Николов, А. Из кореспонденцията на П. А. Сирку с Хр. Попконстантинов. - Минало, 1997, № 3-4, 45-58

Первый раздел номера посвящен Русской революции 1917 года, активным участником которой являлся Питирим Сорокин, что оставило неизгладимый след в его биографии и творческом наследии. Во второй раздел включены статьи, отра-жающие сложные теоретико-методологические проблемы как в изучении научно-го наследия П.А. Сорокина, так и в самом его научном наследии. Третий раздел от-дан «самому Сорокину» – его работам и эпистолярному наследию. В этом разделе публикуется глава из пока не изданной в России работы П. Сорокина «Власть и нравственность» (вышла в 1959 году, написана в соавторстве с У. Ланденом). Кро-ме этого, в разделе размещены письма Питирима Сорокина евразийцу Е.А. Сетниц-кому; эта публикация подготовлена ведущим биографом Питирима Сорокина Ю.В. Дойковым. Также в номере представлен наиболее полный на сегодняшний день обзор исследований творчества Питирима Сорокина в России и за рубежом, а также рецензия на недавно вышедший том собрания сочинений П. Сорокина, со-держащий его художественные произведения, в том числе фантастический роман «Прачечная человеческих душ». Завершает номер перевод словарной статьи о Со-рокине, подготовленный самим Сорокиным.

The article analyzes the arrangement of the Party Control Commission’s records management (from 1934 till 1952) – one of the largest structures of the Party Central Committee for the period under review. The source materials of this research are deposited in the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History and the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (Moscow). Most of them are first revealed and displayed. The goal of the research is to identify the features of the Commission’s records management. Researched the arrangement of document’s workflow and documenting of the main Commission’s divisions – Bureau, Party Collegium, plenipotentiaries’ staff, working with incoming, outgoing correspondence, regulation of classified records management. Particular attention was paid to the protocoling records management of the Bureau and the Party Collegium, at the same time work with the correspondence, monitoring of internal documents’ workflow were insufficiently settled. This resulted from the constant growth of documents, lack of staff, territorial disconnectedness, and poor organization of internal control over the documents flow. We presumed that a state of the internal control, including control of documents flow, in many ways determines the effectiveness of the external control (the primary activity of the Commission), thus the obtained research findings can be useful for better understanding whole the Commission’s activities of controlling over Party’s decisions fulfillment.

F. I. USPENSKY, THE RUSSIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL IINSTITUTE IN CONSTANTINOPLE, AND THE EASTERN QUESTION Liliana Simeonova (Abstract) While the idea that there needed to be founded a Russian overseas research center gained popularity in the Russian academic circles of the latter half of the nineteenth century it was Feodor Ivanovitch Uspenky who, in 1894, founded the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople and presided over its pioneering archaeological research in the Ottoman capital and its immediate vicinity as well as in the Balkans, Asia Minor, some of the Aegean islands, and the Middle East. Uspensky was a specialist in Byzantine and medieval Slavonic studies, with noteworthy contributions to the study of medieval Bulgarian history and archaeology. From the very beginning, the activities of RAIC, as the new center became known, were linked with Russia’s geopolitical interests in the region. In his efforts to find financial sponsorship and political support for his ambitious enterprise, Uspensky consistently advocated the idea of Russia’s being the heir to Byzantium as well as a protector of Slavdom and Orthodoxy. Thus, while other countries (e. g., Great Britain, France, Germany, and the US) were primarily interested in the classical, Graeco-Roman heritage of the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean, Uspensky believed that Russia’s academic interest ought to focus on the Byzantine and Slavic antiquities. That is why he suggested that the Russian overseas center be located on the Bosphorus – a strategically important site, over which Russia had political and military claims. RAIC thus became intricately linked with the so-called Eastern Question. Uspensky succeeded in enlisting the support of some influential political figures: e. g., Russia’s ambassador to Constantinople, Alexander Nelidov, and the state comptroller Tertyi Filipov. RAIC was placed under the direct authority of the Russian embassy in the Ottoman capital while enjoying the benevolent attitude of the Ottoman authorities. It was also getting substantial amounts of money from the Russian state budget. Also, thanks to his political connections, Uspensky and his associates were allowed access to some ancient manuscripts that were to be found in monastic libraries on Mount Athos and elsewhere. Uspensky, however, never sacrificed his scholarly work to politics. As the center grew, he founded two new departments in it – Slavic studies and praehistory. Apart from employing archaeologists, art historians, palaeographers, and historians, RAIC soon became the place of postgraduate study for a number of young scholars from Russia, Bulgaria, and Serbia. It also started publishing its own Transactions, which amount to 16 volumes. Thanks to the Sultan’s permission to keep half of all of its findings, RAIC eventually opened a museum of its own. At the same time, the archaeological expeditions and excavations in the Balkans, and especially in Bulgaria, stimulated the develpment of the medieval Balkan, and Bulgarian, studies. In December 1914, following Russia’s entry into World War I, the Ottoman authorities confiscated the artifacts of RAIC’s museum. Some artifacts and manuscripts, however, had already been taken out of the country, with the help of the Russian enbassy. RAIC was formally closed in 1920. Back in St. Petersburg, the seventy-year-old Uspensky was invited to edit the organ of Byzantine studies, Vizantiysky Vremennik. After the October Revolution, he delivered lectures at the Leningrad University (1922 – 27) and, enduring criticism of the Bolshevik authorities, prepared for publication the results of a lifelong study – a three-volume history of the Byzantine Empire. Uspensky died in 1928. RAIC never reopened. But in the twenty years it was active, it made a significant contribution to the furtherance of Byzantine and Slavonic studies while also bequething to posterity such important questions as to what the relationship between property rights over antiquities and international politics should be.

Статья является завершением начатой в предыдущем номере (Литературный факт. 2021. № 4 (22)) публикации полного корпуса писем Леонида Андреева к его первой возлюбленной — Зинаиде Николаевне Сибилевой. Роман между ними имел бурное и весьма нелинейное развитие в 1889–1892 гг. В письмах выявляются многие ранее не известные реалии жизни гимназиста и студента Андреева. Но более важным представляется отраженный в них некий дневник «душевных состояний», поток сложных, подчас «пограничных» психологических переживаний адресанта. Полагая (с отсылкой к авторитету Мопассана), что в письмах более точно высвечивается личность человека, что они «раскрывают душу без всяких прикрас», Андреев вместе с тем рассматривал свои эпистолярные опусы (наравне с дневниками) как некоего рода упражнение в писательстве. В данной части работы представлены в основном письма 1892 г.