|ĐÂÁ: Â˙÷. Čâŕíîâ. Áčáëčîăđŕôč˙.||Âĺđńč˙ 1.1 îň 10 ŕďđĺë˙ 2013 ă.|
1 ABRAMOVICH, N. Ia. ‘"Stikhiinost” v molodoi poezii” [The “elemental” in young poetry]. Obrazovanie (St. Petersburg), no. 11: 1—29 (second pagination).
In Russian. Criticizes Ivanov’s theoretical essays and poetry for their confusing difficulty and lack of talent. Cites the poem “Driady” [Dryades] from Prozrachnost’ [Transparency] as an unusual example of a poem of mood or feeling. Compares Ivanov’s intoxication, filtered through transparency, to that of Saint Francis of Assisi. Finds that a surfeit of bookish, classical, and mythological allusions imbues a heavy rigidity to his poetry. Ivanov is more an archaeologist than a poet; the living flow of poetry is killed by the dust of centuries. Contrasts Nietzsche’s view of Dionysiac renewal with Ivanov’s dead, uninspired, effortful poetry. Comments on his use of stylization, compared to Blok’s. Reprinted: 1909.1.
2 AUSLENDER, SERGEI. “Iz Peterburga” [From Petersburg]. Zolotoe runo (Moscow), no. 10:77.
In Russian. Brief obituary of Ivanov’s second wife, Zinov’eva-Annibal (died 17 October 1907). Quotes Ivanov’s poem to her, “Ty — more” [You are the sea], from Prozrachnost’ [Transparency]. Describes her role as hostess at the Wednesday gatherings, referring to her “wise understanding” and combination of stormy passion and gentle nobility.
3 BELYI, ANDREI. Review of Tsvetnik Or: Koshnitsa pervaia [The flower-bed of the Horae: A first basket]. Vesy (Moscow), no. 6: 66—69. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.
In Russian. Reviews various contributions to this anthology, singling
out those of Briusov, Kuzmin, and Gorodetskii for praise, and criticizing others, including Ivanov’s. Faults the work of Petersburg writers for their underlying assumption that an indiscriminate mixture of forms and images will produce depth. Their style is reminiscent of an amalgam of Mallarmé and Trediakovskii. Condemns Ivanov’s contribution, the cycle of sonnets “Zolotye zavesy” [Golden veils], for its syncretic imagery combining Greek, Indian, Dantesque, and Slavonic allusions, and for the arbitrary relationship between word and image. See Maksimov, 1975.8.
4 B[EL]YI, A. “Zinov’eva-Annibal.” Pravda zhivaia (Moscow), no. 1, 26 October, 2.
In Russian. An obituary of Zinov’eva-Annibal (died 17 October 1907). Stresses her warmth and “charming tenderness,” and her combination of serious and childlike qualities, quite different from the popular image of her as an exotic mythical figure created by passing visitors to the tower. Sees her role in Ivanov’s literary circle as an inspirer, rather than a theoretician or writer. Finds that her limited literary talent was diverted by her environment from its natural bent toward simplicity and applied to “complex psychological problems” beyond its grasp.
5 BLOK, ALEKSANDR. “Pis’mo v redaktsiiu” [Letter to the editor]. Vesy (Moscow), no. 8 (August): 81. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.
In Russian. Short letter of 26 August 1907, in which Blok publicizes his disagreement with Semenov’s article (Kogan, 1907.17) and proclaims his dissociation from the mystical anarchists, despite his high regard for the art of Ivanov and Gorodetskii.
6 BRIUSOV, VALERII. “Novye sborniki stikhov” [New collections of verse]. Vesy (Moscow), no. 2 (February): 83—86. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.
In Russian. Reviews Ivanov’s third book of verse. Eros, alongside collections by Gorodetskii, Blok, and others. Regards Eros as a long poem [“poema”] on the revelation or apparition of the god Dionysus to his worshiper through the medium of a particular person [“lichina”] . Welcomes the book for its passionate character [“strastnost’”], lacking in Ivanov’s earlier collections. Praises his mastery of verse and language, and considers him to be at the summit of his powers. Revised version: 1912.3, 1975.4. Reprinted: 1990.10. See also Voloshin, 1906.11; Gertsyk, 1907.12.
7 CHULKOV, GEORGII. “Pamiati L. D. Zinov’evoi-Annibal” [In memory of L. D. Zinov’eva-Annibal]. Tovarishch (St. Petersburg), no. 403, 21 October, 3.
In Russian. Obituary of Zinov’eva-Annibal. Gives a positive appraisal of her life and work, comments on her three best-known works, the drama Kol’tsa
[Rings], the story Tridtsat’ tri uroda [Thirty-three abominations], which provoked much criticism, and the collection of stories Tragicheskii zverinets [The tragic menagerie], described as a work of talent and “wise realism.” Refers to her restless spirit and her switch from socialist views to literary pursuits.
8 CHULKOV, G. “Molodaia poeziia” [Young poetry]. Tovarishch (St. Petersburg), no. 337, 5 August, 3—4.
In Russian. Identifies the problem analyzed in Ivanov’s essay “Krizis individualizma” [The crisis of individualism] (1905) as the root of new literary trends and links it with Berdiaev’s concept of “mystical realism.” Comments on Ivanov’s resulting theory of poetry and “principle of myth-creation.” Quotes from “Zolotye zavesy” [Golden veils] to illustrate the link between suffering love (Eros) and poetry.
9 ELLIS. “Panteon poshlosti” [A pantheon of vulgarity]. Vesy (Moscow), no. 6 (June): 55—62. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.
In Russian. Reviews the contributions to Fakely: Kniga vtoraia [Torches: Book two]. Criticizes the “temple” of the mystical anarchists, and finds the essays by Ivanov and Chulkov particularly bad. Ivanov’s essay “O liubvi derzaiushchei” [On daring love] (1907) is written in a confused and incomprehensible manner, “makes an elephant out of an ant,” and advances arbitrary ideas such as “Eros-Logos.”
10 FILOSOFOV, D. “Dela domashnie” [Domestic matters]. Tovarishch (St. Petersburg), no. 379, 23 September, 3.
In Russian. The central part of this article deals with Semenov’s essay on mystical anarchism (Kogan, 1907.17), and argues against the attempts of Blok (1907.5) and Ivanov (who published a letter in the same issue of Tovarishch as Filosofov’s article) to repudiate Semenov’s association of their names with Chulkov’s movement. See also Rosenthal, 1977.8; Obatnin, 1993.41.
11 GABRILOVICH, L. E. [Leonid Galich]. “O dekadentstve starom i novom” [On decadence old and new]. Stolichnaia molva (St. Petersburg), no. 1, 12 March, 2.
In Russian. Criticizes decadent poets for their rhetorical style. As examples, quotes and ridicules two poems from Ivanov’s cycle “Carmen saeculare” (“Vitiato melle cicuta” and “Adamantina proles”); these are representative of the “fear of life” and “tendency towards asceticism” characteristic of modern decadence. Offers two parodies of Ivanov’s poetry, including “Polyn’” [Wormwood], to expose features of his mannered style. The parodies are reprinted in Morozov, 1960.6 together with parodies by other authors. See also Tiapkov, 1980.16.
12 GERTSYK, E. Review of Eros. Zolotoe runo (Moscow), no. 1: 90—91.
In Russian. Finds the collection prophetic, anticipating new trends fated to come into being in life and in poetry. Distinguishes three voices in the collection and notes the new “chelovechnost’” [humanity] of Ivanov’s muse. Stresses the poet’s religious cult of Eros as a life-transforming force. Characterizes Eros as a “religious book,” telling of the “new and eternal mystery of love and of the sacrifice of a ‘total consummation by fire.’” See also Briusov, 1907.6; Voloshin, 1906.11.
13 GOFMAN, MODEST. Sobornyi individualism [Collective individualism]. St. Petersburg: Izdanie “Kruzhka molodykh,” 46—48, 75—81, 101—03.
In Russian. Several sections of this booklet are based on conversations with Ivanov and reflect his ideas such as the parallel between Dionysus and Christ and the striving toward collective individualism. In relation to these ideas, quotes and discusses poems from Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars], Prozrachnost’ [Transparency], and Eros, alongside verses from Gorodetskii, Gippius, Merezhkovskii, Piast, and Sologub. See also Gofman, 1909.10, 1909.11, 1934.2, 1955.2.
14 GORNFEL’D, A. “Literaturnye besedy. XXX: Torzhestvo pobeditelei” [Literary matters. XXX: The triumph of the victors]. Tovarishch (St. Petersburg), no. 352, 23 August, 3.
In Russian. Disputes Poiarkov’s view of the “triumph of decadence” and of Ivanov’s use of language. Comments on the role of Ivanov and the “Ory” publishing house in current literary polemics. Praises Ivanov’s sonnet “Makrokozm” [Macrocosm], but places it in the tradition of Tiutchev rather than of the new school of decadent poets. Reprinted: 1908.4. See Poiarkov, 1907.18.
15 GORODETSKII, SERGEI. “Tri poeta” [Three poets]. Pereval (Moscow), no. 8—9 (June — July): 86—89.
In Russian. Singles out three poets of particular significance for the poetry of yesterday: Briusov, Ivanov, and Bal’mont. All three are linked by a common crisis, the attempt to overcome individual isolation and to merge with the people and communal life. Describes Ivanov as a “poet of barbarian Russia” who has “given Russian literature work for several decades.” Quotes “Ropot” [Murmur] and other poems from Eros as indicative of Ivanov’s attempts to overcome the “poison of isolation,” leave the tower, and give himself to the people. Reprinted: 1984.12.
16 IZMAILOV, A. “Literaturnye zametki” [Literary notes]. Birzhevye vedomosti (St. Petersburg), no. 9937, 9 June, utrennii vypusk, 2.
In Russian. Reviews Ivanov’s third collection of verse, Eros. Criticizes
him for combining the lexicon of the eighteenth century with modernism. His imitation of Derzhavin is unjustified. Finds a disparity between “the charming beauty of sound” in his verse and its underlying lack of clarity. See also Izmailov, 1908.7.
17 KOGAN, S. M. [E. Séménoff]. “Le Mysticisme Anarchique.” Mercure de France (Paris) 68 (July — August): 361—64. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1976.
In French. Reports on mystical anarchism as a tendency in recent Russian poetry. Divides the symbolists into three branches, the decadents, neochristian romantics, and mystical anarchists, assigning Ivanov, Blok, Gorodetskii, and Chulkov to the last category. Quotes a long explanation of mystical anarchism in French, written by Chulkov for the readers of the journal and referring to the different, socially more passive concept of mystical anarchism held by “mon ami e maître Viatcheslav Ivanov.” Kogan’s piece sparked off the responses of Blok (1907.5), Ivanov, and Filosofov (1907.10). See also Rosenthal, 1977.8; Obatnin, 1993.41.
18 POIARKOV, NIK. “Viacheslav Ivanov.” In Poety nashikh dnei: Kriticheskie etiudy [Poets of our time: Critical studies]. Moscow: n.p., Tipografiia I. N. Kholchev: 108—16.
In Russian. Describes Ivanov as an “excellent philologist, profound connoisseur of classical culture and true poet.” Defends him against the common criticisms of unusual use of language and difficulty. Notes his mastery of meter and characterizes his verse as “profoundly optimistic.” Quotes from Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] and Prozrachnost’ [Transparency]. The preference for “deep and fresh thoughts” and for a “true religious cult of Beauty” rather than “hysterical shrieks” accounts for the great appeal of Ivanov’s verse. Awaits the publication of Cor Ardens with impatience. See Gornfel’d, 1907.14.
19 TYRKOVA-VIL’IAMS, A. [A. Vergezhskii]. “L. D. Zinov’eva-Annibal.” Russkoe slovo (Moscow), no. 247, 27 October, 3.
In Russian. Obituary of Zinov’eva-Annibal, describing her influential role at the tower together with Ivanov.
20 VOLOSHIN, MAKSIMILIAN. “Liki tvorchestva: Aleksandr Blok. Nechaiannaia Radost’. Vtoroi sbornik stikhov” [Faces of creation: Aleksandr Blok. Joy unhoped-for. A second book of verse]. Rus’, no. 101, 11 April, 3.
In Russian. Review of Blok’s second book of verse (Moscow, 1907). Opens with a brief but vivid portrait of Ivanov, comparing him to Bal’mont, followed by portraits of Briusov, Belyi, and Blok. Reprinted: 1988.66, 1990.59.
© Ýëĺęňđîííŕ˙ ďóáëčęŕöč˙ ĐÂÁ, 2010.