To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page

Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky

THREE MAIN HISTORICAL-ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS

OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN HIPPED ROOF ARCHITECTURE

(the origin, the first hipped roof temple, the ban of Patriarch Nikon)

Published in Russian: Заграевский С.В. Три главных историко-архитектурных вопроса древнерусского шатрового зодчества (происхождение, первый каменный шатровый храм, запрет патриарха Никона). М., 2019.

Annotation

In the present scientific monograph the full member of Russian Academy of Arts Sergey V. Zagraevsky considers the historical-architectural questions the old Russian hipped-roof architecture, which occupy researchers and amateurs of architecture not for the first century. These are the origin of hipped-roofed architecture of Ancient Russia, the first ancient Russian stone hipped-roof temple and the ban of Patriarch Nikon for the construction of such temples.

In the first part of the book the general methodological principles of determination of origins of architectural forms are indicated. The origin of the old Russian hipped-roofed architecture is determined as the influence of not only wooden hipped churches, but of stone pillarless temples. The hypothesis is issued regarding the origin of not only stone, but also of wooden hipped architecture of Ancient Russia.

In the second part it is confirmed that the first ancient stone hipped temple was the church of Trinity (now of Intercession) in Alexandrov Sloboda. Architectural and archaeological and chronicle evidences in favor of the dating of this temple by 1510s are summarized, the evidence of its construction in one time period are given, the particular circumstances of its construction by architect Aleviz Novy are reconstructed.

The third part of the book is devoted to the question of one of the most interesting episodes in the history of ancient Russian architecture – about the ban imposed by Patriarch Nikon for the construction of hipped roof churches.

The book is designed for the professionals (architects, restorers, art historians, historians, archaeologists etc.) and for a wide range of amateurs of history of ancient architecture.

Scientific editor – Olga V. Ozolina.

Moscow, 2019.

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

INTRODUCTION

1. Subject of the book, terms and definitions

This book is dedicated to three main historical-architectural problems of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture, occupying researchers for over two hundred years. We will focus on the origin of hip the architecture of Ancient Russia, the first ancient Russian tent-temple and banning of Patriarch Nikon in the construction of such temples.

First of all we denote terms and definitions.

For tent architecture we will be assigned to churches with tented covering (for simplicity, further referred to as tents) over the pump in the main volumes.

In turn, the tent – this overlap in the form of a high multi-faceted pyramid number of faces not less than four. The ratio of the height of the pyramid to the diameter of the circle inscribed in basis, not less than 1.5. From the top of the tent is usually arranged cupola, but imaginary top of the pyramid still exists.

Tents consisted of oblique rows of stone or brick (sometimes horizontal rows with a slouchy fit), wooden tents were built on a log frame.

Materials of construction churches, we are in our book will lead only in the case of wooden architecture or in those instances when the context so requires. "Default" will be discussed on stone architecture, which we shall collectively mean the temples built with natural stone, bricks, tin brick or in mixed technique – "opus mixtum".

2. Relevance subjects of the book

Great interest shown to hip architecture researchers and lovers of ancient architecture is not accidental. Tent as an architectural phenomenon is almost exclusively Russian phenomenon, uncharacteristic for Western Europe and relatively rare in the East (examples of Western European and Eastern tents we will consider in CH. 1 of our book). Moreover, the tents in Ancient Russia appeared without a long period typological formation within the stone architecture¹, and is the only case in the history of ancient architecture with times copying a Byzantine cross-domed churches in Kiev Rus in the XI century.

And if in the XI century, the first ancient cross-dome churches at least had numerous counterparts in the Byzantine Empire the first tent-roofed temples of Ancient Russia had analogues in the world, few and it is highly controversial (this we will discuss in detail in CH. 1).

The termination of the construction tent churches in the middle of the XVII century the interest of scholars and lovers repeatedly increases, as it is the only one in the history of ancient architecture the almost complete disappearance of important and common architectural forms within a very short time. Banning of Patriarch Nikon to the tent cover the temples we will discuss in CH. 3 of our book.

And the question about the first the old Russian tent-temple in the late twentieth century became the scene of the resonant discussions², and the echoes of these debates can be heard today. This issue is devoted to part 2.

In 2000-2010 years, the author has published a number of studies, devoted to the theme of this book³. Since then the author has received many letters on this subject from colleagues, this issue was widely discussed at scientific conferences. In 2015, the book was published by the author "Typological formation and the basic classification of the old Russian Church architecture"⁴, which proposed additional considerations for about the origin of hip architecture. The author's position on these issues in whole has not changed, but several provisions require clarification and expansion argument.

PART 1

ORIGIN THE OLD RUSSIAN TENT-ROOFED ARCHITECTURE

1. Common methodological principles determine the origin of architectural forms

First of all it seems to be necessary to define what should be considered as a reasoned point of view on the origins of one or another of the medieval architectural form. If you do not identify here the General methodological principles, these issues you can discuss endlessly and, by and large, fruitless.

We list these principles.

The principle of the first. If consider architectural form prepared by the whole history of the formation domestic architecture, domestic sources and analogues in terms of scientific the validity precedence over foreign. It not due to any "Patriotic" ideologies, and the more likely orientation of medieval architects and builders all around their architecture of the country where they worked.

The second principle. Convincing argument in favor of a foreign origin of one or other domestic architectural forms can either be world's style (as for example, Gothic), or a significant direction in the global architecture (as for example, cross-dome system), or foreign equivalent, having global resonance and relevance (as, for example, the Sophia of Constantinople, the Temple Of the Holy sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Imperial Cathedral of Speyer etc.). Found a single and do not have global significance foreign counterparts, announced models for the domestic architectural forms sooner or later contradicted by other found counterparts. World architecture immensely diverse, and no researcher is not able to "grasp the immensity"¹.

The third principle. When the study of the origins of one or another architectural form even if you know the first use, it is not enough to study the course creative idea of the architect, as the latter could inspire any little thing, including outside architecture². You need we consider the General historical setting, the specifics of the Church order of market access, focusingSS pageoteley equipment and a large set other factors.

Principle four. Symbolic interpretations of a particular architectural forms in ecclesiastical architecture can not be considered proof of its origin. In the history of the world architecture we do not know neither the fact that a theologian has decided that the interests of the symbolism (or any theological theory) must implement or other new architectural design and coordinated its position with the churchwarden and ordered the architect to build this way and not otherwise. We do not know these facts even against priests ' vestments and liturgical equipment, and much more expensive and complex from a technical and organizational point of view region – architecture – this situation is almost impossible to imagine. Symbolic ideas and theological theory, and philosophical foundations of General, could influence the formation of the tradition only indirectly (conventionally speaking, churchwarden order, the architects building, the society evaluates, interpreters interpret assessment results and interpretations are perceived in varying degrees considered the next generation of builders and architects, etc.)

The fifth principle. Have use the researchers of symbolism in support of the Genesis the architectural forms of temples there are negative aspects. If in the Middle century, the symbols had any influence on the emergence of architectural forms (which, as we have seen, not proven), we still do not know what kind the symbolism of how it was affected. No documentary evidence on this subject preserved, and any effort of modern researchers in search of those symbols certain elements of medieval churches, as a rule, lead to the very subjective opinions on the level of "I see", it is easily refuted not only the statistics and facts, but also by extension other such the same subjective opinions, looks no less convincing.

Sixth principle. Aesthetics more conventional than the symbols, and the use of aesthetic arguments for justification the emergence of new architectural forms as unreasonably with a methodological point of view. That aesthetic preferences at all times, influenced the architectural form, there is no doubt (if the case humanity would not build anything but a purely utilitarian buildings), but to judge medieval tastes we can only indirectly – through already accomplished facts of their full-scale implementation. Accordingly, any effort modern researchers in the search for the aesthetic reasons of the occurrence of certain elements of medieval churches, as a rule, lead only to the finding that the architect and churchwarden wanted to build beautiful.

From the above methodological principles, it follows that the questions of origin medieval architectural forms should be solved comprehensively, as these forms could be generated and talent of the architects, and the artistic taste of the customers, and progress construction equipment, and changes in aesthetic preferences of the society, and ideological objectives, and borrowing from other countries, cultures and styles and many others, up to purely utilitarian purposes. A certain role here could play financial and human resources, and constructive, and other restrictions which had non-standard solutions.

2. Overview advanced theories of the origin of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture

Before moving on to the review of theories of the origin of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture, will do a significant caveat: it will be about the origin of hip architecture in the sense that we outlined in the Introduction (stone tent over the naos temples), but not tent like architectural forms. Last known, this Egyptian pyramid and hipped-roof, typical for the ancient Oriental architecture (which we discuss in section 5), and tents in which they lived the biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob³ and any plain the tents that were set up by soldiers and travelers. So the question is not whether when and who invented the tent as an architectural form, but rather who and when was to use this form at the end of the naos stone temples.

Here are the main (in chronological order of their appearance) the theory of the origin of the tent:

– hip architecture The ancient Russia came from Western European late Gothic (N. M. Karamzin, I. M. Snegirev, L. V. Dal, E. E. Golubinsky, A. I. Nekrasov⁴, H. Wagner⁵, S. S. Pod'yapol'skii⁶);

– hip architecture was formed on the basis of old Russian wooden architecture (ia Zabelin, FF Gornostayev, Grabar, N. N. Voronin, P. N. Maksimov⁷, P. A. Rappoport⁸, the author of this book⁹;

– hip architecture descended from the ancient Serbian churches with elevated supporting arches (N. And. Brunov)¹⁰;

– hip architecture Eastern origin (B. P. Denike, M. G. Khudyakov)¹¹;

– hip architecture influenced by the architecture of ancient castle towers (M. A. Ilyin, M. N. Tikhomirov)¹²;

– by becoming a hip architecture influenced by the ancient pillars of the Church-bell (H. Wagner)¹³;

– old Russian pavilion an "accidental architecture" and just replaced the dome that covers naos (V. V. Kavelmaher)¹⁴;

– hip architecture Ancient Russia evolved from Romanesque architecture of Italy (A. L. Batalov)¹⁵.

Before than to consider the above terms in accordance with the basic the methodological principles outlined in paragraph 1, remember that architectural and archaeological studies of V. Kavelmahera (1980-90-ies)¹⁶ and the author of this book (2000 years)¹⁷ showed that hip Trinity (now Pokrovskaya) Church in Alexandrov Sloboda (Il. 1) was built in 1510-ies and, consequently, was the first ancient Church marquee. Previously, the first marquee Church was considered the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532, Il. 2).

Ил. 1. Троицкая (ныне Покровская) церковь в Александровской Слободе.

Ил. 2. Церковь Вознесения в Коломенском.

But since the discussion about the origin of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture began before the beginning of the twentieth century, when F. F. Gornostaev¹⁸and M. V. Krasovsky¹⁹ announced the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye the first marquee Church of Ancient Russia, we for the "purity of experiment" will consider the theme of the first part of the book, without specifying what kind of tent-temple was built first.

Besides in this case the revision of the position relative to the first ancient a steepled Church and its architect may not in itself significantly affect the solution to the question of the origin of hip architecture: the Church in Alexandrov the settlement and Church in Kolomenskoye was Grand, both temples with a high probability, built by Italian architects, both belong to the era of Basil III, marked by the flowering of architecture and the search for new forms.

In connection with the foregoing we will return to the subject of the first ancient Russian tent-temple in CH. 2 of our books, when we look at specific the circumstances of the appearance of such a temple. The exact sense in which the temple was first erected tent, it is necessary from the point of view of the history of architecture, but not so fundamentally, in terms of architectural theory.

3. "Gothic" theory the origin of the old Russian tent-roofed architecture

We will start looking the likely ancient origins of hip architecture with Western Gothic.

Generally speaking, during the formation of the ancient Russian architecture of the XII–XV centuries it was increasing steadily "striving upward", typical of the Gothic. The total "tall" proportions the temples²⁰, the appearance of high arches, processing drums keeled kokoshniks²¹, the construction of over high domes onion domes²², the construction of the pillars churches "under the bells"²³, – all these phenomena correspond to the General impression "of straluceste", which produces Gothic. H. Wagner wrote that "if the development "high-rise" architecture was not interrupted by the Mongol invasion, then Russia found out would something akin to the Gothic"²⁴.

But this is only a General impression. On closer comparison, we are forced to deny the ancient origin of hip architecture of the Western Gothic.

First, Gothic architecture unusual towering the main Church. The lastis the identification exclusively of Russian Church architecture.

Second, Western Gothic unusual overlap SPLA tent. Sredokrestiya sometimes overlap wooden tents (examples are the cathedrals in Trondheim, Il. 3; in Bruges, Il. 4), but not one stone of the tent or on the naos or above the Central crossing in a more or less meaningful the temple we do not know. In droves tent complete the form used in Gothic Europe only towers.

Il. 3. Cathedral in Trondheim.

Il. 4. Cathedral in Bruges.

Thirdly, one of the most characteristic trends Gothic – increase the area of the internal space temples. This trend was also reflected in architecture: pillars became thinner and thinner, less and less of the temples had inner the blades appeared pillarless temples with the corner of wall supports²⁵, and then with the groin vault²⁶. Assumption the Cathedral, Aristotle Fioravanti, for example, S. pod'yapol'skii rightly attributed to the type of Gothic "hall Church"²⁷. But with a marquee architecture is the reverse: at the comparison with the scale of thecross-domed churches, and especially with Western basilicas, the area of the naos of the tent temples small.

Fourthly, the beginning of XVI century in Italy was marked not Gothic, and Renaissance. And it is very unlikely that a highly qualified Italian architect of the time could focus on the Gothic. As you know, the term "Gothic" Italians XV–XVI centuries, and means "art ready" i.e. the "barbarians". Note that in the temples of Alexandrov Sloboda and in the Church Of the ascension in Kolomenskoye , there have been numerous Renaissance elements²⁸.

The theory of origin old Russian tent-roofed architecture from the Western Gothic please three: from the ancient Serbian churches with elevated supporting arches, from ancient fortress towers, from the ancient pillars churches-steeples. All these three theories generated by the impression of "height" and "verticalism", typical of the Gothic. Therefore, all those the arguments that we put forward against the "Gothic" theory applies here. There are other considerations.

First, elevated arches and hipped-roof churches have absolutely different constructive entity (arches support the dome, and the tent itself is in place and the dome is supported by arches), and hold between them a direct parallel is unlawful.

Second, pillar-shaped temples before the erection in 1510-ies the Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda and the Cathedral of Metropolitan Peter in a Highly-Petrovsky the monastery had not unlike tent churches, more or less extensive the "wizard", i.e. from the point of view of their architecture was closer to the towers than to the Church buildings (examples – Moscow Church-belfry of St. John Climacus 1329 and 1505-1508 years, Novgorod "the clock tower" 1443 years, first of khutynskpillar 1445).

Third, a direct or indirect parallel between the fortified towers and temples marquee unlawful. The first was purely utilitarian character, the second appearance is determined primarily spiritual needs and architectural thought era. More – utilitarian point of view, steepled churches had no point, as compared to the scale of the the cross-domed churches (and especially with the European basilicas), as we said, their area SPLA small, and "koltseobraznoj" the interior creates a lot of problems with acoustics.

4. The "Roman" theory the origin of the old Russian tent-roofed architecture

A substantial modification the "Gothic" theory of the origin of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture has undergone in the works of A. L. Batalov²⁹, released after the previous research the author of this book devoted to the first old Russian tent-roofed the temple and the origin of hip architecture³⁰. At A. L. Batalov, the origins of the old Russian tent-roofed architecture lie in Western European architecture, but not in Gothic, and Romanesque.

This position researcher in itself may seem strange, when you consider that hip architecture appeared in the early sixteenth century, from the time when Romanesque was passed about three hundred years. However, A. Batalov calls and hypothetical prototypes of the first ancient temples tent – the baptistery of San Giovanni in Pisa, in the middle of the XII century covered with stone tent (in the XIII century, almost completely hidden under the dome – Il. 5³¹), and two the relatively small leaning Church of XII century – St. Agatha (Il. 6³²) and St. Sepulchre.

Il. 5. The baptistery in Pisa. General view, plan and section.

Il. 6. The Church of St. Agatha in Pisa.

But observations A. L. Batalov can not be the basis for a finding of Romanesque origin old Russian tent-roofed architecture. As we already mentioned in section 1, compelling argument in favor of the foreign origin of a particular domestic architectural forms can either be an earlier analogue, with global resonance and relevance, or the whole direction of foreign architecture that gave rise to a large number of counterparts. Above the leaning buildings do not belong to one nor the other.

Of course, theoretically it can be assumed, following A. L. Batalov³³, Italian the architect, who built the first ancient temple, visited Pisa and inspired there idea of a stone tent. But it is extremely unlikely, as already in the XIII century stone tent leaning the baptistry was built of stone same dome, what it is possible to make two conclusions:

– stone tent on some reason did not suit the Italians and, accordingly, could hardly to serve as a model for Italian architect;

– the architect of the beginning of the XVI century could hardly see this hidden tent, and even more to be inspired by them.

Probably, we can assume and what Italian architect of the XVI century, intending to go to Russia, interested in the technology of building stone tent (much more complex than known since the time of Ancient Rome technology of building stone dome), and he decided to study this technology in Pisa. But it is also extremely unlikely, as during the three centuries that have passed between the construction of the leaning tent and Russian tents, the secrets of this technology could hardly be maintained.

Moreover, in claim 1 we said that found isolated foreign counterparts are unable to serve convincing evidence, as sooner or later contradicted by other found counterparts.

We found an analogue, not less convincing than the Pisa baptistery, and the little Church of St. Agatha and St. Sepulchre. This tent Romanesque Church of St. Faustino in Brescia (XII century, Il. 7), the top of the tent which, in the difference from the above leaning of the buildings is arranged in the drum, as in ancient the temples, and under a tent erected in the interior of the additional dome as in the Church The ascension in Kolomenskoye.

Il. 7. The Church of St. Faustino in Brescia.

Над романскими храмами было возведено множество и деревянных шатров, в том числе над такими «знаковыми» храмами, как городские соборы в Майнце (ил. 8), Лимбурге на Лане (ил. 9), Падуе (ил. 10).

Il. 8. Cathedral in Mainz.

Il. 9. Cathedral in Limburg an der Lahn.

Il. 10. Cathedral in Padova.

The author managed to detect in Germany and the Romanesque rotunda, the naos of which is spanned by a wooden tent (the Church of St. Magdalene in Hausbau, a suburb of Vilshofen an der Donau, Bavaria, XII century, Il. 11).

Il. 11. The Church of St. Magdalene in Hausbau.

Thus, the use of tents in the Romanesque virtually no different from the Gothic style, and maloveroyatno the effect of the latter on the ancient origin of hip architecture we already mentioned in section 3. And if Gothic at least chronologically immediately prior to the appearance in Russia hip architecture (in Germany, for example, and in XVI century was dominated by "Backstein-Gothic", i.e. "brick Gothic"), the romanica to the beginning of the XVI century were relegated to the distant past.

5. The "Eastern" version the origin of the old Russian tent-roofed architecture

It is impossible to ignore another version of the origin of hip architecture of ancient "Oriental".

Indeed, in the East (Volga Bulgaria, Iran and Central Asia) was closed by the stone tents and towers (especially the minarets), and mausoleums (for example, East the mausoleum in Bulgar, XIII century, Il. 12; "the dervish Mausoleum" in Baku, XV Vek, Il. 13).

Il. 12. "The Eastern mausoleum" in Bulgar.

Il. 13. "Mausoleum dervish" in Baku.

We may recall in General tent in the form of huge temples such as Virupaksha (VII–XI century, India), Prambanan(X century, Indonesia, Il. 14), Angkor Wat (the first half of the XII century, Cambodia, Il. 15).

Il. 14. Prambanan. Indonesia.

Il. 15. The Angkor Wat. Cambodia.

But against the "East" theory, we can bring almost those same arguments against the "Gothic" and "Romanesque".

First, for the Eastern architecture unusual roof overlap of the pump in a large temple.

Secondly, it is highly it is unlikely that the Italian architect of the beginning of the XVI century was able to navigate Eastern architecture.

Thirdly, as it is unlikely that the first churchwarden of ancient temples tent – Vasily III ordered the architect to build "in the East". For the sake of it is hardly worth to invite the Italians.

6. Distribution tent in wood architecture, early XVI century

In the studies dedicated to the ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture³⁴, the author of this book cited a number of provisions, which had its origin from the old Russian wooden architecture. It makes sense to expand them and structure.

Before just show wide dissemination of the tent in old Russian wooden architecture before the advent of the first stone a steepled Church. There are a number of evidence.

Proof first. N. N. Voronin and P. N. Maksimov believed that the tent the wooden Church was a common type of ancient temple starting with the pre-Mongolian time³⁵, and cited a number of arguments:

on the basis of the textual and iconographic analysis ancient documents these researchers have shown that a marquee was unpreserved wooden churches in Sweden (1020-1026 years), Ustyug (late XIII century), Ledsam the churchyard (1456) and Vologda (the end of XV century)³⁶;

researchers led examples of images of wooden tent churches on the icon of the XIV century from the village of the curve (ill. 16) and the fields of the Pskov handwritten "Charter"³⁷;

researchers led the chronicle reported high "the stands" in Moscow³⁸ and showed that it is a wooden tent pillar-churches,³⁹;

– wooden belfry shown in the image of the Tver Kremlin first half of the XV century on the icon Michael of Tver and Duchess Xenia⁴⁰ (Il. 17).

Il. 16. Icon from the village of the curve.

Ил. 17. Изображение Тверского кремля на иконе Михаила Тверского и княгини Ксении.

One argument N.N. Voronin and P. N. Maximova was the image of the XIX century (Il. 18) unpreserved tented-roof of St. Clement's Church in the village una Arkhangelsk region, the construction of which klirova entry related to 1501⁴¹. But as controversial and the message korovou record (said N. N. Utkin, exploring the history of the temples Anskogochurchyard and showing that klirovye statements could confuse Clement Church on the other Church Anskogo churchyard Trinity, a large number of rearrangements which fixed in the sources⁴²), and which each successive number other wooden churches shown of the nineteenth century (E. V. a film was shown that depicted the Church, rebuilt in the second half of the eighteenth century,⁴³), we exclude this argument from the system of our evidence, as it is without it enough full.

Il. 18. Unpreserved Church in the village una Arkhangelsk region.

The proof of the second. It is highly likely that a wooden tent-roofed churches of the XVI–XVII centuries are copies of more ancient. The reasons for this are as follows⁴⁴:

– folk architecture conservative typology change very slowly;

– there was a practice to replace rotten logs in the frame one at a time, why time in the ancient monument of the original material could prove to be very little. Therefore, radiocarbon Dating and dendrochronological the method is relatively reliable only if for analysis take a a large number of logs. Accordingly, some wooden monuments due to lack of representative sample material for analysis could get a later date;

– carpenters are often obliged to build a new Church on the model of old, dilapidated.

The proof of the third. To build a stone dome is much easier than a tent and much easier to build a tent than the dome. The reasons for this are the following:

technology the construction of the stone domes (and the mold, and without it⁴⁵) was well known and established since the days of Ancient Rome;

– stone tent has almost the same thrust as the dome, and to achieve uniformity of the gripper when high altitude tent (relatively speaking to the middle is not "sunk") – a complex an engineering challenge;

– wood to build the dome is very difficult (you will need to attach any logs semicircular shape, or to use them very short intervals);

– in the construction wooden tent several (usually eight) logs (the edges of the tent) are reduced in the top and sheathed with boards, and it can make almost any a qualified carpenter.

Proof of the fourth. At the end of the tenth century in Novgorod was built the oak of the Church in Sofia with thirteen (for some Chronicles of the twelve)⁴⁶ "surface". It is unlikely that oak was erected dome. The question here is likely to go on tent the completions.

Proof fifth. Replacement stone dome wooden tent to reduce weight and thrust ceiling repeatedly had taken place outside Russia. Wooden tents as "lightweight version" of the domes were built in Byzantium (for example, in the second half of the V century was built a Church in Alahan-the monasterywhere the Central space of the stone Church was completed pyramidal wooden roof⁴⁷), and in Western Europe (we already mentioned the wooden tents over next to the Romanesque and Gothic churches).

The proof of the sixth. Wooden tent from Cypriot cedars was between 813 and 821 have been built Patriarch Thomas above the rotunda of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem⁴⁸. Erected this tent was exactly as a replacement stone of the dome, which in difficult conditions of building in what was then Palestine (formerly the era of the Crusades, under the rule of Caliph al-mA'mun) was extremely difficult to cover the rotunda with a diameter of more 20 m (Il. 19)⁴⁹. As The Church Of Holy The Lord had global significance, we may assume that this replacement could be canonical and technological example for the construction of wooden the temples of Ancient Russia instead of tents domes.

Il. 19. Temple Of the Holy sepulchre in Jerusalem. The figure of the XVII century.

Given us the totality of the proofof STV SVimetelstat that in Ancient Rus ' wooden steepled churches came much earlier stone and were built in large numbers, probably even in pre-Mongol time.

7. Wooden architecture as the main source of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture

Now, showing the wide spread and structural conditionality tent in the wooden architecture of the early The XVI century, we can turn to the evidence that ancient tent the architecture is derived from the ancient Russian wooden architecture, and not from any Gothic, Romanesque, Oriental and other foreign origins.

Proof first. "The chronicler briefly of the Russian land" (XVI century) under the year of 1532 says: "the Prince great Vasilej built a Church of stone Vnesenie of our Lord Jesus Christ up on the wooden matter"⁵⁰. This message draws a direct parallel between the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (one of the first stone tent churches) and wooden architecture: the phrase "up on the wooden matter" means it is the "high temple, built in the forms of wooden architecture", and it confirmed similar in meaning ancient text: Paleostrovsky the monastery in Karelia 1628 g. mentions the Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, "drevyana, kletzki, with a meal, on top stone of the matter"⁵¹. For this reason A. L. Batalov rightly pointed out that the expression "on stone thing" in the seventeenth century meant the repetition of forms, stone architecture⁵². This researcher questioned the same the meaning of the term "wooden case" in an earlier time, but an example for us 1628 together with the message 1532, however, it looks like convincing.

The proof of the second. It is highly likely that in Russia there were precedents for the influence of the forms wooden architecture into stone. So, N. N. Voronin wrote of Sophia: "In the majestic the rhythm of the pyramidal rising of the masses of the Cathedral and its distinctive trinadcatiletnie, distinguishing it from the smaller the Byzantine samples, can be seen as the result of exposure to builders the Kiev Church of the principles of wooden architecture"⁵³. G. Y. Mokeev believed that the image of St. Sophia could affect mnogogolovy preceding wooden temple⁵⁴, S. Y. Popov – mnogogolovy oak Sophia in Novgorod⁵⁵.

The proof of the third. In Ancient Russia withthe times termination in the middle of the XII century copying Byzantine models specificity Churchorders, given by invited foreign architects, was asked the task was built not Italian, German or English churches, namely Russian. In other words, architects have always needed to work in the mainstream already prevailing traditions of Russian architecture – with the factthat they were free to make the principles and elements of a particular the style adopted in their country of origin.

From this General rule we know of no exceptions. So, the construction of the "Western" the material is white stone – in the pre-Mongol Suzdal was conducted, including masters of Frederick Barbarossa, in the Byzantine (by then already traditional for Ancient Russia) cross-domed forms, although with the introduction of a series of Romanesque elements and the overall "height"^{of 56}. The construction of the pillar-shaped temples "under the bells" (probably the first of these was the octagonaltemple John Climacus 1329⁵⁷) was prepared four-column the temples with elevated supporting arches and temples with a corner wall the supports⁵⁸. Churches with groinvaults became a logical development of the four pillars of the temples⁵⁹. The octagonal Cathedral of St. Peter the Metropolitan (1514-1518 years) the tradition of the pillar-shaped temples "under the bells", although lacking the function of the bell tower. Assumption Cathedral in Moscow (1475-1479), the inner space of which is solved in the spirit of the Gothic "hall Church", and devoid of altar apse Trinity Church in Chashnikova (XVI century) at General architectural type are the classic cross-domed churches.

In short, from the "mainstream" of ancient architecture not drop any the temple, including built invited foreign architect⁶⁰. This confirms the principle given in paragraph 1 of Chapter 1: if the architectural form prepared by the whole history of the formation of domestic architecture, domestic sources and analogues in terms of scientific validity have priority over foreign ones.

And wooden churches due to their large number and formed the overall appearance ancient temple architecture is no less (if not more) extent than a few stone temples.

Thus, the transition in the beginning of XVI century the construction in Russia of stone tent churches occurred under the influence of numerous wood samples, and the tent was a direct analogue of dome.

The fact that the tent was direct analog dome, in the context of our study at least in principle, than the total influence of wooden architecture onthe tent. Explain why.

With the Soviet time in the history of architecture entrenched tradition of interpretation of the forms and elements of Church architecture in accordance with the design and technological features, stylistic Genesis, artistic taste, economy, politics and many other factors, except one: the direct and direct influence of the Church in the person of its leaders.

But in the time Ancient Church as a closed hierarchical system with an established base of dogmatic and regimented rituals was already engaged in reading the second thousands of years of its existence. The indecisiveness of the Russian Metropolia until 1589 year 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. As the latter could not understand that typological and stylistic features of the temples were made "visible connection" Russian Orthodoxy from Byzantium, and concessions in any of those questions meant the movement of the Russian Church to the Autocephalous, very undesirable for ambitions (and economic interests) of the Patriarch.

In the book "Typological formation and the basic classification of the old Russian Church architecture," the author showed that at the dawn of ancient stone construction took place a ban Church on "Nikopolidis" stone temples, i.e., required mandatory the device in the stone Orthodox churches of the dome⁶¹.

Accordingly, if the tent was not perceived as an analogue and replacement of the dome, Russian the Orthodox Church is unlikely to be allowed its construction of stone temples.

V. V. Kavelmaher wrote: "as for the tent, it is nothing. The accidental architecture. It only replaces the dome, overlapping SPLA"⁶². We conclusively proved these words of the researcher, the only significant caveat that this change was no accident, but structurally and canonically due to the phenomenon.

And since the tent is in wooden architecture was multi-faceted (this is due to the basis of its design – logs, forming the frame), it is logical that the diversity acquired and drums. The number of faces in the vast majority of cases was equal to eight (apparently, this number is optimal for implementation the transition to the tent of the quadrangle, and for maximum stability). Thus, we see the source of the form "octagon on square", sold in a huge number of temples – at first wooden, and then stone⁶³.

8. Stone pillarless dome churches as an additional source the old Russian tent-roofed architecture

Thus, we have shown that the main source of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture was wooden architecture. But let's not forget that before the XVI century stone temple architecture prevailed traditional Byzantine cross-dome system, but the vast majority of tent churches – pillarless, ie not related to the cross-dome type. Probably, these temples could to be considered by the Russian Orthodox Church "non-canonical" if not stone pillar the domed Church, which, although in small numbers, but was built throughout the previous history ancient architecture⁶⁴. We know, for example, the following temples:

– the Church of St. Basil in Volodymyr-Volynskyi, XIII century (multileafplan Il. 20);

Il. 20. The Church of Basil in Vladimir-Volyn.

– lost temples in Halychyna: the Church of the unknown initiation, the so-called "Polygon", the second half of the XII century (tetraconch); the Church of the unknown initiation in the village Coast near Galich, the second half of the XII century (tetraconch); the Church of Elijah the Prophet in Galicia, the second half of the XII century (rotunda with two adjacent volumes, perhaps with a tower);

Moscow Church-bell John Climacus 1329 and 1505-1508 years, Novgorod "the clock tower" 1443 year, the first "khutynsk pillar" 1445.

And because the tent was direct analog dome, the serious objections from the Russian Orthodox Church against the construction of stone tent churches could hardly arise, as there was already a precedent of departing from the cross-dome system dome temples.

In connection it is important to note that if we can speak of any external the origin of hip architecture, it is only the combination of Byzantine and Romanesque: these samples (for example, the Church of Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople and San Vitale in Ravenna; it is possible to remember and the chapel of Charles The great in Aachen) ascended ancient dome the temples of XII–XV centuries. Wooden tent above the rotunda of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which could to affect the appearance of a tent in the old Russian wooden architecture, also appeared during the Romanesque. But these Byzantine-Romanesque effects are indirect and distantsirovaniya.

9. On the origin old Russian wooden hip architecture

In connection with what was said in PP. 8 and 9, we can hypothesize relatively origin and ancient Russian wooden hip architecture.

When after the baptism of Rus widespread construction of Christian churches, to focus on canonical Byzantine architecture it was necessary not only in stone, but in the tree: the masters of wooden Affairs, it was possible to show that the temple – Orthodox, and not any other. (Note – if possible, because when the lack of qualified personnel carpenter built the simplest kletskii the Church).

The dome above the wooden Church, as we have said, it was difficult to build on technological reasons, and the erection of the dome is in General close to him in the form and "aspiration up" tent fit for this task better only (not for nothing was this change was made in the IX century in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem).And even if in the Terem wooden temple for insulation between the naos and a tent was erected dull flat ceiling, still at least the external forms it was evident that the temple – Orthodox.

Thus, we we believe that the wooden tent was a "simplified form" canonically due to binding in the stone Orthodox Church architecture the dome throughout the history of ancient Church architecture, starting with X century.

PART 2

FIRST ANCIENT STEEPLED CHURCH

And THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS CONSTRUCTION

1. Dating questions the first temple of Alexandrov Sloboda

Consistency and the pattern of origin of ancient stone tent from wooden we can confirm, reconstructed the specific circumstances of his appearance in the beginning of the XVI century. For this you first need consider first the old Russian tent-temple.

As we have noted in paragraph 2 Chapter 1 in the twentieth century the first marquee Church of Ancient Russia was considered the Church Of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (Il. 2) having clear chronicle the date (the end construction in 1532¹).

The architect of this Church definitely not installed. S. S. Pod'yapol'skii, dedicated to this question a special study of², believed that they were Petrok Maly (Petrok Small, Peter Fryazin). This conclusion was made on the basis of temporary gap between the probable arrival of the architect in Moscow in 1528³ and the beginning of the construction of China-city in 1534⁴. Accordingly, the researcher dated the temple Ascension 1529-1532 years⁵.

This idea first the tent-Church dominated until the end of the twentieth century until studies of monuments ancient architecture in Alexandrov Sloboda, conducted in 1980-1990s years VV kavelmaherom⁶did not reveal a fundamental fact: in the Settlement in the time of Basil IIIin 1510-ies, in one construction the period was erected the following extant temples with around them the Palace complex of houses:

– Pokrovsky, now Trinity Cathedral (Il. 21; in the future will be without reservations call it Pokrovsky);

Trinity, now Pokrovskaya Church (Il. 1, 22; in the future will be without reservations call it Trinity);

Assumption Church (Il. 23);

– the Church of Alex the Metropolitan (ill. 24; 1710 – Crucifixion the bell tower). During the reign of Ivan the terrible – in the following construction period Settlement – it was built with pylons and wasbuilt the top of it. Hereinafter, for simplicity, we will refer to Crucifixion belfry in its modern the form, and the Church of Metropolitan Alexis – pillar-shaped building, located inside it⁷.

Il. 21. Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. Pokrovsky (now Trinity) Cathedral.

Il. 22. The original appearance of Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda. Reconstruction VV Kavelmahera.

Il. 23. Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. Church of the assumption.

Il. 24. Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda. Crucifixion bell tower.

The basis for Dating these temples time of Vasily III – the first construction period Sloboda – was the message of the Trinity chronicle, speaking about the completion of construction the Grand courtyard: "Summer 7021 October 3 in Sergiev monastery is the osnovala gate kirpichnyi, and Vortech in the name of St. Sergius of Chudotvortsa. Summer 7022 (1513 – Sz) November 28 priest was crkvi GREVENA in the Klementyev. That W years Dec 1 ssna was crkvi Cover stay of BCI in the New village Aleksandrovskom. Then f knz great and yard wsel (my italics – Sz). Then msza Dec 15 ssna was crkvi Kirpichny in Sergiev a monastery on Vortech the stye Sergius and smal her of asph Mitrofan Kolomna Yes, Abbot of Pampa, and snie was knz great"⁸.

V. V. Kavelmaher, Dating all these temples Sloboda one construction period – 1510-ies of said the materials (brick and white stone) similar conditions, homogeneous binding identical coherent iron, machinery mixed masonry, the proximity of the stylistics of the first temple Alexander the Settlement to the style of the Italianate of the Kremlin cathedrals of Ivan III and Vasily III⁹, United Italianate "graphical" style of the Russian court of architecture of the XVI century, with the application of the same clearly unified, units and parts trough-shaped panels, sets of profiles of base, crowning rods and capitals. Laying all temples were originally open nature – not painted and not bleached, was tinted white gesso just some made of of brick elements of decor. All speakers white stone elements were bonded the same type of brackets. All churches (except for the pillars of the Church of Alex Metropolitan) were constructed with aisles and adjacent chambers of the Palace, and The Trinity and assumption – even from the cellar. In the interests of the entire ensemble about and misleading podkletny story porch with a belfry received and the Church of Alex of the Metropolitan. Varied buildings among themselves only by the amount and quality covering their "dago harmony" thread, but V. V. Kavelmaher noted uniform style of this thread (for with the exception of ornamental belts Pokrovsky Cathedral, copied from the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra)¹⁰.

The argument of V. Kavelmahera about simultaneity the construction of the first temples Sloboda, was fairly well received by all without exception researchers as a comprehensive¹¹, although the Dating of the first temples Sloboda 1510 mi and has been challenged by several researchers on the basis of the formal-stylistic theories¹². The proof of the position of V. Kavelmahera was dedicated to the scientific works of the author of this book¹³here it makes sense only to list the main evidence for Dating the first temple Sloboda 1510-ies.

The proof of the first. We can you clarify some of the intercession Cathedral of stone or wood said in the quoted message "Trinity chronicle". We are talking about four buildings (fortress gate of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, the Church in the village Klementyev in, gate Church Sergius of Radonezh in the monastery and Pokrovsky Cathedral in Alexandrov Sloboda). In three buildings listed building material, and very accurately (brick the building called it the brick, not generalized "stone", as it usually was done in the Chronicles), but for the most significant of these buildings – the intercession Cathedral on the Grand the courtyard – the material does not say anything.

Of course, just forget to make the necessary clarification to the building material princely temple scribe was unlikely. Much more likely that such clarification and not required – just as it was not required clarifications regarding, for example, building materials of the assumption Cathedral, Aristotle Fioravanti, the Archangel Cathedral Aleviz New or Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. What is the main Cathedral of a princely residence – Alexander Settlement was stone, it was clear the "default". This we are obliged to believe that the message of the Trinity chronicle says about the sanctification in 1513 stone Pokrovsky Cathedral.

The proof of the second. Conducted in 2005 the author of this study, visual-tactile analysis construction equipment showed in the intercession Cathedral, Trinity, and the assumption churches, Church of Metropolitan Alexei we see a soft, warm stonework, typical brick buildings of the Moscow Kremlin of the turn of the XV and XVI centuries, and the Cathedral of St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery (1514-1517 years). Typical mortar – with extremely high binding capacity, with a very a low content of lime sand and other impurities. Numerous white stone ornaments and Settlement, and the Kremlin were carved so that it looks like the stone "breathes". In the Cathedral of St. Peter the Metropolitan brick decor, as well as in the Settlement, was covered with gesso "a white stone".

Unlike all the listed buildings, Crucifixion tower built of "dry", "burnt" bricks, crumbling easily a solution with a high admixture of sand. From the same brick in the same solution built the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat. The white-stone decor Crucifixion bell also carved, as at the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat, – hard, geometric, "dry".

And in Crucifixion the bell tower and the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat , the builders used along with iron bonds wood. In the temples protection, Trinity, assumption and Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrovskaya Sloboda all links are made exclusively of iron high quality¹⁴.

The proof of the third. The bell tower of Alexandrov Sloboda, as we have already noted, was built in during two construction periods, as evidenced by the following provisions:

and style, and execution of decor, and the brickwork and mortar of the Church, Alexei the Metropolitan and the Crucifixion the bell totally different;

examination by the author this study in 2005, the second tier of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei showed the Windows of this layer was given (and very carefully) is another form even prior to the rigging walls of the future Crucifixion bell. Very it is doubtful that in a decade or two after construction would require conducting considerable work to give Windows a fundamentally new form;

introduction to the feelers VV Kavelmaheramade in places of an adjunction pylons Crucifixion bell to the facades of the Church of Metropolitan Alexis, shows that by the time rigging the pylons of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei had time to "grow in the ground" about by half a meter. Theoretically, this could happen within a relatively a short time (in the case of targeted sprinklings of soil), but in this the case is extremely unlikely, as we will see below that this the same cultural layer had grow in and around Trinity Church to the time of construction its Western extension;

– the feelers VV Kavelmahera inside stair corbels Crucifixion bell shows that in places of an adjunction of the walls and pylons Crucifixion the bell tower on uncovered by probing the fragments of the white stone socle and oblepihovogo brick decor the Church of Metropolitan Alexei there are traces of weathering, which could not time to appear in a decade or two.

Of the above it follows that between the construction of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei and Crucifixion bell went a considerable time, much more than ten to fifteen years. Thus, these buildings are to two different construction periods. For all time of existence of Alexandrov Sloboda as the residence of Moscow princes such periods there were only two 1510-e and 1560-1570-ies. So we must refer to the Church of Alex Metropolitan to 1510 m, and Crucifixion tower – to 1560-1570-M.

Proof of the fourth. After the construction of Trinity Church to its Western facade was added a new additional section, composed, as the previous one, the chamber of pogreba and basement (house was completely rebuilt in 1680 year¹⁵). Kavelmaher gave convincing arguments in favor of the fact that these additions were built much later (not less than a few decades) after the Holy Trinity temple:

– unlike the two the old sectional volumes, the new section was given a different planning decision (square, blocked in the direction North – South with a torispherical vault cellar; dual, split longitudinal wall of the basement) and a different interpretation of the volume;

– seliga dismantled in 1680 vault chamber reached the Church of the cornice and cut it;

– a new section was laid on other than Trinity Church, mark (at the time it was built around of the temple had already formed a cultural layer up to half a meter thick);

– extension belonged to lower the culture of construction¹⁶.

Consequently, there is the situation is similar to that discussed above in connection with the rebuilding of the Church of Alex the Metropolitan: we must refer the construction of the Western chamber with a cellar and a basement to the second construction the period of Settlement, and the construction of the most Holy Trinity Church – the first building period, i.e., to 1510 years.

Thus, we have independent evidence of the erection in 1510-ies Pokrovsky Cathedral, the Church Trinity and the Church of Metropolitan Alexei. Note – these proofs are mutually independent, i.e. in relation to each of these temples is based on own set of Assembly and architectural and archaeological data.

Let's not forget that V. V. Kavelmaher regardless of all the above evidence has shown that the temples protection, Trinity, Metropolitan Alexei and assumption was built in one construction period. This argument, unlike all the the previous one, cannot be called self-sufficient, but with a clear date 1510-ies of the at least one of the first temples Settlement (and even more than three, as we saw above), he gives such same unambiguous Dating of this time and all the other temples.

2. A lump sum the construction of the main body and the tent of Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda

In 2000 years of the supporters of the "dokumentacijskog" theory the Genesis of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture (i.e., the notion that the first marquee Church was still the Church of the ascension) was put forward another argument: the main volume of Trinity Church was erected in 1510-ies, in the first construction period Sloboda of Alexandrov, but the tent the top was supposedly arranged it only under Ivan the terrible¹⁷.

This argument for the first time made in the twentieth century, on any of the architectural and archaeological the research was based. Such a possibility was allowed (at least not excluded) by V. V. Kavelmaher in one of his early works¹⁸, but further, the researcher spoke out unequivocally in favor of the simultaneous the construction of the monument:

"To researchers came the feeling of incompatibility "late" tent with enough obvious signs of "early" and "very early" architecture. The result scientists began to make careful assumptions about the possible two construction stages in the life of the monument. The latter, who for some time shared this point of view, was the author of this article in print comment on the likely relocation of the tent in the oprichnina period of existence of the Settlement. However, in the study of the monument with forests this hypothesis is no longer itself: the Trinity Church presents, from cellars to skufia dome, built within two to three construction seasons. It is extremely very solid and well preserved in the building up of the monument"¹⁹.

But V. V. Kavelmaher in his works, not elaborated on how exactly he determined on a single pass of the monument. It has generated an information gap to fill in which helped natural research conducted by the author of this book in 2011.

The theory was there are two options of what could be Trinity Church original completed instead of the tent: is a round dome on a circular drum, as in the assumption churches of Ivangorod beginning of the XVI century, and the octagonal dome without a drum, as in the Cathedral of St. Peter the Metropolitan 1514-1517 years in the Moscow High-Petrovsky monastery. In both cases, the diameter of a hypothetical initial dome Trinity Church was supposed to be about 7 meters. In the first case the basis of a hypothetical drum could be over or under the top round cornice, crowning the quadrangle, in the second case, the basis of a hypothetical dome – over or under the upper octagonal cornice directly instead the existing tent (Il. 25).

Il. 25. The interior of Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda. The top part of the quadrangle, octagon and tent.

In 2011, the author conducted full-scale examination of the upper part of the rectangle and the tent of Trinity Church. It the survey provided some evidence of the simultaneous construction of the main Church and tent.

The proof of the first. And above and below any of the three cornices crowning the quadrangle (above octagonal, below, round, below again octagonal, cm. Il. 25) any traces of the transformation do not exist. Under the upper cornice only visible signs of the specific construction of: to strengthen the octagon is meant to withstand the enormous weight of the tent, jumper Windows the octagon was made not of brick and large white stone blocks (Il. 26), and since the dimensions of these blocks did not match the dimensions of the bricks builders in some cases filled the void in the same blocks and uneven stacked bricks (Il. 27).

Il. 26. The interior of Trinity Church. White stone lintel above the window of the octagon.

Il. 27. Interior Trinity Church. White stone blocks under the cornice of the octagon.

Simple and rough (for S. S. Podyapolskaya, "primitivized"²⁰) profiles of all three cornices (Il. 25) are so similar that it is impossible not to draw a conclusion about their belonging to one and the same masters. The laying of the eaves themselves is whole and nothing is broken.

In order to ensure the correctness of these observations, the author from the roofs of the West chamber held additional examination of the exterior masonry of the upper part of the quadrangle and the octagon under the tent. The survey also revealed no traces of the reversals. The technology stack and profiles of outer rods fully comply with the internal (Il. 28).

Il. 28. Trinity Church. Fragments of the upper part of the quadrangle, the headdress and the octagon.

The proof of the second. In the interior of Trinity Church was carried out visual and tactile analysis free frescoes of the masonry of the tent and the octagon. Additionally, the interior was examined the masonry of the lower parts of the quadrangle (the feelers VV Kavelmahera, Il. 29), and outside, with roofs Western the house – the octagonal and the upper parts of the quadrangle (Il. 28).

Il. 29. Trinity Church. A fragment of the lower part of the quadrangle. Probing VV Kavelmahera.

The analysis showed that tent, and octagon and a quadrangle of Trinity Church and with internal and external hand stacked in absolutely identical technique of laying:

– brick in all of these parts of the temple bolsamania, almost identical in size: the average size 7 x 12 x 28 cm, tolerance on width and height 1 cmat length 2 cm. (Note that much more stringent current standard industrial bricks also involves quite a large tolerance – up to 0.5 cm²¹);

– masonry is rough, often haphazard (Il. 26, 27, 29);

– brick in all of these parts of the temple are very high quality, optimal burning;

solution in all of these parts of the temple are very high quality, with a high content of lime.

This technique of masonry identical to the masonry of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei and the Pokrovsky Cathedral analysis of masonry which was conducted by the author in 2005 and 2011 years (Il. 30, 31), the only difference is the brick on the "front" of the Western facade Pokrovsky Cathedral laid more systematically and more accurately sized (admission does not exceed 0.5 cm in width and height, 1 cm length). The beginning of the XVI century is very much different from masonry later construction periods of the Settlement of the epoch of Ivan the terrible and 1680s years. In 2005 were examined with the masonry of the piers and the tent of the Crucifixion of the bell tower, and it turned out that Crucifixion tower built of "dry", "burnt" bricks, crumbling easily (literally fingers) a solution with a high admixture of sand. Research conducted by the author in 2011, showed that as "burnt" brick and equally poor quality a solution of XVII century additions to the Trinity Church – West and taltarni chambers. In the last the average size of a brick a few more used in the XVI century – about 8 x 14 x 30 cmwith several smaller tolerance 1 cm for all the measurements.

Il. 30. The Church Of Metropolitan Alexei. A fragment of masonry.

Il. 31. St. Basil's Cathedral. A fragment of the West facade.

Thus, conducted by the author in the 2011 field research of the tent of Trinity Church in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda has shown that he is the modern main volume, built in 1510-ies. Of the study in 2011 also confirmed the findings research 2005 that the laying of the first and subsequent construction periods of Alexandrov Sloboda varies significantly across periods and virtually identical within the same period. And masonry rectangular, the octagonal and of the tent of Trinity Church definitely attribute the temple to the first building period the beginning of the XVI century.

All of the above gives we are right to believe that the Dating of the first temples Sloboda, including of the tent of Trinity Church, 1510-ies proved redundant, very large by the standards of history of ancient architecture.

3. Correction theory origin and Genesis of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture in the beginning of XXI century

S. S. pod'yapol'skii wrote that the Dating sites The Alexander Settlement 1510-ies "contrary to the established views on development of architecture of Moscow Russia of the XVI century"22, "negates almost all of the prevailing views on the development of architectural types and styles of Russian architecture of the XVI century"23.

Perhaps approval S. S. Podyapolsky too categorical, but in the main he was right: in accordance with made in the Settlement discoveries VV Kavelmahera many established views on Russian architecture of the XVI century the beginning of XXI century have been revised.

In addition the revision of the local theory and the history of ancient architecture (unusual for the beginning of the XVI century the construction of the Cathedral with two adjoining chapels, the device portals with curved side walls in the form of deployed volutes, panels with characteristic angular wedges, simplification of theclassic profiles, no descrepancy cornice above the pilasters, etc.)24, revised global question – about the first ancient stone Terem the temple.First Church marquee in Russia was not the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532), and built in 1510-ies the Church of the Trinity in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda.

Accordingly, this type the temple belongs to Trinity Church, close to the traditional, with three apses, with four, completed horizontal thrust, with innovative features, moved to the verge the octagon that was formed at the beginning of the XVI century.

A later date of the Church The ascension in comparison with the Trinity Church in any case does not detract from the value of Kolomna monument to Russian architecture. In this temple along with the tent was used wall the pylons, which allowed to build a building of unprecedented proportions, with unique architectonics. Trinity Church of the ascension in comparison with "prizemen" and, as repeatedly demonstrated, Kavelmaher25, imperfect in engineering terms (Il. 32).

Il. 32. Trinity Church. Section (according to V. V. the Kavelmahery).

To quote what I wrote about Trinity Church V. V. Kavelmaher: "The proposed assignment of Trinity Church to the first decades of the XVI in. undermines, at first glance, the fundamentals of the theory of Russian tent-roofed architecture. However, is it really so simple and perfect this theory? So, the first stone Church marquee in Russia is considered for some time now famous "substitute" Trinity Church on The Palace is the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye, built by the same churchwarden and that same purpose – as a cold Palace temple in his new suburban residence. The construction was carried out with unprecedented scale and huge material costs. The Church was built, the researchers believe the outstanding Italian architect Pietro Francisco Hannibal (Petrok Malyi) in 1529-1532 years In the history of Russian architecture of the temple was a work from the point of view of its formal perfection the one and only. However, the process of construction stone tent churches in Moscow in a number of circumstancesSTV PRhas ervals. "Mass" construction tent churches were resumed only in 50-ies of the XVI in. at once, spontaneously, in amazingly advanced and perfect form, nothing to do, however, with the Church of the ascension does not already have. The gap of new construction with a constructive idea and plasticity of the proposed prototype is somehow possible to explain, but how to explain it perfectly ripe, "sustained", an independent form a new series of monuments? Because if we follow this theory, it turns out, that almost the first twenty years after the break were built such masterpieces as the Central tent pillar intercession Cathedral on the Moat (1554-1561 years) and not extant five-steeple Boris and Gleb Cathedral in Staritsa (1557-1561 years). You can, of course, to assume both buildings were built brilliant Barma with "comrades". But then who built another hip masterpiece is not extant Church of St. Sergius at the Trinity-Epiphany compound in the The Kremlin (1558 g.)? Or not so perfect, in terms of shape, but steadily made hip reliquary tombof Abraham Rostov in Avraamiev Epiphany the monastery of Rostov the Great (1554 g.)? And who created structurally rough, but defiantly daring shatrovo-cross the design of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Solovki? Who built dostopnih cross-hip The Cathedral of the Annunciation in the family castle Stroganoff in Solvychegodsk (1557 g.)? And then to understand the evidence of the origin of the construction of the Pokrovsky Cathedral "from the aisles" – "different samples and translations"? If we accept this theory, we have to admit that Russian builders had no prior experience in the construction tent churches! It flatters the national pride, as it implies our ability to architects brilliant spontaneous creativity, but it is "bad theory". Meanwhile, the architectural forms of the Cathedral of intercession on The moat not go back to the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (the latter only applies to Vampilov and casings), and in the first place to the two pillars monuments Alexandrova Sloboda – the domed Church of Metropolitan Alexei tent and Trinity Church.If Trinity Church, as many think, too late monument, it is in comparison with St. Basil's Cathedral – the ugly and regressive phenomenon. Such the sentence is the history of architecture (twentieth century – Sz). However, the monument too fresh and original, too awkward naive, to simply be a creative failure unknown Italian architect. And because its methods of Dating in the absence of others should be strictly archaeological"26.

We can only note that correction or even a complete revision of its theories in accordance with the new architectural and archaeological and documentary data needs to be ready to every historian of architecture. So it was in 1930-ies, when PN.Maksimov found under the riggings the ancient Cathedral Andronikov monastery27it was in the 1950-ies, when excavations N. N. Voronin opened the white-stone Bogoliubov wall28 and galleries Church of the Intercession on the Nerl29it was in the 1960-ies, when BP Dedushenko established the membership of the existing Cathedral Vysoko-Petrovsky monastery creativity Aleviz The new30 it was in the 1980-ies, when Kavelmaher and T. Panova D. found on the Kremlin's Cathedral square octagon the belfry of St John Climacus31, so it was in 1990-e years when excavations O. M. Ioannisyan opened in Rostov rubble the Church of Boris and Gleb 1287 year32it was in the early 2000-ies, when research the author of this book showed traces of a rerun of the arches The assumption Cathedral in Vladimir, and confirmed the initial hypothesis about the five domes of the temple33. And any professional or personal ambitions are irrelevant here.

4. Italian architect temples of Alexandrov Sloboda

In 2008 year in the book "a New study of architectural monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda"34 the author raised the question about the definition of the architect, who built Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda, at least with the same the probability of a S. S. pod'yapol'skii identified for the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye authorship Italian architect Petroca Small. This issue was resolved and it was it is established that the architect was Aleviz New.

This book has sense to revisit this issue and to embed its solution in the context of our research, as it is important to analyze the circumstances of the erection of the first old Russian tent-roofed Church – Trinity Church.

About the masters Palace-temple complex of 1510-ies in Sloboda V. V. Kavelmaher wrote:

– «закончив в 1508 году свой московский двор, Василий III перебросил освободившиеся строительные кадры в Слободу»;

– "fortified complex Tsar's court (in the Sloboda – Sz) was built immediately after the Great The Kremlin Palace in Moscow by Italian architects Vasily III and was constructed in about five years – from In 1508-1509 1513 g.»;

– "once you have finished your country Palace, Vasily III dismissed the expensive Italian carvers home and architects stopped the service and they had built the Moscow and the province"35.

About the fact that the authorship of against temples Sloboda 1510-ies belongs to one of the architects of the of Italian origin, known under the name of Aleviz, the researcher did not write, although this conclusion with a high probability follows from the following facts:

in 1508, Aleviz Fryazin finished work on the the Moscow Grand Palace and Aleviz New – over the Archangel Cathedral36 (a question of personalities and buildings both architects we will discuss in detail in section 5);

– in 1513 Alexandrovskaya Sloboda was completed on the Grand Palace and consecrated Pokrovsky Cathedral;

in 1514 the great the Prince commanded one of Aleviz to build in Moscow on 11 churches, including St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery and Church of the Annunciation in the Old Vagankovo37.

It is unlikely that such a chain of bilateral dates and buildings could be a coincidence. We have already noted that the authorship Petroca Small the attitude of the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye S. S. pod'yapol'skii deduced only from the temporary gap between the probable arrival of the architect in Moscow in 1528 and the beginning of the construction of China-city in 153438.

But what for temple Alexander the Settlement, S. S. pod'yapol'skii objected assumptions about the erection of Italian architects, as, according to the researcher, "in terms of architecture all this slepleno so haphazard and so incompatible with the geometric clarity of the structure, the inherent architecture of the Renaissance is that it is unclear how you can even hypothetically to ascribe to the Cathedral of creativity of the Italian architect"39.

From these observations, S. C. Podyapolsky 's hard to disagree. But whether the position of V. Kavelmahera and S. Podyapolsky mutually exclusive? After all V. V. Kavelmaher wrote that the Trinity Church "awkward naive", is "ridiculous plan" and the construction of the tabernacle "paradoxical"40.

Domination in the history of architecture of the last quarter of the XX century the theory of P. A. Rappoport, mandatory conversion tracking teams at full strength (from architect to ordinary masons)41, created an absolutely wrong stereotype: the architect "believes" to move at the head of his farm from the construction site at the construction site and personally to understand all of the intricacies of building your implementation of the building. Accordingly, any flaws (the more "naive") design excluded the authorship of highly qualified architect (especially of such level as any out of Aleviz).

But in fact, the architect in no case was not obliged to constantly be present on the construction site, its main task was the development of the project and getting a churchwarden funds for its implementation42. And in this case churchwarden temples Alexandrov Sloboda – Vasily III – was in Moscow and entered her yard in the Settlement only in 1513.

Consequently, any of the Of Aleviz, being the author of the monuments of the Sloboda 1510-x years, still had to reside in the Grand courtyard. The absence of the architect in the retinue of the Grand Duke could lead to problems with the financing of the project, and to the loss of the post of court architect, for which at all times had to constantly fight.

Thus, the architect could or occasionally to come in the Alexander Settlement during construction, or even the first time to see their temples already constructed, arriving together with Vasily III in Sloboda in 1513. Come on his project43 work contractors and performers are able to tolerate any errors – including those provided by V. V. Kavelmaher and S. pod'yapol'skii.

Even if Vasily III, as I thought V. V. Kavelmaher, "moved his construction personnel in The settlement" still 100 km from Moscow, away from the Emperor and the architect, construction quality could not to compare with the Kremlin. But if, on the basis of General studies of the relationship between local and visiting construction personnel showed the author of this book44, construction under the leadership several experienced Moscow masters were local staff, technical flaws during the construction were even more.

Therefore, both the end of the Aleviz in 1508 work in The Kremlin, the completion of a princely Palace-temple complex in the village in 1513 and the order of Basil III in 1514 one of Aleviz to build 11 churches give us sufficient grounds to believe: the author of temples protection, Trinity, assumption and Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda is one of the Italian architects, known under the name of Aleviz.

And, despite a number of had a slight technical flaws, Vasily III was satisfied with the work of the architect (it is proved by the fact that the Grand Duke in 1514 charged him with the construction eleven new churches). And in the end, all four of the first Church of the Settlement (including and Trinity Church, where was not only the first time constructed of stone tent, but they were blocked by a large space – about 7 meters in diameter) without construction accidents and safely reached our days.

The Grand plan Palace-temple ensemble in the Settlement fully meets the scale of any out of Aleviz – simultaneous construction of very large at that time the complex of buildings, absolutely unique, unlike one on another, but United "country" style (as opposed "capital" style, realized in the Grand Kremlin Palace and the Archangel the Cathedral).

And it is not surprising that further, along with such remarkable works of Italian architects, as the Kremlin Uspensky and Arkhangelsk cathedrals, an example for many imitations (often outshining the original) was the first tent-roofed Church of the Trinity45.

5. Aleviz New – the architect of the temples of Alexandrov Sloboda

We can clarify who the two architects of Italian origin, known under the name of Aleviz, built temples of Alexandrov Sloboda 1510-ies.

First of all let's see what we know about these wizards. Those of them who arrived in Moscow the first, traditionally called Aleviz Fryazino, Aleviz Old either just Aleviz; arrived ten years later – Aleviz New. But, as we will see shortly, the lack of a clear the naming of the first of Aleviz leads to unwanted contamination, so we will definitely call him Aleviz Old – unlike Aleviz New.

About Aleviz The old chronicle under the year 1494 report the following: "they came to the ambassadors of the Grand Prince of Moscow, Manolo Aggelou Greek Yes Danila Mamyrov, that sent them the Prince of the great masters for in Venice and Mediolan; they're privados to Moscow Aleviz wizard wall and ward and Peter of pasechnika and other masters"46. As established Italian researchers in the twentieth century, we are talking about Aloisio Yes Kartano (Carcano)47.

With built in Moscow Aleviz Old from 1494 to 1499 years, we do not know, but convincing looking version of V. Vygolov48: he changed the deceased in 1493 by Pietro Antonio Solari on a post of the head of the Kremlin fortification construction.

The following annalistic mention about Aleviz Old is associated with because in 1499 "the great Prince ordered sulaiti his yard, the Polat kamenyaand kirpichnye, and under them the cellars and glaciers, on the old courtyard of Blagoveschenie, and a wall the stone from the yard to Borovitskie of strelnici; and the master Aleviz Fryazin hail of Medialna"49. This construction was completed by In 1508, when Vasily III moved inbuilt Palace50. What we are talking precisely about Aleviz Old, confirmed by the reference to "hail Medialna" (Milan).

In 1504 to Moscow Embassy of Dmitry Ralev and Mitrophan Karacharovo came another group of masters51. At the way to Moscow that the Embassy had been detained in the Crimea the Khan Mengli Giray, obliging the masters some time to work on the construction of the Bakhchisaray Palace52. Letting go of ambassadors and artists in Moscow, Khan wrote Ivan III: "And Xu letter filed architect Aleviz, Menlo Gireev word... I am your brother taking a shortcut, poshol Aleviz wizard, Velmagood master, not like other wizards, Velma great master... That's how my honor and my brother's word of honor, that Fryazino Aleviz perhaps, you know"53.

One of the researchers no doubt (and won't doubt, and we) that this "Velma great master" is the same AlevizNew, which, according to the chronicle data, in 1508 completed the construction of The Archangel Cathedral and the Church of Christmasof the Ira andNPA The Baptist at the Borovitsky gate54. In favor this interpretation and clarification of "New" (relatively Aleviz Old), and only honorary Grand order (construction of ancestral tomb), and the similarity Italianate portals Bakhchisaray Palace and The Archangel Cathedral.

More in the annals of Aleviz "New" is not called. The attempts of some Italian researchers identify this architect with the famous Venetian sculptor and Carver Alvise Lamberti di Montagnana55, although widely resonance in modern popular scientific literature, are only unconfirmed (and, as we will see shortly, is highly questionable) hypothesis.

In 1508 "the Prince great told round the city of Moscow moat delatite stone and brick and ponds of ciniti round the city the Aleviz Fryazino"56. The annals and lead to more specific information about these works, started in 1507 and completed in 1519, – were built walls, towers, dam and ditch along the river Neglinnaya57.

И, наконец, в 1514 году Василий III повелел возвести в Москве 11 церквей, «а всем тем церквам был мастер Алевиз Фрязин»58. На этом документальные данные об Алевизах можно считать исчерпанными.

Until 1970-ies in the history architecture dominated following point of view: Aleviz Old built only Western fortifications of the Kremlin along the Neglinnaya59, and Aleviz New – all the others mentioned in the above the chronicle reports buildings (the Grand Kremlin Palace and all the temples in also founded in 1514)60. Consequently, Aleviz New was considered one of the greatest architects of the era, and Aleviz Old was relegated to the role of minor (compared with Solari) fortification.

In the last quarter of the twentieth century, this "extreme" point of view was questioned SS pod'yapol'skii61 and VP vigolova62. Both researchers have attributed the Grand Kremlin Palace to creativity Aleviz Old and V. P. bigalow doubted the authorship of Aleviz New in relation to churches, founded in 1514.

Arguments S. Podyapolsky , and V. P. Vygolova in favor of the inclusion of the Kremlin Palace to creativity "of the master wall ward" Aleviz Old undeniable: Aleviz New in 1499 was not yet in Russia, moreover, in under chronicle report this year reads that the master was from Milan. But valid doubts about these researchers in the authorship of Aleviz New churches, the construction of which began in 1514?

V. P. bigalow rightly believed that, as the same chronicle under the year 1508 reports that fortification work ("moat delatite stone and brick...") was entrusted with the Aleviz Fryazino, and the Archangel Cathedral and the Church of Christmasof the Ira andNPA the Baptist was built by Aleviz New, the chronicler was talking about different architects. Therefore, under Aleviz Fryazino meant Aleviz Old.

But this situation the researcher made a highly controversial conclusion that, although from 1508 to 1519 years Aleviz Old built to strengthen the Kremlin, in 1514 he also began the construction of eleven churches. Justification this conclusion was that the architect mentioned in the annals under the year 1514, was named Aleviz Fryazino – as well as in the reports of the activities of Aleviz Old under 1494 and 1499 years.

Actually in the position of V. P. Vygolova we see another "extreme" point of view, but with the opposite sign: one of the greatest architects of the era, capable of building and fortresses, palaces and temples (and in parallel and on an unprecedented scale), was Aleviz Old, and Aleviz New built in Russia during the four years, two temples and after 1508 disappeared.

В данном случае истина находится посередине между «экстремальными» точками зрения. Несомненно, исследователи всегда прекрасно понимали, что формулировка «Алевиз Фрязин» означает не более чем констатацию того факта, что оба Алевиза были итальянцами. И все же в указанном труде В.П. Выголова63 (возможно, незаметно для самого исследователя) произошло «перерождение» этой констатации в устойчивое прозвище одного мастера – Алевиза Старого. Но, конечно, Алевиз Новый был тоже Алевизом Фрязином, и оговорка «Новый» была сделана летописцем лишь для того, чтобы подчеркнуть, что итальянец Алевиз, строивший Архангельский собор, прибыл в Москву позже итальянца Алевиза, строившего укрепления на Неглинной.

Consequently, we do not rely on the naming of an architect Aleviz Fryazino in determining the author's temples, the construction of of which began in 1514.

Much more important message is seen chronicle 1494 that Aleviz was "the wizard wall and ward". The chronicler could hardly make it a fundamental clarification accidentally, and such specialization Aleviz Old puts everything in its place.

From 1494 to 1499 years Aleviz Oldcompleted to strengthen the Kremlin, which did not have time to complete Solari. In 1499-1508 years he built the Grand Palace and the walls of the Palace to the Borovitsky tower. In 1508-1519 years he worked on the walls, towers and moats of the Kremlin from the side of the Neglinnaya.

Hardly the architect, whose specialization according to the chronicle, and the above facts were "walls and chambers" could in parallel with these large-scale fortification works to build in the years 1514-1518 11 Moscow churches. Accordingly, as it is doubtful that in 1508-1513 years Aleviz Old could lead the construction of the Grand Palace-temple complex of Alexandrov Sloboda.

And Aleviz New from 1505 to 1508 years, built the Cathedral of the Archangel and the Church of St. John the Baptist. Logical to assume that the specificity of his work as "the Church Builder" and more remained a priority. Therefore, from 1508 to 1513, he was able to build temples and Palace in the village, and from 1514 – 11 churches in Moscow.

Temple construction it was supposed to be a specialization of the architect in Italy, otherwise he immediately on arrival not trust such crucial building, like Archangel Cathedral (in this regard, the identity of Aleviz The new and sculptor Alvise Lamberti di Montagnanavery unlikely). And the experience of building the Palace complexes Aleviz New could get in Bakhchisarai64.

Ability this architect's creativity in a wide range of architectural forms confirmed in XIX–XX centuries, so different to each other it buildings, as the Bakhchisaray Palace, the Archangel Cathedral, octagonal St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery and known for the lithographs AA Martynov and im Snegireva the Church of the Nativity of John The Baptist under the forest and of the Annunciation in the Old Vagankovo. Now, we may add here another four unique temple – protection, Trinity, assumption and Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrovskaya Sloboda.

6. Circumstances the construction of the first old Russian tent-roofed temple

In paragraph 7 of part 1 we showed that from invited foreign architects have always needed work in line with the already prevailing traditions of Russian architecture and General rules we do not know any exceptions. So Aloisio The New received from the Grand Prince Vasily III , the job to build temples in the "national" style – of course, to the extent of understanding and perception of this style well-known European architect.

Neither in Europe nor anywhere yet the world was not such buildings as built by Aleviz New ancient temples, therefore, the Italian architect was able to take only a sample architecture, surrounded him in Russia. Similarly, in his Aristotle Fioravanti took a sample of the assumption Cathedral in Vladimir, and Aleviz, in turn, took as a model for your Archangel Cathedral, the assumption Cathedral Fioravanti.

So, Aleviz New built their churches in Russia as they understand Russian architecture, and to apply the General volume-compositional and decorative solutions, which saw around him, – when thisis not abandoning their own creative search and the techniques of the Renaissance that were with him, as they say, "in the blood". Therefore, we may assume that erected Aleviz stone tent over the naos of the temple of the Trinity in The Alexandrov Kremlin was built under the impression of overall height and "straluceste" Russian churches, especially wooden tent.

In step 7 part 1 we said that a wooden Church due to their large number formed the overall appearance of the ancient temple architecture is no less (if not greater) extent than a few stone temples. In this case, the more true, as the construction of the first tent-Church was not in "white-stone" Moscow and the far the Grand-Ducal residences – the Alexander The settlement, then still called "New village Aleksandrovskiy".

"Divadelni" the motifs reflected in the architectural plastics of the first old Russian a steepled Church, which was noted by V. V. Kavelmaher: "On the appointment of Trinity Church to serve as the heart of a residential, wooden, intimate part of the Palace is also evidenced by its simplified, "prjamoslojnoj", "the wooden case" architecture, in particular, such forms as exaggerated polytsi tent, the cornice without architrave and frieze, no capitals at the blades, "chapel-the prirub" and gable portals"65.

Thus, we confirmed that in the early XVI century building in Russia stone tents began under the influence of many ancient wooden churches tent.

PART 3

BAN PATRIARCH NIKON FOR THE CONSTRUCTION TENT CHURCHES

1. Controversial issues ban Nikon

The fact the ban of the Patriarch Nikon for the construction tent churches in the mid 1650's. years seemed, until recently, well-known and not subject to doubt. First, it drew the attention of the researchers in the XIX century (as N. In. Pokrovskiy1, N. In. Sultans2). This fact was accepted, and M. A. Ilyin, whose position was also reflected in major publication "the History of Russian art" of the late 1950s – early 1960s years3. As justification for this fact, cited a number of hemoscanning letters, especially the following: "...To build temples according to the order of the correct and authorised statutes, how about this rule and Charter of the Church command, to build on a single, about three, about five chapters, and the hip of the Church is not to build..."4.

The reasons for this prohibition most of the researchers of the XIX – mid XX century considered "necrosociety" tent5. But consider any architectural form "uncanonical" only if you know the Canon, which one or the other form can match or not match. And if you know neither Canon nor any guidance referred to in hemoscanning charters "rules and bylaws of Church" (one of the researchers does not lead to such canons, rules, or statutes), and "necrosociety" as the reason for such a global ban on an entire branch of Russian architecture is seen doubtful.

At least questionable seen and the reason I wrote about M. A. Il'in, that "the Church saw in this architectural form expression of the secular, "worldly" principle, which all stronger made itself felt in the architecture to build churches... the Church in the face Patriarch Nikon decided to start a fight with the "secularization" of the architecture of the temples"6. It is unlikely, for example, forms of the architectural complex, built by the Patriarch in "his" new Jerusalem the monastery, can someone to seem less "worldly", i.e. less formal and more austerethan for example, the forms of the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye or Cover in Medvedkova.

In the treatise "To the question of the prohibition of the Patriarch Nikon for the construction tent churches"7 the author confirmed the prohibition of Nikon and identified its possible causes. But this book makes sense to revisit this issue and to build its decision in the context of our study, as the findings in parts 1 and 2 books, helps us to more accurately understand the causes of this prohibition. This is very important, as in connection with the vagueness of the reasons for the ban on the tent construction of the modern researchers doubt began to cause the fact of such a ban.

For the first time such doubts expressed, I. L. Buseva-Davydova, writing about "so-called" ban the Nikon and thought the ban if there was, it was "private", "selective" nature, that is, the Patriarch would not prohibit tents, but only to limit their number8.

The position of the I. L. Busaboy-Davydovasupported The Russian Orthodox Church9, for which uncancelled prohibition of Patriarch Nikon creates some canonical impediment in the construction of numerous modern tent churches.

D. F. poloznev wrote: "Patriarch Nikon had not issued any decree banning the tents. His blessed letters belonged to specific churches and were only ordered to arrange them or their chapels round the head... And loved the academic to the public quote ("on a single, about three, about five chapters, and tent of the Church is not to build" – S. Z.) is a late distorted a compilation of the original nekonomskoj letters... the architecture of the temples was determined by the traditions of the area, tastes, experience and preferences of the congregation and the instructions of the Archbishop"10.

In order, to understand, was a ban or not, is required to perform source data, which in this case are the facts themselves construction tent churches.

2. Basic (statistical) confirmation of the ban of Nikon

Imagine that no one kremastinou certificate, directly or indirectly talking about banning the Nikon tent churches, we do not have. If we can make a conclusion about such a ban, just by looking at the history of old Russian stone tent-roofed architecture?

Because most known to the General public masterpieces hip architecture (Church of the ascension, the intercession Cathedral on the Moat, Church of the Transfiguration in the Island, and after the resonant debate of the first Terem the Church and the Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda) was built in the XVI century, many believe that the heyday of hip architecture flourished in this century, and in during the XVII century, this architecture, as it itself on its own was going to the recession and the prohibition of Nikon if they had a place that, by and large, there was little edit. In order, to understand what really was different, we have to enumerate steepled churches, having at least an approximate date.

In the sixteenth century was built:

1. Trinity the Church in Alexandrov Sloboda (1510-ies);

2. Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532);

3. Assumption Cathedral of the Brusensky monastery in Kolomna (1552);

4. The Church of St. Nicholas Pokrovsky monastery in Balakhna (1552);

5. Pokrovsky Cathedral on the Moat (1554-1560);

6. The Cathedral of the Transfiguration of our Saviour vorotynsky monastery near Kaluga (1550-e);

7. Boris and Gleb Cathedral in Staritsa (1558-1561);

8. The Church of Cosmas and Damian in Murom (1564);

9. The Church of St. Nicholas "Dolgolet" in Ryazan (1566);

10. The Church of Martyr Nikita in the Elizarov (1566-1567);

11. Crucifixion Church "ilk under the bells" in Aleksandrovo (1570);

12. Vvedenskaya Church of the Dormition monastery in Staritsa (1570);

13. The Church of the beheading of the heads ofs IraNPA the Baptist in divoche pole (about 1570);

14. The Church of St. Nicholas (Gostinodvorskaya) in Kazan (about 1570);

15. Assumption Church of the Spaso-evfimievmonastery (1570-s);

16. The Annunciation Church of the Holy Trinity-Lyutikovamonastery (1570-s);

17. Resurrection Church in Gorodnya (until 1578);

18. The Church of Elijah the Prophet in Prussia (until 1578);

19. The Church of Metropolitan Peter in Pereslavl-Zalessky (1585);

20. Church of the Transfiguration in Spas-Tushino (1586-1587);

21. The Church of the Nativity in Conversations (about 1590);

22. Vvedenskaya Church of the Trinity monastery Boldin (1592);

23. Epiphany Church in Krasnoye-na-Volge (1592);

24. Church The Smolensk icon of the mother of God in Coraline (1594-1597);

25. The Church of St. George Vladychna monastery in Serpukhov (1598-1606);

26. The Church of Boris and Gleb in Borisov Town (at the turn of XVI–XVII centuries);

27. Church The Transfiguration in the Island (at the turn of XVI–XVII centuries11).

We have listed 27 temples. Since, for various reasons, this list is not exhaustive, it is we can assume that until the beginning of the XVII century tent churches were built about 30-35.

And with the late 1620-ies until the mid-1650s was built:

1. Assumption "Brave" the Church of the Alekseevsky monastery in Uglich (late 1620's or 1630-ies);

2. Cathedral Of St. Michael The Archangel in Nizhny Novgorod (1628-1631);

3. The Cathedral Of St. Alexis The Man Of God in Moscow Alekseevskoe the monastery (1631-1634);

4. Church Zosima and savvatiy of Solovki in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra (1635-1638);

5. The Church of the Intercession in Medvedkovo the (1635-1640);

6. Church TRech Saints "ilk under the bells" St. Anthony Siyskymonastery (1639-1661);

7. The Church of Martinian of Belozersk in the Ferapontov monastery (1640-1641);

8. Church of the Descent of the Holy spirit in Ryazan (1642);

9. Church of the Annunciation St. Anthony Siyskymonastery (1642-1643);

10. Trinity Church in the Trinity-the Golenischev (1644-1646);

11. Church of the assumption in Veshnyaki (1644-1646);

12. Church of the assumption of the Nizhny Novgorod caves monastery (1640s);

13. The Church Of Euphemia Of Suzdal Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk monastery (1640s);

14. The Church of St. Nicholas in Boots (late 1640s);

15. Church of the exaltation of the virgin in Tula (late 1640s);

16. Kazan Church of the Holy Trinity monastery in Murom (1648-1652);

17. Church of the Resurrection in Gonchar (1649);

18. Holy Gates, with churches of Epiphany and Ferapont Belozersky in Ferapontov monastery (1649);

19. The Church of Nativity in Putinki (1649-1652);

20. Entry into Jerusalem Cathedral of St. John the Baptist monastery in Kazan (early 1650s);

21. Vvedenskaya Church vorotynsky monastery (early 1650s);

22. Trinity Church of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery (the beginning 1650s);

23. Assumption Church of the Annunciation monastery in Nizhny Novgorod (early 1650s);

24. Smolensk Church in St. John the Baptist monastery in Vyazma (about 1652);

25. The Church Of St. Sergius Library of Nikolo-Volosovsky monastery (about 1652);

26. The Church of Euphemia of Suzdal of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery (1653);

27. Church Of Our Saviour Transfiguration "ilk under the bells" Annunciation monastery in Kirzhach (before 1656).

We see the same churches (27, and since this list is not exhaustive, it is roughly 30-35), but built in a much shorter time timespan is less than 30 years. And in the last decade – from the mid The 1640s to the mid 1650s- was built about two-thirds of these temples.

After the mid 1650's. years over twenty years steepled churches almost not built. Then they began to appear again, but much less frequently. Mid 1670-ies to the end of the seventeenth century was built only 5 of these temples:

1. The Church of the Vladimir Icon of the mother of God on Bozhedomka in Yaroslavl (to 1678);

2. Trinity Church in Alexandrova desert (before 1678);

3. The Nikolskaya Church in the Petrovsky-Lytkarino (1681-1690);

4. Znamenskaya Church in Ennine (to 1690);

5. The Church of Elijah the Prophet "ilk under the bells" in Teykovo (1694-1699).

Sometimes tents were erected above the aisles (as in the Church of St. Nicholas Wet 1665-1672 years in Yaroslavl), but these tents can be attributed to the tent architecture with only probation.

Unique tent over chapel of the Holy Sepulchre, founded by Nikon in 1656 new Jerusalem monastery, built after the death of Nikon – earlier start of the 1680-ies, is not a phenomenon of the hip architecture as it was blocked by the bulk of the temple. In addition, in this case, the construction of the tent was dictated by the task "creative copying" of the Jerusalem model.

So we see that in the period from the mid 1640s to the mid 1650s tent architecture experienced genuine its heyday (as many tent churches not it was built in any previous decade), and suddenly within a year or two actually stopped all over the country. The sporadic resumption tent construction twenty years later, already belongs to another era.

And these purely statistical facts are the direct and fundamental proof that in the middle of the 1650-ies had place a ban on the construction tent churches, as such a sharp termination of play so important for ancient architecture XVI–XVII centuries of architectural form, like a tent over the naos, may not be explained by any other factors – no change "architectural fashion", no technical, financial or personnel problems.

And as such, the construction stopped not in any region and throughout the country, and the ban could only come "from the top", t.e from the Patriarch Nikon. It could be expressed in the form not the official decree and the oral instructions or even repetitive failure to bless the construction of a steepled Church, but actually it does not change.

4. Additional evidence of the Patriarchal ban

Give some additional evidence of the ban of the Patriarch Nikon for the construction tent churches.

Proof first. You must remember the already mentioned ramosmania certificates with ban to build a tent temples. Them to our times has reached a large number (only in collections documents on the history of the Vyatka diocese of the prohibition to build tent veRKH vstrechesa in hemoscanning charters 1655-1703 years at least 20 times12). D. F. poloznev denied that the prohibition of Nikon on the basis of the fact that, firstly, in the period issued and certificates without restrictions on tents, and secondly, many of the letters with the bans date back to just three core samples13. But we remember that ramosmania the certificates are not principal, and further evidence patriarshego ban (basic – termination of hip construction), and even one "prohibitive" letters would be enough to confirm the ban. And for such instruments, there are dozens. In conditions of a rigid hierarchical structure The Russian Orthodox Church without Patriarch's blessing so clearly and clearly expressed prohibitions on the construction of the tent in so many hemoscanning the letters to appear could not.

The proof of the second. The monitoring of PN. Maximov, from the mid-seventeenth century in Central Russia wooden tent-roofed Church was replaced longline and churches "the stone thing" (ie, the same form being repeated stone churches, usually cubic with one or five domes in a pyramidal the roof), and only in the Russian North wooden tent-roofed Church still built in large quantity14. And since wood is much easier to build a tent than the dome or the head of complex shape (for the frame tent is enough to reduce at the top a few logs, and for frames other forms of completions of the temples required curved or patterned pieces of wood), the refusal wooden tents brand unjustified from a construction point of view and can be explained only any "nastroyeniye" prohibitions.

The proof of the third. When in 1655 year it was decided to build two chapels have built in 1646 tent Church Of the assumption in Veshnyaki, the Nikon in kremastinou literacy is commanded to "...of the head b on the altars were round, not peaked"15. This is another confirmation of the fact that the ratio of the Patriarch to the tent architecture between 1646 and 1655 years radically changed.

Proof of the fourth. When in the middle of the 1650-ies the construction of tents it is necessary a pump so dramatically stopped, steepled bell tower (not temples "ilk under the bells", namely the bell tower without its own initiations) how to build and continued to be built, and in large quantities. Therefore, it was not the technological complexity of the erection of tents or unwillingness churchwardens and architects to build tents as such (in the Suzdal diocese in the eighteenth century above the bell towers there were even tents gourmet "Udachnoe" form), namely in ban tents on the pump.

Proof fifth. G. V. Alferov, analyzing documents pertaining to construction activities Patriarch Nikon, showed that his instructions to the masters were as detailed that it can rightly be regarded as the architect of at least three he built monasteries: the Voskresensky new Jerusalem, Iveron Valdai and The Cross Kiya16. And since Nikon so carefully and professional attitude to architecture, such a meaningful and global ban on steepled churches, in fact, has torn off a whole branch of ancient architecture, could not be adopted than the Patriarch.

The proof of the sixth. Large-scale reform efforts Nikon began in 1653-1654, and that followed about a year later the ban on the construction of the tent completely fit into its framework.

Note that the ban of the head The Russian Orthodox Church on a particular architectural form in the middle 1650 years was not unprecedented. For example, in the early fourteenth century had the Church place a ban on Romano-Gothic zooantropomorfnogo (i.e., images of people and animals) sculpture the decoration of churches17. In paragraph 7 of Chapter 1 we saw that at the dawn of the stone ancient architecture has taken place and the Church's prohibition on "Nikopolidis" temples ie required a mandatory device in the stone Orthodox churches of the dome18.

The analogy other Church prohibitions allows us to understand why the construction of the tent temples after the mid-1650s years, still revived, though twenty years later, and in small quantities. Not fully executed, and then ignored other prohibitions – for example, as we saw in Chapter 1, in the beginning of XVI century architects and the founders got around the ban on "Nikopolidis" temples, starting to erect the tents, which were typological analogues of the domes. Ban on zooantropomorfny the sculptural decoration is also constantly broken, and, perhaps, the most global violation was the heyday of the Russian Baroque of the temple sculptures in The eighteenth century – despite the fact that the Big Moscow Cathedral 1666 decided that temples carved can only be crucifixion20, and in 1722 the Synod banned "to have the icons in churches or carved istesanny, sdavlenie, sculptured". And in 1832 was accepted but has not started commonly performed a complete ban of the Synod on the temple sculpture21.

And given the fact that Nikon in 1666 was deprived of the Patriarchal dignity, and sent to link, occasional violations of its ban on tent construction in the 1670s years absolutely natural. Logical continuation of construction of wooden tents in the Russian North, where, as they say, "to God highly, to the Tsar far" and tent, as we said, much easier to build than a dome.

5. Possible causes prohibition of Patriarch Nikon

Formal the reason for the ban was probably "necrosociety" tent, which was mentioned by almost all researchers as it was it is a natural justification of any Patriarchal prohibition. But what could be this "necrosociety", one of the researchers did not elaborate, and this is not surprising: as showed and I. L. Buseva-Davydov22, and the author of this book23, no Church canons, regulations and statutes relating to architectural features temples, ancient stone temple architecture of the not existed, and the words hemoscanning certificates that is required "to build temples in the order of correct and statutory provisions, how about this rule and Charter of the Church command" was not more than a formality. Besides the ban, coming from the Patriarch Nikon, in conditions created of rigid centralization of the Russian Orthodox Church (suffice it to recall one of the titles Nikon – "the Great Lord and Emperor") in the times itself could be equated to the Constitution and to rule.

We believe that "necrosociety" tent was the following: since, as we said in paragraph 7 of part 1, the dome in the ancient temple stone architecture was a compulsory element, which began in the XVI century universal replacement dome tent, although the formal ban on "mekupelet" not broken, could not cause displeasure of the Church hierarchy. Therefore, if you want any one of them could the tent ban, which in the end all did the Nikon.

And why such desire arose from Nikon, the options.

Option first: on the part of the Patriarch took place a kind of "monopoly" on the marquee, so as the Nikon, yet forbidding others to build tents, he decided to build tent-roofed rotunda in the New Jerusalem. (Formally, as we have said, this rotunda did not violate the ban because they do not have their own Church of initiation).

Option second: the Patriarch is obliged to take care of the material side of the Church life, considered hip architecture is too costly, technologically complex and inefficient from the point of view of the capacity of the temples.

Option third: the tents were not satisfied with Nikon for purely personal (e.g., aesthetic) reasons. After all, the Patriarch was a native of Novgorod, where the hip architecture was not extended, and tents could be his unusual and alien.

Note that in the second half of XVII century, the search for new forms of completions of the temples instead of the tent – forbidden – continued. And as from the beginning of the XVI century tent has become frequent replacement of the dome, and the mid-seventeenth century after the Patriarch's prohibition of the dome, in the new conditions, became the widespread replacement of the tent. Tent (respectively, and substituting it with the dome) on big and tall octagonal drum created a sense of elevation and solemnity, and the most optimal form of the main volume from the point of view the spaciousness and simplicity of construction were the quadrangle. The resulting in the end, the form "octagon on square" as we have noted in paragraph 7, Chapter 1, new one of the most mass in the Russian architecture of the end XVII – XVIII century.

CONCLUSION

Brief summary our study.

In the first part of the book was formulated General principles determine the origin of architectural forms. It was determined that such issues should only be addressed comprehensively, as these forms could be derived and talent of the architects, and artistic taste customers, and progress of construction equipment, and change of aesthetic preferences of society, ideological objectives, and borrowings from other countries, cultures and styles, and many others, up to purely utilitarian purposes. A certain role here could play financial and human resources, and constructive and other restrictions which had non-standard solutions.

Based on the analysis of new architectural and archaeological data and chronicle of information was systematically and comprehensively, the origin of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture.

Has been shown low the probability of a direct origin of the old Russian tent-roofed architecture from the Western Gothic, because Gothic architecture is not typical towering, tent-like ceiling and a relatively small the area of the main volume of the internal space of the temples. Also shown the failure of theories of the origin of ancient Russian tent-roofed architecture from Romanesque and Oriental architecture.

In the previous studies of stone tent-roofed architecture, the author of this book cited a number of provisions, which had its origin from the ancient of wooden architecture. In this work, they have been expanded and structured.

Showing a wide distribution, canonical and structural conditionality tent in the wood architecture earlier than the beginning of the XVI century, the author proves that the tent architecture did not come from any Gothic, Romanesque, Oriental and any other foreign origins, but mainly from the wooden tent-roofed architecture. Studied and the influence of ancient stone pillar domed churches, which, though few in number, but were built on during the entire previous history of Russian architecture.

It has been hypothesized regarding the origin not only of stone, but wooden tent architecture of Ancient Russia: a wooden tent was a "simplified form" is canonically determined and is mandatory in the stone Orthodox Church the architecture of the dome throughout the history of ancient architecture, starting with X century.

The main conclusion of the first part of the book is belowthe following: ancient stone hip architecture became a logical continuation of its predecessor domestic architectural traditions. And this tradition included and tent wooden architecture and stone domed churches, and a wide range of relationships with the global architecture.

The second part was summarized architectural, archaeological and chronicle evidence in favor of Dating hipped Trinity (now Pokrovskaya) Church in Alexandrov Sloboda 1510-ies provided evidence of the involvement of her the construction obtained during field studies. Confirmed that this Church was the first ancient stone Church marquee, and that her the architect was Aleviz New.Reconstructed the specific circumstances of the construction of this Church.

The third part of the book was devoted to the study of one of the episodes of the history of chemostate – banning, imposed by Patriarch Nikon in the construction tent churches, playing the most important role in the semiotic structure and the aesthetic design of the space Russian towns and monasteries.

In recent years, a number researchers questioned the fact of the ban of the Patriarch Nikon in construction tent churches in the middle of the 1650-ies. After analyzing all the arguments "for" and "against", the author showed that such a ban had taken place, and his main reason was dissatisfaction with the Church hierarchy a tent as a replacement the dome, which is obligatory in old Russian stone Church architecture.

Statistics were presented the construction of temples with a marquee completion: 1513 at the beginning of the XVII century was built about 30-35 of these churches; about the same number – in end 1620s to the mid 1650's. Since that time, the tent construction was stopped for several decades because of the ban of the Patriarch Nikon.

NOTES

Notes to Join

1. Zagraevsky S. V. Typological formation and the basic classification of the old Russian Church architecture. Saarbrücken, 2015.

2. For example, cm.: Kavelmaher V. V. Ago to Vygolova, or again about the Dating of the Church of the Trinity on The Prince's court Alexandrova Sloboda. Book review Batalov A. L. "Moscow stone architecture of the end of the XVI century". Manuscript. 1997. The electronic version is on the web-site www.kawelmacher.ru.

3. Zagraevsky S. V. ancient Origin of hip architecture: return to the problem // Journal of Tomsk state pedagogical University "ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Issues of visual semiotics". No. 2, 2018. Pp. 32-61; Zagraevsky S. V. First stone tent-roofed Church and the ancient origin of hip architecture/ Architect. The city. Time. The proceedings of the annual international scientific-practical conference (Great Novgorod – Saint Petersburg). Vol. XI. SPb, 2009. P. 18-35; Zagraevsky SV New the study of architectural monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda. M., 2008; Zagraevsky S. V. To the question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda // Zubovsky reading. SB. articles. Vol. 3. Strunino, 2005. C. 69-96; Zagraevsky S. V. To the question on the prohibition of the Patriarch Nikon for the construction tent churches Journal of Tomsk state pedagogical University "ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Issues of visual semiotics". No. 3 (13), 2017.

4. Zagraevsky S. V. Typological formation and the underlying classification...

Notes to h. 1

1. For example, failing to "embrace the boundless" in search of the origins and prototypes of the sculptural decoration of the Vladimir-Suzdal pre-Mongol white stone temples, see: Zagraevsky S. V. About the scientific prospects of search of the origins and prototypes of the white-stone sculptural decoration of the pre-Mongol temples of North-Eastern Russia // proceedings of the XIX international regional conference (April 26 2014.). Vladimir, 2015. P. 330-345.

2. This the topic is appropriate to recall the lines of A. A. Akhmatova: "if only you knew from what rubbish growing poems without shame..."

3. Monitoring M. A. Ilyin (M. A. Il'in, Russkoe shatrovoe architecture. The monuments of the middle XVI century. Problems and hypotheses, ideas and images. M., 1980. P. 36), in the future, the tents of the patriarchs became the symbol of the home, i.e. "canopy", and the same value in the words of the prophet Isaiah received the sky:"It (God – Sz) stretched out the heavens like thin cloth and spread them like a tent to housing" (IP. 40:22).

4. Read more cm.: Ilyin M. A., Maksimov P. N., Kostochkina V. Stone architecture the epoch of blossoming of Moscow // History of Russian art. T. 3. M., 1955. 414; M. A. Il'in, Russkoe shatrovoe Zodchestvo. The monuments of the middle XVI century. Problems and hypotheses, ideas and images. M., 1980. P. 14;

5. Wagner G. K. Of originality of style formation in the architecture of Ancient Russia (return to the problem) // the Architectural legacy. Vol. 38. M., 1995. P.27.

6. Batalov A. L., Belyaev L. A. Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye: architecture, archaeology, history. M., 2013. S. 113.

7. Read more see: Ilyin M. A., Maksimov P. N., Kostochkina V. V. Decree. withPTS. 414; Maksimov, P. N. Voronin N. N. Wooden the architecture of XIII–XVI centuries // History of Russian art. M., 1955. Vol. 3. S. 268; Il'in M. A. The Decree. withPTS. P. 15;

8. Rappoport P. A. Ancient architecture. SPb., 1993. C. 171; General history of architecture. T. 6. M., 1968. P. 84;

9. Cm. note. 2 to Join.

10. Read more see: Ilyin, M. A. the Decree. withPTS. C. 16.

11. Denice B. P. The Art East. Essay on the history of Muslim art. M., 1923; Denice B. P. The Art Of Central Asia. M., 1927; Hudyakov M. G. essays on the history of the Kazan khanate. Kazan, 1923.

12. Read more see: Ilyin, M. A. the Decree. withPTS. C. 16.

13. Read more see: Wagner, G. K. the Decree. withPTS. P.27.

14. Kavelmaher V. V. Letter to T. P. Timofeeva M., 1988. The letter is kept in the Museum "Alexandrovskaya settlement." Here is the full text of the paragraph devoted to the subject: "As for the tent, it is nothing. The accidental architecture. He only replaces dome, overlapping SPLA. From the former Byzantine provinces, the developed typological grid, in my opinion, the Bulgarians, and their language we understand. The dome is not based on the pillars and foundations. That's all. You need to avoid poles with reels and lights, nothing Basilica, and you get the "dome" Church. To the Russian ear it says nothing, well, normal bizantology nothing says our "pillar" Church. It is impossible to identify the object by a missing tag... uhthe an example best shows that we got stuck on Copiah and viewed domed churches".

15. Batalov A. L., On the origin of the tent in the Russian stone architecture of the XVI century // Russian art: Idea and image. The experience of studying Byzantine and old Russian art. M., 2009. Pp. 55-74; Batalov A. L. once again about the origin of the tent in Russian architecture // Lazarevskoe reading. The Art Of Byzantium, Ancient Rus, Western Europe. Materials of scientific conference. M., 2009. P. 158-196; Batalov A. L., Belyaev L. A., the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye: architecture, archaeology, history. M., 2013.

16. Read more cm.: Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda (collection of articles). Vladimir, 1995; Kavelmaher V. V. Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda (collection of scientific papers). M., 2008.

17. Zagraevsky SV New study of monuments Alexander settlement...; Zagraevsky S. V. Pirst steepled Church...; Zagraevsky S. V. To the question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments Alexander settlement...; Zagraevsky S. V. Trinity, now Pokrovskaya Church in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda, the first stone tent-roofed Church of Ancient Russia. New research. Electronic publishing: scientific electronic library "Rusarh". M., 2014.

18. Gornostaev, F. F. Steepled churches // History of Russian art. T. II. Architecture. SPb, b. G. S. 57.

19. Krasovsky, M. V. essay on the history of the Moscow period of Russian Church architecture (from the base to the end of the first quarter of XVIII in.). M., 1911. S. 144-146.

20. Read more cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture. M., 2002. P. 49.

21. Read more cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Architecture of North-Eastern Russia the end XIII – the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003.

22. Read more cm.: Zagraevsky SV Form of domes (domes) of ancient temples. M., 2008.

23. Read more see: KavelmaherV. V., Panov T. D. Remains of the white stone Church of the XIV in. on the Cathedral square of the Moscow Kremlin // Culture medieval Moscow XIV–XVII centuries M, 1995. P. 66; Il'in M. A. The Decree. withPTS.

24. Wagner G. K. The Decree. withPTS. P.25.

25. Read more cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Architecture Of North-Eastern Russia...

26. Read more cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Architectural history of the Church Trifon Naprudnomand the origin of the groin arch. M., 2008.

27. Pod'yapol'skii S. S. To the question of the peculiarity of architecture of the Moscow Uspenie Cathedral // the Cathedral of the assumption The Moscow Kremlin. Materials and research. M., 1985. P. 42.

28. Read more cm.: Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda...; Kavelmaher V. V. Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda...; Pod'yapol'skiiS. S. Architect Petrok Small...

29. Batalov A. L., On the origin of the tent...; Batalov A. L. once again about the origin of the tent...; Batalov, A. L., Belyaev L. A. Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye...

30. Zagraevsky SV New study of monuments Alexander settlement...; Zagraevsky S. V. Pirst steepled Church...; Zagraevsky S. V. To the question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda... unfortunately A. Batalov in his writings (see previous note) is not found familiarity with our research the origin of hip architecture. In connection with this can only recall the words of Benedict Spinoza: "Ignorantia non est argumentum".

31. The Internet site www.artandarchitecture.org.uk.

32. The illustration given by A. L. Batalov (Batalov A. L., On the origin of the tent... p.64).

33. A. L. Batalov The origin of the tent... p. 64.

34. Cm. note. 2 to Join.

35. Maximov P. N. Voronin N. N. Decree. withPTS. P. 264.

36. Ibid. P. 264-268.

37. Ibid. P. 264-268.

38. PSRL 15:183.

39. Maximov P. N. Voronin N. N. Decree. withPTS. P. 266.

40. Voronin N. N., Lazarev V. N. The art of the Central Russian principalities XIII–XV centuries // History of Russian art. M., 1955. Vol. 3. P.21.

41. Maximov P. N. Voronin N. N. Decree. withPTS. P. 271.

42. Utkin N. N. Church of antiquity Anskogo Posad. In proc.: The ecology of culture 1998. No. 1(4). New discoveries and restoration of monuments of the Russian North. Abstracts the conference April 8-9, 1998. Arkhangelsk, 1998.

43. Khodakovsky , E. V. Temple ensemble une , and current issues in the study wooden architecture of the white sea // problems of theory and history of art. SB. scientific articles. Vol. 7. SPb, 2017. P. 453-458.

44. Dezhurko A. K. Forum The Internet site www.archi.EN. 2005.

45. Universal the history of architecture. T. 4. M., 1966. S. 655.

46. Tver the chronicle reports: "In the summer of 6557. March 4,the day soboty, the burned out individual the Church of Saint Sophia in Novegorode; byashe honestly arranged and embellished, 13 of the upper haves, and it was the end of Episcople the street over the Volkhov, idezhe now due Stakmo of the stone Church of the Holy Boris and Gleb". (Rogozhsky chronicler.Tver collection / Complete collection of Russian Chronicles. T. 15. M., 2000. P. 150). The chronicle of Avraami: "In the summer 6506. In Novegorode the Lord Mayor uradi yourself the convent of the tithe, and the Holy Sovey founded Dubov end of Piscopo street, on the Volkhov, and make Yu about dvenadcati Versuch". (Chronicle collection called annals of Avraami / Complete collection the Russian Chronicles. T. 16. М., 2000. P. 40).

47. Detailed the rationale of the obligation of the dome in the stone Church architecture of the cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Typological the formation and the basic classification of... Section 3.

48. George Jeffery. A brief description of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, and other Christian churches in the Holy City, with some account of the mediaeval copies of the Holy Sepulchre surviving in Europe. Cambridge, 1919.

49. Amico da Gallipoli, Bernardino. Trattato delle Piante e Immagini de Sacre Edifizi di Terra Santa. Firenze, Pietro Cecconcelli, 1620.

50. Tikhomirov M. N. Little-known chronicle monuments of the XVI century // Historical notes. 1941. KN. 10. P. 88.

51. Batalov A. L., On the origin of the tent... Pp. 57-58.

52. Ibid.

53. Voronin N. N. Architecture of Kievan Russia // History of Russian art. M., 1953. Vol. 1. P. 132.

54. Mokeev G. Y. Three Sofia. About the beginning of the distribution in Russia of the temple of mnogogolovy. The article is on the website http://www.orthedu.ru/ch_hist/hi_rpz/125104ru.htm.

55. Forum The Internet site www.sobory.EN (http://sobory.ru/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6303&start=150).

56. Read more cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Yuri Dolgoruky...

57. Kavelmaher V. V., Panov T. D. Decree. withPTS.

58. Read more cm.: Read more cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Architecture of North-Eastern Russia the end of XIII – the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003.

59. Read more cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Zagraevsky S. V. Architectural history of the Church Trifon Naprudnomand the origin of the groin arch. M., 2008.

60. Read more cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Typological formation and the basic classification...

61. Zagraevsky S. V. Typological the formation and the basic classification of... Section 3.

62. Kavelmaher V. V. Letter to Timofeeva T.P...

63. Detail on this form, cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Typological formation and the basic classification...

64. Detail cm. ibid.

Notes to h. 2

1. PSRL 8:280; PSRL 13:65; PSRL 20:413.

2. Pod'yapol'skii S. S. Architect Petrok Small // Monuments of Russian architecture and monumental art. Style attribution, Dating. M., 1983. P. 34-50.

3. Ibid. P. 42.

4. Ibid. S. 35.

5. Ibid. P. 46.

6. Detail cm.: Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments architecture of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda. A collection of articles. Vladimir, 1995; Kavelmaher V. V. Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda. Collection scientific papers. M., 2008.

7. On original view of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei in detail cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. To a question about the reconstruction of the Church Of Metropolitan Alexei 1510-ies in the Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. M., 2007. Material is on the website www.rusarch.ru.

8. PRS RSL. F. 304. Ed. XP. 647. L. 4,4 vol.

9. Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda... Pp. 7, 17, 24-29; Kavelmaher V. V. Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda... P. 26, 32, 59-64.

10. Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda... Pp. 8-11; KavelmaherV. V. Of Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda.... Pp. 26-30.

11. Pod'yapol'skii S. S. On the Dating sites Alexandrova Settlements // Proceedings of the Central Museum of ancient Russian culture and art named after Andrei Rublev. Artistic culture of Moscow and Moscow region XIV–beginning of XX centuries. A collection of articles. T. 2. M., 2002. P. 163, 165, 176, 180.

12. Pod'yapol'skii S. S. On the Dating sites Alexandrova Settlement... Pp. 163-180; Batalov A. L. Moscow stone architecture of the end of the XVI century. M., 1996; Batalov A. L. the Monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda in the context of development of Russian architecture XVI century // Zubovsky reading. Vol. 3. Strunino, 2005. S. 30-37.

13. Zagraevsky S. V. To a question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda // Zubovsky reading. SB. articles. Vol. 3. Strunino, 2005. C. 69-96; Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments architecture of Alexandrov Sloboda.M., 2008.

14. Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda... P. 8; KavelmaherV. V. Of Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda.... P. 26.

15. Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda... P. 37; KavelmaherV. V. Of Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda.... P. 68.

16. Detail cm. ibid.

17. For example, in the presentation edition of "Alexandrovsky Kremlin. The 500th anniversary of the Alexander Of the Kremlin. 1513-2013" (Vladimir, 2013) at p. 19 they say: "the Most probable version of the reconstruction of the monument of the XVI century in 70-ies, when Ivan IV was given more brilliance and grandeur of the Settlement and when painted temple."

18. Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda // Information courier Moscow organization of the Union architects of the Russian Federation. 1991. No. 7. C. 18.

19. Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda... P.24.

20. Pod'yapol'skii S. S. On the Dating sites Alexandrova Sloboda... P. 232.

21. For example, cm. http://www.tk-k.ru/content/3.

22. Pod'yapol'skii S. S. On the Dating sites Alexandrova Sloboda... P.162.

23. Ibid. P. 180.

24. Detail cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. To a question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments Alexander settlement...; Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments The Alexander Settlement...

25. Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda... Pp. 43, 70.

26. Ibid. P. 70.

27. Maximov P. N. The Cathedral of the Spaso-Andronikov monastery in Moscow // Architectural monuments of Moscow XV–XVII centuries. New research. M., 1947. C. 23.

28. Voronin N. N. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII–XV CC. T 1. M., 1961. P. 207.

29. Ibid. P.246.

30. Belyaev L. A. Ancient monasteries of Moscow (con. XIII – the beginning. XV centuries), according to archeology. M., 1994. P.160.

31. Kavelmaher V. V., Panov T. D. Remnants of the white stone Church XIV in. on the Cathedral square of the Moscow Kremlin // The culture of medieval Moscow XIV–XVII centuries M, 1995. P. 66.

32. Ioannisyan O. M., Torshin E. N. Zykov P. L. the Church of Boris and Gleb in Rostov the Great // Russian art. Rus. Byzantium. The Balkans. The XIII century. SPb, 1997. P. 232.

33. Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-reserve. M., 2008.

34. Zagraevsky SV New study of monuments Alexander settlement...

35. Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda. A collection of articles. Vladimir, 1995. C. 6, 72, 75.

36. PSRL 6:247; 13:10.

37. PSRL 6:254.

38. Pod'yapol'skii S. S. On the Dating sites Alexandrova Sloboda... P. 44.

39. Pod'yapol'skii S. S. On the Dating sites Alexandrova settlements // Proceedings of the Central Museum of ancient Russian culture and art named after Andrei Rublev. Artistic culture of Moscow and Moscow region XIV–beginning of XX centuries. A collection of articles. T. 2. M., 2002. P. 173.

40. Kavelmaher V. V. Decree. withPTS., p. 42, 44, 70.

41. Rappoport P. A. Construction production of Ancient Rus. SPb, 1994. P. 131. In detail the failure of this theory the author showed in the book.: Zagraevsky S. V. Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture... P. 36-40.

42. For example, it is known that the architectural work Alberti (1404-1472) was limited primarily to the preparation of drawings and models, which further work contractors. Another example: Aristotle Fioravanti during the construction of the assumption Cathedral (1475-1479) in 1477-1478 the years went by Ivan III on Novgorod.

43. About in Ancient Rus ' builders working on projects, detail, cm.: Zagraevsky S. V. Some issues of the organization ancient construction // Materials of inter-regional studies the conference (28 April Two thousand eleven.). Vladimir, 2012. P. 292-302.

44. Zagraevsky S. V. Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture... P. 36-40.

45. All other alevizou temples in the village not so original: pillar-shaped Church-bell had been known in Russia as a minimum, with 1329 (John Climacusin The Moscow Kremlin – see: Kavelmaher V. V., Panov Etc. Remnants of the white stone Church of the XIV in the... p. 66), Church of the assumption is conventional cross Church, and St. Basil's Cathedral – the actual a remake of the Trinity in the Trinity-Sergius Laura. However, these three churches could not be considered "minor": they all belong to the work of the great Italian architect and together with the Trinity Church constitute a single complex.

46. PSRL 12:238.

47. Read more cm.: Pod'yapol'skiiS. S. Italian construction craftsmen in Russia in the late XV – early XVI century, according to written sources. The experience of compiling the dictionary // the Restoration and architectural archeology. New materials and research. M., 1991. P. 232-233.

48. Bigalow V. P. To the question about the buildings and personality Aleviz Fryazino // Ancient art. Research and attribution. SPb, 1997. P.240.

49. PSRL 12:249.

50. PSRL 6:247.

51. PSRL 12:258.

52. Monuments diplomatic relations of ancient Russia with foreign powers. SPb, 1884. T. 1, p. 56.

53. Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 551-552.

54. PSRL 13:10.

55. Read more cm.: Pod'yapol'skiiS. S. Italian construction craftsmen in Russia... p. 224.

56. PSRL 13:8.

57. PSRL 30:140-144.

58. PSRL 8:254-255.

59. Ilyin M. A., Maksimov P. N., Kostochkina Century In Stone.. the architecture of the epoch of blossoming of Moscow // History of Russian art. T. 3. M., 1955. S. 310.

60. Ibid. P. 328-330.

61. Pod'yapol'skii S. S. Italian construction foreman in Russia... Pp. 187-189.

62. Bigalow V. P. The Decree. withPTS. P. 240-242.

63. Ibid. S. 242.

64. In this regard, we cannot exclude the authorship (at least co-authorship) Aleviz New and for a number of buildings of the Grand Kremlin Palace: refined "dago harmony" thread, characteristic of the works of the architect (Bakhchisaray Palace, the Kremlin Cathedral of the Archangel, the first temple of Alexandrov Sloboda) is present on the portals and the Annunciation Cathedral (galleries which was actually part of the Palace), and the faceted chamber. And differences in the decoration of the southern and Northern facades Arkhangelsk the Cathedral suggests that the temple was actually part of the Palace complex (Kavelmaher V. V. On the aisles of the Cathedral // Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. M., 2002. C. 154.).

65. Kavelmaher V. V. Monuments architecture of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda... p. 29.

Notes to h. 3

1. Pokrovsky N. In. Ancient Kostroma Ipatiev monastery // journal of archaeology and history, published by the Archaeological Institute. SPb., 1885. Vol. 4. S. 33.

2. Sultans N. In. Russian tent-roofed churches and their attitude to the Georgian-Armenian pyramidal the coatings of the Architect. SPb., 1887. No. 9-10. S. 67.

3. Ilin, M. A. The stone architecture of the third quarter of the XVII century // History of Russian art. T. 4. M., 1959. P.162.

4. CIT. in the book: Ilyin M. A. ibid.

5. Ilin, M. A. Ibid.

6. Ilin, M. A. Moscow. M., 1970.

7. Zagraevsky S. V. To a question about the ban of the Patriarch Nikon for the construction tent churches // Journal of Tomsk state pedagogical University "ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. Issues of visual semiotics". No. 3 (13), 2017.

8. Buseva-Davydova I. L. On so ban called tent churches by Patriarch Nikon] / / Trudy GIM. 2004. Vol. 139. P. 317-323.

9. Cm., for example, the official the publication of the Russian Orthodox Church "Patriarch Nikon – the architect of Holy Russia" (M., 2011).

10. Poloznev D. F. Patriarch Nikon tent churches are not prohibited, or again about the benefits of treatment to the sources // The history and culture of Rostov land. The materials of the conference Two thousand seven. Rostov, 2008. C. 6-27. Note that it is hardly ethical to give the articles such "edifying" the name, as there is no doubt that the sources refer not only useful but necessary, and it whether any of the researchers makes sense to be reminded of, especially in the title of scientific work.

11. Kavelmaher V. V. Cthe Church of the Transfiguration in the Island. M., 2009.

12. Poloznev D. F. The Decree. withPTS.

13. Ibid.

14. Maximov P. N. Wooden architecture of the XVII century // History of Russian art. T. 4. M, 1959. S. 102.

15. CIT. in the book: M. A. Il'in, Moscow. M., 1970.

16. Alferov G. V. on the construction activities of Patriarch Nikon // Architectural inheritance. No. 18. M., 1969. P. 30-44.

17. Zagraevsky S. V. Yuri Dolgoruky and ancient Russian white stone architecture. M., 2001. GL. 6.

18. Zagraevsky S. V. Typological formation and the basic classification of the old Russian Church architecture. Saarbrücken, 2015. GL. 3.

19. Zagraevsky S. V. Decree. withPTS. GL. 8.

20. Acts The Moscow councils 1666-1667, M, 1893. GL. 43.

21. Decrees The Holy governing Synod from 1721 to 1878 // Guide for the Orthodox clergy. M., 1878.

22. Buseva-Davydova I. L. Symbols architecture on ancient written sources of XI–XVII centuries // Hermeneutics old Russian literature of the XVI – nach. XVIII V. M., 1989.

23. ZagraevskyS. V. Methodological problems in the study of the Canon, symbols and proportions in the Orthodox the temple architecture. Electronic publishing: scientific electronic library "Rusarh", 2016.

© Sergey Zagraevsky

To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page