Hello, friends. By chance, I came across an old printed work (hereinafter referred to as a document).
I read this document with interest, and I want to bring you some points. Since the document is overloaded with unnecessary information about cost estimates and labor protection standards, I present it in banknotes. I was immediately convinced that the document was a translation from some foreign folio, since the text contains links to illustrations with the word "fig", and the drawings themselves do not contain any architectural solutions for churches in the Russian style. And the numbering of figures does not match the text. But let's get acquainted with the primary source, and the comments will come later. I circled interesting places in red.
Promotional video:
It turns out that the dome is called not what we mean by this now, but the vault of the temple's roof. The metal part itself is called the head, and the one above it is called the spire. But it doesn't matter. The fact is that, with all the other details of the document, there is not a word about the order in which this chapter and the spire were erected. It is very strange, since the head and spire are one of the most important parts of the temple, at least in terms of loads and impacts. There is nothing even in the estimated part. And the main question - what is this document for? Was it really necessary to make all the churches in the European style and someone tried to implement it? And what happened to all the famous masters who made temples throughout the vast country without any such instructions? The document was published in 1824. About a year later, the Decembrists revolted. The war took place earlier 10 years ago. The answer to this question is in the introduction to the document.
So the workers didn't know how to make churches? Or were there simply no workers with the required qualifications? If the Patriotic War of 1812 really went on as it was written in the textbooks, it could be that there were not enough workers due to human losses. But most likely, this war was won by the Holstein-Gottorpskys, who began to impose European standards throughout the conquered Muscovy, in the construction of churches in particular. And with their submission, the magical systems of temples began to be replaced with dummies, which we still have to this day. The situation is similar to how the translated American textbooks are now being imposed in schools (I hope there is no need to comment on why and why). That is why, most likely, the chapters and spiers of the temples are absent in the document (this is my guess, the usual dosage of information could have taken place). But let the historians do it. And we will talk about construction puzzles in the text of this document.
As you can see from the text, the metal ties in the building of the temple should be laid without reference to the thickness of the walls. To put it more simply, their thickness and number do not depend on the dimensions of the supporting and enclosing structures of the temple, they must be laid only so that they are, and connected to each other. They obviously do not carry reinforcing functions or are mediocre, especially in vertical sections. As for the metal ties going through the inner arched openings of the walls (this often happens in churches), obviously, it is simply necessary that the ties go on the same level with the ties in the outer walls. No other background is being laid here. If the internal connections in the arches do not interfere with the passage of people in the halls, then this was permissible for those requirements. Ties must be held together with wedges, which "must not be neglected." Why? Brickwork itself has rigidity,and if it has a thickness of 0.5 m or more, the presence or absence of a wedge will not affect in any way. The strength of the old brickwork exceeds the modern one at times. Even if the building subsides, at a high building height this wedge will simply break, either along it itself or in the eyelets of the ties (which were just bent by a blacksmith, they did not know how to cast or weld such things then). And the connections, besides all this, had to be applied also in the vaults. Anyone who presents the mechanical diagram of the loads of the vault will immediately say that connections inside the masonry there from a mechanical point of view are not needed at all. All the load goes to the walls where this vault rests. And if intermediate pillars are also used to support the arch, then even more so. What are metal bonds for? The answer to this question, in fact, has already been repeatedly presented in other articles. These connections are needed to create electrical vibrations inside the temple, which in some way affected a person. Each of us represents musical instruments. Each nation has its own form, and, accordingly, its own output parameters - the sound of a certain key. This sound somehow affects the human brain, causing pleasant (mostly) sensations. Despite all the variety of instruments, they have no other purpose. It's about the same with temples. They can be of different shapes and filled with different religious content or be without content at all, but initially their purpose was the same for everyone - to receive similar vibrations, only electrical ones, which also affected the human brain. And for this they had closed metal connections on the walls. And they are in all kinds of preserved temples,even in Buddhist (in Thailand, Buryatia and Sri Lanka personally observed).
Another interesting discovery of this document is the definition of the architectural detail "soffit". Nowadays, this is the name for a theatrical fixture for fixing lighting lamps. In other meanings, this word, at least in a wider circle, is not used. Why is it used here? Judging by the text, this is the name of the flat lower part of the arches or crossbars. I do not think that the "spotlight" in this case was not associated with the emission of light. It turns out that the stucco (or maybe cast) rosettes on the arches, cornices and column capitals glowed? In this case, the version described in the articles: "Cleopatra's needles, or new secrets" and "Fire axonometry of buildings of the 19th century" has all the rights to exist. And Russian churches, oddly enough, had the same properties. Only in churches of the Russian Baroque style did some other objects shine. Answer the question,which ones, it is quite simple, you need to find where the metal connection came, and investigate the decor material. Perhaps there is a secret in the material too. As you can see, after the fire (see link), some details of the stucco were destroyed, and under them there was a metal connection outlet. In addition, a lot of metalwork went to the window frames. For what purpose? To maintain the stucco? Maybe, but the thickness of the metal bond clearly did not correspond to the weight of this molding. Iron at that time was expensive to use it that way. For what purpose? To maintain the stucco? Maybe, but the thickness of the metal bond clearly did not correspond to the weight of this molding. Iron at that time was expensive to use it that way. For what purpose? To maintain the stucco? Maybe, but the thickness of the metal bond clearly did not correspond to the weight of this molding. Iron at that time was expensive to use it that way.
An equally interesting fact in the document is the existence of the octagonal lantern. What is this anyway? Osmerik is a superstructure on the vault of the temple.
The code in the document is described well enough, but the octal does not fit the definition of a lantern. If we mean a light drum, which in foreign literature is called a lantern, then everything is clear, it is described in sufficient detail here. However, there is one entry on this topic in the estimated part of the document.
What kind of flashlight are we talking about? Judging by the diminutive form, his size is not large. Maybe about these?
I do not like to pose questions to readers at the end of the article, but here it does not work any other way. The specified detail is very similar to such a flashlight in the description. Along with this, there are versions that other parts of the temples were lanterns.
No wonder, from the small dome, the central trunk, on which the chandelier was hung, could go inside. It could glow, which is why the entire structure could be called a lantern. It is possible that such a design could give light outside. In general, it turns out that there are more riddles than answers, and here the researchers still have to work and work.
Until next time.
