To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page

Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky

The beginning of “Russian Romanesque”: Jury Dolgoruky or Andrey Bogolyubsky?

Published in Russian: Заграевский С.В. Начало «русской романики»: Юрий Долгорукий или Андрей Боголюбский? Электронная публикация: электронная научная библиотека «РусАрх», 2008 г.

Annotation

The definition of "Russian Romanesque" is given, its appearance in the times of Yuri Dolgoruky and development in the times of Andrew Bogolyubsky are shown. Special attention is paid to the comparison of the architecture of these princes.

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

1.

You must first define what we mean by "Russian romanik".

This term was back in the 1920-ies suggested by F. Halle¹ but in historical-architectural and art works was used quite rarely. First, for such terminology, directly linking the architecture of Ancient Russia and Western Europe, in Soviet times there was an unofficial ban. Secondly, the term is highly conditional, and its scientific use requires a large number of reservations.

Perhaps the main attribute that determines the "Russian romanik"is the construction of well-treated white stone. The vast majority of the Romanesque cathedrals and castles in the heart of the Holy Roman Empire - Germany - were stone, brick there was built only minor construction of a civil nature and small provincial temples. In Northern Italy Romanesque churches, as a rule, were built of brick, but either were made of stone (the Cathedral in Modena), or such facing is stipulated, but for various reasons is not placed (the Cathedral of San Ambrogio in Milan) or was not made completely (the Church of San Michele in Pavia).

 In Byzantium (except some of its provinces) were built of brick (time) or in mixed technique - "opus mixtum". Same - brick or mixed - was the construction of Kiev, Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk, Smolensk, Chernigov, Pereslavl-South, Vladimir, Volhynia and all other ancient lands, except Galicia and Suzdal.

Specify: in our time of the Principality of Dolgoruky usually referred to as the Rostov-Suzdal, and the Principality of Bogolyubsky of Vladimir-Suzdal. In this article, for simplicity, we will use a total of pre-Mongol name of North-Eastern Russia - "Suzdal" or "Suzdal Principality" (land etc). Speaking about the city of Suzdal, we will clarify what we are talking about it.

Galich, white-stone construction began in the late 1110-x and 1120-ies²in Suzdal , a little later - in 1152³.

The second most important feature of Romanesque architecture, embodied in the old Russian architecture is sculptural and ornamental zooantropomorfnogo types. Decide and with these terms: in zooantropomorfnogo type, unlike the ornamental decoration of type (arcature, curb, ornament), there are images of people and animals⁴.

Another important element of Romanesque perspective portals. We see them in Galicia and in Suzdal.

Note that in the pre-Mongolian architecture other ancient kingdoms there were also many Romanesque elements: arcature decor (as in Sophia in Novgorod, the cathedrals of St. Anthony " s and Yuriev monastery in Novgorod and others in order), stair towers (as in Sophia, Sophia in Novgorod and others in order), a General "towering" (as in the churches of St Paraskeva on Trade in Novgorod and Michael the Archangel in Smolensk), multi-colored decoration of the facades (as in the Boris and Gleb Church in Grodno) and even the beginnings of bazilikalnogo (as in some churches the Principality of Polotsk). This underscores the arbitrariness of the term "Russian romanik.

There is another reason why we are even with respect to Suzdal may use the term "Russian romanik" only conditionally. In the North-Eastern Russia nor in the pre-Mongol, nor in the post-Mongol time any Basilica was built Western European type; all churches (except for some pillarless churches and tent) were a cross. Even the assumption Cathedral in Moscow (1475-1479), the inner space of which is solved in the spirit of Gothic hall Church", and devoid of altar apse Trinity Church in Chashnikovo (XVI century) by architectural type are the classic cross temples.

To finish our conversation about the conventions of the term "Russian romanik" can quote of i.e. Grabar: "Nowhere is it possible to meet a single Church, Cathedral, Palace or a building that could be taken as a sample Vladimir churches. You can only find particular, but can not find anything in the whole of identity"⁵.

Now, having defined terminology, we can proceed to the evaluation of the role of Yuri Vladimirovich Dolgoruky (initial 1090 x-1157, reigned in Suzdal with 1113 (possibly with 1096⁶), Grand Prince of Kiev, in 1155) and Andrei Yurievich Bogolyubsky (approx. 1111-1174, ruled in Suzdal in 1157) in the formation of the ancient Russian architecture and, in particular, "Russian romanik.

In the common history there is a strong stereotype detracting Dolgoruky activity compared with the activity Bogolyubsky. Perhaps a role here played a very negative image of George, established the Kiev chronicle, are the focus of historians of the XVIII-XIX centuries.

So, V.N.Tatischev wrote that "this great Prince was considerable growth, thick, white face, the eyes are not very great, the nose long and curved, beard small, the great lover of women, sweet food and drink; more about fun than about management and army belonged, but all it was in power and Providence of his nobles, and Pets... they have done little, more and more children and princes of the Union..."⁷. Met believed that Yuri was nicknamed Dolgoruky like the Persian king Ahasuerus - for the greed to acquire "⁸. And even modern Russian encyclopedic dictionary more tactfully, but also not quite flattering reports that the hands of Yuri stretched from Suzdal to Kiev, and for this he received his nickname⁹.

Grandiose statue of Yury Dolgoruky (sculptor M. Orlov, AP Antropov, nl strain, pedestal - vs Andreev), placed him on Tverskaya street as the founder of Moscow, has so dubious artistic merit, that only reinforces negative stereotypes about Prince. The same effect produces Dolgoruky statue in his Dmitrov (sculptor Ahirequest).

Andrey Bogolyubsky, in XVIII century canonized, he looked at his court Chronicles much more attractive. Undoubtedly of great significance for the formation of stereotypes "Martyr" and "the gatherer of the Russian lands"¹⁰ had a masterpiece of ancient Russian literature "the Story of the death of Andrew¹¹.

In the end, death Bogolyubsky the hands of murderers turned out to be much more "honorable"than Dolgoruky's death by poison or excessive gluttony at the feast. And even the fact that the corpse of the murdered by conspirators Andrei Yurievich lay under the wall of the Palace (in that squad, and the townspeople knew about his death), and then the priests were not allowed to make his body the Church, and it is wrapped in a carpet, two days lay in the vestibule, the Soviet historiography interpreted rather positively than negatively: this was explained as a consequence of the rejection of the boyars and "backward" citizens of activity Bogolyubsky on "collecting Russian lands".

This article is not the place for discussions about the destructive or constructive activity was Dolgoruky and how significant its historical role in relation to the role of his son. Whose victory over feudal lords, "free" Novgorod and Volga Bulgars were more significant for "collecting Russian lands" is Dolgoruky or Bogolyubsky? Was there an unfair fight Yuri Vladimirovich with his nephew Izyaslav Mstislavich, in accordance with "the Prince's ladder" the usurper of Kiev table? I did not intend to Yuri, became Grand Duke, to be held in Kiev rest of his life and to settle Kiev, as well as the previously for many decades settled in Suzdal? Can they be called "the gatherer of the Russian lands" Andrey, who moved the capital to Vladimir and referred to Kiev as a hostile state?

All these issues are to be investigated in the framework of General history, we are dealing with the history of architecture. And so, we first look at the overall scope of ecclesiastical, fortification and civil construction with Yuri and Andrew.

2.

Let's start by listing known buildings of Yuri Vladimirovich:

1. Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky¹²;

2. The Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha;

3. St. George's Cathedral in Yuryev-Polish;

4. Church of St. George in the yard Dolgoruky in Vladimir;

5. Church of the Saviour in the city of Suzdal¹³;

6. Great walled city of Pereslavl-Zalessky (ramparts length about 2.5 km);

7. Fortress in Yuriev-Polsky;

8. Probably the fortress in Kideksha¹⁴;

9. Fortress in Moscow and the Moscow region;

10. Probably, the fortress in Zvenigorod, Przemysl, Gorodets and Mikulin¹⁵;

11. Fortified yard Vladimir outside the city walls¹⁶;

12. Perhaps the Palace in Kideksha¹⁷;

13. Probably two of the Palace in Kiev¹⁸;

14. The Kievo-Pechersk Paterikon called Dolgoruky and Builder of Nativity Cathedral in Suzdal¹⁹ (the beginning of the XII century). Even if the jury at this time was still too young and real Builder of the Cathedral was his father, Vladimir Monomakh²⁰ still in construction Yuri could not participate (especially if the correct version A. Limonov that he reigned in Suzdal with 1096 year²¹).

Note also that Yuri Dolgoruky made exploration and primary (most problematic²²) development of quarries in Suzdal.

Known construction Andrei Yurievich:

1. Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir;

2. The Dormition Cathedral in Rostov;

3. The Church of our Saviour in Vladimir;

4. The Church of the Intercession on the Nerl;

5. The Church of the Nativity of the virgin in the hierarchy;

6. White stone Palace in Bogolyubovo;

7. White stone fortress in the hierarchy;

8. Great walled city of Vladimir (the increment of the perimeter walls relatively Monomachus - cities around 4400 m);

9. Golden gate with the Church of deposition of the robe;

10. Silver gate.

Thus, the overall scale of construction of Yuri Dolgoruky and Andrei Bogolyubsky quite comparable.

Yuri Dolgoruky first used in Suzdal European stone technology. Ornamental decor "universal" Roman type, found in many churches of Western Europe (Fig. 1 and 2), was already in Pereslavl and Kideksha (Fig. 3 and 4). In the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha we see a promising portal.

Fig. 1. One of the many hundreds of European churches with the "universal" Roman decor (d oberrerenbah, Bavaria, XIII century).

Fig. 2. Universal Romanesque decoration on the Cathedral in Speyer (Speyer).

Fig. 3. Universal Romanesque decoration on the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky.

Fig. 4. Universal Romanesque decoration in the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha.

Attention stretched up drums temples jury, which, in combination with a relatively small four gives the "towering" - very European - form of construction. H. Wagner wrote that the temples "towering" type have a dynamic striving upward, and it is possible that if the development of "high-rise" architecture was not interrupted by the Mongol invasion, then Russia would have known something akin to Gothic²³.

Small temples Dolgoruky were strictly due to "maximum security" white stone building. The author of this article showed²⁴that almost all the temples, exceeding a limit of reliability, some artists Yuri (internal space of the main volume - no more than 200 square meters, dome side of the square - not more than 6 m), had a negligibly short "shelf life". For example, the Rostov Cathedral of Andrey Bogolyubsky for only 42 years, and in paragraph 7 we see that the assumption Cathedral in Vladimir is already in 1185 had to build up high galleries, played the role of buttresses.

"Maximum security" white-stone building, a certain masters Dolgoruky, in the history of ancient architecture was successful (albeit only slightly) is exceeded only twice: in the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergiev monastery (1422-1427) and in the Transfiguration Church in the Island (end of XVI century)²⁵. These pyramidal temples were outstanding achievements of construction engineering, even for its time. We're talking about the XII century.

Researchers of ancient architecture of the XIX-first half of the twentieth century (as N.p.kondakov²⁶, Generikov²⁷, A.S. Uvarov²⁸, A.I. Nekrasov²⁹, F. hull³⁰) recognized the continuity of architecture Bogolyubsky architecture Dolgoruky. But this situation changed radically with the publication of the fundamental work Voronin, "Architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries"³¹.

N.N. Voronin believed that Yuri Dolgoruky, "convinced Grecotel, he married a Byzantine Princess, a friend of Novgorod Archbishop Nifont and his like-minded in matters of Church policy"³², used in its architecture, some features of Romanesque only by accident. According to Voronin, "if you imagine the churches George built of brick, they will differ little from the modern buildings of the ancient Rus ' in the sense of lack of "romance" features"³³. The researcher noted that arcature yet met in Sofia, Novgorod, portals Yuri not romance, his temples are no decorative carvings and profiled parts³⁴.

As for the fact of white stone building (the defining characteristic of the "Russian romanik), N.N. Voronin had the version Neprodela and Generikov that Yuri was not their masters, and as Dolgoruky was at odds with the overwhelming majority of Russian princedoms, then he had to invite a team of Galich³⁵. Therefore, N.N. Voronin, and white-stone building in Suzdal not Dolgoruky.

Thus, in the fundamental work Voronin Yuri Dolgoruky appears the provincial Governor, did not have their masters and had to use an artel from distant Galicia. Accordingly, the entire architecture of George, "accidentally" combines Byzantine and Romanesque features, is the provincial and eclectic.

This view is fully shared by O.M. ioannisian, who specified that the team that came in the late 1140-1150-ies in Suzdal from Galich, formerly (until 1110-ies) worked in another Western outlying province - lesser Poland³⁶.

And the only architecture of Andrei Bogolyubsky, to which came the master and from Frederick Barbarossa³⁷and of all lands"³⁸, was, according to Voronin³⁹ (joined M. ioannisyan⁴⁰, and A.I. Komech⁴¹), Grand Prince (or Imperial). This is now a stereotyped view of architecture Bogolyubsky, not less stable than the stereotypical view of Andrei Yurievich himself as a "Martyr" and "the gatherer of the Russian lands".

3.

We in any case not going to belittle the importance of architecture of Andrei Bogolyubsky. Large (though not) the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir and Rostov, zooanthropomorphous decoration of churches, "ceremonial" Golden gate and the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, the white stone castle and the Palace in Bogolyubovo, - all the above is an invaluable contribution to the Treasury of Russian and world architecture.

We are going to show that the architecture of Yuri Dolgoruky in no case was not "provincial"that it marked the real beginning of the "Russian romanik"and that the architecture Bogolyubsky in any case cannot be considered outside the context of the architecture of his father.

The scale of construction Dolgoruky and what his master for many centuries forward has defined a "maximum security" white-stone building, we have already mentioned in paragraph 2. We now consider "the Galician version of" about a hypothetical architectural influence of Galich in Suzdal and about the alleged coming to Yuri masters of the Galician land.

Detailed critique of the Galician version was shown by the author of this article in the book "Yuri Dolgoruky and the old white-stone architecture"⁴²here it makes sense to mention only a few key points.

First, the construction of white stone was about ten times more expensive brick⁴³). Deposits of white stone (middle Carboniferous deposits), are available for extraction depth⁴⁴ (Fig. 5), semicircle cover of Moscow from the South-West, never going to Vladimir closer than 200-250 km in a straight line (and rivers, respectively, 400-500 km). Carpets (which also could extract stone⁴⁵) to Vladimir closer around 50 km (by the Klyazma about 100 km), but from carpet to Rostov too far away - about 250 km on the rivers. Accordingly, the transport component of the cost of white stone building was very great. But even if completely excluded from the calculation of the transport component, the construction of white stone was still twice as expensive as a brick⁴⁶.

And even if we assume the influence of Halych Yuri, then to distribute "Galician influence" on numerous descendants Dolgoruky (until Ivan III) is impossible. A white-stone building in the North-Eastern Russia was decisive for over three hundred years.

Fig. 5. Map of the middle sediments in the suburbs.

Secondly, Galich was far Western outskirts, Prince vladimirka Volodarevich - representative branches "princes rogue", besides a generation younger than Dolgoruky. Consequently, the probability of a hypothetical "Galician influence" on Yuri (a legitimate candidate for the Kyiv table), and even more for the next Suzdal, Tver and Moscow princes, who continued to build in white stone for several hundred years, is negligible.

Third, plans and sizes of Galician churches of the first half of XII century are absolutely different⁴⁷ (Fig. 6). The methods of surface treatment units in Galicia and the lesser Poland differ significantly from those used in Pereslavl and Kideksha. Lesser churches do not belong to a cross type. Therefore, a single logic of a hypothetical Polish-Galicia-Suzdal cooperative been observed.

Fig. 6. Plans Galician and Suzdal churches (Omiani):

1 - the Church of St. John in Przemysl;

2 - the Church in Zvenigorod Galitsky;

3 - the Church of our Saviour in Galich;

4 - the Church on the "Winterised";

5 - Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl;

6 - the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha;

7 - the Church of St. George in Vladimir;

8 - the Church of deposition of the robe on the Golden gate in Vladimir.

Fourth, even if we assume that in lesser Poland, Galicia and Suzdal one and the same hypothetical team, then do a half-century (1110-e-1150-e) it has not appeared any competitors? And is it not strange that the work of such "superarteli" was not reflected in the Chronicles? The invitation of skilled craftsmen was an extraordinary event (remember masters of all lands and from Frederick Barbarossa" Andrei Bogolyubsky, as well as an important reservation Vsevolodova chronicler of that Big Nest was not looking for "painters from the German"⁴⁸).

Fifth, the construction team consisted of no less than 80 people (with their wives and children - more than 200 people)⁴⁹and transfer of so many people (Gypsies or merchants, and most valuable of construction personnel) of Galich in Suzdal on distance more 1300 km (straight and rivers more 2500 km) in a few hostile principalities extremely unlikely. Any Prince or Governor could stop the gang and get to work on yourself. Or even destroy, to prevent the enemy to build temples and fortresses.

Sixth, in the book "Yuri Dolgoruky and the old white-stone architecture"⁵⁰ the author of this article has established a philosophy: where the requirements for the timing and quality of construction allowed to use the local people, the princes, as a rule, preferred this option. Naturally, we are talking primarily about the "ordinary" builders (i.e. the vast majority artel). Architects, painters, jewelers and other unique and highly specialized professionals to go from Prince to Prince and from town to town as often as you wish.

But when orders for the construction was not, local craftsmen were engaged in any handicraft (first of all carpenters), and even peasant labour. Moreover, the construction could not be their primary qualification. They were and remain urban artisans or peasants, and work on the construction gave them the opportunity to earn money and (or) to receive an allotment.

With regard to the qualification of "ordinary" construction, any Russian peasant and nowadays is able to perform construction work on a very wide profile, especially under the guidance of highly skilled craftsmen. And about the most difficult part of construction - erection of arches and drums - known that this work was carried out on the wooden wheel and formwork⁵¹. Consequently, the main work was provided carpenter, and the experience of such work in the ubiquitous wooden building in the XII century was enormous.

And let's not forget that in every city, in addition to temples and fortifications were built a lot of wooden and often brick constructions of a civil nature⁵²so a necessity even for the professional Builder to move from city to city, and especially of the Principality in the Principality, has arisen not as a rule, and as an exception.

What their masters from George were still with Monomach times, the author of this article showed in the book "Yuri Dolgoruky and the old white-stone architecture"⁵³.

Seventh, the stocks of white stone in Suzdal was impossible to explore within a year or two.

Naturally, Yuri Dolgoruky was not interested in transporting stone for hundreds of kilometers, and where available are deep deposits of the Carboniferous period, Suzdal in the XII century could not know. You can imagine how many hundreds of test excavation was made. Stone certainly looking and near Pereslavl-Zalessky, near Rostov, Vladimir, and under, and very slowly got to the distant suburbs of Moscow (or until the closer, but still less lived Kovrov territory). And not for nothing that all the ancient quarries are located on the edges of the available horizons of the middle sediments on the part of Vladimir, moved "geologists.

Consequently, the "spontaneity" stone building, which allegedly forced George to invite Galicia, also cannot be an argument in favor of a hypothetical "Galician version" - in the case of "spontaneity" the Prince would not have had white stone.

If Dolgorukiy "spontaneously" decided to build something, he could only lead brick (less time consuming, but "undesirable") construction. For example, it could invite the masters from its ally Svyatoslav Olgovich Chernihiv (standing, unlike vladimirka Galician, on the top "of the Prince's ladder"), and to build instead of five white stone churches fifty brick (i.e. lead the Church building, at least, in the Novgorod and Smolensk).

Eighth, Galich, deposits of limestone various types, suitable for construction, are almost everywhere and come to the surface in many places (for example, along the Dniester river). Consequently, the architecture of Galicia apprehended Romanesque before Suzdal due to the presence in Galicia and the absence in Suzdal building materials, not masters.

Ninth, "at the same time (in 1152 - SZ) George Duke in Suzdal be, and wtvyrz him God razumniy eyes on the Church building, and many of the Church of postavila on Suzdalskoe the country and placed the Church of stone on the Nerl, the Holy Martyr Boris and Gleb, and the Holy Saviour in Suzdal, and of the Holy St George in Volodimira stone, and Pereaslavl hail transferred from Klemania, and founded a large hail, and the stone Church in it there the Holy Saviour, and do Yu books and mommy wondrous saints, and Gergev founded the castle and in the Church there the stone Holy Martyr St George"⁵⁴.

This message Printing record under 1152 (M.D. priselkov has shown that the chronicler lived in Rostov during the Dolgoruky⁵⁵) excludes the arrival of the farm from Galich, as more than one temple in the year one team has not had time to build.

N.N. Voronin suggested that the chronicler only "summarized" built Yuri Dolgoruky built at 1152 by 1157⁵⁶. The proof of the accuracy of reports Rostov chronicler and legitimacy of all listed buildings Dating 1152 was devoted to a special study of the author of this article⁵⁷. In any case referred to chronicle the message is a serious argument against the Galician version, and while it clearly did not disavow the hypothesis about the arrival of the farm from Galicia.

Tenth, the origin of the Galician version" refers to the end of the XIX century, when in accordance with the tenet of "Orthodoxy, nationality, autocracy," it was possible to recognize the influence of anyone, but not in Western Europe. A "version of the Transcaucasian influence", is also acceptable from the point of view of this dogma, even less justified than "Galician" (this is convincingly demonstrated V.N. Lazarev⁵⁸).

Under Stalin, Galicia became part of the Soviet Union, and the Galician version received additional political weight. Therefore we can assume that the commitment Voronin and V.N. Lazarev exactly this version was largely involuntary. For example, at the end of life in the 1970-ies - V.N. Lazarev already wrote that architecture Galich played only "intermediary role between Western Europe and Suzdal⁵⁹.

Eleventh, we cannot accept the version V.N. Lazarev on "mediating role of architecture Galicia between Suzdal and Western Europe. "The chain of intermediaries" is too long: from Suzdal to Galich very far, and the way led through several principalities, Union Izyaslav Mstislavich. And to Germany - center "Holy Roman Empire", respectively, were even further: from the West Galich bordered only Hungary, Bohemia and Poland.

But Suzdal land had common borders Novgorod the Great, which after the last military confrontation in 1148 peace was established, and in 1155 Dolgoruky's son Mstislav took Novgorod table. And in any case, the specifics Novgorod was that trade was a top priority and the war that led Novgorod, practically did not interfere. Therefore, never stopped and "cultural exchange".

Novgorod through their North German trading partners was directly associated with the "Holy Roman Empire". So Dolgoruky could communicate with Western Europe, bypassing and Hungary, and Poland, and Galicia, and many a hostile Principality.

4.

Showing the failure of the Galician version of"we must recognize the direct impact on the architecture Dolgoruky Western Europe. Specifically, the most powerful, most centralized and geographically close to Russia, member of the "Holy Roman Empire".

And as a direct source architecture Yuri Dolgoruky we can not call Galicia and Malopolska built, and the Imperial Cathedral of Speyer (this is a traditional writing; more modern - Speyer). The Cathedral was built in 1029-1106 years (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. Cathedral of Speyer. General view.

All the arguments that can be cited as justification for similarities lesser Poland, Galician and Suzdal churches (masonry walls and foundations, the blind arcades in combination with curb and carved shafts - see Fig. 3 and 4)is fully applicable to the Imperial Cathedral:

- on the Cathedral in Speyer (as on many other Romanesque churches of Western Europe, and Suzdal), we see the arcature, curb and carved trees (Fig. 2);

- the walls of the Speyer Cathedral and the walls of temples Dolgoruky, taper upward ledge;

the socle of the Imperial Cathedral in most of the perimeter is a non-profiled ebb (as in Pereslavl and Kideksha);

- rubble foundations of the Cathedral in Speyer keystone in the section and significantly wider walls, as in Galicia, and in Suzdal;

- a method of processing outer surfaces of stone blocks in Speyer identical Suzdal (and significantly different from Galician and lesser Poland);

- in the crypt of the Imperial Cathedral implemented cross-scheme with a groin pillars (Fig. 8);

- in the crypt of the Cathedral in Speyer this author managed to find specific ornamental carving (Fig. 9), which O.M. ioannisian wrote⁶⁰ that it is not found anywhere except the Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky (Fig. 3) and lesser temples (Fig. 10). Note that the style of carving in Pereslavl much closer to Speyer, than to Polish.

Excellent pan-European significance of the Imperial Cathedral of Speyer and its chronological primacy on the temples of Malopolska, Galich and Suzdal say that the similarity of architecture all these Slavic principalities has absolutely convincing rationale - shared origins.

Fig. 8. Cathedral of Speyer. The plan.

Fig. 9. Cathedral of Speyer. Carved tree above pledged internal window in the crypt.

Fig. 10. Carved cornice of the nave on the collegiate Church of St. Martin Opatov (photo M. ioannisyan).

Of course, there is a temptation to assume that the Dolgoruky in 1152 came the construction team (or "construction squad" - the architect multiple masters⁶¹) from the "Holy Roman Empire". But this point of view, we can not accept.

If the jury came to the European masters, then one would expect the construction of temples, at least, the scale of buildings of the crusaders in Palestine. But look at the size of the Palestinian churches: Church of the Holy Sepulchre - about 80 x 55 mthe Cathedral in Nazareth - 68 x 30 min Dash is about the same, at Caesarea - "only" 55 x 22 m⁶². This is not comparable even with Vsevolod's assumption Cathedral in Vladimir (38 x 31 m), not to mention the temples of Yuri Dolgoruky (average 20 x 15 m).

It was built in a poor and unsettled Palestine, in conditions of constant war with the Muslims. And in the Empire "landmark" Romanesque churches were, of course, not less. Cathedral in Pavia (Northern Italy), for example, has a size of 60 x 42 m and the span of the arches of the Central nave about 10 m⁶³. In Germany, Worms Cathedral - about 105 x 36 m, and also with the ten spans codes⁶⁴, and the Cathedral in Speyer - 130 x 65 mspan arches - 14 m⁶⁵ (Fig. 8).

Russian soils and construction materials were not very different from the European⁶⁶ and we may assume that the leading Western masters, if they worked in Suzdal, views of professional ethics would not be allowed to build in their invited Prince temples, comparable in size with the churches in the European small villages.

Therefore, the arrival of Western European masters to Yuri unlikely, and there is only one option that caring Prince of reflection in Suzdal architecture of state power and ideology (this concern is confirmed by the fact of transition to expensive, but the "Imperial" white-stone construction): in 1152 temples Dolgoruky was built by local craftsmen under the supervision of the local architects, who have undergone training (internship) in Western Europe⁶⁷.

In paragraph 6, we see that the jury in 1155-1157 addressed the Empire of the masters and got them, but died before they came to Suzdal.

5.

With the approval of Voronin that Yuri was "convinced Grecotel, he married a Byzantine Princess, a friend of Novgorod Archbishop Nifont and his like-minded in matters of Church policy"⁶⁸we can not agree also.

First, Yuri's marriage to Byzantine Princess is a very dubious legend⁶⁹but even if it is true, that about any "philhellenism" does not show. It is known that Dolgoruky in 1110 year he married the daughter of the Polovtsian Khan⁷⁰ and even led to Izyaslav Mstislavich Polovtsian⁷¹but no one believes that George was "the love of Polotsk".

Secondly, N.N. Voronin's words about "friendship and Concord" Dolgoruky and Nifont not sufficiently substantiated.

Niphon was Bishop in Novgorod 1130 and, probably, the Greek⁷²so his "philhellenism" it is likely (though not proven). But whether he was a friend and soul mate Yuri?

The Bishop of Novgorod was actually a professional diplomat and periodically settled princely strife (for example, in 1135 and 1141). In 1148 Nifont came to Yuri - with a mission to make peace with Izyaslav, but achieved nothing. "Come Niphon the Suzdal dividing the world to Gurgevo, and made with love Gurgi, and the Church St. St. Virgin velikim sacred, and Newthrea all wyprawy, and guest everyone a whole, and the Ambassador with the Cestius Novogorod, N. world not give"⁷³.

Mentioned in this chronicle fragment sanctification Nifont of the Suzdal Nativity of the virgin not indicate any special relationship between the Bishop and the Prince (by the way, and not about any new buildings or capital repair of" Monomakh's Cathedral). Churches were blessed (or rather, to pereosviashchena, although the Church, this does not accept the term) as often and for many reasons. For example, the great sacred" supposed to do after the Church of spilled blood, and after pagan violence (in particular, after the robbery or Bulgarians Polovtsy)⁷⁴.

In 1149 Kyiv Metropolitan Clement (Klim Smolyatich), a protege of Izyaslav Mstislavich, locked Nifont in the Kiev-Pechersk monastery of the sharp remarks in his address. Dolgoruky, capturing the end of the same year, Kiev, Nifont of the "caves" was released, and the Bishop went back to Novgorod, where he died in 1156⁷⁵. The release Nifont absolutely naturally follows from the political situation and the "friendship and oneness of mind" does not show.

From all has been said about Nifont we can make a conclusion: of course, and Niphon, and Yuri were enemies of Izyaslav and Clement. But it is hardly possible to speak even about allied relations, and especially about "friendship and Concord" the Bishop of Novgorod and Suzdal Prince. Mutual respect (as I thought Karamzin⁷⁶- possible, but not more.

As regards initiatives invitations to Kiev Greek Metropolitan Constantine in 1156⁷⁷ then effort Dolgoruky offset Metropolitan Kliment could lead to success only in case of arrival of the "indigenous" Byzantine, blessed by the Patriarch, and about any "philhellenism" here it is impossible to speak - this was a purely political move.

The same political move was the formal adoption of the jury side of Byzantium (note - only formal, no troops Dolgoruky on the use of Byzantium were sent in the latest conflict with the Hungarian king Gesai II⁷⁸. On the side of the Byzantine Empire was the Holy Roman Empire, Geza was the son-in-law and ally Izyaslav Mstislavich, so this is the position Yuri quite logical and also no evidence about any "philhellenism".

We see that our facts are not enough to take George "grekofilom". And the fact that Dolgoruky began to build in Suzdal white stone temples in European technology without considering the cost, many times higher compared with the technique of Byzantium, proves the opposite. It is hardly necessary to "hang tags", but it turns out that Yuri Dolgoruky was not "grekofilom"but rather "oksidentalistom.

6.

In order to finally understand the key role of Yuri Dolgoruky in the formation of the "Russian romanik, it is necessary to consider its relation to the principal innovations in architecture that took place under his son Andrei. It is the work of masters, sent by Frederick Barbarossa, and the introduction of Suzdal zooantropomorfnogo sculptural decoration.

And we start with the question of the masters.

I noticed immediately that the well-known stereotype associated with coming to Andrew "masters of all lands", refers only to the decoration of the assumption Cathedral 1158-1160: "That summer was given the established Church Holy mother of God in Volodimira noble and Bogolubsky Prince Andrew, and decorate W marvellous manifold icons, and dragon stone be-Wisla and Church vessels and the top of her poslati by the faith of him, and on its efforts to sweatey mother of God, given to him by the God of all lands, all the masters and decorate W pace of INAH tserkvei"⁷⁹. Therefore, in this case we are talking not about the builders, but of highly specialized master (icon painters, jewelers and other), which, as we saw in paragraph 3, to move from the Governor to the Governor as often as you wish.

However, we in any case will not argue with the fact that the architecture Bogolyubsky state power and Imperial ideology pronounced than in the architecture Dolgoruky. It is shown by:

- huge excess height (14 m) opening of the Vladimir Golden gate. For the purposes of fortification even had to hold over the gate wooden gallery⁸⁰ that significantly reduces the reliability of strengthening. Note that some part of the buildings immediately after the building collapsed⁸¹.

- increased compared with temples Dolgoruky the size of Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir, Rostov;

- construction of "from scratch" Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, who played the role of Grand design bifurcation major waterways Klyazma and the Nerl. This role is confirmed by the impossibility of finding water meadows any Posad or monastery, and use for the construction of the Church of the selected white stone, and the laying of the unique foundations, and possibly device "Grand" open galleries⁸²;

- the Palace and the strengthening of Bogolyubovo, not built from wood and white stone;

- presence of the Church of Andrew zooantropomorfnogo sculptural decoration.

All of the above makes a very plausible Tatischev: "on making Bo him (Andrew - SZ) Dadi him God masters for the construction thereof, of the smart lands"; "stavshemu in Vladimir structure, and above the gate of the city, it is seen that the Architect was sufficient... the Masters were sent from the Emperor Frederick the First, with which Andrew was in friendship as below will be"⁸³.

In this article we won't discuss that, from what area of the "Holy Roman Empire" - Germany (according to AI Komech⁸⁴) or Northern Italy (on Omiani⁸⁵) - came to the master. In no case does not deny the usefulness of such discussions, the author of this article considers the fundamental question of solvability of this doubtful. The differences between the plasticity of architectural and construction of the cathedrals of Germany and Northern Italy are much less significant than the differences between them and the churches of Suzdal land. Very different among themselves Suzdal churches. Consequently, any analysis of the origins of Western European architecture of Andrei Bogolyubsky give too coarse results are applicable to Germany, and Northern Italy.

Some "hook" here may provide a method of historical and motivational model, in his time suggested by the author of this article⁸⁶: Tsentralnosibirsky architecture had pronounced Imperial character, and trading North Italian cities are built with a certain "merchant" bias. In this regard, we can assume that for the Imperial ambitions of Suzdal princes still more likely the invitation of artists from Germany.

And given the obvious continuity of architecture Bogolyubsky relatively architecture Dolgoruky, which, as we showed in paragraph 4, was directly connected with the Imperial Cathedral of Speyer, version about coming to Andrey artists from Germany receives more (although indirect) evidence.

But no matter what area of the Empire came to either the master "of Frederick Barbarossa, from the message Tatischev that they built, at least, the assumption Cathedral and the Golden gate in Vladimir. The construction of these facilities has begun in 1158 (about the Cathedral of the assumption, we can say more precisely - it was founded on April 8,⁸⁷).

Hence, the architect of operation Barbarossa, in time to get acquainted with local experience white-stone building, and then define plans and the size of their future buildings, was to arrive in Vladimir, no later than the autumn-winter 1157.

The Tatischev stereotypical perceived as follows: "Andrew's first friendship with Frederick, then the arrival of the artists from Frederick to Andrew." But the analysis of the situation in Russia in 1155-1158 years, leads to interpret this message differently: "first line masters Frederick to Yuri, then the arrival of the masters to Andrew, then Andrew's friendship with Frederick"⁸⁸.

The fact that Yuri Dolgoruky died on 15 may 1157. Even if we assume that Andrei, became Grand Duke, immediately sent an Embassy to the Barbarossa for the masters, but he didn't manage to get them in the autumn-winter 1157.

For example, at the end of the XV century, Aristotle Fioravanti was traveling to Russia for three months - and this despite the fact that already existed straight roads on which the Embassy of carriage could move with great speed. We're talking about the middle of the XII century, when the narrow and turbulent forest roads (actually trails) moved only troops, and the main transportation was carried out on rivers (and if from Suzdal to Europe through Novgorod, and sea).

Path Embassy in the Empire could take several months. A few weeks (or even months) ambassadors could expect masters of operation Barbarossa (or with the permission of the Emperor's own conduct searches free construction personnel). A few months took the way back to Suzdal. Therefore, for the masters, built Uspensky Cathedral and the Golden gate, the Embassy was sent during the life of Yuri Dolgoruky.

Barbarossa was the Emperor of Germany in 1152, and Yuri Grand Prince of Kiev - in 1155. Was Dolgoruky "in friendship" with Frederick, we can only guess. But the following options we can immediately reject as highly unlikely:

- any relationship (and even more friendly) candidate for Kyiv table Yuri as a candidate for the Imperial throne Friedrich up to 1152;

- any relationship (and even more friendly) candidate for Kyiv table Yury Emperor Frederick in 1152-1155 years;

- any relationship (and even more friendly) Andrei, the son of a candidate for Kyiv table, with the candidate for the Imperial throne, and then Emperor Frederick in 1152-1155 years;

- any independent relationship (and even more friendly) Andrew, son of Grand Prince Yuri, with Emperor Frederick in 1155-1157.

The last option may not seem so unlikely: Andrey was the eldest son of Grand Duke of Kiev and, therefore, theoretically, he could have direct contacts with the German Emperor.

But let's not forget that Bogolyubsky in 1155-1157 was not in Kiev with his father, and against the will of Dolgoruky⁸⁹ went to Suzdal, the actual capture of inheritance. Hardly Friedrich, in 1155 crowned in Rome in 1156-1157 years already were at the Zenith of his power, would go to the contact with the usurper (and not a princely buffet, and the distant suburbs inheritance).

Note that Andrei hardly count as an official heir even Suzdal table - otherwise there would be after death Dolgoruky the need Veche, in which "the Rostov and Suzdal sdumavshi all, poyasa Andrey"⁹⁰. And on inheritance Andrey Kiev Grand table even speech could not be - it would not have made other contenders who after the death of Vyacheslav Vladimirovich and Izyaslav Mstislavich to endure Yuri Kyiv on the table as the older kind of Monomakh.

As for the very popular speculation⁹¹ that he could have any personal contacts with Frederick in 1140-ies, it is no more than speculation. Besides Bogolyubsky was older than Barbarossa not less than 10 years (Andrei was born about 1111 year, and Friedrich - in 1122), and it makes the friendship of young princes even less likely, even when their hypothetical person at one of the hypothetical travel Andrew in Western Europe.

Thus, we can assert that the Embassy to Barbarossa for the masters sent Yuri Dolgoruky in 1155-1157, being the great Prince of Kiev. Did he want to use these artists in Kiev, Suzdal, or any other Principality - we can only guess. But in 1157 Yuri died, and received masters in Suzdal his son Andrei.

Consequently, we can speak about the direction of Barbarossa masters not to Andrew and to Yuri. Fate did not accept them Dolgoruky, and Bogolyubsky, but this in no way detract from the merits of Yuri in obtaining the Imperial masters.

7.

We also show that, despite the arrival of artists from Western Europe, the decisive importance when Andrew still had to construction personnel, formed Yuri.

As we mentioned in paragraph 6, of the message Tatischev that the master of Barbarossa built, at least, Vladimir assumption Cathedral and the Golden gate. And this is logical, as we see on these sites attempt to build a much larger scale compared with the temples of jury:

- dome side of the square in the assumption Cathedral - 6,4 mspan of the Golden gate - 6 m (and in the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral of Pereslavl - 5,1 m);

- the height of the arches of the assumption Cathedral 18 m, the arch of the Golden gate (where the top was built not drum and heavy multi-tier structure with the Church of deposition of the robe) - 14 m (and in Pereslavl - 12 m).

But it's still not comparable with what we see in Germany and Northern Italy (in paragraph 4 we brought the size of the temples in worms, Speyer and Pavia), and it eliminates the need to work in Suzdal Imperial building the farm.

It is also important that identical marks princely masters we see the Church in Pereslavl and Kideksha, and the Golden gate, and in Bogolyubovo⁹².

From the above we can conclude the following: from Barbarossa came to the master of sculptural decoration and perhaps the architect. But if the arrival of the latter took place, before it was delivered fairly narrow objectives:

- development of iconography of the decoration and management by the craftsmen;

- increasing the size and quality of buildings.

The first task of the architect, of course, fulfilled. On the buildings we see Andrew sculptures quite the European level.

But did the architect to perform the second task?

As we have just shown, during its execution, he was forced to start from the capacity of the local construction personnel, so in the end, the architect Barbarossa failed to achieve any radically new design, no substantial increase in size nor sufficient reliability of Vladimir assumption Cathedral.

N.N. Voronin believed that in the fire of 1185 burned down wooden Church connection, and therefore Vsevolod had to strengthen its high galleries, played the role of buttresses⁹³. The author of this article adhered to and adheres to the same opinion⁹⁴, citing its primarily because Cathedral exceeded a limit of reliability"is defined for the white-stone temple's cross, even in times Dolgoruky (see item 2).

But the position and Voronin, and the author of this article has not been confirmed in situ data that suggest that the assumption Cathedral 1158-1160 in 1185 came in emergency condition. Now, after studies conducted by the author in 2003, we may assume that the data we have.

The thing is that we managed to find the slope of the Central chapters of the assumption Cathedral at 2.5 degrees to the East. In itself this does not prove anything (in theory, this tilt head could get and later XII century), but look:

- in galleries Vsevolod no corner compartments from the North-East and South-East, although they would have significantly increased the altar part of the Cathedral;

- small Eastern heads that could stand on the corner compartments, to form a centrally symmetric composition and contribute to the coverage of the altar, moved to the West;

- small Eastern heads are smaller (and lighter) than the Western.

All this could not be a mere coincidence or a whim of Vsevolod the Big Nest.

The situation is seen as follows: the Cathedral of Andrey Bogolyubsky in 1180-ies (perhaps even before the fire of 1185) came to the emergency state, and its bringing together the heads and arches "moved" to the Eastern side (West strengthen choruses). Emergency situation was exacerbated by the fact that, according to research TP Timofeeva⁹⁵ and the author of this article⁹⁶the Cathedral Bogolyubsky was a five-domed and, accordingly, its arches carrying the extra load.

In connection with this master Vsevolod obstraivaya temple galleries, were forced to abandon the Eastern corner of the compartments, move four small heads and extinguish raspor Central drum in the North-East and South-East exceptionally rugged construction, each of which consisted of two perpendicular walls. In the East raspor further extinguished semicircular apses, in the West - choirs, North and South - arched bridge (and partly also the choir), and because such a substantial strengthening of the Cathedral has survived to our days.

All the above testifies to the fact that the Cathedral Bogolyubsky in 1185-1189 years was built galleries just because of the arrival in emergency state (shift codes and the slope of the Central chapters to the East).

About the catastrophe of the Golden gate, immediately following the completion of construction, we have already mentioned in paragraph 6.

Perhaps the architect of operation Barbarossa erected and other buildings Andrew, but they can not be called achievements of construction engineering. Rostov Cathedral (dome side of the square - 6.7 m) stood short - 42 years. As for the churches on the Nerl and in Bogolyubovo was built less "boldly" from an engineering point of view, than churches George: in Bogolyubovo dome side of the square is about 4.2 mand on Nerli 3.2 m.

Careful selection for the Church of the intercession of the white stone and its unique Foundation was hardly a "style" of the architect, otherwise we would have seen something similar in his other buildings. Much more likely that a "front" Church of the Intercession on the Nerl river was built in accordance with a special order of the Prince, that is, the authorship of its unique image belongs personally Bogolyubsky or someone from his entourage (at the level of our knowledge of the XII century almost the same). Technically, the same building was completely available and architects of the time of Yuri Dolgoruky.

In General, we have to state: the architect Friedrich Barbarossa, was sent to Yuri and adopted by Andrei fulfilled its tasks only in the decoration of churches. The decisive role in the construction of Bogolyubsky played Suzdal construction personnel, formed his father.

8.

We have to consider the absence of the temple Yuri zooantropomorfnogo sculptural decoration and the appearance of such decoration of the Church of Andrew. Does it mean "undeveloped" architecture Yuri? Does this mean that the master Dolgoruky were unable to create zooantropomorfnogo decor?

No, not means. If Dolgoruky worked non-professional masters, unable to create decor at the level of the temples Bogolyubsky, we still would have seen the temple Yuri at least timid attempts decoration zooantropomorfnym motives, even such modest, fragmented and "naive", as at the Cathedral in Speyer (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11. Cathedral of Speyer. Zooantropomorfnogo relief on the altar pilasters.

The other: the jury in 1152 had no right to decorate their temples sculptures zooantropomorfnogo type. All that he allowed the Church is a universal Romanesque ornamental decor "arcature-curb-carved shaft.

In order to justify this position, you must show that the appearance zooantropomorfnogo decor has gone beyond a simple decoration of the walls of temples and collided with one of the age-old "stumbling blocks" Church dogma - with the Second Sacred commandment: "do Not make yourself any graven image that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Do not worship them and do not serve them..." (ex. 20:4).

The history of iconoclasm was more than adequate coverage in the literature, including in theological studies of the author⁹⁷. Here we only note that after the victory of the veneration of icons, "legalized" the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787, the resolution of the Council⁹⁸ remaining "gap" - sculptural images. No wonder in the Byzantine VIII century movement called "iconoclastic" - all his pathos was directed against icons, and stable tradition of the sculptural decoration of temples on the East never had. Consequently, the General anathematisation "iconoclastic" cathedrals, based on the Second Holy commandments, for sculptures were never revoked. In any case, the "universal".

This has created a sculpture dogmatic ambivalent situation, and gave (and still gives) the Orthodox Church and the opportunity to resolve, and prevent zooantropomorfny sculptures at its discretion.

The Byzantine Church tradition, in contrast to Western Europe, consistently favored the ban zooantropomorfnogo decoration on the temples⁹⁹. After the iconoclastic uprisings in Byzantium disappeared round sculpture¹⁰⁰. Inside the temple (perhaps on facades¹⁰¹) was carved icons, but attributed them to zooantropomorfnomu decor is hardly possible - the latter concept is much wider. And in any case it is safe to say that the vast majority of Byzantine carved decorations do not belong to the Romanesque style that we see in the churches of Western Europe, and Suzdal land.

The history of the Russian Orthodox Church knows the times and the heyday of the temple sculptures, and the prohibition of "idols". For example, the Big Moscow Cathedral 1666 decided that the temples carved can only be crucified¹⁰². In 1722 the Synod forbade "to have icons in the churches carved and izdolblennye, sculptured" and ordered "weights to the images and any smithy not append". In 1832 was a complete ban of the Synod of the temple sculpture¹⁰³ (however, did not start run everywhere).

All of the above determined the complexity and uniqueness of the situation with the sculptural decoration in Suzdal region in the XII century.

Since the Soviet era in art history and history of architecture entrenched tradition of interpreting images of Church art and architecture in accordance with stylistic Genesis, artistic taste, economy, politics and many other factors, except for one: a direct and immediate influence of the Church in the person of local priests, bishops and senior hierarchs.

But in the XII century the Church was already engaged in reading the second thousand years of its existence. If to count from V century, when it became a closed hierarchical system with an established base of dogmatic and regimented rituals, there are about seven hundred years is too short period. And if in III-IV centuries service could happen in any buildings (including the catacombs), in the XII century architectural and stylistic features of the temples were already and the Orthodox and the Catholic Church is no less important part of the ritual and canonical truths"¹⁰⁴ than , for example, the shape and color of the priestly vestments.

The indecisiveness of the Russian Metropolia in pre-Mongol times dictated particularly strict approach to the subtleties of Church architectural style, as any more or less serious innovations had to agree with the Patriarch of Constantinople. But the latter could not understand that brick construction machinery (at least, "opus mixtum"), a cross shape and minimum ornamental decoration of churches was carried out by "visual communication" of Russian Orthodoxy from Byzantium, and the assignment to any of these questions meant another step of the Russian Church to the Autocephalous undesirable for ambitions (and economic interests) of the Patriarch.

Yuri Dolgoruky, having spent many years of exploration quarries, began to build their temples in an extremely tense relationship with the Metropolitan of Kiev and Rostov Bishop. In order to fully characterize this relationship, formed in the middle of the XII century, we must remember the hierarchical structure of the Church organization in Suzdal.

At the time, and George, and Andrew, and Vsevolod of Vladimir and Suzdal (meaning no edge, and the city) dioceses were not, and the Church leadership in Suzdal was made Bishop of Rostov¹⁰⁵. The diocese of Vladimir appeared only when Yuri Vsevolodovich - in 1214¹⁰⁶.

In the cities, which were not centers of the dioceses were "Bishop's deputies"subordinate to the Bishop¹⁰⁷. At the opening of the new temple was required Episcopal blessing¹⁰⁸it was required and the approval of the priest, even though the candidate may nominate churchwarden - in this case, Prince¹⁰⁹. The churchwarden could initiate the offset unwanted priests, but, again, it required the consent of the Bishop.

Rostov Bishop in the early 1150-ies was Nestor. When and by whom it was delivered to the Department, we do not know. E.E. Golubinsky in his research on the history of the Church has not put forward on this subject any hypotheses¹¹⁰.

M.D. priselkov thought that Bishop Nestor took place in 1137¹¹¹, i.e. before the election of Metropolitan Smolyatich (1147). The researcher's argument was as follows: Nestor could not be delivered to the Department later in 1139, since this year Grand Prince of Kiev became Vsevolod II, with whom Dolgoruky was hostility. And since 1137 from Pereyaslavl diocese was separated Smolensk, the researchers saw probable that then separated and the diocese of Rostov (also from Pereyaslavl). N.N. Voronin took this view and have dated the consecration of Nestor 1137.¹¹².

But the argument Medpersonala not sufficiently substantiated.

First, hostility Vsevolod and Yuri hardly was so severe as to preclude the Church policy implemented by the Greek Metropolitan Michael.

Second, it is incorrect to Supplement existing chronicle details the assumptions that at this time could have happened something like that had escaped the notice of the chronicler. If the chronicler wrote about the separation of the Smolensk diocese, it is unlikely that he forgot about the Rostov. Or is about dioceses in General would not come.

Third, the researcher proceeded from the a priori assumption that Nestor was an ally Dolgoruky. But this assumption can not agree: Yuri, finishing in 1155 Grand buffet, got rid of his chief opponent, Metropolitan Kliment¹¹³and immediately - in the 1156 - initiated the shift Nestor new Metropolitan Constantine¹¹⁴. Just sent from the Byzantine Greek Constantine, naturally, without the insistence of the Grand Duke would not have made such a hasty decision to remove the Bishop of Rostov.

Put forward their own vision of the date of the consecration of Nestor: he was put Clement at the end 1140-ies, and the diocese of Rostov was founded by the Metropolitan of then - to be in Suzdal "his man", having not vicegerent, and hierarchical power. It is no accident for the location of the Department was selected Rostov, situated in the distance from the center of the princely estates Dolgoruky (a formal choice of Rostov and tradition dictated times Leontius).

This gives us the answer to the question why the Bishop of Rostov was absent from the Cathedral in 1147, which Clement on Russian Metropolitan¹¹⁵. M.D. priselkov thought that Nestor "did not respond to the Prince invitation"¹¹⁶, and N.N. Voronin - that the absence of the Cathedral Nestor "showed indifference towards climate Smolyatich"¹¹⁷. But, of course, the actual situation of civil war would not allow the Rostov Bishop "to show indifference" and to ignore such an important event. Actually the answer to this question is much more simple and logical: Rostov diocese had not existed.

Based on all said about the consecration of Nestor, we may assume that he was a protege and ally Metropolitan Kliment. You can imagine the complexity of the role it had to play the Rostov Bishop at the end of 1140-s-early 1150-ies, but, apparently for political reasons, George and Clement deliberately aggravated the situation. In the end, the Metropolitan had the strongest "trump card" - the enemy's excommunication from the Church, but such a glow of their struggle is not reached.

However, in 1152 Dolgoruky was in a very difficult situation. Spending huge efforts and means of exploration quarries and construction of cathedrals, he risked not receive the blessing or the Kiev Metropolitan or Patriarch of Constantinople, which would mean the failure of the Rostov Bishop to bless already built temples and therefore catastrophe for the princely policy.

In this regard, the complete absence of the temple of Yuri of any attempts to create zooantropomorfnogo decor is absolutely logical explanation: that was a compromise between the Prince and the Church. Even "neobizantyne" material is white stone - could not cause censures of the Church hierarchy.

Therefore, we may say that the final compromise is agreed Metropolitan (respectively, and the blessing of the Bishop) for the construction of Suzdal in 1152 white stone churches with "universal" Roman ornamental decor - was a major victory Dolgoruky. Despite the fact that the Prince had to make concessions in the decoration.

And now we can recall the fact, crucial for our study: as we have shown in paragraph 6, the master of sculptural decoration were sent Barbarossa yet to Yuri Dolgoruky as the last great Prince of Kiev (1155-1157 years).

Therefore, for the time of its great Prince Dolgoruky has achieved the blessing of the Church on the introduction of zooantropomorfnogo sculptural decoration. Given that at this time the jury dismissed Clement and Nestor, and invited Kiev Greek Metropolitan Constantine, this situation looks absolutely logical. May the blessing of zooanthropomorphous sculptures on the temples was even one of the conditions set by the Grand Duke in the negotiations with Byzantium on the arrival of the Metropolitan.

Hence, the appearance of Suzdal zooantropomorfnogo sculptural decoration - especially credit not Bogolyubsky and Dolgoruky.

Thus, all the characteristic features of what we call the "Russian romanik", appeared in Suzdal (and later in the Tver and Moscow Grand Duchy) solely due to Yuri Dolgoruky. And architecture Andrei Bogolyubsky was as natural, progressive development of truly innovative architecture Yuri, as the architecture of Vsevolod the Big Nest - architecture Andrew.

And I would like to understand this important historical and architectural fact has contributed to the "historical portrait of Yuri Dolgoruky, deserves much more than warm words than those which characterize his modern stereotypes.

NOTES

1. F.Halle. Russische Romanik. Die Bauplastik von Wladimir - Souzdal. Berlin - Wien - Zurich, 1929.

2. M. ioannisyan. Main stages of development of the Galician architecture. In the book: Old Russian art. Art culture's-the first half of the XIII century, M. 1988. (Hereinafter - Ioannisyan, 1988). C. 42.

3. Detailed justification for the beginning of the white-stone building in Suzdal see in the book: Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture. M., 2002 (hereinafter - Zagraevsky, 2002).

4. Details about division and ornamental decoration on zooantropomorfnogo see the book. Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 6.

5. CIT. in book.: Voronin. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia XI-XV centuries. So 1. M., 1961. C. 332.

6. Whalebones. Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. Essays on social and political history. Leningrad, 1987. C. 20; D. Likhachev. Gradoselskaya semantics Assumption churches in Russia. In the book: Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Materials and research. - M, 1985. C. 21.

7. V.N.Tatischev. History Of Russia. M., 2005. So 2, S. 303.

8. CIT. in book.: Karamzin. History of the Russian state. M., 1991. So 2-3, S. 143.

9. Russian encyclopedic dictionary. M., 2000. So 2, S. 1868.

10. In particular, this position was expressed in the journal "Russian House", № 7, 1999. C. 15.

11. PSRL 2:581.

12. The rationale for the Dating of buildings Yuri Dolgoruky see: apology Rostov chronicler (to the question about the Dating temples Yuri Dolgoruky). In the book: Materials of the regional conference dedicated to the centenary of the birth of N.N. Voronin (19 April 2004.). Vladimir, 2004 (hereinafter - Zagraevsky, 2004). C. 15-26.

13. N.N. Voronin believed the Church of the Saviour in the city of Suzdal, mentioned in the message Printing Chronicles the construction of Yuri Dolgoruky in 1152 (PSRL 24:77), the chapel to the Church Monomakh (Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 64).

The assumption is that the Church of the Saviour was in the yard of Yuri Dolgoruky in the city of Suzdal, was nominated M. ioannisyanom (personal conversation with M. ioannisyanom, 2002). The researcher believes that the court was in place evfimiev Saviour monastery. But this seems unlikely, as the monastery of Saint Euthymius from the Kremlin too far (almost 2 km). In the role of "far" the princely court would rather be a fortress in Kideksha (about 5 km).

The author of this book there is reason to believe that the Church of the Saviour was located on the Suzdal yard Dolgoruky within the city walls, close to the ramparts from the river side (like the temples in Pereslavl, Kideksha and Yuriev-Polsky).

In fact, the altars of the overwhelming majority of Russian churches of the XVIII century focused almost exactly on the East (90 degrees). Exceptions are not all churches this time located in the city centre of Suzdal. And only the altars of the Church of the assumption, standing just outside the ramparts to the right of the entrance to the Kremlin, is oriented to 60 degrees is exactly the same as the altars of pre-Mongol virgin Nativity Cathedral.

The first construction period of the Church of the assumption with a certain degree of probability is the end of the XVII century, and in 1617 there was a wooden Church (ad Varganov. Suzdal. Yaroslavl, 1971. C. 133). For the XVII century, significant deviations altars from the East (plus or minus forty-five degrees, and sometimes more) are typical. But the same deviation of the altars and the Church of the assumption, the Cathedral of the Nativity of the virgin can hardly be considered a coincidence because of the wooden Church of the XVI-XVII centuries was preceded and the temples of the XVIII century, the altars which is oriented exactly 90 degrees.

The most satisfactory explanation of this situation is the following: the Church of the assumption was built on the site (perhaps even the foundations of the pre-Mongolian Church, i.e. the Church of the Saviour in the city of Suzdal. Indeed, the distance from the Church to the shaft is about 10 mto the river - about 20 m, and is the highest place in the Kremlin. In the second half of the XV century, this place was the court of Ivan III (ad Varganov. The decree. cit., S. 133), and this is an additional argument in favor of what was there courtyard of Yuri Dolgoruky.

See Church of the Savior could be renamed the assumption at any time between the XII and XV centuries. Perhaps it was and the transfer of the throne of the Transfiguration of our Saviour in founded in 1350 by the Prince the monastery of Saint Euthymius. And the pre-Mongolian Church (not the Saviour, and the assumption) could collapse, for example, in the time of Troubles (as constructed simultaneously with it the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha), and on its place in 1617 could stand temporary wooden Church, which was mentioned in the inventory.

But, of course, confirm the hypothesis of the author about the location of the Church of the Saviour in the city of Suzdal can only archaeological research.

14. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 69.

15. Ibid., C. 56.

16. Rationale presence at Dolgoruky fortified courtyard outside the city walls, Vladimir see in the book: Zagraevsky, 2004. C. 23.

17. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 69.

18. V.N.Tatischev. The decree. cit., so 2, S. 303; Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 317.

19. Paterik of Kiev-Pechersky monastery. St. Petersburg, 1911. C. 9.

20. So thought Voronin (Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 28).

21. Whalebones. Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. Essays on social and political history. Leningrad, 1987. C. 20.

22. In order to find the right sort of stone, often had to punch in stone layer hundreds of meters of tunnels. Accordingly, the complexity of developing a stone was increased tenfold regarding the calculation given in the book: Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 82.

23. G.Wagner. About the uniqueness of style formation in the architecture of Ancient Russia (return to the problem). In the book: Architectural heritage. Vol. 38. M., 1995. C. 25.

24. Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 82.

25. Strictly speaking, the Cathedral of the assumption we may not be attributed to the white-stone building, as the technique Fioravanti is not white stone, and mixed: the most critical structural elements (arches, pillars, drums, the wall of the apse) made of brick. And yet, despite unprecedented measures to strengthen the temple, "in 1624 threatening drop in the vaults of the Cathedral were taken before a single brick" and the newly composed taking into account formed in the upper tier of deformations on the changed picture ("vsparushennoy" configuration), with the reinforcement of their connected with iron, and with the introduction of additional arches" (Kavelmaher. On the initial appearance of the assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. In the book: Architectural heritage. Vol. 38. M., 1995. C. 214).

26. N.p.kondakov. Russian antiquity in the art. Vol. 6. St. Petersburg, 1890.

27. Generikov. About the churches of Vladimir-Suzdal Principality of XII-XIII centuries, Vladimir, 1903.

28. A.S. Uvarov. Collection of small works. "Materials to the biography and articles on theoretical issues." So 3. M., 1910.

29. A.I. Nekrasov. Essays on the history of old Russian architecture of XI-XVII centuries M, 1936.

30. Halle F. The decree. cit.

31. Voronin. The decree. cit.

32. Ibid., C. 110.

33. Ibid.

34. Ibid, 107 S..

35. Ibid., C. 110.

36. Ioannisyan, 1988. C. 41-44.

37. V.N.Tatischev. The decree. cit., S. 687.

38. PSRL 1:351.

39. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 332.

40. M. ioannisyan. Vladimir-Suzdal architecture and Lombard Romanesque. In the book: The 2000 anniversary of Christianity. The Byzantine world: the art of Constantinople and national traditions. Abstracts of the international conference. St. Petersburg, 2000 (hereinafter - ioannisyan, 2000).

41. A.I. Komech. The architecture of Vladimir 1150-1180's. Artistic nature and Genesis of the "Russian romanik. In the book. Old Russian art. Russia and the countries of the Byzantine world. XII century. SPb, 2002.

42. Zagraevsky, 2002.

43. Ibid, 141 C..

44. L.Izvarina, Aminjanov. White stone suburbs. M., 1989. C. 7.

45. Currently the author of this article is a study of possible places of extraction of stone, which were built Suzdal churches.

46. Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 20.

47. Ioannisyan, 1988. C. 42.

48. PSRL 1:351.

49. The calculation is given in the book: Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 33.

50. Ibid., C. 36-40.

51. PA Rappoport. Construction production of Ancient Rus. St.Petersburg, 1994. C. 121.

52. Voronin. The decree. cit., 106 S..

53. Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 62-63.

54. PSRL 24:77.

55. M.Dpreshaw. History of Russian Chronicles of the XI-XV centuries, St. Petersburg, 1996. C. 120

56. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 344.

57. Zagraevsky, 2004.

58. V.N. Lazarev. Byzantine and old Russian art. M., 1978. C. 246.

59. Ibid.

60. M. ioannisyan. To the history of Polish-Russian relations in the architectural late XI-early XIII century In the book. Old Russian art. Russia and the countries of the Byzantine world. XII century. SPb, 2002. C. 213.

61. BA Ognev. Some problems of the early Moscow architecture. In the book: "Architectural heritage". So 12. M., 1960. C. 60.

62. Dpring. Architecture Of The Latin East. 1098-1571. In the book: The history of the Crusades. M., 1998. With. 193-195.

63. Die Kunst der Romanik. Architektur, :, Malerei. Koeln, 1996. With. 85.

64. There also, with. 58.

65. Der Kaiserdom zu Speyer. Speyer, 1994. With. 24.

66. For more information, see Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 58.

67. For more information, see ibid., C. 69.

68. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 110.

69. Karamzin. The decree. cit., S. 345.

70. Ibid., C. 266.

71. Ibid., C. 318.

72. Christianity. Encyclopedic dictionary. M., 1995. (Hereinafter - Christianity). So 2, 222 S..

73. PSRL 3:107.

74. Christianity. So 2, S. 258.

75. Karamzin. The decree. cit., S. 320.

76. Ibid., C. 168.

77. Ibid.

78. Ibid., C. 157.

79. PSRL 1:351.

80. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 139.

81. Ibid., C. 132.

82. Ibid., C. 262-301.

83. V.N.Tatischev. The decree. cit., S. 687.

84. A.I. Komech. The decree. cit.

85. Ioannisyan, 2000.

86. Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 4.

87. PSRL 1:348.

88. Whether there was Andrew's friendship with Frederick actually is not a matter of history of architecture and common history.

89. Karamzin. The decree. cit., S. 338.

90. PSRL 1:348.

91. For example, in 2004, on the television channel ORT was shown a film about Andrei Bogolyubsky, which seriously asserted the following:

In 1147 in Constantinople occurred secret meeting Andrew Frederick Barbarossa, Manuel I, Henry II, Louis VII. At the meeting it was decided to start the fight with the Templars, who actually seized power in Europe. Sovereigns in a short time built a large number of cities at a distance of one day's journey between each subsequent (in the film was shown even the map of Europe) and began to strengthen the Central power in their countries. In the end, all the participants of the meeting were killed in a conspiracy of the Templars.

Hardly such fabrications need any comments.

92. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 323.

93. Ibid., C. 150.

94. Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 78, 85.

95. T.P. Timofeeva. To the question of the five-domed assumption Cathedral of Andrei Bogolyubsky of Vladimir. In the book: Materials of the regional conference dedicated to the centenary of the birth of N.N. Voronin (19 April 2004.). Vladimir, 2004. C. 27-34.

96. SV zagraevsky. Reconstruction of the Dormition Cathedral in 1158-1160 in Vladimir. In the magazine "Restorer", № 1 (8). M., 2004. C. 118-122.

97. SV zagraevsky. New Christian philosophy. M., 2004. C. 112-123.

98. Acts of the Ecumenical councils. Kazan, 1871. So 7, C. 688.

99. For more information, see: Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 115.

100. V. field. The Art Of Byzantium. In the book: General history of art. M., 1960. So 2, including 1, S. 60.

101. Individual interviews with AI Komech. 2002.

102. Acts of the Moscow cathedrals 1666-1667, M, 1893. CH. 43.

103. The decrees of the Holy governing Synod from 1721 to 1878 In the book: A guide to Orthodox clergy. M., 1878.

104. Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Orthodox dogmatic theology. SPb, 1883. Reprint ed.: M, 1999. So 1, S. 11.

105. E.E. Golubinsky. The history of the Russian Church. M., 1901. Reprint ed.: M., 1997. So 1, 1 o'clock, S. 34.

106. Anwarul. The state and the Church Ancient Rus X-XIII centuries M, 1989. C. 47-48.

107. Ibid., C. 70; E.E. Golubinsky. The decree. cit., so 1, 1 o'clock, s 386.

108. E.E. Golubinsky. The decree. cit., so 1, 1 o'clock, S. 487.

109. Ibid., C. 492.

110. Ibid., C. 677.

111. M.Dpreshaw. Essays on Church and political history of Kievan Rus (X-XII centuries, St. Petersburg, 1913. C. 351-352.

112. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 59.

113. Karamzin. The decree. cit., S. 168.

114. Whalebones. The decree. cit., S. 48.

115. PSRL 2:248.

116. M.Dpreshaw. The decree. cit., S. 376.

117. Voronin. The decree. cit., so 1, 119 S..

Moscow, 2005.

© Sergey Zagraevsky

To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page