We disassemble the album of Montferrand on the Alexander Column

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

This is a kind of continuation of my article in which I analyzed Montferrand's album in relation to St. Isaac's Cathedral. The essence is the same. We are looking for inconsistencies in the drawings of Auguste Montferrand. Pictures will be consistently like in the author's album. I will omit the schematic pictures, there is no practical use for them, because there is nothing to compare with and nothing to tie to.

So let's go.

The first picture. I will not go deep into discussions about the possibility of rowing in a boat on such a wave, because all fishermen will say that this is impossible, and all historians will say that the artist sees this way and this is only a background to the main plot, and therefore we will focus on more important details. The details are such that two tugs are pulling a barge with stones exactly opposite the Academy of Arts. To the right of the academy, a vacant lot with a stele, now there is a green garden, and immediately behind the vacant lot we see a building surrounded by a red oval. Montferrand painted a building with three floors. In fact, the building in this place has only two floors and has never been three-story.

Second picture. We look at the shadows. They assume the light source is in the northeast. People in warm clothes, Montferrand means it's not summer. That is, in fact, this cannot be.

Next picture.

Here we see that the pebble is already in its historical place. At the same time, everything is fine in the picture with shadows (small oval at the bottom). But Montferrand has obvious problems with building a perspective. Montferrand drew the Winter Palace and the Admiralty in different axes, but in fact they are on the same axis. Notice the two red lines. One along the axis of the Admiralty, the other along the axis of the Palace. If Montferrand drew from life and at the same time finished at least one class of children's art school, he would understand that the roof of the Winter Palace should be in the axis of the Admiralty (green line) and, taking into account the height, pass as the blue line is drawn. At the same time, Montferrand and the Manege (red oval on the left) are in the same axis with the Admiralty, and in fact the Manege building in another place should be shifted closer to us (to the left in the picture). By the way, the pebble with a canopy is drawn with a violation of perspective, I'm just too lazy to draw a few more axes, especially since the picture is difficult to perceive.

Here is a photo from the panorama to make it clear.

Here is the plan for what is actually. In the red oval Manezh. If Montferrand had painted from life, he would have painted the Senate and Synod building instead of the Manege instead of the Manege.

We look further.

Here's a picture. What is depicted on it, I do not understand at all.

We see a huge wall laid out of stone, or rather three walls. Probably it should be understood that there is a fourth wall behind the artist's back. It is not clear what these walls are. And these are precisely the walls, because the horizon is visible in the arched opening. That is, it is not a pit. Based on the scale of comparisons with the height of a person, you need to understand that the height of the walls is about 10-12 meters, and between the walls is 20-30 meters. Yes, the official history says that, like, stone walls were built to the height of a pedestal under a column, and scaffolding was placed on these walls. But I, as a person closely connected with construction, do not understand anything in this particular picture. What is the use of walls between which are at least 20 meters? Why such a long distance, provided that even from 1 year of study in physics, everyone knows about the lever and the fulcrum. Always scaffolding and supports under them were placed on the basis of the maximum reduction of any arms of the supporting structures, that is, to reduce the fracture force (lever). The diameter of the column is only 3, 66 meters, the size of the pebble under the foundation is 6, 3 meters. Complete absurdity. We look further at the picture. Explain to me why this pebble was lifted on a sled? And where are they pulling him? Into the abyss? According to official data, this pebble is the base of the entire structure and lies at ground level. Under it there is a type of base made of granite blocks under which there is a pile field. So that you understand the absurdity of this picture, I will not be lazy and will quote Wikipedia on this very moment.

In December 1829, the place for the column was approved and a foundation pit was dug 14x14 fathoms and 2 fathoms deep for the foundation of granite blocks.

That is, 30x30 meters and a depth of 4, 2 meters.

1102 new sharpened piles 6, 36 m long, at least 26 cm thick to a depth of 4, 26 m were driven in, and 99 old ones discovered during the excavation were used (a total of 1250 pine piles were driven in). The foundation of the monument was built of stone blocks half a meter thick. It was brought out to the horizon of the square.

Now you understand the absurdity of this picture? This pebble is the base for the pedestal and the column itself. It weighs 400 tons. Lies on the surface. Why are these forests on which a pebble is being raised somewhere? Why raise it at all? Next, see the picture. Behind the place where the pebble should fall, we see some kind of perch on which the men are sitting. What is this roost? Why is he? History is silent.

Reading Wikipedia again.

After laying the foundation, a huge four-hundred-ton monolith was erected on it, which serves as the base of the pedestal. To install the monolith on the foundation, a platform was built, onto which it was pumped using rollers along an inclined plane. The stone was piled on a pile of sand, previously poured next to the platform. After the supports were placed under the monolith, the workers raked out the sand and placed the rollers. The props were chopped off, and the lump fell onto the rollers. The stone was rolled onto the foundation and precisely set.

Did you understand? Not understood? Correctly that they did not understand. And I didn't get it. Those who wrote an article on Wikipedia simply piled up delirium out of despair. And all because in Montferrand's album there is such an absurd picture and historians have to wriggle like a snake in order to somehow cast a shadow on the fence. Remember the wonderful Soviet film?

This is how our historians have to get out.

Go ahead. Next picture.

I will immediately add a panorama to make it easier for you to understand.

In Montferrand's picture, I gave a projection point with a blue cross. The vertical line is the axis of symmetry, horizontal to determine the location of the artist in the projection between the Admiralty and the Winter Palace. According to Montferrand's version, the artist is one-fourth of the distance from the palace. This is the middle of the cross. On the panorama, I marked the artist's place in yellow, and the axis of symmetry is indicated by red vertical lines. The left vertical is the middle, the right vertical is the projection from the point of view of Montferrand (the artist). The blue lines in the panorama are projections for understanding the picture. In general, what happens. But it turns out that the artist in Montferrand's version did not draw this picture from life, but blinded everything as he pleases. Let's start with the Vladimir Cathedral, it is in a yellow oval in the panorama, and at Montferrand in a blue oval. With a blue segment from the oval (it turned out like a magnifying glass handle), I showed the place where the cathedral should be in the picture, between the Rostral columns, partially stepping behind the distant column. Montferrand has a cathedral to the right of the columns, as if the artist were along the walls of the Winter Palace (right blue line in the panorama). At the same time, the cathedral itself should be barely visible, for it is far enough away. For clarity, a photo from Yandex.

The photo from Yandex also clearly shows the asymmetry in height of the Rostral columns with the Kuntskamera tower (red lines in the last picture). With Montferrand, everything is different.

We look further. In the picture of Montferrand under the Vladimir Cathedral, incomprehensible "piles" or "pillars" are drawn. This is apparently where the Arrow and the descent to the water are now. I circled them with a yellow oval (under the "magnifying glass", the first picture). What it is is completely incomprehensible. And historiography does not know about anything like that. Now we look at the Kuntskamera (red oval). Montferrand drew it two-story, although in fact it is three-story. In the panorama, I also highlighted the Kuntscamera dome with an orange oval; it differs in shape and base from Montferrand from what we see now. True, it should be noted here that in 1865 the Kuntskamera dome was partially rebuilt, at least its upper part for sure, because there is such a photo. I don’t know if the base of the dome changed.

We look further. And then we have the building of the zoological museum. These are the green ovals in the Montferrand picture and in the panorama. With the number of storeys, everything is fine, but history is silent about where the columns have gone. And there are many columns. By the way about the columns. I did not highlight it with ovals, but if we count how many columns from a given point (of the artist) are visible on the Exchange, in fact, and near Montferrand, then we will also count their different numbers. At Montferrand, 5 columns are visible, in the panorama there are only 4 columns.

Go ahead. In this picture, Montferrand performed all the proportions correctly. We see the correct location of the Rostral Columns, the Vladimir Cathedral and, in general, everything that I analyzed in the previous picture. And the shadows are correct. And even the number of Exchange columns is correct. Jamb only with the floors of the Kuntskamera and the columns of the Zoological Museum. One floor is still missing, and for some reason the columns did not appear.

Next picture. Apparently, this is the only picture from the Montferrand album on which there are no inconsistencies. True, there is really nothing to watch here. There are columns of the Winter Palace, the General Staff building is in the version before the rebuilding of the 1860s, there may well be shadows from the southeast if it is early morning and summer.

Farther.

Here is another picture from Montferrand's album.

We look into an oval red circle. We look at the roof, we count windows and columns.

Here is a drawing of the palace from that period (before the fire of 1837).

We see that in the drawings the roofs are different and the number of windows is different. And the shape of the windows is different. By the way, now the facade of the Winter Palace is fully consistent with the second picture. Only the color turned green. That is, Montferrand's palace is not drawn correctly.

Next picture.

We see that to the left of the General Staff (arrow) wasteland. There are no buildings. However, according to historical reference books, the building was located at this place. With regard to this period, there was supposed to be an exercirhouse, which in 1840-43 was rebuilt into the Headquarters of the Guards Corps, which still exists today. The truth with this Headquarters of the Guards Corps is also cloudy. Allegedly, Montferrand was also involved in its design, but something did not grow together there and the project of A. Bryullov was chosen, and the most interesting thing is that a number of historians believe that this building was rebuilt by 1837. What is important to us is that there was a building there, and here is a pictorial picture dating from 1833. In this picture, the building with an acute angle is the end of the General Staff Building near the Moika River. And on the right, where the smoke from the stove is, we see the edge of the very building that was rebuilt into the headquarters of the Guards regiment either by 1837, or in 1840-43.

Now this building looks like this.

We look further. According to the official history, by 1834 (the installation of a column on Palace Square), during the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral, the main walls had already been erected and porticoes with columns were installed. And therefore the question is - where? Where is your future miracle, Monsieur Montferrand? Even without the domed part, already in 1834 the cathedral was supposed to be the dominant height in the city. Something like I drew with squares.

Well, in general, that's all. I will not consider the pictures with the image of the already installed column. It is neither interesting nor necessary. I will not raise the issues of technological schemes in this article, especially since a number of researchers have already raised this issue before me and have covered it very well. I only added my touch in this article, having considered in detail how accurate Montferrand was in the drawings. The answer is obvious. Montferrand was extremely inaccurate. And the more anchor points we find in the pictures, the more inconsistencies.

What else would I like to add. Now this is already well known among history buffs, but perhaps there are people who still do not fully possess the information. And therefore, only two strokes as a reason for reflection.

The first touch is a picture of Prince G. G. Gagarin with a dating of approximately 1832-33. What do you see on it and how it fits with Montferrand's album, everyone has the right to answer.

And the second touch is this information. In Lenproekt, on the general plan diagrams (blueprints), a granite column 25 meters long is indicated, an exact copy of the Alexander Column, buried in the ground. Lies in the direction of the Hermitage Atlanteans. Discovered in 1978 while laying pipes to the Hermitage.

On this I take my leave.