The Restoration of Moscow after 1812 Author(s): Albert J. Schmidt Source: Slavic Review , Spring, 1981, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Spring, 1981), pp. 37-48 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2496426 REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2496426?seq=1&cid=pdf- reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Slavic Review This content downloaded from 129.2.19.103 on Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:00:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms ALBERT J. SCHMIDT The Restoration of Moscow After 1812 The calamitous fire which destroyed Moscow in 1812 precipitated a momentous urban renewal, which took on special architectural significance because it made Moscow one of Europe's foremost classical cities. To a greater degree than London, Edinburgh, Berlin, or Vienna, Russia's old capital acquired a "neoclassical" look despite the reappearance in it of much that was traditional and wooden. The pur- pose of this article is to stress the significance of the fire as a watershed in the city's history, noting those planning and building antecedents that gave rise to the new city after 1812. Russian classicism as an eighteenth- and nineteenth-century architectural mode did not draw upon a Renaissance-baroque continuum from Europe. Although both the Renaissance and baroque styles had been used by Peter and Elizabeth's Peters- burg architects, they appear not to have been precursors of that classicism, or romantic classicism, which dominated Russian building during the reigns of Cath- erine II and Alexander 1.1 Classicism in this sense probably originated with the English garden early in the eighteenth century. Subsequently it acquired authen- ticity, "a noble simplicity and quiet grandeur" from the archeological remains in Herculaeum and Pompeii, and marvelous advertisement from the Hellenist Win- ckelmann and the etcher Piranesi.2 The work of architects Louis-Etienne Boullee, Claude Nicholas Ledoux, and Jean-Jacques Lequeu completed the break with the Louis XV style. Their language of classicism was of a different sort from that of their predecessors. Boullee spoke for all three when he expressed his captivation by "sim- plicity, regularity, and reiteration."3 Avoiding the fanciful and the imitative, they (Ledoux, especially) adopted a severe style in a stark world of spheres, cubes, and pyramids. If these works did not have clear prototypes in antiquity, their unembel- lished quality won them immediate acceptanee as symbols for perfecting the world of the late eighteenth century. Such was the unsettled state of European architec- tural style which Catherinian Russia encountered. Russia entered the mainstream of classicism by adopting a variation of the Pal- ladian style. This was accomplished principally through an emancipated nobility's extensive construction of estate houses in town and country after mid-century. These houses, which mirrored a new Russian elegance, symbolized the "golden age 1. The term romantic classicism was first used by Sigfried Geidion in Spltbarocker und roman- tischer Klassizismus (Munich, 1922). Fiske Kimball introduced it in English in "Romantic Classicism in Architecture," Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 25 (1944): 95-112. Henry-Russell Hitchcock has explored its meaning and development in Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Baltimore, 1967), pp. xxi-xxix and 1-19. I am also very much indebted to S. Frederick Starr for his perceptions of romantic classicism and its Russian linkage. 2. Kimball emphasizes the English garden origins ("Romantic Classicism," p. 99); the quotation is from Fritz Baumgart, A History of Architectural Styles (New York, 1970), p. 259. 3. Quoted from Emil Kaufman, Three Revolutionary' Architects: Boule&e, Ledoux, and Lequeu. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., vol. 42, no. 3 (Philadelphia, 1952), p. 471. This content downloaded from 129.2.19.103 on Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:00:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 38 Slavic Review of the nobility" in Catherine's Russia. Under both Catherine II and Alexander I, classical building accompanied diverse, town planning enterprises, not just in St. Petersburg and Moscow, but throughout the empire. The rebuilding of St. Peters- burg with its grandiose ensembles became the best known of these undertakings. Moscow, on the other hand, until 1812 possessed a traditional and picturesque look: its classical edifices, softened by light pastels and delicate baroque ornament, radiated warmth, charm, and even intimacy, despite their size. By contrast, the buildings and squares of St. Petersburg reflected imperial grandeur and monu- mentality. In 1812 Alexander I was well along in his task of transforming the new capital on the Neva, little thinking that his energies would have to be diverted to rebuilding Moscow. The great fire changed all this. Many of the plans on the drawingboards of Moscow architects for the previous half-century would now have to be realized. Three stages of development describe the restoration of Moscow after 1812. One, the "Project Plan" of 1775, occurred nearly a half-century before the confla- gration. Also important were the plans developed between 1813 and 1817 by the Scottish architect and planner William Hastie and by the Moscow Building Com- mission (Komissiia dlia stroeniia v Moskve). The final event was the actual crea- tion of Moscow's center, especially as expressed in the work of the architect Osip Bove. The romantically classic Moscow that emerged after 1812 survived intact until the 1930s, when various Soviet projects altered the city center. Moscow originated in the twelfth century as a kreml' at the confluence of the Moscow and Neglinnaia rivers. From this stockade, essentially triangular in shape, the city emanated, within a series of concentric walls. Adjacent to the walled Krem- lin, evolved the walled, commercial Kitai gorod, with its Red Square separating the two. Both of these resided within the confines of Belyi gorod, and all were contained within Zemlianoi gorod. These walls, in turn, were breached at their various gates by radial thoroughfares. Moscow followed the classic medieval fortress pattern of the cross within the circle, the radials intersecting with the fortress wall.4 By the time of the accession of Catherine II in 1762, both Moscow's medieval walls and the city itself were in decay. Catherine despised the place and loathed going there for her coronation.5 Although she intended to renovate the city, she procrastinated. For a time she was persuaded by the architect Vasilii Bazhenov to raze most of the medieval Kremlin and replace it with an enormous classical one.6 This enterprise, partially begun at the end of the 1760s, did not proceed because Catherine lost interest or felt financially pressed, or both. Although she allowed the Kremlin project to falter, she was not relieved of the burden of Moscow. Fires and the plague in the early 1770s necessitated action. When her Commission for the 4. For Moscow's early development see P. V. Sytin, Istoriiaplanirovki i zastroiki Moskvy, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1950-54) and L. M. Tverskoi, Russkoe gradostroitel'stvo do kontsa XVII veka (Moscow, 1953), pp. 39-43. 5. John T. Alexander admirably shows Catherine's distate for the city (see "Catherine II, Bubonic Plague, and the Problem of Industry in Moscow," American Historical Review, 79 [1974]: 637-71). 6. The main corpus of the palace covered 11.12 acres, or an area of one and a half million cubic meters. This was twice the area covered by Zakharov's Admiralty in St. Petersburg and four times its cubic capacity. A wooden model of this classical Kremlin may be seen in the architectural museum in the Donskoi Monastery (Moscow). Arthur Voyce, The Moscow Kremlin: Its History, Architecture, and Art Treasures (Berkeley, Calif., 1954), pp. 59-63 provides a survey of this topic. This content downloaded from 129.2.19.103 on Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:00:06 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Restoration of Moscow 39 Building of St. Petersburg and Moscow (Komissiia dlia stroeniia stolichnykh goro- dov Sankt-Peterburga i Moskvy) submitted a plan for Moscow, she took heed. The Moscow office of this body, the so-called Separate department (Otdelennyi), actu- ally developed the Project Plan of 1775, a document which would influence plan- ning and building in Moscow for the next half-century and serve as a model for its restoration after 1812. The plan of 1775,7 the most important of the numerous plans of Moscow devel- oped during Catherine's reign, divided Moscow into the Belyi gorod "city," the Zemlianoi gorod "suburbs," and the "outlying lands" within the Kamer-Kollezhskii Rampart. It left intact the historic, radial ring pattern and city limits. Intended to revamp the "city," particularly with squares and public buildings, the 1775 plan was not associated with construction then occurring within the Kremlin. In Kitai gorod, where the plan called for three squares, no fundamental alteration of Red Square was planned. Nearby Il'inskaia Square was to have been widened; and alongside St. Basil's Cathedral a projected plaza meant razing the shops between St. Basil's and the Kremlin wall as well as removing commercial stalls and other buildings between the cathedral and the lobnoe mesto.