The review article considers one of the ideas of A. V. Karavashkin's book “Power in Medieval Russia. Semantic levels of polemical texts” (2021) are conventional models that interpret the relationship between the ruler-tormentor and his victim. The opposition of the martyr to the pagan tormentor is expressed in denunciation, the attitude of the martyr to the Christian tyrant is expressed in meek acceptance of death. A. V. Karavashkin traces the evolution of these two models, which manifested itself, in particular, in endowing the Christian tyrant with the signs of an apostate and in portraying the victims as accusers of his crimes. The article shows that the two models are combined in the New Testament narrative about the murder of Stefan the First Martyr and that in reality the figure of the Christian tormentor correlates with pagan kings and apostates in the monuments of the Borisoglebsky cycle. It is traced how Prince Andrei Kurbsky implements the paradigm of exposing the tormentor in his messages to Ivan the Terrible.

This article examines the functions of the name of the biblical first-killer Cain as a precedent for the depiction and naming of Svyatopolk the Accursed in the monuments of the Borisoglebsk cycle. The naming of Svyatopolk "okan'ny" (the Accursed) is based on the principle of paronymic attraction (rapprochement with the name Kain, to which the semantics of rejection and extreme sinfulness is ascribed, as it were). It is shown that the functioning of the lexeme okan'ny in these texts is different: in Nestor's "Reading about Boris and Gleb" it is used in relation to Svyatopolk mainly in the nominative, not in the attributive function and as if it becomes his name and at the same time turns into the occasional equivalent of the name Kain. The almost complete refusal of Nestor from using his own name Svyatop'lk / Svyatopolk, apparently, is associated with his sacred connotations (the root "holy"). It can be traced how in the later Old Russian literature the very name Svyatopolk / Svyatopolk becomes a precedent.

The author considers one of differences between “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” and the Kievan annalistic story; “the Lay” presents Khan Konchak as Igor’s main opponent while the Chronicle presents Khan Gzak in the same role (and obviously in reality it was Khan Gzak) was Igor’s opponent and this fact is recorded in the Chronicle). The author demonstrates that the substitution is connected with the “Lay”s author strove to transform Igor’s failure into symbolic victory. If in the part of “The Lay”that is devoted to events preceeding Igor’s defeat and captivity the code of the herois code is used, then in the subsequent part that relates event upon that the code of fairy tale is used, as if Igor was killed in the battle and if he resurrected from the deads’ domain thus putting Konchack who captured Igor to shame while Vladimir, son to Igor, walks Konchack’ daughter from her father. In contrast to the annalistic story that recorded historical facts “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” redefines the facts pursuant to principles of mythopoetics. Irrespective of the fact whether “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign” originally was a monument of oral literature or it was created in the written form, it is the author’s text, and the author has given the new meaning to the folklore traditions.

The article deals with N.S.Leskov’s "The left-hander" short story. It is demonstrated that the Leskov’ story has in many respects the ambivalent semantics and that the author’s appraisal of the protagonist and Russia can be recognized neither as unconditionally positive nor as absolutely negative one. Peculiarity of Leskov’s perception of the Russians and the British adversarial relationship motive and Russia-England opposition is explained by Leskov’s polemics with the Russian national mythology. It is argued that the official theory of national character and Slavophilism served as ideological underlying messages and Leskov’s attitude to these messages were colored with irony. "The left-hander" was written as a warning against national complacency and arrogance that may find fertile soil in such ideological constructions.

The author considers various interpretations of the Chronicle’s legend of calling of the Varangians, in particular, the concept suggested by E.A.Mel’nikova and V.Ya.Petrukhin who argue the legend retained information on a treaty Rurik concluded with peoples who summoned him. The author also analyzes critics of the “contractual” hypothesis by various researchers. It is demonstrated that this hypothesis relies on a number of cogent arguments but has some vulnerabilities. Due to the lack of necessary evidence it is difficult either to recognize the treaty indisputable or reject the very existence of the treaty.

The author considers “Story of Dracula”, one of the most interesting monuments of old Russian literature and social thought of the 15th century. Usually researchers interpret this piece of work as an apology of the strong power and justification of repressions undertaken in the interest of state and the common good. It is assumed that appraisal of the “Story” protagonist, the prince of Walachian (Rumanian) state, hospodar Dracula is ambiguous. Dracula connects traits of a despot and sadistic cruelty with valiance, justice, and statesmanship. As the author argues, the appraisal of the protagonist is totally negative and his methods of rule are presented as not just sinful but as maleficent. Ideologically “Story of Dracula” fits in the old Russian tradition and has nothing common with social-political notions of such representatives of the formidable and cruel power as Ivan Peresvetov and czar Ivan the Fourth. The Story’s originality consists not in its author’s position but in means of its expression: the Story’s author prompts his readers to make an effort and understand why Dracula was a despot who served to the devil.

The author considers “Story of Dracula”, one of the most interesting monuments of old Russian literature and social thought of the 15th century. Usually researchers interpret this piece of work as an apology of the strong power and justification of repressions undertaken in the interest of state and the common good. It is assumed that appraisal of the “Story” protagonist, the prince of Walachian (Rumanian) state, hospodar Dracula is ambiguous. Dracula connects traits of a despot and sadistic cruelty with valiance, justice, and statesmanship. As the author argues, the appraisal of the protagonist is totally negative and his methods of rule are presented as not just sinful but as maleficent. Ideologically “Story of Dracula” fits in the old Russian tradition and has nothing common with social-political notions of such representatives of the formidable and cruel power as Ivan Peresvetov and czar Ivan the Fourth. The Story’s originality consists not in its author’s position but in means of its expression: the Story’s author prompts his readers to make an effort and understand why Dracula was a despot who served to the devil.

The author considers consequences and prospects of reforms commenced in the Russian education in the 2000s and 2010s. The author focuses his attention on conception of “effective contract” an instructor strikes with an educational institution administration, on bibliometrical indices as the criterion of an instructor’s scientific activity efficiency, on introduction of final composition in senior classes and on instrumentation materials of the Unified state exam in Russian and, first of all, on massive simplification of tasks, and on reduction of minimum points required for admission to a higher education institutions. The author notes crudity of reforms undertaken and planned, a significant intensification of bureaucratization and unfounded upsurge of reporting. Finally the author proposes a number of measures that can stop the pernicious trend.

The author considers consequences and prospects of reforms commenced in the Russian education in the 2000s and 2010s. The author focuses his attention on the higher education of the Bologna system and on conception of Liberal Arts as well as on idea of radical reduction of faculty, on conception of the «effective contract» an instructor strikes with an educational institution administration, on introduction of the final composition in senior classes and on changes in control and measuring materials of the Unified state exam in Russian. The author notes crudity of reforms undertaken as well as planned, a significant intensification bureaucratization and unfounded upsurge of reporting. Finally the author proposes a number of measures that can stop the pernicious trend.

The magazine publishes materials of the conference held in October, 2013, at the Department of philology of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. The conference was dedicated to one of the most ancient monuments of the Russian literature, The Primary Chronicle. It is the most ancient code of the Russian history. It contains the most important mythologemes and ideologemes of the East European past. Participants of the conference focused of issues of hermeneutics, the text’s integrity and origins of The Primary Chronicle. The significance of the monument is not limited to narrow professional interests of medievalists. For The Primary Chronicle was intended to provide the answer to the question: «Wherefrom the Russian land has emerged?»

The author examines the current state of the Russian society, Russians' attitude toward the authorities and compares them with the aggregate of ideas and expectations that were specific to the so called democratic movement and the liberal intelligentsia in the time of perestroika, on the eve of reforms commenced in 1992. The «democratic» project of those days are compared with results of reforms carried out during the past 20 years along such criteria as freedom, justice, and public moods and values. The author demonstrates that freedom has not been achieved in the social dimension and principles of justice are grossly violated and ignored. All that exercises a negative effect on the mass conscience that experiences crisis and degradation. According to author, the higher authorities lack a coherent conception of reforms, of transformations they carry out. Moreover, even the declaration of the authorities' intentions is a simulation of systemic reforms and modernization.

The author considers such multi-valued notion as «intelligentsia» and the corresponding phenomenon of intelligentsia as a specific phenomenon in the social, political and cultural history of the old Russia, the USSR and present-day Russia. The author demonstrates that ambiguity and vagueness, non-terminological character of this notion reflect the real historical situation in which intelligentsia has emerged not so much as an objective entity as an entity that is defined, in the first place, through self-awareness, self-identification and through idea of a special mission. The author considers reasons that determined erosion of intelligentsia in the meaning indicated in the post-Soviet Russia.

The author deals with ‘Moscow as the Third Rome' theory and with its perception in the culture of the Modern time, first of all in the Peter the Great epoch. The author demonstrates inconsistence of opinion set forth by Yu. M. Lotman and B. A. Uspensky who suggested that theory of Philophei, a scribe from Pskov, influenced ideology of Peter I and, in particular, formation of Saint-Petersburg concept as the new Rome. The author adduces new arguments in favor of ‘Moscow as the Third Rome' theory interpretation in purely religious concept that belonged to philosophy of history and not to political or ideological dimensions.

The author considers V.N.Toporov’s works dedicated to study of the ancient Russian hagiography and demonstrates continuity of Toporov’s approach in respect of G.P.Fedotov’s approach and fundamental differences of Toporov’s approach from investigation of hagiography practiced in historical and literary studies. V.N.Toporov’s method is seen as an example of original philosophical (historiosophical) discourse, as an experience in the sphere of ideal text reconstruction, reconstruction of the ‘super-myth’ created by the world and about the world. In a more narrow way it is an attempt to re-create and reconstruct the psychological image, spiritual and internal personality of a saint. In its core assumption and in many specific interpretations that do not imply the strict verification this approach is fundamentally different from methodology of so called Tartu-Moscow school to which V.N.Toporov is usually assigned.

The author discusses the reform of higher education in the present day Russia and, in particular, transformation of educational system in accordance with Bologna Convention. The reform is considered against the historical background of higher education model changeovers that occurred from the Antiquity up to the present day. In the traditional educational system the value of knowledge was not utilitarian. Humanitarian disciplines occupied a high position in the traditional educational system. In the consumption society knowledge and education acquire extremely practical value while moral component of education is reduced to grafting of some simplest skills of socialization. Education needs changes but the ideology of total orientation to demands of market and cuts in expenditures determines current involuntary, often forced transformations and can bring about enormous losses.

The author considers Jutta Scherrer’s article and responses to it produced by V. Bouldakov and I.Kondakov. Jutta Scherrer’s opinion that the present day culturology is a ‘servant-girl' and an ideological tool of the current Russian authorities is challenged. The idea that the present day culturology is creating a myth of the ‘Silver Age' (and, in the first place' of N.A.Ber-dyaev' philosophy) and these efforts are manifestations of the fundamentalist national self-identification is perceived rather critically. The author emphasizes the complex and totally non-fudamentalist origins of the Russian culturology (it developed under strong influence of the Tartu-Moscow school etc.) which contains trends that are very distant from totalitarianism and fundamentalism.