вышла книга: M. Wachtel, Ph. Gleissner. V. Ivanov und Seine deutschsprachigen Verleger. Peter Lang, 2019. 376 SS.
1 ANGELINI, CESARE. “Poeta russo a Pavia.” Edited by Vanni Scheiwiller. In Il piacere della memoria. Milan: All’insegna del pesce d’oro, 19—27.
Reprint of 1966.1 with minor amendments.
2 LAPEZA, DAVID, ed. Nikolai Gumilev on Russian poetry. Edited and translated by David Lapeza. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 11—20, 88—90, 111—13, 125—26.
3 LAPSHINA, N. “Mir iskusstva”: Ocherki istorii i tvorcheskoi praktiki” [“World of art”: Essays on its history and artistic practice]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 171—72, 216—18.
In Russian. Speculates briefly on the possibility of Benois having been influenced by Ivanov’s and Chulkov’s ideas of 1905 and 1906 on overcoming individualism. Assesses Somov’s 1906 portrait of Ivanov, links it with Belyi’s characterization of Ivanov (1933.1) but finds that it fails to establish the correct balance between the subject’s physical appearance (well captured) and spiritual essence. Contrasts Somov’s portrait in this respect with Ul’ianov’s less concrete “decorative ‘mask’” of Ivanov. Reprinted in a revised version: 1980.8. See also Bowlt, 1973.2.
4 LEVINTON, G. A. “‘Na kamennykh otrogakh Pierii’ Mandel’shtama: Materialy k analizu” [Mandel’shtam’s “On the stony spurs of Pieria”: Materials towards an analysis]. Russian Literature V-2 (April): 123—70; V-3 (July): 201—37.
In Russian. Interprets Mandel’shtam’s poem of 1919 in the light of various sources and subtexts, including echoes of Ivanov’s translations of Alcaeus and Sappho (Moscow, 1914), preferred by Mandel’shtam to those of Veresaev on the grounds of Ivanov’s “russification” of the original. Considers in this context contemporary reviews of Ivanov’s translations of Alcaeus and Sappho, compared to Veresaev’s translations. Links Mandel’shtam’s use of various words to examples from Ivanov’s poetry as well as translations. The second part of the essay explores some links between the Russia-Italy theme in Mandel’shtam and Blok and Ivanov. See also Dil’, 1914.3, 1916.10; Veresaev, 1915.9, 1930.15; Zakharov, 1916.21; Taranovskii, 1967.8, 1969.11, 1976.18.
5 LIVSHITS, BENEDIKT. The One and a Half-Eyed Archer. Translated, introduced, and annotated by John E. Bowlt. Newtonville, MA: Oriental Research Partners, passim.
An English translation of 1933.7 with notes.
6 MALMSTAD, JOHN E. “Mikhail Kuzmin: A Chronicle of his Life and Times.” In Sobranie stikhov [Collected verse], by M. A. Kuzmin, edited by John E. Malmstad and Vladimir Markov. Centrifuga Russian Reprintings and Printings. Vol. 3. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 7—319.
This wide-ranging survey of Kuzmin’s life and works contains several sections on his relations with Ivanov (pp. 96—97, 111, 119—23, 125—26, 132—33, 146—49, 172—78). Topics covered include the gatherings of “Kabachok Ganza” [Hafiz’s tavern]; Kuzmin’s relationship with Ivanov and the tower; Ivanov’s lectures on poetry and meeting with Gumilev; Belyi’s visit to the tower in 1910 and the theatre productions at the tower; Kuzmin’s review of Cor Ardens in Trudy i dni (1912.9) and his quarrel and break with Ivanov over rumors associated with Ivanov’s marriage to Vera Shvarsalon. The notes (pp. 709—11) to Kuzmin’s poem “Druz’iam Gafiza” [To the friends of Hafiz] include the text of Ivanov’s related poem “Vstrecha gostei” [Meeting the guests] and a discussion of the nicknames of members of the Hafiz circle. For further materials on Ivanov and Kuzmin, see Barnstead, 1982.1; Cheron, 1986.10; Bogomolov, 1988.6, 1990.8, 1990.9, 1991.2, 1993.8; Lavrov and Timenchik, 1990.35.
7 ROSENTHAL, BERNICE GLATZER. “Theatre as Church: The Vision of the Mystical Anarchists.” Russian History 4, Part 2: 122—41.
Investigates Ivanov’s and Chulkov’s views of the social and religious role of drama as a form of collective worship and organ of national regeneration from 1904 onward. Relates their view of drama to the concept of mystical anarchism, Nietzsche, Wagner, and contemporary trends in Western Europe. Concludes with an assessment of the impact of symbolist ideas on the formation of postrevolutionary theories of drama under socialist realism.
8 ROSENTHAL, BERNICE GLATZER. “The Transmutation of the Symbolist Ethos: Mystical Anarchism and the Revolution of 1905.” Slavic Review 36, no. 4 (December): 608—27.
Analyzes the ideas associated with Ivanov’s and Chulkov’s concept of mystical anarchism. Considers the series of anthologies entitled Fakely [Torches], Ivanov’s essay “O liubvi derzaiushchei” [On love which dares] (contributed to the second anthology in 1907), his preface to Chulkov’s booklet “Ideia nepriiatiia mira i misticheskii anarkhizm” [The idea of the rejection of the world and mystical anarchism] (1906), and his earlier essay “Krizis individualizma” [The crisis of individualism] (1905). Argues that the doctrine rested on hopes that were “basically optimistic” but that faded soon after the postrevolutionary stabilization of Russian society in 1907.
9 SMIRNOV, I. P. “’Kormchie zvezdy’ i esteticheskaia teoriia Viach. Ivanova” [Pilot Stars and the aesthetic theory of Viach. Ivanov]. In Khudozhestvennyi smysl i evoliutsiia poeticheskikh sistem [Artistic significance and the evolution of poetic systems]. Moscow: Nauka, 59—72.
In Russian. Considers the verse of Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] and
Ivanov’s theoretical essays on aesthetics in terms of a semiotic theory of the principles and typical stages of literary evolution, applied to the transition from decadence to symbolism. Analyzes the representation of time and space in Kormchie zvezdy linking the “chronogenetic organization of the universe,” directed at the future, to spatial images of boundaries to be transcended. Eros, associated with rebellion, in this context functions as a principle of movement. Regards Ivanov’s concept of the symbol as a diachronically “motivated” sign. Draws parallels with the poetics of Esenin; explores the transformation of Ivanov’s system in the “barbaric” poetics of the Futurists Maiakovskii and Khlebnikov.