The article is the second and final part of the reconstruction of the circumstances of L.P. Karsavin’s post-war life in Lithuania immediately preceding his arrest. The author of the article shows how the philosopher tried to find a place in Soviet Lithuania, but was unable to match the degree of loyalty expected of him. On a strictly documentary basis he describes the relations of the thinker with Vilnius State University, Vilnius State Art Institute, Vilnius Art Museum; reconstructs the circumstances of the arrest of Karsavin’s daughter Irina and shows by documents the Karsavin’s trip to Leningrad in 1948 and to Moscow in 1949. The author stresses that discussions about the role and scientific status of L.P. Karsavin and V.E. Sezeman in the late 1940s should be included in the broad idea-based context of the ideological campaigns of those years (against objectivism, cosmopolitanism, and low worship of the West).

The article introduces a set of archival documents that are important for the history of Russian thought.

The article is about an issue of combining two political vectors, conservative (right) and revolutionary (left) in the works of G.P. Fedotov. The research focus of the paper is on the philosophical anthropology of the Russian thinker. The author suggests considering the figure of the subject, which is the point from which the divergent political lines originate. G.P. Fedotov describes person in the interpretation of Christian anthropology, where the essential features are connection with the divine and rootedness in the historical. In such a system, the conservative position is associated with the protection of the individual from any encroachments by the “other”, whether it is the arbitrariness of the revolutionary crowd or the rigid organization of the pro-fascist states of Europe in the first half of the 20th century. The position of the revolutionary vector, traditionally associated with the left movement, is of a liberating nature, the source of which G.P. Fedotov also founds in the Christian anthropology. The category of alienation plays an important role in this case, both in the Hegelian interpretation (objectification of the world) and in the Marxist interpretation. Overcoming alienation by a historical subject in various variations is the conceptual point at which both the right and left political vectors converge.

In the lecture course of 1954–1955, dealing with the issue of “passivity” in phenomenological philosophy, M. Merleau-Ponty pays much attention to the “unconscious” as “Freud’s discovery”. The philosopher finds approaches to the unconscious by analysing the phenomena of dreaming, memory, etc. on the basis of Freud’s descriptions and offering his own terminology and interpretations of psychoanalytic observations. Merleau-Ponty sets out to overcome the limitations of the original readings of psychoanalytic discovery due, among other things, to the reliance of Freud’s theoretical models on the classical Cartesian concept of subjectivity. In this article, we will consider the theory of “oneiric symbolism”: an area of “mythical” sense-formation, which very phenomenal existence – at the boundary between unconscious and consciousness, activity and passivity, subject and world – pushes Merleau-Ponty to revise classical ontological models. We will show for what fundamental issues of phenomenological ontology Merleau-Ponty uses the concept of “oneiric symbolism” and what conclusions he manages to reach with its help, and briefly characterise the mutual relation between the models of subjectivity offered by phenomenological ontology and Freudian psychoanalysis.

The article is devoted to the problem of combining two political vectors, conservative (right) and revolutionary (left) in the works of G. P. Fedotov. The philosophical anthropology of the Russian thinker is at the centre of the research focus of this article. The author of the research paper suggests considering the figure of the subject, which is the point from which the divergent political lines originate. G. P. Fedotov describes person in the interpretation of Christian anthropology, where the essential features are connection with the divine and rootedness in the historical. In such a system, the conservative position is associated with the protection of the individual from any encroachments by the “other”, whether it is the arbitrariness of the revolutionary crowd or the rigid organization of the pro-fascist states of Europe in the first half of the 20th century. The position of the revolutionary vector, traditionally associated with the left movement, is of a liberating nature, the source of which is also found in the Christian anthropology of G. P. Fedotov. The category of alienation plays an important role in this case, both in the Hegelian interpretation (objectification of the world) and in the Marxist interpretation. Overcoming alienation by a historical subject in various variations is the conceptual point at which both the right and left political vectors converge.

The Ramesseum temple erected under Ramesses II is one of the most significant monuments of Egyptian architecture of the XIX dynasty. Battle scenes illustrating the last major battle of the Bronze Age – the Battle of Kadesh – have been preserved on its walls. The fierce opposition of the young Pharaoh to the Hittites led to the signing of the first peace treaty in history. In Egyptian sources, Ramesses appears as a victor who prevailed over the enemy, thanks to his personal qualities and the will of the gods. The comparison of written evidence and relief images allows us to form an objective vision of the battle of Kadesh, its course and results. The analysis of sources also makes it possible to identify specific features of Egyptian official art, which include the canonical rules for the image presentation of the victorious king, as well as the artistic techniques used for that. Special attention is paid to the context of the creation of reliefs, namely, the state ideology and worldview of the ancient Egyptians in the era of the New Kingdom.

. The phenomenon of the court officials’ being awarded by the king for the loyal service had reached the highest peak of its development by the New Kingdom period as confirmed by a considerable number of sources, as well as by scenes illustrating the pharaoh’s rewarding of the nobility, which appeared in private tombs first during the reign of Thutmose IV. However, the focus of the article will not be on reliefs that illustrate the process of awarding an official, but rather on less common scenes that attest to the awarding of an official. The present article is about the features of the composition of the scenes of an official’s return after being awarded their evolution, and the place of such scenes in the system of painting private tombs of the XVIII–XIX dynasties. In the XVIII dynasty, especially in the Amarna era, when reward scenes are at their greatest, such subjects are part of a scene illustrating the awarding of an official, such as the scene in the tomb of Aye at Akhetaton (TA 25). But already during the reign of the last kings of the XVIII dynasty they become a separate scene, which first appears on stelae, such as the stela of Ani, and then on the walls of tombs, (for instance, the Tomb of Maya, LS 27). That kind of scenes continued its existence during the early period of the XIX dynasty: images in the Tomb of Amenemope (TT 41) and the Tomb of Userhat (TT 51) reflect the impact which the Amarna style had on the XIX Dynasty art because they are stylistically close to it. Probably there’s no rewarding scene exactly because those officials were not awarded by a king himself, the rewards were handed over to them by the high-ranking officials in the royal treasury of the palace. During the reign of the XX dynasty such scenes completely disappear from private tombs, indirectly marking the changing the officials’ role at the royal court, generally downgrading the role of the private individual in state affairs and bringing the deeds of the ruler back to the forefront, as was the case in the early XVIII dynasty.

Two subjects are considered in a series of anthropomorphic images of “mythological type” from the catacombs destroyed by robbers from 2011 to 2019 on the Chemulga River. The set of anthropomorphic characters here is unique for the territory of the Khazar Khaganate. In general, compositions with male characters were concentrated in sets of men’s belts of the 9^th–10^th cc. The costume and details of the iconography of images connect them with Sasanian Iran and Pre-Islamic Sogdia. The Alans’ choice of characters was explained by parallels with local mythology and epic, including foreign cultural compositions (the flight of Alexander the Great). Thatscene, as well as the image of an old man playing a lute and an eagle carrying off a man, may be related to the stories about the elder of Narts – Uryzmag in the Nart Epic of the Ossetians. A young man with lasso under a tree and a hare horseman hunter have parallels in important plots (the origin of the Alans-Narts and the ancient Sword God from marriages with the daughters of the Sea God). A winged and seated praying characters are, probably, zædtæ – spirits, patrons of groups of people etc. in the old Alanian religion. The plots were corresponded to the worldview of the Alanian warriors.

The article considers the limits of self-definition of Russian formalist philologists as art researchers. It is demonstrated that formalism was in a state of double crisis: the crisis of ambitions of symbolism and the crisis of positivist art criticism. The crisis of symbolism forced the formalists to look for a new positivist code to substantiate their work, while the crisis of positivism itself required the use of particular aesthetic narratives. The era of general aesthetics came, which evolved from a project in the vein of B. Croce into a shared self-definition of art as probing the gap between the possible and the actual. Formalism, with its pathos of the reality of the word, could not entirely renounce the domain of the possible, which was conceptualized as the core aesthetic sphere, including the production of personal reactions to what was happening. Only the contextualization of formalism within the linguistic turn, drawing on the ideas of Bakhtin and Gadamer, allows us to realize the input of the movement not only to the methods of certain humanities, but also to the specification of art in the 20th century.

The article considers and analyzes the general aspects of educational methods at the N.K. Krupskaya Extramural People University of Arts (ZNUI) in the 1960s–1980s, which proves the specifics of the basic principles of interaction between teacher and student. In the published manuals of that time, the emphasis is placed on a number of substantial guidelines for teaching amateur artists: educational and methodological issues, and questions of artistic education in the basics of visual theory and practice. The main teaching aids developed specifically for amateur artists are: for the first period “Creative work of an amateur artist” (1961), and a guide for amateur artists “Drawing and Painting” by Yu.G. Aksenov, R.M. Zakin, E.M. Sonnenstral, F.M. Krieger, G.E. Tarasevich (2 vols, 1961), for the second period “Training and Creative Work” by R.M. Zakin (1965) and “Design Artist. A Guide for Amateur Artists” by G.E. Tarasevich, V. Grokhotov, E. Pavlinova (1966), for the final third period the tutorials are produced, namely the textbook “Perspective” by E.A. Aksenova and Yu.G. Aksenov (1974) and a practical guide to drawing and painting “Color and Line” by M. Levidov and Yu.G. Aksenov (1976). All analyzed manuals were compiled by a team of teachers from the Faculty of Drawing and Painting of the University.