The result of the participation of Russian Army leader in the February Revolution 1917 is the sum of the historiographical presentations, wich occasionally very far from the historical reality. The researchers examined through this presentations, wich embarrass the creation of the adequate reconsruction of the past, the attitude of Nicolas II and generals to the opposition and the opposition to emperer and the Stavka, the character of general N. Ivanov expedition, the circumstances of the voyage of Nicolas from Mogilev to Pskov, the reasons of the monarch abdication to the benefit of son and then brother. In given article the author, baseing on the analise of the new and new reading of the old sources, permits the new, original treatment of the well-known events.

Given article is devoted to the consideration of one from principal problems in the history of the Russian science. This problem is relations between the science and autocracy in the beginning XX century. The author draw a conclusion, that in this time as the scientific association was a part of the tsarist bureaucracy, such the tsarist bureaucracy, through the bureaucratic elite, was a part of the scientific association. The social ground of this situation is the dissolution of the bureaucratic elite in the Russian intelligentsia, the institutional ground — the fact, nearly all scientists was the officials. Within the bureaucratic elite the representative of the humane sciences had a majority as compared with the representative of the technical sciences. Therefore, in point of view of the author, the autocracy of the beginning XX century was a form of the political supremacy of the humane scientific subculture. The author thinks that a conflict between the science and autocracy had inside-system character.

Given article is devoted to the consideration of one from principal problems in the history of the Russian science. This problem is relations between the science and autocracy in the beginning XX century. The author draw a conclusion, that in this time as the scientific association was a part of the tsarist bureaucracy, such the tsarist bureaucracy, through the bureaucratic elite, was a part of the scientific association. The social ground of this situation is the dissolution of the bureaucratic elite in the Russian intelligentsia, the institutional ground — the fact, nearly all scientists was the officials. Within the bureaucratic elite the representative of the humane sciences had a majority as compared with the representative of the technical sciences. Therefore, in point of view of the author, the autocracy of the beginning XX century was a form of the political supremacy of the humane scientific subculture. The author thinks that a conflict between the science and autocracy had inside-system character.