The fate of the tragic figure of the British king James II Stuart is considered in the article. In this paper the author pays speсial attention to the history of investigation of the character and politics of this person by the British historians, as well as by the leading European and American specialists on the Early Modern Time. The estimates of James II are of vast variety in the British historiography but at the same time diff erent authors have some similar features in their attitude. Except the apologists the British historians on the whole criticized this king and explain that the majority of the problems connected with him are based on the religious factor that is not really right. On the other hand there are some differences in this negative approaches among various scientifi c schools of British historiography. The Whigs stated that James II tried to limit the personal rights of the Englishmen which was the main result of the English revolution of the middle of the 17th century. The Tories proved that the king neglected the gentry’s property rights and tried to transform the dualistic monarchy into absolutism. The Positivists thought that James II supported the Catholic Counterreformation and fought against the Enlightenment. The revisionists and postrevisionists tried to revalue the person of James II based on the true scientific foundations. A special view on James II’ policy is produced by Non-British authors: German, French and American historians.

James II, the jacobites, William III Orange, Louis XIV, historiography, the Whigs, the Tories, positivism, Marxism, revisionism, postrevisionism, apologists, historical anthropology, the Glorious revolution, religion policy, Counterreformation, toleratio

This article deals with one of the most controversial problems in the history of Britain in the Early Modern Time. Hardly any personality of this period provoked such heated debates among historians and contradictory assessments of contemporaries as King James II Stuart. He was the last Catholic on the British throne. The main aim of this article is to identify the main direction of church reforms of this monarch, show the confessional groups that benefi ted from this direction and who considered themselves aggrieved. The article also attempts to identify the reasons for the “black legend” of James II as a blood-covered representative of Counter-Reformation. Based on a large evidence of sources, the article proves that James II strived after a broad religious tolerance rather than elimination of Protestantism in his reign. One of the conclusions is that in the 17th century the Catholic community in England and Scotland was so small that did not pose any threat to the confessional system dominating in each of these countries (Anglicanism in England, Presbyterian Church in Scotland). Persecution of Catholics was a remnant of Reformation, which should have been overcome for the sake of overcoming political tension in Britain’s society. The article identifi es the main stages in church reforms of James II, his strategy in the religious question, and sheds light on the attempts to fi nd at least temporary allies. The main conclusion of the article is that the vision of James II was broader than that of his contemporaries and that he was ahead of his time (the emancipation of the Catholics only took place in Great Britain in the late 18th — early 19th centuries), which was the reason why his contemporaries did not understand him. Besides, the social basis of the king was very limited. All these factors led to the overthrow of James II during the Glorious Revolution of 1688‒1689.

James II Stuart, William Penn, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, church reforms, Catholicism, Anglican Church, Presbyterians, Quakers, Batistes, Millenarians, religious minorities, mass, Test-Acts, penal laws

1. Ashley M. (1968). The Glorious Revolution of 1688. Panther.
2. Borisov Iu. (1991). Diplomatiia Liudovika XIV [Diplomacy of Louis XIV]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Callow J. (2004). King in Exile. James II: Warrior, King and Saint. Thrupp.
4. Childs J. (1980). The Army, James II and the Glorious Revolution. Manchester.
5. Cruickshanks E. (1987). “Religion and Royal Succession: The Rage of Party”, in C. Jones (ed.). Britain in the First Age of Party, 1680–1750: Essays presented to G. Holmes. London, pp. 19–43.
6. Donaldson G. (1978). Scotland: James V — James VII. Edinburgh.
7. Donaldson G. (ed.) (1970). Scottish Historical Documents. New York.
8. Ellis P. (1989). The Boyne Water: The Battle of Boyne, 1690. Belfast.
9. Douglas D. (ed.) (1953). English Historical Documents London, vol. 8.
10. Fedosov D. (ed.) (2009). Dnevnik P. Gordona, 1684–1689 [P. Gordon’s Diary]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Garrett J. (1980). The Triumphs of Providence: the Assassination Plot, 1696. Cambridge.
12. Gibson W. (2009). James II and the Trial of the Seven Bishops. London.
13. Goldie M., Jackson C. (2007). “Williamite Tyranny and the Whig Jacobites”, in E. Mijers, D. Onnekink (eds.). Redefining William III: The Impact of the King-Stadholder in International Context. Burlington, pp. 177–199.
14. Jones J. (1991). “James II’s Revolution: Royal Policies, 1682–92”, in J. I. Israel (ed.). Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact. Cambridge, pp. 47–71.
15. Kareev N. (1924). Dve angliiskie revoliutsii XVII veka [Two English Revolutions of the 17th Century]. Petrograd (in Russian).
16. Kenyon J. (1958). Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland, 1641–1702. London.
17. Kosminskii E., Levitskii Ia. (eds.) (1954). Angliiskaia burzhuaznaia revoliutsiia XVII veka [English Bourgeois Revolution of the 17th Century], vol. 2. Moscow (in Russian).
18. Lenman B. (1980). The Jacobite Risings in Britain, 1689–1746. London.
19. Levin G. (ed.) (1959). Ocherki istorii Anglii: Srednie veka i Novoe vremia [Essays on the History of England: the Middle Ages and the New time]. Moscow (in Russian).
20. Miller J. (1973). “Catholic Officers in the Later Stuart Army”. The English Historical Review, vol. 88, № 346, pp. 35–53.
21. Miller J. (1978). James II: a Study of Kingship. Hove.
22. Miller J. (1973). Popery and Politics in England, 1660–1688. Cambridge.
23. Pincus S. (2009). 1688: The First Modern Revolution. New Haven, London.
24. Saprykin Iu. (1982). Angliiskoe zavoevanie Irlandii (XII–XVII v.) [The English Conquest of Ireland (12th — 17th Centuries)]. Moscow (in Russian).
25. Sowerby S. (2009). “Of Different Complexions: Religious Diversity and National Identity in James II’s Toleration Campaign”. The English Historical Review, vol. 124, № 506, pp. 29–52.
26. Szechi D. (2009). The Jacobites: Britain and Europe, 1688–1788. Manchester.
27. Tatarinova K. (1958). Ocherki po istorii Anglii, 1640–1815 gg. [Essays on the History of England, 1640–1815]. Moscow (in Russian).
28. Timing E. (ed.) (1960). Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series. Of the Reign of James II. February — December 1685. London.
29. Timing E. (ed.) (1964). Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series. Of the Reign of James II. January, 1686 — May, 1687. London.
30. Timing E. (ed.) (1972). Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series. Of the Reign of James II. June, 1687 — February, 1689. London.
31. Turner F. (1950). James II. London.

Stankov Kirill
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 23B Nokuznetskaya Str., Moscow, 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5056-255X;
Email: stankov11@yandex.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Russian historians pay more and more attention to the insuffi ciently investigated problem of history of small nations of Russia and particularly to their relations with neighbour states and their subjects and vassals in modern time. The aim of this article is to attract attention of specialists in the Russian history as well as of those who specialise in Eurasian nomadic societies to the new archive documents concerning the confrontation of Kalmyks and Nogais in the context of Russian-Turkish relations at the beginning of the 18th century. The previous studies underestimated this confl ict which vivdly illustrates the tension on the south borders of Russia since the period of Peter the Great. His government tried to resolve this border confl ict by putting diplomatic pressure on Turkey (the Kuban Horde then lived on the territory of the Turkish vassal, the Crimean Khanate), but these attempts were not eff ective. The only means to resolve this problem was to directly send military help to Kalmyks against their belligerent neighbours. However, the Russian government was not ready to take this step because it could lead to a new war with the Osman Empire.

Kalmyks, Nogais, Kuban, nomads, raids, nomads’ camps, Crimean Khanate, khan Ayuka, Kalmyks’ envoys, Peter’s I government, chancellor G. I. Golovkin, Russian-Turkish relations, south border of Russia, materials of Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts

1. Batirov V. (2006) “Kubanskii pravitel’ Bakhty-Girei vo vzaimootnosheniakh mezhdu Kalmykskim i Krymskim khanstvamy v 18 v.” [The Kuban ruler Bakhty-Girei in relations between Kalmyks and Crimean Khanate in the 18th century]. Sarepta: Istoriko-etnographicheskii vestnik, 2, pp. 35–48 (in Russian).
2. Bichurin N. (1991) Istoricheskoe obozrenie oiratov ili kalmykov v XV veke i do nashego vremeni [Historical Overview of Urad Mongols or Kalmyks from the 15th century till our time]. Elista (in Russian).
3. Boldareva O. (2016) “Kalmykskoe khanstvo v vostochnoi politike Rossii s nachala XVIII veka i do 1771” [The Khanate of the Kalmyks in the Eastern policy of Russia from the beginning of the 18th century till 1771]. Nauka i sovremennost, 1 (7), pp. 256–269 (in Russian).
4. Istoria Kalmykii s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei [History of Kalmykia from ancient times to the present day], vol. 1 (2009). Elista (in Russian).
5. Palmov N. (1926) Etiudy po istorii privolzhkikh kalmykov [Studies in the history of Kalmyks of the Volga region], pt. 1. Astrakhan (in Russian).
6. Pipilchuk Iu. (2015) “Kalmykskoe khanstvo vo vremena pravleniia Aiuki-khana i ego othosheniias turkami” [The khanate of the Kalmyks during the reign of Ayuka-khan and his relations with the Turks]. Srednevekovye tiurko-tatarskie gosudarstva, 7, pp. 139–151 (in Russian).
7. Priimak Iu. (2010) “Vzaimootnosheniia Rossii s Kalmykskim khanstvomv v kontekste osmanorossiiskogo sopernichestva v severo-vostochnom prichernomor’e (konets XVII — nachalo XVIII v.)” [Relations between Russia and the Kalmyks’s khanate in the context of competition between Osmans and Russia in North-Eastern part of the Black Sea region (from the end of 17th till the beginning of the 18th century)]. Nauchnye problemy gumanitarnykh issledovanii, 8, pp. 109–114 (in Russian).
8. Tepkeev V. (2018) “‘Veleno Kuban’ ego tzarskomu velichestvu pokorit’ ili razorit’: uchastie v russko-turetskoi voine 1710–1711 godov” [“It is ordered to bend to submission or to destroy the Kuban: participation of Kalmyks in the Russian-Turkish war of 1710–1711]. Novyi istoricheskii vestnik, 2 (56), pp. 103–120 (in Russian).
9. Tepkeev V. (2016) “Vzaimootnosheniia Kalmytskogo khanstva s iuzhnym porubezh’em Rossii nakanune politicheskogo krizisa nachala XVIII v.” [Relations of the Kalmyk Khanate with the south borders of Russia prior to the political crisis of the beginning of 18th century]. Magna Historia Studiorum, 2, pp. 34–49 (in Russian).
10. Tepkeev V. (2018) “Vzaimootnosheniia Kalmytskogo khanstva i Kubanskoi ordy v 1712–1715 gg.” [Relations between the Kalmyk Khanate and the Kuban Horde in 1712–1715]. Magna Historia Studiorum, 2, pp. 15–34 (in Russian).

Stankov Kirill
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 23B Nokuznetskaya Str., Moscow, 115184, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5056-255X;
Email: stankov11@yandex.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Stankov Kirill
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Academic Rank: Senior Research Fellow;
Place of work: Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 19 Dmitry Ulianoov str., Moscow, 117292, Russian Federation;
Post: Senior Research Fellow;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5056-255X;
Email: stankov11@yandex.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.