The newspaper Kievlyanin, the principal periodical of the South-Western Region, allows more detailed consideration of the main aspects of the implementation of the peasant reform in the 1860s–1870s, including its Malorossian specificity. On the basis of archival documents and periodicals, the author shows a sharpness and complexity of the confrontation between supporters and opponents of the serfdom preservation even aft er the official approval of the “Regulations” of 19 February 1861. The defense of the nobility interests in the western provinces was undertaken not only by the supporters of Russian “aristocratic party”, but also by the local Polish landlords. Therefore, the emergence of the newspaper Kiyevlyanin, whose editorial board began to stand up for the basic principles of the reform, in such conditions in the summer of 1864 was a momentous event. The newspaper’s editors actively participated in the public debate and tirelessly stressed not only the importance of liberating the peasants, but also the need to overcome the Polish landownership as one of the major obstacles to the establishment of the “Russian element” in the region. The period of A.P. Bezak’s governorship (1865–1868) was especially active. An analysis of the Kievlyanin articles demonstrates that the editors and correspondents not only constantly reported on the peasant reforms, but also took a direct part in their implementation through the participation in the Association for Acquisition of Estates. However, a change of governmental course in the early 1870s, namely the switch to a policy of “conciliation” in the Western region and appointment of a new Kyiv Governor General, A.M. Dondukov-Korsakov, led to the ending of the Peasant reform. The attempts to solve the “peasant question” by organizing a long-term loan did not let the peasants be freed from the land shortage. Th e Kiyevlyanin repeatedly reported on the aggravation of relations between the landowners of the South-Western Region. Unable to influence the course of peasant reforms, the editorial board called for a return to the old track pursued by the Governor General A.P. Bezak.

Russian personal libraries have become a subject of comprehensive study for the first time by O.N. Ilyina. She has outlined a range of research problems associated with the terminology and historiography of these book collections. Ilyina examined the ownership characteristics of personal libraries, their fates, sources and methods of research, and the formation and development of historiography trends on this topic. Each of these identified directions holds potential for development not only in the field of library science but also for historical study. Historians, in particular, find interest in the libraries of educational institutions, book collections of scholars with marginalia or notes from their colleagues, and descriptions of personal libraries left by third-party readers. Many modern educational institutions’ libraries, whose histories began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, contain copies from other, sometimes very famous, collections. For instance, books from the collection of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum were transferred to the library of the Pedagogical Museum of military educational institutions. The history of a personal library in the pre-revolutionary period could serve various purposes. It might be an additional argument for increasing social status, as with the book of academician N.P. Likhachev about the family book collection. It can illustrate the worldview of governmental circles and the highest aristocracy, such as the book collection and reading interests of Princess E.G. Saxe-Altenburg. It can reveal the formation of a future statesman’s personality, as seen in the memoirs of D.N. Tolstoy regarding the role of his library, or show the inner “laboratory” of a scholar through the analysis of marginalia left in books or inscriptions on presentation copies. The study of the phenomenon of the library of a nobleman-bureaucrat, such as those of S.S. Uvarov and D.A. Tolstoy, deserves separate consideration. Additionally, an important topic is the study of digital libraries, both public and personal. Approaches to the periodization and classifi cation of the history of personal libraries and their terminology need clarifi cation, specifi cally, whether a personal library is considered a book collection. These topics can serve as subjects for joint discussions among historians and librarians.