FIRST THEATER IN KYIV
Historically, Kyiv did not have a stationary drama company — precisely, a building housing one — until the early nineteenth century. The reason had nothing to do with the residents’ indifference. Despite numerous political, social, and economic problems, theatrical performances remained a most favored and popular pastime.
The elite preferred dramas staged at the Kyiv Mohyla Collegium (later the Theological Academy), directed by local professors, with the cast made up of students. The burghers mostly attended marketplace vertep itinerant puppet shows.
In the late eighteenth century changes took place in Kyiv, increasing public interest in the theater and facilitating the construction of a special building. In 1797, Kyiv guberniya (province), mostly located on the left bank of the Dnipro, extended to the right bank, giving a fresh impetus to socioeconomic life in the region in general and Kyiv in particular. More importantly, the Kontraktovy Yarmarok [Contract Fair] was transferred to Kyiv from its original site in Dubno. Kyiv thus turned into the economic center of the region which had an immediate effect on the city’s cultural life. The fair would be held on Christmas Eve. More often than not, nobles attended with their families, wishing to see “the world” and make new acquaintances. The fair would last a month, the time of endless balls, parties, concerts, and theatrical performances. All this called for specially equipped premises.
The time of construction of Kyiv’s first theater can be determined only approximately. Mykola Zakrevsky believed that “the first theater was built of wood in 1803, yet the most likely date seems 1806.” He did not explain why 1806. According to Illia Nikolayev, construction began in 1801 and the theater opened March 9, 1803, with A Rhyming Cossack, written by Count Shakhovsky and staged by a Polish- Russian troupe. Nikolayev provides no reference. Modern available literature refers the construction to 1803-07. We believe that 1803 is the most likely date, proceeding from Danylo Shcherbakivsky, a noted Kyiv scholar, who wrote an article, “The First Theatrical House of Kyiv and the Premises” (1928). The author analyzes the layout of the “first Volodymyr part of the City of Kyiv, allocated for construction in accordance with a newly drawn up plan.” The layout, embracing the residential districts of Lypky and Khreshchatyk, specifies plots for private homes, owners’ names, and exact dates of conveyance. Plot No. 46, the last on the list, is dated June 6, 1803. This, in Shcherbakivsky’s opinion proves that the plan dates from 1803, and it has a plot designated for the construction of the city’s first theater.
As for the social status of the landholders, of 46 plots allocated in 1793- 1803 the best went to Kyiv’s aristocracy, Counts Rumyantsev and Saltykov, Countess Khovanska, wife of the Military Governor Felshch, Privy Councilors Naryshkin and Milashevsky. Over one-third of the plots were held by state and court councilors, collegiate and guberniya councilors, officers, and civil servants; almost one-third went to merchants and burghers. It means that the magistrate abided primarily by the interests of the propertied and ranking residents when selecting the site for the theater. A very reasonable and logically sound approach, it should be noted, in that it opened further perspectives for the city.
The plot intended for the theater is designated as follows: “To: Collegiate Assessor Melenskaya, February 10, 1803.” According to Shcherbakivsky, construction started not in 1801 but after February 10, 1803, since giving a private individual a plot with the construction of a public building in progress made no sense. Apart from the date, this entry also hints at who was the author of the construction project. At the time the post of Kyiv City Architect was held by Collegiate Assessor Andriy Melensky. Acquisition of the plot for the benefit of his wife and its subsequent transfer to the magistrate allowed Melensky to get the theater construction contract and eventually carry it out successfully. P. Shchytkovsky, husband of Melensky’s great granddaughter, recalls that the architect’s family had their own box at the theater and free admittance precisely because he was the author of the architectural design. The building was done in the Empire style with a solemn Doric portico and harmonious localization, characteristic of the architect’s creative approach (Melensky did much to build Kyiv’s attractive architectural visage).
The theater was built behind the wall of the Old City (running along what is now Triokhsviatytelska Street), where a large wasteland began, stretching from Yevseiska Valley and Pisky, future components of Khreshchatyk in the vicinity of today’s European Square. In the early nineteenth century it was the site of a horse market and was popularly known as Kinska Ploshcha (Horse Square). After the theater was built the locality was gradually improved and received the unofficial name of Teatralna Ploshcha (Theater Square)
In the available literature the most detailed description of the theater belongs to Zakrevsky. As the author of The Chronicle and Description of Kyiv was himself a Kyivan and, of course, saw and visited the theater, his description can be considered first hand. He writes in part, “... the theater was opposite the Royal Garden, below today’s Dominican Cathedral and at the beginning of Khreshchatyk Street, not far from Khreshchatytsky uzviz (currently Andriyivsky Uzviz). It was made of wood, showing correct albeit somewhat heavy architecture...” Regrettably, neither the layout nor any of the later blueprints have survived the ravages of time. There are three known images of the theater: Zakrevsky’s drawing, the lithograph “View of Khreshchatyk in Kyiv,” and one included in the Kyiv Panorama along with several line drawings in city plans of the first half of the nineteenth century.
Zakrevsky’s drawing shows a long rectangular structure facing Khreshchatyk, with its side to Andriyivsky uzviz leading down to Podil. The main entrance is shaped as a two-column Doric portico in a broad niche, a semicircular window with a balustrade on the pediment. Two rows of windows make the structure look two-story. On the right side was a single story extension with two windows and high cottage roof. On both sides the extension was flanked by three medium-size columns with massive balustraded cornices.
In the lithograph “View of Khreshchatyk in Kyiv” the theater is in the background, to the right, showing St. Michael’s Monastery atop the hill and the Catholic cathedral. Unlike Zakrevsky’s drawing, the theater is depicted with a six-column portico embracing the facade. There are two medium-size extensions on the sides of the portico, with doors opening on the main entrance.
The theater portrayed in the Kyiv Panorama (1850) in many ways resembles this same image. It is also oblong, with a covered six-column portico, two extensions on the sides, with two windows and doors facing the main entrance. There are also two rows of windows, but on the side of the facade. The upper row windows are a little smaller. There are chimneys, attesting to internal heating.
The most precise layout of the theater is found in A. Melensky’s 1816 plan of Kyiv. Here one finds only side extensions and a niche in the main facade, along with an extension, perhaps a portico, to the side of the rear facade. The structure had apparently been rebuilt. Little is known about the size and interior. Considering Melensky outlay’s scale, the theater was about 17 meters in width (less the side extensions) and 35 meters long. Billboards dating from 1816 show that it had boxes of three types, each seating four: “lower boxes,” “first floor boxes,” and “second floor” or “gallery” ones. In addition, 1816-27 billboards point to “seats,” “parterre,” and “gallery” (also known as “paradise”). The “seats” were actually rows of benches with red cloth upholstered partitions. “Parterre” was the area behind the “seats” where people had to stand. The cost of tickets varied from 60 kopecks to 25 rubles. Season tickets were quite popular: 500 rubles for an upper box for 100 performances; 450 rubles for a lower box, 200 rubles for a seat, and 100 rubles for a place in the parterre. Aristocrats and merchants preferred to buy boxes and seats. Contemporary accounts mention it had very good acoustics. Very serious attention was paid to props and special stage effects.
The repertoire was meant to satisfy the most variegated tastes: dramas, tragedies, comedies, operas, ballets, pantomimes, puppet shows, and concerts. The wood theater hosted Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, French, and Italian troupes, along with outstanding performers of the first half of the nineteenth century, among them Shchepkin, Mochalova, Zhyvokin, Martynova, Samoilova, Sandunova, and Catalini. Performances lasted throughout the year, even in summer, being suspended only for Lent. On festive royal occasions the theater would be richly “illuminated” with a free gallery and parterre entrance. In 1840, the impresario was obligated to stage one charity performance with the proceeds used for the needs of the poor.
Due to its urban status, the theater was first run by the magistrate and then by the City Duma (Council). By the mid-nineteenth century, with the city having considerably expanded, then theater could no longer supply its cultural needs. For the duration of the Contract Fair, with an influx of musicians, singers, choirs, and drama companies, the audience of the Contract House was used, as were also spacious private homes and schools.
Due to objective reasons, the wood structure existed for less than fifty years. It quickly fell into disrepair. Moreover, its seating capacity was too small as the city population had nearly doubled, compared to the early nineteenth century. Its last performance — Grigoriev’s two-act comedy “School of Life” and a one-act ballet staged by Rykanovsky troupe — took place on July 30, 1851. Demolition work began on August 10.
A new theater opened in Kyiv in 1856. It was considerably larger and built of a more durable material. And the site was different, a plot that was being developed for the first time and which currently accommodates the National Opera. In 1837-43, the main building of St. Volodymyr University was built in the vicinity, designed by Vikentiy Beretti, later followed by a women’s gymnasium and Countess Levashova’s boarding school. With time the area turned into a well- planned city district. During the period the municipal authorities obviously acted according to the same principle as when building the first theater, placing major emphasis not on old cultural venues but on new residential areas and their inhabitants’ interests.
