1 BRIANCHANINOV, A. “Otvet A. N. Brianchaninova Viach. I. Ivanovu na ego pis’mo po povodu knigi L. L. Sabaneeva Skriabin [A. N. Brianchaninov’s reply to Viach. I. Ivanov’s letter about L. L. Sabaneev’s book Scriabin]. Izvestiia Petrogradskogo skriabinskogo obshchestva (Petrograd), no. 2: 21—24.
In Russian. Replies to Ivanov’s letter to Brianchaninov, published immediately before in the same issue (pp. 16—21) and expressing various criticisms of Sabaneev’s study of Scriabin. Brianchaninov’s 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: Put’, 61, 65, 272. Reprint. Godstone, Surrey: Gregg International Publishers, 1971. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo “Respublika,” 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
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 Boehme’s antierotic Jungfrau Sophia and the concept of “vechnaia zhenstvennost’” [the eternal feminine], reflected in the poetry of Goethe, Novalis, V. Solov’ev, Ivanov, and Blok.
3 ERN, V. “O velikolepii i skeptitsizme: K kharakteristike adogmatizma” [On magnificence and scepticism: Towards a characterization of adogmatism]. Khristianskaia mysl’ (Kiev), no. 3—4 (March — April): 163—86.
In Russian. Disagrees with the picture of “Viacheslav the Magnificent” 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 Ivanov’s understanding of Schiller, Pushkin, and Tolstoi. Identifies a clash between Shestov’s pretensions to absolute understanding and his occasionally insightful adogmatic approach. Discusses Shestov’s attraction to Ivanov’s musicality. His philosophy of life as “dannost’” [given] causes him to distrust Ivanov’s philosophy of life as “dar” [gift].
4 KRANIKHFEL’D, VL. P. “Novye nasledniki ‘Perepiski’ Gogolia” [The new heirs of Gogol’s “Correspondence”] . In V mire idei i obrazov [In the world of ideas and images]. Vol. 3: Etiudy i portrety [Essays and portraits]. Petrograd: Zhizn’ i znanie, 248—72.
Reprint of 1909.15.
5 VYGODSKII, D. “Poeziia i poetika: Iz itogov 1916. g” [Poetry and poetics: Highlights of 1916]. Letopis’ (Petrograd), no. 1 (January): 248—58.
In Russian. Among the wide range of collections of poetry and essays reviewed, devotes a short section (pp. 250—51) to Ivanov’s poems in the anthology Giulistan (1916) and to Borozdy i mezhi [Furrows and boundaries], considered in the context of the past year’s attempt to revive symbolism. Underlines the significance of Ivanov’s collection of essays as a statement on the crisis of symbolism, marking its end as a formal movement.