To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page

S. V. Zagraevsky

New researches of Vladimir-Suzdal museum’s

architectural monuments

Published in Russian: Заграевский С.В. Новые исследования памятников архитектуры Владимиро-Суздальского музея-заповедника. M.: Алев-В, 2008. ISBN 5-94025-099-8

Introduction

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?

Chapter 3. About the hypothetical “intermediate” building of the Cathedral of the Nativity of Virgin Mary

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 8. To the question of reconstruction and date of the Church of the Intercession of the Holy Virgin on the Nerl

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

Notes

Chapter 8.

To the question of reconstruction and date of the Church of the Intercession

of the Holy Virgin on the Nerl

1. Questions of the original view of the Church of Intercession

The Church of Intercession is located on flood plains near the confluence of the Nerl and the Klyazma (general view of the temple is shown at Fig. 71 and 72). In XII century Klyazma flew somewhat farther to the north, and the church was practically on the cape of the rivers, marking the intersection of the major water trade routes¹.

Fig. 71. Church of Intercession on the Nerl. View from the water meadows.

Fig. 72. Church of Intercession on the Nerl. Northern facade.

The Church of Intercession on the Nerl has 4 pillars, 3 apses, one dome. It was built of white stone of the highest quality (masonry is very homogeneous, there is practically no yellow tint, the porosity of blocks is very low – in short, there is no masonry of such quality in any other ancient Russian white stone temple). Tuff-like limestone was applied in the vaults for reduction of their weight².

The temple stands on a unique foundation, which consists of eight rows of high-quality well-treated white stone (about 4 m depth in general), is based on rubble (usual for architecture of North-Eastern Russia) and is almost square in section (depth about 2 m).

The main volume of the church of XII century is preserved without significant changes. It is a small, slightly elongated along the longitudinal axis (about 8 x 7 m without apses, side of omphalos – about 3.2 m) “chetverik” and head.

The divisions of the northern and southern walls of the temple are asymmetric, the eastern parts are very narrow. However, the sum of protrusion of the apses and the width of the eastern wall parts is almost equal to the width of the middle wall parts, and through this the composition of the temple looks balanced when viewed from either side.

The ratio of the width of the western facade of the Church of Intercession on the Nerl to its height – about 0.85 (for comparison: in Vladimir Assumption Cathedral of Andrey Bogolyubsky and the Cathedral of St. Demetrius this ratio is close to 1). Arcature-columnar zone with the “porebrik” is slightly above the level of the choir, its top divides the facade into two almost equal parts. These proportions create a very "slender" silhouette of the temple.

The drum of the Church of Intercession is strongly elongated up – the ratio of its diameter to the height is 0.8 (in the Cathedral of St. Demetrius in Vladimir – approximately 1).

Multi-profiled pilasters with semi-columns on the outside walls of the Church on the Nerl correspond to the internal lisenes. They are thicker than the walls nearly two times, and that creates a very clear constructive "image" of the temple.

Tapering up columns of the arcature-columnar zone are very close to each other (much closer than in Assumption Cathedral), and arcs are strongly compressed and have a horseshoe shape. This architectural design also emphasizes the general “tendency upwards”.

Above the arcature-columnar zone and the deflux new profiles start – arched gables and windows. On the apses the arcature-columnar zone with “porebrik” is located on top, some columns are replaced by semi-columns, which lead down to the basement and create a coherent and vertically-oriented “pattern” of apses decoration.

At the whole, the impression of “tendency upwards” is so strong that the completely vertical walls of the Intercession church seem narrowing upward.

And in the interior the cross-like pillars really narrow upward, and in the condition of small size of the temple they create an additional sense of interior "elevation".

In general, the church gives the impression of not only of "high", but also of very "smart", despite the relatively modest (compared, for example, with Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir) decor of zooantropomorfous type. The tympanums of arched gables have the images of King David, lions, pigeons, griffins with lambs and female masks, and the bases of columns of the arcature-columnar zone – the images of masks, animals and monsters. The drum is decorated by the arcature-columnar and crenate zones. The paired lions are placed in the abutments of omphalos arches in the interior.

Perspective portals of the temple are decorated by the leafy capitals and carved semicircular archivolts. The socle of Attic profile is similar to the profile of the socle of the Church of Nativity of the Virgin in Bogolyubovo.

Archaeological studies by N.N. Voronin in 1950³ showed that the temple had galleries, which stood on the foundation, just as unique as at the temple, although somewhat less deep⁴ (Fig. 73). The availability of the galleries is proved by the discovery of their foundations, and of a profiled white stone block, which probably belonged to them⁵ (Fig. 74).

Fig. 73. Section and plan of the Church of Intercession on the Nerl with the foundations of the temple and hypothetical open galleries. Reconstruction by N.N. Voronin.

Fig. 74. Profiled white stone block, opened by the excavations of N.N. Voronin.

Later attempts to cast doubt on this discovery of N.N. Voronin do not look convincing. For example, P.N. Arkatov⁶ and K.N. Afanasiev⁷ believed that additional foundation walls were built to enhance the artificial hill, which was sprinkled around the temple.

P.A. Rappoport, criticizing the positions of P.N. Arkatov and K.N. Afanasiev, cited numerous examples of galleries in architecture of Suzdal land and other ancient Russian principalities⁸. However, the counterarguments of P.A. Rappoport can not be called exhaustive, as all his examples relate to closed galleries-porches, and N.N. Voronin believed that the galleries of Intercession church were opened⁹ (see the reconstruction by N.N. Voronin at Fig. 73 and 75). We can cite additional arguments in favor of the existence of galleries:

– P.N. Arcatov and K.N. Afanasiev ignored the above-mentioned archaeological find, which was rightly identified by N.N. Voronin as a piece of galleries;

– there was no reason to strengthen the hill by extremely powerful retaining walls of well-treated stone foundations, located so close to the temple, because it still would have been diluted outside these walls. In this case it would have made sense to "move" these walls to the edges of the hill, what would have made them much lower and would have saved much well-treated stone;

– the artificial hill was strengthened more reliably than by internal walls – by solid white stone causeway¹⁰.

Fig. 75. The Church of Intercession on the Nerl with hypothetical open galleries. Reconstruction by N.N. Voronin.

Thus, we confirm the existence of galleries at the temple of Intercession. But the following questions remain open:

– were the galleries erected simultaneously with the temple or later;

– if later, then how later;

– were the galleries open or closed.

First, we must note that, according to archaeological researches of N.N. Voronin¹¹, the rubble basement of the foundation of the Church of Intercession on the Nerl was at the day surface of mid-XII century, and the rubble basement of the foundation of the galleries – about half a meter above (Fig. 73). Further, in parallel with the construction of the walls of well-treated white stone, the space between the walls of the temple and galleries foundations was gradually (exactly gradually, and the excavations convincingly showed that) sprinkled by soil. Outside, already mentioned artificial hill also grew up (without traces of gradual sprinkling) and closed the walls (the walls of the galleries – completely, and the socle of the temple was not reached by about two rows of masonry).

Basing on the fact that the layers of construction debris inside the church were identical to the layers of construction debris between the foundation walls of the temple and galleries¹², we are obliged to follow N.N. Voronin and consider the simultaneous construction of those foundation walls (but not the elevated parts of the temple and galleries, as we shall see soon).

The question, why the rubble foundations of the galleries were laid half a meter above the rubble foundations of the temple, and the top of the well-treated foundation walls of the galleries is located below the socle of the temple almost a meter, N.N. Voronin did not study.

The question of unreasonable "wasteful" use of well-treated stone for the foundations also remained open. N.N. Voronin considered that such foundations ensured better stability of upper parts of the building. This version looks a bit stretched, as normal rubble foundations or foundations of roughly treated stone could also have ensured stability.

We have already said that archaeological excavations revealed the column, which, in all probability, belonged to the galleries¹³. Consequently, the galleries had above-ground parts, which stood on the foundation walls. But then there are two questions:

– why don’t the walls of the temple, including the arcature-columnar zone, have traces of the vaults of the galleries?

– why did the galleries close the completely finished (and very time-consuming in execution) arcature-columnar zone?

N.N. Voronin gave absolutely exhaustive answer to the first question: the vaults of the galleries were wooden and adjoined the walls of the temple through some transverse beams, which jacks were later heaped (those jacks were discovered in 1970 by S.M. Novakovskaya-Buchman¹⁴).

Answering the second question, N.N. Voronin wrote: “That was the system of Vladimir craftsmen – totally illogical, with our modern point of view”¹⁵. P.A. Rappoport supported the view of N.N. Voronin¹⁶. In other words, N.N. Voronin and P.A. Rappoport believed that ancient Russian craftsmen were doing some kind of "Sisyphean labor", having no reason except "an original logic". As the main example of such a “Sisyphean labor”, those researchers cited the arcature-columnar zone of the northern wall of the Church of Nativity of the Virgin in Bogolyubovo, covered by the arch with the passage¹⁷ (see Chap. 7, Fig. 45).

However, in Chap. 7 we have shown that there was no "original logic", moreover “Sisyphean labor”, in the work of Bogolyubovo craftsmen. At the time of construction of the Church of Nativity of the Virgin the craftsmen had yet no unambiguous view, how the choir of the church will be connected to the palace complex, – it could be not a cumbersome stone passage above the arch, but a light wooden bridge, or even a simple wooden staircase. Accordingly, the actions of craftsmen, who completed the arcature-columnar zone of the Church of Nativity of the Virgin, are seen as quite logical also from contemporary positions.

The same thing we can say about the galleries of the Church of Intercession on the Nerl. The understanding that they could be adjoined to the church a little later (for example, several years after construction) allows us to believe that the logic of Old Russian craftsmen in this matter did not differ from the modern: making the decoration, they had not yet known whether the temple will have galleries and stair-tower. In favor of the version of the later construction of galleries the ornament on the excavated block with the pilaster can be cited (see Fig. 74): this ornament has no parallels in the decoration of the Church of Intercession on the Nerl.

But, as we have seen above, the foundation walls of the galleries were built simultaneously with the foundation walls of the temple. Isn’t here a contradiction?

Here is no contradiction, and we can show that by attempting to reconstruct the stages of construction of the Intercession church and its galleries, taking into account all the issues that we have raised:

– why the rubble foundations of the galleries was laid half-meter above the rubble foundations of the temple;

– why the top of the foundation walls of the galleries is located below the socle of the temple for almost a meter;

– why there was unduly "wasteful" use of well-treated stone for the foundations;

– why fully completed arcature-columnar zone was closed by the galleries.

Apparently, the problem was that, as it often happened with buildings, to which the rulers paid close attention (and the Church of Intercession did not only mark a particularly important intersection of trade routes, but certainly was visible from the windows of the Prince Andrew’s palace in Bogoliubovo), the plan of construction was changed several times in the course of implementation. Most likely, there were approximately the following steps:

1. The architect and craftsmen (we shall collectively call them the builders) initially conceived the temple without galleries, standing on a high well-treated podium.

2. Having laid the rubble foundations and erected well-treated walls of the podium for about half a meter (the level of the first filling by small white stone fragments, determined during the excavations¹⁹), the builders decided to surround the temple by the galleries, standing on such a podium.

3. The builders laid the rubble foundations of the galleries (half a meter higher, as the level of the day surface during the previous construction had grown) and began to build the podium walls of the temple and galleries in parallel. Both walls were built of well-treated stone, including the internal wall (of the temple), as well as stone for it had anyway been prepared beforehand.

4. Having finished the construction of both walls almost to the top, the builders abandoned the construction of galleries. Perhaps they realized that the temple with galleries would lose the “tendency upward”, which, as we have shown in the beginning of this chapter, had great importance.

5. In this situation it was necessary to demolish the well-treated walls of the galleries, as they closed the podium of the temple. But the builders preferred not to demolish them, but to make the artificial hill around, because during its construction they were to understand that the podium of the temple was a very unreliable installation, which could be blurred during river floods. "Forced" construction of the hill is proved by the fact that it still was not high enough, and water often reached the basement of the church during floods.

6. The construction of foundation walls of the galleries, respectively, was stopped, and the podium of the temple was additionally raised at the height of two stone blocks²⁰.

7. The Church of Intercession on the Nerl was built on this podium in the form, which has reached our days. In this regard, we must recognize that the modern view of the temple adequately reflects if not the original design of the architect (who probably designed the temple standing on a well-treated podium), but the basic stage of its constructive implementation.

8. During the construction of the temple the way of the entrance to the choir had not yet been resolved (because the builders had refused of the galleries), so the arcature-columnar zone was fully completed.

9. A sort of staircase or a stair-tower was built near the church. Perhaps, these additions were made of wood.

10. Later (possibly in some years, or even after the death of Andrey Bogolyubsky) the galleries, which fragments were opened by the excavations²¹, were however built on the previously constructed foundation walls.

In connection with all foresaid, we may ask, how those galleries looked like. N.N. Voronin believed that they were open, as they "were in the best harmony with the forms of the temple"²² and were to emphasize the "ceremonial" status of the Intercession church. But there are serious doubts on this position:

– firstly, all our statements about "the best harmony" concerning Ancient Russia are unevitably subjective;

– secondly, powerful foundation walls of the open galleries would in fact have been bond foundations – despite the fact that the temple does not have such foundations;

– thirdly, we are unaware of precedents of open galleries in ancient Russia23;

– fourthly, N.N. Voronin’s attempts to identify the white stone block with a pilaster and ornament (see Fig. 74), which he had found during the excavations, as a part of the pillar of the open galleries, forced the researcher to give the reconstructed pillars of hypothetical galleries the form, extremely complicated and unprecedented in the old Russian and world architecture²⁴ (Fig. 76). It is much more likely that this block belonged to a corner of the walls of closed galleries.

Fig. 76. Pillar of the hypothetical open galleries. Reconstruction by N.N. Voronin.

Thus, we may assume that the galleries were closed, i.e. had the character of porches²⁵. This is understandable by the goals of expansion and warming of the building, increasing its area, making chapels and ancillary facilities (such a situation occurred in many ancient temples). Consequently, we can not accept the reconstruction of N.N. Voronin (see Fig. 73 and 75) for any intermediate stage of forming of the image of the Intercession church.

N.N. Voronin reasonably connected the disappearance of galleries with the construction of a new porch in late XVII century²⁶.

Where the sculptures of lions, opened by excavations of N.A. Artleben²⁷, stood, we can only guess. They could be above a hypothetical staircase to the temple from the wharf, as B.A.Ognev suggested²⁸, or directly in front of the temple, like in many Romanesque cathedrals (Fig. 77).

Fig. 77. Lions near the portal of the Romanesque cathedral in Modena.

Based on the foresaid, we consider that the modern view of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl in a whole (except the shape of the dome – see Chapter 10) corresponds to the original. Closed galleries (porches) were added to the temple in some years (perhaps even decades) after its construction.

2. Date of the Church of Intercession

Let us turn to the question of dating of the Church of Intercession on the Nerl.

Many researchers (including V.I. Dobrohotov²⁹, N.N. Voronin³⁰ and P.A.Rappoport³¹) dated the temple on the basis of “Life of Andrey Bogolyubsky”, which had been written in connection with the canonization of the Prince in 1701. Here is the message of the “Life”:

“That year (1165) his first son Izyaslav Andreevich was gone to the Lord, and was laid in the Cathedral of Assumption of the Holy Mother of God. The Grand Prince Andrey had great sorrow for his deceased son, and grieving, he became more occupied with godly deeds; he began to build the church in the name of Honorable Intercession of the Holy Virgin not far from Bogolyubovo monastery, on the meadow near the River Klyazma, at the mouth of the River Nerl, of stones from Bulgaria, collected and exported within 2 years for the construction of the Cathedral of Assumption of Holy Mother of God, and the tenth part of those stones was saved at that place by his will, and he erected that church within one year and made a monastery near it with the help of the Holy Virgin”³².

V.I. Dobrokhotov, basing on this message of “Life”, dated the Church of Intercession by 1166, as Izyaslav died in autumn 1165³³.

P.A. Rappoport believed that the construction of the temple began immediately after the death of Izyaslav (already in 1165) and ended in 1167³⁴. But in there is an internal contradiction in the position of the researcher, since the temple, according to the accepted by P.A. Rappaport message of “Life of Andrey Bogolyubsky”, was built in one year.

N.N. Voronin took an unclear position regarding the dating of the temple. In his view, the Church of Intercession was "the most perfect monument of the number of the buildings of Prince Andrey, as if completing their pleiad"³⁵, but in the relevant section of his major work, “Architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries”, he suggested no dating of the temple³⁶. Only after many pages³⁷ a groundless date – 1165 – is met for the first time. Later, the researcher mentioned this year several times as the date of the end of stone construction of Bogolyubsky³⁸.

But Izyaslav Andreevich died in autumn 1165, and during the winter the Church of Intercession could not be built. Why N.N. Voronin, who accepted the loyalty of the “Life” message that the temple was built in memory of Izyaslav³⁹, adopted 1165 as the date, we do not know. Perhaps the researcher believed that the Church of Intercession was built immediately after the Church of Our Saviour in Vladimir, which, by his opinion (although expressed indirectly⁴⁰), was completed in 1164. However, this motivation is also questionable, since N.N. Voronin left the date of the Church of Nativity of the Virgin in Bogolyubovo uncertain⁴¹.

Thus, we must note that the dating of the Church of Intercession by 1165 is arbitrary and unsatisfactory (unfortunately, 1165 has entrenched in scientific, academic and popular literature as the date of the Church of Intercession on the Nerl and as the end of church construction of Andrey Bogolyubsky⁴²). If to rely on “Life of Andrey Bogolyubsky”, the most satisfactory date is by V.I. Dobrokhotov – 1166.

However, there is a number of reasons why we can not accept “Life” message as a basis for dating of the Church of Intercession.

First, “Life” is very late (the beginning of XVIII century), and even if it had no apparent contradictions, it might have been accepted as the basis of dating only in the absence of other dating information (which, as we shall soon see, we have).

Secondly, there are other variants of “Life of Andrey”, besides the published by V.I. Dobrokhotov, and nothing is said there about the construction of the Church of Intercession⁴³.

Thirdly, in this message of “Life” a number of insoluble internal contradictions is present:

– it is unclear, when Andrey was to start "collecting and exporting" stone from Volga Bulgaria for the construction of Vladimir Assumption Cathedral, since his campaign against the Bulgarians took place in 1164, and the construction of the cathedral began in 1158;

– even if we assume that the Prince began to "collect" stone in Bulgaria for Assumption Cathedral before his campaign, he could not do that in 1156. And according to the “Life”, it was “collected and exported” within 2 years;

– stone could not be "collected" – it was not lying on the ground, its extraction and processing was very difficult (see Chap. 1);

– the results of micropaleontological researches of 1950s-1960s showed that the stone of Intercession church was affiliated to Myachkovo horizon of limestone deposits, consequently, stone was mined in the southwest of Suzdal principality, not far from Moscow. We can also note that Intercession church stone is extremely white (it is considerably more white than stone of any ancient Russian temple), and Volga Bulgarian limestone has gray-brown tinge⁴⁴;

– if the temple had been built in memory of Izyaslav, it would have been more likely that it would have been consecrated at the namesake of Bogolyubsky’s son. But the church is dedicated to Intercession;

– “Life” says that the stone was "stored" at the place of the future construction of the church of Intercession even during the construction of Assumption Cathedral. It turns out that Andrey in 1158 had already known that in 1165 his son will withdraw from life and a temple will be built in his memory.

All these insoluble contradictions do not allow us to establish the dating of the Church of Intercession on the message of late “Life of Andrew Bogolyubsky” (let us note that N.A. Artleben, D.N. Berezhkov and N.P. Kondakov also did not trust the “Life” and dated the temple in wide time interval since 1158 till 1190s⁴⁵).

We have an opportunity to determine the date of the temple confidently enough on the basis of consistent messages of pre-Mongolian chronicles, which were previously ignored by the researchers for unknown reasons.

First of all, let us once again recall the message of “Brief Vladimir Chronicler”: “And then Andrey Yurievich came from Kiev, and built the city of Bogolyubovo, and surrounded it with ramparts, and erected two stone churches”⁴⁶. The fact that here it is said about the churches of Nativity of the Virgin in Bogolyubovo and Intercession on the Nerl, is confirmed by the message of First Novgorod Chronicle: "And he erected for her (Mother of God – S.Z.) the temple on the Klyazma river, two stone churches in the name of Holy Mother of God"⁴⁷.

As we have already shown in Sec. 7, both chronicle messages clearly link the foundation of the city of Bogolyubovo and the construction of churches of Nativity and Intercession of the Virgin. The dates are not given in these two chronicles, but the date of the foundation of Bogolyubovo is clearly told by Fourth Novgorod Chronicle under 1158: “And he founded the city of Bogolyubovo”⁴⁸.

Therefore, we must accept this year as the date of the Church of Nativity of the Virgin (see Chap. 7), and also of the Church of Intercession on the Nerl.

In Chap. 7 we have seen that this position is confirmed by the message of Vladimir Chronicle⁴⁹ under 1158: “This Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky built the ramparts of the city, and erected the stone Church of Nativity of the Holy Virgin on the Klyazma river, and another church of Intercession of the Holy Virgin on the Nerl, and founded the monastery”⁵⁰.

It remains to consider the question, if the Church of the Intercession could be built during 1158.

We believe that in this case we can trust the message of “Life of Andrey Bogolyubsky” that the temple was built "in one year". In all the above mentioned chronicles it is said that the Church of Intercession in 1158 was “erected” – as we have shown in Sec. 4 and 7, the term "to erect" usually meant in chronicles the construction within one year, and many temples were actually erected within one construction season.

Consequently, we accept 1158 as the date of the temple of Intercession.

The galleries, as we have seen above, could be built in some years (if not decades). For example, the galleries were added to the Cathedral of St. Demetrius no less than in 8 years after the completion of the temple (see Chap. 10).

N.N. Voronin called the Church of Intercession on the Nerl "the best building of Vladimir architects"⁵¹, "the most perfect monument of the number of the buildings of Prince Andrey, as if completing their pleiad"⁵². But now we have to consider that after the Church of Intercession (1158) having the chronicle dates Assumption Cathedral in Rostov (1161-1162⁵³) and the Church of Our Saviour in Vladimir (1164 – see Section 3) were constructed.

Therefore, in no way detracting from the exceptional architectural merits of the Church of Intercession, we shall give it some different characteristics: it is the most famous building of pre-Mongolian North-Eastern Russia (perhaps even more famous than the Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir), and many problems, that researchers face in this monument, are caused by its world fame, which generates a lot of stereotypes.

3. The Church of Intercession on the Nerl as a possible prototype of the Church of Our Saviour in Vladimir; considerations on Vladimir courtyards of Yuri Dolgoruky and Andrey Bogolyubsky

The Church of Transfiguration of the Saviour was built by Andrey Bogolyubsky of white stone in the south-west of “New Town” of Vladimir fortifications of 1158-1164 (see Fig. 45), near the Golden Gate.

In a fire of 1778 white stone church was destroyed, and at its place a new brick church, which exists at present, was built (Fig. 78). Location of the old temple at this place was proved by the excavations conducted under the direction of N.N. Voronin in 1953⁵⁴. White stone in the secondary use is widely used in the walls of the church of XVIII century.

Fig. 78. Church of Our Saviour in Vladimir. General view.

It is important that the craftsmen of late XVIII century built the church in “antique” style, not copying the old temple (as the builders of the Cathedral of Vladimir Nativity Monastery in 1860s and of Old St. Nicholas Cathedral in Mozhaisk in 1840), having not built a new temple in contemporary style (as the builders of the Church of Nativity of the Virgin in Bogolyubovo in the middle of XVIII century and of the Church of St. George in Vladimir in 1780s), but combined the features of pre-Mongolian architecture and Baroque. The result of their work was a unique architectural monument, which has no parallels in architecture of XVIII-XIX centuries.

We currently do not know the plan, shapes and size of the church of XII century. Judging by the “tchetverik” of Saviour church of XVIII century and the general concept of architecture of the time of Andrey Bogolyubsky, the temple of XII century had 4 pillars, one dome and 3 apses.

The decor of Saviour Church of XII century is also unknown, except that the temple was likely to have an arcature-columnar zone and perspective portals, which were reproduced in XVIII century (Fig. 79).

Fig. 79. Church of Our Saviour. Northern wall.

There is no architectural and archaeological evidence that Andrey Bogolyubsky’s church replaced a plinthite Savior church of Monomakh times⁵⁵.

The year of foundation of the Church of Transfiguration of Our Saviour is given in various chronicles as 1160⁵⁶, 1162⁵⁷ and 1164⁵⁸. N.N. Voronin believed that the last date, given in “Laurentian” Chronicle, is wrong, as the chronicler, in the opinion of the researcher, "summarized" the foundation of the church and the appearance of “Leontian” heresy⁵⁹. For unknown reasons N.N. Voronin ignored the first date⁶⁰ and believed that the temple was founded in 1162 and completed in 1164⁶¹.

However, as we have already mentioned in our study, a few chronicle sources concerning the pre-Mongolian time are so precious that we are not entitled to disavow, and even more to ignore any of these dates. The discrepancy between the chronicles in the dating has entirely logical explanation in this case: since a solemn liturgy “at the foundation of the church” was commonly understood as a "foundation"⁶², we can assume that the "zero cycle" of the temple construction was delayed, and the liturgy “at the foundation” was to be repeated many times: in 1160, 1162 and 1164⁶³. The last foundation was final, and after it construction began. The church, as many temples of its scale, was built within a year (see Section 2).

Accordingly, we date Saviour Church by 1164 and can consider its status.

N.N. Voronin suggested that “the building of a new white stone church next to the Church of St. George in Dolgoruky’s courtyard was associated with the organization of a new courtyard of the Prince Andrey”⁶⁴, i.e. that in fact Saviour Church was the home church of the Prince. This view became a stereotype, and the most widely used name of the church is "Church of Our Saviour at the Vladimir courtyard of Andrey Bogolyubsky".

However, we can not agree with this suggestion for a number of reasons.

Firstly, neither N.N. Voronin, nor any other researcher cited any argument that Vladimir courtyard of Andrey Bogolyubsky was near the Church of the Savior.

Secondly, the main residence of Prince Andrew was in Bogolyubovo.

Thirdly, the Church of Our Saviour is located to the west from the center of Vladimir, and Bogolyubovo – to the east. If it had become necessary for Andrey to build in Vladimir some "auxiliary" yard, it probably was to be from the side of Bogolyubovo. For example, at the place of the future (referred to under 1177⁶⁵) courtyard of Vsevolod the Big Nest near Dmitrievsky cathedral.

Fourthly, the Church of Our Saviour is located almost on a straight line between Golden ("parade") and Volga (the main trade) gates of Vladimir (see Fig. 45).

Fifthly, the location of the Church of the Savior can be considered as unique: it is situated not only very close to the slope of the Klyazma (and thus it was perfectly visible from the river), but also on a hill, overlooking many surrounding streets. That also underscores the importance of the temple, but excludes the presence of a courtyard around it, because there no room for a palace, a number of utility buildings and fortifications on that hill (unlike, for example, the area around the church of St. George – see below).

Sixthly, Andrey inherited the courtyard with white stone church of St. George from his father – Dolgoruky. The presence around the Church of St. George of fortified courtyard of Yuri Vladimirovich is confirmed by the following⁶⁶:

– Yuri, the Prince of Suzdal since the beginning of XII century, in 1150s could hardly have no own courtyard in Vladimir – one of the largest (if not the largest) city of Suzdal land;

– the area around the Church of St. George is exceptionally beneficial in terms of natural protection: three sides of it are flanked by two steeps and the ravine, and its "field" side was very short;

– in 1152, when St. George’s church was built (the justification of this date see in Sec. 4), it was still outside the city walls, as the walls of “New Town” were built only in 1158-1164 (see Fig. 45). Consequently, there were to be some fortifications around the church, and that could be only the Prince’s courtyard;

– the dedication of the Church to St. George – namesake of Dolgoruky – can not serve as a self-sufficient proof that it was the home temple of Yuri, but in light of the foreseen provisions the attention should be paid also to this.

Consequently, it is unlikely that Andrey Bogolyubsky needed to build another courtyard close to his courtyard in Vladimir – the former courtyard of Yuri. And the main Andrey’s residence, as we have already noted, Bogolyubovo was.

We can conclude from the above, that the Church of Our Saviour was not a “home princely temple”, but a detached "parade" church, which prevailed over the south-western part of "New Town" and was designed to enhance the image of Grand Duchy of Vladimir in the eyes of foreign ambassadors and "guests" (merchants).

The Church of Intercession on the Nerl, which "marked" the intersection of major trade routes by the Klyazma and the Nerl, had the same status.

In light of this understanding of the status of Saviour church we suggest that its architectural prototype was Church of Intercession on the Nerl, built earlier (in 1158 – see Section 2).

But only new archaeological researches can determine the original view of Saviour church⁶⁷.

Chapter 9. Questions of the rebuilding of Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir by Vsevolod the Big Nest

© Sergey Zagraevsky

Introduction

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?

Chapter 3. About the hypothetical “intermediate” building of the Cathedral of the Nativity of Virgin Mary

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 8. To the question of reconstruction and date of the Church of the Intercession of the Holy Virgin on the Nerl

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

Notes

To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page