Alpatov sketches on the history of Western European art. Book: M

Alpatov M.V. Sketches on the history of Russian art. Volume 1-2. Articles on the Russian contribution to world art from ancient times to the present day. From the author. The book is mainly dedicated to Russian fine arts, but it also includes articles on Russian architecture and fiction. The author did not look for an explanation of fine art in related arts. But he sought to understand the common roots of all Russian artistic culture. The first volume includes several articles on the history of Byzantine art. Art Ancient Rus' it is impossible to study in isolation from Byzantium. Byzantine themes are important for understanding not only the dependence of ancient Russian art on Byzantine art, but also the deep originality of the Russian school. The second volume provides excursions into the history of Western European art, but this time not so much to reveal the direct connections of Russian art with the West, but rather to determine the characteristics of the Russian school.

Volume: volume 2

Year: 1967

Language: russian

Pages: 222

File: PDF, 27.82 MB

The file will be sent to selected email address. It may take up to 1-5 minutes before you received it.

The file will be sent to your Kindle account. It may take up to 1-5 minutes before you received it.
Please note you"ve to add our email [email protected] to approved e-mail addresses. Read more.

You can write a book review and share your experiences. Other readers will always be interested in your opinion of the books you"ve read. Whether you"ve loved the book or not, if you give your honest and detailed thoughts then people will find new books that are right for them.

Sketches on the history of Russian art volume 2 Alpatov M.V. "Sketches on the history of Russian art. Volume 2 - Moscow: Art, 1967 - 328 pp. Articles on the Russian contribution to world art from ancient times to the present day Editor Yu. A. Molok Junior editor E. A. Skiba Art editors : N. I. Kalinin and A. A. Sidorova Proofreader: T. V. Kudryavtseva Case, binding, title page B. A. Markevich 2 Contents: Sketches on the history of Russian art volume 2 o Russian art and the age of enlightenment o The artistic significance of Pavlovsk o On the history of Russian tombstones of the 18th century o Classicism of St. Petersburg architecture of the early 19th century o „ Bronze Horseman"Pushkin A.S. o Kiprensky and the portrait of the early 19th century o About “simple nature” and “graceful nature.” Peasant images in the early work of Venetsianov o Russian everyday painting of the second half of the 19th century century o Composition of Surikov's painting "Menshikov in Berezovo" o About "Boyaryna Morozova" by Surikov o Russian portrait of the second half of the 19th century o From the history of Russian landscape o Vrubel o Again about Vrubel o At the exhibition of Konstantin Korovin o Sapunov o Golubkina o About the art of Matveev o In memory Mukhina o Favorsky's mastery o RESUME In memory of Mikhail Vladimirovich Alpatov o Glorious son of Russia. 3 Russian art and the age of enlightenment (The article was published for the first time in “Utopie et institutions au XIII siècle. Le Progmatisme des Lumieres”, Paris, “La Haye”, 1963, p. 97-106) 1. I. Argunov. Portrait of a peasant woman in Russian costume. 1784. Moscow, Tretyakov Gallery. (I. Argounov. Paysanne en costume russe (Portrait d "une actrice). 1784, Galerie Tretiakov, Moscou.) 4 2. J.-B. Leprince. The inside of a peasant hut. Ink, Moscow, Museum of Fine Arts named after A. S. Pushkin. (Jean-Baptiste Le Prince. Interieur d "une izba paysanne. Encre de Chine. Musee des Beaux-Arts Pouchkine, Moscow.) 3. I. Ermenev. Blind beggars. Watercolor. 1770s Leningrad, Russian Museum. (I. Ermenev. Mandiants aveugles. Aquarelle. Vers 1770-1780. Musee russe de Leningrad.) 5 4. V. Bazhenov. Bread Gate. Palace estate. Tsaritsino in 1775 - 1785. (V.Bajenov. La porte au ble. Palais de Tsaritsino. 1775-1785.) 5. Church of the Intercession in Fili in Moscow. 1693 - 1694. (Eglise de 1 "Intercession de la Vierge de Fili. Moscow. 1693 - 1694.) 6 6. V. Bazhenov. Monogram with the initials of Catherine II. Palace estate in Tsaritsyn. 17751785. (V. Bajenov. Monogramme de Catherine II. Palais de Tsaritsino. 1775-1785.) 7. Sun. Folk carving. XVIII century. Moscow, Historical Museum. (Soleil. Sculpture sur bois folklorique. XVIIIe s. Musee d "Histoire de Moscou.) 7 8. M .Kazakov. Church of Metropolitan Philip in Moscow. 1777 - 1788. (M. Kazakov. L "Eglise du Metropolite Philippe. 1777 - 1788. Moscou.) 9. K. Gontard and K. Langhans. Marble Palace in Potsdam. Started in 1787 (Architectes K. Gontard et K. Langhans. Le Palais de marbre. Potsdam. Mis en chantier en 1787.) 10. V. Bazhenov. Pashkov's house in Moscow. (State Library of the USSR named after V.I. Lenin). 17841786. (V. Bajenov. L "h6tel Pachkov. Bibliotheque nationale Lenine. 1784-1786. Moscow.) 8 11. Charles Cameron. Palace in Pavlovsk. 1782-1785. (Charles Cameron. Le Chateau de Pavlovsk. 1782-1785 .) 19. V. Brenna. Decorative vase in Pavlovsk. (Vincenzo Brenna. Vase decoratif. Pavlovsk.) 9 20. Jug. Gzhel ceramics. 1791 Moscow, Historical Museum. (Cruche, Ceramiques de Gjelsk. 1791. Musee d "histoire, Moscou.) 21. T. de Tojon. Exchange in Leningrad. 1805 - 1816. (T. de Thomon. La Bourse. 1805 - 1816. Leningrad.) It is known that the Age of Enlightenment was a time of profound changes in the economic and social life of all of Europe. Manufactures are being replaced by large factories using machines. With the emancipation of the oppressed classes, more and more attention is paid to public welfare. The economic needs and aspirations of progressive minds are bringing the abolition of the feudal order closer. There are known differences between the defenders of various doctrines: defenders of reason and defenders of the exact sciences, adherents of antiquity and admirers of the human heart. If the Age of Enlightenment can be considered an era that ended with the abolition of the old order, then in fact the bourgeois revolution occurred only in France. 10 Russia remained a predominantly agricultural country. True, E. Tarle has long noted that in the 18th century it was not indifferent to the industrial development of Europe (E. Tarle, Was Russia under Catherine an economically backward country? - “Modern World”, 1910, May, p. 28.) . Enlightenment quickly spread in the country. But the third estate, which in France led the struggle against the privileged classes, was little developed in Russia. The successes of capitalism did not improve the living conditions of the serfs. On the contrary, the participation of landowners in trade led to an increase in corvée and quitrents. During In the second half of the 18th century, peasants rebelled several times. Pugachevism threatened the empire. Although the government dealt with the rebels, their resistance did not weaken. In France, in the complaints of rural residents, one can see the confidence that by satisfying their petitions, their situation can be improved (E. See, La France economique et sociale au XVIIIe siecle, 1925, p. 178.) In Russia, as one contemporary put it, the peasants were not even able to realize the full extent of their oppression (G. Plekhanov, Works, vol. XXI, M.-L., 1925, p. 255.). One folk song of that time says that the masters were accustomed to treating them like cattle. To understand the Age of Enlightenment in Russia, one cannot avoid this main contradiction. In its legislative initiatives and reforms, the government of Catherine II made extensive use of the ideas of the Enlightenment. The order of the Commission of Representatives was expressed in such radical tones that the royal censorship banned it in France. Catherine felt the need to support public opinion in Europe. She called on the nobility to be more prudent so as not to cause an uprising of the oppressed ("Chrestomathy on the history of the USSR", vol. II, M., 1949, p. 173.) But her entire internal policy, especially in the second half of her reign, tended towards strengthening police regime (“The Eighteenth Century.” Historical collection published by P. Bartenev, vol. Ill, M., p. 390.). Education became the privilege of the nobility. Liberation ideas were brutally persecuted. After 1789, suspicions of sympathies for Jacobinism could destroy anyone. The Russian government relied on the nobility and the highest administration. But among the nobility there were people who realized the approaching crisis of the monarchy. They rebelled against corruption and the decline of morals and demanded that the nobility be more effective and virtuous. Only the fulfillment of civic duty can justify his privileges (P. Berkov, L. Sumarokov, M.-L., 1949."). The conservative nobility thought only about amendments to what existed, not allowing the thought of changing the social order. Another a layer of the nobility, disappointed with the state of things, was inclined to such an attitude towards life, which can be defined by the modern term “escape” (flight). Russian Freemasons sought to improve their own personality. Tired of court and social life, the nobility was ready to admire the impulses of the heart and sensitivity, as well as the delights of rural nature (G. Gukovsky, Essays on Russian literature of the 18th century, M. - L., 1937, p. 249.). The most radical revolutionary views were defended by A. Radishchev. Formed under the influence of Enlightenment thinkers, Radishchev goes further than his inspirations. Sympathizing with the suffering of the human race, Lorenz Stern shines in “Sentimental Journey” most of all in the analysis of his deeply personal experiences. In “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” Radishchev is completely captured by the picture of the suffering of the people (A. Radishchev, Travel from St. Petersburg to Moscow. T. I-II, M.L., 1935.). All his thoughts and aspirations are aimed at improving the lot of oppressed people in all latitudes of the world, including the New World. Novikov’s satire exposed the vices of the privileged classes and thereby had a strong impact on minds (G. Makagonenko, N. Novikov and enlightenment in Russia in the 18th century, M.-L., 1951.). Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Mably recognized the right of the people to rise up against feudal abuses. But Voltaire doubted the mental strength of the people and did not hide his contempt for the “rabble.” In the West, they argued that it was necessary to first free the soul, that is, to educate the people, before freeing their body. Russian educators had great confidence in ordinary people. Radishchev was convinced that as soon as the people gained freedom, they would give birth to heroes. In search of a golden age, Western thinkers turned to the primitive society of Arabs and Indians. Russian thinkers discerned in the working and patriarchal life of Russian peasants the wisdom that secular society lacked. A modest gift, received by Radishchev from a blind beggar, is considered by him as a sign of his cordial agreement with the people. Representatives of the third estate in France paid little attention to the needs of the peasantry, and this became the source of their constant disagreements. In Russia, progressive representatives of the nobility were destined to protect the interests of the people. With their interest in the epic Russians were ahead of Schlegel and Percy in poetry, fairy tales, and folklore. The 18th century composer E. Fomin, whose significance was discovered quite recently, was the author of the opera “Coachmen”, entirely woven from folk tunes (B. Dobrokhotov, E. Fomin, M.-L., 1949.). Catherine, during her lifetime patronage won European fame for herself. This fame remained for a long time even after her death. Catherine knew how to take advantage of the enormous funds at her disposal, and guessed the talents of the poets and artists who surrounded her throne. One might think that in Russia in the 18th century everything happened in art according to the will of the sovereigns and in their honor. In reality, crowned patrons of the arts and their entourage were not always sensitive to the needs of art. E. Falcone faced resistance from the imperial bureaucracy ("Falcone's Correspondence." Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society, St. Petersburg, 1879.). Grand Duchess reproached Cameron for violating the “rules of architecture” (L. Hautecoeur, L “architecture classique a Saint-Petersbourg a la fin du XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1912, p. 60.). But the main thing is that the meaning of the art of this era cannot be reduced to the glorification of the monarchy and serfdom. Lomonosov and Derzhavin were forced to devote their odes to the empresses, but most of all they were inspired by the glory of their homeland, the richness of its nature, and the fate of the people. Great architects of the 18th century, Russian and foreign, built palaces for sovereigns and nobles. But at court, shy etiquette and servility reigned, oppressive luxury. Meanwhile, in the park and in the pavilions of Pavlovsk, noble simplicity and a sense of proportion reign, worthy of a sage who left the depraved world. In his recent book, Rudolf Zeitler rightly notes the internal kinship between the utopias of this time and the statues and paintings of classicism (R. Zeitler, Klassizismus und Utopie, 1914.). Many palaces and parks of the 18th century look like the embodiment of the dreams of humanists of the Enlightenment (P. Chekalevsky, Discourses on the liberal arts with a description of the works of Russian artists. St. Petersburg, 1792. The author praises the artists Ancient Greece, “since they did not humiliate their minds in order to decorate the house of a rich man with trifles according to his taste, since all works of art then corresponded to the thoughts of the entire people.” In this statement one can guess the aesthetic program of the Russian artist of the 18th century). each individual artist should be associated with a certain social stratum and considered its representative (V. Bogoslovsky, Social nature and ideological essence of the architecture of Russian classicism last third XVIII century. - “Scientific Notes of Leningrad University.” Series of Historical Sciences, vol. 2, 1955, p. 247.) It is more important not to lose sight of the general dependence of the art of the Enlightenment on social issues, the constant dependence the best minds era from that fermentation of thoughts. Russian artists of the Enlightenment era served the task of liberating humanity from the diseases of the age. Imagining a social system based on truth, nature, justice, they painted in their creativity ideal pictures of the sought-after harmony. This is the connection between art and the historical background of the era. St. Petersburg is the most regular city among all the capitals of Europe; it is more imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment than others. The Europeanization of Russian art was facilitated by the presence in Russia at that time of first-class Western masters and, on the other hand, by the educational travels of young Russian artists to France and Italy. The Age of Enlightenment was deeply imbued with the belief that the same moral and aesthetic principles can find application at all latitudes. The French language - as the universal language of the “republic of fine literature” - strengthened this confidence. As a result, the national character of culture often fell into oblivion. It is not for nothing that the admirer of everything French, Frederick II, did not show sensitivity to the German culture of his time. The revival of the classical order and the veneration of the column in architecture, mythological motives and allegories in sculpture, features of court secularism in a portrait - all this is more or less to a lesser extent was typical art XVIII century in all European countries. Until recently, it was generally accepted that Russia was no exception to this rule. At one time, A. Herzen believed that in the 18th century Russian civilization was entirely European. “What remains national in her,” in his words, “is only a certain rudeness” (A. Herzen, On the development of revolutionary ideas in Russia. - Collected works, vol. VII, M., 1956, pp. 133-262.) A close study of both the Russian culture of this time and other European countries convinces that each of them had its own characteristics.According to the plan for the reconstruction of the Kremlin, developed by V. Bazhenov in 1769-1773, this sanctuary of the Mother See was to be turned into the center the entire Russian Empire (M. Ilyin, Bazhenov, M., 1945, p. 41; A. Mikhailov, Bazhenov, M., 1951, p. 31.) The main arteries of the country, roads from St. Petersburg, from Smolensk and from Vladimir, should have converged on main square Kremlin. This was to a certain extent reminiscent of the arrangement of three roads that converged in front of the Palace of Versailles. The center of the residence of the French monarch was to be his luxurious bedchamber. Bazhenov's plan was more democratic in nature. The palace remained to the side; the center of the Kremlin was occupied by a wide round square, intended to serve as a place for national holidays. This kind of amphitheater was supposed to be filled with a crowd of spectators. In the words of the Russian architect, the rebuilt Kremlin was supposed to serve “for the joy and pleasure of the people.” Bazhenov’s contemporaries guessed the utopianism of this project. Karamzin compares Bazhenov with Thomas More and Plato (N. Karamzin, On the sights of Moscow. - Works, vol. IX, 1825, p. 252). Bazhenov’s project remained unfulfilled. Only a wooden model gives some idea about it. But the architectural thought of the great master was reflected later, in the semicircular square of K. Rossi in front of the Winter Palace (A. Mikhailov, decree, op. , p. 74). Bazhenov was not alone. The Tauride Palace, erected by I. Starov for Catherine's favorite Potemkin, was considered by contemporaries as an attempt to revive the glory of the capitals ancient world. Indeed, crowned with a dome supported by columns, its central hall seems designed to rival the Roman Pantheon. Classicists Western Europe We didn’t set ourselves such grandiose goals. The interior of the Parisian Pantheon by J. Soufflot is more dissected, lighter and does not make such an impressive impression. A notable feature of Russian domed buildings is their pyramidal structure. Palaces, like ancient Russian temples, seem to grow out of the ground, forming an inseparable part of the nature that surrounds them. This is the epic power of Russian architecture. The classicism of the 18th century in all European countries revered the ancient order with all its elements as an unshakable dogma. However, Goethe was already ahead of his age, admiring in 1771 the Strasbourg Cathedral and the beauty of Gothic architecture, which was almost forgotten at that time. Just four years after him, V. Bazhenov, who himself sought to get closer to folk traditions, recognized the artistic value of Russian medieval architecture and was inspired by it in his own creation. This was most clearly reflected in his construction of the royal residence in Tsaritsyn near Moscow. One of Tsaritsyn’s buildings, the so-called Bread Gate, gives an idea of ​​the method of the remarkable architect. In it one can see a peculiar 13 fusion of the classical three-bay arch of Septimius Severus and the purely Russian type of church - a tower topped with kokoshniks and a dome. One should not think that the artist limited himself to a mechanical combination of ancient and medieval motifs. The interaction and interpenetration of heterogeneous elements gives the creation of the Russian master a unique originality. The departure from classical canons also makes itself felt in the Tsaritsyn Bridge, built of pink brick, with its pointed arches. Bazhenov's style in Tsaritsyn is usually called pseudo-Gothic or neo-Gothic. Meanwhile, there are no openwork structures characteristic of Gothic here. Bazhenov’s architecture is more juicy, full-blooded, the wall retains its meaning in it. The Tsaritsyn Bridge is closer to ancient Russian traditions. It is reminiscent of the mosques and iwans of Central Asia with their mighty pointed arches and colorful tiles. Bazhenov’s architecture was prepared by the research of the architects B. Rastrelli, S. Chevakinsky and D. Ukhtomsky who worked before him in Russia. In Russian applied art of this time, next to the strictly classical, beautiful, but somewhat cold forms of vases, more archaic, colorful types of jugs of a purely national character are preserved, especially in Gzhel ceramics. One of the buildings in Tsaritsyn is crowned with a round disk with Catherine’s monogram, which has no analogues in classical architecture. But it is very similar to the so-called “wooden suns” with which folk carvers decorated ships. In his speech at the foundation stone of the Kremlin Palace, Bazhenov, as the most beautiful building in Moscow, mentions the bell tower of the Novo-Devichy Convent, a characteristic monument of the so-called “Naryshkin style.” But Bazhenov’s aspirations to revive national forms did not find support from the authorities. They say that Catherine called Tsaritsyn’s with disapproval construction of the prison and suspended further construction.Meanwhile, simultaneously with Bazhenov, another Russian architect, I. Starov, was building the Potemkin Palace in Ostrov on the Neva as a likeness medieval castle. He revived in it the whiteness and smoothness of the walls of ancient Novgorod architecture (A. Belekhov and A. Petrov, Ivan Starov, M., 1951, p. 404.). Russian taste in architecture was reflected not only in the nature of the decorations and walls, but also in the general arrangement of buildings. The palace in Pavlovsk, created by the great English master Ch. Cameron, goes back to the Palladian type (V. Taleporovsky, Ch. Cameron, M., 1939; G. Loukomsky, Ch. Cameron, London, 1943; M. Alpatov, Cameron and English classicism . - "Reports and messages of the philological faculty of Moscow University", I, M., 1846, p. 55.) It is surrounded by an English park. But the location of the palace on a high hill above the Slavyanka river dates back to ancient Russian tradition . The cubic volume of the building does not suppress the surrounding nature and does not come into conflict with it. It seems to grow out of the soil, like its dome from the cube of a building. Charles Cameron had the opportunity to learn Russian tradition and Russian tastes when, after arriving in Russia, he built a cathedral near Tsarskoe Selo (S. Bronstein, Architecture of the City of Pushkin, M., 1940, fig. 146, 147.). Russian classicism of the 18th century prefers a freer arrangement of architectural masses than classicism in other European countries. The architectural mass of its buildings gives a more organic and lively impression. The Petit Trianon of A. J. Gabriel forms a cube, clear, balanced and isolated; a graceful cornice separates the top edge from the space. In the Palace of the Legion of Honor by the architect P. Rousseau, the cornice is more emphasized than the dome above it. There is nothing like this in the Pashkov house, created in 1784-1789 by Bazhenov. True, its elegant decoration resembles the so-called style of Louis XVI (N. Romanov, Western teachers of Bazhenov. “Academy of Architecture”, 1937, No. 2, p. 16). But the location of the building on a hill, its slender pyramidal silhouette, emphasized by the side wings , the tendency to the top of its middle body, finally, its relief thanks to the belvedere (unfortunately, damaged in the fire of 1812) - all this, rather, goes back to the traditions of folk architecture of Ancient Russia.In Western architecture of the 18th century one can find palaces with belvedere, but organic the growth of the building does not reach such force 14 of expression as in the building of Bazhenov and some of his compatriots. Here we must also recall the works of Bazhenov’s contemporary and friend M. Kazakov. His Church of Metropolitan Philip of 1777-1788 in Moscow with all the elements of its architecture belongs to Palladian classicism: portico , rectangular windows and windows with platbands, and finally, a light rotunda - all this is taken from the repertoire of classical forms... But the silhouette of this temple, its resemblance to a step pyramid, involuntarily makes us recall the Naryshkin churches, which were before the eyes of Moscow architects and always attracted their attention. Western architects preferred symmetry, or at least a stable balance of parts, in their buildings. Two identical buildings on the Place de la Concorde in Paris provide an example of this. On the contrary, Russian architects of this time often deviated from strict order. The educational home in Moscow, built in 1764-1770 by the architect K. Blank, was conceived in the spirit of the pedagogical ideas of the Enlightenment and, accordingly, had a clear, rational plan. At the same time, the building is strongly stretched along the Moskva River embankment. The smooth white walls over which the tower rises are reminiscent of the monasteries of Ancient Rus', those impregnable fortresses located on the banks of lakes and rivers, with white stone walls and towers at the corners. These features give originality to Russian urban planning of the 18th century: there is less orderliness, balance and symmetry, but more sensitivity to the harmony between the building and the vast expanses of the country and the virgin nature surrounding the cities. As for sculpture, Russia in the 18th century did not have a continuous connection with the tradition of the Middle Ages, which played a large role in all Western countries. However, thanks to the diligence of the professor St. Petersburg Academy The art of the French sculptor Gillet at the end of the 18th century formed a whole galaxy of Russian masters. Falconet’s masterpiece “The Bronze Horseman” also contributed to the development of taste for this type of art. However, Russian masters did not limit themselves to imitation. In his terracotta sketch “Ajax saves the body of Patroclus,” M. Kozlovsky, like many other masters of his time, was inspired by the ancient group “Mene- barking with the body of Patroclus" in the Uffizi. But in the work of the Russian master there is not a trace of that sluggish and artificial classicism that was then instilled at the Academy. The tense body of Ajax, in contrast to the body of his dead friend, looks stronger. His sculpting is emphasized. The drama of the hero’s position, saving a friend in the middle of a heated battle, is of a romantic nature. M. Kozlovsky anticipates the sculptural experiments of T. Gericault. It is not surprising that, unlike his contemporaries, Kozlovsky highly valued Michelangelo (V. Petrov, Sculptor Kozlovsky. - Journal. „ Art", 1954, No. 1, p. 31.). Perhaps the posture of his Ajax indirectly reflected something of the valor of Suvorov’s warriors, which aroused general admiration at that time, something of that faith in man that underlies the “art of victory” of the great Russian commander. In the 18th century, the peasant genre was nowhere had such a unique character as in Russia. The French painter J.-B. Leprince, as a foreign traveler, did not notice the miserable existence of Russian serfs. The interior view of a peasant hut in his drawing of the A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts looks like a mythological scene in the spirit Boucher. The hut is spacious and illuminated, like a palace hall, and accordingly, the figures of its inhabitants are easily and gracefully conveyed. We find something completely different in the drawings of I. Ermenev, a Russian draftsman of the 18th century, until recently almost unknown, currently occupying hardly not the same place in Russian art as Radishchev in literature (About Ermenev: “Russian Academic Art School”, M.-L., 1934; “Literary Heritage”, vol. XXIXXXX, M., 1937, p. 385. (To understand Ermenev’s state of mind, one must remember that while in France he witnessed the storming of the Bastille and captured this event in one of his drawings.) The plight of Russian peasants, the poor, the blind is expressed by Ermenev with merciless truthfulness.The balance of composition and lapidary forms enhance the impact of these drawings, in which the master did not have to resort to techniques of grotesque and hyperbolization. This artist of the 15th Enlightenment, in essence, anticipated much of what later attracted the Wanderers. His small drawings look like sketches for monumental frescoes. Their power of influence surpasses even the epic images of M. Shibanov in his paintings “Peasant Wedding” and “Peasant Lunch” in the Tretyakov Gallery. One must assume that D. Diderot would have approved of the portrait of a peasant woman, or rather, the portrait of the serf actress Count Sheremetyev in Russian folk costume(Tretyakov Gallery), since the “social state” of a person is very clearly expressed in it. This creation of the serf artist Ivan Argunov captivates with its deep humanity, which secular portraits often lacked (I. Danilova, Ivan Argunov, M., 1949; T. Selinova , I. P. Argunov. - Magazine “Art”, 1952, September-October). The cuteness of the young woman, her spiritual purity- all this anticipates peasant images in Venetsianov and in the novels of Turgenev and Tolstoy. It is necessary to compare this still slightly timid and constrained image of a serf woman with the elegant secular portraits of the 18th century by F. Rokotov and D. Levitsky in order to measure the depth of the abyss that divided the then Russian society. 16 The artistic significance of Pavlovsk (The article was published for the first time in the “Yearbook of the Institute of Art History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR”, M., 1954, p. 201.) 12. Charles Cameron. “Aviary” in Pavlovsk. 1783. (Charles Cameron. “Volier” du Chateau de Pavlovsk. 1783.) 13. P. Gonzaga. Pavlovsk Park. End of the 18th century (Pietro di Gonzaga. Pare de Pavlovsk. Fin du XVHIe s.) 17 15. Claude Lorrain. Morning. Leningrad, Hermitage. (Claude Lorrain. Aurore. L "Ermitage de Leningrad.) 16. A. Kanava. Funerary stela of Volpato in the Church of Santi Apostoli in Rome. 1808. (Antonio Canova. Stele funeraire Volpato. 1808. Eglise des Saints-Apotres, Rome.) Most architectural historians saw in Pavlovsk a monument of classicism of the late 18th century, the leader of which in Russia, along with other architects, is Charles Cameron. At the same time, attempts to give a historical explanation of the architectural uniqueness of Pavlovsk were usually replaced by searches for its supposed prototypes in English architecture (G. Loukomski, Charles Cameron, London, 1943, p. 96. Here are references to English analogies, but there are no historically substantiated artistic conclusions from their comparison.One ancient author, Sablukov, with a long list of prototypes, tried in vain to prove that in Pavlovsk absolutely everything was created in imitation of one or another model and was devoid of any originality (A. Uspensky, Imperial Palaces, I, M., 1908, p. 406). Meanwhile, the buildings of Pavlovsk bear the imprint of not only the personality of their creators; they characterize artistic development our country in the 18th century. The artistic image of Pavlovsk reflected the quest of an entire historical period and, of course, neither the tastes of the customers nor the talent of the executors of their will can explain the character of Pavlovsk in all its unique originality. In the last quarter of the 18th century, a fermentation of ideas and artistic trends was noticed in Russian culture. Even representatives of the most moderate movement opposed the old aesthetic norms and ideas with an attraction to the simplicity of morals untouched by civilization, to the expression in lyrics of the poet’s soulful experiences and thoughts. In those years, the works of a whole group of Russian authors persistently raised questions, the emergence of which can only be explained by the aggravation of social contradictions. Disgust for the luxurious and empty social life leads lyric poets to sing of “wretched huts” and “huts”, discontent modern society pushes on the path of fascination with rural nature, and this gives rise to the theme of “evening”, “fog” and “fog” in poetry lunar landscape "Aversion to cold, heartless rationality brings to life sensitivity to personal experiences. Finally, the inability to openly express one's protest feeds the illusion that only in solitude, in the depths of one's self-awareness, can a person get rid of sorrows and worries and gain inner freedom. Not in poetry , neither in the prose of Russian authors of the 18th century did these sentiments find such a vivid poetic expression as in the masterpieces of Russian architecture, in particular in Pavlovsk’s architectural and park ensemble.Unlike Peterhof, which was built and rebuilt over almost a century, and Tsarskoe A village that was created under Elizabeth and Catherine, Pavlovsk acquired its main features during the last two decades of the 18th century, and although subsequent years changed its appearance somewhat, everything that was created in Pavlovsk was created on the basis that was laid at the beginning 80s Charles Cameron arrived in Russia at an advanced age (V. Taleporovsky, Charles M., 1939.). In his youth, he worked on the study and publication of Roman antiquities simultaneously and side by side with the transformer of English architecture, Robert Adam. True, Adam was the first to gain fame in his homeland. Cameron remained known to his compatriots only for his essay on Roman baths, as well as architectural drawings exhibited at the Society of Architects. But this does not mean at all that he was inferior to Adam and his other fellow artists in the strength and originality of his talent. Cameron, In the 18th century, when construction became a real fashion among the English nobility, architects often gained fame not so much for their creative independence as for their efficiency in carrying out construction work (N. Batsford, English Homes and Gardens, London, 1933, p. 28 (about R. Adams). That is why even the similarity between the Pavlovsk Palace and the earlier palace of R. Adam in Kedleston, which was indicated in the literature, does not resolve the issue of primacy. The works of C. Cameron are more poetic in conception and more subtle in execution than the works of R. Adam, and therefore the opinion that he was an imitator must be firmly rejected (J. Lees-Milke, The Age of Adams, London, 1947, p. 165.) . Apparently, Charles Cameron was hampered in England by his unyielding adherence to the Stuart party, which suffered political defeat in the middle of the century. Only an invitation to Russia opened the way for him to realize his plans. Here he found himself faced with such a vast field of activity that his compatriots who remained in their homeland could have envied. Cameron himself admitted that working in Pavlovsk, where everything was created anew, and not in Tsarskoe Selo, where he had to complete what had been started earlier, gave him the greatest satisfaction (“Cameron.” Collection of articles, GG., 1924, p. 46.). It has now been established that it was in England, on the opposite edge of Europe from Hellas, that already in mid-18th century century, Greek architectural types and motifs came into circulation, such as peripterus, monopterus, prostyle and the Doric order, which in the second half of the century became the property of all schools of the continent (L. Lawrence, Stuart and Revett. Their literary and architectural careers. - "Journal of the Warburg Institute", 1939, fas. 2, p. 129, tav. 22d, 25d.). In England itself, they became famous thanks to learned architects, publishers of classical “urages.” The stamp of passion for archeology lay on many of the works of English architects of the classical direction: indeed, copies of the Athenian “Tower of the Winds,” replicas of the monument to Lysicrates or Doric temples seemed to be in the park of some English the landlord with exhibits in a museum environment alien to them. Charles Cameron was widely knowledgeable in the history of architecture, but the burden of historical knowledge did not burden the flight of his creative imagination. In Italy he was close to Cardinal Albani, around whose meetings the best artists with I. Winkelman at the head. Like this archaeologist-poet, through ancient art he moved towards an understanding of life and nature in the spirit of advanced social ideas of the time. It must be assumed that in new country the master did not immediately understand his calling. He was entrusted with the construction of the cathedral in Tsarskoe Selo, he completed it in an oriental, exotic style, apparently hoping that this would satisfy local tastes. In response to an indication of the traditions of ancient Russian church architecture, he made a new project based on the type of cross-domed church; the cathedral built on it can be called a typical work of Russian classicism (S. Bronstein, Architecture of the City of Pushkin, M., 1940, pp. 146-147.). Of course, Charles Cameron carefully studied the works of such a remarkable master as V. Rastrelli; it is possible that he knew about the works of his peers I. Starov, N. Lvov, who then laid the foundations of classicism in Russia. Charles Cameron's architectural plans were carried out by a large team of builders, which included Russian craftsmen. All this created a creative atmosphere around Cameron, to which this sensitive, thoughtful master could not be indifferent. Not knowing the Russian language, Cameron was forced to express himself in Russia in English, Italian or French. However, one must think that he understood Russian architectural speech, which sounded in the buildings created by his Russian brothers in art. In any case, everything created by Cameron in Pavlovsk is only in the most general terms similar to typical buildings in English XVIII classicism century. In English country buildings of the 18th century, such as the palace at Howwick by the architect Newton or Kedleston Palace, built by R. Adam, there reigns a strict, almost rigid regularity of form, representativeness and importance (N. Batsford, op. cit., p. 29.). On the contrary, in the Pavlovsk Palace the forms are softer, the connection between architecture and nature is closer, as was originally characteristic of Russian architecture. The customers apparently highly appreciated the wonderful craftsman. But there was no real understanding between the artist and them. They always hurried him, they were angry with him for his slowness. He was uncompromising in creative matters and sought to bear the fruits of his inspiration for a long time. On this basis, frequent disagreements arose, which ended with the leading role passing to Cameron's assistant, the architect Brenna. However, this happened much later. Despite the difficulties and obstacles, Cameron managed to realize all his plans in Pavlovsk. His creations bear the stamp of lyrical sincerity and warmth. Architecture, by its very nature, is only in an allegorical form capable of expressing those social ideas that can find direct expression in journalism, philosophical treatises and fiction. But at its core, architecture expresses the same ideas as other forms of art. The whole of Pavlovsk as a whole constitutes a huge and integral poetic world, and it is not for nothing that the column on the outskirts of the park was called “The End of the World.” No matter how highly we appreciate the decisive significance of Cameron in the creation of Pavlovsk, we must admit that everything he did in Russia outgrows the scope of his personal creativity True, his buildings in Pavlovsk and his buildings in Tsarskoe Selo are in many ways related and are marked with the seal of the same “handwriting”. And yet this does not exclude the fact that Cameron’s Pavlovsk works have a unique originality, which allows us to talk about a special architectural style of Pavlovsk. As one 18th-century author put it, an idyll is “a poetic image of innocent and happy humanity.” Poets expressed their attraction to naturalness and purity of morals in poetry, painters - with paints on canvas. Architects had the opportunity to embody it in stone only during the construction of imperial palaces or noble estates. In Pavlovsk, the features of that “natural man” to whom it is dedicated are clearly visible everywhere. The life of this person should not be spent in empty amusements, not in secular entertainment - this is the significant difference between Pavlovsk and the carefree festive palaces of Rastrelli. Dazzling luxury and stunning wealth are alien to this person. He knows how to find beauty in solitude, in noble simplicity. Mysticism, which leads beyond the real world, is alien to him. He lives in the present, loves and appreciates living, untouched nature, but he also knows what a dream, imagination, and memory are. One should not turn a blind eye to the fact that this “natural man” had his own weaknesses: before the artists who expressed these ideals, the idea of ​​civic duty emerged only in the vaguest outlines. The utopian nature of Pavlovsk’s artistic image stemmed from the unrealizability of the dream of perfection and happiness. However, , this dream acquired poetic reality, since it found its embodiment in artistic images : temples and gazebos among the green carpet of lawns and shady groves looked like a call to people to become worthy of these architectural masterpieces. Pavlovsk is one of those rare places where buildings and their decoration, statues and paintings, trees and alleys - everything is tailored according to the same plan. No wonder Zhukovsky argued that even the full moon looks different in Pavlovsk than at other latitudes of the world (V. Zhukovsky, Collected Works, vol. II, St. Petersburg, 1869, p. 337). One of the reasons for the attractiveness of Pavlovsk is that nothing in it hurts the eyes, does not offend the taste, everything is brought to that internal connection with the whole, which is usually called harmony. With all the diversity of Pavlovsk, a walk through it does not overwhelm the viewer in the same way that a walk through the Tsarskoye Selo park with its huge palace and luxurious halls, wonderfully varied pavilions and majestic monuments of Russian glory can overwhelm and tire. A walk around Pavlovsk primarily pleases with the alternation of impressions leading to one goal, captivating, like reading a fascinating book. In Pavlovsk, everything is visible and clear; all its beauties are revealed directly to the viewer’s gaze. Every object in Pavlovsk can be viewed from all sides; from everywhere it enchants the eye with its perfection: this applies to the palace, gazebos, trees, and statues. Each part of Pavlovsk is developed to the greatest degree of completeness: the palace opens its wings wide, the trees spread their branches freely, the statues are not pressed to anything, are not constrained by anything and rise in open areas or in spacious niches. Even the caryatids stand straight, as if not feeling the weight of their burden. Roundness as an expression of the perfection and completeness of each part is, as it were, an internal law of the structure of a number of buildings in Pavlovsk: this is reflected in the palace with its center - a round domed hall, and in the round gazebos, and in the rounded clumps of trees in the park, and, finally, in the central areas of “Old Sylvia” and “White Birch”. This does not exclude the fact that the layout of 21 Pavlovsk is characterized by a predominance of “open forms.” Indeed, no matter how completed individual parts of Pavlovsk Park, they do not distract it from the surrounding wildlife. The gaze easily moves from one object to another, each work of art not only pleases its perfection, but also opens the eyes to what surrounds it. In this regard, in Pavlovsk there are no sharp contrasts or effects that hit the eyes strongly. This is reflected in the way the palace rises smoothly on a hill above the river, and in how gradually from the strict architectural forms of the palace and the straight linden alley leading from it there is a transition to a more freely laid out park and forest. In this, Pavlovsk is decidedly different from Peterhof, with its pathetic contrasts of snow-white fountains and thick, dark greenery, a flat upper garden and a spectacular descent of stairs and alleys to the sea. In Pavlovsk, the violent energy of Peterhof is nowhere noticeable, its nature is quiet, affectionate towards people, proportionate to it, and therefore next to the Pavlovsk Palace it is difficult to imagine the boundless expanse of the sea or the indomitable power of foamy “water cannons.” Valuable art collections have long been concentrated in Pavlovsk: ancient marbles, French tapestries, carpets, mirrors, porcelain, furniture by Jacob and Roentgen, paintings by Italian masters and Rembrandt ("Pavlovsk. Palaces, parks, painting, sculpture, fabrics, porcelain, bronze, furniture", issues I-IV, St. Petersburg, b. g.). All this enriched the appearance of Pavlovsk. But this is not where its main artistic significance lies. Immense generosity and eye-catching luxury are alien to Pavlovsk’s style; gold, marble, crystal are not displayed; What is decisive is not the value of the material, but its processing, the thought put into it, the taste that left its mark on it. Precisely due to the fact that in Pavlovsk everything is brought into line with a person’s thoughts, with his dream, the “art of illusions” of the wonderful decorator Gonzago could find application here, which seems to smooth out the line between the existing and the imaginary, between reality and dream, real and future. It is not for nothing that in Pavlovsk, according to the figurative expression of V. Zhukovsky, the sky itself would be indistinguishable from its reflection in the mirror of water, if the water surface were not wrinkled by the breeze and did not disturb the illusion of vision. All this gives rise to a special moral atmosphere in Pavlovsk. Here people are not should experience no aching melancholy, as in romantic gardens with their ruins and memories of the irrevocable past, no loss, no loneliness, which evoked in people of the 18th century the then favorite islands with poplars, a semblance of Rousseau’s place of calm (A. Kurbatov, Gardens and Parks, Pg., 1916, p. 578.) There is no majestic, fortress-like severity of the Gatchina Palace and Park here. At the same time, Pavlov’s buildings do not overwhelm with cold, brilliant perfection, like the buildings of G. Quarenghi. Beauty looks welcoming in Pavlovsk, almost homely: it does not unbalance a person, but caresses the eye and serves as food for the mind and imagination. “Everything here involuntarily draws us to think,” Zhukovsky admitted in Pavlovsk. The Pavlovsk Palace and the buildings and gazebos scattered in its park date back to classical architectural types of the 18th century. Charles Cameron followed them, as the Greek tragedians followed the ancient myths, as the Italian masters of the Renaissance followed the centuries-old types of Madonna. The task of the builder of Pavlovsk was to put a new poetic meaning into them, to transform them in order to create on the banks of the Slavyanka a “monastery” worthy of a man of the Enlightenment. Unlike the classicism of the “archaeological direction” in Pavlovsk, not one of the buildings is designed for individual consideration. Each building is placed in such a way that its connections with other buildings, with the life taking place in and around it, are clear. In each architectural detail her interactions with others are emphasized. Cameron asserted in his architecture the inexhaustible wealth of relationships between its parts. This reflected not only his intention to avoid imitations of antiquity, but also his desire to preserve in his buildings the best achievements of Rastrelli’s architectural language, which had already become a thing of the past, with its free rhythm of contours, soft 22 plasticity of protruding volumes alternating with spans and the richness of internal rhymes. Charles Cameron's plans included transforming Pavlovsk's palace and park into a place where people can find joy and harmony in communication with nature. It is not for nothing that the center of the entire ensemble was originally supposed to be an open colonnade with a statue of the sun god Apollo in the middle. In accordance with this plan, the architecture of Pavlovsk is covered in air, light, and sun; its essential feature is openness, lightness, airiness. True, Charles Cameron also placed the columns so widely in his gallery in Tsarskoe Selo, as no one had dared to do before. But only in Pavlovsk did this feature become a defining feature of architecture, and each building is perceived not so much as a self-sufficient form, but as the completion of a perspective, as a frame for a view, as something permeated with light, space, and air. Each building in Pavlovsk can easily be attributed to one or another canonical type. However, within these types, Cameron maintains complete freedom. He does not flaunt, like N. Ledoux, his disdain for rules and traditions. But he places accents in his own way: sometimes he brings the columns closer together, sometimes he pushes them apart, sometimes he compresses or releases part of the order - from this the building acquires its expressiveness, a unique imprint of the master’s personality. That is why Pavlovsk can be considered one of the most remarkable examples of lyricism in architecture. In the architecture of Pavlovsk, a large role is played by what can be called “small quantities.” In relation to them, Cameron is decidedly different from G. Quarenghi. He attached the main importance to beauty, which immediately catches the eye, immediately captivating the viewer. In Quarenghi’s buildings, exceptionally fully revealed ratios of “large quantities”, strong artistic effects. Cameron's buildings in Pavlovsk were not created to be perceived from afar, you do not understand them at first glance, their best qualities are discerned only when viewed at close range, in the process of “slow reading.” You need to adjust your attention so that the smallest and even the smallest details of the buildings - only then can one truly appreciate the artistic perfection of the buildings of Pavlovsk. It is known that the Pavlovsk Palace is adjacent to the Palladian palace type widespread in the 18th century. This, however, does not exclude significant differences between the palace and many contemporary classical palaces. English palaces of the 18th century are for the most part distinguished by their clear stereometry, even sharp edges, and a straight roof with a horizontal cornice, usually not disturbed by a low dome. This gives English country palaces sedate and austere urban look. In contrast, the Pavlovsk Palace, erected on a sloping hill above Slavyanka, seems to rise above the park buildings and with its dome really crowns the entire ensemble. Its volumes are brought into agreement with the contours of the hill: the clumps of trees half-covering the façade are in perfect harmony with them. True, many centuries have passed since the heyday of ancient Russian art, and during this period the entire understanding of architecture has changed profoundly, and yet, speaking about the location of the Pavlovsk Palace on a hill above Slavyanka, one cannot help but recall such monuments as Novgorod churches or the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, beautiful “inscribed” into the nature surrounding them. Despite all the closeness to his contemporary G. Quarenghi, Charles Cameron in his understanding of the architectural image significantly diverged from him, and this clearly makes itself felt in Pavlovsk. In the best palaces of G. Quarenghi, the full force of the impression is created majestic portico of the facade, everything else serves as a neutral background. C. Cameron gives a stronger sense of how evenly developed in all directions the volume of the palace is, and this impression is furthered by the fact that a huge low dome, dominating the entire building, grows out of its cube, like , in turn, 23 porticoes grow out of it, as, finally, the palace rises above the gallery and side wings.In the palaces of G. Quarenghi, each of the two facades usually serves as a repetition, a mirror image of the other. Even in his English Palace in Peterhof, both porticoes are the same, although one of them is sandwiched by side wings. The external and internal facades of the Pavlovsk Palace are sufficiently similar to each other to recognize them as parts of one building; but the portico facing Slavyanka is topped with a pediment, the columns are closer together and the verticality is more emphasized, giving the building a solemn character; on the contrary, from the side of the courtyard, paired columns form a rhythmic row, the facade is stretched in width, the portico is devoid of a pediment, and this more closely connects its columns with the colonnade of side galleries. Charles Cameron also showed his ability to give generally accepted forms a new meaning in the processing of the dome. Connecting a round dome with the cubic volume of the palace and especially with its flat porticoes was not an easy task. It is not for nothing that J. Soufflot in the Paris Pantheon never overcame these difficulties: its dome looks like a semblance of Bramante’s graceful Tempietto, mounted on a heavy, massive crosshair. Cameron got out of the difficulty by making the drum of his dome low and wide, almost like in the most ancient Russian churches; for the sake of greatest relief, he surrounded it with columns that connect the drum with the columns of the portico. Each of the drum columns reaches a considerable height, but from a distance they merge together and form a kind of balustrade. Cameron well understood and highly appreciated the beauty of the wall surface, but, unlike many masters of classicism of the 18th century, who subjected only the surface of the wall to architectural treatment, he placed windows on the side facades of the Pavlovsk Palace in deep niches and thereby revealed the entire thickness of the wall, its physicality and strength . This again makes us remember the monuments of ancient Russian architecture. In the Pavlovsk Palace, the predominance of the center is clearly expressed, but the separation of two facades is also noticeable, and the dominance of the entire building over the surrounding area and merging with it. There is a calm, impressive strength in its silhouette, and at the same time, in the processing of parts, elegance and grace make themselves felt. The central position in the Pavlovsk Palace is occupied by the round Italian Hall, which survived the fire of 1803 and was badly damaged by the fire started by the German fascists during the retreat from Pavlovsk, and has now been restored. Initially it served as a dining room, but, designed like the Roman Pantheon in a round plan with an overhead light, it produces a solemn, majestic impression of a sanctuary. Everything in this round hall is calm and balanced. Cameron abandoned the columns here, but the hidden presence of the order is reflected in the large-scale relationships of the divisions. The entire rotunda is surrounded by a wide entablature with a developed, elegantly decorated frieze; it falls at the height of a large order; slightly below it stretches a narrower cornice, corresponding to a small order; the statues standing in niches are even smaller in size; the gradation of scale makes the huge hall commensurate with a person. Thanks to the niches in the hall, the thickness of the wall is clearly revealed, but it is not excessively massive, since the sections between the niches can be perceived as both massive pylons and flat partitions. Medallions in the walls, hanging on garlands, emphasize the force of attraction, and at the same time the garlands merge and form a broken wavy line, repeated by the arches of the niches. There is not a single feature, not a single form in the Italian Hall that has not been brought into conformity with another; at the same time, every detail - medallions and caryatids, even later decorative eagles - is located in such a way that there is a free field around it and so that it does not press on anything, nothing covers it. All this creates the impression of calm balance and spirituality. The Italian Hall in Pavlovsk must be recognized as one of the wonderful examples of the use of color and light in architecture. Thanks to the overhead light source, he is immersed in that transparent twilight in which objects lose the sharp clarity of their outlines, and stones lose their rough materiality. The darkest 24 parts are the spans of the second tier, the lightest are the marble floor slabs; Between these opposites there are many intermediate shades. The unity of lighting corresponds to the unity of tone of dark purple marble in combination with gray-steel and soft pinkish slabs. According to the ancient inventory, in the round hall there was blue furniture trimmed with silver. Here and there gold, sparingly placed, glitters on the walls, but nowhere does it sparkle as dazzlingly as in V. Rastrelli’s. It is not without reason that the whole mood of this hall is completely different: V. Rastrelli’s is noisy, slightly rude gaiety, while Charles Cameron’s architecture plunges a person into quiet, concentrated reverie. Among the halls of the Pavlovsk Palace that have preserved their original appearance, the Billiard Hall stands out. This modest premises bears a particularly noticeable imprint of Cameron's noble taste. According to the custom adopted at the end of the 18th century, its walls are divided into wide rectangular panels, separated from each other by thin pilasters. The walls are bordered at the top by a Greek frieze with triglyphs and rosettes between them. In this room, neither the ceiling nor the walls are almost decorated with stucco reliefs, so abundantly used by Charles Cameron in the Agate Rooms in Pushkin. The whole impression is achieved here only by calculated proportional relationships of divisions. The spirituality of the architectural decoration is reminiscent of the best Pompeian paintings of the so-called third style. It is noteworthy that the proportions of individual panels vary freely according to the size of the various piers. Cameron was not only the first builder of the palace, but also the first creator of the park layout (O. A. Ivanova, Pavlovsky Park, Leningrad, 1956 (most full meeting plans, drawings and photographs of Pavlovsk Park). Around the palace it has a fairly regular character. The so-called “Own Garden” is divided by straight paths into equal squares. From the side of the courtyard, a straight linden alley stretches from the palace, which leads to the “Parade Field”. To the left of the alley are the so-called “Circles”. These parts determine the predominance of the architectural principle in the immediate surroundings of the palace. In other parts of the park, already under Cameron, the intricately winding river, the valley it forms and the complex network of roads, paths and bridges crossing it in in different directions. Among the greenery of Pavlovsk Park, even before the construction of the palace, Cameron erected gazebos and temples. Many of them, such as the “Temple of Friendship”, “Colonnade of Apollo” and “Temple of the Rose without Thorns”, belong to the type of round plan that was favorite at that time building. In the “Temple of Friendship,” Cameron decorated the rotunda with slender Doric columns. This pavilion is placed on a peninsula formed by a bend of the river, and is lined with trees, creating, as it were, a second ring, but thanks to its whiteness, it attracts attention even through the greenery of the trees; although the pavilion stands in lowland, from it the palace rising high above it is clearly visible. As the most impressive structure in the park, the “Temple of Friendship” is more closely connected with the palace than others, and at the same time, with its volume, it forms a semblance of one of the hills on the banks of the Slavyanka and therefore is so well "fits" into the terrain. "Apollo's Colonnade" was moved to the hill above Slavyanka next to the cascade falling down and made a more romantic impression. The whole of it is more open and more airy than the “Temple of Friendship”. Its columns are placed in two rows so that the statue of the ancient god in the perspective of the columns going deep into the depths of the columns looks as if it is standing in a basilica. The originality of the smallest monopter - “Temple of the Rose” without thorns" - lies in the fact that its tall, heavy entablature rests not on eight, but on only seven columns; Thus, opposite each pair of columns there is one column behind, which gives rise to a peculiar “running around” rhythm. It must be remembered that most of the round temples of the 18th century that adorned many parks in France, England and Germany are so similar to each other, as if they were made according to the same model On the contrary, each of Pavlov’s buildings is marked with the stamp of either stately severity or elegant elegance, and each has its own special face.25 The Three Graces Pavilion in the Own Garden was made according to Cameron’s design somewhat later. When you approach the palace along a steeply uphill road, the pavilion of the “Three Graces” looks in abbreviation like a classic peripter; on its high plinth, it protrudes somewhat from the fence, and this emphasizes its volume. However, unlike ordinary peripter, the pavilion “ The Three Graces" has six columns on the front side, but only four columns on the longitudinal side. This retreat is not immediately noticeable, but thanks to it the facade stands out and at the same time, from the inside, the entire pavilion becomes more open and connects with the surrounding space. Only from a distance this pavilion seems like a closed volume. From the side of the fence, its columns look like a frame for the sculptural group of the “Three Graces.” From the side of the path leading from the palace, the portico fits into the semicircular arch of the trellis. The entire pavilion of the “Three Graces” differs from the “Colonnade of Apollo” in the slenderness and porcelain fragility of its forms. Cameron's "aviary" was intended for birds; they were seen as the embodiment of the vital forces of nature. In contrast, the side pavilions were decorated with funeral urns. This opposition is typical of the way of thinking of the 18th century. Cameron based his “Aviary” on the type of Palladian villa; it can be called a “variation on the theme of an Italian villa” (Cf. “Aviary” by Charles Cameron with the villa of A. Palladio (Palladio, Four Books on Architecture, I, book 2, M ., 1936, p. 62). Placed at an angle in relation to the access linden alley, through the trees it immediately opened up to the eyes with its stretched façade. Thanks to the relationship between its individual parts, the “Aviary”, with all the simplicity of its forms and modesty of decorations, creates the impression of great artistic richness. It clearly expresses the predominance of the middle pavilion topped with a dome over the side ones, and this, on a small scale, gives it some solemnity; at the same time, the motif of the middle pavilion, with a slight modification, is repeated in the side pavilions. The relationship between columns and pylons of different scales is also diverse. The facade of the building is elongated, but it emphasizes the volume of protruding pavilions and free-standing columns. Inside, the “Aviary” with its alternating light and dark rooms forms a through perspective, which was conveyed in the drawing by V. Zhukovsky (“Six views of Pavlovsk”, St. Petersburg, 1824; G. Lukomsky, Pavlovsk and Gatchina in the drawings of the poet Zhukovsky, Berlin, 1922. ). Through open galleries the landscape is perfectly “visible.” Cameron felt freest from the accepted architectural types when he conceived the “Elizabeth Pavilion” on the outskirts of the park, not far from the village of Glazovo (“Yearbook of the Institute of Art History of the USSR Academy of Sciences,” 1954, fig. on pp. 228, 229. This building was considered an architectural quirk of Charles Cameron. They doubted that Cameron himself had conceived it. Meanwhile, it was here, at the very edge of the park, that he embodied his ideas as boldly as he did not dare to do in traditional porticos and rotundas. The pavilion has only one large hall, the ceiling of which was subsequently decorated with an image of the sky and a leaning tree branch. On one side, an open staircase with a covered platform rises to the building, on the other there is a semicircular portico with massive columns, on the third side it is decorated with two thin graceful Ionic columns. From the terrace on the roof of the pavilion there are views of the surrounding area. For the sake of this main purpose of the building, Charles Cameron showed such disdain for the accepted classical types that none of his prim compatriots, and among the French, only N. Ledoux, allowed himself. However, even here Charles Cameron does not lose his sense of proportion and does not go beyond the limits of grace. There is a special charm in the way this building changes its appearance from different points of view, how freely the extensions mold around it, how its light volumes alternate with dark spans, as in clear days On its protruding porticoes and their edges, sunlight and lacy shadows of trees play. Despite all violations of symmetry, the pavilion remains slender and complete. The lyricism of Pavlovsk is especially clearly manifested in a number of buildings dedicated to the memory of the dead. The best Russian sculptors of the late 18th century, led by M. Kozlovsky and I. Martos, took part in the creation of these monuments. The “geniuses of places” with which our sculptors populated Pavlovsk are predominantly in a state of quiet reverie, slightly touched by light sadness. A woman in a wide cloak, 26 kneeling down, fell to a stone pillar with a funeral urn - this is the tombstone of Pavel I. Martos. Another woman mourns the deceased, while a slender young man carefully removes the light cover from the urn - this is the Monument to the parents of I. Martos. Another young man stands, thoughtfully leaning on an extinguished torch - this is the relief of the monument to Elena Pavlovna (Ibid., fig. on p. 223. A woman in a light tunic raises her eyes to the sky, while a winged young man, reverently kneeling, tries to hold her on the ground - these figures of I. Martos adorn the monument to Alexandra Pavlovna. Two curly-haired young men with huge wings on their shoulders knelt and folded their hands in prayer - M. Kozlovsky decorated the altar of the palace church with them. In the palace one could see other statues of M. Kozlovsky: one depicted a boy on a rock with his gaze fixed in childish thoughtfulness, the other - a winged god who had abandoned his pranks and deceit, tired and indulging in sweet dreams (“Cupid”). In the Throne Hall, the caryatids of I. Martos support a heavy entablature - these are majestically calm, powerful women, immersed in thought. The layout of Pavlovsky Park was started by Charles Cameron (For a detailed discussion of the layout of Pavlovsky Park, see: M. Korzhev, Pavlovsky Park. - “Problems of landscape architecture”, M., 1936, p. 189.) But its true creator should be consider P. Gonzago, who assumed his role in 1792. One can notice some differences between the parts of the park created under Charles Cameron and those created under P. Gonzago. In the former, architectural structures play a more prominent role. These designed by Charles Cameron the views of the park are sometimes reminiscent of the classical landscapes of Claude Lorrain. With the sensitivity of a true poet of nature, he divined the forces that seemed to lie in the very terrain of Pavlovsk on the sloping banks of the winding Slavyanka. Where there was a hill in the park, he erected a pavilion or monument, and then the hill below it served as a pedestal. In the place where a beautiful view can open up, it thins out the greenery, from here other buildings, inscribed in picturesque panoramas, delight the eye. In these parts of the park, architecture plays a major role. Gonzago’s share fell to the processing of the untouched forest; he had to not so much deal with plantings as “remove the excess,” lay roads, paths and clearings in the natural forest. At the same time, P. Gonzago’s park work acquired a wider scope. It is known that P. . Gonzago came to Russia as a theater decorator. In Pavlovsk he showed himself in the field of decorative painting, in painting the Gallery and in performing perspective painting of the wall visible from the windows of the Library. Viewers have long been stopped by the skill of P. Gonzago, who created a deceptive impression of depth on a flat wall . He was not only a skillful perspective-st, but also a subtle artist, a poet of the brush. The architectural fantasies of P. Gonzago are usually alien to that spectacular accumulation of the unprecedented and unprecedented, with which Baroque decorators, like D. Valeriani, shine. With his paintings, P. Gonzago does not “destroy "architecture, as the Rococo masters did, covering the walls with mirrors and painted panels. Decorative paintings by P. Gonzago are just a natural continuation of the architectural space. In them one can see slender colonnades, wide spans of arches and windows, stairs, balustrades, cassette ceilings - a similarity to what surrounds the viewer everywhere in Pavlovsk itself. But in painting these motifs appear purified from everything accidental, permeated with light and air and raised to the level of perfection pleasing to the eye. Similar principles were used by Gonzago as the basis for Pavlovsk Park. P. Gonzago did not rape nature, like A. Le Nôtre, with his passion for strict order, and did not force her to surpass himself, as the creators of Italian parks of the Baroque era did. But Gonzago was also not a poet of elegiac moods, like the creators of the northern romantic parks with their sad ruins. He fell in love with the nature and vegetation of those regions of our country where Pavlovsk is located, learned what could grow on its soil, and therefore some of his parklands are almost indistinguishable from virgin nature with its pine trees, birches and aspens. 27 The entire Slavyanka valley was planted, and paths were laid in it with the expectation that the southern, higher bank would serve as a place from which the northern shore, usually illuminated by the daytime sun, with bushes, undergrowth and tall trees closing the perspective, could be clearly seen. “The Parade Field,” Paul’s parade ground, abandoned after the emperor transferred military exercises to Gatchina, was turned by Gonzago into a picturesque lawn. Trees stand in groups, forming lush bouquets, spreading oaks rise individually and, not crowded by anything, grow in breadth with their round clumps; silver willows alternate with fluffy fir trees, from behind spreading linden trees spiky green-velvet spruces peek out. Trees in groups move away from the forest thicket or merge with it. Lawns open up between the trees or serve as a backdrop for them. Anyone who has been to Pavlovsk in the fall knows how wonderful his park is a spectacle when its various tree species begin to turn yellow and red. In that part of Pavlovsk Park, where a straight road stretches from the “Pink Pavilion” to its very edge, to the “White Birch”, Gonzago decided to limit his palette to the modest colors of ordinary in the north there are trees - birches and pines. Along the edges of the path there are rare, seemingly random trees; they do not form a continuous row, as usual alleys of the 18th century, and therefore do not block the views on the sides, but serve only as their frame. A walk along this road is accompanied by a rich change of impressions; The view now reveals distant expanses of meadows, now groups of trees protrude forward, now the view is obscured by continuous forests. The road ends in a round clearing, on which twelve birch trees stand in a circle around a tall curly birch tree, forming a kind of white-trunked round dance. In Pavlovsk, the words of Zhukovsky are constantly remembered: “What a step, a new picture in my eyes.” Indeed, there is something uplifting in the wealth of visual impressions that a walk through Pavlovsky Park bestows on the visitor at every turn of the path. Something welcoming is visible in every clearing, something there is something attractive in the gaps among the trees, something invigorating in the fact that the eye itself does not have to look for rhythm and order among the thicket of greenery, it receives them directly from the artist. And if the 18th century French writer Saint Maur admitted that Pavlovsk “meets all the moods of the soul” , then this primarily applies to his park. P. Gonzago showed in Pavlovsk his great art as a stage magician, his incomparable mastery of illusion. Much looks like what happens in the forest, in those rare regions where no human foot has gone before, where the trees were left to grow naturally, and at the same time many corners are beautiful, as in a painting, although the trees are not painted on canvas, but represent real trees, the wind rustles their leaves, and nothing prevents a person from entering the picture and thereby, as it were, taking a step forward on the path to bliss. At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, the architects V. Brenna, Thomas de Thomon and C. Rossi had the opportunity to prove themselves in Pavlovsk, who, departing from Cameron, introduced new features into the appearance of Pavlovsk. The side wings, added by V. Brenna in 1798-1799 to the palace of Charles Cameron, gave it a more closed, serf-like character in the manner of the Mikhailovsky Castle, but did not significantly enrich its original design. After the fire of 1803, the Great Throne Hall, the Hall of Peace and War and many other halls were decorated by V. Brenna with rich, Roman-naturalistic stucco, overloaded with trophies, and it also differs from the original strict and graceful arabesques of Charles Cameron. In the park, V. Brenna built the “Musical Pavilion” in 1799. It is enough to compare its closed and united volume with the light “Aviary” by Charles Cameron to recognize that here, too, V. Brenna significantly departed from his predecessor. The new appears even more sharply in the later works of the young C. Rossi. No matter how excellent this master is in himself, his buildings look something alien in Pavlovsk and are significantly inferior as a result. In the Library built by C. Rossi over the Gonzago Gallery (1823), one is struck by its excessive heaviness, inappropriate solemnity, and the cold surface of the wall, sharply opposed to the dark spans. The Doric columns of the Nicholas Gate by K. Rossi (1826) with a huge eagle mounted on them do not fit well with the architectural appearance of Pavlovsk. Architecture is increasingly required to serve the glorification of imperial power, and therefore V. Brenna, and later C. Rossi, increasingly looked back at the architectural examples of imperial Rome. Among the buildings deviating from the Pavlovsk style, the most significant should be considered the Mausoleum of the benefactor spouse (1805-1806). Designed by Thomas de Thomon, this mausoleum stands in stark contrast to Cameron's Monument to the Parents. In Charles Cameron's works we find a welcoming open niche space, a majestic, simple and clear composition, Doric columns, and soft molding of forms. The Mausoleum of Thomas de Thomon produces a closed, stern and even gloomy impression. Its blank side walls should emphasize the detachment of the world of the dead from the earthly world. Granite, smoothly polished pink columns are contrasted with the rusticity of the walls, and therefore the entire building lacks the integrity of Charles Cameron’s buildings. Tragic masks with a black grin of an open mouth are repeated in metopes with the persistence that the ancient masters did not allow themselves. The building's proportions lack the softness characteristic of Charles Cameron's works. With its austere simplicity and rigidity of details, the mausoleum of Thomas de Thomon is more like architectural images N. Ledoux. Hidden away from the main alleys, in the most remote part of the park, among tall pink-trunked pines, like its columns, the mausoleum introduces a note of gloomy anxiety into the general softened mood of Pavlovsk Park. His intense romanticism contrasts with the elegance of Pavlovsk. In those very years when the appearance of Pavlovsk was subjected to significant changes by subsequent constructions and alterations of the palace, its artistic value became increasingly recognized in the eyes of Russian society. Pavlovsk became the “spiritual homeland” of the generation of Karamzinist poets. That is why the heartfelt words of V. Belinsky about the historical significance of V. Zhukovsky’s poetry, “as a necessary as well as a great moment in the development of the spirit of an entire people,” help to find a place for Pavlovsk in history of Russian artistic culture (V. Belinsky, Review of N. Polevoy’s book “Essays on Russian Literature.” - „ Domestic notes ", vol. VIII, 1840). At the beginning of the twentieth century, N. Karamzin, V. Zhukovsky, N. Gnedich, I. Krylov appeared in Pavlovsk. V. Zhukovsky was the first Russian author who sang Pavlovsk in poetry, its special, the beauty he correctly guessed. To the best of his pictorial abilities, he tried to sketch his impressions. In the album stored in the “Pink Pavilion,” I. Krylov personally wrote one of his poetic fables, “Cornflower.” All this applies, however, already by the later period of the existence of Pavlovsk, when the “Pink Pavilion” built by A. Voronikhin became a place where a society of writers gathered. They all felt in Pavlovsk as if they were in their own environment. This was especially clearly expressed by one of the writers of this trend, the translator of Jung’s “Nights”, S. N. Glinka, who admiringly noted in Pavlovsk “instead of the brilliance of luxury and frills of fashion,” “charming taste and noble simplicity.” This also determines the unique place occupied by Pavlovsk among our country palaces of the 18th century. Peterhof, although it was completed under Elizabeth, retained the significance of a monument to Peter and the entire glorious time of Peter the Great; it is not for nothing that M. Kozlovsky had the honor of decorating it with the image of the Russian Samson. Built on the shores of the Baltic Gulf, Peterhof with the full scale of its architecture and the vast park is, as it were, commensurate with the expanses of the sea. In Peterhof, where, in the words of G. Derzhavin, “the aspirations of the watercourses hit the air with noise,” the very tireless and harmonious movement of the water mass contains the idea of ​​pacifying the elements by the great transformer. Tsarskoe Selo acquired a different meaning and took on different forms. The Tsarskoye Selo Palace of V. Rastrelli is a monument to the zenith of the Russian noble power of the 18th century; luxury and splendor reign here, grandeur and the joy of glory, that carefree fun, which was replaced at the end of the century by the ideals of the 29th Enlightenment, embodied by Charles Cameron in his classical Gallery, with its busts of sages and heroes. In Tsarskoe Selo, the water is not in motion, not boundless, as in Peterhof: it spreads out as a vast, but quiet lake visible from the palace, and only the monuments to “Catherine’s eagles” scattered along its shores and islands evoke the glory of Russian weapons. Gatchina, originally the palace of the omnipotent favorite, then the heir not pleasing to the throne, was conceived as a villa-fortress, and in the years when altars and thrones wavered in the West, it, with its unusual towers and amphitheater that never took root, acquired the meaning of a formidable Bastille; Even from the side of the park, the Gatchina stronghold is separated from the lake by a heavy stone embankment and retains its stern fortress appearance. Pavlovsk Palace is the last imperial palace of major historical and artistic significance in Russia. And at the same time, it is noticeably closer to the type of an ordinary noble estate. Pavlovsk was created not for balls, not for ceremonial receptions, but for a lonely person immersed in thoughts, and therefore the water in Pavlovsk is a “quiet Slavyanka”, which with its winding current leads the walker along the shore, awakens in him the need to go in search of something... something, although unrealizable, but beautiful. In Pavlovsk, the moods of “night poetry” of the 18th century, which left a person alone with himself, and idyllic poetry with its bright images of past happiness crossed. In Pavlovsk Park there are pictures of joyful nature, green lawns alternate with tombstones. By awakening thoughts about death in people, they evoke light sadness. In the poetry of G. Derzhavin, the epicurean attachment to life's pleasures sharply contrasts with the dark fear of death. In contrast, Pavlovsk’s poetry should help a person to see more than just the fleeting and transitory in life, to overcome the fear of death with love for loved ones and recognition of their posthumous glory. In the development of individual national art schools, art historians have so far attached excessive importance to architectural styles. Meanwhile, even during the period of dominance and widespread dissemination of styles such as classicism, their manifestation in various countries bore the stamp national identity. This is easy to verify by comparing Pavlovian buildings with contemporary and similar buildings in England, France and Germany. It has already been noted that the architectural image of the Pavlovsk Palace does not find a complete analogy in Cameron’s homeland with its prim representative palaces (M. Alpatov, Cameron and English classicism. - “Reports and communications of the philological faculty of Moscow University”, I, M., 1946, p. 55.) In the Pavlovsk Palace there is more simplicity and clarity of forms, that organic growth that has always been inherent in the best monuments of Russian architecture. In the “Temple of Love” by architect Mick in the “Little Trianon” graceful, flirtatious elegance and Roman dryness of forms prevail; in similar Pavlovian monopteras the forms are juicier, they have more Hellenic softness, which later became the property of Russian classicism of the early 19th century. The decorative decoration of the Billiard Room with rectangular panels finds a well-known analogy in the interiors of Versailles and Fontainebleau during the time of Louis XIV. But in France, filigree processing of details, fine profiling, the impression of fragile grace - in Pavlovsk there is more simplicity, naturalness, clarity and freedom. These discrepancies cannot be considered random. They highlight the fundamental differences between classicism in Russia and in the West. No wonder the most significant features of Pavlovsk received further development in Russian classicism, especially in its Moscow version. It is not for nothing that the entire Pavlovian ensemble served as a model, which was followed on a more modest scale by the builders of Russian estates of the early 19th century with their linden parks, temples of friendship, houses with columns, and overgrown ponds. 30 On the history of the Russian tombstone of the 18th century (The article is based on a report read at a scientific session of Moscow University in 1945. The article was published for the first time in the book “Omagiu lui George Oprescu”, Bucuresti, 1960, p. 13-22.) 16. A. Canova, Volpato's funerary stele in the Church of Santi Apostoli in Rome, 1808. Vienna. 1795 -1805. (Antonio Canova. Le tombeau de Farchiduchesse Christine. 1795-1805. Eglise des Augustins de Vienne.) 31 18. I. Martos. Tombstone of M. Sobakina. Marble. 1782. Moscow, Museum of the Academy of Construction and Architecture USSR. (I. Martos. Stele funeraire de M. Sobakina. Marbre. 1782. Musee d'architecture. Moscou.) New times inherited a type of medieval tombstone with images of the dead lying in a sarcophagus. In the Middle Ages, they piously awaited the day of judgment. Italian masters of the 15th century give them more peace (P. Schubring, Das italienische Grabmal der Renaissance, Berlin, 1904; E. Panovsky, Tomb Sculpture, Princeton, 1964.). They sleep in the blissful sleep of the righteous, like St. Ursula in the famous painting by Carpaccio. However, the semicircular arch and the slab with inscriptions and coats of arms give the tombstones of the 15th century a solemn character. Niche reminds triumphal arch , under the shadow of which Italian princes and humanists hoped to gain immortality. Clarity, proportionality and visibility of forms, balance of horizontals and vertical lines give these tombs calmness and serenity. Deep anxiety at the thought of death was first heard in the famous Medici tombs of Michelangelo (Ch. Tolnay, Michelangelo, III. - “The Medici Chapel”, Princeton, 1948.) Initially, according to the artist’s plan, the dead were supposed to rest lying down, then they were planted in niches and contrasted with figures of the times of the day; this helped Michelangelo to more fully express in stone his sadness about the corruption of the earthly. The mood of sadness reaches a particular intensity in the French tombstones of the 16th century. The image of the deceased in ceremonial attire, sometimes prancing on a horse, a monument to his glory is contrasted below with the image his prostrate corpse, naked, emaciated, often with signs of decomposition. In these northern tombstones one can see something similar to those “Debates of the Belly and Death”, which, starting from the late Middle Ages, appear in literature. Petrarch also wrote about how merciless death pursues love, how the posthumous glory of heroes conquers death itself, and, finally, how all-crushing time defeats glory. The image of death in the struggle with other forces is expressed in Baroque funerary monuments with an extreme degree of pointedness (Weber, Des Todes Bild, 1923.). Usually the tombstone is crowned with a kneeling figure of the deceased praying; he is mourned and his virtues are glorified. Just below, the darkness of the grave, half-covered by drapery, blackens, from which the image of a skeleton with an hourglass peeks out. The luxurious decoration of these tombstones makes them look like petrified hearses. The clear, balanced character of the tombstones of the 15th century is replaced by impetuous movement (A. Chastel, L "art et le sentiment de la mort au XVIIe s. - "Le XVIIe siecle", 1957, 36-37, p. 287-293.). The darkness of the niche leads the viewer's eye into the depths; figures protrude from the niche; but the deceased looks up into the semi-domed space of the temple. These 17th-century tombstones sound as solemn as Bossuet's funeral sermons. The famous Parisian preacher combines stern edification with touching expressions of personal feelings. In the apt expression of one French author, these tombstones “convey to heaven a majestic testimony of our insignificance” (E. Michel, Histoire de 1" art, vol. VI, 2, p. 628.). Echoes of these sentiments can be found in France in the 18th century in poetic odes to the death of J. -B. Rousseau. But the preacher, recalling the omnipotence of death, called for repentance, the poet, painting his gloomy pictures, calls for pleasure. The 18th-century Epicurean followed the ancients, who decorated table bowls with skeletons so that guests could take advantage of the joys of life. Russia did not know Baroque tombstones, but G. Derzhavin responded to these themes. In vain they reproached him for his cowardly fear of death. True, he sees her pale, with a shining braid, clearly hears funeral cries, but he believes that the spirit of the deceased will soar to the villages of bliss, he remembers that after the death of a hero, his glory remains, and even at the sight of the “open coffin” on that very in the place “where there was a table of dishes”, at the very doors of eternity, the poet does not forget about the sweets and pleasures of life. In the middle of the 18th century, voices began to be heard in the West against the pathos of the Baroque. I. Winckelmann, G. Lessing and others discovered the beauty of classical tombstones (G. E. Lessing, Wie die Alien den Tod gebil-det. - Werke, V, 1769, S. 645.). They were attracted to ancient monuments by the imperturbable, courageous calm of people in the face of death. Now we know the best examples of Attic gravestones of the 5th century (H. Diepolder, Die attischen Grabreliefs des VI. und des IV. J., 1931; K. Johansen, The Attic Grave-Reliefs of the Classical Period. An Essay in Interpretation, Copenhague, 1951). Unlike medieval and modern tombstones, they are very personal; they did not contain portraits. Scenes of farewell between the living and the dead or their meeting are presented, which with their restrained sad mood should suggest thoughts of death. The very place of action is not precisely defined: the steles indicate both the door in front of the grave and the trunk of the tree of life and, accordingly, there is no movement in depth or forward movement in them. People of modern times are especially attracted to ancient tombstones, as well as to ancient epitaphs, by their sublimely calm attitude towards death. No cries of despair, no vain hopes for personal immortality. The inscriptions only affirm what exists. “I drank, ate and blasphemed a lot,” says one poet about himself, “now I lie in the ground.” Even less is said about another deceased: “He knew how to compose songs and did not miss wine.” The survivors do not shed unnecessary tears: “I don’t cry for you - in life you have learned a lot of joys and sorrows.” The dead, for their part, feel only one desire so that the living do not forget about them: “Deck my grave with flowers, and let the shepherd sprinkle it with goat's milk." In the famous epigram about the flutist Feon, translated by Pushkin, the deceased easily addresses a passer-by: “Say hello to me, say hello to me, Feon.” At the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, the issue of burying the dead was given attention by figures french revolution(Mathiez, Les origines des cultes revolution-naires, 1904, p. 30.). They see funeral care as a means of preserving the memory of great people among posterity. At the beginning of the 19th century, Italian poets U. Foscolo and Pindemonte dedicated poems to the tombs (Van Tieghem, Le Preromantisme, 1930, p. 188). A little earlier, H.-V. The glitch in the music and Andre Chenier in the lyrics were reminiscent of the ancient views on death. The opera “Orpheus” is like a marble tombstone sounding in melodious melodies; here there is a sad cry about separation, and the joy of a meeting, and in soft rounded cadences - the longing for the irretrievable loss of a loved one. In his elegies, A. Chenier develops the theme of ancient epitaphs. However, , and in the intonations of Orpheus and in the verses of the French poet there is more passionate impulse than in the tombstones of antiquity. 33 A. Canova found ancient type majestic baroque tombstone and followed it in his monuments to the popes ("Memorie di A. Canova scritte da A. D" Este", Firenze, 1864; Meyer, Canova, Berlin und Leipzig, 1898; E. Bassi, La Gipsoteca di Passage. Sculpture e dipinti di A. Canova, Venezia, 1957.). But at the beginning of the 19th century, in Volpato’s tombstone and in a number of his other works, he attempted to revive the Greek stele. His merit was that he found ancient simplicity in it. Avoiding the pathos of the Baroque, he at the same time seemed to get rid of the fear of death, which so tormented the man of modern times. With all this, now, after many years, it is striking that the Kakovy steles lack the precious property of ancient Greek tombstones: a state of restrained sadness and tenderness. In Volpato’s stele, it is prosaically accurately conveyed how a girl sits in front of a bust of the deceased entwined with flowers and, bowing her head, bitterly mourns him, really only him and no one else. And although this girl is supposed to personify Friendship, she is simply a pretty woman, and in connection with this, the entire image is of a genre nature. The prosaism is enhanced by the very nature of the relief. In ancient Greek stelae, equal heads (isokephaly) allowed artists to fill the entire field with figures and thereby, as it were, identify the figures with the stele itself. Canova builds the relief like a picture, and therefore the space around the figures is perceived as emptiness, and this weakens the architectonics of the stele itself. Canova's relief also lacks the melodious music of the flowing contours of the Greek steles, which merges the gestures of the figures into a single, reverent expression of friendship. Canova's clear, dry elaboration of fabrics makes the relief of the Italian master more similar to Roman monuments of the Augustan era. A. Canova dedicated small steles mainly to close friends. His greatest fame came from the huge tomb of Christina in Vienna. Contemporaries gave special credit Italian master , that he introduced an action into the tombstone: a group of mourners carries the ashes of the deceased in a funeral urn, the unfortunate, blessed by the deceased, participate in a sad procession; the genius of death, leaning on a sleeping lion, sits thoughtfully at the tomb entrance. Although everything flows in a slow, fluid rhythm, and the figures in their heavy cloaks are copied from ancient reliefs, Canova did not avoid the dramatic contrast typical of the Baroque. The image of the deceased in a medallion raised to heaven is surrounded by eternal glory. Sepulchral horror emanates from the passage of doors leading to the dark kingdom of death. Since the relief figures are turned into round statues, everything looks like a pantomime, the mourners look like extras, and the burial rite frightens with its tactility, like the Spanish colored sculpture of the 17th-18th centuries and the later “Monument to the Dead” by Bartolome. Kakowy’s work has received all-European fame. But simultaneously with him, French and German masters worked on the same task. “Marat” by L. David is, in essence, a tombstone made with paints; in a strong lapidary image, the death of the hero looks like something terrible, cruelly irreparable, and in this the classic David departs far from antiquity (M. Alpatov, Sketches on the history of Western European art, M., 1963, p. 321 (“Marat” by David).) In the tombstone of Count Mark by G. Shadov, hung with garlands, decorated with narrative reliefs with the figure of a young man peacefully dozing on his deathbed, there is a lot of sensitivity, which is also alien to the majestic simplicity of the ancients (G. Pauli, Die Kunst des Klassizismus und der Romantik, PropylaenKunstgeschichte, XIV , Berlin, 1925, Taf. 276. Russian sculptors of the late 18th century - M. Kozlovsky, F. Gordeev and especially I. Martos - created many tombstones (N. Kovalenskaya, Russian classicism. Painting. Sculpture. Graphics, M., 1964). Among the best Russian monuments of this kind is the early work of I. Martos - the tombstone of M. P. Sobakina in 1782 (A. Romm, Russian monumental reliefs, M., 1953). Its main motives were not invented by I. Martos. The genius with the torch is constantly encountered at the end of the 18th century; the Russian master could have taken it from Houdon, who was famous in Russia (L. Reau, L "CEuvre de Houdon en Russie. - "Gazette des Beaux-Arts", 1917, p. 136.). The figure of a woman comes from images of virtues mourning the deceased. Roses on a grave are a traditional poetic image: poets have long compared deceased women to withered roses. The pyramid in the background vaguely resembles the Pyramid of Cestius in Rome; not only 34 Martos was inspired by it. Finally, a medallion with the image of the deceased can be seen on the tomb of Christina and on many others. For all that, Martos’s tombstone should be called a completely original work. It is noteworthy, first of all, that the Russian master imparts such meaningfulness and significance to the small tombstone that Canova achieved only in huge structures. Martos happily avoided the pathos of baroque tombstones, which in the 18th century acquired the features of empty and crackling rhetoric. But it is also far from the edification that can be seen in Canova’s monument to Christina. In Sobakina’s tombstone, essentially, nothing happens. It expresses with great completeness the spiritual concentration of the people gathered around the grave. Remaining within the framework of his theme, Martos makes the viewer think about the fate of everything earthly, awakens in him sad memories of the irrevocable past. The strength of Martos’s image lies in the poetic expression of feelings, in the naturalness with which the viewer moves from the particular to the general. Let's take a closer look at the individual figures and their relationships. In Canova, the girl personifying Friendship is turned to face the deceased, almost worshiping his herm. On the contrary, Martos characterizes the woman more restrainedly. She only touches the gravestone with her hand; She herself has turned away, bowing her head, the state of grief evokes in her the need to go deeper into herself. The young winged genius is filled with the same feeling of reverence, but his thoughts are completely different. It is difficult to say that he is sobbing or that his eyes are full of tears; The only thing that is certain is that he raises them to the top. For people of the 18th century, this look meant that the young man, even in this sad hour, had not lost hope and that he was not looking for the shadow of the deceased in the darkness underground kingdom, but in the bright monastery of the sky. In this inexpressible, wordless, but meaningful relationship between a woman and a young man, the image of the deceased is also included. She doesn’t grieve, doesn’t cry, doesn’t pray. Her profile, as in an ancient medal, expresses blissful calm, and even the traditional smile of 18th-century portraits on her lips looks like a sign of finally found peace of mind. When Martos created his tombstone, Derzhavin’s loud lyre was still ringing on Russian Parnassus. Meanwhile, Martos anticipates the moods that permeate Zhukovsky’s poetry by almost twenty years. Pavlovsk was then one of those places where Russian sculpture inspired our young poetry. Zhukovsky's work opens with a translation of Gray's cemetery elegy. Thoughts about death occupy a place in his poetry great place. Death does not cause him any anxiety, fear, horror, or thirst for pleasure. Thoughts about death give rise to that state of melancholy in him, which the poet himself considered “neither grief nor sadness,” but “a shade of joy in a sad heart, a shade of despondency in a happy soul.” In unsteady expressions that are difficult to convey in prose, Zhukovsky speaks about losses dear to his heart, grieves, sighs, but never gives in to despair, always expects something, hopes for something. “Bliss is our goal: when we arrive at it, Providence has not revealed this secret to us. But sooner or later will we sigh joyfully: Heaven has not given us hope in vain.” In the idyll “Theon and Aeschines,” the ancient sage sits in front of his friend’s tomb, silent, concentrated, immersed in thought, with a mournful but clear gaze, he is waiting for the last hour . In this “poetic tombstone,” Belinsky saw the poetic key to all of Zhukovsky’s poetry. The critic recognized his philosophy of renunciation and self-absorption as only half true. “There is still something for man.” great world life,” he notes, “the world of historical contemplation and social activity.” At the same time, Belinsky perfectly understood the enormous role of Zhukovsky’s poetry, recognized that he “gave Russian poetry a soul and a heart,” introduced it to the sacraments of suffering and high aspirations. To this we can add that Martos also played a role in revealing the soul in Russian art. 35 We are accustomed to consider Zhukovsky a translator; contemporaries called Martos the Russian Kanova. Meanwhile, in his translations, Zhukovsky was always a creator - a poet. Schiller concludes his poem about the destruction of Troy with the appeal: “Tomorrow we will no longer be able to do this, so let us live today.” In essence, despair leads him to epicureanism. Zhukovsky puts a different life meaning in the final two lines of his translation: “Sleeping in a coffin "Sleep peacefully. Take advantage of life, living one." The fear of death, the horror of nothingness - a faithful companion of extreme individualism - increasingly asserted its rights in the 19th century. In vain did Schiller call for thinking about the Universal, so that death would not seem so terrible. He himself admitted that the genius of death with an extinguished torch is in reality not as beautiful as in works of art. Byron speaks of the death of his beloved with cold hopelessness. Hugo cannot utter a word about the death of his daughter, and only three years later, tearing cries are heard from his lips: “Why did you take her away?” he asks God, rebelling, calling for death, turning away from earthly things. Russian poetry and Russian art The late 18th and early 19th centuries were imbued with a more masculine mood. The difference is only in shades, but in art shades are everything. Byron ends his message to the deceased Tizbe with a prayer, but in his grief he does not really believe in its feasibility: “But if you are in another land, Where perfection lives, Then satisfy my longing with a particle of your bliss!” Pushkin’s last call to elegies to the deceased Riznich: “Your beauty, your suffering Disappeared in the coffin urn, The goodbye kiss also disappeared... But I’m waiting for it: it’s behind you...” But where did Russian artists and poets get this courage in the face of death? To answer this question, we need to remember that, unlike the medieval West, Ancient Rus' did not know at all either tombstones as a thirst for personal immortality, or dancing skeletons as an expression of fear of death. In Rus', for centuries, an epic attitude towards death was cultivated, and in the thickness of Russian folk life it remained intact until modern times. M. Montaigne, during the reign of the pathetic tombstone of the 16th century, complained about the loss of this epic view of life and death. “I have never seen peasants in the neighborhood thinking about how they will meet death,” he says. “Our learned people lose their appetite when, despite their health, they think about it, and they tremble at the mere thought of death.” In essence, Tolstoy spoke about this much later in his story “Three Deaths” and when talking about meeting of Pierre Bezukhov with Karataev, and repeatedly returning to how a Russian man knows how to die. The craftsmanship of Sobakina’s tombstone corresponds to his design. The relief of Martos is distinguished by the clarity and simplicity of its forms, but it does not contain the constraining symmetry of the classical compositions of the late 18th century. The genius with his outstretched hand sits with that ease that only Thorwaldsen later dared in his shepherdess with a raised leg, sculpted from a resting sitter. But it is noteworthy that this natural gesture of the yearning young man merges his hand with the woman’s shoulder and gives the entire composition a resemblance to the classical pyramid (namely, only a distant resemblance, Martos happily avoided its pedantic statement). But he made sure that the main contours were brought into agreement with each other. This gives such a harmonious character to the whole image. Here again I would like to remember Zhukovsky: “Your grave is calm like paradise. There are all earthly Memories..." In the relief of Martos, many repetitions are noticeable: two roses, two oval coats of arms and right next to two legs of the Genius. The obliquely placed torch corresponds to the sloping contour of the pyramid and the lower edge of the sarcophagus; the pyramid finds its counterpart in the contour of the right wing of the Genius; its mirror image can be seen in the sarcophagus. When we peer at the relief, triangles and polyhedra appear in front of us, appear and, immediately replaced by others, disappear. In Canova's relief, the background was perceived as an empty three-dimensional space. On the contrary, Martos, in Sobakina’s tombstone, as in no other work of his, came close to a genuine classical relief: beautifully sculpted bodies do not fit into the relief, as they would into a painting, but also do not stick out too much forward. They are in a special environment, they themselves create space around themselves, and therefore their sublime peace and harmony of feelings acquire such plastic power. Martos included the very intervals, the voids between bodies into the living fabric of the composition (as Rublev did before him in his “Trinity”). In accordance with this, Martos’s relief is not of the same pictorial nature as Canova’s; it more strongly emphasizes the architectonics of the slab as a tombstone monument. The pyramid looks not so much like an image of a pyramid, behind the figures, its edges are rather similar to the division of the stele itself, like a horizontal seam, which, together with the upper edge of the sarcophagus, divides it into three equal parts. Martos's relief is multi-layered, but the plans are not clearly demarcated , rather, confused. Since the relief has no frame, the whole of it develops not so much in depth, but protrudes a little forward, as in Greek steles. Martos’s sarcophagus, in comparison with the figures, is too short, like the table in Leonardo’s “The Last Supper” is too small for twelve apostles. But Martos was satisfied with one edge of the sarcophagus, since he knew the poetic power of metonymy. Can be determined historical place Martos's tombstones, recognizing that he managed to combine the harmony of the strict forms of classicism with the depth of sentimentalism. But such a statement will only speak about Martos’s attitude to the artistic movements of his time and will not reveal the value and originality of his own quests. It is therefore more significant to note that, inspired by antiquity, drawing from “folk wisdom,” Martos managed in his tombstone to overcome the fear of death that began to haunt the man of his time. But he did not stop at classic solution. Antique tombstones with their soft sculpting of forms and charming simplicity of compositions are superior to the creation of Martos, which, for all the subtlety of his craftsmanship, bears the imprint of classical academicism of the 18th century. But in the ancient steles with their closed compositions, with silent figures immersed in themselves, we do not find that movement of feelings, that lyricism that has become the property of modern man and which Martos expressed in an open, open composition, in the complex relationship of the figures and in the variety of their poses . In our country, Martos is widely known as the creator of the monument to two Russian patriots - Minin and Pozharsky (N. Kovalenskaya, Martos, M., 1938; M. Alpatov, Martos, M., 1945; “Martos, Monument to Minin and Pozharsky.” Text A . Kaganovich, L., 1964). With his tombstone of Sobakina, he deserves a special place in the art of the 18th century. If it is permissible to assert that every great artist not only creates artistic values, but also, in a certain sense, solves certain problems in his art, then it is necessary 37 to admit that Martos solved problems that even the best of his contemporary masters of funerary sculpture could not solve. 38 Classicism of St. Petersburg architecture of the early 19th century (The article is based on a chapter from the book “Russian Contribution to World Art”, published under the title “Russian Impact on Art", New York, 1950. The article was first published in "Book for reading on the history of painting, sculpture, architecture", 2nd ed., revised, M., "Iskusstvo", 1961, pp. 327-333 .) 21. T. de Tojon. Exchange in Leningrad. 1805 - 1816. (T. de Thomon. La Bourse. 1805 - 1816. Leningrad.) 22. View of the Exchange and the Spit of Vasilievsky Island in Leningrad. (Vue sur la Bourse et la Pointe de File Vassilievski. Leningrad.) 39 23. A. Bronyar. Exchange in Paris. After 1806 (Alexandre Brongniart. La Bourse. Apres 1806. Paris.) 24. C. Rossa. Arch of the General Staff building in Leningrad. 1819 - 1829. (Karl Rossi. Arc de Fedifice de FEtat-Major General. 1819-1829. Leningrad.) 40 25. Church of St. Nicholas. Karelian ASSR. XVIII century (L"Eglise Saint-Nicolas. Carelie, XVHIe s.) 26. Bell tower of the monastery in Torzhok. Beginning of the XIX century (Clocher de monastere. Debut du XIXe s. Torjok.) 41 27. Church of the Great Ascension in Moscow. Beginning of the 19th century (L"Eglise de FAscension. Debut du XIXe s., Moscou.) 28. Church of the Transfiguration in Kovalev near Novgorod. 1345. (L "Eglise de la Transfiguration du Sauveur a Kovalevo, pres de Novgorod. 1345.) 42 29. A. Zakharov. Admiralty in Leningrad. General form. 1806-1820. (A.Zakharov. L "edifice de 1" Amiraute a Leningrad. Vue generate. 1806-1820.) 30. Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery. XV-XVII centuries (Le Monastere Saint-Joseph de Volokolamsk. XV-XVIIe s.s.) 31. I. Old. Tauride Palace in Leningrad. 1783 - 1788. Engraving of the 19th century (I. Starov. Le Palais de Tauride, a Leningrad. 1783-1788. Gravure du XlXes.) 43 32. A. Zakharov. Admiralty in Leningrad. General form. 1806-1820. (A.Zakharov. Edifice de 1 "Amiraute. Vue generale. 1806-1820.) 33. Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir. 1158 - 1189. (La Cathedrale de la Dormition de Vladimir. 1158-1189.) 34. N. Metlin and Fursov. Shopping arcades in Kostroma. Beginning of the 19th century (Metline et Fourtsov. Galeries commerciales de Kostroma. Debut du XIXe s.) 44 35. D. Gilardi. The Naydenovs' house in Moscow. 1829-1831. (D. Gilardi. L"hdtel Naidenov. 18291831. Moscou.) 36. House in Rostov. Beginning of the 19th century (Une maison particuliere a Rostov. Debut du XIXe s.) Until recently, it was believed that the national characteristics of Russian architecture found expression only in the monuments of pre-Petrine Rus'. Indeed, ancient Russian architecture with its onion domes, kokoshniks, porches, towers and rich patterns is so unlike anything that can be found in other countries that there is no doubt about its originality. From this they concluded that it was at this time that Russian architecture most fully revealed its national features. French architect Violet le Duc, who first met

The purpose of this collection is to fill the gap in our scientific literature. Most of his articles were published in a number of special publications and magazines, largely abroad. Republishing articles from long ago, the author limited himself to those that, in his opinion, have not lost their significance today. Some of the articles included in the collection are given in abridged form, others are supplemented, many are heavily revised or written almost anew.
Since these articles were written at different times and according to for various reasons, all of them are diverse both in content and in the form of presentation. However, one can hope that it will not escape the reader that they form part of a single whole, since they are permeated by the author’s desire to understand and appreciate the Russian contribution to world art from ancient times to the present day.

For many years, the author has been preparing Volume IV of his “General History of Arts”, dedicated to Russian art of the 18th – early 20th centuries. This collection of sketches on the history of Russian art can be considered as one of the preparatory steps towards the author’s completion of his “General History of Arts”. This explains that it pays special attention to such phenomena of Russian art and such problems that have not yet been sufficiently covered in specialized literature.

The book is mainly devoted to Russian fine art, but it also includes articles on Russian architecture and fiction. The author did not look for an explanation of fine art in related arts. But he sought to understand the common roots of all Russian artistic culture. The first volume includes several articles on the history of Byzantine art. The art of Ancient Rus' cannot be studied in isolation from Byzantium. Byzantine themes are important for understanding not only the dependence of ancient Russian art on Byzantine art, but also the deep originality of the Russian school. The second volume provides excursions into the history of Western European art, but this time not so much to reveal the direct connections of Russian art with the West, but rather to determine the characteristics of the Russian school.

It is very important for a modern art historian to be able to switch attention from general questions to specific questions that require him to get as close as possible to his subject. An art historian must not only cover entire periods of history at a glance, but also exercise his “art of seeing,” looking as if through a magnifying glass. individual works, subjecting them to critical analysis.

Table of contents
Volume 1
From the author
From the history of Russian art science
Problems of studying Byzantine painting
Frescoes of Castelseprio
Relief of Dmitry Solunsky in the Armory Chamber
About the mosaics of Kahrie Jami
Russian art of the era of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”
Frescoes of the Church of the Assumption on Volotovo Field. Experience of interpretation.
Feofan in Moscow
Icon of time by Andrei Rublev
Rublev and Byzantium
The classical basis of Rublev's art
On the meaning of Rublev’s “Trinity”
Iconographic tradition and artistic creativity
Icon "Candlemas" from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra
On the issue of Western influence on ancient Russian art
The image of George the warrior in the art of Byzantium and Ancient Rus'
Icon "Ascension" in the Tretyakov Gallery
Russian painting of the late 15th century. and ancient heritage in the art of Europe
The death of Svyatopolk in legend and iconography
About Russian folk sculpture
Volume 2
Russian art and the age of enlightenment
The artistic significance of Pavlovsk
On the history of Russian tombstones of the 18th century
Classicism of St. Petersburg architecture of the early 19th century
“The Bronze Horseman” Pushkin A.S.
Kiprensky and a portrait of the early 19th century
About “simple nature” and “graceful nature.” Peasant images in Venetsianov’s early works
Russian household painting of the second half of the 19th century
Composition of Surikov’s painting “Menshikov in Berezovo”
About “Boyaryna Morozova” by Surikov
Russian portrait of the second half of the 19th century
From the history of Russian landscape
Vrubel
Again about Vrubel
At the exhibition of Konstantin Korovin
Sapunov
Golubkina
About Matveev's art
In memory of Mukhina
Favorsky's mastery
RESUME
In memory of Mikhail Vladimirovich Alpatov
Glorious son of Russia.

Free download e-book in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Sketches on the History of Russian Art, Volume 1-2, Alpatov M.V., 1967 - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.

Download doc
Below you can buy this book at the best price with a discount with delivery throughout Russia.

Mikhail Vladimirovich (1902 1986) historian and art theorist. A. made an original contribution to the theory of the so-called. “ structural analysis”, as well as in understanding aesthetics. and general cultural originality of the artist. heritage of Russia. Studied Philology. f those... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

ALPATOV Mikhail Vladimirovich- Mikhail Vladimirovich (11/27/1902, Moscow 05/9/1986, ibid.), art historian, specialist in Russian art. and Western European medieval and modern times, art critic, teacher, professor, public figure. Studied at the theory department and... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia

Alpatov, Mikhail Vladimirovich- This term has other meanings, see Alpatov. Alpatov Mikhail Vladimirovich Occupation: art critic Date of birth: December 10, 1902 (1902 12 10) ... Wikipedia

Alpatov Mikhail Vladimirovich- (b. 1902), Soviet art historian. Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1958), full member of the USSR Academy of Arts (1954), Doctor of Art History (1941). Studied at Moscow University (1919 21). He taught (since 1925) at the Moscow Vkhutemas... ... Art encyclopedia

Alpatov Mikhail Vladimirovich- [R. November 27 (December 10), 1902, Moscow], Soviet art historian, Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1958), full member of the USSR Academy of Arts (1954). Studied at Moscow University (1919 - 21). He has been teaching since 1925 (at Vkhutemas, Vkhutein, Moscow... ...

Alpatov- Mikhail Vladimirovich [b. November 27 (December 10), 1902, Moscow], Soviet art historian, Honored Artist of the RSFSR (1958), full member of the USSR Academy of Arts (1954). Studied at Moscow University (1919 21). He has been teaching since 1925 (at Vkhutemas,... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Raphael- [actually Raffaello Santi (Sanzio), Raffaello Santi (Sanzio)], Italian painter and architect. R.’s art, attractive with its harmony, with the greatest clarity... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Michelangelo Buonarroti- (Michelangelo Buonarroti; Michelagnolo di Lodovico di Lionardo di Buonarroto Simoni) (1475 1564), Italian sculptor, painter, architect and poet of the High Renaissance. The art of Michelangelo reflected full of heroic pathos... ... Art encyclopedia

Michelangelo- Buonarroti (Michelangelo Buonarroti; otherwise Michelagnolo di Lodovico di Lionardo di Buonarroto Simoni) (6.3.1475, Caprese, now Caprese Michelangelo, Tuscany, 18.2.1564, Rome), Italian sculptor, painter, architect and poet. IN… … Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Michelangelo Buonarroti- (Michelangelo Buonarroti; otherwise Michelagnolo di Lodovico di Lionardo di Buonarroto Simoni) (6.3.1475, Caprese, now Caprese Michelangelo, Tuscany, 18.2.1564, Rome), Italian sculptor, painter, architect and poet. In M.’s works, in many ways... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Watteau Antoine- Watteau Antoine (Jean Antoine) (baptized 10.10.1684, Valenciennes, French Flanders, ‒ 18.7.1721, Nogent-sur-Marne, near Paris), French painter and draftsman. Roofer's son. Around 1702 he came to Paris, in his youth he worked as a copyist.... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia