–¬Ń: ¬ˇų. »‚ŗŪÓ‚. ŃŤŠŽŤÓ„ūŗŰŤˇ. ¬ŚūŮŤˇ 1.1 ÓÚ 10 ŗÔūŚŽˇ 2013 „.

1917

1 BRIANCHANINOV, A. ďOtvet A. N. Brianchaninova Viach. I. Ivanovu na ego pisímo po povodu knigi L. L. Sabaneeva Skriabin [A. N. Brianchaninovís reply to Viach. I. Ivanovís letter about L. L. Sabaneevís book Scriabin]. Izvestiia Petrogradskogo skriabinskogo obshchestva (Petrograd), no. 2: 21ó24.

In Russian. Replies to Ivanovís letter to Brianchaninov, published immediately before in the same issue (pp. 16ó21) and expressing various criticisms of Sabaneevís study of Scriabin. Brianchaninovís reply responds to these criticisms in detail. Both letters are dated 12 May 1916.

2 BULGAKOV, SERGEI. Svet nevechernii: Sozertsaniia i umozreniia [The light which does not fade: Contemplations and speculations]. Moscow: Putí, 61, 65, 272. Reprint. Godstone, Surrey: Gregg International Publishers, 1971. Moscow: Izdatelístvo ďRespublika,Ē 1994.

In Russian. Refers briefly to Ivanov in the context of a discussion of myth as an encounter between the immanent world of human consciousness

54

and the transcendent world of the divine. The content of myth expresses itself through symbols, defined by Ivanov in terms of the progression a realibus ad realiora. Draws a complete distinction between Boehmeís antierotic Jungfrau Sophia and the concept of ďvechnaia zhenstvennostíĒ [the eternal feminine], reflected in the poetry of Goethe, Novalis, V. Solovíev, Ivanov, and Blok.

3 ERN, V. ďO velikolepii i skeptitsizme: K kharakteristike adogmatizmaĒ [On magnificence and scepticism: Towards a characterization of adogmatism]. Khristianskaia myslí (Kiev), no. 3ó4 (March ó April): 163ó86.

In Russian. Disagrees with the picture of ďViacheslav the MagnificentĒ given by Shestov (1916.16), considered as a highly subjective portrait that ignores the reality of its subject and misrepresents the ideas of Borozdy i mezhi [Furrows and boundaries]. Pinpoints three principal areas of distortion relating to Ivanovís understanding of Schiller, Pushkin, and Tolstoi. Identifies a clash between Shestovís pretensions to absolute understanding and his occasionally insightful adogmatic approach. Discusses Shestovís attraction to Ivanovís musicality. His philosophy of life as ďdannostíĒ [given] causes him to distrust Ivanovís philosophy of life as ďdarĒ [gift].

4 KRANIKHFELíD, VL. P. ďNovye nasledniki ĎPerepiskií GogoliaĒ [The new heirs of Gogolís ďCorrespondenceĒ] . In V mire idei i obrazov [In the world of ideas and images]. Vol. 3: Etiudy i portrety [Essays and portraits]. Petrograd: Zhizní i znanie, 248ó72.

Reprint of 1909.15.

5 VYGODSKII, D. ďPoeziia i poetika: Iz itogov 1916. gĒ [Poetry and poetics: Highlights of 1916]. Letopisí (Petrograd), no. 1 (January): 248ó58.

In Russian. Among the wide range of collections of poetry and essays reviewed, devotes a short section (pp. 250ó51) to Ivanovís poems in the anthology Giulistan (1916) and to Borozdy i mezhi [Furrows and boundaries], considered in the context of the past yearís attempt to revive symbolism. Underlines the significance of Ivanovís collection of essays as a statement on the crisis of symbolism, marking its end as a formal movement.

© ›ŽŚÍÚūÓŪŪŗˇ ÔůŠŽŤÍŗŲŤˇ — –¬Ń, 2010.
–¬Ń