Why the Kumanin family’s Moscow estate is known as Rogozhin’s House

The house at 17 Bolshaya Ordynka is known as the Moscow house of Rogozhin from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel The Idiot. The name reflects a theory that it served as a literary model: the character’s address is on Gorokhovaya Street in St Petersburg. The estate belonged to the writer’s relatives, the Kumanin family; researchers compare its original layout with the description of Parfyon’s home. The present-day Moscow façade cannot be regarded as a literal depiction of the house in the novel: the building was substantially remodelled in 1938.

Where is Rogozhin’s house located in the novel?

Dostoevsky places Rogozhin’s house in St Petersburg, on Gorokhovaya Street near Sadovaya Street. In Part Two of The Idiot, Prince Myshkin approaches the house via the junction with Sadovaya Street, sees a three-storey building and reads an inscription bearing the owner’s surname. The author himself specifies the location; there is no Moscow address in this scene. This can be verified in the text of Part Two, Chapter III.

The scholarly commentary on the novel presents two distinct lines of interpretation. It identifies 33 Gorokhovaya Street as the St Petersburg address traditionally associated with the fictional house; the researcher G. A. Fyodorov, meanwhile, saw features of the Kumanin family’s Moscow houses in the description. The commentary does not relocate the novel’s action to Moscow. It shows that a literary depiction can draw on different geographical locations and physical settings.

Does Moscow remain outside the action of The Idiot?

Moscow features in the plot of The Idiot, although Rogozhin’s house, which Myshkin enters, is in St Petersburg. After Part One, the characters spend a considerable amount of time in Moscow; the reader learns about this mainly through their later accounts and recollections. Pavel Fokin, whose lecture is summarised by the State Museum of the History of Russian Literature, draws attention to the period of almost six months spent in Moscow that remains outside the direct narrative.

This distinction between where an event takes place and where an impression originates is particularly important when assessing the estate. In Part Two of the novel, Myshkin visits Rogozhin on Gorokhovaya Street and, during the same conversation, recalls the events in Moscow surrounding Rogozhin’s wedding to Nastasya Filippovna, which never took place. Later, the master of the house again refers the prince to what happened between them in Moscow. Both remarks are made by fictional characters, yet they undermine the simplistic claim that ‘the novel features only St Petersburg’. They can be checked in Part Two, Chapter III And Part Four, Chapter XI.

Why does the Kumanin estate come up in discussions of Rogozhin?

The connection begins with the writer’s biography. Alexandra Fyodorovna Kumanina was the elder sister of Dostoevsky’s mother and the wife of Alexander Alexeyevich Kumanin. State Museum of the History of Russian Literature, summarising a lecture by the scholar Pavel Fokin, reports that Dostoevsky visited his relatives’ house on Ordynka from childhood. The writer’s father, Mikhail Andreyevich, served as a family doctor to this merchant family and people close to them. The future novelist could therefore have been familiar with the family environment later discussed by commentators on The Idiot.

The historical account in the state historical and cultural expert assessment report clarifies the family relationship: Alexander Kumanin was not only the husband of Dostoevsky’s aunt, but also his godfather. The document identifies the house at 17 Bolshaya Ordynka as the place the writer visited as a child. However, the State Public Historical Library reports that Alexander Kumanin purchased a separate house on Kosmodamiansky Lane, now Starosadsky Lane, in 1828. The Chronicle of the Dostoevsky Family identifies this as the house the couple moved to. A later visit to his aunt therefore does not mean a return visit to Ordynka. The writer’s familiarity with the estate confirms a biographical connection, but does not establish which specific features of it he incorporated into the novel.

The museum’s publication presents a broader hypothesis: impressions of the Kumanin circle may have influenced two characters in The Idiot. It names Konstantin Konstantinovich Kumanin as a possible model for Rogozhin, and Maria Petrovna Kumanina as a possible model for Nastasya Filippovna. This qualification is essential: similarities between family histories do not mean that real people can be equated with fictional characters.

Which branch of the Kumanin family owned the house on Ordynka?

The house on Bolshaya Ordynka is primarily associated with the family of the merchant Alexei Kumanin; Dostoevsky was related to him through his son. According to the historical report prepared for the expert assessment, the estate was initially owned by Vasily Alexeyevich; after his death in 1793, it passed to his brother. The new owner and his wife Maria Petrovna had three sons, Konstantin, Alexander and Valentin; the middle son married Alexandra Fyodorovna Kumanina, the elder sister of Dostoevsky’s mother. The heritage protection document identifies the writer’s aunt as the mother of the three brothers; a study by Danilov Monastery, drawing on the history of the family burial ground, identifies the estate owner’s wife as their mother. This article follows the monastery’s account; the discrepancy changes how Dostoevsky’s family relationships are traced.

Alexei Alexeyevich’s will of 1818, as summarised in the heritage protection document, instructed his sons not to divide the estate for ten years; Konstantin was entrusted with running the company ‘Alexei Kumanin and Sons’. The family, however, extended far beyond the occupants of a single flat: several generations, business affairs and relatives connected by marriage spanned several houses. This is significant for the literary hypothesis. Dostoevsky may have observed not just a single interior, but the entire way of life of a large merchant family.

In later expert review report the history of the property begins with the move to Moscow in 1789 of the sons of Alexei Ivanovich Kumanin, a merchant from Pereslavl. They went into manufacturing and trade; the report gives a separate account of the eldest son’s successes and his standing in the first merchant guild. These details explain the social stature of the family known to the future writer. They do not justify attributing the behaviour of Rogozhin’s fictional father to individual members of the Kumanin family: any connection with the fictional character requires separate evidence.

Why do sources identify different Kumanin houses in Moscow?

The Kumanin family owned several houses in Moscow, so the name ‘Kumanin house’ alone does not identify a specific address; accounts of the writer’s visits relate to different years. Dostoevsky visited the estate at 17 Bolshaya Ordynka from childhood. In 1828, his uncle Alexander Alexeyevich bought another house in Kosmodamiansky Lane, which was later renamed. According to the Historical Library, it survives as No. 9 on what is now Starosadsky Lane. Borisova and Shaulov place Dostoevsky’s meeting with his aunt in April 1867 at the house ‘on Maroseyka’; in the recollection they quote, Anna Grigoryevna mentions Moscow but gives no street name. This later visit to his relative therefore provides no evidence that he visited the estate on Ordynka after its alterations.

Distinguishing between the addresses changes how the family recollection is read. Alexandra Fyodorovna, a possible inspiration for the character of Rogozhin’s mother, met Dostoevsky and his wife in Moscow in 1867. The similarity between her behaviour and that of the fictional character supports the theory about the person, but tells us nothing about the staircases and enfilades of the house on Ordynka. These are two separate arguments: a recollection of a relative and a conjecture about the layout of another house.

Which details of the house do researchers compare?

The main point of comparison is Myshkin’s complicated route through the house. In the novel, the prince passes through a grand hall and small rooms, going up and down steps several times. This is a specific spatial detail, rather than a general evocation of merchant wealth. The novel also describes the first floor, a dark stone staircase and a study furnished with desks and cabinets containing papers.

The 2023 expert assessment report explains why the steps became an argument for proponents of the Moscow hypothesis. According to its historical account, the estate’s residential buildings were combined into a single structure in the 1840s. Different sections of the first floor were at different levels; the document notes that these differences are visible in the rows of windows. Following Fyodorov, the report’s authors link this feature to the changes of level described in the novel. The similarity in layout supports the hypothesis, but does not prove that it was copied directly: the sources examined contain no statement by Dostoevsky that he was describing this particular house.

There are also limits to this comparison. Dostoevsky describes Rogozhin’s house as having three storeys and depicts the St Petersburg street on which it stands, whereas the Kumanin estate, as documented, consisted of several sections and changed with each major renovation. It is therefore impossible to take a single detail, such as the steps, and declare all the other features described in the novel to be an exact record of the Moscow house.

Could Dostoyevsky have seen the passageways that are compared with those in the novel?

The sources examined do not confirm that the writer saw the altered layout of his relatives’ Moscow property after the mid-19th-century building works. This limits the strength of the argument based on the steps. “Chronicle of the Dostoevsky Family” states that the Kumanin brothers lived together in their parents’ house until 1828, after which Alexander and his wife moved to a separate estate. The 2023 expert assessment dates the combining of the residential buildings on Ordynka into a single structure to the 1840s.

At the same time, the 2025 expert assessment report describes the main house being joined to its extensions as early as the 1810s–1830s, and dates the rebuilding of the wings to 1889. The historical accounts divide the building’s history into different phases; they do not allow each change in floor level compared with Myshkin’s route to be dated precisely. Anna Grigoryevna’s recollection of the 1867 visit to Moscow likewise gives no address. The writer may have seen some of the connecting passages, but a more precise source is needed to establish that he personally saw the exact layout described.

Do any characters bear the names of real people from the Kumanins’ circle?

Names resembling those of characters in The Idiot did indeed occur among the Kumanins’ acquaintances. Borisova and Shaulov write about Evgraf Gavrilovich Rogozhin, who managed the Moscow office of the State Commercial Bank, and his wife, Nastasya Filippovna. One of the Kumanins had ties to the management of this office. The similarity between the two names is striking, but it does not authenticate Dostoevsky’s note about borrowing them. In the novel itself, Rogozhin is Parfyon Semyonovich, while Nastasya Filippovna has a different surname and a different life story.

The researchers trace a separate connection to Maria Petrovna Vedenisova, who married Konstantin Konstantinovich Kumanin. According to Borisova and Shaulov’s account, she was orphaned at an early age and brought up by Valentin Alexeyevich, who arranged her marriage to his nephew. In 1857–1858, an episode involving Prince Sergei Vadbolsky complicated her married life. The authors compare this situation with the love triangle in the novel and Totsky’s role in Nastasya Filippovna’s fate. However, the actual circumstances of the marriage, guardianship and attempted separation do not correspond to Dostoevsky’s plot in every respect.

The researchers themselves acknowledge the limits of their evidence. They note that some of G. A. Fyodorov’s accounts of those involved in the family’s history require clarification through documentary sources. His conclusions about possible similarities between Konstantin and Rogozhin, and between Maria and Nastasya Filippovna, are best regarded as literary hypotheses. Establishing family relationships and confirming that these people actually existed is easier than proving precisely which trait the writer borrowed from each of them.

Why is Rogozhin’s mother a more compelling example of a parallel?

The comparison between Alexandra Fyodorovna Kumanina and a character in The Idiot rests on family testimony. Borisova and Shaulov cite a recollection by Anna Grigoryevna: Dostoevsky’s wife explicitly linked the portrayal of Rogozhin’s mother to the writer’s aunt, whom the couple visited in Moscow in 1867. This testimony comes from a source much closer to the author’s family than the coincidental names of people in the Kumanins’ banking circle. Nevertheless, the family recollection concerns just one source of inspiration for the character and does not make her a documentary replica of the writer’s relative.

In the fourth chapter of the novel’s second part Myshkin enters Rogozhin’s mother’s room after exchanging crosses with Parfyon. The elderly woman takes little part in the conversation but gives the prince her blessing. The researchers compare the scene with Alexandra Fyodorovna’s condition as observed by Anna Grigoryevna during her visit to the relative. The couple’s visit to the aunt is documented; the similarity between the descriptions is noted in a scholarly study, but the progression from the initial impression to the fictional portrayal cannot be traced.

Fyodor and Anna Dostoevsky’s visit in April 1867 preceded the serial publication of The Idiot in 1868. The chronology allows for the possibility that the author drew on what he had seen when writing the novel. However, his wife’s words are known from her later recollection, rather than from a dated note by the author about the creation of the scene. Thus, the portrayal of Rogozhin’s mother can be linked to its real-life inspiration on the basis of family testimony, whereas no such direct attribution exists for the layout of the rooms in the house on Ordynka.

How does the novel itself use the appearance of Rogozhin’s house?

As he approaches Rogozhin’s house on Gorokhovaya Street, Prince Myshkin sees a large, gloomy, three-storey building. The narrator compares it to other old houses nearby, with thick walls, few windows and money changers’ shops on the ground floor. Its unwelcoming appearance leads him to suspect that Parfyon lives here. This is the character’s impression, conveyed by the narrator: Myshkin himself admits that he cannot properly explain it. The scene in Part Two both establishes the St Petersburg address and conveys the prince’s unease.

Inside, Dostoevsky brings together details that serve different purposes. The tables, cupboards and business papers evoke the family’s mercantile affairs; the portrait of the deceased father preserves his authority in the room; the open volume of Sergei Solovyov’s History shows that the character’s study cannot be summed up simply as that of an uneducated merchant. These objects are mentioned in the text of the novel. None of the documents examined concerning the Kumanin estate confirms that these objects were present in the historical interior. It is here that a precise literary detail can most easily become a false ‘memory’ of the actual interior.

In the next chapter, Myshkin sees a copy of Hans Holbein the Younger’s painting of the dead Christ in the house, then meets Rogozhin’s mother. The sequence of episodes in the novel is important to the characters’ relationship: after an uneasy conversation, they exchange crosses, and Rogozhin’s mother blesses the prince. Even if some impressions of everyday life came from Dostoevsky’s life in Moscow, this entire sequence of objects and actions serves the St Petersburg plot. To look for a room on Ordynka with the same painting or the same arrangement of doors without documentary evidence would be to reconstruct it from the novel, rather than establish the history of the house.

There is also a clear difference that should be retained in the comparison. At the gates, Myshkin reads a fictional inscription identifying the house as belonging to Rogozhin, a hereditary honorary citizen. “Chronicle of the Dostoevsky Family” specifies that Konstantin Alexeyevich was granted hereditary nobility in 1830, and Alexander Alexeyevich in 1838. These legal statuses are not equivalent; the owner’s surname in the novel is different, as is the city. The theory that the estate influenced the novel must therefore explain the similarities without discarding facts that challenge it.

At the end of the novel, the prince visits Rogozhin once again. The final chapter of Part Four takes the reader back to Gorokhovaya Street and explicitly mentions St Petersburg’s white nights. This return visit brings Myshkin’s journey full circle within the same fictional setting. For research into the Moscow prototype, this is a useful point of reference: the ending does not rename the house, although the cultural memory of a possible Moscow model exists independently of the text.

How convincing is the theory that a Moscow house served as the model?

The theory of a Moscow prototype is persuasive with regard to particular features of the house and the family environment familiar to Dostoevsky. It is supported by the writer’s kinship with the Kumanin family, accounts of childhood visits to the estate and similarities in the internal passageways. Building records differ on when the buildings were connected, and the sources examined give no date for a later visit by Dostoevsky to No. 17. The architectural parallel therefore remains an argument in literary scholarship, rather than evidence of the author’s intentions.

Differences in wording are apparent even among scholarly sources. The academic commentators on The Idiot write that G. A. Fyodorov believed that Rogozhin’s house had features of the Kumanin house. In an article by Valentina Borisova and Sergei Shaulov the Moscow connection is presented with considerably greater confidence. At the same time, the authors note that some of Fyodorov’s findings require clarification through documentary evidence and interpretation within literary scholarship. This is more useful to the reader than a definitive label: there is a strong scholarly tradition, but the evidence supporting its arguments varies in strength.

How does the Kumanin theme emerge in the inheritance storyline?

Dostoevsky’s family connections help illuminate both the description of the house and the plot surrounding Myshkin’s unexpected inheritance. At the end of Part One of The Idiot Ptitsyn tells the prince that his aunt, his mother’s elder sister and the daughter of a Moscow merchant, has left him a substantial fortune. She is a fictional character with an invented family history. Borisova and Shaulov show why the structure of the story — wealthy Moscow relatives, a maternal aunt and the hope of receiving money — recalls Dostoevsky’s own relationship with the Kumanin family.

The difference also matters. The aunt in the novel has already died by the time the news arrives; Alexandra Fyodorovna Kumanina was still alive when The Idiot began appearing in instalments in 1868. Myshkin receives his inheritance within the logic of a fictional plot, where the news instantly changes how those around him regard the man with his meagre bundle. In the writer’s life, property matters involving his relatives unfolded differently and over a much longer period. The similarity in family roles therefore supports an interest in the Kumanin context, but does not make Myshkin an embodiment of Dostoevsky himself.

Borisova and Shaulov examine separately how the novel first holds out the promise of a substantial fortune, then reveals debts and disputed claims. They compare this storyline with the author's concerns about his own financial obligations and inheritance matters. Here, the writer's use of material from life is particularly evident: rather than retelling the legal history from documents, he transforms it into a test for his protagonist. In relation to Rogozhin's house, this provides further evidence against the simplistic formula of ‘one real address — one ready-made novel’. The Moscow experience finds its way into the settings, characters and plot through a variety of routes.

The chronology matters here. According to ‘The Chronicle of the Dostoevsky Family’, Alexandra Fyodorovna died in 1871, and the dispute over the division of her estate developed later; Anna Grigoryevna recalled that reaching agreement among the heirs dragged on until 1879. The novel began appearing in print in 1868. The actual litigation of the 1870s therefore cannot be presented as a documented ‘plot’ transferred in advance into ‘The Idiot’. The writer may have known about the family's financial arrangements and expectations of a future inheritance; the details of how the estate was divided after her death belong to a different chapter of his life. This makes the comparison more precise, without treating later events as the cause of a text written earlier.

What other sources of inspiration for Rogozhin’s character do researchers suggest?

The literary scholar R. G. Nazirov took the Kumanin hypothesis seriously, but considered the question of the real-life model for Parfyon Rogozhin open to debate. In his study ‘On the Real-Life Models for Some of Dostoevsky's Characters’ he turns to Alexander Milyukov's notes about the son of a Moscow merchant who inherited an enormous fortune after the death of his stern, thrifty father. Nazirov compares these notes with the early chapters of ‘The Idiot’: the son's conflict with his father, sudden wealth and the rapid arrival of new friends around him. He does not, however, identify the family in this account as the Kumanins.

Nazirov also offers a more cautious explanation of the interior. He recalls the Moscow home of the entrepreneur Vasily Kokorev, which Dostoevsky visited in 1864, and suggests that impressions of it may also have found their way into the novel. This hypothesis does not rule out Ordynka, but shows the limits of any claim that it was the sole source. Even if the changes in floor level in the Kumanin house were reflected in the text, the furniture, paintings, religious objects and the character of the protagonist's father cannot automatically be assigned to the rooms of a single real-life estate.

What was the estate that Dostoyevsky may have remembered like?

In the late 18th century, this was an estate complex with a two-storey main house set back within the grounds and two wings beside Bolshaya Ordynka. According to historical report prepared for the expert assessment, the property belonged to Vasily Alexeyevich Kumanin and, after his death in 1793, passed to his elder brother Alexey Alexeyevich. There was a garden in the courtyard; a fence separated the forecourt from the street.

The estate’s stone buildings suffered little damage in the fire of 1812; they were later repaired, the left wing was connected to the main house, and the façade was given an Empire-style finish. A report from 2023 dates the integration of all the residential sections into a single two-storey structure to the 1840s: a mezzanine was added above the main house, and the façades were finished in the late Neoclassical style. An official report from 2025 describes the connection of the main house to the northern extensions between the 1810s and the 1830s, followed by the rebuilding of the wings in 1889. Both documents indicate that Dostoevsky may have known a different layout of rooms from the one later linked to the novel.

The halls and changes in floor level also lend themselves to a literary interpretation. This should be considered separately from the building’s construction history: the plans and phases of rebuilding describe the actual property, while the correspondence between the rooms and an episode in The Idiot remains a matter of interpretation.

Why does the house look different today?

The present appearance of 17 Bolshaya Ordynka largely took shape following the reconstruction of 1938. According to the expert assessment, the layout, the central two-storey section of the main house and the forecourt with its high enclosing fence survive from the estate period; three additional storeys were added to the main house. The interiors were reconfigured as flats, and the façades were redesigned and given balconies. The Kumanin family’s historic interiors have not survived.

The building also has another documented literary history. Between 1938 and 1966, Anna Akhmatova stayed in the flat of the writer Viktor Ardov’s family on Bolshaya Ordynka during her visits to Moscow; this is how the house is identified in its heritage designation documents. This history concerns the house after its reconstruction and provides no evidence either for or against the theory linking the Kumanin house to The Idiot.

Which parts of the old estate can still be identified in the building in the 21st century?

At 17 Bolshaya Ordynka, the results of several periods of construction are visible, so the house no longer looks as it did when it was an estate. In the expert assessment report from 2025 the present building is described as a grey five-storey structure comprising three sections: two wings extend to the street line, while the central section is set further back, behind the forecourt. The original layout can be recognised in this arrangement and the enclosing fence. The additional storeys and balconies date from the reconstruction of 1938.

The heritage assessment also identifies surviving fabric from the earlier house. The document dates structural elements of the basement and ground floor to the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries; the list of protected features includes vaulted ceilings on these levels and in the arched passageways. It also records load-bearing walls and supporting structures from different periods. This explains to the reader why an old house does indeed survive behind the Soviet-era exterior. At the same time, rooms closed to the public should not be regarded as a publicly accessible exhibition: the document describes the preservation of the structures, rather than promising an opportunity to view them.

The boundary fence deserves a closer look. The heritage protection document covers its base, the gate piers and pedestrian gates, the metal railings and gate leaves. Historical accounts assign different dates to parts of the fence and its alterations, ranging from the late 18th and early 19th centuries to later work in the 19th century; the formal schedule of protected features drawn up in 2024 lists elements from several periods. These discrepancies mean we cannot assume that every visible detail has remained unchanged since Dostoevsky’s childhood. It is more accurate to say that the boundary of the formal forecourt has been preserved, along with historic elements of its design.

The route between floors and the arrangement of the windows deserve particular attention. The schedule of protected features in the 2025 document dates the existing staircases to 1938. This means that a visitor to the house today would not be walking on the steps described by the writer, even if the theory that a Moscow house served as his model were correct. The differing levels of the older wings and the changes in height between rows of windows help us imagine how the building’s form evolved, but Myshkin’s route through the rooms cannot be reconstructed from today’s flat layouts: these were redrawn by the 20th-century reconstruction.

What does the heritage assessment confirm, and what remains a literary theory?

Heritage protection documents primarily address questions about the address, phases of construction and surviving parts of the building. They identify No. 17 Bolshaya Ordynka as the former Kumanin family estate and describe the old walls, vaults, courtyard and the additional storey built in 1938. One document describes the young Dostoevsky’s stay in the central part of the house as a supposition, then recounts the theory linking it to Rogozhin’s house. A literary conclusion in a historical account should be distinguished from the findings of a building survey.

The location of Rogozhin’s house is established by the text of The Idiot. Moscow’s influence is discussed by the museum, scholarly commentary and researchers of different generations. Anna Grigoryevna’s family testimony supports the comparison between Rogozhin’s mother and the writer’s aunt; documents relating to Ordynka support his familiarity with the setting of the estate. The sources examined provide no direct document in which Dostoevsky identifies No. 17 as the sole model for the entire scene. Acknowledging this limit to our knowledge preserves the value of the comparison itself: the reader can distinguish fact from a reasoned interpretation of the literary text.

How should the name ‘Rogozhin’s house in Moscow’ be understood?

This is a useful label for discussing a possible Moscow inspiration for a literary depiction. The precise conclusion is more modest: Dostoevsky knew the Kumanin family and their estate; researchers have identified similarities between its layout and certain details in the novel; the novel itself places Rogozhin’s house in St Petersburg. Keeping these three claims distinct allows us to appreciate the value of the Moscow connection without altering the geography of the fictional world.

The former Kumanin estate is included in Radius Tour Bureau’s tour of Zamoskvorechye. On the route from Ordynka to Pyatnitskaya, you can see the building and discuss which parts have survived, while its connection to the novel remains a theory put forward by researchers.

Sources

1. F. M. Dostoevsky. The Idiot. Part Two, Chapter III
2. G. M. Fridlender, I. A. Bityugova. Commentary on the Novel The Idiot
3. State Museum of the History of Russian Literature. ‘Moscow’s Prince Myshkin’
4. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report: 17 Bolshaya Ordynka, Building 1
5. V. V. Borisova, S. S. Shaulov. The Motif of ‘Fatal Inheritance’ in F. M. Dostoevsky’s Novel The Idiot
6. F. M. Dostoevsky. The Idiot. Part One, Chapter XVI
7. F. M. Dostoevsky. The Idiot. Part Two, Chapter IV
8. F. M. Dostoevsky. The Idiot. Part Four, Chapter XI
9. State Historical and Cultural Expert Assessment Report on the House at 17 Bolshaya Ordynka Street (2025)
10. R. G. Nazirov. On the Real-Life Models for Some of Dostoevsky’s Characters
11. State Public Historical Library of Russia. Returning Home
12. I. L. Volgin. A Chronicle of the Dostoevsky Family. Relatives and Loved Ones
13. Danilov Monastery. Benefactors: the Kumanin Family
14. Radius Tour Bureau. ‘Zamoskvorechye’ Tour