DIFFERENT WAYS OF CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSEUMS AND MONKHOOD ON THE SAME TERRITIRY
After the expropriation of spiritual property by Bolshevik army the destiny of different monasteries changed. Some part of them was destroyed and another part was adapted to sport, military, secular and residential functions. The practice shows that the best way in that situation is adaptation to museums. In this way, by combining care of restorers and museum’s employee safed lots of ancient reliquiaes. These museums were functioned in it own regular system before the USSR collapse. Then, in 1993, the presidential decree sad to assign all monastic territories to church, and the result was large conflict between museums and monkhood on the same territory. Nowadays, we can denote some base models of their co-existence on the same territory. First one is functional differentiation according to territorial border. The basic concept of such method is absolute territorial juridical separation. In this way, all authorities and charges of both sides are formalized by low. The territory of monastery is
divided into two parts, one belongs to museum’s accommodation and another belongs to cloister. In this way, there is not conflict between museum and monkhood, and if they have any problems, it’s all solved by juridical interference. The best example of that model is the territory of Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery in Zvenigorod. On the same territory with monks museum’s employees receive visitors. Nowadays, this model is the best one for all sides. Second one is functional monopoly. The main mode of that model consists in absolute feature of only one site. On the monastic territory operates either museum or abode. In this way, unfortunately conflict is inevitable. This model of connecting is chosen by one site without any rights of another. One of good example of that model is the territory of Ferapontov Monastery in the Vologda region of Russia. Even after the low of 1994 the monastic territory were at the disposal of museum of Dionisy’s frescoes. Nowadays, the hole cloister is a museum and there isn’t any active churches on its territory. The opposite example of similar model acts in the Staritsa Assumption Monastery. In such case, museum direction just leave the territory of cloister and find another building for its function. Almost every time community helps them to make it faster. The third model of connection is functional differentiation according to time border. Such model supposes time division in compliance with day period. On the same territory museum and abode has its right and duties according to time. Like in the Hypatian Monastery situated on the bank of the Kostroma River. There are lost of important museums on its territory, but it’s still operative abode with monk’s community. In fixed hours the entrance to monastery is free (mass time), but in other time the
entrance cost some money and include the attendance of 3 different museums. Such politic allows to demarcate 2 functions on the same territory on the condition that sites are keeping their commitments. In our country the situation of territorial and functional detachment of cloister grows in large problem that is hard solved even by low. The best way to save good relationships between museums and abode is to conclude juridical covenant that shall provide the conditions of both sites. In this way, the connection will be the most productive.