Cathedral of Saint Vladimir inKyiv was the first Neo-Byzantine design approved for construction in the Russian Empire (1852). It was not the first to be completed though, since construction started in 1859 and continued until 1889.Naval Cathedral,Kronstadt
The style originated in the Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century. The founder of this style is considered to beKonstantin Thon. Formed in the early 1830s as an entire direction, the Russian-Byzantine style was inextricably linked with the concept of nationality, expressing the idea of cultural self-sufficiency of Russia, as well as its political and religious continuity in relation toByzantine Empire.[1] In a narrow sense, the Russian-Byzantine style referred as the style of Konstantin Thon, common in the second third of the 19th century, and post Thon style, that began in the 1850s and more similar to theByzantine architecture, called theNeo-Byzantine style.
Church of Dmitry Solunsky in Saint Petersburg (1861–1866) byRoman Kuzmin – an earliest example of the style
The last decade ofAlexander I's rule was marked by state enforcement of theEmpire style as theonly architectural style for religious, public and private construction. This monopoly of a single style was lifted in the early 1830s; asNicholas I promotedKonstantin Thon'seclectic church designs, architects (Mikhail Bykovsky) and art circles in general (Nikolai Gogol) called for general liberalization of building permit procedures, insisting on the architect's freedom to choose a style best fitting the building's functions and the client's preferences. As a result, by the end of the 1840s Russian civil architecture diversified into various revival styles (Gothic Revival by Bykovsky,Neo-Renaissance by Thon) while new church projects leaned towards Thon's "Album of model designs" or neoclassicism.
The reign of Nicholas I was marked by persistent expansion of Russia – either in the form ofcolonization of territories acquired earlier in the West and South (partitions of Poland–Lithuania,Novorossiya, theCrimea, theCaucasus) or in the form of increasing intervention in theEastern Question. Nicholas shared his predecessors' aspirations for theBosporus and theDardanelles, and engaged in a dispute withFrance for control overHoly Land shrines, which provoked theCrimean War. The eastern policies of the state aroused public interest and sponsored academic studies inByzantine history and culture. The expansion ofRussian Orthodoxy into the new territories created new large-scale construction projects that needed to be integrated into local environments.
TheImperial Academy of Arts, closely supervised by Nicholas, supported studies of the Orient and specificallyByzantium, but Nicholas himself despised Byzantine architecture.Ivan Strom, one of the architects of thecathedral of Saint Vladimir inKyiv, recalled Nicholas saying "I cannot stand this style, yet, unlike others, I allow it" (Russian:"Терпеть не могу этого стиля но, не в пример прочим разрешаю").[3] Royal approval was made possible by the academic studies of thearchitecture of Kievan Rus in the 1830s–1840s that, for the first time, attempted to reconstruct the initial shape of Kievan cathedrals and established them as themissing link between Byzantium and the architecture ofVeliky Novgorod.
The cathedral of Saint Vladimir became the first neo-Byzantine project approved by the Emperor (1852). The Crimean War, lack of funds (the cathedral was financed through private donations) and severe engineering errors delayed its completion until the 1880s. The first neo-Byzantine projects to be completed appeared after the death of Nicholas: the interiors of the Saint Sergius of Radonezh church in theStrelna Monastery, designed byAlexey Gornostaev (1859), and a small chapel ofMariinsky Palace designed byGrigory Gagarin (1860).[4]
Composition ofTbilisi cathedral became de facto industry standard well before it was completed. Note the small, fully detached belltower in the back yard.
PrinceGrigory Gagarin, who had served inConstantinople and the Caucasus as adiplomat, became the most influential supporter of the Byzantine style – through his published studies of vernacular Caucasian and Greek heritage as well as through his service to empressMaria Alexandrovna and grand duchessMaria Nikolayevna (Alexander II's sister and president of theImperial Academy of Arts). As early as 1856, empress Maria Alexandrovna expressed her will to see new churches executed in Byzantine style.[5]
The first of these churches was built in 1861–1866 on the Greek Square of Saint Petersburg. ArchitectRoman Kuzmin (1811–1867) loosely followed the canon of theHagia Sophia – a flattened main dome blended into acylindricalarcade resting on a cubical main structure. Kuzmin, however, added a novel feature – instead of twoapses, typical of the Byzantine prototypes, he used four.[6][7] This cross-shaped layout was refined in 1865 byDavid Grimm, who extended Kuzmin's flattened structure vertically. Although Grimm's design remained on paper for over 30 years, its basic composition became nearly universal in Russian construction practice.[8]
Another trend was launched by David Grimm's design of theSaint Vladimir Cathedral inChersonesus (1858–1879). The church, built on the ruins of an ancient Greek cathedral, was sponsored by Alexander II. Grimm, also a historian of Caucasian heritage, was picked by Maria Alexandrovna, most likely upon advice by Gagarin and Maria Nikolaevna.[9] His cross-shaped structure used a complex succession of staggered simple shapes. Grimm restricted the use of curvilinear surfaces to the main dome only; apses and their roofing were polygonal – in line withGeorgian andArmenian prototypes. This "linear" variety of Byzantine architecture remained uncommon in the 19th century but surged in popularity in the reign ofNicholas II.[10]
Despite the support of the royal family, the reign of Alexander II did not produce many examples of the style: the economy, crippled by the Crimean War and further stressed by Alexander's reforms, was too weak to support mass construction. Once started, projects were delayed for decades. For example,Aleksei Avdeyev's draft of theSevastopol Cathedral was approved in 1862, but actual work started only in 1873. The foundations, built before the war, were already in place yet construction dragged on slowly until 1888, literally consuming the architect's life.[11] David Grimm'sTbilisi cathedral, designed in 1865, was started in 1871 and soon abandoned; construction resumed in 1889 and was completed in 1897. Grimm died one year later.[8]
In 1888Vasily Kosyakov found the ultimate proportion of a single-dome design. Blueprints of hisAstrakhan church were copied inKamianets-Podilskyi before the original was completed (1895–1904).[12]
Church construction and economy in general rebounded in the reign ofAlexander III (1881–1894). In thirteen and a half years, the properties of the Russian Orthodox church increased by more than 5,000 places of worship; by 1894 there were 47,419 temples including 695 majorcathedrals.[13] Most of the new temples, however, belonged to the late 19th century variant ofRussian Revival that became the official style of Alexander III. The turn in state preferences was signalled in 1881–1882 by two architectural contests for the design of theChurch of the Savior on Blood in Saint Petersburg. Both contests were dominated by Neo-Byzantine designs, yet Alexander dismissed them all and eventually awarded the project toAlfred Parland, setting the stylistic preference of the next decade. Highly publicized features ofSavior on the Blood – a centraltented roof, excessive ornaments in red brickwork and a clear reference to Moscow andYaroslavl relics of the 17th century – were instantly copied in smaller church buildings.[14]
Nearly all of the 5,000 churches attributed to Alexander III were financed through public donations. 100% state financing was reserved for a few palace churches directly catering to the royal family. The "military" churches built in military and naval bases were co-financed by the state, the officers, and through popular subscription among civilians. For example, the Byzantine church of the 13th infantry regiment inManglisi (Georgia), designed to accommodate 900 worshipers, cost 32,360 roubles, of which only 10,000 were provided by the state treasury.[15]
Preference forRussian Revival did not mean aversion to Byzantine architecture. Alexander displayed a clear aversion to 18th centurybaroque andneoclassicism that he despised as symbols ofPetrineabsolutism; Byzantine architecture was an acceptable "middle road".[16] Byzantine-style architects of the previous reign formed a numerous school with loyal clients, including senior clergy. Paradoxically, the Byzantine school was concentrated in theInstitute of Civil Engineers which also provided a department chair toNikolay Sultanov, informal leader of Russian Revival and an advisor to Alexander III.[17][18] Sultanov's graduate,Vasily Kosyakov, made himself famous by the Byzantine churches in Saint Petersburg (1888–1898) andAstrakhan (designed in 1888, built in 1895–1904), but was just as successful in Russian Revival projects (Libava Naval Cathedral, 1900–1903). Two schools coexisted in a normal working atmosphere, at least in Saint Petersburg.
Western and southern provinces engaged in large Byzantine projects designed byalumni of the Institute of Civil Engineers. Provincial architecture was frequently dominated by a single local architect (Alexander Bernardazzi inBessarabia,Alexander Yaschenko in southern Russia,Alexander Turchevich inPerm), which explains regional "clusters" of apparently similar churches. Architects usually followed the standard established by Kuzmin and Grimm, or the classical five-dome layout, with some notable exceptions.Kharkov Cathedral (1888–1901) was designed for 4,000 worshipers and equalled in heightIvan the Great Belltower in the Kremlin.[20] TheCathedral of the Kovno fortress (1891–1895, 2,000 worshipers), contrary to Byzantine canon, was adorned byCorinthian columns, giving rise to the "Roman–Byzantine" style.
Alexander's indifference to Byzantine architecture actually increased its appeal to private clients: the style was not reserved for the Church anymore. Elements of Byzantine art (rows of arches, two-tone striped masonry) were a common decoration ofbrick style factories and apartment buildings. They easily blended withRomanesque orMoorish revival traditions, as in theTbilisi Opera, designed byVictor Schroeter. Byzantine-Russianeclecticism became the preferred choice for municipal and privatealmshouses in Moscow. The trend was started byAlexander Ober's church of the Rukavishnikov almshouse (1879) and culminated in the extant Boyev almshouse inSokolniki (Alexander Ober, 1890s). Moscow clergy, on the contrary, did not commission a single Byzantine church between 1876 (church of Kazan Icon at Kaluga Gates) and 1898 (Epiphany cathedral inDorogomilovo).[21]
Boyev almshouse inSokolniki, Moscow, completed shortly after the ascension of Nicholas II. The tented roofs of the side towers are borrowed from contemporary Russian Revival toolset.
The personal tastes of the last emperor were mosaic: he promoted 17th-century Russian art in interior design and costume, yet displayed aversion to Russian Revival architecture. Nicholas or his Ministry of the Court did not demonstrate a lasting preference for any style; his last private commission, theLowerdacha inPeterhof,[22] was a Byzantine design following a string ofneoclassical revival buildings. State-funded construction was largely decentralised and managed by individual statesmen with their own agendas. For a short period preceding the disastrousRusso-Japanese War, Byzantine style apparently became the choice of state, at least of theImperial Navy which sponsored high-profile construction projects at metropolitan and overseas bases.[23]
The architecture of the last twenty years of the Russian Empire was marked by a rapid succession ofArt Nouveau andneoclassical revival. These styles dominated the private construction market but failed to get a firm niche in official Orthodox Church projects. However, Art Nouveau ideas slowly infiltrated traditional Byzantine architecture. Its influence was obvious in the furnishings of traditional Byzantine churches (Naval Cathedral in Kronstadt). Members of Art Nouveau (Fyodor Schechtel,Sergey Solovyov) and neoclassical (Vladimir Adamovich) schools created their own versions of the Byzantine style – either highly decorative (Schechtel's church in Ivanovo) or, on the contrary, "streamlined" (Solovyov'schurch in Kuntsevo). Eventually, the "northern" variety of Art Nouveau (Ilya Bondarenko) becamethe style of the legalizedOld Believers.
Fragmentation of style in small-scale projects developed in parallel to four very large, conservatively styled Neo-Byzantine cathedrals: theNaval Cathedral inKronstadt, cathedrals inTsaritsyn,Poti (present-dayGeorgia) andSofia (Bulgaria). Three of them (Kronstadt, Poti, Sofia) were a clearhomage to theHagia Sophia; their authors apparently dismissed the "golden rule" of single-dome designs established in the previous decades.[24] Exact reasons for this change in style are unknown; in case of the Kronstadt cathedral it can be traced to direct intervention byAdmiral Makarov.[25]
Poti cathedral, designed byAlexander Zelenko andRobert Marfeld, was unusual in being the first major church project built inreinforced concrete. It was structurally completed in a single construction season (1906–1907); the whole project took less than two years (November 1905 – July 1907), an absolute record for the period.[26] Kronstadt cathedral, also employing concrete, was structurally complete in four construction seasons (1903–1907) due to delays caused by theRussian Revolution of 1905. Other projects did not fare as well; Dorogomilovo cathedral in Moscow (1898–1910), designed to be the city's second largest, was plagued by money shortages and in the end consecrated in an incomplete, stripped-down form.[27]
The Russian branch of Byzantine architecture was terminated by the revolution of 1917 but found an unexpected afterlife inYugoslavia through the personal support of KingAlexander Karadjordjevic. Alexander sponsored Byzantine church projects by emigre architects inBelgrade,Lazarevac,Požega and other towns.Serbia andMontenegro became a new home to over a thousand construction workers and professionals from Russia.[28] Russian immigration to Yugoslavia, estimated at 40–70 thousands, was welcomed by the government as a quick replacement of professionals killed in World War I.[29]Vasily Androsov alone is credited with 50 Byzantine churches built in the interwar period.[30] Russian painters created the interiors of the Monastery of Presentation and the historicalRužica Church.[31]
TheRussian diaspora in Harbin produced two interwar Byzantine cathedrals. The larger Cathedral of Annunciation, designed and built byBoris Tustanovsky in 1930–1941, was destroyed during theCultural Revolution.[32] It was notable as one of the few large Russian Orthodoxbasilicas. A smaller, still extant Church of Protection, a single-dome structure designed in 1905 by Yury Zhdanov, was built in a single season in 1922. It has been Harbin's sole Orthodox place of worship since 1984.[33]
The church of theTheotokosOrans (Our Lady of the Sign) inVilnius (1899–1903) demonstrates typical features of developed Russian-Byzantine architecture: exposed two-tone, striped, masonry; four symmetricalapses tightly fused into the main dome, creating a tall triangular outline;arcades blending into the domes; and a relatively small belltower, clearly subordinate to the main dome.
Byzantine revival architecture, unlike contemporary revival styles, was easily identifiable by a rigid set of decorative tools. Some examples of the style deviated into Caucasian, neoclassical andRomanesque, yet all followed the basic dome and arcade design rule of medieval Constantinople:
Hemispherical domes. Byzantine churches were always crowned with simple hemispherical domes. Sometimes, as in the Theotokos Orans (Our Lady of the Sign) church inVilnius, they featured a small curvilinear pointed top at the base of a cross, otherwise the cross was mounted directly at the flattened apex of the dome.Onion domes andtented roofs ofvernacular Russian architecture were ruled out; they remained exclusive features of Russian Revival architecture sponsored by Alexander III, and were considerably heavier and more expensive than domes of the same diameter.[34]
Blending of arches and domes. The most visible feature of Byzantine churches is the absence of a formalcornice between the dome and its support. Instead, the supporting arcade blends directly into dome roof; tin roofing flows smoothly around the arches. Arches were designed for maximuminsolation via wide window openings. A few designs (Sevastopol Cathedral, 1862–1888,Livadia church, 1872–1876) also had wooden window shutters with circular cutouts, as used in medieval Byzantium. In the 20th century this pattern was reproduced in stone (Kuntsevo church, 1911), actuallyreducing insolation.
Exposed masonry. The Neoclassical canon enforced by Alexander I required masonry surfaces to be finished in flushstucco. Byzantine and Russian revival architects radically departed from this rule; instead, they relied on exposing exterior brickwork. While exposed brickwork dominated the scene, it was not universal; exterior stucco remained in use, especially in the first decade of Alexander II's reign.
Two-tone, stripedmasonry. Russian architects borrowed the Byzantine tradition of adorning flat wall surfaces with horizontal striped patterns. Usually, wide bands of dark red base brickwork were interleaved with narrow stripes of yellow of grey brick, slightly set back into the wall. Reverse (dark red stripes over grey background) was rare, usually associated withGeorgian variety of churches built in Nicholas II period. The importance of colour pattern increased with building size: it was nearly universal in large cathedrals but unnecessary in small parish churches.
The earliest standard of a symmetrical, single-dome cathedral ("Hagia Sophia standard") was set in the 6th century byJustinian I. Traditional Byzantine cathedrals had twopendentives orapses; the Russian standard developed by Kuzmin, Grimm and Kosyakov employed four.
The "Ravenna standard" ofByzantine Italy employed elongatedbasilicas. It remained common in Western Europe but was rarely used in Russia.
The five-domed type emerged in the 9th century and flourished during theMacedonian andComnenian dynasties. It was the preferred plan for Russian Orthodox churches for centuries.[35]
Large Neo-Byzantine cathedrals erected in Russia followed either the single-dome or the five-dome plan. The single-dome plan was standardized by David Grimm and Vasily Kosyakov, and used throughout the Empire with minimal changes. Five-dome architecture displayed greater variety as architects experimented with proportions and placement of the side domes:
Smaller churches almost always followed the single-dome plan. In a few cases (as in the Saint George church inArdon, 1885–1901) very small side domes were mechanically added to a basic single-dome floorplan. Basilica churches emerged in the last decade of the Empire; all examples were small parish churches like theKutuzov Hut Chapel in Moscow.
The Neoclassical canon dictated that thebelltower should be substantially taller than the main dome. A lean, tall belltower ideally balanced the relatively flat main structure. As early as the 1830s, Konstantin Thon and his followers ran into the "belltower problem": the compact vertical shapes of Thon's Russo-Byzantine cathedrals did not blend well with traditional belltowers. Thon's solution was to remove the belltower altogether, installing bells on a small detached belfry (Cathedral of Christ the Saviour), or integrating the belfry into the main structure (Yelets cathedral). The same problem persisted in Neo-Byzantine designs, at least in the conventional tall structures inspired by Grimm's Tbilisi cathedral. Grimm himself placed the bells in a fully detached, relatively low tower situated far behind the cathedral. However, the clergy clearly preferred integrated belltowers; detached belfries remained uncommon.
Ernest Gibert, author of theSamara cathedral (1867–1894), on the contrary, installed a massive tall belltower right above the main portal. Gibere deliberately placed the belltower unusually close to the main dome, so that at most viewing angles they blended in a single vertical shape. This layout was favored by the clergy but bitterly criticized by contemporary architects likeAntony Tomishko (architect ofKresty Prison and its Byzantine church of Alexander Nevsky). It was reproduced inTashkent (1867–1887),Łódź (1881–1884),Valaam Monastery (1887–1896),Kharkov (1888–1901),Saratov (1899) and other towns and monasteries. Most of the Byzantine buildings, however, followed the middle road: the belltower was also set above the portal, but it was relatively low (on par with side domes or apses or even lower), and spaced aside from the main dome (Riga cathedral, (1876–1884),Novocherkassk cathedral (1891–1904) and others).
Byzantine architecture, like Russian Revival, had the least chance to survive the anti-religious campaign of the 1920s. Destruction peaked in 1930, targeting large downtown cathedrals with no apparent logic: Kharkov cathedral of Saint Nicholas was demolished "to streamlinetram lines", while the larger cathedral of Annunciation remained standing. Most of remaining churches were closed, converted to warehouses, cinemas or offices, and left to rot without proper maintenance. Nevertheless, majority of Byzantine churches survived past the fall of theSoviet Union. The table below, including all major Byzantine cathedrals and large parish churches,[36] summarized current (2008) state of destruction and preservation:
Table: Neo-Byzantine cathedrals of the Russian Empire
Contemporary imitation of Byzantine style in concrete, Saint Petersburg, 1998–2008
The Byzantine style remains uncommon in contemporary Russian architecture. There have been projects attempting to imitate the outline and composition of typical Neo-Byzantine cathedrals inreinforced concrete, omitting the elaborate brickwork of historical prototypes (e.g.Church of Presentation of Jesus in Saint Petersburg).
Restoration of historical churches so far has a mixed record of success. There is at least one example of a Byzantine design ("City" church of Kazan Icon inIrkutsk) "restored" to imitate Russian Revival by adding tented roofs. While major cathedrals have been restored, churches in depopulated rural settlements or in the military bases (i.e. church of Our Lady the Merciful in Saint Petersburg) remain in dilapidated conditions.
(in Russian)Savelyev, Yu. R. Vizantiysky stil v architecture Rossii (Савельев, Ю. Р. Византийский стиль в архитектуре России. - СПБ., 2005) Saint Petersburg, 2005.ISBN5-87417-207-6
(in Russian)Savelyev, Yu. R. Iskusstvo istorizma i gosudarstvernny zakaz (Савельев, Ю. Р. Искуство историзма и государственный заказ. - М., 2008) Moscow, 2008.ISBN978-5-903060-60-3
(in Russian)Kaminsky, A. S. (editor) Khudozhestvenny sbornik russkih arhitektorov i inzhenerov (Художественный сборник русских архитекторов и инженеров), 1890–1893, electronic reissue by Russian Public History Library (Moscow), 2002–2004
(in Russian)Naschokina, M. V. Architektory moskovskogo moderna. (Нащокина М. В. Архитекторы московского модерна. – М.: Жираф, 2005) Moscow, 2005.ISBN5-89832-043-1
(in English) Richard S. Wortman. Scenarios of Power. Princeton University Press, 2000.ISBN978-0-691-02947-4
^(in English) Bratislav Pantelić. Nationalism and Architecture: The Creation of a National Style in Serbian Architecture and Its Political Implications. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 56, No. 1 (March, 1997), pp. 16-41
^The table is based primarily onSavelyev, p.255-269; it excludes chapels, house churches, interior-only projects and buildings located outside of historical Russian Empire.
^The original 18th-century church was destroyed by fire of 1879 and rebuilt in a mix of Neo-Byzantine and Russian Revival (i.e. a Byzantine dome, blended into an arcade, was crowned with a small onion dome).
^(in Russian)Kryuchkova, T. A. Irkutskaya Blagoveschenskaya cerkov. (Крючкова Т.А. Иркутская Благовещенская церковь. – 1999. № 5)Taltsy magazine, 1999 N. 5
^Naschokina, p.469, dates the design1897-1898. Schechtel, busy involved in Moscow, was not closely monitoring the Ivanovo project.
^Note that Lviv was at that time located inAustro-Hungary. Construction of St. George was a local initiative not related directly to state-sponsored church construction in adjacentCongress Poland.
^The cathedral was laid down before theCrimean War toKonstantin Thon's design. After the war, Thon's design was discarded, the project awarded to Avdeev.
.jpg)
.JPG)
