To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page

Sergey Zagraevsky

Architecture of North-Eastern Russia

of the end of XIII – early XIV c.

Published in Russian: Заграевский С.В. Зодчество Северо-Восточной Руси конца XIII–первой трети XIV века. М.: Алев-В, 2003. ISBN 5-94025-046-7

The book formed the basis for a dissertation for the degree of Ph. D. in Architecture, specialty 18.00.01 ("Theory and history of architecture, restoration and reconstruction of historical and architectural heritage ")

Introduction

Chapter I. The epoch of Dmitry Donskoy?

Chapter II. The epoch of Daniil of Moscow and his sons

Chapter III: Tver Grand Duchy

Chapter IV. The epoch of “ambitious economy”

Conclusion

Applications, notes

Chapter I.

The epoch of Dmitry Donskoy?

Attention!

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

and has not yet been edited.

So it can be used only for general introduction.

RUSSIAN VERSION

I

First of all, let us consider the two monuments of architecture of Moscow region. This is the Church of the Conception of John the Baptist on the Settlement in Kolomna and the Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in the village of Kamianske Naro-Fominsk. The General appearance of these temples is shown in Fig. 1 and 2.

Fig. 1. The Church of the Conception of John the Baptist in the Settlement. General view.

Fig. 2. The Nikolskaya Church in Kamenskoye. General view.

Currently Settlement - the name of the city of Kolomna district, and, strictly speaking, the Church of John the Baptist is "in the Settlement. However, currently used is an old form at the Settlement - it we will stick to. Often, this Church is called simply "Gorodische".

Any annalistic data about the construction of a small pillarless Church of John the Baptist we do not have. A.I. Nekrasov, giving the monument a few lines in an essay about the architecture of Kolomna, suggested that rebuilt in the XVI century the temple in its Foundation dates back to XII-XIII centuries²⁸.

N.N. Voronin believed that the monument was constructed in the beginning of XVI century. In this case, the researcher had to admit that zoomorphic relief in the wall of the temple referred to them by the second half of the XIV century, came to "Gorodische" the Church with some earlier buildings constructed during the time of the alleged large-scale stone construction in Kolomna during the reign of²⁹. Thus, in the position of the researcher was an internal contradiction.

This contradiction has tried to resolve Altshuler. In the 1960-ies of the Church was partially removed plaster³⁰, and it became clear that the lower and upper parts of the Church belong to different epochs. And if groin vault and the technology stack top folded from a large brick and well-hewn white stone blocks, indeed, typical of Moscow architecture of the early XVI century, the laying of the apses and bottom walls of the quadrangle from roughly shaped blocks of blocks of local limestone referred to an earlier time and masonry reminiscent of St. Nicholas Church in the village of Kamenka³¹ (Fig. 3, 4 and 5).

Fig. 3. The laying of the quadrangle Gorodishche of the Church. In the lower right corner - a copy of zoomorphic bas-relief.

Fig. 4. The laying of the apses Gorodishche Church without plaster (1970-ies).

Fig. 5. The laying of the St. Nicholas Church in Kamenskoye (in the lower right corner - late rewriting).

Formally this clutch is the half-rubble (from white stone blocks formed two wall - cladding, and the space between them is filled with the fragments of stone and filled with lime mortar), but due to careless cracks in facing the solution for the fill had kneading very dense and add crushed. The latter was also used for fixation of facing blocks before pouring.

In the pre-Mongol Vladimir-Suzdal Principality Quadra were treated much more smoothly, the stitches were tailored precisely, and shading produced a liquid solution. Also built in the Moscow Principality at the turn of the XIV and XV centuries. Today we can say with certainty that in the pre-Mongol "the half-rubble technology were built Church of the Nativity of God%B

Wall blocks churches in Kamenskoye and Settlement treated differently. N.N. Voronin highlighted the following stages of processing of stone, as "rude", "semifinished" and "clean"³² and , according to this classification, the handling of masonry Nikolskaya and "Gorodische" churches is "semifinished". But while the details of architectural decoration (portals, caps, rings and other) they have carved out quite smoothly ("clean"). It is noted by Altshuler³³.

Important discovery of the researcher has been an opening in 1959 in the corners of the square, "Gorodische" of the Church-Christ.³⁴ (Fig. 6). On the same projections are based arches and Nikolskaya Church Kamensky (Fig. 7).

Fig. 6. The plan of the Church at the Settlement. The shaded reconstruction of angular pylons BL Altshuller.

Fig. 7. The plan of St. Nicholas Church in Kamenskoye.

Altshuler to refer to such constructive scheme is used the term "churches with wall jacks"³⁵, specifying that mean "actually pillarless structure with four corner projections-the supports on which the load is transmitted from light drum and dome.

So, we see two very similar to the Church of this type is the Conception of John the Baptist on Settlement (which survived the bottom part), and Nicholas the Wonderworker in the village of Kamianske. In BL Altshuller, convincing evidence of their similarity, there was every reason for attributing these temples to the same construction period. But to what?

Based on the assumption Voronin on large-scale stone construction during the reign of Dmitry Donskoy Altshuler took both of the temple in 70-s years of the XIV century³⁶and this Dating is entrenched in modern popular literature.

But before we discuss in more detail the arguments of these researchers will focus on the history of the study and restoration of the second temple - the Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in the village of Kamianske.

II

Chetverikov Nikolskaya Church - white stone, built in typical "semifinished" technology cubic volume with three apses. The temple completed a large, growing downward light drum eight high-liners Windows. In terms of the quadrangle is a few wrong square (the plan and elevation of the Church, see figure. 7 and 8). Arches parabolicheskogo

Fig. 8. The section of the St. Nicholas Church in Kamenskoye. The letter "a" marked by a characteristic ledge under the drum on which to build platforms for archers.

The Foundation of the Church are made of white stone rubble in lime is%B

This temple has reached us in a fairly high degree of preservation. Anyway, after the archaeological research and partial restoration, carried BL Altshuller in 1958-1964 years³⁷we can judge and an architectural sculpture, and the decoration of St. Nicholas Church. Reconstruction of the monument BL Altshuller proposed³⁸presented on Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. The Nikolskaya Church in Kamenskoye. Reconstruction BL Altshuller.

Fig. 10. The Nikolskaya Church in Kamenskoye. On the background of a strictly vertical walls of the Western porch of the turn of XX and XXI centuries clearly visible distortion of the southern wall of the temple.

Serious and in-depth study of the monument began only in the second half of the 1950's, and before that, for example, in "the History of Russian art" mA Il'in wrote that Kamenka village stands on the river Protva³⁹ (actually on the river Nara, 15 km South Naro-Fominsk).

No documentary data about the building of St. Nicholas Church, researchers do not have.

L. David and BA Ognev in 1956 named St. Nicholas Church "forgotten monument of Moscow architecture of the XV century"⁴⁰ and put this date in the first half of this century⁴¹. N.N. Voronin referred to the temple in Kamenskoye the second quarter of the XV century⁴²took him in his fundamental work "the Architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries" very modest role "of the monument, provincial not only by geographic location, but also by forms"⁴³. 

The Central (and, in principle, it is rightful) place of St. Nicholas Church in the village Kamensky took only works BL Altshuller. Not abandoning the General judgments about "the small country Church buildings made Kamensky type"⁴⁴, the researcher due to the high degree of preservation of the Church considered it as the main building of " pylon.

Altshuler was Dating the Church in Kamenskoye 70-ies of the XIV century and attributed it to the alleged large-scale construction of the epoch of Dmitry Donskoi⁴⁵. Using the comparative analysis with St. Nicholas Church researcher was held Dating and all other temples of this type⁴⁶.

III

What have relied Altshuler, Dating Nicholas Church in the village of Kamenskoye (and, consequently, the Church of John the Baptist in the Settlement) 1370 years mi?

Argument researcher is very concise. To quote it in full:

"The river Nara purchased at this time of considerable strategic importance, and is on the village of Kamenskoe was the place where was the border of the three kingdoms - Lithuania, Chernihiv and Moscow. There is every reason to believe that such a border point was appropriately strengthened and the construction of a stone Church was meant to mark its value to other nearby villages"⁴⁷.

And another quote: "In respect of the St. Nicholas Church in the village of Kamenka we believe that the Church could not come later than the 70-ies of the XIV century, because after the battle of Kulikovo boundary of the Moscow Principality was moved far to the South and the need to strengthen the former border of the village (and, in fact, as argued above, the construction of a temple in it) fell"⁴⁸.

We will call this art is%

Altshuler in order to confirm its position led map southern outskirts of Moscow Principality⁴⁹ (Fig. 11). "The fountainhead" this card is easy to install - a Small Soviet encyclopedia (ITU) 1959⁵⁰ (Fig. 12).

Fig. 11. Map transfer of land under the government of Moscow, the BL Altshuller.

Fig. 12. Map transfer theme%D

But at the first glance at the map BL Altshuller question arises: on what basis is dated 1362-1389 years of the transition under the authority of the Moscow region South Borovsk, directly bordering Kamensky? In Ancient Russia border established only by the right of ownership of cities, villages and parishes. In principle, conventional boundaries could be a river, but in this area on the map BL Altshuller, we see not only a single locality, but not a single river.

And just looking at the "source" (the map in ITU), you may notice that in this place are the land of Kaluga, where on the map in ITU Dating go to Moscow, Kaluga absent. Apparently, Altshuler, wishing to obtain the historical evidence of its "military-strategic" argument, depicted this area as "neutral" and marked the date of transition to Moscow by extrapolation of the transition date and the neighbouring Borovsk Tarusa.

But in fact the land went to Moscow, Kaluga, not later than 1370 - in 1371 Lithuanian Prince Olgerd "complained" the Patriarch of Constantinople that the Prince Dmitry away from him Kaluga and Mtsensk⁵¹.

On the map in ITU (Fig. 12) shows quite rightly Dating 1371 year of transition to Moscow neighboring Kaluga Medyn. Why the authors of the article in ITU is not stamped on his map the date of transition Kaluga, we do not know. Perhaps these dates are just not fit on the map. You may have accidentally typed "extra" boundary between the land of Kaluga and Medyn. But in any case we have the right PR is%B

Note also that the approval BL Altshuller that after the battle of Kulikovo the border of Moscow land has moved far to the South⁵²to Kamensky is not irrelevant. Kamenskoe never stood on the southern border of the Principality - they had their fortress (Kolomna, Serpukhov and Kashira). This is not about the South, and on the South-West.

Therefore, to determine whether or not Kamenskoe border point in the 70-ies of the XIV century, we will have to conduct independent analysis of the military-strategic situation in this part of the Moscow Principality.

Borovsk, standing on the Protva (West Bunks), in 1358 mentioned in spiritual letter of Prince Ivan Ivanovich red⁵³ - means, in the orbit of Moscow's policy, he came much earlier.

About the "complaint" Olgerd that Dmitry away from him Kaluga and Mtsensk, we have already spoken. And on the conclusion of peace between Dmitry and Algirdas in 1372 Lithuanian sources reported that the Moscow Prince lost their possessions behind Proj⁵⁴. This is quite far from Kamensky.

In 1374, together with the don in Tver went princes who ruled in Obolensk, Tarusa and the Novosil⁵⁵ - it is farther to the South-West.

An additional reason for the adequate assessment of the military-strategic situation in the South-West of Moscow Principality is the fact that in 1360 Metropolitan Alexei founded the master's monastery near Serpukhov on the right - "strange" - the Nara Bank⁵⁶. And this monastery in any case could not play the role of "bridge fortification" Serpukhov Kremlin - it is situated in side, at a distance of about 2 km. This is in XVI-XVII centuries Novodevichy, Donskoy, Andronicus, Simonov and other monasteries formed around Moscow solid defensive system, and in the 1360's of the master's monastery on the right Bank of the Nara was the only one. So, the border of the Duchy was already very far, and the monks are not threatened with death in case of a sudden attack of the enemy.

Note (and it will help us in further research)that the fortifications on the border with potential enemy never built with the river in the rear - such are the laws of military strategy. After a crossing pass when needed springboard for attack and the defense of the river in the rear means the gap between supply bases, exposure to sudden n is

The town emerged at a much more complex laws (although the military-strategic position also played an important role), but the fortress was obligatory built according to the rules of military art. For example, Yuri Dolgoruky in the middle of the XII century, built the Moscow and Zvenigorod on "his" Bank of the Moscow river on potential opponents - Smolensk and Chernigov Principality. And Kamenskoe, and Serpukhov Kremlin stand on its own - the left - Bank of the Bunks. And since vladychna monastery was founded on the right side, then attack from this side is no longer threatened.

Given that these arguments, we may say that by 1360 m years almost the whole region, defined in the East Nara, and on the West by Proy and Sana (at least Protoi and Puddle), the de facto belonged to Moscow. So, at this time the value of Bunks as a border river (and, accordingly, Kamensky as frontier points) are already completely disappeared.

But it is known that in the end of XIII-XIV centuries the South-Western border of the Moscow Principality, in fact, held in Nara, which is Kamenskoe⁵⁷. Consequently, the "military-strategic argument, BL Altshuller proposed, remains as one of the possible solutions to the problem of Dating Nikolskaya Church, but refers back to an earlier time than the second half of the XIV century.

IV

So, "the military-strategic argument is not applicable for inclusion Nikolskaya Church in Kamenskoye to the 70-th years of the XIV century.

No other line of argumentation Altshuler not quoted, but in some of his works together two indirect argument. The researcher had never puts them in the main, but in a particular context used. Both of these arguments are based on hypotheses Voronin.

The first indirect argument - zoomorphic bas-relief "Gorodische" Church in Kolomna.%⁵⁸. Altshuler, referring to the fact that relief has been strengthened in a solution similar to the one on which they built the temple⁵⁹, confirmed Dating "Gorodische" Church of the second half of the XIV century.

Indeed, there is no doubt that the zoomorphic relief on the Settlement belongs to the early post-Mongolian time. But why the second half of the XIV century? Voronin is asserted on the basis of assumptions about significant stone construction in Kolomna at this time⁶⁰Altshuler, ⁶¹ and the result was "logical circle" - each of the assertions is proof for another, is itself not being proven.

In any case, first of all ask ourselves what the animal depicted on this zoomorphic bas-relief. N.N. Voronin claimed that this unicorn⁶²and such a point of view in the scientific world today is almost stereotypical (although the population of the town is still a popular legend that it is the "seal of Batu Khan").

We do not know how to NN Voronin got that retouched and very poorly transmitting real picture, which he leads, in its fundamental work "the Architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries"⁶³ (Fig. 13). The image in this picture has little in common even with a copy of the bas-relief, which is currently attached to the Church of John the Baptist.

Fig. 13. Retouched image zoomorphic relief on "Gorodische" Church, given N.N. Voronin.

Watch in high quality photo made by the author of this book with the original bas-relief stored in Kolomenskoe Museum of local lore⁶⁴ (Fig. 14 and 15). It is clear that "horn" on the head of the substance is actually the upper part of the open beak (or animal feed). What Voronin took over the top of muzzle of a unicorn really thick tongue. On the tail of the being - not a brush, and curl with thin end. On the feet - not the hoof, and claws. On the hind legs are well visible even "fifth fingers, characteristic of predators. A hoofed animals, which in Ancient Rus attributed unicorn, legs and torso are arranged differently.

Fig. 14. The original zoomorphic bas-relief "Gorodische" Church. General view.

Fig. 15. The original zoomorphic bas-relief "Gorodische" Church. Fragment.

Looking at a black and white photograph, the rest of the broken horn can take a trace on the stone above his head being. But actually this is the place where from under %

At first glance, being on the relief is more reminiscent of a dog. But the image of the Christian Church "unclean" animals (Deut. 23:18), in the case of penetration inside the temple which even supposed to do "small sacred"⁶⁵ (in other words, pereosvyaschat temple), extremely unlikely.

Perhaps, "Gorodische" relief depicts a wolf, a leopard or a lion (made in several naive style). But it is more likely that it is quite professionally executed image of the beast with the head of a cock, thick tongue, lion body and serpent's tail. Let's call it a monster by the Basilisk, because this name is often mentioned in the Bible (Is. 14:29; jer. 8:17; PS. 90:13).

N.N. Voronin reasonably noted that the image of the unicorn has no precedent in the pre-Mongol Vladimir-Suzdal architecture, and on this basis, has pushed manufacturing "Gorodische" bas as far as possible from pre-Mongolian time - for the second half of the XIV century. Push back on already it was impossible, because the architecture of the XV-XVI centuries, according to Voronin, unknown to us "animal" image⁶⁶and for post-Mongolian architecture of XIII-XIV centuries, researchers like images allowed⁶⁷.

In principle, the overall assessment NN Voronin presence or absence of zoomorphic decoration on ancient temples in this or that epoch objection does not cause (this question we will examine the Chapter 4). But about decor "Gorodische" the Church can say the following: as we have just seen, the creature depicted in relief, in any case is not a unicorn in front of us, a lion, a wolf, a leopard or a monster, conventionally named Basilisk. A similar images in the decoration of the pre-Mongol Vladimir-Suzdal churches very much. For example, animals, performed in a plastic-like "Gorodische" relief, depicted on the carved stones found Noortlaan at the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl (Fig. 16), on the canons of that Church, reconstructed BA Ognev (Fig. 17), on the walls of St. Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir (Fig. 18).

Fig. 16. Image carved stones from the excavations Noortlaan.

Fig. 17. The pre-Mongol jet. Reconstruction Bagnava.

and

b

in

g

Fig. 18. Zoomorphic reliefs on the walls of St. Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir:

a) and b): on the Eastern part of the Northern wall;

C) and d): on the Western part of the Northern wall.

Hence, the image on "Gorodische" bas-relief may not be an argument for the inclusion of this relief (respectively, and the Church of St. John the Baptist) to the second half of the XIV century.

Generally speaking, the author believes that the plastic peculiarities of one or another ancient bas-relief (or any other "anonymous" works of fine art, until icons) alone cannot serve as an argument for an exact date (at least, plus or minus a few decades), as they too depend on professionalism, and deputies from the%

V

A second indirect argument BL Altshuller connected with the assumption (based, again, on the hypothesis Voronin⁶⁸) on large-scale stone construction in the Moscow Principality of the epoch of Dmitry Donskoi.

To 1360-1380 m years Altshuler attributed⁶⁹:

- the Cathedral of the Chudov monastery in Moscow;

- the walls of the Moscow Kremlin;

- The Dormition Cathedral in Kolomna;

- Church in Kamenskoye and Settlement;

- cathedrals Sobre Neva and Old-Golutvina monasteries near Kolomna;

Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin;

- Vladychna churches and Vysotsky monasteries near Serpukhov;

Trinity Cathedral in Serpukhov.

Indeed, such a list of buildings looks quite impressive.

But sound can only be called a Cathedral Dating of the Chudov monastery (according to the chronicle, 1365⁷⁰), the walls of the Moscow Kremlin (according to Chronicles, 1367-1368 years⁷¹) and the Dormition Cathedral in Kolomna (according to the chronicle, about 1380⁷²). Dating all the other listed sites 1360-1380-years - no more than a hypothesis. We will show this.

First of all, in the epoch of Dmitry Donskoi large-scale stone construction is not conducive to the historical situation. Moscow ground at this time is not prospered - there were continuous and not always victorious war (Tver, with Lithuania, Latvia and the Horde), have shaken the country and pestilences, and unprecedented fires⁷³. The construction of the white stone fortifications of Moscow to the%8

Characteristically, the Dmitry Donskoy was unable to complete the construction of the Cathedral of the Simonov monastery, which began in 1378, and the temple was completed only in 1404, with Vasily Dmitrievich⁷⁴.

The invalidity BL Altshuller proposed Dating Nikolskaya Church in Kamenskoye we showed in paragraph 3 of this Chapter. In paragraph 12, we show that as unfounded and was Dating the Church on the site.%

Cathedrals Bobreneva and Old-Golutvina monasteries near Kolomna Altshuler dated 1370 years mi solely on the basis of similarity of their constructive scheme ("pylon) with the churches in the Settlement and Kamenskoye⁷⁵, i.e. equally unfounded. Does not support this Dating and historical analysis: in the Old-Golutvin, founded by Sergius of Radonezh about a year 1374⁷⁶only his disciple built a stone Cathedral of the Epiphany - and this, by analogy with the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery, was unlikely to take place before the beginning of the XV century. Bobrenev monastery was founded later in 1381⁷⁷.

As for the Bishop and Vysotsky monasteries, that there during the time of the don could be built stone temples only if the correct information sources the end of the XVII century⁷⁸that building were figures of the national scale (Metropolitan Alexei and Prince Vladimir Andreevich Brave). But despite the fact that in both monasteries BL Altshuller and MH aleshkovskii made large-scale excavations⁷⁹this information was not confirmed.

However, it is these unconfirmed data relied Altshuler, assuming construction in 1380 stone Trinity Cathedral in Serpukhov. Unfounded announcing Vladimir A. Brave "initiated the construction of two monasteries (Bishop and Vysotski - SZ) stone cathedrals, researcher attributed to him and construction "of the same, if not the best, of the temple in his residence"⁸⁰.

Actually chronicle known only to the date of the consecration of the Holy Trinity Cathedral - year 1380⁸¹, and its construction in stone, as reasonably believed Voronin, it is unlikely⁸².

In fairness, we note that Altshuler brought out from the circle of the monuments of the epoch of the don resurrection Church in Kolomna, clearly showing that the temple, which Voronin dated XIV century⁸³, built in the XVI century⁸⁴.

VI

Relative Dating of the first Cathedral of the Annunciation in the Moscow Kremlin (since we are talking about the XIV century, it would be more correct to call it the Annunciation goal is%8⁸⁵), we can also raise serious doubts as to its belonging to the epoch of Dmitry Donskoi.

N.N. Voronin dated the temple, which belonged extant basement, 1390 mi⁸⁶ Altshuler (based on General assumptions about a hypothetical large-scale construction in the era of the don) - 1380-mi⁸⁷.

Kavelmaher and AA Sukhanov believe that the temple was built in 1360-1370-s⁸⁸but the basis of their position, these researchers are taking the same assumption Voronin and BL Altshuller about large-scale construction in the epoch of Dmitry Ivanovich. Shift Dating V. kavelmaherom and AA Sukhanova 10-20 years on the date, BL Altshuller proposed, related to the fact that shortly after the painting of the temple in 1405⁸⁹ followed his perestroika in 1416⁹⁰ and, apparently, the researchers seemed more logical possible to postpone the date of construction of the temple from the date of its restructuring, while remaining within the framework of the epoch of the don.

But was the first temple built in 20, 30 or 50 years before 1416 - still for the cult stone of the building is negligible "life". Consequently, the alteration in any event was not caused by deterioration, and any "force majeure" circumstances.

Altshuler assumed that "since 1405 in 1416, small odnoapsidny Cathedral for some reason no longer meet the requirements of Church services (it, for example, did not have the necessary premises for the Liturgy) and this was the main reason replace traditional cross-cupola temple"⁹¹.

But ten years is too small for such item is

Let's give a different explanation for this situation.

Altshuler and Mahalasksmi hypothetically asserted presence in the basement of the Church of Annunciation of angular pylons, built in the first construction period⁹² (a belonging of existing corner pillars of the second construction period Voronin pointed out back⁹³). But feelers Kavelmahera and AA Sukhanova showed that under the existing piers, built in 1416, no traces of the previous supports no⁹⁴.

Therefore, the first Church of the Annunciation was pillarless, and its builders could not face the problem of overlapping of a large internal space of the temple (almost 8 x 8 m). Because corner supports, on which to build arches, in the first Church was not, we can make two hypotheses resolve this problem:

the temple had wooden ceilings with rafters (such design was widely distributed in Western Europe, perhaps because the Church was blocked by John in Przemysl 1119-1124 years⁹⁵). In the case of this design the top x%D

the temple was covered with a torispherical arch with a light opening to the drum or the system of arches Pskov type - speed-overlapping or parallel⁹⁶. In this case, the blocked by a very large space (for comparison: the side of the omphalos in the assumption Cathedral of Vladimir - 6,4 m), and even with a small "Pskov" drum walls, which were based arches, was loaded too much⁹⁷. Consequently, the Church could come in emergency condition very quickly.

Regardless of the choice of a particular hypothesis about the type of overlap first Church of the Annunciation, we may say that the circumstances of the rebuilding of the temple in 1416 can be considered as "force majeure". In addition, the Church could be put in the basement, without waiting for shrinkage of the last - and that in itself is almost guaranteed the early arrival of the building is in emergency state.

We can now return to the question of Dating first Church of the Annunciation.

Position BL Altshuller in this regard was the following: the Church was built earlier 1393, because "otherwise you will not understand the construction of the Grand Princess Eudocia this year's own stone Church - the construction is possible only under the assumption that the stone Grand court Cathedral already exists on the same princely court, where the WFD is⁹⁸. A similar position is shared Kavelmaher with AA Sukhanova⁹⁹.

But the researchers in this case it was overlooked existed since 1330 another home the Grand temple - the Cathedral of the Saviour on the Bor. It is the Cathedral, and not the Church: in contrast to the Church of the Annunciation, Cathedral of the Transfiguration Cathedral had the status of a monastery¹⁰⁰that allowed the Moscow princes have their pastors are not "Balti"and "monk, and, if necessary, replace them hierarchal Department¹⁰¹. So, shortly after the establishment of a princely Spassky monastery, Archimandrite John it was erected on the Rostov eparchy¹⁰². Mitya, candidate Dmitry Donskoy in the Metropolitan Department, was also the Abbot of this monastery¹⁰³.

The Cathedral of our Saviour on the Bor was more Annunciation Church (internal volume - about 11 x 11 m at the Saviour to 8 x 8 m at the Annunciation) and had a classical four-pillar plan.

The presence in the Annunciation Church of the basement, which could be preserved princely Treasury, in no case does not speak about the high status of the Church - on the contrary, reduces its value to "utilitarian" (as far as it is not applicable to Church). Medieval norms of piety demanded from princes repetition (even foreign) of the biblical Canon is%Moreover, it is not about the merchants, and of the princes, which was normal and natural to pray at the relics of saints, and of the graves of ancestors, rather than gold. Of course, the princes could attend the service in the temple, where the basement was kept Treasury, but only in the absence of alternatives.

In short, the home the Grand Cathedral (in this case - the Saviour on the Bor) and the Palace Church is totally different concepts. In the Palace Church of the Annunciation could pass the services and for the secondary boyars, and for the Prince, and for the Palace servants, and for "guests" (the merchants) - for them was not shameful is the fact that in the basement of the temple is not standing sarcophagi, and is stored gold.

For all these reasons looks absolutely logical next procedure for the construction of temples in the Grand courtyard:

- the Cathedral of the Saviour on the Bor, the home Church of the great Prince;

- the Church of the Nativity of the virgin, home Church of the great Princess;

- the Church of the Annunciation, designed for the boyars, guards, servants and "guests".

Hence, we may assume that the Church of the Annunciation was built by Grand Prince Vasily Dmitrievich after 1393, and then they rebuilt in 1416 because of the arrival of an emergency condition (the similar situation was under Ivan III, the assumption Cathedral). Then it becomes clear and the necessity of construction of the second construction period (i.e. in 1416) additional supports in the basement¹⁰⁴. 

Thus, as the date of the first construction period of the Annunciation in the Kremlin we can accept the mid-1390's, more precisely range from 1393 to 1398 (according to the chronicle data, in 1398 the Church already existed¹⁰⁵).

Naturally, such Dating is just as rough as all the dates proposed by the researchers, which we have discussed in this paragraph. But for us now fundamentally, the first and the second construction periods Annunciation Church in any case, belong to the time of the management Board Dmitry Donskoy, and Vasily Dmitrievich, whom contemporaries and descendants did not deign to any "loud" nickname (in the author's opinion, is absolutely unfair).

Usually the property of General history are primarily of war (both won and lost), but the history of architecture still needs to pay more attention to the era of peace and prosperity of the country (which took place with Vasily Dmitrievich¹⁰⁶). War is the worst enemy of civil architecture. Not only because of the direct destructive impact on the monuments of architecture, but also because of the inevitable economic complications.

And in the end we see that the stone construction in the Moscow Principality in war era Donskoy can reasonably be attributed to the construction of all three stone buildings , the Cathedral of the Chudov monastery in Moscow, the Dormition Cathedral in Kolomna and walls of the Moscow Kremlin. The latter building was not a cult and was motivated by the military strategy%

Thus, the General assumption Voronin and BL Altshuller about "scale" Moscow stone construction 1360-1380-ies is incorrect (at least unproven) and in no case can not be grounds for inclusion in this time of any disputed sites.

VII

However, the similarity of the constructive scheme ("pylon) churches in Kamenskoye on Settlement, in bobreneve and Staro-Golutvin be considered more carefully. Is not this the reason for the similarity of classification of all these churches to the same construction period? Let not the seventies and eighties years of the XIV century (as I thought Altshuler¹⁰⁷), but, for example, for the first half of the XV century?

In order to understand, are we entitled to date all these temples one construction period, it is necessary to consider the General principles of Dating temples "by analogy".

In principle, there are cases of overlap and typological and stylistic features, and techniques of construction of various sites, and then their Dating "by analogy" is beyond doubt. But such cases are very few. Even in the pre-Mongolian time it is impossible to distinguish at least a few sites, from start to finish, built by the same masters,%¹⁰⁸) are not completely identical - are there differences in the quality of the stone, and in the way it is treated¹⁰⁹and in the amounts and proportions, and in the articulation of the fronts¹¹⁰.

And this situation is not surprising. Architectural plastic buildings is determined by architects in consultation with the churchwarden and the Church hierarchy, and especially construction equipment is largely dependent on the master-builders. Full match whole set of factors affecting plastic art, design and technology of erection of a building (requirements of bishops and churchwardens, qualified architects and senior masters, the "ordinary" masons) - the case is extremely unlikely.

Historical and architectural school Voronin and Rappoport instructs to trace the transition from construction to the construction site of artels in full - from architects to "ordinary" masons¹¹¹. In the few cases of coincidence typology and construction equipment of various monuments such an approach allows for straight lines and, accordingly, to date the temples with a sufficiently high degree of reliability. But the Dating sites, which have the same or a typology, or style, or construction equipment, adherence EB%

"Typological" option is that if the similarity of architectural forms and styles of the monuments they relate to the construction period, ignoring the differences in the techniques of construction. "Building" option, respectively, forcing researchers in case of similarity of construction machinery to ignore the difference architectural forms.

A "Golden mean" school track collectives did not recognize - in a gang, that at each construction site worked almost the same masters, from architect to more or less skilled worker. Such are the laws of any Department, and employee turnover "in the medieval cooperatives was minimal.

In principle, we do not deny the total potential usefulness of developing a plan for a transition collectives is one of the possible solutions to the issues of Dating and authorship of the monuments. Moreover, it is impossible not to admit that if the comprehensive approach (taking into account the issues and the policy and economy, and architecture and construction) preparation of such schemes has the full right to claim the status of an independent scientific discipline within the history of architecture. But in our study we will try to follow the "Occam's razor"¹¹² and do not multiply entities beyond necessity".

And above all, let us at least a rough estimate of how many artists could include cooperative.

This calculation was made by p. Rappaport¹¹³. Referring to page 325 the first volume of labour Voronin "Architecture of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries", he argued that the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl built about 30 masons. Adding here the carpenters, roofers, moulders and abigale the%B

Unfortunately, in this case the reference Rappoport on the classic work Voronin inappropriate, since the number of craftsmen who built the Church of the Intercession, there is nothing to say. In Voronin shows we used in Annex 2 calculation complexity of white stone building in person-days, and not referring to the whole building, but only to break down and processing of white stone¹¹⁴.

Apparently, PA Rappoport, without considering the last divided the total Voronin (7307 person-days) at 200-250 days, got about 30 people and announced their master-masons. But those unaccounted for were masters who laid the walls, vaults and foundations, preparing lime and perform other work listed in the calculation of the overall complexity of the pre-Mongol white stone building, made by the author of this book¹¹⁵. As the complexity of these works is 3723 people-DN.

Keeping p. A. Rappoport calculations with reference to the classic work by Voronin, on the basis of two construction seasons, also seems to be not quite correct - the Church of the Intercession was built in one year"¹¹⁶and the construction season, N.N. Voronin, lasted for 168 days¹¹⁷.

So let's calculate the number of masters, members of the gang, using the complexity of the calculations proveden¹¹⁸:

(7307 + 3723) : 168 = 65 people.

Adding here "administrative and managerial personnel and supervisors breaking, processing and transportation of white stone, we obtain the average number of building the farm from 70 to 80 people.

Now let's ask, could the "wandering" artel - 70-80 masters with their wives and children (and this is 150-200 persons) - to move huge Tabor from Prince to Prince around the country (or rather, by country), where continuous wars.

First of all note that this is not about the Gypsies, and even the merchants, and of highly skilled specialists, who in all times was a great value. "At that time, artists are often captured during various military campaigns, because they were considered quite expensive and valuable commodities (VP Vygolov¹¹⁹).

And as any transit of goods through independent portions rigidly controlled (remember the adage feudal times - "what with who fell, they lost), then passing a construction team of any Prince or Governor could stop and get to work on yourself. And in the event of war - even destroy, to prevent the enemy to build temples and fortifications.

In the West within a relatively unified "Holy Roman Empire" - wandering the farm lay masons appeared only at the end of XI century and is still their movement was hampered by the large number of internal borders¹²⁰. And here we see the camp of 200-250 people, which goes between the independent, often hostile to each other principalities, and even the warring States.

It is extremely unlikely. And between the principalities, and within one Principality simultaneous transfer of so many artists could occur as a rare exception, not the rule. We can assert the following grounds:

- first, the transitions between collectives principalities could happen only "officially" - pre-arranged "by di

- secondly, the required set of preliminary agreements between the principalities on the guarantees of fair pay masters and their domestic settle in a new place - because it was not a feudal dependent peasants, but of the free urban artisans;

- thirdly, even within the same Principality transfer of an entire farm from city to city was fraught with domestic difficulties. Urban artisans - not the terrorists involved military discipline.

Thus, the organization of transition of the farm demanded great organizational effort and expense of the "sponsor" of the Prince.

Hence, we may make a General observation: where the requirements for the timing and quality of construction allowed to use the local people, the princes, as a rule, preferred this option. This consideration is especially important for difficult economic situation since the Mongol yoke.

We emphasize that we are talking primarily about the "ordinary" builders (i.e. the vast majority artel). Architects, painters, jewelers and other unique and highly specialized professionals to go from Prince to Prince and from town to town as often as you want, not necessarily even organizing construction squads" (BA Ognev¹²¹), which, unlike artels, only a few people.

And when the order was not, local craftsmen were engaged in any handicraft (first of all carpenters), and even peasant labour. Moreover, the construction could not be their primary qualification. For example, N.N. Voronin brought a contract for the demolition and construction of new Church of St. George in Vladimir, concluded in 1783 with the peasants of the village Surany¹²². Another feature is%¹²³.

And when you consider that in the conditions of feudal relations builders to work more often complained of is not money, but the earth¹²⁴then everything falls into place. Perhaps the architects and highly skilled masters even formed a class a "service landowners" (noblemen¹²⁵) along with the "near" the Prince's retinue, but "ordinary" builders are unlikely to become the nobility - ur not the

With regard to the qualification of "ordinary" construction, any Russian peasant and nowadays is able to perform construction work on a very wide profile, especially under the guidance of highly skilled craftsmen.

And not only the farmer. For example, Kavelmaher, coming to the restoration site belokamenschikom (after graduating from the Institute of Architecture at the end of 1950-ies), could carved details of architectural decoration in a month without any "master instructor", just exchanging experience with colleagues¹²⁶.

With regard to the most difficult part of construction - erection of arches and drums - this work was carried out on the wooden wheel and formwork¹²⁷. Consequently, the main work was a carpenter, and the experience of such work in the ubiquitous wooden building in the XII-XVI centuries was huge.

And the sails (or Tromp) could put one master qualifications - work is fine, but the volume is small.

And let's not forget that in every city, in addition to temples and fortifications were built a lot of wooden and often stone buildings of a civil nature¹²⁸ so a necessity even for the professional Builder to move from city to city, and even of the Principality in the Principality, has arisen not as a rule, and as an exception.

In subsequent chapters we will be able repeatedly to illustrate the fact that the size and the historical fate of early Moscow white stone churches led the work is local construction personnel.

And now, because we are not bound by the necessity of mapping transitions artels, let us impartially consider "typological" and "structural" approaches to the Dating of temples "by analogy".

VIII

We state once again: "typological" approach is that if the similarity of architectural forms of the monuments they relate to the construction period, ignoring the differences in the techniques of construction. "Building" approach, respectively, forcing researchers in case of similarity of construction machinery to ignore the difference of architectural forms and the con is

"Typological" approach was especially popular at the dawn of the history of ancient architecture as a scientific discipline. In the late XIX-early XX century analyze the features of construction machinery researchers practically not know how, and strong typological and stylistic features of monuments (architectural forms and decor) of steel at the Dating of temples "by analogy" priority

The most striking example of illegality only "typological" approach is adopted in the early to mid twentieth century Cathedral Dating Vysoko-Petrovsky monastery end of the XVII century, originating from the tier-octagonal shape of the monument is typical for this time. But full-scale studies of the temple, held in 1960-ies BP dedushenko, and in the late 1970's-early 1980 - La Belyaev, convincingly attributed this monument to the beginning of XVI century - the works of the New Aleviz¹²⁹.

Based on the principles of pre-emptive use of architects of local construction personnel, we can say the following: the architect, as masters of architectural decor, to move from the construction site to the site as often as you wish, could in the tens of years to build many buildings, could prepare a shift, working in the same architectural style, could "be ahead of their time", or, conversely, to build "remakes". Consequently, the Dating sites that seem identical architectural forms and design solutions, may vary by tens or even hundreds of years.

Unfortunately, some architectural historians still tend to think at the level of "images" of the temples, not going into detail of construction equipment. But still "typological" approach in its pure form is quite rare.

Rare and unique "building" approach. It is appropriate to recall only the study Bagnava¹³⁰ dedicated to a range of fundamental problems of early Moscow architecture. Ignoring many typological and stylistic similarities between the Zvenigorod temples (on the Town and in the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery) and the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, the researcher on the basis of the analysis of features of the differences well-treated parts bases, portals, zakomaras and Ornan the¹³¹. Thus, for example, the researcher did not consider it necessary to reflect in his article, the important typological feature that unites all three of the temple, as the slope of the walls inside.

But analysis of the position Bagnava against churches late XIV-early XV century is beyond the scope of our study. Suffice it to say that it is in the processing of well-treated white-stone details could proyavlyat the%

If well-treated details of the various sites similar, in itself this may also nothing to say. When clearly visible hand of the master, of course, possible to bring closer the date (at least, with a range of 5-10 years). But well-treated detail, especially after several centuries of weathering, "hand" is extremely difficult to determine. A number of standard techniques (attic plinths, "Dynko, keeled archivolt, etc) were used throughout the history of ancient architecture.

And finally, in respect of "building" approach, we can say the same thing regarding "typological": any master stonemason to move from the construction site to the site as often as you wish, could in the tens of years to work on the construction of many buildings, could prepare their successors, itesiwaju similarly, could, in accordance with the requirements of the customer to cut various profiles, could "be ahead of their time", or, conversely, to do "remakes". Consequently, the Dating sites that seem identical in terms of applied techniques of construction and well-treated details may vary by tens or even hundreds of years.

"Accurate" scientific methods of analysis of the peculiarities of construction engineering (chemical, petrographic, particle size distribution, radiocarbon, paleomagnetic, dendrological and other), unfortunately, due to the lack of adequate funding for researchers of ancient architecture today practically not available, and in any case, their results cannot give the required accuracy (at least, plus or minus a few decades).

Perhaps the future history of architecture for "construction" methods of Dating (assuming the development and availability of methods of absolute Dating materials), but in our time, still have to make a "balanced" approach to the solution of problems of Dating sites "by analogy", and taking into account the typology, and style, and features of building technology is

IX

First, we apply a "balanced" approach to the question concerned whether temples in Kamenskoye on Settlement, in bobreneve and Staro-Golutvin to one construction period.

In light of the foregoing paragraphs. 7-8 of this Chapter, we in no case can not agree with the convergence of the Dating of the four above-mentioned churches only on the basis of availability of similar structural schemes - corner supports, which, by analogy with the Church in Kamenskoye, could rely arches.

The thing is that the convergence of the Dating of all churches " pylon is equally inappropriate, such as the convergence of the Dating all six cupolas of churches. We will show this.

Type temples " pylon was actually the same cross (though without aisles), but the corner bearing gave the opportunity to install on small bushels big drums. In this case, the entire burden of the heavy white stone drums bore no pillars, and much more reliable design elements - support adjoining walls. Thanks to this, even small churches can look high and spacious, which corresponded to the basic principles of Gothic.

Let's not forget about the symbolic meaning schemes " pylon. In order to consider the shape of the cross inscribed in a classic four pillars (and even more famous mosque) the Church's cross, even when you look at the plan requires some imagination, but inside the Church this cross looks more conventional. And in the temples, with a corner PR%

Note that Altshuler absolutely adequately assess the significance of the scheme temples " pylon. To quote: "unlike Voronin and Mailin, who planned the structure of the Church with wall supports only "cut out of the ordinary four pillars of the temple", we believe that to some degree by four pillars of the Church owes its origin to the TFR is¹³².

This is a great design decision - corner bearing, which are based arches, - could be applied arbitrarily often throughout the history of ancient architecture. So, mA Il'in noted the existence of such schemes, even in the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye¹³³.

Moreover, we can assume with considerable certainty that new archaeological research will reveal and other temples of XIV-XVI centuries " pylon. Such churches at different times could be built in a number of cities, fortresses and monasteries.

And relatively narrow spread of such temples in the North-Eastern Russia and their near (BL Altshuller - even "unexpected"¹³⁴) the disappearance actually is because in the pre-Mongolian time pillarless white-stone Church practically not been built, and in the end of XV century began a massive brick building. Brick drums much easier white stone, and the construction of columns of the temples it possible to move to the groin vaults of the type and abandon entirely reliable, but bulky design arches resting on the corner bearing.

X

So, the Church in Kamenskoye and Settlement share with cathedrals Bobreneva and Old-Golutvina monasteries only corner wall supports and common to the entire North-Eastern Russian architecture of the XII-XVI centuries well-treated parts portals¹³⁵. The differences between these churches is much larger, and they are much more fundamental.

First of all, the average face size white stone blocks that are composed of churches in Kamenskoye and Settlement - 40 x 40 cm (the range of variation of 25 x 30 x 50 50 cm), and excavations undertaken BL Altshuller and MH aleshkovskii in 1960-1970-th years, has shown that the blocks in the Cathedral of the Nativity of the virgin in Bobrineva have a height not exceeding 20 cm¹³⁶. In the Epiphany Cathedral in Old-Golutvina height blocks even less - from 12 to 16 cm¹³⁷.

We also note that the photographs and illustrations BL Altshuller¹³⁸ we can see that the units in bobreneve and Staro-Golutvin (at least in the lower ranks of masonry) are not processed "semifinished" (as in Kamenskoye and Settlement)and "rough". Perhaps masonry cathedrals Kolomna monasteries was leveled significant layer coating, traces of which the researchers were able to find¹³⁹. Perhaps excavations have revealed only a podium or basement temples Kolomna monasteries - in this case, we note that neither the Nikolskaya, nor in "Gorodische" churches have no high podium, no basement.

At a temple in the Old-Golutvin not profiled base¹⁴⁰ not found traces of such a cap and Bobrineva¹⁴¹. And in the temples Kamensky and settlement of such bases is¹⁴².

The Church in Kamenskoye and Settlement belong to the classical trehapsidnoy scheme, mainly applied in the North-Eastern Russia and in the pre-Mongol, and in the post-Mongol times. And the Old Cathedral, monastery Golutvina - Duhovny, and, according to the reconstruction BL Altshuller¹⁴³, Northern apse significantly less than the South (Fig. 19) - apparently there was a chapel, otherwise the Church would have to do asymmetric iconostasis and the Royal gate. Altshuler rightly pointed out that the device chapels in the North apses Russian churches typical for a later time (since the end of XV century)¹⁴⁴.

Fig. 19. The Cathedral of the Old monastery Golutvina. Reconstruction BL Altshuller.

Cathedral Bobreneva monastery Altshuler was reconstructed under trehapsidnoy scheme¹⁴⁵ in our opinion, is incorrect. First of all evident sharp asymmetries apses (Fig. 20), which would entail the asymmetry Royal gates and the iconostasis. Even in "Gorodische" Church plan which is marked up very sloppy (Fig. 6), the apse are symmetrical.

Apparently, reconstruction BL Altshuller junction apses on the accumulations of the rubble¹⁴⁶ were wrong. Indeed, on the site of rubble Foundation could be some stones? It is unlikely for the reconstruction of the Cathedral in the XVIII century, the builders took foundations, cleaned the stones from the solution and put in its place. It could be just random construction piles encountered in the rebuilding of the temple.

The only place landfall Foundation apses to the Foundation of the quadrangle, with certainty discovered during excavations (in Fig. 21 marked with the letter A), rather consistent odnoapsidny the temple. Naturally, in the XVI-XIX centuries (as in our time) in odnoapsidnyh temple altar eksedry could have a lot of internal partitions, but in this case this is not important.

Fig. 20. Cathedral Bobreneva monastery. Reconstruction BL Altshuller.

Fig. 21. The excavation BL Altshuller and MH aleshkovskii in the Cathedral Bobreneva monastery. The letter "a" denotes the researchers discovered junction rubble Foundation apses.

In principle, in the XIV-beginning of XV century the vast majority of churches of North-Eastern Russia were trehapsidnoy¹⁴⁷and it also makes it unlikely that the construction at this time cathedrals in the Old-Golutvin and Bobrineva.

As for proximity size of cathedrals in Kamenskoye, bobreneve and Staro-Golutvin, the significance of this fact disavows much smaller Church on the Settlement. Probably, in the first three churches were approaching the famous ancient architects "maximum security"¹⁴⁸ (according to the research of the author, to ensure the required reliability of the temples hundred%D¹⁴⁹ and the temples Kamensky, Bobreneva and Old-Golutvina side of the dome of squares represent more than 5 m).

Note that any attempt to search the temples Kamensky, Settlement, Bobreneva and Old-Golutvina single module¹⁵⁰ when poorly marked-up plans are absolutely futile.

It is noteworthy that in the Cathedral of the Old monastery Golutvina corner bearing not tied to the walls (at least in the lower - save - the ranks of masonry)¹⁵¹. Apparently, the architect who built this temple, sleep is%¹⁵²) was forced to erect.

Thus, we do not have no reason to attribute churches in Kamenskoye and Settlement, on the one hand, and cathedrals in bobreneve and Staro-Golutvin, on the other hand, for a construction period. In case, if we took the similarity of constructive schemes and some well-treated parts portals based convergence dates so different churches, we would be obliged to refer to the same construction period and the Church of the ascension in Kolomenskoye (as did mA Il'in¹⁵³), which is absolutely illegal.

As we saw in paragraph 6 of this Chapter, illegal and approval BL Altshuller and MH aleshkovskii about the presence of angular pylons in the basement of the first Church of the Annunciation of the Moscow Kremlin¹⁵⁴: feelers Kavelmahera and AA Sukhanova showed that under the existing piers, built in the second construction period (in 1416), no traces of the previous supports no¹⁵⁵.

Therefore, the construction of angular supports the basement of the Church of the Annunciation in 1416 (and not in 1370-1380-ies, as claimed Altshuler) is an additional argument in support of our position on the inapplicability of similarity constructive scheme as a pretext for a closer Dating any of the temples, and even more so different from each other, as those we have seen in this paragraph.

XI

In paragraph 5 of this Chapter we have shown that, whenever temples were built in bobreneve and Staro-Golutvin, in any case, this could not happen earlier than the beginning of the XV century (on the basis odnoapsidnosti Cathedral in Bobrineva and duhovniceasca Cathedral in the Old-Golutvin the author of this book is inclined to a still later date, perhaps even to the beginning-middle of the XVI century).

And the impossibility of assigning the Nikolskaya Church in the early XV century, as to a later time, convincingly substantiated Altshuler: at that time the village Kamenskoe declined and disappeared from spiritual and agreements of the Moscow princes¹⁵⁶.

Indeed, by the end of XIV-XV century, the border of the Principality for several decades was the river Ugra (about 100 km southwest Bunks), and the region around Kamensky was uninhabited and left¹⁵⁷. The only settlement in the radius of several tens of kilometers was a small village Ryzhkov ( 3 km from Kamensky)¹⁵⁸.

And construction in the XV-XVI centuries "provincial" village - Kamensk - the great stone Church extremely unlikely.

But consider another indirect argument Dating Nikolskaya Church in Kamenskoye beginning of the XV century. According to Voronin, "a number of features brings this temple with the Trinity Cathedral: underlined huge drum on a pedestal, pyramid slope walls inside and narrowing upward drum, povyshennaya ovoidalnaya curve extending to the center of the arches"¹⁵⁹.

In principle, it is enough to look at the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, to understand that he belongs to an entirely different architectural school. But since on the basis of this argument Voronin appeared a certain stereotype, we consider the similarities and differences of the St. Nicholas Church and the Holy Trinity Cathedral and more. Specifically, we will talk of preemptive the

External dimensions of the square, Nikolskaya Church - about 10.5 x 10 m, The Trinity Cathedral - about 16 x 17 m in first case the width of the rectangle (along the axis North-South) is greater than the length (along the axis West-East), in the second, less (calculation of the basic proportions of the temples in Kamenskoye and the Trinity-Sergius is given in Annex 1).

Trinity Cathedral - four-column, the Church of the village of Kamenka refers to the type of temples " pylon. Drum Trinity Cathedral shifted to the East, the drum Nikolskaya Church is located exactly in the center. The laying of the Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius processed "clean"masonry Nikolskaya Church - "semifinished". Blades, ornamental belts, headdresses and diagonal small vaults over zakomaras in St. Nicholas Church there. In the Trinity Cathedral no conical transition from the arches to the drum, and in St. Nicholas Church, such a transition there. "Povyshennaya ovoidalnaya curve extending to the center of the arch in St. Nicholas Church has the shape of a parabola, and the Holy Trinity Cathedral - curve of a higher order (fourth or even sixth).

It is impossible to agree with the statement Voronin that in the Church of the village of Kamenka is a "pyramid slope walls inside that makes this temple with the Trinity Cathedral"¹⁶⁰. Actually the walls in St. Nicholas Church have not "pyramid slope", and visually noticeable distortion (barreling - Fig. 10), the size of the square, at the level toe zakomaras and on the level cap practically coincide (see Annex 1).

Thus, the only similarities Nikolskaya Church and the Holy Trinity Cathedral can be called large, flaring drums. Indeed, the angles of the walls of the drums and the ratio of visible space drums and Chetverikov in these temples are very similar (though almost the same ratio of visible space of the drum and quadrangular for example, in the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral of Pereslavl-Zalessky - see Appendix 1). But the proportions (and even more absolute sizes) themselves drums in Kamenskoye and the Trinity-Sergius vary significantly (see Annex 1).

We Supplement our analysis of the illegality of convergence Dating Nikolskaya Church and the Holy Trinity Cathedral words BL Altshuller: "Assumptions Mpretorytoo about toiletries Kamensky the Trinity-Sergieva monastery found our documents are not confirmed. Thus largely unfounded version that the St. Nicholas Church was built¹⁶¹.

Therefore, the St. Nicholas Church in Kamenskoye to XV, and even more to the XVI century, we can not be attributed.

XII

As we saw in paras. 3-6 of this Chapter, we do not have any convincing argument for inclusion of the temple in Kamenskoye to the second half of the XIV century. Careful consideration of all the arguments that led Altshuler, refers back to an earlier time.

The assumption BL Altshuller about the construction of temples " pylon South Slavic or Greek%¹⁶² that cannot be the basis for Dating, as the investigator showed convincingly that "in countries of the Balkan Peninsula churches with wall jacks are already in XII-XIII centuries are quite common at local architecture kind of cult constructions"¹⁶³. Hence, the spread of dates by the analogy with the Balkans is too large - plus or minus a hundred or even two hundred years.

However, consider and Balkan influence, until construction of temples in Kamenskoye and Settlement South Slavic or Greek team (although, as we have shown in paragraph 7 of this Chapter, for the Ancient Rus any transition whole building cooperative is extremely unlikely case).

Assuming that the Church in Kamenskoye and at the Settlement was built in the end of XIV century (and even more later), we must assume that the rudeness of masonry these temples comes from the inability or unwillingness of builders it Nikolskaya and "Gorodische" churches carefully cut and carefully placed a white stone. After all, in Moscow and Zvenigorod at this time were building%2

So will the Metropolitan Cyprian brought to Russia as unskilled construction workers? Hardly. In the end of XIV century the status of Metropolitan masters still assumed a higher level of construction equipment (at least, the Church of the Nativity of the Theotokos in the Moscow Kremlin).

Then we assume that the South Slavic or Greek builders came to the Moscow Principality itself (such as refugees). In this case the condition they obtain an order could be either a lack of local competitors (that XIV-XV centuries have unrealistic), or the technical and artistic superiority over the local construction personnel.

So, if we include St. Nicholas and "Gorodische" Church by the end of the XIV century, or to a later time, we have to say that the Balkan wizard (if their arrival has taken place) were inefficient, the level of local craftsmen was even lower, and eventually, for example, in Kamenskoye we see the monument, "provincial not only by its geographic location, but also by forms" (NN Voronin)¹⁶⁴.

But the village Kamenskoe since 1325 mentioned in spiritual diplomas as the property of Moscow great princes, including Dmitry Donskoy¹⁶⁵. And really, if the temple was built in 1370 years, the Grand Duke could not allocate sufficient funds of their estates and (or) to invite qualified builders? After Church in Kamenskoye different from and around Moscow churches abroad of the XIV and XV centuries, not only rough masonry. South-Western and North-Western corners of the Nikolskaya Church is not quite straight in the plan (Fig. 7), and the walls are visible distortion (Fig. 10). In the North-Eastern Russia wizard that does not allow either in the pre-Mongolian time, or the end of the XIV-beginning of XV century.

Similar doubts arise regarding "Gorodische" temple built more roughly and carelessly than the Nikolskaya Church.

In the end of XIV century the Settlement was the Bishop's yard¹⁶⁶. Kolomna eparchy was first mentioned in Chronicles in 1353¹⁶⁷. Apparently, it was established shortly after Metropolitan Peter in 1325 moved to Moscow his chair¹⁶⁸. AND %D

The fact that at the time of the transfer of Metropolitan Peter was not in Moscow diocese. It happened that the current Church Affairs in the Central areas of the great Moscow Principality ("indigenous" in Moscow and joined in the beginning of XIV century, Kolomna, Serpukhov and Mozhaisk with many villages and parishes) was forced to engage in any "outsider" Bishop, either personally mi is%8

This tradition has survived until the present day: the Russian Metropolitan was Patriarchy, the majority of dioceses - metropolis, but the Metropolitan charge of Church Affairs of the Moscow region, has the title of Krutitsy and Kolomna.

And do Kolomna (actually Moscow) Bishop could allow its "house" Church, if it was built in 1370-1380-s or later, was so rough masonry and so non-parallel walls? Is the Lord of the Central diocese of the Moscow Grand Duchy could not find a more skilled craftsmen?

Thus, everything said in this Chapter about the impossibility of temples Dating in Kamenskoye and Settlement of the second half of the XIV century (and even more of the XV-XVI centuries) we can add a few additional arguments - the rudeness of masonry, sloppy breakdown of the plans and distortion of the walls.

Therefore, we can not date these churches or 1370 mi, no 1380-ies, nor later time, and we have put forward a different vision of the problem.

© Sergey Zagraevsky

Introduction

Chapter I. The epoch of Dmitry Donskoy?

Chapter II. The epoch of Daniil of Moscow and his sons

Chapter III: Tver Grand Duchy

Chapter IV. The epoch of “ambitious economy”

Conclusion

Applications, notes

To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page