Nº 3 (2024)

The paper deals with one of the most debatable historiographical issues, that of comparability of the Russian Zemsky Sobors with their counterparts in the West. A review of a wide range of the current scholarly literature reveals some stereotypes in the perception of this problem. It is shown that Zemsky Sobors, in spite of some skeptical voices, do share some key common features with the representative institutions elsewhere in Europe and that they can be regarded as a variant of the monarchical model of the medieval representation. The undertaken comparative typological analysis casts some light on the origins of Zemsky Sobors in Russia as well as on the possible causes of their decline in the second half of the 17^th century.

The productive interdisciplinary exchange with legal anthropology and the “law and society” paradigm has significantly contributed to the formation of the “legal turn” in historical studies of empires. This “turn” has intensified the study of legal pluralism, the competition and mutual influence among various types of imperial jurisdictions (state, corporate, confessional, ethnic, estate-based, regional, communal, etc.), and the significance of law and judicial institutions in managing diversity and integrating imperial spaces. Additionally, it explores the role of judicial and legal institutions in reinforcing the status and identity of imperial communities and in shaping their interactions with the state. This article, in light of the new interdisciplinary synthesis, discusses one of the oldest and most enduring concepts in the legal-historical sphere of the Russian Empire — the model of “legal dualism”. Formed in the 19th century, this concept remains influential in historiography. It posits the coexistence and sharp distinction between two legal realms: on one hand, a unified realm of modern statutory law and corresponding institutions that regulate the lives of the empire's elite; and on the other hand, an ethnically and locally variable realm of particularistic “customary law” and associated conflict resolution practices prevalent among the heterogeneous population of the imperial center and periphery. According to this concept, the establishment of new courts modeled on European systems during the post-reform period exacerbated the legal and behavioral divide, disrupting pre-existing elements of pre-reform particularistic inclusion of ethnic and class communities. However, recent research has critiqued and revised the “legal dualism” concept in both the pre-reform and post-reform periods. Analyzing this historiographical dynamic has enabled the identification of the most promising avenues for further research on the legal-historical aspects of Russia from the 18th to the early 20th centuries, developing a more realistic depiction of the interaction between the state and various local, regional, class-based, ethnic, and confessional communities within the empire.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the first scientific edition of V.A. Maklakov's memoirs. The author examines the problems of the relationship between the autocracy and the social movement in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the first scientific edition of V.A. Maklakov's memoirs. The author examines the problems of the relationship between the autocracy and the social movement in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century.

The article is devoted to the development of projects for popular representation by the Russian bureaucracy and the public in 1905. Particular attention is paid to four concepts - the reform of the State Council, the convening of the Zemsky Sobor, the “bulyginskaya duma” and the parliament. The article shows that the choice that was ultimately made in favor of the State Duma meant the government’s conscious refusal of the models of representation born in the 19th century, and finally determined the transformation of the political system of the Russian Empire.

In the late Russian Empire, the world court stood out from the institutions of justice by the simplicity of procedures and territorial proximity to the submitted. The article is devoted to its introduction, organization, and activities in the Siberian situation. Which forced to pay special attention to the spatial factors of justice, to find ways to optimally localize the offices of justices of the peace and delimit their subdistricts. In the conditions of the region, the implementation of this caused extreme difficulties, since it required simultaneously considering numerous circumstances of a geographical, social and economic nature that distinguished Siberia from other regions of the country.

The article is devoted to a group of Russian Germans stationed in Udmurtia in the status of special settlers. The purpose of the work is a general description of the main parameters of the ethno-legal and socio-cultural functioning of Germans-special settlers in Udmurtia in a foreign-language environment. The methodological basis of the study was an interdisciplinary approach at the intersection of history, sociology and ethnology, using problem-chronological and statistical methods, as well as interviewing and the method of expert assessments. The basis of the source base was made up of archival documents supplemented by the memories of participants and witnesses of the events. The study sheds light on one of the closed aspects of national history, contributes to the elimination of another "white" spot in the hushed-up history of the largest of the peoples of the USSR repressed during the Stalinist period.

Olga Leonidovna Fetisenko is a famous researcher of Russian conservative thought of the second half of the 19th century, publisher of the complete works of K.N. Leontiev and a number of epistolary complexes associated with him. Her new monograph is dedicated to the forgotten Russian writer N.S. Sokhanskaya (Kokhanovskaya). At first glance, this book is intended primarily for philologists and literary scholars. However, it will certainly be useful to historians studying the social life of Russia in the mid-19th century. After all, the main attention in it is paid to the study of Kokhanovskaya’s literary connections and her journalism. In the writer’s work, Fetisenko identifies “two main directions”: a kind of “archeology” of southern Russian “antiquity” and “a response to current events in their “small details”.”

The reviewed monograph by A.A. Ivanov is the first ever scientific biography of N.E. Markov, a prominent figure from the pre-revolutionary period who was the leader of one of the largest political parties and a well-known member of the State Duma. The author provides a comprehensive and objective analysis of Markov's personality, views, and actions, revealing the motivations that influenced his public and political work.

The review is devoted to the first scientific biography of N.E. Markov (1866–1945). The book was written by Doctor of History. A.A. Ivanov. Review: Ivanov A.A. Leader of the black reaction: Nikolai Evgenievich Markov. St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal, 2023. 639 p.

The author focuses on the initiative minority, which, in fact, was mobilized during the days of the Moscow State Conference. The article notes the great contribution of A.B. Nikolaev in the study of this significant and often ignored political forum in historiography. Thanks to this monograph, it is possible to trace the motivation of key political forces, as well as their leaders. They all had to adapt to the conditions of revolutionary Russia in one way or another. However, in most cases these attempts were unsuccessful, as was clearly demonstrated in August 1917.

The article is devoted to the book of the famous St. Petersburg historian A. B. Nikolaev, the subject of whose research was the work of the State Conference in Moscow, held in August 1917, on the eve of the speech of General L. G. Kornilov. For the first time in historiography, the work of this political forum is covered in such detail and thoroughly. The author comes to the conclusion that the State Conference was conceived by A.F. Kerensky and the Provisional Government as an attempt to develop a national consensus during its work. The results of the State Conference were contradictory, demonstrating the instability of the position of both A.F. Kerensky himself and the Provisional Government as a whole.