Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky
To the question of date and author of the architectural monuments
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.
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
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.
The bright memory of the untimely deceased
Centuries Kavelmahera and S. S. Podyapolsky
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
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
- Crucifixion bell to 1710 - the
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
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
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
In the late 1990's-early 2000-ies point of view Kavelmahera was
questioned SS pod'yapol'skii. Supporting the classification Pokrovsky
- "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
- 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
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
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
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
A. Batalov and S. pod'yapol'skii noted that a number of features decor
features the first
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
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 (
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
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
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
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
Fig. 8. Portal of Feodor chapel of
Fig. 9. Southern portal of entry into
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
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
Fig. 11. The box at the bottom of the tent of
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
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
Much more convincing looks fact, which was forced to acknowledge and A.
Batalov39: if date first temple Sloboda
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:
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
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.
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
The main argument in support of the position Kavelmahera is the presence
of the bell
All researchers, with the exception of SS Podyapolsky, believed that
between the construction period (respectively, between the construction of the
S. pod'yapol'skii, Dating all the monuments Sloboda
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
Yet look, could the
First, we have said that masonry and mortar, and style, and execution of
the decoration of the
Third, the survey author of this article upper tiers of the surviving
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
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.
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
"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
"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
And, of course, the main subject to review the situation currently
prevailing theory is that the first
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
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.
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
And we start addressing this issue by attempting to determine the
architects and craftsmen who built the first
V. kavelmaher that graduated in
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
in 1514, according to the chronicle data, the great Prince commanded
Aleviz Fryazino erect in
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,
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
And in this case, the churchwarden temples Alexandrov Sloboda - Vasily
III - was in
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
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
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.
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
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
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" (
None of the researchers had no doubt (and won't doubt, and we)that this
"Velma great master" (we will call it by Aleviz
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
Finally, in 1514, Vasily III ordered to build in
Until 1970-ies in the history of architecture dominated following point
of view: Aleviz
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
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
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
Hardly the architect had the opportunity in parallel with these
large-scale fortification works to build 11 churches in
And Aleviz 2nd from 1505 to 1508 years, built the Cathedral of the
Archangel and the
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.
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
Monuments of ancient Alexandrova Sloboda. Collection of articles.
3. THE PR RSL. F.
304. Ed. Chr.
5. Ibid., C. 77.
6. Ibid., C. 8-9.
7. Ibid., C. 9-10.
8. Ibid., C. 11.
10. Ibid., C. 10.
11. S. pod'yapol'skii.
On the Dating sites Alexandrova Sloboda. - In the book: Proceedings of the
13. Ibid., C. 17.
16. Itauba, E.
Kruse. The message Johann Taube and Alert Kruse. - In the book: Russian
historical journal. KN. 8. GHGs.,
18. Ibid., C. 161.
19. Ibid., C. 162.
20. Ibid., C. 176.
21. Ibid., C. 162, 168, 169.
29. Ibid., C. 205.
31. Ibid., C. 168.
32. Ibid., C. 162.
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.
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,
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.
49. Ibid, s 20.
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.,
53. Ibid., C. 13;
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.
59. Ibid., C. 162.
60. Ibid., C. 180.
61. PN Maksimov.
The Cathedral of the Spaso-Andronikov monastery in
62. Voronin. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries M, 1961-1962. So 1, S. 207.
63. Ibid., C. 246.
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,
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
70. Ibid., C. 232.
74. Ibid., C. 162;
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.
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,
88. THE PR RSL. F.
304. Ed. Chr.
Alexandrovskaya Sloboda in the history of the Russian state XVI century. - In
the book: Alexandrovskaya Sloboda. Materials of scientific-practical conference.
90. All other
alevizou temples in the village is not so original: pillar-shaped Church-bell
had been known in
91. PSRL 12:238.
92. For more
information, see: S. pod'yapol'skii. Italian construction foreman in
93. VP Vygolov. To
the question of the buildings and personality Aleviz Fryazino. - In the book:
Old Russian art. Research and attribution. SPb,
94. PSRL 12:249.
95. PSRL 6:247.
96. PSRL 12:258.
97. Monuments of
98. Ibid, so 2, S. 551-552.
99. PSRL 13:10.
100. For more
information, see: pod'yapol'skii,
101. PSRL 13:8.
102. PSRL 30:140-144.
103. PSRL 8:254-255.
105. Ibid., C. 328-330.
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
110. CIT. in book.:
© Sergey Zagraevsky