To the page Scientific works

To the main page


Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky


About the hypothetical intermediate building of the Cathedral

of the Nativity of Virgin Mary in Suzdal in 1148 and the original view

of Suzdal temple of 12221225



Published in Russian: .. 1148 12221225 . .:   (28 2008 .). , 2009. . 218235. 





Some researchers believed that in 1148 Yuri Dolgoruky built in Suzdal the Cathedral of Nativity of the Virgin. In the offered article all arguments in favor of this hypothesis are cited in details, and it is shown that none of them is reliable enough to compromise the message of the Chronicle, which clearly negates the erection of any "intermediate" temple between of Suzdal Cathedral of Monomakh and partially preserved Cathedral of the Virgin Nativity of 1222-1225. The article also identifies a number of distinctive architectural features of the Cathedral of the beginning of the thirteenth century.




The following text was translated from the Russian original by the computer program

and has not yet been edited.

So it can be used only for general introduction.






First of all we will consider a problem, which attracted the attention of researchers and has considerable resonance in scientific and popular literature: was there in 1148 built in Suzdal Cathedral of the Nativity of the virgin?

In this study we analyze all the arguments for and against the existence of a hypothetical Church of Suzdal 1148. First of all, consider the data ancient documentary sources, speaking on the construction of a pre-Mongolian Cathedral in Suzdal.

Laurentian chronicle under the year 1222 reports: "the Great Prince of Gurgi founded the Church Kamenno of the Holy mother of God in Suzdal, in the first place, pastushew the old building, because Ocala be rositica old age and the top of her fell the be; that Bo Zerka created by his great-grandfather Volodimira Monomakh and blessed by Bishop Ephraim"1.

Thus, the chronicler clearly States that the Grand Prince Yuri Vsevolodovich in 1222 destroyed the Suzdal Cathedral, built by Vladimir Monomakh and dedicated to the virgin, and in its place a new Church was built. The construction of the Cathedral was completed in 1225, which is also referred Laurentian chronicle: "Created there became Zerka Holy mother of God in Suzdal and Holy was given by Bishop Simon in the 8th day of September"2. That in 1148 was built some "intermediate" Cathedral, it can not go: according to the chronicler, in 1222 was destroyed, the temple built by Monomakh, who died in 1125 ad.

Another documentary evidence relating to the construction of the Cathedral in Suzdal, contained in the "Paterik of Kiev-Pechersky monastery. In the beginning of XIII century3 Vladimir Bishop Simon entered in the Paterikon of the Epistle to the Pechersk monk Polycarp said, "And in his reign, hristodula Vladimir, vsemi measure bogestvenniy Toa Church Pechersky, all padomiem the Church in the city of Rostov: in height, and width, and in the length of it... the Son in Prince George (Yuri Dolgoruky - SZ), hearing from his father Vladimir, hedgehog about that Church, created, and that during his reign the Church in the city of Suzdal in the same measure. As for letech all that Raspadskaya, SIA as a single mother of God dwells in veka"4.

At this message ancient documentary sources, directly speaking about the construction of Suzdal Cathedral, can be considered exhausted.

Before considering these reports to determine the presence of contradictions, we must pay attention to the date of the first Suzdal Cathedral, as it is in these sources are given.

The message of the Laurentian chronicle under the year 1222 as a Builder of Suzdal Cathedral mentioned Bishop Ephraim. Perhaps it is about Metropolitan Ephraim of Pereyaslavl (a contemporary of Vladimir Monomakh), since the rank of Metropolitan refers to "the third degree of the priesthood, and all the clergy of the generalizations are called bishops.

Date of death of Ephraim of Pereyaslavl unknown to us. In the literature often 1097 year5. N.N. Voronin believed that the Metropolitan died in 1105, when the Pereyaslav the Department was made Bishop Lazarus6. Accordingly, the researcher was Dating Suzdal temple 1105 and tied its construction with the second visit Monomakh in Suzdal (1101).

But Voronin did not take into account the fact that Ephraim was not a Bishop and Metropolitan (in this case, no matter whether in Pereyaslavl a separate Metropolitanate7 or Ephraim was just a "titular" Metropolitan8), and Lazarus could be ordained and during the life of Ephraim.

We do not have absolute confidence that Bishop Ephraim of messages Laurentian chronicle identical Metropolitan Ephraim of Pereyaslavl9. Consequently, we have no right to bind the Suzdal Cathedral Dating from the years of the life of Metropolitan, even if we had known them for sure.

Another doubt in the Suzdal Cathedral Dating 1101 year is that the message on the second visit of Monomakh in Suzdal referred to the founding of the Cathedral in Smolensk10 and Suzdal Cathedral is not mentioned. A Supplement existing chronicle details the assumptions that at this time could have happened something like that had escaped the notice of the chronicler, looks absolutely illegal. If the chronicler wrote about Smolensk temple, it is unlikely he would have forgotten about Suzdal. Or talk about the temple construction in General would not come.

The personal presence of Vladimir Monomakh at the Foundation and construction of the Suzdal Cathedral was also totally unnecessary (in Suzdal at the beginning of the XII century there were Prince, and Monomakh's Governor).

Accordingly, we have no right to bind the construction of the temple and some travel Vladimir Vsevolodovich in Suzdal.

Thus, we have to state that today the only satisfactory basis for Dating the first Suzdal Cathedral is marked by the Laurentian chronicle the fact that it was built during the lifetime of Monomakh. Accordingly, the most rigorous and grounded Dating Monomachus temple - not later than 1125.

List of the architectural and archaeological surveys conducted in the Cathedral of the Nativity of the virgin. In 1937-1940 the temple was investigated ad Varganov and AppDomain11 (hereinafter - the study 1937-1940). In 1987, archaeological monitoring of the excavation work near the Cathedral was carried out Vmenyaemym and Vphlshthym12 (hereinafter - the study 1987). In 1994-1996 and 2001 architectural and archaeological research VP Glazov, P.L. Zykov, M. ioannisyan, and E. N. Torshin13 (hereinafter - the study 1994-2001). In 1998, the architectural and archaeological monitoring work to strengthen the masonry apsidal carried V.M. Anisimov and T. Bachurina14 (hereinafter - the study 1998).

We can now proceed to the analysis of texts chronicle and Paterik.

Both of these messages Laurentian chronicle does not have internal contradictions and correspond to the data of research and 1937-1940, and 1987, and 1994-200115 that opened two Foundation of the temple of Monomakh and the existing Cathedral (the General view of the latter, see figure. 1). Both foundations are almost on the same place (their combined plans by P.L. Zykov16 see Fig. 2). Accordingly, the chronicle reported the founding of Yuri Vsevolodovich Church "in the first place" is also confirmed.



Fig. 1. The virgin Nativity Cathedral in Suzdal. General view.



Fig. 2. Combined plans for Monomakh's Cathedral and temple of 1222-1225 (by P.L. Zykov).


But the Laurentian chronicle calls the constructor of the first Church of Suzdal Monomakh, and Paterikon says that Monomakh was erected a Church in Rostov17and the Church in Suzdal by Yuri Dolgoruky. What kind of built Yuri temple is referred to in the lives of the fathers? If the same thing, which was erected during the Monomakh, it is not there a contradiction with the Laurentian chronicle?

What we in the Paterikon of the Suzdal Cathedral, built by Yuri during Monomakh, and this message does not contradict the Laurentian chronicle, confirmed by the following provisions.

First, Paterikon says that Dolgoruky built a Church in Suzdal "in the same measure that the Church in Rostov, respectively, "a measure of" the assumption Cathedral of Kiev-Pechersk monastery. Of the two discovered the foundations of this "as" almost completely corresponds to only the first18, the latter does not correspond even approximately (see Fig. 2).

Secondly, the context of the message Paterik between the construction of Monomakh's Church in Rostov and Suzdal in the temple Dolgorukogo could hardly walk a few decades. According lives of the fathers, the jury heard from his father about the Rostov Church and built in the same measure Church in Suzdal, " if these two events were several decades, it already would be interpreted as "the temple according to the promise"and in the message Patericon would have the reservation. Consequently, both of the temple referred to in the lives of the fathers, were built during Monomakh. opus mixtum"), which, as shown by all carried out archaeological research, was built the first Suzdal temple.

Third, the date of birth of Yuri Dolgoruky (early-mid 1090-ies), the beginning of the reign of George of Suzdal (range offered researchers dates - 109619 to 111320 years) and first Suzdal Cathedral (not later than 1125) rather conditional. Scatter all these dates is so great that we may assume: during the construction of the Suzdal Cathedral Yuri Dolgoruky could be the Prince of Suzdal land, and quite an adult, able to act as a churchwarden of the temple.

Fourth, the historical fate of the first years (perhaps the first decades) of Suzdal Prince Yuri Dolgoruky was inseparable from the historical fate of the reign of his father, so along with Dolgoruky as a churchwarden of the temple in the sources could be called and Monomakh - as Grand Duke (if the Cathedral was built during the Kiev Principality of Vladimir Vsevolodovich) or as an authoritative father young son (if Cathedral was erected earlier).

Fifth, it is likely that during the life of Monomakh Suzdal Prince Yuri Vladimirovich had no political or financial independence, and for the construction of churches was a churchwarden only formally, but in fact only did the will of Vladimir Vsevolodovich.

Thus, the matter in the Paterikon of Rostov and Suzdal Cathedral, built during Monomakh. From a historical point of view, the most equitable position is recognition churchwarden Church of Suzdal and Monomakh and Dolgoruky, ie mentioned in the Chronicles of the two princes are absolutely legitimate.

Let's sum up our research of ancient documentary sources, speaking directly about the construction of the Suzdal Cathedral.

We have shown that the Laurentian chronicle reports Paterik not have internal contradictions and does not contradict either to each other or the results of all conducted archaeological research. Therefore, according to the specified documentary sources, first of Suzdal Cathedral was built not later 1125, the second - in 1222-1225. Churchwarden of the first temple were Monomakh and Yuri Dolgoruky, the second - Yuri Vsevolodovich21.

About any "intermediate" construction in these sources is not, in fact - Laurentian chronicle eliminates the possibility of such construction.




Under 1148 year the first Novgorod chronicle reports: "Go Niphon the Suzdal dividing the world to Gurgevo, and made with love Gurgi, and the Church St. St. Virgin velikim sacred, and Newthrea all wyprawy, and guest everyone a whole, and the Ambassador with the Cestius Novogorod, N. world not give"22.

Does this message (even if not directly, but indirectly) that in 1148 in Suzdal was built a new Church, which was consecrated Bishop of Novgorod?

This position adhered ad Varganov and AppDomain, H. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T. Bachurina23. H. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T. Bachurina in their research reproduced most of the arguments ad Varganova and AppDomain in favor of built in 1148 new Cathedral, therefore, for simplicity, we combine the author's position all these researchers.

Here are all the arguments advanced in favor of the existence of a hypothetical 1148.

1. As we have already noted, ad Varganov and AppDomain, H. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T. Bachurina believed that the first Novgorod chronicle reports that Niphon in 1148 dedicated the new Cathedral, built on the site of the first temple.

2. Within South porch of the existing Church at the depth 82.5 cm the study of 1937-1940 discovered the remains of a floor from small limestone slabs. This floor was above the floor of the first temple and below the second (in its level was found burial of Prince Svyatoslav Yu, who died in 1174), and these researchers took him to the alleged temple in 1148.

3. The arches of the existing Cathedral "attached" to it (no dressing masonry), the level cap southern porch below the base of the temple, and the top of the South porch crashes into a column-type belt. This has given researchers argue that the arches were erected in 1148, it has belonged to the hypothetical temple, which dates from this year. In support of this position was cited Chronicles the message confirming the existence of the Cathedral porch at the end of XII century: in 1194 in the repair of the temple was covered with tin from the top to the mosquito to the porch"25.

4. Under the portal of the North porch of the existing Church research 1937-1940 found the remains of the previous portal (fairly simple, consisting of only two benches) and ground reflux. Ease of execution of these fragments similar to the relevant architectural details of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky and the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha, and these researchers believed that these items belonged prevented the porch hypothetical Church 1148, and Yuri Vsevolodovich arches received new portals and the new base.

5. Between stratigraphic layers of the construction of the temple of Monomakh and the Cathedral 1222-1225 was spiked with a layer of soil. These investigators took him to the alleged construction of 1148.

6. The number of rough-treated tuff-like limestone (in historical and architectural everyday life is not rightly called tuff26) in the lining of the first tier of the existing Church is very large - according to V.M. Anisimov and T. Bachurina, about 40 % (Fig. 3). Tuff-like limestone is the primary lining the lower part of the Cathedral, and fragments gladkokrashenoy white stone wall masonry are traces of repairs, which is confirmed by the following data:

- according to research in 1998, the laying of tuff-like limestone performed on a pink lime-tsemyanochnom solution, and the white stone walls - light mortar with the addition of white stone crumb;

- according to the archeological researches of 1994-1996, the walls rubbled with lime with the addition tsemyanki, i.e. the solution is closer to a solution on which the laying of tuff-like limestone;

- according to the observations of the author of this study, the laying of tuff-like limestone uniform, and of well-treated white stone is a diverse and multi-temporal (Fig. 3).

In connection with the primacy of the lining of tuff-like limestone ad Varganov and AppDomain, H. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T. Bachurina believed that the lower part of the existing Church was built of such limestone in 1148, and the top in 1222-1225 was rebuilt in gadatana white stone (and then in the XVI century it was rebuilt again, already in brick). Accordingly, in their opinion, preserved foundations and the lower part of the walls do not belong to the Cathedral of 1222-1225, and the alleged temple in 1148.



Fig. 3. Lining the walls of the Suzdal Nativity Cathedral of the virgin.


7. These researchers drew attention to the fact that shaped portals and column-type belt existing Cathedral (Fig. 4) cut in the lining of tuff-like limestone, and believed that these architectural details have appeared on a hypothetical Church 1148 later (in 1222-1225).



Fig. 4. Column-type belt of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the virgin.


8. A.D. Varganov and AppDomain, Gchar, Vmesnikov and T. Bachurina saw the following logical path of development of construction in Suzdal: the era of Monomakh - plinfa and cobblestone, 1148 - tuff-like limestone, with 1152 - well-treated a white stone. Otherwise, in their opinion, facing the Cathedral tuff-like limestone in the beginning of XIII century would mean regression of construction equipment.

Thus, these researchers believed that the hypothetical 1148 was six pillars, trehapsidnoy forechurches, faced with tuff-like limestone. This Cathedral, in their opinion, was a "transitional" from the technology "opus mixtum" Monomakh to gladkotesanoy white-technology, which began building in 1152. In 1222-1225 the top of the proposed temple 1148 to column-type belt inclusive was passed, the lower part has preserved till our days (note that in case of acceptance of the position of these researchers would change the base of the Dating of the existing Cathedral with 1222-1225 on 1148).

Claiming that the Church existed in 1148, these researchers inevitably faced with the problem of interpretation considered in paragraph 1 of messages Laurentian chronicle and Paterikon. In the latter, they believed that, since Paterikon not indicated the date of construction, we are talking about the construction of Yuri Dolgoruky not the first Church of Suzdal (Monomakh), and hypothetical 1148.




In order to understand whether the message Laurentian chronicle under the year 1222 to be disavowed, we must consider all mentioned in paragraph 2 arguments in favor of the existence of a hypothetical temple in 1148. If at least one of them is undeniable and irrefutable, we will also have to admit Chronicles message in error and believe that in 1148 Yuri Dolgoruky built in Suzdal new Cathedral.

But first of all note that to disown the message not only Laurentian chronicle, but Paterik - in the part where it says that Dolgoruky has constructed the temple of Suzdal "moderately" Pechersk. As we saw in paragraph 1, this "measure" corresponds only to the Foundation of the temple of Monomakh.

Naturally, a priori critical attitude toward invaluable documentary information beginning of the XIII century is unacceptable and considered to be a failure message Laurentian chronicle Paterik will be possible only in case of exceptionally reliable and meaningful counter-arguments, not generating any doubt. Let's see whether any of those listed in paragraph 2 arguments ad Varganova and AppDomain, Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T. Bachurina qualify for such an exceptional value and reliability.

And we start with the first argument is the message first Novgorod chronicle that Niphon in 1148 made a "great sacred" Church of Suzdal.

Consecration of the temple was made (and made in our time, not only at the completion of their construction or reconstruction. Churches were blessed as often and for many reasons. For example, the great sacred" supposed to do after pagan violence (in particular, after the robbery or Bulgarians Polovtsy), or if in the Church of spilled blood, and "small" - if the temple was defiled by uncleanness" (in particular, if penetrated inside "unclean animal, for example, the dog). 27.

And here we can immediately consider the second argument described in paragraph (2 - open archaeological research 1937-1940 years of sex, dated between the dates of the Church Monomakh and the existing Church. Voronin, who denied the existence of the temple 1148, quite rightly believed that this year in the first temple was repaired, which was raised floor level28.

When raising the level of the floor was impossible not to move the throne. Accordingly, the great sacred" after repair 1148 was mandatory, and about it, most likely, says the message of the Novgorod first chronicle29.

The third and fourth arguments for the existence of a hypothetical 1148 were related to the porches. Review the problematic issues:

- in 1194 at the temple, according to the record, there were arches;

- existing arches are not tied to the temple, South porch overlaps column-type belt;

- under the Northern portal of the existing porch of the discovered remains of the previous portal and the cap.

The adoption versions of the existence of 1148 not solve these problems, because if we believe that prevented the porch of this hypothetical Church belong to the remnants of the portal and of the cap under the existing porch, then we have to assume the existing arches belong not to the intended 1148, and the temple of 1222-1225, and it remains unclear, why the existing arches are not tied to the temple. If we assume that the hypothetical 1148 belonged existing arches, it remains unclear to what Church were the remnants of the portal and the cap.

N.N. Voronin believed that the existing arches are not tied to the temple for two reasons:

- arches and the temple had different perspectives precipitation;

- such was the sequence of construction of various parts of the Cathedral30.

This researcher, who denied the existence of the temple 1148, was forced to assume the existence of under existing porches residues portal and pedestal "mysterious"31. However, as we have just shown, and the recognition of the existence of this hypothetical Church would not give a satisfactory solution to this problem.

Consistent answers to these questions gives insight into the most important fact: in 1222-1225 plans churchwarden, priests and builders changed repeatedly during the construction of project implementation32:

1. Initially the Cathedral Yuri Vsevolodovich was designed as forechurches. The Foundation of this Cathedral was erected on top of the Foundation of the first Church, and to provide the necessary stability it had to be raised above the floor level in 1148 and pour ground, creating a small artificial hill, which showed archaeological research 1994-2001. And the level of the floor of the porch was planned at a lower level - at the level of the floor raised in the repair 1148.

2. Raising the southern and Northern vestibule to the level cap, rejected them - probably, decided that the Cathedral will look more coherent without them. Accordingly, upon completion of construction in 1225 was only the Western porch (masonry last tied to the laying of the temple).

3. A few years later arches, very useful in order to expand and insulation of the temple, were built (possibly at different times, as the South is significantly different from the North). These arches were erected on the remnants of the previous (unfinished), and the level of their sex was at the level of the floor of the Cathedral.

Note that during construction, as rightly believed Voronin33, at some point changed the plan and against the altar part of the Cathedral, and the builders had to build new apse (their clutches also not tied to the laying of the Cathedral).

This position clarifies the question why under the existing portals are remnants of the previous one, and why the existing arches are not tied to the temple and overlap column-type belt. Consequently, the existing arches, and the remnants of the portal and pedestal under them do not belong to the hypothetical temple 1148, and the Cathedral of 1222-1225.

But the question remains: what vestibule refers to the chronicle report under 1194?

Archaeological investigations have not given a clear answer to the question whether the Cathedral of Monomakh arches34. But even if to consider, that "capital" (built in the technique of "opus mixtum") of the porch was not, then recorded mention of them under 1194 has the following explanation: it was about wooden arches (archaeological research with such a complicated stratigraphy almost unable to locate their remains). In the years after the construction of the first Cathedral, he could not grow a considerable amount of "utilitarian" wooden additions, and some of them could be, and the arches. It is absolutely necessary that these buildings were spoiling the appearance of the temple: they can be plastered, lined by quadras, whitewashed, and even decorated with carvings35.

As for layer sprinkled ground between stratigraphic layers of the construction of the temple of Monomakh and the Cathedral 1222-1225 (the fifth argument for the existence of a hypothetical Church 1148), the explanation to this fact we have already been given above: archaeological research 1994-2001 showed that the Foundation of the existing Church was set on top of the Foundation of the Cathedral of Monomakh, and to provide the necessary stability for the second Foundation had to be raised and pour ground, creating a small artificial hill.

Go to the marked abundance tuff-like limestone in the preserved parts of the Cathedral and the primacy of such stone on well-treated fragments of masonry (see Fig. 3). Based on these data, the researchers believed that the hypothetical 1148 was built from tuff-like limestone, and shaped and decorated white-stone details belong to the Church of 1222-1225 (in this case, as we remember, was the sixth argument in favor of the alleged Cathedral 1148).

But we can based on the same architectural and archaeological data to make fundamentally different conclusion: tuff-like limestone was not faced with a hypothetical temple in 1148, and the Cathedral Yuri Vsevolodovich. Shaped and decorated parts of white stone also belonged to the Cathedral 1222-1225. Thus, the temple built by Yuri Vsevolodovich, had a unique appearance: his rough-treated tuff-like lining combined with ornate decoration of high quality white stone.

The seventh argument ad Varganova and AppDomain, Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T. Bachurina - "sidebar" portals and column-type zones in the lining of tuff-like limestone - may not indicate a difference profiled parts and cladding as complicated (and even more covered with a very thin thread - see Fig. 4) details of architectural decoration in the vast majority of ancient temples were cut separately and then inserted in the clutch.

But, isn't this unprecedented architectural solution is a combination of the Cathedral of 1222-1225 lining of tuff-like limestone shaped and decorated with details of white stone - for the beginning of the XIII century recourse, as I thought ad Varganov and AppDomain, H. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T. Bachurina (see eighth argument specified researchers in paragraph (2)?

In no case. On the contrary, this solution combines two essential characteristics: efficiency and aesthetics.

Roughly shaped blocks tuff-like limestone was significantly (possibly several times) cheaper well-treated white stone. This fully reflects the desire of the builders of the Cathedral to the maximum savings. In turn, this tendency is confirmed by the fact that the walls of the Cathedral of 1222-1225 were in a large part zabutovany fragments of the first Cathedral (and sometimes, as shown by studies 1994-2001, instead of backing entirely used fragments of the walls of the first temple). 36 (as rightly believed Voronin, this economy was caused by the fact that this section of the wall still was intended for plaster and painting37).

Most likely, the need for savings was caused by turbulent political situation (in 1216 was infamous Lipeckaja battle, Yuri Vsevolodovich again became the Grand Duke only in 1218 and hardly had time to 1222 quite firmly at the Vladimir the table) and numerous military campaigns against the Volga Bulgars and Novgorod. As you know, war is the worst enemy of architecture. Both because of the direct damaging effects on monuments and because of the inevitable economic complications38.

The aesthetic of such architectural solutions Suzdal Cathedral 1222-1225 was due to the fact that the "sloppy" clutch of tuff-like limestone profitable overshadowing richly ornamented profiled parts of high quality white stone. In General, the Church looked very "elegant".

It should be noted that this solution is a combination roughly shaped blocks of masonry wall with well-treated profiled details of architectural decoration - is widespread in the first half of the XIV century, when in a difficult economic environment since the Mongol yoke in such vehicles were built Church of the Conception of John the Baptist on the Settlement in Kolomna, St. Nicholas Church in the village of Kamianske Naro-Fominsk district of the Moscow region (Fig. 5), the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in the village of Gorodnya Tver region, the first assumption Cathedral in Moscow (the author's reconstruction is shown in Fig. 6)41 and a number of other temples40.



Fig. 5. Nicholas Church in the village of Kamianske.



Fig. 6. Assumption Cathedral in Moscow (1326-1327 years). Reconstruction of the author.


Let's sum up our research. None of the arguments put forward in favour of the existence of a hypothetical 1148, is not reliable enough to disavow the message Laurentian chronicle under the year 1222, unequivocally denies the construction of any "intermediate" temples between the Cathedral of Monomakh and the temple of 1222-1225. All architectural-archaeological and documentary evidence cited in favor of the alleged of 1148, can be attributed to two Suzdal churches named in the Laurentian chronicle.

Accordingly, we must fully agree with the chronicler and put that in 1148 Cathedral in Suzdal was not built.

However, note that a detailed analysis of hypotheses related to never existed temple 1148, significantly enriched our knowledge of the architectural history of the virgin Nativity Cathedral in Suzdal. In particular, we were able to consistently resolve the issue of the original Cathedral 1222-1225.




1. PSRL 1:445.

2. PSRL 1:447.

3. Voronin. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries. So 1. M., 1961. So 2. M., 1962. So 1, S. 27.

4. Paterik of Kiev-Pechersky monastery. St. Petersburg, 1911. C. 9.

5. This "classic" date associated with the absence of the Metropolitan at the Congress of princes in Liubech, found in most encyclopedias and reference books.

6. Voronin. The decree. cit., so 1, S. 28.

7. In particular, both believed Metropolitan Macarius (mitr. Macarius (Bulgakov). The history of the Russian Church. SPb, 1857-1883) and DG Khrustalev (DG Khrustalev. Studies on Ephraim of Pereyaslavl. M., 2002).

8. In particular, both believed E.E. Golubinsky (E.E. Golubinsky. The history of the Russian Church. So 1, ch. 1. M., 1901. Reprint ed.: M., 1997. C. 287).

9. For example, different individuals believed Pereyaslavl Metropolitan Ephraim, and Ephraim, Bishop of Suzdal E.E. Golubinsky (E.E. Golubinsky. The decree. cit., S. 677).

10. PSRL 15:188.

11. Ad Varganov. The history of Vladimir-Suzdal architecture. In Ukr.: "The Soviet Museum", 2, 1938; ad Varganov. To the architectural history of Suzdal Cathedral. XIIM, vol. 11, 1945. C. 99-101; ad Varganov. The new data to the architectural history of Suzdal Cathedral of XI-XIII centuries. In the book: CA, 4, 1960; ad Varganov. Story of a building. In the book: On the native land: people, history, life, the nature of the earth Vladimir. Yaroslavl, 1978. C. 21.

12. V.M. Anisimov. History and architecture of ancient Suzdal Kremlin Cathedral. Vladimir, 2001. C. 20.

13. M. Ioannisyan, P.L. Zykov, E. N. Torshin. The work of architectural and archaeological expedition in 1996. In the book: The State Hermitage Museum. Report of the archeological session for 1996. SPb, 1997. C. 57-60; P.L. Zykov. To the question of reconstruction of the Suzdal Cathedral of the end of the XI-the beginning of XII century In the book: Medieval architecture and monumental art. Rapporteuse reading. Theses of reports. St. Petersburg, 1999; VP Glazov, P.L. Zykov, O.M. ioannisyan. Architectural and archaeological research in the Vladimir region. In the book: Archaeological discoveries 2001. M., 2002.

14. V.M. Anisimov, T. Bachurina. Some data of complex investigations of the Suzdal Cathedral. In Ukr.: Restorer, 1 (8), 2004. C. 112.

15. Hereinafter references to the results of the architectural and archaeological research, see notes 11 and 14.

16. P.L. Zykov. The decree. cit.

17. V.M. Anisimov, commenting on the message Paterik, believed that we are talking about what Monomakh built the Church is not in Rostov and the Rostov land", i.e. in Suzdal (V.M. Anisimov. The decree. cit., S. 60). But in a message Paterik clearly States it on the "grad Rostov", and such a free interpretation V.M. Anisimov is invalid. Doubt V.M. Anisimov, based on the absence of Rostov during Monomakh stone Church cannot disavow the message Patericon, as "moderately" crypt of the Cathedral could be built not only the stone, but the wooden Church, the remains of which were discovered by the archaeological research of 1992 (Aviones. Ancient Rostov and the assumption Cathedral in the archaeological researches 1992. (preliminary report). Internet site http://zvon.yaroslavl.EN


18. By P.L. Zykov (P.L. Zykov, the decree. cit.), the size of the Cathedral caves monastery and Suzdal Cathedral of Monomakh follows: length - 35,6 m against 31-35 m, width - 24,2 m against 23,5 m, the side of the omphalos - 8,62 m compared with 8.5 and 8.6 meters Significantly differ only by the thickness of the walls (1.3 m against 1.7 m).

19. Whalebones. Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. Essays on social and political history. Leningrad, 1987. C. 20.

20. This "classic" date is found in most encyclopedias and reference books.

21. Similar (though otherwise reasoned) position on the Laurentian chronicle reports adhered Voronin (Voronin. The decree. cit., so 1, S. 27-31, 64-66; so 2, S. 19). The only significant difference between the position of the researcher from our position was a denial of Yuri Dolgoruky, the founder of the Church - N.N. Voronin believed that the churchwarden was extremely Monomakh (Voronin. The decree. cit., so 1, S. 27).

22. PSRL 3:107.

24. Ad Varganov. The decree. cit.; H. Wagner. White stone carvings of ancient Suzdal. The Christmas Cathedral. XIII century. M., 1975; V.M. Anisimov. The decree. cit.; V.M. Anisimov, T. Bachurina. The decree. cit.

25. PSRL 1:411.

26. Strictly speaking, in the Suzdal Cathedral and other monuments of pre-Mongol Suzdal land, not apply tuff, and low-grade limestone, originating from younger sediments than the white stone. Tuff in its classical understanding of limestone is not (tuff was postponed at the bottom of the oldest rivers or was a product of ancient volcanic activity, and limestone, including the white stone is the product of bottom sediments of the ancient seas).

27. Christianity. Encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1995. So 2, S. 258. V.M. Anisimov led the terms of the practice of the clergy (the great sanctification" - at the completion of the temple, "sanctification" - repair, "podosphaera" - if it enters the altar animal - V.M. Anisimov, the decree. cit., S. 65), but these terms, in particular "podosphaera", are a modern professional slang and could not be used as a chronicler of XII century. The interpretation of various degrees of consecration first Novgorod chronicle should adhere to the canonical position of the Russian Orthodox Church, designated in this encyclopedic dictionary "Christianity".

28. Voronin. The decree. cit., so 1, S. 66.

29. V.M. Anisimov believed that the Suzdal Cathedral in Monomakh was dedicated to the Dormition of the virgin and was renamed the Christmas at the dedication Nifont in 1148 (V.M. Anisimov. The decree. cit., S. 65). However, on any direct or indirect documentary evidence for this position V.M. Anisimov not founded.

30. Voronin. The decree. cit., so 1, 66 C.

31. Ibid.

32. Note that a similar situation occurred during the construction of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl (see: SV zagraevsky. To the question of reconstruction and the Dating of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl. M., 2006. The article is on the web-site

33. Voronin. The decree. cit., so 2, S. 22.

34. In the decree. cit. P.L. Zykov on reconstruction plans for the combined two Suzdal cathedrals (Fig. 2) arches are not shown. V.M. Anisimov and T. Bachurina in their decree. cit. denied the existence of the first Suzdal temple porch. However, in the Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve is the reconstruction of P.L. Zykov Cathedral of Monomakh, which depicts the arches. M. ioannisyan in 2007, informed the author that the existence of the porch of the first Council was established very recently in the footsteps on the remains of masonry wall of the Cathedral.

35. An example of such "capital" wooden extension is existed in ancient times stairwell of the Transfiguration Cathedral of Pereslavl-Zalessky: in the upper part of the Western fence of the Northern wall of the temple remained the doorway, but archaeological research has not opened under him no remains of the Foundation stone towers (O.M. ioannisian. Research in Yaroslavl and Pereslavl-Zalessky. In the book: Archaeological discoveries 1986. M., 1988).

36. The temple of white stone was more than ten times more expensive than the temple of plinfy (calculation complexity of construction of the temple, see the book.: SV zagraevsky. Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture. M., 2002. C. 141-143). In General, such a huge difference occurred at the expense of transportation. Tuff-like limestone, even if it came from the upper layers of the quarry, still had to haul distance (about the regions of mining of limestone in old Rus, see: SV zagraevsky. Organization of production and processing of white stone in Ancient Russia. M., 2006. The article is on the web-site Therefore, plinfa cheaper not only of white stone, but low-tuff-like limestone.

37. Voronin. The decree. cit., so 2, S. 24.

38. Note that immediately before the construction of Suzdal Yuri Vsevolodovich plinfyanoe temple construction Konstantin Vsevolodovich in Rostov and Yaroslavl, most likely, was caused by the need to save money. It is significant that Constantine was unable to complete the restoration struck in 1204, the assumption Cathedral in Rostov in white-engineering, and Yuri did it much later - only in 1231.

39. Here it is necessary to make one important reservation concerning the form of the head of the Church. Currently, at the Vladimir the Cathedral of St. Demetrius, and in Vladimir's assumption Cathedral, and most of the "paper" and the full-scale reconstruction of temples XII-XVI centuries), we see helmet domes (under helmet heads usually refers to a specific form of domes with ogee-shaped top, close to the ancient form of the helmet; to create a helmet design, it is necessary to arrange on the dome wooden or metal frame, or naloziti dome brick in the form of a helmet, and, thus, helmet dome is very different from a simple cupola coating roofing material directly on the vault).

But according to the latest data on the forms of the domes of ancient Russian temples (see: SV zagraevsky. The form of domes of ancient Russian temples. M., 2008) pre-Mongolian dome Church buildings of Ancient Russia had simplest cupola coatings "Byzantine" type with small crosses. Such coatings was preserved in churches until the end of XIII century, when large numbers were erected onion domes (in particular, in the Moscow Cathedral of the assumption 1326-1327 years has probably been onion dome, which is reflected in our reconstruction). Helmet same title appeared only in the XVII century as "the imitation of old" - as something between onion domes and simple cupola coatings.

40. Learn more about these temples see: SV zagraevsky. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia the end of the XIII-the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003.



Sergey Zagraevsky



To the page Scientific works

To the main page