The article examines the interpretations of I.A. Bunin’s literary works in Russian philosophy. The author discusses the contradictions between the interpretations of the philosophers I.A. Ilyin, F.A. Stepun, and V.N. Ilyin. Philosophical interpretations make possible the conceptual comprehension of I.A. Bunin’s works. Difference in opinions and assessments derives from the difference of their philosophical views because philosophers project their own philosophical ideas on I.A. Bunin’s works. In the book On Darkness and Enlightenment, I.A. Ilyin reduced Bunin’s narrative to the image of external and sensual experience. I.A. Ilyin demonstrated that Bunin ignored spiritual life. On the contrary, F.A. Stepun found spirituality and metaphysics in Bunin’s works (article “Ivan Bunin”). V.N. Ilyin did not propose any complete concept in relation to I.A. Bunin’s works. He drew attention to some religious-philosophical motives in I.A. Bunin’s works and their connection to world wisdom. On the example of the novel The Life of Arseniev the author of article shows that Bunin has “philosophy of creativity” and creative method, which can be defined as the “phenomenology of spiritual life.” Bunin most often does not describe separately the mental states of literary characters and the surrounding nature, but unites them into a single world in which one penetrates into the other. For Bunin’s description of life phenomena, it is characteristic to “bracket out” reflection, moral and religious assessments (what in philosophy is called “phenomenological reduction”). However, Bunin looked for the ideal of supreme wisdom behind the world of human feelings. He described this ideal in the work The Liberation of Tolstoy. The article proves that Bunin not only described external and sensual experience, but he looked for supreme spiritual unity and saw the way to spiritual liberation in the laws of beauty and harmony.

The article considers the philosophical language of I.A. Bunin in the context of the literary-centric paradigm of Russian philosophy. The main points of the article are as follows: (1) literature is a form of philosophical utterance, as full and legitimate as all others, including non-verbal forms; (2) the philosophy of a writer-thinker is not equal to the philosophical motive of his work. In this regard, the author argues that the philosophical language of I.A. Bunin (along with the philosophical language of A.P Platonov) is one of the two most striking philosophical manifestations of Russian literature of the 20^th century, with the help of which fundamental ethical and metaphysical problems of human existence are posed. To substantiate this thesis, on the one hand, the author removes the objections regarding the inconsistency of the identification of literature and philosophy, which were expressed by many philosophers, including A. Badiou. On the other hand, it is shown that philosophers, such as H.-G. Gadamer and R. Rorty, agree that Russian literature is significant for philosophy, and that its language is interconnected with the language of philosophy. Based on these ideas as well as on the thesis of V.V. Bibikhin that the language of philosophy is the philosophy per se directed to the most essential in man, the article reveals the philosophical substrate in the works of I.A. Bunin. These are the two elements of philosophy: amazement and horror; amazement in front of the being and the horror of the awareness of the disappearance of this being. These principles are discussed on the example of Bunin’s main work, The Life of Arseniev, as well as on the basis of the philosophical reception of the writer’s views by such researchers as G.V. Adamovich, V.V. Weidle, P.M. Bitsilli.

Ivan Bunin’s works have long been considered in the broad context of Russian and world literature. An original modern author, he inherited traditions and created new models in poetics. Among the writers whose heritage Bunin refers to, Fyodor Dostoevsky seems most alien and divergent to him as a result of the striking incompatibility of their literary languages. An outstanding master of style, Bunin contradicts Dostoevsky’s novels with their stream-of-consciousness, mental candor, searching for God and truth, and, let us be honest, with all their evident neglect of the aesthetic part of the text. Bunin also exposes a deep abyss in a human soul, but his fine style is a real proof for the recognition of new symbols and philosophy. Closer penetration into the texts of Bunin leads to almost unexpected discoveries. The Petersburg image of Dostoevsky inter alia affects the “Paris text” of Bunin. Already in his pre-revolutionary works the village as locus amoenus (in the broadest sense as nature or manor) opposes the locus horribilis of the metropolis in “Dostoyevsky style,” with all its civilizational gains and losses (Looped Ears). Bunin brings many strokes outlined by his predecessor to its logical conclusion, first of all Godlessness, a total abandonment of a human soul in a megalopolis. Being organically included in Bunin’s literary work, Dostoevsky is his direct predecessor in the verbalization of urban landscapes (Un petit accident). Bunin turns toward Dostoevsky and if not consciously then typologically relies on his traditions. The most elusive side of Bunin’s nature, the thinker, becomes evident due to a small comparative analysis of two strikingly dissimilar poetics.

The article presents a philosophical analysis of I.A. Bunin and V.I. Ivanov’s concepts and views on Russian history, culture, literature, and language. The research reveals common and different in the positions of Ivan Bunin and Vyacheslav Ivanov regarding the events of the Russian revolution. An attempt is made to show the special place occupied by I.A. Bunin and V.I. Ivanov in the literature of the Silver Age as well as their attitude toward each other. Special attention is paid to criticism of the writers by their contemporaries. The article discusses the specifics of V.I. Ivanov and I.A. Bunin’s attitude to the Russian revolution of 1917, based on their ideological, artistic, and socio-political views. The author examines their criteria for aesthetic and ethical assessments of some revolutionary events. Particular attention is paid to Ivanov’s interpretation of the root causes of the revolution: the crisis of individualism and the desire for a new organic era. The article also discusses the writers’ attitude to the reform of Russian orthography of 1918, the peculiarities of Ivanov and Bunin’s understanding of the language and its significance for the nation as well as the main findings reached by V.I. Ivanov and I.A. Bunin in their interpretations of the revolutionary changes in the country. The articles concludes that the image of Russia, its culture and revolution is manifested in their artistic worldview in different ways, due to the mismatch of their existential positions on religion, mysticism, social and political structure of the country as well as on the tasks and goals of art.

The article discusses the dominant topic of Russian emigrant historiosophy: discourse on the Russian revolution of 1917 and its interpretation by I.A. Bunin and G.P. Fedotov. The author looks for parallel assessments of the 1917 Revolution that arise from philosophical and journalistic works of Ivan Bunin and George Fedotov. The author reveals similarities in the views of the fiction writer and the religious thinker and ideas of key Russian authors of the Silver Age of Russian culture. The article analyzes the specifics of comprehension of historical events in philosophical and artistic circles of the Silver Age, as a part of historiosophical discourse about Russia. The materials involved show that the purpose and content of historiosophical thinking were not mere reconstruction or chronological statement of facts but were aimed at identifying spiritual causes of the troublesome period in Russia and the hidden cultural meaning of revolutionary events. The scope of this research involves philosophical and literary works of Bunin and Fedotov in which they comprehend the patterns of development of Russia and conceive the logic of collapse of its state, culture, and historical social order. The paper focuses on commonness of the philosophizing trajectory and the shared emigrant fate of these bright representatives of Russian emigration. A special attention is paid to the way of arranging of historiosophical narrative of Russian revolution in philosophical, literary, and journalistic texts of Russian émigrés. The unique value of both thinkers consists in the intense sublimation of their spiritual experience, their fusion with the fate of Russia; and political emigration only increased the productive power of these outstanding talents.

The article discusses the strategies of interpretation and reinterpretation of fiction on the case of the film adaptation of I. Bunin’s novel Dry Valley (Sukhodol) (1911) by the modern Russian director Alexandra Strelyanaya. In Bunin’s novel and the film of the same name (2011), the focus is on the character of the “Russian soul.” The authors demonstrate that there are two strategies of fiction adaptation - interpretation and reinterpretation. The experience of the director combines both strategies in such a way that, within the framework of the interpretation, which preserves the artisitic integrity of the literary source, a local reinterpretation takes place. If a global reinterpretation leads to a complete rethinking of the basic text, including its deformation, which initiates the formation of a new artistic integrity in which the source is recognized only partially, then a local reinterpretation affects exclusively individual elements of the literary basis. Such an experience opens up new horizons in the process of exploring the original source, setting a new different look at the classical model. After a comparative analysis of the text of the source and film text, the authors come to the conclusion that, unlike the novel’s character of Natalya, who has a “beautiful and miserable” soul, Natalya in the film appears in all the grandeur of her spirit. In this context, the once undivided love for the young gentleman, which arose in the soul of the main character, eventually becomes for her the source of divine Love, which Natalia keeps up to the end of her days and which permeates her whole being. Therefore, nothing else than Love acts as a criterion for the authenticity of the Russian soul of the central character of Bunin’s novel, and such love is the unshakable foundation of the individual’s spiritual independence.

The article (written in the genre of “intellectual area studies”) discusses the circumstances of the stay of the Nobel laureate in literature Ivan Alekseevich Bunin (1870-1953) on the island of Capri, near Naples. It is noted that I.A. Bunin is one of the main “travelers” in Russian literature: in addition to Europe, he traveled to North Africa, Asia Minor and the Middle East, even reaching Ceylon. During these frequent months-long “voyages,” Bunin during his lifetime repeatedly received reproaches from his contemporaries for “being alienated from Russia.” The author of the article, on the contrary, believes that for Bunin (who considered himself the literary successor of N.V. Gogol) there were the concepts of the road and journey that were the most natural and organic context for thinking about Russia and the peculiarities of its historical fate. The article shows that the island of Capri has become a special place in the intellectual biography of Bunin: there he and his wife V.N. Muromtsev-Bunin spent three creatively fruitful winters of 1911/1912, 1912/1913 and 1913/1914. The center of Bunin’s Capri is the Grand Hotel Quisisana (which still exists today), which became the scene of one of Bunin’s most famous stories “The Gentleman from San Francisco.” The author of the article shows that it was on the island of Capri that I.A. Bunin not only wrote dozens of his best works about Russian life, but also developed the principles of his own “philosophy of creativity.” The article analyzes the evolution of relations between I.A. Bunin with the Russian “residents” of Capri: the “proletarian writer” M. Gorky (A.M. Pesh-kov), the writer L.N. Andreev and the outstanding Russian opera singer F.I. Chaliapin.

The article, addressing the prose of Ivan Bunin, examines the phenomenon of place - a point of geographical space - as a source of memory. It has been suggested that Bunin’s works written in exile can be analyzed, on the one hand, from the perspective of memory studies and, on the other hand, from the perspective of philosophical area studies. A special object of study is the “double chronotope” - the result of spontaneous work of a specific kind of memory - memory-imagination, or memogination. In particular, with this approach, the image of Paris of the 19^th century is considered. Thus, Paris is the city that inherited a number of features of “Paris, the capital of the nineteenth century” (W. Benjamin), but is already encompassed by the spirit of Modernity and seen through the eyes of an émigré, the Russian European. Bunin’s method for dealing with memory is considered in the framework of Paul Ricraur’s theory and is described by the term évocation, proposed by the philosopher. The article also presents an analysis of the space in Bunin’s prose using the concept of “places of memory” (lieux de mémoire) developed by the modern French historian Pierre Nora. In parallel with the question of the specificity of space in Bunin’s interpretation, a related theme of time in his prose of the period of emigration is touched upon. It is assumed that the images of Russia, addressed by the writer, are timeless in nature, as their history is interrupted by the change of eras due to the Russian revolution and thus rendered beyond the limits of the real history. The emphasis is on the phenomenon of “rediscovery” of the past, which in Bunin’s works is accomplished by mapping in detail a place against the background of a massive historical rupture. In this regard, the experience of individual memory-imagination is analyzed as an example of historical memory, which has a universalizing character.

This summary discusses the main issues of the proceedings of the V International Scientific Conference “Creativity as the National Element: The General and the Special in the Modern Socio-Cultural Space,” which was held from July 1 to July 3, 2019 in Saint Petersburg. The conference was organized by the Department of Philosophy of the Humanities Faculty of the Saint Petersburg State Economic University, the Russian Philosophical Society, the Society of Russian Philosophy at the Ukrainian Philosophical Foundation and the Department of Philosophy of Moscow State Institute of International Relation (MGIMO). Being united by interest in the research on general and special aspects of creativity as the national environment, 69 scholars from Russia, Ukraine, Slovakia, and Spain took part in the conference. The summary considers the ideas discussed at two plenary sessions and at the following sections of the conference: “Metaphysical foundations of the creative process,” “Semantic element of artistic and aesthetic creativity,” “Entrepreneurial creativity as the basis of economic development: common and special in the economic strategy of different countries.” The proceedings of the conference contain the results of research carried out in the field of the philosophy of creativity and related research areas, including social philosophy, sociology, cultural studies, political science, the philosophy of management, economic theory, cognitive science and other scientific fields.