|ĐÂÁ: Â˙÷. Čâŕíîâ. Áčáëčîăđŕôč˙.||Âĺđńč˙ 1.1 îň 10 ŕďđĺë˙ 2013 ă.|
1 ANNENSKII, INNOKENTII. Knigi otrazhenii [Books of reflections]. Edited by N. T. Ashimbaeva, I. I. Podol’skaia and A. V. Fedorov. Moscow: Nauka, 328—82, 486, 490, 493—94, 630—41, 665, 667.
In Russian. Reprint of the first two parts of 1909.3, followed by detailed notes. Also reprints (with notes) letters of 1909 from Annenskii to Makovskii (Lavrov, 1978.7) and to Voloshin (Lavrov, 1978.8) with references to Ivanov and to the difficulty of his works. Publishes for the first time a letter of 17 October 1909 from Annenskii to Ivanov (pp. 493—94), thanking him for his “superb” poem (“Ultimum vale,” dedicated to Annenskii) and explaining his reasons for not wishing to engage in personal polemics. See also Lavrov, 1983.19.
2 BAKHTIN, M. M. “Prilozhenie: Iz lektsii po istorii russkoi literatury. Viacheslav Ivanov” [Appendix: From lectures on the history of Russian literature. Viacheslav Ivanov]. In Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [The aesthetics of literary creation]. Compiled by S. G. Bocharov. Notes by S. S. Averintsev and S. G. Bocharov. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 374—83, 412—15.
In Russian. In the 1920s Bakhtin gave a series of lectures on the history of Russian literature. A three-part summary of his lecture on Ivanov has survived in the notes of R. M. Mirkina and is published with editorial comments. It opens with a synopsis of Ivanov’s significance as a teacher as well as poet, and outlines his aesthetics with special reference to his distinction between idealist and realist symbolism and to his three categories of ascent, descent, and Dionysian chaos. The second section deals with the formal characteristics of his verse: the importance of logical links and systematic thought as the organizing principle of his themes, language, and symbols, his metaphors contrasted with Blok’s, his sustained use of elevated style, and the architectonic structure of his collections, comparable to George, Rilke, and Verlaine. The third section consists of notes on the symbols and images of particular poems and collections with special reference to the symbols of transparency, the cross, the burning heart, the sun, life, love and death, and the rose in Prozrachnost’ [Transparency] and Cor Ardens. Concludes with a brief comment on his tragedies, regarded as unsuccessful. On Bakhtin and Ivanov, see Bakhtin, 1929.1, 1963.2; Clark and Holquist, 1984.4; Crone, 1988.13; Kotrelev, 1988.35; Igeta, 1989.26; Jackson, 1989.29; Szilard, 1989.55.
3 BROWN, MALCOLM. “Skriabin and Russian ’Mystic’ Symbolism.” 19th Century Music (Berkeley, Calif.) 3, no. 1 (July):42—51.
Outlines areas of affinity between Scriabin’s ideas about music and Ivanov’s symbolist theory, noting that these predated their personal friendship. Juxtaposes quotations from Ivanov’s verse and essays with fragments
from Scriabin’s writings to illustrate the parallels. Ivanov’s ideas are linked with Scriabin’s concept of the “mystery” as the repository of national memory, his search for a model for the ideal artistic synthesis in the classical world, his emphasis on the function of the chorus and on the need to abolish the stage, perceived as a barrier between spectators and performers, and his understanding of the process of artistic creation as the unveiling of a preexistent image. See also Karatygin, 1915.6; Braudo, 1916.6; Engel’, 1916.11; Matlaw, 1979.11; Myl’nikova, 1985.14; Mueller-Vollmer, 1988.47; Rubtsova, 1989.52; Mets, 1991.28; Mazaev, 1992.12; Kluge, 1993.31.
4 Chukokkala: Rukopisnyi al’manakh Korneia Chukovskogo [Chukokkala: Kornei Chukovskii’s manuscript album]. With a preface by I. Andronikov. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 251—54.
In Russian. Chukovskii’s album contains two items by Ivanov. The text of Ivanov’s response to Chukovskii’s questionnaire about Nekrasov and his verse, dated 10 August 1919, is printed, followed by Chukovskii’s brief comments. Ivanov’s impromptu poem “Chukovskii, Aristarkh prilezhnyi...” [Chukovskii, diligent Aristarchus...] (12 August 1919) is followed by a brief account of the circumstances of its composition and a reproduction of its original manuscript version from the album. The second item is reprinted from 1972.5.
5 DESCHARTES, O. Preface to Correspondance d’un coin à l’autre, by Viatcheslav Ivanov and Mikhail Gerschenson. Classiques Slaves. Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 7—37.
In French. This edition reprints the French translation by Hélène Izwolsky and Charles Du Bos of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners], first published in the journal Vigile (1930) and in the following year as a book (1931). New material includes a French translation of Ivanov’s letter to Pellegrini, “Docta Pietas,” and Deschartes’s preface, a French translation of her earlier introduction to the Italian translation (1932.4). Two short sections have been added to the preface to bring the survey of editions of the correspondence and the account of Ivanov’s life up to date. The book also includes brief “Notes chronologiques et bibliographiques” on Ivanov and Gershenzon (pp. 105—110).
6 GERASIMOV Iu. K. “Teatral’naia kritika s 1890-kh godov do 1917 goda” [Theatrical criticism from the 1890s to 1917]. In Ocherki istorii russkoi teatral’noi kritiki: Konets XIX — nachalo XX veka [Essays on the history of Russian theatrical criticism: The end of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century]. Edited by A. Ia. Al’tshuller. Leningradskii gosudarstvennyi institut teatra, muzyki i kinematografii. Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 3—54.
In Russian. Includes brief references to Ivanov’s concept of the theatre as a form of mystery and myth, and to the impact of his ideas on the theory of drama at the time of the revolution (pp. 37—38).
7 GRECHISHKIN S. S., and LAVROV, A. A., eds. “Konst. Erberg (K. A. Siunnerberg): Vospominaniia” [Konst. Erberg (K. A. Siunnerberg): Memoirs]. In Ezhegodnik rukopisnogo otdela Pushkinskogo Doma na 1977 god [The year-book of the manuscripts section of Pushkinskii dom for 1977]. Leningrad: Nauka, 99—146.
In Russian. The memoirs of the art critic, poet, and translator Siunnerberg (1871—1942) and the editors’ introduction and notes contain several references to Ivanov (all indexed). The section of the memoirs entirely devoted to Ivanov (pp. 128—34) depicts the Wednesday gatherings at the tower, lists the topics discussed, and describes the search of Ivanov’s flat in December 1905. Siunnerberg relates his difficulty in understanding Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] in order to review the collection, and comments on the resulting poem dedicated to him by Ivanov, “Nadpis’ na ischerchennoi knige” [Inscription on a scribbled over book]. Cites the flattering inscriptions on copies of Ivanov’s books presented by him to Siunnerberg. Quotes the poems exchanged by both writers in 1912, Siunnerberg’s “Vopros” [The question] and Ivanov’s reply, “Kamen’” [The stone]. The editors’ introduction includes a quotation from an archival fragment by Ivanov on Siunnerberg as a characteristic figure of his age, a note of Siunnerberg’s sympathy for Ivanov’s concept of “sobornost’” [communality] and contribution to the first book of Fakely [Torches]. Ivanov regarded Siunnerberg’s book Tsel’ tvorchestva [The aim of art] (1913.11) as a great scholarly tract. Mentions his unfulfilled plan of 1913 to publish Siunnerberg’s collection of verse under the imprint of his publishing-house “Ory.” See also Siunnerberg, 1906.8, 1909.20.
8 IVANOV, D. V., and DESCHARTES, 0., eds. Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], by Viacheslav Ivanov. Vol. 3. Brussels: Foyer Oriental Chrétien, 896 pp.
In Russian. The third volume of the collected works (planned in six volumes, for volumes 1, 2, 4 see 1971.3, 1974.1, 1987.11) includes three books of poetry, Nezhnaia taina [Tender mystery], the melopoeia Chelovek [Man], and Svet vechernii [Vespertine light]; one book of prose, Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners], followed by Ivanov’s related letters to Du Bos and Pellegrini; twenty-four essays, both uncollected and from Ivanov’s three collections. Materials that first appeared in a language other than Russian are followed by a translation into Russian. The extensive “Parerga i paralipomena” [Parerga and paralipomena] section (pp. 694—864) provides detailed notes on the contents of the volume, publishes Ivanov’s diary of 1—5 December 1924 and extracts from his correspondence, and devotes essays to topics such as the debate over mystical anarchism or Ivanov’s relations with Briusov and V. Solov’ev. The volume also includes an obituary article about Deschartes by D. Ivanov (pp. 688—93; see also Ivanov, 1978.3), and an alphabetical index to all the poems included in the first three volumes. For a review, see Markov, 1981.13.
9 KLEBERG, LARS. “‘People’s Theatre’ and the Revolution: On the History of a Concept Before and After 1917.” In Art, Society, Revolution: Russia 1917—1921. Edited by Nils Åke Nilsson. Stockholm Studies in Russian Literature, 11. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 179—97.
nineteenth-century Europe. Relates Ivanov’s utopian vision of the theatre as a cult ceremony and social force back to Wagner and Nietzsche, and contrasts it with the sceptical views expressed by Belyi. Considers the survival of these ideas in the postrevolutionary period and the Proletkul’t idea of the theatre. Notes Ivanov’s foreword to the new edition in 1919 of Romain Rolland’s manifesto of the people’s theatre. Ivanov’s participation in the theatrical section of Narkompros (TEO) and the arguments he put forward in Vestnik teatra were later opposed by P. Kogan who stressed the leading role of the proletariat. See also Kleberg, 1984.16.
10 MANDELSTAM, OSIP. The Complete Critical Prose and Letters. Edited by Jane Gary Harris. Translated by Jane Gary Harris and Constance Link. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 106, 127, 130—31, 156, 171—74, 202—03, 476—81. Reprint (entitled The Collected Critical Prose and Letters). London: Collins Harvill, 1991.
Contains English translations of Mandel’shtam’s essays and letters, followed by notes; scattered comments on Ivanov can be traced through the index. The main references (described separately under the Russian publications) occur in Mandel’shtam’s essay “Buria i natisk” [Storm and stress] (1923.9) and in his letters of 1909 to Ivanov (1971.7, 1973.8, 1990.44). Passing references can be found in other essays: “O sovremennoi poezii” [On contemporary poetry] (1969.5), “O prirode slova” [On the nature of the word] (1955.4), “Pis’mo o russkoi poezii” [A letter about Russian poetry] (1969.5), “Vypad” [The slump] (1955.4). The notes include a detailed commentary on the essays and letters, and further clarification of Mandel’shtam’s implicit polemics with Ivanov in other essays, such as “Utro akmeizma” [Morning of acmeism] (1913), “O sobesednike” [To the addressee] (1913), and “Pushkin i Skriabin” [Pushkin and Scriabin]. For Russian editions of Mandel’shtam’s prose, see 1955.4, 1966.8, 1971.7, 1969.5, 1987.17. See also Myers, 1992.14.
11 MATLAW, RALPH E. “Scriabin and Russian Symbolism.” Comparative Literature (Eugene) 31, no. 1 (Winter): 1—23.
Considers the links between Scriabin and Ivanov in the context of a broader survey of Scriabin’s connections with Russian symbolism. Ranks Ivanov’s “Vospominanie o A. N. Skriabine” [Remembrance of A. N. Scriabin] of 1915 with poems by Pushkin on Chenier and by Baratynskii on Goethe as “one of the finest elegies of the Russian language.” Notes aspects of Ivanov’s thought that were of particular appeal to Scriabin, and illustrates these ideas with quotations from his essays on art and the theatre. Comments on Scriabin’s discussion of the literary text of his “Predvaritel’noe deistvo”
[Preliminary action] with Ivanov and Baltrushaitis. Discusses Ivanov’s commemorative sonnets of 1915, “Pamiati Skriabina” [In memory of Scriabin]. See also Karatygin, 1915.6; Braudo, 1916.6; Engel’, 1916.11; Brown, 1979.3; Myl’nikova, 1985.14; Mueller-Vollmer, 1988.47; Rubtsova, 1989.52; Mets, 1991.28; Mazaev, 1992.12; Kluge, 1993.30.
12 MINTS, Z. G. “O nekotorykh ‘neomifologicheskikh’ tekstakh v tvorchestve russkikh simvolistov” [On certain “neo-mythological” texts in the works of the Russian symbolists]. In Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Academic proceedings of Tartu state university]. Vol. 459: Tvorchestvo A. A. Bloka i russkaia kul’tura XX veka: Blokovskii sbornik III [The art of A. A. Blok and Russian culture of the 20th century: Blok anthology III], edited by Z. G. Mints. Tartu: Tartuskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 76—120.
In Russian. Considers the sources of the “neo-mythological” texts of the Russian symbolists and the underlying structural principles that inform them. Finds their philosophical and aesthetic sources in the “myth” of V. Solov’ev. In this context, refers to Ivanov’s essays in Po zvezdam [By the stars] and discusses his views on symbol becoming myth.
13 MOROZOV, A., ed. “Mandel’shtam v zapisiakh dnevnika S. P. Kablukova” [Mandel’shtam in the notes of the diary of S. P. Kablukov]. Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia, no. 129: 131—55.
In Russian. Kablukov’s diary includes various references to meetings and conversations with Ivanov and Mandel’shtam (pp. 133, 135—36, 140, 144, 151—52). Quotes fragments from Kablukov’s letters to Ivanov. On 18 August 1910 reports Mandel’shtam visiting him and reciting Ivanov’s poems to him. On 21 November 1910 records a visit to Ivanov and discussion of Annenskii and Mandel’shtam (valued by Ivanov). On 4 December 1910 notes Mandel’shtam’s visit and their discussion of Annenskii, Ivanov, and Belyi. On 31 March 1912 recalls Ivanov’s poem “Missa solemnis Betkhovena” [Beethoven’s “Missa Solemnis”] . On 7 February 1916 Mandel’shtam visits Kablukov after returning from Moscow where he called on Ivanov, who paid tribute to his collection Kamen’ [Stone] and singled out his favorite poems. On 6 March 1916 Kablukov writes to Ivanov to thank him for sending him his cycle of sonnets “Dva grada” [Two cities] and requests him to use his influence to change the attitude of the journal Russkaia mysl’ to Mandel’shtam. Reprinted with minor corrections: 1991.29; in a fuller version with notes: 1990.44. See also Morozov, 1973.8; Myers, 1992.14.
14 ORLOV, V. N., ed. Aleksandr Blok: Perepiska. Annotirovannyi katalog [Aleksandr Blok: Correspondence. An annotated catalogue]. Vol. 2: Pis’ma k Aleksandru Bloku [Letters to Aleksandr Blok]. Glavnoe arkhivnoe upravlenie pri Sovete ministrov SSSR. Moscow: n.p., 234—38.
In Russian. Catalogues seventeen letters held in various archives
(TsGALI, GBL, GPB) from Ivanov to Blok (1906—1912), with a brief summary of the contents of each letter and details of publication where applicable. See also Bel’kind, 1972.3; Superfin, 1972.21; Orlov, 1975.11; Kotrelev, 1982.13; Gerasimov, 1987.8; Lavrov, 1989.39.
15 PAPERNYI, V. M. “Blok i Nitsshe” [Blok and Nietzsche]. In Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Academic proceedings of Tartu state university]. Vol. 491. Tartu: Tartuskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 84—106.
In Russian. Investigates the influence of Nietzsche on Blok, and considers the mediating role of Ivanov’s ideas in this context. Traces the influence of Ivanov’s Dionysianism on Blok’s projected work “Dionis Giperboreiskii” [The Hyperborean Dionysus] (1906), on his collection Snezhnaia maska [The snow mask] (1907), on Dvenadtsat’ [The twelve] and on various essays, including “Krushenie gumanizma” [The collapse of humanism] (1919).
16 PODKOPAEVA, Iu. N., and SVESHNIKOVA, A. N., eds. Konstantin Andreevich Somov. Pis’ma. Dnevniki. Suzhdeniia sovremennikov [Konstantin Andreevich Somov. Letters. Diaries. Views of contemporaries]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 23, 41, 92, 94—96, 100, 124, 375, 453, 465—66, 525, 527, 600.
In Russian. Includes references (indexed) to Ivanov in the editors’ introduction, in Somov’s letters to Benois (1905, 1907), Kuzmin (1906), and A. Mikhailova (1913, 1930), in a letter to Somov from Benois (1907), in a profile of 1913 by P. Ettinger, and in the notes. Topics covered include meetings at the tower and its atmosphere, the gatherings of the circle “Kabachok Gafiza” [Hafiz’s tavern], Somov’s portrait of Ivanov and frontispiece to Cor Ardens (reproduced in the book), and his request from Paris in 1930 for copies of Ivanov’s poems dedicated to him. See also Bowlt, 1973.2; Lapshina, 1977.3, 1980.8; Cheron, 1986.10.
17 PYMAN, A. The Life of Aleksandr Blok. Vol. 1: The Distant Thunder: 1880—1908. Oxford: Oxford University Press, passim.
Numerous references to different aspects of Blok’s relations with Ivanov can be traced through the index. These include Blok’s visits to the tower, his preoccupation with Dionysus under the influence of Ivanov, his involvement with Komissarzhevskaia’s theatrical “Saturdays,” the polemics over mystical anarchism, and the image of him presented in Ivanov’s poem of 1909. See Pyman, 1980.12.
18 SAMPSON, EARL D. Nikolay Gumilev. Twayne’s World Authors Series, 500. Boston: Twayne, 65—66, 148—49.
In Russian. Includes a section on Ivanov’s review of Gumilev’s Zhemchuga [Pearls] (Apollon 1910, no. 7 [April]:38—42, second pagination), compared to Briusov’s review. Comments on Verkhovskii’s understanding of
Gumilev’s poetic development and late return to symbolism in terms of Ivanov’s article “Zavety simvolizma” [The precepts of symbolism] (1910) (see Verkhovskii, 1925.8).
19 WESTSTEIJN, WILLEM G. “A. A. Potebnja and Russian symbolism.” Russian literature 7:443—64.
Investigates “the relation between the linguistic and literary theories of Potebnja and the poetic theories of the Russian Symbolist poets.” Includes some discussion of Ivanov (pp. 457—59), illustrated with quotations from Ivanov’s essays on poetry and language to illustrate parallels between their attitudes to the two levels of the poetical word. Argues that “there is much in the theoretical work of Vjačeslav Ivanov which bears a close resemblance to the theories of Potebnja.”
© Ýëĺęňđîííŕ˙ ďóáëčęŕöč˙ ĐÂÁ, 2010.