To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page

Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky

To the question of date of Reverend Nikon Church (“Nikon’s side chapel”) in Trinity-Sergius Lavra

Published in Russian: Заграевский С.В. К вопросу о датировке церкви преподобного Никона (Никоновского придела Троицкого собора) в Троице-Сергиевой Лавре. В кн.: Памятники культуры. Новые открытия. 2006. М., 2009. С. 616–624. 

Annotation

Architectural history of Reverend Nikon Church (“Nikon’s side chapel”) in Trinity-Sergius Lavra is studied. The basic date of the monument by 1548 is defined. It is shown that in 1623 the temple was not rebuilt, but only its top.

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

Hope I'm not insulting the memory of my father Kavelmahera disagreement with his Dating Nikon Church. I am sure that my father would have done exactly the same.

The Church of Saint Nikon (Nikon chapel of the Holy Trinity Cathedral in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra - small columns and domed odnoapsidny temple, directly adjacent to the southern wall of the Trinity Cathedral (Fig. 1, 2, 3). The lower part of the temple faced outside the white stone, inside - brick. The top of the temple from the first bottom ledge - all brick. The temple is covered with a torispherical vault with a slot. Fence walls, separated blades and having on various fronts different proportions (Fig. 4), topped with a decorative headdresses.

Fig. 1. Nikon Church. View from the South-West.

Fig. 2. Nikon Church. View from the East.

Fig. 3. Nikon Church. The plan on the basis of the restoration of 1939-1940.

Fig. 4. Nikon Church. Reconstruction Kavelmahera.

How to call this Church is Nikon's Church or Nikon's chapel of the Holy Trinity Cathedral - one should emphasize here.

The tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church calls steadily Nikon temple Church. This position is reflected in the works Aversge¹ and E.E. Golubinsky²and in contemporary documents of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra³. However, the actual side position of the Church (the adjunction to the wall of the Trinity Cathedral) allowed a number of architectural historians of the twentieth century (in particular, Wealden⁴, Mailin⁵, Ask⁶) call it Nikon's chapel.

Kavelmaher in his fundamental study of 1980-1990-ies, dedicated Nikon's Church⁷, opposed the name "Nikon chapel"⁸. The arguments of the researcher rather convincing: the Church of Saint Nikon, the first and for a long time the only one in Russia independent Church over the relics of her namesake Saint, his personal Martyrii. If Nikon of Radonezh by chance turned out to be buried elsewhere, the Church above it would be built as a separate volume. In favor of the "independence" of Nikon's Church says and what the service it was "routine"and that it had and has a separate entrance.

You can, however, understand, and those who call the temple Nikon's chapel: formally, any chapel is an independent Church, "everyday" services have been conducted in many chapels, special "side" clergy until the early twentieth century, was also not uncommon (there was even such a term as "good try"⁹). Moreover, in our time in Nikon's Church services are held only on the day of memory of the monk - 17(30) November¹⁰.

Separate (not with porches) the entrance to the chapel is also not uncommon: such inputs have the side-chapels of the Third finding of the head of John the Baptist and Martyr Varos Moscow Archangel Cathedral, the Annunciation side-chapel of the Church of St. Nicholas Nadein in Yaroslavl, Christ and Boris chapels of the Annunciation Cathedral in Kazan, the chapel of Zosima and Savvaty Kem Cathedral, the chapel of Joachim and Anna Holy cross Church in Astrakhan, the side-chapel of St. Panteleimon in the intercession Cathedral of Sevastopol, Varvara chapel of Peter and Paul Church in Yasenevo and others in order

Thus, we must conclude that the name "Nikon Church" and "Nikon chapel of the Holy Trinity Cathedral" are almost equal right to exist. However, the name "Nikon Church" is more universal and absolutely indisputable, so in this article we will call the temple the monk Nikon that way.

We turn to the main topic of the article - to the question about the Dating of Nikon's Church.

In the literature there are two dates - 1548 and 1623 years. They are based on the following message "Short chronicle of the Trinity-Sergius monastery:

"Summer 7056 (1548) put the Church Kamenno in the name of the monk chyudotvortsa Nikon over the grave of his, when Nobleborn Tsar and great Prince Ivanna Vasilievich all Rosii and when the great Queen Anastasia and Metropolitan Makarii"¹¹.

"In the summer of 7131-th (1623), coated stone Church over the grave of the monk chyudotvortsa Nikon Bolsa on, when Archimandrite Dionysii and steward the elder Alexander; that summer and was hosted; and consecrated byst 132-September 21 days; and then a hundred 33-th Deesis and holidays and the prophets and the patriarchs lined srebro, and icons local"¹².

E.E. Golubinsky¹³, Wpisujac¹⁴, Heisdorf¹⁵, S. pod'yapol'skii¹⁶ believed that in 1623 the Church was completely rebuilt and was dated Nikon's current Church this year. In the 1970-ies V. Baldin, assuming (without any historical and architectural reasoning) the restructuring of small, introduced in the literature earlier date - year 1548¹⁷. On the same date (without any arguments) followed mA Il'in¹⁸. Now both of Dating found in the popular scientific literature with approximately the same frequency.

As we have said, in the 1980-1990s years of Nikon's Church dedicated to fundamental research Kavelmaher. Thinking that the message is a Short chronicle under the year 1623 talks about the founding of the temple from scratch, and after a detailed stylistic analysis of construction, researcher in this work was Dating the Church the monk Nikon the year 1623 (later we will consider all arguments Kavelmahera in support of this date).

Clarify some terms. Chetverikov Nikon's Church horizontally crossed three cornices, and their numbers, we will start from the bottom (respectively, 1-St cornice - brick, 2-nd and 3-rd - white stone). Top or upper house, we will call it part of the above 2-nd cornice; accordingly, bottom or bottom - below the cornice.

Kavelmaher, conducting this study comprehensive stylistic analysis of Nikon's Church, paid most attention the top of the Church¹⁹. Stipulate that membership in the top 1623 no doubts that in our time it is not even worth going into details. Just look at the thin, looking up drum with the bulbous cupola on a high attic floor, fine niche keeled, light decorative headdresses and steeply curved torispherical arch to understand: it's architectural style of the XVII century, and opinions of other people here can not be.

Regarding the Dating of the bottom of Nikon's Church is different, because of the architectural and archaeological data, obtained during the study temple in 2004-2005 the author of this article, indicate a difference in building the top and bottom of Nikon's Church.

First, the top is "delivered" at the bottom of careless (Fig. 5 and 7): above the 2nd cornice has been a significant shift blades. This blade above and below the 1st shift cornice not have, though made of different material is white stone and brick.

Secondly, in the North-East of the top and bottom of Nikon's Church adjacent to the wall of the Trinity Cathedral at different angles (Fig. 6).

Thirdly, very similar in profile and proportions of the 2nd and 3rd cornices actually turned by different masters:

- across the width of the walls the size of the bottom shelf in the 3rd cornice more than 2 m;

- carrying out of the top of the belt in the 2nd cornice more than in 3-m

- several different profile on these cornices and has a quarter shaft.

Fourthly, brick between the 1st and the 2nd cornices (i.e. belonging to the bottom of the temple) are larger than the bricks from which complicated the top of the temple. This can be seen in Fig. 7: blades from 1 cornice laid out in half a brick, but before and after the 2nd cornice is a different width blades²⁰.

Fifth, in the interior of Nikon's Church even under a thick layer of whitewash can be seen that the lower part are made of bricks larger than the top (Fig. 8). The border between the oviposition takes place unevenly, but clearly seen around the perimeter of the interior.

Fig. 5. Nikon Church. Fragment of the southern wall.

Fig. 6. Nikon Church. The North-Eastern corner.

Fig. 7. Nikon Church. Fragment of the Western wall (photo from archive Kavelmahera).

Fig. 8. The South-Eastern part of the interior of Nikon's Church. Laying in the bottom and top parts made of bricks of different sizes.

Thus, these architectural and archaeological observations showed the difference in building the top and bottom of Nikon's Church. Thus suggests the following conclusion: the temple was built in 1548, and then its top (above the 2nd cornice) was completely rebuilt in 1623)

What arguments can be brought against this position, i.e. in favor of complete destruction in 1623 Church in 1548 and built in its place a new building?

No one but Kavelmahera, has not conducted a detailed architectural analysis Nikon's Church with access to its Dating. Consider all the arguments of the researcher in favour of construction of the Church in 1623 from scratch.

Everything that concerns the architectural style of research torispherical arch and slots²¹, a way to "mantle kokoshniks²², attic storey with ogee-shaped niches²³ and General appearance of the completion of the temple²⁴ we must consider: it is certainly in 1623. The Dating of iron connected this time, too, no need to question: if at the top of the temple in 1548 and were archaic oak connection, when the restructuring of the top in 1623 its probably been replaced.

Analysis VV kavelmaherom window placement of Nikon's Church²⁵ based on the premise of one-time construction and, accordingly, in the case of the difference in top and bottom is not applicable as Dating back to the sign. Also note that almost haphazardly scattered on the facade, unevenly cut by asymmetrically inscribed in decor rectangular Windows with profiled frames, restored 1939-1940²⁶ (Fig. 4), was hardly primary.

Kavelmaher considered a number of churches last quarter of the XVI century, built in technology, similar construction techniques bottom of Nikon's Church - the combination of the facade and interior of white stone and brick facing. Mentioned Vvedensky Cathedral Bishop's monastery in Serpukhov, Church of Martyr Nikita for Yauza, Transfiguration in Vyazemy and Nativity in Conversations, as well as the assumption Cathedral in Rostov. But these data may not testify in favour of Dating bottom of Nikon's Church 1623 year for the following reasons:

- first, from 1548 to the last quarter of the XVI century time passed, insignificant from the point of view of the formation of such a universal construction techniques, as the combination of white stone and brick;

- secondly, Kavelmaher in the Dating Rostov assumption Cathedral was based on research Voronin²⁷. But research Aggelika showed that more than likely the Dating of the Cathedral is the beginning of the XVI century²⁸;

- thirdly, the early application of Nikon's Church combination of white stone facing of facade with brick interior has absolutely logical justification: there stood a white-stone Trinity Cathedral, and Nikon Church needed to "stylize", having spent a minimum funds for expensive and time-consuming white stone. Indeed, since the beginning of the XVI century white stone building was built only near the quarry²⁹and the distance from the Trinity-Sergius Lavra to the nearest myachkovsky development more 100 km a straight line but along the roads, respectively, about 1.3-1.5 times more.

Kavelmaher noted typical XVII century "draw up" the proportion of the quadrangle Nikon's Church - 2:1³⁰. Indeed, built in 1623 attic floor makes this "high-rise" effect. But if we consider the bottom of the temple as an independent chetverik, the ratio of height to width ratio equal to 0.9. It is absolutely typical of pillarless churches the end of the XV-XVI century. For comparison: in the Church of the Conception of Anne in China-town to the white-stone quadrangular (Le trifole below), this ratio is close to one.

Column-type decor Nikon's Church is a direct reminiscence decor spirit Church 1476 (Fig. 9). The only difference is not fundamentally change the style of the decor, "reversed" arcature spirit Church. Hence, column-type decor Nikon's Church cannot be self-sufficient basis for Dating or 1548, or 1623 year.

Fig. 9. The Church of Holy spirit. The decoration of the apse.

Kavelmaher, recognizing the continuity of columnar decoration dukhovskoi and Nikon churches³¹ still wondered search of the monument, "which dates back arcature Nikon's Church³². Finding similar motifs in the tent-roofed Church of the Resurrection in Gorodnya (1566-1578 years), in the Rostov Cathedral of the assumption, in the "Marvelous" the Church of the Dormition in Uglich (1625-1627 years), and even in St. George's Cathedral in Yuryev-Polsky (1230-1234 years), the researcher was inexplicably ignored them as the example, who was the master Nikon temple literally before my eyes - the Church of Holy Spirit. To Express his creative individuality master, build a Church, Nikon, could only "turn" arcature.

So, none of architectural-stylistic argument may not testify in favour of the construction of Nikon's Church from scratch in 1623. Preserved white-stone bottom of the temple with a characteristic low-columnar decor should be assigned to 1548.

But we have not considered the main documentary evidence relied on in its database EE Golubinsky and Kavelmaher, message Short chronicle under the year 1623 on Nikon's founding of the Church. Does this mean the building in 1623 the Church from scratch?

In order to show that this message in this case is referred to the restructuring of top, we have enough detail to investigate the term "lay" (or "impose" - in the context of ancient architecture, these words are full synonyms³³). Immediately stipulate that under the Foundation of the Church (city etc) we will understand the solemn service "at the base" (there is no doubt that it interpreted the founding churches, the monks are the authors of "Short chronicle of the Trinity-Sergius monastery)and not the laying of the foundations that are related exclusively to the technical process of construction (below we will show that these actions are not identical and not simultaneously).

In principle, a certain tradition of laying the temples, cities and other buildings on the "zero cycle" exists (in this case, and only in this case the Foundation of the Church and the laying of the foundations of the almost simultaneous).

First, this is the modern "Chin on the basis of Church": "...the Foundation of the Church is made the following way: if the Church is stone, dig ditches prepared the stones and lime, and one rectangular stone depicts or cut out the cross. Under the cross to prepare a place for attachment of the Holy relics and relies following code... the Foundation of the temple can be done without the provisions of the relics of the Holy and mortgage labels, but the presence of rectangular stone necessarily. ³⁴.

Secondly, in antiquity the solemn divine service on the base of the temple" was done primarily on the Foundation ditches or insertion of foundations on the ground level, as in the Moscow Uspenie Cathedral 1475-1479 years.

And yet these General rules have always been numerous exceptions.

First, we note that many times there were cases, when between the Foundation and the beginning of construction took place many years (for example, the stone walls of Novgorod was founded in 1302³⁵while the building with the re-founding - began only in 1331³⁶).

Apparently, even more frequent (even mass) than was the worship services on the basis of Church" at a time when the building was already partially built.

So, Novgorod's Church of the Annunciation in Arkaah was laid on 21 may and ended on August 25, the Church of the Annunciation on Machine laid on 21 may and ended on 25 August 1179 year, the Moscow Church of St. Nicholas the Hospitable was laid on June 21 and built 9 weeks, Church of the Savior in Staraya Russa laid on 21 may and ended on 31 July. Short terms of construction of big stone churches can only be explained by the fact that "laying" is already partially built temples.

The Foundation of the temple was made most often in may-June³⁷, despite the fact that construction is unlikely to begin later than March-April (to have time to finish it before the fall). And this shift of the date of inception is quite justified: muddy spring the soil was not always possible carrying out of the solemn divine service, when bishops and priests, clothed in ceremonial clothes, they were accompanied by the clergy, take a procession around the construction site.

There is another consideration: the inception of stone temples are usually made bishops - very busy people, and their participation in divine services could be delayed for a few weeks, or even months. Participation in the founding of the temple of the king, princes and boyars could also lead to multiple transfer ceremony. At the same builders, contractors related to the contract, should have to work irrespective of the date of service "on the basis of Church".

Undoubtedly, the inception often tried to coincide with the celebration of the saints, which were dedicated to temples. But in these cases, the time lag between the actual start of construction and the service "on the basis of Church" could be even better ready³⁸.

But everything said at the inception of already partially built temples does not apply to the message under the year 1623 on Nikon's Church. It Chronicles the message speaks of another mass exception to the General rules of inception: the Commission of solemn worship "on the basis of Church" with the partial rebuilding or refurbishing buildings.

Here are just some examples.

1. Novgorod Church of Boris and Gleb, built in 1167-1173 years, was re-founded in 1302, and the old Church "collapsed"³⁹. The complete rebuilding of the Church (on the old basis) occurred only in the year 1411⁴⁰. Likely to 1300 Church "collapsed" not completely, and reported its founding referred to the restructuring of the top overhaul.

2. According to the chronicle, July 18, 1416 "was given the established Church, the stone at the great Prince of the yard Annunciation⁴¹. Actually the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin this year was only expanded and turned into trehapsidnoy⁴². In 1484, Ivan III the Cathedral was laid, destroying the first base⁴³. But podkletny tier of the temple are preserved to our days.

3. Vsevolod the Big Nest in 1194 "founded town Pereyaslavl... That same summer, and cut down byst"⁴⁴. It is clear that it was only to update the wooden walls of the old ramparts of Yuri Dolgoruky in Pereslavl-Zalessky.

4. In 1514 "the great Prince... and he ordered zalozhiti delatite Church kamenya and kirpichnyi in Moscow"⁴⁵. Among the churches that Vasily III ordered to build and build, was the Church of the Nativity of the Theotokos in the Moscow Kremlin, built in 1393. And despite the inception in 1514 new Church, to the present day remained lower part of the temple of the XIV century (until the chorus sets).

5. In 1595, according built into the wall plate of the mortgage, "triumphed the temple of the great Martyr Nikita Moscow tenant living room hundreds of people shopping Sava Omel'yanov son Vagin"⁴⁶. There is also a chronicle reported that this year the Church of Martyr Nikita for Yauza was "delivered" on the petition of Dmitry Godunov⁴⁷. At the same time from the earlier construction (probably the first half of the XVI century), preserved basement and lower part of the walls⁴⁸.

6. Under 1345 year in the annals of a message founding of the Novgorod Archbishop Basil "Holy Friday that collapsed in the great fire"⁴⁹. However, Paraskeva Church was built in 1207, preserved to our days almost completely, i.e. in the annals 1345 was talking about major repairs of the temple.

7. On the stone and plaster middle apse of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky scratched inscription that in 1442 "be based FWD be... temple"⁵⁰. It is clear that in 1442 could only be repaired, but never a complete overhaul preserved temple of XII century.

So, there are many examples chronicle reports founding churches belonging to their partial reconstruction or capital repair⁵¹.

Moreover, since the author of "Short chronicle of the Trinity-Sergiev monastery" reported on Nikon's founding of the Church "to recall" (this is evidenced by a marked V. kavelmaherom⁵² violation of the order of messages by years), it is not surprising that the chronicler did not go into details about whether the previous temple was destroyed partly or completely.

Accordingly, the message is a Short chronicle cannot show a complete restructuring of Nikon's Church in 1623. And because the data of architectural-archaeological and stylistic analysis suggests that this year was the restructuring of only the top of the temple, we must interpret the message accordingly - as evidence of partial restructuring.

As the original looked the top of Nikon's Church, we can only conjecture. The only thing that can be said with certainty - that he was considerably lower than the built in 1623, otherwise "Brief chronicle" was not made a reservation, that the Church "Bolsa on". Perhaps the temple 1548 had no attic storey.

Reconstruct in Nikon's Church in 1548 groin vault trifoliynym completion does not allow asymmetric, unevenly distributed over the facades of the blade. Perhaps the original temple was covered with a torispherical vault with transverse dismantling, "hidden" for decorative headdresses. Consequently, we may assume that in General, the composition of the top in 1623 repeated the initial completion of the temple (except attic storey).

The reasons for restructuring the top of Nikon's Church in 1623 we can also argue only hypothetically. Perhaps the temple looked too low, especially as it was next to a huge Trinity Cathedral, which is due pyramidal tilt wall has an additional "striving upward. Perhaps the Church of the monk Nikon in 1548 too much "tied" to the Cathedral, this caused erratic rainfall buildings, and the top came in emergency condition.

This, of course, only conjecture. But what Nikon Church in 1623 was rebuilt only in part, we can be considered proven with sufficient reliability. And as for the restructuring of the top temple generally taken to date by the preserved lower part (as the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha (1152⁵³), The Nativity Cathedral in Suzdal (1222-1228 years), St. George's Cathedral in Yuryev-Polsky (1230-1234 years), the Church of the Conception of John the Baptist on the Settlement in Kolomna (the beginning XIV century⁵⁴) and others in order), and common Dating of the existing Nikon's Church, we may assume 1548 year. Naturally, with the proviso that the top of the temple was rebuilt in 1623.

NOTES

1. Averse. Historical description Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra. M., 1890. C. 16.

2. E.E. Golubinsky. Sergius of Radonezh and he created the Trinity Lavra. M., 1909. C. 199.

3. Official website of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra "www.stsl.ru".

4. V. Baldin. The construction of the XVI century. In the book: Trinity-Sergius Lavra. Art monuments. M., 1968.

5. M.A. Ilyin. Zagorsk. The Trinity-Sergiev monastery. Leningrad, 1971.

6. S. pod'yapol'skii. The stone architecture of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery in its relation to the construction of the Trinity-Sergiev monastery. In the book: Old Russian art. Artistic culture of X-first half of the XIII century, M, 1988. C. 310-319.

7. Kavelmaher. Nikon Church of the Trinity-Sergiev monastery. The author and the date of construction. In the book: The culture of medieval Moscow. XVII century. M, 1999. C. 40-95.

8. Ibid., C. 47.

9. The EP. Athanasius Kovrov (Sugars). On all souls under the Statute of the Orthodox Church. SPb, 1999. C. 363.

10. Official website of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra "www.stsl.ru".

11. Africka. Summary chronicler of Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra. In the book: Averse. The decree. cit. Application. C. 177.

12. Ibid., C. 179.

13. E.E. Golubinsky. The decree. cit., S. 199.

14. In VV Kavelmaheru (Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., with 92), the manuscript VP Zubov is in the archives of the State historical and art Museum-preserve "the Trinity-Sergius Lavra".

15. In VV Kavelmaheru (Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., with 92), the manuscript Heinsdorff is in the archives of the State historical and art Museum-preserve "the Trinity-Sergius Lavra".

16. S. pod'yapol'skii. The decree. cit., S. 316.

17. V. Baldin. The architectural ensemble of the Trinity Sergius Lavra. M., 1976. C. 109, 110, 114.

18. M.A. Ilyin. The decree. cit., S. 11, 12.

19. V.V. Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 53-62.

20. Unfortunately, the author of this article has not been possible to conduct a probe laying inside the temple, as well as examination condition brick and lime from the vaults porch. However, and given in the article of observations about different sizes of bricks enough for historical and architectural findings.

21. V.V. Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 53-55.

22. Ibid., C. 59-60.

23. Ibid., C. 61-62.

24. Ibid., C. 63.

25. Ibid., C. 76-77.

26. Ibid, 74 S..

27. Ibid., C. 57.

28. AG Miller. New data on the assumption Cathedral in Rostov Veliky. In the book: Restoration and architectural archeology. New materials and research. M., 1991. C. 125-135 mA.

29. For more information, see: SV zagraevsky. Architectural history of the Church Trifon Naprudnom and origin groin vault. M., 2008. C. 12-13.

30. V.V. Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 59.

31. Ibid., C. 71.

32. Ibid., C. 73-75.

33. Ibid., C. 40; Vigil. Explanatory dictionary of the living great Russian language. Article "Levy".

34. Information gleaned on the website "www.liturgy.ru".

35. The first Novgorod chronicle senior and Junior nagged. Ryazan, 2001. C. 331.

36. Ibid., C. 345.

37. PA Rappoport. Construction production of Ancient Rus X-XIII centuries St.Petersburg, 1994. With 110.

38. In connection with all said about the time lag between the actual start of construction of the temple and laying it makes sense to return to research Rappoport, associated with the azimuthal orientation churches (PA Rappoport. The decree. cit., S. 110-112). Currently, these studies almost forgotten since the "be adjusted under the azimuth of the temple known to Chronicles the date of its inception was not possible - it himself admitted PA Rappoport (PA Rappoport. The decree. cit., S. 112). XVII-XVIII centuries is oriented the same).

39. The first Novgorod chronicle senior and Junior nagged. Ryazan, 2001. C. 331.

40. Ivention. Ancient Russian architecture of the second half of the XIII-the first third of the XIV century, SPb, 2000. C. 68.

41. PSRL 6:140.

42. AA Sukhanov. The basement of the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin according to the architectural and archaeological studies of the twentieth century. In the book: Art monuments of the Moscow Kremlin. Materials and research. Vol. 16. M., 2003. C. 165.

43. Simeon chronicle. Ryazan, 1997. C. 364.

44. Ibid., C. 57.

45. PSRL 8:254.

46. M.Gravinowicz. Excavations 1946-1947, at the mouth of the Yauza. M., 1949. C. 6.

47. Materials on the history of the USSR. So 2. M., 1955. C. 99.

48. Architectural monuments of Moscow. The earthen city. M., 1989.

49. The first Novgorod chronicle senior and Junior nagged. Ryazan, 2001. C. 357.

50. Voronin. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries. So 1. M., 1961. C. 77.

51. Note that in case of making of divine-services on the basis of Church" when its partial reconstruction or capital repairs could be cost savings: the priests reported to their superiors about a full reconstruction of the building and, consequently, about the "development" of their increased investment than it really was.

52. V.V. Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 83.

53. Dating justification of the temple, see: SV zagraevsky. Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture. M., 2002. C. 35.

54. Dating justification of the temple, see: SV zagraevsky. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia the end of the XIII-the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003. C. 50.

Moscow, 2005.

© Sergey Zagraevsky

To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page