When displaying information about training courses:

Under the identifiers of some special courses, the year in which it was read (was read) is indicated on a blue background.

By clicking on the blue icon located below the identifier for some special courses, you can get additional information about the day and time of classes, as well as other information provided by the lecturer.

Management of final qualifying works

Political development of the Great Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod Principality in the mid-second half of the 14th century.
Year of manufacture: 2015

Rostov bishop's see at the end of the 14th - first half of the 15th century in the context of the church-political struggle of the North-Eastern Russian lands
Author of the work: Ruchkin Alexey Alexandrovich
Year of release: 2018
Job type: bachelor's job

The teaching of the Strigolniks in the context of the church-political situation of the 14th century.
Author of the work: Ksenia Aleksandrovna Makhtarova
Year of manufacture: 2014
Type of work: specialist work

Church and political relations in the Suzdal-Nizhny Novgorod principality (mid-second half of the 14th century)
Author of the work: Pchelintsev Anton Igorevich
Year of release: 2017
Type of work: master's work

Mention in news on the site

On May 29-30, 2019, representatives of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University spoke at the scientific conference “How the “modern” Middle Ages, or Medievalism Studies are created,” organized by the Laboratory of Medieval Studies of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, the Institute of Humanitarian Historical and Theoretical Research named after A.V. Poletaev (IGITI) of the National Research University HSE and the magazine "Vox medii aevi"

On July 5–8, 2018, employees of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University took part in the III International Russian-Belarusian scientific and practical conference "Forever in the memory of the people. Patriotism in the security system of the Union State of Russia and Belarus"

On June 17, 2018, the head of the department of history of Russia until the beginning of the 19th century at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor N.S. Borisov spoke in the program “Historical Hour with Dmitry Volodikhin” on radio “VERA” about the personality of Prince Ivan Kalita and his role in the history of Rus'

On May 24, 2018, the Department of History of Russia until the beginning of the 19th century hosted another student round table, dedicated to the topic "Russian rulers of the 9th - 18th centuries and their subjects: between power and anarchy." Since 2012, such events have been organized by Ph.D., Associate Professor, Deputy. Head of the Department T.A. Matasova and Ph.D., Art. teacher A.E. Tarasov.

March 11, 2017 Head of the Department of History of Russia before the beginning of the 19th century, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor. N.S. Borisov gave a lecture “The Political Art of Ivan III” at the State Historical Museum as part of the lecture “Historical Saturdays”

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Head of the Department of History of Russia before the beginning of the 19th century, Professor N.S. Borisov and Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Church History P.V. Kuzenkov took part in the work on the documentary film “Dmitry Donskoy . Save the world", which was recently released on the TV channel "Russia 1"

Birthday July 29, 1952

Russian historian specializing in the Old Russian period

Biography

Born in the city of Essentuki. Before entering the University and discovering his potential as a historian, he worked for some time as a mechanic. In 1974 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov (diploma - “Socio-political content of the literary activity of Metropolitan Cyprian”). In 1977 he defended his dissertation “Russian culture and Tatar-Mongol yoke"(scientific supervisor of both works - B. A. Rybakov). In 2000, he defended his doctoral dissertation, which was then published as a book - “The Politics of Moscow Princes. The end of the XIII - the first half of the XIV centuries."

Main scientific interests - history of culture, church, life of medieval Rus', political history of medieval Rus', local history, history of architecture.

In 1999, he became a laureate of the Metropolitan Macarius Memorial Prize for the book “The Politics of Moscow Princes. The end of the XIII - the first half of the XIV centuries."

He is also interested in writing. In scientific works he often resorts to lyrical digressions. Nevertheless, the style of Borisov's works is quite academic.

Borisov teaches at the history department of Moscow State University. He laid the foundation for systematic trips of history students to the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve. The style of lecturing is also distinguished by the presence of lyrical digressions; at the same time, N. S. Borisov’s seminars on the history of Russia until the end of the 18th century are distinguished by the consideration of the historical process (of the specified period) not only in the source study and factual, but also in the historisophical aspect.

At the end of 2007, after the death of L.V. Milov, he headed the department of history of Russia until the 19th century at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov.

Married. Owns English language. Conducts the program “History of Russia. Lectures" on the Bibigon TV channel. An interview with Borisov is included in documentary“Who killed Ivan the Terrible” (BBC television). Borisov's books were published in the ZhZL and " Everyday life humanity."

Major works

• The socio-political content of the literary activity of Metropolitan Cyprian. // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Story. M.: MSU, 1975. No. 6.
• The sovereign's great governors. M.: Young Guard, 1991. (Almanac “Feat”. Issue 38).
• The Russian Church in the political struggle of the XIV-XV centuries. M., 1986.
• Ivan Kalita. M., 1996
• Politics of the Moscow princes. The end of the XIII - the first half of the XIV centuries. M., 1999.
• Ivan III. M.: Young Guard, 2000. (ZhZL).
• Sergius of Radonezh. M.: Young Guard, 2001. (ZhZL).
• Everyday life of Medieval Rus' on the eve of the end of the world. M.: Young Guard, 2004. (Living history: Everyday life of humanity).
• History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. Textbook for 10th grade of secondary school. M.: Education, 2005.
• Neighborhood

Nikolai Sergeevich BORISOV was born in the city of Essentuki. Before entering university and discovering his potential as a historian, he worked for some time as a mechanic. In 1974 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov (diploma - “Socio-political content of the literary activity of Metropolitan Cyprian”). In 1977 he defended his dissertation “Russian culture and the Tatar-Mongol yoke” (scientific supervisor of both works - B. A. Rybakov). In 2000, he defended his doctoral dissertation, which was then published as a book - “The Politics of Moscow Princes. The end of the XIII - the first half of the XIV centuries."

Main scientific interests - history of culture, church, life of medieval Rus', political history of medieval Rus', local history, history of architecture.
In 1999, he became a laureate of the Metropolitan Macarius Memorial Prize for the book “The Politics of Moscow Princes. The end of the XIII - the first half of the XIV centuries."

Borisov teaches at the history department of Moscow State University. He laid the foundation for systematic trips of history students to the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve. The style of lecturing is also distinguished by the presence of lyrical digressions; at the same time, N. S. Borisov’s seminars on the history of Russia until the end of the 18th century are distinguished by the consideration of the historical process (of the specified period) not only in the source study and factual, but also in the historiosophical aspect.

At the end of 2007, after the death of L.V. Milov, he headed the department of history of Russia until the 19th century at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov.

Married. Speaks English. Conducts the program “History of Russia. Lectures" on the Bibigon TV channel. An interview with Borisov is included in the documentary film “Who Killed Ivan the Terrible” (BBC television). Borisov's books were published in the series “The Life of Remarkable People” and “The Everyday Life of Humanity” (Molodaya Gvardiya Publishing House, Moscow).

Source: WIKIPEDIA The Free Encyclopedia

Nikolay Sergeevich BORISOV: interview

Nikolai Sergeevich BORISOV (born 1952)- historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor, head of the department of history of Russia until the beginning of the 19th century, Faculty of History of Moscow State University, laureate of the Metropolitan Macarius Prize, III degree: .

WORK AND MIRACLE

Looking at the rich history of Russia, at its harsh climate and at the same time at everything that surrounds us - at countless beautiful cities and villages, cultivated fields, giant factories, with a swift glance - if this is possible! - the entire treasury of Russian culture, starting from “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” to magnificent examples of art of the 20th century, even an inexperienced person will be amazed by the strength, talent and hard work of the Russian people. Did nature help our ancestors create all this? Did nature help them live and survive the way it helps people live without much effort in a warm climate and on the shores of gentle seas? Nature helped us only in the sense that it made us stronger, taught us to constantly work and strain our minds and will. Everything we have today is not a gift from nature and fate. This is the fruit of the labor and talent of millions of people, this is the fruit of their great love to your homeland!

- Nikolai Sergeevich, how, in your opinion, do labor and miracles correlate in Russian history?
- Labor is a concept, on the one hand, physical, on the other - moral. And when you look at our old rulers, devotees, you see that their whole life is at the same time a huge stress physical strength, and constant spiritual work. Of course, there is a connection here. Physical, meaningful work, when, for example, St. Sergius of Radonezh digs a vegetable garden, is cleansing work that brings a person closer to the foundations of life and at the same time to the foundations of Christianity. “He who does not work, let him not eat,” as the apostle says. In addition, the work of a person like Abbot Sergius, who due to his position in the hierarchy might not have worked, is not just work, but symbolic work that brings him closer to the people, to those “toiling and burdened” of whom he speaks Savior.

- You are talking about the symbolism of labor. How should a ruler work to be understood by the people?
- This question is very delicate. The main thing here is a sense of proportion. Symbolism should not turn into a farce. In this regard, I recall Academician M. N. Tikhomirov’s review of the script for the film “Alexander Nevsky”. Its authors, wanting to show the prince’s closeness to the people, imagined him, together with fishermen, pulling nets from Lake Pereyaslavl and, wiping sweat from his face, receiving messengers with important political news. Tikhomirov wrote that the prince could not do this under any circumstances. There is no need to understand such work in a simplified way: a ruler is a ruler, and a commander is a commander, and each has his own work. In medieval society there was a certain style of behavior that depended on a person’s social status. One had to work, another - to command, a third - to paint icons, etc. But, on the other hand, there were undoubtedly certain ritual labor actions that were performed by the ruler as a sign that he was uniting with his people, with his land . Unfortunately, there is very little information about this in the sources. I think Skrynnikov’s interpretation of the chronicle episode, how Ivan the Terrible in his youth plowed arable land in Kolomna, while the troops were gathering for another campaign against the Tatars, is convincing. There was symbolism in this: since the Emperor himself begins plowing, it means there must be a good harvest. I think such things have always existed, but they are very secret, and information about them has to be collected bit by bit. I don’t even know how church-ritual they were, and how traditionally ritual.

Eat famous image Simon Ushakova “tree of the Russian state”. At the base there is an icon of the Vladimir Mother of God and two people are depicted: St. Peter, Metropolitan of Moscow, and Ivan Kalita, who are nurturing this tree. In your book dedicated to Ivan Kalita, this process is shown. Could you briefly formulate what this art of “cultivating” the state consists of and what is the ideal ruler in Rus'?
- What is a Russian ruler? By what criteria can it be assessed? professional level"? In Russia, with its complexities and peculiarities, it is very difficult to rule, and there must be a person who is adequate to the country. I think our Russian ruler has a number of more or less constant tasks. First of all, it is protection from external enemies. Then there is the problem of relations with the ruling class. Our entire political history develops in the triangle “monarchy - aristocracy - people”. The ruler must control the ruling class. If this is not done, the mechanism of egoism of the ruling class comes into force, when the latter begins to take on more property, more power - a imbalance occurs, and the state falls into a state of decline or internal conflicts. But without a ruling class, the monarch cannot exist. What is it, saying modern language? These are governors, generals, production managers, without whom it is impossible. Lenin tried to create a society without a ruling class: he destroyed the old one and a new one began to grow. Nothing succeeded. So there must be a ruling class, but the ruler can make a kind of deal with it: you have certain privileges, but in return you must do this, this, and this. And the ruler must be strong enough to enforce these rules of the game. This is a very dangerous job, because with the slightest careless movement, a situation of conflict between the monarch and the ruling class arises. And it is resolved either through terror, as under Ivan the Terrible (the ferocious destruction of a significant part of this class) or by the fact that the ruling class destroys this ruler. We know both Paul and Peter III - there are many examples.

Therefore, it is better not to lead to conflict, but to rule in such a way that this class respects the ruler and follows the rules that the monarch imposes on the ruling class in the interests of the whole society. In my opinion, this is the most difficult task for every ruler in Russia, perhaps even more difficult than governing the common people, although this task also exists. The people must have their own piece of bread, and the ruler is obliged to ensure this, to give people the opportunity to earn money by working. Ultimately, our entire political history is a play of forces within this triangle. If we, relatively speaking, take all power to be 100 percent, then in each specific reign they are distributed differently between the monarchy, the aristocracy and the people. But the main thing is that this proportion is not critical, so that this entire triangle does not topple, so that the whole society does not collapse. And here the monarch must have instincts and experience, which is being developed. In this regard, the one who was taught by his father is happy, because there are no textbooks here and there cannot be, except for “The Prince” by Machiavelli. In our history, much has been achieved by people who were well prepared or were themselves so talented and receptive that they prepared themselves quickly. Ivan III went through such a school (at the age of 7 he became his father’s co-ruler, and at the age of 22 he began to rule), he knew everything and everyone, all the problems, his father passed everything on to him. This is a wonderful situation that has allowed him to step forward so far. Or, on the contrary, the situation with Grozny, who started practically from scratch. Thus, the ruler must control the ruling class, ensure independence and ensure that his subjects have the opportunity to have a chicken in their pan at least once a week, as the French king Henry IV said. This is difficult work, but almost all of our rulers had, among other things, a sense of enormous religious responsibility. This feeling was, in particular, among the creators of the Moscow state, and this is one of the main thoughts of my works on the 14th century. The creators of the Moscow state were not unprincipled bloody villains (although there was plenty of blood - the times were such that one could not do without it), but still, at their core, they were deeply religious people who understood their political activity as serving their people, the Mother of God ( Moscow as the third throne of the Mother of God), the Savior. Here, first of all, is a sense of religious responsibility before God for one’s deeds. It gave these people strength and allowed them to rise after falls. Everyone had this, even the Romanovs. This feeling, it seems to me, fettered Nicholas II, not allowing him to make any sudden movements that might have been needed to get out of the crisis situation, but he was afraid of harm, feeling that he was responsible for Russia and therefore did not has the right to make mistakes. This feeling was also present in our very first rulers. And then came the time of random people who did not have this feeling - our Soviet period.

Do you think there is, say, a kind of state order in modern Russia for the appearance of people of the type that you just talked about? And does the modern state power, the ruling class, understand that if such figures are not promoted, then this ruling class simply will not exist?
- Of course, I am not an expert on modernity, but I think that our current situation is due to the fact that there is no system for educating, selecting, and training truly statesmen. This is not due to the fact that someone did not come up with it, but due to the fact that, firstly, our current ruling class is new, it was formed in the last 10-15 years and realized itself as a new ruling class recently. Another thing is that there are many representatives of the old ruling class in it, but the very system of relations of property and power has changed so much that the new ruling elite does not yet fully understand itself, its interests, it has not yet “had its fill.” This desire to gorge on power, to gorge on property at any cost dominates their behavior. They have not yet understood that they need to think so that not only you, but also your son and your grandson, will eat while living in this country; so that he could live like a human being here, and not somewhere in California. Therefore, our current ruling class, I would say, is still green, not mature, not fully aware of itself and its tasks. This is the first.

The second is that the formation of statesmen occurs through certain educational systems, public institutions, and here we must not forget that we, strictly speaking, are in a situation of repetition of the Tatar-Mongol yoke. Just as the Golden Horde once hung over Russia and made sure that too strong leaders, too authoritative, did not appear, and when such appeared, they different ways eliminated. In the same way, the current Golden Horde now hangs over us in the form of NATO or the United States, in any case, the West in the broad sense, which seeks (and this is natural) to control our country, its political life, power structures, because Russia is such a country , where everything is decided at the top, in a fairly narrow circle. And they make sure that talented people do not appear there, and if they do appear, they must be bought, and if they do not sell, they must be destroyed. That is, practically what was done during the time of Ivan Kalita. But there is hope that, God be merciful, a person like Ivan Kalita will appear. We now need a person who would not shout from the doorway that I will disperse you all here now, but who would bow, go three times a year to some NATO session, and would quietly, carefully start here with the very basics of gathering our spirituality, our human potential. That is, we need a very cunning person who has, on the one hand, the idea of ​​serving the people and the state, and on the other hand, very tough pragmatism. This unique combination of idealism and pragmatism creates great people in history. There are many idealists in the world, and even more pragmatists. Perhaps this example is not the best, but Lenin is Lenin because he combined in himself a fanatic and a pragmatist, and in this he is superior to both Stalin and Trotsky: the first was a pure pragmatist, the second a pure fanatic, and Lenin combined both and another, so he is head and shoulders above them all. They only opened their mouths when he made the well-known zigzags of his policy. We need a person of this type who would serve Russia, but this service should be hidden, like chains, it should not be in plain sight.

What is the general formula for success in the fight against the Golden Horde? There is a myth that we dealt with the Horde on the Kulikovo Field. But was she defeated only with the help of weapons?
- With this question you have touched on one of the most mysterious topics of our national history. And, in my opinion, the mystery lies, first of all, in the fact that we cannot give ourselves a clear account of what the Tatar-Mongol yoke was, what it was like in real everyday life, how it was perceived and whether it was perceived at all in the everyday life of people, what it was like tribute collection mechanisms. We know nothing: neither the size of the tribute, nor the collection mechanisms, nor the control mechanisms, nor the punishment for non-payment, there are only the most general ideas. Some imagine that the Tatar literally stood over everyone with a whip, others, on the contrary, write that the Tatar yoke is a myth invented by historians to justify the historical backwardness of Russia, as they like to say in the West. Based on what I know and what I have been doing for many years, I cannot find a more accurate comparison, although it is somewhat vulgar, than comparing the Tatar-Mongol yoke with a certain bandit “roof” that exists among our entrepreneurs. This “roof” does not interfere with business: “You do your business, but don’t forget that at a certain time you must give us 10 percent. And don’t forget that our person is in your accounting department, who will let us know if you want to deceive us. And then you will feel bad.” AND whole line such analogies. That is, without interfering in the daily life of Russia, they at the same time very tightly controlled its income and situation so that the “entrepreneurs” would not unite and throw off the power of this “roof.” I repeat, these are just my assumptions; this mechanism is little known. Accordingly, the mechanism for overcoming the Tatar-Mongol yoke is little known. And the main question is precisely the proportion. That is, it is clear that there were two elements present here: the first is armed resistance, an uprising against the Horde of Russian princes, Russian people, and the second element is the gradual collapse of the Horde itself, which began in 1357, with the death of Janibek and then for 25 years there was 25 khans - “the great turmoil.” It is clear that in conditions of instability in the Horde, actual fragmentation, it was easier for ours to overthrow power than, say, under Uzbek - then it was unrealistic. But to decide to what extent each factor plays a role, you need to have at least some numbers. We don’t know how many Mamai brought to the Kulikovo Field, how many Dmitry brought. How much strength did the Tatars have in the 15th century, and how much do we have? But I think that, whatever the numbers, what we now call industry played a huge role. That is, Ivan III, in fact, created a military-industrial complex in Moscow that was powerful at that time. This includes artillery, fortresses, and everything else. The chronicle contains a wonderful, very imaginative and very deep story about how the invasion of Akhmat was repelled in 1472. When he walked along the Oka, the governor, Prince Kholmsky with the Moscow regiments walked along the other bank and did not allow the Tatars to cross. They lined up, were about to cross, and suddenly our regiments came out of the forest, turned around, and the chronicler said: and our regiments shone like a lake under the sun. That is, they were all in iron: in helmets, armor, handrails - they were like tanks, practically invulnerable to Tatar arrows. And the Tatars, so to speak, “in torn padded jackets”: they had no industry. Therefore, this material base of the Moscow army, created mainly by Ivan III, undoubtedly played a huge role in the victories of the end of the 15th century.

Your work dedicated to Ivan Kalita shows that Ivan Kalita, following the precepts of St. Peter, built Moscow as a new religious and spiritual center. This was a unique construction: in wooden Moscow, five white-stone churches appear in five years. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that anyone, for example, a Suzdal resident could say: “You are great, Muscovites, for building these five churches, that you want to become a spiritual center, but I do not recognize you as such.” And suddenly, during the reign of Ivan Kalita, the Monk Sergius was born, who became the main proof that the work of Ivan Kalita was supported not only by his unique mind and temperament, but it was also supported from above. It turns out that construction, very tough and pragmatic, can only lead to success if there is the presence of God in it, if it is supported from above?
- I think that a miracle is a reward for work. For example, in Karamzin’s “Notes on New and Ancient Russia,” when he discusses the rise of Moscow, there is such a wonderful phrase: “A miracle happened: a small town and unknown to anyone: it became the capital of Rus' and rose..." And at the heart of this miracle is the hardest physical and spiritual work of several generations of Muscovites, starting with Prince Daniil. And the reward for this work, not slavish, but spiritual, directed towards a high goal, is a miracle. A miracle in the sense that the result is obtained: a bright, powerful, strong result - the fruit of labor and humility.

Interviewed by Vasily Pichugin, Irina Kapitannikova

An outstanding Russian historian specializing in the Old Russian period, one of the prominent church historians.

Born in the city of Essentuki. Before entering the University and discovering his potential as a historian, he worked for some time as a mechanic. In 1974 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov (diploma - “Socio-political content of the literary activity of Metropolitan Cyprian”). In 1977 he defended his dissertation “Russian culture and the Tatar-Mongol yoke” (scientific supervisor of both works - B. A. Rybakov). In 2000 he defended his doctoral dissertation, which was then published as a book - “The Politics of Moscow Princes. The end of the XIII - the first half of the XIV centuries."

Main scientific interests - history of culture, church, life of medieval Rus', political history of medieval Rus', local history, history of architecture.

In 1999 he became a laureate of the Metropolitan Macarius Memorial Prize for the book “The Politics of Moscow Princes. The end of the XIII - the first half of the XIV centuries."

He is also interested in writing. In scientific works he often resorts to lyrical digressions. Nevertheless, the style of Borisov's works is quite academic.

Borisov teaches at the history department of Moscow State University. He laid the foundation for systematic trips of history students to the Solovetsky Museum-Reserve. The style of lecturing is also distinguished by the presence of lyrical digressions; at the same time, N. S. Borisov’s seminars on the history of Russia until the end of the 18th century are distinguished by the consideration of the historical process (of the specified period) not only in the source study and factual, but also in the historisophical aspect.

At the end of 2007, after the death of L.V. Milov, he headed the department of history of Russia until the 19th century, historical department of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosov.

Married. Speaks English.

An interview with Borisov is included in the documentary film “Who Killed Ivan the Terrible” (BBC television). Borisov’s books were published in the ZhZL and “Everyday Life of Humanity” series.

Hosts the program History of Russia. Lectures on the Bibigon channel

Doctor of Law, Professor.

Born in the city of Volgograd.

Graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov in 1991

In 1991–1994 She studied in graduate school at the Department of Civil Procedure, Faculty of Law, Moscow State University. In 1994 she defended her candidate's dissertation at Moscow State University on the topic “The Institute of Appeal in Civil Proceedings,” and in 2005 she defended her doctoral dissertation on the topic “Theoretical problems of verifying judicial acts in civil and arbitration processes.”

Works at the Faculty of Law of Moscow State University since 1994. Gives a general course of lectures on Russian civil procedure, teaches special courses: “Procedural documents in civil and administrative proceedings” (bachelor’s degree), “Alternative dispute resolution” (bachelor’s degree), “Theory and practice of appeal, cassation” , supervision in civil and administrative cases" (master's degree), " Alternative methods dispute resolution" (master's degree), "Review of judicial acts that have entered into legal force based on newly discovered or new circumstances" (master's degree), "Latin type notary" (master's degree), "Problems of appealing judicial acts in civil and administrative proceedings" (postgraduate course) .

Laureate of the I.I. Prize Shuvalov, first degree (2006), winner of the competition for awarding grants to support talented students, graduate students and young scientists of Lomonosov Moscow State University (2006), laureate of the MSU Development Program award (2017)

Prepared ten candidates of science (Arabova T.F., Argunov V.V., Bannikov I.A., Budak E.V., Dolova M.O., Efimov A.E., Zaitsev S.V., Ivanova O. V., Malyukina A.V., Nikonorov S.Yu.).

Participated in the development of some chapters of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. She was invited as an expert when the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation considered a number of cases.

Member of the dissertation council in the specialty 12.00.15 - civil procedure, arbitration process D.501.001.99 at Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov.

Member of the editorial board, editorial board of the journals “Bulletin of Civil Procedure”, “Bulletin of Economic Justice”, “Legislation”, “Teise. Vilniaus Universitetas" ("Law. Vilnius University"), "Bulletin of Odessa national university. Series: Jurisprudence".

Member of scientific advisory councils at the Prosecutor General's Office Russian Federation, at the Federal Notary Chamber.

Priority of scientific interests: history of civil procedural law, verification and revision of court decisions, notaries, ADR, foreign civil procedure.