Abstract: The legendary personality of Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov seriously complicates the study of his thoughts and deeds, forcing the scientist to approach the analysis of sources especially critically. Nevertheless, an objective look at the development of Suvorov’s thought and actions based on his ideas and beliefs are quite possible. The article shows this using the example of one, relatively short event in the commander’s biography: the Polish campaign of 1794. The author rejects both speculation about Suvorov’s campaign as a punitive expedition, and ideas rooted in Russian historiography about a dashing raid staged by Suvorov on Warsaw with small forces. Reliable sources indicate that the commander’s campaign in Poland was not only undertaken by him with humane goals, but was also carefully organized for a quick victory with the help of a massive army well trained by him along the way. Suvorov's ideas, his instructions to the troops and the dispositions of the main battle for Warsaw were studied using authentic documents and letters from the commander, correlated with the entire complex of sources left by him. The article examines the circumstances of Suvorov's campaign in Poland, his instructions for preparing and training troops for actions in the new campaign, orders for careful treatment of the civilian population. For the first time, the number of troops concentrated by the commander for the assault on Prague, a suburb of Warsaw, was accurately calculated, and the course of the assault on the city by superior forces was examined. Objective data refute both Western and later Russian journalism, which accused Suvorov’s troops of excessive cruelty. The study shows that Suvorov’s entire organization of the actions of the Russian army was aimed at protecting the civilian population of Poland, and Warsaw in particular, from the consequences of the war, and that these actions were successful. The commander managed not only to prevent the destruction of the capital of Poland, but also to save a significant part of the civilian population of Prague.

Abstract: A considerable amount of foreign books in the libraries, the study of Western languages by the Russians, and close contacts with foreigners in Russia and abroad in the 1680s – 1720s had insignificant impact on the Russian authors, who preferred to describe the events using traditional literary forms. Even the first historical monographs, although contained Western scientific forms, retained the Russian literary style. The attempts to influence public opinion made by V. V. Golitsyn using the inspired by him, which were distributed in foreign countries and translated as foreign In Russia, had a tactical success, as they did not correspond to the Western ideas on the barbarian Muscovy. Western publications about Russia were affected by the fantastic version of organization of the Moscow Uprising of 1682 by the boyars and Tsarina Sofia, initiated by the regency government and supporters of Chancellor A. S. Matveev, who propagated it abroad with particular success. In the XVIII century, this version was explicated in the essays of the Count A. A. Matveev and his mentor L. I. Poborsky. The comparison of Russian origins and reflections of the version with its Western interpretations, including those translated in Moscow, allowed assessing the uniqueness of foreign outlook on Russia. The synthesis of Russian and foreign interpretations of the fantastic version of conspiracies underlies the representations of many historians on the Streltsy uprising of 1682.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the disputes on the enlightenment of Russia in the early 1680s. They emerged and continued due to the idea of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich to open an Academy in Moscow: an autonomous university from the state and church authorities for preparing secular and religious personnel, which would teach in Polish, Greek, Latin and Russian languages. The article examines the positions of Russian and Greek Philhellenes. Some of them insisted on studying solely Greek language for preventing the distribution of knowledge in Latin and other languages. Others proved the advantage of Greek language in the educational system in all languages of science of that time. The author notes that the initiator of the Academy Sylvester Medvedev, who was later declared a “Latinist heretic”, took the second approach as the basis. The article refutes the modern attempts to change the perspective on dating, content and meaning of the primary sources, beginning with the Privilege of the Academy. The author substantiates that the Privilege was not a figment of Medvedev's imagination, but a Charter approved by the Tsar, which established the basic principles of the new university, namely the functions of faith protection were delegated by the tsar to the academic council. The implementation of measures against heresies, sorcery, etc., which were sternly formulated in the legislation,  since now on required the scholars’ examination. The objections of colleagues to the “harshness” of these measures, allegedly invented by Medvedev, were associated with legal ignorance. A substantial part of the article is aimed at familiarization of the colleagues with the legal, political, cultural and literary context, which contributes to the analysis of the sources.

Abstract: This article reviews the known facts on the work and concepts of Russian higher educational institutions of the 1650s-1700s. The author analyzes the polemics that unfolded in the XVII century and continues until today around higher education in Russia from Fyodor Rtishchev's School to Zaikonospassky Greek Schools created by Likhud brothers. It is noted that the idea of autonomous estate-inclusive university in Moscow, which was conceived by the Tsar Feodor III Alexeyevich and received privileges in the Grant Letter of 1682, was never brought to life. The author reveals the motives of resistance to introduction of regular education and recognition of rules of the rational science. It is demonstrated that breaking with the Russian traditional church rituals by Patriarch Nikon on the basis of false Greek scholarship caused doubts of the society on the utility of foreign regular science; and the desire of the devotees of Greek scholarship to prove that Latin education, unlike Greek, is harmful for the faith, nullified the attempt of Tsar Feodor III Alexeyevich to create a Moscow university for preparing secular and church personnel. Such struggle for the Academy resulted in the clash between rationalism of the enlighteners and authority of the church, which destroyed and suppressed the enlighteners, and discredited the church. In the XVII century, no Higher educational institutions were established in Russia; moreover, the Moscow academic staff was annihilated. In the context of the reforms of Peter the Great, the humanities education in Russia of the XVIII century was implemented Little Russian scholars, while natural scientific education – by Western scholars.

Abstract: This article examines over twenty lists of a popular chronicle of the XVII century, discovered only in the middle of the XX century. Historiography mentions approximately ten of them, and even fewer were described. Although the “Chosen Chronicler” enjoyed wide popularity and has a rich history. Such compositions that were revised by virtually every scribes and continued in their chronicles, represent a remarkable source on the history of culture. However, present considerable difficulties for research. The first one consists in detection, examination, and comparison of the greatest possible amount of list. This is the only accurate method to elucidate the evolution of the literary monument and the novelty introduced by each editor and continuator. The attribution of each list allows determining in which social circles and regions of Russia were created the lists and revisions of the literary monument, as well as their correlation in time. Preliminary comparison of the texts indicates the time, place, and composition of protographs of the chronicle tradition under review. Studying the lists also demonstrates the evolution of the “Chosen Chronicler”, who was born and became popular in the XVII century, evolved into the new monuments of historical thought of the next century.

Abstract: This article reviews the emergence and content of textbook system for “Mother School”, written by the court poet and educator Karion Istomin for Grand Duke Alexei Petrovich of Russia. The concept belonged to grandmother of Alexei Petrovich – Grand Duchess Natalia Kirillovna, who enrolled her son Peter to “Mother School” at the age of 3 instead of usual 5. The idea of preschool education was advanced by the prominent pedagogue John Amos Comenius based on his concept of developmental psychology. The very thought that a child is not a small adult and his perception transforms with age  was innovative for the Age of Scientific Revolution. In the countries of Central and Western Europe, where John Amos Comenius pursued his activity, promotion of this thought encountered difficulties. Although in Russia, where the works of Comenius enjoyed wide popularity, was created a solid foundation for assimilation of this thought. All children of the Romanov family (there is no records on education of their predecessors) received multiple educational toys and visual materials, which were purchased at first, and later illustrated in books. By combining the  Russian tradition with the ideas of Comenius, Karion Istomin the entire series of books, in which upbringing and education was in the form of pictures and poems to them. The most famous book, which retains its relevance today, is the unique Russian Alphabet Book (Bukvar). The author is first to examine the entire system of these textbooks, which mark gradual transformation from visual learning to logical.

Abstract: This article presents the first edition of the draft of autograph ecclesiastical report to the Ambassadorial decree of the Russian ambassador Arseny Sukhanov. The text contains first two author’s editions of the composition. Its correlation with the third edition is indicated, which protograph became the foundation for the manuscript tradition of the famous “The Debate on Faith with the Greeks”. The reforms of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow, who took the side of the Greeks –  opponents of Arseny Sukhanov, increased relevance of this composition. The publication demonstrates that in first part of the report, the ambassador pursued investigation of the insults of monarchic dignity due to burning Moscow books on Mount Athos, and forced the Greeks to withdraw accusation of the Russian Orthodoxy in heresy. In the second part, the ambassador defended the Russia’s sovereignty from the claims of the four Eastern patriarchs to oppress the Czar and the Patriarch of Moscow. Sukhanov explained that the head of the world Orthodoxy is the Orthodox czar. Same was in Rome, when Constantine the Great conferred on the Pope a white klobuk instead of the imperial fritillary. Sliding of the popes into heresy, made the chief in Orthodoxy the subordinated to them Patriarch of Constantinople, close to the pious czar. After the fall of Constantinople, the head of Orthodoxy became the Patriarch of Moscow  under the only Russian Orthodox czar. The Eastern patriarchies repeated the fate of the chosen by God, and them rejected by him Israel. They have never been, particularly due to the loss of piety, the “mentors of faith” for the Russian people. The post of the Pope was filled by the Patriarch of Moscow, and the position of Eastern patriarchs – by the four Russian metropolitan bishops. Such was the official position of the government of Moscow in 1650.

Abstract: In this article, the author draws up the results of the 350-year history of interpretations and studies of one of the largest monuments of Russian social thought: "Debates with the Greeks on Faith" by Arseniy Sukhanov. The article presents the results of a monographic examination of all the circumstances behind the creation, existence, and study of this work. The author completely revised the historiography of the "Debates", which served as the arena for a heated ideological struggle. The author also brought to light the hidden motives of the written monument's various editions and obtained a scientific explanation of the cause of their failure. The article presents the archaeography of the "Debates" in a new light, with the number of their identified lists doubling. For the first time in historiography, the author restores and publishes the texts of Sukhanov's own revisions of his work, created when he was the official representative of Russia in Targovishte, the capital of Wallachia, from June 6 to September 23, 1650. The article's author proves that the "Debates" is a diplomatic report on actual disputes with the Greek and Wallachian Orthodox clergy in which Sukhanov defended the official position of Russia as the new center of the Orthodox world. The article substantiates the conclusion that Arseny did not have hidden motives in the disputes, caused by some ecclesiastical disagreements in Moscow. The arguments, which the experienced diplomat was obliged to bring into the debates and to record in his embassy report, reflected the system of views adopted in Russia at the highest state and church levels. The prepared scientific edition of the author's editions of the "Debates" gives us a reliable source for studying the fundamental ideas of Russian society on the eve of Nikon's reforms and the Split of the Russian Church.

Abstract: The article presents new facts concerning the history behind the creation of Arseniy Sukhanov’s outstanding publicist work “the Debate with the Greeks on Faith”. The central research objects of the study are the recently found autograph of Sukhanov and the famous authorised manuscript of the Posolsky Prikaz as compared to the subsequent manuscript tradition. The author demonstrates that during the summer and autumn of 1650 the first three versions of this source were created, the last of which was circulated in December by Sukhanov himself. The article reveals the circumstances under which Sukhanov, having initiated an investigation into the case of the affront to the sovereign's honour, as a consequence was forced to reflect in the text the arguments of the debate with the Greeks, which formed the system of substantiating the primacy of the Russian Church and of tsardom in the Orthodox world. The author substantiates the conclusion that the significance of “the Debate” lay outside of the forthcoming Schism of the Church. The fate of Sukhanov and his ideas, which had a major impact on the formation of the 17th century ideology, confirms this conclusion.