Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky
The origin of Old Russian hipped roof architecture: the return to the problem
Published in Russian: Çàãðàåâñêèé Ñ.Â. Ïðîèñõîæäåíèå äðåâíåðóññêîãî øàòðîâîãî çîä÷åñòâà: âîçâðàùåíèå ê ïðîáëåìå // Æóðí. «Ïðàêñåìà», ¹ 2, 2018. Ñ. 32–61.
On the basis of analysis of new architectural and archaeological data and chronicle information, the issues of the origin of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture are systematically considered.
The low probability of direct origin of Russian hipped-roof architecture from Western European Gothic is shown, since tower-like, hipped-ceiling and relatively small area of the main volume of temples are not typical for Gothic architecture. The inconsistency of theories of the origin of Old Russian hipped-roof architecture from the Romanesque and Eastern architecture are also shown.
In previous studies on stone hipped-roof architecture, the author of this article cited a number of provisions showing its origin from Ancient Russian wooden architecture. In this work they are expanded and structured.
The wide spread of the hipped-roof churches in Old Russian wooden architecture before the first stone hipped-roof temple is shown. The hypothesis about the origin of not only stone, but also wooden hipped-roof architecture of Ancient Russia is put forward: the wooden hipped-roof was a "simplified form" of the dome, which was canonically conditioned and obligatory in the stone Orthodox Church architecture during the whole history of the Old Russian architecture, since the 10th century.
Having shown the widespread, canonical and constructive conditionality of hipped-roofs in wooden architecture earlier than the beginning of the XVI century, the author proves that the first hipped-roof stone church came from wooden hipped-roof architecture, not from any Gothic, Romanesque, Eastern and any other foreign sources, and reconstructs the specific circumstances of its appearance in the early XVI century.
In previous studies on the origin of Russian stone hipped-roof architecture, the author's position was that it came only from wooden architecture. But in this article the author shows influence of Ancient Russian pillarless stone dome churches, which, though few in number, were built during the entire previous history of Russian architecture.
The main conclusion of this article is the following: Ancient Russian stone hipped-roof architecture became the organic continuation of the previous national architectural tradition. That tradition included hipped-roof wooden architecture, stone domed churches and the wide range of connections with world architecture.
The article also proposes general principles for the determination of the origin of architectural forms. It is shown that such issues should be solved only in comprehensive manner, as these forms could be generated by talent of architects, artistic taste of customers, the progress of construction equipment, changes in aesthetic preferences of society, ideology, influence of other countries, cultures and styles, and many other factors, up to purely utilitarian ones. A certain role here could be played by financial, human and constructive limitations which led to non-standard solutions.
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.
In 2000-ies the author of this article published studies on the origin
of ancient hip architecture1. Since then the author has received
many letters on this theme from colleagues, this issue was widely discussed at conferences.
In 2012 the research came out of the author "Typological formation and
basic classification the
Primarily seen necessary to define what should be considered as a reasoned point of view on the origins of one or another medieval architectural forms. If you do not identify here the General principles, these issues can be discussed infinitely and, by and large, is fruitless.
First, if consider architectural form prepared by the whole history of the formation domestic architecture, domestic sources and analogues in terms of scientific the validity precedence over foreign ones. This is not due to any modern ideologies, and the more likely orientation of medieval architects and churchwardens to those of the surrounding domestic architecture.
Secondly, convincing the argument in favour of the foreign origin of one or another domestic architectural forms can be either global style (such as Gothic), or a significant direction in the world architecture (as, for example, cruciform system), or foreign equivalent, of global significance and resonance (as, for example, Sophia of Constantinople, the Church of the Holy sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Imperial Cathedral in Speyer, etc.). Detected single and not having world value their foreign counterparts, announced models for domestic architectural forms, sooner or later contradicted by other found counterparts.
Third, when the research questions of the origins of this or that architectural forms even if the first known use of, it is not enough to explore the course creative mind of the architect, as the latter could inspire any little thing, including outside architecture3. Still need to take into account the General historical setting, the specifics of Church order, the progress of construction equipment and a large set of other factors.
Fourthly, symbolic interpretations of varying architectural forms in ecclesiastical architecture cannot be considered proof of its origin. In the history of the world architecture we are unaware of any fact that a theologian has decided that in the interests of symbols (or any theological theory) be implemented for the or another new architectural form, have agreed on its position with the churchwarden and ordered the architect to build this way and not otherwise. Unknown to us these facts even in regard to priestly vestments and liturgical equipment, and in much more costly and technically complex and organizational point of view the field - architecture - such situation is almost impossible to imagine. Symbolic ideas and theological theory, and philosophical foundations in General, could affect the formation of traditions only indirectly (as if to say, donators order, architects build, society evaluates interpreters interpret the assessment results and interpretations are perceived and in varying degrees, are considered the next generation of founders and architects, and etc.)
Fifth, use the researchers symbols in support of those or other architectural features of the temples there are negative aspects. If in the Middle century symbolism and had any influence on the occurrence of architectural forms (which, as we have seen, is not proven), we still do not know which one symbolism as it is influenced. There is no documentary evidence on this subject is not preserved, and any effort of modern researchers in the search for those symbols various elements of the medieval churches, as a rule, lead to exceptionally subjective opinions on the level of "I do see, is easily refuted not only statistics and facts, but also the nomination of other equally subjective opinions, looking no less convincing. The same applies to the aesthetics, which more conventional than the symbolism.
From these principles it follows that the question of the origins of medieval architectural forms should only be addressed comprehensively, as these could form be derived and talent of the architects, and artistic taste of the customers, and progress construction equipment, and changes in aesthetic preferences of a society, and ideological objectives, and borrowing from other countries, cultures and styles and many others, up to purely utilitarian purposes. A role here could play both financial and personnel, and other restrictions which had to non-standard solutions.
Now we can move on to the topic of this article - the study of ancient origin stone tent-roofed architecture (further we will call it a tent architecture; the material of the buildings will be clarified only in the case of wooden architecture), which occupy researchers for several hundred years.
As detailed historical overview of all nominated points of view is beyond the scope of this studies we list only the main (in chronological order of their of appearance):
- tent-roofed architecture Ancient Rus ' originated from Western European late Gothic (N. M. Karamzin, I. M. Snegirev, L. V., Dahl, E. E. Golubinsky, A. I. Nekrasov, G. K. Wagner)4;
- tent-roofed architecture formed on the basis of old Russian wooden architecture (I. A. Zabelin, F. F. Gornostaev, Grabar, N. N. Voronin, P. N. Maksimov, P. A. Rappoport, author of this article5;
- tent-roofed architecture descended from the old Russian and Serbian churches with elevated supporting arches (N. And. Brunov)6;
- tent-roofed architecture has Eastern origin (B. P. Denike, M. G. Khudyakov)7;
- tent-roofed architecture influenced by the architecture of ancient fortress towers (M. A. Il'in, M. N. Tikhomirov)8;
- on the formation hip architecture was influenced by ancient pillars of the Church-bell tower (G. K. Wagner)9;
- ancient tent an "accidental architecture" and just replaced the dome that covers naos (kavelmaher)10;
- tent-roofed architecture Ancient Russia evolved from Romanesque architecture (A. L. Batalov)11.
Before considering the above point of view in accordance with the basic principles, indicated in the beginning of this article, remember that the architectural and archaeological research kavelmahera (1980-90-ies)12 , and the author of this articles (2000-ies)13, showed that hip Trinity (now Intercession; in the future, we will without reservation to call her Trinity) Church in Alexandrov Sloboda (ill. 114) was built in 1510-ies and, accordingly, it was the first ancient Church marquee. The author also showed that the architect who built this temple, was the New Aleviz15. Formerly the first Church marquee was considered the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532 years, the probable architect - Petrok Maly, Il. 2)16.
Il. 2. The Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye.
It should be noted that the revision of the position relative to the first ancient steepled Church and its the architect is not in itself significantly affect the decision of a question the origin of hip architecture: one of the Grand-Ducal Church of the ascension 1529-1532), with high probability, built by the Italian architect (Petrocom Small), was "replaced" by another (Trinity 1510-ies), also with a high degree of probability built by the Italian architect (architect Aloisio the New). Both temples belong to the age of Vasily III, marked by the flowering of architecture and the search for new forms.
We will start looking probable ancient origins of hip architecture with
Western European Gothic. Generally speaking, during the formation of the
ancient Russian architecture of the XII-XV centuries it was increasing steadily
"striving upward, typical of the Gothic. General "tall"
proportions temples17, the appearance of high arches, processing
drums keel corbel arches18, the construction of domes high onion domes19,
construction of pillar churches "under the bells"20 all
these phenomena correspond to the General impression "streljaete"
that produces Gothic. G. K. Wagner wrote that "if the development of
high-rise architecture was not interrupted by the Mongol invasion,
But this is only a General impression. On closer comparison, we are forced to deny the origin old Russian tent-roofed architecture from the Western Gothic.
First, for Gothic the very unusual towering architecture of the main
Church. Last is the identification exclusively of
Secondly, for the Western Gothic unusual overlap SPLA tent. Additional decoration sometimes overlap wooden tents (example - Gothic Church Our lady in Bruges, Il. 3), but not one stone of the tent or on the naos or above the crossing in any more or less significant Church we do not know. In mass order hipped completion form was used in Gothic Europe only towers.
Thirdly, one of the most characteristic trends Gothic - increase the area
of internal space of the temples. This trend is reflected in the old Russian
architecture: the pillars became thinner and thinner, less and less churches
had internal vanes, appeared pillarless temples pylon22, and then
with groin vault23. Cathedral of the assumption of Aristotle
Fioravanti, for example, S. S. podjapolsky rightly attributed to the type of
Fourthly, the beginning of the XVI century in
The theory of origin old Russian tent-roofed architecture from the Western Gothic next one three: from old Russian and Serbian churches with elevated supporting arches, from ancient fortress towers, the ancient pillars churches with bell towers. All these three theories generated by the impression of altitude and "verticalism", typical of the Gothic. Therefore, all the arguments that we filed against the "Gothic" theory applies. There are other considerations:
First, elevated arches and a hipped-roof temples have completely different design the essence (the arches supporting the dome, and the tent itself is on the site of the dome and supported arches), and have between them a direct parallel unlawful.
Secondly, pillars churches until his elevation to the 1510-ies of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov the settlement of St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery had not, in unlike tent churches, more or less extensive SPLA, i.e. from the point of view their architecture were closer to the towers than to the Church buildings (examples - Church-belfry of St John Climacus 1329 and 1505-1508 years, Novgorod "the clock tower" 1443, first of Khutyn pillar 1445).
Thirdly, direct or indirect parallel between towers and tented churches illegal. The first was purely utilitarian in nature, the second appearance was determined first of all, spiritual needs and architectural idea of the era. Moreover - with "utilitarian" point of view steepled churches had no meaning, as comparison with the scale of the cross-shaped churches (and even more so with European basilicas), as we have said, the size of their small naos, and "koltseobraznoj" interior caused many problems with acoustics.
Significant modification of "Gothic" theory of the origin of the old Russian tent-roofed architecture has undergone in the works A. L. Batalov26, published after the above examination the author of this article is dedicated to the first old Russian tent-roofed Church and the origin of hip architecture27.
By A. L. Batalov, the origins of the old Russian tent-roofed architecture lie in the Western European architecture, but not in Gothic, and Romanesque. This position of the researcher already itself may seem strange, considering that the tent-roofed architecture appeared in the early sixteenth century, when the Romanesque times it has been about three hundred years. However, A. L. Batalov calls and hypothetical prototypes first ancient temples tent - the baptistery of San Giovanni in Pisa, in the middle of the XII century covered by a stone tent (in the thirteenth century, almost completely hidden under dome - yl. 428), and two relatively small leaning of the Church of the XII century - St. Agatha (ill. 529) and the Holy Sepulchre.
Il. 4. The baptistery in
Il. 5. The
But observation A. L. Batalov can not be the basis for a finding of Romanesque the ancient origin of hip architecture for the following reasons.
First, as we have already said at the beginning of the article, a persuasive argument in favor of foreign the origin of this or that domestic architectural forms can be either earlier counterpart, global significance and resonance, or the whole direction in foreign architecture that gave rise to a large number of counterparts. Above the leaning buildings are neither to that, nor to another.
Of course, theoretically we can assume, following A. L. Batalov30, Italian architect, who built the first ancient temple, visited Pisa and inspired idea there stone tent. But in the beginning of the article we wrote and what was found isolated foreign counterparts can not serve as conclusive evidence, as early or later contradicted by other found counterparts.
Find and analogue we did no less convincing than the baptistery of
Il. 6. The
Il. 7. "The old Cathedral (Duomo Vecchioin Brescia.
The author found romance tent-roofed rotunda and in Germany (the Church of St. Magdalene in Hausbach, the suburbs Vilshofen der Donau, XII century, Il. 8).
Il. 8. The
Moreover, in the beginning of the article we talked about the fact that
it is not enough to explore the course of the creative thought the architect,
as the latter could inspire anything. For example, not less an inspiration than
a Roman steepled building in
It is impossible to ignore another version of the origin of the old Russian
tent-roofed architecture. Indeed, in the East (Volga
Il. 9. Eastern mausoleum" in Bulgar.
Il. 10. "Dervish mausoleum" in
Il. 11. Prambanan. Indonesia.
Il. 12. The
But against the "East" theory, we can bring almost the same arguments against the "Gothic".
First, for the Eastern architecture unusual overlap of the naos of the temple tent.
Secondly, it is highly it is unlikely that the Italian architect of the time, whether the New Aleviz or Petrok Maly, could focus on Eastern architecture.
Thirdly, as it is unlikely that the churchwarden - Vasily III ordered the architect to build "in the East". For this, it would not be reasonable to invite the Italians.
And the main argument against and "Gothic", and "romance", and "East", and any other version, assuming the foreign origin of the old Russian tent-roofed architecture, - Upananda us in the beginning of the article "Occam's razor", which in this case interpreted as the absence of necessity of the search for the origins in other countries and cultures, if the architectural form prepared throughout history formation of domestic architecture.
In these studies on the tent-roofed architecture32, we have brought a number of provisions showed that the origin of ancient wooden architecture. It makes sense to repeat them and to expand.
First, "the Chronicler in short the Russian land" (XVI century) under the year 1532, says: "the great Prince Vasilej built the Church of the Kamen Uznesenie of our Lord Jesus Christ up on wooden case"33. This message carries a direct parallel between the Church Of the ascension in Kolomenskoye and wooden architecture: the wording "up to wooden case" means "the high temple, built in forms wooden architecture", and this is confirmed by a similar sense of ancient lyrics34.
Secondly, wooden tent-roofed Church appeared much
earlier first stone tent temple. For example, we have the image unpreserved
wooden the tent-roofed Church in the village of una
Il. 13. The Church in the village of
Thirdly, N. N. Voronin and P. N. Maksimov thought steepled wooden Church was a common type of ancient temple in the pre-Mongolian time36, and we can cite a number of arguments in support of their position:
researchers led examples of images of wooden tent churches in the icon of the beginning of the XIV century from the village of the curve (ill. 14) and fields of Pskov handwritten "Charter"37;
Il. 14. Icon from the village of the curve.
researchers believed on the basis of the textual and iconographic analysis of ancient documents that were tented unpreserved wooden churches in Vyshgorod (1020-1026 years), Ustyug (end of XIII century), Ledsam the churchyard (1456) and Vologda (late XV century)38. About the Church 1501 year in the village of una we mentioned above;
researchers led Chronicles report "stands" in Moscow39 and showed what we are talking about the wooden tent pillar churches,40;
- wooden tent the bell tower is shown at the Tver Kremlin first half of the XV century icon of St. Michael of Tver and Duchess Xenia41 (ill. 15);
Il. 15. The image of the Tver Kremlin on the icon of
St. Michael of Tver and Duchess
- it is highly likely that many wooden steepled churches of XVI-XVII centuries are copies of more ancient42;
- wood is much easier to build a tent than the dome, and the dome is much easier to build than the tent43.
From all the above follows that the tabernacle was "a simplified form of the dome in during all time of existence of ancient wooden Church architecture, including in the XI-XV centuries.
I can give an example this "iconic" replacement outside of
Kavelmaher wrote: "as for the tent, it is nothing. The accident in the architecture. He only replaces the dome, overlapping naos45. We confirmed evidence these words of the researcher, the only significant caveat that this replacement was no accident, but design-based phenomenon.
And since the tent is in wooden architecture was multi-faceted (this is due to the core of its design - the beams forming the frame), it is logical that the diversity acquired and drums. The number of faces is most often equal to eight (across likely, this number is optimal and the transition to the tent from quadrangle, and for maximum stability). Thus, we see the source of the form "octagon on square".
In studies of the 2000s years, dedicated to the ancient origin of hip architecture46, our position was that it occurred only on wooden architecture. But that tent was a direct analogue of the dome, we can to conclude on the second source of the tent in the stone architecture: tent architecture was preceded by stone columns and domed Church, which, though in small numbers, but were built during the entire previous history ancient architecture47. We know, for example, the following temples:
Il. 16. The
- unpreserved temples in Halychyna: Church of unknown dedication, the so-called "Polygon", the second half of the XII century (region); the Church of unknown dedication to the coast near the village of Galicia, the second half of the XII century (region); the Church of Elijah the prophet in Galicia, the second half of the XII century (rotunda with two adjacent volumes, possibly with the tower);
- the Church-bell tower John Climacus 1329 and 1505-1508 years, Novgorod "the clock tower" 1443, first of Khutyn pillar 1445.
In this regard, it is important note that if we have the right to speak about any external origins of hip architecture, not Gothic, but the combination of Byzantine and Romanesque: it is to these samples (for example, the Church of Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople and San Vitale in Ravenna, you can remember and chapel of Charlemagne in Aachen) has ascended ancient domed churches of the XII-XV centuries. Wooden rotunda over the Tomb of the Lord also appeared much earlier Gothic. But the Byzantine-Romanesque influence in this case is mediated and..
But despite the fact that the emergence of hip architecture was due to the whole previous history ancient architecture, the construction of the first steepled Church was brilliant "creative breakthrough", and we may try at least hypothetically to reconstruct the specific circumstances of the appearance of the stone tent.
We won't forget that the authorship of Aleviz New in the attitude of the
Church of the Trinity, as to the authorship of Petrosa Small in relation to the
Church of the ascension, is very probable, but not absolutely proven fact. And
yet we try to reconstruct the path of creative search the architect who built
In accordance with the "razor Occam's" we can assume that the source of inspiration for the New Aleviz steel is not the rotunda of the Holy Sepulchre in distant Palestine, not a tent Romanesque churches in Pisa and Brescia, not abstract biblical characters and not the Egyptian pyramids, and the specific Grand-Ducal order and surrounding architect old architecture.
In Ancient Russia times termination in the middle of the XII century
direct copy of the Byzantine samples
This General rule we know of no exceptions. So, construction of the
"Western European" material - white stone - in pre-Suzdal was
conducted, including and masters of Frederick Barbarossa, in
"Byzantine" (by that time already traditional Ancient Russia) cross-domed
forms, although with the introduction of some Romanesque elements and General
"elevation"48. The construction of the pillar churches
"under the bells" (probably the first of these was the octagonal
In short, from "mainstream" ancient architecture does not fall one temple, including built invited foreign architect52. As we showed above, not exception and tent-roofed architecture.
Based on this, we justified in believing that the New Aleviz received
from the Grand Prince Vasily III the task to build a Palace-temple complex in
the Alexandrovskaya Sloboda on the "national" style - of course, in
moderation understanding and perception of this style of famous European
architects. Neither in Europe no where else in the world there were no such
buildings as the first temples Sloboda, - therefore, Aleviz took a sample
architecture that surrounded him in
Therefore, Aleviz New built their temples in
In this regard, we can to assume that erected by Aleviz stone tent over
the naos of the temple of the Trinity in Alexandrovskaya Sloboda was built
under the General impression of elevation and "streljaete" Russian
churches, including wood. Last thanks they are a huge number formed the overall
appearance of the ancient temple architecture, no less (if not more) than a few
stone temples, especially because the construction was not in white-stone
Of course, any reconstruction of the plan of the architect can only be hypothetical. But what hipped architecture is a logical continuation of its predecessor ancient Russian architectural tradition, we may take for granted. And this the tradition included and wooden architecture, and stone domed churches, and a wide a set of linkages with the global architecture.
1. Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments architecture of Alexandrov Sloboda.M., 2008; Zagraevsky SV Pfirst stone tent-roofed Church and the origin of hip architecture. M., 2007. Electronic publishing: electronic scientific library "Rusarh"; Zagraevsky S. V. To the question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda. In kN.: Zubovsky reading. Sat. articles. Vol. 3. Strunino, 2005. P. 69-96.
2. Zagraevsky SV
Typological formation and the basic classification of the
3. On this subject it is appropriate to recall lines Anna Akhmatova: "if only you knew from what rubbish grow poems without shame..."
4. See more: Ilin,
M. A., Maksimov, P. N., Kostochki V. the Stone architecture of the epoch of
more: Ilin, M. A., Maximov P. N., Kostochkin Centuries The Decree. CIT. P. 414;
P. Maksimov N. Voronin N. N. Wooden the architecture of XIII-XVI centuries. In
the book: The history of Russian art. M., 1955. Vol. 3. S. 268; Il'in M. A.
Decree. CIT. P. 15; Rappoport P. A. Ancient architecture. SPb., 1993. S. 171;
the VIA. T.
6. See more: Ilin, M. A. the Decree. CIT. P. 16.
7. Denice B. P. The Art Of The East. Sketch of the history of Muslim
art. M., 1923; Denice B. P. The Art Of
8. See Il'in M. A. Decree. CIT. P. 16; Wagner G. K. The Decree. CIT. P. 27.
9. See Il'in M. A. Decree. CIT., P. 20; Wagner G. K. The Decree. CIT. P. 27.
10. Kavelmaher Century Letter to T. P. Timofeeva M., 1988. The letter is kept in the Museum "Alexandrovskaya Sloboda". Give the full text of the paragraph devoted to the subject: "with regard to the tent, it is nothing. The accident in the architecture. It only replaces the dome, overlapping SPLA. From the former Byzantine provinces, the most developed typological grid, in my opinion, the Bulgarians and their language we understand. The dome not based on the pillars and foundations. That's all. You need to avoid posts with drums and lights, nothing Basilica, and you get a "dome" Church. To the Russian ear it nothing says, well, normal byzantologist nothing says our "pillarless" Church. It is impossible to identify the object by a missing tag... This example best shows that we stuck on Sofiah and viewed domed churches".
11. Batalov, A. L.,
On the origin of the tent in Russian stone architecture of the XVI century //
Russian art: Idea and image. Experience the study of Byzantine and old Russian
art. M., 2009. S. 55 To 74; Batalov A. L. once again about the origin of the
tent in Russian architecture // Lazarevskoe reading. The Art Of
12. See more: kavelmaher Century Monuments ancient Alexandrova Sloboda (collection of articles). Vladimir, 1995; Kavelmaher Vladimir Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda (collection of scientific papers). M., 2008.
13. Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments architecture of Alexandrov Sloboda...; Zagraevsky S. V. Pfirst stone tent the temple...; Zagraevsky SV To the question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments Alexander settlement...; Zagraevsky SV Trinity, now Pokrovskaya, the Church in Alexandrov Sloboda...
14. Kavelmaher Centuries Of Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda... Bonding with illustrative material.
15. Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments architecture of Alexandrov Sloboda... P. 39-47.
16. The Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye is indisputable Chronicles date of completion - year 1532 (PSRL 8:280; PSRL 13:65; PSRL 20:413). The architect of this Church is definitely not installed. S. S. podjapolsky, devoted to this subject a special study, thought they was Petrok Maly (Pyotr Fryazin) probably arrived in Moscow in 1528 (podjapolsky Architect S. S. Petroc Minor. In the book: Monuments Russian architecture and monumental art. Style, attribution, Dating. M., 1983. P. 44). Accordingly, the researcher identified the Church of the ascension 1529-1532 years. (Ibid. S. 46).
17. For details, see: Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture. M., 2002. P. 49.
18. For details, see: Zagraevsky SV Architecture North-Eastern Russia the end of XIII - the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003.
19. For details, see: Zagraevsky SV form of the domes (dome coatings) of ancient temples. M., 2008.
20. See more:
Kavelmaher V. V., Panov T. D. Remnants of the white stone Church of the XIV
century at the Cathedral square of the
21. Wagner, G. K. The Decree. CIT. P.25.
22. For details,
see: Zagraevsky SV Architecture North-Eastern
23. For details, see: Zagraevsky SV Architecture the history of the Church Trifon Naprudnom and origin of the groin vault. M., 2008.
24. Podjapolsky S. S. To the question of originality the architecture of the Moscow Dormition Cathedral. In the book: Assumption Cathedral of Moscow Of the Kremlin. Materials and research. M., 1985. S. 42.
25. See more: kavelmaher Century Monuments architecture ancient Alexandrova Sloboda...; kavelmaher centuries of Antiquity Alexandrova Sloboda...; Podjapolsky Architect S. S. Petroc Minor...
26. Batalov, A. L., On the origin of the tent...; A. L. Batalov Again the origin of the tent...
27. Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments architecture of Alexandrov Sloboda...; Zagraevsky S. V. Pfirst stone tent the temple...; Zagraevsky SV To the question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments Alexandrov Sloboda... sorry, A. L. Batalov in their articles (see previous note) not found or did not want to detect familiarity with our studies of the origin of hip architecture.
28. Website www.artandarchitecture.org.uk.
29. An illustration given by A. L. Batalov (A. L. Batalov About the origin of the tent... P.64).
30. Batalov, A. L., On the origin of the tent... P. 64.
31. Observer M. A. Ilyin (Il'in M. A. Decree. Op. P. 36), in the future, the tents of the patriarchs became the symbol of the home, i.e., "canopy", and the same meaning is in the words of the prophet Isaiah received the firmament: "He (God - S. Z.) stretches out the heavens like a thin cloth, and spreads them like a tent for dwelling" (ISA. 40:22). But if the tent is in the tradition of the Church had any independent symbolic (and canonical) value it as a phenomenon of stone Church architecture would have appeared much earlier than the beginning of the XVI century. And the prophet Isaiah "tent" is a symbol any home, absolutely no need to have a tent shape.
32. Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments architecture of Alexandrov Sloboda...; Zagraevsky S. V. Pfirst stone tent the temple...; Zagraevsky SV To the question about the Dating and authorship of the monuments Alexander settlement...; Zagraevsky SV Trinity, now Pokrovskaya, the Church in Alexandrov Sloboda...
33. Tikhomirov, M. N. Little-known chronicle monuments of the XVI century In the book: Historical note. 1941. KN. 10. S. 88.
35. Maximov P. N. Voronin N. N. The decree. Op. P. 271.
36. Ibid. S. 264.
38. Ibid. P. 264-268.
39. PSRL 15:183.
40. Maximov P. N. Voronin N. N. The decree. CIT. P. 266.
41. Voronin N. N., Lazarev V. N. The Central Russian art principalities XIII-XV centuries. In the book: The history of Russian art. M., 1955. Vol. 3. S. 21.
42. This position was substantiated by A. K. Diarco (forum of the Internet site www.archi.EN) on the basis following considerations:
- conservative folk architecture, typology of change very slowly;
- there was a practice to replace the decayed logs in the frame one at a time, making time in the ancient monument of the original material could be very little. Therefore, radiocarbon Dating or dendrochronological method is relatively accurate only if for the analysis we take a large amount of logs. Accordingly, some wooden monuments because of a lack of representative sample material for analyses could receive a late date;
carpenters often obliged to build a new Church on the model of the old, unusable.
43. For details, see: Zagraevsky SV New research monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda...; Zagraevsky SV Pfirst stone tent-roofed Church...
45. Kavelmaher Century Letter...
46. Zagraevsky SV New study of architectural monuments architecture of Alexandrov Sloboda...; Zagraevsky S. V. Pfirst stone tent the temple...
47. For the first time this idea was expressed in the work: Zagraevsky SV Typological formation...
48. For details, see: Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky...
49. Kavelmaher V. V., Panov T. D. Decree. Op.
50. For details,
see: Zagraevsky SV Architecture North-Eastern
51. For details, see: Zagraevsky SV Architecture the history of the Church Trifon Naprudnom...
52. For details, see: Zagraevsky S. V. Typological formation...
53. Kavelmaher Century Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda... P. 29.
© Sergey Zagraevsky