Connect with us

RussiaFeed

Culture

Art

The Trinity Monastery in Tyumen: A testament to faith in Siberia

Culture, conflict, and incredible craftsmanship have shaped this architectural gem that has survived the ravages of time

Published

on

34 Views

We are very pleased to present an article from the great Professor William Brumfield, (Wikipedia), Professor of Slavic Studies at Tulane University, New Orleans, USA.

Related image

Professor William Brumfield is among the world’s foremost experts on Russian architecture, and he has a genuine heartfelt love for the Russian culture and people. His work in photographing some of Russia’s most famous, and obscure sites has gone a long way in preserving these parts of Russia’s national heritage, by drawing attention to their beauty and need for preservation. One of the most beautiful aspects of looking at the Professor’s work is that by Providence, you can actually see the amazing reconstruction of Holy Russia, which has occurred since the 1990’s. Just look at this image and compare the Monastery then and now.

In the center, is the Professor’s photograph taken in 1999, surrounded by more recent photos. One can clearly see the monastery has been restored to its former glory. The way his work helped to draw attention to the need for this restoration will not be forgotten.
This earned him the respect of Russians, and an honorary fellowship in the illustrious Russian Academy of the Arts founded in 1757.

His most recent masterpiece takes the readers to the farthest reaches of the world: “Architecture At The End Of The Earth, Photographing The Russian North (2015). (Amazon). The Amazon copy is quite affordable. and a must for any lover of Russian architecture, as his classic “A History of Russian Architecture” provides a great overview of Russia’s glorious culture as portrayed in her monumental works.

Russia Beyond the Headlines has happily joined in at making Professor Brumfield’s available.

Hats off to William Brumfield; we wish him a heartfelt Многая Лета – Monogaya Leta (Many Years) for all his work in preserving Russia’s ancient culture!

Professor Brumfield’s work has opened a portal into Holy Russia. May all those who wish to see enter therein, and be amazed at what beauty she has to offer the world.

And so it was that “Beauty will save the world.” ~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky

As you look through his article on the Holy Trinity Monastery, just remember this is what it looks like now, after its glorious restoration:

The following material originally appeared at Russia Beyond the Headlines

To see more articles just like it, click here

The Trinity Monastery in Tyumen: A testament to faith in Siberia

Culture, conflict, and incredible craftsmanship have shaped this architectural gem that has survived the ravages of time.

Tyumen. Trinity Monastery. Church of Sts. Peter and Paul (left), Trinity Cathedral. East view from Tura River. Sept. 4, 1999.

At the beginning of the 20th century the Russian chemist and photographer Sergei Prokudin-Gorsky developed a complex process for vivid color photography (see box text below). His vision of photography as a form of education and enlightenment was demonstrated with special clarity through his images of architectural monuments in the historic sites throughout the Russian heartland.

In June 1912, Prokudin-Gorsky ventured into western Siberia as part of a commission to document the Kama-Tobolsk Waterway, a link between the European and Asian sides of the Ural Mountains. The town of Tyumen served as a launching point for his journey north to Tobolsk, located on the Irtysh River. While there, he photographed the Trinity Monastery, one of the oldest in Siberia. My photographs of Tyumen and Tobolsk were taken in the late summer of 1999.

Trinity Monastery. Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, southwest view. June 1912.

Gateway to the east

The opening of Siberia for Russian colonization during the late 16th and 17th centuries is the story of the conquest of vast distances in a severe land by enterprising Russian merchants, whose commercial interests coincided with the tsars’ appetite for eastern expansion. Tyumen, founded in 1586 on the site of a Tatar encampment at the confluence of the Tura and Tyumenka Rivers, is considered the earliest permanent Russian settlement in Siberia.

Trinity Monastery. Trinity Cathedral, southeast view across Tura River. Sept. 4, 1999.

Tyumen was established on the initiative of Boris Godunov, the power behind the throne of Tsar Feodor I, who became tsar himself in 1598. Godunov was aware of the importance of Siberia in part from his association with the Stroganov family. The Stroganovs had sent a detachment of Cossacks from their commercial center at Solvychegodsk into Siberia to challenge the power of the Tatar ruler, Khan Kuchum.

The band of Cossacks was commanded by Yermak Timofeevich. Yermak’s origins and identity remain a matter of dispute, but it is likely that he and his men had engaged in brigandage and river piracy before enlisting as mercenaries for the Stroganovs. Although the dates are open to question, it appears that in the fall of 1581, Yermak captured Chingi-Tura (later Tyumen) but abandoned it in order to proceed to Kashlyk, Khan Kuchum capital. Yermak defeated the khan in 1582 during a battle near the Irtysh River. Yermak himself died in a surprise raid in 1585. 

Trinity Monastery. Bell tower&Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, northeast view. Photo: William Brumfield. Aug. 29, 1999.

Like most early Russian towns in Siberia, Tyumen served as a garrison fortress for Cossacks and other troops who protected trade routes, particularly with China, during the 17th century. Tyumen’s location on the Tura River provided a direct link westward to the gateway town of Verkhoturye, which was founded by Boris Godunov on the Asian side of the Ural Mountains in 1598. To the northeast of Tyumen, the Tura flows into the Tobol River, which in turn joins the mighty Irtysh near Tobolsk. Given its favorable location, Tyumen was destined to play a significant role in the development of Siberia.

Kiev in Siberia

There are no architectural remains from Tyumen’s first century. The early buildings were of wood (including the stockade walls) and were susceptible to fires, such as the one that destroyed most of the town in 1695. Subsequently, the Siberian Office in Moscow encouraged the use of brick and stone for major buildings. Masonry construction also reflected the views of the young Tsar Peter I (the Great), who undertook the expansion of the Russian presence in Siberia despite the burdens of a major war with Sweden. However, large fires continued to devastate the town (in 1705 and 1766), and the lack of qualified masons impeded construction.

Trinity Monastery. Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, bell tower, south gate. Southwest view. June 1912.

The most imposing early brick structures are at the Trinity Monastery, founded in 1616 (date uncertain) on the high right bank of the Tura River on the northern edge of Tyumen. Originally dedicated to the Transfiguration of the Savior, the monastery was transformed in the early part of the 18th century by an energetic Ukrainian prelate, Filofei (Rafail Leshchinsky), who in 1702 was designated Metropolitan of Tobolsk and Siberia.

Leshchinsky studied at the Kiev Spiritual Academy and subsequently rose in the hierarchy of the renowned Monastery of the Caves in Kiev. It is therefore not surprising that the architecture of the Trinity Monastery displays Ukrainian Baroque elements. The center of the monastery is dominated by the Cathedral of the Trinity, built in 1709-1715. From the exterior detailing to the form of the cupolas, the structure shows Ukrainian ornamental motifs to such an extent as to suggest completion by a Ukrainian builder.

Trinity Monastery. South gate, bell tower, Church of Sts. Peter and Paul. Northeast view. Photo: William Brumfield. Aug. 29, 1999.

The Trinity Cathedral was closed in 1923 and its interior was vandalized during the Soviet period. Additionally, its structural integrity was threatened by the construction of a water plant between the Tura River and the north wall of the church. This site actually had been the location of the monastery’s second church, dedicated to the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste (also known as Saints Zosima and Savvatii), completed in 1717 and razed in the 1940s. Unfortunately, there is no record that Prokudin-Gorsky photographed it or the Trinity Cathedral.

In 1711, Filofei resigned his position as Metropolitan of Siberia to become abbot of the Trinity Monastery. At the end of 1715, he resumed leadership of the vast Siberian Metropolitanate, but after five years, he again retired to lead the monastery until his death in 1727.

Trinity Monastery. Church of Sts. Peter and Paul&bell tower. Southeast view. Sept. 4, 1999.

Filofei’s connections with the imperial court were necessary to continue construction at the Tyumen monastery. Peter the Great needed experienced masons for the building of St. Petersburg and had issued a ban on masonry construction elsewhere in Russia between 1714-22. Soon after the revocation of Peter’s construction decree, Filofei began planning for a third church at the Trinity Monastery — the Church of Saints Peter and Paul — together with brick walls, an entrance gate and a monastery residence. The lack of material and labor delayed foundation work until 1726, and the monastery’s resources rapidly diminished after prelate’s death the following year. Construction resumed some ten years later with the completion of the brick walls in 1739, the bell tower in 1741, and Church of Sts. Peter and Paul in 1755.

Prokudin-Gorsky’s superb view of the Peter-Paul Church from open space outside the south wall shows a cruciform structure related to the Ukrainian Baroque, thus suggesting the completion of plans before Leshchinsky’s death. It is possible that the original domes resembled the two-tiered cupolas typical of Ukrainian architecture and still seen in the nearby Trinity Cathedral. A fire in 1842 damaged the roof and led to a rebuilding with traditional onion domes that are visible in Prokudin-Gorsky’s and my own almost nine decades later.

Trinity Monastery. Bell tower with Church of Sts. Peter and Paul. Southeast view. Aug. 29, 1999.

Although documentary evidence is lacking, the church design has been attributed to Semyon Remezov, the main architect of Tobolsk at the beginning of the 18th century. It bears resemblance to both the Church of St. George at Kiev’s Vydubetskii Monastery and the Church of All Saints (1698-1701) over the Ekonom Gate at the Monastery of the Caves — monuments that would have been familiar to Leshchinsky.

The large attached bell tower with a conical crown follows a pattern widespread in the 16th and 17th centuries. Recently restored and returned to active use, the Trinity Monastery once again graces the high bank of the Tura River.

Trinity Monastery. From left: Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, bell tower, south gate&wall, Trinity Cathedral. Southeast view. Aug. 29, 1999.

In the early 20th century the Russian photographer Sergei Prokudin-Gorsky devised a complex process for color photography. Between 1903 and 1916 he traveled through the Russian Empire and took over 2,000 photographs with the process, which involved three exposures on a glass plate. In August 1918, he left Russia and ultimately resettled in France with a large part of his collection of glass negatives. After his death in Paris in 1944, his heirs sold the collection to the Library of Congress. In the early 21st century the Library digitized the Prokudin-Gorsky Collection and made it freely available to the global public. Many Russian websites now have versions of the collection. In 1986 the architectural historian and photographer William Brumfield organized the first exhibit of Prokudin-Gorsky photographs at the Library of Congress. Over a period of work in Russia beginning in 1970, Brumfield has photographed most of the sites visited by Prokudin-Gorsky. This series of articles will juxtapose Prokudin-Gorsky’s views of architectural monuments with photographs taken by Brumfield decades later.

See more at: Russia Beyond the Headlines

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

US continues to try to corner Russia with silence on Nukes

Moscow continues to be patient in what appears to be an ever more lopsided, intentional stonewalling situation provoked by the Americans.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

TASS reported on March 17th that despite Russian readiness to discuss the present problem of strategic weapons deployments and disarmament with its counterparts in the United States, the Americans have not offered Russia any proposals to conduct such talks.

The Kremlin has not yet received any particular proposals on the talks over issues of strategic stability and disarmament from Washington, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told TASS on Sunday when commenting on the statement made by US National Security Adviser John Bolton who did not rule out that such talks could be held with Russia and China.

“No intelligible proposals has been received [from the US] so far,” Peskov said.

Earlier Bolton said in an interview with radio host John Catsimatidis aired on Sunday that he considers it reasonable to include China in the negotiation on those issues with Russia as well.

“China is building up its nuclear capacity now. It’s one of the reasons why we’re looking at strengthening our national missile defense system here in the United States. And it’s one reason why, if we’re going to have another arms control negotiation, for example, with the Russians, it may make sense to include China in that discussion as well,” he said.

Mr. Bolton’s sense about this particular aspect of any arms discussions is correct, as China was not formerly a player in geopolitical affairs the way it is now. The now all-but-scrapped Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, was a treaty concluded by the US and the USSR leaders Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, back in 1987. However, for in succeeding decades, most notably since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been gradually building up weaponry in what appears to be an attempt to create a ring around the Russian Federation, a situation which is understandably increasingly untenable to the Russian government.

Both sides have accused one another of violating this treaty, and the mutual violations and recriminations on top of a host of other (largely fabricated) allegations against the Russian government’s activities led US President Donald Trump to announce his nation’s withdrawal from the treaty, formally suspending it on 1 February. Russian President Vladimir Putin followed suit by suspending it the very next day.

The INF eliminated all of both nations’ land based ballistic and cruise missiles that had a range between 500 and 1000 kilometers (310-620 miles) and also those that had ranges between 1000 and 5500 km (620-3420 miles) and their launchers.

This meant that basically all the missiles on both sides were withdrawn from Europe’s eastern regions – in fact, much, if not most, of Europe was missile-free as the result of this treaty. That is no longer the case today, and both nations’ accusations have provoked re-development of much more advanced systems than ever before, especially true considering the Russian progress into hypersonic and nuclear powered weapons that offer unlimited range.

This situation generates great concern in Europe, such that the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called on both Moscow and Washington to salvage the INF and extend the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or the New START as it is known.

“I call on the parties to the INF Treaty to use the time remaining to engage in sincere dialogue on the various issues that have been raised. It is very important that this treaty is preserved,” Guterres said at a session of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on Monday.

He stressed that the demise of that accord would make the world more insecure and unstable, which “will be keenly felt in Europe.” “We simply cannot afford to return to the unrestrained nuclear competition of the darkest days of the Cold War,” he said.

Guterres also urged the US and Russia to extend the START Treaty, which expires in 2021, and explore the possibility of further reducing their nuclear arsenals. “I also call on the United States and the Russian Federation to extend the so-called New START Treaty before it expires in 2021,” he said.

The UN chief recalled that the treaty “is the only international legal instrument limiting the size of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals” and that its inspection provisions “represent important confidence-building measures that benefit the entire world.”

Guterres recalled that the bilateral arms control process between Russia and the US “has been one of the hallmarks of international security for fifty years.”

“Thanks to their efforts, global stockpiles of nuclear weapons are now less than one-sixth of what they were in 1985,” the UN secretary-general pointed out.

The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (the New START Treaty) entered into force on February 5, 2011. The document stipulates that seven years after its entry into effect each party should have no more than a total of 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and strategic bombers, as well as no more than 1,550 warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and strategic bombers, and a total of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and strategic bombers. The new START Treaty obliges the parties to exchange information on the number of warheads and carriers twice a year.

The new START Treaty will remain in force during 10 years until 2021, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement. It may be extended for a period of no more than five years (that is, until 2026) upon the parties’ mutual consent. Moscow has repeatedly called on Washington not to delay the issue of extending the Treaty.

 

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Ariel Cohen exposes Washington’s latest twist in anti-Russia strategy [Video]

Excellent interview Ariel Cohen and Vladimir Solovyov reveals the forces at work in and behind American foreign policy.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

While the American people and press are pretty much complicit in reassuring the masses that America is the only “right” superpower on earth, and that Russia and China represent “enemy threats” for doing nothing more than existing and being successfully competitive in world markets, Russia Channel One got a stunner of a video interview with Ariel Cohen.

Who is Ariel Cohen? Wikipedia offers this information about him:

Ariel Cohen (born April 3, 1959 in Crimea in YaltaUSSR) is a political scientist focusing on political risk, international security and energy policy, and the rule of law.[1] Cohen currently serves as the Director of The Center for Energy, Natural Resources and Geopolitics (CENRG) at the Institute for Analysis of Global Security (IAGS). CENRG focuses on the nexus between energy, geopolitics and security, and natural resources and growth. He is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, within the Global Energy Center and the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center.[2] Until July 2014, Dr. Cohen was a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. He specializes in Russia/Eurasia, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East.

Cohen has testified before committees of the U.S. Congress, including the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committees, the House Armed Services Committee, the House Judiciary Committee and the Helsinki Commission.[4] He also served as a Policy Adviser with the National Institute for Public Policy’s Center for Deterrence Analysis.[5] In addition, Cohen has consulted for USAID, the World Bank and the Pentagon.[6][7]

Cohen is a frequent writer and commentator in the American and international media. He has appeared on CNN, NBC, CBS, FOX, C-SPAN, BBC-TV and Al Jazeera English, as well as Russian and Ukrainian national TV networks. He was a commentator on a Voice of America weekly radio and TV show for eight years. Currently, he is a Contributing Editor to the National Interest and a blogger for Voice of America. He has written guest columns for the New York TimesInternational Herald TribuneChristian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, EurasiaNet, Valdai Discussion Club,[8] and National Review Online. In Europe, Cohen’s analyses have appeared in Kommersant, Izvestiya, Hurriyet, the popular Russian website Ezhenedelny Zhurnal, and many others.[9][10]

Mr. Cohen came on Russian TV for a lengthy interview running about 17 minutes. This interview, shown in full below, is extremely instructive in illustrating the nature of the American foreign policy directives such as they are at this time.

We have seen evidence of this in recent statements by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo regarding Russia’s “invasion” of Ukraine, and an honestly unabashed bit of fear mongering about China’s company Huawei and its forthcoming 5G networks, which we will investigate in more detail in another piece. Both bits of rhetoric reflect a re-polished narrative that, paraphrased, says to the other world powers,

Either you do as we tell you, or you are our enemy. You are not even permitted to out-compete with us in business, let alone foreign relations. The world is ours and if you try to step out of place, you will be dealt with as an enemy power.

This is probably justified paranoia, because it is losing its place. Where the United Stated used to stand for opposition against tyranny in the world, it now acts as the tyrant, and even as a bully. Russia and China’s reaction might be seen as ignoring the bully and his bluster and just going about doing their own thing. It isn’t a fight, but it is treating the bully with contempt, as bullies indeed deserve.

Ariel Cohen rightly points out that there is a great deal of political inertia in the matter of allowing Russia and China to just do their own thing. The US appears to be acting paranoid about losing its place. His explanations appear very sound and very reasonable and factual. Far from some of the snark Vesti is often infamous for, this interview is so clear it is tragic that most Americans will never see it.

The tragedy for the US leadership that buys this strategy is that they appear to be blinded so much by their own passion that they cannot break free of it to save themselves.

This is not the first time that such events have happened to an empire. It happened in Rome; it happened for England; and it happened for the shorter-lived empires of Nazi Germany and ISIS. It happens every time that someone in power becomes afraid to lose it, and when the forces that propelled that rise to power no longer are present. The US is a superpower without a reason to be a superpower.

That can be very dangerous.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Even a Vacuous Mueller Report Won’t End ‘Russiagate’

Too many reputations and other interests are vested in the legend for it to vanish from American politics anytime soon.

Stephen Cohen

Published

on

Authored by Stephen Cohen via The Nation:


Russiagate allegations that the Kremlin has a subversive hold over President Trump, and even put him in the White House, have poisoned American political life for almost three years. Among other afflictions, it has inspired an array of media malpractices, virtually criminalized anti–Cold War thinking about Russia, and distorted the priorities of the Democratic Party. And this leaves aside the woeful impact Russiagate has had in Moscow—on its policymakers’ perception of the US as a reliable partner on mutually vital strategic issues and on Russian democrats who once looked to the American political system as one to be emulated, a loss of “illusions” I previously reported.

Contrary to many expectations, even if the Mueller report, said to be impending, finds, as did a Senate committee recently, “no direct evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” Russiagate allegations are unlikely to dissipate in the near future and certainly not before the 2020 presidential election.

There are several reasons this is so, foremost among them the following:

  1. The story of a “Kremlin puppet” in the White House is so fabulous and unprecedented it is certain to become a tenacious political legend, as have others in American history despite the absence of any supporting evidence.
  2. The careers of many previously semi-obscure Democratic members of Congress have been greatly enhanced—if that is the right word—by their aggressive promotion of Russiagate. (Think, for example, of the ubiquitous media coverage and cable-television appearances awarded to Representatives Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Maxine Walters, and to Senators Mark Warner and Richard Blumenthal.) If Mueller fails to report “collusion” of real political substance, these and other Russiagate zealots, as well as their supporters in the media, will need to reinterpret run-of-the-mill (and bipartisan) financial corruption and mundane “contacts with Russia” as somehow treasonous. (The financial-corruption convictions of Paul Manafort, Mueller’s single “big win” to date, did not charge “collusion” and had to do mainly with Ukraine, not Russia.) Having done so already, there is every reason to think Democrats will politicize these charges again, if only for the sake of their own careers. Witness, for example, the scores of summonses promised by Jerrold Nadler, the new Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee.
  3. Still worse, the top Democratic congressional leadership evidently has concluded that promoting the new Cold War, of which Russiagate has become an integral part, is a winning issue in 2020. How else to explain Nancy Pelosi’s proposal—subsequently endorsed by the equally unstatesmanlike Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, and adopted—to invite the secretary general of NATO, a not-very-distinguished Norwegian politician named Jens Stoltenberg, to address a joint session of Congress? The honor was once bestowed on figures such as Winston Churchill and at the very least leaders of actual countries. Trump has reasonably questioned NATO’s mission and costs nearly 30 years after the Soviet Union disappeared, as did many Washington think tanks and pundits back in the 1990s. But for Pelosi and other Democratic leaders, there can be no such discussion, only valorization of NATO, even though the military alliance’s eastward expansion has brought the West to the brink of war with nuclear Russia. Anything Trump suggests must be opposed, regardless of the cost to US national security. Will the Democrats go to the country in 2020 as the party of investigations, subpoenas, Russophobia, and escalating cold war—and win?

Readers of my new book War With Russia?, which argues that there are no facts to support the foundational political allegations of Russiagate, may wonder how, then, Russiagate can continue to be such a major factor in our politics. As someone has recently pointed out, the Democrats and their media are now operating on the Liberty Valance principle: When the facts are murky or nonexistent, “print the legend.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending