Suchergebnisse

Раздел "Международные отношения и внешняя политика" ; В статье рассматриваются основные периоды в истории австрийского радикализма. На примере Австрийской партии свободы раскрыты основные причины роста радикальных настроений среди электората этой страны, а также радикализации идеологии ее партии. Особый акцент сделан на анализе политических концепций новых партий, образованных в конце XX – начале XXI в. Отмечается рост их популярности и успехи радикальных партий на парламентских выборах 2013 г. Подчеркивается роль председателя АПС Й. Хайдера как одного из наиболее популярных лидеров австрийского радикализма. = The main periods of the history of Austrian radicalism are analyzed in the article. By the example of the Austrian Party the author reveals the core reasons of the radical sentiments' increase among the electorate of this country as well as of the radicalization of the parties' ideology. Special focus was made on the analysis of new parties' political concepts that were established at the end of 20th – beginning of the 21st century. The author underlines the increase of their popularity and successes of radical parties during the parliamentary elections in 2013. The role of J. Heider as one of the most popular Austrian radical leader is stressed.

Introduction. As a social group with its specific features and motivation, students have been long characterized by their active involvement in social and political unrest. However, the behavioral analysis of students in different historical situations has become an independent research topic as late as in the 1960s. Numerous nuances of student activity remain for that reason unexplored. That is true of the process of student politicization and nationalization in the multi-ethnic Austrian empire during the tumultuous year of 1848. In literature, this issue is either pushed aside or based on an image of a radical "Austrian" student helping proletarians to fight against the regime on barricades. The latter is not relevant in view of the diversity of student sentiments and ideas that were present in the vast Habsburg hereditary lands. Methods and materials. This article analyzes students' sympathies and actual participation in the rebellious events of 1848 considering the cases of two universities - that of the capital city of Vienna and the university of provincial Innsbruck. The study is based on students' memoires, pamphlets, letters and newspapers of that time, as well as official documents and appeals by the government. Analysis. The analysis shows that Viennese students had an effective voice in revolutionary events, but their demands were of relatively moderate liberal character, while they largely remained loyal to the emperor. The revolutionary activity of provincial students was much more modest and peaceful than in Vienna. In case of Innsbruck, in particular, an image of a patriotic student fighting with arms for his emperor and fatherland replaced the image of a student fighting for political freedoms. Results. The participation of students in the revolutionary events of 1848 resulted in politicization of the "Austrian" student body and its consolidation as an independent social group. © 2020 Volgograd State University. All rights reserved. ; Russian Foundation for Basic Research, RFBR: 19-59-23005 ; The reported study was funded by RFBR according to research project no. 19-59-23005 "The Habsburg 0onarchy: New Directions in the Study of the Economic, Socio-Political and National Development of the Composite State of Central Europe".

Introduction. The article considers the problem of solving the Austrian issue by consolidating the country's neutrality in 1955 in the context of a possible modeling of the situation on the German issue. The consolidation of a neutral non-aligned status with Austria was the result of a broad domestic and foreign policy compromise. At the same time, the main features of the Austrian path to the neutrality of 1945–1955 are highlighted, making this one of the most well-known compromise precedents of the Cold War possible.

Methods and materials. The research of the model character of the "Austrian solution" of 1955 is possible only with regard to the intertwining historical contexts in which the development of the German and Austrian issues took place from 1945 to 1949. The author uses the comparative historical method in the article while comparing historical features of the development of the German and Austrian issues between 1945 and 1955 and comparing different views and concepts of historians. The information base of the article consists of narrative and documentary sources, as well as a wide range of scientific research works of Austrian, German and Russian researchers.

Analysis. The main internal reasons for the successful resolution of the Austrian issue are the existence of the pro-Western government elected in 1945, the unity of the main political forces of Austria in the matter of restoring sovereignty, and the personal role of Chancellor Julius Raab. The main international reasons are the change in the course of the USSR within the framework of the peaceful coexistence policy, as well as the reciprocal cooperation policy of the Western Allies. The author considers the problem both in historical and in historiographical perspectives.

Results. The possibility of applying the "Austrian solution" to the situation with the divided Germany became the subject of a sharp historiographical dispute, which was called "Model Debate" in Austria. Two famous historians, Rolf Steininger and Michael Gehler, developed a concept confirming the model character of the Austrian solution to the situation with Germany. Most of Austrian historians tend to view the successful resolution of the Austrian issue as a single precedent, or phenomenon, of the Cold War. When comparing the situation with Germany and the attempts to model the Austrian version of it, they point to the different potential and significance of the countries for the Western Allies and the USSR, different goals of foreign policy of victorious powers in the German and Austrian issues.

Поступила в редакцию: 15.12.2019. Принята к печати: 23.06.2021. ; Submitted: 15.12.2019. Accepted: 23.06.2021. ; В статье освещается одна из попыток формирования имперской идентичности в Австрии начала XIX в. путем конструирования исторической памяти. Реинтерпретация прошлого в интересах укрепления династического патриотизма наиболее ярко проявилась в «Австрийском Плутархе» Йозефа фон Хормайра. Сочинение, которое преследовало цель создать «Общеавстрийский Пантеон», внесло существенный вклад в мобилизацию народов империи для борьбы с Наполеоном. Данный труд Хормайра и его роль в формировании исторической памяти и наднациональной идентичности империи Габсбургов 1804–1815 гг. до сих пор не получили достаточного освещения в отечественной историографии. Обратившись к этому сочинению, автор статьи попытался проанализировать представленную в нем концепцию истории Австрии как многонационального государства. Кроме того, оценивается влияние этого труда на политический дискурс монархии Габсбургов данного периода. Особое внимание уделено проблеме формирования идентичности с опорой на историческую память, а также методам интеграции образа наднационального государства в исторический контекст. В результате исследования установлено, что нарратив Хормайра стал средством конструирования наднациональной идентичности в монархии Габсбургов и основой для складывания австрийского консерватизма и романтизма. «Австрийский Плутарх» Хормайра — важная веха в формировании общей исторической памяти для всех народов монархии Габсбургов. Его концепция нашла применение в консервативной пропаганде империи, образ которой как «семьи народов» был представлен исторически обусловленным и наиболее эффективным для противостояния внешним угрозам. Данный труд сохранил соответствующее значение и после того, как изменились взгляды самого Хормайра. ; This paper considers an attempt at forming imperial identity in Austria in the early nineteenth century by means of constructing historical memory. The re-interpretation of the past for the sake of promoting dynastic patriotism can be most clearly seen in Joseph Hormayr's Österreichischer Plutarch, a work which was aimed at creating an "All-Austrian Pantheon" and contributed a lot to mobilising the peoples of the empire to fight against Napoleon. Österreichischer Plutarch and its role in forming the historical memory and supranational identity of the Habsburg Empire between 1804 and 1815 have not been studied closely in Russian historiography. The author of the paper attempts to analyse the concept of Austrian history as a multinational state provided in the work. Besides, he assesses the influence of the work on the political discourse of the Habsburg monarchy paying close attention to the formation of identity by means of historical memory, and the methods for multinational state image integration into historical context. The analysis helps establish that Hormayr's narrative became a means of constructing the supranational identity in the Habsburg monarchy, and the basis for the formation of conservatism and romanticism in Austria. Österreichischer Plutarch became a turning point for common historical memory touching upon the identity of all peoples living in the Habsburg monarchy. The concept found its place in conservative propaganda and education in the Empire. The image of Austria as a "family of peoples" found in the work is presented as historically motivated, having its own logic and the purpose to counter external threats. These results retained the same meaning even after Hormayr changed his political views.

This paper considers an attempt at forming imperial identity in Austria in the early nineteenth century by means of constructing historical memory. The re-interpretation of the past for the sake of promoting dynastic patriotism can be most clearly seen in Joseph Hormayr's Österreichischer Plutarch, a work which was aimed at creating an "All-Austrian Pantheon" and contributed a lot to mobilising the peoples of the empire to fight against Napoleon.Цsterreichischer Plutarch and its role in forming the historical memory and supranational identity of the Habsburg Empire between 1804 and 1815 have not been studied closely in Russian historiography. The author of the paper attempts to analyse the concept of Austrian history as a multinational state provided in the work. Besides, he assesses the influence of the work on the political discourse of the Habsburg monarchy paying close attention to the formation of identity by means of historical memory, and the methods for multinational state image integration into historical context.The analysis helps establish that Hormayr's narrative became a means of constructing the supranational identity in the Habsburg monarchy, and the basis for the formation of conservatism and romanticism in Austria. Österreichischer Plutarch became a turning point for common historical memory touching upon the identity of all peoples living in the Habsburg monarchy. The concept found its place in conservative propaganda and education in the Empire. The image of Austria as a "family of peoples" found in the work is presented as historically motivated, having its own logic and the purpose to counter external threats. These results retained the same meaning even after Hormayr changed his political views. ; В статье освещается одна из попыток формирования имперской идентичности в Австрии начала XIX в. путем конструирования исторической памяти. Реинтерпретация прошлого в интересах укрепления династического патриотизма наиболее ярко проявилась в «Австрийском Плутархе» Йозефа фон Хормайра. Сочинение, которое преследовало цель создать «Общеавстрийский Пантеон», внесло существенный вклад в мобилизацию народов империи для борьбы с Наполеоном.Данный труд Хормайра и его роль в формировании исторической памяти и наднациональной идентичности империи Габсбургов 1804–1815 гг. до сих пор не получили достаточного освещения в отечественной историографии. Обратившись к этому сочинению, автор статьи попытался проанализировать представленную в нем концепцию истории Австрии как многонационального государства. Кроме того, оценивается влияние этого труда на политический дискурс монархии Габсбургов данного периода. Особое внимание уделено проблеме формирования идентичности с опорой на историческую память, а также методам интеграции образа наднационального государства в исторический контекст.В результате исследования установлено, что нарратив Хормайра стал средством конструирования наднациональной идентичности в монархии Габсбургов и основой для складывания австрийского консерватизма и романтизма. «Австрийский Плутарх» Хормайра — важная веха в формировании общей исторической памяти для всех народов монархии Габсбургов. Его концепция нашла применение в консервативной пропаганде империи, образ которой как «семьи народов» был представлен исторически обусловленным и наиболее эффективным для противостояния внешним угрозам. Данный труд сохранил соответствующее значение и после того, как изменились взгляды самого Хормайра.

Беларуская дзяржаўнасць і беларускі соцыўм у навейшы перыяд гісторыі ; Австрийская Республика и Республика Беларусь имеют длинную историю в развитии двусторонних взаимоотношений в экономической, политической, культурной, научной сферах. После провозглашения государственного суверенитета Республики Беларусь, Австрия одна из первых признала ее независимость и подписала ряд соглашений о сотрудничестве. Сегодня активное сотрудничество двух государств продолжается и имеет положительные результаты. ; Аўстрыйская Рэспубліка і Рэспубліка Беларусь маюць доўгую гісторыю ў развіцці двухбаковых узаемаадносін у эканамічнай, палітычнай, культурнай, навуковай сферах. Пасля абвяшчэння дзяржаўнага суверэнітэту Рэспублікі Беларусь, Аўстрыя адна з першых прызнала яе незалежнасць і падпісала шэраг пагадненняў аб супрацоўніцтве. Сёння актыўнае супрацоўніцтва дзвюх дзяржаў працягваецца і мае станоўчыя вынікі = The Republic of Austria and the Republic of Belarus have a long history in the development of bilateral relations in the economic, political, cultural, scientific fields. After the proclamation of state sovereignty of the Republic of Belarus, Austria was one of the first who recognize its independence and signed a number of cooperation agreements. Today, active cooperation between the two states continues and has positive results.

The author discusses the reasons for Austria's favorable attitude towards Kosovo's independence. This attitude is analyzed in the overall context of the Austrian foreign policy and history of its relations with Kosovo. Austrian foreign policy is demonstrated to stem from its national identity and political culture.Keywords: Austria, foreign policy, national identity, Kosovo's independence. ; В статье объясняются причины положительного решения Австрии по вопросу суверенитета Косово. Это решение рассматривается в контексте внешнеполитической стратегии Австрии и истории ее взаимоотношений с Косово. Показаны истоки внешнеполитической стратегии Австрии в контексте ее национальной идентичности и культуры.Ключевые слова: Австрия, внешняя политика, национальная идентичность, независимость Косово.

The author studies the policy of Habsburg government in the sphere of national identity formation in the Austrian part of Austria-Hungary's population which was – among others – carried out through the system of elementary and secondary education system controlled by the Ministry of Culture and Enlightenment. The research is based on the library funds of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Art and Culture. The analysis of the most wide-spread textbooks of the period in question helps reveal the main means of all-Austrian identity propagation through teaching geography and history. ; Рассматривается политика габсбургского правительства по формированию наднациональной идентичности у населения австрийской половины Австро-Венгерской монархии, осуществляемая в том числе через контролируемую Министерством культуры и просвещения систему начального и среднего образования. Исследование базируется на материалах библиотечных фондов австрийского федерального Министерства образования, искусства и культуры. Анализ наиболее распространенных в исследуемый период учебников по истории позволяет выявить основные способы трансляции «общеавстрийской» идентичности через преподавание в школах предмета «География и история».

German-Austrian cultural studies at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries are characterized by a "new interest" in medieval preaching. If earlier it was studied by theology, literary criticism, linguistics and history as a document fixing the status quo, the existing state of affairs in a particular area - ethical norms, genre features, functioning features (pragmatics), grammatical forms and evidence of events - now preaching explored in its orientation to the future, as a genre within which promising models of behavior are developed.

International audience ; This paper analyzes the policy of France towards Central and Eastern Europe in 1931–1934. We pay particular attention to the Soviet reaction to the French plans for the political and economic reorganization of Central Europe. This research challenges the conventional historiographic opinion, according to which the Little Entente States and Poland were the main French pillars in Central Europe not only in 1920s, but also in the first half of 1930s. Also, it brings fresh conclusions on how the Soviets perceived the plans to restructure Central Europe.We argue that Paris recognized the weakness of its military alliances with Poland and the Little Entente in the early 1930s. Thus, reacting to the 1931 German-Austrian project of a custom union, the French decided to strengthen their influence in Central Europe with the help of the Soviet Union (as well as Italy). First, Paris proposed Moscow to conclude a non-aggression pact. Second, the French diplomats initiated discussions on the project of the "Danube triangle" (Vienne-Budapest-Prague), which could constitute an anti-German alliance better accepted by the USSR (and Italy) than the Little Entente. However, the rapprochement between Paris and Moscow undergone few setbacks in 1932–1933. In the spring of 1932, the French Prime Minister, André Tardieu, projected to economically tie the Little Entente States with Hungary and Austria. The negative reactions of Rome and Moscow caused the failure of this project. In 1933, Paris supported Mussolini's attempt to create a "European Directory", composed of Britain, France, Italy and Germany. Excluded from this "club", Moscow strongly criticized Mussolini's project. Finally, the Four-Power Pact, also disapproved by the Little Entente and Poland, collapsed.By the mid-1933, Paris came back to the idea that not only Italy, but also the Soviet Union should play a more active role in Central Europe. On the one hand, Paris proposed Rome to deepen its relations with Austria, Hungary (that led to the Rome ...

Introduction. The subject of this study is the organization of the repatriation process of former prisoners of war of the Austro-Hungarian and German armies from the regions of Siberia and the Volga region.

Methods and materials. The methodological basis of this work consists of such basic principles of scientific and historical knowledge as objectivity and historicism, systematic and specific presentation of the material, as well as the value approach used in scientific research. The historical sources are theoretical scientific works of European and Russian scientists concerning various aspects of the history of prisoners of war in Russia.

Analysis. The author explores the issues related to the return to the historical homeland mainly of the Czechs and Slovaks, however, due to the peculiarities of the archival documents that have been preserved, there is information about Austrians, Germans, Hungarians and representatives of other nationalities. The author establishes some personal data of citizens of foreign countries who lived in the territory of Tsaritsyn and Tobolsk provinces in the early 1920s, who had the desire to go to their historic homeland. In addition, on the basis of circulars and orders of the relevant authorities (Plenbezh, evacuation services), the author analyzes how the process of sending home Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, etc. was organized. In addition, there is information about how the process of registration of foreign subjects of the near and far abroad took place. The author makes an attempt to provide informative data on the life and activities of former citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, their ethnicity, family status, professional employment, circumstances of arrival in Russia, previous residence at home and the actual address of residence in the region.

Results. The process of repatriation of former prisoners of war of the Austro-Hungarian and German empires was delayed until 1924. It should also be noted that a certain percentage of these citizens remained in the new Soviet state. The difficulty in the process of returning to their historic homeland was the general confusion caused by the war and the change of the government, poor registration of prisoners of war, as well as the interest of state bodies in using this category of people as labor force in country's industrial and agricultural enterprises.

В 1895 г. в Любляне, являвшейся центром австрийской провинции Крайна, произошло сильнейшее за всю историю города землетрясение, разрушившее многие здания и нанесшее сильный ущерб жителям. Эта катастрофа считается важным рубежом в истории Любляны, преодолев который, она превратилась из довольно отсталого провинциального городка в быстро развивающийся современный город, окончательно утвердившийся в роли национального и культурного центра словенцев. Справиться с последствиями землетрясения удалось благодаря объединению усилий правительства Австро-Венгрии, провинциальных и городских властей, различных общественных организаций и частных лиц, а также широкой международной поддержке, оказанной жителям Любляны. Важным представляется вопрос о том, какие механизмы оказания помощи городу были задействованы, чтобы в результате добиться не только восстановления Любляны, но и ее коренного преобразования и последующего расцвета. В статье рассматривается ряд аспектов этой проблематики, позволяющих охарактеризовать значение данного события в жизни города: восприятие катастрофы его жителями, первоочередные меры, предпринятые для ликвидации ее последствий, проведение благотворительной акции в поддержку Любляны, а также последующая деятельность Совета общины города, во многом определившая пути его дальнейшего развития. На основании междисциплинарных исследований словенских ученых, а также материалов люблянской словенской прессы, Исторического архива г. Любляны и воспоминаний очевидцев автор стремится воссоздать достаточно полную картину жизни города во время катастрофы и в первые месяцы после нее.
The strongest earthquake in the history of the city hit Ljubljana, which was the center of the Austrian province of Carniola (Kranjska), in 1895. It destroyed many buildings and caused severe damage to the residents. This catastrophe is considered an important milestone in the history of Ljubljana. Having passed it, Ljubljana turned from a rather backward provincial town into a rapidly developing modern city, which establishing itself as the national and cultural center of the Slovenes. It was possible to cope with the consequences of the earthquake only with the help of the combined efforts of the government of Austria-Hungary, provincial and city authorities, various public organizations and individuals as well as wide international support rendered to the residents of Ljubljana. Of importance is the question what mechanisms of assistance to the city were involved in order to achieve not only the restoration of Ljubljana but also its radical transformation and subsequent prosperity in the future. The article discusses a number of aspects of this problem, which make it possible to characterize the significance of that event in the life of the city: the perception of the catastrophe by its residents, the priority measures taken to eliminate its consequences, the fundraiser in support of Ljubljana as well as the subsequent activities of the Municipal Council of the city, which largely determined the ways of its further development. Based on interdisciplinary research by Slovenian scientists, materials from the Slovenian press published in Ljubljana, the Historical Archive of Ljubljana, and eyewitness accounts, the author seeks to recreate a fairly complete picture of the life of the city during the disaster and in the first months after it.

International audience ; This paper analyzes the policy of France towards Central and Eastern Europe in 1931–1934. We pay particular attention to the Soviet reaction to the French plans for the political and economic reorganization of Central Europe. This research challenges the conventional historiographic opinion, according to which the Little Entente States and Poland were the main French pillars in Central Europe not only in 1920s, but also in the first half of 1930s. Also, it brings fresh conclusions on how the Soviets perceived the plans to restructure Central Europe.We argue that Paris recognized the weakness of its military alliances with Poland and the Little Entente in the early 1930s. Thus, reacting to the 1931 German-Austrian project of a custom union, the French decided to strengthen their influence in Central Europe with the help of the Soviet Union (as well as Italy). First, Paris proposed Moscow to conclude a non-aggression pact. Second, the French diplomats initiated discussions on the project of the "Danube triangle" (Vienne-Budapest-Prague), which could constitute an anti-German alliance better accepted by the USSR (and Italy) than the Little Entente. However, the rapprochement between Paris and Moscow undergone few setbacks in 1932–1933. In the spring of 1932, the French Prime Minister, André Tardieu, projected to economically tie the Little Entente States with Hungary and Austria. The negative reactions of Rome and Moscow caused the failure of this project. In 1933, Paris supported Mussolini's attempt to create a "European Directory", composed of Britain, France, Italy and Germany. Excluded from this "club", Moscow strongly criticized Mussolini's project. Finally, the Four-Power Pact, also disapproved by the Little Entente and Poland, collapsed.By the mid-1933, Paris came back to the idea that not only Italy, but also the Soviet Union should play a more active role in Central Europe. On the one hand, Paris proposed Rome to deepen its relations with Austria, Hungary (that led to the Rome Protocols in 1934) and Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, the French lobbied the restoration of diplomatic relations between the Soviets and the Little Entente States. In addition, at the beginning of 1934, Paris opened discussions for the establishment of a military alliance with Moscow, which would besides assume some obligations towards Warsaw and Prague. As a result of the active diplomacy of the French Foreign Minister, Louis Barthou, Paris and Moscow agreed on the principles of the Eastern Locarno Pact (which was partly realized in 1935). Moreover, France (together with Italy and Turkey), played an important role in the de-jure recognition of the USSR by some Central European States (Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Albania) and the Soviet admission to the League of Nations. ; Автор статьи анализирует политику Франции в начале 1930-х гг. в отношении государств Средней Европы, особое внимание уделяя советской реакции на французские планы реорганизации этого региона. Он приходит к выводу, что Париж, осознавая слабость своих военных союзов с Польшей и государ ствами Малой Антанты, стремился укрепить свое влияние в Средней Европе благодаря втягиванию в антигерманскую орбиту Италии и СССР, а также Авст рии и Венгрии. Наиболее амбициозный французский план реорганизации региона — дунайский проект Тардье 1932 г. — подразумевал укрепление связей Малой Антанты с Венгрией и Австрией. Получив негативную оценку в Берлине, Риме и Москве, этот проект реализован не был. В ответ Франция попыталась наладить региональное сотрудничество с великими державами. Так, в 1933 г. Париж поддержал (неудачную) попытку создания «европейской директории». В конце 1933 г. Кэ д´Орсэ предложил объединить в блок Малую Антанту, Польшу и СССР. В свою очередь Кремль, выступая против появления вдоль своих границ крупных блоков, выразил готовность активизировать свои связи только с государствами северной части Средней Европы. В 1934 г. эта линия легла в основу переговоров по Восточному пакту.

The paper seeks to contribute to the discussion among historians about the value, as historical sources, of foreign diplomats stationed in Russia. Two young men, Hildebrand von Horn, an envoy extraordinaire of the Danish king, and the Swede Johan Gabriel Sparwenfeld, a student of the Russian language and Russian affairs on a scholarship granted by the Swedish king, met in the Russian capital during the summer of 1684. They had met before-in 1682 in Copenhagen-but this time their roles were quite different, as they were in Moscow as representatives of countries with opposite political aims vis-a-vis Russia. Von Horn was in Russia for the third time, knew many influential people at court and mastered the Russian language. He kept Sparwenfeld informed about what was going on behind the scenes at court. This information was written down by Sparwenfeld in his diary of the Russian journey, published by the author of this paper in 2002. In July 1684 von Horn told Sparwenfeld about the execution of "a noble and learned Pole, Negrebetskii". This person, Pavel Negrebetskii, had had an important position at court during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich but lost his influence after the death of the Tsar. In August the two friends once more discussed Negrebetskii, his torture, and the role of I. M. Miloslavskii in his fate. Negrebetskii was accused of having taken part in a conspiracy against Sof'ia and her supporters in the aftermath of the streltsy uprising in May 1682. The torture was stopped by Vasilii Vasil'evich Golitsyn, and Negrebetskii was hastily and secretly taken to the Red Square and executed. Why was Negrebetskii executed in this way two years after his stated crime? After discussing various aspects of the question, this paper gives a possible answer. It seems that the real reason was that Negrebetskii did not stop trying to make the Polish king intervene on Naryshkina's side in the struggle for power between the Miloslavskii and Naryshkin clans. In connection with the arrival of an Austrian embassy in Moscow in May-June 1684, a new possibility for Negrebetskii to get in contact with Poland offered itself in the person of the Habsburg resident in Warsaw, I. Zierowsky. Negrebetskii, it seems, took advantage of the opportunity and tried to send a letter with Zierowsky to the Polish king, begging the king for help and support of Naryshkina and her son. The letter was intercepted, and Sof'ia and Miloslavskii decided to get rid of the irritating Pole once and for all. His execution also gave a clear signal to Peter's supporters that their previous plans were known and that their activities were under surveillance. It was not possible to touch the main actors in the unrealized conspiracy for political reasons; the most active among them was Vasilii Vasil'evich's cousin, Boris Alekseevich Golitsyn. So, the entries in Sparwenfeld ' s diary about nightly conversations between two foreigners in the Russian capital help to shed light on how and when Pavel Negrebetskii died, and, hopefully, also why. ; Статья является репликой в дискуссии об исторической ценности записей, которые вели работавшие в России иностранные дипломаты. Два молодых человека, Гильдебранд фон Горн, чрезвычайный посланник датского коро-ля, и швед Юхан Габриель Спарвенфельд, королевский стипендиат, изу-чавший русский язык и культуру, встретились в Москве летом 1684 г. Они познакомились еще в 1682 г. в Копенгагене, но в Москве они общались в качестве представителей двух стран, имевших в России разные политиче-ские цели. Фон Горн был в России в третий раз, прекрасно говорил по-рус-ски и был знаком с влиятельными лицами при дворе. Он рассказывал Спарвенфельду о закулисной жизни двора, которую хорошо представлял. Эту информацию Спарвенфельд записывал в дневник, который вел во вре-мя поездки (опубликован автором этой статьи в 2002 г.). В июле 1684 г. фон Горн рассказал Спарвенфельду о казни «одного поляка, знатного и ученого человека по имени Негребецкий». Речь шла о Павле Негребецком, зани-мавшем важное положение при дворе во время правления Федора Алексе-евича, но потерявшем свое влияние после смерти царя. В августе друзья еще раз обсуждали дело Негребецкого, обстоятельства его пыток до казни, а также и роль И. М. Милославского в его судьбе. Негребецкий обвинялся в участии в заговоре против Софьи и ее сторонников, возникшем после стрелецкого бунта в мае 1682 г. Пытки были прекращены Василием Васи-льевичем Голицыным. Негребецкого секретно отвезли на Красную пло-щадь и казнили. Почему Негребецкого казнили именно так, через два года после его предполагаемого преступления? После обсуждения различных аспектов данного вопроса в статье предлагается возможный ответ. Настоя-щей причиной поспешной казни было то, что Негребецкий продолжал склонять польского короля выступить на стороне Нарышкиной, матери Петра, в борьбе за власть между кланами Милославских и Нарышкиных. Поскольку в мае–июне 1684 г. в Москве находилось австрийское посольство, у Негребецкого появился надежный канал связи с Польшей в лице габсбург-ского резидента в Варшаве И. Жировского. Возможно, Негребецкий вос-пользовался случаем и попытался послать письмо польскому королю с просьбой о поддержке Нарышкиной и ее сына. Письмо было обнаружено, после чего Софья и Милославский наконец решили избавиться от раздра-жающего поляка. Его казнь позволила им дать отчетливый сигнал сторон-никам Петра, что их прежние планы известны и что они находятся под наблюдением. Главных участников несостоявшегося заговора нельзя было трогать по политическим причинам (самый энергичным заговорщиком был Борис Алексеевич Голицын, двоюродный брат Василия Васильевича). Таким образом, запись ночных разговоров двух иностранцев в русской сто-лице, кажется, помогла выяснить, как и когда умер Павел Негребецкий, а также высказать обоснованное предположение о причинах казни. ; Title in WoS: Why was Pavel Negrebetskii Executed?

The paper seeks to contribute to the discussion among historians about the value, as historical sources, of foreign diplomats stationed in Russia. Two young men, Hildebrand von Horn, an envoy extraordinaire of the Danish king, and the Swede Johan Gabriel Sparwenfeld, a student of the Russian language and Russian affairs on a scholarship granted by the Swedish king, met in the Russian capital during the summer of 1684. They had met before—in1682 inCopenhagen—but this time their roles were quite different, as they were in Moscow as representatives of countries with opposite political aims vis-à-vis Russia. Von Horn was inRussiafor the third time, knew many influential people at court and mastered the Russian language. He kept Sparwenfeld informed about what was going on behind the scenes at court. This information was written down by Sparwenfeld in his diary of the Russian journey, published by the author of this paper in 2002.In July 1684 von Horn told Sparwenfeld about the execution of "a noble and learned Pole, Negrebetskii". This person, Pavel Negrebetskii, had had an important position at court during the reign of Fyodor Alekseevich but lost his influence after the death of the Tsar. In August the two friends once more discussed Negrebetskii, his torture, and the role of I. M. Miloslavskii in his fate. Negrebetskii was accused of having taken part in a conspiracy against Sof'ia and her supporters in the aftermath of the streltsy uprising in May 1682. The torture was stopped by Vasilii Vasil'evich Golitsyn, and Negrebetskii was hastily and secretly taken to theRed Squareand executed. Why was Negrebetskii executed in this way two years after his stated crime? After discussing various aspects of the question, this paper gives a possible answer. It seems that the real reason was that Negrebetskii did not stop trying to make the Polish king intervene on Naryshkina's side in the struggle for power between the Miloslavskii and Naryshkin clans. In connection with the arrival of an Austrian embassy in Moscow in May–June1684, anew possibility for Negrebetskii to get in contact with Poland offered itself in the person of the Habsburg resident in Warsaw, I. Zierowsky. Negrebetskii, it seems, took advantage of the opportunity and tried to send a letter with Zierowsky to the Polish king, begging the king for help and support of Naryshkina and her son. The letter was intercepted, and Sof'ia and Miloslavskii decided to get rid of the irritating Pole once and for all. His execution also gave a clear signal to Peter's supporters that their previous plans were known and that their activities were under surveillance. It was not possible to touch the main actors in the unrealized conspiracy for political reasons; the most active among them was Vasilii Vasil'evich's cousin, Boris Alekseevich Golitsyn.So, the entries in Sparwenfeld´s diary about nightly conversations between two foreigners in the Russian capital help to shed light on how and when Pavel Negrebetskii died, and, hopefully, also why. DOI:10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.8 ; Статья является репликой в дискуссии об исторической ценности записей, которые вели работавшие в России иностранные дипломаты. Два молодых человека, Гильдебранд фон Горн, чрезвычайный посланник датского короля, и швед Юхан Габриель Спарвенфельд, королевский стипендиат, изучавший русский язык и культуру, встретились в Москве летом 1684 г. Они познакомились еще в 1682 г. в Копенгагене, но в Москве они общались в качестве представителей двух стран, имевших в России разные политические цели. Фон Горн был в России в третий раз, прекрасно говорил по-русски и был знаком с влиятельными лицами при дворе. Он рассказывал Спарвенфельду о закулисной жизни двора, которую хорошо представлял. Эту информацию Спарвенфельд записывал в дневник, который вел во время поездки (опубликован автором этой статьи в 2002 г.). В июле 1684 г. фон Горн рассказал Спарвенфельду о казни «одного поляка, знатного и ученого человека по имени Негребецкий». Речь шла о Павле Негребецком, занимавшем важное положение при дворе во время правления Федора Алексеевича, но потерявшем свое влияние после смерти царя. В августе друзья еще раз обсуждали дело Негребецкого, обстоятельства его пыток до казни, а также и роль И. М. Милославского в его судьбе. Негребецкий обвинялся в участии в заговоре против Софьи и ее сторонников, возникшем после стрелецкого бунта в мае 1682 г. Пытки были прекращены Василием Васильевичем Голицыным. Негребецкого секретно отвезли на Красную площадь и казнили. Почему Негребецкого казнили именно так, через два года после его предполагаемого преступления? После обсуждения различных аспектов данного вопроса в статье предлагается возможный ответ. Настоящей причиной поспешной казни было то, что Негребецкий продолжал склонять польского короля выступить на стороне Нарышкиной, матери Петра, в борьбе за власть между кланами Милославских и Нарышкиных. Поскольку в мае–июне 1684 г. в Москве находилось австрийское посольство, у Негребецкого появился надежный канал связи с Польшей в лице габсбургского резидента в Варшаве И. Жировского. Возможно, Негребецкий воспользовался случаем и попытался послать письмо польскому королю с просьбой о поддержке Нарышкиной и ее сына. Письмо было обнаружено, после чего Софья и Милославский наконец решили избавиться от раздражающего поляка. Его казнь позволила им дать отчетливый сигнал сторонникам Петра, что их прежние планы известны и что они находятся под наблюдением. Главных участников несостоявшегося заговора нельзя было трогать по политическим причинам (самый энергичным заговорщиком был Борис Алексеевич Голицын, двоюродный брат Василия Васильевича). Таким образом, запись ночных разговоров двух иностранцев в русской столице, кажется, помогла выяснить, как и когда умер Павел Негребецкий, а также высказать обоснованное предположение о причинах казни. DOI:10.31168/2305-6754.2020.9.1.8