The Cathedral of Christ the Savior (II)

I have chosen to analyze both physical sites of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the original and the present-day reconstruction of it, both of which sat/ sit on the banks of the Moscow River for the reason that they should be viewed as separate cultural entities—entirely different statements and representations of the city of Moscow, especially in relation to the theme of revival architecture (and what the style itself meant to the nation).

In its original place overlooking the Kremlin along the banks of the Moscow River, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was a manifestation of a new onslaught of Russian nationalism. The entire purpose of the Revival (or neo-Byzatnine) style was to, in a sense, “re-brand” Moscow, and tailor it to be a truly Russian city, as the government at the time wanted it to be seen. With that in mind, it makes sense why the Revival style is named as it is—they were reviving the style of the old nation: wooden facades and traditional floor plans together made an imposing, authoritative statement that came to be recognized as distinctly Russian, distinctly Soviet.  

The recently-built cathedral stands for something different (though it is in the same place).

Russia’s history since 1931 is not one that most people regard as a glamorous one. As a country ravaged by war, famine, disease, poverty, and a tumultuous political regime, the fact that the new cathedral was proposed to be constructed in the late 20th century is indicative of a desire to raise a new and visible sign of religious value and the social implications that such a grand structure would make on the citizenry of Moscow. The second cathedral, also situated on the banks of the Moscow River, was built to look like the first one. That gesture in and of itself is symbolic of what the Russian government wanted to achieve in resurrecting the icon. 

For the cathedral to suddenly look different would suggest some regret for Russia’s and Moscow’s past—by opting to simply recreate the previous cathedral in its original integrity reflects a desire to return to that period of Russian culture, yes, but it also shows that despite the progression of the country’s history, that the statement made by the first cathedral still holds true, and that it should still be made. The statement itself, one of beauty and cultural dominance, has a lot to do with a show of power implicit in the revival style of the building. The adornment, distinctly Russian, distinctly neo-Byzantine, is a public announcement of the power of Russia, and of the Soviet state, all of which are knit within an appearance of joyous nationalism.