ĐÂÁ: Â˙÷. Čâŕíîâ. Áčáëčîăđŕôč˙. Âĺđńč˙ 1.1 îň 10 ŕďđĺë˙ 2013 ă.

1906

1 BELYI, ANDREI. Review of Georgii Chulkov, O misticheskom anarkhizme [On mystical anarchism]. With an introductory essay by Viachcslav Ivanov. St. Petersburg: Fakely, 1906. Zolotoe runo (Moscow), no. 7—9: 174—75.

In Russian. Criticizes Chulkov’s detinition of mystical anarchism for its lack of clarity, confusion of religion and mysticism, and failure to take into account its relation to the ideas of the social democrats. Refers briefly to Ivanov’s introductory essay, “Ideia nepriiatiia mira i misticheskii anarkhizm” [The idea of the rejection of the world and mystical anarchism] (1906), regarded as well below the usual standard of this remarkable writer.

2 BRIUSOV, VALERII [Avrelii]. Review of Sbornik: Severnaia rech’ [Anthology: Northern speech]. Vesy (Moscow), no. 6 (June): 64. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.

In Russian. Comments on Annenskii’s tragedy, “Laodamiia” [Laodamia], comparing it to Ivanov’s “Tantal” [Tantalus], regarded as superior in terms of the metrical and lexical devices it uses to resurrect the essence of classical tragedy. Reprinted: 1990.10. See also Briusov, 1960.3.

3 BRIUSOV, VALERII [Avrelii], “Vekhi: IV. Fakely” [Landmarks: IV. Torches]. Vesy (Moscow), no. 5 (May): 54—58. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.

In Russian. Review of Fakely: Kniga pervaia [Torches: Book one] (St. Petersburg, 1906), Chulkov’s first anthology, containing several poems by Ivanov. Criticizes the anthology for its lack of unity and singles out three writers for consideration, Andreev, Ivanov, and Blok. Quotes from Ivanov’s sonnet “Nepriiatie mira” [The rejection of the world], regarded as a clearer formulation of the program of the anthology than the declaration cited from the preface. Considers Ivanov to be more deeply touched than the other contributors

8

by the idea of the “rejection of the world,” although the spirit of his verse tends more to the affirmation of beauty than toward disharmony. Ivanov replied to this review with his article “O ‘Fakel’shchikakh’ i drugikh imenakh sobiratel’nykh: Po povodu stat’i Avreliia (“Vesy”, mai 1906)” [On the “torch-bearers” and other collective names: Concerning Avrelii’s essay (“Vesy,” May 1906)] in the next issue of Vesy; this article in turn elicited a further reply from Briusov (1906.4). Reprinted: 1990.10.

4 BRIUSOV, VALERII [Avrelii]. “Vekhi: V. Misticheskie anarkhisty” [Landmarks: V. Mystical anarchists]. Vesy (Moscow), no. 8 (August): 43—47. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.

In Russian. Review of Georgii Chulkov, O misticheskom anarkhizme [On mystical anarchism] (St. Petersburg, 1906). Discusses Ivanov’s introductory essay, “Ideia nepriiatiia mira i misticheskii anarkhizm” [The idea of the rejection of the world and mystical anarchism], and finds it unsatisfactory, obscure in its language, and full of abstractions only comprehensible to regular readers of Ivanov. Ivanov’s ideas, sometimes of interest, are reduced by Chulkov to the level of newspaper journalism, totally lacking in originality. Debates some of the points made by Ivanov in response to Briusov’s earlier article (1906.3). Reprinted: 1990.10.

5 FILOSOFOV, D. V. “Misticheskii anarkhizm: Dekadentstvo, obshchestvennost’ i misticheskii anarkhizm” [Mystical anarchism: Decadence, social opinion and mystical anarchism]. Zolotoe runo (Moscow), no. 10 (October): 58—65.

In Russian. Deals with various different tendencies represented in current decadent literature (F. Sologub, A. Benois), including a substantial section on Chulkov’s book O misticheskom anarkhizme [On mystical anarchism] (St. Petersburg, 1906) and the introductory essay by Ivanov, “Ideia nepriiatiia mira i misticheskii anarkhizm” [The idea of the rejection of the world and mystical anarchism]. Sees the work as a “psychological document of deep significance,” revealing ideas currently in the air. Finds Ivanov’s essay erudite and brilliant in its form of expression. Quotes some of his definitions relating mystical anarchism to the overcoming of individualism and attainment of “sobornost’” [communality]; however, their chief defect is that they posit an ideal without showing a method for attaining it. The inability of the mystical anarchists to overcome their individualism only serves to underline the need for a religious rather than mystical solution to the problem. Reprinted: 1909.8.

6 GABRILOVICH, LEONID [Leonid Galich]. “Dionisovo sobornoe deistvo i misticheskii teatr ‘Fakely’” [The Dionysian communal act and the mystic theatre “Torches”] . Teatr i iskusstvo (St. Petersburg), no. 8 (19 February): 126—28; no. 9 (26 February): 137—40.

In Russian. The first part discusses Ivanov’s development as a poet in

9

his first two collections and his pioneering role as a theoretician of art. Finds Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] inspiring but obscure, and was originally impatient with Ivanov’s justification in his articles of difficulty as a method of mystic initiation. Welcomed the move from music to dream, from obscurity toward transparency in Prozrachnost’ [Transparency]. The second part considers Ivanov’s mystic, illusionist view of the world as a mask; his ideas reflect ideal aspirations, not facts. Considers his wish to return theatre to its original sources in ancient mystery and chorus, and the influential role of his ideas, leading to the creation of the “Fakely” circle.

7 GOL’sHTEIN, ALEKSANDRA [Alexandra Holstein]. “Tantale: Tragédie de Venceslas Ivanoff.” Ecrits pour l’art, n.s. (March 1905 — February 1906): 449—80. Reprint. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1971.

In French. Draws a parallel between Ivanov’s ideas on art and the theatre and those of Mallarmé. Relates the tragedy to Ivanov’s own view of drama as the art of the people, creating myth, and to Chulkov’s confirmation of these views, but finds that these aspirations have not been realized. “Tantalus” is praised for its powerful language and themes, but can appeal only to a small minority; it is Russian only in its language. The action is paraphrased, and several extracts are quoted in Gol’shtein’s French translation. For details of Ivanov’s early correspondence with Gol’shtein, see Kotrelev, 1985.8.

8 SIUNNERBERG, KONST. “Khudozhestvennaia zhizn’ Peterburga” [The artistic life of Petersburg]. Zolotoe runo (Moscow), no. 4: 80—83.

In Russian. The first section of this brief survey, dated 10 April 1906, describes the Wednesday gatherings at the tower hosted by Ivanov and Zinov’eva-Annibal. Attributes the success of these gatherings to the growing need for an exchange of opinions at a time of transition in art. Includes a list of subjects discussed at recent meetings. For an account of Siunnerberg’s relations with Ivanov, see Grechishkin and Lavrov, 1979.7.

9 SOLOGUB, FEDOR. “0 nedopisannoi knige” [On an unfinished book]. Pereval (Moscow), no. 1: 40—42.

In Russian. Review of Georgii Chulkov, O misticheskom anarkhizme (St. Petersburg, 1906). Criticizes the book for its lack of clarity, and disagrees with some of the claims made by Ivanov in his “excellently written” introductory essay, “Ideia nepriiatiia mira i misticheskii anarkhizm” [The idea of the rejection of the world and mystical anarchism]. Prefers to differentiate between mystical and political forms of freedom, rather than to merge them into a single ideal of mystical anarchism. See Chulkov, 1930.1 and Lavrov, 1976.9 for further details.

10 “Vesti otovsiudu” [News from all quarters]. Zolotoe runo, (Moscow) no. 1: 133.

In Russian. A brief note reports the police search at Ivanov’s flat during

10

the night of 28—29 December 1905, resulting in the loss of Merezhkovskii’s hat. For later accounts of this episode see Piast, 1929.3 and Grechishkin, 1979.7.

11 VOLOSHIN, MAKSIMILIAN. “Liki tvorchestva: III. Eros Viacheslava Ivanova [Faces of creation: III. Eros by Viacheslav Ivanov]. Rus’, no. 88, 28 December, 3.

In Russian. Substantial review of Ivanov’s third collection. Relates its poems to the Platonic ideal of Eros and to various stages of the poet’s mystical initiation, culminating in the knowledge of Eternal Beauty through sin. Finds that Ivanov’s face is absent from this collection (unlike previous ones), only a voice is heard, combining notes of tragedy with resignation. Quotes from several poems, including “Sad roz” [The rose garden], “Kitovras” [The centaur], “Zaklinanie” [Incantation], “Vyzyvanie Vakkha” [Invocation of Bacchus], “Ropot” [Murmur], “Krater” [The crater], and “Nishch i svetel” [Poor and radiant]. Reprinted: 1988.66. See also Briusov, 1907.6; Gertsyk, 1907.12.

© Ýëĺęňđîííŕ˙ ďóáëčęŕöč˙ — ĐÂÁ, 2010.
ĐÂÁ