The author uses the monograph by A.V. Laushkin on ethnoconfessional ideas concerning the peoples neighboring to pre-Mongol and early Mongol Rus as occasion for his own reflections. The article examines the concepts regarding the use of church precepts in the area of interconfessional contacts of that time, the vocabulary of self-identification and separation from “strangers” inherent in the original Russian texts, providential models of describing relations with other peoples in these texts and their biblical parallels. The article characterizes the techniques employed by the author of the monograph for his analysis of the language of conceptualization of the early Russian chroniclers, in particular, the use of the “vocabulary of rejection” applied to neighbors of other faiths, and the “vocabulary of self-identification” opposite to the “vocabulary of rejection” in terms of its evaluative content and applicable to compatriots. Close attention is given to the assessment of Laushkin’s approach to the study of the religious imagery of the chroniclers’ language, its inherent eschatological dimension and providentialism, allusions to the Old Testament history (in particular, the Babylonian captivity). In his study, A.V. Laushkin provides a detailed gradation of the nuances of providential interpretations of Russian relations with neighboring cultures. This systematization is perceived as justifying itself while analyzing the Russian medieval mentality. The main critical point is the overloaded structure of the book. Its problematicthematic systematization overlaps with chronological one, and this overlapping considerably complicates the perception of the material and makes it accessible to a rather small circle of scholars. The apparent advantages of the book are two principal conclusions convincingly proved on the basis of extensive primary sources. The first conclusion is that the way neighboring peoples were presented in the Russian chronicles depended on the Russian relations with them and there were no stereotypes associated with their religions or life’s particularities. The second one is that the mentality of medieval Russian intellectuals was based on the providential understanding of the past, present, and future.

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.