Several explanations for the common use of the ogival arch, the bulbous dome, and the double arch with hanging keystones, have been advanced by antiquaries, but none are altogether satisfactory. The errors have possibly resulted from studying masonry to the exclusion of carpentry, and the early Slavs were users of wood—not of stone or brick. It may be that these forms were due to the execution in light elastic wood of arches and vaults copied from foreign work composed of voussoirs, but such is unlikely. Assuming that round wood poles, the stems of the plentiful young birch trees, and wattles were the materials of which the frames of the early dwellings were constructed, then such forms naturally result.
If the ends of poles are stuck into the earth, and the opposite extremities brought to a common centre and weight—as that of the roof—added, the timbers will sag and a concave section result. That this was one Russian form of roof, the illustration of the Belvedere of the Terem exemplifies (see page 117), where the curve is purposely exaggerated for the purpose of decorative effect. If, instead of being placed loosely in the earth to allow of this set, the poles are thrust down deep into the soil or otherwise made immovable and the upper extremities forcibly brought in towards the centre and fastened there, then when the weight of the roof bends the poles, they will bulge outward in the middle, and when the weight of the roof has been so adjusted as to correct the curve in order to give to the structure the desired greatest possible interior space for domestic accommodation, then the bulbous dome naturally results if the poles be arranged in a circle. The ogival arch is only a section of that.
Granted that if the poles cross each other near the tops a more or less concave cone will result—as exemplified in the tepoes of the American Indians—yet if instead of two or three poles, many more have to be brought to the common apex it will be easier not to cross them but bind all firmly to each other—or a central post—then the ogival section must result. If a single pole is bent to form the support of a roof and both its extremities are thrust into the ground, the horseshoe arch is obtained as soon as the weight of the roof acts upon such supports. If, instead of the single pole, two shorter ones are taken and instead of being lashed together to form the pointed arch the upper extremities are brought towards each other and downwards and then lashed, a more rigid bow is obtained, and this is the crude form of the double arch with pendant keystone so common in Moscow; and its use generally is over doorways, etc., where a wide span with great stability is required, and with poles as the only available material this form gives rigidity not obtainable by bending to any other so simple form.
The form of arched vault that had served as the lowly dwelling of a primitive people was retained in its entirety for the roof of later and larger buildings; the walls, whether of logs or shaped timber, served as imposts, just as the soil had done, and so the bulbous domes, the square and oblong attic roofs with their characteristic gonflements have been retained. It is merely an example of the persistence as decoration of forms which were originally wholly utilitarian. This is particularly the case with the double arch where the pendant keystone descends to the level of the imposts and is of course supported from the lintel when executed in masonry. Another characteristic Russian form is the circular arch of masonry, which has the voussoirs of the intrados of the usual regular form but of the extrados slightly elevated at the corner to indicate the “ogival arch,” which was the common form of the wooden arch in Moscow. As already stated (ch. ii.) the early forms of Russian dwellings may be studied from the models in the Historical Museum; one peculiarity is that each successive storey is set back from that immediately below instead of projecting as in the half-timbered houses, of mediæval England. In addition to the belvederes of the Terem and Potieshni Dvorets, it is noticeable in the towers of the Kremlin wall. They were originally of timber and the earlier form is retained—even to the double walls and tiers—so necessary to a wooden bulwark, but quite foreign to the method of the Italian masons who erected these buildings. The steep roofs of the towers is also common and convenient in constructing with timber, but needless and difficult when working with tiles and bricks. So long as these remain the wooden original Moscow cannot be wholly forgotten.
The attempt to retain the pyramidal or retreating form when building with bricks has resulted in a distinctly Muscovite style for towers and spires. Instead of a parapet on the walls of the tower, a tier of small circular arches is imposed, and form the crowns of these, also set back, spring the voussoirs of a second tier, and in like manner other tiers until the desired height is reached for the spire, or the cylindrical shaft that is to support the dome, or whatever other ornament is used to crown the structure. One of the best examples of this form is the church of the Nativity on the Mala Dmitrovka, which was built in the “golden” period of Moscow—1625-1680—when for all buildings of first importance masonry had supplanted the use of wood (see p. 181). The earlier form may be seen in the roof of the Blagovieshchenski Sobor; and the varieties of pattern are reproduced in the attic roofs of the Historical Museum building.
The absurdity of the pendant keystone in the double arch is demonstrated by the arch over the doorway to the courtyard of the synod, and the lintels of doors and windows of the Potieshni Dvorets.
The magnificent monument to the Great Tsar Liberator, Alexander II., is the latest addition to the Kremlin, that heart of Moscow which echoes the glorious past of the Russian empire and is its true Pantheon. None have graced it more than those early Romanofs whose work is evident in every ancient building, but still more imperishable was the noble labour of him to whom this generation has expressed its gratitude in an imposing and characteristic memorial to the most loved Tsar.