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

1927

1927

1 BEKETOVA, M. A., ed. Pis’ma Aleksandra Bloka k rodnym [Aleksandr Blok’s letters to his relations]. With a preface and notes by M. A. Beketova. Pamiatniki literaturnogo byta. [Vol. 1]. Leningrad: Academia, passim.

In Russian. Contains Blok’s letters of 1890—1909, followed by notes. References to Ivanov (from 1904) can be traced through the index in the second volume (1932.1). For a fuller, later edition of Blok’s letters see Blok, 1963.5.

2 BRIUSOV, VALERII. Dnevnìki: 1891—1910 [Diaries: 1891—1910]. Edited by I. M. Briusova. Notes by N. S. Ashukin. Moscow: Izdanie M. i S. Sabashnikovykh, 132, 133, 137, 138, 141, 142.

In Russian. Includes brief passing references to Ivanov in entries for 1903, 1906, 1907, winter 1908—1909, and 1910. Describes meeting Ivanov in Paris (comments on his lectures and enthusiasm for Dionysus). Records their cold parting in 1910 after his disagreement with the theurgic premise of Ivanov’s talk on symbolism.

3 BUBNOFF, NICOLAI V. “Das Kulturproblem im russischen Nationalbewusstsein der Gegenwart.” In Kultur und Geschichte im russischen Denken der Gegenwart. Osteuropa-Institut in Breslau; Quellen und Studien. Abteilung: Sprachwissenschaft, Literatur und Geschichte, Heft 2. Berlin: Verlag Hermann Sack, 13—18.

In German. The second chapter of this booklet discusses the Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners], recently translated by Bubnoff for Die Kreatur (1926). Considers the two thinkers’ debate on culture and the historical mission of Russia as a natural response to the destruction brought about by the Bolshevik revolution. Gershenzon’s view of culture as demonic is seen as specifically Russian, while Ivanov’s view of culture as representing a path to the Absolute reflects his Western orientation. Emphasizes the confessional character of the letters. Reprinted with cuts: 1946.2, 1948.1.

4 MIRSKII, D. S. “The Present State of Russian Letters.” The London Mercury 16, no. 93: 275—86.

Includes a brief reference (pp. 285—86) to Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners], described as “a statement of spiritual experience of more than national significance.” Reprinted: 1989.47.

5 MIRSKII, D. SVIATOPOLK-. “Veianie smerti v predrevoliutsionnoi literature” [The spirit of death in pre-revolutionary literature]. Versty (Paris), no. 2: 247—54.

In Russian. Although not directly concerned with Ivanov, the essay takes as its epigraph a line on the multiple masks of death from his poem “Tertsiny

72

k Somovu” [Terzinas to Somov] and relates Ivanov to a general scheme characterizing the “upper” and “lower” levels of St. Petersburg culture and its pervasive preoccupation with death. The spiritual malaise of this culture manifested itself in “the decadent magnificence of Viacheslav Ivanov’s aesthetic syncretism.” The real death and destruction brought about by the revolution were subsequently embraced by various writers. Gershenzon’s letters in the Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] are the noblest expression of this worshiping of destructive forces, Blok’s Dvenadtsat’ [The twelve], the most brilliant. Reprinted: 1989.47.