* Данный текст распознан в автоматическом режиме, поэтому может содержать ошибки

ЗЗО ART OF ANCIENT GREECE: DICTIONARY variety of historic reality but even many important sides of it. So, for example, there is no any possibility to deduce wholly some separate period of art history from unique creative principle or archetype. But nevertheless among the symptoms of almost every historic time there is supposedly one having relation to arts and being very important whose singularity cannot be deduced from more than one, at least immediate, cause. It is the style. Style may be defined as an inclination determinated by cultural affinity to react to different stimuli in similar and at the same time peculiar way. Style is definable through the categories of purity and unity; so it cannot be mere result of summing up different phenomena with each other. Being itself whole and unique the style presupposes something equally whole and unique as at least its necessary (though not indispensably sufficient) formal cause of becoming; thus style must be considered as a product of the monogenesis just in virtue of its definition as a style. But only one assumption that style may be — or at least may be thought as — pure, unalloyed one (and namely this assumption, evidently or not, is always meant at the use of word «style») entails conclusion, that the notion of historic (i.e. historically single, actualizing creative potency of one and alone epoch) style, alias epoch-style, either bases itself upon false premise or is logically contradictory. In other words, when thinking consequently, an art historian who is used to operate with the notion style will come at last to following choice: either he continues to use this notion as he did formerly and by doing so acknowledges (at least for the field of arts) the antiquated idea of totally organizing Zeitgeist, or reconciling himself to historical data admits that the Zeitgeist is not omnipotent and that art of each epoch is as contradictory as an epoch itself by which this art was engendered, therefore taken as a whole, the art of no one epoch can be brought under the notion style. The last conclusion is, as it seems me, quite sufficient for abandoning the idea of epoch-style. At the same time this is fully insufficient for repudiation of nearby idea, that of general styles. It is impossible to deny, that suprahistoric stylistic communities can be discerned only with greater or lesser grade of incompleteness. But however that may be, these communities are unmistakebly, often even strikingly distinguishable and already that is extremely significant. Are the stylistic resemblances in art of different epochs often divided by great distances in time and space not evident enough? Is it absolutely groundless, that many scholars have spoken about ancient «baroque», ancient «гососо», ancient «impressionism» etc? It is not surprising that such a word usage provoked harsh reaction of dogmatic historicism representatives, but blaming such inappropriate, in their opinion, terms they were angry so much that simply forgot the real and far from being superficial resemblances that on writing this dictionary, it had happened because I was guided by two considerations. The first of them is that in Russia dictionaries on such a topic and of such a volume were up till now absent, so this book might take some vacant place becoming a reference book i f not for professional connoisseurs of ancient art, so for other art historians and humanists in general as well as for wide circle of art and antiquity lovers. The second and main consideration is that I have found it scientifically productive to apply to the vast material of ancient Greek art those methods of analysis of visually-plastic images, which I have elaborated during my independent activity in the capacity of art historian bringing, in particular, some new arguments in favour of traditional view, according to which the main line of development of Hellenic art led to the Classical style that remained a centripetal force determining general character of art creativity in ancient Greek and, more widely, Graeco-Roman world. The method of art-historical interpretation applied by me to the art of ancient Greece consists of two equally important moments: 1) revealing of plastico-tectonic archetypes and 2) taking into account of restricting historical conditions of their actualization in art practice. So the functions o f this dictionary may not be reduced to exclusively informative one and therefore it cannot be judged as a reference book in the strict sense of the world. This dictionary is written by one author; in a case like that it is impossible to escape expression of author's position, even when you have such intention. Having that in mind I from the very beginning didn't set such a task before myself. On the contrary, my goal was the exposition, where it was appropriate, of my individual views, but in such a form that would allow the reader at any time to depart from them easily and to choose freely his own, the most convenient for him itinerary across the text as well as through its meanings. Since the mode of interpretation is for me no less important than the exposition of matter itself, since this mode is here not concealed but deliberately stressed, it would be appropriate to tell shortly about it. In last decades many historians being disappointed at possibilities of monogenetic (monodeterministic) methods of every sort — from Marxism till Spenglerianism, — which reduce all factors of historic process to one or another kind of causes, have recognized advantages of polygenetic appro­ ach, dictated by the theory of factors, according to which a character of development peculiar to some historic period or historic culture is determinated by combined action of the most different and heterogeneous, but often almost equal in their significance moving forces. This change of basic methodological position is fully justified and even necessary: genetic monism of any kind is unable to explain not only the contradictory and multiform