This story opens a series of articles devoted to the prehistory of the Great Northern War seen through separate contexts of diplomatic relationships between Russia, on the one hand, and each member of anti-Swedish coalition, on the other. The author starts with a detailed analysis of the intense activity of two consecutive Danish missions in Moscow – one led by Gildebrand von Horn, another by Paul Heins. They did their utmost to seduce tsar Peter by fabulous prospects promised by the future allied victory over the Swedes. He, however, was guided by his own thoughts as to the circumstances that would justify the risk of war against most powerful state in Northern Europe.

The article is devoted to the state and society of the 1860s understanding of the fiftieth anniversaries of the Patriotic War of 1812, the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the centenary of the birth of Napoleon I. The first (twenty five year) anniversary of 1812 was very solemnly celebrated by order of Nicholas I on the day of the victory over Napoleon at the end of August 1839. In 1862–1864, a celebration of the half-century anniversary was about to come and, it would seem, it should also be just as wide. However, in 1862 no official celebrations were held. Unlike the official state engaged in the celebration of another anniversary – the millennium of Russia, public thought didn’t forget the anniversary of the Patriotic War of 1812 and was trying to comprehend the events of recent past in its own way. In 1864, against the backdrop of the changed foreign policy situation, the anniversary of the entry of Russian troops into Paris was celebrated solemnly by a parade on Palace Square and lunch in the Winter Palace. At the same time the official press reflected in details news about the celebration of the centenary of Napoleon I in 1869 in France. This article examines in details the publications of official newspapers, literary magazines and the epistolary and memoirs of the contemporaries of the 1860s, which somehow reflected the anniversary dates.

The article is devoted to the institutional control of the local government, which was improved in the XIX century. The analysis of revision procedures in four ministries (of inner affairs, state property, finance and justice) allowed to highlight common features and characteristics of the revision practices under Nicholas I. Ministry revisions were one of the form of extraordinary control, but they, instead of senatorial revisions, were used not only when central government in the capital received information about disorders in a work of local institutions, but also in order to collect reliable data on state of subordinate institutions. Such measures allowed to swiftly react on malfunctions in a work of local government and take measures “for possible improvements”, which was manifested not only in strengthening reporting practices and prosecutions, but also in adjustments of reforms and reorganization of institution work.

The article is devoted to the political parties in Russia in the beginning of the XXth century: its origins, structure, programs, tactics. The author bound the Russian multy-party system with the society conditions, its stratification, the specific of the intellectual processes in the country. Тhe definition of the parties was formulated. It can be used in regard to the reality of the beginning of XXth century. Finally, the authors targeted the research perspectives of the parties in the Russian empire.

The article describes the events that are not well studied in historiography. It is focused on the celebration of the October Revolution anniversary in the war time Moscow (November 6–7, 1943). It represents the reaction of the Western allies to the speech of Joseph Stalin, made at the reception in the Kremlin on November 6. It also shows a representational meeting at the Reception House of the Narkomat for Foreign Relations (NKID) on November 7 with participation of the Soviet political and military elite, writers, artists, as well as foreign diplomats. Among the sources used are archival materials, diplomatic documents, memoirs and diaries of the contemporaries and participants Alexander Vert, Harrison Evans Salisbury, Ivan Maisky and Ilya Ehrenburg.

This article analyzes some aspects of the cultural policy of the USSR in the second half of the 1940’s – early 1950’s. One of the leading ideological campaigns is being investigated – against «formalism» in Soviet music, which is seen as a representative illustration of the enhanced use of control-repressive and administrative-regulatory technologies of «late Stalinism». The course of the campaign is traced based on the reproduction of information-political, hardware training, internal periodization and correlation with other similar actions of that time are carried out. The instrumentally localized character of the campaign, organized to achieve an instant disciplinary and intimidating traumatic effect, directed against the musical intelligentsia and its creative freedom, is shown. The author comes to the conclusion that there is a need for a delicate and balanced assessment of the «case of music-formalists». This is due to the ambivalence of this historical situation – a combination of ideological addiction and the presence of elements of objective criticism of the limits of musical and aesthetic experimentation.

The article considers direct experience as a fact of self-consciousness of the ancient Russian masters of the word. In addition to authoritative sample texts, ancient and medieval Russia was able to appreciate personal evidence, links to the author’s acquaintance with the subject of the image. Travelers, rhetoricians and preachers used direct experience as an important suggestive setting, which allowed to give the work credibility. This technique was used in different genres in order to engage the reader in the proposed circumstances. The reception function is considered on the example of the works of hegumen Daniel (XII century), monk Thomas (XV century), protopope Avvakum (XVII century).

The article covers the complex transformation issues of the Russian-Ukrainian border in 1920. It is based on the study of the archive documents, critical analysis of publications of leading historians. The author marks, that economic factor determine the creation of the Donetsk province and the transfer to it the some Russian ethnic territories, that caused intense disputes about the contours of the Russian-Ukrainian border. The administrative-territorial dispute was settled by the orders of the Center, but the decision did not satisfy the parties.

The article of Miza Isaevna Boreva (1902–1969), a revolutionary and party leader from the 1930s through the 1940s. She was born in Odessa in a poor Jewish family, at the age of 15, Miza Boreva became a participant in the revolutionary events and joined the Bolshevik Party. She was involved in the Civil War in Ukraine and in the Crimea and the Caucasus. During the 1920s and early 1930s, after receiving a good education for the time, she had a most successful career in the CPSU(b), working at various party positions in Vladivostok, Moscow, Ivanovo and Semipalatinsk. In December 1934, at the invitation of a longtime acquaintance, A.Y.Stolyar, she left for work in the Kirov region, where she was arrested in April 1938. Freed in late 1939, in 1940 she was reinstated in the party and continued her career. In 1943, she was again expelled from the CPSU(b) and put on trial but was acquitted and reinstated once again. From 1944 to 1948, she served as secretary of the municipal party committee in Simferopol. She was removed because of an anti-Semitic campaign in the USSR. The life of M.I.Boreva is a prime example of how an historical era affects the fate of.