Dr. Sergey V. Zagraevsky
To the problem of Ancient Russian
fortified cloisters and temples
Published in Russian:
Заграевский С.В. К
вопросу о древнерусских оборонных монастырях и храмах. Электронная публикация: www.rusarch.ru (электронная научная библиотека «РусАрх»),
Professor, Dr. S.V. Zagraevsky shows on extensive historical and historical-architectural material that in Ancient Russia many cloisters originally had not only the spiritual significance, but also were fortresses built for protection against external and internal enemies, and many temples in addition to spiritual functions had functions of defense, and played the role of citadels and main towers of towns, cloisters and other fortified settlements.
The following text was translated from Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been edited.
So it can be used only for general introduction.
First of all it is necessary to agree on terms. Under the defense monasteries and temples we mean those, which were built not only in liturgical and monumental-decorative, but also in the military-defensive purposes, i.e. in addition to spiritual functions had the function of the military.
It is important to make a reservation that we are not going:
- to discuss, much less to impugn the spiritual function of monasteries and churches, their symbols, aesthetics, etc.;
- to discuss which of the above objectives and functions of the primary and which are secondary;
- to investigate the correlation of the above objectives and functions in architecture or in the specific monasteries and temples;
- to pay attention to some other philosophical or ideological issues.
Our task more specifically, to examine the question, was there in principle defensive function of ancient temples and monasteries in addition to spiritual functions.
Check also that the word "defence", "defence" and "fortress" in the context of our study are full synonyms.
And we start with the defence of the monasteries. In the Soviet time and in the scientific and popular literature was dominated by the view that many ancient monasteries (mostly suburban) were defensive. This point of view was also supported by N.N. Voronin, and M. Il'in, and P.N. Maksimov, and V.V. Kostochkin1.
It should be noted that the position of these researchers, despite the pressure of the Soviet atheistic ideology was quite balanced, i.e. they understood defensive importance of the monasteries in the sense that we outlined at the beginning of this article. So, V.V. Kostochkin wrote:
"The closest same FORTS capital cities were, apparently, the monasteries. On their basis the Chronicles relate quite rare, but the ring of the monasteries, who grew up in the end of XIV century on the road to Moscow, had, obviously, and military-defensive purpose. Defensive importance was also the monasteries of Tver. Fyodorovsky monastery standing on the island at the mouth of Cmake, locked entrance into the river from Volga and otroci, situated on a promontory near the mouth of the Tvertsa, on the contrary, closed the exit into the Volga. In the end of XIV century they played a role watchmen Tver fortress, covering her with the most dangerous of the parties. the purpose of creation listed Novgorod monasteries were not dictated by the defence (emphasis added - SZ). Large chronological breaks in the time of their Foundation made A.L. of Monheit to come to the conclusion that they could not be built in accordance with the plan of state protection. However, taken together, these monasteries were branched system of FORTS guard Novgorod. Similar monasteries existed near Pskov. The oldest of them were Mirozhsky, Ivanovo, Snetogorsky, the Krypetsk, etc. Using modern terminology, called monasteries should perhaps be called "companions" capital cities. 2.
Equally balanced position occupied and N.N. Voronin:
"Looking closely to the information on the time of Dmitry Donskoy, you can easily ensure that the facilities and
location of construction subject to the preparations for the decisive struggle
against the Tatars... On the periphery of Moscow created the ring of the
monasteries, which as if the subsidiary "FORTS" defense of the
capital. Between roads in Kolomna and Serpukhov is
based Simonov monastery (up to
Not surprisingly, this is quite reasonable and balanced, the position is widely spread and became a classic4.
But already in the middle of the twentieth century, this position has been questioned M.N. Tikhomirov, which, in particular, wrote:
"In our literature the location of the monasteries around the city sometimes put in dependence on the defense of the city. Simonov, Donskoy, Novodevichiy monasteries were FORTS on the outskirts of the city. This observation finds justification in fact, the XVI-XVII centuries, when these monasteries were surrounded by strong walls. On the contrary, in the end of XIII-XV centuries the monasteries appeared in more secure places. Tatar raids were usually made from the South, and there has not arisen no monastery, and exception - old Danilov - even the desolated"5.
Similar critical point of view on the defensive role of monasteries and kept by p. A. Rappoport, who considered that the Metropolitan of monasteries and manors "military-defensive functions were replaced functions ideological and artistic"6.
The defensive role of monasteries and denied the VP Vygolov. He pointed to a weak defense trehproudnyi the gate of Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, and on the lack of information on the fortress fortifications, monasteries previously XVI century, except the stone walls mentioned Lavra7. In support of its position, the researcher also led indication of M.K. Charger on limited military value of the monasteries, which had only a simple wooden fences and so we were only sometimes observation posts8.
The most consistent and full expression of critical views on the defensive role of monasteries found in the works of L.A. Belyaeva9. In summarizing the form researcher expressed its theses, which due to their generality and brevity makes sense to bring this almost completely.
"1. On the resemblance of large monasteries with cities drew the attention of the travellers in Russia of the XVI-XVII centuries: they were surrounded by stone or wooden wall, which was visible bell towers, the domes of the churches, galleries chambers. Scientists of the XIX and especially the twentieth century saw this external likeness similarity functions; established even an opinion that it is connected with important military tasks monasteries. This idea was based, first, on the impression from the walls of late monasteries (naive may seem very impressive). Second, the well-known in the history of the cases of their defence.
2. However, she is "fortification component" monastic architecture shows its most important differences from the architecture of the Kremlin. In most cases, the monasteries are not comparable in strength to the city's Kremlin. The fence was, of course, critical planning element, but not necessarily the fortress of nature: still not found a single monastery (XI-XV centuries, which would have ramparts and moats (the most typical type of fortification in Russia in this period).
Stone walls surround many of the monasteries in the middle of the XVI century and especially since the second half of the XVII century - now outwardly they look like a fortress. But the function of their walls is mainly in the protection of heaven, symbolic, and not real. Walls with towers explicitly claim to be an expression of atherogeneity from the outside world and likeness of the Heavenly Jerusalem, is the architectural image, their military capabilities are limited.
Main gate of stone fences ("Holy gates") always carry a large gate Church and unsuitable for effective defence (which reliably proven VP Vigolova). In the few cases when the monastery had intended to use as a military fortress, it was additionally strengthened (including outside of the "Holy gate" installed one more, already fighting, without the Church; arranged on the walls and towers square for guns), and placed inside the garrison of professional soldiers.
3. You can target a specific history of occurrence of fortified monasteries designed to a certain extent, play the role of "Kremlin". In the XVI century in parallel with the construction of stone storehouses in the cities (Arkhangelsk, Verkhoturye, Vologda, Kholmogory), due to the rapid economic development of the country until the middle of the century, expand and strengthen some monasteries. Under their protection suspicious Ivan IV's service delivers during the oprichnina great value looted from shopping centers, and sometimes Royal Treasury (thus,
4. As a rule, monasteries, ukrepleniia with special strategic goal, not gained the role of the centers of industrial and commercial districts, which were performed in the city fortifications. No less important is another difference: in Russia monasteries did not become a city-forming elements. 10.
So we see that L.A. Belyaev believed after M.N. Tikhomirov, P.A. Rappoport and V.P. Vigolova that the monasteries arose solely by certain religious reasons (actually spontaneously), and only in the XVI century the state could have given some of them serfs (but not the city-forming functions. In other words, these researchers in principle, denied the defence role ancient Russian monasteries XI-XV and XVII centuries.
It should be noted that the data on other countries show a wide spread of defence of the monasteries in the Middle ages around the world. In the above theses L.A. Belyaev himself noted "the striking contrast with the situation in Western Europe, where the monasteries often served as a grain and, partly, the citadel of the future city". In Byzantium and monasteries and monks actively participated in the political and military life of the country, and even during the last siege of Constantinople in 1453 wall, facing the shore of the Marmara sea, protected by Greek monks. 11.
Thus, we see that the mathematical SCIENCES. Tikhomirov, P.A. Rappoport, the VP Vygolov and L.A. Belyaev suggested a "special Russian way": according to their position in the world were defense monasteries, and in Russia was not. This situation in itself is seen as unlikely.
Unlikely, it seems a coincidence that many monasteries situated around the largest ancient cities in the strategically informed manner that was pointed to by many researchers12 (in particular, see the quoted texts CENTURIES Kostochkina and N.N. Voronin at the beginning of this article and comment. 1 and Il. 1). This orderliness is much more typical of military settlements (subordinated to a single system), rather than for cities, villages or sanctuaries that appear in accordance with huge set of factors and cannot by themselves be built in a line, a circle or a square.
Silt. 1. Diagram of the locations of the major ensembles of Moscow in the end of XVII century13.
Figures marked: 1 Trinity Cathedral in the Trench; 2 - the bell tower of Ivan the Great; 3 - the Red square; 4 - Senegalensis bargaining; 5 - Zamoskvoretskaya bargaining; 6 - Vasilievsky garden; 7 - the Church of Sophia and the Tsaritsyn meadow (the Tsar's garden); monasteries: 8 - Alexis; 9 - Holy cross; 10 - Nikita; 11 - George; 12 - Varsonofievskiy; 13 - Zlatoust; 14 - Ivanovo; the gate of the White city: 15 - Prechistenskaya; 16 - Borisoglebskie (Arbat); 17 - Nikita; 18 - Tver; 19 - Peter; 20 - Sretensky; 20A - Butcher; 21 - Pokrovsky; 22 - Ugra; 23 - the Church of the Prophet Ilyin
In this regard, it makes sense to repeat the main provisions of abstracts L.A. Belyaeva (which we will highlight a smaller font) with our critical comments.
"The resemblance of large monasteries with cities drew the attention of the travellers in Russia of the XVI-XVII centuries... Scientists of the XIX and especially the twentieth century saw this external likeness similarity functions; established even an opinion that it is connected with important military tasks monasteries. This idea was based, first, on the impression from the walls of late monasteries (naive may seem very impressive). Second, the well-known in the history of the cases of their defence.
It is hardly possible to consider as "naive" view the most prominent historians of architecture of the XX century - NN Voronin, M. Ilyina, P.N. Maximov V.V. Kostochkina. About the purpose and specifics of fences "late" monasteries, we'll talk later.
"The fence was, of course, critical planning element, but not necessarily the fortress of nature: still not found a single monastery (XI-XV centuries, which would have ramparts and moats (the most typical type of fortification in Russia in this period)".
Actually ramparts and moats existed in many ancient monasteries (some examples will be given in the future).
"Before the beginning of the XVI century there is no information about the use of monasteries as FORTS - on the contrary, when approaching enemies them destroy themselves the defenders of the city..."
But he himself L.A. Belyaev wrote about many
known cases of defense in monasteries (see above). And the fact that the
monasteries sometimes (not always, as it could be understood from the comment
of the phrase L.A. Belyaeva) was destroyed at the
coming of the enemy, as it was in
"Large monasteries often receive as a gift from the donor special siege yards inside the cities..."
Why it had to exclude the defensive function of the monasteries? Monastery yards had a specific set of eigenfunctions and were quite self-sufficient urban units.
"Stone wall surround many of the monasteries in the middle of the XVI century and especially since the second half of the XVII century - now they look really resemble the Fort."
Since that time stone wall surround many of the city, where previously were wooden and earthern fortifications.
"But the function of their walls is mainly in the protection of heaven, symbolic, and not real. Walls with towers explicitly claim to be an expression of atherogeneity from the outside world and likeness of the Heavenly Jerusalem, is the architectural character..."
One does absolutely does not disturb. "Heavenly Jerusalem" is also the fortress with walls and gates (Rev. 21:12). Note that the vast majority of ancient monasteries had idealized (at least a little bit of geometrically correct) plans, in icons depicting the "heavenly Jerusalem". Even the new Jerusalem monastery, where, apparently, the symbols of the Heavenly Jerusalem" would prevail, does not have the correct plan. And then, built only for the sake of the symbolism of the high stone walls and towers - not too expensive? (About the purpose of fortifications, monasteries XVII century we discuss in detail later).
"Their military capabilities are limited..."
And what fortresses opportunities are unlimited? Absolutely impregnable fortifications did not happen.
"The main gates, stone fence ("Holy gates") always carry a large gate Church and unsuitable for effective defence (which reliably proven VP Vigolova)".
Proof VP Vygolov, based on analysis of only one object (gate Church of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra15), can hardly be considered reliable. If around this temple was not a battle site, this does not mean that these sites were not on the gates of the other monasteries (the list of monasteries, which had a military-strategic stone fortifications with a gate, built in accordance with all rules of fortification, below). In addition we will show in the second part of our research, and that a large stone Church itself could be a serious strengthening.
In any case, in XI-XV centuries, when the siege equipment was relatively weak, any large building, and even more of the stone, was suitable for strengthening of defense. For example, the Vladimir Golden gate with a large over-the-gates Church of deposition of the robe Mongols chose not to storm, and to break through the wall close to16.
Characteristically, he himself V.P. Vygolov in
this work was noted that the wooden fence of the Kyiv-Pechersk
"In the few cases when the monastery had intended to use as a military fortress, it was additionally strengthened (including outside of the "Holy gate" installed one more, already fighting, without the Church)..."
Additional strengthening is never superfluous were not.
"...Was arranged on the walls and towers square for guns, and placed inside the garrison of professional soldiers. Of course, some monasteries have accumulated a lot of goods and values that didn't fit Church hiding places and basements, and were interested in these fortifications, but most of these monasteries continued to do symbolic (although sometimes imposing) the fence".
The fortress could have different degree of power that depended on strategic locations allocated for the fortification of funds and a number of other factors, which are not limited to the above L.A. Belyaev.
"You can target a specific history of occurrence of fortified monasteries designed to a certain extent, play the role of "Kremlin". In the XVI century in parallel with the construction of stone storehouses in the cities... expand and strengthen some monasteries..."
It turns out that the "chronology" L.A. Belyaeva is reduced to the XVI century. We will consider the broader chronological periods.
"The Kremlin" is known for its fortresses, monasteries (the Pskovo-Pechersk monastery of Solovki, the Trinity-Sergiev) arise when they begin to consider how the Royal city, as the state of the fortress to be included in the defense system... and to strengthen the state funds".
The list of ancient Russian monasteries, already in the XVI century had a stone fortress, much longer than the lead researcher. In addition to the above L.A. Belyaev Pskovo-Pechersky, Solovki and the Trinity-Sergius monasteries can recall the Iosifo-Volokolamsk, the Kirillo-Belozersky, Simonov, Novodevichiy, Belopesotsky, the Yaroslavl Saviour-Transfiguration, Kostroma Ipatiev, Pereslavl Nikita, Bishop of Serpukhov, Borovsky pafnutiev, Suzdal intercession, staritskiy assumption, Dorogobuzh Boldin (and outside Russia remains the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra). All we have listed 18 monasteries.
We see that in Ancient Russia the number of monasteries with full military-strategic stone fortifications in the XVI century, it was comparable with the number of cities with such fortifications (19: Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov, Izborsk, Ladoga, Koporye, Nut, Tula, Zaraysk, Serpukhov and Kolomna, Smolensk, Mozhaysk, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Astrakhan, Borisov, Ivangorod, Vologda).
But even the "truncated" list in L.A. Belyaev is merely a statement of fact, that the more funds were allocated for fortification, the stronger were the fortress. But this does not mean that all the other monks in all the other monasteries and was waiting for the enemy to surrender. In the military objective of any, even the weakest, strengthening (as avant-garde or rear) - to weaken and delay the enemy. It is unlikely that we can consider monks less Patriotic than the defenders of the numerous small towns.
"In Russia monasteries did not become a city-forming elements. Near them, of course, were grouped dependent settlement, the largest could form the suburbs, but unknown cases of transformation of such suburbs in self, much of the city, surrounded by at least another defensive belt."
With this statement we cannot agree. Although traditionally Caesaropapism Rus ' princes and kings, as a rule, did not give the city-forming functions of the monasteries, but we know of many monastic suburbs, turned into large cities (Sergiev Posad, Tikhvin, Pechora, Kirzhach, Kirillov, Makaryev, Kalyazin etc).
Concluding comment to the theses L.A. Belyaeva, we note that in another labour researcher claimed that the Danilov monastery never been strengthened (existing strengthening the end of the XVII century the researcher believed decorative; this position is not quite fair, which we'll discuss later). In support of this position, he cited the fact that in the time of Troubles the fighting was not at the monastery, and next to it18. But this fact is actually not what it says: defenders of fortresses often fought under their walls, or were not locked inside, losing much room for manoeuvre19. We have said that the questions of tactics depend on the correlation of forces and many other factors.
Note also that the above mathematical SCIENCES. Tikhomirov desolation Danilov monastery in XIV-XV centuries20 likely points to its role as strengthen than as a sacred object: according to old Russian proverb "a Holy place is never empty", if the Danilov monastery was abandoned, rather as unpromising and too remote from the city of strengthening, rather than as a small, purely peaceful and nobody is hindering the monastery.
Argument by p. A. Rappoport defense against the role of monasteries was that early Moscow monasteries were situated to the South and South-East of Moscow, i.e. not from the East ("assault") to the walls of the Kremlin21. But, firstly, to the East of the Kremlin is Andronicus monastery (see ill. 1), and secondly, strategic issues locations far FORTS are subject to different rules than tactical issues immediate defense of the main fortress. The task of the fortifications, located several kilometers away from the town, consists first of all in order to intercept enemy troops on the far outskirts of the city, detain them (so that the city had time to prepare for the defence), and if they passed this building is to attack the enemy from the rear.
Unacceptable and approval by p. A. Rappoport that the existence of the defence of the monasteries was dangerous for the city, and the city is rather tried to protect monasteries, rather than Vice versa22: it turns out that the researcher in principle, denied any role outer FORTS and the bridge of the fortifications, which is illegal. We have said that the objective of any additional strengthening is to weaken and delay the enemy. And the fact that the city was defended by the monasteries, in no case does not change the fact that the monasteries defended the town: in the military one is inseparable from the other.
And the link to the position of M.K. Charger given VP Vigolova (limited military value of the monasteries, which had only a simple wooden fences and so we were only security posts23), demonstrates rather defence is monasteries, rather than Vice versa: guard posts in the military, no less necessary than the fortress.
Thus, the provisions of the position of SCIENCES. Tikhomirova, P.A. Rappoport, V.P. Vigolova and L.A. Belyaeva and, accordingly, the main conclusions of these researchers raise serious doubts, and the only argument that could at least partially to convince us of the justice of their position is that still allegedly did not find any monastery (XI-XV centuries, who had a wooden and earthern fortifications24.
But it is not. If the traces of the ramparts, moats and wooden walls have not found L.A. Belyaev during archaeological research in a number of Moscow monasteries25 it does not mean that the wooden and earthern fortifications there was neither there, nor in any other ancient monasteries. Here are some examples.
In 1382. strengthened Vysotsky and Golutvin monasteries26. It is important to note that in the Vysotsky monastery archeological excavations found the remains of moats and ramparts, parallel to the existing brick walls27.
The remains of walls and ditches remained around several monasteries, in particular, the Trinity Belopesotsky, Nikolo-Medvedsky (Medvedkovo), Pokrovsky about Great Ustyug, Eletsky sign on Stone mountain, Nikolo-Karelian and other
In 1591 Novospassky and Danilov monasteries (the stone walls which were built only in the XVII century), along with first - class fortress Simonov monastery - successfully defended from the Tatars. Therefore, it is likely that wooden and earthern fortifications they already were.
The southern wall of Donskoy monastery was built on the shafts28.
Tver Prince Boris Aleksandrovich in 1446 strengthened Fyodorovsky monastery29.
Venev-Nikolsky monastery with wooden and earthern fortifications along with Tula, Venev, Adaeva, Beleva, Kozelsk was a reference point Zaseka line30.
Hegumen Daniel, traveled to Kyiv to land at the beginning of the XII century when describing one of the monastery said that "the monastery of the city completed the whole"and the other said that he was "about the same was the city completed"31. And traveler Herberstein in the beginning of XVI century wrote about the monasteries around Moscow and Pereslavl that each monastery "like separate city"32.
Rostov captain XII century George Simonovic in his Testament says: "When we came with Polovtsy Izyaslav Mstislavich, we saw from afar a high fence and quickly went there, and no one knew what town is this. Polovtsov same fought under him, and many were wounded, and we ran from the city. After we have already learned that it was the village of the monastery of the Holy mother of Pechersk, and the city there has never happened"33. Therefore, the Kievo-Pechersk monastery was surrounded by fortifications, even for experienced look indistinguishable from the city. Note that this will disavow position P.A. Rappoport about what the Kievo-Pechersk monastery in the pre-Mongolian time had a very "decorative" strengthening34.
Such examples could be quoted on, but, by and large, they are redundant, since in XI-XV centuries the existence stone temple necessarily meant the existence around it any fortifications (the so believed and L.A. Belyaev35). Stone temple that was a great spiritual and material value, could not be defenseless36. If the stone Cathedral (and, accordingly, the monastery was situated inside the city, that he could settle and city fortifications, but outside the city, he necessarily had to have their own system of fortifications (in the General case - wood-earth).
To the question, where did the wooden and earthern fortifications of ancient Russian monasteries, we can answer that one: they disappeared due to construction activities in the monasteries, just as a similar strengthening of the vast majority of Russian towns37. Moreover: even if around the fortifications was not conducted more or less intensive construction works, they often also disappeared (as in Kideksha, Vyshgorod Yakhroma, Gorodnya Tver region, Kamenskoye Naro-Fominsk district of the Moscow region and mn. other).
So, in any ancient country monastery , the building of the stone Church earlier XVI century actually stated defence role of the monastery and testified to the presence of fortifications (at least, wooden and earthern). In XVI century the unfortified princely and boyar estates (Naprudnom38, Kolomenskoe, Yurkin and others), and the mandatory presence around any stone temple fortifications began to gradually fade away.
General periodization of old Russian military monasteries we give at the end of this article, and now to answer the question we asked in analyzing abstracts L.A. Belyaeva whether stone walls, built in XVII century around the many monasteries (Novospassky, Donskoy, Novodevichiy, Danilov, Andronicus, evfimiev Saviour, Tolgsky, Nikolo-Pecherskogo, Rostov Boris and mn. others) have had a purely decorative and symbolic? Not expensive do was to build such a powerful (at least in appearance) fortress walls and towers exclusively decorative and symbolic purposes?
I think the point here is that these walls were built not only in monumental-decorative and symbolic purposes (which, of course, and this one does not argue), but also in the defensive purposes, only for defense, not from external enemies, and from the "inside". They were not intended to reflect the armies of other countries, in the XVII century has already had a powerful artillery, which could only be protected by the fortress Bastion type (which in many erected Peter I). They were intended, first, to detention, and secondly, to protect them from their own insurgent people. Both are much more typical for the "Bundesliga" the XVII century, rather than external war. And to protect against "internal" enemies of high and impressive walls and towers are much more effective than the bastions.
Accordingly, for such a fortification, as those at the end of the XVII century, for example, the Novodevichy convent (Fig. 2), no longer had any significant thickness of the walls, no optimal from a tactical point of view the location of the fortifications in the area, or there is the most powerful walls with "criminal" parties, nor the deep ditches or other necessary attributes strategic military fortresses.
Consequently, in the sense that we outlined at the beginning of this article, these monasteries are defensive.
Silt. 2. Strengthening of the Novodevichy convent.
Expected another question: there are many cases of defense in monasteries (wrote about it in the above theses and L.A. Belyaev), and the defense was attended not only the troops, but the monks themselves39. Not whether it contradicts religious dogma?
Indeed, there is a stereotype that the Church canons (specifically - 83rd Apostolic Canon and the 7th determination of the fourth Ecumenical Council) was forbidden to the monks and priests to participate in military actions with weapons in their hands, and these canons were violated only when strictly necessary40.
In order to understand that this stereotype is wrong, just go to the mentioned canonical texts.
83rd Apostolic rule States: "Bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, in a military fact uprajneniya and want to keep both, that is, of the Roman rule and priest's office: be deposed from Holy rite. For Caesar what's Caesar's, God's what's God"41.
And in the 7th definition of the fourth Ecumenical Council says: "Uchyenym once a member of the clergy and monks have determined we are not to join any military service or in worldly rank: else dared to these things, and not returning in repentance to the fact that the first elected to God, to anathematize"42.
We see that in both cases we are talking only about the ban for the monks and priests to combine the service of God with the service in the army or any other secular service. To protect his abode with the weapon in the hands of the Church never rebuked anyone.
Now we can in the most General terms to reconstruct relations arising during the construction and operation of the defense monasteries between the Russian Orthodox Church and the main churchwarden, which directly or indirectly was the state, often in the face of the king (great Prince) or any of their neighbors boyars. (We use the term "primary churchwarden", as each of the monastery could be a large number of other churchwardens and communities, and individuals). Of course, in each case, these relationships could be very different.
The monastery could be founded by the Church (represented by the Church Hierarch or any other priest that in the context of our study is actually the same, because in any case it was needed the blessing of the hierarchy). In this case the state could become the main churchwarden, to build the monastery walls and include it in the defense system:
- or soon after the Foundation, as the Simonov, Andronicus, the Old-Golutvin, Vysotsky and others;
or after quite a long time, as Nikita Pereslavsky, Khutyn, pafnutiev, Trinity-Sergiev and other
It should be noted that many of the established Church monasteries, as Kotikov, Madridski, the Varnitsky and mn. others, never gained a defensive nature.
The monastery could be based and built immediately by the state (of course, in agreement with the Church, because the blessing of the hierarchs was needed anyway). This is most often meant defensive nature of the monastery, as in the case of Daniel, Novospassky, Novodevichy and others (Note that the state could establish and build a monastery, not giving him a defensive nature, as the Saviour on the Bor or Voznesensky).
In any case, the monks defense monasteries were not in the public service: as we have seen above, it was directly forbidden by Church canons, and in the conditions of close cooperation of Church and state throughout Russian history to break these canons and was not required.
In fact, in Ancient Rus has developed a strategic defense system, which in the most General case was as follows.
- fully or partially funded the construction of buildings and fortifications for defense of the monastery;
- gave the monastery "feeding" of the land and the village (which was equivalent to funding).
- lived in these buildings;
- carried out the liturgical function (useful for States in ideological purposes);
- ran monastic lands and villages (performing useful for the state administrative functions);
- supported the strengthening of the monastery in good condition;
- optionally placed in the monastery of the state garrison;
- completely or partially contained the garrison;
- in case of siege, when the monastery was male, fought together with the garrison.
For all of the above we can state that Patriarch Nikon was called the largest ancient Russian monasteries "great Royal fortresses"43 not only metaphorically, but literally.
Now, having shown the correctness of the classical perspective on widespread in Ancient Rus defensive monasteries, we can turn to the question of the existence of the temples. Recall that under the defence temples we mean those, which were built not only in liturgical and monumental-decorative, but also in the military-defensive purposes (in detail questions of terminology we discussed in the beginning of this article).
That in ancient architecture was a fortified churches, none of the scientists of the XIX-XX centuries did not write, i.e. meant their absence. The author of this article at the beginning of 2000-ies have approached this issue on the local examples: two temples Yuri Dolgoruky (Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Pereslavl and Borisoglebsk Church in Kideksha)44 and three churches of the beginning of the XIV century (St. John the Baptist at the Settlement in Kolomna, St. Nicholas in the village of Kamianske Naro-Fominsk district and to the virgin-Christmas in the village of Gorodnya Tver region)45. All these churches had a tower-shaped - elongated upwards (relative to the Byzantine and Kiev prototypes) the form, and within their walls, and the drums were set up Windows and loopholes46.
About Windows arranged E.E. Golubinsky wrote that their device was due to climatic conditions (in the temples was not furnaces and in winter it was too cold)47but it is difficult to accept. First, the window embrasures were in the Caucasus, and in Serbia, where much warmer. Secondly, the Windows were windowsill with glasses48.
The author of this article at the beginning of 2000-ies suggested that had the potential need to use the temples as defensive structures, more precisely - as citadels (or "primary towers") fortresses.
The reasoning of the author was the following:
- in the understanding of medieval Church service to God could take and it "militant" form (as we have already said in this article);
all these temples were located in a small fortress built in turbulent times at the most threatened areas;
- Windows and loopholes in the temples were not only in the North-Eastern Russia, but also in the Caucasus and on the outskirts of Byzantium, where there were frequent "border conflicts";
- external and internal Windows sockets of these temples is approximately equal to (when the goal was missing Windows, the maximum amount of light, internal socket usually made considerably longer and wider external - as in the assumption Cathedral Fioravanti);
- these temples were erected near the fortress walls, which assumed the presence of transitions on the wall49.
In this respect, the author has suggested that under the domes of some temples were built (or were held with the threat of siege), wooden platforms for archers, which could climb the ladder. (Of course, access with ladders should be provided to all the Windows in the walls). In all these churches (except churches in Kideksha and on the Settlement, the top of which was rebuilt), under the dome there is a rectangular ledge on which these sites could be based (Fig. 3).
Note that shoot out the Windows of the drum zakomaras
practically do not interfere. For example, the author was measured, in the Holy
Transfiguration Cathedral of Pereslavl "dead
zone" in a hypothetical shooting from above is only
In peacetime, these benches can be used for construction scaffolding, and to inspect the dome, and the glass Windows of the drum, and any other repairs.
Silt. 3. The section of the Transfiguration Cathedral of Pereslavl.
The letter "a" denotes the rectangular ledge under the dome, which can build wooden platforms for archers.
We emphasize once again that all of these observations the beginning of 2000-ies were only local and belonged to two temples of Yuri Dolgoruky and three temples of the beginning of the XIV century. But now, in light of the above in the first part of this article concerning the defense of the monastery, we can say and more General considerations on the topic of existence in Ancient Russia temples.
First, defense temples in their direct meaning (in the architectural appearance of which explicitly contains features fortresses) in a large number exist in Western Europe (for example, Il. 4 shows the fortified vestverke Romanesque churches in the German city of Corvee; Il. 5 - built into the system of fortifications of the town Romanesque Church in the Italian city of Sirmione), the Caucasus (for example, Il. 6 shows the temple Thaba-Erdy in Ingushetia, XIII century), in Ukraine and Belarus (for example, Il. 7 shows the Church in Synkovichi, the XV-XVI century).
Silt. 4. The vestverke Church in Corvee, Germany.
Silt. 5. The Church Of Santa Maria Maggiore, Garda, Sirmione, Italy.
Silt. 6. The Temple Thaba-Erdy. Ingushetia.
Silt. 7. The Church in Synkovichi (Belarus).
Secondly, in the first part of our article we have shown that:
- the Church canons allow the armed protection of the temples;
- in Ancient Russia in large numbers was a fortified monasteries (and ancient monastery has traditionally been equally sacred object as the temple).
Thirdly, the Church served as the city's citadel in ancient Jerusalem (this, in particular, says the translation of the XV century Jewish war" Josephus: "the Church Bo castle was the castle itself, aka Detinets"51).
Fourth, the old Russian tradition has always stressed that "military" traits of the temples. Dome was called "selemani" (helmets), drums - "necks", arches - "shoulders"and "head" is the "head". N.N. Voronin rightly pointed out that finish the drums temples crenate zones reminded decoration real helmets and stressed "the idea of military force"52.
Fifth, it is hardly accidental tradition to build churches over the city gates. If gates had a combat nature (in Kiev, Novgorod, Vladimir and others), all formal and actual characteristics of the gate churches - defense53.
Sixth, pobarabanu ledges and eaves, which could build platforms for archers, there are many churches in the XI-XV centuries. In particular, such ledges are in the Church of our Savior on Nereditsa, the cathedrals of St. Savva Storozhevsky, Mirozhsk and Ivanovo monasteries, the assumption Cathedral in Vladimir.
Seventh, if to compare the appearance of any of defense churches of Western Europe (for example, the Church in Corvee - see ill. 4) and, for example, the Transfiguration Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky (Fig. 8)it's hard to say which of the churches has more "fortress" look. According to the author, the second rather than the first.
Silt. 8. Spaso-Preobrazhensky Cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky.
Eighth, it is impossible not to pay attention to the fact that in the vast majority of ancient fortresses (except in the largest cities with a few lines of fortifications, as Kiev or Vladimir) no strongholds, in addition to temples.
Ninth, despite the fact that the temple is the citadel weak and unreliable, and no serious assault, no Church could not resist (precipitating easy to take a battering RAM and knock the door, or impose a temple with brushwood and to strangle defenders smoke), basics of martial arts suggests that the construction of the fortress must not neglect any opportunity to strengthen.
Tenth, do not underestimate the value of a stone temples as citadels. In any case, if the enemy had been able to overcome the main town fortifications and capture the city, the capture of the citadel is just a matter of a relatively small time. But still the citadel existed all over the world, because:
- theoretically possible that hold a few extra hours - then wait for reinforcements;
- the presence of the fortress at least a symbolic citadel need for diplomatic reasons (in the capture of the city walls enemy head of defense is unable to negotiate with the rushing crowds of enemy soldiers, so he shut himself up in the citadel and until the enemy is preparing for its assault has time to negotiate an honorable surrender);
- even a weak citadel gave nobility enough protection during the uprising of the urban population;
- in the capture of an enemy border fortresses protecting the citadel "to the last" allow the defender to inflict a lot more damage and therefore complicate it further promotion deep into the country.
Based on the foregoing, we may assume that if in the ancient fortress has not been another citadel, except the stone Church, the princes and magistrates, usually who sponsored, had somehow to provide and resistance in the Church, i.e. the Church was defence (in the sense that we outlined at the beginning of this article) regardless of its architectural features.
We illustrate these points with some facts.
First, remember the defense Nicholas uleyminskogo monastery near Uglich, during the Polish-Lithuanian intervention in the early XVII century. "Uglich chronicle reports54that after taking the poles external wooden fortifications monks continued to fight in the Cathedral, and then besieging did the digging and damaged the foundations, after which the temple collapsed. From this we can draw the following conclusions:
- in the Cathedral were prepared large stocks of food and water - otherwise the besieged would not be able to hold out for a few weeks, while the poles were digging. Consequently, the protection of "the main tower" was planned in advance;
- fire from the Windows of the Cathedral was so effective that the poles failed to knock out the door, nor impose a temple with wood, and they were forced to spend the time and effort to maintain the tunnel.
According to the message of the "New chronicle, during the capture of Smolensk poles in 1611 "last train people saprotosa the most pure mother of God in the Cathedral Church. United same smolyanin of kinousa in the cellar. Cellar W the formerly under the Cathedral Church, the powder Treasury, and the potion of saigusa, and the temple of the Cathedral of the most Holy Theotokos of reservace, and people of all pabisa koi in Church things were made."55. Therefore, under the assumption Cathedral were kept gunpowder, i.e. the temple was adapted to military purposes.
Gunpowder was stored in the chapel of the
During excavations in the Moscow Uspenie
Cathedral was found the iron tip Tatar arrows. It is believed that during the
capture of the city of
During the capture of
Boris and Gleb Cathedral in Staritsa was in the line of the city walls, in basement was kept weapons: "Yes, the Church of the martyrs of Christ Boris and Gleb stone, Yes limit the Annunciation of the blessed virgin stands in the policeman wall at least ten fathoms a quarter... the Great sovereign in the Treasury under the Church of Boris and Gleb gun, mattress, iron"61.
In strengthening the Grand-Ducal castle was built the Church of the Nativity of the virgin in Bogolyubovo62.
Built in 1558-1566 years Transfiguration Cathedral in Solovki can be called by the defense temple in the truest sense: in the first tier of the thickness of its walls is about 6 mwall heavily sloped (which provided ricostituire cores), in the corners he flanked by towers, and other fortifications is connected by a system of underground passages.
It is interesting to note that there are other cases initially double
(spiritual and secular) purpose temples reflected in architectural terms. For
example, the bell tower
Silt. 9. The bell tower
Nikon's Church in Vyatka-Kirov (named after the Builder Ivan Nikonov, the end of XVII-beginning of XVIII century) belonged to monasteries, but they churchwarden were merchants. On request of the latter, the first floors of the temples were originally used for storehouses and warehouses (Fig. 10)65.
Silt. 10. The complex Nikon churches in
In the village Slobodskoye near
Silt. 11. The bell tower and Church in the village Slobodskoye.
We see that the Russian Orthodox Church made a very wide range of additional secular functions of temples and provide churchwarden wide enough rights on the implementation of these functions.
In conclusion of our study, let us ask ourselves a question: why in
Ancient Rus defensive churches did not have such a
specific architectural features that distinguish them from the
"non-military" churches, as in Western Europe, Caucasus and
We can mention two reasons for this situation.
First, the Byzantine tradition.
In the Central regions of
Secondly, in Ancient Russia is a special need to make the temples-the
citadels specific "serfs" architectural features and often did not
arise, because for the vast majority of ancient fortresses fairly General
comment: what is the fortress, such is the citadel. Wooden and earthern fortifications were weak and archaic not only for
the Middle ages, but for the Ancient world: almost the same strengthen
massively took Julius Caesar during the conquest of
In conclusion, we can offer a total periods of the construction in Ancient Rus defensive monasteries and temples.
In XI-XV centuries, when the monastery was erected inside the city, he could have defensive nature (i.e. their own fortifications), or could not have. But if he were built outside the city and it was a stone Cathedral - he always had to have the strengthening (in the General case wood-earth), and the Cathedral played the role of the citadel. The same defensive role played all temples (and possibly wooden) in all fortresses, where no other strongholds.
In the XVI century, when there appeared unfortified princely and boyar estates with stone temples, this system ceased to be universal. On the outskirts of the country above defensive function of monasteries and churches were usually kept in the center - not always. But many defense monasteries, which had strategic value, coupled with the cities to get the stone fortifications, incomparably more powerful than earth-fill timber, which they had previously.
In the XVII century talking about defense churches can no longer news, but many of the monasteries remained defense, only their functions has changed a bit: they were not intended to reflect the armies of other countries (already had a powerful artillery, which could only be protected by the fortress Bastion type), and for prisoners and for protection from their own insurgent people. Accordingly modified and strengthened, so as to protect against "internal enemies" high and impressive (though relatively thin) wall more effective than the bastions.
The question was whether a particular monastery or temple in a specific time period defence, shall be resolved individually, taking into account the location, date, architectural features, stages of wood and stone construction, personalities churchwarden, nature of deposits, etc.
buildings were of great importance as a military-defensive structures" (Ilyin M.A., Maksimov PN, Kostochkin CENTURIES the Stone architecture of the epoch of
"In the last
quarter of the fourteenth century, the task of the defense of
"In addition to
the strongholds of the Moscow Kremlin was the basis in the second half of the
XIV century, the number of monasteries to the North and the South from Moscow,
formed as the auxiliary ring FORTS. Close to the old location of the Danilov monastery, on the opposite Bank of the
2. Kostochkin CENTURIES of Russian defense architecture of the
end of XIII-beginning of the XVI centuries. M.,
3. Voronin N.N. To the characteristic
architectural monuments of Kolomna time of Dmitry Donskoy. In the book: MIA OF THE
"classic" look on the defensive role of the monasteries, in
particular, expressed I.E. Kradin (Kradin I.E. Russian wooden defense architecture. M., 1988), NF Gulyanitskii (Ancient
Russian town-planning of the X-XV centuries. Under the
editorship of NF Hulanicki. M.,
system of fortifications of
6. Rappoport P.A. essays on the history of military architecture in the North-East and North-West Russia X-XV centuries In the book: MIA of the USSR, № 105, 1961; Rappoport P.A. essays on the history of military architecture of the X-XIII centuries, In the book: MIA of the USSR, № 52, 1956; Rappoport P.A. Ancient Russian fortress. M., 1965.
7. Vygolov VP Gate temples of
8. Karger M.K. Ancient
9. For example, in the work "Ancient monasteries of
10. Belyaev L.A. Ancient monasteries as city fortifications. Abstracts of the reports at the all-Russian Symposium "Russian Kremlins" (M, 23-26 November 1999).
12. Kostochkin CENTURIES of Russian defense architecture... S.
33; Voronin N.N. The
13. Drawing BTW, Kudryavtseva. Given in the book: Old Russian town planning... S. 337.
14. PSRL 5:241.
15. Vygolov VP Decree. cit.
16. PSRL 7:141.
17. Vygolov VP Decree. cit.
18. Belyaev L.A. Ancient monasteries of
19. Just think of
the siege of
21. Rappoport P.A. essays on the history of military architecture
in the North-East and North-West
22. Rappoport P.A. Decree. cit. This same position adhered to the VP Vygolov (Vygolov VP Decree. op).
23. Vygolov VP Decree. cit.; Karger, M.K. Decree. cit.
24. This was
mentioned not only L.A. Belyaev (Belyaev
L.A. Ancient monasteries of
25. For more
information, see: Belyaev L.A. Ancient monasteries of
26. PSRL 6:122.
27. Kolyshnitsyn N.V., Molchanov A.A.
28. Voronin N.N. The architecture of
North-Eastern Russia XII-XV centuries. M., 1961-1962. So
29. PSRL 15:493.
30. Information from the Internet site: http://www.moskvam.ru/2004/07/tretiakov.htm.
Abbot Daniel in the
32. CIT. in book.: Voronin N.N. The
architecture of North-Eastern
33. CIT. in book.: D.S. Likhachev Gradoselskaya semantics Assumption churches in
34. Rappoport P.A. Ancient Russian fortress. M., 1965.
35. Belyaev L.A. Ancient monasteries of
36. Until recently,
the author believed that the separate temple, which had no fortifications, was
the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl (Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky and
old white-stone architecture. M.,
37. According to the research of the author, and many extant city walls, traditionally considered to be the pre-Mongolian, are actually the result of numerous sprinklings of the soil in the XV-XVII centuries. Here are some examples:
inside the shaft in Suzdal near ancient Ilyinsky gate
(extrapolated current height is more than
- the initial
height of the shafts of Dmitrov was 1.5-
- the initial height of the shafts Peniscola
(Smotrokovsky) town of
- shafts of
- traces of numerous sprinklings the author observed in
- compared with the
pre-Mongol times were significantly spiked city walls of
characteristic that in Kolomna pre-Mongolian trees
not only survived, but traces of them are still not found - in a very intensive
archaeological work carried out in the twentieth century (Mazurov
A.B. detintsa the location and size of Kolomna in the XII-XIII centuries. In the book: Local lore
notes. Sat. scientific works of
38. For more information, see: Zagraevsky SV Architectural history of the Church Trifon Naprudnom and origin groin vault. M., 2008.
39. V.N. Tatishchev cited the following cases participation of the clergy in the wars: "What about the monks and papah to war recollects, that in history find circumstance: Novgorod Izyaslav Second anti his uncle Yuri Second sentenced all Chernetsov and of the clergy to dress up, and walked; Sergius, Abbot of Radonezh, Dimitry Donskoy two warriors tonsured sent, and beaten; Old Rus pop Petrila with the army in Lithuania went and defeated; Kostroma hegumen Serapion in the invasion of the Tatars of Kazan gathered monks and priests, Tatars won. Maybe, that was, Yes history have not survived".
There was a lot of other cases. So, in 1609 during the siege of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra of the Polish-Lithuanian troops Hetman Sapieha and Lisovsky in the annals of the monastery told about participation of the elders of the monastery: "Other captains of hundreds, with these, and the elders Troitsky all the shelves... the Elders same Sergius monastery walking in shelves, a beating with prayer and firming people not poslablati sake and tacos all ograbivshy;and I Bahasa firmly, saying to each other: "Die brothers for the Christian faith".
The Pskovo-Pechersk monastery was besieged by troops of Stefan Batory in February 1611. The annals of the monastery reports: "Monks and Balti, vaidosa morning from the castle and biasa with them, Vignola them from tours, Anya broke, and other living in a hail of privados, weapons of poimala and take along three guns... and pavlakos in the city.
The Solovetsky monastery repeatedly repelled the attacks of the Livonians and the Swedes in 1571, 1582, 1611 Later the monks of the Solovetsk monastery, which did not accept the reforms of the Patriarch Nikon, 8 years withstood the siege of the regular Imperial armies.
Isidore, the Metropolitan of Novgorod in
1611, during the siege of
In the Acts of Peter the Great says: "Olonets pop Ivan Okulov, 1702., having collected eager for people to thousands of people, went for Breakfast abroad, broke down four enemy outposts, broke up to four hundred Swedes and taken Reitarska banners, drums, weapons and horses, returned in triumph".
The selection of these data produced K. Capkova in the article "of Military clergy of the Russian Empire", Internet-magazine "Православие.Ru", 12 November 2008. (http://www.pravoslavie.ru/jurnal/28242.htm).
It is also
characteristic that in 1586 Chudov monastery bought
ammunition "for the siege of time" to reflect the Tatar invasions (Skrynnikov RG the hard Times. M.,
40. For example, this position is expressed on the web-sites:
41. Information from the Internet site: http://www.heretics.com/library/docs/ap_rulez.htm
42. Information from the Internet site:
43. The exhibition catalogue.: The history of Russian art. So
Zagraevsky SV Yuri Dolgoruky
and old white-stone architecture. M.,
Zagraevsky SV Architecture of North-Eastern Russia
the end of the XIII century to the first third of the XIV century. M.,
46. Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern
E.E. Golubinsky history of the
48. Rappoport P.A. Construction production of Ancient Rus. St.Petersburg,
49. Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern
50. Razin E.A. History of military art VI-XVI centuries, SPb,
51. CIT. in book.: Old Russian town planning... S. 45.
52. Voronin N.N. The architecture of North-Eastern
53. V.P. Vygolov challenging defensive nature of the gate Church of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, in no case did not dispute this character of the gate churches in principle and brought a large number of such examples (Vygolov VP Decree. cit.)
54. Information from the Internet site: http://www.posad.1gb.ru/default.aspx?ti=1&hti=92
55. PSRL 14:111.
56. Information from the Internet site: http://emercom.pskov.ru/Museum/Pages/pozhary_drevnie.htm
57. Information from the Internet site: http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/kremlin/37963/
58. Information from the Internet site: http://www.astrakhan.ru/history/read/38/
59. PSRL 34:203.
60. Information from the Internet site: http://www.twow.ru/forum/lofi/index.php/t1870-0.html
inventory of municipal fortifications of Old women 1695" (CIT. in book.: Krylov I.P. Staritsa and its attractions. Staritsa,
62. Zagraevsky SV New research... S. 113.
63. E.E. Golubinsky Decree. back With. 306.
64. The information was taken on web site http://www.urzhum.ru/architecture/klnch.html.
65. Information gleaned on the forum web site www.sobory.ru.
67. Even the assumption
© Sergey Zagraevsky