To the page “Scientific works”
Prof.
Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky
About scientific validity of
hierotopy
S. V. Zagraevsky (C) 2018
Annotation
Prof. S. V. Zagraevsky undertook a
comprehensive analysis of methodology and applications of hierotopy, which is defined
as a special kind of activity on creation of so-called "sacred
spaces", and as a special area of historical and cultural research, which
identifies and analyzes the examples of this activity. Hierotopy is an
extremely broad concept, applicable to actually every scientific discipline
(history of architecture and urban planning, and culturology, and ethnography,
and philosophy, and art history, and musicology, and religious studies, and
political science, and odorology (studying of smells), and many others, down to
"mystical knowledge").
The author expressed doubts about scientific
validity and practical value of hierotopy, and noted that it is a compilative theoretical
layering, which is able to produce scientific achievements only to the extent
that it remains within the framework of traditional scientific disciplines.
"Superstructure" in the form of an act of faith that almost every
artifact is a part of a certain "sacred space" (i.e. has some
"higher supernatural sense") is unproved, therefore, unconvincing,
therefore, redundant, therefore, harmful, because overloads scientific text and
contradicts to "Occam's razor" – " Entities
should not by multiplied without necessity". Scientific text must be maximally
versatile and should not cause ideological rejection in those readers who do
not profess the faith of the author of this text. This is required by basic
scientific ethics.
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.
Hierotopy is determined by its founder A. M. Lidovy as
creating "sacred spaces", considered as a special kind of creative
activity, and special the area of historical and cultural research, which
revealed and analyzed examples of this creativity. In A. M. Lidovouin hierotopy
we are not talking about the General study of the sacred (what dedicated work,
for example, P. A. Florensky), and historically specific human activities on
creating a medium of communication with the higher world. Hierotopy can include
a mystical component, but first and foremost is the process of conscious
creativity, the formation of the sacral space by using architecture, images,
rituals, light and even odors. In the framework of the hierotopical approach
icons and other works of sacred art are examined not as isolated items and as
components of hierotopical projects in their artistic and conceptual integrity and the temporal
development of1.
This the term and the scope of its application was
proposed by A. M. Lidovy in the early 2000-ies. Since then, under the
leadership of A. M. Lidova there were several Russian and international
symposia on hierotopypublished a number of collections of articles. Dedicated
to hierotopy article in a significant number published in other collections (cm.
literature in the notes to the this article).
We to avoid confusion we will in this article to talk
about hierotopy only as the research object of these studies is
"sacred space" – so we will call.
According to the original concept A. M. Lidova, scope of hierotopy was first of all the miraculous icons and relics5.
But gradually, this area has expanded considerably. The participants of the
symposia and the collections of hierotopy applied its principles to the temples6, the architectural complexes7,
shrines8, landscape9, city10, country11,
mythopoetic space images in fiction12, light in Church architecture13,
the religious ceremonies and holidays14, folk traditions15,
the description of aspects of the sacred in the Protestant culture16,
the comparison of different cultures17.
And, for example, A. M. Lidov so, seriously and positively, spoke about
one of the articles in the edited collection of them: "In the study (K.
Blank from
We see indeed limitless area of potential applications of hierotopy.
This immensity was celebrated, and A. M. Lidov: "it is Impossible to say
that the problematic of sacred space in science was not discussed: different
aspects of the topic affected by religious studies, philosophy, cultural
studies, art history, archaeology, Ethnology, the study of folklore, Philology.
However, they solved the problem of their disciplines, emphasizing a particular
facet of the phenomenon, without trying to comprehend it as self-sufficient the
whole"19.
But problems scientific positioning of hierotopy
emerged in the first and seemingly most logical and
justified field of application is the study of the miraculous icons and relics.
A. M. Lidov stated: "Our idea is
not as a theoretical concept, but as a result of painstaking, and practical
historical work in the study of the miraculous icons and relics that before the
founding of our Center (apparently, it was about founded and led by A. M.
Lidovy "Research center vostochnohristianskih culture" – S. Z.) has not been analyzed. It seems incredible, but to2000. in Russian not been any scientific
work devoted to the relics as the phenomenon of culture. On reliquary written very
much a little less about the iconography, but about the relics as a cultural
phenomenon – nothing... Similar situation a little earlier has developed around
the miracle-working icons. I long had to answer questions (which, however, do
not ask): what in fact, have the miraculous icons and relics of history art? In
the process of specific work on the reconstruction of this reservoir of
spiritual life it became clear to us that the subject in the positivist sense
of the word here no. The subject may be an icon of how a particular Board, but
how to describe chudotvortsu the photo of the old copy and how it all it is
possible to study from the point of view of traditional art history?"20
Do not need to "ask
questions" to understand: "sacred space" formed is stored in the
State The Tretyakov Gallery, Rublev
"Trinity", a copy in the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius
Lavra, icon painting numerous stylization under this icon, "chudotvortsi" photos of this icon, and also old copies from these photos
– it is impossible to examine as a whole without something "ephemeral,
which under traditional positivist science may not be the subject of the
research"21.
But let's to call a spade a spade: this is
"ephemeral" is the faith of the Orthodox in the any icon elevates the
thoughts and feelings of worshipers to The Lord duly
consecrated a copy of Rublev "Trinity" has the same sanctity as the
original, that the photograph of this icon streaming myrrh, photocopy – heals,
etc. Without this "religious-mystical" component not do many research
in the field of hierotopy22.
According to the traditional understanding of science,
mysticism, i.e., unscientific phenomenon is called all that lies
exclusively in the realm of faith and not subject to robust objective check
scientific and practical methods. A. M. Lidov with this understanding do not agree , and formulates truly a revolutionary position: "In the Humanities, which was finalized in XIX century and in
the methodological framework which we are still, in all fields of knowledge
were bound to any specific visible material objects. Often
I encounter error, which puts an equal sign between the positivist and
scientific approaches. It is argued that we are studying objects, facts
and artifacts, and what is beyond the apparent, the described material – it
does not nothing to do with science. In my opinion,
this is a false premise. And positivism to me seems largely a form of ideology,
and if you want like this it is not paradoxical sounded, religious beliefs.
That do not fit into the proposed scheme of science of the nineteenth century, then fell out of discourse... TAK
from the field of scientific knowledge fell the sacred
space"23.
But immediately
the question arises: why? Do not previously been studied in the context of
creating works of art and the architecture of any socio-political situation in
the appropriate era, no biography and motivation of artists and architects, no
biography and motivation churchwardens? Not simulated neither looked like these
works of art in a particular era, or how they are perceived by the audience?
As the example written in the
mid-twentieth century text Soviet classics in the history of architecture,
laureate of the State prize of the USSR N. N. Voronin dedicated to Uspensky
Cathedral, built Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky:
"Free and light space of the
Church is striking first of all its height. Indeed,
the Cathedral was equal to the height of the largest the construction of
Ancient Russia – Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral. Apparently, this was also
predefined assignment Prince Andrew: his new temple could not yield to the
greatness Kyiv's sacred place. But he was smaller and its height was especially
acutely felt. In addition, the architects have reinforced the effect of the
comparative ease cross six slender pillars of the temple, as if without effort
and tension load-bearing arches and the only Chapter of the Cathedral. From its
twelve Windows, poured a streamlight, so what is depicted in the dome of Christ
it seemed as if hovering in the air... The most important
place in the altar screen, to the left of the "king's gate", held the
Central Shrine and the relic of Vladimir and the Vladimir icon Notre Dame,
taken by Prince Andrew from Vyshgorod. This icon (which now
in the Tretyakov gallery) – a work of genius of the Byzantine artist amazing
and now deep lyricism and emotionality. The painter depicted not an
unapproachable "Queen of heaven", but full of human feelings of a
young mother thin oval face, smallpink lips and wonderful eyes full of tender
love for the child and sadness for his fate. This image, imbued with such
warmth and humanity, no doubt made the strongest
impression on the people of the XII century. The Prince richly decorated icon
"vavav" it's a lot of gold, silver and precious stones...about the time of the feast of the assumption, opened
the southern and Northern "Golden gate" of the Cathedral portals and
between them on two "cords wonderful" hung sub-princes of precious
vestments and fabric of the Cathedral sacristy. This "corridor",
published and out of the temple, among the shaken wind colored fabrics went to
worship the icon the flow of pilgrims – citizens and peasants. Under their
feet, like a sparkling carpet stretched from the floor of the Cathedral colored
majolica tiles. Artistic effect of the majestic temple multiplied his precious
jewel... you Can imagine the strength of the impression whichcarried away the
inhabitants of smoky huts and cramped dwellings of the great city
Cathedral!"24
Or text a Soviet (and always very
"ideologically") classic M. A. Ilyin written in the early 1960s,
dedicated to Gothic cathedrals:
"Ancient legends have repeatedly appealed to the
theme of the promised happy land, where man, freed from
earthly misfortunes, the hardships and disease that could lead to
eternal blissful life. Medieval Christianity placed great emphasis on the
doctrine of
But the text
of another Soviet classic – N. And. Brunova. It's the end
of 1920-ies:
"Architecture draws life,
creating a shell over the movements people who are the
core of architecture, with architectural forms. Monuments of
architecture of bygone eras – shell, stripped of its content. To
understand ancient buildings only in the case if possible filled to recreate
their lives and to trace the thread that connects this life with architectural
forms. The building, it is the imprint, the trace of human life. The structure
of society is directly reflected in the architecture... In contrast to civil
architecture, the monuments which served amestitelj the life of the individual
or the individual classes, only the Church was intended for all layers of
society, representatives of which also attended on worship and so became in a
particular ratio to each other"26.
These texts were the norm (more
the sample) for the Soviet (i.e., according to A. M. Lidova,
"positivist") history of architecture and, as we have seen, did not
ignore nor the sacred role of the churches themselves, nor their social and
urban context nor the inspiration of their architects, nor the feelings of the
worshipers in them. And the fact that these texts it was written without
declaring the personal religious beliefs of their authors as well as not
impoverishes them, on the contrary, makes them more objective, balanced and
convincing. Because faith some readers may be one, others – another, the author
is there any that a scientific text should be very universaland, at least, not
cause the ideological rejection of those readers who do not profess the faith
of the author. This requires not any "positivist ideology", and
elementary scientific ethics.
And how to describe and study what is "outside the visible
described, material"? The paths can be different (for example, according
to hierotopy – first of all the study of the creative process), but in any
case, presupposes some the author's "religious-mystical revelation." Butno a scientist is not entitled to rely on such
"revelations" because they can't to be the "ultimate truth"
(or at least justified proof) even for believers. This is not a
"revelation" John the theologian or of the prophet Muhammad.
And it turns out that the
"superstructure" in the form of an act of faith in the fact that
almost any the artifact is part of a certain "sacred space" (i.e.,
has a "higher otherworldly sense") is unproven, therefore,
inconclusive, therefore, redundant, hence harmful, because overloads scientific
text contradicts the "Occam's razor" – "should not multiply
entities without need"27.
Note that there are still one Declaration A. M.
Lidova, except inclusion in the "positivist" science elements
"hereafter". Declaration this it is "positivist" and at
first glance it looks impressive:
"We're trying historically to reconstruct what has been created by
the minds and hands of the people and, accordingly, others can be known. We
propose to introduce the Creator sacred space as a historical or
historical-cultural figure who so far in our discourse was not. It is those who created the designs
and shaped of the sacred spaces. And many of them we know. Most often they are
introduced in a strange shared category of customers, although not all customers
were the creators of sacred spaces. That the Emperor
Justinian built St. Sophia, the Suger, the Abbot of
the Abbey of Saint-Denis – the one who created the
concept of the Gothic temple (his activities in detail to describe thanks to
them also written biographies), the Patriarch Nikon, etc. hundreds and hundreds
of specific people, activities and works which should be studied as such, with
the understanding that they were engaged in very different things, but in
General, their activities may be comparable
with the activities of modern filmmakers that combine creative efforts masters
of completely different backgrounds. In this sense, these people were artists,
and it is unclear why they were omitted from the context artists and creators
of images of sacred spaces, why they are excluded from the context of art
history, traditional history of art is reduced only to the creation of the
object? In other words, if you speak clearly and without
unnecessary pathos, the works of artisans of various skill levels. This
is another one of the challenges of hierotopy: to find a place for
personalities"28.
But in fact, this the Declaration may look impressive only to those who
do not know what huge volumes of scientific literature written about various
aspects the activities of such "personalities" as Justinian, the
Suger, Nikon and "hundreds and hundreds of specific characters",
including builders, architects, and other prominent artists, which in any case not it was "excluded from the
context of artists and creators of images of sacred spaces, from the context of
the history of art." We are even in the notes will not to cite the
relevant literature, it is too much. It's not even "hundreds and
hundreds" and thousands and thousands of scientific papers published on a variety
of languages in different countries.
No one disputes the fact, the relationships, influences, contexts,
typological and stylistic paradigm socio-political and economic situation, the
state of mind in society, the fate of wizards and other components of A. M.
Lidov and his colleagues call "sacred spaces", and you should explore
and individually and in combination. We must continue to study and destinies
prominent creators, this one does not argue. But this study is much more
effectively and convincingly carried out in the framework of traditional
science, rather than with attracting some "mystical revelation".
And the terms to use any, it's not more than words. Personally, the
author of this article, for example, the term "sacred space" is like,
and if not for his "hierotopical" origin, I would be willing to use
in their scientific works. For example, I studied Palace-temple complex of the
Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky in the hierarchy29 or Basil III and Ivan
IV in Alexandrov Sloboda30 also creating certain "sacred
space", and reconstruction the original form of these complexes and to
clarify the Dating is important for understanding the Genesis of these
"spaces." The same can be said about the historical the topography of
the city of Vladimir31, shapes of the heads (domes) in the ancient
temples32, the organization of ancient construction of33
, and almost all the other topics of my scientific research.
Why I as a historian architecture is ready to
accept the term "sacred space", but not the methodology of hierotopy,
even if completely excluded from it "mysticism"? Let me explain.
Hierotopy – a very broad concept, covering the
history of ancient architecture, and universal history architecture, classic
and urban development and modern urban design. For example, if you wish, hierotopy and
one of its key concepts – "spatial icon"34 we can now sum
up all components of any monument, temple architecture – constructive and
material possibilities of builders (in terms of hierotopy – "the creators of the sacred space"), personality
builders and architects information about building the farm, repairs, the
reconstructions and restorations, sense of style, ensemble, aesthetics,
proportions, color, and architectural relationships and influence... in short,
the whole enormous the set of factors that determines the nature and
fate of the monument, and not only the construction
era, but also later.
For example, it is well known the transfer of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow
plan and basic typologistAI serusalimskaja Church of
the Holy Sepulchre. It is well known and that this transfer had symbolicand the sacred meaning of35. And that
will add to our knowledge about it transferring what we're after experts in the
field of hierotopy36 consider the New Jerusalem as "spatial
icons"?Almost nothing but spectacular term, because
issues of design, organization of construction, building materials,
rearrangements, the role of churchwarden, architect and member of the masters
(i.e., all those who created the ensemble), style formation, decor, social environment, funding, formation of a monastery
Posada, turning it into a modern city, etc. are successfully addressed in the
framework traditional history of architecture and urban planning. And I
mean Nikon, creating an architectural ensemble that last will be "spatial
icon", did Nikon the idea of building "Moscow Palestine," the
Lord in revelation, or the Patriarch made it up himself, on the basis of their
Church's-political ambitions, moved God's hand of Nikon and builders, is questions of faith, not science.
Another example.
M. S. Smooth in a compendium of issues of hierotopy, claims that the Church of
the Intercession on the Nerl and the surrounding landscape was also
"spatial icon"37. But a few years earlier E. Bakalov wrote
that every Christian Church can be considered as spatial
the icon38. So what is the fundamental scientific novelty of the
article M. S. Smooth?
A V. Lepakhin suggested that the term "tonotopic", close to
the "spatial icon", and the etymology,. "Tonotopic"is
sacralization human space, conceivable as an icon. Considering
the "sacred structure" of ancient Russian towns V. Lepakhin identified "a hierarchy of konotopov": the altar – temple – Detinets (Kremlin) of the city
"Holy Russia" – "the heavenly Jerusalem", and the medieval
Moscow were considered as of tonotopic ("spatial
icon") of Jerusalem39. But this
"religious-mystical" theory was developed by M. P. Kudryavtsev40
and G. Y. Mokeev41 and the fact that it is now being developed as
part of hierotopy, did not bring nothing new, except
terminology. And certainly not made it more convincing from
the point of view traditional science.
We see that in fact hierotopy is "superstructure" over the
story ancient architecture and urban planning. Is not this "add" is
superfluous?
Of course, for some, it not extra though, because that gives you the
opportunity wordy and nice to talk on abstract religious-philosophical topics.
For example, for writing full-fledged research work on the history of a temple,
monastery or the settlement is necessary to study significant amounts of
historical data and the available scientific literature, conduct a field study
of an object, to possess a number of special knowledge in the theory and
history of architecture and urban planning. It's not easy, no wonder historians
of architecture was never much. Not easyto verbalize aesthetic experience,
which for scientific purposes is usually you want to disintegrate, and it is
able to cope not every critic. And entry level study of the fate of the
countries need own social and political disciplines... in short,
to engage in traditional science is difficult, very difficult.
But to perceive something "symbolic" and "sacred" in
any architectural and urban planning phenomenon, from the device of the
foundations of the temple to the location of the settlements on the map
country, and beautiful to write about their subjective impressions and
experiences from this is a relatively simple and specialized knowledge
generally not required.
And here we come to another one of the basic methodological problem of
hierotopy. In the framework assumes that if a modern researcher sees that or
another artifact or landscape "sacred space", the same way it saw the
master and in ancient times, that is, we can simulate creative processes
"creators of sacred spaces" based on our current views.
This approach is methodologically illegal, even if you type in this
model the religious feelings and motives as "stabilizing factor"
mankind's view of "sacredness". The fact that we
can simulate the feelings and motives of people in the past, only based on our
knowledge of their era, by definition, incomplete and episodic. And in
the same era the religious feelings of people are very individual motivation
and even masters, contemporaries could be completely
different.
View on personality at least some of the most famous "creators of
sacred spaces" in Russian architecture: Vasily Yermolin, Aristotle
Fioravanti, Aleviz New, Fyodor Kon, Bazhen Cucumbers, Christopher Galoway,
Pavel Potekhin, Ivan Zarudny, Domenico Trezzini, Vasily Bazhenov, Auguste
Montferrand, Carl Rossi, Constantine Tone... are we to believe that they did,
starting from the same ideas about the "sacredness"? No. And their patrons? Either. So, we have no right to approach
their art with the common standards of the "sacredness"the more that
knowledge about these standards can on the basis of our current understanding.
It would be an assumption reducible to the fact that the hand of all these
architects have moved some higher power – whether God, or the "collective
unconscious". For the history of architecture is just as futile as to say,
for example, that all of these architects were able to build temples. The
latter at least provable practice (the temple cannot be build without proficiency
in several architectural and building skills), and communication with the
"collective unconscious" or God is nothing more than the unprovable
thesis ofthe field of abstract philosophizing or the infamous "mystic of
revelation."
Another significant the problem often faced by those engaged in
hierotopysimilar to the problem faced historians of architecture and urban
planning, is much more sharp.
The fact that the basis of any generalizations and theories in these
areas are primary data obtained architectural archeology and source studies.
And new discoveries that generate changes to primary data are forcing
architects to rethink many of its General conclusions and theories. For example, in 1930-ies, when PN. Maksimov found under the
riggings the ancient Cathedral Andronikov monastery42it was in the
1950-ies, when excavations N. N. Voronin opened the white-stone Bogoliubov
walls43and galleries Church of the Intercession on the Nerl44,
so it was in the 1960-ies, when BP Dedushenko set
affiliation the existing Cathedral High-Petrovsky monastery creativity Aleviz the New45, as it was in 1980-ies, when V. V. Kavelmaherand T. D. Panova
found on Sobornaya square of the Kremlin remains of the first the belfry of St
John Climacus46, so it was in 1990-e years when excavations O. M. Ioannisyan opened in Rostov rubble Church of Boris and Gleb 1287 of the year47,
as it was in the early 2000s years old when research T. P. Timofeeva,48
and of the author of this the article confirmed the hypothesis about the
initial the five-domed Vladimir assumption
Cathedral49.And after held in the Alexander
Sloboda architectural and archaeological research VV Kavelmahera (1980-90-ies)50 and the author of this article (2000
years)51 to revise the had hardly not the whole theory of the origin
of hip architecture, because it turned out that tent Trinity (now Pokrovskaya)
Church in Aleksandrovo was built in 1510-ies and accordingly she, and not the
Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532)52, was the first
ancient Church marquee.
And some of the above (and many other) architectural and archaeological
source discoveries still are not universally accepted and debate. Therefore,
historians of architecture, before confidently use these discoveries in his
theoretical schemes, either have to wait for the results of those discussions
or to participate in any of the parties.
And the problem is the following the level of "theoretical
superstructure of the primary discoveries" – hierotopy – is even more
serious as dealing its researchers are forced either to wait for the primary
data (not only from archaeologists and the source researchers, but also from
historians of architecture and urban development), or do General reasoning at
the level of: "whenever there was built the Church of
the Intercession on the Nerl – 1165 (according to N. N. Voronin53)
or 1158 (S. V. Zagraevsky54 and T. P. Timofeeva,55),
whether it was a detached temple (for N. N. Voronin56) or a
Cathedral (for S. V. Zagraevsky57), still it forms the sacred a
space having such characteristics."However, specialists of
hierotopy you can generally ignore the shift of Dating or the presence of a
monastery: indeed, why not go into details of architecture of archeology and
source studies, if the "sacred space" form
even pubs in the works Dostoevsky? Let the
archaeologists and architectural historians studying the nature of archives,
and those who are engaged in hierotopywill "skim the cream" and talk
about "high matters".
And it turns out that hierotopy attracts a large number of researchers,
not Dating, not find out, "what kind of brick behind which is a"58,
not rekonstruiruet original, not restored, not studying the sources, not
explore stereopathyand long-winded reasoning about "the sense of the
sacred". Or coming up with new terms and discuss them.
In fairness, we note, in the collections of hierotopy published and a
specialists in primary science. But in their work, or even missing terminology
from the thesaurus of hierotopy59, or present, but if you replace
the traditional (usually more simple) work is almost nothing to lose by60.
And all of the above topics more important, if we
go from the history of architecture and urban planning to other fields of
knowledge, which declared the use of hierotopy. Cultural studies, Ethnography, philosophy, art history,
musicology, religious studies, political science, hermeneutics, literary
criticism, odorology (science of smell) and many
others. . – science less subject than the history of
architecture, and, therefore, another theoretical layering over them, called hierotopy, is even more generalized, ephemeral and, ultimately, able to
produce scientific advances only to the extent that it is within traditional
scientific disciplines.
It may seem that hierotopy strengthens faith in people, as it usually
comes from that because any artifact is "sacred space", set up by
God. But for the believer, and everything on Earth and in heaven set up by God,
so nothing new from the point of view of faith it was for not will provide. A
realistic minded person expects from science first of
all answers to the questions "what, who, where, when, why", and bulky
conclusions of hierotopy it can make primarily that any work creates a
"sacred space", and this simple idea lies in the realm not of
scientific knowledge, and terminology.
We do not have the right to call hierotopy pseudoscience, as it does not
aspire to global review findings in any of the traditional Sciences (as, for
example, with the infamous "new chronology") and relies heavily the
achievements of these Sciences. But and industry any of the existing scientific
disciplines of it can not be called: for that, as we have seen, too versatile
its subject too diffuse methodology, it is permissible (and often present) the
elements of mysticism, and notalways associated
exclusively with any one religious denomination.
From this it follows that hierotopy as "humanitarian
knowledge" or "industry historical and cultural studies"61,
i.e. hierotopy as a scientific discipline it is that can be carried out. To
date, hierotopy terminology add-in, potentially applicable to almost any
scientific and pseudo-scientific texts from "positivist" until
"occult"62.
To use or not the terms offered by hierotopy – to solve the authors. For
some, they may seem useful for someone (for example, for the author of this
article) is unnecessary, is not free from copyright A. M. Lidova and his
colleagues (respectively requiring additional references) and overloading the
text.
NOTES
1. Lidov A. M. Hierotopy.
Spatial icons and images-paradigms in Byzantine culture.
M., 2009. GL. 1. Hierotopy. Creation of sacred
spaces as the form of creativity and subject of historical research. P.
11-38; Materials of the round table held "Center for Ukrainian and
Belarusian studies of the" the history Department of Moscow state
University on 26 November 2006. Cm. web site
http://www.hist.msu.ru/Labs/UkrBel/hierotopy_mgu.htm; Lidov A. M. Hierotopy.
Create sacred spaces as a form of creativity and subject of historical research.
In the book: Hierotopy. Creation of sacred spaces in
2. Shukurov R.
M. the Creation of sacred spaces. Two new publications // Byzantine annals,
vol. 69, 2010. P. 370-374.
3. Shchedrin, K. A.
Savva Storozhevsky
5. Leads A. M.
Hierotopy. Creation of sacred spaces...
6. Gribunin N.
G. Hierotopynew Testament the temple in the context of the Christian
cult action // Questions of cultural studies: scientific and
methodical magazine No. 8, 2008. P. 56–59.
7. Demchuk R. V. Sophia as hierotopical project // the
8. Seleznev A.
G. Islamic cult complexes of Astana in
9. Milutin M.
N. Sacred chronotope of the cultural landscape of the Russian North //
Abstract of Cand. Diss. GL. 1: Hierotopy .;
Sh. Tsuji. Creating an Iconic Space. The transformation of
Narrative Landscape // Spatial icons. Performative in
10. Kirichenko
E. I. the
11. Petrukhin
V. Ya. hierotopy the Russian land and primary
chronicle // Hierotopy. Create sacred spaces in
12. Bgun O. the
Image paradigm hristianskogo the temple at tworczosci Taras Shevchenko
// Slavic literature ¡ kontekscie Susitna:
Yes 900-Hodja Torile Turskaa I
200-Hodja
13.
Godovanets A. Y. Icon of light in the space SV. Sofia
Constantinople // Hierotopy. Spatial icons.
Performative in
14. Belyaev L.
A. ,
Hierotopy of the Orthodox feast: on the national traditions in the creation
of sacred spaces // Hierotopy. Comparative studies
of sacred spaces. M., 2009. P. 259-269.
15. Frost, A. B. "Saints" and
"scary" places. Creation of sacred space in the traditional culture // Tam. C. 270-291.
16. Dombrauskene
GN Religious symbolism in hierotopy Protestantism // Bulletin of
17. Isar N.
Vision and Performance: A Hierotopic Approach to Contemporary Art //
Hierotopy. Comparative studies of sacred spaces. M., 2009. S. 341-375; M. A. Chegodaev Hierotopy
ancient Egyptian sarcophagusa // ibid. P.
18-37.
18. Materials the
round table...
19. Lidov A. M.
Hierotopy. Creation of sacred spaces...
20. Materials the
round table...
21. Ibid.
22. For
example, cm.: Lidov A. M.
"the heavenly river" and hierotopy
23. Materials the
round table...
24. Voronin N. N.
Vladimir, Bogolyubovo, Suzdal, Yuriev-Polsky. The book-guide to ancient cities of the
25. Il'in M. A. the
Basis for understanding architecture. M., 1963. S. 35.
26.
BrunovN.
27. "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
(Philosophical dictionary. SPb, 2001).
28. Materials the
round table...
29. Zagraevsky S.
V. Bogoliubov architectural ensemble of the end of 1150 x-beginning 1170-ies:
the history and reconstruction of the Memory of Andrei Bogolyubsky. SB. articles.
30. ZagraevskyS. V.
A new study of architectural monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda. M., 2008; ZagraevskyS. V. Palace-temple
complex of Vasily III in the Alexandrovskaya Sloboda and his place in
typological development of the Tsar's estate of XVI century // proceedings of
XV inter-regional studies conference (April 162010.).
31.
Zagraevsky S. V. Historical topography of pre-MongolVladimir. M.,
2015.
32. Zagraevsky S.
V. form of the domes (domes) of ancient temples. M., 2008.
33. Zagraevsky S.
V. Some issues of organization of ancient building // Materials inter-regional
studies conference (April 282011.).
34. Lidov A. M. Hierotopy. Spatial icons and
images-paradigms in the Byzantine culture. M., 2009.
GL. 1. Hierotopy. Creation of sacred spaces
as a form of creativity and subject of historical research. P. 11-38.
35. For example, cm.: Il'in M. A. the Stone
architecture of the third quarter of the XVII century // History of Russian
art. T.4. M., 1959. S. 162; Alferov G. V. on the
construction activities of Patriarch Nikon // Architectural inheritance. No.18. M., 1969. P. 30-44.
36.
Bobrov A. A. Saints and the healing power of
37. Smooth M. S. Sacred waters in a spatial icon Of the
intercession on the Nerl // life-giving
source. The water in hierotopy
and iconography of the Christian world. M., 2014.
C. 112-115.
38. Bakalov
, E. Hierotopy. New interpretive strategies in the study of
sacred spaces // The Byzantine Annals, No. 71 (96), 2012. P. 319–325,
39.
Lepakhin Vladimir Icon and iconicity. SPb,
2002. P. 155-171.
40. Kudryavtsev M. P.,
Kudryavtseva T. N. Russian Orthodox Cathedral. The symbolic language of
architectural forms // "Symbols of the Russian hramostroitelstva – KB
Swjtu", Spring, No. 17, 1995. P. 65-87;
Kudryavtseva T. N., Kudryavtsev M. P. Red square – the temple under the open
sky // "
41. Mokeev G. Y. As The
42. Maximov P. N. The
Cathedral Of The Spaso-Andronikov monastery in
43. Voronin N. N.
The Architecture Of North-Eastern Russia XII–XV
centuries M, 1961-1962. Vol. 1, p. 207.
44. Ibid. P.246.
45. Belyaev L. A. Ancient monasteries
46. Kavelmaher V.
V., Panov Etc. Remnants of the white stone Church of the XIV in. at the Cathedral square of the Moscow Kremlin // the
Culture of medieval Moscow XIV–XVII centuries M, 1995. P. 66.
47. Ioannisyan O.
M., Torshin E. N., P. L. Zykov, the
48. Timofeeva T. P.
on the domes Assumption Cathedral of Andrei Bogolyubsky of
49. Zagraevsky SV
New the study of architectural monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve. M., 2008. GL. 5.
50. KavelmaherV. V.
Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda (collection of articles). Vladimir, 1995; Kavelmaher V. V. Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda
(collection of scientific papers). M., 2008.
51. Zagraevsky SV
New the study of architectural monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda. M., 2008; Zagraevsky S. V. Trinity,
now the intercession Church in Alexandrov Sloboda – first steepled Church of
Ancient Russia. New research. Cm. web site
http://rusarch.ru/zagraevsky41.htm.
52.
Pod'yapol'skiiS. S. Architect Petrok Small. In the book: Monuments of Russian
architecture and monumental art. Style, attribution, Dating.
M., 1983. P. 44.
53. N. N. Voronin
took an unclear position in concerning the Dating of the temple. In his opinion, the Church of the Intercession was "the most
perfect monument of the number of buildings of Prince Andrew, as if completing
their pleiad" (Voronin N. N. The Architecture Of
North-Eastern
54. Zagraevsky S.
V. To the question of
reconstruction and date Church of the Intercession on the Nerl. In the book:
The materials of the regional conference (20-21 April2007.).
55. Timofeeva T.
P., Novakowska-Buchman S. M. Church of the Intercession on the Nerl. M., "Northern pilgrim". 2003.
58. Voronin N. N.
The Architecture Of North-Eastern
59. Zagraevsky S.
V. the early history of the Pokrovsky
monastery on The Nerl. Cm. web site http://zagraevsky.com/cloister.htm.
60. So, according
to the memoirs of V. Kavelmahera, said G. A. Makarov, restorer Novodevichy
convent (cm. web site
http://rusarch.ru/zagraevsky27.htm).
61. For example, cm.: Chakovski HP Water in the
62. For example, cm.: Hruskova L. G. The Early
Christian Basilica with a tripartite sanctuary: a baptisteryin the liturgical
space // ibid.C. 42-44. The term
"liturgical space" is found only in the title and is probably a
response to the "sacred space" in hierotopy.
63. Lidov A. M.
Hierotopy. Spatial icons...; Materials the round table...
64. "Occult
science" – in one way or another theoretically teachings based on the
belief in the supernatural is different and distinct
claims for the effectiveness of their practical applications. "Occult "science is based on philosophical theory, and
others. myths, folk experience and some scientific
facts and methods (Philosophical dictionary. SPb, 2001).
© Sergey Zagraevsky
To the page “Scientific works”