вышла книга: M. Wachtel, Ph. Gleissner. V. Ivanov und Seine deutschsprachigen Verleger. Peter Lang, 2019. 376 SS.
1 ANICHKOV, EVGENII. “Poslednie pobegi russkoi poezii” [Recent shoots of Russian poetry]. Zolotoe runo (Moscow), no. 3—4: 103—12.
In Russian. The essay (begun in the previous issue) considers recent tendencies in Russian poetry in a historical context and rounds off with a concluding section on Ivanov (pp. 110—12). Following a discussion of classicism, nihilism, and aestheticism (related to the poetry of Briusov, Andreev, and Blok), Ivanov is presented as a poet whose theory of “mifotvorchestvo” [myth-creation] is capable of countering prevalent trends and of giving birth to a “New Word” based on “aesthetics without aestheticism.” Ivanov is described as a “Russian wanderer” and new “Aleko” (using the terminology of Dostoevskii’s Pushkin speech) with a Russian mind steeped in classical antiquity and Western learning. His essay “Dve stikhii v sovremennom simvolizme” [Two elemental forces in Russian symbolism] (1908) is printed in the same issue.
2 BELYI, ANDREI [Boris Bugaev]. “Na perevale: XII. ‘Realiora’” [At the pass: XII. “Realiora”] . Vesy (Moscow), no. 5 (May): 59—62. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.
In Russian. Discusses realist symbolism with particular reference to Ivanov’s lecture “Dve stikhii v sovremennom simvolizme” [Two elemental forces in contemporary symbolism] (1908), delivered on two occasions in Moscow. Provides a polemical summary of the lecture and argues that it does not contain any new insights. Attacks Ivanov for substituting “theatrical illusionism” for true realist symbolism, for his loose use of the terms realism and idealism, for the relativism implicit in his slogan “a realibus ad realiora,” and for split loyalty between the idol Dionysus and God. For Ivanov’s reply, see “B.N. Bugaev i ‘Realiora’” [B.N. Bugaev and “Realiora”] (1908). Reprinted: 1911.1.
3 BELYI, ANDREI. “Simvolizm i sovremennoe russkoe iskusstvo” [Symbolism and contemporary Russian art]. Vesy (Moscow), no. 10 (October): 38—48. Reprint. Nendeln. Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.
In Russian. The text of a talk, read in Moscow at a meeting of the Society of free aesthetics, 15 October 1908. Within the context of a general discussion of the nature of modernism, characterizes Ivanov as a “two-faced Janus” in relation to his stance toward different literary groupings. Regards him as the most serious ideologist of the mystical anarchism movement. Criticizes his views on symbolist realism for their theoretical, illusionist, and Utopian character. Part of Belyi’s article was directed against Ivanov’s essay “Dve stikhii v sovremennom simvolizme” [Two elemental forces in contemporary symbolism] (1908). Ivanov responded in his essay “Estetika i ispovedanie” [Aesthetics and creed] (1908). This polemical exchange is discussed in Gorodetskii, 1909.13.
4 GORNFEL’D, A. G. “Torzhestvo pobeditelei” [The triumph of the victors]. In Knigi i liudi: Literaturnye besedy [Books and people: Literary conversations]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo “Zhizn’,” 129—36.
Reprint of 1907.14.
5 GORODETSKII, SERGEI. “Amin’” [Amen]. Zolotoe runo (Moscow), no. 7—9: 105—07.
In Russian. Considers the current state of symbolism with reference to its emergence from decadence. Singles out Sologub, Bal’mont, and Ivanov as the only three poets who have succeeded in offering an answer to the “problem of the individual and the cosmos.” Links Bal’mont and Ivanov as representatives of “objective” and “subjective pantheism.” Attacks Briusov and Vesy for failing to rise to this challenge.
6 GORODETSKII. S. “Ogon’ za reshetkoi: Lidiia Zinov’eva-Annibal” [The fire behind the grate: Lidiia Zinov’eva-Annibal]. Zolotoe runo (Moscow), no. 3—4: 95—98.
In Russian. Obituary article devoted to Zinov’eva-Annibal, focusing in detail on three works, Kol’tsa: Drama v trekh deistviiakh [Rings: A drama in three acts]. Tridtsat’ tri uroda [Thirty-three abominations], and Tragicheskii zverinets [The tragic menagerie]. Considers these in terms of the image of the fire behind the grate, the design depicted by Dobuzhinskii on the title page of Tragicheskii zverinets, interpreted by Gorodetskii as an image of universal love, attempting to transcend the limitations of the tragic female condition, reaching out toward freedom. Quotes from Eros and draws heavily on Ivanov’s ideas, often without direct reference.
7 IZMAILOV, A. Na perelome: Literaturnye razmyshleniia. Viacheslav Ivanov. Valerii Briusov. Zinaida Gippius. A. Kamenskii. Andrei Belyi. Al. Blok. M. Kuzmin [At the turning point: Literary reflections. Viacheslav Ivanov. Valerii Briusov. Zinaida Gippius. A. Kamenskii. Andrei Belyi. Al. Blok. M. Kuzmin]. St. Petersburg: Izdanie zhurnala “Teatr i Iskusstvo.” 5—14.
In Russian. Criticizes the recent fashion in literature for stylized imitations, such as Ivanov’s verse in the style of Lomonosov and Derzhavin. Like Kuzmin, Ivanov defies the law that true art must be progressive. His fame is at its height; although his verse is sometimes musical, it is uneven, always cold and archaic. Draws on several examples from Eros to illustrate the archaic, Derzhavin-like qualities of his language. Quotes “Pozhar” [Fire]. Revised and expanded: 1910.12. See also Izmailov, 1907.16. For Izmailov’s parodies of Ivanov, see Izmailov, 1910.13, 1915.5 and Morozov, 1960.6.
8 LEVINSON, A. Ia. [A. L.]. Review of Gabriele d’Annunzio. Francheska da Rimini: Travediia [Francesca of Rimini: A tragedy]. Translated by Valerii
Briusov and Viacheslav Ivanov. St. Petersburg: Panteon, 1908. Sovremennyi mir (St. Petersburg), no. 10 (October): 136—38 (second pagination).
In Russian. Reviews Briusov and Ivanov’s translation of d’Annunzio’s play. Finds fault with the translators for inadequate linguistic knowledge and for failing to make a critical examination of the original text.
9 MEIERKHOL’D, VS. “Teatr: K istorii i tekhnike” [The theatre: On its history and technique]. In “Teatr”: Kniga o novom teatre [“Theatre”: A book about the new theatre]. St. Petersburg: Shipovnik, 123—76.
In Russian. Finds the articles of Briusov and Ivanov on art and the theatre among the most interesting reflections on the current transformation of drama. The section entitled “Uslovnyi teatr” [A theatre of conventions] describes Ivanov’s call for a return to a Dionysian form of classical tragedy and paraphrases his comments on the development of drama and masks, quoting from his collection of essays Po zvezdam [By the stars] (the proofs of which were lent to Meierkhol’d by Ivanov). Ivanov’s suggested dramatic repertoire would include works of symbolist drama, medieval-style mysteries, and comedies in the style of Aristophanes. On a technical level, the division between stage and audience would be done away with. Reprinted with minor changes: 1913.9; 1968.9.
10 MIKLASHEVSKII, M. P. [M. Nevedomskii]. “V zashchitu khudozhestva: O nashikh ‘modernistakh’, ‘mistikakh’, ‘mifotvortsakh’ i.t.d.” [In defence of art: Concerning our “modernists,” “mystics,” “myth-creators” etc.]. Sovremennyi mir (St. Petersburg), no. 3 (March): 211—29 (first pagination); no. 4 (April): 204—43 (first pagination).
In Russian. The first part of the article concludes by quoting Ivanov’s poem from Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] “Horror vacui,” described as offering the “key to the interpretation of all the mysteries of modern poetry” (p. 229). The second part opens with the same quotation (no more exact definition of the “philosophical” position of contemporary mystic modernists exists), and divides contemporary mysticism into two streams, allocating the former Marxists Bulgakov, Berdiaev, and P. Struve to the first, and Ivanov, Belyi, Blok, Gorodetskii, and Remizov to the second. Notes the difficulty of clarifying the core of Ivanov’s ideas and development. Comments on the “curious mix of aesthetics and politics” in his essay “Vagner i Dionisovo deistvo” [Wagner and the Dionysian act] (1905). Considers Ivanov alongside Belyi, Chulkov, Merezhkovskii, and others, criticizes his views on mystical anarchism, myth-creation, and realist symbolism, and defends the cause of “true art” from false “kul’turnost’” [culturedness].
11 MOROZOV, MIKHAIL. “Pred litsom smerti” [Faced with death]. In Literaturnyi raspad: Kriticheskii sbornik [Literary collapse: A critical anthology). Vol. 1. St. Petersburg: Zerno, 241—98.
In Russian. The anthology reflects various shades of Marxist reaction to idealist literature. Morozov’s contribution attacks the mystical anarchists and members of the “Fakely” group, quoting verses by Ivanov in this context and referring to the influence of his theory of “sobornost’” [communality]. The second section focuses on the ideas reflected in his essays “O liubvi derzaiushchei” [On love which dares] (1907), “Ideia nepriiatiia mira i misticheskii anarkhizm” [The idea of the rejection of the world and mystical anarchism] (1906), “Krizis individualizma” [The crisis of individualism] (1905), and “Religiia Dionisa” [The religion of Dionysus] (1905). Finds that Ivanov’s theories bear no relation to real life; notes his “kholodnyi rassudochnyi orgiazm” [cold rational orgiastic rapture] and the scepticism and despair beneath the veil of fancy rhetoric.
12 VOITOLOVSKII, L. “Itogi russkogo modernizma” [Russian modernism summed up]. In Literaturnyi raspad: Kriticheskii sbornik [Literary collapse: A critical anthology]. Vol. I. St. Petersburg: Zerno, 179—202.
In Russian. Attempts to define the sociological significance of recent changes in literature and the philosophical content of new modernist tendencies, but finds the incoherent nature of the material makes this an impossible task. Quotes Filosofov on Ivanov’s and Chulkov’s roles in developing mystical anarchism (1907.10).