1 BELYI, ANDREI. “XIII. Realiora”; “Viacheslav Ivanov: Siluet” [Viacheslav Ivanov: A profile]. In Arabeski: Kniga statei [Arabesques: A book of essays]. Moscow: Musaget, 313—18, 468—74. Reprint. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1969.
2 BOTSIANOVSKII, VL. “Afiny na Neve” [Athens on the Neva]. Utro Rossii (Moscow), 10 September, 2.
In Russian. Reviews Cor Ardens, part 1. Finds that the collection
exudes the “aroma of memories” and the “aroma of a dried flower.” What was once young and new has now aged and lost its interest. It is one thing to be an acrobat of verse, but quite another to be a poet.
3 BRIUSOV, VALERII. “Novye sborniki stikhov” [New collections of poetry]. Russkaia mysl’ (Moscow), god 32, no. 7 (July): 20—24 (third pagination).
In Russian. Reviews Cor Aniens, part 1, together with other books including Iu. Baltrushaitis’s Zemnye stupeni [Terrestrial steps] and Ellis’s Stigmata, all published in 1911. Regards Ivanov’s collection as without a doubt the most significant contribution to Russian poetry in recent months. Reviews his development since Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] in terms of an architectural metaphor. Cor Ardens is his first fully mature book. Singles out two elements in the book: the poet’s dithyrambic delight in nature and life (linked to themes of the sun, the heart and the 1905 revolution) and his mystical awe of the mystery of sacrifice (creating religious poetry in the best sense of the term). Ivanov displays mastery of form, but at times too much virtuosity. His poetry has a classical, Latin flavor that gives it a rare strength. Reprinted: 1990.10. Revised and enlarged: 1912.3, 1975.4. For a review of Cor Ardens, part 2, see Briusov, 1912.2.
4 CHUDOVSKII, VALERIAN. “Literaturnaia zhizn’: Obshchestvo revnitelei khudozhestvennogo slova” [Literary life: The society of lovers of the artistic word]. Russkaia khudozhestvennaia letopis’ (St. Petersburg), no. 20 (December): 320—21.
In Russian. Reports on Ivanov’s contribution to two meetings of the Society. At a meeting held on 29 October 1911 Piast gave a talk, “O kanone” [On the canon] (1912.15), responding to Ivanov’s earlier talk “Zavety simvolizma” [The precepts of symbolism] (1910). Ivanov chaired the meeting, and developed his ideas on the relation between poetry and religion (refuting Briusov, 1910.6, and Merezhkovskii, 1910.15) after Piast’s talk. At a meeting held on 3 December 1911, dedicated to the memory of Annenskii and chaired by Ivanov, two talks were given by Ivanov. The first marked the anniversary of Annenskii’s death and dealt with his links to Russian literature, particularly to Dostoevskii’s works; it was followed by comments by Gumilev and Mandel’shtam. The second was entitled “Morfologiia stikha” [The morphology of verse] and introduced the audience to the “philosophy of the creation of form” with reference to Novalis and the musical structure of themes in his work. See Makovskii, 1952.9 and Kuznetsova. 1990.33.
5 CHUDOVSKII, VALERIAN. “Literaturnaia zhizn’: Sobraniia i doklady” [Literary life: Meetings and lectures]. Russkaia khudozhestvennaia letopis’ (St. Petersburg), no. 9: 142—43.
In Russian. Reports on several meetings of “Obshchestvo revnitelei khudozhestvennogo slova” [The society of lovers of the artistic word]. On 26 March
1911 Nedobrovo gave a talk on the relationship between rhythm and meter in verse; Ivanov’s objections were based on his broader view of the task and possibilities of meter. On 13 April 1911 Ivanov gave the Society his impressions of the examples of Abyssinian folk verse brought back by Gumilev from his recent travels. After the talk Gumilev gave a reading of his poem “Bludnyi syn” [The prodigal son], which led to heated discussion. Ivanov read a poem in the form of a gazelle inspired by Gumilev’s account of his travels.
6 CHULKOV, GEORGII. “Poet-kormshchik” [The poet-helmsman]. Apollon (St. Petersburg), no. 10: 62—64.
In Russian. Review of Cor Ardens, part 1. Compares the work to the church of San Clemente in Rome, a Christian edifice on pagan foundations. Emphasizes its relevance to contemporary searchings. Quotes poems from “Codina gneva” [The time of wrath], compared to Pushkin, and from Eros. Reprinted with minor adaptations: 1922.5. Abridged: 1930.1.
7 GORODETSKII. SERGEI. Review of Cor Ardens: Chast’ pervaia [Cor Ardens: part 1]. Rech’ (St. Petersburg), no. 292, 24 October, 3.
In Russian. Outlines Ivanov’s poetic development. His first two collections placed him at the summit of Russian poetry alongside Briusov and Bal’mont: now he is the head and maître of all modern Russian poets. Singles out the cycles “Godina gneva” [The time of wrath] and “Povecherie” [Vespers] for particular comment. Praises his portrayal of landscapes and characterization of his contemporaries as in “Tertsiny k Somovu” [Terzinas to Somov]. Finds that the “path to a simple and deep psychologism” that was already visible in Eros is now revealed in its full brilliance. See also Gorodetskii, 1912.6 and 1913.4.
8 GUMILEV, NIKOLAI. “Pis’ma o russkoi poezii” [Letters on Russian poetry]. Review of Cor Ardens: Chast’ pervaia [Cor Ardens: part 1]. Apollon (St. Petersburg), no. 7: 75—76.
In Russian. Classifies Ivanov as a poet of mystic experience, setting him apart from the mainstream of Russian poetry represented by Pushkin, Lermontov, Briusov, and Blok. Contrasts Ivanov’s tendency toward abstraction with poems by Pushkin and Lermontov. Comments on his “transparent” images, his eclectic use of language (both are “only the outer garb of ideas”), his “intense thought,” and mastery of verse technique. Reprinted: 1923.5; 1968.6; 1990.27. For an English translation see Lapeza. 1977.2. See also Akhmatova. 1989.2.
9 GUREVICH, LIUBOV’. “Ot “byta” k ‘stiliu’” [From “everyday life” to “style”] . Russkaia mysl’ (Moscow), no. 11: 84—103 (second pagination).
In Russian. Considers the aesthetic goals and achievements of symbolism.
Paraphrases Ivanov’s essay “Zavety simvolizma” [The precepts of symbolism] and comments on Blok’s response (1910.5). Emphasizes the need for the symbolists to concentrate on perfecting their inner spiritual values and aesthetic canon in order to preserve their goals (pp. 89—91, 94—95). Reprinted: 1912.8. For a survey of the discussion following the original talk on which Ivanov’s essay was based, see Kuznetsova, 1990.33.
10 IZMAILOV, A. Review of Cor Ardens, part 1. Russkoe slovo (Moscow), no. 139, 18 June, 2.
In Russian. Describes the collection as a characteristic example of the complete obsoleteness of that which only recently seemed completely new. Criticizes the poet’s use of eighteenth-century forms.
11 KOGAN, P. “Viach. Ivanov.” In Ocherki po istorii noveishei russkoi literatury [Essays on the history of recent Russian literature]. Vol. 3: Sovremenniki [Contemporaries]. Issue 3: Mistiki i bogoiskateli [Mystics and god-seekers] Moscow: Zaria, 135—48.
In Russian. The earlier sections of the volume deal with Merezhkovskii and Belyi. Takes a negative view of the impact of mysticism on art as reflected in Ivanov’s verse. The reader of Ivanov is compared to a person visiting a foreign temple where he finds everything quite incomprehensible but remains sustained by the belief that he is present at a form of sacred worship. Ivanov is a poet only for himself, closed to others. The language and syntax of “Tantal” [Tantalus] are barbarian. Discusses the poetry of Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] and Prozrachnost’ [Transparency], regarding the second work as marking an even further stage of abstraction and divorce from real life.