To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page


Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky


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


Published in Russian: Заграевский С.В. Первый каменный шатровый храм и происхождение шатрового зодчества. Электронная публикация: (электронная научная библиотека «РусАрх»), 2008 г.





Architectural, archaeological and annalistic evidences in favor of dating of first four temples of Alexander Sloboda, including a hipped-roof Trinity (now Intersession) church, by 1510-s are sited. It is confirmed that Trinity church was the first Russian stone hipped-roof temple, built earlier than the church of Ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532), and that the author of Trinity Church was the Italian architect Aleviz New. On the basis of these findings, the origin of Ancient Russian hipped-roof architecture is described, its main source (wooden hipped-roof churches) and some indirect sources are identified.


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.






Until recently, the first ancient stone Church marquee was considered to be the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (Fig. 1)that have a clear chronicle the date of completion - year 15321. The architect of this Church definitely is not installed. S. pod'yapol'skii, devoted to the matter of special investigation2, believed that they had Petroc minor (Peter Fryazin)probably arrived in Moscow in 15283. Accordingly, the researcher was Dating the Church of the assumption 1529-1532 years4.


The Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye.


Fig. 1. The Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye.


Unlike the Church of ascension in Kolomenskoe, the temple of Alexander the settlement (including hip Trinity, now protection, the Church - R is%

- Pokrovsky, now Trinity Cathedral (in the future will be without reservations call it Pokrovsky) on the basis of the records of the Trinity chronicle about the sanctification of the temple (no details, stone or wood) and the arrival of Basil III in the Grand Palace Alexandrov Sloboda5 was considered to be built in 1513;

- hip Trinity, now intercession Church "on the Yard is%6;

Uspensky Church is conventionally dated to the same 1570 mi as Trinity;

- Crucifixion bell to 1710 - the Church of Metropolitan Alexei7 - Fig. 3) also dated 1570 mi. After the 1940-ies's Polonsky was found inside her earlier pillar-shaped building8, the latter were attributed to the first construction period Sloboda and date, as St. Basil's Cathedral, 1513 (in fact we are dealing with two different buildings, so in future we will, for simplicity, to name Crucifixion tower in its present form, and the Church of Metropolitan Alexis - pillar-shaped building, located inside it9 - Fig. 4).


Trinity Church


Рис. 2. Троицкая церковь в Александровской слободе.


Распятская церковь в Александровской слободе.


Рис. 3. Распятская церковь в Александровской слободе.


The Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda. Reconstruction of the author.


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


In 1980-1990-ies series of excavations and soundings, held in the Alexander suburb V. kavelmaherom, identified a fundamental fact: Pokrovsky Cathedral, hip Trinity Church, assumption Church and Church-belfry of Metropolitan Alexei was built in the same building period10.

Architectural and archaeological arguments Kavelmahera was fairly well received by all researchers as comprehensive11 and inevitably the question arose about the correction of earlier dates.

Kavelmaher, referring to the text of the Trinity chronicle12 and the proximity of the stylistics of the first temple Alexander the settlement to the style of the Kremlin cathedrals of Ivan III and Vasily III13 (this stylistic affinity was noted Aiecraft14), dated the Church of the protection, Trinity, assumption and Alexei, Metropolitan of the first construction period Sloboda - the beginning 1510-ies. The second construction period 1570-s - Kavelmaher attributed only to the restructuring of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei and the extension to the Trinity Church refectory in the cellar and basement15.

In the late 1990's-early 2000-ies point of view Kavelmahera was the%16. Поддерживая отнесение Покровского собора, Троицкой церкви, Успенской церкви и церкви Алексея митрополита к одному строительному периоду17 the researchers were Dating all these monuments 1570 mi18.

Detailed analysis of all the arguments Kavelmahera, S. Podyapolsky and al Batalov was devoted to a special study of the author of this article19. Here, only show that the main argument in favor of Dating Kavelmahera is in fact a significant time lag (several decades)%220, показали, что:

- masonry, solution, style and the performance of the decoration of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei Crucifixion and the bell totally different. In the Church of Metropolitan Alexis (as in the Church of the Intercession, Trinity and assumption), we see a soft, warm stonework, typical brick buildings of the Moscow Kremlin of the turn of the XV and XVI centuries, and for the Cathedral of 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 ornaments and Settlement, and the Kremlin were carved so that seems like a stone "breathes". Brick decoration of churches With The%BUnlike all the listed buildings, Crucifixion tower built of "dry" bricks, crumbling easily to 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 the belfry Crucifixion, and


St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery.


Fig. 5. St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery.


- the Windows of the upper tiers of the surviving Church of Metropolitan Alexei was made (and very carefully) is another form prior to the rigging walls of the future Crucifixion bell. It is doubtful that shortly after construction would require considerable work to give Windows a fundamentally new form;

- by the moment of rigging the pylons of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei had time to take root in the earth" about half a metre. Theoretically it could happen in a few years (in the case of targeted sprinklings of soil), but it is extremely unlikely. The usual time so significant "growing" buildings in the ground - at least several decades;

- at the junction of walls and pylons Crucifixion bell on detected by probing the fragments of the white-stone basement and obliviscence brick decor of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei there are traces of weathering, which could have time to appear only in a few decades.

Thus, since the rebuilding of the Church of Metropolitan Alexis (i.e. the construction of the bell tower of Crucifixion in its current form) is uniquely dates back to the second construction period Sloboda - 1570 mi, we have to date her the construction of the first construction period - 1510 ties. And since none of the researchers is no doubt proven V. kavelmaherom the fact that the Church of the Intercession, Trinity and of the Dormition in the Alexander Suburb were built in the same building period, the last dated as 1510 ties.

From this it follows that the first stone Church marquee in Russia was Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda.

To quote what I wrote in this regard Kavelmaher: "the Proposed assignment of Trinity Church to the first decades of the sixteenth century undermined, at first glance, the very foundations of the theory of Russian tent-roofed architecture. But 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 Sabbath.% 9In the history of Russian architecture of the temple was a work from the point of view of its formal perfection, the only and unique. However, this process of building stone tent churches in Moscow in certain circumstances interrupted. "Mass" construction tent churches were resumed only in 50-ies of the XVI century - all at once, spontaneously, in a remarkably advanced and made the%BBreaking new construction with a constructive idea and proposed a prototype plastic can't explain it, but how to explain it perfectly ripe, "sustained", an independent form of a new series of monuments? After all, if you follow this theory, it turns out that almost the first twenty years after the break were built such masterpieces as the Central %DBut who then built another hip masterpiece is not extant Church of St. Sergius Trinity-Epiphany compound in the Kremlin (1558.)? Or not so perfect from the point of view of form, but surely made reliquary hip-tomb of Avraamy of Rostov in Avraamiev-Epiphany monastery in Rostov Veliky (1554.)? And who created a constructive rough, but defiantly bold hip-cross design of the Transfiguration Cathedral in Solovki? Who built dvustolpny's cross-the%81557.)? And how are we to understand the source of evidence about the construction of the Pokrovsky Cathedral with side-chapels" - "different samples and translations? If we accept this theory, 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 genius 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 visperhof and platbands), but primarily to the two pillars monuments Alexandrova Sloboda - domed Church of Metropolitan Alexei tent and 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. It is this sentence is the history of architecture. However, the monument is too fresh and original, too awkward naive to just be creative failure unknown Italian architect. And because its methods of Dating in the absence of other must be strictly archaeological21.

The objectives of this study does not include consideration of the whole process of Genesis of stone tent-roofed architecture (we are limited to the questions of origin), so in addition to the foregoing VV kavelmaherom will note only that later date the Church of the ascension in comparison with the Trinity Church in no way detracts from the value of Kolomna monument DL is%8

Trinity Church of the ascension in comparison with small, "touch down" and, as repeatedly demonstrated and Kavelmaher22not so perfect in engineering terms. But between the construction of these temples was fifteen or twenty relatively calm and peaceful (which is important) years. Over the years, and engineering, and construction equipment could not make a significant step is




Now the question arises whether we can identify the architect who built Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda, at least with the same degree of certainty with which SS pod'yapol'skii identified for the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye authorship petroc minor.

V. kavelmaher that graduated in 1508, a Moscow court, Vasily III "threw vacant building frames in Sloboda"and that "a fortified complex of the Tsar's court (in the Sloboda - SZ) was built immediately after the end of the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow by Italian architects Vasily III and was constructed in about five years in 1508-1509 1513.»23. The fact that the authorship of the first temples Sloboda belongs to one of the architects of Italian origin, known under the name of Aleviz, a researcher wrote, though, it would seem that this conclusion with a high probability of the following facts:

in 1508, Aleviz Fryazin finished work on the Moscow Grand Palace and the New Aleviz - over Archangel Cathedral24 (the question of the identity of both buildings and architects are presented in detail below);

- in 1513 Alexandrov Sloboda was completed on the Grand Palace and was consecrated the Cathedral of the intercession;

in 1514, the great Prince commanded one of Aleviz erect in Moscow on 11 churches, including St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery and the Church of the Annunciation in the Old Vagankovo25.

It is unlikely that such a chain of bilateral dates and buildings could be a coincidence. So, the authorship petroc minor in relation to the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye SSD is%826 и началом строительства Китай-Города в 1534 году27.

But as for the temple of Alexander the settlement, 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, typical of the architecture of the Renaissance, which is absolutely nepena the%28.

From these observations, S. Podyapolsky hard to disagree. But are positions Kavelmahera and S. Podyapolsky mutually exclusive? After all, Kavelmaher wrote that the Trinity Church "awkward naive"and construction of the tabernacle "paradoxical"29.

Unfortunately, the rule in the history of architecture of the last quarter of the XX century the theory Rappoport, prescriptive tracking building cooperatives in full composition (from architect to ordinary masons)30, has created a completely wrong stereotype: the architect "supposed" to move the head of his farm from the construction site to the site and personally to go into all the details of construction implementation of your building. Accordingly, any blemishes (the more "naive") design excluded the authorship of highly qualified architect (especially such a level as Aleviz).

But in fact, the architect in no case was not obliged to be constantly present in the project: its main task was to develop the project and receive a churchwarden funds for its implementation31. And in this case, the first churchwarden temples Alexandrov Sloboda - Vasily III - was in Moscow and came in her yard in the Settlement only in 151332.

Consequently, Aleviz, if he was the author of monuments Sloboda, still had to be permanently in Moscow, at the Grand courtyard. The lack of Aleviz the court could lead to problems with funded by the

Thus, Aleviz could either occasionally come in the Alexander suburb during construction, or even the first time to see their temples already constructed, "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 Kavelmaher and S. pod'yapol'skii33.

Consequently, the end of the Aleviz in 1508 work in the Kremlin, construction of the Grand Palace and the Pokrovsky Cathedral 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 that 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 occurred minor technical flaws, Vasily III was satisfied with the work of the architect - it is proved by the Grand Duke in 1514 commissioned him to build eleven new churches.

The idea of a princely Palace-temple complex in the Settlement fully meets the scale of any of Aleviz - simultaneous construction of very large for that time, the complex of buildings, absolutely unique, not like one another, but United "country" style (as opposed to "capital" style, realized in stone Kremlin Palace and the Archangel Cathedral).

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 tent-roofed Church of the Trinity34.




Examine the question which of the two architects of Italian origin, known under the name of Aleviz, straw%

First of all let's see what we know about these wizards. The first of them (who arrived in Moscow in 1494) is traditionally called Aleviz Fryazino or simply Aleviz, a second (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 nineteenth century called od%D

About Aleviz 1 Chronicles report the following: "Came the ambassadors of the great Prince of Moscow, Manolo Aggelou Greek Yes Danila Mamyrov that sent them to the Prince of the great masters to Venice and Mediolan; they also privados to Moscow Aleviz wizard wall and ward and Peter pasechnika and other masters"35. How to set up modern Italian researchers, we are talking about Aloisio Yes Kartano (Carcano)36.

With built in Moscow Aleviz 1st from 1494 to 1499 years, we do not know, but it looks convincing version Wppagenavi37: he replaced the deceased in 1493 by Pietro Antonio Solari on a post of the head of the Kremlin's fortification.

The following mention about Aleviz 1-m is because in 1499 "the great Prince ordered ordered zalozhiti your yard, chamber kamenya and kirpichnyi, and under them the cellars and glaciers, on the old courtyard of Blagoveschenie, yea stone wall from the yard of his to Borovet%38. Это строительство было завершено к 1508 году, когда Василий III переехал в построенный дворец39. What we are talking precisely about Aleviz 1-m, confirmed by the reference to "hail mediolama" (Milan).

In 1504 in Moscow with the Embassy of Dmitry Ralev and Mitrophan Karacharovo came another group masters40. On the way to Moscow that the Embassy had been detained in the Crimea Khan Mengli-Girey, obliging the masters some time to work on the construction of the Bakhchisaray Palace41. Letting go of ambassadors and artists in Moscow, Khan wrote Ivan III: "And Xu letter filed architect Aleviz, manly-Gireiev word... I am your brother taking a shortcut, Posol Aleviz master, Velma good artist, not like other masters, Velma great master... That's how my honor and my brother's word of honor, that Fryazino Aleviz complain, thou knowest"42.

None of the researchers had no doubt (and won't doubt, and we)that this "Velma great master" (we will call it by Aleviz 2 m) is the very same New Aleviz, which, according to the chronicle data, in 1508 completed the construction of the Archangel Cathedral and the Church of the Nativity of John the Baptist at the Borovitsky gate43. In favor of this interpretation and clarification of "new" (regarding the Sabbath.

More in the annals of Aleviz 2nd as "Aleviz Novy" is not mentioned. The attempts of a number of Italian researchers to identify the architect with the famous Venetian sculptor and Carver Alvise Lamberti di Montagnana44though has received a wide resonance in modern popular scientific literature, are only unconfirmed (and, as we shall soon see, the very somnitel%

В 1508 году «князь великий велел вкруг града Москвы ров делати камением и кирпичем и пруды чинити вкруг града Алевизу Фрязину»45. Annals of lead and more specific information about these works, which began in 1507 and completed in 1519 - built walls, towers, dams and ditch along the river Neglinnaya46.

Finally, in 1514, Vasily III ordered to build in Moscow on 11 churches, "and all those churches was the master Aleviz Fryazin"47. This documentary data Aleviz should be exhausted.

Until 1970-ies in the history of architecture dominated following point of view: Aleviz 1 St built only Western fortifications of the Kremlin along the Neglinnaya48, and Aleviz 2nd - all the others referred to in the above mentioned Chronicles buildings (the Grand Kremlin Palace and all the temples, including founded in 1514)49. Accordingly, Aleviz 2nd regarded as the greatest architect of the era, and Aleviz 1st was relegated to a secondary role (compared with Solari) fortification.

In the last quarter of the twentieth century, this "extreme" point of view has been questioned SS pod'yapol'skii50 and Vpolicy51. Both researchers have attributed the Grand Kremlin Palace to creativity Aleviz 1st and Vygolov VP doubted the authorship of Aleviz 2nd in the Church, founded in 1514.

Arguments S. Podyapolsky and Wppagenavi in favour of the inclusion of the Kremlin Palace "creative wall and ward wizard" Aleviz 1 undeniable: Aleviz 2nd in 1499 was not yet in Russia, moreover, in the chronicle report this year reads that the master was from Milan. But valid doubts about these researchers are submitted by Aleviz 2nd churches, with

VP Vygolov rightly believed that, because the same chronicle under the year 1508 reports that fortification works ("pit delatite stone and brick...") were charged Aleviz Fryazino, and the Cathedral of the Archangel and the Church of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist built the New Aleviz, a chronicler he spoke about different architects. But out of this situation, the researcher made the highly controversial conclusionThe rationale for this conclusion was that the architect mentioned in the annals under the year 1514, was named Aleviz Fryazino - as well as in reports on the activities of Aleviz 1 under 1494 and 1499 years.

In fact, in a position Wppagenavi we see one more "extreme" point of view, but with the opposite sign: greatest architect of the era, capable of building and fortresses, palaces, and temples (in the same time and on an unprecedented scale), was Aleviz 1st, and Aleviz 2nd built in Russia for four years, two temples and after 1508 disappeared.

Apparently, in this case, the%B

Undoubtedly, researchers have always understood that the wording "Aleviz Fryazin" means nothing more than a statement of the fact that Aleviz was Italian. And yet in this work Wppagenavi52 (perhaps unnoticed by the investigator) occurred "rebirth" this finding in sustainable nickname of one master - Aleviz 1st. But, of course, Aleviz 2nd was too Aleviz Fryazino, and the adjective "new" was used by the chronicler only in order to stress that the Italian Aleviz who built the Cathedral of the Archangel, arrived in Moscow later Italian Aleviz, who built fortifications on Neglinnaya. Therefore, we can not rely on the naming of an architect Aleviz Fryazino in determining the author's temples, the construction of which was started in 1514.

Far more important message is seen chronicle 1494 that Aleviz was "master wall and ward. The chronicler could hardly make it a fundamental clarification accidentally, and such specialization Aleviz 1st puts everything in its place.

From 1494 to 1499 years Aleviz 1 was constructed to strengthen the Kremlin, which did not have time to complete Solari. In 1499-1508 years the architect built led

Hardly the architect had the opportunity in parallel with these large-scale fortification works to build 11 churches in Moscow (in 1514-1518, respectively). Accordingly, it is equally doubtful that in 1508-1513 years Aleviz 1 could lead the construction of a princely Palace-temple complex of Alexandrov Sloboda.

And Aleviz 2nd from 1505 to 1508 years, built the Cathedral of the Archangel and the Church of John the Baptist. Logical to assume that the specificity of his work as "the Church Builder" and then remained a priority. Therefore, from 1508 to 1513, he could build temples and the Palace in the village, and from 1514 - 11 churches in Moscow.

The temple building was supposed to be the 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 2nd and sculptor Alvise Lamberti di Montagnana very unlikely). And the experience of building the Palace complexes Aleviz 2nd could get in B%D53.

The ability of Aleviz 2nd (for simplicity, in the future we will call it New Aleviz, as Aleviz 1st in our study is not mentioned more) to work in a wide range of architectural forms were confirmed in XIX-XX centuries, so different from each other buildings of the architect, as the Bakhchisaray Palace, the Cathedral of the Archangel and is known for lithographs AA Martynov and im Snegireva the Church of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist under the Forest and of the Annunciation in the Old Vagankovo. In the 1960-ies to this list were added octagonal Cathedral of St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery. Now we uprav




The question of the origin of the old Russian 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) takes the researchers is not the first hundred years. For a detailed historical overview of all points of view put forward beyond the scope of this article, Perret is

- hip architecture of Ancient Russia was a direct or indirect reminiscent of the late Gothic Western (Karamzin, Imoneynet, LDL, E.E. Golubinsky, A.I. Nekrasov, H. Wagner)54;

- hip architecture is a unique phenomenon, formed on the basis of old Russian wooden architecture (ia Zabelin, FF Gornostayev, Grabar, N. Voronin)55;

- hip architecture is derived from the ancient Serbian churches with elevated supporting arches (Ni Bruno)56;

- hip architecture was formed under the influence of the architecture of ancient castle towers (PN Maksimov, mA Il'in, mn Tikhomirov, H. Wagner)57;

- by becoming a hip architecture greatly influenced by the ancient pillars of the Church-bell (mA Il'in, H. Wagner)58;

- old Russian pavilion was "an accident in the architecture and just replaced the dome, Perek is%59.

Before we begin to address these hypotheses, we note that research Kavelmahera and the author of this article that led to the revision of the position relative to the first stone temple of hip, cannot by themselves materially affect the choice of one or another point of view researchers or to develop a new theory of the origin of hip architecture. One of the Grand temple (ascension 1528-1532 years), with high probability, built by Italian architect (petroc minor), "replaced" by another (Trinity 1510-ies), and with high probability, built by Italian architect (Aleviz New). Both temples belong to the era of Basil III, marked by the flowering of architecture and an active search of new forms. The only thing we will further study the "replacement" of the Church of the ascension at Trinity Church - the traditional forms of the quadrangle of the latter.

And we start with a statement of fact that is hard to question, - that during the formation of the ancient Russian architecture of the XII-XV centuries it on%D60, появление повышенных подпружных арок, обработка барабанов килевидными кокошниками61, возведение над куполами высоких луковичных глав62 the construction of the column churches "under the bells"63- all of these phenomena are in line with overall impression "Lancet", which produces Gothic.

Characteristic of Gothic tendency to increase and zalnosti" the interior of the temples also reflected in the ancient Russian architecture - the pillars was getting thinner and thinner, less and less XP, the%B64, а затем и с крещатым сводом65. А Успенский собор Фиораванти, к примеру, С.С.Подъяпольский справедливо относил к типу готической «зальной церкви»66.

H. Wagner wrote that "if the development of "high-rise" architecture was not interrupted by the Mongol invasion, then Russia would have known something akin to Gothic67.

In this regard must assume that the emergence of "upward" hip architecture corresponds to one of the major trends of Gothic, and this is a serious argument in favor of the position nm Karamzin, im Snegireva, L.V. dal, E.E. Golubinsky and A.I. Nekrasov. Here we'll take and position Neemrana (temples with elevated supporting arches), Mailin, PN Maksimov, M.%68, is closely associated with the "tall" Gothic features and, therefore, 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 canopied temples are completely different constructive entity (arch p%D

Secondly, pillar-shaped temples before the erection in 1510-ies the Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda and the Cathedral of St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery had not unlike tent churches, more or less extensive SPLA, that is, in engineering terms were closer to the towers, than to the Church buildings (examples - Church-belfry of St John Climacus 1329, %

Third, a direct parallel between the fortified towers and temples marquee impossible. The first had a utilitarian character, the second appearance is determined solely by spiritual needs and architectural thought era. Moreover, from a utilitarian point of view tent churches had no sense, as compared to "scale" a cross churches (especially with the European basilicas) their area SPLA small, and "kolodtseobraznost" interior creates a lot of problems with acoustics.

Fourth, for the Western Gothic (like romanik, as for the Renaissance) is absolutely unusual overlap SPLA tent. Over sredokrestiyami sometimes were built or stone octahedral dome (Imperial Cathedral of Speyer (Speyer), the Cathedral of Limburg Lana - Fig. 6)or wooden tents (Church of our lady in Bruges68 - Fig. 7). Sometimes over a stone dome was erected decorative wooden tent (Cathedral in Padua, Fig. 8). Not one stone of the tent or on the naos or above the crossing 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.


The dome above the crossing of the Cathedral of Limburg n is%


Рис. 6. Купол над средокрестием собора в Лимбурге на Лане.


Церковь в Брюгге.


Рис. 7. Церковь в Брюгге.


. Собор в Падуе. Над центральным куполом возведен декоративный шатер.


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


This fully applies to the East, where, in addition to towers, stone tents sometimes overlap small mausoleums (as in the Volga Bulgaria).

In this connection it is necessary to make an important reservation: determining the origin of hip architecture and speaking of the first stone tent-roofed Church, we can provide the%

Acciona wrote that the origin of hip architecture of Gothic "found in the source form of 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 tent comes from the Gothic spire, we subsequently have to assume many intermediate links between the two typologies - Gothic bell tower integrated into the vaulted Basilica, and the Russian detached centric tent-roofed Church. For example, Russian Basilica with belfry, from which ZAT%DThe available evidence is insufficient. May not be such that the spire "cut down" from the bell tower and hoisted on the way undertaken (and, it appeared, by the way, nowhere) octagon on square"70. We must fully agree with the researcher.

Fifth, one of the most characteristic trends Gothic - increase the area of the internal space of the temples. With marquee same architecture, the situation is the opposite: we have already said that compared to "scale" a cross churches, and especially with the 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 New or Aleviz Petroc Small, could focus on the Gothic. As we know, the term "Gothic" Italians XV-XVI centuries, and means "the art of the willing", i.e. the "barbarians".

It is useful to note that in the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye, as shown by S. pod'yapol'skii, there were numerous "Renaissance" elements (orders, portals with direct architraves embrasure, "Renaissance" drawing Gothic visperhof etc). Against taking place in Kolomna temple Gothic elements (total stolpoobraznosti and many decorative elements, first of all themselves visperhof) the researcher believed that Petroc Small applied them as imitation of the "local" architecture, as caught in the preceding old Russian architecture spirit of Gothic71.

We can all agree with SS pod'yapol'skii and to say the same about Aleviz New: in the temple of Alexander the settlement contains many elements of the architecture of the Renaissance (decor, portals, colonnade, etc.) Orientation of Aleviz on Renaissance confirmed by the architecture of its first Moscow building - Arkhangelsk Cathedral. All "Gothic" elements in temples built by the Italian architect, are as petroc minor, stylized old Russian architecture (and St. Basil's Cathedral in Alexandrov Sloboda, as we have already noted, in General, is a direct remake of" the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra).




Now we can proceed to the consideration of hypotheses regarding the origin of hip architecture of old Russian wooden architecture.

"The chronicler briefly the Russian land" (XVI century72) under the year 1532 says: "the great Prince Vasily placed the stone Church of Vnesenie of our Lord Jesus Christ up on the wooden case73. This message draws a direct parallel between to%

We have the image is not extant wooden tent-roofed Church in the village una Arkhangelsk region (Fig. 9), the construction of which registers the records referred to 150174, respectively, this Church was built before the first stone temple of hip.


The Church in the village of Ura Arkhangelsk region.


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


Nor The%B75, и мы можем привести ряд аргументов в поддержку их позиции.

First, these researchers have provided examples of images wooden tent churches on the icon of the beginning of the XIV century from the village curve (Fig. 10) and in the fields of Pskov handwritten "Charter"76.


The icon of the village of the curve.


Fig. 10. The icon of the village of the curve.


Secondly, these researchers believed on the basis of textual and iconographic analysis of ancient documents %D77, Устюге (конец XIII века)78, Ледском погосте (1456 год)79 и Вологде (конец XV века)80. Про церковь 1501 года в селе Уна мы уже упоминали выше.

Third, these researchers have led the chronicle reported high "stanah" in Moscow81 and showed that we are talking about a wooden tent pillar-shaped churches82;

Fourth, wooden belfry is shown in the image of the Tver Kremlin first half of the XV century on the icon Michael of Tver and Duchess Xenia83 (Fig. 11).


The image of the Tver Kremlin first half of the XV century on the icon Michael of Tver and Duchess Xenia.


Fig. 11. The image of the Tver Kremlin first half of the XV century on the icon Michael of Tver and Duchess Xenia.


Fifthly, it is highly likely that many of the wooden tent-roofed temples of the XVI-XVII centuries are copies of more ancient. This position was justified Acciona84 on the basis of the following considerations:

- folk architecture conservative typology change very slowly;

- there was a practice to replace rotten logs in the frame of 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 for analysis take a large number of logs. Accordingly, some wooden monuments due to a lack of representative sample material for analysis could receive a later date;

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

Sixth, as have already written to the author of this article85, wood is much easier to build a tent than the dome, and stone dome to build simpler than the tent. The reasons for this are the following:

- technology of building stone domes (and formwork, and without it86) was well known and established since the days of Ancient Rome, and large stone tents before the beginning of the XVI century nowhere in the world was erected (very rarely built tents over %D87рис. 12);


Кухня в аббатстве Фонтевро (романика).


Рис. 12. Кухня в аббатстве Фонтевро (романика).


- stone tent has almost the same rip as the dome, and to achieve uniformity of spreading at a high altitude tent (relatively speaking, to mean not "dipped") - a complex engineering task;

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

- the construction of wooden tent several (usually eight) logs (the edges of the tent) are at the top and covered with boards, and it can make almost any little bit of a skilled carpenter. And not in vain, as we have noted previously, all known Gothic tents over sredokrestiyami - wooden.

That tent from wood to build much easier than the dome, it follows that the tent could be "simplified" dome during the whole time of existence of the old Russian wooden architecture, including in the XI-XV centuries. I can give an example of such replacement outside Russia - rotunda over the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which until the nineteenth century were wooden.

In this regard, it is appropriate to support the position Kavelmahera in that pavilion was simple replacement dome, overlapping SPLA, is the only significant caveat that this change in the wooden architecture was no accident, but the design-based phenomenon. Grabar and FF Gornostayev questioned the origin of the tent from a wooden%88. But in XI-XV centuries, wooden tent over the naos were quite clear pattern - the dome of stone temples.

And because the tent in the wooden architecture was multi-faceted (this is due to the heart of its design - 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 on square".

Another question in the "wooden" the origin of the tent may be due to the fact that in the preserved ancient wooden churches tent top is usually not closed down, and separated from the SPLA horizontal ceiling. But the reasons for erection of additional ceiling convincingly demonstrated Wagrain: it was caused by the need to protect the facility Church iconostasis from the rain (snow)that fall into the gaps between the boards of Polis and logs knock down when the wind is strong, effective functioning of ventilation in the upper level of the log stable and independent ventilation in the%89.

GP Goltz believed that "vertically directed stone tent-roofed architecture may not occur on a horizontal directed wooden constructions"90. But there are many examples of verticalization wooden churches (as already mentioned by us the Church in the village of Ura (Fig. 9), the Church of St. Elijah 1600 Vysokogo churchyard top-Tomskogo district Archangel is%91рис. 13, Богоявленская церковь 1605 года в деревне Челмужи Заонежского района Карелии92рис. 14, Вознесенская церковь 1654 года в селе Пиялы Онежского района Архангельской области93 - Fig. 15 and mn. others), and the wooden tent (anyway, its frame) usually does not consist of horizontal and vertical logs.


The Church Vysokogo churchyard of the Arkhangelsk region.


Fig. 13. The Church Vysokogo churchyard of the Arkhangelsk region.


The Church in the village of chelmuzhi Zaonezhie district of Karelia. Longitudinal section.


Fig. 14. The Church in the village of chelmuzhi Zaonezhie district of Karelia. Longitudinal section.


Church in the village Pialy Arkhangelsk region. Longitudinal section.


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


In General wooden tent-roofed architecture generates no less "Gothic" Association than stone. Of course, hardly rural (and urban), the carpenters were familiar with Western European experience, is probably Gothic "altitude" came in wooden architecture indirectly (through ancient pillar-shaped temples and churches with elevated supporting arches). N%D




Let's sum up. We see a fairly extensive set of factors that can directly or indirectly affect the emergence of hip architecture, all these factors have a very high cross-correlation, due to which any logical construction sooner or later "closed" to each other. As an example, the basic postulates, the validity of which we display%D

– шатровые храмы имеют несомненную типологическую связь и со столпообразными колокольнями, и с храмами с повышенными подпружными арками;

- "high-rise" pillar-shaped temples "under the bells", as the temples with elevated supporting arches, appeared in Russia under the influence of late Romanesque and Gothic;

- for Gothic unusual overlap SPLA (and even sredokrestiya) tent, the more stone;

- hip architecture contradicts one of the main tendencies of Gothic - increase the area of internal space of the temples;

- Italian architects of the Renaissance could not directly focus on the Gothic style;

- in the work of Italian architects in Russia has been a conscious styling forms in accordance with local traditions;

- wooden tent-roofed architecture was extended to Russia before the XVI century;

- there chronicle proof of origin architecture of the wooden tent;

- wood is much easier to build a tent than the dome (a stone dome to build simpler than the tent);

- in the wooden architecture of the tent was the replacement of the dome, overlapping SPLA;

- total altitude

- pillar-shaped temples and churches with elevated supporting arches, appeared in Russia under the influence of late Romanesque and Gothic.

"Logical circle has closed. In this case, the "closure" means that the emergence of hip architecture in varying degrees, affected all the above factors.

Therefore, each of the researchers, whose position we discussed in paragraph 4, was in his own right. But out of loyalty to such a wide range of positions can be concluded: hip architecture has been prepared by the entire previous history and Russian and world architecture, with all the infinite set of relationships, influences and origins.

However, the construction of the first tent-roofed Church of the

We will not forget that the authorship of the New Aleviz, like any other Italian architect, in respect of Trinity Church (as the authorship of the Italian architect for the Church of the ascension) is very likely, but not absolutely proven fact. And yet we try to reconstruct the path of creativity of the architect that built Trinity Church in Alec is%8

Theoretically, we can assume that the source of inspiration for the architect to have tents that housed the biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the future, these pavilions became a symbol of the dwelling, i.e. the "porch", and the same value in the words of the prophet Isaiah received the sky: "He (God - SZ) stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (ISA. 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 were attached tent "shadowing" the role95. But the researcher himself wrote that "the arches" is most fully expressed in the Church's cross (the dome on the pillars)96and it remains unclear, why in the XVI century in Russia, the architect decided to replace one "canopy" (dome") to another (tent). If a tent in the Church tradition had any independent symbolic (and even more canonical) value, it is as a phenomenon ka

In accordance with the "Occam's razor" ("should not multiply entities beyond necessity"), we can assume that the source of inspiration for the New Aleviz were not rotunda over the Holy Sepulchre in distant Palestine and not abstract biblical characters, and specific the Grand order and surrounding architect of the old Russian architecture.

In Ancient Russia since the time of termination in the middle of the XII century a direct copy of Byzantine models specificity ktitorskih orders given by invited foreign architects, was that the task was built not Italian, German or English churches, namely Russian. In other words, from architects have always wanted to work in line with the already established at the time of the traditions of Russian architecture, despite the fact that they were free to make the principles and elements of different styles, adopted in their country of origin.

From this General rule we do not know 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, "Byzantine" (by that time already traditional for Ancient Russia) cross-forms, though with the introduction of a number of Romanesque decor elements and%297. Строительство столпообразных храмов «под колоколы» (вероятнее всего, первым из них был октагональный храм Иоанна Лествичника 1329 года98) was prepared four-column temples with high supporting arches and columns - " pylon99. The Church with groin vaults became a logical development of a four-column temples100. Octagonal Cathedral of St. Peter the Metropolitan (1514-1518 years) - a continuation of the tradition 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 Gothic hall Church", and devoid of altar apse Trinity Church in Chashnikovo (XVI century) by architectural type are the classic cross temples.

In short, from the "mainstream" of ancient architecture not drop any Church, including built invited foreign architect. As we showed above, is no exception and tent architecture.

On this basis, we may assume that the New Aleviz received from the Grand Prince Basil III the task is to build a Palace-temple complex of Alexandrov Sloboda in "national" style - naturally, in the measure of understanding and perception of this 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, surrounded him in Russia. Exactly the same in their lie is%

However, the taking of a sample in no case did not mean a complete up - even Pokrovsky Cathedral in Alexandrov Sloboda, direct the remake of" the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, differ from the design type and proportions and size, and the decor. Pokrovsky Cathedral brick and white stone Trinity. At first there basement and galleries, and the second is not. The first wall is vertical, and the second "pyramid" tilted inwards.

Therefore, Aleviz New built their churches in Russia as understanding of Russian architecture, and to apply the General volume-compositional and decorative solutions, which saw around him, while not abandoning its own creative search and the techniques of the Renaissance, which he had, as they say, "in the blood".

In this regard, we can assume that elevated Aleviz stone tent over the naos of the Trinity Cathedral in the Alexander settlement was built under the impression General elevation and "Lancet" Russian churches, including wood. The latter due to their huge number and formed the overall appearance of the ancient temple architecture is no less (if not inSo, Kavelmaher wrote about "Divadelni" motifs in the architecture of the Church of the Trinity: "Among churches Sloboda only the Church of the Holy Trinity does not have the stone porch, as was originally built the wooden mansions... On the appointment of Trinity Church as the heart of a residential, wooden, intimate part of the Palace is also evidenced by its simplified, "prjamoslojnoj", "on trees101.

Thus, the use of Trinity Church instead of a dome tent, perhaps, was an intentional introduction into the stone architecture "Divadelni" motives that are organically linked in a single architectural ensemble of stone temples Sloboda and wooden Palace of Vasily III. However, there is another option: the task of the architect was the maximum diversity of the first four temples Sloboda, as with "normal" dome on a drum Trinity Church too would be like 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 of the architect can only be hypothetical. But what hip architecture is an organic continuation of the preceding 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.





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

2. С.С.Подъяпольский. Архитектор Петрок Малой. В кн.: Памятники русской архитектуры и монументального искусства. Стиль, атрибуции, датировки. М., 1983 (далее – Подъяпольский, 1983). С. 34-50.

3. Там же, с. 44.

4. Там же, с. 46.

5. THE PR RSL. F. 304. Ed. Chr. 647. L. 4,4 about.

6. Because traditionally it was considered that the first stone Church marquee was the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye, on the basis of this theoretical background Trinity Church could not be dated the first construction period Sloboda - 1510 ties.

7. Kavelmaher. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda. Collection of articles. Vladimir, 1995. C. 76.

8. Ibid., C. 77.

9. Read more about the history of the reconstruction of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei see: SV zagraevsky. To the question of reconstruction of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei 1510-ies of Alexandrov Sloboda. The article is on the web-site

10. In all these monuments Kavelmaher noted materials (brick and white stone) similar conditions, homogeneous binding identical swasn the%B century, with the use of the same, clearly unified, units and components (Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 8-9). Laying all of the temples was not dyed and not bleached, was tinted white gesso just some made of brick elements of decor. All speakers white stone elements were the same type of bonded brackets (Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 9-10). All of the Church-Christ.In the interests of the entire ensemble of false and misleading podkletny story porch with a belfry and the Church received Metropolitan Alexei (Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 11). Varied buildings among themselves only by the amount and quality of coverage of their "prazhskoe" thread, but Kavelmaher noted uniform style of this thread, except ornamental belts Pokrovsky Cathedral, scop is%

11. S. pod'yapol'skii. On the Dating sites Alexandrova Sloboda. - In the book: Proceedings of the Central Museum of ancient Russian culture and art named after Andrei Rublev. Artistic culture of Moscow and Moscow region XIV-early XX centuries. Collection of articles. So 2. M., 2002 (hereinafter - pod'yapol'skii, 2002). C. 163, 165, 176, 180.

12. Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 7.

13. Ibid., C. 17.

14. A.I. Nekrasov. Monuments of Alexandrova Sloboda, their status and importance. M., 1948. Tsgali. F. 2039. Op. 1. Ed. Chr. 17. C. 198, 227.

15. Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 13.

16. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 162, 168, 169; A. Batalov. To the question about the Dating of the Cathedral evfimiev Saviour monastery. - In the book: Suzdal Spaso-evfimiev monastery in the history and culture of Russia. Vladimir, 2003. C. 43.; A. Batalov. Moscow stone architecture of the end of XVI century. M., 1996. C. 178-248.

17. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 163, 165, 176, 180.

18. The argument S. Podyapolsky and al Batalov was as follows: "too much in the concept Kavelmahera (relative Dating of the first temples Sloboda 1510 ties - SZ) contrary to established views on the development of architecture of the Moscow Russia of the XVI century" (pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 161); architecture Trinity Church is more typical for tent churches second half of the XVI century (pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 162); the message "Trinity chronicle does not give sufficient grounds to date the Pokrovsky Cathedral in 1513, as there is no indication of the material of construction, i.e. we could go and on a wooden temple (pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 176); some stylistic features bring Pokrovsky Cathedral and Trinity Church of Alexandrov Sloboda not with the Kremlin cathedrals of the Sabbath.

19. SV zagraevsky. To the question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda. In the book: Zubovsky reading. Sat. scientific articles. Vol. 3. Strunino, 2005 (hereinafter - Zagraevsky, 2005). C. 69-92.

20. For more information, see ibid.

21. Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 70.

22. Ibid., C. 43, 70.

23. Ibid., C. 6, 75.

24. PSRL 6:247; 13:10.

25. PSRL 6:254.

26. Pod'yapol'skii, 1983. C. 42.

27. Ibid., C. 35.

28. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 173.

29. Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 70, 42.

30. PA Rappoport. Construction production of Ancient Rus. St.Petersburg, 1994. C. 131. In detail the failure of this theory the author showed in the book: Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture. M., 2002 (hereinafter - Zagraevsky, 2002). C. 36-40.

31. For example, it is known that the architectural work Alberti (1404-1472) was limited primarily to the preparation of drawings and models, which further R the%B

32. ОР РГБ. Ф. 304. Ед. хр. 647. Л. 4,4 about.

33. Even if Vasily III, as I thought Kavelmaher, "moved his construction personnel in the Sloboda, still 100 km from Moscow, away from the Emperor and the architect, construction quality could not compare with the Kremlin. And if, on the basis of the General research question of the relation between local and migrant construction personnel (Zagraevsky, 2002, S. 36-40), the author believes%

34. All other alevizou temples in the village is not so original: pillar-shaped Church-bell had been known in Russia, as a minimum, with 1329 (John Climacus in the Moscow Kremlin - see: Kavelmaher, T. Panova. The remnants of the white-stone Church of the XIV century in the Cathedral square of the Moscow Kremlin. In the book: Culture of medieval Moscow XIV-XVII centuries M, 1995. C. 66), the assumption Church was the usual Church's cross, and St. Basil's Cathedral is actually a remake of the Trinity in the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra. However, these three churches could not be considered "minor": they all belong to the creative work of the outstanding Italian architect and together with the Trinity Church constitute a single complex.

35. PSRL 12:238.

36. For more information, see: S. pod'yapol'skii. Italian construction foreman in Russia in the late XV-early XVI century, according to written sources. The experience of compiling the dictionary. - In the book: Restoration and architectural archeology. New materials and research. M., 1991 (hereinafter - pod'yapol'skii, 1991). C. 232-233.

37. VP Vygolov. To the question of the buildings and personality Aleviz Fryazino. In the book: Drawn%

38. ПСРЛ 12:249.

39. ПСРЛ 6:247.

40. ПСРЛ 12:258.

41. Monuments of ancient Russia diplomatic relations with foreign powers. SPb, 1884. So 1, S. 56.

42. Ibid, so 2, S. 551-552.

43. PSRL 13:10.

44. For more information, see: pod'yapol'skii, 1991. C. 224.

45. PSRL 13:8.

46. PSRL 30:140-144.

47. PSRL 8:254-255.

48. M.A. Ilyin, PN Maksimov, Cot. The stone architecture of the epoch of blossoming of Moscow. In the book: The history of Russian art. So 3. M., 1955. C. 310.

49. Ibid., C. 328-330.

50. Pod'yapol'skii, 1991. C. 187-189.

51. VP Vygolov. The decree. cit.,%2

52. Там же, с. 242.

53. In this regard, we cannot exclude the authorship (at least in the co-authorship) Aleviz 2 and in respect of a number of buildings of the Kremlin Palace: refined "Prazska" thread, typical of the works of the architect (Bakhchisaray Palace, the Cathedral of the Archangel, the first temple of Alexandrov Sloboda) is present on the portals and the Annunciation Cathedral (galleries which were actually part of the Palace), and the faceted chamber. 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 (Kavelmaher. On the aisles of the Cathedral. In the book: Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. M., 2002. C. 154.).

54. For more information, see: mA Il'in, PN Maksimov, Cot. The decree. cit., S. 414; mA Il'in. Russian tent-roofed architecture. The monuments of the middle of XVI century. Problems and hypotheses, ideas and images. M., 1980. C. 14; H. Wagner. About the uniqueness of style formation in the architecture of Ancient Russia (return to the problem). In the book: Architectural heritage. Vol. 38. M., 1995. C. 27.

55. For more information, see: mA Il'in, PN Maksimov, Cot. The decree.%2

56. For more information, see: mA Il'in. The decree. cit., S. 16.

57. For more information, see mA Il'in. The decree. cit., S. 16; H. Wagner. The decree. cit., S. 27.

58. For more information, see mA Il'in. The decree. cit., S. 20; H. Wagner. The decree. cit., S. 27.

59. Kavelmaher. Letter to TP Timofeeva. 1988. The letter is kept in the Museum "Alexandrovskaya Sloboda". Here is the full text of the paragraph dealing with this subject: "with regard to the tent, he is nothing. The accident in the architecture. It only replaces the dome, overlapping SPLA. Of the former Byzantine provinces, most developed typological grid, in myRussian ear it says nothing, well, normal bizantology says nothing our "pillarless" Church. You cannot define the subject of no evidence. Scientists guys Altshuler and Aleshkovsky, when revealed in Moscow temples of XIV century with "inscribed cross" (in Bulgarian), called their churches with wall posts! The pillars against the CTE is

60. Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 49.

61. SV zagraevsky. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia the end of the XIII-the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003 (hereinafter - Zagraevsky, 2003).

62. SV zagraevsky. About the form of the domes of ancient Russian temples. Theses see in the book: Materials of the regional conference (April 14 2006.). So 2. Vladimir, 2007. C. 9-12. Full text of the article, see the Internet site

63. the Sabbath.

64. Подробнее см.: Заграевский, 2003.

65. For more information, see: SV zagraevsky. Architectural history of the Church Trifon Naprudnom and origin groin vault. M., 2005 (hereinafter - Zagraevsky, Trifon Naprudnom). The article is on the web-site

66. S. pod'yapol'skii. To the question about the peculiarity of architecture of the Moscow Uspenie Cathedral. - In the book: Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Materials and study%D

67. Г.К.Вагнер. Указ. соч., с. 25.

68. Там же.

69. Необходимо выразить благодарность Ю.В.Тарабариной, обратившей внимание автора на этот храм.

70. Форум Интернет-сайта

71. Pod'yapol'skii, 1983. C. 48.

72. M.A. Ilyin, PN Maksimov, Cot. The decree. cit., S. 413.

73. M.Tihomirov. Little-known chronicle monuments of the XVI century In the book: Historical notes, 1941. KN. 10, S. 88.

74. PN Maksimov, N. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 271.

75. Ibid., C. 264.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid.

78. Ibid., C. 265.

79. Ibid., C. 268.

80. M.A. Ilyin, PN Maksimov, Cot. The decree. cit., S. 415.

81. PSRL 15:183.

82. PN Maksimov, N. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 266.

83. Nor the%

84. The forum web site

85. For more information, see: Zagraevsky, 2005.

86. General history of architecture. M., 1966. So 4, S. 655.

87. The author is grateful Uwharrie for a link to a photo of this kitchen.

88. M.A. Ilyin, PN Maksimov, Cot. The decree. cit., S. 416.

89. V. a,Krokhin. The construction of the tent coverings in wooden architecture of the Russian North. In collected articles: "Architectural heritage and restoration". M., 1986.

90. Swiergiel. Introduction to art history. Description and analysis of monuments. University of history of cultures. Program of training course. Website

91. PN Maksimov, N. Voronin. The decree. cit., S. 267.

923. Wagrain. The decree. cit.

93. Ibid.

94. M.A. Ilyin. The decree. cit., S. 36.

95. Ibid.

96. Ibid.

97. For more information, see Zagraevsky, 2002.

98. Kavelmaher, T. Panova. The decree. cit.

99. More see: Zagraevsky, 2003.

100. For more information, see: Zagraevsky, Trifon Naprudnom.

101. Kavelmaher. The decree. cit., S. 29.



Moscow, 2007.


© Sergey Zagraevsky


To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page