Although well known to specialists in Old Believer literature, the Vyg epistle "To the Obedient and Diligent Brethren" has never been examined in detail in the scholarship, either in terms of its imagery or in relation to the broader theme of the sea in Vyg narratives of the 18th and 19th centuries. This article addresses that gap. The epistle is thought to have been written by Semen Denisov, one of the founders of the Old Believer Vyg community, in the second quarter of the 18th century. Its composition was evidently bound up with the rise and successful development of the Vyg community's maritime hunting fleet in the 1720s. Such a fleet was essential to the expanding Pomor Old Believer settlement, providing for its physical survival, nourishment, and income through the sale of marine products. In Vygoretsia, the economic dimension of communal life was no less important than its literary and spiritual culture. The epistle examined here brings these two spheres together in a particularly revealing way. The spiritual authorities of Vyg sought to regulate key aspects of everyday life within the community, and maritime fishing and hunting to which many Vyg laborers were assigned occupied an important place among them. The epistle may therefore be read as a text directed specifically to those engaged in work at sea. Composed in full accordance with the conventions of the Vyg rhetorical school, it offers a vivid representation of the dramatic fate of maritime laborers. Constantly exposed to mortal danger, they are portrayed as future sufferers for Christ who, through their labor and endurance at sea, will inherit eternal life. Their work is thus presented not merely as physical toil, but as a form of spiritual feat. The epistle also contains striking images of the harsh northern seascape. Among its recurring motifs are the smells and tastes of the sea, together with the unceasing liturgical and prayerful commemoration of seafaring laborers by the Vyg brethren.

The study of how M.N. Katkov was perceived by his French contemporaries is particularly significant in view of the major role this publicist played in promoting Russo-French rapprochement in the late 1880s. What image did Katkov have among his colleagues in France, and were any of them willing to regard him as a Francophile? This is the question addressed in the article, which seeks to fill a corresponding gap in both Russian and international historiography. The article argues that the framework through which Katkov was perceived in France had already taken shape during the Second Empire. His calls for the ruthless suppression of the Polish uprising of 1863 and for a more active Russian policy in the Balkans had, by 1870, earned him a reputation as the leader of the “ultra-Muscovite party” and an “apostle of Pan-Slavism”. His critical commentary on political developments in France in the 1870s, his gloomy predictions regarding the fragility of the Third Republic, and his reflections on the “insignificance” of its authority and the decline of its international standing likewise shaped his image among French liberal and republican journalists. Nevertheless, for a broad range of French newspapers and journals — from the republican La Nouvelle Revue and Le Matin to the Bonapartist Le Pays and the socialist L’Intransigeant — the anti-German tone of the later Katkov’s journalism was sufficient to proclaim him a “friend of France”, in accordance with the logic that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Newspapers close to government circles, such as Journal des Débats, Le Temps, and République française, treated Katkov’s alleged Francophilia with still greater scepticism, while also reacting anxiously to the rising tide of Boulangism. The radical republican newspaper La Justice and the socialist press viewed Katkov in sharply negative terms, portraying him in an entirely hostile light. Yet by the 1890s, the image of Katkov as a “forerunner” of the Russo-French alliance and a “friend of France” had prevailed.

At the end of the 19th century, representatives of the Russian aristocracy and high bureaucracy with a conservative political orientation, believing that the policies of the new Emperor Nicholas II were insufficiently aligned with the political ideals of his father and that the meanings and values of the reign of Alexander III should therefore be promoted, created a special organization for this purpose. It was named the Society of Zealots of Russian Historical Enlightenment in Memory of Emperor Alexander III. The society was headed by Count S.D. Sheremetev, a close associate of the late Emperor and who maintained close ties with the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna. The activities of the Society of Zealots, in keeping with its name, envisioned broad educational work based on principles opposed to the ideas of liberalism and constitutionalism, which were gaining strength and becoming increasingly popular in society. One of the areas of the Society's work was the publication of special literature, and within this framework, the translation of works by foreign authors whose content corresponded to the organization's ideology, for the purpose of their subsequent publication and distribution. This article examines the formation of a special structure within the Society of Zealots — the Translation Commission. This structure, under the purview of the organization's Publishing Department, was charged with selecting such works, organizing their translation, and publishing. A list of the books that were translated is provided, along with commentary. It highlights the fact that these translations were largely unpublished, and speculates as to why this fate awaited them. Attempts by members of the Society of Zealots to rectify this situation are also noted. Special attention is given to the funding of the translators' work. It is noted that such funding was provided, in part, by the leader of the Society of Zealots, Count S.D. Sheremetev. The final part of the article contains a general conclusion on the activities of the Translation Commission of the Society of Zealots, noting the haphazard nature of the selection of books for translation and their poor alignment with the organization's stated goals.

This article examines the research value of the administrative records of the Governmental Control and Optation Commission of the Republic of Estonia. The Commission was responsible for granting Estonian citizenship to ethnic Estonians who lived in Soviet Russia after the collapse of the Russian Empire and wished to return to their historical homeland. It also organized their resettlement to Estonia in 1920–1922. The Commission’s work helped regulate the migration flow that emerged in the context of early Soviet legislation on the right of peoples to self-determination, the Treaty of Tartu between the RSFSR and Estonia, signed in February 1920, the Estonian Declaration of Independence, and the 1918 Citizenship Law of the Republic of Estonia. Drawing on the case of Estonian emigration in the early 1920s, the article shows how administrative records preserved in the National Archives of Estonia can be used to study diaspora and migration processes. Most of these materials have not previously been introduced into scholarly circulation. Their identification and systematization make it possible to reconstruct the migration process from the submission of citizenship applications to resettlement in Estonia on Petroevac trains. The microhistorical approach adopted in the article makes it possible to explore the everyday lives and individual trajectories of Estonian optants, whose acquisition of citizenship depended on their return to the territory of the newly established Estonian state. The authors argue that the records of the Governmental Control and Optation Commission allow researchers to distinguish two main stages of the process: a preparatory stage, in which potential migrants — Estonians opting for citizenship — were identified, and a subsequent stage involving their actual relocation. The Commission’s documentation thus offers a multifaceted perspective on this migration process, moving beyond a narrowly political or historical approach and placing it within a broader interdisciplinary framework.

Despite the extensive scholarship devoted to the Soviet mass media, their economic development remains comparatively understudied. Questions of media finance and economics were scarcely explored in Soviet scholarship and have attracted little sustained attention since. Yet an examination of this subject, especially on the basis of archival materials newly brought into scholarly use, makes it possible to illuminate previously overlooked aspects of the functioning of the Soviet political and ideological system. This article examines the economic development of Pravda, the largest party publishing house, in the 1920s. Over the course of that decade, the Soviet press system evolved from the extraordinary conditions of War Communism toward the establishment of planned principles of economic management. For a substantial part of this period, however, its economic activity continued to operate according to principles shaped by the specific circumstances of the New Economic Policy. Despite its special political status, the Pravda publishing house likewise functioned within a partially market environment. In the 1920s, the publishing house's principal economic objectives were the rationalization of production processes, the achievement of financial self-sufficiency, and the publication of a broad range of printed materials with minimal reliance on state resources. On the whole, its staff proved capable of meeting these challenges. By the end of the 1920s Pravda had become a large multifunctional enterprise producing four newspapers, nine journals, and a substantial volume of nonperiodical publications. In 1929, the total single-run circulation of its periodicals exceeded one million copies. At the same time, Pravda's economic development in the 1920s was constrained by a range of objective and subjective difficulties — acute shortages of resources, personnel, infrastructure, and production capacity. The organization of labor within the enterprise was far from optimal, while the political tasks assigned to it by the party contributed to rising costs. Nevertheless, throughout the 1920s Pravda stood out as one of the most efficient Soviet publishing enterprises. This efficiency, however, stemmed also from its privileged economic position.

The problem of the relationship between the state and the church in the USSR at the final stage of the Great Patriotic War and, then, during the first years after its end, is well-studied on regional material. This article is devoted to the situation in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. During the post-war years, both regions (the Kherson region only since 1946) formed parts of dioceses with centers in Dnepropetrovsk and Odessa. Therefore, in the eyes of the diocesan administrations and representatives of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, both regions were of secondary importance. In addition, both regions were not problematic, because contradictions between government structures and clergy occurred infrequently and were quickly resolved. So, the majority of priests, including the episcopate, showed patriotism and loyalty to the Soviet state and the party. There were also no noticeable contradictions of national or linguistic character in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. After the deoccupation of both regions, the main directions of church policy there were struggle against the ideological consequences of German occupation, on the one hand, and the return of public buildings occupied by parishes to Soviet institutions, on the other hand. These tasks were closely interrelated, because almost all Russian Orthodox Church communities appeared in the studied regions during their occupation. Taking this circumstance into account, the authorities did not consider the church infrastructure as a product of the German presence, besides, there was no anti-Soviet sentiment among the priests and parishioners. The seizure of public buildings was also more practical than ideological and political in nature. Local authorities and representatives of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church always offered alternatives to parishes, and both sides tried to resolve controversial issues in a compromise. This tendency continued until the end of 1948, when the number of parishes in both Kherson and Zaporozhye regions began to gradually decrease. In this regard, the situation in the regions corresponded to the picture of the whole country.

This article examines the principal stages in the development of Russian historical geography. It traces the formation of the field as a branch of scholarship and shows how it gradually took shape as an academic discipline. Particular attention is given to the contribution of scholars at Moscow University to this process. The article offers an overview of the emergence of historical geography as an auxiliary historical discipline in the curriculum of Moscow University from the late 19th century to the mid-20th. The long and complex path of establishing historical geography as a field of study was conditioned by the specificity of its subject matter and by the inherently interdisciplinary character of historical-geographical knowledge. The delineation of a distinct disciplinary domain for historical geography required considerable time. The essay discusses the contributions of major 18th- and 19th-century scholars — including V.N. Tatishchev, M.V. Lomonosov, N.I. Nadezhdin, S.M. Solov'ev, and V.O. Kliuchevskiy, among others — to the development of the field. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the cumulative results of research in historical geography had led to the introduction of the subject into Russian higher education, where it acquired the status of a formal academic discipline. The teaching of historical geography in Russia thus extends back little more than a century. With specific reference to Moscow University, the article identifies several distinct stages in the development of historical geography as a university subject. It emphasizes the role of D.N. Anuchin as the initiator of the first course in historical geography at Moscow University. The institutionalization of the discipline in the 20th century was associated above all with M.K. Liubavskiy and Yu.V. Gautier, and later with V.K. Yatsunskiy. The article also underscores the importance of the Department of Source Studies in the Faculty of History at Moscow University, and of the Academy full member M.N. Tikhomirov personally, in advancing the field and organizing its teaching, thereby laying the foundations for its modern form within the Faculty of History. Today, various aspects of historical geography are represented in the curricula of numerous academic units at Moscow State University.

P.M. Tretyakov's relations with the artists whose works he acquired for his gallery constitute a vast subject, one that illuminates many aspects of the collector's life, his understanding of art and of the age in which he lived, and his aesthetic predilections. The history of the acquisition of a given artist's works for the gallery, the place Tretyakov assigned those works within the display, together with correspondence and memoirs that shed light on the formation of his collection — all this makes it possible to reconstruct the collector's attitude toward the oeuvre of particular masters. Consideration of these facets of Tretyakov's activity also leads to a more complex task: the reconstruction of the role and place of each painter represented in the gallery he created within the broader history of Russian art. Tretyakov singled out the artistic achievement of V.M. Vasnetsov, highly esteemed the latter's decision to participate in the decoration of St. Vladimir's Cathedral in Kiev, and supported the artist over many years of his life. Despite the ambivalent response of Vasnetsov's contemporaries to his work, Tretyakov purchased his paintings and readily accepted them as gifts. By the end of the collector's life, the gallery's Vasnetsov holdings — a veritable "monographic ensemble" — numbered dozens of paintings and graphic works. There are ample grounds for concluding that Tretyakov was among the first to appreciate, at the proper moment, the originality of Vasnetsov's artistic language both in ecclesiastical mural painting and in the fairy-tale and bylina mode of late nineteenth-century Russian art. An analysis of the gallery display, and of the Vasnetsov room in particular, permits us to speak of Tretyakov's deliberate and nonrandom final decision. It also testifies both to the collector's attitude toward Vasnetsov's art and to his high estimation of the painter's place within the artistic culture of his own day, as well as within the broader moving from realism toward symbolism and Art Nouveau.

This article examines a previously unstudied painted portrait of Admiral Petr Ivanovich Rikord, an outstanding nineteenth-century naval commander, diplomat, and scholar who played a significant role in the history of the Russian Empire. Although Rikord has long occupied an important place in Russian history owing to his military achievements and diplomatic initiatives, lifetime portraits of him remain extremely rare and little known. The study focuses on an informal portrait of the admiral whose authorship and date had long remained uncertain. A detailed analysis of archival sources has made it possible to identify its author as the artist Dmitry Petrovich Malyarenko (1824–1860), a graduate of the Imperial Academy of Arts who was later awarded the title of Academician. This attribution is of particular importance for art history, since until recently only a small number of works were known to belong to Malyarenko's oeuvre. The artist's biography, including his emancipation from serfdom and his subsequent entry into the circle of recognized portrait painters of the mid-nineteenth century, has been reconstructed on the basis of archival documents preserved in the Russian State Historical Archive. The portrait of Rikord, first exhibited at the Imperial Academy of Arts in 1854, is interpreted as an example of the academic school of portraiture of the mid-nineteenth century. Its composition, colour scheme, and attention to detail testify to Malyarenko's considerable skill, while its rich symbolic elements — the bust of I. Kapodistrias, the portrait of V.M. Golovnin, and books associated with maritime expeditions — reveal the admiral's intellectual and personal world. The attribution of Rikord's portrait significantly broadens our understanding of Malyarenko's legacy within the history of nineteenth-century Russian portrait painting. The study demonstrates the importance of an integrated approach combining archival research, art-historical analysis, and biographical inquiry. Against the background of the 250th anniversary of P.I. Rikord's birth, marked in the winter of 2026, this discovery not only brings renewed attention to his historical and cultural achievements, but also contributes to a reassessment of the role played by lesser-known portraitists in Russian artistic culture.