The article deals with the current political situation in Russia, with the current elites' struggle, with problems of the current situation analysis, and with the growing confrontment of political groupings within Russia that inevitably affects the spiritual condition of the Russian society as well as the RF foreign policy, the RF relations with its close neighbors. Overcoming the chaos under conditions of atomized society is the task that should be solved by people who are engaged in politics and in accordance with grand purposes and values that are aimed at preservation of the country, its people, its culture and the future of 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.

Formation of historical images is a complex process of information contained in sources of various kinds smelting in a peculiar ‘historiographic' smelter. Regime of this furnace functioning depends on changing political, scientific and cultural realities of a respective epoch. The historical portrait of Admiral Nakhimov we have was created by efforts of several generations of historians, publicists and politicians. Nakhimov’s life and activities have become a part of the Russian national historic myth where real events, their adequate and inadequate appraisals as well as political constructs topical for different epochs are interwoven. The author demonstrates how very different circumstances of different kinds have contributed to Nakhimov’s ascension to the very top of the national pantheon, how socio-cultural realities of the 2nd half of the 19th century and the early 21st centuries allowed this undoubtedly meritorious man to become a symbol of the Russian naval glory.

The author notes an interrelation between scientific views of A.A.Kornilov and M.M.Kovalevski and their political stance as centrist liberals. The peculiar trait of the centrist concept of Russia reorganization is the substantiation of necessity to retain the historical continuity in the process of transformation. Ideologues of liberal centrism shared the understanding of danger that was result of their general approach to history and their refusal to put up with falsification of history. The article reflects position taken by Kornilov and Kovalevski on a range of issues that moved in the focus of public attention due to celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Patriotic War of 1812. These issues included appraisal of Alexander I personality and policies, appraisal of M.M.Speranski's activities, the Continental Blockade’s consequences for Russia, impact of events occurred between the Treaties of Tilsit and Napoleon’s army invasion into Russia on results of the Patriotic War of 1812 and the impact of this war on public thought development, preparation to abolition of the serfdom and its actual abolition.

The author analyzes preconditions of the Soviet collectivization as a process of the Western style modernization along the lines of American agrarian-industrial enterprises that emerged in the1920s. Application of the most advanced machines (not just field engines but also combined harvesters invented at that times) lied at the bottom of these enterprises. The Soviet leaders perceived harvesters as a fundamental innovation that would prove advantages of collective farms and permit to send some 15 million redundant people from countryside to construction sites.

The article is focused on the evolution of the traditional concepts of Russian public consciousness («Moscow the third Rome», Slavic brotherhood, liberating mission of Russia etc.) in the years of the First World War. Public reaction to the key events of the war is investigated, such as the Russian occupation of Galicia and the decision of the Entente powers to hand over Constantinople to Russia after the war. The elements of eschatology and messianism which were characteristic of the Russian consciousness, clashed with the ecclesiastical and political realities of Europe and Near East.

The author examines samples of female auto documental materials (diaries, letters, recollections, autobiographies) written in the 18th and 19th centuries by women of different estates and social standings, family statuses and educational backgrounds. These narratives carried an enormous social and psychological load because they were not just a form of extreme self-expression and revelation of female inner world. They were, in fact, thinking twins of women who wrote them, twins that were intended to accomplish self-representation of those women’s gender (female) identity.

The M. Pevsner's school of nutritionists and gastroenterologists is reviewed as a classic model of scientific clinical school of 20-th century. For the first time reliable scientific biographie of one of the pioneers of the USSR gastroenterology professor M.I.Pevsner is presented, and his disciples are named. The influence of the socio-political factors on the fate of the scientists and related scientific areas is shown.