|ĐÂÁ: Â˙÷. Čâŕíîâ. Áčáëčîăđŕôč˙.||Âĺđńč˙ 1.1 îň 10 ŕďđĺë˙ 2013 ă.|
1 ANICHKOV, E. Novaia russkaia poeziia [Modern Russian poetry]. Biblioteka sovremennogo znaniia, no. 21. Berlin: Izdatel’stvo I. P. Ladyzhnikova, 42—59, 65—67, 135-40.
In Russian. The book devotes an entire chapter to Ivanov, “Na vysiakh: Viacheslav Ivanov i vsia pleiada” [Up in the heights: Viacheslav Ivanov and the entire Pleiad] (pp. 42—59). The Wednesday gatherings and regular visitors to the tower are described. Ivanov is characterized as an “inner poet,” and his worldview is considered in terms of its relation to classical antiquity (Dionysus), the European tradition (Dante, Petrarch, Novalis, French symbolism), and the Russian tradition (Tolstoi, Dostoevskii, V. Solov’ev). The transformation of Ivanov’s classical ideal of Eros into Dante’s Christian Amor is traced, and several quotations from Ivanov’s verse illustrate the argument. A later chapter includes a section on Kuzmin’s ideal of “beautiful clarity,” related to Ivanov’s view of symbolism, derived from sources in the Bible and in Dante (pp. 65—67). The book concludes with a discussion of Belyi’s and Ivanov’s differing views of the war and revolution based on Belyi’s pamphlet (1922.1). In addition, there are several shorter references throughout the book.
2 BELYI, ANDREI. “Vospominaniia o A. A. Bloke” [Reminiscences of A. A. Blok]. Epopeia (Moscow and Berlin), no. 4: 61—305. Reprint. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Slavische Propyläen, 47, 1969.
In Russian. Chapters 8 and 9 include three substantial sections on Ivanov (pp. 142—15; pp. 154—70, “Bashnia” [The tower], pp. 217—22). These cover Belyi’s meetings with Ivanov and A. R. Mintslova during his visit to St. Petersburg in 1909; his stay at the tower in early 1910 with a description of other residents and visitors; his later stay at the tower in 1912 with his wife, Asia Turgeneva, including reference to readings of his novel Peterburg [Petersburg]. For the first seven chapters of the memoirs, see 1922.3. See also Belyi, 1933.1.
3 EIKHENBAUM, B. Anna Akhmatova: Opyt analiza [Anna Akhmatova: An essay in analysis]. Petrograd: Petropechat’, 9—21, 30—31. Reprint. Paris: Lev, 1980.
In Russian. Relations between the Acmeists and the symbolists are clarified in the introductory section, which includes an account of the period immediately preceding the appearance of Akhmatova’s first book in 1912. The 1910 crisis in symbolism resulted in the split between Ivanov, Blok, and Briusov, and was further intensified in 1912. Kuzmin’s theory of “beautiful clarity” and his review of Cor Ardens (1912.9) were influential in paving the way for the Acmeists, who regarded themselves as the natural heirs of symbolism. Considers Akhmatova’s condensed language an expression of her rejection of Ivanov’s “extensive” or associative view of language. Reprinted: 1969.4.
4 ERENBURG, IL’IA. “V. I. Ivanov.” In Portrety sovremennykh poetov [Portraits of contemporary poets]. Moscow: Pervina, 43—47.
Reprint of 1922.6.
5 GUMILEV, N. S. Pis’ma o russkoi poezii [Letters on Russian poetry]. Petrograd: Tsentral’noe kooperativnoe izdatel’stvo “Mysl’,” 26—27, 117—20, 147—49, 165—66. Reprint. Letchworth, Herts.: Prideaux, 1979.
Reprint of 1910.11, 1911.8,1912.7, and 1913.5 (the last three items correspond to Letters XII, XVII and XXI respectively). Several other passing references to Ivanov in further essays can be traced through the index. For an English translation see Lapeza, 1977.2.
6 IVANOV-RAZUMNIK. Russkaia literatura ot semidesiatykh godov do nashikh dnei [Russian literature from the 1870s to the present]. Sixth edition, revised. Berlin: Skify, 371—77, 423—24.
In Russian. Two sections in chapter 11, “Ot ‘dekadentstva’ k ‘simvolizmu’: 1890—1915 g.” [From “decadence” to “symbolism”: 1890—1915] deal with Ivanov, comparing him to Blok and Belyi. Ivanov was a poet who wanted to be but could not be a prophet, an Apollonian who wore the mask of Dionysus; by contrast, Blok was a prophet but preferred to be a lyric poet. Sees Ivanov as a rationalist who tried to be an esoteric mystic, as a literary maître who aspired to be a spiritual teacher. Traces his roots back to Derzhavin, Baratynskii, and Tiutchev. A short bibliography at the end of the book lists Ivanov’s books and a few essays about him.
7 KUZMIN , M. “Mechtateli” [Dreamers]; “Pis’mo v Pekin” [Letter to Peking]. In Uslovnosti: Stat’i ob iskusstve [Conventions: Essays on art]. Petrograd: Poliarnaia zvezda, 154—57, 162—68.
In Russian. “Meditateli” [Dreamers] considers various publications of the Alkonost publishing house. Praises Ivanov’s poetic contribution,
“‘Derev’ia’: Vstuplenie k poeme” [“Trees”: Prologue to a poem], to Zapiski mechtatelei, 1921, no. 2—3. Admires Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners], a “tournament of two most refined minds,” deeply relevant to the age despite its apparent lack of direct reference to current events. “Pis’mo v Pekin” [Letter to Peking] (1922) includes brief positive references to Ivanov’s Mladenchestvo [Infancy] (1918) and to his translation of Hoffman’s Dvoiniki [Doubles] (1922). Reprinted: 1989.38.
8 LANDAU, GRIGORII. “Vizantiets i iudei” [A Byzantine and a Hebrew]. Russkaia mysl’ (Prague and Berlin), no. 1—2: 182—219.
In Russian. Comments on the form of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] and discusses the issues involved. Emphasizes some of the contradictions inherent in Gershenzon’s position. Defines the essence of the disagreement as the issue of whether it is possible to escape from culture. Develops this theme into a more general discussion of the link drawn by Ivanov between the types of the “kochevnik” [wanderer] of Jewish nihilism and the “begun” [fugitive] of the Russian intelligentsia. Concludes that whereas Gershenzon advocates nihilism and destruction, Ivanov is an all-synthesizing, museum collector of values, who, like an Egpytian mummy, fails to create new life. Although Ivanov wins over Gershenzon, neither set of views is ultimately creative or life-giving.
9 MANDEL’sHTAM, O. “Buria i natisk” [Storm and stress]. Russkoe iskusstvo (Moscow and Petersburg), no. 1: 75—82 .
In Russian. In a review of modern Russian poetry, assesses the heritage of symbolism. Ivanov had a true regard for Greece and Byzantium as the cultural sources of Russian poetry, but lacked a sense of balance and overloaded his poetry with images and myths from these traditions. The younger symbolists and Acmeists did not repeat these mistakes. Praises Ivanov’s unparalleled use of language; he is the most “narodnyi” [national] and in the future most accessible of poets, “the sense of the past as the future links him with Khlebnikov.” Reprinted: 1966.8; 1971.7; 1987.17. For an English translation see Mandelstam, 1979.10.
10 MANDEL’sHTAM, R. S., compiler, and PIKSANOV, N. K., ed. Khudozhestvennaia literatura v otsenke russkoi marksistskoi kritiki [Literature in the appraisal of Russian Marxist criticism]. Rossiiskaia akademiia khudozhestvennykh nauk, Bibliograficheskii kabinet. Seriia literaturnykh ukazatelei pod obshchei redaktsiiei N. K. Piksanova. Second expanded edition. Moscow and Petrograd: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo, 19, 20, 25, 29, 30, 38, 43, 44.
In Russian. Lists various bibliographical references to Ivanov in the works of Marxist critics such as Voitolovskii (1908.12), Kogan (1911.11),
Kranikhfel’d (1909.15—16), L’vov-Rogachevskii (1910.14), Morozov (1908.11), and Miklashevskii (Nevedomskii, 1908.10). For a revised version see Mandel’shtam, 1925.6.
11 PRAXMARER, KONRAD. “Wjatscheslaw Iwanow: Die ‘Wintersonette’: Zur Einführung.” Translated by Konrad Praxmarer. Vivos voco (Leipzig) 3, no. 9—10: 320—24.
In German. An introduction to Praxmarer’s translation of Ivanov’s twelve “Zimnie sonety” [Winter sonnets] (pp. 324—28). Develops a comparison between Ivanov’s cycle and Blok’s “Dvenadtsat’” [The twelve], contrasting Ivanov’s strict form with Blok’s poem, and his “mystical nature,” subject to a greater “struggle with the world” with Blok’s “sensitive nature,” more prone to change and adaptation. See also Davidson, 1993.13.
12 SHESTOV, LEV. “Viacheslav Velikolepnyi: K kharakteristike russkogo upadochnichestva” [Viacheslav the Magnificent: Towards a characterization of Russian decadence]. In Vlast’ kliuchei [The power of keys]. Berlin: Skify, 216—47.
Reprint of 1916.16. The cover and left-hand title page of the book print the title in Latin, Potestas Clavium.
13 VORONSKII, A. “Po povodu odnogo spora” [Concerning one debate]. In Na styke: Sbornik statei [At the junction: An anthology of essays]. Moscow and Petrograd: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo, 175—95.
In Russian. The essay, dated August 1921, examines Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] from the point of view of Marxist ideology. Describes the subject of the value of culture as one of the most burning and important of contemporary issues, and characterizes the letters as “brilliant and original in form and deeply instructive in their content.” Attacks the arguments of both correspondents, finding common ground between Gershenzon’s reliance on irrational instinct and Ivanov’s mysticism. Both approaches fail to address the needs of the newly emerging proletariat: “Like a careful housewife, the Future will sift the entire content of contemporary cultural life through the sieve of history, separating the good from the bad.”
14 Z[EN’KOVSKII], V.[V.]. Review of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners]. In Pravoslavie i kul’tura: Sbornik religiozno-filosofskikh statei [Russian orthodoxy and culture: A collection of essays on religion and philosophy]. Edited by V. V. Zen’kovskii. Berlin: Russkaia kniga, 222—23.
In Russian. Finds the book of deep interest, concerned with the fundamental problems of the age. Praises Ivanov’s “astonishingly deep” letters and his ability to open up the inner essence of Gershenzon’s position.
© Ýëĺęňđîííŕ˙ ďóáëčęŕöč˙ ĐÂÁ, 2010.