{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.050359712230215826, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002398081534772182, 'mean_word_length': 6.016806722689076, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Yuly Aykhenvald’s “Natural Symbolism” (on the Question of the Aesthetic Method)

The paper considers the methodological principles of Yu.I. Aykhenvald’s literary criticism. Attention is drawn to the relationship between Aykhenvald’s declared “immanent method” and “principled impressionism” and his own “philosophy of life”. It is proved that Aykhenvald’s version of “impressionism” is much closer to the theory of symbolism than it seemed to contemporaries and researchers. The analysis takes into account both the aesthetic “sympathies” (Apollon Grigoryev, Vladimir Solovyov, Oscar Wilde, Remy de Gourmont, Émile Faguet) and “antipathies” (Vissarion Belinsky, Vasily Rozanov), that influenced Aykhenvald’s interpretation of the heritage of literary critics, philosophers, and writers of the 19th century — Pushkin, Tolstoy, Chekhov.