Tolkuchy Market: why the fire of 1881 did not put an end to trade

The fire of 1881 almost completely destroyed Pashkov Courtyard on what is now Novaya Square, but Tolkuchy Market beside the Kitay-Gorod wall continued to operate. Vladimir Gilyarovsky recalled lively trading in the mid-1880s, while the historian Pyotr Sytin dated its move to Sadovniki to 1899. The fire, the redevelopment of one property and the relocation of the entire second-hand market were separate events: 1881 cannot be described as the year when all the market rows closed.

Grigory Moskvich’s 1908 guidebook places Tolkuchy Market in Zamoskvorechye, yet also notes that second-hand clothing was being sold near its former site in Kitay-Gorod. The city’s second-hand market had moved across the river; the sale of used clothing beside the wall continued. The sources consulted do not establish the exact date when trading ceased on the old square.

Where was Tolkuchy Market?

Tolkuchy Market occupied the space along the inner side of the Kitay-Gorod wall, chiefly between the Nikolsky and Ilyinsky Gates. This matters when reading old accounts: trading took place inside Kitay-Gorod, rather than outside the fortifications. Vladimir Gilyarovsky’s essay identifies the stretch between these gates; Pyotr Sytin traces the shops further along, as far as the Varvarsky Gates. Gilyarovsky also mentions Makovsky’s painting, but a depiction of one part of this trading strip cannot be treated as a plan of the entire market.

The historian Pyotr Sytin shows that the names of two neighbouring squares swapped places in the 19th century. Gilyarovsky calls the stretch between the Ilyinsky and Nikolsky Gates Staraya Square. It is more reliable to identify the gateways and the line of the fortifications first, and only then relate the historical account to the present-day address plaque on a building. Nor was trading confined to a single courtyard: rows of shops stood beside the wall, with space alongside for goods laid out for sale and for shoppers to move through.

By According to the heritage protection document published on mos.ru, the market appeared on this site in 1783, and more than two hundred wooden shops were built for it. The document also recounts the separate history of the land later associated with Pashkov Courtyard. Its name therefore refers to a single property within a much larger trading area; it would be a mistake to equate it with the entire second-hand market.

Sytin also traces the earlier history of this location: in 1783, Tolkuchy Market moved here from the Vetoshnye Rows, which stood in the area of today’s Manege. He explains that the name ‘Novaya Square’ originally referred to the whole new strip of trading beside the wall; at the time, even a narrow street lined with shops could be called a ‘square’. Thus 1783 marks the market’s move to Kitay-Gorod, rather than the origin of the second-hand market itself. The move of 1899 was its next change of location, more than a century later.

Pyotr Sytin specifies that the shops extended from the Nikolsky to the Varvarsky Gates: 204 wooden retail premises were built in 1783, with 74 masonry ones added in 1786. These figures refer to the long line of trading beside the wall, rather than to Pashkov Courtyard alone. Even a count of the shops therefore cannot establish the size of this property without a separate site plan.

In Sytin’s reconstruction, the square before the wall’s demolition looked more like a narrow street, approximately 17–21 metres wide. On one side, the passage was bounded by the inner face of the fortifications, with shops in its recesses; on the other stood commercial buildings. Kitaygorodsky Proyezd ran outside the wall. After the wall was dismantled in 1934, these previously separate strips came to be seen as one broad space. The addresses of the buildings here therefore give no indication of the former width of this trading passage.

Sytin cautions that local place names changed: in the 1870s and 1880s, they were used the other way round from today. In the memoirs of Ivan Belousov that he quotes, ‘Staraya’ Square, with its second-hand market, lies beside the Nikolsky and Ilyinsky Gates, while ‘Novaya’, with its trade in furs and fabric remnants, continues towards the Varvarsky Gates. This explains why two accounts may appear to place the same market at different addresses. They often describe neighbouring sections of the same trading strip, using different names.

How did Pashkov Courtyard become part of the market square?

The history of this courtyard concerns a specific property on what is now Novaya Square. The heritage protection document states that the plot passed to Nikolai Dmitrievich Pashkov in 1798, and that in 1805 he transferred the rights to the Moscow Merchants’ Society on condition that money from the rents for trading spaces be donated to St Andrew’s Almshouse. Trading resumed here after the fire of 1812; the document links the name to the surname of the former owner.

In 1831–1832, the Merchants’ Society rebuilt the market rows of Pashkov Courtyard. According to the expert’s description, the long wooden shelters were replaced by premises resembling haberdashery shops, built in the Moscow Empire style. This does not date the establishment of the entire second-hand market: the market beside the wall had already existed for several decades. The distinction between the landholding, the buildings and the open market square will also matter when examining the events of 1881.

Vladimir Makovsky’s studies for his painting ‘Tolkuchy Market in Moscow’ help us understand what the market was like before the fire. In the notes to the published correspondence between Ilya Repin and Pavel Tretyakov, ‘Lunch’ is dated to 1875, while ‘At Noon’ and ‘The Kvass Seller’ are dated to 1879. The artist was selecting individual scenes of city life even before the disaster at Pashkov Courtyard in 1881. These works reveal the painting’s subject matter, but do not prove that the shops depicted survived in the same locations after the fire.

The market had already experienced fire and rebuilding before 1881. Sytin writes that the wooden shops beside the Kitay-Gorod wall burnt down in the fire of 1812 and were subsequently replaced by masonry shops. The heritage protection document gives a more specific account of Pashkov Courtyard: it was restored a few years later and subsequently remodelled. The sources therefore describe two waves of construction following fires. The masonry shops built after 1812 and the rental buildings erected after 1881 belong to different phases; confusing them can easily lead to an incorrect date for a building.

Charity formed part of this transaction. According to the document, Pashkov transferred the rights to the land to the Moscow Merchants’ Society on condition that money from the rental payments be passed on to St Andrew’s Almshouse. The Society then also invested in redeveloping the site. This sequence helps explain why the courtyard’s fortunes can be traced in detail through the history of its ownership and buildings, while the movements of street traders are documented far less precisely.

Vladimir Makovsky’s 1875 study ‘Lunch’ was among the preparatory works for the painting ‘Tolkuchy Market in Moscow’: its title, year and connection with the larger canvas are given in a note to the correspondence between Repin and Tretyakov. Quoting Ivan Belousov’s memoirs, Pyotr Sytin separately describes the food row, where ready-to-eat food was sold beside the wall. Together, these accounts remind us that the second-hand clothing trade existed alongside street dining. This work cannot establish the food row’s exact location or the number of traders.

The 1879 study ‘The Kvass Seller’ belongs to the same series of Makovsky’s works on Tolkuchy Market; its date and connection with the larger painting are recorded in the notes to the correspondence between Repin and Tretyakov and in the caption to a reproduction in the magazine Nauka i Zhizn. The artist included the sale of this drink in his market theme, alongside other activities reflected in the titles of other works. Yet this image cannot establish the address of a particular shop or reconstruct the arrangement of traders on the square. Such a reconstruction requires dated plans and photographs.

What made up daily life at Tolkuchy Market?

Tolkuchy Market combined goods laid out for sale in the street, a succession of permanent shops and small services. This distinction matters when considering its closure: an owner might rebuild his premises, while street traders occupied another part of the square. Belousov, quoted by Sytin, describes second-hand dealers buying goods in courtyards across the city, and trading beside a recess in the Kitay-Gorod wall. Gilyarovsky adds ready-made clothing and footwear shops, as well as warehouses and offices on the upper floors of the buildings opposite the fortifications.

Books and icons were sold alongside inexpensive goods. Belousov recalls worn coats, hats, samovars and scrap metal, and separately mentions furs and fabrics south of the Ilyinsky Gates. In Gilyarovsky’s essay, simply cut clothing, footwear brought in from elsewhere and early printed books appear side by side. At the corner by the Varvarsky Gates, he names the trader S. T. Bolshakov, who sold old books and icons predating Patriarch Nikon’s reforms. Such a row attracted quite different customers from those browsing cheap clothing laid out for sale. The single term ‘second-hand market’ conceals this difference.

Belousov mentions ‘cold’ cobblers, who worked in the open air beside the wall, repairing heels and replacing soles while their customers stood barefoot nearby. He also describes food stalls serving cab drivers and traders: cabbage soup was kept hot in wrapped earthenware pots, while pie sellers hawked their wares on the move. Shoe repairs and food were part of the working day on the square. When Sytin later writes of the closure of permanent shops, it does not follow that every street trade immediately disappeared.

The historian Vera Bokova, in her book ‘Everyday Life in Moscow in the 19th Century’ describes goods laid out for sale beside the ‘Count’s Kitchen’ near the Prolomnye Gates. According to her account, a bowl of cabbage soup or porridge cost one kopeck, a full meal three to five kopecks, and a shirt could be bought at the second-hand market for fifteen kopecks. These prices reflect the market life she describes; it would be wrong to apply them to every year of the market’s existence. More significant is the way the place worked: a person could buy a used item, have their shoes repaired and eat without entering the permanent shops of Pashkov Courtyard.

The book trade deserves particular attention. Sytin distinguishes the second-hand booksellers in Nikolsky Tupik and the books laid out for sale along the wall from the trade in used clothing. He cites a recollection that the historian Ivan Zabelin, Chekhov and other educated customers visited the booksellers. This does not prove that all those named visited the same shop at the same time: the source is a later account by Alexander Vyurkov of the bookselling world.

Evidence from the publisher Ivan Dmitrievich Sytin himself — who shared the surname of the historian Pyotr Vasilyevich Sytin — helps verify this distinction. In his memoirs ‘A Life for Books’ the publisher dates the opening of his own shop on Staraya Square by the Ilyinsky Gates to 1 January 1883, after the fire at Pashkov Courtyard in 1881. He gives its dimensions — ten by five arshins — and recalls that the ink froze in the unheated premises in winter. This is direct evidence that the book trade continued beside the wall after the fire, but it says nothing about the fate of all the rows of Tolkuchy Market.

Gilyarovsky describes trading and deception on the square in detail, but his scenes of crime require a critical reading. He portrays this world through its most striking episodes and broad generalisations; a single essay cannot justify labelling every second-hand dealer a receiver of stolen goods. Alongside resale, Belousov sees craftspeople and food sellers, while Makovsky devoted individual studies to a kvass seller, a meal scene and an organ grinder. The variety of this evidence does not lessen the market’s social hardships, but it does prevent its history from being reduced to a single tale of crime.

What happened in 1881?

In 1881, a fire virtually destroyed Pashkov Courtyard. The heritage protection document links this to the decision to move the market to Sadovniki, but immediately notes another date given for the move itself — 1899. The document’s wording describes a causal connection between the disaster and the redevelopment of the property; it does not present an order closing the entire market in 1881.

The Moscow Merchants’ Society commissioned the architect Boris Freidenberg to design rental buildings for the fire-damaged site. According to the document, four buildings face what is now Novaya Square — numbers 8 and 10 and their associated buildings — while the fifth faces Bolshoy Cherkassky Lane; construction took place in 1882–1883. These three-storey brick buildings show that this particular site changed use soon after the fire. Their construction cannot automatically establish when all trading along the Kitay-Gorod wall ceased.

This gives us a first answer to the question ‘when did the market disappear’: Pashkov Courtyard ceased to exist in its former form after the fire of 1881. This is a precise date in the history of the property and its buildings, but too sweeping a claim for the entire second-hand market. The city market was both a physical space and a set of trading practices; this particular site represented only part of that whole.

In the heritage protection document, the account of the fire is followed by that of the replacement buildings: Boris Freidenberg built a complex of five buildings in 1882–1883. The expert notes their three storeys, exposed brickwork, pointed gables and tall roofs, reminiscent of the commercial architecture of northern European cities. Here we can speak of a visible change in the scale and use of the site. The new buildings provided premises to let, rather than recreating the former courtyard of shelters and small shops.

The neighbouring commercial building belonging to the same Moscow Merchants’ Society should be dated separately. According to heritage protection report, Fyodor Schechtel built it in 1909–1911, when the market was already in Sadovniki. With its large windows and features of rationalist Art Nouveau, the building reflects the next stage in the business district’s development. Having the same client does not make Schechtel’s building part of the 1882–1883 reconstruction of Pashkov Courtyard. This distinction helps date the surviving buildings through documentary evidence rather than their proximity on the present-day square.

The distinction between the building and the market is apparent in the very language of the sources. The expert writes of the burnt-out Pashkov Courtyard and the ‘land freed up’; Gilyarovsky describes the crowds between the gates and in neighbouring shops. The first source traces the history of the plot and its permanent buildings; the second recalls traders occupying the square. Read side by side, these accounts show the fire as a major turning point in the development of the site, but not as a reliable record of the market’s final sale.

Why is 1899 associated with the market’s relocation?

The year 1899 marks the removal of the flea market from the trading strip beside the Kitay-Gorod wall to Sadovniki. Historian Pyotr Sytin explicitly gives this date in his essay ‘Staraya and Novaya Squares’, as does local historian Yuri Fedosyuk in his 1983 guidebook. The heritage protection report also acknowledges that the date appears in the sources, although it links the decision to relocate the market to the fire of 1881. These statements concern different subjects: one addresses the fate of Pashkov Courtyard, the other the relocation of the market as a place of urban trade. The quoted passages do not give the date of the administrative order authorising the move.

Grigory Moskvich’s guidebook, published in 1908, independently confirms the new address. It places Tolkuchy Market on the square beside Komissariatskaya Embankment near Ustinsky Bridge and explicitly states that the market was previously in Kitay-Gorod. This is contemporary evidence that the relocation had already taken place, although it does not in itself prove that the move occurred specifically in 1899. Sytin adds that trading establishments and shops on both squares closed, leaving offices and warehouses in the buildings. Establishing the exact official date would require a city executive board resolution or a newspaper report, neither of which is included in the materials used.

A second heritage protection report, covering Sadovnicheskaya Embankment, links the flea market to the district beside the bridge. Its author writes that the square was occupied by a market relocated from Kitay-Gorod, while shops, taverns and other urban establishments developed around it at the turn of the twentieth century. The document does not specify the day or month of the move and therefore does not turn the commonly cited year into a precise date for the event.

The 1908 guidebook describes the market in its section on Zamoskvorechye and states that it had recently moved from Kitay-Gorod. The author notes the trade in second-hand goods, predominantly used clothing, on Komissariatskaya Square. This confirms more than the address: it shows that the market’s specialisation moved with it. The surrounding urban fabric was changing too. According to the heritage protection report for Sadovnicheskaya Embankment, shops, taverns and a tea house appeared in the district beside the bridge at the turn of the century — essential amenities alongside the bustling market.

Sytin’s date of 1899 and the guidebook’s account carry different evidential weight. Writing decades later, the historian names the year of the move; a publication contemporary with the market records the outcome by 1908 and describes the relocation as relatively recent. They agree on where the market moved and the nature of the event. The guidebook, however, gives no day or month, while the heritage protection report for Novaya Square cautiously notes that 1899 appears ‘in some sources’. Dating the move to that particular year therefore rests on historical literature, rather than a relocation order found in the material examined here.

What does Gilyarovsky say, and can his account be used to date the closure?

Gilyarovsky is useful as a witness to the character of the place, but his recollections require caution when establishing dates. In the essay ‘Beneath the Kitay-Gorod Wall’ he writes that the market between the Ilyinsky and Nikolsky Gates was still operating in the mid-1880s. He then speaks of its closure ‘only in the eighties’, and at the end of the essay of the flea market’s elimination ‘in the late eighties’. This recollection provides no precise date and conflicts with the year 1899 given by Sytin.

The account of the market after 1881 is, however, significant for the central question. If we accept Gilyarovsky’s testimony that trading continued in the middle of the decade, the fire at Pashkov Courtyard cannot have wiped out the entire flea market at a stroke. Yet his memoir does not tell us the scale of the remaining trade or where the boundaries lay between restored and surviving trading spaces. Here, the source allows us to reject an overly simple explanation, but not to draw a detailed map of every row of stalls.

Gilyarovsky wrote about the city retrospectively. His vivid description, ‘the splendour of ugliness’, conveys his attitude towards the crowds and buildings; it does not describe the market’s legal status. The heritage protection report and the essay are worth reading together: the former records the sequence of construction on an individual property more precisely, while the latter recalls a wider street environment whose history cannot be measured by the fate of a single plot.

For all his detail, Gilyarovsky does not link the market’s disappearance to the fire at Pashkov Courtyard. His interest lies in sellers, tailors, second-hand dealers and touts, rather than records of the Merchant Society’s properties. This is another reason not to treat the memoirist’s silence about the fire as evidence that it did not happen: he is writing about a different aspect of urban life. Equally, the heritage protection report’s account of a decision taken after the disaster does not invalidate the later trading he witnessed.

Sytin helps clarify the geography of the recollection itself. He specifically warns that Gilyarovsky uses the place names in the reverse of their modern arrangement. With this clarification, his reference to the market between Ilyinka and Nikolskaya no longer conflicts with the addresses of buildings 8 and 10 on present-day Novaya Square. Without accounting for this change in names, one could mistakenly assign the fire and rebuilding to another plot, creating an apparent contradiction between the sources.

Did trading beside the wall disappear after the relocation?

Not entirely — at least in the early twentieth century. The same 1908 guidebook describes, in its account of Kitay-Gorod, the narrow squares near the Ilyinsky Gates where second-hand clothing was still being sold, identifying the location as the former Tolkuchy Market. Another section places the main flea market across the river. These two observations appearing together in one book are particularly valuable: they show the distinction between a market relocated as a whole and the continuation of its former type of trade. The guidebook’s observation complements Sytin’s statement about the closure of shops: the accounts may concern different forms of selling rather than the same rows of stalls.

This account does not establish how many sellers remained beside the wall, whether they traded daily or whether they belonged to any organisation. The author may have observed individual shops or street trading that continued the old site’s traditions; the document does not allow us to choose confidently between these possibilities. It is therefore more accurate to say that the market’s relocation did not mean the immediate disappearance of all trade in second-hand goods at the original site.

This distinction explains why the different dates in accounts of the flea market do not necessarily contradict one another. For the owners of Pashkov Courtyard, the turning point was 1881; for the market as a trading venue, it was the relocation, usually dated to 1899; for individual sellers, the change in the area’s urban function may have taken longer. The extent of this continuation is so far supported only by the guidebook’s limited observation, rather than a comprehensive record of the street stalls.

Bookselling provides another example of differing timelines, but it should not be directly equated with the second-hand goods market. The Soviet encyclopaedia ‘Moscow’ traces the book trade near Novaya Square into the 1930s, while the same article ends the history of Tolkuchy Market in the nineteenth century. The later date for the bookstalls shows that the site continued as a place of trade after its reorganisation, but gives no grounds for dating the closure of the second-hand goods market to the 1930s.

The story also continued on the opposite bank after the move. The heritage protection report for Sadovnicheskaya Embankment states that, after the market was abolished, large buildings appeared on the site beside the bridge in the 1920s–1930s. This establishes only a broad timeframe for the end of trading: the report does not name the year of the final trading day. Nevertheless, it confirms that the move to Sadovniki marked a distinct period in the life of Tolkuchy Market, rather than simply a formal renaming of the original square.

How did Tolkuchy Market differ from Khitrovsky Market?

The two places had different primary functions. On the square beside the Kitay-Gorod wall, people bought second-hand clothing, household goods and books; shoes were repaired and food was sold there too. Khitrovsky Market emerged in the 1820s as a food market. After labour hiring was moved there from Varvarskaya Square in the 1860s, labourers arriving from elsewhere began gathering at Khitrovka to await employers. This sequence is described in detail by Vera Bokova. At Khitrovka, labour hiring became a distinct function of the square, while beside the Kitay-Gorod wall the trade in goods remained its main purpose.

There was nevertheless a connection between the two places. According to Bokova’s reconstruction, some of Tolkuchy Market’s regulars moved to Khitrovka in the 1890s after the market closed. The historian is referring to people, rather than an official relocation of the trading rows. For Tolkuchy Market as an urban trading venue, a different destination is documented: Sadovniki, beyond Bolshoy Ustinsky Bridge. The statement ‘Tolkuchy Market was moved to Khitrovka’ would therefore be incorrect, even if individual sellers and visitors did move between the districts.

The word ‘market’ adds to the confusion: it could refer to the trade in goods, the sale of food or a place where people sought work. For the history of Tolkuchy Market, the defining features remain the rows of stalls beside the wall and, later, the trade in second-hand goods across the river. For Khitrovka, the key features are the hiring of labourers, lodging houses and its own square east of Kitay-Gorod. These characteristics allow the two locations to be distinguished in a source even without a modern map, and help avoid assigning them a single closure date.

What can be seen on the site of Tolkuchy Market?

The Moscow Merchant Society’s buildings, erected after the fire on the site of Pashkov Courtyard, survive on present-day Novaya Square. Their position in relation to Bolshoy Cherkassky Lane helps identify the precise site of the 1882–1883 rebuilding. But the Kitay-Gorod wall and the old trading rows no longer stand in front of them: the open space does not recreate the narrow trading street, 17–21 metres wide, described by Sytin. Any historical comparison requires the description of the fortification to be considered alongside the present-day layout.

When interpreting old images, it is particularly important to establish which side of the Kitay-Gorod wall they show. Sytin places the second-hand goods market on the inner strip, between the commercial buildings and the fortification. Yuri Fedosyuk separately describes the later bookstalls: after the revolution, these stood outside the wall, opposite the Polytechnic Museum, and remained until 1934. The two forms of trade on neighbouring strips therefore cannot automatically be treated as the same market. When comparing Makovsky’s painting with a later photograph of bookstalls, one should first establish which side of the fortification the artist or photographer was on and the date of the scene.

Until 1934, the Kitay-Gorod wall separated the narrow trading strip from Kitaygorodsky Passage, with openings in the wall connecting the two. Pyotr Sytin mentions the Novonikolsky Gates, which already existed before 1739, and openings cut later. An opening mentioned in an old description can therefore help identify a section of the market, but does not in itself mark the boundary of Pashkov Courtyard. After the fortification was demolished, its former line no longer divided the space, making it easy to imagine the flea market as wider than it was. Sytin’s figure of 17–21 metres provides a documented measure of the trading street’s scale.

Another point of comparison is Freudenberg’s buildings near Bolshoy Cherkassky Lane. Their dates, 1882–1883, refer to construction after the fire, rather than the period when the first wooden shops operated in the 18th century. Even if these façades are seen as a surviving physical trace of the vanished Pashkov Courtyard, the market depicted by Makovsky cannot be placed ‘inside’ the present brick buildings: the artist created the scene before they were built and depicted the strip of trading premises alongside other areas by the wall.

What remains of the market in Sadovniki?

Traces of the relocated flea market should be sought near the square at the approach to the bridge on Sadovnicheskaya Embankment: both the heritage protection document and the 1908 guidebook name this location. The present Bolshoy Ustinsky Bridge does not mark the precise boundary of the old trading area. Moskovsky Zhurnal dates its opening to 1 May 1938; the heritage protection document dates its construction to 1939. Both sources describe the redevelopment of the blocks around the bridge approach after the market had operated there. Without a dated plan, the present road alignment cannot be taken as the boundary of the trading site at the turn of the century.

The 1908 guidebook names the square by Komissariatskaya Embankment and describes the market’s specialism: primarily second-hand clothing. Its entry confirms the address and character of the new market in that particular year, but does not describe the layout of the rows of stalls. The heritage protection document traces the subsequent history of the block, but likewise provides no plan of individual trading pitches. Reconstructing their exact layout would require a dated plan or a trading register from the early 20th century; the two available descriptions allow us to identify the area with confidence, but not to draw the boundaries of each row.

The answer therefore requires three distinct pieces of evidence. The heritage protection document establishes the fire and the replacement of the buildings in Pashkov Courtyard after 1881; Sytin dates the relocation of the city market to Sadovniki to 1899; and the 1908 guidebook records both the market’s new address and the remaining clothing trade at its former site. Gilyarovsky adds evidence that the flea market continued to operate after the disaster, but his inaccurate closure date should be treated as a feature of his recollection. Together, these sources explain the discrepancy without inventing a single day after which all trading activity by the wall suddenly ceased.

On the bureau’s tour ‘Notorious Haunts’ tour the route leads from Revolution Square along Nikolskaya Street and past the site of Tolkuchy Market to Khitrovskaya Square. This walk allows you to place the former trading site in relation to the neighbouring blocks, while keeping the fire at Pashkov Courtyard, the relocation of the flea market and the history of Khitrovka distinct.

Sources

1. State historical and cultural assessment report: Nikolskaya Street and the Moscow Merchants’ Society trading house
2. V. A. Gilyarovsky. ‘Beneath the Kitay-Gorod Wall’
3. G. Moskvich. A Practical Guide to Moscow and Its Surroundings, 1908
4. State historical and cultural assessment report: Sadovnicheskaya Embankment
5. P. V. Sytin. ‘Staraya and Novaya Squares’ from the book ‘From the History of Moscow’s Streets’
6. ‘Moscow’ Encyclopaedia (1980): Novaya Square
7. I. D. Sytin, ‘A Life for Books’ — recollections of opening a bookshop by the Ilyinsky Gate on 1 January 1883
8. ‘Moskovsky Zhurnal’: opening date of the new Bolshoy Ustinsky Bridge
9. Radius Tour Bureau: ‘Haunts of Vice’ tour route
10. I. E. Repin, ‘Correspondence with P. M. Tretyakov’ (1946 edition): note on studies by V. E. Makovsky
11. Yu. A. Fedosyuk, ‘Moscow within the Garden Ring’ (1983): squares beside the Kitay-gorod wall
12. I. Sokolsky, ‘Kvass Foams in the Ladle’, ‘Science and Life’ magazine: caption accompanying Makovsky’s study
13. Vera Bokova, ‘Everyday Life in Moscow in the 19th Century’, chapter on markets
14. Vera Bokova, ‘Everyday Life in Moscow in the 19th Century’, chapter on Khitrovka
15. TsNTB SIA: Trading House of the Moscow Merchants’ Society