Review of The Bronze Horseman: Falconet’s Monument to Peter the Great, by Alexander M. Schenker

Chapman University Digital Chapman University Digital

Commons Commons

Art Faculty Articles and Research Art

2004

Review of The Bronze Horseman: Falconet’s Monument to Peter Review of The Bronze Horseman: Falconet’s Monument to Peter

the Great, by Alexander M. Schenker the Great, by Alexander M. Schenker

Wendy Salmond

Chapman University

, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/art_articles

Part of the Fine Arts Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Salmond, Wendy. "Review of The Bronze Horseman: Falconet’s Monument to Peter the Great," by

Alexander M. Schenker.

Slavic Review

, 65.2 (2004): pp. 406-407.

This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Art at Chapman University Digital Commons. It

has been accepted for inclusion in Art Faculty Articles and Research by an authorized administrator of Chapman

University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Review of The Bronze Horseman: Falconet’s Monument to Peter the Great, by Review of The Bronze Horseman: Falconet’s Monument to Peter the Great, by

Alexander M. Schenker Alexander M. Schenker

Comments Comments

This article was originally published in

Slavic Review

, volume 65, issue 2, in 2004.

Copyright

Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies

This book review is available at Chapman University Digital Commons: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/

art_articles/13

406

Slavic Review

been

changed

in

the

process

of textual

revisions),

not

according

to their

dogmatic

and

theological meaning,

but in relation to the

accompanying

ritual,

the words and actions of

the

priest.

Chapter

5

brings

in,

more

explicitly

than

before,

the context

of

iconography,

tracing

the rhetorical influence

of

the

Cherubic

hymns

on the

new,

post-iconoclastic style

and

studying

their

appearance

as

inscriptions

on

epitaphia (plashchanitsy)

and frescoes. A con-

clusion sums

up

the main

findings

of the book. Also included are a

summary

in

English,

a

bibliography,

and a list of illustrations.

Typos

are few

and

far

between,

but the

non-Cyrillic part

of the

bibliography

contains

several on

every page.

Also,

the book has some

typographical peculiarities, using

the

sign

for inches

(")

instead of

Russian

quotation

marks

(<< >>).

It somewhat

hampers

the

reading

that the

lengthy

quotations (mostly

of

secondary

literature)

are not set off from the main

text

by

indentation,

size

of

type,

or extra

space

before and after the

quoted

text.

The

potential

readership

of

Engstr6m's

book would include

Slavicists,

Byzantinists,

church

historians,

scholars of

liturgy,

and

cultural

historians;

it is to be

hoped

that

Eng-

str6m's

thorough

examination of the kheruvika will

spur

further

research

on the

Slavic

hymnographic

tradition.

INGUNN LUNDE

University of Bergen, Norway

The Bronze Horseman: Falconet's Monument to Peter the Great.

By

Alexander M. Schenker.

New

Haven: Yale

University

Press,

2003.

xv,

398

pp.

Notes.

Bibliography.

Index. Illus-

trations.

Photographs. Map.

$65.00,

hard bound.

Alexander M. Schenker's

monograph

on Etienne-Maurice Falconet's

monument

to

Peter

the Great is at once a

history

of

this

celebrated monument's

making,

a

biography

of its

makers,

and

a

case

study exploring

the cultural ties between Russia and France

during

the

reign

of

Catherine

the

Great.

It is also a

thoughtful

meditation on the

monument's

role in

defining

the cultural

identity

of

post-Petrine

Russia for successive

generations.

It encour-

ages

us

to look with fresh

eyes

on this

almost too familiar

image

and to reconsider the rea-

sons

for

its

enduring

importance.

Schenker

devotes

the first

three

chapters

to

exploring

the world of

ideas and events

in

which the monument was conceived. The

early

careers

of French

sculptor

Etienne-

Maurice Falconet and

his

"disciple,

collaborator,

and

lifelong

companion,

Marie-Anne

Collot"

(16)

are

meticulously

chronicled,

as the

couple

moves

from

Enlightenment

Paris

to the St.

Petersburg

of Catherine the Great.

Schenker creates a

compelling psychological

portrait

of his irritable and often

irritating

hero,

whose

personal

foibles

placed

so

many

obstacles

in

the

way

of

his

grand designs.

The

story

is

lovingly

researched,

written with

verve and a

delight

in

the minutiae of

eighteenth-century

lives and

intrigues.

What

made Falconet

unique among

his

peers

were his intellect and his

literary aspi-

rations. His

ponderous

debates with Denis Diderot on the

relationship

of

text and

image,

("Le

pour

et

contre");

his treatise on the

shortcomings

of

the Marcus Aurelius monument

(until

then the

accepted prototype

for all

equestrian

statues),

and

his

translation and com-

mentary

on

Pliny

the Elder are

closely analyzed

as essential factors

in

understanding,

not

just

why

Catherine the Great chose

him

to realize the

most

important political

work of art

of

her

reign,

but

also

why

he

was able to make the creative

leap

from traditional

forms

into

a

genuinely

new visual conceit. Falconet's

writings

provide

vital clues to

why,

as Schenker

points

out,

with

the

completion

of the

Bronze Horseman Falconet went from

being

"one

of the

many very

good sculptors

of

his

generation"

to

occupying

"a

place

of eminence in

the annals of

eighteenth century

art"

(51).

Schenker

next turns

to

the

dramatic events of the monument's actual construction.

The

powerful chapter

on

moving

the Thunder

Rock,

the massive

granite

boulder

that

formed the monument's

base,

highlights

the sheer mechanical

genius

of the

undertaking

and reminds us of the resources Catherine was

ready

to

spend

on

the

monument,

keenly

aware

that the

world was

watching. Similarly,

the

casting

of the monument is

documented

This content downloaded from 206.211.139.204 on Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:33:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book

Reviews

407

in minute

detail,

and

it

is

instructive

to see it treated within the broader context of other

important

European

commissions

of the

eighteenth

century.

In a close

reading

of the monument as visual form

(chapter

8),

Schenker distills two

centuries

of

divergent interpretations

into

an

analysis

that would make excellent

reading

for students

grappling

with

the

way

images

communicate ideas.

He

shows

how,

with

ele-

ments

like the

raised

right

hand

(threatening

or

benign?)

and

the

horse's

gait (leaping

or

pulled up

short?),

Falconet created an

image

whose

ambiguous

and

multivalent

meanings

made

it a

perfect metaphor

for the

history

of

post-Petrine

Russia and the troubled rela-

tionship

between ruler

and

ruled.

Schenker,

a

philologist,

is

keenly

aware

of

the chal-

lenges

involved

in

explaining

the

enduring

appeal

of

great

works of

art,

using

Falconet's

debate

with

Denis

Diderot on the

interchange

of word and

image

as a touchstone

for the

entire

book.

Among

the book's

important

contributions

is the

central

role

accorded Marie-Anne

Collot,

to whom

authorship

of the horseman's head has

traditionally

been attributed.

Schenker

has

quite

rightly

given

her

a

central role

as

Falconet's

lifelong companion

and,

he

argues,

lover;

and

he

stresses

that

she

was a

gifted portrait sculptor

esteemed

by

her

contemporaries.

It therefore comes

as a

shock to read the brief section

in

which Collot's

actual contribution

to the monument is discussed.

On

rather

flimsy

speculative

grounds

Schenker

rejects

Falconet's own claim that Collot

was

the sole author

of the

horseman's

head,

favoring

instead the

view

of "modern doubters" like David Arkin that "Collot

pro-

vided Falconet with a

portrait

of the

tsar,

but that

he then

altered

it to

suit

his vision"

(286).

Despite

Schenker's obvious

sympathy

for

Collot

the

woman

and

helpmate,

as an

artist

she

emerges curiously

diminished

by

this

equivocal

stand and

her

claim to be

one of

its mak-

ers

suddenly

seems

tenuous.

This

definitive

work on Falconet and his monument will be invaluable to

anyone

working

in the

field of

eighteenth-century

studies.

But

it is

also,

quite

consciously,

a

prod-

uct

of modern

history.

Published

in

2003

to coincide with the

tercentenary

of the

found-

ing

of St.

Petersburg,

it is

itself one