Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal Texts 2.2016

Bruxelles, 2016 EDITORIAL BOARD Chief editor Burganova M. A.

Bowlt John Ellis (USA) — Doctor of Science, Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures in University of Southern California; Burganov A. N. (Russia) — Doctor of Science, Professor of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University, Full-member of Russia Academy of Arts, National Artist of Russia, member of the Dissertation Council of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University; Burganova M. A. (Russia) — Doctor of Science, Professor of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University, Full-member of Russia Academy of Arts, Honored Artist of Russia, member of the Dissertation Council of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University, editor-in-chief; Glanc Tomáš (Germany) — Doctor of Science of The Research Institute of East European University of Bremen (Germany), and assistant professor of The Charles University (Czech Republic); Kazarian Armen (Russia) — Architectural historian, Doctor of Fine Arts in The State Institute of Art History, Advisor in Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences; Kravetsky A. G. (Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, research associate of Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Lavrentyev Alexander N. (Russia) — Doctor of Arts, Professor of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University and Moscow State University of Printing Arts; Alessandro De Magistris (Italy) — PhD, Full-Professor of History of Architecture Politecnico di Milano Department of Architecture and Urban Studies; Misler Nicoletta (Italy) — Professor of Modern East European Art at the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples; Pavlova I. B. (Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, Senior Researcher of Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

ISSN 2294-8902 © TEXTS, 2016 Pletneva A. A. (Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, research associate of Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Pociechina Helena (Poland) — Doctor of Science; Profesor of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn; Pruzhinin B. I. (Russia) — Doctor of Sciences, Professor, editor-in- chief of Problems of Philosophy; Ryzhinsky A. S. (Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, Senior lecturer of Gnesins Russian Academy of Music; Sahno I. M. (Russia) — Doctor of Sciences, Professor of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; Sano Koji (Japan) — Professor of Toho Gakuyen University of Music; Shvidkovsky Dmitry O. (Russia) — Vice-President of Russian Academy of Arts and its secretary for History of Arts, and Full member; Rector of Moscow Institute of Architecture, Doctor of Science, Professor, Full member of Russian Academy of Architecture and Construction Sciences, Full member of the British Academy; Tanehisa Otabe (Japan) — Doctor of Sience, Professor, Head of Department of Aesthetics at Tokyo; Tolstoy Andrey V. (Russia) — Doctor of Sciences, professor in the History of Art at the Moscow State Institute of Architecture, a Full member of the Russian Academy of Fine Arts and President of the Russian National section of International Association of Art Critics (AICA) affiliated with UNESCO; Tsivian Yuri (USA) — Doctor of Science, Professor, University of Chicago, Departments: Cinema and Media Studies, Art History, Slavic Languages and Literatures;

Editor Smolenkova J. (Russia)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Barbara S. Muratova Germany Romanesque sculpture. Saxon school 6

Maria A. Burganova Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century 15

Frans C. Lemaire D’une condamnation à l’autre 1932—1936. L’opéra La Lady Macbeth du district de Mzensk. Du succès à l’interdiction 51

Olga V. Kostina “The Moscow Metro is the Best in the World” 64

Sofiya D. Tugarinova In search of high-rise centerpiece: The Palace of the Soviets project development in the 1930s 91

Irina М. Sakhno Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism 105

Ekaterina V. Matveeva Language Alter Ego — myth or reality? The concept based on the studies of the linguistic personality and the relations of power 123 Barbara S. Muratova. Germany Romanesque sculpture. Saxon school

Barbara S. Muratova Department of Theory and History of Decorative Arts and Design Stroganov Moscow State Art Industrial Academy e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia GERMANY ROMANESQUE SCULPTURE. SAXON SCHOOL

Summary: The article concerns the theme of German monumental Romanesque sculpture in the context of Saxon school. The particularity and features of sculptural churches adornment are regarded on the examples of the Church of St. Michael in Hildesheim and the church of St. Servatius in Quedlinburg, which represent the most remarkable monuments and allow studying both different and similar aspects in the context of one school. Keywords: Romanesque sculpture, Saxon, churches, architecture, capitals, friezes. Saxon school took the path of change to the Romanesque style earlier than other schools and was influenced by the Carolingian art. In fact, it became a herald of the beginning of Romanesque style in Germany. The founders of a new empire Saxon Ottonian dynasty made first steps to the new style1. Numerous buildings of their time were reconstructed and largely did not survive in their original form. Constructive features of Saxon churches permit to talk about complex and consistent path of their development. First, the features descending from the early Christian architecture can be clearly seen. It expresses in a wide extended main space divided into three naves. The central nave is raised above the lateral ones; the upper part is cut with windows. Central and lateral naves are separated from each other with the rows of pillars and columns. At the same time such an alternation is an own peculiarity of the buildings of this region. The supports in the space of church create slow and regular rhythm based on the alternation of massive pillars and light columns.

— 6 — Barbara S. Muratova. Germany Romanesque sculpture. Saxon school

Many Romanesque churches with wonderful examples of sculpture remain on the territory of Saxony. The Church of St. Michael in Hildesheim and the church of St. Servatius in Quedlinburg are the most remarkable monuments that allow studying both different and similar aspects in the context of one school. One of the most significant buildings, belonging to the pre- Romanesque period is the Church of St. Michael in Hildesheim (1010— 1230) that marked the formation of the Saxon school. The entrance to the church is situated not on the end, but on the longitudinal side of the mane space of the church. Over the two intersections of the main nave with transepts are two massive towers. The decoration of the majority of medieval churches has not reached our times intact. It concerns also the Church of St. Michael in Hildesheim. When you are in the space of the main nave, you can note a disjoint character of the columns with its general stylistic unity. They have a definite rhythm: two massive square pillars set off two columns. The columns terminate with relief capitals, of a similar type with Byzantine. Each subsequent capital differs from the previous one by the character of its decoration. Some capitals preserve their appearance, which is typical for the Ottonian period: they are square and do not have sculpture. Later capitals belonging to the Romanesque period are notable for their developed decoration. The tradition of decoration with plant motives is very strong in the plastics of the Church of St. Michael in Hildesheim capitals. The anthropomorphic and zoomorphic images have a secondary role, at one moment they look out from the undergrowth of acanthus leaves, at another they become woven into a common ornamental rhythm. The relief is high, it forms a particular compound profiling of the capitals. An ornamental plane frieze is on the abacus, on which there are almost heraldic compositions. If we look at capitals of the columns of the central nave, we can note that the sculptor’s attention is not focused on creating a scene image, because all his efforts are directed to ornamental and decorative elements. In its decoration, we can see the division into stages. In the lower part the wide leaves of the soft acanthus, the relief is high so there is a feeling of its hang down from a column volume. The second

— 7 — Barbara S. Muratova. Germany Romanesque sculpture. Saxon school stage represents an alternation of smaller leaves of acanthus and human heads. All heads are not equivalent. On each side of a square capital is situated one central head and two in the corners. The faces are very graphic, plane, their eyes are big, and in some cases, they are open, in others — ​closed. Gradually the stages get smaller conformable to the construction of the capital. On the last stage, we can see thin line of plant elements. In the heads images can be noted an ancient tradition of the defending sculpture, the faces were directed to the four cardinal points to prevent any danger. Two buds are located above the head of each character in the second stage, striking with detail and authenticity of the image coupled with all its graphic quality. Such type of relief could have been borrowed from France where the sculpture was closer to the nature. On the abacus is placed low relief, once again referring to the motives of acanthus. At this time, the leaves are cut in stone; they appear on the surface as a graphic pattern. The composition of the capital is very logical: with the expansion of its volume up, the decor becomes more flat, creating the correct shape of a square and filling the voids. In general, the capital with its Romanesque precise configuration is vaguely reminiscent of the Corinthian order, with its love of the acanthus leaf image. Human heads in the corners capitals look like curls of volutes. Sculptural decoration of the fence of the choir in the eastern part of the church dates by the later period (the beginning of the XIII century). Located on both sides, north and south, they are two very different phenomena. On the north side extends a large frieze with full-figure images of Maria and Child with Saints, placed in the architectural arcade. Each segment of it represents a temple, covered by one or more domes. At the top of the arcs between the arcades can be seen the images of churches on a smaller scale. In the center is the figure of Maria with Child, placed in a three-blade arch topped by three domes. It has a sacred meaning that refers to the Holy Trinity. On each side of Maria, there are six saints. The theme of Deisis can be traced here. Divided in their own arches, saints interact with each other, the direction of their movement to the Virgin completes by an internal dialogue. This is particularly expressed in the last two figures of saints on the left hand of Maria, who turn to each other, making expressive hand gestures. Images of saints

— 8 — Barbara S. Muratova. Germany Romanesque sculpture. Saxon school completing the frieze are front, so the total movement stops. All figures and images are made in high relief, detailed enough, Maria with Child and saints are depicted realistically, the folds of their clothes emphasize the form of the body, what displays antique features, the faces are individual. The texture is difficult to judge, because initially the reliefs were colored. The silhouettes are very clear. Ornamental motifs play a secondary role in the composition. Networks, a distant echo of the Celtic culture, climb on small columns in the main composition, on its top and bottom edges, enclosing the image in a thin ornamental frame. Above the frieze is a small balustrade, which represents low columns connected by arches. Each column is not similar to the previous one: they have different capitals, some shafts are adorned with decorative relief pattern reminiscent of the supports in the Romanesque churches of Italy. The choir fence on the opposite side is similar to the first composition, but it is reduced to a decorative balustrade with the ornamental friezes framing it and an arch gate decorated by a carved ornament. (Fig. 1) The frieze in the lower part consists of the symbolic images of birds. The columns have similar configuration to the opposite ones, but now between the arches are situated high-relief figures of the seated angels. Interesting is the fact that this sculptural composition was colored. Thanks to that fact we can see how did the Romanesque church sculpture looked like originally, study its coloristic program, according to which every color has a symbolic meaning. The Church of St. Michael took in both Carolingian and byzantine heritage. In the sculpture we can see all typical features of the German Romanesque art, as well as its development from the earliest period to the proto-Gothic, when the antique motives become stronger. The second building, well characterized the development of the Romanesque sculpture — ​the Church of St. Servatius in Quedlinburg. Its sculptural decoration is more extensive. It is both inside, and outside. If in the space of the main nave the sculpture is generally placed on the capitals of the columns, then on the façade we can see two friezes with zoomorphic images. The central nave has a flat overlap and is divided by the interleaving of side columns and square pillars. The communication of the sculpture and architecture develops by early

— 9 — Barbara S. Muratova. Germany Romanesque sculpture. Saxon school

1. Fragment of sculptural decoration of the fence of the choir in the eastern part of the Church of St. Michael in Hildesheim. Early XIII century Christian and Carolingian scheme, together with the ornament comes the expressive sense of unity. If the Northern Italian tradition played indirectly a role in the location of the decor in the architecture of the buildings, which are closer to France, at the north of Germany starts the

— 10 — Barbara S. Muratova. Germany Romanesque sculpture. Saxon school process of more intensive decorating and emphasizing the architectural elements, cornices, capitals, window frames2. Very high relief of the figures and décor adorns numerous surfaces. Networks, carved plant ornament adapted to the architectural features pours all the elements together in an organic unity. At the same time, the zoomorphic ornament plays an important role. Especially it accumulates to the western part, embodying the world of chaos and animals. The forms are enough primitive, what shows some poverty in relation to the French plastics. In contrast to the Church of St. Michael in Hildesheim, the capitals of the Church of Quedinburg columns represent a harmonic unity. High level of the relief; rhythmic nature of the ornament sets slow and regular motion. Four figurative scenes are represented on the main tetrahedral volume; the abacus is adorned with a wide ornamental stripe. At a long distance, the capitals seem to be equal, but on closer examination, we can see all the variability of their adornment. Two capitals from the Church of Quedlinburg are represented on the figure 2. On their example, we can note not only the quality of its plastic refinement, but also the mastery of compositional construction. In the first capital, the plant décor predominates. The vegetative elements contribute to its morphogenesis. They echo the rhythm of columns and pillars by their alternation in the space of the church. It is interesting how masters coped with angular transitions. The unfolded leaves are placed in the corners of this capital, smoothing sharp turns. On the abacus is an ornamental frieze. The image can be traced to Christian themes: the medallions depict birds pecking at the grapes, referring to the sacrament of the Eucharist. The composition is well thought out: the spaces between the medallions are filled with plant elements and birds and grapes exactly inscribed in a circle, repeating it by their plasticity. The lower part of the sculptural decoration is separated from the top by an unfilled band. Thus, in all its diversity, the decor of the capital is not overloaded. The second capital call up to the first one. But its accents are shifted in the opposite direction: if a frieze on the abacus is a simple stripe ornament, then the plastics of the main volume of the capital presents the figurative scenes. The main motive is two animals holding the rope in their teeth. They are depicted in the profile symmetrically to each other. The axis of symmetry is the plant, located between animals. The

— 11 — Barbara S. Muratova. Germany Romanesque sculpture. Saxon school

2. Capitals of the Church of St. Servatius in Quedlinburg. Before 1129 corner of the capital shows the face of a bear, it flattens on the cube form, emphasizing the corner. The transition from the neck of the column to the capital is decorated with relief leaves.

— 12 — Barbara S. Muratova. Germany Romanesque sculpture. Saxon school

Having general stylistic qualities, similar to the neighboring capital, in this example you can see an interesting example of composition solutions. The scene depicted on the capital fits into a triangle, which gives it a special tectonics. By decorating the element with a figurative, narrative scene, Romanesque master looks back at monolithic forms of the cathedral and draws inspiration from them. Thus, he creates a harmonious ensemble in which the sculpture does not compete with the architecture. The inner decoration of the Church of St. Servatius in Quedlinburg is very modest. The sculpture is on the longitudinal side of the main building. First, two friezes, stretching under the eaves of side and main naves, represent it. The heraldic images of the animals are placed on them. The relief is high; friezes underscore the horizontal articulations, hardly standing out on the plane of the wall. The Church in Quedlinburg is very authentic; it is hard to discover borrowed features in its sculptural adornment. All features, typical for the German Romanesque embodied in its plastics: flatness, low height of the relief, graphic quality, linearity. The images on capitals, pillars and friezes turn to the world of German legends and beliefs. The mythological interlaces with the religious. In general, churches of the Saxon school have a particular authenticity. Located in the northern part of the Holy Roman Empire, Saxony experienced fewer raids and, compared to other areas, not only interacted with the other regions of Western Europe3. Thus, here you can see the most pure version of the Romanesque style in Germany. It formed based on a deep synthesis of the culture of the first tribes living in these areas, new tendencies arising from the development of the feudal relations, and a particular local aesthetics, gravitating to the stingy forms and rational decisions.

REFERENCES 1. Nesselshtraus, TS. G., ed. 2003. The history of foreign art. Middle Ages. Renaissance. Moscow, Svarog and K, 3rd edition, p. 379, ill. 2. Choisy, A. 2009. The history of architecture. In 2 volumes, translation from French, 5th edition, Moscow, publisher V. Shevchuk, volume 2, p.708.

— 13 — Barbara S. Muratova. Germany Romanesque sculpture. Saxon school

3. Avril, F., Barral, I., Altet, X., Gaborit-Chopin, D. 1982. Le Temps des Croisades. France, Èditions Gallimard, p.388. 4. Beckwith, J. 1977. Early Medieval art: Carolingian, Ottonian, Romanesque. 5. Bréhier, L. L’homme dans la sculpture romane. Paris, Librairie de France, p.44, ill. 6. Broscheit, F. 1990. Figürliche Darstellungen in der romanischen Bauornamentik des Rhein-Maas-Gebietes, volume 37, Köln, 541 s. 7. Caillet, J. — ​P. 2001. L’Europe de l’an mil, Zodiaque, p.376. 8. Charles, V., Klaus, C. H. 2008. Romanesque art. New York, Parkstone Press International, p.199. 9. Fastenau, J. 1907. Die Romanische Steinplastik in Schwaben, Esslingen a. N. Paul Neff Verlag, Max Schreiber, p.91. 10. Fleury, G. 1904. Ètudes sur les portails imagés du XII siècle, leur iconogpaphie et leur symbolisme, Mamers, G. Fleury et A. Dangin, imprimeurs-éditeurs, p. 296. 11. Gasser, S., Freigang, Ch., Boerner B. 2006. Architektur und Monumentalskulptur des 12. —14. Jahrhunderts: Produktion und Rezeption: Festschrift für Peter Kurmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Bern, Peter Lang, p.779. 12. Hamann, Richard. 1955. Geschichte der Kunst von der altchristlichen Zeit bis zur Gegenwart. Berlin, Akademie Verlag, Band 2, p. 1005. 13. Konsten, Stilar I. 1979. Romansk konst. Italy, Wahlström&Widstrand, p.63. 14. Legner, A. 1996. Romanische Kunst in Deutschland. München, p.216. 15. Lüthgen, E. 1923. Romanische Plastik in Deutschland, Leipzig, F. A. Brockhaus, p.180. 16. Morel, C. 2004. Dictionnaire des symboles, mythes et croyances, Paris, Archipoche, p.985. 17. Karl-Heinz, O. 1960. Deutschland in der Epoche der Urgesellschaft. 500.000 v. u. Z. Bis zum 5./6. Jh. u Z. Berlin, p.202. 18. Pierre-Yves Le Prisé. 2010. Images de Pierre. Cahors, La Louve, p.297. 19. Schapiro, M. 1993. Romanesque art. Selected papers, New York, George Braziller, p.367. 20. Toman, R. 1996. Die Kunst der Romanik. Köln, Könemann, p.481. 21. Appuhn, Horst. 1980. Einführung in die Ikonographie der mittelalterlichen Kunst in Deutschland. Darmstadt, p.131.

ENDNOTES

1 Beckwith John. Eatly Medieval art: Carolingian, Ottonian, Romanesque. 1977. 2 Gasser Stephan, Christian Freigang, Bruno Boerner. Architektur und Monumentalskulptur des 12. —14. Jahrhunderts: Produktion und Rezeption: Festschrift für Peter Kurmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Bern: Peter Lang. 2006. 779 s. 3 Lüthgen E. Romanische Plastik in Deutschland. — ​Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1923. 180 S.

— 14 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

Maria A. Burganova Full Member of the Russian Academy of Arts Doctor of Arts Professor of the Stroganov Moscow State Art Industrial Academy e-maill: [email protected] Moscow, Russia SCULPTURE OF THE RUSSIAN PROVINCES IN THE 18TH CENTURY

Summary: This article summarizes the results of studying the history of the provincial Russian town of Morshansk and the results of scientific investigation of Morshansk History and Art Museum collection of sculpture. The collection of sculpture has a high artistic level, thematic and species diversity, and it is a reflection of several centuries of history and culture of the town and the environs of Morshansk. One of the largest sections of this assembly is a collection of church sculpture that make up the statues, fragments of the iconostasis, the Royal Doors originating from closed and lost in the first quarter of the XX century temples, as well as the items of personal piety — ​relief crosses, icons and foldings. Keywords: Morshansk, Russian province, sculpture, church sculpture, Morshansk History and Art Museum.

The mid and the latter part of the 18th century was a special and a remarkably striking period in the history and culture of Russia. Just a few decades prior, a new image of the monarchy was formed, international situation changed, political ties were rebuilt, the country changed its state capital. Such global-scale restructuring of the old system had been mostly completed by the mid-eighteenth century. The following half-century came to be a time of active life in the new reality, correlation of concepts and practices. St. Petersburg, which was forming based on town-planning and cultural formats of the сommon European space of those times, became an expressive illustration, an embodiment of experience of new realities, a standard to copy. The city demonstrated successful development not

— 15 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

1. Virgin Mary. XVIII century. Wood, gesso, tempera. From Kanishchevo village. Morshansk History and Art Museum

— 16 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

only in the field of architectural trends, but also in the field of the plastic arts, and most notably, a large number of sculptural works made in all genres and types started to appear. Of course, the plastic arts existed before and was successfully developing in the past to the extent that was claimed by the state, the church and society, it was presented in many ways and at a high artistic level. Architectural and decorative sculpture, covering the iconostasis and outer walls of cathedrals, was performed brilliantly. Floral design, which included flowers, fruits and branches, entangled with shoots of blossoming vines, was the main visual motif of the decor with a combination of reliefs and round sculptural elements (the technique of Belarusian carving). Facades were often decorated with tiles bearing relief images of fantastic animals, birds and plants. Monumental crosses with sculptures of the Crucifixion and images of selected saints on them performed functions of monuments and memorials dedicated to significant events. Not only relief icons but also large, human-sized statues, including particularly popular images of St. Nicholas, St. Parasceva, St. George on horseback, were present in church interiors. At certain times these figures, positioned in special arks, were placed on the facade above the main entrance or the central gate, installed on external walls of a city or a monastery. Just as icons, statues were indispensable participants in processions. Sanctuaries, gravestone carvings of ascetics in a form of a lying figure of a saint in full dress (it coincides with the Western European practice of making sculpted tombstones) can be considered as another type of sculpture. In the area of personal piety, small-scale sculpture, such as crosses, icons and folding icons made as sculptural reliefs, was widely spread. These sacred items accompanied a person throughout his life. Cast and folding icons, called “putniye” (travel icons), were carried by travelers and warriors. They were often installed above gates and wells, over doors, on grave crosses. These miniature reliefs acted as pilgrim relics and memorable images. They were traditionally created and distributed in monastic centers. Sculpture of European type was well known in Russia. Classic sculptural pieces were so firmly established in public space that an image of sculptural works was included in The Alphabet Book by Karion Istomin,

— 17 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century etched by Leonty Bunin 1. Among images on the page with the capital letter “I”, there is an image of an icon and a caption below — ​An Icon. Next to it — ​an image of a park statue. A classic drawing of a nude on a pedestal is provided with a caption — ​An Idol (Fig. 1). Giving sculptural works of the European type a title, which still keeps memories of paganism, can be regarded as a vivid illustration of a transitional period. Ship carving, combining figurative and ornamental sculpture, is a remarkable section in the history of Russian sculpture. A lion ready to jump, Neptune, sirens, as a rule, were installed in the fore of a vessel. Relief images of mythical and real characters of sea elements adorned the stern. Elements of architectural and decorative sculpture — ​cartouches, garlands, volutes, were present in large numbers. All of the above types and genres of sculpture can be considered as a stable foundation on which its new stylistic image began to develop. Not only development of the state capital in the framework of the European cultural and artistic space, which was saturated with sculptural images in a variety of forms and genres, but also a huge personal interest of Peter I in this art form served as an impetus to the development of sculpture. Due to this, samples of ancient statuary sculpture, works of contemporary Italian and Dutch sculptors, manuals on sculptural decoration of buildings and parks were brought to the new capital in short term. At the direction of Peter I, his attorneys — ​J. Kologrivov, C. Ragudzinsky, P. Beklemishev — ​purchased and brought to Russia a few hundred statues, busts, compositions. In addition, a large number of sculptures, designed for interiors and gardens, were brought without a pre-order by foreign traders who bought a variety of products of different quality in European shops. Sculpture was so valued in high society, that it became a high status gift. Busts and figures of royalty, provided with explanatory captions, were installed in staterooms and park pavilions 2. The first half of the 18th century, which can be regarded as a period of information accumulation, resulted in recognition of the need to create an own art school, based on the classical European tradition. The opening of the Academy of Arts (1757) in this period was extremely important for the solution of this problem. In its classes first Russian sculptors, capable of creating works in the context of a common European contemporary art space, were prepared.

— 18 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

2. John. XVIII century. Wood, gesso, tempera. From Kanishchevo village. Morshansk History and Art Museum

— 19 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

3. Sabaoth. Second half of XVIII century. Wood, gesso, tempera. From Kanishchevo village. Morshansk History and Art Museum

— 20 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

Thus, a little more than half a century was needed to organize and create all the conditions for the flourishing of a new stage in the history of sculpture in Russia: classical and modern examples of European sculpture were involved; a new type of architecture in need of appropriate forms of architectural decorative plastic arts was created, experts and teachers were invited; own specialists were prepared; methods of creation, artistic types, composite structure diagrams were defined. But most importantly, models and examples of sculpture of the new type were implemented in St. Petersburg. In the 18th century, sculptures could already be seen on the facades of public buildings, in the centers of town squares, in the alleys of park ensembles. Cathedrals were no longer imagined without it. A new artistic image of the grand iconostasis and a sacred feeling it gave were created by means of the plastic arts. In personal space, sculpture also began to play an increasingly important role. Ceremonial halls in family mansions began to be decorated with moulding, small- scale sculptures picturing evangelical scenes, where the story of the Crucifixion dominated, appeared in interiors of family churches and chapels. Memorial sculpture, identified with a monument to a specific person, developed greatly. In addition, an almost uncountable number of small-scale sculpture was as always spread everywhere: crosses, icons, folding icons executed in bronze, wood, bone, stone, made as reliefs. This variety of types suggests that sculpture was developing greatly in all spheres — ​from ceremonial and church ones to personal. Usually responding with extraordinary subtlety to the achievements of the capital, the provinces reacted to the innovations at once. The new experience in the field of architecture and sculpture was first realized in estates, reflecting a period of flourishing of the nobility culture, accompanied by intensive construction. In remote districts of the capital estate and palace ensembles, based on projects made by outstanding artists and almost similar to the ones in St. Petersburg, were built, cathedrals were erected, parks were formed. As an example — ​ the estate of P. Zavadovsky in Lyalichi (1780—90-ies.) 3 designed by J. Quarenghi, an outstanding architect from the capital. The ensemble included: The Big and The Small (summer) palaces, the Church of St. Catherine and a variety of other constructions. On the territory of

— 21 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

4. Angel. Second half of XVIII century. Wood, gesso, tempera, forged metal (nails, fasteners). From Tichvin church, Kanishchevo village. Morshansk History and Art Museum

— 22 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

5. Angel. Second half of XVIII century. Wood, gesso, tempera, forged metal (nails, fasteners). From Tichvin church, Kanishchevo village. Morshansk History and Art Museum

— 23 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century the large English landscape park open temple-rotundas were built. In one, called “The Temple of Gratitude”, a statue of P. Rumyantsev- Zadunaisky (by sculptor Rushett) was installed 4. Along the alleys, numerous sculptures brought from St. Petersburg were placed inside curtain walls and parterres. Enfilade and palace suites were decorated with marble statues and bas-reliefs. In the center of the front hall a marble statue of Catherine II was placed, performed at a high artistic level, and until recently attributed to M. Kozlovsky 5. This example of enrichment of interiors and parks of provincial estates with sculptures can be called typical. A number of remarkable architectural and landscape ensembles, including sculptures, was created in the provinces at the end of the third quarter of the 18th century. The estates of Vorontsov in Andreevskoje village in Vladimir province, of Bezborodko in Kushelevka near Ohta, of Chernyshev in Yaropolets, Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky’s estate Kachanovka in Chernigov province, Kurakin’s manor Nadezhdino in Saratov province and others are among them. Many manors were built on projects by architects, sculptors and painters from the capital and with their participation. Popular at that time manuals on estate management, including the first Russian magazine on Agriculture, The Economic Journal6, offered various options of garden sculptures and street furniture for parks. Characters of Greek mythology and allegorical figures were in great demand. Among street furniture, in addition to fountains, pergolas and rotundas, there were obelisks, which would later develop into an urban monument. However, at that time they still did not have any sculptural decoration and only memorial stones with explanatory captions were installed. Nevertheless by the end of the 18th century framing of commemorative texts became more sumptuous and a two-headed eagle,7 executed by means of sculpture, atop obelisks started to be popular. Columns, obelisks, vases, arches, which were installed in honor of prominent personalities, events, visits to notable persons, personal life episodes in different estates, started to function as memorial signs, predecessors of sculptural monuments. It is possible that among sculptures in manor parks there were compositions or busts in large numbers brought to St. Petersburg from Italy and the Netherlands, however, which were not sold out to mansions in the capital.

— 24 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

6. Christ in Prison. Wood, gesso, tempera. From Fedorovskaya church of Morshansk city cemetery. Morshansk History and Art Museum

— 25 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

7. Royal doors (fragment). XVIII century. Wood, gesso, tempera, forged metal (fasteners). From Mamontovo village. Morshansk History and Art Museum

— 26 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

Estates became an example of a realised program on the new cultural and artistic policy of the state, and peculiar examples in the field of style and synthesis of arts, an acquisition of new types and genres of sculpture. It is also important to note that these estates were rather closed spaces, though presenting full cultural experience of Europe and the Russian capital in the provinces. However, this experience was brought from the outside, and was not established in the regions where estates were located. They can be considered as an example, characterizing one of the components of such a multi-faceted phenomenon such as provincial sculpture of the second half of the 18th century. Based on this example, it can be estimated to what extent the artistic experience of Saint Petersburg, as well as of Western Europe through it, was acquired by remote regions in the dialogue between the capital and the provinces. The new era was characterised by an extraordinarily rapid development of provincial towns and district centers. They were formed based on regular building plans with a creation of a new urban center, as a rule, always distanced from the historic Cathedral Square. However, architectural spaces were not decorated with monumental or architectural and decorative plastic arts. Objects of urban sculpture, similar to the metropolitan examples, were never created. Only modest decorations could be seen on the facades of provincial public buildings of this period. There were no sculptures in public parks. Interiors of private small urban houses, although designed based on the examples from the capital, could accept sculptures only of easel formats. And only the Church, carrying out constructions of new churches in the provinces, began to master the art of sculpture according to European standards on a large scale. This does not coincide with the generally accepted opinion that sculpture was banned namely in Orthodox churches and its existence in the context of a cathedral was always accompanied by explanations and comments. These circumstances created a ground for a myth of an official opposition to sculptures 8. However, if to go beyond this involuntarily formed stereotype, one would find out that in the provinces during this period the most expressive and colourful works of art were created mainly for churches, where sculpture began to play a major role. It was here, and not in palace and park ensembles

— 27 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

8. Portrait of Empress Catherine II. 1780s. Arkhangelsk province. Mammoth ivory, wood, isinglass-stone paper. Morshansk History and Art Museum of provincial estates, where people of the provinces encountered the new format of the art of sculpture. Monumental statues could be seen at entrances to cathedrals, they were mounted on facades, installed on domes (Fig. 2, 3) 9; but mainly numerous statues and sculptural groups were concentrated on the iconostasis, composition and structure of which changed dramatically due to the intervention. The surface, once

— 28 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century monolithic, of the multi-tiered iconostasis, consistently developing since the 14th century, was transformed. Its once-solid impenetrable wall split up. Deep spatiality appeared as well as large, freely oriented volumes, openness of sacral areas. The theme of synthesis of the arts with emphasized importance of sculpture in the ensemble acquired a different meaning. Sculptural works acquired sensuality, emotionally palpable physicality. A typical iconostasis of a Russian provincial cathedral repeats the composition and structure of the one in the capital. Often it is not just because of similarity, but due to a project ordered specifically in the capital (Fig. 4, 5). Sometimes gilders and carvers were invited from Moscow or St. Petersburg for the execution of individual works. There were cases when the central parts of the iconostasis were purchased in metropolitan shops. However, mostly its realization (ranging from an architectural design to installation of icons, sculptures, carved decorations) was carried out by provincial masters, painters and carvers. The iconostasis of the Assumption Cathedral in Goritsky Monastery (1759) in Pereslavl can serve as an example. Yakov Zhukov, a carver from Moscow, was in charge of the work, heading a group of local craftsmen. The grand baroque gilded iconostasis rich with decorative sculpture, relief compositions and carved figures was created by them. A composition on the biblical theme The Appearance of the Virgin Mary to the Apostles is presented on the wings of the Royal Doors. The iconography of this piece is based on a well-known early Christian text On Exaltation of Bread, according to which the apostles, while standing during their meal, saw the ascending Virgin into the clouds surrounded by angels. However, the symbolic meaning of these images in the interpretation of the authors of the composition is transformed into a genre scene piece. A table that has already been laid is covered with a tablecloth with its folds pinned in the fashion, a lion and a calf are nestled down on the background. The meal of the Apostles takes place in a luxurious room, the interior of which attracts attention with richness of sculptural elements and apparently reflects a certain ideal of the era in the field of interior space decoration. In the center, between two tall rounded at the top windows, a Corinthian column is painted. Window openings

— 29 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century are framed by thin carved decor. Wall panels, decorated with fine relief carving, are completed with deeply profiled cornices under the ceiling. Outside, the entrance to this room is accentuated by two caryatids, the size of which is almost twice the size of any of the apostle figures. Their powerful naked torsos as if grow from complex interweaving ornamental and floral elements. The wings behind them, designed to emphasize the angelic nature of the characters, are almost invisible and serve rather as a kind of justification for their presence in the cathedral area. The interior, pictured on the surface of the Royal Doors, transforms into the real one: columns, cornices, decorative elements and floral garlands, all executed in relief, acquire a full volume and are placed on the iconostasis, rich in volume figures of the archangels and angels (6 fig.). However, such examples of sculptural ensembles, made in such a grand scale, in cathedral spaces are found only in large regional centers. Elsewhere a more simplified and less sumptuous version of the baroque iconostasis was popular. The high style of metropolitan architecture was interpreted by provincial workers to the extent that the features of constructions as well as harmony of images in architectural projects could be recognized. As a rule, woodwork of architectural designs were reproduced perfectly. However, figurative sculpture more often caused “the joy of recognition” of characters, and not the refined European tradition of creating statues, multifigure groups, reliefs by metropolitan artists and sculptors at St. Petersburg Academy. A special expressiveness and imagery of the Russian provincial architectural and decorative plastic arts appeared in this combination of composite metropolitan standards in architecture with free, sometimes folk sculpture, not subject to any laws of the classical school. This artistic feature was widespread, which gives grounds for drawing up a certain image of the typical provincial iconostasis, which, with rare exceptions, was not shining with gilded decorative carvings on all the tiers. Most often, the woodwork was painted with intense dark and light blue, green colours, sometimes with red shades. The carved Crucifixion with the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist Interceding was set atop the iconostasis. The central part with the Royal Doors was pushed forward as a massive volume out of the once unified one-piece surface of the iconostasis and was overlapped by rounded canopy. The Royal

— 30 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

9. Johann Heinrich von Dannecker. Busts of K. H. Benkendorf (1822) and N. M. Benkendorf (1825). Marble. Morshansk History and Art Museum

Doors were decorated with relief compositions comprising elements of round sculpture. Not a big number of thematic variations was present. Most often these were the images of the Evangelists, Annunciation scenes, the Last Supper, the Ascension. Figures of angels and heads of cherubs were installed on the tiers and in highly significant places. These common characteristics of decoration can be traced in the iconostasis of the second half of the 18th century, among which two new types can be distinguished. The first one, reflecting the Baroque style, developed the theme of a high altar screen, which, in accordance with innovations of the time, was full of large volumes of architectural forms, magnificent carved decor. Framing of icons and cornices was richly decorated. Garlands made up of flowers and fruit, cartouches, floral ornament were among the most common elements of the decor. (Fig. 7) Intricate small columns were silvered, partially gilded or painted with various colours. Icon frames were almost in the forms of ovals or medallions of various shapes. However, the abundance of ornamental cuts

— 31 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

and figurative sculptures depended on customers’ level of affordability, 10. View of Trinity Cathedral from the Tsna River. Photo of the early XX century from Morshansk History and Art Museum collection thus they were sometimes reduced to a minimum. The other type, tending to classicism, was often presented in the form of a triumphal arch, or temple-rotunda with a colonnade and a sacred space, maximum open to the viewer. In both cases, sculpture played the major role. Marked by a particularly expressive artistic formation of sculptural decoration, the iconostasis of the Trinity Cathedral in the Troitse- Gledensky Monastery in Veliky Ustyug stands out among the examples of the high Baroque iconostasis development. The work on its creation lasted from 1776 to 1784 (Fig. 8). Large naturalistic painted figures of Evangelists, which are practically the main artistic focus of the entire ensemble, are in the center of the Royal Doors. (Fig. 9). A group of angels in streamy light clothes is situated on the eaves. Their connection with architecture is nominal. In the figures, there is no monumentality, inherent to the architectural and decorative plastic arts. Movements are accidental, touches are light. Angels are freely seated on the cornices, and resemble formidable defenders least of all. Their weightless tunics barely hold on their shoulders, exposing the bodies.

— 32 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

11. Morshansk. Sennaya square. Postcard. Early XX century

A five figured monumental composition The Crucifixion with Bystanders is set on the roofing. (Fig. 10). On the left from the cross there is group of the Holy Wives which is especially expressive. Their poetic images are performed in the traditions of European sculpture. The figure of Our Lady is exaggeratedly dynamic: a rapid movement of the torso, head bowed, thin fingers twisted nervously on the clasped hands, a right blue omophorion is flying. The folds of her white shawl has flown up in the wind, leaving the neck and delicate oval face open. On the whole there are about 50 sculptures on the iconostasis. The Royal Doors are crowned with a canopy with a drape, laid in heavy folds in the manner of a rising theater curtain. The virtuosity of decorative carvings execution, an astonishing realism in the picturing curtain folds catch the imagination. The entire surface of the iconostasis is covered with complex, deeply carved floral decor in which the power of the Baroque is transferred into an elegant sensuality of the Rococo style. This illusory nature and theatricality of spatial scenery is a typical technique of the plastic arts, especially manifested in the third quarter of the 18th century. Solomonic columns create an illusion of accelerating

— 33 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century growth. Huge cornices, overloaded with décor and sculptures, are so grandiose that it seems they cannot hold on such a thin and weak support. Everything is pervaded by a restless movement. A special feeling of spaciousness was a distinctive feature of sculpture on the iconostasis in the 18th century. Statues, previously located in arks or niches, started to be separated from the plane and were put forward in space. The technology of creating sculptural religious images changed. In round sculptures of the previous period only the front part was carved and painted. The reverse side looked as a flat untouched surface, painted in one colour. A new sculpture was originally conceived as a round three-dimensional form, designed to be viewed from all sides. In reliefs the illusion of depth was created by the rules of perspective reduction. Among striking examples are the Royal Doors (Fig 11) of the Simeon’s Church iconostasis (1771) stored in Pereslavl-Zalessky State Historical, Architectural and Art Museum Reserve. On the background of a perspective image in a large room with four through windows in the depth the storyline of the Annunciation unfolds: the Archangel, stepping lightly on the clouds, is walking towards the Virgin Mary who is reading. At the same moment an almost everyday scene can be seen in the foreground: four Evangelists are bent over books in dynamic picturesque poses sitting at the table as if not knowing what is happening behind them. The depth of space is emphasized by the floor lined out following all the rules of reduction and by precise sizes ​​of figures: a group of Evangelists at the front is a bit larger than the Virgin Mary and the Archangel in the depth. This presentation of a heavenly action in the context of a realistically interpreted environment is a characteristic feature of the relief sculpture of the second half of the 18th century. The dialogue with spatial depths was continued in the iconostasis of the classic type, in which the illusion, created by means of perspective, is changed into tangible reality. The best examples include the iconostasis of Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Belozersk, Vologda region, created in the late 18th — ​early 19th centuries. (Fig. 12—15). Its open architectural compositional structure with an emphasized order system is more typical for palace buildings. This impression is supported by the colour solution — ​festive, bright and contrasting combination of

— 34 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

12. City Garden. Monument to Empress Catherine II. Sculptor S. I. Galberg. Photo of the early XX century from Morshansk History and Art Museum collection white and blue with gold. A powerful entablature is decorated with gilded trumpeting angels. The columns that support it are intertwined by golden garlands. Fluting, capitals and all decorative details of architectural decoration are gilded. Icons are placed in the openings

— 35 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century between columns on the principle of secular painting hanging in grand interiors. The development and direction of movement in the area of ​​the altar are brilliantly solved by means of the plastic arts. The movement unfolds into the depth and up from the peripheral zone, flanked by the standing figures of the Archangels on the background of paired Corinthian columns arranged in a semicircle, past the statues of Prophets Moses and Aaron. In the depths the direction of space rushes upwards. This movement is emphasized by the figure of Christ, ascending into the clouds and surrounded by symbols of the Evangelists: an eagle, a lion, a calf and an angel. All the characters are facing the culminating and symbolic center — ​the finial of the iconostasis, above which, on the background of scattered clouds and rays of light over the spherical surface of the dome, rapidly rises a dynamic figure of Christ with stretched out hands over seven lamps, which symbolize the seven churches. The artistic image of the iconostasis is featured by a combination of perfected architectural forms with perfectly verified order proportions and a bit lapidary modeling of sculptures. Simplicity and some sort of archaism of interpretation of the figures take them away from secular refinement of metropolitan examples. The iconostasis of the Church of Vladimir Icon of Our Lady in the Bykovo estate (1789) and the Church of St. Nicholas in the village Radishchevo in Yaroslavl Region (1781) are among similar examples of compositional arrangement and sculptural solutions of décor. In addition to sculpture, which is inseparably linked to the structure of the iconostasis, freestanding figures and whole compositions are widely presented in cathedrals of the​​ second half of the 18th century. These figures are sometimes made in life-size and even larger. Generally, their story is associated with the themes of the Christological cycle — ​The Crucifixion(Fig 16), The Descent from the Cross (Fig 17), Christ in the Sepulchre with Bystanders (Fig 18.19.). The whole range of monuments can be symbolically divided into two large groups. First one is characterized by folk tradition, with its inherent specificity of rather harsh shaping, conciseness of colour solutions. Monumental crosses and relief wooden icons with a similar interpretation differ in picturing the Crucifixion scene which is presented as a symbolic sign system of the universe. The elements

— 36 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

13. Clock with sculptural composition “Muse, writing verses”. XIX century. Bronze. Morshansk History and Art Museum of the composition are canonical. Crucified Christ surrounded by forthcomers is in the center. Angels and heavenly bodies are above them. The instruments of the Passion, nominal buildings of Jerusalem are placed on both sides of the cross. Below — ​the hill of Golgotha with the buried head of Adam. Above all — ​Sabaoth’s stretched hands. It would seem that all the characters are presented in full conformity

— 37 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century according to the plot outline. However, as a matter of fact, they do not form an action and are hardly connected with each other. They are self-sufficient and detached from the tragedy of what is happening to the extent that they are likened to the holy guards, who are standing as if pillars near the sacred center anticipating the Eternity. At the same time expressions on their faces are sorrowful and indifferent. Primarily the architectonic pillar-like shapes and specificity of morphogenesis, inherent to folk art, are emphasized with the language of sculpture. Often, according to the folk tradition, these sculptures were clothed or covered with fabrics, towels or cloaks, such fact is manifested almost in all provincial regions, particularly in small village churches and chapels. Even the figure of the crucified Christ on the cross was clothed. Fabric was hung on his outstretched arms, as on a bar. Thus, the whole figure was completely closed to worshipers. Only the bent head, hands and feet were seen. Sometimes even Christ’s head was covered with a patterned or embroidered cloth. Instead of the sacred image phenomenon, an attempt as if to protect, hide the shrine from the eyes is seen here. Thus this clearly demonstrates the attitude to sculpture, considering the influence of the folk tradition on it, as not to an interior decoration or a work of art, but as to a sacred protected object. The Crucifixion with Bystandersof the 18th century from Kargopol (Fig. 18), in the composition of which the whole scene acquires a cosmological character, is among examples displaying this style. The crucified body of Christ is placed along the axes of the cross without a hint of a natural pose. His outstretched hands strictly correspond to the horizontal crossbar of the cross, the figure closely repeats the main vertical, thereby returning to the ancient symbolic image of a man — ​to the sign of the cross, which was also a sign of global space. An elegant snow-white Jerusalem is drawn behind the cross. Flowers of unprecedented size bloom along the edges — ​a detail characteristic of folk art and widely represented in the arts and crafts. All this, changing to the categories of picturing symbolic universe, leads away from the central action of the tragedy. Cosmological model of the world in The Crucifixion from Kargopol and such monuments are emphasized by the image of figures placed in a hierarchy. The figure of Christ is significantly larger than

— 38 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century of the bystanders. Two large round faces — ​the Sun and the Moon, are above them (Fig. 19). The presence of heavenly bodies is important for a figurative expression of the picture of the world. Very often they were portrayed on the endings of the crossbar, next to the hands of the crucified Jesus, and were supplied with captions “the sun”, “the moon”. Another interpretation of the theme is associated with the compositions of The Crucifixion, made in the European tradition. Carvers, who created these works, focused on extremely popular German and Dutch engravings. In this regard, there was a certain confusion of some signs of the image of the Crucifixion, earlier only characteristic of the Orthodox or Catholic sacred art. In the Orthodox tradition, the image of Christ is characterized by picturing peace in all his appearance — ​his body is straight with his head bent aside; his hands are spread out along a large horizontal crossbar, partly repeating its line; the face is calm, palms are open. The rise above pain and triumph over death is communicated through this calmness. In the western interpretation, the body of Christ is weighed down on nailed hands, his palms are brought together in agony 10. The Crucifixion with Bystanders from the collection of The Veliky Ustyug State Historical, Architectural Museum Reserve is among such group of monuments (Fig. 20, 21). This multi-figured composition is a typical interpretation of the established abbreviated canonical scheme: crucified Jesus is in the centre, the Virgin is to the right, St. John is to the left. The figure of the kneeling Mary Magdalene is placed almost in the middle of the composition. The Body of Christ is expressively bent and weighing down on his arms, palms are opened, his head is raised, eyes are opened. Images of the bystanders are dynamic and emotional. Ornamentality, inherent in folk art, is not seen in their interpretation. Figures are executed in a realistic manner, they are proportionate to each other and are interconnected in a single action. There are numerous examples of such works made in a small easel size. It is possible that they were created in metropolitan workshops or by craftsmen, invited from the capital to provincial art centers. The manifestation of the Western European tradition is due not only to the widespread graphic images. Beside Russian carvers, foreign masters were invited to work in metropolitan sculpture studios and in major

— 39 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century art centers. Those masters made their contribution to the creation of an artistic image, iconographic scheme and plasticity of sculptures. The image of suffering Christ before the crucifixion, the so-called Christ in Prison, was one of the popular themes from the Gospel Book in church sculpture (Fig. 22). In contrast to the plot of The Crucifixion with Bystanders, which was approved as mandatory included on the finial of the iconostasis11, other sculptural images did not received their officially fixed places. And indeed, they were rarely included in the iconographic program of cathedrals. However, statues of Christ in Prison, representing the thinking of Christ on the eve of the execution, could be seen almost everywhere. They appeared in Russian churches in the 17th century, and were established in almost every third cathedral in the 18th century. Attempts to trace the origin of this story leads us to Western European analogues, to sculptures from Germany, Poland, Belarus and Western Ukraine. In the West, active dissemination of this iconographic image started after the publication of A. Dürer’s short graphic series The Passion of Christ in 1511 where an image of Christ, suffering before his execution, was placed on the title page. Russian masters instantly absorbed Western European trends, though they did not copy the pieces — ​they freely interpreted not only the appearance of a figure, but even its iconographic statement. Russian wooden sculpture developed its own iconography of the image of Christ, staying in prison during the last hours before the crucifixion. The Savior is depicted sitting with the crown of thorns on his head. A cheek rests in his hand, the other hand is pressed to his stomach. There are drops of blood running along the body. (Fig. 23). Most of sculptures of Christ in prison are polychrome. Though colour is usually applied without any regard for pictorial niceties or iconographic compliance with the image of Jesus. The theme of physical suffering fades into the background in the interpretation of the image. From the dual nature of Jesus — ​the heavenly and the earthly, the first component is accented. The Savior in the compositions of Christ in Prison is often presented bent, humble, silent in peaceful goodness. The figure was entirely painted in “skin” colour; hair and beard was black or dark brown. However, variations of colour solutions were very broad. By way of example let us consider

— 40 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century two images of Christ, which are now on display in Pereslavl Museum Reserve located in the Goritsky monastery complex. One of the figures, marked with a beautiful modeling of form, has a distinctive colour scheme. The entire surface of the body is toned with dark brown paint. This creates an appearance of a completely dark, “Eastern” sunburn, against the background of which a bright loincloth stands out. A completely different image is next to it: Christ, white skinned, with yellow hair scattered over the shoulders, and light blue eyes, clearly representing typical features of the local population. Nevertheless, in spite of such a wide figurative interpretation, all sculptures are united by some generality, a single inner core defining the artistic image regardless of style and craftsmanship. Christ is grievous and is focused in his sublime meditation. He is suspended from the painful reality, and, being the object of insults and beatings, he is as if beyond these events. The image is also far from an exemplary reproduction of the evangelical texts, and with seemingly stereotyped poses and apparent stiffness of the movements does not correspond to canonical rules of the existing iconography. These inconsistencies manifest themselves in a number of rather important details. As a rule, one can observe a deviation from the Gospel story12. Practically only in individual sculptures, representing the seated Savior, the cane is in his right hand, which, it seems, can serve as an indication of direct following of Western standards. In the Orthodox tradition the cane was not expected to be in the right hand of Christ. The right Hand is raised to the face. However, He does not cover the head with it, but only touches his face, gently propping the cheek with the hand, which gives the image an expression of mournful reverie. Standing among the mocking crowd, he does not see it; receiving blows, he does not feel them. A sad solitude of a man alone with his own thoughts. Some sculptures also display a wound from a blow made with a spear, as it is known, after the crucifixion; however, this does not correspond to the Gospel scenario. One such example can be seen in the lower Church of the Holy Trinity of New-Golutvin monastery. The wounds of blue-eyed Christ, who is awaiting crucifixion in peace and enlightenment, are bleeding from the nails in his hands and feet and the rib cage is broken. As for the purple mantle, it almost does

— 41 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century not occur in Russian monuments. Although it would be unfair not to mention these not numerous examples, which thoroughly follow the Gospel text and the Western iconographic tradition. Thus, Christ of the Rostov Kremlin exactly corresponds to the Gospel text and to the iconography prevailing in European art. The red robe from his shoulders is going down to his knees; there is a cane in his hand… Perhaps this kind of union of the Russian provincial tradition in the plastic arts and an accurate reproduction of attributes, common in Western art, is due to the influence of Dimitry Rostovsky. As it is known, his careful study of the Latin heritage, dialogues with Poland, Belarus, Western Ukraine served as the basis for the formation of special cultural environment, which, after the death of Dimitry Rostovsky, continued to exert a certain influence on the artistic tastes of the region. Yet these iconographic versions are not common. Traditionally, sculptural images of the Mourning Christ were placed in dark niches in the walls of cathedrals, or special “prisons”, the so-called “praetors”, were built for them which were sometimes decorated with gilded carvings looking as separate chapels with helical columns and velvet portieres or muslin curtains in small windows. That was how a “prison”, created at the end of the 18th century, looks like in the village Pashiya in Perm province (Fig. 24). Saint Nicholas, another distinctive and beloved by the Russian provinces image, occupies a special place in Russian religious sculpture. Perhaps, there is no cathedral, chapel or family iconostasis, which would be without this image. In cathedral sculpture, the saint is often presented in the iconographic type of Nicholas of Mozhaysk (Fig. 25), who, according to the legend, along with a small army was defending the city of Mozhaysk in the 14th century. Of all the holy warriors, defenders of the Russian pantheon, only he is performed with a raised sword in his outstretched hand. The sword in the saint’s hand does not look as a holy attribute, carrying a symbolic meaning. It is perceived particularly as a weapon ready to be taken to a fight. This gesture does not display a static anticipation but rather an active defense bordering with an attack. No wonder that apocryphal literature attributes such decisive actions as the assault and fight with Aria 13 to his fiery warlike character. It was the “peasants’ God”, embodying emotional make-up

— 42 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

14. Fragment of Morshansk museum exposition. Photo of 2013 of his people, who was the only one capable of such a fast righteous judgement. Revered in all regions of the Russian provinces the image of St. Nicholas was reproduced from century to century, each time finding new stylistic and artistic shades. In the 18th century masters were so passionate about patterns and masterful execution of minor details that decision on a matter of monumental sculpture faded into the background. In contrast to earlier periods presenting statues in full measure, relatively small sculptures could be seen more often. Their height was not more than a meter, and they were endowed with all the qualities of the indoor

— 43 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century sculpture. Monumentality and grandeur were lost. If early sculptures show us a formidable militant defender, in the second half of the 18th century an image of a good old man, slightly stooping, with sloping shoulders, in exquisitely decorated herb patterned clothes was presented in statues of St. Nicholas. Instead of mere crosses the chasuble was effectively coloured with large decorative flowers. Such are the statues from Archangelsk, Kargoapolsk and Perm museums. Sculptures of the late period are characterized by a certain disproportion of figures. The head is cut as a fairly large one in size and in some cases 14, it even constitutes the fourth or the fifth part of the total figure hight. The image of St. Nicholas is popular in small-scale sculpture — ​in travel icons and foldings. (Figure 26). Some of them are guided by iconographic versions created with the help of statues, others — ​by icon-painting works. The Beheading of St. John the Baptist is among other common sacred images of the Orthodox church. The composition of the severed head of St. John lying on a platter is distinguished by colourful figurative power and expressive drama, which is further enhanced by naturalistic plasticity and painting. The composition came to us from Western Europe, where the reverence of John the Baptist’s head had been extremely popular since the early Middle Ages — ​the time when the relics of the saint were uncovered. The European tradition of this iconographic version is characterised by faces with open straight staring eyes and a gaping mouth, as if the head was captured at the time of speech, and an image of an open cut of the beheaded neck is also popular. As a rule, tranquilized impression on the face of St. John with closed eyelids and mouth slightly open is presented in the Orthodox interpretation of the plot. The cut of the neck is hidden. The head is framed by large curly locks of hair. The placing of John’s head on an oval-shaped platter is characteristic for the period of the second half of the 18th century. Sculptural group The Pietà, performed under the influence of Western European sculptural groups and now kept in the Velikoustyug museum, is a unique example of the iconographic composition inherent to Russian sacred sculpture (Fig. 27). The Dame’s knees, on which lies the body of Jesus, no longer have anatomical plasticity and look like a cathedral throne. The recumbent figure of Christ, made larger than life-size, strikes with its expressive monumentality of forms and almost palpable corporeality.

— 44 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

Images of angels are variously represented in the space of a Russian provincial cathedral. Artistic innovations of the 18th century in the plastic arts are most vividly represented in them. (Fig. 28—32). Sculptural images of winged defenders are presented in churches of the most remote corners of the country. Cherubs were usually arranged on the tiers of the iconostasis, in kiots of especially revered icons; angels usually embowered significant compositions and sacral areas, such as the Royal Doors. In the Orthodox tradition cherubs and angels were most often endowed with harmonious faces of young adolescents. Hair was gilded and cheeks were reddened based on metropolitan examples. Masters really possessed an ability to qualitatively polish up details. Wavy folds and swirling clouds — ​decorative elements amaze with emphasized emotional and artistic expressiveness. Almost naturally painted faces and clothes of statues became a characteristic feature of the sculpture of the 18th century. Angels’ gestures are graceful, images are gentle and sentimental. Opened tunics leave the shoulders and knees bare. Everything is moving, rapid, weightless. In parallel with these trends a completely different characterological trend in sculpture was developing. The further away from Western examples and metropolitan ideals the new compositional forms of sacral interiors were spreading, the more active were the aesthetic categories of sculpture especially inherent to popular understanding of a sacred image and interpretation of it in sculpture. Angels, created by folk artists, were almost devoted of movement, and did not engage in a dialogue with other characters in the context of compositions. Positioned over the icons, they are as if sacred signs placed in a cathedral as pillars, marking the milestones in time above the tier with the prophets, guarding the boundaries of the heavenly and the earthly world along the edges of the iconostasis, protecting the sacred actions. Signs of destiny, ripidias, the instruments of Christ’s passions, trumpets are placed in their disproportionately large rough hands. Occasionally carved with an ax, the figures of angels are structurally logical, monumental and simple in form. There is no caressing tenderness in their faces. Angels of the Russian provinces look menacing and at the same time detached. Indoor sculpture is a significant section in the art of sculpture of the Russian provinces of the second half of the 18th century. This is

— 45 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century a set of cast travel icons and foldings, small icons made of wood and bone. Kholmogory, a city renowned for masters of bone carving, stands out among provincial art centers, specializing in creation of carved miniatures. The second half of the 18th century was the time of greatest prosperity in the arts of the Kholmogory masters. Cases, icons, carved frames, goblets, church utensils, decorated with masterfully executed miniature relief portraits, plot scenes, heraldry, were framed by a very thin lace ornaments (Fig 33—35). Chess pieces, usually representing two armies — ​the European and the East one, with two figures of the Sultan and the Emperor both seated on a throne, armed warriors, known and exotic animals, models of sailing boats, look as exquisite miniature sculptures. An equestrian figure of Peter (Fig. 36), basically copying the composition of a classical European urban monument 15, is an example of a European indoor sculpture. Portrait miniatures, inserted into cups, mugs, panels, stand out among the most outstanding works of Kholmogory carvers. Many of the works have their author’s signatures, which, in itself, is significant, bearing in mind almost a mass anonymity of Russian icon painters, sculptors, masters of arts and crafts. Shubny performed a wonderful composition Genealogy of Russian Grand Dukes and Tsars 16, uniting 61 medallions with masterfully executed portraits (Fig. 37). Dudin is the author of a number of unique pieces, the one who also created the famous mug with images of Russian emperors and kings 17. Unique vases with subject medallions, among which are the works on the subject of the seasons, are carved by N. Vereshchagin 18. In their practice, Kholmogory master focused on European engraved samples presented in popular illustrated editions of Symbola et Emblemata, Iconological Lexicon, on series of medals. Work of the Old Believers from Vygovskaya Pustin is another bright page in the history of the Russian indoor sculpture. Their elaborate metal icons were in great demand not only among the local population, but also across the country. The famous Old Believers’ guadrivalve folding icon The Twelve Great Feasts (Fig. 38), castings of which are stored in practically every major collection, is not only an expression of the views of the Old Believers. In an effort to preserve traditions, masters, however, actively used character types and compositions of the new art prevalent

— 46 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century in painting and even more in engraving. Talking about the artistic and sculptural folding icon features, a special procedure for its construction should be noted. The division of the half doors into equal squares, as well as identical finials, create a stable structure that is able to hold the separated composition with numerous images. Baroque ornamental forms can be seen in almost every composition on a folding icon. What should be noted is the combination of quite authentically interpreted figures and absolutely conditional decorative design of architectural elements. The available space is filled with cornices, columns, curls of volutes, ornaments, which always successfully organize the composition. Everything is in a state of constant motion: flying folds of clothes, swirling clouds, violently gesticulating characters. Interestingly, the structure of the folding icon, constructed from equal border scenes and finials, does not imply any priority of subjects. None of the themes is selected as the main one. Although border scenes are linked together and combined into a single plot circle, the composition, having no central focus, can be infinitely extended horizontally or increased by a few rows of border scenes down. Colour is widely used in cast relief icons of the 18th century. At the same time it is not an essential element without which these works would not exist. Before compositions started to be effectively covered with colourful enamels, authors initially had in mind to make them monochrome. Comparing various castings with one model, it can be noticed that each time the colour was applied at random and could vary. In this case, the colour of such icons was never applied to faces and figures of saints, and served only as a background decoration. This rule was not violated. It is possible that the “golden” colour of bronze took on the meaning which gold backgrounds or halos on picturesque icons had. Unlike painting, with prevailing warm red, brown, golden colours, relief icons have a rich palette of blue — ​from deep dark ultramarine to light blue, turquoise, purple shades. This colouristic symbol of the sky is present in almost every work created using coloured enamels. Green — ​the symbol of life, and white — ​the symbol of spiritual purity and piety, began to be its frequent companions. The black colour — ​the sign of death, is often used, however, in small amounts. Items made of copper casting with enamel coating were

— 47 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century especially loved by the people. They had a smart festive look and, unlike paintings, did not lose the brightness of colour over time. In general, Russian church sculpture can be divided into two large groups. The first, focused on the common Europe example, demonstrates aesthetic innovations that influenced the innermost essence of a sculptural image. Previously important in Russian sacral sculpture, the theme of Deisis and a dialogue with the audience were lost. New characteristics — ​ aristocraticism, delusiveness, appeared in sculpture. Movements became random and direction of looks elusive. The loss of the feeling of block monolithicity, of interrelation with the axes of architectural environment manifested in the creation of compositions, mostly resembling theater sets and not sacral sculpture which was secularized. The very method of creating cathedral sculptures stopped to follow regulations that were required for icon painters. Small-scale statues, sculptural decoration, including heads of cherubs, were performed in secular workshops sometimes even in whole series. Taken from the context of the iconostasis, they could very well become an ornament of any interior of a palace or a theater. Definitely, this new quality of religious sculpture, once created for a specific place in a particular cathedral, was acquired due to metropolitan examples. However, the core group of the provincial church sculptural works was based on folk tradition. As a rule, anatomical research was ignored here. Sculptures are characterized by large, clear form, nominal decorative relief of the body. Excessive, not important from the master’s point of view, details were smoothed. However, those, which were regarded as truly important, were accented; not considering the anatomy they were placed as a system of signs inherent in folk art. Using an ax and a chisel, torsos were cut out as monolithic, devoid of body plasticity and dynamics blocks. Horizontal stripes, denoting ribs, rhythmically crossed the back and the chest. The head was conceived as a generalized volume with a protruding as a wedge nose; hands and feet looked like cylinders, slightly “improved” in the joints; the body preserved the shape of a block. Figures were exaggeratedly architectonic and ascetic. Sculptural simplicity and monumentality of form, refusal from petty naturalistic details attract attention in these sculptures. That special ornamentality, which distinguishes all works of the Russian folk art starting

— 48 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century from icons to popular prints, toys and household items, can be seen in their paintings. Exalted passions, mysticism, images of physical torment are not find here. Ideas of Russian provincial sculpture in anticipation of eternity, inner spiritual ascetic sublimity, overcome reality of earthly scale and time are expressed by means of powerful monumental sculptural language. It is believed that Russia joined the European cultural space rather late, and thus was partly using finished artistic images. This polemical premise is based on a certain stereotype in the study of cultural processes, the starting point of which is the process of trying to find a certain standard, with which comparisons are constantly made, although the phenomenon itself is sometimes far away from the prototype. This particular approach is observed in assessing sculptures of the Russian provinces. In its pedigree the roots of Western European art as well as the Russian academic tradition are surely sought, which is certainly true; nevertheless, this does not exhaust sculptural morphology and in some way impoverishes the overall picture of this bright and original phenomenon. Folk art, based on archaic sacred culture and traditions, played a huge role in the formation of figurative characteristics and sculptural methods of provincial sculpture. Such diverse areas as metropolitan academic experience, the West European example, orthodox didactics and folk handicraft practice created a unique fusion distinguishing sculptural works of the Russian provinces.

ENDNOTES

1 Karion Istomin, Leonty Bunin: Букварь славянороссийских писмен уставных и скорописных греческих же латинских и польских со образованми вещей и с нравоучительными стихами. Мoscow, 1694. 2 “Drogi upominek od moiey Dobrodzieyki: 1765” (A gift from my dear benefactress: 1765. Transl. from Polish). Sculptor unknown. Catherine II as Minerva. The bust was given to the Polish king Stanislaw August Poniatowski. 3 Village Lyalichi, Surazh district of the Bryansk region. During the period of ownership by Count P, Zavadovsky, it was called Ekaterinodar. 4 The famous poet I. Dmitriev, a friend of Derzhavin and Karamzin, dedicated a poem An Inscription to the Bronze Statue of Field Marshal Count Rumyantsev- Zadunaisky Installed by Count Zavadovsky in his Village (1795) to the bronze statue of Rumyantsev-Zadunaisky from Lyalich estate.

— 49 — Maria A. Burganova. Sculpture of the Russian Provinces in the 18th Century

5 A research by E. Karpova devoted to clarification of authorship. (E. Karpova: Русская и западноевропейская скульптура XVIII — ​начала ХХ века, St. Petersburg, 2009. Pp.: 13—18.). 6 Экономический магазин или Собрание всяких экономических известий, опытов, открытий…. 2nd edition, Мoscow, 1786. (editor and compiler A. Bolotov) P. 264. 7 Chesme Column is installed in Tsarskoye Selo (architect A. Rinaldi) in 1776. 8 As the most significant example many researchers usually present The Decree of May 21, 1722 (Полное собрание постановлений по Ведомству православного исповедания, Vol. 2. Resolution 516, pp. 163—164). Although the true meaning of this decree is not only in following the canon, but also in the confiscation of sculptures of poor quality, performed unprofessionally, in archaic traditions of folk culture, from cathedrals. 9 Transfiguration Church in the village of Pogost (Gusev Pogost), 1784; the church of Our Lady in the village Grebnevo, Schelkovo district, Moscow region, 1786. 10 It is necessary to bear in mind that one can not be strictly guided by these differences to classify monuments. Almost until the 11th century Western European artists depicted crucified Christ with open eyes, in a long tunic and nailed hands and feet with four nails. Christ in monuments of this period does not hang on the cross, but as if stands beside it, arms outstretched along the horizontal crossbar. From the 11th century the image of naked Christ in a loincloth were approved. His body sags on the cross. Images appear with signs of a painful death. In the 13th century in the art of Byzantine there were monuments with typical Western interpretation: Christ is crucified with three nails. At the same time, some Western European masters continue portraying the Crucifixion with four nails up to the 17th century. The crown of thorns — ​the symbol of Jesus Christ’s sufferings, appeared in the iconography after finding this object of worship in the 13th century. In Orthodoxy, it has established itself in the images of the Crucifixion since the 18th century. 11 Деяния Московских соборов 1666 и 1667 годов. Moscow, 1893. 12 “Then the soldiers of the governor having taken Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band. And, undressed him, put on him a purple robe; And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and gave him a walking stick in his right hand; and, standing in front of him on his knees, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.” Matthew, ch. 27. 13 During the discussion at the First Ecumenical Council (325 AD) Bishop Nicholas of Myra hit Alexandrian priest Arius on the cheek for heretical statements. th 14 Nicholas of Mozhaysk, 18 century. Arkhangelsk Regional Museum of Fine Arts.147. 15 Peter I — ​the Winner of the Swedes. 1780—1790-ies. Mammoth ivory, ebony, wood, fabric. Volume, relief, turning carving, engraving, pasting 23x19x12. The State Historical Museum. 16 Genealogy of Russian Grand Dukes and Tsars. Kholmogory. Carver Y. Shubny. 1774. Bone, wood, fabric, carving, engraving. The State Historical Museum. 17 Carver O. Dudin. Cup with a Portrait of Empress Elizabeth. 1759—1760; Mug with 58 portraits of Russian tsars and princes. 1770s. 18 Carver N. Vereshchagin. Vase. The Seasons. 1796. Bone carving. The State Hermitage.

— 50 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre 1932—1936

Frans C. Lemaire Critique d’art Bruxelles, Belgique е-mail: [email protected] D’UNE CONDAMNATION À L’AUTRE 1932—1936. L’OPÉRA LA LADY MACBETH DU DISTRICT DE MZENSK. DU SUCCÈS À L’INTERDICTION

Résumé: L’article concerne Dimitri Chostakovitch, célèbre compositeur russe de la période soviétique en qui, peut-être parce qu’il fut un grand symphoniste, parce qu’il a écrit de nombreux quatuors à cordes et parce que son œuvre exprime et assume un ensemble de tensions excédant largement la stricte dimension musicale, certains ont voulu voir une sorte de « Beethoven du XXe siècle ». Une grande confusion persiste à son égard: bien des questions concernant sa vie et son œuvre sont longtemps demeurées obscures. De nombreux éléments touchant à son attitude et à ses intentions artistiques ont été mal compris voire manipulés et une part important de son œuvre est toujours méconnue. Les mots clés: Dimitri Chostakovitch, musique, symphoniste, la période soviétique.

Six mois après le retrait de son opéra Le Nez jugé trop excentrique et trop bourgeois (on ne disait pas encore trop peu réaliste ou trop peu socialiste), Chostakovitch entama la composition d’une œuvre lyrique de grande ampleur sur un sujet très réaliste et très social cette fois, d’après une nouvelle de Nikolaï Leskov publiée en 1866. Elle porte un titre un peu bizarre, La Lady Macbeth du district de Mzensk, visiblement inspiré de Tourgueniev qui a transposé ainsi des drames shakespeariens dans l’univers provincial russe (Un Roi Lear de la steppe et Hamlet du district de Chtchigry). Avec ses quatre meurtres (dont celui d’un enfant) et un suicide, l’histoire contée par Leskov était encore bien plus choquante que l’original homonyme shakespearien. Chostakovitch, aidé de l’auteur dramatique Alexandre Preis en a tiré un livret qui

— 51 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936 abandonne l’épisode de l’enfant étouffé sous un oreiller, ajoute une scène ridiculisant la police et rapproche l’héroïne Katerina Ismaïlova du personnage de Katia Kabanova dans L’orage d’Alexandre Ostrovski plus connu par l’opéra qu’en a tiré Janáček. Opéra en quatre actes et neuf tableaux, Lady Macbeth comporte une trentaine de scènes généralement courtes et d’interludes contrastés comme dans un découpage cinématographique. Le drame s’achève par la déportation en Sibérie, mais réalisant que son amant la trompe avec une autre bagnarde, l’héroïne Katerina Ismaïlova entraîne celle-ci dans les eaux glacées d’un lac et se noie avec elle. Dans le programme de la création, Chostakovitch essayait de justifier tout cela en faisant du personnage de Katerina, entièrement négatif chez Leskov, une victime des forces réactionnaires et même « un rayon de lumière dans le royaume des ténèbres » en reprenant ce que le critique Nicolas Dobrolioubov avait dit de Katia Kabanova. L’opéra Lady Macbeth débute sans prélude ni ouverture, dans un climat expressioniste qui rappelle le début de Salomé ou de Wozzeck. Chostakovitch niait avoir utilisé des leitmotive mais reconnaissait que chaque personnage avait des caractéristiques musicales propres à l’aide de cellules mélodiques qui sans être systématiquement dédicacées comme dans Wagner, accompagnent certains déroulements de l’action. Un même motif accompagne ainsi les frustrations de Katerina, leur cause (son mariage stérile et Boris, son beau-père) et annonce leur conséquence (l’empoisonnement de celui-ci). Ce fil conducteur tisse une texture musicale intimement liée au déroulement dramatique. L’évolution psychologique de Katerina est exprimée par les seuls moments lyriques de l’opéra, cinq arias accompagnant successivement son ennui dans une vie sans but, ses désirs sensuels, ses remords (le spectre de Boris apparaît dans un cauchemar), les derniers élans de tendresse bientôt repoussés et enfin l’air final du désespoir avant le suicide. Le pouvoir est également représenté par un motif martelé, d’abord pour accompagner les menaces de Boris qui rappelle à sa belle-fille que si elle veut chercher le bonheur ailleurs, les murs et les chiens de la propriété l’en empêcheront. Il devient ensuite le motif de la police mais sous une forme parodique et grotesque soulignant la bêtise des policiers. Enfin, il éclate en pleine force lorsque, venant arrêter Katerina et son amant Sergueï, ils font irruption dans la fête de mariage.

— 52 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936

Une autre caractéristique de Lady Macbeth est l’abondance des allusions, citations ou pastiches, souvent brefs et subtils, parfois difficile à saisir au passage. Le monologue dans lequel le vieux Boris raconte ses conquêtes et ses succès d’autrefois est non seulement chanté sur un trois temps viennois mais il est rempli de clins d’œil vers le Rosenkavalier (le Baron Ochs), la Veuve Joyeuse ou La Chauve-Souris, allusions qui deviennent tout à fait évidentes lorsque l’opéra est chanté en allemand. Quand Sergueï, l’amant de Katerina, obtient qu’elle lui donne ses bas de laine qu’il a promis à une jeune bagnarde qu’il essaie de séduire, ce dialogue pseudo-amoureux, sincère chez Katerina, hypocrite chez Sergueï, utilise un motif mélodique de Das Lied von der Erde de Mahler, l’œuvre que Chostakovitch mettait au sommet de l’histoire de la musique. À la fin de l’opéra, les bagnards chantent en chœur leur triste sort mais c’est un choral que l’on croit entendre car la ligne mélodique rappelle de façon troublante le Choralvorspiele pour orgue Ich ruf zu Dir, BWV 639 de Bach. Cet usage allusif des citations va caractériser de nombreuses œuvres ultérieures de Chostakovitch. La création de Lady Macbeth eut lieu dans deux productions nettement différentes, d’abord le 22 janvier 1934 à Léningrad où Nikolaï Smolitch, qui avait déjà monté Le Nez, donna à Lady Macbeth un caractère très satirique, proche de l’esprit de la comedia del arte, tandis que, deux jours plus tard, Vladimir Nemirovitch-Dantchenko mettait surtout l’accent, dans son théâtre, sur la dimension dramatique. Le succès fut immédiat et Lady Macbeth ne quitta plus la scène durant deux ans, totalisant quatre-vingt-trois exécutions à Leningrad et quatre- vingt-quatorze à Moscou. Même la radio soviétique retransmit six fois les représentations et, dès 1935, des exécutions eurent lieu en Amérique et à partir de 1936 sur six scènes européennes. Devant un tel succès, le Bolchoï de Moscou se décida à son tour et la première eut lieu le 26 décembre 1935. Staline s’y rendit le 26 janvier accompagné de Molotov, Jdanov et Mikoyan, mais ils quittèrent avant la fin. Deux jours plus tard, laPravda publiait le fameux article intitulé Sumbur vmecto muziki (Du chaos en place de musique). On pouvait y lire: Quelques théâtres présentent au public soviétique qui a de hautes exigences culturelles, l’opéra La Lady Macbeth du district de Mzensk

— 53 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936 de Dimitri Chostakovitch comme une nouveauté, comme un grand événement. Une critique musicale complaisante porte cette œuvre aux nues et la glorifie bruyamment. Au lieu d’une critique sérieuse et professionnelle qui pourrait lui être utile dans son travail futur, le jeune compositeur n’entend que des compliments enthousiastes pour sa musique, discordante et confuse, faite de tintamarre, de glapissements, un chaos, une cacophonie, dans un rythme infernal… L’opéra classique et le discours musical compréhensible sont intentionnellement renversés. C’est la négation de la simplicité, du réalisme, un transfert des caractéristiques « meyerholdiennes », du chaos gauchiste, du formalisme et de « l’esprit d’innovation » petit-bourgeois… Jouer à l’hermétisme est un jeu qui pourrait très mal finir. Chostakovitch nous montre sur scène le naturalisme le plus grossier, le plus bestial, la lubricité d’une riche marchande, il représente avec réalisme des scènes d’amour sous la forme la plus vulgaire… le lit occupe une place centrale; une telle musique ne peut atteindre que des esthètes-formalistes aux goûts malsains. Dans la nouvelle de Leskov, l’histoire avait une morale: la défaite de la femme pécheresse et son suicide remet les choses en ordre. Chez Chostakovitch, rien ne rentre dans un ordre dont le principal gardien, la police, est ridicule, incapable et corrompu. Tous les visages traditionnels de l’ordre sont perturbés: celui de l’opéra est privé de sa belle musique chantante, la dramaturgie est dominée par des scènes excentriques ou trop naturalistes, tous les hommes sont antipathiques et méprisables à l’exception d’un seul, un vieux bagnard à la fin de l’opéra. Enfin, la frénésie sexuelle a toujours été vue, et encore plus si une femme y succombe, comme un facteur de désordre par les régimes totalitaires, religieux ou civiques. Un opéra où personne n’est bon et chacun ne pense qu’à soi est l’antithèse de la nouvelle morale bolchévique. Lady Macbeth accumule donc tout ce qu’il ne fallait pas faire au moment précis où la mission de l’art a été redéfinie par les efforts conjugués de Staline, Maxime Gorki et Andreï Jdanov dans le sens d’une soumission sans réserve à une idéologie collective dont l’ordre, la police et bientôt la terreur, forment la clé de voûte. La dernière représentation de Lady Macbeth eut lieu en mars 1936. De longues discussions furent tenues dans les sections de Moscou et de Leningrad de l’Union des compositeurs, la majorité des intervenants

— 54 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936 faisant volte-face pour étaler leur zèle à justifier la condamnation de Chostakovitch. Quelques voix s’élevèrent cependant en sa faveur, en particulier Meyerhold qui n’hésita pas à demander publiquement la réhabilitation de Lady Macbeth. Même Maxime Gorki intervint en faveur de Chostakovitch, à la suit d’une remarque de Malraux. Celui-ci lui avait, en effet, rendu visite en Crimée en compagnie d’lsaac Babel entre le 10 et le 13 mars. On a retouvé et publié en 1993 une lettre de Maxime Gorki au « Cher Jossif Vissarionovitch », c’est-à-dire Staline, dans laquelle l’écrivain, après avoir mentionné le nom de Malraux, rappelle que dans ses discours tout comme dans des articles publiés par la Pravda, le camarade Staline avait régulièrement insisté sur la nécessité de « traiter les hommes avec attention », une attention dont manifestement Chostakovitch n’avait pas bénéficié. Aussi écrit-il: Toute la presse centrale et de province avait jusqu’à peu fait l’éloge de cet opéra joué avec grand succès à Moscou, Leningrad et à l’étranger. Cet homme jeune, de 25 ans environ, très doué mais aussi très renfermé et nerveux, a reçu, à cause de la Pravda, une tuile sur la tête qui l’a jeté à terre, le détruisant complètement. Chaos, qu’est-ce que cela veut dire? Où et comment s’exprime ce chaos? Ici, les critiques musicaux auraient dû donner une appréciation technique de la musique. Ce qui se trouve finalement écrit dans l’article de la Pravda, n’est que la lettre ouverte d’une horde de trouble-fêtes sans talent par haine de Chostakovitch. Avec la meilleure volonté, il n’est pas possible d’appeler l’attitude qui s’exprime dans l’article de la Pravda de « comportement attentif vis-à-vis des hommes ». On ignore si Staline eut connaissance de cette lettre courageuse. Gorki était tombé en disgrâce après s’être plusieurs fois opposé à Staline et sa mort inopinée trois mois plus tard serait, selon le témoignage d’un chef du NKVD, Genrikh Iagoda, due à un empoisonnement. C’était le début des années noires qui verront l’arrestation et l’exécution de Toukhatchevski, Meyerhold et Isaac Babel, autant de proches de Chostakovitch. 1936—1939. DE LA PROTESTATION SILENCIEUSE À LA RECONNAISSANCE OFFICIELLE Alors que Chostakovitch était devenu le compositeur d’opéras le plus prometteur de son époque, il se trouvait brusquement réduit au

— 55 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936 silence. Selon les biographies officielles, ce silence lui a permis de méditer sur son devoir de compositeur soviétique et cela durant quinze mois puisqu’il ne reprend la plume que le 18 avril 1937 pour écrire, en trois mois, sa 5e Symphonie, op. 47, dont la création à Leningrad, le 21 novembre 1937, va remporter un énorme triomphe, suivi après deux mois d’hésitations, de l’approbation du régime qui à la veille de la première à Moscou, le 29 janvier 1938, fait de la symphonie « une réponse créatrice de l’artiste à de justes critiques ». Contrairement à ce que l’on écrit encore souvent ces mots ne sont pas de Chostakovitch, mais on été publiés, sans signature, dans le journal du soir Vechernyaya Moskva. Le régime saluait ainsi le retour du fils égaré tout comme un an auparavant, un autre fils encore bien plus prodigue, Prokofiev, était revenu au bercail du socialisme après 18 années en Occident. Victoire complète du Parti donc, qui met ainsi au pas ses deux plus grands compositeurs. En réalité, cette histoire n’est qu’apparemment vraie car, quelques mois seulement après sa condamnation, Chostakovitch avait bel et bien repris la plume, d’abord pour achever sa 4e Symphonie, op. 43 mais par prudence, il la retirera des répétitions et elle ne sera créée que 25 ans plus tard. Durant l’été 1936, Chostakovitch entama une autre partition sur le grand poème dramatique Les démons de Pouchkine, dont le centenaire de la mort devait être commémoré en 1937, mais sans l’achever. Il reprend Pouchkine en décembre pour composer en quelques semaines ses Quatre romances sur des poèmes de Pouchkine, op. 46, pour basse et piano, une œuvre restée longtemps ignorée tant en Russie qu’en Europe où la première exécution n’a eu lieu qu’en 1986 à Londres. Les quatre poèmes mis ainsi en musique reflètent tout autre chose qu’une « réponse créatrice à de justes critiques ». Intitulé Renaissance, le premier d’entre eux raconte qu’une main barbare a noirci de traits insensés la toile d’un peintre de génie mais avec le temps, cette couche indigne s’écaillera et l’œuvre originale réapparaîtra dans toute sa splendeur, dissipant les déceptions de l’artiste. C’est évidemment une allégorie de la censure brutale qui a chassé Lady Macbeth et Chostakovitch de la scène musicale. Il se trouve ainsi confronté au dilemme de se soumettre ou de résister que

— 56 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936 la troisième mélodie traduit également en disant: « Une fois encore de sombres nuages se sont acummulés… Une fois encore le destin envieux me menace de ses malheurs. Vais-je défier ma destinée en lui opposant l’inflexibilité de ma fière jeunesse? ». Nous avons donc ici un témoignage sans ambiguïté sur l’état d’esprit de Chostakovitch entre sa condamnation de janvier 1936 et la composition de sa 5e Symphonie, présentée officiellement comme une œuvre de soumission. Est-elle au contraire une composition antistalinienne comme le Chostakovitch de Volkov l’avait déjà affirmé? C’est surtout la coda qui clôture la symphonie qui a alimenté cette ambivalence. Cette lente montée vers les martèlements finaux est-elle le triomphe de l’homme nouveau ou, au contraire, son écrasement par la terreur? L’incertitude quant au tempo voulu par Chostakovitch — ​lui-même souvent hésitant à ce sujet — ​et les indications contradictoires des éditions de 1939 et de 1947 ont encouragé des interprétations dans tous les sens, parfois aux frontières du raisonnable 1. Une thèse du musicologue russe Alexandre Benditsky, publiée en l’an 2000, remplace les frustrations causées par la condamnation de Lady Macbeth par celles supposées provoquées par le mariage d’Elena Konstantinovskaïa avec Roman Karmen sur la base de similtudes entre les motifs de la 5e Symphonie et ceux de l’opéra Carmen de Bizet 2. Cela paraît peu raisonnable. C’est, en effet, lui qui l’a quittée pour retourner chez son épouse et il n’est même pas certain qu’il ait eu connaissance de son mariage en Espagne avant l’achèvement de sa symphonie, le 20 juillet 1937. Nous reviendrons en fin de parcours sur ces interprétations problématiques, sans preuves suffisantes, de la musique de Chostakovitch. Il nous semble plus vraisemblable de penser qu’après s’être déchargé de son dépit dans son Opus 46, Chostakovitch, devenu conscient de ce que le temps des libertés créatrices et des innovations audacieuses était passé, s’est surtout attaché à écrire une bonne symphonie en évitant ce qui pourrait irriter et l’empêcher de revenir sur scène. Il ne modifie pas tellement son écriture mais il la dépouille des impétuosités ou des excès qui avaient dominé sa 4e Symphonie. Ce langage simplifié est caractérisé par de nombreux monologues instrumentaux, soit aux cordes, soit par un des instruments à vent, voire à la harpe ou au célesta, sur des

— 57 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936 accompagnements transparents. Ce style parlando a un impact direct sur le public, y compris occidental, qui y voit une réponse à son désir d’entendre une musique contemporaine qui lui parle au lieu de se perdre dans les dédales des renouvellements de langage. Ce succès ne fera que s’amplifier, faisant de la5e Symphonie de Chostakovitch la symphonie du XXe siècle la plus jouée et la plus enregistrée dans le monde. Ayant retrouvé confiance, Chostakovitch va être extraordinairement actif durant les trois années qui précédèrent la guerre, écrivant pas moins de huit musiques de film, mais s’essayant aussi avec son1er Quatuor, op. 49, et le Quintette pour piano, op. 57, à un genre entièrement nouveau pour lui. Enfin, une Suite pour orchestre de variétés plus connue comme Suite de jazz n°2 (mais le « jazz » se limite ici à l’emploi de quatre saxophones) contient une valse restée ignorée durant plus d’un demi-siècle avant de devenir (largement grâce à Radio Luxembourg) le « tube » que l’on sait. C’est durant cette période qu’il compose une musique de scène de King Lear sans se douter que, de tous les écrivains et poètes, Shakespeare va devenir celui qui l’occupera le plus avec deux heures et demie de musique. Enfin, il ajoute en 1939 à son catalogue une 6e Symphonie, op. 54, radicalement différente des précédentes. Débutant par un grand Largo, austère, contrapuntique, « formaliste » mais avec de magnitiques déploiements mélodiques, elle enchaîne ensuite deux mouvements trépidants avant de s’achever dans une sorte de joie générale foraine. Une telle hétérogénéité ne pouvait qu’attirer une nouvelle désapprobation. 1941—1945. SYMPHONIES DE GUERRE Les trois symphonies suivantes ont été écrites durant les années de guerre mais sans former la trilogie attendue. Une 7e Symphonie était, sans doute, déjà envisagée mais comme symphonie de guerre, elle a été entamée un mois à peine après l’invasion du 22 juin 1941. Trois mouvements étaient déjà achevés le 1er octobre lorsque Chostakovitch et sa famille furent évacués par avion de Leningrad assiégée. Trois semaines plus tard, ils arrivèrent à Kouïbychev (aujourd’hui Samara) à 860 km au sud-est de Moscou. C’est là qu’il termina, le 27 décembre, la symphonie qui s’appellera désormais « Leningrad » et fera bientôt le tour du monde: le 5 mars 1942 à Kouïbychev, le 29 mars à Moscou, le

— 58 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936

22 juin, jour anniversaire de l’attaque allemande, à Londres et à la radio britannique, le 19 juillet par Toscanini à New York, radiodiffusée dans toute l’Amérique, le 9 août 1942 à Leningrad même, toujours invaincue. Cétait la première fois qu’une œuvre musicale était simultanément dans deux continents avant même qu’on ne connaisse l’issue des événements dramatiques qu’elle célèbre. Elle contribuait ainsi à soutenir la confiance en une victoire encore incertaine. Commencée en juillet 1942, la bataille de Stalingrad ne s’achèvera qu’au début février 1943. Cinq mois plus tard, Chostakovitch entame une 8e Symphonie, op. 65 qui aurait pu recevoir le nom de « Stalingrad » mais, bien que musicalement très supérieure, elle connaîtra plus les reproches que les approbations. Alors que la bataille de Koursk s’est ajoutée à celle de Leningrad rendant l’issue finale de la guerre évidente, la8e Symphonie, op. 65, est dénuée de triomphalisme, s’achèvant morendo dans une sorte de sérénité insouciante. La guerre n’est pourtant pas absente, c’est même la plus belle symphonie de guerre qui lui ait jamais été consacrée, avec un troisième mouvement terrifiant qui en symbolise toute l’horreur et un grand Iargo en forme de passacaille qui en célèbre les victimes de façon particulièrement émouvante. Là est bien le nœud du problème, c’est une symphonie contre la guerre, la symphonie des victimes plutôt celle des bientôt vainqueurs attendue. L’œuvre restera peu jouée jusqu’à ce qu’elle soit officiellement condamnée en 1948. En janvier 1945, la victoire ne fait plus de doute. Grâce à un manuscrit datant des premiers mois de 1945, découvert en 2003, nous savons que Chostakovitch a entamé une symphonie pour grand orchestre susceptible d’achever une trilogie consacrée à la guerre. Selon plusieurs témoignages de l’époque, il en fait clairement mention, montre même des fragments mais dit aussi son inquiétude qu’à cause du nombre 9 et la présence de solistes et de chœurs, elle fasse l’objet de comparaisons défavorables. Ces hésitations se reflètent dans un premier abandon de la partition, sa reprise au mois de mai, puis son abandon définitif après la 332e mesure, soit environ sept minutes de musique qui ont été publiées sous le titre Symphony Fragment of 1945 en 2008. Le niveau de cette musique n’atteint visiblement pas celui des deux symphonies précédentes et on comprend assez bien que Chostakovitch ait renoncé

— 59 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936

à la nécessaire surenchère d’exaltation et d’emphase d’une symphonie de la victoire. C’est d’ailleurs une constante des symphonies de Chostakovitch, chaque partition symphonique nouvelle se distinguant nettement de celle qui la précède 3. Chostakovitch entame ainsi à la mi-juillet 1945, deux mois après la fin de la guerre, une 9e Symphonie, op. 70 totalement différente. Achevée dès le 22 août, elle est moitié moins longue que les précédentes et se déroule dans un climat d’insoucience joyeuse. Elle fut d’abord bien accueillie par la critique de Leningrad et de Moscou qui salua sa « légèreté mozartienne » et le retour de l’humour et du grotesque dans la musique de Chostakovitch. Quelques semaines plus tard, les discussions au sein de l’Union des compositeurs prirent toute autre tournure car c’était évidemment une « Symphonie de la victoire » que l’on avait attendue et non autant d’indifférence désinvolte vis-à-vis du drame qui venait de s’achever. La revue de l’Union, Sovietskaya Muzika, fit cependant un compte-rendu modéré des débats et la symphonie fut même mise sur la liste des candidats pour un Prix Staline 1946 mais, contrairement à la Symphonie « Leningrad », elle ne l’obtint pas. La 9e Symphonie ne fut pas oubliée pour autant lorsqu’au début de 1948 s’ouvrit le procès des musiciens « formalistes ». Chostakovitch écrivit encore une autre partition de guerre à la fin de 1946, son 3e Quatuor, op. 73 dont les cinq mouvements se trouvèrent affublés, lors de la création, de titres explicites mais une fois l’œuvre approuvée, Chostakovitch s’empressa de les supprimer de la copie envoyée à l’imprimeur. Durant l’été de 1947, Chostakovitch commença la composition d’un grand Concerto pour violon destiné au violoniste David Oïstrakh qui avait remporté brillamment au printemps 1937 le premier prix du nouveau concours de violon Eugène Isaye organisé à l’instigation de la reine Élisabeth de Belgique, mais des événements dramatiques vinrent brusquement interrompre son travail au début de 1948. 1948. NOUVELLE CONDAMNATION — ​DES ŒUVRES D’INSPIRATION JUIVE Chostakovitch et Prokofiev vont connaître, en effet, non pas des jours mais des mois de cauchemar à la suite de la lecture et de la

— 60 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936 discussion au Kremlin d’un rapport sur la situation de la musique soviétique. En tirant les conclusions du « débat », le 12 janvier 1948, Andreï Jdanov désigne clairement « un groupe des promoteurs de la tendance formaliste en musique, une orientation fondamentalement fausse ». Le 10 février, un décret du Comité Central vint confirmer les condamnations en mentionnant six noms dont ceux de Chostakovitch et Prokofiev, mais la mention « et d’autres » ouvrait la porte à d’autres sanctions. L’Union des compositeurs organisa du 17 au 26 février des réunions pour tirer les conclusions qui s’imposaient à la profession. Ce fut pour tous les jaloux et médiocres l’occasion rêvée de mettre à terre leurs collègues plus talentueux, car quel autre sens pouvaient avoir de tels débats quand une Prikaz n° 17, c’est-à-dire une ordonnance du Conseil des ministres, avait déjà fixé d’autorité la liste des musiques interdites d’exécution de treize compositeurs, Chostakovitch en tête. De ses neuf symphonies, trois seulement restaient autorisées, les numéros 1, 5 et 7 (Leningrad), mais certains organisateurs évitèrent même d’encore programmer la 5e Symphonie. Sans doute cette liste était-elle largement l’œuvre d’un jeune compositeur qui avait été particulièrement venimeux dans ses attaques, Tikhon Khrennikov, que Jdanov nomma peu après Secrétaire général de l’Union des compositeurs, poste qu’il occupera en maitre absolu durant 44 ans car le président désigné, Boris Assafiev, déjà malade, mourra au début de 1949 et ne sera jamais remplacé. Khrennikov convoqua un second Congrès général des compositeurs du 19 au 26 avril et les attaques recommencèrent. D’autres événements, encore plus tragiques, accompagnèrent ces épreuves: le 12 janvier 1948, on annonça la mort du grand acteur Solomon Mikhoels, figure emblématique de la communauté juive et beau-père ducompositeur Moisseï (ou Miescyslaw) Weinberg, ami très proche de Chostakovitch. Mikhœls avait été envoyé à Minsk où sa mort, camouflée en accident, avait été organisée sur l’ordre de Staline. Le 20 février, Lina Codina, l’épouse dont Prokofiev venait de divorcer sur ordre du Parti, était arrêtée et elle sera condamnée à vingt ans de camp de travail. La terreur des années 30 était donc loin d’être finie et en janvier 1949 plus de 400 intellectuels et artistes juifs furent arrêtés à leur tour, dont nombre d’amis de Chostakovitch. Il se retrouve donc

— 61 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936 très seul et s’enferme dans un silence qui s’étendra sur ses nouvelles compositions puisqu’en dehors de travaux alimentaires (plusieurs musiques de film et deux cantates officielles), il met dans un tiroir les œuvres les plus importantes qu’il compose à cette époque: le 1er Concerto pour violon, op. 77, le cycle vocal De la poésie populaire juive, op. 79 et le 4e Quatuor, op. 83. Elles ne seront exécutées qu’en 1955, non sans réticences car elles sont toutes les trois d’inspiration juive et depuis 1949 le régime écarte, sous prétexte de « cosmopolitisme », tout ce qui est juif. Oïstrakh écrira même une lettre de protestation, un an après la création du concerto systématiquement banni des programmes. Il est vrai qu’il possède deux « défauts »: une danse juive dans le scherzo et une magnifique passacaille, une forme bien… formaliste. En 1943, Chostakovitch avait orchestré un petit opéra laissé inachevé par un de ses élèves, tué au début du siège de Leningrad, Benjamin Fleichman. Basé sur la nouvelle de Tchekhov, Le violon de Rotschild, il raconte une histoire de musiciens klezmorim. C’est ce type de musique si caractéristique du monde ashkénaze que reprend Chostakovitch dans son 2e Trio, op. 67 composé en 1944 sous la double impression de la mort de son ami Ivan Sollertinsky, musicologue d’origine juive, et de la découverte à Majdanek du premier camp d’extermination. Les œuvres d’inspiration juive s’échelonnent ainsi de 1944 à 1950 mais c’est le cycle de mélodies sur la poésie populaire juive qui est le plus représentatif de cette empathie car il constitue une véritable célébration du malheur juif: l’enfant mort (n° 1), berceuse de l’enfant malade (n° 2), berceuse de l’enfant dont le père est en Sibérie (n° 3), la séparation: « moi sans toi, toi sans moi » (n° 4), le rabbin dont la fille veut se convertir (n° 6), « le chant de la misère » (n° 7), l’hiver et le froid, sans avoir de quoi se chauffer (n° 8). Le 25 septembre 1948, jour de son anniversaire, Chostakovitch invita, comme chaque année, quelques amis, en particulier Miescyslaw Weinberg et son épouse Nathalie, la fille de Mikhœls, le couple Richter (le pianiste et la cantatrice Nina Dorliak qu’il venait d’épouser), et, enfin, deux autres chanteurs. Chostakovitch voulait, en effet, leur faire entendre huit mélodies pour soprano, contralto et ténor sur des poésies populaires juives qu’il venait de composer. Dans la conversation qui suivit, on fit remarquer qu’une suite de mélodies aussi sombres

— 62 — Frans C. Lemaire. D’une condamnation à l’autre1932—1936 n’avait aucune chance d’être autorisée. Chostakovitch ajouta alors trois mélodies sur des poèmes contemporains qui chantent le bohneur des Juifs dans les kolkhozes ou la fierté des parents juifs dont les enfants ont pu devenir médecins. Ainsi tout finit bien grâce au régime soviétique. Pour éviter des difficultés, les textes des premières mélodies sont modifiés à deux endroits: le père est en Sibérie mais par la faute du tsar, c’est donc un bon révolutionnaire, et la fille du rabbin qui veut se convertir au christianisme devient la fille d’un chiffonnier qui veut quitter son vieux père pour épouser un officier de police. En 1964, une version avec orchestre fut créée non pas à Leningrad ou Moscou, mais bien loin, à Gorki (aujourd’hui Nijni-Novgorod) et la partition ne fut publiée qu’en 1982. Chostakovitch était mort depuis sept ans. Malgré l’évidence des faits, la biographie américaine publiée en l’an 2000 par Laurel E. Fay 4 s’est efforcée de minimiser l’importance des œuvres juives de Chostakovitch en rattachant le cycle De la poésie populaire juive aux recommandations de l’Union des compositeurs de s’inspirer davantage du riche patrimoine musical populaire des républiques soviétiques. C’est ignorer délibérément le nombre, la diversité et le contexte dramatique de ces pages, sans parler du peu d’empressement du régime à les laisser exécuter ou éditer. Il existait cependant encore une quatrième partition, parmi celles restées cachées, une cantate pour quatre basses et piano intitulée Rayok, écrite visiblement dans un moment de colère après la condamnation de 1948.

ENDNOTES

1 Rostropovitch dirigeait la coda finale deux fois plus lentement qu’il n’est indiqué sur la partition ou que Mravinski et Kondrachine ne le faisaient du vivant de Chostakovitch. 2 Un premier rapprochement avait été fait en 1967 par un professeur du Conservatoire de Moscou, Leo Mazel, sur la base de la habanera de Carmen, « l’amour est un oiseau rebelle ». Il s’agit d’une descente chromatique de 18 notes avec répétitions dont le motif de Chostakovitch ne reflète que les six premières sans répétitions. 3 La seule exception confirmant la règle est la 12e Symphonie « 1917 », op. 112, deuxième symphonie à programme succédant à la 11e Symphonie « 1905 ». En dehors d’une intégrale des symphonies elle est pratiquement abandonnée, tant au concert qu’en enregistrement. 4 Laurel E. Fay, Shostakovich, A Life, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 169.

— 63 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Best in the World”

Olga V. Kostina Ph.D. in Art History, SeniorResearcher of the State Institute for Art Studies (SIAS) e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia “THE MOSCOW METRO IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD”

Summary: The Moscow Metro, which is known as the “most beautiful in the world”, has become a kind of a symbol of a socialist utopia. The author examines certain aspects of the evolvement and development of the ideological, design and image concepts of metro engineering in 1930—1950. The article includes an “Attachment” with the author’s interviews with both those, who designed and built the first lines and their family members. Keywords: the Moscow Metro, station, aboveground metro pavilion, platform, tunnel, facing, mosaic panel, sculpture. “The Moscow Metro is the Best in the World” — ​this was the title of a brochure by the American engineer John Morgan1 (by the way, he was awarded with the Order of Red Banner of Labor for advising the construction of the underground roads), published in Moscow in 1935 in connection with the opening of the first subway line. Over 80 years of metropolitan functioning, the underground architecture of metro stations and ground pavilions evolved, changed its stylistic qualities, but never ceased to be a “miracle of technology and a miracle of art” in the minds of the people. This was confirmed by the exhibition “The Moscow Metro. Underground monument of architecture”, held from 17 March to 31 July 2016 in the State Museum of Architecture named after A. V. Shchusev. The exposition has demonstrated unique ideological, constructive and imaginative concept of Russian subway construction. An almost 400- page catalogue was published for the exhibition — ​serious, richly illustrated collective research2. This exhibition and the publication

— 64 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World” prepared for it drew attention to a special branch of architecture, where the exterior, or rather, the facade is separate from the interior; often they are not connected (for example, I. A. Fomin’s underground hall and N. A. Ladovsky’s ground pavilion in the station “Krasnye Vorota”) neither compositionally nor stylistically. Where functionality is subordinated to ideological and semantic image. And where the leitmotif of the road is not the basis of plastic solutions of the stations — ​it is interesting that at examination of the projects of the first stage all proposals that had a little resemblance to the train stations were rejected. Moscow Metro gained fame as “the most beautiful in the world” and became the architectural symbol of the embodied socialism. The Metro emerged as a necessity. It was constantly branching out and expanding, metro ways are now in fact the main tool for solving transport problems in the capital. Entered into the consciousness of the people as an image of the industrial progress of the country, the metro has never belonged only to art sphere. Moreover, it is impossible to consider it only from the standpoints of art problems. Metro is a very complex socio-cultural phenomenon, the study of which should be carried out in different aspects: historical, political, sociological, philosophical, art, engineering. Especially now, it becomes evident, when in a new way, thanks to the opening of socio-historical facts, many pages of the history of Soviet art are displayed, when prevailing hierarchy of aesthetic values collapses, ​​when the dramatic reality of the complex and multi-faceted process begins to be opposed to designed and consecrated by the official tradition myth about the development of Russian culture of the XX century. The exhibition held in MUAR confirmed it. It has made an enormous contribution to the systematization of a whole fact-related history, which concerned the history of design and construction of the Moscow Metro, and demonstrated the composition and the features of development of a new branch of Russian architecture, revealed creative personalities, clarified the chronology. In this article, I want to highlight some points related to the image-bearing character of the first stations. In 1931, scientific and creative group of “Metrostroy” was organized, which gave a precise analysis of the character of hydrogeological and geological conditions. It presented the draft project of the subway lines,

— 65 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World” compiled in versions for small and deep foundations. March 21, 1933 by the Decree of People’s Commissars of the USSR the scheme of the Moscow subway lines length of 80.3 km, which had 10 radii, was approved. May 15, 1935 at 7:00 am Moscow Metro — ​the first line, which stretched “from Sokolniki to the Park,” as Leonid Utesov sang in the “Song of an old cab” — ​was open for public use. The Metro conquered prestige instantly. Interestingly, images of self- presentation of the country carrying an emphasized ideological load were not initially contacted not with underground, but with ground and celestial spaces. The image of socialism appeared to be an image of a holiday, prosperity, and progress forward and upward. At this time, the sky irresistibly attracts people. Training flights and skydiving are not only popular kinds of sport, but they indicate new scopes of life, new opportunities in the conquest of nature by a man. The flying clubs were organized everywhere and the dream of a widespread air transport seems to be realized in their activities. It is interesting that the most daring transport fantasies of urbanists-futurists in the 1920s were closely related exactly with celestial, and not the underground roads. Aspiration to the sky, a breakthrough in the airspace was the most striking feature of the “main building” of the country — ​the Palace of the Soviets. Man’s claim to the aerial sphere expressed in it with hypertrophic force, capturing as an ideological category. It is significant that during the period of 1931—1934, in the course of the competitive design and on the stage of development of the adopted version, the Palace of the Soviets grows in its vertical dimensions and in the latter project, it soars as high into the sky that seems to connect with it3. The new style of architecture forms based on discussions on the character of the Palace — ​ the building, the earthly power of which subjugates even the air element. The attitude to the metro was much more prosaic and down-to- earth from the very beginning. However, it was up to it (including such ensembles as the Moscow-Volga Canal and VSHV), rather than the Palace of the Soviets, which remained unfulfilled, to form in the minds of the masses an image of the achievements of socialism. In the early 1930s, a draft of a new General plan of the capital works up, and even before its approval metrostroy had to coordinate

— 66 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

the location of stations and vestibules with the existing and projected buildings, with red lines of the developing plan. City-forming units mainly determined the appearance of the first metro lines. Therefore, for example, the station “Palace of the Soviets” (now the “Kropotkinskaya”, architect. A. N. Dushkin, Ja. G. Lichtenberg), which was supposed to be connected to the entrance hall of the Palace and would have been a kind of introduction to the image of the future majestic building, was under the aimed attention of both designers, and controlling authorities. The construction of the first line goes on in the meantime when in the name of “New Moscow”, in accordance with Stalin’s General Plan, approved in 1935, historic buildings are mercilessly destroyed in the capital. Places of worship become first terrestrial victims. In the future, metro stations would partly take their functions — ​luxuriously decorated underground spaces with mosaic and relief “iconostasis” in the ends and wall paintings in the vaults of the halls. The main concern when designing the interiors of stations was to overcome the dungeon feeling. When the architects had to deal with terrestrial objects, pavilions, they tried to identify the functional specificity of these buildings: “The pavilions must first of all correspond to their intended purpose — ​to serve as entrances and exits of the metro, and then they must have such characteristic features that could have made … it not similar neither to houses, nor to monuments, nor to kiosks for the sale of fruit plants or receiving information”4. Initially, the authors did not set a goal to strike with some special “chic” in the artistic interpretation of underground halls and ground vestibules. According to the preserved projects, you can imagine how the architects have seen the appearances of their future stations. They depict the space of metro stations not luxurious, but comfortable, cozy, and sometimes even a kind of “domesticated”. Compared with chilly cosmic design thinking of the 20s, this intimacy of the images is particularly striking. It is characteristic, that the station is often depicted with human figures, and sometimes — ​literally crowded by people. Thorough narration in the image on the projects of interior space of metro stations — ​whether emphasized as everyday, or festive — ​ evidences of an effort to stabilize the life of the citizens of the new

— 67 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World” state. This seems to be a manifestation of a new, oppositional to the revolutionary romanticism of the 20-ies, socio-cultural utopia. In accordance with practical considerations, a metro station is a shelter, and therefore, it must have the features of the interior. This position was not questioned and discussed. However, I must say, that it caused a bewilderment of the bystanders. It is known, that the Danish architect Heiberg in his speech at the I Congress of Soviet Architects wondered about the decision “in the spirit of an intimate interior (my italics — ​O. K.) ” of the metro station “Kiev railway station”, which was commissioned in the second stage. Especially outstanding the interior character of the metro stations was displayed next to the other, no less massive object — ​the Moscow-Volga Canal: “After the architecture of the metro, which revealed the problems of the interior architecture so diverse and profoundly, Volga-channel widely developed only the architecture of the exterior in the nature”5. It is significant that at the All-Union creative meeting of architects, which was held on May 20—23, 1935, that is, immediately after the metro opened its doors, its architecture, estimated overall on a very high level, does not receive any detailed analysis, or even the conceptual understanding. What strikes most of all, it is the fact that in architecture issues of the stations the problem of space is not allocated in any way, which is the most interesting, pointed and truly world viewing for the professionals. The main attention is paid to the issues of decoration. Without exception, every article of the 1930-ies, dedicated to the metro of the first lines, has not merely descriptive, but a protocol character, listing costs and quality of the material for facing of the pylons, columns or line walls. It seems that the problem of facing (for that high-quality materials were used — ​marble, granite, labradorite, porphyry, marblit, glazed tiles, and others) — ​the question of questions for the architects. The attention to it has been caused not only by ambition — ​“the desire to make the Moscow Metro the most beautiful in the world, but also by the direct requirements of the exploitation to create such surfaces, which could be resistant against dampness, would be easy to clean and to wash, would not allow to accumulate dust and were not subjected to rapid wear out”6. The architects themselves speak and write with

— 68 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

surprising constancy: “The competition for the architectural adornment of the stations”, “underground metro vestibules … dressed in the most precious facing materials” (my italics — ​O. K.)7. The most popular spatial zones of Moscow, reconstructed on the Master Plan of 1935, were parks and squares — ​places of the “cultural activities”. Something similar happens to the metro underground halls — ​ they are not “intermediate” spaces, but the places of relaxation for people who are tired of the hardships of communal everyday life. The ground pavilions of the stations of the first line have, overwhelmingly, a park character, doing their prominent role in the design of the “facade” of the capital and having a purpose to generate a festive, joyful feeling of a man in it. It is the perception of the metro, partly contradicting the images of the stations of the first stage, which embodied in Lazar Kaganovich’s words, spoken from the governmental tribune: “… every station is a palace, every palace is particularly designed”8. However, exactly these words were raised in the rank of the norm for the future work of architects. Hence, the attention to adornment and its details that will emerge in the course of further development of the underground halls of the stations architecture. Not only escalator halls, platforms, large architectural divisions, but also openwork air vents, armature of the lamps, sculptural decoration acquires an independent role. The volumetric fretwork in the form of ornaments and figurative images complements the architecture, but even sometimes substitute its parts, coming into conflict with the function. For example, the “bouquets” of the capitals, made in glazed porcelain and painted red with gold pattern on the “Kievskaya” station (Filevskaya line). Many expensive materials (marble, onyx, porcelain, majolica, glass), is used there to excess, it generates a diversity of color system and the granularity of the overall impression. However, unrestrained character of decorative artist’s imagination was perceived in the order of things at that time; on this occasion, even the author himself, D. N. Chechulin, apparently feeling that it was “enough over the edge”, wonders: “The station “Kievskaya”… has long been in exploitation. But no one and nowhere … has ever said a word about this building. We have finished with the polite applause … The station “Kievskaya” has a number of imperfections, but these

— 69 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

imperfections have not been discussed … and it may happen that they will enter the next job on the metro already as “dignities”. These words were truly prophetic. The fear of emptiness, becoming to the end of the 30s one of the main landmarks of the architectural vocabulary, forcefully expressed later in the metro. For example, in the “Ploschad Revolutsii” station are hoisted the statues depicting the representatives of different classes and groups of the society, in the measure of more than nature, in bowed down poses — ​as if purposely in order to clutter the passageways leading to the platform. This lack of tectonics in the decoration of the space contradicts the architect’s project. A. N. Dushkin’s idea was fundamentally different: the arcs of clearly plotted arches connecting the pylons, and bronze reliefs in their corners should have been “crushed” the bodies of supports, making visually easier the construction of the station. The replacement of the reliefs with M. G. Manizer’s figures radically modified the system of relations between the elements of the ensemble. Now it is not plastic that “serves” to the architecture, but the architecture serving to the plastic. The socle of a pylon turns into a pedestal for statuary compositions, the archivolts of arches — ​into their framings, and the entire station as a whole — ​into the sculpture museum on a strictly given topic. Questions of monumental sculpture development were discussed at the First Congress of Architects. Sketches of monuments and decoration of buildings predominate in sculpture expositions. At the end of 1934, the meeting on the problems of the synthesis of spatial arts is organized, and in 1936, gets published a collection, including materials of that meeting9. All the major constructions of these years — ​the Palace of the Soviets, Moscow-Volga Canal, VSHV, Soviet pavilions at the international exhibitions in Paris and New York, the Moscow Metro — ​ “are transcribed” through sculpture. It explains the architectural subject associated with the approval of the idea of citizenship, patriotism, national power in public buildings. Visible objectification of these concepts is an obligatory prerequisite for the required “realism and truth” in architecture. Moreover, if the appearance of an “architectural Peredvizhnichestvo”, i. e. purely literary interpretation of architectural themes with some admixture of “moralizing”10 is alarming in 1934, at

— 70 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

the end of the decade architectural and literary analogies are becoming a norm in architecture characteristic11. Just like all other arts, it was supposed to talk about the heroic past, beautiful present and excellent future. However, unlike other arts, which can choose between a biased or free, even if it becomes “underground” way of development, architecture had no variants. Master, even very talented, had increasingly many difficulties to express his individuality. Getting an “arithmetic mean” in the art, based on the collective perception and common understanding, is guaranteed by the collective artistic thought. Therefore, for example, in approving to the construction of such representative object as the hotel “Moscow”, the success of the company is ensured by adding of L. I. Savelyev’s, O. A. Stapran’s and A. V. Shchusev’s creative wills; B. M. Iofan’s initiative in his work on the Palace of the Soviets joins with V. A. Shuko’s and V. D. Gelfreich’s forces; even the artists’ words have no individual authorship — ​the reports for all major architectural meetings are prepared collectively. The architecture of the metro, with a few exceptions, was also the result of a collective work, in addition, ripening often under the supervision of a reputable consultant. However, there was another way in the design and construction of the second stage — ​on the “Mayakovskaya” station by A. N. Dushkin. The way to overcome the stereotype has had time to take root — ​the interior “frosting” type of space in the station hall. Indeed, “Mayakovskaya” is similar to the street of the underground city with all its surprising variety of functional and spatial ties. Nevertheless, constructive and imaginative idea, which was put here, was not destined to develop. It was not destined as well to continue N. A. Ladovsky’s dynamic concept of metro roads, which embodied in the architectural solution of “Dzerzhinskaya” station (now the “Lubyanka” station), or I. G. Taranov’s dream of a double-decker interchange junctions. All these ideas took the architectural thought to the sphere of qualitatively new spatial and urban coordinates. However, the tendency of transformation a station into a “piece-goods”, in the “casket”, decorated inside, prevailed. The architecture of “Mayakovskaya” station adapted itself to the conditions of time by using the mosaic plafonds (artist A. A. Deineka), by the way, which were carried out on a high artistic level, it has as though

— 71 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

camouflaged its constructive “dissent”. This is the least reproach to the author, designer of the station. The drama of the art situation was not only in the dictate of the external environment, but also the conditions of social order became an internal condition of creativity of almost every master. In addition, it is noteworthy that the next-stage A. N. Dushkin’s work, the “Avtozavodskaya” station (then “Factory named after Stalin”, or “ZYS”), is completely devoid of any kind attempts to compromise. The eye of a contemporary Muscovite brought up on the “density” of forms of the inner space of the metro, feels even the lack of visual “food” here. The artist relies on the expressiveness of the “frame”, which vertical expression is suggested by the natural dynamics of plant forms. Author as it creates a new variation of the “Palace of the Soviets” grand interior, just the image of “Avtozavodskaya” station is more rational and cold. There can be no accurate sense of “human” scale. However, there is an opposition to the style of the time and ponderous historical and architectural imitations. In 1938, after examination of student projects in the Moscow Architectural Institute, V. A. Vesnin stated the fact that they “wear a style costume, style dress, just rented in the theatrical wardrobe atelier!12” Therefore, the “style costume” — ​that is the best definition to the overall decorative appearance of the majority of the stations of the third stage. They, like all socially important facilities of that time, demonstrated the principle of the museum and theatrical expressiveness of architecture. Therefore, ceremonial avenues, majestic portals and suites of rooms of the projected Palace of the Soviets, exhibition pavilions in Paris and New York included a man in the architectural and theatrical “action” and the programmed the reading of the image sense. Projects of the towns, destroyed during the war, the work on which was carried out since 1944, also have features of scenography. Cathedral and choral, “odic” basis of an image expressed by all available for plastic arts techniques — ​architectural detailing, decorative fretworks, sculptural and pictorial and mosaic images, that is all that was hailed as a “synthesis of the arts” at the end of the 1930s, but was branded as “excesses” in 50s and 60s already. This concept entered the lexicon soon after the war and it was recorded in the directive

— 72 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

documents. “An aspiration for pomp and immoderate “richness of forms”, “bad taste demonstration”, “unproductive waste of resources”, “unreasonable excesses” — ​these phrases sounded at a meeting of the asset of Moscow architects in 194813. But the metro has not received any of these criticisms for the time being. As extraordinary objects, metro stations were long beyond criticism zone, and excessive ornamentation of their decoration was regarded as “the growth of the art synthesis”14. It is significant that of all the stations of the circle line the “Serpukhovskaya” (now the “Dobryninskaya”) station was one of the most reserved, it was even blamed for its “primitive” and “uniformity”15. Decorative splendor of public interior was more relevant to the preferences of mass taste than, for example, taciturn plastic expressiveness of the “Serpukhovskaya” station. Disorder of the life during the war gave rise to the dream of a “beautiful” life after the war end. It has fully manifested in the construction and architectural decoration of the circle metro line. Hypertrophy of a part was one of the features of manifestation of decoration self-sufficiency. The natural beauty of the traditional decoration of the metro — ​marble facing is dwarfed by man-made elegance of separate fragments of the interior. Much attention is focused on the expressiveness of a multi-profile eaves (“Komsomolskaya”, “Kurskaya” stations), fretwork of caissons and girth arches of the vaults (“Belorusskaya”, “Kalujskaya”, “Krasnopresnenskaya” stations), decoration of the pylons (“Kievskaya”, “Botanichesky Sad” — ​now “Prospect Mira”), patterns of the floor (“Kalujskaya”, “Belorusskaya” stations). Walls and ceilings are covered with mosaic and ceramic panels, inserted into luxury cartouches (“Komsomolskaya”, “Kievskaya”, “Taganskaya” stations), stained-glass windows, framed by twisted metal frame (“Novoslobodskaya”), polychrome marble inlay (“Paveletskaya”). Projects of the lighting fixtures are mainly created by the authors of the stations and developed in an organized in Metrostroy during the war shop of lighting fixtures and art casting. Refined by the forms chandelier, ceiling lamps, floor lamps and sconces illuminate the hall regularly, or snatch some of its fragments, reflected the light on smalt and majolica surfaces, showing decorations of pylons, cornices, vaults.

— 73 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

No matter how can be interpreted the pursuit of excesses in the décor of details in the metro and however evaluate this trend, but exactly this fact makes Moscow Metro the richest museum of the material culture of the epoch.

ATTACHMENT

How the images of stations were born

Tamara Dushkina, a musician The most favorite station of my husband, an architect Alexei N. Dushkin was the “Palace of the Soviets” station, his “firstborn”, created in collaboration with Ya. G. Lichtenberg. He joined the design in 1934. The solution was found quickly. Alexei Nikolaevich, as he told me, “saw” the underground hall in kind at once. The next station “Ploschad Revolutsii” was meant to be not with round sculpture, but bas-reliefs. Alexei Nikolaevich fought for his idea, considering that the figures would clutter the space. However, the young architect could not win the battle against the venerable sculptor: an academician M. G. Manizer was stronger. In 1936—1937, the design of “Mayakovskaya” station went on. Alexei Nikolaevich read and reread the poet’s works, asked me to play him now Bach, now Prokofiev. An image that was born could have had name of “steel”. During the approval of the project, he had many worries; the new material, which was never used in the architecture, scared everyone. Some said that Dushkin was a madman with all his projects and ideas. Alexei Nikolaevich turned to an aircraft designer A. I. Putilov, who helped to convince the “Metrostroi” leadership and higher authorities in the possibility of the use of steel in the decoration of the station. “Mayakovsky Square” has become famous all over the world. It “sounds” to me; and in the music of its rhythms, I hear the “steel” sounds of Prokofiev concerts.

— 74 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

Alexey Nikolaevich united architecture and music, considering them as related arts. He adored the music. Bach, Beethoven, Rakhmaninov gave birth to the inspiration, intentions, the desire to create. Such less- known by the masses work, as “Prelude in E-flat minor” by Bach, according to the legend, written by the composer to his wife’s death, with his clear sadness and little motion squared off in the moments of anxiety and unrest, healthily influenced on Alexei Nikolaevich. I remember well how did the work on the project “ZYS” (now -”Avtozavodskaya”) station went. Alexei Nikolaevich, having made a few sketches, which did not satisfy him, put off the work and went deep into K. A. Timiryazev’s book “Life of a plant”. When I asked why he needed it, he did not really answer, just asked to play him Bach fugue. When he has finished reading the book, he sat down at the board. He made eleven variants of the station project. Then he chose the only one that came to life. For me, the image of the station is polyphonic and musical. When descending the escalator, columns appear in the sight one by one, and then they seem to merge into a single “sound” — ​as the last chord in the cadence. Unfortunately, modern lamps, installed instead of the author’s chandeliers, violated the harmony and beauty of the underground hall. Almost simultaneously with the work on the “ZYS” station Alexei Nikolaevich was captured by the image of another station, hoping to use in it such unusual for the underground material as glass. He made a sketch after a sketch with no precise address. He went on a stained glass factory in Riga and brought the samples. He laid them in different combinations, studied, reflected. But the war broke out and pushed back for several years the implementation of Dushkin’s dream. Only in the early 1950s, together with the young architect A. F. Strelkov a project of “Novoslobodskaya” station was created, where it became possible to realize the “fabulous” idea of ​​the pre-war years. Colored stained glass windows were made based on A. D. Korin’s sketches. I know that Muscovites called this station “Stone Flower”. At the time of “Novoslobodskaya” designing A. N. Dushkin was working on another three objects — ​railway stations in Simferopol and Sochi, high-rise building at the Krasniye Vorota, as well as on

— 75 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

the competitive project “Volga-Don” Canal. In the future Alexey Nikolaevich did not design metro stations. The last ten years of his career, he was the chief architect of the institute “Metrogiprotrans”, constantly advised the construction of the metro in Kiev, Leningrad, Tbilisi. After retiring, Dushkin switched to lecturing at the Moscow Architectural Institute. Even then, the architects of the metro often turned to him for advice. He has never refused. O. V. Kostina recorded conversation with T. D. Dushkina in the middle of 1980s.

Not a “Subway”, but the underground palaces

Nadejda Bykova, an architect I graduated from the VHUTEMAS (for the years of my studies it became VHUTEIN) in the same period when they started to design the metro. In 1932, I worked in the architectural office “Metrostroy”. S. M. Kravets directed this office. At first, we were young architects and designed not the stations, but other Metrostroy objects — ​canteens, accommodation. Soon I began to work on the “Sokolniki” station, and later took part in the competition for this station. Of the seven competing projects, the joint project was approved — ​made by I. G. Taranov and me. V. A. Schuko and V. D. Gelfreich were appointed as our consultants. I have worked for the Metro with Ivan Georgievich Taranov, who later became my husband but the “Sokolniki” station always remained our favorite one. We both tended to asceticism of form, and in the “Sokolniki” station strove for simplicity: simple columns, simple capitals, and simple solutions of the wall. Such character of the images was dictated by the overall style of the first line construction, which seems to me a very integrated. Such integrity remained also on the second line, and “excesses” began with the third line. The only thing that failed in the “Sokolniki” station — ​was to keep provided by the project marble facing. We have designed the yellow marble — ​the station was supposed to be bright, sunny. However, there was no such stone, and

— 76 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

we were offered a gray “Ufaley”. This marble has a very beautiful pattern — ​I remember that some of the journalists wrote that thanks to the marble facing waves roll on the station. My second object — ​“Belorusskaya-radial”. It was the only station, which I did without I. G. Taranov. My co-author was N. N. Andrikanis with whom we studied together in the VHUTEMAS. The competition for the “Belorusskaya” was numerous –about 13 projects took part in it. Our project won. Here we had a beautiful marble — ​purple with dark streaks “Birobidzhan”, gray “Ufaley” and black “Davalu”. Variation of these three primary colors helped to overcome the feeling of “underground”. We wanted the Muscovites to enter the underground palaces after a hard day, which would be flooded with light, so in their way they did not lose a happy, festive feeling. My third station, which I made again with I. G. Taranov was “Novokuznetskaya”. An academician Ivan Vladislavovich Zholtovsky advised us. It was an artist with an unusually delicate taste. He could easily accept the young author’s opinion, and tactfully, without imposing his decisions, give a valuable advice. At Zholtovsky’s suggestion marble benches with volutes appeared on the “Novokuznetskaya”. He supported our idea of installing​​ a number of lamps along the centerline of the underground hall, approved a drawing of the vault, the subject of which we have borrowed from the Roman Valeria tombs. We finished “Novokuznetskaya” during the war. Architectural details prepared for it were hidden in the basement. My husband returned to Moscow from evacuation earlier than I did. In a letter he wrote me that he found the remaining irrelevant A. A. Deineka’s beautiful mosaic ceilings, intended to be on the “Paveletskaya” station, and that he wants to apply them to our station. I did not want to burden an easy vault with the mosaic, but I could not dissuade my husband. When I came to Moscow, the ceilings have already been installed. I remember the work on the “Belorusskaya-circular”. Typically, high marble, about two meters high, pylons were built on the metro stations, and then was a small vault. In the “Belorusskaya-circular” Taranov and me, we decided to do the opposite: the pylons were low, the vaults — ​ large and wide. We had many opponents, and the most aggressive were

— 77 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

builders. They believed that the low white marble pylons would not make the underground hall elegant. Nevertheless, the station was liked. We received even the Stalin Prize for it. The passage, which unites the “Belorusskaya-circular” with “the Belorusskaya-radial”, in my opinion, did not turn out very well. But the three arches that lead down to the ring line, in my opinion, has turned out to be beautiful. Artist G. I. Opryshko made them together with I. G. Taranov. My husband painted well. In his heart he was no less an artist than an architect, he was always sorry to give the decoration into the wrong hands. Opryshko was very tactful and tried to make his work correspond with Taranov’s plans. The subsequent stations — ​“VDNHa”, “Izmailovskaya”, “Schelkovskaya”, “Prospect Vernadskogo” — ​due to many factors were less bright, but they also required an enormous contribution of energy and love. Especially sad was the story of “VDNHa” station. The arches with green and gold Florentine mosaic ornament, work on which began V. A. Favorsky framed its platform hall. However, it was not a destiny for it to be realized. The decoration was banned; demouldings were painted with oil paint. I avoid getting there. However, in general, my creative life, dedicated to the metro, was happy. O. V. Kostina recorded the talk with N. A. Bykova in the middle of the 1980s.

Bykova Nadezhda Alexandrovna (1907—1997), architect, laureate of USSR State Prize. In 1930, she graduated from VHUTEMAS- VHUTEIN. From 1932 to the middle of the 1960s, she worked in Design and Research Institute “Metrogiprotrans”. Major works: the metro station “Sokolniki” (1935, joint with I. G. Taranov), “Belorusskaya- radial” (1938, joint with N. N. Andrikanis.), “Novokuznetskaya” (1943, joint with I. G. Taranov), “Belorusskaya-circular” (1954, joint with I. G. Taranov, with the participation of Z. Abramova, A. Makarova, Ya. Tatarzhinskaya, Yu. Cherepanov), “VDNHa” (1958, joint with I. G. Taranov, with the participation of Yu. Cherepanov, I. Gohar- Harmandaryan), “Sportivnaya” (1959, joint with I. G. Taranov, with

— 78 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

the participation of Yu. Cherepanov, I. Gohar-Harmandaryan), ground station vestibule “Universitet” (1959, joint with I. G. Taranov, with the participation of Yu. Cherepanov), “Izmailovskaya” (1961, joint with I. G. Taranov), “Schelkovskaya” (1963, joint with I. G. Taranov), “Prospect Vernadskogo” (1963, joint with I. G. Taranov).

Main work of the life

Andrey Taranov, architect For my father, Ivan G. Taranov, the work in the metro construction area was full of high poetic sense. His design solutions were bold and innovative. Manu objects are in Taranov’s “achievement list”. The pavilion “Mechanization” for the Agricultural Exhibition, which he did together with Viktor Andreev, was an important milestone in his life was. Nevertheless, the main area of activity for him was still the metro. Dad studied in Kharkov Polytechnic Institute, where an outstanding master S. Seraphimov directed the preparation of the architects. After graduation, his father designed the mine town in Gorlovka, and in 1932, he arrived in Moscow and began to work in the architectural bureau “Metrostroy”. He was young, energetic — ​at that time he was not yet thirty. The father was inspired by the novelty and uniqueness of the architectural problems, which arose before him, and he worked with his head plunged. Soon he became a deputy of the head of the architectural department, which was headed by S. M. Kravets. As far as I know the stories of his father’s colleagues, he was in one way or another involved in the construction of all stations of the first line. He designed the “Sokolniki” station with my mother, Nadezhda Bykova. Unfortunately, the ground vestibule failed to be done, as the authors conceived it. The pavilion was designed wider and taller, but by Kaganovich’s order, it became one and a half smaller. Now it is almost lost among the high-rise buildings. Nevertheless, its “park” nature, as it seems to me, has preserved. Father was a stranger to the local approach to the architecture of the station. He delved into all aspects of design, beginning with the

— 79 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

track laying down to such “trifles”, as mechanical screens. He did not refuse from any work for the metro, believing that “there are no small roles, there are small actors.” Incidentally, he participated in the creation of the project of the first metro car. He was the author of poster promoting the benefits of a new mode of transport. My father painted well. He developed the ornamentation of the floor for the “Belorusskaya-circular”; he sculpted decorative details and fixtures for all his stations. But, at the same time, he believed that if the sculptor’s “spoken language” is loam or plasticine, for an artist — ​a pencil drawing, then for an architect — ​a strict draft. Dad worked at home a lot, at night. He came from the work, slept two or three hours, and then sat down at the table. In the morning, he briefly fell asleep again. And so was his entire life. Sometimes late at night my father let me sit next to him, doing my homework. The projects “Belorusskaya-circular” were created in our house. First, the authorial team consisted of four people: I. G. Taranov, N. A. Bykova, Yu. A. Zenkevich and G. S. Tosunov. Our room was filled with stretchers with images of red-pylons underground vestibule, which I, a boy, really liked. In the middle of the competition, the team broke up, and parents began to make their own project with low white pylons. It won the first prize. I remember how I was sorry when awake, I saw that the red pylons disappeared from the sketches… However, in the opening day of the “Belorusskaya-circle”, its shining white made a great impression on me. Before, folk festivals accompanied the openings of the station. Real demonstrations went in the underground spaces of the Moscow metro. A powerful-modelled vault, filled with dazzling-bright reflected light attracted public attention on the “Belorusskaya” station. However, stucco molding of the ceiling, it seems to me, does not hide, but, on the contrary, emphasizes the tubing design of the station. The floor is also not less “constructive” — ​its decorative carpet, stretching from the center to the side naves, visually unites the compartments and extends the underground hall. I remember, during the opening of the station mother said to someone: “Why do you look upstairs? Look down, on the floor! “ I. G. Taranov made first attempt to give up the plaster ceiling in the “Sportivnaya” station. Such ceiling often gets wet and needs of

— 80 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

repair. Dad suggested to install a new version of a collapsible “umbrella” with the help of which, water flows into the drain gutters, and then — ​ in the special chambers. The next, more advanced version of the “umbrella” was carried out in the “Turgenevskaya” station. The ceiling there was maximum sealed — ​the “pictures”, i. e. parts of the shell of an “umbrella”, bend round a half of vault with a joint in the middle. Every father’s innovation required large energy consumption. The new “umbrella” had to be defended with the battle. If there would be an opportunity, Taranov would have gone even further in the development of his construction — ​He had interesting projects of an aluminum vault, but this idea was not supported. My father did not succeed in also in carrying out the project of a multistory building of Metropolitan Management, which included ground vestibule of the “Belorusskaya-circular” station and a powerful two-story arcade must be situated from the “Gruzinsky Val” street to the Belorussky railway station. The idea was realized in fragments: The vestibule that was built — ​it is only a “splinter” of a great architectural theme. However, the most acute Taranov’s pain was the unrealized projects of two-storey stations, which he developed throughout his life. In 1935, the father enrolled in the graduate school of the Academy of Architecture of the USSR. His dissertation work was devoted to the metro interchange junctions. In the process of this work, it seems, the idea of the​​ two-storey station appeared. Or vice versa — ​the idea was born first, and then the dissertation. This station, on my father’s plan, was always interchange junction, that is, the union of the two stations in the same space where the transfer is carried out “criss-cross”. The project was developed in detail in 1949 for the station “Kievskaya”. In accordance with this project, a model of half-meter length with moving trains and lamplights was made. Reflected in the established on the one side mirror, it looked grandiose. The model was aimed to be a present for Stalin, but for some reason has not been presented. After the “Kievskaya” station, father returned to his theme of worry when he designed an interchange junction in the “Ploschad Nogina” (now the “Kitay-Gorod”). Then he made a two-storey version for an interchange “Tverskaya” — ​“Pushkinskaya”. These projects were liked — ​they had

— 81 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World” purity of engineering and beauty of composition solutions. I remember the approval that the model of the “Ploschad Nogina” station received in the “Metrostroy”. Everyone gasped, groaned, saying: “Certainly! Sure! But — ​for the next time”. Certain construction efforts were needed for the project execution — ​my father’s plan was designed for a tunnel with the radius of 11 meters, and to the moment the radius of only 9.5 meters was already mastered. Later, my father developed a variant with this radius, but the project did not go too. Just like the project of a two-story station of shallow laying. The economic benefits of such an interchange junction would have been millions of rubles. But no one took the responsibility for the implementation of an innovative idea. My father retired with a bitter feeling. His dream remained “utopia”. I take the word in quotes because I do not consider Ivan G. Taranov’s idea to be unfeasible. Moreover, I believe that with time it will be brought to life. A. I. Taranov prepared the text in the middle of 1980s.

Taranov Andrey Ivanovich, Honored Architect of Russia, Vice- President of the Union of Moscow Architects, author of numerous buildings (in Moscow — ​Institute of Mechanics problems RAS, the Corps of Engineers of the Moscow Metro, Presnensky baths, STANKIN, neighborhood Kurkino, etc.), Vice-President of the Union of Moscow Architects, N. A. Bykova’s and I. G. Taranov’s son.

About the Metrostroy people

Tatiana Fedorova, engineer I had a good fortune to obtain a Komsomol pass to start work on the construction of the Moscow metro. My first station, where I worked first as a passager, afterwards, and then foreman of concrete masters, was the station named after Comintern (now “Alexandrovsky Sad”) — ​ maybe it is not the most beautiful, but infinitely dear one to me. The years passed. I graduated from the Institute of Railway Engineering and worked as a shift supervisor, then as the head of the

— 82 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

mining area, and in 1948, I was appointed as the head of the mine. For the first time I stepped forth in this role at the “Novoslobodskaya” construction. It was very difficult, but wonderful years of life. A unique team has formed here. We worked as one big family. It was then that fate gave me an appointment with a remarkable architect Aleksei Nikolaevich Dushkin. It was the most talented man, selflessly captivated by his work. In addition, he was very beautiful — ​tall, just an epic hero, with a “lion” gray-haired head, clear blue eyes. Being very young, he has built the “Palace of the Soviets” (now “Kropotkinskaya”) together with Ya. G. Lichtenberg — ​the best station of the first line, which has become a monument of architecture today. I live next to “Kropotkinskaya” and, going there often, I always remember Alexei Nikolaevich. He liked the mine so much, he knew well the entire construction process, and he watched carefully all the finishing works! He said: “I want the marble to be “put on” the construction as a kid-glove on the hand”. And, indeed, the marble facing on the “Novoslobodskaya” is ideal “grinded” in the walls. Experienced masters led the finishing works. Veniamin Isaakovich Shternliht directed them — ​a man, who was in love with marble, granite, and most of all — ​with people. He gathered around him talented workers, such as Konstantin Slonov, Vladimir Yaryshalov, brothers Travkiny. Modest granite master Yaryshalov was an amateur painter; he turned his house into a real museum. On “Novoslobodskaya” station, I met with Pavel Dmitrievich Korin, whom the sketches for stained glass and mosaics for the underground vestibule were ordered. Alexey Nikolaevich took him to the station in one of the winter frosty days. Korin was dressed in a warm fur coat, wrapped in a beaver collar; on the head, he had a big furry hat. When he took off his winter “armor”, struck me with some enlightened appearance: light gray suit, blue shirt and curly graying hair beautifully shading his amazing sky-blue eyes. “Well, let’s get acquainted, Tatiana Viktorovna” — ​Korin said, pressing the “o”. I was very excited: the famous artist, about which I have heard so much — ​and suddenly he will work on “my” station! We talked, sitting in the office; afterwards we took Korin to the “nature.” When we came to the trunk and climbed on a platform to descend from there

— 83 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

in a cage to the mine, Pavel Dmitrievich suddenly got shy, “Tatiana-light- Victorovna, maybe you have any other entrance. Everything here clanks, I feel a little uncomfortable…” We descended by the wooden ladders of a sloping entrance. I remember how vigorously, almost trotting, Korin ran in the large rubber boots down on the boards. And it was quite surprising how briskly he climbed in his sixty-odd years, Dushkin and me barely kept pace with him. Pavel Dmitrievich, serious, introspected, walked through the underground kingdom of our future station for a long time. Apparently, something was already picturing in his imagination. We waited patiently, trying not to distract him. Stained-glass windows on Korin’s sketches were manufactured in Riga, in the Art center “Maksla”. Pavel Dmitrievich was very pleased with the execution. A large mosaic was projected on the end wall of the station. After the approval of the sketch, where a picture of a woman surrounded by three children was placed on a rainbow background, the mosaic was started in the depot “Izmailovo”. Once, shortly before the opening of the station, we come to the station with Dushkin, Korin and the head of the “Metrostroy” Nikolai Gubankov and see: the work is painstaking, moved slowly, we could be in time. Gubankov, a remarkable engineer, doctor of technical sciences, professor, a man of a great literary erudition, was a big joker. So he said: “Pavel Dmitrievich, the woman is alone, and she has three children. She will not nourish them. Let us leave her one child. To have a time to date”. Korin protested at first, but then agreed. And when the mosaic was done, in it appeared a new shade of meaning, because of changes in the composition. Suddenly for us, and for the Korin himself, there were found similarities of female character with the Mother of God. I witnessed one day before the opening, the factory workers came to wash the station, froze in awe in front of mosaic, just about to fall to their knees. I was happy to be the director of the station where such great artists as A. N. Dushkin and P. D. Korin worked. I recall with tenderness our very first architects from “Metrostroy”, very young S. M. Kravetz, Ya. G. Lichtenberg, I. G. Taranov, N. A. Bykova, L. A. Shagurina, Yu. A. Revkovsky. They were few, and they were placed in a small room of “Metroproekt” on Kuibyshev Street. Each station for me is “animated”, inextricably fused with its author.

— 84 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

Modern architects, engineers and workers have immeasurably easier conditions than those who started to build the metro. Then, in the 30s, we went through unbeaten tracks. In addition, during that time “Metrostroi” authority laid the foundation. Before starting the construction of the Moscow metro, we invited British, French and German experts a consultant came from the United States tunnels engineer John Morgan. Tremendous forces have been thrown on the construction of the metro. More than 500 plants supplied different kinds of products. From Donbass, Georgia, the Urals gathered experienced miners. A talented engineering staff was selected. For the finishing works, we used the best kinds of marble and granite, which were sent from various republics of the Soviet Union. The construction did not stop even during the war. One of the stations of the wartime is “Novokuznetskaya”. I come at it with special trepidation. Again and again, I look at solar, joyful mosaic ceilings and remember the fate of the artist, who made it, professor at the Leningrad Academy of Arts Vladimir Alexandrovich Frolov. In the siege Leningrad, hungry and sick, he made these mosaics by A. A. Deineka sketches. He finishes the work completely exhausted. However, still conducted concrete cartouches with mosaic to Ladoga and controlled their loading. Then he died. Frolov was buried in Leningrad, at the Smolensk cemetery, in a common professors’ grave. For the feats during the Great Patriotic War of the first builders of the metro 52 people were awarded with the title “Hero of Soviet Union”. Moscow metropolitan — ​that is not only beautiful stations, but also it is also their creators, people of high moral and labor feat. O. V. Kostina recorded interview with T. V. Fedorova in the middle 80s.

Fedorova Tatyana Victorovna (1915—2001), an engineer. Honored Builder of the RSFSR, Hero of Socialist Labor. First Builder of Moscow Metro, came there after graduating from high school FSU at the call of the Komsomol. Worked as passer, foreman of concrete workers, and foreman of Stakhanov Komsomol youth brigade of minters. In 1941, she graduated from the Moscow Institute of Transport Engineers. Since 1948 to 1961, he worked as the head of the mine, and the head of SMU

— 85 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

of “Metrostroy”. Under her leadership, were built “Novoslobodskaya”, “Kievskaya-circular”, “Botanichesky Sad” (now the “Prospect Mira”), “Pervomaiskaya” stations. From 1961 to 1986, she worked as the deputy chief in “Metrostroy”, controlled the Council of Veterans of “Metrostroi” in the last years of her life.

Artistic Metro lamps. 1943—1949

Abram Damsky, engeneer, designer In the beginning of 1943, at the height of hostilities came GKO Resolution on the resumption of the construction of the metro. I was sent to the “Metrostroy” plant № 8 for the organization of a workshop for the production of lighting fixtures and art casting. The creation of this workshop in the wartime conditions, without special equipment and building, without qualified personnel was quite difficult task. We chose an unheated room, which served as a warehouse of marble. The workers were teenagers, housewives and elder men. Metalworker and fitter of a high qualification Fedor Terentevich Dashkov and young mechanic Isaichev became the mainstay of the collective. Later, I found a chaser Pyotr Isayev who had seventy years, the master with great artistic taste. From the front, without one arm, to the plant came caster Markov, with him we have built a small foundry furnace, outfitted the equipment for casting. Then Ivan Alexandrovich Gladkov appeared in the workshop, wonderful modeller, who knew the molding operation for the non-ferrous casting. In this staff, working ten hours a day, at the end of the year we were already mounting lights at the “Paveletskaya” and “Novokuznetskaya” stations. Over the six-year period of my work, the shop has equipped 18 stations of the Moscow Metro and a number of architectural objects for other purposes with lamps and other metal art products. I was in charge not only the direct production of lamps and other metal products and installation in facilities, but also the design. In some cases, the sketches of lamps were made by the authors of the stations, in others — ​ designs and I designed patterns. In all cases, I led the construction

— 86 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

work, assembly and installation of lighting, consulted the architects in the development of sketches, together with modelers, engravers and casters and achieved high artistic quality of products. Our first objects were the “Novokuznetskaya”, “Paveletskaya” and “Avtozavodskaya” stations. Then metro trains have walked from the center to “Avtozavodskaya”, but without stopping at intermediate stations, where the finishing works were led. The authors of these stations, V. G. Gelfreich, I. G. Taranov, N. A. Bykova, A. N. Dushkin and others actively helped us. By the end of 1944, work was completed on the “Baumanskaya”, “Elektrozavodskaya”, “Semenovskaya” stations. At the same time, the new entrances to the “Ploshad Revolutsii” and “Ploshad Sverdlova” (now “Teatralnaya”) stations, and the transitions between them, which connected Gorkovsko-Zamoskvoretskaya and Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya lines and the “Okhotny Ryad” and “Biblioteka im. V. I. Lenina” were built and equipped with our products. Then, already in peacetime, six stations of the circular line have been equipped with our lamps and other artistic products of the non-ferrous casting — ​“Kurskaya”, “Taganskaya”, “Paveletskaya”, “Dobryninskaya”, “Oktyabrskaya”, “Park Kultury”. Light plays an important role in the underground structures. Therefore, the architects worked closely with me even when they created projects of lighting fixtures themselves. Especially dear for me was the work on “Taganskaya”, where I participated in the design of the station as the author of art and design fixtures projects. There were two types: the central hall chandelier and platform halls chandelier. I wanted to create their imaginative unity with the interior. Color lamps solution echoes with the color of ceramic panels of the central hall, with a blue background and white with gold image. The chandeliers for this room have blue glazed bowl, looking like a vase, from which grow large gold stylized flowers. A wreath of glass plates surrounds the bowl. They reflect in the bowl, which also receives additional reflections from the neighboring chandeliers, which increases its decorative effect. In general, it turned out an elegant (maybe even too splendid) form, which I wanted to make a spectacular element of the interior, organically related to it. In unity with an architect’s plan, lighting fixtures were made on the “Kalujskaya” (now the “Octyabrskaya”) station. In its style, the author

— 87 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

L. M. Polyakov creatively used the features of Russian classicism. Austerity, solemnity and monumentality of the total composite solution of the station corresponded to difficult, but victorious time, and influenced the character of the lamps image, in which development I participated as L. M. Polyakov co-author. The basis of our lamps form became a torch (“Torch of Victory”, in Leonid Mikhailovich’s words) — ​a large-scale element of white (milk) glass in a strict, built on a combination of black with gold decoration. In the image of a chandelier for the station hall, we have aimed at lightness and elegance. It had the shape of a ring (diameter 4 m), carrying 4 groups of 4 torches — ​of the same shape and the same size as the wall fixtures. The ring hung on the 4 cast bronze chains. I can only regret that the chandelier was removed, and thus the damage to the expressive architectural composition of the hall and the station as a whole was caused. In one case, our workshop dealt also with metro sculpture. This happened shortly after the war, when bronze statues by sculptor Matvey Genrikhovich Manizer returned from the “evacuation” to the station “Ploschad Revolutsii”. We have been entrusted with their restoration. Then, in the underground depot, I saw a terrible sight. Scattered parts of sculptures — ​heads, torso, arms, weapons and other items — ​were lying in a common heap on the platform. Many patient labor and skill of founders, chasers and other masters of our department took to restore them. The author carefully examined and accepted all the statues. The work became easier by the fact that each sculpture repeated four times, so there was always at least one, corresponding with which the remaining were corrected. In the evenings, finished sculptures were taken to install them in the night at the station. In the early postwar years, workshop of art casting created a large number of architectural lighting fixtures not only for metro stations, but also for almost all railway stations of Moscow, the Opera House in Tashkent (based on sketches by A. V. Shchusev), the building of the Party Central Committee, the restored building of “Dneprogas” and a number of other important architectural objects. Common patriotic enthusiasm, so characteristic for the victorious time, had a fruitful impact on our activities in the field of metro construction. O. V. Kostina recorded interview with A. I. Damsky in the middle 1980s.

— 88 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

Damsky Abram Isaakovich, 1906—1988, candidate of architecture, engineer, artist, designer, participant of the Great Patriotic War. In 1929, he graduated from the Faculty of wood processing and metal in Vkhutemas. From 1939 to 1941 he worked at the in the Direction of the Palace of Soviets construction. From 1943 to 1949, he worked in “Metrostroy”. From 1949 to 1956 — ​in the architectural studio of the Ministry of Construction of the USSR. In 1956—1984 — ​Researcher MHIITEP GlavAPU and Moscow. The author of many theoretical works on artificial light and colors in the interior and the urban environment. The main theoretical works: A. I. Damsky. Light fittings. M., 1947; A. I. Damsky. Lamps for accommodate and public buildings of mass construction. M., 1962; A. I. Damsky. Electric light and architecture of the city. M., 1970. Works in the subway: lights on the “Taganskaya” station (1950); lights on the “Oktyabrskaya” station (1950, joint with L. Polyakov.); standard lamps for outbuildings of a number of Moscow metro stations.

REFERENCES 1. Moscow Metro Architecture. 1936. Moscow. 2. Allenov, M. M. 2003. “Evidences of Systemic Absurdism in the Emblematics of the Moscow Metro or Absurd as a Phenomenon of Truth”, Allenov M. M. Texts about Texts, Мoscow. 3. Studies of the Synthesis of Arts, 1936. Moscow. 4. The Life of Architect Dushkin. 1904—1977. A Memoir /Publisher, compiler and science editor N. O. Dushkina. — ​Мoscow, 2004. 5. How We Built the Metro, 1935, Moscow;. 6. Kostina O. V. “The Moscow Metro — ​‘Ode to Joy’”, Russian Art. 2012. no. 2. pp. 48—57 (a republication of an RA article /2005. No. 1/). 7. Kostina, O. V. 2001. “ The Moscow Metro”, Art / Supplement to the Pedagogical Newspaper. 2001. November 1—15. 8. Makovskaya N. 1988. “A. N. Dushkin — ​the Metro Architect”, The Artist and the City, Мoscow, p. 133. 9. The Moscow Metro. An Underground Architectural Monument. Timed to an exhibition of the same title at the Schusev State Museum of Architecture, 2016. Compiled by I. V. Chepkunova, M. A. Kostyuk, E. Y. Zheludkova. — ​М.: Kuchkovo pole. 10. Shaposhnikov Y. 1952. “The Merits and Demerits of the New Metro Stations”, USSR Architecture, no. 4, p. 1. 11. WAM. 2005. № 14. Theme of the Issue: the 70th Anniversary of the Moscow Metro.

— 89 — Olga V. Kostina. “The Moscow Metro is the Bestin the World”

ENDNOTES

1 J. Morgan, engineer in tunnels, was awarded with the Order of Red Banner of Labor for advising the construction of the first Moscow Metro lines. 2 The Moscow Metro. An Underground Architectural Monument. Timed to an exhibition of the same title at the Schusev State Museum of Architecture / Compiled by I. V. Chepkunova, M. A. Kostyuk, E. Y. Zheludkova. — ​М.: Kuchkovo pole, 2016. 3 If the first B. M. Iofan’s project was of 250 meters high, including the 17 meters statue of Lenin, crowning the building, in the end, the height of the project, which was developed by Iofan joint with V. A. Schuko and V. G. Helfreich, consisted of 416 meters with the statue of the leader of 100 meters. 4 Colley, N. 1935. Metro Architecture // How did we build the metro. M .: “History of factories and plants”, 180 p. 5 Kornfeld, Ya. Channel Volga-Moscow Architecture // Architecture of the USSR. 1937. № 6. p. 51. 6 Kolley N. Ibid. p. 185. 7 USSR Architecture, 1939, № 6. p. 8. 8 At the solemn meeting on 14 May, 1935 dedicated to the launch of the metro, in LM Kaganovich’s speech, thought of the parade, palace nature of the stations sounds like a refrain: “… we have built a metropolitan, where a man, going down to the station, feels himself, according to the Moscow workers”, as in a palace” In the book: Architecture of the Moscow metro. Moscow, Publishing House All-Union Academy of Architecture, 1936. 14 p. 9 Questions of synthesis of arts. M. 1936. 10 M. V. Kryukov’s terminology. See: Lessons of May architecture exhibition. Creative discussion in the Union of Architects // USSR Architecture. 1934. № 6. p. 10. M. V. Kryukov include in the manifestations of “moralizing”, for example, the introduction of emblems and symbols, which then were widely used in the underground facilities, to the architectural decoration. 11 Thus, for example, the words by Danish writer M. A. Nexo, which visited VSHV were welcomed with pleasure: “We have an exhibition before us, reminiscent of its 52 pavilions of the city from the “Thousand and One Nights “. See: I. Gainutdinov Pavilions of the Union and autonomous republics // USSR Architecture. 1939. № 10. p. 4. 12 Vesnin, V. A. On the education of young architects // Architecture of the USSR. 1938. № 6. p. 10. 13 See.: Simonov, G. A. The most important tasks of Soviet Architects // Architecture and Construction. 1948. № 3. pp. 1—4. 14 Shaposhnikov, Yu. Advantages and disadvantages of the new metro stations // Architecture of the USSR. 1952. № 4. p. 1. 15 See: Rubanenko, B. Art results of the construction of new stations of the Moscow metro // Architecture and Construction. 1950. № 2. pp. 1—10.

— 90 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

Sofiya D. Tugarinova Department of Theory and History of Art Moscow State Academic Art Institute named after V. I. Surikov e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia IN SEARCH OF HIGH-RISE CENTERPIECE: THE PALACE OF THE SOVIETS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT IN THE 1930s

Summary: The article observes one of the most ambitious architectural contests of the Soviet Union — ​the Palace of the Soviets epopee took place in the early 1930s. Four rounds of public contest, hundreds of projects and designs, polemics in Kremlin, in press and among soviet and foreign architects — ​even now the Palace of the Soviets phantom provokes society’s interest and its image is used in popular culture, movies, literature, etc. Despite the fact that the Palace of the Soviets had never been constructed, that project became a forerunner of high- rise construction in the Soviet Union. For example, so called “seven sisters” — ​architectural ensemble built in Moscow in 1940—1950s — ​ were born as a supplement to the Palace of the Soviets project. Keywords: soviet architecture, architectural contests, The Palace of the Soviets, seven sisters.

Project of the Palace of the Soviets, more precisely, contest on its creation, which took place in 1931—1933, became a huge and implicit landmark in high-rise building in Moscow. Between the 1930s and the competition epopee can be safely put an equal sign, since the history of the design of this building fits exactly in this decade — ​from the beginning of the first stage of the competition to the adoption of the final version of the building and its subsequent rework. Thanks to countless number of decisions, points of view, ideas and notions the Palace of the Soviets obtained the status of an unprecedented architectural dream. Which, by the way, however was realized in a transformed state: the high-rise buildings constructed in 1940—1950 years in Moscow were

— 91 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece originally conceived as support structures for the Palace of the Soviets, but in the end, there exist as independent architectural units. The starting point in the design of the Palace of the Soviets considers S. M. Kirov’s speech in the day of the USSR constitution on December 30, 1922: “… On behalf of the workers, I would suggest our Union CEC in the near future to take up the construction of the monument, which would be able to gather the representatives of labor in sufficient numbers. In this building, in the palace, which, in my opinion, should be built in the capital of the Union, on the most beautiful and best square, where workers and peasants should find everything needed to expand their horizon”1. However, the idea of a​​ grand building got back after almost ten years. Ironically, initially there was no technical task or clear requirements for the project in the competition: the country’s leadership gave the architects the right not only to develop from scratch the concept of the Palace of the Soviets, but also to determine the semantic and stylistic purpose of the construction. One of the few requirements was the use of the synthesis of Fine Arts: “… should be applied all kinds of spatial arts — ​architecture (proportionality of parts), painting (color), sculpture (chiaroscuro) in conjunction with lighting fixtures and art of a director) ”2. Due to such variability, logical questions arose by contestants architects: what should be the Palace of the Soviets — ​a high-rise or low-rise? What tradition of the history of world architecture must be relied on in the design of a building or the preference must be given to the current vogue in architecture? Which functional objectives must be leading and how must they interact with each other? How must the Palace of the Soviets correlate with the already existing buildings in Moscow? Answers to all these questions were not immediately found. They were born because of the competition, the four stages of which took place in the period from 1931 to 1933. A match between the vertical and horizontal orientation of some structures marked the first stage of the competition. Despite the fact that the first high-rise projects were presented to a lesser extent than the low-rise, high-rise trend was quickly gaining popularity. As examples should be given a few notable projects.

— 92 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

1. Iofan, B., Gelfreikh, V., Shchuko, V. 1939. The Palace of the Soviets. One of the final project designs. From the “High-rise buildings in Moscow. Projects”. 1951. Moscow

Even on the very first, enclosed competitive stage, several projects, gravitating to the status of high-rise, were presented. This refers to the work of architects N. Ladovsky and G. Ludwig. Both projects are

— 93 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

obviously monumental, ponderous, but directed upward, the scope and a reversal in space are present in it. The architect N. Ladovsky’s proposal of composition comprises two different buildings on a large scale — ​in the form of a ball and a tower. However, the author did not use the whole space: the complex had about 30 % of the estimated for the construction territory, most of which was occupied by the voids. We can assume that the whole area was used not entirely rational. G. Ludwig’s proposition represents a tier three-dimensional composition. It had a certain perspective when you consider that such a structure of the building was subsequently present in the later construction projects of other architects and architectural groups, and as a result in the winning project. In this vein, it is necessary to mention the project by the architects K. Halabyan and B. Simbirtsev. Aspiration up and monumentality bind in the proposed by him construction with bearings, lifting the body of the building. Architect A. Nikolsky’s project is a composition of the three component parts — ​the cone-shaped main building, the colonnade and five towers. A. Shchusev drew attention to this decision: “Nikolsky suggested, for example, creating a grand structure in the form corresponding to the functional use of new building materials, but with all the original design it was unable to resolve the problem of determining the type of the Palace of the Soviets”3. Also, curious was the project by architect A. Kutsaev and engineer G. Krasin: a kind of ecclesiastical cupola crowns a complex tiered composition. The authorities did not approve this decision; it was criticized, and in some cases even ridiculed. In the journal “Soviet architecture”, this project was published nearby to St. Isaac’s Cathedral, as a mirrored reflection. Photomontage was accompanied by the caption: “the Palace of the Soviets — ​the world proletariat tribune. Not a temple and not a parliament”4. The project by the French architect S. Le Corbusier, who took part in the second All-Union stage, left complex impression. Both during the competition and even now remain many disputes over the high-rise status of this proposal. For example, Lunacharsky called a project of Le Corbusier both the “enormous structure”, which proves the altitude of the project, and the “hangar” (apparently referring to its style). However, according to art historian I. Kokkinaki, this Le Corbusier’s work “was

— 94 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece fundamentally different from anything he had created before. The novelty of a composition plan appointed the imposition outside of the spatial frame of the building”5. The project is characterized by graphic quality and complexity of the “drawing” of the building with “grand concrete arches and light shells”6 and a variety of forms. The architect has literally turned inside out the construction of the building. He managed to maintain a balance between the utility of the building and originality of the architectural plan, between plastic forms and technical characteristics through the combination of the main body of the building and openwork roof. Le Corbusier plays artistically a light framework and open for the eye constructions, overcoming any claim of heaviness. The elements of altitude can be seen in another project by foreign architect — ​Italian A. Brazini. The architect’s tendency to turn the Palace into an above-caste inaccessible building menacingly hanging over the audience is noticeably clear. It is read in the form of monumental forms of the building, massive towers, aspiring to the sky. No wonder that the reaction of the time for this project was negative: “An Italian architect has sent a depressing picture of a medieval fortress, illuminated by spotlights, with two towers guarding the entrance gate”7. However, we must pay tribute to the architect Brazini: he was not afraid to present to the Council of building rather frivolous interpretation of the Palace of the Soviets, nevertheless, an architect found those high forms, which subsequently had an embodiment in the final version. According to modern researchers, “it turned out that it was Brazini who determined both tower-like appearance and the unity of the building, with the idea of a statue of Lenin”8. The distinction from the final project of the Palace of the Soviets consists in the fact that in A. Brazini’s variant the sculpture of Lenin was completely lost in the oppressive scales of the fortress, and in the winning project, on the contrary, the building compared with the sculpture of the leader seems to be microscopic. However, the authorship of the idea of crowning​​ the construction with the sculpture is possible to address to the Italian architect. Another project designed by Konstantin Melnikov caused many responses among architects and researchers of the competition. The architect conventionally divides the building into two parts: he “took

— 95 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

2. Iofan, B. 1931. The first project design of the Palace of the Soviets. From the Bulletin of the construction management of the Palace of the Soviets. 1931. No. 2-3 the cone as an ancient symbol of the traditional architecture and dismembered it by a vertical plane in half, he put one half on the top”9. The project, according to the author, “reflects the struggle between the old and new forms in architecture. The triumph of new forms is expressed here by contrasting vibrant and continuously evolving form of the flower and completed static shape of a pyramid”10. In other words, Melnikov played on the expression and relationship of the universal artistic forms, appealed to emphasize the altitude. The avant-garde project, entitled “Tribune”, was presented by the group of students WASI under the direction of an architect A. Vlasov and, interestingly, was awarded. Bulk construction of a large hall of the Palace, which consists of several tiers and tapering upwards, was divided into two parts — ​the circular and pyramidal ones. However, the decision was not thoroughly worked out and had more conceptual nature. Nevertheless, the tendency to the high-rise, a single volume (if there are two different sections) and the general massiveness, certainly deserves attention and, possibly, further development and design. Separate elements of the main structure of the building at the same time reminds the projects both by K. Melnikov, and Le Corbusier — ​such as an attempt to divide a single array into two parts of different forms, as well as the inclination to the low-rise buildings and the spreading of the whole complex. However, at the same time there feels a desire of architects to create an open space with the possibility of an unlimited stream of visitors.

— 96 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

Naturally, not all the projects were associated with the idea of altitude​​ in their conception. The work of the American architect of British origin G. Hamilton, which received the first prize at the Second All-Union contest stage, differed by the monumentality of its forms, but not the altitude. Hamilton avoided an excessive massiveness. Interesting moves were found in his project, for example, combination of two buildings at different levels in a single complex. An attempt to connect rhythmically numerous pylons is interesting. As a result, the building is read as a complete architectural organism. An interesting, but untimely and advancing the era project was made by an architect V. Fidman, resembling famous “House of nuclear workers”, which was built later nearby Tulskaya Metro station. Fidman’s project was a huge long building height of several floors, which makes it possible to name the construction of a “bed-skyscraper” (or even “aeronautical ship”11). Certainly, this project did not come under the category of the grand Palace of the Soviets, but it could easily exist as less pretentious public building (sports stadium, commune house or research institute) in the urban space. However, V. Fidman has chosen a very responsible location for this project — ​directly next to the Red Square. This would mean a radical reconstruction of the buildings of historical core, but at the same time, the project had probably a stylistic mismatch with the Kremlin. The comparison of high-rise and low-rise reflected not only in the drawings and project proposals, but also in official documents and directives. It should be noted, that on February 28, 1932 in the decree of the Palace of the Soviets Council the altitude began to appear yet among the necessary conditions of competition: “the stockiness of the buildings, prevailing in many projects, must be overcome by the bold composition of high-altitude construction”12. According to the results of the second stage, the development of “a bold high-altitude composition” was associated with other serious problems, which concerned town planning regulations. Undoubtedly, one of the most important issues was the choice of the location of the Palace of the Soviets. Access to the archived data allows finding differences of opinion among architects and researchers. Among the estimated places for the construction were mentioned Okhotny Ryad,

— 97 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

3. Fidman, V. 1931. The Palace of the Soviets project design. From the Bulletin of the construction management of the Palace of the Soviets. 1931. No. 2-3 Zaryadye, Bolotnaya Square, Kitay-gorod, Volkhonka. Interestingly, Volkhonka (i. e. the location of Christ the Savior) was at the last place in this list, and Kitay-gorod and Bolotnaya Square took priority. As a result, though, it was decided to liquidate the Church and to build in its place a Palace of the Soviets. Undoubtedly, the Church of Christ the Savior was (and is today) a very strong high-altitude dominant in Moscow — ​not only in the architectural, but also, of course, in social and religious sense. The fact of its destruction is certainly a tragic moment, for the image of Moscow as well. The vast majority of the projects of the Palace of the Soviets was due to the historical center of Moscow. Thus, the problem of correlation of the future building with the existing buildings nearby and more remote areas inevitably rose. The Palace of the Soviets would have changed the scale of the whole city. In addition, numerous demolitions and dramatic changes in the landscape would become inevitable. In this context it is worth recalling, for example, a radical proposal literally to move the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, as well as other urban ideas of the early 1940’s, which, fortunately, was not implemented: “ Arbatskaya Square will be doubled, but it is still so small, compared with the ensemble of the square of the Palace of the Soviets. <…> On the other hand — ​the Alexander Garden, which stretches along the Kremlin wall, may be converted into a green terrace of Lenin Avenue. On the island between the river and drainage, channels will smash the park; its green open spaces will be located on the approaches to the Palace of the Soviets from the Zamoskvorechye District. On the spit is supposed to put a monument to Chelyuskinites. The river will be straightened”13.

— 98 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

However, a number of major architects still attempted to reason the future Palace of the Soviets with the existing buildings and to find an adequate space for the new complex, even in the historical center of the capital. The architect I. Zholtovsky’s draft contains an interesting idea of ​​the relationship between the Moscow core, i. e., the Kremlin and the Palace of the Soviets. A. Shchusev expressed his attitude to this proposal: “Zholtovsky theoretically resolves the issue of the relationship of the Kremlin and the volume of the Palace of the Soviets, believing that the Palace should look like a similar to the Kremlin group of buildings, united with colonnades on the whole area of ​​building”14. It is important to note that I. Zholtovsky ​​did not immersed the Palace of the Soviets in an abstract space, but he developed the area around it, taking into account the appearance of Moscow. Both German architect W. Gropius, and French architect Perret adhered to the principle of connection of the Palace of the Soviets with the historical center. Their overall constructivist designs cannot be called high-rise (rather squat), but the fact that Kremlin towers silhouettes are designated on both projects, gives every reason to note the two proposals as far-sighted. The project by the team of architects G. Holtz, I. Sobolev, M. Parusnikov and S. Kozhin is actually a mirror image of I. Zholtovsky’s project described above — ​according the number of constructions (both towers, and the amphitheater) within the same complex. In the Soviet press of the beginning of the 1930s, these projects have been criticized:” by using historically proven forms, the authors have created, in this case, complex groups in the composition, approximate also to theatrical conventions (fence of the area with sculptures, blocking the colonnades), what allowed the authors to show the signs of an aristocratic inaccessibility of the old cultural monuments … “15. In general, many of the proposed designs were criticized and they caused ambiguous estimations. For example, project by architects A. Kastner and O. Stonorov, which was sent from overseas. On the one hand, the proposal was very far-sighted: the architects related the building with the Kremlin and showed this correlation in the designs. On the other hand, according to the master plan submitted by them, it assumed the demolition of buildings in the area of the Znamensky side streets for

— 99 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

4. Iofan, B. 1933. The Palace of the Soviet draft declared the winner. From the brochure “The Palace of the Soviets”. Ed. Cornfeld, J. 1939 the storerooms. This move cannot be accepted as positive. As for the architectural solution of the main building, it was planned in the industrial style with minimal use of decorative elements. A pyramidal complex consists of several tiers, tapering upwards. This move was considered as a failure: “Although the project is not without expression, but its industrial character considerably prevails over the art form”16. However, the facade of the building seemed beautiful and graceful to the jury. Unfortunately, in the last two stages of the competition the interest in gigantism and luxury, redundancy in relation to the volume and scale, grew on. The architect-winner Boris Iofan also paid tribute to this direction. During the competition, he has developed several different projects. One option, for example, was a complex of buildings of the spherical type, tall and slender tower, which was crowned by the figure of a worker, as well as another building of a few floors. However, three buildings were connected to each other with endless glass corridors. This project had an allusion to the altitude, and in his following projects, Iofan has already firmly caught on the high-rise and developed it. Gradually the architect came to the cylindrical silhouette and many levels, as well as to the strictness and collectedness of premises in one high-rise project. The project, which eventually won the competition, represented a terraced stacked-stage tower, ornate with pylons and pilasters. A miniature sculpture of the proletarian of 18 meters in height

— 100 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece crowned the building. However, afterwards the leader of the world proletariat of one hundred meters replaced the nameless proletarian. Despite the fact that the competition for the design of the Palace of Soviets was completed in 1933, the final version of the construction has not been approved. The architect Boris Iofan constantly worked on the project until the end of the 1940s: none of the proposals did not find approval from the party leadership. For fifteen years, the project of the Palace of the Soviets became more and more overload with heavy eclectic details. For example, the circumference of the tower consisted of five cylinders of different diameters, a massive stairway led to the main entrance of the building, and the entrance was to be decorated with the grand colonnade and sculptural groups. Despite the fact that the architect Iofan gradually reduced the tower height and the number of tiers, as a result, the construction took peculiar features of the giant pedestal. Because of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War the preparatory stages of construction of the Palace of the Soviets were stopped. However, after the end of the war, the construction has not been renewed. There are many guesses about the true reasons for the refusal of this grand architectural design. If the case was in the political background, urban planning component or the overall physical impossibility of erection of such a building — ​this question is impossible to give a precise answer. However, the altitude continued to be the leitmotif in the reconstruction of post-war Moscow. In the framework of the Master Plan for the reconstruction of Moscow of 1935 realization and a desire to enrich the capital with high-rise silhouettes a resolution “On the construction of high- rise buildings in Moscow” was adopted on January 13, 1947. The document states that these high-rise buildings were planned to be the supporting elements of the Palace of the Soviets: “The proportions and the silhouettes of these buildings <…> should be linked with the silhouette of the future Palace of the Soviets”17. However, there was some romantic transformation of the idea: the concept of an ideal building “broke” into seven buildings. The triad, which prevailed in the Palace of the Soviets project — ​ multilevel, stepped structure, aspiration up, with decorative or plastic element, crowning the building — ​preserved also in the ensemble of high-rise buildings. However, these qualities and overall gigantism

— 101 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

took smaller scale: “Stepped structure, hierarchical, and topped with a soaring figure of man — ​all these features start to be vested built after the war high-rise buildings <…> replacing, however, the figure with steeples”18. However, for example, multilevel composition is preserved only in a few high-rise buildings (Moscow State University, houses on Kudrinskaya Square and Kotelnicheskaya Embankment, the hotel “Ukraine”, the administrative building on Krasnye Vorota). Recalling the competition for the design of the Palace of the Soviets and summing up, the following should be noted. The fact that the romantic and at first glance naive idea to erect something incredible resulted in a real, now existing urban ensemble, which is now involved in the architectural ensemble of Moscow and in several aspects enriches the look of the city cannot but please. We must agree with A. Ikonnikov, who believed that “seven high-rise buildings were constructed and confidently play their own role in the urban ensemble, continuing and developing the architectural tradition of Moscow,”19 even though a high- altitude dominant, the Palace of the Soviets, hypothetically uniting them, was never built. Thanks to the competition, the high-rise construction in our country has risen to a new level, and presented in the competition projects can serve as inspiration for the architects even now — ​after more than 80 years of the completion of a competitive battle.

REFERENCES 1. Atarov, N. S. 1940. The Palace of the Soviets. Moscow, Moskovskij Rabochij. 2. The Palace of the Soviets. 1931. Bulletin of the construction management of the Palace of the Soviets under Central Executive Committee USSR. Moscow, Mosoblispolkom Publ. 3. The Palace of the Soviets — ​the tribune of the world’s proletariat. Not a temple or a parliament. 1931. № 3. Sovetskaya architektura. 4. For the socialistic architecture. Bulletin of the most important documents. 1937. Moscow, Vsesoyuznaya Akademiya Arkhitektury Publ. 5. Zapletin, N. P. 1932. Critical stage of the proletarian architecture (adapted from commission for techinical audit). Stroitelstvo Moskvy. 6. Ikonnikov, A. V. 1978. Stone chronicle of Moscow: guide. Moscow, Moskovskij Rabochij Publ.. 7. The Italian Palace of the Soviets. The catalogue of the exhibition. Moscow, 2006.

— 102 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

8. Kojen, Zh. — ​L. 2012. Le Corbusier. Secrets of art: between painting and architecture. Moscow, GMII im. A. S. Pushkina. 9. Papernyj, V. Z. 2011. Culture Two. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. 10. Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR “About the construction of high-rise buildings in Moscow” on the 13th of January, 1947. Stalin, I. V. 2006. Collected works. Tver. 11. Resolution of the construction management of the Palace of the Soviets under Central Executive Committee USSR “About the organization of working on the final project of the Palace of the Soviets of the USSR in Moscow”. 1932. Moscow. 12. Strigaleva, A. A., Kokkinaki, I. V. 1985. Konstantin S. Melnikov: the architecture of my life. The concept of art. The practice of art. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ. 13. Shchusev, A. V. 1933. The Palace of the Soviets international competition. Moscow, Vsekohudozhnik Publ.

ENDNOTES

1 On the construction of the Palace of the Soviets. From com. S. M. Kirov’s speech. at the I Congress of Soviets of the USSR December 30, 1922 // For a socialist architecture. Collection of the most important materials. — ​M .: Publ. of the All- Union Academy of Architecture,1937. С. 7. 2 The Palace of the Soviets. 1931. Bulletin of the construction management of the Palace of the Soviets under Central Executive Committee USSR. Moscow, Mosoblispolkom Publ. p. 1. 3 Shchusev, A. V. 1933. The Palace of the Soviets international competition. Moscow, Vsekohudozhnik Publ. p. 69. 4 The Palace of the Soviets — ​the tribune of the world’s proletariat. Not a temple or a parliament. 1931. № 3. Sovetskaya architektura. p. 1. 5 Kokkinaki I. V. Le Corbusier and Soviet Russia // Le Corbusier. Secrets of creativity: between painting and architecture. М., 2012. p. 271. 6 Kojen, Zh. — ​L. 2012. Le Corbusier. Secrets of art: between painting and architecture. Moscow, GMII im. A. S. Pushkina. p. 83. 7 Atarov, N. S. 1940. The Palace of the Soviets. Moscow, Moskovskij Rabochij. p. 26. 8 Sedov V. Italian Palace of the Soviets. The exhibition catalog. p. 66. 9 Strigaleva, A. A., Kokkinaki, I. V. 1985. Konstantin S. Melnikov: the architecture of my life. The concept of art. The practice of art. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ. p. 215. 10 Ibid. 11 The Palace of the Soviets. 1931. Bulletin of the construction management of the Palace of the Soviets under Central Executive Committee USSR. Moscow, Mosoblispolkom Publ. № 2—3, p. 40. 12 Resolution of the construction management of the Palace of the Soviets under Central Executive Committee USSR “About the organization of working on the final project of the Palace of the Soviets of the USSR in Moscow”. 1932. Moscow. 13 Atarov, N. S. 1940. The Palace of the Soviets. Moscow, Moskovskij Rabochij. pp. 154—155. 14 Shchusev, A. V. 1933. The Palace of the Soviets international competition. Moscow, Vsekohudozhnik Publ.p. 74.

— 103 — Sofiya D. Tugarinova. In search of high-rise centerpiece

15 Zapletin, N. P. 1932. Critical stage of the proletarian architecture (adapted from commission for techinical audit). Stroitelstvo Moskvy. № . 3. pp. 26—28. 16 The Palace of the Soviets. 1931. Bulletin of the construction management of the Palace of the Soviets under Central Executive Committee USSR. Moscow, Mosoblispolkom Publ. № 2—3. 17 Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR “About the construction of high-rise buildings in Moscow” on the 13th of January, 1947. Stalin, I. V. Collected works. Tver. 2006. p. 431. 18 Papernyj, V. Z. 2011. Culture Two. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. p. 155. 19 Ikonnikov, A. V. 1978. Stone chronicle of Moscow: guide. Moscow, Moskovskij Rabochij Publ., p. 44.

— 104 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

Irina М. Sakhno Doctor of Sciences Professor of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, Russia LIVRE D’ARTISTE AS AN ISOVERBAL TEXT IN THE CULTURE OF SYMBOLISM *

Summary: The article examines the unique genre of the livre d’artiste which combines visual and verbal representations. The binary model of this book form was determined by its synthetic intermedial genre which reflects the isoverbal experience of modernism. Thelivre d’artiste in the original sense appeared thanks to the prominent French collector and marchand d’art Ambroise Vollard. His idea was to promote an artist’s work with the help of a book containing original prints. An inimitable individual style, experimental print techniques and innovative design — ​ all of these factors helped make every book unique. As a rule, its pages were not stitched together, with a marked focus on the inlaid fonts, headpieces and frontispieces, which brought the artist back to the main principles of the book art of the Baroque. An important place in the history of the livre d’artiste as a genre belongs to the controversial Les Fleurs du mal — ​a volume of poetry by Charles Baudelaire. Since they were first made public by the author, Baudelaire’s poems fascinated both book illustrators and painters, including such Symbolists as Émile Bernard, Odilon Redon, Carlos Schwabe, Félicien Rops, François- Auguste-René Rodin and Armand Rassenfosse. Keywords: Livre d’artiste, Symbolism, isoverbal text, intermediality, visual representation, poetic picture, synthetism, ekphrasis. The Artist’s Book (French Livre d’artiste) is a unique author’s book, which phenomenon was most fully expressed in the modernist culture * The article was supported by the Russian State Science Foundation (RSSF), project number 15-04-00005 (a): “The verbal & visual: the grammar of poetic culture”.

— 105 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

of the end XIX — ​early XX century. A painter, referring to the poetic text, does not just illustrate it, but also creates an independent work of art, endowed with the status of a new synthetic intermediate genre, in which painting and word, graphics and text combine in a single textual space. In this context, it is more expedient to talk about the fact, that we have an image-verbal text1 in front of us whose boundaries are blurred: the literature is neighbored with the painting and it represents a part of a continuous process of vision, in which frames the visual representation is associated with the verbal one. Following the logic of this statement, you can imagine a new binary model of the book in which the word and the image are always identical strategies of book printing. The history of an Artist’s Book is motivated by the practices of functioning of verbal and visual contexts, and there is no etymological resonance in it. No matter how the visual perception varied, we have two homogeneous structures before us, which are exposed to the influence of a single aesthetic field that characterized the new aesthetic experience of modernist era. The term Artist’s Book has many meanings, and it does not have clearly identified boundaries of the genre2. Unique handmade book published in small editions, experimental in nature, even now does not have a strict terminological status. The Artist’s Book in its original meaning is a product of the publishing activities of the famous French collector and marchand Ambroise Vollard, who invented a new form of promotion of graphic works by artists in the format of the book edition with original print: “This term — ​says famous Livre d’artiste collector B. Fridman — ​ refers to a particular type of publication: a literary text with illustrations, which represent the original printed graphics (lithography, etching, woodcut, etc.), and which is released in small editions (from tens to a few hundred copies), printed on special sorts of paper and decorated in a certain way (as a rule, these are loose-leaf sheets in a box or case). In most cases, author, artist or publisher signed these books”3.You could say that famous artists became illustrators — ​they were non-professional illustrators, who considered the book drawing as an independent work of art, which immediately became luxury and collectible things. The term “Livre de luxe” (literally: luxury book) is not accidental, as a characteristic of the Artist’s Book, it emphasized its characteristic exclusive character4.

— 106 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

1. Verlaine, Paul. “Parallel”. Original lithographs by Pierre Bonnard. Published by A. Vollar, 1900. Cantonal Library and University Library (BCU) in Lausanne. Image source. Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire — ​Lausanne. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.bcu-lausanne.ch/patrimoine/ collections-precieuses/tresors-des-collections/ (access: 5.05.2016)

Famous English collector William Strohal5 became one of the first popularizers of Livre d’artiste, he formulated the morphological features of this genre. Unique features of the new book were determined by the formation of a unique author’s style, experimental techniques and innovative graphic design. Sheets were generally not stitched, the inlay of a book also played an important role: font, miniatures, frontispiece, etc., which returned the artist to the basic principles of the book of the baroque art. Having originated as a synthetic genre, which integrated two types of art — ​painting and poetry, with the time, the Artist’s Book transformed into an independent branch of modern artistic practices (book-art, book work, book object), when the book becomes an art object and is positioned as an independent work of art6. The modern Artist’s Book is intended for exposure and representation of the author’s conception and curatorial project in the contemporary artistic discourse7, while the unique personality of the artist and an excellent decoration — ​ “fine printing” (literally “print of a high quality”) are determining factors

— 107 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism for the Livre d ‘artiste8. In this sense, the Artist’s Book is a versatile synthetic image-verbal text, which appeals not only to the various forms of art, but also to all the senses, creating synthesis sensations9. The history of the Artist’s Book begins with the publications of French poets of symbolism. The word and the image in the symbolist Artist’s Book coexist and cooperate on an equal footing. Word is pictorial in its nature; it is inscribed with a brush or with the original font. New optics of a word creates an unusual spatial organization of verbal and visual texts and the process of their symbolization. Here we are faced with a change in vision process (the text can be seen), and feeling: the graphic may be perceived sensory. This expansion of the zone of painting and poetry modifies also the channels of perception that allows to deeper experience the inner connection of two homogeneous structures. New type of relationship between word and image, poetic text and graphics, letter and font sets. Printing exercises were not only the fact of artistic experimentation; the new book typography corresponded with the scale of the new modernist view of the world with the direction to the universality and synthetism. The merge of content and form, an attempt to penetrate into the depths of the text with new printing technologies meant the effect of boundaries overcoming. From now on, the internal logic of the verbal text corresponded to its graphic explication. In terms of modalities of perception, Livre d’artiste is a mixed genre. It is difficult to answer the question, what is the dominant type of perception — ​verbal or visual vision. The book as a man-made object and the image of a non-mechanical production are direct projections of hands touching a sheet with the text. This, in our view, is the reflection of the mystery of creation and a return to the Baroque concept of the hybrid nature of book text. In the space of the Author’s Book includes not only materials and technologies, but also institutions and markets. It becomes an object of collectors’ and art dealers’ attention, thus acquiring indexical component. New archeology of the word generates synthetic semiotic continuum, in which the “iconic” and “symbolic” acts are placed in the same visual space. The paper itself, cover and its design play an important role. The iIllustrated Artist’s Book is the result of the union of artists and poets of the modernist wing, which reflected in the continuous verbal and graphic dialogue and innovative

— 108 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

book space. The intermediate structure of the book required compliance with laws of the genre Livre d ‘artiste. The language of poetry has not just “recoded” and found its pictorial expression. The word and the book got a harmonic integrity in the art space of the book. Graphic image, with its objectivity and special texture, actualized the expressiveness of word via colorful background (spots, lines, strokes), and color contrast. In 1900, A. Vollard publishes a poem by Paul Marie Verlaine “Parallel” (“Parallèlement”, 1889) with two-color lithographs by Pierre Bonnard, which became the first Livre d’artiste. Such union was not accidental. Paul Verlaine absorbed the atmosphere of the epoch of the symbolist outlook. Fleeting impressions, expressions of inexpressible and sensations are the symbolist poetics, which reflected in the art of poetic impressionistic stroke. Poetic landscapes and verbal portraits is a genre that Verlaine develops in his poetry. This is evidenced by the names of two cycles of “Saturnian poems”: “Etchings” (Eaux Fortes) and “Sad landscapes” (Paysages Tristes). In the “Gallant festivals”, we can meet Watteau Antoine paintings citation, François Boucher, Jean-Honoré Fragonard, Lancret Nicolas and others famous painters10. In the title of the collection “Watercolors” (Aquarelles) of 1897 an important poetic task is formulated — ​depiction with the word, which, like watercolors, creates mobility of visual components of the word and “transparency” of its texture. Spleen Les roses étaient toutes rouges Et les lierres étaient tout noirs. Chère, pour peu que tu ne bouges, Renaissent tous mes désespoirs. Le ciel était trop bleu, trop tendre, La mer trop verte et l’air trop doux. Je crains toujours, — ​ce qu’est d’attendre! Quelque fuite atroce de vous. Du houx à la feuille vernie Et du luisant buis je suis las, Et de la campagne infinie Et de tout, fors de vous, hélas! 11

— 109 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

The impressionism reflects here in the landscape sketches of “transparent waves” and “boundless fields” in the description of the surrounding flora: red roses and box tree bushes — ​“and the box tree bush is too bright”. Painting manner and poetics of reflected impressions, the synthesis of internal and external, vivid and ugly declared the idea of dissolution of the poetry​​ in the world of colors and music. In 1894, in “The Art of Poetry” (Art poétique) Verlaine creates a wonderful metaphor for creativity: “ Car nous voulons la Nuance encore/ Pas la Couleur, rien que la nuance! / Oh! la nuance seule fiance / Le rêve au rêve et la flûte au cor!”12 The union of the poet and the artist in the book of poems by Paul Verlaine, “Parallel” was fruitful. Bonnard felt the style of the allegorical verses of the poet, filled with secret meanings and picturesque subtexts. His image of a naked woman painted with pink lithographic pencil, corresponds well with the symbolist imagery of the poet: “Grâce endormie et regard somnolent, / Une naïade âgée, auprès d’un aulne, / Avec un brin de saule agace un faune / Qui lui sourit, bucolique et galant”. (“Allegory”) or “Furieuse, les yeux caves et les seins roides, / Sappho, que la langueur de son désir irrite, / Comme une louve court le long des grèves froides,” (“Sappho”)13. It should be noted that outspoken pose of a nude woman corresponds with the requirements of the new time. Nude nature in Bonnard’s image shows the flesh as such, its vulgar sensuality. Before us is a graphic repetition of the “Sleeping woman” picturesque canvas (1899), in which the artist reproduces the drama of passion and carnal love with a photographic precision. Naked woman in the modernist painting, according to K. Klark becomes an end in itself — ​a mean of creating a “significant form”14, and the revolutionary nature of the new art is manifested in it. I must say that the painting is more aggressive in nature than lithography. Here we see a soft waxing, smooth transitions and sophisticated graphic facture. The dominant pink color in the two women’s natures (sitting and lying figures) maintains the illusion of improvisation and spontaneity. Subsequently, Henri Matisse cite this image-sign in his “Pink Nude” of 1935, in which the “pink” female body takes all the space of the picture, discovers the destruction of the usual form and violation of harmonious organization of space in the name of purely pictorial construction.

— 110 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

2. Schwabe, Carlos. The soul of wine. Illustrations to C. Baudelaire’s book “Flowers of Evil”, without the year. Museum of Art History, Geneva. Color lithograph. Paper 58 × 47 cm. Museum of Art History, Switzerland. Image Source: Syndicate Museum http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item. php?item=48830 (access: 11.05.2016)

— 111 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

Depiction by a word is revealed in the presence of ecphrasis (ancient Greek ἔκφρασις.) — ​a poetic description of picturesque or sculptural work. In the poem “Sappho” from the cycle “Parallel”, Paul Verlaine describes Sappho’s death, appealing to the paintings of the master of symbolist painting Gustave Moreau. Furieuse, les yeux caves et les seins roides, Sappho, que la langueur de son désir irrite, Comme une louve court le long des grèves froides, Elle songe à Phaon, oublieuse du Rite, Et, voyant à ce point ses larmes dédaignées, Arrache ses cheveux immenses par poignées; Puis elle évoque, en des remords sans accalmies, Ces temps où rayonnait, pure, la jeune gloire De ses amours chantés en vers que la mémoire De l’âme va redire aux vierges endormies: Et voilà qu’elle abat ses paupières blêmies Et saute dans la mer où l’appelle la Moire, — Tandis qu’au ciel éclate, incendiant l’eau noire, La pâle Séléné qui venge les Amies.15 In the paintings “Sappho’s Death” (approx. 1872) [Old and New National Gallery, the Berggruen Museum, Berlin], “Sappho’s Death” (approx. 1872—1875) [Gustave Moreau Museum, Paris] and “Sappho’s Death” (approx. 1873—1876) [Museum of Fine Arts, Saint-Lo] the artist describes the personal story of the ancient Greek poet and captures her tragic end. Before us is a poetic painting, which represents plastic visual images in the form of poetic metaphor. Ecphrasistic description draws attention in the last stanza, in which the interchange with Moreau canvases gets the most obvious. The poet does not aim the image description. Symbolist incompleteness and blurred plot actualizes the poli-codeness of image-verbal context. Verbal description of the material painting contains a poetic preamble, and that is why ecphrasis is not absolutely relevant to the painting. However, the mythological transcription, which is present in the visual and verbal texts, makes all these similarities more convincing. In other words, the painting and the poetic text were created and endowed with a certain sense not within an

— 112 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

aesthetic isolation, but in a single field of symbolist codes succession, that explain the dialogues and interfaces in beautiful and poetic iconography. Pierre Bonnard’s colored lithographs correspond to the spirit of the time and the poetics of symbolist allegories. Nude female figures, devotee to the temptations of lesbian love appear before the reader, and this erotic subtext is so obvious that it takes precedence over the actual substantive aspect of Verlaine’s poetry. The theme of unrequited love and languor of love that leads to Sappho’s suicide is important for Verlaine. For Bonnard the poet is a symbol of forbidden love and eroticism, which sensual nature offended the sense of shame at the end of XIX century. Symbolism took away the veto on the previously taboo topics, and showed many flaws of a man without embellishment. The theme of erotically active, but “fallen woman”, “defects” of her sexuality articulates in the context of the study of different forms of sensuality. Forbidden sexuality and the underside of homoeroticism become the object of the poetic and the pictorial discourses. And in this sense, Bonnard was not alone: almost​​ all the representatives of modernism referred to this topic. In a sense, the Artist’s Book became a platform for artistic experimentation. Bonnard’s lithographs violate the boundaries and the margins of the book pages: they actively invade the text, visual image begins to dominate. They gradually assimilate and unfold the space of the book toward the new visual imagery when poetic text ceases to possess the absolute identity. An important role in the development of the genre Livre d’artiste played publication of the scandalous collection of poetry by Charles Pierre Baudelaire, “Flowers of Evil” (“Les Fleurs du Mal”), which was published in three editions from 1857 to 1868 years in three editions. The first book was published in 1857 by the publisher A. Poulet-Malassis (Paul Emmanuel Auguste Poulet-Malassis) and was prosecuted for insulting public morality. Although the condemnation of the poet was little — ​he was sentenced only to a penalty of 300 francs — ​the poet has withdrawn six poems from a collection: “Summer”, “Decorations”, “Lesbos”, “Damned women”, “Too cheery”, “Metamorphosis of the Vampire” which were again included in the collection in the later editions. From the first days of its existence, Baudelaire’s poems attracted the

— 113 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

attention of illustrators and painters, among them were the representatives of the Symbolist trend — ​poet’s contemporaries: Émile Bernard, Odilon Redon, Carlos Schwabe, Félicien Rops, François-Auguste- René Rodin, Armand Rassenfosse, and others. This fact evidences that Baudelaire’s experimental poetry, personifying, as V. Benyamina remarked, “modernity”16, it became a new aesthetic imperative of the era of decadence and symbolism. The dichotomy of the Divine / Sacred and Satanic / Profane, which defined the aesthetic search of the poet, the appeal to wicked human passions, the awareness of absolute power of evil and search for good and piety — ​all these artistic intentions have made a tremendous impression on readers, among whom were artists. In the preface to the collection, Baudelaire writes a dedication to his teacher and friend Theophile Gautier: “<…> with a sense of profound humility, I dedicate these painful flowers”17. “Painful flowers” is a total metaphor, which determined Baudelaire’s vector of poetic searches and creative experiments. The poet creates many gloomy poems in which the spleen, sadness, despair, intoxication with wine or fuddling with hashish, which is a product of universal evil. Suggestive overtones and magic of word declared the formation of a new symbolist language with powerful palette of expressive feeling. Artists under the influence of a unique poetic text, not accidentally turned to the darkest Baudelaire contexts. Swiss-German artist Carlos Schwabe illustrated several poems of Charles Baudelaire’s collection “Flowers of Evil”, among which were “Spleen and Ideal”, “Soul of Wine”, “Don Juan in the Hell”, “Doomed women (Delphine and Hippolyta),” “Hymn”, “ Atonement”, “ Blessing “, etc. In the illustration “Don Juan in the Hell”, the artist following the poet explores the abyss depths for the man-sinner, and the text of the color lithography almost completely repeats the text: “Montrant leurs seins pendants et leurs robes ouvertes, / Des femmes se tordaient sous le noir firmament, / Et, comme un grand troupeau de victimes offertes, / Derrière lui traînaient un long mugissement”18. Gloomy style of Schwabe’s illustrations corresponds the semantic thesaurus and symbolist metaphoric of poetic stanza. The adulterer is punished in accordance with the perfect sin: hundreds of women’s bodies, eager to body intimacy, surround him. In the illustration for the poem “The Soul

— 114 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism of Wine” the artist uses an allegory: the soul of this refreshing beverage is shown as a red-haired beauty, who tempts and lures: “Car j’éprouve une joie immense quand je tombe / Dans le gosier d’un homme usé par ses travaux, / Et sa chaude poitrine est une douce tombe / Où je me plais bien mieux que dans mes froids caveaux”19. This is no accident. The soul of wine must be naughty: “J’allumerai les yeux de ta femme ravie; / A ton fils je rendrai sa force et ses couleurs / Et serai pour ce frêle athlète de la vie / L’huile qui raffermit les muscles des lutteurs”20. The artist reinforces the subjective vision, articulating the idea of hidden​​ temptations and desires through the active use of various shades of red and purple. Schwabe relished Baudelaire idea of wine animation, this reflected in the creation of a tangible physical affective imagery. The mystical spirit, special metaphorism and suggestiveness of iconography of Charles Baudelaire poetry was very close to the Belgian symbolist painter Félicien Rops, who was Baudelaire’s friend and created a unique frontispiece to the cycle “Fragments” of the poet’s first forbidden collection of 1857. Since the book was banned in France, it was published in Belgium in 1886. The gloomy spirit of this particular cycle, seized by the censors, the world of vampires (“Transformation into a Vampire”), fallen women (“Lesbos” and “Doomed women (Hippolyta and Dolphina) ”, monsters (“Monster”) inspired the artist to the graphic etching, in which the skeleton surrounded by evil spirits marks the end of the sinful human existence. Horrifying picture of the disintegration of the human flesh, devoid of any sense appears in the viewer’s sight. This futility of secular desires and loss of vitality as such in Rops’ etching acquire a special meaning and correspond the fleur of Baudelaire’s mystical moods. Special eroticism of Baudelaire’s poem “The promises of a face” inspired also a Belgian symbolist painter Armand Rassenfosse to create frankly pornographic lithograph, made in 1899. Before the spectator’s sight is the image of a naked dark-haired female: “ Tes yeux, qui sont d’accord avec tes noirs cheveux, / Avec ta crinière élastique, / Tes yeux, languissamment…”21. The artist expresses seductive power of flesh with frank naturalism: “ Tu trouveras au bout de deux beaux seins bien lourds, / Deux larges médailles de bronze, / Et sous un ventre uni, doux

— 115 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

3. Rops, Felicien. The frontispiece to the cycle “Fragments” of the collection of poems “The Flowers of Evil” by C. Baudelaire, 1889. Graphic etching, 32 × 18 cm. The museum Félicien Rops, Namur, Belgium. image source: www. museerrops.be (access: 12.05.2016)

— 116 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism comme du velours, / Bistré comme la peau d’un bonze, / Une riche toison qui, vraiment, est la soeur / De cette énorme chevelure, / Souple et frisée, et qui t’égale en épaisseur, <…> “22. The artist, creating a visual portrait, followed the spirit and the letter of the poetic text, and in this union detected opened by Baudelaire truth about the female body, which became the basis for the artistic discourse on femininity in the epoch of modernism. Rassenfosse, in his turn, suggested the physiological diagram, thanks to which became possible a new optical perception of physical activity. Taking into account the fact that the ban on the publication of the book “Flowers of Evil” in France was withdrawn only in 1949, many artists saw the publication of books with their illustrations published in other countries. Armand Rassenfosse’s pictorial texts with special visual poetics were often represented as independent artifacts of art. Vollard was one of the first to formulate the canons of the genre Livre d’artiste and he determined the structure of material construction, which was subsequently used by other publishers: Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler, Albert Skira, Eugene Teriad, Aimé Meg, Harry Kessler and others. Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler, French gallery owner and art historian, he collaborated with many artists: Andre Derain, Juan Gris, André Mason, Pablo Picasso and others. Guillaume Apollinaire’s edition of the book of poems “L’Enchanteur Pourrissant” (“Rotting magician”, 1909) brought him glory, it had André Derain’s xylographs, it consolidated the success of the genre “Livre d’artiste”23. The book, written in imitation with medieval mysteries, demanded monochrome graphic text. The main character “Lake maiden” beautiful, “like the garden in April, as the forest in June, as a fruit grove in October, as a snowfield in January,” fell in love with the magician Merlin, who died suddenly. Located on the grave, she listens to the noise of the forest: “The forest filled with hoarse cries, rustle of wings and songs. Ghostly shadows glided over the tomb of the dead and dumb magician. Black- headed maiden sat, motionless, and listened to these sounds with a smile. Snake broods were sliding to the grave, now here, now there flashed fairies, two-horned demons and witches, shrouded by poisonous fumes of marshes”24. In this parable, a poet outlined the main themes for

— 117 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

4. Apollinaire, Guillaume. Rotting magician. 1909. Lithography by Andre Derain. M. I. Bashmakov’s collection. Image source: http://artinvestment.ru/ news/exhibitions/20130930_kniga.html (access: 12.05.2016) further work: the suffering and agony of love, the invisible reality and fictional characters, spatial discontinuity that will determine the further formation of modernist poetics. In Derain’s graphics is noticeable the impact of Cubism and the iconography of African masks25. We see the elongated proportions, strained frozen face of a depicted girl with a characteristic contour of the ritual mask. It should be noted that the Artist’s Book always manifests the text, radically changes the way of representation of the Poet and the Painter figures. These are the innovative technologies and practices, which find new ways to analyze the symbolist synthetic text. Similar mutual positioning of the image and the word plays central role in the book space when new experiments in the field of the visual representation of the poetic text gain an adequate way of constellation image-bearing book system. Discourse identity of the author of the symbolist poetic text is set by the parallelism of adjacent art. The painter-illustrator does not burden himself with mimetic similarity and likeness, and that is

— 118 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism why “visible” graphic criteria do not always correspond to the verbal context. A series of illustrations in the Artist’s Book demonstrates an artist’s idiostyle, measurable only in the system of visual signs and symbols. The new system of relations between painting and poetry has the greatest significance in this new aesthetic field. In the genre Livre d’artiste an intellectual game of artist and poet, word and image, text and illustration gets actualized. New plastic signs and symbols generate a special optical system with metamorphoses and transitions overflowing meanings and visual imagery. Model of the book shows the drama between the graphic technologies and experimental optical effects. A new character of communication exchange — ​an interactive process of the book examining and reading presupposes an active concord of authors with readers and viewers, becomes an important part.

REFERENCES 1. Apollinaire, Guillaume. Rotting magician // G. Apollinaire. Murdered poet. / Comm. M. Yasnova. M .: The ABC Classics, 2005 pp. 15—16. 2. Benjamin B. Modernity // Benjamin B. Baudelaire. M .: Ad Marginem Press 2015. pp. 74—115. 3. Bernatskaya A. A. On the problem of “creolization” of the text: the history and current state // Speech dialogue: Special Bulletin. Issue 3 (11). Krasnoyarsk: Publishing House of the Krasnoyarsk State University Press, 2000. Pp. 42—58. 4. Baudelaire C. Flowers of Evil: the poem. M .: Eksmo, 2014. 5. Paul Verlaine. Parallel. Bryusov V. and G. Shengeli translation // Paul Verlaine. Favorites. Poems. M.: AST. Pp. 161—168. 6. Paul Verlaine. Parallel. Bryusov V. and G. Shengeli translation // Paul Verlaine. Favorites. Poems. M.: AST. Pp. 128—150. 7. Amburaz Vollard — ​the great publisher of great artists. Bonnard, Rodin, Cezanne, Renoir, Chagall, Picasso, Dufy, Braque, Rouault, Derain, Degas, Maillol. The exhibition catalog. M .: Growth Media 2012. 8. Gourmont, Remy de. Comedy of masks. / Transl. Kuzmin M. A., Blinova E. M. M.: Aquarius, 2013. 9. Kenneth Clark. Nudity in art. A study of the ideal form. SPb .: Azbuka-classic, 2004. 10. Panova O. From ecphrasis to kalligramme: metamorphosis of ecphrasistic descriptions in French poetry of XIX — ​XX centuries. // “Indescribably expressible”: ecphrasis and the problem of visual representations in the art text: Collection of articles / Comp. D. V. Tokareva. — ​M .: New Literary Review, 2013. Pp. 323—341. 11. Surrealism and Livre d’artiste. From George Hens and Boris Friedman collection. / Comp. B. Friedman. M .: Growth Media, 2014.

— 119 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

12. Tristan Tzara. Speech at the Congress of Dadaists. // Sadalnik V. D. Dadaism and the Dadaists. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of World Literature, 2010. Pp. 531—537. 13. Friedman B. Preface // Surrealism and Livre d’artiste. From George Hens and Boris Friedman collection. M .: Growth Media, 2014. pp. 8—12. 14. Mikhail Pogarsky. Artist’s Book. М.: Artist’s Book Mikhail Pogarsky,2010. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.pogarsky.ru/images/books/0_artistsbook51. pdf (Access: 17.06.2014). 15. Chapon, François. Le Peintre et le Livre: l’Age d’Or du Livre Illustré en France 1870—1970. Paris: Flammarion, 1987. 16. Grażyna Bobilewicz. “Artist’s Book” as an intermediate discource // Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne. 2012. № 2, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań Adam Mickiewicz University Press,2012,. Adam Mickiewicz University Press, pp. 84—96. 17. Walter John Strachan 1969 — ​Walter John Strachan. The Artist and the Book in France / The 20th Century Livre d’artiste. Londоn: Peter Owen Ltd, 1969.

ENDNOTES

1 On the concept of “image-verbal complex” see more: Bernatskaya A. A. On the problem of “creolization” of the text: the history and current state // Speech dialogue: Specialized Gazette — ​Issue 3 (11). Krasnoyarsk: Publishing House of the Krasnoyarsk State University, 2000. Pp.42—58. 2 There is no extensive research on the theme of Livre d’artiste in Russian. European scientists have long been turning to the study of different forms of representation of word and images in this genre. See: Bury, Stephen. Artists’ Books: the Book as a Work of Art, 1963—1995. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1995; Castleman, Riva. A Century of Artists Books. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1994; Chapon, François. Le Peintre et le Livre: l’Age d’Or du Livre Illustré en France 1870— 1970. Paris: Flammarion, 1987; Courtney, Cathy. Speaking of Book Art: Interviews with British and American Book Artists, Los Altos Hills: Anderson-Lovelace, 1999; Drucker, Johanna. The Century of Artists Books. New York: Granary Books, 1995; Hogben, Carol and Rowan Watson, eds. From Manet to Hockney: Modern Artists’ Illustrated Books. London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1985; Hubert, Renée Riese and Hubert, Judd D. The Cutting Edge of Reading: Artists’ Books. New York: Granary Books, 1999; Johnson, Robert Flynn. Artists Books in the Modern Era 1870—2000: the Reva and David Logan Collection of Illustrated Books. London: Thames & Hudson, 2002; The Journal of Artists’ Books: JAB. New York: Interplanetary Productions, 1994; Klima, Stefan. Artists Books: a Critical Survey of the Literature. New York: Granary Books, 1998; Moeglin-Delcroix, Anne. Esthétique du Livre d’Artiste: 1960—1980. Paris: Jean-Michel Place, 1982; Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1997; Lyons, Joan, ed. Artists’ books: a Critical Anthology and Sourcebook. New York: Visual Studies Workshop Press, 1985; Turner, Silvie and Ian Tyson, eds. British Artists’ Books, 1970—1983: an Exhibition. London: Lund Humphries, 1984. 3 Friedman, B. Preface // Surrealism and Livre d’artiste. From George Hens and Boris Friedman collection. M .: Growth Media, 2014. P. 8.

— 120 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

4 See more: Fançois, Chapon. Le Peintre et le Livre, l’âge d’or du livre illustré en France 1870—1970. Paris: Flammarion, 1987. th 5 Strachan, Walter John The Artist and the Book in France / The 20 Century Livre d’artiste. Londоn: Peter Owen Ltd, 1969. 6 Traditional bibliophile book is similar to an ordinary book, but sophisticated in content and graphic form, expensive materials, accordeon book, cot / layout, book, butterfly-book, fan, scroll, code, tunnel, notebook, album, poster, book-palimsest, leporello, book-altar, monument, fetish, reliquary, book box, boxing, traveler chest, book-sight, auditory / acoustic book (use of materials producing different sounds such as the rustling of sand, salt), a book with added details, commenting its content (such as a handkerchief to wipe tears), a book revolving around, the same book in different materials, two books related to each other, the book in which the individual elements reveal its value after taking them in hand and manipulation of it, and many others” // Bobilewicz, Grażyna. “Artist’s Book” as an intermedial discourse” // Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań Adam Mickiewicz University Press,2012, № 2. Adam Mickiewicz University Press. p.42. 7 Bobilewicz, Grażyna “Artist’s Book” as an intermedial discourse” // Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań Adam Mickiewicz University Press,2012, № 2. Adam Mickiewicz University Press. p.42. th 8 Strachan, Walter John The Artist and the Book in France / The 20 Century Livre d’artiste. Londоn: Peter Owen Ltd, 1969. P. 254. 9 This writes the artist M. Pogarsky writes about it. See .: Pogarsky Michael. The Artist’s Book. М.: Artist’s Book Mikhail Pogarsky, 2010. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.pogarsky.ru/images/books/0_artistsbook51.pdf (Access: 17.06.2014). 10 On this subject, see more in detail: Panova O. From ecphrasis to kalligramme: metamorphosis of an ecphrastical descriptions of French poetry of XIX — ​XX centuries. // “Indescribably expressible”: ecphrasis and visual representation of the problem in the art text: Collection of articles / Comp. D. V. Tokareva. — ​M .: New Literary Review, 2013. pp.323—341. 11 Verlaine, Paul. Parallel. Bryusov V. and G. Shengeli translation // Paul Verlaine. Favorites. Poems. M.: AST. p. 84. 12 Ibid. p.131. 13 Verlaine, Paul. Parallel. Bryusov V. and Shengeli G. translation, Pp.161—162. 14 Kenneth, Clark. Nudity in art. A study of the ideal form. SPb .: Azbuka-Classics, 2004. p.407. 15 Verlaine, Paul. Parallel. Bryusov V. and Shengeli G. translation, P. 162. 16 Benjamin, Walter. Modernity // Benjamin V. Baudelaire. M .: Ad Marginem Press, 2015. P. 91. 17 Baudelaire, Charles. Flowers of Evil: the poem. M .: Eksmo, 2014. P. 28. 18 Ibid. pp. 44—45. 19 Baudelaire, Charles. Flowers of Evil: the poem. M .: Eksmo, 2014. С. 134. 20 Ibid. p.134. 21 Baudelaire, Charles. Flowers of Evil: the poem. M .: Eksmo, 2014. С. 182. 22 Ibid. С. 182.

— 121 — Irina М. Sakhno. Livre d’artiste as an isoverbal text in the culture of Symbolism

23 Amburaz Vollard — ​the great publisher of great artists. Bonnard, Rodin, Cezanne, Renoir, Chagall, Picasso, Dufy, Braque, Rouault, Derain, Degas, Maillol. The exhibition catalog. M .: Growth Media 2012. p. 25. 24 Apollinaire, Guillaume. Rotting magician // G. Apollinaire. Murdered poet. / Comm. M. Yasnova. M .: The ABC Classics, 2005. Pp. 15—16. 25 Fact of impact on A. Deain of an African mask from the tribe pangve, donated by M. Vlamink is well-known.

— 122 — Ekaterina V. Matveeva. Language Alter Ego — myth or reality?

Ekaterina V. Matveeva Master of Arts in “Crossways in Cultural Narratives” Affiliated researcher of investigation group ‘Galabra’ in Santiago de Compostela Founder of Amolingua School of foreign languages University of St Andrews e-mail: [email protected] Edinburgh, United Kingdom LANGUAGE ALTER EGO — MYTH OR REALITY? THE CONCEPT BASED ON THE STUDIES OF THE LINGUISTIC PERSONALITY AND THE RELATIONS OF POWER

Summary: Being an extract from a dissertation report, this article covers the topic of cultural and linguistic studies. The author reviews the recent studies related to language learning in cultural and social contexts, arguing her theory on a language alter ego and its formation during the second language acquisition. Keywords: culture, teaching, multilingual, inter-cultural, personality.

Language Alter Ego — ​myth or reality? During the past twenty years there have been emerging studies on the crossroad of linguistics and psychology. More and more linguists have questioned the connection of language and socio-cultural context and their influence on each other in a human’s brain. In the following article we are going to explore the concept of “Language Alter Ego” and the previous studies related to the subject. For many years, exploring the relationship between cultural context and language development has been largely limited to second language acquisition research, while learning a new language has become equal to learning a new identity (Lightbown and Spada, 2006; Pavlenko and

— 123 — Ekaterina V. Matveeva. Language Alter Ego —myth or reality?

Lantolf, 2000). Language learners have been considered as poor copies of native speakers and defective users of the target language. Recent studies have acknowledged that language learners are legitimate owners and users of the second language, who perform their own representations of the language and have identities in their own right (Guilherme 2002, Cook 2002, Kramsch 1998). Moreover, learners are regarded from the perspective of the influence that social environment has on their identity processes (Goldstein, 1997; McKay and Wong, 1996; Norton, 2000; Pavlenko and Lantolf, 2000). In our paper we will use the term “personality” instead of “identity”. As we regard “identity” as “a sense of belonging”, while “personality” is considered “a combination of emotional and behavioral responses”. The studies of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf on linguistic relativity addressing the mystique of the language. They believed that the language reflects the fundamental values of the given culture and at the same time forms them. This idea gave the foundation for the theory of linguistic personality drawn by Karaulov. The linguistic personality was considered as a person, expressed in a language and through a language, a person, reconstructed in his/her main features on the basis of linguistic means. It is development and additional content of the concept of personality at all (Karaulov, 1987). And the language has started to be seen as the site of personality construction of language learners. This approach has challenged the notion that language learners’ personalities are fixed. Recently learners’ linguistic and cultural personality has been seen as multiple — ​learners can be members of multiple ethnic, social and cultural communities — ​contradictory, changing, and permeable over time. Learners can not only cross the borders between two cultures, but they can re-position themselves and modify their personalities without having to completely lose their core selves. The notion of linguistic personality gave way to other cultural and linguistic theories around a secondary linguistic personality. (Khaleeva 1987, Galskova 2004, Elizarova 2005). Secondary and multicultural linguistic personalities have brought us to the theory of a language alter ego. Our belief is that language learning is determined by social, cultural, political and economic contexts.

— 124 — Ekaterina V. Matveeva. Language Alter Ego —myth or reality?

Language learning becomes a product of social interactions where diverse social markers such as gender, age, race and other relations of power will have an impact on language acquisition. These ideas about power relations are elaborated at length in Bourdieu’s classic study of French society, Distinction (1986), in which he shows how the ‘social order is progressively inscribed in people’s minds’ through ‘cultural products’ including systems of education, language, judgments, values, methods of classification and activities of everyday life (1986: 471). These all lead to an unconscious acceptance of social differences and hierarchies, to ‘a sense of one’s place’ and to behaviors of self-exclusion (ibid: 141). Hence, language learning occurs through social contacts and each individual’s interaction with the world where it is necessary to fit into a social group. And this adaptation depends on the social background and the status of a language learner’s culture together with the values of a newly formed community. This may cause tension between two cultures, in other terms, two personalities in one person. The relations of power of two distinct worldviews may create an ambiguous, labyrinthine hybrid of two personalities as a transcultural individual. Such individual rejects his core self and does not fully accept a new framework of values imposed in a new community. In order to fully understand the conflict and construction of new personalities in the language learning process, together with looking at the encounter of the two cultures and its conflict, we need to take into account individual’s social and cultural backgrounds and how it affects the shaping of a new cultural and language personality. We should admit that multilingual people may have at least two scenarios of their identity shaping. The first group often succeeds in creating a personality that includes both their first and second cultures, while the second group unconsciously switches to a new linguistic and cultural personality by acculturating and rejecting their former cultural selves in a novel social environment, but this doesn’t imply that they completely reject their core selves. They simply create their language alter egos that manifest themselves in a particular social and cultural context where a behavioral switch is required. This experience is observed during the cultural adaptation processes that take place while acquiring a language and entering into contact with a different community of practice.

— 125 — Ekaterina V. Matveeva. Language Alter Ego —myth or reality?

To date, language learning has been regarded as a skill divorced from the core self and a learner’s linguistic, social and ethnic background. We would like to argue that language learners need to become fully aware of the different cultural and social aspects that influence language learning by investing more than purely cognitive skills in the language learning process and seeking to reposition their linguistic personalities in relation to the speakers of the target language. Only then they will discover their language alter ego.

REFERENCES 1. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London, Routledge. 2. Cook, V., ed. 2002. Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. 3. Elizarova, G. V. 2005. Formation of a policultural linguistic personality as a demand of a new global situation, Language education in high school. Saint-Petersburg. pp. 8—21. 4. Galskova, N. D. 2004. The theory of foreign languages education: linguodidactics and methodics. Moscow, 336 p. 5. Guilherme, M. 2002. The Critical Dimension in Foreign Culture Education, in Critical Citizens for an Intercultural World. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. 6. Karaulov, Yu.N. 1987. Russian language and linguistic personality. Moscow, 268 p. 7. Khaleeva, I. I. 1989. Fundamentals of theory of foreign speech understanding (translator training). Moscow. 8. Kramsch, C. 1998. The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram and M. Fleming (eds). Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 9. Norton, B. 2000. Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational Change. London, Longman. 10. Norton, B., Toohey, K. 2001. Changing Perspectives in Good Language Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (2), pp. 307—322. 11. Pavlenko, A. 2002. Poststructuralist Approaches to the Study of Social Factors in L2. In V. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters, pp. 277—302. 12. Pavlenko, A. 2001. ‘In the world of the tradition, I was unimagined’. Negotiation of identities in cross-cultural autobiographies. The International Journal of Bilingualism. 5 (3), pp. 317—344. 13. Pavlenko, A, Lantolf, J. P. 2000. Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 155—177. 14. Sapir, E. 1961. Culture, Language and Personality. Selected Esays. Ed. David G. Mandelbaum, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press.

— 126 — The Art and Literature Scientific and Analytical Journal «TEXTS» has a humanitarian nature. Articles are published in French, English, German and Russian. The Journal focuses on research papers about the theory, history and criticism of art, literature, film, theater and music. The Journal is published four times a year.

Its electronic version will be publicly available via the website www.art-texts.com

The Journal is also published in paper form, because reading paper texts is a historical tradition and an integral part of European culture. We would like this new Journal to become a common intellectual platform for researchers from different countries as well as to contribute to the development of scientific, creative and friendly connections.

Cover photo: Royal doors (fragment). XVIII century. Wood, gesso, tempera, forged metal (fasteners). From Mamontovo village. Morshansk History and Art Museum

Our Address in Bruxelles: Belgique, Bruxelles, 1000, rue de la Tête d’Or, 7 tel.: +34 483 09 10 64 [email protected]

Our representation in Moscow: Address: 15/9 B. Afanasievskiy street, Moscow, Russia 119019 tel.: +7 495 695-04-19 [email protected]

Circulation: 500 Published: 4x/yr