I have just come back from Syria. In Damascus, an international conference took place that discussed the work of the Russian-Syrian expedition at Palmyra.
There is an agreement that Palmyra’s Arch of Triumph will be restored. The Syrians are carrying out preparatory work in conjunction with the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute for Material Culture. Archaeologists have uncovered the base of the arch, studied its history, investigated the consequences of the explosion and gathered up everything that was blown to pieces. Each stone has been scanned and put in its former place in a computer model.
Now the arch stands alone in the middle of a field. In ancient times, it looked different. It stood in the middle of a colonnade and a street, with people passing through it. The history of the previous restoration, carried out by the French in the 1930s, has been studied. The arch contains new blocks, reinforcing rods and concrete, which, it has emerged, worsened the consequences of the explosion. In short, an immense amount of work has been performed and a series of computer models created on that basis, showing what can be done and how.
There are strict UNESCO rules about how to treat damaged cultural monuments. There is a whole science on how to perform the work that is termed “post-traumatic”. The conference discussed how to carry out a restoration taking the UNESCO rules into account.
The main rule is that you must not “invent” anything, not create an illusion of how things were originally. Restoration is a healing process. On the one hand, there should be no flights of fancy. On the other, an aesthetic impression does need to be produced. An important consideration is how all this fits in with the life of the local community, the city, what economic and cultural role the monument plays… All of that was explored in accordance with the strict UNESCO rules. Materials are being delivered there, while UNESCO is holding itself somewhat aloof. Syria, like us, is under sanctions.
We visited Palmyra, viewed the arch and touched the stones… Preparations for the restoration work are beginning. It will be a very good thing, if this very competent, in all senses, project is completed.
Each time there is talk about Palmyra, the abuse starts up in the social networks: why are you bothering about Palmyra, when Russian churches, monuments and so on are perishing here with us…
Russian culture is a part of world culture, the heritage of all humanity, necessary to it. For that very reason, it is impossible to cancel.
The Arch of Palmyra is important to us not only because it is remarkable in itself. I have repeatedly said that we have special ties to Palmyra. You’d have to be lazy not to remember the year 4 school textbook with a picture of the Arch of Palmyra as an example of the beauty of the culture of Antiquity. People call our city the Northern Palmyra. Rossi adopted the Arch of the General Staff building that unites street and square together from pictures showing the Arch of Palmyra, which, almost as on Palace Square, brilliantly combined a street with the access to the Temple of Baal. We are obliged to think about saving it.
Works of art have dual significance and usage. Among other things as an artistic monument and a ritual object. The Arch in Palmyra is an artefact of pagan culture and an architectural monument.
And look how Russian works are being saved. Recently the story of the tomb of Alexander Nevsky has been actively discussed. I constantly object to the term “return”. What is happening is not its return, but its handing over to the Church after 100 years of being rescued. The terminology is important. There is confusion in the public mind. The tomb and the shrine are different things. What the Hermitage is handing over to the Church is the tomb – a huge silver structure. The shrine is the casket in which the relics are kept. Alexander Nevsky’s relics have their own story, as does the shrine. They have been repeatedly taken out and studied; they were burnt in a fire. Peter [the Great] had them moved forcibly from Vladimir to Saint Petersburg.
The decision has been taken in the present geopolitical situation, given the Patriarch’s request to reunite the relics and the tomb. In Orthodoxy we have a cult of saints. The ritual and sacral significance of the tomb and shrine are being enhanced. They are being reunited within the Alexander Nevsky Monastery.
Together with the tomb, the Hermitage is passing over responsibility to the Church. The handing over of responsibility is a particular aspect of the matter. The museum saved the tomb, not allowing it to perish. It risked people and surrendered parts of its collection to be melted down in order to preserve the tomb. At that time, the state was plundering museums, as well as churches. Objects were confiscated, removed to other museums, sold abroad… The story of how the tomb was saved ought not to be forgotten. A display about that will be a permanent fixture in the Concert Hall of the Winter Palace.
You cannot step into the same river twice. We are not returning to how things used to be. This is a fresh story. The Hermitage is handing over the monument, while retaining the right to monitor its state. The tomb is fragile, The layer of silver is thin. Our restorers provide it with remedial treatment. A patient of this sort never fully recovers. There is a need to maintain conditions in which the tomb can live on. People often write about the museum’s demands regarding climate control, humidity and so on. It is not a question of the museum’s demands, but of the conditions for the survival of the monument. If they are not provided, the tomb will perish.
After lengthy high-level discussions, a precise agreement has been signed listing the points that have to be observed. The tomb will not leave the premises of the Hermitage if those points are not met. The handover will take place in a gradual and transparent manner. All the procedures and discussions will be made public.
What I am referring to here is part of a major worldwide process, of arguments and debates about the return of relics to the location, to the ownership of the people or to the country from which they came… There are plenty of examples. They include some iconic objects: the Rosetta Stone, which Egypt is demanding back from the British Museum. Nigeria wants to receive the Benin bronzes. The stained glass from the Marienkirche is a religious artefact that we handed over to Germany among the displaced cultural treasures. We try to find cultured solutions. Those should, however, be particular to each situation. The case of the tomb of Alexander Nevsky is an example, but not a precedent.
On a world level, church museums play an important role. Everyone knows the Vatican Museums. There are some splendid ecclesiastical museums in Italy, such as the famous Museo dell’Opera del Duomo in Florence, which is one of the most advanced museums in the world. Involving the Church in the museum environment is one of the areas studied by the Department of Museology at Saint Petersburg University.
When it comes to Russian ecclesiastical art, museums did not seize or appropriate anything from anybody. They saved what might have perished. Church practice is to replace a ruined icon with a freshly-painted one. Museums engage in restoration. Hundreds of icons have brought to the world’s attention as works of art. Icons are accessible to a large number of people of all religions when they are kept in a museum. It is possible to pray before an icon in a museum, but you cannot organize your own prayer services. In a church, it is not always possible to view an icon as a painting.
An old icon is a darkened panel of wood. The Old Believers were the first to begin cleaning icons. The process was then taken up in the Silver Age, when people sought to demonstrate by cleaning icons that we were no worse than the Italians when it came to painting. That is why Rublev is so great.
Rublev’s Trinity is a unique icon. It too needs to be saved. The most important thing is the actual state of the ancient work. The debates are ongoing: what has been lost, what has been added by restorers, what might peel off, how should cracks be avoided… There are many questions.
Each relic needs to be examined with respect, and decisions need to be taken without hostility. Sadly, hostility often arises in our social networks. The decision to hand over the tomb of Alexander Nevsky elicited a flood of malevolence directed at the Church and museums. Those doing the cursing lack artistic perception. Works of art are becoming bones of contention. That needs to, and can, be avoided.
This material was published in Russian on the website of the Sankt-Peterburgskiye Vedomosti newspaper on 31 May 2023.
