The ‘Ruins’ Grotto in Alexander Garden: remembrance of 1812 and the work of restorers

The grotto in Alexander Garden beside the Middle Arsenal Tower is known as the ‘Ruins’. It was built to a design by Osip Bove in the early 1820s. Its masonry incorporates carved architectural details from dismantled buildings in Moscow, including the Arsenal. The columned portico, lion figures and some of the decorative features were restored in the 20th century; the documents examined for this article do not establish the original location of every stone.

The history of the grotto in Alexander Garden can be traced through the official record of its protected heritage features, publications by the Moscow Kremlin Museums and the account of conservation architect Dmitry Kulchinsky. These sources help distinguish historic elements incorporated into the structure from documented reconstructions. However, the publications examined do not include a map identifying every individual element of the façade.

What remains of Moscow’s buildings after 1812 can be found in the grotto?

The principal physical evidence is carved white-stone architectural details, incorporated into the masonry of the grotto’s retaining wall. The heritage protection document tentatively attributes them to buildings damaged in 1812. It records them as part of the protected architecture, but does not itself list the addresses of the buildings from which each fragment was brought.

Kulchinsky, who took part in restoring the structure, recalled seeing decorative stonework from the Arsenal’s blown-up wall among the surviving elements incorporated into the grotto. The Kremlin building stands directly opposite the grotto, behind the fortifications, lending geographical support to his account. A later archaeological investigation strengthened this attribution while also showing why it cannot be extended to the entire façade.

The museum’s report on the work carried out in 2004 identifies the carved inserts as architectural details from buildings dismantled after the fire of 1812. They were put back in place during the restoration of the northern wing. This wording matters: the conservators worked not only with new stone, but also with historic fragments already incorporated into the structure. The general overview does not establish, joint by joint, where surviving 19th-century masonry ends and later repairs begin.

Which fragments have researchers linked to the Arsenal?

In a scholarly publication by the Moscow Kremlin Museums Anastasia Komolova cites research by archaeologist Tatiana Panova and states that decorative elements from the Kremlin Arsenal were found in the northern part of the grotto. According to museum staff member A. N. Ferebov, this building is the source of 43 fragments. The types listed include vases, column capitals and elements of military trophy decoration with linear and foliate ornamentation. This is considerably more specific than the general description of fragments of ‘old Moscow’.

The figure of 43 refers to an identified group of fragments from the Arsenal, rather than to all the stones in the grotto or the number of damaged houses. The publication does not provide a publicly accessible diagram identifying each element for visitors. Even if the carving is recognisable, it is impossible to establish the origin of a particular detail simply by looking at it from the path. Measured survey data and restoration records are needed.

The connection with the Arsenal also explains where the fragments were reused: the damaged building stood directly behind the Kremlin wall, near the site of the future grotto. Proximity alone, however, would not constitute sufficient evidence. What carries weight is the discovery of architectural details and the scholarly attribution of their origins. Komolova’s article identifies types of carved decoration — capitals, vases and ornamental elements; this list can be compared with the Arsenal’s historic architecture.

The researcher also reports a large white-stone cannonball, approximately 60 centimetres in diameter, found in the northern part of the grotto. She dates it cautiously to the 15th–16th centuries, adding a question mark. This find does not prove that the entire grotto was built from cannonballs: it is a single discovered object with its own story about the origin of the material. Other rounded stones require separate investigation.

Why did Bove incorporate the fragments into a garden structure?

The grotto was part of the Kremlin Garden laid out after 1812, later renamed Alexander Garden. The old fragments embedded in its masonry served as a reminder of the fire of 1812 beside the garden’s walking path. The heritage protection document explains that the choice of materials reflected a commemorative intent: Bove incorporated remnants of Moscow buildings into the grotto as a symbol of the city’s rebirth after the destruction of 1812.

The architect gave the new structure the appearance of a ruin in a park and incorporated old carved stones into it. In this way, the destruction of 1812 became part of the design of a garden for strolling. This is an inference drawn from the monument’s design and its official description, rather than a verified quotation from a letter by the architect.

The heritage protection document dates the grotto to 1821, while a museum publication by archaeologist Tatyana Panova dates its construction to the broader period of 1820–1823. The report on the opening of the first garden confirms that the structure already existed by 30 August 1821, but does not establish the exact date on which work was completed. According to Komolova’s research, the name ‘Kremlin Garden’ became established after 1822. It became known as ‘Alexander Garden’ after the coronation of Alexander II in 1856, in memory of Alexander I.

How did contemporaries interpret the garden ‘ruin’?

Guidebooks of the 1820s described the grotto as a purpose-built ornamental ruin in the newly established garden. Komolova compares de Laveau’s French-language guidebook of 1824 with the Russian edition by Sergei Glinka published shortly afterwards. The authors regarded the structure as a deliberate imitation of ruins; they did not portray it as uncleared debris left by chance after the fire.

Komolova compares differing views of such structures. In his poem ‘The Gardens’, the French poet Jacques Delille condemned attempts to create the appearance of ancient ruins where none had existed. In his guidebook of 1824, de Laveau wrote that the grotto gave the new Kremlin Garden a sense of a long history. Their comments concern an artistic technique. They do not establish the origin of the carved stone in the grotto wall: that question was addressed later by archaeologists and restorers.

The word ‘artificial’ here refers to the composition and does not deny the authenticity of the incorporated fragments. Bové built the arch and walls for the new garden, reusing fragments of damaged buildings. According to one theory, old stone cannonballs were also used in the masonry; one such cannonball was found in the north wing during restoration in 2004. As a result, from the moment it opened, the structure combined a new architectural design with pre-existing material. This dual nature explains why historical descriptions and modern restoration documents alike call the grotto a ruin, yet address different questions about its authenticity.

Komolova’s research also cautions against confusion over location: guidebooks mentioned artificial ruins in the third section of the garden, nearer the Borovitsky Gate, too. Bove’s grotto beside the Middle Arsenal Tower stood in the section that opened before the others. An earlier writer’s reference to ‘ruins in the garden’ therefore does not, in itself, prove that they meant the ‘Ruins’ monument. When comparing texts, it is essential to check which section of the three-part ensemble is being discussed.

When did the public first see the garden and the grotto?

The first section of the garden, where Bove’s grotto stands, opened on 30 August 1821 according to the calendar then used in Russia. Pavel Ivanov mentioned the structure in his account of the opening; his testimony was studied by Anastasia Komolova. The grotto was already standing by the day of the ceremony.

Work had begun earlier: Komolova cites a communication dated 3 August 1820 from Moscow’s Governor-General Dmitry Golitsyn to the Commission for Buildings, concerning the emperor’s order to create a place for strolling beside the Kremlin wall. On 30 August 1821 the section from the Voskresensky Gate to the Troitsky Gate was opened to visitors. The other sections of the three-part ensemble should not be assumed to have been complete by that date.

Ivanov described the illumination of the garden paths and the Kremlin wall; an illuminated display featuring the imperial family’s monograms was placed above the grotto. His account also mentions music played by four regiments. This testimony shows that the grotto was incorporated into the new garden’s public festivities from the outset. The author describes the festive decorations of 1821, rather than the façade’s permanent appearance: the illuminated monograms must not be included in a reconstruction of its everyday appearance.

Komolova compares Ivanov’s account with archival material and later images. This approach is important for this subject: a written source tells us how the space was used, a drawing helps us understand its outline, and the surviving masonry reveals its material substance. None of these three types of evidence alone describes the entire grotto with the precision of a construction drawing. It therefore makes sense to distinguish the history of its opening from the question of exactly which carved details have survived.

Was the hill itself a remnant of Moscow’s ruins from 1812?

No: the site of the grotto has an earlier history. It is built into an embankment at the foot of the Middle Arsenal Tower. The heritage protection document links this embankment to a former bastion built in preparation for the defence of the Kremlin during the Great Northern War. Drawing on archaeological research, Komolova dates these fortifications to 1707–1708. Bove used the existing terrain as the basis for his new composition.

These are distinct layers of historical memory that are easily confused. The earth embankment is associated with fortifications from the early 18th century; the white-stone inserts in the façade with the dismantling of damaged buildings in Moscow after 1812; and the grotto’s design with the work of an architect in the first quarter of the 19th century. Not every irregularity in the embankment or every stone at the foot of the Kremlin wall bears witness to the same event.

The heritage protection document describes the structure’s position precisely: the grotto stands in the upper part of the garden on the site of a former bastion, and its deep recess with a portico forms an axis aligned with the Middle Arsenal Tower. What the viewer sees is not a random pile of stones left after the fire. It is a carefully planned architectural composition incorporating the existing terrain and selected fragments.

Why does the stone cannonball theory not invalidate the history of the buildings?

Contemporary accounts of the garden’s construction mentioned old stone cannonballs that lay in the Kremlin and may have been used to build the grotto. Komolova presents this explanation alongside evidence that fragments of buildings were incorporated after the fire of 1812. The researcher does not suggest choosing one material over the other: the large cannonball found by archaeologists and carved details from the Arsenal can coexist within the same structure.

Their origins and roles differ. The cannonball is an artefact of military history incorporated into the structure. The carved capitals and ornamental details were once architectural elements. The bands of brick and tuff form the masonry Bove designed for the new park structure. Calling all of these simply ‘fragments of houses’ would erase the distinctions that underpin the grotto’s history.

The diameter of the cannonball that was found — around 60 centimetres — gives a sense of its substantial physical presence, but does not justify using a single find to calculate the total number of cannonballs used by the builders. Komolova adds a question mark even when dating it. This approach is useful: the archaeologist identifies the object, its location and a tentative date, while the reader can see the limits of the evidence, without the myth that every round stone came flying from a battlefield.

How is the façade constructed, and where should you look for the old fragments?

The façade extends along the retaining wall and is deliberately asymmetrical. The large arch with a four-column Doric portico forms the main focal point; the smaller arch conceals a staircase leading to the upper terrace. Between them, brick, rubble stone and carved white-stone details sit side by side. It is in the wall’s masonry, rather than in the orderly row of columns, that the heritage protection document identifies possible fragments of buildings damaged in 1812.

The same document also lists the fluting — vertical grooves on the portico’s supports; pilasters frame the portico at either side, and beneath it is a three-stepped stylobate. A stepped attic rises above the columns. These regular elements help distinguish the carefully composed centre of the façade from the deliberately uneven side sections, where old carved details are incorporated into the masonry. The historical origins of the stone should be traced through the reused pieces themselves and the restoration documentation, rather than inferred from the classical form of the columns.

The first step is to distinguish the building material from decorative references to earlier architecture. The brick arch and bands of rough rubble stone create the appearance of ‘ruins’ in Bové’s design. A carved insert has a different significance: it is stone already worked into an architectural profile and reused. Colour alone cannot reveal this distinction: the old details and the columns of the restored portico are equally pale.

Inside, the large niche has a vault with decorative ribs of rough natural stone and white-stone cornices. At the rear is a smaller semicircular recess. The heritage protection document lists these elements along with the staircase leading upwards. The list describes the monument’s significant architectural features in their present state; it does not claim that every part of the vault has survived without repair since 1821.

What do old images reveal, and what do they leave unseen?

Images from the 19th century allow us to compare the former outline of Bové’s grotto with its appearance today. They cannot reveal the age of an individual stone: this requires on-site examination and restoration records.

Komolova reproduces a lithograph of the garden from the 1840s, based on a drawing, and an architectural drawing of the grotto’s elevation and plan, dated between 1866 and the early 1870s. Both images are held in the collection of the Moscow Kremlin Museums. The lithograph conveys the appearance of the garden’s strolling area; the architectural drawing allows us to examine the shape of the arches and the position of the portico. Neither source identifies the building from which any particular carved insert was taken. Comparing the images with the present façade therefore helps verify its form, while establishing the provenance of the stone requires other documents.

For restorers, a visual source can provide the basis for reconstructing a lost appearance; Kulchinsky explicitly stated that the colonnade was restored using a photograph, and the lions using an engraving and comparable sculptures. Yet each of these types of image has its limitations. A photograph captures a particular moment and viewpoint; an architectural drawing may show a proposed design or record measured dimensions; an artist may emphasise an expressive detail without documenting its size. When interpreting a monument, it is important to distinguish between these functions.

The account of the garden’s opening in 1821 mentions illumination above the grotto; the lithograph from the 1840s shows its place within the ensemble; and research drawings from the second half of the 19th century document its layout. On their own, these sources do not prove that the bas-relief, the present staircase or every sculpture was made in 1821. The dating of the physical fabric is verified separately, using surviving remains, design documentation and accounts of restoration work.

Accounts of performances in the garden differ. Having compared guidebooks, Komolova writes that regimental bands played in the garden on Wednesdays, Sundays and holidays; the sources place the musicians in different locations — either in a separate pavilion or on the platform above the grotto. We can therefore speak confidently of the garden’s musical life and a space for the orchestra, but cannot claim without qualification that the orchestra always sat inside the recess or necessarily on the very railing that visitors see following restoration work.

What had to be recreated during the mid-20th-century restoration?

The most notable reconstructed features are: the columned portico and the railing with lion sculptures above the grotto. The Moscow Kremlin Museums It is reported that the grotto acquired its present appearance following the restoration of 1958–1959, carried out by a specialist workshop of the Mosproekt Institute. At the same time, the brickwork and stonework of the walls, arches and vaults were reinforced, and the stone paving of the floor and platform was restored.

Kulchinsky described the condition of the structure before work began without romanticising it: the colonnade had disappeared, leaving only traces, and the interior surfaces had been doused with tar. He explained that the missing columns had been recreated in white stone from a photograph, while the lost moulded reliefs of the frieze had been replaced with copies of decorative details appropriate to the Empire period. This account by someone involved in the work establishes the method of reconstruction, but does not guarantee that every new element exactly matches the original.

This distinction is essential to understanding the monument. The architectural layout derives from Bové’s design and is supported by surviving traces and historical images. The portico’s white-stone columns were made during the restoration in the mid-20th century. To regard them as untouched examples from the 1820s would erase the contribution of 20th-century architects from the grotto’s history.

Where did the lions above the grotto come from?

The lion sculptures on the upper platform form part of the reconstructed appearance; they cannot be regarded as unquestionably surviving sculptures from Bové’s original design. Kulchinsky wrote that the decision to reinstate the pair was based on their depiction in an old engraving. The copies were modelled on sculptures typical of the period when the garden was created, displayed at a branch of the Museum of Architecture then housed in the Donskoy Monastery.

The heritage protection document also describes the two reclining lions as having been recreated using comparable examples, but attributes this to the restoration of 1957. The museum report dates the main phase of work that shaped the present appearance to 1958–1959. Publications give different dates for this feature and for the restoration campaign as a whole; without the project file and acceptance certificates, the precise year in which each sculpture was installed cannot be stated with certainty. The firm overall conclusion is that the lions form part of the mid-20th-century restoration.

The depiction of a lion does not prove that the present figures have stood here since the garden opened. Komolova describes two 19th-century drawings: one sketches the outlines of lions, while the other shows sphinxes. Komolova cites a suggestion by the researcher A. B. Tikhomirova that replacing the lions with sphinxes may have been discussed during repair work. The drawings record alternative designs; Kulchinsky gave a separate explanation of the origins of the sculptures installed during the mid-20th-century restoration.

What traces of the 1930s restoration are known?

According to the Moscow Kremlin Museums, the vault over the interior space was restored during the first restoration in the 1930s. These repairs preceded the work carried out by Mosproekt.

The available museum overview does not specify the boundaries between the sections of the vault restored in the 1930s, repaired in 1958–1959 and reinforced later. Dating the surface by appearance alone is therefore risky. During the work in 2004, old blocks were indeed removed and reinstated in the masonry. The age of the stone may therefore differ from the date it was last laid.

What did the work carried out in 2004 change?

In 2004 the restoration was primarily an effort to save the structure, which had once again become dangerously unstable. According to the museum report, specialists reinforced the foundations and masonry, built additional reinforced-concrete retaining walls, and installed waterproofing and drainage. To carry out this work, they removed the soil around the structural elements in stages to a depth of up to eight metres; archaeologists monitored the excavation.

Before reinforcing the grotto in 2004, specialists removed a tree that had grown on the structure, installed supporting formwork beneath the vaults and dismantled unsafe sections of masonry. The foundations and walls were first secured with cement mortar. This is how the museum describes the sequence of emergency stabilisation measures: deep excavation and the construction of new retaining structures began only after the weakened parts of the historic structure had been protected.

Above ground, the façade and interior were cleaned, the brickwork and white stone masonry were repaired, blocks that had fallen out or been removed were reinstated, and the walls were strengthened by injection grouting. Missing sections of the moulded bas-reliefs were recreated, and the interior cornices were restored.

The museum also states that the stone steps leading into the grotto, the steps of the staircase within the wall, and the floor inside were relaid on a reinforced base, with existing elements restored and new ones added to replace those that had been lost. Thus, even an original slab in the present floor does not provide evidence of how it was originally laid. The overall report does not establish the age of each individual element.

What changes were made underground?

The underground part of the grotto was reinforced separately from the façade. After excavating the soil, specialists injected cement grout into the foundation masonry and the interface between the foundations and the soil, built additional reinforced concrete retaining walls, then installed waterproofing and drainage. The museum’s report describes this work alongside the restoration of the visible façade: much of the work carried out in 2004 is concealed behind it. The structural reinforcement made it possible to preserve the carved details reinstated in the north wing.

The museum’s report includes captions for photographs taken during the work. These mention a stone cannonball found in the rubble infill of the north wing during dismantling, the reinstatement of carved white stone details in its masonry, and the restoration of the floor inside the grotto. These photographs document the work carried out in 2004; the caption describing this find does not establish the date of all similar stones, while the photograph showing the relaying process illustrates why a fragment’s position after the work needs to be checked against earlier records.

After the hill was restored, the upper terrace was repaved with white stone slabs and fitted with newly made wrought iron railings and restored lion statues. It is important to distinguish between these interventions: new railings, a reinstated sculpture and an old block returned to the masonry have different degrees of material authenticity.

Excavations behind the grotto uncovered the remains of a path paved with white stone, with brick drainage channels. According to the museum, the path has been partially restored. This discovery shows that the structure’s history extended beyond its visible façade: the drainage system and access to the upper platform were interconnected. The view from the avenue does not reveal the full original layout.

Can the grotto be considered authentic if some of its details are new?

Yes, provided we are clear about what kind of authenticity we mean. The location beside the bastion, Bové’s basic spatial layout, historic fragments incorporated into the wall and traces of old masonry form the structure’s historic core. The portico, sculpture and many decorative details also reflect decisions made by restorers. A monument’s authenticity does not depend on all its materials dating from a single year.

The approved list of protected features explicitly includes the carved inserts, the four-column portico and the lions recreated using comparable examples as valuable parts of the grotto’s design. This list describes the structure as it has evolved, with its significant historical layers. It does not guarantee that any particular protected element was carved in 1821.

The document itself makes the distinction clear. The list of the grotto’s protected features was approved by an order of the Russian Ministry of Culture dated 4 May 2017. It includes not only the white-stone inserts, but also the overall dimensions dating back to the 1820s, the location on the former bastion, the sightlines from the avenues and the archaeological layer beneath the structure. The list also names the lions, explicitly described as having been recreated using comparable examples. The protection encompasses historic material, restored form, the spatial relationship with the tower and underground evidence; each of these requires a different method of verification.

The portico’s frieze offers another example. The heritage protection document lists moulded metopes with military emblems and attic decoration featuring winged horses and a palmette. Kulchinsky recalled that lost reliefs had been replaced with copies of Empire-period details, while the museum’s 2004 report described cleaning the bas-reliefs and filling in missing sections. The motifs on the present-day frieze help us recognise the artistic language of the original ensemble, but they alone do not justify attributing every visible moulded element to Bové’s workshop without examining its individual history.

This is what distinguishes the grotto from a decorative structure merely designed to look ‘old’. Fragments of old Moscow were genuinely incorporated into the wall; during later work, they were preserved and returned to their original positions. At the same time, the form that allows visitors to perceive the structure as a coherent whole requires us to acknowledge the documented reconstruction. Both considerations are essential to an honest assessment of how much of the original survives.

Can we identify the house each stone came from?

The publications consulted for this article do not establish the original location of every stone. A museum study identifies a particular group of carved elements in the northern part of the grotto as originating from the Arsenal; the heritage protection document cautiously suggests that other fragments incorporated into the structure may have come from buildings damaged in 1812. Each fragment whose origin remains unidentified requires separate investigation.

There is also a physical reason for caution. Over two centuries, the grotto has undergone several repairs, including the reinforcement and rebuilding of sections of the façade. In 2004, museum specialists returned dismantled and fallen blocks to their places and added new elements to replace those that had been lost. A stone’s position within a masonry joint after the 2004 restoration may differ from its position in Bove’s time. To establish the history of a particular element, restoration records documenting each element individually would be needed.

The strength of the evidence also depends on precisely what is being compared. The museum article’s attribution to the Arsenal rests on a study of fragments in the northern part of the grotto and A. N. Ferebov’s information about a group of 43 elements. For a stone of unknown origin, similarity of ornament alone is insufficient. What is needed is the location where it was found or previously set into the masonry, measurements of its profile, and records of the dismantling of the original building. Without this chain of evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that architectural carvings were reused, but not to identify the address of the façade from which they came.

This suggests a more useful way to look at the grotto: notice the carved profiles and distinguish them from the rough rubble stone, without mentally assigning every projecting detail to a well-known Moscow house. The unknown origin of a single block does not undermine the evidence that building fragments were reused.

What does the grotto reveal about Bove’s approach to the city’s memory?

Bové combined the existing terrain, new architecture and surviving fragments to create a structure for a public garden. The large arch and portico establish a sense of order; the uneven masonry preserves the memory of destruction. This contrast was built into the architecture, rather than resulting from later neglect.

The grotto’s masonry preserves architectural fragments from buildings dismantled after 1812. Museum research links some of the carved stonework to the Arsenal; the original locations of the remaining pieces have not been established. The present portico, lion figures and reinforced structures have their own history of restoration in the 20th and 21st centuries.

You can explore the grotto on your own beside the Middle Arsenal Tower: first trace the outlines of the two arches, then look for carved fragments set into the masonry on either side. If you would like to connect these details with the history of the surrounding city centre, the route of the “Heart of the Capital” tour passes through Alexander Garden. The route description does not promise a separate stop at the grotto.

Sources

1. State historical and cultural expert assessment report on repairs to the Zhukov monument: protected features of the grotto and fountain, pp. 31–33
2. Moscow Kremlin Museums. The ‘Grotto’ garden pavilion: restoration in 2004
3. Dmitry Kulchinsky. Our work is about both creativity and responsibility
4. A. A. Komolova. Ceremonial Events in Alexander Garden (1821–1914)
5. A. A. Komolova. On the Opening Ceremony of the Kremlin (Alexander) Garden in 1821
6. Radius Tour Bureau. ‘Heart of the Capital’ tour
7. A. A. Komolova. Alexander Garden in contemporary accounts and graphic materials from the collection of the Moscow Kremlin Museums
8. Moscow Kremlin Museums. Abstract of an article by T. D. Panova in ‘Materials and Research’, issue XXI