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

1984

1984

1 BAKHTIN, MIKHAIL. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Translated and edited by Caryl Emerson. Theory and History of Literature, 8. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 10—11, 14, 41, 44, 165.

A translation of 1963.2, the revised version of 1929.1, with an index. For an earlier translation see 1973.1.

2 BAZZARELLI, ERIDANO. “Blok et Ivanov: Quelques réflexions.” Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique 25, no. 1 (January — March): 49—59.

In French. Investigates the two poets’ relations, emphasizing Blok’s attraction to Ivanov combined with a desire to keep his distance. Traces aspects of Blok’s fluctuating attitude to Ivanov in his diaries, notebooks, and letters. Analyzes his poem of 18 April 1912 to Ivanov as an expression of past hope giving way to disillusionment and comments on Ivanov’s two poems of response (1912), highlighting his defense against the charge of spiritual coldness and his faith in the future destiny of Blok. See also Ermilova, 1975.6, 1984.8, 1989.19.

3 BIALIK, B. A., ed. Russkaia literatura i zhurnalistika nachala XX veka: 1905—1917. Burzhuazno-liberal’nye i modernistskie izdaniia [Russian literature and the periodical press at the beginning of the twentieth century: 1905—1917. Bourgeois-liberal and modernist publications]. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut mirovoi literatury im. A. M. Gor’kogo. Moscow: Nauka, passim.

In Russian. Comprises several articles on the history and contents of different journals, including: A. V. Lavrov and D. E. Maksimov on Vesy, A. V. Lavrov on Zolotoe runo, Pereval, and Trudy i dni, I. V. Koretskaia on Apollon, and L. N. Iokar on theatrical journals. The index traces numerous references in these essays to Ivanov’s links with the journals, including substantial sections on mystical anarchism, on Ivanov’s polemics with Belyi and Briusov, and on the 1910 debate on symbolism. See also Richardson, 1986.41.

4 CLARK, KATERINA, and HOLQUIST, MICHAEL. Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge, MA, and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 24—26, 37, 107.

Comments on Bakhtin’s debt to the symbolists and to Ivanov in particular. “The fact that Ivanov at every turn transposed the philosophical problem of knowledge and the nature of religious truth into the cognate problem of communication was pertinent to Bakhtin, since communication and dialogue

219

were at the heart of his epistemology.” Describes Bakhtin’s lecture on Ivanov at the appartment of M. V. Iudina in Leningrad and its impact on the audience. On Bakhtin and Ivanov, see Bakhtin, 1929.1, 1963.2, 1979.2; Crone,1988.13; Kotrelev, 1988.35; Igeta, 1989.26; Jackson, 1989.29; Szilard, 1989.55, 1993.52; Salma, 1992.23; Grabar, 1993.26; Iovanovich, 1993.27; Terras, 1993.53.

5 CYMBORSKA-LEBODA, MARIA. “Teatral’nye utopii russkogo simvolizma” [The theatrical utopias of Russian symbolism]. Slavia (Prague) 53, no. 3—4: 358—67.

In Russian. Outlines the central tenets of the symbolist concept of the new theatre of the future with particular reference to theoretical works by Ivanov and Belyi, related to the ideas of Wagner and Nietzsche. Comments on Belyi’s polemics with Ivanov over the concept of mystery. Includes a schematic table comparing features of the new drama of ritual with the traditional theatre of character. Reprinted: 1986.11. See also Cymborska-Leboda, 1983.5, 1986.12, 1987.3, 1988.14, 1990.14, 1992.5, 1992.6, 1993.11.

6 DAVIDSON, PAMELA. “Vyacheslav Ivanov and Dante: The Image of the Guiding Stars.” In Dante i slavenski svijet [Dante and the Slav world]. Edited by Frano Čale. Vol. 1. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 85—106.

Considers Ivanov’s interest in Dante within the context of the Russian symbolists’ fascination with the Italian poet. Investigates as a characteristic example Ivanov’s use of the Dantesque image of guiding stars in the poetry of Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars], commenting on the sources of the work’s title and on the significance of the opening epigraph from Purgatorio XXVII. Prints Ivanov’s comments on his choice of title from his unpublished preface to Kormchie zvezdy. Examines the significance of the stars in Dante’s Divina Commedia with reference to specific examples and traces the development of these images in several poems from Ivanov’s collection, including “Sfinks” [The sphinx]. Concludes by relating the epigraph to Ivanov’s view of symbolism and its future, as interpreted by Blok (1905.3). See also Davidson 1982.3, 1983.6, 1986.13, 1989.15; Asoian, 1988.2, 1989.3, 1990.1; Szilard and Barta, 1989.56; Bryś, 1989.13; Winternitz De Vito, 1989.64; Potthoff, 1991.34.

7 [EL’CHANINOV, A.]. “K 50-letiiu konchiny sviashchennika A. El’chaninova (1.3.1881—24.8.1934)” [To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the death of Priest A. El’chaninov (1.3.1881—24.8.1934)]. Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia, no. 142: 59—111.

In Russian. Excerpts from the diary of El’chaninov (prepared for publication and annotated by N. A. Struve) include a section headed “Vstrechi s Viacheslavom Ivanovym: Iz dnevnika 1909—1910 gg.” [Meetings with

220

Viacheslav Ivanov: From the diary of 1909—1910] (pp. 60—65). Describes various visits to Ivanov, their conversations and El’chaninov’s impressions. On 2 April 1909 portrays Ivanov’s appearance and the transforming power of his “enchanting” voice. Notes his comments on Christ’s marriage to the church and the need to accept the church despite its historical errors. Relates a later conversation of 7 April 1909, ranging over the Religious-Philosophical Society, the need to find a teacher, the values of Christian asceticism, and the dominance of the female principle in the Russian Church. In June 1913 records his loss of faith in Ivanov as a prophet or teacher figure after visiting Ern and hearing his account of Ivanov’s marriage to Vera.

8 ERMILOVA, E. “A. Blok i Viach. Ivanov” [A. Blok and Viach. Ivanov]. In Atti del symposium “Aleksandr Blok”: Milano — Gargnano del garda, 6—11 settembre 1981. Edited by Eridano Bazzarelli and Jitka Křesálková. Milan: Istituto di lingue e letterature dell’europa orientale, Università degli studi di Milano, 145—59.

In Russian. Comments on the relations of Blok and Ivanov, incorporating some material from the author’s earlier essay (1975.6). Emphasizes the closeness of the two poets despite Blok’s sense of estrangement. Includes a digression on the similarity of Ivanov’s late poetry and Kuzmin’s verse. Parts of this essay are included in the author’s book (1989.19). See also Kotrelev, 1982.13; Bazzarelli, 1984.2.

9 ETKIND, EFIM. “V’iuchnoe zhivotnoe kul’tury: Ob arkhaicheskom stile Viacheslava Ivanova” [The beast of cultural burden: On the archaic style of Viacheslav Ivanov]. Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique 25, no. 1 (January — March): 5—17.

In Russian. The opening section establishes the historical background to the archaic tradition in Russian poetry by contrasting the poetics of Lomonosov and Sumarokov (in their versions of a psalm), Gnedich and Zhukovskii (in their translations of Homer), and Shevyrev and Pushkin. Singles out two opposing principles: the principle of the “word set apart,” and the principle of the “flowing.” The rest of the essay comments on stylistic features of Ivanov’s verse related to the archaic tradition. Its antimusicality is considered with reference to Averintsev’s comments (1976.1) and illustrated through a detailed analysis of “Terpandr” [Terpander] (1902). The complexity of its syntactical structures are shown through a commentary on two sonnets, “Sfinksy nad Nevoi” [Sphinxes by the Neva] (1907) and “Parizh” [Paris], 1 (1915). Draws a comparison between the poetics of Ivanov and Maiakovskii, based on their common adherence to the principle of the “word set apart.” Concludes that the inner tension between abstraction of themes and density of form constitutes the dialectical essence of Ivanov’s poetry and archaic style.

221

10 GASPAROV, M. L. Ocherk istorii russkogo stikha: Metrika. Ritmika. Rifma. Strofika [An outline of the history of Russian verse: Metrics. Rhythm. Rhyme. The stanza]. Moscow: Nauka, 207, 211—12, 215, 218, 219, 222, 230, 237, 247, 249—54, 256.

In Russian. The fifth section on the period of Blok and Maiakovskii includes several comments on Ivanov’s metrical rhythms (including the taktovik), rich rhymes and rhyming schemes, and use of various stanzaic forms. Mentions Ivanov’s lectures on versification and several works, including “Tantal” [Tantalus], “Khvala Solntsu” [Praise to the Sun], and “Poslanie na Kavkaz” [Epistle to the Caucasus]. See also Gasparov, 1974.2.

11 GERASIMOV, Iu. K. “Neokonchennaia tragediia Viacheslava Ivanova ‘Niobeia’” [Viacheslav Ivanov’s unfinished tragedy “Niobe”] . In Ezhegodnik rukopisnogo otdela Pushkinskogo Doma na 1980 god [The year-book of the manuscripts section of Pushkinskii dom for 1980]. Edited by K. N. Grigor’ian. Leningrad: Nauka, 178—203.

In Russian. An introduction to the history of Ivanov’s unfinished tragedy “Niobeia” [Niobe] (pp. 178—85), followed by the publication of the text of Ivanov’s “Preface to the trilogy” (pp. 185—86) and by the surviving text of the tragedy (354 lines) with notes (pp. 186—203). The introduction outlines the original plan for the trilogy, first conceived in 1903, to consist of “Tantal” [Tantalus], “Niobeia,” and “Syny Prometeia” [The sons of Prometheus]. Summarizes the subject of “Tantal” and relates it to “Niobeia.” Comments on the choice of a female heroine in the light of Ivanov’s view of the tragic essence of the female character and on the role of the chorus of maenads. Traces the history of the writing of “Niobeia” in parallel with “Tantal” through excerpts from the correspondence of Ivanov and Briusov (see 1976.5).

12 GORODETSKII, SERGEI. Zhizn’ neukrotimaia: Stat’i. Ocherki. Vospominaniia [Indomitable life: Articles. Essays. Memoirs]. Compiled and annotated by V. P. Enisherlov. Moscow: Sovremennik, 9, 11—12, 25—27, 29, 34—35, 51—52, 54, 75, 77—78, 81, 84, 86—87, 89, 96, 98—99, 104, 210.

Abridged texts of 1907.15, 1909.12, 1909.13, 1922.8, and 1959.3. Also includes an extended version of 1925.3, a fragment from the archive entitled “O Valerii Briusove” [On Valerii Briusov] (1924).

13 GUMILEV, N. S. “Zabytye “Pis’ma o russkoi poezii”: Retsenzii iz gazety Rech’ i zhurnala Giperborei, 1908—1909, 1912 gg” [Forgotten “Letters on Russian poetry”: Reviews from the newspaper Rech’ and the journal Giperborei, 1908—1909, 1912]. In Gumilevskie chteniia [Gumilev papers]. Compiled and edited by I. F. Martynov. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, 15. Vienna: n.p., 53—63.

Reprint of 1913.6 (pp. 62—63).

222

14 [IVANOV, DIMITRI]. “Vjačeslav Ivanov dans les souvenirs de son fils.” Cultura russa (Rome), no. 1: 22—28.

In French. Following the symposium held at the University of Rome in 1983, Cultura russa conducted an interview with Ivanov’s son, Dimitri Ivanov, in the form of a series of questions and answers. Topics covered include memoirs of Ivanov’s life in Pavia and in Rome, the background to a poem from “Rimskii dnevnik” [Roman diary], Ivanov’s continuing interest in archaeological discoveries in Rome, his attitude to German culture, his profound knowledge of German, and his admiration for Stefan George. Among Ivanov’s circle of friends in Rome, lists Lo Gatto, Ol’ga Resnevič Signorelli (her salon), Papini, Naldi (the first Italian translator of Ivanov’s poetry), de Luca, Alvaro, Caffi, Cavicchioli, Moravia, and Maritain. When asked to name the most essential traits of Ivanov’s personality, Dimitri Ivanov comments on his “présence,” “passion,” “connaissance,” “sens du tragique et sens de la joie,” and “sens de l’humour.”

15 KASYMZHANOVA, A. “Viacheslav Ivanov o khudozhestvennom tvorchestve” [Viacheslav Ivanov on artistic creation]. In Istoriko-metodologicheskie problemy esteticheskogo poznaniia [Historical methodological problems of aesthetic knowledge]. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut filosofii. Moscow: n.p., 59—67.

In Russian. Outlines the theoretical basis of Ivanov’s system of symbolist aesthetics with reference to Nietzsche and the principles of Apollo and Dionysus. Examines the concepts of ascent and descent in Ivanov’s view of artistic creation and notes the disparity between his aspirations and reality.

16 KLEBERG, LARS. “Vjačeslav Ivanov and the Idea of Theater.” In Theater and Literature in Russia. 1900—1930: A Collection of Essays. Edited by Lars Kleberg and Nils Åke Nilsson. Stockholm Studies in Russian Literature, 19. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 57—70.

Traces the development of Ivanov’s idea of the theatre in his theoretical essays on the subject. Considers his work on Dionysus, the essays “Novye maski” [New masks] (1904) and “Predchuvstviia i predvestiia” [Premonitions and forebodings] (1906), his links with Meierkhol’d, and the 1910 production of Calderón’s play at the theatre at the tower. Comments on Ivanov’s return to eschatological notions of collectivity at the time of the revolution and on the role of his contributions to the journal of the theatrical section of Narkomprosa (TEO), Vestnik teatra. See also 1919.2, 1919.3; Kleberg, 1979.9.

17 LUKIRSKAIA, K. P., ed. Biblioteka A. A. Bloka: Opisanie [The library of A. A. Blok: A description]. Compiled by O. V. Miller, N. A. Kolobova, and S. Ia. Vovina. Vol. 1. Leningrad: Biblioteka Akademii nauk SSSR, 83, 107, 285, 293—98.

In Russian. Catalogues the books held in Blok’s library together with

223

details of inscriptions, dedications and marginalia. The first volume includes details of Borodaevskii’s Stikhotvoreniia [Poems] (1909) with a preface by Ivanov; copies of Zinov’eva-Annibal’s books, Net! [No!], Tragicheskii zverinets [The tragic menagerie] with an inscription from the author to L. D. Blok, and Tridtsať tri uroda [Thirty-three abominations] with an inscription from the author to Blok and bound in one volume with Ivanov’s Eros and Blok’s Snezhnaia maska [The snow mask] (1907). Works by Ivanov include Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] with details of Blok’s marginalia, Prozrachnosť [Transparency] with details of Blok’s marginalia, Eros with an inscription from Ivanov, Po zvezdam [By the stars] with an inscription from Ivanov and details of extensive marginalia by Blok, Cor Ardens, parts 1 and 2, both inscribed by Ivanov with his two poems to Blok of 25 April 1912, Nezhnaia taina [Tender mystery], Mladenchestvo [Infancy] with an inscription from Ivanov, Prometei [Prometheus] and Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners]. For the second and third volumes of the catalogue, see Lukirskaia 1985.11, 1986.30.

18 MALCOVATI, FAUSTO. “La teoria del teatro simbolista in Vjačeslav Ivanov.” In Mir Iskusstva: La cultura figurativa, letteraria e musicale nel Simbolismo russo. Rome: Edizioni E/O, 171—75.

In Italian. An adapted version of the chapter on the theatre in Malcovati, 1983.21. Comments on the Dionysiac sources of Ivanov’s view of the theatre, on the concept of the dyad, and on the role of the maenads. Draws on Ivanov’s essays on drama from Po zvezdam [By the stars] and Borozdy i mezhi [Furrows and boundaries]. See also Malcovati, 1982.14, 1986.33.

19 MARKISH, SIMON. “Vjačeslav Ivanov et les juifs.” Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique 25, no. 1 (January — March): 35—47.

In French. Considers Ivanov’s attitude to the Jewish faith and people with particular reference to four works: Ivanov’s essay of 1915, “K ideologii evreiskogo voprosa” [Concerning the ideology of the Jewish question], an extract from his preface of 1906 to Chulkov’s work on mystical anarchism, a poem from “Rimskii dnevnik” [Roman diary], “Komu rech’ Ellinov temna...” [Those who find the speech of the Hellenes obscure...] and Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners]. Places Ivanov in the tradition of Christian tolerance linked with V. Solov’ev, but raises the question of his absolute loyalty to Dostoevskii’s attitude to the Jews.

20 MUREDDU, DONATA. “Petrarch and Vjačeslav Ivanov.” Scando-Slavica 30: 73—94.

An abridged version of chapter 4 of the author’s dissertation (1981.15), omitting the detailed analysis in section 2 of Ivanov’s translations of three

224

canzioneri by Petrarch (LVII, CCLXIX, CCCXII). See also Fisher, 1915.4; Nelson, 1986.36; Balašov, 1988.3; Tomashevskii, 1989.60; Venclova, 1991.42.

21 NIVAT, GEORGES. “Iwanow w Rzymie” [Ivanov in Rome]. Translated by H. W. Znak (Kraków), no. 356 (7): 978—84.

In Polish. Provides an account of the second international symposium on Ivanov, held at the University of Rome in May 1983. Summarizes the papers given and describes the audience given to the participants of the conference by Pope John Paul II.

22 NIVAT, GEORGES. “Prospero et Ariel: Esquisse des rapports d’Andrej Belyj et Vjačeslav Ivanov.” Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique 25, no. 1 (January — March): 19—34.

In French. Traces the relationship of the two poets from a chronological perspective, documenting their changing personal relations and ideological differences. Draws on Belyi’s portrait of Ivanov in his memoirs, his writings on Ivanov and responses to his essays, and the two poets’ correspondence. Following Briusov (1904.4), characterizes Ivanov as Prospero and Belyi as a tormented Ariel. Outlines the sequence of polemical essays exchanged by Belyi and Ivanov. Describes their collaboration over the journal Trudy i dni and their meeting in Switzerland in 1912. See also Nicolescu, 1988.49; Cymborska-Leboda, 1990.14; Dioletta Siclari, 1993.14.

23 PIROG, GERALD. “The Language of Love and the Limits of Language.” In Aleksandr Blok Centennial Conference. Edited by Walter N. Vickery with Bogdan B. Sagatov. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 225—36.

Outlines the Russian symbolists’ conception of poetic language with reference to Ivanov’s essay “Zavety simvolizma” [The precepts of symbolism] (1910) and to Blok’s response (1910.5). Relates these views of language to Auerbach’s concept of “figura” and to the modern European tradition. Discusses the language of love poetry in its European context and shows how “Blok’s poetry operates within this system but in the end rejects its fundamental assumptions about the powers of language.”

24 POLLAK, SEWERYN. “Między mitem a symbolem” [Between myth and symbol]. Znak (Kraków), no. 356 (7): 936—54.

In Polish. Provides a general outline of Ivanov’s biography and literary development. Comments on some of the principal themes of his poetry with particular reference to his concept of the poetic word. The same issue contains a selection of poems by Ivanov, translated into Polish by Pollak and others (pp. 929—35). Reprinted: 1985.15, 1988.52.

225

25 ROSENTHAL, BERNICE GLATZER. “Wagner and Wagnerian Ideas in Russia.” In Wagnerism in European Culture and Politics. Edited by David C. Large and William Weber with Anne Dzamba Sessa. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press, 198—245.

Investigates the influence of Wagner’s music and ideas on Russian artists and writers between 1890 and 1917. Within this context considers Ivanov’s image of Wagner (pp. 214—19 and passim). Traces it back to his interest in Nietzsche and examines its central role in determining his utopian view of the theatre as a mythic art form capable of reestablishing the union between the poet and the crowd. Comments on Ivanov’s influence on Scriabin’s ideas and view of Wagner. For further materials on Ivanov and Wagner, see Durylin, 1913.3; Porfir’eva, 1987.18; Bartlett, 1990.3; Gozenpud, 1990.26; Bartlett, 1993.5; Rizzi, 1993.47.

26 TERRAS, VICTOR. “Viacheslav Ivanov’s Kormchie zvezdy in Relation to the Poet’s Philosophy of Art.” In Russian Literature and American Critics: In Honor of Denting B. Brown. Edited by Kenneth N. Brostrom. Papers in Slavic Philology, 4. Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 211—18.

Relates the poems of Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] to Ivanov’s theurgic aesthetics with special reference to the dichotomy of Dionysian versus Apollonian creation and to the categories of ascent and descent. Comments on several poems, dwelling on their classical features, cosmic imagery, treatment of the theme of artistic creation, and on the importance of the female principle. Discusses the three long “philosophic allegories” of the collection, written in terza rima, “Sfinks” [The sphinx], “Vrata” [The gates], and “Miry vozmozhnogo” [The worlds of the possible], suggesting that they may be “among the major phenomena of twentieth-century Russian poetry.” See also Terras, 1983.26, 1986.51, 1990.58.