Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky. The first stone hipped roof temple and the origin of hipped roof architecture

Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky

The first stone hipped roof temple and the origin of hipped roof architecture

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.

1.

Until recently, the first ancient Russian stone temple was considered a marquee Church of the Ascension in Kolomna (Fig. 1), which has indisputable chronicle the date of completion - 1532 god1. The architect of this church definitely is not installed. SS Pod'yapol'skii, devoting a special issue issledovanie2, believed that they had Petroc Minor (Peter Fryazin), probably arrived in Moscow in 1528 godu3. Accordingly, the researcher dated the Church of the Assumption 1529-1532 godami4.

Fig. 1. Church of the Ascension in Kolomna.

Unlike the Church of the Ascension in Kolomna, temples Alexander settlement (including hip Trinity, now Pokrovskaya Church - Fig. 2) the undisputed chronicle dates do not have. In the second half of the twentieth century, they were dated the following manner:
- Pokrovskii, now Troitsky Cathedral (we will henceforth call him unqualified Pokrovsky) based on the recording of the Trinity Chronicle about the consecration of the temple (not specified, stone or wood) and the arrival of Vasily III, the Grand Palace in the Alexander slobode5 considered built in 1513 year;
- Hip Trinity, now Pokrovsky, the church at the Palace "(we will henceforth refer to it without reservation the Trinity) has been transferred to the second construction period Sloboda (" Tsar's "time of Ivan IV, estimated to 1570 m year) 6;
- Assumption Church conventionally been dated by the same 1570 mi years as Trinity;
- Crucifixion tower (up to 1710 - the church Alexei mitropolita7 - Fig. 3) also dated 1570 mi years. Once in the 1940's Polonsky found inside her earlier stolpoobraznoe zdanie8, recently began to refer to the first construction period Sloboda and date, as St. Basil's Cathedral, 1513 year (in fact we are dealing with two different buildings, Therefore, we will for simplicity call the Crucifixion tower in its present form, and the Church of Metropolitan Alexei - stolpoobraznoe building, located within nee9 - Fig. 4).

Fig. 2. Trinity Church in the Alexander settlement.

Fig. 3. Crucifixion Church in Alexander's settlement.

Fig. 4. Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda. Reconstruction of the author.

In 1980-1990-s series of excavations and soundings conducted in the suburb of Alexander V. Kavelmaherom, identified a fundamental fact: St. Basil's Cathedral, hip Trinity Church, Assumption Church and the church-bell Alexis the Metropolitan, were built in the same building periode10.
Architectural and archaeological arguments VV Kavelmahera was fairly well received by all, without exception, researchers as ischerpyvayuschaya11, and inevitably the question arose about the correction of earlier dates.
V. Kavelmaher, referring to the text of the Trinity Chronicle 12 and the proximity of the first style of temples of the Alexander settlement to the style of the Kremlin cathedrals of Ivan III and Vasily III13 (this stylistic affinity was noted even A.I.Nekrasovym14), dated the Church of the Protection, Trinity, Assumption and Alexei Metropolitan first construction period Sloboda - early 1510's. The second construction period - 1570-s - V. Kavelmaher attributed only to the restructuring of the Metropolitan Church of Alexei and extension to the dining hall of Trinity Church in the cellar and podklete15.
In the late 1990's and early 2000's point of view V. Kavelmahera was questioned SS Pod'yapol'skii and A.L.Batalovym16. Supporting the classification of the Pokrovsky Cathedral, Trinity Church, Church of the Assumption and Church of Metropolitan Alexei periodu17 one construction, the researchers were dating all these monuments godami18 1570 mi.
Detailed analysis of all the arguments VV Kavelmahera, SS Podyapolsky and AL Batalov was devoted to a special study of the author of this stati19. Here, only show that the main argument in favor of dating VV Kavelmahera is the fact that a significant time lag (several decades) between the building the bell tower of Metropolitan Alexis and its restructuring in 1570-ies. Studies conducted by the author of this article in the early 2000's godov20 showed that:
- Masonry, mortar, style and execution of the decoration of the church and Metropolitan Alexis Crucifixion bell totally different. In the Church of Metropolitan Alexis (as in the Church of the Protection, Trinity and Assumption), we see a "soft", "warm" masonry, characteristic of the brick buildings of the Moscow Kremlin foreign XV and XVI centuries, and St. Peter the Metropolitan of Vysokopetrovsky Monastery ( 1514-1518 years, Fig. 5). Characteristic and mortar - with extremely high binding capacity, with a negligible content of lime sand and other impurities. Numerous white stone decorations in the Sloboda, and the Kremlin were carved so that it seems like a stone "breathes". Brick inlay temples Sloboda, like St. Peter the Metropolitan, was covered with gesso "under the white stone". In contrast to all the listed buildings, Crucifixion tower is built from the "dry" bricks, crumbling easily to a solution with a high admixture of sand. From the same brick on the same solution, built the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Ditch. The white-stone inlay Crucifixion bell also carved, as at the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Ditch - rigid, geometric, "dry". And in the belfry Crucifixion, and the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Ditch the builders used along with iron bonds of wood. In the Church of Metropolitan Alexei, as in the Church of the Protection, Trinity and Assumption, all connections are made exclusively of iron of high quality;

Fig. 5. St. Peter the Metropolitan in high-Petrovsky monastery.

- The windows of the upper tiers of the surviving church Alexei Metropolitan has been made (and very accurately) is another form before obstroyki walls of the future Crucifixion bell. It is doubtful that shortly after the construction would require considerable work to give the windows a fundamentally new form;
- At the time obstroyki pylons Church Metropolitan Alexei managed to "grow into the ground" about half a meter. Theoretically, it could happen within a few years (in the case of targeted podsypok soil), but it is extremely unlikely. Normal time is so significant "growing" buildings in the land - at least several decades;
- At the junction of walls and piers Crucifixion bell at the open vetting fragments white stone plinth and brick decor oblevkashennogo church Alexei Metropolitan traces of weathering, which could have time to appear only in a few decades.
Thus, as the reorganization of the Church of Metropolitan Alexis (ie the construction of the bell tower of Crucifixion in its present form) clearly dates from the second construction period Sloboda - 1570 mi over the years, we have to date its construction of the first construction period - 1510-mi for years. And since none of the researchers there is no doubt proven VV Kavelmaherom fact that the Church of the Protection, Trinity and Assumption Alexandrov Sloboda were constructed in the same building period, the last dated as 1510 years mi.
From this it follows that the first stone church marquee in Russia was Trinity Church in the Alexander settlement.
To quote what he wrote in connection with the VV Kavelmaher: "The proposed assignment of the Church of the Holy Trinity to the first decades of the XVI century. undermines, at first glance, the very foundations of the theory of Russian tent architecture. But is it really so strict and perfect this theory? Thus, the first stone church marquee in Russia is known for some time "vice-president of the Church of the Holy Trinity at the Palace - Church of the Ascension in Kolomna, built by the same Churchwarden and with the same purpose - as a cold palace temple in his new residence outside Moscow. In the history of Russian architecture of the temple was a work in terms of its formal perfection, unique and inimitable. However, this process of building stone tent churches in Moscow in a number of reasons interrupted. The mass construction of tent churches resumed only in 50-ies. XVI century. - All at once, spontaneously, in a remarkably advanced and perfect form, nothing to do, however, with the Church of the Ascension is not available. Breaking new construction with a constructive idea and proposed a prototype plastic still somehow possible to explain, but how to explain it perfectly mature, "sustained", an independent form of a new series of monuments? After all, if you follow this theory, it turns out that almost twenty years after the first break were built such masterpieces as the central pillar of the Pokrovsky Cathedral vaulted to the Ditch (1554-1561 years). And do not come down to us in the Cathedral of Sts pyatishatrovy Staritsa (1557-1561 years.). You can, of course, assume that both buildings built Barmah genius "and his companions. But who then built another hip masterpiece - do not come down to us in the church of St. Sergius Trinity-Epiphany Compound in the Kremlin (1558)? Or not so perfect in terms of form, but surely made reliquary hip-Tomb of the Patriarchs in the Rostov-Avraamievo Epiphany Monastery in Rostov Veliky (1554)? And who created a constructive rough, but defiantly bold hip-A cross design of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Solovki? Who built dvustolpny's cross-hip Annunciation Cathedral in the family castle in Solvychegodsk Stroganoff (1557)? So how to understand the source of evidence about the construction of the Pokrovsky Cathedral "with the chapels" - "different samples and translations? If we accept this theory, would have to admit that the Russian builders had no prior experience in the construction of temples tent! It flatters the national pride, as it implies our ability to architects of genius spontaneous creativity, but it is - "bad theory". Meanwhile, architectural forms Intercession Cathedral on the Ditch back not to the Church of the Ascension in Kolomna (the latter refers only vimpergov and casings), but primarily to the two monuments stolpoobraznym Aleksandrova Sloboda - domed church Alexei metropolitan and hip Trinity Church. If Trinity Church, as many people think, too late monument, it is compared to St. Basil's Cathedral - the ugly and regressive phenomenon. That is the verdict rendered her history of architecture. However, the monument is too fresh and original, too awkward naive as to simply be creative failure unknown Italian architect. And because its methods of dating in the absence of other must be strictly archaeological 21.
The objectives of this study did not include consideration of the entire process of the genesis of the stone architecture of the tent (we restrict ourselves to questions of its origin), so in addition to the above, VV Kavelmaherom only note that a later date the Church of the Ascension in comparison with the Trinity Church in any case not detract from the Kolomna monument to Russian architecture. In this temple, along with a tent wall pylons were used, allowing to construct a huge building of unprecedented proportions, with "flying" architectonics.
Trinity Church of the Ascension in comparison with the small "touch down" and, as repeatedly demonstrated and V.V.Kavelmaher22, not so perfect in engineering terms. But between the erection of these temples have passed fifteen or twenty relatively calm and peaceful (not least) years. Over the years, and engineering, and construction equipment could not make a significant step forward. Probably, and raising to 1510-1520-s unknown tent churches, and an invitation from Italy to build a church of the Assumption is not only Petroc Minor, but also other highly qualified engineers.

2.

Now the question arises whether we can identify the architect who built the Trinity Church in the suburb of Alexander, though with the same degree of certainty with which the SS Pod'yapol'skii identified for the Church of the Ascension in Kolomna authorship Petroc Minor.
V. Kavelmaher thought that, having finished in 1508 a Moscow court, Vasily III «flung the liberated building frames in Sloboda," and that "a fortified complex of the Tsar's court (in the Sloboda - SZ) has been erected just after the Big Kremlin Palace in Moscow by Italian architects Vasily III, and was built about five years - from 1508-1509 to 1513 23. About that authorship of the first churches Sloboda belongs to one of the architects of Italian origin, known under the name Aleviz researcher did not write, although it would seem, this conclusion is very likely to be of the following facts:
- In 1508 Aleviz Fryazin finished work on the Moscow grand palace, and Aleviz new - over the Archangel soborom24 (the question of identity and constructions of both architects, we consider in detail below);
- In 1513 in the Alexander settlement was completed on the Grand Palace and St. Basil's Cathedral was consecrated;
- In 1514 the Grand Duke had commanded one of Aleviz erect in Moscow on 11 churches, including St. Peter the Metropolitan of Vysokopetrovsky Monastery and Church of the Annunciation in the Old Vagankove25.
It is unlikely that such a Bilateral and a chain of dates and buildings could be a coincidence. Thus, authorship Petroc Minor against the Church of the Ascension in Kolomna S. Pod'yapol'skii deduced only from the time gap between the probable arrival of the architect in Moscow in 1528 godu26 and the beginning of construction of China-Cities in 1534 godu27.
But as the temples of the Alexander settlement, the SS Pod'yapol'skii objected to the assumption of their construction by Italian architects, because, according to the researcher, "architecturally slepleno it all so haphazard and so is incompatible with the precision of the geometric structure inherent in the architecture of the Renaissance, that is hard to understand how you can even hypothetically attributed to the cathedral creation of Italian architect 28.
From these observations, SS Podyapolsky hard to disagree. But are the positions of VV Kavelmahera and S. Podyapolsky mutually exclusive? After all, VV Kavelmaher wrote that the Trinity Church "awkward naive" and construction of the tent, "paradoxical" in 1929.
Unfortunately, the rule in the history of architecture of the last quarter of XX century the theory PA Rappoport, prescriptive Tracking Construction brigades at full strength (from the architect to ordinary masons) 30, has created a completely false stereotype: the architect "supposed" to move at the head of the farm with construction site to construction site and personally go into all the details of the construction implementation of its buildings. Accordingly, any blemishes (the more "naive") design makes the authorship of highly qualified architect (not to such a level as Aleviz).
But in fact the architect in any case was not obliged to be constantly present on the project: its main tasks was to develop the project and receive a churchwarden of his realizatsiyu31. And in this case, the first churchwarden temples Alexander Sloboda - Vasily III - was in Moscow and came in her yard in the Sloboda only in 1513 godu32.
Consequently, Aleviz if he was the author of monuments Sloboda, still had to reside in Moscow, when Grand Prince yard. No Aleviz the court could lead to problems with the financing of the project, and the loss of the post of the court architect, for which at all times had to constantly fight.
Thus, Aleviz could either occasionally come to the Alexander suburb during construction, or even the first time to see their churches already built, "entered" with Vasily III in Sloboda in 1513. And before that, according to his design work contractors are able to tolerate any mistakes - including those that are indicated VV Kavelmaher and S.S.Podyapolskiy33.
Consequently, the end Aleviz in 1508 working in the Kremlin, the building of a princely palace and Pokrovsky Cathedral Sloboda in 1513 and the Order of Vasily III in 1514, one of Aleviz build 11 churches provide a reasonable basis to believe that the author of the Protection of the temples, Trinity, Assumption and Alexei Alexandrov metropolitan suburb is one of the Italian architects, known under the name Aleviz.
And, despite some minor technical occurring blemishes, Vasily III was satisfied with the work of the architect - is proved by the fact that the Grand Duke in 1514 commissioned him to build eleven new churches.
The idea of a princely palace-temple ensemble Sloboda fully consistent with the scope of any Aleviz - the simultaneous construction of very large for that time, the complex of buildings, it is absolutely unique, not like one another, but united by a common "Country" style (as opposed to "capital" style, realized in the stone Kremlin Palace and the Cathedral of the Archangel).
And it is not surprising that in the future, along with another wonderful piece of Italian architects - the Kremlin's Archangel Cathedral - a model for numerous imitations (often eclipses the original) was the first stone church tent - Troitskaya34.

3.

Investigate the question which of the two architects of Italian origin, known under the name Aleviz, built temples Alexander settlement.
First of all, let's see what we know about these wizards. First of them (who arrived in Moscow in 1494) is traditionally called Aleviz Fryazino or simply Aleviz, the second (who arrived ten years later) - New Aleviz. But, as we shall soon see, this tradition leads to unwanted contamination, so we will call these architects as in the XIX century, known namesakes - Aleviz 1 st and 2 nd Aleviz.
About Aleviz 1 st Chronicle reported: "The Priidosha ambassadors of the Grand Duke of Moscow, Manuilov Aggelov Grek da Danila Mamyrov that sent them to the prince of the great masters in Venice and Medioli their set privedosha on Moscow Aleviz Wizard stennago and ward and Peter pushechnika and various artists 35. How to set up modern Italian researchers, we are talking about Aloisio da Karezano (Carcano) 36.
With built in Moscow Aleviz 1-y from 1494 to 1499 years, we do not know, but it looks convincing version V.P.Vygolova37: he replaced the deceased in 1493 by Pietro Antonio Solari at the head of the Kremlin's fortification.
Next annals mention of Aleviz 1-m due to the fact that in 1499 "Great Prince commanded zalozhiti your yard, and loft kamenya kirpichnya, and underneath the cellar, and glaciers in the old courtyard of the Annunciation, but the wall of stone from your yard to Borovitskia strelnitsi; a master Aleviz Fryazin Hail Mediolama 38. This building was completed in 1508, when Vasily III moved to dvorets39 built. What we are talking precisely about Aleviz 1-m, is confirmed by reference to "hail Mediolama" (Milan).
In 1504 in Moscow with the embassy Dmitry Ralev and Mitrophan Karacharov arrived, another group masterov40. On the way to Moscow that the embassy had been detained in the Crimea Khan Mengli-Girei obliging the masters for some time to work on the construction Bakhchsarai dvortsa41. And holidays after the masters in Moscow, Khan has written to Ivan III: «A letter filed shu Architect Aleviz, Menlo Gireiev word ... I am your brother took a shortcut, poshol Aleviz master, Velma good artist, not like other masters, Velma great master ... That's how my honor and my brother's word is almost, that Fryazino Aleviz complain, Thou knowest 42.
None of the researchers had no doubt (and no doubt we will) that this "Velma great master" (we call it Aleviz 2-m) and have the same Aleviz new, which, according to chronicles, the data in 1508 completed the construction of the cathedral's and the Church of the Nativity of John the Baptist in Borovitskiye vorot43. In favor of this interpretation and clarification of "new" (relatively Aleviz 1 st), and extremely honored the Grand Order (construction of ancestral tombs), and the similarity of portals Bakhchsarai Italianate palace and the cathedral's.
More in the annals of Aleviz 2-y as "Aleviz New" is not mentioned. Attempts by several Italian researchers identified this with the famous Venetian architect, sculptor and carver Alvise di Lamberti Montanyana44, although a broad response in the modern scientific and popular literature, are only unconfirmed (and, as we shall soon see, is very questionable) hypothesis.
In 1508, "the great prince ordered round the city of Moscow ditch Delatite stone and brick repairs and ponds around his castle Aleviz Fryazino '45. Annals of lead and more specific information about these works, dating back in 1507 and completed in 1519 - built walls, towers, dams and ditch along the river Neglinnoy46.
And finally, in 1514, Vasily III commanded to build 11 churches in Moscow, "and all those churches was a master Aleviz Fryazin 47. This documentary data Aleviz should be closed.
Until the 1970's in the history of architecture dominated by the following view: 1 st Aleviz built just west of strengthening the Kremlin along Neglinnoy48 and Aleviz 2 nd - all others are referred to in the preceding chronicle construction of communications (the Grand Kremlin Palace and all the temples, including and incorporated in 1514) 49. Accordingly, Aleviz 2-y regarded as the greatest architect of the era, and Aleviz 1-y was reduced to a secondary role (compared with Solari) fortification.
In the last quarter of the twentieth century, this "extreme" point of view has been challenged and S.S.Podyapolskim50 V.P.Vygolovym51. Both researchers attributed the Grand Kremlin Palace to creativity Aleviz 1 st, and VP Vygolov doubted the authorship Aleviz 2 nd on the church, founded in 1514.
Arguments SS Podyapolsky and VP Vygolova in favor of classifying the Kremlin Palace to the creativity of "the wall and the neighbor in the ward masters" Aleviz 1 st undeniable: Aleviz 2 nd in 1499 was not yet in Russia, to the same message in the chronicle under this year states that the master was in Milan. But there are valid doubts about the authorship of these researchers Aleviz 2 nd against churches, construction of which began in 1514?
VP Vygolov correctly assumed that, since the same Chronicle under the year 1508 reports that the fortification work (trench Delatite stone and brick ... ") were assigned Aleviz Fryazino and Archangel Cathedral and the Church of St John the Baptist built a new Aleviz The chronicler led it to different architects. But out of this situation the researcher has made a highly controversial conclusion that, while from 1508 to 1519 years Aleviz 1 st built the Kremlin to strengthen, in 1514 he also began the construction of eleven churches. The rationale for this conclusion was the fact that the architect mentioned in chronicles in the year 1514, was named Aleviz Fryazino - as well as in reports on the activities of Aleviz 1 st at 1494 and 1499 years.
In fact, the position of VP Vygolova we see another "extreme" point of view, but with opposite sign: the greatest architect of the age, ability to build and castles, and palaces and temples (and in parallel and on an unprecedented scale), was Aleviz 1 - First, as Aleviz 2 nd built in Russia for four years, two of the temple and after 1508 disappeared.
Apparently, in this case the truth is midway between the "extreme" points of view.
Undoubtedly, researchers have always understood that the wording "Aleviz Fryazin" means nothing more than a statement of the fact that Aleviz was Italian. Yet in this work V.P.Vygolova52 (perhaps without realizing the investigator) occurred "rebirth" of that finding in sustainable nickname of one master - Aleviz 1 st. But, of course, Aleviz 2-y was also Aleviz Fryazino, and the reservation "new" was used by the chronicler, only to emphasize that the Italian Aleviz who built the Cathedral of the Archangel, arrived in Moscow later Italian Aleviz, build fortifications on Neglinnaia. Consequently, we can not rely on the naming of an architect Aleviz Fryazino in determining the author's temples, whose construction was started in 1514.
Far more important message is seen chronicle in 1494 that Aleviz was "master wall and ward. The scribe could hardly make it a fundamental clarification of chance, and such specialization Aleviz 1 st all put into place.
From 1494 to 1499 years Aleviz 1-y finishing work to strengthen the Kremlin, which did not have time to complete Solari. In 1499-1508 years the architect built the Grand Palace and the walls of the palace to Borovitskaya tower. In 1508-1519 years he worked on the walls, towers and moats of the Kremlin by Neglinna.
It is unlikely that the architect had the opportunity in parallel with these large-scale fortifications build 11 churches in Moscow (in 1514-1518, respectively). Accordingly, just as questionable and that in the years 1508-1513 Aleviz 1-y could lead the construction of a princely palace-temple complex in the Alexander settlement.
A Aleviz 2 nd from 1505 to 1508 years, built the Cathedral of the Archangel and the Church of St. John the Baptist. Is natural to assume that the specificity of his work as "hramozdatelya" and continue to be a priority. Consequently, from 1508 to 1513, he could build temples and the palace in the Sloboda, and from 1514 - 11 churches in Moscow.
The temple construction was supposed to be an architect specializing more in Italy, otherwise he would immediately on his arrival is not entrusted with such are solely responsible construction, as Archangel Cathedral (in connection with the identity Aleviz 2 and sculptor Alvise Lamberti di Montagnana is very unlikely). And the experience of building the palace complexes Aleviz 2-y could get in Bahchisarae53.
Ability Aleviz 2 nd (for simplicity in the future we will again call it the New Aleviz as Aleviz 1-y in our study more mention will not) be creative in a wide range of architectural forms was confirmed in the XIX-XX centuries, so different from each other buildings of the architect as Bakhchissaray Palace, Cathedral of the Archangel and lithographs by well-known AA Martynov and IM Snegiryov Church of the Nativity of John the Baptist by Bohr and the Annunciation in the Old Vagankove. In the 1960's added to the list Octagonal Cathedral Metropolitan Peter in High-Petrovsky monastery. We may add here another four unique temple of Alexander the settlement, including the first tent-roofed stone church - Trinity.

4.

The origin of ancient stone architecture in a tent (we will henceforth call it simply a marquee architecture, material structures will specify only in the case of wooden architecture) took the researchers is not the first hundred years. Because detailed historical overview of all points of view put forward goes beyond the length of the article, only list the "basic" positions (in chronological order of their appearance):
- HIP architecture of ancient Russia was the direct or indirect reminder of the late Gothic Western (NM Karamzin, IM Snegirev, L. Dahl, EE Golubinsky, AI Nekrasov, H. Wagner) 54;
- HIP architecture - a unique phenomenon that has been formed on the basis of ancient wooden architecture (IA Zabelin, FF Gornostayev, Grabar, N. Voronin) 55;
- HIP architecture is derived from the ancient Serbian churches and with elevated podpruzhnymi arches (NI Bruno) 56;
- HIP architecture was formed under the influence of architecture of ancient castle towers (PN Maksimov, MA Il'in, MN Tikhomirov, H. Wagner) 57;
- By becoming a hip architecture greatly influenced by ancient Russian stolpoobraznye church-bell (MA Il'in, H. Wagner) 58;
- Old Russian pavilion was "an accident in the architecture and just replaced the dome, overlapping SPLA (VV Kavelmaher) 59.
Before we begin to address these hypotheses, we note that studies of VV Kavelmahera and the author of this article, which led to the revision of the position relative to the first stone church tent, can not by themselves significantly affect the choice of one or another point of view of researchers or to develop a new tent theory of the origin of architecture. One of the Grand Temple (Ascension 1528-1532 period), with high probability, built by Italian architect (Petroc Minor), "replaced" by another (the Holy Trinity in 1510-ies), and with high probability, built by Italian architect (New Aleviz). Both belong to the era of the church Vasily III, marked by the flowering of architecture and an active search for new forms. The only thing we will further study the "replacement" church of the Assumption at Trinity Church - the traditional forms quadrangular last.
And we start with a statement of fact that is difficult to doubt - that during the formation of ancient architecture XII-XV centuries, it is steadily growing "tendency up" characteristic of Romanik and Gothic. General "tall" proportions hramov60, the emergence of high arches, handling drums keeled kokoshnikami61, the construction of bulbous domes of high glav62 construction stolpoobraznyh churches "under the bells", 63 - all these phenomena are consistent with the overall impression "lancet", which makes the Gothic.
Typical for the gothic tendency to increase and zalnosti "inner space of temples is also reflected in ancient architecture - the pillars became thinner and thinner, smaller and smaller temples were internal blades appeared besstolpnye temples with angle oporami64 wall, and then with the cruciform svodom65 . A Cathedral of the Assumption Fioravanti, for example, S. Pod'yapol'skii rightly belongs to the type of Gothic "hall church", 66.
GK Wagner wrote that "if the development of" high altitude "architecture was not interrupted by the Mongol invasion, then Russia would have known something akin to Gothic 67.
In this regard, must believe that the emergence of "forward-up" tent architecture corresponds to one of the major trends of the Gothic, and this is a serious argument in favor of the position of NM Karamzin, IM Snegireva, L. Dahl, E. E. Golubinski and Nekrasov. Here we classify and position NI Brunova (temples with high podpruzhnymi arches), MA Ilyin, AP Maksimova, Tikhomirov and G. K. Wagner (stolpoobraznye temples and freestanding towers) as all this, as rightly pointed out G.K.Vagner68, closely associated with "high rise" of Gothic and, accordingly, with a marquee architecture.
But the question arises: is connected directly or indirectly? Here are a number of provisions that force us to deny a direct link HIP architecture and gothic.
First, higher arches and hipped end of temples are completely different constructive entity (arch supporting the dome, and the tent itself is located on the ground supported by arches and domes), and to conduct a direct parallel between them inappropriately.
Secondly, stolpoobraznye temples to the construction in 1510-ies of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda and St. Peter the Metropolitan of High-Petrovsky monastery did not have, unlike the tent-roofed churches, more or less extensive SPLA, that is, in engineering terms were closer to the tower than to ecclesiastical buildings (examples - the church-bell tower of St John Climacus in 1329, Novgorod "Clock-tower" in 1443, Ivan the Great Bell 1505-1508 period);
Thirdly, a direct parallel between the fortified towers and marquee temples impossible. The first had a utilitarian character, the second appearance is determined solely by spiritual needs and architectural thought era. Moreover - with the "utilitarian" perspective tent churches had no meaning, as compared with the somasshtabnymi "A cross churches (and even more so with the European basilicas) area of SPLA is small, but" kolodtseobraznost "interior creates a lot of problems with the acoustics.
Fourth, for the Western Gothic (as for Romanik, as for the Renaissance) is absolutely unusual overlap SPLA tent. Above sredokrestiyami sometimes built a stone octagonal cupola (Imperial Cathedral of Speyer, cathedral in Limburg on the Lahn - Fig. 6), or wooden tents (Church of Our Lady in Bryugge68 - Fig. 7). Sometimes over the stone dome was erected decorative wooden tent (Cathedral in Padua, Fig. 8). Not one stone of the tent or on the SPLA, nor over sredokrestiem in a more or less meaningful the temple we do not know. Tent complete the form used in the Romanesque-Gothic Europe in large numbers only for the towers.

Fig. 6. The dome over the cathedral in Limburg sredokrestiem on Lana.

Fig. 7. Church in Bruges.

Fig. 8. Cathedral in Padua. Above the central dome was erected decorative tent.

In this connection it is necessary to make an important reservation: Determining the origin of HIP architecture and speaking of the first stone Tent Temple, we can not specify that we are talking about ancient Russia. Other options here could not be, as the construction of large temples, stone covered with tents, unprecedented in the world did not have.
AK duty office wrote that the origin of HIP architecture, from Gothic "is sourced form the tent, but not hip typology of the temple. This means that nothing was found: the architectural typology does not consist of individual parts on the principle of collage. If we assume that the Russian pavilion is derived from the Gothic spire, we followed this will suggest a number of intermediate links between the two typologies - a Gothic bell tower, which is integrated into the body of a vaulted basilica, and the Russian STANDING centric hip church. For example, Russian Basilica with belfry, from which then occurred freestanding belfry, turning then to the tent church. Or centric freestanding temples, crowned by a spire, in the West. But because these intermediaries no version collapses. The available evidence is insufficient. There can be such that the spire of "cut down" from the bell tower and hoisted on the way the undertaken (and who undertook, by the way, nowhere) in the quadrangular octagon 70. We should all agree with the researcher.
Fifth, one of the most salient trends Gothic - increase the area of internal space of temples. With marquee same architecture, the opposite: we have already said that compared with somasshtabnymi "A cross churches, and especially with European basilicas, their area SPLA small.
Sixth, the beginning of XVI century in Europe was marked not Gothic, and Renaissance. And it is very unlikely that a highly qualified Italian architect of the time, whether or Aleviz New Petroc Small, could focus on the Gothic. As we know, the term "Gothic" belongs to the Italians XV-XVI centuries, and means "the art is ready", ie "Barbarians".
It's worth noting that in the Church of the Ascension in Kolomna, as shown by S. Pod'yapol'skii, there have been numerous "Renaissance" items (orders, portals, with direct arhitravnym overlapping opening, "Renaissance" drawing gothic vimpergov, etc.). With regard to having a place in the Kolomna Gothic church elements (total stolpoobraznosti and many decorative elements, above all of the vimpergov), researchers believed that Petroc Minor applied them as a stylized "local" architecture, as he caught in the previous Old Russian Architecture spirit gotiki71.
We completely agree with SS Pod'yapol'skii and say the same about Aleviz New: in the temples of the Alexander settlement there are many elements of Renaissance architecture (decor, portals, colonnades, etc.) Orientation Aleviz on Renaissance architecture, and confirmed its first Moscow buildings - Archangel's Cathedral. All the "Gothic" elements in temples built by this Italian architect, is, like Petroc Minor, stylization of old Russian architecture (and St. Basil's Cathedral in the Alexander settlement, as we have already noted, in general, is a direct "remake" the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra ).

5.

We can now proceed to the consideration of hypotheses related to the origin of hip architecture of ancient wooden architecture.
"The scribe briefly the Russian land» (XVI vek72) under the year 1532 says: "Grand Prince Vasily placed the church Kamen Vznesenie our Lord Jesus Christ up on the wooden case 73. This message carries a direct parallel between the Kolomna temple and wooden architecture, and argue with this documentary evidence is hardly possible.
We have a picture and not surviving wooden tent-roofed church in the village Upe Arkhangelsk region (Fig. 9), construction of which klirovye records relate to 1501 godu74 - accordingly, this church was built before the first brick church tent.

Fig. 9. Church in the village Upe Arkhangelsk region.

NN Voronin and PN Maksimov believed that the tent wooden church is a common type of ancient temple already in the pre-Mongol vremya75, and we can cite a number of arguments in support of their position.
First, these researchers have provided examples of images of wooden tent-roofed churches on the icon of the beginning of XIV century from the village of the curve (Fig. 10) and the margin of the Pskov handwriting "Charter" in 1976.

Fig. 10. Icons from the village of Crooked.

Second, these researchers believed on the basis of textual and iconographic analysis of ancient documents that the marquee had not survived the wooden churches in Vyshgorod (1020-1026 years), 77 Ustyug (end of XIII century), 78 Ledskom churchyard (1456) 79, and Vologda ( end of the XV century) 80. About the church in 1501 in the village Upe we have already mentioned above.
Third, these researchers have led the chronicle reported high "standing" in Moskve81 and showed that it was a wooden tent stolpoobraznyh tserkvyah82;
Fourthly, a wooden belfry is shown in the image of the Tver Kremlin first half of the XV century on the icon and Princess Michael of Tver Ksenii83 (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11. Images of the Tver Kremlin first half of the XV century on the icon Michael of Tver and Princess Xenia.

Fifthly, it is likely that many of the wooden tent churches XVI-XVII centuries are copies of more ancient. This position was justified A.K.Dezhurko84 based on the following considerations:
- Folk architecture conservative typology change very slowly;
- There was a pattern to replace rotted logs in the wooden house on one, why time in the ancient monument of the original material could be very small. Therefore, radiocarbon dating and dendrochronological method is reliable only if taken for analysis of a large number of logs. Accordingly, some wooden monuments due to a lack of representative sample material for analysis could receive a late date;
- Carpenters are often obliged to build a new church modeled on the old, dilapidated.
Sixth, as we have already had to write to the author of this stati85, wood is much easier to build a tent than a dome, a dome of stone to build simpler than the tent. The reasons for this are as follows:
- Construction technology of stone domes (and formwork, and without nee86) was well known and has been established since the days of Ancient Rome;
- Not to mention the small "utility" of tents over the brewery and kuhnyami87 (Fig. 12), stone tents before the beginning of XVI century in Europe are unknown to us;

Fig. 12. Kitchen of the Abbey of Fontevraud (Romanik).

- Stone tent has almost the same rip as the dome, and to achieve uniformity of spreading at a high altitude tent (figuratively speaking, that does not mean "subsided") - a daunting engineering challenge;
- From wood to build a dome is very difficult (you will need to attach any logs semicircular form, or use them very short intervals);
- The construction of wooden tent several (usually eight) of logs (the edges of the tent) are reduced at the upper and clapboard, and it can make almost any more or less qualified carpenter. And not for nothing, as we mentioned earlier, all known Gothic tents over sredokrestiyami - wooden.
The fact that the tent of wood is much easier to build than a dome, it follows that the tent could be a "simplified form" of the dome during the lifetime of the ancient wooden architecture, including in the XI-XV centuries. The proportions of wooden tents could be given any - depending on the quality of logs and craftsmanship of carpenters.
In this connection it is appropriate to support the position of VV Kavelmahera on the fact that the tent was a simple replacement of the dome overlying SPLA - the only substantial caveat that the replacement of wooden architecture was not an accident, but structurally conditioned phenomenon. Grabar and FF GORNOSTAYEV questioned the origin of the tent of wooden architecture, due to the fact that the hipped end of the tree would have to focus on patterns in the stone, which until the beginning of the XVI century otsutstvovali88. But in the XI-XV centuries, wooden tent over the SPLA had quite a clear pattern - the dome of stone temples.
And because the tent in the wooden architecture was multi-faceted (this is due to the foundation of its design - the beams forming the frame), it is logical that the richness of acquired and drums. The number of faces more often equal to eight (apparently, this is the optimal ratio for the transition to the tent of Chetverikov, and for maximum stability of the structure). Thus, we see the source form "octagon to quadrangular.
Another question in the "wooden" the origin of the tent may be due to the fact that in the surviving ancient wooden churches tent top is usually not closed down, and separated from the SPLA horizontal ceiling. But the reasons for the erection of additional ceiling convincingly demonstrated VA Krokhin: this was due to the need to protect itself from the iconostasis of the church from the rain (snow) falling into the gaps between the planks of the police and logs Povala in a strong wind, the effective functioning of ventilation in the upper level and log independent ventilation in stable downstream pomeschenii89.
GP Goltz believed that "vertically directed stone tent architecture can not occur on a horizontal wooden structure" 90. But there are many examples vertikalnoorientirovannyh wooden churches (as already mentioned our church in the village Upe (Fig. 9), Church of Elijah 1600 Vyisky graveyard Upper Toemskogo region of Arkhangelsk oblasti91 - Fig. 13, Epiphany Church in 1605 in the village Chelmuzhi Transonegan area Karelii92 - Fig. 14, Church of Ascension in 1654 in the village Piyale Onega, Arkhangelsk Region oblasti93 - Fig. 15 and many others. etc.), and indeed the wooden pavilion (in any case, its frame) usually does not consist of the horizontal and the vertical logs.

Fig. 13. Vyisky parish church of the Arkhangelsk region.

Fig. 14. The Church in the village Chelmuzhi Transonegan district of Karelia. Longitudinal section.

Fig. 15. Church in the village Piyale Arkhangelsk region. Longitudinal section.

In general, wood hip architecture generates no less "Gothic" association than stone. Of course, it is unlikely the village (and urban), the carpenters were familiar with the Western European experience - probably Gothic "altitude" came in the wooden architecture indirectly (through stolpoobraznye old Russian churches and cathedrals with high arches podpruzhnymi). But actually it does not change.

6.

To sum up. We see a fairly extensive set of factors that can directly or indirectly affect the occurrence of hip architecture, all these factors have a very high cross-correlation, due to which any logical construct, sooner or later "closed" at each other. As an example, the basic postulates whose validity we have shown in this article:
- Tent churches are clearly typological connection with stolpoobraznymi and bell towers, and temples with elevated podpruzhnymi arches;
- "Tall" stolpoobraznye churches "under the bells", as well as temples with elevated podpruzhnymi arches, appeared in Russia under the influence of late Romanik and Gothic;
- For gothic totally uncharacteristic closing SPLA (and even sredokrestiya) tent, the more a stone;
- HIP architecture is contrary to one of the major trends of Gothic - increase the area of the interior of the temples;
- Italian architects of the Renaissance could not directly focus on the Gothic;
- In the work of Italian architects in Russia has been a conscious stylization of forms in accordance with local traditions;
- Wood hip architecture has been extended to Russia before the XVI century;
- There is a chronicle proof of origin of the wooden architecture of the hip;
- Wood is much easier to build a tent than a dome (a dome of stone to build simpler than tent);
- In the wooden architecture of the dome tent was the replacement of closing the SPLA;
- General "high altitude" of ancient wooden churches shaped by the stone stolpoobraznyh temples and shrines with elevated podpruzhnymi arches;
- Stolpoobraznye temples like the temples with elevated podpruzhnymi arches, appeared in Russia under the influence of late Romanik and Gothic.
"Logical circle" is closed. In this case, "closure" means that the emergence of hip architecture in one degree or another affected all the above factors.
Consequently, each of the researchers, whose position we discussed in Section 4, was in his own right. And out of loyalty to such a wide spectrum of positions it can be concluded: HIP architecture was prepared by the entire previous history and Russian and world architecture, with all the infinite set of connections, influences and origins.
Nevertheless, the construction of the first tent of the church was a creative genius "breakthrough", and we can try to at least hypothetically reconstruct the specific circumstances of the appearance of the stone tent.
We will not forget that the authorship of the New Aleviz, like any other Italian architect in respect of Trinity Church (and author of an Italian architect in respect of the Church of the Resurrection) is very likely, but not absolutely proven fact. And yet we try to reconstruct the path of creativity the architect who also designed Trinity Church in Alexander's settlement, based on the fact that they had Aleviz New.
Theoretically, we can assume that the source of inspiration for the architect to have the tents they lived in the biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the future, their tents have become a symbol of the home, ie "Passage", and the same value in the words of the prophet Isaiah was the sky: "He (God - SZ) stretched out the heavens like a curtain, and spread them like a tent to dwell" (Isaiah 40:22). MA Il'in, trying to "reveal the ideological content of the tent," 94, drew attention to these words of the Prophet and on their basis attached tent "shadowing" rol95. But the researcher himself wrote that the notion of "passage" most fully expressed in the church's cross (the dome on the pillars), 96, and it remains unclear why, in the XVI century, the architect decided to replace one "shade" (dome) to another (tent). If a tent in the church tradition was to have any independent symbolic (and even more canonical) value, it is as a phenomenon of stone temple architecture would have appeared much earlier than the beginning of XVI century. And the prophet Isaiah, "tent" is a symbol of any home, absolutely do not necessarily tent-shaped form.
In accordance with Occam's razor ("should not multiply entities beyond necessity"), we can assume that the source of inspiration for the New Aleviz were not distant Palestine, and not abstract biblical characters, and the actual order and the Grand surrounding the architect of old Russian architecture.
In the Ancient Rus from the time of termination in the middle of the XII century, direct copying of Byzantine samples ktitorskih specific orders given by the invited foreign architects was that the task was not built by Italian, German or British churches, but it was the Russian. In other words, the architects have always needed a job in line with the already established at the time the traditions of Russian architecture - despite the fact that they were free to make the principles and elements of a style adopted in their country of origin.
From this general rule we do not know no exceptions. Thus, the construction of a "Western European" material - a white stone - in the pre-Mongol Suzdal was conducted, including the masters of Frederick Barbarossa, the "Byzantine" (by that time the traditional ancient Rus)'s cross forms, although with the introduction of a number Romance interior elements and the overall "elevation 97. Construction stolpoobraznyh churches "under the bells" (most likely the first of these was octagonal church of St John Climacus goda98 1329) was prepared chetyrehstolpnymi temples with high arches and podpruzhnymi besstolpnymi - with corner wall oporami99. Church with Groin vault became a logical development chetyrehstolpnyh hramov100. Octagonal Cathedral of Peter the Metropolitan (1514-1518 years) - The tradition continues stolpoobraznyh churches "under the bells", although lacking the function of the belfry. Assumption Cathedral in Moscow (1475-1479), the inner space of which is solved in the spirit of Gothic "hall church", and devoid of Altar apse Trinity Church in Chashnikove (XVI century), from an architectural type are classic's cross temples.
In short, from the "mainstream" of ancient architecture does not drop any church, including those built invited foreign architect. As we showed above, was no exception and the hip architecture.
On this basis, we may assume that New Aleviz received from the Grand Prince Vasily III, the task to build a palace-temple complex in the Alexander settlement in the "national" style - of course, to the extent of understanding and perception of the style of famous European architect. Neither in Europe nor anywhere else in the world was not such buildings as the first temple Sloboda - hence Aleviz took a sample architecture that surrounded him in Russia. Just in time Fioravanti took a sample of the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir, and Aleviz, in turn, adopted as a model for its cathedral's Assumption Cathedral Fioravanti.
However, taken as a sample in any case does not mean full backups - even St. Basil's Cathedral in the Alexander settlement, direct "remake" the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, differ from the design and proportions, and size, and decor. St. Basil's Cathedral brick and white stone Trinity. At first there basement and galleries, and the second is not. At first the walls are vertical, while the second "pyramid" tilted inward.
Consequently, Aleviz New built their temples in Russia so as to understand the Russian architecture, and applied the common body-composition and decorative solutions, which saw around him - while not abandoning their own creativity and techniques from those of the Renaissance, who were at him, as they say, "blood".
In this connection, we can assume that elevated Aleviz stone marquee over SPLA temple of the Holy Trinity in the Alexander settlement was built under the impression the general elevation and "lancet" Russian churches, including wood. The latter due to their huge number formed the general aspect of ancient temple architecture is no less (if not more) than the few stone churches, especially because the construction did not go to the "white stone" Moscow and the provinces - the Alexander settlement. Thus, VV Kavelmaher wrote about "drevodelnyh" motifs in the architecture of Trinity Church: "Among churches Sloboda only the Church of the Holy Trinity does not have the stone porch, as was originally built the wooden Horo ¬ Mami ... On the appointment of Trinity Church a center for residential, wood, intim ¬ tion of the palace also shows her yn ¬ roschennaya, "pryamoblochnaya", "a wooden case" architecture, in particular, its such form ¬ we as exaggerated Polytsi tent ledge without architrave and frieze, the lack of capitals in the shoulders, "chapel -prirub and gable port ¬ ly "101.
Thus, the use of Trinity church instead of a dome tent, it was perhaps a deliberate introduction of stone architecture "drevodelnyh" motives to organically linked in a single architectural ensemble of the stone temples Sloboda and wooden palace of Vasily III. However, another version is possible: the task the architect was the maximum diversity of the first four churches Sloboda, and with the "usual" dome on a drum Trinity Church too much resemblance to the neighboring Church of the Assumption, and in this situation it was decided to use instead of a dome tent.
Of course, any reconstruction plan architect can only be hypothetical. But the fact that HIP architecture is an organic continuation preceded him ancient architectural tradition, we may take for granted. And this tradition included and wooden architecture, and a wide range of relationships with the global architecture.

NOTES

1. PSRL 8:280; PSRL 13:65; PSRL 20:413.
2. SS Pod'yapol'skii. Architect Petroc Minor. Proc.: Monuments of Russian architecture and monumental art. Style, attribution, dating. Moscow, 1983 (hereinafter - Pod'yapol'skii, 1983). S. 34-50.
3. Ibid. 44.
4. Ibid. 46.
5. RSL. F. 304. Ed. khr. 647. L. 4,4 on.
6. Because the conventional wisdom that the first stone church was a church marquee of the Ascension in Kolomna, on the basis of this theoretical background Trinity Church was unable to date to the first construction period Sloboda - 1510 mi years.
7. V. Kavelmaher. Monuments of Ancient Alexandrova Sloboda. Collected articles. Vladimir, 1995. C. 76.
8. Ibid. 77.
9. More information about the history of reconstruction of the church of Metropolitan Alexei, see: SV ZAGRAEVSKY. On the reconstruction of the Church of Metropolitan Alexis 1510-ies in the Alexander settlement. The article is on the website www.zagraevsky.com.
10. In all these monuments V. Kavelmaher said materials (brick and white stone), similar condition, the uniform of communication, identical connected iron mixed masonry technique, a single "italyaniziruyuschy", "graphic" style of Russian architecture of the XVI century court, with one and the same is clearly aligned, sub-assemblies and parts (VV Kavelmaher. Ordinance. cit., pp. 8-9). Masonry of the temples is not primarily to paint and not belilas, tinted white gesso just some made of brick elements of decor. All speakers white stone elements were the same type of bonded brackets (VV Kavelmaher. Ordinance. Cit., Pp. 9-10). All the churches (except the bell tower of the Metropolitan Alexis) were constructed with aisles and adjacent chambers, and Trinity and Assumption - even from the cellar. In the interest of the entire ensemble of false and misleading podkletny story porch with a belfry and the church received Alexei Metropolitan (VV Kavelmaher. Ordinance. Cit., Pp. 11). Differed between the buildings is only the volume and quality of their covering "fryazhskoy" thread, but VV Kavelmaher said one style of carving, with the exception of ornamental belts Pokrovsky Cathedral, copied from the Trinity Cathedral of the Holy Trinity-Sergius Lavra (VV Kavelmaher. Ordinance . Op., pp. 10).
11. SS Pod'yapol'skii. On the dating sites Alexandrova Sloboda. - Proc.: Proceedings of the Central Museum of Ancient Culture and Art Andrei Rublev. Artistic Culture in Moscow and Moscow Region XIV-beginning of XX centuries. Collected articles. T. 2. Moscow, 2002 (hereinafter - Pod'yapol'skii, 2002). S. 163, 165, 176, 180.
12. V. Kavelmaher. Ordinance. cit., pp. 7.
13. Ibid. 17.
14. AI Nekrasov. Historical Alexandrova Sloboda, their condition and value. M., 1948. TSGALI. F. 2039. Op. 1. Ed. khr. 17. S. 198, 227.
15. V. Kavelmaher. Ordinance. cit., pp. 13.
16. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. S. 162, 168, 169; AL Batalov. On the dating of the Cathedral of the Savior Evfimiev monastery. - Proc.: Suzdal Saviour Euthymius in history and culture of Russia. Vladimir, 2003. C. 43.; AL Batalov. Moscow stone architecture end of XVI century. M., 1996. S. 178-248.
17. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. S. 163, 165, 176, 180.
18. Argument SS Podyapolsky and AL Batalov was as follows: "too much in the concept of VV Kavelmahera (relative dating of the first churches Sloboda 1510 ties of the - SZ) is contrary to established views on the development of architecture in Moscow Russia XVI century (Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. S. 161); architecture of Trinity Church is more typical for tent churches of the second half of XVI century (Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. S. 162); message "Trinity Chronicle does not provide sufficient grounds to date the Pokrovsky Cathedral in 1513 year, because there is no indication of the material of construction, ie we could go and on a wooden temple (Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. S. 176); bring together some of the stylistic features St. Basil's Cathedral and Trinity Church of Alexander the settlement is not with the Kremlin cathedrals of Ivan III and Vasily III, and the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Ditch (1556-1561 years) and the upper chapels 1560-ies the Annunciation Cathedral in Moscow Kremlin (Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. S. 162, 168, 169).
19. SV ZAGRAEVSKY. On the dating and authorship of the monuments of the Alexander settlement. Proc.: Zubovskiy reading. Sat papers. Vol. 3. Strunino, 2005 (hereinafter - ZAGRAEVSKY, 2005). S. 69-92.
20. See ibid.
21. V. Kavelmaher. Ordinance. cit., pp. 70.
22. Ibid. 43, 70.
23. Ibid. 6, 75.
24. PSRL 6:247; 13:10.
25. PSRL 6:254.

26. Pod'yapol'skii, 1983. C. 42.
27. Ibid. 35.
28. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. S. 173.
29. V. Kavelmaher. Ordinance. cit., pp. 70, 42.
30. PA Rappoport. Construction production of Ancient Rus. St. Petersburg, 1994. S. 131. Detail the fallacy of that theory by pointing to the book.: Yuri Dolgoruky and Old white-stone architecture. Moscow, 2002 (hereinafter - ZAGRAEVSKY, 2002). S. 36-40.
31. For example, it is known that architectural work Alberti (1404-1472) was limited primarily to the preparation of drawings and models, which further work by contractors. Another example: Aristotle Fioravanti during the construction of the Assumption Cathedral (1475-1479) in the years 1477-1478 went to Ivan III against Novgorod.
32. RSL. F. 304. Ed. khr. 647. L. 4,4 on.
33. Even if Vasili III, as I thought VV Kavelmaher, "moved his construction personnel in the Sloboda, still 100 km from Moscow, far from the emperor and the architect, construction quality could not compare with the Kremlin. And if, by virtue of general studies question the ratio of local and visiting construction personnel (ZAGRAEVSKY, 2002, pp. 36-40) considers the author of this article, the construction under the guidance of several experienced masters in Moscow were local talent, technical blemishes in the construction is even greater.
34. All the other churches in the Sloboda alevizovy not so original: stolpoobraznye church-bell had been known in Russia, with at least 1329 (John Climacus in the Moscow Kremlin - see: VV Kavelmaher, T. Panova. Remains of the white-stone church XIV century. on the Cathedral Square of the Moscow Kremlin. Proc.: Culture medieval Moscow XIV-XVII centuries. M., 1995. S. 66), Assumption Church was the usual church's cross, and St. Basil's Cathedral - the de facto remake of the Trinity in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra . Incidentally, these three churches can not be talked about as a "minor": they all belong to the work of an outstanding Italian architect, and together with the Trinity Church constitute a single complex.
35. PSRL 12:238.
36. For details, see: SS Pod'yapol'skii. The Italian Building wizard in Russia at the end of the beginning of the XV-XVI century, according to written sources. Experience of compiling the dictionary. - Proc.: Restoration and architectural archeology. New materials and research. Moscow, 1991 (hereinafter - Pod'yapol'skii, 1991). S. 232-233.
37. VP Vygolov. On buildings and personality Aleviz Fryazino. Proc.: Ancient Art. Research and attribution. St. Petersburg, 1997. S. 240.
38. PSRL 12:249.
39. PSRL 6:247.
40. PSRL 12:258.
41. Monuments of ancient Russia diplomatic relations with foreign powers. St. Petersburg, 1884. T. 1, pp. 56.
42. Ibid, vol 2, pp. 551-552.
43. PSRL 13:10.
44. For more information see: Pod'yapol'skii, 1991. S. 224.
45. PSRL 13:8.
46. PSRL 30:140-144.
47. PSRL 8:254-255.
48. MA Il'in, PN Maksimov, VV Kostochkin. The stone architecture of the era heyday of Moscow. Proc.: History of Russian art. T. 3. M., 1955. S. 310.
49. Ibid. 328-330.
50. Pod'yapol'skii, 1991. S. 187-189.
51. VP Vygolov. Ordinance. cit., pp. 240-242.
52. Ibid. 242.
53. In this connection, we can not exclude the authorship (at least, co-author) Aleviz 2 and for a number of buildings of the Kremlin palace: a refined "fryazhskaya" thread, which is characteristic for the product architect (Bakhchisarai Palace, Cathedral of the Archangel, the first temple of Alexander the settlement) is present portals and the Cathedral of the Annunciation (galleries which were actually part of the palace), and the royal chambers. Besides differences in the decoration of the southern and northern facades of the cathedral's say that the temple was actually part of the palace complex (VV Kavelmaher. On the cathedral's aisles. Proc.: Archangel Cathedral of Moscow Kremlin. Moscow, 2002. S. 154.).
54. For more information see: MA Il'in, PN Maksimov, VV Kostochkin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 414; MA Ilyin. Russian tent-roofed architecture. Monuments middle of the XVI century. Problems and hypotheses, ideas and images. , 1980. C. 14; GK Wagner. Style formation of the peculiarity of the architecture of Ancient Rus (return to the problem). Proc.: Architectural heritage. Vol. 38. M., 1995. C. 27.
55. For more information see: MA Il'in, PN Maksimov, VV Kostochkin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 414; PN Maksimov, NN Voronin. Wooden Architecture XIII-XVI centuries. - Proc.: History of Russian art. M., 1955. T. 3, pp. 268; MA Ilyin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 15.
56. For more information see: MA Ilyin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 16.
57. See MA Ilyin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 16; GK Wagner. Ordinance. cit., pp. 27.
58. See MA Ilyin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 20; GK Wagner. Ordinance. cit., pp. 27.
59. V. Kavelmaher. Letter to TP Timofeeva. 1988. The letter is kept in the museum-reserve "Alexander's settlement. Here is the full text of the paragraph dealing with this subject: "With regard to the tent, it is - nothing. Randomness in the architecture. It only replaces the dome, overlapping SPLA. Of the former Byzantine provinces, most developed typological grid, in my opinion, the Bulgarians and their language we understand. The dome rests not on poles, and foundations. That's it. It is necessary to avoid poles with reels and lights, nothing basilica, and you receive a "domed" church. Russian ear it does not say anything, well, normal Byzantinologist does not say anything, our "besstolpnaya" church. We can not determine the subject of no evidence. Scientists guys Altshuler and Aleshkovsky, when revealed in Moscow churches XIV century with "inscribed cross" (in Bulgarian), called their churches "with wall posts! Ie with pillars against the wall! Pillar, leaning against the wall, a wall merges itself becomes a wall. This is - stable. This example best shows that we are so stuck on Sofiyah and viewed domed churches.
60. ZAGRAEVSKY, 2002. C. 49.
61. SV ZAGRAEVSKY. Architecture of the North-Eastern Russia the end of the first third of the XIII-XIV century. Moscow, 2003 (hereinafter - ZAGRAEVSKY, 2003).
62. SV ZAGRAEVSKY. On the shape of the heads (dome coating) of ancient temples. Abstracts, see the book.: Proceedings of the Regional Studies Conference (April 14, 2006). T. 2. Vladimir, 2007. S. 9-12. Full text of the article, visit the Web site www.zagraevsky.com.
63. V. Kavelmaher, TD Panova. Ordinance. cit.; MA Ilyin. Ordinance. cit.
64. For more information see: ZAGRAEVSKY, 2003.
65. Details, see: SV ZAGRAEVSKY. The architectural history of the church in Trifon Naprudnom and origin Groin vault. Moscow, 2005 (hereinafter - ZAGRAEVSKY, Trifon in Naprudnom). The article is on the website www.zagraevsky.com.
66. SS Pod'yapol'skii. On the question of originality of architecture of Moscow Cathedral of the Assumption. - Proc.: Assumption Cathedral. Materials and Research. - M., 1985. C. 42.
67. GK Wagner. Ordinance. cit., pp. 25.
68. Ibid.
69. Must express my gratitude to Yu Tarabarinoy, who called the author's attention to this temple.
70. Forum website www.archi.ru.
71. Pod'yapol'skii, 1983. C. 48.
72. MA Il'in, PN Maksimov, VV Kostochkin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 413.
73. Tikhomirov. Little-known monuments of the XVI century chronicles. Proc.: Historical notes, 1941. Kn. 10, pp. 88.
74. PN Maksimov, NN Voronin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 271.
75. Ibid. 264.
76. Ibid.
77. Ibid.
78. Ibid. 265.
79. Ibid. 268.
80. MA Il'in, PN Maksimov, VV Kostochkin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 415.
81. PSRL 15:183.
82. PN Maksimov, NN Voronin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 266.
83. NN Voronin and VN Lazarev. The Art of Middle principalities XIII-XV centuries. Proc.: History of Russian art. M., 1955. T. 3, pp. 21.
84. Forum website www.archi.ru.
85. For more information see: ZAGRAEVSKY, 2005.
86. General History of Architecture. M., 1966. T. 4, pp. 655.
87. The author thanks Yu Tarabarinoy for a link to a photo of this kitchen.
88. MA Il'in, PN Maksimov, VV Kostochkin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 416.
89. VA, Krokhin. Erection of hipped roof coatings in the wooden architecture of the Russian North. At Sat: "Architectural Heritage and Restoration. M., 1986.
90. SV Sergeyev. Introduction to Art History. Description and analysis of monuments. University of the history of cultures. Training course. Website unic.edu.ru.
91. PN Maksimov, NN Voronin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 267.
923. VA Krokhin. Ordinance. cit.
93. Ibid.
94. MA Ilyin. Ordinance. cit., pp. 36.
95. Ibid.
96. Ibid.
97. See ZAGRAEVSKY, 2002.
98. V. Kavelmaher, TD Panova. Ordinance. cit.
99. Pobrobnee see: ZAGRAEVSKY, 2003.
100. For more information see: ZAGRAEVSKY, Trifon in Naprudnom.
101. V. Kavelmaher. Ordinance. cit., pp. 29.

Moscow, 2007.

To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page