The author deals with the Polish interregnum period (1572−1576) and describes programs offered by the principal pretenders to the royal throne: Maximillian, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, his son Ernest, Johan III, the King of Sweden, Ivan the Terrible, the czar of Russia, Henry d’Anjou, the French prince, Stephan Bathorius* etc. In May of 1573 the Rzecz Pospolita elected Henry Valois to the throne because Poland wanted to arrange an alliance with France. However Henry’s escape 16 weeks after the coronation divided Polish and Lithuanian societies into several factions. On of them provided support for Maximillian Habsburg, the other one did the same for Ivan the Terrible and the third faction rallied around Stephan Bathorius. The author makes conclusion on principal contradictions between the Russian and the European political cultures: the notions of a king’s prerogatives and powers were absolutely different. It is noted that parties could not find a common language. Every party insisted on its own program. Under such circumstances Stephan Bathorius, «the upstart from Transylvania» proved to be in the most favorably situation and won at elections of 1576. Unlike other pretenders Stephan did not confine himself to the royal etiquette but acted in a more decisive way. Having lost the election Ivan the Terrible missed a chance to win the Livonian War by diplomatic means and afterwards lost it altogether.

The article deals with the time reference point from which onwards ideological, cultural and civilizational confrontation of Russia and the West began. This confrontation found its expression in the propaganda myth about «Moskovia as the threat for the Christendom» which was invented in Renaissance Europe. The author connects emergence of the myth with the Livonian was (1558−1583) which was the first in the succession of wars Russia fought against a coalition of European states. «The Russian theme» for the first time became a subject of vigorous attempts of the Western intellectuals and politicians of Renaissance Europe to understand the phenomenon of Russia. In the process Russia was attributed with historical phobias generated due to internal European problems as well as by experience of Western communication with the East during the Crusades. In result the image of Russia established in the European propaganda literature poorly corresponded to the reality but it embraced many political and cultural phobias of Europeans. The image of Russia was invented in accordance with principle of «anti-world» modeling. Creators of this image tried to embody all «non-European» traits, that is everything barbarian, non-Christian, infernal. Many of phobias generated in Renaissance epoch are still effective assumptions of the policies of the West toward Russia. It should be emphasized that Europe needs such «anti-mirror»: it places its own sins in this «anti-mirror» without long thoughts whether the resulting picture corresponds to the reality or not. One of historical roles Russia performs in «West-East» system of civilizations is brought to the role of the «anti-world» without which Europe will not feel itself the supreme top of the global community.

The lethal convulsions or birth labors? Disputes about the end of the historical science at the beginning of the 21st century. Since Herodotus' times of history is understood as Histories Apodexis, i.e., as «presentation of events» either made preferably by a witness or based upon reliable evidence. However its emergence as a science took place rather lately and was determined by two events: formulation of sociological laws and isolation of study of sources as the basis of Histories Apodexis in the 19th century. In the last third of the 20th century the foundations of historical cognizance were shattered by «linguistic upheaval» and the «postmodernist challenge». These phenomena caused the crisis of «the science of history». The author deals with manifestations of the crisis (the emerged discretion of the historical knowledge, the «linguistic turn» and the «post-modernist crisis») and with other attempts to overcome the crisis practiced today. Of these attempts the author pays the particular attention to critique of postmodernism, emergence of new methodological directions, development of historic hermeneutics as the most perfect of these directions, the contemporary state of historic positivism and reasons for its stability. The author offers his own scenario of historical science development: a schism will occur in the corporation: a part of historians will follow principles of Histories Apodexis and interpret standards of their profession in the positivist spirit while a narrow strata of professional scientists will form gradually. This second group will be able to develop new scientific standards applied to the historical studies and investigations

After the manifesto on the gentry’s liberties was issued in 1762 the Russian society was vigorously developing notions of «freedom» and «liberty». The official state ideology offered a quite limited understanding of these notions as the «negative freedom», i.e., «freedom from…», emancipation from responsibilities to the society and the authorities. The notion of liberty as the unbridled debauch, absolute license and behavior offensive to the dominant public morals and manners gained popularity among the metropolitan gentry, officials and officers. After accession of Paul I (who reigned from 1796 to 1801) reforms aimed at restriction of the gentry’s liberties understood as the «freedom of morals» were launched in the Russian empire. Paul made an attempt to carry out «preventive counterrevolution» of a sort. Paul assumed that the gentry’s liberties uncontrolled by the state would inevitably bring about revolutionary convulsions. Thus he was going to destroy the system of privileges which emerged under Catherine II and which he considered to be the principal source of the «liberal threat». The gentry reacted to Paul’s innovations with protest which found manifestations in semiotic forms and later with the overt rebellion which came to the end with assassination of the emperor and repudiation of his policies.