To the page “Scientific works”
S. V. Zagraevsky
New researches of Vladimir-Suzdal museum’s
architectural monuments
Published in Russian: Çàãðàåâñêèé Ñ.Â. Íîâûå èññëåäîâàíèÿ ïàìÿòíèêîâ àðõèòåêòóðû Âëàäèìèðî-Ñóçäàëüñêîãî ìóçåÿ-çàïîâåäíèêà. M.: Àëåâ-Â, 2008. ISBN 5-94025-099-8
Chapter
1.Organization of production and processing of white stone in ancient Russia
Chapter 2. The beginning
of “Russian Romanesque”: Jury Dolgoruky or Andrey Bogolyubsky?
in Suzdal in 1148 and the original view of Suzdal temple of 1222–1225
Chapter 4.
Questions of date and status of Boris and Gleb Church in Kideksha
Chapter 5.
Questions of architectural history and reconstruction of Andrey Bogolyubsky’s
Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir
Chapter 6.
Redetermination of the reconstruction of Golden Gate in Vladimir
Chapter 7. Architectural
ensemble in Bogolyubovo: questions of history and reconstruction
Chapter 9.
Questions of the rebuilding of Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir by Vsevolod the
Big Nest
Chapter 10.
Questions of the original view and date of Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir
Chapter
3.
About
the hypothetical “intermediate” building
of
the Cathedral of Nativity of Virgin Mary in Suzdal in 1148
and
the original form of Suzdal temple of 1222–1225
1. Analysis of the chronicle data for the construction of
Suzdal cathedral
We have to consider the problem,
which attracted the attention of many researchers and had a considerable
resonance in scientific and popular literature: whether a cathedral of Nativity
of Holy Virgin was built in the city of
In this study we shall analyze all
possible arguments pro and contra the existence of this hypothetical cathedral
in Suzdal. First of all, we must
consider the data of ancient documentary sources, which tell about the
construction of a pre-Mongolian cathedrals in the city of
“Laurentian” Chronicle reports under 1222: “Grand
Prince George founded the stone Church of Holy Mother of God, at the old place,
having destroyed the old building, which began to collapse because of its
oldness and its top fell; that church was built by his great-grandfather
Vladimir Monomakh and blessed bishop Ephraim”1.
Thus, the chronicler clearly states that Grand Prince
Yuri Vsevolodovich in 1222 destroyed Suzdal cathedral, which had been built by
Vladimir Monomakh and dedicated to the Holy Virgin, and constructed the new
temple at its place. The construction of this cathedral was completed in 1225,
as “Laurentian” Chronicle reports: "The Church of Holy
Mother of God was built and consecrated by Bishop Simon in 8 day of
September"2. There
is nothing said about the building of an "intermediate" cathedral in
1148: according to the Chronicler, the temple, which had been built by Monomakh
(who died in 1125), was destroyed in 1222.
Another documentary evidence relating to the
construction of the cathedral in the city of
Ancient documentary sources, which directly tell about
the construction of a Suzdal cathedral, can be considered exhausted at this
message.
Before we consider these reports to determine
the presence of contradictions there, we must pay attention to the date of the
first Suzdal cathedral, as it is not given in these sources.
The message of “Laurentian” Chronicle under 1222
mentioned Bishop Ephraim as a builder of Suzdal cathedral. Perhaps this refers
to Metropolitan Ephraim of Pereyaslavl (a contemporary of Vladimir Monomakh),
since the rank of Metropolitan refers to the “third degree” of priesthood, and
all clergies of this degree are generally called bishops.
The date of Ephraim Pereyaslavsky’s death is unknown
to us. Most frequently we meet
But N.N. Voronin did not realize the fact that Ephraim
was not a Bishop, but a Metropolitan (in this case it does not matter whether
there was a metropolitanate in Pereyaslavl7 or Ephraim was only a
"titular" Metropolitan8), and Lazarus may have been
consecrated also during the life of Ephraim.
We also do not have one hundred percent certainty that
Bishop Ephraim of “Laurentian” Chronicle’s message is identical to Metropolitan
Ephraim of Pereyaslavl9. Consequently, we have no right to tie
Suzdal cathedral dating with the life dates of the Metropolitan, even if we had
known them for sure.
Another doubt in Suzdal cathedral’s dating by 1101 is
that the message about the second visit of Monomakh to Suzdal region referred
to the founding of the cathedral in Smolensk10, and Suzdal cathedral
is not mentioned. And a supplement of existing chronicle details by the
assumptions that at this time could have happened something like that, which
escaped the notice of the chronicler, looks absolutely illegal. Since the
chronicler wrote about
The personal presence of Vladimir Monomakh at the
foundation and construction of Suzdal cathedral was also absolutely unnecessary
(in Suzdal in early XII century there were a local Prince and Monomakh’s
governor).
Accordingly, we have no right to tie the construction
of the temple in Suzdal with any Vladimir Vsevolodovich’s trip to Suzdal land.
Thus, we must note that the only satisfactory dating
basis for the first Suzdal cathedral is marked by “Laurentian” Chronicle: the
fact that it was built during the lifetime of Monomakh, so the most rigorous
and well-grounded dating of this temple – not later than 1125.
Let us remember architectural and archaeological surveys
conducted in the Cathedral of Nativity of the Virgin in the city of
We can now proceed to the analysis of the texts of
Chronicle and Paterik.
Both of “Laurentian” Chronicle’s messages have no
internal contradictions and are consistent with the data of studies of
1937-1940, and 1987, and 1994-200115, which opened two foundations –
of the
Fig. 20. Cathedral of Nativity of the Virgin in
Suzdal. General view.
Fig. 21. Combined plans
for Monomakh’s cathedral and the temple of 1222-1225 (by P.L. Zykov).
But “Laurentian” Chronicle calls Monomakh
the builder of the first cathedral in Suzdal, and Paterikon says that Monomakh
erected the temple in Rostov17, and the cathedral in Suzdal was
built by Yuri Dolgoruky. What Yuri’s temple is referred to in Paterikon? And
which temple was erected during Monomakh’s reign, isn’t there a contradiction
with “Laurentian” Chronicle?
The fact that Paterikon tells about Suzdal cathedral,
which was built by Yuri in Monomakh time, and that this message does not
contradict “Laurentian” Chronicle, is confirmed by the following provisions.
Firstly, Paterikon says that Dolgoruky built the
temple in Suzdal "in the same measure" as the temple in
Secondly, by the context of the message of Paterikon,
some decades could hardly pass between the construction of Monomakh’s temple in
Third, the dates of Yuri Dolgoruky’s birth
(early-mid 1090s), the beginning of his reign in Suzdal (range of dates offered
by researchers – since 109619 to 111320) and the
construction of the first Suzdal cathedral (not later than 1125) are quite
conventional. The spread of all these dates is so large that we are justified
in believing: Yuri Dolgoruky at the time of construction of Suzdal cathedral
could be the Prince of Suzdal land, and a grown man, capable to be a
churchwarden of the cathedral himself.
Fourth, the historical fate of the first years (and
possibly of the first decades) of Yuri Dolgoruky’s reign in Suzdal principality
was inseparable from the historical fate of the reign of his father, so
Monomakh could be called in the sources a churchwarden of the temple along with
Dolgoruky – as the Grand Prince (if the cathedral was built during the reign of
Vladimir Vsevolodovich in Kiev), or as an authoritative father of a young son
(if the cathedral was erected earlier).
Fifthly, it is likely that Yury Vladimirovich, Suzdal
Prince, had during the life of Monomakh no political or financial independence,
and he was a churchwarden of the temple only formally, in fact acting by the
will of Vladimir Vsevolodovich.
Thus, in Paterikon it is said about
Let us summarize our study of ancient documentary
sources, which directly tell about the construction of the cathedral in the
city of
We have shown that the messages of “Laurentian”
Chronicle and Paterik have no internal contradictions and do not contradict
either to each other, nor to the results of archeological researches.
Consequently, according to the specified documentary sources, the first Suzdal
cathedral was erected not later than 1125, the second – in 1222-1225. Monomakh
and Yury Dolgoruky were the churchwardens of the first temple, Yuri
Vsevolodovich – of the second21.
There is nothing said about any
"intermediate" construction in these sources, moreover – “Laurentian”
Chronicle precludes such construction.
2. The arguments in favor of a hypothetical construction
in 1148
First Novgorod Chronicle under 1148 reports: “Nifont went to Suzdal to make peace with Gyurgevi,
and was accepted by Gyurgi with love, and made the great consecration of the
Church of the Holy Virgin, and all people from New Torzhok got freedom, and all
merchants were alive, and he went to Novgorod with honor, but peace was not
given”22.
Doesn’t this message (even not directly) mean that in
Such was the position taken by A.D. Varganov and
A.F. Dubynin, G.K. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T.O. Bachurina23.
G.K. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T.O. Bachurina in their studies
followed the majority of the arguments of A.D. Varganov and
A.F. Dubynin in favor of the building of a new cathedral in 1148, so for
simplicity we shall combine the positions of all these researchers.
Here are all the arguments advanced in favor of the
existence of the hypothetical cathedral of 1148.
1. As we have already noted, A.D. Varganov and
A.F. Dubynin, G.K. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T.O. Bachurina
believed that First Novgorod Chronicle reports that Nifont in 1148 consecrated
the new cathedral, which had been built on the site of the first temple.
2. Inside the southern forechurch of the existing
cathedral at the depth of
3. The forechurches of the existing cathedral are
"attached" to it (have no bind masonry), the level of the socle of
the southern forechurch is below the level of the socle of the temple, and the
top of the southern forechurch cuts into the arcature-columnar zone. This gave
the researchers possibility to argue that the forechurches were erected in
1148, i.e. belonged to the hypothetical temple. In support of that position the
message of Chronicles was used, which confirmed that the cathedral had
forechurches in the end of XII century: in 1194, when the temple was repaired,
it was “covered with tin from the top to the arched gables and forechurches”25.
4. Under the portal of the north forechurch of the
existing cathedral the study of 1937-1940 found the remains of a previous
portal (fairly simple, consisting of only two ledges) and a socle deflux. These
fragments are similar by ease of execution to the corresponding architectural
details of Holy Transfiguration cathedral in Pereslavl-Zalessky and the
5. Between stratigraphic layers of the construction of
Monomakh’s temple and of the cathedral of 1222-
6. The quantity of roughly treated tuff-like limestone
(in historical and architectural common parlance usually referred to as “tuff”26)
in the lining of the first tier of the existing temple is very large –
according to V.M. Anisimov and T.O. Bachurina, about 40% (Fig. 22).
Tuff-like limestone is the primary lining of the lower tier of the cathedral,
and fragments of well-treated white stone wall masonry are traces of repairs,
as it is evidenced by the following data:
– According to the study of 1998, tuff-like limestone
was laid on a pink lime with “tsemyanka” (admixture of plinthite powder), and
white stone – on a light mortar with the addition of white stone powder;
– According to the archaeological study of 1994-1996,
the walls are rubbled with lime with the addition of “tsemyanka”, i.e. this
mortar is closer to that of the masonry of tuff-like limestone;
– According to the observations of the author of
this study, the masonry of tuff-like limestone is homogeneous, and of
well-treated white stone – variable and of different times (Fig. 22).
In connection with the primacy of tuff-like limestone
masonry, A.D. Varganov and A.F. Dubynin, G.K. Wagner,
V.M. Anisimov and T.O. Bachurina believed that the lower part of the
existing temple was built of tuff-like limestone in 1148, and the upper part
was rebuilt of well-treated white stone in 1222-1225 (and later was again
rebuilt in XVI century, already in brick). Accordingly, by their opinion, the
foundations and lower parts of the walls belong not to the cathedral of
1222-1225, but to the hypothetical temple of 1148.
Fig. 22. The masonry of the walls of Suzdal cathedral
of Nativity of the Virgin.
7. Those researchers drew attention to the fact that
the profiled portals and the arcature-columnar zone of the existing cathedral
(Fig. 23) is "embedded" in the lining of tuff-like limestone, and
believed that those architectural details appeared on the hypothetical temple
later than in 1148 (respectively in
1222-1225).
Fig. 23. Arcature-columnar
zone of the Cathedral of Nativity of the Virgin.
8. The mentioned
researchers saw the following logical path of development of construction in
Suzdal land: the era of Monomakh – plinthite and “opus mixtum”, 1148 –
tuff-like limestone, since 1152 – well-treated white stone. Otherwise, in their
view, the cathedral facing by tuff-like limestone in the beginning of XIII
century would have meant regression of construction technique.
Thus,
those researchers believed that the hypothetical cathedral of 1148 had six
pillars, three apses and three forechurches, and was faced by tuff-like
limestone. This cathedral, in their view, was a "transition" from the
technology «opus mixtum» of Monomakh time to well-treated white stone
technology, which appeared in 1152; in 1222-1225 the top of the hypothetical
temple of 1148 was rebuilt to arcature-columnar zone, and the lower part of
that temple is inherently preserved to this day (note that in the case of acceptance
of the position of those researchers we would have to change the basic dating
of the existing cathedral from 1222-1225 to 1148).
Arguing that the hypothetical temple was built in
1148, those researchers inevitably faced with the problem of interpretation of
the messages of “Laurentian” Chronicle and Paterikon (see Section 1). They felt
that since Paterikon did not indicate the date of construction, its message
tells about the building by Yuri Dolgoruky not of the first cathedral in Suzdal
(of Monomakh’s times), but of the hypothetical cathedral of 1148. And
concerning the report of “Laurentian” Chronicle under 1222, which clearly
negates the existence of any "intermediate" cathedral in Suzdal,
those researchers had to declare it a mistake and ignore.
3. Consideration of the pros and cons of the
construction in 1148 and concerns about the original form of the cathedral of
1222-1225
In order to understand whether the message of
“Laurentian” Chronicle under 1222 may be disavowed, we must consider all mentioned
in Sect. 2 arguments in favor of the existence of the hypothetical temple of
1148. If at least one of them will be indisputable and irrefutable, we shall
also have to admit Chronicles’ message as a mistake and believe that Yuri
Dolgoruky built in the city of
But first of all let us note that in this case we
shall have to disown the message not only of “Laurentian” Chronicle, but also
of Paterikon – in the part which says that Dolgoruky built the temple in Suzdal
"in the measure" of Pechersky. As we have seen in Section 1, this
"measure" corresponds only to the foundation of Monomakh’s temple.
Naturally, a priori critical attitude to invaluable
documentary information of the beginning of XIII century is unacceptable, and
it will be possible to consider the messages of “Laurentian” Chronicle and
Paterikon as erroneous only in the case of exceptionally robust and significant
arguments without generating any doubts. Let us see whether any of these
mentioned in Section 2 arguments of A.D. Varganov and A.F. Dubynin,
G.K. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T.O. Bachurina may be qualified
for such an exceptional value and reliability.
And we shall start with the first argument – First
Novgorod Chronicle’s report that Nifont in 1148 “made
the great consecration of the Church of the Holy Virgin” in Suzdal.
And we now can consider the second argument contained
in Section 2 – the floor, opened by archaeological investigations of 1937-1940
and dated by the interval between the dates of Monomakh’s cathedral and the
existing one. N.N. Voronin, who denied the existence of the temple of
1148, quite rightly thought that in that year the first cathedral was repaired
and the level of the floor was raised28.
It was impossible not to move the altar when raising
the floor level. Accordingly, "great consecration" after the renovation
of 1148 was mandatory, and about it, most likely, the message of First Novgorod
Chronicle tells29.
The third and fourth arguments for the existence
of the hypothetical cathedral of 1148 were related to the forechurches. Let us
briefly repeat the problematic issues:
– the temple, according to the chronicles, had
forechurches in 1194;
– the existing forechurches are not tied to the
temple, the southern forechurch covers the arcature-columnar zone;
– under the northern portal of the existing forechurch
the remains of the previous portal and socle were found.
The acceptance of the version of existence of the
cathedral of 1148 does not solve these problems, because if we believe that
remnants of the portal and the socle under the existing forechurch belong to a
forechurch of the hypothetical cathedral, then we must consider the existing
forechurches belonging to the cathedral not of 1148, but of 1222-1225, and it
remains unclear why the existing forechurches are not tied with the temple. And
if we assume that the existing forechurches belong to the hypothetical
cathedral of 1148, it remains unclear to what temple the remains of the portal
and the socle are related.
N.N. Voronin
considered that the existing forechurches are not tied with the temple for two
reasons:
– the forechurches and the temple had various
perspectives of settling;
– such was the sequence of construction of various
parts of the temple30.
And this researcher, who denied the existence of the
cathedral of 1148, was to assume as "mysterious" the existence of the
remains of the portal and the socle under the existing forechurch31.
However, as we have just shown, the acceptance of the existence of this
hypothetical cathedral would not have given a satisfactory solution of this
problem.
Consistent answers to these questions is given by the
understanding of a very important fact: in 1222-1225 the plans of the
churchwarden, priests and builders changed many times during the construction
of the building (in later chapters we shall show that a similar situation
occurred during the construction of the Church of Nativity in Bogolyubovo, the
Church of Intersession on the Nerl and the Cathedral of St. Demetrius in
Vladimir).
1. Initially, Yuri Vsevolodovich’s cathedral was
designed with 3 forechurches. The foundation of this cathedral was placed on
top of the foundation of the first temple, and to provide the necessary
stability it was needed to raise it above the floor level of 1148 and to
sprinkle ground, having created a small artificial hill, which was shown by the
archaeological investigations of 1994-2001. And the level of the floor of the
forechurches, under which there were no other foundations, was planned at a
lower point – at the level of the floor raised by the repairs of 1148. Portals
and socles were to be simple enough (portals – in the form of a simple ledge,
skirting board – in the form of a simple deflux).
2. Having raised the southern and northern
forechurches to the level of the socle, the builders rejected them – may be it
was decided that the cathedral will look more coherent without them.
Accordingly, upon the completion of the construction in 1225 the cathedral had
only the western forechurch (the latter is tied with masonry of the temple).
Note that during construction, as N.N. Voronin
rightly supposed32, in some moment the concept of the altar part of
the cathedral also changed, and the builders had to construct new apses (their
masonry is also not tied with the masonry of the cathedral).
This position clarifies the question why under the
existing portals there are remnants of previous ones, and why the existing
forechurches are not tied to the temple and overlap the arcature-columnar zone.
Consequently, the existing forechurches and the remnants of the portal and the
socle under them belong not to the hypothetical temple of 1148, but to the
cathedral of 1222-1225.
But the question remains: about what forechurches was
said in the chronicle report under 1194?
Archaeological investigations have not given a clear
answer to the question whether Monomakh’s cathedral had forechurches33.
But even if we assume that the "solid" (built in the technique of
«opus mixtum») forechurches did not exist, the Chronicles’ mention of them
under 1194 has the following explanation: the forechurches were wooden
(archeological research in such complex stratigraphy are virtually unable to
detect their residues). In some years after the construction of the first
cathedral, a considerable amount of "utilitarian" wooden additions to
it was to appear, and among them might have been the forechurches. It is
absolutely unnecessary that these forechurches were spoiling the appearance of
the temple: they could have been plastered, lined by "quadras",
whitened, and even decorated by some ornament34.
Concerning the sprinkled soil layer between
stratigraphic layers of the construction of Monomakh’s temple and the cathedral
of 1222-1225 (the fifth argument in favor of the existence of the hypothetical
temple of 1148), the explanation of this fact we have already given above:
archaeological study of 1994-2001 showed that the foundation of the existing
temple was placed on top of the basement of Monomakh’s cathedral, and to
provide the necessary stability of the second foundation it was needed to raise
and sprinkle the ground, having created a small artificial hill.
Let us turn to marked abundance of tuff-like limestone
in existing parts of the cathedral and the primacy of such stone masonry on
well-treated fragments (see Fig. 22). Basing on these data, those researchers
believed that the hypothetical cathedral of 1148 was built of tuff-like
limestone, and then was ornamented with profiled white stone details in the
period of the construction of the temple of 1222-1225 period (as we remember,
that was the sixth argument in favor of the hypothetical temple of 1148).
But, basing on the same architectural and archaeological
data, we can to make a fundamentally different conclusion: tuff-like limestone
was the facing not of the hypothetical temple of 1148, but of the cathedral of
Yuri Vsevolodovich. Profiled white stone decoration also belongs to 1222-1225.
Thus, the temple, built by Yuri Vsevolodovich, had a unique appearance: its
rough-treated tuff-like lining was combined with richly ornamented decor of
high quality white stone.
The seventh argument of A.D. Varganov and
A.F. Dubynin, G.K. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T.O. Bachurina
– the "breakout" of the portals and the arcature-columnar zone into
the lining of tuff-like limestone – can not testify about the different time of
profiles details and masonry, as complex (and even more so covered with a very
thin carving – see Fig. 23) details of architectural decoration in the vast
majority of ancient churches were hewn out separately and then inserted into
masonry. Otherwise, the process of hewn parts scrapping would have been greatly
complicated (they were to be removed from masonry).
But wasn’t this unprecedented architectural design of
the cathedral of 1222-1225 – the combination of tuff-like limestone masonry
with profiled ornamental details of white stone – a regression for the
beginning of XIII century, as it was considered by A.D. Varganov and
A.F. Dubynin, G.K. Wagner, V.M. Anisimov and T.O. Bachurina
(see the eighth argument of these researchers in Section 2)?
No. On the contrary, this solution combines two
essential qualities: efficiency and aesthetics.
Rough-treated tuff-like
limestone was significantly (possibly several times) cheaper than well-treated
white stone. This fully reflects the desire of the builders of the cathedral to
the maximum savings. In turn, this tendency is confirmed by the fact that the
walls of the cathedral of 1222-1225 were in large part rubbled by the wreckage
of the first cathedral (and sometimes, as the study of 1994-2001 showed, entire
fragments of the walls of the first temple were used instead of rubble). It is
also very significant that the builders did not fully line by tuff-like
limestone the part of the cathedral wall, which was covered by the western
forechurch, and used there the fragments of masonry of Monomakh times and
probably plinthite of their own production35 (as it was correctly
assumed by N.N. Voronin, such savings took place due to the fact that this
section of the wall still intended plaster and painting36).
Most likely, the need for cost savings was due to the
turbulent political situation (in 1216 the Battle of Lipitsa took place, Yuri
Vsevolodovich became the Grand Prince again only in 1218 and until 1222 hardly
had time to fully establish himself on
And aesthetic of such architectural solutions as in
Suzdal cathedral of 1222-1225 was conditioned by the fact that the
"careless" masonry of tuff-like limestone set off richly ornamented
profiled parts of high quality white stone. In general, the temple looked very
"smartly".
It should be noted that this decision – the
combination of rough-treated walls masonry with well-treated profiled details
of architectural decoration – became widespread in the first third of XIV
century, when under the difficult economic situation since the Mongol yoke the
Church of St. John Baptist Conception in “Gorodishe” in Kolomna, St. Nicholas
church in Kamenskoye village of Moscow (Naro-Fominsk) region (Fig. 24), the
Church of Nativity of the Virgin in Gorodnya village of Tver region, the first
Cathedral of Assumption in Moscow (the author’s reconstruction is shown on Fig.
25) and several other temples were erected in such technique38.
Fig.
Fig.
25. Assumption Cathedral in
So, none of the arguments, which were
put forward in favor of the existence of the hypothetical cathedral of 1148, is
reliable enough to disavow the message of “Laurentian” Chronicle under 1222,
which clearly negates the erection of any "intermediate" temple between
Monomakh’s cathedral and the temple of 1222-1225.
All architectural, archaeological and
documentary evidence cited in favor of the hypothetical cathedral of 1148, can
be attributed to two Suzdal cathedrals named in “Laurentian” Chronicle.
Accordingly, we must fully agree with the Chronicler
and consider that in 1148 no cathedral was built in the city of
Nevertheless, we must note that the detailed analysis
of hypotheses related to the temple of 1148, which never existed, considerably
enriched our knowledge of the architectural history of the Cathedral of
Nativity of the Virgin in Suzdal. In particular, we were able to consistently
resolve the issue of the original view of the cathedral of 1222-1225.
Chapter 4. Questions
of date and status of Boris and Gleb Church in Kideksha
© Sergey Zagraevsky
Chapter
1.Organization of production and processing of white stone in ancient Russia
Chapter 2. The
beginning of “Russian Romanesque”: Jury Dolgoruky or Andrey Bogolyubsky?
in Suzdal in 1148 and the original view of Suzdal temple of 1222–1225
Chapter 4.
Questions of date and status of Boris and Gleb Church in Kideksha
Chapter 5. Questions
of architectural history and reconstruction of Andrey Bogolyubsky’s
Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir
Chapter 6.
Redetermination of the reconstruction of Golden Gate in Vladimir
Chapter 7.
Architectural ensemble in Bogolyubovo: questions of history and reconstruction
Chapter 9.
Questions of the rebuilding of Assumption Cathedral in Vladimir by Vsevolod the
Big Nest
Chapter 10.
Questions of the original view and date of Dmitrievsky Cathedral in Vladimir
To the page “Scientific works”