Geographies of Nationhood: Cartography, Science, and Society in the Russian Imperial Baltic / Catherine Gibson

Reviewed by: Making Jews Modern: The Yiddish and Ladino Press in the Russian and Ottoman Empires Norman A. Stillman Making Jews Modern: The Yiddish and Ladino Press in the Russian and Ottoman Empires, by Sarah Abrevaya Stein. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004. 311 pp. + illustrations. $35.00. In this beautifully conceived, meticulously documented, and intriguing comparative study, Sarah Abrevaya Stein examines the role of the vernacular press as a medium of Jewish modernization in the Tsarist and Ottoman Empires during the latter decades of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth. Focusing on two journals in particular, Der Fraynd (published in St. Petersburg and later Warsaw, 1903–13) and El Tiempo (published in Constantinople/Istanbul, 1872–1930), she treats them and other periodicals not merely as sources for the history of their time and place, but as participating agents that actively contributed to, and indeed consciously tried to shape, the changes taking place within the respective societies of their readers. Stein clearly understands that there were different Jewish modernities. She chose these particular case studies, she informs us, because, despite some salient differences, these societies resembled one another in a number of significant respects far more than they did those of their coreligionists in the nation-states of the West. Not only did they both inhabit great autocratic, multi-ethnic empires, but both Jewish societies actually spoke an entirely different language from that of their gentile neighbors. (In North Africa and the Middle East, most Jews spoke Jewish variants, sociolects, of the local language, and in Central and Western Europe, emancipated Jews had long since adopted [End Page 188] the national languages.) However, the respective attitudes of Yiddish speakers and Ladino speakers toward their mother tongues diverged drastically in the modernizing process. For a time, a debate raged in both societies over Jewish vernacular (Yiddish žargon; Ladino, žirgonza) and cultural identity. However, Russian Jews came to see Yiddish as their national language and the badge of their unique cultural identity even when they were attracted to Russian language and culture. Ottoman Jews, on the other hand, looked down upon Ladino even while using it, had no interest in Turkish or the Balkan languages, and were drawn to French as the language of modern civilization. The adoption of French as the lingua franca for the Sephardi/Mizrahi bourgeoisie from Morocco to Iran was due to the successful efforts of the Alliance Israélite Universelle which, imbued with the French mission civilisatrice, established a network of schools throughout the Ottoman Empire and other Islamic countries. Stein has added an important additional perspective to the sociolinguistic transformation of the Jews that was part and parcel of the process of their modernization. Stein's book is divided into three parts, each of which is divided in turn into two chapters, that stand as foils to each other. Part One presents an historical survey of the origins and development of the Yiddish and Ladino presses and how each in its own way created a newspaper culture. While the two principal journals examined in the study, Der Fraynd and El Tiempo, were both avowedly secular in outlook, they attracted a wide readership since the boundary line between most religious and secular Jews during this time period was not clearly delineated. In Part Two ("Imaging Culture"), Stein analyzes some of the major themes that were conveyed to readers of the Yiddish and Ladino press through the combined use of text and illustrative material (photographs and engraved illustrations). Reflecting the social and political ferment of late Tsarist times, the Yiddish press made use of cartoons to express ideals, hopes, frustrations, and anger. She also shows how, following the pogroms, photographs were used to shape and reshape the image of Jewish suffering and victimization. This kind of reportage and iconography was risky enough in the Russian Empire and could lead to a publication being closed down. In the Ottoman Empire, it was not even an option. The articles and images in the Ladino press that Stein chooses to deconstruct deal with what she dubs "The Science of Healthy Living," which in actuality was not merely the promotion of hygiene, good nutrition, and knowledge of...

Reviewed by: The Rise and Fall of Russia's Far Eastern Republic, 1905–1922: Nationalisms, Imperialisms, and Regionalisms in and after the Russian Empire by Ivan Sablin Paul J. Welch Behringer (bio) Ivan Sablin, The Rise and Fall of Russia's Far Eastern Republic, 1905–1922: Nationalisms, Imperialisms, and Regionalisms in and after the Russian Empire ( New York: Routledge, 2019). 300 pp., ill. Bibliography. Index. ISBN: 978-1-138-31730-7. Ivan Sablin, a research group leader at the University of Heidelberg, has published an important book that will be required reading for anyone studying the history of the Russian Far East in the revolutionary and civil war periods. In this book Sablin, a prolific writer and intrepid researcher who works with archival documents in several languages, expands on his many published articles on the subject.1 Readers familiar with his previous work will recognize some of the book's arguments and evidence, but Sablin does an excellent job of bringing all these threads together [End Page 301] in a coherent and detailed regional history. Sablin has written the first detailed monograph in English on the Far Eastern Republic (FER). Although other historians have touched on the republic's history (nearly all histories of the Russian Civil War mention it), sustained analyses of the Soviet buffer state are few.2 And none of them approach the deep archival research conducted by Sablin and presented in The Rise and Fall. In addition to working in Russian archives in Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Ulan-Ude, and Moscow, he draws on some U.S. and Japanese primary documents. Sablin also incorporates findings from the post-Soviet Russian-language secondary literature on the FER.3 It would have been laudable enough if that were the extent of Sablin's contributions. But the author also attempts to expand on the way historians conceptualize the Far Eastern Republic's regional significance. This is often treated as a discreet and strange episode that lasted only from 1920 to 1922. Sablin demonstrates how competing strands of regional and national identity interacted with the geopolitical contest among empires, influencing the creation of the FER as well as its demise. Rather than simply focusing on the action in the FER's capital (Verkhneudinsk and later Chita), Sablin takes a wider regional approach, explaining why the FER succeeded where its competitors (such as the left-leaning zemstvo government in Vladivostok or S. D. Merkulov's Priamur Provisional Government) failed. Sablin is also in conversation with the New Imperial History and the latest research on nationalism in the Russian and Soviet empires, which have left the Russian Far East in this period relatively unexamined. Sablin builds his case over the course of an introduction, five chapters, and a conclusion. Although the book follows a roughly chronological narrative, the author's conceptual framework sometimes causes him to jump back and forth in time, which, along with some dense and [End Page 302] awkward prose, occasionally makes it hard for the reader to follow the course of events or to find information quickly. Nevertheless, Sablin's interpretations are well constructed and convincing. The maps and illustrations throughout the book are excellent. An extensive bibliography follows each chapter. In the introduction, Sablin gives an overview of the Russian Far East up to 1905 – Russia's eastward imperial expansion, conflicts with the Qing and Japanese empires, and the region's place in the administration and imagination of the Russian Empire. He also provides a useful summary of the English- and Russian-language historiography on the Russian Far East, lays out his conceptual framework, and describes his sources and methods. Sablin's overarching argument is that the advocates of three types of identity competed to dominate the FER's creation, state-building policies, and foreign relations. The regionalists were led by A. M. Krasnoshchekov, the FER's first head of government and foreign minister, who envisioned an autonomous state structure within a larger Soviet federation. In Krasnoshchekov's conception, the FER would be based on a regional, multiethnic identity. It was Krasnoshchekov who sold the idea of the FER buffer state to Moscow in the first place (and not, as Soviet-era historians often claimed, Lenin's brainchild). The...

Introduction . The article analyses the colonial state of Polish lands as a constituent part of states-empires: Russian, German and Austria Hungarian at the beginning of the XX-th century. Polish people were in the condition of cultural, economic and political discrimination, pressed by the empire domination. Difficult condition was combined with religious suppression of Polish people, it caused mass opposition of population. It is determined that revolutionary events of 1905-1907 in the Russian Empire contributed to the political activity of wide layers of population of the Polish Kingdom, Velikopolshcha and other Polish lands. It is found out that life conditions of the Polish population depended on the condition in the states-empires which divided Polish lands between themselves. It is investigated that at the beginning of the XX-th century objective preconditions for revival of the independent state were formed in the Polish society. The purpose of our article is to investigate the formation of objective prerequisites for the restoration of the Polish state. Results . The formation of the Second Commonwealth is due to the difficult situation of the Polish lands within the empires. The objective condition for the restoration of Poland was the colonial policy pursued by Austria, Prussia and Russia. The presses of the empire dominated the Polish people were in a state of economic, cultural and political discrimination. The forms of national oppression and living conditions depended directly on the situation in the countries that incorporated the Polish lands. In the Kingdom, the Polish tsarist government pursued a policy of intensive Russification and unification of Polish lands with the rest of the Russian Empire, repression of the population. Politics of Poles' Discrimination in Public Life, which was carried out by the tsarist Kingdom of Poland, caused dissatisfaction and protest of the population, the growth of its socio-political activity for the restoration of cultural, social, political rights and freedoms. The wave of revolutionary events of 1905-1907 in the Russian Empire also captured Poles, causing the activation of public-political life. And although it was disappointing, the Poles managed to use this time to revive traditions, to acquire new socio-political ideas. Conclusion . An analysis of the situation of the Polish lands in the Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian empires suggests that the colonial policy of the empire states at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries led to the strengthening of national liberation movements, the development of socio-political thought about the freedom and sovereignty of each people, in particular, the right to an independent Polish state. At the beginning of the XX century. there were objective prerequisites for the restoration of the Polish state. Influence on the politicization of Polish society was made by the revolutionary events of 1905-1907 in the Russian Empire, and subsequently the beginning of the First World War. Despite this, the policies of the official Vienna, Berlin and St. Petersburg combined the use of human potential and wealth of the country, obscurity and Russification, the destruction of national cultures, the persecution of liberation movements, the restriction of the rights and freedoms of Poles and the image of their national feelings.

In the Middle Ages, Central Asian pilgrims traveled to Mecca in three directions: the North direction ‒ through the Russian Empire, the central direction‒ through the territory of Persia, and the south direction ‒ along roads through India and the Arabian Sea. Therefore, the question of the directions of the Hajj was reflected in the diplomatic correspondence of the Central Asian khanates with Persia, India, the Russian and Ottoman empires тоо. Depending on the political, economic and ideological interests of these states, sometimes pilgrims were given permits to be sent to Mecca through their territories, and sometimes not. The degree of intensity of pilgrimage movements, in most cases, depended on the activities of interstate ambassadors. On the issue of eliminating various prohibitions and obstacles in the movements of pilgrimage roads, the Central Asian ambassadors were active and historical documents reveal these data to us. In this period the Central Asian ambassadors, who were sent to the reception of the governors those neighbor states on other issues, in most cases negotiated precisely on the direction of the Hajj of the Central Asian pilgrims also. One of such far-sighted ambassadors was a rich merchant from Bukhara, who lived in the XVIII c. Ernazar Maksud ogli officially sent several times by the Central Asian rulers to the Russian Empire. In this article analyzes the question of how the problems of the Hajj road were solved at the international diplomatic level by the example of the activities this ambassador. The history of negotiations between Ernazar and the Russian emperors on matters of the northern direction of the Hajj road and their results illuminated on base documents on this issue, which stored in the fund of the Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire (AFPRE). The scientific conclusions of this article serve for an extensive study of the issues of diplomatic and economic relations between the Central Asian khanates and the Russian Empire in the XVIII century, revealing the history of the embassy relations of the khanates and the history of the pilgrimage of the Hajj of the Central Asian people and the features of the directions of roads from Central Asia to Mecca.

The purpose of our article is to investigate the military periodicals of Odesa in the early twentieth century, in particular, to establish the features of illumination on its pages of military-historical issues. The main sources for us were issues of military periodicals published in Odesa at the beginning of the 20th century. and some press material.A number of circumstances were the prerequisites and driving factors for the publication of military periodicals in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. in the largest center of southern Ukraine: 1. The status of Odesa as the center of a large Odesa military district; 2. Permanent deployment in Odesa of a number of regiments, several military educational establishments; 3. Successful functioning of the printing house of the staff of the Odesa military district for a long time, among the publications, which included works on historical subjects; 4. Increasing attention to the army and navy during and after the war between the Russian and Japanese empires; 5. Increasing attention in the Ministry of Defense to the problem of patriotic education of officers and staff; 6. the general rise of military periodicals in the Russian Empire in the early twentieth century; 7. the formation of an officer subculture, which was reflected primarily in the formation of libraries, the construction of a military center on Spiridonovskaya Street with an army cinema, a library, a dining room, etc.; 8. Widespread celebration in the Russian Empire of several historical events, first of all, the anniversaries of the Battle of Poltava, the Patriotic War of 1812. 9. Accumulation of experience (traditions) of the study of the history of the army and navy in Odesa, which were laid down in the first half of the nineteenth century. 10. Establishment in Odesa in 1908 of the department of the Imperial Petersburg Russian Military Historical Society. 11. The role of the individual in history, as several charismatic, motor, individuals have pushed forward the founding of military magazines.Historical topics were present on the pages of these publications on a regular basis, especially in the Russian Warrior and Motherland. The proportion of historical topics was present exactly in the same order from increase to decrease, in which these three magazines appeared chronologically. Relevant articles should be classified into several groups. The first group consists of general essays on the history of the army and navy, which were published in the Russian Warrior. The second group consists of articles about individual wars, battles, alliances, or generally militaryphenomena by the time of the distant past. Genetically related to this, the second group, there are articles, but we consider it appropriate to distinguish into the third group: articles whose genre can be called using the phrase “modern history”, because their authors reflected on the features of hostilities, the causes of defeat of the Russian Empire from Japan. This group refers to the recollections of the participants in this war, which were published on the pages of these editions. The fourth, most numerous, group consists of biographical articles, which revealed the life path of outstanding warlords. At the same time, in a number of other articles that were not purely historical, there was quite often a historical component that was used as edification, teaching historical examples.So, the periodicals of Odesa in the early twentieth century. are a distinct phenomenon in the history of the city’s culture, reflecting the subculture of the military, especially the officers. Despite the fact that the level of most articles did not differfundamentally, naturally taking into account their tasks, they performed an important function of promoting history and enlightenment. However, it cannot be said that the authors resorted to falsifications, manipulations with history, and distortions. Their works were well in line with the level of military-historical research of the time. Obviously, from the modern point of view, Russian-imperial patriotism, which has been imbued with all the articles, is unacceptable. However, the experience of publishing such literature should be taken into account, which is an urgent task in today’sUkraine.

This article examines the political situation in the Ili region during the 18th–19th centuries. From the latter half of the 18th century, the Ili area became part of the Qing Empire, where a new military and administrative system was established, emphasizing the region’s strategic importance. To secure the area, the Qing authorities deployed troops composed of various ethnic groups and enforced strict border and internal settlement policies. The main objective of the study is to explore the political, ethnic, and military-administrative history of the Ili region during the 18th–19th centuries and to reveal the influence and settlement process of the Kazakhs in this territory. Research Methods: Historical-chronological method – to systematize the socio-political history of the region by stages; source analysis – based on archival materials, Russian imperial statistical data, Qing court chronicles, and official records; comparative analysis – drawing upon the works of scholars from Kazakhstan, Russia, China, Europe, and the United States; archival and documentary methods – analysis of historical writings and records about the Ili region; statistical method – using census data to analyze the ethnic composition, the ratio of sedentary and nomadic populations, and the quantitative aspects of migration processes. Research Objectives : To describe the geopolitical situation of the Ili region; to specify the Qing Empire’s military and administrative structures in the area; to determine the causes and stages of Kazakh migration to the Ili valley (1830–1871); to outline the history, ethnic composition, and socio-political structure of the Ili Sultanate; to analyze the agreements between the Russian and Qing empires concerning the transfer and partition of the Ili territory. Research Results. The study traces the historical trajectory of the Ili region from the collapse of the Dzungar Khanate to the colonial policies of the Qing Empire. It reveals the formation, governance, and colonial practices of the Ili General Administration based on archival data. The political and ethnic dimensions of Kazakh and Kyrgyz migration to the Ili region are explored. The creation, population, and dissolution of the Ili Sultanate are systematized. The role and influence of the Kazakhs in the Ili region, particularly during the Ili uprising, are substantiated with documentary evidence. The political dynamics and territorial disputes between the Russian and Qing empires are clarified. The contributions of historical figures (Sauryk, Zheten, Balbai, Düräli) to the national liberation struggle are examined.

Reviewed by: Russia and Its Northeast Asian Neighbors: China, Japan, and Korea, 1858–1945 ed. by Kimitaka Matsuzato Ivan Sablin (bio) Kimitaka Matsuzato (Ed.), Russia and Its Northeast Asian Neighbors: China, Japan, and Korea, 1858–1945 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017). 206 pp., ills. Index. ISBN: 978-1-4985-3704-9. This edited collection of comprehensive case studies explores the relations between the Russian Empire/Soviet Union and China, Japan, and Korea between the formal arrival of the Russian state in Northeast Asia after the Treaties of Aigun and Tianjin in 1858 and the radical reconfiguration of the regional political and economic landscape following the Japanese defeat in World War II and Soviet occupation of Manchuria and North Korea in 1945. The volume is edited by Kimitaka Matsuzato, a University of Tokyo professor specializing in the history and politics of Russia and Ukraine. As a leading Japanese and international expert in the field, Matsuzato has both the experience and expertise required to compile and edit such a collection. The book consists of an introduction and ten chapters penned by scholars from Japan, Russia, Germany, and Hong Kong. In the introduction, Matsuzato outlines the main goal of the book, which is to inscribe Russia into the history of Northeast Asia as both "a decisive factor" and a participant of the interstate community since 1858 (P. vii). Matsuzato provides an overview of English and Japanese historiography on the subject, which is indeed insufficient in its discussion of the role played by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union in regional politics and economy. The authors of individual chapters include otherwise rarely discussed East Asian perspectives on Russia (such as the discourse of the Russian threat in Japan) in order to counterbalance the much more frequent European and Russian perspectives on East Asia within the recurring theme of contemporary "yellow peril" discourse. The Qing Empire is also discussed in the volume as an imperial formation with its own agency, rather than an object of foreign imperialisms and a victim thereof. The introduction claims that the volume departs from state-centered perspectives by focusing on the dynamics within imperial formations and exploring public opinion apart from official policies (P. xii). Although the introduction rightfully points at numerous gaps in historiography, the book presents a collection of essays, which are different in their focus, period, genre, theoretical approaches, and methodology, rather than a coherent monograph-like collective endeavor. Most of the chapters deal with the Russian Empire and, in fact, almost [End Page 345] completely ignore Korea. The imperial formations in question – the Russian Empire/Soviet Union, the Japanese Empire, and the Qing Empire/Chinese Republic – appear somewhat static over the period, and there is hardly anything on the ruptures and their perception in the region. A chapter (or chapters) on regional roots and consequences of the revolutions in the Russian and Qing Empires (including Japanese interventions in Russia and China) would certainly have enhanced the book. Despite the inclusion of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s in the title, there is hardly anything on the circulation of revolutionary ideas in general and the Communist International in particular in the volume. Because of this, there seems to be too much implied continuity between the respective monarchies and the troubled Soviet and Chinese republics in the region. Despite these critical observations, the book presents an informative selection of empirical case studies based on obscure or hitherto unexplored archival materials. Thus, they are a valuable contribution to the fields of Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Eurasian, and East Asian histories. Furthermore, the volume connects Japanese, English, and Russian historiographies, which alone can be seen as a tremendous achievement given the separation of national histories and respective area studies in international scholarship. The attention to institutions, populations, and press, treated separately from governments, also makes the book a welcome addition to the scholarship of the region. Following the introduction, the volume is divided chronologically, even though some essays overlap in their time frames. The chapter of Shinichi Fumoto (Niigata University), "Russia's Expansion to the Far East and Its Impact on Early Meiji Japan's Korea Policy," focuses on the consequences of Russian imperialism for Meiji decision making and, practically, the...

SUMMARY: Andreas Kappeler’s article addresses the problem of comparative studies of the relations between the elites of the metropole and the periphery in the Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Empires. Kappeler tackles four distinct blocs of problems: the ruling elites of the center, the center’s relationship with the peripheral elites, the attitude to the spiritual elites, and the role of the economic diasporic elites. Kappeler distinguishes between the pre-modern ( Vormoderne ) and modern periods in the history of empires, treating each bloc in its historical specificity. According to Kappeler, in the first, pre-modern period (1700–1842), the elites of the Habsburg and Russian empire consisted of hereditary landowning nobility with diverse national and geographical origins. This nobility was supplemented with newcomers who achieved noble status through service. In the Ottoman Empire, the elites were shaped by the devshirme practice, which recruited Christian boys from its European territories into the empire’s military and bureaucratic apparatus. This elite lacked regional basis and was entirely dependent on the Sultan. Only the ulema , the group of Islamic scholars, had some independence from the power of the monarch. In the course of the eighteenth century the decline of the devshirme system led to diversification of the Ottoman ruling elite, with Islam and written Ottoman Turkish providing a degree of cultural homogeneity. Addressing the problem of the relationship between the center and the peripheral elites in the pre-modern period, Kappeler suggests that in the early stages imperial centers deported and annihilated peripheral elites of the conquered territories (e.g., Hungary, Transylvania, Novgorod). As to the cooptation and incorporation that was usually practiced in later stages, Kappeler lists the following strategies of incorporation: indirect domination; guarantees of estate and regional rights and cooperation; political and administrative control with preservation of the local domination by native elites; and preservation of the elites distinct from the imperial elite and yet retaining a distance from the masses of the native population. During the pre-modern period, in all three empires the imperial governments pursued policies of cooperation with confessional leaders despite the presence of a dominant imperial confession. Similarly, all three empires utilized the services of economic diasporas, such as the Greek, Armenian, and Jewish. As the processes of modernization transformed, in unique ways, each of the three empires, the relationships between the center and the peripheral elites acquired specific dynamics in each particular case. In the Ottoman Empire the gradual integration of the core provinces of the empire was paralleled by the growth of separatism on the periphery. In the Habsburg Empire the Kingdom of Hungary was the central problem, as the granted Magyar noble and bureaucratic domination increasingly alienated other nationalities in the Empire. In the Russian Empire, the imperial government resorted to policies of relative homogenization and partially returned to cooperation with regional elites only after the Revolution of 1905. In conclusion, the author suggests that the three contitnental empires were based on a large degree of cooperation between the center and the peripheral elites. This cooperation turned the Habsburg and the Russian empires into stable states. Without reminiscing about empires, which deprived their subjects of freedoms and rights, the author questions the determinist master-narrative of “decline and dissolution” of empires.

The article describes legal status of Kabarda enshrined in interstate treaties: the Belgrade Treatise between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in 1739, the Kiuchuk-Kainardzhiiskii Peace Treaty concluded in 1774 between the Russian and Ottoman Empire. An attempt to determine the influence of Kabarda in the process of joining Crimea to Russia in the 18th century was made. A normative prohibition on the use of significant military support of Kabarda for conflicting parties is substantiated; a special legal protection of Kabardinian amanats and the possibility of their staying in two opposing states and vassal Crimean khanate are determined. It is argued that Belgrade Peace Treaty is the basis for international legal consolidation and recognition of a new subject of “Bolshaia and Malaia Kabarda” to establish diplomatic relations with it, both from the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate in resolving the issue of military support. The status of “free” Kabarda until signing of the Kiuchuk-Kainardzhiiskii Peace Treaty is characterized. It is established that during this period of confrontation among Russia and the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate, free Kabarda continued to adhere to the pro-Russian orientation and enjoy regular military support from Russia. It is argued that the period of “free” Kabarda is characterized by constant attempts to “pull” it from the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and the Crimean Khanate. It is substantiated that representatives of Kabardian nobility continued to adhere to pro-Russian orientation and to resist claims of the Crimean Khanate.

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of the composition and dynamics of the development of the anti-epidemic response of state, scientific, medical and public institutions of the leading countries of Western Europe, the Russian and Ottoman empires during the five cholera pandemic waves in the 19th - early 20th centuries. The difference in the unique features of social, cultural, political life and, at the same time, a general orientation towards one vector of development (western trend) make the analysis possible and relevant. The actuality layed not only in the general scientific sense, but also applicable to the current anti-epidemic practice of the emerging covid-19 pandemic. The comparative study is based on a comprehensive analysis of Russian, American, English and Turkish historiography. The work proves that the development of an anti-epidemic strategy is always the product of the already established tendencies of perception and response to emergencies and extraordinary situations in society, formats or patterns of “responses” to a global “challenge”, which in the course of events are only subject to certain adjustments, additions, updates. Confidence in the chosen strategy or the search for a strategy, the harmony of the chosen path or its search for social trends, plays a huge role. So, the general situation in Western European countries with a set of social characteristics inherent in them by the beginning of the 19th century (secularism, the leading role science and its self-developing potential, the development of public life and civil society institutions) only reinforced the chosen direction of the search for anti-epidemic policy algorithms, despite the delayed result, led to positive shifts both in the fight against cholera and the development of medicine in society as a whole (health care system, social hygiene, sanitation, preventive vaccination, etc.). Irregularities in the development of these social signs, with a general orientation towards a search path similar to Western Europe, the inconsistency of the relationship between power, medicine and society in the Russian Empire, did not lead, despite noticeable successes in certain clusters, to the organization of a common national health system till the beginning of the XX century subject to the vast territorial extent of the country, the key to effective implementation of choleratic measures. The transition to the European principles of anti-epidemic response in the harsh conditions of constant foreign policy pressure, the almost complete absence of a social foundation for the accumulation of innovations, or its deliberately secondary nature for social dispositions, the unpreparedness of the social system to massively rigid introduction of new principles, institutions, methods, practices and rules in society, as happened with the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century, did not contribute, despite the creation of almost all links and the maintenance of their performance, the addition of a national health system capable of developing an effective anti-epidemic response system in the conditions of the Ottoman society.

John Greaves, a British subject, was an important actor of modernization in the Russian Empire. He arrived at the port of Berdyansk as a representative of the British company Clayton & Shuttleworth, and he established a plant of agricultural machinery there, which became the largest plant of this kind in Europe. In 1877 Greaves offered himself for the position of German vice- consul in Berdyansk. In 1907 he became a vice-consul of the British Empire, and kept this post until 1918. Greaves and his family became an example of a new vector of actors’ mobility and new practices of socialization, formed under the influence of modernization. These stimulated the emergence of new forms of loyalty, as well as the combination of economics and politics. Special attention is paid to the Greaves’ family and business ties with the Germans, as well as on his personal experience of contacts with the German authorities, which is particularly interesting in the context of the competitive struggle between the British, Russian and German empires.

The purpose of the article is to study the peculiarities of the development of pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the context of the dialogue between the Russian Church and the Anglicans in the second half of the 19th century. This process was inextricably linked with the diplomatic relations of the Russian Empire and Great Britain. In the 19th century, the territory of Central Asia and the Middle East attracted the attention of Russia and England. In addition to diplomatic methods of expanding the sphere of influence in this region, missionary work was also used. The problem of the article is to determine the relationship between the pilgrimage process and church diplomacy in the relations between the Russian Empire and Great Britain. The intensification of pilgrimage activity in Russia was associated not only with the desire of believers to visit holy places. This process was also associated with the state ideology of Russia at that time. It is necessary to determine the relationship between the relations of the Russian Church with the Anglicans, the interaction of the Anglicans with the Orthodox of the East in the context of the development of missionary work and pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the context of the confrontation between the Russian and British empires. The historical and genetic method was used in the process of preparing the article. This method made it possible to clarify the initial period of interaction between the Russian Church and the Anglican Church, as well as to trace the development of missionary activity of the Anglicans in the Holy Land. The historical-chronological method was also used. Thanks to it, it was possible to establish the main stages in the development of relations between the Russian and Anglican churches in the context of the development of missionary activity in the Holy Land. The historical-problem method made it possible to identify the relationship between church diplomacy and politics in relations between the Russian Empire and Great Britain in the period considered in the article. The conducted research made it possible to identify the conditions for the development of pilgrimage. It is noted that the intensification of this process occurred against the background of an intensified dialogue between the Orthodox and the Anglicans. It is determined that pilgrimage to the Holy Land intensified in the mid-19th century, when the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission began its activities (1847). Later, this activity was actively supported by the Orthodox Palestine Society founded in 1882. Based on the conducted research, it is possible to further work on studying the features of the development of pilgrimage activity in the context of the dialogue between the Russian Church and the Anglicans at the beginning of the 20th century. As a result of the conducted research, the conditions of the pilgrimage of Russian Orthodox to the Holy Land were determined. The importance of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Palestine in organizing this process was noted. The prerequisites and reasons for the emergence of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society were identified. The characteristics of the foreign policy situation during the period of intensification of pilgrimage activity were given. It is indicated that the pilgrimage to the Holy Land took place against the backdrop of the desire of the Russian Empire to strengthen its position in the Middle East during the period of rivalry with Great Britain in this region. The process of foreign policy interaction between Russia and England took place in the context of the dialogue between the Russian Church and the Anglicans.

This article examines the role of the Turkestan Governor-Generalship in addressing Afghanistanrelated issues and border disputes between Great Britain and Russia in the 1860-1870s.Drawing on an extensive body of archival documents and historical sources, the authors emphasize that the struggle between great empires for influence in Afghanistan and its consequences persisted for an extended period.As a result of the Russian Empire's active engagement in Central Asia in the 1860s, the Turkestan Governor-Generalship was established and effectively granted broad powers to forge relationships with neighboring states.In this context, the article analyzes the Governor-Generalship's specific policy towards Afghanistan.Notably, the project proposed by K.P. Kaufman considered recognizing some Afghan territories as independent or neutral, while the British side insisted on acknowledging the independence of the Central Asian khanates.The authors argue that the struggle to establish borders unfolded in several stages.The first stage, which began in 1869, was characterized by the thorough examination of materials collected by the Turkestan government's diplomatic representative by central authorities, after which final conclusions and proposals were sent to the British administration.The next stage focused on fostering friendly relations between the Emir of Afghanistan, Sher Ali Khan, and the Russian Empire, with the Turkestan administration playing a crucial role.Against the backdrop of British preparations to seize Afghan territories, archival data reveal internal instability in Afghanistan.It is particularly noted that in 1878, the Turkestan Governor-General's independent dispatch of a diplomatic mission to Kabul exacerbated the situation, which, in turn, strained Russian-British relations and contributed to the onset of another British military campaign in Afghanistan.Ultimately, as historical sources indicate, the resolution of border issues concerning Afghanistan gave rise to new contradictions between the two empires.

SUMMARY: This is a Russian (and slightly edited) translation of the introduction to the volume Empire Speaks Out: Language of Rationalization and Self-Description in the Russian Empire (Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2009). The text traces the development of historical studies that, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, attempted to conceptualize the history of the Russian Empire as a space of domination, connexity, and diversity, and takes stock of the most recent attempts to theorize the problem of imperial government and the imperial space of social, religious, and cultural differences. The most recent trends under scrutiny include the rethinking of the history of the Russian Empire from the vantage point of borderland studies, confessional turn, and the comparative history of dynastic and composite imperial polities. Referencing the trends of historical study of empire outside of the Russian field and the revisionist trend of postcolonial studies in particular, the authors devise an approach from the vantage point of the cognitive turn. They suggest that the cognitive turn in nationalism studies advocated by Rogers Brubaker offers numerous insights for the field of studies of the Russian Empire. In particular, they note that the most popular historiographic models for understanding the Russian Empire (such as multinational empire) borrow the categories of imperial practice of the second half of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century as categories of analysis. With reference to Ann Stoler’s critique of the comparative history of imperial formations based on the idea of discreet ideal types, the authors devise perspectives that can place the history of Russian imperial rule and the experience of diversity in multiple comparative contexts, bridging the gap between studies of coloniality and studies of multinational polities and nationalism. The published text is not a standalone piece. It references the main outcomes of the collaborative research project that takes the cognitive turn in studies of the Russian Empire further to the exploration of languages of self-description and the rationalization of imperial rule and experience of diversity. This project highlights the moments of rupture and crisis in the history of the Russian Empire as productive contexts for rethinking the imperial strategy and reframing the space of difference, and thus introduces an important counterpoint to the thinking about crises of empire in the teleology of “decline and fall.” The text of the introduction summarizes the studies of languages of rationalization of empire from the impact of modern instrumental knowledge and paradigm of human sciences to the practice of socioeconomic modernization in the context of imperial diversity. It suggests an interpretative model for understanding tensions and hybridity of the Russian Empire since the reforms of Peter the Great, and especially in the postreform period, as constitutive of an imperial strategy of domination and experience of diversity.

Big part of European Jewry emigrated to other continents in late XIXth – early XXth century. Jews from Russian Empire started their first emigration wave in 1881. The main reason of this wave was Pogroms, according to traditional historiography. Other reasons were: low social level of life in Russian Empire; restrictions on Jewish rights («Pale of Settlement»); religious and ideological ideas of Zionism; networks of relatives and friends with information about wonderful life in other countries; Jewish hometown-based associations in foreign countries with their help to new immigrants etc. One more reason of Jewish migration – the work of recruiting agents network. The Number of recruiting agents was too big in Russian Empire in late XIXth – early XXth century. The business with recruiting of new emigrants was a very profitable. Mass of Jewish people coming out from Russian Empire to other countries and continents with recruiting agents services. There were many scammers in association of recruiting agents. Two waves of Jewish emigration caused irreparable damage economic system and demography of Russian Empire. Situation with Jewish immigration into Russian Empire was quite different. It`s character was not such mass. The main reasons of immigration were: business, finance and Zionism. This study is based on archival materials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Empire of the Vilnius Governor-General, which are stored in the holdings of the Central Archives for the History of Jewish People Jerusalem (State of Israel). These archival materials are about permanent and temporary migration of European Jewry that took place across the northwestern border of the Russian Empire to the territories of Western European countries, England and the North American continent during 1881-1903. Circumstances of crossing the specified border by foreigner Jews in the opposite direction (immigration) for staying within the Russian Empire are covered. It is noted that one of the reasons for the mass emigration movements of the Jewish population outside the Russian Empire was the active actions of emigration agents and their societies.