To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page

Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky

To the question of date and author of the architectural monuments

of Alexandrov Sloboda

Published in Russian: Заграевский С.В. К вопросу о датировке и авторстве памятников Александровской слободы. В кн.: Зубовские чтения. Сб. статей. Вып. 3. Струнино, 2005. С. 69-96.

Annotation

Architectural, archaeological and annalistic data evidence in favor of the dating of four ancient temples of Alexandrov Sloboda, including hipped Trinity, now Intersession, church by 1510-s. This church was the first ancient stone hipped-roof temple, built earlier than the church of Ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532). The author of the palace-temple complex of 1510-s in Sloboda was an Italian architect Aleviz New. All these provisions are systemically demonstrated in the article of Professor S.V. Zagraevsky.

Attention!

The following text was translated from the Russian original by the computer program

and has not yet been edited.

So it can be used only for general introduction.

RUSSIAN VERSION

The bright memory of the untimely deceased

Centuries Kavelmahera and S. S. Podyapolsky

1.

Up to 80-ies of the XX century on the Dating of monuments Alexander¹ слободы серьезных разногласий между исследователями древнерусской архитектуры не возникало. После того, как в 1924 году комиссия Центральных реставрационных мастерских выяснила, что современный Троицкий собор до XVIII века назывался Покровским, а шатровая Покровская церковь до XVIII века была посвящена Троице², в научной и популярной литературе закрепились следующие даты:

– Покровский, ныне Троицкий, собор (в дальнейшем будем без оговорок называть его Покровским) датировался 1513 годом на основании записи «Троицкого летописца»: «Лета 7021 октября 3 в Сергиеве манастыре основаша ворота кирпичныи, а на воротех во имя Сергия чюдотворца. Лета 7022 ноября 28 священа бысть црквь древяная в Клементьеве. Того ж лет декабря 1 сщнна бысть црквь Покров стеи Бцы в Новом селе Олександровском. Тогды ж кнзь великий и во двор вшел (курсив мой – С.З.). Those of MSCE December 15 ssna byst tsrkv kirpichnyi in Sergius monastery of St. sty Sergius, and smal her aspy Mitrofan Kolomna Yes hegumen Pamva, and on swnie was knz great"³;

Trinity, now protection, the Church at the Palace" (in the future will be without reservations call it the Trinity) Dating from the second construction period Sloboda - "oprichnina" the time of Ivan IV (approximately 1570 mi). The reason for this has been Dating her tent top. Traditionally it was believed that the first marquee Church was the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye, built in 1528-1532 years, and based on this theoretical background Trinity Church could not be dated the first construction period Sloboda - 1510 ties;

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

- Crucifixion bell to 1710 - the Church of Metropolitan Alexei⁴) also dated 1570 mi. After the 1940-ies's Polonsky was found inside her earlier pillar-shaped building⁵, последнее стали относить к первому строительному периоду Слободы и датировать, как и Покровский собор, 1513 годом. Фактически мы имеем дело с двумя разными зданиями, поэтому для простоты в дальнейшем будем называть Распятской колокольню в ее современном виде, а церковью Алексея митрополита – столпообразное здание, находящееся внутри нее.

In this form of Dating sites Settlement has existed till research Kavelmahera. In 1980-1990-ies he held a series of excavations and soundings, which revealed a fundamental fact: Pokrovsky Cathedral, Holy Trinity Church, assumption Church and the Church of Metropolitan Alexis (in the future will for simplicity to call them first temple Sloboda) were built in the same building period.

In all these monuments Kavelmaher noted materials (brick and white stone) similar conditions, homogeneous binding identical connecting iron, machinery mixed masonry, a single "Italianate", "graphics" style of Russian court of architecture of the XVI century, with the use of the same, clearly unified, units and components - shaped panels, sets of profiles of base, crowning rods and capitals⁶. Laying all the temples were originally open - did 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 brackets⁷. All churches (except for the pillars of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei) were constructed with aisles and adjacent chambers, and the Trinity and assumption - even from the cellar⁸. In the interests of the entire ensemble of false and misleading podkletny story porch with a belfry and the Church received Metropolitan Alexei⁹. 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, copied from the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra)¹⁰.

This reasoning Kavelmahera was rightly perceived by the researchers as comprehensive¹¹and inevitably the question arose about the correction of earlier dates.

Kavelmaher, referring to already given us 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 (these construction works could be mentioned "the Germans-the Oprichniki" Itauba, Accuse and Gstadt¹⁶).

2.

In the late 1990's-early 2000-ies point of view Kavelmahera was questioned SS pod'yapol'skii. Supporting the classification Pokrovsky Cathedral, Trinity Church, the assumption Church and the Church of Metropolitan Alexei to one of the construction period¹⁷he dated all these monuments 1570 mi. The researcher's argument 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"¹⁸.

- architecture of Trinity Church is more typical for tent churches second half of the XVI century¹⁹;

- 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 temple²⁰;

- some stylistic features bring Pokrovsky Cathedral and Trinity Church of Alexandrov Sloboda not with the Kremlin cathedrals of Ivan III and Vasily III, and the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat (1556-1561 years) and upper aisles of the Annunciation Cathedral (1560-ies)²¹;

The first and second arguments SS Podyapolsky have General theoretical and cannot serve as a basis for any dates. According to Kavelmahera, "there is no dispute between the facts and theory (i.e. our current understanding of the Genesis of Russian tent-roofed architecture) and facts. In this situation, the duty of the researcher - unconditionally to stand on the side of facts"²².

The third argument S. Podyapolsky negative: an indication of the invalidity of one of the evidence Dating 1510 ties cannot serve as a proof of Dating 1570 mi. The argument is essentially only the fourth - the first attempt to date the temples Sloboda on stylistic analogy with the Moscow buildings of the middle of XVI century.

However, in this article we will look at all aspects of the position S. Podyapolsky.

First of all, we must agree with the researcher that the message "Trinity chronicle does not give sufficient grounds to confidently speak about the construction in 1513 is hard Pokrovsky Cathedral. In his time, A.I. Nekrasov wrote that the message of sanctification was not able to treat wooden Church²³but SS pod'yapol'skii convincingly refutes the position²⁴: in the quoted us in paragraph 1 message "Trinity chronicle says about a wood, and of stone churches.

Adding that the Orthodox dogmatic point of view, which, of course, adhere to the authors of the Trinity chronicle, the consecration of wooden and stone churches are absolutely equivalent. Therefore, we have no right to use the message "Trinity chronicle for Dating Pokrovsky Cathedral (respectively, and Trinity Church, the assumption and the Metropolitan Alexei) 1510 ties.

In paragraph 5, we see that for Dating these temples beginning of the XVI century there are other much more compelling reason, but for now let us turn to the main (and, in fact, the only) argument S. Podyapolsky in favor 1570-s - stylistic features of the differences of the first temples Sloboda with the Kremlin cathedrals and their similarity to the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat and the top of the side-chapels of the Cathedral of the Annunciation. In large part, their arguments SS pod'yapol'skii references al Batalov (which, in turn, in recent years, refers to S. Podyapolsky²⁵), so we will consider the position of the two researchers.

3.

First of all note that Italianate motives in the architectural decor of Russian churches have taken place throughout the XVI century (and it showed A. Batalov²⁶). Consequently, the mere presence of such motives may not be grounds for any dates - as 1510 mi and 1570 mi.

A. Batalov and S. pod'yapol'skii noted that a number of features decor features the first temple Alexander the settlement of the Kremlin cathedrals of Ivan III and Vasily III²⁷. With marked differences between their features could not agree more. But was there at the same place the similarity of the first temples settlement with the churches of the middle of the XVI century?

The main object with which the researchers tried to find a stylistic similarity of the first temples Sloboda, was the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat. And that in itself raises doubts about the loyalty of any drawing analogies, as in the architecture and decor of the Moscow Cathedral of the wizard originally sought to combine a variety of styles - "many different designs and translations"²⁸.

And yet we list all the features, which, according to al Batalov and S. Podyapolsky determine the similarity of the first temple quarter and the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat.

Firstly, A. Batalov wrote²⁹ (and confirmed S. pod'yapol'skii³⁰)that "in the aisles of the Intercession of the virgin and of the Entry into Jerusalem Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat, platbands all Windows the same way as in Alexandrov (Trinity Church, Fig. 1 - SZ), contact with archivolt of kokoshniks.

Fig. 1. Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda. General view.

However, in Fig. 2 and 3 that the Central pillar of the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat, no window frames (we see a promising window openings), and on entry into Jerusalem the aisle window frames in the headdresses are not in contact with archivolts.

Fig. 2. The Cathedral of the intercession on the Moat. The Windows in the headdresses and decor of the Central pillars.

Fig. 3. Entry into Jerusalem chapel of the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat. The Windows in the headdresses.

Secondly, S. pod'yapol'skii believed that the replacement polukolonok infill closely track brings the Western portal of the Pokrovsky Cathedral of the Alexander settlement with the portals of the Central pillars of the Church of the Intercession on the Moat. However, the researcher was forced to make a reservation, that the Moscow Church, "the truth, the interior of the aperture surface of the hanger is decorated, and the bases on outside no³¹.

We will not talk about that more significantly - the researcher noted the similarity or they also marked differences. In Fig. 4 and 5 shows that the overall style, and interpretation of the vast majority of decorative details of the portals of the Pokrovsky Cathedral quarter and the Central pillar of the Intercession on the Moat is absolutely different. In addition, the portals Pokrovsky Cathedral Sloboda white stone, and the Intercession on the Moat - brick.

As a partial replacement polukolonok infill we see on the portals of the Archangel Cathedral (Fig. 6), and "PressCom" Northern portal of the Annunciation Cathedral (Fig. 7), and on the portal of the Cathedral of the Chudov monastery (1501, Fig. 10).

Fig. 4. The Western portal of the Cathedral of the Settlement.

Fig. 5. Southern portal of the Central pillars of the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat.

Fig. 6. The Northern portal and panels "basement" tier Cathedral in the Kremlin.

Fig. 7. The Northern portal of the Annunciation Cathedral.

Thirdly, A. Batalov argued that the decoration of the portal Fedorovsky chapel of Trinity Church in the form of balusters (LSA, as "exaggerated Busin³²) similar to the decor of the Northern portal of entry into Jerusalem chapel of the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat³³. But, again, look at Fig. 8 and 9 to understand: these portals are absolutely different shape and beads, and bridges between them. Has nothing in common and form themselves portals (for example, on the portal of entry into Jerusalem chapel missing upper front), and the interpretation of all their parts.

Fig. 8. Portal of Feodor chapel of Trinity Church in the village.

Fig. 9. Southern portal of entry into Jerusalem chapel of the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat.

Note that the same portals, as from the entry into Jerusalem chapel, the side-chapels of the Trinity and of St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat, and on the facade of the Central pillars of the Cathedral there is another kind of "hypertrophied Busin (see Fig. 2). More fundamentally, what is "exaggerated beads" were already present on the portal of the Cathedral of the Chudov monastery (1501, Fig. 10).

Fig. 10. The portal of the Cathedral of the Chudov monastery in Moscow (1501).

Fourth, S. pod'yapol'skii said that narrow strip inclined laying in the basis of the tent of Trinity Church between two closely spaced cornices, cut in the middle of each edge small window, is "somewhat modified motive machicolation that are not found in the churches of Moscow before the middle of the XVI century (the Church of the Intercession on the Moat, the Church in Djakova)"³⁴.

But this band is laying in the Trinity Church (Fig. 11) - just the lower part of the tent, separated from the top of the ledge. Thanks to a cut in the bottom of the Windows was achieved visual sensation of "floating tent in the air. As for the "motive machicolations", he at the sight of the interior is present in all the Windows, cut in any tent (and in any wall, leaning inwards). Such "modified machicolation" in the Russian architecture of the XVI-XVII centuries there are hundreds if not thousands.

Fig. 11. The box at the bottom of the tent of Trinity Church in the village.

In addition to meeting the above "analogies" with the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat, A. Batalov³⁵ and SS pod'yapol'skii³⁶ supposed resemblance of the figure of panels - the main motive of the galleries of the first temples Sloboda and the top of the side-chapels of the Annunciation Cathedral in the Kremlin. But in Fig. 12 and 13 that nothing panels of the first temples and chapels Sloboda Annunciation Cathedral have not. They have completely different proportions, depth, Oblomov.

Fig. 12. Decorated panels southern wall of the assumption Church in the village.

Fig. 13. Southern upper chapel of the Annunciation Cathedral.

And the panels, combined with a solid cornice, we see on the "ground" white-stone floor of the Cathedral's facade (see Fig. 6). A. Batalov³⁷ and SS pod'yapol'skii³⁸ believed that the cornice on the walls of the first temples Sloboda and upper chapels of the Cathedral of the Annunciation, in contrast to the Archangel Cathedral, not projecting over the shoulder blades, but actually in Fig. 6, 12 and 13 that he almost everywhere broken in all of these temples, simply the removal of the blades in the first temple Sloboda and the chapels of the Annunciation Cathedral is much less than in the Archangel Cathedral, and so rastrapovich not so noticeable.

Therefore, "stylistic" reasoning al Batalov and S. Podyapolsky could not be accepted as grounds for Dating the first temple Alexander the settlement 1570 mi.

Much more convincing looks fact, which was forced to acknowledge and A. Batalov³⁹: if date first temple Sloboda 1570 mi, these monuments will be the only applied where the white-stone decor "in the measure in which it was used in the construction of Vasily III".

But this fact, and the results of stylistic analysis Aiecraft⁴⁰ and VV kavelmaherom⁴¹, are unlikely to be self-sufficient basis for the Dating of the first temples Sloboda 1510 ties: too many features of the differences of these churches with the Kremlin cathedrals abroad XV-XVI centuries noted A. Batalov and S. pod'yapol'skii⁴².

Consequently, any stylistic analysis (and Ahiakonou, and VV kavelmaheru, and Alinalove, and LSA) allows you to make only one indisputable conclusion: the first temple Sloboda absolutely unique, and the maximum accuracy of Dating based on stylistic analysis - XVI century.

Note that this situation is typical not only for the first temple Sloboda. To achieve the required accuracy of Dating of temples "on stylistic similarities" does not allow a fundamental and unavoidable factor: the artist's individuality.

Architects and the most skilled masters are able to Express their individuality, building temples in a different style (sometimes "stylizing"sometimes "ahead of its time, sometimes deliberately combining in a single work of various architectural styles). Individuality is the same "ordinary" construction was due to the fact that, as repeatedly shown the author of this article⁴³ in Ancient Russia mainly used local construction personnel (it was a churchwarden easier and more profitable).

In connection with all mentioned in this section, you can draw a General conclusion: a stylistic analysis, divorced from the historical and architectural and archaeological data, can give more negative than positive results. In any unique buildings (which is the vast majority of the monuments of old Russian architecture of the XII-XVI centuries) the personality of masters leads to the fact that all the similarities monuments extremely conditional⁴⁴ and every line similarities can be found incomparably greater number are much more fundamental features of the differences.

4.

Much higher accuracy can provide an analysis of the characteristics of construction machinery: brickwork, mortar, form and quality of brick, stone, etc.

First, opportunities for the expression of individual masters in the construction industry was practically was not.

Secondly, construction machinery is closely linked with the technology of manufacturing of materials (brick, stone, mud), and the latter is significantly easier to "fix" to this or that time.

Moreover, the author of this article has assumed⁴⁵ and assumes that future history of architecture for "construction" methods of Dating sites (subject to availability and a higher accuracy of the methods of analysis of the peculiarities of construction equipment, as chemical, petrographic, particle size distribution, radiocarbon, paleomagnetic, dendrological and other)

And available to the author of this article, visual-tactile analysis of construction equipment showed in the intercession Cathedral, Trinity, and churches of the assumption, the Church of Metropolitan Alexei we see a soft, warm stonework, typical brick buildings of the Moscow Kremlin of the turn of the XV and XVI centuries⁴⁶ and St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery (1514-1517 years). 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". In the Cathedral of St. Peter the Metropolitan brick decor, as well as in the Settlement, was covered with gesso "a white stone.

Unlike all the listed buildings, Crucifixion tower built of "dry" (in the words of V. Kavelmahera, "fried"⁴⁷ 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 in the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat, the builders used along with iron bonds of wood. In the Church of the protection, Trinity, assumption and Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda all connections made entirely of iron of high quality⁴⁸.

All these considerations are an additional argument in favor of the position Kavelmahera about Dating Pokrovsky Cathedral, Trinity and assumption of churches, the Church of Metropolitan Alexei beginning 1510-ies, and Crucifixion bell - the time of Ivan IV. Additional, but not essential, as masonry and other features of construction equipment still can't give absolute confidence in Dating "by analogy": construction technology, depending on local conditions (quality clay, stone and lime, professionalism of local craftsmen) could vary significantly.

5.

The main argument in support of the position Kavelmahera is the presence of the bell tower of Alexandrov Sloboda two construction periods.

All researchers, with the exception of SS Podyapolsky, believed that between the construction period (respectively, between the construction of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei Crucifixion and the bell tower) was a significant time period - about 60 years elapsed between 1510 mi and 1570 mi. This fact is taken as self-evident and requires no separate proof.

S. pod'yapol'skii, Dating all the monuments Sloboda 1570 mi, faced with the problem: if the Church of Metropolitan Alexei was built at this time, when could be built Crucifixion bell? At the beginning of 1580-ies Ivan IV left Sloboda, and "krovoisliania grad" was abandoned. New construction it began in the middle of XVII century⁴⁹ and, of course, refer Crucifixion tower at this time is impossible.

In this regard, S. pod'yapol'skii had to say (though in an extremely streamlined and ambiguous form)that "the building up of it (the Church of Metropolitan Alexis - SZ) with strong pylons supporting the steepled bell tower, has the same building characteristics that gave rise VV kavelmaheru for inclusion of other churches Alexandrova Sloboda to one of the construction phase (here is the link to Kavelmahera⁵⁰ - SZ). From this, it would seem that the transformation of the Church, most likely, was made shortly after its construction⁵¹.

Despite the abundance in the quoted text conventional speed, it can be assumed that SS pod'yapol'skii supposed closeness of the Church building characteristics of Metropolitan Alexei and Crucifixion bell, attributing these monuments to the same construction period. The researcher is justified its position by reference to the words of V. Kavelmahera that "the Church in restructuring its style is fully respected".

But this link is correct: the style and construction characteristics are totally different concepts, and no question of the proximity of construction equipment Church of Metropolitan Alexei and Crucifixion bell Kavelmaher not conducted. In this case "one style" could mean even stylistic affinity - Crucifixion bell and architectural forms and base, and innovative features and rails completely different than its predecessor. Kavelmaher could only be referring to the overall composition of buildings (stolpoobraznost, gallery, major innovative features, availability of additional belfry), and that in no case can not be reason for convergence dates.

Yet look, could the Church of Metropolitan Alexei be built, and then rebuilt during the construction period of one - 1570-ies.

First, we have said that masonry and mortar, and style, and execution of the decoration of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei Crucifixion and the bell totally different.

Secondly, the Church of Metropolitan Alexei had added a belfry to the big bell⁵², so the version on the necessity of rigging under taken in 1570 from Novgorod large bell⁵³ highly questionable. Large bells could not fit and the sound of the bell tower of Crucifixion (there was no place for them to mount⁵⁴), and still housed in more belfry⁵⁵. Consequently, large-scale work on the building up of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei could be the result of insufficient size, or unsatisfactory technical condition of the old building, and this situation is unlikely to occur in less than ten years after construction.

Third, the survey author of this article upper tiers of the surviving Church of Metropolitan Alexei⁵⁶ revealed: the Windows of this stage was made (and very carefully) is another form prior to the rigging walls of the future Crucifixion bell. It is doubtful that within less than ten years after construction would require considerable work to give the Windows a fundamentally new form.

Fourthly, familiarization with the soundings Astroscope and Kavelmahera made in places of an adjunction of pylons Crucifixion bell to the facades of the Church of Metropolitan Alexis, shows that at 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 within ten years (in the case of targeted sprinklings of soil), but it is extremely unlikely.

Fifth, by probing Astroscope and Kavelmahera inside stair corner Crucifixion bell shows that in places of an adjunction of the 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 not manage to appear within ten years.

From the foregoing it follows that between the construction of the Church of Metropolitan Alexei Crucifixion and the bell went a considerable time, much longer than ten years. Thus, these buildings should be attributed to two different construction periods. For all time of existence of Alexandrov Sloboda as the residence of Muscovy such periods there were only two - 1510 and 1570-ies. Therefore, we must refer to the Church of Metropolitan Alexei to 1510 m years, and Crucifixion tower-to 1570 m

And because Kavelmaher convincingly demonstrated⁵⁷ (and SS pod'yapol'skii took his point of view⁵⁸), which is the Church of Metropolitan Alexei was built in the same building period with the Church of the protection, Trinity and assumption, we have followed V. kavelmaherom clearly Dating all the listed buildings of Alexandrovskaya Sloboda 1510 ties.

6.

S. pod'yapol'skii said that the Dating sites Alexander settlement 1510 ties "contrary to established views on the development of architecture of the Moscow Russia of the XVI century"⁵⁹, "crosses out almost all of the existing views on the development of architectural types and styles of Russian architecture of the XVI century"⁶⁰.

Perhaps approval S. Podyapolsky too categorical, but in the main he was right: according to the made in the Settlement discoveries Kavelmahera many established views on Russian architecture of the XVI century should be reviewed.

However, an adjustment (or even a complete review), its position in accordance with the new architectural and archaeological and documentary data must be ready to every historian of architecture. So it was in the 1930-ies, when PN Maksimov found under the riggings the ancient Cathedral of the Andronikov monastery⁶¹ it was in the 1950-ies, when excavations Voronin opened the white-stone Bogoliubov castle⁶² and an open gallery of the Intercession on the Nerl⁶³it was in the 1960-ies, when BP dedushenko established the membership of the existing Cathedral High-Petrovsky monastery creativity Aleviz New⁶⁴it was in the 1980-ies, when Kavelmaher and T. Panova found on Sobornaya square of the Kremlin, octagon bell tower of St John Climacus⁶⁵it was in the 1990-ies, when excavations M. ioannisyan opened in Rostov rubble Church of Boris and Gleb, 1287⁶⁶.

What will historians of architecture to adjust and revise now, when it finally became clear to the correctness of the Dating Kavelmahera in respect of monuments Alexander settlement? Here are just some of the components (especially those that are mentioned in the works of al Batalov and S. Podyapolsky).

"Construction of the Cathedral with two adjoining chapels unusual for the beginning of the XVI century, the composition is known only from the Church of the Saviour on the Bor 1527⁶⁷. Now we already know two of the temple of the beginning of the XVI century, had such a composition - Savior in the Kremlin and St. Basil in the Sloboda⁶⁸.

"Panels with characteristic angular wedges still completely unknown at the buildings of the beginning of the XVI century"⁶⁹). Now, these panels are known to us - Alexandrov Sloboda.

"Simplification of the classic profiles (for example, lack raskrepovki cornice above the pilasters) took place in 1570-s"⁷⁰. Now, we notice this "simplification" (albeit relative) and in the temples Sloboda beginning of XVI century, with which we made in paragraph 3 clause, a small and not widespread rastrapovich cornices still took place.

"For the beginning of XVI century the most characteristic arched porch with a blank wall in the lower tier and with open arches at the top, and as for the porch with open arcades in the lower tier and support the roof of the stone pillars at the top, we know of only one such case, namely the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye"⁷¹. Now in the beginning of XVI century, we know of such porch and in the Pokrovsky Cathedral of the Alexander settlement.

"Acceptance of partition panels of surfaces octagonal first used in the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat"⁷² - now we see that this technique was first used in the first temple Settlement.

"Portals with curvilinear lateral walls in the form of detailed volutes there are only two monuments of the second half of the XVI century - the Church of the Transfiguration in the Island and the assumption Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergiev monastery"⁷³. Now we must believe that they exist and the monument of the beginning of the century, namely at the Trinity Church in the village.

"Trinity Church of the type of tent-Church, formed in the middle and second half of the century"⁷⁴. Now we must say that this type of Church is close to the traditional, with three apses, with rectangular is completed horizontal thrust, with innovative features, moved to the verge of the octagon, - was formed in the beginning of the century.

And, of course, the main subject to review the situation currently prevailing theory is that the first marquee Church was the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (1528-1532 years). The first marquee Church in Russia was Trinity Church in Alexandrov Sloboda, built in 1510-ies.

Quote of what he wrote about the Trinity Church Kavelmaher (this text was made in the notes to the collection of his articles⁷⁵ and escaped the attention of many researchers): "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 to the Palace - the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye, built by the same churchwarden and with the same goal as cold Palace Church in his new residence outside Moscow. The construction was carried out with unprecedented scale and huge material inputs. Built the Church, the researchers believe that the outstanding Italian architect Pietro Francisco Hannibal had (Petroc minor) in 1528-1532, In 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 the 50's. XVI century - all at once, spontaneously, in a remarkably advanced and perfect form, nothing to do, however, with the Church of the ascension does not already have. Breaking 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 tent, the pillar of the Cathedral of intercession on the Moat (1554-1561, and not extant pyatisetovy Boris and Gleb Cathedral in Staritsa (1557-1561 years.). Of course, we can assume that both buildings built brilliant Barma "comrades". But 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-hip Annunciation Cathedral in the family castle of the Stroganovs in Solvychegodsk (1557.)? 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 Vampilov 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 archaeological.

In addition to the foregoing VV kavelmaherom note that later date the Church of the ascension in comparison with the Trinity Church in no way detracts from the value of Kolomna monument to Russian architecture. In this Church, along with a tent wall pylons were used, which allowed to construct a large building of unprecedented proportions, with "flying" architectonics.

Trinity Church of the ascension in comparison with small, "touch down" and, as repeatedly demonstrated and Kavelmaher⁷⁶ not so perfect in engineering terms. But between the construction of these churches took about fifteen relatively calm and peaceful (which is important) years. Over the years, and engineering, and construction equipment could not make a significant step forward. Probably, and the erection in 1510-1520-ies unknown tent temples, and an invitation from Italy for the construction of the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye highly qualified engineers.

7.

We still remains one of the main issues of Genesis of ancient Russian architecture of the hip: the origin of the first tent-roofed Church. Perhaps for suburban Trinity Church with its traditional forms quadrangular to resolve this issue would be easier than for the Church of the ascension.

And we start addressing this issue by attempting to determine the architects and craftsmen who built the first temple of Alexander the settlement. This will help us and specify the dates, because the message "Trinity chronicle refers only to the consecration of the Cathedral of intercession in 1513.

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.»⁷⁷. The fact that the authorship of the first temples Sloboda belongs to one of the famous architects of Italian origin, known under the name of Aleviz, a researcher did not say, though, it would seem that this conclusion with a high probability of the following facts:

in 1508, according to the chronicle data, Aleviz Fryazin finished work on the Moscow Grand Palace and the New Aleviz - over Archangel Cathedral⁷⁸ (the question of the identity of both buildings and architects, we will discuss in paragraph (9);

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

in 1514, according to the chronicle data, the great Prince commanded Aleviz Fryazino erect in Moscow on 11 churches, including St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery and the Church of the Annunciation in the Old Vagankovo⁷⁹.

It is unlikely that such a chain of bilateral dates and buildings could be a coincidence.

S. pod'yapol'skii, not directly attributing VV kavelmaheru "personification" of the first temples Sloboda, objected to assumptions about the erection of Italian architects, believing that "this is not the kind of architecture that would be able to fill in chronological gap between the Kremlin construction 1499-1508 years and such Moscow constructions 1510-ies, as the Church of Peter the Metropolitan, the Annunciation at the Vagankovo or of Elijah the prophet on Ilyinka"⁸⁰.

So, speaking about the composition and execution of the Cathedral of the Settlement, S. pod'yapol'skii noted that "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 unclear how could hypothetically be attributed to the Cathedral of the work of the Italian architect"⁸¹.

Comparing the portals of the Annunciation and Archangel cathedrals with the portal of the Cathedral of the Settlement, S. pod'yapol'skii also noted that "in one case, we explicitly deal with the works of artists belonging to the culture of the Italian Renaissance, the other can rather be seen differently fair mechanical imitation, made by craftsman, raised in the framework of different artistic culture"⁸².

Regarding the Trinity Church of SS pod'yapol'skii wrote that in the internal structure of "completely absent geometric clarity and constructive clarity, typical of the architectural culture of the Renaissance, that it is hardly possible to combine with the assumption about the construction of the building worked in Moscow by the Italian masters"⁸³.

From these observations, S. Podyapolsky hard to disagree. But look: are positions Kavelmahera and S. Podyapolsky mutually exclusive? After all, Kavelmaher wrote that the Trinity Church "awkward naive"⁸⁴and construction of the tent, "paradoxical"⁸⁵.

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)⁸⁶, 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 on the construction site: its main tasks was to develop the project and receive a churchwarden funds for its implementation. For example, it is known that the architectural work Alberti (1404-1472) was limited primarily to the preparation of drawings and models, which further work contractors. Another example: Aristotle Fioravanti during the construction of the assumption Cathedral (1475-1479) in the years 1477-1478 went to Ivan III to Novgorod.

And in this case, the churchwarden temples Alexandrov Sloboda - Vasily III - was in Moscow and came in her yard in the Settlement only in 1513. 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 financing the project, and the loss of office of the court architect, for which at all times had to constantly fight.

Thus, Aleviz could either occasionally come to the village 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'skii.

Even if Vasily III, as I thought Kavelmaher, "moved his construction personnel in the Sloboda, still 100 km from Moscow, far from the eyes of the Emperor and the architect, the 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 building workers⁸⁷ believes the author of this article, the construction, under the guidance of an experienced Moscow masters were local staff, technical flaws in the construction were even more. Specify: most likely use only local personnel, i.e. peasants from the "New village Oleksandrovskom" and the surrounding villages. The involvement of the Trinity-Sergius artists are less likely: first, in the monastery at that time also went brick temple construction⁸⁸ secondly, from Trinity to Sloboda far enough - about 50 km (two to three days of walking path).

Low (compared to the masters, built churches of the Kremlin) skill builders Sloboda was aggravated and haste - apparently, the "entrance" of the Emperor in his new Palace was pre-planned, and had by this time to have time to fully build at least the main Church of the intercession. And here we can all agree with the historian VD Nazarov that other temples Sloboda could be completed in the next few years⁸⁹.

Consequently, the end of the Aleviz (or one of them - see item 9) in 1508 work in the Kremlin, construction of the Grand Palace and the Pokrovsky Cathedral in the village in 1513 and the command of Vasily III in 1514 one of Aleviz to build 11 churches give us sufficient grounds to assert that the author 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 erection of huge for its time the complex of buildings, absolutely unique, different from 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, an example for numerous imitations (often eclipses the original) was the first Russian tent-roofed Church of the Trinity⁹⁰.

8.

Our study would be incomplete if we did not try to answer the question which of the two architects of Italian origin, known under the name of Aleviz, built temples of Alexandrov Sloboda.

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 XIX century was known namesakes - Aleviz 1st and Aleviz 2)

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"⁹¹. How to set up modern Italian researchers, we are talking about Aloisio Yes Kartano (Carcano)⁹².

With built in Moscow Aleviz 1st from 1494 to 1499 years, we do not know, but it looks convincing version Wppagenavi⁹³: 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 Borovitskie strelnici; and the master Aleviz Fryazin hail Mediolama"⁹⁴. This building was completed in 1508, when Vasily III moved to built a Palace⁹⁵. 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 masters⁹⁶. 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 Palace⁹⁷. 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"⁹⁸.

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 gate⁹⁹. In favor of this interpretation and clarification of "new" (relatively Aleviz 1), and extremely honored the Grand order (construction of ancestral tombs), and the similarity Italianate portals Bakhchisaray Palace and the Cathedral.

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 Montagnana¹⁰⁰though has received a wide resonance in modern popular scientific literature, are only unconfirmed (and, as we shall soon see, it is highly doubtful) hypothesis.

In 1508 "the great Prince ordered round the city of Moscow ditch delatite stone and brick repairs and ponds ciniti around the castle Aleviz Fryazino"¹⁰¹. 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 Neglinnaya¹⁰².

Finally, in 1514, Vasily III ordered to build in Moscow on 11 churches, "and all those churches was the master Aleviz Fryazin"¹⁰³. 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 Neglinnaya¹⁰⁴, 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)¹⁰⁵. 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'skii¹⁰⁶ and Vpolicy¹⁰⁷. 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, the construction of which began in 1514?

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 has made a highly controversial conclusion that, although from 1508 to 1519 years Aleviz 1 St built to strengthen the Kremlin, in 1514 he also began the construction of eleven churches. The 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.

Probably, the truth, as usual, is in the middle between the "extreme" points of view, and we allow ourselves to put forward their own vision of the problem.

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 the labour Wppagenavi¹⁰⁸ (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 not 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 the Grand Palace and the walls of the Palace to Borovitskaya tower. In 1508-1519 years he worked on the walls, towers and moats of the Kremlin from the side of the Neglinnaya.

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 this solely responsible construction, as the 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 Bakhchisarai.

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 say that the temple was actually part of the Palace complex¹⁰⁹.

The ability of Aleviz 2nd - Aleviz New - to be creative 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. We may add here another four unique temple - protection, Trinity, assumption and Metropolitan Alexei Alexandrov Sloboda.

In conclusion, we note that the authorship of the New Aleviz in respect of the first temples Sloboda gives special urgency A.I. Nekrasov said: "Monuments of Alexandrova Sloboda - not any provincial structures, and are at the forefront of the capital's architectural and artistic and ideological"¹¹⁰.

NOTES

1. The name of the Sloboda - Alexander and Alexander - in the modern scientific and popular literature coexist on almost equal footing. Until 1778 - the official renaming of the city of Alexandrov Sloboda called Alexander (Russian encyclopedic dictionary. M., 2000. So 1, S. 40). IN XIX century used has become a form of "Alexandrov Sloboda", and this name is used and is used by many historians of architecture. But the author of this article believes that more faithful from a historical point of view is the option "Alexander": this is the original name of the city of Alexandrov was first performed in the famous message "Trinity chronicle under 1513 exactly - "New village Oleksandrovskom" (RR RSL. F. 304. Ed. Chr. 647. L. 4,4 about.).

2. Kavelmaher. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda. Collection of articles. Vladimir, 1995 (hereinafter - Kavelmaher, 1995). C. 23.

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

4. Kavelmaher, 1995. C. 76.

5. Ibid., C. 77.

6. Ibid., C. 8-9.

7. Ibid., C. 9-10.

8. Ibid., C. 11.

9. Ibid.

10. Ibid., C. 10.

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, 1995. C. 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, 1995. C. 13.

16. Itauba, E. Kruse. The message Johann Taube and Alert Kruse. - In the book: Russian historical journal. KN. 8. GHGs., 1922. C. 51;

Gstadt. About Moscow Ivan The Terrible. Notes of a German guardsmen. M., 1925. C. 67, 90, 91.

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

18. Ibid., C. 161.

19. Ibid., C. 162.

20. Ibid., C. 176.

21. Ibid., C. 162, 168, 169.

22. Kavelmaher. Trinity Church on the Czar courtyard of the ancient settlement of Alexander. - In the book: Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. Materials of scientific-practical conference. Vladimir, 1995. C. 34.

23. A.I. Nekrasov. The decree. cit., S. 198.

24. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 176.

25. 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.

26. A. Batalov. Moscow stone architecture of the end of XVI century. M., 1996 (hereinafter referred to Batalov, 1996). C. 178-248.

27. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 162, 168, 169.

28. In particular, A. Batalov himself noted that in the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat neighbor Italianate and neitalyanizirovannye portals (Batalov, 1996. C. 207).

29. Ibid., C. 205.

30. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 162.

31. Ibid., C. 168.

32. Ibid., C. 162.

33. Batalov, 1996. C. 207.

34. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 163.

35. Batalov, 1996. C. 207.

36. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 162.

37. Batalov, 1996. C. 207.

38. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 162.

39. Batalov, 1996. C. 220.

40. A.I. Nekrasov. The decree. cit., S. 198, 227.

41. Kavelmaher, 1995. C. 17.

42. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 162, 168, 169.

43. SV zagraevsky. Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture. M., 2002 (hereinafter - Zagraevsky, 2002). C. 36-40;

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). C. 24-29.

44. S. pod'yapol'skii even believed that "wrong, as if painfully broken figure Western portal Pokrovsky Cathedral Sloboda has something relating it with the plastic of modernity" (pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 163).

45. Zagraevsky, 2003. C. 30-31.

46. The author is deeply grateful to TD Panova for your kind assistance in acquaintance with the masonry of the Cathedral.

47. Personal interviews with VV kavelmaherom, 2002.

48. Kavelmaher, 1995. C. 8.

49. Ibid, s 20.

50. Kavelmaher. Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda. - In the book: Problems of studying old Russian architecture (architectural and archaeological readings dedicated to the memory Rappoport, 15-19 January 1990.). SPb., 1996. C. 194.

51. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 180.

52. Kavelmaher, 1995. C. 94. Note that such additional belfry were the belfry of Ivan the Great, the "clock-tower" Novgorod Kremlin (Sofia belfry), in the Trinity-Sergius, Spaso-evfimiev, Joseph Volokolamsk monasteries and other

53. Ibid., C. 13;

Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 180.

54. Kavelmaher, 1995. C. 79.

55. Ibid., C. 13, 87.

56. The author expresses his deep gratitude to the Director of the Museum "Alexandrovskaya Sloboda" A. petruhno and her colleagues for giving an opportunity of full-scale study of the monuments of Alexandrov Sloboda.

57. Kavelmaher, 1995. C. 8-11.

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

59. Ibid., C. 162.

60. Ibid., C. 180.

61. PN Maksimov. The Cathedral of the Spaso-Andronikov monastery in Moscow. In the book: Architectural monuments of Moscow XV-XVII centuries. New research. M., 1947. C. 23.

62. Voronin. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries M, 1961-1962. So 1, S. 207.

63. Ibid., C. 246.

64. L.Engineers a.beliaev. Ancient monasteries of Moscow (con. XIII-beginning of the XV centuries), according to archeology. M., 1994. C. 160.

65. 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.

66. M. Ioannisyan, E. N. Torshin, P.L. Zykov. The Church of Boris and Gleb in Rostov the Great. - In the book: Old Russian art. Rus. Byzantium. The Balkans. XIII century. SPb, 1997. C. 232.

67. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 172.

68. In fairness, we note that before the adoption of the standpoint S. Podyapolsky about the Dating of the first temples Sloboda 1570 mi A. Batalov believed that the emergence of the Church with two or more aisles, allocated in separate volumes, took place in the first third of the XVI century, and as an example he cited the temples of the Saviour on the Bor and Cover in Sloboda (Batalov, 1996.C. 129)

69. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 171;

A. Batalov. On the Dating of the Church of the beheading of John the Baptist in Djakova. - In the book: Russian artistic culture of XV-XVII centuries. The state historical and cultural Museum-preserve "the Moscow Kremlin". Materials and research. Vol. 9. M., 1998. C. 230.

70. Ibid., C. 232.

71. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 174.

72. Batalov, 1996. C. 205.

Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 163.

73. Ibid.

74. Ibid., C. 162;

Batalov, 1996. C. 205.

75. Kavelmaher, 1995. C. 70.

76. Ibid., C. 43, 70.

77. Ibid., C. 6, 75.

78. PSRL 6:247; 13:10.

79. PSRL 6:254. Of these churches reached us only in the relative preservation of St. Peter the Metropolitan of vysokopetrovsky monastery.

80. Pod'yapol'skii, 2002. C. 175.

81. Ibid., C. 173.

82. Ibid., C. 169.

83. Ibid., C. 163.

84. Kavelmaher,1995. C. 70.

85. Ibid, s 42.

86. 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: Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 36-40.

87. Zagraevsky, 2002. C. 36-40.

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

89. Budashov. Alexandrovskaya Sloboda in the history of the Russian state XVI century. - In the book: Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. Materials of scientific-practical conference. Vladimir, 1995. C. 8.

90. 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 Kremlin - see: Kavelmaher, T. Panova. The decree. cit., S. 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 and St. Sergius. However, these three churches could not be considered "minor": they all belong to the work of one of Aleviz, and together with the Trinity Church constitute a single complex.

91. PSRL 12:238.

92. 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.

93. VP Vygolov. To the question of the buildings and personality Aleviz Fryazino. - In the book: Old Russian art. Research and attribution. SPb, 1997. C. 240.

94. PSRL 12:249.

95. PSRL 6:247.

96. PSRL 12:258.

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

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

99. PSRL 13:10.

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

101. PSRL 13:8.

102. PSRL 30:140-144.

103. PSRL 8:254-255.

104. M.A. Ilyin, PN Maksimov, Cot. The decree. cit., S. 310.

105. Ibid., C. 328-330.

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

107. VP Vygolov. The decree. cit., S. 240-242.

108. Ibid., C. 242.

109. Kavelmaher. On the aisles of the Cathedral. - In the book: Archangel Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. M., 2002. C. 154.

110. CIT. in book.: Kavelmaher, 1995. C. 3.

© Sergey Zagraevsky

To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page