New mysteries of the "Malachite Chronicle"

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

Magazine "Around the World"

A year and a half has passed since the publication of my article on the discovery of a mysterious malachite tile, in which, by means of microtechnology, an unknown Ural master gave an extensive portrait gallery of people of Catherine's time and, it seems, encrypted many events of that time, primarily the history of the Pugachev uprising ("Around the World" No. 8 for 1970). In many letters I am asked how the research is progressing, what experts think about it, whether the name of the unknown master has been found out. I will try to answer these questions.

First of all, I would like to thank the readers of the magazine for the attention they paid to the publication. I have received over a hundred letters.

Workers, journalists, scientists, collective farmers, engineers wrote - in a word, people of various professions. In the overwhelming majority of letters, I received a lot of valuable advice, comments, thoughts, which certainly helped the cause.

There were only two or three "passable" responses, but, if other readers will excuse me, I will start with an overview of the most ferocious criticism, as this will allow me to immediately bring up to date those who have not read the previous article.

The meaning of the destructive responses is as follows. Malachite is a bizarre stone. But even a blot of ink can resemble a bear or, say, a silhouette of Napoleon. What portraits, scenes captured in malachite tiles can therefore be discussed? All this is a game of imagination!

This criticism is based on sheer misunderstanding. In a previous article, I wrote that the analysis of malachite tiles in ultraviolet light, infrared rays and under an electron microscope showed that malachite tiles from the surface are not malachite at all - it has a completely different structure than that of natural stone, it glows in ultraviolet light, which, with malachite does not exist, and it is two-layered - under the visible image there is invisible, accessible to the eye only in infrared rays. Thus, the covering of a tile is something like enamelwhich is subtly forged to look like malachite. Apparently, the critics simply did not notice these provisions of the article, otherwise the theory of "imagination" would have disappeared by itself.

Only an insignificant part of the images, skillfully encrypted with malachite stains, is accessible to the naked eye. Most of them can be seen by examining the tiles under a microscope. This circumstance also drew criticism. First, they proved to me that it is physically impossible for a person to draw and write so finely (in the article I said that, in addition to drawings, there are inscriptions on the tiles visible under a microscope). Secondly, even if it is possible, what is the point of drawing and writing like that? After all, there were no microscopes then, no one could see and read anything.

Here the critics made a factual mistake - there were microscopes at the end of the 18th century; they began to be made in our country already in 1716, at the court of Peter I. But that's not even the point. Now an outstanding microtechnician N. Syadristy works in Kiev, who knows how to do what the legendary Levsha did - and even more. He recently published a book on microtechnology, where he explained how, in what way and by what means a person, even without a microscope, is able to create images, which can be distinguished only with a magnification of hundreds, thousands of times!

But enough of that. Here is a sample of another type of letter in which I received a lot of valuable advice and criticism, but useful comments. For example, I am quoting a letter from Colonel of the Medical Service I. P. Shinkarenko:

“Dear Anatoly Alekseevich! I have carefully read your article "The Malachite Chronicle". Of course, all the data that you cite is of great interest, both for art historians and for people interested in art.

However, I must note that I had doubts that this "chronicle" was created in the 18th century. The fact is that I have certain knowledge in the field of various forms of uniforms for the old Russian army. This, incidentally, allowed me to introduce a certain clarity into the attribution of two portraits of Lermontov, one of which turned out to be "false Lermontov."

So, one of the fragments of the "chronicle" depicts an officer with a beard and a cap with a cockade. This indicates that the artist could not create a "chronicle" before the end of the 19th century, and here's why. Cap badges were introduced in Russia only at the beginning of the 1840s, and officers began to wear beards only during the reign of Alexander III. Prior to that, officers were "allowed" to wear only sideburns, and since 1832, mustaches.

If this is of interest to you, I will be glad to provide you with all possible assistance in your research."

I confess that at first I was greatly saddened by this letter. It turns out that the tile was created almost in our days! So all my hypotheses are wrong! Since this letter came from Moscow before the mail delivered a copy of the magazine where my article was printed, I went through several unpleasant days.

Finally the magazine arrived. Everything Colonel I. P. Shinkarenko said refers to the redrawing with which I illustrated the text. So was the artist wrong?

The photographer and I decided to try to get clearer prints of the officer's face. Does he have a beard? If so, should you believe the beard? Is there a badge on the cap? Did the artist depict all this correctly in the redrawing?

The photographs clearly show that the old master depicted only half of the officer's face. The area of the beard and cockade got into a crack-gluing of individual pieces of malachite. In the gluing, the pieces are arranged so that you can only see the vague contours of the beard and cockade. The artist strengthened them, but I did not pay attention to it. The enlarged photographs showed that the officer had no beard and cockade. A small cross and three sticks appeared in the cockade zone. What do they mean? I can't answer yet.

Yes, Colonel Shinkarenko was completely right. "Free redrawing", and in our case it is very difficult to avoid them, are completely unacceptable. Shinkarenko pointed out my mistake to me in time.

For her, I justly got it from art critics. For me, an amateur in matters of art, of course, it was important to listen to their opinion. I asked our prominent art critic, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Art History Vladimir Semenovich Kruzhkov, to listen to my message at the Academic Council. Leading experts came to the report - Lidia Vladimirovna Andreeva, Genrikh Nikolaevich Bocharov, Natalya Aleksandrovna Evsina, Tatyana Pavlovna Kazhdan, Irina Aleksandrovna Kryukova and some others.

Preparing for the report, I devoted a lot of time to working with the artist. He sketched out the details of the images for me. And where in the pictures the drawing was not entirely unambiguous, the artist conjectured from the point of view of his own, a man of the 20th century, psychology. These pictures largely formed the negative attitude of some listeners.

The discussion was businesslike, albeit critical. It was said, in particular, that research should be continued, that the subject of study is very interesting, but one should not resort to redrawing. I was advised to pay special attention to the analysis of the details of clothing and the outline of the letters in certain inscriptions, since this would allow us to accurately date the time of the creation of the malachite tile.

Some art critics continued to help me after the discussion.

I have accepted the advice on the importance of paleographic analysis. Now I am busy with micro photography and studying individual letters. However, I should note that paleographers do not have a clear understanding of the cursive writing of the Ural masters, which greatly complicates the work. Moreover, the style of processing each letter and number into a micro-portrait prevailed in the skill of the malachite artist.

An analysis of the clothes presented in the drawings shows more and more clearly that the time of making the tiles really belongs to the end of the 18th century. Moved forward, although not as quickly as I expected, deciphering the portraits, identifying them with real faces of that time. Great surprises awaited us here.

An in-depth study of one miniature was preceded by a phone call. PhD in Philosophy D. Sh. Valeev called from Ufa. In the article, I mentioned that, among others, I managed to identify the Portrait of an elderly man in a high hat typical of the second half of the 18th century. On the person's cheek, the inscription was visible: "Yulaev". No portraits of this associate of Pugachev have survived. Valeev asked to pay special attention to this image, since if this is really a portrait of Yulaev, then he has no price.

At first everything seemed clear. There is a picture of a person, there is a signature certifying that this is Yulaev. But, as further study showed, I underestimated the "conspiratorial abilities" of the unknown creator of the tile.

The enlarged photographs showed that the portrait was synthetic. It is assembled from several micro-portraits. One such portrait clearly depicts a Bashkir, and it is located just under the inscription "Yulaev". So what is this - a group portrait of "Yulaev and His Companions", disguised to the limit? The task has become more complicated, although on the other hand … If this is really a group portrait, then there is a hope of identifying Yulaev's real associates with the persons depicted on the tiles. If we are successful, we will have convincing proof that "Yulaev" on the malachite tile is in fact an image of a Bashkir hero. Now I am just busy with this work.

There was a hint at the possibility of decoding the "incognito" of the master himself, who created the malachite tiles. V. I. Rabinovich, a candidate of art history, with whom I began a correspondence, published a number of interesting studies about F. V. Karzhavin, a very curious, rebellious man who lived in the second half of the 18th century. V., I. Rabinovich drew my attention to several important circumstances. First, in the drawings on the malachite tiles there is a scene of a whipping of a serf. A similar drawing, it turns out, is in F. V. Karzhavin's album. Second: the author of the "malachite gallery" was not limited to the "Ural theme"; I already wrote that it seems that they were given an image of Radishchev. V. I. Rabinovich noticed that Karzhavin's circle of acquaintances was extensive, judging by the fact that, for example, he kept in touch with the famous Bazhenov. Third: the manner of classifying drawings, typical for images on malachite tiles, was characteristic of that era and, in particular, for Karzhavin. So, maybe the tile was created not without the influence or even the participation of Karzhavin?

Of course, these comparisons and sketches are rather arbitrary. But I am not talking here about the resolved one, but about the direction in which the search should be undertaken.

Soon after the publication of the materials on the malachite tiles, another call rang. I was asked to come (the address was given) and see "something interesting." This "something" turned out to be a malachite egg. The drawing of the pattern of malachite in it seemed fake. One half of the egg was light green, the other half dark green. A pattern similar to the plan of a peninsula loomed in the light part. The dark part contained streaks that are not found on malachite.

- Where did you get this?

And the owner of the malachite egg - a retired artist - said that this thing belonged to her grandfather, who worked soon after the liberation of the peasants (after 1861) as a salesman for a Kazan merchant who supplied food to the secret monasteries of the Old Believers in the Urals. One of these sketes was located in the area of Lake Tavatui.

Tavatui! This name was written on my tile …

I'm not going to tell you how difficult it was to get high-quality photographs from the curved surface of the egg. Only a few of them succeeded. But this turned out to be enough for the time being to reveal the mysterious signs on it, DRAWN on malachite!

Here is one of the frames enlarged to 9X12 centimeters. It corresponds to an area of less than a square centimeter. Lines of numbers came to light. On the top line you can see: 331, 35, 33, 25, 23, 58, 22, 23; on the bottom - 32. 25, 25 … The numbers were scratched with something sharp and then wiped with paint. They are confined to light to dark stripes of the pattern.

In another frame of the same size, also at a linear magnification of only 10 times, scratched and not erased fives are visible. They are scattered throughout the drawing without any regularity.

On the third frame, notes are inscribed along the trickles of the malachite pattern! An ascending scale is drawn: salt, salt, do, salt, mi, do, mi.

Apparently, this is secret writing. Special. Ural. Previously unknown to anyone.

What do these signs mean? Do not know. There is still much work to be done to decipher them.

Most importantly, a SECOND malachite item containing painted signs has been discovered!

After discovering the numbers of the secret cipher on the malachite egg, I made many attempts to find similar signs on my malachite tiles. I will not talk about the endless number of photographs taken for this purpose. Not in this case. It turned out that the tiles also have a digital cipher! But it is made by means of supermicrotechnics. The cipher numbers are revealed at magnifications of 500 and 1000 times! This is what can be seen at one of these micro-areas: 14, 47, 276, 13 238, 327 … and so on, an endless list of micro-numbers.

Right now I'm busy identifying areas on the tile where the Numbers columns are best viewed. I'll hand them over to the ransomware. What decryption will reveal - I do not know.

I emphasize once again: nothing like this has yet been encountered in the world. We have to go untouched paths. In the meantime, I first propose to name the entire set of artistic means used to draw mysterious signs and drawings, URAL LITOSTYLE.

The Ural litostil was not previously known to us. It is necessary to identify the missing. Maybe there will be new works of art of this style? They should be looked for among the ancient relics, which have ceased to be paid attention to.

And one more turn of further research is the connection with folk tales. This direction was outlined by the candidate of art criticism N. I. Kaplan, who got acquainted with all the research materials. In her conclusion, she suggests looking at the connection between the new materials and what was summarized by the writer PP Bazhov, the author of immortal tales about the "malachite box". I will quote this part of N. I. Kaplan's conclusion in full:

“When reading the manuscript of AA Malakhov, there are many amazing parallels with the texts of P. P. Bazhov. Obviously, the storytellers of the Urals most and more often told Bazhov about malachite and malachite boxes; in these stories there was a familiar deep secret, passed down from generation to generation - the secret of skill and, perhaps, also a secret that was revealed to AA Malakhov. Much was transmitted and retold in hints, replete with innuendo. So, P. P. Bazhov heard about a stone flower, about the Mistress of the Copper Mountain, about the Malachite box. The stone flower appeared to him as a sculptural volumetric flower in the underground chambers of the Hostess … In the center of Malakhov's Malachite box, a stone flower is visible - drawn, not sculpted. It is very likely that the Ural storytellers meant this or such a flower.

Tanya, the daughter of a Mountain Master, keeps a malachite box, presented to her father by the Mistress of the Copper Mountain. Tanya is not like the other children of the Master - she is the daughter of the Mistress of the Copper Mountain and outwardly her copy. The hostess, disguised as a wanderer, comes to visit her and when parting gives her a magic, witch button … Tanya looks at the button and sees miracles: she sees the Lady of the Copper Mountain, and herself in a wonderful dress and with a high hairdo in a hall lined with malachite; sees a gentleman who looks like an oblique hare. Tanyushka's visions are strangely reminiscent of what AA Malakhov saw in his tile. It seems that the Ural old storytellers told P. P. Bazhov that, armed with a witch's mirror, witch's button (perhaps a magnifying glass or even, as Malakhov claims, a microscope), on the lid of the box you can see many scenes and learn about many events. But the old men spoke about this in half hints, and Bazhov did not fully understand them; he ended up with everything apart - a box, a stone flower, a button, Tanyushka's visions.

What conclusion can be drawn from all this?

Apparently, the art that AA Malakhov encountered and talks about in the 18th century, and perhaps in the first half of the 19th century, was quite widespread among the Ural malachites. This is confirmed by the egg with encrypted records, and the connection of this item with the Ural Old Believers. True, it is vague, but in the "Malachite box" PP Bazhov all the time it is emphasized that one must understand the patterns of the stone. The technique of miniature painting, or rather microtechnology, was also perfected by generations during the decoration of malachite products, like any other folk craftsmanship. The masters, apparently, were amused and proud that they could say anything in their stone flower, and the gentlemen never knew to find out the truth. It cannot be that the story of the peasant war also existed in a single copy; this, as they say, is not found in folk art, where everything is collective, repeated, variant.

So, there is still a lot of things to do. Much is still shrouded in fog, which dissipates with difficulty, at the cost of endless trial and error. But it seems that we are going in the right direction, and this is largely due to the readers of Vokrug Sveta.

From the editor. Naturally, no complex search runs smoothly and consistently; the basis on which it is built is important. As A. A. Malakhov himself notes in his article, in-depth research, criticism and the help of specialists helped him to correct a lot in the initial conclusions and assumptions, to clarify the direction of work, to identify some new interesting points. The assessment of the state of affairs given by A. A. Malakhov in the conclusion of the article seems to us correct. We must continue research and hope that AA Malakhov and other scientists will eventually succeed in finding out exactly everything that is connected with the "malachite tile".

We gave the floor to AA Malakhov due to the fact that contradictory assessments of the "malachite tile" appeared in the press (the concept of AA Malakhov was, for example, criticized in the newspaper "Soviet Culture" on January 27, 1972).