Talk:Chamber of Facets

[Untitled]

• Continued from [1]:

• "It is a rare example of Brick Gothic in Russia; a country where Gothic architecture was not really favored until introduced as a revival style the 18th century and 19th centuries."In the Russian Empire, there were quite a few examples of Gothic architecture built in the late 18th century and (more so) in the 19th century. Before that date it was extremely rare almost non-existent (apart from the subject here). So I think the sentence is accurate because you can't say, it didn't exist because it clearly did and you are writing about it here. Giano (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the Patron saint, the article clearly said the saint was "John, a Novgorodian Archibishop" - this article here Ilya (Archbishop of Novgorod) states that this saint and archbishop of Novgorad was also called John and was a saint. Are you saying there is another sainted archbishop of Novgorad called John? Giano (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Can you check that this is the right founder Euthymius II of Novgorod; the article previously gave the name as "Ephimius, the Novgorodian episcope." I'm retty sure i have found the correct founder, but it would be nice to have that confirmed. Giano (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Towards the end of the article it changes from talking of a chamber to mentioning 'The church.' Is this another building, or is the chamber also a church. This ought to be made more clear. Giano (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Dear Giano, I give you my special thanks for your participation in making this article up. Here are some comments regarding my position and view; they include what I, as the initial editor, would like to clear up for readers.

• About Gothic architecture and Russia. No doubt, that the subject of the arised discussion is quite controversial as it depends on what position you hold to some extend. The variant that you offer is not senseless and have some grounds, but I came down in favour of the existing variant due to the further reasons. I guess the phrase "It is an exceptional example of Gothic architecture in Russia" to be meaningful as it seems to reflect the position of Russian scientific community in the sphere of history of Russian architecture, and this is the case when my own view is fused with it. Let me make some more extended notes.

As far as I understand from what you wrote, you have no objections regarding the fact that there was no Gothic architecture in Kievan Rus and Great Duchy of Moscow. As you wrote "it was not really favoured" there; it's totally truth, the only notion I want to make is that it may imply to some extend that they used to reject Gothic architecture here; in fact they were simply not acknowledged with the technology, and yes, they were binded by the Bizantine architectural tradition they were trying to continue.

The architectural diversity in the state called "the Russian empire" which was established by Peter the Great in the beginning of 18 century was much broader, you are totally right. I'd even venture to say, that it was in fact determined by the all-european architectural trends; the same as in all the rest Europe. A nice example of buildings you talk about, as for me, might be the Chapel in Peterhof.

The significant remark to be made here is that i am convinced firmly that the buildings in Russia are Neo-Gothic, but not Gothic. I know, in English that style is also called as "Gothic revival", in contrast i'd like to cite here the literal translation of another Russian name of this style, which reflects well the point: "pseudo-Gothic". It is very comfortable to refer here to the most familiar Neo-Gothic building in the World: the Palace of Westminster in London. The Cathedral of Learning in USA is well-known as well.

Looks like Gothic, but not Gothic in fact. We may find a lot of evidences for what I claim in each Neo-Gothic building. The most descriptive witnesses are probably those which support treating Gothic style in architecture as something holistic with the core constituted by the innovative (for medieval times) design (technological) principle of how to make high buildings, complemented with the ideas of medieval society. I'd better finish with the literal translation of what they wrote about these Russian buildings in Neo-Gothic style in Russian Wikipedia: "Russian pseudo-Gothic architecture of 18-19 centuries reflects idealized romantic impressions of building customers about medieval times as a period of Christianity's triumph and the tournaments". They didn't even tried to use frameworks in pseudo-gothic buildings here, that's all just decorations.

What about Barocco, Rococo and all this kind of stuff - we have already discussed all that with you i guess: these are Renaissance styles being far from Gothic architecture; they were inspired by Antique architecture (I mean that architecture of ancient Greece and Rome), but hardly by Gothic style.

As for the Chamber we edit the article about, that's different case. It was built in Novgorod republic, the last was very different from all the rest Russia. Novgorod wasn't "Russian" city in many senses (please, get my idea): founded by legendary scandinavian konung Ruerik, it was multi-cultural medieval city with the mixed population of northern Russians and scandinavians (as they write it in Novgorodian chronicle, the literal translation, "Novgorodians are peoples of a mixed ancestry: Russian and Scandinavian". The city had solid cultural and business connection with cities like London, Lubek and others, and social trends being common for all the Europe took place in Novgorod too: there was a parliament here, children started school in their 7 etc. So that's hard to believe, but the chamber is truly gothic building despite they have distorted it strongly over the time. That seems to be interesting, isn't it: before 2008, until some reconstruction works of the exterior were undertaken, the building looked like just a white box with windows, but it was truly Gothic.

If that's interesting for somebody, in Soviet times they did their best to reject the fact that it's a gothic building (it was the cold war you know, so they tried hard to distinguish themselves from "the tainted West", as they used to call it here in newspapers; moreover - this building is one of the preserved exampled of ancient Russian civil architecture - others civil buildings had typically been made of wood and rot it fact).

• it was misleading for me to write that Ilya and John were different saints. In fact this is the same person: I have checked it and want to share my results. Not sure how about western christianity, but here they use to change their names while being tonsured. So, he was John when he was a civil citizen (to be precise, he was called "Ivan" - in Russian tradition) , but as soon as he had taken a vow, his name changed into Ilya. And there were no other famous Ivans and Ilyas the saints in Novgorod i guess. If that's interesting for you, I can provide some citing from the ancient chronicle about himself - his name is tied with some mirracle, that's quite interesting.

• as for "Ephimius": the article is totally my translation from Russian, corrected by yourself and Charles as native speakers. "Ephimius" was just my try to convey his name in English; in fact in English analogue is written like " Euthymius", I was wrong and you provided the absolutely correct link.

• that mess about "church" and "chamber" is to be traced up to the further fact. There was a period in Russian empire when they were inspired "to bring a new life in old objects" here. It was all around the Russia, and the buildings of the ancient Novgorod (in particular, the Chamber) didn't avoid that fate. They had decided to turn this bulding into a church, and they did it: the dome was constructed etc., I can show the old picture of 19 century. So, this is written like "church" there as it implies, that it became a church that time. Anyway, i totally agree with your remark: all that is not clear for a reader, so I'll make the necessary corrections.

Thank you so much! --Sterndmitri (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Sterndmitri: I'm sure you known best. So long as we have the right saint linked that's the important thing. It's a pity the photograph does not better illustrate the subject - the left hand side of the building appears more classical than the clearly Gothic right hand side. If you need any help with the Russian architectural points and translation, the best person to ask is Ghirlandajo. In my opinion, he is Wikipedia's greatest expert on Russian architecture and history. Best wishes Giano (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Gothic?

What's Gothic about this structure? Beyond the use of brick, which isn't the defining feature of Gothic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordParsifal (talk • contribs) 03:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)