The fourth quarter of the XIX century was one the most difficult periods in the history of Europe, associated with the emergence of independent Slavic states in the Balkans, the birth of which sharply exacerbated the contradictions between the “great powers”. At the same time, the Slavic states themselves — Serbia, Bulgaria — regularly conflicted with each other. The Slavic population of Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire was the object of a tough domestic policy that left no opportunity for the development of inter-Slavic solidarity. Deep analytic look at these processes is given by the letters of the outstanding Slavist Vatroslav (Ignatiy Vikentievich) Yagić. The formation of Slavic science and the science of Slavs, which was not an instrument of political struggle, on the one hand, the development of inter-Slavic unity, the establishment of a common Slavic European civilization, are among the main issues that worried Yagić throughout his long life and work. Yagić assigned the leading — consolidating, stabilizing — role in the process of civilizational unification of the Slavs to Russia, but in this matter he saw not the implementation of a well-thought-out program, but a chaotic chain of missed chances. Not with pride, but with bitterness in 1892, Yagić confessed to his student M. N. Speransky: “After all, it is not for nothing that we are Slavs”, putting into these words all the pain and disappointment from the fact that the Slavic peoples do not show solidarity, but fight with each other, believing that upholding small interests is more important than joining efforts for the development of Slavic culture, the assertion of the Slavic world as an equal civilization in Europe at the end of the 19th century. Previously unpublished documents — letters of I. V. Yagić to Russian Slavists from the funds of the St. Petersburg branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences — make it possible to understand how the structure of international relations was understood by the largest European intellectual of the second half of the XIX — the first quarter of the XX century, what could be and what, in his opinion, was the role of Russia in the structure of international relations in the period under review.
This article examines the long-debated historiographic problem of locating the cities of the Ryazan region listed in the “List of Russian Cities Far and Near”, dating from the 14th to the first half of the 15th centuries. The most recent research (published after 2014) on this site is analyzed as a whole, and a detailed presentation of modern archaeological and historiographic material on all settlements in the “Ryazan group” of toponyms in the “List” is presented. The cities are analysed according to the following criteria — location (whether it has been historically, toponymically and archaeologically confirmed); mentions in written sources; chronological framework of the city’s existence (or of a later settlement genetically linked to it), as well as the nature of changes in this status — where it is possible to trace them. This approach has made it possible to clarify the location of several cities in Ryazan Land. It is noted that the “List” reflects the political realities of the second half of the 14th century, when the cities on the right bank of the Oka River (Novy Gorodok, Luzha, Vereya and Borovsk) passed to the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
The article examines the Apothecary Chancery as a space of intercultural contact in seventeenth-century Muscovite Russia. Based on archival documents preserved in the archives of Moscow and St. Petersburg (the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts and the Department of Manuscripts of the National Library of Russia), it reconstructs the financial and administrative ties of this, in many ways key, chancery with three dozen other state institutions. The Apothecary Chancery emerges as a social institution that performed diverse functions (besides medical ones), where professional, linguistic, confessional, and administrative practices intersected. The article pays attention to the mechanisms of interethnic and interconfessional communication between physician and patient, which existed despite formal prohibition. It analyses the linguistic features of medical prescriptions and autographs of foreign physicians, whose language records the use of Latin, German, English, as well as Russian borrowings.
The article deals with the confrontation between common law courts and ecclesiastical courts, mainly the High Commission in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. It traces the evolution of the arguments of the jurists James Maurice and Robert Beale in the official position of Edward Coke. To accomplish this task, Coke’s comments on litigation concerning the High Commission and the use of the ex officio procedure are studied: the case of Robert Cowdrey (1591), the heresy case (1600—1601), the case of Nicholas Fuller (1607), the case of Anthony Roper (1607), the entries “On the Oath of Ex Officio before an Ecclesiastical Judge” (1607), and “Whether the High Commission Has the Right to Imprison” (1607). It is shown that the private conflict over the ex officio oath was the result of more important controversies. First, the uncertainty of the jurisdictions of secular and ecclesiastical courts. Second, since the High Commission was created by royal statute, its existence and activities raised questions about the limits of royal prerogative. Edward Coke did not deny the legitimacy of the High Commission and considered the right to establish such commissions to be an inherent and indisputable royal prerogative. At the same time he strongly defended the supremacy of common law over ecclesiastical law, and the right of secular courts to control the activities of the High Commission. Thus, as a result of the constant demonstration that the jurisdiction of the High Commission was limited to heresy cases, the legal community gradually came to believe that the High Commission was dysfunctional as a court of law, which would allow it to be first nullified and then abolished without any discussion.
The article analyzes the evolution of the doctrinal foundations of Turkey's foreign policy under Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The Republic of Turkey, under the Justice and Development Party, has come a long way in transforming the country into a regional leader. At the same time, the doctrinal basis of the country's policy was changing, the consideration of which allows researchers to outline the main trajectories of the development of foreign policy thought in Turkey. It is noted that A. Davutoglu was able to lay the conceptual foundations of Ankara's new foreign policy. The "strategic depth" became a new look at Turkey's place in the system of international relations and its untapped potential, which eventually resulted in the activation of the foreign policy track. However, “soft” power and humanitarian policy could not solve the range of tasks that Turkey faced after the beginning of the Arab Spring. Such rapid changes in the region have also led to a transformation of foreign policy doctrine. Turkey began to increasingly declare the possibility of using the force factor, but tried to cover it up with ideas of protecting humanitarian norms. Ankara switched to using new tactics, where military assertiveness was combined with “soft” power. There is a globalization of Turkey’s foreign policy doctrine. Turkish leaders are increasingly starting to think in terms of transforming the world order, global justice, etc., in an effort to demonstrate that their country is becoming a new center of power. It is concluded that Turkey’s foreign policy doctrine has shifted from defensive tactics to offensive tactics with an increase in its own independence in the global arena.
