The Tretyakov Gallery refused to lend Rublev's "Trinity"

conflict museum

The famous "Trinity" by Andrei Rublev was at the center of a scandal. The administration of the Tretyakov Gallery refused the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC)'s request to remove the icon from the exhibition center for three days for use in worship on the occasion of the Orthodox Trinity, citing the fact that the icon could be destroyed during transportation. Patriarch Alexy II has already addressed the Minister of Culture Alexander Avdeev with a demand to take the side of Orthodoxy: the Russian Orthodox Church believes that icons are needed primarily for prayers. However, museum workers are also militant: they see the demands of the Russian Orthodox Church as a threat to restitution and have already begun a campaign to collect signatures in defense of art objects.

The dispute between the Tretyakov Gallery and the Russian Orthodox Church began when representatives of the Patriarchate asked for permission to use the icon by Andrei Rublev for a festive service in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra on Trinity Day - June 7, 2009. Having gathered for an expert council with the participation of art historians and restorers, the gallery staff decided not to give away the icon, citing the fact that it would die during transportation. The fact is that ancient icons require special maintenance conditions - special temperature and humidity conditions. To remove icons from museum storages, it is customary to use special capsules, or icon cases, but the Polymetal plant, to which the Tretyakov Gallery management turned for advice (it had already made icon cases for the icons of Our Lady of the Don and Vladimir), did not give the gallery guarantees that the enclosed in the capsule the icon will not be harmed. “According to restorers, the condition of the icon is critical,” Levon Nersesyan, a senior researcher at the Tretyakov Gallery’s department of ancient Russian art, told Kommersant. According to him, once a year the icon of Rublev is carried by hand from the gallery to the home church of St. Nicholas in Tolmachi. “It’s dangerous, but not fatal. Lavra is almost fatal,” explained a gallery employee. “Everyone who has visited the Trinity-Sergius Lavra knows what a monstrous climate in the cathedral,” supports his colleagues Lev Livshits, head of the department of ancient Russian art of the State Institute of Art Studies of the Ministry of Culture. “The iconostasis of Andrei Rublev stands there all black. For the “Trinity”, even a three-day stay in such a climate can be disastrous." The Tretyakov Gallery recalls that it was their gallery that managed to find a compromise with the church on the issue of using icons for liturgical purposes. In 1999, a house church was opened at the museum, and its clergy, headed by Father Nikolai (Sokolov) and the church choir, simultaneously became part of the scientific staff of the museum. The church is equipped with museum climate systems and, when there are no services, functions as an exhibition hall.

The administration of the Russian Orthodox Church is convinced that gallery owners are disingenuous. “The Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God was taken out of the Tretyakov Gallery several times, although it was considered extremely fragile,” says Father Vladimir Vigilyansky, press secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate. “Meanwhile, the keeper once assured me that the icon should not be moved from wall to wall.” The Russian Orthodox Church recalls that in October 1993 this icon was transferred to the Epiphany Cathedral and a prayer was made in front of it for the salvation of Russia.

Moreover, the church perceived the Tretyakov Gallery’s demarche as an anti-Orthodox act. “This is amazing adherence to principles,” says Father Vladimir Vigilyansky. “Where were all these people and their teachers when churches were looted and stoves were heated with icons. Such aggressive opposition to our request is immoral.” The Russian Orthodox Church is convinced that the scrupulousness of museum workers is a purely manifestation of possessiveness. According to Father Vigilyansky, the Tretyakov Gallery considers itself the exclusive manager of the icon, forgetting that, first of all, it is not an object of art, but an Orthodox shrine intended for prayers: “Even in Soviet times, the liturgical function of the icon was not denied. And museum workers and gallery owners do not take into account this sacred function." Meanwhile, Lev Livshits reminds: “The Trinity is not a miraculous icon. Museum workers made it the main monument of Russian culture in 1904 - its beauty was revealed after restoration. So we can say that it was not the church, but lay restorers who made the Trinity miraculous.”

The conflict between the gallery and the church has already reached the government level. Thus, Patriarch Alexy II called on the Minister of Culture Alexander Avdeev to “take the side of Orthodoxy.” However, the minister has so far refrained from answering and making public comments. According to his entourage, Mr. Avdeev found himself in an extremely delicate situation. “It is fought between the arguments of the Minister of Culture, who by virtue of his position must defend the gallery, and a believer who understands that icons should be available for prayer,” the Ministry of Culture told Kommersant. Meanwhile, gallery employee Levon Nersesyan assured Kommersant that “the Tretyakov Gallery has already been made to understand that despite the absence of official statements, the removal of the icon is a resolved issue.” “No final decision on this matter has been made yet. I am convinced that we do not have the right to simply refuse negotiations with the church,” Ekaterina Selezneva, chief curator and deputy general director for accounting and restoration of the Tretyakov Gallery, told Kommersant. However, Mr. Nersesyan, as a sign of protest against the position of the leadership, began collecting signatures in his online diary for saving “Trinity” from the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Tretyakov Gallery does not hide the fact that they are afraid of a precedent when gallery exhibits will be given out to the Russian Orthodox Church at the first request of the patriarchy. “There is no clear motivation why the icon was needed for the service next year, because there is no date or anniversary. Does this mean that from now on the icon is going to be transported to the monastery every year,” Mr. Livshits ponders. “We were given to understand that if we refuse to give out the icon for worship, the Russian Orthodox Church will take it away from us altogether,” admits Mr. Nersesyan. This, according to art historians, is an attempt at restitution, that is, the return of icons to churches, which means their complete loss. “During the reign of Dmitry Medvedev, a very alarming situation developed,” says Mr. Livshits. “By order of the president of the Patriarchate, ancient relics from the times of Boris Godunov and Fyodor Romanov were transferred, which were an integral part of divine services, including those with the participation of the patriarch. Where are they now, no one knows. And where is the guarantee that the same fate will not befall “Trinity” - that after the expiration of the agreed three days there will not be an order from the president to transfer the icon to the church?”

Let us remember that the process began earlier. On November 19, 2007, Vladimir Putin donated to the Russian Orthodox Church one of the most famous Christian relics stored in the Kremlin Museums—the Robe of the Lord. Somewhat later, in December, Patriarch Alexy II announced at a diocesan meeting of the Moscow clergy that the matter would not be limited to this act. According to him, “reliquaries, shrines, which until now were in the storerooms of the Moscow Kremlin Museums, will be transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church,” and this again should happen by order of the president. Thus, at last summer’s Council of Bishops, it was proposed, among other things, “to intensify the dialogue with government institutions about the return of icons, liturgical objects and vestments to the church from museum collections.”

The press service of the Russian Orthodox Church assured Kommersant that “the church is extremely sensitive to the contradictions between its own interests and the interests of museums, which, due to history, have become the owners of the Orthodox heritage.” However, Father Vladimir Vigilyansky formulated the true position of the Russian Orthodox Church very openly: “The gallery must understand that they have been put in the position of custodians of stolen goods and, under any legislation, they will have to answer for storing stolen goods.”

Yulia Kommersant-Taratuta, Milena Kommersant-Orlova, Irina Kommersant-Kulik, Tatyana Kommersant-Kuznetsova

The Church separates icons from the state