|ÐÂÁ: Âÿ÷. Èâàíîâ. Áèáëèîãðàôèÿ.||Âåðñèÿ 1.1 îò 10 àïðåëÿ 2013 ã.|
1 AVERINTSEV, S. S. “‘Analiticheskaia psikhologiia’ K.-G. Iunga i zakonomernosti tvorcheskoi fantazii” [The “analytical psychology” of C. G. Jung and the laws of creative fantasy]. In O sovremennoi burzhuaznoi estetike: Sbornik statei [On contemporary bourgeois aesthetics: A collection of essays]. Vol. 3. Compiled by V. I. Tasalov. Edited by B. V. Sazonov. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 110—55.
In Russian. Includes a brief discussion (pp. 132—33) of the link between Jung’s ideas and Ivanov’s poem “Porog soznaniia” [The threshhold of consciousness”] , his essay “Anima,” and two poems from “Rimskii dnevnik” [Roman diary].
2 BAZZARELLI, ERIDANO. Blok e la metafora. Milan: Cisalpino-Goliardica, 83—92.
In Italian. The second chapter investigates Blok’s use of metaphor, relating it to the analysis of Zhirmunskii and to the aesthetics of Ivanov. Provides a detailed discussion of Ivanov’s essay “Zavety simvolizma” [The precepts of symbolism] (1910) and outlines his view of metaphor as a religious rather than linguistic phenomenon. Other references to Ivanov can be traced through the index.
3 BEL’KIND, E. L. “Blok i Viacheslav Ivanov” [Blok and Viacheslav Ivanov]. In Blokovskii sbornik II: Trudy Vtoroi nauchnoi konferentsii, posviashchennoi izucheniiu zhizni i tvorchestva A. A. Bloka [Blok anthology II: Papers of the second academic conference devoted to the life and art of A. A. Blok]. Tartu: Tartuskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 365—84.
In Russian. A survey of Blok’s relationship with Ivanov from 1905 to 1921 (pp. 365—73) introduces the publication of nineteen letters from Blok to Ivanov, dated from 1907 to 1916 (pp. 373—78), followed by notes and commentary (pp. 378—84). The introductory survey traces a cycle from growing closeness to gradual alienation; it includes discussion of Blok’s essays on Ivanov’s work (1904.2, 1905.3), of the polemics of 1910 surrounding symbolism (1910.5), and of the poets’ later exchange of poems. For further materials on the correspondence of Blok and Ivanov, see Superfin, 1972.21; Orlov, 1975.11, 1979.14; Kotrelev, 1982.13; Gerasimov, 1987.8; Lavrov, 1989.39.
4 BIALIK, B. A., TAGER, E. B., and SHCHERBINA, V. R., eds. Russkaia literatura kontsa XIX — nachala XX v.: 1908—1917 [Russian literature of the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century: 1908—1917]. Moscow: Nauka, passim.
In Russian. Chapter 4, “Modernistskie techeniia i poeziia mezhrevoliutsionnogo desiatiletiia” [Modernist trends and poetry of the decade between the revolutions] (pp. 215—371, by E. B. Tager, B. V. Mikhailovskii, N. N.
Evgen’ev, and Z. S. Papernyi) includes a discussion of Ivanov and responses to his essay “Zavety simvolizma” [The precepts of symbolism] (1910). The section “Letopis’ literaturnykh sobytii” [A chronicle of literary events] (pp. 389—686, 1908—1910 by A. A. Tarasova, 1911 by E. G. Koliada, and 1912—1917 by M. G. Petrova) provides a year by year, month by month account of literary publications and reviews with numerous references to Ivanov’s publications and to responses to them in the periodical press. References to Ivanov can be traced through the index. For the previous volume, see Bialik, 1971.1.
5 CHUKOVSKAIA, E. Ts., ed. “Chukovskii v ‘Chukokkale’” [Chukovskii in the “Chukokkala”] . Literaturnaia gazeta, no. 4351, 29 March, 7.
In Russian. Publishes an impromptu poem by Ivanov “Chukovskii, Aristarkh prilezhnyi…” [Chukovskii, diligent Aristarchus…] (12 August 1919) with a brief account of the circumstances of its composition after hearing Chukovskii’s lecture on Pushkin’s “Tsygany” [The gypsies] which omitted reference to Ivanov’s essay on this subject. Reprinted: 1979.4.
6 DOLGOPOLOV, L. K. “Andrei Belyi v rabote nad ‘Peterburgom’: Epizod iz istorii sozdaniia romana” [Andrei Belyi at work on “Petersburg”: An episode from the history of the novel’s composition]. Russkaia literatura, no. 1: 157—67.
In Russian. Includes comments (pp. 165—66) on Ivanov’s role in the origins and reception of Belyi’s novel. Belyi gave a series of readings from Petersburg at the tower in 1912; Ivanov suggested a title for the novel and praised it. Refers to Ivanov’s essay on the novel “Vdokhnovenie uzhasa” [The inspiration of terror] (1916) as “one of the deepest analyses” of the work.
7 FILIPPOV, BORIS. “Put’ k sobornosti” [The path to ‘communality’]. Novoe russkoe slovo (New York), 11 September.
In Russian. Reviews the first volume of Ivanov’s collected works (1971), which is greeted as a “phenomenon of tremendous significance,” “a true resurrection for us…of one of the most essential for our times great poet-thinkers.” Praises Deschartes’s introduction, and approves the uncanonical arrangement of the volume, not governed by rigid divisions of genre or chronology, and revealing the organic unity of the poet’s development. Argues that the language of Russian prose at the end of the nineteenth century was rich, but that poetic language was poor; Ivanov’s attempt from his earliest books to create a new type of lyrical language, distinct from ordinary discourse, was followed by the experiments of Kliuev, Khlebnikov, and to some extent Mandel’shtam. Concludes with a discussion of “Povest’ o Svetomire tsareviche” [The tale of tsarevich Svetomir] in the light of Ivanov’s ideas on the salvation of Russia through Christ. Reprinted in an expanded version: 1973.5, 1981.6.
8 FOTIEV, K. Review of Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], Vol. 1. Vestnik russkogo studencheskogo khristianskogo dvizheniia (Paris and New York), no. 106: 236—38.
In Russian. Welcomes the nonchronological arrangement of the contents, based on the principle of inner affinity between works. Deschartes’s introduction (1971.3) introduces biographical facts only when they illuminate the poet’s creative or spiritual biography. Ivanov’s linking of Christianity to ancient classical myth was necessary because Christian revelation had given way to Church dogma. His works contain an important message for this century, which has lost the sense of play and joy in religion. The same issue contains Ivanov’s “Pesni smutnogo vremeni” [Songs of a time of troubles], prefaced by a brief unsigned introduction (pp. 229—35).
9 HETZER, ARMIN. Vjačeslav lvanovs Tragödie “Tantal”: Eine literarhistorische Interpretation. Slavistische Beiträge, 59. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner, 202 pp.
In German. Considers Ivanov’s tragedy “Tantal” [Tantalus] from various angles in the course of five chapters. Examines rhythm and metrics, the representation of story and characters, the use of myth and symbol, and the relation of the drama to the cult of Dionysus. Includes a bibliography of primary and secondary sources.
10 HOLTHUSEN, JOHANNES. “Vyacheslav Ivanov.” In Twentieth-Century Russian Literature: A Critical Study. Translated by Theodore Huebner. New York: Frederick Ungar, 38—41.
Provides a brief outline of Ivanov’s poetry, essays, and drama. Comments on Ivanov’s fondness for “antithetical concepts,” reminiscent of baroque poets. Finds his attempts to establish a universally valid cultural and philosophical definition of the theatre and tragedy rather ineffective.
11 IL’IN, VLADIMIR. “Viacheslav Ivanov.” Novyi zhurnal (New York), no. 107: 78—86.
In Russian. A review of the first volume of Ivanov’s collected works (1971) by an admirer who, like Ivanov, taught at the Collegium Russicum in Rome. Praises Ivanov the poet, philologist, and thinker. Reviews his life and works briefly. Invites the comparison of Annenskii and Ivanov. Links his name to Florenskii. Relates his distinction between “anima” (female, passive) and “animus” (male, active) to the ideas of Jung, Buber, and Claudel. Traces his metaphysical poetry back to Pushkin and Tiutchev, and links his essays to Graeco-Roman classics.
12 KLIMOFF, ALEXIS [Aleksei Klimov]. “Viacheslav Ivanov v Italii (1924—1949)” [Viacheslav Ivanov in Italy (1924—1949)]. In Russkaia literatura v emigratsii: Sbornik statei [Russian émigré literature: A collection of essays].
Edited by N. P. Poltoratskii. Slavic Series, 1. Pittsburgh: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Pittsburgh, 151—65.
This article, completed in March 1971 before the publication of the first volume of Ivanov’s collected works (1971), represents an early sketch of the author’s dissertation (1974.4). Drawing on archival materials, provides biographical data on Ivanov’s life in Italy, detailing his teaching activities in Pavia and Rome, his attitude to émigré culture, contacts with Russians, and literary work. Comments on “Rimskie sonety” [Roman sonnets], “Rimskii dnevnik” [Roman diary], and “Povest o Svetomire tsareviche” [The tale of tsarevich Svetomir]. Finds that widespread ignorance of Ivanov’s postemigration poetry reduced the impact of his influence. Publishes the text of Ivanov’s message of congratulations sent to Merezhkovskii in Paris on his seventieth birthday (see 1935.3).
13 MANDEL’sHTAM, NADEZHDA. Vtoraia kniga [The second book]. Paris: YMCA-PRESS, 38, 45—47, 52—53, 126, 337, 451—58, 549—50 and passim.
In Russian. Contains several references to Ivanov’s view of Christianity, art, and relations with the Acmeists. Disputes Taranovskii’s view (1967.8, 1969.11) of Ivanov’s influence on Mandel’shtam, although accepts that his image of Byzantium may have colored Mandel’shtam’s. Comments on Gorodetskii’s cult of paganism and relations with Ivanov. Relates Akhmatova’s acccount of the Acmeists break with Ivanov; Gumilev’s reading of his poem “Bludnyi syn” [The prodigal son] at the Poetic academy provoked a strong attack by Ivanov and led to the formation of Tsekh poetov [The guild of poets]. Characterizes Ivanov and Briusov as the chief “tempters” of the era, promulgating the cult of the artist and of art. Takes issue with Ivanov’s distorted version of Christianity, contrasted with the more traditional approach of the Acmeists. Finds evidence in Mandel’shtam’s essay on Scriabin of polemics with Ivanov’s Dionysian understanding of art. Disputes the high regard in which Ivanov’s essays on symbolism are held by contemporary readers; attacks his inflated view of the artist as theurgist and prophet, of the link between symbol and myth, and of art as a collective means of overcoming individual isolation. Links these ideas to their vulgarization in the Soviet epoch and to a conversation with Ivanov in Baku. Reprinted: 1990.43. For an English translation, see 1974.6. See also Mandel’shtam, 1970.4.
14 MARKOV, VLADIMIR. “O pervom tome Sobraniia Sochinenii Viacheslava Ivanova” [On the first volume of the Collected works of Viacheslav Ivanov]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 2885, 9 March, 7; no. 2886, 16 March, 7; no. 2887, 23 March, 7.
In Russian. A wide-ranging review of the first volume of the collected works (1971), spread over three issues of the newspaper. Comments on the arrangement and contents of the first volume, dwells on Kormchie zvezdy
[Pilot stars], Prozrachnost’ [Transparency], and “Povest’ o Svetomire tsareviche” [The tale of tsarevich Svetomir]. Praises Deschartes’s introduction, while noting its occasional omissions, longueurs, and hagiographie style, particularly in the sections relating to Ivanov’s life before emigration. Disputes some of the standard criticisms of Ivanov’s verse (its linguistic complexity, lack of the tragic element, erudition) and defends it against the vulgarization of poetry as an elevated art form. Points out several links with contemporary poets ranging from Voloshin to Khlebnikov and Pasternak, and indicates the likely sources of a revival of interest in Ivanov in Europe and in Russia. Parts of this review are incorporated into Markov, 1986.35. For a review of the third volume, see Markov, 1981.13.
15 PANINA, A. L. “Arkhiv izdatel’stva M. i S. Sabashnikovykh” [The archive of the publishing house of M. and S. Sabashnikov]. Zapiski Otdela rukopisei (Moscow), Gosudarstvennaia ordena Lenina biblioteka SSSR imeni V. I. Lenina, no. 33: 81—139.
In Russian. Contains details (pp. 93, 97, 100, 110, 126) of documents held in the archive relating to Ivanov’s work for the Sabashnikov publishing house: his correspondence with M. V. Sabashnikov, his translations from Aeschylus, Alcaeus, and Sappho, and Dante’s Convivio, and plans for a projected anthology of Greek lyrics and for a new collection of selected verse (“Izbornik”). For further details of the “Izbornik” [Selected poems] project, see Kotrelev, 1989.35. See also Davidson, 1982.3; Sabashnikov, 1983.25; Kotrelev, 1990.31.
16 PECHKO, L. P. “Ivanov, Viacheslav Ivanovich.” In Bol’shaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia [The great Soviet encyclopedia]. Edited by A. M. Prokhorov. Vol. 10. Third edition. Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopedia, 12.
In Russian. A very brief entry with a short bibliography. See also Pechko, 1966.12.
17 RANNIT, ALEKSIS. “Hölderlin and the Twentieth Century: Is Elevated Style in Poetry Possible Today?” In Friedrich Hölderlin: An Early Modern. Edited by Emery E. George. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 106—18.
Includes comments on Ivanov (pp. 114—16) as a poet who, like Tsvetaeva, Stefan George, Rilke, and others, “felt the great breath of Hölderlin’s diction” and maintained the elevated rhetorical style in poetry. Ivanov’s “Dionysian impulse, combined with exalted phraseology and spirituality, is analogous to that of Hölderlin.” Quotes the opening dedication to Diotima from Cor Ardens and a passage from a letter of 24 November 1970 from Deschartes to Rannit about Ivanov’s love of Hölderlin and discussion with Herbert Steiner in Pavia in 1932 of Hölderlin’s discovery of the link between Dionysus and Heraclitus and Christianity.
18 RANNIT, ALEKSIS. “Vyacheslav Ivanov and his Vespertine light: Notes from my Critical Diary of 1966.” Russian Literature Triquarterly, no. 4 (Fall): 265—88.
Despite the title, this is an English translation of 1964.4 with a few minor changes, the addition of notes, photographs, and a reproduction of a poem by Ivanov in manuscript from Rannit’s collection. The same issue contains English translations by Emery E. George of “Zimnie sonety” [Winter sonnets] and “Rimskie sonety” [Roman sonnets] and of Ivanov’s essays “Mysli o simvolizme” [Thoughts on symbolism] (1912), translated by Samuel Cioran (all reprinted in 1975.3) and “Realismo” [Realism] (1935), translated by Thomas E. Bird.
19 RODINA, T. M. Aleksandr Blok i russkii teatr nachala XX veka [Aleksandr Blok and Russian theatre at the beginning of the twentieth century]. Moscow: Nauka, 74—79 and passim.
In Russian. The section on the symbolist theory of the theatre relates Blok’s ideas to Ivanov’s. Outlines Ivanov’s ideas on symbol and myth, and on the link between the theatre, myth and collective art, drawing on his essays “Poet i chern’” [The poet and the rabble] (1904), “Zavety simvolizma” [The precepts of symbolism] (1910), “Esteticheskaia norma teatra” [The aesthetic norm of the theatre] (1916), and “Ekskurs: O krizise teatra” [Excursus: On the crisis of the theatre] (1909). Comments on links with Meierkhol’d. Further references to Ivanov can be traced through the index.
20 SUPERFIN, G. G., and TIMENCHIK, R. D. “Pis’ma A. A. Akhmatovoi k V. Ia. Briusovu” [Letters from A. A. Akhmatova to V. Ia. Briusov]. Zapiski Otdela rukopisei (Moscow), Gosudarstvennaia ordena Lenina biblioteka SSSR imeni V. I. Lenina, no. 33: 272—79.
In Russian. Quotes various archival fragments (p. 274) relating to Akhmatova’s readings of her verse at the tower. A letter from M. M. Zamiatina to V. K. Shvarsalon dated 16 June 1910 describes Akhmatova’s visit with Gumilev to the tower on 13 June 1910 and Ivanov’s rather cold reaction to her poetry reading. On 11 March 1911 Akhmatova sends a note to Chulkov requesting that she be admitted to the Poetic academy through Ivanov. F. Fidler records in his diary a later poetry reading held on 14 March 1911. The same evening is described in a letter from V. K. Shvarsalon to M. A. Borodaevskaia. Reprinted with slight changes: 1974.10.
21 SUPERFIN, G. “Tri zametki o Bloke” [Three notes on Blok]. In Quinquagenario: Sbornik statei molodykh filologov k 50-letiiu prof. Iu. M. Lotmana [Quinquagenario: An anthology of essays by young philologists to mark the fiftieth birthday of Prof. Iu. M. Lotman]. Edited by A. Mal’ts, E. Dushechkina, and A. Belousov. Tartu: Tartuskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 202—08.
In Russian. Corrects an earlier error in identifying and publishing the text of two notes exchanged by Ivanov and Blok on 19 January 1911 at a meeting of the Religious-Philosophical Society dedicated to the memory of V. Solov’ev. The notes relate to the project of a new journal. For further materials on the correspondence of Ivanov and Blok, see Bel’kind, 1972.3; Orlov, 1975.11, 1979.14; Kotrelev, 1982.13; Gerasimov, 1987.8; Lavrov, 1989.39.
© Ýëåêòðîííàÿ ïóáëèêàöèÿ ÐÂÁ, 2010.