Eero Jarnefelt and the Imperial Academy of Arts in St.Petersburg.

To the question of the Russian-Finnish artistic relationship during the second half of the 19th century

Russian-Finnish cultural and artistic relations have a long and fascinating history that dates back to ancient times. The Finns still lived on the banks of Neva before the founding of our city. Since 1809, the time of the joining Russia to Finland, the closer and more purposeful contacts began to occur. For many Finns, St. Petersburg became the second homeland. In the 1880s, more than 24000 Finns lived in St.Petersburg that was the second city after Helsinki by the number of Finns residing there. The Finns presented nearly in all the social groups of St.Petersburg’s residents: from the factory workers and servants of aristocratic families to the ministers and Maids of Honour of the Empress. In his Sound of the Time, Osip Mandelshtam wrote: «I’ve always vaguely felt the special importance of Finland for a resident of St. Petersburg. A lot of people have always come to Finland to think over something because it was impossible to do that when staying in St.Petersburg.» He believed in the importance of Finland for St.Petersburg.
The Imperial Academy of Arts didn’t also keep apart from the Finnish-Russian cultural relations that became an objective reality in the second half of the 19th century.  The Finns have always preserved cultural traditions in their country. Since 1708, painting and drawing were included in the curriculum of the University of Helsingfors (Helsinki). Many arts educational institutions emerged at the time when Finland was a part of Russia. Later on, these institutions played an active role in the culture of Finland at that time. Apart from being an irreplaceable component of the program of the Helsingfors University, painting and drawing were also studied at the Finnish Art society (since 1848), where was founded an art school which started working in Helsingfors (Helsinki) and later in Abo (Turku). The vast majority of talented artists, whose creative works made a significant impact on the Finnish art at that time, had become the graduates of these schools. However, The Finnish Society of Artists didn’t have enough funds to organise the teaching at the highest level, that’s why many Finnish artists polished their artistic skills studying abroad.
For many artists who were improving their artistic skills, St. Petersburg Academy of Arts wasn’t the only educational institution where they could achieve their goals. Artists from Finland could also gain professional experience in Germany and France as well. Nevertheless, many distinguished Finnish painters, sculptors and architects chose St. Petersburg and the Academy of arts for the development of their skills. They stayed for a different time at the Academy, but the relations between St. Petersburg Imperial Academy of Arts and Finnish artists was not limited to the education of students only. In addition to this, the Finnish students participated in many exhibitions, which were organised at the Academy. Many Finnish artists received the honorary titles of the academicians and the medals for their progress in art.
In August 1826, A.Olenin, the President of the Imperial Academy of Arts, received a circular from the Department of Education on the occasion of the Senat’s Decree «On the order of relations with Finland», according to which «The commission for Finnish affairs» was abolished and the State Secretariat had been introduced. In other words, the cultural development of Finland was becoming the business of the Finns themselves solely.
A. Armfelt who was a member of the Finnish Arts Society, organised in 1846, had become the State Secretary of St. Petersburg’ branch. On his proposal, the one-year-old son of Alexander II, Alexander Alexandrovich was assigned as its high patron. The avant-guard of the Russian political and social elites (Count Rumyantsev and Prince A.Gorchakov, in particular) contributed to the cultural autonomy of Finland.
Officially the Imperial Academy of Arts didn’t control the artistic life of Finland. What’s more, for Finnish artists, «its aesthetic principles and the spirits of the imperial court were extrinsic to the views modest lifestyle of Finnish artists»1. At that time, contemporary western art gave them a better motivation to draw their attention to the real life. The relations between the Academy and Finnish artists developed to provide the orders for portraits and landscapes, organise exhibitions and sales of painting and continue their education abroad. Academy made the significant contribution in celebration of the anniversary of the Finnish Art Society.
Not all Finnish artists completed the full course on arts at the Academy and received the diplomas; it depended on the goals that they set. And only Hugo Bakmanson (1860-1953) — the student of the Finnish Cadet Corps, and the officer of Life-Guards Izmailovsky Regiment, the student of P.Chistiakov and P.Kovalevsky, in November 1899 graduated the Academy with the painting called A Guide.
Among the Finnish artists who were awarded the title of academician, Albert Edelfelt whose work brought the fine arts of Finland to the international level occupies a leading position. He was a unique person for his creative energy. Edelfelt worked in different genres of painting: he painted the official formal portraits, created the pictures on historical subjects and the subjects from everyday life and lyric landscapes as well. In 1878, he was elected a free honorary member of Academy. In 1881, for his picture «Funeral of a child», he was elected an academician in 1879. Since 1895 onwards, Edelfelt was a full member of the Academy of Arts. He got an order to portray Emperor Nicholas II and the invitation from the vice-president of Academy of arts, count I. Tolstoy to participate among the 20 artists in the coronation ceremony of Nicholas I.
The development of Russian-Finish relations has been characterized by the periods of climaxes and lulls. In the 1870s, relations between the two countries were very close. This fact was due to the completion of the construction of the Russian-Finnish railways, which made a positive impact on the facilitation of the process of selling artworks of Finnish artists. The second «peak» of the intensity of cultural and artistic relations between Russia and Finland falls, oddly, to the end of the1890s. The most outstanding event of these years was the exhibition of Russian and Finnish artists held in 1898 at the Baron Stieglitz’s school of Arts and Industry with the active assistance of S.Diagilev and A.Edelfelt. V.Blomstedt. A.Edelfelt. M.Enkel, A.Gallen-Callela, A. Gebhardt, P. Halonen, E. Jarnefelt, B.Lagerstam, V.Valgren as well as the members of the Mir Iskusstva art society were among the participants of this memorable event. In the same year, this exhibition was transferred to Munich.
Although the opinions of the experts about this exhibition were divided, it contributed to the mutual enrichment between the cultures of our countries. However, some of the art-critics didn’t react positively to the pictures presented at the exhibition. Vladimir Stasov was one of them. On the one hand, the paintings of A.Gallen-Kallela caused his particular dislike, on the other hand, the canvas of Eldelfelt «A laundress» was named as one of the best works of the exhibition and was highly appreciated for the implementation of its idea. It was highly evaluated in monetary terms (3000 roubles). It was the most expensive of the paintings presented at the exhibition. Now this work is in the collection of the State Hermitage.
In 1899, was enacted the Manifesto limiting the rights of Finland. It caused the storm of outrage among the progressive Russian intellectuals and the residents of Finland as well. What’s more, it created the damage to the artistic relations. Finnish artists had to refuse from the collaboration with Sergey Diaghilev. Nevertheless, the interest to the art of our Nothern neighbour didn’t fade: it increased dramatically. Sergei Diaghilev regularly published in the magazine «Mir Iskusstva» (The World of Art), the reproductions of the works of Finnish artists, reviews and articles devoted to the art and architecture of Finland. The cultural relations between Russia and Finland continued.
A vivid illustration of this process is the biography of Eero Jarnefelt, one of the outstanding Finnish painters.
To understand the origins of his creative work it is necessary to look into the past, following the history of his family. The family roots of the Jarnefelts originate from the German family of Keldank, the representatives of one of its branches moved to Finland in the 18th century and made his home in Savo that is in Karelia, Finland. Eero’s grandfather worked as an assistant to the chief of the local police. He lived in the Hovila estate, in Tomajarvi, was married to the daughter of Johan Molander, the Bishop of Porvoo. They have eight children: four sons and four daughters, among whom, Alexander, the father of Eero was the youngest. After he had died prematurely, his estate was auctioned, and his widow with children moved to Kuopio, where they lived with their relatives in a difficult financial situation.
Aurora Jarnefelt wanted her sons to become civil servants, promote Finnish culture and oppose the increasing russification of Finland. Only Alexander, the youngest of her songs, implemented the desire of his mother. After graduating from the Finnish Cadet Corps in 1853, he continued his education at the Artillery Academy of St.Petersburg, where he studied with Nikolai Klodt von Yurgensburg, with whom he had friendly relations. Alexander met the younger sister of Nikolai Klodt Elizaveta. The young people fell in love and got married. For the mother of Alexander, this marriage was unexpected. She always warned his son to have nothing to do with Russians and hoped that would have a daughter-in-law from Finland.
The ancestors of Eero Jarnefelt from mother’s side — the Klodts — came from Italy. The representatives of one of the branches of this family took up their residence in Estonia in the middle of the 16th century.
They purchased the Castle of Jurgensburg (this fact explains the origin of the second part of their surname — Klodt von Jurgensburg). The family moved to Russia at the beginning of the 19th century, and, ultimately, became Russified.
The uncle of Elizaveta von Klodt — Peter Klodt was a famous Russian sculptor, the author of bronze horses placed on the Anichkov Bridge, the monuments to I. A Krylov in the Summer Garden and Nicolas I in Isaakievskaya Square. Konstantin Karlovich(1807-1879), Elizaveta’s father, was also a distinguished person: he was a famous general and the first wood engraver in Russia. He taught at the Academy of Arts in St.Petersburg. He had the children who possessed the talent for arts. Mikhail was a well-known artist, and a professor of Academy of Arts, his sister Olga was an artist who taught drawing. A cousin of Elizaveta, son of Peter Klodt Mikhail was also a well-known artist.
Elizaveta Konstantinovna and Alexander Jarnefelt married on December 22, 1857. They had nine children, and all of them displayed their artistic talents.
It is likely that the talent for art came from the mother’s family, and the mother’s views on art influenced her children. Two of her children became artists, as well as many members of their family. As already mentioned, Alexander Jarnefelt, was a rigid man of principles and honour. But it is far from the complete characterisation of his personality. He had an aptitude for literature and music, and his letters give the evidence of this. In the notes to his children, Alexander emphasised the idea of the importance of education and the development of human’s capabilities. His letters give us the evidence of his role as a father and mentor, but they tell us about the love for his children.
The first years after their wedding, the Jarnefelts lived in St.Petersburg. Then they had to move to Pulkovo because Alexander served as an officer-topographer in the Nikolaevskaya Military Academy. By the time when Eero (or Eric, as he was called in his family) was born in Vyborg in 1863, he already had his two brothers — Kasper and Arvid. At the beginning of her married life, Elizaveta talked to her children in Russian while Alexander — in Finnish. Nevertheless, Elizaveta started learning Finnish just after she had married Alexander. The parents would speak to each other only in Finnish, while in other Finnish aristocratic families, Swedish was the preferred language. When living in Vyborg, the eldest boys had learnt Finnish in a short period, and Eero had never learnt Russian because he had a Finnish nurse. Unless the mother of Eero had acquired the language of her new motherland, she and Eero had never had their common language to talk. This fact had the significant influence on their relations that weren’t as close as the ones with Casper or Arvid.
In 1870 the family moved to Helsinki, where Alexander was appointed as a senior officer-topographer. It meant closer ties with the Finnish-speaking circles of society, and Finnish had become the language of communication between mother and children as well. Later on, Elizaveta helped her children as a translator: in particular, she helped Casper who translated into Finnish Russian fiction. She also helped Arvid when he wrote «My Parents’ Novel» in three parts. The development of the Finnish language and culture was also the primary goal of Alexander Jarnefelt. As for Eero, he had no interest in studying at school. In the fifth grade, inspired by his brother Casper, he became interested in painting. Eero admired by the artworks of Hialmar Munsterjelm, the teacher of Casper, whose influence one can see in his early artworks. Eero and Arvid were taught since 1874 at the Finnish Art Society drawing school, at the classes of Frederic Ahlstedt. Contrary to Eero’s interests and the character of his talent, he graduated from the school as a top-level student with the highest grades.
Alexander Jarnefelt had the plans for his sons. He wanted them to make their careers as civil servants and to care for the prosperity of their country. It might be for these ideas of his parents, Eero would like to become a teacher after graduation from the school. Surprisingly, his father shared his passion for the art. All brothers: Casper, Arvid and Eero were equally talented, and it was almost impossible to compare the level of their talent just by analysing their early artworks.
Nevertheless, Alexander was able to recognise in Eero’s artworks all the qualities that in his opinion were so necessary for a representative of the art of the young nation. Patriotism, courage, justice, sociable character all these personality traits were presented more in Eero than in other sons of Alexander. Alexander was firmly convinced that following a personal calling is not the best choice for the personality. Albert Edelfelt was the person, whose patriotism and worldwide fame made a significant impact on Alexander’s thought when he was choosing a career path for his sons. It was the time when Finnish artists gained international fame and recognition. The fundamental idea in the creative activity of Eero Jarnefelt was the idea of the rise of Finnish art at an international level and the promotion of the Finnish culture.
In 1883, Eero Jarnefelt went to St.Petersburg to continue his education at St.Petersburg Academy of Arts. Most of the Finnish artists at that time studied at Paris where Albert Edelfelt and Akseli Gallen Kallela had already lived for a few years. For Eero Jarnefelt, St.Petersburg was a natural choice for many reasons, one of which was that his uncle Mikhail Klodt von Jurgensburg had been a professor of the Academy of Arts. When studying at the Academy of Arts, Eero lived in the family of his uncle, Mikail Klodt. As for Eero himself, he hadn’t been the source of any financial problems for his uncle whose expenses were moderate.What’s more, living with his relatives, Eero didn’t feel lonely at first. For Alexander Jarnefelt, whose four sons and three daughters were studying at for different educational institutions at that time, the practical aspect of the education of his children was as crucial as acquiring theoretical knowledge.
Eero neither liked St.Petersburg, nor the official educational system that was at the Academy of Arts where he was studying at that time.
However, the years he spent at the Academy was the period of the emergency and flowering of the art of the group called The Itinerants to which joined his uncle. Mikhail Klodt was among the first artists who signed the Manifesto of The Itinerants. Together with C.Vorobyov and A.Bogoliubov Klodt took part in the organisation of the Landscape Painting Class in the Academy of Arts. Vorobyov, Bogoliubov and Klodt made up the rules of the Landscape Class. These artists promote the landscape painting as a genre which, in their opinion, is not inferior to other genres. Moreover, it is capable of the expression of the complex ideas which drew the close attention of the liberal intellectuals at that time.
«Mikhail Konstantinovich Klodt was a famous landscape artist of the second half of the 19th century, the artist who possessed a notable artistic personality. He left us many amazing realistic landscapes, excellently painted and expressed his genuine love for his motherland and to nature. He was able to show the relations between humans and their environment, not separating them from each other. Not only did he have the talent for arts but he was also a nice person. He was respected for his honesty, honour and strong civic stance. All these personality traits are not of the primary importance for many people nowadays. As it was mentioned above, he was one of the first artists who joined The Itinerants art society, at the same time, defending the young artists of democratic orientation from the reactionary administration of the Academy. In 1873, he refused to sign the document, forbidding young artists to participate in the temporary exhibitions organised by The Itinerants. In 1874, Klodt signed a letter of protest against the slanderous accusation of Vasily Vereschagin, the outstanding Russian artist of battle scenes in connection with his refusal from his title of a professor.
At the same time, he was well-known for his independent behaviour among the Itinerants. He openly expressed his opinion about the landscapes of Arkhip Kuindzhi exhibited at the Itinerants’ exhibition in 1879. The Itinerants blamed him for his attempt to consolidate his position at the Academy. In response to this unfair accusation, the artist resigned from The Itinerants art society, reserving the right to be exhibited at the exhibition of this association. The critics from the Itinerants Art Society responded immediately, albeit in a mediated form.V.V.Stasov, the leading propagandist of the democratic ideas of the Itinerants, has also changed his attitude towards Jarnefelt. For example, he highly appreciated the painting of Jarnefelt A Large Road in Autumn (1863).
However, generally having a good opinion of the picture Jarnefelt’s picture At the Plow in Malorossiya, he recognised a small defect, making a wrong impression about the painting: the hair of the ox was too carefully painted.
Eero Jarnefelt had to live in this artistic environment. What was his life in St.Petersburg? In his letter to his brother Arvid, Eero described it as «rather dull». The lectures at the Academy during the day, drawing in the evenings and, in addition to this — playing music — that was the daily routine of Jarnefelt. The influence of the academic system we can see in his numerous studies of trees. The ideas about reforming the contemporary Russian society were essential to him. These topics were often discussed in the drawing room of their house where gathered his family, friends and like-minded people.
Surprisingly, in his diary, Eero Jarnefelt never mentioned any Russian artist by their name, with the exception of Sergey Diaghilev with whom he discussed the issue related to Lev Tolstoy. Visual arts had never been the subject of his topics. Here it is what he writes on the occasion of his visit to St.Petersburg in 1897: «A lot of memories of my youth are coming to my mind. However, they are so sad because these memories are about the time wasted and youth lost. Why do people see the light in their lives so late? This disappointment might happen because of their overconfidence which prevents them from being humble and ready to focus on the higher truth only. Nevertheless, some people understand the real meaning of truth from the very beginning. The only power makes some of them move away from the edge of defeat — this is their willpower. Those who come to this, see no alternative way.» Then Jarnefelt mentions «the amazing Hermitage», as well as Rubens, Titian, Rembrandt and Dutch landscapes as the authorities that every artist should follow.

When finishing a brief historical overview and analysis of the facts of Jarnefelt’s biography, raises the question: in what a degree St.Petersburg, in general, and his studying at the Academy of Arts, in particular, have influenced him? Some researchers (mostly Finnish) are of the opinion that this influence wasn’t significant. On the other hand, there is the information that Jarnefelt was closely associated with the Itinerants’ art society and with Ilya Repin himself. The first experts’ opinion is in favour of the former view (see above). The comments of Jarnefelt himself are in favour of the second opinion. Probably, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The evidence given by Jarnefelt about his life in St.Petersburg as «dull» shouldn’t be interpreted too ambiguously and straightforward. For the first time, Jarnefelt came to St.Petersburg in 1883. He stayed there until the year of1886. If you recall the biography of Mikhail Klodt, it was the years which had been coming before the difficult period in his life. In 1880, he left the Itinerants'(Peredvizhniki) movement. In 1886, in connection with his illness, he was transferred to an out-of-staff position, and in 1894, he was finally dismissed from the Academy of Arts. During these years Klodt underwent financial hardships. Perhaps the atmosphere in his uncle’s house affected Eero’s memoirs that are imbued with the feelings of sadness and despair. Another factor, which affected his opinion, was the atmosphere of St.Petersburg, its culture, traditions and the lifestyle of the people living there. The atmosphere of the official Academy was alien to him, but needless to say, many progressive and intelligent people didn’t come to terms with the rules and regulations of the Academy. When studying at the Academy, Eero Jarnefelt took a dislike to endless lessons and classes: lectures, painting, long-lasting studies of nature. He might think that for a young artist, there wasn’t much creativity in these activities. At the same time, it is known that his uncle, as a head of the landscape class at the Academy, highly rated landscape as a genre of painting. He considered a landscape not as a study of nature, but as a finished work of art which has its concept. Following this idea, Jarnefelt demanded of his students making detailed sketches of the places they depicted. And only after this initial stage should they begin to work on their final versions of the landscapes using oils.
It would help Jarnefelt in the future. Importantly, like Albert Edelfelt and other Finnish artists, Jarnefelt gave the highest priority to realism in art. The tendency to express reality realistically was characteristic not only for the Russian but European art as well. The idea of the realistic depiction of the world around us was promoted by the Dusseldorf Academy of Art, whose ideas found significant support among Finnish artists. French Impressionism was one of the aspects of this realistic trend. Albert Edelfelt, Eero Jarnefelt and other Finnish artists were under the influence of the Impressionism. After his graduation from the Academy of arts in St.Petersburg, Jarnefelt went to Paris to perfect his painting skills.
We can agree with the Finnish researcher of the biography of Jarnefelt that the Russian culture, in general, had had a profound influence on the artist. What’s more, it was due to the family traditions and reading Russian books. Importantly, Jarnefelt in his creative works didn’t promote progressive ideas in a straightforward way like the Itinerants (Peredvizhniki); his art was deprived of the acute social orientation. By creating his artworks, Jarnefelt didn’t mean to preach or call to take action against something. The picture The Forest is being Burnt» (1893, Soviet art critics called it Forced Labour) is the only one where there are social and accusatory motives. Maxim Gorky suggested some moments in this picture illustrate the idea of social injustice. There is another opinion about the main idea of this work. For the Finnish art historian S.Sinisalo, the main idea of this picture is that it excellently illustrates the idea of the French artist Bastien Lepage of the symbolic relations between humans and nature. Nevertheless, Jarnefelt is, first of all, a lyrist. The close relations between humans and nature that is the crucial moment in his landscapes. This aspect of his creative works has more in common with the main idea expressed in the paintings of Mikhail Klodt. Jarnefelt was the most prominent Finnish artist who created the realistic paintings. Not only the precision in depicting the nature of his motherland and the life of Finns are the intrinsic part of his artworks, but the glorification of his country and people who live in it can we see in the paintings of Jarnefelt. As an example, we can use such pictures as «July afternoon»,(1891), «Washerwomen on the shore» (1889), «Returning home» (1903), » The portrait of Matilda Vrede» (1896) The formulation of Aksel Gallen Kallela about his stand in life can be considered as applicable to the life and creativity of Eero Jarnefelt: «I can always reach the point where my country could be satisfied with my accomplishments, but my ambitions call me to go forward: everything or nothing, the first or last. This my view of the world, and I want to carry it through my life.» The idea of the high civil service to his nation, his people, this probably is the essential idea that Eero Jarnefelt drew from the Russian culture and spiritual life. This idea is valid up to the present. It brings together the cultures of the two nations — Finnish and Russian.
Bibliography
1. Безрукова М., «Искусство Финляндии. Основные этапы становления национальной художественной школы», М., Изобразительное искусство, 1986.
2 Безрукова М., «Мир Галлен-Каллелы».В журнале «Юный художник», 1990, № 5, с 35-41.
3. Безрукова М., «Скандинавская и финская живопись из музеев СССР», в журнале «Юный художник», 1990, № 10.
4. Безрукова М., «Певец финского народа», в журнале «Культура и жизнь», 1961, № 10, с 39-40.
5. Безрукова-Долматовская М., «С.П.Дягилев и Финляндия. К 100-летию выставки русских и финляндских художников». В сборнике «Проблемы развития зарубежного искусства». Материалы XI научной конференции в память профессора М.В.Доброклонского СПб, 1998.
6. Березина В., Альберт Эдельфельт и его произведения в Государственном Эрмитаже и других музеях СССР». Ленинград, издательство Государственного Эрмитажа, 1963.
7. Березина В. «О двух рисунках Эдельфельта». Сообщения Государственного Эрмитажа. Выпуск 28. Ленинград 1967.
8. Беспалова Л. «Очерки о жизни и творчестве русских художников II половины XIX века. Т. I». М, 1959
9. Левинсон А. «Аксель Галлен». Суждение о характере творчества и произведениях художника». СПб, 1908
10. «Мир искусства. К столетию выставки русских и финляндских художников 1898 года».” Palace editions”, 1898.
11. Суворова Л. «Финские академисты». В сборнике «Петербургские чтения 1998-1999», с. 472-475. СПб, 1999.
12. СПб, 1999.12. Finland Ateneum art museum. Helsinki, 2001
13. Martin, Timo, Siven, Douglas. “Akseli Gallen-Kallela. National artist of Finlandia.” Finland, 1985.
14. Valkonen, Markku.Kultakausi, Porvoo, 1995
15. Vanderdoe, Kirk. “Northern Light. Nordic art at the turn of the century”. Yale University press, New Heyven, London.
The links to the related sites:
• http://finland.ice-nut.ru/finland07502.htm
• http://www.phespirit.info/pictures/finland/g005.htm
• http://www.fennoscandia.ru/scan/30030401.html

There are many things in the world that we are accustomed to but usually ignore: buildings, streets, trees, monuments, cars passing by all this is our environment and the part of our lives. Regrettably, very often, you appreciate this when you begin to realize that something from this chain of events has been lost.

I love Pavlovsk because many events of my life are intimately connected to this place and fully captured by this park: I like having the breath of fresh air suffused with forest fragrances, as well as watching its inhabitants — birds and animals and listening to its fabulous sounds.   Not only its flora and fauna are the only things which I enjoy the most, but the beautiful views of the park with its fantastic sculptures and architectural monuments which are created by the talented architects and landscape designers, who implemented their ideas about ideal nature in such a picturesque scenery.  Designed by prominent painters, sculptors, architects and landscape designers, it, as it may seem, aims to inspire to create something.

As long as I’ve been visiting this park, I’ve got to know every its corner.Nevertheless, every time I see these dearest places, your relationships with them are becoming stronger. At the same time, you discover something new for yourself. The memorial office of Anna Ivanovna Zelenova, who was the director of the Pavlovsk Palace Museum for more than 30 years, became one of these new things. This «museum in the museum» located in one of the palace’s wings. Not to admire the exquisite adornment of the rooms do people come there, but to pay tribute to the memory of this outstanding person, without whom the renovation of this absolute treasure of our culture and the place that people like visiting could hardly be possible.

Here one can feel what it is the essence of any memorial museum exhibition: it is the effect of presence; it is that characterizes the person. The atmosphere of these museum’s rooms is very compelling. Every visitor is welcomed by the museum keepers who, as it may seem, are ready to talk about Anna Ivanovna for hours.As for the director of the Pavlovsk Museum and Natural Resort, every time he arranges the excursions for the Museum’s guests of honor, he leads them in this cabinet. Every exhibit here is the genuine thing: it belonged to Anna Ivanovna Zelenova, its former owner. It speaks for itself. The office is modestly furnished: a large writing desk, bookcases, books, pictures on the walls. Every object gives us the information about this wonderful woman. On her desk, one can see papers, technical drawings and the set of drawing tools, which she always used for her work. The large half-length portrait of her, painted with oil-based paints on canvas, and the landscape of the Pavlovsk Park, it is all that could be considered as luxuries. For everyone here, Anna Ivanovna is like the person who is near and dear to them. She made the impression of an ordinary person that she considered herself. She just did the job she loved, and, at the difficult time for our country, simply doing her duty, trying to be maximally useful. However, after the decades, it has become clear that what has been done was predestined. Not being a person of good health, but possessing truly iron will, she had to do many things that an average person couldn’t usually afford. You can’t help but think about that when standing in the Palace’s corridors in front of the more than individual height photographs of the ruins of the Palace, taken a right after the end of WWII.

What it was, the war? One can remember the sage words Konstantin Simonov, the Russian prominent writer and poet. He said that the war is different. A soldier in a trench sees one thing, a commander — another, and civilians — something else. What did the war mean for museum employees? Looking at the photo, published in the book of memories of Adelaide Jolkina (the adopted daughter of A.I. Zelenova) about Anna Zelenova. It portrays for women: Elena Nikolaevna Elkin, the director of the Summer Garden Museum, Anna Ivanovna Zelenova, the Director of the Pavlovsk Palace Museum, Marina Alexandrovna Tikhomirova, the Keeper of the Peterhof Museum and Evgenia Leonidovna Turova, the Director of Palace Museums and the Parks of Tsarskoye Selo. «The Invincible Blockade Brotherhood» — it is the caption of this photo. They are standing very closely to each other, and, probably feeling happy and satisfied with outliving one more day and doing their utmost for the benefit of their country and museums, firmly believing in our victory. Like these days, at that time, the vast majority of art historians and museum employees were women, who put on their shoulders all the hardships of the war. Anna Ivanovna Zelenova is one of them. Her life, which was filled with work and cares about her friends and loved ones, her personal and professional duty to her country, seemingly, came naturally to her. At the same time, to a great extent, her life is so unusual that it deserves to be turned into the feature film- biopic, which judging its sophisticated twist of plot and the temperature, wouldn’t be inferior to other contemporary movies nominated for the highest film awards.

In fact, there are many films, created by our filmmakers, about the labor exploits if workers, dedicated scientists, brave soldiers, militiamen athletes, rock climbers, etc.However, one film has not been created yet: the film of a big scale, which glorifies the heroism of the people of one of the most peaceful professions -museum employees, curators who take care of the cultural legacy of the past.

She came to work in the Pavlovsk Palace Museum in 1934. Although she was a very young girl, she had to go through many serious tests during her life and, eventually, she had gained the mature wisdom. She was born in an ordinary family. Her father worked as a mechanical engineer; mother was a skilled dressmaker. Honesty, diligence, empathy, aspiration for knowledge and enthusiasm for learning — these were so important values were being instilled in her by her parents during the years of her childhood. She had the lifelong passion for studying and was ready to share her knowledge and experience with others. When she was a student of the Peterschule, the famous German school in St.Petersburg, she gained the excellent drawing skills while attending the classes of design. Subsequently, these skills come in handy, when her father fell seriously ill, and she had to earn a living by taking a part-time job as a draftswoman. Like many talented people, Anna Ivanovna showed her aptitude for many areas of human activity. In her childhood, she attended the classes in the Ballet and Drama schools. While studying at the Art School and participated in the Theatre Director Courses, she taught illiterate people to read and write. She possessed the outstanding engineering capabilities from her father that is why she had studied at the Machine-Building Institute for two years. Then she was fully embraced by the desire to study humanities, and history of art. She studied at the Leningrad University, the Linguistic Faculty, specializing in art history, and at the Philological Faculty of the A.I.Hertsen Pedagogical Institute as a part-time student. After studying at the Courses of Proletarian Guides, she developed a significant number of manuals for excursions around the city, many of which she conducted herself.

No sooner had she been taken on, then she drew the attention of her colleagues. After a short time, she was asked to conduct the demonstration excursion. After a brief period, she was invited to conduct the demonstration excursion.

She was a hard-working person. Anna Ivanovna wrote manuals for guides, under her leadership, the Museum displays were formed (mainly in the Rose Pavilion and Pavilion Krik destroyed during the WWII). Importantly, she the vast amount of work was done at that time: she made the inventory of the exhibits which were kept in the Museum, the Rossi library. In addition to this, the architectural inventory of the Museum was made. In 1940, the group of the Academy of Arts students was assigned for the practical experience in the museum. The students had to sketch and make measurements of the details of the architectural decor. It was vital for that time. Despite the fact that all museums, palaces and private collections were nationalized in our country, they were in a very poor state, and their funds with the exhibits of the great value were embezzled by those who were in power at that time or held a higher position. These people considered the cultural legacy of our country as their private property, which could be sold abroad or given in the form of bribes, or seized for the purpose of arranging their life. It is known that Alexei Tolstoy, the famous Russian and Soviet writer, who was so distinguished by the Government, came to the Pavlovsk Museum to select some pieces of the Palace’s antique furniture for his dacha situated nearby. One could have the courage which had Anna Ivanovna to commit such an act, which was committed by her. She dared to remind the famous literature classic that she,  apparently made a mistake, and what he saw there, it was not objects from a warehouse he was able to choose for himself; all those thighs belonged to the Public Institution.

The talents of Anna Zelenova were appreciated very soon. She was offered a job as a member of emerging team of the newly founded Museum of the History of Leningrad, which was allocated in the premises of the Rumyantsev Mansion which was located on the English Embankment. The Museum Staff set a goal to organize the historical museum which was so necessary for our city at that time. For this great purpose, such talented people as Anna Zelenova was were of the utmost importance.

But the real challenge for her was the evacuation of the works of art from the Pavlovsk Museum. She came back there in the summer of 1941, almost immediately after the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, as the person authorized for the evacuation of the items of the high cultural value and the representative of the administration of the city. Despite the fact that as early as in the year of 1936, the Special Commission, which was responsible for the evacuation of the exhibits was established due to the orders of the Administration of the Leningrad’s Palaces and Parks, and the particular plan for evacuation artworks in the event of war or emergency state had been created, the situation in the Pavlovsk Museum was not simple. The Museum administration was totally supportive of the position that conservation of the Museum exhibits, is the solution to the problem they would have to face to in the near time. All valuables that could be replaced were moved to the first floor. However nobody could realize the degree of the impending disaster, nobody could even imagine that the bomb would fall into the Palace itself. The two weeks, so necessary for collecting and packing exhibits had been lost. At that point, Anna Ivanovna made the crucial decision: to evacuate all that could be evacuated and bury carefully everything that couldn’t be taken away. In this way, the Museum’s collection of the Ancient Greek and Roman sculptures of a high value was saved.It was hidden in the vaults and bricked up in the wall. To mask the sculptures some tricky things needed to be done. The newly built part of the wall, behind which many sculptures were placed, had been splattered with the cement mortar and mud. But for the great effort of Anna Zelenova, this so valuable collection wouldn’t have survived and remained unharmed. Many statues were buried in the Park. And all this work was done by the joint effort of residents, who didn’t go to the battlefront: the seniors, women, and teenagers! But it was still not all that had to be done.There were many problems that needed to be solved: the selection, packing and transporting items designated for evacuation were the problems of the vital importance those days. At the same time, the research staff was engaged in the process of documentation about the valuable things: they were sketching fabrics, furnishings, architectural details of the Palace. These documentary sketches that helped in the reconstruction of the Museum exhibition had become the invaluable asset for the reconstruction of the Palace after the War. Anna Ivanovna went permanently round to describe in detail what she saw. Everything was in perfect order: everything was documented with the utmost precision. Considering the severe conditions in which titanic work had been doing, such as the thunder of exploding shells, constant power cuts, the museum staff the Museum staff made heroic efforts to have everything done on a tight timetable. The part of exhibits was evacuated in Gorky(Nizhny Novgorod) and Sarapul. However, the majority of the exhibits were stored in the basement if St.Isaac’s Cathedral. Anna Ivanovna left Pavlovsk September 15, 1941,  when the Germans entered the city. It was a very long and arduous way, which she had to cover on foot.

Then the 900 days of blockade, the anticipation of the victory and her work in St. Isaak Cathedral followed.

The exhibition «To be remembered» devoted to the 60 anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War was opened in the cellars of St. Isaac Cathedral. It was aimed to tell us about the exhibits of the suburban palaces-museums which were stored in these premises at the time of WWII. The activity of Anna Ivanovna Zelenova was also reflected in this exhibition. To keep these exhibits in so terrible conditions was not as easy as it may seem. The cellars were damp, there weren’t heated, some premises were flooded. The museum employees had to use every warm and fine day to dry the exhibits. For example, between the columns of St. Isaac’s Cathedral were stretched the ropes, on which the antique carpets were drying out.

Only in winter of the year 1944 did Anna Ivanovna come back to Pavlovsk. There is the photograph taken by her and named «The Palace’s tears.» This piece of melted lead from the roof of burning Palace looks as if it is the tears of herself. Nevertheless, above all, she was the person of action. At that point, it was necessary to take an immediate action. First and foremost, the state organizations, which were in charge of the city’s museums must be informed of the urgent necessity of the renovation the Palace and Park. She did that with the perseverance and conviction so characteristic of her. If we read her report of the first post-war curatorial round, it becomes clear that there is virtually no Palace, but then, in the second part of her report, she gives with relentless persistence the list of the survived details and items from the Palace, which could be restored by using these objects. The following tasks were to conduct conservation, in other words, to protect that little what had been preserved, and to that end it was necessary as quickly as possible to restore the roof of the Palace. To implement this idea, Anna Ivanovna did everything to get the best construction equipment. Such a crane was only in the Office for the Construction of Airfields. However, there was no chance to get this crane. In this case, Anna Ivanovna uses all her connections, even the casual ones, appealing to human emotions.  Once, while she was going somewhere by tram, she met the soldier with whom she was familiar in the pre-war period. It was a real stroke of luck for her because this soldier had worked as a sculptor before the beginning of the war and had the significant working experience.This soldier served in the units of the State Airfield Management. He suggested how to make an appointment with S.M.Sapgir, the engineer captain of the State Management of Airfield Construction in People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), who, as it turned out, was very fond of Pavlovsk. He and his wife loved to walk in the Pavlovsk Park in the pre-war period. But, despite his desire to do something to help Anna Ivanovna, he couldn’t take such a major decision, and then he decided to help this courageous woman who would get her way, by all means, even though it would come to the talks with L.Beria, the almighty head of NKVD. Considering the tenacity and perseverance of Anna Ivanovna, S.M. Sapgir suggested her to whom should refer Anna Ivanovna when being in Moscow. He did everything to help Anna Ivanovna to meet with L.B. Safraz’an, who was the deputy of Beria.Even though he was a very determined and willful man, he could value faithful and devoted to the idea people. As a very passionate person with the excellent skills of convincing people in her rightness, Anna Ivanovna had achieved the necessary backing.

In addition to the Palace, which was transformed into the ruins, the Park which employed several generations of artists, architects, gardeners, was destroyed and disfigured by the fascist barbarians. The park had been mined by fascists who left a countless number of mines on its territory. Every day during the mine clearing of the Park, many field engineers, among whom were young girls, were killed.

The meticulous work on the restoration of the Palace’s interiors, the creation of the museum’s exhibition and restoration of the park lands was to be done. Here is where the most valuable materials saved during the war as well as the records, layouts, and sketches made by Anna Ivanovna and her staff had proved to be useful at the moment. For example, the carefully made drawings by T.A.Bazhenova were used for the restoration of the old tissues, curtains, upholstery and the famous canopy over the bed of Empress Maria Fiodorovna.

Instead of the thousands of trees, which had been mercilessly cut down by the fascist, the new saplings were planted in the places of stumps of the old ones. The species of the new trees were being selected accordingly.

In addition to scientific issues, the Director of the Museum was, literally overburden not only with the housekeeping problems (e.g. how and where one can get the money, building materials to restore the Palace and Park) but also purely domestic, everyday problems. During the first post-war years, people didn’t have enough food to eat, very difficult it was to get firewood for heating the museum’s premises and living houses, there also weren’t many things which were so necessary for everyday life. In those years, Anna Ivanovna was responsible not only for herself and her elderly mother, but she took care of her employees. She was constantly going on foot to the city to bring food on the sleigh because she had a special passport for going from Pavlovsk to Leningrad. She also arranged with residents about the milk from their cows to help the sick and disabled employees as well as their children.

In parallel with these everyday economic problems, it was necessary to work out the solution to other problems related to the future museum’s exhibition, methodical developments for the future tours and attracting the highly qualified staff. She had managed to unite and encourage the team of great experts by her ideas. Together with Anna Ivanovna worked outstanding masters: the architect Fedor Fedorovich Oleynik, Anatoliy Vladimirovich Treskin-  a very gifted artist, who couldn’t imagine himself without brushes and paints, Natalia Ivanovna Gromova, who inspected the restoration works, Mikhail Markovich Kozlov, a very experienced specialist, who was in charge of  the team of parquet layers and Viktor Yakovlevich Evseev — an expert in the upholstering and decorative works. She was helped by the like-minded people such as Nikolay Viktorovich and Zoe Andreevna Weiss, Stanislav Vladimirovich Tronchinskii. The Very complicated relationship did Anna Ivanovna have with Anatoly Mikhailovich Kuchumov, the Curator in Chief of the Museum, but nevertheless, under his guide, the exhibition plan of the Pavlovsk Palace was developed. He perfectly felt every piece of the exhibition and knew the history of each object which was exhibited. Possessing an excellent visual memory, he could determine where one or another thing is originated from, he also knew what is stored in the world’s leading museums, because he visited these museums or carefully examined their albums and catalogs. Together with Anna Ivanovna Zelenova, they were doing one great and necessary for all people job.

Anna Ivanovna had managed to defend her plan for the reconstruction of the Palace in the most difficult discussion where she insisted on keeping to the appearance of the palace in the form in which it had already existed during the reign of Maria Feodorovna. Among the most determined opponents of Anna Ivanovna was Anna Petrovna Chubova, a major expert in ancient art and architecture. She insisted on restoring only the central part of the Palace, which was created by Charles Cameron. With the great difficulty, using her innate skills of persuasion and tack, having great respect to the merits of A.P.Chubova, Anna Zelenova brought to real life her plan of the restoration of the Palace, which included the renovation of the Vincenzo Brenna’s galleries.

The Palace and Park had been gradually revived turning into those Palace and Park that people had known before the war. However, these great results, which had been achieved by the enormous efforts, could have been nullified due to the different circumstances. Someone of the high-ranked people had found «more useful» application for the empty building and vast land around it. Such ideas, as the concept of the accommodation in the Palace’s rooms Zootechnics College, Tuberculosis Hospital for children or Naval College, were put forward that time. Having the ardent desire to gain moral support, Anna Ivanovna wrote to Igor Emmanuilovich Grabar, the nationwide known academician.

There was the grave danger for the Museum. There are many sad episodes in the history: many museums were virtually destroyed in our country in such a way after WWII. The high number of the museum’s items were distributed to other museums, and their buildings, which were used for other purposes were coming to terrible dilapidation.

The results of this, so called, wise use of the museum areas, we still can see, for example, in the Gatchina Palace and the Alexander Palace in Tsarskoye Selo. Nevertheless, the miracle, which had been so passionately desired and expected for such a long time, had happened, and the first ten rooms of the Palace were inaugurated in 1956. The danger was over. By the year of 1970, the Palace was restored completely. To see this human-made miracle people came from everywhere forming the very long queues to get the tickets to the museum. Not only the Palace and the Park were restored, but the spirit of the Pavlovsk itself had been brought to real life. Everything there was permeated with art. The Palace served its purpose as the venue for many exciting events such as the concerts of the famous all over the country artists. Igor Ilyinsky, Lyubov Orlova, Yury Visbor liked to give their performances in this wonderful place.  Elena Obraztsova the world famous opera star  started her artistic career giving her first concerts there when she was a conservatory student. Ironically, at that time, which was considered to be stable and trouble-free, when the most fundamental painful problems had been successfully resolved, and the Palace had become one of the most famous tourist brands, as it became apparent, such people as Anna Ivanovna was had not been needed. The new time, which was also known as the era of stagnation, created the need for new people: not active and dedicated, but vain people, who feel comfortable in the museum’s environment of those days, not willing to go beyond the instructions and orders of the administration. What’s more, to succeed in their careers, these people needed to be close to the Communist Party’s circles. In 1978, Anna Ivanovna had to resign from the position of the Director of the Museum. She had been transferred to the Department of the Culture and Education in the Gatchina Palace. She died in 1980 shortly after that. She died on her battle station while speaking at the meeting of the local branch of the Communist Party which took place at the Pavlovsk Palace. Given her personal life, which, in fact, she didn’t have, she accomplished a feat. So dedicated she was to her scientific work at the museum that she couldn’t imagine her life without her lifelong dedication: she saved and preserved the Pavlovsk Palace and Park for the future generations. Her work and everyday life were tightly interwound. As a result of the restoration of the Palace-and-Park ensemble, new methods of conservation and restoration of the cultural object during the war were discovered, developed and then widely used. Years later, when the scientific community decided to give her a doctorate on the grounds of the great results of her work, but without defending the dissertation,  she rejected this offer, motivating her statement by the idea that as a real citizen and patriot, she had never earned wealth for herself by taking the advantage from the disasters of her compatriots.

Her human feat means the love for her motherland and her people. It was expressed in what had been done. She was able to defend, revive and restore the essential — the cultural treasures of her country. She struggled for the Pavlovsk Museum before the war, when it was widely believed that such an unbalanced and talentless ruler, who was, in the opinion of the art historians, Paul I, didn’t need to be commemorated. What’s more, everything that was created under his order as well as by the will of the other crowned customers, appeared not thanks to their efforts, but in spite of them. The idea that it was for talented masters from people who were able to withstand the oppression and tyranny, which predominated in our country at that time, was widely supported by the Soviet art critics and experts. In their opinion, these artists from people demonstrated their bright talents, creating buildings, sculptures and other great pieces of art, amazing their descendants. Under the leadership of this fragile woman, who had a real iron will, the Palace and Park had risen from ruins and ashes. And now, returned to the people, these world treasures continue to live the life that was given to them by their creators, life which seems to be breathed into these masterpieces to revive them for posterity. A genuine spirit of the era, which was brought to real life, was the result of the efforts of her and the Museum staff. It is not the modern beautified replica of the old architectural ensemble, but the monument to the whole historical period. Looking at the Palace and Park, I can’t help but come to the idea that if Emperor Paul I and his wife Maria Feodorovna left such a memory after themselves, they deserve to be made a low bow.

Anna Ivanovna has never been forgotten by the Museum staff, but only now for some reason, her personality, her life, and work have caused the new wave of public attention. Such phenomena as Perestroika, economic reforms in our country and establishment of the new social consciousness have, undoubtedly, contributed to this. To a great extent, the activity of the Director of the Museum since the 1990s, considering the degree of responsibility in decision-making is something akin to the director’s activities during the war. How to restore the Museum objects, many of which are in a very poor state, where to find the sponsors or the patron of the arts, and finally, how our cultural heritage should be advertised in our time when the vast majority of people is interested only in the material things? To be able to solve these problems you need to be a truly dedicated and outgoing person, like it was Anna Ivanovna Zelenova.

Unfortunately, we accept as a truth that, as a general rule, talented and dedicated people in our country remain not understood by their contemporaries. The great things are seen from a distance. Now, after already almost thirty years from the time when Anna Ivanovna passed away, many things have been done to perpetuate her memory. In the year of 2005, her Memorial Office was opened in the Palace, one of the Pavlovsk’s streets was named after her, the contest on the best design of her monument took place. After all, she was named as a person of the 20th century. It goes without saying that everything that was done for people by her deserves to be mentioned as often as possible. Every kind word should be said in the memory of this bright person, who brought back to our life these wonders, which are around us and which we never want to lose.

The materials used:

Аделаида Елкина. Сделайте это для меня. Общество «Знание». С.Петербург. 2005

The interview with Nikolai Tretiakov, the Director of the Pavlovsk State Museum Reserve.

http://www.stroy-press.ru/?id=4433

The materials from the websites:

The cultural layer. Хранители. http://www.5-tv.ru/programs/broadcast/391/

Iryna Marchuk The fans of Pavlovsk choose the monument to AnnaZelenova My neighbourhood: http://www.mr-spb.ru/story/pushkn/story_3670.html

The Union of Museums of Russia. The exposition of the Pavlovsk Museum-Reserve http://www.souzmuseum.ru/news/2006/Ekspozicii_Muzejazapovednika_Pavlovsk.html?SID=9b1a17a2be9d38bb90a10c03c8e6c78d

St. Isaac’s Cathedral. To remember. http://www.cathedral.ru/museum/exhibitions/remember

ГМЗ «Павловск» http://www.pavlovskmuseum.ru/museum/pavlovsk_history/poteri/

The summer of the year of 2006 I spent in the town of Pushkin which is located 23 kilometers from St.Petersburg. While working in the open air, I noticed a large building foundation pit, fenced with a high fence and located on the site the central square near Gostiny Dvor. This vast area was limited by the Moskovskaya, Pushkinskaya, Oranzhereinaya and Leontievskaya streets. In the center of this large square, there was the statue of Lenin, next to which, in the 1990s, had been set up the wooden cross with the information plaque. In this plaque, it was written that in this area there was St.Catherine Cathedral the main temple of Tsarskoye Selo, which was designed by Konstantin Andreevich Thon, the distinguished Russian architect.

As I got to know later, the pit I saw in the square, had been dug in connection with the archaeological excavations of the temple’s basement. The excavations were held to solve the problem of the restoration of the cathedral and building it in its initial location as it had been done with the Christ Saviour Cathedral in Moscow.

Konstantin Thon is the architect and the author of the projects of these cathedrals, the expert in architecture whose merit in the field of architecture cannot be overestimated. He left a rich legacy. Today, many of the buildings created on his projects, we can see in the streets of our cities. He built in Moscow, St.Petersburg, Novgorod, Pskov, Kazan and Tomsk. The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, The Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow, the Moscow Railway Terminal in St. Petersburg, the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul in Peterhof,  the St.Vladimir Cathedral in Sevastopol- this is not a complete list of those buildings, which were built by this  architect,  known nationwide.

He made a significant contribution to the activity of the Russian Academy of Arts, where, he spent most of his life: as a student in the beginning, then as a professor, and for the last 17 years of his career (from 1854 to 1871), as a rector of the architectural department. In addition to teaching and administrative activities, Konstantin Ton was actively involved in the work on the reconstruction of the Academy of Arts building and its environment. Some of the biggest interiors of the Imperial Academy of Arts — the meeting room and library were created on his project (later on, in the mid-60s of the 19th century, these rooms were renovated under the supervision of his pupils). The Home Church of St.Catherine, which was consecrated in 1837, was also designed by him. The landing stage near the Academy of Arts with the original sculptures of Ancient Egyptian Sphinxes brought to St.Petersburg in 1834, is also the creation of this wizard. Since that time, these sculptures have been considered as the symbols of our city and its guards.

Konstantin Thon was a broadly educated person who had considerable expertise in the area of his activity. He was perfectly prepared for his future profession when studying for 12 years in the Academy of Arts; he had there such excellent mentors as Adrian Zakharov, Thomas de Tomon, and Andrei Voronikhin. After graduating from the Academy in 1815, he got the second gold medal for the draft of the Senate giving him the right to the additional in-depth training. However, due to the different circumstances, which were beyond of his control, his trip had been postponed for four years. Only in 1819, he set out his journey to Italy, where he studied the ancient architectural monuments in detail. Apart from Italy, Ton had been living in Paris for a time. When living in this city, he attended the classes at the École Polytechnique, where, at those days engineering disciplines were taught by the best experts in Europe.

This knowledge was very helpful for the young architect when he returned home. A wide variety of information about the architectural monuments of Old Russia he gained during his studies of architecture was also to his advantage. Konstantin Thon is one of the first Russian architects who paid close attention to the comprehensive study of the world’s architectural heritage and its application to the contemporary building practice. His original method deviates from the conventions of the Russian classical architecture in the first third of the 19th century. The innovative approach of Konstantin Thon was based on the concept of the freedom of the logical framework. It wasn’t fettered by the canons of the selection decision.

Konstantin Thon can be considered as the founder of such a style in the Russian architecture as eclecticism, the method of the «smart choice» of various architectural styles. In the opinion of A.P. Brullov, his contemporary and like-minded person, «architecture is, first of all, the art of the space distributing and combining.»The role of the architect, as it was thought, was the role of the leading builder and organizer. Thon firmly believed that the construction of any building is impossible without the engineering-geological research of the area. The search of a constructive solution and precise calculations were considered to be the main stages of the designing process. As a result of such an attitude, Konstantin Thon had always got the efficiency of the building process and the operation of the building, as well as the convenience and benefit of people for whom it was intended. In the opinion of Konstantin Thon, the external appearance of the building «should express its essence.»

As it was considered in those days, all architectural styles that could be created had already existed or created. The emergence of these styles and trends was attributed to many factors such as history, geography, climate, etc. Architects had to take into account the experience in construction that people gained for years.The classical style in architecture was considered by designers, not as the only architectural style, suitable for buildings for various purposes. So, for example, the home of a shoemaker look like an antique house with a peristyle. Similarly, in the expert’s opinion, a laundry shed shouldn’t imitate the classical buildings with porticos such as the Ancient Greek or Roman temples. Accordingly, the appearance of the Russian Orthodox Temple should resemble the old Russian temples of our ancestors. The studies of the architectural monuments of the Old Russia had been initiated at that time. On the initiative of A.N.Olenin, brothers Efimov were being carried out measurements of the Ancient Russian architectural monuments in Moscow, Kiev, and Vladimir. Another initiative of A.N.Olenin  was to organize the expedition, led by K.M. Borozdin, with the same purpose. Very often artists and architects were inspired by the images of ancient monuments in the landscapes of such Russian artists as F.A.Alexeev, M.N.Vorobiov, A.E.Martynov as well as the sketches of Giacomo Quarenghi. The great enthusiasm that played an important part in the victory over Napoleon in the Patriotic War of the year 1812 led to the great interest in the history of Ancient Russia. The image of the ideal temple, which would resemble with an Ancient Russian church, was needed to express the idea of patriotism. For this purpose, in the year of 1835, Konstantin Thon met with  S.D.Nechaev, who was the attorney-general the Synod at that time. Following the recommendation of A.N.Olenin, S.D.Nechaev suggested the architect collect the images of the examples of the churches for the atlas to be published in the future.

The first issue of this atlas included the designs of the churches created by Konstantin Ton between the years of 1830-1834. The second issue of this atlas was published in 1844. This issue was the extended edition of the first album: the examples of some pillar-free temples were added to the designs of the churches mentioned above. Nevertheless, the emerging Russian architectural science was guided by the concept of borrowing, according to which, the Russian architecture, was considered as a conglomeration drawn from other architectural techniques and forms. For example, the style of ancient Russian monuments, as though, was divided into several styles. Besides the Russian style, other styles, which were in the architecture those days, were also existed.

To solve problems emerging in the process of designing buildings and churches, Konstantin Thon, elaborated his creative approach. Even though he had the extensive knowledge of ancient Russian monuments, he did not copy them blindly. The temples created by Konstantin Thon can be reduced to several types such as a cross-domed Greek temple, pillar-free temple, and the church combines with the narthex and belfry. At the same time, Ton makes his start from «not a particular image and form of a temple, but from its type, which was created by ancient masters. He changes the ratio of his layouts for churches.» Contrary to the ancient temples, which layouts were usually extended to the East-West direction, his newest temples had the form of a square.

Using all his knowledge and practical experience as an architect and design engineer, he carried out the constructive tasks when building temples in his way, creating the comfortable environment for people attending church services and saving some necessary construction materials. Looking for the ways of expanding the internal space of the temple, Konstantin Thon found the solution to this problem. He achieved this goal at the cost of walls and pylons, which thickness was reduced and, therefore, extra space was found. Inside of his churches, Konstantin Ton set up the air-heating system, creating thus an additional comfort for the parishioners.

As for the decoration of facades, the architect created many details, drawing his inspiration from the old Russian architectural monuments. Such elements of the Ancient Russian architecture as small and corbel arches (also known as kokoshniks), stone-belts and blades, were borrowed from the old churches of Russia. However, centric layouts, the large divisions of facades, the contrasts of great volumes — all this shows the significant influence of classicism in Russian architecture in those days.

«Russian style, — writes I.Sviazev, the colleague of Konstantin Thone and the person who shared Ton’s opinions of architecture, — is capable of its further improvement and development. Like the style in literature, it has the same relations to the old art, like the poem about Prince Igor, which was also written by Pushkin in Russian, but in which manner?»

In such a Russian style was built the St.Catherine Cathedral in Tsarskoye Selo. Its project was created in 1831. The church was consecrated in the year of 1840. Before the construction of this temple, the main temple in Tsarskoye Selo was a small Znamenskaya Church, which was built in the 1740s, situated next to the Catherine Palace and the Imperial Lyceum.The shopping and business center of Tsarskoye Selo was formed Just near this church. The significance of the town of Tsarskoye Selo as the imperial residence had increased over the years. The city had been expanding, and Its population had been growing. As far back as at the beginning of the 19th century, the defensive ramparts, which had been built at the margins of the town, were removed and replaced by Moscow Street.

The little church in honor of Our Lady (Znamenskaya) was too small to meet the needs of the town’s residents. Therefore, Emperor Nicolas, I made the paramount decision to build a larger Cathedral whose capacity would be 2000 people, the construction of which was financed from the Tzar’s treasury.

The main feature of Konstantin Thon’s churches, which should be singled out, was that the architect could perfectly fit his temples into the surrounding landscape and urban environment. The place for St. Catherine Cathedral was chosen on a hill in the town center. Importantly, the height of the church allowed to perceive it not only from a close distance. The St.Catherine Cathedral was perfectly visible from every corner of the town, and from the local railway station. It was important because this station was located on the first Russian railroad, which also was built on Konstantin Thon’s design.

Looking very similarly to other churches designed by Ton such as the Church of St.Catherine on the Kalinkin Bridge in St.Petersburg, the Church of Saints Peter and Paul in Peterhof, this temple didn’t seem to be enormous and massive. Five-domed temple with the centric layout, about which we can judge only from photographs, drawings, the memories of contemporaries, looked very easy and elegantly. The composition of its facades was not overloaded with the decor.  The smooth surface of its walls looked like it was cut with the high narrow windows whose round edges repeated the silhouettes of its arched gables. The large arched decor accentuated the surfaces of the cupolas’ tholobates making it look much easier and expressive. The entrances to the temple were marked by the deep perspective portals with the semicircular edges. Besides the main altar, there were the two side chapels inside the church, which appeared in 1852:  the Chapel of the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky on the right side of the temple and the Chapel of Constantine and Elena, the Saints Equal to Apostles. The linear drawing of the iconostasis created by Konstantin Thon has survived to the present day. It was about 2.13 meters in height. Symmetry, lightness, harmony of proportions, elegant lines — all this makes it very close to the best traditions of classical art.

At that time, the multi-level iconostasis of St.Catherine Cathedral was guilded. The icons located on the first level were covered with the gilded rizas, which were made of the money raised from people’s donations.

In the sacristy of the Cathedral were stored the cross with the relics St.Feodor Tiron and Barbara Great Martyr.  Many other precious, sacred things such as the icon with a particle of the relics of Abraham, the Arch with a particle of the relics of St.George, the Great Marty and the robe of Virgin, silver chalice with the paten, the cross, and the Gospel were also stored in the Cathedral. All these artifacts were the gifts from Empress Catherine II to the St.Sophia Cathedral, given in the year of 1783. In addition to these sacred things, the «Crucifixion» painted by  A.Van Dyck and «The Glory of Mother of God,» created by Paolo Veronese, draw attention to themselves.

Originally, the Cathedral was painted inside in bright colors. However, during the restoration process, carried out by the architect S.A.Danini, when the gliding of domes, which had been severely suffered during the fire of the old wooden Gostiny Dvor, had been resumed, the Cathedral had been repainted in dark colors.

In the town of Tsarskoye Selo, where the features of the lifestyle of a peaceful country town and the lifestyle of the brilliant capital city were blended, the St.Cateherine’s Cathedral held a special place among the churches belonging to the Palace and Military Departments that had been prevailing by the time of its construction.        It is known that Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev, was baptized in this cathedral in 1912. Another well-known person, Yakov Vasilievich Zakharzhevsky, who was the General Manager of the town of Tsarskoye Selo, was buried here.

After the year of 1917, the history of the Cathedral turned into drama and logically was going to its tragic end. This chapter in the Cathedral history had started with the death of the first new martyr and Petrograd Eparchy Archpriest Ioann Kochurov, who devoted his life to pastoral and missionary activity. He was loved and respected by his flock and highly appreciated by Tikhon, the prelate of the church and the first Patriarch of all Russia after the restoration of the Patriarchate in 1917.

A few days after the October Revolution, on October 13, 1917, the detachments of armed Red Guards, sailors and soldiers moved to Tsarskoye Selo. The residents of the town were in a panic. Many people flocked to the Orthodox churches, to find some solace. The St.Catherine Cathedral was overcrowded. After a special prayer on the cessation of the intestine warfare, Archpriest N.I.Smirnov, together with the other priests of the Cathedral, Father Ioann Kochurov and father Stephen Fokko performed the procession around the temple.

Encountering no resistance, the Bolsheviks entered Tsarskoye Selo on October, 31, in the morning. The round of the apartments and following arrests of the officers had started. Priest Ioann Kochurov was arrested, taken to the outskirts of the town to the Feodorovsky Cathedral, and there he was shot dead, allegedly, because he prayed for the victory of Cossacks.

Subsequently, Father Ioann was buried in the Catherine Cathedral, and his death caused the claim of the St.Petersburg’s Diocesan Council to the Parish Councils of the St.Petersburg Eparchy about financial assistance to the family of Father Ioann Kochurov and other families of those killed for the faith. In the year 1994, Father Ioann Kochurov was officially recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church as a newcomer martyr.

And then the fate of the St.Catherine Cathedral, as the fate of many temples in the Soviet period of rebellion against God, was sealed. On June 1, 1938, the Pushkin District Council sent the petition to the Leningrad city council for closure and demolition of the Cathedral, substantiating their decision by the opinion that the Cathedral as a building «doesn’t constitute cultural value.» The petition had been approved. Due to the Decree of the Leningrad Oblast General Executive Committee 1938, July, 1 St.Catherine Cathedral was closed, and then it was blown up in June 1939.

In the evidence of an eyewitness, on June 5, 1939, at the White night: «Suddenly a deafening explosion resounded. The Cathedral flew up, raised itself above the ground like an epical hero, rose from his place, carrying along the cloud of dust, and suddenly fell flat, as moved down to earth.» It was the second temple created by Konstantin Ton, the temple which was subject to the cruel act of vandalism. As a result of an inherently evil political action. In this case, it is interesting to note the fact that art critics and experts were trying to corroborate this cruel act of vandalism by giving their expert opinions of the necessity of these actions. The easiest way to explain this need was to state the opinion that the buildings designed by Thon do not belong to the masterpieces of Russian architecture, but only embody the idea of loyalty to autocracy.These concepts supported the idea of the famous triad of the time, namely «autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationality» — the principles to which was stuck the Russian czar, Nicolas II. Even the attitude of the Ton’s contemporaries to his creativity was ambiguous, even unfair. V.V.Stasov called Constantin Ton «a rough and uneducated bricklayer,» and A.I. Hertzen characterized the Byzantine style of Ton as «wild.» At the same time, Ton was highly appreciated by his colleagues at the Academy of Arts for his exceptional professionalism. It is precisely this fact that when being as a Rector of the architectural department, Konstantin Ton paid particular attention to the teaching of engineering subjects. He believed that the architectural design should not be confined only to the painting of the facades. The students of the Academy of Art, who were prepared for the career in architecture had practical training experience at the construction area of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. The merits of the architect were highly valued by his colleagues from abroad. He was a member and a corresponding member of some Italian academies, as well as an honorary member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. However, the first point of view on the Ton’s creativity was determinative in the period of 1830-1860s. Only since the 1980s, the creative works of Ton and this time in the history of Russian architecture were objectively assessed.   In the evidence of an eyewitness, on June 5, 1939, at the White night: «Suddenly a deafening explosion resounded. The Cathedral flew up, raised itself above the ground like an epical hero, rose from his place, carrying along the cloud of dust, and suddenly fell flat, as moved down to earth.» It was the second temple created by Konstantin Ton, the temple which was subject to the cruel act of vandalism. As a result of an inherently evil political action. In this case, it is interesting to note the fact that art critics and experts were trying to corroborate this cruel act of vandalism by giving their expert opinions of the necessity of these actions. The easiest way to explain this need was to state the opinion that the buildings designed by Thon do not belong to the masterpieces of Russian architecture, but only embody the idea of loyalty to autocracy.These concepts supported the idea of the famous triad of the time, namely «autocracy, Orthodoxy, and Nationality» — the principles to which was stuck the Russian czar, Nicolas II. Even the attitude of the Ton’s contemporaries to his creativity was ambiguous, even unfair. V.V.Stasov called Constantin Ton «a rough and uneducated bricklayer,» and A.I. Hertzen characterized the Byzantine style of Ton as «wild.» At the same time, Ton was highly appreciated by his colleagues at the Academy of Arts for his exceptional professionalism. It is precisely this fact that when being as a Rector of the architectural department, Konstantin Ton paid particular attention to the teaching of engineering subjects. He believed that the architectural design should not be confined only to the painting of the facades. The students of the Academy of Art, who were prepared for the career in architecture had practical training experience at the construction area of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. The merits of the architect were highly valued by his colleagues from abroad. He was a member and a corresponding member of some Italian academies, as well as an honorary member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. However, the first point of view on the Ton’s creativity was determinative in the period of 1830-1860s. Only since the 1980s, the creative works of Ton and this time in the history of Russian architecture were objectively assessed.

And nowadays, about the archaeological excavations of the Temple of St.Catherine, we have to encounter the problems of real justice. It is the matter of justice to this creative work of the architect, disrespect to people, who did their utmost for the prosperity of their country and were buried in this temple, and, finally to many residents of the town of Tsarskoye Selo going to the Cathedral where they happy or when surviving their sorrows. It was decided by the Managing Committee of City’s Property, the Society for the Protection of Monuments to restore the Temple by the year 2010, the 300-anniversary of Tsarskoye Selo. The money for this project was supposed to raise by involving sponsors. On the excavated foundations, perfectly preserved since the construction of the Temple, it is planned to restore St.Catherine Cathedral by using the archival drawings, which were found in the Moscow archives to build a replica of the Ton’s church. Despite the fact that it will be a newly constructed building, possibly the temple and the area around it, will be the symbol of reviving human conscience, renewed faith, and national unity.
Bibliography

1. История русского искусства. В 13 т./Под ред. И.Э. Грабаря, В.Н. Лазарева и B.C. Кеменова. М., 1953–1969.Искусство первой трети XIX века // Архитектура. История русского искусства, Т.8 Кн.1, 1963.
2. Всеобщая история архитектуры в 12-ти тт., т. 6,М., 1968, 536 c.
3. Антонов В.В. Предки архитектора Тона. История Петербурга. 2002, № 3, c. 21-25
4. Бестужева С. Памяти великого зодчего. Огонек, 1994, № 48-49, c.32-35
5. Биографический очерк ректора архитектуры. К.А.Тона. В кн. Отчет Императорской Академии Художеств с 4 ноября 1864 года по 12 сентября 1865 года. С. 97 – 119
6. Булгаков Ф.И. Храм Христа Спасителя в Москве. В журн. «Вестник изящных искусств». 1883. Т. I, вып.4. С. 623 -635
7. Город Пушкин. Историко-краеведческий очерк-путеводитель. Составитель Г.К. Козьмин. СПб, 1992, 318 c.

1. Кириченко Е.И. К.Тон. В кн. «Зодчие Москвы», кн. I, М., 1981, с. 251 – 259
2. Лисовский В.Г. На рубеже Классицизма и эклектики. В журн. «Строительство и архитектура Ленинграда», 1981, № 8, с. 34 – 36
3. Рудницкие Л. и М. Исчезновение бронзовых грифонов перед Академией Художеств. Старые годы. 1909, № 6, с. 336 – 337
4. Славина Т.А. Константин Тон. Зодчество 3(22). Сб. Союза архитекторов СССР, М.,1989, с. 168 – 183
5. Славина Т.А. Константин Тон (Зодчие нашего города), Л., 1982, 325 c.
6. Славина Т.А. Константин Тон. Л., 1989, 376 c.
7. Церкви, сочиненные архитектором, профессором архитектуры Академии Художеств, Константином Тоном, СПб, 1838, 35 c.

The materials from the Internet:

15.http://www.pushkin-town.net/.pushkin/rus/nowhram.htm (последний вход -07.05.2010)

16.http://www.spb300.osis.ru/vek19/F19/1831-1840/1840.shtml

(the last log in 07.07.2010)

17. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Екатерининский_собор_(Пушкин) (the last login —

07.05.2010)