The church calendar came to Russia together with Christianity and quickly came to be something more than a guide for organizing worship services. In the first centuries after the baptism of the Old Rus’, its elite began to systematically link the most important events of political and ecclesiastical life with the festive dates of the Menologion, Menaion and weekly liturgical cycles. The reasons for this can be both spiritual and symbolic as well as practical. The topic of such linking as a part of extra-devotional calendar practice in Russia has been actively studied in recent years, including the author of this article. For the first time in historiography, this paper raises the question whether Old Rus’ princes and bishops, when planning their public ceremonies, attached importance to the fact that many of the main celebrations of the church year, in addition to the main day of celebration, had the so-called fore- and aft erfeasts. The boundaries of these liturgical periods (like multi-day fasts) were regulated by church statutes, including the pre-Mongol Rus’ Alexios’s Stoudios Typikon. And although pre-Mongol sources do not provide explicit answers to the question posed above, they contain much evidence of the coincidence of these multi-day festive periods with princely and episcopal ceremonies, i.e. laying the foundation and consecration of churches, transfer of relics, entrances of bishops to their cathedral cities after their chirotony, intronizations of princes, their congresses, starting military campaigns and marriage rituals. Among these events, special attention should be paid to those which were not scheduled on the days often chosen when planning signifi cant public events, i.e. Sundays and the eve of holidays. The author came to the conclusion that pre- and aft erfeasts were indeed in the field of vision of the organizers of ceremonies and were apparently perceived by them as sacral and semantic “fields” of holidays. And this applies to the representatives of both church and secular elites.

From the late 15th century until Peter the Great’s tax reform, there were kabala bondmen (kholopy), who had lost their freedom by debt and service bondages (kabalas), along with the “full” bondmen that existed from ancient times. The latter were inherited, while the former had to be set free aft er the death of their owner, having formalized a manumission record in the Kholopiy prikaz. The 1649 Sobornoe Ulozhenie clearly distinguished between these two categories of bondmen. From the beginning of the Great Northern War, Peter I ordered to enroll in the army house serfs (dvorovye) fit for military service and set free aft er the death of their owners. Lord’s men could also enroll in military service at will. After the extension of the per capita tax to the “boyar men” it was forbidden to enroll them in service, and the manumission of house serfs with manumission letters was resumed. Unlike legislative norms, the practical side of this widespread social phenomenon has not been adequately studied. The manumission records of house serfs in 1717–1780, preserved in the fonds of the Office of Justice in the Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents, as well as their petitions and the minutes of the Office of Justice allow us to elucidate the circumstances and procedure of manumission of house serfs, collisions that arose in this process, as well as the prospects of their further life. Manumission letters written at home were signed and sealed with the owner’s personal seal and certified by witnesses. In this case, they had to be registered in the serfdom institutions and then submitted to a Hofgericht (nadvorny court) or provincial chancellery to decide on the fate of the manumitted serf. Peter the Great’s tax reform contributed to the erasure of the distinction between old and kabala bondmen. The term kholop (bondman) was soon replaced by the term dvorovyi (house serf), and any house serf could be manumitted. Most of those manumitted again voluntarily signed up “forever” to the old or new master. The Manifesto of 17 March 1775 oriented the manumitted serfs to enter the petty bourgeoisie or merchant state and reflected the actual need to get rid of archaic forms of personal dependence.

The study examines the strategies of interaction of the peasant community and manorial administration with the uyezd authorities at the microhistorical level. It is based on the materials of the archive of the Buturlins’ Palekh manor, i.e. expenditure books and primary documentation on travel expenses, duty receipts of the uyezd authorities and community sentences. Upon studying the legislative base and practice, the author concludes that peasants almost did not deviate from legislative norms. They tried to optimize their expenses, for example, they did not resort to the uyezd court or they visited the town for several cases at the same time. The article reconstructs the schedule and approximate travel time consumption, examines which officials and peasants were involved in interaction with the uyezd authorities depending on the situation. The author establishes that a considerable part of the time of the manorial administration was spent on traveling to the uyezd town. She estimates the transport costs of Palekh residents to the neighboring towns — Gorokhovets, Vyazniki, Vladimir and Shuya. The main criterion of convenience of a uyezd town for peasants was reliability of the way to it and its proximity to their village. Th e case of the administrative reform in 1796–1797 in Vladimir guberniya allows us to consider how Palekh residents tried to prevent their manor from being assigned to a less attractive uyezd town. It is proved that peasants’ attempts could not succeed, because the reform was carried out at the guberniya level (while peasants appealed to the uyezd authorities), and the decisions were made before peasants tried to intervene. The author concludes that the legislation in the second half of the 18th and early 19th centuries worked in favor of peasants and it was aimed at reducing transportation costs for them, but their opinion was not taken into account in the formation of specific administrative boundaries.

The article reveals the importance of the period of student studies at Moscow University for the future career of the Russian and British historian Pavel Gavrilovich Vinogradoff (1854–1925), who became a member of Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society of London. The research source base was made up of offi cial documents from Moscow University collection and ego-documents, i.e. correspondence, diaries and memoirs. The results are presented in the form of a “thick description”, revealing the culture of higher education in the Russian Empire in the early 1870s. Home training under the guidance of his father, as well as graduation from the 4th men’s gymnasium in Moscow with a gold medal became a reliable basis for Pavel Vinogradoff ’s mastery of the university course at the Department of History and Philology at Moscow University. The author characterizes not only the successes in the study of individual disciplines, but also the infl uence of professors, and most importantly, practices of their educational activities and relationships. He was especially influenced by those professors who were active in research — S.M. Solovyov, F.I. Buslaev, and, especially, V.I. Guerrier, whose disciple Pavel Vinogradoff became from the first year of his study. His scientifi c interests were formed under Guerrier’s infl uence. The system of lecture courses and the professor’s seminars recently introduced into the practice of teaching became a model to be perfected by the student, later himself a professor at Moscow University. N.I. Storozhenko’s home meetings were renewed by P.G. Vinogradoff in the early 1890s and created the basis for the Historical Society at Moscow University. In the author’s opinion, it was the mastery of educational practices, rather than evaluative indicators of success in certain disciplines that were crucial to the success of Vinogradoff ’s future career. Diverging from his teacher’s theoretical and methodological views on the principles of studying the past, nevertheless he, as a successor of Guerrier’s work, improved the methods of the scientific and pedagogical school of Moscow University’s “world historians”.

At the turn of the 19th and20th centuries, the growth of urban population and development of urban infrastructure were accompanied by the emergence of environmental problems, including the increase of river pollution, which might cause water supply diffi culties. The central and local authorities, as well as representatives of various public, scientific, professional organizations and business circles, were involved in solving these problems. The order of their interaction could be diff erent, but these joint projects made it possible to achieve the best results in combating river pollution caused by industrial and domestic waste, to determine priorities in the system of water protection and to improve the supply of potable water to the population. Thanks to the activities of such organizations as the Society for Assistance to the Improvement and Development of Manufacturing Industry, Russian Water Supply Congresses, sanitary stations, and the Provisional Committee for the Development of Measures to Protect the Water Bodies of the Moscow Industrial District from Pollution, a rather extensive set of measures was carried out to study the properties, nature, and degree of water pollution in the rivers that served as sources of water supply for city dwellers, and the most eff ective methods of water purifi cation were determined in experiments. Practical recommendations were developed on the use of the most eff ective and cost-efficient methods and facilities for industrial wastewater treatment. The best domestic specialists were involved in solving the identified problems, who utilized international and Russian experience. The lack of sufficient funding for water protection activities resulted in some initiatives not being or being only partially implemented. In addition, a number of practical measures which had been planned in this area had to be postponed because of the outbreak of World War I in 1914

Perception in international relations has long been studied in political science, but historians have not paid suffi cient attention to it so far. Meanwhile, looking at known events through its prism allows us to draw new conclusions about their origins. The prehistory of World War II and its key episode — the failure of attempts to deter Hitler’s aggression in Europe through the joint eff orts of France and the Soviet Union — can serve as a fruitful field for testing this approach. For the military and political elites of France, the USSR was dangerous due to its unpredictability, but an internally fragile. This presumption leveled all the successes of the Soviet leadership in modernizing the country and the armed forces in the eyes of the French. The increased military danger in Europe after 1933 prompted Paris merely to offer Moscow the role of an ordinary participant in the system of collective security, which was based on the experience of World War I and designed as a new model for the development of international relations and minimization of conflicts between countries. The Soviet government viewed France as a leading imperialist power that prioritized anti-Soviet goals, but had a situational interest in limiting German expansion. At the same time, Moscow believed that Soviet-French cooperation could be effective only as an equal strategic alliance aimed at deterring a potential aggressor. This approach was rejected by French diplomacy, which followed the policy of appeasement. It was a source of a deep crisis in bilateral relations at the time of the 1938 Munich agreements. The collapse of appeasement in early 1939 led to a sharp turn by the French government to strategic planning for a possible war and created a window of opportunity for an agreement with the USSR. However, the inertia of old prejudices deprived the tripartite Anglo-French-Soviet negotiations in the spring and summer of 1939 of their practical content and opened the way for a Soviet-German agreement

The conclusion of the 1963 Moscow Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water is an important milestone in the history of the Cold War. It was preceded by long and complex negotiations between the USSR and the US. Measures to impose a moratorium on tests (August 1958 — August 1961) did not yield signifi cant results either in reducing harmful environmental consequences or in reducing the risk of nuclear conflict. In addition, the issue of at least partial test ban was closely linked to the political contradictions between the superpowers, in particular, regarding the status of Berlin. On 9 September 1961, the negotiations were stopped. In the fall, the USSR conducted a large series of explosions, and advances in weapons development required new tests. Moscow’s decision to withdraw from the moratorium was dictated by the desire to demonstrate to its opponents the readiness for any emergency. In 1962, the events around Cuba led not only to intensified testing by both powers, but also to the acute Cuban Missile Crisis in October, when the danger of using nuclear weapons became quite real. The August 1963 treaty was one of the immediate outcomes of the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, it is also important that the superpowers came to the signing of the Moscow Treaty only after their scientific and technological achievements (including, above all, the results of nuclear tests) had been able to ensure a confident strategic deterrence of each other. The tests of nuclear devices conducted by both powers in 1961 and 1962 allowed them to equip all types of carriers with warheads as part of their planned programs to renew strategic nuclear arsenals. At the same time, the Moscow Treaty created a basis for harmonizing the positions of the US and the USSR with regard to nuclear nonproliferation for many years to come.

One of the key problems of the state historical policy in the Kaliningrad region during the Soviet period was related to the attitude to the local pre-war historical and cultural heritage, it was partly the memory of the life and activities of the outstanding philosopher and educator Immanuel Kant. The purpose of this article is to identify the prerequisites, factors and stages of integration of Kant’s name and image into the regional culture of memory and commemorative activity. The scientific novelty of the study is determined by the fact that the commemoration of the philosopher is first considered throughout the Soviet period of the region’s history. In the first post-war decade, the key condition for the formation of Kant’s commemoration traditions in the young Soviet region was ensured, that is, his tomb was preserved and taken under state protection in the mid-1950s. It became a place of attraction for Kaliningrad residents and guests of the city. In the 1960s–1970s, the philosopher’s grave was included in excursion routes and tourist guides, respect for his memory was used as an argument in the propaganda system, a tradition of scientific study of Kant’s heritage was formed in the region, and Kaliningrad State University became a center of such research. Under strict restrictions on the study and popularization of pre-war history, Kantian topics were perceived by a part of local intelligentsia as an allowed opportunity to share the “secrets” of the German past of the Kaliningrad land. At the same time, the position of regional authorities was characterized by contradictions, and initiatives to commemorate the philosopher were repeatedly met with resistance instigated by the regional committee of the CPSU. In the years of perestroika Kant’s image was perceived as a “bridge” connecting epochs and cultures. The work on the preparation of restoring the monument to the philosopher began, the plans of the regional branch of the Soviet Culture Fund included a “Kantian” programme of events, Kant became a character in the first popular narratives about the prewar history of the region. The process of integration of the “outstanding ‘fellow countryman’”, “Kaliningrad philosopher” into the regional culture by the end of the Soviet period was considerably accelerated.

The article examines the problems of religious statistics due to the multifaceted nature of religious identity and flexibility of religious identification and self-identifi cation. This is the cause of frequent diff erences in the estimated data on the number of followers of a particular confession. Population censuses could be a universal and comparable source, but not all countries ask about religious affiliation in the census. And even when there is a question on religion in the census, differences in wording (and differences in the meaning behind the wording) do not always allow for valid comparisons. Therefore, it is more common to find estimates of the number of followers of denominations based on various surveys. Religious identity is very multidimensional, and it often overlaps with other types of identity: ethnic, civil, local. A person can be associated with a certain faith by accepting the dogmatics, or it can be a set of practices and actions that define a way of life or certain milestones of the life cycle or moments/ periods of the religious calendar. Finally, the very feeling of belonging to cultural and historic tradition can bind a person to a particular faith. Therefore, in order to study quantitative indicators of religiosity, it is more convenient to operate with the procedural concepts of identifi cation and self-identifi cation. Religious statistics, or religious demography, was developed in the 1960s, i.e. in the period when the traditional forms of religiosity were being eroded, when religious dynamics in diff erent regions of the world were becoming more and more different, when it seemed that, at least in the West, religion was losing its position. Religious statistics require the adoption of some form of categorization. This article examines whether classifi cation should always be based on denominational principle alone. Religious statistics is a complex and delicate instrument, but nevertheless it draws some contours of religious structure, reveals the peculiarities of the religious situation and allows us to see the trends of its development.

In the art history literature dealing with collectors Mikhail (1870– 1903) and Ivan (1871–1921) Morozov, researchers are primarily interested in the artistic stratum connected with European, mainly French, art. The issues of collecting Russian painting, the choice of certain Russian artists, refl ecting the tastes of collectors, the change of artistic preferences in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, almost never attracted the attention of scholars. This article attempts at determining the approach developed by brothers M.A. and I.A. Morozov in collecting Russian art. In this context, it seems logical to analyze some features of their collections: what names and works the Moscow collectors chose, whether it was conscious and deliberate or spontaneous (as the literature characterized the formation of the Russian part of the Morozovs’ collection). Unfortunately, researchers have not always found arguments in favor of the collectors’ choice of certain Russian masters. At the same time, experts convincingly prove that with regard to works by iconic figures of European art, the choice and purchases were carefully thought out, right down to “booking” in advance a place in the hall for a particular masterpiece. Another question is far from idle: can we talk about the common ground for the Morozovs’ aesthetic views and, accordingly, about a certain continuity in their collections? The analysis of their Russian part allows us to conclude that the collections broadly and voluminously represent the panorama of the main Russian art currents from early Plein Air to Impressionism, from the first World of Art works to Symbolism, from imitations of Cézanne and Gauguin to independent avant-garde experiments of Russian painting in the 1910s. One of the characteristic features of the collection of the younger brother, Ivan Morozov, was fi gurative (object) art, as he was not attracted to objectless painting.