To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page

Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky

Critique

on S.A. Sharov-Delaunay’s book

”People and stones of North-Eastern Russia. XII c.”

Attention!

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

and has not yet been edited.

So it can be used only for general introduction.

RUSSIAN VERSION

Annotation

Review of Professor, doctor of architecture SV Zagraevsky on the book by S. A. Sharov-Delaunay "is Men and stones of North-Eastern Russia. XII century" reveals in this book a large number of factual errors and inaccuracies, an arbitrary image reconstructions, stylistic and compositional errors and other deficiencies that do not allow to consider this book as fundamental scientific work, the status of which it claims.

Reviewed the book is positioned its author as a comment to the major two-volume work N.N. Voronin, "Architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries"¹ [S. 1]. Immediately discuss that here and further in brackets we will refer to the relevant pages of the book S.A. Sharova-Delaunay "Men and stones North-Eastern Russia. XII century"²most S.A. Sharova-Delaunay we will be without clarification to call the author and discussed the book, also without clarification, - book.

According to the formal parameters of a book on the fundamental claim. Volume - 932 page (which, considering the smaller format comparable to dedicated to the XII century, the first volume of the book by N.. Voronin), three-dimensional illustrations, copyright reconstruction of almost all the churches of the North-Eastern Russia XII century. Form of presentation - scientific.

Let's see whether this book is fundamental and research not only in form, but in essence.

Immediately struck by the lack of not only the scientific editor, but "simple" editor - in for scientific work of this volume, it looks a bit strange. Of course, this right of the author to invite the editor or not, but we must remember that in this case, the moral responsibility for all potential typographical errors, inaccuracies, unreasonable logical construction and violations of scientific ethics rests solely with the author. However, partly author tried to share responsibility with the archaeologist EL

You can, unfortunately, only speculate about the period during which the book was written, since its output is missing date of going to print, and we can only focus on the production year book 2007 (in stores book appeared in 2008). Accordingly, it is assumed that the author is so respectable publications should be familiar with all more or less important scholarly works on the subject of the book, published before 2007. But all these works, published after 1962 (the date of the second volume of capital work N.N.

Striking and literary style of the author, often incompatible with scientific positioning of the book. You can read about criminal code [c. 6], and jokes about Vovochka [S. 306], and the fact that the position Dolgoruky was "worse Governor" [S. 431], and about the "gang behalf 1152" [S. 442]and "somewhat schizophrenic split personality is the main masters" [S. 456], and about the "bishops ' meetings" [S. 515], and the fact that in the XII century the highway had problems" [S. 517], and the fact that "everyone knows what was Mr. Voronin" [855]. So, in English.

But this is a General comment. We're going to give historical and architectural review on this book. Comments, we will for simplicity and clarity to pages, avoiding General conclusions and giving readers the opportunity to make their own. Thanks SO Timofeeva for graciously agreeing to view a copy of this review and to make a number of amendments.

[S. 14]. Author distributes Dating temples Yuri Dolgoruky between 1147-1148 and 1156 years (in the same work he includes the device of floors in the Suzdal Cathedral of the Nativity of the virgin), ignoring the message Printing Chronicles the construction of five temples Dolgoruky. In published in 2004 article³ we showed infidelity such Dating, noted that in the works of N.N. Voronin⁴ and O.M. Ioannisyan⁵ there is a tendency of such a method of Dating churches listed Rostov chronicler, and predicted that future researchers will become still more evenly distribute Dating five temples Yuri (including hypothetical Church of the Saviour in Suzdal) between 1148 and 1157 years. The number of possible variants of such distribution in the hundreds.

[S. 16]. Archaeological research VP Glazov, P.L. Zykov and M. ioannisyan, conducted in 2001 showed that the Church of 1152 was not in place of the existing St. George's Cathedral⁶. The author also ignores the results of these studies (or unfamiliar with the latest archaeological data on the temple), and reproduces the outdated AV Stoletov.

[S. 17]. The author considers four pillars apses of the temple Yuri Dolgoruky not just innovation, and is absolutely unique and unprecedented" [S. 24]. While these temples in Galich and Zvenigorod Galitsky mentioned only in passing and somehow not accepted as equivalent [S. 22]. But it is difficult to call a type of temples "unprecedented" is to ignore its Genesis, which in the case of consideration of a range of architectural type can not be present.

[S. 25]. In the header of the 2nd Chapter shows the classic date of assumption Cathedral in Vladimir - 1158-1160 years, but in the text of this Chapter uses a different everywhere, nowhere specified and no reasonable date, - 1159-1160. And in the Chapter on Bogolyubov [S. 93-141] again 1158-1160.

[S. 26]. The author rightly noted the discrepancy between the plan and axonometric in the reconstruction of the original form of the assumption Cathedral N.N. Voronin and expressed regret about bringing this controversial reconstruction in the textbook on the history of Russian architecture, but forgot to mention that 3 years prior to release of his book was published our scientific work on the reconstruction of the Cathedral⁷ where this discrepancy was also noted (and more advanced), and was also expressed regret about the availability of this reconstruction in the same textbook. The absence of references to our work - in this case a violation not only of scientific ethics, and copyright.

[S. 28]. The author believes that in the reconstruction of the original form of the assumption Cathedral in the "Russian architecture" column-type belt members of the Western front and unusually low, and in the reconstruction of the Voronin - as usual. But there is also an objective picture: the facades of the Cathedral of Andrey Bogolyubsky largely preserved and available measurements. In both reconstructions, we see almost the same proportion, it is appropriate nature. And the author is a false problem for some reason was "motivated to continue the study" [S. 29].

[S. 31]. Ledge in the field of parts of the Western facade that "forced" the author of a reconstruction of the original form of the assumption Cathedral of Andrei Bogolyubsky - usually for Vladimir-Suzdal architecture. And suddenly this bench is the cornerstone for the mass of logic, since the presence of this offset supposedly prevents porch [S. 33]. Why interfere - it is unclear: on the plan A.V. Stoletov shows and ledges, and the arches, and each other, they do not interfere.

[S. 32]. The author without any archaeological information suggests that the Cathedral choir of Andrey Bogolyubsky in the South side kept the door, and this makes the arbitrary conclusion that the Cathedral was associated with a certain transition walls [S. 43].

[S. 38]. The author believes on the basis of stylistic analysis portals vsevolodova galleries, completely restored in karabutove - again, without referring to any archaeological information - that portals galleries Vsevolod are transferred back hypothetical portals aisles of the Cathedral Andrew. For much of the global output, extradited restoration ability masters of XII century (not to move one or two blocks, and two portal entirely!), basic information is not enough.

[S. 48]. We see in the book of the same problems of image interpretation of the assumption Cathedral of the XVI century that N.N. Voronin⁸. These issues were addressed by us in the work devoted to the reconstruction of the temple⁹. The author of this work is not referenced.

[S. 52]. The author reconstructs the assumption Cathedral of Andrei Bogolyubsky triforium (tripartite window) by analogy with the Bogoliubov stairwell only on the basis of the gap column-type belt, which actually explains a lot simpler - the presence underneath portal. ¹⁰ but all of reconstruction should be based primarily archaeologically. And why the author believes that the three-part "observance" window in the post-Mongol Russian architecture [S. 63-65] should have had it origins exactly in Vladimir's assumption Cathedral, but, for example, not directly in Western European architecture?

[S. 66]. And here the author writes that triforine Windows on the assumption Cathedral is a "proven fact". As far as he is "little evidence"to judge the readers.

[S. 67-68]. The initial whitening and (or) plaster white stone churches of North-Eastern Russia - the question that troubles many researchers, but by putting forward their vision of the situation, does not give a single reference to the works of predecessors¹¹.

[S. 82-84]. The author believes that the Metropolitan Jonah Sysoevich reproduced in Rostov exactly the Vladimir Golden gate (and not any of the numerous gate churches of the XVI-XVII centuries) and uses the Rostov built for his reconstruction of Golden gate, despite the fact that Andrei Bogolyubsky and Jonah share more than five centuries.

[S. 77-84]. The author rightly believes after N.N. Voronin (with appropriate reference [S. 77]), ETC. Timofeeva¹² (without reference)that the architects of the late XVII century would be unable to quality playback forms gate of the temple of the Golden gate with its restructuring, and that the drawing Berk and Gusev a picture of the first Rizpolozhenskaya Church. But the author suddenly quite abruptly withdrawn on the position ETC. Timofeeva: researcher, ignoring the contradictory conclusions, adopted a reconstruction of the ALEXANDER Stoletov [S. 84]. But Stoletov did not believed that drawing Berk and Gusev plays a converted Church, on the contrary, he believed that the ancient Church was preserved only in this drawing. ¹³ giving adequate proportion of the gate of the Church.

[S. 94]. The author, based on their own views on the work collectives, endangers not only the message Printing record [S. 14], but the number of chronicle reports tab Bogolyubov. It is hardly possible so take liberties with sources.

[S. 100-103]. The author of the renovation has turned into the basis for departing from the classic cross-system [S. 101-103] a purely technical problem-based arches of the Church of the Nativity of the virgin on the capitals of the Koruna. This problem was formulated and solved N.N. Voronin¹⁴ (arch cut capitals, while in no way not "spoiling" them), and inevitably the question arises, what is easier - cut capitals or change the style of the temple? The latter would be just as strange, how to rebuild the house because there is nowhere to hang a chandelier or a picture (remember the "Occam's razor" - "should not multiply entities beyond necessity"). And the author is a false problem cutting through the capitals became the cornerstone for further logical constructs, occupying many pages.

[S. 103-114]. Artificial problem with cutting through the capitals expanded. The author recalls Fioravanti [S. 107] and announced that the roots of the groin of the Moscow Uspenie Cathedral are in the Bogoliubov Church.

[S. 108-109]. From a false problem with cutting through the capitals of the author came to think of another original cover design of the temple, is not the simplest, and at the wheel. Sorry that this "new word in the history of architecture" is built on the premise of a hypothetical impossibility cut capitals.

[S. 122-124]. The author on the basis of the analysis of the columns preserved under the Bogoliubov arc names obviously erroneous assumption N.N. Voronin on the number of columns in the middle fence. Why? Because arch is attached not to the middle and the side fence, and no connection is seen.

[125 C.]. Another "sensation" - wild (different proportions than triforium stair tower) on the author's reconstruction Bogoliubov Church. This time the author leads and archaeological study - chip certain archivolt radius 55 cm. But this could be the chip archivolt column-type belt, since the author believes that the migration zone in the middle of the Central fence around 1,10 m. Not less likely that this chip belonged to any of the many Palace buildings.

[S. 131]. The author believes that the Church of the Nativity of the virgin had no porch. But the Ipatiev chronicle clearly States that the body of Andrew Bogolyubsky lay in the vestibule. In the Laurentian chronicle nothing about the narthex is not said only that the first Prince was under porch (stairs), after he was found and brought in "the temple", i.e. the Prince's body as would not lay a few days in the vestibule. So, Laurentian chronicle can not generally be considered a source on the availability of the porch of the Bogoliubov Church, and in this regard should focus on the Ipatiev.

[S. 149]. Found during excavations near the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl layers debris author interprets as the fact that the builders used the artificial hill instead of forests. Something resembling an ancient Egyptian method of construction (for example, in Karnak temple survived the remainder of such embankment). Only it is not clear why the builders of the Church of the Intercession if they used was so ancient and inefficient way of replacing forests, built so the whole Church, but the podium.

[S. 153]. The author tries to disavow made S.M. Novakovskiy-Buchman finds nests laid on floors of galleries, based on the fact that flights are too large and uneven. But the researchers could not find all the nests, some of them have completely disappeared at turnings.

[S. 156]. Another "fresh idea" author, having no precedents in the ancient Russian architecture, nor in the reconstruction of the original appearance of the Church of the Intercession of other researchers: do not open or closed gallery, while the wall, enclosing the yard-atrium". Naturally, the author had to abandon nests found floors: they "interfere" in its reconstruction. But was it worth the builders of the temple for the protection of the walls to hold such a strong Foundation? Yes, and the distance from the fence to the walls of the Church - about 2 m at the height of the fence over 3 m, meaning "yard-atrium" would be a narrow, close and pressing "canisters".

[S. 168]. Another unprecedented architectural element proposed by the author: balcony-tower on the corner of the walls of the courtyard-atrium, to which the author took Voroninsky the finding fragment pillars galleries. But we in Ancient Rus these balconies do not know.

[S. 182]. The author again does not trust the Chronicles, this time regarding the date of the Rostov Cathedral of the assumption. That the Church, in his personal reasons, could not build up to 2 years - no more than his personal views. A chronicle, with not one, but four, - the document.

[S. 189, 201]. Assumptions about the specific form of the Church narthex Rostov author based on assumptions about "Gornji grad" and that the Suzdal Cathedral 1222-1225 went back to Rostov. This hypothesis is based on hypotheses.

[S. 196 to 199]. "Sensational" the author's conclusions about the South aisle Leontius in the Dormition Cathedral in Rostov based only on the fact that cancer Leontius was in front of the altar, and that altar barrier of the South aisle, respectively, was relegated from the main obstacles. But in the XII century altar barrier has been slow and unsteady, so that they can be of any type and configuration. But the chapel in the name of Leontius is unlikely to be silent record.

[S. 203]. The author sees the reason for the imminent collapse of the Rostov Cathedral of Andrei Bogolyubsky not in its low structural reliability (although mention of such a possibility - unfortunately, without reference to our works¹⁵), and in case of fire. But because the record did not report the Rostov fire in 1204, when the temple collapsed, it is no more than speculation copyrights.

[S. 203]. The author once again believes the summation of data chroniclers, this time against Vladimir Church of our Saviour. "Sloppy" Chronicles the book looks so massive that it is not clear how the author of confidence even in something.

[S. 206]. Again, in the author's reconstruction, we see triforium and wild, now the Church of the Saviour. The author draws this conclusion from the picture in 1764, but it is, first, conventional, and in the second place, in the middle of the Church is rather not even a window, a door with a visor. Typically, earlier in his reconstruction of Golden gate [S. 77-84], the author of this image is ignored.

[S. 207]. The author's suggestion that the monastery is the Church of the Saviour was built not at the turn of the XII and XIII centuries (as I thought N.N. Voronin¹⁶), and earlier when Andrei Bogolyubsky, based on nothing, as if the Church was not home, this does not mean that he was the Cathedral of the monastery, he could be and the parish.

[S. 211]. The author moves on the year and Vladimir fire in 1185, and the date of consecration vsevolodova galleries (1189), considering these messages Dating back not on the March, and on ultramartovskomu style. But it is not proved, as statistics, allowing to determine the chronological style, very little [212 C.], and this shift may take place only as a variant of Dating N.N. Voronin (1185-1189).

[S. 218] the Role of the walls of the buttresses and arched bridges, flying buttresses in vsevolodova galleries was discussed in our previous works¹⁷. Again have to remember about research ethics.

[S. 230-232]. The author writes about the Northern door to the choir vsevolodova galleries as absolute fact, without any archaeological evidence.

[S. 233]. The author raised and considered in detail the question of column-type zone of the southern wall vsevolodova galleries, but offered no possible explanation of its location. It is unclear what was then generally consider this issue: the volume of the book and so very great.

[S. 244-255]. Comparative analysis of images suddenly led the author to the conclusion that the Cathedral of St. Demetrius was 3 porch [S. 255]. The author's thoughts reconstruct failed, not one word of the arches him to [S. 255] no.

[S. 256-259]. In the author's analysis of archaeology galleries Cathedral of St. Demetrius (by the way, not taking into account the data obtained during excavations 2003-2004¹⁸) also says nothing of the arches. [S. 259] - again, the author's assertion about the three arches. Thus, the author reconstruction of the Cathedral as forechurches (as, unfortunately, and all the others listed in the book reconstruction) can only be described as arbitrary.

[S. 260]. It is unclear on what basis the author, reconstructing huge, wall-to-wall, window biforiynoe South tower of the Cathedral of St. Demetrius. Nothing like in ancient architecture, we do not know. It is characteristic that the author of more and more of their "innovation" offers readers as given, without special study: for example, [S. 264] the same huge biforiynoe window, again without comments, appears in the North tower.

[S. 265]. The author completely ignores on the Dating Cathedral of St. Demetrius the works of his predecessors - SO Timofeeva¹⁹ and P.L. Zykov²⁰.

[S. 293, 315, 320]. Biforiynoe window at the Central part of the Cathedral of St. Demetrius also adopted by the author as an absolute given, generally without comments.

[S. 341]. For the reconstruction of the gate of the temple of the pre-Mongolian time again used buildings in the distant future - building Ions Sysoevicha.

[S. 342]. Author confidently offers summarize reconstruction", without stating that the reconstruction of the gate of the citadel may be purely speculative.

[S. 345]. The author disputes the claim N.N. Voronin about the fact that the wall of the citadel had quite the nature of combat, but this is hardly true: the city wall could be less thick as siege equipment it is difficult to drag, and the very fact of white stone, and not wooden walls already gave her a serious defense significance.

[S. 347]. The author or unfamiliar with the work of OTHER Timofeeva of historical topography of the Detinets²¹or ignores this scientific work.

[S. 364]. The author believes that all readers of the book should be "well known" about the Trinity chapel of St. George's Cathedral in Yuryev-Polsky. But really not well-known (or rather, a very controversial) the construction of the chapel in the pre-Mongolian time²², and the author of the existence of the Trinity chapel is the cornerstone of the allegations that at the Cathedral of the Nativity monastery were not just gallery and the Northern side-chapel. From here follow and further construction of copyright Pro overlap chapel [S. 364-371]. A highlight chapel, the author receives and North porch [S. 371], and it does not bother you that the size of the chapels were too high. Just transformed into a Western narthex and Western portal gallery [S. 373]. It also appears the porch and from the South, only a brick [S. 375].

[S. 379-386]. The author conducts a detailed analysis of the drawing Artlebena, where the Cathedral of the Nativity monastery shows high top, and makes conclusions about the presence of such top and in reality. But, first, on the specified design drawings top of the temple looks absolutely inadequate, and secondly, in the XIX century was built a full-scale copy of the temple, and on top of her design is quite traditional.

[S. 387-389]. The author claims the existence of corbel arches at the temples of early Moscow architecture (the first Moscow Uspensky Cathedral, St. Nicholas Cathedral in Mozhaisk). All this was in our monograph, published in 2003²³ but no reference to it, the author did not.

[S. 397]. Suddenly, it comes about the farm, and is accepted as an absolute given that in 1190-ies in Vladimir worked for 2 farm. Earlier in the book anything about the farm is not mentioned, and further artisanal devoted a whole section [S. 420-535]. It is a question of the composition of the book.

[S. 395-398]. Assignment thread portal to the beginning of XIII century and far-reaching conclusions about the work collectives author bases only on the basis of the description and photos of the portal styled remake of the Cathedral of the Nativity monastery. This is clearly not enough to justify the conclusions.

[S. 399]. Based on the above questionable underlying assumptions, the author claims that the Nativity Cathedral is a landmark building for Vladimir-Suzdal architecture, sample of Suzdal, Yuriev-Polskiy cathedrals, "then everywhere" (these are the words of the author [400]), up to the cathedrals of the Moscow Andronicus and Christmas monasteries.

[S. 405, 406] And, of course, for reconstruction of the Vladimir Nativity Cathedral in secondary fence - "branded" author beforei, as unconditional and non-discussion of the fact. And in a footnote to [S. 410] the author speaks with undisguised insult, that in the book TF Savarenskaya the plan of the Cathedral of the Nativity monastery shows without chapels, and calls it "cheating".

[S. 411]. Characteristically, N.N. Voronin rejected the reconstruction of the chapels of the Cathedral of the Nativity monastery, considering them incompatible with galleries²⁴. And the author on his reconstruction of their combines.

[S. 413]. Author's reconstruction of the top of the Cathedral of the Nativity monastery served as a basis for its assumptions about the nature of the top of the Cathedral of the Knyaginin monastery.

[S. 415]. The author's name as a given "collectivist thinking" in the Middle ages is actually a very controversial proposition, as, for example, the role of personality churchwarden in architecture was higher.

[S. 420-535]. The concept of the author's building cooperatives generally consistent with the concept N.N. Voronin, P.A. Rappoport and O.M. Ioannisyan. Our criticism of this concept²⁵ totally ignored.

[S. 454-455]. Author's calculation of the number of building the farm, on the basis of one construction season, almost fully corresponds to our calculation, conducted in 2002²⁶and link to it there. Does it make sense again to talk about scientific ethics and copyright?

[S. 482-483]. A similar violation of academic ethics, now against A.I. of Komech. By virtually repeats its position that Vsevolod, despite the annals clarify "who is not looking masters from the German"²⁷yet invited the German team, but references to relevant work of the scientist²⁸ the book does not.

[S. 489-490]. But in order to "denounce" the opinion A.I. of Komech that Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir was the result of the development of architectural schools²⁹ as "deeply flawed", "surface and arbitrary", the author took one small paragraph. Naturally, the author is entitled to have his own point of view on any issue (it has a tendency to believe everything the architecture of North-Eastern Russia "imported"), but still would like to criticism serious scientific work was more reasonable, and it was chosen less dramatic expression.

[S. 493-518]. The author gives a detailed calculates the size of the farm Vsevolod and all stages of its work. This accuracy would deserve the most positive feedback, if it was not based on more than the approximate data (and not the XIIand the beginning of XX century) on the complexity of the construction works.

[S. 514]. Suddenly it turns out that the author still familiar with the work of OTHER Timofeeva about Dating Dmitrievsky Cathedral³⁰ (in the Chapter devoted to the temple, nothing about it was). The author believes that his calculations of the farm "conclusively show that the message record referenced by OTHER Timofeeva, wrong. A similar opinion about the chroniclers of the author is already far not for the first time, and the "victim" of his most controversial settlement was not the first chronicle.

[S. 552-560]. We see almost full (often verbatim repetition of the material [16-24 C.] that churches Yuri Dolgoruky "is absolutely original and unprecedented." Repeated and many illustrations. There is a feeling that the author of "catching up" the volume of the book, already considerable.

[S. 571]. The author believes that the facade of the arcature and column-type belt in the Western romanik appeared not earlier than the second half of the XII century. Actually such zone (original) there are cathedrals and in Modena, and in Pavia (Italy), and in Aachen, in Speyer, and in Straubing (Germany), and the author's claim that they first used in North-Eastern Russia, akin they mocked at [S. 440] the assertion that "Russia is the Motherland of elephants".

[S. 575-588, 642-661]. The analysis of the "order history" specific temples is based on hypothetical reconstructions of the author, i.e. we see the juxtaposition of hypotheses on the hypothesis - the so-called "hypothesis in the square.

This concludes page-historical-architectural review, so as to [S. 669] begins the consideration of the symbols of old Russian art, and the us, for example, it is unclear why the [S. 699] the author takes as a given that 12 drum Windows represent the 12 apostles, what then symbolize 8-window and 10-window drums? [S. 699] starts the analysis of the stories and monumental sculpture of Vladimir-Suzdal sculpture with the search for a whole iconographic program and on each temple, and Vladimir-Suzdal architecture in General. ³¹ not cited). You can Express regret that the author, who, in his words, "not claiming and professing to light the face of critics" [524], yet is taken to discuss on hundreds of pages purely artistic problems.

So in conclusion, just say: because [S. 855] the author leaves no hope "to master 2-nd volume of the book" (apparently on the architecture of XIII century), let's hope we do, that our review at least something will be useful for future research of the author. Unless, of course, the author takes the trouble to read it.

NOTES

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

2. Balloon Delaunay S.A. Men and stones North-Eastern Russia. XII century. M., 2007.

3. Zagraevsky SV ANDPology Rostov chronicler (to the question about the Dating temples Yuri Dolgoruky). Abstracts. In the book: Materials of the regional conference dedicated to the centenary of the birth of N.N. Voronin (19 April 2004.). Vladimir, 2004. C. 15-26.

4. Voronin N.N. The decree. cit. So 1. C. 68, 89, 91.

5. O.M. ioannisyan ON the early development of the Galician architecture. - In the book: THE USSR ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. Short communications. No 164. Slavic-Russian archeology. M., 1981. C. 41-44; O.M. ioannisyan Architecture of ancient Galich and architecture of Malopolska. - In the book: Acta Archaeologica Carpathica. 27. Krakow, 1988. C. 187.

6. Archaeological research K.K. Romanova (in the book: Voronin N.N. The decree. cit. So 2. C. 69) and AV Stoletov (Stoletov AV materials for the reconstruction of St. George's Cathedral 1152. the city of Yuriev-Polsky. In the book: The culture of ancient Russia. M., 1966. C. 263-267) showed that the Foundation of the Cathedral consists of two zones, the lower of which is made of cobblestones, and the upper made of white stone. Accordingly, researchers believed that the lower part of the basement belonged to the Church of 1152. Based on this AV century was reconstructed temple Dolgoruky as forechurches (Stoletov A.V. Decree. cit., S. 266).

In 2001 archaeological research in the Cathedral held VP Glazov, P.L. Zykov and O.M. ioannisyan (Glazov VP, P.L. Zykov, O.M. ioannisyan.. Architectural and archaeological research in the Vladimir region. In the book: Archaeological discoveries 2001. M., 2002). Researchers have confirmed that the Foundation of the Cathedral consists of two zones, the bottom of which was determined by K. Romanov and ALEXANDER Stoletov as the Foundation of an earlier Church of 1152. But excavations in 2001 showed that in the masonry of the lower zone of the basement there is a large number of fragments of frescoes in the secondary use, and V.P.

Indeed, the Church of 1152 was built simultaneously with the Foundation of Yuriev-Polsky (PSRL 24:77), i.e. from any earlier building stones with frescoes in its foundations couldn't be (however, it remains unclear what was to lay fragments of frescoes in the cobblestone the foundations of the temple of Svyatoslav). Forechurches (by ALEXANDER Stoletov) temple is also absolutely not typical for architecture of North-Eastern Russia since Dolgoruky.

Excavations in 2001 also found that the pillars of the building 1230-1234, in the lower part have strip foundations. Themselves dome square pillars (which preceded the researchers attributed to the rebuilding of the Cathedral EAST Ermolina), based on the characteristics of stratigraphy, refer to the Cathedral 1230-1234, Interesting feature, the VP Glazov, P.L. Zykov and O.M. Ioannisyan, is that the space of the South porch at the level of the lower zone of the Foundation has an open doorway into the interior of the main volume.

Thus, the argument that the lower part of the basement belonged to the Church of 1152, there is only one: if the temple Dolgoruky was located in another place, it is unclear why it took to pull it down, as essentially "worn out and broken" less than 80 years old stone Cathedral was unlikely, and new construction it did not stir. But this situation is still understandable possible low quality of construction of the first temple.

In any case, the location of the Cathedral 1152 remains open, and the solutions require new archaeological research.

7. Zagraevsky SV Reconstruction of the Dormition Cathedral in 1158-1160 in Vladimir. In Ukr.: "Restorer", № 1(8)/2004. M., 2004. C. 118-122.

8. Voronin N.N. The decree. cit. So 1. C. 161, 163.

9. Zagraevsky SV reconstruction of the assumption Cathedral...

10. Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture. M, 2002; Zagraevsky SV ANDPology Rostov chronicler (to the question about the Dating temples Yuri Dolgoruky). Abstracts. In the book: Materials of the regional conference dedicated to the centenary of the birth of N.N. Voronin (19 April 2004.). Vladimir, 2004. C. 15-26; Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve. M., 2008.

11. In particular, see: Timofeeva ETC. "About the experience of the content of the Dmitrievsky Cathedral in XVIII - beginning XX centuries In the book: 800 years Dmitrievsky Cathedral. M., 1997. C. 280-283; Skvortsov, A. I. Historical experience of the conservation of white-stone architecture of Vladimir-Suzdal Russia. In the book: Zubovsky reading. Collection of articles. Vladimir, 2002. C. 55; Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 98.

12. Timofeeva ETC. Golden gate in Vladimir. M., 2002. C. 24-27.

13. Timofeeva OTHER Architectural appearance, Vladimir drawing 1764. In the book: Monuments of culture. New discoveries. M., 1994. C. 548-558; Timofeeva ETC. an unknown image of the Golden gate XII century in Vladimir. Theses of the report. In the book: Voroninsky read-94. Materials of the regional conference. Vladimir, 1995. C. 259-261.

14. Voronin N.N. The decree. cit. So 1. C. 221.

15. Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... With. about 80 to 98.

16. Voronin N.N. The decree. cit. So 1. C. 197.

17. Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... 85 C..

18. P.L. Zykov New materials about the complex of buildings of the Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir. In the book: Sofia. Sat. articles on the art of Byzantium and Ancient Russia in honor of AI Komech. M., 2006. C. 189-197.

19. Timofeeva ETC. TO clarify the date Cathedral of St. Demetrius. In the book: Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir. 800 years since creation. M., 1997. C. 38-39.

20. P.L. Zykov New materials about the complex of buildings of the Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir. In the book: Sofia. Sat. articles on the art of Byzantium and Ancient Russia in honor of AI Komech. M., 2006. C. 189-197.

21. Timofeeva OTHER Historical topography of Vladimir citadel. Publ. in redundant. in book.: Kremlins. Materials and research. Abstracts of all-Russian Symposium "Russian Kremlins" (23 - 26 November 1999). M., 2003.

22. Voronin N.N. The decree. cit., so 2, 74 S.; Stoletov A.V. a Review of the book.: Wagner G.K. Sculpture of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus, Yuriev-Polsky. M., 1964. In the book: Soviet archeology, № 2, 1967. C. 275-276; Kavelmaher. The cornerstone of Lapidarium George's Cathedral in Yuryev-Polish (to the question of the so-called cross Svyatoslavovom). In the book: Old Russian art. Rus. Byzantium. The Balkans. XIII century. SPb, 1997. C. 193.

23. Zagraevsky SV Architecture of North-Eastern Russia the end of the XIII century to the first third of the XIV century. C. 80, 88, 107.

24. Voronin N.N. The decree. cit. So 1. C. 444.

25. Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 27-49.

26. Ibid. C. 32-33.

27. PSRL 1:411.

28. The A.I. Komech Architecture of Vladimir...

29. The A.I. Komech Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir as a result of the development of architectural school. In the book: Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir to the 800 anniversary of creation. M., 1997. C. 19.

30. Timofeeva ETC. TO clarify the date Cathedral of St. Demetrius. In the book: Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir. 800 years since creation. M., 1997. C. 38-39.

31. Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky... S. 128.

Moscow, 2008.

© Sergey Zagraevsky

To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page