in his works from the previous decades, he paid increasingly more attention to the commissioner, who had determined the use of spatial form. In central Estonia, these were the Livonian Order and the Bishop of Tallinn. Yet, it is interesting that Raam’s approach did not stem from the commissioner, and in the conclusion of the article he focused on the subject of ‘basic rhythm’ in the development of architecture84, showing the vitality of the Tartu school. In the 1980s an emphasis on building archaeology was combined with motif analysis. This may seem strange, since Raam had done field research from the end of the 1950s. However, the descriptions and analysis of this work are available in the National Heritage Board archives. The articles only briefly deal with building archaeology, confined merely to a presentation of results. The only exceptions are the above-mentioned articles on the Kiiu vassal castle and Jõhvi church. The analysis of the Muhu church from 1987 clearly stands out in this context: a detailed study of building archaeology is combined with the analysis of form.85 It is unlikely that a more thorough analysis of the object could have been carried out using these methods. The article is also interesting as it is one of the few instances in the architectural writing of Soviet Estonia in which the author defined his method. A remark on stylistic analysis having been neglected in Estonia is especially notable.86 This statement clearly corresponds to the main ideas of the present article. Among the researchers of those days, only Raam used solely the analysis of form. As a side topic, function entered his work occasionally, although it never became the main subject. Raam’s article on the altars and loft of the Pirita convent church is the exception.87 The last decade of the Soviet period brought new people into the research of the medieval architecture of Estonia. Among them was the art historian Kaur Alttoa. Having graduated from Tartu State University in 1972 with a thesis on the Vastseliina castle88, he then turned to ecclesiastical architecture. Due to the long time it took to

83 V. Raam, Märkmeid Ambla kirikust ja Kesk-Eesti kirikute ehitusloost üldse. – Kunstiteadus. Kunstikriitika 6. Tallinn: Kunst, 1986, pp. 178–211. 84 V. Raam, Märkmeid Ambla kirikust..., p. 208. 85 V. Raam, Muhu kiriku ehitusloolisest positsioonist. – Arhitektuuripärandi uurimisest Eesti NSV-s. Teoreetilis-praktilise konverentsi materjalid, 17. mai 1985. Koost. A. Lass. Tallinn: Valgus, 1987, pp. 31–59; V. Raam, Über die baugeschichtliche Stellung der Kirche von Muhu. – Gotlandia irredenta. Festschrift für Gunnar Svahnström zu seinem 75. Geburtstag. Hrsg. v. R. Bohn. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1990, pp. 191–226. 86 V. Raam, Über die baugeschichtliche Stellung der Kirche von Muhu, p. 192. 87 V. Raam, Das Birgittenkloster in Tallinn/Reval. Empore und Altäre. – Nordost-Archiv. Zeitschrift für Kulturgeschichte und Landeskunde 1984, H. 75, pp. 63–84. 88 M.-I. Eller, Kunstiajaloolased Tartu Ülikoolis aastail 1940–1989, p. 99; K. Alttoa, Vastseliina piiskopilinnus. – Töid kunstiteaduse ja -kriitika alalt 2, pp. 284–305. kersti markus 32

publish anything, he started to contribute in this field of research only during the following decade. Alttoa’s articles stand out for their extensive study of building archaeology. While in the case of the nave of the Tartu cathedral89 Mai Lumiste’s article on St Matthew’s Chapel90 can be seen as a methodological model, the discussion of the defence functions of the western towers91 points to Tuulse’s research.92 In the story of the development of the Halliste church93 it is possible to observe a closer connection with Raam’s works. This primarily involves the genesis of the spatial forms of the churches in southern Estonia. He did not at that time carry out an analysis of motifs; it became his method of choice considerably later.94 The archaeologist Jaan Tamm was among the newcomers. He had started with field research in the previous decade but turned to ecclesiastical architecture somewhat later. Unlike art historians, he paid attention to the cultural layers and the artefacts recovered, helping to reconstruct the past life within the walls of the convent. His research on the material culture of the convents in Estonia resulted in a dissertation in the second half of the 1980s.95 The most extensive field research of the time took place in the Pirita Bridgettine convent, where Tamm worked with Villem Raam. Raam published a booklet in 1984 that attempted to reconstruct the historical spatial layout of the church and that provided an overview of the convent complex, taking into account St Bridget’s rule and the results of the field research.96 However, the final report on the research was finished only during the years that followed and is housed in the archives of the National Heritage Board.97 Only in 2005, thanks to Jaan Tamm, were the results published in book form, as a part of the celebration of the 95th anniversary of Villem Raam’s birth.98

Conclusion

The study of medieval architecture in the Estonian SSR was surprisingly active and offered different approaches. Although methods were seldom discussed and access to the most recent theoretical literature in the field was almost non-existent, the architectural research here was more or less able to keep up with the development of Western art history. A branching off took place in the 1980s, when the analysis

89 K. Alttoa, Tartu toomkiriku pikihoone kujunemisest. – Töid kunstiteaduse ja -kriitika alalt 3, pp. 78–96. 90 M. Lumiste, Niguliste kiriku ehitusliku kujunemise…, pp. 60–71. 91 K. Alttoa, Tartu toomkiriku läänetornide kaitsefunktsioonist. – Arhitektuuripärandi uurimisest Eesti NSV-s, pp. 82–94. 92 A. Tuulse, Die Kirche zu Karja und die Wehrkirchen Saaremaas. (Tartu Ülikooli kunstiajaloo kabineti väljaanded 8.) Tartu, 1940; A. Tuulse, Hossmo. En försvarskyrka med östtorn. (Kungl. Vitterhets- historie- och antikvitetsakademiens handlingar. Antikvariska serien 2.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1955. 93 K. Alttoa, Halliste keskaegsest kirikuhoonest. – Kunstiteadus. Kunstikriitika 5, pp. 133–146. 94 K. Alttoa, Die sogenannte Zwickelkolonette in den Kirchen auf Saaremaa (Ösel). – Baltic Journal of Art History 2012 (Autumn), pp. 7–41. 95 J. Tamm, Über die Erforschung der materiellen Kultur der Klöster in Estland. – Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia toimetised. Ühiskonnateadused 1986, kd. 35 (3), pp. 298–308; Я. Тамм, Материальная культура монастырей Эстонии XV–XVI вв. Автореферат. Таллинн: Академия наук Эстонской ССР, 1988. 96 V. Raam, Pirita klooster. Tallinn: Eesti Raamat, 1984, pp. 22–23. 97 V. Raam, J. Tamm, K. Põllu, Pirita kloostrivaremed. Väliuurimiste lõpparuanne, I, II, III etapp. Tallinn, 1984–1986. Manuscripts in the archives of the National Heritage Board. 98 V. Raam, J. Tamm, Pirita klooster. Ehitus- ja uurimislugu. Tallinn: Eesti Entsüklopeediakirjastus, 2005. The Object and Its Interpretation 33 of style became increasingly dominant in Estonian architectural research, whereas international art history was heading towards the New Art History. Looking back, the lack of competition may have been the reason. The great Üprus, Tuulse and Lumiste were gone. Left on his own, Kangropool withdrew into archival research. The younger scholars were mostly active in field research. Since Raam was a truly charismatic personality and clearly focused on the analysis of style, the latter became the sole possible research method of medieval architecture in Estonia in the 1990s, besides field research. Raam himself no longer took part in it.99 I would now like to come back to the question posed at the beginning of the article: how much are we dependent in our writing on the previous traditions of writing on art history? What are the factors that make us prefer one type of writing to another? When the borders opened, Western literature was fully available and contacts with colleagues from abroad became regular, the methods used were still characteristic of those in the 1980s. This is paradoxical since, taking into account Raam’s restless and inquisitive spirit, he probably would have been the first to try to find different approaches to his research problems in the new circumstances. I would dare to claim that because the issue of pilgrims was what interested him the most before his death100, this would have led him to liturgy and rituals, which were current research trends in art history in the 1990s. The intellectual significance of the Tartu school definitely played a role in the context of Soviet Estonia and, therefore, Karling’s research method appeared to be more justified than the one represented by the scholars from Leningrad. Social history returned to the study of medieval Tallinn only in the 21st century, in the work of researchers who had received their degrees at universities abroad.101 However, the most important role still belonged to the personality of the researcher. Raam’s charisma and eloquence had such an influence on the younger generation that his research methods were automatically adopted.102 Therefore, the approach to architectural research that was characteristic of the end of the Soviet era is still viable in present-day Estonia.103 Such a situation makes one think of the role of great personalities in the evolution of fields of science. Had Mai Lumiste not died so unexpectedly in the prime of her creative career, the end of the Soviet period in the research on Estonian ecclesiastical architecture would probably have been significantly different.

99 Villem Raam died on 21 May 1996 after a long period of illness. 100 K. Markus, In memoriam Villem Raam. 30. V 1910–21. V 1996. Väga isiklik nägemus õpetajast ja kolleegist. – Kunstiteaduslikke Uurimusi 9. Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus, 1998, pp. 375–379. 101 A. Mänd, Avenues of Approach: The Street as Ceremonial Space in Late Medieval Livonian Festival. – Die Strasse. Zur Funktion und Perzeption öffentlichen Raums im späten Mittelalter. (Forschungen des Instituts für Realienkunde 6.) Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001, pp. 167–181; A. Mänd, Urban Carnival: Festive Culture in the Hanseatic Cities of the Eastern Baltic, 1350–1550. (Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe 8.) Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2005. 102 Several of my own articles have been directly influenced by Raam: e.g. K. Markus, Eesti kunstisuhetest Kesk-Euroopaga 14. sajandil. – Eesti kunstikontaktid läbi sajandite 1. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia, 1991, pp. 4–25. 103 Kaur Alttoa defends the undeniable relevance of the analysis of style as a research method, even in 2010, in a collection of articles published in honour of the 100th anniversary of Raam’s birth (K. Alttoa, Die mittelalterliche Architektur Estlands und Villem Raam. – Baltic Journal of Art History 2010 (Spring), p. 30).