The Inner Horde (Bukay Horde) was a part of Kazakh Little Horde which migrated to the Astrakhan province at the beginning of the 19th century. It caused disputes on its belonging during all its history: Orenburg authorities tried to control it as a part of Little Horde, Astrakhan ones – as a part of their province. Besides, the Inner Horde was created by a personal edict of emperor Paul I,therefore his successors were also interested in this khanate and issued their own acts for it. The author of the article gives the examples of collisions of different Russian state authorities with this small Kazakh khanate and analyzes the consequences of these collisions to describe problems of interactions of central and regional authorities on «national frontiers» of the Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century.
The article is an attempt of takign stock of the burgnoining field of empire studies but devising the framework of general challanges of historical understanding of empire of methodological nature. The main thesis is that studies of empire are heavily influenced by the visions and epistemes of modern social sciences which, in their turn, are woven into the performativity of nation. Thus the true understnding of empire is suggeted to lay in a radical historivization of this political and social phenomenon. The approach of historiziation is further enunciated in the article with the help of the theory of estrangement and with reference to the history of the Russian Empire.
In the interview to Ab ImperioJournal within the series “Conversation with Author” Pieter Judson shares the research laboratory behind his revisionist account of the history of the Habsburg Empire (The Habsburg Empire: A New History) which was published by Harvard University press in English in 2016. The interview reveals an interesting historiographic situation at the end of the 20thcentury when historians of the Habsburg Empire felt the need to differentiate its experience from the domineering perspective coming from the history of the Russian Empire, while historians who rediscovered the imperial dimension in Russian history followed the ideal-type of the Habsburg multinational empire. The major thrust of revising the history of Habsburg Empire by Judson is twofold: to explore in the long dureeperspective the vitality of the empire-building (“state-building from above” and “state-building from below”) in the Habsburg case through institutions and subjecthood, i.e. to decenter the national narratives about the composite Habsburg space and the idiom of inevitable decline of the Habsburg empire as another “sick man” in Europe; and to advance a systematic and symmetric comparison of modern statehood in Europe, in which the Habsburg case does not look exotic, having the imperial dimension. The interview touches on the question of global and comparative history of empires, the usefulness of comparative taxonomy of colonial-continental empire, the problem of analytical languages and hegemony of nation-centered imaginary in description of the historical experience of empire, the balance between political and social and cultural history approaches to understanding empire, and, finally, on the reception of the book in the region.
The article presents the analogy of the pre-revolutionary and modern interpretations of the role of ministries in the discussion of the draft law. The thesis about the fact, that the ministries were mandatory participant of the stage of discussing the draft law in the course of implementation of law-making activities of the legislative and law-consultative bodies in the Russian Empire.