|ĐÂÁ: Â˙÷. Čâŕíîâ. Áčáëčîăđŕôč˙.||Âĺđńč˙ 1.1 îň 10 ŕďđĺë˙ 2013 ă.|
1 AVERINTSEV, S. “Poeziia Viacheslava Ivanova” [The poetry of Viacheslav Ivanov]. Voprosy literatury, no. 8: 145—92.
In Russian. Invites the reader to take a fresh look at Ivanov’s poetry, free from the familiar prejudices of the past. Reviews his biography and literary works, considering sources and influences, parallels with European writers, his outlook on Russia, his attitude to the poetic word (anticipating aspects of Mandel’shtam, Maiakovskii and Tsvetaeva), and theory of symbolism (linked to the ideas of Schelling). Finds that his poetry belongs to the world of the ode, not of the tragic, and that, unlike Blok, all elements of his art are present in his work from the beginning. Considers the characteristic imagery and devices of Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars], Prozrachnost’ [Transparency], Cor Ardens (compared to Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice and to the verse of Stefan George), Nezhnaia taina [Tender mystery], Mladenchestvo [Infancy] (contrasted with Blok’s “Vozmezdie” [Retribution]), Chelovek [Man], his two tragedies “Tantal” [Tantalus] and Prometei [Prometheus], and his poetry written after emigration. Concludes with an assessment of Ivanov’s significance for the present. He did not escape the inherent contradictions and weaknesses of the symbolist worldview. The course of twentieth-century Russian poetry has largely developed along different lines from Ivanov with one important exception, Khlebnikov. Ivanov’s achievement is primarily as a “poet of the element of language,” understood as the repository of history and national memory. Reprinted in revised form in 1976.1 For a section of this essay in abridged form, see 1975.2. See also Tschöpl, 1986.53.
2 AVERINTSEV, S. S. “Struktura otnosheniia k poeticheskomu slovu v tvorchestve Viacheslava Ivanova” [The structure of the attitude to the poetic word in the art of Viacheslav Ivanov]. Tezisy I Vsesoiuznoi (III) konferentsii “Tvorchestvo A. A. Bloka i russkaia kul’tura XX veka” [Theses of the first all-union
(III) conference “The art of A. A. Blok and Russian culture of the twentieth century”] . Tartu: Tartuskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 152—55.
In Russian. An abridged version of a section of 1975.1 (pp. 160—64) and 1976.1 on Ivanov’s attitude to the poetic word. Distinguishes two attitudes to the poetic word in Russian poetry, and links Ivanov with the second, characterized by an emphasis on the word as a self-sufficient unit. Identifies various devices used by Ivanov for achieving a sense of stasis and slow “gustota” [density] in his verse: the use of additional stresses in binary meters, the accumulation of consonants, and a preference for monosyllabic words and for nouns rather than verbs. Compares Ivanov’s “poetics of identity” to Schelling’s philosophy of identity.
3 BOWLT, JOHN E. “The World of Art.” In The Silver Age of Russian Culture: An Anthology. Edited by Carl Proffer and Ellendea Proffer. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 397—432.
A revised version of 1973.2. The anthology also contains English translations of Ivanov’s “Zimnie sonety” [Winter sonnets], “Rimskie sonety” [Roman sonnets], and “Mysli o simvolizme” [Thoughts on symbolism] (1912), all reprinted from 1972.18.
4 BRIUSOV, VALERII. “O ‘rechi rabskoi,’ v zashchitu poezii” [On “servile speech,” in defense of poetry]; “Viacheslav Ivanov. Andrei Belyi.” In Sobranie sochinenii v semi tomakh [Collected works in seven volumes]. Vol. 6: Stat’i i retsenzii, 1893—1924. Iz knigi “Dalekie i blizkie. “ Miscellanea [Essays and reviews, 1893—1924. From the book “Those far and near.” Miscellanea]. Compiled and with an introduction by D. E. Maksimov. Edited and annotated by D. E. Maksimov and R. E. Pomirchii. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 176—79, 291—311, 598—99, 613—16.
Reprint of 1910.6, 1912.3 with editorial notes.
5 ELSWORTH, J. D. “Andrei Bely’s Theory of Symbolism.” Forum for Modern Language Studies 11, no. 4 (October): 305—33.
Includes discussion of the areas of Belyi’s agreement and disagreement with Ivanov’s theory of symbolism and the theatre (pp. 307, 327—28, 331—33). Identifies their most critical area of divergence as their differing attitudes to the poet’s relation to transcendent reality: “In Ivanov’s view, the artist’s task is to reveal the hidden, but real essence of things; in Bely’s, the artist, in common with other creative humans, creates an order that is not present in raw nature.” Concludes that Ivanov’s aesthetic views were more coherent and systematic. Reprinted: 1976.4.
6 ERMILOVA, E. V. “Poeziia ‘teurgov’ i printsip ‘vernosti veshcham’” [The poetry of the “theurgists” and the principle of “remaining true to things”] . In Literaturno-esteticheskie kontseptsii v Rossii kontsa XIX — nachala XX v.
[Literary and aesthetic concepts in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Russia]. Moscow: Nauka, 187—206.
In Russian. Compares the views on art as a theurgic activity held by Ivanov, Blok, Belyi, Briusov, Ellis, and Baltrushaitis. Underlines Ivanov’s principle of “remaining true to things,” the belief that the transcendent can only be reached through a penetration into the essence of earthly realia. Ivanov did not subordinate art to religion as Briusov claimed (1910.6). Contrasts Ellis’s attempt to construct a static system of correspondences with Ivanov’s dynamic theory of “ascent” and “descent.” Considers the relations of Blok and Ivanov as a key to understanding the central isssues of symbolism. Examines their exchange of poems and their closely related essays of 1908, 1910, and 1918; the problems Blok presents in their tragic unresolved aspect are raised to the level of a potential philosophical-religious solution by Ivanov. Parts of this essay are incorporated into Ermilova, 1984.8, 1989.19.
7 GRIGOR’eV, A. L. “Mify v poezii i proze russkikh simvolistov” [Myths in the poetry and prose of the Russian symbolists]. In Literatura i mifologiia: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Literature and mythology: An anthology of academic papers]. Edited by A. L. Grigor’ev. Leningradskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut imeni A. I. Gertsena. Leningrad: n.p., 56—78.
This survey of symbolist approaches to myth includes discussion (pp. 57, 58, 64—65, 67) of Ivanov’s theory of language and use of myth in his poetry and essays. Considers the sources of his view of myth in Nietzsche and V. Solov’ev, his use of myth to fuse Christian and classical motifs, and the social Utopian aspects of his theory of “mifotvorchestvo” [myth-creation].
8 MAKSIMOV, D. Poeziia i proza Al. Bloka [The poetry and prose of Al. Blok]. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 186—90, 203—04, 209—21, 232—39, 414—17, 423—25, 465—66, 500—01 and passim.
In Russian. Devotes several sections to Ivanov and to his relations with Blok. Compares the symbolist criticism of Briusov, Ivanov, and Belyi and the influence of their ideas on Blok. Analyzes Ivanov’s perception of the link between art, the transcending of individualism, and the revolution of 1905. Comments on his neo-Slavophile views in the 1900s and at the time of the First World War. Characterizes the stylized language of Ivanov’s critical essays as “a kind of symbolist baroque,” and praises them for their fine aesthetic insights of continuing relevance. Assesses their influence on his contemporaries and on Blok (Blok was more prepared to accept the lyrical content of Ivanov’s ideas than their theoretical essence). Considers contemporary criticisms of Ivanov’s writing with particular reference to essays by Belyi (1907.3), Adrianov (1909.2), Ellis (1909.7), Merezhkovskii (1909.17), Siunnerberg (1909.20), Frank (1910.8), Berdiaev (1916.4), and Shestov (1916.16). Defends Ivanov from the common criticism of excessive “literariness,” leading to a neglect of “reality.” Comments on Blok’s essays on Ivanov
(1905.3, 1910.5) and compares the two poets’ attitudes to the 1910 crisis of symbolism. Describes Blok’s growing alienation from Ivanov in the 1910s. Mentions Meierkhol’d debt to Ivanov’s views on the theatre. Cites and discusses the memoirs of Kuz’mina-Karavaeva on Ivanov and Blok (1936.4). Reprinted in a revised, expanded version: 1981.12.
9 MICKIEWICZ, DENIS. “Apollo and Modernist Poetics.” In The Silver Age of Russian Culture: An Anthology. Edited by Carl Proffer and Ellendea Proffer. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 360—95.
Reprint of 1971.9.
10 NEBOL’sIN, S. A. “Literaturno-esteticheskie kontseptsii russkogo modernizma v otsenkakh sovremennogo burzhuaznogo literaturovedeniia Zapada” [The literary and aesthetic concepts of Russian modernism in the judgment of contemporary bourgeois Western literary criticism]. In Literaturno-esteticheskie kontseptsii v Rossii kontsa XIX — nachala XX v. [Literary and aesthetic concepts in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Russia]. Moscow: Nauka, 377—80.
In Russian. This section of the essay evaluates Western criticism of symbolism and Ivanov with reference to works by Holthusen (1957.4), Donchin (1958.2), Poggioli (1960.8), Stepun (1964.8), Tschöpl (1968.14), and West (1970.5).
11 ORLOV, V. N., ed. Aleksandr Blok: Perepiska. Annotirovannyi katalog [Aleksandr Blok: Correspondence. An annotated catalogue]. Vol. 1: Pis’ma Aleksandra Bloka [The letters of Aleksandr Blok]. Glavnoe arkhivnoe upravlenie pri Sovete ministrov SSSR . Moscow: n.p., 181—84.
In Russian. Catalogues twenty-one letters from Blok to Ivanov (1907—1916) with a brief summary of the contents of each letter and details of publication where applicable. Most of the letters are published by Bel’kind, 1972.3. See also Superfin, 1972.21; Orlov, 1979.14; Kotrelev, 1982.13; Gerasimov, 1987.8; Lavrov, 1989.39.
12 RICE, MARTIN P. Valery Briusov and the Rise of Russian Symbolism. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 92—98 and passim.
Contains several passing references to Ivanov (indexed). Outlines his ideas on art expressed in the essay “Poet i chern’” [The poet and the rabble] (1904) and considers his polemics of 1906—1910 with Briusov on the nature of symbolism.
13 RUPP, JEAN. “Nel XXV anniversario della morte: Venceslao Ivanov russo e romano.” L’Osservatore Romano (Vatican City), no. 49, 28 February, 3.
In Italian. An article to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of Ivanov’s death, written by a former student of Russian at Ponteficio Istituto Orientale.
Reviews Ivanov’s spiritual development, dwelling on his conversion to Catholicism and return to Rome.
14 STEPANOV, N. Velimir Khlebnikov: Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo [Velimir Khlebnikov: His life and art]. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 13—15, 18, 29, 45—46, 57—58.
In Russian. Considers Khlebnikov’s relations with Ivanov from the time of their first meeting in the Crimea in 1908. Comments on his close links with symbolism, his reception at the tower, his attitude to Gorodetskii’s verse, and his prose poem “Zverinets” [The menagerie] and remarks on this work in his letter to Ivanov of 1909. For further items on Khlebnikov and Ivanov, see Khlebnikov, 1940.2; Rayfield, 1966.15; Al’tman, 1985.1; Parnis, 1986.37, 1990.49, 1992.18, 1992.19; Duganov, 1990.17.
15 WEST, JAMES. “The Poetic Landscape of the Russian Symbolists.” Forum for Modern Language Studies 11, no. 4 (October): 289—304.
Investigates aspects of the relationship of Russian symbolism to the visual arts. Includes comments on the central importance attached to myth and the transforming power of art by Ivanov and Gaugin, and on Ivanov’s view of Čiurlonis’s “double vision” of the phenomenal world and the world of the spirit. Reprinted: 1976.20. See also Bowlt, 1973.2, 1986.9; Rannit, 1986.40; Depperman, 1988.16; Jackson, 1993.28.
© Ýëĺęňđîííŕ˙ ďóáëčęŕöč˙ ĐÂÁ, 2010.