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.

The article reconstructs the biography of Gustavus Adolphus Bergudd (1771/1772–1806), a Swedish-born native of Gdansk, who lived a short but eventful life. He fought in the insurgent cavalry regiment under command of Tadeusz Kościuszko in 1794, left for America after the defeat of the uprising, met Kościuszko in Philadelphia in 1797, received US citizenship in 1804, tried to earn his living as a worker in Western Pennsylvania. However, his restless nature led him to join the volunteer detachment of the Venezuelan revolutionary Francisco de Miranda as early as in 1806: as “captain of the dragoons”, he participated in the first attempt to overthrow Spanish domination of the New World, but was captured and soon executed with nine other officers from Miranda’s detachment in the Venezuelan fortress of San Felipe near the city of Puerto Cabello. He was only one of those executed whose memory was honoured with a monument erected there in 2006. Reconstructing the milestones of Bergudd’s life corrects the generally accepted view of Polish participation in the wars of Spanish American independence, which goes back to the work of the prominent publicist and activist of a united Europe, Józef Retinger (1888–1960). The study of Bergudd’s fate faces an important methodological problem: no sources directly deriving from him have survived (even the interrogation record is a text created not by the interrogee, but by the interrogator), so his words have reached us in one way or another distorted. The author concludes that the image of Bergudd, which was created in the second half of the 20th and early 21st centuries mainly in Polish popular literature and crowned with his monument, was little related to the real person almost unknown previously. This image embodied an “ideal type” of the Polish fighter for the freedom of Venezuela.

The article examines the prospects and advantages of different organizational forms of trade between Russia and China in the first third of the 18th century on the basis of legislative acts, notes and proposals of Russian merchants, officials and foreign diplomats, documents of commercial establishments. Regular trade between Russia and China was legally sanctioned by the Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689. Huge distances and difficulties of the route, the length and danger of the journey, the direct interest of the government in the sale of furs, which came in the form of tribute from the pagan peoples of Siberia, made the state caravan trade the main form of trade between Russia and China. The caravan could also include inhabitants of different cities, who were going to China for their own trade. In 1706, the fur trade was declared a monopoly of the treasury, and merchants and service class were forbidden to trade “soft stuff ” in Siberia and to travel with goods to China. By concentrating the most profitable areas and types of trade in the hands of the treasury, the government sought to increase the flow of funds needed for the Northern War. In 1711, the newly established Senate suggested that Moscow rich merchants should buy off the trade with China by organizing a company for this purpose. This system guaranteed a fixed amount of income for the treasury. However, the largest representatives of the merchant circles of Moscow declined this suggestion, citing insufficient funds and arguing the advantages of free trade with China. In the 1720s merchants again raised the question of free Chinese trade. The Commission on Commerce in 1727 also acknowledged that “no great profit is seen” from the state caravans. Nevertheless, even later (in 1731 and 1734) the government forbade Russian subjects to trade “soft stuff ” in Beijing and in territories subject to China. It was only in 1762 that the state monopoly on trade with China was abolished.

Abstract. The article explores the category of milostnik (beneficiary). This issue has been repeatedly raised in the national historical writing. Back in the 19th century historians noticed that the ancient Russian chronicles mentioned prince’s milostniks, and put forward assumptions about their social status and connection with the ruler (prince). However, it was only in the 20th century when special scholarly studies on the ancient Russian prince’s milostniks appeared. These studies were based on Marxist methodology, which gave priority to socio-economic and class relations, without paying sufficient attention to relations specific to ancient and medieval societies, such as ties of patronage, affinity, kinship, personal service, etc. The prince’s milostniks were considered in Soviet historical science as the predecessors of later nobles, junior servants of the prince, ministerials. The present study integrates the accomplishments of national historians (pre-revolutionary, Soviet, modern), as well as foreign ethnologists and anthropologists. Drawing on a number of historical sources, Russian and Lithuanian chronicles, the author analyzes all the available chronicle reports about the milostniks and comes to conclusions that allow us to significantly revise the previously established concepts. According to the author of the article, milostniks are a dependent category of the people of Ancient Rus’, who were cut off from their kin due to various life circumstances, and therefore found themselves in need of protection and patronage of the ruler, the prince. The milostniks could be connected with the prince by bonds of affinity. This did not change their dependent position, but only obliged the prince to take them under his protection. The relationship between the prince and the milostniks can be described as that of a patron and clients. Those were relations of personal service, different from those that were established later, in the 12th century, between the prince and the nobles, i.e. service based on the land tenure. Thus, the research which has been conducted in this paper allows us to conclude that the milostniks were not the predecessors of the nobles, but a social category of their time, rooted in the ancient tribal structure of society.