Rossijskaâ istoriâ

In a letter from pope Innocent IV to Alexander Nevsky, it was stated that Alexander’s father, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, before his death agreed to convert to Catholicism ‘through the hands’ of John de Plano Carpini, the papal envoy to the Mongols. This message is often questioned or rejected as unreliable. Although there is no direct confirmation of this fact in Friar John’s report, other information he provides allows us to conclude that the papal envoy was with the dying prince until his death in order to administer the last rites – communion and unction – according to the rules of the Roman Church. As a result, Friar John violated one of the important ritual prohibitions in force among the Mongols: no one could visit the Khan’s headquarters for a year if he was present at the death of another person. Thus, the papal envoy jeopardized the failure of his diplomatic mission, which significantly devalued its results.

The article is devoted to the study of the "Register" of the tsar’s treasury, lost during the "Moscow ruin" in 1610–1612. The document was discovered as part of the materials of the Great Embassy of the boyar Prince I. M. Vorotynsky near Smolensk in 1615-1616. The work reveals the circumstances of the investigation and the accounts of the treasury, plundered by a foreign garrison in Moscow. The analysis of the chronology and structure of the main losses of the tsar’s treasury makes it possible to clarify the history of the "Muscovite" crown of King Sigismund III, the tsar’s "hat" received as a pledge by the regiment of Hetman Jan Sapieha, other jewels and objects given to the "army" by the great Hetman of Lithuania Karl Khodkevich and the "Moscow elder" Alexander Gosevsky. The article examines the discussion of the issue of reimbursement of the treasury that disappeared from the tsar’s treasuries and Kremlin cathedrals at the embassy congresses near Smolensk in 1615-1616 between the Moscow ambassadors and the commissars of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The article examines the organizational structure of the Ambassadorial Prikaz in the XVII – early XVIII centuries. It consisted of a group of errands that consisted of the duties of an old clerk. Since the beginning of the 1670s, the term "povyt'e" has been used to designate a department (structural subdivision) of the prikaz. During the study, it was possible to identify several ways of forming povyt'ya. For individual periods, the list of clerks who were part of each division has been established. For the first time, materials on areas of activity for povytij for the entire period of the department's organizational structure have been summarized.

The article is devoted to the commander of the Lubny Hussar Regiment colonel P.Kh. Grabbe and his participation in the Union of Prosperity. The analysis of historiographical works, published and unpublished sources indicates the involvement of P.Kh. Grabbe in the secret society and his further fate after his arrest in December 1825.

The article examines the development of Russian history as an independent school discipline during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I. During this era, the history of Russia began to develop rapidly both as a science and as a university and school discipline with its own specific content and range of tasks. The concept of "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality", proposed by the Minister of Public Education Count S.S. Uvarov and supported by the emperor contributed to this. In accordance with Uvarov's views on the tasks of education, the history of Russia played an important educational and ideological role, therefore, the teaching of national history gradually acquired a systemic character.

The article examines the activities of the censorship of dramatic works in the Russian Empire during the First World War. The article examines the features of the work of dramatic censorship in 1914 - February 1917, its structure, and personnel. During the war, both the number and the subject matter of plays submitted to censorship changed. Based on the instructions of the leadership and their own ideas and views, the censors did not allow many subjects to be staged: the horrors of war, criticism of the allies, ridicule of monarchs (including monarchs of states hostile to Russia), the presentation of Russian officers and soldiers in an "inappropriate" form, anti-war sentiments in the rear. Over time, many domestic political subjects were also added, for example, the unspoken ban on portraying Rasputin on stage. Although formally dramatic censorship existed only in the capital, in fact, local authorities could also act as censors, primarily governors and police chiefs, who could ban any productions by their orders. The old pre-war problems remained: contradictory decisions of censors, their high workload, personnel shortage. The Main Administration for Press Affairs tried to solve these problems, but it was not possible to qualitatively change the situation before the February Revolution.

The article is devoted to the relationship between the Supreme Ruler of Russia Admiral A.V. Kolchak and the Commander-in-Chief of the Entente forces in Eastern Russia (west of Lake Baikal), the Commander-in-Chief of the Czechoslovak Corps and the Chief of the French Military Mission, Divisional General M. Jeanin. The formation of the French general's opinion about the Russian admiral in 1916-1918 is covered in detail, the reasons for the conflict between the two commanders at the end of 1918-1920 are highlighted. Among them are both interpersonal and the main ones, caused by the military and political situation on the White Eastern Front. The conclusion is made about the influence of the relationship between Kolchak and Janen on the course of the Civil War in white Siberia.

The article analyzes two referendums that took place in Sevastopol in 1991 and related to the issue of its administrative-territorial status: the referendum on January 20, 1991 on the status of Crimea (with a separate vote on the status of Sevastopol) and the referendum on December 1, 1991 on the independence of Ukraine. The research focuses on reconstructing the reasons for the city's participation in the January 20 vote on the "re–establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic" and the appearance of the wording on the "union-republican" status of Sevastopol, as well as the consequences of the double vote, including the redistribution of power in the Sevastopol City Council in favor of the part of the deputy corps that followed in February–March 1991. It was determined to ignore the popular will on the issue of Sevastopol's status, to subordinate itself to the Crimean "party vertical" and at the same time – the loyal attitude to the issue of Ukraine's independence, which was put to a referendum by the leadership of the Ukrainian SSR after the adoption of the "Act of Independence" on December 1. The article analyzes the process of preparation for voting in Crimea and Sevastopol by local authorities in the context of the events that took place in Ukraine, the impact on this process of interaction between official structures and informal factors, public sentiment and their compliance with the results, and the course of vote counting in Sevastopol. Based on the results of the study, it was concluded that the official results of the vote on the independence of Ukraine in Sevastopol were significantly distorted in a "positive" way and did not correspond to the real sentiments of the citizens.

The work is devoted to reviewing a collection of documents about the private life of subjects of the Moscow State of the 17th century, preserved in the books of the Spiritual Order of the Ryazan Metropolitan House (1660–1670s).

Analysis and comprehension of the fact in a historical context

Based on various sources, the author highlighted the life and work of V.I. Nevsky, the factors that influenced his scientific work. In the history of the first Russian Revolution, Nevsky was attracted by the theme of the birth and evolution of the Soviets. Diverging from Lenin's views, Nevsky discovered that Soviets were not always born out of strike committees. Developing the history of the Social Democratic Party during the revolution, Nevsky showed that the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks affected the course of the revolution. The Party disorganized the workers on the eve of the revolution and during it. Zelenov noted the beginning of the 1930s as a milestone in the evolution of Nevsky's scientific work, as a result of which he became closer to official historiography.