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

1981

1981

1 BARANOVA-SHESTOVA, N. L. “Iz pisem L’va Shestova” [From the letters of Lev Shestov]. In Russkii al’manakh [A Russian literary miscellany]. Edited by Zinaida Shakhovskaia, Rene Gerra, and Evgenii Ternovskii. Paris: L’Almanach russe, 422—34.

In Russian. Includes brief extracts (pp. 424—25) from four of Shestov’s letters to his relations, concerning his article of 1916 on Ivanov, “Viacheslav Velikolepnyi” [Viacheslav the Magnificent] (1916.16). Also publishes an extract from Ivanov’s letter to Shestov, written in Rome on 10 February 1936 for Shestov’s seventieth birthday. In the letter Ivanov defines his relation to Shestov, comments on his greater understanding of Shestov over the years, and compares him to the crow that brings live and dead water; culture cannot be built with him but also cannot be built without him, he serves as a warning voice against spiritual death and arrogance. Reprinted: 1983.2.

2 BOSCHIAN, LAURA SATTA. Tempo d’avvento: Alle origini culturali religiose e sociali della prima rivoluzione russa. Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 203—08, 267—72 and passim.

In Italian. Within the context of a survey of the religious and cultural sources of the first Russian revolution, considers Ivanov’s theory of art as myth making, the gatherings at the tower, the theory of mystical anarchism and Chulkov, and new forms of theatre as a means of bringing these ideas to the masses.

3 BYKOVTSEVA, L. P., and KRIUKOVA, A. M., eds. Lichnaia biblioteka A. M. Gor’kogo v Moskve. Opisanie v dvukh knigakh [The personal library of A. M. Gor’kii in Moscow: A descriptive catalogue in two volumes]. Compiled by

199

A. D. Smirnova, M. M. Peshkova, R. G. Beislekhem. 2 vols. Akademiia nauk SSSR. Institut mirovoi literatury imeni A. M. Gor’kogo. Muzei A. M. Gor’kogo. Moscow: Nauka, 1:75, 112, 132, 139, 152, 172, 179; 2:144.

In Russian. Provides bibliographical details of copies of books by Ivanov and Zinov’eva-Annibal held in Gor’kii’s personal library (noting author’s inscriptions or marginalia by Gor’kii). Titles include Ivanov’s Prozrachnost’ [Transparency] (1904), Mladenchestvo [Infancy] (1918), Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] (1921), and Dionis i pradionisiistvo [Dionysus and predionysianism] (1923); his translations of Alcaeus and Sappho (1914), of Petrarch (1915), and editorship of Chebotarevskaia’s translation of Flaubert’s Madame Bovary; a copy of Belyi’s pamphlet on Ivanov (inscribed by the author to Gor’kii in Berlin on 25 November 1922) (see 1922.1). All references to Ivanov can be traced through the index in the second volume.

4 CARLSON, MARIA. “The Conquest of Chaos: Esoteric Philosophy and the Development of Andrei Belyi’s Theory of Symbolism as a World View (1901—1910).” Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University (Bloomington), 391 pp.

Includes a section entitled “Viacheslav Ivanov and the Religion of Dionysos” (pp. 146—53 and passim). Takes into consideration (among other factors) the influence of the religious-aesthetic theories of Ivanov on Belyi, using the latter’s Serebrianyi golub’ [Silver dove] as a case study. Discusses four aspects of Ivanov’s archetypal Dionysianism and his general interest in the mystery religions and in modern occultism as one of the basic components of Belyi’s novel. See Dissertation Abstracts International 43/01 A: 179. See also Carlson, 1988.10.

5 CAZZOLA, PIERO. “I rapporti culturali tra Russia e Bologna (secc. XVIII—XX).” // Carrobbio (Bologna) 7:110—29.

In Italian. Surveys cultural links between Russia and Bologna, and includes a brief section (pp. 122—23, 129) on Ivanov at the Collegio Borromeo in Pavia, based on the memories of Luigi Heilmann, a former student of Ivanov’s at Pavia, later a professor at the University of Bologna. Depicts Ivanov as a lecturer and conversationalist.

6 FILIPPOV, BORIS. “Viacheslav Ivanov.” In Stat’i o literature [Essays on literature]. London: Overseas Publications Interchange, 52—72.

Reprint of 1973.5, incorporating 1972.7.

7 FOTIEV, K. “Konfessionalizm i khristianskoe edinstvo: Pis’ma Viacheslava Ivanova k Sharliu diu Bosu” [Confessionalism and Christian unity: The letters of Viacheslav Ivanov to Charles Du Bos]. Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia, no. 134:172—80.

In Russian. Comments on Ivanov’s letter to Du Bos, written in 1930 to

200

accompany the French translation of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] (1930.3). Discusses his critique of Western thought and of Russian émigré spiritual life in the 1920s and 1930s. Considers the relation of his thought to V. Solov’ev and P. Chaadaev. For a slightly abridged English translation, see Fotiev, 1986.18.

8 FOTIEV, K. “Simpozium po Viacheslavu Ivanovu v Iele” [The symposium on Viacheslav Ivanov at Yale]. Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia, no. 134:169—71.

In Russian. Provides a brief account of the first international symposium on Ivanov, held at Yale University from 3—5 April 1981, together with a list of the papers delivered (mostly published in the conference proceedings of 1986, see under individual authors). See also Shtein, 1981.18; Blinov, 1982.2.

9 IVANOV, DIMITRII. “K stikham moego ottsa” [A note on my father’s poems]. In Russkii al’manakh [A Russian literary miscellany]. Edited by Zinaida Shakhovskaia, Rene Gerra, and Evgenii Ternovskii. Paris: L’Almanach russe, 83.

In Russian. A brief note on the history of Ivanov’s translations of Novalis is appended to the publication of two of his versions of Novalis, held in the poet’s Rome archive (pp. 81—82).

10 KOTRELEV, N. V. “Ivanov Viacheslav Ivanovich.” In Lermontovskaia entsiklopediia [A Lermontov encyclopedia]. Edited by V. A. Manuilov. Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 180.

In Russian. Outlines Ivanov’s perception of Lermontov as a romantic poet with a divided soul, striving for unity, whose works reflect the cult of the Virgin Mary and the eternal feminine. Draws on Ivanov’s Italian essay on Lermontov, written in 1947—1948 (see Ivanov, 1980.7).

11 LO GATTO, ETTORE. “Otnoshenie Dostoevskogo k Pushkinu: Maloizvestnoe tolkovanie Viacheslava Ivanova” [Dostoevskii’s approach to Pushkin: A little-known commentary of Viacheslav Ivanov]. Zapiski russkoi akademicheskoi gruppy v S.Sh.A [Transactions of the association of Russian-American scholars in the U.S.A.]. Vol. 14: Dostoevsky Commemorative Volume. New York: n.p., 187—97.

In Russian. The essay, translated from Italian, deals with Ivanov’s comparison of Dostoevskii and Pushkin on the basis of remarks of a religious-psychological and literary nature in his essay “Gli aspetti del bello e del bene nella poesia di Puskin” (1937). Demonstrates that Ivanov’s essay remained unknown to Russian scholars. Comments on various poems reflecting Pushkin’s spiritual development that provided Ivanov with a basis for his comparison of the two writers’ religious spirits.

201

12 MAKSIMOV, D. Poeziia i proza A. Bloka [The poetry and prose of A. Blok]. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, passim.

In Russian. A revised, expanded version of 1975.8.

13 MARKOV, VLADIMIR. Review of Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], Vol. 3. Slavic Review 40, no. 3:464—66.

Reviews the third volume of Ivanov’s collected works (1979), commenting on its contents. Emphasizes the unique dedication of Ol’ga Shor and Ivanov’s children in preparing the collected works. Expresses the wish for more notes and commentary, elucidating references in the text and details of first publications, and indulges in a bit of nit-picking over editorial inconsistencies and misprints. Advises specialists in twentieth-century Russian poetry who are not inclined to study the volume “from cover to cover” to “think seriously about changing professions”: “Viacheslav Ivanov is not just a great poet and a towering historical figure ... — he can give our generation more than it may seem at first glance. Personally, I know of no better medicine against cultural pessimism and cultural odichanie [barbarism] — the two scourges of our time.” For Markov’s review of the first volume, see 1972.14. See also Markov, 1986.35.

14 MOLCHANOVA, N. “’Mifotvorchestvo’ v traktovke simvolistov” [’Myth-creation’ in the interpretation of the symbolists]. In Tvorchestvo pisatelia i literaturnyi protsess: Mezhvuzovskii sbornik nauchnykh trudov [The writer’s work and the literary process: An interinstitutional anthology of essays]. Edited by P. B. Kupriianovskii. Ivanovo: Ivanovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 205—16.

In Russian. Analyzes and compares the aesthetic theories of two disciples of V. Solov’ev, Ivanov, and Belyi. Draws on a range of Ivanov’s essays to illustrate his concept of the role of myth in realist symbolism. Concludes that while Ivanov regarded the creation of myths as the final and future goal of universal art, Belyi viewed it as intrinsic to all literary activity and possible in the present. See also Vertlib, 1978.20.

15 MUREDDU, DONATA. “The influence of the poetry of Petrarch on Russian literature, 1900—1930.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex, 109—48.

Chapter 4 investigates aspects of Petrarch’s influence on Ivanov, considering his translations from the canzoniere (first published in 1915), his poetics, and his own verse. Finds that Ivanov’s translations do not completely succeed in rendering the “non-naturalistic character of Petrarch’s poetry.” Analyzes the links between the poetics of Petrarch, Nietzsche, and Ivanov, considering Ivanov’s essay of 1932 on Petrarch and his reference to a sonnet by Petrarch as a model of Apollonian vision in his article “O granitsakh iskusstva” [On the boundaries of art] (1914). Studies Petrarch’s influence on Cor Ardens, concentrating on the cycle “Zolotye zavesy” [Golden veils].

202

Considers points of affinity between Ivanov’s and Petrarch’s search for eternity and their attitudes to classical culture and humanism. For an abridged version omitting the detailed analysis in section 2 of Ivanov’s translations of three sonnets by Petrarch (LVII, CCLXIX, CCCXII), see Mureddu, 1984.20. See also Fisher, 1915.4; Nelson, 1986.36; Balašov, 1988.3; Tomashevskii, 1989.60; Venclova, 1991.42.

16 ORLOV, VL., ed. Aleksandr Blok v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov [Aleksandr Blok in the memoirs of contemporaries]. Seriia literaturnykh pamiatnikov. Vol. 2. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, passim.

In Russian. Reprints memoirs by Kuz’mina-Karavaeva (1936.4) and Chukovskii (1958.1) with notes. Also contains several further passing references to Ivanov (indexed) in the memoirs of various contemporaries. These include V. A. Zorgenfrei on Blok at the tower in the winter of 1906—1907; V. I. Strazhev on Ivanov’s and Blok’s contributions to the anthology Korabli: Sbornik stikhov i prozy [Ships: An anthology of verse and prose], prepared for N. Poiarkov; B. Sadovskoi on Ivanov and Blok acting as judges for a competition on the subject of the devil organized by Zolotoe runo in December 1906; N. A. Nolle-Kogan on Blok’s reconciliation with Ivanov and the copy of Cor Ardens inscribed by Ivanov to her; I. N. Rozanov on Blok’s presence at Ivanov’s reading of his translations from Agamemnon. For the first volume, see Orlov, 1980.11.

17 POTTHOFF, WILFRIED. “Zur Vermittlung Goethes durch Vjačeslav Ivanov.” In Goethe und die Welt der Slawen. Papers from the first international conference of the Slavonic committee at the Goethe museum in Düsserldorf, 18—22 September 1979. Edited by Hans-Bernd Harder and Hans Rothe. Giessen: Wilhelm Schmitz, 193—207.

In German. Traces Ivanov’s ideas to Schlegel and Schelling. Compares his image of Goethe to that of Ellis. Emphasizes the highly subjective nature of his reception of Goethe, concluding that it does not amount to a “true assimilation” of the German poet’s work.

18 SHTEIN, E. “Mir Viacheslava Ivanova: O Pervoi mezhdunarodnoi konferentsii, posviashchennoi izucheniiu tvorchestva russkogo myslitelia, poeta, kritika” [The world of Viacheslav Ivanov: On the first international conference devoted to the study of the work of the Russian thinker, poet and critic]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 3381, 8 October, 12.

In Russian. Provides an account of the first international symposium on Ivanov, organized at Yale University from 3—5 April 1981 by R. L. Jackson. Views it as an important event in the history of contemporary Russian literature, marking the end of the “period of paradoxical silence” surrounding Ivanov. Includes brief and sometimes critical assessments of papers given (mostly published in the conference proceedings of 1986, see under individual

203

authors). Describes the concert of Lidiia Ivanova’s works and the founding of “Convivium,” an international society for the study of Ivanov, proposed by P. Davidson, A. Rannit, and V. Terras. See also Fotiev, 1981.8; Blinov, 1982.2.

19 SIMPSON, PAT. “The Rejection of the World: Dostoevsky, Ivanov, Camus.” In F. M. Dostoevsky (1821—1881): A Centenary Collection. Edited by Leon Burnett. Department of Literature, University of Essex. Colchester: n.p., 97—108.

Investigates the idea of metaphysical rebellion expressed by Dostoevskii through the figure of Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov, and considers its development in the works of Ivanov and in The Rebel by Camus as a “powerful symbol of a necessary and perfectible mode of creation — an artistic path to the physical and spiritual re-creation of the world.” Outlines Ivanov’s theory of mystical anarchism in its three aspects of “sobornost’” [communality], creative theomachy and mythopoesis with its slogan of “non-acceptance of the world.” Regards his theory as an optimistic interpretation and extension of Dostoevskii’s depiction of Russian anarchism.

20 SMIRNOV, I. P. “Tsitirovanie kak istoriko-literaturnaia problema: Printsipy usvoeniia drevnerusskogo teksta poeticheskimi shkolami kontsa XIX — nachala XX vv. (na materiale ‘slova o polku Igoreve’)” [Quotation as a historical-literary problem: Principles of assimilation of old Russian texts by schools of poetry of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (based on material from “The tale of Igor’s campaign”)]. In Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Academic proceedings of Tartu state university]. Vol. 535: Nasledie A. Bloka i aktual’nye problemy poetiki: Blokovskii sbornik IV [The legacy of A. Blok and current issues in poetics: Blok anthology IV]. Tartu: Tartuskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 246—76.

In Russian. Notes references to “Slovo o polku Igoreve” [The tale of Igor’s campaign] in Ivanov’s poetry, quoting examples from Prozrachnost’ [Transparency] and Cor Ardens, and discusses their significance in the context of a wider study of references to the same work in the poetry of the older and younger symbolists and postsymbolists (1890—1910). Contrasts Ivanov’s use of quotation, always accompanied by associations related to the original text, with the Futurist use of quotation, divorced from its source.

21 STRUVE, G. P. “K istorii russkoi literatury 1910-kh godov: Pis’ma N. V. Nedobrovo k B. V. Anrepu” [On the history of Russian literature of the 1910s: N. V. Nedobrovo’s letters to B. V. Anrep]. Slavica Hierosolymitana 5—6:425—66.

In Russian. Nedobrovo’s letters to Anrep include two references to Ivanov (pp. 445, 460). Nedobrovo enclosed his poem “Viacheslavu Ivanovu — Na Rosarium” [To Viacheslav Ivanov — On Rosarium], dated 1—14 September

204

1912, with his letter to Anrep of 25 September 1912; the text of the poem (related to the second part of Cor Ardens, comprising “Rosarium”) is published together with the letter. In a letter of 16 November 1913 Nedobrovo refers to having received from Anrep copies of the journal Poetry and Drama; he has not yet forwarded these to Ivanov and Vera Shvarsalon and comments on Anrep’s warm inscriptions to them. See also Nedobrovo, 1912.13, 1913.10.

22 SUVOROVA, K. N., ed. “Pis’ma M. A. Kuzmina k Bloku i otryvki iz dnevnika M. A. Kuzmina” [M. A. Kuzmin’s letters to Blok and extracts from the diary of M. A. Kuzmin]. In Literaturnoe nasledstvo [Literary heritage]. Vol. 92: Aleksandr Blok: Novye materialy i issledovaniia [Aleksandr Blok: New materials and studies]. Edited by V. R. Shcherbina. Book 2. Moscow: Nauka, 143—74.

In Russian. The extracts from Kuzmin’s diary for 1906—1907 contain passing references to gatherings at the tower and to his meetings with Ivanov and Blok. For a fuller version see Cheron, 1986.10. Further references to Ivanov are provided in the index in vol. 92, book 5, 1993.

23 SZILARD, LENA. “Apollon i Dionis: K voprosu o russkoi sud’be odnoi mifologemy” [Apollo and Dionysus: On the question of the Russian fate of one myth]. Umjetnost riječi (Zagreb), Year 25. Književnost. Avangarda. Revolucija: Ruska književna avangarda XX stoljeća [Literature. Avant-garde. Revolution: Russian literary avant-garde of the twentieth century]. Edited by Aleksandar Flaker and Dubravka Ugrešić, 155—72.

In Russian. Links Bakhtin’s opposition of high culture and carnival popular culture with Nietzsche’s opposition of Apollo and Dionysus, and points out the “transforming role” of Ivanov’s work on the Dionysian religion in this context. Considers the treatment of the Apollo-Dionysus polarity in various forms in the works of Ivanov, Blok and Khlebnikov as a method of highlighting differences between symbolist and postsymbolist avantgarde poetics. See also Szilard, 1989.55.

24 TARANOVSKII, K. F. “Vdal’ vlekomye: Odin sluchai poeticheskoi polemiki Bloka i Belogo s Viach. Ivanovym” [Drawn into the distance: One instance of the poetic polemics of Blok and Belyi with Viach. Ivanov]. Slavica Hìerosolymìtana 5—6:289—96.

In Russian. Considers four poems, Ivanov’s “Golosa” [Voices] from Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars], Blok’s “Osenniaia volia” [Autumn freedom], and Belyi’s “Izgnannik” [Exile] and “Zhizn’” [Life]. Examines the projection of mythological time and space into a metaphysical future in Ivanov’s poem, and considers the ways in which the poems of Blok and Belyi echo Ivanov’s poem and take issue with it over the theme of the individual’s flight from the

205

present and path toward distant goals. Finds that Blok and Belyi, in their responses to Ivanov’s poem, “oppose to his hellenism and Dionysianism the national theme, the theme of the motherland, already developing in their works.”

25 TERNOVSKII, E. “Koshnitsa mudrosti: K vykhodu III toma sobraniia sochinenii Viacheslava Ivanova” [A basket of wisdom: On the publication of the third volume of the collected works of Viacheslav Ivanov]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 3342, 8 January, 13.

In Russian. Reviews the third volume of Ivanov’s collected works, praising its contents and the extensive range and depth of the commentaries. Comments on the growing revival of interest in Ivanov as a poet and thinker in the Soviet Union, and on the admiration of the pianist M. V. Iudina for his verse. Defines the most interesting aspect of Ivanov’s legacy for contemporary Russians as his teaching on culture as memory, outside the framework of his utopian and myth-creating aspirations.

26 TIMENCHIK, R. D. “Zametki ob akmeizme: III” [Notes on acmeism: III]. Russian Literature 9—2:175—89.

In Russian. Includes references to Gumilev’s relations with Ivanov and publishes fragments of their correspondence (pp. 175—79, 181—82). Prints part of a letter of 3 June 1911 from Gumilev to Ivanov, enclosing four poems with a view to their publication in Apollon. Comments on one of the poems, “Neizvestnost’” [The unknown], interpreted as a veiled statement from pupil to teacher and related to Akhmatova’s view of Gumilev’s loss of faith in symbolism and Ivanov. Quotes part of Ivanov’s reply, finding “much Annenskii” in Gumilev’s poems, and cites Akhmatova’s recollection of Ivanov’s comments about her own debt to Annenskii. For a full publication of this correspondence, see Gumilev, 1986.20 and Timenchik, 1987.24.

27 YASTREMSKI, SLAVA I. “Myth in Russian Drama of the Twentieth Century: Annenskij, Ivanov, Blok, Xlebnikov, Majakovskij, Leonov, Visnevskij, and Arbuzov.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 345 pp.

Through a detailed examination of the plays of selected writers, demonstrates the different uses of myth and also the processes of myth-making in Russian drama from the classical revival initiated by Annenskii and Ivanov to postrevolutionary works of socialist realism. The chapter on Ivanov and Blok shows two different approaches to myth in symbolist theatre. See Dissertation Abstracts International 43/08:2500A.

28 ZHIRMUNSKII, V. M. Gete v russkoi literature [Goethe in Russian literature]. Edited by N. A. Zhirmunskaia. Leningrad: Nauka, 449, 453—55, 457—64, 471, 537—40.

Reprint of 1937.7 with the addition of an index.

206