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.

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.

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.

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.

No abstract