Search

The article reconstructs the plot related to the unknown book by L. Gogotishvili “The Phenomenology of Speaking,” prepared for publication in 2009, but never published. A hypothesis is put forward according to which the book successively develops the main concept of Gogotishvili’s magnum opus, her only lifetime monograph “Indirect Speaking” (2006), while differing in its methodological guidelines and degree of completeness. On the basis of materials from the personal archive of Gogotishvili, the article provides with a comparison of the history of creation, variants of the title and structure of both books, and reveals conceptual similarities and differences between them. Particular attention is paid to the unfinished article “Analytical Ornaments of Symbolism and Symbolic Traceries of Analytism,” which was not included in the final composition of the second book. This example demonstrates the internal contradictions between the general idea and its implementation, which apparently influenced the author’s refusal to publish. The article presents one chapter of an unpublished book on the typology of symbolist discursive strategies (the paradigm of no-linear multi-layered “polyconcepts”), which contains the substantiation of the key idea of this concept, which was further developed in the late works of Gogotishvili.

The article is devoted to the history of the poem “Spring Fun” (“Veshnee vesel’e”), which is an incomplete transcription of the first song from the poem of the Lithuanian poet Kristijonas Donelaitis (1714–1780) “The Seasons” (“Metai”), made by Vyach. Ivanov. The translation was made for the unpublished “Collection of Lithuanian Literature” (prepared at the “Parus” publishing house in 1915–1917), edited by Y. Baltrushaitis and M. Gorky. At the same time, Baltrushaitis acted as an editor-compiler and translator of a collection of Lithuanian folklore for M. and S. Sabashnikov’s publishing house. This project was also not implemented. The correspondence between Vyach. Ivanov, Y. Baltrushaitis and M. Sabashnikov allows to reconstruct the history of translation of the poem. The article provides information about the first publications of separate fragments of the translation (by J. Jasinyavicius in 1963 and T. Venclova in 1978), based on unauthorized typewriting from the Department of Manuscripts of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore (Vilnius). The appendix presents Ivanov’s translation according to an autograph from the Manuscript Department of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The work is mainly based on archival materials from St. Petersburg, Moscow, Rome, Vilnius.

The article presents a transcription of N.V. Kotrelev’s report read in 2016 and dedicated to archival materials revealing the fate of Vyach. Ivanov's first wife, Darya Mikhailovna, and their daughter Alexandra, years after the church dissolution of their marriage in 1896. Over the years, their daughter developed a mental illness. Ivanov was very distressed by descriptions of the course of the disease and accused himself of “murder” of his daughter. In an attempt to help his first wife, who lost her income, Vyach. Ivanov applied for a subsidy and organizational support to the “Literary Fund” and in a letter addressed to the chairman of the fund (F.D. Batyushkov) described in detail the tragic situation. The materials from the archives of the Literary Fund (Manuscript Department of IWL RAS), presented in the appendixes, demonstrate the history of assistance to the Vyach. Ivanov’s daughter.

The article deals with the linguo-philosophical interpretation of Russian symbolism, undertaken in the little-studied works of L. Gogotishvili of the late 1990s - early 2000s, united by a common approach to the philosophy of language by Vyach. Ivanov, A Losev and M. Bakhtin, namely, the predicative concept of symbol and myth. The reasons that prevent the inclusion of this theory in the spectrum of debatable problems of studying the phenomenon of Russian symbolism are clarified: 1) a pointed linguistic turn of the topic, the corresponding methodology and terminology, unfamiliar to specialists in the field of the history of philosophy and literature; 2) lack of understanding of the polemical intention of the author and the specific addressee of the polemic. A hypothesis is put forward, according to which a certain "hermeticity" of these works is due to their focus on constructive refutation of the characteristics of symbolism presented in the theory of Yu. Stepanov about three language paradigms (semantic - "philosophy of the name", syntactic - "philosophy of the predicate", pragmatic - "philosophy of egocentric words"). A series of articles of the specified period is analyzed, with special attention to the works about Vyach. Ivanov and Losev, as well as to the generalizing article 'The Reception of Symbolism in the Humanities"; including marginalia in Stepanov's book 'In the Three-Dimensional Space of Language" from Gogotishvili's personal library and materials from her archive. As a result, it is shown that the researcher disputes the classification of Stepanov, who classifies Losev's philosophy of language and lvanov's poetics as the first ("semantic") paradigm. This controversy can be traced in detail on the example of the article "Between the name and the predicate (the symbolism of Vyach. Ivanov against the background of onomatodoxy)". The main conclusion of this study is that lvanov's predicative interpretation of the symbol and myth, as well as the name in onomatodoxy, is built by Gogotishvili as a direct antithesis to Stepanov's concept: in contrast to him, Gogotishvili takes into account the attention of symbolists not to an isolated wordsymbol (semantics), but to the mythological judgement (syntactics), to the problem of the relationship between the subject and the predicate of the proposition, to the fundamental categories of logic and linguistics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the linguo-philosophical novations of Vyach. Ivanov and A.F. Losev in the interpretation of L.A. Gogotishvili, aimed to identify the underlying connections between the two theorists of symbol, myth, and language. It analyzes conceptual approach of the interpreter including the methods and techniques she used. The paper reveals likewise the logic and sequence of the ways these interpretations have been constructed, as well as their nature, originality, and scholarly importance. Gogotishvili’s research contribution to the study of Russian symbolism and onomatodoxy, with its doctrine of language, consists in her seminal understanding of their philosophy of language, as well as of the intellectual “techniques” used by Losev. This understanding helped Gogotishvili to develop her own theoretical approaches to the problem of reception of Ivanov’s symbolism and Losev’s work. In her study of symbolism, Gogotishvili moved from describing the religious status of language in onomatodoxy as well as , its communicative and predicative interpretations, to examining the predicative concept of symbol in Vyach. Ivanov, and then returning to Losev. As a result, here conclusions concerning general features of Ivanov’s and Losev’s novations have undergone some important changes.

Copyright of Foreign Language Teaching is the property of Az Buki National Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article is dedicated to the philosophical reaction by several Russian symbolists to the revolution of 1917. It demonstrates the 're-grouping' of Silver Age symbolism, which laid bare the underlying differences in its value foundations. The article considers this refracted unity in the ideational world of symbolism, in the journalistic writings of Vjacheslav Ivanov, Alexander Blok, Andrej Bely, and Maximilian Voloshin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]