WOODEN ARCHITECTURE

THE earliest examples of wooden church architecture surviving into this century dated back to the early seventeenth century. This relative lack of early examples is partly to be explained by the perishable nature of wood, partly to the fires which fre- quently devastated Russian towns and villages. To the art historian, however, this is not of fundamental importance, for the traditional building styles were retained with surprising conservatism through many centuries, and whenever an old church needed repairing the new work copied the old. New churches again closely conformed to the original local styles. Indeed, many of the wooden churches of North Russia, though dating from the later Middle Ages, must have been exact replicas of far earlier buildings.

All available evidence goes to show that construction in wood was of very great age in Russia. We have thus seen that Novgorod’s first St. Sophia was built of oak; we know that many developed structures in stone or brick, such as Pskov’s belfries, were derived from wooden prototypes, and even in central and southern Russia, where stone and brick were easily obtained, wood was used for houses and smaller churches right down to 1917, in spite of the obvious advant- ages of the more permanent materials. In fact, building in wood was indigenous, and the theories of certain nineteenth- century scholars that the wooden churches of North Russia owed a great deal to North German or Scandinavian influence must therefore be discounted. Any resemblances that the buildings of the two areas show are probably to be attri- buted to parallel evolution along independent lines. When like climatic conditions, similar social needs and an identical

type of material prosent in two areas, the independent are production of well-nigh identical results is indeed practically inevitable. In central and southern Russia, however, Western influence was very marked, and foreign features are particu- larly prevalent in the Ukraine, which was rich in claborate wooden churches.

Of the characteristic Russian styles of wooden architecture four main groups may be distinguished. Of these, the mul- tiple-domed type is perhaps the most arresting. It derives its name from the profusion of domes in a single building. The domes rise from amidst clusters of gables of that essentially Russian shape termed “kokoshnik”, after the similarly shaped headdresses worn by Russian women in mediæval times. The fine eighteenth-century church at Kizhi is the most elaborate surviving example of this exceedingly decorative style (Plate 7A).

The many-storied type of church, so called because of its numerous roof-levels, is almost as picturesque as the multiple- domed type. The pitch of the roofs is up to a point evocative of the pagoda and exercises a curious fascination as it rises from the flat countryside in a crescendo of flounces and frills. The church at Nikolskoe is a good example of this style.

The cellular type, of which the Church of the Visitation in the Elgom Wilderness is a characteristic example, is perhaps the most distinctive of the four groups. It derives its name from the substructures forming its ground story. This feature found its way into stone architecture, appearing in a modified form both in Muscovite churches and in early Petersburgian domestic architecture.

It is, however, the pyramid or tent type of church that figures most prominently in Russian architecture. It derives its name from the shape of its steeple, which, as in the case of the Church of the Trinity at Podporozhie, often attains great height. In the sixteenth century its outlines exercised such

irresistible fascination over the Muscovites that they suc- ceeded in retaining them in some of their finest stone and brick churches, achieving remarkably picturesque effects by the juxtaposition of the pyramid roof-line and the domed.

Notwithstanding their external differences, these wooden churches were very much alike inside. On entering any one of them the congregation first penetrated into a very low cham- ber called a trapeza. This was intended for purely secular purposes, such as the provision of warmth and shelter, and on occasion even of eating- and sleeping-room for the worship- pers from outlying villages. The smallest possible space was devoted to the trapeza, but the villagers installed themselves comfortably in it, often gossiping gaily the while; its genial atmosphere suggests that the trapeza may have survived from pagan times, instead of evolving, as is generally assumed, from the Orthodox Church’s desire to provide its congregation with shelter from the intense heat of summer and the winter’s cold. It was separated from the main body of the church by an exceedingly thick wall, intended to deaden noise, but very narrow slits were cut in it to enable those who could not find room in the crowded church itself to follow the service from the trapeza.
The main body of the church was also very small, and usually only a third higher than the trapeza. Its most striking feature, the iconostasis, was generally elaborately carved by local craftsmen, and supplied the only decorative note in a somewhat humble interior. The church’s gates and the crosses in the cemeteries were often carved by the same hand as the iconostasis. A detached bell-tower generally stood near the church. Both were set in a clearing. Monasteries were, on the other hand, often enclosed by defensive walls built of wood, but constructed on the Byzantine principles transmitted to

northern Russia by Pskov. From mid-mediæval times onwards the cottages were often

delightfully decorated with carved and painted woodwork. Their window surrounds were the first to receive this treat- ment, but the introduction of the gabled roof soon provided further scope for decoration; later still, balconies, window- shutters and roof-caves came to be decorated also. Inside, the cottages were cosy and cheerful, for the peasants were deter- mined to bring as much pattern and colour into their lives as possible. Whilst the womenfolk contributed the embroidery, lace and woven fabrics, the men provided most of the fur- niture and household utensils. Their combined industry soon filled the cottages with carved and painted cupboards, chests, chairs, cradles, looms, curtains, towels, spoons, forks and combs. The children’s toys and the household’s pottery vessels were all gaily coloured, and so were the farm carts and sledges, even the garden gates. The designs generally consisted of floral and animal motives in which the cock’s comb pre- dominated, and of stylized patterns derived from them. They were a welcome sight in this rather monotonous northern land- scape, which was further enlivened by magnificent wind- mills. Those in the Vologda district were particularly im- pressive and romantic landmarks, weird when seen in the dusk of a winter afternoon. They appealed strongly to popular imagination, playing an important part in northern Russian folk-lore.

2025 – 01 – 08..

Moscow …. leninsky prospekt …