To the page “Scientific works”
Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky
To the question of Patriarch
Nikon’s prohibition
for hipped-roof
temples construction
Annotation
In the
last years some researchers question the
fact that Patriarch Nikon’s prohibition for
hipped-roof temples construction in the middle of the 1650s took place. After analyzing all arguments
"pro" and "contra", Prof. S.V. Zagraevsky shows that this
prohibition actually took place, and its reasons were as follows. Firstly, the Patriarch took some kind of
"monopoly" for such roofs, having decided to erect a tent-roofed
rotunda in his New Jerusalem. Secondly, the Patriarch was obliged
to take care of the
financial and material sides of Church life, and hipped roofs were too expensive,
technologically complicated and inefficient from the point of view of temples
capacity. Thirdly,
hipped roofs did not satisfy Nikon by personal (e.g., aesthetic) reasons. There
is also the statistics of hipped-roof temples construction in the article:
since 1513 until the beginning of the XVII century about 30-35 such temples
were built, ands approximately
the same quantity - since the late 1620s until the mid of 1650s. Then such
construction was stopped due to Nikon’s prohibition for some decades.
Attention!
The following text
was translated from the Russian original by the computer program
and has not
yet been edited.
So it can be used only
for general introduction.
The fact that the ban of the Patriarch Nikon for the
construction tent churches (i.e. churches with
tents over the pump – the main volume) in the
middle of the 1650-ies seemed to be until recently well known and is not subject to doubt. First,
it drew the attention of more researchers who
lived in the XIX century (as
N. In. Pokrovskiy1,
N. In. Sultans2). This fact was enacted and M. A. Ilyin,
whose position was also reflected in the major
publication "the history of the Russian art" of the
late 1950's-early 1960-ies3. In support of this fact cited
a number of ramosmania letters, especially the following:"...To
build temples in the order of the correct and authorized statutes,
how about this rule and Charter of the Church command, to build on a
single, about three, about five chapters, and the hip of the Church is not to
build..."4.
Reasons this
prohibition, most researchers of XIX – the mid XX century considered "necrosociety" tent5.
But consider any architectural form "non-canonical"
can be used only if you know the Canon, which the or
other form can match or not match. But if not known neither
Canon nor any relevant guidance referred to in hemoscanning the
charters of the "rules and statutes of the Church" (one of the
researchers does not lead such
canons, rules, or statutes), and the "necrosociety" as the reason for
such a
global ban on an entire branch of Russian architecture seems dubious.
Not
less
doubtful is the cause, wrote about M. A. Il'in,"the Church saw in
this architectural the
form of expression of the secular, "worldly" origin, which
increasingly made itself to
know the architecture to build temples. The
Church in the person of Patriarch Nikon decided start
the fight against the "secularization" of the architecture of the
temples"6. It
is unlikely, for example, forms of the architectural complex, built
by the Patriarch in "his" new Jerusalem monastery, can someone to
seem less "mundane", ie, less flamboyant and more austere than, for
example, the forms of the Church of the ascension or of the Intercession in
Medvedkovo.
In
the
lack of clarity about the reasons for the ban on the construction of the tent
is not surprising that modern
researchers doubt began to cause the fact of such a ban.
For the first time such
doubt was expressed by I. L. Buseva-Davydov, who wrote about
"so-called" ban
Nikon and thought the ban if there was, it was "private", "selective"
nature, that is, the Patriarch wanted to ban the tents, but only limit their number7.
D. F. poloznev in his article
with edifying title of "Patriarch
Nikon tent the
temples was not forbidden, or again about the benefits of treatment to the
sources", based on
the analysis hemoscanning diplomas Nikon, wrote: "Natriarch Nikon
had not issued any decree banning the tents. His blessed letters belonged
to specific
temples and was only ordered to arrange for them or their the
aisles round the head... And so favorite academic public
quote ("on
a single, about three, about five chapters, and the hip is by no means to
build" – S. Z.)represents
a late a distorted compilation of original Nikon diplomas... the
architecture of the temples was determined by traditions the
area, tastes, experiences and preferences of parishioners and instructions Bishop"9.
There is no
doubt that sources
to address not only useful but necessary, and hardly anyone of
the researchers makes sense to be reminded of, especially in the title of
scientific labor. But
first, you need to analyze the source data, which in this
case are the facts themselves construction tent churches.
Imagine myself
no one kremastinou certificate, directly or indirectly talking about ban
Nikon tent churches, we do not have. Can we conclude such
a ban just by looking at the history of old Russian stone tent architecture?
Since the
most known to the public masterpieces of hip architecture (Church Of
the ascension, the intercession Cathedral on the Moat, the Church of the
Transfiguration in Island)
was built in the XVI century, many believe that the heyday of hip architecture flourished
in this century and during the XVII century, this architecture, as it is in
itself itself
was on the decline, and the prohibition of Nikon if they had a place that, by
and large, there was little
change. In
order to understand what is actually was otherwise,
we're going to list the steepled churches that have at
least an approximate date.
In
The
XVI century was built: Trinity, now the
intercession Church in Alexandrov Sloboda (1513 around year10),
Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (1529-1532), the assumption Cathedral
of the Brusensky monastery in Kolomna (1552), Church of St. Nicholas Pokrovsky
monastery in Balakhna (1552), the Cathedral of the intercession on the Moat
(1554-1560), the
Cathedral of the Transfiguration of our Saviour vorotynsky monastery near Kaluga
(1550), Boris and Gleb Cathedral in Staritsa
(1558-1561), the Church of Kosma and Damian Church in Murom (1564), Nicolai
Church Miracle
worker "Dolgolet" in Ryazan (1566), Church of Martyr Nikita in. (1566-1567), the
Crucifixion Church "who
under
the bells" in Alexandrov (1570), Vvedenskaya Church of
the Dormition monastery in Staritsa (1570), Church of the
beheading of John the Baptist in Maiden
The
field (about 1570), the Church of St. Nicholas (Gostinodvorskaya) in Kazan
(about 1570), the
assumption Church of the Spaso-evfimiev monastery
(1570), the Annunciation Church of the Trinity monastery Lyutikova (1570-s) Resurrection
Church in Gorodnya (up to 1578), the Church of Elijah the Prophet in Prussia
(until 1578),
Church of Metropolitan Peter in Pereslavl-Zalessky (1585), the Church of our
Saviour Transformation in Spas-Tushino (1586-1587),
the Church of the Nativity in Conversations (about 1590), Vvedenskaya Church of the
Trinity monastery Boldin (1592),
Church of the Epiphany in Krasnoe-na-Volge (1592), Church of the Smolensk icons
of the mother in Coraline (1594-1597), the Church of St. George Episcopal monastery
in Serpukhov (1598-1606), the Church of Boris and Gleb Borisov
Town (at the turn of XVI–XVII centuries), Church
of the Transfiguration in the Island (at the turn of XVI–XVII centuries11).
We have listed 27 temples.
Since,
for various reasons, this list is not exhaustive, it is we
may assume that the 1513 prior to the beginning of the XVII century tent
churches were built about 30-35.
And
since
the late 1620-ies to the mid 1650's was built (not counting numerous tents on the
aisles): the
assumption "wonderful" Church alekseevskogo monastery
in Uglich (late 1620's or 1630-ies), the Cathedral of Archangel Michael in Nizhny
Novgorod (1628-1631), the Cathedral of St. Alexis the Man of God in Moscow Alekseevsky monastery (1631-1634),
the Church of Zosima and Savvaty of Solovki in the
Trinity-Sergius Lavra (1635-1638), Church Of
the intercession in Medvedkovo (1635-1640), the Church of the Three Hierarchs "ilk under
the bells" St. Anthony Sian monastery
(1639-1661), the Church of St. Martinian Belozersky in The
Ferapontov convent (1640-1641), Church The
descent of the Holy spirit in Ryazan (1642), Church of the Annunciation St.
Anthony Siysky
monastery (1642-1643), Church of the Trinity in the Trinity-the Golenishchev (1644-1646),
Church of the assumption in Veshnyaki (1644-1646), the assumption Church of
the Nizhny Novgorod caves monastery (1640s)
Church of Euphemia of Suzdal Nizhny Novgorod Pechersk
monastery (1640), Church of St. Nicholas in the Boots (the end 1640s),
the Church of the exaltation of the virgin in Tula (end of 1640s), the Kazan
Church Trinity
monastery in Murom (1648-1652), Church
of the Resurrection in Gonchar (1649), Holy Gates, with churches Epiphany and Ferapont
Belozersky in Ferapontov
monastery
(1649), Church of the Nativity of the virgin in Putinki (1649-1652), Entry into Jerusalem
Cathedral of St.
John the Baptist monastery
in Kazan (early 1650s), Vvedenskaya Church vorotynsky monastery (early 1650s), Trinity Church of the
Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery
(early 1650s), the assumption Church Annunciation monastery
in Nizhny Novgorod (early 1650s), Smolensk Church John
the Baptist monastery in Vyazma (about
1652), Church of St. Sergius of Radonezh Nikolo-Volosovsky monastery
(about 1652), Church of Euphemia of Suzdal of
the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery (1653), Church
of the Transfiguration "ilk under the bells" of the Annunciation
monastery in Kirzhach (before
1656).
We see the same churches
(27, and since this list is not exhaustive, it is roughly
30-35), but built in a much shorter time timespan
is less than 30 years. And
in the last decade – from the mid The
1640s to the mid 1650s- was built about two-thirds of these temples.
After the
middle of the 1650-ies for twenty years steepled churches practically built.
Then
they began to appear again, but much less frequently. Mid 1670-ies to the end of
the seventeenth century was built only 5
of these churches: the Church ofthe
Church of the Vladimir Icon of the mother of God on Bozhedomka in Yaroslavl (until 1678), Trinity Church
in Alexandrova
desert
(until 1678), the Nikolskaya Church in the Petrovsky-Lytkarino (1681-1690), Znamenskaya
Church in Andine (to 1690), the Church of Elijah the Prophet "ilk under
the bells" in Teykovo
(1694-1699). Sometimes
tents were erected over the aisles (as in the Church Nikola
Wet 1665-1672 years in
Unique the
hipped roof of the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre, founded by Nikon in 1656 New
Jerusalem monastery was built after the death of the Nikon – not earlier the
start of the 1680-ies, is not a phenomenon of the hip architecture, as they do
not was
blocked by the bulk of the temple, and replaying
exactly the tent was dictated by the task "creative
copying" of the Jerusalem model.
So we see that in the
period from the mid 1640s to the mid 1650s hip architecture has survived genuine
its heyday (as many tent churches was not built a in
one of the previous decade), and suddenly within a year or two actually stopped across the country. The
sporadic resumption of the tent construction
twenty years later, already belongs to another era.
And this purely statistical
fact is a direct and primary evidence that the
middle of the 1650-ies have taken place a ban on the construction of the tent churches,
as such a termination of the playback is so important for old
Russian architecture of the XVI–XVII centuries of architectural form, like a
tent over the
naos could not be explained by any other factors – no change "architectural
fashion", or technical, financial or personnel problems.
As this the
construction was stopped, not in any region and throughout the country, and the
ban could only come "from the top", ie from the Patriarch Nikon. He
could be expressed
in the form not the official decree and the oral instructions or even repeated
refusal to bless the construction of temples tent, but actually it does
not change.
Actually,
this is possible it
would be to study the possible causes of the Patriarchal ban, but still makes
sense to bring and some additional evidence of this prohibition.
First, you need remember
the already mentioned ramosmania certificates with ban to build a tent temples.
Them
to our times has reached a large number (only in the collection of
documents in
the history of the Vyatka diocese of the prohibition to build tent top is found
in hemoscanning
charters 1655-1703 years at least 20 times12). D.
F. Poloznev denied
the prohibition of the Nikon on the basis that, firstly, in
the specified the
company issued and certificates without restrictions on tents, and secondly,
many the
letters with the bans date back to just three basic patterns13.
But we remember
that ramosmania letters are not the main and additional proof
patriarshego ban (main – termination of hip construction),
and even "prohibitive" letters would be sufficient to confirmation of the
fact of the ban. And such
letters there are dozens. In terms of rigid
hierarchical structure of the Russian Orthodox Church without Patriarch's blessing
so clearly and unambiguously expressed prohibitions on the tent the
construction in so many hemoscanning the letters could not appear.
Second, the
monitoring of PN. Maximov,
from the mid-seventeenth century in Central Russia wooden
tent-roofed Church was replaced by the longline and the churches "the
stone thing" (ie,
the same form being repeated stone temples, usually a cubic one or
five domes in a pyramidal roof), and only in the Russian North wooden steepled
churches continued to be built in large quantity14. And because
wood is much easier to build a tent than the dome or the head of complex form
(for the frame of the tent enough to bring in the top a few logs, and for
frames other forms of completions of the temples requires curved or patterned the
segments of the tree), the refusal wooden tents with totally unjustified construction
point of view and can be explained only any "nastroyeniye"
prohibitions.
Thirdly, when in
1655 it was decided to build two chapels have built in 1646 tent the
Church of the assumption in Veshnyaki, the Nikon in cremosano literacy is
commanded to "...of
the head b on the altars were round, not peaked"15. This
is another confirmation of the fact that the
attitude of the Patriarch to the tent architecture between 1646 and 1655 years
indigenous way changed.
Fourth, when the
middle of the 1650-ies the construction of tents it is necessary a pump so
dramatically stopped,
steepled bell tower (not temples "ilk under the bells", namely the
bell tower without its own initiations) as built, and continued to be built, and in large quantities. Therefore,
it was not technological the
difficulty of erecting tents or unwillingness of churchwardens and architects
to build the tents as they
are (in Suzdal eparchy in the XVIII century over the bell there was even tents
are fine "Udachnoe" forms), namely to ban tents on the pump.
Fifthly, G. V. Alferov, analyzing
the documents related to the construction activities of Patriarch Nikon, showed
that his instructions to the masters were so detailed that it can rightfully
considered by the architect at least three monasteries built by him: The
Voskresensky new Jerusalem, Iversky Valdai and Cross Kiya16.
And
since the Nikon is so attentive and professional attitude to architecture such
a meaningful and global ban on the Church marquee, in fact, ended a
whole branch of old Russian architecture, could not be accepted in addition to Patriarch.
Sixth, the
ban of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church on a particular architectural
form in the middle 1650
years was not unprecedented. For example, in
the early fourteenth centuryhad the
place of the Church's ban on Romano-Gothic zooantropomorfnogo
(i.e., images of people and animals) sculpture the
decoration of churches17. At
the dawn of the stone old Russian architecture took
place and the Church's prohibition on "Nikopolidis" churches, i.e. it
was required mandatory
device in the stone Orthodox churches of the dome18.
The analogy with
other Church
bans allows to understand why the construction of temples tent after
the mid-1650s years, still revived, though twenty years later, and in small quantities. Not
fully executed, and then ignored, and other prohibitions
– for example, in the early sixteenth century, architects and patrons bypassed
the ban on "Nikopolidis"
temples, starting to erect the tents, which were typological the
counterparts of the domes19. A ban on
zooantropomorfny sculptures is
also constantly broken, and, perhaps, the most global violation was the
heyday of the Russian Baroque of the temple sculptures in the eighteenth
century – despite the fact that the Big
Moscow Cathedral 1666 agreed
that the temples carved can only be crucifixion20, and 1722
the Synod forbade "to have the icons in churches or carved istesanny, sdavlenie, sculptured". And
in 1832 was accepted but has not started commonly
performed a complete ban of the Synod on the
And
given the fact that Nikon in 1666 was deprived the
Patriarchal dignity, and sent into exile, occasional violations of its ban on tent
construction in 1670-ies absolutely natural. Natural
and the
continued construction of wooden tents in the Russian North, where, as they
say, "to God highly, to the Tsar far" and tent, as we have said,
much easier to build than a dome.
Seventh, large-scale
reform efforts Nikon began in 1653-1654, and that
followed about a year later the ban on the construction of the tent completely fit into its framework.
Now we
can move on to the last question of our research: why Nikon banned steepled churches?
Formal the
reason probably was "necrosociety" tent, mentioned almost
all researchers, as it was quite natural justification
of any Patriarchal prohibition. But what could
this be "acanonical",
one of the researchers did not elaborate, and this is not surprising: as showed and I. L. Buseva-Davydov22, and the author of this
article23, no
Church canons, regulations and statutes relating to architectural features
temples, ancient stone temple architecture of the not existed,
and the words hemoscanning letters of what you want"to
build temples according to the order of the correct and authorised statutes,
how about this rule and Charter of the Church command" was not more than a formality. Besides
the ban, coming from the Patriarch Nikon, in conditions
created of rigid centralization of the Russian Orthodox Church (suffice
it to recall one of the titles Nikon – "the Great Lord and Emperor")
in those
days could be equated to the Constitution and to rule.
We
we
believe that "necrosociety" tent consisted of the following: since,
as we mentioned
above, the dome in ancient temple stone architecture was mandatory
element24,
which began in the XVI century universal replacement dome
tent could not cause censures of the Church hierarchy. Therefore,
if
you wish any of them would tent to deny, that in the end did Nikon.
Why such a desire came from
Nikon, the options.
Option
one: on the part of the Patriarch took place a
kind of "monopoly" on the marquee as the Nikon, forbidding others yet
to
build the tents, he decided to erect a tent-roofed rotunda in the New
Jerusalem. (Formally,
as we have said, this rotunda had not violated the prohibition, since it is not
had their
own Church dedications).
Option
two: the Patriarch is obliged to take care of the
material side of Church life, thought hip architecture too expensive,
technologically complex and inefficient from the point of view of capacity temples.
Indeed,
the stone dome to build much easier than the tent, and the dome can cover a
much larger span. The fact
that the stone tent it
has almost the same thrust as the dome, and to achieve uniformity of thrust
at high altitude tent (relatively speaking to the middle is not
"dipped") – a
complex engineering challenge.
Option
three: the tents were not satisfied with the Nikon purely personal (e.g.,
aesthetic) reasons. After
all, the Patriarch was a native of
In
conclusion, we note that in the second half of
the XVII
century, the search for new forms of completions of the temples instead of the
tent – forbidden –
continued. And how in the beginning of XVI
century tent was the replacement of the dome, and
after the Patriarch's prohibition of the dome, in the new conditions, was the
replacement tent. Tent
(respectively, and substituting it with the dome) on the large and high the
drum created a feeling of elevation and solemnity, and the optimal the
main volume from the point of view of roominess and ease of construction there
was a quadrangle. The
resulting form "octagon on square" has become one of
the most mass in the Russian architecture of late XVII – XVIII century.
NOTES
1. Pokrovsky N. In. Ancient
Kostroma Ipatiev monastery // Journal
of archaeology and history, published by the Archaeological Institute. SPb.,
1885. Vol.
4.
S.
33.
2. Sultans
N.
In.
Russian
tent-roofed churches and their attitude to the Georgian-Armenian pyramidal the coatings of the
Architect. SPb., 1887. No. 9-10. S.
67.
3. Ilyin M. A. Stone the
architecture of the third quarter of the XVII century // History of Russian
art. T.4. M., 1959. P.162.
4. TSof
it. in the book: Ilyin
M. A. ibid.
5. Ilyin M. A. ibid.
7. Buseva-Davydova
9. Poloznev
D. F. Patriarch Nikon tent churches not prohibited,
or again about the benefits of treatment to the sources // History and culture The Rostov land. The
materials of the conference2007.
10. Zagraevsky
S. V. Trinity, now Pokrovskaya, the
Church in Alexandrov Sloboda, the first stone tent-roofed
11. Kavelmaher
Century Church of theHoly
mother Church The
Transfiguration in the
12.
Poloznev D. F. The
Decree. Op.
13. Ibid.
14. Maximov
P. N. Wooden
architecture of the XVII century // History of Russian art. T.4. M,
1959. S. 102.
15. CIT.
in the book: M.
A. Il'in,
16. Alferov
G. V. on the construction activities
of Patriarch Nikon, / / the Architectural legacy. No.18. M.,
1969. P. 30-44.
17. Zagraevsky
S. V. Yuri
Dolgoruky and ancient Russian white stone architecture.
M., 2001. GL. 6.
18. ZagraevskyS. V. Typological
formation and the basic classification of the
19. Zagraevsky
S. V. Decree. CIT. CH. 8.
20. Acts
of the
21. The
decrees of the Holy governing Synod from 1721 to
1878 // a Guide to Orthodox clergy. M., 1878.
23. ZagraevskyS. V. Methodological
problems in the study of the Canon, symbols and proportions in the Orthodox the temple architecture. Electronic
publishing: electronic research library "Rusarh",
2016.
24. ZagraevskyS. V. Typological formation... GL. 3.
© Sergey Zagraevsky
To the page “Scientific works”