Афиша

Доклад  А. Шишкина "Рим и римский локус Вяч. Иванова" 28 апреля 2021 г. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geMPV1Ucios&ab_channel=pietrochichkine

 

Андрей Белый в квартире Вяч. Иванова в Риме на Авентинском холме (доклад, видео)

[доступно на:] https://youtu.be/RilWkq0Tm7I?t=9097

1920

1920

1 ASEEV, NIK. “Moskovskie zapiski” [Moscow notes]. Dal’nevostochnoe obozrenie (Vladivostok), no. 357, 27 June.

In Russian. Memoirs of Ivanov by the Futurist poet Aseev, dated 1920, June, Vladivostok, and evidently referring to the period around autumn 1914. Aseev describes his first sight of Ivanov at a meeting of the Religious-Philosophical Society held in Moscow at the home of Morozova, and his later visit to Ivanov’s home (Rachinskii and Ern were also present). Relates Ivanov’s high opinion of Khlebnikov as a genius who would only be understood in a hundred years, and of the poetess E. Guro, as well as a discussion of Burliuk and Futurism. Ivanov recommended the writings of Swedenborg, J. Boehme, Novalis, and Saint Francis. Concludes with a quatrain written by Ivanov on a copy of Po zvezdam [By the stars] dedicated to Aseev. Source: typescript copy of newspaper article from A. E. Parnis, and reprint 1992.19; unverified. The issue number and date are taken from the typescript copy, and differ from the information given in the reprint of 1992. Reprinted with an introductory note by A. Parnis: 1992.2.

57

2 BRIUSOV, VALERII [P-r]. Review of Mladenchestvo [Infancy]. Khudozhestvennoe slovo: Vremennik literaturnogo otdela NKP (Moscow), no. 1: 57.

In Russian. Comments briefly on Ivanov’s use of the Onegin stanza, on his new “severe simplicity” of language. The author’s talent rather than subject matter retains the reader’s attention. His religious mysticism converts the outer world into a series of prophetic visions and dreams. Reprinted: 1990.10.

3 BRIUSOV, VALERII. Review of Prometei. Tragediia [Prometheus. A tragedy]. Khudozhestvennoe slovo: Vremennik literaturnogo otdela NKP (Moscow), no. 2: 59—60.

In Russian. Criticizes the tragedy for its distortion of classical myth, obscurity, excessively abstract character, and lack of relation to reality. The hero, Prometheus, is a philosopher who discourses on lofty matters as if he had read Nietzsche and Ivanov. The tragedy is a “curious example of ‘creation in the void,’” despite the beauty of its verse. Comments favorably on the interesting scholarly preface to the tragedy. Reprinted: 1990.10. See also Pribylovskii, 1921.6; Toporov, 1989.61; Mureddu, 1993.40.