Readers of "VO" positively assessed the material about the Thunder-stone, although, of course, it was not without alternative delights. Therefore, the idea arose to continue this material, but not with his own writings (what if it’s a fiction of a “science fiction author” or hired by “dark forces”!), But with excerpts from documents of that time. Fortunately, there are a lot of them left. There are also letters from Catherine to Voltaire and Voltaire to Catherine. Falcone's letters to his friend, educator Denis Diderot. Stingy lines of documents about who is given how much and for what and how much of what is in demand and from where. Bureaucracy is a good thing for historians. In addition to the main source, which in principle can always be forged, at least in theory, there is always a mass, downright monstrous in terms of its volume of accompanying documents. This is correspondence, and reports of lower ranks to the authorities, and direct slander, all kinds of lists and timesheets. All this is practically impossible to take into account and fake. Because often there is no trace of where that was sent. Well, since the pedestal of the Bronze Horseman, the famous Thunder-stone, the "thing" is quite big, in fact, the same work of art as the monument to Peter the Great itself, that is, his sculpture, there is no doubt that the volume of "paper art", which preceded its appearance, was very large. Let something get lost over the years.
Drawing of a model of the monument to Peter the Great, by artist Anton Losenko. Made by him in the Falcone workshop (1770). That is, in fact, this is … a monument to A. Macedonsky, but both artists entered into a conspiracy, or, say, Falcone paid Losenko and as a result this drawing appeared. On such assumptions, one can only say: the writer does not believe in people at all. Everyone, everyone, absolutely all thieves! And there are, and were! But … this simply cannot be, here's the thing! (Museum of the City of Nancy, France).
But let's all the same turn to the papers, which are often said that pen and paper are a long arm from the grave! So Falcone, in one of his letters to Denis Diderot, recalls "… the day when on the corner of your table I sketched the hero and his horse, overcoming the emblematic rock." That is, the "wild stone" - a symbol of the difficulties Peter overcame - Falcone conceived in Paris, that is, before he was in St. Petersburg. And it should be noted that it was what time? Age of Enlightenment !!! The era of romanticism has not yet begun. Therefore, the "wild stone" as a pedestal for the monument to the sovereign looked like an obvious innovation that contradicted the tastes established at that time.
“I met one artist, an intelligent person and a capable painter,” wrote Falcone, “who told me loudly throughout the Palais Royal that I should not have chosen this emblematic rock as a pedestal for my hero, for there are no rocks in St. Petersburg. Obviously, he believed that there are rectangular pedestals."
The required figure needs a pedestal, which should be "five fathoms in length (10, 6 m), two fathoms and half an arshin in width (4, 6 m) and two fathoms and one arshin in height (4, 96 m)", reported the librarian of the Academy of Sciences, and a direct participant in those events, Ivan Bakmeister.
As for the president of the Academy of Arts Ivan Betsky, appointed by Catherine to oversee the work on the erection of this monument, he was also unhappy with this proposal of Falcone and also left us a written text about this displeasure: great burdens, especially in transportation through the seas or rivers, and other great difficulties may follow. " Here Betsky had his own interest, since he proposed to Catherine his project: “the pedestal should be decorated with legislative, military and sovereign attributes and small bas-reliefs,” the historian N. Sobko in the "Russian Biographical Dictionary" 1896-1918.
Diderot wrote a letter in reply to Betsky, in which he tried to reason with him: “The idea of Falcone seemed new and beautiful to me - it is his own; he is very attached to her and, it seems to me, he is right … He would rather return to France than agree to work on an ordinary and vulgar thing. The monument will be simple, but it will fully correspond to the character of the hero … Our artists ran to his studio, everyone congratulated him on the fact that he abandoned the trodden path, and for the first time I see that everyone applauds a new idea - both artists and socialites people, and ignorant, and experts."
And it's good that Catherine turned out to be a very intelligent woman who was able to appreciate the idea of a "wild rock". Although, again, one must bear in mind the era. After all, she, one might say, was lucky. Just at the beginning of her reign, there was a change in artistic styles in Russia: instead of the magnificent baroque, classicism came into fashion. Decorative excesses are a thing of the past, but simplicity and natural materials are becoming fashionable. It was not for nothing that the Empress rejected the already finished statue of Peter I, made by Bartolomeo Carlo Rastrelli, which was placed in front of the Mikhailovsky Castle only in 1800. Although it depicts Peter in a similar guise and stretches his hand forward in the same way. But … a banal pose and that's it - there is no art, there is handicraft, albeit of high quality!
Monument to Peter the Great by Bartolomeo Rastrelli.
“An ordinary foot, on which most of the statues have been approved,” Academician Buckmeister wrote to her, “does not mean anything and is not capable of awakening a new reverent thought in the viewer's soul … expressing a lot of thought!"
“For the full expression of the idea, in accordance with the wishes of Catherine II, the rock had to be of extraordinary size, and then only a rider, placed on it with a horse, could make a strong impression on the viewer. Therefore, the first significant and most important issue at the beginning of the construction of the monument was - the search for a huge, gigantic stone, which was supposed to serve as a foot of the monument, and then deliver it to the place where the construction of the monument was supposed to be … libraries Anton Ivanovsky.
It is curious, however, that the pedestal was initially supposed to be made prefabricated, that is, from several large stones. By the way, Falcone himself did not even dream of an all-stone pedestal: "The monolithic stone was far from my desires … I thought that this pedestal would be built from well-fitted parts." He, as the same Buckmeister wrote about this, "almost made drawings, in what way the stones, of which first were required twelve, after only six, were to be carved and with iron or copper hooks it was necessary to mate."
Art critic Abraham Kaganovich, in his classic book "The Bronze Horseman", written by him on the basis of archival materials, described in detail how these stones were searched. “The surviving pen sketch on the back of one of the documents of the Office of Buildings allows us to judge how the rock, made up of twelve stones, should have looked. Almost square in its foundation, it was a truncated pyramid, on the upper platform of which the rider was supposed to be installed …
Betsky even indicated to draw up a special "Instruction" (oh, these our bureaucrats - approx. VO) for the expedition, which was to look for a suitable stone or stones. First of all, it was necessary to establish the position of the stone in the ground and how deep it lies, measure it, find out the distance from the stone to the road and to the nearest waterways, and from the "south and north sides … beat off a small piece" and immediately present these to the Office of the buildings.
Already at the end of the summer of 1768, several suitable stones were found, which in size were quite close to what Falconet needed. Blacksmith Sergei Vasiliev on the Narva road found as many as five stones 3-4 fathoms (fathom is an old Russian measure of length, about 2, 13 m) long. Andrey Pilyugin found even more of them on the shores of the Gulf of Finland: as many as 27 and several more large stones near Gatchina and Oranienbaum. A stone was also found in Kronstadt itself, and even "by the sea", although it had an "ugly roundish figure", but it was 5 fathoms long.
It is written in the documents that, after checking, many stones turned out to be unusable: "very gritty, the largest rash and weak due to weakness", while others, even stronger stones were of different shades, pattern of the breed, and would hardly look good, being connected together. In general, as Buckmeister wrote, "to make a stone of the desired size from heaped marble or from great pieces of wild stone, even if it was amazing, would not quite reach the intended intention."
“We were looking for the required fragments of the rock for a long time, how, finally, nature gave a ready-made foot to the sculptured image,” Buckmeister writes again. - At a distance of almost six miles from St. Petersburg near the village of Lakhty in a flat and swampy country, nature produced a stone of terrible size … The peasant Semyon Vishnyakov in 1768 gave news of this stone, which was immediately found and examined with due attention."
Vishnyakov reported his find to Betsky's adjutant, the Greek engineer Maren Karburi, who lived in Russia under the assumed name of Laskari. The next morning he went to look at the stone and then reported to Betskoy: “By the verbal order of Your Excellency, it was ordered to find a large stone … which was found on the Vyborg side in the dacha of his Excellency Count Yakov Aleksandrovich Bruce near the village of Konnaya, from which the stone … [drawn] the plan … and a piece from the edge was deliberately kicked off, which I imagine at the time, and it should be carried about six miles to the village of Lakhta, and from there on a ship to the designated place …"
Falconet liked the stone very much. “I was offered it, - he wrote, - I was delighted, and I said: bring it, the pedestal will be more solid”. In a letter to the Duke d'Aiguillon Falcone described the find as follows: “This is a lump of beautiful and extremely hard granite, with very curious streaks of crystallization. They deserve a place in your office. I will try to get a more beautiful shard and, if you will, my dear sir, I will add it to your collection of natural history. This stone will give a lot of character to the monument and, perhaps, in this respect it can be called the only one”.
"At first it was believed that this surface was not very deep into the ground of an ingrown stone," wrote Buckmeister, "but according to the research carried out, it was found that this opinion was unfounded." Then instructed to immediately dig in the future pedestal from all sides.
When a block of stone opened to human eyes, everyone gasped: “The length of this stone was 44 feet (13.2 m), 22 feet (6.6 m) wide, and 27 feet high (8, 1 m) … It lay in the ground for 15 feet (4.5 m) deep … the top and bottom were almost flat, and overgrown with moss on all sides two inches thick. Its weight, according to the calculated gravity of a cubic foot, contained more than four million pounds, or one hundred thousand poods (1600 tons). Looking at this aroused surprise, and the thought of transporting him to another place was terrifying."
It should be noted that the size of the stone for different authors: Betsky, Falcone, Karburi, Felten and others differ, and sometimes quite significantly. Why is this so? It is possible that they all measured it at different times, and the stone itself gradually decreased in size due to its processing.
Now it only remained to deliver the stone to its place. The fate of the future pedestal was decided by Catherine by her decree of September 15, 1768: "We command to mend to this Betsky any assistance … so that this stone would be immediately delivered here, and thereby fulfill our goodwill."
