To the page “Scientific works”
S. V. Zagraevsky
New researches of Vladimir-Suzdal museum’s
architectural monuments
Published in Russian: Çàãðàåâñêèé Ñ.Â. Íîâûå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïàìÿòíèêîâ àðõèòåêòóðû Âëàäèìèðî-Ñóçäàëüñêîãî ìóçåÿ-çàïîâåäíèêà. M.: Àëåâ-Â, 2008. ISBN 5-94025-099-8
Chapter
1.Organization of production and processing of white stone in ancient Russia
Chapter 2. The beginning
of “Russian Romanesque”: Jury Dolgoruky or Andrey Bogolyubsky?
in Suzdal in 1148 and the original view of Suzdal temple of 1222–1225
Chapter 4.
Questions of date and status of Boris and Gleb Church in Kideksha
Chapter 5.
Questions of architectural history and reconstruction of Andrey Bogolyubsky’s
Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir
Chapter 6.
Redetermination of the reconstruction of Golden Gate in Vladimir
Chapter 7.
Architectural ensemble in Bogolyubovo: questions of history and reconstruction
Chapter 9.
Questions of the rebuilding of Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir by Vsevolod the
Big Nest
Chapter 10.
Questions of the original view and date of Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir
Chapter
4.
Questions
of date and status of Boris and Gleb Church in Kideksha
1. Issues of the date of Boris and
The Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha is located close
to the confluence of the Nerl and the Kamenka rivers (about
Boris and
This message is placed in the annals under
N.N. Voronin also dated the church by 11523.
But, nevertheless, the researcher doubted in the above mentioned message of
Arguments against
Such trend of dating of the churches listed by
Of course, this is a fertile ground for every
researcher of pre-Mongolian architecture of North-Eastern Russia to put forward
his own version of the dating of Yury’s temples. This is already observed in
relation of Boris and Gleb church (1148 and 1149-1152 may be found in the
popular scientific literature9). But is such a position legitimate?
Before all let us show the consistency and adequacy of
the message of “Typograph” Chronicle, which dates all listed churches of
Dolgoruky by 1152.
First, after almost two years in Kiev Yuri Dolgoruky
was hardly short of money –Kievites treated him as a greedy not for nothing
(see Chap. 2). Probably, leaving
And in North-Eastern Russia there was enough vacant
land, with which the builders could be awarded.
Consequently, Dolgoruky had financial and material
resources for construction of several white stone churches and several
fortresses.
Secondly,
Third, if the chronicler "summarized"
Dolgoruky’s buildings of 1148-1157 (as it was assumed by N.N. Voronin and
O.M. Ioannisian), it is not clear why he placed a message about them under
the intermediate random date – 1152. It would have been much more logical to
describe them under 1157.
Fourth, the Chronicle says that Yuri’s temples were
"erected" and “completed”. In ancient Russian chronicles the word
"to erect" (as well as much less common "to complete"11)
in respect of the temples was synonymous with the word "to build",
and chroniclers usually meant that the construction was started and completed
this year.
For example, Vladimir Chronicle under 1401 reports
that in Novgorod the stone church of King Constantine and his mother
Helena at Yanev street were “erected”, and Bishop Ivan founded the stone city
fortress of Novgorod12; in 1432 “two stone churches of St. George on
Borkov street, and St. Nicolas in Buryagi behind the lake were erected”, and in
1433 "Bishop Eufimy founded the stone church of St. Ivan Chrysostom at the
gate"13; in 1514, "the church of St. Barbara at the
opposite side of Pansky courtyard was consecrated by Metropolitan Varlam, and that
church was erected by Yuri Urvihvostov and Theodore Boar... In the city of
In First Novgorod Chronicle of “younger edition” it is
said under 1442: "The same year God-loving Novgorod Archbishop Eufimei
erected St. Saviour Transfiguration church in Rusa, on the basis of the old,
with help of the people of Novgorod and Rusa, and was completed in September 13
day”
“Typograph” Chronicle reports under 1017:
"Yaroslav founded the great city of
So, a number of examples, which show that the
chroniclers usually shared the terms "to erect", "to
complete", "to consecrate", "to begin construction"
and "to found", can be cited.
Fifthly, one-year period for construction of temples
of scale of Boris and Gleb church in Kideksha and Transfiguration Cathedral in
Pereslavl was quite usual in ancient
Therefore, the message of
Thus, the suggestion of N.N. Voronin and
O.M. Ioannisian, that the chronicler "summarized" Dolgoruky’s
buildings, is an attempt to disavow the message of “Typograph” Chronicle.
Undoubtedly, there were occasions when chroniclers
"summarized" buildings, and confused the terms, and made mistakes. But
a priori critical attitude to invaluable documentary information of mid-XII
century is unacceptable, and it will be possible to acknowledge the message of
Rostov chronicler false or "summarizing" only in the case of
exceptionally strong and significant counter-arguments, leaving no doubts (a
similar situation occurred in our study of the question whether a cathedral was
built in
Let us see whether the arguments of N.N. Voronin
and O.M. Ioannisian qualify for such an exceptional value and reliability.
First, as we have showed in Chapter 2, there was the
direct influence of "Holy Roman Empire" to the architecture of
Dolgoruky (and not through the distant province of Galicia, but through the
nearest neighbor of Suzdal – Novgorod), and that Dolgoruky’s temples were built
by local craftsmen under the guidance of local architects, who had been trained
in Western Europe. Consequently, Yuri Dolgoruky possessed not of Galician or
Lesser Polish artel, but of architects and a number of skilled craftsmen
(B.A. Ognev called them "construction squad"18), and
they could, using local construction personnel, organize the simultaneous
construction in several cities (respectively, in 1152 – in Pereslavl-Zalessky,
Suzdal, Yuriev-Polsky, Kideksha and
Secondly, the famous "Antimension" from St.
Nicholas Cathedral at Dvorishe in Novgorod, which says about the consecration
by Nifont, Archbishop of Novgorod, of some "altar of St. George" in
1148 (O.M. Ioannisian attracted this antimension as the justification for
the dating of St. George Cathedral in Yuriev-Polsky by 114819), has
very doubtful authenticity. A special study of the author is devoted to this
issue20, here it makes sense to list only the main arguments:
–uncharacteristic for church documents wording occurs
in the text of "Antimension": “Consecrated by Nifont, Archbishop of
– Archdiocese of
– in 1148, Bishop Nifont came to Yuri Dolgoruky. The Chronicle
describes in details all of what the Bishop of Novgorod was engaged in during
his stay in Suzdal21, but there is nothing about the consecration of
St. George church (and even more of such exceptional importance, as St. George
Cathedral in Yuriev-Polsky;
– clear signs "artificial aging" are seen at
the document.
In the mentioned study the author of the book gave the
version of the origin of this document. It can be briefly expressed as follows:
there is no doubt that in XIII-XV centuries Grand Princes of Vladimir, and then
of
Consequently, the document, which is stored in
Hermitage, is not an evidence of consecration by Bishop Nifont in 1148 of some
Third, if we accept the version of
O.M. Ioannisian that
And we can not suppose after O.M. Ioannisian that
Thus, no argument of N.N. Voronin and
O.M. Ioannisian refutes the message of “Typograph” Chronicle, and we can
fully trust
But the question arises: is it the date only of the
foundation of the temples, or all those churches were fully built during that
year? Did Dolgoruky see his temples completed?
The construction of
Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl in Yuri’s lifetime is confirmed by
“Stepennaya Book”: “beautified it wonderfully with adorable painting and holy
icons”. There is a number of chronicle reports that in 1157 Andrey
"completed the stone
The situation with St. George church
in Dolgoruky’s courtyard in
But Yuri, the Prince of Suzdal since the beginning of
XII century, was to have a courtyard in
And since Vladimir Chronicle tells
about the building of St. George church in 115325, and this date is
not significantly different from the date given by Rostov Chronicle (the
difference could be conditioned by the details of attributing of some works to
building or decoration), we accept 1152 as the date of construction of the
church.
Thus, we unequivocally accept 1152 as
the date of the
2. Some
features of architecture of the
Boris and
In 1660s the head, arches and eastern pillars of the church were completely dismantled, and the apse and eastern parts of the northern and southern walls – dismantled to the level of the arcature zone. Then the eastern pillars were folded again, and the temple was covered by the closed vault with a small head. In this form the temple still survives (Fig. 26 and 27).
Fig.
26.
Fig.
27.
The Church in Kideksha is built of high-quality white stone
blocks, perfectly treated and laid almost dry. The plan of the temple, without
taking apses into account, is very close to the square (approximately 15 x
Fig.
28.
The walls are divided by the exterior lisenes into
three unequal parts (middle part is wider and higher). Ledge-like narrowing of
the exterior lisenes creates the "perspective" of the wall parts.
Inner lisenes match the external lisenes and cross-like pillars. An unloading arch
is lined over the western portal in the interior wall (Fig. 29).
Fig. 29.
The dimensions of
Fig. 30.
But it should be noted that these churches have a
number of important differences:
– in the
– the socle of
– the portals of the Church in Kideksha, compared with
the portals of Savior Cathedral, have two additional ledges that create larger
"perspective" than in Pereslavl;
– the profile of the basement of the
– the drum of Holy Transfiguration Cathedral is
decorated with “porebrik” and crenate belt, on top of the apses there are
arcature, “porebrik” and carved tore. In the Church of Boris and Gleb, the drum
also had crenate belt (its remains were found under the roof of the temple32),
the decor of the apses is unknown to us, but in this church, in contrast to
Pereslavl, the deflux at the level of the choir is decorated by arcature with
“porebrik” at the level of the choir.
In the western part of Borisoglebskaya church in
Kideksha there is a choir, entrance to which is currently being implemented
through the rectangular hole in its northern arch. Probably, this is a late
entry, but no other traces of the entrance to the choir, as well as of
stair-towers or other additions to the temple, are preserved.
During the studying of the church, conducted in 2006
by the author together with T.P. Timofeeva, the latter drew attention to a
number of notches for plaster on the western part of the southern wall (Fig. 31),
where a stair-tower could be. It is characteristically that the incisions are
made on both tiers of the wall part.
Fig.
31. Western part of the southern wall of the church of Boris and Gleb.
No trace of the door to the choirs in the southern
part of the wall could be found. In the inner side there are clear signs of
complete relaying of the lining (Fig. 32). From outside there are the visible
traces of the mortgaged window (see Fig. 31), but around it the lining was also
relayed, and this lets us suggest that the mortgaged window is also late with
respect to XII century.
Fig. 32. Western part of the southern wall of the Church of Boris and Gleb.
View from the choir.
Accordingly, there is a high probability that a
stair-tower adjoined the western part of the southern wall. But a definitive
answer to this question requires masonry probing (the traces of the door could
remain in the rubble of the wall), and new archaeological investigations of the
space adjacent to the foundations of the temple. However, the latter can show
nothing if the stair-tower was made of wood (probably a similar situation
occurred in Pereslavl-Zalessky, where the upper tier of the western fence of
the northern wall of Savior Cathedral has clearly expressed doorway, but the
archaeological researches33 discovered no traces of the basement of
stair-tower).
3. The status of the fortress in Kideksha and of the
Church of Boris and Gleb
The extensions to Borisoglebskaya church are closely
related to the question, what was Kideksha in pre-Mongol times – a fortified
princely residence, or a "full-fledged" city (with permanent
population, self-government, trade, crafts, warriors, suburbs and so on).
It is clear that the Church of Boris and Gleb was on
the territory of a fortress. In the mid-twentieth century the studies of
A.D. Varganov opened the remains of the rampart in the garden to the
north-west of Borisoglebskaya church34. But what kind of fortress
was it?
The status of Kideksha in pre-Mongolian times and the
construction of the church are described in the message of Anania Fedorov,
which was recorded in XVIII century according to the words of local old-timers:
“On the place, where now there is the church of the
village of Kideksha, near that church there was a suburban courtyard of Grand
Princes of Suzdal, and right-believing Grand Prince George Vsevolodovich wanted
to build a cathedral on the shore of the Nerl, and to move the city with the
fortress to a new place, but was stopped by some revelation, and built a new
beautiful and wonderful stone cathedral at the old place inside the city
fortress, and on the place on the shore of the Nerl, where he had wanted to
build the city fortress and the cathedral, he built of stones, which had
remained of the building of the cathedral in Suzdal, the church of the Holy
martyrs Boris and Gleb, and founded the monastery for monks dwelling, and
called that place Kideksha, i.e. abandoned or unsuitable (that is according to
the verbal story)”35.
N.N. Voronin accepted this message of Anania
Fedorov (albeit with the reservation that the latter probably confused Yuri
Vladimirovich with Yuri Vsevolodovich36) and thought that Kideksha
was a country residence of Dolgoruky, i.e. the latter built the Church of Boris
and Gleb in his courtyard37. This view is entrenched in scientific
and popular literature: it is often written about the Church in Kideksha that
it was located in the fortified residence of Yuri38.
Before all we must note two internal contradictions in
the position of N.N. Voronin.
First, the researcher accepted the message of Anania,
suggesting that it was about Dolgoruky instead of Yuri Vsevolodovich – but in
this case he would have been obliged to accept also the hypothesis that Yuri
Dolgoruky built the Cathedral of Nativity of the Virgin in Suzdal (Anania said
that directly). But the researcher rightly objected to this hypothesis39
(in Chapter 3 we have also shown that Yuri Dolgoruky did not rebuild Suzdal
Cathedral).
Secondly, in fact Anania did not say that the Church
of Boris and Gleb was built in the courtyard of a Prince. By Fedorov, the
Prince's country courtyard was in Kideksha earlier – before Prince’s decision
to move there the city of Suzdal. Then the Prince changed his mind, arranged
the monastery and built the temple in Kideksha.
Hence, the Church of Boris and Gleb, by Anania
Fedorov, was built not as a princely court temple, but as the cathedral of the
monastery.
There are internal contradictions and inadequate
information also in the message of Anania.
First, as we have seen above, there is the confusion
with the names of the princes.
Secondly, we can assume that Anania Fedorov meant
exactly Yury Vsevolodovich, and, accordingly, called him the churchwarden of
Borisoglebskaya church by mistake. This is confirmed by the following
considerations:
– it is unlikely that an historian of XVIII century
confused Yury Vsevolodovich with Yuri Vladimirovich: in that time the latter
was commonly called Dolgoruky, and if Anania had been thinking of him, it is likely
that he would have written so;
– in the message of Anania the Prince is called
“right-believing” – so Anania could say about canonized Yury Vsevolodovich, but
not about Dolgoruky.
Third, Anania originated the name "Kideksha"
from the Russian word "abandoned". But if, by Fedorov, the Prince
built there a monastery, this place in any case could not be called
"abandoned", on the contrary – it became "Holy". Note that
in fact the origin of this name has a very simple explanation: the word
"Kideksha" is translated from all Finno-Ugric languages as
"stone"40.
And, considering the absurdity of the poll of
"local old-timers" in XVIII century about XII century (it's like
interviewing of old residents of the city of Aleksandrov in our time about the
times of Vasily III and Ivan IV), we unequivocally reject the message of Anania
Fedorov as an historical source.
We note that in XVI-XVIII centuries the legend that
the church and fortress were built in Kideksha not by Yuri Dolgoruky, but by
Yuri Vsevolodovich, was apparently widely distributed. B.M. Pudalov41
quoted the text of a book of the last third of XVI century, connected with
Novgorod chronicles: “He fought with Constantine, his brother, at the Gza
river. Baty king came then and pursued him at the Cit river. And he, the son of
Andrey’s brother Vsevolod, built the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha, and
also Gorodets on the Volga”42.
Another opinion, what prince built the temple in
Kideksha, is shown in “Supraslskaya” Chronicle: “The Church in Kideksha and the
city fortress there, and also Gorodets on the Volga, were erected by Boris
Mihalkovich, the son of the brother of Andrey and Vsevolod”43. In
respect of this chronicle report N.N. Voronin rightly thought that it
meant not Boris Mihalkovich, but Boris Yurievich (the son of Dolgoruky), who
was buried in the Church of Boris and Gleb with his wife and daughter44.
But such a combination of various sources of
information, which say that both Yuri Dolgoruky and his son were the
churchwardens, says with a high degree of probability that Kideksha was an
appanage of Boris Yurevich, and therefore a "full-fledged" city.
This position is indirectly confirmed by another
source – “Stepennaya Book”: “And he (Prince Yuri – S.Z.) built in Kideksha at
the Nerl river near Suzdal stone church in the name of the Holy martyrs Boris
and Gleb, where the Holy martyrs’ common camp was, by their way to Kiev, Boris
from Rostov, Gleb from Murom”45.
Indeed, it is unlikely that the princes, traveling
from different parts of North-Eastern Russia, met just in the middle of the
forest: a meeting must have been arranged in advance, and, probably, it was
scheduled in the city (at least in the fortress) – so in 1147 Yuri Dolgoruky
and Svyatoslav Olgovich agreed to meet in Moscow46.
There are also other considerations that Kideksha was
a "full-fledged" city and existed long before the Church of Boris and
Gleb building there in 1152.
First, the city of Kideksha was located at the
intersection of major trade routes – by the Nerl, which leaded to the Klyazma,
and by Kamenka, on which Suzdal stood.
Secondly, Kideksha was not to the west, but to the
east of Suzdal – to the direction of Volga Bulgarians, hostile to Russia.
Accordingly, if Kideksha had been a small fortified residence of the Prince,
the latter could turn out in a "trap" in the case of sudden attack of
the enemy. And the presence at the confluence of the Kamenka and the Nerl of a
"full-fledged" (and, as we shall soon see, big enough) city as Suzdal
outpost was justified.
Thirdly, the author of this book showed47
that Suzdal courtyard of Dolgoruky probably was inside the city walls of
Suzdal, near the modern church of Assumption. There was a courtyard of
Dolgoruky also in Vladimir. Did the prince need in addition to these closely
spaced courtyards one more – in Kideksha – is a debatable question, and to date
we have no right to assume the existence of such a courtyard. A small courtyard
of Boris Yurevich certainly was in Kideksha, but Dolgoruky would hardly have
built a large white stone church in the courtyard of one of his many sons.
Consequently, it is much more likely that the Church of Boris and Gleb was the
main urban temple.
Fourth, the fortress in Kideksha was big enough. Its
probable configuration is given at the plan by P.A. Rappoport48
(Fig. 33). If the south line of ramparts was located on the last slope to the
water meadows (now there is road; possibly in the pre-Mongolian time under this
slope the Kamenka flew into the Nerl, but then it retreated to the south, as
the Klyazma from Bogolyubovo), the total length of the fortress by north-south
was no less than 400 m. If the width of the fortress was from 150 to 300 m,
then its total perimeter was at least 1 km. Ramparts of approximately the same
length (about 1 km) were in Dmitrov, and slightly longer – about 1,4 km – in
Suzdal.
Fig.
33. The approximate plan of the fortress in
Kideksha (by P.A. Rappoport).
Most likely, during Mongol invasion
Kideksha suffered49, but in 1239 the Church of Boris and Gleb was
renovated and consecrated, and a white stone seat and a carved altar barrier
were probably arranged there50. But, apparently, already in a very
short time because of the general deterioration of the economic situation in
the region the city fell into decay and its residents moved to nearby Suzdal. In the “List of distant and close Russian cities” (XIV-XV century) there
is no Kideksha51. As
N.N. Voronin rightly believed, since the XIV century in deserted Kideksha
there was a monastery (registrated to Pechersky of Nizhny Novgorod)52,
and the former city church of Boris and Gleb became its cathedral.
Accordingly,
all the fragments of columns, balusters and plinthite, found during excavations
around Borisoglebskaya Church in XIX-XX centuries53, could apply to
any municipal buildings. But it can be confirmed only by a large-scale
archaeological survey, which Kideksha is still waiting for (even
N.N. Voronin wrote about the need for such studies as about an
"urgent problem"54).
Chapter 5. Questions of architectural history and reconstruction of
Andrey Bogolyubsky’s
Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir
© Sergey Zagraevsky
Chapter
1.Organization of production and processing of white stone in ancient Russia
Chapter 2. The beginning
of “Russian Romanesque”: Jury Dolgoruky or Andrey Bogolyubsky?
in Suzdal in 1148 and the original view of Suzdal temple of 1222–1225
Chapter 4.
Questions of date and status of Boris and Gleb Church in Kideksha
Chapter 5.
Questions of architectural history and reconstruction of Andrey Bogolyubsky’s
Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir
Chapter 6.
Redetermination of the reconstruction of Golden Gate in Vladimir
Chapter 7.
Architectural ensemble in Bogolyubovo: questions of history and reconstruction
Chapter 9.
Questions of the rebuilding of Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir by Vsevolod the
Big Nest
Chapter 10.
Questions of the original view and date of Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir
To the page “Scientific works”