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.

The study of the nature of Russian painting in the second half of the 19th century has long artifi cially detached it from its Orthodox Christian foundation, and religiosity has been presented as a kind of negative metaphor rather than as a scientifi c problem requiring careful analysis. Despite increasing secularization, in the age of skepticism, Darwinism, and positivism the Christian worldview was not forced out of human consciousness in the second half of the 19th century, but was elevated to a new qualitative level. This is evidenced not only by many Russian writers, but also by such painters as Perov, Ge, Kramskoi, Repin, Surikov, Yaroshenko, and other masters, who were fascinated by the development of new ideas and new forms of expression. Today it is clear that in a number of paintings of that time Christianity serves as the cementing foundation, or the basis of life order. Christ appears as a real, historical fi gure who gave the organization of spiritual life on Earth. These issues arise in the works of outstanding masters of this time, correspondence and reviews. They are of paramount importance to the artistic culture of the second half of the nineteenth century. The deeply ambiguous nature of Kramskoi’s “Christ in the Desert” (1872) allows for a highly controversial interpretation, which can be very schematically expressed as from Christ or to Christ. The painter’s own interpretation has attracted art critics for decades. His thoughts on Christianity and attempts to reconsider traditional approaches, the birth of a new view, hesitation and doubt, alternation of the historical and religious-mystical are contained in his vast correspondence. The opinions of writers, artists, collectors and critics testify to important spiritual processes that were taking place in the minds and hearts of Kramskoi’s contemporaries. Studies by art historians help to penetrate deeper into the development of the artistic consciousness of the era.

During the 1990s, historians began to show an increasing interest in the study of the Third International, and, in addition to the dominant traditionalist approach to the subject, the revisionist approach which had been developed in the previous decades finally gained a foothold in Western historiography. A significant number of studies on the Comintern were published during this period by British scholars, who were lived not only in the UK, and these publications widened the scope of the issues under study. Monographs and articles appeared on the Comintern and its foreign sections, as well as on related issues of the history of Communism and various left-wing forces, international relations of Soviet Russia, the Communist movement in individual countries. Interest in the topic of the Comintern in foreign historical scholarship was due to the need to resolve a number of controversial questions, little-studied or requiring reconsideration, mainly concerning the activities of foreign sections: the infl uence of the Comintern’s policy on the tactical line of the Communist parties in different countries, their ability/inability to pursue an independent policy, “Stalinization” of the Comintern, its chronological framework. Most of the 1990s’ studies, whose authors employed the traditionalist approach, are based on much earlier works, but thanks to the opening of some Russian archives and involvement of a signifi - cant number of archival materials, objectivity increased, even if the studies were conducted using opposing concepts. The historiographic tradition of the research on the Comintern, which existed until the early 1990s, underwent changes: the increase in the number of representatives of the revisionist approach entailed a change of emphasis and a revision of some established points of view. The authors who adhered to this concept began to rely on more recent literature (including Russian literature) and a broader source base, represented by documents from both foreign archives and the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History. According to the logic of the article, the opinions of “traditionalists” for each of the issues under consideration are presented first, and then the views of “revisionists”

The article examines the university years (1939–1948) of the outstanding scholar Yu.V. Knorozov (1922–1999), especially his specialization in the Department of Ethnography of the Faculty of History (1943–1948). In the introduction, the authors summarizes his contribution to the study of scripts of Maya and Easter Islanders and Proto-Indian script, the origin of America’s peoples, paleoethnography of Beringia, ethnography of the Ainu, ethnosemiotics. According to the material from the Moscow State University Archive they reconstructed a list of disciplines that Yu.V. Knorozov attended as a student at Kharkov State University and the Department of Ethnography at Moscow State University. The article characterizes his teachers N.N. Bromley (English), V.I. Avdiev (Ancient World), I.S. Katznelson (Ancient Egyptian), G.B. Erenburg (Modern History of the East), N.N. Cheboksarov (Anthropology), V.I. Chicherov (Folklore), and a number of others. It quotes Knorozov’s recommendation for postgraduate study in the Faculty of History at Lomonosov Moscow State University and provides information about his scientifi c director during his studies at the department, the prominent archaeologist, ethnographer and orientalist S.P. Tolstoy. The authors write about Knorozov’s classmates in the Department of Ethnography, living conditions in the dormitory on Stromynka Street and peculiarities of the educational process at Moscow University in the mid-1940th. All these facts contribute to the understanding of the conditions in which Knorozov made himself a scholar. The article provides a brief outline of the study of Maya history in the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University at the turn of the 20th century and the prospects of research in this area. The authors conclude that interdisciplinarity, which is involved in the educational process in the Faculty of History of Moscow University in general and in the Department of Ethnography in particular, was very important for the formation of Knorozov’s personality and his innovative approaches to the study of the cultures of ancient and modern peoples.

The article examines the strategy of formation of the US foreign policy towards Israel when H. Truman’s administration was succeeded by D. Eisenhower’s one. During his presidency the US foreign policy strategy towards Israel and the Middle East acquired the features that were clearly manifested later. The basis for a further transformation of the US Middle East policy was laid during the transitional phase in 1952 and 1953. In addition to traditional sources, the author involves sources, new to Russian historiography, from the Archive of Israel. They provide additional data for analysis of the processes outlined above. The US President Eisenhower inherited not only the “special relationship” with Israel from Truman’s administration, but also the lack of a specifi c policy towards the Middle East. This was due to changing trends in the policies of countries in the region, Israel’s difficult economic and political situation, and its reluctance to make concessions regarding key issues of Arab-Israeli relations. Tense situation in the region required Eisenhower’s administration to adopt a foreign policy strategy toward the Middle Eastern states. The Secretary of State J. Dulles’ trip to the Middle East in May 1953, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Aff airs H. Byroade’s position, the increase of negative Arab attitude towards the US due to the American aid to Israel led the US administration to choose the policy of neutrality. The US adoption of a more balanced strategy in the region does not support the claim that the American administration chose Arab countries as its main partners in the Middle East. The US foreign policy strategy toward Israel was still in its first stage, but the basic principle remained the same, which was to continue the long-term partnership with Israel, only in a more moderate mode.

The process of the creation of the Fundamental Laws of 23 April 1906 from October 1905 through April 1906 has not been specifi cally studied, despite the fact that it was a development of the first effective constitution in Russian history, which subsequently infl uenced the history of the “Duma monarchy”. There are also some minor gaps in historiography: there is no adequate study of the role of Ivan Ivanovich Tkhorzhevsky, who served in the Office of the Committee of Ministers since 1901, in the creation of the Fundamental Laws of 1906. His bureaucratic career was typical in the sense that it was determined not by family ties, but by friendship ties that were forged in the Law School of Saint Petersburg University (with Baron B.E. Nolde) and the Chancellery of the Committee of Ministers (with M.I. Goremykin). In February and March 1906, Tkhorzhevsky prepared comments on the draft of the new Fundamental Laws on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee and Council of Ministers, Count S.Yu. Witte. This draft was made by the Deputy Secretary of State P.A. Kharitonov at the behest of Nicholas II in November and December 1905, and in January–February 1906 it was revised by senior officials of the State Chancellery under the guidance of the Chairman of the State Council, Count D.M. Solsky, and the Secretary of State, Baron Ju.A. von Uexküll- Güldenband. Tkhorzhevsky’s comments formed the basis of Witte’s remarks on the draft of the State Chancellery, which was prepared by the head of the Office of the Committee of Ministers, Baron E.Yu. Nolde. Thus Tkhorzhevsky substantially influenced the version of the Fundamental Laws, which was discussed at the sessions of the Council of Ministers in March 1906, and their final redaction, which was discussed at the Special Council chaired by Nicholas II in April 1906. It can be argued that Thorzhevsky’s participation in the making of the new Basic Laws was due to his personal talents and extremely successful bureaucratic career.

While organizing All-Russian Archaeological Congresses, Chairman of the Moscow Archaeological Society Count A.S. Uvarov entered into a complicated bureaucratic relationship with the Ministry of Public Instruction, which was reflected in the business correspondence between him and officials. Textual analysis of Uvarov’s letters to D.A. Tolstoy and B.A. Perovsky allows us to reconstruct his dialogue with the authorities and to consider some aspects of the history of organization of a new form of scientific cooperation, Archaeological Congresses, which subsequently became a permanent institution that united Russian scholars in the study of monuments of the past. The Congresses held between 1869 and 1914 were the institution that introduced the initial forms of organization of the scientific and historical community and gave an impetus to the development and differentiation of historical science. The process of the organization of the Archaeological Congresses was complicated and rather long. It took about five years from taking the decision to convene a Congress of Russian archaeologists to the grand opening of the first forum. The research on archival documents allows us not only to introduce new sources and to complement the history of the Moscow Archaeological Society, but also to explain why such a long period of preparation of the first Congress was needed. Thanks to the use of a communicative approach to A.S. Uvarov’s correspondence with government representatives, the focus of studies of the history of scientific communities is shifted to consideration and analysis of the nature of contacts and interaction between people who represented these communities. The main aim of the article is to reveal the role of the leading personality in the process of formation of professional identity and institutional structure of scientific communities at different levels, as well as to evaluate the cognitive possibilities of the communicative approach to the study of scientific communities in post-reform Russia. Communicative approach, aimed at comprehension of forms, content and development of public communication, contributed to the study of a man of science, his everyday world, private forms of communication, emerging intellectual networks and ties between scholars.

The article is timed to the three anniversaries of the prominent statesmen of the Imperial Russia, Peter the Great (the 350th anniversary of his birth), P.A. Stolypin (the 160th anniversary of his birth) and M.M. Speransky (the 250th anniversary of his birth) in 2022. The author highlights general and special features in their activities and the context of their reforms. Common features include the undoubtedly modernizing nature of the initiatives of all three reformers, as well as the lack or obvious inadequacy of the social environment, which could support the reforms being implemented or planned. Peter the Great overcame this obstacle, firstly, with the help of his power resources, and secondly, by the radicalism of changes. In many respects this is the source of the ambivalence of his reforms. On the one hand, modernization of Russia was in line with what was happening at the same time in other European countries. On the other hand, Peter’s modernization led to strengthening of the archaic features of the autocracy. However, for Peter, the lack of social support was not a fatal insurmountable circumstance. Moreover, such a support was eventually formed as a result of his reforms. An altogether different fate was in store for the initiatives of Stolypin and Speransky. Support from the supreme power for both was inconsistent, and the political subjectivity of the potential recipient of the reforms was clearly insufficient or non-existent, which prevented them from implementing their plans. What was special about the changes carried out or at least simply conceived by Peter, Stolypin, and Speransky was the very context of these persons’ eras and thus the degree of maturity of both the social base of reforms and society as a whole for modernizing transformations. Special attention in the article is paid to Speransky’s projects. It examines their content and personality of the reformer. The author argues that reforms in Russia were often conditioned not by the level of socio-economic development but by political considerations.