Solemn ceremony unveiling of a monument in honor of old Russian prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich was to take place a year ago, when the millennium of the Assumption (that is, death) of this historical figure. However, the idea to erect a monument on the Sparrow Hills provoked a public outcry. For a long time it took me to find another place and make adjustments to the project. In the end, the choice fell on Borovitskaya Square, that is, on a place near the walls of the Kremlin and near the Pashkov House.
The whole story with the Moscow monument to Prince Vladimir is extremely politicized from beginning to end, and least of all, the initiators of its installation in Moscow cared about the artistic value of the project. On the Ukrainian side, many are now blaming: "You have privatized our history. This is our Kyiv prince! He had never been to Moscow for the simple reason that Moscow did not yet exist. "On the Russian side, they prefer not to mention at all that the state ruled by the prince was called" Kievan Rus". The word "Kyiv" is omitted. Vladimir is the baptist of simply Russia.
But special emphasis is placed on this act - the choice of Christianity. If you call a spade a spade, in fact Orthodoxy in modern Russia- is dominant state religion. It is no coincidence that the sculptor Salavat Shcherbakov put a giant cross in the hand of his hero. So whose is this prince? Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian specialist in history and literature Ancient Russia and ancient Scandinavia Fyodor Uspensky considers such a statement of the question inappropriate:
The image of Vladimir, who was both the baptizer of Russia and the progenitor of the dynasty of Russian princes, turns into an image from a comic book
- I would say that after all, he is both ours and theirs. This is the case when I would not want the lively, bright and very interesting figure of Prince Vladimir to serve as a subject of contention and schism between two close peoples. This whole situation seems to me unnatural, distorted and, like any politically oriented situation, flawed. Prince Vladimir really reigned in Kyiv. He did not get it the most simple way, namely by killing his older brother, who owned Kyiv before him. Since then, Vladimir has become the main and only one of the descendants of Svyatoslav who possessed the "senior table". In general, all those Rurikoviches who later reigned on Russian soil went from him, whether it was Southern Russia, that is, Kievan Rus, or the North-Western Russia that was later formed with the main principalities in different periods in Suzdal, Vladimir and other cities.
Be that as it may, they are all Rurikovich. All this was once one family, and they ruled on the basis of one thing - the right of blood. They had no other additional legitimate grounds to rule over Russia, up to the last Rurikovich who, after Ivan the Terrible, lost the Russian state. So I repeat, Prince Vladimir and theirs, and ours, if we put the question that way.
But it is very disappointing that it generally has to be formulated like this, because we are dealing here with a common heritage. Instead of splitting it, it would be better to work on it together, take an interest in it together, and love it together. As a researcher, the situation of extreme politicization is extremely unpleasant for me. Politics in general in the world, and especially in our country, has never led to the truth. It harms the search for truth simply directly.
Unfortunately, it must be stated that now the image of Vladimir, who was both the baptizer of Russia and the progenitor of the dynasty of Russian princes (again, I emphasize, I'm talking about both Southern Russia and Northwestern Russia), is turning into an image from a comic book. The dispute that unfolded around him is unpleasant and pathetic. One can only hope that this will not be reflected in the academic environment. Now some chill between Ukrainian and Russian researchers, unfortunately, runs from time to time. But in general, it seems to me that the real academic environment, not politicized screamers, but scientists who are directly involved in Ancient Russia, are quite adequate. They do not stoop to momentary strife. So far, I don't see any major differences here. In any case, my Ukrainian colleagues whom I know are not seen in anything like that. I hope that those Russian colleagues with whom I work will also show neither tendentiousness nor partiality. That they do not serve any topical tasks, but are engaged in the search for truth.
- About the search for truth. Now in Russia it is very often mentioned that Prince Vladimir was baptized in Chersonese, which in ancient Russian written sources known as Korsun. When you decide to join Crimean territories to Russia, they reasoned something like this: if Christianization began from these places, therefore, these are primordially Russian lands. Such logic does not stand up to scrutiny, it is clean water political speculation, but now we are talking about something else. Is it known for certain where Vladimir was baptized? In Chersonese, in Kyiv or somewhere else?
From Vladimir himself, we do not have much personal archaeological data. Although there is something. For example, the coins of Vladimir
Nothing is known for sure, unfortunately. Already in the ancient sources relating to the pre-Mongolian time, a dual version of the baptism of Vladimir appears. In particular, Jacob Mnich in his work "Memory and Praise to Prince Russian Vladimir" he cites both points of view at once. Various explanations have been offered. In particular, that perhaps the process of baptism was divided into different stages. Some of them were in Chersonese, and some - in Kyiv. There are various points of view on this matter. This question itself is interesting, and not that it is possible to defend or lose Chersonese with its help. This is kind of pitiful. Again, I reduce everything to the fact that topicality and politicization only hinder answering the questions of history.
Indeed, there is not much reliable data about the baptism of Vladimir. Nevertheless, they are. They must be interpreted without interfering with any modern geopolitics. Archeology provides a lot of information, however, rather, about how and where Christianity spread. It wasn't a momentary matter. But from Vladimir himself, we do not have much personal archaeological data. Although there is something. For example, the coins of Vladimir. They are unique and wonderful, very non-trivial for their time.
– It is on them that the same trident is depicted, which we see on state emblem modern Ukraine?
Yes, there is a trident. There Vladimir is "on the table" (on the throne), where he is depicted with a long mustache. This is sketchy, but lifetime portrait. The coins are clearly altered from some Byzantine pattern. But they are completed, that is, they are made independently, and this is very interesting material.
The so-called "zlatnik" of Prince Vladimir with his lifetime imageThe name of Vladimir is not only in Russian chronicles, where he is mentioned rather sparingly. Some information about his life was also found in Western sources independent of chronicles. Far from immediately, scientists properly compared this - foreign sources about Vladimir the Holy and the testimony of Russian chronicles. That's when in recent years this was done, the figure of Vladimir acquired a completely new perspective. First of all, quite a lot is told about him in the work of the German bishop Titmar, who was practically a contemporary of Vladimir. He completed his work in 1019, and Vladimir died in 1015. In general, Titmar described some events in hot pursuit, and there is a lot of non-trivial data that is not at all in Russian sources. This is a chronicle of a German cleric, but we learned from it, for example, about wealth Southern Russia of that time, about some of the dynastic ties that existed under Vladimir and his children. Vladimir is described as a fairly powerful ruler. Thietmar even interprets his name as "owning the world", which is not true enough, but nevertheless remarkable, says Fyodor Uspensky.
On Sparrow Hills, a giant monument to Prince Vladimir was to be erected on a giant pedestal. On Borovitskaya Square, the pedestal had to be abandoned. Otherwise, Vladimir would have risen above the Kremlin walls. Meanwhile, the Moscow Kremlin is included in the UNESCO World Heritage List. However, the sculpture was originally designed for a different perception. Now, due to the low foot, her proportions are shifted. The monument looks a little comical - squat, heavy and sagging. But the harm to neighboring architectural masterpieces is minimized.
Arkhnadzor movement coordinator Rustam Rakhmatullin recalls that the observation deck of Sparrow Hills managed to defend itself from the claims of the Russian Military Historical Society (RVIO) thanks to joint actions local residents, university corporation, city defenders, environmentalists and municipal deputies:
- The observation deck is part of the territory of the monument "Moscow University", and in no competition task, in any technical task The Russian Military Historical Society was not entitled to contribute this site. Because the territory of an architectural monument is a space where everything has already been created, where creativity has ended. Otherwise, why is it a monument? This is the meaning of such a legal regime. Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky, who simultaneously heads the Russian Military Historical Society, should know legal regimes monuments of architecture. However, it is interesting that the initiators of the installation of the monument did not refer to this argument, but only referred to the heavy geology of the Sparrow Hills.
- When they announced that they had changed their minds about erecting a monument there, I got the impression from some slips of the tongue that it was not even a matter of the possibility of a landslide on the slope of the Sparrow Hills. They would have dealt with this by driving piles and destroying at the same time nature reserve. It just turned out to be outrageously expensive. There was no such money even for a propaganda statue in the treasury.
Intuitively, Muscovites felt that this place was a cluster of the most different plots– culture, history, literature
– This we can only assume. I'm talking about that side of the matter, which is regulated by law. There the site was protected by the regime of the territory of the monument. That is, not only the building of Moscow State University is a monument, but also the space, layout, the ratio of built-up and non-built-up areas within certain boundaries. This rigid regime excludes any intrusion of the new, if you follow the meaning and letter of the law. But on Borovitskaya Square there is a security zone. This is another level of protection. The security zone excludes the intrusion of the new with various reservations that the interested parties are always trying to overcome.
– How exactly did the initiators of the installation of the monument overcome such restrictions?
- Two so-called "voting" were held. The first was on the Active Citizen resource, where Borovitskaya Square did not have a decisive advantage over Lubyanskaya Square. The benefit was minimal. And this despite the fact that official position actively imposed. Particularly through the media.
The second "vote" was held on the website of the Military Historical Society itself. There already the advantage was decisive. But it is clear that it is impossible to control the course of this vote on the own resource of the Military Historical Society, and it is not legitimate, is not the basis for a decision.
Why is it not legal?
- Precisely because it is on the resource of the customer of the monument.
mediocre work monumental art turned the world masterpiece into its side stage
If we talk about the reaction of the public, then here, unlike Sparrow Hills, the city defenders were almost alone. Such a coalition, which was in the mountains, no longer arose. There are few people in this area. The University on Mokhovaya, of course, exists, but its building is a bit out of the way. The Moscow City Duma commission was supposed to ask the opinion of municipal deputies. They spoke out against the placement of the monument on Borovitskaya Square, but this happened almost in hindsight. When the Moscow City Duma and its monumental commission made a decision.
– Indeed, in the case of Vorobyovy Gory, a sharp and very emotional reaction Muscovites. Very many painfully perceived that their beloved Sparrow Hills could be spoiled by this monument. But after all, the territory of Borovitskaya Square is also a place of attraction for citizens from various districts. it tourist place, eventually. Why did they surrender this territory so easily, even willingly?
- In part, you answered this question. Sparrow Hills - a place of rest. And the lawn on Borovitskaya Square is not a place of rest. Moreover, this is an almost isolated area, which is not even accessible from every street. There is an elementary lack of underground passages either from the side of Volkhonka or from the side of Mokhovaya Street. You can get there only from the Alexander Garden.
Our statements about the incompatibility of the monument with the Pashkov house and its poor compatibility with the Kremlin were not heard
In addition, on Sparrow Hills, it was about an observation deck, and this is one of the most important sights of Moscow. It is known not only to Muscovites. Together with the monument, a completely foreign theme arose here, which drowned out all other topics. Intuitively, Muscovites felt that this place was a cluster of various subjects - culture, history, literature. One can recall the oath of Herzen and Ogarev. One can recall Bulgakov's novel. Finally, the film "Pokrovsky Gates". I mean the finale, where the motorcyclist, as if from a springboard, makes a free flight from the observation deck.
It was this opportunity that was closed by the project of the monument - this is the flight of Savransky. That is, something here works implicitly, subconsciously, and something explicitly. Of course, there was no such effect on Borovitskaya Square. Therefore, as I have already said, the city defenders were left here almost alone and had to give arguments, in general, just as meaningful as they gave on Sparrow Hills, but which were already of a more special nature.
By and large, our statements about the incompatibility of the monument with the Pashkov house and its poor compatibility with the Kremlin were not heard.
Such an architectural monument as the Pashkov House does not tolerate a figurative image in front of it. In addition, images of a huge, comparable to its own height of a magnificent building of the 18th century. The sculpture, moreover turned in profile, turns Pashkov's house into its own side stage. The only thing that could be done in this regard was to force the monument to be moved from the central planning axis of the Pashkov House. This is the axis corresponding to the central colonnade, the belvedere. If it is continued, it is focused on Borovitskaya tower Kremlin.
Now, when you get to the Borovitsky bridge leading to the Kremlin, Pashkov's house is still perceived purely. This is a clear front view. However, it is worth taking a few more steps, and from the gate of the Alexander Garden, the monument already runs into the right wing of the Pashkov house. And if you stand on such a peculiar and little-known observation deck as the Petrovsky Bastion in the Alexander Garden, it turns out that the monument stands right in front of central part Pashkov's house. So our success is very relative. We have lost a significant number of angles of this masterpiece. A mediocre work of monumental art has turned a world masterpiece into its own backstage.
- I agree with you that Pashkov's house, which now serves as a decorative backdrop for the monument, is stylistically alien to him. On the one hand, it certainly is. But, on the other hand, this territory is densely populated with similar sculptures. Of the authentic ancient Alexander Garden, only the lions on the grotto "Ruins" remained. However, not far away, right behind the Manege, Tseretel's disgrace of animals and fairy-tale heroes begins. Just a few years ago, a monument to another saint was erected in the garden itself. This is Patriarch Hermogenes. He, too, with a raised cross, and also not of great artistic merit. It turns out that in relation to these dominants, the monument to Prince Vladimir does not enter into dissonance. In its own way, it is logical in the center of Moscow. Was it worth protesting?
– I would continue this series. In the Alexander Garden there is another monument by the same sculptor Salavat Shcherbakov. This is a monument to Alexander the First, whose name the garden bears. It is characteristic that you did not mention it, because in general no one had time to blink, as this monument appeared. And from him to Vladimir only a few meters. Everything you said is absolutely true, but now there is a reason to think about why the story of the monument to Vladimir attracted such attention.
The fact is that the filling of the city by the Moscow authorities with anthropomorphic images is entering its own crisis. People did not notice one case, they did not notice another case, they considered the third case to be non-critical, but this cannot continue indefinitely! The way the society got involved in the discussion of this work on Sparrow Hills, and partly on Borovitskaya Square, is gratifying in itself.
It is necessary to demand that the monumental commission of the Moscow City Duma discuss not only the theme and address of the monument, but also the artistic solution. Look, the architectural council in Moscow considers architectural projects, but generally does not look at monumentalism. This is a disgrace of pure water!
– And this is what you called “sculptural madness” in one of your recent publications?
– Sculpture-madness is a preference for the sculptural method in the matter of perpetuating a memory or a name. Moreover, the preference is precisely anthropomorphic, that is, human statues. Meanwhile, urban monumental sculpture cautiously appears in Russia in the 18th century, Bronze Horseman. Basically, this is a tradition of the 19th and then the 20th century. If this is St. Vladimir, why should a human statue be dedicated to him without fail?
For example, the architecture of the era of Ivan the Terrible has survived to this day. Starting from such masterpieces as St. Basil's Cathedral and continuing with Alexander Sloboda. These are also memorials. And they are sufficient for the Russian tradition. But these are not the kind of monuments that require saluting. We can discuss Grozny, talk about it for hours on the example of St. Basil's Cathedral. We can discuss it from one side, from the other side, from the third side. We can do the same in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, where virtually the entire museum is dedicated to him. But as soon as we replace this with the installation of a monument, conflicts immediately begin, because the monument is only a salute.
From the monument to Minin and Pozharsky to Pushkin, that is, from the first monument to the second in Moscow, 60 years pass. Then from Pushkin to Pirogov - 17 more. From Pirogov to Gogol and the Pioneer - 8 more. These monuments are collected on folk remedies and are points of consolidation, they accumulate popular attitude to these heroes and do not cause any division in society. For years, a place was chosen, for years an artistic solution was chosen, for years funds were collected.
Now it's not like that. Someone came up with the initiative, gave money himself, and only then, as now with the monument to Grozny in Orel, does everyone discuss the result. Very often it turns out that the result leads to social disunity. All this together I would call sculptural obsession. We need, of course, a moratorium, we need a pause. We need to find a way to discuss history and historical figures separately from monumentalism, - I am convinced Rustam Rakhmatullin.
– Negotiations, discussions with this international organization lasted long enough. At the very beginning of this year, even a public discussion was held in Moscow. A deputy even came to participate in it. CEO UNESCO Francesco Bandarin.
–Have you been there?
In different places they tried to attach an already finished statue
- I was there. The meeting took place inside Pashkov's house. At that moment, UNESCO did not express a final verdict. It was about presenting a design project, as our foreign colleagues say, of all this public space, his understanding. This was translated into the language of our officials by their favorite word "improvement". From here all these stairs, benches, observation platforms and so on appeared. It's not about landscaping, but about urban planning, architectural design. But it remained under-discussed or discussed somewhere behind the scenes.
Closer to autumn, reports began to appear that all agreements had been reached with UNESCO, all the necessary approvals and approvals had been received. Although it was alarming that each time these statements were made exclusively by the organizers of the installation of the monument, including the Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky, and I have never heard or seen confirmation of this from UNESCO.
I am deeply unsympathetic to the eternal appeals to UNESCO as to some kind of foreign cultural regional committee
This is a very strange way of having a dialogue. Apparently, an attempt is being made to act on the principle of "winners are not judged." Establish a monument, and the proceedings and explanations can then continue for an arbitrarily long time. However, if you want to maintain a normal dialogue with an influential and respected international organization, this is not the way to behave.
In general, the whole story with the installation of the monument seems to me a clear manifestation of extreme disrespect for both Moscow and the Kremlin as a World Heritage Site. I'm not talking about UNESCO anymore. In different places, they tried to attach an already finished statue. No matter what we are told, I do not believe that it was recast. I remember very well the interview of its author Salavat Shcherbakov, who a few months ago said that the statue had already been cast and ready. And now they are trying to occupy at least some area with this already finished statue. When the idea with Sparrow Hills did not come out, other addresses began to be offered - Lubyanskaya Square, Moskvoretskaya Embankment, Borovitskaya. Anywhere! It seems that the authors of this idea think that it is possible to put the same statue in any place with equal success. Usually, a monument is designed with reference to the area, to the surrounding urban context.
Are you in principle against the monument to St. Vladimir? Or do you think that he founded an independent Ukrainian state?
And so they chose the most crucial point, an open space between two masterpieces of the national architectural genius - between the Kremlin and an excellent example of sublime Russian classicism. I am surprised at what ambitions one must have in order to impose one's creation with such stubbornness precisely on this point, in close proximity to these masterpieces. Do the organizers really think that their work is congenial? This is too bold and too aggressive intrusion into the historical environment.
Unfortunately, the organizers, when you try to have a debate with them, immediately transfer it to a political track. Say, in principle, are you against the monument to St. Vladimir? Or do you think that he founded an independent Ukrainian state?
Before deciding on any new structure or monument of this size in close proximity to the Kremlin, expert discussions and field modeling should be done to understand what it might look like. Sorry, even in the Soviet Union this was done. For example, a monument to Mayakovsky on Triumphal Square modeled on the spot. They estimated the silhouette, made a life-size profile of this statue from plywood, and, moving the layout around the square - such photographs have been preserved - they looked at how best to place it on this square. And this despite the fact that in terms of its architectural qualities, this square is far inferior to the space near the Kremlin in terms of its significance. This case was handled professionally.
It seems to the organizers of the event that the sanctity of the character and the great socio-political significance attached to the installation of this monument automatically removes questions about his artistic qualities and about the urban context of this event. This is not true. At such crucial points, it is necessary not to measure seven times, but 777 times. I don't see a double measure here.
I am deeply unsympathetic to the eternal appeals to UNESCO as to some kind of foreign cultural regional committee where you can complain about your own bosses. No one but us can and should not protect our historical heritage. If we do not understand what tact is in relation to historic city, we do not measure our ambitions with the value of what our great ancestors left us, and UNESCO will not help us, - says Konstantin Mikhailov.
Moscow, like others big cities Russia is rich not only in its history, but also in historical and cultural objects reminiscent of the events of this history. From time to time a collection of monuments to characters Russian statehood updated with new exhibits. One of these monuments was the monument on Borovitskaya Square in Moscow. Let's talk about it in more detail.
How they chose a place for a monument to Prince Vladimir on Borovitskaya Square
This is one of the youngest Moscow historical monuments. It was opened on November 4 last year, not far from the heart of the capital - the Kremlin, near the historic Manezh building - on Borovitskaya Square. The place for the monument was not immediately determined: huge size sculptures - 24 meters - assumed a significant territory, on a grand scale, so much so that it was visible from afar. It was with the choice of location that the history of the monument to Vladimir the Great began. Initially, an observation deck on Sparrow Hills was planned for it, but the public opposed this: only the back of the prince of Kyiv would be visible from the university. To view the entire monument, it was necessary to stand on the opposite bank of the Moskva River, to which he was turned to face. Whether this or that was the reason, but the experts did not agree with the original plan. Long disputes and discussions ended with a unanimous decision - to install the figure of Vladimir, Prince of Kyiv, reducing it to 18 meters in size, in the very center of Moscow, just in its original place - not far from Borovitsky Hill. Yes, and you can see the sculpture there from all sides.
Before opening
A lot of time was spent on the creation of the monument, and a lot of bronze was also used - as many as 25 tons. The author himself at the opening of the sculpture said that the work on the image was based on the masterpieces of the famous Russian artist Viktor Vasnetsov - murals Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv, sculptures XIX century, as well as the faces of St. Vladimir, embodied in cult works by domestic icon painters.
The history of the monument to Prince Vladimir on Borovitskaya Square is connected with interesting facts. Almost a month was spent on the delivery of the monument to the installation site, and the opening ceremony was timed to coincide with an important public holiday- day national unity. Welding and installation of the sculpture lasted several days. During the installation process, a 500-ton lifting crane and a huge welded metal container structure were used, in which they were transported to Borovitsky Hill
Monument to Vladimir the Great in Moscow
The monument is quite heavy: its weight is about 40 tons. The granite pedestal of the monument is almost three meters high, and the height of the bronze Vladimir himself is about 12 meters, the figure is crowned by a cross raised above the head of the prince, 3 meters high.
To work on the monument to Prince Vladimir on Borovitskaya Square, the sculptor attracted ten sitters, from whom he painted angles different parts figure and pose of the prince. The background for the monument is three thematic bas-reliefs behind the back of the princely figure: the baptism of Prince Vladimir himself, the baptism of Russia by him and the unification of the Russian people. And this is not accidental, just as the idea of \u200b\u200bperpetuating this historical character. After all, it was thanks to Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich that he managed to subjugate many autocratic and free-thinking tribes and unite the lands around capital city Kyiv. It was Orthodoxy, chosen by Prince Vladimir as a unifying religion, that could become the tool with which it was possible to complete what had been started. After all, the idea to unite the Russians with faith in a new idol, created by him, with a silver head, failed. And without the unification of the people, the state would not become strong, would not be able to resist its external enemies.
negative character
Prince Vladimir Krasno Solnyshko is the son of the Kyiv prince Svyatoslav Igorevich from the Rurik family and the daughter of the Drevlyansky prince Malusha. He was born far from the capital city, but was soon claimed by Princess Olga and returned to his father's homeland. He was the heir of Novgorod, which Svyatoslav gave him possession before his disastrous campaign.
The first period of growing up in the reign of Vladimir was barbaric and bloody: the insidious and bloody murder of Yaropolk’s brother and the father and brothers of his wife Rogneda, the violence committed against Rogneda for the sake of forced marriage, the forcible taking of the murdered Yaropolk’s pregnant wife, a former Greek nun, as a concubine, and other atrocities .
And in religion, Vladimir was originally not only an ardent pagan. It is assumed that he actively used bloody human sacrifices to idols and gods.
On the way to fix
The feeling of guilt for the murder of his brother and the fate of Rogneda, almost distraught with grief, nicknamed Gorislava, over time began to torment Vadimir Svyatoslavich more and more. Prayers and sacrifices to pagan gods and idols did not ease the experience. Gradually, the prince began to realize that they were powerless to alleviate his moral suffering. Vladimir came to the conclusion that it is necessary to find the right faith. This was also facilitated by the difficulties in uniting the tribes of Ancient Russia into a single state on the basis of the former faith, since each tribe had its own faith, their gods were the only true ones. Vladimir were sent to different countries ambassadors to get acquainted with other religions. The faith chosen at the council was Greek - Orthodox. However, for its acceptance and inheritance, reconciliation with the old enemy of Russia - Byzantium was necessary. Vladimir asked the rulers of Constantinople, Constantine and Basil, not only for baptism, but also for the hand of their sister Anna. To avoid refusal, Vladimir Svyatoslavich seized Greek city Chersonese and in case of refusal threatened Constantine and Vasily obeyed and persuaded the obedient Anna to marry the Russian prince. Anna's meeting with Vladimir took place in Chersonese.
Vladimir and the Baptism of Russia
At that time, the Kyiv prince was ill with a strange eye disease, from which doctors could not save him. Anna insisted on urgent baptism. During the ceremony, Vladimir's illness miraculously healed. From now on in new faith other Russians also began to be baptized. And upon the arrival of the newlyweds in Kyiv, by decree of Prince Vladimir, all the idols were thrown into the Dnieper, and the majority of the city's population was baptized in the waters of the river. The prince himself refused polygamy, leaving beside him only wife- Anna.
positive character
After baptism, Vladimir Svyatoslavich began to lead a virtuous lifestyle. The aggressive campaigns of the Russian army against neighboring tribes and states ceased. The prince of Kyiv began to take care, first of all, of the enlightenment of the people. Schools and schools were opened for them, churches were built, charity developed: the poor could find shelter, food and financial support in the princely court, and food supplies were delivered to those who could not leave the house by order of the prince. In his mercy, Prince Vladimir sometimes even went too far. For example, death penalty criminals were replaced by ransom money. Too soft attitude towards Novgorod led to the fact that the Novgorodians went out of obedience, refused to pay tribute to Kyiv and demanded liberties. Shortly before his death, St. Vladimir made another big political mistake - he divided the lands into inheritance between his sons, thereby dooming the Fatherland to a time of internecine wars.
Character sculpture
Vladimir is represented in the Shcherbakov monument as a holy Prince Equal to the Apostles and as the baptizer of Russia in Orthodox faith. That is why he is dressed in a long robe of an inhabitant of Ancient Russia, which flutters in the wind. The clothes are girded with a wide belt, to which a sword is attached, hidden in a sheath, as a symbol of peace. In his hand is a cross raised to the sky as a spiritual landmark. He points the way to true faith.
Prince Vladimir's head is crowned with a princely hat trimmed with fur and adorned with precious stones as a symbol of power and wealth. Of course, both fur and gems also made of bronze.
The area around the monument
With the installation of the monument to Vladimir, it changed its appearance.
The sculpture is placed in the center historic hill and fenced off by trees from residential buildings. From the side of the Alexander Garden, gentle steps lead to it, which fan out below, resembling waves from a person who has entered the water. This is an allegory of the baptism of Russian people in the Dnieper water. And near the Alexander Garden, the steps resemble a pointed wing as an angelic symbol of heavenly grace and the powers of heaven. An electric artistic lighting was turned on near the monument, focusing attention on his figure even in dark time days.
The place of the monument in the spiritual life of Russia and Moscow
The monument to Prince Vladimir on Borovitskaya Square in Moscow quickly took its place among the symbols Russian capital. The installation of the monument was coordinated with UNESCO and supported by the majority of the city's residents.
According to V.V. Putin, this is a tribute to a person and statesman who was able to bring together diverse cultural and multilingual peoples and begin the process of enlightening all the inhabitants of the Russian lands. He was and is one of the brightest examples patriotic and wise steward, the spiritual and moral support of their people. Thanks to the deeds of Vladimir Svyatoslavich, Russia became stronger and more united, could repel numerous external enemies and solve its own problems. internal problems without losing face. And now his image preserves in Russians faith in goodness and justice, in the unity and strength of the Russian state.
According to professionals, the monument to Prince Vladimir was absolutely necessary from an ideological point of view, but its height should have been made smaller so that it does not block the view of the Kremlin walls. There are those who claim that Prince Vladimir had nothing to do with the capital. A monument to him had to be erected in Kyiv. In addition, in their opinion, the artistic solution of the monument is very controversial.
In contact with
Vladimir Putin and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia unveiled a monument to the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Grand Duke Vladimir, the Baptist of Russia, on Borovitskaya Square on National Unity Day, November 4, 2016.
Pavel Petrov, CC BY-SA 3.0The monument, 17.5 meters high, was built on the initiative of the Russian Military Historical Society and the Moscow government. The author of the project is the People's Artist of Russia, sculptor Salavat Shcherbakov.
Pavel Petrov, CC BY-SA 3.0 The opening ceremony was attended by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, members of the Government, deputies, representatives of public organizations, scientists, culture and art.
Pavel Petrov, CC BY-SA 3.0 At the end of the opening ceremony, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia consecrated the monument. Earlier in the day, the President and the Patriarch laid flowers on .
Pavel Petrov, CC BY-SA 3.0 Representatives of churches and confessions represented in Russia, as well as activists of Russian youth movements and representatives of public national cultural organizations took part in the laying of flowers.
Story
The project of the monument to the baptist of Russia Vladimir Svyatoslavich, already at the stage of development, caused a strong reaction from the public.
Pavel Petrov, CC BY-SA 3.0 Plans to erect a monument to Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich in Moscow on November 4, 2015, dedicated to the millennium since his death, became known at the beginning of 2015. On February 11, 2015, the Russian Military Historical Society published information that it held a competition for which 10 projects were submitted - the commission, headed by Archimandrite Tikhon, by secret ballot, chose one of the two projects of the workshop folk artist RF Salavat Shcherbakova (architect Vasily Danilov).
original address
It was announced that the monument, 24 meters high and weighing 330 tons, should be installed on, at the edge of the hill - where the observation deck, popular among Muscovites, is located. A fundraising for the construction was announced, on February 25, the installation of the monument was supported by the Moscow City Duma.
However, the territory running from the observation deck and below, down to the Moskva River, belongs to nature reserve"Sparrow Hills" and has the status of a specially protected natural area, which does not allow carrying out construction work - with the exception of those directly related to the activities of the reserve. Also, the choice for the construction of a zone dangerous from the point of view of landslide processes caused concern (out of more than 400 million rubles needed for the installation of the monument, at least 300 million were required for work to strengthen the slope).
final address
In August 2015 Moscow government invited Muscovites to choose the site of the monument by voting in mobile application"Active Citizen": Borovitskaya Square and were offered as options. The last option won a relative majority of votes - almost 35% of the 234.5 thousand voters.
shakko, CC BY-SA 3.0 In order to fulfill plans for the installation of the monument, a plot of 7 thousand m² at Manezhnaya Street, possession 7, at the beginning of November 2015, at the request of the mayor of the city, Sergei Sobyanin, was transferred from federal property to the city - without waiting for a response to a request for the possibility of implementing the project in this place submitted by the authorities to UNESCO earlier.
Lesless, CC BY-SA 4.0 Opening of the monument to Prince Vladimir
Photo gallery
Useful information
Monument to Vladimir the Great
Cost of visiting
is free
Opening hours
A brief outline of the controversy about the installation of the monument
The preparation of the monument to Prince Vladimir for installation caused a lively public controversy.
In particular, the initial project of its installation on Sparrow Hills gave rise to a public protest movement. The following arguments were put forward as the basis of the protest: the Moscow City Duma did not hold any open competition projects, nor ecological expertise, but the very construction of the monument on this site came into conflict with the legislation on the protection of cultural heritage, interfered with the established architectural ensemble and actually eliminated the value of the observation deck with its well-established views of the city, Muscovites began collecting signatures demanding that the project be stopped. On April 21, the creation of a city-wide coalition in defense of the Sparrow Hills was announced. By early June, nearly 60,000 people had signed the petition. A petition was also created in support of the decision of the Moscow City Duma to establish a monument, which by the end of May was signed by 52,000 people.
Public movement "Arhnadzor" proposed alternatives to install the monument, the sculptor Salavat Shcherbakov himself did not insist on the observation deck of the Sparrow Hills: "Moscow is a beautiful city, there are a lot of places to accommodate" - while the author of the monument was ready to adjust its size.
Public controversy was not limited to Sparrow Hills. Preparations for the installation at the Borovitskaya area also caused heated discussion.
In particular, as Kommersant reported in August 2015, preparatory work installation began without the approval of UNESCO, although Borovitskaya area is included in the buffer zone of the site world heritage Kremlin and Red Square. (At one time, it was planned to build a depository for the Moscow Kremlin Museum-Reserve there, but in 2010 the authorities abandoned this project.) The height ranges from 5 to 19 meters, the height of the main quadrangle is just over 16.5 meters.
However, Archpriest Vladimir Vigilyansky, commenting at the end of August 2015 on three installation options submitted for Internet voting (Borovitskaya and Lubyanka Square, Zaryadye), said that each of them has its own advantages as a location for the monument, but opponents of the monument will look for any excuse not to erect it:
Opponents of the establishment of the monument in each of these options will look for all sorts of pretexts, even the most absurd ones, for their protests. Cause? Very simple: the civilizational choice of St. Vladimir for the creation of Russian statehood was associated with Christianity - hated by both the extreme right and the extreme left.
On September 9, 2015, the Moscow City Duma decided to erect a monument on Borovitskaya Square - although the site itself was not in the city, but in federal ownership. The next day, the administration of Tverskoy municipal district decided not to approve the installation of the monument in this place. Shortly thereafter, a Moscow City Duma deputy from this district, Elena Shuvalova, created a petition on Change.org addressed to UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova and Russian President Vladimir Putin with a request to prevent the installation of a monument on Borovitskaya Square - this petition did not find a response from the Russian authorities.
Moscow. November 4th. website - In the center of Moscow on Borovitskaya Square, the opening ceremony of the monument to Prince Vladimir took place. It was attended by President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky and Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin.
Speaking at the event, Vladimir Putin stated that Russian society must withstand modern challenges and threats, following the spiritual precepts left by Prince Vladimir. The President stressed that Prince Vladimir went down in history forever as a collector and defender of Russian lands, as a far-sighted politician who laid the foundations of a strong, unified, centralized state.
After the President's speech, a monument to the saint Prince Equal to the Apostles consecrated by Patriarch Kirill.
The initiators of the construction of the monument were the Russian Military Historical Society (RVIO) and the city authorities. In February 2015, the Moscow City Duma decided that a 25-meter monument weighing 300 tons and costing 94 million rubles would appear on Sparrow Hills. But after an active protest from local residents and a number of experts, the RVIO turned to the Moscow City Duma with a request to find a new site for the monument. Based on the results of an online survey, Borovitskaya Square was chosen.
On September 9, 2015, the Moscow City Duma approved the installation of a monument on Borovitskaya Square. The author of the monument is the sculptor Salavat Shcherbakov.
The decision was initially made without the consent of UNESCO, although experts from the International Council for the Preservation of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) spoke of the possibility of a negative impact of the monument on the Kremlin as a world heritage site.
In early 2016, UNESCO Deputy Director General for Culture Francesco Bandarin visited Moscow and made recommendations on the height of the monument. As a result, it was accepted new project, which was sent to the World Heritage Center and for examination by ICOMOS. The Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to UNESCO noted that the project was received positively.
After the discussion, it was decided to reduce the monument: according to the updated project, the height of the pedestal of the monument is 2.75 meters, the height of the sculpture itself is 12 meters, in addition, the cross in right hand Prince Vladimir rises three meters above the figure. Overall Height the monument is 17.75 meters.
As the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky stated earlier, all work on the installation of the monument to Prince Vladimir was carried out with strict consideration of the recommendations of UNESCO.
Work on the installation of the monument began on Borovitsky Hill on October 16, 2016, where the monument was delivered from a foundry in Khimki.
So, according to the idea of the Russian Military Historical Society, Borovitskaya Square will look like, flooded with warm August sun, say, in 2017
To begin with, let us clarify that the hillock on north side Borovitskaya Square, where in a week the installation of a statue in honor of the famous overthrower of the statues of St. Prince Vladimir is planned, is not Borovitsky Hill, it is just a nameless hillock. The widespread information that the same hill was dug up for the construction of the base of the monument, fortunately, is not true, since the Kremlin has long stood on Borovitsky Hill. Borovitskaya Square itself is a space bounded by the Alexander Garden and Mokhovaya Street, behind the garden is the Kremlin, and behind Mokhovaya is Starovagankovsky Hill, on which Pashkov House stands.
To understand complex nature ill-fated Borovitskaya Square, it is necessary to identify three main provisions. Firstly, on it you can tell the whole history of Moscow from prehistoric times - here it began. I saw the square and the pagan Vyatichi, and the first visit of Yuri Dolgoruky, and the appearance of the first wooden Kremlin over there on the hill. The history can be seen more clearly from the 15th century, when the princess's country yard appeared on the site of Pashkov's house - and then it was even near Moscow. In the 16th century, it was an open bridgehead of the Kremlin with the Oprichny Castle that briefly appeared on its outer side, in the 17th century there were settlements of archers here, until Peter Alekseevich hung their inhabitants on the battlements of the Kremlin wall. Well, then the area was transformed by the construction of the Pashkov Palace, the authorship of which is still being debated - either the great Bazhenov, or no less great, but not yet an authorized foreigner.
1900–1910
2 of 6View from the book depository of the Library. V.I. Lenin on Zamoskvorechye, Borovitskaya Square, Mokhovaya Street. 1947
3 of 6Demolitions. 1972
4 of 61973–1980
5 out of 6 6 out of 6profound interpreter metropolitan history Rustam Rakhmatullin believes that the biography of Borovitskaya Square can be viewed in terms of the “Moscow is the Third Rome” scheme, where it is similar to the Roman Forum, located between the aristocratic Kremlin-Palatine and the Vagankovo-Capitol, which challenges it (the Arbat lying behind it is an eternal hotbed of free-thinking, from Pushkin and the Decembrists to Tsoi and Okudzhava). And the Forum is the middle, the “controversy of the hills”, here the authorities should go out to the people unarmed, not without reason in the 17th century, the sovereign Alexei Mikhailovich built stone almshouses at the Borovitsky Gate and personally distributed alms here on holidays.
Second: Borovitskaya Square is very beautiful. In the 1780s, the defiantly beautiful palace of the vodka magnate Pyotr Pashkov rose opposite the Kremlin. When it was built, there was no square here - in front of it there was another quarter of two-story bourgeois houses. The way the huge Pashkov House proudly rose above them had its own expressiveness, but after the demolition of these houses in the early 1970s, the masterpiece opened to its full height. And from the side of the Pashkov House you can look at the panorama of the Kremlin - here it is not the most ceremonial, but spacious, with five towers, three red stars. Behind the Stone Bridge - Zamoskvoretsky gave. But at the same time, there are few of those who have ever come to this square to admire it.
Photo 2015
© Sergey Fadeichev/TASS
Because here, at last, third: Borovitskaya Square is not a square at all - not every empty space, even if it is a beautiful space, is worthy of such a name. At tsarist regime Volkhonka and Znamenka met at the very Borovitsky Gates - it was a small but understandable square. In the 1930s, its southern side was demolished and a new Big A stone bridge, previously located 200 meters from here, near Lenivka). Now you can ask yourself: why do cars, driving off the bridge, make a stupid loop around the lawn at the exit to Mokhovaya? But because, according to the plan, the entire quarter between Mokhovaya and Alexander Gardens was abolished and a huge denouement was obtained, on which the Avenue of the Palace of Soviets, Komintern Street met ( New Arbat) and the main thoroughfare of Zamoskvorechye.
This idea, as you know, was abandoned, but in 1972 all the remaining buildings on the Volkhonka and Znamenka spit were demolished anyway. At the same time, the new decision of the square was postponed until the day after tomorrow, which never came. From the north and south, to this day, stumps of half-demolished quarters come out onto the square. In 1996, a competition was announced for the reconstruction of the square, so sad that the jury decided not to award first place. However, the most famous of the participating projects, the project, for all its monstrosity, still tried to make a square out of the square - modeled on the St. After that, only local objects were offered, such as the implemented Shilov Gallery or the unrealized lopsided museum depository - if you remember, this project became one of the formal ones for Luzhkov's resignation.
Map for visual navigation. Even according to "Yandex" it is clear that the square does not exist - it is a crossroads
Borovitskaya Square is an exceptionally complex knot of scraps of insane ideas not brought to mind; to unravel it will be long and thoughtful. Now it belongs to transport and is extremely inconvenient for pedestrians - it is even impossible to get around! The Alexander Garden is actually a dead end: if you walk along it to the end, it remains to go back, because there is nothing for a pedestrian to do on the highway of the Kremlin Embankment, and you can get to the beautiful Swan Lane, which is a hundred meters from the garden in a straight line, only by going down under the Stone Bridge, passing one traffic light and two high stairs, which makes the alley completely useless and the garden boring. From Lebyazhye to Mokhovaya there are two more long traffic lights, noise and nonsense, and you can return to Aleksandrovsky only through Vozdvizhenka - a kilometer from the place where we carelessly left it.
Leaving behind the scenes disputes about the artistic merits of the monument to Vladimir and amusing stubborn promotion of its installation on Borovitskaya Square, let's try to imagine what changes await the square itself. The initiators and supporters of the installation of the statue in this place also emphasize that the square in its current form is a random thing. And they propose to solve the problem “within the framework of improvement” of the unsettled territory. Considering the landscaping is not benches-paths, but a monument as high as a 5-story building (at first it was supposed to be 24 m with a pedestal, now it seems to be 16 without it).
Preparations for the reconstruction of the area. August 2016
© Sergey Savostyanov/TASS
The appearance of such a decisive dominant between the Kremlin and the Pashkov House will certainly not leave the possibility of not noticing it. The frantic nature of this decision, in my opinion, is remarkable by my colleague Rustam Rakhmatullin: “When a mediocre figurative work of this size is against the background of a standard of taste, the best work Moscow classicism, it tries to turn it into its backstage, moreover, a side stage. The house of Pashkov not only does not require anything in front of him, he excludes everything in front of him. It was not Brezhnev who demolished the quarter in front of Pashkov's house in 1972, it was the house that regained air for dialogue with the Kremlin. Suspend the process, you have no idea, respect Saint Vladimir!” However, in vain; the music is ordered by the initiator of the installation of the monument - the Russian Military Historical Society.
I'm not sure that the erectors of the monument even thought about what would happen after, but it is obvious that this is not a girl with an oar, which, on occasion, can be taken and moved. In the absence of a common plan, it is assumed that subsequent decisions will be forced to adapt to the huge monument.
Dashing trouble landscaping. vrisovka 
This is how the project published in AiF looks like with an understudy of the Alexander Garden from Borovitskaya to Vozdvizhenka in "Arguments" is accompanied by the caption "In the meantime, we look at our picture and are amazed ourselves!". And we, in turn, are amazed, looking at your pictures and your statues.
