Page:A History of Architecture in All Countries Vol 2.djvu/504

488 488 RUSSIAN ARCHITECTURE. Part II. a part, the Greek architects and artists have lavished the greatest amount of care and design, and in every Greek church, from St. Mark's at Venice to the extreme confines of Russia, it is the object that first attracts attention on entering. It is, in fact, so important that it must be regarded rather as an object of architecture than of church furniture. The architectural details of these Eussian churches must be pro- nounced to be bad ; for, even making every allowance for difference of taste, there is neitlier beauty of form nor constructive elegance in any part. The most characteristic and pleasing features are the five domes that generally orna- ment the roofs, and which, when they rise from the extrados or uncovered outside of the vaults, cer- tainly look well. Too frequently, however, the vault is covered by a wooden roof, through which the domes then peer in a manner by no means to be admired. The details of the lower part are generally bad. The v i e av (Woodcut Ko. 947), of a dooi'way of the Troitska monastery, near Moscow, is sufficiently characteristic. Its most remarkable feature is the baluster-like pillars of which the Russians seem so fond. These support an arch with a pendant in the middle — a sort of architectural tour deforce which the Russian archi- tects practised everywhere and in every age, but which is far from being beautiful in itself, or from possessing any architectural pro- priety. The great i-oll over the door is also unpleasant. Indeed, as a general rule, M'herever in Russian architecture the details are original, they must be condemned as ugly. At Moscow we find much that is at all events curious. It first became a city of importance about the year 1304, and retained its 945. Interior of Church at Kostroma. (From Duraiul.)