The Bolshoi Theater is on fire. Through fire and destruction: how the Bolshoi Theater survived against all odds

The fire of the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow was the prologue to theatrical and entertainment disasters of the second half of the century. The Bolshoi Moscow Theater, built on the site of the Petrovsky Medox Theater that burned down in 1805, was opened with a gala performance on January 6, 1825. The majestic theater building was designed by the architects Mikhailov and Bove. The first Russian operas and ballets were staged there. The music of famous composers was also heard here, and famous conductors, musicians, singers and ballerinas performed. And this masterpiece was destined to perish in a fire that occurred on March 11, 1853.

When the city's fire brigades arrived at the theater, the fire engulfed its entire huge building. At that time, Moscow firefighters did not have enough strength or equipment to withstand a fire of such a scale. Already in those years, urban planning was far ahead of the pace of development of technical means of fighting fire. With the flood pipes available to fire departments, it was possible to extinguish a fire only in buildings of one or two floors, and even then if it did not reach a large size.

The most rigorous investigation into the “root cause” of the fire was carried out. Most witnesses testified that the fire originated in a closet located on the right side of the coupling, under the stairs leading to the women's restrooms. Various tools and things of theater carpenters and joiners were stored in the closet. In the same closet, assistant coupling operator Dmitry Timofeev hid his warm clothes. On the morning of the fire, preparing for the concert, he opened the closet door to put a sheepskin coat, and saw a fire in it. Shouting “Fire! Fire!” Timofeev rushed onto the stage. Several workers came running to his cry, but they were unable to put out the fire.

In less than 2 minutes, the flames engulfed the flammable scenery and the upper galleries caught fire. Everyone who was in the theater had difficulty leaving the fire-engulfed premises. No one thought about putting out the fire, it spread so quickly from the stage to the auditorium and other rooms of the theater.

The fire started in the closet near the stairs on the right side of the stage, but he knows the cause and has no suspicions about anyone. During performances, fire brigade soldiers were sent to act as fire hoses, who always stood on the hoses and after the performance remained there even overnight, and on this occasion, he, Talyzin, did not find any need to have special people for that purpose. Such teams were not sent during free time from performances.”

The theater had a fairly reliable fire protection system for that time: a fire curtain, an internal fire water supply system, and firefighters on duty. But this system, unfortunately, functioned only during performances, and the fire started in the morning, when there were relatively few people in the theater.

Regarding the causes of the fire, the famous composer A. N. Verstovsky, manager of the Moscow Imperial Theaters, wrote in a private letter: “The furnaces were heated at five o’clock in the morning, and by eight o’clock in the morning all the pipes were closed and inspected. After the chimneys were closed, the stove workers left to have breakfast, which is why, and probably it should be assumed that the stoves were not the cause of the first fire, especially since, while inspecting them at the site of the fire, and as long as it was possible to see the stoves, the pipes and hogs were not cracked.” Turning to the surviving documents, we see that, despite the most rigorous investigation, it was not possible to establish the true cause of the fire. The fire was regarded as a natural disaster, “for which there were no culprits, and the case was consigned to oblivion.”

The loss to the treasury caused by the fire was estimated at 8 million rubles. Along with the beautiful theater building, a precious wardrobe burned down, including a rich collection of expensive French suits. Few people remembered the seven artisans who died in the fire.

For more than three years, Moscow residents were deprived of the joy of theatrical life, previously brought to them by the artists of the Bolshoi Theater. Only in 1856 did the doors of the theater, revived by the architect A. A. Kavos, open, revealing to the audience the dazzling splendor of a new theatrical masterpiece.

FIRE AND RESTORATION OF THE BUILDING BY ARCHITECT KAVOS

For twenty-eight years the Bolshoi Petrovsky Theater adorned Moscow and was its pride. On a cloudy, frosty morning on March 11, 1853, a fire broke out in the theater from an unknown cause. The fire started on stage, in a closet under the wooden stairs leading to the performers' restrooms. One of the workers, needing tools, opened the door to the closet, from which flames burst out. It instantly spread to the scenery, the curtain and began to quickly spread inside the theater. At that time, classes were going on on stage with seventy students from the children's theater school. Only thanks to the resourcefulness of two servants it was possible to remove and save the children, who were rushing about in fear. Seven theater carpenters died in the fire.
The flames quickly engulfed the entire building (Fig. 47). A strong wind fanned the fire. Soon there was a huge plume of smoke above the building, which was clearly visible from the far ends of Moscow. Long tongues of flame flew out of the windows.
“It was scary to look at this giant engulfed in flames,” contemporaries recalled.
The fire raged with particular force on the stage and in the auditorium. The temperature was so high that the cast iron columns that supported the mezzanine bed melted (memoir of the Maly Theater director Solovyov). Despite the frost, the snow melted over the entire area.
The complete helplessness of the Moscow fire brigades was revealed, they did not have high ladders and went to the Moscow River for water. By two o'clock in the afternoon, all the interior of the theater had burned out. The intense fire lasted for about two days, but the entire fire lasted over a week. The sight of the dying theater made a terrible impression. “When it was burning,” recalls an eyewitness, “it seemed to us that a person dear to us, who endowed us with wonderful thoughts and feelings, was dying before our eyes.”
The death of the Bolshoi Petrovsky Theater was marked by the release of popular prints, lithographs, and scarves depicting the burning theater and a description of the heroic feat of the Yaroslavl peasant, roofer Vasily Marin. Having come to Moscow for the first time in his life and running to a fire, he saw how three theater workers, jumping from the upper floor window onto the roof of the portico pediment, rushed along it, seeking salvation from the flames that surrounded them. Two of them, falling into despair, rushed down and fell to their deaths, the third took refuge from the smoke and heat in a place on the roof from where the wind blew away the flames. Choking from smoke, he screamed for help. It was impossible to get off the roof - there were no high stairs.
Marin volunteered to save the dying man. He was given a ladder that only reached the capitals of the columns. From there, along the drainpipe, which cracked and bent under his weight, he climbed onto the cornice, gave the dying man a rope on a pole and helped him climb down.
The fire destroyed all the wooden parts of the building, i.e. all the interiors of the theater. Only the charred stone walls and columns of the portico remained. The roof over the entire building collapsed and all the external eaves fell down. Only the side halls and the lower floor, where the buffet, offices and cash registers were located, survived the fire.
A sketch made after the fire (Fig. 48) shows that most of the stone walls were preserved, only the arch of the rear wall of the stage collapsed, which caused the top of the rear facade to fall. The drawing also clearly shows preserved cast iron brackets protruding from the wall surrounding the hall.
All theater property, cars, valuable collections of costumes (including rare collections of Catherine’s nobles’ caftans embroidered in gold and silver, a precious collection of unique musical instruments, part of a wonderful theater library, scenery, props, etc.) perished in the fire. The cost of everything lost, not counting the building and The property owned by private individuals was estimated at about a million rubles.But what depressed Muscovites even more was the knowledge of the loss of such a wonderful theater.
Shortly after the fire, a closed competition was announced for the construction of a new theater building. It was attended by Professor K. Ton, the architect of Moscow theaters A. Nikitin and the chief architect of the imperial theaters A. Kavos. They first inspected the destroyed building. A specially formed commission to review projects under the Main Directorate of Communications and Public Buildings chose the project of A. Kavos. On May 14, 1953, this project was approved.
A cost estimate for the restoration and reconstruction of the Bolshoi Theater was drawn up, but the Crimean War that began soon prevented the restoration of the building. Only in 1855 was a temporary roof built according to the design submitted by Kavos. On May 3, 1855, Kavos's general project for the reconstruction of the theater was approved. Work began on May 17, but it only began fully after peace was concluded.
Albert Kavos (1800 - 1863), son of the composer and conductor of the St. Petersburg Bolshoi Theater, academician of architecture and chief architect of the imperial theaters, was known for his reconstruction of almost all the largest theaters in Russia. At the beginning of his practical activity, he was an assistant to the architect C. Rossi in the construction of the Alexandria Theater. This largely determined his future activities. Having felt a penchant for theatrical architecture, Kavos was mainly engaged in the remodeling and reconstruction of the largest theaters in St. Petersburg and Moscow. He deeply studied this area of ​​​​architecture and became one of the best experts on the acoustics of theater halls. In 1847, Cavos published in Paris “Manual for the construction of theaters. Kavos rebuilt the Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburg (from the circus he had previously built), the Bolshoi Stone Theater by architect Thomas de Thomon, the Mikhailovsky Theater, the Alexandrian Theater, and the wooden Kamennoostrovsky Theater. In addition to theaters, he rebuilt the Main St. Petersburg Post Office and built several mansions.
Considering the interiors of the theaters remodeled by Kavos, it should be noted that he created a style of architectural decoration of the theater that was characteristic of that time. Being a good draftsman, but not having much talent or taste, Kavos had the ability to please the wishes of the court. His work reflected the decline of Russian architecture that began in the 40s of the 19th century.
In his works, Kavos took little account of the architecture of the theaters he remodeled and unceremoniously changed them to his taste. Most of the theaters he remodeled are surprisingly monotonous in architecture.
The architecture of Kavos is a heavy, monotonously scattered abundance of gilding and stucco. This is the same, with minor variations, decoration of the royal boxes, an elaborate combination of cupids, cartouches, kokoshniks, volutes, etc.
At the same time, all the theaters rebuilt by Kavos were much improved in terms of acoustics and visibility from various places. The capacity of theaters has also increased. This was a big step forward in the development of Russian theater, making it, in this regard, the leading theater of that time. Kavos had great connections at court and, with the help of patronage, easily defeated his rivals in the competition for the restoration of the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow.
More interesting from an architectural point of view was the project of K. Thon (Fig. 49). Its design is interesting due to its grandiose side porticoes, somewhat reminiscent of the famous project of the Bolshoi Kamenny Theater in St. Petersburg by architect. Quarenghi. The layouts of the old foyer and auditorium were largely preserved. The interpretation of tiers in height, parapets, orders (caryatids of benoir, arcades of the mezzanine and colonnades of varying heights in the tiers of boxes) is varied. The completion of the hall with a dome of significant curvature cannot be considered successful either from the point of view of its acoustics or from the point of view of its composition.
The restoration of the theater began with the excavation of the ruins. At the end of May 1855, reconstruction of the building itself began. All work was led by Kavos together with the architects Nikitin and Stelny. Work continued until the winter when Kavos received orders to visit all the best theaters in Europe to select the best theater and engine room system. Accompanied by the chief mechanic, Kavos inspected the theaters under construction in Brussels, as well as the Berlin, Dresden, Paris and other theaters. “But I didn’t find anything remarkable,” Kavos wrote.
The deadline for restoring the theater was extremely short. Restoration work proceeded so quickly that within a year and four months it was mostly covered in smoke. The sum of all expenses amounted to 900,000 rubles. “The hasty renewal of the Bolshoi Theater building, the lack of funds and some patronage that the architect Kavos enjoyed due to his position had an adverse effect on the reconstruction of the theater building, and the original construction of the architect Bove suffered significantly from both the outside and the inside.”
The construction work was carried out poorly, which affected many years later. A number of design errors were made. In general, the work was not completed. The upper part of the building - the third floor (artistic restrooms) remained unfinished. From the outside, the appearance of completeness of the restoration of the building was created.
On August 20, 1850, the grand opening of the restored theater took place. Bellini's opera "The Puritans" was on. Again, newspapers and magazines described the splendor of the building restored from ruins, the perfection and luxury of its interior decoration, the convenience and beauty of the auditorium. Newspapers emphasized that the new theater building eclipsed all the best European theaters.
Turning to the analysis of the architectural appearance that Kavos gave to the Bolshoi Theater, we should first of all note the lack of the integrity and harmony that were inherent in all elements of the Mikhailov-Bone building. Looking at the building of the Bolshoi Theater, we admire this beautiful structure, its general composition, its colossal scale, the distribution of the masses of the building, its divisions, the majestic portico, the huge auditorium, etc. In other words, we are attracted to the building of the Bolshoi Theater by the outstanding advantages of architecture , created by Mikhailov-Bove.
The changes made to the architecture of the Bolshoi Theater by Kavos appear upon closer and more detailed examination of the building. There is a lot of success in the architectural decor developed by Kavos, but still it does not have the integrity and beauty that distinguished the Mikhailov-Beauvais Bolshoi Petrovsky Theater.
Admiring the building of the Bolshoi Theater, we cannot help but notice the shortcomings that exist in its architecture. Basically, this is the unsuccessful execution of some details and rough decoration, the low artistic qualities of which are explained not so much by Kavos’s lack of taste as by the general decline of architecture during this period. However, it should be remembered that the shortcomings of the reconstruction of Kavos are only a part of that beautiful whole that we associate with the words “Bolshoi Theater”. Numerous, in some cases unsuccessful, alterations of Kavos could not violate the main artistic merits of the building, captivating with the grandeur and monumentality of the architectural image.
Kavos did not immediately find those final architectural forms that we can still see near the Bolshoi Theater building. During the design process, I initially made two options, still relatively close to the old Beauvais architecture (Fig. 50 - 53). In both versions (kept in the Museum of Architecture (Academy of Architecture of the USSR), the front slope of the roof of the upper part of the building has not yet been replaced by an upper pediment. The columns of the portico have the same Ionic gimps. In one version, signed by Kavos (Fig. 52), the front wall of the upper volume has an indentation up to the corridor surrounding the auditorium. In another version (Fig. 50), not signed by Kavos, but by all indications belonging to him, on the rear facade there is a pediment and columns, the same in height as on the front facade. In both versions, the top there is a pediment only on the rear façade.
After the fire, only the outer walls and columns of the portico remained from the old Petrovsky Theater. When reconstructing the building, Kavos sought to make the outer façade more beautiful: as he himself writes, to decorate it in the most elegant way. The strict and expressively restrained attire of the old Petrovsky Theater no longer satisfied the new tastes; it seemed poor and boring.
Kavos' desire to make the exterior facade more beautiful was also accompanied by a desire to increase the volume of the entire building. Kavos increased both the overall height of the building and the size of individual parts and details of the facade (height of columns, pediment, sculptures, entablature, etc.). In the Kavos reconstruction project (Fig. 55), the total height of the building was increased from 36.9 m (at Beauvais) to 43.5 m, the height of the main portico was increased from 23.5 to 27 m. Accordingly, the height of the columns was increased from 15 to 16 m The height of the walls of the lower volume was increased from 23.5 to 26 m, the sculptural group of Apollo - from 5 to 6.5 m, etc. In reality, while implementing his project, Kavos deviated from these dimensions and did not deviate so much from the original dimensions of the Mikhailov-Beauvais building (Fig. 83-86). The total height of the existing building of the Bolshoi Theater is 40.7 m, the height of the portico is 24.5 m, the height of the columns of the portico is 14.8 m, the height of the auditorium is 19.7 m.
As already indicated, Kavos introduced a number of new, not entirely successful architectural motifs (Fig. 58) both outside and inside the building. Instead of a gentle slope roof, which softly completed the building, Kavos introduced a second pediment, which changed the proportions of the crowning volume and the general silhouette of the theater. The upper pediment monotonously repeats the lower one. Its thickly rich thyme
First of all, it attracts attention with its relief, thereby introducing disturbance into the composition of the facade.
The criticism of contemporaries regarding the technique used by Cavos cannot be considered unfounded, despite the fact that the appearance of the existing Bolshoi Theater is familiar to us
with two pediments is not perceived by us as an architecturally contradictory composition. The duality of the Bolshoi Theater photons is obvious. Separated at a sufficient distance from each other in height and therefore completely visible, they argue with each other, which reduces the architectural significance of the pediment of the entrance portico.
But Kavos's biggest failure was that he remade and deteriorated the wall with the arch and the sculpture of Apollo beyond recognition. In an effort to decorate this wall as richly as possible and “to hide the heaviness of the proportions from the overall colossality” or, as he himself writes, “to mask the boundlessness of the overall proportions,” Kavos destroyed the writing arch and filled the entire step with pilasters, windows, and arcatures. The entire field of the wall he divided into five separate parts. The middle, wider one has five windows framed by one flat arch. In the side parts the windows are arranged in pairs. The side parts are separated by one pilaster, while there are two at the corners and along the edges of the middle part. The entire plane of the wall turned out to be crushed and fragmented. The previous plaster group of Apollo, which stood out so well against the dark background of the arch, died in a fire and was foamed with a quadriga cast from red copper according to the model of the sculptor Klodt. Placed on a heavy pedestal, it was strongly pushed forward, to the very edge of the ridge of the portico roof, so that the front legs of the rearing horses protruded in front of the pediment (Fig. 105, 110).
This interesting, although not new, solution (remember, for example, the Rossi Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg) gave a unique effect, enhancing the compositional significance of the portico and the visibility of the magnificent sculptural group. However, in the new production, the quadriga of Apollo, being the main decoration of the theater façade and expressing the essence and purpose of the building, still does not have that support and connection with the rear facade of the wall, does not have that strong symbolic conditioning as this was in the Old Petrovsky Theater.
The side parts of the facade, on either side of the portico, the smooth surface of which in the previous Beauvais building was enlivened only by square-shaped rustication, in Kavos’s work lost their character as a background subordinate to the portico. Kavos placed pilasters of the same order as the portico on the edges of the walls. Huge false windows with heavy frames appeared in the middle of the walls, repeating the motif of the windows located under the portico, and bas-relief panels at the top of the attic (Fig. 108, 111). The wall itself was broken by larger and rougher rustication.
The sculptural frieze that ran along all the walls around the building was destroyed, and a new one was introduced, but only on the front facade. In this new frieze, images of children supporting heavy garlands were replaced by lush floral designs (Fig. 103). The luscious wide strip of the former cornice and the moduleons supporting it, with wreaths between them, which crowned the entire building, was replaced by Kavos, in accordance with the division of the upper wall with pilasters, with a complex and dryly profiled entablature (Fig. 90, 6).
After the fire, only the column trunks remained from the portico. Instead of the pediment of the old theater, low, spread out and light, Kavos erected a new one, different in character - higher and more massive, which was largely justified by the monumental quadriga crowning it, located directly above the tympanum of the pediment. A bas-relief was placed in the tympanum - flying “geniuses” with a lyre (Fig. 104), which beautifully filled the plane of the pediment.
In his reconstruction project, Kavos planned the height of the columns at 16 m (a whole meter higher than the old ones), but in reality he made them only 14 m 80 cm high. Instead of the Ionic order of the previous portico, Kavos introduced an order close in design to the composite one (Fig. 92 -104).
Pilasters corresponding to the columns were placed on the inner wall of the portico. The bas-relief above the windows was replaced by a row of rectangles filled with theatrical masks (Fig. 112). The semi-circular windows, previously decorated with ornamented archivolts and thin balusters at the bottom, now received more lavish decoration in the form of heavy-shaped pilasters on consoles, sandriks and balusters. On the formerly smooth walls, opposite the outer intercolumnia, niches appeared with sculptures of muses 3.5 m high (Fig. 106 - 107).
As a result of the alterations, the inner wall of the portico, while retaining a clear rhythmic breakdown and good proportions of the openings, nevertheless lost the subtlety of the architectural decor that well expressed the interior of the portico.
The side facades of the theater (Fig. 60, 91), as well as the main one, were redone by Kavos mainly in the direction of enriching them with architectural decoration, which violated the noble simplicity and integrity of the original plan. But thanks to the fact that the entire compositional and tectonic basis of the building created by its predecessors was preserved, the side facades of the theater still make a strong impression in its present form.
According to the alteration of the main facade, five large arched windows of the upper volume were destroyed. In return, their wall received 13 pairs of small narrow windows, separated by pilasters. The small windows of the attic floor of the main volume were slightly enlarged and framed by a continuous strip, passing alternately from the bottom of one window to the top of the other.
The continuous strip of bas-relief, which adorned the middle of the side façade and thereby effectively highlighted its central part, was replaced by a number of separate rectangular bas-reliefs with theatrical masks, the same as in the main portico. The balconies on the second floor, which served as umbrellas over the entrances, were also replaced by deep rain awnings supported by rough-patterned cast-iron columns with lanterns between them. Kavos did not find, however, an organic combination of these canopies with the monumental architecture of the facades.
The rear façade was also remodeled in the same manner as the main and side facades (Fig. 61, 85, 89). In addition, a one-story stone barn was added to it for storage of decorations.
The lack of the necessary subtlety and grace in the architectural decoration and profiling of details introduced some monotony and dryness into the architecture of the theater facades, overloaded with decorations.
If, when restoring the external appearance of the building, Kavos had to take into account its size, relief, windows, and all the preserved architecture of the old theater, then when reconstructing the interior of the theater, which was almost completely destroyed, he could show greater freedom. In addition, Kavos believed that the old theater did not possess the main qualities of this type of building and that its “serious shortcomings” required “a good reconstruction.” On this “foundation” he significantly changed the nature of the architecture of the interior of the theater and especially the auditorium.
But even here, in the construction of the interior of the theater, its main premises, Kavos, being bound by the existing structure of the building, which predetermined the main spatial structure, still could not escape the legacy of Mikhailov-Bove.
A comparison of the old auditorium with the new one (Fig. 57) indicates their differences in architectural interpretation and, at the same time, some similarity of the new hall to Beauvais’ second version in basic dimensions and spatial composition.

When reconstructing the auditorium, Kavos sought first of all to correct its acoustic and optical shortcomings and increase its size. and also decorate it most magnificently.
Being one of the largest specialists in the construction of theaters, an outstanding expert in acoustics, Kavos paid special attention to creating the best form of the auditorium for acoustics. Therefore, when reconstructing the theater, Kavos significantly changed the shape of the hall. Considering the previous curved wall of the auditorium to be unsuccessful acoustically due to its expansion compared to the proscenium and at the same time wanting to enlarge the hall, Kavos broke down the entire perimeter of the internal wall of the hall, which was badly damaged by the fire and survived only up to the 4th floor, and erected a new wall of the hall, increasing it by narrowing the corridors. Kavos gave this new wall, moved 2.5 m, a different curvature and a smoother outline, eliminating the expansion compared to the proscenium (Fig. 56, 63, 64).
Thanks to this reconstruction, the shape of the Bolshoi Theater auditorium has changed significantly. Comparing the old hall of the Petrovsky Theater with the new one (Fig. 56), we see that, while maintaining the same outline for the rear semicircle of the hall (only slightly increasing its radius), Kavos straightened the lateral parts of the curve of the hall approaching the stage. At the same time, Kavos expanded the portal arch of the stage. Thus, now, after reconstruction, the curve of the boxes approached the stage almost in a straight line and smoothly passed into the side walls of the portal. This greatly improved the acoustic and optical properties of the new hall of the Bolshoi Theater. A comparison of the Mikhailov-Beauvais auditorium with the reconstructed Kavos hall allows us to draw the following conclusions: the dimensions of the hall according to Kavos’s design have changed little with the exception of the length, which has been increased mainly due to the reduction in the depth of the proscenium; the width remained almost the same.

The space increased by the corridors was occupied by outer rooms. The height of the hall remained almost the same.
As in outdoor architecture, Kavos did not immediately find the final composition of the auditorium. This can be seen from the above versions of his project in the collection of the Museum of Architecture of the USSR Academy of Architecture (Fig. 50 -53). At first, its architecture was still close to the old Mikhailov-Beauvais Hall. In the first version there are no front boxes; the corridors surrounding the auditorium are still wide. In another version, the decor of the royal boxes and the entire hall is more modest and austere.
When comparing both halls, the old Mikhailov-Bone auditorium seems taller and slimmer (Fig. 57). Contemporaries also testify to this. “When you enter the stalls and the curtain has not yet been raised, the theater hall will certainly seem smaller to you than it was before the fire. But this is nothing more than an optical illusion stemming from its amazing proportionality.”
The reason for this “optical illusion” lies in a different interpretation of the composition of the “wall” of the Kavos auditorium, its division into tiers. Kavos greatly reduced the height of the ceiling, lowered the mezzanine and divided the entire height of the hall into equal tiers. The height of the boxes and parapets became the same on all tiers.
Almost all of the new space gained from reducing the corridors was used for outer rooms. He replaced the previous boxes, which, according to Kavos, were not deep and wide enough, were replaced by new ones (Fig. 76), which combined the so-called French and Italian types of boxes. The "French" type of box consists of balconies supported by brackets (or columns) and separated by an internal partition. The entrance to them leads directly from the corridors. The peculiarity of these boxes is that the entire box and the spectators in it are completely visible from the hall. The Italian type of boxes are like separate rooms, devoid of a front wall facing the auditorium and usually decorated with curtains and draperies that cover the box from the auditorium. The advantage of this type of box is that spectators who do not want to be seen from the auditorium can attend the performance and remain invisible, covered with curtains. This type of box was once used in the Old Petrovsky Theater.
In the new auditorium of Kavos, the boxes were divided by a partition into two halves: the front half - a protruding balcony, open on all sides, supported by a console hidden under the floor of the box, and the back half, i.e. the forebox and the form of a separate small office, closed from the hall drapery. The antechamber was equipped with sofas, a mirror, and a table. All together, as Kavos writes, it was “very comfortable and pleasant.”

For that time, this was undoubtedly a new, successful technique that created great convenience (of course for the “select public”) when visiting the theater with a whole family or company.
The entire inner “wall” of the hall was a large front of boxes with strongly emphasized, extended horizontal tiers and a continuous rhythm of piers and draperies (Fig. 68, 113). The center of the entire composition of the “wall” was the middle royal box. Along the edges there were side lettered boxes (for the royal family and the ministry of the court, as well as for the theater management). Both the central and the letter boxes, two tiers high and six meters wide, were, according to Kavos's plan, to be the most richly decorated elements of the hall.
In Bove's project there was NOT a central royal box: it was placed in the left, towards the stage, literary box. True, a central box was soon built, but what it was is completely unknown. Kavos noted a number of shortcomings of these boxes: the stairs to them were on the side, there was no vestibule, “... the box did not have a salon, it was narrow, just like the achan box, it seemed more like a corridor than an imperial box,” “the stairs in them were not only defective, but not very decent in a building of this type.”
Of course, the central position of the royal box and its size added more solemnity to the entire hall. The stock was slightly moved forward in relation to the plane of the tiers (Fig. 77, 115). Below it was supported by two bent atlases. Two pairs of double twisted columns carried sculptures of boys supporting a heavy pediment with a coat of arms in the middle, topped by an ornate curved cornice. The canopy of the box protruded slightly in front of the gently sloping arch that carried it, decorated with lush draperies, intertwined cords, tassels and braiding. The lettered boxes were almost the same, only the twisted columns were spaced wider, and the top of the box and the pediment above it were broken into three sides (Fig. 77, 117). In both cases, the impression of some heaviness and architectural ambiguity will be created. They were presented much better in the first version of the project, signed by Kavos.
When remodeling the stalls, Kavos replaced the inconvenient entrance steps with a more convenient, gentle ramp. Behind the seats, where there used to be a gallery, he created an amphitheater, with a passage corridor at the back. After reconstruction, the ground floor received two side and one middle aisle and had 17 rows with 420 seats; the amphitheater behind the stalls had 150 seats. The entire auditorium accommodated 2,300 people and had 16 boxes in the basement, 30 boxes in the dress circle and the second tier, 20 boxes in the third and fourth tiers and a gallery on the fifth tier.

The orchestra was moved six meters in depth by reducing the proscenium (previously it extended strongly into the stalls), expanded right up to the letterboxes and lowered by one meter so as not to block the stage for the spectators of the stalls, as was the case in the old theater. All this provided much better visibility of the stage.
The ceiling in the new hall became much flatter than before (Fig. 79 - 81). Thanks to this, the acoustics of the hall have significantly improved. Contrary to the instructions that ordered that the ceiling, as well as the parapets of the boxes and galleries in the restored Bolshoi Theater be made of metal, Kavos made them wooden, citing the low acoustic properties of metal and citing the example of the Rossi Theater of Alexandria, where the metal ceiling caused poor resonance.
In order not to worsen the acoustics, Kavos made the plane of the ceiling almost horizontal with small curves at the edge, without any stucco. The entire surface of the painted ceiling is divided by complex frames decorated with ornaments and carvings into ten separate sectors filled with images of nine muses with Apollo (Fig. 119 - 120). The muses float against the blue sky. The painting on the lampshade is of low quality, sweet in execution and harsh in tones.
In the center of the ceiling there was suspended a large chandelier (Fig. 82) with three rows of candles (in the old theater the chandelier was much smaller and with two rows of candles). Many bronze sconces attached to the sides of the tiers enhanced the lighting of the hall. Their light, crushed and refracted in the crystal pendants, gave the hall an elegant, festive look.
Initially, lighting was produced by lamps that burned olein (oil). This was inconvenient, since the glass often broke and fell down, and the chandelier had to be lifted to be corrected during the performance itself. Only much later was gas lighting introduced (in the chandelier and ramp). On the most solemn occasions and on holidays, stearine candles were lit. The chandelier was hung very inconveniently, as it blocked almost the entire stage for the spectators in the upper tiers sitting behind it.
Professor of historical painting Kozroe-Duzi was commissioned to paint a new curtain based on a plot from Russian history. He presented three sketches, from which he chose a sketch depicting the ceremonial entry of Prince Pozharsky through the Spassky Gate into the Kremlin after the expulsion of Polish interventionists from Moscow. The curtain was made with careful finishing of every detail. Critics of that time wrote: “...the only reproach is its too clear execution. This is no longer a decorative painting, content with the general effect, but rather a real painting, finished in every detail with a true love of art. The most discerning eye will not find in her a single feature that
would have been carried out hastily or carelessly." This replacement of the previous curtains with their conventional symbolic emblems and attributes of art - lyres, wreaths and Apollos - with such curtains-pictures with historical subjects is characteristic.
The decoration of the hall was done with extreme pomp. The basis of the color composition of the hall was the combination of crimson silk drapery boxes with gold, covering almost all the decorations of the hall (ornament, stucco molding, carvings of parapets, etc.). The crimson silk of the drapery of the boxes created a bright purple background in all tiers.
The front side of the parapets of the tiers of boxes (Fig. 116, 118) glittered with various gilded carvings, which seemed even brighter on the bare field. Later, the entire plane of the parapet was gilded, so that the carving superimposed on it, extremely elaborate in design, merged into one common illegible shiny strip of the barrier.

The parapets were made somewhat curved to make it more comfortable to sit in the front row. Comfortable furniture was made from polished oak, with crimson velvet cushions.
The auditorium still makes a strong impression with its clear and regular structure and harmonious proportions. This impression of the solemn and stately architecture of the Bolshoi Theater hall does not disappear even after a closer examination of the decor reveals its heaviness and roughness.
It is worth noting the very important improvements that Kavos made to the new Auditorium. In addition to the above-mentioned change in the shape of the hall and the construction of new walls, Kavos, using a number of special measures taken, further improved the acoustic conditions in the auditorium. The ceiling was lowered, the walls of the hall were covered with a wooden panel at a distance of two fingers from the stone, the round ceiling, also wooden, was made like a guitar, had a special
"deku" and was entirely composed of small pieces. As a result of all these changes, the auditorium of the Bolshoi Theater became one of the best in the world in terms of its acoustics.
The great Russian actress A.V. Nezhdanova told in her memoirs how, performing for the first time on the stage of the Bolshoi Theater, she was confused when she saw the enormous space of the hall in front of her. The modest young singer thought: “What a strong voice you need to have to fill its huge space!” “I didn’t know,” she continues, “the magical qualities of the acoustics of this hall, I didn’t know that the lightest, barely perceptible sounds are magnificently audible in all its most remote corners.”
The visibility of the stage was also improved. By lowering the orchestra, which blocked the stage from the stalls, widening the stage portal, making the curve of the hall more gentle and directing the walls of the boxes more steeply towards the stage, Kavos, thanks to all these measures, achieved much better visibility.
The rest of the interiors of the restored theater have also changed. The magnificent wide corridors that surrounded the auditorium from the outside, but in all tiers completely replaced the foyer in size, capable of freely accommodating the entire audience of the tier and coming from below, according to Kavos, were “... unsatisfactory in proportions not only against the rules of construction, but also against common sense. Their width was 7 arshins, height 3.5 arshins. These proportions did not allow for a vault; moreover, these proportions made the corridors gloomy and catacomb-like.”
As a result of the reconstruction carried out by Kavos (the construction of the outer lodges), these corridors were reduced to 4 arshins in width, which, according to Kavos, was sufficient for “easy circulation.” The narrowed corridors are now lost
their former role as spacious circular foyers and turned into ordinary passages intended for communication between the boxes.
In the Bolshoi Petrovsky Theater, the corridors of all floors, approaching the stage, ended with staircases that served as an addition to the main semicircular staircases. Kavos destroyed them, leaving the semicircular staircases unchanged. Instead, he provided staircases isolated from the corridors, overlooking the side facades and designed for convenient communication with the complex of premises serving the stage (artistic and service) developed by Kavos. He managed to do this only by significantly shortening the side lobbies and side foyers - the masquerade halls of the second floor (Fig. 56). This “minimal”, in his words (five fathoms, or 10.5 m in reality), reduction of the halls changed their elongated proportions and made them more static.
Thanks to the redesign of the staircases, the public now reached the gallery only via a special, separate staircase. End-to-end communication to the top has stopped
floors. The gallery audience was cut off from the rest of the theater. And this was not an accidental phenomenon; this was reflected in ignoring the interests and neglect of the poorest part of the audience.
In order to make the passages and rooms associated with the literary boxes more formal, Kavos increased their size, introduced wide staircases and second salons into the lobby. Complicated even more by further alterations and additions, all this congestion of walls and stairs worsened the communications connecting the theater premises, created inconvenience for the public and was a fire hazard. Kavos also remodeled the grand staircases leading from the main vestibule to the main foyer (Fig. 56). Previously, in the Bolshoi Petrovsky Theater, these stairs began with one wide flight (Fig. 28, 29) and then were divided into two narrow flights that ran along the side walls of the vestibule. The passages to the corner halls of the second floor were made above the middle wide flight. Kavos, instead of the lower wide and upper narrow flights, made all the flights the same, narrowing their overall width, and from the thus freed space along the side walls (1.5 m wide) he made passages into the corner halls of the second floor. Now, to get to the corner halls, you need to go through a long one, sandwiched between the wall
and a staircase balustrade, a passage that goes around the entire flight and the entire staircase landing (Fig. 69).
In the vestibule, the severe, strong Doric order and coffered vaults were replaced by Kavos with less expressive pilasters and a heavy rusticated wall (Fig. 72).
The lower wide corridor under the stalls was covered with earth, which served as a wardrobe for spectators of the entire theater (Fig. 62). Instead, wardrobes were built in the corridors of all floors. To make it easier for spectators to enter the stalls, Kavos made a direct entrance into it from the vestibule. He divided the entire ascent from the vestibule to the stalls into three separate flights: one at the entrance to the hall, the second in the thickness of the vestibule wall in the doors opposite the main entrance, and the third directly in front of this wall. Kavos replaced the steps at the side entrances to the ground floor with gentle ramps.
The entire huge space above the auditorium and the main foyer was occupied by the decoration hall. The trusses above this hall, supporting the entire roof of the building, were made of wood (Fig. 75). This was dangerous in terms of fire and contradicted the instructions that ordered them to be made of metal, but the violation of the instructions was justified by saving money. The ceiling of the decoration hall was not insulated, which created impossible conditions for working in the hall and led to repeated repair work in subsequent years.
Likewise, the finishing of the upper parts of the building above the side lobbies of the mezzanine was not smoked. The artists' restrooms that were supposed to be there were not built; the builders limited themselves to temporary plank flooring on wooden posts; warehouses for costumes were located here.
The huge stage of the Bolshoi Theater remained unchanged, with the exception of its depth, which was reduced by 5.5 m due to the proscenium.
In the side walls of the stage, instead of eight narrow arched openings, which served to connect the stage with neighboring rooms, supply scenery and serve the stage, four were made arches, much wider and higher, creating greater convenience for working on stage.
The rear part of the building was freed from interfloor ceilings and turned into a rear stage, which significantly increased the decorative possibilities of productions. The slope of the stage floor (the “plate” of the stage) has become more gentle than in the old theater.
Outside, at the rear facade of the building, a one-story stone extension was erected - two covered courtyards for storing scenery, with an arched gate and a rather steep ramp for raising the scenery to the stage.
Despite the fact that Kavos took care of fire safety measures and the comfort of the public, much in its reconstruction still left much to be desired - and later served as a cause for concern for the administration, such as the wooden stairs to the artists' restrooms, located on the stage in extremely flammable conditions.
Kavos paid special attention to creating maximum amenities for the privileged public of the stalls, benoir and mezzanine, as well as to the premises that served the royal family. Visitors to the upper tiers entered the theater from the side façade through small vestibules and rooms.
Despite a number of improvements, still insufficient care was shown regarding the organization of the backstage part of the theater. “Observing the theater building from the facades and inside the magnificent hall,” wrote engineer I. I. Rerberg, an excellent connoisseur of this theater who did a lot to improve it, “we cannot even imagine the inconvenience experienced by the artistic staff and workers of the stage itself.” Only after the Great October Socialist Revolution were many of the shortcomings of the reconstruction of Kavos eliminated.
Summing up the results of this reconstruction, we have to say that it largely changed the clearer and more integral character of the architecture of the Petrovsky Bolshoi Theater Mikhailova - Beauvais, especially in terms of architectural decoration and details. At the same time, during the reconstruction the theater acquired a number of qualities it previously lacked. The acoustic and optical conditions in the auditorium were incomparably improved, as well as the parts serving the theater, equipped with the latest technology of the time - the stage, workshops, engine room, decoration shop, etc.
It should be especially emphasized that Kavos still retained the main compositional advantages of the excellent Mikhailov-Beauvais building. Thanks to them, the Bolshoi Theater building is still an exceptional structure.
Not to mention the grandiose scale of the building, the monumentality of its masses, the expressiveness of its colonnade - all these qualities that stop the attention of every viewer, not to mention its external appearance, so familiar to everyone, the auditorium of the theater evokes universal admiration. The huge space of the hall amazes the viewer with the scope and strength of the constructive solution, captivating with the brilliance and luxury of decoration. The bright, festive color of the hall (the combination of gold and purple, which has become traditional for the Bolshoi Theater) creates an unusually impressive impression and captivates with its exceptional elegance. Filled with streams of electric light, the enormous depth of the hall, the colossal stage, carrying the viewer's gaze into the endless distances of the scenery - all this, even without the action of music and singing, creates a unique spectacle, making visits to the Bolshoi Theater unforgettable.

Moscow was in full view
Visible from the fire tower.
Fire!
The horses flew headlong,
Like a flame, they themselves are hot.

On Lent on March 11, 1853, the Mother See was agitated by a rumor about the fire of the Imperial Bolshoi Theater. Crowds of people poured into the city center to Teatralnaya Square. There, the creation of the architect Beauvais, infinitely dear to Muscovites, perished in the abyss of fire.

And it all started early in the morning, when the streets, dusted with light snow, were still deserted, but the usual theatrical life had already begun at the Bolshoi: carpenters were installing scenery on the stage for the evening performance; the stokers, having finished firing the stoves, placed candles in large chandeliers; the elderly theater caretaker Talyzin completed his morning tour of the auditorium, stage and other premises, and then went to the hydrotherapy establishment. He returned to the theater at about nine o'clock and, heading to the box office, heard a loud cry: "Fire! Fire! The theater is on fire!" Talyzin rushed headlong onto the stage, but this path was closed: the entire right side was on fire, the backstage, the curtain, and the scenery were on fire. No one put out the fire. All the stage workers, assistant driver Timofeev, non-commissioned officer on duty Andreev fled in panic. Talyzin rushed to save the office and the theater box office - no one bothered to call the firefighters. The nearest team was located at the Tver police station, a few minutes' walk from the Bolshoi Theater. At its high-altitude tower, day and night, in heat and cold, there was always a fireman, vigilantly examining the surrounding houses and streets. At ten o'clock in the morning, the guard at the tower saw smoke appearing on the roof of the theater and raised the alarm. A few minutes later, a horse-drawn fire train flew out of the open gates of the fire station with a ringing and roar, turned around at the house of the Governor General and rushed towards Okhotny Ryad. A red flag hoisted on the tower - a signal to gather all the units for a big fire.

The firemen's departure on alarm was an impressive and beautiful, although unsafe for the townspeople, spectacle. Sparkling with dazzling copper, the horse-drawn convoys rushed towards the fire site like an unstoppable avalanche, sweeping away everything in its path. The streets and squares were filled with an alarming roar, the clatter of sparkling horseshoes, the ringing of bells, the snoring of lathered horses, the screams of furmans, the cries and groans of passers-by. In front of the fire convoy, a horseman galloped dashingly, with the piercing sound of a trumpet, instilling alarm in those oncoming and clearing the way for the sparkling copper horse convoy. Behind him flew the light sleigh of a mustachioed fireman, drawn by a pair of magnificent trotters, with a furman on high sawhorses. Following the fire chief, four furious horses galloped as if through the air, carrying a heavy line with a team of tall axemen. And then, biting the bit, dropping white flakes of foam, mighty horses in sparkling harnesses rushed a whole line of winter carts with heavy filler pipes, hooks, ladders, barrels of water. On the rapidly gliding carts, calmly, like fire gods, stood, stretched out in front, fire soldiers in copper helmets, dressed in dark tight half-caftans, girded with glossy black belts and sword belts. The sun played victoriously on axes and helmets with crests, and a heavy embroidered banner floated overhead in the wind. Woe to the one who hesitated to get out of the way of the firefighters: injury or death awaited him under the hooves of wildly galloping horses. When the firefighters approached the theater, their brilliant appearance immediately dimmed - they found themselves completely powerless in front of the flaming colossus, so imperfect and primitive were their “fire extinguishing tools.”

The first report of the incident appeared in print on the pages of the 32nd issue of Moskovskie Vedomosti on March 14, 1853: “Upon the arrival of the firefighters, the inside of the theater was burning, masses of fire and smoke flew out of the windows and onto the roof of it, and, despite all the efforts of the firefighters teams gathered at the scene of the fire, there was no way to stop the fire and even weaken its strength; the entire interior of the theater building, except for the side halls, the mezzanine and the rooms on the lower floor, which housed the office, the box office and the buffet, was completely burned."

The eyewitness is the famous writer and inimitable master of oral stories from folk life I.O. Gorbunov recalled: “On March 11, the Bolshoi Moscow Theater burned down. The fire started in the morning. There was a small snowfall. I was at this fire. I did not see the brave and generous roofer Marin, who climbed up a drainpipe right under the roof to save the theater carpenter. The spectacle of the fire was impressive. It was strange to watch how firefighters with their “syringes” were spinning around this giant engulfed in flames. The fire chief, the fire chiefs, and the firemen were frantically shouting in hoarse, bestial voices: “Meshchanskaya, swing!”

The fire pipes of the Meshchansky district begin to release from their hoses a stream of water as thick as an index finger. They pump for two or three minutes - there is no water.

Water! - the fire chief shouts. - Sidorenko! I'll nail it into the coffin!

Sidorenko, black as coal, his eyes wide, turns the barrel.

Sretenskaya! Beware!

Public, pull back!

Nobody moves, and there was nowhere to move: everyone is standing at the walls of the Maly Theater. The private bailiff ordered it this way for his own amusement. He stood and stood and thought: “Let me shout!” - and shouted... Everything is better...

Double-cylinder piston pumps have had a significant impact on firefighting tactics. With this type of pump, water could be thrown up to 10 meters away. Capacity 100-200 liters per minute. Despite their technical imperfections, filler pipes until the end of the 19th century were in service with Russian fire brigades as the main “fire extinguishing tool”.

Back, back! Siege back! - Count Zakrevsky’s elegantly dressed adjutant shouts in a politely contemptuous tone, taking on the role of a policeman. Everyone stands silently. The adjutant begins to get angry.

I will now order everyone to be filled with water! - the adjutant gets excited.

Water is now a hundred rubles a bucket! “You better order Kiyatra to fill it,” one can hear from the crowd. Laughter.

Feat Marina

Vasily Gavrilovich Marin, a peasant from the Yaroslavl province, was in Moscow on his way from St. Petersburg, where he was engaged in roofing work. He witnessed how three theater carpenters jumped onto the roof to escape the fire. Two of them rushed down and “beat themselves to death on the pavement,” and the third, carpenter Dmitry Petrov, remained on the roof, where he was threatened with imminent death. The fire brigades did not have the means to help him. Marin, emerging from the crowd, volunteered to save the dying man. Using the ladder immediately given to him by the firefighters, Marin climbed up to the capitals of the columns of the main entrance, then climbed onto a drainpipe and from it on a pole handed a rope to the dying man. Petrov, having secured the end of the rope to the roof, went down it to the drain, and then down the stairs to the ground.

There are two phantals nearby, you can’t get enough from them. They go to the Moscow River for water. How soon will you satisfy such a fire? Look look! Wow!

Capacity: 60 buckets (700 liters). Water from fire barrels was poured into special filling boxes (boxes) of filler pipes, which did not have devices for sucking water from natural water sources.

The roof collapsed, sending up myriads of sparks and a cloud of thick smoke.

And the giant burns and burns, putting out huge flames from the windows, as if teasing the Moscow fire brigade with its “syringes”. By eight o’clock in the evening, the authorities, the firefighters, and the horses were exhausted and standing.”

Limited technical means of fighting the fire forced them to combine extinguishing actions with the simultaneous dismantling of neighboring buildings and structures in order to limit the spread of the fire. Most often, after deafening commands and rollicking swearing of the brave fire chiefs - “Download, break, don’t reason!” - Ashes and smoking ruins of houses remained at the scene of the incident. Such work was usually performed by axemen who rode on open linear passages.

Another eyewitness to the fire testifies: “The strong fire lasted about two days, and the whole fire ended in at least a week and a half.

After the fire, the interior and the auditorium presented a sad and at the same time majestic picture of complete destruction. It was a burnt skeleton, but the skeleton of a giant, inspiring involuntary respect. These remains spoke loudly of the past glory, the former greatness of the Bolshoi Theater."

In Russia in the 19th century, according to far from complete data, more than 30 theaters and circuses burned down.

In his story, Gorbunov calls “syringes” the fire filler pipes (manual pumps), which formed the basis of the armament of the Moscow Fire Department, which consisted of 17 fire departments, with a total number of 1,560 personnel. Tentatively, we can assume that at least 50 fire pipes were concentrated on the fire, but there was not a sufficient amount of water in the area of ​​the theater; it had to be transported from the Moscow River, the icy banks of which turned out to be difficult to overcome for horse-drawn barrel passages in order to fill the barrels from the ice holes.

Such devices were widely used in the last century to organize gas and smoke protection.

Later, in 1892, in Moscow, according to the project and under the supervision of engineer N.G. Zimin, a water supply system with a length of 108 miles was built, on which fire hydrants were installed, which immediately increased the efficiency of fire extinguishing.

Difficulties in firefighting were associated not only with the difficulty of delivering water, but also with poor roads. There was a smooth wooden end road only on a small section of Tverskaya Street, near the house of the Governor General. The remaining streets were paved with uneven cobblestones, and the outlying streets and alleys of Moscow were buried in mud in spring and autumn. The winter snow was not removed from the streets; deep depressions and potholes formed, along which the firemen's heavy sleds moved like boats on sea waves.

In the summer, the rapid running of horse-drawn fire engines on iron tires along the cobblestone street produced an unimaginable knock and roar, the glass in the windows shook, cabinets with dishes shook, and ordinary people rushed to the windows or ran out into the street to see the rushing firefighters. The beauty and power of the fire brigade were the horses. Each fire department was proud of its horses, which were carefully looked after. The horse-drawn fire brigade of the Moscow Fire Brigade reached aesthetic perfection and external splendor in the 60s of the nineteenth century.

The Moscow police chief at that time was N.I. Ogarev, an old cavalryman and a passionate lover of firefighting. He organized the supply of very good horses to the city fire departments. It was impossible not to admire them - they were so beautiful, playful and well-fed. Ogarev visited Voronezh and Tambov horse fairs and factories twice a year, selected the best horses, brought them to Moscow, where he personally distributed them to fire departments and constantly monitored their care. It was to him that the Moscow Fire Department owed the selection of horses by color: each unit had horses of a strictly defined color, and Muscovites learned from afar which fire department was rushing to the fire on alarm.

But let's go back to 1853. Soon after the Bolshoi Theater fire, on the orders of the Governor General of Moscow, Count Zakrevsky, the most rigorous investigation into its “root cause” was carried out. Most of the witnesses interviewed testified that the fire originated in a closet located on the right side of the stage, under the stairs leading to the women's restrooms. Various tools and things of theater carpenters and joiners were stored in the closet. Assistant stage engineer Dmitry Timofeev kept his warm clothes in the same closet. In the morning, on the day of the fire, preparing for the evening concert, he opened the closet door to put a sheepskin coat, and, seeing fire in it, shouted: “Fire! Fire!”, then rushed onto the stage. Several workers came running to his cry, but they were unable to put out the fire.

Such machines created water pressure 8-10 times greater than hand pumps, which allowed the water jet to hit a distance of up to 36 meters. They were able to draw water directly from reservoirs, making it unnecessary to transport water to the fire site. The productivity of the most advanced models reached 2000 liters per minute. Steam engines had a number of specific features that made their practical use difficult: they had to be transported on special heavy horse-drawn carts, which were not very suitable for the then off-road conditions; it took considerable time to warm up the steam pump, and it was ready to supply water to the hoses no earlier than after 15-20 minutes, i.e. when the necessary steam pressure was created in the boiler, so sometimes the steam pump began to be heated while en route to a fire, and besides, the introduction of steam pumps in Russia was hampered by their extremely high price.

The testimony of Talyzin and other workers indicates that the theater had a fairly reliable fire protection system for that time. It included: a metal curtain separating the stage from the auditorium, fire-fighting water supply and firemen on duty. But these fire safety measures, unfortunately, functioned only during performances, and the fire started in the morning, when relatively few people were in the theater.

Here are some interesting details: the internal fire hydrants were powered from a metal tank installed on the stage grate. During the fire, the tank burst, flooding the burning stage, causing heavy smoke production. Thick clouds of black smoke enveloped not only the burning theater, but also the surrounding houses “to the point that they began to light candles there. Near the fire, it was difficult to determine the color and hair of the horses.” And further: “The firefighters, who began to act, at first got too excited and began to throw musical instruments, pianos, and furniture into the street through the broken windows, which could have been preserved.”

Despite the fact that the first fire escape appeared in Moscow back in 1823 (it was made specifically for the Moscow fire brigade in the workshops of the St. Petersburg fire station), operations to rescue people from the upper floors and from the roofs of burning buildings due to their bulkiness and low maneuverability and insufficient height of stairs very often ended tragically.

But let's return to finding out the cause of the fire. Manager of the Moscow Imperial Theaters, famous composer and author of the opera “Askold’s Grave” A.N. Verstovsky wrote in a private letter: “The stoves were heated at five o’clock in the morning, and by eight o’clock all the chimneys were inspected and closed. After the chimneys were closed, the stove makers left for breakfast, which is why, probably, it should be assumed that the stoves were not the cause of the first fire, especially since that, examining them at the site of the fire, and as far as it was possible to see the stoves, pipes, and hogs were not cracked.”

Turning to the surviving documents of the investigative case, we see that, despite the most rigorous investigation, it was not possible to establish the root cause. The fire was regarded as a natural disaster, “for which there were no culprits, and the case, at the direction of Count Zakrevsky, was consigned to oblivion.”

The loss caused to the treasury by the fire was estimated at 8 million rubles. Along with the beautiful theater building, a precious wardrobe burned down, including a rich collection of expensive French suits. Few people remembered the seven artisans who died in the fire.

For more than three years, Moscow residents were deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the art of the Bolshoi Theater troupe. Only on August 20, 1856, revived by architect A.K. Kavos, the theater opened its doors hospitably, revealing its dazzling splendor to the audience. To this day, the State Academic Bolshoi Opera and Ballet Theater stands majestically on Theater Square.

The director of the Bolshoi Theater Museum in an interview with the History.RF portal talks about the difficult fate of the famous stage.

The Bolshoi Theater is still considered one of the largest opera and ballet theaters not only in Russia, but throughout the world, and its building is one of the most beautiful sights in Moscow. But few people know that once upon a time there was a completely different building in this place on Teatralnaya Square.

The predecessor of the Bolshoi Theater was built by the architect Christian Rosberg in 1780. A three-story brick building with white stone details and a plank roof settled on the right bank of the Neglinka River, and its main facade faced Petrovka Street. This is where the name came from - the Petrovsky Theater (later it began to be called the Old Petrovsky or Bolshoi Petrovsky Theater).

It was the first public musical theater in Moscow, where not only opera and ballet were staged, but also constantly held various public events. The building stood for 25 years, but in 1805 there was a major fire, and the troupe had to give performances in private homes.

On January 18, 1825, on the site of the burnt Petrovsky Theater, a new building was inaugurated, built according to the design of the architect Osip Bove. In 1853, this building, unfortunately, also burned down, but this fire was the last for the Bolshoi.

The director of the Bolshoi Theater Museum, Lydia Kharina, told us what the “forerunner” of the famous theater looked like, why fashionable fashionistas and merchants came there, as well as the causes of the very first fire and how spectators fled because of a giant crack in the wall.

Ruin and plague: where did the Bolshoi entrepreneurs disappear?

Lidia Glebovna, tell us where the Bolshoi Theater traces its history back to? Is there any specific date that is generally considered to be his birthday?

We have a date on the poster - March 28 (17th - old style) 1776. This is the day Prince Pyotr Urusov received the “privilege” to maintain a theater in Moscow. But this is not the first “privilege” in the history of this theater. The assignment of the very first “privilege” and the creation of the troupe occurred in 1766. Documents about this date were found and published by professor and historian Lyudmila Mikhailovna Starikova, who studies the 18th century. The first troupe was created by Nikolai Titov (retired military man, first director of the Moscow Theater. - Note ed.) and received government support. Titov lasted three years - maintaining a theater is very expensive. He transferred his “privilege” to two Italians - Cinti and Belmonti. But then a plague attacked Moscow... One of the entrepreneurs, Chinti, became infected and died. To defeat the plague, Count Grigory Orlov was sent to Moscow. He placed the city under quarantine, and the spread of the disease was stopped. Catherine the Great then generously rewarded Orlov for saving the Fatherland.

- Whose hands did the theater then pass into?

After the death of both entrepreneurs, the “privilege” was transferred to another foreigner, also an Italian, named Grotti. But Grotti couldn’t stand it for long - he needed a lot of money (to maintain the theater. - Note ed.). Then the “privilege” was transferred to Urusov, but since its term was ending, he turned to the empress with a request to receive a new “privilege”. Catherine set him a condition: “You will have the main “privilege”, no one will interfere with you, but you must build a building for the theater.”

- Where was the theater located before?

Before this, the troupe performed in different buildings for ten years. The first was the Opera House on Yauza, which later burned down. Then the troupe performed in private houses: in Apraksin’s house on Znamenka, in Pashkov’s house, in Manege on Mokhovaya. The buildings were being altered endlessly, so, of course, it was very difficult: a special room was needed for the theater. Having received an order from the empress, Pyotr Urusov found a partner, bought the worst land in Moscow - waste land (waste land is soil used for crops. - Note ed.), today this place is called Theater Square. The area there was swampy, as the Neglinka River flows nearby. But nevertheless, it was here that the construction of the first theater building began.

Ladies leafed through fashion magazines, merchants made deals

- How long did Urusov manage the theater?

At some point, he, too, could not stand it and transferred the “privilege” to his companion, the Englishman Michael Medox, who was finishing the construction of the theater. In 1780 on Petrovka Street (hence the name Petrovsky. - Note ed.) the first building of the capital's theater opened. It was the largest theater building in Moscow. It was perfectly adapted, the creators thought everything through very well. By the way, this building was used not only to stage performances, but also to hold all kinds of public events.

- Which for example?

For example, eight years after its opening, a dance hall was built in the theater, and masquerades and balls began to be held. There were also special rooms where ladies could look through magazines about French fashion during the day, and merchants could drink tea and conclude some kind of agreement. That is, it was a house open to everyone around the clock. But if there was severe frost, the performances were canceled because the inside of the building was not heated, especially around the stage. As you understand, the artists mostly wear open, light suits, so they were very cold.

By the way, about the artists: who played in the theater then? Did the troupe consist of free people or were there serfs as well?

You know, unlike St. Petersburg, the artists of the Moscow Theater were civilian employees. At the same time, some of the artists were bought, but they did not become serf actors in the service of the state, they became free people! But at the same time, there were certain, very strict rules. For example, if you wanted to get married, then you had to write a paper so that you were allowed to marry such and such a citizen. Everyone was thinking about not losing the artist, so the control was quite tight. But all members of the troupe had a decent income, the artists were taken home by carriage. Therefore, of course, working in the theater was good.

- Do you have any information about the productions of that time? What did they play that was interesting to the audience?

Our museum is dedicated to the history of the Bolshoi Theater, so I can say that they staged Mozart, Rossini... And, of course, they tried to do something domestic, so all sorts of adaptations of Russian folk songs and so on often appeared. It must be said that, first of all, the theater, of course, was musical and operatic. Although the artist in the 18th century did everything: he sang, danced, and recited. It was as if he was out of character.

After the fire they immediately remembered the mayor

- How long did the Petrovsky Theater exist?

Until 1805. Then, as the documents say, a fire broke out in it due to someone’s negligence: either they forgot a candle in the area of ​​the stage, or did not turn off the lamp. But the theater is always made of wood inside! Here they immediately remembered the mayor, who constantly showed displeasure about the fact that the stairs were narrow and there were some warehouses underneath them. Because of this, he, of course, scolded the administrators of the Petrovsky Theater.

- But this, apparently, did not save me from trouble. Did the fire completely destroy the building?

The fire was very strong, it was visible even in the village of Vsesvyatsky - today this is the Sokol metro area.

- But the building, as I understand it, was quite tall?

Not that high. It was a three-story stone building with a plank roof; it was not even particularly decorated. But the dance hall was very beautiful: there were 24 columns, 48 ​​crystal chandeliers, it was very elegant, but it all burned down.

- After this, did the theater become nomadic again?

Yes, private houses have started again. In 1808, a new building was built for the theater, entirely made of wood. It stood on Arbat Square - where the monument to Gogol by the sculptor Andreev is now located. This was the only building in Moscow by Karl Ivanovich Rossi, the chief architect of St. Petersburg. But in 1812 the Patriotic War began. When our troops were retreating, Rostopchin (Fedor Vasilyevich Rostopchin - Moscow mayor and governor-general of Moscow during the Napoleonic invasion. - Note ed.) ordered Moscow to be burned, and the first thing that was set on fire was the Rossi Theater. So he burned down again.

One day during the performance there was a crash...

As far as I know, after this a new building was built, but it too was destroyed in a fire in 1853. The modern building of the Bolshoi Theater was built according to the design of Albert Kavos and was reconstructed several times, but there have been no more fires since then. Tell me, have some of the original elements of architecture and interior decoration that were still in the Petrovsky Theater survived to this day?

There was a fire in this very place, that is, on Teatralnaya Square, twice: in the Petrovsky Theater and in a building built according to the design of Osip Ivanovich Bove. All buildings always had the old foundation. The theater building was slightly enlarged, but at the same time everything that could be saved was used. There are a lot of things left after Beauvais: for example, we still have the same columns that were erected in 1825, made of white sandstone. The Moscow Kremlin was built from the same stone. Of course, we Muscovites are pleased with this. In addition to the columns, some walls have been partially preserved. The collapse, of course, was very strong - the entire back part of the rear stage was completely blown to smithereens. Well, as I already said, the foundations remain. But they became a new problem for the theater already in the 20th century. Due to the old foundations, the building began to sag. In addition, it was affected by dampness. Now there are no problems - the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation is helping, but before that there were problems with the building back in the 19th century.

- Were they also connected with the fire?

No, not with the fire, but with the foundations. Neglinka, although it flows through pipes, is still a low place, so the foundations were washed away. And one day, right during the performance, a strong crash was heard: the right wall of the theater cracked from top to bottom. Because of this, the doors to the boxes jammed, and the audience on the right side had to crawl to the left side to evacuate. This was in 1902, and the theater was then closed for six months. The A. A. Bakhrushin Theater Museum has preserved photographs that show how repair work was carried out and new stone foundations were laid under the walls. In order to prevent the theater from collapsing, it was necessary to suffer some losses: for example, the stalls' wardrobe was covered with earth. But we managed to save the building!

During the six years of reconstruction, the Bolshoi managed to preserve the main thing - its troupe. And also to expand the circle of directors - today Kirill Serebrennikov, Yuri Lyubimov, Dmitry Chernyakov, Vasily Barkhatov work for the main theater of the country.

What's "new"?

The main stage of the Bolshoi has finally opened to the audience, the first premiere took place - the opera “Ruslan and Lyudmila”. What else will the country’s main theater please us with next season? What productions will be transferred from the New stage to the Old, historical stage?

E. Vratova

In opera, the next high-profile premieres will be productions of Der Rosenkavalier by Richard Strauss and The Enchantress by Pyotr Tchaikovsky. Musical director of the Bolshoi Theater Vasily Sinaisky says that all new productions are absolutely diverse and even unexpected for the Bolshoi Theater stage. “The viewer needs to look not only at the new interiors,” jokes the theater’s chief conductor. “Boris Godunov” by M. Mussorgsky, “Turandot” by G. Puccini and “Fiery Angel” by S. Prokofiev will return to the main stage.

On November 18, 2011, the premiere of the ballet “The Sleeping Beauty” by the famous choreographer Yuri Grigorovich will take place. This is already his third edition of “Sleeping” at the Bolshoi. The choreographer worked with the world famous Italian stage designer Ezio Frigerio. The main roles of “Sleeping” are prima, State Duma deputy and young mother Svetlana Zakharova and the new Bolshoi premier, American dancer David Hallberg. The performance is bright, ceremonial, a real “reference book” on the architecture and history of costume of the 17th and 18th centuries. “The backdrops were painted in Italy,” says set designer Ezio Frigerio. “A special technique of theatrical painting was used, which only Italians master—two Italians, to be precise.” The costume designer for The Sleeping Beauty is Franca Squarciapino, an Oscar winner for her work in the film Cyrano de Bergerac. Also, the public will soon be presented with “Jewels,” a ballet by George Balanchine in three parts.

The performances “The Nutcracker”, “Swan Lake”, “Corsair”, “Pharaoh’s Daughter”, “Giselle” will be transferred to the historical stage. There will be evenings in memory of choreographer Roland Petit and ballerina Marina Semyonova. It will celebrate the big anniversaries of its two masters on a large scale - choreographer Yuri Grigorovich and director Boris Pokrovsky. And in total, in the 236th season, the Bolshoi plans to show 356 performances to its beloved audience.

Next - Mariinsky Theater?

The reconstruction of the Bolshoi Theater took six years. In my opinion, the new Mariinsky building is taking longer to build. Why can't St. Petersburg modernize its theater?

V. Osinsky, Tver

It is assumed that the “Second Stage” - this is the name of the new building - will open at the end of 2012. But already in May, during the Stars of the White Nights festival, acoustic tests will be carried out here. “We need to make sure that this building will be a pleasant sensation in terms of sound,” says artistic director of the Mariinsky Theater Valery Gergiev. Let us recall that the international competition for the construction of the Mariinsky 2 was won by the French architect Domenic Perrault back in 2003. However, the project did not pass the technical examination, and the contract was terminated.

The soil also brought a “surprise” - at the bottom of the pit there was a swamp. We had to drive more than 22 thousand piles into the ground. Mariinsky 2 is being built according to the design of Canadian architects. The cost of the new building will cost the federal budget more than 19 billion rubles. For comparison: 21 billion rubles were spent on the Bolshoi.