Mn Tikhomirov short biography. With my own eyes

Nonprofit Organization Candidate

Organization: All-Russian Union of Public Associations "Union of National and Non-Olympic Sports of Russia"

Area of ​​activity: Health protection, popularization of a healthy lifestyle, development of physical education and sports, ecology and environmental protection

I started playing sports at school and passed the GTO standards. Thanks to sports discipline, I have not smoked or consumed alcohol since then.

This is how I began my journey in sports and life.

Received education: Higher school of trainers at the State Central Institute of Physical Culture named after I.V. Stalin. Trainer.

State Central Order of Lenin Institute of Physical Culture named after I.V. Stalin. Trainer-teacher.

Master of Sports of the USSR in freestyle wrestling. Master of Sports of the USSR in sambo wrestling. Honored Trainer of the RSFSR.

Accumulated work experience: Organization of mass and sporting events. Conducting Spartakiads of street and street teams (Golden Puck and Leather Ball). Conducting the Spartakiads of the peoples of the RSFSR, the USSR, the USSR, Russian, European and World Championships in sambo, freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling, President of the All-Russian Sambo Federation, President of the Committee of National and Non-Olympic Sports of Russia from 1998 to 2010. Vice-President of the Russian Olympic Committee from 2001 to 2005.

At the first elections of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin to the post of President of the Russian Federation, he became his confidant.

During his work he was awarded state awards: Order of Honor, Medal "Veteran of Labor", Medal "For Labor Valor", a number of public awards. I have a letter of gratitude from the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin.

Currently, I head the Union of National and Non-Olympic Sports of Russia, organize mass sports and cultural events and regularly conduct sambo master classes for children and youth.

Links

All-Russian Union of Public Associations "Union of National and Non-Olympic Sports of Russia"

The Union of National and Non-Olympic Sports of Russia is engaged in the implementation of mass sports, cultural, patriotic and national projects.

You can get acquainted with the priority programs and directions, as well as the activities of the Union of National and Non-Olympic Sports on our website.

We offer participation in our Programs:

The first All-Russian Children's National Festival "Children's Friendship - the Consent of Fathers."

"We won together."

The program is complex, but I’ll tell you about it briefly.

I will transfer all my experience and knowledge to promote youth in sports and politics, with the aim of developing physical culture and mass sports.

To do this, it is necessary to organize work with proactive youth in sports organizations to promote proposals aimed at:

Involving children in sports;

Compliance with GTO standards;

Revival of rural sports competitions;

Development and popularization of national and non-Olympic sports;

Formation of national teams at different levels of competition.

Organization of mass sports, national and patriotic events.

With your support, as members of the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation, I plan to join the Public Council for the Development of Physical Culture and Mass Sports under the President of the Russian Federation.

I am ready to become a trusted representative of your proposals for the implementation of the Program.

With sincere respect for your choice, Mikhail Ivanovich Tikhomirov.

Questions for the candidate

Information about the candidate and information about the all-Russian public association and other non-profit organization posted on the website were provided by the candidate for membership of the OPRF and the relevant organization.

Candidate data checksum:

We continue our review of the memoirs of a prominent historian, academician M.N. Tikhomirov (1893 - 1965). Being the son of a simple clerk, Mikhail Tikhomirov left interesting stories about the life of Moscow petty bourgeois at the beginning of the 20th century.
Start:

Bourgeois family at the dacha near the samovar

At the beginning of summer, a dacha boom began in Moscow - all Muscovites tried to move out of town, rent a dacha and spend the summer months there. They rented a dacha according to their income - some rented a modern villa, some an outbuilding, some a rural hut or a cold shed, or even a corner in someone else's house... this had almost no effect on the delights of dacha life - fresh air, forest, river or a lake, swimming, fishing, mushrooms, a dacha society with dancing and amateur theater, picnics, berries and fresh milk bought from the surrounding peasants... The Tikhomirov family was no exception. After all, there were five children, and a dacha was rented for them for the whole summer...
“The nearest dachas near Moscow were located no more than twenty versts around Moscow,” wrote Tikhomirov. “Ten versts from the capital already seemed sufficient to live in a dacha - in the fresh air. Now this seems like some kind of strange anachronism. For example. , Pushkino at that time seemed to be a rather remote place. As for the Trinity Lavra, ... the trip there was made very solemnly, like a long journey..."


Station for commuter trains in Pushkino, early 20th century

“My parents rented dachas somewhat away from the railway, as my father loved rural solitude. In addition, dachas near railway stations were expensive.
(And the Tikhomirovs, as we remember, were forced to economize in everyday life, setting out to give their children an excellent education! Therefore, a spacious village hut was usually hired as a dacha, and it was selected away from the railway).
We lived along the Yaroslavl road, for example, in places like the village of Taininskoye and the village of Medvedkovo, two or three kilometers from Losinoostrovskaya.

Losinoostrovskaya station

“Medvedkovo in those days was a charming area near Sviblov. Both villages stood on the Yauza and were surrounded by centuries-old forest”...
(Now it’s hard to imagine that relatively recently Medvedkovo was a quiet place for lovers of rural solitude. All these places have been part of Moscow for more than half a century; Medvedkovo, in particular, in 1960. And now it is a densely built-up area with a population of about 200 thousand . Human).

Unpreserved estate in Medvedkovo

“Moving to the dacha and from the dacha to Moscow was a very unique phenomenon... For the move, so-called shelves were ordered. These were a special kind of carts on four wheels, with a wide and flat surface, which made the shelves roomy. On top of things, things were covered with a tarpaulin, which carefully tied with ropes... To transport our furniture, they usually took four such regiments. On each of them, a driver sat in front harnessed by a draft horse.
A few days before the move, all things were put into chests or tied into bundles. It was necessary to hide all the dishes, all the small things. Early, at about six in the morning, the shelves arrived and red-haired men appeared, practically inspecting the furniture. Having consulted about where and how to place large things, they began to take out the largest items first: cabinets, chests, etc.... The cab drivers were always especially admired by a chest filled with books. On top it was decorated with shiny light tin and had a solid padlock. The chest was incredibly heavy, and four red-haired men lifted it with great difficulty. At the same time, not a single driver believed that books were stored in the chest. Shaking their heads, they usually said: “Yes, apparently the owner keeps money here.” This, in their opinion, explained the fact that the chest was incredibly heavy."

Summer residents on a walk

Mattresses, dishes, an aquarium and small items were carefully laid on top of the heavy items, then the luggage was covered with a tarpaulin, bandaged, and the cavalcade, escorted by a fussy janitor, set off. The carts were usually accompanied by a cook, a cat and one of the boys. The trip dragged on for a long time - along the way, the cab drivers tried to stop at roadside tea shops to drink tea, and arrived at the dacha only in the evening, and there a family that had arrived lightly was already waiting for them. Things were counted, noting what was beaten and broken during the move. After which the drivers received a tip and went home.
You can’t help but wonder why the move was so global? This was also a way to save money. Living in the country, the family refused to give up their city apartment for the time being and left with all their belongings. In the fall, the apartment was rented again, usually a different one.
Tikhomirov admitted that only “when my father became richer, and my older brothers became independent people, we no longer made such difficult moves, but went to the dacha with only part of the items.”
And the older brother Nikolai (there was a 10-year difference between him and Mikhail), having become an independent person, loved to go to the dacha as early as possible. in April. And he invited his younger brothers to his place. He cooked the food himself, tinkered with the boys, went into the forest with them, and even took them hunting with him. “In general, he seemed to me a kind of ideal,” Mikhail recalled, “which I could never achieve with my closed character.”

Student time, stay in Samara

Mikhail Nikolaevich very early felt not only the joy of direct knowledge of the primary sources of historical knowledge, but also experienced aesthetic pleasure from this. And already an elderly renowned scientist recalled what an unforgettable impression the words of B. D. Grekov about ancient Russian writing and the album of ancient Russian cursive writing made on him, 17 years old; and a graduate of a commercial school decided to firmly devote himself to history. At Moscow University, he long and persistently went through the school of studying sources on national and world history, which helped him subsequently approach the phenomena of the history of our country in the panorama of world history and use the comparative historical method in analyzing evidence about the past. The basis of his dissertation was an appeal to the documents of the Moscow State Academy of Foreign Affairs, where he worked for several months. During his student years, he seriously became acquainted with the diverse historical literature and its bibliography system, with museums and visually with many cultural monuments of Moscow and the Moscow region, and studied the history of Russian art (especially icon painting and architecture).

During his stay in Samara (1919 - 1923), Tikhomirov rescued, identified, described, studied written monuments, began teaching at higher schools, continued to master the skills of in-depth study of ancient writing, studying with academician V. N. Peretz and V. P. Adrianova - Peretz.

After the university in Samara was closed, the scientist returned to Moscow and worked in secondary schools as a teacher of geography and social studies. He is intensively involved in local history work and begins to consistently study and describe ancient manuscripts, primarily the chronicles kept in the Historical Museum.

M. N. Tikhomirov discovers many previously unknown or little-known written monuments in the Moscow repositories, describes them, prepares them for publication (occasionally he manages to publish something), and begins to compile a collection of information about chronicle works. Such scientific work continued without payment for several years. The talent and dedication to the cause of archeography were noticed by the greatest experts at that time on the monuments of ancient Russian writing, academicians A. I. Sobolevsky and M. N. Speransky (and earlier by V. N. Perets), and Tikhomirov himself soon joined the host of these experts. And then the scientist was invited to a full-time position; for several years he headed the manuscript department of the Historical Museum. There Tikhomirov significantly enriches the knowledge about the first printed book and then for decades will publish research on the beginning of Russian book printing. Thus, back in the 1920s, Tikhomirov delved into the problems of descriptive archeography, the development of which he would lead in our country 30 years later. Even then, a methodology for mastering special historical and philological disciplines, primarily paleography, was also being developed, which would then be embodied in the scientist’s pedagogical practice and in his teaching aids.

For Tikhomirov, the history of the past is not so much a concept of the historical process, but rather a specific eventfulness and everyday life and the very methodology of historical research. Tikhomirov shied away from theoretical discussions, especially about this or that word in the writings of the theorists of Marxism-Leninism, not only because initially it might have been unsafe for him (his younger brother Boris died during the years of Stalin’s terror), but primarily because that he had no taste for this kind of thinking. He was not an empirical historian, but he thought - both in works of a large-scale, generalizing type, and in those close to local history topics - always specifically, taking into account the influence of not only the determining factor of development, but also the combination of particular circumstances characteristic of a given time and place, this historical figure. And identifying such circumstances gave the scientist the greatest joy. And he especially valued this skill, as well as the ability to quickly date a manuscript using paleographic characteristics, determine the style of an architectural building from a few details, and imitate the language of an order document. This attitude seemed to reflect the apt expression of A.P. Chekhov: professionalism is the main quality of an intelligent person.

Since the mid-1930s, the scientist has been trying, first of all, to generalize and continue the scientific research of previous decades in books and monographic-type articles. However, when Academician B.D. Grekov involved him in the preparation of the academic edition of Russian Pravda, he prepared for publication not only about half of the surviving copies of this monument, but also articles, a textbook on it and a doctoral dissertation.

All areas of creativity of Tikhomirov the researcher, professor, and organizer of science are characterized by a special educational orientation. This is apparently due not only to the democratic traditions of Russian science, literature and art, which are close to his soul, but also to the experience of close service activities: in a museum, library, high school. Tikhomirov always had in mind the interests and perception capabilities of a wide audience, its growing need to learn about the primary sources of knowledge and methods for identifying such information.

Perhaps this is precisely why Tikhomirov in his works tried to answer not only the questions “where, when, what happened? Who participated in this?”, but also how this was found out, how much one can trust the data he attracted, and accordingly direct the thoughts of those who perceive his word , push them to further independent research and connect them with what was previously known.

Tikhomirov the scientist was not completely dependent on archival and printed materials; he was not an armchair scientist or prone to constructing conceptual structures for the sake of the beauty of the architecture of the concept itself. Tikhomirov felt the need to visually familiarize himself with “historical localities” in modern life, its place in modern aesthetic and ethical ideas. That is why, finally, he made a demand to himself and to others to write clearly, and not for “the few”: his books are distinguished by the accessibility of presentation, the clarity of construction and formulation of the question of the research problem. He was one of the first to publish articles on the history of pre-Petrine Rus' in mass publications - newspapers, literary and artistic magazines.

Books from the 1940s established Tikhomirov's place as "the best source scholar of all Soviet historians." This position was then consolidated by his further works, especially on the study of Russian chronicles, legislative monuments, and early printed books. Such recognition of Tikhomirov’s merits, the significance of the problems and methodology of his works, and his position in the world of science and culture largely contributed to the establishment of new ideas about the place of source study itself in the system of historical knowledge and in the training of historians in higher education.

Tikhomirov skillfully and enthusiastically tried to introduce the students of his seminars to the “culture of source studies” even in the first year, where for several months at the history departments of Moscow State University and MIFLI they commented on the Russian truth, and then prepared reports in a source study manner, with an emphasis on studying the main sources of the topic, and not historical literature. This is even more noticeable in the graduation essays and especially dissertations written under his scientific supervision. Some of them then stimulated the publication of historical sources. The scientist considered it necessary to speak about the tasks of teaching undergraduates and supervising graduate students in print. A lot has already been written about this by his students who went through the “Tikhomirov school.”

Tikhomirov persistently tried to instill in consciousness the idea that the study of sources is the basis of historical research and historical knowledge in general, and accordingly, source study should become a mandatory educational discipline in the training of a historian, and especially a historian-archivist dealing directly with documentary monuments and primary sources historical information.

For Tikhomirov, the close interdependence of the level of development of source studies and related disciplines (palaeography and others) and the archival disciplines themselves (archaeography, archival studies) and the need for a comprehensive development of all this by historians was obvious. The scientist saw this as a way to master research techniques and further improve the craft of a historian. In the mid-1950s, giving an academic report, he said that “the most important task of historical science is the publication of sources, their discovery and description” and then noted: “If you develop a taste among young people for archives and the publication of sources, then this It will affect later. If now young scientists, due to their youth, do not study such topics, they will still return to them and work on them later. You cannot rely only on old people, there must be people who will learn, just as I learned from the greatest specialists.”

Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov was among those who, following A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, A. A. Shakhmatov, S. F. Platonov, introduced source studies into the subject of archeography and into archival work. A lot has been written about this (by S.V. Chirkov and others). It has also been written about his enormous contribution to the development of archaeography. The first to do this during the lifetime of the scientist S. N. Valk in the article “The Archaeographic Activities of Academician M. N. Tikhomirov,” published in the “Archaeographic Yearbook for 1962” and reprinted in the book of selected works of the patriarch of our archeography.

Tikhomirov considered the problems of identifying, describing, publishing and studying written monuments and historical sources in general in a unified context. And he did not consider attempts to theorize on issues of archeography, separating theory from practice, to be within the scope of real science. In his view, an archaeographer is, first of all, an expert in both the monuments themselves and the methods of identifying, describing and publishing them. And in accordance with the traditions of Russian science, in his understanding, archeography is a special scientific discipline that deals with the issues of collecting, describing and publishing documentary monuments. At the same time, he fully accepted the recognition of publishing activity in archival practice as independent or even the main one. In general, Tikhomirov was not inclined to theoretical disputes about the definition; he saw the meaning in them only in the fact that they make the heritage of their predecessors accessible to contemporaries, bringing it closer to our understanding, and by linguistic clarifications of terminology they facilitate the mutual understanding of scientists.

And he formulated the tasks of the Archaeographic Commission organized on his initiative and under his leadership in 1956 and the printed organ of the Archaeographic Yearbook commission in accordance with a broad understanding of the subject of archaeography. Moreover, having restored the name of the institution that headed the work of collecting, describing and publishing historical documents for almost a century (1834 - 1929), Tikhomirov gave it a different character, focusing on the description of manuscripts and the development of techniques for describing different types of documents, source study of monuments writing and preparation for publication of only a few unique monuments. He entrusted the archaeographic commission with the implementation of a grandiose undertaking - the work of compiling a Unified Catalog of Slavic-Russian handwritten books stored in our country, covering information about all handwritten books and their fragments of the 11th - 16th centuries.

It would be wrong to think that Tikhomirov was concerned primarily with the preservation and description of monuments of ancient origin or those created in line with ancient traditions (like the Old Believers). He did a lot to organize the work of identifying, preserving, describing and even publishing monuments of modern and contemporary times. He involved specialists in materials from this period of history in the planned publications of the Archaeographical Commission, and spoke on this issue more than once as an academic secretary at meetings of the Department of Historical Sciences of the Academy of Sciences and in the general press.

In the last years of his life, it became increasingly difficult for the scientist to work in manuscript repositories. And he began to describe the collection of manuscripts he compiled in the post-war years, which during his lifetime they began to call him Tikhomir. In his view, an archaeographer is, first of all, an expert in both the monuments themselves and the methods of identifying, describing and publishing them in a compelling way." He was helped by his students and, most of all, N.N. Pokrovsky. Under his editorship, a book was published already in 1968. "Description of Tikhomirovsky collection of manuscripts", including a significant part of the collection transferred to the Siberian Branch of the Academy of Sciences. The book contains information about 500 manuscripts, including monuments of the 14th - 15th centuries; in the appendix - publications of little-known works. But Mikhail Nikolaevich’s vision began to deteriorate greatly. it was becoming increasingly difficult to read: he was actually already deprived of the usual joy of describing ancient manuscripts.

Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich (05/19/31/1893-09/2/1965), Russian historian. Main works: “Pskov uprising of 1650.” (1935), “Source Studies of the History of the USSR” (1940), “Research on Russian Truth” (1941), “Ancient Russian Cities” (1946), “Ancient Moscow” (1947), “Manual for the Study of Russian Truth” (1953).

Tikhomirov Mikhail Nikolaevich, Soviet historian, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1953; corresponding member 1946). After graduating from the Faculty of History and Philology of Moscow University in 1917, he worked in museums, libraries and teaching; from 1934 at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University and other universities. From 1935 at the Institute of History, and then at the Institute of Slavic Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In 1953-57, Academician-Secretary of the Department of Historical Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences; since 1956 chairman of the Archaeographic Commission. Main works on the history of Russia and the peoples of the USSR, as well as the history of Byzantium, Serbia, pan-Slavic problems, source studies, archaeography, historiography. The generalizing work “Russia in the 16th Century” (1962) is a fundamental contribution to historical geography. A number of T.'s works are devoted to the economic, political and cultural ties of the peoples of the USSR. T.'s monographs and articles reflect the topics of the socio-economic, political and cultural history of the ancient Russian city, popular movements in Russia in the 11th-17th centuries, the history of state institutions in feudal Russia, zemsky councils of the 16-17th centuries, and administrative office work. T. was one of the leading experts in the field of paleography and auxiliary historical disciplines. Research and publication of written monuments were carried out by T. against a broad historical and philological background. In his work dedicated to Russian Truth, T. illuminated and solved in a new way the most important problems associated with the creation of the monument. T. is credited with reviving the publication of the “Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles” series; he published the “Conciliar Code of 1649” (1961), “The Righteous Measure” (1961), etc. He was the leader of Soviet archaeographers in searching for and describing unknown manuscripts; under his leadership, the creation of a consolidated catalog of unique manuscripts stored in the USSR began. The manuscripts collected personally by T. were transferred by him to the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Since 1959 T. has been a full member of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He was awarded the Order of Lenin, 2 Orders of the Red Banner of Labor, as well as medals.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia. In 30 t. Ch. ed. A.M. Prokhorov. Ed. 3rd. T. 25. Strunino – Tikhoretsk. – M., Soviet Encyclopedia. – 1976.

Read further:

Historians(biographical reference book).

Essays:

Russian culture X - XVIII centuries, M., 1968; Class struggle in Russia in the 17th century, M., 1969;

Historical connections of Russia with the Slavic countries and Byzantium, M., 1969;

Russian state XV - XVII centuries, M., 1973; Ancient Rus', M., 1975;

Research on Russian Truth, M, - L., 1941;

Old Russian cities, ed. 2, M., 1956; Medieval Moscow in the XIV-XV centuries, M., 1957;

Source study of the history of the USSR, c. 1-From ancient times to the end of the 18th century, M., 1962;

Medieval Russia on international routes (XIV - XV centuries), M., 1966.

Literature:

M. N. Tikhomirov. Materials for the biobibliography of scientists of the USSR, M., 1963;

Life and work of M. N. Tikhomirov. Bibliography, in the collection: New things about the past of our country, M., 1967;

Staroverova I.P., Handwritten heritage of Academician M.N. Tikhomirov in the Archives of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Scientific description, M., 1974.

Current page: 1 (book has 62 pages total) [available reading passage: 41 pages]

Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov
Works on the history of Moscow

S. O. Schmidt
M. N. Tikhomirov - historian of Moscow

The author was born and spent almost his entire life in Moscow, and he has no reason to write about his devotion and love for his native city. Like every Muscovite, he loves his city, its glorious past and great present. Let this book, at least to a small extent, respond to the ardent interest that each of us shows in the history of our beautiful capital.

M. N. Tikhomirov. Ancient Moscow

With these words M. N. Tikhomirov finished the preface to his book - the first monograph in Soviet times about Moscow of the 12th–15th centuries. M. N. Tikhomirov was prepared for such a generalizing work with all his previous work as a researcher and local historian.

Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov was born in Moscow on May 19 (old style) 1893. In 1912–1917. he is a student in the history department of the historical and philological faculty of Moscow University. In 1923–1934 teaches in secondary educational institutions in Moscow, since 1934 - in higher educational institutions of historical profile: since 1934 at the history department of Moscow University (in 1946–1948 dean, since 1953 - head of the department of source studies founded by him); in the pre-war years - at the Moscow Institute of History, Philosophy and Literature and at the Moscow State Historical and Archival Institute. For many years he worked in the Department of Manuscripts and Early Printed Books of the State Historical Museum, and then headed it. The scientist’s activities have also been connected with Moscow since 1935 at the Academy of Sciences (of which he became a corresponding member in 1946, a full member in 1953) - at the Institute of History, and later at the Institute of Slavic Studies; in 1953–1957 he is a member of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences and Academician-Secretary of the Department of Historical Sciences; since 1956 - Chairman of the Archaeographic Commission, which he revived. Moscow publishing houses published almost all of his books (starting with his diploma essay, published in 1919 - M. N. Tikhomirov declared himself in science immediately with a book!) and documentary publications. In Moscow, on September 2, 1965, M. N. Tikhomirov died; he is buried at the Novodevichy cemetery, on the square where mourning ceremonies take place.

M. N. Tikhomirov is a historian of a very wide range, both chronological, geographical, and problem-thematic, a gifted teacher - the creator of a scientific school and a prominent organizer of science. His main works were written in the 1930s–1960s. He is the author of more than ten books, hundreds of research articles, the discoverer and publisher of many written historical sources, the initiator and responsible editor of scientific publications (“Unified catalog of Slavic-Russian manuscript books stored in the USSR”, “Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR”, “ Archaeographic Yearbook”, resumed on his initiative Complete collection of Russian chronicles, works by historians V.N. Tatishchev, V.O. Klyuchevsky, M.N. Pokrovsky and others). At the same time, he is a compiler of textbooks for both universities and schools - on history and geography, source studies and paleography, museum and archival practices, a popularizer of historical knowledge (brochures and methodological recommendations, articles in newspapers and weeklies, public lectures and reports) , a promoter of educational cinema (back at the turn of the 1920s–1930s!), a convinced and passionate defender of historical and cultural monuments.

The main area of ​​research interests of M. N. Tikhomirov is domestic history from the 9th to the 19th centuries, the history of the Slavic peoples and Byzantium, special historical disciplines - source studies, historiography, historical geography, archeography (i.e., identifying, collecting, describing and publishing written sources), paleography.

It was M. N. Tikhomirov who showed that medieval Rus' was a country of highly developed urban life, was the first to generalize data on popular movements, and wrote a multifaceted study on the historical geography of Russia in the 16th century, characterizing the features of the socio-economic and political development of individual regions of the huge country. He devoted many works to the activities of state institutions (Zemstvo Councils, administrative office work), international relations (especially with the South Slavic peoples), Russian foreign policy and Russian commanders, the origin of the names “Rus” and “Russia”, the place of Russia in world history (at the heart of it posthumously published book “Medieval Russia on international routes. XIV-XV centuries.” - lectures given in Paris in 1957). Problems of the history of our culture of the 10th–18th centuries occupied a prominent place in the scientist’s work. (works on the urban written culture of Ancient Rus', “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, Andrei Rublev, on the role of Novgorod and Moscow in the development of world culture, on the library of the Moscow sovereigns, the beginning of book printing, M.V. Lomonosov and the founding of Moscow University, on the “people's »culture and sources of its knowledge, etc.).

A distinctive feature of M. N. Tikhomirov’s works is the combination of historical and source research itself. The book “Research on “Russian Truth”” (1941; based on a doctoral dissertation), an unfinished monograph on the beginning of Russian chronicles, many articles and prefaces to publications of written monuments (the first Novgorod birch bark letters, legends about the Battle of Kulikovo) were written specifically in terms of source studies , the Council Code of 1649, documents from monastery archives, journalistic writings of the 16th–17th centuries, etc.). For decades, the scientist identified chronicle monuments in all Moscow repositories and published a review of them.

In 1968–1979 The Nauka publishing house published posthumously six books of selected works by Academician M. N. Tikhomirov - mainly articles (including those not published during his lifetime), selected according to the thematic principle: “Russian culture of the X-XVIII centuries.” (1968), “Historical connections of Russia with the Slavic countries and Byzantium” (1969), “Class struggle in Russia

XVII century." (1969), “The Russian state of the 15th–17th centuries.” (1973), “Ancient Rus'” (1975), “Russian Chronicle” (1979). In 1991, the Moscow Worker publishing house republished the scientist’s works in the book: M. N. Tikhomirov. Ancient Moscow. XII–XV centuries Medieval Russia on international routes. XIV–XV centuries

But even the most complex works on the subject, the most sophisticated textual studies, M. N. Tikhomirov tried to write in an accessible language. The task of a scientist, he argued, “is to popularize science, and not at all to make this science the property of only a few.” 1
Tikhomirov M. N. Russian culture X–XVIII centuries. M., 1968. P. 348.

“The historian is not just a researcher who produces the desired product from the laboratory. A historian is also a writer. Otherwise, he has no business taking on such work,” he wrote in one of his last articles in the Izvestia newspaper in 1962. 2
Reprinted in the book: New about the past of our country (In memory of Academician M. N. Tikhomirov). M., 1967. P. 17.

And not only the breadth and diversity of interests, but also the approach to the form of presentation of historical material brings M. N. Tikhomirov closer to the great democratic traditions of Russian historical science, dating back to N. M. Karamzin and continued by other major historians of the 19th century.

M. N. Tikhomirov managed to do a lot. He had a great gift for hard work, knew how to work under all circumstances, and never complained about having to work hard. He rejoiced in creative work, like a bird in flight, and considered it a natural form of his existence. Even while traveling, he kept notes, not only noting what he saw, and sometimes making sketches of buildings or architectural details, but also committing to paper his primary considerations of a historical nature. He wrote quickly, in clear handwriting, usually without blots, and in recent decades he typed on a typewriter. As a rule, he immediately had a clear idea of ​​the volume of the manuscript being prepared for publication and was able to fit into the intended volume. M. N. Tikhomirov was proud of his mastery of the “craft” of a historian and skillfully did all the so-called rough work; he treated her with respect and was angry with his students (and he was not an easy-going person!) for negligence in the scientific apparatus, lack of unification in the design of articles and documentary publications. He highly valued the ability to easily read ancient texts and quickly find the right place in a book. And Tikhomirov’s school was for his students not only a school of thought, but also a “guild craft” of a historian and, most importantly, a devoted love for the work of a historian.

Bibliographic materials about the work of M. N. Tikhomirov have been published repeatedly since 1953, 3
Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov: Materials for the biobibliography of scientists of the USSR. M., 1963. Literature 1963–1983. about the life and work of M. N. Tikhomirov is indicated in the article by I. E. Tamm (Archaeographic Yearbook for 1983, M., 1985. P. 250–255). See also: Shmidt S. O. On the legacy of academician M. N. Tikhomirov // Issues. stories. 1983. No. 12. pp. 115–123. Literature 1983–1990 listed in the “Archaeographic Yearbook for 1990” (M., 1991).

And in 1974, a scientific description of the handwritten heritage of M. N. Tikhomirov was published in a separate book in the Archives of the Academy of Sciences 4
Handwritten heritage of academician M. N. Tikhomirov in the Archives of the USSR Academy of Sciences: Scientific description / Comp. I. P. Staroverova. M, 1974.

(the researcher headed the scientific council of this archive for many years). In 1987, in the academic series “Scientific Biographies,” a book was published about M. N. Tikhomirov by his student Professor E. V. Chistyakova, in which documents from the scientist’s archival fund were widely used, and a special section described his study of medieval Moscow. 5
Chistyakova E. V. Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov (1893–1965). M., 1987.

Familiarization with the printed works of M. N. Tikhomirov, with the documents of his archive, with the materials of the institutions where he worked, convinces that interest in knowledge and research of the past of Moscow and the Moscow region is characteristic of the scientist’s work throughout his entire life. At the same time, one should also take into account the fact that in addition to many works, the very titles of which clearly indicate a direct relationship to the history of Moscow, 6
These works are listed in the bibliography compiled by L. I. Shokhin in the book: Tikhomirov M. N. Ancient Moscow. XII–XV centuries Medieval Russia on international routes. XIV–XV centuries M., 1991.

Most of M. N. Tikhomirov’s works, dedicated to the historical events of the 13th and subsequent centuries, to one degree or another also relate to the history of Moscow.

This is a general type of work on Russian history (including textbooks) and the history of Russian culture, and chronicles prepared for publication and the Council Code of 1649. The activities of zemstvo councils took place in Moscow, and the scientist discusses administrative office work mainly using the example of Moscow clerks and clerks . Moscow was also the center of foreign relations of the Russian state. Moscow service people and businessmen took part in suppressing city uprisings. Monasteries gravitated towards Moscow, the documents of which were of interest to M. N. Tikhomirov. Moscow was the center of Russian culture and cultural ties with the South Slavic peoples. Book printing began here, the library of the Grand Dukes was kept, and later the first university in Russia was founded. Many written monuments described and published by scientists were created or existed in Moscow. Those historians to whom M. N. Tikhomirov dedicated his articles worked and wrote about Moscow. The events of Moscow history became the plot of the scientist’s literary and artistic works (most of them remained unpublished), and the language of the Moscow clerks of the 17th century. he loved to imitate in parody “letters” (academician B. A. Rybakov recalled at a meeting in memory of M. N. Tikhomirov about his “playful petitions”, about “correspondence during meetings, when he outlined the events of our time in the style of an ancient Russian clerk, giving witty characteristics contemporaries" 7
Rybakov B. A. Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1965. M., 1966. P. 29–30. Such a humorous correspondence between M.N. Tikhomirov and S.V. Bakhrushin during one of the meetings of the Academic Council of Moscow State University in the post-war years has been preserved. See: Schmidt S. O. S. V. Bakhrushin and M. N. Tikhomirov (Based on archival materials) // Problems of the socio-economic history of feudal Russia. M., 1984. pp. 72–73. See also: Shmidt S. O. In memory of the teacher (Materials for the scientific biography of M. N. Tikhomirov) // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1965, pp. 29–30; Chistyakova E. V. Decree. Op. pp. 30–31.

) etc., etc. The themes of many dissertations and diploma essays of young scientists, whose scientific advisor was M. N. Tikhomirov, are also connected with Moscow. The topic “Moscow and its past” has always been in the field of vision of M. N. Tikhomirov, a researcher and promoter of scientific knowledge, professor and organizer of science.

It is not easy to determine the role of M. N. Tikhomirov in the development of local history, as well as the place of local history in his diverse scientific work, in his pedagogical, educational, and organizational activities. It is not enough to single out works on local history topics in the array of his works and identify facts of his personal assistance to the development of local history (by publishing works, organizing museums, exhibitions, publications, participating in the daily work of local history societies, directing the interest of his students and employees). It is also important to note his appeal to local history literature and techniques characteristic of the work of a local historian, when preparing works on a different, broader topic and designed for the perception of a reader other than the consumer of works about the monuments of a particular “region”.

But still, in the creative biography of M. N. Tikhomirov, one can highlight a period when he paid primary attention - at least in works prepared for publication - to local history topics: from 1917 until the destruction of local history societies and publications in 1929–1930 gg. And this time was a school for the formation of an outstanding researcher and teacher. Probably, the craving for local history topics and such an easy creative entry into it was facilitated by the very path of formation of M. N. Tikhomirov’s historical and cultural interests in childhood and during his years in secondary and higher school.

M. N. Tikhomirov was born near Taganka. In the family of an office employee at the Morozov manufactory, five sons survived. Mikhail was fourth. The way of life was bourgeois, but the father loved to read and instilled in his children a love of literature and history. And it is significant that M. N. Tikhomirov ended the introduction to the book “Ancient Russian Cities” (1946) with the words: “I dedicate my book to the memory of my father N. K. Tikhomirov, my first teacher in acquaintance with historical monuments, to whom I owe my love to Russian history". In the memoirs that academician M. N. Tikhomirov wrote (or dictated) and edited in his last years, a lot of space is devoted to Moscow life, starting from his childhood. These everyday sketches of Moscow and the Moscow region (dacha areas, now included within the city) are of considerable interest to local historians. So, about Medvedkovo, where a street would later be named after him, we read: “Medvedkovo at that time was a charming area, not far from Sviblovo. Both villages stood on the Yauza and were surrounded by centuries-old forest.” Already in childhood, ancient architectural monuments made a strong impression on him; later he argued that “Moscow could be proud of the architecture of the fortress of the Simonov Monastery no less than the French and Germans are proud of their castles.”

However, the boy found himself separated from Moscow and his family for a long time: in 1902–1911, having received a scholarship from the director of the Morozov company, he began to study at the closed Commercial School in St. Petersburg, which he graduated with a gold medal. But there, recalled M. N. Tikhomirov, “having lost in the knowledge of ancient languages,” he “received some kind of compensatory equivalent in the form of law, political economy and other subjects that were not studied in gymnasiums and real schools.” It turned out to be especially important that in the senior classes Boris Dmitrievich Grekov, a future famous historian, taught history as a private lecturer at St. Petersburg University. He noticed the young man’s “interest in history,” invited him to his place, talked about studying the past, talked about the history of Russia, introduced him to an album of ancient Russian cursive writing, “generating forever an interest in Russian writing.” It is in this regard that in an article dedicated to the memory of Academician B. D. Grekov, M. N. Tikhomirov will write in 1958: “Happy are those people who can arouse in young souls an interest in science, in knowledge.” 8
History of the USSR. 1958. No. 5. P. 57.

(M. N. Tikhomirov could rightfully attribute these words, first of all, to himself!) A photograph of a handsome man in his late thirties, perhaps on that very day, with a respectful inscription: “To dear Mikhail Nikolaevich Tikhomirov in fond memory. B. Grekov, 28.V.1911” we, Mikhail Nikolaevich’s students, then saw on the wall of his bachelor rooms in Moscow - and in a small, long one, on the second floor of a wooden outbuilding in the courtyard of house 46 on Herzen Street, and then when, Having become a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, he already occupied two rooms in a communal apartment in a two-story building on the corner of Begovaya Street and Khoroshevskoye Shosse, and in the last spacious separate apartment - in a high-rise building on Kotelnicheskaya Embankment (on the third floor, above the Illusion cinema). The young man wrote his graduation essay at school on the topic “Historical views of A. S. Pushkin.” This work has not reached us; but it was hardly possible to bypass the tragedy of “Boris Godunov”, so important for understanding the life of Moscow in the 16th – early 17th centuries.

The “PhD in Commerce” firmly decided to study Russian history. However, the obstacle to entering Moscow University was not only the obligation to “work off” free education and financial difficulties in the family, but also the need to pass exams in ancient languages. Over the course of a year, a young employee of the Ryabushinsky office in Kitay-Gorod, who already received a considerable salary for those times (40 rubles a month), “starting with the ABCs,” managed to prepare for these exams and subsequently more than once turned to sources in ancient languages. The memoirs reproduce a conversation between his father and the director of the company, on whose behalf he received a scholarship to the school: “Well, Misha is thinking of becoming a professor at Moscow University.” This requires money!”

At the university, M. N. Tikhomirov studied a lot with the best professors. Later, reflecting on the tasks of higher education, the scientist more than once returned to the impressions of those years. He went through the school of studying sources - both in Russian and foreign history: legislative monuments, acts, hagiographic literature. The “defining teacher” for him was Sergei Vladimirovich Bakhrushin, the same age as Grekov, who came from an educated family of the richest Moscow merchants, known for charity and a passion for collecting books and other cultural monuments. M. N. Tikhomirov studied the history of Novgorod and Pskov under his leadership, but S. V. Bakhrushin himself, while a researcher, studied the past of Moscow with special interest: shortly before M. N. Tikhomirov entered the university, Bakhrushin’s work on economic activities of the Moscow Grand Dukes, in 1917 - a large article “Moscow rebellion of 1648”. M. N. Tikhomirov’s diploma essay on the Pskov rebellion of 1650 is close to this article both in terms of subject matter and even in the terminology of the title – “rebellion”. 9
Republished in the book: Tikhomirov M. N. Class struggle in Russia in the 16th century. M., 1969.

The writing of both studies was due to the growing interest in the history of the class struggle on the eve of the great revolutionary events of 1917.

During his student years, M. N. Tikhomirov was also very interested in the past of Moscow. Among the few surviving (or preserved in his archive) manuscripts from those years are summaries of works on the history of Moscow, especially Moscow church architecture, extracts from materials describing villages near Moscow and their churches, sketches (more precisely, drawings) of temples and estates in the Moscow region. 10
Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences, f. 693 (M. N. Tikhomirov), op. 2, no. 60, 61, 287.

It can be assumed that the subjects of the history of Moscow and its culture were already the subject of mutual interests between teacher and student.

Such preparation, or self-preparation, turned out to be so thorough and verified in practice when familiarizing with the monuments of the Moscow region that this was immediately revealed in the extraordinary creative intensity of his work of a local history nature in the city of Dmitrov, where M. N. Tikhomirov began serving in the union of cooperators: first an intern in out-of-school education, then an instructor in local history. He was tasked with organizing the Museum of the History of his native land. 11
For more information about this, see: Khokhlov R. F. M. N. Tikhomirov and the Dmitrov Museum // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1968. M., 1970. pp. 315–318.

At that time, the type of county local history museum was just being developed with three main sections: modern industry and crafts, nature and historical and cultural. Initially, the museum’s fund was replenished by one instructor – the head of the museum, “who had to travel around the area to collect materials, conduct technical work in the museum to process this material, and bear economic responsibilities and negotiations on museum affairs.” 12
From the report of the Dmitrov Union of Cooperators for 1918. Quoted from: Filimonov S.B. Little-known materials about the activities of Academician M.N. Tikhomirov in 1918–1923. // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1988. M., 1989. P. 104.

Different departments were immediately replenished with materials. The task was not only to collect materials for the museum, but also to preserve historical and cultural monuments remaining in the estates abandoned by the previous owners (material monuments, books, family archives). At the direction of M. N. Tikhomirov, “views” of the city of Dmitrov were photographed - now this is a unique source of knowledge of the external appearance of a small ancient Central Russian city in the first year of the revolution. He was especially interested in maps and toponymic data. Apparently, even then he began to compare the information contained in them with visual observations, with modern vocabulary, with information from written sources, especially since he was instructed to write the historical part of the “Yearbook for Dmitrovsky District for 1918.” His notes about some villages have been preserved - original essays that reflect what was gleaned from already known sources, and legends existing among the local population, and personal impressions of the trip.

Later, having already gained extensive experience in local history work, M.N. Tikhomirov in the questionnaire of the second half of the 1920s. “Local historians of the Moscow province,” answering the question: “The beginning of your local history activities. Who had influence on you, under what circumstances,” he modestly wrote: “I started working in Dmitrov, worked on the creation of the Museum of my native land from October [October] 1917 to May 1918. At that time, he did not know how to work on local history and did the work poorly; Dmitry’s local historian Alexey Ivanovich Baidin had the greatest influence on me.” A. I. Baidin - an agronomist, a zemstvo employee, was in the fall of 1917 the civil commissar of the Dmitrov district, contributed to the organization of the museum, donated a reference library there and introduced M. N. Tikhomirov to archival materials on the history of the city and district. 13
Materials on the activities of M. N. Tikhomirov in the Society for the Study of the Moscow Province / Prep. for publication S. B. Filimonov // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1973. M., 1974. P. 299, 300.

M. N. Tikhomirov also became the first tour guide of the museum. Among those who viewed the exhibition on May 1, 1918 were Pyotr Alekseevich Kropotkin, the famous geographer, revolutionary and thinker, who then settled in Dmitrov; The employees of the young director for organizing the museum were the daughters of another former prince, Dmitry Ivanovich Shakhovsky, a prominent cadet, author of works about P. Ya. Chaadaev, the Decembrists, and a close friend of Academician V. I. Vernadsky.

Forced by family circumstances to move to his older brother in the Ilyinsky Pogost near Yegoryevsk, M. N. Tikhomirov served in the library there, apparently processed materials on the history of the Dmitrov region and, in any case, continued to accumulate observations and reflect on the sources of knowledge of the history of the people. His confession is characteristic: “Remembering these times, I often think that it was a great happiness for me to get to know the province, even if it was close to Moscow, because only the province can give an idea of ​​real life...”

In the winter of 1919, during a difficult time of famine for Moscow and the Moscow region, M. N. Tikhomirov received an invitation from his acquaintances A. M. Zemsky and his wife Nadezhda, sister of the writer M. A. Bulgakov, to come to Samara to do library work. There, M.N. Tikhomirov soon found himself, in connection with the White offensive, for a month and a half as a recruit to the Chapaev division. Released from military service due to myopia, when the immediate danger to Samara had passed, he began working in a library, museum, archive, and teaching. He actively participated in the work of the local scientific society of local history - the Society of History, Archeology and Ethnography at Samara University. He became close to the major historian of Old Russian literature, Academician Vladimir Nikolaevich Peretz and his wife (later, in 1943, Varvara Pavlovna Adrianova-Peretz became a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and headed the Department of Old Russian Literature at the Pushkin House in Leningrad). While teaching, M.N. Tikhomirov himself studied paleography and textual criticism from them. It was at this time that M. N. Tikhomirov particularly distinguished himself in the field that is now commonly called field archaeography. He saved, literally sacrificing himself and becoming seriously ill, the manuscripts of the Old Believer Irgiz monasteries and the archive and family belongings of the Aksakovs, which remained on their family estate. At the same time, he was preparing for publication articles on the history of villages in the Samara region - work in line with typical local history topics.

In 1923, after the closure of Samara University, M. N. Tikhomirov returned to Moscow, where he worked in secondary schools as a teacher of geography and social studies. He became intensively involved in local history work and even then began to consistently (initially for several years as a freelance unpaid employee) study and describe manuscripts, primarily chronicles, in the Historical Museum.

While still in Samara, M. N. Tikhomirov prepared for publication an article directly related to the history of the city of Dmitrov - “Prince Yuri Ivanovich Dmitrovsky,” about the life and tragic death of uncle Ivan the Terrible. This is the first work of a scientist on the political history of Russia in the 16th century. At that time, a system had already been developed for including observations of a source study nature in the historical presentation itself. The autograph of the article was preserved only in the archives of the Dmitrov Museum. In the margins of the first page the author’s hand writes: “To the Dmitrov Museum of his native land. G. Dmitrov. Moscow [province]", on the last one there is the date "February 20, 1922". 14
Tikhomirov M. N. Russian state of the XV–XVII centuries. M., 1973. P. 393. The article was first published in this edition (P. 155–169).

Soon after returning to Moscow, M. N. Tikhomirov began preparing a short book about the city of Dmitrov. In the preface to its publication, dated January 7, 1925, the author writes that this “small essay” “in its main features” was conceived in 1918, and the work “was continued after the resumption of contacts with the Dmitrov Museum last year ", i.e. in 1924. The preface notes that the history of the city is considered “from an economic perspective. The history of the city is inseparable from questions of trade and industry; They determine in most cases the rise and fall of cities. Along the way, I talk about the population and appearance of the city. I have left aside questions of everyday life, administration and political history, since they deserve special study.” 15
Right there. P. 170. The main text of the book is reprinted in this edition, taking into account the changes made in connection with the preparation of a new edition in the late 1950s. This plan was not realized then.

These formulations are apparently a tribute to the time when the views of M.N. Pokrovsky officially dominated and primary attention was prescribed to be paid to the history of commercial and industrial capital and the revolutionary movement. In fact, the book presents a fairly broad history of the city, and its topography with characteristics of the most important streets, squares, even buildings, and in the notes and in the “Bibliography” a variety of literature is indicated (including publications of sources) about Dmitrov and his district. A small book “The City of Dmitrov. From the foundation of the city to the half of the 19th century” was published as the second issue of the works of the Dmitrov Region Museum in 1925.

This book, the first in a series of publications on such issues about individual small towns, evoked responses in the press from those who at that time devoted especially much effort to the development of local history. N.A. Geinike wrote in the “Leaflet of a Local Historian” that “the book is fascinating for the modern reader who is keenly interested in economic issues,” and “for a school worker ... it is an excellent tool.” Professor I. M. Grevs, in a programmatic article in 1926 “History and Local History,” singled out the publication, inviting “to further follow this path,” and in 1927 he recalled that M. N. Tikhomirov “released a successfully compiled monograph “City Dmitrov." 16
About this, see: Filimonov S. B. Materials about M. N. Tikhomirov in the journal “Local Studies” // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1986. M., 1987. P. 221.

In Moscow, M. N. Tikhomirov became an active participant in the work of the cultural and historical department (section) of the Society for the Study of the Moscow Province (Region) in 1925–1930. 17
For more details, see: Shmidt S. O. Work of M. N. Tikhomirov in the 1920s on studying the history of the Moscow region (New materials) // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1973, pp. 167–172; Filimonov S. B. Historical and local history materials from the archives of the Societies for the Study of Moscow and the Moscow Region. M., 1989.

Since October 1926, he was the secretary of the section, since 1929 - its deputy chairman, was also on the publishing commission of the Society, and proposed in 1925 to form a commission for the study of the cities of the Moscow region; from 1929, in connection with the work on preparing a historical-geographical dictionary, he became chairman of the presidium of the historical-geographical commission. Apparently, M. N. Tikhomirov took part in the work of several commissions, since, answering a question in the questionnaire of a member of the Society on August 2, 1930, he underlined the names of several commissions in the work of which he would like to participate: cultural-historical, economic, school and local history , art history, study of small industry (it is curious that he did not name the commission “for the study of Moscow.”)

M. N. Tikhomirov made presentations more than once (some of them became the basis of articles in the periodicals “Moscow Local History” and “Moscow Region in its Past”) and in debates on other reports. At first, the topic of his reports was related to the history of Dmitrov and Dmitrov district. Work on the agrarian history of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery was planned for 1930. Reports 1928–1929 were largely the result of expeditionary activities undertaken in the summer of 1928, also on the initiative of M. N. Tikhomirov. He proposed a fairly detailed plan for a “sample survey of villages in the Dmitrov region” according to a certain scheme: “1. Name of the villages. 2. Location of villages. 3. Historical data about the village. 4. Relations between villages and villages. 5. Disappeared villages and hamlets. 6. Ancient monuments preserved locally (archives, churches, estates, etc.)” and specifically indicated those “corners of the county” that should be examined first. M. N. Tikhomirov explored for three weeks - comparing the news of chronicles, scribe books, acts with topographical and toponymic observations - Olyavidovshchina (including the site of the battle of 1181 on the Vela River), Pesnoshsky Monastery, villages associated with water trade way, compiled a map of villages and tracts of the late 16th century, questioned local residents, primarily old-timers, paying special attention to monuments of ancient art.

When preparing the historical and local history dictionary of the Moscow region, it was proposed to highlight the topics: “Historical past of the city”, “Cultural appearance of the city”, “Improvement of the city”, “Cultural influence of the city on the surrounding area”, “Revolutionary events in the city”, “Outstanding natives of the city” . M. N. Tikhomirov was assigned the leadership of the work on compiling the historical part of the dictionary. He also prepared a meeting of local historians involved in processing dictionary materials. Even then, M. N. Tikhomirov’s inclination towards collective work and the desire to involve specialists in joint activities both in the center and locally were evident.

Particularly noteworthy is the work of M. N. Tikhomirov in preparing the “Atlas and workbook on the geography of the Moscow region.” 18
See: Materials on the activities of M. N. Tikhomirov in the Society for the Study of the Moscow Province / Prepared by. for publication S. B. Filimonov // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1973, pp. 298–310.

In the section of the atlas “Cultural State” it was supposed to compile maps and a list of the most interesting museums in the region, note “all monuments of art and antiquity”, reproduce “types of ancient monuments of the region”, “types of areas associated with the revolutionary movement”. In the “Explanatory Note,” M. N. Tikhomirov, the leader of the work, considered the “Atlas ...” as a school textbook on geography and social studies. It was planned to convene sectional meetings of local historians of the region and a “wide-profile meeting of local history organizations.” However, the implementation of these intentions was prevented by the persecution of local history societies in 1929–1930.

And M.N. Tikhomirov moved away - at least in organizational terms - from local history work itself. His beloved brother, the talented historian Boris Nikolaevich Tikhomirov, whose name is associated with the achievements of Kaluga local history in the second half of the 1920s, also stopped studying local history. (he later died during Stalin's repressions). 19
See about him: Artizov A. N. Boris Nikolaevich Tikhomirov (1898–1939). Review of materials about life and activities // Archaeographic Yearbook for 1989. M., 1990. pp. 111–123.