Vasily Polenov’s ‘A Moscow Courtyard’ is linked to a real property in the Arbat district, near the junction of Durnovsky and Trubnikovsky Lanes. The painting was based on a view from a window, which the artist broadened horizontally while working on the canvas in 1878. A letter by Polenov, old maps and the original version make it possible to identify with confidence the direction of the view, the Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Sands and the layout of the estate. The positions of certain buildings in the final composition reflect the artist’s creative reworking of the scene.
Almost nothing of Polenov’s courtyard has survived into the twenty-first century. Its principal spatial landmark remains—the Church of the Saviour on the Sands—along with Spasopeskovskaya Square and fragments of the network of lanes. The Baumgarten House, the wing containing the artist’s flat, the outbuildings and the Church of St Nicholas the Wonderworker in Plotniki have all disappeared. We should therefore look for the place where the motif originated and the system of reference points corroborated by Polenov’s letter, maps and later photographs; the courtyard’s exact appearance has been lost.
Vasily Polenov. Moscow Courtyard, 1878. The Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Sands can be seen in the distance. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow Courtyard (Polenov, 1878).jpg, author: Vasily Polenov, licence: Public domain source
Where Polenov Painted Moscow Courtyard
Documentary evidence points to a property in the Arbat district near the Church of the Saviour on the Sands. After three weeks of searching for a flat, on 23 June 1877 Polenov informed Fyodor Chizhov of his new address: the Baumgarten House in Durnovsky Lane, between Novinsky Boulevard and Sobachya Square. This letter dates from almost the same time as the first study and therefore carries more weight than the artist’s later recollection.
In 1952, Durnovsky Lane was merged with Sobachya Square and the adjoining lane to form Kompozitorskaya Street. In the 1960s, Kalinin Avenue—now Novy Arbat—cut across the historic route. Modern-day Kompozitorskaya Street preserves only part of it.
Art historian Eleonora Paston pinpointed the property using Alexei Khotev’s 1852–1853 Atlas of the Capital City of Moscow and its accompanying index. In the Arbat district, it is estate No. 148, at the corner of Durnovsky and Trubnikovsky Lanes. In the mid-nineteenth century, it was registered to Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Yuryev, while the 1882 index lists Cornet Nikolai Baumgarten as its owner. The manor house, garden and two wings formed the type of estate discernible in the early version of the painting.
Polenov rented a flat in one of the side wings until July 1878. From its window, he could see the inner courtyard and the church beyond the neighbouring buildings. Spasopeskovskaya Square serves as a topographical reference point, while the courtyard occupies the foreground: between the artist and the church stood the residential buildings and outbuildings of several properties.
Why Moscow Courtyard Has Two Dates
The Tretyakov Gallery holds two versions of the composition by the artist. The original 1877 version was painted on canvas mounted on cardboard and measures 49.8 × 38.5 centimetres; the familiar wider canvas of 1878 measures 64.5 × 80.1 centimetres.
In his own list of works, Polenov called the early version ‘A Corner of the Arbat’. The title aptly conveys its purpose: it is a direct record of the scene he saw from the window. Paston’s museum research suggests that most of the work may have been completed between July and the first half of August 1877, although the final canvas is dated 1878. The art historian explains the discrepancy by noting that Polenov often dated completed works according to when they were prepared for exhibition or sale.
The correspondence clarifies the chronology. In April 1878, the artist told Ivan Kramskoi that the painting had long been finished and was delayed only by the frame; he described the subject as a Moscow courtyard in early summer. Polenov did not manage to send the canvas to the Peredvizhniki exhibition in St Petersburg and showed it in Moscow, where it was not listed in the catalogue. The date 1878 refers to the exhibition version, while the subject and much of the work from life date from the previous summer.
For topographical analysis, the early ‘A Corner of the Arbat’ is more valuable because of its narrower field of view. In the final ‘Moscow Courtyard’, Polenov rearranged elements of the panorama. The wide canvas therefore cannot be aligned with a single modern photograph without qualification.
How the Title Broadened the Motif's Geography
Eleonora Paston calls the 1877 work ‘A Corner of the Arbat’, and the later version of the same subject, presented to Ivan Turgenev, ‘Moscow Courtyard’. The earlier title points to a specific part of the city; the well-known title transformed a local view into an emblematic image of Moscow’s urban estate setting.
In 1880, Turgenev presented Polenov with a copy of A Sportsman’s Sketches, inscribed in acknowledgement of the painting he had received. According to a museum publication, Polenov’s version subsequently hung in the writer’s study at Bougival. This episode confirms the existence of another version by the artist and the motif’s early circulation beyond the exhibition. Other sources establish the precise timeframe and the boundaries of ownership.
Ilya Ostroukhov later recalled Moscow Courtyard as one of the works that had struck him with its freshness, truthfulness and musical lyricism. A 2019 article in Tretyakov Gallery Magazine links the painting to the rise of plein-air painting in Russian art. Ostroukhov was assessing the persuasiveness of the artistic image; the address still needs to be verified against the letter and plans.
Vasily Polenov. Moscow Courtyard. The original 1877 version; the completed painting of the same name is dated 1878. Wikimedia Commons, Wassilij Dimitriewitsch Polenow 002.jpg, author: Vasily Polenov, licence: Public domain source
How Grandmother's Garden Helps Pinpoint the Location
A second painting by Polenov featuring the same manor house provides an independent viewpoint from which to verify the location depicted in Moscow Courtyard. Grandmother’s Garden is dated 1878, painted in oils on canvas and measures 54.7 × 65 centimetres. Eleonora Paston’s research places the subjects of both works on the same Arbat estate and dates the principal work from life to a brief period in the summer of 1877.
Prince Georgy Lvov, who lived in the house at around the same time, recalled that Grandmother’s Garden depicted Yuryeva’s estate, which later passed to Baumgarten. According to him, the elderly woman in the painting was the former owner, while the woman accompanying her was her married daughter. This recollection links Polenov to a specific house and family, although it does not prove the identities of the figures.
The appearance of the same house in two paintings provides an additional perspective for verification. In Moscow Courtyard, Polenov incorporated the building into a succession of courtyards, rooftops and church towers. In Grandmother’s Garden, the same house takes centre stage. Comparing the two images reduces the risk of misidentification based on a single silhouette.
Both paintings are complete artistic compositions, so they cannot be used to determine the dimensions of the plot or the coordinates of the outbuilding. ‘Grandmother’s Garden’ confirms the presence of the house and the estate-like character of the property; its precise location is established by Khotev’s map, the addressed letter and the plans of the city block.
A detail from the 1853 plan of Moscow edited by Colonel Khotev, showing the neighbourhoods on the site of the future New Arbat. This provides cartographic context and is not an image of Polenov's estate. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow New Arbat 1853 Map.jpg, author: Editor: Colonel Khotev, state topographers, licence: Public domain source
What Khotev's Plan Confirms
The map confirms the relative positions of the sites; the mood and colour belong to the realm of painting. The catalogue entry of the Russian State Library describes Khotev’s atlas as a set of plans of Moscow from 1852–1853, at a scale of 1:3360, showing private properties and public buildings. A source of this kind makes it possible to interpret the city block through property boundaries and building outlines.
At a scale of 1:3360, one centimetre on the map represents 33.6 metres on the ground. This degree of accuracy is sufficient for comparing property boundaries and building outlines; at this scale, façade details and the position of individual windows cannot be discerned. More than two decades elapsed between the 1851 survey and Polenov’s arrival, so the atlas needs to be cross-checked against the 1868 plan and the 1882 address directory. The correspondence of the principal boundaries across all three sources confirms that the layout remained stable, while allowing for the possibility of smaller alterations within the plot.
For estate No. 148, the plan shows the main house, garden and wings. When compared with the early painting, the following features correspond: the end wall of the main house facing the open space; the location of the water standpipe and fire well; the building and shed on the adjoining property; and, beyond them, the direction of the Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Sands. Crucial to pinpointing the location is the sequence of spatial layers: wing — inner courtyard — neighbouring outbuildings — church; individual lines in the painted scene may have changed as the artist worked on the picture.
The plan of Moscow’s Arbat district from the collection of the State Historical Museum provides an independent reference point. Sheet F4 from the 1868 album is based on the 1851 survey of Moscow and was produced independently of Khotev’s atlas. Both documents show the main houses, wings, gardens and service yards on the same plots.
The map does not indicate the exact window, the artist’s eye level or the width of his field of view. The wing can be identified from the plan, the letter, its alignment with the church and the courtyard buildings shown in the early version of the painting. The old building has been lost, so the sources do not support describing any modern-day window as ‘Polenov’s window’.
A detail from the second sheet of the plan of the Arbat district in Khotev's atlas of 1852–1853. Estate No. 148 stood near Durnovsky and Trubnikovsky Lanes; the red arrow is a later research annotation indicating the presumed direction of view, not a symbol on the original map. Wikimedia Commons, Khotev Atlas 13. Arbatskaya 2 Moscow courtyard location.jpg, author: Aleksei Khotev, licence: Public domain source
How the Artist Altered the Real View
In 1878, Polenov extended the composition horizontally. The Church of St Nicholas the Wonderworker in Plotniki appeared on the right, with the faintly outlined vertical of another church in the Prechistenskaya district still farther away. The final version encompasses a broader sweep of the Arbat skyline than the original view from the window.
In the exhibition version, Polenov gave greater prominence to the Church of the Saviour on the Sands. In the early study, the church is partly obscured by the house; in the wider canvas, its silhouette is brought closer to the centre. The main house is angled to reveal its columned portico. These changes establish the architectural focal points chosen by the artist.
Polenov then introduced scenes of everyday life into the panorama. Children play on the grass, chickens roam the yard, laundry hangs out to dry, a woman tends to her household chores, and a harnessed horse stands nearby. The figures establish a sense of scale and bring the setting to life; there is no reason to regard them as a record of events on one particular morning.
Polenov retained a recognisable topographical framework and reworked it through the medium of painting. The spatial landmarks form the documentary basis; the points of emphasis, distances within the picture plane, lighting and figures are all governed by the composition. A historian can use the painting to study the layout of the site while bearing in mind that it differs from a measured drawing or photograph.
How the artist used light
In the finished painting, the light unifies the grass, walls, rooftops and white church, sets the golden domes against the blue sky and softens the transition to the city skyline. The convincing plein-air effect creates the impression of a scene captured at a glance, although the artist constructed the lighting along with the other elements of the composition.
A study by the Tretyakov Gallery groups Moscow Courtyard, Grandmother’s Garden and Overgrown Pond into a lyrical and philosophical trilogy. The authors associate this work with the establishment of plein-air painting in Russian art, both as a technique of working outdoors and as a means of conveying the relationship between people and their surroundings. In a composition of this kind, the light cannot be used to determine the time of day as a shadow can in a documentary photograph.
The painting retains the hallmarks of early summer, as Polenov himself described it in a letter to Kramskoi: tall grass, luxuriant greenery in bloom, and an open farmyard. However, the sources do not establish the exact day or the sequence of the figures’ actions. The artist may have worked on individual areas in separate sessions, bringing them together only in the final canvas.
Detail from Vasily Polenov’s Moscow Courtyard, 1878: a sunlit courtyard, tall grass, children, birds and a horse beside a farm cart. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow Courtyard (Polenov, 1878) — Google Art Project detail1.jpg, author: Vasily Polenov, licence: Public domain source
Which sources answer which questions
Reliable identification of the location requires evidence from different types of sources to be compared. The letter establishes the address and the moment of the artist’s first impression; the map shows the layout of the property; the different painted versions reveal how the motif was reworked; and the photograph records the neighbourhood at a later date. Each source answers a different question and has its own evidential limitations.
| Source | What it confirms | What it does not confirm |
|---|---|---|
| Polenov’s letter to Fyodor Chizhov of 23 June 1877 | The move to the Baumgarten house in Durnovsky Lane, the view from the window and his first impression of the courtyard | The room number, floor and precise coordinates of the viewpoint |
| Khotyev’s Atlas of 1852–1853 and the 1868 plan of the Arbat District | Property boundaries and the relative positions of the house, outbuildings, courtyards and lanes | The condition of each building in the summer of 1877 and the artist’s viewing angle |
| The original 1877 version | The core of the observed scene, its narrow format and the relationship between the foreground courtyard and the Church of the Saviour on the Sands | A mechanical copy of the view: even a study painted from life remains a deliberately composed work |
| The final 1878 canvas | The deliberate widening of the panorama, the addition of figures engaged in everyday life and the strengthening of architectural accents | Whether all the objects actually occupied the same field of view at the same moment |
| Alexander Gubarev’s photograph of 12 March 1924 | The silhouette of the church, the scale of the square and the subsequent historical phase of development | That the courtyard remained unchanged after 1877: the photograph was taken forty-six years later and from a different viewpoint |
| Municipal heritage assessments from 2021–2024 | The present-day boundaries of heritage sites, the history of the surviving buildings and the characteristics of the cultural layer | That any discovered fragment belonged specifically to Polenov’s courtyard, without separate archaeological evidence |
Independent sources concur on the main points. The address given in the letter matches the layout of the property shown on the plan; the line of sight leads towards the surviving church; and an early version of the painting reproduces the same sequence of spatial planes. Taken together, these materials substantiate the identification of the location while preserving the necessary qualifications.
Why the exact viewpoint cannot be recreated
The original outbuilding and window have been lost, while the wide-format canvas encompasses a broader horizon than the early version. The reconstruction identifies the sector and direction of view; it is impossible to determine the position of a modern camera to centimetre-level precision.
On the plan, a line can be drawn from the presumed outbuilding to the Church of the Saviour on the Sands, allowing the sequence of courtyard buildings between them to be checked. This reconstruction narrows down the viewing sector, although the map provides no indication of the easel’s height or the width of the field of view.
The early vertical version includes the courtyard and the Church of the Saviour on the Sands. In the final painting, the Church of St Nicholas in Plotniki appears on the right. A single modern photograph taken without wide-angle distortion cannot fit both vertical elements in the same proportions, as Polenov altered the composition’s horizontal field of view.
The height of the viewpoint imposes a second constraint. The artist looked out from a residential wing over low fences and rooftops; a photographer standing on the pavement is at a lower level, while newer buildings obstruct part of the view. To verify the location, the relative positions of the landmarks must be compared, while separately allowing for the discrepancies that Paston attributes to the artist’s reworking of the scene.
Spasopeskovskaya Square and Spasopeskovsky Lane receding into the distance on 9 August 2016. This street-level photograph records the modern streetscape but cannot recreate Polenov’s lost viewpoint from the outbuilding. Wikimedia Commons, 0124 August 9th, 2016 in Moscow.jpg, author: Rakoon, licence: CC0 source, license
Why the Maly Tolstovsky Lane theory arose
In 1916, Polenov recalled that he had lived in Maly Tolstovsky Lane, at the corner of Trubnikovsky Lane, near Smolensky Market. This thoroughfare is now called Kamennaya Sloboda. His wording provided grounds for associating the viewpoint with another site near the church.
Almost forty years elapsed between the move in 1877 and this letter. In 2024, the authors of Moscow Heritage compared this later recollection with early documents and concluded that the neighbouring lanes had probably been confused. The address of house No. 1/2 continues to appear in publications and should therefore be presented as an alternative version supported by weaker evidence.
The 1877 letter names Durnovsky Lane and the Baumgarten house. Khotyev’s plan shows a property with a matching layout, while Prince Georgy Lvov links the same house to Polenov and Grandmother’s Garden. Taken together, these sources support locating the estate at the corner of present-day Kompozitorskaya Street and Trubnikovsky Lane. The exact window no longer survives.
Kamennaya Sloboda Lane near the Garden Ring. In the nineteenth century, it was called Maly Tolstovsky Lane; the photograph shows an alternative proposed location, not the confirmed site of Moscow Courtyard. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow, Kamennaya Sloboda Lane.jpg, author: NVO, licence: CC BY 3.0 source, license
What old photographs add
Alexander Gubarev’s photograph of 12 March 1924 records a later view of Spasopeskovskaya Square. In the catalogue of the State Historical Museum, it is titled ‘Arbat. Spasopeskovskaya Square, corner of Trubny Lane. House No. 2 and the former Vtorov House’. The photographer worked forty-six years after the exhibition version of ‘Moscow Courtyard’, in winter and from a different vantage point.
The museum catalogue entry describes the original as a silver gelatin print on paper measuring 10.8 × 13.5 centimetres and provides its inventory number. These details distinguish the catalogued original from later digital copies of unknown provenance and processing. For topographical comparison, the date and the photographer’s own caption are crucial.
Gubarev’s photograph shows an intermediate stage in the transformation of the square. By 1924, the Vtorov Mansion, designed by Vladimir Adamovich and Vladimir Mayat and built in 1913–1914, was already standing here. According to the city’s historical and cultural heritage assessment, the building became the residence of the US ambassador in 1933. The neighbourhood of historic estates had changed considerably even before Novy Arbat was laid out.
Photographs from the first third of the twentieth century make it possible to verify the silhouette of the Church of the Saviour on the Sands, the scale of the square, and the routes of Trubnikovsky and Spasopeskovsky Lanes. The courtyard sheds, the well, and the figures going about their daily lives can be regarded as confirmed only in photographs where they are clearly discernible.
The caption to an archival photograph should retain the photographer’s name, the date, and the direction from which it was taken. This information makes it impossible to present a photograph from the 1910s or 1920s as a record of the courtyard in Polenov’s time: over the intervening decades, its owners, roofs, fences, and buildings had changed.
Nikolai Vtorov’s mansion, built in 1913–1915, is a later landmark on Spasopeskovskaya Square that did not yet exist when Polenov was working on Moscow Courtyard. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow, Vtorov Mansion.jpg, architects: Vladimir Adamovich, Vladimir Mayat, photo: NVO, licence: Public domain source
What remains of the churches depicted
The Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Sands has survived and remains the painting’s principal recognisable landmark. The Patriarchate’s historical account states that the church was still wooden in 1657; the exact date of the stone building is unknown, but the 1723 census already described it as having been built long before. Paston dates the structure to approximately 1711.
The Patriarchate’s account describes a five-domed, pillarless church with a refectory, a side chapel dedicated to St Nicholas and a tall tent-roofed bell tower. It is the five domes and bell tower that form the recognisable silhouette in the painting. The survival of these prominent structures means that the church can still be used as a landmark even after the entire foreground was rebuilt.
The building survived the fire of 1812, its closure in 1933 and subsequent use for purposes other than those originally intended. After the war, it was designated an architectural monument; in 1991 it was transferred to the Patriarchate, in 1995 the last tenants vacated the premises, and on 24 December 2006 the restored church underwent its Great Consecration. These dates explain why the vertical landmark depicted by Polenov has survived, even though the surrounding courtyard has disappeared.
On the right-hand side of his broad canvas, Polenov depicted the Church of St Nicholas the Wonderworker in Plotniki, which was demolished in 1932. The city’s historical and cultural assessment mentions a wooden church dating from 1625 and a stone building constructed between 1670 and 1677. The site of the lost church near the intersection of Arbat Street and Plotnikov Lane can be identified from historical plans and archival records.
Of the two prominent church landmarks, the Church of the Saviour on the Sands has survived. The loss of the Church of St Nicholas in Plotniki altered the right-hand side of the panorama and explains why today’s skyline is narrower than Polenov’s.
The Church of St Nicholas the Wonderworker in Plotniki on Arbat. Album plate by N. A. Naidenov, 1882. Wikimedia Commons, N.A.Naidenov (1882). V3.1.10. Nikola v Plotnikakh.png, author: Nikolai Naidenov (1834-1905), licence: Public domain source
Why the modern address does not mean the house has survived
The present-day property at 17/5 Kompozitorskaya Street helps align the modern map with Polenov’s plot, although Baumgarten’s house has not survived. The 2024 archaeological assessment identifies this address as the boundary of an inner courtyard area near 2/1 Kamennaya Sloboda Lane. The document describes the existing buildings and engineering works, but does not directly link them to the nineteenth-century estate.
The assessment records a cultural layer from the period of the Zemlyanoy Gorod, approximately 2.1–2.2 metres deep, within the surveyed site. Material traces of earlier buildings may survive beneath the modern landscaping. Any specific fragment can be linked to Polenov’s courtyard only on the basis of a separate archaeological investigation.
The stated depth applies to the surveyed area of engineering works near 2/1 Kamennaya Sloboda Lane. This figure cannot be extrapolated to the entire former Baumgarten estate: the document does not describe a comprehensive excavation of the property. It confirms the archaeological potential of the quarter, but not the discovery of the specific building depicted in the painting.
The property number helps align the old plan with the modern map. Identifying the building would require a match in form and materials, together with a documented history of alterations; no such information is available for Baumgarten’s house. A modern photograph should be captioned as a view of the site or the approximate direction of the view, without referring to ‘the artist’s surviving house’.
What remains of the square and its estate setting
Spasopeskovskaya Square has retained its name, garden and the visual dominance of its church, but its architectural surroundings date from different periods. An official assessment conducted in 2021 describes the space at the intersection of Spasopeskovsky, Trubnikovsky and Karmanitsky Lanes and Kamennaya Sloboda Lane. Present-day landmarks include the Church of the Saviour, residential buildings and the Vtorov Mansion.
In 1871, Nikolai Alexandrovich Lvov used his own funds to establish the Public Pushkin Garden on Spasopeskovskaya Square. Lvov was related to the artist's family on his mother's side. The garden was in the same block, although the foreground of the painting is occupied by the inner courtyard of a neighbouring property.
The Baumgarten house and the wing where the artist lived have both been lost. The outbuildings that formed the low foreground have disappeared as well. By 1916, Polenov was already writing that neither the courtyard nor the manor house remained. Subsequent development and the cutting of Novy Arbat through the district ultimately transformed the relationship between enclosed estate courtyards and the main thoroughfare.
The church, the square and some of the lanes' alignments make it possible to verify the viewing axis. The low-rise buildings around it stand alongside later buildings and Novy Arbat. This difference in scale reveals how strongly Polenov's view depended on the boundaries of the old urban estates.
The tent-roofed bell tower of the Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Sands is a surviving landmark from Polenov's view. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow, Spas na Peskah.jpg, author: NVO, licence: CC BY 3.0 source, license
What the painting reveals about Moscow in the 1870s
‘Moscow Courtyard’ depicts a central district divided into estates with gardens, wings and service yards. In Khotev's atlas, the property comprises several buildings and open spaces. The grass and garden in the painting formed part of the layout of a nineteenth-century urban estate.
The water pump and fire well recall the area's public utilities and fire-prevention infrastructure. The sheds, horse and laundry point to domestic activities integrated into a residential courtyard. The painting does not, however, allow us to determine the social background of everyone depicted, the precise purpose of every structure or the incidental routine of that particular day. Where the sources are silent, the everyday scene should not be embellished with legend.
Remarkably, Polenov arrived in Moscow intending to create a large historical composition, ‘The Tonsure of an Unworthy Tsarevna’, yet an everyday landscape became one of the principal achievements of his first Moscow period. An official Tretyakov Gallery publication emphasises that painting en plein air enabled the artist to discover a new subject and a new tone in Russian landscape painting: the poetry of ordinary daily life.
The artistic aim explains the choice of details. Polenov depicted everyday life in the courtyard; he did not set out to compile an inventory of the neighbourhood. A historian checks the painting for verifiable features of the built environment; an art historian examines how the artist combined them into a composition.
How to read ‘Moscow Courtyard’ on location
On Spasopeskovskaya Square, first locate the church, then turn towards Trubnikovsky Lane and the line of Kompozitorskaya Street. The vanished property occupied the corner, while the picturesque courtyard lay in front of the church, within the neighbouring estate.
Next, compare Polenov's two versions. The vertical format preserves a narrower view from the window; the wide canvas presents a reworked panorama. The site of the Church of St Nicholas in Plotniki is marked on the historical plan, as the church itself has been lost.
Gubarev's photograph provides an intermediate record between the painting and the modern street: the Vtorov Mansion had already been built, while Novy Arbat would not appear for several more decades. Comparing the 1870s, the 1924 photograph and the post-1960s city reveals the sequence of losses and redevelopment.
The sources allow us to identify the property, the church, the direction of the view and the principal lost features. The original wing and window have not survived, and the courtyard has been completely redeveloped. A present-day visit therefore checks the system of landmarks rather than literally recreating Polenov's vantage point.
No. 8 Spasopeskovskaya Square against the backdrop of later multi-storey development: the district's former scale survives only in fragments. Wikimedia Commons, Moscow, Spasopeskovskaya Square.jpg, author: NVO, licence: CC BY 3.0 source, license
What is established and what remains a reconstruction
The sources provide three levels of certainty: documented fact, well-founded reconstruction and open question. This distinction reveals the limits of each conclusion.
- Established through documents and museum research
- In June 1877, Polenov settled in the Baumgarten house in Durnovsky Lane; he found the subject in the courtyard of this property. The Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Sands served as the principal landmark in the distance. Between the early version and the 1878 canvas, the artist widened the format, changed the arrangement of the architectural masses and added genre figures.
- Supported by the combined evidence
- The original vantage point was in one of the wings of the estate near the junction of Durnovsky and Trubnikovsky Lanes. The most likely direction of the view can be determined from the plan, the sequence of courtyard buildings and the position of the church. The chronology of the letters suggests that the main work from nature took place in the summer of 1877, although the exhibition canvas is dated the following year.
- Not established
- The sources do not identify the exact window, the height of the easel, or the day and time of the scene depicted. It has not been proven that all the people and animals were observed at the same time, or that every minor shed was rendered without being repositioned. A present-day spot on the pavement cannot be regarded as a complete equivalent of the lost view from the wing.
Any alternative location must simultaneously account for the 1877 letter, the layout of the property, the view towards the Spasopeskovskaya church and the house's connection with ‘Grandmother's Garden’. The later recollection of Maly Tolstovsky Lane meets only some of these conditions and records a discrepancy without disproving the earlier documents.
Polenov's ‘Moscow Courtyard’ today: what remained by 2026
Of the physical setting, the Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Sands, Spasopeskovskaya Square and some of the old lanes’ alignments have survived. The Baumgarten house, the apartment in the wing, the courtyard outbuildings, the well and the Church of St Nicholas in Plotniki have been lost. The modern cityscape matches the painting in neither scale nor depth.
The documentary basis of the work can be reconstructed from Polenov’s 1877 letter, Khotev’s atlas, the plan of the Arbat district and an archival photograph. The subject was found on the Baumgarten property near present-day Kompozitorskaya Street and Trubnikovsky Lane. The artist created the final image from his impression of the scene and subsequent reworking. The coordinates of the vanished space survive in the Arbat district, while its built environment has changed since 1878.
Spasopeskovskaya Square is included in the route ‘Secrets of the Arbat’, and on this walk you can compare the Church of the Saviour on the Sands, the alignments of the lanes and the neighbourhood’s present-day scale with Polenov’s composition; the tour does not promise access to museum interiors or to the artist’s original window, which no longer exists.
Sources
- Eleonora Paston. “The Poetic Truth” of Moscow // Tretyakov Gallery magazine, No. 1, 2007
- Vasily Polenov. “Moscow Courtyard” — State Tretyakov Gallery
- Vasily Polenov. Moscow Courtyard — published by the State Tretyakov Gallery
- Atlas of the Capital City of Moscow, compiled by A. Khotev, 1852–1853 — Russian State Library
- Plan of the Arbat District. Sheet F4, 1868 — State Historical Museum
- Alexander Gubarev. Spasopeskovskaya Square at the corner of Trubny Lane, 12 March 1924 — State Historical Museum
- ‘Trubnikovsky Lane: A Walk with a Map and Dictionary’ // Moscow Heritage, No. 4 (94), 2024
- State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on Spasopeskovsky Lane, 2021 — Moscow Government
- State Historical and Cultural Expert Review Report on Arbat Street, 2022 — Government of Moscow
- His Holiness Patriarch Alexy Consecrates the Renovated Church of the Transfiguration of the Saviour on the Sands — Patriarchia.ru
- Vasily Polenov: From the Golden Age to the Silver Age — Tretyakov Gallery Magazine, No. 3, 2019
- State Historical and Cultural Expert Review Report on Kamennaya Sloboda Lane, 2024 — Government of Moscow
We took a tour of Taganka designed for 12-year-old children. It was an excellent programme. We covered a great deal of ground and learnt so much. We discovered the story of Dryanaya Street and discussed the Vladimir Highway, the surrounding monasteries and churches, and the Old Believers. We now know where Korovin was born, where Stanislavsky was born and raised, where the Morozov merchant children lived, and why Arseny Morozov was considered such an outrageous figure in his day. We also discussed Solzhenitsyn, discovered where Stalin Avenue was supposed to be built, saw the bunker, walked to the Russian metochion of the Mount Athos Monastery, and learnt why the Illuzion cinema made Taganka famous. Of course, no tour would have been complete without Vysotsky and Lyubimov. We also touched briefly on Taganka Prison, although naturally we did not go there. All in all, it was an exceptionally rich and informative tour! Our guide Alexander was superb!
Our thanks to our guide Alexander for a magnificent sightseeing tour. Alexander’s love for Moscow and its history, his wide-ranging knowledge, elegant and engaging delivery, and personal charm make the tour not merely interesting and informative, but truly delightful! Thank you, Alexander! Tatiana and Tatiana, St Petersburg
On July 18th, we participated in the "Soul of Moscow" group tour led by Alexander. Kitay-gorod and its surroundings revealed a new side to us, and everyone thoroughly enjoyed it. Some of us began intensively studying related materials to broaden our horizons. We'll be back, and we highly recommend it! You won't regret it.
Good afternoon, on June 23rd we had a tour called " The Soul of Moscow ," led by Alexander. He's a very pleasant young man. We visited such lovely courtyards and alleys with him that we never even knew existed, and we learned so much. We really enjoyed everything, and we hope to continue our acquaintance. Alexander! Thank you! We had a great time with you, and we thoroughly enjoyed it. See you there!
This isn't my first time with Radius. This time, I took the Moscow metro . The goal was not only to admire the underground palaces but also to learn how to navigate the metro. As a resident of a region without a metro, I was a bit apprehensive and didn't understand how to navigate the metro. Of course, the internet helps, but live communication is much better. Tour guide Yulia handled this task perfectly. The information was accessible and interesting, the presentation was calm, and the communication style was very friendly. Thank you very much for the tour and the practical experience.
Good afternoon! I gave the "Soul of Moscow" tour to some of the capital's guests. We were thrilled to hear our guide, Anton. It was so informative and engaging, and very warm. To say we were absolutely delighted is an understatement. It turned out to be a truly family-friendly excursion. We learned so many interesting facts. The material was presented professionally, all our questions were answered, and we saw so much. It was simply WOW! Thank you so much, Anton, he's the best!!!!! From now on, I'll only come to you, the Radius team. I highly recommend it. I promise we'll see each other again soon on other tours.
Overall, the tour left a positive impression! Thanks to Alexander for the walk through the courtyards and atmospheric spots of Kitay-Gorod; we certainly wouldn't have done it on our own. The tour was comfortable, and the guide spoke confidently and calmly. One thing we personally missed: we would have liked more of the historical part, relating to ancient Moscow and the history of Kitay-Gorod. There were quite a few stories about the Soviet period and the bar scene, but for our group, this wasn't particularly relevant. We think the program could be a little more tailored to the age and interests of the group. It would also have been interesting to add more historical facts, monuments, and details about old Moscow and the area itself. That said, the tour was still interesting, and some places and churches were truly memorable. These aren't really "cons," but rather suggestions for an even more comprehensive program.
Hello! We had a corporate group of 10 people. Our guide was Anton, and we had a tour of Bulgakov. I would like to point out the excellent organization; everything went smoothly. The managers were very accommodating to our changes in the number of participants. The bus was very comfortable. Anton is a super-engaged and motivated guide. He lives this history and is delighted to share his knowledge and create an unforgettable experience. Everything went well. I highly recommend it!
Thank you for a fascinating tour! It gave me so much food for thought to explore! Note: Review of the "Zamoskvorechye" tour with guide Maria.
I'd like to express my gratitude on behalf of our team! Thank you for keeping to our scheduled schedule despite our lack of organization. Our colleagues appreciated your preparation for the tour! It was informative. Note: Review of the "Modern Residential Complexes, Factory Past, and Avant-Garde" tour of the ZILART residential complex with guide Maria. Maria prepared and conducted a customized tour for employees of the Samolet Group of Companies development company.
Thank you! You have great talent. Good luck! ☺️ You're a wonderful guide! Thank you again! Note: This is a review of the corporate tour "The Heart of the Capital" with guide Maria.
Thank you for a wonderful day today!!)) Note: review of the excursion "The Soul of Moscow" with guide Maria
On behalf of the whole family, I want to thank you for a very informative and interesting tour! Note: This is a review of the "Palace Dungeons" tour with guide Maria.
Good afternoon! I'd like to express my gratitude and that of my guide for organizing the tour! We were very pleased. We'd like to do it again in October, but on a different route — ZIL. Note: This refers to the tour for Samolet Group developers, led by guide Maria.
Thanks to Alexander for the bar tour of Baumanka ! It was fun, exciting, and we discovered so many new places! Awesome! May we reach new heights!
Good afternoon! I was on a tour of Sukharevskaya Square — we went all the way to Tsvetnoy Boulevard. I didn't expect it to be so interesting! For those wondering whether to go — go for it! It truly became one of my most memorable summer memories!
Anastasia, good morning! Thank you and Masha for yesterday! The speakers are happy. The connection through the headphones was often lost, especially at the checkpoint, but that's just our current situation. You could hear if you were standing close, no more than 1.5 meters away. Colleagues have already asked for your contact information. I'd be happy to share it and look forward to another opportunity to work with you. Special thanks to the Director for the Bureau . Note: " Heart of the Capital " tour for participants of the 2025 Moscow Oncology Forum. Guides: Anastasia and Maria.
We'd like to thank Anton and Alexander for leading the tour! It was fascinating to hear how the Krasnaya Presnya district developed and how Prokhorov's influence on our city's development. It was a pleasant immersion into a quiet, previously unexplored area!
Good afternoon, thank you so much, Anastasia. The " Uncle Gilyai " tour was fantastic. Even though we're Muscovites and know a lot about Moscow, the experience was amazing, so much new and interesting happened. We'll definitely be back.
Thank you for the " Heart of Moscow " and " Khamovniki " tours. Anton, a knowledgeable and passionate Moscow guide, gave me the tour. He's a great storyteller, intelligent, well-read, and captivating. You've truly opened up my Moscow to me! I'll definitely be back next summer to explore Moscow with you. I'll recommend your wonderful tour program to all my friends!
Excursions with the Radius travel agency are always a positive experience if you choose them. We planned a tour of Zamoskvorechye on our next visit. We've worked with our guide, Anton, before. We'll definitely recommend him to everyone we know. The tour is informative, not overloaded with dates, and the information is comprehensive yet easy to understand, as it's presented in a light, narrative manner, not like a history textbook, dry and academic. Thank you for this approach. We'll definitely use the Radius agency again on our next visit to Moscow.
Thank you so much for the tour of Zamoskvorechye . Despite the weather, it was very interesting and informative! Note: this refers to the tour with guide Anton.
A huge thank you to Anastasia. We had a fantastic tour of the Patriki district. We learned so much. Anastasia is a true master of her craft. The tour was captivating, not at all boring, lively and interesting. Everyone was delighted. We were full of new impressions. I definitely recommend it. You won't be disappointed!
We explored the Soul of Moscow with my family and Radius on my birthday. Everyone thoroughly enjoyed the walk! Anton shared so many interesting facts about the capital and its history, taking us into spiritual depths no one else had even suspected. Most of us were either born or longtime Moscow residents who spent a lot of time walking around. It was educational, heartwarming, and unforgettable. 🙂 Overall, this wasn't my first time walking around Moscow with Anton, and each time was a real adventure!