The need to write this article is due to the fact that the year of Lomonosov’s birth, calculated by Professor Ya. Shtelin in 1765, the year of Lomonosov’s death, no longer corresponds to the accumulated sources since that time. The baptismal register, which recorded the day, month, and year of Lomonosov’s baptism, has disappeared before researchers could study it. Lomonosov himself never mentioned his year or day of birth, but only his age, which indicated that he was born between 1710 and 1716. Today, there are many more documents and historical accounts available than were available to Ya. Shtelin. The sources that are now known to science are contradictory and require comparison, comprehensive analysis, and evaluation of their reliability. The author of the article concluded that Lomonosov’s motivation for misleading the authorities in necessary cases was his fear that revealing his true age would hinder his dream of becoming a scientist. This article attempts to examine all available evidence using a comparative analytical method. The author concludes that this great son of the Russian land was born in 1714, between April 4 and December 9, and died at the age of 50.

Based on state documents, archival sources and memories of participants, the article presents a historical retrospective of the celebration of anniversaries in the life of M.V. Lomonosov in his small homeland –Arkhangelsk North. The relevance of the study is due to the increased attention to M.V. Lomonosov, whose name, activities and legacy occupy a significant place in the historical memory of Russia. The periodization and sequence of the main anniversary celebrations over almost two centuries, from the 19th to the present, have been clarified. Special attention is paid to the history of the Lomonosov readings as the main tool in preserving and popularizing the name and heritage of the great scientist. The role of state and public organizations in holding anniversary events has been determined. In addition, a characteristic is given of Lomonosov’s research that has developed in the Arkhangelsk North. A special place is occupied by the analysis of events to celebrate the 300th anniversary and 310th anniversary of M.V. Lomonosov. At the same time, it is shown that in the Arkhangelsk region anniversaries are considered not only as a reason for celebrations, but as a special opportunity, relying on the name and heritage of a native of the Pomeranian land, to resolve issues of socio-economic development of the region, primarily in the field of science, culture and education. A conclusion is drawn about the tasks of the upcoming celebration of the 325th anniversary of the birth of M.V. Lomonosov.

This article is devoted to the classicist works of M.V. Lomonosov. Classicist literary canons were formulated in 17th-century France and influenced the emergence and development of classicism in Russia. However, Lomonosov’s work violates the strict rules of literary structure. While Western classicists held antiquity as their ideal, Russian classicists embraced Russian folklore, works of Old Russian literature, and the ideal ruler, Peter the Great. The object of this article is M.V. Lomonosov’s heroic poem dedicated to Peter the Great, who became the first Russian tsar to visit the Solovetsky Monastery (1694). The article analyzes M.V. Lomonosov`s heroic poem, which tells about Peter the Great’s visit to the Solovetsky Monastery. The founders of the Solovetsky Monastery are Saints Zosima, Savvaty and Herman, who settled on a deserted island in the first third of the XV century. Over time, the monastery not only grew, but became one of the most revered in Russia. It is visited by thousands of pilgrims, kings and boyars making rich donations. The first of the Russian tsars to visit the Solovetsky Monastery was Peter the Great (1694).

The authors analyze contexts with the anthroponym “Lomonosov” in Russian poetry of the Classicism, Sentimentalism, Romanticism, and Realism periods. The article describes the syntagmatics and figurative-motivational field of the precedent name. Connotations and “increments” of meaning accompanying the transformation of the collocation of a proper noun are demonstrated. The authors’ identified spectrum of epithets and periphrases associated with the assessment of M.V. Lomonosov’s role in the development of Russian science and culture constitutes a subsystem of the sphere of figurative paradigms and the conceptual sphere of Russian lyric poetry. Along with the precedent name, the system of identified attributes and associated connotations is included in the figurative conceptual sphere of poetry. The article describes the motifs of glory, military grandeur, and the honor of the Russians, the road, and the eagle’s flight, as well as the intertextual interactions associated with these images, which form the associative aura of the name Lomonosov, a persistent circle of allusions and reminiscences.

The article examines a corpus of paintings and graphic works from the 19th–20th centuries visualizing biographical episodes from the life of Mikhail Lomonosov. Unlike the scholar’s portrait iconography, which has received considerable scholarly attention, narrative compositions on biographical themes have not previously been the subject of systematic study. Based on over 200 works of historical genre painting, the article analyses the interaction between textual and visual biographical narratives and traces the mechanisms by which written biography is reduced to a limited repertoire of established pictorial motifs. Comparative-typological and cultural-historical methods are employed. It is demonstrated that the structure of Lomonosov’s visual biography is organized as a teleological narrative: from childhood as a space of revealed vocation, through devoted labour, to triumph and recognition. The article identifies the canonical motifs that persisted across a century and a half, as well as systematic lacunae episodes consistently excluded from the visual canon. It is established that the visual biography functions as a mechanism of cultural memory, stabilizing and reproducing canonical image of the scholar regardless of shift in sociocultural contexts.

One of the “difficult questions” in Russian history is the socalled “Varangian question” or “Varangian problem.” Historically, this issue has been complicated by scientific or quasi-scientific debates between Normanists and anti-Normanists. In the heat of the debate, details are often forgotten, ideas that were rejected by previous historiography are revived, or the focus shifts to details that do not address the issue at hand. In light of the above, it seems appropriate to revisit the debate between G.F. Miller and M.V. Lomonosov and explore how their ideas have evolved subsequent historical science. This task can be solved using established methods of historical research, such as content analysis, comparative analysis, and generalization. After conducting the research, it was found that Normanism as a scientific concept had already been established in the works of 18th-century historians and had essentially become a dogma. The development of anti-Normanism was a challenging process. However, it is on the basis of the positions of anti-Normanism that it is possible to reconstruct in a holistic and systematic way the complex processes of ethnogenesis, sociogenesis, and politogenesis, which led to the formation of the Russian people and the state of Rus.

This article examines the of specifics M.V. Lomonosov’s commemoration in the post-Soviet space as a tool of memory politics. It analyzes the dynamics of preserving the memory of this eminent scientist in various macroregions: Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia. Regional features of memorialization are identified, including toponymic practices, the installation of monuments, and the organization of scientific events. It demonstrates that, in modern conditions, forms of preserving Lomonosov’s memory are transforming from traditional spatial and material formats to project-based and situational ones. Special attention is given to how commemorative practices correspond to the current political and cultural priorities of the states in the region. Overall, the study concludes that the memory of M.V. Lomonosov retains its significance as a resource for Russia’s symbolic presence in the post-Soviet space and as an indicator of the resilience of scientific and cultural ties between countries.

The article examines the stylistic features of the works on natural sciences by M.V. Lomonosov, particularly his role in creating Russian scientific terminology and shaping the style of scientific presentation in the field of geosciences. M.V. Lomonosov’s attitude to Russian and foreign languages is discussed, and his appreciation of the rich possibilities of the Russian language is explained. The research is based on a historical, scientific, and linguistic analysis of some of Lomonosov’s works concerning Russia. The methodology includes a selective analysis of terms and their definitions from the scientist’s natural science writings, as well as the study of the stylistic features of his scientific prose, including metaphors, figurative comparisons, and personification used in order to popularize knowledge. The study of Lomonosov’s texts relating to the physical and social geography of Russia revealed linguistic features of scientific presentation that combine logical rigor with imagery. The article analyzes excerpts from several of the scientist’s works, providing examples of his original use of terms, metaphors, epithets, and other expressive stylistic devices, along with a neutral scientific style of presentation.

The article examines the representation of northern themes on paper money as a tool for shaping national identity and conveying national interests. Based on an analysis of banknotes from Russia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and the United States, a typology is developed comprising four models: floral, faunal, infrastructural-industrial, and landscape. Correlations are identified between the type of representation and the stage of Arctic territorial development: at early stages, “natural” models dominate, while with industrial development, the share of the infrastructural-industrial model increases. The Russian 1997 banknote series is interpreted as a visual cartography of the cultural-climatic construct of the “North.” The Canadian tradition is defined as a “polar ideogram” the most consistent Arctic discourse in global bonistics. A “law of inverse dependence” is formulated: the farther north a country is located as a whole, the less it needs special northern symbolism on its banknotes. Three ideological functions of the “northern code” are identified: consolidating, legitimizing, and differentiating. It is concluded that northern themes on banknotes serve as an active instrument for constructing spatial identity and “soft power” in Arctic geopolitics.