The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Role of the state inspectorate for protection of monuments of Leningrad in the course of restoration of Trinity Cathedral of Alexander Nevsky Lavra.

e. V. Shungina



Work is presented by department of history of the European university.

The research supervisor - the doctor of historical sciences, professor S.V. Yarov

This article written on the basis of archival documents is result of studying a role of the State inspectorate for protection of monuments (GIOP) in the course of restoration of Trinity Cathedral of Leningrad. In the course of the research the conclusion was drawn that often implementation of Government decrees depended on local public authorities.

The article, written on the basis of the archival documents, studies the role of the State Inspection for Monument Conservation as well as its contribution in architectural buildings& protection during reconstruction works on the St. Trinity Cathedral. The author comes to the conclusion that realization of government regulations often depended on the local authorities.


Role of the state inspectorate for protection of monuments of Leningrad.,

Trinity Cathedral of Alexander Nevsky Lavra is a monument of architecture of the 18th century, is under protection of the state and therefore right after the decision of Council of ministers of RSFSR of July 10, 1956 on opening of cathedral and its transfer to maintaining the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) 1, the State inspectorate for protection of monuments of Leningrad (GIOP) began to exercise fixed control of restoration of the building. Activity of GIOP led to the fact that process of restoration of cathedral turned into a peculiar arena where the interests of several organizations faced.

We will note that from the middle of the 1920th of GIOP constantly controlled the condition of the memorial temple occupied by tenants - Passage and Frunzensky department stores, MPVO, scientific research institute of the Ship-building industry, etc. 2 which though were obliged, according to the lease agreement with GIOP, to carry out repair work in cathedral, tried not to spend for them means but only supported the building in "worker" sostoyanii3. As a result of similar "policy" of tenants by the beginning of the 1950th the building was in critical condition: in it there were even injuries received when shellings in time voyny4. When the Council of ministers of RSFSR agreed to transfer of cathedral ROC, representatives of inspectorate decided that it is the only opportunity completely to repair the building at the expense of means of the diocese especially as LEU agreed to accept the building in any, even in critical condition. The complexity of restoration of Trinity Cathedral as the building which was under the state protection was that restoration had to be scientific, i.e. correspond strictly architectural restoration to a task, be carried out with use of quality expensive materials, with obligatory photofixing of works and drawing up special documentation. Carrying out of this sort works demanded big material

zatrat5, means for which at LEU were not and therefore the diocese appealed to GIOP to recruit in financing of repair of the former tenants. However inspection, having experienced difficulties with involvement of tenants to carrying out repair earlier, made the demand of individual financing by the diocese of recovery work, reasoning the decision with the fact that the building is already accepted in use of LEU which as the new owner is obliged to contain "property" in safety. Besides, on the request LEU received the answer that the diocesan administration saw in what state there was a building, and could refuse to accept it, without having funds for repair and contents. Despite attraction by the diocese to a dispute on financing of restoration as "arbitrators" of representatives of various organizations - economic committee of patriarchy, the chairman of scientific and methodical council of Academy of Sciences of the USSR academician I.E. Grabar, authorized Council for ROC for Leningrad and F.V. Fedoseyev's area, etc. 6, LEU in this dispute came to grief. All expenses were assigned to the diocese, and tenants from whom nothing was collected for "the thriftless relation to a monument history", slowly left the building of cathedral...7 Despite actions of inspection, LEU, having accepted on January 29, 1957 the Holy Trinity Cathedral building in the maintaining, started already next day carrying out restoration works which were controlled by the research associates of GIOP who were often visiting cathedral for the purpose of "check of safety of architectural finishing and internal furniture" 8.

Repair work on cathedral was expensive, and for their financing two ways were chosen: the request for the help to church organizatsiyam9 and economy of the available means due to work by workshops LEU. But also in this case representatives of GIOP toughened requirements in view of the fact that reducer -


ny works were carried out not them by experts. The case with restoration of 18 bronze chandeliers of the 18th century which, despite recognition of their historical value, had considerable losses of details owing to the negligent relation of tenants is indicative. Restoration of church chandeliers on estimates LEU had to cost 156 thousand rubles 10, but because of disputes between the organizations and "repeated" restoration it was much more more expensive - in 350 thousand rubles. The cause of a dispute between LEU and GIOP was not so much "unscientific" restoration how many what for economy of means of LEU, according to the preliminary arrangement, transferred church chandeliers to workshops of the Moscow Patriarchy, but not to the restoration workshop of Leningrad recommended to GIOP. Let's note that else in 1934 the inspection (then Department of protection of monuments) asked about restoration of church chandeliers which tenants put "in a disorder in a heap in a back part of cathedral" 11. When the cathedral and its property were transferred to LEU, GIOP began to insist on carrying out scientific restoration of church chandeliers, at the same time in case of failure to follow instructions of a chandelier had to be transferred to one of the museums goroda12. The commission from GIOP checked results of restoration and as a result twice, having found insignificant divergences with a restoration task, insisted on secondary sending church chandeliers to Moscow for elimination of violations. Let's note that GIOP made this decision three days before alleged consecration of the temple which could not take place without existence in the building of lighting fixtures! 13 it is possible, representatives of GIOP assumed that the cathedral will not be open in the appointed time therefore afforded toughening of requirements. Only on May 18, 1957, in a month, after repeated restoration of church chandeliers in workshops of Patriarchy, the commission of their GIOP prinyala14.

The diocesan management fulfilled all requirements of GIOP as its main goal was to open as soon as possible with -

a pine forest for church services. Thanks to the thought-over organization of repair work the date of consecration of cathedral on April-18, 1957, by the beginning of easter church services was determined. Works on preparation of the temple for opening were conducted rapidly, but the interdepartmental commission headed by representatives of GIOP considered impossible introduction of cathedral to operation even by April 20, 1957 - a holiday of Revival Hristova15. In spite of the fact that all defects were eliminated, in day to which the first church service was appointed - on April 18, 1957, the commission of GIOP rendered a verdict again about impossibility to hold services in cathedral. The representatives of patriarchy who were present at the same time went to Moscow to get permission of Council of ministers to consecration of cathedral in day of Easter, 20 aprelya16. In spite of the fact that permission the governor - stvo was got, the last coordination had to be with the chairman of GIOP - A.V. Pobedonostsev who, using that on April 20 - Sunday - was legal holiday, knowing about the preliminary arrangement and that its resolution is waited by LEU and patriarchy, did not appear in a workplace and did not answer telephone zvonki17. As a result of its inaction consecration of cathedral in day of Easter - the event for which several months were preparing did not take place. Owing to further actions of GIOP the first church service in Trinity Cathedral took place only on Sep 11 - tyabrya 1957, and repair work was continued until the end of the 1980th...

Summing up the result, we will note that in spite of the fact that the government in post-war years made decisions on transfer of temples of ROC, implementation of these resolutions was business labor-consuming and long-term because representatives of local authorities, including GIOP, constantly interfered with process of restoration of the building and interfered with its fastest end as it was at restoration of Trinity Cathedral in

Leningrad. But the fact that the cult building was restored and is opened for church services in very short terms, a reality -

an elk the proof that the Soviet society remained sufficiently religious.

1 The order of Council of ministers of RSFSR of July 10, 1956 No. 2627-r about opening of Trinity Cathedral of Alexander Nevsky Lavra in Leningrad (GARF. T. A-259. Op. 7. 7355. L. 22).
2 M. Dobrynin. The historical information on Trinity Cathedral of Alexander Nevsky Lavra. L., 1953. (GIOP archive. No. 1138/2. L. 79.)
3 Acts of the commissions of Inspection examining Trinity Cathedral. (GIOP archive. No. 155. Former Alexander Nevsky Lavra. T. 3. L. 56, 59, 72, 77).
4 The act of the commission examining cathedral on November 30, 1956. (Diocesan archive of St. Petersburg (further - EASPB). T. 1. Op. 7. 40. L. 91.)
5 Predesign of estimated monetary expenses was for the sum of 5,853,000 rub. Report of the metropolitan Grigory to the patriarch Alexy. (In the same place. L. 63.)
6 Minutes of a meeting in rooms of the metropolitan Elevferiya on December 29, 1956. (In the same place. L. 100.)
7 The letter to the deputy director of scientific research institute p.b. No. 626 to N.N. Gribov from the secretary metropolitan Elevferiya about the fastest release of cathedral. December 6, 1956. (In the same place. L. 58.)
8 The magazine of rescue and recovery operations for February 5, 1957 (EASPB. T. 1. Op. 7. 41. L. 16.)
9 Minutes of a meeting of priors of churches on assistance to restoration of Trinity Cathedral. On March 2, 1957 (EASPB. T. 1. Op. 7. 40. L. 99.)
10 Calculation of estimated monetary costs of repair of Trinity Cathedral (In the same place. L. 64.)
11 DobryninM. Decree. soch. (GIOP archive. No. 1138/2. L. 88.)
12 Act of the commission of GIOP on reception of church chandeliers. (EASPB. T. 1. Op. 7. 40. L. 307.)
13 Minutes of a meeting on the beginning of church services in Trinity Cathedral. April 11, 1957. (In the same place. L. 148.)
14 The magazine of rescue and recovery operations for May 18, 1957 (EASPB. F.1. Op. 7. 41. L. 140.)
15 The statement which is drawn up by the interdepartmental commission on April 2, 1957. (In the same place. L. 273-275.)
16 The magazine of rescue and recovery operations for April 18, 1957 (EASPB. F.1. Op. 7. 41. L. 108.)
17 The magazine of rescue and recovery operations for April 20, 1957. (In the same place. L. 111.)
Annegret Christa
Other scientific works: