On the history of the creation of the Old Moscow Commission: what the archival documents told about

Zasedateleva Nina Nikolaevna Postgraduate, Department of Source Studies, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University 119234, Russia, Moscow, Lomonosovsky Prospekt str., 27 ninazasedateleva@yandex.ru

The history of the Commission for the study of old Moscow of the Moscow Archaeological Society, which later acquired the capacious name "Old Moscow", began on December 14, 1909, when its first meeting took place. From the very beginning of the commission's activities, the main tasks were to study the monuments of Moscow and monitor their safety, as well as collect materials on the history and topography of the city. However, the members of the commission did not just monitor "the distortions to which they are subjected from neglect, ignorance or malicious intent" ^{[13, L. 2]}. It is difficult to overestimate the contribution that enthusiasts and professional scientists who shared the values of the Moscow Archaeological Society and united by their work in the commission made to the study of the cultural heritage of our country. Their forces carried out photographing of Moscow buildings that were threatened with demolition or reconstruction, thanks to which the historical appearance of the city, which was changing so rapidly at the beginning of the twentieth century, was recorded for posterity. The members of the commission also collected books related to the history, archeology and ethnography of Moscow, and published bibliographic indexes on this topic. The Commission also searched for archival information on the history of Moscow, which was then published in the "Proceedings" of the commission. The founders of the commission considered one of their most important tasks to be "education in the future of the museum of the city of Moscow" ^{[13, L. 4]}.

The history of "Old Moscow" and its contribution to the study and preservation of monuments are reflected in historiography, which is primarily related to the problems of preserving the cultural heritage of Russia, protecting domestic monuments of antiquity, history and culture. The works of I. A. Guzeeva and V. B. Muravyov ^[1], S. B. Filimonov ^[19], G. D. Zlochevsky ^{[5, 6]} and others were written in this perspective. Among the studies directly affecting the activities of the Old Moscow Commission, one can note the works of the historian and Moscow local historian V. F. Kozlov "Old Moscow" on the protection of Moscow Antiquities (1920-1930)" ^[9] and "The Old Moscow Society and Cultural Heritage. 1909-1930: A guide to archival materials" ^[8]. In modern historiography, the activities of the commission are presented quite fully, but it should be noted that the focus of researchers' attention was most often on the results of the scientific, excursion, and publishing activities of the commission, and the personal contribution of the commission members to the preservation of Moscow antiquities was highlighted. The exception is the research of I. A. Dmitrieva, who turned to the records of the commission, which was reflected in the article "Dynamics of the number and features of the composition of the Old Moscow Society in 1909-1917" ^[2] and in works on the history of Moscow studies ^[3].

The history of the Old Moscow Commission is revealed to researchers thanks to a wide range of sources that have been preserved, which are represented by memoirs of members, published minutes of commission meetings, as well as issues of scientific papers of the commission. According to historian A. I. Frolov, "several generations of Muscovites from these books got acquainted with the "creative laboratory" of the historian-researcher" ^{[20, p. 286]}. A special place in the corpus of sources on the history of "Old Moscow" is occupied by office materials preserved in the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library (hereinafter referred to as the RSL) ^{[13, 14, 15, 16, 17]}.

Turning to these sources, it seems possible to find out when and under what circumstances the idea of creating this commission was born, who stood at its origins and laid the organizational foundation, how amateurs and connoisseurs of Moscow antiquities united around the commission. Referring to the office materials allows us to study the stages of its formation as a scientific institute, to reconstruct its organizational basis, to establish formal and informal leaders of the scientific and local history movement, the center of which was "Old Moscow". The study of these aspects makes it possible to find explanations for such a successful functioning of the commission over the years.

In the presented article, the tasks are set not only to study the initial stage of the activity of "Old Moscow", but also to introduce archival sources into scientific circulation. A comprehensive analysis of archival and published documents of different species determines the relevance and scientific novelty of the presented work.

The Commission's records are kept in the fund 177 of the Department of Manuscripts of the Russian State Library (hereinafter referred to as the RSL). This fund was received by the RSE on August 25, 1937 during the liquidation of the Moscow Regional Research Bureau of Local Lore. It contains the minutes of the meetings of the commission. The first 70 protocols are recorded in a black hardcover ledger. As for the other protocols, they are written, as a rule, on single or double sheets of enlarged format. Some of the protocol sheets are yellowed, some have torn edges. The protocols are mostly handwritten, their text sometimes contains corrections, strikethrough and inserted notes. The minutes were drawn up according to a clear form: the number of the meeting, its date, venue were indicated, and information about those present at the meeting was given.

In accordance with the information approach proposed by I. D. Kovalchenko to classify historical sources, working with office materials involves the identification of varieties of documentation based on the pragmatic aspect of the information contained in them ^{[7, pp. 137-142]}. This expands the range of documents that can be attributed to office work. Regulatory documents (charters, standards, instructions, rules) participate and play an important role in the process of creating a record-keeping complex. This led to the appeal to the Rules of the commission "Old Moscow", the most important document that allows you to determine the organizational structure of the commission, postulates the main directions and procedures of activity. Along with protocols, they are the main source for solving the tasks set in the article. It should be noted that these two types of office documentation are inextricably linked. The minutes of the meetings of the "Old Moscow" contain working materials that reveal the process of developing the Rules of the commission.

The study of the protocols suggests that already at the first meeting of the commission for the study of Old Moscow on December 14, 1909, a draft of the Rules was submitted, and their final version was approved at the next, second meeting on January 10, 1910, i.e. a month later. The next step of the organizers was to present the Rules to the Moscow Archaeological Society (hereinafter – MAO) ^{[13, l. 2-5]}. It should be emphasized that until the revolutionary events of 1917, these Rules remained unchanged, which indicates that the document was carefully worked out from the very beginning of the commission's work.

A Turnout list has been preserved in the RSL, in which all 16 persons who were present at the first meeting and took an active part in the creation of the commission are recorded ^{[13, L. 4]}. Those who signed the commission's Rules became known as "founding members of the commission." They were listed in alphabetical order on the Turnout List. The researchers note that some of the founding members of the commission were hereditary aristocrats connected by family and close friendly ties: the chairman of the Moscow Archaeological Society, Countess P. S. Uvarova, her daughters; the wife and daughter of P. S. Uvarova's brother, Prince N. S. Shcherbatov; the chairman of the Council of the Moscow Art Society, historian K. A. Khreptovich-Butenev; archivist, professor Of the Moscow Archaeological Institute N. N. Ardashev; archaeologist, researcher of the "underground" Moscow I. Ya. Stelletsky; architects D. P. Sukhov, F. O. Shekhtel, I. P. Mashkov, A.M. Gurjienko, N. S. Kurdyukov; art historian A. P. Novitsky, as well as sisters V. F. Bodisko (Stepanova) and M. F. Stepanova (Shepping) ^{[13, L. 4]}.

The main purpose of the commission was fixed in the Rules: "the study of Moscow and its immediate suburban areas" ^{[13, L. 2]}. According to the protocols, the members of the commission meant by this the collection of materials on topography, the history of Moscow, the study of its growth and development of architecture, iconography, applied arts, care for the preservation of antiquities and collecting They were used to form the Museum of Moscow in the future, as well as the publication of the collected materials and works of the commission ^{[13, l. 2-4]}.

The rules determined the composition of senior positions and regulated the management structure of the commission. It should be noted that the established procedure actually repeated the established management system in MAO. The leadership of the commission was entrusted to the Chairman, the Comrade Chairman and the Secretary of the Commission. There was also a position of Treasurer in the commission. According to the Rules, Treasurer MAO was appointed Treasurer of the commission.

Only full members of the MAO were elected to senior positions for a period of 3 years. This procedure existed until the dissolution of the commission in 1930. It should be noted that according to sections 4 and 6 of the MAO Charter, its full members were persons who "declared their knowledge by works on archaeology and collecting archaeological collections", with which they should acquaint other members of the society ^{[12, pp. 4-5]}. Thus, the Old Moscow Commission was institutionally and personally connected with MAO.

At the second meeting of the commission, which took place on January 10, 1910, it was decided that for the first three years Chairman MAO was mandatory Chairman of the commission. Thus, the commission for the study of old Moscow was headed by P. S. Uvarova, who until 1917, before her departure from Russia, was the permanent head of both MAO and "Old Moscow" ^{[13, l. 4-5]}. It should be noted that after her emigration, the new Chairman of the MAO, D. N. Anuchin, was not elected to the post of Chairman of the "Old Moscow". In the post-revolutionary period, A. M. Vasnetsov chaired the commission.

At the same second meeting, architect N. S. Kurdyukov was offered to become Secretary of the commission, to which he gave his consent, and it was decided to postpone the election of a comrade chairman until the final formation of the personal composition of the commission. N. S. Kurdyukov had extensive experience in scientific societies, in particular, for many years he was a member of the Commission for the Preservation of Ancient Monuments under MAO. Based on this experience, he immediately proposed to discuss the issue of the working procedure of the commission and made a proposal to print reports on meetings ^{[13, l. 4-5]}. In his opinion, these reports should have included abstracts or brief reports on the reports heard at the meetings of the commission. The members of the commission agreed with this proposal.

N.S. Kurdyukov acted as Secretary of the commission until April 4, 1911, when at the fourteenth meeting P. S. Uvarova informed colleagues that N. S. Kurdyukov had resigned his duties. According to the minutes of this meeting, MAO's Secretary, historian and numismatist V. K. Trutovsky spoke next ^{[13, l. 20-22]}. He thanked N. S. Kurdyukov for acting as secretary at the most difficult time for the commission – the time of its organization and the first year of its existence. At the suggestion of P. S. Uvarova, historian and archivist I. S. Belyaev was elected Secretary of the commission ^{[13, l. 20-22]}. As he wrote about himself later in his autobiographical notes, "being an ardent lover of old Moscow, his homeland, he recognized the entire building power of its history… With the main desire to create a worthy Museum for a worthy city, which played the largest role in the entire Russian history" ^{[17, l. 3-4]}. I. S. Belyaev remained secretary of the Commission until his death in November 1918. At the 71st meeting, held on December 1, 1918, the chairman of this meeting, I. P. Mashkov, announced the death of I. S. Belyaev and pointed out his active participation in the work of the commission and the Moscow Archaeological Society, proposed to honor his memory by standing up ^{[14, L. 1-2]}. Thus, throughout the history of the Old Moscow Commission in the pre–revolutionary period, with the exception of the first year of its existence, one person performed the duties of secretary - I. S. Belyaev. According to his biographers, "during the period from 1909 to 1918, I. S. Belyaev made more than ten reports and communications, he came up with many ideas and proposals concerning the Moscow topic. He also took care of attracting new members to the commission, especially impressed people who were engaged in the history of Moscow" ^[18].

The election of a Comrade Chairman was announced on December 5, 1910, as also evidenced by the minutes of the eighth meeting of the commission ^{[13, L. 14-15]}. At the next, ninth meeting, which took place on January 4, 1911, K. A. Khreptovich-Butenev, a prominent collector known for his scientific, social and charitable activities, became a comrade of the chairman. His candidacy was proposed by P. S. Uvarova, the other participants of the meeting unanimously supported her in this. K. A. Khreptovich-Butenev served as a Comrade chairman until the end of 1911. In the minutes of the meeting of the commission on December 5, 1911, it is recorded that P. S. Uvarova read a letter from K. A. Khreptovich-Butenev, in which he informed "about his refusal due to illness and departure from Moscow from the duties of Comrade. Before. Commissions" ^{[13, l. 24-26]}. The next post of Comrade Chairman was taken by E. V. Gauthier-Dufaye, a well-known Moscow public figure and philanthropist, photographer, representative of the famous merchant dynasty, also a member of the MAO.

The rules allow you to get an idea of who could become a member of the Old Moscow commission. Special attention should be paid to this important point, since the principle of forming the composition of "Old Moscow" differed from other commissions of the MAO – Slavic, Oriental, Commission for the preservation of ancient monuments. Membership in other commissions was determined by mandatory membership in the MAO. According to the Rules, the Old Moscow Commission, in addition to MAO members, included "any third-party persons who were engaged in the history of Moscow, its architecture, icon painting, etc." ^{[11, p. 1]}. These "outsiders", as well as "institutions interested in studying Moscow", were invited according to the rules of §3 of the MAO Charter: "Each person is proposed as a member of the society by three full members and is subject to a runoff" ^{[12, p. 3-4]}. The list of accepted members was then passed on to the MAO for information.

Among such invited participants was, for example, M. V. Dovnar-Zapolsky, professor at Kiev University, author of fundamental works, including those written on Moscow materials. At the 3rd meeting of the Commission on February 3, 1910, he made a report "Moscow artisans of the XVII century" ^{[13, l. 5-9]}. In our opinion, it was M. V. Dovnar-Zapolsky who laid the foundations of the scientific activity of the commission with his speech, because the preparation of scientific reports and presentation of them at the meetings of the commission became a prerequisite for the work of "Old Moscow". Among the invited participants was A. K. von Meck, a collector of paintings, an authoritative bibliographer and archivist. Also among the invited was F. I. Uspensky, curator of the museum of the St. Petersburg Archaeological Institute, director of the Constantinople Archaeological Institute, author of fundamental works on the history of Byzantium and church art, member of many scientific societies in Russia and abroad.

The Commission was interested in expanding its membership. At the meetings, candidates for new members of the commission were to be proposed by three members and run at the next meeting ^{[13, L. 2-4]}. The minutes indicate that, as a rule, all those persons who were proposed as members of the commission were elected to its membership at the very next meeting.

It should be noted that it was possible to drop out of the commission, for example, if a member of the commission stopped attending its meetings. For example, it is known from the minutes that at the 95th meeting on February 17, 1921, the secretary of the commission reported on N. K. Pelenkin, who was elected to the 83rd meeting as a member of the commission, who did not attend the meeting ^{[16, L. 3-4]}. In addition, as follows from the source, N. K. Pelenkin took an album from the ethnographer D. T. Yanovich for transfer to the Museum of Old Moscow, but never delivered it to this museum ^{[16, L. 3-4]}. These circumstances were enough that, following the results of the meeting, it was decided to consider N. K. Pelenkin as a member of the commission.

The meetings of the commission, according to the Rules and according to the evidence of the protocols, were to be held at least once a month and were considered to have taken place if they were attended by 5 members, counting officials. All discussions and decisions taken during the meetings were to be recorded in the minutes. By the annual meeting of the MAO, the commission must provide a report on its activities. All documentation sent to the commission was received by the office of the IMAO, entered in a special book and reported to the commission in turn ^{[13, l. 2-4]}. The Rules specifically noted that the commission on all issues acted "on behalf of and on behalf of" MAO, and all papers were signed by the Chairman of the commission or his Comrade and Secretary. Office work was conducted according to the established rules – documents were registered in the outgoing book and sent for a number and seal to the MAO ^{[13, l. 2-4]}.

Studying the Rules of the commission allows you to outline the responsibilities of its members and the procedure for their actions. A member of the commission charged with inspecting the monument, working in archives or with materials from "private collections" had to receive a "Nameplate" from MAO, who then returned after completing the task. According to the results of the work, a report was necessarily provided ^{[13, l. 2-4]}. Having noticed the destruction or distortion of the monuments of Moscow antiquity, the members of the commission had to report this to the MAO, as well as make drawings, plans and photographs from these monuments ^{[13, l. 2-4]}. The rules quite clearly regulated the powers of the commission's staff: When inspecting any monuments or collections, they could not independently resolve any issues regarding the reconstruction, restoration or destruction of monuments, but had to send all questions to the MAO or the commission for the preservation of ancient monuments. All further clarifications were received from these organizations ^{[13, l. 2-4]}. Members of the commission could also use the MAO library.

The results of the activities of the members of the Old Moscow commission, indicated above, should not have simply settled in the archives of MAO. The rules established that the commission could publish its works, drawings and drawings, "which can serve as material on the history of Moscow and its artistic development, as well as a means to spread ideas and views on ancient monuments" ^{[13, l. 2-4]}.

Membership in the commission was secured by the payment of annual membership fees. They amounted to 5 rubles. The financial resources of the commission also included "donations for the needs and publications of the Commission" ^{[13, l. 2-4]}. The maintenance of accounting financial documentation, as well as the storage of funds, was the responsibility of the Treasurer of MAO ^{[13, l. 2-4]}.

The original version of the Rules was handwritten and included in the minutes of the first meeting of the commission. The Rules, printed in a typographic way, were announced at the 15th meeting of the commission on October 6, 1911. According to the protocol, the secretary of the commission, I. S. Belyaev, "submitted to the discretion of the Commission the "Rules of the Commission for the Study of Old Moscow" printed in proof form" ^{[13, L. 23-24]}. At the next meeting on December 5, 1911, I. S. Belyaev presented in proofread form drafts of not only the Rules of the commission, but also another important document – the Program of its activities, all members of the commission participated in the discussion of these documents ^{[13, L. 24-26]}. As a result, after discussion, a new version of the Rules was printed in the printing house of Moscow University in 1912. The printed Rules were basically similar to the handwritten version of the Rules, which is in the fund No. 177 of the RSL, but had slight discrepancies with them, contained some additions.

For example, in section 3 on officials, additional information about the Treasurer appeared: The Treasurer of the commission is always the Treasurer of the Moscow Archaeological Society ^{[11, p. 2]}. There were also additions to section 5, which said that full members and corresponding members of the MAO, having expressed a desire to become members of the commission, should only to declare to the Management of the Commission, without running for office ^{[11, p. 2]}.

The provisions of this paragraph have been actively applied in practice. For example, the protocols record that at the 24th meeting, held on November 2, 1912, corresponding member of the MAO, private associate professor of Moscow University S. K. Shambin was declared a member of the commission ^{[13, L. 39-40]}, and at the 27th meeting on February 16, 1913, N. B. Baklanov, a member of the commission for the preservation of ancient monuments ^{[13, l. 44-46]}, at the 54th meeting on November 6, 1915, according to this paragraph, the famous archaeographer V. N. Storozhev was elected to the commission ^{[13, l. 93-95]}, at the 64th meeting on November 25, 1916 – corresponding member of the MAO art historian and restorer N. D. Protasov ^{[13, l. 115-116]}, at the 68th meeting on January 14, 1918 – Professor A. N. Veselovsky ^{[13, L. 121-122]}. Thus, the protocols allow us to study the personal composition of the commission, to compile a complete list of members of the "Old Moscow".

Invited "outsiders" could become members of the MAO if, in the opinion of the company's leaders, their activities were beneficial to the common cause (§10 of the Rules). So, at the 82nd meeting on January 15, 1920, A.M. Vasnetsov reported that at the last meeting of the Moscow Archaeological Society "it was decided to accept all members of the commission of Old Moscow who made any reports to the commission as members of the MAO, considering them, so far, according to the Charter of the Society, corresponding members" ^{[15, L. 1-2]}. In this regard, P. N. Miller proposed to compile a list of speakers, which was entrusted to I. K. Lindeman ^{[15, L. 1-2]}.

Comparing the printed version of the Rules and the handwritten materials contained in the minutes of the meetings allows you to see the process of work, additions and clarifications. In section 8 of the printed version of the Rules, it was added that the members of the commission not only can use the library of the Society, but they can also receive the works of the Commission free of charge ^{[11, p. 3]}. There is a slight clarification in §9 of the Rules: in the protocols it was indicated that a member of the commission receives a nominal open sheet to perform the task assigned to him, then in the printed version the open sheet was replaced with a nominal ticket ^{[11, p. 3]}.

The changes also affected §10 of the Rules. In the printed version, it was indicated that successfully working members of the commission can be represented by the commission as corresponding members of the MAO ^{[11, p. 3]}. This provision has been repeatedly used in practice, as we wrote above. In the handwritten version of the Rules, this issue was not raised.

The paragraphs of the Rules were adjusted, which defined the order of the Secretary's activities and duties, as well as interaction with MAO. The provisions were also clarified with regard to the frequency of meetings. Thus, in the printed version of the Rules it was established that meetings are held at least once a month, the exceptions are the summer months ^{[11, p. 3]}.

I must also say something about the financial issue. In section 19 of the printed Rules, membership fees are discussed in more detail than in the handwritten version. The members of the commission had to pay 5 rubles of membership fees annually or could pay 50 rubles at a time ^{[11, p. 5]}. Those who paid 50 rubles at once were considered lifelong members of the commission and were permanently exempt from annual contributions ^{[11, p. 5]}. If a member of the commission did not pay annual membership fees for two years, he was excluded from the membership, but could become a member of the commission again, even without running, if he paid the membership fee ^{[11, p. 5]}. A member of the commission could be exempted from this contribution by a work or report approved for publication, provided that it was about full members and corresponding members of the MAO ^{[11, p. 5]}.

A comparison of the printed version of the Rules and the handwritten one preserved in the protocols of the "Old Moscow" shows that the members of the commission finalized these Rules, made the necessary changes to them based on practice. It took them almost three years to come up with the final version.

The study of the protocols also suggests that some of the issues discussed were not included either in the printed version or in the handwritten one. For example, at a meeting on March 13, 1912, P. S. Uvarova, summing up the annual activities of the commission, came to the conclusion that the commission had not achieved all the planned results and therefore it was necessary to make its activities more active, for example, to hold meetings more often – not once, but twice a month, and also to create a Council under the commission ^{[13, l. 29-32]}. As a result, the commission unanimously decided to meet twice a month on Thursdays at 8 p.m. and form a five-member Council. It includes A. A. Bakhrushin, S. A. Shcherbatova, I. E. Bondarenko, I. P. Mashkov, K. N. Solodovnikov ^{[13, L. 29-32]}. At the next meeting on April 5, 1912, P. N. Miller amended the minutes of the previous meeting – meetings in the commission were to be held not weekly, on Thursdays, but biweekly, every other Thursday. The members of the commission also agreed with this proposal ^{[13, l. 33-34]}. A year later, P. S. Uvarova proposed to postpone the meetings to Fridays 2 times a month ("the first Fridays after the 1st and 15th of each month") ^{[13, L. 54-55]}.

Studying the protocols, you can see how the "Old Moscow" was born, immerse yourself in the atmosphere of the commission's work, in the process of developing the procedure for the new scientific community. A comparison of archived and published materials provides information on the progress of work, on the search for optimal ways to meet the needs of this community, which, in turn, suggests that the commission was not "static", that it changed and developed over time. As a result, by 1917, the commission had become a serious scientific society that developed one of the main directions of MAO's activities – the protection of ancient monuments on the scale of Moscow, and remaining faithful to the principles of MAO's founder, Count A. S. Uvarov: "to destroy indifference to domestic antiquities and teach us to cherish native monuments," because only in this case "we let us be able to appreciate every remnant of Russian antiquity, every building erected by our ancestors; then they will think about preserving and protecting them from any destruction" ^{[4, p. IV]}. Perhaps that is why the "Old Moscow" continued its work even after the Moscow Archaeological Society that gave rise to it ceased to exist.