To the page “Scientific works”
S. V. Zagraevsky
Forms
of the domes of the ancient Russian temples
Published in Russian: Çàãðàåâñêèé Ñ.Â. Ôîðìû ãëàâ (êóïîëüíûõ ïîêðûòèé) äðåâíåðóññêèõ õðàìîâ. Ì.:
Àëåâ-Â, 2008. ISBN 5-94025-096-3. Earlier the theses of the article were
published in Russian: Çàãðàåâñêèé Ñ.Â. Ôîðìû ãëàâ (êóïîëüíûõ ïîêðûòèé) äðåâíåðóññêèõ õðàìîâ.  êí.: Ìàòåðèàëû îáëàñòíîé êðàåâåä÷åñêîé êîíôåðåíöèè
(14 àïðåëÿ
Annotation
Professor S.V. Zagraevsky’s research is devoted to the
forms of the domes of the temples of Ancient Russia. Basing on the
analysis of ancient images, architectural and archaeological data and general
trends of Russian and world architecture, he showed that the onion (bulbous)
domes were invented in
I
General terms
First of all, it is necessary to define what we call the domes of
temples. Encyclopedias and manuals1 sometimes define them as
synonyms of cupolas, sometimes as decorative coatings of cupola vaults,
arranged on drums. It is known that domes can be onion (bulbous), helmet,
pear-shaped, umbrella-shaped, conical, etc. Cupolas or cupola coatings,
arranged not on light, but on decorative (deaf) drums, are also called domes.
We shall define the cupolas only as cupola vaults, and the domes as
decorative cupola coatings, although in the context of our study this
definition requires considerable refinement, associated with the understanding
of the helmet domes. So the special form of cupola coatings, close to the
ancient form of helmet, is called. Such conclusion we see today on the natural
and the "paper" reconstructions of pre-Mongolian cathedrals of
Vladimir-Suzdal land (Fig. 12) and of the vast majority of churches
and cathedrals of XV-XVI centuries (Fig. 23).
Fig. 1. Assumption Cathedral in
Fig. 2.
But a dome of a temple is a segment of a sphere
corresponding to the form of a helmet only at the edges. Accordingly, in order
to create a helmet design, it is necessary to arrange a wooden, metal or brick
construction on the cupola vault. Then, an under-cross stone, with the hole,
where the cross is inserted, is put on the dome or on this construction. Then
all this is covered by roofing materials (iron, lead, copper, tile, etc.).
Thus, the helmet dome is very different from a simple
cupola coating by roofing material directly on the vault. And even if an
under-cross stone is placed in the center of the simplest cupola coating, the
form of dome may be close to the helmet only in the case of a very small dome
(Fig. 34). In the case of a large dome, an under-cross stone, coated
by roofing material, will look like a little ledge on the cupola coating.
Fig. 3. Dome of the
Hence, we must distinguish the simple cupola coating
and the helmet dome. In connection with this we must specify that we are
talking about domes in general, which can be either simple cupola coatings
(with a projection in the middle if there is an under-cross stone), or have
helmet, onion (also called bulbous; further we shall call them only onion),
pear-shape or any other form.
Let us also define the difference between the helmet
and onion domes: the latter also have keel-like top, but the maximum diameter
of the dome is larger than the diameter of the drum, i.e. a visual
"barreling" is present. The height of onion domes is usually not less
than their width. The height of the helmet domes is always less than their
width.
Pear-shaped domes are characteristic for “Ukrainian
Baroque”, umbrella-like and conic – for Transcaucasian architecture. In ancient
Russian architecture and in the relevant iconography they were practically
absent (see Chapter 2). The main theme of our research is the genesis and the
quantitative ratio of such types of domes as simple cupola coatings, helmet and
onion.
We should view primarily not the positions of
individual researchers, but stereotypes, settled in XIX century. Let us
enumerate them:
– "Byzantine" simple cupola coatings
occurred in the most of the principalities of pre-Mongol Rus (Kiev, Chernigov,
Smolensk, etc.);
– helmet domes prevailed in pre-Mongol Vladimir-Suzdal
principality. Then this form of the domes took place in Tver and Moscow grand
duchies, and then in centralized Russian state. Accordingly, the vast majority
of Russian churches of XIV-XVI centuries are generally reconstructed with
helmet completions;
– onion domes appeared (occasionally) in the second
half of XVI century, and in the XVII century they became a mass phenomenon.
According to those stereotypes, the following view on
the genesis of the dome forms took place: simple cupola coating was borrowed
from Byzantium, then it “stretched up” more and more (as well as the
proportions of the temples themselves) and transformed into a helmet. Then,
once in the XVI century hipped architecture appeared, the altitude of helmet
domes proved insufficient, and onion-form structures started to be built on the
cupolas5.
B.A.Rybakov was the first to disagree with those
stereotypes. In the mid of 1940s he, considering after D.V.Aynalov and
A.V.Artsikhovsky that many miniatures of Radzivil Chronicle of XV century are
the copies of the images of XII-XIII centuries, suggested that onion domes,
portrayed on these miniatures (see Section 4 of the statistical illustrative
material) appeared in the reality in the end of XIII century6. In
1950s this position of B.A.Rybakov was supported by N.N.Voronin7.
However, strangely enough, those observations by
B.A.Rybakov and N.N.Voronin received no resonance in the scientific world.
Perhaps the negative role was played by uncertainty of their conclusions, and
also because in future their researches on genesis of the onion domes were not
developed: apparently they considered their observations as local. For example,
onion domes could appear in the end of XIII century, but not everywhere and
only in wooden architecture, and in the end of XVI century the construction of
such domes on stone temples could begin8. Thus, there were no
apparent contradictions with the stereotyped position.
In the end of twentieth century A.M.Lidov turned to
the problems of genesis of the onion domes9. Having advanced in his
article some considerations about the origin of the onion domes (the analysis
of these considerations we will hold in Chapters 2 and 4), the researcher still
kept to the stereotyped views on the appearing of this form of the domes in the
turn of XVI-XVII centuries, arguing that dating by the fact that onion domes
before the turn of XVI and XVII centuries were not preserved to our time10.
I.A.Bondarenko, who also devoted a special article to
the origin of the onion domes11 (the point of view of this
researcher on the prototype of these domes will be discussed in Chapter 4),
noted that there is no need to insist after A.M.Lidov on the late origin of
onion forms of the domes only on the ground that we have no surviving monuments
of such domes, reliably dated before XVI century. We must agree with
I.A.Bondarenko and just clarify: since ancient Russian onion domes are
decorative coatings, based on wooden carcasses, then the situation is typical
for the history of ancient wooden architecture: the lack of architectural and
archaeological information about the onion domes before XVII century can not be
the information about the absence of such domes in reality.
I.A.Bondarenko suggested in the same article
(unfortunately, without a reference to the similar position of B.A.Rybakov and
N.N.Voronin) that "the fact that the onion shape of the domes was used in
early Moscow “Zions”, censers, miniatures and carved icons from the XIII
century (what A.M.Lidov also notes), gives evidence that this form was known,
had a sacred significance, and therefore could, and even, perhaps, should have
been used in architecture”12. But the researcher confirmed his
position by no concrete evidence and expressed no substantive assumptions about
the time of occurrence of such domes.
As a result, the assumption of I.A.Bondarenko about
relatively early origin of the ancient onion domes was expressed in an equally
controversial and unexamined form, as the similar position of B.A.Rybakov and
N.N.Voronin, and, accordingly, received no resonance in the scientific world
and in popular literature.
Thus, to date, all textbooks, reference books,
scholarly and popular works on history of ancient architecture straightly
(literally) or indirectly (in the form of reconstructions of the temples)
reproduce the stereotypes of XIX century, and no researcher attempted to refute
them directly.
In this regard, we have to re-consider the genesis of
the onion domes with the involvement of all possible set of sources.
II
Analysis
of iconographic sources
To examine the genesis of the onion domes, we analyzed
architectural iconographic sources – ancient Russian icons, miniatures and
plans. Full coverage of iconography of temple architecture is impossible, but
we sited enough representative sources (totally 147), allowing a statistical
analysis. Statistical illustrative material is contained in the Appendix.
In accordance with the collected statistics on ancient
Russian icons, frescoes, miniatures and works of decorative art (hereinafter we
shall collectively call them images) of XI-early XVII century (see Sections 1-7
of Appendix), the onion domes are shown in the following proportions relative
to other dome types:
– images of pre-Mongolian time: 18%;
– images of the second half of XIII century: 100%;
– images of XIV century: 82%;
– images of XV century: 84%;
– images of XVI century: 94%;
– images of the turn of XVI and XVII centuries: 100%.
Analyzing these results, first of all we must be aware
that Old Russian images were mostly oriented to Byzantine models13,
and iconography usually passed from century to century. Hence, the simple
cupola coatings in ancient Russian images could be a tradition of Byzantine
icon painting, but the onion domes in the images had to have some
"own" models.
Possible models of depicted temples with onion domes
may be reduced to two basic ones: either some "model" image or the
real onion domes on the real churches.
A.M.Lidov believed14 that the Old Russian
artists used as the model an image of Jerusalem Edicule (Chapel inside Holy
Sepulchre), where there was a hypothetical "dome" of onion form in XI
century15 (Fig. 416).
Fig. 4. "Dome" of
But we can not accept the assumption that the model
for the ancient artists, who reproduced the onion domes in large numbers, could
be any image (of Edicule, or of another real or imaginary building – such as
Rock Mosque, as I.A.Bondarenko thought, whose position we shall consider in
Chapter 4). The reasons are following.
First, we have no assurance that Jerusalem Edicule had
an onion-shape top since XI century. The earliest surviving image of a medieval
completion of Edicule is approximately dated by XIV century, and it is highly
conditional and inaccurate image with general trend of "flattening"
of the lower parts of the objects17 (Fig. 5). On all subsequent
historical images, starting from XV century18 (Fig. 6), the
completion of Edicule has the form of helmet (and more Western European helmet
than Russian). The existing onion top (see Fig. 4) of Edicule was built in the
new time.
Fig. 5. Image of Edicule, stored in
Fig. 6.
Secondly, the "dome" on Jerusalem Edicule is
not a dome in the understanding of a decorative coating above the cupola (see
Chapter 1). That is the "cap" over the hole for extraction of candle
smoke and fumes from the people’s breathing19.
Thirdly, Edicule is a small part of Holy Sepulchre,
and not a church, but a chapel. If the temple itself had an onion dome, it
could at least be argued to be taken as a model of images. But the adoption of
a small interior chapel (even if it had an onion top) as a model for the huge
number of images of the largest ancient Russian cathedrals and churches is very
unlikely.
Fourthly, there is no cross on Edicule, and it is
unlikely that there could be a cross in ancient times, as the only figure,
which depicts a cross (see Fig. 5), as we have shown above, is very
conventional. The absence of the cross on Edicule is quite natural: we have
shown the "utilitarian" nature of its “dome”, moreover, it is
unlikely that a cross in Jerusalem temple was located above Edicule, but not
over Calvary. And on ancient Russian images we see the domes with the crosses.
Fifthly, I.A.Bondarenko believes that not Edicule, but
Jerusalem Rock Mosque (which the Crusaders called “Holy of Holies”) was a
possible prototype of the Russian onion domes20. But in Chapter 4 we
shall show that the dome of that temple did not have onion shape.
Sixth, the temples of Jerusalem in the era of the
Crusades of XI-XIII centuries were well known in Western Europe and Byzantium.
But we do not see there mass images of churches with onion domes neither at
that time, nor since.
Seventh, the temples of Ancient Russia, though with
high artistic convention, but were painted of nature (arched gables, windows,
hips, apses, cornices, decor, crosses above the domes are reproduced), but the
shape of the domes, according to stereotyped positions, for some reason were
provided fictitious. It is also very unlikely.
Eighth, if Ancient Russian temples had been reproduced
of the images almost identically (by some single "model"), we could
have talked about some "model" image for the domes. However, the
churches are drawn extremely diverse and, as we have seen, quite realistic;
Ninth, the onion domes in the beginning of XIV century
were represented not only by Moscow, Tver and Novgorod artists. We see such
dome at the icon of Kiev school (see Fig. C-8, C-9; the letter "C" in
the figure means that it belongs to the statistical illustrative material). So,
at this time the images of onion domes were already widespread in Ancient
Russia. It is impossible to imagine that because of some "model"
image the Byzantine tradition of reflection of the simple cupola coatings on
the icons, frescoes and miniatures was revised.
Thus, for the ancient artists, who reproduced the
onion domes in architectural iconography in large numbers, no images could be
models.
Consequently, the only option remains: – the onion
domes on the real temples of Ancient Russia served as a model for the artists.
Form of the domes could be interpreted by the artists
rather freely, but within the overall onion forms that existed in reality. In this connection it is appropriate to recall the
words of I.A.Bondarenko: “In the Middle Ages there were no strict bounds
between visual, applied arts and architecture, especially when we talk about
the problems of semantics and symbols forming”21.
Let us look if some wooden temples could be the models
for the ancient images of the onion domes.
Perhaps if we had been talking about icons from
villages and small towns, small local churches could have served as the models
for them. But the vast majority of images, shown
in the statistics, are the icons and frescoes of Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov
schools, originating from the large stone temples. Accordingly, the artists
were to orientate to large cathedrals, not to minor churches.
Let us note that N.N.Voronin attracted
“Great Zion” of Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir (Fig. C-22), the top of which
(the work of Moscow artists) is dated by 1486, for his reconstructions of
St.George's Cathedral in Juriev-Polsky22 and the first Assumption
Cathedral in Moscow23. Researcher believed that the completion of
Zion corresponds with the hypothetical original completion of these temples.
This position is quite controversial (it is more likely that the completion of
Zion reproduces the completion of the contemporary temples of the late XV
century – in particular, the churches of Trifon in Naprudnoe and Conception of
Anna in Kitay-Gorod24), but there is no doubt about the validity of
the method of Zion usage for the reconstruction of the unpreserved cathedrals. In this regard, we must note that the
onion dome of this Zion reproduced the reality of the end of XV century (and
possibly of even earlier time).
The earliest images of the onion domes are found in
Galicia-Volhynia miniatures of 1164 (see Fig. C-3). But we can not assume that
in pre-Mongolian time this form of domes could be widely distributed: there are
no more known images (and, consequently, statistical data), and the hypothesis
of D.V.Aynalov, A.V.Artsikhovsky and B.A.Rybakov’s hypothesis that the
miniatures of Radzivil Chronicle of XV century are replicas of pre-Mongolian
images (see Chapter 1 and Fig. C-18), is still only a hypothesis. So the
availability of such domes in pre-Mongolian time is not proved.
The statistics shows that the vast majority of temples
had the onion domes since the second half of XIII century. And though in the
iconography of XIV-XVI centuries sometimes (although rarely) other types of the
domes occur, the plans of Moscow of the turn of XVI and XVII centuries (see
Section 6 of the statistical illustrative material) clearly indicate that at
this time the domes were exclusively of onion form. This is confirmed also by
the images of other Russian cities (see Section 7 of the statistical image
material).
It is important to pay attention to the images from
the manuscript of Hamartolas (see Fig. C-4). In 1294, the generalized “Image of
Church” was shown with the onion dome. So, at
this time, as the statistics also confirms, the onion domes were built on the
temples not occasionally, but mostly.
As we have noted, the onion domes
were represented in the beginning of XIV century not only by the artists of
Moscow, Tver and Novgorod. This type of domes we see
on the icon of Kiev school. This again confirms that onion domes at the turn of
XIII-XIV centuries occurred everywhere.
All domes, built above the hipped
roofs in XVI century, were also onion-formed (see Section 5 and 6 of the
statistical illustrative material).
In theory, the simple cupola coatings
of pre-Mongolian time could exist on some minor temples long enough, but there
is no doubt that by the end of XVI century they were everywhere replaced by the
onion domes (we see only the onion domes on the plans and panoramas of the turn
of XVI and XVII centuries).
It is important to note that we see no helmet domes
neither in pre-Mongolian, nor in early post-Mongolian time. The first image, which presents the dome form, close
to a helmet, appeared at the turn of XV and XVI centuries (Sections 4 and 5 of
the statistical illustrative material). However, these images can not testify
that in this time churches had helmet domes in reality: it is clear that this
form of dome is shown only on the large central cupola, and if the latter had
been drawn with an onion dome (as the small domes), then they would not have
fitted into the respective images.
All other – "non-onion" –
forms of cupola coatings (umbrella, conical, etc.) are portrayed so rarely that
we can consider them as an artistic styling. This
position is based not only on the data of iconography, but also on the
techniques of construction: for the erection of any coating, except the
simplest, the construction of a wooden or metal frame on the cupola is
required. Consequently, it was easier and more logical for the builders to
create domes of the mass (onion) form, than of any other.
Conclusions about the absence (at
least, negligible distribution) of helmet, umbrella, conical and other
"non-onion" dome forms in XIV-XVI centuries can be also confirmed by
one more important fact, which we have already mentioned: on the plans and
panoramas of the turn of XVI and XVII centuries we see
only the onion domes. Consequently, if in
XIV-XVI centuries the domes of
"non-onion" form could theoretically occur, then only
sporadically, and at the first opportunity they were replaced by commonly used
onion domes25.
The question, when the helmet domes
appeared in Russian architecture, we shall discuss in details in Chapter 5.
III
Onion
domes and fires
It may seem strange that almost
universal transition from the simple cupola coatings to the onion domes could
occur so quickly – within a few decades of XIII century. But in fact, there is nothing strange: the domes of the temples were
rebuilt very often, and the fires were the main reason.
Here is a very comprehensive and
informative quote from Sergei Soloviev: "Chronicle mention the fires in
And though the stone temples usually (though not
always) stood the fires, the wooden skeletons of their domes and roofs were
easily burnt. For example, on the limestone
arches of Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir the fire melted metal was found27,
in 1493 a fire lit wooden construction under the roof of the cathedral28,
in 1536 in Vladimir half of the roof of Assumption Cathedral was burnt29
and also the entire roof of Demetrius Cathedral30, in 1547 the dome
of Assumption Cathedral was burnt31, in 1394 – the dome of
St.Sofia in Novgorod32, in 1628 – the
dome of Trinity Cathedral in Troitse-Sergiev33. Such examples are
numerous.
Let us note that the technical
problems with the construction of new onion domes did not arise, because the
installation of a wooden frame on the dome is the work not for stone craftsmen,
but for carpenters, and there we always enough carpenters in Russia.
IV
Genesis
of the onion domes
The questions of genesis of the onion domes were
studied very poorly even within the stereotypes relating to their appearance at
the turn of XVI and XVII centuries34. Now, when we have shown that
those domes occurred everywhere in Russia already in the end of XIII century,
their genesis becomes even less clear. But we can still make some observations.
First, we should note a low probability that the onion
domes of ancient stone temples were taken from wooden architecture. The form of
those domes is complex, sophisticated, “aristocratic”, and therefore they could
hardly have appeared firstly on wooden churches (and even on minor stone
temples).
Let us not forget about the rapid (within a few
decades) distribution of the onion domes. Wooden churches, as well as the minor
stone temples, could hardly be "setters" of the trend, which
disseminated so quickly and widely.
Borrowing of onion form of the domes of ancient
Russian temples from Muslim world35 seems more than doubtful. In XV
century the form of stone domes, close to the onion, widespread in the East
(Gur-e Amir in Samarkand, the beginning of XV century, Fig. 7; Kalyan Mosque in
Bukhara, XV century; Mausoleum of Kazi-Zade-Rumi in Samarkand, 1430s; etc.),
and within the stereotype, relating to the appearance of the onion domes in
Russia in the end of XVI century, "oriental influences" could be at
least argued. But since, as we have shown in Chapter 2, the onion domes in
Fig. 7. Gur-e Amir in
We know some isolated examples of early Muslim stone
domes, which shape is visually close to the onion form (Dome of the Rock in
Jerusalem, VII century, Fig. 8; Sidi Okba Mosque in Kairouan, Tunisia, X
century, Mausoleum of Al-Shafiya in Cairo, 1212; the mausoleums of XI-XII
centuries in Aswan, etc.) In particular, I.A.Bondarenko attracted Rock Mosque,
which the Crusaders called the “
Fig. 8. Dome of Rock Mosque in
But such domes can be called onion neither formally
nor in fact: that are high cupola vaults, which are the continuations of the
drums (Fig. 937). The upper parts of these vaults have no keeled
bending, which are characteristic for
the ancient Russian onion domes. Their visual "onion" effect is
created previously by the spreading of the tops of the drums by the cupolas and
by the difference in color between the cupola coating and the drums lining (for
example, a bright, shiny and uniform color of cupola coating of Rock Mosque
visually increases it, comparing with a dull ornamented drum – see Fig. 8).
Fig. 9. Rock Mosque in Jerusalem.
Axonometry.
For this reason we can not recognize the impact of the
dome of Rock Mosque (and of other early temples with similar domes) on the
origin of the onion domes of Old Russia, where we see no transition: already in
XIII century, since the appearance of these domes, they had their own,
absolutely unique shape, characterized by keeled top and significantly bigger
diameter of the domes, comparing to the diameter of the drums (see Section 2 of
the statistical illustrative material, Fig. C-4, C-5, C-6). These basic
features of ancient Russian onion domes are absent in Rock Mosque.
In Western Europe there were also no onion domes in
XIII century (the earliest example, which the author of this study knows, is
the completion of the towers of Frauenkirche in Munich, the end of XV century,
Fig. 10).
Fig. 10. Towers of Frauenkirche in Munich.
End of XV century.
Jerusalem Edicule also could not become a model not
only for the ancient artists, who depicted large numbers of onion domes on the
icons, frescoes and miniatures (as we have shown in Chapter 2), but also for
the ancient builders, who started in XIII century to build onion domes on the
churches en masse. The reason for this is practically the same as discussed in
Chapter 2:
– the "dome" on Jerusalem Edicule, even if
it had the onion form (what, as we have seen in Section 2, is very doubtful) is
not a dome in the understanding of a decorative coating above the cupola (see
Chapter 1). That is the "cap" over the hole for extraction of candle
smoke and fumes from people’s breathing;
– Edicule is a small part of Holy Sepulchre, and not a
church, but a chapel. If the temple itself had an onion dome, it could at least
be argued to be taken as a model for the builders. But the adoption of a small
interior chapel (even if it had an onion top) as a model of the huge number of
the onion domes of the largest ancient cathedrals and churches is very
unlikely;
– temples of Jerusalem in the era of the Crusades of
XI-XIII centuries were well known in Western Europe and Byzantium. But we do
not see there mass onion domes on the churches neither at that time, nor since.
Thus, we must assume that even if somewhere else in
the world before XIII century there had been occasionally erected onion-shape
domes or cupola vaults, they firstly appeared in large numbers in Ancient
Russia. Moreover, widespread occurrence of onion shape of cupolas in Muslim
East in XV century could take place due to influence of Russian architecture.
Let us try to find an explanation for the fact of mass
occurrence in Russia of "built-over" domes in the second half of XIII
century.
Firstly, we should note that it was not necessary to
sharpen the domes so they did not accumulate snow and stagnate water: if such a
need had occurred, then something similar was built already in XIII century
over arched gable vaults, where the problem of accumulation of snow and water
was even more acute.
It was not necessary also to warm the temples by the
erection of the decorative structures above the cupolas (so that those domes
played the role of heat-insulating "attics"): in Ancient Russia the
vast majority of stone churches and cathedrals were "cold" (i.e.,
unheated), and service was not conducted there in winter.
There are other, far more grounded, considerations on
the causes of building of the carcasses above the cupolas of ancient Russian
temples.
First, during pre-Mongolian time we see the
"pulling up" of church buildings. For example, G.K.Wagner wrote that
the churches of "tower-like" type had a dynamic striving upward, and
it is possible that if the development of “altitude” architecture had not been
interrupted by Mongol invasion, then Russia would have known something like
Gothic38. And when the constructive possibilities of altitude
reaching (higher arches and drums) were exhausted, the additional
"towering" was achieved through wooden superstructures above the
cupolas.
Second, the size of the crosses steadily increased in
Russia until XVII century, and they were gradually transformed from the "Byzantine"
type (the simplest form) to the "classic" Old Russian type, which we
now see on the temples (large, ornamented, of complex shape). Accordingly, the
problem of reliability of crosses installation also increased.
The chains, holding the cross, we see for the first
time only in 1536 on the icon “Vision of Sacristan Taras” (see Fig. C-25). Of
course, such chains, not reflected in iconography, could have appeared earlier,
but hardly in XIII-XIV centuries. And it was impossible to install a large cross
into the hole in the under-cross stone without additional pairs – it would have
been broken by any strong wind.
This problem was solved by quite rational design of
the carcasses above the cupolas: the cross had a long lower bar (a
"mast"39), which pierced the carcass from top to bottom
(thus, was fixed firmly) and was inserted into the hole in the under-cross
stone.
Third, during the Mongol yoke the domes were rarely
covered by metal: there were no economic possibilities. And it is easier to
cover with “lemekh” (wooden tile) a wooden carcass, which can be sewed by
boards, than a stone vault.
All the above mentioned considerations explain the
appearance of high wooden carcasses on the cupolas, but do not explain the
onion shape of these carcasses. Why was the diameter of the dome larger than
the diameter of the drum? Why did the carcass receive the complex onion form,
but not the maximum sustainable direct form? Umbrella or cone-shaped domes
could give the temples the same altitude, strengthen the crosses and be coated
with tile also effectively, be much simpler and more reliable in construction
and operation.
Researchers attempted to explain the origin of the
onion domes by their symbolic.
Some of those explanations lie outside the view of
Orthodox religion. Thus, S.D.Sulimenko saw in the form of the onion domes a
"solar window", which was a canonization of the images of solar light
in Vedic mythology and architecture of Buddhist temples40.
N.L.Pavlov saw in these domes the form of a "world egg" – an archaic
image of the Universe41.
But the author of this study had to write more than
once, that all architectural features of churches were necessarily confirmed by
Russian Orthodox Church, which in any case would not have allowed any direct
Pagan, Buddhist, Muslim or other influence42.
In the bounds of Orthodoxy, E.N.Trubetskoy tried to
solve the problem of symbolism of the onion domes. He wrote: "The
Byzantine cupola above the church represents the vault of heaven above the
earth. On the other hand, the Gothic spire expresses unbridled vertical thrust,
which rises huge masses of stone to the sky. In contrast to these, our native
onion dome may be likened to a tongue of fire, crowned by a cross and tapering
towards a cross. When we look at the Ivan the Great Bell Tower, we seem to see
a gigantic candle burning above Moscow. The Kremlin cathedrals and churches,
with their multiple domes, look like huge chandeliers. The onion shape results
from the idea of prayer as a soul burning towards heaven, which connects the
earthly world with the treasures of the afterlife. Every attempt to explain the
onion shape of our church domes by utilitarian considerations (for instance,
the need to preclude snow from piling on the roof) fails to account for the
most essential point, that of aesthetic significance of onion domes for our
religion. Indeed, there are numerous other ways to achieve the same utilitarian
result, e.g., spires, steeples, cones. Why, of all these shapes, ancient
Russian architecture settled upon the onion dome? Because the aesthetic
impression produced by the onion dome matched a certain religious attitude. The
meaning of this religious and aesthetic feeling is finely expressed by a folk
saying – "glowing with fervour" – when they speak about church
domes"43.
The idea of "fire" concerning the symbolism
of the onion domes after E.N.Trubetskoy was conducted by M.P.Kudryavtsev and
G.Ya.Mokeev44. I.A.Bondarenko joined this position45.
But it should be noted that any search for symbolism
of any element of Orthodox churches in isolation from the study of the genesis
of these forms will inevitably lead to a purely subjective views on the level
of “I see so”, easily disproved by statistics, facts, and by extension of other
equally subjective opinions that appear no less convincing.
For example, in Ancient Russia a relatively small
number of domes was covered with gold (only of the largest churches that had
the richest churchwardens), and numerous green, blue, brown and black domes
cause no association with fire.
On a subjective level it would be fairer to compare
the onion domes not with fire, but with an arrowdome, a drop of water or of a
head of a warrior wearing a helmet. The latter interpretation – a head of a
warrior – in Ancient Russia, apparently, was the most frequently used: it is
confirmed by the fact that the domes were called “heads” or
"foreheads", the drums – “necks”, and the roofs of churches –
"shoulders".
Accordingly, since any attempt to interpret symbolic
of the domes were and are extremely subjective, we can conclude only that in
XIII century in Russia keeled archivolts of arched gables, portals and windows
appeared, and in Gothic Western Europe and Arab East – a large number of
erected arches. This fully explains genesis of the onion domes in terms of
theory and history of architecture: craftsmen, who accommodated wooden
structures over the cupolas of temples, were only to combine and apply these
already known forms in their work.
This does not in any way belittle the significance of
this invention of ancient craftsmen, which had an aesthetic self-sufficiency
and gave the churches a fundamentally new shape without significant material
costs, and this was particularly important in difficult economic circumstances
of Mongol yoke.
V
Genesis
of the helmet domes
In Chapter 2 we have seen that existence of helmet
domes in XIV-XVI centuries is not proved. If the domes of "non-onion"
form were erected, then extremely rarely, and they were as soon as possible
replaced by the commonly used form – onion. At the turn of XVI and XVII
centuries all the domes, without exception, had onion shape.
By idea, later the domes were to keep onion shape, or
take the characteristic form of Baroque. Nevertheless, we see the helmet domes
on many images of XVIII-early XIX century, which are not plans or panoramas,
but still worthy of credibility (see Section 8 of the statistical illustrative
material).
Of course, the number of the helmet domes on the
images of XVIII-early XIX century is negligible, comparing with the huge number
of the onion domes on the plans and panoramas (see Sections 6 and 7 of the
statistical illustrative material). Apparently, such a correlation occurred
also in reality. But we should present some observations that can help us at
least approximately describe genesis of the helmet domes.
First, the helmet dome is featured on the drawing of
Golden Gate of Vladimir by Von Berk and Gusev (1779, fig. C-32) and the image
of St. Demetrius Cathedral on one of panoramas of Vladimir in 1801 (Fig. C-33),
and that gave the appearance of "surviving of the ancient domes to our
days" and predetermined the stereotypical view of such domes as
"widespread in pre-Mongol North-Eastern Russia".
In Chapter 2 we have shown the inconsistency of this
stereotype. Let us add that we see the onion domes on Golden Gate and St.
Demetrius Cathedral on the "drawing" of Vladimir of 1715 (Fig. C-27),
and on one of the images of Vladimir of 1801 (Fig. C-34). But the last image is
quite conditional, and there is no doubt that in reality St. Demetrius
Cathedral in 1801 had the helmet dome, shown on a much more detailed and
professional view of Vladimir of that year (Fig. C-33, C-35).
So, the helmet dome was arranged on St. Demetrius
Cathedral between 1715 and 1801. May be, even not later than 1779, since it is
likely that Berk and Gusev were guided by it in developing of their version of
the reconstruction of Golden Gate (Fig. C-32). They could not orient at
Assumption Cathedral: in all pictures of Vladimir of 1801 it is depicted with
the onion domes (Fig. C-33), about which we know that they existed in reality
and were replaced by the helmet domes during the restoration of 1888-189145.
Secondly, there was a period (probably brief) in XVIII
century, when Assumption Cathedral had helmet domes: that is shown by helmet
structures on cupolas with traces of plaster, nails and metal46. It
is important to note that those structures were made of brick, so they could
not be made in pre-Mongol times – only to XVIII century (the
"drawing" of 1715 shows the onion domes on the cathedral – see Fig.
C-27).
Third, Archangel Cathedral of Moscow Kremlin has a
double central cupola (Fig. 1147). On the upper one there is a large
under-cross stone. If the temple had always had only an onion dome (shown on
the plans of Moscow of the turn of XVI-XVII centuries), the construction of the
upper cupola would not have made any sense: a carcass of any configuration can
be built on a cupola.
Fig. 11. Archangel Cathedral of Moscow
Kremlin. Section.
Consequently, at some moment (not
before 1707, when the cathedral with the onion domes is depicted on the
engraving by P.Pikart – see Fig. C-28) the central onion dome was replaced by
the helmet, which we see on the image by M.F.Kazakov of 1772 (see Fig. C-36).
Then the onion dome, first shown on the image by F.Kamporezi of 1780s (see Fig.
C-37), was re-arranged.
Fourth, we can see the helmet dome on the Assumption
Bell-tower of Moscow Kremlin in 1800 (see Fig. C-38). The plans of XVII century and the engraving by P.Pikart of 1707 show
that its dome had onion shape (see Sections 6 and 7 of the statistical
illustrative material).
Fifth, we see the helmet dome on
Church of Nativity of the Virgin in Gorodnya on the drawing by A.Meyerberg of
1661 (see Fig. C-29).
Sixth,
under the existing onion domes of Trinity Church in the village Chashnikovo
(see Fig. 2) the brick helmet dome with traces of nails has preserved. The
research of the remainings of tile on this dome48 showed that likely in the second half of XVII
century the domes of
Let us note that we must consider the reconstruction of the original form of the
dome of
Seventh, a large conical under-cross stone was found
on the central cupola of the
Fig. 12. Church of Transfiguration in
Bolshye Vyazemy. Section.
Eighth, we see the helmet dome on the image of Trinity
Cathedral of Troitse-Sergiev Lavra of 1745 (Fig. C-31), despite the fact that
the onion dome is depicted on the nearby Nikon Church.
Ninth, we see the central helmet dome, combined with
small onion domes, on Trinity Cathedral in Pskov in the late XVII century (see
Fig. C-30).
We can conclude of all the above observations the
following: the helmet domes appeared in XVII-XVIII centuries in fairly large
quantities as a stylization of "antique" (i.e., as something between
the onion domes and the simplest cupola coatings).
Then, as a rule, these domes were again replaced by
the onion ones (probably because of evolution of aesthetic preferences of
clergy and churchwardens).
The exception was Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir, the
onion dome of which was converted to the helmet form in the end of XVIII
century, was preserved in XIX century and, apparently, determined the
stereotype of "antiquity" of this form of domes and their
"common use in pre-Mongol North-Eastern Russia". Later this
stereotype, the incorrectness of which we have shown in Chapter 2, extended to
Ancient Russian architecture of XIV-XVI centuries.
Conclusion
Let us summarize our study of the forms of the domes
of Ancient Russian temples.
1. In pre-Mongolian time:
– everywhere (including North-Eastern Russia) the
simplest cupola coatings were distributed, usually with under-cross stones;
– existence of the onion domes is conventionally
proved, but their wide dissemination is not proved;
– existence of helmet domes is not proved, any
allegations of their existence as a "transitional form from a cupola to an
onion" are conjectures;
– existence of any other form of domes (umbrella,
conical, etc.) is not proved.
2. Since the second half of XIII century until the end
of XVI century:
– the onion domes occurred everywhere, including
hipped architecture of XVI century;
– existence of the helmet domes is not proved;
– the simplest cupola coatings of pre-Mongolian time
theoretically could be preserved on some minor temples throughout the whole
period under review, but by the end of XVI century they were universally
replaced by the onion domes;
– existence of any other form of domes (umbrella,
conical, etc.) is not proved.
3. Since the end of XVI century until the middle of
XVII century:
– the onion domes occurred everywhere, including
hipped architecture;
– existence of any other form of domes is not proved.
4. Since the middle of XVII century until the end of
XVIII century many onion domes were replaced by helmet ones as a stylization of
"antique". In most cases, in a few decades the onion domes were newly
built on the temples.
APPENDIX
Statistical illustrative material
Statistics by the old
images was calculated by their total number, irrespective of the number of
temples or domes on a particular image.
Images of houses, towers,
kivories or stylized passages were not included in the analysis.
Randomness (and, hence,
objectivity) of the statistical illustrative material is provided as follows:
the analysis included all the images of temples on ancient icons, miniatures,
works of applied art, plans etc. of all the books on history of art and
architecture, located in the personal library of the author (since
pre-Mongolian time until the end of XVII century – 147 images; since the end of
XVI century only plans, panoramas and drawings were included into the
analysis). In addition, the statistical illustrative material included 13
images of XVII-XVIII centuries.
Hereby we show only some
illustrations, which are the most important for our study.
Section 1. Pre-Mongol
time.
In total,
this section deals with 9 images, among them:
6 – simple cupola
coatings;
1 – umbrella dome;
2 – onion domes.
Fig. C-1. Great Zion of Sophia of Novgorod.
XI-XII centuries.
Fig. C-2. Detail of
Suzdal Golden Gate. The beginning of XIII century.
Fig. C-3. St.Luke.
Miniature from Dobrilovo Gospel (Galician-Volyn school). 1164.
Section 2. The second half of XIII
century.
In total, this section deals with 3
images, on all three we see onion domes.
Fig. C-4. “The image of
Church”. Thumbnail of Hamartolas manuscript from Tver. About 1294.
Fig. C-5. “The Burial of
David”. Thumbnail of Tver Hamartolas manuscript.
Fig. C-6. Prince
Jaroslav Vsevolodovich with a temple. Fresco from the Church of Our Saviour on
Nereditsa. About 1246.
Section 3. XIV century.
In total, this section deals with
17 images, including:
11 – certainly with onion domes;
2 – with probable onion domes;
1 – with a combination of onion
domes and a simple cupola coating;
3 – with simple cupola coating,
umbrella and conical domes.
Fig. C-7. Introduction to the temple. An icon from Krivoy village. Novgorod school. The first half of XIV century.
Fig. C-8. Nicola
Zaraisky and his life. Kiev School. Beginning of XIV century.
Fig. C-9. Nicola
Zaraisky and his life. Fragment.
Fig. C-10. St. Nicolas
and scenes from his life. Kolomna. The middle of XIV century.
Fig. C-11. St. Nicolas
and scenes from his life. Fragment.
Fig. C-12. St. Nicolas
and scenes from his life. Fragment.
Fig. C-13. Frescoes of
the southern wall of the cathedral of Snetogorsky monastery. 1313.
Section 4. XV century.
In total, this
section deals with 23 images, including:
17 – with certain
onion domes;
1 – with probable onion dome;
2 – with
combinations of helmet and onion domes;
1 – with a helmet
dome;
1 – with a simple
cupola coating;
1 – with a conical
dome.
Fig. C-14. Entry into
Jerusalem. Icon from Annunciation Cathedral in
Moscow Kremlin. 1405.
Fig. C-15. Metropolitan
Oleksiy and his life. Moscow School. End of XV-beginning of XVI century.
Fig. C-16. Metropolitan
Oleksiy and his life. Fragment.
Fig. C-17. Happy about
you. Pskov school. End of XV century.
Fig. C-18. Igor with
Gentiles goes to the idol of Perun, and Christians – to the Church of St.
Elijah. Thumbnail of Radzivil Chronicle.
Fig. C-19. Battle of
people of Novgorod against the people of Suzdal (Miracle of the Icon of the
Sign). Novgorod school. The second half of XV century.
Fig. C-20. Canon of
Cyril Belozersky monastery. Frontispiece. 1407.
Fig. C-21. Nicola
Mozhajskij. Moscow School. The middle of XV century.
Fig. C-22. Great Zion of
Vladimir Assumption Cathedral. The top, made by Moscow masters, is dated by
1486.
Section 5. XVI century.
In total, this section deals with
66 images, including:
57 – with certain
onion domes;
2 – with probable onion domes;
1 – with the
combination of helmet and onion domes;
1 – with the
combination of simple cupola coverage and onion dome;
2 – with
combinations of conical and onion domes;
1 – with an
umbrella and conic domes;
2 – with simple
cupola coatings;
1 – with
"gothic" urban landscape.
Fig. C-23. Consecration of the Intercession
Cathedral on the Moat. Thumbnail of Litsevoy
Chronicle of XVI century.
Fig. C-24. Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir. Thumbnail of Litsevoy Chronicle.
Fig. C-25. Gregory Church, "Great Armenia" and Varlaam
in Varlaam-Khutyn Monastery in Novgorod. Drawing from the icon “Vision of
Sacristan Taras”. 1536.
Section 6. Plans of Moscow of the
end of XVI-early XVII centuries.
In total, this section deals with 7
images, all 7 – with onion domes.
Fig. C-26.
“Kremlenagrad”. Early 1600s. Fragment.
Section 7. Plans and panoramas of
Russian cities of XVII-early XVIII century.
In total, this section deals with
24 images, all 24 – with onion domes.
Fig. C-27. Vladimir.
"Drawing" of 1715.
Fig. C-28. Panorama of
Moscow by P.A.Pikart. About 1707. Fragment.
Section 8. Images of XVII-beginning
of XIX century.
Fig. C-29. Church of
Nativity of the Virgin in Gorodnya. Drawing by A.Meyerberg. 1661.
Fig. C-30. Pskov, Holy
Trinity Church of 1365-1367. Image of the end of XVII century.
Fig. C-31. Trinity
Cathedral with Nikon Church. Drawing of 1745.
Fig. C-32. Golden Gate
in Vladimir. Drawing by Berk and Gusev. 1779.
Fig. C-33. Demetrius
cathedral in Vladimir (with the helmet dome). 1801.
Fig. C-34. Demetrius
Cathedral in Vladimir (with the onion dome). 1801.
Fig.
C-35. Assumption and Demetrius cathedrals. A fragment of the image of
Vladimir. 1801.
Fig. C-36. The beginning
of construction of Kremlin palace by the draft
of V.I.Bazhenov. 1772. Drawing by M.F.Kazakov.
Fig. C-37. Moscow Kremlin. Drawing by F.Kamporezi. 1780s.
Fig. C-38. Ivanovskaya Square of Kremlin. Watercolor
of the workshop of F.Y.Alexeev. 1800-1802.
NOTES
1. A.S.Partina. Architectural terms. Illustrated
Dictionary. M., 2001.
2. N.N.Voronin.
Architecture of North-Eastern Russia of XII-XV centuries. M., 1961-1962
(hereinafter – Voronin, 1961-1962). Vol. 1, p. 154.
3. Architectural
Monuments of Moscow region. Vol. 2, p. 257.
4. Theory and practice
of restoration work. ¹ 3. M., 1972. P. 94.
5. Such position was
expressed mostly consistently in the early twentieth century in the work of
A.P.Novitsky (A.P.Novitsky. Onion shape of the domes of Russian churches.
Proc.: Moscow Archaeological Society. Antiquities. Proceedings of the
Commission for conservation of ancient monuments. Vol. III . M., 1909. P.
349-362).
6. D.V.Aynalov. On some
episodes of miniatures of Radzivil Chronicle. Proc.: "Proceedings of the
Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences, ¹ 13,
vol. 2. St.Petersburg, 1908. P. 309; A.V.Artsikhovsky. Miniatures of
Koenigsberg (Radzivil) Chronicle. Leningrad, 1932; B.A.Rybakov. The windows in
the extinct world (about the book of A.V.Artsikhovsky "Old miniatures as a
historical source"). Proc.: Reports of MSU. Vol. IV. M., 1946. P. 50;
B.A.Rybakov. "Lay" and its contemporaries. M., 1971. P. 12.
7. N.N.Voronin. An
architectural monument as a historical source (note to the question). Proc.:
Soviet Archaeology. Vol. XIX. M., 1954. P. 73.
8. In particular,
A.P.Novitsky thought so (A.P.Novitsky. Ordinance. Cit., P. 357).
9. A.M.Lidov. Jerusalem
Edicule. On the origin of the onion domes. Proc.: Iconography of architecture.
M., 1990. P. 57-68.
10. A.M.Lidov.
Ordinance. cit., p. 58.
11. I.A.Bondarenko. On
the origin of onion shape of the church domes. Proc.: Style of architecture.
Petrozavodsk, 1998. P. 105-113.
12. Ibid. 109.
13. V.N.Lazarev.
Byzantine and Russian art. M., 1978. P. 246.
14. We shall
collectively call artists the painters, fresco, miniatures and other masters of
ancient art.
15. A.M.Lidov.
Ordinance. cit., p. 59.
16. Website
http://forum.openarmenia.com.
17. Die Grabeskirche zu
Jerusalem. Geschichte – Gestalt – Bedeutung. Regensburg, 2000. P. 151.
18. Ibid. P. 150.
19. Some people consider
that the "dome" of Edicule is an apparatus for the generation of
"Holy Fire". In this case, the author refrains from comments.
20. I.A.Bondarenko.
Ordinance. cit.
21. Ibid. P. 109.
22. N.N.Voronin.
Ordinance. cit., vol. 2, p. 105.
23. Ibid. 156.
24. For details, see:
S.V.Zagraevsky. The architectural history of Trifon church in Naprudnoe and
origin of cross-like vault. M., 2008.
25. In connection with
the foresaid, it should be noted that A.M.Lidov, citing the opinion of some
researchers, in particular, the reconstruction by N.N.Sobolev (N.N.Sobolev. The
project of reconstruction of the monument of architecture – St. Basil Cathedral
in Moscow. Proc.: Architecture of the USSR, ¹ 2, 1977. P. 48), believed that
the onion domes of the cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat appeared in
the time of Fedor Ioannovich. We can not agree with this position: the
miniature of Litsevoy Chronicle of the middle of XVI century (see Fig. C-23) is
absolutely clear image of the consecration of the Cathedral of Intercession
with onion domes.
26. S.M.Soloviev.
History of Russia since ancient times. Publication is on the website
http://holychurch.narod.ru.
27. Voronin, 1961-1962.
Vol. 1, p. 474.
28. Russian chronicles.
Vol. 9: Typographical Chronicle. Ryazan, 2001. P. 270.
29. Voronin, 1961-1962.
Vol. 1, p. 356.
30. Ibid. P. 398.
31. Russian chronicles.
Vol. 4: Lviv Chronicle. Ryazan, 1999. P. 73.
32. Russian chronicles.
Vol. 10: First Novgorod Chronicle. Ryazan, 2001. P. 386.
33. A.F.Bychkov. Summary
chronicler of Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra. Proc.: A. Gorsky. The historical
description of Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra. M., 1890. Appendix. P. 177.
34. A.P.Novitsky.
Ordinance. cit.
35. In particular, J.
Fergusson believed so (J. Fergusson. History of Architecture. Vol. 2. London,
1867. P. 50).
36. I.A.Bondarenko.
Ordinance. cit., p. 106.
37. B.V.Veimarn,
T.P.Kapterev, A.G.Podolsky. Art of Arabia, Syria, Palestine and Iraq. Proc.:
Universal History of Art. V. 2, Bk. 2. M., 1961.
38. G.K.Vagner. Style
formation in architecture of Ancient Rus (return to the problem). Proc.:
Architectural heritage. Vol. 38. M., 1995. P. 25.
39. O.O.Shchelokov.
Construction of carcasses of the domes of churches in Vladimir Province.
Publication is at the website http://rusarch.ru.
40. S.D.Sulimenko.
Architecture and dialogue of cultures (for example, forms of symbolization
endings Russian Orthodox church). The article is on the website
www.raai.sfedu.ru.
41. N.L.Pavlov. Altar.
Stupa. Temple. Archaic universe in Indo-European architecture. M., 2001. P. 13.
42. In particular, see:
S.V.Zagraevsky. Yuri Dolgoruky and Old Russian white-stone architecture. M.,
2002. P. 124.
43. E.N.Trubetskoy.
Three Essays on Russian icon. 1917. Novosibirsk, 1991. P. 10.
44. M.P.Kudryavtsev,
G.Ya.Mokeev. On a typical Russian church of XVII century. Proc.: Architectural
heritage. ¹ 29, 1981. P. 72.
45. Voronin, 1961-1962.
Vol. 1, p. 360.
46. T.P.Timofeeva. The
restoration of Assumption Cathedral in 1888-1891. Proc.: State Vladimir-Suzdal
Historical and Architectural Museum-Reserve. Research materials. ¹ 11.
Scientific-practical conference (November 17, 2004). P. 99.
47. D.A.Petrov. The
internal space of two churches of the beginning of XVI century and Archangel
Cathedral of Moscow Kremlin. Proc.: Archives of architecture. Vol. 9. M. 1997.
P. 101.
48. Architectural
heritage. Vol. 18. M., 1969. P. 19-23.
49. Theory and practice
of restoration work. ¹ 3. M., 1972. C. 94.
50. Ibid.
© Sergey Zagraevsky
To the page “Scientific works”