The Significance Of The Kremlin Buildings Of The First Romanovs In The History Of The Origin Of The Hipped-roof Bell Towers Of The 17th Century. Yu.V. Tarabarina

The Significance Of The Kremlin Buildings Of The First Romanovs In The History Of The Origin Of The Hipped-roof Bell Towers Of The 17th Century. Yu.V. Tarabarina
The Significance Of The Kremlin Buildings Of The First Romanovs In The History Of The Origin Of The Hipped-roof Bell Towers Of The 17th Century. Yu.V. Tarabarina

Video: The Significance Of The Kremlin Buildings Of The First Romanovs In The History Of The Origin Of The Hipped-roof Bell Towers Of The 17th Century. Yu.V. Tarabarina

Отличия серверных жестких дисков от десктопных
Video: The Palace of the Soviets - A brief History 2023, February
Anonim

Hipped bell towers are one of the characteristic and very recognizable elements of Russian architecture of the 17th century, but the history of the emergence of this typology remains practically unexplored. The only version that existed in Soviet publications presented it as a "deeply national", "original" form, which goes back to hypothetical wooden tents through the probable medium of stone hipped-roof temples of the 16th century, the wedding form of which was considered "transferred" to the bell towers in the process of self-development of Russian architecture …

Over the past decades, the theory of the origin of stone hipped-roofed churches from wooden ones has been subjected to extensive and well-grounded criticism - however, new, free from the "theory of originality" judgments about the history of the typology of hipped-roofed bell towers were expressed only recently - I.L. Buseva-Davydova, V.V. Sedov and the author of this message. Irina Leonidovna owns a hypothesis about the origin of hipped-roof bell towers of the 17th century. from the Kremlin Filaretova extension; Vl. V. Sedov named as their direct prototypes the whole range of late Gothic tents built in Moscow, built by foreign masters who worked on the arrangement of the Kremlin residence of Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov in the 1920s. XVII century, namely - the Filaretov annex, the superstructure of the Spasskaya Tower and the Terem Palace. This means that the leading role in the emergence of tent-roofed bell towers, as before, in the 16th century - tent-roofed temples, is played by Western European prototypes.

The named version, being expressed in passing, was not considered and substantiated in detail, and the process of mastering a new Western European form in Russian architecture was not traced, which it seems possible to illuminate more accurately, supplementing with new hypotheses and additional motivation, which needs to be done to form more accurate ideas about the formation of the architectural features of the Moscow state of the 17th century.

As shown in the book by A.L. Batalov, in the architecture of the end of the 16th century, in contrast to the first half and middle of the century, pillar-like temples “like the bells” are rare (the only church of this type that has come down to us at the end of the 16th century is the bell tower of the Boldin Monastery).

One of the last time the construction of the Grozny pillar-like church was the temple, rebuilt in Alexandrova Sloboda during the oprichnina from an earlier structure. Here, for the first time, a tent appears for the bell tower, but this invention did not receive any development over the next half century. The tent-roofed church-bell tower of Alexandrova Sloboda has evoked not a single imitation known to modern historians. Note also that its forms differed from those popular in the 17th century: the edges of the tent had no rumors (those that we see now, as V.V.Kavelmakher managed to find out, appeared in the 18th century) and relied on a horizontal cornice rod. Thus, if the bell tower of the Alexandrova Sloboda can be called the prototype of the later hipped-roof bell towers, then it is distant.

In Godunov's time, belfries of the wall-like and "ward" type prevail, then they received some continuation after the Troubles in the architecture of the 1620s, somewhat transforming - the theme of a free-standing belfry-wall disappears, and the "ward" belfries reduce the width and increase the height, acquiring a similarity with towers. The exact shape of the wedding of such towers is not known, most likely - a four-pitched wooden roof. There are few such examples and they do not receive a tangible continuation later.

At the same time, in the 20s. XVII century the first hipped-roof bell towers appeared, associated with the work of foreign masters invited to the court of Mikhail Fedorovich.

The first argument in favor of the fact that the appearance of the typology of hipped-roof bell towers was inspired by the work of foreigners is obvious: a visiting master built the first documented bell tower of the 17th century, the existence of a hipped-roof end of which is reliably known, although the original building has not survived. We are talking about the tower, added by John Thaler to the Resurrection Church on the Cathedral Square of the Kremlin, and known as the Filaretova Annex.

The documents confirming the authorship of John Thaler were recently studied by I.L. Buseva-Davydova, who was able to finally confirm the information that existed in the literature earlier without reference to the source. I.L. She also suggested for the first time that it was the Filaretov extension that became the prototype of the later hipped-roof bell towers of the 17th century.

This bell tower, destroyed by the Napoleonic explosion, was soon rebuilt according to the project of Gilardi, but several images survived (in particular, the 1805 lithograph by Hoppe from the Historical Museum). The bell tower was a rectangular tower, in the third tier of which there was a large bell arch, crowned with an octagonal tent with large lucarnes placed on the cornice of the tent base, and forming, together with four pinnacle turrets, a decorative "crown" that hides the base of the tent by almost a third of it heights. As far as can be judged from the images, Manneristic and early Baroque elements predominated in the decoration of the bell tower, the most noticeable and reliable of which must be recognized as the rusticated corners of the tower, which are present in all the images, as well as in the existing reconstruction of Gilardi. With less certainty, we can speak of triangular pediments crowning the lucarnes, pilasters that decorate pinnacles, lucarnes and a large bell arch, with even less probability - a triglyph-metope frieze, shown by a hint between the first and second tiers of the tower. In European architecture, these elements of the late Renaissance tradition by the beginning of the 17th century. were very familiar, so we must admit the likelihood of their use on the facades of the bell tower of John Thaler.

The structure and volumetric composition of the building, on the contrary, largely belong to the Gothic: first of all, it is a combination of a crowning octahedral tent with four turrets at the corners.

The combination of the Gothic construction of volumes and the Renaissance decoration, figuratively speaking, the presentation of a medieval theme by means of the Mannerist order was widespread in all European countries north of Italy until the beginning of the 17th century, this is one of the great themes of the architecture of the early modern period. One of the textbook and most striking examples of the trend represented in Moscow by the Filaretova extension is the Parisian church Saint-Eustache (1532-1640). Thus, with the works of John Thaler in Moscow, an example of the fashionable in the trans-Alpine countries in the 16th century arose. architectural direction. The leadership in the study of the ways of perception of this variant of European influences in Russia belongs to A.A. Aronova, who formulated the concept of "Mikhail Fedorovich's order".

There are many reasons for the likely attention of contemporaries to the architectural forms of the Philaret Bell Tower; they can be divided into three groups: artistic, sacred and political.

It could become an object for reproduction only as the work of a visiting architect in a country ravaged by war and having lost its own skilled architects.

However, the addition to the Belfry of the Assumption Cathedral ensemble is also included in the complex of works on the restoration of the main shrine of the country after the Time of Troubles (at the same time, in 1624, the same masters rearranged the vaults of the cathedral). The new bell tower of the main cathedral of the country, built for Boris Godunov's "Tsar Bell", in fact - the main belfry of the Kremlin, could not but become an object of imitation.

The construction of the Filaret annex, in addition to the church one, also has a clearly expressed political meaning, clearly illustrating the position of the Romanovs in relation to the legacy of Boris Godunov, well known from the official documents of the beginning of the reign, where the formulas found under Godunov are carefully cited, while diligently suppressing his name. We see a literal illustration of this behavior in the history of the reconstruction of the ensemble of the Assumption Belfry. By the decree of Boris Feodorovich, the pillar of Ivan the Great received a superstructure and an inscription that "… the temple was perfect and gilded in the second summer …" of the reign of Tsar Boris and his son Theodor Borisovich. The Romanovs attach a belfry on the other side of the Resurrection Church, and put on it a similar inscription about the construction of a bell tower under Tsar Mikhail and his father Patriarch Filaret. The situation is mirrored; at the same time, Godunov's inscription is covered up, copying Godunov's behavior, but obliterating the very mention of him.

So, there is every reason to agree to I.L. Buseva-Davydova is that the Filaretov extension was to become the most important impetus for the development of Russian hipped-roof bell towers of the 17th century.

However, only one example of direct imitation of the Kremlin bell tower can be cited - and it appears surprisingly early, already five years after the erection of the John Thaler tower. Such an imitation was the bell tower built by the decree of the tsar and the patriarch in 1628-1629. in Nizhny Novgorod of the Archangel Cathedral, which repeats both the structural-compositional and decorative features of the bell tower of the English master: it is attached to the wall of the cathedral in the same way as the Moscow belfry - to the wall of the Resurrection Church, its rectangular ringing tier is cut through by large arches, one by one in each wall, it is crowned with an octahedral tent, and its corners are decorated with rustication, up to John Thaler in Russian architecture, apparently unknown.

It should be noted that Svyatoslav Leonidovich Agafonov, who restored the Nizhny Novgorod cathedral in the early 1960s, considered the upper part of the bell tower to be rebuilt in the 18th century, however, according to the texts of the restorer himself, one can conclude that this attribution is stylistic, the researchers simply did not imagine the possibility of appearance rusticated corners of the bell tower in architecture earlier than Peter's time. However, the discoveries made recently by Elena Grigorievna Odinets during the restoration of the Amusement Palace in the Moscow Kremlin prove that the rustic was known to Moscow masters at least as early as the middle of the 17th century. In our opinion, this form, beloved by Mannerism, was brought to Russian soil by John Thaler, and it is possible that it was repeated in the cathedral of Nizhny Novgorod, built by apprentices of stone crafts, who, despite their Nizhny Novgorod origin, were sent from Moscow in 1628. It is curious to note that in the 20s. we know not one, but two Vozoulins' apprentices, one of them, Lavrenty, built the Nizhny Novgorod cathedral, and Fyodor Vozoulin, apparently a relative of Lawrence, participated together with Bazhen Ogurtsov in the construction of the Mozhaisk fortress, to which John Thaler was also sent at the same time. The given example shows how close the cooperation of visiting craftsmen and apprentices of the Order, who were the first "audience" of the new wave of European innovations, was.

The resulting borrowing disappoints the connoisseur.combines literalism of quotation and noticeable simplification, rejection of the most complex elements; it is devoid of creative reinterpretation of forms and does not become the basis for the formation of a new typology - the Nizhny Novgorod branch of tent bell towers turns out to be a dead end - in addition to the cathedral bell tower, it is represented by a single monument - the bell tower of the Pechersky monastery, repeating the bell tower of the Archangel cathedral already without a direct glance at the Philaret belfry (rusta is already here no), and turns out to be the last in a short series of early imitations of the Kremlin bell tower.

The mid-century hipped bell tower shapes convince us that the Kremlin belfry was not the only prototype of this typology, beloved in the 17th century. Other monuments should have become the source of a significant part of the characteristic techniques known to us from the tent-roofed bell towers of the 17th century. Among the surviving buildings, only one claims this role - this is the upper part of the Spasskaya Tower of the Moscow Kremlin, presumably associated with the work of the "watchmaker" of the Englishman Christopher Galovey, built almost simultaneously with the Philaret Belfry, in 1624/25. and then corrected after the fire with the assistance of the same master. Documents related to the construction and the personality of Galovey have recently been studied by Jeremy Howard and I.L. Buseva-Davydova.

For our theme, the degree of identity of the architectural forms of the tower with the original is important. The main argument in favor of the preservation of the most characteristic features is the image of the 18th century, as well as the top of the Trinity Tower of the Kremlin - a copy of the Galoveev's superstructure, made at the end of the 17th century.

We see that the Spasskaya Tower, most likely, had a tent with edging on the ribs, resting on eight arches of bells (earlier tents rest on a straight cornice); the pillars of the ringing tier are decorated with double semi-columns. The most difficult question is about the originality of small windows on the sides of the tent, which can be both original and later.

What is the reason that the compositional solution of the ringing tier proposed by the superstructure of the Spasskaya Tower later gained more popularity than the forms of the new bell tower of the Assumption Cathedral? From the point of view of functional typology, the Filaretov extension is a much more logical example to follow, which is confirmed by its almost instantaneous perception in the construction of Lavrenty Vozoulin. Why, then, this line was not continued, while the other, embodied in a purely secular structure, became widespread? In my opinion, the answer lies in the practice of bell ringing: the eight-arch ringing tier turned out to be more convenient for placing many bells than the large arch of the Philaret bell tower, built for one large bell.

However, it is possible that there were other bell towers of the work of foreigners that have not come down to us. In our opinion, one of them was the tent-roofed church "like the bells" of Savva the Sanctified, built in the Novospassky monastery in 1622 and dismantled in the second half of the 18th century. We know only one, very generalized image of this temple on the engraving of Picard N. XVIII century and also - her description of the 1650s. from the fodder book of the monastery, which is the most informative source.

“The Great Sovereign, His Holiness Patriarch Filaret Nikitich, arranged a tent-roofed bell tower with his State Patriarch's treasury, and in the corners from the middle belt the pillars are round thick, but on the same bell tower he deigned the Great Sovereign to build a battle clock, a battle bell, and two pedestrian bells, and about of the same bell tower under the upper belt is circled on a sheet of white iron, and it is signed on it … "then the book quotes the text of the inscription on the completion of the temple in 1622, and reports that" all supplies for the bell structure at a price went out and the masons were given for the cause only three thousand rubles "- a large sum for those times.

The memory of Savva the Sanctified is associated with the release of Filaret from Polish captivity: on December 1, an agreement was made with the Poles about the exchange of prisoners, and Filaret, who was in Warsaw, could receive news of this on December 5, the day of remembrance of Savva the Sanctified. Returning, the patriarch builds in memory of this a church-bell tower in the Novospassky monastery - the ancestral burial vault of the Romanov boyars.

We are most convinced of the likelihood of the participation of a foreign master - the mention of “pillars of round strata” located in the corners “from the middle belt”. I am convinced that we are talking here about four pinnacles, similar to those known to us from the Filaretova extension and the Spasskaya tower. Of course, the inscription can be interpreted differently, for example, assuming that the round pillars were the supports of the bell arches. Note, however, that the shape of the bell pillars could hardly have seemed so noticeable in the middle of the 17th century to be included in the supplementary book, in addition, the writer would hardly have said about the pillars carrying the arches that they are located in the corners. Another reconstruction option - with additional domes standing at the corners, should be rejected because the author of the middle of the 17th century. could not call church chapters pillars. This element could be included in the description only because of its exclusivity for a man of the XVII century. angular turrets did not take root in Russian architecture, then we can admit that the evidence of the attached book describes them.

The words of Pavel Aleppsky "… this bell tower is ancient, amazing in its architecture …" - they also convince us in the Gothic forms of the building, - probably, they became the reason for judging it as "ancient".

Thanks to archival research I.L. Buseva-Davydova, we know that Christopher Galovey was "taken to the tsar's business" in December 1620, and the "workman" Wilim Graf could have come to Moscow in 1615 with a group of "Anglin Germans". It is unknown when John Thaler arrived, his first dated work is the Filaret Belfry. To name the likely name of the master of the Church of Sava would be too bold a step, but one cannot fail to notice that by the time of construction Christopher Galovey and Vilim Graf were already in Moscow, and the fact that there was a clock on the church-bell tower, the master of which was Galovey, although his name in sources associated with the Church of Sava, and is not mentioned.

So, we have three hipped bell towers built in the 1920s. 17th century, about which it can be assumed that they were built by foreigners: the Church of Sava of the Consecrated Novospassky Monastery, the Filaretov extension and the top of the Spasskaya Tower of the Moscow Kremlin. A common feature of all three monuments is the combination of a tent with four pinnacles. This Gothic composition was widespread in European architecture, but in the 16th - early 17th centuries. she is especially beloved in the countries of Northern Europe and above all in England, which is consonant with the conclusions of A.A. Aronova on Northern European influence. It is impossible not to notice that all the mothers associated with architecture, whose names we know in the 20s. XVII century - these are English masters, therefore, one should look for buildings similar to those in Moscow, first of all in England, however, we emphasize that the distribution of the mentioned form is much wider, therefore, without trying to find the closest monument in terms of forms, I want to show a wide range of analogies. Here I would like to get away from the question of whether Christopher Galovey was a Scotsman or an Englishman: the fact that the selection of analogies shown belongs to unpreserved Scottish monuments, in this case, is not of fundamental importance.

The perception and adaptation of a hipped-roof bell tower in Russian architecture is a topic for a separate study. Apparently, it occurs in the sites of the mid-1630s. Here it is necessary to name the unpreserved bell tower of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery and the temples of Moscow Kitay-gorod: the Kazan Cathedral on Red Square, the Church of All Saints on Kulishki, the Trinity Church in Nikitniki. Unfortunately, the bell towers of the first two have not survived, and the dating of the Nikitnikovsky temple remains a subject of controversy.In this context, one cannot fail to mention the role of another prototype - the ensemble of the Kremlin Terem Palace, which influenced all three churches. There were no bell towers in the architecture of the palace, but at least two tents with lucarnes can be found in it - above the porch and above the staircase tower.

In conclusion, I must say a few words about the peculiarities of the adaptation of the Gothic typology of the hipped-roof bell tower in the architecture of the 17th century. A.L. Batalov on the example of architecture of the second half of the 16th century. formulated an important regularity of the process of adaptation of new influences by Russian architecture: "… the emergence of a new type … occurs as a result of an external impulse … its further existence occurs along the path of adaptation to local tradition and transformation in tune with the immanent development of Russian architecture …".

It is easy to see that the same pattern is observed during the adaptation of the Gothic hipped-roof bell tower in the architecture of the 17th century. - the familiar form of the tent takes root quickly and painlessly, as well as the elements that are functional or understood as such - eight arches of ringing, rumors of the tent. The least familiar and not functionally grounded angular pinnacles are discarded - a motive that for our contemporaries directly indicates the Gothic nature of typology. The reference to the Gothic samples becomes less clear and as a result, a typical Russian variation of the bell tower, topped with a tent, is formed.

zooming
zooming
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века. Ю.В. Тарабарина
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века. Ю.В. Тарабарина
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века. Ю.В. Тарабарина
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века. Ю.В. Тарабарина
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века. Ю.В. Тарабарина
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века. Ю.В. Тарабарина
zooming
zooming
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века. Ю.В. Тарабарина
Значение кремлевских построек первых Романовых в истории происхождения шатровых колоколен XVII века. Ю.В. Тарабарина
zooming
zooming

Popular by topic