To the page Scientific works

To the main page

 

Dr. Sergey V. Zagraevsky

 

Typological forming and basic classification

 of Ancient Russian church architecture

 

 Published in Russian: .. . Saarbrücken, 2015. ISBN 978-3-659-80841-8

 

 

Annotation

 

The offered scientific work covers a wide range of issues of forming of the basic types of ancient temples of XI-XVII centuries. The whole picture of typological genesis of Ancient Russian architecture from its Byzantine and Romanesque origins to exceptional diversity of the XVI and XVII centuries is issued. A number of significant methodological problems of research of specifics and symbols of church architecture is considered. A broad classification of church architecture of Ancient Russia on the base of typological characteristics is provided. The work is based on the latest architectural, archaeological and documental data.

Recommended to professionals (historians, art historians, architects, restorers and others) and to a wide circle of readers interested in history of ancient Russian architecture.

 

Scientific editor S.Ju. Popov.

Editor - O.V. Ozolina.

 

 

Attention!

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

and has not yet been edited.

So it can be used only for general introduction.

     RUSSIAN VERSION

 

 

 

Introduction

 

The classification of forms and elements of the old Russian Church architecture - a question, which the history of architecture is already not the first century. Describing buildings designed for Christian worship (which we collectively call the temples), the researchers characterize them on a number of grounds, whether shared or private. In the description of each temple explicitly or "default" present:

- basic typological characteristics plan and overlap. Describing the type of plan, usually said about the characteristics of the main volume (bushel, octagon, the rotunda and other) and the number of supports (pillars, columns). Describing the type of floors, talking about various systems of codes (dome, cylindrical, hip, groin, closed etc);

- secondary typological characteristics of the apse, head, choirs, galleries, arches, refectories1, stair towers, basement, complete facades (the roof, trifoliynogo, pliers and other), the side-chapels (both external and in the choir, in the apse, basements etc), presence on top of the belfry (temples "under the bells")2 etc;

- construction materials (tile, natural stone, shaped brick, wood and other);

- design and technological features (presence and location of blades, shaped arches, sails, Tromp, the presence of air and flush relations and other);

- stylistic features (architectural plastic, proportion, forms of Gables, portals, arches, Windows, features of decoration etc).

All these signs are mentioned by researchers in connection with each individual Church, used as a basis for Dating are aggregated by region, ages, global styles, etc. Definitions of these signs, the questions of their Genesis and timeframe many times were the subject of study.

But the total of interrelated classifications based not on formal set of signs, and on the whole picture of typological formation of the old Russian Church architecture of XI-XVII centuries, no research has not previously offered.

In this study, we will propose and substantiate the General picture of Genesis and classification of ancient temples only on the base of typological characteristics - plan and overlap. These signs in the architecture of Ancient Russia cannot be considered separately from each other, as the most important type of temples - cross-dome - determined and a plan, and overlap (see item 1). When considering secondary typological characteristics number of types will increase exponentially, and this can be the topic of another study, much larger than the present.

Summary tables and diagrams that represent the typological formation and universal classification of ancient temples on the base of typological characteristics, are summarized in the Conclusion.

 

1. Basic terms and definitions

 

First of all it is necessary to clarify some of the basic vocabulary that will be used in our study.

Let's start with the cross-dome system. According to the classical definition3, the core of such a Church is a square (in the General case rectangular) volume, divided by the four legs of nine cells (compartments; see ill. 14). The supports are connected by arches bearing arches. The center of the nucleus - dome box on which to supporting archs is the drum, covered with a dome vault (dome). To dome square Phillips adjacent four rectangular compartiment - arms of the cross are covered by barrel vaults, absorbing the thrust of the drum. Among them are corner compartments covered by arches of various shapes, the thrust of which extinguishes the tipping action arches and barrel vaults in support.

 

Silt. 1. Section and plan classical cross-domed three-aisled temple
(on the example of the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky).

 

Silt. 1. Section and plan classical cross-domed three-aisled temple

(on the example of the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky).

 

Conditional direction of the longitudinal axis of ancient temples - from West to East, cross - from the North to the South5.

Formally each cross-domed Church is a special case of the Basilica - building, rectangular in shape, consisting of an odd number naves separated longitudinal rows of pillars. Accordingly, in the longitudinal direction at the core of the cross-domed Church also highlighted the aisle. (The term "transept" for the transverse axis of the temple is rarely used).

The core of the cross-domed Church may be limited walls (four-pillar temple) or additional supports. If you have additional support in the transverse direction, the Church acquired its nature (Fig. 26), if in the longitudinal - famous mosque (Fig. 37), vomitory etc.

 

Plans its St. Sophia cathedrals in Kiev, Novgorod and Polotsk.

 

Silt. 2. Plans its St. Sophia cathedrals in Kiev, Novgorod and Polotsk.

 

The plan of the assumption Cathedral of Andrei Bogolyubsky of Vladimir. Reconstruction of the author. 
The six pillars temple with three naves, three apses and three, five-domed forechurches, 
from the North-West it is adjacent stairwell, coupled with the neighbouring buildings.

 

Silt. 3. The plan of the assumption Cathedral of Andrei Bogolyubsky of Vladimir. Reconstruction of the author.

This temple is famous mosque with three naves, three apses and three, five-domed forechurches,

from the North-West it is adjacent stairwell, coupled with the neighbouring buildings.

 

The SPLA (the main volume of the inner space of the temple) can join additional volumes: from the West - the narthex, from the East - by WIM and the altar apse (apse).

Note that if the Church from the West is adjacent to the porch, then it is formally similar to the narthex, and terminology contamination. Similar contamination occurs and if porch opened out: then it can be called and ekzonartex, and a porch. In this regard, specify: the narthex and ekzonartex equal or almost equal to the SPLA in width and / or height, the arches and the porch much already and (or) below. The latter, unlike the narthex and ekzonartex, can join the Church and from the North and from the South.

The narthex and (or) by WIM can be opened in the naos of the Church and to be separated from him is not a wall with openings, and supports. In this case, you may experience differences: for example, the assumption Cathedral in Vladimir (Fig. 3) theoretically can be described as six pillars, and as the four pillars, a narthex.

Traditionally8 the second option is only used if the narthex and (or) by WIM separated from the SPLA wall and (or) expressed in the outward forms of the Church (for example, in Vladimir's assumption Cathedral, the narthex is not separated by a wall and architectural not pronounced, so the Church is famous mosque).

This view has questioned the A.I. Komech, wrote the following: "In the literature on ancient Russian architecture of the X-XV centuries, the common definition of the structure of the temples in the number of posts - four-, six-, valmistelee. Such classification distorts the real composition of the nature monuments, moreover, it misinterprets forms themselves. It distracted from the views associated with Church buildings, and is enforced for buildings cross-domed type. 9.

Thus, the A.I. Komech, the Cathedral of the assumption of Andrei Bogolyubsky of Vladimir (Fig. 3), St. George's Cathedral in Yuriev monastery in Novgorod, the assumption Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra or Sophia Cathedral in Vologda should not call six pillars temples, and the four pillars, a narthex.

But we cannot agree with A.I. Comecam for the following reasons:

- traditional point of view clearly determines the presence or absence of architectural expressed (or in the external form, or separated from the SPLA wall) narthex and (or) bemas. In case of acceptance of the position A.I. of Komech we have to clarify, what is the narthex and (or) the Vim in question;

- speaking about the "classic" four-column temples (for example, about the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral of Pereslavl (Fig. 1), the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, or the Church of our Savior on Nereditsa), we in case of acceptance of the position A.I. of Komech will have each time to clarify what we are talking about four-column temples without the narthex and the bemas;

- view A.I. of Komech applies only to basilicum cross-domed Byzantine type. In the Basilica was also of the Western European type are often present and the dome above the crossing, and a large number of supports, and the narthex, and WIM. For example, in Romanesque Imperial Cathedral of Speyer (more modern spelling - Speyer, Il. 4) - the dome above the crossing, the narthex, WIM and 24 support. Accordingly, the A.I. Komech, we would have to say that's Basilica in Speyer - four-column is with two narthex located and one of these narthex located - dvadtsatisemiletny.

 

The Romanesque Cathedral in Speyer. The plan.

 

Silt. 4. The Romanesque Cathedral in Speyer. The plan.

 

We see that the adoption of positions A.I. of Komech unnecessarily complicates the terminology confuses it and prevents universality. In this regard, we accept the traditional point of view on the interpretation of a number of supports in any basilicas, including cross-dome.

To clarify the terminology is necessary to note that we write "cross-domed" through a hyphen. This term appeared shortly before the Second world war10and in the second half of the twentieth century in literature existed in parallel and separate11and fused12 writing (second met more frequently).

This difference in spelling is always wore only editorial in nature13. In this same study, the hyphenated has and meaning of justification, as we shall examine separately the terms "domed Church" and "cross the temple."

Dome we will call the temple in which the dome covered almost all of the naos. Accordingly, this temple is usually centric (unless consists of several separate volumes, each of which is covered with a dome). Examples centric domed churches - Church of the VI century: Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople (Fig. 5)San Vitale in Ravenna.

 

The Church of St. Sergius and Bacchus. Axonometric section.

 

Silt. 5. The Church of St. Sergius and Bacchus. Axonometric section.

 

Note that the "General history of architecture" says about the Church of St. Sergius and Bacchus as a three-nave14and , accordingly, it turns out that the dome covered not all the SPLA, and only the middle nave. But this statement is unnecessarily confusing terminology, as the nave in its original meaning - "ship", that is, he always has a direct and elongated shape. In fact the Church of St. Sergius and Bacchus - domed Church with a narthex, the apse and the bypass gallery.

Plan of the temple dome can be of the form:

any rectangular (close to the square;

any round (rotunda), octagonal, polygonal15we can unite under the conditional name "the circle".

A special case of the plan of the temple dome - tetraconch (another name - quadrifolia). An example is the Church of Intercession in Fili (1690-1693 years, Il. 6). Here possible discrepancies in case, if the basis of a tetraconch is quadrangular. (For example, I.L. Buseva-Davydov attributed the Church of Intercession in Fili type of eight on four", as in this temple semicircular separated from the SPLA walls and doorways, and, therefore, are porches and apse16). In connection with the classification of tetraconch, which are based on a rectangular base, it is necessary to make relevant amendments in the matter, the opening of the semicircle in the naos or separated from him walls.

 

The Church of Intercession in Fili. The plan.

 

Silt. 6. The Church of Intercession in Fili. The plan.

 

If the basis of a tetraconch is not clearly expressed chetverik, these temples, as a rule, are of type "described a circle".

Type described a circle can be considered temples with multilobe plan (St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery, 1514-1517 years, Il. 7)and Phillips (Church of Metropolitan Peter in Pereslavl-Zalessky, 1584-1585 years, Il. 8), which is a particular case of the polygon.

 

St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery. The plan.

 

Silt. 7. St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery. The plan.

 

The Church of Metropolitan Peter in Pereslavl-Zalessky. The plan.

 

Silt. 8. The Church of Metropolitan Peter in Pereslavl-Zalessky. The plan.

 

The term "domed Church" cannot be identified with the term "domed Basilica. Usually, speaking about the latter, mean Sophia of Constantinople (532-537 years, Il. 9), St. Sophia Cathedral in Thessalonica (first half VIII centuries), Church of the assumption at Nicaea (the beginning of VIII century) and a number of other Byzantine churches. This building Basilica type (long, middle nave of the above side), covered with a large dome in the Central part only. In the domed Church, as we said above, the dome covered almost all of the naos.

 

Saint Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople. Axonometric section.

 

Silt. 9. Saint Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople. Axonometric section.

 

But if, say, domed Church is a cross-domed sleeveless cross, suggests the term "crusade of the temple is a cross-domed without a dome. Neither in Byzantium, nor in Russia such temples were not. But here we must turn to another branch Basil - Western.

Usually all the medieval Basilica of the Western European type (with a high prevalence of length over wide) in the scientific and popular literature without clarification called basilicas that, strictly speaking, is not true for the following reasons:

- basilicas are spread in Byzantium and Russia cross-domed churches (and in Byzantium and the dome of the Basilica);

- in a number of large Western European Basil over sredokrestiyami are dome, including on four pillars (as in the Imperial Cathedral of Speyer, Il. 4), i.e. the present of the basic signs of the cross-dome system;

- in the presence of the transept (transepts) Western Basilica ceases to be a Basilica of classical type, rising to Roman Basilica.

In this regard, it is always necessary to specify, what kind of basilicas are cross-dome, dome, or the Western European type. The latter, in turn, has subtypes: with a transept and without a transept.

At presence in the Basilica of the Western European type of the transept (transepts) it would be appropriate either to enter into domestic scientific use of the term "crusade" or "cross" of the temple, or use widely accepted in the West the term "Latin cross". The author of this study, the latter option seems more familiar and, therefore, preferable. The dome above the crossing in such a system and if there is, it is not essential element in the appearance of the temple, and this is the principal difference between Basil type "Latin cross" from the Basil and the dome and cross-dome.

For Western European Basil without a transept useful to clarify what we are talking about basilicas of classical type.

Materials of construction of the temples we will result only in the case of wooden architecture or in cases where the context so requires. "Default" it would be a stone architecture (under which we shall collectively mean the temples built of natural stone, plinfy, molded brick or mixed technique - "opus mixtum").

The time frame of old Russian architecture and, accordingly, this study are limited to the end of the XVII century. The subsequent era we shall collectively be called "New time".

 

2. About the reasons for the evolution of the Byzantine domed churches in cross-domed

 

The evolution of architectural forms Byzantine basilicas of the dome (example - St. Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople, Il. 9) in the cross-dome (example - the Church of the virgin monastery lips in Constantinople, 908 year, Il. 1017, 1118) for V-X centuries traced in detail in a number of scientific works19 and here there is no sense to dwell on this issue, especially as it relates to the main topic of our research was the Genesis of the old Russian Church architecture is only indirectly: Ancient Russia at the turn of the X and XI centuries was perceived already formed a result of this evolution and to the dome Basilica never returned. For our main theme of the more fundamental question of the reasons why in the Byzantine Empire took place this evolution.

 

Constantinople. Church of the Theotokos monastery lips (reconstruction A. Migaud)

 

Silt. 10. Church of the Theotokos monastery lips in Constantinople (reconstruction A. Migaud).

 

Church of the Theotokos monastery lips. The plan.

 

Silt. 11. Church of the Theotokos monastery lips. The plan.

 

Built in 532-537, the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople over a thousand years, until the construction of the Cathedral of St. Peter in Rome, remained the biggest (if not on the square, then the height of the SPLA and the diameter of the dome) the Church of the middle ages. The height of St. Sophia Cathedral 56 metersthe diameter of the dome is 31 meters.

A fundamentally new basic architectural forms in Sofia was brazilianist and supolnast came (though indirectly20) from Ancient Rome, and the diameter of the dome of the Pantheon (43 mfurther Sofia. But the combination in Constantinople Council of bazilikalnogo and huge dome, coupled with a very high altitude SPLA and truly ingenious architectural plastics allowed to build a real masterpiece, which, undoubtedly, became the model for all future architecture of Byzantium.

But the reproduction of Sofia in all its glory (especially in the diameter of the dome, dome Basilica determining and other dimensions of the temple) subsequent Byzantine construction of the era were unable. The Empire declined, the construction was desilanes, construction machinery degraded, requirements for construction personnel was reduced. Accordingly, the dome could not be reduced. In this regard, E.E. Golubinsky believed that cross-dome system replaces the dome, as provided at a lower diameter of the dome is similar capacity temple21.

But the position of E.E. Golubinski does not answer the fundamental question is: why wasn't refuse dome? Last delivers not only a number of design issues, with its construction, he together with a drum creates additional load on the arches and pillars of the temple. The Basilica of classical and type "Latin cross" very well without dome, differing much higher reliability and simplicity of erection22.

N.I. Brunow thought that the dome in the Byzantine Church was necessary, as symbolized heaven, "framed and completed a liturgical action"23. In "General history of architecture" position NI Brunova was expressed even more sequentially: first, the requirements of the Liturgy was expressed in the need of having a dome above the pulpit that appeared in the center of the temple, and the organization of marches around him. The main emphasis was moved from the altar to the dome, and (quote) "the simple worship of deity was replaced theatrical cult"24. Then, according to the researcher, has developed and cross-dome system is based on the need to subdivide the interior of the temple to the Central part, in the middle of which was located pulpit, and on the surrounding space, accommodating present at some distance from the pulpit. The role of such a separator played supports, and thus expressed "the idea of a hierarchy"25.

With this position, we can not accept, as the role of the dome in the Liturgy could play any other code, and Liturgy is not lost. For example, in the temples of the type "Latin cross" sredokrestiya area correspond to the dome of the squares of the Orthodox churches. In General Liturgy in nikopolskyj Catholic churches of the West no less "theatrical performance"praying much more separated from the priests of the seats in the aisles, the service is better.

A.I. the Komech as the cause of the evolution of the dome of the Basilica in cross-domed partially supported the position of NI Brunov26 but rightly believed that "such conversion is not required, however, radical changes in the structure, they were quite feasible in the Basilica was"27. In this regard, the A.I. Komech put forward their own ideas, associated with the symbols and aesthetics of the temples28. He briefly described their essence: "it is Impossible to doubt that the prevalence of cross-domed churches is due to their compliance with certain ideological bases, where great importance had a symbolic ideas and aesthetic expressiveness of the ceremony, even in spite of the slight inconvenience"29.

But it is very unlikely that the works of philosophers and theologians, giving particular architectural element something symbolic interpretation that could affect the choice of a structural system of the temple, all the more so complex in the construction and labor-intensive, as the dome and cross-dome.

Moreover, in the history of world architecture, we know of no one fact that a theologian decided that in the interests of symbols (or any theological theory) the Church must be one or the other new element or one or another new form, have agreed our position with the churchwarden and ordered the architect to build so, and not otherwise. We do not know such facts even in respect of the priestly vestments and liturgical implements, but in a much more costly and difficult from a technical and organizational point of view of the region - architecture - such a situation it is almost impossible to imagine.

Symbolic ideas and theological theory, and philosophical foundations in General, could influence the formation of traditions only indirectly. Weseemed to say, churchwarden order, architects build, the company assesses, interpreters interpret, assess results and interpretations are perceived and in varying degrees, are considered the next generation of the churchwardens and architects, etc.30

Innovations in temple architecture always in one degree or another are a departure from tradition, and, accordingly, they cannot be explained by any symbolic interpretations. They can generate and talent of the architects, and artistic taste of the customers, and the progress of construction equipment, and changes in the aesthetic preferences of society and ideological objectives, and borrowing from other cultures and styles, and much more, up to a purely utilitarian purposes (for example, the need to increase the capacity of the temple).

The use by researchers symbols as justification of those or other architectural features of the temples there is one negative methodological aspect. If in the ancient symbolism and had any impact on architectural forms (which, as we have seen, is not proven), we still do not know what kind of symbolism as it is affected. 31.

The same applies to the aesthetics, which is more conventional than symbolism. Moreover, in the context of this study, it could affect the Genesis of cross-dome system is negative rather than positive: hardly cross-domed churches ever anyone could seem more aesthetic domed basilicas, among which was a unique masterpiece of world significance (probably the most beautiful Church of all times and peoples) - Sophia of Constantinople.

In connection with all the foregoing, we may forward a different vision of the reasons why dome system in Byzantium evolved in cross-dome. For a basis we take the position E.E. Golubinski (which, as mentioned above, is that the cross-dome system replaces the dome, as provided at a lower diameter of the dome is similar capacity temple)32, but with an important clarification: in the temple was necessary to save even a relatively small dome, as the latter was not just important architectural and symbolic element, and the basis of the traditions of the Byzantine Church architecture.

The latter conclusion is based on the following observations:

- the vast majority of the Byzantine churches had a dome, Nikopolidis Basilica was built extremely rare (for example, the Church in the Mesopotamian city of Fat, VI century33; Syrian Basilica of VI century in the cities of Ruwaya, Tormanen, Tafka34; the Church of Dmitry Solunsky in Thessalonica, VII century; and others);

- domes were built everywhere, despite the fact that they not only deliver a number of design problems during construction, but coupled with the drum create an additional burden on the arches and pillars of the temple. The Basilica of classical and type "Latin cross" very well without dome, differing much higher reliability and simplicity of construction35;

- Sophia of Constantinople with its enormous and struck the imagination of contemporaries dome was not only the largest but also the Cathedral and the Imperial temple, that is, this tradition could have formal confirmation in the form of direct instruction of the Emperor and (or) the Patriarch.

Direct prohibition in Byzantium build Nikopolidis temples likely36 but against this version say small, but still occurred facts of construction of such buildings in the provinces. However, we cannot exclude options breach of this prohibition by local authorities with reference, for example, the lack of specialists in the masonry of the domes: not for nothing that, as was rightly noted NI Brunow, provincial Byzantine architecture was entirely different than the capital37.

And yet, in regard to the architecture of Byzantium, the presence of direct state or Church indications required the erection of the temples of the domes and (or) the prohibition on building nikopolskyj temples we still cannot be regarded as fully proven. Regarding the architecture of Ancient Rus - can, and see later in this section.

 

3. About the ban on Nikopolidis temples in Ancient Russia

 

The adoption in Ancient Russia Byzantine Christianity resulted in the adoption and Byzantine ecclesiastical architecture38. But the tasks of missionary work in the large, hitherto pagan country has led to the specificity of local conditions: there is a necessity of the construction of the maximum possible number maximally large, representative and spacious stone temples in acute lack of qualified construction personnel. (Short-lived, fire risk and having a relatively small SPLA wooden churches of this problem is solved only partially).

It would seem that the best option here would be simple and spacious Basilica of the Western European type, which, as we saw in paragraph 2, sometimes it was built in the Byzantine Empire. But, nevertheless, the first (and all subsequent until the beginning of the XVI century) of ancient temples or cross-dome or cupola.

In the initial stage of formation of the ancient Russian architecture of the attempts of escalating internal space was done by increasing the amount of up to five naves, as in St. Sophia cathedrals of Kiev, Novgorod, Polotsk (in Byzantium, as rightly noted the A.I. Komech, its temples was not39), and supports in the Central nave - to eight, as in Sofia in Polotsk (Fig. 2).

But the increase in the number of aisles, as the number of supports under the three-naved plan, cross-dome system led to the reduction of the structural soundness of the temples and increase of requirements to qualification of construction personnel.

The thing is that at the core of the cross-domed Church arches under the weight drum create the efforts of spreading the four pillars in the horizontal plane (Fig. 12). Consequently, the role played by the arc-boutants codes aisles, and the role of buttresses - external walls.

 

. The scheme of distribution of the load from the drum to support and walls
when three-nave four pillars of the plan of the cross-domed Church.

 

Silt. 12. The scheme of distribution of the load from the drum to support and walls

when three-nave four pillars of the plan of the cross-domed Church.

 

But when increasing the number of aisles or the number of pylons in the Central nave (Fig. 13) instead of one of the walls was supports much more prone to deformation under the effect of "tipping" of efforts in the horizontal plane, structural reliability is significantly reduced. Installation of extra light drums for coverage of additional compartments exacerbated the problem of "tipping" loads.

 

The scheme of redistribution of the load from the drum to support and walls in the hypothetical transformation four-column cross-domed temple in the six pillars. It is seen that two additional supports are significant "tipping" the load in the horizontal plane, and the wall behind them (much more reliable design element) almost unloaded. A similar redistribution of loads is increasing the number of aisles and at the further increase in the number of pylons in the Central nave.

 

Silt. 13. The scheme of redistribution of the load from the drum to support and walls in the hypothetical transformation four-column cross-domed temple in the six pillars. It is seen that two additional supports are significant "tipping" the load in the horizontal plane, and the wall behind them (much more reliable design element) almost unloaded. A similar redistribution of loads is increasing the number of aisles and at the further increase in the number of pylons in the Central nave.

 

Thus, when cross-domed terms of increasing the number of supports lead to the same effects as the increase of the internal space: when the same Central chapters of the three-and six cupolas its temples were less reliable than three-nave four pillars.

Apparently, this was the reason that in Byzantium and Ancient Russia the tendency to hypostile of the interior of the Church was never traced. Instead, in order to increase the capacity of the Church building was surrounded by galleries-porches and other extensions40. But annexes often spoils the appearance of the Church was deprived of its solemnity.

In the Basilica, where (with rare exceptions) support is only supported on the vaults, and not the drums and the dome, the increase in domestic space by increasing the number of supports and naves of robust construction practically no effect. However, the old Russian masters in no way took this experience even in conditions of full inclusion architecture of Ancient Russia in world architecture, since the middle of XII century (see item 4 and later). Till the newest time in Russia was not built any of Nikopolsky Basilica (as we saw in paragraph 2, in Byzantium them though occasionally, but built).

The conclusion from this situation can be the following: the Byzantine tradition the mandatory presence of the temple dome turned Russia into a complete ban nikopolskyj temples.

Since the Soviet times in the history of architecture entrenched tradition of interpretation of forms and elements of Church architecture in accordance with constructive and technological features, style Genesis, artistic taste, economy, politics and many other factors, except for one: a direct and immediate influence of the Church in the person of local priests, bishops and senior hierarchs.

But at the end of X-the beginning of XI century the Church was already engaged in reading the second thousand years of its existence. If to count from V century, when it became a closed hierarchical system with an established base of dogmatic and regulated rites, there are about six hundred years is too short period. The indecisiveness of the Russian Metropolia to 1589 dictated particularly strict approach to the subtleties of Church architectural style, as any more or less serious innovations had to agree with the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Perhaps in this regard and adopted a ban on Nikopolidis temples. This prohibition, in what form it took place, was adopted already in the first decades of the existence of Christianity in Russia, otherwise Nikopolidis Basilica would appear, albeit in small numbers41. In subsequent centuries the formation of ancient architecture this prohibition became compulsory tradition, and hardly anyone has already recalled its roots.

About how this ban correlated steepled churches, we'll talk in paragraph 8. Here we will just mention that the only exception was made in the ban on nikopol.net, - wooden kletskii Church. Perhaps the last in Ancient Russia was considered as "temporary". Perhaps, if they wanted they could not deny due to the absence in most villages enough qualified construction personnel for the construction of more "refined" types of wooden architecture.

It is important to note that it was the third (and chronologically - first) known to us the prohibition of the Russian Orthodox Church on those or other architectural features of the temples. The Church in the beginning of XIV century, has forbidden the adornment of the temples Romanesque-Gothic zooantropomorfnogo sculptural decoration (i.e. decor, in which there are pictures of people and animals; the decor should be distinguished from the ornamental decoration of type, in which, in particular includes arcature, curb and ornament)42. In the middle of the XVII century, it was actually prohibited the erection of temples tent (for the details prohibition see item 9).

Now, having considered the reasons for the absence in Russia of such diverse and adopted worldwide-type temples, as Nikopolidis (including Basil Western European type), we can proceed with the examination and classification of the basic types that existed in old Russian Church architecture.

 

4. Two of the source of the architecture of Ancient Rus and the first two main types of ancient temples

 

The first source of the old Russian Church architecture are well known: the architecture of Byzantium43. Directly from it happened that type temples, which we can call "the first major": cross-domed three-nave with six cupolas of the churches. (For clarity, we bring to each type and subtype of hierarchical digital designation; this type is denoted by the number 1).

In Russia the tradition of the construction of the three-six pillars of the temples are44 from the built in 1073-107745 , under the direction of Byzantine masters46 Assumption Cathedral of Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (Fig. 1447). This temple was, in turn, is a direct continuation of typological and stylistic other three-nave churches, although not had such a clear and precise structure - Transfiguration Cathedral in Chernihiv and probably the tithe Church, also built under the guidance of the Byzantines48.

 

Assumption Cathedral of Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. The plan.

 

Silt. 14. Assumption Cathedral of Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. The plan.

 

Strictly speaking, the Cathedral of the assumption - not six pillars, and four pillars, a narthex, as the latter was in him architectural expressed49. But this temple thanks to its clear structure served as a model for a large number six pillars of ancient cathedrals (as four pillars, a narthex), mainly Cathedral and monastery50. It is the Cathedral of the Mikhailovo-zlatoverkh monastery in Kiev (1108-1113 years), St. George's Cathedral in Yuriev monastery in Novgorod (1119-1130 years), the assumption Cathedral in Vladimir (1158-1160 years), the Cathedral of the Ivanovo monastery in Pskov (1140-ies), the Smolensk Cathedral of Novodevichy monastery (the middle of the XVI century), St. Sophia Cathedral in Vologda (1568-1570 years), the Cathedral, Ipatyevsky monastery (1650-1652 years) and others in order (Special typological interpretation of restistant took place in the Moscow Uspenie Cathedral, Aristotle Fioravanti, but about it we will talk in paragraph (6).

The second source of ancient Russian architecture - the Western European romanik - still known much worse than the first. Its importance for ideological and political reasons humiliated as before the revolution (in accordance with the tenet of "Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality"), and under the Soviet power51.

Underestimation of this source has created a serious problem related to the positioning of the ancient architecture in the history of world architecture. The fact that the architecture of Byzantium stereotypical perceived as self-sufficient, "indigenous" phenomenon, and architecture of Ancient Russia - like "spin-off" from his direction. The inevitable consequence of this approach was the perception (primarily in the West) of ancient architecture in the global context as a "border" and "provincial".

But actually the Byzantine influence on the architecture of Ancient Russia was determined only up to the early-mid XII century, and then forming a new center of the Vladimir-Suzdal Grand Duchy - were influenced by Western European Romanesque.

The main attribute that determines the so-called "Russian romanik"52 is the construction of well-treated white stone. The vast majority of the Romanesque cathedrals and castles in the heart of the Holy Roman Empire - Germany - were stone, brick there was built only minor construction of a civil nature and small provincial temples.

In Byzantium (except some of its suburbs) built of plinfy or in mixed technique - "opus mixtum". Same - plinthite or mixed - was the pre-Mongolian construction machinery of all ancient lands, except for the Galician and Suzdal. In the Galician land of the white-stone construction began in the late 1110-x and 1120-ies53in Suzdal later - in 115254.

Other important elements of Romanesque architecture, embodied in the pre-Mongolian architecture of North-Eastern Russia are the sculptural decoration of the Romanesque (zooantropomorfnogo) type and perspective portals.

The author of this research has repeatedly shown55that so-called "Russian romanik" in the North-Eastern Rus ' began with the construction of Yuri Dolgoruky in 1152 five white stone churches, of which until now remained Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky (Fig. 1) and the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha.

Yury first used in Suzdal European technique of construction of natural stone. Ornamental decor "universal" Roman type, found in many churches of Western Europe (arcature and the curb), was already in Pereslavl and Kideksha. In the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha we see a promising portal.

According to the research of the author56, a direct source of architecture Yuri Dolgoruky was a key Romanesque Church - the Imperial Cathedral of Speyer (Fig. 4). The author also showed that the master, who came to Andrew Bogoliubsky of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, were even invited by Yuri Dolgoruky during his reign in Kiev, and that the jury has the permission of the Church in Romanesque sculptures zooantropomorfnogo type, but did not have time to arrange such a decoration on their temples57.

Its development so-called "Russian romanik" received when Andrei Bogolyubsky, when Russia worked architect Frederick Barbarossa58 and when the architecture of Vladimir-Suzdal land appeared such typical Romanesque features, as zooantropomorfny sculptures, pilasters with semi-columns, attic profile bases, base with corner "horns" ("vultures", "claws"), developed advanced portals, tripartite Windows, column-type belt, Indigo capitals and other

And the presence of not one but two basic sources of ancient architecture allows to speak of it not as a "late Byzantine provincial, and as an independent phenomenon of global importance.

But only if "imported" was the architecture of Yuri Dolgoruky, i.e. whether it was only the alloy Romanesque technological and plastic solutions and Byzantine cross supolnasci? In no case.

Temples Dolgoruky - four-column three-nave, have neither the narthex, neither bemas or porch, nor galleries, i.e. it is a cross-domed churches in "typologically pure" form, which earlier in the Byzantine Empire and Russia are rare, and in Western Europe are generally not met.

N.N. Voronin wrote that this type of the temple was widespread and earlier59. But we cannot agree with the researcher: actually, we know of only a few cases of construction of a four-column cross-domed churches in Russia before the middle of the XII century, and all these temples is very significantly different from the temples Dolgoruky:

- gateway Trinity Church of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra (1108, Il. 1660) formally belongs to centric four-column type, but in fact, as rightly noticed the A.I. Komech, this temple was two-column, as because of the absence at the gate enough space builders were forced to abandon apses, but in the interior niches preserved, and the entire Eastern part of the Church has turned to the altar61;

 

Trinity gate Church of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. The plan.

 

Silt. 15. Trinity gate Church of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. The plan.

 

- from the Church of St. John in Przemysl (1119-1124) were only the foundations, technique (but not in the plan and not the size) is similar to the construction of Yuri Dolgoruky (Fig. 1662). But the probability of its construction in white-technology low: walls and pillars are too thin compared with spans of the vaults. Perhaps, was built of stone, but is covered with wood, like many Western European churches;

 

Plans Galician and Suzdal churches (O.M. Ioannisian):
1 - the Church of St. John in Przemysl;
2 - the Church in Zvenigorod;
3 - the Church of our Saviour in Galich;
4 - the Church on the "Winterised";
5 - Transfiguration Cathedral in Zvenigorod;
6 - the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha;
7 - the Church of St. George in Vladimir;
8 - the Church of deposition of the robe on the Golden gate in Vladimir.

 

Silt. 16. Plans Galician and Suzdal churches (O.M. Ioannisian):

1 - the Church of St. John in Przemysl;

2 - the Church in Zvenigorod;

3 - the Church of our Saviour in Galich;

4 - the Church on the "Winterised";

5 - Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky;

6 - the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha;

7 - the Church of St. George in Vladimir;

8 - the Church of deposition of the robe on the Golden gate in Vladimir.

 

- the temple in Zvenigorod Galitsky, from which nothing left except the foundations of analogous equipment of a laying (Fig. 16), raises doubts about his belonging to cross-domed type. Two pillars (Il. 16 dashed), entered O.M. Ioannisyan in reconstruction in order to present the Church as a cross-domed until it finds the archaeological evidence - at least in the form of remains of the foundations.

Before 1152 (i.e. either shortly before the temples Dolgoruky, or simultaneously with them) in Galicia was built of white stone Church of the Saviour, similar to the temple Yuri plan, the technology of construction and decoration (Fig. 16). But, first, we don't know anything about her appearance, secondly, it is very likely that this Church and temples Dolgoruky built same wizard63, i.e. we may attribute this Church to the group of temples Yuri, as Dolgoruky and Prince Vladimir Galitsky were allies, and Yuri was older by age and princely the ladder and had in Russia a much greater impact64.

In Byzantium us also known four-column cross-domed churches (Atik Jami, middle of the IX century; the Church of the virgin monastery lips, the beginning of the X century, Il. 11, the Church of virgin Chalkeon in Thessaloniki, the beginning of XI century; and others). But this type, first, was distributed relatively small, and secondly, when you look at the plans of these temples is immediately struck by the complexity of the structure and absence of the clarity and integrity, which is characteristic of the temples Dolgoruky. The same thing, only with even greater extent, refers to the appearance of the Byzantine churches (in the words A.I. of Komech, these temples had a "difficult and complex shape"65; see the sludge. 10).

Thus, we can consider the base type of the temples Dolgoruky, if not unprecedented, previously used rarely and in other forms. And the combination in temples Dolgoruky integrity plan with integrity and towering appearance at all precedents in the world had.

A seamless appearance of the main Church in any case is not the hallmark of Romanesque (especially Gothic). Western Basilica, as a rule, by itself (without towers) seemed to be rather shapeless compared even with Byzantine churches, not to mention the temples Dolgoruky, which seem as if hewn out of solid white-stone blocks.

The same applies to the towering. The main volume of Western European Basil, both Romanesque and Gothic, in any case not balneare (apparently, the position G. Wagner, who wrote that the towering Russian churches was caused by the influence of Gothic66, influenced by Western European tower-belfry; but in fact the bulk of Basil in Western Europe has a flat silhouettes)67.

Consequently, the number of Romanesque techniques and stylistic features the main contribution in the external appearance of the temples of Yuri Dolgoruky was made by Russian masters, that determined the uniqueness of these buildings.

N.N. Voronin wrote about the temples Dolgoruky: "the Development of this type of temple there were no technical or architectural difficulties; on the contrary, he was only reduced and simplified edition of the" six pillars temple's cross"68. But we cannot agree with the researcher, as the number of innovative typological and plastic solutions in temples Dolgoruky is very large, moreover, the construction of these temples were brilliant creative breakthrough" of old Russian masters.

Byzantine cruciform-dome system, on the basis of which was created this type of temples, was, first, the only limit (see item 3), and secondly, was radically creatively reworked.

In connection with the above, we highlight of the three-centric four-column cross-domed churches in the second main type of the old Russian Church architecture (digital designation - 2). The first known typologically Mature temples of this type can be considered as the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Pereslavl and the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha.

In "the History of Russian architecture" temples Dolgoruky has been characterized as a "modest"69. But in fact, these temples were the best combination of reliability criteria, required qualifications of masters, the square of the SPLA, the integrity of the external appearance and the altitude.

Optimality of the second major type of temples is confirmed by the fact that in the future this type began in Ancient Russia the most mass. Cross-domed centric four-column temples were built in large numbers in all ages in all regions of Russia. This type includes such masterpieces of Russian architecture, as the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl (115870), Church of the Savior on Nereditsa (1198), Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin (1489 year), the Cathedral of the assumption in Dmitrov (the first third of the XVI century), Holy Trinity Church in Chashnikovo (middle of the XVI century), the Cathedral Pafnutiev-Borovskoy monastery (1586), the Church of the Transfiguration in greater Vyazemy (1584-1598 years), Large Cathedral of the Donskoy monastery (1686-1698 years) and others in order71

 

5. Types of ancient temples, derived from the second main

 

In the evolution of the second major (cross-domed centric four-column) type of temples is possible to allocate a number of derived types, each of which has become an important typological component of the ancient Russian architecture.

First derived type from the second main (digital designation - 2.1) - appeared at the turn of the XII-XIII centuries cross-domed churches with elevated supporting arches (other variants of the name - speed with high arches, stepped arches, stepped arches).

In principle, the system speed high arches repeatedly used before (though in other typologies): in many Western European Basil, where the middle nave was usually higher than the side; and in the St. Sophia Cathedral (1037 year); and in the Cathedral of the Mirozhsky monastery (up 1156); immediate transitional option for this type N.N. Voronin was rightly called six cupolas of the Cathedral of the Saviour Euphrosyne convent in Polotsk (up 1159)72.

First typologically Mature temples type 2.1 can be considered Pyatnitskaya Church in Chernihiv (boundary XII-XIII centuries, Il. 17) and the Cathedral of Archangel Mikhail in Smolensk (1191-1194 years). In the future, with elevated supporting arches were constructed such churches as Pyatnitskaya Church on Trade in Novgorod (1207 year), the first assumption Cathedral in Moscow (1326-1327 years73), the Cathedral of the Andronikov monastery (1425-1427 years74), the Cathedral of the Nativity monastery in Moscow (beginning of the XVI century), the assumption Cathedral in Staritsa (1530 year), and other

 

Pyatnitskaya Church in Chernihiv. The incision.

 

Silt. 17. Pyatnitskaya Church in Chernihiv. The incision.

 

At the appearance of temples with elevated supporting arches there are two reasons.

First - enhancing structural reliability75. In the case of high arches of the vaults aisles are loaded not only from the side (as presented in the first and second main types classic cross-domed scheme, where the vaults and arches are approximately at the same level; see ill. 1, 12, 13), but from above. Therefore, the stepped arches gives a more even distribution of load from the drum to the quadrangular elements (and thereby more constructive reliability)than the "classic" scheme - with supporting arches at the level sets aisles.

Thus, higher arches were a way to increase the internal space of temples without reducing reliability, and without the use of more advanced building technologies and more qualified personnel.

The second reason for the appearance centric four-column temples with elevated supporting arches - strengthening towering, which, as we saw in paragraph 4, was a distinctive feature of Russian churches from the time of Yuri Dolgoruky.

Note that in ancient architecture occasionally met and six cupolas temples with elevated supporting arches, forming a gradation in the crypt (Rostov Cathedral 1508-1512 years, the Cathedral of khutynsk monastery 1515), but such a gradation in the conditions of restistant (unlike chetyrehstennoy) have practically no effect neither on the exterior or interior of temples, so we do not refer to basic typological characteristics, and to the constructive features and, accordingly, do not consider the basis for allocation of a separate type.

The second derived type from the second main (digital designation - 2.2) - churches " pylon. Such ancient temples to date, there are four: this is the Church 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. 18; both temples - early XIV century), as well as open excavations first cathedrals Bobreneva and Golutvina monasteries (approximately XV century) 76.

 

The Nikolskaya Church in Kamenskoye. The plan.

 

Silt. 18. The Nikolskaya Church in Kamenskoye. The plan.

 

This type of churches was not unprecedented: it, while in the other architectural forms, met in the Byzantine provinces77. Such a scheme, when the drum was standing on the corners of the walls, has been implemented in the Cathedral of the Mirozhsky monastery (Fig. 19), and the Church of St. George in Old Ladoga (the end of the XII century).

 

The Cathedral of the Mirozhsky monastery. The plan.

 

Silt. 19. The Cathedral of the Mirozhsky monastery. The plan.

 

N.I. Brunow called such a scheme Byzantine churches "his cross"78. B.L. Altshuler, which-together with Aleshkovsky belongs the honor of the first (albeit largely controversial79 systematic descriptions of ancient temples " pylon, applied to this scheme, the term "inscribed cross"80by creating terminology contamination with the classical definition of "inscribed cross" as nearly full synonym cross-supolnasci81. But the definition B.L. Altshuller seems most adequately reflects the vivid manifestation of the cross in the interior of the Church " pylon, so we will stick to it.

It is important to note that the ancient temples " pylon is not domed, cross-dome, and are modifications of the second major type of ancient temples - four-column where support took place a corner of the compartments. This is proved by the following provisions:

- these temples have a pronounced a cruciform plan, interior, and ceilings;

- the dome in the temples, covers not all the SPLA, which contradicts the definition domed churches (see item 2);

- in some of these churches ("Gorodische" the Church in Kolomna and the first Cathedral of Old monastery Golutvina) wall support is not tied to the walls, i.e. is it supports, and not the inner blades or buttresses.

The purpose of replacement of angular and therefore lighter bearings was similar to the device high arches: the increase of the omphalos. Load drum bore no free-standing and wall supports and, accordingly, walls - much more resistant structural element. Appeared the possibility to increase the internal space of temples without reducing reliability, and without the use of more advanced building technologies and more qualified personnel.

But from the construction of churches of type "inscribed cross" old Russian masters declined very quickly, already in the XV century. Apparently, the rejection of angular compartments were not justified by the increase of the omphalos.

Third derived type from the second main (digital designation - 2.3) - four-column temples with pyramidal sloping walls. This rare both in Russia and in the world's construction technology was applied in the assumption Cathedral on the Gorodok in Zvenigorod, the Cathedral of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery (both churches - the beginning of XV century) and the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra (1422-1423 years, Il. 2082).

 

Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Reconstruction I. Baldina.

 

Silt. 20. Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Reconstruction I. Baldina.

 

Earlier in Russia such technique has been used only in a small four pillars of Novgorod Church Iranskogo skete (about 1226 year).

We allocate these temples in some derived type and consider first typological Mature buildings two Zvenigorod Cathedral of the beginning of the XV century, as the construction of large stone Church buildings with sloping walls and pillars represented a higher level of construction equipment, available only to the qualified masters. The technology of erection of such buildings is fundamentally different from normal: it is not sufficient to launch on a plumb complicated system of adjustment of angles between the foundations, walls, pillars, supporting arches and vaults.

About the level of construction equipment in "pyramid" temples of the XV century says that in the interior of the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra implemented unique technique, which allowed to make the space more "air": to sloping walls and pillars not be "pressured" to being in the temple of the people, to the height of about 5 m they are vertical, and then "curved" inside.

The reasons for the construction of "pyramidal temples are seen as the same as the temples type 2.1 - with elevated supporting arches: first, strengthening the towering; secondly, increase of internal space without reducing reliability. (Sloping walls creating a very stable pyramidal silhouette of buildings and are actually buttresses for themselves, providing the most even distribution of the load).

But, apparently, the technology proved to be too difficult, as it was abandoned already during the construction of the Cathedral of the Andronikov monastery (1425-1427 years)83 where there was a return to the first derived type.

Further pyramidal sloping walls remained a huge rarity, they had (with much less pyramidal than that served as their pattern Trinity Cathedral) spirit (1476) and Vvedenskaya (1547) Church in the Trinity-Sergius, as well as the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Solovki (1558-1566 years). Apparently, in the latter case, the motivation of using such construction equipment was purely pragmatic: in this unique "serf" from the walls of the temple were to ricostituire enemy of the kernel (this is confirmed exceptional thick walls of the Cathedral - up 6 m, pyramid-shaped as towers Solovetsky fortress, with which the Church was a United fortification system)84. Typologically the same two-column Solovetsky Cathedral belongs to the third major type of temples (see item 6).

 

6. The third main type of ancient temples

 

The third main type of the old Russian Church architecture (digital designation - 3) - two-column temples. On seems their construction shall be connected with the spread of high iconostasis.

The time of the appearance in Russia of a high iconostasis controversial and not included in the theme of our research85 but it is clear that in the XV century they were already widespread. In connection with these iconostases, closing all the altar space temples, from Eastern pillars, NF Gulyanitskii rightly wrote: "the very cross-dome system, losing in the visual perception of the most important branch of the cross, to some extent lost its symbolic meaning, clearly expressed in a hierarchically divided volumetric-spatial structure, it complicated the plastic. Now began increasingly to dominate two-column structure as opposing the plane of the iconostasis"86.

In other words, some old Russian architects began to build churches with the original settlement on the high iconostasis - despite the fact that the vast majority of the temples are still taken into consideration future high iconostasis, i.e. more universal (perhaps it was due to the fact that the formation of full-fledged high iconostasis could take a very long time, and then not take place due to lack cenovych icons).

The most simple and logical architectural solution of dostopnosti was to replace the pair East supports the wall: it raised the structural safety of the temple without significant changes familiar centric structure, typical of a four-column cross-domed churches. First typologically Mature temple of this type is the Annunciation Church of the Annunciation parish Church (beginning of the XVI century, Il. 2187).

 

The Annunciation Church of the Annunciation of the churchyard. The plan.

 

Silt. 21. The Annunciation Church of the Annunciation of the churchyard. The plan.

 

Accordingly, we may call two-column temples derived type from the second basic type (or "degenerate second main type"), as these temples of the four pillars of steel two-column under the influence of the specific circumstances. But since they formally lost cross-supolnast, we are required to allocate them in a separate primary type (in our classification is the third).

There is another reason for classifying two-column temples to individual major type: the idea of the original construction of the temple under the high iconostasis (and, accordingly, its "typological degeneration") was implemented in four pillars, and in the six pillars of the Church, i.e. the Church of the first basic type. We are talking about Moscow Uspensky Cathedral (1475-1479, Il. 22).

 

Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The plan.

 

Silt. 22. Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The plan.

 

Performing the difficult task of increased internal volume of the Church, which failed in its predecessors Krivtsov and Myshkin88 Aristotle Fioravanti for the first time in Russian architecture applied and cross vaults thickness in one brick, and metal-wall and proemnyh communication. But its main engineering idea was that, thanks to the construction behind the iconostasis additional arches East compartments of the temple actually turned into a monolith, perceiving a significant part of the burden of huge drums.

The third major type referred Cathedral, Nikitsky monastery in Moscow (1530-1540-ies), Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Solovki (1558-1566 years), the number of two-column temples of Yaroslavl the middle of the XVII century, the Church of St. Nicholas in Nikolo-Uryupin (1664-1665 years), etc.

It should be noted that in Nikolo-Uryupinsk temple architect Pavel Potekhin applied the technique of "typological degeneration" not only to chetyrehstennoy, but also to the wall, replaced the Eastern support: on its place there is only arch is as wide as the quadrangle (Fig. 23), i.e. the part of the SPLA, intended for the faithful, was extended due to the total refusal from the altar part of the quadrangle. This design was implemented in the Kazan Church in Markove (1672-1680).

 

Nicholas Church in the Nikolo-Uryupin. The plan.

 

Silt. 23. Nicholas Church in the Nikolo-Uryupin. The plan.

 

And in 1560-ies of the creative thought of the Russian architects regarding the development of the two-column temples worked practically in the same direction, which at the time set Aristotle Fioravanti: how to make the structure part of the naos, intended for the faithful, very clear and complete. In this regard appeared type temples, which we can name derives from the third key: two-column temples with the Central drum on the axis of the supports (digital designation - 3.1).

First typologically Mature temple of this type - the Annunciation Cathedral in Solvychegodsk (1560-1579 years, Il. 24). The builders of the temple refused Eastern transverse nave, the naos, intended for praying, developed its own symmetry axis "North-South", chetverik lost antichnosti. In General typology of the Cathedral significantly distanced from a four-column cross-domed prototypes. According to GN. Bocharova and V.P. Vygolov, "still, the so-called "false dustelpa", formed in many purely mechanical failure from Eastern couple of posts here for the first time it has been superseded by a new decision, which dustelpa already acts as a certain artistic understanding, design"89.

 

Silt. 24. The Annunciation Cathedral in Solvychegodsk. The upper part of the pillars and light the slot under the Central drum.

 

Silt. 24. The Annunciation Cathedral in Solvychegodsk. The upper part of the pillars and light the slot under the Central drum.

 

In the future two-column scheme with statement of support along the Central axis of the "North-South" dome space was used in the Lazarevskaya Church in Suzdal (1667), the Nikolskaya Church in the Bishop's Sloboda in Vologda (1669 year), the Nativity Cathedral Solotchinskoe monastery (1691 year), the Trinity Cathedral Marchugovskoe of the desert (up 1698), the Kazan Church in Toropets (1698 year), the ascension Cathedral of Derevyanistki monastery in Novgorod (1700) and other

 

7. The fourth primary type of ancient temples

 

The fourth primary type (digital designation - 4) - temples with no columns covered various systems of codes. This type has three subtypes.

The first subtype (digital designation - 4.1) - without columns bushels, covered with groin vaults. (Formal definition groin vault: cloistered vault with two pairs of intersecting strikings and a hole in the center for drum).

Research conducted by the author in the early 2000-ies90showed that the first known to us by the Church of this type was the Church Trifon Naprudnom (mid 1470's mid-1480-s, Il. 25, 26).

 

The Church Trifon Naprudnom. The plan.

 

Silt. 25. The Church Trifon Naprudnom. The plan.

 

The Church Trifon Naprudnom. The groin vault.

 

Silt. 26. The Church Trifon Naprudnom. The groin vault.

 

Attempts overlap pillarless Chetverikov (and thus getting rid of supports, zalesnaya and shading naos) were made before the end of the XV century - in Pskov. But these attempts led to a significant reduction of the sizes of churches (examples - many small churches, covered with one torispherical arch, as the southern side-chapel of the Church of St. Basil on the Hill of 1413, or torispherical arch with transverse dismantling, as the Church of Nikita Gusyatnikov 1470, Sunday in the Empty 1496).

The first successful attempt pillarless overlap sufficiently large Chetverikov was groin vault. We show that, following its Genesis.

If you just "remove" from the four pillars of the temple pillars, above, except for overlapping angular compartments remain two intersecting Korobov set, each of which is cut: top - light hole, longitudinal - three pairs of arches (mid - supporting, on the sides - arches over the side aisles). These vaults in places where the heel arches previously based on "taken out" supports, will not rely on that.

In this case suggests the following constructive solution: cut in each of the two intersecting vaults Korobov not three pairs of longitudinal arch, and one pair - the entire length of the arch. The four points where arches previously relied on the support, will be upwards (Fig. 27), and the whole structure through the longitudinal arch in intersecting Korobov vaults will draw on the walls of the temple. In this case, disappear not only support, and arches (Fig. 28).

 

Conventional scheme "cut" the pillars and "care" toe arches up.

 

Silt. 27. Conventional scheme "cut" the pillars and "care" toe arches up.

 

The scheme of replacement of three pairs of longitudinal arch of one pair for the entire length of the temple 
(in the same proportions).

Silt. 28. The scheme of replacement of three pairs of longitudinal arch of one pair for the entire length of the temple

(in the same proportions).

 

In the end it was invented by a unique code, which crossed torispherical vaults with carved into them longitudinal arches played the role of four strikings, and in the center was a light hole. Such a set and became known under the name groin. The author has shown in a special study91that any direct or indirect analogues to this wonderful architectural decision nowhere in the world was, and groin vault was invented in Ancient Russia (to be precise - in the Moscow Grand Duchy) without any borrowing or influences.

We see that the churches groin vault occurred from the second basic type of ancient temples - cross-domed centric four pillars. But since pillarless temples are not cross-domed by definition, we are required to allocate them in a separate primary type (in our classification - fourth).

Temples with groin vaults in the XVI century, was built in large quantities, mostly in Moscow and Moscow region (the Church of the Conception Anna "in the Corner" in China-town, until 1493; the Church of the Nativity in Yurkin, to 1504; the Church of Martyr Nikita for Yauza, 1530-ies, rebuilt in 1595; old Cathedral of the Donskoy monastery, 1591-1593 years; and others)92. Such arches, albeit in substantially transformed, sometimes erected in the XVII century (example - Vvedensky Cathedral in Solvychegodsk, 1688 year).

The second subtype fourth basic type (digital designation - 4.2) - pillarless temples with systems of codes "Pskov" type. About the simplest variants of this subtype we discussed above as on the first attempt overlap pillarless Chetverikov. In the middle of the XVI century "Pskov" system reached typological maturity: steel erected temples covered by a system based on each other arches. (Another variant of the name - the system of stepped arches, but it may terminology contamination with type 2.1).

First temple-type 4.2 can be considered as the Church of the assumption in the Gdov (1557-1561 years, Il. 29)93.

 

Church of the assumption in Gdov. Plan and elevation.

 

Silt. 29. Church of the assumption in Gdov. Plan and elevation.

 

This type of arches, though allowed to block the bushels, comparable in size with bushels of temples with groin vaults, but lacked the clarity and harmony groin vault. In this connection type 4.2 remained local Pskov phenomenon, although its echoes sometimes resonated in the architecture of the XVII century (example - built in 1548 Nikon Church of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, which in 1623 the upper part was reconstructed and covered with a torispherical arch with slot94).

And groin vault, though he was a simple, clear and reliable design, but in the course of development of construction in the XVII century, everywhere gave way to a more simple, clear and reliable system - zamknutomu code.

Formally speaking, cloistered vault is formed, if from a groin vault "remove" Stripping. But since we have no confidence that actually closed vault came from the groin, and was not sufficient invention, prepared by development of construction equipment (the latter with a clear and explicit way vault seems more likely), we believe temples with closed dome is not derived type from the type 4.1, and the third subtype fourth basic type (digital designation - 4.3).

As was shown VLV Sedov, for the first time locked vaults began in 1550-ies to be erected in a number of Novgorod churches (refectory of the Church of Varlaam of Khutyn in Khutyn monastery, 1550-1552 years of the Annunciation on the Mihailov street, 1550-ies), and a little later was erected cloistered vault of the Cathedral of the rizopolozhensky monastery in Suzdal95.

In the XVII century cloistered vault was the dominant form of overlap without columns of the temples, it was used in such architectural masterpieces as the Trinity Church in nikitniki (1630-1650-ies), of the Nativity of the virgin in Putinki (1649-1652 years), Sunday in chadashah (1687-1695 years) and others in order

 

Church of the Transfiguration in the village of Nikolskoye, Yaroslavl region (1700). Cloistered vault.

 

Silt. 30. Church of the Transfiguration in the village of Nikolskoye, Yaroslavl region (1700). Cloistered vault.

 

8. The fifth main type of ancient temples

 

Questions of an origin of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture in detail in special studies of the author96. Here it makes sense to briefly touch on some of the provisions that are important for its typological classification.

Researchers have put forward two main versions of the origin of hip architecture:

- hip architecture of Ancient Russia was a direct or indirect reminiscent of the late Gothic Western (N.M. Karamzin, IM Snegirev, L.V. Dal, E.E. Golubinsky, A.I. Nekrasov, G. Wagner)97;

- hip architecture - a phenomenon that directly or indirectly formed on the basis of old Russian wooden architecture (IA Zabelin, FF Gornostaev, IE Grabar, N.N. Voronin)98. (Other versions derived from the above, discussed in detail in these special investigations of the author).

Before you begin to consider these two main versions, note that the architectural and archaeological research CENTURIES Kavelmahera (1980-1990-ies)99 and the author (2000-ies)100 showed that Trinity (now Pokrovskaya) Church in Alexandrov Sloboda (Fig. 31101) was built in 1513 and, accordingly, was the first of the old Russian Church marquee. The author also showed that the architect who built the temple, was Aleviz New102.

 

Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda. Reconstruction CENTURIES Kavelmahera.

 

Silt. 31. Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda. Reconstruction CENTURIES Kavelmahera.

 

Here are a number of provisions that force us to deny the link hip architecture and Gothic.

First, for the Western Gothic (like romanik, as for the Renaissance) is absolutely unusual overlap SPLA tent. Over sredokrestiyami sometimes were built or stone octahedral dome (Romanesque Cathedral in Speyer (Fig. 4), Limburg Lana and others)or wooden tents (Gothic Church of our lady in Bruges). Sometimes decorative wooden tents were erected over the stone domes (Romanesque Cathedral in Padua). Not one stone of the tent or on the naos or above the crossing in any more or less significant Western Church we do not know.

Secondly, one of the most characteristic trends Gothic - increase the area of the internal space of the temples. With marquee same architecture is the reverse: in comparison with "scale" cross-domed churches, and especially with the Western European basilicas, their area SPLA small.

Thirdly, the beginning of the XVI century in Italy was marked not Gothic, and Renaissance. And it is very unlikely that a highly qualified Italian architect of that time could focus on the Gothic. As we know, the term "Gothic" Italians XV-XVI centuries, and means "the art of the willing", i.e. the "barbarians".

Fourth, in the above special studies, we believed that "striving upward hip architecture corresponds to one of the major trends of Gothic. But now it is necessary to clarify that, as we showed in paragraph 4, for the Gothic Church architecture absolutely very unusual towering main volume. The last is the identification exclusively of the old Russian Church architecture.

In the above special studies, we have brought a number of provisions showed that the origin of hip architecture of ancient wooden architecture:

- "The chronicler briefly the Russian land" (XVI century) under the year 1532 says: "the great Prince Vasily placed the stone Church of Vnesenie of our Lord Jesus Christ up on the wooden case103. This message carries a direct parallel between the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye and wooden architecture, and argue with that documentary evidence is hardly possible;

- there is an image unpreserved wooden tent-roofed Church in the village una Arkhangelsk region (Fig. 32), the construction of which registers the records referred to 1501104, respectively, this Church was built before the first stone temple of hip;

 

Church in the village una Arkhangelsk region.

 

Silt. 32. Church in the village una Arkhangelsk region.

 

- N.N. Voronin and P.N. Maksimov believed that the tent wooden Church was a common type of ancient Church in the pre-Mongolian time105and in the above special studies, we have brought a number of arguments in support of their position.

It was shown that wood is much easier to build a tent than the dome, and stone dome to build simpler than the tent.

From the above it follows that in the old Russian wooden architecture of the tabernacle was "a simplified form of the dome, including the appearance of stone tent churches.

This is confirmed by the fact that wooden tents as "a simplified form of domes was built in the Byzantine Empire (for example, in the second half of the V century the temple was built in Alhan-manastir, where the Central space of the stone Church was completed pyramid wooden roof106), and in Western Europe (we have already mentioned, wooden tent above the crossing Gothic Basilica in Bruges), and in Palestine (wooden rotunda over the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem).

IE Grabar and FF Gornostaev was expressed doubts about the origin of hip architecture of wooden related to the fact that the tent end of the tree would have to focus on patterns in the stone, which until the beginning of the XVI century was absent107. But in XI-XV centuries, wooden tent over the naos were quite clear pattern - the dome of stone temples.

V.V. Kavelmaher wrote: "as for the tent, it is nothing. The accident in the architecture. It only replaces the dome, overlapping SPLA"108. We evidentiary confirmed these words of the researcher, the only significant caveat that this replacement was no accident, but the design-based phenomenon.

That tent was a direct analogue of the dome, we can draw a number of conclusions.

First, in the beginning of XVI century there was no formal resolution of the Russian Orthodox Church for the erection of tents, despite the fact that, as was rightly noted by N.N. Voronin, hip architecture was "in denial, cross-dome system"109.

Secondly, as we showed above, the main source of hip architecture became a wooden tent-roofed Church110.

Third, the tent-roofed architecture was preceded by columns and domed churches, which, though in small numbers, but were built during the entire previous history of ancient architecture. We know, for example, the following churches:

- the Church of Basil in Vladimir-Volyn, XIII century (multilobe plan, Il. 33);

 

The Church of Basil in Vladimir-Volynsky. Section and plan.

 

Silt. 33. The Church of Basil in Vladimir-Volynsky. Section and plan.

 

- non-preserved temples in the Galician land: the Church of the unknown initiation, the so-called "Polygon", the second half of XII century (tetraconch); the Church of the unknown initiation in the village Coast near Galich, the second half of XII century (tetraconch); the Church of Elijah the prophet in Galicia, the second half of XII century (rotunda with two adjacent volumes, maybe, with a tower);

Church-belfry of St John Climacus 1329 and 1505-1508 years, Novgorod "chasozvonya" 1443, first of khutynsk pillar" 1445.

In this regard, it is important to note that if we have the right to talk about any external origins of hip architecture, not Gothic, but the combination of Byzantine and Romanesque: exactly in these samples ascended ancient domed churches of the XII-XV centuries (for example, in paragraph (1 we mentioned the Church of St. Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople and San Vitale in Ravenna, you can remember and a chapel of Charles the Great in Aachen, the turn of the VIII and IX centuries). Wooden rotunda over the Holy Sepulchre also appeared much earlier Gothic. But the Byzantine-Romanesque influence is indirect and distancionnym.

E.E. Golubinsky called domed churches "side form of ancient architecture"111. But since the replacement dome tent this type ceased to be a "side" and became one of the main.

And of these three conclusions should fourth: in 1510-ies two secondary typology of the old Russian Church architecture - wooden tent and stone dome - United into one of the basic types (in our classification - fifth, digital designation - 5).

This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that almost simultaneously with a hipped the Trinity Cathedral in Alexandrov Sloboda, which had its basis in the quadrangle, were erected pillar-shaped domed octagon (Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda112, 1513,, Il. 34) and dome pillars tetraconch (St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery, 1514-1517 years, Il. 7). All these temples are the same architect - Aleviz New, the same customer - Vasily III, similar to the circumstances of the occurrence.

 

The Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda. Reconstruction of the author.

 

Silt. 34. The Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda. Reconstruction of the author.

 

Soon, already in 1529-1532 years, was built and the first pillar-shaped vaulted Church with a polygonal plan type described circle - the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (Fig. 35). The customer was the same - Vasily III, architect - re Italian, Petroc minor113.

 

 

Silt. 35. The Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye. The plan.

 

It is important to note that the fifth major type we refer exclusively pillarless temples. If tent was covered by a dome box temple with supports in the interior (so rare in ancient architecture occurred in the construction in Solovki in 1558-1566 years Transfiguration Cathedral; in XVII century tent was replaced by a dome), a priority basis in the determination of the typology of the temple should be the number and location of supports. (Typological classification of the Solovetsky Cathedral, see paragraph 6). Similarly classified and temples with dense arches, drums which topped with tents (as the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in Putinki, 1649-1652 years): the priority is not the tent, and cloistered vault. This is because, as we showed above, the tent, as a replacement dome, is not self-sufficient typological characteristics.

Thus, the fifth main type of the old Russian Church architecture - pillarless tent and domed churches.

 

9. Subtypes of the fifth main type of ancient temples and derived from it type

 

In the fifth main type (pillarless tent and domed temples), it is logical to allocate:

- floors - hipped dome and temples;

- the outlines of the plan - temples on square and temples with the plan of the type described a circle".

The combination of these forms gives three subtypes (formed in parallel with the main type) and a derived type (formed after the primary).

The first subtype (digital designation - 5.1) - steepled churches on square. First typologically Mature temple was Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda (1513 year; see item 8, Il. 31). This quite rare subtype belonged to the Cathedral of Kolomna Brusensky monastery (1552 year), Cosmas and Damian Church in Murom (1556-1565 years), the Church of Elijah the Prophet in the Prussians (1578), the Church of the Nativity in Conversations (end of XVI century).

The second subtype (digital designation - 5.2) - steepled churches with the plan of the type described a circle". First typologically Mature Church was the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532 years). In the future, this subtype (or its complicated multi-component form) was the most common, belong to such masterpieces as the Cathedral of the intercession on the Moat (1555-1561 years), Borisoglebsky Cathedral in Staritsa (1558-1561 years), the Church of Peter the Metropolitan in Pereslavl (1584-1585 years), the Church of the Transfiguration in the Island (end of XVI century), the Boris and Gleb Church in near Borisov Town (1600-1603 years), hip rotunda of the new Jerusalem monastery (1660-ies) and other

The third subtype (digital designation - 5.3) - domed churches with the plan of the type described a circle". First typologically Mature temples we can consider the Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda (1513 year) and St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery (1514-1517 years).

In the future, this subtype was ousted marquee architecture and until the second half of XVII century was rare (the most famous temple of this type, which, as suggested by V.V. Kavelmaher, built masters of the Cathedral of intercession on the Moat and the Cathedral of STS in Staritsa, the Church of the beheading of John the Baptist in Djakova, 1550-s114).

In the mid-1650-ies was a de facto ban on the tent-roofed temples. On it we can judge only indirectly - on texts of a number of Church-grant grammota of diplomas115 but still believe that it was the ban, and it came from the Patriarch Nikon. In favor of this, you can bring the following arguments:

- it is unlikely that in conditions of a rigid hierarchical system in the Russian Orthodox Church without Patriarch's blessing (i.e. specify) could receive a large number of similar Church-grant grammota of ratification prescribing build dome types of heads, and forbidding to build a tent;

- after 1650-ies of the history of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture in fact was completed, tents over the temples since it was built very rarely and only on the side-altars in the Church of St. Nicholas the Wet 1665-1672 years in Yaroslavl. "Architectural fashion" in itself could not be replaced so quickly - within a few years;

- when in 1660-ies the Nikon built in new Jerusalem monastery huge tent over the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre, formally ban violated was not as hip rotunda had its own Church consecration and was the only part of the resurrection Cathedral.

In whatever forms - oral or written - this ban was expressed, since in droves tents continued to be built only on the bell towers, not having own Church empowerments (we may assume this is the bell tower of the "typological successor" tent churches).

But the search for new forms of overlap temples in return tent - forbidden - continued. And as in the beginning of XVI century tent was the replacement dome (see item 8), and in the second half of the XVII century the dome, in the new conditions, was the replacement of the tent. Accordingly, domed temples type described circle again began to be erected, although in small quantities (examples are the Church of the Sign in Dubrovica116, 1690-1703 years; nadkladeznaya the chapel of the Holy Trinity-Sergius monastery, the end of XVII century): this time, this subtype was replaced by "octagon on square" (see below). However, this subtype as the first two, was widely spread in the architecture of the bell towers.

The derived type from the fifth main (digital designation - 5.4) - dome on square. In this derived type is appropriate to highlight two subtypes, depending on the presence or absence of a drum.

The first subtype (digital designation - 5.4.1) - pillarless temples, in which the cupola rests on the walls of the square, either directly through the sails or Tromp, either through a round drum.

Such temples in Russian architecture of the XVI-XVII centuries were rare. The first temple, where the dome is supported directly on a rectangular base, can be considered as the refectory Church of the Annunciation in the Ferapontov monastery (early 1530's, Il. 36)117. This type are Sretensky monastery refectory of St. Anthony " s monastery (1535-1538 years), Northern side-altar of the Cathedral, Nikitsky monastery (1564 year), the refectory Church of the Dormition of Krypetsk monastery (until 1584), and others More rarely were built domed churches with round drums (assumption Church in Ivangorod, 1558 year).

 

 

Silt. 36. Refectory Church of the Annunciation in the Ferapontov monastery.

 

The second subtype (digital designation - 5.4.2) are temples with no columns with domes on the octagonal drum (this type of temple known as the octagon on square").

I.L. Buseva-Davydov believed118 that the origins of the temples type "octagon on square" to be found in the architecture of Ukraine, where in 1681 "to describe the Church's drawings" was sent to the master of the Armoury chamber, and after his return in Tsarskoye Selo resurrection on Presnya was to begin construction of the new Church - centric, with four symmetric semi-circular apses, completed the octagon.

But we cannot agree with the researcher at least because the first typologically Mature temple of this type appeared earlier 1681 - in 1678. It was not survived the Church of Prince Joasaph in Izmailovo (Fig. 37119).

 

The Church of Prince Joasaph in Izmailovo. Lithography of the XIX century..

 

Silt. 37. The Church of Prince Joasaph in Izmailovo. Lithography of the XIX century..

 

Actually the Genesis of the form "octagon on square" quite clear, logical and has roots exclusively in Russian architecture.

No columns bushels, covered a variety of codes (dome, groin, closed etc)were widespread in the XVIand XVII century. Tents on the octagonal drum usually overlap more complex volumes, although, as we saw above, and bushels too (Cosmas and Damian Church in Murom, the Church of the Nativity in Conversations and others).

As we said above, in the middle of the XVII century, the history of old Russian tent-roofed architecture in fact proved to be completed, but the search for new forms instead of hip - forbidden - continued, and the dome, in the new conditions, was the replacement of the tent.

Chetverikov was the most optimal form of the main volume from the point of view of capacity and ease of construction. Tent (respectively, and its replacement dome) on the large and high drum created a feeling of elevation and solemnity. The combination of the square and the octagon (especially if the building tetragonality semicircles, rising to multilobe the semicircles of the Cathedral High-Petrovsky monastery) created an impression of the richness and diversity of forms.

Temples of type "octagon on square" at the end of the XVII century were built in large numbers in a variety of forms, and therefore we considered it possible to allocate them in a separate subtype. The most famous temples of this type - the Church of Intercession in Fili (1690-1693 years, Il. 6), Signs on Sheremetevo yard (1689-1691 years), of the Saviour in Hats (1694-1697 years), the gate Church of the new Jerusalem monastery (1694-1697 years), the Kazanskaya Church in the Narrow (1697) and others in order

 

10. Special types of ancient temples

 

Special types of churches that do not fit into the main bit, and their specificity is due to specific circumstances.

The first special type (digital designation - 6) is a cross-domed its temples. We know of only three such temple (Fig. 2: this is the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev (1037 year), Novgorod (1045-1050 years) and Polotsk (up to 1066).

We have already mentioned in paragraph 2 that the adoption in Ancient Russia Byzantine Christianity has necessitated the construction of the maximum possible number maximally large, representative and largest temples, and try increasing the internal space was increased revnosti. But additional naves led to the reduction of the structural soundness of the temples and increase of requirements to qualification of construction personnel. In this regard, its temples ceased to be built in the second half of XI century.

The second special type of ancient temples (digital indication 7) - wooden. About them it is impossible to forget, as quantitatively they accounted for the bulk of the churches. It is impossible to completely separate them from stone architecture: although they are not formed "architectural mainstream, but, as we saw in paragraph 8, had a certain influence on the formation of the latter.

We do not enter wooden architecture in the main types as plans and wooden floorings temples very significantly different from the stone, and such an important base typological characteristic of the ancient Russian architecture, as cross-supolnast, in them it is possible only theoretically. Therefore, we have allocated wooden churches in special type. Consideration of the Genesis of many subtypes of wooden architecture is beyond the scope of this study120.

 

Conclusion

 

So, we have described the typological formation and proposed a universal classification of ancient temples on the base of typological characteristics (plan and overlap). The classification is shown in Table. 1. For simplicity in the Table. 1 only the first typologically Mature temples; about their Byzantine, Roman and Russian prototypes we mentioned in paras. 4-9.

Figure 1 summarizes the conventional scheme of architectural influences in old Russian Church architecture. In this scheme, the distribution by centuries of the types indicated by the figures in Table. 1, given conditionally, by date of first typologically Mature temples, with rounding dates before century.

In Table. 2121 shows the overall structure of the old Russian stone Church architecture on the base of typological characteristics. In parentheses are the digital designation types according to Table. 1. It should be noted that Table. 2, in contrast to the Table. 1 and Diagram 1, structured on formal grounds and does not reflect real processes typological groups.

All basic and derived types temples, classified in our research on basic typological characteristics (plan and overlap), enriched secondary typological characteristics (apses, the heads, the narthex located choirs, galleries, porches, trepetnye, stair towers, basement, different endings facades, chapels, belfries and other), the variety of style and technology. This created a unique identity of each monument of the old Russian Church architecture.

 

Table 1

Basic typological classification of the old Russian Church architecture

 

Digits.

hereafter.

type

Name

type

Brief description of the type

 

Indicative

time

the existence of type

First typologically

Mature temples

 

1

The first main

Cross-domed six pillars three-nave churches

Since the end of the XI century to the New time

Assumption Cathedral of Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (1073-1077 years)

2

The second main

Centric cross-domed

three-nave churches

Since the mid - XII century to the New time

White stone temples of Yuri Dolgoruky (1152)

2.1

The first is derived from the second main

Four-column temples with elevated supporting arches

From the end of XII century to the New time

Pyatnitskaya Church in Chernihiv (boundary XII-XIII centuries), the Cathedral of the Archangel Michael in Smolensk (1191-1194 years)

2.2

The second derives from the second main

"Inscribed cross"

(temples " pylon)

Since the beginning of the XIV century until the XV century

The Church of the beginning of the XIV century: John the Baptist on the Settlement in Kolomna and St. Nicholas in the village of Kamianske

2.3

The third is derived from the second main

Four-column temples with pyramidal sloping walls

With the first quarter of the XV century to the middle of the XVI century

Zvenigorod white-stone cathedrals of the beginning of the XV century

3

The third main

(in fact, derived from the second main)

Two-column temples with "degenerate" structure under high iconostasis

Since the beginning of XVI century up to the New time

The Annunciation Church of the Annunciation Pogost (the first third of the XVI century)

3.1

The derived type from the third key

Two-column temples with the Central drum on the axis of the supports

From 1560-ies to the New time

The Annunciation Cathedral in Solvychegodsk (1560-1579 years)

4

The fourth main

(in fact, derived from the second main)

Temples with no columns covered various systems of codes

Since the end of XV century till the New time

The Church Trifon Naprudnom (mid 1470's mid-1480-s)

4.1

First subtype of the fourth main

Temples with no columns covered groin vault

Since the end of XV century till the New time

The Church Trifon Naprudnom (mid 1470's mid-1480-s)

4.2

The second subtype fourth main

Temples with no columns covered by the system based on each other arches

From the middle of the XVI century to the middle of XVII century

Church of the assumption in the Gdov (1557-1561 years)

4.3

The third subtype fourth main

Pillarless temples, cloistered vault

From the middle of XVI century up to the New time

A number of Novgorod churches 1550-s

5

The fifth main

Pillarless dome and steepled churches

With 1510-ies to the New time

Trinity Church (now Cover) and Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda (1513 year), St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery (1514-1517 years)

5.1

The first subtype of the fifth main

Tent churches on square

With 1510-ies until the mid-1650-s

Trinity Church (now Cover) Alexandrov Sloboda (1513 year)

5.2

The second subtype of the fifth main

Tent churches with the plan of the type described circle

With 1510-ies until the mid-1650-s

The Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532 years)

5.3

The third subtype of the fifth main

Domed churches with the plan of the type described circle

With 1510-ies to the New time

The Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda (1513 year), St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery (1514-1517 years)

5.4

The derived type from the fifth main

Domed churches on square

From 1530-ies to the New time

The Church of the Annunciation in the Ferapontov monastery (early 1530's)

5.4.1

The first subtype of the derived type from the fifth main

Temples with a dome, arranged directly on square or round drum

From 1530-ies to the New time

The Church of the Annunciation in the Ferapontov monastery (early 1530's)

5.4.2

The second subtype of the derived type from the fifth main

Temples with a dome, arranged on an octagonal

drum ("octagon on square")

From the middle of XVI century up to the New time

The Church of Prince Joasaph in Izmailovo (1678 year)

6

The first special

 

Cross-domed its temples

The middle of XI century

Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev (1037 year)

7

The second special

Wooden architecture

All time of existence of ancient architecture

First Sophia Cathedral in Kiev (952 year)

 

 

Scheme 1.

Conventional scheme architectural influences in old Russian Church architecture

 

 

Table 2.

The structure of the old Russian stone Church architecture

on the base of typological characteristics

 

Plan

Five-nen.

(6)

Three-

nefn.

six-pillar.

(1)

Three-nave

four pillars

Three-nave

two-column

 

"VPI-

sledge

cross"

(2.2)

Pillarless

Re-

a regional

 

 

Classic

system

(vaults and arches

approximately at the same level)

The upward.

poder.

arch

(2.1)

Klas-

classical

C entre-

ical

system

mA

(3)

With

the center. bar-ban-axis bearings

(3.1)

 

System

vaults

Tent

Dome

Special-

ness

volume-

space-

public

solutions

 

 

With

Verti-

your local domain.

walls

(2)

With

beveled-

tion

walls

(2.3)

 

 

 

 

With the BAP

Matem

vault

(4.1)

With

STU-

pen.

SVO-

DAMI

(4.2)

With

somk-

nuty

vault

(4.3)

On

included four Rica

(5.1)

"OPI-sledge

neighborhood-

ness"

(5.2)

"OPI-sledge

neighborhood-

ness"

(5.3)

On

included four Rica,

without

bar

Bana

(5.4.1)

On

included four Rica,

with

bar

ban

(5.4.2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

1. In this case we are talking about venues as annexes to the temples. In the literature about the monasteries often used the term "refectory Church", but this is only terminological simplification, meaning that adjoins the Church refectory. The formal definition of "the refectory Church" can be either "the Church with a refectory"or "the refectory with the Church" (depending on context).

2. Since the belfry in the churches "under the bells" is located above the arches, this does not affect the basic typological classification of the temple.

3. History of Russian architecture. M., 1956. C. 21.

4. Drawing A.G. Chinyakova. Given in the book: Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries. M., 1961-1962. So 1. C. 81.

5. There may be a large number of options, so we only talk about the most common orientation (see: Zagraevsky S.V. ABOUT the scientific basis of "azimuth method (the method of determination dates and initiations of ancient temples in azimuth their altars). In the book: The architect. The city. Time. Materials of the international scientific-practical conference (Veliky Novgorod - St. Petersburg). United edition of the XIII and XIV conferences. SPb, 2011. C. 69-74).

6. The A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture of the end of X-the beginning of XII century Byzantine heritage and the development of independent traditions. M., 1987. C. 171.

7. The issues of reconstruction of the original form of Vladimir assumption Cathedral of Andrei Bogolyubsky (1158-1160 years), see the book.: Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve. M., 2008. C. 93-101.

8. For example, see: History of Russian art. M., 1953. So 1. C. 11-154; History of Russian architecture. M., 1956. C. 11-63; General history of architecture. L; M, 1966. CH. 9-12, etc.

9. The A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture... S. 135.

10. For the first time the term "cross-dome" is found in the book: Brunow NI essays on the history of architecture. M., 1937. So 2. C. 467. Apparently, the author of this term should be considered NI Brunova. The term in the decree. compositions were written with a hyphen.

11. For example, see: Brunow NI Decree. cit. So 2; Maksimov PN. The Cathedral of the Spaso-Andronikov monastery in Moscow. In the book: Architectural monuments of Moscow XV-XVII century. New research. M. 1947. C. 8-32; Brunow N., Travin N. The Sofia Cathedral in Novgorod. In the book: Reports of the Institute of history and theory of architecture. Vol. 7. M., 1947. C. 1-41; Voronin N.N. Vladimir, Bogolyubovo, Suzdal, Yuriev-Polsky. The book is a companion on ancient cities of Vladimir land. M., 1967; A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture...

12. For example, see: Voronin N.N. To the characteristic architectural monuments of Kolomna time of Dmitry Donskoy. In the book: Materials and researches on archeology of the USSR, Materials and researches on archeology of Moscow. T. II. No. 12. M.-Leningrad, 1949; History of Russian art. M., 1953. So 1. C. 11-154; History of Russian architecture. M., 1956. C. 11-63; General history of architecture. L; M, 1966. CH. 9-12; Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia...; Rappoport P.A. the Architecture of Ancient Russia...; Maksimov PN. Foreign relations in the architecture of Novgorod and Pskov XI-beginning of the XVI centuries. In the book: Architectural heritage. Vol. 12. M., 1960. C. 25-46.

13. The author also previously wrote this term together (for example, see: Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture. M, 2002; Zagraevsky SV Architecture of North-Eastern Russia the end of the XIII century to the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003).

14. General history of architecture. L; M, 1966. So 3. C. 84.

15. Domed temples are sometimes called rotundas, which is true of all churches, for example, the mausoleum of Galla Placidia or Zvartnots, but not quite true of octagons, for example, the Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda 1513. Sometimes they are called pillars, but it is true only when elongated upwards proportions.

16. Buseva-Davydova I. Architecture of the XVII century. In the book: The artistic and aesthetic culture of Ancient Russia XI-XVII century. M., 1996. C. 426-457.

17. The A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture... S. 43.

18. Ibid. C. 47.

19. E.E. Golubinsky history of the Russian Church. So 1. 'clock 1. M., 1901. Vol.1, part 2. M., 1904. Reprint ed. M., 1997; Brunow NI essays on the history of architecture... So 2; A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture...

20. N.I. Brunow believed that domed Basilica appeared, because "the dome of the Pantheon hoisted the Basilica of Maxentius" (Brunow NI Decree. cit. So 2. C. 17). But in fact, between the ancient Roman temples and Byzantine domed basilicas were various transitional stages (in particular, domed rotunda above the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, 335 year). In detail the Genesis of this type of temples traced in the book: The A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture... S. 9-27.

21. E.E. Golubinsky Decree. cit. So 1. C. 25-35.

22. For more information, see: Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 81-113.

23. Brunow NI Decree. cit. So 2. C. 424-425.

24. General history of architecture... So 3. C. 44-45.

25. Ibid. C. 80-82.

26. In particular, the A.I. Komech wrote: "the plans for the buildings usually reflect the needs of a practical nature. In VI and in later centuries, the strengthening of the role in the liturgical rite of the Proskomedia demanded adjacent to the main altar of the location of the altar and of the diaconicon. Arose three-and, as the most popular option, trehapsidnoy structure of the altar part of the temple" (A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture... S. 33).

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. In the same study the A.I. Komech led her thoughts about the symbolism and aesthetics and detail (see ibid., C. 33-37). It is interesting to note that the Church historian E.E. Golubinsky in the study of the Genesis of cross-domed type temples were put at the head of structural causes, and architecture historian the A.I. Komech and theology.

30. If we took the position A.I. of Komech (as well as many other supporters direct and immediate influence of the symbols on the architecture of the temples: see, for example, the thematic catalogue "Symbols of ancient Russian architecture" in the electronic library "Rusarh", www.rusarch.ru), we would have to assume that "creative method" medieval architects looked something like this: "if I did Not make the Church one Chapter, because it symbolizes the unity of God? No, better make three chapters in honor of the Trinity... No, better make five chapters in honor of Jesus and evangelists"... And so on for every architectural element. Of course, this is absurd.

31. For example, why triglava temple symbolizes certainly the Trinity? Why didn't Jesus the Almighty, the virgin and John the Baptist (in accordance with the Deesis rank of the iconostasis)? Likewise, you can also cast doubt on the symbolic interpretation of almost any architectural element.

32. E.E. Golubinsky Decree. cit. So 1. C. 25-35. Further confirmation of objectivity of the researcher sees the fact that the structural causes of Genesis forms of Church architecture was proposed by the historian of the Church, and in the early twentieth century, when making this or that element of the architecture of the temples symbolic interpretations was very popular.

33. Brunow NI Decree. cit. So 2. C. 444.

34. Ibid. C. 452.

35. For more information, see: Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 81-113.

36. Maybe someday will be found direct or indirect confirmation or refutation of the existence of such instructions or such a ban.

37. Brunow NI Decree. cit. So 2. C. 413.

38. Typological line Byzantine architecture, which influenced the formation of architecture of Kievan Rus XI century, were traced in A.I. of Komech (A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture... S. 17-26). In particular, the researcher felt that the tithe Church in Kyiv and the Cathedral of the Transfiguration in Chernigov close to the temple in Der Agzi (X century) and composition, and its size.

39. A.I. the Komech, in particular, wrote: "the Whole space of the temple on four columns cannot be its. It can surround galleries, galleries, single and bunk, but to the whole composition was single, it would have to be raised. To talk about patienti all known temples of Constantinople, we can not, no matter what extension them neither was surrounded by" (A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture... S. 62).

40. This way of increasing the capacity of the temple took place not only in Ancient Russia, but in the Byzantine Empire (the Church of St. Clement in Ankara, VI-IX century; Sofia to Thessaloniki, VIII century; Archangels in whitefish, VIII century; and others in order). A.I. the Komech thought, "this tradition, though not in pure form, will be essential for the Kiev construction the middle of XI century" (A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture... S. 17).

41. The chance that you can find any direct or indirect documentary information on this account still exists, and the author is currently working on this issue.

42. Details on the prohibition of the Russian Orthodox Church on zooantroponoznyh decor see: Zagraevsky SV Architecture of North-Eastern Russia the end of the XIII century to the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003. C. 99-105.

43. For example, see: Brunow NI essays on the history of architecture...; A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture...

44. For example, see: Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia... So 1. C. 47; Rappoport P.A. the Architecture of Ancient Russia. Leningrad, 1986. C. 37.

45. Dating justification of the assumption Cathedral is given in the book.: Rappoport P.A. the Architecture of Ancient Russia... S. 34, 37.

46. Voronin N.N. The Architecture Of Kievan Rus. In the book: The history of Russian art. M., 1953. So 1. With 135-137.

47. Rappoport P.A. the Architecture of Ancient Russia... S. 36.

48. For more information, see: Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia... So 1. C. 47.

49. Ibid. C. 37.

50. This point of view on the role of the assumption Cathedral of Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in the history of ancient architecture is common, it is not contested any one researcher, and author also saw no need to revise it.

51. For more information, see: Zagraevsky SV Beginning of the "Russian romanik: Yuri Dolgoruky or Andrey Bogolyubsky? M., 2006; Zagraevsky S.V. ABOUT the possibility of introducing into the scientific circulation and the possible contexts of use of the term "Russian Gothic architecture of Ancient Russia of the end of XIII-the first third of the XV century. M., 2008. The articles are on the Internet site www.rusarch.ru.

52. The term "Russian romanik" was back in the 1920-ies suggested by F. Halle in relation to the white stone of the pre-Mongolian churches of North-Eastern Russia (F. Halle. Russische Romanik. Die Bauplastik von Wladimir - Souzdal. Berlin - Wien - Zurich, 1929). In Soviet time it practically was not used, because the similar terminology, directly linking the architecture of Ancient Russia and Western Europe, there was an unofficial ban.

In the post-Soviet time this term was first used by the A.I. Komech - in the name of his scientific work and without limitation, i.e. as a kind of absolute given (A.I. Komech Architecture of Vladimir 1150-1180's. Artistic nature and Genesis of the "Russian romanik. In the book. Old Russian art. Russia and the countries of the Byzantine world. XII century. SPb, 2002).

However, as shown in special works the author of this study (Zagraevsky SV Beginning of the "Russian Romanesque...; Zagraevsky S.V. ABOUT the possibility of introducing into the scientific circulation and the possible contexts of use of the term "Russian Gothic...), this term is actually quite conventional, and its scientific use requires a large number of reservations.

53. O.M. ioannisyan Main stages of development of the Galician architecture. In the book: Old Russian art. Art culture's-the first half of the XIII century, M. 1988. C. 42.

54. Detailed justification for the beginning of the white-stone building in Suzdal see: Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 27-80.

55. For more information, see: Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky...; Zagraevsky SV apology Rostov chronicler (to the question about the Dating temples Yuri Dolgoruky). In the book: Materials of the regional conference dedicated to the centenary of the birth of N.N. Voronin (19 April 2004.). Vladimir, 2004. C. 15-26; Zagraevsky SV Beginning of the "Russian Romanesque...; Zagraevsky S.V. ABOUT the possibility of introducing into the scientific circulation and the possible contexts of use of the term "Russian Gothic...

56. Zagraevsky SV apology Rostov chronicler... S. 17; Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve. M., 2008. C. 27-58.

57. Zagraevsky SV Beginning of the "Russian Romanesque...

58. For more information, see: Zagraevsky SV Architect Frederick Barbarossa. M., 2011. The article is on the web-site www.rusarch.ru.

59. Voronin N.N. The Architecture Of Vladimir-Suzdal Russia. In the book: The history of Russian art. M., 1953. So 1. C. 345.

60. The A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture... S. 281.

61. Ibid.

62. O.M. ioannisyan Main stages of development of the Galician architecture... S. 43.

63. Ibid; Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 41-45.

64. Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 41.

65. The A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture... S. 81.

66. Wagner G.K. of originality of style formation in the architecture of Ancient Russia (return to the problem). In the book: Architectural heritage. Vol. 38. M., 1995. C. 23. Unfortunately, the author took the position G. Wagner without critical evaluation (for example, see: Zagraevsky SV Beginning of the "Russian Romanesque...; Zagraevsky S.V. ABOUT the possibility of introducing into the scientific circulation and the possible contexts of use of the term "Russian Gothic...)

67. In addition to the towering stone churches in Russia were many and towers-"Stoyanov" (PSRL 15:183). M. Il'in, P. Maximov and V.V. Kostochkin believed that the speech in the chronicle was a wooden tent temples (Ilyin M.A., Maksimov P.N., Kostochkin CENTURIES the Stone architecture of the epoch of blossoming of Moscow. In the book: The history of Russian art. So 3. M., 1955. C. 266), but we cannot exclude that the issue was about wooden bell-towers, i.e. practically the full analogue of Romanesque and Gothic towers.

68. Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia... So 1. C. 103.

69. History of Russian architecture... S. 39.

70. For clarification of the Dating of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl: Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve. M., 2008. CH. 8.

71. In 2001, the author wrote the book "Yuri Dolgoruky and the old white-stone architecture": "Not afraid to say that in importance to culture and politics of Russia (unfortunately, the load on the economy) construction Dolgoruky four or five white stone churches are quite comparable with the Foundation of St. Petersburg" (Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 139).

72. Voronin N.N. The Architecture Of Vladimir-Suzdal Russia. In the book: The history of Russian art. M., 1953. So 1. C. 317.

73. Higher arches in Uspensky Cathedral Ivan Kalita, it was assumed in the reconstruction and N.N. Voronin (Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia... So 1. C. 153) and author of the research (Zagraevsky SV Architecture of North-Eastern Russia the end of the XIII century to the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003. C. 97).

74. For clarification Dating Cathedral of the Andronikov monastery see: Zagraevsky SV inthe survey of the architectural history of the Cathedral of the Saviour of the Andronikov monastery. M., 2008. C. 22-27.

75. N.N. Voronin wrote about low structural reliability temples with elevated supporting arches (Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia... So 2. C. 109). The author thoroughly justified the illegality of such claims in the book: Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 106-107.

76. Details about the Dating of the Church of John the Baptist on the Settlement in Kolomna, St. Nicholas Church in the village of Kamianske, the first cathedrals Bobreneva and Golutvina monasteries see: Zagraevsky SV Architecture of North-Eastern Russia... S. 41-63.

77. For more information, see: B.L. Altshuler Monuments of architecture of Moscow Russia the second half of XIV-early XV centuries (new studies). The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of candidate of architecture. As a manuscript. M., 1978. With 101-109.

78. Brunow NI Decree. cit. So 2. C. 468.

79. For more information see: Zagraevsky SV Architecture of North-Eastern Russia...

80. B.L. Altshuler Decree. back With. 101.

81. By P.A. the Rappoport, temples type "inscribed cross" are called cross-domed churches, in which corner compartments equal to the height of the arms of the cross and not separate from them walls (Rappoport P.A. the Architecture of Ancient Russia. Leningrad, 1986. C. 155).

82. Baldin VI Architecture of the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. In the book: Architectural heritage. No. 6. M., 1956. C. 25.

83. In the Cathedral of the Andronikov monastery small slope inward has only average apse.

84. For more information, see: Zagraevsky S.V. TO a question of old Russian military monasteries and temples. M., 2011. The article is on the web-site www.rusarch.ru.

85. For more information, see: Hulanicki NF ABOUT forming the foundations of the interior of the temples of the xv-the middle of the xvi centuries (function, structure, the iconostasis). In the book: Architectural heritage. Vol. 38. M., 1995. C. 236-264.

86. Ibid.

87. Voronin N.N. To the history of Russian architecture of the XVI century. In the book: State Academy of history of material culture. The office for graduate students. Leningrad, 1929. Vol. 1. With. 83-93.

88. Read more about the circumstances of the Grand-Ducal order, see: Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 89.

89. Bocharov G.N., Vygolov VP Solvychegodsk, Great Ustyug, Totma. Leningrad, 1983; Vygolov VP Architecture are the Annunciation Cathedral in Solvychegodsk. In the book: Archive architecture. Vol. 1. M., 1992. C. 77-101.

90. For more information, see: Zagraevsky SV Architectural history of the Church Trifon Naprudnom and origin groin vault. M., 2008. C. 25-28.

91. Zagraevsky SV Architectural history of the Church Trifon Naprudnom... S. 29.

92. The specification of a number of temples Dating from the groin vault, see ibid., C. 21-23.

93. For more information, see: Sedov VLV About the date of the Church of the assumption Cathedral and bell tower in the Gdov. In the book: The archaeology and history of Pskov and the region. Abstracts of the annual scientific-practical conference. 1993. Pskov, 1994.

94. For more information, see: Zagraevsky S.V. TO a question about the Dating of the Church the monk Nikon (Nikon chapel Trinity Cathedral in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. In the book: Monuments of culture. New discoveries. 2006. M., 2009. C. 616-624.

95. For more information, see: Sedov VLV Cathedral rizopolozhensky monastery in Suzdal. In the book: Novgorod ancient times. Vol. V. Collection of articles. M., 2000. P.184-199.

96. Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda. M., 2008. CH. 4; Zagraevsky SV Pfirst stone vaulted Church and the origin of hip architecture. M., 2008. The article is on the web-site www.rusarch.ru; Zagraevsky S.V. TO a question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda. In the book: Zubovsky reading. Sat. articles. Vol. 3. Strunino, 2005. C. 69-96.

97. For more information, see: Ilyin M.A., Maksimov P.N., Kostochkin CENTURIES Decree. back With. 414; Ilyin M.A. Russian tent-roofed architecture. The monuments of the middle of XVI century. Problems and hypotheses, ideas and images. M., 1980. C. 14; Wagner G.K. of originality of style formation in the architecture of Ancient Russia (return to the problem). In the book: Architectural heritage. Vol. 38. M., 1995. C. 27.

98. For more information, see: Ilyin M.A., Maksimov P.N., Kostochkin CENTURIES Decree. back With. 414; Maksimov P.N., Voronin N.N. The wooden architecture of XIII-XVI centuries. In the book: The history of Russian art. M., 1955. So 3. C. 268; Ilyin M.A. Decree. back With. 15.

99. For more information, see: Kavelmaher CENTURIES Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda (collection of articles). Vladimir, 1995; Kavelmaher CENTURIES of Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda (collection of scientific papers). M., 2008.

100. Zagraevsky S.V. TO a question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda. In the book: Zubovsky reading. Sat. articles. Vol. 3. Strunino, 2005. C. 69-96; Zagraevsky SV New study of monuments Alexander settlement... S. 5-29.

101. Kavelmaher CENTURIES of Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda... a Set of illustrative material.

102. Zagraevsky SV New study of monuments Alexander settlement... S. 39-47.

103. Tikhomirov, MN. Little-known chronicle monuments of the XVI century In the book: Historical notes, 1941. KN. 10. C. 88.

104. Maksimov P.N., Voronin N.N. The wooden architecture of XIII-XVI centuries. In the book: The history of Russian art. M., 1955. So 3. C. 271.

105. Ibid. C. 268.

106. The A.I. Komech in Ancient Russian architecture... S. 12.

107. The history of Russian art. So 3. M., 1955. C. 416.

108. Kavelmaher CENTURIES Letter to OTHER Timofeeva. 1988. The letter is kept in the Museum "Alexandrovskaya Sloboda".

109. Voronin N.N. The Architecture Of Kievan Rus. In the book: The history of Russian art. M., 1953. So 1. C. 152.

110. Erected New Aleviz stone tent over the naos of the Trinity Cathedral in the Alexander settlement was probably built under the impression of Russian wooden churches, which due to their huge number and formed the overall appearance of the ancient temple architecture is no less if not more, than the few stone temples. So, the VV

111. E.E. Golubinsky history of the Russian Church... So 1. C. 79.

112. V.V. Kavelmaher reconstructed Church of Metropolitan Alexei like a dome, the author of the study - like dome "under the bells"that does not change the basic typology of the nature of this building (see: Zagraevsky SV New study of monuments Alexander settlement... S. 30-38).

113. Pod'yapol'skii S. Architect Petroc Minor. In the book: Monuments of Russian architecture and monumental art. Style, attribution, Dating. M., 1983. C. 39.

114. Kavelmaher CENTURIES ON the late Gothic origins and wizards of the Cathedral of intercession on the Moat, the Cathedral of STS in Staritsa and the Church of the beheading of John the Baptist in Djakova. The Appendix to the book: Kavelmaher V.V., Chernyshev MB Ancient Boris and Gleb Cathedral in Staritsa. M., 2008.

115. Church-grant grammota of ratification, in particular, allowed to build temples "of one, three, five domes, hipped roof of the Church does not build" (CIT. in book.: The history of Russian art. M., 1959. So 4. C. 164; a number of such texts, see: poloznev J.F. ñ Patriarch Nikon tent churches did not prohibit, or once more about the benefits of accessing the sources. The article is on the web-site www.rostmuseum.EN).

116. Because tetralnaya semicircular Znamenskaya Church opened in the naos, and in the forms of the Church is missing the quadrangle, we have no right to refer this Shrine to the type of "octagon on square" (as it was referred, for example, I.L. Buseva-Davydov, see: Buseva-Davydova I. Architecture of the XVII century... S. 446).

117. For more information, see: D.A. Petrov TO the question of pillarless dome structures in the architecture of Novgorod the XVI century In the book: The archaeology and history of Pskov and the region. Abstracts of the scientific-practical conference. Pskov, 1989. In the decree. cit. also mentioned the Annunciation Church of the Borisoglebsky monastery (1526 year), but, as specified A.L. Batalov, she was initially blocked wooden coasting (Batalov A.L. TO the question about the origin of the groin vault in Russian architecture of the XVI century. In the book: Sofia. Sat. articles on the art of Byzantium and Ancient Russia in honor of AI Komech. M., 2006. C. 53.

118. Buseva-Davydova I. Architecture of the XVII century... S. 446.

119. Lithography of the XIX century. In the book: Izmailovo. Monuments of architecture of XVII-XIX centuries M, 1988.

120. This issue was considered in many works (see, for example, the thematic catalogue "Ancient Russian wooden architecture" in the electronic library "Rusarh", www.rusarch.EN).

121. The idea and the General concept of Table 2 proposed to the author HE Popov.

 

 

Sergey Zagraevsky

 

To the page Scientific works

To the main page