NONE20260615191304732Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversitySlovo.ru: Baltic accent2225-53462686-89890615202611S. T.Zolyan0615202611BoardEditorial0615202611L. G.DorofeevaThis article outlines the major problems of studying Russian hagiography. The author responds to the challenge of performing a comprehensive analysis of a hagiographic text, while preserving the unity of the content and the form. Considering hagiography as an ecclesiastical genre and a form of the Sacred Tradition, the author addresses the analysis methodology and proposes to combine the principles of hagiology and literary and philological research on hagiographic texts. The primary focus is on understanding the category of hagiographic topoi, which is linked to the concept of literary etiquette. This concept is examined from a polemic standpoint since it does not fully conform to the genesis and function of hagiographic topoi. It is concluded that the worldview and mindset of the hagiographer play a crucial role in the creation of a vita belonging to a particular historical period and church traditions. The author addresses the problem of studying Russian hagiographic literature of the modern and contemporary periods.06152026111. Andronik (Trubachev), hegumen, 2000. Hagiology. In: Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, ed. Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya [Orthodox Encyclopedia]. Moscow. Vol. 1, pp. 252—253.2. Afinogenov, D. E., 2000. Acta Sanctorum. In: Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, ed. Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya [Orthodox Encyclopedia]. Moscow. Vol. 1, p. 420.3. Afinogenov, D. E., 2008. Hagiographic literature. In: Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, ed. Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya [Orthodox Encyclopedia]. Moscow. Vol. 19, pp. 283—345.4. Bulanin, D. M., 1995. Ancient Rus. In Yu. Levin, ed. Istoriya russkoi perevodnoi khudozhestvennoi literatury: Drevnyaya Rus’. XVIII vek. Proza [History of Russian translated imaginative literature: Ancient Rus. XVIII century. Prose]. St. Petersburg. Vol. 1, pp. 17—73.5. Gladkov O. V., 2013. Zhitiye Evstafiya Plakidy v russkoi i slavyanskoi knizhnosti i literature IX — ХХ vekov [Hagiography of Evstafiy Plakida in Russian and Slavic literacy and literature IX — XX centuries]. Moscow.6. Zhivov, V. M., 1994. Svyatost’. Kratkii slovar’ agiograficheskikh terminov [Holiness. A brief dictionary of hagiographic terms]. Moscow.7. Moldovan, A. M. ed., 1999. Hagiography of Andrey Holy Fool. In: D. S. Likhachev et al., eds. Biblioteka literatury Drevney Rusi [Library of the Ancient Rus literature]. St. Petersburg. Vol. 2, pp. 330—543 ; 541—544.8. Karavashkin, A. V., 2011. Literaturnyi obychai Drevnei Rusi (XI—XVI vv.) [Literary custom of Ancient Rus (XI—XVI centuries)]. Moscow.9. Karavashkin, A. V. and Yurganov, A. L., 2003. Opyt istoricheskoi fenomenologii: Trudnyi put’ k ochevidnosti [Experience of historical phenomenology: a difficult path to obviousness]. Moscow.10. Likhachev, D. S., 1979. Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury [Poetics of ancient russian literature]. 3rd ed. Moscow.11. Likhachev, D. S., 1970. Chelovek v literature Drevnei Rusi [Man in the literature of Ancient Russia]. Moscow.12. Lur’e, V. M., 2009. Vvedenie v kriticheskuyu agiografiyu [Introduction to critical hagiography]. St. Petersburg.13. Nikol’skii, N. K., 1901. Historical features in the formulation of church teaching in Moscow Rus and their significance for the modern homiletics. Khristianskoye chtenie [Christian reading], 2, pp. 220—236.14. Rudi, T. R., 2005. Topology of russian hagiographies (questions of typology). In: S. A. Semyachko and T. R. Rudi, eds. Russkaya agiografiya. Issledovaniya. Publikatsii. Polemika [Russian hagiography. Research. Publications. Controversy]. St. Petersburg. pp. 59—101.15. Tvorogov, O. V., 2008. Translated hagiographies of saints in ancient russian bookishness XI—XV centuries. In: N. V. Ponyrko, ed. Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury [Proceedings of the Department of ancient russian literature]. St. Petersburg. Vol. 59, pp. 115—132.O. V.GubarevaUsing art history interpretation methods and the methods of historical cultural studies, the author demonstrates the role of rhythm and metaphor as the most expressive artistic means of icon painting. The interaction of rhythm and metaphor is an integral part of the imagery and semantics of icon painting. It is stressed that the entire theological and aesthetic image of icons, which is based on rhythm and metaphor, expresses the cosmogonic ideas of the Church Fathers. However, the practical realisation of this image would have been impossible without the conscious creative contribution of the artist. Icon painters never perceived iconography as a dogmatic prescription. Iconography played the role of a cognitive scheme steering artists’ creative ideas. Creating visual metaphors required the development of rhythmic symmetry, based on linear repetitions and figurative semblances of elements. This principle of iconography is clearly seen in Russian icon painting.06152026111. Averintsev, S. S., 2002. The order of the cosmos and the order of history. In: D. K. Burlaka and S. S. Neretina, eds. Avgustin: Pro et contra: Lichnost' i ideinoe nasledie Blazhennogo Avgustina v otsenke russkikh myslitelei i issledovatelei: Antologiya [Augustine: Pro et contra: Personality and ideological heritage of Blessed Augustine in the evaluation of Russian thinkers and researchers: Anthology]. St. Petersburg.2. Alpatov, M. V., 1967. Questions of study and interpretation of ancient russian art. Iskusstvo [Art], 1, pp. 64—70.3. Alpatov, M. V., 1979. The “Crucifixion” of Dionysius. In: Etyudy po vseobschey istorii iskusstv. Izbrannye iskusstvovedcheskie raboty [Studies on the general history of art. Selected art criticism works]. Moscow. pp. 167—183.4. Bychkov, V. V., 1992. Russkaya srednevekovaya estetika XI—XVII vekov [Russian medieval aesthetics XI—XVII centuries]. Moscow. p. 637. 5. Bekker, L. M., 1998. Psikhika i real’nost’. Edinaya teoriya psikhicheskikh protsessov [Psychic and reality. Unified theory of mental processes]. Moscow.6. Gubareva, O. V., 1998. “Trinity” of the monk Andrey Rublev. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo otdeleniya Rossiyskoi akademii Estestvennykh nauk [Bulletin of the St. Petersburg branch of the Russian academy of natural sciences], 2(3), pp. 288—292.7. Gurevich, A. Ya., 1972. Kategorii srednevekovoi kul’tury [Categories of medieval culture]. Moscow.8. Dvoskina, Ye. M., 1998. Antichnaya teoriya ritma: Traktat Avreliya Avgustina “Demusicalibrisex” [Ancient theory of rhythm: A treatise of Aurelius Augustine “Demusicalibrisex”]. Ph. D. Tchaikovsky Moscow State Conservatory.9. Kolcheva, T. V., 2004. Ritm kak kul’turologicheskaya problema [Rhythm as a culturological problem]. Ph. D. State Academy of Slavic Culture.10. Raushenbakh, B. V., 1997. Before the Holy Trinity (Transfer of the ternary dogma in icons). In: Pristrastie [Partiality]. Moscow.11. Romanenko, Yu. M. and Chulkov, O. A., 1997. Metaphor and symbol in cultural circulation. Metafizicheskie issledovaniya: Al’manah Laboratorii Metafizicheskikh Issledovanii pri Filosofskom fakultete SPbGU [Metaphysical research: Almanac of the Laboratory of Metaphysical Research at the Faculty of Philosophy of St. Petersburg State University], 5, pp. 46—59.12. Saltykov, A. A., 1975. On spatial relations in byzantine and ancient russian painting. In: V. N. Lazarev, O. I. Podobedova and G. V. Popov, eds. Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Zarubezhnye svyazi [Ancient russian art. Foreign connections]. Moscow. pp. 398—404.13. Sokolov, B. G., 2001. Rithm and sense. In: D. U. Orlov, K. S. Pigrov and A. K. Sekatskiy, eds. Sotsial’naya analitika ritma. Sbornik materialov konferentsii [Social analytics of rhythm. Conference proceedings]. St. Petersburg. pp. 171—174.14. Tarasenko, V. V., 1996. Fractals and measurement of chaos. In: K. Kh. Delokarov, ed. Informatsiya i samoorganizatsiya [Information and self-organization]. Moscow. pp. 92—108.15. Arutyunova, N. D. and Zhurinskaya, M. A., eds., 1990. Teoriya metafory [Theory of metaphor]. Moscow.16. Vzdornov, G. I., ed., 1981. “Troitsa” Andreya Rubleva. Antologiya [The “Trinity” by Andrey Rublev. Antology]. Moscow.17. Ufimtsev, R., 2010. Khvost yascherki. Metafizika metafory [Tail of a lizard. Metaphysics of metaphor]. Kaliningrad.18. Muratoff, P., 1928. La Peinture Byzantine. Paris. p. 256.19. Ouspenskyy, L. and Lossky, W., 1956. Der Sinn der Ikonen. Bern, Olten. p. 201.I. V.ApolonskayaThe article explores the main principles behind modern church paintings. The author examines the key factors affecting the structure of mural paintings and pays special attention to their semantic content. The main objective of the analysis is to identify means of expressive visualisation of the Divine Oeconomy, which is the semantic fundamental of the murals’ iconography. The author employs the methods of iconographic and iconological analysis correlating with the objectives of the study. It is concluded that the soteriological aspect of mural iconography is one of the most traditional and semantically justified. It is reflected in the composition and the choice of colours as well as in the selection and juxtaposition of motifs and their correlation with the architectural elements of the Kaliningrad Cathedral. The soteriological aspect does not diminish the significance of other factors determining the iconography of the murals, i. e. the architectural design, the dedication of the Cathedral, liturgical aspects etc. On the contrary, it contributes to a deeper understanding of such aspects.06152026111. Arkhimandrit Ioann (Krest'yankin), 1994. Propovedi 1973—1994 godov [Sermons of 1973—1994]. Pskov. Vol. 2.2. Gubareva, O. V., 2013. Rozhdestvo Khristovo [Nativity]. St. Petersburg.3. Davidova, A. G., 2015. The meaning of the term “Painting program” for the church monumental art. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriya 5. Voprosy istorii i teorii khristianskogo iskusstva [Bulletin PSTGU. Series 5. Questions of history and theory of Christian art], 3(19), pp. 120—129.4. Kutkovoi, V. S., 2008. Kraski mudrosti [Paints of wisdom]. Moscow.5. Lidov, A. M., 2009. Ierotopiya. Prostranstvennye ikony i obrazy-paradigmy v vizantiiskoi kul'ture [Hierotopy. Spatial icons and images-paradigms in Byzantine culture]. Moscow.6. Losskii, V. N. and Uspenskii, L. A., 2014. Smysl ikon [Meaning of icons]. Moscow.7. Demus, O., 2001. Mozaiki vizantiiskikh khramov. Printsipy monumental'nogo iskusstva Vizantii [Mosaics of Byzantine temples. Principles of monumental art of Byzantium]. Moscow.8. Pokrovskii, N. V., 2001. Evangelie v pamyatnikakh ikonografii [Gospel in the monuments of iconography]. Moscow.9. Yazykova, I. K., 2012. So-tvorenie obraza. Bogoslovie ikony [Co-creation of the image. The theology of icon]. Moscow.P. N.BelyakovaAnalysing the Intercessor type of Marian iconography, this author identifies the iconographic features of such depictions and explores the transformation that the image has undergone in the Russian icon painting tradition. To achieve this goal, the author employs the methods of comparison and generalisation and traces the transformation of the Byzantine image of Paraklesis into the Intercessor iconographic type of Russian icon painting. By examining the image in more recently painted icons, the author produces its first full description and introduces the 19th-century icon ‘Mother of God the Intercessor of the Deesis row’ from the collection of the Kaliningrad Regional Museum of History and Art. The results of the analysis suggest that the Intercessor type of Marian iconography is characterised by a full- or half-length image, showing Virgin Mary from a distance. She is painted without the Child and holding a scroll. The text on the scroll may vary depending on the shade of meaning the icon painter attempted to convey. However, it always communicates the message of advocacy and intercession of Mother of God for humankind before her Son.06152026111. Butyrskii, M. N., 2000. The Mother of God Paraklesis at the altar barrier: the origin and liturgical content of the image. In: A. M. Lidov, ed. Ikonostas: Proiskhozhdenie — razvitie — simvolika [Iconostasis: Origins — development — symbols]. Moscow.2. Kondakov, N. P., 1914. Ikonografiya Bogomateri [Iconography of Mother of God]. Reprint 2003. St. Petersburg. Vol. 1.3. Etingof, O. E., 2000. Obraz Bogomateri. Ocherki vizantiiskoi ikonografii XI—XIII vv. [The image of the Mother of God. Essays on Byzantine iconography of XI—XIII centuries]. Moscow.4. Yazykova, I. K., 1995. Bogoslovie ikony [The theology of icon]. Moscow.(Garicheva) E. A.FedorovaThis article analyses the symbol of light and the motif of acquiring wisdom in the icons and the vitae of saints conveying the spiritual ascension of Saint Paraskevi of Iconium and Saint Juliana of Nicomedia. The common motifs in the two vitae are flagellation (whipping), death by beheading, and the punishment of torturers after the execution of the martyrs. Both vitae correspond to the Passion of the Lord. The vita of Saint Paraskevi of Iconium reveals the symbols of the Passion. It is stressed that the icons of Paraskevi the Great Martyr from the collection of the Rybinsk museum and preserve differs from the copy of the vita included in the 17th-century manuscript held at the museum.06152026111. Gnutova, S. V., 1994. Instruments of the Passion of Christ on the russian crosses of XVII—XX centuries. In: Filevskie chteniya. Vyp. V. Materialy III nauchnoi konferentsii po problemam russkoi kul'tury vtoroi poloviny XVII — nach. XVIII vv., Moskva, 8—11 iyulya 1993 [Filevsky readings. Issue. V. Proceedings of the III scientific conference on the problems of russian culture of the second half of XVII — beginning XVIII centuries, Moscow, 8—11 July 1993]. Moscow. pp. 68—86.2. Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill, ed., 2012. Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya [Orthodox Encyclopedia]. Moscow. pp. 537—540.3. Sobornik. Rukopis' XVII veka. 645 l. [Sobornik. Manuscript of ХVII century. 645 l.]. Rybinsk.4. Ukhtomskii, A. A., 2000. Znachenie legendarnoi poezii v drevnerusskoi literature i zhizni. In: Dominanta dushi [Dominant of the soul]. Rybinsk. pp. 15—36.5. Fedotov, G. P., 2007. Svyatye Drevnei Rusi [Saints of Ancient Russia]. St. Petersburg.6. Melerovich, A. V. and Mokienko, V. M., eds., 2001. Frazeologizmy v russkoi rechi [Phraseologisms in russian speech]. Moscow.7. Khokhlova, I. L., 2009. Ikony Rybinska [Icons of Rybinsk]. Rybinsk.D.VeselinovThis article describes the results of a systemic study into the history of conveying the name of the Swiss linguist Charles Bally by the means of Russian transcription, in the 20th-century linguistic discussions. The author reconstructs the history of introducing Charles Bally’s works into Russian and Soviet linguistics, particularly, in the context of the publication of Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course of General Linguistics. The article analyses the variants of transcribing the name Bally in the works of G. O. Vinokur, M. N. Peterson, V. N. Voloshinov, G. K. Danilov, B. A. Larin, L. P. Yakubinsky, V. V. Vinogradov, and others. The author argues that the gradual codification of the Балли variant was a result of ideological discussions in Soviet linguistics held in the 1920—1950s.06152026111. Admoni, V. G., 1956. Development of the syntactic theory in the West in the ХХ century and structuralism. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Questions of linguistics], 6, pp. 48—64.2. Balli, Sh., 1995. Obshchaya lingvistika i voprosy frantsuzskogo yazyka [General linguistics and questions of the French language]. Moscow.3. Balli, Sh., 1961. Frantsuzskaya stilistika [French stylistics]. Moscow.4. Budagov, R., 1955. Sharl Balli and his work in general and french linguistics. In: Sh. Balli Obshchaya lingvistika i voprosy frantsuzskogo yazyka [General linguistics and questions of the French language]. Moscow5. Bulakhovskii, L. A., 1952. Kurs russkogo literaturnogo yazyka [The course of the Russian literary language]. Kiev. Vol. 1.6. Vinogradov, V. V., 1955. Results of discussion of stylistics issues. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Questions of linguistics], 1. pp. 60—87.7. Vinokur, G. O., 1923. Culture of language (Tasks of modern linguistics). Pechat' i revolyutsiya [Print and revolution], 5, pp. 100—111.8. Vinokur, G. O., 1928. A verb or a name. Russkaya rech' [Russian speech], 3, pp. 75—93.9. Vinokur, G. O., 1929. Kul'tura yazyka [Culture of language]. Moscow.10. Vinokur, G. O., 1959. Izbrannye raboty po russkomu yazyku [Selected works on the Russian language]. Moscow.11. Vislova, A. V., 1993. Stsenicheskoe tvorchestvo A. A. Mironova i problema stilya v akterskom iskusstve 60—80-kh godov [Scenic creativity of A. A. Mironov and the problem of style in the acting art of the 60s-80s], PhD. Moscow.12. Voloshinov, V. N., 1928. The newest trends of linguistic thought in the west. Literatura i marksizm [Literature and marxism], 5, pp. 115—149.13. Voloshinov, V. N., 1929. Marksizm i filosofiya yazyka [Marxism and the Philosophy of Language]. Leningrad.14. Voloshinov, V. N., 1930. On the limits of poetics and linguistics. In: V. Desnitskii, L. Tsyrlin and N. Yakovlev, eds. V bor'be za marksizm v literaturnoi nauke [In the struggle for marxism in literary science]. Moscow. pp. 203—240.15. Voloshinov, V. N., 1930. Marksizm i filosofiya yazyka [Marxism and the Philosophy of Language]. 2nd ed. Leningrad.16. Gofman, V. A., 1936. Yazyk literatury: Ocherki i etyudy [Language of the literature: Essays and etudes]. Leningrad.17. Gukovskii, G. A., 1946. Ocherki po istorii russkogo realizma. Ch. 1: Pushkin i russkie romantiki [Essays on the history of Russian realism. Part 1: Pushkin and the russian romantics]. Saratov.18. Danilov, G. K., 1928. On the question of marxist linguistics. Literatura i marksizm [Literature and marxism], 6, pp. 115—137.19. Danilov, G. K., 1929. The marxist method in lexicology. Russkii yazyk v sovetskoi shkole [Russian language in the Soviet school], 6, pp. 48—62.20. Danilov, G. K., 1931. Kratkii ocherk istorii nauki o yazyke [A short essay on the history of the science of language]. Moscow.21. Danilov, G. K. 1934. Linguists of the West. Za kommunisticheskoe prosveshchenie [For communist education], 222, p. 3.22. The tasks of Soviet linguistics in the light of the works of I. V. Stalin and the journal “Questions of Linguistics”, 1952. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Questions of Linguistics], 1, pp. 3—40.23. Ivanov, V. V., 1954. J. Kurytowicz. L'accentuation des1 langues indoeuropéennes. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Questions of Linguistics], 4, pp. 125—135.24. Kartsevskii, S., 1928. Povtoritel'nyi kurs russkogo yazyka [Repeating course of Russian language]. Moscow.25. Larin, B. A. On the linguistic study of the city. Russkaya rech’ [Russian speech], 3, pp. 61—74.26. Loya, Ya., 1929. Voloshinov V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Na literaturnom postu [At the literary post], 8, pp. 72—73.27. Medvedev, P., 1928. Formal’nyi metod v literaturovedenii [Formal method in literary criticism]. Leningrad.28. Musin-Pushkin, A. A., 1912. Sbornik statei po voprosam shkol'nogo obrazovaniya na Zapade i v Rossii (po lichnym nablyudeniyam) [Collection of articles on school education in the West and in Russia (on personal observations)]. St. Petersburg. Vol. 2.29. Orlova, V. G., 1952. Discussion of the book of I. I. Meschaninov “Members of the proposals and the part of speech” at the enlarged meeting of the Academic council of the Institute of linguistics of the Academy of sciences of the USSR. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Questions of Linguistics], 1, pp. 170—176.30. Peterson, M. N., 1923. General linguistics. Pechat' i revolyutsiya [Print and Revolution], 6, pp. 26—32.31. Peterson, M. N., 1927. Language as a social phenomenon. Uchenye zapiski Instituta yazyka i literatury RANION (Lingvisticheskaya sektsiya) [Scientific notes of the Institute of language and literature of RANION (Linguistic Section)], 1, pp. 5—21.32. Piotrovskii, R. G., 1954. About some stylistic categories. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Questions of Linguistics], 1, pp. 55—68.33. Rozhdestvenskii, Yu. V., 1967. Semiotika i vostochnye yazyki [Semiotics and oriental languages]. Moscow.34. Sossyur, F. de, 1916. Kurs obshchei lingvistiki, izdannyi Sharlem Baii i Al'bertom Seshegei v sotrudnichestve s Al'bertom Ridligerom. Lozanna, Paris.35. Sossyur, F. de, 1933. Kurs obshchei lingvistiki [Course of general linguistics]. Moscow.36. Sossyur, F. de, 1992. Kurs po obshcha lingvistika [Course of general linguistics]. Sofiya.37. Teoriya literatury [Theory of Literature], 1965. Moscow. Vol. 3.38. Shor, R. O., 1929. Voloshinov V. N. Marxism and the philosophy of language. The main problems of the sociological method in the science of language. Russkiiyazyk v sovetskoi shkole [Russian language in the Soviet school], 3, pp. 149—154.39. Shpet, G. G., 2012. Filosof v kul’ture. Dokumenty i pis’ma [The philosopher in culture. Documents and letters]. Moscow.40. Zheleznov V. Ya. and Kovalevskii, M. M., eds., 1930. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Granat [Encyclopedic dictionary Granat]. Moscow. Vol. 41, part. 4.41. Yakubinskii, L. P., 1931. F. de Sossyur on the impossibility of linguistic policy. Yazykovedenie i materialism [Linguistics and materialism], 2, pp. 91—104.42. Yakubinskii, L. P., 1932. Against “danilovshchinya”. In: S. N. Bykovskii, ed. Protiv burzhuaznoi kontrabandy v yazykoznanii [Against bourgeois smuggling in linguistics]. Leningrad. pp. 47—65.43. Amacker, R., 2000. Le développement des idées saussuriennes chez Bally et Sechahaye. Historiographia linguistica, 2—3, pp. 205—264.44. Bally, Ch., 1905. Précis de stylistique. Geneva.45. Bally, Ch., 1951. Traité de stylistique française. 3rd ed. Geneva, Paris.46. Bally, Ch., 1935. Le langage et la vie. Genève. 3rd ed. Zurich.47. Bally, Ch., 1950. Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Berne.48. Saussure, F. de, 1916. Cours de linguistique générale publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Lausanne, Paris.49. Saussure, F. de, 1922. Cours de linguistique générale publié par Charles Bally et Albert Sechehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Paris.50. Velmezova, Е., 2006. Charles Bally au filtredesa réception en Russie. In: J.-L. Chiss, ed. Charles Bally (1865—1947): Historicité desdébats linguistiques et didactiques: Stylistique: Enonciation: CriseduFrançais. Louvain, Paris. pp. 41—51.N. K.GasparyanThe author analyses the concept ‘soul’ as a means of representing reality in the brain through comparing two linguistic pictures of the world. It is known that a concept contains important cultural information, harbouring its concrete meaning in a linguistic unit. The study — a combination of cultural linguistic and comparative analysis of the concept — suggests that certain Russian idioms containing the concept ‘soul’ have equivalents in the Armenian language. However, in most Armenian equivalents, the ‘soul’ component is replaced by the ‘heart’ mythologeme. In the Armenian language, the concepts of ‘soul’ and ‘heart’ are relatively equal in the scope of information they encode. Moreover, there are words containing the ‘soul’ (հոգի) component that do not have equivalents in the Russian linguistic picture of the world. The analysis allows the author to take a glimpse into the inner world of a native speaker. In its turn, the worldview of an individual helps to trace the century-long development of a national linguistic picture of the world.06152026111. Avanesyan, M., 2013. Concept “Soul” as the basis of russian mentality. In: N. Arutyunyan, S. Muradyan, E. Erzhkyan et al., eds. Sbornik statei mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posvyashchennoi 500-letiyu armyanskogo knigopechataniya i 65-letiyu osnovaniya SNO EGU. Tom 2. Gumanitarnye nauki: filologiya i pedagogika [Collection of articles of the international scientific conference dedicated to the 500th anniversary of armenian printing and the 65th anniversary of the foundation of the SSS YSU. Vol. 2. The humanities: philology and pedagogy]. Erevan. pp. 114—118.2. Arutyunyan, N. L., 2004. Lingvokul'turologicheskoe pole metafizicheskogo kontsepta “Dusha” i ego sopostavitel'nyi analiz [Linguistic and cultural field of the metaphysical concept “Soul” and its comparative analysis]. Available at: http://ysu.am/files/Narine-Dusha.pdf [Accessed 22 February 2017].3. Vezhbitskaya, A., 2001. Ponimanie kul’tur cherez posredstvo klyuchevykh slov [Understanding cultures through the use of keywords]. Moscow.4. Vezhbitskaya, A., 1993. Semantics, culture and cognition: universal concepts in culturally specific contexts. THESIS, 3, pp. 185—285.5. Kolesov, V. V., 2004. Mentality and the word. Ways and sources of the study of the russian mentality. In: Otrazhenie russkoi mental'nosti v yazyke i rechi [Reflection of the russian mentality in language and speech]. Lipetsk.6. Maslova, V. A., 2004. Lingvokul’turologiya [Linguoculturology]. 2nd ed. Moscow.7. Ozhegov, S. I., 2007. Slovar’ russkogo yazyka [Dictionary of the Russian language]. 24th ed. Moscow.8. Akopyan, A. and Ter-Antonyants, E., 1986. Russko-armyanskii shkol’nyi frazeologicheskii slovar’ [Russian-Armenian schools phraseological dictionary]. Erevan.9. Savina, E. A. and Degtyareva, L. Yu., 2001. Life psychology in russian proverbs and sayings. Chelovek [Human], 5, pp. 33—35.10. Sepir, E., 1993. Izbrannye trudy po yazykoznaniyu i kul’turologii [Selected works on linguistics and kul'turology]. Moscow.11. Stepanov, Yu. S., 2004. Konstanty. Slovar’ russkoi kul’tury [Constants. Dictionary of russian culture]. Moscow.12. Dal’, V., ed., 1989. Tolkovyi slovar’ Zhivogo Velikorusskogo yazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language]. Moscow. Vol. 1.13. Uryson, E. V., 1999. Soul. In: Yu. D. Apresyan, ed. Novyi ob’’yasnitel’nyi slovar’ sinonimov russkogo yazyka [A new explanatory dictionary of synonyms of Russian language]. Moscow.14. Fasmer, M., 1964. Etimologicheskii slovar’ [Etymological dictionary]. Moscow. Vol. 1.15. Shmelev, A. D., 2001. Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury [Languages of slavic culture]. Moscow.16. Հայերէն բացատրական բառարան, 1944. խմբ. Ստեփան Մալխասեանց։ Հայկական ՍՍՌ Պետական Հրատարակչութիւն, Երեւան. Հ. 3, Էջ 123.S. T.Zolyan06152026111. Барт Р. Смерть автора // Избранные работы. Семиотика. Поэтика. М., 1994. С. 384—391.2. Виноградов В. В. Проблема сказа в стилистике // Поэтика. Л., 1926. Вып. 1. С. 24—50.3. Гаспаров М. Л. Записи и выписки. М., 2001.4. Григорьев В. П. Грамматика идиостиля. М., 1983.5. Гумбольдт В. О различии строения человеческих языков и его влиянии на духовное развитие человечества. СПб., 1859.6. Золян С. Т. К проблеме описания поэтического идиолекта (на материале поэзии Л. Мартынова) // Известия АН СССР. Сер. литературы и языка. 1986. Т. 45, № 2. С. 138—148.7. Золян С. Т. От описания идиолекта — к грамматике идиостиля // Язык русской поэзии ХХ века. М., М., 1989. С. 238—259.8. Золян С. Т. Что в имени тебе моем?.. — Заметки теоретика об «Антологии анонимных текстов» // Русская поэтическая речь — 2016 : в 2 т. Челябинск, 2017. Т. 2 : Аналитика. Тестирование вслепую. С. 34—50.9. Каверин В. А. Собеседник. М., 1973.10. Русская поэтическая речь — 2016. Антология анонимных текстов. Челябинск, 2016.11. Русская поэтическая речь — 2016 : в 2 т. Челябинск, 2017. Т. 2 : Аналитика: тестирование вслепую.12. Тынянов Ю. Н. Поэтика. История литературы. Кино. М., 1977.13. Фуко М. Что такое автор // Воля к истине: по ту сторону знания, власти и сексуальности. Работы разных лет. М., 1996. С. 7—46.V.KalpidiThis article presents a methodological description of the ‘Russian Poetic Speech — 2016’ narrative project aimed to identify, demonstrate, and study a cross-section of modern Russian poetry. The author addresses the foundations of the narrative project, its ideology, as well as its publication and promotion components. The article explores the mechanism for understanding and using the power of Russian poetry and addresses its ultimate goal — the creation of a new humanitarian ideology. The author proposes approaches aimed at encouraging poets to search for the goals of Russian poetry. Russian poetic speech is analysed as a coherent whole that requires new strategies for reading and understanding. The publication component of the project is a phenomenon that allows poets, readers and scholars enhance their understanding and knowledge of modern Russian poetry.0615202611S. T.Zolyan06152026111. Золян С., Лотман М. Исследования в области семантической поэтики акмеизма. Таллин, 2012.2. Золян С. Т. Лингвистическая поэтика и общая теория языка (о контекстно-зависимой семантике и текстоцентричной лингвистике) // Труды Института русского языка им. В. В. Виноградова : материалы международной научной конференции «Первые Григорьевские чтения. Языковое творчество vs. креативность: эстетический, эвристический и прагматический аспекты». 2016. Т. 7, № 7. С. 69—85.3. Мандельштам О. Э. Соч. : в 2 т. М., 1990. Т. 2.4. Поэзия : учебник / авт.-сост. Н. М. Азарова, С. Ю. Бочавер, К. М. Корчагин [и др.] ; под общ. ред. Н. М. Азаровой, К. М. Корчагина, Д. В. Кузьмина. М., 2016.