Ferapontov: Medieval Stronghold, Modern Treasure

Ferapontov Monastery, one of the most treasured sites of medieval Russian art, celebrates its 600th anniversary this summer. This small monastery contains some of the best surviving examples of painting by the great medieval Russian artist Dionisy; yet despite its historic and artistic significance, the monastery’s remote location makes it unlikely that many people – Russians or foreigners – will actually visit its churches. Although the village of Ferapontovo is located only a few kilometers from the massive St. Kirill Belozersk Monastery {see Russian Life, June 1997}, which is visited by hundreds of tourists every summer on river cruises between Moscow and St. Petersburg, Ferapontov Monastery is not included in the schedule of these cruises.

Perhaps this is just as well, for the small monastery founded by St. Ferapont and the gentle landscape that surrounds it could easily be overwhelmed by large groups. Perhaps its treasures should remain intact for a limited circle of visitors who understand the significance of its sublime frescoes. And yet their significance is open to all who would study these works of art.

One might wonder why monasteries like St. Kirill Belozersk and Ferapontov were founded in such a remote location of the Russian north? Obviously, there were reasons of religious devotion, which appealed to the ascetic impulse in Muscovy’s revival of monasticism during the late fourteenth century. But there was another, more practical reason as well. With the rise of the Muscovite principality throughout the fourteenth century and the transfer in 1328 of the metropolitanate (at that time the highest office of the Russian Orthodox Church) from Vladimir to Moscow, the church began to play an essential role in the advancement of Moscow’s interests throughout the vast area of the Russian north. Thus, the founding of monasteries by clerics who came from Moscow’s own religious centers provided not only places of spiritual refuge and retreat, but also strongholds of Muscovite influence in church and state.

The St. Kirill Belozersk Monastery and the nearby St. Ferapont Monastery were among the earliest and most influential of these monastic institutions in the North. Both are located between 120-130 kilometers northwest of Vologda, near the confluence of the Sheksna River and the White Lake (Beloe ozero). This water network connected the monasteries to the Vologda territory as well as to Muscovy’s central regions, and thus endowed them with a strategic importance that aided their growth as Moscow’s outposts. And if the St. Kirill Belozersk Monastery was far more important in terms of military and political strategy, the smaller monastery named after St. Ferapont would receive an artistic work of unrivaled beauty.

The monastery was originally dedicated to the Nativity of the Virgin when it was founded in 1398 on the shores of Lake Borodava, some twenty kilometers northeast of the St. Kirill Monastery. Its founder, Ferapont (1337-1426), had been a monk at Moscow’s Simonov Monastery, and had accompanied Kirill on his journey to the North. Within a year of Kirill’s establishment of the Dormition Monastery on Siverskoe Lake, Ferapont departed to form his own spiritual retreat in the wilderness. Like Kirill, Ferapont was of noble birth and well acquainted with the power structure of the Muscovite state. (After Ferapont’s canonization in the middle of the sixteenth century, the northern monastery that he founded came to be known as the Ferapontov Monastery, although it retained its original dedication to the Nativity of the Virgin.) Ferapont, did not, however, remain very long at the monastery, for in 1408 he was called back to Moscow by Prince Andrei Dmitrievich (one of the sons of Grand Prince Dmitry Donskoy) to establish yet another monastery, the Luzhetsky, located near the ancient town of Mozhaisk, west of Moscow.

Deprived of the direct supervision of its founder, the Ferapontov Monastery maintained only a modest existence, with fewer than twenty monks. During the middle of the fifteenth century, however, the monastery was guided by the very capable Martinian, who encouraged the copying of manuscripts, one of the most essential contributions of monasteries in the medieval period. Like his predecessor, Martinian was well connected to the center of political power in Moscow. So great was his reputation that, in 1447, Prince Vasily II, grandson of Dmitry Donskoy, appealed to Martinian for his blessing in a deadly struggle with Dmitry Semyaka, Vasily’s cousin, who had usurped power in Moscow and blinded Vasily.

After regaining the throne in 1448, Vasily rewarded Martinian with the position of hegumen (abbot) of one of Muscovy’s most powerful monasteries, the Trinity-St. Sergius (in Sergeev-Posad, formerly Zagorsk). Despite Martinian’s departure for Moscow, the Ferapontov Monastery flourished as a major center for the copying of manuscripts. Indeed, Martinian continued to be associated with the northern monastery as its second patron. Weary of the responsibility of guiding the Trinity-St. Sergius Monastery, Martinian returned to Ferapontovo in 1455 and remained there until his death in 1483. After his elevation to sainthood in the mid-sixteenth century, a monastery church dedicated to his memory was erected over his grave.

Even with the enhanced status created by Martinian, the Ferapontov Monastery consisted entirely of log structures for the first century of its existence. Timber was readily available in the surrounding forest, but stone or brick construction required technical skills and financial resources that were beyond the capabilities of the subsistence-level agricultural economy of the region. Grants from Moscow could provide those resources, and, indeed, the Muscovite court had not forgotten this venerable institution.

One of Martinian’s best pupils, who took the name Ioasaf upon entering the monastery, came from the distinguished princely family of the Obolenskys. In 1481 Ioasaf was elevated to Bishop of Rostov, and played a leading role in supporting the church policies of Grand Prince Ivan III (The Great). But, in what seems to have been a medieval equivalent of executive burn-out, Ioasaf also tired of the pressures of his major religious and political position. In 1488 he decided to return to the contemplative life at Ferapontov Monastery, despite the probable wrath of the grand prince, who had come to depend upon him. Soon thereafter, Ioasaf, familiar with the upper levels of ecclesiastical and court life, commissioned Ferapontov Monastery’s first masonry structure, the brick Church of the Nativity of the Virgin. It was built in 1490—six years earlier than the Dormition Cathedral at the St. Kirill Monastery.

In fact, the immediate reason for constructing the new church was a fire that destroyed many of the monastery’s log buildings, including the chambers of hegumen Ioasaf. In a vivid account of the disaster, a chronicler noted that Ioasaf fell into despair as the flames approached his room, which contained a strong box with valuables for support of the monastery. At that moment, a certain monastery ascetic and “fool in Christ” (yurodivy) named Galaktion rallied Ioasaf’s spirits, dashed into the flames, and emerged unscathed with the box. This treasure apparently enabled Ioasaf to embark on his building campaign, culminating in the exquisite Church of the Nativity of the Virgin.

The Nativity Church is modest in size, but it was built with an impressive sense of proportion, aided by its elevation on a high base. The upper walls of the church, which were substantially modified from the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries, originally led to three rows of decorative gables, known in Russian as kokoshniki. The most elaborately decorated part of the exterior is the west façade, with the main portal. Although it is now covered by an elevated porch constructed in the middle of the sixteenth century, this façade formerly had an ornamental ceramic strip above the base, and the curved gables were filled with decorative brick patterns.

In its original form, the Nativity Church had a low cupola, which was replaced in the eighteenth century with the outsized, double-tiered baroque cupola that we see today. According to archival documents, the cupola of the church was first covered in “white iron” (tin); but, in the early eighteenth century, the metal covering yielded to wooden shingles, which were in turn replaced with sheet metal later in the century. The conversion of the kokoshniki gables into a four-sloped roof appeared in 1794-97. Due to the dedicated labor of scholars such as Sergei Podyapolsky, who has done much for the preservation of both the Kirill and Ferapontov Monasteries, it is now possible to recreate to earlier forms of this monastic ensemble.

The frescoes begin as one approaches the west portal, framed with arches of molded brick and surrounded by scenes associated with the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. Although partially damaged by the construction of the porch and gallery in the sixteenth century, the painting was afforded greater protection from the severe climate by these additional structures, and the surfaces still retain their rich colors. These frescoes are among the best examples of the work of one of the most important medieval Russian artists, Dionisy, who in the summer of 1502, painted the interior of the church with the assistance of his two sons, Feodosy and Vladimir. The fact that such a renowned artist, accustomed to commissions for frescoes and icons from the court of Grand Prince Ivan III, should engage in extensive work far to the north is further evidence of the close relations between this monastery, under the leadership of Ioasaf, and the sources of political and ecclesiastical power in Moscow. Indeed, Ioasaf himself probably persuaded Dionisy to create these remarkable frescoes.

On entering the Nativity Church, one sees a modest design defined by four piers, which support a single cylinder (or “drum”) and cupola. This relatively small space is filled with the bright, vibrant colors and the expressive forms created by Dionisy and his sons. Popular legend has it that Dionisy derived the pigments for his water-based paints from pebbles found at the nearby Lake Borodavo, but it is far more likely that he brought from Moscow materials of the highest quality, supported by the largesse of Ioasaf and perhaps the court itself.

As befits the dedication of this church, most of the frescoes are devoted to Mary. Some of the scenes refer to liturgical hymns offered to the Virgin, and indeed the entire fresco cycle can be seen as a glorious, yet silent, hymn to Mary. Many scenes refer to miracles and other events in her life. In addition, there are depictions of archangels, saints, and church fathers. The lower tier of the north and south walls contains a depiction of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, which affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity. Soaring above the rest of the interior, the dome contains the mysterious image of Christ Pantocrator (“Ruler of all”), a feature typical of most Russian Orthodox churches.

Because of the remote location of the small Ferapontov Monastery, the frescoes of the Nativity Church were not frequently overpainted and are relatively well preserved, despite modifications to the structure of the church. The most recent restoration campaign is now nearing completion; but, according to Marina Serebryakova, director of the museum at Ferapontovo, care of these frescoes is a never-ending process, supported by public and private means.

Not long after the completion of the Nativity Church, Ferapontov Monastery received another major donation, leading to the construction of the brick Church of the Annunciation. In this instance, the donor was the ruler of Muscovy, Grand Prince Vasily III, who in 1528 had made a pilgrimage with his wife, Yelena Glinskaya, to the Kirill Belozersk Monastery in supplication for the birth of a son. After the birth of Ivan IV (subsequently known as “the Terrible”) in 1530, Vasily not only endowed two churches as a votive offering at the St. Kirill Monastery, but also extended his largesse to the neighboring monastery.

Although there has been some uncertainty as to the precise dates of construction for the Annunciation Church (which had an attached refectory, or dining hall, for the monks), recent research suggests that it was built in 1530-31, possibly by an architect from Rostov named Grigory Borisov. In a design common to northern monasteries, the refectory church was heated by air ducts from the scullery stoves located on the ground floor. Because of its modest size, the Annunciation Church has no interior piers, and yet it has a strong sense of vertical development, from the raised base to the three rows of decorative gables (kokoshniki, recently restored), above which ascends a drum with cupolas. The original artwork of the church has long since vanished, and the interior is now used as a museum of artifacts from the monastery.

Another brick building dating from the middle of the sixteenth century has now been identified as the Treasury Chambers, located in the southwest corner of the outer walls. Its simple but monumental form can be seen as a rare surviving example of secular architecture from the time of Ivan the Terrible. It, too, has been adapted to museum use, both as a space for temporary exhibits and, on its upper story, a newly established library containing many rare and valuable books. This enterprise, supported by the tireless efforts of Moscow art historian Gerold Vzdornov, demonstrates that some monasteries in contemporary Russia are returning to their earlier role as centers of learning. Each summer, scholarly conferences dealing with aspects of Russian cultural history are held at Ferapontovo. Although the initiative in this case comes not from the church but from a secular, academic source, it is no less appropriate.

During the early seventeenth century, the Ferapontov Monastery was threatened by the same destructive forces that wracked Russia during the “Time of Troubles.” In 1614 the monastery was briefly occupied by marauding Cossack forces, but the damage was comparatively light. In the middle of that century, the monastery gained the final significant components of its ensemble, including the Church of St. Martinian (1640), constructed over Martinian’s grave, adjacent to the south wall of the Nativity Church. With its impressive tent tower, this church provides a visual dominant for the entire ensemble.

On the west side, the ensemble is linked by a raised gallery, which extends from the Nativity to the Annunciation Church, with a seventeenth-century square bell tower situated near the midpoint. And, in 1649, the monastery’s main entrance (known as the Holy Gates) was graced with the dual towers of the Churches of the Epiphany and of St. Ferapont, which adjoin the Treasury Chamber.

Shortly thereafter, the monastery played a role in one of the most dramatic events in the history not only of the Russian church, but also of Russia itself. During the 1650s, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Nikon, undertook a fateful attempt to correct what were seen as errors and mistranslations in the liturgy and religious texts. Although Nikon received support from Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich in this complex struggle, the intolerance and determination of Patriarch Nikon not only split the church (thus leading to the Old Belief) but ultimately alienated even the tsar himself in 1658. While both church and state continued to promulgate Nikon’s reforms, the patriarch himself was deposed after church councils of 1666 and 1667 condemned his attempt to rival the tsar’s political power.

At that point Nikon was exiled to distant Ferapontov Monastery. Although severely ascetic in its conditions, the monastery accorded Nikon numerous privileges in respect of his former position. However, after the death of Tsar Aleksei in 1676, Nikon’s opponents in the established church (not to be confused with his opponents among the Old Believers!) had him transferred to a much harsher regime of incarceration in Kirillov Monastery. Nikon was not released until shortly before his death in 1681.

During this same period, a variety of factors, including internal mismanagement, led to the monastery’s economic decline, which continued through the eighteenth century. In 1798 Ferapontov Monastery was “decommissioned” and its churches were given over to local parish use. In 1859, the current stone wall was built (the former wall was built of logs), but the monastery continued to languish in neglect.

Not until the end of the 19th century, on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of its founding, did the monastery once again come to public attention, largely as the result of a series of publications by the dedicated historian Ivan Brilliantov, who worked tirelessly to alert Russian preservation circles to the value of the monastery’s frescoes.

At the beginning of this century, Ferapontov was reconsecrated as a convent, but it was closed once again after the Bolshevik Revolution. Although its frescoes came under the care of leading preservation specialists such as Igor Grabar, this did not save the selfless, dedicated Ivan Brilliantov. In January 1931 he was arrested as part of the wave of senseless terror that swept throughout the country, and the following month he was shot.

Thus, as we enter another century’s observance of the founding of Ferapontov Monastery, we should remember not only its great works of art, but also the efforts—and sacrifice—of those in this century who have rescued and maintained this shrine to Russian artistic culture.