Russian Monarchs Research Articles

ПРАКТИКИ УСТАНОВЛЕНИЯ ПРИСЯЖНЫХ ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬСТВ НАРОДОВ СИБИРИ В XVII В.

At the beginning of the 17th century, Russia’s central government ordered the peoples of Siberia to swear oaths of allegiance (shert’). The oath text determines that the one who takes the oath becomes a subject of the Russian monarch. The government appealed to the oath in case of conflicts with the peoples of Siberia or for avoiding such conflicts in negotiations. The Siberian peoples had to renew their oath whenever the tsar changed (and the nomadic peoples of Siberia had to renew their oath whenever their leader changed as well). The government also called on the oath when replacing governors in Russian towns, for which it introduced a special procedure — the proclamation of the “grand sovereign word”, or when negotiating with “traitors” (participants of armed rebellions and escapes of Siberian natives from their lands to territories beyond the control of Russia’s authorities). The return to peaceful conditions of coexistence was realized through renewing the oath. The author found that, by the second half of the 17th century, both sides of political communication — representatives of the tsarist administration and Siberian foreigners — have developed stable tactics regarding the procedures for the renewal of oaths, but they interpreted the meaning of the oaths in different ways.

Peter I and the Birth of the Russian Empire: Political Leadership and Military Successes in Comparative Perspective

Empires are usually born through political recognition and extensive military successes. The ruler’s personality and the activities of political and military advisors and generals are crucial for the emergence of an empire. The authors argue that in the case of Peter the Great (Peter I), the political recognition and military successes were achieved simultaneously in the east and west, however, in different contexts. The authors make a series of comparisons between Peter I and other monarchs of the epoch, such as Carl XII, August II, Frederick I, Carlos II, Willem III, Leopold VI, and others, relying on three main categories, namely education, “vices and virtues” and political views. This comparison is necessary to highlight the essential prerequisites in Peter’s personal development that might have determined his political actions. In addition, the article carries out an evaluation of the geopolitical significance of the military campaigns and victories achieved by the tzar and his commanders. These achievements are substantiated to correlate with Russian rise as a great power directly. After the Peace of Nystad, the geopolitical interests of the Tsardom were finally met, with the territorial dominium of the Empire being outlined for a century ahead.Furthermore, the territorial expansion was accompanied by the exercise of the “imperium” as a political authority exclusive to the Russian monarchs. The authors try to highlight the connection between the personal development of monarchs, their achievements, and imperial ambitions. The comparative analysis of these factors in various imperial cases provides additional considerations for understanding the historical period.

The legitimacy of Tsarist authority over the peoples of Siberia in the late 16th to early 18th centuries

The article studies the methods that substantiated the legitimacy of the power of the Russian monarch over the vast territories of Siberia. The context of this study is the Russian political culture of the late 16th to early 18th centuries. Based on information from chronicles as well as diplomatic and administrative documents, the authors identify and systematize the main political, ideological, and legal arguments that were most often used by the Russian government to justify the Tsars rule over Siberia. The arguments can be divided into two groups according to the target audience: the first group was intended for conversation with the heads of foreign countries, the second one addressed the Siberian peoples and also the Russian people broadly. In foreign policy, the representatives of the Moscow Tsar emphasized the antiquity and the strength of the bond between these territories and the Russian state. The diplomats tended to exaggerate the scale of the Russian military, socio-economic, political, and cultural (religious) development of the new territories. At the same time, they were silent about the resistance of the local population to the tsarist servicemen. At home the authorities applied other legal arguments to bolster their legitimacy. In interaction with indigenous populations, the Russian governors and service people usually forced the communities (in the form of an ultimatum) to accept the claim that the Tsar owned the Siberian lands as a fiefdom. With this the socio-political status of the Siberian peoples radically changed: they became subjects to the Russian Tsar, as kholops or yasak-payers. The Russian combatants and colonists, in direct contact with the indigenous population, informed the Siberian peoples about recent government directives and fully identified with the official claim to authority. In the eyes of the Russian population, an additional element was the religious and political idea that the Tsar had been chosen by God, from which followed the duty to expand the Russian Orthodox tsardom.

Wolff , Larry Disunion within the Union: The Uniate Church and the Partitions of Poland (review)

SEER, 99, 3, JULY 2021 570 Chapter four, the last in the book, ‘A Case of Infanticide and Witchcraft in Szczurowczyky’, is a detailed and fascinating account of a case in 1753 conducted under Magdeburg Law in the town of Kremenets, in which a young woman was accused of infanticide by taking a magic potion from a witch. She confessed, and under torture also incriminated the witch who gave her the potion, described the coven to which she allegedly belonged, and even claimed she had flown on a broomstick! An ‘Afterword’ briefly describes the presence of witches and witchcraft in later literature and popular culture. Warburg Institute W. F. Ryan School of Advanced Study, University of London Wolff, Larry. Disunion within the Union: The Uniate Church and the Partitions of Poland. Harvard Papers in Ukrainian Studies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2019. 152 pp. Notes. Index. $18.95: £15.95: €17.00 (paperback). The eighteenth century, especially for the territories not annexed during the partition of Poland by the Habsburgs in 1772, has generally been neglected in the history of the Uniate Church and in Ukrainian national history. Unlike the renamed Greek Catholic Church of Habsburg Galicia that played a leading role among the Ruthenians of that crownland in their development as a national community, the eighteenth-century Uniates represented the highpoint of Polonization and Latinization of the church, hardly positions to be admired by the Ukrainian national movement and the present-day Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Yet the disappearance of the Uniate Church under Russian persecution in the nineteenth century and the rejection by its former adherents of Polish identity except for the Chełm (Kholm) region and certain areas of Belarus in time left the eighteenth-century Uniates outside the narrative of Polish history and to a degree outside the history of Catholicism in Eastern Europe. Still, an institution that encompassed the majority of the Ukrainian and Belarusian population and that left an imposing documentary and artisticliterary legacy could hardly be ignored, however few its modern claimants. Nevertheless, after World War Two and the outlawing of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in the Soviet Union, scholarship faced major problems. While Polish historians of the Catholic Church such as Ludwik Bieńkowski examined the structures of the Uniate Church and scholars centred in Rome such as Izydor Patrylo mined the Vatican archives for documents, especially on the Basilian order, it was only the fall of the Soviet bloc and the opening of archives in the former Soviet Union that permitted a more comprehensive REVIEWS 571 examination of the church, devoid of the confessional and national optics that had long dominated in the field. The works by Barbara Skinner, David Frick, Richard Butterwick, Ihor Skochylas and a whole new generation of church historians in Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania joined by Polish colleagues that Wolff cites have broadened our understanding of the multifaceted nature of the Uniate Church of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was a church that with the Polish partitions found itself divided among the Russian and Habsburg empires and the rump Commonwealth that embarked on substantial reforms, including in its treatment of the until then discriminated against Uniate Church, just before the state was to be dismembered. Larry Wolff’s short monograph brings a new vision to the study of the eighteenth-century Uniate Church. It constitutes a rethinking of a long piece that he wrote over thirty years ago for a compendium on Ukrainian church history published in 2002–03 in Harvard Ukrainian Studies. That article had represented largely the view from Rome and by the papal nuncios on Ukrainian and Belarusian church affairs. The monograph broadens the discussion of these events based on the research that has been conducted by others since then, but also by Wolff’s engagement in other topics such as his monograph on inventing Galicia and his explorations of the eighteenth-century conceptualization of Eastern Europe. He divides his new monograph into two very distinct parts. The first part demonstrates how concepts of Enlightenment and the goals of states and rulers affected both the Habsburgs and the Russian monarchs in dealing with the Uniate Church. In so doing Wolff revises the usual...

Атрибуция тронных кресел царей Бориса Годунова и Михаила Романова в XIX—XXI веках: исторические и искусствоведческие аспекты

Древние тронные кресла отечественных монархов из собрания Музеев Московского Кремля были неоднократно опубликованы на протяжении XIX — XXI вв., но и сегодня нельзя считать работу по их атрибуции законченной. Примером тому — о два древнейших артефакта — тронные кресла царей Бориса Годунова и Михаила Романова: вопрос определения времени и места их создания остается неразрешенным. Ошибка исследователей заключается в том, что их внимание сосредоточено на ювелирном декоре предметов, не был применен метод описания и анализа художественных и технических приемов изготовления артефактов в целом, а также архивная документация изучена в недостаточной степени. По мнению автора, упомянутые предметы являются образцами персидской работы XV–XVI вв., в то время как прежде кресло царя Бориса Годунова датировалось 1603-1605 гг., а атрибуция принадлежавшего царю Михаилу Романову варьировалась между второй половиной XVI — первой третью XVII вв., причисляя изделие к московской или иранской работе. The article examines two ancient throne chairs of Russian monarchs from the collection of the Moscow Kremlin Museums: the chair of Tsar Boris Godunov, which is believed to have been received at the beginning of the 17th century as part of the ambassadorial gifts from Shah Abbas I, and the chair which researchers associate with the name of Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich. The aim of the article is a comprehensive study of these objects based not only on their external description, but also on the identification of their structure, parts hidden by metal and woven coatings. In addition, for the first time, the author considers the chairs as pieces of furniture art, trying to “embed” them into the line of the development of artistic styles. In the course of the research, the method of description and analysis of artistic and technical methods of making artifacts, methods of comparative analysis and interpretation of historical sources were applied. The materials of the study were archival documents, published sources and the results of research by Russian historians and museologists. Various historical evidence about the investigated artifacts and views on their dating, reflected in documents and research works, is analyzed. The author compiled descriptions of the throne chairs and made assumptions about the possibility of a later change in their appearance. The analysis of the form and decor made it possible to attribute the throne chair of Tsar Boris Godunov as an example of a Persian work of the 15th–16th centuries; the use of European heritage is clearly traced in the creation of its artistic image. The attribution of the chair of Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich cannot be considered final, because today there are several versions of it (a sample of the work of the Moscow Kremlin Workshops of the 17th century, precious plates of Iranian production of, presumably, the 16th century were used in its decoration; Iran, Isfahan, second half of the 16th century (?); work of Iranian court masters of the first third of the 17th century). This throne chair presumably has a pair – the chair of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: outwardly these objects are remarkably similar and look like a set, in which, with the general logic of shaping, only the manner of decoration is somewhat different. The visual analysis of the monument allows classifying it as a sample of Persian work, made under the influence of the Renaissance art, which spread from Italy to Europe in the 15th–16th centuries. The need to study these rarities with the use of modern technologies and research methods is emphasized.

Why Did Russia Not Become a Composite State?

Abstract The paper asks how the Russian Empire emerged. In the course of European monarchical rise of the 16–17th centuries, composite monarchies turned into nation states and then empires. Russia never became a composite; very soon after its emergence at the end of the 15th century, it immediately moved to the imperial stage. The answer to why this happened is the key to understanding the Russian Empire’s history. One factor that prevented Russia from building a composite monarchy was the weakness of political actors united under Moscow’s leadership. European composite monarchies emerged when and where the dominant monarchy forcefully broke local laws, fought against local class and political systems. But Moscow’s rivals were too weak, and Russian monarchs did not need to compromise with them. A shared Orthodox faith, common culture, language, and economic structure, as well as the absence of natural borders on the Eastern European plain were other factors that allowed Moscow to ignore the rights of conquered regions. Russia’s background as a part of the Mongol Empire also played a role. By the time Russia faced strong European monarchical competitors, its imperial development path already formed. An important feature of the early Muscovite Empire was the dominance of political practice over ideology. The ideological design of the Empire occurred only in the 18th and 19th century. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the imperial character of Muscovy was formed intuitively and spontaneously; one might call it a neonatal, rudimentary, infant empire.

Patronage and Social Sponsorship’s Role in the Development of Russian Medicine in the Second Half of the 18th and in the Beginning of 19th Century

This article analyzes different aspects of the patronage and social sponsorship’s role in the development of Russian medicine in the second half of the 18th and in the beginning of 19th century. The present study includes the scientific data concerning patrons and philanthropists’ aid for Russian medical education. This article also includes the overview on formation of Russian tradition of charity, patronage and social sponsorship during different periods of Russian history. The present study reveals the patronage’s influence on Russian hospital system from 1750s to 1820s. Authors of this article also explore the interaction between the patronage and the charity establishments founded by Russian monarchs in the second half of the 18th century and in the beginning of 19th century.

Оренбургский губернатор И. И. Неплюев и российская политика умиротворения казахской знати после смерти хана Абулхаира (1748—1750 гг.)

The article examines the activities of the Orenburg governor I. I. Neplyuev to clarify the circumstances of the death of Abulkhair Khan of the Junior Zhuz, which happened in 1748 as a result of an unequal battle with the Sultan of the Middle Zhuz Barak, and the “policy of pacification” of his heir Nuraly Khan. The analysis of departmental and diplomatic documents shows that the subsequent death of Barak Sultan two years later was perceived by the Orenburg administration as an ordinary and expected incident. The legitimization of Khan’s power by the Russian monarch, even more than a treaty of citizenship, turned the heirs of Abulkhair into vassals of the Russian Empire. Thus, the events related to the change of power in the Junior Zhuz in the middle of the 18th century should be considered as an important indicator of the involvement of the Kazakh elite in the Russian political space. At the same time, the essence of the Central Asian policy of Russia, based on the “balance of power” of competing clan families and the pacification of their warlike aspirations, remained unchanged.

Образ Николая I в источниках личного происхождения: русско-польский дискурс

Currently, one of the topical issues for Russian historians is the study of the personalities of Russian monarchs including tsars and emperors of the Romanov dynasty. The problem of constructing the image of a representative of power both in Russia and abroad especially in the light of the problems of nation-building also relevant among researchers is revealed. The purpose of our work is to reconstruct the images of emperor Nicholas I to reveal their transformation, similarities and differences within the framework of the Polish question. The article analyzes Russian and Polish sources of personal origin in the 1820s–1830s in the context of the Polish coronation of 1829 and the uprising of 1830–1831. Using historical and anthropological approach they have the opportunity to identify the features of the formation of emperor’s image. The historical-comparative method let us to analyze the characteristics that the emperor was endowed with by his contemporaries and to reconstruct the chronological evolution of the images of Nicholas I. The main result of this evolution can be called the moment of separation of the image of the Russian emperor from the image of the polish king, which was repeatedly emphasized by both Russian and Polish contemporaries, and by the emperor himself. The selfidentification of Nicholas I as the Russian autocratic monarch was one of the results of the Polish uprising of 1830–1831 that followed soon after the coronation

Gra na dwa fronty, czyli rozważania o lojalności. Tomasz Łubieński w okresie powstania listopadowego i Zygmunt Sierakowski na drodze do powstania styczniowego

Double-dealing, or considerations of loyalty. Tomasz Łubieński during the November Uprising and Zygmunt Sierakowski on the way to the January Uprising Tomasz Łubieński (1784–1870) is a hero of the Napoleonic campaings, active politically and enonomically in the Congress Kingdom. After the November Night, he worked to stop the insurrection movement and reconcile with Russia. His military activity in 1831 raises doubts as to his full involvement. The only member of the November Uprising generalship, after an audience with Nicolas I, was released, and then he continued his opportunist career. The dominant feature of the attitude was calculation, permeating a double betrayal (of the king‑tsar, a revolted nation) and, in accordance with principle of two consciences, double loyalty to the Russian monarch and own fellow countrymen. Zygmunt Sierakowski (1827–1863), during his penal service on the Orenburg line, decides to take up te career of a tsarist officer in order to use the opportunities thus gained for the benefit of the national irredent. After graduating from the Academy of the General Staff in St. Petersburg, a specialized employee of the Ministry of War tries to be “Wallenrod of the reform of the tsarist empire” as well as “Wallenrod of the Polish independence underground”. Loyalty to the Cause resulted in a “double existence” on the verge of mental exhaustion, and his heroic sacrifice made him a martyr for his countryman, an example of treason, falsehood and hypocrisy for Russians.

Career Strategies of Russian Diplomats in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century (the Cases of I.M. Simolin and P.A. Levashev)

The article examines the careers of the famous eighteenth-century Russian diplomats Ivan Matveevich Simolin and Pavel Artemyevich Levashev, whose paths repeatedly crossed – in Copenhagen, Vienna, and Regensburg, creating tension between them. Analysing the correspondence of diplomats preserved in the Archives of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire and the Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents, the author concludes that they acted in the same way to get a promotion: they constantly reminded of themselves to the superiors in the College of Foreign Affairs A.P. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, M.I. Vorontsov, N.I. Panin, and A.M. Golitsyn, devoting their literary works to them, helping purchase pieces of art or luxury goods, and keeping a keen eye on their real and potential rivals. Their lack of moderation in the implementation of such a strategy, blatant attempts to show off or to compromise colleagues were discouraged by the leadership of the Russian foreign office. There were also objective factors that hindered the career advancement of the two diplomats, which they were not always ready to take into account: the lack of vacant posts, the successful activities of their rivals, as well as conflicts with foreign courts, that, under certain circumstances, did not allow Russian monarchs to make necessary replacements for reasons of state prestige. The cases of I.M. Simolin and P.A. Levashev show how the principle of personal service, fixed by Peter I in the Table of Ranks of 1722, worked in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs and how it regulated its personnel policy.

К вопросу присоединения Средней Азии к России (обзор некоторых башкирских письменных источников второй половины XIX в.)

Introduction. The article studies southeastern policies of the Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th century, its campaigns and the annexation of Central Asia. Goals. The work analyzes reasons for the activation of foreign policy in the region during the mentioned period. The course and goals of the conquest of the Khanates of Kokand and Khiva, Emirate of Bukhara are considered. Materials. The paper investigates data contained in reports by the State Councilor М. Bekchurin, and one more document ― Arabic-script travel records (manuscript) by a private soldier Husniyar currently stored at the Manuscript Collection of the Institute of History, Language and Literature (Ufa Federal Research Centre of the RAS) and for the first time studied as a historical source. Results. Messages about the beauty of Eastern cities and Asian wealth had long attracted attention of Russian monarchs. Finally, Russia’s attempts to penetrate into Central Asia were crowned with success. In just two decades, the vast country further extended its borders far to the south and became a neighbor of another one ― the British Empire. Nowadays, the study of the history of establishing relations with Kazakhstan and Central Asia, when the southeastern borders of Russia almost returned to those of the early 18th century, is relevant and practically expedient. Reports by State Councilor M. Bekchurin reveal the economic objectives of the government: Russian industry and trade were looking for new markets for their products. So, M. Bekchurin gives his suggestions how to facilitate the growth of trade. The manuscript of Husniyar’s travel notes contains observations of an ordinary soldier, his attitude and experience as a Muslim in the campaign against his co-religionists. The source makes it possible to present the set and route of one military formation. Both the documents provide an opportunity to depict this region in the late 19th century. Currently, there are independent countries across this territory with different state borders, and the ethnic composition of many settlements has changed significantly.

Manifestation of the Author’s Image Category in the Characteristics of the Reign of Peter the Great (based on the material of V.O. Klyuchevsky “Russian History”)

The article analyzes the features of the manifestation of the category of the authors image in the work of V.O. Klyuchevskys Russian History on the example of the characteristics of the reign of the outstanding Russian monarch - Peter I, whose reign, which dramatically changed the progressive development of Russian life, had an extremely contradictory influence on the fate of the Russian Empire until its collapse in 1917. The purpose of the work is to prove that the interpretation of the text from the standpoint of the category of the authors image, as a supercategory serving as the organizing principle and focus of the essence of the text, reveals the internal unity of the text, not only artistic but also scientific, especially as complex and non-trivial as V.O. Klyuchevsky, possessing the highest cognitive, ethical and aesthetic value. In the course of the study, as a result of correlation of the authors self with the content being introduced and the establishment of the principle of selecting facts exposed in the book by V.O. Klyuchevsky analysis, the scientific method that is not directly formulated in the historians work is explicated, which allows reconstructing the authors image as the image of a researcher. Observation of the features of the linear development of the text makes it possible to discover ways of reinforcing meanings, to assess the degree of their fixation, and therefore, to actualize, derive fixed meanings, establish their general meaningful orientation and, on this basis, reconstruct the value-ethical side of the authors image. Extrapolation of the concept of the image of the author, developed by V.V. Vinogradov for a systematic analysis of a literary text, designed to establish the features of each conditionally distinguished level of the text and the principle of matching all levels with each other, into scientific texts can significantly expand our understanding of the scope of application of systematic methods of analysis.

To the question of creation of Great Imperial Crowns in Russia in the XVIII century

The object of this research is the Great Imperial Crowns of the Russian monarchs in the XVIII century. The goal consists in clarification of the circumstances of creation and existence of the Great Imperial Crowns in Russia during this period, determination of their artistic peculiarities, and analysis these regalia as the works of jewelry art with consideration of stylistic evolution. For achieving the goal, the complex method based on the synthesis of art and historical-cultural approaches is applied. The author refers to a range of sources: unpublished archival documents, memoirs of the contemporaries, and visual material. This article presents a first comprehensive study on creation of the Great Imperial Crowns in Russia. The examines archival documents allow specifying names of the artists who created these regalia, many of which are introduced into the scientific discourse for the first time. The analysis of artistic image of Great Imperial Crowns is carried out. The research demonstrates that in the XVIII century this image transformed under the influence of stylistic preferences in the Russian art culture, as well as due to succession of the court jewelers who belonged to different jewelry schools. Up until Paul I of Russia, who made these regalia hereditary, the Great Imperial Crowns were usually taken apart after the coronation ceremony they were made for.

Non-Russians at Royal Coronations: The Ethnic Politics of the Empire in Ceremonies

This article considers the participation of representatives of the non-Slavic population of the Russian Empire in the coronation ceremony of the monarch. The author of the article refers both to published and archival sources from the funds of the Russian State Historical Archive and the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts. On the basis of these documents, it is demonstrated how “alien” deputations were compiled for participation in the “sacred coronation” ceremony; how officials in the centre and periphery selected deputies who they thought were worthy; in which capacity they attended the ceremony; and what value it had for the internal policy of the state. The cooperation with the elites of the peoples that made up the Russian Empire was one of the leading principles of ethnic politics. An important means of involving ethnic elites (as well as the non-Slavic population in general) in the life of the state and implementing government policies was to form a cult of the Russian monarch. The convocation of multiethnic masses in the Kremlin and other Moscow celebrations not only marked the national diversity of Russia but was also meant to demonstrate the unity of all its inhabitants around the new autocrat. The research methodology is based on the analysis of the symbolic capital of supreme power. The article reveals how it was maintained and supported in the eyes of different ethnic subjects. Participation in a series of coronation rituals was also important for the non-Russian subjects themselves. It was an opportunity to represent one’s people. Gradually, an algorithm was developed for the selection of people invited to the celebration. Representatives of the ethnic elite, aristocracy, and highest clergy were seen as the most desirable, although by the end of the nineteenth century, it was considered reasonable to invite commoners. The participation of representatives of the country’s peoples in the ceremony of enthronement was an important element of imperial ethnic policy.

Троице-Сергиев монастырь: вклады русских государей

This article reveals the contribution of the Kingdom to the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra through the prism of personal relations between the Orthodox Church and the highest state authorities, and thus reveals the role of the Emperors and the Church in the history of Russian art, as well as in the preservation of Russian national culture and identity. Russian monarchs’ pilgrimage and contribution to the monastery of St. Sergius of Radonezh is considered an important factor in strengthening ties between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Monarchy, as well as the entire Russian society, supporting its national idea. Russian art was formed in the spiritual paradigm of Christianity, immediately after the adoption of the unified faith (unity of faith) up to the seventeenth century. The analysis of gifts and contributions, as well as their artistic value, allows to conclude that the contributions of the sovereigns constitute the summit of achievements of modern Russian art culture. From this point of view, the Church, in particular the Holy Trinity St. Sergius Lavra, against the background of known political upheavals in the country in the twentieth century, became the keeper of an invaluable cultural and artistic treasury and spiritual core of Great Russia, showing not only a model of serving the Orthodoxy, its people and country, but also a saving perspective for the Russian State of historical survival in the new epoch.

The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and Its Institutions in the Representations of Russian Diplomacy in 1740s —1770s

The article discusses the representations of Russian diplomats who served in Vienna, Frankfurt am Main and Regensburg in the 1740s — 1770s on the Holy Roman Empire and its institutions in the context of international relations of the era and Russia's foreign policy challenges. These representations are reflected in the correspondence of diplomats with Russian monarchs and the leadership of the College of Foreign Affairs, which is held at the Archives of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire and the Russian State Archives of Ancient Documents. Special attention is paid to the coverage of conflicts between the Emperor and Imperial Estates in the correspondence and to the reflection on whether they had common goals and interests.

The French Language in Russia: A Social, Political, Cultural, and Literary History by Derek Offord Vladislav Rjéoutski Gesine Argent

 Reviews theorizers of the avant-garde (Bürger, Bourdieu, Luhmann, Mann, and Reckwitz). e editors want us to understand Schlingensief’s self-positioning above all historically and also at the cross-overs of art and non-art, within and without institutions and with respect to the institution of art itself. But Schlingensief himself probed and poked fun at such categorizations and does not appear to have shown extensive awareness of avant-garde theory. What he did know, however, was the ‘classical avant-garde’ of the s and s, and this volume shows that his productions and performances have to be interpreted against this history; he engaged with it in vital ways, which could be every bit as provocative in the s as the original interventions seventy or eighty years earlier, as the essays by Jasmin Degeling and, in particular, Sarah Pogoda demonstrate. e volume ends with a scholarly apparatus, including lists of works by Schlingensief and works about him. e written accounts and interpretations of his achievements would already fill several shelves, which is testimony to his posthumous reputation in the academic world and beyond. As is the case with all live performers, however, most of Schlingesief’s own works le fewer traces. As a consequence, both witnesses and researchers such as those gathered in this volume have a greater role to play in assessing and recording his influence and significance. S U J P e French Language in Russia: A Social, Political, Cultural, and Literary History. By D O, V R, and G A. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. .  pp. € ISBN ––––. is book marks the culmination of a large research project and it really demonstrates what such collaborative enterprises can achieve. e expansive nature of the topic and the research means that the book enriches our knowledge not only of the use of the French language in Russia, but of many other topics, with chapters on history, education, the court, high society, diplomacy and state activity, writing, cultural propaganda and political polemics, language attitudes, and literature. As each chapter, moreover, consists of over fiy pages of detailed discussion of many other subthemes, it is truly impossible to do any kind of justice to this impressive book and its scope in such a short review. e authors see two threads running through their work: language practice and the functioning of the French language in Russia (primarily in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries); and language attitudes and the ways that using French became entangled with conceptions of identity at various levels. e nature of these threads results in a truly interdisciplinary work, with much to interest linguists, literary specialists, and translators, as well as historians, sociologists, and even anthropologists . e subject and the sources mean that the court and the nobility are the main focus, since they had the resources and desire to speak and learn French, and le copious evidence of its use. And this book makes full use of such evidence: official documents, treaties, and laws; grammars, dictionaries, and MLR, .,   educational material; memoirs, diaries, and letters; plays, poems, and literature; and more. Alongside their main threads, the authors are keen to undermine several traditional assumptions. e first is that the Russian nobility spoke primarily French and, second, that consequently they spoke Russian infrequently, poorly, and to lower social groups. e reality was far more complex. ere were variations over time, across the nobility, within different scenarios, and when discussing different topics. Code-switching is explored repeatedly, as is the impact of plurilingualism. Indeed, this book may be about the French language, but the authors also provide a detailed account of the use of Russian and other languages (usually German and later English) among the court and the nobility. Many Russian monarchs and nobles were confident linguists who switched repeatedly between languages when speaking and writing among themselves, not just to other social groups, and some of the most interesting analysis explores when this ‘cultural capital’ was utilized and the factors involved. e final traditional assumption interrogated is that this plurilingualism—and the westernization it implied—had a detrimental impact on the formation of a Russian identity and culture. e reality, again, was far more...

Категория времени и концепция идеальной резиденции монарха в архитектуре Большого Ливадийского дворца

The paper describes the findings of some new historical and architectural surveys of the great Livadia Palace in H2 of the 19th — early 20th centuries. Belonging to the Russian monarchs — from Alexander II to Nicholas II — the building is a monument of architecture and the landmark of the palace and park ensemble in the Crimea. For the first time, the equal focus was given to the original and the new palace that replaced it and was built according to the designs of architects I.A. Monighetti (1866) and M.P. Krasnov (1911), a graphical comparative analysis of layouts was carried out. The author has used the newly discovered archival materials and graphic sources, which indicate the replacement of one palace by another and allow raising the question of similarity lines and fundamental differences between the architecture of the old and the new buildings, due to the content of the order and the unbiased historical course of time. The author dwells upon the interaction of the new art of symbolism in the early 20th century with the architectural texts of the past. She hypothesizes about the search for the artistic equivalent of existential perception of time in the architecture.

«…Let them be under Our Majesty highest rule»: Documents on Taking the Oath and Entry into the Russian Citizenship of Grodno Jews in 1656

The article is based on the documents of the Razryadny Department (Razryadny prikaz) from the Russian State Archives of Ancient Acts dealing with the problem of taking the oath to Tsar and Grand Duke Alexey Mikhailovich and entry into the Russian citizenship of Grodno Jews (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) during the Russian-Polish War 1654–1667.As the documents demonstrate,taking the oath to the Russian monarch by Lithuanian Jews and, accordingly, their entry into the Russian citizenship did not involve their conversion to Christianity.