In connection with the desire of the church to transfer to it from the state Isaac's Cathedral, which is a masterpiece of world architecture and a landmark of St. Petersburg, it will be interesting to ask the question: Who built the cathedral and when?
Based on information from textbooks on the History of Russia and other countries, we form an idea of our country and our place in the historical process. There are stable psychological reactions for entire periods of history or any events. We are proud of something, but in most cases, we are forced to repent and apologize for our supposedly terrible past. And for some reason, most of all repentance from us is required by certain third parties - completely uninvolved in the events that took place. They constantly repeat about some kind of "responsibility to the past", about a moral duty to one or another nation, etc. At the same time, previously conducted studies using the Technological method of reconstructing the past allow us to say for sure that most of today's "historical facts" are simply invented. Historical myths and fairy tales were composed for us,in which we believed for various reasons, and now we are also forced to pay for them.
Studies of modern Russian specialists in technical sciences have led to the conclusion that the construction of the most magnificent buildings and monuments of St. Petersburg could not have taken place in the 18th or 19th centuries, according to the data of historians on the level of development at that time of metallurgy, mechanical engineering, machine-tool construction, vehicles, as well as the level of economic and cultural development of the Russian Empire.
If you independently study the history of the construction of any large object in the city of St. Petersburg, you will definitely stumble upon a visiting foreigner. They will describe to you the sequence of the construction of the object, for plausibility they will add one or two emergency situations at a construction site (like 86 builders poisoned with mercury or 100 thousand people died on the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral). But at the same time, they will completely miss the moment about how, by what technology and by what workshops products made of natural stone (granite or marble) were processed, they will come up with something unknown, and even draw a picture. So, on page 96 of Montferrand's book on St. Isaac's Cathedral, you can find out that the columns are immediately pulled out of the quarries in a round shape. At the same time, they allegedly use the technologies of ancient Egypt.
Today we will talk about the most beautiful church in St. Petersburg. Many people know and admire St. Isaac's Cathedral.
To begin with, we take the history of the construction of the Cathedral, described in Wikipedia. According to the official version, the cathedral, which today adorns St. Isaac's Square, is the fourth building. And it all began with a small church of Isaac of Dalmatia, which was built for the workers of the Admiralty shipyards by order of Peter I. In August 1717, a stone church was laid in the name of Isaac of Dalmatia. Tsar Peter I lays the first stone. Under Catherine II, in 1766-68, they began to build the third Temple in the name of Isaac, which was completed under Paul I, but turned out to be squat, ridiculous and inharmonious.
Promotional video:
You can trace the important facts of the construction of the fourth building of St. Isaac's Cathedral:
1818 - the project was approved;
1828 - the beginning of the installation of the first columns;
1837 - installation of the upper columns;
1838 - gilding of the domes began, which lasted until 1841;
1858 - consecration of the cathedral.
Only one little-known fact negates the harmonious succession of many years of construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral. Two significant events can be compared - the opening of the Alexander Column took place in 1834. And in 1836 a book about the Alexander Column was published in Paris - Paris again! That's who was really interested in the history of Russia. In the book on page 86 there is a lithograph of the Alexander Column. In the background of the engraving, St. Isaac's Cathedral is well drawn. But that was 1836, and according to official data, in 1836 the upper columns had not even been installed yet. Is it a fiction of an engraving artist, or a deliberate distortion of historical events?
Let's take a short excursion to St. Isaac's Cathedral. If we go around this cathedral in a circle, then from the side of Voznesensky Prospect we will see columns damaged by shells of German artillery during the Great Patriotic War. These columns have not been repaired, although restoration was carried out in St. Isaac's Cathedral in 1950-60, and the presence of traces of shells in the columns suggests that we do not now have the technology of repairing monolithic granite products. Our repair options are limited to putting putty and painting on plastered walls.
However, this Cathedral is also notable for the fact that at the base of some of the columns there are granite patches. There are four such patches from the side of Voznesensky Prospect. If you have seen how patches are installed on asphalt, then you can imagine the process of installing such a patch in a column blank. Why do we say "in the blank"? Because it is possible to install such a patch only at the stage of manufacturing the column in order to replace the defects revealed during the processing of a solid piece of granite - the future column.
This operation cannot be done manually. And judging by the mass of the column, according to various sources from 114 to 117 tons, the purity of processing and grinding of the column, then we can make a quite obvious conclusion about the use of machine technology. In a different way, i.e. manually, so it is impossible to process the column. In any case, we are not yet aware of such methods and technologies. The tool must be carbide and have a high speed of work relative to the product, so there is no need to talk about the steam or water drive of such a machine.
Theoretically, such an object as a column weighing several tens of tons can be made manually if you tinker for a very long time and meticulously. But any wrong movement with the chisel will leave a deep scratch or chip (and chips are inevitable), which will be very difficult, if not impossible, to fix. But repeating this manufacturing operation 64 times in a short time is really impossible.
Many opponents assumed that the columns for the St. Petersburg Cathedrals were made using concrete technology. The presence of technological patches on the columns and the structure of the material indicate that it was a monolithic material that was used.
Well, further transportation is also worth a separate word. The finished columns were delivered by ships, unloaded manually with crowbars and ropes, and then reloaded onto a specially built railroad and brought directly to the installation point. Only historians forget about the mass - each column weighs 64 tons! Suitable for manual unloading.
In official sources, there is no mention of lifting machines during the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral. The weight of the columns of the upper colonnade is 64 tons, and the height of the colonnade is 41 meters. For comparison, I will say that this is the height of the 14th floor. If you can somehow agree with the version of the manual installation of the lower colonnade of columns weighing 114-117 tons (purely theoretically), then all attempts to explain the manual (without machine) assembly of the upper colonnade do not stand up to criticism.
Inside the Cathedral you can see another curiosity: malachite columns, striking the eye with grandeur and beauty. The mid-19th century is considered by historians to be the pinnacle of the Malachite era. In those years the industrialists Demidovs had their own stone-cutting factory in St. Petersburg. Historians write that the malachite products of the Demidovs' factory delighted and astonished the world public, who in droves were eager to see this miracle … the very material, which they used to consider precious. "Demidov put all his reserves of malachite on the columns of St. Isaac's Cathedral and collapsed the market." The cost of the stone and its status plummeted, mining of malachite became economically unprofitable and stopped. But the Ural legend explains everything in its own way. The mistress of the Copper Mountain - a pagan deity - was offended by the fact that her stone went to the construction of the Orthodox Cathedral and simply brought down all reserves of malachite into the inaccessible bowels. After the columns of Isaac there were no more such grandiose malachite items. " This is how historians easily move from facts to mysticism.
Let's check if there is documentary evidence that St. Isaac's Cathedral stood long before 1858 - the official moment of completion of construction.
Document one:
B. Patersen. View of St. Isaac's Bridge and Senate Square from Vasilievsky Island. 1803 This artist saw the finished cathedral 55 years before its completion.
Second document:
View of St. Isaac's Bridge and the New Cathedral. Lithograph after drawing by G. Tretter. 1820s
Lithograph by G. Tretter 20th
Third document:
View of St. Isaac's Square from the Senate. Unknown author. Painted lithograph. 1820s
The fourth document:
General view of St. Petersburg and its surroundings from a bird's eye view. Engraver A. Apert after drawing by I. Charlemagne. 1840th. Fragment.
The fifth document
View of St. Isaac's Church and the bridge. Lithographers L.-P. Bishebois, V. V. Adam. 1840th.
Sixth document:
M. N. Vorobiev. Isaac's Cathedral and a monument to Peter. 1844 g.
Here we learn that in 1844 there is no inscription on the stone that this is a monument to Peter I, which was made by Catherine II, not yet. Which again leads to some reflections on the veracity of the official version of the construction of the Bronze Horseman.
Seventh Document:
Lithograph from the album of Montferrand, allegedly the architect of St. Isaac's Cathedral, last page. Parade on Palace Square in honor of the opening of the Alexandria Column on August 30, 1834.
Despite the fact that Montferrand finished the Cathedral only in 1858, he depicts it finished in 1834. Amazing nearby.
We have 7 testimonies from different people, including the alleged architect himself, that St. Isaac's Cathedral stood long before the official date of its opening.
Apparently, in the 19th century, under the leadership of Montferrand, work was carried out on the reconstruction or restoration of the ancient Temple.
The results of all these observations and studies do not fit into the ideas that official historical science has imposed on us. Most scholars and historians base their conclusions on the official version of chronology, not suspecting that it is based on falsified documents and representations.