Abstract: The article is devoted to the problem of reception by the leader of the Siberian regionalism G.N. Potanin, factors of formation, circumstances of development and evolution of the regional movement as an ideology that was formed in the conditions of colonization in the outlying (Siberian) regions of the Russian Empire. The object of the research is the socio-political discourse of Russia in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. The subject of the study is Siberian regionalism as an intellectual and socio-political movement in the epistolary and scientific-journalistic heritage of G.N. Potanin. The purpose of this article is to identify the ideas of G.N. Potanin about regionalism as an intellectual and socio-political movement that was formed in the active phase of his life biography. In methodological terms, the formulation of the problem, its solution and conclusions are provided by approaches and practices tested within the framework of the research direction new cultural and intellectual history, one of the problematic fields of which is intellectual biography and discursive practices. Within the framework of this article, the concept of “representation” is the semantic one, reflecting the subjective interpretation of the historical reality by G.N. Potanin in connection with the functioning of the regional movement as a sociocultural phenomenon. The sources of the research are the scientific and journalistic writings of G.N. Potanin and his extensive epistolary heritage, which captured the ideas of one of the leaders of the regionalists about the evolution of the movement in the wide chronological boundaries of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. The author concludes that the history of regionalism as an intellectual and social movement was closely associated with the biographical context of the fate of the leaders of the movement. This fact, according to G.N. Potanin determined the evolution of the regional ideology, which has come a long way from manifestations of local patriotism, radical political delusions, to the construction of an original concept based on the recognition of Siberia as a colony of Russia.

Abstract: The article is devoted to the identification of the content of the representation of the personality of the Moscow tsar Ivan IV in the concept of "sociological history" by V.O. Klyuchevsky. The object of the work is the historiographical discourse of the personality of Ivan the Terrible in the works of professional historians of the nineteenth century. The subject of the study is the representation of the personality of the Moscow autocrat in the historical concept of V.O. Klyuchevsky. The purpose of the work is to reveal the content of V.O. Klyuchevsky's historical ideas about the personality of Ivan the Terrible in the context of the concept of tsarist power in the Moscow centralized state of the XVI century. The methodological basis of the article is the approaches of the new cultural and intellectual history as the history of ideas functioning in a certain socio-cultural context, covering discursive practices and historiographical creativity. The socio-cultural approach allows us to objectively reflect on the historical circumstances that influenced the formation of views and evaluative judgments of the researcher. The author's conclusions are based on the analysis of a fragment of a lecture course devoted to the characteristics of the personality of Ivan the Terrible, positioned as a historiographical source – the work of a historian who implements the function of presenting historical knowledge as scientific and socially oriented.
The article concludes that the autocratic model of the state structure of the Moscow centralized state, in many respects, became a product of the patrimonial system that developed in the era preceding the reign of Ivan the Terrible and, from the point of view of V.O. Klyuchevsky, contained a distinct tendency of the predominance of the state over society. Ivan IV, in the concept of V.O. Klyuchevsky, acted as a kind of hostage of a situation when systemic problems were combined with the peculiarities of his upbringing and attitude to the future sovereign during his childhood.