The author deals with the problem of reconstruction of English penal practice in the 18th century and applies the interdisciplinary approach and the principles of narrative jurisprudence. Legal historians, who long ago described the criminal law system of the 18th-century England within the framework of the political-legal approach, set the paradigm for generations of scholars for more than a hundred years. The exclusion of the historical context from the study led to a simplification of the legal discourse of the period in question. Narrative jurisprudence, a relatively new trend in the philosophy of law, is a special way of thinking about law, based on the fact that it is constructed from stories presented in a public form. Its methodology makes it possible to examine the problem from the perspective of the various actors in the discourse on countering criminal activity and to link together the legal communicative practices of the period. The author chooses the handbook titled The Country Justice: Containing the Practice, Duty and Power of the Justices of the Peace, As Well In As Out of Their Sessions by Michael Dalton, a judge from Cambridge, as an authentic source, which was popular in professional circles. Dalton introduced an alphabetical ordering of court precedents on matters within the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, i.e. roads, fines, taxes, arms, rebellion and robbery, etc. This arrangement differs from the later descriptions of the English legal system compiled by W. Blackstone and J.F. Stephen. The representation of the historical and cultural context, in which the Bloody Code “matured” and the legal thesaurus developed, is based on a unique alphabetical guide to the criminal biographies of the prisoners of the famous London prison, the Newgate Calendar. The author of this article examines such a felony as “burglary” by comparing its treatment in the relevant chapters of The Country Justice and the Newgate Calendar, which details the circumstances of the relevant crime and a particular individual’s trial.

This article attempts to analyse the relations between Aleksandr Turgenev, a statesman, public figure, archaeographer and writer, and the Elagin– Kireevsky family. A.I. Turgenev’s personality and life still remain little-studied. In the works of philologists, he is usually represented as a “secondary figure”, “in the shadow” of the other outstanding persons of Pushkin’s epoch who shaped its cultural atmosphere. Historians (with the exception of I.V. Kantorovich) have not dealt specifically with A.I. Turgenev. It appears that due to the limited scope of this article the study of some material on the relations between A.I. Turgenev and the Elagin–Kireevsky family will let us gain a better insight into one of the aspects of Turgenev’s place in the cultural and social life of Moscow in the 1830–1840s. Furthermore, this article clarifies dates of some events in Turgenev’s biography (e.g., his meeting with I.V. Kireevsky). It is shown from both published and archival sources (some of which are being researched for the first time) that A.I. Turgenev frequently visited A.P. Elagina’s salon and gatherings at the Kireevskys’. He not only took part here in the heated debates on contemporary literature and philosophy, but also acted as an educator: Turgenev introduced the frequenters of the Moscow “open houses” to the intellectual innovations of Western Europe, shared his family memories, and told “historical anecdotes”. Due to V.A. Zhukovsky, A.I. Turgenev was actively involved in the publication of I.V. Kireevsky’s journal Evropeets, and strove to support it. Besides, tolerance towards ideological opponents and broad-mindedness, typical of both the Westernizer A.I. Turgenev and the Slavophile I.V. Kireevsky, led to the publication of Turgenev’s last Chronicle of a Russian in Paris in Moskvityanin in early 1845.

This paper examines the projects of administrative reforms, which were submitted to the emperor and his entourage in 1856–1860 and mainly preserved in the funds of the State Archive of the Russian Federation. Their authors strived to persuade the authorities to launch full-fledged reforms of the administrative system. However, unlike the followers of the ideas of decentralization and self-government fashionable at that time and presented, in particular, in A. de Tocqueville’s notorious book The Ancien Régime and the French Revolution, they insisted that it is necessary to restore centralization in full. These ideas, which may be called traditionalist, implied, first of all, the emperor’s effective control over all branches of administration. To this end, it was first of all necessary to relieve the sovereign of a host of routine matters; to put an end to the uncontrolled status of ministers by establishing a collective body answerable to the monarch; to implement a kind of provincial “power vertical” by restoring the institution of governor-generalship and extending it to the whole country; and finally, to enhance the prestige of the Tsar’s local representatives (governors) through broadening their competence and making the sovereign more accessible to them. The emperor favourably reacted to the ideas of a council of ministers, governor-generalships and expansion of the powers of local authorities. The Council of Ministers was created, but it never became an exact analogue of the European governments, and remained a specific body which duplicated the Committee of Ministers. As for the idea of governor-generalships on the entire territory of Russia, it remained only on paper. Stormy public debates about decentralization had also no effect on the drafting of reforms: the results of the work of the so-called Milyutin Commission, which prepared a provincial reform based on the idea of decentralizing local government, were shelved. In this sense, the pre-reform period can be called a time of “administrative inaction”.

The article examines the process of discussion and adoption of the provisional regulations of 23 March 1863 for people’s schools in the provinces of Vilna, Grodno, Kovno, Minsk, Vitebsk and Mogilev by the Western Committee in 1862–1864 and the role of the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod A.P. Akhmatov in their adjustment. They allowed the use of “local languages” in teaching the Law of God to the Catholic Belarusians and Lithuanians as it had been suggested by the Trustee of the Vilna educational district, Prince A.P. Shirinskii-Shikhmatov and the governor-general of Vilna V.I. Nazimov, who did not give up the idea to combine “vernacular languages” with Russian in the elementary education even after the Polish revolt of 1863–1864. M.N. Muraviov, who succeeded V.I. Nazimov as the chief official of the Northwest region, sought to avoid radical approaches in the confessional sphere and preferred not to force the “withdrawal” of the Polish language from the teaching of the Catholic Law of God and introduction of the Russian (or Belarusian) language instead. However, the decisive factor that determined the practice of applying the temporary regulations of 23 March 1863 in 1863–1865 was a supplement to them, which was published in the journal of the Western Committee but was not inserted in the Complete Collection of the Laws of the Russian Empire. It was added at the initiative of A.P. Akhmatov and stipulated that the publication of any literature for the people in a “local language” relating to the Catholic religious education should be postponed pending discussion and final decision by the Holy Synod. Until 1865 when K.P. von Kaufmann was appointed the governor-general of Vilna, the unpublished supplement to the provisional rules was used by the Ministry of Public Instruction as the main argument against the introduction of the Russian language in the religious education of Catholic Belarusians in the Northwest region. In 1864 a similar initiative by the trustee of the Saint Petersburg educational district I.D. Delyanov in respect of Vitebsk and Mogilev provinces was rejected precisely on these grounds.

The activities of the first palace commandant (head of the royal guards) P.P. Hesse and his role in the entourage of Nicholas II still continues to be a historiographic gap. The study of this issue will facilitate the solution of the question as to how independent the state course of the last tsar was in the initial period of his reign. In 1884, P.P. Hesse was appointed commander of the Consolidated Guards Battalion, which protected the royal residence. Impeccable reputation, bravery, as well as the acquaintance with the heir to the throne, Nikolai Aleksandrovich, were the reasons for the appointment of the general in 1896 to the post of the palace commandant, although contemporaries were inclined to ascribe this promotion to the influence of the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, as well as to an advantageous marriage of the general. P.P. Hesse took part in the process of appointing the following Ministers of the Interior: I.L. Goremykin, D.S. Sipyagin, V.K. Plehve and P.D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. However, the general’s efforts to promote his own candidates to a prominent position were futile. P.P. Hesse was also involved in deciding foreign policy issues. In the western direction (France), the general was kept informed by P.I. Rachkovsky, head of the Police Department of foreign agents. Nominally, Hesse was a member of A.M. Bezobrazov Far East clique. However, the measures he took were directed against the aggressive policy of Russia in the Far East. On the eve of the first Russian revolution, in December 1904, the palace commandant advocated liberal political reforms, in particular, the appointment of public representatives to the State Council, which, nonetheless, was rejected by the tsar. After the events of January 9, 1905 and the assassination of Grand Duke Sergei Aleksandrovich in February 1905, the general changed his attitude about the necessity of reforms and began to speak from a moderately liberal position. The study of the biography of the courtier allows us to conclude that at the turn of the nineteenth-twentieth centuries attempts by the entourage of the tsar to influence his decisions most often failed.

Mass immigration to the United States from the Russian Empire began in the last decades of the 19th century. The statistical data of both states reflect the rapid increase in the flow of departing/arriving overseas on the eve of the First World War. The shift in the composition of immigrants toward the predominance of incomers from Eastern Europe, mostly Jews, was characterized by contemporaries as a “new” immigration to America, whose specificity was determined by “cultural” isolation, traditionalism, and religious orthodoxy. The problems caused by the “new” immigration were topical and acute in both Russian and American societies. In Russia, mass economic (labour) emigration to America was largely provoked by national and religious conflicts. This issue was raised on the pages of the Russian press and in separate publications, and the discussion was initiated by departmental officials who made use of statistical data and produced recommendations for resolving the situation. In the United States, the increased influx of immigrants led to the changes in legislation and immigration policy, which meant the introduction of restrictive measures, and also led to the growing influence of the nativist movement, and the creation of the special Dillingham Commission to study all aspects related to immigration. This article analyzes the US immigration policy, in particular, the restrictionist legislation. The US intellectual elite got involved in the discussion of the “new” immigration problem and shared their vision of the problem through the press. The Russian and American historiography has not paid due attention to the New England press. Meanwhile, the New England press showed a steady interest in the problem of “new” immigration from Russia, namely, its significant Jewish component. The columnists noted the trends in the labour market, the difficulties related to the adaptation of the settlers, and their perception by the New Englanders. The wave of “new” immigration from the Russian Empire, which had marked features, influenced the socio-economic and socio-political processes in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The activity of the Soviet military mission in the US during the initial period of the Great Patriotic War becomes for the first time a subject of research both in domestic and foreign historiography. Having studied Russian and American archival materials, as well as American media publications, the author draws conclusions about the first results of the negotiations between high-ranking Soviet military officials and US political leaders. Although the scale of US aid to the Soviet Union from July 1941 to February 1942 was limited, and US supplies to the USSR at the beginning of WWII were mostly allocated through direct weapons procurement by providing loans to the Soviet Union rather than through the Lend-Lease program, it was then that the foundations were laid for an alliance between the USSR and the USA, the basic parameters of US economic aid were defined and the logistics of shipping cargo to the Soviet Union were established. The most important task of the Soviet military mission to the US was to convince American leaders that the Soviet military situation was not catastrophic and that the Red Army was combat-ready. The materials of the American periodicals provide important information about the struggle, which was taking place in summer 1941 both in the mass media and in the US political and military circles regarding rendering assistance to the USSR and shaping new image of the Soviet state — an ally in the joint fight, instead of an ideological opponent. The special attention in the article is given to the visit of A.K. Repin, the head of Soviet military mission in the USA, in February 1942, character of negotiations with the US president and decisions which have promoted realization of the Lend-Lease program for the Soviet Union.

The formation and development of V.I. Bovykin’s academic school is linked to the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University. The school, which has existed for several decades and brought together several generations of historians, continues to develop in the twenty-first century. This article attempts at outlining V.I. Bovykin’s development as a researcher, the main trends of his scholarly interests, and the constant expansion and enrichment of the range of his research. The author examines the extant archives of the scholar and recollections of his students and colleagues. The works by V.I. Bovykin’s disciples are varied in their subject matter. Not all of his followers work in the economic history paradigm, but the core of the school consists of studies devoted to this very topic. V.I. Bovykin was formed as a specialist in the history of Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the research of his school was initially focused on the Russian history of that period. But his followers, who developed the traditions of economic history, went beyond these chronological boundaries and nowadays deal with the economic history of the twentieth century. In the new economic realities of the 1990s, the historian himself adopted a new, “modern” perspective on many issues of the economic history of the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. The main features of V.I. Bovykin’s scientific school were defined by his own creative interest in historiography and source studies. However, these components of historical science have become a means of penetrating deeply into the economic history of Russia in modern and contemporary periods. An important feature of V.I. Bovykin’s school was the humanitarian dimension of economic history research. Significant contribution was made by V.I. Bovykin’s followers and pupils in exploring the personal factor in economic history. The school is renowned for the work of Bovykin’s disciples who have mastered the biographical and genealogical methods. The efforts of V.I. Bovykin’s followers were instrumental in creating a collective portrait of the national entrepreneurs. Several generations of the scholar’s followers have developed an unwavering interest in economic history and its humanitarian phenomena. Conferences dedicated to the memory of V.I. Bovykin are held regularly.

Knives are one of the most widespread and massive categories of finds at medieval archaeological sites. Therefore they can serve for the study of ancient production techniques, but also for solving various general historical questions. This article deals with the works of Russian and foreign archaeologists, who studied knives from both typological and technological points of view. Although the main emphasis was placed on the history of the study of the collection of ca. 1000 knives and their fragments originating from the territory of the Gnezdovo archaeological complex, external studies is also involved in the research. The publications, which touch upon medieval knives and their production technology on the basis of the analysis of metal structure, are immense. This article includes a review of the earliest publications dealing with knives from Gnezdovo excavations and their evaluation in subsequent historiography, as well as the main classifications of knives introduced by B.A. Kolchin, A.E. Leontiev and R.S. Minasyan, the results of the application of these classifications to the Gnezdovо collection and metallographic analysis of knives. Additionally, the author employs some key studies of numerous analogies of Gnezdovo’s knives in Northern Europe, England and the area of Saltovo-Mayaki culture. For the first time he examines all the works concerning the Gnezdovo’s richest collection of knives and the evolution of the use of these data as a historical source and compiles a list of references to be useful not only to those who are interested in the particular archaeological site, but also to those who want to know about Gnezdovo’s knives in a broader context.

The analysis of acquisition policy of Pavel Mikhailovich Tretyakov (1832–1898), one of the leading Moscow collectors of the 19th century, who considerably influenced collecting in Russia, breaks his stereotype image in the art history literature and memoirs. Tretyakov has been regarded more as law-abiding and conservative in his views rather than independent. In addition, most Soviet art historians believed that the Moscow merchant and collector had outstanding advisers, artists of democratic views, without whom he purchased no work. The cases of acquisition of several works, the main masterpieces of the Tretyakov Gallery, are indicative in some ways. They reveal the difficult artistic atmosphere, in which the collector found himself, his difficult thoughts and, finally, the independence of his decision; sometimes new interpretations of the art works are required. Tretyakov faced difficult choices, being always conscious of the ambiguity of some works and troubles which could be brought by their acquisition for him and later for the gallery. Pavel Mikhailovich’s choice of paintings by his contemporaries highlights several aspects of his image as a collector: whether the works in question were purchased before, during or after the exhibition; whether the opinions of critics, connoisseurs and correspondents were voiced at the time of or after purchase; whether it was a unilateral choice, without regard for the opinion of the majority; how his purchase was regarded by his close friends and associates; how Tretyakov dealt with accusations of incorrect selection for his gallery of Russian paintings; and other aspects. While examining acquisitions of Russian art works by Tretyakov, who often ignored advice of his correspondents and associates and opinions of critics, the author accentuates Tretyakov’s profile as a collector.