The Correspondence between V. I. Malyshev and M. N. Tikhomirov about the Preservation of Manuscripts

The article analyzes the correspondence between two outstanding archaeographers of the 20th century – academician M. N. Tikhomirov and founder of the Archive of Ancient Relics (Institute of Russian Literature (the Pushkin House), Russian Academy of Sciences) V. I. Malyshev. The paper aims to research, how they understood and discussed the problem of preservation of manuscripts. The authors studied 182 letters from Malyshev to Tikhomirov (for 1947–1965) stored at the private fund of M. N. Tihomirovand 66 letters from Tikhomirov to Malyshev (for the same period) as well as the memoirs and articles of Tikhomirov and Malyshev themselves, their students and followers. Comparison of the sources revealed their understanding of the essence of the problem and possible ways of its solution. The authors highlighted the general and particular in the views of two correspondents on the issue of the preservation of manuscripts. According to Malyshev, at that time the most urgent task was a collection of the manuscripts kept by ordinary people. Tikhomirov, recognizing the importance of the above-mentioned mission, insisted that maintenance of archives was just as crucial. At the same time both of them agreed on the need to organize the archaeographic expeditions, examine and registrate private collections, monitor preservation of materials in state archives, publish manuscripts, involve government resources and stimulate public attention to the problem. The letters show the mutual respect of the correspondents, their understanding of the merits of each other as well as demonstrate their successful cooperation. Together Malyshev and Tikhomirow completed reconstruction of the Archaeographic Commission, effectively promoted their common cause in the press and impressively replenished the Tikhomirov’s collection of manuscripts and old printed books (later accurately transferred to Novosibirsk). The analysis of the above-mentioned sources leads to the following conclusions: even today the experience of Soviet scholars is still relevant.