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: Заграевский С.В. Типологическое формирование и базовая классификация древнерусского церковного зодчества. 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 the ancient temples of the XI-XVII centuries. The complete 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 symbolics of church architecture is considered. Classification of church architecture of Ancient Russia on the base of the typological characteristics is provided. The work is based on the latest architectural, archaeological and documental data.

The book is recommended for the 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.

 

Saarbrücken, 2015.

ISBN 978-3-659-80841-8

 

 

Introduction

 

Classification of forms and elements of Old Russian church architecture is an issue with which history of architecture deals not for the first century. Describing the buildings intended for Christian liturgy (we will generally call them the temples), researchers characterize them by a number of features. Obviously or "by default" the following features are present at the description of each temple:

– basic typological features – the plan and the ceiling. Describing the plan type, we usually speak about characteristics of the main volume of the temple (quadrangle, octagon, rotunda and so forth) and quantity of supports (pillars, columns). Describing the ceiling type, we speak about various vaults systems (cupolas, cylindrical arches, hipped roofs, cross-like ceilings, closed ceilings and so forth);

– secondary typological features – altar apses, domes (which can include not only cupolas, but superstructures above them), choruses, galleries, antechurches, refectories, ladder towers, basements, terminations of the facades (arched gables, trefoils, double-gable roofs and so forth), side-altars (as external, and on choruses, in apses, in basements and so forth), existence of a belfry (temples "under bells")² and so forth;

– construction materials (plinthite, natural stone, shaped brick, wood and so forth);

– constructive and technological features (existence and arrangement of lesenes, outlines of the arches, sails, tromps, existence of external and internal bonds and so forth);

– stylistic features (architectural figurativeity, proportions, forms of portals, arches, windows, domes, features of decorations and so forth).

All these features are mentioned by researchers in connection with each temple, are used as the basis for datings, are grouped by regions, eras, global styles, etc. Definitions of these features, questions of their genesis and time frames are a studied subject repeatedly.

But none of researchers offered a general classification based not on a formal feature set, but on an integral picture of typological forming of Old Russian church architecture of the XI-XVII centuries.

In this research we will offer and prove the overall picture of genesis and classification of Old Russian temples only by basic typological features – the plan and the ceiling. In architecture of Ancient Russia these features can't be considered separately from each other, because the most important type of temples – cross-in-square – is defined by both the plan and the ceiling (see Fig. 1). Taking secondary typological features into consideration will lead to the increasing of the quantity of types in a geometrical progression, and it can be a subject of other research, much more voluminous than the present one.

The final tables and schemes representing typological forming and classification of Old Russian temples by basic typological features are provided in the Conclusion.

 

1. Main terms and definitions

 

First of all it is necessary to specify some main terms which will be applied in our research.

We will start from the cross-in-square system. Due to the classical definition³, the kernel of such temple represents quadratic (generally – rectcorner) volume divided by four pillars into nine cells, or compartments (Fig. 1⁴). The pillars are connected by the arches bearing the vaults. The center of the kernel is the subcupola quadrate over which the drum is located. The drum stands on supporting arches and is covered with the cupola. The subcupola quadrate is adjoined crosswisely by four rectcorner compartments – the cross sleeves, covered by the cylindrical vaults which resist to the drum pressure. Between them the corner compartments covered by the vaults of various forms are located. The corner compartments resist to the overturning pressure on the pillars of the supporting arches and cylindrical vaults.

 

 

Fig. 1. The section and the plan of the classical cross-in-square temple with 4 pillars and 3 naves (on the example of Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky).

 

The conditional direction of the longitudinal axis of Old Russian temples – from the West to the East, the crossing axis – from the North to the South⁵.

Formally each cross-in-square temple is a special case of the basilica – the rectcorner building consisting of odd number of the naves divided by longitudinal ranks of pillars. Respectively, the naves are also allocated in the longitudinal direction in the kernel of the cross-in-square temple. (The term "transept" for the crossing axis of such temple is used seldom).

The kernel of the cross-in-square temple can be limited by the walls (the temple with 4 pillars) or by additional pillars. If there are additional pillars in the crossing direction, there is the temple with 5 naves (Fig. 2⁶), if the case of longitudinal direction – with 6 pillars (Fig. 3⁷), 8 pillars, etc.

 

 

Fig. 2. Plans of the temples with 5 naves: the cathedrals St. Sophia in Kiev, Novgorod and Polotsk.

 

 

Fig. 3. The plan of Assumption cathedral built by Andrey Bogolyubsky in Vladimir. Reconstruction by the author. This temple had 6 pillars, 3 naves, 3 apses, 3 antechurches. The ladder tower from the northwest was connected to the next buildings.

 

The naos (the main volume of the internal space of the temple) can be adjoined by additional volumes: from the West – by the narthex, from the East – by the bema and the altar apse (apses).

We should note that if the antechurch adjoins the temple from the West, formally it is an analog of a narthex, and the terminological contamination takes place. The similar contamination arises also in the case that the antechurch is opened outside: then it is possible to call it an exonarthex or a porch. In this regard we will specify that the narthex and the exonarthex must be equal or nearly equal to the naos by width and (or) height, and the antechurches and the porches are considerably more narrow and (or) low. The latter ones, unlike the narthex and the exonarthex, can adjoin the temple also from the North and (or) from the South.

The narthex and (or) the bema can be opened into the naos of the temple and separated from it by a wall with apertures or by pillars. In this case there may be different interpretations: for example, it is theoretically possible to characterize Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir (Fig. 3) both as the temple with 6 pillars or with 4 pillars and the narthex.

The second option is traditionally⁸ used only if the narthex and (or) the bema are separated from the naos by a wall and (or) are expressed in external forms of the temple (for example, in Vladimir Assumption cathedral the narthex isn't separated by a wall and isn't expressed architecturally, therefore the temple is considered as having 6 pillars).

This point of view was called into question by A.I. Komech who wrote the following: "In the literature devoted to Old Russian architecture of the X-XV centuries the definition of structure of temples on number of pillars – 4, 6 or 8 – is widespread. Such classification distorts the real composite nature of monuments, besides it interprets forms incorrectly. It is distracted from the representations connected with the basilical constructions and is violent for the buildings of the cross-in-square type. As a rule, all Old Russian temples of the XI-XII centuries (except the simplest) – have 4 pillars, they may be with a narthex (this concept almost disappeared from our architectural descriptions) or without it"⁹.

Thus, according to A.I. Komech, Assumption cathedral built by Andrey Bogolyubsky in Vladimir (Fig. 3), St. George cathedral in Yuryev monastery in Novgorod, Assumption cathedral in Trinity-Sergius Lavra or St. Sophia Cathedral in Vologda must be called not having 6 pillars, but having 4 pillars and a narthex.

But we can't agree with A.I. Komech for the following reasons:

– the traditional point of view accurately defines existence or absence of an architecturally expressed narthex and (or) a bema (either in external forms or separated from the naos by a wall). In case of acceptance of the position of A.I. Komech we should have to specify, about which narthex and (or) bema we speak;

– speaking about "classical" temples with 4 pillars (for example, about Transfiguration cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky (Fig. 1), Intercession church on the Nerl or Saviour church on the Nereditsa), in the case of acceptance of the position of A.I. Komech we should have to specify every time that we speak about the temples without narthex and a bema;

– the point of view of A.I. Komech is applicable only for basilicas of the cross-in-square (Byzantine) type. Basilicas of West European type often also have a cupola over the crossing, and a large number of pillars, and both a narthex and a bema. For example, the Imperial Romanesque cathedral in Speyer (Fig. 4) has the cupola over the crossing, the narthex, the bema and 24 pillars. Respectively, according to A.I. Komech, we should claim that the basilica in Speyer has 4 pillars and 2 narthexes, and one of these narthexes has 20 pillars.

 

 

Fig. 4. The Romanesque cathedral in Speyer. Plan.

 

We see that the acceptance of the position of A.I. Komech unfairly complicates the terminology, confuses it and deprives of universality. In this regard we accept the traditional point of view on the interpretation of the quantity of pillars in any basilicas, including cross-in-square type.

Now we should consider the term "cupola temple". So we will call the temple in which the cupola covers practically the whole naos. Respectively, such temple is usually centric (if doesn't consist of several isolated volumes, each of which is covered by the cupola). Two churches of the VI century – Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople (Fig. 5) and San Vitale in Ravenna – are the examples of the centric cupola temples.

 

 

Fig. 5. Sergius and Bacchus church. Axonometrical section.

 

We should note that "General history of architecture" speaks about the church of Sergius and Bacchus as having 3 naves¹⁰, and, respectively, it turns out that the cupola covers not the whole naos, but only the middle nave. But this statement unfairly confuses terminology, because the initial meaning of the nave is the "ship", i.e. it always has the straight and extended form. Actually the church of Sergius and Bacchus is the cupola temple with the narthex, the apse and the roundabout gallery.

The plan of the cupola temple can have a form:

– of quadrangle (close to a quadrate);

– round (in the form of a rotunda), oktagonal, polygonal¹¹, which we can unite under the conditional name "circumscribed circle".

The special case of the plan of the cupola temple is the tetraconch (other name – quadrifolium). An example – Intercession church in Fili (1690-1693, Fig. 6). Here different interpretations are possible in case of the tetraconch has a quadrangle in its basis. (For example, I.L. Buseva-Davydova referred Intercession church in Fili to the type "octagon on quadrangle", as in this temple the semicurcles are separated from the naos by the walls with apertures and, therefore, these semicurcles are antechurches and apses¹²). In this regard, classifying a tetraconch with a quadrangle in its basis, it is necessary to specify if the semicurcles are opened into the naos or are separated from it by the walls.

 

 

Fig. 6. Intercession church in Fili. Plan.

 

If the tetraconch is not based on an unambiguously expressed quadrangle, such temples, as a rule, belong to the "circumscribed circle" type.

It is possible to refer to the "circumscribed circle" type also the temples with the “multileaf” plan (Pyotr Mitropolit cathedral in Vysoko-Petrovsky monastery, 1514-1517, Fig. 7), and also with cross-like plan (Pyotr Mitropolit church in Pereslavl-Zalessky, 1584-1585, Fig. 8), which are the special cases of polygonal temples.

 

 

Fig. 7. Pyotr Mitropolit cathedral in Vysoko-Petrovsky monastery. Plan.

 

 

Fig. 8. Pyotr Mitropolit church in Pereslavl-Zalessky. Plan.

 

The term "cupola temple" can't be identified with the term "cupola basilica". Usually, speaking about the latter, we mean St. Sophia cathedrals in Constantinople (532–537, Fig. 9) and in Thessaloniki (the first half of the VIII century), Assumption church in Nicaea (the beginning of the VIII century) and some other Byzantine churches. That are the buildings of basilical type (stretched, with the middle nave higher than the lateral ones), covered by big cupolas only in the central part. In such cupola temple as we have spoken above, the cupola covers practically the whole naos.

 

 

Fig. 9. St. Sophia cathedral in Constantinople. Axonometrical section.

 

We have mentioned above the well-known in Russia cross-like plan of a temple (Fig. 8), but we can also discuss the term "cross-like temple" – the cross-in-square temple without the cupola. Neither in Russia, nor in Byzantium such temples existed. But here we have to address to one more branch of basilicas – West European.

Usually all medieval basilicas of the West European type (with big prevalence of length over width) in scientific and popular literature are called basilicas without specifications. Strictly speaking, it isn't quite right for the following reasons:

– the basilicas are also widespread in Byzantium and in Russia as cross-in-square temples (and in Byzantium – also as cupola basilicas);

– in a number of large West European basilicas the crossings are covered by the cupolas, which base on four pillars (as in Imperial cathedral in Speyer, Fig. 4), i.e. there are basic features of the cross-in-square system;

– if a West European basilica has one or more transepts, it ceases to be a basilica of the classical (ancient Roman) type.

In this regard it is always necessary to specify, about what basilicas we speak – the cross-in-square type, the cupola type or West European type. The latter, in turn, has subtypes: with transept and without it.

In the case of presence of one or more transepts in the basilica of West European type it is possible to introduce the concept "cross-like" temple and to use together with the term "Latin cross" which is widely accepted. The cupola over a crossing, even if is present at such system, isn't an essential element in the image of the temple, and this is the fundamental difference of "cross-like" ("Latin cross") basilicas from the basilicas of both cupola and cross-in-square types.

For the West European basilicas without transept it will be useful to specify that we speak about the basilicas of classical type.

In this research we will mention the construction materials of the temples only in the case of wooden architecture or when this is demanded by the context. "By default" we shall speak about stone architecture (by which we will generally mean the temples built of natural stone, plinthite, shaped brick or in the mixed technology – so called "opus mixtum").

Time frames of Old Russian architecture and, respectively, of this research are limited to the end of the XVII century. We will generally call the subsequent eras "Modern times".

 

2. About the reasons of evolution of Byzantine cupola churches to the cross-in-square type

 

Evolution of architectural forms of Byzantine basilicas from the cupola type (an example – St. Sophia cathedral in Constantinople, Fig. 9) to the cross-in-square type (an example – the church of Holy Virgin in the monastery of Lips in Constantinople, 908, Fig. 10¹³, 11¹⁴) within the V-X centuries is studied in details in a number of scientific works¹⁵, and here we will not stop at this question, especially because it treats the main subject of our research – the genesis of Old Russian church architecture – only indirectly: Ancient Russia at a turn of the X and XI centuries apprehended already created result of this evolution and never came back to the cupola basilicas. The question of the reasons for which in Byzantium such evolution took place, is more important for our research.

 

 

Fig. 10. Church of Holy Virgin of the monastery of Lips in Constantinople. Reconstruction by A. Migo.

 

 

Fig. 11. Church of Holy Virgin of the monastery of Lips. Plan.

 

St. Sophia cathedral of 532–537 in Constantinople remained the biggest temple of the Middle Ages for more than one thousand years, up to the construction of St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome (if not by the  square, then by the height of the naos and the diameter of the cupola). The height of St. Sophia cathedral is 56 meters, the diameter of the cupola – 31 meters.

There were no essentially new basic architectural forms in St. Sophia: the basilical and cupola types came (though indirectly¹⁶) from Ancient Rome, and the diameter of the cupola of Pantheon (43 meters) is even more than in Sophia. But the combination of basilical type and the enormous cupola in Constantinopolitan cathedral together with the very big height of the naos and truly ingenious architectural figurativity allowed to build an original masterpiece which, undoubtedly, served as a sample for further architecture of Byzantium.

But the subsequent Byzantine construction eras were unable to reproduct Constantinopolitan Sophia in all its magnificence (first of all concerning the diameter of the cupola, which predeterminates other sizes of the cupola basilicas). The empire reduced, the construction funding shortened, the construction technique degraded, the requirements to construction decreased. Respectively, cupolas couldn't but decrease. In this regard E.E. Golubinsky considered that the cross-in-square system succeeded the cupola system because it provided the similar spaciousness of the temple with the smaller diameter of the cupola¹⁷.

But E.E. Golubinsky's position doesn't answer the vital issue: wasn’t then better to refuse of the cupola at all? The cupola causes not only a number of constructive problems, it together with the drum makes additional load on the arches and pillars of the temple. Basilicas – and classical, and of "Latin cross" type – perfectly do without cupolas, and have much higher reliability and simplicity of construction¹⁸.

 N. I. Brunov believed that the cupola in Byzantine churches was necessary as it symbolized the sky, "framed and finished the liturgical action" ¹⁹. In "General history of architecture" N.I. Brunov's position was expressed even more consistently: firstly the requirements of the liturgy were expressed in the need of existence of a cupola over the ambon in the center of the temple, and of the organization of processions around it. The main accent was postponed from the altar to the cupola, and (we quote) "the simple worship was replaced by the dramatized cult" ²⁰. Then, according to the researcher, the cross-in-square system formed – on the basis of the need to subdivide a temple interior into the central part, with the ambon in the middle, and into the surrounding space accomodating attendees at some distance from the ambon. The role of such divider was played by the pillars, and thus "the idea of hierarchy" ²¹ was expressed.

We can't agree with this position because any other type of vaults could play the cupola role in the liturgy, and the latter would have lost nothing. For example, in "Latin cross" temples the crossings correspond to subcupola squares of Orthodox churches. In general, the liturgy in non-cupola Catholic temples of the West isn't less dramatized, the praying people are much more separated from the priests, the liturgy is visible much better from the sedentary places in the naves.

A.I. Komech, writing about the reason of evolution of the cupola basilica into the cross-in-square type, partially supported the position of N.A. Brunov²², but fairly considered that "such transformations didn't demand, however, the radical change of the structure, since they were quite possible in basilicas" ²³. In this regard A.I. Komech put forward his own reasons connected with symbolics and esthetics of the temples²⁴. He briefly described the essence of his position so: "It is impossible to doubt that the prevailing of the cross-in-square temples is connected with their compliance to certain world outlook base where symbolical ideas and esthetic expressiveness of a ceremony were of great importance, even contrary to some inconvenience" ²⁵.

But it is quite improbable that works of philosophers and theologians, who gave to this or that architectural element this or that symbolical interpretation, could affect a choice of this or that constructive system of the temple, especially so difficult in construction and labor expanditures, as the cupola and cross-in-square systems.

Besides that, history of world architecture knows no facts that some theologian decided that in the interests of symbolics (or any theological theory) the temple has to receive this or that new element or this or that new form, coordinated the position with the funder and ordered to the architect to build quite so, not differently. The similar facts even concerning priestly vestments and liturgical arrangement are unknown to us, and in architecture, which is much more expensive and difficult from the technical and organizational point of view, such situation can't be even imagined.

Symbolical ideas, as well as theological theories and world outlook bases in general, could influence the formation of the tradition only indirectly. Conditionally speaking, the funder orders, the architect builds, the society estimates, the interpreters interpret, the results of the estimation and interpretation are perceived and in a varying degree considered by the next generation of funders and architects, etc.²⁶

Innovations in temple architecture always in a varying degree are the withdrawals from the tradition, and, respectively, they can't be explained by any symbolical interpretation. The talent of architects, and art taste of customers, and progress of construction technology, and change of esthetic preferences of society, and ideological tasks, and loans from other cultures and styles, and many other factors can generate these innovations, up to especially utilitarian purposes (for example, the need to increase the spaciousness of the temple). Financial, and personnel, and other restrictions which can dispose to non-standard decisions also can play a role here.

The usage by the researchers of symbolics as justification of the ways of genesis of architectural forms of temples has one more negative methodological aspect. If in the ancient times the symbolics even had some influence on the genesis of architectural forms (as we’ve seen, that isn't proved), we in each case don't know, which exactly symbolics how influenced. No documentary certificates on this subject remained, and all efforts of the modern researchers in the search of symbolics of these or those architectural features and elements of temples, as a rule, conduct to exclusively subjective opinions, which are easily disproved not only by statistics and the facts, but also by promotion of other subjective opinions, which look no less convincingly²⁷.

As for esthetics, it is even more conditional than symbolics, and the application of esthetic arguments for justification of appearing of new architectural forms is also unfairly from the methodological point of view. There is no doubt that the esthetic preferences influenced architectural forms at all times (otherwise the mankind wouldn't have built anything except especially utilitarian constructions), but we can judge medieval tastes only indirectly – through already accomplished facts of their natural realization. Respectively, all efforts of the modern researchers in the search of the esthetic reasons of the appearing of these or those elements of medieval temples, as a rule, conduct only to the ascertaining that the architect and the funder wanted to build something beautiful.

And in the context of this research, esthetics could influence the genesis of the cross-in-square system rather negatively, than positively: it is unlikely that the cross-in-square temples could ever seem to someone more esthetic than the cupola basilicas, among which there was the unique masterpiece of universal value (possibly, the most beautiful temple of all times and countries) – Sophia in Constantinople.

In connection with all aforesaid we can put forward the other vision of the reasons why the cupola system in Byzantium evolved in the cross-in-square. We assume E.E. Golubinsky's position (he, as it have been said above, considered that the cross-in-square system succeeded the cupola basilics because it provided the similar spaciousness of the temples with the smaller diameter of the cupolas)²⁸, but with an essential specification: it was necessary to keep in the temple at least rather small cupola, because the latter was not just an important architectural and symbolical element, but the basis of the tradition of Byzantine church architecture.

The latter conclusion is based on the following observations:

– the vast majority of Byzantine churches had cupolas, the non-cupola basilicas were constructed very seldom (for example, the church in Mesopotamic town of Sal, the VI century²⁹; Syrian basilicas of the VI century in the towns of Ruvey, Turmanin, Taphka³⁰; St. Demetrius church in Thessaloniki, the VII century; etc.);

– the cupolas were constructed everywhere in spite of the fact that they not only caused a number of problems at their construction, but together with the drums created additional load on the arches and pillars of the temples. Basilicas, both classical and "Latin cross", perfectly did without cupolas and had much higher reliability and simplicity of construction³¹;

– Sophia in Constantinople with its enormous cupola was not only the largest temple, but also the cathedral and imperial temple, so this tradition could have also formal confirmation in the form of direct instructions of the Emperor and (or) Patriarch.

The direct ban in Byzantium for non-cupola temples building is possible³², but the facts of construction of such temples in provinces are against this version. Such construction took place seldom, but nevertheless took place. However, it is impossible to exclude also the probability of violation of such ban by local authorities with the link, for example, to the absence of specialists in cupolas construction: not for nothing, as N.I. Brunov fairly noted, architecture of Byzantine provinces and the capital is quite different³³.

And still, concerning architecture of Byzantium, we meanwhile can't consider as proved the existence of direct state or church instructions on obligatory cupolas construction in the temples and (or) a ban on construction of non-cupola temples. Concerning architecture of Ancient Russia – we can, and about this see further.

 

3. About the ban on non-cupola temples in Ancient Russia

 

The adoption of Byzantine Christianity in Ancient Russia caused the adoption also of Byzantine church architecture³⁴. But the problems of missionary work in the large, formerly pagan country caused local specifics: there was the need of the fastest construction of the greatest possible number of large, representative and capacious stone temples in the conditions of acute shortage of the qualified construction workers. (The short-living, fire-dangerous and having rather small naos wooden temples, about which we will talk in Chapters 8 and 10, solved this problem only partially).

It can seem that the simple and capacious basilicas of West European type, which, as we have seen in Chapter 2, sometimes were under construction also in Byzantium, could be the optimal solution here. But, nevertheless, all stone Old Russian temples had cupolas or their modifications (including hipped roofs, see Chapter 8).

At the primary stage of formation of Old Russian architecture the attempts of increasing of the internal space consisted in the increase of the number of the naves to five, as in St. Sophia сathedrals in Kiev, Novgorod and Polotsk (in Byzantium, as A.I. Komech fairly noted, there were no temples with 5 naves³⁵), and the number of the pillars in the central nave – to eight, as in St. Sophia in Polotsk (see Fig. 2).

But the increase of the number of the naves, as well as the number of the pillars in the temples with 3 naves, in the conditions of the cross-in-square system lead to the decrease of constructive reliability and the requirements to qualification of the construction workers.

The matter is that in the kernel of the cross-in-square temple, the drum-supporting arches under the weight of a drum create overturning efforts on four pillars in the horizontal plane (Fig. 12). Therefore, the the arches of lateral naves play the role of the arkbutans, and the external walls – the role of the buttresses.

 

 

Fig. 12. The conditional scheme of distribution of the load from the drum on the pillars and walls of the cross-in-square temple with 3 naves and 4 pillars.

 

And when at the increase of the number of the naves or the pillars in the central nave (Fig. 13) the additional pillars instead of one of the walls appeare, they become much more exposed to the deformations because of the "overturning" efforts in the horizontal plan, and the reliability of the construction significantly decreases. The installation of additional drums for illumination of the additional compartments aggravates the problem of the "overturning" loadings.

 

 

Fig. 13. The conditional scheme of redistribution of the load of the drum to the pillars and walls at hypothetical transformation of the cross-in-square temple with 4 pillars into the temple with 6 pillars. It is visible that two additional pillars bear the considerable "overturning" load in the horizontal plan, and the wall behind them (a much more reliable constructive element) is almost unloaded. Similar redistribution of loads takes place at the increase of the number of the naves and at further increase of the number of the pillars in the central nave.

 

Thus, in the cross-in-square temple the increase of the number of the pillars leads to the same consequences as the increase of the internal space: in the case of identical central heads the temple with 3 naves and 6 pillars is less reliable than the temple with 3 naves and 4 pillars.

Probably, the foresaid also became the reason that both in Byzantium and in Ancient Russia the tendency to multi-pillar temple interior never took place. Instead of this, the increase of the internal space of the church buildings was achieved by the galleries, antechurches and other extensions³⁶. But such extensions most often spoiled the appearance of the temple, deprived it of solemnity.

In the West European basilicas, where (with rare exception) the pillars carried only the arches, but not drums and cupolas, the increase of the internal space by the increase of the number of the pillars and naves didn't seriously influence the construction durability. However, Old Russian masters didn't apprehend this experience even in the conditions of the full inclusiveness of architecture of Ancient Russia in world architecture since the middle of the XII century (see Chapter 4 and further). Up to the latest time no cupola basilicas were constructed in Russia (as we have seen in Chapter 4, in Byzantium they were built, though occasionally).

The conclusion from this situation can be the following: Byzantine tradition of the obligation of existence of a cupola in the temple turned in Russia into the total ban of non-cupola temples.

In history of architecture in Soviet period the tradition of interpretation of forms and elements of church architecture was consolidated according to construction and technological features, style genesis, art taste, economy, policy and a set of other factors, except an important one: direct influence of Orthodox Church.

But in the end of the X – the beginning of the XI century the Church already existed for the second thousand of years. If to consider since the V century, when it turned into the closed hierarchical system with the settled dogmatic base and the regulated ceremonies, about six hundred years had passed – the considerable term, too. The dependence of the Russian metropolitanate till 1589 dictated especially rigid approach of the Church to the subtleties of architectural style, because all more or less serious innovations were to be coordinated with the Constantinopolitan Patriarch. And the latter understood that typological and stylistic features of temples carried out "visible communication" of Russian Orthodoxy with Byzantium, and the concessions in any of these questions meant the movement of Russian Church to independence, very undesirable for the ambitions (and the economic interests) of the Patriarch.

Perhaps, in this regard the ban on non-cupola temples was undertaken. This ban, in whatever form it took place, was accepted in the first decades of existence of Christianity in Russia, otherwise non-cupola basilicas would have appeared, at least in small quantity³⁷. In the next centuries of formation of Old Russian architecture this ban turned into obligatory tradition, and hardly someone already remembered its roots.

How this ban correlated with the hipped-roof temples, we will talk in Chapter 8. Here we should just note that the only exception which was made in the ban on the non-cupola temples, – the wooden izba-like churches. Perhaps, the latters were considered in Ancient Russia as "temporary". Perhaps, they couldn't be forbidden at all desire, because of absence of enough qualified construction workers for the building of more "refined" types of wooden architecture in the majority of villages.

It is important to note that it is already the third (and chronologically – the first) ban of Russian Orthodox Church on these or those architectural features of temples. The church at the beginning of the XIV century forbid the decoration of temples by Romanesque-Gothic zooanthropomorphous sculptural decor (i.e. the decor with the images of people and animals; this decor should be distinguished from the ornamental decor)³⁸. In the middle of the XVII century the construction of the hipped-roof temples was actually forbidden (about this ban see in details in Chapter 9).

Now, having considered the reasons of absence in Russia of such diverse and worldwide accepted temples as non-cupola basilicas (including the West European type), we can pass to consideration and classification of those basic types which existed in Old Russian church architecture.

 

4. Two sources of architecture of Ancient Russia and two first main types of Ancient Russian temples

 

The first source of Old Russian church architecture is well-known: that is architecture of Byzantium³⁹, which was the origin of the type of temples which we can call "the first basic type": cross-in-square, with 3 naves and 6 pillars. (For descriptive reasons we will give to each type and subtype hierarchical digital marks; this type is marked by figure 1).

In Russia, the tradition of construction of the temples with 3 naves and 6 pillars is led⁴⁰ from Kiev Pechersk Lavra Assumption cathedral, which was constructed in 1073–1077⁴¹ under the guidance of Byzantine builders⁴² (Fig. 14⁴³). This temple became, in turn, the direct continuation of the typological and stylistic line of other temples which had 3 naves, but didn’t have so clear and accurate structure, – Transfiguration cathedral in Chernigov and probably Kiev Tithes church which were also constructed under the direction of Byzantines⁴⁴.

 

 

Fig. 14. Kiev Pechersk Lavra Assumption cathedral. Plan.

 

Strictly speaking, Assumption cathedral has no 6 pillars, but 4 pillars and the narthex, as the latter was architecturally expressed⁴⁵. But this temple thanks to its clear and accurate structure served as a sample for a large number of Old Russian temples with 6 pillars (as well as the temples with 4 pillars and the narthex), mainly of the bishop’s and cloister’s cathedrals⁴⁶ such as the cathedral of St. Michael’s Golden-Domed monastery in Kiev (1108-1113), the cathedral of St. George’s monastery in Novgorod (1119-1130), Assumption cathedral in Vladimir (1158-1160), the cathedral of Ivanovsky monastery in Pskov (the 1140th), Smolensky cathedral of Novodevichy monastery (the middle of the XVI century), St. Sophia cathedral in Vologda (1568-1570), the cathedral of Ipatiev monastery (1650-1652) and many others. (Special typological interpretation of 6 pillars took place in Moscow Assumption cathedral by Aristotle Fioravanti, but we will talk about in details in Chapter 6).

The second source of Old Russian architecture – West European Romanesque – is still known much worse than the first one. Its importance was belittled for the ideological and political reasons in pre-revolutionary time (according to the doctrine "Orthodoxy, autocracy and the nation") and in Soviet period⁴⁷.

Underestimation of Romanesque source created the serious problem concerning the positioning of Old Russian architecture in history of world architecture. The matter is that architecture of Byzantium is usually perceived as the self-sufficient, primary, "basic" phenomenon, and architecture of Ancient Russia – as something secondary. The perception (firstly in the West) of whole Old Russian architecture in the world context as "suburban" and "provincial" became the inevitable consequence of such approach.

But actually the influence of Byzantium on the architecture of Ancient Russia was defining only till the middle of the XII century, and then architecture of the forming new center of the country – Vladimir-Suzdal Grand duchy – came under influence of West European Romanesque.

The main feature defining so-called "Russian Romanesque" ⁴⁸ is the construction of smooth-cut white stone. The vast majority of Romanesque cathedrals in the centre of Sacred Roman Empire – Germany – were stone, only minor civil constructions and small provincial temples were built of brick at that time. Romanesque temples in Northern Italy were, as a rule, built of brick, but either were faced with stone (as the city cathedral in Modena), or such facing was provided, but wasn't made for various reasons (as in Sant Ambrogio cathedral in Milan), or was made not completely (San Michele church in Pavia).

In Byzantium (except some provinces) the temples were built of plinthite or in the mixed technology – "opus mixtum". The same – of plinthite or in mixed technology – was also pre-Mongol construction of all Old Russian lands, except Galich and Suzdal. In Galich white stone construction began at the boundary of the 1110s and 1120s⁴⁹, in Suzdal a bit later – in 1152⁵⁰.

Other major elements of Romanesque architecture, which embodied in pre-Mongol architecture of North-Eastern Russia, are the sculptural decor of Romanesque (zooanthropomorphous) type and perspective portals.

The author of this research repeatedly showed⁵¹ that so-called "Russian Romanesque" in North-Eastern Russia began with construction by Yury Dolgorukiy in 1152 of five white stone temples, of which Transfiguration cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky (see Fig. 1) and the church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha remained.

Yury Dolgorukiy for the first time started using in Suzdal land European technology of construction of natural stone. The ornamental decor of "universal" Romanesque type, which is found on a number of temples in Western Europe, took place in Pereslavl-Zalessky and Kideksha. In the church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha we see also the perspective portal.

According to the researches of the author, the direct source of architecture of Yury Dolgorukiy was the key Romanesque temple – Emperors’ cathedral in Speyer (Fig. 4). The basis for such conclusion was the similarity of the construction of walls and bases, ornamental carving, some other stylistic and constructive features⁵². In the central crossing of this cathedral even the cross-in-square scheme with cross-like pillars was realized. Also the factor of exclusive all-European importance of Emperors’ cathedral is important.

The author also showed that the architect, who came to Andrey Bogolyubsky from the Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa, was invited still by Yury Dolgorukiy during his Kiev reigning, and that Yury achieved the permission of Orthodox Church for Romanesque sculptural decor of zooanthropomorphous type, but he had no time to arrange such decor on his temples⁵³.

So-called "Russian Romanesque" gained the development in Andrey Bogolyubsky times when mentioned above Friedrich Barbarossa's architect worked in Russia⁵⁴ and when in architecture of Vladimir-Suzdal land appeared such typically Romanesque features as the zooanthropomorphous sculptural decor, the pilasters with semi-columns, the attic profile of socles, the bases with corner "horns", the developed perspective portals, three-part windows, arkature-columnes belts, cube-like capitals and so forth.

And the existence of not one, but two basic sources of Old Russian architecture allows to speak about it not as about "late provincial Byzantium", but as about the independent phenomenon of universal value.

But was Yury Dolgorukiy's architecture only "imported", i.e. was it only an alloy of Romanesque technological and figurative solutions with Byzantine cross-in-square system? No way.

Dolgorukiy's temples have 4 pillars and 3 naves, no narthex, bema, antechurches or galleries, i.e. these are the cross-in-square temples of "typologically pure" type, which were earlier built both in Byzantium and in Russia extremely seldom, and in Western Europe were not built at all.

N.N. Voronin wrote that this type of the temple was widespread before Dolgorukiy⁵⁵. But we can't agree with the researcher: actually only seldom cases of construction of the cross-in-square temples with 4 pillars and 3 naves in Russia before the middle of the XII century are known, and all these temples very significantly differed from Dolgorukiy's temples:

– the above-gate Trinity church of Kiev Pechersk Lavra (1108, Fig. 16⁵⁶) formally belongs to the centric temples with 4 pillars, but actually, as A.I. Komech fairly noticed, this temple had 2 pillars: because of absence of sufficient space on the gate, the builders had to refuse of the apses, but the niches remained in the interior, and the whole eastern part of the temple turned into the altar⁵⁷;

 

 

Fig. 15. Trinity above-gate church in Kiev Pechersk Lavra. Plan.

 

– from St. John’s church in Peremyshle (1119–1124) only the bases remained, which by technology (but not by the plan and by the size) are similar to the bases of Yury Dolgorukiy's temples (Fig. 16⁵⁸). But the probability of St. John’s church construction in white stone technology is low: its walls and pillars are too thin in comparison with the flights of the arches. Perhaps, it was built of stone, but covered by wood, as very many West European temples;

 

 

Fig. 16. Plans of Galich and Suzdal temples (according to O.M. Ioannisyan):

1 – St. John's church in Peremyshle;

2 – the church in Zvenigorod;

3 – the church of Saviour in Galich;

4 – the church in "Tsvintariski";

5 – Transfiguration cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky;

6 – the church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha;

7 – St. George's church in Vladimir;

8 – Ordination church on Golden Gate in Vladimir.

 

– nothing remained of the temple in Zvenigorod of Galich land, except the bases of similar technology (Fig. 16), which raise doubts in its belonging to cross-in-square type. Two pillars (on Fig. 16 designated by the dotted line), included by O. M. Ioannisyan into his reconstruction with the purpose to present the temple as cross-in-square, find no archaeological confirmation, at least in the form of the remains of the bases.

Till 1152 (i.e. either shortly before Dolgorukiy's temples or along with them) in Galich the white stone church of Saviour was built, and it was similar to Yury's temples by the plan, technology of construction and the decor (Fig. 16). But, firstly, we know nothing about its appearance, secondly, it is quite possible that this church and Dolgorukiy's temples were built by the same craftsmen⁵⁹, i.e. we have the right to include this church into the group of temples of Yury, as Dolgorukiy and the prince Vladimirko of Galich were allies, and Yury was more senior on the age and on the princes’ hierarchy, and had incomparably higher standing in Russia⁶⁰.

We know some cross-in-square temples with 4 pillars in Byzantium (Atik Dzhami, the middle of the IX century; the church of the Virgin in the monastery of Lips, beginning of the X century, Fig. 11; the church of the Virgin Halkeon in Thessaloniki, the beginning of the XI century; etc.). But this type, firstly, was seldom, and secondly, the view at the plans of these temples shows the complexity of the structure and the lack of clarity and integrity which are characteristic for Dolgorukiy's temples. The same, only in even bigger degree, we can say also about the appearance of Byzantine churches (according to A.I. Komech, these temples had "difficult and polysynthetic shape" ⁶¹; Fig. 10).

Thus, we can consider the basic type of temples of Dolgorukiy if not unprecedented, then used earlier extremely rarely and in other forms. And the combination of integrity of the plan with integral and tower-like general appearance of Dolgorukiy's temples had no precedents in the world.

The integrity of appearance of the main volume of the temple isn't a distinctive feature of Romanesque (and furthermore of Gothic). West European basilica, as a rule, makes quite shapeless impression in comparison even with Byzantine churches, without speaking about Dolgorukiy's temples which look like hewn of an integral white stone.

The same we can say about tower-like appearance. The main volume of the West European basilicas, both Romanesque and Gothic, isn't tower-looking at all (most likely, the position of G.K. Wagner who wrote that tower-like appearance of Russian temples was caused by influence of Gothic⁶² was affected by West European belltowers; but actually the main volumes of the basilicas in Western Europe have flat silhouettes)⁶³.

A certain integrity and tower-like appearance of Romanesque and Gothic basilicas was caused only by the belltowers. The temples of Dolgorukiy, conditionally speaking, were both basilicas and towers.

Therefore, with Byzantine cross-in-square type and a number of Romanesque construction methods and stylistic features, the main contribution to appearance of the temples of Yury Dolgorukiy nevertheless was made by the Russian builders, and that predetermined uniqueness of these buildings.

N.N. Voronin wrote about Dolgorukiy's temples: "Development of this type of the temple didn't present any technical or architectural difficulties; on the contrary, it was only reduction and "the simplified edition" of the cross-in-square temple with 6 pillars" ⁶⁴. In "History of Russian architecture" Dolgorukiy's temples were characterized as "unpretentious" ⁶⁵. But we can't agree with such estimates, because above we have shown that the number of innovative typological and figurative solutions in Dolgorukiy's temples is considerable, moreover, the construction of these temples was ingenious creative action of Old Russian builders. Byzantine cross-in-square system, on the basis of which this type of temples was created, was, firstly, only the restriction (see Chapter 3), and secondly, it was radically creatively revised. These temples were optimal by the combination of the criterias of reliability, demanded qualification of the builders, the square of the naos, the integrity of appearance and the altitude.

The optimality of such type of the temples is confirmed by the fact that it became the most mass in Ancient Russia. The centric cross-in-square temples with 4 pillars were constructed in a large number in all times in all regions of Russia. Such masterpieces of Russian architecture, as the church of Intercession on the Nerl (1158⁶⁶), the church of Saviour on the Nereditsa (1198), Annunciation cathedral in Moscow Kremlin (1489), Assumption cathedral in Dmitrov (the first third of the XVI century), Trinity church in Chashnikovo (the middle of the XVI century), the cathedral of Pafnutyev-Borovsky monastery (1586), the church of Transfiguration in Bolshie Vyazemy (1584-1598), the Big cathedral of Donskoy monastery (1686-1698) and many others belong to this type⁶⁷.

Due to the above, we refer the centric cross-in-square temples with 3 naves and 4 pillars to the second main type of Old Russian church architecture (digital marking – 2). It is possible to consider Transfiguration cathedral in Pereslavl and the church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha to be the first typologically formed temples of this type.

 

5. Types of Old Russian temples derivative of the second basic type

 

It is possible to allocate in evolution of the second basic type (centric cross-in-square temples with 4 pillars) a number of derivative types, each of which became an important typological component of Old Russian architecture.

The temples of the first derivative type from the second basic (digital marking – 2.1) are the cross-in-square temples with 4 pillars, which appeared at the turn of the XII-XIII centuries with the raised supporting arches (other versions of the name of this type – with arches raised by the steps, with step arches, with step vaults).

In principle, the system of the arches raised by the steps was applied earlier not once (though in other types): in a number of West European basilicas where the average nave was most often higher than the lateral, and in Sophia of Kiev (the first half of the XI century), and in the cathedral of Mirozhsky monastery (before 1156). N.N. Voronin fairly called the cathedral with 6 pillars in Spaso-Evfrosinyevsky monastery in Polotsk (before 1159) the direct transition to this type⁶⁸.

It is possible to consider Pyatnitsky church in Chernigov (the turn of the XII-XIII centuries, Fig. 17) and the cathedral of Archangel Michael in Smolensk (1191-1194) the first typologically formed temples of type 2.1. Further such temples as Pyatnitsky church at the Market in Novgorod (1207), the first Assumption cathedral in Moscow (1326–1327⁶⁹), the cathedral of Andronikov monastery (1425–1427⁷⁰), the cathedral of Nativity monastery in Moscow (the beginning of the XVI century), Assumption cathedral in Staritsa (1530) and many other temples were built with the raised supporting arches.

 

 

Fig. 17. Pyatnitsky church in Chernigov. Section.

 

The appearing of the temples with the raised supporting arches has two reasons.

The first – increase of constructive reliability⁷¹. In the case of the raised supporting arches, the vaults of the lateral naves are loaded also from above, not only from the sides (as in the classical cross-in-square scheme presented by the first and second main types, where the supporting arches and the vaults of the lateral naves are approximately at one level; see Fig. 1, 12, 13). Therefore, the step gradation of the arches gives more even distribution of load from the drum to the elements of the quadrangle (and, respectively, higher constructive reliability) than the "classical" scheme – with supporting arches at the level of the vaults of the lateral naves.

Thus, the raised supporting arches gave possibility to achieve the increase of the internal space of the temples without decrease of reliability, and also without the use of more perfect construction technologies and more qualified construction personnel.

The second reason of the building of the centric temples with 4 pillars and the raised supporting arches is the strengthening of the tower-like appearance which, as we have seen in Chapter 4, was the distinctive feature of Russian temples since Yury Dolgorukiy's times.

We should note that in Old Russian architecture the raised supporting arches in the crossing are also met incidentally in the temples with 6 pillars (Rostov cathedral of 1508-1512, the cathedral of Hutynsky monastery of 1515), but such construction in the conditions of 6 pillars (unlike 4 pillars) practically didn't influence neither the appearance, nor the interior of the temples. Therefore we don't refer them to the basic typological and construction features and, respectively, don't allocate to a separate type.

The temples of the second derivative type from the second basic type (digital marking – 2.2) are the temples with the corner wall supports. Four such Old Russian temples are known today: St. John Baptist church in Gorodishe (Kolomna), St. Nicholas church in the village of Kamenskoye of Naro-Fominsk subregion in Moscow region (Fig. 18; both temples – the beginning of the XIV century), and also the first cathedrals of Bobrenev and Golutvin monasteries, opened by the excavations (approximately the XV century)⁷².

 

 

Fig. 18. St. Nicholas church in Kamenskoye. Plan.

 

This type of temples is also not unprecedented: it, though in other architectural forms, existed in Byzantine provinces⁷³. The similar scheme, when the drum stands on the corners of the walls, was realized also in the cathedral of Mirozhsky monastery (Fig. 19) and in St. George’s church in Old Ladoga (the end of the XII century).

 

 

Fig. 19. The cathedral of Mirozhsky monastery. Plan.

 

N.I. Brunov called such similar scheme of Byzantine churches "the naked cross" ⁷⁴. B.L. Altshuller who together with M.H. Aleshkovsky possessed the honor of the first (though arguable in many respects⁷⁵) systematic description of Old Russian temples with corner wall supports, applied the term "inserted cross" ⁷⁶ to this scheme, having created the terminological сontamination with the classical definition of "inserted cross" as an almost full synonym of the cross-in-square system⁷⁷. But B.L. Altshuller's definition most adequately reflects the bright expressiveness of the cross in the interior of the temple with the corner wall supports, therefore we will accept it.

It is important to note that Old Russian temples with corner wall supports are not of the cupola type, but of the cross-in-square type, and are a modification of the second main type of Old Russian temples – with 4 pillars, but the pillars were settled in the corner compartments and occupied them completely. This is proved by the following provisions:

– these temples accurately expressed cross-like plan both in the interior and in the ceiling;

– the cupola in such temples doesn’t cover the whole naos and that contradicts to the definition of cupola temples (see Chapter 2);

– in a number of such temples (the church in "Gorodishche" of Kolomna and the first cathedral of Old Golutvin monastery) the corner wall supports weren't united with the walls, i.e. they were pillars, not internal buttresses or anything else.

The purpose of replacement of the corner compartments with the supports was similar to the arrangement of the supporting arches raised by the steps: to increase the subcupola square. The drum weight is carried not by freely standing pillars, but by the walls – much steadier constructive element. There was an opportunity to increase the internal space of the temples without reliability decrease, and also without the use of more perfect construction technologies and more qualified personnel.

But Old Russian builders refused of the construction of the temples with corner wall supports very soon – in the XV century. Most likely, the increase of the subcupola square was not worth of the refusal of corner compartments.

The temples of the third derivative type from the second basic (digital marking – 2.3) are the temples with 4 pillars and pyramidally slanted walls and pillars. This construction technique is extremely rare both in Russia and in the world architecture, it was applied in Assumption cathedral in the “Gorodok” in Zvenigorod, the cathedral of Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery (both temples – the beginning of the XV century) and Trinity cathedral of Trinity-Sergius Lavra (1422-1423, Fig. 20⁷⁸).

 

 

Fig. 20. Trinity cathedral of Trinity-Sergius Lavra. V. I. Baldin's reconstruction.

 

Earlier in Russia the similar technology was used only in the small church with 4 pillars in Perynsky monastery in Novgorod (about 1226).

We refer such temples to the separate derivative type and consider as the first typologically formed buildings two Zvenigorod cathedrals of the beginning of the XV century, since the construction of big stone church buildings with slanted walls and pillars represented the highest level of construction technology available only for the most qualified builders. The technology of construction of such temples essentially differs from the usual: here the alignment by a plumb doesn't suffice, the difficult system of adjustment of corners between the bases, walls, pillars, supporting arches and other arches is necessary.

In "pyramidal" temples of the XV century the level of construction technology we can see on the example that in the interior of Trinity cathedral of Trinity-Sergius Lavra the unique solution is realized: the slanted walls and pillars up to the height about 5 m are vertical, and then are "curved" inside. So they don’t "press" the people who are in the temple

The reasons of construction of such "pyramidal" temples seem the same as of the temples of the type 2.1 (with the raised supporting arches): firstly, strengthening of a tower-like appearance; secondly, increase of the internal space without reliability decrease. (Inclined walls create very steady "pyramidal" silhouette of the construction and actually are buttresses for themselves, providing the most uniform distribution of the loadings).

But, most likely, this technology was too difficult because the builders almost completely refused of it already at the construction of the cathedral of Andronikov Monastery (1425-1427)⁷⁹ where the return to the first derivative type took place.

Later, the pyramidally slanted walls remained a rarity, the churches of Holy Spirit (1476) and of Presentation of Mary (1547) in Sergiev Posad had such walls (with much smaller degree of a pyramidality than in Trinity cathedral which served as the sample for these churches). Also Transfiguration cathedral in Solovki (1558-1566) had pyramidally slanted walls. Apparently, in the latter case the motivation of application of such construction technology was pragmatic: in this unique "fortress" temple enemy kernels were to ricochet from the walls (it is confirmed also by the exclusive thickness of the walls of the cathedral – up to 6 m, and by the pyramidal type of the towers of Solovki fortress with which the temple made the united fortification system)⁸⁰. Typologically, Solovki cathedral with 2 pillars belongs to the third main type of temples (see Chapter 6).

 

6. The third main type of Old Russian temples

 

The temples of the third main type of Old Russian church architecture (digital marking – 3) are the temples with 2 pillars. Most likely, their construction was connected with the spread of high iconostases.

The time of high iconostases appearing in Russia is disputable and isn't the subject of our research⁸¹, but it is clear that in the XV century they were already widespread. About these iconostases, which covered the whole altar space of temples from the east pillars, N.F. Gulyanitsky fairly wrote: "Cross-in-square system, having lost the main branch of the cross in visual perception, in a certain degree lost also the symbolical sense, which had been visually materialized in hierarchically dismembered volume and spatial structure, in its difficult figurativity. Now the structure with 2 pillars, as resisting to the iconostasis plane, began to prevail more and more often" ⁸².

In other words, some Old Russian architects began to build temples with initial projecting of the high iconostases, thus the vast majority of temples was still constructed without planning of future high iconostases, i.e. more universally (the possible reason for it was that the formation of the full-fledged high iconostases could take very long time, and could be even never completed because of the lack of special icons).

The replacement of the couple of east pillars with the wall was the simplest and logical architectural concept of the system of 2 pillars: it increased constructive reliability of the temple without essential change of habitual centric structure, characteristic for the cross-in-square temples with 4 pillars. The first typologically formed temple of this type is Annunciation church in Blagoveschensky Pogost (the beginning of the XVI century, Fig. 21⁸³).

 

 

Fig. 21. Annunciation church in Blagoveshchensky Pogost. Plan.

 

Respectively, we have the right to call the temples with 2 pillars the derivative type from the second main type (or "the degenerated second main type"), as these temples changed the number of the pillars from 4 to 2 under the influence of special circumstances. But as they formally ceased to be cross-in-square, we are obliged to allocate them into the separate main type (in our classification – the third).

There is one more reason of the reference of the temples with 2 pillars to the separate main type: for the first time the idea of initial construction of the temple with the high iconostasis (and, respectively, its "typological degeneration") was realized not in the temple with 4 pillars, but with 6 pillars, i.e. in the temple of the first main type. It is Moscow Assumption cathedral (1475–1479, Fig. 22).

 

 

Fig. 22. Assumption cathedral in Moscow Kremlin. Plan.

 

Solving the most difficult task of increasing of the internal volume of the temple, which his predecessors Krivtsov and Myshkin could not solve⁸⁴, Aristotle Fioravanti for the first time in Russian architecture applied the one-brick cross-like vaults and the metal intra-armature. But his main engineering idea was the construction of additional arches behind the iconostasis. Thanks to it, the eastern part of the temple actually turned into the monolith and perceived the considerable part of the weight of the enormous drums. Respectively, there was an opportunity to build rather thin round pillars in the central and western parts of the cathedral, and that created the feeling of the lightness of the construction and of integrity ("hall-likeness") of the part of the naos intended for the praying people. Formally Assumption cathedral remained with 6 pillars, but actually it turned into the temple with 4 pillars, structurally expressed bema and "non-standard" arrangement of the heads.

St. Nicholas church in Nicolo-Uryupino (1664-1665), Nikitsky monastery cathedral in Moscow (1530-1540), Transfiguration cathedral in Solovki (1558-1566), a number of temples of the middle of the XVII century in Yaroslavl and many other belonged to the third main type.

It should be noted that in the temple in Nicolo-Uryupino, the architect Pavel Potekhin applied the "typological degeneration" not only to the system of 4 pillars, but also to the wall which replaced east pillars: on the place of this wall there was only the arch with the width of the whole quadrangle (Fig. 23), i.e. the part of a naos intended for praying people was expanded due to the full refusal of altar part of a quadrangle. The similar construction was realized also in Kazan church in Markovo (1672–1680).

 

 

Fig. 23. St. Nicholas church in Nicolo-Uryupino. Plan.

 

And in the XVI century the creative thought of Russian architects concerning the development of the temples with 2 pillars worked practically in the same direction which was set in due time by Aristotle Fioravanti: how to make the structure of the part of the naos, intended for praying people, more clear and integral. In this regard there was the type of temples which we can call derivative of the third basic: the temples with 2 pillars on the axis of the central drum (digital marking – 3.1).

The first typologically formed temple of this type is Annunciation cathedral in Solvychegodsk (1560-1579, Fig. 24). The builders of this temple refused of the eastern cross nave, the space of the naos intended for praying people gained its own symmetry on the axis "North-South", the quadrangle lost the centric character. In general, the cathedral typology significantly moved away from the cross-in-square prototypes with 4 pillars. According to G.N. Bocharov and V.P. Vygolov, "former, so-called "false 2 pillars system", which had formed in many respects by purely mechanical refusal of the eastern couple of columns, here for the first time conceded the place for the new decision in which 2 pillars system already acts as certain artly comprehended construction" ⁸⁵.

 

 

Fig. 24. Annunciation cathedral in Solvychegodsk. The top part of the pillars and the light cut under the central drum.

 

 Further the scheme with 2 pillars on the central axis "North-South" of subcupola space was applied in Lazarevsky church in Suzdal (1667), St. Nicholas church in Vologda (1669), Nativity cathedral of Solotcha monastery (1691), Trinity cathedral in Marchugovsky monastery (before 1698), Kazanskaya church in Toropets (1698), Resurrection cathedral in Derevyanitsky monastery in Novgorod (1700) and so forth.

 

7. The fourth main type of Old Russian temples

 

The temples of the fourth main type (digital marking – 4) are the pillarless temples covered by various systems of arches. This type has three subtypes.

The temples of the first subtype (digital marking – 4.1) have the pillarless quadrangle covered by the cross-like ceiling. (Formal definition of the cross-like ceiling: the closed vault with two crossing couples of additional arches and the opening for the drum in the center).

The researches conducted by the author in the beginning of the 2000th showed that the white stone Grand-ducal church of Trifon in Naprudnoe, covered by the brick cross-like ceiling (Fig. 25, 26), was built in the end of the XV century and is the first temple of this type known to us. The main arguments in favor of this position were the following⁸⁶:

– the construction of the white stone temple far from stone quarries is more probable for the XV century than for the XVI century;

– in the case of construction in the XVI century, such temple as Trifon’s would have been too small and unpretendous for the significant Tsar's village Naprudnoe;

– only Trifon's church in Naprudnoe satisfies to all conditions of appearing at the turn of XV and XVI centuries of the cross-like ceiling arch, – the innovation which determined the "architectural fashion" for many decades ahead;

– on the basis of the analysis of Big Zion of Vladimir Assumption cathedral, the author specified that the construction of Trifon’s temple was most probable in the time interval from the middle of the 1470s till the middle of the 1480s.

 

 

Fig. 25. Trifon's church in Naprudnoe. Plan.

 

 

Fig. 26. Trifon's church in Naprudnoe. Cross-like ceiling.

 

The attempts of pillarless quadrangles building (and, respectively, of refuse of pillars which burden and shade naoses) were undertaken also before the end of the XV century – in Pskov. But these attempts conducted to essential reduction of the sizes of churches (the examples are many small temples covered by one arched vault, as the southern side-altar of church of Vasily on the Hill of 1413, or the arched vault with crossing additional arches as Nikita Gusyatnik’s church of 1470, Resurrection church in Pustoye of 1496).

The cross-like ceiling became the first successful attempt of pillarless covering of the rather big quadrangle. We will show it, having tracked its genesis.

If we just "take out" the pillars from the temple with 4 pillars, then above, except the vaults of the corner compartments, there will be two crossing arched vaults, each of which is cut through: from above – by the opening for the drum, longitudinally – by three couples of the arches (in the middle – by the supporting arches, on each side – by the arches over lateral naves). These arches will have nothing to be based on in the places where the footings of the supporting arches were based on the "taken-out" pillars earlier.

In this case the following constructive decision arises: to cut out in each of two crossing arched vaults not three longitudinal couples of arches, but one couple – at all length of the vaults. Then four points. in which supporting arches earlier leaned on the pillars, will "raise up" (Fig. 27), and the whole construction will base on the temple walls through longitudinal arches in the crossing arched vaults. In this case not only the pillars disappear, but also the supporting arches (Fig. 28). Optimum depth of cutting gines the chance to build not only a reliable cross-shaped construction of the crossing arched vaults, but also to make smooth transition from the crossing points to the corner compartments.

 

 

Fig. 27. Conditional scheme of "cutting out" of the pillars and "raising up" of the footings of the supporting arches.

 

 

Fig. 28. The conditional scheme of the replacement of three couples of the arches with one couple at all length of the temple (preserving the former proportions).

 

As a result, the unique ceiling was invented and became known as the cross-like. The author showed in special research⁸⁷ that no direct or indirect analogs of this remarkable architectural concept existed anywhere in the world, and the cross-like ceiling was invented in Ancient Russia (more precisely – in Moscow grand duchy) without any loans or influences.

We see that the temples with the cross-like ceiling came from the second main type of Old Russian temples – the cross-in-square centric temples with 4 pillars. But since pillarless temples aren't cross-in-square by definition, we are obliged to refer them to the separate main type (in our classification – the fourth).

The temples with the cross-like ceiling were built in a large number in the XVI century, mainly in Moscow region (the church of Conception of Anna "in the Corner" in Kitay-gorod, before 1493; the church of Nativity in Yurkino, before 1504; Nikita Martyr’s church beyond the Yauza, the 1530s, reconstructed in 1595; Old cathedral of Donskoy monastery, 1591-1593; etc.) ⁸⁸. The similar ceilings, though in significantly transformed look, were sometimes built also in the XVII century (an example – Vvedensky cathedral in Solvychegodsk, 1688).

The temples of second subtype of the fourth main type (digital marking – 4.2) are pillarless temples with systems of the vaults of "Pskov" type. We have spoken above about the simplest options of this subtype as about the first attempts of covering the pillarless quadrangles. In the middle of the XVI century, the "Pskov" system reached the typological completeness: the construction of the temples covered by the system of the arches leaning at each other started. (Other version of the name of this type – the system of the step arches, but here the terminological сontamination with type 2.1 is possible).

It is possible to consider the church of Assumption in Gdov (1557-1561, Fig. 29) ⁸⁹ as the first temple of type 4.2.

 

 

Fig. 29. Church of Assumption in Gdov. Plan and section.

 

Such type of the ceiling, though allowed to cover quadrangles, comparable by the size to the quadrangles of the temples with the cross-like ceiling, didn't possess clarity and harmony of the cross-like ceiling. In this regard the type 4.2 remained the local Pskov phenomenon though its echoes sometimes got the response in architecture of the XVII century (an example – Nikon’s church in Trinity-Sergius Lavra, constructed in 1548, reconstructed in 1623⁹⁰).

And the cross-like ceiling, though was a simple, clear and reliable construction, but in the progress of construction technology in the XVII century everywhere gave way to more simple, clear and reliable system – the closed vault.

Formally speaking, the closed vault is formed from the cross-like ceiling, "cleaned" of the additional arches. But as we have no confidence that actually the closed vault came from the cross-like ceiling, and wasn't a self-sufficient invention prepared by the development of construction technology (the latter at the accurate and clear form of the closed vault seems more probable), we consider the temples with the closed vault not derivative type from the type 4.1, but the third subtype of the fourth main type (digital marking – 4.3).

As Vl.V. Sedov showed, the first closed vaults were built in the 1550s in a number of Novgorod temples (refectory churches of Varlaam Hutynsky in Hutynsky monastery, 1550-1552, of Annunciation in Mikhail street, the 1550s), and a little bit later the closed vault in the cathedral of Rizopolozhensky monastery in Suzdal⁹¹ was built.

In the XVII century the closed vault was the dominating ceiling of the pillarless temples, it was used in such architectural masterpieces as churches of Trinity in Nikitniki (1630-1650s), Virgin's Nativity in Putinki (1649-1652), Resurrection in Kadashi (1687-1695) and many others.

 

 

Fig. 30. Church of Transfiguration in Nikolskoye village in Yaroslavl region (1700). Closed vault.

 

8. The fifth main type of Old Russian temples

 

The questions of the origin of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture (construction of temples with the hipped roofs over the naoses) are in details considered in special researches of the author⁹². Here it makes sense to stop briefly on some provisions important for understanding of its typological formation and classification.

The researchers are occupied with the questions of the origin of hipped-roof architecture not for the first hundred of years. As the detailed historical review of all points of view is beyond our research, we will list only the main ones (in the chronological order of their appearing):

– hipped-roof architecture of Ancient Russia occurred from late West European Gothic⁹³;

– hipped-roof architecture was created on the basis of Old Russian wooden architecture⁹⁴;

– hipped-roof architecture occurred from Old Russian and Serbian temples with raised supporting arches⁹⁵;

– hipped-roof architecture has Eastern origin⁹⁶;

– hipped-roof architecture was created under the influence of architecture of the towers of Old Russian fortresses⁹⁷;

– formation of hipped-roof architecture was influenced by Old Russian churches-belltowers⁹⁸;

– Old Russian hipped roofs were "an accident in architecture" and just replaced the cupolas covering naoses⁹⁹;

– hipped-roof architecture of Ancient Russia occurred from Romanesque¹⁰⁰.

Before considering the above-mentioned points of view, we will remember that the architectural and archaeological researches of V.V. Kavelmakher (1980-90s)¹⁰¹ and of the author of this research (2000s)¹⁰² showed that hipped-roof Trinity (nowadays Intercession; we will further call it Trinity without reservations) church in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda (Fig. 31¹⁰³) was constructed in 1510s and, respectively, was the first Old Russian hipped-roof temple. The author also showed that Aleviz Novy¹⁰⁴ was the architect who built this temple. Earlier the church of Ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532, the probable architect was Italian Petrok Maly¹⁰⁵) was considered as the first hipped-roof temple.

 

 

Fig. 31. Trinity church in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. Section by the line West-East. Reconstruction by V.V. Kavelmakher.

 

We will begin the research of probable sources of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture with West European Gothic. During the forming of Old Russian architecture of the XII-XV centuries, "tendency upwards" constantly amplified in it. The general "high-rise" proportions of temples (see Chapter 4), the appearing of the raised supporting arches (see Chapter 5), the covering of the pedestals of the drums by decorative keel-like arches (“kokoshniks”), the construction of high onion domes over the cupolas¹⁰⁶, the construction of the tower-like churches "under the bells" ¹⁰⁷, – all these phenomenons correspond to the general impression of the image of Gothic.

But it is only the general impression. By more fixed comparison we are compelled to deny the origin of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture from West European Gothic.

Firstly, as we have shown in Chapter 4, the tower-like appearance of the main volume of the temple is uncharacteristic for Gothic architecture.

Secondly, the covering of the naos by a hipped roof is also uncharacteristic for West European Gothic. The crossings were sometimes covered by wooden hipped roofs (an example – Gothic church of Virgin Mary in Bruges, Fig. 32), but we don't know any stone hipped roof neither over a naos, nor over a crossing in any big and significant Gothic temple. In a mass, the hipped-roof form was used in Gothic Europe only for the towers.

 

 

Fig. 32. Church of Virgin Mary in Bruges.

 

Thirdly, one of the most characteristic tendencies of Gothic is the increase of the internal space of the temples. This tendency found reflection in Old Russian architecture: pillars became thinner and thinner, less and less temples had internal lisens, pillarless temples with corner wall supports appeared (see Chapter 5), then the temples with cross-like ceilings (see Chapter 7). For example, S.S. Podjyapolsky fairly referred Assumption cathedral of Aristotle Fioravanti to the type of Gothic "hall church" ¹⁰⁸. But the situation with hipped-roof architecture is opposite: in comparison with co-scale cross-in-square churches and furthermore with West European basilicas, the square of the naoses of hipped-roof temples is small.

Fourthly, the beginning of the XVI century passed in Italy under the sign of not Gothic, but Renaissance. And it is improbable that a highly skilled Italian architect of that time, whether it was Aleviz Novy or Petrok Maly, could be guided by Gothic. It is known that the term "Gothic" belongs to Italians of the XV-XVI centuries and means "art of the Goths", i.e. "of the barbarians". We should note that in the temples of Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, as in the church of Ascension in Kolomenskoye, a number of Renaissance elements took place¹⁰⁹.

The theory of the origin of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture from West European Gothic is adjoined by three others: from Old Russian and Serbian temples with the raised supporting arches, from Old Russian fortress towers, from Old Russian churches-belltowers. All these three theories are generated by the impression of "altitude" and "vertikality", characteristic for Gothic. Therefore all those arguments which we have put forward against "Gothic" theory, are applicable here.

Essential modification of the "Gothic" theory of an origin of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture was elaborated by A.L. Batalov¹¹⁰. (It was issued later than the referred works¹¹¹ of the author of this research, devoted to the first Old Russian hipped-roof temple and the origin of hipped-roof architecture). According to A.L. Batalov, the sources of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture lie in West European architecture, but not in Gothic, but in Romanesque.

Such position of the researcher can seem strange by itself, as hipped-roof architecture appeared in the beginning of the XVI century, when about three hundred years had passed since Romanesque times. However A.L. Batalov named hypothetical prototypes of the first Old Russian hipped-roof temples – San Giovanni's baptistery in Pisa, covered by the stone hipped roof in the middle of the XII century (in the XIII century that roof was almost completely hidden under the cupola – Fig. 33¹¹²), and two small Pisa churches of the XII century – St. Agate and St. Coffin.

 

 

Fig. 33. Baptistery in Pisa. General view, plan and section.

 

But A.L. Batalov's observations can't be a basis for the conclusion about Romanesque origin of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture. Possible convincing arguments in favor of a foreign origin of this or that domestic architectural form may be either world style in general, or the considerable direction in world architecture, or the foreign analog having universal value and resonance (as, for example, Sophia in Constantinople, Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Emperors’ cathedral in Speyer, etc.). Found single and having no world value foreign analogs, declared as the origins of domestic architectural forms, are sooner or later disproved by other found analogs.

And we also found the analog, no less convincing than Pisa baptistery, in which the hipped roof, probably, for some reason didn't satisfy the citizens so much that in a hundred years it was built up by the cupola. And no less convincing, than small Pisa churches – St. Agate and St. Coffin. It is Romanesque hipped-roof church of St. Faustino in Brescia (the XII century, Fig. 34). Above its hipped roof, unlike the above mentioned Pisa buildings, there is the drum as in Old Russian temples, and in the interior under its hipped roof the additional cupola was built as in the church of Ascension in Kolomenskoye.

 

 

Fig. 34. St. Faustino's church in Brescia.

 

In Brescia there is also the big and very important for world architecture Romanesque temple covered by the flat wooden hipped-roof – the "Old" city cathedral (Duomo Vecchio). In total, these Brescia hipped-roof temples could become not a smaller inspiring factor for the architect of the beginning of the XVI century, than the temples in Pisa.

Let us sum up all foresaid concerning hypothetical Romanesque sources of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture: A.L. Batalov’s methodology of identification of the sources of hipped-roof architecture (by the found single analogs which hypothetically could be an inspiration source for the architect three centuries later) is unacceptable in principle, because at the research of the questions of the origin of this or that architectural form, even in the case that its first application is known, it isn't enough to investigate the course of creative thought of the architect: he could have been inspired by any trifle, not only within architecture. It is necessary to consider also the general historical situation, specifics of the funder’s order, progress of construction technology and a big set of other factors.

It is impossible to ignore one more version of the origin of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture – "Eastern". Really, in the East (in Bulgaria on the Volga, in Iran and in Central Asia) mausoleums (for example, "Eastern mausoleum" in Bulgar, the XIII century, Fig. 35; "Mausoleum of the Dervish" in Baku, the XV century) and towers (first of all the minarets) were covered by stone hipped roofs. It is possible to remember also hipped-roof forms of such enormous temples, as Virupaksha (the VII-XI century, India), Prambanan (the X century, Indonesia), Angkor Wat (the first half of the XII century, Cambodia).

 

 

Fig. 35. "Eastern mausoleum" in Bulgar.

 

But we can adduce against the "eastern" theory practically the same arguments that against the "Gothic" one. Firstly, the covering of the naos of the temple by a hipped-roof is uncharacteristic for Eastern architecture. Secondly, it is very improbable that Italian architect of that time, whether he was Aleviz Novy or Petrok Maly, could be guided by Eastern architecture. Thirdly, it is also improbable that the founder – Vasily III – ordered the architect to build "orientally". It was hardly worth inviting Italians for that.

The author of this research gave a number of the provisions showing the origin of hipped-roof architecture from Old Russian wooden architecture¹¹³. Here it is possible to structure these provisions and to cite them briefly.

First of all, there is a number of proofs of a wide extension of hipped roofs in Old Russian wooden architecture before the appearing of the first stone hipped-roof temple.

First, N.N. Voronin and P.N. Maximov on the basis of documentary and iconographic data considered that hipped-roof wooden churches represented the widespread type of the Old Russian temples since Pre-Mongol times¹¹⁴, and gave a number of examples (not preserved temples in Vyshgorod (1020-1026), Ustyug (the end of the XIII century), Ledsky Pogost (1456), Vologda (the end of the XV century), St. Clemens’ church in Una village in Arkhangelsk region (1501, Fig. 36¹¹⁵) etc.)

 

 

Fig. 36. Church in Una village in Arkhangelsk region.

 

Secondly, it is very probable that many wooden hipped-roof temples of the XVI-XVII centuries are the copies of more ancient ones¹¹⁶.

Thirdly, it is much simpler to construct of stone a cupola than a hipped roof, and it is much simpler to construct of wood a hipped roof than a cupola.

Fourthly, in the end of the X century the oak temple of Sophia with thirteen (according to some chronicles – with twelve)¹¹⁷ heads was built in Novgorod. It is improbable that cupolas were constructed of oak. Most likely, that temple had the hipped-roof heads.

Fifthly, the replacement of stone cupolas with the wooden hipped roofs for ceiling weight reduction repeatedly took place out of Russia. Wooden hipped roofs as "the facilitated option" of cupolas were built in Byzantium (for example, in the second half of the V century the temple in Alakhan-manastire was built, and the central space of that stone temple was covered with the pyramidal wooden roof), and in Western Europe (we have already mentioned the wooden hipped roofs over the naos of "Old" cathedral in Brescia and of the crossing of Gothic basilica in Bruges).

Sixthly, the wooden hipped-roof of Cyprian cedars was constructed between 813 and 821 by the Patriarch Thomas over the rotunda of Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem¹¹⁸. This hipped-roof as a replacement of a stone cupola, which in the conditions of construction in Palestine of that time (before the era of Crusades, under the power of Caliph Al-Mamuna) could not cover the rotunda with the diameter more than 20 m (Fig. 37¹¹⁹). As Holy Sepulchre has universal value, we have the right to consider that exactly this replacement could become the initial technological example for the replacement of stone cupolas by wooden hipped roofs in Pre-Mongol Russia.

 

 

Fig. 37. Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Drawing of the XVII century.

 

The above mentioned set of arguments proves that wooden hipped-roof temples appeared in Ancient Russia significantly earlier than the stone ones and were built in a large number probably even in Pre-Mongol times.

Now, having shown a wide circulation, initial and constructive conditionality of hipped roofs in wooden architecture before the beginning of the XVI century, we can start proofing that the first hipped-roof stone temples came from wooden Russian hipped-roof architecture, but not from Gothic, Romanesque, East or any other foreign sources.

Firstly, "The chronicler in brief of Russian land" (the XVI century) under 1532 says: "Grand duke Vasily built up the stone of Ascension of our Lord like wooden construction" ¹²⁰. This message draws the direct parallel between Ascension church in Kolomenskoye (not the first, but one of the first stone hipped-roof temples) and wooden architecture: the formulation "built up like wooden construction" means that "the high temple was built in forms of wooden architecture", and that is confirmed by similar Old Russian texts¹²¹.

Secondly, it is very probable that in Russia there were precedents of influence of forms of wooden architecture on the stone architecture. For example, N.N. Voronin wrote about Sophia in Kiev: "In a majestic rhythm of pyramidally increasing masses of the cathedral and in its characteristic 13 heads, distinguishing it from the smaller Byzantine samples, it is possible to see the result of impact of the principles of wooden architecture on the builders of Kiev temple" ¹²². G.Ya. Mokeev believed that the shape of Sophia in Kiev could be affected by the predecessing multi-headed wooden temple¹²³.

Thirdly, in Ancient Russia since the times of termination in the middle of the XII century of direct copying of Byzantine samples, the specifics of the funders’ orders given to the invited foreign architects was to build not Italian, German or English temples, but exactly Russian. In other words, the work in the traditions of Russian architecture, which at that time had already been developed, was always required from the architects, though they were free to bring some principles and elements of this or that style accepted in the country of their origin. From this general rule we know no exceptions. No temple, including constructed by an invited foreign architect, drops out of the "mainstream" of Old Russian architecture. Therefore, if the considered architectural form is prepared by all history of formation of domestic architecture, its domestic sources and analogs in respect of scientific validity have the priority over the foreign ones.

Fourthly, we can show logicality of wooden origin of Old Russian stone hipped-roof architecture, having reconstructed specific circumstances of its appearing in the beginning of the XVI century.

We have shown above that in that time the invited foreign architects were obliged to work in the traditions of Russian architecture which had already been developed at that time. And Aleviz Novy, most likely, received from the Grand duke Vasily III the task to build the palace-temple complex in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda in "national" style – of course, according to the understanding and perception of this style by the famous European architect. In Western Europe or anywhere else in the world there were no such buildings as the first temples of Sloboda, and Aleviz built the temples in Russia so as he understood the Russian architecture, applying those common volume, composite and decorative decisions, which he saw around himself (at that without refusing of own creative search and Renaissance methods which he had, as it is said, "in the blood").

In this regard we have the right to consider that the stone hipped roof built by Aleviz over the naos of the temple of Trinity in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, was constructed under the impression of the general altitude and hipped shape of Russian churches, first of all of the wooden hipped-roof ones. The latter thanks to their large number formed the general shape of Old Russian church architecture not in smaller (if not in bigger) degree, than relatively rare stone temples, especially if their construction was held not in "white stone" Moscow, but in the province – in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda¹²⁴.

Thus, we have shown that the appearing of stone hipped-roof temples in Russia in the beginning of the XVI century took place under the influence of numerous wooden samples, and the hipped-roof was the direct analog of a cupola.

 V.V. Kavelmakher wrote: "As for the hipped roof, it is nothing. An accident in architecture. It only replaces the cupola covering naos" ¹²⁵. We have evidentially confirmed these words of the researcher, with the only essential reservation that in wooden architecture this replacement was not an accident, but constructively and canonically conditioned phenomenon (we will return to this question in Chapter 10, speaking about the origin of Old Russian wooden church architecture), and in stone architecture this replacement was ingenious "creative" of the Italian architect.

And as the hipped roofs in wooden architecture were many-faceted (that was caused by the basis of their construction – the beams forming the skeleton), it is quite logical that the drums became many-faceted, too. The number of facets in the huge majority of cases was eight (most likely, this quantity is optimum for the transition from the quadrangle to the hipped roof, and for maximum stability of the construction). Thus, we see the source of the form "octagon on quadrangle", realized in large quantities at first in wooden, then in stone architecture (about this form see in details in Chapter 9).

We can make two basic conclusions of the thesis that the hipped roof was the direct analog of the cupola.

Firstly, in the beginning of the XVI century there couldn't be formal problems with the permission of Russian Orthodox Church for the construction of hipped roofs, which were analogs of cupolas (about the Church ban on non-cupola temples see Chapter 3);

Secondly, stone hipped-roof architecture was preceded not only by wooden hipped roofs, but also by the stone pillarless cupola churches which, though in a small amount, were constructed throughout all previous history of Old Russian architecture. For example, the following temples are known to us:

– Vasily's church in Vladimir-Volynsky, the XIII century (the multipetal plan, Fig. 38);

 

 

Fig. 38. Vasily's church in Vladimir-Volynsky. Section and plan.

 

– non-preserved temples in Galich Land: the church of an unknown dedication, so-called "Polygonal", second half of the XII century (tetraconch); the church of an unknown dedication in the village of Poberezhie near Galich, the second half of the XII century (tetraconch); the church of Elijah the Prophet in Galich, the second half of the XII century (rotunda with two adjoining volumes, perhaps, with a tower);

– John Climacus' churches-belltowers of 1329 and 1505-1508, "clocktower" of 1443 in Novgorod, the first "Hutynsky pillar" of 1445.

E.E. Golubinsky called the cupola temples "a collateral form of Old Russian architecture" ¹²⁶. But since the moment of replacement of the stone cupola by the stone hipped roof this type stopped being "collateral" and became one of the main.

And from these two conclusions the third follows: in the 1510s two minor typologies of Old Russian church architecture – wooden hipped roofs and stone cupolas – united into one of the main types (in our classification – the fifth, digital marking – 5).

This conclusion is confirmed also by the fact that the hipped-roof church of Trinity in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda has the quadrangle in the basis, and almost along with it the pillar-like octagon with the cupola (Alexey Mitropolit's church in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda¹²⁷, 1510s, Fig. 39) and the pillar-like tetraconch with the cupola (Pyotr Mitropolit's cathedral in Vysoko-Petrovsky monastery, 1514-1517, Fig. 7) were built. All these temples have the same architect – Aleviz Novy, the same funder – Vasily III, similar circumstances of appearing.

 

 

Fig. 39. Alexey Mitropolit's church in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. Reconstruction by the author.

 

Soon, already in 1529-1532, the church of Ascension in Kolomenskoye, the first pillar-like hipped-roof temple with the polygonal plan like "circumscribed circle" (Fig. 40) was built. The funder was the same – Vasily III, the architect – also Italian, Petrok Maly¹²⁸.

 

 

Fig. 40. Church of Ascension in Kolomenskoye. Plan.

 

It should be specially noted that we refer to the fifth main type exclusively the pillarless temples. If the hipped roof covers the subcupola square of the temple with the pillars in the interior (such case, most rare in Old Russian architecture, took place in Transfiguration cathedral of 1558-1566 in Solovki, where later, in the XVII century, the hipped roof was replaced with the cupola), it is necessary to consider quantity and arrangement of the pillars as a priority feature for determining of the typology of the temple. (About typological classification of Solovki cathedral see in Chapter 6). Also temples with the closed vaults, where the drums are topped with hipped roofs, are classified accordingly (as the church of Nativity of the Virgin in Putinki, 1649-1652): not the hipped roof, but the closed vault has the priority. The reason is that, as we have shown above, the hipped roof, being the replacement of the cupola, isn't a self-sufficient typological sign.

Thus, the pillarless hipped-roof and cupola temples are the fifth main type of Old Russian church architecture.

 

9. Subtypes and derivative types of the fifth main type of Old Russian temples

 

In the fifth main type (the pillarless hipped-roof and cupola temples) it is logical to allocate:

– by the ceiling form – hipped-roof and cupola temples;

– by the plan – the temples with the quadrangle in the basis and the temples with the plan like "circumscribed circle".

The combination of these forms gives three subtypes (which appeared in parallel with the main type) and one derivative type (which appeared after the basic type).

The first subtype (digital marking – 5.1) – the hipped-roof temples with the quadrangle. The first typologically formed temple – the church of Trinity in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda (1513; see Chapter 8, Fig. 31). The cathedral of Brusensky monastery in Kolomna (1552), Kosmodamiansky church in Murom (1556-1565), the church of Elijah the Prophet in Prussy (1578), the church of Nativity in Besedy (the end of the XVI century) belong to this rather rare subtype.

The second subtype (digital marking – 5.2) – hipped-roof temples with the plan like "circumscribed circle". The church of Ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532) was the first typologically formed temple. Further this subtype (or its complicated polycomponent form) was widely extended, such masterpieces as Intercession cathedral on the Moat (1555-1561), Borisoglebsky cathedral in Staritsa (1558-1561), Pyotr Mitropolit's church in Pereslavl (1584-1585), the church of Transformation in Ostrov (the end of the XVI century), Borisoglebsk church in Borisov Town (1600-1603) etc. belong to it.

The third subtype (digital marking – 5.3) – cupola temples with the plan like "circumscribed circle". We can consider as the first typologically formed temples Alexey Mitropolit's church in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda (1513) and Pyotr Mitropolit's cathedral in Vysoko-Petrovsky monastery (1514-1517).

Further this subtype was forced out by hipped-roof architecture and till the second half of the XVII century can be met seldom (the most known temple of this type – the church of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist in Dyakovo, constructed, as V.V. Kavelmakher assumed, in the 1550s by the builders of Intercession cathedral on the Moat and Borisoglebsky cathedral in Staritsa¹²⁹).

In the middle of the 1650s Patriarch Nikon forbade the construction of hipped-roof temples. It is possible to adduce the following arguments that the ban proceeded from the Patriarch:

– after the middle of the 1650s the hipped roofs over naoses weren't built for more than ten years, and then were built extremely seldom and generally over the side-altars (as in Nikola Mokry’s church of 1665-1672 in Yaroslavl). "The architectural fashion" couldn't change so quickly, within a year-two, by itself. It is much more probable that the ban similar to the ban on non-cupola temples, about which we have spoken in Chapter 3, took place;

– the numerous temple-building certificates forbidding to build hipped-roof temples and ordering to build temples with cupolas are additional confirmation of Nikon’s ban¹³⁰. It is improbable that in the conditions of rigid hierarchical system in Russian Orthodox Church such certificates could appear without patriarchal order;

 – the unique hipped-roof of Holy Sepulchre in New Jerusalem monastery founded by Nikon in 1656 was constructed after the death of the Patriarch – not earlier than the beginning of the 1680s, and isn't a phenomenon of hipped-roof architecture as it doesn’t cover the main volume of the temple. And let’s note that the reproduction of this hipped roof was dictated by the task of "creative copying" of Jerusalem temple.

Whatever was the reason of this Nikon’s ban¹³¹, in whatever forms – verbal or written – it was expressed, after it the hipped roofs continued to be constructed in a mass order only over the belltowers which didn't have own church dedications (we have the right to consider these belltowers as "typological successors" of the hipped-roof temples).

But the search of new forms of ceiling of the temples instead of forbidden hipped roofs proceeded. And as in the beginning of the XVI century the hipped roofs appeared as a replacement of the cupolas (see Chapter 8), so in the end of the XVII century the cupolas, already in the new conditions, appeared as a replacement of the hipped roofs. Respectively, the construction of the cupola temples like "circumscribed circle" began again, though in small amounts (examples – Incarnation church in Dubrovitsi¹³², 1690-1703; above-well chapel of Trinity-Sergius Lavra, the end of the XVII century). However, this subtype, as well as two first ones, had the wide spread in architecture of belltowers.

Derivative type from the fifth basic (digital marking – 5.4) – the temples with the cupolas on the pillarless quadrangles. In this derivative type it is possible to allocate two subtypes depending on the existence or the lack of drums.

The first subtype (digital marking – 5.4.1) – the pillarless temples where the cupola leans on the walls of the quadrangle, either directly – through sails or tromps, or on the round drum.

Such temples are met seldom in Russian architecture of the XVI-XVII centuries. It is possible to consider as the first temple where the cupola leaned directly on quadrangle, the refectory Annunciation church in Ferapontov monastery (the beginning of 1530s, Fig. 41)¹³³. Sretensky refectory of Antoniyev monastery (1535-1538), the northern side-altar of the cathedral of Nikitsky monastery (1564), the refectory church of Assumption of Krupetsky monastery (before 1584) and some others belong to this type. Even more seldom the cupola temples with round drums were constructed (the church of Assumption in Ivangorod, 1558).

 

 

Fig. 41. Refectory Annunciation church in Ferapontov monastery.

 

The pillarless temples with the cupola on the octagonal drum leaning on the walls of the quadrangle belong to the second subtype (digital marking – 5.4.2). This type of the temples is known under the name "octagon on quadrangle".

I.L. Buseva-Davydova considered¹³⁴ that the source of the temples like "octagon on quadrangle" is architecture of Ukraine where in 1681 "for the description of church drawings" the master of Kremlin Armory was sent, and after his return the first new church in Tsar’s village Voskresenskoye on the Presnya the construction of the church of such type with four symmetric semicircular side-altars was to begin.

But we can't agree with the researcher at least because the first typologically formed temple of this type appeared before 1681 – in 1678. It was the not preserved church of Tsarevitch Ioasaf in Izmailovo (Fig. 42¹³⁵).

 

 

Fig. 42. Church of Tsarevitch Ioasaf in Izmailovo. Lithography of the XIX century.

 

Actually, the genesis of the form "octagon on quadrangle" is quite clear, logical and has roots only in Russian architecture.

Pillarless quadrangles covered by the most various vaults (cupolas, cross-like ceilings, closed vaults and so forth) were widespread both in the XVI and XVII centuries. Hipped roofs on octagonal drums usually covered more complicated volumes, though, as we have seen above, they covered the quadrangles, too (Kosmodamiansky church in Murom of 1556-1565, the church of Nativity in Besedy of the end of the XVI century, etc.).

As we have spoken above, in the middle of the XVII century the hipped-roof temples were actually forbidden, but the search of new forms instead of hipped roofs began, and in these conditions the cupolas became the replacement of hipped roofs.

The quadrangle was the most optimal form of the main volume of the temples from the point of view of spaciousness and simplicity of construction. The hipped roof (respectively, also the cupola which replaced it) on a large and high drum created the feeling of altitude and solemnity. The combination of the quadrangle and the octagon made the impression of the variety of forms.

The temples like "octagon on quadrangle" in the end of the XVII century were built in mass quantities in the most various forms, so we consider as possible to allocate them in the separate subtype. The most known temples of this subtype – the church of Intercession in Fili (1690-1693, Fig. 6), Incarnation on Sheremetev Yard (1689-1691), Saviour in Ubory (1694-1697), gateway church of New Jerusalem monastery (1694-1697), Kazanskaya church in Uzkoe (1697) and many others.

 

10. Special types of Old Russian temples

 

There are few special types of the temples which aren't within the main types. Their specificity is caused by special circumstances.

The first special type (digital marking – 6) – the cross-in-square temples with 5 naves. We know only three such temples (Fig. 2): St. Sophia cathedrals of the XI century in Kiev, Novgorod and Polotsk.

We have already said in Chapter 2 that the adoption of Byzantine Christianity in Ancient Russia caused the need of construction of the greatest possible number of the biggest, representative and capacious temples, and the increase of the quantity of the naves became an attempt of the increasing of internal space. But the construction of the additional naves led to the decrease of the constructive reliability of the temples and the increase of the requirements to qualification of the builders. In this regard the temples with 5 naves ceased to be built even in the second half of the XI century.

The second special type of Old Russian temples (digital marking – 7) – wooden. It is impossible to forget about them because quantitatively they were the majority of churches. It is impossible also to separate them completely from stone architecture: though they didn't form "the architectural mainstream", but, as we have seen in Chapter 8, had the certain impact on its formation.

In this regard we can make a hypothesis concerning the origin of Old Russian wooden hipped-roof architecture. When after the christianization of Kiev Rus mass construction of Christian temples began, it was to follow canonical Byzantine architecture not only in stone, but also in wood: so the task of the carpenters was to show whenever possible that the temple is Orthodox, but not any other. (We will emphasize – whenever possible, since in the absence of the qualified carpenters the simplest izba-like churches were constructed). The building of cupola over the wooden temple, as we have already said, was difficult for the technological reasons, and the construction of hipped roofs instead of a cupolas was the best solution of this task (not for nothing such replacement, as we have seen in Chapter 8, took place in the IX century in Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem). And even if a hipped-roof wooden temple had the ceiling between the naos and the hipped roof for the temple warming, all the same it was visible at least in the external forms that the temple is Orthodox Christian.

Thus, we consider that the wooden hipped roof during the whole history of Old Russian architecture was the canonically conditioned and obligatory "simplified form" (see Chapter 3) of the cupola in stone Orthodox Church architecture.

We don't include wooden architecture into the main types because the plans and ceilings of wooden temples very significantly differ from the stone ones, and such major basic typological feature of Old Russian architecture as the cross-in-square system is possible only theoretically in them. Therefore, we allocate wooden temples in special type. Consideration of genesis of numerous subtypes of wooden architecture is beyond the present research¹³⁶.

 

Conclusion

 

So, we have described the typological forming and offered the universal classification of Old Russian temples by basic typological features (the plan and the ceiling). Classification is given in Tab. 1. For simplicity we provide only the first typologically formed temples in Tab. 1; we have spoken about their Byzantine, Romanesque and Russian prototypes in Chapters 4-9.

On the Scheme 1 the conditional scheme of architectural influences in Old Russian church architecture is provided. In this scheme the distribution of the types by the centuries is marked by the figures according to Tab. 1 conditionally, by the dates of appearing of the first typologically formed temples, with approximating of the dates to one century.

The general structure of Old Russian stone church architecture by the basic typological features is given in Tab. 2. The digital markings of types according to Tab. 1 are specified in the brackets. It should be noted that Tab. 2, unlike Tab. 1 and the Scheme 1, is structured on the formal basis and doesn't reflect real processes of typological forming.

All main and derivative types of temples classified in our research on the basic typological features (the plan and the ceiling) are enriched with the secondary typological features (altar apses, domes, choruses, galleries, antechurches, refectories, ladder towers, basements, terminations of the facades, belfries and so forth), with the variety of stylistic and technological methods. It creates the unique originality of each monument of Old Russian church architecture.

 

Table 1.

Basic typological classification of Old Russian church architecture

 

Digital mar- king	Name of the type	Short characteristic of the type	The approximate time of appearing of the type	The first typologically formed temples
1	First main type	Cross-in-square temples with 6 pillars and 3 naves	Since the end of the XI century till Modern times	Assumption cathedral of Kiev Pechersk Lavra (1073-1077)
2	Second main type	Centric cross-in-square temples with 4 pillars and 3 naves	Since the middle of the XII century till Modern times	White stone temples of Yury Dolgorukiy (1152)
2.1	First derivative type from the second main type	Temples with 4 pillars and the raised supporting arches	Since the end of the XII century till Modern times	Pyatnitsky church in Chernigov (the turn of the XII-XIII centuries), Archangel Michael cathedral in Smolensk (1191-1194)
2.2	Second derivative type from the second main type	"Inserted cross" (temples with corner wall supports)	Since the beginning of the XIV century till the XV century	Temples of the beginning of the XIV century: St. John Baptist church in Gorodishe (Kolomna), St. Nicholas church in the village of Kamenskoye
2.3	Third derivative type from the second main type	Temples with 4 pillars and pyramidally slanted walls and pillars	From the first quarter of the XV century till the middle of the XVI century	Zvenigorod white stone cathedrals of the beginning of the XV century
3	Third main type (actually derivative from the second main type)	Temples with 2 pillars and "degenerated" structure for the high iconostases	Since the beginning of the XVI century till Modern times	Annunciation church in Blagoveschensky Pogost (the first third of the XVI century)
3.1	Derivative type from the third main type	Temples with 2 pillars and the central drum on their axis	Since 1560s till Modern times	Annunciation cathedral in Solvychegodsk (1560-1579)
4	Fourth main type (actually derivative from the second main type)	Pillarless temples covered by various systems of the vaults	Since the end of the XV century till Modern times	Trifon's church in Naprudnoe (the middle of 1470s – the middle of 1480s)
4.1	First subtype of the fourth main type	Pillarless temples covered by the cross-like ceiling	Since the end of the XV century till Modern times	Trifon's church in Naprudnoe (the middle of 1470s – the middle of 1480s)
4.2	Second subtype of the fourth main type	Pillarless temples covered by the system of the arches leaning on each other	Since the middle of the XVI century till the middle of the XVII century	Church of Assumption in Gdov (1557-1561)
4.3	Third subtype of the fourth main type	Pillarless temples covered by the closed vault	Since the middle of the XVI century till Modern times	A number of Novgorod temples of 1550s
5	Fifth main type	Pillarless cupola and hipped-roof temples	Since 1510s till Modern times	Churches of Trinity and Alexey Mitropolit in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda (1513), Pyotr Mitropolit's cathedral in Vysoko-Petrovsky monastery (1514-1517)
5.1	First subtype of the fifth main type	Hipped-roof temples with the quadrangle	Since 1510s till the middle of 1650s	Church of Trinity in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda (1513)
5.2	Second subtype of the fifth main type	Hipped-roof temples with the plan like "circumscribed circle"	Since 1510s till the middle of 1650s	Church of Ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532)
5.3	Third subtype of the fifth main type	Cupola temples with the plan like "circumscribed circle"	Since 1510s till Modern times	Alexey Mitropolit's church in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda (1513), Pyotr Mitropolit's cathedral in Vysoko-Petrovsky monastery (1514-1517)
5.4	Derivative type from the fifth main type	Cupola temples on the quadrangle	Since 1530s till Modern times	Annunciation Church in Ferapontovy monastery (the beginning of 1530s)
5.4.1	First subtype of the derivative type from the fifth main type	Temples with the cupola arranged directly on the quadrangle or on the round drum	From the 1530s till Modern times	Annunciation Church in Ferapontovy monastery (the beginning of 1530s)
5.4.2	Second subtype of the derivative type from the fifth main type	"Octagon on quadrangle"	Since the last quarter of the XVII century till Modern times	Church of Tsarevitch Ioasaf in Izmailovo (1678)
6	First special type	Cross-in-square temples with 5 naves	Middle of the XI century	St. Sophia cathedral in Kiev (1st half of the XI century)
7	Second special type	Wooden architecture	All the time of existence of Old Russian architecture	The first St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev (952)

 

 

Scheme 1.

Conditional scheme of architectural influences in Old Russian church architecture

(figures mark the types according to Tab. 1)

 

 

Table 2.

Structure of Old Russian stone church architecture by the basic typological features

 

Plan

5 naves (6)

3 naves, 6 pillars (1)

3 naves, 4 pillars

3 naves, 2 pillars

"Inser-ted cross" (2.2)

Pillarless

Ceiling

The classical system (arches and vaults approx. at the same level)

Raised support. arches (2.1)

Classical centric system (3)

With the central drum on the axis of pillars (3.1)

Systems of vaults

Hipped-roof

Cupola

Special features

With vertical walls (2)

With slanted walls (2.3)

With cross- like vaults (4.1)

With system of the arches leaning on each other (4.2)

With closed vaults (4.3)

On the quadrangle (5.1)

"Circum-scribed circle" (5.2)

"Circum-scribed circle"  (5.3)

On the quadrangle without a drum  (5.4.1)

On the quadrangle with a drum  (5.4.2)

 

 

Notes

 

1. In this case we speak about the refectories as the extensions to the temples. In literature on monasteries the term "refectory church" is often used, but it is only terminological simplification meaning that the church is adjoined by the refectory chamber. The formal definition of "refectory church" may be either "church with a refectory" or "refectory with a church" (it depends on the context).

2. As the belfry in the churches "under bells" stands over the vaults of the main volume of the temples, it doesn't influence the basic typological classification of the temple.

3. История русской архитектуры. M., 1956. P.21.

4. Drawing by A.G. Chinyakov. Given in the book.: Воронин Н.Н. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси XII–XV веков. M., 1961-1962. Vol.1. P. 81.

5. There may be a large number of options, so we are talking only about the most common orientation (see: Заграевский С.В. О научной обоснованности «азимутального метода» (метода определения дат и посвящений древнерусских храмов по азимуту их алтарей) // Архитектор. Город. Время. Материалы Ежегодной международной научно-практической конференции (Великий Новгород – Санкт-Петербург). Объединенный выпуск XIII и XIV конференций. St. Petersburg, 2011. P. 69-74).

6. Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество конца X – начала XII в. Византийское наследие и становление самостоятельной традиции. М., 1987. P. 171.

7. Issues of reconstruction of the original form of Vladimir Assumption cathedral of Andrei Bogolyubsky (1158-1160) see in the book: Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Владимиро-Суздальского музея-заповедника. М., 2008. P. 93-101.

8. For example, see: История русского искусства. M., 1953. Vol.1. P. 11-154; История русской архитектуры. M., 1956. P. 11-63; Всеобщая история архитектуры. Leningrad; Moscow, 1966. Chapters 9-12, etc.

9. Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество... P. 135.

10. Всеобщая история архитектуры. Leningrad; Moscow, 1966. Vol.3. P. 84.

11. Cupola churches sometimes are called rotundas, which is quite true in the case of round temples, such as the mausoleum of Galla Placidia or as Zvartnots, but not quite right in respect of octagonal temples, for example, the church of Alexey Mitropolit in Alexandrova Sloboda of 1513. Sometimes they are called “pillar-like”, but this is true only when proportions are elongated upwards.

12. Бусева-Давыдова И.Л. Архитектура XVII века // Художественно-эстетическая культура Древней Руси XI–XVII века. М., 1996. P. 426-457.

13. Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество... P. 43.

14. Ibid. P. 47.

15. Голубинский Е.Е. История русской церкви. Vol. 1. Part 1. M., 1901. Vol. 1. Part 2. M., 1904. Reprint ed. M., 1997; Брунов Н.И. Очерки по истории архитектуры… Vol. 2; Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество...

16. N.I. Brunov believed that the cupola basilicas appeared because "the cupola of Pantheon was put on Basilica of Maxentius" (Брунов Н.И. Ibid. Vol.2. P. 17). But in fact, between the ancient Roman temples and Byzantine cupola basilicas a number of transitional stages took place (in particular, the cupola over the rotunda chapel of Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, 335). The genesis of this type of temples is traced in details in the book: Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество... P. 9-27.

17. Голубинский Е.Е. Ibid. Vol.1. P. 25-35.

18. For more information, see: Заграевский С.В. Юрий Долгорукий и древнерусское белокаменное зодчество. М., 2002. P. 81-113.

19. Брунов Н.И. Ibid. Vol.2. P. 424-425.

20. Всеобщая история архитектуры… Vol. 3. P. 44-45.

21. Ibid. P. 80-82.

22. In particular, A.I. Komech wrote: "The plans of the buildings typically reflect the practical needs. In the sixth and subsequent centuries, the strengthening of the role of the offertory in the liturgical rite demanded the arrangement of the credence and diakonia adjacent to the main altar. There was the three-part and, as the most common option, the three-apse structure of the altar part of the temple" (Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество... P. 33).

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. In the same scientific work A.I. Komech gave his arguments about symbolism and aesthetics also in details (see ibid, p. 33-37). It is interesting to note that the historian of the Church E.E. Golubinsky in the study of the genesis of the cross-in-square type of temples put at the forefront the constructive reasons, and the historian of architecture A.I. Komech – the theological reasons.

26. If we accept the position of A.I. Komech (as well as of many other supporters of the direct influence of symbols on architecture of churches: see, for example, the thematic catalog "Символика древнерусского зодчества" in the electronic library "Rusarch", www.rusarch.ru), we would have to assume that the "creative method" of medieval architects looked like this: "Should I make one head at the temple, because it symbolizes the unity of God? No, I'd rather make three chapters in honor of the Trinity... No, I'd better make five chapters in honor of Jesus and the Evangelists"... And so on for each architectural element. Of course, this is absurd.

27. For example, why must three heads of the temple necessarily symbolize the Trinity? Why not Jesus the Almighty, the Holy Virgin and John the Forerunner (according to the Deesis of the iconostasis)? In a similar way it is possible to cast doubt on the symbolic interpretation of every architectural element.

28. Голубинский Е.Е. Ibid. Vol. 1. P. 25-35. Additional confirmation of the objectivity of the researcher is the fact that the constructive reasons for the genesis of the forms of church architecture were put forward by the historian of the Church, moreover in the early twentieth century, when giving symbolic interpretations to every element of architecture of temples was very popular.

29. Брунов Н.И. Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 444.

30. Ibid. P. 452.

31. For more information, see: Заграевский С.В. Юрий Долгорукий…, P. 81-113.

32. Maybe someday direct or indirect confirmation or refutation of the existence of such directions or such ban will be found.

33. Брунов Н.И. Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 413.

34. The typological line of Byzantine architecture, which influenced the formation of architecture of Kiev Rus of the XI century, was traced by A.I. Komech (Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество... P. 17-26). In particular, the researcher believed that Tithes church in Kiev and Transfiguration cathedral in Chernigov were close to the temple in Dere-Agzy (X century) both compositionally and by the size.

35. A.I. Komech, in particular, wrote: "The whole space of the temple on four columns may not be of 5 naves. It can be surrounded by porticos, galleries, one-and two-levels, but in order for the whole composition to become united, it would have to be with many pillars. We may not talk about 5-naves composition of all known churches of Constantinople, no matter what extensions they are surrounded by" (Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество... P. 62).

36. This method of increasing the capacity of the temples took place not only in Ancient Russia, but also in Byzantine Empire (the church of Clemens in Ankara, VI–IX century; Sophia in Thessaloniki, VIII century; the church of Archangels in Sig, VIII century; etc.). A.I. Komech rightly believed that "this tradition, although not in its pure form, will be essential for Kiev construction of the middle of XI century". (Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество... P. 17).

37. There is still a chance of finding some direct or indirect documentary evidence on this subject.

38. Details on the prohibition of zooanthropomorphous decor by Russian Orthodox Church, see: Заграевский С.В. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси… P. 99-105.

39. For example, see: Брунов Н.И. Очерки по истории архитектуры...; Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество...

40. For example, see: Воронин Н.Н. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси… Vol. 1. P. 47; Раппопорт П.А. Зодчество Древней Руси. Leningrad, 1986. P. 37.

41. Dating justification of Assumption cathedral was given in the book: Раппопорт П.А. Зодчество Древней Руси… P. 34, 37.

42. Воронин Н.Н. Зодчество Киевской Руси // История русского искусства. М., 1953. Vol.1. P. 135-137.

43. Раппопорт П.А. Зодчество Древней Руси… P. 36.

44. For details see: Воронин Н.Н. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси… Vol. 1. P. 47.

45. Ibid. P. 37.

46. This point of view on the role of Assumption cathedral of Kiev-Pechersk Lavra in history of ancient architecture is generally accepted, it is not disputed by any researcher, and the author also does not see the need to revise it.

47. For more information, see: Заграевский С.В. Начало «русской романики»: Юрий Долгорукий или Андрей Боголюбский? М., 2006; Заграевский С.В. О возможности введения в научный оборот и возможных контекстах употребления термина «русская готика» в отношении архитектуры Древней Руси конца XIII–первой трети XV века. М., 2008. The articles are on the Internet site www.rusarch.ru.

48. The term "Russian Romanesque" was proposed By F. Halle in the 1920s in relation to the white-stone pre-Mongolian churches of North-Eastern Russia (F. Halle. Russische Romanik. Die Bauplastik von Wladimir-Souzdal. Berlin – Wien-Zurich, 1929). In Soviet times, it was practically not used, because there was an unofficial ban for such terminology, which directly linked architecture of Ancient Russia and Western Europe.

In post-Soviet time this term was used for the first time by A.I. Komech – in the name of his scientific work and without limitation, i.e. as a kind of unconditional reality (Комеч А.И. Архитектура Владимира 1150–1180-х гг. Художественная природа и генезис «русской романики» // Древнерусское искусство. Русь и страны византийского мира. XII век. СПб, 2002).

However, as it was shown in the special works of the author of this study (Заграевский С.В. Начало «русской романики»…; Заграевский С.В. О возможности введения в научный оборот и возможных контекстах употребления термина «русская готика»…), this term is actually quite conventional, and its scientific use requires a large number of reservations.

49. Иоаннисян О.М. Основные этапы развития Галицкого зодчества // Древнерусское искусство. Художественная культура Х–первой половины XIII в. М. 1988. P. 42.

50. Detailed justification of the start time of white-stone construction in Suzdal see: Заграевский С.В. Юрий Долгорукий… P. 27-80.

51. For more information, see: Заграевский С.В. Юрий Долгорукий…; Заграевский С.В. Апология ростовского летописца (к вопросу о датировке храмов Юрия Долгорукого) // Материалы областной краеведческой конференции, посвященной столетию со дня рождения Н.Н. Воронина (19 апреля 2004 г.). Владимир, 2004; Заграевский С.В. Начало «русской романики»…; Заграевский С.В. О возможности введения в научный оборот и возможных контекстах употребления термина «русская готика»…

52. Заграевский С.В. Апология ростовского летописца… С. 17; Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Владимиро-Суздальского музея-заповедника. М., 2008. P. 27-58.

53. Заграевский С.В. Начало «русской романики»…

54. For more information, see: Заграевский С.В. Архитектор Фридриха Барбароссы. М., 2011. The article is on the website www.rusarch.ru.

55. Воронин Н.Н. Зодчество Владимиро-Суздальской Руси // История русского искусства. М., 1953. Vol. 1. P. 345.

56. Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество... P. 281.

57. Ibid.

58. Иоаннисян О.М. Основные этапы развития Галицкого зодчества… P. 43.

59. Ibid; аграевский С.В. Юрий Долгорукий… P. 41-45.

60. Заграевский С.В. Юрий Долгорукий… P. 41.

61. Комеч А.И. Древнерусское зодчество... P. 81.

62. Вагнер Г.К. О своеобразии стилеобразования в архитектуре Древней Руси (возвращение к проблеме) // Архитектурное наследство. Issue 38. M., 1995. P. 23. Unfortunately, earlier the author of this research accepted the position of G.K. Wagner without a proper critical assessment (for example, see: Заграевский С.В. Начало «русской романики»…; Заграевский С.В. О возможности введения в научный оборот и возможных контекстах употребления термина «русская готика»…)

63. In addition to the tower-like stone temples, there were many alone standind towers in Russia (ПСРЛ 15:183). M. A. Ilyin, P.N. Maximov and V.V. Kostochkin believed that the chronicle told about wooden tent churches (Ильин М.А., Максимов П.Н., Косточкин В.В. Каменное зодчество эпохи расцвета Москвы // История русского искусства. Т. 3. М., 1955. P. 266), but it is impossible to exclude the fact that it told about wooden bell towers, i.e. about almost complete analogue of Romanesque and Gothic towers.

64. Воронин Н.Н. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси… Vol. 1. P. 103.

65. История русской архитектуры… P. 39.

66. On the clarification of the date of the church of Intercession on the Nerl see: Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Владимиро-Суздальского музея-заповедника. М., 2008. Chapter 8.

67. In 2001, the author wrote in his book "Юрий Долгорукий и древнерусское белокаменное зодчество": "We are not afraid to say that the construction by Dolgoruky of four or five white stone churches is comparable to the foundation of St. Petersburg by importance for the culture and politics of Russia (unfortunately, also by the load on the economy)" (Заграевский С.В. Юрий Долгорукий… P.139). New researches of the author, including those given in this work, not only confirm this point of view, but give more and more material for the "architectural rehabilitation" of Yuri Dolgoruky, whose role in the history of Russian architecture in the Soviet era was unduly belittled (see: Заграевский С.В. Начало «русской романики»…).

68. Воронин Н.Н. Зодчество Владимиро-Суздальской Руси // История русского искусства. М., 1953. Vol. 1. P. 317.

69. Raised supporting arches in Assumption cathedral of Ivan Kalita were assumed in the reconstructions by N.N. Voronin (Воронин Н.Н. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси… Vol.1. P. 153) and by the author of this study (Заграевский С.В. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси… P. 97).

70. About the date of the cathedral of Andronikov monastery see: Заграевский С.В. вопросы архитектурной истории собора Спаса Нерукотворного Андроникова монастыря. М., 2008. P. 22-27.

71. N.N. Voronin wrote about low constructive reliability of the temples with raised supporting arches (Воронин Н.Н. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси… Vol. 2. P. 109). The author explained in details the failibility of this position in the book: Заграевский С.В. Юрий Долгорукий… P. 106-107.

72. Details about the dates of the church of John the Baptist in Gorodishe in Kolomna, St. Nicholas church in the village of Kamenskoye, the first cathedrals of Bobrenev and Golutvin monasteries see: Заграевский С.В. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси… P. 41–63.

73. For more information see: Альтшуллер Б.Л. Памятники зодчества Московской Руси второй половины XIV–начала XV веков (новые исследования). Диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата архитектуры. На правах рукописи. М., 1978. P. 101-109.

74. Брунов Н.И. Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 468.

75. See: Заграевский С.В. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси…

76. Альтшуллер Б.Л. Ibid. P. 101.

77. According to P.A. Rappoport, "inserted cross temples" are called cross-in-square churches, in which the corner compartments are equal in height to the sleeves of the cross and are not separated from them by walls (Раппопорт П.А. Зодчество Древней Руси. L., 1986. P. 155).

78. Балдин В.И. Архитектура Троицкого собора Троице-Сергиевой лавры // Архитектурное наследство. № 6. М., 1956. P. 25.

79. In the cathedral of Andronikov monastery, only the middle apse has the small slope inside.

80. For more information, see: Заграевский С.В. К вопросу о древнерусских оборонных монастырях и храмах. М., 2011. The article is on the website www.rusarch.ru.

81. See more: Гуляницкий Н.Ф. О формирующих основах внутреннего пространства храмов xv–середины xvi вв. (функция, структура, иконостас) // Архитектурное наследство. Issue 38. M., 1995. P. 236-264.

82. Ibid.

83. Воронин Н.Н. К истории русского зодчества XVI века // Государственная академия истории материальной культуры. Бюро по делам аспирантов. Л., 1929. Issue 1. P. 83-93.

84. More information about the circumstances of this order see: Заграевский С.В. Юрий Долгорукий… P. 89.

85. Бочаров Г.Н., Выголов В.П. Сольвычегодск, Великий Устюг, Тотьма. L., 1983; Выголов В.П. Архитектура Благовещенского собора в Сольвычегодске // Архив архитектуры. Issue 1. M., 1992. P. 77-101.

86. See: Заграевский С.В. Архитектурная история церкви Трифона в Напрудном и происхождение крещатого свода. M., 2008. P. 25-28.

87. Заграевский С.В. Ibid. P. 29.

88. Clarification of the dates of some churches with cross-like ceiling see ibid, P. 21-23.

89. For more information, see: Седов Вл.В. О дате церкви Успения и соборной колокольни в Гдове // Археология и история Пскова и Псковской земли. Тезисы ежегодной научно-практической конференции. 1993. Pskov, 1994.

90. For more information, see: Заграевский С.В. К вопросу о датировке церкви преподобного Никона (Никоновского придела Троицкого собора) в Троице-Сергиевой Лавре // Памятники культуры. Новые открытия. 2006. M., 2009. P. 616-624.

91. For more information, see: Седов Вл.В. Собор Ризоположенского монастыря в Суздале // Новгородские древности. Вып. V. Сборник статей. М., 2000. P. 184–199.

92. Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Александровской слободы. М., 2008. Chapter 4; Заграевский С.В. Первый каменный шатровый храм и происхождение шатрового зодчества. М., 2008. The article is on the website www.rusarch.ru; Заграевский С.В. К вопросу о датировке и авторстве памятников Александровской слободы // Зубовские чтения. Сб. статей. Issue 3. Strunino, 2005. P. 69-96.

93. In particular, such was the point of view of N.M. Karamzin, I.M. Snegirev, L.V. Dal, E.E. Golubinsky, A.I. Nekrasov, G.K. Wagner (for details, see: Ильин М.А., Максимов П.Н., Косточкин В.В. Каменное зодчество эпохи расцвета Москвы // История русского искусства. Т. 3. М., 1955. P. 414; Ильин М.А. Русское шатровое зодчество. Памятники середины XVI века. Проблемы и гипотезы, идеи и образы. М., 1980. P. 14; Вагнер Г.К. О своеобразии стилеобразования в архитектуре Древней Руси (возвращение к проблеме) // Архитектурное наследство. Issue 38. M., 1995. P. 27).

94. In particular, such was the point of view of A.I. Zabelin, F.F. Gornostayev, I.A. Grabar, N.N. Voronin, P.N. Maximov, P.A. Rappoport, the author of this study (for details, see: Ильин М.А., Максимов П.Н., Косточкин В.В. Ibid. P. 414; Максимов П.Н. Воронин Н.Н. Деревянное зодчество XIII–XVI веков // История русского искусства. М., 1955. Vol. 3. P. 268; Ильин М.А. Ibid. P. 15; Раппопорт П.А. Древнерусская архитектура. SPb., 1993. P. 171; Всеобщая история архитектуры. Vol. 6. M., 1968. P. 84; Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Александровской слободы…; Заграевский С.В. Первый каменный шатровый храм…)

95. In particular, such was the point of view of N.I. Brunov (for details see: Ильин М.А. Ibid. P.16).

96. In particular, such was the point of view of B.P. Denike, M.G. Khudyakov (for details see:Денике Б.П. Искусство Востока. Очерк истории мусульманского искусства. М., 1923; Денике Б.П. Искусство Средней Азии. М., 1927; Худяков М.Г. Очерки по истории Казанского ханства. Казань, 1923).

97. In particular, such was the point of view of M.A. Ilyin and M.N. Tikhomirov (for details see: Ильин М.А. Ibid. P. 16; Вагнер Г.К. Ibid. P. 27).

98. In particular, such was the point of view of G.K. Wagner (for details see: Вагнер Г.К. Ibid. P. 27).

99. In particular, such was the point of view of V.V. Kavelmaher (V.V. Kawelmacher. Letter to T.P. Timofeeva. M., 1988. The letter is stored in the Museum-reserve "Alexandrovskaya Sloboda". Here is the full text of the paragraph devoted to the subject: "As for the hipped roof, it is nothing. An accident in architecture. It only replaces the cupola that covers the naos. From the former Byzantine provinces, the most developed typological grid, in my opinion, the Bulgarians, and their language is clear to us. The cupola lies not on pillars, but on foundations. That's all. You need to avoid pillars with drums, nothing basilical, and you get the "cupola" church. It says nothing to Russian ear, and our "pillarless" temple says nothing to a normal researcher of Byzantium. It is impossible to determine the subject by a missing feature... This example shows that we stopped at Sophias and overlooked the cupola churches").

100. In particular, such was the point of view of A.L. Batalov (Баталов А.Л. О происхождении шатра в русском каменном зодчестве XVI в. // Древнерусское искусство: Идея и образ. Опыт изучения византийского и древнерусского искусства. М., 2009. P. 55-74; Баталов А.Л. Еще раз о происхождении шатра в русской архитектуре // Лазаревские чтения. Искусство Византии, Древней Руси, Западной Европы. Материалы научной конференции. М., 2009. P. 158-196).

101. For more information, see: Кавельмахер В.В. Памятники архитектуры древней Александровой Слободы (сборник статей). Vladimir, 1995; Кавельмахер В.В. Древности Александровой Слободы (сборник научных трудов). М., 2008.

102. Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Александровской слободы...; Заграевский С.В. Первый каменный шатровый храм…; Заграевский С.В. К вопросу о датировке и авторстве памятников Александровской слободы…

103. Кавельмахер В.В. Древности Александровой Слободы… Illustrative material.

104. Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Александровской слободы… P. 39-47.

105. The church of Ascension in Kolomenskoye has the indisputable chronicle date of completion – 1532 (ПСРЛ 8:280; ПСРЛ 13:65; ПСРЛ 20:413). The architect of this Church is not clearly established. S.S. Pod'yapolsky, who devoted the special study to this subject, believed that it was Petrok Maly, or Minor (Peter Fryazin), who had probably arrived in Moscow in 1528 (Подъяпольский С.С. Архитектор Петрок Малой // Памятники русской архитектуры и монументального искусства. Стиль, атрибуции, датировки. М., 1983. P. 44). Accordingly, the researcher dated the temple of Ascension by 1529-1532. (Ibid. P. 46).

106. For more information see: Заграевский С.В. Формы глав (купольных покрытий) древнерусских храмов. М., 2008.

107. For more information, see: Кавельмахер В.В., Панова Т.Д. Остатки белокаменного храма XIV в. на Соборной площади Московского кремля // Культура средневековой Москвы XIV–XVII вв. М., 1995. P. 66; Ильин М.А. Ibid.

108. Подъяпольский С.С. К вопросу о своеобразии архитектуры московского Успенского собора // Успенский собор Московского Кремля. Материалы и исследования. М., 1985. P. 42.

109. Кавельмахер В.В. Памятники архитектуры древней Александровой Слободы…; Кавельмахер В.В. Древности Александровой Слободы…; Подъяпольский С.С. Архитектор Петрок Малой...

110. Баталов А.Л. О происхождении шатра…; Баталов А.Л. Еще раз о происхождении шатра…

111. Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Александровской слободы...; Заграевский С.В. Первый каменный шатровый храм…; Заграевский С.В. К вопросу о датировке и авторстве памятников Александровской слободы… Unfortunately, A.L. Batalov in his articles (see the previous note) did not find acquaintance to our researches of the origin of hipped-roof architecture.

112. The Internet site www.artandarchitecture.org.uk.

113. Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Александровской слободы...; Заграевский С.В. Первый каменный шатровый храм…; Заграевский С.В. К вопросу о датировке и авторстве памятников Александровской слободы…

114. Максимов П.Н. Воронин Н.Н. Ibid. P. 264.

115. Ibid. P. 271. N.N. Utkin, exploring the history of the temples of Unsky Pogost, noted that the clergy sheets could confuse Clement Church with another Church of Unsky Pogost – Trinity, a large number of reconstructions of Trinity church is given in literature (Уткин Н.Н. Церковные древности Унского посада // Экология культуры 1998 г. № 1(4). Новые открытия и реставрация памятников Русского Севера. Тезисы конференции 8–9 апреля 1998 года. Arkhangelsk, 1998). The construction history of Clemens Church is also not easy. But, in the words of N.N. Utkin, "the assumption of the possibility of transferring of Trinity church from the refectory and its using as the single-altar Clemens church does not remove the question of the date of the latter by 1501". And the conclusion of the researcher is as follows: the date of Clemens church is 1501.

116. This position was justified by A.K. Dezhurko on the forum of the Internet site www.archi.ru on the basis of the following considerations: folk architecture is conservative, typologies change very slowly; there was a practice to replace rotten logs one by one; carpenters were often obliged to build a new church by the model of the old, which had come into disrepair.

117. Рогожский летописец. Тверской сборник // Полное собрание русских летописей. Т. 15. М., 2000. С. 150; Летописный сборник, именуемый летописью Авраамки // Полное собрание русских летописей. Т. 16. М., 2000.

118. George Jeffery. A brief description of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, and other Christian churches in the Holy City, with some account of the mediaeval copies of the Holy Sepulchre surviving in Europe. Cambridge, 1919.

119. Amico da Gallipoli, Bernardino. Trattato delle Piante e Immagini de Sacre Edifizi di Terra Santa. Firenze, Pietro Cecconcelli, 1620.

120. Тихомиров М.Н. Малоизвестные летописные памятники XVI в. // Исторические записки. 1941. Book 10. P. 88.

121. A.L. Batalov analyzed this chronicle message (Баталов А.Л. О происхождении шатра… P. 57-58).

122. Воронин Н.Н. Зодчество Киевской Руси // История русского искусства. М., 1953. Vol.1. P. 132.

123. Мокеев Г.Я. Три Софии. О начале распространения на Руси храмового многоглавия. Статья находится на Интернет-сайте http://www.orthedu.ru/ch_hist/hi_rpz/125104ru.htm

124. V.V. Kawelmacher wrote about the "carpenter" motives in architecture of Trinity Church (Кавельмахер В.В. Памятники архитектуры древней Александровой Слободы…; Кавельмахер В.В. Древности Александровой Слободы…)

125. V.V. Kawelmacher. Letter to T.P. Timofeeva…

126. Голубинский Е.Е. История русской церкви… Vol. 1. P. 79.

127. V.V. Kawelmacher reconstructed the church of Alexey Mitropolit with the cupola, the author of this study – with the cupola and "under the bells", and that does not change the basic typological nature of this building (see: Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Александровской слободы… P. 30-38).

128. Подъяпольский С.С. Архитектор Петрок Малой… P. 39.

129. Кавельмахер В.В. О позднеготических истоках и мастерах Покровского собора на Рву, Борисоглебского собора в Старице и церкви Усекновения главы Иоанна Предтечи в Дьякове. Appendix to the book: Кавельмахер В.В., Чернышев М.Б. Древний Борисоглебский собор в Старице. М., 2008.

130. История русского искусства. М., 1959. Т. 4. С. 164.

131. What was the reason for Nikon’s ban, we can only speculate. Perhaps the Patriarch considered the replacement of the cupola with the hipped roof, which had began in the early XVI century, non-canonical. Perhaps there was a kind of "monopoly" on the big hipped roof from the Patriarch's side, as Nikon, having forbidden other church builders to build tents, began to build the hipped-roof rotunda in New Jerusalem. Perhaps the Patriarch just considered hipped architecture too costly, technologically complex and inefficient from the point of view of the capacity of the temples. Perhaps the hipped roofs did not suit Nikon for purely aesthetic reasons. There can be many options here.

132. Since tetraconchus semicircles of Incarnation church are opened into the naos, and in the forms of the temple there is no quadrangle, we have no right to refer this temple to the type of "octagon on quadrangle" (as it did, for example, I.L. Buseva-Davydova, see: Бусева-Давыдова И.Л. Архитектура XVII века... P. 446).

133. See: Петров Д.А. К вопросу о бесстолпных купольных конструкциях в архитектуре Новгорода XVI в. // Археология и история Пскова и Псковской земли. Тезисы докладов научно-практической конференции. Pskov, 1989. In the cit. article Annunciation Church of Borisoglebsky monastery (1526) is also mentioned, but as A. L. Batalov specified, it was originally covered by a wooden roof (Баталов А.Л. К вопросу о происхождении крещатого свода в русской архитектуре XVI века // София. Сб. статей по искусству Византии и Древней Руси в честь А.И.Комеча. М., 2006. P. 53).

134. Бусева-Давыдова И.Л. Архитектура XVII века... P. 446.

135. Lithography of the XIX century. In the book: Измайлово. Памятники архитектуры XVII–XIX вв. М., 1988.

136. This issue was considered in many scientific works (see, for example, the thematic catalog "Древнерусское деревянное зодчество" in the electronic library "Rusarh", www.rusarch.ru).

 

 

© Sergey Zagraevsky

 

To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page