P.P. Veyner and the problem of preservation of monuments during the discussions of 1917

The article discusses the problem of protection of monuments in the discussions during 1917. The attention of the author is focused on the Commission for Museology and Protection of Monuments, created in March 1917 at the Institute of History of Arts (Petrograd). The members of the museum commission, chaired by the famous archaeologist M.I. Rostovtsev, were P.P. Veyner, V.P. Zubov, P.I. Neradovsky, N.N. Punin, D.I. Tolstoy, D.A. Schmidt and other prominent representatives of the world of culture. The problem of monument preservation was considered in a number of papers delivered during the meetings of this commission. The members of the commission described the history of the protection of monuments in Russia, characterized foreign law in this area, considered some categories of monuments. But the most detailed analysis was in two reports of P.P. Veyner, one of which was devoted to the movable monuments and the other to architectural monuments. Veyner offered a typology of monuments, described the history of this problem and proposed measures to centralize and standardize the protection of monuments throughout the country. The basic problem for him was the creation of a centralized governmental body of museology and protection of monuments. Veyner offered the structure of this body and determined the principles of its operation. His ideas were based on the previous experience with the discussion of the draft of a law on monument protection. However, he included new elements, too. Of particular importance was the issue of protection of monuments as private property. For their protection, Veyner offers a number of specific measures: 1) monuments of exceptional importance may be declared of national importance, 2) monuments are inalienable without the knowledge of the state at each change of ownership, 3) there is the right of redemption in the event of monument negligence, 4) it is prohibited to export monuments abroad without their prior submission to the government, 5) the state has the pre-emptive right to purchase all imported items and items of the declared state value. Another important question here is the question of the export of monuments abroad from Russia, and the regulation of its legal export. Some of these proposals were implemented after the October revolution, albeit in a slightly different form. On the one hand, the facts collected in the article help to clarify the contribution of Veyner to the protection of monuments. On the other hand, some new conclusions can be made regarding the historical background of the cultural policy of the Bolsheviks in first post-revolutionary years.

Keywords

Authors

References