Art and Literature

Scientific and Analytical
Journal
Texts
4.2015

Bruxelles, 2015
 EDITORIAL BOARD
Chief editorBurganova M. A.

Bowlt John Ellis(USA) — Doctor of Science, Professor of Slavic

Languages and Literatures in University of Southern California;
Burganov A. N. (Russia) — Doctor of Science, Professor of Stroganoff
Moscow State Art Industrial University, Full-member of Russia
Academy of Arts, National Artist of Russia, member of the Dissertation
Council of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University;
Burganova M. A. (Russia) — Doctor of Science, Professor of Stroganoff
Moscow State Art Industrial University, Full-member of Russia Academy
of Arts, Honored Artist of Russia, member of the Dissertation Council of
Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University, editor-in-chief;
Glanc Tomáš (Germany) — Doctor of Science of The Research
Institute of East European University of Bremen (Germany), and
assistant professor of The Charles University (Czech Republic);
Kazarian Armen (Russia) — Architectural historian, Doctor of Fine
Arts in The State Institute of Art History, Advisor in Academy of
Architecture and Construction Sciences;
Kravetsky A. G. (Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, research associate
of Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
Lavrentyev Alexander N.(Russia) — Doctor of Arts, Professor of
Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial University and Moscow State
University of Printing Arts;
Alessandro De Magistris(Italy) — PhD, Full-Professor of History
of Architecture Politecnico di Milano Department of Architecture and
Urban Studies;
Misler Nicoletta(Italy) — Professor of Modern East European Art at
the Istituto Universitario Orientale, Naples;
Pavlova I. B.(Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, Senior Researcher of
Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

ISSN 2294-8902 © TEXTS, 2015

Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

Ilya E. Pechenkin
PhD, associate professor
Russian State University for the Humanities
e-mail: pech_archistory@mail.ru
Moscow, Russia

ITALIANITÀ AND RUSSIAN ARCHITECTURE

OF XIX CENTURY
Remember the yesterday’s night <…>
when Neva turned into Tiber…
Konstantin Vaginov “Koslinaya pesn’”

I.
“What is the difference between France and Italy! There you admire
works, you want to adopt everything and fit it to our buildings; everything
seems to be nice and various, you try to bear everything in mind — ​
everything: forms, structures, methods of execution, location, in short,
all the details. And in Italy the architecture is poetry. I look at a building,
a painting, a bas-relief, a statue and it seems that my soul is delighted
with contemplation of the beautiful — ​the great…”1 — ​these are words,
written at the end of 1830s by Russian architect Mikhail Bykovsky,
outstanding and deeply convinced representative of Eclecticism2.
The practice of the Eclecticism opposition to the Classicism,
stepping forward as a sign of Russian architecture participation in the
international architectural process, is accepted long ago in the native
bibliography on History of Russian architecture. The idea of “italianità”
in its relation with Russian Classicism of the end of XVIII — ​beginning
of the XIX century embodies in the concrete architectural images
and names, such as Giacomo Quarenghi, Domenico Gilardi, Luigi
Rusca and others. With deviation from Classicism as an international
aesthetic “norm” Italy — ​a direct heir of antique world and mediator
in the transmission of classical taste in contemporary Europe — ​seems
to drop out of Russian architects’ sight, synchronous reorientation of
architecture on the non-classical traditions of West and East.

—6—
 Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

Eclecticism in architecture used to be blamed by authors3, that

followed after “miriskusniki”, and in particular after Alexandre
Benois, exactly for “faithlessness” to Classics of XIX century. In such
foreshortening the presence of relation of architecture with classical
prototypes serves as a pawning of its artistic solvency. At this point
it is appropriate to remember about the only, but, undoubtedly, model
architectural experience of Igor Grabar — ​the building of the Hospital
named after Grigory Zakharyin in Kurkino, in which project he had
as an object the exact reproduction of Palladinism4. “Secession” of
the Eclecticism from the Italian sources of European architecture (i. e.
from “European” basis as such) served as an accurate argument to
the definition of it as an epoch of architectural “timelessness”, which
overcoming is connected yet with neoclassical raise of 1900–1910s,
commemorated also with the “return” to Italy.
This historical and architectural concept attracts with its logic, which
however threatens to simplify the situation excessively. It is necessary
to note that the theme of Italian reflections in Russian architectural
theory and practice of the mid — ​second part of XIX century actually
was not specially investigated. As an exception can be quoted a Dmitry
Shvidkovskiy’s outline from a book published with the participation
of Italian side “Italy-Russia: a thousand years of architecture” (2013)5.
However, even here the author traditionally gives consideration to the
classicism of abroad XVIII–XIX centuries and neoclassic of 1910s,
whereas the architecture of historicism is described by him in passing.
The presence of “Italian theme” in Russian architecture of the mid — ​
second half of the XIX century is confined, by Dmitry Shvidkovskiy,
by the frames of Neo-Renaissance — ​one of the most imposing versions
of historicism, oriented on the heritage of Italian Renaissance.
Given the lack of specific works, which have Russian and
Italian architectural relations in the post classic period as a subject,
the monograph of Maria Naschokina, devoted to the history of the
research and interpretation of antique heritage the Nikolay I epoch, has
a considerable value6. However, this work intersects with our theme
only in part, as “italianità” and “antichità” are relative but different
concepts. A number of Tatiana Rozanova’s publications, which

—7—
Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

1. Trinity Church called “na Gryazyah” in Moscow. M. Bykovsky 1856–1861.

From Naydenov’s Album. 1882

importance is defined by a mature necessity to overcome the above-

mentioned historic and art criticism prejudices, were devoted in recent
years to order (or “classicistic”) school in Russian Eclectic architecture7.
I emphasize that it is not a question of some concrete school of eclectic

—8—
 Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

multistylism. I would like to focus on the aspects of Italian “presence”

in the professional culture of Russian architects of the Eclectic time
without respect to stylistic formula.

II.
Despite the reservations made, nevertheless one cannot deny that
the oldest and the most durable relation of Russian architecture of the
New time with Italy consisted in the necessity to honor the classical
antique tradition, which mechanism was debugged within academic
process. In the XIX century in the schools of architecture, especially the
Imperial Academy of Fine Arts, the classics has been never discounted,
it took the function of tutorial that disciplined eye and hand. But that
was not the only way.
The Eclectics did not approach the antique heritage with demands
measurement and perceived the nuances of style forming, hidden usually
under the generalization of the Classicism. It is characteristic, that this
“discovery” of antique multistylism was not realized in academic classes,
but on the terrain — ​during academics’ pensioner travels to Agrigento
and Selinunte, Paestum and Pompeii. Following Vinkelman’s precepts,
academies disciples aspired to Apennines and Sicilia to contemplate first
of all the monuments of Greek art. However, their view had a romantic
impressionability, reflected, for example, in one of the Society for the
Arts Encouragement pensioner, architect Alexander Bryullov, which got
to Rome the spring 1823: “… here you involuntary imagine a Roman — ​
ancient Roman, medieval and a Roman in evening dress. The temples
of their gods indicate the first one, huge buildings of a nasty taste — ​the
second one and everything insignificant, weak, bad — ​the third one” 8.
Bryullov — ​in the near future one of the early Russian eclectic
leaders — ​ecstatically paints water-color views of antique ruins in
Siracusa and Agrigento, though he needed something else for the
pensioner return. In pursuance of his preceptors’ instructions, he
investigates in detail Pompeii terms. Bryullov’s ouvrage devoted that
ancient structure was published soon in Paris9.
Pompeii theme, taken in a variety of aspects — ​beginning with
from imitation of concrete decorative motives, found in its ruins, to the

—9—
Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

2. Architect-pensioner of Imperial Academy of Arts S. Soloviov in Pompeii.

1886. From the archives of S. Solovyov’s heirs

— 10 —
 Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

reflection about its fatal destiny — ​is extremely popular during the first
half of XIX century (at this point one cannot but recall the Karl Bryullov’s
famous painting, though it was just one consequence of a broad romantic
passion to the image of a lost city). At that time the pilgrimage to Pompeii
ruins becomes desired not only for artists and architects but also for
all the travelers that suppose to be related with culture, that means — ​
interested in contact with antiquities. In 1840s appear works by Russian
authors, who have visited this “living museum”10.
Exactly the aspiration for breathing a new life into it is characteristic
for Pompeii romantic perception, in contrast to “antiquarian” interest
of XVIII century. It looks like romantics saw a good ground for the
escape from the boring contemporaneity in such “reviving”. “Many
people would learn latin purposely to taste the delight of one or two
years of Roman-like life” 11, — ​argues Nestor Kukolnik, talking about
the possibility of Pompeii repopulation. In the epoch of Biedermeier
“imitation of the ancient” do not presupposes heroism and it is rather
interpreted in an aesthetic way, as a special kind of life-style. “Roman-
like life” appears as a continuation of romantic idealization of Italy.
Do not forget about the fact, that Sylvester Shchedrin’s Neapolitan
landscapes, imbued with the spirit of dolce far niente, were created
shortly before the described here years.
“I forget the age in which I live, — ​Alexander Bryullov writes from
Pompeii, — ​I dream to see this city in its state of flourishing…”12. For him,
as for romantic, antique ruins are not so much an evidence of architecture
“in the past”, as a possibility of architecture “in the future”. As for
architect, they are the richest factual material and a professional objective
organization for him. He investigates pedantically the composition of
Pompeii terms and sculptural and pictorial decoration of every lodgment.
In the same years young Konstantin Thon, future founder of officious
“Russian-Byzantine style”, does not just measures the Palatine Hill ruins,
but also works up a project of Roman Caesars’ Palace restoration13.
In Russian architectural practice (however, also in European)
Pompeian motives actualized in connection with the formation of the
Greek Revival style. Pompeii heritage, which was associated with
ancient Hellenes culture14, was considered now as a profitable alternative

— 11 —
Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

3. Project of Grand-Ducal castle in the South of Russia. The program

on competition for Grand Gold Medal of the Imperial Academy of Arts.
S. Soloviov. 1883. Section view. Museum of Russian Academy of Ar

to the bored empire style. In the context of Nikolai I court building,

accomplished by Andrei Shtakenshneider, references to Pompeian
architecture seem to be an attempt to broaden the nomenclature of
styles, made use in country constructions (compare with “Roman bath”,
which was built a little earlier in Potsdam Charlottenhof designed by
Schinkel). The same thing can be said about the palace interiors. In
particular, in 1836–1839 Alexander Bryullov designs “Pompeian dining
room” in Winter palace — ​unfortunately, it did not save its decoration,
which is known thanks to Konstantin Ukhtomskiy’s water-color (1874).
Noteworthy reflection of “Pompeian taste” became Bryullov’s own
house on Kadetskaya liniya of Vasilyevskiy Island. Without changing
the main façade, architect essentially transformed the planning of
the gala hall, having approached it to the typical for Mediterranean
dwellings scheme with two atrium courts. The architects’ of past times
bas-relief portraits were brought in the gala hall decoration (“builders of
Parthenon, St. Peter’s cathedrals dome, Venice palaces, <… .> Rafael”)15.
The fact of Bryullov’s addressing to Mediterranean tradition of
private house during his own dwelling improvement, in respect to

— 12 —
 Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

conversation about “italianità” in Russian architects’ life and creative

work seems eloquent. The architect’s own house is a genre, which
presupposes a maximal freedom of creative self-expression, not
constrained by the third-party customer’s regulations. And Bryullov
makes a free choice in favor of his Italian impressions, undoubtedly, the
strongest ones that he has gone through abroad. Because “only in Italy
you can hear the presence of architecture and its strict grandeur as an
art”16. In these words, belonging not to an architect, but to a literary man,
is nicely observed the emotional susceptibility peculiar to a Russian
pilgrim, who found himself on the Italian earth. Mikhail Bykovskiy’s
son Konstantin, one of the leading Moscow architects of the end of
XIX century wrote, remembering his visit to Italy with his father and
the family at the age of seventeen: “This trip remained in the memory
like a wonderful dream; I owe him my composition of the definitive
desire to devote myself to architecture”17.

III.
Having seen how significant were personal impressions of the
Russian architects of the century before last in Italy, it is useful to
glance at the place that the idea of “italianità” took in the discursive
field of Russian culture of this time. The architects, whose creative
flourishing falls on the second third of XIX century, were related by
their education with the traditions of classics and their comprehension
of the nature of an architectural form itself was classic, order. The
sketches of “Russian orders” were discovered among Moscow architect
and journalist Nikolai Dmitriyev’s papers18. Mikhail Bykovskiy, who
gained fame for his statement against the universal obligatoriness of
the classical rules and declared the aim of creation of “own, national
architecture”19, demonstrated in his project and building practice
inclination for Italianizing forms.
A break in the world outlook happened already in the time after
reforms. “We, the youngest of great nations, <…> are living in an endless
struggle between the bents of our own nature, own development and all-
powerful European influence”, — ​wrote Slavophil Nikolai Strakhov in
187520. In such context the inclination for Italy was interpreted like a sort

— 13 —
Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

4. The facade of the rebuilt edifice of Stroganov School in Moscow. S. Soloviov.

Photo of the end of XIX century. Museum of the Moscow Architectural Institute
of looking back to the West on account of underestimation of self-state
of Russian culture. On the other hand, Italy itself of that time has largely
lost the romantic image of “motherland of arts”, having turned up at the
periphery of a relevant art process. “After Gogol Italy went away from
Russian writers’ heart and mind almost by as much as fifty years” — ​
stated Pavel Muratov in the preface to his famous book21; slightly below
he defined 1880s as the time of “the greatest <…> alienation from Italy
and, it seems that also from all kinds of cultural values”22.
However, these words seem to be not so fair. Italy has actually
almost vanished out of Russian literary men’s sight, but its art riches — ​
monumental Basilica facades, stone portals carving, beautiful frescoes
ornaments, picturesque canvases — ​have soundly entered into the
category of art and historicism architecture sources. In the early 1830s,
the president of the Imperial Academy Alexei Olenin, underlining the
importance for a modern architect of a basis on the works of architecture,
created by the outstanding epochs, ranked among them Gothic and
Byzantine ones23. Such opinion suited the romantic tendency of
overestimation of non-classical heritage. Italy was imagined then by
Europeans as not only the country of antique ruins and the scene for

— 14 —
 Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

5. Portal of the reconstructed building of the Stroganov School in Moscow.

Photo of the end of XIX century. Museum of the Moscow Architectural Institute

Renaissance titans, but first of all — ​Giotto’s, Petrarka’s and “Divine

comedy” author’s motherland. In St. Petersburg in 1881 was published
Alexey Vysheslavtsev’s work “Giotto and Giottists”, which appeared
under the strong influence of western researchers.
Russian independent contacts with medieval Italy art heritage was
made conditional upon the needs of the church art formal language
renewal with a support on Early Christians and Byzantine examples.
The geopolitical realities of the middle and second half of the century
made Constantinople — ​Istanbul, just like most of Eastern Christian
territories, inaccessible for Russian travelers, including academic
pensioners. They could see Byzantine monuments only in Caucasus
and in Italy — ​in Ravenna, Venice and Norman cities of Sicily. For
example, Alexander Pomerantsev, who became famous mainly as an
author of the building of the Upper Trading Rows on Red Square in
Moscow, was awarded in 1884 with the title of academician of the

— 15 —
Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

architecture for his detailed measurements of the Palatine Chapel in

Palermo, presented to the Academy’s council24.
Byzantine masters’ buildings exerted an enormous influence on
Russian architecture of the second half of XIX — ​beginning of XX
century, and not only within the respective areas of Neo-Byzantine
historicism. As an example can be cited not preserved Alexander Nevsky
cathedral in Warsaw (1894–1912). Its architect, Leontiy Benois offered
the general composition of five-domed four-pillared cathedral in the
manner of medieval Vladimiro-Suzdal churches, he not only applied
a monumental scale, peculiar to XIX century (reminding in the first
place of Thon’s works), but also included into the figuration of the
facades the theme of Venetian San Marco Cathedral, with its deep arched
portals, filled up with frescoes25. Benois’ apprentice Ivan Kuznetsov used
Warsaw cathedral as a model while projecting the church for Tesino
village (1908–1911), near Ivanovo-Voznesensk. However its building also
contains direct links to the Venetian monument: for example, beautiful
shafts, carrying archivolt heels of zakomary on the Eastern facade.

IV.
In the second half of the XIX century Neo-Renaissance turned up
to be the most appropriate one for contemporary needs both in the
utilitarian and aesthetic sense, moved to the leading positions in various
European countries. The epoch saw a “positive example of use of
antiquity forms” without prejudice to the spiritual contents of art in such
version of revivalism26. For 1880s’ architectural writers Renaissance was
to be the highest among “historic styles”, and therefore most worthy of
revival in current conditions27. Its forms expressed not only important
for the epoch idea of all-embracing beauty, but also idealistic aspirations
of bourgeois Europe, inclined to associate itself with Italian city-states,
whose culture and consumer lifestyle was “opened” by Georg Voigt and
Jacob Burckhardt to their contemporaries about 186028.
In Russia politic connotations of Neo-Renaissance use were unlikely
pertinent. Associations with ideas of nobility, respectability, financial
solvency turned up to be more preferable for Russian customer. In
particular, bank buildings of XIX–XX centuries demonstrate that well.

— 16 —
 Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

6. Architects-pensioners of Imperial Academy of Arts in Pompeii. 1886. From

the archives of S. Soloviov’s heirs

Their facades were likened to Florentine quattrocento palazzo — ​as

a reminding about Medici, who made a fortune on bank operations.
Aristocratic aesthetics of Neo-Renaissance was predictably most
demanded in St. Petersburg, primary in palaces and mansions buildings.
Already in 1846 it embodies in the reconstruction of Count Grigory
Kushelev-Bezborodko’s house on Fontanka embankment of Andrei
Shtakenshnejder’s project, who built also the most grandiose Neo-
Renaissance edifice — ​Nakolayevskiy palace (1853–1861). Grand
Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich’s palace at the Palace Embankment has
chrestomathy fame, its facade imitate Italian quattrocento palazzo (arch.
A. Rezanov, I. Kitner, 1867–1872). The facade of Count Nikolai Kushelev-
Bezborodko’s former mansion, so-called “Small Marble Palace” (now
the European University in St. Petersburg) is decorated in the Neo-
Renaissance style, with its typical bifor-windows, rustication and floor
small order. Resemblance of this building to the XV century Italian

— 17 —
Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

palazzo was the result of reconstruction in 1857–1862 under Edward

Shmidt’s project, which reflected homeowner’s passion for collecting art29.
In Russian architecture of the “smart choice” “italianitá” got
a concrete “antiquarian and museum” undertone, proved by the memory
about Lorenzo the Magnificent’s patronage. Here it seems useful to
point out two art and industrial museums, appeared about 1890 at
Baron Alexander Stieglitz’s Central School of technical drawing in
St. Petersburg and at Stroganov school in Moscow. Both they were
architecturally focused on the image of “Palace of arts” inspired by the
Italian Renaissance architecture, whose splendor XIX century aspired
not only to repeat, but also to make it popular for the general public.
The building of the museum in St. Petersburg was built up and
decorated to Maximilian Messmacher’s project in 1885–1895 and it
was unique for its engineering and technical parameters. The main
exhibition hall with area of 34x17 m occupied the dominant place in it,
and it was covered by a metal-glass light, which provided interior with
natural daylight. In Russia at that time there was no such grandiose
by bays translucent ceilings. But, in addition, the museum building,
compositionally and stylistically related to the earliest building of the
school itself (arch. R. Gedike, A. Krakau, 1879–1881), became the most
amplitudinous realization of idealogic and artistic program based on
idealization of Italian Renaissance in Russian architecture30.
Messmacher’s work represents an ensemble, in which architecture
is firmly associated and even depending on the sculpture, frescoes,
majolica, etc. Interiors and main facade are characterized by the
discharge of decoration, which is a feature of eclectic artistic language.
In the end, plastic “verbosity” of the facade results in a literal narrative
when in the frieze of entablature appear sculptural portraits and mosaic
names of prominent art masters of past eras — ​mostly of the same Italian
Renaissance. This kind of “monumental literature” is a spectacular
addition to eclectic architecture.
The complex of Stroganov school and museum buildings was
rebuilt under him from classicist University clinic with Sergei
Soloviov’s project31. Renewed facade of the main building was sated
with Renaissance allusions and obviously appeared with the capital

— 18 —
 Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

experience: the decoration in the spirit of “monumental literature”

recalls Messmacher’s work, while the total composition is very similar
to Gedike’s and Krakau’s building. But, perhaps, no less interesting
is prepared by Soloviov and remaining unfulfilled project of the new
building of the school (1889–1890). Apparently, its architect based
on samples of German and Austrian Neo-Renaissance while working
on it (Industrial Art Museum in Vienna, H. von Verstel, etc.), but the
nature of portal processing, Florentine windows, Pompeian motives of
ornamental panels — ​all this gives the project an Italian shade. Moreover,
exactly these elements were undoubtedly supposed by the architect as
the most important, because he did not deny them even when it turned
up that the new building would not be made, and only a reconstruction
would take place32. It is interesting to note that in his own mansion in
Moscow (1901–1902) Soloviov used the images of the Old Italian art,
accentuating the significance of the place which impressions of the
pensioner trip to Apennines took in his memory luggage.
During the short-term, but vigorous pressure of Modern style “Italian”
theme actually practically disappears from the Russian architects’ circle
of interests. Unlike Franco-Belgian, Scandinavian and Austro-German
version of Art Nouveau architecture, the Italian “liberty” almost did not
influence on Russian masters. However, only in a few years Italy (in a
wide range from Paestum Doric to Palladian villas) would regain its formal
appeal for Neoclassicism architects. One of the main promoters of this
movement, Georgy Lukomsky in his famous book “Modern Petersburg”
justified Neoclassicist retrospectivism of the newest building in the
capital of Russian Empire, creating the parallels with Italian Renaissance,
who managed once “to use Roman parts for XV, XVI centuries” 33.

ENDNOTES
1
Quoted from: Bykovskiy K. M., Bykovskiy N. M., “Mikhail Dorimedontovich
Bykovskiy. Khudozhestvennoe razvitie i architecturnaya deyatelnost’ do pervoi
poezdki za granitsu (1801–1838)”, in: Russkiy Khudozhestvenniy Archiv. Moscow,
1892, Issue 2, p. 75.
2
Bykovskiy M., “Rech o neosnovatelnosti mneniya chto architectura Grecheskaya ili
Greco-Rimskaya mozhet byt’ vseobscheyu i chto krasota architectury osnovyvaetsya

— 19 —
Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

na pyati izvestnykh chinopolozheniyakh, govorennaya na torzhestvennom acte

Moskovskogo dvortsovogo architecturnogo uchilischa academikom, chlenom
conferentsii onogo Mikhailom Bykovskim maya 8 dnya 1834 goda”. Moscow, 1834.
3
For example see: “Istoriya russkoi architectury. Kratkiy kurs”. Мoscow, 1951; and
Il’in M., “Architectura Moskvy, in: Istoriya Moskvy”. M., 1954. Vol. 4.
4
Grabar’ I. E., “Moya zhizn’: Avtomonografia”, in: Grabar’ I. E., Moya zhizn’:
Avtomonografia; Etudy o khudozhnikah, Moscow, 2001, p. 227.
5
Shvidkovskiy  D. O., “Italianskaya tema v russkoi architecture XIX — ​nachala
XX veka”, in: Italia — ​Rossia: tysyacha let architectury. Umberto Allemandi & C.,
2013. pp. 269–293.
6
Naschokina  M. V., “Antichnoye nasledie v russkoi architecture nikolaevskogo
vremeni: ego izuchenie i tvorcheskaya interpretatsiya”, Moscow, 2011.
7
See: Rozanova T. M., “K probleme vozniknovenia neoclassicisma v russkoi
architecture (na primere rabot moskovskih architectorov rubezha XX veka)”, in:
Architectura v istorii russkoi cultury, Issue 6: Perelomy epoch. Moscow, 2005, pp.
278–315.
8
Quoted from: Ol’ G. A., “Alexander Bryullov”. Leningrad, 1983, p. 24.
9
Brulloff A., “Thermes de Pompei”. Paris, 1829.
10
See: Levshin A. “Progulki russkogo v Pompei”. St. Petersburg, 1843; Klassovskiy V.,
“Sistematicheskoe opisanie Pompei I otkrytykh v nei drevnostei”, St. Petersburg,
1848.
11
N. K. [Kukolnik Nestor] “Italianskie pis’ma”, quoted from: Naschokina M. V. Ibid.
P. 396.
12
Quoted from: Ol’ G. A. Ibid. P. 32.
13
See: Slavina  T. A. “Konstantin Thon”, Leningrad, 1989, p. 24.
14
See: Petrova  T. A., “Architektor A. I.  Shtakenshneider”, St. Petersburg, 2012, p. 200.
15
“O dome Bryullova”, in: Khudozhestvennaya gazeta, 1841, n. 2, p. 3.
16
Gogol  N. V., “Rim”, in: Gogol N. V. Povesti. Myortviye dushi, Moscow, 2004, p.
461.
17
Quoted from: Soloviov S. U., “Nekonoriye danniye o deyatelnosti K. M. Bykovskogo”,
in: Drevnosti. Trudy Komissii po sohraneniyu drevnih pamyatnikov Imperatorskogo
Moscovskogo archeologicheskogo obschestva. Moscow, 1907, Vol. 1, pp. XXIX — ​
XXXIII.
18
See more: Pechenkin I. E., Saygina L. V., “Moscovskaya architecturnaya zhizn’
serediny XIX veka v kriticheskih publikatsiyah N. V. Dmitrieva (1822–1866)”, in:
Architecturnoye nasledstvo, Issue 52, Moscow, 2010, pp. 263–270.
19
Bykovskiy M. Ibid., p. 10. See also: Kirichenko E. I., “Architecturniye teorii XIX
veka v Rossii”, Moscow, 1986, pp. 124–130.
20
Strakhov  N. N., “Iz poezdki v Italiyu (v 1875 godu)”, cit. by: Sternin G. Yu.
“Khudozhestvennaya zhizn’ Rossii serediny XIX veka”, Moscow, 1991, p. 51.
21
Muratov  P. P., “Obrazy Italii”, Vol. 1, M., 2005, p. 12.
22
Ibid, p. 13.
23
See: Slavina T. A. Ibid, p. 20.
24
RGIA (Russian State Historical Archive), f. 789, inv. 9, 1874, item 161, sheet 147.
25
Lisovskiy  V. G., “Leontiy Benois I peterburgskaya shkola architectorov-
khudozhnikov”, St. Petersburg, 2006, p. 138.

— 20 —
 Ilya E. Pechenkin. Italianità and Russian architecture of XIX century

26
See: Kozhar N., “‘Renaissance des beaux arts’ I neorenessans v architecture XIX
veka”, in: Architectura mira. Zapad-Vostok: architecturniye shkoly Novogo I
Noveishego vremeni, Issue 7, Moscow, 1998, pp. 89–95.
27
See: Pevsner N., “Some Architectural Writers of the Nineteenth Century”, Oxford,
1972, pp. 301, 308.
28
I  mean the first editions (in  German): Voigt G., “Die Wiederbelebung des
classischen Alterthums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanismus”, Berlin,
1859; and Burckhardt J., “Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien”, Basel, 1860.
29
Kirikov  B. M., Stieglitz  M. S., “Peterburg nemetskih frchitectorov. Ot barokko
do avangarda”, St. Petersburg, 2002, pp. 170–171. Name of an architect who
originally built this edifice is unknown. See more: Andreeva V. I. “Maliy mramorniy
dvoretz”, in: Pamyatniki istorii I cultury Peterburga: Issledovaniya I materialy, St.
Petersburg, 1994, pp. 6–20; Zherikhina E. I. “Chastnye dvortzy Peterburga”, St.
Petersburg, 2013, pp. 36–40.
30
Tyzhnenko  T. E., “Maximilian Messmacher”, Leningrad, 1984, p. 78.
31
See: Pechenkin I. E. “Sergei Soloviov”, Moscow, 2012, pp. 45–67.
32
See more: Pechenkin I. E., Starostenko Yu. D., “Noviye danniye k stroitelnoi istorii
compleksa zdaniy Imperatorskogo Stroganovskogo uchilischa — ​Moskovskogo
Architecturnogo Instituta (1889–1890)”, in: Nauka, obrazovanie, experimentalnoe
proectirovanie. Trudy MArchI: materialy nauchno-practicheskoi conferentsii,
Moscow, 2013, pp. 147–152.
33
Lukomskiy  G. K., “Modern Petersburg”, St. Petersburg, 2002, p. 24.

— 21 —