To the page Scientific works

To the main page

 

Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky

 

Architectural ensemble of the end of 1150searly 1170s in Bogolyubovo:

issues of history and reconstruction

 

 

Published in Russian: .. 1150- 1170- : . .: . . . , 2009. . 141167.

 

Annotation

 

The research of professor Sergey Zagraevsky is devoted to the history and architectural features of the unique palace-temple complex in the ancient city of Bogolyubovo. It is proved that in the times of Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky Bogolyubovo was not only a princes temple, but a big city, one of the biggest in Rus. A number of specific features of the complex of white stone buildings and fortifications of the end of 1150s beginning of 1170s is specified, including the central building of this compex the church of Nativity of the Holy Virgin.

 

Attention!

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.

     RUSSIAN VERSION

 

 

1. The white-stone Kremlin with the gate Church

 

N.N. Voronin wrote: "the Construction of the Bogolyubov castle of Prince Andrew is one of the most interesting pages in the history of the culture of Ancient Russia in General and Vladimir in particular"1. Indeed, other less complex white stone buildings we are in pre-Mongol Russia do not know.

The village of Bogolubovo-Suzdal, Vladimir region is about 10 km North-East from the center of Vladimir, one of the hills on the left Bank of the Klyazma river. The modern highway Vladimir - Nizhny Novgorod cuts ancient town Bogolyubovo2 almost in the middle.

The outlines of the Western part of the city is well traced on the ground, and the terms of NN Voronin3 (Fig. 1). The South-Western corner of the fortification founded by the Cape, North West - bend shafts. From the North-West and preserved remains of the moat. City centre, of course, was located where was the Prince's Palace, near the Church of the Nativity of the virgin. The boundary of the Eastern part of the city we can approximate mentally continuing North line of trees in the direction of the ravine, located to the East of the modern monastery.

 

 

Fig. 1. The plan of the ancient part of modern village of Bogolyubovo (NN Voronin).

 

Archaeological research in 1954, chaired by N.N. Voronin, has shown the accuracy of the messages of historians, and scholars of the nineteenth century that the town Bogolyubovo in XII century had white-stone walls4.

The latest researcher of the monument VK Yemelin believed that white stone were only walls of the princely court near the Church of the Nativity of the virgin; the next line of defense, VK Emelino, was a wooden stronghold, over the white-stone gate which was situated same white stone Church of St. Andrew (the walls of the citadel were from the Western city of shafts about modern lines of the walls of the monastery to modern tower, and then turned to the South-East and reached the cliff to the Klyazma); next, the city is stretched to the North and was fortified walls with wooden walls (see Fig. 2)5.

 

 

Fig. 2. The plan of the city hierarchy in the XII century (reconstruction VK Emelina)

 

But we cannot agree with VK Emelin that the white-stone walls were only princely court: in paragraph 2, we see that he was very small and was actually a fortified complex of buildings, i.e. Chronicles could hardly refer to it as the "city of stone"6. And given the fact that research N.N. Voronin discovered the remains of white stone walls and in the southern corner of the city, and on the West line of ramparts (these excavations are shown in Fig. 1)7 we must assume that the walls of Bogolyubov were white stone around the perimeter, as believed N.N. Voronin8.

These walls is estimated at 1-1,5 km (for example, in Suzdal length wooden walls was about 1.4 km). The scale of the white-stone Bogoliubov fortifications has no equal in the pre-Mongolian architecture of Ancient Russia.

Note that if the city was the stronghold (VK Emelino), then it is likely that the walls were built of white stone. But this position has not been confirmed by archaeological data.

E.E. Golubinsky9 and N.N. Voronin10 believed that the main purpose of the hierarchy of the city was the seat of the Prince, that it was primarily the Prince's castle. Accordingly, the researchers applied the concept of Bogoliubov city only in the broadest sense - as any fortified settlement. VK Yemelin believed that in the city there were the economic life of Prince and his wife, but the trade is not was11. Thus, researchers have actually denied that Bogolyubovo was "full" city (with a permanent population, government, trade, crafts, host, sat, etc).

However, the city had only Bogolubovo favorable economic and strategic location (the intersection of trade routes across the Klyazma and the Nerl was so important that it was even "execution" Church of the Intercession). The town Bogolyubovo residence of the Prince could not contribute to its rapid growth. Accordingly, we may assume that, as in any large and developing city, outside the city walls was located a significant trade and craft settlement, the size of which we can be estimated only approximately. XII century turned into the town12), as well as the elongation of fortifications Vladimir exactly to the East13suggest that the Eastern part of Vladimir and the Western part of the Bogoliubov suburbs during the reign of Andrey constantly "stretched" to each other, and in the beginning of 1170-s suburbs could actually make a single whole (including Good Posad village and town over Sungurovskiy the ravine).

Thus, Bogolyubov was "full" city in 1160-1170-ies in size and significance is comparable to the Suzdal, Yuriev-Polsky or Dmitrov.

And since the city bogoliubovo the residence of the Grand Duke, we must make one fundamental conclusion: the capital of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir when Andrew was not the city of Vladimir, a city Bogolyubovo.

And not by chance that after the death of Andrew and devices in the former princely castle monastery14 the city was abandoned only after several centuries, when the economic and strategic situation in Russia has changed dramatically. And in the beginning of XIII century Bogolyubovo as a symbol of happiness and prosperity mentioned Daniil ("Zane, Lord, who is Loving, and I mount fierce"15). By deserves some confidence monastic legend, recorded in the XVIII century hegumen Aristarkh16, the city was stormed by the Mongols, and that reflects its strategic importance. And much later, at the end of the XIV century, Bogolyubovo was mentioned in the "List of Russian cities far and near17.

According to the archeological researches, walls Bogoliubov Kremlin were built in the half-rubble technology of large white stone blocks with lime mortar mixed with charcoal18. Blocks were treated somewhat more roughly than wall blocks of pre-Mongolian churches of the North-Eastern Russia, but still fairly "clean".

N.N. Voronin on the basis of stratigraphic analysis of remains of the South tower of the citadel was supposed that the construction of white stone fortifications took three of the construction season19. Based on the report of the Novgorod IV Chronicles 1158 "And founded the castle-Loving"20he dated the construction of the white-stone citadel by the end of 1150-s21.

But given that, as we showed above, the city had a large Posad, you can assume that Bogolyubovo was developed on the most typical way to fast-growing Russian cities:

- at the end of 1150-ies were built by the Prince's Palace (see item 2), the Church of the Nativity of the virgin (see item 3) and the first small wooden fortress (perhaps later became the citadel);

- at the next stage of development, the city walls were significantly expanded in the direction of the "field";

- at the next stage (perhaps already at the turn of 1160's and 1170-ies), the wooden walls were replaced with white stone.

This position is confirmed by the fact that in the message of a Short chronicle of Vladimir, which links the arrival of Andrew in Suzdal from Kiev and the construction of the Bogolyubov anything about stone walls does not say, "I come from Kiev Andrei Yurievich and cytori Loving castle and debris, and set, and placed two churches kameny and the stone gate and the house"22. The "city of stone" is mentioned only in the chronicle reports that give a General characterization of the Board Bogolyubsky23.

Accordingly, we can tentatively date white stone Bogoliubov building abroad 1160's and 1170-ies.

One of the two mentioned in the "Summary of the Vladimir chronicle" stone churches, the Nativity of the Theotokos (see item 3), the second Church of the Intercession on the Nerl (this is confirmed by the message of Novgorod (I Chronicles "And placed her (mother of God SZ) temple in Rotz Klyazma, two stone Church in the name of the Holy mother of God"24). The gate of the temple on the stone city gate "Brief chronicle" is not mentioned, but we can provide some indirect evidence that he existed and was dedicated to St. Andrew the Apostle:

- in Ancient Russia on main gates, usually near the Church;

- in the Life of Andrei Bogolyubsky (the beginning of the XVIII century) States: "the gates of stone Adela and the Church on the namesake of St. Apostle Andrew the first called the"25;

- gate Church, built on the gates of the monastery at the end of the XVII century, was dedicated to Andrew the first called (and the traditions of consecration in ancient monasteries, as a rule, are met).

However, we do not know where the gates of the XII century on the site of the existing bell tower or anywhere else. The answer to this question can be given only by new archaeological research.

 

2. The princes Palace-"Burg"

 

In the message of a Short chronicle of Vladimir does not say explicitly that the "chamber" were stone (the latter could only relate to the gate - "and the stone gate and the house"). But the remaining part of the Palace and the findings made during archaeological investigations 1950-ies26suggests that the Palace was built of white stone (at least partially).

VK Yemelin, reconstructing plan of the princely court (see Fig. 2), made a number of important observations that allow us to clarify the purpose of the two remaining from the Palace buildings - stair tower and transition27 between it and the Church of the Nativity of the virgin (modern look, see figure. 3).

 

 

Fig. 3. The Church of the Nativity of the virgin with the Northern range extensions. Modern look.

 

First, attention was drawn to the fact that in the tower and moving to the West slit Windows and loopholes, and to the East - "civil" three-box.

Secondly, doubt was expressed that, because of a few steps away from the stair of the tower to the choir of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin took build bulky transition over the arched opening. The researcher suggested that the archways located gate leading into the fortified princely court.

Third, on the southern facade of the quadrangle of the first tier of the belfry of the XVII century, built over the stairwell before the destruction of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin at the beginning of the XVIII century, was discovered doorway, adopted by the researcher for laid door28 (Fig. 4).

 

 

Fig. 4. The doorway in the southern facade of the quadrangular bell.

 

On the basis of these observations VK Yemelin made the assumption that the transition located above the gate and was a princely the porch to the temple, in fact, the gate Church (this assumption is correlated with the hypotheses V.I. dobrohotova29 and A.I. Nekrasov30 that transition had a Church purpose).

Reconstruction VK Emelin architectural complex that includes the Church of the Nativity of the Theotokos, gate to gate princely temple and stair tower, is shown in Fig. 531.

 

 

Fig. 5. The Church of the Nativity of the virgin and the Northern range extensions in the XII century. Reconstruction VK Emelina.

 

We fully support the position VK Emelina that the Western facades of the tower and the Church was part of the complex of the fortifications of the princely court, and in the archways under the transition located gate leading into the courtyard. This position was confirmed by field research conducted by the author of this article with OTHER Timofeeva in 2006: under the arch were found symmetric traces of the inherent hinges gate (Fig. 6).

 

 

Fig. 6. The arch of the Northern passage. Traces of the inherent gate hinges are marked by arrows.

 

It may seem that the imposts under the arch could hinder the gate open. However, monitoring ETC. Timofeeva, exterior stone imposts were later replaced, and, most likely, in their place were the top gate hinges. Accordingly, if the gates were opened to the outside (in the absence of a moat and drawbridge, it is just as probable as the opening of the gate to the inside), imposts did not disturb them.

But in the reconstruction VK Emelina, in our view, there is a number of significant shortcomings.

On the proportions of the Christmas Church and the impossibility of having a two column-type belts we will talk in paragraph 3, and here we note that the presence of the adjacent gate of the temple it is doubtful due to the following reasons:

- if to reconstruct the hypothetical gate of the temple as a single volume with two column-type zones (VK Amelino - see Fig. 5), then the opening in the southern wall of the quadrangular bell tower of the XVII century is about 2 m above floor level gate of the temple, i.e. leads "in the air";

- at the edges of the southern wall of the bell tower survived pilasters (see Fig. 4). Accordingly, to be placed between the pilasters, the upper part of the hypothetical gate of the temple would have to be significantly lower already. But then she could stand only on the arches of the transition, since the thickness of the walls of the transition is not enough for such a far indent;

if we assume that the hypothetical gatehouse Church stood on the vaults of the transition, the level of the floor had to match the height of an aperture in the southern wall of the square belfry. But in this case between the arches of the transition and the floor of the temple was a gap of about a meter and a half, and the vaults of the gate of the temple was great height (above the arches of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin);

- doorway in the southern facade of the square belfry (see Fig. 4) more like arstesanai box than the mortgaged door (no on this window decor is explained by the fact that it goes up on the roof of transition and almost imperceptibly from the bottom, i.e. plays no role in the architectural appearance of the belfry);

- hypothetical door in a hypothetical gatehouse Church punched in the square belfry, tentatively dated back to the end of the XVII century. Therefore, with high degree of probability that the gate of the temple would have to be present at a fairly realistic picture of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin on the icon of our lady of Bogolyubovo XVII century32 (Fig. 7). However, on a designated icon you can't see it - there is depicted an existing transition, with the only difference that he raised a little higher and the window depicted in each gap between columns. However, existing at transition to being rude, asymmetrically located open rectangular form are not primary: under column-type belt visible signs of many turnings walls between capitals and bases of the columns (Fig. 8).

 

 

Fig. 7. The Icon Of Our Lady Of Bogolyubovo. XVII century.

 

 

Fig. 8. The Western wall of the transition. The arrows indicate the traces of turning.

 

Thus, we cannot accept any hypothesis VK Emelina about one-volume of the gate of the temple arch, nor his hypothesis that the temple gate was located on the arches of the passage. Accordingly, we must assume that over the gate was the transition from the stair tower of the Palace on the Church choirs of Christmas (because stair tower and the Church of the Nativity of the virgin were included in the system of fortifications of the court, such a transition is served and the battle ground of the gate, was necessary in the fortification purposes). Perhaps in the vaults of the transition located more open battle ground.

The sequence of construction of preserved complex of Northern extensions to the Church of the Nativity of the virgin is reconstructed as follows:

- the first Church was erected;

- then the lower tier of the tower ladder;

- then (after a sufficiently long time - perhaps several years) to the arch of the passage;

- then (after a sufficiently long time - perhaps several years) upper tier of the tower.

This situation we can bring some evidence.

First, the arch of the passage is "attached" to the Northern wall of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin without ligation and a single backing, on top of already executed column-type belt (Fig. 9).

 

 

Fig. 9. The junction of the arch of the Northern passage to the wall of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin.

 

Secondly, the arch of the passage is "attached" to the stairwell as well as to the Northern wall of the Church, without dressing and a single backing.

Third, the lining of masonry arch with the transition does not coincide neither with the lining of masonry Church, nor with the lining of the masonry of the tower.

Fourth, the lower tier of the tower ladder, including its South wall, which adjoins the arch of the transition is seamless and simultaneously erected building, which is proved by clear lining of a laying and a pair of square plan of external walls with intricate internal displacement (circular in plan and with spiral system of vaults above the spiral staircase) with stone blocks of the complex form33.

Fifth, the construction of the upper tier of the tower ladder (i.e. enclosed grounds on which a ladder led up) once to the lower tier was "attached" to the arch of the passage is proved by the presence in the interior of the upper tier from the side of the doorway and column-type belt, similar to the belt on the outer walls of the transition.

Accordingly, while the upper tier of the tower was not, the transition from the North ended by the wall, which was decorated column-type belt and had a doorway to enter the open upper area of the lower tier of the tower. Once built the upper tier of the tower, the Northern wall of the transition from the doorway and column-type zone was in the interior of this stage (Fig. 10).

 

 

Fig. 10. The interior of the upper tier of the tower ladder.

 

The fact that the arch of the passage is "attached" to the Northern wall of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin on top of already executed column-type belt (see Fig. 9), should be considered.

While conducting his research galleries Church of the Intercession on the Nerl parallel with blocked the column-type belt of Northern extensions to the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in the hierarchy, N.N. Voronin believed that "every part of the ensemble were treated comprehensively, although it was known that this part of the facade will be covered by the Annex... that was - absolutely illogical, with our modern point of view, the system of Vladimir Masterov"34.

This stereotype has been very stable. So, P.A. Rappoport wrote: "it is Obvious that the ancient builders, to every single object that does all its external finishing, even knowing that now (or in the next construction season) they will close the finish adjacent part of the architectural complex. Apparently, there existed a kind, seemingly irrational to us, the logic on which even covered porches of the facades were to have a complete finishing35.

In other words, N.N. Voronin and P.A. Rappoport believed that the old Russian masters were known to "Sisyphean toil", not having any reason other than "kind of logic." As the main example of such "Sisyphean labor, researchers led covered by the arch transition column-type zone of the Northern wall of the Church of the Nativity in Bogolyubov36.

However, we have no "peculiar logic, and the more "Sisyphean labor", in Bogoliubov masters do not see. Their actions are seen absolutely logical and contemporary positions, and we can justify this position.

There is no doubt that in Bogolyubovo was initially built Church of the Nativity, and then to her was "attached" to the arch of the passage. But why should we believe that the master, laying column-type belt, already knew that he would be permanently closed with stone outhouses?

Much more likely that at the time of construction of the Church of the Nativity of the Theotokos from the masters still no clear view of what will be the entrance to the choir and how the Church will be connected with the Palace complex. It could not be bulky stone transition over the arch, and light wooden bridge or even a simple wooden staircase, as in the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral of Pereslavl-Zalessky, where preserved under a doorway in the upper part of the Western fence of the Northern wall archaeological research has not revealed any remains of the foundations of a stone stair tower37.

Rational thinking of old masters is confirmed by the fact that the builders of the virgin Nativity Cathedral in Suzdal become completely covered with limestone wall of the Cathedral, is blocked by the Western porch, and used fragments of brick Monomakh, as this section of the wall still was intended for plaster and painting38.

Accordingly, the actions of craftsmen, fully tiled column-type belt Bogoliubov Church of the Nativity of the virgin, seen quite logical: erecting the Church, yet they knew not that the Western fence of its North wall will be built capital of the white-stone transition. Perhaps the Palace, a set of extensions which consisted stairwell at first was connected with the choir of the Church of light wooden bridge.

Consider how could look like a Palace-temple complex in General.

N.N. Voronin on the basis of excavations on the South wall of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin is believed that there used to be similar buildings - stair-tower with a passage over the arched opening (reconstruction N.N. Voronin all complex of buildings around the Nativity Church is shown in Fig. 11)39.

 

 

Fig. 11. The complex of buildings around the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in the XII century. Reconstruction Voronin.

 

But in Fig. 1 and 2 shows that the South and East of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin to the Palace buildings were very few places (even taking into account the fact that in the pre-Mongolian time to break the Klyazma was a little further from the temple). It is unlikely that the court was greatly elongated on the North-East - his form would have been too narrow and curved.

Therefore, if we assume that the Prince's court in the South, North and East had "full" walls, then the free space inside them would be small (VK Emelino, she was only 8 acres40). In this area should be some vacant space, which was conducted preserved doorway. It turns out that if the Prince's Palace was separate building inside the walls of the yard (with a gap between the Palace walls and fortifications at least 2-3 m), he would have been very small and would not be in a princely status of Andrei Bogolyubsky. Perhaps for this reason VK Yemelin not depicted on the Palace on its reconstruction plan hierarchy (see Fig. 2)

This problematic situation is resolved as follows: the walls of the Palace to a considerable extent at the same time were the walls of the princely court, i.e. the court actually was not fenced area, and fortified complex of buildings. The system of fortifications was able to enter most of the Palace buildings (they could look and the way they portrayed in his reconstruction of N.N. Voronin, only without the many arches in the walls). During bogolyubski on similar principles were built many German and North Italian "boroughs", and many centuries later, so was built Mikhailovsky castle in St. Petersburg.

Accordingly, the open excavations the remains of white stone masonry to the South of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin could belong to both walls, and the complex of Palace buildings.

Was this complex of buildings symmetrical North? We believe that a fully symmetric he was not, but it was like. The thing is that in the Western part of the southern wall of the existing building of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin is no window in the upper tier (Fig. 12) - despite the fact that the location of all other Windows on the southern and Western walls subordinated to a single system. Draws attention to the shift of the southern portal to the East. These observations suggest that, in the middle of the XVIII century, when it was built the existing temple to the South wall is bordered transition over the arch, similar to the North.

 

 

Fig. 12. Existing Church of the Nativity of the virgin. The southern wall.

 

This position is confirmed by the archaeological research N.N. Voronin, who showed that the southern extension were like Northern41, and in the XVII century, they still existed42. The fact that the southern extension were not reflected in the icon of our lady of Bogolyubovo XVII century (see Fig. 7), it is not surprising: the Church is on the very edge of the icon, and these additions could not fit in the picture.

Judging by the top level of the decoration of the lower tier of the Western part of the southern wall of the existing Nativity Church, unpreserved southern transition adjacent to the wall of the Church slightly higher than the North, which is consistent with our understanding of the difference of construction of various parts of the Palace Bogolyubsky. But, of course, to confirm this hypothesis requires disclosure existing masonry Church from plaster.

Surviving the Northern extension to the Church of the Nativity of the virgin (maybe as other buildings "Burg") built of white stone of average quality (yellow and porous), treated fairly smoothly. A large number found during the excavation of various carved stones43 indicates that the building of the "Burg" were richly decorated. Perhaps they were mostly two-storey tower and had a marquee complete, depicted on the miniature of the illuminated Chronicles of the XVI century44 (Fig. 13).

 

 

Fig. 13. The construction of temples in Bogolyubovo. Miniature illuminated Chronicles of the XVI century.

 

The square in front of the gate to the Prince "Burg" was landscaped, paved with stone slabs with gutters, drains, it was an open N.N. Voronin eight tabernacle over the bowl45 (see Fig. 11).

The question of the origin of the so-called "four faces"capital, located in the Bogoliubov exhibition of Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve46 (Fig. 14), long held researchers. A.I. Nekrasov believed that this capital belonged to the "main pillar of princes chambers47. N.N. Voronin attributed it to one of the pillars of hypothetical open Western porch-canopy Church of the Nativity of the virgin48 (of the arches of the Christmas temple see paragraph 3). G. Wagner believed that near the entrance to the Church of the Nativity was detached "virgin of the pillar crowned with a specified capital49 (Fig. 15).

 

 

Fig. 14. The so-called "cityrealty Capitol". Modern look.

 

 

Fig. 15. "God pillar" in the XII century. Reconstruction Of Wagner.

 

The author of the study believes G. Wagner as the most reasonable from a historical point of view (the researcher provided a number of examples of the installation of these pillars in Jerusalem, Byzantium and Western Europe50). In favor of this hypothesis, we can give an optional argument: "cityrealty" block in the XIX century ctalsa as a Shrine (by mid-century, it was inserted into a monastery fence near the Church of Nativity and marked the place where, according to legend, was thrown killers the Prince's body; in this place over the fence was built a small Church cupola, and the end of the century over the stone fence was built a wooden chapel with the image of the reclining body Andrei51). Hardly such an exceptional honor could deserve the simple building chip.

The only caveat that we can do is that the block of stone with the faces of the virgin in the XII century could not stand on a pillar, and on the lower pedestal, so that believers could to him "kiss". This explains the poor preservation of faces, made of high quality stone that can effectively resist the "normal" weathering. In XIX century the block was laid in the wall, and "kiss" to him could only from one side52and as poorly preserved all four faces, so in the past couple of centuries to block "was put" on all sides.

To date the "Burg" Andrei Bogolyubsky we can only very tentatively. As quoted in paragraph 1 message "Short chronicle of Vladimir, the Prince's Palace ("chamber") was built soon after the arrival of Andrew in Suzdal from Kiev. However, even the example of the few remaining buildings shows that the construction of "Burg" had a lot of stages and was to last more than one year.

The question of when "Burg" disappeared from the face of the earth, requires separate consideration. The stratigraphy of the excavations Voronin North preserved stair tower showed that after the thin cultural layer with ceramics of the XIII century immediately following layers of the XVIII-XIX centuries53. From this, the researcher concluded that "catastrophe befell the Palace after a short period of time after the end of its construction", and believed that the Palace could be destroyed either during the uprising 1174 of the year, when the townspeople have plundered the Prince's court, either during the campaign Gleb Ryazan in 1177, either during the Tatar-Mongol invasion54.

But these uprisings and conquest could hardly such fatal effects on the fate of a large white-stone "Burg", in fact, was a powerful fortress: firstly, it was impossible to completely destroy (or burn) during the assault, transient capture or insurrection; secondly, he could not decay and completely destroyed during the seventy years even in the complete desolation (which, as we have shown in paragraph 1, in the pre-Mongol Bogolyubovo was not).

In XII-XIII centuries, "Burg" Andrei Bogolyubsky could only be deliberately dismantled ("hidden"), which would require a huge effort. This could not happen in 1174, neither in 1177, nor even in 1237-1238: precedent complete "razed" Russian fortresses by the Mongols we do not know. In addition, the Bogoliubov "Burg" during the invasion of Batu already a monastery55and exceptional tolerance of the Mongols is well known.

Most likely, excavations N.N. Voronin North stair towers were on the place of some buildings of the "Burg" (not business, where could be underground, and the princes). In the XIII century, this place could be open (so the cultural layer hit ceramics), and in the post-Mongol now be built up. In this regard, the cultural layer of the XIII century on the site was so thin, and the layers of the XIV-XVII centuries were not found.

Thus, it is most likely that unpreserved building "Burg" Andrei Bogolyubsky shared the fate of many of the pre-Mongolian white-stone buildings are gradually deteriorated, have deteriorated and were used for construction materials no later than the second third of the XVIII century, when he disappeared from the face of the earth southern complex of buildings to the Church of the Nativity of the virgin.

 

3. The Church Of The Nativity Of The Virgin

 

Church56 Of the Nativity of the virgin in the hierarchy, apparently, was the Central, highest and most richly decorated with white-stone construction of the Prince "Burg". The temple was built of white stone of higher quality than the buildings of the "Burg".

In considering the question of Dating of the temple, especially once we recall are listed in paragraph 1 chronicle reports. "Brief Vladimir chronicler says, "And then come from Kiev Andrey and cytori Loving castle and debris, and set, and placed two churches kameny57. What is in this message, we are talking about the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in the hierarchy and of the Intercession on the Nerl, confirmed by the fact that Novgorod I chronicle reports: "And placed her (mother of God SZ) temple in Rotz Klyazma, two stone Church in the name of the Holy mother of God"58. Consequently, both Chronicles clearly linked the basis of the hierarchy of the city and the construction of churches of the Nativity of the virgin and protection. And Novgorod IV chronicle gives an unambiguous date basis of Bogolyubov - 115859.

That arch and passage was "attached" to the Northern wall of the Church, shading her column-type belt (see item 2; Fig. 9)also shows that the Nativity Church was the first building of the Bogolyubov ensemble.

Our position is confirmed by another chronicle message - Vladimir chronicle (XVI century), to which the attention of the author drew ETC. Timofeeva60. Under 1158 it says: "These same Prince Andrei Bogolubskii hail debris, and set, built the stone Church of the Christmas we sweatey of the Holy virgin on Klyazma the river, and another Cover sweatey of the Holy virgin on the Nerl, and called monastery"61.

And given the fact that in Chronicles the term "bet" often meant the construction in a period of one year, and many temples were actually erected within one construction season62, we must take 1158 as the date and Christmas, and Pokrovskaya63 churches.

At the end of the XVII century in the Church of the Nativity of the virgin choir was broken and restesanu narrow Windows64. Apparently, this has accelerated the destruction of the temple: in 170565 and 172266 years hit the head, arches and a large part of the walls. In 1751 the remains of the Church were almost completely demolished67. In their place of white stone (re-use) and brick built a new temple, the plan is almost exactly repeated the plan of the Church of Andrei Bogolyubsky.

When you rebuild the Western part of the Northern wall, which belonged to the arch and passage, survived above the chorus, though it was turned from the interior of the68. The fact of turnings proved by the presence of masonry blocks with "inverted" notches under plaster; blocks without cuts (respectively, re-treated, inverted or displaced); small inserts in masonry; unevenly placed blocks (Fig. 16). The remaining walls are preserved in 2-3 rows of masonry.

 

 

Fig. 16. Fragment of the Western part of the Northern wall of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin. View from the interior. The arrows indicate the traces of turning.

 

Thus, the plan of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin known to us (Fig. 17). The temple was four pillars, apses, slightly elongated from East to West (length without apses about 13 m, width - about 10 m). The side of the omphalos - average 4.5 m. The temple had not cross, and round pillars (their remains have survived and were discovered by excavations N.N. Voronin69).

 

 

Fig. 17. The plan of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin XII century (by N.N. Voronin).

 

The blades of the temple had columns in the middle and the quarter-columns on the sides angled blades were combined angular three-quarter columns, the apse were thin pilasters-control (four in the middle apse and two - on the side). The socle of the Cathedral was decorated attic profile. Base half - and quarter-columns were decorated attic profile and had a corner "horn-vultures" ("talons"). Let's note, that similar "claw" found in a large number of Romanesque and Gothic churches of Western Europe.

The Church of the Nativity of the virgin had a column-type belt (its remains are preserved in the Western part of the Northern wall - see Fig. 9). N.N. Voronin based on the analysis of the frescos of the XVIII century with figures, partially covered Northern additions to the temple, showed that in place of the frescos of the XVIII century were the frescoes of the XII century and, accordingly, column-type belt was painted, as well as on the assumption Cathedral in Vladimir70.

The question about the number of heads of the temple is solved simply - single-headed he was depicted on the icon of our lady of Bogolyubovo XVII century (see Fig. 7), the closest to it at its time of construction, distance, architectural sculpture and proportions of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl also domed. But the question of the proportions of the Christmas Church deserves separate consideration.

The temple had choruses ("loft"which did not belong to the Orthodox denomination guests of Andrei Bogolyubsky was to "see the true Christianity and baptized"71). The Northern entrance to the gallery of the gate survived the transition, the threshold current opening is at height 8,1 m the floor of the ancient Church.

But in relatively close in size and proportions of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl height choir, located almost in the middle of the pillars is just 5,4 m. Accordingly, assuming that the level of floor choir Christmas temple was, as in the Church of the Intercession, halfway between the floor of the Church and the fifth arches, the height of the temple was to be 19,2 m just before sailing rings. N.N. Voronin rightly pointed out that this height is clearly exaggerated, since the temple has become abnormally stretched up proportion, and believed that the choir was not in the middle of the height of the pillars, and is much higher, nearly two-thirds of the height72 (reconstruction of the original form of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin by N.N. Voronin see Fig. 18).

 

 

Fig. 18. The original view of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin. Reconstruction N.N. Voronin.

 

VK Yemelin believed that the Church choirs of Christmas was located in the middle pillar, and reconstructed the Church with elongated proportions up by typing in the reconstruction of even the second column-type belt73 (see Fig. 5). But we can't accept this reconstruction for the following reasons:

- no Church in Suzdal had two column-type zones. Such a system decor, we see only in the civil construction - Bogolyubov the stairwell, but she, as we showed in paragraph 2, was built in two stages, i.e. each tier was taken by the builders as a separate volume and received your decor;

- no Church in Suzdal land was not so elongated upwards proportions. Thus, the ratio of the width of the Western facade to its height in Vladimir's assumption Cathedral of Andrey Bogolyubsky in the Cathedral of St. Demetrius is close to unity in the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl - 0,85, and in the reconstruction Vghenemine - 0,77;

is that in the assumption Cathedral of Vladimir, the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl and the Dmitrievsky Cathedral choirs are located in the middle of the pillars, in any case not a General and mandatory system for all pre-Mongol Suzdal churches (for example, in the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral of Pereslavl-Zalessky and the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha choirs are roughly three-fifths of the height of the pillars). In the temples of other ancient kingdoms (Kiev, Chernigov, Novgorod, Pskov and other), no General and compulsory system in the height of the choir.

Thus, in the Church of Nativity of the virgin in the hierarchy we accept reconstruction NN Voronin (see Fig. 18), although with some reservations.

The fact that the existing opening in the Northern wall of the Church, previously led to the choir with the transition over the arch, situated approximately 0.8 m above and the existing and ancient gender transition. It looks very strange: why floors of transition it was initially to build on the level of the choir, why do this in the "parade" the passage from the Prince Palace and the choir of the Church two or three "extra" leg up?

To answer this question, we can hypothesize that the gap between the transition to the choir in its present form is not the door and the window. Originally this place was full the door, and when in the end of XVII century choir stalls were broken, this doorway is that it does not break "in the air", turned to the window, laying the bottom two-three rows of stone. Perhaps the transformation of the doors in the window was connected with the fact that, as we noted above, from the interior of the Northern wall of the Church of the Nativity has been turned.

Of course, this is only a hypothesis, to confirm or deny that a probe can only be covered with a thick layer of plaster bottom of the existing opening. But in accordance with this hypothesis, we can reconstruct the chorus of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin of the XII century at the height of about 7.3 m. This is only 1.9 m higher than the chorus of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl. And since the temple in Bogolyubovo more the Church of the Intercession (the side of the omphalos - about 4.5 m against 3.2 m, sizes without apses - about 13 x 10 m against 10 x 10 m), then the adoption of the proportions of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin similar proportions of Intercession Church choirs Bogoliubov temple are almost in the middle of the height of the pillars.

However, as we showed above, the location of the choir at two-thirds the height of the pillars (N.N. Voronin - see Fig. 18) also is an absolutely normal phenomenon, moreover, reinforces the "height" of the interior of the temple and emphasizes its solemnity (low choirs, on the contrary, create a sense of "setesnast" interior and "pressure" being in the temple).

Judging by archaeological finds in Bogolyubov (carved female and lion masks, head of the beast from the white-water-cannon), we have every reason to believe after N.N. Voronin74that the temple had approximately the same system zooantropomorfnogo sculptural decoration, which is present in the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl. During excavations in Bogolyubovo was found small zoomorphic sculptures75therefore, the base columns column-type zones Church of the Nativity could not only canted, and zoomorphic as the base of the columns of the Church of the Intercession.

Christmas temple had advanced portals. Their columns were smooth, and archivolts, probably, were decorated with carvings76.

Consider the arches of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin.

In the "Tale of the death of Andrew says that the Prince's body was laid in the vestibule77. But no remains of the porch of a large-scale archaeological studies have found78. In this regard, E.E. Golubinsky assumed that the Western porch was an open porch79, DI ilovayskaya - that the temple was open "portico"80, N.N. Voronin - that the Western porch could be an open from three sides "canopy", arches resting on the wall of the Cathedral and two pillars81. However, all these assumptions were very arbitrary, and even N.N. Voronin, putting forward his version of the type and location of the porch, found impossible to reflect it in their reconstructions of the temple (see Fig. 11 and 18).

We allow ourselves to put forward their own version of some of the porch was discussed in the "Tale".

First, the position of the body of the murdered Prince in the open narthex (even if under the "canopy") was practically equivalent to leaving it on the street for everyone to see, and the logic of "the Story" indicates that the body was put in a room where two days later, he saw Abbot Arseny and insisted on the burial service82.

Secondly, outdoor white stone porch (at least in the form of "canopy") would have to have the foundations under the pillars, as well as very detailed excavations discovered the foundations, it is likely that they never existed.

Third, for four faces capitals, which N.N. Voronin referred to the hypothetical open porch, we followed the G.K. Wagner has identified more likely and logical place (see item 2).

In this regard, we suggest the following conclusion: the temple had closed the porch, but not white stone, and wood (archaeological research with such a complicated stratigraphy virtually unable to detect residues of such chapels).

Between the building of the Church and the Palace (the end of 1150 x-the beginning of 1160-ies) and the murder Bogolyubsky was nearly fifteen years, and it is no wonder that the white-stone "Burg" in terms of prosperity of the great Principality of Suzdal when Andrey (i.e. in complete safety from external enemies attacks) gradually "overgrown" many wooden additions utilitarian nature (than, typically, are the arches for churches). This situation is absolutely typical for Ancient Russia.

Theoretically, such wooden arches might be and West, and South, and North of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin. But from the North and South, they would prevent the passage under the arch. Accordingly, we believe that the Church had a Western narthex and the Prince's body was laid in it. It is absolutely necessary that the porch spoil the appearance of the ensemble: it could be plastered, lined by quadras, whitewashed, and even decorated with carvings.

In conclusion let us remember the words of the chronicle: "O Holy and pious Prince Andrew upodobania king Solimano, for the house of the Lord God and the Church of Presevo the Holy mother of God of Christmas we amidst the city Kamen creating Bogoljub and surprise Yu pace all tserkvei... and store this Church in memory of the Crimea"83. Indeed, the memory of Andrey was inseparable from its unique architectural ensemble in Bogolyubovo: the Prince went down in history as Andrei Bogolyubsky.

 

Notes

 

1. Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries. M., 1961-1962. So 1. 201 S..

2. There were many interpretations of the name of the city - Bogolyubov (Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 201), Bogolyubov (Karamzin N.M. history of the Russian state. M., 1991. So 2-3. C. 521), Bogolyubov (PSRL 2:580), Loving (PSRL 4:10), Loving ("the Prayer of Daniel the exile" - see website http://pisatel.org and so, therefore, we will stick to the modern name - Bogolyubovo.

3. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 201.

4. Ibid. C. 204-208.

5. Emelin VK Planning structure of the defensive fortifications of the period of the reign of Andrei Bogolyubsky (for example, Bogoliubov castle). Report on regional studies conference. Vladimir, April 22 2005.; Emelin VK "Transition" or "prayer room"? (An attempt of reconstruction of the Princely court in the hierarchy). Scientific electronic library on the history of ancient architecture "Rusarh" (www.rusarch.ru), 2008.

6. PSRL 2:580.

7. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 205.

8. Ibid. C. 204-208. N.N. Voronin there is assumed that the strengthening of the city and were of white stone tower.

9. E.E. Golubinsky history of the Russian Church. M., 1901. So 1. H 2. C. 117, 321.

10. Ibid. 201 S..

11. Emelin VK Decree. cit.

12. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 201.

13. Ibid. C. 129.

14. NN Voronin, a monastery in the Palace building was constructed in the beginning of XIII century (Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 204, 524). A.V. Astafurov believes that the monastery in Bogolyubovo already existed when Andrei Bogolyubsky was "modest residential monastery of the Prince and his family, and to the beginning of XIII century the monastery was occupied almost the entire territory of the former Prince's castle. This lead researcher confirmed by the fact that the Nativity Church in years 1214-1215 there already existed a monastery cemetery (A.V. Astafurov. Bogolyubov in honour of the appearance of the Bogoliubsk icon of the mother of God (the Nativity of the virgin) monastery. In the book: The Orthodox encyclopedia. So 5. M., 2002. We will support the position A.V. Astafurova, as Andrei Bogolyubsky funeral Abbot Arseny (PSRL 2:591) - perhaps it was the Abbot of the monastery Bogoliubov.

15. "The prayer of Daniel the exile", see website http://pisatel.org.

16. CODR. 1878. KN. 1. C. 7.

17. PSRL 7:241.

18. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 205-207.

19. Ibid. C. 207.

20. PSRL 4:10.

21. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 208.

22. Tikhomirov, MN. Little-known chronicle monuments. In the book: Historical archive. So 7. M., 1951. C. 211.

23. PSRL 2:580; Karamzin N.M. Decree. cit. So 2. Note. 383.

24. The first Novgorod chronicle senior and Junior nagged. Ryazan, 2001. C. 467.

25. Dobrokhotov V.I. Ancient city of Bogolyubov and monastery with its surroundings. M., 1852. C. 16, 52. However, it should be noted that the Life of Andrei Bogolyubsky (beginning of XVIII century) as a historical source looks rather doubtful (details discussed in the book: Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve. M., 2008. C. 138-141), and the name day of St. Andrew Andrew Bogolyubsky cannot be considered as definitely established fact.

26. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 241.

27. Ibid. C. 234.

28. Emelin VK Decree. cit.

29. Dobrokhotov V.I. Decree. cit., S. 16.

30. Nekrasov A.I essays on the history of old Russian architecture of XI-XVII century. M., 1936. C. 111.

31. Emelin VK Decree. cit.

32. The icon is in the Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve. Electronic reproduction of an icon courtesy ETC. Timofeeva.

33. The author conducted field research on the tower in conjunction with OTHER Timofeeva in 2006.

34. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 286.

35. Rappoport P.A. once again on the galleries of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl. In the book: The architecture of the USSR, 1, 1984. C. 106.

36. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 286; Rappoport P.A. Decree. back With. 106.

37. O.M. ioannisyan Research in Yaroslavl and Pereslavl-Zalessky. In the book: Archaeological discoveries 1986. M., 1988. Similar examples are known in Western European architecture: so, wooden stair tower has a stone Gothic Cathedral in the Bavarian town Eringa.

38. Voronin N.N. The decree. cit. So 2. C. 24

39. Ibid. So 1. C. 242-244.

40. Emelin VK Decree. cit.

41. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 244-246.

42. Ibid. C. 261.

43. Ibid. C. 241.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid. C. 235, 252.

46. The author of the exposition - SO Timofeeva.

47. Nekrasov A.I essays on the history of old Russian architecture of XI-XVII centuries M, 1936. C. 112.

48. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 219.

49. Wagner G.K. Sculpture of ancient Russia. Vladimir. Bogolyubovo. XII century. M., 1969. C. 93.

50. Ibid. C. 88-93.

51. Dobrokhotov V.I. Decree. back With. 30; ostrovzorov N. Historical description of Bogolyubovo monastery. Vladimir, 1875. C. 29; Bogolyubov monastery and attributed to him Pokrovsky and Nicholas-hair. Vyazniki, 1891. C. 31. The author thanks SO Timofeeva for selection of these materials.

52. According to local legend, reported ETC. Timofeeva, in the XIX century believers "grizzly" this stone block in order to cure a toothache.

53. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 261.

54. Ibid.

55. Cm. note. 14.

56. The Palace Church of Andrei Bogolyubsky after the device in the "Burg" monastery became a Cathedral. Currently, the temple again has the status of a Church, so we'll call him so.

57. Tikhomirov, MN. The decree. back With. 211.

58. The first Novgorod chronicle senior and Junior nagged. Ryazan, 2001. C. 467.

59. PSRL 4:10.

60. Ibid.

61. This observation ETC. Timofeeva on communication Vladimir chronicle of the XVI century is given in the book.: Timofeeva SO, Novakovskiy-Buchman S.M. Church of the Intercession on the Nerl. M., 2003. C. 8.

62. For more information, see: Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve. M., 2008. C. 78-80.

63. More info about the Dating of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, see ibid., C. 138-142.

64. CODR. 1878. KN. 1. C. 14.

65. Timofeeva OTHER Architectural reminiscences in the miniatures of the Synodikon of Bogolyubovo monastery of the XVII century In the book: Monuments of culture. New discoveries. Yearbook 1999. M., 2000. C. 572.

66. CODR. 1878. KN. 1. C. 14.

67. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 210.

68. The idea of the possibility of turnings Northern wall of the Church of the Nativity of the Theotokos from the interior was expressed ETC. Timofeeva and confirmed by full-scale studies conducted by the author of this book, together with OTHER Timofeeva in 2006.

69. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 210.

70. Ibid. C. 214.

71. PSRL 2:591.

72. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 220.

73. Emelin VK Decree. cit.

74. Ibid. C. 214-217.

75. Timofeeva ETC. Vladimir-Suzdal lapidary and its importance for the study of white-stone architecture of XII-XIII centuries. In the book: Soviet archaeology. So 1. M., 1990. C. 58.

76. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 214.

77. PSRL 2:591.

78. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 218.

79. E.E. Golubinsky Decree. cit. So 1, 2 hours. C. 69.

80. Ilovaisky DI memories of Galich in the Dniester. In Ukr.: Old and new Russia, 2, 1878.

81. Voronin N.N. The decree. back With. 219.

82. PSRL 2:591.

83. PSRL 2:581-582.

 

Sergey Zagraevsky

 

To the page Scientific works

To the main page