We disassemble the album of Montferrand in St. Isaac's Cathedral

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

I had been planning to do this for a long time, but all my hands did not reach. I will be as brief as possible, there will be only the pages of Montferrand's album and marked points of inconsistency with reality.

So we have an album of Montferrand, which shows the stages of construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral. I would like to note that today, of the material available to the mass user, this is essentially the only visual document. Unfortunately, the archives are not publicly available. And therefore, we not only cannot compare them with Montferrand's drawings from his album, but in general there is no complete confidence in the very fact of their existence. Yes, the inventory contains inventory numbers with some drawings and plans, but what is actually there is unknown. There are also drawings by other authors, artists, but they are very close to the drawings from Montferrand's album, in some cases they are practically copies and it is difficult to determine who is the original source in this case. Maybe Montferrand himself was guided somewhere by someone's drawings, or vice versa, the artists relied on Montferrand. Vicious circle. There are also no photographs, although the photograph has already been circulated. By the way, who does not know, the album with Montferrand's drawings was published not in Russia, but in Paris. It is also stored there. Which also suggests some thoughts.

First, the source so that you can compare.

Map with reference to the cardinal points.

Next is the album itself.

So the first picture.

Let's start with the shadows. Montferrand draws them strictly along the axis with which the sun is in the southwest. At the same time, the shadows are short, like in summer in June at noon. In fact, this is impossible, because winter is drawn. Now let's pay attention to the people who are pulling a cart with a pebble. Based on the proportions, the size of the pebble turns out to be about 2 meters long and about 1.5 meters high, the width is not clear, but if it is also 1.5 meters, then the weight of the pebble turns out to be 12 tons. On six wooden casters. That is, 2 tons per wheel. And 9 people drag these 12 tons by the rope, one from behind helps. Firstly, the question is why they are dragged in a cart on wheels, if it is winter and around people ride on sleds. On sleds it is easier on ice and rolled snow. Secondly, why are the wheels small? On carts in harness, the wheels are large and this is logical, because the size of the wheels is proportional to the tractive effort when moving. The larger the wheels, the easier it is to haul. And here for some reason it is different. And in general, why should the peasants drag a pebble if there are horses? In the background we see a warehouse of such stones and men with axes are on them, apparently they are processing stones. Is crushed stone crushed? On the left, I circled some ledges in two circles, it is clear that the right one is already partially faced with marble, and the left one is of an incomprehensible shape. If we draw a proportional line, it turns out that the pediment of the small colonnade (it can be seen as a triangle) will be recessed into the facade (wall). In practice, there is nothing like this. The pediment of the small colonnade has the form of an extension to the main frame of the building without any recess. I made another circle around the arch. It really has a place to be inside the pediment of a large colonnade, but for some reason Montferrand did not portray it accurately. In his figure, he has a small pediment ridge at the level with the top of the arch, but in fact it is not so. The tops of all pediments at the cathedral are at the same level, that is, the arch is below. I would also like to note the fact that for some reason Montferrand did not draw the columns in the gaps of the forests, but he drew ropes tied to the upper columns, apparently so that they would not be blown away by the wind. He also did not draw a mechanism that would allow the columns to be installed vertically. The one that is drawn serves to raise the columns from below. It turns out that they pulled the rope, the column and stood up.

Let's go further. Second picture.

From a different angle and already without snow. Judging by the lush foliage on the balcony on the right, it's summer or early fall. We see again short shadows like in June at noon, but the catch is that the light source, that is, the sun, is strictly in the west. Even in June, this cannot be. The sun in the west, even in June, is not higher than 27 degrees. That is, the length of the shadow should be more than three and a half the height of the object. The azimuth of the sun can be calculated here.

Third picture.

Here, too, everything is not normal with shadows. The sedentary man where the arrow is all right, and the standing man to the right of the arrow is not normal. Note the board under the center arrow. The shadow generally leaves it as if the light fell as the arrow is directed. Further. It is not clear what a stone man is laying out on a sloping plane. But the most incomprehensible thing is what kind of sloping plane it is? Colonnade pediment? No, too high and incomprehensible arch on the right. On the roof of the cathedral, all sloping planes are directed towards the dome, but there are no arches there. In this picture, we do not see any displacement towards the dome, nor anything at all that would help to identify this place. And even if such a place could be determined, questions arise about laying bricks in the arch. Usually, the castle form is made in the case of making blocks of stone. In the case of brickwork of an arch, no locking, damper or embedded elements are usually made due to the lack of such a need (technology is different). Here, the bricks are laid out like keystones in the shape of a trapezoid with incomprehensible inserts, I circled one insert. Too lazy to drag stones? But the peasants are laying the stones. But the most interesting - where is the Bronze Horseman and the bridge? Both the monument and the bridge have stood since the time of Catherine and long after Montferrand. Here is a picture.

You say the bridge and the monument were to the left? And Montferrand didn't paint them for that? Maybe. But in this case, the proportions of the park would be different. If we accept the real proportions of the size of the park, then both the monument and the bridge should have been drawn.

Next is the fourth picture.

It is difficult to note anything here, simply because there is nothing to compare with. Now the metal trusses are bricked up. However, given the fact that the fasteners circled in circles are different, it can be assumed that Montferrand drew from life. But if I drew from nature, then it is not clear why the rivets on the stairs are not drawn. Or is there welding? Or another form of fastening?

Further. Fifth picture.

Here Montferand means two sources of light. It is possible. But, the shadows must be drawn differently. In the center we see a board leaning against a hemisphere. Correctly the shadow is shown with a dotted line, the direction of light by arrows. There is a pillar next to the board. From him Montferrand's shadow was generally too lazy to draw. If we assume the correct light source at the pillar on the right, then on the pillar from the cardinal direction there should be a light strip along the entire height of the pillar. This is also not the case. On the brick column, we again see some inserted elements, apparently made of stone. Why they are - it is not clear. Now there is a wooden staircase and two men on it. At the back, the staircase does not rest on anything, it does not bend under the weight of two people, and in order for the men to get a little mind when they fall through a crack in their heads, they put a round log under the stairs in front.

Picture 6.

The first thing that catches your eye is the lack of perspective. The height and location of people should be in the delta of the green lines. It turns out that the column is being dragged by dwarfs with displacement in space. For such mistakes, even in the 1st grade of the art school, they give two marks. Unclear technological elements are highlighted in red circles. In the central circle there is an element similar to a bricked-up arched opening. There are a lot of vaulted ceilings in the buildings of past centuries, or rather, they are the only ones. But I personally have not seen such laid "windows". Oval vertical red circles indicate that there are no embedded locking elements in this case. We saw them in the first pictures. But marked on a large arched vault (horizontal circle). Now let's move on to the forests along which they are dragging the column up. The aspect ratio of the triangle is not less than 1: 3, most likely more, the picture breaks off. This only means that the weight of the column is distributed in approximately the same proportion when climbing up the hill. That is, a third or even less of the mass is distributed to the scaffolding, and 70 +% to the ropes. The weight of these columns, by the way, is 64 tons. Railway tank with hook. Plus frictional force. From the picture, it is not clear what the wooden flooring is on which the railway tank is. And how they raised her there. Apparently the same way, with ropes and without winch collars. After all, there is no winch in the figure.

Picture 7.

Here, again, a leapfrog with shadows. Compare the shadows from the people in the shape on the left and the base from the columns on the right. And now from the two standing people closer to the center. In three cases, we have a different light source. Again we do not see the bridge over the Neva. True, Montferrand painted a monument to Peter, although thanks for that. Now let's pay attention to what the men are doing. They are all hammering something. On the right it looks like they are carving out round bases for the columns. There is some kind of Brownian movement in the hangar. Someone hollows, someone rubs (grinds). There are no mechanisms at all from the word. The protrusions are also clearly visible on the front column. I am interested to know how these protrusions are made. Chopiki inserted into the holes? Or left when they formed a column from a block? Further. Pay attention to the shape of the column bases. These are the two circles in the foreground. Now compare with the real base of the columns, what shape they really are.

Yes, and to make it clear, to the right of the two bases in the very corner is drawn a bronze decorative overlay on the base, apparently like a mold, a template.

Picture 8.

Some kind of mechanized procedure is drawn here. Much like grinding something. Then this something crushed is mixed with water and flows down the gutter into the bath from which the men on stretchers carry it all somewhere. In the signatures to the Montferrand album it is written that this is the preparation of cement. But this is not necessarily the case. It is possible that this is being done with a polishing paste. And maybe something else. Some kind of clay, chalk, gypsum or lime. In general, we do not know for sure. It is also completely unclear how the water is supplied. No container of water is visible. The mill supplying water and (or) rock is also not visible. And the stocks of what is being crushed are also not visible.

Picture 9.

We count the number of squares on the floor of the colonnade. Montferrand has 7 rows, actually 6 rows.

Picture 10.

In this picture, the details are difficult to make out. Note that the shadows are drawn close to real ones. Provided that it is June, in principle, something similar can be tolerated. Another question is that, again, the men are rolling some kind of stone block on logs. For what purpose they need it in a practically finished building, it is difficult to understand. By weight, if we compare in proportions this block with dimensions in height 0, 7, length 2 and width 1 meter should weigh almost 4 tons. 650 kg per snout. And apparently even later and up. Apparently in those days the men were more muzhikast.

Picture 11.

So the type of column was mined. Here we see absolutely no mechanisms. Montferrand means exclusively manual labor. Despite the fact that mechanisms for the mechanical processing of stone already existed in the 19th century. Let marble, which is much softer, albeit smaller, but nonetheless. This photo is from the 20th century, but the essence is the same.

Okay, let's move on. The next incomprehensible moment. We see at Montferrand that the column is trapped in stone blocks. How to pull it out and drag it, let's say to the water? At the same time without damaging. Where is the soft cushion, decks, winches, winches (capstans), etc.? Where is the berth for ships?

Picture 12.

The same series of questions. Where are the mechanisms, at least wire saws or what to drill with? And why is the crowd of men upstairs so far from the edge? They cut off the floor of the mountain at once? And then they cut it into pieces for the columns? By the way, how do you get the columns out of the pit later? Montferrand did not draw a gentle slope to roll out the column.

Picture 13.

Judging by the fact that Montferrand deliberately designated the dome of the Admiralty (left circle), he drew the cross of the main dome. However, the cross on the main dome is completely different. Here it is.

There is no ball under the cross and it has no holes. But there are small crosses of small domes. They are really with holes and almost the same shape. Almost, because the holes at the bottom are not up to the oblique stick (like in Montferrand), with edging (without Montferrand) and all the holes are of the same size (in Montferrand, the central one is larger). Like the cross of the main dome, they also have a ball.

Picture 14.

In the foreground, decorative elements are clearly something ancient.

Picture 15.

We look again at the shadows. To the left of the horse, in the foreground of people and stones, to the right of the pillar. The light source is strictly to the north. In reality, this cannot be. The ship has a convoy on board. Another one has just been unloaded from it, judging by the picture. Please note that the central mast overlaps the column (red circle), that is, the column is on the port side and the vessel must turn around to unload. Each column is 114 tons, two columns are 228 tons. There are almost 4 railway tanks. According to the drawing of the column on the ship, the water level is much higher, in fact, at the shore level, which is about 2.5 meters. For the boat to be stable, it must have an adequate weight below the waterline. That is, to the mass of the vessel, you need to add at least the same weight of ballast as two columns. And taking into account the sails - even more. The dimensions of the vessel according to the figure are very modest, which means that the draft of such a vessel will be large (do not forget about the keel). Then the next question is - how did this sailing ship sail along the Neva Bay? The depths there do not exceed 3 meters. They do not exceed, for most of them are even less. The sea channel was dug only in 1885. Also, note that there are no protrusions (chops) on the column that we saw in Figure 7.

Picture 16.

7 rails were laid for pulling the column. If we assume that the contact patch of the column will be on a patch of 10x50 cm, then the pressure will be approximately 32 kg per 1 square centimeter. This is a lot, but acceptable. For example, in a modern pallet of bricks from an inch board at construction sites, the pressure is 2.0-2.5 kg per square meter. see. But again, there are a number of inconsistencies. Let's start with the fact that on the recumbent column, we again do not see the chopiks on the column that were in Figure 7. But, these chopiks can be seen on the column that is being lifted. Take a closer look. Further. Montferrand drew how to roll the column onto the flyover. But he did not draw how to stretch it into the woods. Where are the sleepers, where are the rails, where are the winches? Inside the scaffolding, we see prepared openings where the columns will be inserted. And we see how the column rises. From the thin end and the farthest from us, they are lifted up by ropes. Now let's imagine that the first column is already standing. And now they are pulling the second column, the one that Montferrand drew. Its thin end is also distant from us. How to lift the second column? After all, in order to take its regular place in the hole, it must knock down, push, rest against the first column. Or was the column hung on ropes and the hanging one was moved to the side? Were two railway tanks hung on ropes? Now only bridge cranes of the third category can do this. Other types of cranes will not be able to lift and move such a load. In general, if these columns were raised even with such a technical solution, then Montferrand's drawing is extremely illiterate and does not reflect the real process. Further. In the upper right corner of the picture, we see the ruins. Allegedly, this is what remains of the cathedral of the Rinaldi project. Allegedly the altar part. Allegedly, the cathedral was dismantled and the walls of the altar part were left. But why is the roof painted there? Montferrand painted a full-fledged roof over a piece of wall. What is it like? The entire cathedral was dismantled, despite the fact that the roof was monolithic, and a normal multi-pitched roof remained over a piece of the wall. A piece of the roof is also visible above the ruin on the right. Could this really be? Personally, I can only understand this if the roof was made new, but the expediency of such a roof is completely incomprehensible. Well, at the bottom in the right corner of the picture, we again see the base of the column. It differs from the one in picture 7, as well as from the one in reality.

Picture 17.

Here the first question is - where are the columns? As we saw in the previous picture, number 16 according to Montferrand's version, the construction of the cathedral began with the installation of columns. Here we see a ready-made building box, but there are no columns. Further, according to this picture, we can say with complete confidence that not construction is being carried out, but either dismantling or restoration work. Rather, it is the restoration, because in the case of dismantling work, there was no Brownian stirring in the basement. Now to the red circles. The upper left circle shows an arched brick opening without any embedded and locking elements. But we saw them before, in pictures 3, 5 and 6. It turns out like in Vinokur's, here we read, here we don’t read, but here the fish was wrapped. This cannot be. If there is a single plan, a single technical assignment and uniform technical conditions, then the technological chain should be the same. Either there are embedded and locking elements, or they are not. In any case, it would be so now. And I will never believe that 150 years ago people were fools, and foremen and engineers composed everything along the way. Each foreman will check the normative-documentary and design base a hundred times before hammering in at least one nail. Otherwise, all the bumps and head off the shoulders. Well, two circles that show shadows from the pins sticking out of the wall. If there are no complaints about the left pin, Montferrand is clearly hinting at something with the right pin. For the shadow to fall in this way, you need to have very big claims to wave physics.

Picture 18.

Here again we see a completely opposite picture than the previous one. There are columns, but there is no building box. We see that the bases of the columns have already been ennobled with decor and at the same time the plank flooring. The question is why? After all, there is still a huge scale of work ahead, and here the decors have already been attached. Again we don't see the chopiks on the columns. We see very well the roofs on the ruins, supposedly the remains of the altar part. Here is a model of the allegedly previous cathedral, show me where these roofs are on it and where is the narrow opening between the two towers. Just do not say that Montferrand did not draw to scale and did not observe proportions.

Picture 19.

Here we see how some kind of long contraption is being lifted. Montferrand focused on this. But he did not focus on how the column was installed. As I wrote above, it weighs as much as a railway tank car and another 4-ton truck to boot. That is 64 tons. There are no lifting mechanisms in the picture. And in general, it is not fixed in any way. Imagine, let's say something somewhere hit it or sank under it and this column flew down. Yes, it will demolish everything in its path.

Picture 20.

Here Montferrand captured the installation of columns of small towers. We see a lifting mechanism that moves on rollers. However, if you take a closer look at the mechanism, it is completely unclear where the column comes from inside the mechanism; on all sides it has ribs that prevent it from lifting. It turns out that it was hooked with one edge and pulled in such a way that the column passed within the alignment between the beams, while the rear part was dragged along the ground. Theoretically, this is possible, these columns are relatively not heavy, just a couple of KAMAZ trucks, but in practice … These columns stand, as elsewhere in Montferrand's drawings, on parole. Personally, as a builder, I would never leave the columns and would fasten them with a wooden strapping. Moreover, it is not at all difficult and not at all costly. It is also completely unclear how these columns went up. We don't see any holes in the roof. If you look at picture 2, you can see that the building has actually been completely built, but these very columns, as well as the small towers with domes themselves, are not yet there. It turns out that these columns were lifted from the outside on ropes? Just hooked and pulled up? And the column dangled like a sausage in the air? Where is the crane with the arm (boom)? Where are the winches? Where is the counterweight? Or was there a freight elevator on the outside? OK. Now notice the red circle. A miracle happened. Montferrand remembered that there is a bridge across the Neva and drew it. Remember in picture 3 he forgot about it. However, the memory of Montferrand did not fully return, he never painted a monument to Peter. But the bridge across the Neva went exactly to the monument. At the beginning of the article, I have already shown pictures with a bridge and a monument. By the way, the position of the shadows in this picture means the sun is strictly in the east, that is, at 6 o'clock in the morning. However, the length of the shadows and the number of people on the street suggest otherwise.

This concludes. These were almost all the drawings from Montferrand's album that concerned St. Isaac's Cathedral. What conclusions can be drawn. Yes, in general, simple. As it turned out, there is not a single drawing in which Montferrand would be documentary accurate. There is something in every drawing that indicates a discrepancy. It seems that Montferrand is hinting at something. And in order to hide his secret messages, he outlined all the inconsistencies on secondary points. So as not to be striking. It turned out to be a kind of childish fun from our pioneer past - find ten differences in the picture. Actually, we played this game today.

For a snack, here is a picture from Montferrand's album.

On this I take my leave, thank you all.