Columns of Isaac and more. Part 2

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

Inside, the cathedral is also quite remarkable. As a builder and finisher, I am extremely interested in understanding what is done there and how. This is what we will do. Moreover, this will help to determine what is from the remake and what is ancient. And maybe very ancient.

Let's start with the fact that the current decoration of the cathedral is 3/4 created by Soviet restorers after the Great Patriotic War in the course of large-scale works of 1947-1963. I will repeat - by 3/4! So that no one harbors illusions that there really are paintings by Karl Bryullov, the Klenze altar, etc. Here is a photo from the stands inside the cathedral itself.

Note here that the stucco molding was attached to a reinforced base. Reinforcement with a certain pitch in rows is very clearly visible. For me as a builder, it is quite obvious that this reinforcement is inserted into a drilled base and cut off with a cutting tool. This only means that at the time of the previous finish, a tool similar to a modern hammer drill and a modern grinder was used. The only question is when? The fact is that large-scale restoration work took place in the 20-30s of the 20th century, as well as the entire last quarter of the 19th century. It could have been under Montferrand. It could have been earlier. God only knows how many times the stucco molding in a given place has been altered. And in general, maybe not the stucco molding was originally here.

We look in what condition the paintings were.

It was.

So it became.

According to the official history, all the decoration of the cathedral suffered from the cold weather. Like there was no heating during the war, in winter everything froze and therefore everything fell off. But it is not so. The fact is that there was no heating in the cathedral until the 60s of the 20th century. It was only in the 60s that central heating was supplied to the cathedral in the basement, from where it was supplied to the interior of the cathedral through ventilation ducts. Several years ago, renovation work took place and now the entire heating system there is modern. The guides will tell you that there used to be stoves in the basements and that the heating was really stove. But this is not true. Previously, the murderous question for guides was - where did the pipes from the stoves go? There was no answer. After my last year's article, apparently they were taught where the pipes went and now they say that to the Catherine Garden. But the subsequent series of questions also baffles them and leaves them unanswered. Firstly, where is the place where the pipes came out? Or a pipe. Show a specific point, because the pipe should not be small and documentary evidence of this, because such a pipe should be dominant and visible from afar. Where is she in photographs, paintings and prints? She could not hide behind the trees, for the garden itself is relatively young, it was founded only in 1874. Further. Inevitably there must be a heat exchange point. This is the place where hot smoke or heat from the fire will heat the air that will subsequently be supplied to the cathedral. Show such a heat exchange point. In theory, it should also not be small. Next, how was the air supply going? Both in the oven and in the heat exchange point. Where is the air intake, or in modern terms - where is the forced ventilation?

These are the places inside the cathedral where warm air is now supplied. According to the guides.

There are about a dozen of them in the cathedral, I certainly did not count them. In my deep conviction, this is just an old pull-type ventilation, because huge masses of people gathered in the cathedral, plus the lighting was candlelight. All this is needed for pulling ventilation, otherwise the candles will not burn and the people will suffocate. Soviet engineers may have been able to power this system through the city heating system, but until the 60s, there was simply no heating system in the cathedral. Maybe it was once a very long time ago, but as a result of the catastrophe and subsequent destruction, it was completely out of order. Neither Rinaldi nor Montferand could restore or organize the supply of heat. Now there are several ventilation grilles in the floor inside the cathedral (the photo of the floor at the end of the article), I suppose that it is through them that the main heat is supplied to the cathedral, and these ventilation holes in the walls are only auxiliary points, or, most likely, it is generally just supply ventilation and the guides simply do not know what they are talking about.

Let's move on to the columns of the interior decoration. They are amazing. At one time, Aleksey Kungurov correctly noted that these columns were made of solid stone and were made mechanically. That is, processed by the tool. Here is a photograph clearly defining two columns made from one piece of stone. The texture pattern is symmetrical.

The same column near and side.

I examined all the columns for a long time and came to the unequivocal conclusion that the lower part, the so-called base, is attached. At first, it seems that first this base was set as a base and a column is already being put on it. No not like this. The column is attached to the wall, and all the decors above (capitals) and below (bases) are just additional independent decorative elements. Like jigsaw puzzles inserted into place. This suggests that all the decoration of the cathedral was made in a certain flow method. That is, there was a certain template or pattern according to which all decorative elements were made. This applies not only to the columns. The entire cathedral is essentially a Lego set. All parts are the same and interchangeable. Only a different stone was used. There is white, there is gray, there is red, there …

The technology is as follows. Some kind of brick base, load-bearing wall. First, a decorative column (half-column) is attached to it, and then "strips" are attached to it. White marble pilasters play the role of strips in this case. It's like now a decorative plastic corner or fillet in apartments. Here we see two columns on a load-bearing brick base, with white marble pilasters attached to them on the sides, covering the end of the load-bearing wall.

Where the column has a curved geometry, the pilasters are cut accordingly and the gap is sealed with a sealant.

Here is a malachite column, the technology is the same. The pilaster is attached to the column.

Or rather, almost the same. For the column itself is not all-stone. It is essentially a mosaic. A metal column, a pipe, or rather a half-pipe, on which pieces of malachite are glued and subsequently processed. Notice that there is a black hole in the void in the hollow. The sealant fell off.

By the way, about the all-stone one. Flat columns (pylons) are about 15-20 cm thick. I didn't measure it exactly, but somewhere like that. More than ten meters high. If we take conditionally a thickness of 15 cm, a width of 1 meter and a height of 10 meters, then we get a column weight of 4 tons. This cladding, by the way, is very fragile, because it is thin. How was it raised? It seems to me that in this case, some stiffening ribs from the inner part of the column are simply inevitable, otherwise it will simply break off (break) from any careless movement. The same stiffeners are most likely inserted into some grooves in the brickwork (supporting base). As a builder, I would do just that.

Now to the round columns. Rather, half-columns. At first I had the idea that these are entire columns and that they also carry a load-bearing function. But it was not so. They are attached to a load-bearing brick base in the same way as flat columns (pylons).

In the same way, the lower part (base) and the upper part (capital) are attached, the same Lego set. You are amazed at how well everything is thought out in engineering terms. It is interesting that the column was not cut in half, as it would seem to be reasonable according to the logic of things. Well, like sawed in half and here are two ready-made half-columns. No not like this. Our ancestors did not follow an easy path. The half-column has a larger angle than the straight half. The smaller part, most likely, was trite disposed of. Maybe I went to other cathedrals or palaces, I don't know. Maybe the same stiffeners were made from the rear part that, like a "pama-mom", stood in the grooves intended for them. This is most likely. In any case, the work is difficult, a lot of questions - how they sawed, how they sawed, how they fastened, etc. The only thing that is clear is that all the columns are made of natural stone by the method of mechanical instrumental processing. It is mechanical, it is instrumental, and not manual. No one there picked with a chisel or chopped with an ax. And these are not concrete technologies. There are both drilling tools and sharpening, milling, cutting tools, in general a complete package. What material were the cutters and saws made of remains a big mystery. Now this is all done with carbide metals with diamonds. It is also a logical question - what was the drive of these tools. Steam, water, …? After all, cutting stone, especially granite, implies a very high angular velocity, which means very high revolutions of the cutting disc. A modern grinder, for example, has up to 11 thousand revolutions per minute.

The same column is a little closer. It is very clearly seen that the lower part (base) is not native, from a different stone. See the black hole in the base?

This hole is close up and shot with a flash. Behind it is the very brick of the bearing base.

I must say that I was lucky. This is the only hole, I walked the whole cathedral several times. If not for her, it would have remained a mystery how everything works. And now it is clear.

Go ahead. We are looking at such a decorative element. It has two parts. The upper square "with creepy roses" is the first element, the lower "saggy tongue" is separate. Also a Lego constructor. Inserted into a regular place for it.

The texture of the marble leaves no doubt that it is a natural stone. Therefore, it is completely unclear with what cutting tools this "terrible rose" was carved. It is not glued in, not inserted, it is not an independent element. An independent element is the whole "square". Here it is actually inserted and the gap is covered with sealant. By the way, there are many such squares, dozens.

The "tongue" is also cut out and the whole element is the whole rectangle down. Why such difficulties are not clear. Apparently at that time it was easy. Now, for sure, no one would do that.

I was very surprised by the products made of bronze. There is a lot of it in the cathedral. Including chandeliers.

Close up.

Seemingly banal casting. However, upon closer inspection, things that are characteristic of mechanical processing creep out. The fact that casting with subsequent grinding cannot be obtained.

How do you like it? In fact, this is the same horseshoe on a flea. If this is a cast, then how? If this is done differently, it is all the more unclear. Even if we admit that this is a cast, then even in a cast, you can make all these pimples gooppee. Okay, there, on a small thing, on some kind of candlestick, you can suffer. But we are talking about dozens of columns, dozens of chandeliers and other elements, of which there are many. And they are all big, and the chandeliers are huge. And a lot, as it turned out upon closer examination, was done in this way. Fantasy. I know of only one way to get such pimples - this is the method of minting. When you hammer with a core from the back. Actually, the entire technology of minting is based on this. But there is no question of any coinage. If anyone knows how this is done, please write.

Now let's look at the floor. It is marble everywhere with some inclusions from other stones. I carefully examined the entire floor several times and came to the unequivocal conclusion that it was made throughout the entire area of the cathedral at the same time and from the same materials. No options. It could be assumed that the part of the cathedral that has survived from Rinaldi or, in general, the original from the ancient first builders will have traces of greater wear, but this has not been noticed. There is a difference, but it is expressed precisely in places where, for obvious reasons, fewer people went. This is the altar part and this is the central star. The greatest wear on the floor is in the area of the swastika ornament, where the people actually crowded, as well as in the area of entry and exit.

This is the main hall. Entry (exit) zone.

By the way, pay attention to the grates. I think that it is from them that the heat is supplied to the cathedral, but what the guides show and I showed at the beginning of the article is just ventilation.

Swastika pattern area.

And this is the ascent to the altar part. Floor wear is noticeably less.

Here you can see how the rollers from the gate left a track in the floor.

The unequivocal conclusion is that the entire sex is not older than the Montferrand period. Maybe younger, definitely not older.

So it is with the dating of the doors of the cathedral. They are all biblical. And this means that all the doors are not older than the Montferrand period, for Rinaldi's project bore clear pagan signs and there could be no biblical motives in the decoration of the cathedral, by definition. Moreover, the doors of the cathedral have an episode of the baptism of Rus by Prince Vladimir, which depicts the overthrow of the statue of Perun in Kiev.

What can be said in the end. The interior of the cathedral shows us that we cannot find anything older than the Montferrand period. It is possible that some of the columns were inherited from Rinaldi, and he, respectively, from the ancient builders, but this does not violate the general concept and composition, and it is absolutely certain that during the Montferrand period there were technologies for processing stone and bronze of a very high level. At least the wall and floor cladding speaks for this. And the domes leave no doubt about it, and they were definitely made in the era of Montferrand. As for the granite columns of the lower and upper colonnades outside the building, Montferrand inherited them from Rinaldi, and accordingly from the ancient builders. Otherwise, you will have to admit the idea that in the 18th century (Rinaldi) there was a technical possibility of processing stone using technologies that are inaccessible to us today. I am convinced that these columns are many years old than the Montferrand or Rinaldi era implies. These columns, like the main building of the cathedral, must be dated to a certain "antique" era, when a single culture existed throughout the globe. This is Baalbek, this is Alexandria, this is Athens, this is Rome, etc. This is what the ruinist artists portrayed in the 17-19 centuries as the legacy of the deceased ecumene. For example, like Pietro Belotti in the 18th century.

And here is how Montferrand himself reflected in 1836….

On this I take my leave.