The period of the Middle Ages became a new progressive stage of development of psychological thought. Daily supervision and generalization in the course of communication, activities gained further development in the form of philosophical judgment and a formulation of the most general laws and offers. In the Middle Ages, under the influence of the developed objective historical reality, in Azerbaijan the number of the poets and prose writers writing in the native language though before this work were created by them, generally in the Arab and farsidsky languages has increased. The ancient period comes to the end at this stage and the medieval period of the Azerbaijani literature when in parallel the psychology passed the stage of consecutive studying and the analysis of human knowledge which is saved up in the course of communication of people with each other begins. In article it is told about culture, customs, literary and cultural heritage of the Azerbaijani people. The main attention is paid to studying of prescientific and scientific psychological science of Azerbaijan during various periods when it developed as one of the field of philosophy. Also merits of such prominent representatives of public and scientific thought as Bahmanyar, Siradzheddin Urmavi, Nizami Gyandzhevi, Nasireddin Tusi, etc. are emphasized. Researches show that history of science and culture of Azerbaijan, models of folklore and references are rich with psychological thoughts and ideas. Azerbaijan has ancient traditions in the history of forming of the first psychological views. After declaration of independence as Azerbaijan in modern literature the main place is taken by universal ideas, subjects of return of the occupied native lands, love for the country, justice, etc. In spite of the fact that now the Azerbaijani literature is based on reflection and a celebration of ideas of an azerbaydzhanizm, modernist and post-modernist aspirations are also shown in a varying degree. In article the origin and history of development of psychological thought of the period of the Middle Ages reveals that gives the chance to consider psychology comprehensively, in a complex, and also to learn what has formed the basis of modern psychological thought.

On a par with the analysis of the Russian history of psychology development the paper characterizes academic research and teaching profession of one of the greatest contemporary historians of psychology Antonina Nikolaevna Zhdan, Distinguished Professor of Lomonosov Moscow State University, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Education. The paper shows her contribution to the international and national history of psychology, historical and scientific research of the Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, and the history of psychology teaching at the Department of General Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University. We give an account of the origin of the historical and psychological research in the Russian empire and Soviet times: Psychological Institute (1914) of Lomonosov Moscow State University and the Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University (established in 1966). The role of A.N. Zhdan in finalizing the encyclopedias devoted to the 250th anniversary of Lomonosov Moscow State University is distinguished. We mention Antonina N. Zhdan’s teacher, Peter Ya. Galperin, who was the first to develop a training course on the history of psychology that serves as a basis for creating and then publishing a university course curriculum and a manual. The paper highlights the constructive role of academic research and teaching profession of A.N. Zhdan to develop the first Russian university fundamental textbook on the history of psychology which she positioned from the perspective of L.S. Vygotsky’s cultural historical psychology, A.N. Leontiev’s theory of activity and P. Ya. Galperin’s concept of orienting activity. 

We analyze the work of A.N. Zhdan on various aspects of the history of psychology and the establishing theoretical principles of its research and development. The significance of A.N. Zhdan’s works for developing methodology of psychology is emphasized. It is particularly stressed that this line of research characterizes the academic school of the history of international and Russian psychology with her active participation.

Dear colleagues, here is the regular issue of the “National Psychological Journal”.

The year of 2013 was a landmark in many ways not only for scholars of psychology, but also for the Russian science in general.

The paper presents the detailed comments on the review of L.S. Vygotsky on the famous Russian ballerina E.V. Geltser’s performance during her Gomel tour in the autumn of 1922. We present a reconstruction of the cultural context which is quite essential for understanding multiple lines of the plot covered in the review of Vygotsky.In the analysis of the text the importance of the distinction between artificial and natural movements introduced by L.S. Vygotsky’s when considering the uniqueness of expressive movement in the choreography is stressed.

It is shown that the uniqueness of cathartic experience that has become a central theme in L.S. Vygotsky’s research monograph “Psychology of Art” (1925), in this review is examined using the analysis of classical dance perception. However, we fix the methodological importance for the analysis of Vygotsky’s account of the existing opposition between the classical and the “so-called untaught natural dance” (A. Duncan, M. Fokine), which in turn allows to designate the fundamental differences between “spiritual” and “soulful” experience. The comments to the review are equipped by the detailed references to the theoretical works of the classicists of the Russian theatre (e.g. A.Tairov, Vs. Meyerhold), where the problem of expressive movement and gesture is also given special focus. Analysis of L.S. Vygotsky’s representations on the fact that it is the “indifference” of the ballet to the natural movement, puts it at a particular level, whereas the detachment from everyday things brings to the experience of the great psychological meaning (“not soulful but spiritual”), and thus allows to link his early work with the ideas he developed in his later book “The Psychology of Art”.

Referring to S. Frank’s works, he rhapsodizes about the nature of artistic experience that might fulfill “the incompleteness and imperfection” of a particular situation. Exactly in these comments to the review L.S. Vygotsky’s juxtaposition of “soulful” and “spiritual” being the fundamental importance for perceiving the psychological characteristics of cathartic experiences in the perception of art is fixed.

In addition, the review comprises the specific use of symbolic means for understanding the processes that have been developed by L.S. Vygotsky in the following works: “The history of the development of higher mental functions” (1930), “Thinking and Speech” (1934).

The main stages of the life and work of M. Lomonosov, the outstanding national scholar, are presented. The features of his personality and outlook are shown. M. Lomonosov’s contribution to the development of scientific psychological thought in Russia is disclosed.

The work of the outstanding scientist P.Y. Galperin as a methodologist of psychological science is analyzed. The methodological principles he developed are presented in a systematic way, their role in building general psychological conception created by him is disclosed, their importance for the production and study of psychological problems in the modern scientific situation is shown.

One of the chapters from the book “Way of thinking: the problem of the historical unity of scientific knowledge” by V.P. Zinchenko (edited by T.G. Shchedrina), published in 2011 is presented. V.P. Zinchenko describes his outstanding teachers, especially about P.Y. Galperin and his colleagues: A.R. Luria, A.N. Leontyev, P.I. Zinchenko and D.B. Elkonin, A.V. Zaporozhets, A.A. Smirnov. The contributions of these outstanding scientists in psychological science are shown on a par with biographical account and their personal traits.

The paper is devoted to Boris Dmitrievich Parygin, a talented Russian psychologist and educator, who trained many generations of students and postgraduates.It briefly touches upon the main facts of the scholar’s life, highlights the results of his research and reveals the scope of his scientific and educational work. It is shownthat B.D. Parygin was also an outstanding science develper. Upon his initiative, the Department of Social Psychology and the first “Social psychological research” laboratoryon the basis of Leningrad Gertsen Teacher-Training Institute was the first one to be established in the USSR.

There are facts that point to Boris Parygin’s contribution to the establishment and development of social psychology. The author notes that the scholar established the basisof methodology and developed the subject area of social psychology as an independent science, and justified its status in the humanities.

Particular emphasis is put on the conceptually important aspects of scientific creativity of B.D. Parygin’s recent years that are relevant to today critical problems of humandevelopment, culture, and society.

The author writes about the scholar’s idea of personal integrity, humanistic function of psychology and the coherent worldview principle of dialogue as an alternative toanti-human communication.

The article written by the son and grandson of Russian psychologist A.N. Leontiev reflects not only his great and varied scientific and organizational services to the domestic psychological science, but also paints a vivid picture of Alexei Leontiev as a person.

In contrast to the previous quite formal biographical articles about this great scientist, this paper lively and vividly describes what actually was the life and work of A. Leontiev. His biography details allow to imagine the situation in this country, in the time when he had to study, work and create.

Talking about personal traits of Alexey Leontiev, the authors point out that the scholar never engaged himself in delegating powers or acting according to the boss’s instructions. He constantly sought from the authorities healthy decisions for psychology. His authority in power was so great that he was able to do almost everything that he sought to do. A.N. Leontiev did not take any important decision without having a council with the people around him. In his collaboration with Lev Vygotsky, almost all decisions were taken together.

The authors openly, with gentle humor are writing of the early years of the future professor, about an uneasy scientific career, a creative, educational and administrative activity in later years. Their story gives an idea of Alexei Leontiev, and as a brilliant scientist, and as a highly respectable, vulnerable, very emotional person, and a very nice man.

The article comprehensively analyzes the specifics of scientific relations between the two leading Russian psychologists A.N. Leontiev and L.S. Vygotsky. It is shown how initial relationship between the teacher (L.Vygotsky) and an attentive disciple (A. Leontiev) was replaced disengagement, search and defense of their own views. The author demonstrates the dynamics of psychological ideas of these two scientists. He highlights different approaches to the problem of activity and identity, which made them part in a certain period of time.Considerable attention is paid to the scientific work of A. Leontiev, who lived and created in the socialist times of ideological pressure. It is shown how in spite of this adverse factor Alexei Leontiev, the founder of the activity theory, where moral principles are out of place where a person becomes its “product”, managed to come to the need for a special study of personality, his/her moral value sphere. Referring to specific works of A. Leontiev, the author shows the evolution of A. Leontiev ideas as “leader of the Marxist psychology” in the internal context of his scientific research, which has led to the fact that he erased the fundamental differences with L. Vygotsky on the problem of experiences and activities.

The author suggests that in his last years A.N. Leontiev’s views were close to the “late” L. Vygotsky’s viewpoint, taking the side of his Master, an older friend, and at the same time, as it is a usual thing in the academic life, the main opponent. This proves the fact that two years before his death in 1977, A.N. Leontiev actually agreed with Vygotsky on the problem of experiences and activities.