The Library of the University of Liege (Université de Liège. Bibliothèque, Ms. 2613) and the Victoria and Albert Museum in London (Victoria and Albert Museum, Ms. 413) have two leaves created c. 1150–1170 and produced in the Meuse region. Although the question of the purpose of the leaves is under discussion, these two oeuvres of Romanesque book illumination have not yet received special scholarly attention. The leaves have a similar layout: each side contains two compositions based on stories from the Book of Genesis, and there are no inscriptions or biblical quotations. The Old Testament episodes included in the pictorial program of the leaves do not form a consistent narrative cycle. Thus, the scenes of the sacrifice by Cain and Abel and the murder of Abel by Cain in the leaf from the Victoria and Albert Museum are followed by an episode of the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek. The leaf from Liège begins with the scene of the sacrifice of Isaac. The cycle does not contain a number of scenes with a fairly consistent iconographic tradition (for example, the story of Noah). Such narrative heterogeneity can be interpreted through the prism of the purpose of the pictorial series. The Sacrifice of Abel, the Gifts of Melchizedek and the Sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham are mentioned in the Eucharistic Canon of the Sacramentary of Pope Gelasius I and have been used in iconographic programs since the era of early Christianity as the main liturgical prototypes. The back of the leaf from the Library of the University of Liege contains another subject which alludes to the typological parallelism of the Testaments – the Blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh by Jacob. The designated subjects can be found in a number of contemporaneous works of decorative and applied arts and book miniatures of the Rhine-Meuse region, which are compiled on the basis of typological logic in the arrangement of stories. The selection of stories, as well as the stylistic and iconographic analysis of the range of oeuvres with typological iconography, suggests that the leaves could have been fragments of a model book and probably served as models in the process of the spreading of the compositional and iconographic techniques which were characteristic of the Rhine-Meuse region

The use of information resources is a promising area of activity of state control and accounting bodies. Nowadays an effective budget control and analysis of socio-economic development of the region are impossible without special tools to reduce the time spent on data processing. The article deals with historical aspects of informatization of the Control and Accounting Chamber of Moscow and examines the formation of its information and analytical system as an example of automation of the activity of the external fi nancial control institution. The author analyzes the Chamber’s annual reports in 1997–2014. He employs its local acts and other documents refl ecting the process of automation of control practice. The study of these documents, as well as federal and Moscow legislation, normative legal acts of the Government and mayor of Moscow, and the Moscow City Duma made it possible to identify the features of the Chamber’s informatization processes from 1994 to 2014, including the main stages in the creation of the Chamber’s information and communication technology infrastructure, composition and main functions of the Chamber’s information and analytical system as a model for interaction with Moscow public authorities and governmental agencies. Previously the issues of the history of the Chamber’s informatization had not been specifi cally examined, while a comprehensive picture of the development of new management technologies, which have been introduced in the practice of the executive and legislative authorities of Moscow since the end of the twentieth century, cannot be provided without a special focus on these topics. Consideration of this aspect of development of control and counting functions in the capital of Russia in the post-Soviet period will supplement the currently available knowledge about the history of such activity in the past and also will help to identify traditions and innovations in the domestic management practices and thus trace techniques, which are reintroduced in an optimized form at each new stage of development of country and society

This article is based on materials collected by the author over many years in 28 cities and towns in 14 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. He aims to show how the historical (aka cultural or social) memory of the Civil War (War of the North and the South) from 1861 through 1865, and the corresponding abolition of slavery become a factor in the anti-racist movement that has swept the country again in recent years. Attention is drawn to transformations in the Civil War memory associated with changing perceptions of the history, essence, and sociocultural boundaries of the American nation. The essence of these changes is the affirmation of a view of the U.S. nation as the entity that includes both whites and blacks on an equal footing. It has also changed the perception of the Civil War as a key moment in the formation of the American nation: whereas previously the War of the North and the South was seen as a war between Northern whites and Southern whites, it has increasingly emphasized the active role of black Americans. At the same time, the differences in the historical memory of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery that persist in the North and the South allow the author to argue that the sociocultural division of U.S. society into Northerners and Southerners has not disappeared to this day. The article also highlights that not just racial dichotomies, but racial inequalities were embedded in the very foundation of the American nation at the time of its formation. This fact raises the question of whether so-called systemic (otherwise structural, institutional, or social) racism is in principle eradicable in the United States, despite the obvious change for the better in the black community since the victory of the black civil rights movement of 1954–1968.

The crisis in relations with Czechoslovakia, arose in 1968, was one of the most acute foreign policy problems for the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. The author of the article, which is based on declassified documents, including the ones of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, showed that the USSR authorities and their East European allies were seriously afraid that the reforms launched in Czechoslovakia would open the prospect of the departure from socialism and the subsequent withdrawal of the country from the Warsaw Pact. The anti-socialist and anti-Soviet forces that were openly operating there were of particular concern. The leaders of the USSR, especially L.I. Brezhnev, sought to resolve this acute situation through political compromises with Czechoslovak side and its fulfi llment of the commitments made during the multilateral meetings. Initially they avoided a military intervention in Czechoslovakia, which was insisted upon by the allies of the Soviet Union, the members of the ATS, i.e., Poland, GDR, Bulgaria, and Hungary. However, the Czechoslovak leaders, A. Dubček in the first place, did not comply with the reached agreements (in particular, stoppping the anti-Soviet media campaign and personnel changes), although this could have prevented the entry of troops. By August 1968, the possibilities of getting out of the situation by political means had been exhausted. Not only the five Warsaw Pact countries were responsible for the invasion, but also the leaders of Czechoslovakia. The USSR and the other ATS countries were guided by the motive of saving socialism in Czechoslovakia and its preservation as part of the Warsaw Pact when making the decision to send in troops. The ATS unity during the Cold War made it possible to ensure the balance of power with the NATO on the European continent. The theoretical justifi cation of the right to interfere in the aff airs of one or another country of the socialist commonwealth by other socialist countries to save socialism was given aft er the entry of troops. In the West, this policy will become known as the “Brezhnev Doctrine”.

The subject of the study is the image of the West as an ally as it was shaped by the Soviet media during the Great Patriotic War. For Soviet propaganda, the periodical press was very important because it contributed to the formation of public perceptions of both the outside world and the situation in the country. During the war, the main goal of newspapers was to mobilize the masses. Scientifi c works on similar problems were, as a rule, of an overview character which did not consider the dynamics and numerous nuances in relations with the allies throughout the entire period of the Great Patriotic War, as well as the mechanisms of Soviet propaganda in the coverage of the foreign policy. An analysis of an extensive set of sources, including publications of the central periodical press (Pravda, Izvestiya, Krasnaya zvezda), allows a comprehensive study of the formation and evolution of the image of the West as an ally of the anti-Hitler coalition in the Soviet press in 1941–1945. All the activities of the media were under the control of the Directorate of Propaganda and Agitation of the Communist Party’s Central Committee, and the responsibility for it was vested in the Press Department. As a result, the information conveyed to the Soviet population was selected and ideologically verifi ed. This certainly applied to material about the United States and Great Britain. Information about the activities and assistance of the allies was primarily intended to convince the Soviet reader that the country had not been left alone with the enemy. At the same time, the Soviet press avoided an overly enthusiastic tone toward yesterday’s ideological adversaries. The evolution of the image of the allies within the anti-Hitler coalition in the central periodical press of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic war went through several stages and depended largely on the situation on the Soviet-German front.

The author focuses on a one-of-a-kind debate “On Socialism”, which took place in the House of Lords of the British Parliament in the spring of 1935. For a long time, the upper chamber served as a barrier to the implementation of bold social and political legislation. Until the beginning of the 20th century socialists had never been represented in the Parliament. As the Labor Party came into political spotlight and gradually strengthened its positions in the 1920s– 1930s, the House of Lords was forced to adapt its composition to changing realities. In 1924, the Labor faction was formed here for the first time. A decade later, the Lords were prepared to seriously discuss the merits and demerits of the socialist system. The article analyzes both the main arguments of the Laborites, who promoted transition to a new social system, and the theses put forward by Conservatives and Liberals, supporters of the capitalist system. Particular emphasis is placed on the coverage and feedback which the discussion held in Westminster received on the pages of the British press of various political stances. The author comes to the conclusion that the arguments put forward by both supporters and opponents of socialism were in many respects similar to the theses that appeared in the course of the discussion in the Lower house of the UK Parliament in 1923. Th is discussion had a similar nature and was the first of this kind in the British history. At the same time, the analyzed debate which took place in the House of Lords more than a decade later, bore an unmistakable imprint of a new era. The “Great Depression” of 1929–1933 had an important impact on the worldview of the generation, as it strengthened the conviction of left -wing politicians that capitalism was not the subject to improvement. Opponents of socialism, on the contrary, argued that a socialist future for Britain was not only economically untenable, but also dangerous, and incompatible with the unique English national character, based on individualism.

The emergence of seminars at the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University was a response to discussions of higher education reform in the era of the Great Reforms, when the education of students at universities was found too passive. At this time, ideologues of higher education reform demanded that monologue lectures be supplemented with written students’ papers, which should develop their research skills and serve as a basis for communication with their professors. After 1862, when over a hundred young scholars were sent abroad for several years under the program of Minister of Public Instruction A.V. Golovnin, a new generation of researchers and teachers was introduced to practical studies at German universities. Those who had been abroad started to actively use the term seminar to refer to a new kind of practical training. By the mid-1860s, seminars appeared at Moscow University as teaching units for philologists to train grammar school teachers of classical languages, and as a type of practical classes for historians, the purpose of which was to write research papers. Philologist P.M. Leontiev was one of the originators of philological seminars at Moscow University. He developed such forms of classes at the faculty as were practiced by S.P. Shevyrev in the 1850s, while V.I. Guerrier established the seminar as a new form of research activity for historians. It was important for him that students who chose to major in history should write papers on this discipline. While students received scholarships for their work in the philological seminars, participation in historical seminars was their personal initiative. Further development of the new form of classes was associated with attempts to divide the Faculty of History and Philology into two specializations. Officially, historians’ seminars became part of the faculty’s curriculum only after implementation of the charter of 1884.

The emergence of seminars at the Faculty of History and Philology at Moscow University was a response to discussions of higher education reform in the era of the Great Reforms, when the education of students at universities was found too passive. At this time, ideologues of higher education reform demanded that monologue lectures be supplemented with written students’ papers, which should develop their research skills and serve as a basis for communication with their professors. After 1862, when over a hundred young scholars were sent abroad for several years under the program of Minister of Public Instruction A.V. Golovnin, a new generation of researchers and teachers was introduced to practical studies at German universities. Those who had been abroad started to actively use the term seminar to refer to a new kind of practical training. By the mid-1860s, seminars appeared at Moscow University as teaching units for philologists to train grammar school teachers of classical languages, and as a type of practical classes for historians, the purpose of which was to write research papers. Philologist P.M. Leontiev was one of the originators of philological seminars at Moscow University. He developed such forms of classes at the faculty as were practiced by S.P. Shevyrev in the 1850s, while V.I. Guerrier established the seminar as a new form of research activity for historians. It was important for him that students who chose to major in history should write papers on this discipline. While students received scholarships for their work in the philological seminars, participation in historical seminars was their personal initiative. Further development of the new form of classes was associated with attempts to divide the Faculty of History and Philology into two specializations. Officially, historians’ seminars became part of the faculty’s curriculum only after implementation of the charter of 1884.

It is a commonplace statement of modern historiography that aft er the transfer of the Don Cossack Host from the jurisdiction of the Ambassadorial Prikaz to the Military Collegium in 1721 it completely lost its autonomy. In recent years, however, such an assessment of the infl uence of the Emperor’s Edict of 3 March 1721 on the position of the Don Cossacks is reconsidered. Their status in the post-Petrine period can be clarifi ed through the study of personal letters of the Russian autocrats to the Don. The research aims to show Empress Anna Ioannovna’s attitude to the Don Cossacks on the basis of the letters she sent during the Russian-Turkish war (1735–1739). The letters as a form of correspondence between the supreme power and the Don Cossacks’ community are examined in the context of the historical-typological approach to the study of historical sources, which involves the formulaic analysis. The article deals with the following topics: the place of letters in the system of legislative and clerical materials of the Russian state and the Russian Empire, the requirements to the letters, established by Peter I in the course of his reforms of state administration, the procedure of creation of letters in the personal offi ce of the Empress (Cabinet of Ministers) and the Senate, and peculiarities of letters, sent to the Don. Th e research of the imperial letters of 1735–1739 leads to the conclusion that during this period the Don Cossack Host was in a state of “special subjection”: on the one hand, like during the rule of Peter the Great, it was directly subordinated to the autocrat, while enjoying at the same time a certain degree of independence, on the other hand, it received letters of diplomatic character from Anna Ioannovna. The letters of 1735–1739 reveal the principle of mutual benefi t as the basis of relations between the Russian supreme power and the Don Cossack Host. This principle was declared inviolable not only in Anna Ioannovna’s correspondence, but also earlier, in the Tsar’s letters in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Radical changes in relations between Russian authorities and the Don Cossack Host started in the 1770s.

The article examines the actions of grand prince Yuri Vsevolodovich of Vladimir on the river Sit’ and their descriptions in the early narrative of the chronicles about the invasion of Batu Khan. The aim of the study is to reconstruct the historical context in which prince Yuri and other rulers of Russian lands acted during the events of 1237–1241, and to reveal the attitude of the authors of chronicles and hagiographic works of the late 13th and early 14th centuries to the princes’ flight from the Tartars. The scholarly novelty of the research consists in the complex use of statistical and axiological methods. The author concludes that almost half of total number of Russian princes (18 out of 37) mentioned in the early narrative of the chronicles about the invasion either defi nitely escaped from the Tatars, or did so with a high probability. This allows us to believe the interpretation in the older version of the Novgorod First Chronicle, according to which Yuri Vsevolodovich also escaped from the Tatars and thus ended up on the River Sit’, where he was killed. Most likely, the princes’ flight itself was not a compromising circumstance in the eyes of their nearest descendants. Quite the contrary, the successful escape was perceived as God’s intercession and was extolled in every possible way. However, Yuri’s case was special: unlike the overwhelming majority of princes who fled, he perished. As a result, the author of the Laurentian Chronicle, who set out to write a eulogy to the grand prince, had to create a rather contradictory picture of events, according to which Yuri Vsevolodovich allegedly was not going to escape, but, on the contrary, he was preparing to withstand the enemy on the river Sit’. And he revealed himself not as an experienced and courageous warrior, but as a martyr who, like saints Boris and Gleb, was ready for sacrifi cial slaughter and, like “new Job”, to meekly face the trials that came upon him.