|ĐÂÁ: Â˙÷. Čâŕíîâ. Áčáëčîăđŕôč˙.||Âĺđńč˙ 1.1 îň 10 ŕďđĺë˙ 2013 ă.|
1 BLOK, ALEKSANDR. O sovremennom sostoianii russkogo simvolizma [On the contemporary state of Russian symbolism]. Petersburg: Alkonost, 28 pp.
Reprint of 1910.5.
2 ERENBURG, IL’IA. “O nekotorykh priznakakh rastsveta russkoi poezii” [On various signs of a revival of Russian poetry]. Russkaia kniga (Berlin), no. 9 (September): 1—5.
In Russian. Argues that Russian poetry has recently achieved new heights of clarity and humaneness after an extended period of “mistiness” and decline under symbolism and its aftermath, and relates this change to the impact of historical events. Briusov, Bal’mont, and Voloshin have remained frozen, while Ivanov and Sologub have grasped the transitional nature of the epoch. “All contemporary poets from Viacheslav Ivanov to Maiakovskii have become clearer.” Ivanov provides the most striking example; he has “shed his magnificent robes in the name of clarity and simplicity.” Cites “Zimnie sonety” [Winter sonnets] and “Gimny Erosu” [Hymns to Eros] among the peak achievements of recent poetry, alongside works by Blok, Akhmatova, Mandel’ shtam, Maiakovskii, Esenin, Pasternak, Belyi, and Tsvetaeva.
3 KOGAN, P. S. Review of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners]. Pechat’ i revoliutsiia (Moscow), no. 3 (November — December): 223—25. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1970.
In Russian. Regards the work as highly characteristic of the mood of
part of the Russian intelligentsia. Although both writers adopt different positions, they share a common alienation from present-day problems, a tendency toward abstract fantasy, and a failure to meet the “duty of taking an active part in building a new life.” See also Meshcheriakov, 1921.4.
4 MESHCHERIAKOV, N. “O novykh nastroeniiakh russkoi intelligentsii” [On recent moods of the Russian intelligentsia]. Pechat’ i revoliutsiia (Moscow), no. 3 (November — December): 33—43. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1970.
In Russian. Concludes a survey of current attitudes to the revolution with a section on Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] (1921). Compares Gershenzon’s philosophy to that of the Eurasians (discussed earlier in the essay). Regrets that while Gershenzon rejects the old culture, he does not wish to take up the new culture introduced by the “liberating proletariat.” See also Kogan, 1921.3.
5 MIRSKI, D. S. “A Russian Letter: The Symbolists.” The London Mercury 3, no. 16: 427—29.
Includes a brief section on Ivanov. Comments on his “sacerdotal” attitude to poetry, but finds that his verse “has nothing really theurgical about it”: “the spirit of it is not Dionysian, as he would like it to be, but rather superiorly humanistic and scholarly.” Compares his style to Paul Claudel’s, notes the “Alexandrian” character of his poetry, a “source of constant delight” to those who can overcome its drawbacks. Reprinted: 1989.47.
6 PRIBYLOVSKII, A. Review of Prometei. Tragediia [Prometheus. A tragedy]. Russkaia kniga (Berlin), no. 6 (June): 13—14.
In Russian. A positive review of Ivanov’s tragedy, described as “astonishing in the depth of its worldview and in its artistic expressiveness.” Comments on the penetrating content of its preface and on the simplicity of its language and syntax. Finds that Ivanov has made a greater attempt in this tragedy than in previous works to bring the revelations of the classical world in harmony with Christian mysticism. See also Toporov, 1989.61 and Mureddu, 1993.40.
7 TYRKOVA, ARIADNA. “Pamiati Al. Bloka: Beglye vstrechi” [In memory of Al. Blok: Brief encounters]. Rul’, no. 256, 4—5.
In Russian. Describes meetings with Blok at Ivanov’s tower, providing vivid portraits of the hosts. Notes Ivanov’s dominant role as a teacher and his love of “power over poets” rather than of poetry itself. Contrasts Zinov’eva-Annibal’s artificial mannerisms with her inner nature. Finds that a true sense of religious awe before the divine was lacking at the tower.
© Ýëĺęňđîííŕ˙ ďóáëčęŕöč˙ ĐÂÁ, 2010.