S. V. Zagraevsky
Published in Russian: Çàãðàåâñêèé Ñ.Â. Íîâûå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïàìÿòíèêîâ àðõèòåêòóðû Àëåêñàíäðîâñêîé ñëîáîäû. M.: Àëåâ-Â, 2008. ISBN 5-94025-095-5
The reconstruction of Alexey Mitropolit Church
The following text was translated from Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been edited.
So it can be used only for general introduction.
As we have said in the main 1, the Church of Metropolitan Alexis - pillar-shaped building within existing Crucifixion bell Alexander Settlement (Fig. 4) - was in the 1940-ies opened and investigated Psalomschik1. In 1980-1990-ies study of this building continued Kavelmaher2.
In the early 2000-ies of the architectural and archaeological study of the author of this book confirmed the significant time lag (several decades) between the construction of the bell tower and its restructuring in 1560-1570 years (see item 5 main 1). This enabled us to date the Church of Metropolitan Alexis (as constructed simultaneously with it3 temples protection, Trinity and of the Dormition in the Alexander Suburb) 1510 ties.
Research p. Polonsky, who offered the first reconstruction of the Church of Metropolitan Alexis, showed that the temple was an octagonal pillars building (Fig. 18)4. In the middle of the first stage took place outside the gallery, which led the stairs, arranged in a triangular extension to the South-West face of the octagon.
Fig. 18. Crucifixion tower with the Church of Metropolitan Alexis on the inside. The section on North-South. Drawing P. Polonsky.
P. Polonsky rightly believed that the Church of Metropolitan Alexei played the role of bell Settlement. This conclusion followed and from stolpoobraznosti temple, and of its explicit purpose "under the bells" after rigging 1560-1570-ies. But inevitably the question arose: where on the building 1510-ies was located bells?
Theoretically, the bells were placed on the second floor of the building, the cloister of the first tier and more belfry.
P. Polonsky believed that the existing body between the first and second tiers of the building is secondary, i.e. was erected in 1560-1570-s5. Consequently, the second tier, according to p. Polonsky, in the Church of Metropolitan Alexei was not. Bypass gallery was too narrow (and, as later revealed Kavelmaher, intercepted two belts proemnyh links6), i.e. it could be only very small bell. The question of the location of medium and large bells remained open.
Believing that the engraving on drawing Danish Ambassador Aullville, who visited the Settlement in 1578 (Fig. 19), shows the Church of Metropolitan Alexei up the rigging, p. Polonsky suggested that on the axis of North-South was another similar pillar, and between them there belfry. In total on reconstruction p. Polonsky (Fig. 20) we see dual building, which has no analogues in ancient architecture.
But no archaeological evidence of the existence of the second pillar, neither in 1940-e years, neither in the 1980s (when very large-scale excavations Kavelmahera) has been received7.
Fig. 19. Figure Aullville.
Fig. 20. The Church of Metropolitan Alexei. Reconstruction P. Polonsky.
Kavelmaher also denied the existence of the Church 1510-ies of the second tier. To narrow the cloister, according to the researcher, the bell could not be8.
After the 1980-ies of the excavations around the Crucifixion bell, Kavelmaher revealed foundations not the second pillar, and the belfry, and showed that a similar belfry was available and the Church of Metropolitan Alexei9. This belfry was bordered on the West side to the triangular projection, in which there was a staircase to the cloister (reconstruction V. kavelmaherom Crucifixion bell is shown in Fig. 21, the Church of Metropolitan Alexis on Fig. 22, 23 and 24).
Fig. 21. Crucifixion tower. Reconstruction Kavelmahera.
Fig. 22. The Church of Metropolitan Alexei. Reconstruction Kavelmahera. The Northern facade.
Fig. 23. The Church of Metropolitan Alexei. Reconstruction Kavelmahera. The Western facade (conventionally depicted without adjacent belfry).
Fig. 24. The Church of Metropolitan Alexei. Reconstruction Kavelmahera. The plan.
As figure ulfeldta, Kavelmaher rightly believed that it represented not the Church of Metropolitan Alexis, and the existing Crucifixion tower10. Accordingly, since the belfry was visually separated from the main volume, the researcher suggested that under the second "tower" Ulfeldt meant exactly the belfry11.
Although this is primarily concerned with the Crucifixion bell and, accordingly, is beyond the scope of our study, we can make some other point of view: it is unlikely Danish Ambassador could take extended horizontally behind the belfry tower. Most likely, the second tower figure ulfeldta - topped by a cupola Church of the South-Western corner block existing Crucifixion bell.
And if the figure Danish Ambassador still shows the Church of Metropolitan Alexei up the rigging, the most probable following option: the bell-tower could be completed not a flat roof and a turret or cupola, and this cupola found hypertrophied reflected in the figure as the second tower.
Regardless of whether that meant Ulfeldt, that the Church of Metropolitan Alexei belfry for large bells and the absence of the second pillar is archaeologically sound and doubt.
Note that Kavelmaher introduced in the reconstruction of the temple 1510-ies two rows of corbel arches on the basis of their architectural and archaeological research12and a huge octagonal dome - by analogy with the Church of Peter the Metropolitan of Moscow vysokopetrovsky monastery (1514-1517 years, Fig. 25)13.
Fig. 25. St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery.
About the form of the completion of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei we have yet to speak, and now pose fundamental question: strictly speaking, in the reconstruction of the temple 1510-ies p. Polonsky (Fig. 20) and Kavelmahera (Fig. 22, 23) we are the Church "under the bells" is not visible. Almost all the bells are located on more belfry, which could be to attach to any Church - even to the neighboring Pokrovsky Cathedral.
The Church of
Metropolitan Alexis on Postolovska and VV kavelmaheru - pillar-shaped building
of unknown purpose with the space in the form of a "well" with a
diameter of about
The closest possible analogue of such a Church - the Moscow Cathedral of St. Peter the Metropolitan is not perceived as "mlodzeevskii" thanks to surround the temple, "the wreath chapels". The Church is Metropolitan Alexei wall niche "wreath chapels" can be called only very tentative.
If the Church
of Metropolitan Alexei was tall dominant of the ensemble of the Alexander
settlement, it stolpoobraznost (and, accordingly, "kolodtseobraznost"
interior) could be considered a self-contained architectural phenomenon. But
its height in the reconstruction p. Polonsky and Kavelmahera about 22 m14,
i.e. it is lower and the Pokrovsky Cathedral (
Much more logical to assume that the Church of Metropolitan Alexei was still "under the bells" in the literal sense, i.e. had a stage (or stages) ringing. Then it could be on small and medium-sized bell, and great evangelists could be brought to the belfry. So it was in the Moscow Kremlin (Ivan the Great with belfries), in Novgorod ("chasozvonya" and Sofia belfry), Suzdal Spaso-evfimiev monastery (Church of John the Baptist "under the bells" and the bell tower), in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra (the Church of Holy spirit "under the bells" and the bell tower was dismantled in 1730-s), the Solovki monastery (St. Nicholas Church "under the bells" and the belfry) and in a number of other ancient architectural ensembles.
But where the Church of Metropolitan Alexei could be a bell? In the cloister, as we have said, could accommodate only a very small, and where the average?
First of all it is necessary to consider the dome set between the first and second tiers (see Fig. 18). As we have said, p. Polonsky and Kavelmaher considered it secondary. But the question immediately arises: why, in the building up of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei 1560-1570-ies could be required to erect? Gallery Crucifixion bell - outside, the bells is much higher. Received a "loft", which, according to Kavelmahera, served as the beginning of kettlebell lifting boxes for hours Crucifixion bell.
But was it worth for a utilitarian "attic" to build a full brick dome vault with a large (six!) span and difficult sailing passages from the octagon to the dome?
Another question arises in connection with the technology of construction of the arch. On the cornice, located just below, to put it would be impossible - the cornice would not survive. So, for the device set in a pre-existing octagon was required deep shtroblenie walls, which would not leave any traces.
Bottom traces are absent (Fig. 26). Until recently, remained the probability of finding traces of shtrobleniya top. But in 2004, clearing and study the author of this book one of probing Kavelmahera15 revealed: brickwork above junction body is completely smooth and in no way impaired (Fig. 27).
Fig. 26. The body between the first and second tiers of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei. Bottom view.
Fig. 27. The body between the first and second tiers of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei. Top view (folding "meter" is on the junction of a body to the wall). It is seen that the clutch is completely smooth and in no way impaired.
Consequently, the body between the first and second tier is primary, and the octagon was bunk initially.
The height of
the interior of the first tier from floor to lock set -
Before we consider the issue of the appointment of the second tier, you must understand where was the entrance to it. After all, between the first and second tiers no flush stairs, no holes in the roof.
The answer to this question gave a survey of more vetting V. Kavelmahera - about the existing entrance to the second tier of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei with galleries Crucifixion bell. Under the threshold of the existing entrance clearly visible remnants of the smaller of the old entrance (Fig. 28). More precisely, it was not even log in as "hole", as its threshold was located in the lower grades of the code, and then the overlap of the second tier had to climb the arch.
Fig. 28. The remains of the "hole" on the second floor of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei.
from this "manhole" hung in the air over the Western edge of the
Church of Metropolitan Alexis on the height
No trace of stair towers had not been found. Even if there was it like on the stairs in a triangular extension to the South-West face, then to move from it needed a "bridge". This design is seen too complex, and more logical then it would make a "hole" is not in the West and in the South-Western edge of the second tier.
This is a counterargument can be put forward against transfers of wooden stairs to the "hole" in the belfry roof: it was easier to make a "hole" in South-West face, just above the belfry.
The answer is much more simple: to hit a "hole" used the help of a wooden staircase from the ground. For example, it was made to access the chimes spirit Church of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, and the height of the necessary ladder there is practically the same.
Perhaps the door is closing "hole", for aesthetic purposes settled icon, and then the location of "hole" above the Western portal receives additional explanation.
Now we can proceed to the appointment of the second tier of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei.
Theoretically it can be assumed that it was a "loft". But, first, the Church was not "warm" and, accordingly, in the "attic" is not needed. Second, as we mentioned in paragraph 5 1 main, window second tier before rigging in 1560-1570-ies were shortened and greatly expanded, quite smoothly and accurately (Fig. 29). Hardly anyone would spend such forces and means to improve the coverage of "loft".
Fig. 29. The remains of the primary (top) and secondary (bottom) Windows of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei.
The version at the second tier of the "upper house" we also can not accept: this story was not permanent and convenient entrance.
There remain only two choices, logically derived from the purpose of the Church "under the bells": the second tier was a belfry, or "technical" tier, which, again, is located ringing.
The bells in the XVI century were "ochadnyi"16: in them called from the earth, not rocking the language, and the bell (such ropes for casting bells in motion we see, in particular, around the Ivan the Great in the image of "Kremlinand" - Fig. 30). Therefore, often up to the ringing was unnecessary. "Manhole" in the second tier could be used every few months to monitor the status of bells, sockets and ecapov, replacement peretershihsya ropes.
Fig. 30. The image of the bell tower of Ivan the Great "Kremlingaz".
Now let's try to clarify, hung if the bell is in the second tier of the Church of Metropolitan Alexis, or above were more tiers ringing.
In principle, small Windows are not a hindrance to the ringing of Church bells - so, in large Western European chimes are often located in all tiers, including with small Windows (Fig. 31). But the sound in such cases, all is lost, so the bell is usually placed in the "deaf" tiers when they do not have enough space in the main, "open" sound.
Fig. 31. Bell tower of Cathedral in Landshut (Bayern).
Apparently, this situation has arisen in the Alexander suburb in the middle of the XVI century, when it was necessary to expand the Windows of the second storey: first, the bells were hung only on the belfry and "open" the top chime, and then place and at last began not to suffice, and under the ring had to adjust the second tier.
So, there were "open" the top chime (at least one tier of bells). Otherwise, the expansion of the Windows of the second stage between 1510 mi and 1560 mi 1570 years finds no satisfactory explanation.
Thus, we may say that the Church of Metropolitan Alexei was a classic "Church under the bells" with little room for service and bypass gallery on the first floor and call the upper tiers.
becomes clear the necessity of dismantling the top of bells and strengthen the
walls of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei pillars of the future Crucifixion
bell 1560-1570-ies: dynamic loads swinging big okopnik bells, appeared to be
too high and thin (about
In conclusion, we give some comments on the proposed options for the reconstruction of the original view of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei (Fig. 32, 33 and 34).
Fig. 32. The Church of Metropolitan Alexei. The Northern facade. The original form (to make the Windows of the second storey of the new form). Reconstruction of the author. Option one "open" tier ringing.
Fig. 33. The Church of Metropolitan Alexei. The Western facade (conventionally depicted without adjacent belfry). Original appearance. Reconstruction of the author. Option one "open" tier ringing.
that over the second tier was at least one "open" tier of bells (Fig.
32 and 33; reconstruction with two "open" tiers ringing shown in Fig.
34). The height of the Church-bell from one tier of bells around
Fig. 34. The Church of Metropolitan Alexei. The Northern facade. Original appearance. Option reconstruction with two "open" tiers ringing.
In the second case tower is uniquely becomes a high-rise dominant of the ensemble and, of course, there is a temptation to consider this option major reconstruction. But here there are also serious doubts. First, the building is too stretched upwards, and the pillars of the upper tier is too thin. Second, in this case, it is unclear why the Crucifixion belfry was played only one tier of bells.
In connection with the foregoing, we accept the option of reconstruction with an "open" tier ringing (Fig. 32 and 33) for the principal.
It should highlight the reason for our choice of the completion of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei drum, crowned with onion-shaped head.
The fact that the construction machinery since XVI century tent or canopy (octagonal or round - not important) to put directly on the pillars of the open deck ringing was hardly possible: the pillars could not repay raspor tent or canopy. A drum is transmitted to the pillars is predominantly vertical load (first in ancient architecture, the example of the construction of the tent just above the open call - Crucifixion bell 1560-1570-ies).
And completion of the drum in our reconstruction is not a helmet, and the bulbous head because, as was shown by the author in a special study17the vast majority of heads of ancient temples, since the XIII century, had it onion shape and helmet domes appeared only in the XVI-xvII century as "a style of an old".
Thus, the closest analogue typological Church-bell Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda is not St. Peter the Metropolitan, and the bell tower of Ivan the Great 1505-1508 years (see Fig. 30).
© Sergey Zagraevsky