No 5 (2025)

The article examines the so-called complete version of the Welsh historical continuum as preserved in two codices: Jesus College MS 141 and National Library of Wales 5277B. The latter, compiled by John Jones of Gellilyfdy between 1604 and 1608, is a precise copy of the earlier codex compiled by Gutun Owain no later than 1497. The study focuses on Y Bibyl Ynghymraec – the opening text in the continuum – a Welsh translation of Peter of Poitiers’ (c. 1125–1205) widely circulated Compendium historiae in genealogia Christi. By analysing Y Bibyl and its characteristic interpolations, the author demonstrates the central role that medieval Welsh historical writing accorded to Old Testament genealogies in narrating the origins of the Britons/Welsh. The Trojan context equally significant within this framework: the fall of Ilion was construed as inaugurating a new historical era – one distinct from all preceding ages in its measurability – which made possible the synchronisation of historical events. The article also explores the sources underpinning the development of this tradition and the distinctive features of its transmission. It is suggested that the limited circulation of the continuum’s first text might have resulted from the absence of a clearly defined genre, which impeded its broader reception; the established conventions of the Welsh genealogical tradition may likewise have constrained its dissemination.

This article examines the organisation and standardisation of translations of European scientific works in the earliest printed editions produced during the reign of Peter the Great. Its principal aim is to analyse how the large-scale production of such translations supported Peter’s cultural reforms and contributed to the development of a distinct Russian scientific language. As part of the Tsar’s modernising vision, the widespread dissemination of educational, scientific, and technical literature was conceived as a key instrument for transforming Russia into a Europeanised state. This ambition led Peter to take a keen interest in translations, particularly in standardising the language of newly published works. To investigate these efforts, the article employs the concept of linguistic “normalisation,” framing translation not merely as a linguistic act but also as a sociocultural process situated within the broader context of the early eighteenth century. The study’s primary sources comprise Peter’s decrees and correspondence relating to the selection, translation, and publication of books. Analysis of these documents demonstrates that the Tsar personally selected works for translation, appointed translators, demanded the use of “plain” language, issued detailed instructions, and even made his own emendations to manuscripts. Peter also established key principles for the “normalisation” of translations: they were to convey the core ideas of the original texts, remain accessible to Russian readers, omit extraneous details, and not contradict Orthodox doctrine. Furthermore, he set out guidelines for the organisation of translators’ work and their professional training, insisting that linguistic proficiency alone was insufficient – translators were also required to possess expertise in the scientific fields they rendered into Russian. The article concludes that Peter’s standardisation of translations constituted a significant milestone in defining the norms of the Russian scientific language and greatly accelerated the transfer of European scientific knowledge to Russia.

Russia’s role in resolving the Austro-Prussian conflict of 1849–1850 exemplifies successful diplomatic mediation that contributed to stabilising an international crisis. A crucial element of Russian diplomacy’s success was its attention not only to the two dominant German powers but also to the medium-sized kingdoms – chiefly the four kingdoms led by Bavaria – that developed their own programme to address the German question. Using archival documents from Russia and Germany, this article examines Russian diplomats’ perceptions of the preparation, proceedings, and outcomes of the conference of representatives of the four kingdoms in Munich in February 1850. This conference resulted in the creation of the Four Kings’ Alliance and a new draft German constitution. The evaluation of this project, which diverged from both Prussian and Austrian plans, presented a challenge for Russian diplomats. While recognising the importance of the Munich proposals for resolving the German question, they also acknowledged that the project’s contradictory elements could complicate efforts to reconcile Vienna and Berlin. The article analyses the discussions between Russian diplomats in the German kingdoms and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in late 1849 and early 1850 concerning the significance and prospects of the Munich project. The key conclusion is that Russia initially endorsed the four kingdoms’ initiative, and Russian diplomats generally maintained a favourable attitude towards it as an alternative to the Prussian plan, one that helped restore the principles of the Concert of Europe, consolidate the German princes, and promote their cooperation in re-establishing the central organs of the German Confederation at Frankfurt am Main.

This article examines the relationship between the imperial centre and peripheral elites through the case of the Baltic German nobility in the eighteenth-century Russian Empire – a case that offers broader insights into the integration of other regional elites. It analyses the multiple pathways through which Baltic elites entered imperial structures, including formal channels such as military and civil service and higher education, as well as informal mechanisms that shaped the positioning of Baltic German men and women within the imperial hierarchy. Drawing on quantitative data and biographical case studies, the study highlights the role of family strategies, personal ambition, and individual choice – rooted in both pragmatic and ideological considerations – in shaping elite trajectories. The integration of Baltic Germans is characterised not as cultural assimilation, but as a process of negotiation between centre and periphery. While seeking to preserve their corporate privileges, Baltic Germans actively employed imperial resources to advance careers, build informal networks, and secure influence across administrative and political spheres. In turn, the imperial centre, while accommodating Baltic autonomy as part of a broader “politics of difference,” pursued from the early eighteenth century the creation of a transregional imperial nobility as the foundation of a homogenous state, co-opting Baltic corporate traditions for its own purposes.

This article examines the transformation of imperial governance in Russian Central Asia from the eighteenth to early twentieth centuries, focusing on the gradual dismantling of the empire’s traditional strategy of elite co-optation – termed “superstratification” – and the emergence of explicitly colonial forms of rule. Initially relying on Chinggisid Kazakh elites as intermediaries, the Russian Empire progressively shifted toward a militarised and racialised model of administration exemplified by Voenno-narodnoe upravlenie (Military-People’s Administration), which sharply divided Russian and local spheres of authority. Drawing on archival sources and contemporary accounts, the article traces how these reforms marginalised Muslim ruling groups while entrenching the authority of the imperial military bureaucracy. It argues that the abandonment of elite incorporation and the reliance on coercive and segregated forms of governance marked a fundamental reconfiguration of imperial statecraft. The study situates these developments in comparative perspective by referencing analogous practices in British and French colonial contexts, highlighting the emergence of Central Asia as a paradigmatic zone of colonial difference within the Russian imperial polity.

This article examines the mechanisms of interaction between Prince Mikhail Vorontsov, the first Caucasian Viceroy, and the regional elites of Transcaucasia between 1845 and 1854. It analyses the imperial strategy, which combined patronage – through awards, appointments, and personal connections – with the Viceroy’s arbitration in disputes between different elite groups and/or the Russian administration. The study focuses on Vorontsov’s relations with three principal elite groups: the Georgian nobility, the Armenian merchant class, and the Muslim aristocracy. It demonstrates that the Viceroy pursued a flexible ethnopolitical strategy, accommodating the interests of these groups while managing their competition with one another. Patronage of influential aristocratic families and leading entrepreneurs formed an important part of his policy, as illustrated by the Georgian princely family of Orbeliani and the prominent Armenian merchant Ivan Mirzoev. The research is based on an extensive range of archival materials, including documents from the Central Historical Archives of Georgia that are introduced here for the first time. The article argues that Vorontsov’s approach contributed to the temporary stabilisation of the region, though its long-term effectiveness was limited. It challenges the explanatory weight given in existing historiography to the concepts of the “colonial elite” and “middlemen”. Vorontsov’s policy sought the full integration of regional elites into the wider social space of the Russian Empire, with many members of the traditional Transcaucasian aristocracy achieving distinguished careers in the imperial centre. The evidence suggests that the role of “intermediaries” was not decisive, their functions being largely confined to maintaining the technical operation of imperial administrative institutions.

This article explores internal and interdepartmental discussions within the Russian imperial bureaucracy concerning land acquisition for peasant resettlement in Iran’s Astarabad and Mazandaran provinces in 1916. The colonisation of the Caspian frontier by Russian peasants formed a key part of imperial strategy in the region during the Great War. From 1914, Russian authorities at various levels became actively involved in directing and managing this process. The year 1916 marked a turning point, prompted in part by the mission of Gennady Chirkin, head of the Resettlement Department, whose official report on his journey to northern Iran catalysed bureaucratic debate. The core issue under consideration was the means of acquiring land for Russian settlers and the allocation of state funds for this purpose. Drawing on both archival and published sources, the article reconstructs these debates among officials from the Ministries of Agriculture, Foreign Affairs, and Finance. This period also coincided with a major uprising in Russian Turkestan, which by autumn had reached Astarabad, leading to a shift in state strategy. The military began to take a dominant role in regional planning and governance, significantly altering earlier approaches to integrating the borderlands into the imperial economy and administrative order.

This article examines how the Turkish and Soviet press reported the signing of the Saadabad Pact by Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey in 1937. The principal sources for this study are leading Soviet newspapers (“Pravda” and “Komsomolskaya Pravda”) and prominent Turkish dailies (“Cumhuriyet”, “Akşam”, “Ulus”, and “Tan”). Employing content analysis, the article identifies two distinct patterns in the coverage found in the press of the Soviet Union and the Turkish Republic. On the one hand, both Moscow and Ankara sought to underscore the pact’s significance for preserving peace in the Middle East. On the other, the near silence of the Soviet press reflects the unease with which the Soviet authorities viewed the treaty’s conclusion. The signing of the Saadabad Pact marked a consolidation of Turkey’s relations with its neighbours, in keeping with President Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s policy of “Peace at Home, Peace in the World” (Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh). Through their coverage of the pact’s signature, the Kemalist newspapers employed characteristic propaganda strategies that shaped the portrayal of Turkey’s relations with neighbouring states throughout the 1930s.

In the final years of the Second World War, anti-Catholic rhetoric in the Soviet Union intensified, shaped by growing suspicions toward the Vatican. Among the key bodies involved in shaping religious policy was the Council for the Affairs of Religious Cults, established under the USSR Council of People’s Commissars. This article examines how the Council gathered and interpreted information on Catholic activities within Soviet territory, the image of the Vatican it constructed, and the ways in which this image informed policymaking at the highest levels. Relying on an extensive network of regional commissioners, the Council monitored the Catholic Church across the Soviet republics, often with uneven results. Its assessments of Vatican policy were shaped by the limited and ideologically filtered reports received. In 1945, Ivan Polyansky, Chairman of the Council, advanced a plan aimed at severing ties between the Soviet Catholic Church and the Vatican – an initiative that included collaboration with the Old Catholic movement. Drawing on archival materials from the State Archive of the Russian Federation, the article argues that the Council operated in alignment with broader state objectives, and actively reinforced the perception of the Vatican as politically hostile. In doing so, it became a key institutional actor in the formulation of Soviet religious policy during this transitional moment.

The year 2025 marks sixty-six years since the outbreak of unrest in Wadi Salib, a neighborhood in Haifa. On 9 July 1959, clashes erupted between residents and Israeli police following the shooting of a local man. Protesters – mostly Jews of North African descent – voiced accusations of systemic discrimination by the Ashkenazi-dominated state establishment. Demonstrators threw stones and damaged offices of the ruling party and the Histadrut trade union. Historians have since interpreted these events as an early and significant political protest against the marginalisation of Mizrahim in Israeli society. The author draws on a range of sources, most notably the Etzioni Commission Report, to pursue two aims. First, it reconstructs the events themselves, placing them within the broader political and social context of Israel in the summer of 1959. Second, it foregrounds the protest’s socio-economic dimensions, arguing that the Israeli government largely ignored the severe financial hardship faced by many Mizrahi immigrants. The Wadi Salib events, in this reading, expose the structural inequalities embedded in Israel’s absorption policy during its formative years and invite a re-evaluation of the intersection between ethnicity, class, and state power.

The study of the external relations of constituent units within federal states – particularly Switzerland – is of enduring scholarly interest for several reasons. Firstly, an examination of the specific experience of the Swiss cantons in the sphere of external engagement may offer valuable insights for enhancing the external relations frameworks of Russia’s federal subjects. Secondly, an analysis of the division of powers between the federal government and the cantons could contribute to the further development of the Russian model of federalism. This article aims to identify the principal features of the Canton of Zurich’s external relations in the period from 2005 to 2024. To this end, it examines the legal and institutional foundations underpinning Zurich’s external engagement, outlines its priorities and interests, and analyses the main directions pursued over this period. The specific focus on Zurich enables a detailed exploration of the theoretical and practical dimensions of subnational external relations in Switzerland – an area that has received limited attention in both Russian and international scholarship to date. The study concludes that the Canton of Zurich enjoys substantial autonomy in this domain and has developed a range of innovative mechanisms to advance its interests abroad. The sophistication of Zurich’s external relations, together with the strengths of the Swiss federal model more broadly, may serve as a useful point of reference for Russian regions – particularly those that are economically advanced and situated along national borders.

''

The fundamental scientific publication "Russian Historical Encyclopedia" possesses scientific and social significance. Representing the result of the work of many scholars, meeting high scientific standards and reflecting the current state of scientific thought, the encyclopedia addresses the social demand for an objective and scientifically substantiated presentation of history. The "Russian Historical Encyclopedia" is addressed to libraries, schools, universities, government institutions, the scientific community, teachers, historians, philologists, cultural scientists, sociologists, representatives of all humanitarian fields; to people interested in the history of their state and world history from ancient times to the present day. In conclusion, we express our hope that the RHE, like its predecessor published in Soviet times, will be in demand by readers for many years in the 21st century and that the efforts of its creators – authors, editors, publishers – will be duly appreciated. The high scientific level of the encyclopedia, the thoroughly conducted accompanying organizational and editorial work, the professionalism of the publishing staff provide every reason to believe so. This multi-volume encyclopedic publication performs another important social function, which is related to the implementation of state efforts to develop the book trade, enhance reading culture, and preserve the traditions inherent to Russia in this area. In a complex era of truly global informational turbulence, mass psychoses generated by various fakes, and hostile historical policies, people need a reliable and solid foundation. As justly noted back in the 19th century: "To a world afflicted by madness, another world must be opposed, a world of wisdom, reason, justice, and order."