Ideas and Ideals

The article describes the New Year celebration in a historical context. In the 19th century, Armenians for the first time witnessed the celebration of the New Year (1827) by the Russian army under the command of General Krasovsky at Yerevan Fortress. In the 19th century, there was a common for both countries (Armenia and Russia) typological tradition of singing Christmas carols by children going from one house to another. The empirical analysis showed that all the New Year's attributes of the Soviet era were the same in both countries (Christmas trees, Ded Moroz, Snegurochka[1], New Year decorations, etc.). The same trend remains in the post-Soviet era but this time in the context of global trade. Alongside with the other consumer goods in Armenia, there appeared the New Year decorations reflecting the national and religious consciousness and symbols of Armenians. The channel of the Armenian Apostolic Church "Shoghakat" played an important role in the transformation of the New Year's festive atmosphere and the attributes of post-Soviet Armenia. The commonality of the New Year celebrations in the post-Soviet era can be seen in the following facts: almost the same number of non-working days in both Armenia and Russia, the New Year's speeches of the presidents of both countries in the post-Soviet era, participation of the Russian and Armenian presidents at the Christmas Liturgy. But there is one significant difference. The Catholicos of All Armenians continues congratulating the nation before the New Year's congratulation of the RA President, while the Patriarch of all Russia no longer congratulates Russian people together with the President on the New Year (since 2009), in order not to hurt the feelings of multi-religious citizens of Russia

[1] Snegurochka, a character of Russian folklore, the beautiful granddaughter to the equally mythical Ded Moroz (Russian, “Grandfather Frost”). Snow Maiden assists Grandfather Frost in delivering gifts to children at New Year's in those countries that were formerly constituent states of the now-defunct Soviet Union.

The article considers functioning of emblem books in the culture of the late Renaissance and the beginning of Modern times. The Italian humanist Giovanni Andrea Alciato, who published in 1531 the first book of emblems, became the originator of this genre of literature which had mainly didactic character. Emblemata by Alciato consisted of a set of images, each of which was followed by a short inscription-motto and also by commentary, revealing the meaning of the emblem. This extremely popular edition was republished many times and translated into different languages. Interest in the Alciato book and other similar works was largely caused by the enhanced attention toward antiquity and by the transition from mainly religious discourse to its more secular character. Authors of emblem books were mostly humanists, who tried to influence their audience appealing not only to the reason but also to the imagination and senses of their readers. Attractive and sometimes mysterious images promoted curiosity in the beholders, which resulted in the fact that a moral lesson or useful information contained in the commentary became easily remembered. In this regard, the books of emblems could be used with success as peculiar reference books, similar to the contemporary “commonplace books”, which contained distinctive quotes of antique authors, proverbs and sayings, which were thematically systematized. Educated people of this time remembered and used examples from these books in oral communication and also referred to these "reference books", enhancing their writing. Emblem books, written mostly in Latin and referring often to the antique literature and mythology, contributed to the development of secular culture, which united the countries of Western Europe separated religiously after the Reformation. Also, the ambiguity of an emblem’s visual image expanded the scope of its possible meanings, which resulted in the growth of the individuality of perception and interpretation of the subject touched by the emblem

The article describes the world of images in Czerny’s etudes, op. 740. This is the first work on this theme in Russian music literature. Nowadays etudes are considered to be only instructive. It is a mistake. Carl Czerny is an outstanding composer, a great piano teacher, «the King of Etudes», the first editor of «The Well-Tempered Clavier», a pupil of Beethoven, a teacher of Liszt and Leshetitsky. Czerny was a teacher of the transitional period - from positional classic technic principles to romantic free physiology principles. The etudes (op. 740) are the obligatory part of piano studies of every pianist in the whole world from the second part of the XIX century. At least 16 etudes (op. 740 includes 50 etudes) are not only instructive, but must be considered as artistic, creating images - like the etudes by Chopin, Liszt... The author of the article proves, that the world of etudes’ images contains the next ideas: images of Vienna, where Czerny lived (№ 9, 20, 29); «salon» images (№ 9, 33); images of dancing (№ 23, 42); imitation of timbres (№ 4, 18, 24); heroic images (№ 14, 46, 50); landscape lyricism (№ 6, 22, 36); nocturne images (№ 45). The article is based on M. G. Karpychev’s monography «Carl Czerny. Opus 740» (Novosibirsk, 2014) [5], in which every etude is separately analyzed in many aspects of performance

The article compares the views of the Orthodox patristics with the philosophy of Marxism. (The author considers the content of the Marxist philosophical theory, but not its ideology). This comparison takes place in three key aspects: general philosophical (the basic question of philosophy, theory of evolution), socio-philosophical (the basic question of social philosophy, private and public property, exploitation of labor) and ethical (freedom of moral choice, moral progress). Patristics is less known if compared with Marxism, that’s why the author focuses his attention on the presentation of its ideas in the given article. He shows that in patristics and Marxism there are many common (or at least compatible) philosophical theses. The article preferably considers these "points of intersection". The author comes to the conclusion that Orthodox theology, not being a philosophical ontology, goes beyond philosophical partisanship. It is also shown that the patristic heritage contains provisions incompatible with the class character of society, and above all with private property and exploitation of labor. The conclusion is that the general philosophy of Marxism (dialectical materialism), Marxist social philosophy (historical materialism) and Marxist ethics are compatible with the authentic Orthodox world view (not as a special religious-philosophical "hybrid", but in the format of an intellectual dialogue) in a single cultural space. This conclusion is of great theoretical and practical significance in the theory and practice of real humanism, it allows to establish a constructive ideological dialogue between different parts of Russian society

The concept of liberalism is extremely unpopular in modern Russia. Modern hopes about the solution of Russian problems cling to conservatism based on traditional values which are defined by Orthodoxy to a great extent. In other words, Orthodoxy and liberalism in modern Russian political discourse are treated as contradictory to each other. It is noteworthy that historical liberalism in its conservative variant was rooted in Russian ground and closely connected to Orthodox tradition. But with generally Christian sources of liberalism being widely accepted, the liberal potential of Eastern Christianity is being questioned. It is universally believed that Orthodoxy seemingly “belittles” personality and discourages the development of independence and freedom. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the inaccuracy of such views. Drawing from patristic heritage and the methodology developed by the classical Orthodox theologian V. Lossky and modern Orthodox philosophers (Ch. Yannaras, S. Khoruzhiy) the author elucidates the Orthodox understanding of personality (hypostasis) encoded in the Doctrine of Trinity. It was Orthodoxy that preserved and developed the concept of a human personality absolute value and uniqueness introduced by Christianity, this concept being later undermined by Western Christianity with “amending” the Trinity Doctrine by double procession of the Holy Spirit. Analyzing patristic attitude to a human the author comes to the conclusion that Orthodoxy is the religion of freedom. Its philosophy is pervaded with the pathos of freedom and hymn to the elevated predestination of a human who is able of becoming a co-Creator. The proposition is supported by the Orthodox ideal of deification and the theory of synergism, i.e. concordant action of Divine and human energies suggesting free and conscious efforts of a person. Of course, we are talking about inner freedom: the freedom "to" and not freedom "from", without which the realization of external freedom is problematic