Since the birth of independent Poland in 1918, historians and publicists have been arguing about who deserves the main credit for this most signifi cant event in the modern history of the Polish nation. In the period between the world wars, the dispute for supremacy was fought between J. Piłsudski and R. Dmowski, in socialist Poland they were supplanted by the Russian October Revolution, but already in the 1980s the debate resumed with renewed vigor. The compromise solution proposed by Prof. S. Kieniewicz was not widely supported. Since the 1990s, there has been a steady return to pre-war approaches to the problem. Thus, political forces other than the pilsudniks and national democrats, led by R. Dmowski, once again remain outside the field of vision of the authors writing on this topic. Among them are conservatives of the Kingdom of Poland, through whose eff orts, from September 1917 to 14 November 1918, the construction of the state institutions of the Kingdom of Poland was underway with the consent of the Central Powers. The Kingdom was formed by the act of Emperors Wilhelm II Hohenzollern and Franz Joseph Habsburg of 5 November 1916. The contribution of the conservatives is clearly underestimated; moreover, they alone are accused of pursuing a conciliatory (Ugodian) policy towards the Russian, first, and then the German and Austro-Hungarian authorities, although all other political parties in the Polish lands, with the exception of the social democrats of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, also took conciliatory positions at the beginning of the 20th century. Moreover, it was these parties, which were united under the general name of “activists”, who responded to the manifesto of 5 November and sent their representatives to the Provisional State Council of the Polish Kingdom. The conservatives, on the other hand, took a wait-and-see attitude in November 1916 and refused political cooperation with the German and Austro-Hungarian occupation authorities until September 1917.

Using the example of the political activity of Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus, the article examines one of the variants of the relationship between the old republican nobility and Augustus during his principate. Messalla Corvinus was a representative of the oldest Roman aristocratic family of Valerii, one of the leaders of republicans in the epoch of civil wars and, later, a prominent fi gure of political and cultural life of Rome. For the fi rst time, the authors attempt to contextualize his career in a diffi calt era full of change. Th e study demonstrates one of the models of how the relationship between Augustus and the republican aristocracy was structured. It attempts, on the one hand, to understand the tactics of the princeps, to determine the ratio of pressure and encouragement to cooperation, and, on the other hand, to establish the limitations of the republican nobility and their independence. Th e article evaluates Messalla’s actions in the provinces, his appointment as a prefect of the city (praefectus urbi) and subsequent refusal to fulfi l this position, Messalla’s performance of the offi ce of a water commissioner (curator aquarum), his memoirs, and his contribution to Augustus’ “building program”. Domestic and foreign researchers have oft en characterized Messalla Corvinus’ activities as a “bridge” between two epochs in the history of the Roman state. However, in the opinion of the authors, Messalla appears to be a more independent and extraordinary personality, who was capable of not only having his own opinion, but also making his own choices, which sometimes diverged from the policy of the princeps. Noble origin, outstanding talents, ambitious aspirations and at the same time moderate claims together with skillful political calculation could provide Messalla Corvinus not only with the highest social and political position, but also with the independence in the “restored republic”, when the course of events ruined some and elevated others.

The article represents the first attempt at a comprehensive analysis of the economic journalism in A.S. Suvorin’s newspaper Novoye Vremya in the 1880s. It was a period when after heated discussions about the role of private and state capital in the economy, the public sentiment and government policy increasingly shifted in favor of the necessity of state ownership in such strategically important areas of the national economy as railways, mining plants and forests. After A.S. Suvorin acquired ownership of the Novoye Vremya in 1876, the newspaper took on a noticeable national-democratic slant, which became increasingly more conspicuous over the years. Despite the editor’s allegiance to the authorities, his contemporaries deservedly saw him as an independent figure. The influence of Suvorin’s newspaper was so signifi cant that the famous parlor general E.V. Bogdanovich tried (not always successfully) to use it to his advantage. Bogdanovich, who initially advocated the “concession” nature of the Siberian Railway, later supported its construction at the expense of the treasury. A.S. Suvorin himself, as well as such regular newspaper contributors as V.K. Petersen and K.A. Skalkovsky were also initially supporters of private capital, concerning it an active creative force. At the same time, Novoye Vremya assessed the German experience of “state socialism” quite positively, but pointed out its inapplicability to Russian conditions and the lack of a sufficient number of active and incorruptible officials in the country. In 1883 K.A. Skalkovsky engaged in polemics with M.N. Katkov, criticizing his project to create state-owned grain elevators. However, from the mid-1880s the editors of Novoye Vremya were forced to support “statist” tendencies in the economic life of the country. In general, the economic policy of that time was not as dogmatic as in the subsequent socialist era. Subject to political interests, it was rather instrumental, practical and situational in its orientation, and the ambiguity of the position of the publicists of Suvorin’s periodical largely resulted from the latter circumstance.

The folk song “Transvaal, Transvaal, My Country” emerged in the Russian Empire about 120 years ago. It happened in the wake of the extraordinary public interest in the first major armed confl ict of the 20th century, the Anglo-Boer War of 1899–1902. The lyrics are based on a poem by a Saint-Petersburg poet, G. Galina. The song about the freedom struggle, which was waged by the people of a distant, but, like Russia, predominantly agrarian country, resonated with the early 20th-century Russian society. Its growing politicisation manifested itself in the keen interest that Russians took in the confrontation between two “peasant republics”, as Russian publicists termed them, and an empire, which had a strong army and a desire for expansion in the interests of its capital. The Russian song about a foreign war in Southern Africa became entrenched in Russian folklore and in Russian popular culture in general. A reason for the popularity of “Transvaal” in the Russian Empire was that the song enabled expressions of hope for social and political change in a form that was safe for the singer and his listeners under a repressive regime. The emergence and growing popularity of “Transvaal” coincided with the prevalence of protest sentiments in Russian society, among urban and rural residents, in the 1900s– 1910s. The song changed its meaning over the years. Sympathy for the Boers who fought against the British Empire was gradually replaced by sympathy for one’s compatriots. The Russian folk song, inspired by the events in South Africa, prompted people in the Russian Empire to refl ect on their own living conditions and the future of their homeland.

Postcards as a reflection of German-Czech contradictions in the period of the Badeni crisis in the late 19th and early 20th centuries have more than once been the subject of study. The research novelty of this article lies in the fact that the problem is examined not through postcard images themselves, but from the point of view of the primary functionality of postcards as a means of communication and a commercial product. The author focuses on commercial, postal-technical, consumer practices, institutional and legal aspects, as well as the reception of postcard messages, both individual and public. Various national associations and private entrepreneurs, main producers of postcards, often deliberately radicalized their content in their political or commercial interests. The specificity of the postcard as a means of postal communication and its mass appeal served as the basis for unique practices in mobilizing supporters and criticizing opponents by “cartographical attacks”. Even the design of postcard forms was a means of national struggle and expression of personal position. Publishers of the respective orientations designed them in the “German” or “Czech” spirit, while the official position was to refuse any name for this postal product. At the same time, the numerous variants of handwritten edits concerning all the constituent parts of the postcard (technical design of the form, address, and stamp) allowed users to state their position on the national question. The legal side of postcards’ production, functioning and existence was determined, on the one hand, by conditions which were common to other types of printed matter, in particular, by the liberal press law of 1868, and, on the other hand, by postal regulations that periodically withdrew certain postcards from circulation. All this became the subject of litigations and debates in parliament and thus provided a way for postcards to enter the public sphere and, accordingly, served to attract further public attention to the national conflict and its aggravation.

The article concerns the organization of management at the Manchuria railway station in the early 20th century. The station was located on the Chinese territory, two kilometers from the Russian border. For several decades, the Russian population constituted a majority there; churches, schools and hospitals were built, and two customs offices operated. The management of the hamlet, which sprang up near the station, was carried out by the administration of the Chinese Eastern Railway. Simultaneously, at the time of the completion of the construction of the railway connecting branch “Chinese Junction — Manchuria”, part of the functions of the management of the station was taken over by the Trans-Baikal Railway. On the materials of the Russian State Historical Archive the author had shown that the joint management of the station by two railways at once had a number of peculiar features. To resolve disputes, the administration of the railways entered into special agreements. The first of them was signed in 1903 and made provision for all income and fees from the operation of the border section of the road from the Chinese border to the Manchuria station to go into the use of the Transbaikal road. All expenses for the operation of the rolling stock were also to be borne by the Trans-Baikal Road. The operation of the station facilities was strictly regulated: one part of the stone building for passengers, as well as the territories along the railway line, passed under the control of the Trans-Baikal Road, and the other — under the control of the China Road. Expenses for the maintenance and repair of the building for passengers, as well as other public facilities at the Manchuria station, were to be borne by each road in equal parts. The efficiency of the station largely depended on the due organization of the management system. The simultaneous participation in this process of the representatives of two railway departments at once led to a lack of unity of action in matters of organizing transportation. The state-owned Trans-Baikal Railway was dependent on the central departments. The Chinese Eastern Railway, as a private road, had broader competence. The presence of commercial agents at the Manchuria station did not add to unity, as they often pursued their own goals to the detriment of state interests.

The review examins the monograph by A.B. Nikolaev “State Conference of 1917: Summoning, Composition, Activities”, published in 2022. The preparation and holding of the large-scale all-Russian event in the revolutionary year of 1917 are analyzed in the context of studying parliamentarism in Russia. The Moscow State Conference of 1917 arose from an urgent necessity for the coalition Provisional Government to strengthen its prestige and A.F. Kerensky’s personal power, as well as probably to receive a “tribune”, which could be used to give prompt explanations on all issues that would arise in the event of its transformation from an advisory institution as an ersatz parliament into a body with constituent functions. In addition, the Provisional Government was looking for opportunities on a state level to reconcile revolutionary socialist democracy and bourgeois liberalism movements, which had already completely split by that time. Moscow State Conference of 1917 assumed crucial signifi cance due to the desire to find a way out of the existing revolutionary impasse and to serve as a support for the weak and dependent dual state power. Having ensured this support, it would become a united, strong power, capable of saving the country from internal collapse. In an effort to prevail over the impending political and social anarchy, the Conference became a tense, dramatic episode of the Revolution of 1917. The observers and participants of the State Conference obviously regarded it as the “Zemsky Sobor of all the Russian Land” which met in the former capital of Russia to solve the pressing problems and give state power the physical and spiritual strength it needed. The results of the State Conference proved to be contradictory for all political forces. The Provisional Government was able to obtain majority support at the meeting, but the nature of this support indicated the extremely precarious position of the coalition. As a result of the research, the author of the reviewed monograph comes to the conclusion that the State Conference, while maintaining the coalition, did not strengthen it. Representatives of revolutionary democracy were forced to make concessions to the bourgeoisie, which subsequently led to the loss of revolutionary democracy’s authority among workers and soldiers.

The subject of this study is a part of the scientifi c heritage of the Honored Professor of Moscow University, Iya Leonidovna Mayak (1922–2018), represented by her reviews on national and foreign monographs on Roman history, published in 1958–1999. The article deals with I.L. Mayak’s motives for writing the reviews, the methodological foundations of her analysis, her requirements for the source base and the historiographical rating of classical studies, their structure and the logic of presentation. It is noted that I.L. Mayak was opposed to dogmatism in the application of the theory of socio-economic formations as well as a hypercritical attitude to sources related to archaic Rome, the spread of which she considered to be the methodological consequence of Kantianism. It is shown that I.L. Mayak not only monitored the diffi cult process of rehabilitation of the ancient tradition as a source for studying the archaic Rome, but herself actively promoted this process, in particular by means of reviewing other people’s works. The study considers the requirements set out by I.L. Mayak for classical studies such as the need to provide a terminological analysis of sources data, to trace changes in the content of concepts over time, to show the possibility of various interpretations of the given facts. In the formulation of theoretical constructions I.L. Mayak considered essential to provide a concept against the background of the concepts introduced by predecessors, and if the problem was debatable, to indicate the view clearly and defi nitely. The analysis of reviews written by Iya Leonidovna allows us to conclude that they make it possible to expand our understanding of her academic views, especially on those problems of Roman history, which she did not directly examine in her monographs and articles, in particular, on the issue of preserving polis paradigm in the late Rom an Empire. Reviews by I.L. Mayak reflect her image memorable to many generations of historians: she was respect ful to colleagues, however critical of their work, delicate in remarks, stringently academic in expressing her thoughts. The article shows the polemic sharpness and dialogic character of the reviews by I.L. Mayak.

Archaeological and natural science studies of Paleolithic paint pigments (ocher) date back more than 100 years. However, until recently, the vast majority of studies were focused on the study of individual samples, not the whole corpus of this category of materials — mineral paint raw materials (in the broad sense of the term). The description of the theoretical approach and the available results obtained in the course of testing the method of the fixation of field data and laboratory processing of ocher samples, which come in diff erent shapes, sizes and differ in consistency, clearly demonstrate that it is fundamentally important to conduct an archaeological study of colorful pigments as a mass material prior to the natural science stage of the study. In the opposite case even goal-setting for subsequent interdisciplinary research will be virtually impossible, and its results will be extremely limited. A multifactorial study of paint materials can demonstrate a great variety of sample characteristics, both among diff erent layers of archaeological material and artifacts from the same site, and among diff erent sites. When approaching pigments as a mass material, statistical processing of the findings is necessary to form meaningful conclusions about the use of pigments on sites. The afore-said methodological approach reveals systemic differences, which opens up opportunities for comparison based on the methods of mathematical statistics. To obtain relevant data, such an approach requires the accumulation of a statistically signifi cant number of pigment samples, suitable from the point of view of field algorithms. Consequently, it is only the study of a maximum available array of specimens (including a maximum of small grains) of ocher from diff erent artifacts of the cultural layer, individual layers and diff erent sites that makes it possible to obtain information about the cultural similarities and diff erences in this part of the life strategies of Upper Paleolithic groups, including the identifi cation of the main stages of production chain. The proposed approach to the study of ocher as a mass material, if complying with the methodology of field work, is relevant for all types of archaeological sites of the Stone Age.

Restoration is one of the most important areas in preserving the world’s cultural heritage. The 19th century is a landmark in the history of restoration. At that time, it turned from a private practice of self-taught artists into a real scientifically based discipline. Many European countries have faced the problems of cultural heritage preservation, and everywhere they were solved in different ways, depending on local peculiarities and experience. This article deals with previously unknown facts from the life and activity of the first Russian restorer Andrei Filippovich Mitrokhin, who was born and studied painting in the town of Toropets. He served as a simple soldier, then on duty he ended up in Saint Petersburg, where he was soon granted a valet at the Hermitage. His career developed under Franz Ivanovich Labensky, who assumed the position of chief curator of paintings in the Hermitage Gallery in 1797. Mitrokhin’s role in the history of Russian restoration and, in particular, the Hermitage cannot be overestimated. He not only restored paintings and trained several apprentices, but also worked independently on the development of new methods of restoring paintings. By mastering new techniques and methods of mechanical restoration, Mitrokhin and his students managed to preserve more than a thousand paintings from the Hermitage collection, many of which are painting masterpieces. Unfortunately, some aspects of Mitrokhin’s biography, especially his life outside the Hermitage, have long been overlooked by scholars. This paper examines the problem of his alleged date of birth, family and friendship ties, etc. The archival data cited by the author allow us to take a fresh look at Mitrokhin as a restorer, and also shed light on some socio-cultural aspects of his time.