Isaac, who never was
Isaac, who never was
Anonim

We all know from textbooks that the current St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg is already the fourth in a row. In St. Isaac's Cathedral itself there is even a visual aid from the models of how it was. Here they are, all four in turn. Allegedly, even on the same scale.

Image

However, looking at the visual aid, any normal person will have natural questions.

Textbooks write that Montferrand, during the construction of the fourth cathedral, preserved part of the walls from the third cathedral and its entire altar part. And this type was one of the main advantages of the Montferrand reconstruction option when casting projects. This was the main reason that Montferrand was appointed to rebuild the cathedral. Looking at these layouts it is completely unclear how this could be in practice. The third cathedral is much smaller, the geometry of the building box does not match, the altar part is generally in the form of a hemisphere. Where is this hemisphere in the fourth cathedral? Personally, I can't see her in any way.

And what do artists and engravers of the 18-19 centuries draw for us? Let's take a look at this very third cathedral in the pictures. And for starters, let's just remember the version that is executed in the form of a layout.

Image

So let's go. For example, such a picture. This is like "The ceremonial return of the Petersburg Militia to St. Isaac's Square." Painted engraving by I.A. Ivanov. 1816 (here it is true a series of questions from another opera, why is it 1816, after all, according to the official history, the militia returned in June 1814, and there are many questions about the militia itself, the first of which was, how was it possible to set the date for the beginning of the return in winter in January? From Danzig (now Poland). It gets cold in Poland in January. And the way to the north. And in St. Petersburg, even in March, minus 20-25 degrees is a common thing. Okay …)

This engraving matches the layout better than others. It looks like the layout was made according to this engraving. The shape of the domes, the orientation and shape of the crosses, the size and shape of the bell tower, the location, etc. How are the other pictures doing?

Here everything seems to converge too, you can even see that the domes are green. Let's note this fact.

and here? This is an engraving by K.F. Sabat. Allegedly a project. We see gilded domes, not green ones, and crosses oriented differently, and a much higher bell tower. Perhaps this is just a project, but let's remember it and let's go to look further.

There is such an interesting medal from the period of Catherine II. On it, this is exactly the version of the cathedral. With a high bell tower.

However, the medal does not indicate that this is exactly Rinaldi's project and that it is St. Isaac's Church (cathedral). It is only indicated that Catherine ordered the construction of such a version of the church, the date J768 (768 from Jesus) is indicated, without specifying the location, name and architect. Let us also remember this fact. Yes, before I forget. The museum of the Academy of Arts has a good model of this version of a certain church.

Image

There is also such a beauty, also an unfulfilled project.

Image

And maybe realized. But once upon a time, very long ago and just as long ago destroyed. Only the models and the desire to revive have survived. But the plans did not come true. Now for us it is a subject of controversy and dreams with a certain nostalgic note. It was, it was not, but if only, if only.

Okay, back to Rinaldi and his third cathedral. Shit, why did the cathedral suddenly end up on the banks of the Neva? And even with a high bell tower?

Image

You can see it better here.

Image

What nonsense? Maybe this is some kind of mistake and the artist's eye is simply distorted? But here's another picture. Again the same thing.

Image

And here he is again far from the coast. And with a small bell tower.

Image

And here, far from the coast, but with a large bell tower. And with yellow domes.

… Further added and revised in November 2018.

there was a picture.

Unfortunately, the picture has disappeared and it cannot be searched on the Internet. Apparently someone is clearing the information field. If it comes across, I will return it to its place.In general, in my articles, this is not the first time that what was found on the Internet and laid out as sedition against the official history disappears and is deleted. Maybe just a coincidence, I don't know. I will try to keep everything on the computer in the future.

But it's not a problem. There are many engravings and paintings. Here are pictures of the cathedral far from the coast but with a high bell tower. True, not colored.

once…

Image

two…

Image

Officials attribute the picture "once" to Montferrand with the prefix "unfulfilled project". However, in the annotation to picture "two" it is written in black and white that this is exactly what the part of the city looked like from the Admiralty to the Senate at the end of the 18th century. This is how she was allegedly portrayed by a certain Paterson already in 1794.

And this is how someone Paterson painted after 9 years, allegedly in 1803.

Image

This picture is very similar to Paterson's drawing from 1794, in color.

Do you want to surprise? Try to compare the last picture with the next one, on which St. Isaac's Cathedral, as it should be among the officials, flaunts in its proper place and with a small bell tower. This is, by the way, from the official website of the Hermitage. Only dates back to 1799 with the authorship of the same Paterson. For 5 years the horses on the bridge have not gone anywhere, but the cathedral has changed.

Image

There is also a source in color.

Image

This is how our history is drawn to us. With any churches, any shape and any color of domes.

By the way, there is such a picture with a certain cathedral in the background. With a very suspicious cathedral. Doesn't it look like anything?

Image

This is how it looks now. Cathedral of the Holy Prince Vladimir.

Image

Let's continue.

Here again on the very shore. With a high bell tower.

Just some miracles. In general, this ping-pong can be played for a long time. There are a lot of engravings and drawings of different versions of the cathedral. With a high bell tower, with a small bell tower, with several small domes, without small domes, with such crosses, with syaki crosses, with domes of gold, green and blue colors. Well, the location is also different for different options. The same Benjamin Paterson contrived to paint the cathedral in different variations. Or is he credited with various kinds of drawings? For example, there is such a picture with the caption that "from the picture of Paterson."

Image

I could not find any exact data on the place of birth and death (burial) of this very Paterson. As well as his heirs. As well as his portrait. By the way, it was he who managed to draw the Kazan Cathedral 11 years before its official construction and with shadows in which the sun is at its zenith in the northwest.

Image

But these are all flowers. There is also a berry in the form of another version of the cathedral. Also the third and also Rinaldi's project.

Here is such a cathedral.

Image

Something it very much resembles a modern cathedral.

Only the domes are clearly not gold. Only the small domes with colonnades at the corners of the cathedral are much larger. And there are not enough small colonnades below. For that, in the large colonnades below, all the columns are in place, the artist did not draw any gaps. As in a modern cathedral, there are 8 columns missing. By the way, the artist is not anyhow who, not unknown or foreign, but Alexander Bryullov.

Is there a similar cathedral in the pictures of other authors? After all, the textbooks do not tell us anything about this version of the cathedral. And we do not see such a model in the exposition of St. Isaac's Cathedral. It turns out there is. And not a little. For example, this picture. The angle is the same as that of A. Brullov. Also, all the columns are in place. Unless the domes are yellow and there are domes. And the crosses are equal.

Image

And this was not painted by anyone, but by Auguste Montferrand himself !!! In any case, the textbooks say so. This drawing is dated back to the 20s of the 19th century. The domes and crosses of Montferrand are the same as those of Bryullov. From this we conclude that the cathedral was like that at the beginning of the 19th century, and earlier, in the 18th century, it was like in the picture above.

The same version of the drawing, but in watercolor by an unknown artist. It also officially dates back to the 20s of the 19th century. Here the natural question arises - which picture is primary. In any case, the documentary fact of such a cathedral, as they say, is evident.

Image

And further.

Image

More. Already in color.

Image

Here it is painted a little differently.

Image

How majestic he looked! A truly grandiose monumental building. Power! For comparison, from a roughly similar perspective, the modern cathedral with its flawed corner colonnades and domes. Pimples of some kind. They are also overgrown with hair (I mean the park, I think that it is out of place there).

What conclusions can be drawn. Yes, very simple. That version of the cathedral, known to us from textbooks as the third cathedral or cathedral of the project of Antonio Rinaldi, in particular, presented on the model in St. Isaac's Cathedral itself, has never existed in nature. Well, it was not. There was no more. In any case, it is in the version of the third St. Isaac's Church on the site of the modern cathedral. Perhaps, and most likely, there really was a project for such a church, but where exactly it was going to be installed is not known. It is possible that in place of the Bronze Horseman in order to conceal and exalt him to some sacred meaning. And this project was not implemented. As well as some other projects. The monument was restored (the head, hands were changed, instead of a dragon a snake, etc.), perhaps the idea itself did not like it, in general it did not grow together. And what we are shown in the pictures is fake. Why it was necessary to make a fake is a separate question. I partially answered it in part 4 of my article on religion. It just became necessary to convert a pagan temple into a Christian one. This task was partially fulfilled by A. Rinaldi, who changed the corner colonnades and domes with crosses. Or perhaps Rinaldi did not have such a specific task and simply carried out restoration work, because the cathedral is ancient and apparently at that time was really in a disrepair and dilapidated state. Later, A. Montferrand reflected this state of the cathedral in his album.

Image

Montferrand himself already had specific tasks both for restoration and for the intended purpose. The temple was converted from a pagan to a Christian one. How it happened is well known and I do not consider it necessary to go deep into it.

On this I take my leave.

Popular by topic