Alexey Lebedev: “If there is a threat of damage or destruction of a cultural monument, the issue must be resolved unequivocally in favor of its preservation”

We publish the commentary of Dr. art critic Alexei Lebedev, dedicated to the law "On the transfer of religious organizations of property of religious purpose, located in the state or municipal property.

Before summing up the results of seven years of the Law “On transfer of religious property to religious organizations” (327-FZ dated November 30, 2010), will have to say a few words about the history of its preparation and adoption. In the 2000s there were heated discussions in which the word "restitution" appeared. And still in colloquially, 327-FZ is often referred to as the "Law on Restitution".

In fact, the Law has nothing to do with restitution. By definition, restitution is the return by the state of property unfairly taken at the owner. Initially champions of the restoration of the historical justice, it was precisely about restitution that they spoke: “Let's return to the Church what was illegally taken from her. They meant the actions of the Bolsheviks in the first post-revolutionary years. It soon became clear that the Bolsheviks had nothing to do with it - the state laid a hand on church property two centuries earlier.

Peter I issued a series of decrees, the first of which was a decree on the abolition of the patriarchate (1703), and the liquidation of the church independence by the establishment of the Synod (1721). As a result, church property departed to the state, became public property. At the same time, it must be understood that The main wealth of the Church at the beginning of the 18th century was land with serfs. The question arises: do we restitution (we restore property rights) for what year? And second, even if we will find an acceptable date on which we will return them to the former owners property, why only the Church? Then you have to return the plants to the heirs manufacturers, estates - descendants of noble families, etc. In general, from this venture I had to refuse because of its complete absurdity.

As a result, a different law was adopted, where speech is not about the return, but about the voluntary transfer of property of a religious destination. Like, there are some objects that need to be given away, and the point is not who used to be their owner, the matter is exclusively in their original appointment. Having made this decision, the Churches began to transmit in large numbers something that never belonged to her.

Meanwhile, from 2000 to 2010 (from the Epistle of the Bishop Cathedral and before the adoption of 327-FZ), the Church claimed 443 monasteries, 12665 parishes and about 2 million hectares of land. According to experts, if the Russian Orthodox Church will be able to achieve the transfer of all property, the right to which she declares, she will receive property that is comparable in size with the assets of Gazprom, RAO EU of Russia, RAO RZD.

In the field of culture, the first to be hit were museums-reserves. There is an important circumstance here, on which the legislators do not wished to pay attention. An ordinary museum can be moved from one building to other. It's hard, painful, and often unnecessary. But probably. A the historical and architectural museum-reserve cannot be evicted from the reserve complex. At this point, it will cease to exist as an architectural reserve.

And it's not just about temples. The law says that “premises, buildings, structures, structures, including objects of cultural heritage" built "for the implementation and (or) ensuring such activities of religious organizations as ... training religion, professional religious education, monastic life, religious worship (pilgrimage), including buildings for the temporary residence of pilgrims ...” (clause 1, article 2). For these purposes, any property is good. Because there is no real estate that could not "provide" ...

However, there is an important caveat in the Law: when it comes to eviction from a building cultural organizations (including museums), then the one who evicts - and this is always authority: municipal, regional or federal, - must first provide the organization culture equivalent space.

Now imagine what scale we are talking about. ROC can claim 30% of museum buildings. The specialists were initially it is clear that the state does not have enough money to in six years (a period prescribed 327-FZ) to build new museum buildings, philharmonic halls, buildings for archives and libraries, etc. Gradually, the authorities are beginning to realize this.

Over the past seven years, far from everything has been transferred for which they were claims have been made. At the same time, it became obvious that events could develop along three scenarios.

Scenario 1

The local bishop takes an absolutely uncompromising position “Give immediately!”, and the authorities immediately comply with this requirement.

What is the rush in such cases? Often passed without thinking about how to save later - and as a result, right before our eyes, they begin to die monuments of history and culture.

So, for example, with great haste was transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church Ipatiev Monastery in Kostroma (from where they were evicted Kostroma State Historical and Architectural Museum-Reserve). Part of this complex - the so-called New Yard - the Church began to use for very noble cause: they arranged something like a hostel for teenagers there with deviant behavior. And right in the center of this courtyard stood a wooden church from the churchyard of Spas-Vezhi - a unique monument of the early 18th century, which the museum has not yet managed to get it out of there. Teenagers ran to smoke on the porch of the church, threw a cigarette butt And the temple burned down.

A similar fate befell the Church of the Epiphany from the village Semenovskoe (1674). Before the transfer to the Russian Orthodox Church, it was part of the museum-reserve "New Jerusalem", and becoming the property of the Russian Orthodox Church, burned down as a result of a short circuit wiring. The wooden buildings left behind the museum (mill, peasant huts, etc.) are intact to this day and are available for inspection.

It is important to note that neither the first nor the second fire had someone's malicious intent. Each case individually can be considered tragic. by accident. But there are eloquent statistics that make you see in What happened pattern: handling monuments of wooden architecture requires special skills that the ROC does not possess.

Now let's talk about situations where the death of the monument is a foregone conclusion. This is what happens when the Church receives at its disposal temples with frescoes. paintings. They immediately begin to burn candles in them, saying: “There are several candles have been burned for centuries - and nothing terrible has happened. Alas, this is the greatest delusion. Previously, candles were wax, and wax soot is superficial, it covers the fresco like a film, the painting darkens, but if the soot is washed off - and restorers know how to do this - the painting opens in its original form. Modern church candles, although they have a wax additive as a symbolic component, in mainly consist of petroleum products - stearin and paraffin. Stearic soot, unlike wax, has a penetrating property - it, like acid, corrodes the paint layer, after a few years the fresco begins to fade and gradually disappear completely. This is what we see in the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir, where only contours remained from the murals of A. Rublev, the same happened with Rublev murals in the Church of the Assumption on Gorodok in Zvenigorod. It is clear that the ROC during divine services cannot but light candles; Catholics widely use electric imitations of candles, but the Orthodox do not go for such a replacement. This means that the death of the monument is inevitable, the only question is the timing.

In the third case, the monuments perish right at the moment of transfer. There is a category of objects that are valuable for their complexity. There was, let's say, a monument of Russian culture and art of the 17th century - the Church of the Trinity in Nikitniki: this, firstly, architecture of the 17th century, secondly, the ensemble of murals, perfectly preserved at the time of transfer XVII century and, thirdly, the iconostasis of the same time. All this together created absolutely stunning ensemble, which for many years was at the disposal of State Historical Museum, and then was transferred to the Russian Orthodox churches. The transfer took place in accordance with 327-FZ: the Church moved the building along with frescoes. However, this federal law does not apply to religious property, which refers to museum items and museum collections included in the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation”, simply speaking, to objects that have museum inventory numbers. Therefore, the iconostasis dismantled - and, together with the icons, they were taken to the storerooms of the State Historical Museum. Even if this the iconostasis will be assembled somewhere, the ensemble will no longer exist. He is lost.

Scenario 2

It happens that the Church does not press, agreeing to wait. For example, the Yaroslavl diocese takes a fairly loyal and reasonable position. There understand that the regional authorities do not have the opportunity to immediately release all the temples of the area where the museums are located. As you understand, we are talking about property questions, and not about the possibility of holding worship services. worship in these temples have been going on for a long time - this is allowed and agreed, but so far everything is happening according to museum rules, taking into account conservation considerations.

However, it would be an exaggeration to say that museums contain these buildings are perfect. No owner will invest in serious restoration of the building, which will be taken away from him today or tomorrow. Maximum, what can we talk about - it's about cosmetic repairs.

Scenario 3

The third scenario can be called tragicomic: the institution culture sits in a building that the ROC can claim, but not yet stated. As a rule, these are structures that are in a difficult condition and requiring costly repairs. It is clear that the Church prefers to wait and receive a RENOVATED BUILDING. A cultural institution cannot be restored in a hurry: “We are sitting in this wrecked house - and thank God! Worth a refurbishment - click here they'll take it." And the building continues to fall apart...

It turns out that each of the three scenarios leads to damage and destruction of historical and cultural monuments. Examples of consistent public So far, only St. Petersburg has been able to counter these tendencies. In other regions, similar cases are rare.

I would like to end with a philosophical question: what is a part of Why is religion part of culture or culture part of religion?

It seemed to me that in a secular state, religion is part of the culture, not the other way around. So, if there is a threat of damage or death monument, the issue should be unambiguously resolved in favor of its preservation. But for now 327-FZ is in force, this is impossible.