Plinfa as a building material and its use. Plinfa - what is it? Plinth as a building material and its uses Brick by brick

III.1.6. Silicate brick M-150 is produced in several types. Ordinary white one-and-a-half two-hollow: weight - 4.3 kg, size - 250? 120 x 88 mm, density - 1450 kg / m3, frost resistance -25, 35, 50 cycles, compressive strength - 125.150, 200 kg / cm2, water absorption - 8%, thermal conductivity -0.6 W From the book Soviet satirical press 1917-1963 author Stykalin Sergey Ilyich

KIRPICH Satiriko-humorous and literary-artistic magazine. Published in Moscow in 1924–1926. as a free monthly supplement to the construction workers' newspaper "Postroyka". Printed on pages 8-16. Circulation - 62-82 thousand copies, with colorful illustrations.

Brick

Brick Mama, you know, the Cologne Cathedral began to be built in the XIII century and is still not finished. - Uh-huh. - Mom looks into the kitchen sink, where water is pouring from the tap. The mother washes the dishes and half-heartedly listens to her son spinning around her. - Mom, and the Notre-Dame-de-Paris Cathedral was being built

Brick

Brick * * * The name of the boy who molested his mother was Elisha. Not a very familiar name for our times, but beautiful and, most importantly, churchly. Dad really wanted to name his son something like this: Raphael, or Zechariah, or Sophronius. Papa was the most intelligent and deeply believing soul, not quite

1. Stylistic affiliation

The history of architecture of Ancient Rus' is a young science. Back in the 18th century monuments of ancient Russian architecture were usually called gothic 2 (although in our opinion it would be more accurate to call them Romanesque - from the Romanesque style).

The term itself testifies that these monuments were distinguished from the buildings of ancient and modern times, but they were not separated from the architecture of other countries, they did not see the national specifics of Russian architecture.

The immediate predecessor of the white-stone temples of Ancient Rus' was the colossal Romanesque Cathedral in Speyer- the tomb of the emperors of the "Holy Roman Empire". It is likely that the first ancient Russian masters of "stonework" did their "training" there 3

2. Materials, economics of construction.

Christianity and temple architecture came to Rus' from Byzantium, but there church construction was carried out from plinths or mixed media.

Plinfa (from Greekπλίνθος - "plate") - characteristic of Old Russian pre-Mongolian architecture thin burnt brick , the width of which is approximately equal to the length. Used in construction Byzantium and in Ancient Rus' during the construction of churches in Kyiv, Novgorod, Pskov, Polotsk, Smolensk, Chernigov, Pereyaslavl South, Vladimir Volynsky and all other ancient Russian lands, except for Galicia and Suzdal (in Galician Principality white-stone construction began in the 1110-1120s, in Suzdal - in 1152).

IN ancient Russian architecture under "white stone" understood light limestone carbon(Carboniferous period of the Paleozoic era) from the central regions of central Russia, sometimes - sandstone, dolomite, Permian limestone from the Volga region, numerous types of limestone, travertine And alabaster located in Transnistria. At all white stone was any workable white-yellowish hewn natural stone with a non-shiny surface, which is not marble or shell rock; which was used for the construction of medieval cathedrals and public buildings in Europe and on Rus'.

According to the calculations carried out S. V. Zagraevsky, white stone construction was 10 times more expensive plinthy (due to more complex extraction, transportation and processing). The white color of the stone, sung in literature, was also not its advantage: plinth walls were plastered and whitewashed, and white stone buildings became dirty gray from stove smoke and frequent fires a few years after construction, and the practice of cleaning them appeared only in the 19th century. Thus, white stone as a building material lost to plinth in all respects (and even more so to brick).

3. Politics.

But in the XII century, when Rus' began white stone building , Byzantium was already weakened and did not represent any significant force in the international arena. In Western Europe, construction from various varieties stone during Romanesque and Gothic times, it expressed state power and imperial ideology; only secondary civil buildings and temples were built of brick in poor outlying regions.

In pre-Mongol times, 95% of buildings Vladimir-Suzdal land and 100% of the buildings of the Galician Principality were built from white stone 4 . The most famous are such "significant" white-stone temples as Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir(1158-1160, rebuilt 1186-1189) and Church of the Intercession on the Nerl(1158).

White-stone construction became one of the main components of the process of Ancient Rus' joining the ranks of the leading European powers, a process that was interrupted for a long time only by the Tatar-Mongol invasion.

It is characteristic that even in the difficult times of the Mongol yoke, ancient Russian builders did not switch to cheap and reliable plinth , but continued to build exclusively "in a European way" - in white stone . Obviously, this was one of the factors that allowed the Grand Duchy of Vladimir-Suzdal, which turned out to be an "ulus" of the Horde, not to lose its spiritual independence and to be reborn under a new name - Muscovite Rus'.

At the end of the 15th century, when the masters of the Western European Renaissance completely switched to much more reliable, cheap and practical brick construction, the expression of state power and imperial ideology in stone lost its meaning. Then in Rus' there was a widespread transition to brick . The last major ancient Russian white-stone temple was Assumption Cathedral in Moscow (1475-1479). In the future, white-stone churches in Rus' continued to be built, but only occasionally and mainly near the quarries. But the widespread use of white stone did not stop, as foundations were built from it everywhere, basements and carved elements of architectural decoration.

Rice. Temple of Hagia Sophia of Constantinople

The unification of the Eastern Slavs led to the formation of a powerful state - Kievan Rus, which, in terms of its size and importance, occupied one of the first places in Europe at that time. By the end of the X century. the ancient Russian state acquired already completed forms. Religion had to change with the advent of the state. Vladimir Svyatoslavovich made an attempt to unite pagan cultures, but paganism could not meet the new demands. Meanwhile, next to Russia there was a powerful state - the Byzantine Empire, where the ideological forms had already been fully developed. Rus' could borrow these forms ready-made. Both sides were interested in establishing close ties: Rus' received religion, literature and art, some luxury goods also came from Byzantium; Byzantium was interested in the military forces of Rus'.

In 989, immediately after the adoption of Christianity, Greek architects who came from Constantinople in Kiev laid the first brick church: Prince Vladimir "thought to create a church of the Most Holy Theotokos and sent masters from the Greeks." In 996 the building was completed. Vladimir bestowed a "tithe" of his income, which is why they began to call her the Mother of God of the Tithes. The Church of the Tithes is the oldest of the monumental buildings of Rus' known to us.

The tithe church collapsed during the capture of Kyiv by the Mongols and stood in ruins for a long time. Excavations have shown that the lower rows of brickwork have been preserved from the ancient building in a small area in the southwestern part of the temple, and foundations have survived in places in other areas. The Church of the Tithes was a three-aisled* temple, characteristic of Byzantine architecture, with three apses* and three pairs of pillars, i.e. six-pillar version of the cross-domed * temple. The church was 27.2 m long and 18.2 m wide; the length of the space under the dome is 6.5 m, the width is 7.2 m. Galleries* adjoined the church on three sides, very complicated and expanded in the western part, where, probably, there was a stair tower and a baptismal. Judging by the base of a cross-shaped pillar found on the western wall, the galleries, at least in some areas, were open, based on separate pillars. In the Church of the Tithes there was a princely balcony - the choir*.

Excavations of the Church of the Tithes showed that the building was built of Byzantine-type flat bricks. Such bricks in ancient Russian written sources were called plinths. The masonry was carried out on lime mortar with an admixture of crushed ceramics - zemyanka - and was executed in such a way that the rows of bricks came out onto the facade of the building through one - the intermediate row was slightly pushed back into the depths of the masonry and covered from the outside with a layer of mortar. Such masonry, called masonry with a hidden row, had both industrial and technical and artistic significance, providing the possibility of picturesque and decorative design of facades.

Kyiv. Tithe Church. 1 - foundation plan, 2 - partial schematic reconstruction of the plan.

At the beginning of the 12th century, Novgorod became a veche republic. The boyars take over the state apparatus, pushing the prince to the role of a hired military leader of the city. The princes moved to Gorodishche, near which the princely Yuryev Monastery appeared, and a little later - Spaso-Nereditsky. During the twelfth century, the princes make a number of attempts to counter the lost Sophia with new buildings. Back in 1103, Prince Mstislav founded the Church of the Annunciation on Gorodische; part of the walls was discovered in 1966-1969. excavations. Judging by the remains, this temple, the oldest after Sophia, was a large front building. In 1113, the five-domed church of St. Nicholas was built on the Yaroslav's Court, which was the prince's palace church. By type and artistic features, the Nikolo-Dvorishchensky Cathedral is a large city cathedral church, which, apparently, is caused by the deliberate opposition of the new princely church to the church of Sophia.

St. George's Cathedral of the St. George's Monastery, built in 1119 by Prince Vsevolod, occupies the first place in Novgorod architecture after Sofia in terms of size and construction skills. The Novgorod prince sought to build a building that could, if not outshine the Cathedral of St. Sophia, then at least compete with it. The late Novgorod chronicle preserved the name of the Russian architect who built the cathedral - “Master Peter”.

St. George's Cathedral, like the Cathedral of St. Nicholas on Dvorishche, retains the image of a large front building 5 .

Rice. Georgievsky Cathedral, Veliky Novgorod

Rice. Church of St. Sophia Veliky Novgorod

Rice. Church of Hagia Sophia Kyiv

Plans of the Sophia Cathedrals. 1 - Kyiv, 2 - Novgorod, 3 - Polotsk.

In an extremely tense political situation, the last two princely churches were being built - the Church of Ivan on Opoki in 1127 and the Church of the Assumption at the Market in 1135 (founded by Prince Vsevolod shortly before his expulsion from Novgorod). Both buildings are based on a simplified plan of the Nikolo-Dvorishchensky Cathedral: there are no towers, the entrance to the choirs is arranged in the form of a narrow gap in the thickness of the western wall.

After 1135, the princes, who felt extremely uncomfortable in the city, did not build a single building. Often escaping from the “Novgorod table”, and even more often driven out by a veche decision, they did not dare to undertake large-scale construction, which required time and money. Only under such new political conditions can one understand the last monument of princely construction in Novgorod - the Church of the Savior of Nereditsa, founded in 1198 by Prince Yaroslav Vladimirovich near the new princely residence on Gorodishche. This is a cubic building, almost square in plan, with four pillars inside, bearing a single dome. Narrow slit-like entrance to the choir in the western wall. It does not shine with the beauty of proportions at all - its walls are excessively thick, the masonry is rough, although it still repeats the old system of “striped” masonry. The curvature of the lines, the unevenness of the planes, the beveled corners give this building a special plasticity that distinguishes the Novgorod and Pskov architecture from the monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal architecture and the architecture of early Moscow, which inherited the Vladimir-Suzdal traditions.

Rice. Church of the Savior of Nereditsa (1198) in V.Novgorod

VLADIMIR MONOMAKH

Academician S.V. Zagraevsky

ABOUT HYPOTHETIC "INTERMEDIATE" CONSTRUCTION

THE CATHEDRAL OF THE NATIVITY OF THE MOTHER OF GOD IN SUZDAL IN 1148

AND THE ORIGINAL FORM OF THE SUZDAL TEMPLE OF 1222–1225

Published: Zagraevsky S.V. About the hypothetical "intermediate" construction of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin in Suzdal in 1148 and the original form of the Suzdal church in 1222-1225. In: Proceedings of the Interregional Local History Conference (April 28, 2008). Vladimir, 2009, pp. 218–235.

2014 note. In this article " About the hypothetical "intermediate" construction of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin in Suzdal in 1148 and the original form of the Suzdal church of 1222-1225» the author refrained from developing his own graphic reconstruction of the Suzdal Cathedral, limiting himself to verbal descriptions. But in 2014, the author nevertheless found it possible to offer a variant of the graphic reconstruction of the temple (see the article “ IN surveys of the reconstruction of the original view of the Suzdal Cathedral R Christmas Virgin of the beginning of the XIII century »)

annotation

Some researchers believed that in 1148 Yuri Dolgoruky built the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin in Suzdal. The article offered to the readers examines in detail all the arguments in favor of this hypothesis, and shows that none of them is reliable enough to cast doubt on the message of the chronicle, which unequivocally denies the construction of any "intermediate" churches between the Suzdal Cathedral of the times of Monomakh and the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin of 1222-1225, which has partially survived to this day. The article also identifies a number of characteristic architectural features of the cathedral of the early 13th century.

1.

First of all, we have to consider a question that has long attracted the attention of researchers and has a significant resonance in the popular science literature: was the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin built in 1148 in Suzdal?

In this study, we will, if possible, analyze all the arguments “for” and “against” the existence of a hypothetical Suzdal temple of 1148. First of all, let us consider the data of ancient Russian documentary sources that speak of the construction of one or another pre-Mongolian cathedral in Suzdal.

The Laurentian Chronicle under the year 1222 reports: “Grand Duke Gyurgi laid the stone church of the Holy Mother of God in Suzhdali, in the first place, having crushed the old building, she taught how to crumble with old age and its top fell into a be; that church was founded by his great-grandfather Volodimer Monomakh and blessed Bishop Ephraim” 1 .

Thus, the chronicler unequivocally asserts that the Grand Duke Yuri Vsevolodovich in 1222 destroyed the Suzdal Cathedral, built by Vladimir Monomakh and dedicated to the Mother of God, and in its place laid a new church. The construction of this cathedral was completed in 1225, which is also reported by the Laurentian Chronicle: “The Church of the Holy Mother of God was created in Suzhdali and was sacred by Bishop Simon on the 8th day of September” 2 . The fact that in 1148 a certain “intermediate” cathedral was built cannot be discussed here: according to the chronicler, in 1222 it was the temple erected by Monomakh, who died in 1125, that was destroyed.

Another documentary evidence regarding the construction of the cathedral in Suzdal is contained in the "Paterik of the Kiev Caves Monastery". At first XIII 3 century, Bishop Simon of Vladimir, in a message to the Caves monk Polycarp, who entered the Patericon, says: “And in your reign, Christ-loving Vladimir, take the measure of the divine church of the Caves, all the likeness of the congress of the church in the city of Rostov: in height, and in width, and in longitude ... The son of that George prince (Yuri Dolgoruky - S.Z. ), hearing from Father Vladimir, a hedgehog about that church was created, and that in his reign, the congress of the church in the city of Suzhdal to the same measure. As if over the years all that has decayed, this one Mother of God remains forever.

On this message from ancient Russian documentary sources, directly talking about the construction of one or another Suzdal cathedral can be considered exhausted.

Before considering these reports for the presence of contradictions in them, we must pay attention to the date of the first Suzdal Cathedral, since it is not given in these sources.

In the message of the Laurentian Chronicle under 1222, “Bishop” Ephraim is mentioned as the builder of the Suzdal Cathedral. Perhaps here we are talking about Metropolitan Ephraim of Pereyaslavsky (a contemporary of Vladimir Monomakh), since the rank of metropolitan refers to the “third degree of priesthood”, and all clergymen of this degree are collectively called bishops.

The date of the death of Ephraim Pereyaslavsky is unknown to us. The year 1097 5 is the most common in literature. N.N. Voronin believed that the metropolitan died in 1105, when Bishop Lazar 6 was appointed to the see of Pereyaslavl. Accordingly, the researcher dated the Suzdal temple earlier than 1105 and associated its construction with the second visit of Monomakh to Suzdal (1101).

But N.N. Voronin did not take into account the fact that Ephraim was still not a bishop, but a metropolitan (in this case, it does not matter whether there was a separate metropolis in Pereyaslavl 7 or Ephraim was only a “titular” metropolitan 8), and Lazar could well have been consecrated even during the life of Ephraim.

Nor do we have 100% certainty that Bishop Ephraim from the message of the Laurentian Chronicle is identical with Metropolitan Ephraim of Pereyaslavsky 9 . Consequently, we would not have the right to connect the dating of the Suzdal Cathedral with the years of the Metropolitan's life, even if we knew them for certain.

Another doubt about the dating of the Suzdal Cathedral in 1101 is that in the report about the second trip of Monomakh to Suzdal, the founding of the cathedral in Smolensk 10 is mentioned, but the Suzdal Cathedral is not mentioned. And the addition of the available chronicle information with assumptions that something similar could have happened at that time, which escaped the attention of the chronicler, seems absolutely unjustified. If the chronicler wrote about the Smolensk temple, he would hardly have forgotten about the Suzdal one. Or there would be no talk of temple construction at all.

The personal presence of Vladimir Monomakh during the laying and construction of the Suzdal Cathedral was also absolutely optional (in the Suzdal land at the beginning XII centuries there were both a specific prince and a governor of the Monomakhs).

Accordingly, we have no right to associate the construction of the temple with one or another trip of Vladimir Vsevolodovich to Suzdal.

Thus, we are forced to state that today the only satisfactory basis for dating the first Suzdal cathedral is the fact of its construction during the lifetime of Monomakh, noted by the Laurentian Chronicle. Accordingly, the most rigorous and reasonable dating of the Monomakh temple is no later than 1125.

We list the architectural and archaeological surveys carried out in the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin. In 1937–1940, the temple was explored by A.D. Varganov and A.F. Dubynin 11 (hereinafter - studies of 1937–1940). In 1987, archaeological supervision of earthworks near the cathedral was carried out by V.M. Anisimov and V.P. Glazov 12 (hereinafter - studies of 1987). In 1994–1996 and 2001, architectural and archaeological research was carried out by V.P. Glazov, P.L. Zykov, O.M. Ioannisyan and E.N. Torshin 13 (hereinafter - studies of 1994-2001). In 1998, architectural and archaeological observations of the work to strengthen the masonry of the apses were carried out by V.M. Anisimov and T.O. Bachurin 14 (hereinafter - the research of 1998).

Now we can move on to the analysis of the chronicle texts and Paterik's message.

Both of these messages from the Laurentian Chronicle do not have internal contradictions and correspond to research data from 1937–1940, 1987, and 1994–2001 15 , which uncovered two foundations – a temple from the time of Monomakh and an existing cathedral (see Fig. 1 for a general view of the latter). Both foundations are located almost in the same place (their combined plans according to P.L. Zykov 16, see Fig. 2). Accordingly, the chronicle report about the foundation of the temple by Yuri Vsevolodovich "in the first place" was also confirmed.

Rice. 1. Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin in Suzdal. General form.

Rice. 2. Combined plans of the cathedral from the time of Monomakh and the temple of 1222–1225 (according to P.L. Zykov).

But the Laurentian Chronicle names the builder of the first Suzdal temple as Monomakh, and the Patericon says that Monomakh erected a temple in Rostov 17, and a temple in Suzdal - Yuri Dolgoruky. What temple was built by Yuriy in the Patericon? If about the same one that was erected during the time of Monomakh, then are there any contradictions here with the Laurentian Chronicle?

The fact that the Patericon refers to the Suzdal Cathedral built by Yuri during the time of Monomakh, and this message does not contradict the Laurentian Chronicle, is confirmed by the following provisions.

Firstly, the Patericon says that Dolgoruky built the temple in Suzdal “to the same extent” as the temple in Rostov, respectively, “to the extent” of the Assumption Cathedral of the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery. Of the two found foundations, this "measure" is almost completely consistent only with the first 18 , while the second does not correspond even approximately (see Fig. 2).

Secondly, according to the context of the message from the Paterik, several decades could hardly have elapsed between the construction of the Monomakh temple in Rostov and the Dolgoruky temple in Suzdal. According to Paterik, Yuri heard from his father about the Rostov temple and built a temple in Suzdal "to the same extent" - if several decades had passed between these events, this would have already been interpreted as a "votive temple", and a corresponding reservation would have appeared in Paterik's message. Consequently, both temples mentioned in the Patericon were built during the time of Monomakh. And in this era, both in Kyiv and in Suzdal, construction was carried out either from plinth, or in a mixed technique from plinth with interlayers of stone (“ opus mixtum”), in which, as shown by all the ongoing archaeological research, the first Suzdal temple was built.

Thirdly, the dates of the birth of Yuri Dolgoruky (early-mid 1090s), the beginning of Yuri's reign in Suzdal (the range of dates proposed by researchers is from 1096 19 to 1113 20) and the first Suzdal cathedral (no later than 1125) are very arbitrary. The scatter of all the indicated dates is so great that we have the right to believe that during the construction of the Suzdal Cathedral, Yuri Dolgoruky could have been both the prince of Suzdal land and a fully grown man capable of independently acting as a temple warden.

Fourthly, the historical fate of the first years (perhaps even the first decades) of the Suzdal reign of Yuri Dolgoruky was inseparable from the historical fate of his father’s reign, therefore, along with Dolgoruky as a church patron, sources could also refer to Monomakh as the Grand Duke (if the cathedral was built during the Kiev reign of Vladimir Vsevolodovich) or as the authoritative father of a young son (if the cathedral was built earlier);

Fifthly, it is likely that during the life of Monomakh, the Suzdal prince Yuri Vladimirovich had neither political nor financial independence, and in relation to the construction of temples he was only formally a ktitor, but in fact only carried out the will of Vladimir Vsevolodovich.

Thus, the Patericon refers to the Rostov and Suzdal cathedrals built in the time of Monomakh. From a historical point of view, the most just position is the recognition of both Monomakh and Dolgoruky by the ktitors of the Suzdal temple, i.e. the mention in the corresponding annalistic sources of both princes is absolutely legitimate.

Let us summarize our study of ancient Russian documentary sources that speak directly about the construction of the Suzdal Cathedral.

We have shown that the messages of the Laurentian Chronicle and the Patericon have no internal contradictions and do not contradict each other or the results of all the archaeological research that has been carried out. Therefore, according to the indicated documentary sources, the first Suzdal cathedral was erected no later than 1125, the second - in 1222-1225. The patrons of the first temple were Vladimir Monomakh and Yuri Dolgoruky, the second - Yuri Vsevolodovich 21 .

There is no mention of any "intermediate" construction in these sources, moreover, the Laurentian Chronicle excludes the possibility of such construction.

2.

Under the year 1148, the Novgorod First Chronicle reports: “Go Nifont to judge the peace by dividing to Gyurgevi, and welcome and with love Gyurgi, and the Church of the Holy Mother of God with great sanctification, and Novtarzhtse straighten everything, and the guest is all whole, and the ambassador with cestius Novgorod, n will not give peace "22.

Doesn't this message (albeit not directly, but indirectly) say that in 1148 a new cathedral was built in Suzdal, which was consecrated by the Novgorod bishop?

This position was held by A.D. Varganov, G.K. Wagner and V.M. Anisimov 23 . G.K. Wagner and V.M. Anisimov in their studies reproduced most of the arguments of A.D. Varganov in favor of building a new cathedral in 1148, therefore, for simplicity, we will combine the author's positions of all these researchers.

Let us list all the arguments put forward in favor of the existence of a hypothetical cathedral of 1148.

1. As we have already noted, A.D. Varganov, G.K. Wagner and V.M. Anisimov believed that the Novgorod First Chronicle reports that Nifont consecrated a new cathedral in 1148, built on the site of the first temple.

2. Inside the southern vestibule of the existing temple, at a depth of 82.5 cm, the research of 1937-1940 found the remains of a floor made of small limestone slabs. This floor was above the floor of the first church and below the second (the burial of Prince Svyatoslav Yuryevich, who died in 1174, was found in its level), and these researchers attributed it to the alleged church of 1148.

3. The vestibules of the existing cathedral are “attached” to it (they do not have masonry dressing), the level of the basement of the southern narthex is lower than the level of the basement of the temple, and the top of the southern narthex cuts into arcature-columnar belt. This allowed these researchers to assert that the vestibules were erected in 1148, that is, they belonged to a hypothetical temple dating from that year. In support of this position, a chronicle message was cited, confirming the presence of narthexes at the cathedral at the end XII century: in 1194, during repairs, the temple was covered with "tin from the top to the mosquitoes and to the vestibules" 24 .

4. Under the portal of the northern narthex of the existing temple, the research of 1937-1940 discovered the remains of the previous portal (quite simple, consisting of only two ledges) and a basement tide. Ease of execution, these fragments are similar to the corresponding architectural details. Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky and the Church of Boris and Gleb in Kideksha, and these researchers believed that these details belonged to the vestibules of a hypothetical temple of 1148, and under Yuri Vsevolodovich, the vestibules received new portals and a new plinth.

5. Between the stratigraphic layers of the construction of the temple of the times of Monomakh and the cathedral of 1222–1225, there was a layer of poured soil. These researchers attributed it to the construction of the proposed cathedral in 1148.

6. Quantity rough tuff-like limestone (in historical and architectural usage, not quite rightly called tuff 25) in the facing of the first tier of the existing temple is very large - according to V.M. Anisimov, about 40% (Fig. 3). Tuff-like limestone is the primary lining of the lower part of the cathedral, and fragments of smooth-hewn white stone masonry are traces of repairs, which is confirmed by the following data:

– according to studies in 1998, masonry of tuff-like limestone is made on pink lime and cement mortar, and white stone masonry - on a light mortar with the addition of white stone chips;

- according to the archaeological research of 1994-1996, the walls were packed with lime mortar with the addition of opium, i.e. this solution is closer to the solution on which the masonry is made of tuff-like limestone;

In connection with the primacy of facing from tuff-like limestone, A.D. Varganov, G.K. Wagner and V.M. Anisimov believed that the lower part of the existing temple was built from such limestone in 1148, and the top in 1222-1225 was rebuilt in smooth-hewn white stone (and then in XVI century was rebuilt again, already in brick). Accordingly, in their opinion, the surviving foundation and the lower parts of the walls do not belong to the cathedral of 1222-1225, but to the alleged temple of 1148.

Rice. 3. Facing the walls of the Suzdal Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin.

7. These researchers drew attention to the fact that profiled portals and arcature-columnar the belts of the existing cathedral (Fig. 4) are “cut” into the tuff-like limestone lining, and it was believed that these architectural details appeared on the hypothetical temple of 1148 later (in 1222-1225).

Rice. 4. Arcature-columnar belt of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin.

8. A.D. Varganov, G.K. Wagner and V.M. Anisimov saw the following logical path for the development of construction equipment in the Suzdal land: the Monomakh era - plinth and cobblestone, 1148 - tuff-like limestone, from 1152 - smooth-hewn white stone. Otherwise, in their opinion, the lining of the cathedral with tuff-like limestone at the beginning XIII century would mean a regression of building technology.

Thus, these researchers believed that the hypothetical cathedral of 1148 was six-pillared, three-apsed, three-fortressed, lined with tuff-like limestone. This cathedral, in their opinion, was "transitional" from the technique " opus mixtum» from the time of Monomakh to the smooth-hewn white-stone technique, in which they began to build in 1152. In 1222-1225, the top of the alleged temple of 1148 to arcature-columnar the belt inclusive was shifted, while its lower part has mainly survived to this day (note that if the position of these researchers was accepted, it would be necessary to change the base dating of the existing cathedral from 1222–1225 to 1148).

Asserting that the temple of 1148 existed, these researchers inevitably faced the problem of interpreting the messages of the Laurentian Chronicle and the Paterik considered by us in paragraph 1. With regard to the latter, they believed that, since the date of construction was not indicated in the Patericon, it was the construction by Yuri Dolgoruky not of the first Suzdal temple (of the time of Monomakh), but of a hypothetical cathedral of 1148. The message of the Laurentian Chronicle under 1222, unequivocally denying the existence of any "intermediate" cathedral in Suzdal, these researchers were forced to consider erroneous and ignored.

3.

In order to understand whether the message of the Laurentian Chronicle under 1222 can be disavowed, we must consider all the arguments indicated in paragraph 2 in favor of the existence of a hypothetical temple of 1148. In the event that at least one of them is indisputable and irrefutable, we will also be forced to recognize the annalistic report as erroneous and believe that in 1148 Yuri Dolgoruky built a new cathedral in Suzdal.

But first of all, we note that it will be necessary to disavow the message not only of the Laurentian Chronicle, but also of the Paterik - in the part where it is said that Dolgoruky built the Suzdal temple "in measure" of the Caves. As we saw in paragraph 1, this "measure" corresponds to the foundation only of the temple of Monomakh's time.

Naturally, a priori critical attitude to priceless documentary information began to XIII century is unacceptable, and it will be possible to consider the messages of the Laurentian Chronicle and Paterik as erroneous only if exceptionally reliable and significant counterarguments that do not generate none doubt. Let's see if any of the arguments listed in paragraph 2 of A.D. Varganova, G.K. Wagner and V.M. Anisimov claim such exceptional significance and reliability.

And we will start with the first argument - the message of the Novgorod First Chronicle that Nifont in 1148 carried out the "great consecration" of the Suzdal temple.

The consecration of temples was carried out (and is carried out in our time) not only at the completion of their construction or restructuring. Temples could be consecrated as often as desired and for a variety of reasons. For example, “great sanctification” was supposed to be done after “pagan violence” (in particular, after a robbery by the Bulgarians or Polovtsy) or if blood was shed in the temple, and “small” - if the temple was “defiled with impurity” (in particular, if an “unclean animal”, for example, a dog, got inside). For us, in this case, the most important thing is that the “great sanctification” was and is obligatory in the event that the throne was moved in the temple for some reason 26 .

And here we can immediately consider the second argument cited in paragraph 2 - the remains of a floor discovered by archaeological research in 1937-1940, dated between the dates of the temple of the times of Monomakh and the existing cathedral. N.N. Voronin, who denied the existence of the temple of 1148, absolutely rightly believed that this year the first temple was renovated, during which the floor level was raised 27 .

When raising the level of the floor, it was impossible not to move the throne. Accordingly, the “great sanctification” after the repair of 1148 was obligatory, and it is about him, most likely, that the message of the Novgorod First Chronicle 28 speaks.

The third and fourth arguments in favor of the existence of the hypothetical cathedral of 1148 were related to the vestibules. Let's briefly recap the issues:

- in 1194, according to the chronicle, there were vestibules near the temple;

– the existing vestibules are not connected with the temple, the southern vestibule overlaps arcature-columnar belt;

– under the portal of the existing northern porch, the remains of the previous portal and plinth were found.

Acceptance of the version about the existence of the cathedral of 1148 does not solve these problems, since if we believe that the vestibules of this hypothetical cathedral belong to the remains of the portal and the plinth under the existing vestibule, then we are forced to consider the existing vestibules to belong not to the alleged cathedral of 1148, but to the temple of 1222-1225, and the question remains why the existing vestibules are not tied up with the temple. If we assume that the existing vestibules belonged to the hypothetical cathedral of 1148, then it remains unclear to which temple the remains of the portal and plinth belonged.

N.N. Voronin believed that the existing vestibules were not connected with the temple for two reasons:

- the vestibules and the temple had different perspectives of precipitation;

- such was the sequence of erection of the various parts of the cathedral 29 .

At the same time, the researcher, who denied the existence of the temple of 1148, was forced to consider the presence of the remains of the portal and the plinth under the existing vestibules as "mysterious" 30 . However, as we have just shown, even the recognition of the existence of this hypothetical cathedral would not provide a satisfactory solution to this problem.

Consistent answers to these questions are provided by the understanding of the most important fact: in 1222-1225, the plans of the ktitor, clergymen and builders changed several times during the construction implementation of project 31:

1. Initially, the Cathedral of Yuri Vsevolodovich was designed as a three-porch. The foundation of this cathedral was placed on top of the foundation of the first temple, and to ensure the necessary stability, it was necessary to raise it above the floor level of 1148 and fill it with soil, creating a small artificial hill, which was shown by archaeological research in 1994-2001. And the floor level of the vestibules was planned at a lower level - at the level of the floor raised during the repair in 1148. The portals and plinths of the vestibules had to be quite simple (portals - in the form of simple ledges, the plinth - in the form of a simple ebb).

2. Having erected the southern and northern vestibules to the level of the basement, they were abandoned - perhaps they decided that the cathedral would look more solid without them. Accordingly, at the completion of construction in 1225, it had only the western vestibule (the masonry of the latter was tied with the masonry of the temple).

3. A few years later, the vestibules, very useful in order to expand and insulate the temple, were nevertheless erected (perhaps at different times, since the southern one differs significantly from the northern one). These vestibules were placed on the remains of the previous ones (unfinished), and the level of their floor turned out to be at the level of the floor of the cathedral.

Note that during construction, as N.N. Voronin 32, at some point, the plan for the altar part of the cathedral also changed, and the builders had to build new apses (their masonry was also not tied up with the masonry of the cathedral).

This position clarifies the questions why there are remains of the previous portals under the existing portals, and why the existing vestibules are not connected with the temple and overlap arcature-columnar belt. Consequently, both the existing vestibules and the remains of the portal and the plinth under them belong not to the hypothetical temple of 1148, but to the cathedral of 1222-1225.

But the question remains open: what vestibules are mentioned in the annalistic report under 1194?

Archaeological research has not yet given an unequivocal answer to the question of whether the Cathedral of Monomakh's time had vestibules 33 . But even if we assume that the "capital" (built in the technique of " opus mixtum”) there were no vestibules, then the annalistic mention of them under 1194 has the following explanation: it was about wooden vestibules (archaeological studies with such complex stratigraphy are practically unable to detect their remains). Over the years that have passed since the construction of the first cathedral, it could not help but acquire a considerable number of "utilitarian" wooden outbuildings, and among them there could be vestibules. It is absolutely not necessary that these buildings spoiled the appearance of the temple: they could be plastered, lined "under squares", whitewashed, and even decorated with carvings 34 .

As for the layer of poured soil between the stratigraphic layers of the construction of the temple of the times of Monomakh and the cathedral of 1222–1225 (the fifth argument in favor of the existence of a hypothetical temple of 1148), we have already given an explanation for this fact above: archaeological studies of 1994–2001 showed that the foundation of the existing temple was placed on top of the foundation of the cathedral of the times of Monomakh, and in order to ensure the necessary stability, the second foundation had to be raised and poured with soil, creating a small artificial hill.

Let's move on to the noted abundance of tuff-like limestone in the surviving parts of the cathedral and the primacy of such stone in relation to smooth-hewn masonry fragments (see Fig. 3). Based on these data, these researchers believed that the hypothetical cathedral of 1148 was built of tuff-like limestone, and the profiled and ornamented white stone details belong to the temple of 1222-1225 (this, as we remember, was the sixth argument in favor of the existence of the alleged cathedral of 1148).

But we can draw a fundamentally different conclusion based on the same architectural and archaeological data: tuff-like limestone was faced not with a hypothetical temple of 1148, but with the cathedral of Yuri Vsevolodovich. Profiled and ornamented white stone details also belonged to the cathedral from 1222–1225. Thus, the temple built by Yuri Vsevolodovich had a unique appearance: its rough tuff-like cladding was combined with richly ornamented decor made of high-quality white stone.

The seventh argument of A.D. Varganova, G.K. Wagner and V.M. Anisimov - "insertion" of portals and arcature-columnar belts in the facing of tuff-like limestone - cannot testify to the difference in time between the profiled parts and the facing, since the complex (and even more so covered with very fine carvings - see Fig. 4) details of the architectural decoration in the vast majority of ancient Russian churches were hewn separately, and then inserted into the masonry. Otherwise, the process of rejecting poor-quality hewn parts would be much more complicated (they would have to be removed from the masonry).

But was there such an unprecedented architectural solution - the combination in the cathedral of 1222-1225 of tuff-like limestone facing with profiled and ornamented details of white stone - for starters XIII centuries by regression, as A.D. Varganov, G.K. Wagner and V.M. Anisimov (see the eighth argument of these researchers in paragraph 2)?

In no case. On the contrary, this solution combined two most important qualities: economy and aesthetics.

Roughly processed tuff-like limestone was much cheaper than smooth-hewn white stone. This fully reflects the desire of the builders of the cathedral to maximize cost savings. In turn, this desire is confirmed by the fact that the walls of the cathedral of 1222–1225 were largely filled with rubble of the first cathedral (and sometimes, as studies of 1994–2001 showed, fragments of the walls of the first temple were used entirely instead of backfilling). It is also very significant that the builders did not completely cover the cathedral wall with tuff-like limestone, which was covered by the western vestibule, but used fragments of brickwork from the time of Monomakh and, probably, a plinth of their own manufacture 35 (as N.N.Voronin, such savings were due to the fact that this section of the wall was intended for plastering and painting anyway 36).

Most likely, the need to save money was caused by the turbulent political situation (in 1216, the infamous Battle of Lipitsa took place, Yuri Vsevolodovich again became the Grand Duke only in 1218 and hardly had time to fully establish himself on the Vladimir table by 1222) and numerous military campaigns against the Volga Bulgaria and Novgorod. As you know, war is the worst enemy of architecture. Both because of the direct destructive impact on architectural monuments, and because of the inevitable economic complications 37 .

The aesthetics of such an architectural solution of the Suzdal Cathedral of 1222–1225 was due to the fact that the “sloppy” masonry of tuff-like limestone favorably set off richly ornamented profiled details made of high-quality white stone. In general, the temple looked exceptionally “smartly”.

It should be noted that this solution is a combination rough wall masonry with smoothly hewn profiled details of architectural decoration - became widespread in the first third XIV century, when, in a difficult economic situation during the Mongol yoke, the Church of the Conception of John the Baptist was erected in a similar technique on Gorodische in Kolomna, the St. Nicholas Church in the village of Kamenskoye, Naro-Fominsk District, Moscow Region (Fig. 5), the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin in the villageGorodny, Tver region, the first Assumption Cathedral in Moscow (the author's reconstruction is shown in Fig. 6) 38 and a number of other temples 39 .

Rice. 5. St. Nicholas Church in the village of Kamenskoye.

Rice. 6. Assumption Cathedral in Moscow (1326–1327). Author's reconstruction.

Let's summarize our research. None of the arguments put forward in favor of the existence of a hypothetical cathedral of 1148 is reliable enough to disavow the message of the Laurentian Chronicle under 1222, which unequivocally denies the construction of any "intermediate" temples between the cathedral of the times of Monomakh and the temple of 1222-1225. All architectural, archaeological and documentary data cited in favor of the existence of the alleged cathedral of 1148 can be attributed to two Suzdal temples named in the Laurentian Chronicle.

Accordingly, we must fully agree with the chronicler and believe that in 1148 the cathedral in Suzdal was not built.

Nevertheless, we note that a detailed analysis of the hypotheses associated with the never-existing temple of 1148 has significantly enriched our knowledge of the architectural history of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin in Suzdal. In particular, we were able to consistently resolve the issue of the original appearance of the cathedral of 1222-1225.

NOTES

1. PSRL 1:445.

2. PSRL 1:447.

3. Voronin N.N. Architecture of North-Eastern Rus' XII-XV centuries. T. 1. M., 1961. T. 2. M., 1962. T. 1, p. 27.

4. Patericon of the Kyiv Caves Monastery. St. Petersburg, 1911. S. 9.

5. This "classic" date, associated with the absence of the metropolitan at the congress of princes in Lyubech, is found in the vast majority of encyclopedias and reference books.

6. Voronin N.N. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 28.

7. In particular, Metropolitan Macarius (Metr. Macarius (Bulgakov). History of the Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1857–1883) and D.G.

8. In particular, E.E. Golubinsky thought so (Golubinsky E.E. History of the Russian Church. Vol. 1, part 1. M., 1901. Reprint ed.: M., 1997. P. 287).

9. For example, E.E. Golubinsky considered the Pereyaslav Metropolitan Ephraim and the Bishop of Suzdal Ephraim E.E. Golubinsky (Golubinsky E.E. Decree. soch., p. 677).

10. PSRL 15:188.

11. Varganov A.D. To the history of Vladimir-Suzdal architecture. In the journal: "Soviet Museum", No. 2, 1938; Varganov A.D. On the architectural history of the Suzdal Cathedral. KSIIMK, no. 11, 1945, pp. 99-101; Varganov A.D. New data on the architectural history of the Suzdal Cathedral of the XI-XIII centuries. In book: SA, No. 4, 1960; Varganov A.D. History of one building. In the book: About the native land: people, history, life, nature of the land of Vladimir. Yaroslavl, 1978. S. 21.

12. Anisimov V.M. History and architecture of the ancient Suzdal Kremlin Cathedral. Vladimir, 2001. S. 20.

13. Ioannisyan O.M., Zykov P.L., Torshin E.N. Works of the architectural and archaeological expedition in 1996. In: State Hermitage. Reporting archaeological session for 1996. St. Petersburg, 1997. S. 57-60; Zykov P.L. On the issue of the reconstruction of the Suzdal Cathedral of the late XI - early XII century. In: Medieval Architecture and Monumental Art. Rappoport reading. Abstracts of reports. St. Petersburg, 1999; Glazov V.P., Zykov P.L., Ioannisyan O.M. Architectural and archaeological research in the Vladimir region. In the book: Archaeological discoveries of 2001. M., 2002.

14. Anisimov V.M., Bachurina T.O. Some data of complex studies of the Suzdal Cathedral. In the journal: Restorer, No. 1 (8), 2004. P. 112.

16. Zykov P.L. Decree. op.

17. V.M. Anisimov, commenting on the above message of Paterik, believed that it was about the fact that Monomakh built a church not in Rostov, but in the "Rostov Land", i.e. in Suzdal (Anisimov V.M. Decree. cit., p. 60). But Paterik's message unambiguously refers to " city Rostov”, and such a free interpretation by V.M. Anisimov is invalid. Doubts V.M. Anisimov, based on the absence of a stone church in Rostov during the time of Monomakh, cannot disavow the message of the Paterik, since not only a stone, but also a wooden church could be built “in moderation” of the Caves Cathedral, the remains of which were discovered by archaeological research in 1992 (Leontiev A.V. Ancient Rostov and the Assumption Cathedral in archaeological research in 1992 (preliminary report). Website http:// zvon. yaroslavl. en).

18. According to P.L. Zykov (Zykov P.L., op. cit.), the dimensions of the Cathedral of the Caves Monastery and the Suzdal Cathedral of the times of Monomakh correlate as follows: length - 35.6 m versus 31–35 m, width – 24.2 m versus 23.5 m, side of the dome square – 8.62 m versus 8.5–8.6 m. Only the wall thickness differs significantly (1.3 m versus 1.7 m).

19. Limonov Yu.A. Vladimir-Suzdal Rus. Essays on socio-political history. L., 1987. S. 20.

20. This "classic" date is found in the vast majority of encyclopedias and reference books.

21. N.N. Voronin (Voronin N.N. op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 27-31, 64-66; vol. 2, p. 19). The only significant difference between the position of the researcher and our position was the non-recognition of Yuri Dolgoruky as the church warden - N.N. Voronin believed that only Monomakh was a ktitor (N.N. Voronin, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 27).

22. PSRL 3:107.

23. Varganov A.D. Decree. op.; Wagner G.K. White stone carving of ancient Suzdal. Cathedral of the Nativity. XIII century. M., 1975; Anisimov V.M. Decree. op.; Anisimov V.M., Bachurina T.O. Decree. op.

24. PSRL 1:411.

25. Strictly speaking, in the Suzdal Cathedral, as in a number of other architectural monuments of the pre-Mongolian Suzdal land, not tuff was used, but low-quality limestone, originating from younger deposits than white stone. Tufa in its classical sense is not limestone (tuff was deposited at the bottom of ancient rivers or was a product of ancient volcanic activity, and limestone, including white stone, is a product of bottom sediments of ancient seas). But since the low-quality limestone used in ancient Russian churches, with its porosity and grayish tint, outwardly resembles tuff, in historical and architectural use it was given just such a name - simpler, but introducing a certain ambiguity.

26. Christianity. Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1995. T. 2, p. 258. V.M. Anisimov cited terms from the practice of clergy (“great consecration” - at the completion of the construction of the temple, “consecration” - during repairs, “consecration” - when an animal enters the altar - Anisimov V.M., op. from v., p. 65), but these terms, especially “ consecration”, are modern professional slang and could not be used by a chronicler of the XII century. In interpreting the various degrees of consecration by the Novgorod First Chronicle, one should adhere to the canonical position of the Russian Orthodox Church, indicated in the specified encyclopedic dictionary "Christianity".

27. Voronin N.N. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 66.

28. V.M. Anisimov believed that the Suzdal Cathedral under Monomakh was dedicated to the Assumption of the Virgin and was renamed the Nativity Cathedral when consecrated by Nifont in 1148 (Anisimov V.M. Decree. Cit., p. 65). However, this position of V.M. Anisimov is not founded.

29. Voronin N.N. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 66

30. Ibid.

31. Note that a similar situation took place during the construction of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl (see: Zagraevsky S.V. On the issue of reconstruction and dating of the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl. M., 2006. The article is on the Internet site www. zagraevsky.com).

32. Voronin N.N. Decree. cit., vol. 2, p. 22.

33. Dec. op. P.L. Zykov, on the reconstruction of the combined plans of two Suzdal cathedrals (Fig. 2), the vestibules are not shown. V.M. Anisimov and T.O. Bachurin in their decree. op. denied the presence of vestibules in the first Suzdal temple. However, in the Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-Reserve there is a reconstruction of P.L. Zykov Cathedral of the times of Monomakh, which depicts the vestibules. O.M. Ioannisyan in 2007 informed the author that the existence of the vestibules at the first cathedral was established very recently by traces on the remains of the masonry of the cathedral.

34. An example of such a “capital” wooden extension is the stair tower that existed in antiquity. Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral of Pereslavl-Zalessky: in the upper part of the western section of the northern wall of the temple, a doorway was preserved, but archaeological research did not reveal any remains of the foundations of a stone tower under it (Ioannisyan O.M. Research in Yaroslavl and Pereslavl-Zalessky. In the book: Archaeological discoveries of 1986. M., 1988).

35. A temple made of white stone was more than ten times more expensive than a similar temple made of plinths (for the calculation of the laboriousness of building a temple, see the book: Zagraevsky S.V. Yuri Dolgoruky and Old Russian white stone architecture. M., 2002. S. 141-143). Basically, such a huge difference took place due to transportation. Tuff-like limestone, even if it came from the upper layers of quarries, still had to be transported from afar (for the regions of limestone mining in Ancient Rus', see: Zagraevsky S.V. Organization of extraction and processing of white stone in Ancient Rus'. M., 2006. The article is on the Internet site www. zagraevsky.com). Consequently, plinth was cheaper than not only white stone, but also low-quality tuff-like limestone.

36. Voronin N.N. Decree. cit., vol. 2, p. 24.

37. We note that the plinth temple construction of Konstantin Vsevolodovich in Rostov and Yaroslavl, which immediately preceded the Suzdal construction of Yuri Vsevolodovich, was most likely caused by the need to save money. It is significant that Konstantin was unable to complete the restoration of the Rostov Assumption Cathedral that collapsed in 1204 using white stone technology, while Yuri succeeded much later - only in 1231.

38. Here it is necessary to make one essential reservation concerning the form of the dome of the temple. At present, on and on the Vladimir Dmitrievsky Cathedral, and on the Vladimir Assumption Cathedral, and on most of the "paper" and natural reconstructions of temples of the XII-XVI centuries), we see helmet-shaped domes (helmet-shaped domes are usually understood as a specific form of dome coverings with a keeled top, close to the shape of an ancient Russian helmet; in order to create a helmet-shaped structure, it is necessary either to arrange a wooden or a metal frame, or to impose a dome with a brick in the shape of a helmet, and, thus, the helmet-shaped dome differs significantly from the simplest dome covering with roofing material directly along the vault).

But in accordance with the latest data on the forms of domes (dome coverings) of ancient Russian churches (for more details, see: Zagraevsky S.V. Forms of domes (dome coverings) of ancient Russian temples. M., 2008), the domes of pre-Mongolian church buildings of Ancient Rus' had the simplest dome coverings of the “Byzantine” type with small crosses. Such coatings were preserved on churches until the end of the 13th century, when onion domes began to be erected en masse (in particular, at the Assumption Cathedral in Moscow in 1326–1327, there probably already was an onion dome, which was reflected in our reconstruction). Helmet-shaped domes appeared only in the 17th century as "antique stylization" - as a cross between onion domes and the simplest dome covers.

39. For more details about these temples, see: Zagraevsky S.V. Architecture of North-Eastern Rus' of the late XIII - the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003.

All materials posted on the site are protected by copyright.

© S.V. Zagraevsky