V. V. Vedernikov. Valk’s Handshake. Memories of His Last Student // Petersburg Historical
Journal, no. 4, 2025, pp. 253–268.

DOI: 10.51255/2311–603X_2025_4_253

Abstract:

The author of the publication is one of the last participants in the special course of a major
Russian scientist, source specialist and historian S. N. Valk. The author, who was in close contact with his supervisor in 1972–1974, notes the peculiarities of the scientist’s work with the student audience, his approach to choosing research topics, and points out the difficulties that arose in the process of communication between students and teachers and ways to overcome them. At the Soviet university, Valk was a living bearer of the traditions of the St. Petersburg historical school and sought to pass on these traditions to his students. The author provides facts indicating the historian’s interest in the social movement in the country. Attention is
paid to the controversy between Valk and A. L. Nikitin, which attracted the attention of both scientists and students. A number of episodes characterize the scientist’s everyday habits. The article is published to mark the 50th anniversary of S. N. Valk’s death.

Key words: S. N. Valk, St. Petersburg historical school, source studies, historiography, memoirs.

Author:

Vedernikov, Vladimir Viktorovich — PhD in History, Associate Professor of the Department of
History and Law of the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology (St. Petersburg, Russia).
E-mail: vedvlvik@mail.ru

References:

Kaganovich, B. S. K teme: S. N. Valk i marksizm (Zametki S. N. Valka na polyakh knigi Adama Shaffa “Marksizm i chelovecheskaya lichnost’”.) [Related: S. N. Valk and Marxism (S. N. Valk’s Notes in the Margins of Adam Schaff’s Book “Marxism and the Human Personality”). In Russ.]. In Slavyanovedenie. 2020. No. 5, pp. 57–67.

Nikitin, A. L. Boltinskoe izdanie Pravdy Russkoi [Boltin Edition of the Russian Truth. In Russ.].
In Voprosy istorii. 1973. No. 11, pp. 54–65.

Valk, S. N. Boris Aleksandrovich Romanov [In Russ.]. In Issledovaniya po sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii Rossii: sbornik pamyati Borisa Aleksandrovicha Romanova. Leningrad, Nauka publ., 1971. 398 p.

Valk, S. N. Eshche o Boltinskom izdanii Pravdy Russkoi [More about the Boltin Edition of Russian Truth. In Russ.]. In Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury. Vol. 30. Leningrad, Nauka publ., 1976. P. 324–331.

Valk, S. N. I. N. Boltin i ego rabota nad Russkoi Pravdoi [I. N. Boltin and his Work on the Russian Truth. In Russ.]. In Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury. Vol. 14. Moscow, Leningrad, 1958. P. 650–656.

Similar Posts

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — I. D. Travin. AD QUELIBET INCREMENTA PARATI: THE LETTER OF THE DOGE OF THE REPUBLIC OF GENOA ANTONIOTTO ADORNO TO AMADEO OF SAVOY FROM THE COLLECTION OF N. P. LIKHACHEV

This paper is an introduction to scientific discourse and an analysis of a small letter from Antoniotto Adorno, Doge of the Republic of Genoa, to Amadeo of Savoy, Lord of Piedmont and titular Prince of Achaea, which is dated back to 1391. The document comes from the collection of the famous historian and paleographer Nikolay Likhachev and is currently stored in the Western European Section of the Archive of the St. Petersburg Institute of History (Russian Academy of Sciences), where it is part of a small corpus related to the history of the Ligurian region of Italy. The letter is a sheet of thin paper with a clearly visible watermark and traces of a red wax seal. An analysis of the document’s appearance and diplomatic features allows me to conclude that the letter belongs to a special type of private correspondence of secular rulers, which began to enter into circulation in Europe just at the end of the 14th — beginning of the 15th centuries. The content of the message is quite laconic — Antoniotto Adorno informs Amadeo of Savoy that he is ready for any development of events, however, the essence of these events remains a mystery due to the lack of access to other parts of the correspondence. In this article, on the basis of the historical context, I put forward a hypothesis that the topic of the rulers’ correspondence was the potential assistance that Genoa could provide to Amadeo in his attempt to gain de facto control over Achaea. At the same time, the document is also a letter of credence from an envoy named Bertino Prohanna, who had to deliver Antoniotto Adorno’s answer to Amadeo of Savoy.

PHJ № 2 (46) 2025 — A. A. Efimov. THE ISSUE OF ESTABLISHMENT THE INSTITUTION OF JUDICIAL INVESTIGATORS IN PALACE TOWNS

The article addresses one of the problems of the administrative history of palace towns of the mid-19 th century. The author notes that these settlements had a special status in the Russian Empire. They were under the jurisdiction of special institutions of the Ministry of the Imperial Court — palace boards, being largely outside the general system of public administration and local self-government. This special status gave them a certain independence and even the opportunity to engage in some opposition when deciding on the applicability of certain administrative innovations. As noted in the article, this observation also applies to the issue of introducing the institution of forensic investigators. In a significant part of the provinces they began their work soon after the signing of the corresponding decree in the early summer of 1860. The author draws attention to the fact that in the palace towns only in August the question was raised about the possibility of these officials acting on their territory. As the article notes, representatives of the local administration of Peterhof were somewhat enthusiastic about the idea of outsourcing some of the work that fell to the city police, which was considered overloaded. At the same time, the boundaries of the participation of judicial investigators in the proceedings were also specified. In Tsarskoe Selo the situation was different. Despite the declared readiness to transfer the investigative work, officials of the Tsarskoye Selo city police, under various organizational and bureaucratic pretexts, delayed this process. The author notes that in the end, to resolve this issue, the intervention of the St. Petersburg provincial government was required. The latter had to issue an order with direct reference to the imperial decree on the transfer of cases subject to criminal proceedings to a judicial investigator.

PHJ № 2 (46) 2025 — E. Yu. Zubkova. «VICTORY AND THE GREAT FAREWELL»: COLLECTIVE MEMORY AND THE POLICY OF REMEMBERING THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR. 1945–1965

In the Russian context, multiple memories of the war coexist, with one type forming spontaneously as a “living” experience of what was lived through, and the other emerging as the result of a targeted state project, driven by a policy on constructing memory. To what extent did the state commemorative project take into account the public demand for remembrance of the war? Furthermore, what objectives did the state memory policy pursue in creating the image of the Great Patriotic War? In what ways did this image manifest itself in various memorial formats? The present article is devoted to these and other issues of the formation of memory of the war — from Victory Day 1945 to Victory Day 1965.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — S. S. Kurochkin. D. A. MILYUTIN’S VIEWS ON THE BALKAN POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN 1861–1877

This article provides an examination of the political standpoint adopted by Dmitry Milyutin, Minister of War of the Russian Empire, with regard to the policy of the Russian Empire in the Balkan region during the period 1861–1877. The analysis of official data and personal sources from the minister’s personal archival fund has revealed a divergence of views between him and the Foreign Minister, Alexander Gorchakov, on the issues of international relations related to the ‘Eastern question’. This research has enabled the investigation of the search for solutions to international crises arising from the internal instability of the Ottoman Empire. The present study draws upon a range of historical sources to provide a detailed examination of the military cooperation that was established between the Russian Empire and the Principality of Serbia during the 1860s. The present study has sought to analyse the personal sources related to the period of the Great Eastern Crisis (1875–1877) to investigate the participation of Dmitry Milyutin in the decision-making process that led to the declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire.

| |

PHJ № 3 (47) 2025 — I. E. Barykina. THE FORMATION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY CULTURE OF RUSSIAN SOCIETY: FROM THE MEMOIRS OF O. V. SINAKEVICH-YAFA ABOUT THE STATE DUMA OF THE FIRST CONVOCATION

The convocation of the State Duma in 1906 was met with significant enthusiasm by the Russian populace. However, for the electoral system and legislative institution to function effectively, it was necessary to form a political culture in Russian society. The State Duma of the first convocation is widely regarded as the most open parliament to society, evidenced by its organisation of public events. In June 1906, an excursion was organised for teachers participating in the Pedagogical Congress to the Tauride Palace. The event was documented in the notes of O. V. Yafa.

|

PHJ № 4 (48) 2025 — Yves Franquien. RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS AND DIPLOMATIC GEOGRAPHY. WHO REPRESENTED RUSSIA’S INTERESTS IN SAN FRANCISCO AND WHERE THE IMPERIAL RUSSIAN CONSULATE AND ITS SUCCESSOR WERE LOCATED, 1852–1924

This study of the history of the service of Russian diplomats in San Francisco from 1852 to 1924 is based on American and Russian periodical, literary and archival materials, as well as on the author’s personal local history research. Of interest is that prior to arriving in San Francisco many of them had experience in serving in Eastern Asian countries, rather than in European ones and in conducting business in North America. It is noteworthy that during the period from 1886 to 1900 the Russian consuls married US citizens. It is shown that the Russian consuls represented with honor the interests of the Russian Empire and were held in high regard in American society. Biographies, periods of service and residence addresses in San Francisco are provided for consuls and vice-consuls Stewart, Kostromitinoff, Klinkofstrom, Niebaum, Weletsky, Rosen, Olarovsky, Artsimovitch, Kozakevitch, Rogestvensky, Wywodzeff, and Romanovsky. Also provided in this article are photographs of four of them, published for the first time.