|ĐÂÁ: Â˙÷. Čâŕíîâ. Áčáëčîăđŕôč˙.||Âĺđńč˙ 1.1 îň 10 ŕďđĺë˙ 2013 ă.|
1 AVERINTSEV, S. S., ed. “Viacheslav Ivanov: Krai iskonnyi moi i krovnyi....” [Viacheslav Ivanov: My immemorial and familiar land...]. Druzhba narodov (Moscow), no. 7: 161—67.
In Russian. Introduces a selection of twenty-two poems with a brief note
(p. 161), emphasizing the importance of overcoming traditional prejudices against Ivanov as a difficult or archaic poet. Relates Ivanov’s use of language to the work of Byzantine scribes and to Pushkin, thereby underlining his links with the national cultural tradition of Russia. Most of the poems are from Svet vechernii [Vespertine light], two are from Chelovek [Man], and a poem of 25 November 1920 dedicated to Gorodetskii is also included.
2 BARAN, HENRYK. “Towards a Typology of Russian Modernism: Ivanov, Remizov, Xlebnikov.” In Aleksej Remizov: Approaches to a Protean Writer. Edited by Greta N. Slobin. UCLA Slavic Studies, 16. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 175—93.
Sets Remizov in a broader literary context by comparing aspects of his literary practice and theory to those of Ivanov and Khlebnikov. Concentrates on his use of folklore and myth, and on the presence of annotation in his works. Underscores the differences and uniqueness of Remizov’s approach, despite apparent similarities. For a Russian translation, see Baran, 1993.4.
3 CYMBORSKA-LEBODA, MARIA. “O koncepcji tragedii dionizyjskiej: ‘Tantal’ Wiaczesława Iwanowa” [On the concept of Dionysian tragedy: Viacheslav Ivanov’s “Tantalus”] . Slavia (Prague) 56, no. 2: 153—61.
In Polish. Comments on the links between Ivanov’s view of the Dionysian roots of tragedy and Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy. Traces the link between Ivanov’s “Tantal” [Tantalus] and the mythopoetic tradition. Uncovers references to the ritual of initiation and to the presence of Dionysian elements in the text of the tragedy. See also Cymborska-Leboda, 1983.5, 1984.5, 1986.11, 1986.12, 1988.14, 1990.14, 1992.5, 1992.6, 1993.11.
4 DOBUZHINSKII, M. V. “Vstrechi s pisateliami i poetami” [Meetings with writers and poets]. In Vospominaniia [Memoirs]. Edited by G. I. Chugunov. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Literaturnye pamiatniki. Moscow: Nauka, 271—81, 438—41.
Reprint of 1945.1 with notes.
5 FOTIEV, K. “Dionis i pradionisiistvo v svete noveishikh iskanii” [Dionysus and predionysianism in the light of recent research]. Grani (Paris), no. 143: 220—36.
In Russian. The introductory section describes the third international symposium on Ivanov, held at the University of Pavia in September 1986. The main section (Fotiev’s paper delivered at the symposium) considers Ivanov’s book on the early sources of the religion of Dionysus (1923) from the perspective of modern scholarship. Comments on the widespread ignorance of Ivanov’s study in the West and in the Soviet Union. Summarizes the principal arguments of his work, drawing attention to Ivanov’s view of Egypt
as a possible early home of the cult. Concludes by citing the poem “Palinodiia” [Palinode] (1927) as a stage in the later development of Ivanov’s attitude to classical antiquity and its relation with Christianity. Reprinted (without the introductory section): 1988.23. For Fotiev’s review of Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], vol. 4, see Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia, 1987, no. 151, pp. 204—10.
6 GASPAROV, M. L., ed. Uchebnyi material po literaturovedeniiu: Russkii stikh [Textbook materials on the study of literature: Russian verse]. Tallin: Tallinskii pedagogicheskii institut im. E. Vil’de, 46—47, 52—53, 115, 152—53, 159.
In Russian. Provides a selection of texts, illustrating various unusual and rare aspects of Russian versification. Includes poems by Ivanov, and extracts from “Tantal” [Tantalus] and from his translation of Terpander, accompanied by an informative commentary on their formal and technical characteristics. Poems commented include “Italii” [To Italy] (1911) and Ivanov’s “Sonetto di riposta” (1909) to Gumilev. Reprinted: 1989.21. For an expanded version of this textbook, see Gasparov, 1993.21.
7 GERASIMOV, Iu. K. “Dramaturgiia simvolizma” [The drama of symbolism]. In Istoriia russkoi dramaturgii: Vtoraia polovina XIX — nachalo XX veka do 1917 g. [The history of Russian drama: The second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century until 1917], Edited by Iu. K. Gerasimov, L. M. Lotman, and F. Ia. Priima. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom). Leningrad: Nauka, 552—605.
In Russian. Considers three examples of symbolist drama, Ivanov’s “Tantal” [Tantalus], Bal’mont’s “Tri rassveta” [Three dawns], and Briusov’s “Zemlia” [Earth]. Analyzes the action of “Tantal” in terms of rebellion and the overcoming of individualism (pp. 562—66). Outlines Ivanov’s contribution to the theory of symbolist drama in his essays. Characterizes his tragedy Prometei [Prometheus] as a renewed confirmation of the symbolist theory of drama, underlines its closeness to his lyric verse (particularly to Chelovek [Man]), and comments on its religious and philosophical content (pp. 593—96). Several other comments on Ivanov in relation to other symbolist dramatists can be traced through the index. See also Gerasimov, 1987.8.
8 GERASIMOV, Iu. K. “Zhanrovye osobennosti rannei dramaturgii Bloka: 1. Predshestvenniki” [Genre characteristics of the early drama of Blok: 1. Predecessors]; “Neizdannoe pis’mo Bloka Viach. Ivanovu” [An unpublished letter from Blok to Viach. Ivanov]. In Aleksandr Blok: Issledovaniia i materialy [Aleksandr Blok: Investigations and materials]. Edited by Iu. K. Gerasimov, K. N. Grigor’ian, and F. Ia. Priima. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom). Leningrad: Nauka, 21—37, 236—40.
In Russian. The first essay includes a section on Ivanov’s theory of
symbolist drama and its reflection in “Tantal” [Tantalus] and in Briusov’s tragedy “Zemlia” [Earth] (pp. 28—32, 34—35); this essay incorporates part of the material used in 1987.7. The second item publishes the text of a previously unlisted letter of 21 December 1918 from Blok to Ivanov, referring to the internal organization of the theatrical section of Narkompros (TEO). The letter is preceded by introductory comments on Blok’s and Ivanov’s work for TEO and followed by notes. For earlier materials on the correspondence of Blok and Ivanov, see Bel’kind, 1972.3; Superfin, 1972.21; Orlov, 1975.11, 1979.14; Kotrelev, 1982.13; Lavrov, 1989.39.
9 GRIGOR’IAN, K. N. “Isaakian v perevodakh Bloka: K probleme poeticheskogo perevoda” [Isaakian in the translations of Blok: On the problem of poetic translation]. In Aleksandr Blok: Issledovaniia i materialy [Aleksandr Blok: Investigations and materials]. Edited by Iu. K. Gerasimov, K. N. Grigor’ian, and F. Ia. Priima. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom). Leningrad: Nauka, 37—57.
In Russian. As an illustration of two different methods of poetic translation, contrasts Blok’s close rendering of Isaakian’s poem “Moei materi” [To my mother] with Ivanov’s much freer version (pp. 44, 48, 50). Draws on materials from Ivanov’s archive for the literal versions of the poem from which the poetic translations were fashioned. See also Safrezbekian, 1968.11; Grigor’ian, 1952.4, 1968.5.
10 IVANOVA, LIDIIA. “Vospominaniia. Neizdannye pis’ma Viacheslava Ivanova” [Memoirs. Unpublished Letters of Viacheslav Ivanov]. Edited by D. V. Ivanov. Minuvshee: Istoricheskii al’manakh (Paris), no. 3: 45—77.
In Russian. The memoirs cover the period from Ivanov’s arrival in Rome in 1924 through his life in Pavia at Collegio Borromeo until 1927. They include material from his diary of 1924 and substantial extracts from several letters written to his children between 1925 and 1927. The memoirs are prefaced by an introductory note by D. Ivanov and followed by notes. Parts of this section of Ivanova’s memoirs were incorporated with cuts in Ivanova, 1990.28. For earlier installments of the memoirs see Ivanova, 1982.6, 1983.11. For an English translation of part of the memoirs, see 1986.22.
11 IVANOV, D. V., DESCHARTES O., and SHISHKIN, A. B., eds. Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works]. Vol. 4. Brussels: Foyer Oriental Chrétien, 800 pp.
In Russian. The fourth volume of the collected works (planned in six volumes, for volumes 1, 2, and 3 see 1971.3, 1974.1, 1979.8) includes uncollected poems by Ivanov, his versions of Novalis, his essays on various writers (Shakespeare, Cervantes, Goethe, Schiller, Novalis, Byron, Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol’, Dostoevskii, Tolstoi, Belyi), on literary matters, and on
the historical destiny of the Slav world. The afterword (pp. 683—98) and the extensive section “Parerga i paralipomena” [Parerga and paralipomena] (pp. 713—88) comment on the contents of the volume and include further related materials such as Ivanov’s correspondence with E. D. Shor and the draft of his lecture on Novalis and Sophia. Reprints the Russian translation of the speech of Pope John Paul II on Ivanov (1983.15), and D. Ivanov’s obituary of Lidiia Ivanova (1985.5).
12 IVANOV, GEORGII. “Viacheslav Ivanov.” In Tretii Rim: Khudozhestvennaia proza. Stat’i [Third Rome. Prose. Essays]. Edited and with a preface by Vadim Kreid. Tenafly, NJ: Hermitage, 264—65.
Reprint of 1949.10.
13 KHOKHLOVA, I. A. “Gnoseologicheskoe obosnovanie teorii kul’tury v estetike Viach. Ivanova” [The gnostic foundation of the theory of culture in the aesthetics of Viach. Ivanov]. In Vzaimodeistvie estetiki, iskusstvoznaniia i khudozhestvennoi kritiki [The interaction of aesthetics, history of art and literary criticism]. Introduction by D. M. Khanin. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut filosofii. Moscow: n.p., 46—58.
In Russian. Discusses Ivanov’s aesthetics with particular reference to his theory of knowledge and artistic creation. Links these with his concept of the underlying unity and interaction of the individual (microcosm) and the cosmos (macrocosm) through love. Concludes that Ivanov’s attempted synthesis of disparate elements led to a “confused and contradictory” theory of culture and myth-creation.
14 KOBAK, ALEKSANDR, and SEVERIUKHIN, DMITRII. “‘Bashnia’ na Tavricheskoi: Biografiia doma” [The “Tower” on Tavricheskaia street: The biography of a building]. Dekorativnoe iskusstvo SSSR, no. 1: 35—39.
In Russian. Describes the construction of the building (no. 35/1 Tavricheskaia ulitsa) in which Ivanov’s “tower” flat (no. 24) was located. Portrays the inner plan of the building, Ivanov’s flat and the Wednesday gatherings, and Meierkhol’d’s theatrical production at the tower in 1910. Includes photographs of the interior of the building. Incorporates part of Kobak and Severiukhin, 1986.27.
15 LAVROV, A. V., and TIMENCHIK, R. D., eds. “Ne pokoriaias’ magii imen: N. Gumilev — kritik. Novye stranitsy” [Without surrendering to the magic of names: N. Gumilev — the critic. New materials]. Literaturnoe obozrenie (Moscow), no. 7: 102—12.
Includes a reprint of Gumilev’s review of Nezhnaia taina [Tender Mystery] (1913.6) with brief notes (p. 108).
16 MALMSTAD, JOHN, ed. “Iz perepiski V. F. Khodasevicha (1925—1928)” [From the correspondence of V. F. Khodasevich (1924—1928)]. Minuvshee: Istoricheskii al’manakh (Paris), no. 3: 262—91.
In Russian. Publishes five letters from Khodasevich to various correspondents, including one letter of 21 January 1925 to Ivanov (pp. 264—68). Khodasevich thanks Ivanov for his kind words about his collection Tiazhelaia lira [A heavy lyre] (1922), comments on his present difficulties with writing, deplores the low level of pay for contributions to émigré journals, and describes the unsatisfactory situation with regard to Gor’kii’s journal Beseda. The letter is prefaced by introductory comments on the two poets’ relations and followed by extensive notes. These include the first publication of Gor’kii’s letter to Ivanov of 12 December 1924, mentioning having sent off Ivanov’s “Rimskie sonety” [Roman sonnets] to Beseda and requesting further material on Dostoevskii and Pushkin for the journal (see Bialik, 1959.1). For Ivanov’s letters to Khodasevich, see Berberova, 1960.1.
17 MANDEL’sHTAM, O. Slovo i kul’tura: O poezii. Razgovor o Dante. Staťi. Retsenzii [The word and culture: On poetry. Conversation about Dante. Essays. Reviews]. Compiled and edited by Pavel Nerler. Introductory essay by M. Ia. Poliakov. Moscow: Sovetskii rabochii, 44—45, 64, 173, 207, 251, 261.
In Russian. Includes previously published essays and reviews by Mandel’shtam with references to Ivanov, followed by notes, variants, and bibliographical references. Reprint of 1955.4 (“Vypad” [The slump], “O prirode slova” [On the nature of the word], both in the versions published in Mandel’shtam’s O poezii [On poetry], Leningrad: Academia, 1928); 1969.5 (“Pis’mo o russkoi poezii” [A letter about Russian poetry]); 1923.9 “Buria i natisk” [Storm and stress]; 1969.5 (“O sovremennoi poezii” [On contemporary poetry]). For earlier editions of Mandel’shtam’s collected prose, see Mandel’shtam, 1955.4, 1966.8, 1969.5, 1971.7. For an English translation of these essays, see Mandelstam, 1979.10.
18 PORFIR’eVA, A. “Russkaia simvolistskaia tragediia i mifologicheskii teatr Vagnera: Dramaturgiia Viacheslava Ivanova” [Russian symbolist tragedy and the mythological theatre of Wagner: The dramatic art of Viacheslav Ivanov]. In Problemy muzykal’nogo romantizma: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Aspects of romanticism in music: A collection of academic papers]. Edited by A. L. Porfir’eva. Leningrad: Leningradskii gosudarstvennyi institut teatra, muzyki i kinematografii im. N. K. Cherkasova, 31—58.
In Russian. Defines the sources and the governing principles of Wagner’s “mythological theatre.” Considers Ivanov’s related theory of symbolist drama, his debt to both Nietzsche and Wagner, and his links with Scriabin. Outlines the principles highlighted in his book on the early sources of the religion of Dionysus (1923), and their embodiment in the “myth-metaphors” and underlying structure of his tragedies “Tantal” [Tantalus] and
Prometei [Prometheus]. Comments on reminiscences of Wagner in “Tantal” and of Aeschylus in Prometei. See also Durylin, 1913.3; Rosenthal, 1984.25; Bartlett, 1990.3, 1993.5; Gozenpud, 1990.26; Rizzi, 1993.47.
19 PYMAN, AVRIL. “Petersburg Dreams.” In Aleksej Remizov: Approaches to a Protean Writer. Edited by Greta N. Slobin. UCLA Slavic Studies, 16. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 51—112.
In Russian and English. The section related to Ivanov (pp. 69—87) publishes Remizov’s account of a dream about Ivanov and Zinov’eva-Annibal that his wife, Serafima Pavlovna Dovgello-Remizova (1883—1943), had in 1909 and described to him. The written account is followed by a commentary by Remizov on the dream, incorporating his own generally negative comments on Ivanov. Introductory comments and extensive notes on both the dream and the commentary, as well as English translations of both, are provided by Pyman. A drawing of Ivanov by Remizova is also reproduced.
20 RUDICH, V. “Viatcheslav Ivanov.” In Histoire de la littérature russe: Le XXe siècle. L’Age d’argent. Edited by Efim Etkind, Georges Nivat, Ilya Serman, Vittorio Strada. Paris: Fayard, 165—79.
In French. The opening chapter on Russian symbolism includes a section on Ivanov.
21 SHERSHENEVICH, VADIM. “Velikolepnyi ochevidets: Poeticheskie vospominaniia 1910—1925 gg.” [A magnificent witness: Poetic memoirs of 1910—1925]. V mire knig (Moscow), no. 9: 59—64.
In Russian. Extracts from the unpublished memoirs of Shershenevich include a fragment on Ivanov, describing an argument with Briusov over a Latin quotation (pp. 62—63).
22 SKVORTSOVA, N. V. “Rannee tvorchestvo Bloka v otsenke kritikov i sovremennikov (1902—1905)” [The early work of Blok in the judgment of critics and contemporaries (1902—1905)]. In Aleksandr Blok: Issledovaniia i materialy [Aleksandr Blok: Investigations and materials]. Edited by Iu. K. Gerasimov, K. N. Grigor’ian, and F. Ia. Priima. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut russkoi literatury (Pushkinskii dom). Leningrad: Nauka, 117—39.
In Russian. Includes a section (pp. 133—36) on Ivanov’s review of Blok’s Stikhi o Prekrasnoi Dame [Verses about the Beautiful Lady] (Vesy, 1904, no. 11, pp. 49—50), written at the request of Briusov. Contrasts its emotional Solov’ev-inspired response to Blok’s collection with Gippius’s later review in the December issue of Novyi puť. Demonstrates that Gippius’s view of Blok as an unreligious poet is polemically related to Ivanov’s review, which it directly counters.
23 TERNOVSKY, EUGENE. Essai sur l’histoire du poème russe de la fin du XlXè et du début du XXè siècle: Velikolepnaia neudacha [A magnificent failure]. Atelier national, Reproduction des thèses, Université Lille III. Paris: n.p., Diffusion Aux amateurs de livres, 149—81.
In Russian. The third chapter of this published thesis deals with the genre of the long poem in the art of the symbolists and includes a section on Ivanov that examines the development of this genre (including cycles) in his verse. Comments on several poems, including “Miry vozmozhnogo” [The worlds of the possible], “Son Melampa” [The dream of Melampus], “Solntsev persten’” [The sun’s ring], “Feofil i Mariia” [Feofil and Maria], Mladenchestvo [Infancy] (linked with Blok’s “Vozmezdie” [Retribution]), Chelovek [Man], and “Povesť o Svetomire tsareviche” [The tale of tsarevich Svetomir]. See Shishkin, 1992.24; Ueland, 1992.27.
24 TIMENCHIK, R. D. “Neizvestnye pis’ma N. S. Gumileva” [Unknown letters of N. S. Gumilev]. Izvestiia Akademii Nauk SSSR, Seriia literatury i iazyka, 46, no. 1 (January — February): 50—78.
In Russian. Publishes four letters from Gumilev to Ivanov (1909—1911) and one to Vera Shvarsalon (c. December 1909) with detailed comments on the two poets’ relationship during this period and notes including the publication of further archival materials and a letter from Ivanov to Gumilev of 16 June 1911 (pp. 62—69). Passing references to Ivanov also occur in Gumilev’s letters of 1917 to Lozinskii and Akhmatova (pp. 75—77). For an earlier publication of the correspondence, see Gumilev, 1986.20. See also Timenchik, 1981.26.
25 TOPOROV, V. N. “K issledovaniiu anagrammaticheskikh struktur: Analizy” [On the investigation of anagrammatic structures: Analyses]. In Issledovaniia po strukture teksta [Investigations on the structure of the text]. Edited by T. V. Tsiv’ian. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut slavianovedeniia i balkanistiki. Moscow: Nauka, 193—237.
In Russian. Discusses two aspects of Ivanov’s use of anagrams formed from names (pp. 210—26). Considers the use of various anagrams derived from Rome in the poetry of Virgil, Ovid, Du Bellay, Tiutchev, Maikov, V. Solov’ev, and Voloshin. Locates the high point of the Rome theme in the poetry of Mandel’shtam and in Ivanov’s “Rimskie sonety” [Roman sonnets]. Analyzes the first sonnet (see Klimoff, 1986.26 and Cazzola, 1988.11), and contrasts it with the later depiction of Rome in “Rimskii dnevnik” [Roman diary]. Comments on Ivanov’s “Laeta.” Regards Gogol’ and Ivanov as the two greatest creators of the Russian version of the myth of Rome. The second section of the article deals with the device of the “’skrytoe’ imia” [“hidden” name] in Russian poetry; Ivanov’s mastery of this technique derives from his knowledge of Virgil and period of study as a pupil of De Saussure. As examples, discusses the play on the names Margarita and Lidiia in the ninth and
tenth sonnets of the “Zolotye zavesy” [Golden veils] cycle, the poem to Briusov “Valerio vati” (1904), and the recurrent combinations of “r” and “z” in the verses of “Rosarium.” See also Dotsenko, 1993.15.
26 TSELIKOV, V. “Problemy kul’tury v tvorchestve V. I. Ivanova” [Problems of culture in the work of V. I. Ivanov]. In Sotsial’no-kul’turnyi kontekst iskusstva. Istoriko-esteticheskii analiz: Sbornik nauchnykh statei [The social and cultural context of art. A historical and aesthetic analysis: An anthology of academic essays]. Edited by K. M. Dolgov. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut filosofii. Moscow: n.p., 162—79.
In Russian. Draws on Ivanov’s essays from Po zvezdam [By the stars] and Borozdy i mezhi [Furrows and boundaries] to outline various aspects of his understanding of culture. Dwells on his view of the relationship between art and the individual or people, between intimate and universal art, on his concept of barbarian art and its link with his image of Scriabin and with the hero of his tragedy Prometei [Prometheus].
© Ýëĺęňđîííŕ˙ ďóáëčęŕöč˙ ĐÂÁ, 2010.