On the origin of the Christian church. Critical Notes

Church archeology in the sense of the science of material monuments of Christian antiquity is considered a recent phenomenon even in the West. Although quite a few extensive and respectable works devoted to the description of material monuments of Christian antiquity appeared there in the last and even the pre-last century, it was only in the middle or second quarter of our century that completely scientific methods began to be applied to their study, as a result of which the possibility of a completely independent science about them arose. Experiments with such science are no longer rare, especially among the French, who are ahead of the Germans in this regard; but the latter possess a very extensive literature on many particular church and archaeological issues. In Russia, the aforementioned science is an even newer phenomenon; systematic presentations of it do not yet exist at all, and monographs on specific issues are extremely rare. Mr. Pokrovsky's book is one of the first of this kind; according to the archeology of ancient Christian church architecture, it is positively the first experience. For the study of monuments of ancient Christian architecture, therefore, plans and drawings taken by architects on convenient occasions, as well as written descriptions of contemporaries and eyewitnesses of the construction, will always serve mainly. The study of these sources, as well as later archaeological literature related to this issue, obviously should not be neglected even by a person who has had the opportunity to personally examine the surviving monuments. On the basis of this kind of study, apparently, the study before us was compiled on the origin of Christian basilicas. For example, Stockbauer did this in his study: “Christian Church Architecture in the First Six Centuries,” published in 1874. Mr. Pokrovsky is doing the same. In the introduction, after a general indication of “two extremes in the views of learned archaeologists and architects,” of which some derive Christian basilicas directly from classical buildings, churches or basilicas, while others consider them to be a completely original phenomenon, the author makes a fairly thorough review of the works on this issue, setting out the content of the most important of them, namely Zestermann, Kreiser, Ulrich, Messmer, Weingertner, Reber and Motes. This review is undoubtedly very interesting and very relevant here, but it would certainly be more valuable if, when presenting the contents of some very important works, less attention was paid to Stockbauer, who does not present them quite completely, and in places incorrectly, and if, in addition, Stockbauer’s review was supplemented by a presentation of the works of this author and some others who wrote later. In general, a review of Mr. Let us now see what kind of solution the new archaeologist intends to give and what task he sets for his research. In the same introduction, after the now-mentioned review, he says that “despite the significant number of works he reviewed and their scientific merits, the question of the Christian church, especially its prototypes, still remains open” (p. 25). Elsewhere, he expresses himself even more decisively that this question “is still a subject of controversy, that many opinions and conjectures on this subject have been expressed, and indisputable results do not exist to this day” (p. 1). Indeed, so many opinions have been expressed on this issue that apparently it is no longer possible to invent a new one, at least it is very difficult. However, the author of the book under review does not stop in the face of this difficulty. “Diversity,” he says, “and sometimes the diametrical opposition of views, explained by polemical enthusiasm and biased use of sources, clearly indicate the need for a different formulation of this question and a new revision of the relevant data. Almost all the necessary elements for this can be found in parts in various places in the mentioned works, but there is no uniform development of these elements and their mutual natural connection” (p. 25). So, the author intends, by taking ready-made “elements” from different works, in each of them processed for his own purpose, to give them uniform development and put them in a mutual natural connection, that is, in other words: to combine them differently, in accordance with his own goals, and thus hopes to give a new formulation to the question and, consequently, to find a new, more correct solution. The technique is obviously quite strange, since it is hardly possible, through a kind of rearrangement of elements assigned for other purposes, to achieve valuable scientific results and come to a new and correct solution to the problem. We really don’t find such a solution in the essay under review. Understanding the mass of elements that were at his fingertips in great abundance, he does not always distinguish among them the doubtful from the completely reliable and unnecessary from those essentially necessary for his purpose; he introduced into his work quite a few details that were unnecessary, or completely unnecessary and even obscured the matter, omitted from attention many very necessary things and ended up joining one of the old opinions and, moreover, more untenable than the others. – Although there are quite a few opinions regarding the origin of the basilica, as indicated above, three of them can be considered the main ones: the opinions of Messmer, Weingertner and Motes. Weingertner points to a pagan temple as a prototype of a Christian temple in general and a Christian basilica in particular, and Motes argues that the Christian basilica is not an imitation of either a pagan basilica or a pagan temple, that in relation to the general form and technical architectural techniques it can be put in connection with the many different kinds of buildings of a similar form that existed in the pre-Christian world; in terms of details and general character, it is an original and independent form, conditioned in its appearance and characteristics by the requirements of the Christian cult. Cesterman and Kreiser can be considered to agree with Motes, who, while insisting on the complete originality of the ancient Christian church, do not deny, however, that its architectural execution took place using the techniques developed by classical art. This last opinion seems to us more solid and probable. But Mr. Pokrovsky prefers to follow the first one, i.e. The architects who built the first Christian basilicas, without a doubt, before embarking on this task, received from the rectors of the churches - who had the highest supervision here and who looked at the church as “the realization of heavenly prototypes” 1 - detailed instructions regarding the purpose of the building and those features of the Christian cult that required architectural adaptations, and then, in accordance with the techniques of construction technology known at the time, they gave the finished plan an external architectural appearance. With such orders, even in details the spirit of a new religion and a new cult could not help but be reflected. In general, the role of the original Christian invention in the field of Christian architecture was much more significant than some people think, and not only in the first three centuries, but also in the 4th, when the secular government began to take part in the construction of churches. All this, when deciding the question of the origin of the Christian church, must always be in the foreground, otherwise it is very difficult to determine the true meaning and scope of those extraneous influences that are noticeable in the works of ancient Christian architecture. When they lose sight of this, they almost inevitably fall into exaggeration and even come to a complete denial of the original Christian element in architecture. – It should be noted, however, that these exaggerations also largely depend on the confusion in the concepts of architectural elements and purely artistic forms and so-called everyday forms, determined by the peculiarities of family, social, religious life, climatic conditions, etc., as well as on the confusion of the building plan with its architectural treatment and execution. An unclear distinction between concepts and terms of this kind cannot but have a detrimental effect on those especially studies of architecture in which, as in the study of Mr. Pokrovsky, the technical side of buildings is primarily meant. Another position of the author seems equally unfounded to us, that the name basil was so widespread in the 4th century that even eastern writers did not completely shun it, because the only writer he found it possible to refer to, Eusebius, obviously shuns this name (βασιλιχὴ). It is found in him only in a letter from Constantine to Macarius, but he clearly presented this letter as a document verbatim, and the terminology adopted in it obviously cannot be attributed to Eusebius. Eusebius himself, in his description of the church over the tomb of Christ, placed after the mentioned letter, starting from chapter 36. III book. Life of Constantine, no longer uses the name βασιλικὴ, but replaces it with others similar, but not identical. Instead, he first uses: βασίλειος νεώς, then lower: βασίλειος οἵκος, then even lower in Chapter 38. simply βασίλειος, again obviously implying either νεώς or οίκος. In the same way in other places of his writings 3 - in the famous panegyric to Peacock, placed in the Church. We made all these comments, however, not in order to reject any significance of the similarity of names in the question of the origin of the Christian church in general and in particular the basilica, but in order to eliminate inaccuracies and exaggerations, which, to prove the position put forward by the author, are at least unnecessary and only compromise the methods of his research. The sameness of names, Christian and pagan, even if it appeared only from the 4th century, constitutes one of the most important evidence of the connection between the Christian temple and the Greco-Roman basilica. If a Christian temple of a certain form is similar to a pagan basilica in that it has an oblong quadrangular plan, columns, a suspended middle ship, an apse, etc. He does not formulate it precisely and in detail anywhere, but from the fragmentary phrases scattered in different places of the refutation he compiled, from the order and nature of the refutation itself, one can see that the opinion he is refuting, in his opinion, is that the Christian church stands in complete dependence on the “Temple of Solomon”, that it is a copy of this latter not only in its plan and location, but also in its architectural design and style. The author even mentions some old archaeologists (without naming which ones), who allegedly “under the influence of the charm of classical architecture, completely arbitrarily classified the Temple of Solomon (built 1014 BC, when there was no question of Greco-Roman architecture) to the Greco-Roman type” (p. 49) and considers it necessary to describe this temple in detail and seriously prove that it is technically adjoins Phoenician buildings, and not ancient, Greco-Roman ones, and therefore Christian basilicas, the architecture of which undoubtedly has an antique character, could not have come from it. The same persecution to which the Jews were subjected equally to the Christians - since the latter were accepted only as a sect of the former - could only contribute to the connection that united Jews and Christians at the beginning, or at least to its preservation for some time. All this should have led to the fact that the concept of the church was for some time distracted from the image of the Jewish church. But soon this was to happen differently. Christianity, having spread among the pagans of the Roman Empire, had to meet with the image of the Roman temple. If the division of the Jewish church gave rise to the general division of the Christian church and the choice of space for it in the ancient house, then for Roman influence it remained to undertake the formation of the interior and introduce into the Christian church building a new element in the installation of the plan (round and polygonal plan). So, home worship and the space assigned for it constitute in the formation of a Christian temple only a period of transition, which was accomplished all the more easily because the plan and division of the Jewish and ancient pagan temples present a similarity that is surprising at first glance, but not completely inexplicable. This transition was made even more easier by the destruction of the Jewish church, as a result of which only a general outline of its appearance continued to live in the minds of Christians.” Further, Weingertner makes a detailed comparison of the Jewish temple, rebuilt under Herod in the Greco-Roman style, with the Greco-Roman and Christian temples and finds significant similarities between them, especially in plan and location. And then, after all this, he makes the following conclusion: “all this gives us the right to believe with almost full probability that the idea of ​​the previous image of the Jewish temple, on the one hand, caused the distribution of space and the choice of place for Christian worship in an ancient house, and on the other, it also formed an intermediary link between this adaptation and transformation in relation to the appearance, division and interior decoration of the Greco-Roman temple, spaces used for Christian worship almost until the beginning of III century, - when this transformation became necessary due to the development, in the period from Christ to Constantine, of the Christian cult, the formation of which, as well as its places, was determined by both the Jewish and Greco-Roman cult" 7. This is in fact Weingertner's opinion. Obviously, this scientist allows the influence of the Jewish church on the Christian one to a very limited extent. This influence, in his opinion, took place mainly only in the very first Christian antiquity and was reflected mainly only in the choice of one rather than another room for worship in the house. As for the subsequent time, if the Christian temple experienced the influence of the Jews, it was only a mediocre influence through the Greco-Roman temple, which was in many ways similar to the Jewish temple. Pokrovsky presents the matter in such a way that it is as if Weingertner, having attempted to explain the origin of the Christian temple, first made an attempt to derive the form of this temple from the temple in Jerusalem, but this attempt failed, which forced him to turn to the pagans for a model for the Christian temple. At least the following phrase, read at the beginning of Chapter III, cannot be understood differently. (57 pp.): “Weingertner’s failed attempt to produce the form of a Christian temple from the Jerusalem temple forced him to turn to the religious architecture of the pagans to find the desired prototype.” that later Eastern writers sometimes draw some analogy between the churches under consideration in particular, but this analogy is symbolic in nature and was influenced by the thought of the general relationship of Judaism to Christianity. This is not enough: referring to the hostile relationship of Judaism to Christianity, which ended in “the complete separation of one religion from another, the last expression of which on the part of the Jews was the Talmud, which imposed the strongest anathema on Christianity,” Mr. Pokrovsky, apparently, does not want to even admit the possibility of any dependence of Christianity on Judaism in the field of cult (p. 41). He expresses all this completely unfounded, repeating without any verification the evidence of Messmer, a writer of the highest degree tendentious and very superficially familiar with ancient Christian literature. Such meeting places did exist among Christians at that time, but it is known that they themselves strictly distinguished them from churches and therefore could not put them in parallel with any church, even a Jewish one. However, Meliton’s lack of the desired instructions is sufficiently explained by the very nature of his work, if only the work now known under his name is really his work. Already from the excerpts given by our author and Messmer that the church courtyard, for example, means the breadth of real life, love, contemplation, the breadth of eternal life, etc., it is clear that Melito’s interpretations are completely mystical in nature; comparisons with the aim of indicating the historical and, especially, genetic connections between the phenomena under consideration are obviously not part of his task. In general, one would not need to demand from Meliton evidence of the dependence of the Christian church on the Jewish one. True, we will not find special treatises in their works where the dependence of the Christian church on the Jewish one is proven or refuted in detail, but we will find detailed explanations regarding the relationship between Christianity and Judaism in the field of doctrine, cult in general and in particular, and what is the true nature of the antagonism between the confessors of both religions, which for our archaeologist seems to be an insurmountable obstacle to Christians decided to imitate the temple in Jerusalem when building their churches. In fact, this last thought is completely false. The author himself, at the beginning of the chapter, cites facts indicating a significant development of inclination towards the rituals and institutions of Judaism among the first Christians and, in particular, the respectful attitude of Christ himself, the apostles and the first believers towards the Jerusalem temple and synagogues. These facts alone are enough to see that for Christians of that time, when Christian worship was already beginning to take shape and when, consequently, there was already a need to invent at least a general plan and a general norm for the Christian church, the Jewish church could very well serve as some kind of model. Subsequent time brought very little change in this regard. Although the antagonism between Jews and Christians intensified from time to time and sometimes took quite sharp forms, the general attitude of Christians towards Judaism did not change at all. Christian writers who polemicized against attachment to Jewish institutions always strictly distinguished institutions, attachment to which was considered reprehensible and inappropriate for Christians, from institutions, imitation of which was highly desirable and even obligatory for them; Among the latter there are also those who belong to the realm of external cult. And indeed, in Christian worship one can point out quite a few such forms, the genetic connection of which with similar Jewish forms has been proven throughout Christian antiquity. For example, some times of prayer were borrowed by Christians from the Jews and then, according to the testimony of Cyprian 10, they were symbolized in relation to New Testament events; The prayers and chants themselves not only sometimes served as models for Christians, but were also entirely transferable to Christian use, for example the psalms. The same can be said about the use: amen, hallelujah, about the use of incense, etc. Even some of the behavior of believers in the church was borrowed from Old Testament practice. Thus, the writer of the Apostolic Constitutions, having described the order of believers entering the church and standing in it, notes that this order is observed by Christians “because in the tabernacle of the meeting and in the church of God (i.e., the Jewish) the same rank and order were preserved” 11 . In general, the belief in the close dependence of many aspects of Christian liturgical practice on Jewish practice was so universal in Christian antiquity that ancient writers, wanting to prove the expediency of any Christian rite, were very fond of pointing to similar rituals observed in the Old Testament and pointing out the connection even where it is in fact very difficult to discern. So the same author of the Apostolic Decrees makes the well-known Christian custom of turning to the east when praying dependent on the fact described in the book. Parall. V. 12,13 12. In later times, during iconoclastic disputes, defenders of icon veneration repeatedly pointed to two cherubim and other images placed by Solomon in his church as proof of their case. But if the dependence of Christianity on Judaism in the field of liturgical rites regarding some of these rites is undoubted, then can the same be said regarding places of worship? Did Christians consider the Jerusalem temple to be a model to follow and did they actually imitate it? The evidence of Christian antiquity, although not quite clear, does not allow answering these questions in the negative. Christians did not really consider this church an obligatory model, but they found some aspects in it that seemed to them quite suitable for imitation and imitated them quite diligently. This desire to decorate churches as magnificently as possible in some builders even reached the point of excess, but in justification they constantly referred to the fact that “in Judea there was a rich church and in it there was a meal, lamps, dishes, bowls, stupas and other things made of gold” 13. The stern ascetic Jerome, reporting this fact, treats him very unfavorably; the fact nevertheless remains. From it it is clear that among Christians in ancient times there was a very widespread view of the Jerusalem temple as a model worthy of imitation, at least in terms of grace and richness of decoration. Let us assume that the wealth of decoration is a very general feature; The pagans also had many very rich temples; however, it is remarkable that Christians referred not to pagan temples, but to Jewish ones, to justify their concerns about decorating churches and, moreover, referred to some obligatory or at least worthy of imitation model. Having such a view of the Jerusalem temple, the ancient Christians could very well have had this church in mind not only when decorating their churches, but also when inventing their plan and determining their location. However, is it possible to prove the latter? Archaeologists who defend the opinion of the influence of the Jewish church on the Christian see this influence precisely in the plan, location and some details of the decoration, and as evidence they usually point to the similarity of the division into three parts and location, in particular to the presence of a courtyard in ancient Christian churches and to some features in the structure and decoration of the altar. In fact, how can we explain in ancient Christian churches from the 4th century. the existence of a court apparently not necessitated by the needs of Christian worship? Is this the peristyle of a Greco-Roman house, or was it built in imitation of temples in general and especially the Jewish temple? Here, after detailed discussions about the name of basilicas, its use and meaning, after a general description of the structure of these buildings, Kreiser proceeds to determine the relationship of Christian basilicas to pagan ones and concludes in favor of the complete originality of the Christian basilica. In agreement with Zesterman, he believes that the Christian basilica arose from Christian needs and has nothing in common with paganism. At the same time, however, he does not at all deny its dependence on classical architecture in technical terms; on the contrary, referring to Messmer's evidence and completely agreeing. With him, he claims that the construction technology (Bauweise) in them was Roman, which could not be otherwise, since “at that time in the whole world there was one power and one construction technology - Roman” (p. 42). Thus, Kreizer admits the influence of Roman technology in general on the Christian church, and therefore basilicas in particular, insofar as they serve as representatives of this technology. The opinion about the impossibility of such an influence, based on the fact of hostile relations between Jews and Christians, is untenable, since these hostile relations did not extend beyond the censure of adherence only to well-known rites unsuitable for Christians, such as Saturdays, new moons, circumcisions, etc. As for the church, the apostles themselves and the first Christians honored it and, while it existed, they prayed in it. Therefore, it would not be surprising if the apostles, using “basilicas” in the houses of rich people for liturgical meetings, had in mind the Temple of Jerusalem (Tempelbau zu Jerusalem) as a prototype, or prototype (Vorbild) of the Christian church... And indeed - the author concludes his reasoning - the apostles in many different ways likened the Christian church building to the building of the Jewish church, pointing, for example, to separate rooms for floors, to the courtyard and interior space, to the offices for the community and the clergy, mentioning “the holy of holies” and not forgetting even the poor at the church doors (pp. 48, 49). These are Kreiser's general arguments about the issue that interests us. Obviously, if he admits some influence of Jewish synagogues on the Christian temple, then he assigns such a modest and vague place to this influence and at the same time so definitely expresses his real opinion that there is no reason to consider him an adherent of the opinion about the origin of Christian temples from Jewish synagogues, especially if we keep in mind the fact that he completely eliminates the question of the technical side of Christian temples, as well as synagogues. Therefore, having in mind to refute this opinion, Mr. Pokrovsky could leave Kreiser alone, or at least pay attention in his research only to what directly favors this opinion, leaving aside what relates to the question of the origin of pre-Christian Roman basilicas and which should be discussed elsewhere. In addition, the question of the influence of synagogues on the Christian temple, although not developed by scientists of our time, nevertheless in itself deserves the full attention of archaeologists engaged in researching the origin of the Christian temple, understanding this, so to speak, the process of its formation - and the author, in our opinion, did a very thorough job of touching on this subject, and not passing it in silence, as others do. The name of the synagogue and the very common name of the Christian temple: ἐκκλησία, in their meaning, are completely similar, but sometimes they were also similar in form: synagogues were sometimes called by the same names that were later adopted by Christian churches, and these latter in ancient times were sometimes called synagogues. The last thought is proved by Mr. Pokrovsky himself, pointing to the text from the epistle of James II. 2. where the word συναγωγή is used in the sense of a meeting place (p. 39). Facts similar to those indicated by the apostle are another matter. James, which took place very shortly before the beginning of the emergence of special places for worship among Christians, when the form of these places had not yet had time to be strictly determined. If the existence of such facts is considered proven, then based on them it can be argued with high probability that the form of the original Christian independent churches was determined by the form of Jewish houses of worship, or synagogues; then, according to legend, this form could be reproduced by Christians in subsequent times until the 4th century. when they had to rebuild their own houses of worship. However, for this position to have more force, it is also necessary to prove that synagogues and ancient Christian churches were similar to each other not only in name, but also in their structure, in their form. Although it is very difficult to reproduce the form of ancient Christian especially independent churches before the 4th century, as well as the form of contemporary synagogues due to the lack of material monuments and the scarcity of written information, it is not impossible. Synagogues were buildings intended for religious activities of prayer and teaching, and although their purpose differed somewhat from the Jerusalem temple, when constructing them, the Jews had this temple in mind as a kind of model. Therefore, synagogues, on the one hand, were similar to the temple, and on the other, they also differed from it, due to the peculiarities of their purpose. Like a church, they had an oblong quadrangular shape, but did not have a courtyard. These are the main features of the evidence in favor of the dependence of the Christian churches on the synagogues and the influence of the latter on the former. Taken together, they are obviously quite compelling and deserve attention. It was these that Mr. Pokrovsky should have checked and examined in order to more thoroughly resolve the issue at hand. But he did not pay the slightest attention to them, as if they were not known to him at all; That is why the indicated department turned out to be extremely superficial. Having here presented Kreiser's thoughts (not entirely correctly) about the Alexandrian synagogue, tending to prove the existence of the basilica form of buildings in Egypt before its appearance in Rome, he, again carried away by Messmer, proves that, on the contrary, in Rome, Cato built the first basilica in the year 22. earlier than the construction of the Alexandrian synagogue, that this synagogue was probably built under Greek, not Egyptian influence, and the Jewish temple was not its prototype, and that finally it can hardly be classified as a basilica, since the evidence about this from the Talmud is very doubtful, and therefore the influence of the form of this synagogue on the building art of the Greeks and Romans cannot be accepted. All of these are obviously provisions that do not at all serve to refute the opinion about the origin of Christian churches from synagogues and even have almost nothing to do with this opinion. However, the author directly concludes this: “so the Jewish synagogue, or, as Kreizer calls it, the Jewish basilica cannot be recognized as the prototype of the Christian basilica” (p. 57). – The conclusion is at least hasty and even strange, since it does not follow from previous reasoning. Having rejected the possibility of finding a prototype of a Christian basilica in Jewish and pagan temple architecture, and at the same time the possibility of any influence on the part of this latter on the formation of a Christian temple, Mr. Pokrovsky proceeds to consider those Greco-Roman buildings that are known under the name basilicas and with which, in his opinion, Christian basilicas can only be connected. Buildings of this kind were very common, especially among the Romans, which was determined by the peculiarities of Roman social life and morals. They existed in quite a few cities of the Roman Empire; in Rome itself there were several of them. These were very expensive buildings, no doubt built very carefully and carefully protected from destruction. Modern scientists, therefore, could, it seems, hope for the preservation from antiquity of, if not entire buildings of this kind, then at least significant remnants of them and their detailed descriptions. According to Pausanias, it was of the Dorian style and was divided by rows of columns into three naves, but whether the middle nave was elevated and covered, as in basilicas, is unknown. It seems to us that it would be a very big stretch to draw such conclusions from the words of Pollux. It is more consistent with the truth to believe that the basileus went out to the Aryan hill, firstly because he was not authorized to personally carry out the trial of the murderers, and secondly, in order to observe the ancient custom, according to which the Aryan hill had long been the place where sentences were pronounced over the murderers, but not because βασιλέως στοὰ had over the middle nave roofing This roof might not have interfered with the legal proceedings of this kind, since in order to comply with this custom, adaptations could have been made to the building. In general, it is quite surprising that a building from which not a single stone has survived, and which was not described by any of the ancients, suddenly, under the pen of Cesterman, turns out to be completely almost similar to a Christian basilica. G. Pokrovsky, without embarrassment, not only fully accepts this restoration of Tsesterman, but also finds it insufficiently defined. To it, on his part, he adds one more feature, thanks to which βασιλέως στοὰ becomes even more similar to a Christian basilica. He says that since this building was designated for the official functions of the archon-basileus, it must be assumed that it had a special room in the form of a niche for this dignitary or even in the form of an apse, that this niche or apse had, without a doubt, not a quadrangular, but a semicircular shape, common in Greece, and that Zesterman, without any reason, disputes the presence of this form in βασιλέως στοὰ (p. 78). It could not have come from the Porcia Roman basilica, although it was built later than it, since the gap between their construction is very short and since the Jews did not yet have relations with Rome at that time, but apparently came from Egyptian models that did not previously exist; this is directly stated in the Talmudic description of it. The Basilica of Porcia could also have originated from these samples. The historical circumstances of the origin of this first Roman basilica fully confirm the hypothesis expressed and even raise it to the level of an almost certain fact. It is known from history that it was built by Porcius Cato in 184, and Cato, as is known from the same history, knew little about Greece; I did not like the Greeks; according to Plutarch’s remark, he learned the Greek language only out of necessity, already in old age; Meanwhile, he knew the east and Egypt in particular well. Therefore, it was natural for him to take a model for his basilica from Egypt, and not from Greece, even if there were such models in Greece. Then, very strong evidence in favor of the early existence of basilica buildings in Egypt and their transfer to Rome is found in Vitruvius. When describing Roman houses, he talks about one kind of oecus, which were very similar to basilicas, namely, they were divided by columns into three ships, of which the middle one rose above the side by adding new rows of columns to the lower rows. He calls these oecus Egyptian. What does this name mean? It is known that the term and the form denoted by it do not always have the same origin: the form can be original, but the term is borrowed, or the form can be borrowed from one people, and the term from another, and, moreover, not directly, but through the mediation of others. Our Russian architecture can provide many examples of this. Some original forms are designated by foreign terms, while others, clearly borrowed, are designated by our own or foreign terms, but do not indicate their true origin; Thus, in our country, very many forms of Byzantine origin are designated by French, German, etc. terms. In general, the Greek terminology used by Vitruvius does not in the least hinder the recognition of the Egyptian origin of Roman basilicas. It is known from history that at the time when the transition of the basilic form from Egypt to Rome took place, Greek influence in Egypt was very strong. Thanks to the conquests of Alexander the Great and the dominance of his successors - sovereigns of Hellenic origin, or at least education, it had already taken root here and was powerfully reflected both in the forms of life and in art. Therefore, it is more than likely that at this time, Greek terminology already dominated in Egyptian, as well as Roman, architecture, and in particular, the various architectural elements that were part of the basilica buildings bore Greek names. As for the basilica system of buildings itself, whether it was a local, long-rooted architectural form, or a new Greco-Egyptian invention, or a simple transfer from some other country - all these are still open questions, awaiting special research for clarification. In fact, the mere fact that vaults were applied to the roof of this basilica, and thick pillars were installed instead of columns, sufficiently removes it from the usual type and traces. it is useless for characterizing this type. The history of this building is also very dark, so Zesterman finds reason to completely doubt its ancient origin and attribute it even to the 8th century. All this shows, in our opinion, that Mr. Pokrovsky is in vain introducing this building into his review and looking at it as a monument suitable for determining the form of Roman basilicas. The ruins of the Basilicas of Julia, Ulpius and Pompeii are of more value, although they also raise many doubts. The author provides brief historical information about these basilicas and the state of their ruins, which are essentially quite insignificant, since on the basis of them only the dimensions of these buildings and the outline of their foundations can be reconstructed. Behind them are semi-columns (parastaticae) 20 f. height (according to the rule, their height is equal to the width of the portico) 2½ ft. latitude and 1½ ft. thickness. These semi-columns support the beams on which the portico platform rests. Above them are other half-columns of 18 f. heights, 2 widths and 1 thickness, also supporting beams. The rafters of the side porticos and their roof, which is arranged lower than the middle roof, rest on the beams (these). (Thus, the side porticoes on the semi-columns were two-story and, however, did not reach the height of the average ship: both floors had a height of 20 + 18 = 38 feet, while the columns supporting the middle roof had a height of 50 feet; the difference is 12 feet). The remaining space between the beams lying on the semi-columns and the beams lying on the columns (i.e. between the roof of the side porticoes and the roof of the middle ship) is left (open) for illumination through the spaces between the columns. Indeed, the view of the huge and high hall, furnished on all sides with high solid columns that supported the roof, should be majestic. The columns here are true of larger sizes and more expensive than ordinary ones, but there are much fewer of them, and installing them is easier than installing two rows of columns, one above the other; this was also supposed to reduce costs. This is the most accurate information about Roman basilicas and this is the data on the basis of which their form is usually restored. They may not be completely sufficient, but if you use them properly, you can get something positive out of them. However, the author brings them here not in order to determine on the basis of them the form of Roman basilicas, but only in order to “confirm with undoubted indications of history and monuments the very fact of their existence, which was still disputed by some archaeologists (?) and to indicate their connection with Greek basilica buildings” (p. 97). As for the form and structure of these buildings in general, he promises to talk about this below in the chapter on the relationship of pagan basilicas forenses to Christian ones (p. 94). However, it seems to us that it would not be inappropriate to indicate here at least the special features of these buildings in comparison with other Greco-Roman buildings and thus give at least a general idea about them. Why would this advice be needed if basilicas were closed buildings? Thus, it can be considered proven that basilicas belonged to the category of porticos, or generally open buildings, and specifically to the number of complex porticos. Basically, they are a combination of several simple porticos, mostly four, two long and two short, located so that a fairly large oblong space is formed between them. Such porticoes were very common in the classical world, especially in Greece, and if we take into account only the technical side, then basilicas are undoubtedly a further development and more complex of their form. The difference between the indicated porticos and basilicas is that in the former the free middle space was hypetral, that is, open, and in the latter, that is, in the basilicas, it was, so to speak, semihypetral: it was covered, but not deprived of light and air, penetrating here, as there, from above. These are the building models represented by pagan antiquity, with which the Christian basilica is usually associated. G. Pokrovsky dwells on them with great attention and thoroughness, finds that they undoubtedly had a striking resemblance to the Christian basilica, but does not consider them its prototypes and does not find it possible to derive it directly from them. Where, then, did the Christian basilica come from? Where is its prototype, or the sample from which it was copied? The author gives the answer to this question further, mainly in the last chapter, (VI) of the first part of his study. We will now move on to consider this answer. as the primary form of the Christian church and private basilicas. Many authors mention their existence; but regarding the details of their form, and especially about their relationship to pagan (forenses) and Christian basilicas, no one said almost anything positive. Meanwhile, here lies the starting point for resolving the question of the origin of the Christian basilica” (p. 25). The general conclusion from the previous one is that “the places of liturgical gatherings of Christians or, what is also, house churches for the first time were: firstly, premises in private houses, tricliniums and ikos, distinguished by spaciousness and other amenities for crowded liturgical gatherings of Christians; in 2 basilicas, located in the homes of wealthy members of the Christian community” (p. 108). After this, having said a few more words about the existence of basilicas in the houses of wealthy Roman citizens and their form, the author proceeds to solve the question: what was the form of “icoses and private basilicas”? To do this, he goes into a fairly detailed description of ancient, exclusively Roman, houses based on the news of Vitruvius and monuments discovered in Pompeii, talks about their size, height, breadth, the location of various rooms, and especially about the shape and location of that room, which Vitruvius calls: oecus, and tries to establish the position that in this particular room the leading Christians gathered for their worship. To allow two prototypes that are similar to each other, but at the same time different from each other, means, in our opinion, to relegate them to a lower level and take away part of each of its meaning. In this case, each of them influences the formation of the Christian basilica, so to speak, not with its entire mass, but only with some of its parts; both of them are not prototypes, but elements that, in order to form a Christian basilica, had to be united with each other on some common neutral ground, which also does not agree with the opinion of Mr. Pokrovsky. In general, the author must agree that in the formulation of his main thesis he allowed very great uncertainty and inaccuracy, which he could have avoided if he had paid attention to determining the mutual relationship of the prototypes he indicated. Then he could get much closer to the truth than he does now. Let us turn, however, to a consideration of the theses themselves. In all likelihood, they leaned against one of the external sides of the house, or at least occupied one or two of its external sides in the house plan and had entrances and facades on these sides. This is confirmed by monuments. Thus, on the plan of the Palatine Palace, the basilica occupies a corner on the front side of the palace and has entrances and facades on two outer sides. This position of the house basilica obviously did not cause any particularly important changes in its structure and did not make it particularly convenient for Christian worship. If in this way private basilicas did not differ from public ones, or differed only in that they belonged to private individuals, then on what basis will we consider these basilicas, and not public ones, to be the prototype of the Christian basilica? If Christians copied their basilica from a pre-Christian model, then why did they give preference to the local basilica rather than the public one, while the latter was also convenient to imitate, was in sight and was well known to everyone? Only one circumstance can be put forward here as a reason - this is that a private basilica could be a more familiar model for Christians. Christians could use these basilicas for their liturgical meetings back in the centuries of persecution, since adapting them to this was possible even at that time, because it depended on the will of their owners. However, very strong doubts arise here. It was possible to adapt a private basilica for Christian worship, but were they really adapted and was there a need for it? Of course, only very rich people could have basilicas in their homes. It is natural to think that in the houses of such people there were other rooms that were very spacious and magnificent, and, moreover, more convenient for liturgical meetings. Christians who gathered for worship in such houses did not see the slightest need to choose for this purpose the basilica, which usually occupied a place inconvenient for secret meetings, and not any other room. The plan of the Palatine Palace can give us confirmation here too. Does not belong to Clement, but was written by an unknown author no earlier than the 3rd century; but this last circumstance in his eyes is even of particular importance. It seems to him that if the author invented that fact, then he could not have invented it otherwise than having before his eyes not one, but several similar examples, and that, therefore, in the 3rd century. Examples of private basilicas being converted into Christian churches were no longer rare. To this we must note that this evidence does not have this insignificant, and, moreover, arbitrarily invented” value that our author attaches to it. The essay Recognitiones is a much more dubious essay than he thinks. Not only does it not belong to Clement and appeared in the 3rd century, but it has not come down to us in its original Greek text, but only in a Latin translation made at the end of the 4th century. famous Latin writer and translator Rufinus. This circumstance, in our opinion, is very important, since Rufinus is known as a very free translator, who allowed many additions, abbreviations and changes in his translations: such, for example, is his translation of the church history of Eusebius. What word is translated here by the term basilica? And further: is this term a translation of the corresponding Greek, or is it used here by the translator according to his own considerations in relation to the word usage dominant in his time. The latter is more likely, since Western writers of that time very often used the name basil in application to all places of liturgical gatherings of Christians. Another fact of the transformation of a private basilica into a Christian church, cited by Mr. Pokrovsky, is also of dubious nature - this is the fact of the transformation of the basilica of the Lateran Palace into a church. However, it is not known whether it was really a private basilica at the home of a wealthy citizen, or whether it was an independent building, only built at the expense of a private person. The only evidence in favor of the first assumption lies in its name: Sicinini, about which it is not even known for certain whether this is the name of a private individual or something else. In general, this evidence is very insufficient. If the name really points here to a private person, this does not mean that the basilica bearing the name of this person was a private basilica at a private house, which initially did not have a liturgical purpose: Mr. Pokrovsky himself proves that it was a real church. It seems more natural to us to believe that the name indicates here only the builder who built this basilica again specifically for liturgical purposes. Among the Romans, as is known, public basilicas constantly bore the names of their builders, such as the basilicas of Porziev, Emiliev, and others. This custom of naming basilicas after the names of their builders could easily have persisted among Roman Christians. And indeed there are several cases that indicate this. So the Basilica of the Lateran, named after the builder Emperor Constantine, was also called: basilica Constantiniana, Basilica of Mary the Great, named after the builder Pope Liveriana - basilica Liveriana 22. Therefore, all the other names of basilicas indicated by Messmer and Mr. Pokrovsky by the names of private individuals, such as the basilicas of Faustus, Celerina, Leontievskaya, etc., also hardly indicate their origin from private basilicas. However, all these facts, even if they really had the meaning that Messmer and Pokrovsky give them, could not have any significance in the question of the prototype of a Christian basilica, since they all date back to relatively late times, not earlier than the 4th century, when Christian basilicas were built in large numbers in all parts of the Roman Empire and when their plan was apparently already completely worked out. If Christians in the 4th century. Thus, only oecus remains, or, as Mr. Pokrovsky prefers to call it, οίχος. What was this form and was it a prototype of a Christian basilica? This form is currently well known, although it attracted the attention of archaeologists and was studied by them relatively recently. Weingertner was the first to notice this form and the first, so to speak, to discover the oecus. He was the first to have the idea to find out which room in the Greco-Roman house served as a place for liturgical meetings of Christians. The thought is very happy and fruitful. For an answer, he turned, on the one hand, to the description of the structure of Roman houses by Vitruvius, and on the other, to the monuments discovered in Pompeii and described in great detail by various scientists. Having compared the news of Vitruvius with the monuments, he came to results so valuable that they were immediately accepted without any objections by all archaeologists who dealt with the question of the origin of the church as an indisputable scientific acquisition. Weingertner's research on this subject, which he placed in the book we already know about the origins of Christian church building, is not complicated, but so complete that nothing new has been added to it so far, with the exception of perhaps a few details processed by Motes. These results of the research of Weingertner and Motes were presented by me in one of the articles on Christian churches; Mr. Pokrovsky also expounds them again. But were these premises really used for religious meetings of Christians? We do not think of rejecting this and do not even doubt it, but we must however note that this is still more of a hypothesis than a fact attested by history and monuments, and that this hypothesis can only be proven in an indirect, albeit very solid, way. We know that the first Christians gathered for worship in private homes; on the other hand, it is known that Christian meetings have always been quite crowded, which was largely due to the very nature of Christian worship; from this we conclude that the largest room in the house must have been used for such meetings, and such a room in a Roman house was the oecus. This is the only evidence, but it is so convincing that in a more or less developed form it is presented by all archaeologists who have touched on this issue and is interpreted by them as completely sufficient for the purpose. He is also brought by Mr. Pokrovsky; but he is not satisfied with it and adds something new to it, probably invented by himself, or, perhaps, with some assistance from one of the Western archaeologists, namely Motes. This proof, according to Mr. Pokrovsky, lies “in the usual term for designating a place of Christian meetings: οίκος, which supposedly has a special meaning and cannot be translated into other languages ​​by terms denoting “house” in general” (p. 116). Vitruvius uses the word oecus in two meanings: in the sense of a room without any relation at all to its purpose and in this case always with explanatory definitions (oeci magni, oeci quadrati) and in the more intimate meaning of a room that has a known structure, a known position in a number of other rooms and a known purpose. This is the main meaning for him and in archaeological terms, especially for the question of the origin of basilicas, the most important. The Greek word οἵxος also has two meanings: wide and close. The most common meaning was the broad one: a house in general - a closed space, built independently and intended for housing. In a narrow and seemingly less common sense, the word meant: a room in general, i.e., it corresponded to the word oecus in its broad meaning. Used in this latter meaning (as among the Romans with epithets, for example, παλασιουογικοὶ οἵκοι), this word could sometimes be applied to dining halls corresponding to the Roman oecus, but not as a technical term. It was not used in this latter sense. Another room in the front men's half of the house - a large men's hall and dining room - also close in size to at least the Roman ecus - bore the technical name: ἀνδρῶν. Thus, the Greek οἵκος in terminological terms is far from corresponding to the Latin oecus, and although any oecus in a broad sense can be called οίκος, this name will not indicate its special features. The Latin oecus cannot be translated into the Greek οίκος for the sole reason that in Greek houses there was no room that fully corresponded to the Roman term and that those rooms that came closest to the Roman ecus bore certain technical names here. Such a translation would be partly possible under the, however arbitrary, assumption that the Greeks already from the 1st century. began to build houses completely similar to the Roman ones, following the model of these latter, and that at this time the Greek language was strongly influenced by Latin. Motes makes this assumption and, based on it, thinks that under the word οἵκος (in the book. Acts) should mean not only the house in general, but also a special room in the house, and that this would not be too bold a guess 23. Regarding assumptions and conjectures, Motes is generally very bold, however, he does not deny the correct translation of the word: οἵκος into the word: house, but only suggests that by house we mean at the same time a special room. G. Pokrovsky acts much more boldly: he directly states that “the word οἵκος cannot be translated by the word house in general” and traces. needs to be translated into words: festive dining room. This translation will undoubtedly be new, but hardly anyone will accept it. It is strange that the terminological meaning of the word indicated by Mr. Pokrovsky: οἵκος was not known to the ancient church writers of the Western Church. While Greek authors, speaking of Christian worship in homes, use the word οίκος to designate the place of meeting, Latin authors for the same purpose constantly use the word: domus and never use the corresponding Latin term: oecus; at least, not a single text is known so far where the place of worship is designated by the word: oecus. If Greek writers use the word: οἵκος as a technical term, then why don’t Latin writers use the corresponding Latin term? – In general, in the term: οίκος we do not see any evidence in favor of the fact that the premises designated by Vitruvius with the word: oecus served as a place for liturgical meetings. We repeat, however, that we do not want to weaken the reliability of this position; we object only to the new term, which in our opinion was unsuccessfully invented. We would not object to it either and would leave the inventor to calmly use his invention if this term - as we will see below - did not, in our opinion, have some special meaning in the question of the origin of the basilica, a question that we mainly have in mind when dealing with the work of Mr. Pokrovsky. So, despite the comparative paucity of evidence, the fact that oecus were places of liturgical meetings can be considered proven, at least as far as it concerns ecus in general. But as for the particulars, doubts are still possible here; It is not known, for example, how widespread the use of Egyptian ecus was; maybe it was a great rarity and luxury, inaccessible to Christians?.. G. Pokrovsky, who is personally familiar with the monuments, does not explain this to us. However, let us not be too distrustful and admit that the Egyptian ecus, like others, were a fairly common place for Christian meetings. It remains to be decided whether the ecus were the prototypes of the Christian basilica? Did basilica come from ecus? If to resolve this issue it is enough to prove that 1) ecuses were used by Christians as churches before the appearance of basilicas and 2) that they were similar to basilicas, then the question can be considered resolved, because not only the first, but also the second can be considered fully proven. Despite all this, we do not think, however, that the origin of the Christian basilica from the Egyptian ecus can be presented as an undoubted fact. From a technical point of view there is no problem in saying this, but will it be true historically? A Christian basilica is a completely independent building, but a separate building is another thing, and a room in a house is another thing. Separating a room from a house and treating it as an independent building is certainly possible for architects, but this would mean almost the same thing as reinventing the building. It seems most natural to produce an independent building from an independent one. It would be possible to derive a Christian basilica without much doubt directly from the Egyptian ecus only if it were proven that a Christian independent church appeared directly in the form of a basilica, and this, as we know, is by no means proven and cannot be proven. A Christian independent basilica in the proper sense appeared, in all likelihood, no earlier than under Constantine the Great. It is hardly possible to prove its existence before. Ancient writers, with the possible exception of Optatus, whose meaning we have already spoken about, do not make any hints about this. No real monuments from the first three centuries, one might say, have survived at all, since some ruins passed off as such monuments are extremely dubious. Only one fact seems to contain evidence in favor of the earlier existence of basilicas - this is the sudden appearance of them in large numbers in different places of the Roman Empire under Constantine, but this fact can easily be explained by the unity of the architectural school formed under Constantine, the unity of the Constantine monarchy and the unity of the church, and partly by the fact that Christians previously knew a form similar to the basilica - the Egyptian ecus. However, even if it were possible to admit the existence of independent Christian basilicas before Constantine, although of course as a rare exception, the essence of the matter would not have changed because it would still remain undeniable that before the appearance of the Christian basilica, the Christian church existed as an independent building of a simpler form. G. Pokrovsky devotes a special chapter (1 of the second part) to Christian independent churches before the 4th century, where, among other things, he proves that such churches appeared among Christians back in the times of Clement and Irenaeus, during the reign of Commodus and Septimius Severus, i.e. at the end of the 2nd century. This determination of the time of the appearance of Christian independent churches is not only completely correct, but also very prudent. It seems to us that it indicates only the extreme limit, after which such churches undoubtedly already existed. It is quite likely that they appeared even earlier, since there were favorable periods for this earlier, and performing divine services in private homes could never seem normal to Christians. Home worship is always associated with greater or lesser inconveniences, which Christians could not help but feel and the elimination of which they could not help but desire. Already the apostle distinguishes the church from the house; if his words cannot be taken literally, then in any case they contain a very clear incentive for Christians to take care of the greatest possible isolation of places of worship. However, if we do not insist on these assumptions and recognize the end of the 2nd century as the time of appearance of independent churches, then this is already very important. It is incredible that the form of the church, consecrated more than a century ago, did not have any influence on the origin of the subsequent basilica form and that the builders of the basilicas completely ignored this old form. But what was this form? Was it suitable for developing into a basilic form? G. Pokrovsky does not report anything about this form, either because he does not attach any significance to it, or because due to the paucity of data he does not find it possible to reproduce it. We have already had occasion to talk about this form when we were talking about synagogues. Here we only recall that churches of this form were closed buildings, had the shape of an oblong quadrangle and traces. according to the general outline of the plan, they were similar to basilicas, as a result of which many authors, for example, Kreiser and Motes, applied the name “basilica” to them. In ancient times, they were called simply prayer “houses” or “houses” of the church - οἵκος ευκτήριος, εκκλησιας, and sometimes simply “houses”; in the Apostolic Decrees the church is simply called a house, and its characteristic oblong shape is indicated: οἵκος ἕστω ἐπιμήκης. From this it is οἵκος, and not oecus, and in our opinion the Christian basilica arose, and Mr. Pokrovsky, when he said that the prototype of the Christian basilica was οἵκος, told the truth, although unintentionally. The memory of this origin was preserved in church language for a long time, since basilicas were mentioned by church writers from the 4th century. quite often denoted by the old term: οἵκος. Particularly important in this regard seems to us the name οἵκος βασιλικὸς, used by Eusebius, as we have seen, not without special intention. In this name we find a clear hint that, according to Eusebius, the Christian basilica, or οἵκος βασιλικὸς, came from a simple prayer house that had an oblong shape - οἵκος ἐυχτήριος επιμήκης that the basilica is the same οἵκος, only complicated by the application of its basilica structure to the covering. Eusebius, speaking about the construction of the Tyrian basilica, reports that its builder first of all assigned for it a much larger space than before; traces the improvement consisted primarily in an increase in size; οἵκος was increased in length and breadth. This increase itself caused a change in the coating and lighting system. The vast building could no longer be covered in the simple way of laying beams from one wall to another; intermediate supports were needed - columns and, moreover, at a fairly significant distance from the outer walls; then in such a building the most important central place - the middle ship can no longer be illuminated from the sides; The lighting here should be from above through the elevation of the middle ship. Thus, the basilic covering system appeared here as if naturally and out of necessity. But this does not mean that Christians themselves invented it. This system was also known to the pre-Christian world; among the Romans it was applied not only to public open buildings, but also to some closed spaces of private houses. It is indeed difficult to prove this, since we are talking about the upper parts of the building, which are more susceptible to change than others and are more likely to collapse than others, but it is not impossible: the very fact that this system was known in Egypt before it appeared in Rome can serve as proof. When applying this system to the covering of their churches, Christians could have only one system in mind, without associating it with any specific patterns. – Thus, here is an explanation of the origin of basils, which we consider simpler and more correct. Basilicas evolved from ikos, in the sense of simple quadrangular oblong buildings, through the application of the basilic covering system to them. From this position, the relationship of Christian basilicas to basilicas forenses and the volumetric influence that the former could experience from the latter is already quite accurately determined. Obviously these two types are parallel, but not homogeneous. The only thing they have in common is the coating system. As a result, the middle space was isolated from other spaces, side ones, just as these latter also existed separately, each for special, often very different purposes, another for court, another for trade, another for walking. In the Christian basilica it is quite the opposite: the middle space has a clear connection with all the side ones, which are closed by walls on all sides with the exception of the side adjacent to the middle ship, and this latter is directly connected to the apse and is enclosed by it. Here is a combination apparently due to the highest principle underlying the building. We have reviewed almost all of Mr. Pokrovsky's research; There remains only the last chapter, which treats the internal structure of Christian churches and about which, in the interests of the main issue being addressed in the study, only very little can be said. Meanwhile, as regards this question itself, until now we have only had to deal with one more side of it. Hitherto we have been talking only about those forms and elements of the Christian basilica, the origin of which, in the opinion of Mr. Pokrovsky, is due solely to the power of artistic tradition, which are nothing more than transfers or borrowings from classical architecture. But to study only these elements and forms does not mean to fully explain the origin of the Christian basilica. True, these elements are among the general and basic ones, but they are not the only ones here. In the building of a Christian church in general and in particular in the building of a Christian basilica, according to the author himself, there are also original Christian elements, those whose origin is due to the influence of a new force rooted in the Christian religion, in the Christian cult. To explain the origin of the Christian basilica, it is necessary to point out these last elements, which are of no less importance, if not greater, than the first. Being the product of a new force rooted in Christianity, they are in any case more interesting than the first, at least for the Christian archaeologist, who naturally values ​​most in the monuments of antiquity those that bear the imprint of the Christian idea. For the Christian archaeologist it is especially important and interesting to know: what exactly is the mentioned new force, the new formative principle, and then: what exactly elements of the building of the Christian basilica owe their existence to the influence of this new formative principle? The author seems to be quite clearly aware of the importance of these issues, but in the study itself he pays very little attention to them. So regarding the first of them, he does not give any detailed explanations. Only in the introduction (p. 26) do we encounter the unfounded statement that “the new guiding principle in the formation of a Christian church lies not so much in the idea of ​​Christianity as in its practical side, in worship.” Despite the uncertainty and unfoundedness of this statement, it can nevertheless be seen from it that the author, while recognizing in the formation of a Christian church the influence mainly of the practical side of the Christian religion - the needs of Christian worship, does not completely deny the influence of its theoretical side, that is, Christian teaching. However, as for the forms themselves, due to this latter kind of influence, caused by the desire of Christians to embody Christian ideas in them, he not only does not say anything about them in his research, but, apparently, does not even believe in their actual existence. Wherever he has to talk about symbolic interpretations, he insistently declares that they do not matter in the question of the origin of the interpreted forms, that it is not symbolism that serves as the motive for the form, but rather the form that causes symbolic comparison, that symbolism finds its starting point in a ready-made existing form, that it follows it, but does not precede it (p. 137). Obviously the author is under the strong influence of a view that is now quite widespread in the West, but is afraid of its extremes. He makes a concession, but apparently very reluctantly and formulates it in the most vague manner; at least he doesn’t want to motivate her with anything. Recognizing a certain, although obviously very insignificant, share of the influence of Christian symbolism on the formation of the forms of the Christian church, he does not even want to make an attempt to determine the needs and limits of this influence, as if this subject is not worth any attention and does not have the slightest significance in the question of the origin of the church. He actually mentions some facts that can serve as an example of how sometimes in the field of Christian architecture symbolism precedes a phenomenon and brings it to life, such as the fact of the orientation of churches, where symbolism directs the axes of Christian churches invariably in one direction, but says nothing about their indicated meaning. In mentioning such facts, he apparently has a completely different purpose. Meanwhile, there are not as few facts of this kind that can be cited as some people think. They mostly relate to various kinds of details, but this does not diminish their importance. If the influence of symbolism on the origin of these details undoubtedly existed, then the thought involuntarily arises from this whether it also took place during the appearance of other more general forms, during the development, for example, of the plan of churches. It is known, for example, that there is an opinion that the so-called transept in ancient Christian basilicas arose as a result of the desire of Christians to apply the symbol of the cross to the plan of their churches. Since the transept, or transverse ship, is one of the largest and most important features of the structure of ancient Christian basilicas, when deciding the question of the origin of these basilicas, it seems to us that it would be very useful to pay attention to this opinion. In general, the question of the influence of symbolism on the origin of various architectural forms is obviously a very important question. Let us assume that it is very difficult to trace in detail the action of this symbolism, to determine exactly the limits of this action, but this does not mean that research in this direction should be completely avoided, even if it were necessary. If constant references to symbolism to explain the origin of various architectural forms mean “an unwillingness or inability to delve deeper into the matter,” then doesn’t the opposite extreme also mean the same thing, which consists in completely ignoring this symbolism, in denying almost all of its significance for explaining the origin and character of Christian architectural forms? The author attaches more importance to the other side of the new Christian force - the practical needs of Christian worship, but this recognition is more in the nature of an unfounded statement than a position based on scientific data. He says that facts proving the reflection of this particular aspect of the new force in the design of Christian churches “are especially important because they are significant not only in the question of the internal structure of the church, but also when considering the church from an architectural point of view” (p. 26). However, as for the influence of the needs of worship on the formation of purely architectural forms of a Christian church, on the features of the very structure of a Christian basilica, which in this case is especially important, the author says very little about this. He points out two examples of such influence: the narthex, or vestibule, formed under the influence of the institution of catechumens, and the increase in the transept, allegedly caused by an increase in the number of white and monastic clergy. In the last chapter of his work, he provides some more information about narfix, although not very accurate and abundant; about the transept, except for the reference now given in the introduction to the multiplication of the clergy, as the reason for the increase in this part of the church, he does not even have scant information. In the last chapter he says nothing about either the origin or the increase in the transept, except for a brief footnote where the formation of this important feature of Christian basilicas is put in a rather strange way in connection with the introduction into the church - supposedly also as a result of an increase in ecclesiastical personnel - the solea. This circumstance, according to the author, “if it did not serve as the beginning, then at least could have had a beneficial effect on the spread of the cruciform form of churches. All you had to do was extend the sole beyond the side walls and you got the correct shape of the so-called Latin cross” (p. 185). The author does not explain how the need for such an extension of the soleya could arise, just as he does not explain what kind of increase in spiritual personnel it was that caused such a significant change in the very plan and structure of the building. Obviously, he avoids explanation, as well as criticism of the relevant material. Meanwhile, he might not have felt a lack of both material and motivation to examine it, even if Richter’s brochure, which will be discussed below, was not known to him. So, the author, recognizing the action of the new Christian force on the origin and formation of the Christian basilica, completely arbitrarily excludes himself from considering the most important aspects of the action of this force. Only one, in this case less important, moment, the one that manifested itself in the peculiarities of the internal structure of ancient Christian churches, attracts some attention on his part. According to him, “the main force in the formation of the internal structure of the church was not so much aesthetic and architectural principles as practical considerations caused by the requirements of Christian worship. Here, therefore, is a new educational force that acts independently in its sphere, not subject to the influence of other principles lying outside of Christianity” (p. 150). The author devotes the entire last rather extensive chapter of his work to the consideration of this subject. But he gives his research in it such a setting that in the overall structure of the work they turn out to be completely unnecessary. First of all, although he is dealing with only one form of church - the basilica - he is talking here about all ancient churches in general, in the way he speaks of the conviction that the internal details of the church, with its many exceptions, are applicable to a church of any design (prev. VII). This expansion of the subject, although it introduces some confusion into the study, may still have some basis for itself. But the author is not content with this. Not embarrassed by the forms of the church, he does not set himself chronological boundaries, although when deciding the question of the primary forms this should be important. Describing in some detail the internal structure of ancient Christian churches, he means not only those facts that relate to the initial period of the existence of these churches, but also to later and even very late ones. Thus, speaking about thrones, he does not forget to give a brief history of our antimins; speaking about the altar barrier, it goes into quite detailed explanations regarding the history of our iconostases. But while expanding the material side of the study in this way, the author reduces its formal side, significantly simplifying its techniques. While in all other parts of his work he highlights material monuments and attaches the greatest importance to their evidence, here he does not want to use them at all and is content for the most part with only written evidence. Regarding this, in the preface (VII) he gives the following explanation: “the general appearance of the monuments has been preserved to this day, and even if it is damaged or changed, there is still some possibility of restoring its original image and distinguishing the remains of antiquity from a later addition; in the department about the internal structure of basilicas, there is no way to rely on an existing fact, as it is easily changeable, and it is necessary to turn first of all to the written monuments of antiquity” 24. Coming from the mouth of a modern archaeologist, who is well acquainted with the monuments and understands their significance, such an explanation seems very strange to us. That the internal structure of the ancient churches that have survived to this day has undergone various changes at different times and now exists far from being in its original form - this is known to everyone. But this does not mean that the original appearance of this device cannot be completely restored and that in this restoration it is impossible to resort to the aid of material monuments. The changes that were allowed here were far from being of such a kind that because of them the true appearance of the ancient structure would completely elude. They consisted, on the one hand, in some rearrangements, mostly quite insignificant, in some reductions or complications, and on the other, and mainly in the replacement of old, dilapidated items of interior decoration with new ones. Many of these items have survived to this day in the sacristies of ancient churches and in various museums. Based on them, one can not only obtain a clear and visual understanding of the form of various objects related to the internal structure of ancient churches, but also draw valuable conclusions regarding the position they should have occupied in the churches, as well as regarding all the outstanding features of the internal structure of churches, determined by this or that form and this or that arrangement of these objects. It is true that archaeological criticism has touched little on this subject, but it cannot be said that it has not yet done anything in this area. Some monuments have been studied in a completely scientific manner, many have been described and published. Therefore, it seems to us that one should not refuse the aid of material monuments when studying the internal structure of ancient churches. Caution here is, of course, very appropriate, but it is not unnecessary everywhere. It may happen that some of the monuments related here will subsequently lose their value and turn out to be less important than they currently think, but the same thing sometimes happens with written news. Moreover, the conclusions may not suffer from this. The venerable author, of course, had every right to limit his research to any one aspect of the subject for whatever personal reasons, but it is completely unfounded on his part to elevate the limitation made to some kind of principle. Meanwhile he does it. Referring to the impossibility of restoring the true appearance of the internal structure of ancient churches with the help of material monuments, he not only does not want to use them himself, but also blames me for the fact that in my articles on this subject I dared to make such an attempt. He does not want to believe the facts I present on the basis, among other things, that they are taken from the works of various Western archaeologists, who also use them, but “not always without tendentious thought.” He especially doesn’t like Martigny, who in tendentiousness - according to him - surpassed his teacher de Rossi. To this we must note that until Russian scientists in the field of archeology of the ancient Christian church have made their discoveries and carried out independent research, we will, of necessity, continue to turn to Western archaeologists for facts for a long time. However, one cannot see anything reprehensible in this, for does it matter who discovered and investigated a well-known fact, a German, a Frenchman or an Italian? It is only necessary that the fact be genuine and investigated with knowledge of the matter. As for bias, among Western archaeologists working on church antiquities, it is hardly possible to point out even one who would be completely alien to it: religious views are involuntarily reflected in their research. But this should not be given too much importance. Religious bias in itself is not terrible if it is not combined with dishonesty, inexperience and ignorance of the matter. And these latter qualities cannot in any way be attributed, not only to the founder of modern Christian archeology, or, as he is sometimes called, the prince of modern archaeologists de Rossi, who has been engaged in archaeological excavations for about 40 years, but also to Martigny, one of his oldest students. Trust in de Rossi's integrity and experience had not yet been suspected by anyone. His opinions in doubtful cases, especially when it comes to the authenticity of monuments, are still of decisive importance. True, in some cases he is really not alien to tendentiousness, just as Martigny and many other archaeologists, both Catholic and Protestant, are not alien to it. But this tendentiousness is not manifested in the fact that they invent facts, but only in the fact that some, relatively few, interpret the facts in a sense favorable to their religious opinions. Obviously this is not very important yet. We do not think that for an Orthodox theologian, who is obliged to be familiar with the religious differences of Western Christians, there is a danger of being carried away by such interpretations. To this it must be added that in general the tendentiousness of Catholic archaeologists is much more tolerable than any others, since it follows at least from a strictly defined doctrine. Much more dangerous is the bias of Protestant and especially German archaeologists, who conduct their subjective views under the guise of strictly critical ones. attitude to facts and the need for philosophical understanding of them. In general, judging by written information, the orientation of the altar to the east has been the rule since ancient times. But this is contradicted by material monuments. Most famous churches of the 4th century, especially Western ones, have a reverse orientation: they face the east not with the altar, but with the entrance. No matter how hard we try to weaken this fact, it cannot be completely destroyed. Next, it needs to be explained. To explain it, we allowed ourselves to make the assumption that an orientation of this kind existed by the force of the same rule, only understood differently, in accordance with the classical usage of words, that it was the same orientation to the east, only expressed differently. Reasons were given in favor of such an interpretation. The author does not agree with this explanation, but does not analyze the foundations on which it is built, nor does he present his own explanation, content with simply ignoring the real meaning of the specified fact and claiming that this fact is nothing more than a simple accident and exception. He begins his discussions on this subject with a statement about the existence of an opinion according to which, regarding orientation in Christian antiquity, there was supposedly a rule about facing churches with the altar not to the east, but to the west. This opinion is expressed by Motes, presenting it as a conclusion from the same above-mentioned fact. The author tries to undermine the strength of this conclusion with the same considerations that were presented in my article, and then, as data that are more reliable and correct, to resolve the issue of the ancient rule of orientation, he refers to written evidence, primarily to the evidence of Tertullian and the Apostolic Constitutions. He attaches special significance to the latter testimony because it does not speak of an individual case, but gives a general rule governing an apparently widespread custom of the time. And it is completely impossible to truly understand this evidence in any other sense. In our article on orientation, we said the same thing, based on the same considerations and, in addition, on some others. “That we are talking here about the altar facing east - there can be no doubt, since the same position of the pastophoria or rooms located on the sides of the altar is mentioned” (Right. Sob. January 1879, I, pp. 53–54). Interpretations in the opposite sense still existed. Therefore, naturally. It seemed to us very unexpected that Mr. Pokrovsky’s news about the existence of such an interpretation of the given passage, according to which it allegedly refers to the church portico or entrance side facing the east (p. 175). True, we admit the possibility of such an interpretation of the general rule about orientation on the part of some ancient church builders, but we do not at all have in mind the verbal expression of it that is found in the Apostolic Decrees. Moreover, ancient architects are a different matter, and modern archaeologists are a different matter. Meanwhile, the author has precisely the latter in mind and directs a long ironic tirade against them and the opinion imposed on them, which neither proves nor refutes anything, but occupies an entire page. And all this is with the aim of protecting the testimony of the Apostolic Constitutions from imaginary distortion. The following polemic by the author against the imaginary distortion of the meaning of the evidence about the orientation of Pavlin of Nolan has a more realistic basis. Peacock, in his description of the basilica he himself built, says: prospectus basilicame non, ut usitatior rnos est, orientem spectat, sed ad domini mei beati Felicis basilicam pertinet, memoriam ejus aspiciens. This testimony is very important and therefore it is natural to wish that it is not subject to misinterpretation and that its true meaning is firmly established. Unfortunately this is quite difficult. In former times this evidence was usually cited to prove the same idea as the evidence of the Apostolic Decrees. Nowadays, some archaeologists, like Weingertner and Motes, understand it completely the opposite. Which interpretation is more correct? It seems to us that the latter is more correct; but Mr. Pokrovsky calls it perverse and says that it is based on an incorrect understanding of the word: prospectus. In his opinion, this word “does not mean the entrance, but in general the entire line of passage that can be viewed, not only one point from which one can examine an object, but the entire space located between two visible points. Consequently, prospectus to the east means that if to view the church we choose its end point at the entrance, then the direction of our vision (prospectus) will be eastern” (p. 176). This new interpretation of the word: prospectus, obviously abstracted from the modern German-Russian concept, has not yet been included in lexicons, but if it were, it would still not explain anything in this case, because it does not oblige everyone to choose the starting point at the entrance to view the church. Many, perhaps, would rather take such a point at the opposite end of the building and then prospectus to the east would mean: entrance to the east. Meanwhile, in his translation of the above passage, the author translates the word: prospectus correctly, with the word: “face”; It is unlikely that the name: face, front side of the basilica can be understood as anything other than the front entrance side. However, the author is very mistaken if he thinks that the interpretation I accept is based on the well-known understanding of the word: prospectus. The reasons here are completely different. They are contained in the context of the description of the basilica contained in the 32nd letter of Paulinus. In our opinion, in order to correctly understand the above words, you need to take them not separately, but in connection with the previous and subsequent ones; In short, you need to read carefully not just the three lines cited, but the entire section of the letter, starting from § 10 to 17, which contains a description of the basilica. This description is rather dark due to the vagueness of the terminology, and perhaps a faulty text, but it is very coherent. The basilica is described here in order: first the altar part, then the middle part and finally the entrance part. We will present here a complete paraphrase of this description, allowing those who wish to compare it with the text placed below the line. The description begins by indicating the general position of the basilica. It turns out that it was annexed to the group of four other basilicas that already existed and were dedicated to the memory of the same saint. Felix. The altar part of the basilica consisted of a three-part apse, consisting of a large semicircular projection and two smaller ones on the sides. The apse vault was decorated with marble, mosaics and inscriptions. The middle part of the church, outside the apse, apparently consisted of five naves, since each of the side porticos mentioned here consisted of a double row of columns. The peculiarity of the design of this part was that in the side naves there were four completely closed rooms for people who wanted to indulge in solitary prayer, pious reflection, etc. Special entrances with inscriptions led to each of these rooms. The entrance to the church itself was also decorated with an inscription and a cross. Having thus described the internal closed part of the church, Peacock proceeds to describe its open entrance part. The above words are placed at the beginning of this section of description. The front side of the basilica was not facing the east, as usual, but in the other direction, namely towards the old basilica of St. Felix, with whom the new one, out of respect for the memory of the saint, was supposed to be in close contact. The entrance, in accordance with the three-part apse, was also three-part and led into a small courtyard with a fountain. This courtyard ended with a new entrance, consisting of three equal arches, through which a beautiful view opened from the new basilica to the old one. On the sides this courtyard was surrounded by transparent gratings, which continued beyond the entrance arches, resting against the very wall of the old basilica. They thus limited the entire gap between the two basilicas, serving as a connecting link between them. Since the wall of the old basilica, to which the new basilica was facing, was lateral and had no entrance, in order to bring the two basilicas into actual connection, new doors were punched in it directly opposite the doors of the new basilica and in accordance with them. Thus, the old basilica received a new facade on the side and both basilicas turned out to have facades facing each other. There were inscriptions above the doors of the new basilica, as well as above the entrance arches of the courtyard. Above these arches there were inscriptions on both sides, namely: 1) on the side that faced the new basilica (e regione basilicae novae) inside the courtyard, among which there was a fountain, as can be concluded from the inscription mentioning it; 2) on the side that faced the old Basilica of Felix (a fronte, quae ad basilicam Felicis patet). Of the inscriptions on this side, the second one attracts attention, which clearly speaks of the close connection of the entrances of both basilicas: having left the old basilica, one could directly get into the new one. This is, according to our understanding, the description of Peacock. We may have made mistakes in conveying some particulars, but we do not think that we made a mistake in our general understanding of it, in determining its general meaning, and in particular in determining the orientation of the Peacock Basilica. That this basilica was facing the old one with its main entrance - this seems to us beyond doubt. It speaks very clearly of the entrance three-part arch of the courtyard, through which a beautiful view of the old basilica opened up. It is also very clearly stated that the inner side of this arch was facing the new basilica, and the outer side towards the old one. How could this happen if the new basilica faced the old one not as an entrance, but as an altar, or in some other way? We admit, however, that there are many inaccuracies and ambiguities in the description of Peacock, but we think that these ambiguities can lead to a different understanding of the given place only with a superficial and biased look. In our article on orientation, we said that in the description there are some reasons for a different interpretation of it, but we did not indicate which ones, since we did not attach significance to them. To avoid misunderstandings, it seems worth mentioning them here. These reasons are as follows: 1) Immediately after the above words about the direction of the prospectus basilicae, Peacock speaks of two side apses and their purpose: from here, apparently, we can conclude that, speaking of prospectus, he means the altar part. 2) Below he says that between the old and new basilica there was an apse wall that prevented their connection: from this it seems to follow that both basilicas touched each other with their apses. But both of these ambiguities are easily eliminated in our interpretation. The mention of side, conchs or apses here was obviously caused by the author’s desire to point out the correspondence between the tripartite apse and the tripartite entrance. Having begun to talk about the three-part entrance, he involuntarily recalled the three-part apse, which was located on the opposite side, directly opposite the entrance, and hastened to complement the omission he made above regarding the purpose of the side apses. More significant is the uncertainty regarding the wall that separated the two basilicas. But it is also possible to eliminate it, as it seems to us, without exaggeration. It seems to us that this is the same wall into which the new basilica rested its entrance and in which entrances were also built to connect both basilicas. Contact between the apses cannot be allowed here, since then in no case would contact between the entrances, which undoubtedly took place here, be possible. As for the fact that the word is used here: apside, about which the author himself says below (§ 17) that he knows little about it, then one can see in it, on the one hand, an inaccuracy, and on the other, a very important explanatory indication of the form of the old basilica of St. Felix and the position of other basilicas grouped around it. And this is the main ambiguity of the entire description. In all likelihood, Peacock, calling the dividing wall an apse wall, indicates that the building of the old basilica belonged to the group of vaulted, perhaps centric or cruciform buildings. This building undoubtedly had very small dimensions, otherwise there would have been no need to add several basilicas to it. Since it was erected, moreover, over the grave of St. Felix, it probably had the character not so much of a basilica as of a monument (memoria), that is, in its design, if it was not a completely centric building, then it was very close to that and was called a basilica in an improper sense. In such buildings, the side walls could also be apses. Apparently the new basilica was connected to one of these side walls. Others were probably arranged in the same way on the other sides. The old church should have occupied the center, to which basilicas adjoined on four sides, which formed a group of cruciform basilicas. Let us assume that this is an assumption, but it is not without foundation and should have significance, since science does not yet have more solid data for an explanation, which is nevertheless necessary. Only monuments can give you a complete and indisputable explanation, but they have not been explored at all in the indicated direction. Augustus, in his Analecta, having given an almost complete translation of the above-mentioned letter of Paulinus, complains of ambiguity and makes an attempt to turn to the monuments for a solution to the confusion. But the summary of news he made about the Nolan monuments did not lead him to anything definite. Only proper archaeological excavations at the site can, in our opinion, eliminate all or most of the ambiguities regarding the location of the basilicas mentioned by Peacock. But we still have to wait for such excavations. If, therefore, our proposed commentary on the testimony of Paulinus is correct, then from here the question of orientation itself receives a slightly different light, and in particular, the fact that most Western basilicas of the 4th century receives a different meaning. have an orientation to the east with an entrance, not an altar. It turns out that this fact is not accidental, but that indeed in the 4th century. in the West, such an orientation was a more common custom. This fact, therefore, is not unimportant; it cannot be hidden or ignored; it needs to be taken seriously and explained. The path to an explanation can also be indicated by the testimony of Peacock. Here the Peacock clearly points to the east, as to the country towards which the church should be turned; Therefore, in his time in the west, as in other places, the direction of churches was determined by the symbolic advantages of the east. But at the same time, it is remarkable that Peacock, wanting to determine the orientation of his church, points not to the altar, as was always done subsequently and is done now, but to the entrance and thus attributes to the front entrance side some special advantages, as a result of which the orientation of the church is indicated by an indication of its position. This circumstance, apparently, is also not exceptional and accidental, since a similar method of denoting orientation was used by other Western writers. Thus, Apollinaris Sidonius, who lived a little later than Paulinus (430 - 488), describing in one of his poems the church built in Lyon by Bishop Pationt, defines its orientation in this way: Aedes... arce frontis ortum prospicit aequinocctionalem (Ep. L. II. Ep. X. v. 5 sq.). Where does this way of denoting orientation come from among Western writers? It seems to us that when solving this issue it is impossible to do without reference to classical antiquity. Vitruvius in his work speaks about the orientation of Roman pagan temples in some detail (L. IV. p. 5) and to designate it uses exactly the same method and even expressions (spectare debe t - in Peacock: spectet). If we add to this the designation of the orientation of pagan temples by Clement of Alexandria, who undoubtedly followed the classical usage of words, and the designation of the orientation of the Jerusalem temple by Josephus, then this seems to be completely sufficient to prove that in the classical world the orientation of temples was usually indicated by an indication of the position of their front facade, which was thus given some special meaning. The above-mentioned Western Christian writers do the same. The identity of the method of denoting orientation used by Peacock with the classical one is beyond doubt and can be explained only by the fact that Peacock follows the classical usage of words, which was adopted by Western Christians and remained among them for quite a long time. But as for the orientation of the facade to the east itself, it is hardly a simple transfer of the classical custom. It is actually the opposite of the most common classical orientation, attested by Vitruvius and Clement of Alexandria. Where did it come from? That this is also an orientation to the east, or otherwise, that the facing of the front facade to the east was here in connection with the special symbolic advantages of the east, this can hardly be doubted, since otherwise how can one explain the frequent facing of the facade precisely to the east, and not in any other direction? But why is the facade side given priority here, and not the altar? Why was the altar placed here on the western, and not on the eastern side of the church, while it is known that the church has long had a rule that required both the face of the person praying and the altar of the church to face east? Since Western writers before the 5th century, with the exception of perhaps a well-known rather obscure passage in Tertullian, do not find any indications of this rule, it seems possible to think that this rule was less known in the West than in the East, or at least was not strictly formulated, hence the possibility of a different interpretation. Such an interpretation, influenced by the classical usage of words to denote orientation, could easily appear. This use of the word could serve as a convenient reason for this. However, as for the motives, symbolic considerations could also lead to such an interpretation of the rule. It is required that when praying the believer faces the east, that is, towards Christ. Here this requirement is transferred to the church, which is, as it were, personified and interpreted as a symbol of a whole body of believers. However, we do not mean to insist on our explanation at all costs, although we think that it is in any case not without foundation. If another, better, more thorough one were offered, we would willingly accept it; but we do not yet know such an explanation. The best explanation of this type of orientation would, of course, be one in which it appears as an accident or as a circumstance forced by different topographical conditions. This explanation has long been known. Many people mention him; Mr. Pokrovsky also mentions. But it can be accepted in relation to only a few very few churches, and moreover, more conjecturally than on the basis of any other data. Regarding the others, it must still be proven by topographical surveys on site. Although, in view of the evidence of Peacock of Nolan, one cannot expect confirmation of the latter explanation from such research, they are nevertheless very desirable. Therefore, it is very unfortunate that Mr. Pokrovsky, while in Rome, did not consider it necessary, or did not find the time, to do anything in this direction. For example, it would be highly desirable to determine the topographical conditions that prevented the ancient basilica of St. Petra, which was probably the model for many ancient churches. Let us assume that at present this is probably quite difficult to do, but not impossible, since the topography of ancient Rome is quite developed. In any case, this can only be done on the spot. It is also very unfortunate that Mr. Pokrovsky did not bother to check and correct the Motes table, in which the orientation of some churches is indicated incorrectly or not indicated at all, although they still exist, for example, the orientation of the Basilica of the Cross in Jerusalem is shown to be unknown. Upon personal observation, it seems that it was not at all difficult to determine the exact orientation. 171, 172), speaking about episcopal sees, he claims that the authenticity of the see of Peter “cannot be proven by anything unless one attaches importance to a late and rather obscure tradition,” but in the atlas he places a drawing of this see alone, omitting all other monuments, which is very strange also because the shape of this see cannot in any way be considered typical (Table VII, fig. 3). The author further reveals even less legibility, placing on tables VIII and IX the plan and section of the Basilica of St. The coffin in Jerusalem after restoration by Gübsch. Mr. Pokrovsky places the authority of this scientist very highly and not without reason. But in this case it was not at all necessary to obey him slavishly. Plan of the Basilica of St. The coffin is usually restored on the basis of its description by Eusebius. Since this description is quite obscure, it is subject to various interpretations, on the basis of which various restorations of the building are made. Of course, you can choose any of these restorations, but the choice must be justified by some important reasons. The author preferred the Gübsch restoration, but did not explain why. Meanwhile, there is a simpler and more correct restoration of Vogüe, which Eusebius’ description was verified by personal observations of the area and excavations. If the author does not agree with Vogüe, then it seems worthwhile to explain why. However, he could not even include these drawings at all, replacing them with others that are more documentary. He could also omit the first two drawings of Table X. The first of them shows, as the “list of drawings” says, a sarcophagus depicting the suffering of the Savior according to the original stored in the Lateran Museum, and the second, as can be seen from the same list, shows the tomb of a martyr, which replaced the throne in the altar room of one of the churches of the Roman catacombs. The sarcophagus placed in the first drawing is really quite remarkable in its images, as a result of which drawings from it are not rare (see, for example, Fig. in Kraus and Allard in Roma sotterranea); but here the point is not in the images, but in whether this sarcophagus was the tomb of a martyr and whether it was once a throne, since the drawing refers to page 153, where it is treated as a throne, but the reasons for this are not indicated. The second drawing is taken from Martigny's dictionary, but strangely without any attention to the text for which it serves as an explanation. There it is placed to explain the idea that in the catacombs not only sarcophagi and tombs of martyrs served as thrones, but that there were also special independent thrones, located at some distance from the walls of the apse. Martigny does not at all claim that the throne placed in the drawing is the tomb of a martyr, but Mr. Pokrovsky sees a tomb here. Meanwhile, page 153 of his research shows that Martigny’s text explaining this, however, questionable drawing is well known to him. It was said above that the origin of the ancient Christian basilica cannot be considered fully explained until the genealogy of all the main elements from which it was composed is indicated in detail, not only those that have their root in the main prototype, but also those whose germ cannot be indicated in this prototype. Such elements are: the entrance part of the basilica, especially the altar. Both of these parts cannot be directly derived from the basic prototype, or otherwise, cannot be considered as the development of such features of this prototype as relate to its essence and without which it cannot be thought of. They cannot be directly derived even from those architectonic types, under the immediate influence of which the main prototype developed, since they do not constitute essential features of these types either. Thus, the court is found in ecus, but does not constitute their necessary feature, much less their exclusive affiliation; it is found at churches and other buildings; It is even found in the form of a special building. Likewise, the apse is found not only in basilicas, but also in triclinia and in churches and funerary monuments. Which of these buildings should the Christian basilica be compared to when explaining the origin of these parts? Where did these parts come from to the Christian basilica? This question is quite difficult: it cannot be resolved by just an unfounded indication of any similar phenomenon. The question of the origin of the transept is even more difficult, since in explaining this origin one cannot even refer to similar phenomena that classical architecture does not represent. Meanwhile, it is absolutely necessary to have a scientific and thorough solution to these questions when explaining the origin of the Christian basilica, because for such an explanation it is not enough to point to the original prototype from which the Christian basilica developed; complicating elements must also be indicated; otherwise, the very indication of the prototype will be unfounded and unsubstantiated, since there will be almost no data for its verification. Despite their importance, however, these questions remain open even to this day. Archaeologists who were engaged in explaining the origin of the Christian basilica directed all their attention to finding in classical architecture a type completely similar to it, or, since this turned out to be impossible, at least one that would have the most analogous features with it. They reduced the whole question to the question of a prototype, or such a classical model, in which the greatest number of features of the Christian basilica could be explained. They left almost completely aside the question of those features that could not be explained in this prototype, either by not mentioning these features at all, or by making unfounded references to explain them, such as a reference to an increase in the number of clergy personnel, etc. As a result, the question of the prototype, if it does not yet have a unanimously called upon solution, is at least clarified to a very significant extent; The question of the complications of this prototype awaits even new and most careful research. Richter’s essay “The Origin of Western Church Construction” belongs to the first experiments of this kind. Therefore, after familiarizing ourselves with the work of Mr. Pokrovsky, who stands at the same point as most Western archaeologists - eliminating from himself almost completely the solution of the mentioned issues - it seems to us not inappropriate and not without interest to familiarize ourselves, in conclusion, with this work. Although this work has a rather broad title, it essentially has a special task to explain the origin of only one part of the ancient Christian basilica, namely the altar - the apse and transept. It is very small in size and of such a kind that it does not raise any particularly important objections, and therefore the analysis of its content cannot detain us for long. In the first chapter of his work (The Ancient House Church), which serves as an introduction, Richter states that the question of the relationship of the Christian basilica to the ancient one has already been sufficiently studied and that the results obtained have rightly received universal recognition, so that new research on the same issue does not seem particularly necessary. The significance of this kind of generally accepted results, in the opinion of the author, has two positions: one, proven by Zestermann and consisting in the fact that the Christian basilica is not a modified copy of the basilica forensis, the second, belonging to Weingertner and consisting in pointing to the oecus of the ancient house as the prototype of the Christian basilica. However, as for the last point, Richter does not hide its weaknesses. He admits that it does not find full confirmation in either monumental or literary sources and may give rise to objections, but these objections, in his opinion, are easily eliminated. Thus, the desired illustrations for this position have not yet been found in Pompeii, but since barely a third of the excavations have been carried out here, the hope for the discovery of such illustrations is not yet lost. A study of the literary sources then points to the ὑπερόων of the Acts of the Apostles as the starting point in determining the form of the original house churches. They think that from this we can draw a conclusion regarding the form of Christian house churches in general, that is, Roman ones. The latest excavations in Ostia and Pompeii, contrary to previously widespread belief, prove that upper floors often existed in ancient Roman houses; they also find the stairs that led there directly from the street. But the author considers this fact to be of little evidence, since from the fact that the place of meetings of Christians in eastern houses is called: ὑπερόων it does not follow that in Greek and Roman houses there were exactly the same premises and that it was in them that Greek and Roman Christians should have gathered for worship. In general, he remains convinced that while Christians were forced to gather for worship in private houses, the oecus of these houses in the West was at least the usual place of liturgical meetings and that this oecus is the prototype of the Christian basilica; but he does not think that all parts of a Christian basilica, even the apse and transept, could be made from it. To explain the origin of these parts, it is necessary to turn to other types of monuments, namely to monuments of grave architecture. Through research into the relationship of Christian basilicas to this type of architecture, he hopes to obtain the desired explanation. The question of the relationship of Christian basilicas to the chapels of the catacombs, according to Richter, is one of the most important questions, and yet it still remains unanswered. Of the German authors, only Hübsch briefly touched on this issue, but his judgments are based on monuments of insufficient value. It seems to us that given the main goal that German archaeologists have hitherto pursued in the question of the origin of the Christian basilica, it could not have been otherwise. They did not expect to find its main prototype in the crypts of the catacombs. Richter also considers it impossible to find such a prototype here and even provides evidence for this (chapter II. catacomb crypts). In the catacombs there are a very significant number of crypts, which are now considered places of liturgical gatherings of ancient Christians. These are some of the crypts in the catacombs of Callistus, explored by de Rossi, in the catacombs of St. Priscilla and St. Ermet on the Salarian road, St. Pretextata, St. Nereus and Achilles on the Appian Way, in the Ostrian Catacombs on the Nomentan Way and in the Syracuse Catacombs. But of all these crypts, according to Richter, no more than three in size are suitable for turning into meeting places for a small community, namely: the chapel of St. Ermet, the so-called “basilica” in the Ostrian catacomb and the Antiochian chapel in the Syracuse catacombs. But the plan of these underground meeting places is completely devoid of any character of unity, which depended on local spatial conditions. Moreover, their lining can hardly be attributed to a time earlier than the 4th century. As for the many other crypts inside the catacombs, a significant number of which date back to early times, then, according to Richter, it is most likely that these are only tomb rooms. The volume of their square surface is two, three, rarely more than four meters. Although such crypts were often grouped in pairs, with an entrance usually being made from one to the other, such doubling of space still resulted in a room that was quite insignificant in size, barely sufficient for 20 people. As for this connection of several crypts, Richter considers it necessary to enter into a polemic against those who see in such a connection an indication of the desire of Christians to adapt underground rooms for crowded liturgical meetings. De Rossi is mainly based on this consideration when, regarding some of the crypts of the Callist catacombs, he claims that they were places of liturgical meetings. One such place is located on the third floor of these catacombs and consists of three crypts connected by doors and illuminated by one common alfalfa. The other one, on the same floor, consists of only two crypts. Quite important evidence in favor of the liturgical purpose of these places is the fact that, according to Rossi’s research, initially there were no loculi or traces here. they were not designated for burial. But Richter does not agree to see places of religious meetings here. He finds that the connection between the crypts in the first group, for example, through doors, is not sufficient for a place of worship. As for the absence of loculi, in his opinion, it can be assumed that they were replaced here by sarcophagi. In general, he does not find places in the catacombs suitable for public liturgical meetings of Christians, and therefore denies the very existence of such meetings there. He says that “public meetings inside the catacombs in pre-Constantinian times, especially during times of persecution, can only be discussed if appropriate places are opened; but in all likelihood it is impossible to count on this.” He tries to confirm this conclusion with written evidence, although not very valuable. The first place between them is occupied by the evidence of the ancient itineraries or guidebooks, especially the so-called Salzburg most accurate and ancient, compiled earlier than 642. This evidence consists in the fact that here the crypts of the catacombs are not called: ecclesia or basilica, but spelunca or spelunca magna and traces. are not recognized as real churches, to which it should be noted that the compiler of the itinerary could very well have attached the name spelunca to the underground church only in order to distinguish it from ordinary churches. Then, as for the second evidence, which is that Jerome and Prudentius, who in their writings repeatedly mention the honoring of martyrs and visits to the catacombs, do not say anything about the performance of public worship there, this is very natural, since in their time magnificent churches on the surface of the earth were used for public worship. The author does not mention at all the testimony of Liber pontificalis, according to which Pope Felix I (274) established the celebration of the Eucharist on the tombs of martyrs. In general, the author, having in mind the exaggerated ideas about worship in the catacombs of some Catholic archaeologists, especially Marchi, and wanting to counteract them, obviously himself goes to extremes, exaggerating both the inconvenience of the catacombs for liturgical meetings and the crowdedness of these meetings, from which he arrives at a rather unfounded conclusion. It seems that this happened partly from the fact that the author understands the term “public worship” in a unique way, meaning by it a divine service performed without fail in the presence of a crowded community, which is completely wrong. When it is said that public worship was held in the catacombs, this does not mean that all Christians in Rome were present at this service, but only that the Eucharist was celebrated there. If there is no doubt that the Eucharist was celebrated in underground crypts even in the 3rd century, then this is already enough to give these crypts some rather important significance for the question of the origin of the church in general. It is in vain that the author presents here the general properties of the underground crypt plan in a too unfavorable manner. Below in Chapter V, he himself describes several crypts of the catacombs of Priscilla, of a very early date (II century) and very remarkable in their plan. About these crypts, he himself says there (p. 36) that “their layout turns out to correspond to the most ancient basilicas of the simplest form, such as, for example, the Basilica of St. Balbini on the Caelian Hill." He tries to eliminate the contradiction that appears in this way with a rather unfounded statement that “these monuments stand in isolation and should be considered as an exception” and that, in addition, some forms that are used here “point to external prototypes.” But this does not diminish their importance. The service itself in the catacombs is a rather exceptional fact, and therefore it is natural that the places more or less clearly designated for this are also not a common occurrence. Nevertheless, they are of great importance even in the question of the general prototype of the Christian church, and it is not particularly important if their adaptation to liturgical purposes dates back to a relatively late time. Between them we will not find the prototype itself, but they can show us many of its essential properties and traces. a reliable path to its truest definition. In them we can find an indication, so to speak, of the minimum of architectonic elements that are necessary for the formation of a Christian church, and the prototype of a Christian church in relation to the church itself is not necessarily and in essence the matter itself, also a kind of minimum?.. But if, according to Richter, the monuments of the catacombs were not of particular importance for the development of the general plan of the ancient Christian basilica, then for the formation of its altar part - the apse and transept - they provided all the necessary elements. Of particular importance in this regard, in his opinion, are, first of all, not underground, but above-ground monuments (Chapter III) - small chapels built above the catacombs. Richter transfers to these chapels many things that previously belonged to underground crypts. Thus, the fact of the murder of Pope Sixtus II with one of the deacons during the Valerianov persecution, which took place according to the testimony of Cyprian in the catacombs, and, moreover, according to the testimony of the inscription compiled in honor of this martyr by Pope Damasus, on the pulpit during the sermon, he dates it to the monument above the surface of the catacombs on the basis that in the catacombs themselves, namely in the catacombs of Pretext, where this happened and the location of which is well known, it is impossible to indicate any place that could serve for the liturgical celebration and actions of the bishop. Indeed, these above-ground chapels apparently have much more significance than they think. They were built by Christians in large numbers from a very early time. The Liber pontificalis relates that Pope Fabian (250) built numerous buildings in the tombs. The anonymous compiler of the essay: De praedestintorum haeresi reports that two Montanists, arriving from Africa in Rome, received permission from the tyrant Maximus to build a collegium outside the city walls, and forcibly took possession of the tombs of the martyrs Process and Martinian. The construction of this kind of buildings did not stop even after the triumph of the church. In the calendar of Furius Dionysius Philocalus, in the list of Roman bishops under the name of Julius (337–352), there is news of the founding of churches in Roman Campania on top of the catacombs on the roads of Portuana, Flaminius and Aurelius. They probably existed in large numbers in other places. The devastation and devastation of Roman Campania in the middle of the century was the reason that very few buildings of this kind have survived. But we can get a sufficient idea of ​​their number and significance from the news of topographers even in the 7th and 8th centuries. In the XIII and XIV centuries. Only a few of them were preserved, and only a part of them remained in use. Especially many of them probably died in the early period during the Gothic invasion. Of these, a fairly significant number in Roman Campania have survived to this day, but in completely distorted form or in minor ruins. They were turned into dwellings by the villagers and, as a result, naturally underwent extensions and reconstructions, so it is easier to explore those of them that exist completely abandoned. At present, on one Appian road, one can probably still point out 7 similar buildings that towered over the catacombs of Pretextatus, Callistus and Domitilla. Although in close proximity to them there are ancient pagan funerary monuments, they differ significantly from these latter and cannot be mixed with them. However, their study has made very little progress, since it began very recently. The first drew attention to these Marchi monuments scattered throughout Roman Campania. Some of them were discovered and explored by de Rossi. Such, for example, is the oratorio with three apses, which is located above the Callistan catacombs and which, on the basis of topographic studies, is designated by the name of St. Sotera. According to de Rossi, it was built at the beginning of the 4th century. a little time after the martyrdom of St. Sotera (304 r.). Numerous ancient coffins, located on the surface of the earth in groups around the monument, sufficiently vouch for the great antiquity of the foundation of the building. This is further, located at the closest distance from the first, the oratorio of St. Sixta, also surrounded by ancient tombs. In this monument, Rossi distinguishes, however, two periods of construction. The walls surrounding the square space lying to the east, in his opinion, could not have been earlier than the time of Constantine. On the contrary, the walls to the west of the lying part of the building, consisting of three apses located at right angles to each other, are decidedly older. It is not incredible that this is one of the buildings built by Fabian. As for the shape of these buildings, it is very remarkable. Their plan usually looks like a mediocre quadrangle, expanded on three sides by apses. Richter considers the accumulation of apses here to be a rather surprising and very characteristic phenomenon. The use of absidal forms is, as it were, their essential feature, and for the question of the formation of the altar part of the basilica it is very important. Therefore, the author tries to state it as firmly as possible. But since the deep antiquity of the Christian monuments needed for this cannot be proven with certainty, since these monuments are generally scarce and little studied, the author finds himself forced to turn to pagan tombstones for evidence, obviously assuming a fairly close connection between paganism and Christianity in this regard (Chapter IV). That absidal forms were a feature of Christian funerary oratorios from the very beginning of their existence, Richter sees proof of this in the fact that these forms were also characteristic of pagan funerary monuments of that era and were not anything completely unusual in them. The tomb street in front of the Herculan Gate in Pompeii contains a wide variety of funerary monuments, between which there are often tombs in connection with a deeply concave, semicircular stone bench. Sometimes a building of some kind rises above the shop to protect it, which “not only with its plan resembles the apse of Christian oratories and basilicas, but also with its decorations clearly indicates a more than casual relationship between them.” Particularly remarkable here is the monument on the western side of the street near the gate. It has the appearance of a completely free-standing tribunal, or apse, not extensive, but quite deep. It is separated from the surface of the street by a high step. Its pediment is decorated with two dolphins and two sea horses carrying newts; in the middle there is a tablet without an inscription. Inside, the elegantly painted walls are closed at the top by a shell-shaped vault. As for the tomb streets of ancient Rome, although such monuments have not survived to our time, this does not mean that they did not exist at all. Monuments of this kind are less durable and could easily be destroyed, like many others. In general, there is no doubt that this form of tombstones was well known to the classical world. Such a monument was the “tribunal” that was erected in Antioch in honor of Germanicus and about which Tacitus speaks. The monument erected in Athens on the Musion hill in honor of Philopappos Epiphanes, which has partially survived to this day, has the same form. Sometimes monuments of this kind had larger dimensions and more complex shapes. In this case they were called triclinium and collegium and were appointed for the funeral cult, just like Christian funeral oratorios. In general, the similarity between pagan and Christian tombstones both in purpose and in structural forms is very great. The absidal form is characteristic of both, but Christian ones to a greater extent than pagan ones. In Christian funeral oratorios, the apse appears constantly. Hence, in all likelihood, it was adopted for the Christian basilica. True, we also find apse in some pagan judicial basilicas, for example, Maxentius in the Roman Forum; we know that he was not alien to private buildings: for example, in Pliny’s villa there was a room in apsida curvatum; - but both of these often cited examples only indicate the prevalence of this building form. As for the basis on which it was adopted by Christian architects, this is not at all clear from here. Most likely, this was influenced by the fact that at the beginning of the 4th century. The apse came into particular use in funerary monuments. And if this is true, then “the formal similarity of the apse of Christian buildings with the apse of judicial basilicas should be considered nothing more than an accident.” As for the transept, to explain it Richter enters into new and rather complex considerations (Chapter V). He descends into the underground crypts and here draws attention to the architecture of the tombs themselves and mainly of the martyrs. The tombs found here are of two kinds. Some are simple devices and consist of a horizontal recess in the wall, like a cabinet shelf; this is loculus. Others are more complex, consisting of a semicircular niche and a vertical recess underneath it for the body; this is arcosolium. The latter kind of tombs are of particular importance in this case. They were like ceremonial tombs and most often served for the burial of martyrs. In Roman catacombs arcosolium is found constantly, but finds its use more often in crypts than in corridors. In the Naples catacombs, whose architectural design differs from the Roman ones, arcosolium is found in the corridors even more often than loculus. In the small catacomb of Siponto under Manfredonia, arcosolia are used exclusively. They also exist in the newly discovered catacombs of Palermo; but nowhere are they found so often as in the majestic tomb of Neopolis of Syracuse. This form of tomb is found in underground tombs in other countries. So in Ephesus, the so-called crypt of the seven sleepers on Mount Koressa has an arcosolium. Between the numerous Christian building monuments in Jebel Semana at Alepo, in Jebel el-Ala and in Jebel Nuzayriyeh in the river region of Nar el-Asi (Orontes) to Lake Om (Emessa), in this majestic field of ruins, extending to Palestine, there are tomb rooms with the same arcosolia as in Rome, Naples, Syracuse. On the Syrian coast in a southern direction, arcosolia are also found. They are also found among Jews, but relatively less frequently. In the Jewish catacombs of Roman Campania, of which those on the Appian Way are of considerable extent, arcosolium appears to have been deliberately avoided. The shape of the coffins here approaches the ancient Jewish one in the so-called tombs of prophets, judges and kings. Meanwhile, the Roman Jewish catacombs date back to the 3rd and 4th centuries of our era and are located in close proximity to Christian tombs. Perhaps the Jewish community preferred the most ancient, albeit most difficult to implement, form of coffins because they wanted to show the contrast with the Christians. Nevertheless, the arcosolium of the Christian catacombs in all likelihood has its prototype in the Palestinian coffins of pre-Christian Judaism, although we can comparatively rarely prove the existence of such coffins there. Even more. The cave tomb of Christ in the garden of Golgotha ​​was probably an arcosolium carved with water from the four walls of the tomb room. Vogüe's research on this subject led him to the same result, although it was carried out in a completely different way. This is clearly evident from his graphic reconstruction of the monument, which he appended to his essay “On the Churches of the Holy Land.” In this monument, which according to legend was the tomb of Christ, now everything has been almost changed and the original structure, carved into the rock, is covered with marble casing. However, the main features have been preserved to this day; only the vault over the arcosolium no longer exists. The similarity with this monument to Christian monuments is undeniable. Proof of this can be found in the entrance hall of the Domicillian Catacombs in Rome, opened in 1865. Here you can see the oldest example of the Christian arrangement of coffins, since this part of the catacombs dates back in its origin to the first half of the 2nd century. Here we see several rooms (5 in fact) designated for burial. Of these, one is especially remarkable. While the other four, adjoining the vestibule, have no entrance wall and are a kind of three-sided open niches, this room has an entrance wall with a small door. In the remaining niche rooms there are sarcophagi, and in this enclosed room there is the only arcosolium in the entire group. In general, this entire room bears an amazing resemblance to the cave of the tomb of Christ in the reconstruction of Vogüe. The dimensions here are almost the same, the height of the tomb is almost the same; the entrance here is the same as there, from the east, and the arcosolium is in the north. All this gives the right to believe with the highest probability that the mentioned Roman tomb is an imitation of the tomb of Christ. Here one can find similarities, although of course accidental, even in the fact that the Roman tomb was intended for two bodies; Arnulf testifies that according to some news, St. was the same. tomb in Jerusalem. If in this way the tomb of Christ was the prototype of the arcosolium, then this easily explains the special love of the ancient Christians for this kind of tomb, as well as the fact that they used them primarily for the burial of martyrs. That the arcosolia were primarily martyr's tombs, there can be no doubt. This can already be seen from the fact that, as a result of the custom that spread among Christians to prepare burial places as close as possible to the martyrs, most of the arcosoliums, as well as the inscriptions and images that decorated them, were destroyed and mutilated. But for the arcosolia to serve for the celebration of the Eucharist, the author almost completely does not allow this, citing inconvenience. It is with these coffins - arcosolia - that Richter tries (Chapter VI) to connect the formation of the transept of Christian basilicas. These basilicas, at least in their typical models, are what he considers the Roman basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, are clearly composed of two parts of different design: an oblong multi-nave hall and a long narrow transept with an apse. Two longitudinal buildings are connected here at right angles. The connecting link between them is the so-called triumphal arch. Where does this arrangement come from? The author believes that this arrangement arose from the desire to connect two buildings - the community house and the martyr's monument. The second, altar part of the basilica is nothing more, in his opinion, than a martyr’s monument - an arcosolium, processed in dimensions that corresponded to the general dimensions of the entire building. By its nature, arcosolium is a combination of two distinct structures that can easily be separated. It consists of a sarcophagus and a niche with a rounded vault, which already in the catacombs aspired to at least have the significance of an independent architectural monument. This can be clearly seen when examining some of the monuments in the catacombs. These are especially the two crypts in the catacombs of St. Priscilla, described by the author earlier. In one of them, the niche above the tomb is elongated at the top and brought together in an apse shape. In another, this niche has the shape of a real apse, since it continues all the way to the floor, and instead of a tomb carved into the soil itself, a sarcophagus should have stood here. The basic plan of the arcosolium, according to Richter, corresponds to the plan of the transept. The transept extends over the crypt. The sarcophagus is placed here below in the crypt, but directly above it in the middle of the transept there is a throne. At the top, a triumphal arch extends in a wide arc, which is always decorated with figurative painting in accordance with the customs adopted regarding arcosolia. Thus, the powerful transept, lying across the building, forms a vast ideal habitat for the revered martyrs, which has some correspondence with the cella of the ancient church, as the dwelling of the gods. The heavy and compressed proportions of the lower arcosolium are deployed here into a sublime monumental building of an unusually bold concept. If we take as the starting point of observation the front side of the triumphal arch resting on mighty columns, which is never found at the ends of the side ships, then it is quite possible to evoke the memory of a coffin in the catacombs. This relationship between the transept and the arcosolium seems quite obvious if the musical decorations of the most ancient basilicas are compared with the picturesque decorations of the arcosoliums from the 4th century. It is known that in every basilica in the apse there is mostly an image of Christ, and on the triumphal arch there are images of the apostles, or elders of the apocalypse, and, moreover, in most cases, figured images are found in general only in these two places. In arcosoliums, images are also placed on the front side of the arch and in the opening of the arcosolium, on the back wall of the niche. These images here have a symbolic character, but if they are translated into real images, they will turn out to be completely identical with the corresponding images of basilicas. In support of this, the author provides a fairly significant number of examples. In his opinion, the same relationship between the transept and the arcosolium is also indicated by the dedicatory inscriptions on the triumphal arches of the basilicas. As for other explanations for the origin of the transept, Richter considers them unfounded. So, in his words, “we have no right to explain the transept as a space designated for the functions of the clergy,” since in fact the transept did not and could not have such a purpose. He also finds the symbolic explanation, which consists of pointing to the cross as a symbol that had an influence on the formation of the plan of the basilicas, unsatisfactory, since the ancient writers allegedly say nothing about this and since the transept with its ends does not protrude from the general plan or protrudes insufficiently and therefore does not give complete similarity to the plan of these basilicas with the cross. – The author makes a general conclusion regarding the origin of the Roman basilica: the Roman basilica of the 4th and subsequent centuries is an organic combination of an oblong church - a community meeting place with a martyr’s tomb. The colossal dimensions that were needed for the community house had to correspond to the size and cella of the martyrs. It could not be otherwise, since in these monumental buildings, as the dedicatory inscriptions show, the veneration of martyrs comes to the fore. This is the hypothesis that Richter proposes to explain the origin of the altar part of Christian basilicas. It cannot be said that it was completely new, since the connection between the Christian altar and the tomb of the martyr has long been established. But it has been developed in a completely new direction based on new facts, comparisons and considerations. The only pity is that the facts underlying it have not yet been sufficiently examined, and some considerations have not been expressed clearly and vaguely. Wanting to prove the influence of funerary monuments on the formation of the altar part of basilicas, he points out between these last two, so to speak, prototypes capable of exerting such an influence: the aboveground hemicycle and the underground arcosolium. He apparently tries to assign the action of each of these prototypes its own special sphere, but he expresses this rather confusingly and even contradictorily. So in Chapter IV. he clearly connects the above-ground oratorios with pagan tombstones, and below (p. 41) he states that there are oratorios with one apse, built on the model of underground Christian crypts, like those indicated in the tomb of Priscilla. Then, to explain the apse of basilicas without a transept, he considers it sufficient to refer to the apsidal forms of funerary oratorios, but as for the apse in basilicas with a transept, it is not clear whether these forms had the same influence here and, if they did, whether the arcosolium also had an influence on the same point; Likewise, it is not clear whether the arcosolium had any influence on the formation of the altar part of the basilica without a transept. But the main ambiguity lies in the explanation of the transept. It is very difficult to understand how a transept could arise from the arcosolium, because from the expansion of the arcosolium, what is obtained first of all is not a transept - a space of an elongated narrow shape, but an expanded apse with a throne in the center. Nevertheless, the main idea seems more than probable to us. It seems very likely that the arcosolium had an influence on the formation of the altar part in general, and that the transept is in close connection with the existence of an underground crypt in the church. It is very remarkable in this regard, on the one hand, that a triumphal arch with a certain kind of images and inscriptions, indicating the influence of arcosoliums, exists in basilicas without a transept, as well as in basilicas with a transept, and on the other hand, that in ancient Roman basilicas, which do not have underground crypts, there is no transept. So in the ancient Roman basilicas dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, there are no transepts, since there are no crypts; opposite in the Bethlehem basilica dedicated to the same reverend. Virgo, there is a vast transept, as there is also a crypt. At the same time, it is known, however, that there are ancient basilicas that have crypts, but still do not have a transept. Hence, one can involuntarily assume whether the existence of the transept and its larger or smaller dimensions were determined by the size and location of the underground crypts, which the builders wanted to keep intact when building the basilicas. The transept in basilicas, as is known, occurs due to the fact that the rows of columns dividing the longitudinal building into ships and supporting the roof of the building, at some more or less significant distance from the altar or rear wall and the apse, stopped and thus formed a gap not filled with columns. What is the reason for this phenomenon? If we look at the matter from a purely technical point of view, then we can assume a desire to preserve the underground crypt intact. In the absence of a transept, this was not always possible, since for the columns supporting the weight of the roof, it was necessary to dig a foundation, and sometimes, depending on the size and position, the crypt inevitably had to suffer damage. The above assumption seems to us very possible, although it does not exclude other explanations. It is a pity that the plans of the underground parts of ancient basilicas are very little known. In any case, the explanation Richter gives deserves full attention. It destroys another of the analogies between Christian and pagan basilicas, and a very important one at that, namely the one that concerns the apse. If this explanation is correct, at least only in the main idea, then the dependence of the Christian basilica on the pagan one turns out to be even weaker than previously thought. The Christian basilica turns out to be a rather complex phenomenon, independently developed through a peculiar combination of various architectural elements on a purely Christian basis. Eusebius, Church. East. book X. Ch. IV. In the eulogy to Peacock of Tire posted here, the Christian church is symbolized in the most detailed way. It says here that it was built on the model of the church of the best invisible and is essentially likened to it, that the builder gave it such a structure “which he learned from the sacred prophecies” and so on. Life of Constantine, book. III, ch. 31. About the origin of the Christian church. Cer. East. X, 4. Pokhv. Ch. I and IX. Life of Constantine, book. III, ch. 36, 37. Life Const. book Sh. Ch. 43. According to ed. Migne, t. XX. col. 1104. See also note 27, col. 1103. Other passages are also quoted there. In Mittheilungen der K. Central-Commision 1871, p.50. sq. Weingatner, Urschprung and Entwickelung des christlichen Kirchengebaudes, p. 39–43. Other authors cited by Mr. Pokrovsky have more independence in this idea, for example, Augustus, but they do not talk about the structural and technical dependence of Christian churches on Jewish ones. One very unfavorable example for Mr. Pokrovsky’s conclusions is also known to Messmer, but for some reason he does not want to admit any significance to it. The author of one very widespread and respected liturgical work in the Middle Ages: Gemmt animae directly says: A templo itaqie, qnod Solomon fedt, ecclesia noslra fogman acce pit. L.I.c. 126. Other writers, for example, Walfrid Strabo, if they mention the history of the church, they usually begin it with the biblical places of worship and speak of the Jerusalem temple as a form that precedes it, but is homogeneous with the Christian church. 0 origin Christ church. Cyprian. About the Lord's Prayer. Scripture of the Fathers, relating. to interpretation divine service I. 269. Similar facts exist regarding synagogues. The author of the Alexandrian chronicle reports that under the emperor. Zenone converted one Jewish synagogue to the Christian church and that a large church (μέγαν) emerged from this synagogue. Bingh. L. VIII. c. II. Vitringa L. I. r. 1. C 2. Weingertner, op. Op. RUR 38.39. 0 origin of Christ. church. Doubt about the importance of the fact may appear here from the other side. Is the synagogue described in the Talmud the same temple that I. Flavius ​​speaks of and which was built by Onias, or is it another building? Not all scientists think the same about this. Constatini opera p. 57; construxisse...ecclesiam a fundamentis. Back in the 5th and 6th centuries. Many Roman churches were called by the names of their builders, as can be seen from the list of them preserved in the acts of the local Roman council of 499: titulus Vestinae, Equitii, Damasi, Tigridis, Fasciolae. – Richter, Ursprung. Kirchengebande: p. 45. Mothes, Die Basilikenform., bei alt. Christen, p. 4–5. 0 origin·Christ. church. About origin christian church You might be interested in: