The article covers the peculiarities of the organization of the altar space and choir in the Church of San Francesco in Foligno and the description of the sacred space in the “Revelations of Blessed Angela” recorded by a certain Franciscan Arnaldo in the early 14th century. The author deals with Saint Angela of Foligno, the history of the text of the “Revelations”, its translation into Russian by L.P. Karsavin in 1918, and various perspectives of its study. The church space in the text of the “Revelations” undoubtedly refers to the space of the church of the convent of San Francesco in Foligno (ca. 1256), with which Saint Angela was closely associated. It is her testimony that allows us to hypothesize that in the layout of the Church of San Francesco the choir was supposed to be in front of the altar, in the space of the naos. This is important since the Franciscan architecture in Umbria, imitating the layout of the main basilica in Assisi, apparently had exceptional conformity in the arrangement of the choir in the space of the apse. The presbytery area of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi, in its turn, repeated the design of the papal basilicas in Rome, where the altar was located in the middle of the cross-shaped layout, while the choir and throne of the pope were placed along the apse curve. The article reveals the difference between the rectangular apse of San Francesco in Foligno and polygonal apses in other Umbrian Franciscan churches (in Assisi, Orvieto, Todi, Spello, Sansepolcro, Citta di Castello, etc.). In addition, the Franciscan church in Foligno is examined in the artistic and architectural context of the city. The author argues that the striking difference of the interior of the Church of San Francesco in Foligno could be determined by the dynamics of the socio-political life of the city and its surrounding area, mainly due to the relationship between supporters of the pope and the emperor and involvement of the Franciscans in these events.

After the defeat of Yugoslavia in the April War in 1941, most of the country was occupied by Germany and its allies, the Independent State of Croatia was created and M. Nedić’s government collaborating with the Nazis was formed. The Resistance movement was widespread throughout the country. This movement consisted of the partisans of I. Broz Tito, who were oriented towards the USSR, and D. Mihailović’s Chetniks, who advocated the restoration of royal Yugoslavia and collaborated with the Western allies. Instead of coordinating forces, they soon started fighting against each other. More than 70% of those who were killed in the territory of Yugoslavia fell at the hands of their compatriots. After the communists came to power in Yugoslavia and D. Mihailović was executed by a court verdict, only the official version of the events of the WWII prevailed in historiography, and the Chetnik movement was condemned. In the 1980s, new works and studies about the WWII began to appear in Serbian culture and historical science. They destroyed old historical myths and at the same time created new ones about contradictory events of that time. The revisionist ideas started to develop among Serbian intellectuals. The question of the Chetnik movement acquired more and more political significance. The figure of Nedić, the head of the collaborationist government, also got re-evaluated. The breakup of Yugoslavia served as a catalyst for the rehabilitation of the Chetnik movement, and the court’s decision to overturn the conviction of D. Mihailović in 2015 was the final step in this process. It should be noted that the campaign initiated and supported by a part of the Serbian political establishment to revise the results and assessments of the WWII in Serbia has not led to the expected result. I. Broz Tito and his political regime have been criticized to a large extent, instead of accusing the USSR and the Red Army of the occupation. Although nationalist sentiments sometimes manifest themselves in Serbian society, they are considered unconstructive on the way towards Euro-Atlantic integration.

The study of the church historiography of the Ukrainian diaspora in the situation of the exacerbation of interchurch relations associated with the Ukrainian geopolitical factor is highly relevant. The works and views of diaspora historians were of great importance for the formation of the worldview of scholars in the Ukraine after the ideological barrier fell and the independent state was constituted. This research focuses on the publications of representatives of the Ukrainian diaspora in academic journals in honor of the millennium of Christianization of “Rus’-Ukraine”. The purpose of this article is a comparative analysis of publications of the diaspora historians and representatives of academic centers in Europe and America in the second half of the 1980s on the issues of Russian church history, a study of the nature of the relationship between professional and non-professional literature, the peculiarities of the methodology of church historical research of the diaspora scholars, their role in the development of the Ukrainian church historiography and knowledge of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church in South-Western Russia. No such study has been conducted so far. The author argues that the environment in which certain ideas were born and published had a great impact on approaches and understanding of the past in the works of the Ukrainian diaspora historians. Many of them are written under strong ideological influence, they expresses a very emotional attitude to the research subject and mixes the scientific approach with fiction. While real historical research was characterized by the full rejection of nationalist ideology and strict adherence to logic, the authors who blindly endorsed the nationalistic ideology adhered to “recognized” authorities, undetached attitudes, and emotional perception of church history. The studies with strictly scientific discourse avoid one-sided opinions, pay great attention to the analysis of historical sources and seek to interpret the facts of the past in the broad context of the world historical process.

The diary of Sergey Sergeyevich Dmitriev, a famous specialist in the history of Russian culture and social thought of the 19th century, is currently being prepared for publication. The purpose of this article is to show the relevance and use of this source of personal nature for potential readers (both historians and those who are simply interested in Russian history). The value of the diary can not only be attributed to the fact that its author was a professor who left a noticeable mark on the history of the Faculty of History at the Moscow State University, but also to the fact that it covers a half-century period, stretching from 1941 to 1991, and further into the 1920s-1930s, if we take into account the so-called memoir inclusions. During this time, the social life of the country and the conditions for the development of historical science changed more than once. The period of the 1920s - early 1930s, when the “Pokrovsky school” domineered, significantly differed from the situation prevailing after 1934, when the study of civic history was reintroduced in addition to the history of class conflict; whereas the conditions of the 1930s - early 1950s varied from those in which historical science developed after 1956, and then during the period of perestroika. All these changes can be tracked both on the basis of the assessments and judgments expressed by Dmitriev himself, and drawing on the example of his numerous contemporaries’ experiences mentioned in the diary. They were people of different ages, professions, social (class) origin, widely known or almost unknown to anyone; those who lived and worked with the author for a long time, and those who only encountered him for a brief moment, during the period of evacuation, or while he travelled around the country, stayed in sanatoriums and hospitals, or attended classes of various Moscow universities. Of particular interest is the correspondence between members of the Dmitriev family from 1941-1942, as it vividly and thoroughly characterizes life on the Soviet home front in the initial period of the Great Patriotic War.

The 1940s-1960s is a period of landmark nature in the development of foreign, primarily English-speaking, historiography on Russia. The conditional endpoint of this period is the “protest” year of 1968, which had a profound impact on both the Western educational system and historical profession. From the point of view of the history of the discipline, the main content of the period is the formation of historiographical discourse, which was forged under the influence of and in opposition to the public discourse with its stereotypes and clichés concerning Russia. In any case, the image of Russia was based on its comparison with the West, which, by the end of WWII, was embodied in the US. Russia and its successor, the Soviet Union, were interpreted as the exact opposite of the capitalist “free” West. The problem of “Russia and the West”, central to public discourse in the West, occupied an equally important place in historiography. During the first phase of the Cold War, the public image of Russia was sharply negative in the US and Western Europe. The ideologeme of “Moscow as the Third Rome” became especially popular and presented Russia as a country of a number of “eastern” features, where nothing had changed since the time of Ivan the Terrible. An increasing number of historians and studies dealt with Russia by the end of the 1950s. The theory of modernization and idea of “catch-up development” started to take hold in historical research. Representatives of the first generation of American scholars in the field of Russian history inherited much from Russian émigré historians and pre-revolutionary historiography. In their works of the 1950s-1960s, the 19th -early 20th-century Russia appeared as a country on the European way, though “lagging” in its development. The Western Russian studies set up their own historiographic discourse in the 1960s. Along with the richness of the conceptual apparatus, it demonstrates a high level of professionalism, deep understanding of the history of Russia, and application of a variety of methodological tools. In the unanimous opinion of American scholars, only a historical unpoliticized approach makes it possible to adequately analyze the problem of “Russia and the West”.

This study examines the policy of Great Britain in Egypt in the context of the changed balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean. By the mid-1930s, Egypt continued to be one of the key elements of British policy, however by that time the British presence in the country was under threat from opposition forces inside Egypt and from Italy, which more and more clearly demonstrated expansionist tendencies. Along with financial and material limitations, Great Britain was forced to change the way of government in Egypt and resorted to softer approaches. Diplomatic measures were also employed in Anglo-Italian relations. Miles Lampson was appointed high commissioner in Egypt. Upon arrival in the country, he began to study the situation and established a dialogue with various political forces. At the same time, the essence of Great Britain’s policy in Egypt did not change, and the Foreign Office did not consider the possibility of the appearance of alternative political forces here. As for the balance of forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, back in 1934, Italy embarked on an expansionist course in foreign policy. In this regard, the threat to Egypt was considered real by the Foreign Office. However, since Egypt occupied only the third place on the list of foreign policy priorities of Great Britain, the latter launched a policy of “appeasement” toward Italy. Meanwhile, Egypt remained a key element of the British imperial communication system. Finally, when the military threat to Egypt became real, Great Britain concentrated an enormous naval force in the Eastern Mediterranean and provoked the “Mediterranean crisis” of August 1935. While Great Britain demonstrated readiness to resolve problems diplomatically, it was capable of decisive action in crisis situations.

The article reconstructs the main milestones of the academic biography of the prominent art historian Dmitry Vlasievich Ainalov (1862-1939), analyzes the up to now neglected materials from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences regarding the attempts at electing him to full membership in the USSR Academy of Sciences. Ainalov's biography is examined in the context of the development of the Academy as a scientific and public institute, and particularly the reforms of its charter. Academician V.P. Buzeskul fought for the promotion of Ainalov, N.P. Kondakov's disciple, but in vain. Since the second half of the 1920s the pressure of state power on the Academy of Sciences was increasing and the elections of its new members began to be considered as one of the ways of sovietization of the Academy. The academic corporation in itself was not united and troubled by internal tensions. A group of academicians in Oriental studies, headed by S.F. Oldenburg, in particular, gained significant influence, and a number of the Academy members thought it necessary to oppose to it. In such conditions, the elections became a space for both fights within the corporation and opposition to the external pressure. The authors restore the context and circumstances of Ainalov's nomination to the academic department on the basis of the private correspondence of academicians. For the first time, they publish the notes on Ainalov's academic achievements, with which various groups tried to justify the feasibility of his election. The fight of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR for its autonomy in key decision-making turned out to be ineffectual, the control of the Soviet state over the Academy led to its total sovietization and attenuation of the freedom of scientific discussion. As a result, the USSR Academy of Sciences turned from a purely scientific institution into an instrument of political pressure, and the academicians-historians who survived repressions (S.A. Zhebelev, D.M. Petrushevsky) preferred not to show initiative and to follow the course determined from above.

The process of self-identification of the community of Moscow historians was nearing completion by the early 20th century. The image of Sergei Mikhailovich Soloviev, long-term professor of the Department of Russian History, author of the History of Russia from Earliest Times, rector of the university, heir to T.N. Granovsky's traditions, played an important role in the collective memory of the representatives of the Moscow school of historians. The formation of commemorative traditions about Soloviev was associated with his colleagues' attempt, initiated by professor of the Department of World History V.I. Guerrier, at solemnly and publicly celebrating the publication of the 25th volume of the History of Russia from Earliest Times at Moscow University in 1876. Despite the resistance of the Minister of Public Education D.A. Tolstoy, who banned the official celebrations in honor of Soloviev at Moscow University, his admirers held them privately. The hero of the day was presented with a valuable gift and congratulatory addresses from various academic institutions. One of the consequences of this event was the appearance of the first biographers of Soloviev at Moscow University, V.I. Guerrier and at that time docent of the Moscow Theological Academy V.O. Klyuchevsky. The texts of Soloviev's disciples formed the so-called implicit knowledge about him, the “legend” about the teacher in the community of Moscow historians. Klyuchevsky did his best to make the image of Soloviev significant for the students of history at Moscow University at the turn of the century. He even tried to explain the foundation of his own school with its characteristic emphasis on archival studies of the reforms in the 18th-century Russia as following Soloviev's precept. However, among the university students of history the latter did not become as popular as T.N. Granovsky, whose memory persisted even in the early 20th century. This was largely due to the fact that a strong tradition of commemoration of Klyuchevsky, heir to Soloviev at the department, emerged immediately after his death in 1911.

The present stage in the development of historiography gives an opportunity to employ new research tools, including the reconstruction of the research practice of outstanding scholars of the past. The author attempts at reconstructing S.M. Soloviev’s concept of historical research in the midnineteenth century and examines the features of the formation of his cognitive interest and approach to history as science of national self-knowledge. This model of historical research aims at gaining an understanding of the specificity of the historian’s vision of the subject area of study and relevant cognitive strategies. The fact that S.M. Soloviev grounded his research on the principles of scientificity and historicism led to the prevalence of the significance of the sources in his study. While addressing to the works of his predecessors, the historian develops his own understanding of these principles. S.M. Soloviev specifically dwelled on the methods of cognitive activity and scientific research. Historical-comparative, historical-typological, historical-diachronic, historical-genetic methods and factor analysis are important (though not often directly indicated) components of S.M. Soloviev’s research laboratory. S.M. Soloviev ascribed an important role to the biographies of his predecessors in the study of their historiographical contribution. Emphasizing the impact of personality and talents of historians on their academic work, S.M. Soloviev also highlighted the influence of the epoch on the formation of their views and research methodology. He emphasized the importance of the period of a historian’s personal formation rather than of his utmost creative activity. The existing model of historical research allowed S.M. Soloviev to characterize the development of historical science in the eighteenth and first quarter of the nineteenth centuries on the basis of the social transformations, which he linked to the very emergence of this discipline in Russia. This analysis served as the basis for generalizing assessment of the contributions of the historians of the previous century, which allowed him to avoid a merely elementary presentation of the advantages and disadvantages of their works and to focus on the process of increasing scientific knowledge.

Problems of the medieval Russian mentality and setting them in the socio-economic and political context of pre-Petrine Russia remain important and promising areas of research. Tese issues are in the focus of a new monograph by S.V. Perevezentsev, “Russian Notions: Russian Spiritual and Political Teachings of the Tenth-Seventeenth Centuries in their Historical Development”. Te article gives refections on this book and controverts some of the interpretations and conclusions given there. It addresses the characteristics of Russian civilization, defned in the book, the specifc traits of the adoption and spread of Christianity, the cults that were popular in Russia, and so on. Te author of the article agrees with the logic of the historian building a certain register of spiritual and political teachings of medieval Russia, trying to trace the line of development of notions not only in literature and journalism, but also in architecture and painting. Tese observations of the researcher are considered quite convincing. Particular attention is paid to S.V. Perevezentsev’s approach, which ofers a look at Old Russian culture through the Orthodox system of values. In accordance with the general concept of the monograph, its author does not conduct his own primary research, but analyzing the discussions on this matter, supports one or another point of view. His purpose is to bring together dispersed, holistic or fragmentary, spiritual and political teachings. Te writer of the article agrees with S.V. Perevezentsev that in the second half of the 13th - early 14th century “Orthodoxy became the main component of all national consciousness”. Te article thoroughly analyzes the main thesis of S.V. Perevezentsev, who states that ancient Russian socio-political texts should be considered through the eyes of their writer, as a rule, a person deeply religious and well-read in Christian literature. Te main criticism of the author of the article is leveled at a certain superfuity of S.V. Perevezentsev’s church rhetoric and pathos, and the vague boundary between the language of science and the language of religion.