Everyone remembers St. Isaac's Cathedral, right? I think even those who sit in the basement and are not interested in anything should remember him.
If suddenly, someone is retarded on the way, then I’ll throw off a link to my own very superficial, but cheerful and richly illustrated story about construction with a piece of history:
Montferrand and many, many St. Isaac's Cathedrals of varying degrees of antiquity.
This is how Montferrand depicted himself on the bas-relief of the cathedral. A naked roman holding a crawling child. Sorry, angel, of course.
Among other things, from there (as well as from the history textbook) you can find out that the current one is far from the first in a row. Since the time of Peter (unknown to anyone Isaac Dolmatsky, why he really liked the tsar) there were churches and cathedrals. Everything, strictly - Isaac's. All, of course, are Orthodox. Tea, tsars - the customers are not any busurman, but ours, although they are of German blood, are Russian, local.
And in the world, as you know, there is a riot of confessions. Someone believes in Christ on the left, someone on the right. Each branch has its own cathedrals and strict articulation in architectural lines and ornaments.
How, then, does the believer not miss and go to the temple of wrong worship? That's right, you need to know the differences!
It's impossible to keep everything in your head, you need a cheat sheet. There were no bookmarks in browsers then - they used a printed word and printed pictures.
Promotional video:
Let's take a look at how the construction of the left faith differs from the other left-sided, in comparison with the right and glorious:
Like Gothic.
Like with Rome, and with him and with Greece.
And where is the native Russian style here? Purely Catholic (Roman) temple. Everything you need, everything with him. And I recall that it is assumed that it was built for Orthodoxy in all its variants. Isaac, I mean.
There are even some canons! Like…
As I understand it, Catholicism is deprived of divine grace, therefore, they are not entitled to the rules for building temples. So, hangar, some kind. Thanks, not a corral.
Orthodoxy has canons. But why then are they not always observed? Obviously, the Peter and Paul Cathedral is slightly different from St. Isaac's.
Do you have the feeling that the song is pouring from the lips of art historians? It is so good to describe and sum up a single concept under something already built in order to tie completely different styles together.
For Orthodox churches, indistinguishable from Catholic or generally ancient Roman, there is such an explanation.
Well, that is, it turns out that an Orthodox church can be anything, depending on outside influence. Somehow it does not fit with the beautiful ideology described at the beginning.
Anyway. Let us return to that un-pre-Isakian Roman Catholic from Moscow in 1884.
Here he is on the far right:
On the left and in the center, the shopping arcade is simultaneously similar to it and to the insulated Issakia lid. In fact, the cover here is one to one from the Roman pantheon, but not the essence. We are figuratively.
Does it mean that the church of any other confession can be whatever? For example, cutting out a piece with columns from the middle of a house (rows, palaces, etc.) means building a Roman Catholic church. Well, like in Rome. In Rome, of course, the churches are Roman. But why did the Romans need them with their Zeus?
Apparently influenced by Constantine and his adoption of Christianity. But then, shouldn't the structure of the building change to be different from the complexes in honor of Jupiter? But this is in Rome. maybe they didn't build anything at all - they just drove all Athens out and replaced them with Mari. Virgos that.
And in Moscow? Without reading the signature, you can tell where is the temple, where is the church, where is the house, and where is the almshouse?
All the influences, some, be they not okay. It's funny that ancient Rome constantly blows. Modern man is not much different from the man of the 18-19 centuries. Neither anatomically nor intellectually.
You remove obsolete speech turns and any book is read no worse than a modern soap opera. With the same adultery, by the way. Not much less. May God forgive Anna, the sinner, Karenina.
But, you are not obsessed by centuries of Greeks and Romans? Most of you, at least. Reasonable, I mean.
Putting away rome and obsession, let's look at other churches. There must be at least one Christian way of worship, with clear uniform architectural canons. This is even consonant with monotheism!
What is this ancient Roman Old Believers in the middle? And on the right, someone's purely outbuilding sank. I was covered with a cultural layer.
In the last picture, on the sly, even the mosque was crept in. To make it clearer that there is no uniformity. All differences are leveled from afar.
Is it really impossible to come to uniformity in 2K years, to stop using the pagan style of two thousand years ago?
Somehow they managed to deal with the altars and the uniform of the clergy. Pop does not go to the training rooms in the temple. Neither Dynamo nor adidas.
The altar and icons stand strictly in their corners. Every saint and archangel knows their place. Even the son of God is structured. Where it is necessary it hangs on the cross, where it is not necessary to be cheerful and fresh in white-blue clothes.
Two thousand. Not 20. Not 200. 1000 years of official government support in Russia. And from the signs of similarity, only the dome and that sometimes dubious, and the crosses. But they can be hung on the Ostankino TV tower. By the way, her dome will be more expressive than on many churches.
The conclusion is that all these buildings used to be something else. Technical, with similar functions. And so, when everyone had amnesia, those who promoted beliefs used them as supposedly houses of God.
And of course then they became them. Like Ukrainians in the outskirts, like Kazakhs as Cossacks, like a monkey with a man. The latter truth is still in progress.
You may not agree with him, but try to look at the subject of conversation from this angle, at least once.
Look, for example, a commemorative coin of Napoleon, to begin with.