1 AMIARD-CHEVREL, CLAUDINE. “L’antiquité et l’esthétique théâtrale des symbolistes russes.” Revue des Études slaves (Paris) 51, no. 1—2: 9—16.
In French. Summarizes Ivanov’s view of the theatre as a sacred art form originating in the cult of Dionysus. Finds Ivanov’s ideas more coherent than those of the other symbolists considered in the essay, Sologub, Chulkov, Belyi, Briusov, and Meierkhol’d. See also Szilard, 1978.17, 1982.17; Kelly, 1989.30.
2 BANERJEE, MARIA. “The Narrator and his Masks in Viacheslav Ivanov’s ‘Tale of Tsarevich Svetomir.”’ Canadian-American Slavic Studies 12, no. 2 (Summer): 274—82.
The account of the history of the composition of “Povest’ o Svetomire tsareviche” [The tale of tsarevich Svetomir] is based on Deschartes’s introduction and notes (1971.3) and on the author’s recollection of conversations with Deschartes in Rome between 1960 and 1965. Analyzes the meaning of the work, relating it to Ivanov’s reading of Dostoevskii’s The Devils, to his poem Mladenchestvo [Infancy], and to his views of Slavophilism and Russian history. “Ivanov clearly combines Solov’ev’s eschatological myth of Sophia with the Slavophile myth of Moscow as the Third Rome.” See also Ivask, 1973.7, 1988.28; Stoinich, 1988.61; Terras, 1988.63; Venclova, 1988.65; Łuźny, 1989.42, 1990.41.
3 IVANOV, D. “Ol’ga Aleksandrovna Shor.” Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 3209, 22 June, 12.
In Russian. An obituary of Ol’ga Shor (Deschartes) (1894—1978), Ivanov’s friend, literary collaborator and the editor of his collected works. Describes her study of philosophy and aesthetics, and her meeting with Stepun and a circle of neo-Kantian philosophers in Freiburg. Her encounters with Ivanov in Moscow in 1924 developed her earlier interest in his ideas and work. After her arrival in Italy in 1927 she remained Russian Orthodox.
Describes her dedicated work on Svet vechernii [Vespertine light] (1962.3) and on the first two volumes of Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works] (1971.3, 1974.1). Reprinted: 1978.4. For a German translation, see 1980.6.
4 IVANOV, D. “Pamiati ushedshikh: Ol’ga Aleksandrovna Shor” [In memoriam: Ol’ga Aleksandrovna Shor]. Novyi zhurnal (New York), no. 132: 232—35.
Reprint of 1978.3.
5 KORETSKAIA, I. V. “O ‘solnechnom’ tsikle Viacheslava Ivanova” [On Viacheslav Ivanov’s “sun” cycle]. Izvestiia Akademii Nauk SSSR, Seriia literatury i iazyka, 37, no. 1 (January — February): 54—60.
In Russian. Analyzes the opening cycle of Cor Ardens, “Solntse-serdtse” [The sun-heart], consisting of nine poems. Its abstract universal content differs from the explicit social message of the cycle “Godina gneva” [The time of wrath], dating from the same period. Relates the “sun” cycle to Ivanov’s ideas on the individual and society, expressed in his essays of 1904—1908. Defines it as a “theme with variations,” ranging from mythological to more intimate psychological lyrics. “The goal of Ivanov’s ‘poetry of thought’ is not to show the way of discovery but its result.” Compares the cycle to works by Bal’mont and Belyi. Contrasts Ivanov’s religious romanticism with civic romanticism. See Koretskaia, 1978.6.
6 KORETSKAIA, I. V. “Tsikl stikhotvorenii Viacheslava Ivanova ‘Godina gneva’” [Viacheslav Ivanov’s cycle of poems “The time of wrath”] . In Revoliutsiia 1905—1907 godov i literatura [The revolution of 1905—1907 and literature]. Edited by B. A. Bialik. Moscow: Nauka, 115—38.
In Russian. Considers the attitude to the Russo-Japanese war and to the revolution of 1905 reflected in the cycle of thirteen poems “Godina gneva” [The time of wrath]. Sets it in the context of Ivanov’s earlier treatment of civic themes and rebellion, such as “Parizhskie epigrammy” [Paris epigrams], and compares it to other poems of the time, such as “Difiramb” [Dithyramb], published in the first issue of Fakely [Torches]. Ivanov interprets the events of 1905 as an opportunity for national renewal, deriving his understanding of freedom from Dostoevskii’s The Brothers Karamazov. Draws several comparisons between Ivanov’s attitude and Tolstoi’s approach to the war and revolution. See Koretskaia, 1978.5; Dotsenko, 1988.18; Magomedova, 1993.34.
7 LAVROV, A. V., and TIMENCHIK, R. D., eds. “I. F. Annenskii. Pis’ma k S. K. Makovskomu” [I. F. Annenskii. Letters to S. K. Makovskii]. Ezhegodnik rukopisnogo otdela Pushkinskogo doma na 1976 god [The year-book of the manuscripts section of Pushkinskii dom for 1976]. Leningrad: Nauka, 222—41.
In Russian. Contains several passing references to Ivanov (pp. 225—31, 235, 237, 239, 240). The introduction and notes provide information on the
beginnings of Apollon and Ivanov’s participation in the journal. Includes comments on Ivanov as the figure of the philosopher in “Pchely i osy” [The bees and wasps of Apollo] (1909.18). In a letter of 31 August 1909 to Makovskii, Annenskii complains of the difficulty of reading Ivanov’s collection of essays Po zvezdam [By the stars]. The letters are reprinted in Annenskii, 1979.1. See also Makovskii, 1952.9; Lavrov, 1983.19; Taranovskii, 1989.57.
8 LAVROV, A. V., and KUPCHENKO, V. P., eds. “I. F. Annenskii. Pis’ma k M. A. Voloshinu” [I. F. Annenskii. Letters to M. A. Voloshin]. Ezhegodnik rukopisnogo otdela Pushkinskogo doma na 1976 god [The year-book of the manuscripts section of Pushkinskii dom for 1976]. Leningrad: Nauka, 242—52.
In Russian. The introduction, letters, and notes include passing references reflecting Voloshin’s and Annenskii’s views of Ivanov (pp. 246—48, 250, 252). Mentions Voloshin’s plan for a lecture entitled “Vozrozhdenie russkoi liriki v pervye desiatiletiia XX veka” [The revival of Russian poetry in the first decades of the twentieth century], including the heading “Ellino-latinskie korni i slavianskie plody: Innokentii Annenskii i Viacheslav Ivanov” [Hellenic-Latin roots and Slav fruits: Innokentii Annenskii and Viacheslav Ivanov]. In a letter of 6 March 1909 to Voloshin, Annenskii compares the effect of Ivanov’s complex use of language on the Russian reading public to the impact of Rimbaud (“na smert’ napugal vse Zamoskvorech’e” [he has frightened to death the whole of the Zamoskvorech’e district]). Quotes an archival fragment of 1909 by Annenskii describing Ivanov as “charming,” “transparent and simple, almost rudimentary amidst the frightening unwieldiness of his slavonicisms.” The letters are reprinted in Annenskii, 1979.1.
9 LIAMKINA, E. I. “Vdokhnovenie, masterstvo, trud: Zapisnye knizhki A. A. Akhmatovoi” [Inspiration, craftsmanship, work: The notebooks of A. A. Akhmatova]. In Vstrechi s proshlym [Encounters with the past]. Sbornik materialov Tsentral’nogo gosudarstvennogo arkhiva literatury i iskusstva SSSR, 3. Edited by N. B. Volkova. Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossiia, 380—420.
In Russian. Includes comments on Akhmatova’s passing references to Ivanov in her notebooks (pp. 384, 400, 403, 409—10, 416—17). Cites Ivanov’s comment on her early poetry (“What lush romanticism”) (for the full text, see Akhmatova, 1989.2). Publishes the text of the ballet libretto of 1962 for “Poema bez geroia” [Poem without a hero] with references to Ivanov’s tower and to his appearance at a masquerade as Faust (reprinted in Akhmatova, 1983.1, 1986.1). Prints the draft plans and notes for Akhmatova’s projected book of memoirs of her contemporaries, to have included a chapter on Ivanov and Belyi, or, according to another draft, on the tower (1910—1911), Ivanov, Vera, and others (reprinted in Akhmatova, 1983.1, see also Chukovskaia, 1980.3). Cites a few fragments from other sources characterizing Ivanov. See
10 MALCOVATI, F. “Vjačeslav Ivanov e Lev Tolstoj.” In Contributi italiani all’VIII Congresso Internazionale degli slavisti (Zagreb — Ljubljana, 1978). Edited by Mario Capaldo. Rome: Associazione Italiana degli Slavisti, 229—32.
In Italian. A brief outline of Ivanov’s view of Tolstoi, based on his essay “L. Tolstoi i kul’tura” [L. Tolstoi and culture] (1911).
11 MEDVEDEVA, K. A. “Poslanie A. Bloka ‘Viacheslavu Ivanovu’” [A. Blok’s poem “To Viacheslav Ivanov”] . In Struktura literaturnogo proizvedeniia [The structure of a literary work]. Ministerstvo vysshego i srednego spetsial’nogo obrazovaniia SSSR, Dal’nevostochnyi gosudarstvennyi universitet. Vladivostok: n.p., 73—81.
In Russian. Provides a detailed analysis of Blok’s poetic address of 1912 to Ivanov in the light of his debt to the older poet and understanding of his spiritual and poetic world. See also Bel’kind, 1972.3.
12 MIRSKII, D. SVIATOPOLK-. “O sovremennom sostoianii russkoi poezii” [On the contemporary state of Russian poetry]. Edited and introduced by G. P. Struve with an afterword by Gerald Smith. Novyi zhurnal (New York), no. 131: 79—110.
In Russian. Publishes the text of Mirskii’s essay, sent by the author to Russkaia mysl’ for publication in June 1922. Comments on the links between Ivanov’s ideas and Voloshin’s poetic reflections on historical themes after the revolution. Ivanov, together with Kuzmin and Gumilev, is one of the sources of “Petersburg poetry.” Disputes the view that Ivanov is a cold poet; the tension and dynamism of his verse derives from the fact that solutions are only given in potential form. In recent years he has developed from a poet for a narrow esoteric circle to a universal poet, “needed by everyone.” His “Zimnie sonety” [Winter sonnets] are his supreme achievement, characterized by a “lofty asceticsm.” Reprinted: 1989.47.
13 MOCHALOVA, O. A. “O Viacheslave Ivanove: Iz vospominanii” [On Viacheslav Ivanov: Extracts from memoirs]. Novyi zhurnal (New York), no. 130: 150—58.
In Russian. Memoirs of visits to Ivanov at his flat in Moscow during the war years and in 1924, before his emigration. Written in a laconic style, they include references to Gorodetskii, Gumilev, and Maiakovskii, and a description of Ivanov’s fragile mannerisms and elegant speech. Quotes two fragments of her verse and a long poem “Moe posviashchenie Viacheslavu Ivanovu” [My dedication to Viacheslav Ivanov], a portrait in verse of the poet. The memoirs are followed by the text of Ivanov’s “Predislovie k
stikham Ol’gi Mochalovoi” [Preface to poems by Ol’ga Mochalova] (pp. 156—58), dated 27 August 1924. Reprinted: 1990.46.
14 ORLOV, VL. Gamaiun: Zhizn’ Aleksandra Bloka [Hamayun: The life of Aleksandr Blok]. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 235—50, 421—22, 425, 435—41. Reprint. 1981.
In Russian. Includes several sections on Blok’s relations with Ivanov. Depicts Ivanov and the gatherings at the tower, comments on poems portraying Ivanov addressed to him by Blok and Belyi, and draws on contemporary memoirs to describe Blok’s visits to the tower. Notes Blok’s unease over Ivanov’s role in organizing his contribution to the first anthology of Fakely [Torches], “Balaganchik” [The puppet booth]. Describes the crisis of symbolism and Blok’s response (1910.5) to Ivanov’s talk “Zavety simvolizma” [The precepts of symbolism] (1910). Reviews the circumstances of the two poets’ split in 1911—1912 with reference to Belyi and Gumilev. For an English translation, see Orlov, 1980.10.
15 SHTEIN, EMMANUIL. Poeziia russkogo rasseianiia: 1920—1977 [Poetry of the Russian emigration: 1920—1977]. Ashford, CT: Lad’ia, 62, 151, 156, 158, 161—63, 165, 170, 171, 172, 179, 181.
In Russian. Contains bibliographical details of Ivanov’s works and contributions to collections of poetry published outside Russia and the Soviet Union.
16 SMITH, G. S. “The versification of Russian émigré poetry, 1920—1940.” Slavonic and East European Review 56, no. 1 (January): 32—46.
Describes the versification of Russian émigré poetry, comparing it to that of indigenous Russian poetry. Ivanov is one of forty poets whose works have contributed to the study. However, the data yielded by his verse (twenty-two poems from Svet vechernii [Vespertine light]) are not presented in terms of Ivanov as an individual poet but subsumed under a larger group of poets and included in tables illustrating the metrical typology of Russian émigré and Russian verse, and of senior and junior émigré poets. For a continuation of this survey covering the period 1941—1970, see Smith, 1985.20.
17 SZILARD, LENA. “Antichnaia Lenora v XX veke: K voprosu ob antichnom nasledii v russkom simvolizme” [Ancient Lenora in the twentieth century: On the question of the classical heritage in Russian symbolism]. In Hungaro-Slavica 1978: VIII Mezhdunarodnyi s’’ezd slavistov. Zagreb, 3—9 sentiabria 1978 g. [Hungaro-Slavica 1978: The eighth international congress of Slavists. Zagreb, 3—9 September 1978]. Edited by L. Hadrovics and A. Hollós. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 325—37.
In Russian. Compares three dramas based on the myth of Laodamia (by Annenskii, Sologub, and Briusov) in order to define the “models of the new approach to antiquity” characteristic of Russian symbolism at the turn of the
century in Russia. Includes a few references to Ivanov’s understanding of myth and view of Annenskii’s tragedy in the context of this discussion. Reprinted in a fuller expanded version: 1982.17. See also Amiard-Chevrel, 1978.1; Kelly, 1989.30.
18 THOMSON, BORIS. “Correspondence from Two Corners.” In Lot’s Wife and the Venus of Milo: Conflicting attitudes to the cultural heritage in modern Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 22—28.
The introductory chapter concludes with an outline of the argument of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners], regarded as the best summary of “the various issues raised in the pre-revolutionary debates over the culture of the past.” Delineates the position of each author, stressing Ivanov’s defense of culture as the embodiment of the living memory of creative processes, not as an accumulation of dead, static relics from the past. Subsequent chapters trace the development of this debate in the Soviet era.
19 VENCLOVA, TOMAS. “Vjačeslav Ivanov — Translator of Kristijonas Donelaitis.” Journal of Baltic Studies 9, no. 4 (Winter): 291—99.
Ivanov’s translation of “Joys of Spring,” the first part (201 lines) of Donelaitis’s poem “The Seasons,” was originally intended for an anthology of Lithuanian poetry in Russian translation, initiated by Gor’kii and Baltrushaitis in 1915 and 1916 but never published. In analyzing the translation, Venclova notes a few mistakes, a conventional “normalisation” of deviations inherent in the original metrical scheme, splendid euphony, a shift from archaic to literary norms on the level of syntax, and a tendency to transform Donelaitis’s poetics of process and cyclical change into a poetics of static description. These changes are seen as symptomatic of the two poets’ intrinsic differences: “Donelaitis is closer to an ancient myth, while Ivanov, who lives in an age when the myth is being destroyed, only theoretically poses the problem of its reconstruction.” The analysis is followed by the full text of Ivanov’s translation (pp. 300—04).
20 VERTLIB, EVGENII. “O prirode simvola u Andreia Belogo i Viacheslava Ivanova” [On the nature of the symbol in the works of Andrei Belyi and Viacheslav Ivanov]. Gnozis (New York), no. 3—4: 125—38.
In Russian. Analyzes two approaches to the symbol in Russian symbolism. Ivanov’s “realistic symbolism” treats the symbol as a movement from visible to hidden reality, while Belyi sees the symbol as reality transformed by experience. Relates these two tendencies to a distinction drawn by Schelling. Detects in Ivanov’s essays a move toward disillusionment in the power of the symbol. Comments on Berdiaev’s critique of Ivanov’s theory of culture (1916.4). See Molchanova, 1981.14.