|ÐÂÁ: Âÿ÷. Èâàíîâ. Áèáëèîãðàôèÿ.||Âåðñèÿ 1.1 îò 10 àïðåëÿ 2013 ã.|
1 AL’TMAN, M. “Iz togo, chto vspomnilos’” [Miscellaneous recollections]. Edited by Aleksandr Parnis. Literaturnaia gazeta, no. 46 (5060), 13 November, 5.
In Russian. Publishes a few fragments from Al’tman’s memoirs of Khlebnikov, written at the request of A. Parnis on the basis of notes taken in the 1920s. Cites Ivanov’s comment “ot Khlebnikova pakhnet sviatost’iu” [Khlebnikov smells of saintliness] and mentions his view that Khlebnikov stood midway between the states of genius and madness. Refers to Khlebnikov’s statement that Ivanov was not an ideal figure for him because his life was “not heroic.” Al’tman also mentions reading his diary in the presence of Ivanov and Khlebnikov in Baku. See also Duganov, 1990.17.
2 BASKER, MICHAEL. “Gumilyov’s ‘Akteon’: A Forgotten Manifesto of Acmeism.” Slavonic and East European Review 63, no. 4 (October): 498—517.
Argues that Gumilev’s one-act play, first published in 1913, represents a detailed formulation of the Acmeist program. Defines its polemical intent in relation to its treatment of classical mythology and contrasts it in this context with Ivanov’s view of “mifotvorchestvo” [myth-creation] and its function in art. Suggests that Gumilev’s motive may be traced to his quarrel with Ivanov, who in the spring of 1911 harshly criticized Gumilev’s free treatment of myth in his poem “Bludnyi syn” [The prodigal son]. Interpets Gumilev’s presentation of the ultimate fate of Akteon as an attack on Ivanov’s ideal of Dionysian self-transcendence.
3 GERASIMOV, Iu. K. “Russkii simvolizm i fol’klor” [Russian symbolism and folklore]. Russkaia literatura, no. 1: 95—109.
In Russian. The concluding section of this survey considers Ivanov’s contribution to the symbolist approach to folklore (pp. 105—07). Relates his view of art and “mifotvorchestvo” [myth-creation] to his understanding of folklore as the repository of spiritual treasures of national significance. Comments on the extent of the influence of his approach to folklore on the writing of Blok, Gorodetskii, and Remizov and on the development of modernist poetry.
4 ISWOLSKY, HELENE. No Time to Grieve: An Autobiographical Journey. Philadelphia: Winchell, 177—78, 281.
The memoirs include a section on Iswolsky’s translation into French of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners]. Relates how she discovered the book and worked together with Du Bos at his request on the translation: “I translated from the original Russian text, while Du Bos, who knew no Russian but was an expert on religious and philosophical terminology, checked every word of my French translation. It was like the task of a jeweler, examining each gem before setting it.” The translation was praised by Ivanov and appeared in the journal Vigile in 1930 and as a book in 1931. Later Iswolsky (a Russian Catholic) became friends with Ivanov’s children, who introduced her to the leaders of the ecumenical movement in Rome. See also Du Bos, 1930.3 and Marcel, 1931.4, 1931.5.
5 [IVANOV, DIMITRI]. Obituary of Lidiia Viacheslavovna Ivanova. In Esse, stat’i, perevody [Essays, articles, translations], by Viacheslav Ivanov. Brussels: Foyer Oriental Chrétien, 215—21.
In Russian. This edition of Ivanov’s literary essays and translations (issued in a volume replacing no. 45 of the philosophical and theological journal Logos) includes an obituary of Lidiia Ivanova (28.4.1896—8.7.1985). Reviews her life, her musical studies and career, and her compositions, culminating in her late work, an opera based on Calderón’s seventeenth-century
comedy performed at the tower in 1910 in Bal’mont’s translation, Poklonenie krestu [Worship of the cross]. Comments on her spiritual path, her crisis of faith in Paris, and adoption of the Catholic faith on 12 July 1927. Characterizes her personality as a mixture of humor, natural reserve, and inner religiosity. Reprinted: 1987.11. See also Znosko-Borovskii, 1910.19; Blinov and Rudich, 1986.7; Ivanova, 1990.28. For a review of the book, see Kopeikin, 1986.28.
6 KATANIAN, V. Maiakovskii: Khronika zhizni i deiatel’nosti [Maiakovskii: A chronicle of his life and work]. Edited by A. E. Parnis. Fifth edition, expanded. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’, 138—39, 173, 181, 223, 278.
Reprint of 1945.2 and 1956.2 with additional materials, including mention of Ivanov’s and Maiakovskii’s participation at an evening discussion of recent poetry organized by the literary section of Narkompros (LITO) on 20 August 1920.
7 KLUGE, ROLF-DIETER. Der russische Symbolismus. Skripten des slavischen seminars der universität Tübingen, 24. Tübingen, 35—40.
In German. A short pamphlet on symbolism with a brief note on Ivanov followed by a selection of seven poems.
8 KOTRELEV, N. V. “Perevodnaia literatura v deiatel’nosti izdatel’stva ‘skorpion’” [Translations of literature in the work of the Skorpion publishing house]. In Sotsial’no-kul’turnye funktsii knigoizdatel’skoi deiatel’nosti: Sborník nauchnykh trudov [The socio-cultural functions of book-publishing: An anthology of academic papers]. Edited by N. V. Kotrelev. Moscow: Vsesoiuznaia gosudarstvennaia biblioteka inostrannoi literatury, 68—133.
In Russian. Investigates the activities of the Skorpion publishing house in the 1900s in promoting foreign literature in translation and considers Ivanov’s role within this context (pp. 74—81). Publishes his letter of 9 October 1900 to M. A. Mamontov suggesting the publication by Skorpion of a selection of modern French writers (Villiers de l’Isle Adam, Mallarmé, Laforgue, Jammes, Gide) in Russian translation (to be carried out by A. V. Gol’shtein in Paris) with illustrations by contemporary French artists (including Redon). Publishes excerpts related to this project from Ivanov’s correspondence with Zinov’eva-Annibal, Gol’shtein, and Briusov. The project was never carried out, but serves as an illustration of the interplay of literary and commercial interests and of Ivanov’s interest in current French culture. See Donchin, 1958.2.
9 LILIENFELD, FAIRY V[ON]. “Der Lyriker Vjačeslav Ivanov und das Christentum.” In Geist und Erkenntnis: Zu spirituellen Grundlagen Europas. Festschrift zum 65. Geburstag von Prof. ThDr. Tomáš Špidlik SJ. Edited by
Karel Mácha. Integrale Anthropologie, 5. Munich: Minerva publikation, 87—147.
In German. Investigates Christian themes in Ivanov’s poetry with reference to lyrics from Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars], Prozrachnosť [Transparency], Cor Ardens and Svet vechernii [Vespertine light] as well as to the drama “Tantal” [Tantalus] and the long poem Chelovek [Man]. Relates poems to the Greek and Russian Orthodox liturgy.
10 LOSEV, A. F. “V poiskakh smysla” [In search of meaning]. Interview conducted by Vik. Erofeev. Voprosy literatury, no. 10: 205—31.
In Russian. Includes comments on Ivanov’s role as Losev’s teacher (pp. 212—14). Losev recalls hearing Ivanov deliver his lecture “O granitsakh iskusstva” [On the boundaries of art] (1914) at the Moscow Religious-Philosophical Society. Singles out Ivanov as his “teacher,” was introduced to him by V. O. Nilender, comments on Ivanov’s remarks on his diploma dissertation on the worldview of Aeschylus, felt closer to him than to either Pasternak or Belyi. Attributes Ivanov’s lack of popularity to the range and depth of his thought. Contrasts the “metaphorical imagery” of Pushkin or Lermontov with Ivanov’s symbolist imagery and notes the influence of Ivanov’s concept of realist symbolism on his approach to classical antiquity and studies of Socrates and Plotinus. Reprinted with minor changes: 1990.39. See also Losev, 1976.11, 1989.41, 1990.38; Rostovtsev, 1989.51.
11 LUKIRSKAIA, K. P., ed. Biblioteka A. A. Bloka: Opisanie [The library of A. A. Blok: A description]. Compiled by O. V. Miller, N. A. Kolobova, and S. Ia. Vovina. Vol. 2. Leningrad: Biblioteka Akademii nauk SSSR, 211, 372, 373.
In Russian. Catalogues the books held in Blok’s library together with details of inscriptions, dedications and marginalia. Includes details of a reference to Ivanov in an inscription of 1920 from Remizov to Blol, and Blok’s notes on his copy of Chulkov’s 0 misticheskom anarkhizme [On mystical anarchism], inscribed to him by Chulkov. For the first and third volumes of the catalogue, see Lukirskaia, 1984.18, 1986.30.
12 MAKSIMOV, D. E. “Neskol’ko slov o ‘Poeme bez geroia’” [A few comments on “Poem without a hero”] . In Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Academic proceedings of Tartu state university]. Vol. 680: Blokovskii sborník [An anthology of Blok materials]. Vol. 6: A. Blok i ego okruzhenie [A. Blok and his entourage]. Tartu: Tartuskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 137—58.
In Russian. Cites several comments made by Akhmatova to Maksimov about Ivanov when she first read part of “Poema bez geroia” [Poem without a hero] to him on 17 May 1941 (pp. 144—51). Reports Akhmatova reading out an excerpt from Ivanov’s essay of 1908, “Dve stikhii v russkom simvolizme”
[Two elemental forces in Russian symbolism]) and stating that the section including the phrase “sviaz’ sushchego” [the link of all that exists] “explained” her poem, conceived as a polemic with symbolism. Maksimov mentioned to her Mommsen’s idea, expressed by Ivanov in his essay of 1909 “0 russkoi idee” [On the Russian idea], that great historical events throw a shadow in front of them, and related this view to Akhmatova’s awareness of history and portrayal of 1913 in her poem. Maksimov outlines the comments he made to Akhmatova about her poem, relating it to the idea of the reverse movement of time described by Ivanov in his notes to “Son Melampa” [The dream of Melampus], and describes Akhmatova’s sympathetic response to his improvised remarks.
13 MUELLER-VOLLMER, PATRICIA ANN. “Dionysos Reborn: Vjačeslav Ivanov’s Theory of Symbolism (Russia).” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 249 pp.
Argues that the idea of Dionysus functions as the focal point in the poet’s symbolist world view. Analyzes the essay “Nitssche i Dionis” [Nietzsche and Dionysus] (1904), relates “Ellinskaia religiia stradaiushchego boga” [The hellenic religion of the suffering god] (1904) to the context of nineteenth-century and current scholarship on religion and classical philology, and shows the way in which Dionysus reemerges, endowed with new associations, in Ivanov’s theory of symbolism and understanding of culture. See Dissertation Abstracts International 46/01 A: 166.
14 MYL’NIKOVA, I. A. “Stat’i Viach. Ivanova o Skriabine” [Viacheslav Ivanov’s essays on Scriabin]. In Pamiatniki kul’tury: Novye otkrytiia. Pis’mennost’. Iskusstvo. Arkheologiia. Ezhegodnik 1983 [Monuments of culture: New discoveries. Writing. Art. Archaeology. Year-book for 1983]. Leningrad: Nauka, 88—119.
In Russian. Prints the text of three essays by Ivanov on Scriabin (pp. 96—115), together with an introductory article (pp. 88—95) and detailed notes on the text of the lectures (pp. 115—19). The essays are “Natsional’noe i vselenskoe v tvorchestve Skriabina” [National and universal elements in the art of Scriabin], “Vzgliad Skriabina na iskusstvo” [Scriabin’s view of art], and “Skriabin” [Scriabin], a speech given at the “Krasnyi petukh” [Red cock] studio on 25 February 1919. The introduction discusses the place of music in symbolist aesthetics and in the theories of Ivanov with reference to Beethoven and Wagner. Underlines the significance of Scriabin’s friendship with Ivanov. Cites Ivanov’s inscription to Scriabin of 1 April 1912 on a copy of Cor Ardens. Comments on Scriabin’s “Predvaritel’noe deistvo” [Preliminary action] and on remininiscences of Ivanov in its poetic text. Outlines Ivanov’s unfulfilled plan to collect his essays on Scriabin in a book for the Alkonost publishing house in 1919. Describes the various archival manuscript versions
of his lectures and essays on Scriabin and records the dates on which his lectures were delivered. See also Karatygin, 1915.6; Braudo, 1916.6; Engel’, 1916.11; Brown, 1979.3; Matlaw, 1979.11; Priashnikova, 1985.17; Mueller-Vollmer, 1988.47; Rubtsova, 1989.52; Mets, 1991.28; Mazaev, 1992.12; Kluge, 1993.31.
15 POLLAR, SEWERYN. “Między mitem a symbolem” [Between myth and symbol]. In Poezje [Poems], by Wiaczesław Iwanow. Edited by Seweryn Pollak. Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 5—33.
In Polish. Reprint of 1984.24 as the introduction to a book of Ivanov’s selected verse, translated into Polish by Pollak and others.
16 POTTHOFF, WILFRIED. “Dante in Russland: Zur Vermittlungswirkung der deutschen romantischen Kritik.” In Dante Alighieri 1985: In memoriam Hermann Gmelin. Edited by Richard Baum and Willi Hirdt. Tübingen: Stauffenburg verlag, 253—96.
In German. Includes comments on the influence of the German romantics, particularly of Goethe and Novalis, on Ivanov’s understanding of Dante. See also Potthoff, 1991.34.
17 PRIASHNIKOVA, M. P., and TOMPAKOVA, O. M., eds. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva A. N. Skriabina [A chronicle of the life and works of A. N. Scriabin]. Moscow: Muzyka, passim.
In Russian. Includes several references (indexed) to the two artists’ meetings and links, quoting from the memoirs of Sabaneev, Gnesin, and Shletser. Records Ivanov’s presence at Scriabin’s funeral and his subsequent lectures and poems on Scriabin. See also Karatygin, 1915.6; Braudo, 1916.6; Engel’, 1916.11; Brown, 1979.3; Matlaw, 1979.11; Myl’nikova, 1985.14; Mueller-Vollmer, 1988.47; Rubtsova, 1989.52; Mets, 1991.28; Mazaev, 1992.12; Kluge, 1993.31.
18 SALMA, N. “Krizis gumanizma i ‘realisticheskii simvolizm’ V. Ivanova” [The crisis of humanism and the “realist symbolism” of V. Ivanov]. In Dissertationes Slavicae: Slavistische mitteilungen. Materialy i soobshcheniia po slavianovedeniiu. Sectio Historiae Litterarum [Dissertationes Slavicae: Slavic papers. Materials and notes on Slavic studies. Sectio Historiae Litterarum]. Vol. 17. Szeged: Publicationes Instituti Philogiae Rossicae in Universitate de Attila József Nominata, 197—214.
In Russian. Surveys the chronological development of Ivanov’s understanding of the crisis of humanism through a study of his theoretical essays and of the use of symbolic imagery and myth in his poetry. Relates his “mythology” of humanism to Nietzsche and Dante, linked respectively with the principles of Dionysus and Apollo. Concludes that the desire to close the
gap between symbolist art and life led Ivanov to the apocalyptic imagery of his late work Chelovek [Man]. See also Sigetkhi, 1993.50.
19 SEABROOK, JOHN. “The Odd Couple.” The Nation (6 April): 405—06.
Reviews a recent translation of Ivanov’s and Gershenzon’s correspondence (1984). Praises the vitality, poetic imagination, and intellectual appeal of the exchange and finds the two correspondents psychologically similar: “Gershenzon’s Letheward longing is the secular equivalent of Ivanov’s eschatological urges.” Both men are “victims of their impossibly lofty ideals.”
20 SMITH, G. S. “The Metrical Repertoire of Russian Émigré poetry, 1941—1970.” Slavonic and East European Review 63, no. 2 (April): 210—27.
Identifies the major tendencies in the development of the metrical typology of Russian émigré verse over three decades. Provides tables (p. 225) displaying the metrical typology and use of iambic measures in Ivanov’s work from 1941 to 1949 and finds that the trend reflected in them anticipates the general move of émigré versification. Draws on “Rimskii dnevnik” [Roman diary] from Svet vechernii [Vespertine light], comparing this late renewal of creative activity to the celebrated senilia of Tiutchev. For the first part of this article, covering the period 1920—1940, see Smith, 1978.16.
21 TAMBORRA, ANGELO. “Certezza religiosa e unitá della chiesa da V. S. Solov’ev a V. I. Ivanov.” Europa Orientalis, no. 4: 69—80.
In Italian. Discusses views on the spiritual mission of the Russian people and on the ecumenical union of the churches held by a range of thinkers from V. Solov’ev to Ivanov.
22 T[ERRAS], V. “Ivanov, Vyacheslav Ivanovich.” In Handbook of Russian Literature. Edited by Victor Terras. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 205—06.
Provides an outline of Ivanov’s life and literary achievements. Defines the sources of his Neoplatonic philosophy and aesthetic theory and the essence of his aesthetic. Singles out the “Zimnie sonety” [Winter sonnets] and “De profundis amavi” as the summit of his art. Comments on his dramas, on his “unique work” “Povesť o Svetomire tsareviche” [The tale of tsarevich Svetomir], and on his masterful translations and remarkable literary criticism and scholarship. Includes a short bibliography of primary and secondary sources. See also Terras, 1991.41.
23 TOMASHEVSKII, ANDREI. “Bashennyi teatr” [The theatre at the tower]. Teatral’naia zhizn’, no. 7: 25.
In Russian. Gives a popular account of Meierkhol’d’s production of Calderón’s seventeenth-century comedy in 1910 at the tower, drawing on
Piast (1929.3) and Znosko-Borovskii (1910.19). Also views the Wednesday gatherings at the tower as a form of “theatrical production.”
24 TSVIK, I. Ia. Religiia i dekadentstvo v Rossii: Metodologicheskie aspekty sotsial’no-filosofskoi kritiki [Religion and decadence in Russia: Methodological aspects of socio-philosophical criticism]. Kishinev: Shtiintsa, 49—69.
In Russian. Sections 8—11 of the book include critical comments on Ivanov. Attacks his idealist philosophy and aesthetics and his decadent aspirations to return to the people from the point of view of dialectical materialism.
25 VENCLOVA, TOMAS. “On Russian Mythological Tragedy: Vjačeslav Ivanov and Marina Cvetaeva.” In Myth in Literature. Edited by Andrej Kodjak, Krystyna Pomorska, and Stephen Rudy. New York University Slavic Papers, 5. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 89—109.
Compares the approaches to classical myth reflected in Ivanov’s tragedies “Tantal” [Tantalus] (1905) and Prometei [Prometheus] (1919) and in Tsvetaeva’s “Ariadna” [Ariadne] (1927) and “Fedra” [Phaedra] (1928). Analyzes Ivanov’s tragedies in terms of three units, the theft of the divine gift, the sacrifice, and death-immortality, each characterized by a deep inherent ambivalence. Identifies a binary series of opposites, emphasizing the basic topological opposition “top/bottom,” seen in its dynamic aspect in terms of the hero’s trajectory of “ascent/descent.” In Prometei the same oppositions are extended to include “active/passive” and “masculine/feminine.” Links certain aspects of Ivanov’s description of myth to the work of the structuralists and Lévi-Strauss. Constructs a diagram for “Tantal” similar to Ivanov’s schematic representation of the action of Prometei. Finds that Tsvetaeva’s tragedies draw on similar binary semantic oppositions with particular reference to the opposition of “masculine/feminine” and of “animus/anima.” In her tragedies the element of myth is embodied in the lower levels of the text to a much greater degree than in Ivanov. Concludes that Ivanov perceives myth “from without,” describes and interprets it, while Tsvetaeva perceives myth “from within,” reads it through the entire text of her works and life.
26 VON GRONICKA, ANDRE. The Russian Image of Goethe: Goethe in Russian Literature of the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 161—205.
The chapter entitled “The Russian Symbolists” includes a section (pp. 190—203) on Ivanov’s image of Goethe, focusing mainly on his theoretical writings and providing a detailed commentary on his essay of 1912 “Gete na rubezhe dvukh stoletii” [Goethe on the boundary of two centuries]. Describes this as “easily the most factual and perceptive study of the poet-philosopher by a Russian Symbolist,” and finds that “like Belyi, Ivanov stresses Goethe’s ‘religiosity,’ but unlike Belyi he does not distort Goethe’s faith into Orthodox Christianity.” See also Von Gronicka, 1968.16; Zhirmunskii, 1937.7.
© Ýëåêòðîííàÿ ïóáëèêàöèÿ ÐÂÁ, 2010.