Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky. To the question of reconstruction of Savior Cathedral in Andronikov Cloister / Sergei Zagraevski, Zagrajewski, Zagraewski, Zagraewsky, Sagrajewski, Zagraevskiy, סרגיי זגרייבסקי Scientific criticism of full-scale reconstruction of 1959-1961 of Saviour Cathedral in Andronikov cloister, is gived. The graphic reconstruction, more adequately reflecting the original shape of the completion of the temple, is offered.

Prof. Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky

To the question of reconstruction of Savior Cathedral in Andronikov Cloister

Published in Russian: Заграевский С.В. К вопросу о реконструкции Спасского собора Андроникова монастыря. Электронная публикация: электронная научная библиотека «РусАрх», 2007 г.

Annotation

Scientific criticism of full-scale reconstruction of 1959-1961 of Saviour Cathedral in Andronikov cloister, is gived. The graphic reconstruction, more adequately reflecting the original shape of the completion of the temple, is offered.

Attention!

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

and has not yet been edited.

So it can be used only for general introduction.

RUSSIAN VERSION

The Cathedral of the Saviour in Andronikov monastery was identified as a monument of the early Moscow architecture (the first third of the XV century) only in the beginning of XX century. Studies conducted in the early 1930-ies PN Maksimov, has allowed to make the initial experience of reconstruction of the temple¹ (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Reconstruction of the Saviour Cathedral (PN Maksimov)

In 1950-ies the experience of reconstruction of the Cathedral took Ognev BA² (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Reconstruction of the Saviour Cathedral (BA Ognev)

In 1959 in the UNESCO programme included a celebration of a hypothetical 600-year anniversary of Andrei Rublev. Taking advantage of this occasion, a group of authors MDTM (La David Altshuler, S. pod'yapol'skii, MD tsiperovich) managed to receive significant funding, which made full-scale reconstruction of the Cathedral. The results of these studies are reflected in scientific work, written much later³. Reconstruction of the Cathedral this team of researchers is shown in Fig. 3 and 4.

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of the Saviour Cathedral (La David, BL Altshuller and LSA)

Fig. 4. The Savior Cathedral. General view after the restoration of 1959-1961 years

This reconstruction was made on the basis of the analysis of the remaining parts of the Cathedral and a large number of the found fragments of architectural decoration, so in terms of reproduction of forms of the square and the architectural details of the claims to the researchers did not occur.

The General negative attitude is only used in a number of structural elements (arches, arches, sails, the inner surface of the drum) brick. Attempt researchers to justify the use of brick desire to visually identify the recovered items on the background of the remaining parts of the Cathedral ("to emphasize some of the arbitrariness of the created form"⁴) has no serious reason, as a significant part of the recovered fragments of the building still lined with grey Crimean limestone, very different from the original myachkovsky white stone and color, and the method of processing.

And it will be a pity if the use of brick (most likely, due to exceptional haste "disbursements" to the "jubilee" 1959-1961 years) will ever be a reason for plastering the interior of the Cathedral, together with precious fragments of the original masonry.

These complaints relate to the restoration works. With regard to the correctness of the reconstruction, here there are significant concerns regarding the form and dimensions of the Cathedral Chapter.

First of all, it is impossible not to notice the visual disparity Chapter and quadrangular. The head seems disproportionately narrow, elongated up and seemed to artificially set at the quadrangle.

This could be perceived visual illusion associated with high quadrangular large number archivolt keeled, but in parallel with this is the question and the number of corbel arches at the base of the drum. This question was first raised V. kavelmaherom⁵. Indeed, it is easy to see that ten of corbel arches under the drum does not correspond to the eight headdresses on the pedestal and the eight Windows of the drum, breaking the Central symmetry of the composition of the building.

L. David Altshuler and S. pod'yapol'skii invited as analog drum desyatiokonny Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius⁶but on the pedestal of the Trinity Cathedral just four innovative features, and the discrepancy between the axes of corbel arches and Windows almost imperceptibly. But the discrepancy between the axes of different tiers of kokoshniks Saviour Cathedral immediately catches the eye.

One kokoshnik, researchers were able to collect from the wreckage almost fully - known for its thickness (about 25 cm) and width (about 160 cm). But the question arises: why L. David Altshuler and S. pod'yapol'skii placed in the base of the drum is ten innovative features?

The researchers wrote about the fact that this amount was calculated on the basis of size of kokoshniks⁷. But the difference in angles of ten and twelve innovative features for the ancient construction equipment is negligible (in the first case, the angle between the corbel arches equal to 144 degrees, in the second case - 150 degrees).

Therefore, to understand the only surviving fragments, as kokoshniki was at the base of the drum, it is impossible. Apparently, in the years 1959-1961 took place the following order of payments: first was hypothetically, by analogy (as we will show later, is not quite correct) with other monuments of old Russian architecture⁸, defines the lower outer diameter of the drum (about 5,4 m), then on this basis calculated in circumference, and then it was estimated, as kokoshniki can be put in the basement.

So first of all we have to see whether a defined diameter of the drum, and why it is so striking discrepancy Chapter quadrangle.

The basic proportions of the remaining white-stone single-domed churches and pre-Vladimir-Suzdal Russia and three cathedrals, modern Spassky, - the Trinity in the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra of the Dormition "on the Town" in Zvenigorod and Bogoroditse-Rozhdestvensky in the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery is given in Appendix 1.

And first of all pay attention to the fact that the temples, modern Spassky Cathedral, according to the proportions of most closely matches the reconstruction Bagnava. Significantly differ only in the ratio of the height of the pedestal to the height of the drum (in this respect, the Cathedral of the Andronikov monastery is unique) and the attitude of the upper diameter of the drum to the width of the square, at the level toe zakomaras.

The latter difference is due to the fact that the walls of all three churches of the late XIV-early XV century, survived in one piece, pyramidal tilted inwards. Respectively (in the Trinity Cathedral of St. Sergius and "on the Town" - under the same corner) narrowed upward and their drums. The wall is the Savior Cathedral (except for the lower two thirds of the middle apse - Fig. 5) vertical, but despite this, Ognev BA provided narrowing drum up.

Fig. 5. The figure clearly shows that the slope of the middle apse of the Saviour Cathedral ends about two-thirds of its height.

Such position of the researcher is not sufficiently substantiated. The fact that the removal of a vertical stack to plumb and the construction inclined walls - two totally different construction methods. The second technology (construction inclined walls) is significantly more complex, requires much more skill craftsmen and forces in the process of building a "fetter" the temple of the formwork from the basement to the dome, both from outside and from the inside.

Pyramid slope walls of the square and the drum inside served two purposes: first, creating a sense of "Gothic" aspirations of the temple up, secondly, provided its high reliability (sloping walls to provide uniform load distribution⁹).

Architect, built Savior Cathedral Andronikov monastery, achieved similar results much more simple and economical way: in a strictly vertical walls to reduce the corner compartments. Last, first, has created a sense of reducing the mass of the building with a height (typical Western Gothic, modern temple); secondly, began to play the role of buttresses and significantly improved the reliability of the temple.

Therefore, spend enormous forces and facilities for the construction of a conical drum churchwarden and architect Saviour Cathedral was no longer necessary. On the contrary - the vertical wall of the drum, parallel special archivolt of the side walls of the arms of the cross, emphasized the "Gothic" dreams of building up.

In favor of this position is the fact that the middle apse inclined inside of the temple only two-thirds of the height, and then its wall smoothly into the vertical (see Fig. 5). Accordingly, the compositional and stylistic choice conditioned seen that all the walls (and, accordingly, the wall of the drum) apse above the average were also vertical.

Thus, the upper and lower diameter of the drum Saviour Cathedral, we take equal. But what size?

And there is a question which asked themselves the authors of the restoration of 1959-1961 years¹⁰: was there a drum on the inner ring of the pedestal, or was pushed from him?

In many single-domed temples of ancient North-Eastern Russia, about the nature of the completion of which we are aware, this indentation laying between the pedestal and the drum was present (Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Pereslavl, St. Nicholas Church in Kamenskoye, the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in Gorodnya, Staro-Nikolsky Cathedral in Mozhaisk, Trinity Cathedral in the Trinity-Sergius). The largest margin - 30 cm - took place in the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

The authors of the reconstruction of 1959-1961, wrote that "the main argument in favour of an internal diameter of the drum Saviour Cathedral is equal to the side of the omphalos was the philosophy of abstract methodological character on preferences, in the absence of undeniable data, follow the simplest geometrical pattern"¹¹.

But that the drum has no indent from the pedestal, is actually just seems simpler: in this case the craftsmen had to emulate the indentation with profiled overhanging walls in the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir and the assumption Cathedral "on the Town"). Apparently, avoiding this indentation was impossible¹².

And to clarify, had Saviour Cathedral place a margin drum from the pedestal or not, we will already mentioned corbel arches at the base of the drum.

L. David Altshuler and S. pod'yapol'skii, having calculated on the grounds of "abstract methodological character" drum diameter, approximately equal to 5,4 m, and placed in its Foundation ten kokoshniks, were forced to leave between the last significant distance (more than 10 cm), because otherwise the drum was even thinner, and between him and the pedestal'd have to do a conical transition, as in the temples of the end of XIII-the first third of the XIV century (the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in Gorodnya, St. Nicholas Church in Kamenskoye, Staro-Nikolsky Cathedral in Mozhaisk¹³).

It is clear that eight of corbel arches at the base of the drum Saviour Cathedral could not be: a drum would be even more subtle (or would have to significantly increase the distance between the kokoshniki). And if kokoshniki were twelve?

In this case, the external diameter of the drum was supposed to be about 6 m. In carried out in the years 1959-1961 reconstruction it was adopted for 5,4 m. Thus, the difference in 60 cm and gives a thirty-degree indentation of a laying from pedestal to the drum, which we see in the Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.

Twelve of corbel arches (just adjacent to each other, without ten gaps), which in this case we have around the drum, form with innovative features pedestal and drum Windows axial composition.

Consider the height of the drum Saviour Cathedral. From Annex 1 shows that the ratio of the height of the drum to the height of the rectangle in the reconstruction of David L., BL Altshuller and S. Podyapolsky greatly exaggerated and has no analogues in the old white-stone architecture. The height of the drum on PN Maksimov, on the contrary, seems low (similar to the ratio of the height of the drum and the height of the square we can see only in the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl, but there bushel more stretched upwards).

Therefore, the preferred sees height drum proposed BA Ognev, and we in our reconstruction of the Saviour Cathedral (Fig. 6, 7 and 8) can take the position of the researcher, with the difference that the wall of the drum we believe vertical.

Fig. 6. Spassky Cathedral (southern facade). Reconstruction of the author.

Fig. 7. Spassky Cathedral (cut along the middle aisle). Reconstruction of the author.

Fig. 8. The Savior Cathedral. General view in accordance with the reconstruction of the author (montage).

Thus, in our reconstruction of the Saviour Cathedral height of the drum about 1.15 times less than in the reconstruction of David L., BL Altshuller and S. Podyapolsky.

Of course, reducing the height of the drum in 1,15 times, increasing its width 1.1 times and the verticality of its walls can not substantially change has become a familiar image of the Cathedral of the Andronikov monastery. But in Fig. 6, 7 and 8 show that the Cathedral in our reconstruction seems more harmonious and monumental, without losing "Gothic" aspirations up.

The validity of our position on the size and proportions of the drum is confirmed by the presentation of two temples beginning of the XVI century, built under the clear influence of the Saviour Cathedral Andronikov monastery, Cathedral of the Nativity monastery in Moscow (Fig. 9) and the Dormition monastery in Staritsa (Fig. 10)¹⁴. At these temples, we see the drums, similar in size and proportions of the drum Saviour Cathedral in our reconstruction.

Fig. 9. The Cathedral of the Nativity monastery in Moscow.

Fig. 10. The Cathedral of the Dormition monastery in Staritsa.

Appendix 1

The basic proportions of the remaining single-domed cathedrals of North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries, as well as the Saviour Cathedral Andronikov monastery in various reconstructions.

1 - Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky;

2 - Church of the Intercession on the Nerl;

3 - Demetrius Cathedral in Vladimir;

4 - assumption Cathedral "on the Town" in Zvenigorod;

5 - the Nativity Cathedral of the Savvino-Storozhevsky monastery;

6 Trinity Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra;

7 - the Savior Cathedral Andronikov monastery (reconstruction PN Maksimov);

8 - the Savior Cathedral Andronikov monastery (reconstruction Bagnava);

9 - the Savior Cathedral Andronikov monastery (reconstruction of David L., BL Altshuller and SP Podyapolsky);

10 - the Savior Cathedral Andronikov monastery (reconstruction of the author).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
The ratio of the width of the square, at the level toe zakomaras to the width of the rectangle on the level cap	0,98	1,0	1,0	0,97	0,98	0,94	1,0	1,0	1,0	1,0
The ratio of the height of the drum to the height of the rectangle from the basement to the top of the zakomaras	0,43	0,36	0,45	0,5	0,47	0,49	0,38	0,48	0,56	0,48
The ratio of the height of the visible part of the pedestal to the height of the drum	-	-	-	0,2	0,1	0,18	0,7	0,41	0,38	0,43
The attitude of the upper diameter of the drum to its height	1,25	0,87	0,93	1,0	1,1	1,0	1,14	1,0	0,87	1,1
The ratio of the diameter of the drum from the top to its bottom diameter	1,0	1,0	1,0	0,97	0,95	0,94	1,0	0,95	0,97	1,0
The attitude of the upper diameter of the drum to the width of the square, at the level toe zakomaras	0,44	0,40	0,41	0,43	0,43	0,41	0,38	0,38	0,38	0,41
The ratio of the visible area of the drum to the visible area of the square from the basement to the top of the zakomaras	0,2	0,15	0,19	0,2	0,24	0,24	0,13	0,15	0,21	0,2

Notes

1. PN Maksimov. The Cathedral of the Spaso-Andronikov monastery in Moscow. In the book: Architectural monuments of Moscow XV-XVII centuries. New research. M., 1947. C. 23.

2. BA Ognev. The variant of reconstruction of the Saviour Cathedral Andronikov monastery. In the book: Monuments of culture. Research and restoration. No. 1. M., 1959. C. 72-82.

3. L.Adavid Altshuler, S. Pod'yapol'skii. Restoration of the Saviour Cathedral Andronikov monastery. In the book: Old Russian art. Sergius of Radonezh and artistic culture in Moscow XIV-XV centuries, St. Petersburg, 1998. C. 360-391.

4. Ibid., C. 383.

5. Notes Kavelmahera in the fields decree. works of David L., BL Altshuller, S. Podyapolsky.

6. L.Adavid Altshuler, S. Pod'yapol'skii. The decree. cit., S. 376.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid., C. 382.

9. For more information, see SV zagraevsky. Yuri Dolgoruky and old white-stone architecture. M., 2002. C. 86.

10. L.Adavid Altshuler, S. Pod'yapol'skii. The decree. cit., S. 382.

11. Ibid.

12. Apparently, avoiding this indentation was impossible for practical reasons: in wartime, it could be arranged areas for possible defense (in the case of the forced use of the Church as "the main tower of a fortress"), and in times of peace such sites could get in for repair window-sill, pendants, chandeliers and other (see SV zagraevsky. The architecture of North-Eastern Russia the end of the XIII-the first third of the XIV century. M., 2003. C. 51-53).

13. Dating justification of these temples, see ibid., C. 8-211.

14. The similarity in the composition of the Cathedral of the Nativity monastery in Moscow, the Cathedral of the Andronikov monastery pointed to many researchers, from PN Maksimov (PN Maksimov. The decree. cit., S. 30) to S. Podyapolsky (La David Altshuler, S. pod'yapol'skii. The decree. cit., S. 375). Kavelmaher even called cathedrals of the assumption monastery in Staritsa and the Nativity monastery in Moscow "clones" and "remake" of the Cathedral of the Andronikov monastery (personal conversation with V. kavelmaherom, 2002.).

Moscow, 2004.

To the page “Scientific works”

To the main page