Dejа Vu Effect

The Day has regularly broached the question of whether the Desiatynna Tserkva should be restored. In issue No. 6 (February 22, 2005) the entire project was called into question. Today we offer Mr. Hryhoriy POLIUSHKO’s views on the subject.

In the last few months we were anxious about the destiny of Ukraine and praying for a better future. Then the Orange Revolution triumphed, which is now an historical fact. President Viktor Yushchenko and the new government will have to travel along a thorny, winding path. The main problem is not to repeat past mistakes but to abide by the democratic principles of governance and discard the practice of ignoring citizens’ ideas and aspirations. Judging by recent events, doing this is easier said than done. A television station recently ran a feature about the restoration of the Church of the Tithes, (also called the Church of the Mother of God), which was destroyed in 1240. The program stated that restoration works are already underway, and that in two years the church will be restored, complete with rich frescoes and mosaic pieces. Several years ago this issue was the subject of wide public debate. Experts agreed that the project could not be carried out for a number of reasons. However, Ukrproektrestavratsiya, being the principal interested organization, did not agree with the experts’ findings and has been pushing through the restorations project after the change of government in Ukraine. The staff of the Oles Honchar Ukrainian Foundation for the Restoration of Outstanding Historical and Literary Relics says that the Desiatynna Church restoration issue had never actually been on the agenda.

But several days later, anxiety was quelled when the Ukrainian president broached the subject. When he introduced Mayor Oleksandr Omelchenko to the Kyiv community, Viktor Yushchenko assigned him the task of restoring a church that was ruined hundreds of years ago. References to the Desiatynna Church as a factor capable of bringing Ukrainian society closer together are not totally on the mark because we have a multiconfessional country; we won’t become instantly different. After all, there is a huge chasm dividing certain strata in terms of income, culture, and religion. Without a doubt, some of the faithful will wholeheartedly support the restoration project, because this issue is sacred to them. These people will always support this type of project, even if it requires tearing down other structures, including useful and effective buildings. However, is the Desiatynna Church restorations project a matter of national importance? Can this building project serve as a unifying focus for Ukrainian society and become our holy place, which will be more important for us than St. Sophia’s Cathedral or the Cave Monastery? Such issues don’t even require any discussion. But for a better understanding of this question, let us turn to history.

THE CHURCH’S CONSTRUCTION

The Church of the Mother of God was erected by Greek builders commissioned by Kyiv Grand Prince Volodymyr in 996 AD. The prince allocated a tenth of his revenues for the project, hence the popular appellation: Desiatynna (Tithes). The grand stone temple was originally lavishly decorated with frescoes, mosaics, and icons. Its principal relics were the remains of Pope Clement and other saints brought by Prince Volodymyr from Korsun, after his conquest of that city. This religious edifice played an important role in Kyivan Rus’, especially in the early years after the adoption of Christianity. Some chronicles refer to it as a “cathedral church.” However, the church lost its leading role after the construction of St. Sophia’s Cathedral, but remained the second major temple in Kyivan Rus’ and the final resting place of several princes of Rus’. St. (Prince) Volodymyr was also buried there. However, this did not spare the Church of the Mother of God from being looted during the era of internecine strife among the Rus’ princes. The winter of 1240 marked a tragic period in its history. The church was destroyed by battering rams during the Golden Horde’s onslaught, with the remaining defenders of the city dying among the debris.

The Uniates built a small wooden church on the site and named it after Mykola Desiatynny (St. Nicholas of the Tithes). In 1633 the Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Petro Mohyla of Kyiv took it over. Several years later he ordered excavation works on the site to unearth evidence of Orthodoxy’s antiquity, and the Uniate church was dismantled in the process. Petro Mohyla recognized one of the excavated burial sites as belonging to St. Volodymyr. On his orders, the skull was treated as a holy relic and ceremoniously transferred to the Church of the Holy Redeemer at Berestove. It was subsequently transferred to the Dormition Cathedral on the grounds of the Kyivan Cave Monastery. The lower jaw was sent to the Dormition Cathedral in Moscow, at the Russian tsar’s request. The right hand was delivered to St. Sophia’s Cathedral in Kyiv. The rest of the skeleton was left intact where it was found. The metropolitan ordered the commemoration of this event by erecting a small church on the site. Construction was finished in 1655, after the death of Petro Mohyla. This two-story structure was built on the site of the original church’s right atrium, including what was left of the Desiatynna’s walls.

Nothing is eternal in this world. In the early 19th century the church required considerable funds for renovations. Yevhen Bolkhovytinov, then the Metropolitan of Kyiv, decided to have the church dismantled and replaced with a new and larger church, using the original foundation that had to be studied first. This was done. Construction began in August 1828, according to architect Vasily Stasov’s design. The project was financed by the well-to-do, retired First Lieutenant Aleksandr Annenkov. The construction work lasted thirteen years and cost him 100,000 silver rubles.

For as long as the new Desiatynna Church existed, it was considered a major Kyivan church, although it remained essentially a parish church. Divine services were regularly conducted until 1929, when the church was closed, on orders from the presidium of the Kyiv district executive committee, and converted into a club of atheists. The very next year, however, the Regional Inspectorate for the Protection of Monuments took over the church premises to establish a state preserve called “Kyiv Acropolis.” The inspectorate’s ambitious plans turned out to be short-lived and the Desiatynna Church was dismantled in 1935, after being classed as a site with no “creative value.” The local authorities transferred items of explicit artistic worth from the vestry to various Kyiv museums; likewise, the sepulcher of St. Volodymyr, along with the remains of 50 other saints, was transferred to the “Antireligious Museum” on the premises of what is now St. Volodymyr’s Cathedral in Kyiv.

SCHOLARLY STUDIES OF THE CATHEDRAL

The first excavations on the grounds of the Church of the Mother of God took place under Metropolitan Petro Mohyla. However, there are no grounds to call this a scientific endeavor. All pertinent data may be found in the literature. The next study was undertaken in 1824-25 by Kyiv’s specialist in the field of antiquities Kindrat Lokhvytsky and continued in 1825 by St. Petersburg’s architect N. Yefimov. What was left of the foundation was fully unearthed. A number of interior sections were discovered during the excavation work, including the floor, numerous metal ornaments, and two sepulchers originally opened while Petro Mohyla was Metropolitan. Both researchers insisted that their restoration measurements were correct, and this dispute led to sharp debates between the two. In the end, the restoration of the Church of the Tithes was assigned to Vasily Stasov, but the final result had nothing to do with the original ancient Rus’ church, and disappointment was voiced in certain quarters.

In 1908-14, an expedition led by D. Mileyev, member of the Imperial Archaeological Committee, studied the foundations of the ancient Rus’ temple, which were outside the perimeter of the new church. The numerous finds were sent to St. Petersburg, most of which are still there.

WHAT DO THEY WANT TO “RESTORE”?

Unfortunately, there are no real images of this ancient Rus’ church. What has reached our time is a copy of a drawing of the ruins from the first quarter of the 19th century, dated 1884. It is hard to judge the architecture of the ancient temple from this illustration. Beginning with K. Lokhvytsky, almost all specialists have tried to reconstruct the foundation plans, with some attempting to reconstruct the entire church. Top-notch Ukrainian architects and fine arts experts have also worked on it. However, there has never been unanimity, as each specialist has developed his own concept. As for the architectural appearance, specialists are still arguing about the type of church it was, the number of domes, gallery floors, etc. The noted Soviet expert on old Rus’ architecture, Yu. Aseyev, stated that all reconstructions are hypothetical, since they lack original data. As for the cathedral’s interior, there is nothing to be discussed. All those fragments of interior decorations that were found during excavations offer no information about the painting scenes, their layout, mosaic panels, etc. In other words, there are no grounds for discussing any kind of “restoration.” The heads of Ukrproektrestavratsiya agree with this assumption. Their project plan is none other than a plan for a 9th-10th century Greek temple. Its realization will benefit only certain individuals, who are planning to make good money on it. There is a whiff of the recent past in the air now, reminiscent of the days when the government would seldom heed popular opinion or the views of academics. There is a real risk that the construction project will begin at any moment. The arguments offered by R. Kukharenko, head of the Kyiv Directorate for the Protection of the Cultural Legacy, in support of the “restoration” of the Church of the Mother of God are rather bizarre. According to Mr. Kukharenko, “it’s better to restore the church than allow people to walk their dogs on the grounds.”

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES

The construction of some kind of Greek church in place of the ancient Rus’ Church of the Tithes, and the restoration of the original name, Desiatynna, may reinforce Kyiv’s negative international image as a city of counterfeit rather than genuine monuments. Nor will the project serve as a mausoleum, because the princely necropolis has long been destroyed. Gone are the head and other remains of St. Volodymyr, as well as the remains of the 50 saints.

The next box-model above the remains of the ancient foundations will not be a unifying symbol of Ukraine because it will be an entirely different church, with new kinds of ornaments, mosaics, and icons — with everything left to the current designer’s discretion. In addition, the structure’s southeast corner will jut out onto Volodymyrska St., obscuring the view of St. Andrew’s Church. All this construction may cost the Ukrainian people no less than 100 million hryvnias. Is this something Ukrainian society really needs? I doubt it.

However, few if any are likely to object to the proper museification of what is left of the foundations of the first church of Rus’-Ukraine, with the erection of a memorial cross. It is also necessary to mark the sites of other ruined ancient Rus’ monuments. The remains of St. Volodymyr may serve as a symbol or unity of the Ukrainian people; these remains must be found, scientifically identified, and properly honored.