1 AKHMATOVA, ANNA. “Avtobiograficheskaia proza” [Autobiographical prose]. Edited by R. D. Timenchik. Literaturnoe obozrenie (Moscow), no. 5: 3—10.
In Russian. Includes the fragments “Pestrye zametki” [Random notes] and “K istorii akmeizma” [On the history of acmeism] with brief comments on the formation of the Guild of Poets as a reaction against Ivanov’s Poetic Academy, and on Gumilev’s attitude to Ivanov at the time of the emergence of Acmeism (pp. 6—7). For an English translation, see Akhmatova, 1992.1.
2 AKHMATOVA, ANNA. “Iz dnevnikovykh zapisei” [From diary entries]. Edited by V. A. Chernykh. Literaturnoe obozrenie (Moscow), no. 5: 11—17.
In Russian. The first untitled fragment (p. 11) links the emergence of Acmeism to Gumilev’s break with Ivanov in 1911, attributed to his review of Cor Ardens (1911.8). Records Ivanov’s subsequent fierce attack on Gumilev’s reading of his “Bludnyi syn” [A prodigal son]. The second fragment “V desiatom godu” [In 1910] (p. 12) is entirely devoted to Ivanov. Akhmatova describes her poetry reading to Ivanov, his two-faced reaction (“What lush romanticism!”), and later public praise. Prefers Berdiaev’s characterization of
Ivanov as a “catcher of men” (1949.5) to the image projected by Western critics such as Poggioli (1949.14). Refers to Nedobrovo’s and Blok’s distrust of Ivanov and cites the current opinion of Ivanov as “second-rate Bal’mont.” “He ‘acted’ a person who never existed and who, in my opinion, should not have existed.” For an English translation, see Akhmatova, 1992.1.
3 ASOIAN, A. A. “Dante i Viach. Ivanov” [Dante and Viach. Ivanov]. In Dante i russkaia literatura [Dante and Russian literature]. Sverdlovsk: Izdatel’stvo Ural’skogo universiteta, 121—43
In Russian. Reprint of 1988.2 (pp. 121—28) with an additional section linking Ivanov’s approach to Dante with his interest in Dostoevskii and investigating Dantesque images and allusions in his verse. Comments on “Sfinks” [The sphinx] and on various poems from Cor Ardens. Reprinted: 1990.1.
4 AVERINTSEV, S. S. “Sistemnosť simvolov v poezii Viacheslava Ivanova” [The system of symbols in the poetry of Viacheslav Ivanov]. In Kontekst: Literaturno-teoreticheskie issledovaniia. 1989 [Context: Literary and theoretical investigations. 1989]. Edited by A. V. Mikhailov. Moscow: Nauka, 42—57.
In Russian. A version of 1986.4 with additional notes.
5 BALASHOV, N. I. “Eskhil Viacheslava Ivanova — dvoinoi pamiatnik kul’tury” [Viacheslav Ivanov’s Aeschylus — a dual cultural achievement]. In Tragedii [Tragedies], by Aeschylus. Translated by Viacheslav Ivanov. Edited by N. I. Balashov, Dim. Viach. Ivanov, M. L. Gasparov, G. Ch. Guseinov, N. V. Kotrelev, and V. N. Iarkho. Literaturnye pamiatniki. Moscow: Nauka, 453—63.
In Russian. Comments on the context and significance of Ivanov’s translations of Aeschylus as a form of intercultural dialogue, gives details of the principles of the edition and of the texts used, and notes the lexical and syntactical archaisms of Ivanov’s translation. The volume includes Ivanov’s translations from six of the seven surviving tragedies by Aeschylus: “Prositel’nitsy” [The suppliants], “Persy” [The Persians], “Semero protiv Fiv” [Seven against Thebes], and the trilogy of the “Oresteia,” comprising “Agamemnon,” “Plakal’shchitsy: Khoefory” [The mourners: Choephori], and “Evmenidy” [Eumenides]. Additional materials include Ivanov’s preface to his translation of the “Oresteia” (written for the projected edition of 1926); further Russian versions of Aeschylus by A. I. Piotrovskii and M. L. Gasparov (from tragedies either not completed or not translated by Ivanov); extracts from the projected book version of “Ellinskaia religiia stradaiushchego boga” [The hellenic religion of the suffering god] and from Dionis i pradionisiistvo [Dionysus and predionysianism] with notes. The appendices also include essays by Iarkho (on Aeschylus and his tragedies), by Losev (see 1989.41), and by Kotrelev (see 1989.37), and notes on the translations from Aeschylus (by Iarkho) and on the extracts from Ivanov’s prose works on Dionysus (by Guseinov and Kotrelev).
6 BATURIN, A. “Pis’mo Viach. Ivanova” [A letter from Viach. Ivanov]. Vechernii Leningrad (Leningrad), no. 183 (18873), 10 August, 3.
In Russian. Introduces the first publication of a letter of 22 May 1926 from Ivanov, replying to a letter of congratulations on his sixtieth birthday, sent by a group of scholars at the Research Institute of Comparative History of Western and Eastern Literatures and Languages of Leningrad University. In his letter Ivanov expresses his gratitude for the encouragement he has received for continuing work on his unfinished translations of Aeschylus and only “just begun” translation of Dante, projects rendered more difficult by the lack of support from publishers.
7 BERDIAEV, NIKOLAI. “Ocharovanie otrazhennykh kul’tur: V. I. Ivanov” [The charm of reflected cultures: V. I. Ivanov]. In Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works]. Vol. 3: Tipy religioznoi mysli v Rossii [Types of religious thought in Russia]. Edited by N. A. Struve. Paris: YMCA-PRESS, 516—28.
8 BLOK, A. Dnevnik [Diary]. Edited and with an introductory essay by A. L. Grishunin. Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossiia, passim.
In Russian. An annotated and indexed edition of Blok’s diaries (1901—1921), based on the archival manuscript notebooks held in IRLI, with an introductory essay. References to Ivanov can be traced through the index. For earlier editions of the diaries, see Blok, 1928.1, 1928.2, 1963.4.
9 BLOK, A. “Tvorchestvo Viacheslava Ivanova” [The art of Viacheslav Ivanov”; “O sovremennom sostoianii russkogo simvolizma” [On the contemporary state of Russian literature]. In O literature [On literature]. With an introductory essay by D. E. Maksimov. Compiled and edited by T. N. Bedniakovaia. Second expanded edition. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 15—26, 245—55, 390—94, 447—50.
10 BOGOMOLOV, N. A. “Otgoloski veka Prosveshcheniia v russkoi kul’turnoi zhizni epokhi revoliutsii 1905 goda” [Echoes of the age of Enlightenment in Russian cultural life at the time of the revolution of 1905]. In Tezisy dokladov nauchnoi konferentsii “Velikaia frantsuzskaia revoliutsiia i puti russkogo osvoboditel’nogo dvizheniia”. 15—17 dekabria 1989 g. [Theses of papers of the academic conference “The French revolution and the course of the Russian liberation movement.” 15—17 December 1989]. Tartu: Tartuskii universitet, 80—83.
In Russian. Notes a few links between the Society of Hafiz in 1906 and
S. A. Auslender’s story “Zapiski Ganimeda” [The notes of Ganymedes]. Draws a parallel between the aspirations of Ivanov and Hölderlin. See also Bogomolov, 1988.6, 1993.8 (for an expanded version of this publication).
11 BÖHMIG, MICHAELA. “V. Ivanov e la concezione del mito nel pensiero estetico di F. W. Schelling.” Ricerche slavistiche (Rome) 32—35 (1985—1988): 113—35.
In Italian. Analyzes the meaning of myth in Ivanov’s thought and poetry, indicating possible influences of early German romanticism with particular reference to the aesthetics of F. W. J. Schelling. Distinguishes between Ivanov’s historical and philological studies of myth and his concern with myth as an ontological model for a new vision of the world and the creation of his own poetics of realistic symbolism. Notes several passages from works by Novalis, the Schlegel brothers, and Schelling that reflect parallels with both aspects of Ivanov’s approach to myth.
12 BRISTOL, EVELYN. “Turn of a Century: Modernism, 1895—1925.” In The Cambridge History of Russian Literature. Edited by Charles A. Moser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 387—457. Revised edition. 1992.
Includes a brief section on Ivanov (pp. 419—21) in the context of a general survey of modernist literature.
13 BRYŚ, GRAŽYNA. “Mity i symbole lunarne w poezji Wiaczesława Iwanowa” [Lunar myths and symbols in the poetry of Viacheslav Ivanov]. Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis (Wrocław), no. 977 (Slavica Wratislaviensia 48): 53—72.
In Polish. Deals with symbols and myths related to the moon in Ivanov’s poetry, viewed in the context of his view that the art of the symbol will give birth to myth. Analyzes a number of poems, drawing attention to the syncretic nature of the imagery and to its Nietzschean elements. Finds that Ivanov chooses moon-related symbols or myths that are ambiguous, and is mainly interested in the story element of the myth, to which he gives his own interpretation. See also Davidson, 1984.6, Winternitz De Vito, 1989.64.
14 CHULKOVA, N. G. “‘Ty — pamiať smolknuvshego slova...’: Iz vospominanii o Georgii Chulkove” [“You are the memory of words fallen silent...”: From the memoirs of Georgii Chulkov]. Introduced and edited by A. Il’iunina. Vestnik russkogo khristianskogo dvizheniia, no. 157: 125—51.
In Russian. Publishes two chapters about Ivanov from the memoirs of Nadezhda Chulkova (chapters 3 and 14 of the original manuscript, from the copy held in the Blok museum). The memoirs cover Chulkov’s encounters with Ivanov from 1905 through to their last meeting in 1924 and subsequent correspondence. They draw on letters from Zinov’eva-Annibal to Chulkova (1906—1907), from Chulkov to his wife (1924), and from Ivanov to Chulkov
(30 March 1928). Zinov’eva-Annibal, her writing, her relationship with Ivanov, and death in 1907 (at which Chulkova was present) are commented upon. Other topics covered include the gatherings of the Hafiz circle, Zinov’eva-Annibal’s gatherings for women, the controversy over mystical anarchism, Ivanov’s and Chulkov’s exchange of poems in 1919, touching on the theme of repentance, and Ivanov’s reasons for not wishing his “Rimskie sonety” [Roman sonnets] to be published in Krasnala nov’.
15 DAVIDSON, PAMELA. The poetic imagination of Vyacheslav Ivanov: A Russian Symbolist’s perception of Dante. Cambridge Studies in Russian Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 334 pp.
A revised and abridged version of 1983.6. The focus on Ivanov’s interpretation of Dante opens up new perspectives on the wider question of the relation of Russian symbolism to the Western cultural tradition and Catholicism. The first part (“Approaches and Themes”) explores Ivanov’s poetic method, relating his art and approach to Dante to his central beliefs. Considers his interpretation of the religion of Dionysus in the light of Nietzsche and his assimilation of the teachings of V. Solov’ev, and traces the ways in which he embodied these ideas in his own life and applied them to his image of Dante. In the second part (“Texts and Translations”), detailed analyses of Dantesque references in Ivanov’s prerevolutionary poetry are followed by a critical examination of his translations from Dante’s three major works. Extensive use is made throughout of unpublished archival materials from Russia and Italy. See also Davidson, 1982.3, 1984.6, 1986.13; Asoian, 1988.2, 1989.3; Szilard and Barta, 1989.56; Potthoff, 1991.34.
16 D[EDIULIN], S[ERGEI]. “IV Mezhdunarodnyi simpozium, posviashchennyi Viacheslavu Ivanovu (Geidel’berg, 4—10 sentiabria 1989)” [The fourth international symposium dedicated to Viacheslav Ivanov (Heidelberg, 4—10 September 1989)]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 3795, 29 September, 9.
In Russian. Describes the fourth international symposium on Ivanov, held at the University of Heidelberg in September 1989, and recent related publications. See also Kotrelev, 1989.34.
17 DOTSENKO, S. N. “Dva grada: Mif o Peterburge v tvorchestve Viach. Ivanova” [Two cities: The myth of Petersburg in the works of Viach. Ivanov]. In Antsiferovskie chteniia: Materialy i tezisy konferentsii (20—22 dekabria 1989 g.). [Antsiferov papers: Conference materials and theses (20—22 December 1989)]. Compiled by A. I. Dobkin and A. V. Kobak. Leningrad: Leningradskoe otdelenie Sovetskogo fonda kul’tury, 129—32.
In Russian. Traces the sources of Ivanov’s image of St. Petersburg as a “transparent” city to Dostoevskii. Comments on the link drawn by the symbolists between Pushkin’s “Mednyi vsadnik” [The bronze horseman] and the apocalyptic horseman of the Book of Revelation. Evokes the images of St.
Petersburg and Moscow in Ivanov’s verse (1905—1907) and in “Povesť o Svetomire tsareviche” [The tale of tsarevich Svetomir]. Associates St. Petersburg with the “Luciferian” aspect of Russia and Moscow with its sacred promise.
18 DOTSENKO, S. N. “Rossiia i Evropa v tsikle Viach. Ivanova ‘Parizhskie epigrammy’” [Russia and Europe in Viach. Ivanov’s cycle “Paris epigrams”] . In Tezisy dokladov nauchnoi konferentsii “Velikaia frantsuzskaia revoliutsiia i puti russkogo osvoboditel’nogo dvizheniia”. 15—17dekabria 1989 g. [Theses of papers of the academic conference “The French revolution and the course of the Russian liberation movement.” 15—17 December 1989]. Tartu: Tartuskii universitet, 77—80.
In Russian. Investigates the image of Europe presented in Ivanov’s cycle of Paris epigrams (1891). Notes parallels with his essays on the religion of Dionysus and on the barbarian element of the Slav soul. Finds links between his religious and moral critique of Europe and the ideas of Dostoevskii and the Slavophiles.
19 ERMILOVA, E. V. Teoriia i obraznyi mir russkogo simvolizma [The theory and imagery of Russian symbolism]. Moscow: Nauka, 134—48 and passim.
In Russian. Analyzes various aspects of symbolism from the point of view of the movement’s aesthetic principles and theurgic claims. Focuses on the concept of the symbol, the nature of decadence and aestheticism, the relation between life and art, the synthesis of the arts, and the problem of tradition in symbolism and its legacy. Discussion of Ivanov occurs throughout the book, which also includes a separate chapter (pp. 134—48) on the relations of Blok and Ivanov (incorporating some material from 1975.6 and 1984.8). Draws on a wide range of original materials of the period with relatively little reference to later secondary literature.
20 FOTIEV, KIRILL. “Sakral’nyi iazyk v poezii Viacheslava Ivanova” [Sacred language in the poetry of Viacheslav Ivanov]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 3795, 29 September, 9.
In Russian. Considers Ivanov’s use of poetic language in the context of his religious understanding of art. Analyzes the sonnet “Sikstinskaia kapella” [The Sistine chapel] as an example. Reprinted: 1993.18.
21 GASPAROV, M. L., ed. Russkii stikh: Uchebnyi material po literaturovedeniiu [Russian verse: Textbook materials on the study of literature]. Ministerstvo narodnogo obrazovaniia latviiskoi SSR, Daugavpilsskii pedagogicheskii institut im. Ia. E. Kalnberzina. Daugavpils: Daugavpilsskii pedagogicheskii institut im. Ia. E. Kalnberzina, 46—47, 52—53, 115, 152—53, 159.
Reprint of 1987.6.
22 GASPAROV, M. L., ed. “Vera Merkur’eva: Iz literaturnogo naslediia” [Vera Merkur’eva: From the literary legacy]. Oktiabr’ (Moscow), no. 5 (May): 149—59.
In Russian. Provides an introductory outline of the life and literary works of the poet Vera Merkur’eva (1876—1943), followed by a selection of her poems. Includes comments on her relationship with Ivanov from their first meeting on 22 October 1917 through to the dwindling of their correspondence in 1922. Emphasizes Merkur’eva’s admiration for Ivanov’s verse despite their differences of opinion on religion. Cites extracts from Ivanov’s letters to Merkur’eva, and briefly describes her remarkable five-part work about him in rhythmic prose and verse, “Mechtanie o Viacheslave Sozvezdnom” [A fantasy about Astral Viacheslav] (February 1918). For Ivanov’s letters to Merkur’eva, see Petrosov, 1991.33. For an expanded version of the section on Ivanov and Merkur’eva, see Gasparov, 1993.19.
23 GIAQUINTA, ROSANNA. “Conservazione della cultura o fine dell’umanesimo? Blok e Gorkij in ‘Vsemirnaja literatura.’” Annali di Ca’Foscari (Venice) 28, no. 1—2: 201—23.
In Italian. In the context of a discussion of Blok’s relations with Gor’kii in 1918—1919, devotes a few pages (pp. 220—22) to the links between Ivanov’s and Blok’s views of the fate of humanism. Compares Ivanov’s essay Kruchi [Steep slopes] to Blok’s essay “Krushenie gumanizma” [The collapse of humanism], and Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] to Blok’s essay “Narod i intelligentsiia” [The people and the intelligentsia]. See also Ivanova, 1988.27; Shcherbakova, 1990.54.
24 GROSSMAN, JOAN DELANEY. “Briusov’s Defense of Poetry and the Crisis of Symbolism.” In Issues in Russian Literature before 1917. Selected Papers of the Third World Congress for Soviet and East European Studies. Edited by J. Douglas Clayton. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 196—204.
Discusses Briusov’s response (1910.6) to Ivanov’s essay “Zavety simvolizma” [The precepts of symbolism] in the light of the general debate of 1910 on the future of symbolism. Relates their debate to other essays by Ivanov and to their correspondence. See Venclova, 1989.62.
25 HANSEN-LÖVE, AAGE A. Der russische Symbolismus: System und Entfaltung der poetischen Motive. Vol. 1: Diabolischer Symbolismus. Veröffentlichungen der Komission für Literaturwissenschaft, 7. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, passim.
In German. Cites examples from Ivanov’s verse and essays related to different aspects of “diabolical symbolism,” the central theme of the study, and links these to examples from the work of other poets. References to Ivanov can be traced through the index.
26 IGETA, SADAËSI. “Iwanow — Pumpianski — Bachtin” [Ivanov — Pumpianskii — Bakhtin]. Przegląd Humanistyczny (Warsaw) no. 6: 131—40.
In Polish. Considers the links between Ivanov’s essay “Dostoevskii i roman-tragediia” [Dostoevskii and the novel-tragedy] (1911) and the work of L. Pumpianskii, Dostoevskii i antichnosť [Dostoevskii and classical antiquity] (Petrograd, 1922) and of Bakhtin on Dostoevskii (1929.1). Demonstrates Bakhtin’s debt to Ivanov’s essay “Dve stikhii v sovremennom simvolizme” [Two elemental forces in contemporary symbolism] (1908) in developing the concept of polyphony. On Bakhtin and Ivanov, see Bakhtin, 1929.1, 1963.2, 1979.2; Clark and Holquist, 1984.4; Crone, 1988.13; Kotrelev, 1988.35; Jackson, 1989.29; Szilard, 1989.55.
27 IVANOV, DIMITRIJ. “Dioniso e i culti predionisiaci di Viačeslav Ivanov.” In Dalla forma allo spirito: Scritti in onore di Nina Kauchtschischwili. Edited by Rosanna Casari, Ugo Persi, and Gian Piero Piretto. Milan: Guerini e Associati, 219—28.
In Italian. Outlines the history of the various stages of Ivanov’s work on the cult of Dionysus. Notes the survival of one copy in the Rome archive of Ivanov’s book on Dionysus destroyed by fire in 1917. Describes the plans for a German translation of Dionis i pradionisiistvo [Dionysus and predionysianism] (1923), commissioned by the Swiss publisher Benno Schwabe in 1936 but eventually dropped as a result of Ivanov’s unending revisions and the advent of war. Publishes a text, dictated by Ivanov to Dimitrii Ivanov at the age of fourteen (i.e., in 1926), containing a concentrated summary of the main theses of his work on Dionysus (pp. 221—27).
28 IVANOV, DM. VIACH. “Martin Buber i Viacheslav Ivanov” [Martin Buber and Viacheslav Ivanov]. In Russian Literature and History. Edited by Wolf Moskovich, Jonathan Fraenkel, Victor Levin, and Samuel Shvarzband. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Soviet Jewry Museum Foundation. Jerusalem, 151—54.
In Russian. Traces Ivanov’s links with Buber through their correspondence and meetings. In 1926 Buber published a German translation of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] in his journal Die Kreatur. In 1927 he sent Ivanov the first two volumes of his German translation of the Bible. In 1932 Ivanov sent Buber the German book version of his work on Dostoevskii. Several extracts from Buber’s letters to Ivanov (held in the Rome archive) are quoted in Russian translation. Cites Ivanov’s impressions of Buber from his letter to his children of 27 March 1927 (see Ivanova, 1987.10).
29 JACKSON, ROBERT LOUIS. Introduction to Freedom and the Tragic Life: A Study in Dostoevsky. Foreword by Sir Maurice Bowra. Translated by Norman Cameron. Edited by S. Konovalov. Wolfeboro, NH: Longwood Academic, vii—xxxi.
A new introduction by R. L. Jackson prefaces a reprint of 1952.2,
including Bowra’s foreword (pp. v—vi). The introduction outlines the complex history of the book from the three original essays published in Russian in 1911, 1914, and 1917 to the German book version of 1932, translated into English in 1952. Describes the book as “perhaps the finest example of the ontologically and metaphysically-orientated school of Dostoevsky criticism,” and also as a pioneering study that “anticipated the new criticism of Bakhtin, Leonid Grossman and others in its concern with the form of Dostoevsky’s novels and their roots in tragedy and myth.” Relates the structure and central themes of the book to Ivanov’s theory of realist symbolism and to his essay “Ty esi” [Thou art] (1907). Emphasizes his “holistic approach” to Dostoevskii, combining “philosophical, biographical and formalistic analysis.” Comments on Bakhtin’s criticism of Ivanov’s approach and on Ivanov’s view of the Dostoevskii novel as a type “somewhere between the polyphonic and monological models.” Outlines some of the main themes of the study, such as the relation of Dostoevskii’s novels to Goethe’s Faust and to Dante’s vision, and man’s revolt against Mother Earth. Acknowledges the rigidity of Ivanov’s formula, discounting the tensions or contradictions which manifest themselves in the novels. On Bakhtin and Ivanov, see Bakhtin, 1929.1, 1963.2, 1979.2; Clark and Holquist, 1984.4; Crone, 1988.13; Kotrelev, 1988.35; Szilard, 1989.55. Reprinted: 1993.30.
30 KELLY, CATRIONA. “Classical Tragedy and the ‘slavonic Renaissance’: The Plays of Vjačeslav Ivanov and Innokentij Annenskij Compared.” Slavic and East European Journal, 33, no. 2: 235—54.
Analyzes the ways in which Annenskii and Ivanov interpreted Attic tragedy (Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides) in their essays and shows how their plays draw on and adapt elements of the Greek tradition. Annenskii’s approach is aesthetic, Ivanov’s is post-Nietszchean and mystic-religious; Annenskii favours Euripides while Ivanov prefers Aeschylus. Both authors employ a selective and anachronistic manner in their re-creation of classical tragedy. Relates these ideas to Zelinskii’s view of the Slavonic Renaissance. Discusses three plays by Annenskii, “Melanippa-filosof” [Melanippe the philosopher], “Tsar’ Iksion” [King Ixion], and “Laodamiia” [Laodamia], and Ivanov’s “Tantal” [Tantalus], focusing on the role of the chorus, given much greater prominence in “Tantal” than in Annenskii’s tragedies. Concludes that this difference results not from a direct imitation of Aeschylus and Euripides, but from the authors’ reductive, schematic readings of Greek tragedy in the light of their theoretical views. See also Amiard-Chevrel, 1978.1; Szilard, 1978.17, 1982.17; Kelly, 1988.32; Koretskaia, 1989.33.
31 KHARDZHIEV, N. I. “Dve epigrammy Viacheslava Ivanova” [Two epigrams by Viacheslav Ivanov]. Russkaia rech’ (Moscow), no. 5: 27—29.
In Russian. Publishes the text of two brief epigrams by V. Ivanov,
“Novatory do Verzhbolova...” [Innovators before Verzhbolov...] and “To, chto gozhe i ne gozhe...” [The suitable and the unsuitable...], satirizing the paintings shown at an exhibition of modernist artists, “Venok” [The wreath], held in 1910. The first two lines of the first epigram were originally published by Maiakovskii in 1914 and falsely attributed by him to Khlebnikov. Fuller texts were subsequently published by Aseev in 1919.1. For an earlier treatment of this material, see Tschižewskij, 1960.10.
32 KORETSKAIA, I. V. “M. Gor’kii i Viach. Ivanov” [M. Gorkii and Viach. Ivanov]. In Gor’kii i ego epokha: Issledovaniia i materialy [Gorkii and his epoch: Investigations and materials]. Edited by B. A. Bialik. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut mirovoi literatury im. A. M. Gor’kogo. Vol. 1. Moscow: Nauka, 169—84.
In Russian. Surveys the relations of Ivanov and Gor’kii from 1906 to 1929 through a study of their correspondence, writings, and records of their meetings. Publishes excerpts from their correspondence, drawn from Gor’kii’s archive in Moscow and Ivanov’s archive in Rome. Compares their attitudes to the writing of Andreev, to Dostoevskii, to realist naturalism, and to the writer’s relation to the people. Describes Gor’kii’s help over the publication of Prometei [Prometheus], his meeting with Ivanov in Sorrento in 1925, and the plans for publication of various works by Ivanov in Gor’kii’s journal Beseda. Comments on copies of Ivanov’s books held in Gor’kii’s library. Reprinted with changes and cuts: 1993.32. See also Gor’kii, 1957.2, 1959.2; Karasik, 1957.5; Bialik, 1959.1; Markov, 1959.5; Berberova, 1960.1; Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 1963.8.
33 KORETSKAIA, I. V. “Viacheslav Ivanov i Innokentii Annenskii” [Viacheslav Ivanov and Innokentii Annenskii]. In Kontekst: Literaturno-teoreticheskie issledovaniia. 1989 [Context: Literary and theoretical investigations. 1989]. Edited by A. V. Mikhailov. Moscow: Nauka, 58—68.
In Russian. A revised and expanded version of 1988.34 with an additional section (pp. 64—65) on the two writers’ differing approaches to classical tragedy, linking Ivanov with Aeschylus and Annenskii with Euripides. See also Kelly, 1988.32, 1989.33.
34 KOTRELEV, NIKOLAI. “IV Mezhdunarodnyi simpozium, posviashchennyi Viacheslavu Ivanovu (Geidel’berg, 4—10 sentiabria 1989)” [The fourth international symposium, dedicated to Viacheslav Ivanov (Heidelberg, 4—10 September 1989]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 3793, 15 September, 11.
In Russian. Describes the fourth international symposium on Ivanov, organized by Wilfried Potthoff at the University of Heidelberg in September 1989, listing speakers and their papers. For a selection of the papers given at the conference, see under individual authors in the volume edited by Potthoff (1993.45).
35 KOTRELEV, N. V. “Aleksandr Blok v rabote nad tomom izbrannykh stikhotvorenii (’Izbornik,’ 1918)” [Aleksandr Blok at work on a volume of selected poems (“Selected poems,” 1918)]; “Primechaniia” [Notes]. In Izbornik [Selected poems], by A. A. Blok. Edited by K. M. Azadovskii and N. V. Kotrelev. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Literaturyne pamiatniki. Moscow: Nauka, 183—245, 246—78.
In Russian. Includes information on the history of Ivanov’s unpublished “Izbornik,” the contract for which was signed with the Sabashnikov publishing house on 4 May 1918 (pp. 187—204). Mentions brief details of M. Sabashnikova’s portrait of Ivanov, prepared for the edition. The notes to Blok’s projected anthology also contain various observations on the Ivanov theme in Blok’s poetry (pp. 265—67, 277). See also Panina, 1972.15.
36 KOTRELEV, N. V. “K istorii ’Kormchikh zvezď” [Towards a history of “Pilot stars”] . Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 3793, 15 September, 11.
In Russian. Publishes an abridged version of a letter of 2 June 1895 from Dar’ia Mikhailovna, Ivanov’s first wife, to Ivanov, recounting her visit to V. Solov’ev on the previous day. Dar’ia Mikhailovna took some of Ivanov’s poems to show to Solov’ev; she describes their meeting and his favorable reactions to the poems. Also publishes two excerpts related to Solov’ev from Ivanov’s letters to Zinov’eva-Annibal. On 23 October 1895 he describes his first meeting with Solov’ev (Dar’ia Mikhailovna had introduced him on 9 October), including Solov’ev’s warning that Ivanov’s poems will be incomprehensible to his future readers. On 2 August 1900 he dwells on his feelings about Solov’ev, after having heard the news of his death on the previous day.
37 KOTRELEV, N. V. “Viacheslav Ivanov v rabote nad perevodom Eskhila” [Viacheslav Ivanov at work on his translation of Aeschylus]. In Tragedii [Tragedies], by Aeschylus. Translated by Viacheslav Ivanov. Edited by N. I. Balashov, Dim. Viach. Ivanov, M. L. Gasparov, G. Ch. Guseinov, N. V. Kotrelev, and V. N. Iarkho. Literaturnye pamiatniki. Moscow: Nauka, 497—522.
In Russian. Reconstructs the history of Ivanov’s translations of Aeschylus and of the plans for their publication. Outlines the first stage of negotiations with the Sabashnikov publishing house (part of this material is incorporated into Kotrelev, 1990.31). Draws on extensive archival materials (correspondence and contracts), and publishes several letters to and from Ivanov connected with his translation. Traces the continuing fate of Ivanov’s translations through various stages: Zelinskii’s anthology of Greek literature (published in 1920), Ivanov’s letter of 1926 from Rome asking for Sabashnikov to pass his translation on to GAKhN publishing house, and the incorporation of parts of his translation in later Soviet editions. Kotrelev is also the author of part of the notes to Ivanov’s “Ellinskaia religiia
stradaiushchego boga” [The hellenic religion of the suffering god] and Dionis i pradionisiistvo [Dionysus and predionysianism] (pp. 556—57, 560—61).
38 KUZMIN, MIKHAIL. “Mechtateli” [Dreamers]; “Pis’mo v Pekin” [Letter to Peking]. In Stikhi i proza [Verse and prose]. Edited by E. V. Ermilova. Moscow: Sovremennik, 389—91, 391—96.
Reprint of 1923.7.
39 LAVROV, A. V., ed. “Pis’ma Viacheslava Ivanova” [The letters of Viacheslav Ivanov]. In Knigi i rukopisi v sobranii M. S. Lesmana: Annotirovannyi katalog. Publikatsii [Books and manuscripts in the collection of M.S. Lesman: An annotated catalogue. New materials]. Moscow: Kniga, 357—60.
In Russian. Publishes three letters from Ivanov, together with a brief introduction and notes. Ivanov’s letter of 1 May 1915 to the musical critic V. G. Karatygin (1872—1925) discusses arrangements for a commemorative volume following the death of Scriabin. His two letters of 25 November 1918 and 5 August 1923 to the poet Iu. N. Verkhovskii (1878—1956) deal with miscellaneous literary matters. The volume also contains numerous other materials of interest related to Ivanov (references can be traced through the index). Catalogues copies of books from Lesman’s collection by Ivanov and Zinov’eva-Annibal, together with details of inscriptions by Ivanov to figures such as Siunnerberg, Chebotarevskaia, Piast, Zelinskii, Losskii, and Briusov (pp. 68, 99—103, 156, 382). Publishes a letter of ca. February — March 1907 from Blok to Ivanov (pp. 351—53). Publishes Gumilev’s letter of ca. June 1917 to Akhmatova, in which he describes Yeats as an “English Viacheslav” (pp. 370—71). Gives details of manuscripts of poems and letters by Ivanov (p. 299) and of Kuzmin’s review of Ivanov’s translations of Alkei i Safo [Alcaeus and Sappho] (p. 302) (see 1914.7). Reproduces a portrait of Ivanov by N. P. Ul’ianov (pp. 388, 391).
40 LIVSHITS, BENEDIKT. Polutoraglazyi strelets: Stikhotvoreniia. Perevody. Vospominaniia [The one and a half-eyed archer: Poems. Translations. Memoirs]. Edited by L. A. Nikolaeva. Introductory essay by A. A. Urban. Compiled by E. K. Livshits and P. M. Nerler. Annotated by P. M. Nerler, A. E. Parnis, and E. F. Kovtun. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 318, 416, 516, 533—34, 706.
A reprint of 1933.7 with notes.
41 LOSEV, A. F. “Iz poslednikh vospominanii o Viacheslave Ivanove” [From latest reminiscences of Viacheslav Ivanov]. In Tragedii [Tragedies], by Aeschylus. Translated by Viacheslav Ivanov. Edited by N. I. Balashov, Dim. Viach. Ivanov, M. L. Gasparov, G. Ch. Guseinov, N. V. Kotrelev, and V. N. Iarkho. Literaturnye pamiatniki. Moscow: Nauka, 464—66.
In Russian. Recalls Ivanov’s comments at the Religious-Philosophical
Society, and his first meeting with him, introduced by V. Nilender. Notes Ivanov’s gift for verbal inventiveness and his ability to combine and unite several different spheres of art and thought. Characterizes the simultaneously cosmic and personal character of his worldview and essays. Describes the hermetic qualities of his verse, marked by a full fusion of thought and feeling. See also Losev, 1976.11, 1985.10, 1988.38, 1990.38, 1990.39; Rostovtsev, 1989.51.
42 ŁUŻNY, RYSZARD. “Wiaczesław Iwanow — jakiego nie znamy” [Viacheslav Ivanov — the one we do not know]. Slavia Orientalis (Warsaw) 38, no. 1—2: 159—76.
In Polish. Investigates Ivanov’s “Povesť o Svetomire tsareviche” [The tale of tsarevich Svetomir]. Comments on the textual history of the work (see Deschartes, 1971.3), its sources, its chronicle-like style, religious and historical imagery, and its relation to the tradition of Christian thought. Reprinted in part: 1990.41. See also Ivask, 1973.7, 1988.28; Banerjee, 1978.2; Stoinich, 1988.61; Terras, 1988.63; Venclova, 1988.65.
43 ŁUŻNY, RYSZARD. “Wiaczesław Iwanow — O rewolucji i religii” [Viacheslav Ivanov — On revolution and religion]. Aletheia, 1988, no. 2—3, Rosyjska filozofia religijna [Russian religious philosophy]. Warsaw: In Plus, 283—86.
In Polish. Considers Ivanov’s view of the revolution and religion with reference to his essay “Revoliutsiia i samoopredelenie Rossii”, [Revolution and the self-determination of Russia] (1917) and to his letter to Charles Du Bos (1930). The author’s translations of both works into Polish are published in the same issue (pp. 81—94).
44 MAKAGONOVA, T. “Perepiska iz dvukh uglov” [A correspondence from two corners]. Nashe nasledie 3 (9): 120—31.
In Russian. Provides an introduction (pp. 120—22) and brief notes (p. 131) to accompany the first Russian reprint of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] since the original editions of 1921 and 1922. Comments on the relationship of the two correspondents, on the central theme of their epistolary exchange, identified as the problem of the individual personality, and on its relevance to contemporary debates in Russia. See also Zelinskii, 1989.66.
45 MALCOVATI, FAUSTO. “La traduzione italiana de L’Uomo di Vjačeslav Ivanov.” In Dalla forma allo spirito: Scritti in onore di Nina Kauchtschischwili. Edited by Rosanna Casari, Ugo Persi, and Gian Piero Piretto. Milan: Guerini e Associati, 109—26.
In Italian. Describes the history of Rinaldo Küfferle’s work on his translation of Ivanov’s Chelovek [Man] (1939). Outlines the stages of the translation,
begun in late December 1942, completed in November 1945, and published in Milan in 1946 by Fratelli Bocca. Draws on Küfferle’s letters to Ivanov (1942—1946), located in the poet’s Rome archive. Includes fragments of Ivanov’s autobiographical note to Küfferle with a note of the changes made by him to the original version, and quotes excerpts from the records of his letters of 20 June and 27 October 1943 on points of translation, and of 29 June 1943, declining Küfferle’s offer that Ivanov’s name should figure as co-translator of the work. Comments on Küfferle’s preface. Concludes by quoting a section of the translation at various stages of its elaboration, together with Ivanov’s recommendations and suggestions. For abridged versions of parts of this material, see Malcovati, 1986.32, 1993.35. See also Küfferle, 1931.3, 1946.4; Shishkin, 1992.24.
46 MANDEL’sTHAM, N. Ia. Vospominaniia [Memoirs]. Edited by L. S. Eremina. Text prepared by Iu. L. Freidin. Afterword by N. V. Panchenko. Notes by A. A. Morozov. Moscow: Kniga, 144, 153, 253.
A reprint of 1970.4, based on the authorized Moscow typescript and on the New York edition of 1970 with author’s corrections.
47 MIRSKY, D. S. Uncollected writings on Russian Literature. Edited, with an introduction and bibliography, by G. S. Smith. Modern Russian Literature and Culture, Studies and Texts, 13. Berkeley: Berkeley Slavic Specialties, 54—55, 73, 76—77, 79—80, 91, 93, 105—06, 116, 230, 232, 235, 256—57.
48 POTTHOFF, W., ed. Vjačeslav Ivanov. Russischer Dichter — europäischer Kulturphilosoph. Katalog zur Ausstellung in der Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg (4.9—2.10. 1989). Heidelberger Bibliotheksschriften, 38. Heidelberg: n.p., 33 pp.
In German. A catalogue of the exhibition held during the fourth international symposium on Ivanov at Heidelberg in September 1989. Includes the first publication of letters from Curtius and Buber to Ivanov.
49 P[OTTHOFF], W[ILFRIED]. “Dichter und Kulturphilosoph: Ausstellung und internationales Symposium über Vjačeslav Ivanov ab heute in Heidelberg.” Rhein — Neckar — Zeitung (Heidelberg), no. 203, 4 September, 9.
In German. A short article to mark the opening of the fourth international symposium on Ivanov, held at the University of Heidelberg in September 1989.
50 RIZZI, DANIELA. “Vjačeslav Ivanov: dal teatro come problema filologico al tragico come problema filosofico.” In La rifrazione del simbolo: Teorie del
teatro nel simbolismo russo. Eurasiatica. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Studi Eurasiatici, Università degli Studi di Venezia, 9. Padua: Edizioni GB, 81—142.
In Italian. Devotes a chapter to Ivanov’s theory of drama (alongside chapters on Blok and Belyi) in the context of a general study of the Russian symbolists’ attempt to create a new theatre. Traces Ivanov’s move from an initial philological interest in the theatre, originating in his study of Greek tragedy, of the Dionysiac religion, and of Nietzsche’s ideas on this subject, to a preoccupation with the tragic as a philosophical problem. Discusses his tragedies “Tantal” [Tantalus] and Prometei [Prometheus] and his work on Dostoevskii in the light of his theory of the tragic. Includes a bibliography of works on the symbolist theatre.
51 ROSTOVTSEV, IURII. “‘Vedet tropa sviataia...’: Iz poslednikh besed s A. F. Losevym” [“A sacred path leads...”: From late conversations with A. F. Losev]. In Al’manakh Poeziia: 53. 1989 [Poetry miscellany: 53. 1989]. Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 167—175.
In Russian. Publishes the text of an interview conducted by Rostovtsev with Losev in December 1987, devoted to a discussion of Ivanov. Comments on the unique properties of Ivanov’s poetic language (only Maiakovskii can match his verbal inventiveness), contrasts the Dionysian and pantheist tendencies of his worldview with Florenskii’s, discusses the special requirements placed on the reader by the difficulty of his writing, defends him from the charge of “bookishness,” and expounds his aesthetics and view of beauty. See also Losev, 1976.11, 1985.10, 1989.41, 1990.38, 1990.39.
52 RUBTSOVA, V. V. Aleksandr Nikolaevich Skriabin. Moscow: Muzyka, passim.
In Russian. Includes several passing references (indexed) to Ivanov’s writings on Scriabin and to his participation in the commemorative activities held after his death in 1915. See also Karatygin, 1915.6; Braudo, 1916.6; Engel’, 1916.11; Brown, 1979.3; Matlaw, 1979.11; 1985.14; Mueller—Vollmer, 1988.47; Mets, 1991.28; Mazaev, 1992.12; Kluge, 1993.31.
53 SHISHKIN, ANDREI, ed. “Perepiska V. I. Ivanova i I. N. Golenishcheva-Kutuzova” [The correspondence of V. I. Ivanov and I. N. Golenishchev-Kutuzov]. Europa Orientalis, no. 8:489—526.
In Russian. Surveys the relationship of Ivanov and Golenishchev-Kutuzov on the basis of their meetings, correspondence, and exchange of poems (pp. 481—88), and publishes the text of their correspondence, twenty—one letters written between 1928 and 1937, with notes (pp. 489—526). The correspondence includes Golenishchev-Kutuzov’s comments on his various essays on Ivanov (see 1930.4, 1930.5, 1935.4, 1937.5); Ivanov’s comments on his letter to Charles Du Bos and his refusal to allow it to be translated into
Russian for inclusion in a collection of materials edited by G. P. Struve; discussion of the preface that Ivanov wrote for Golenishchev-Kutuzov’s book of poetry in 1931. See also D. Ivanov, 1982.9; Shishkin, 1988.59; Golenishcheva-Kutuzova, 1993.24.
54 STEPUN, F. A. “Literaturno-kriticheskie stat’i (Vstupitel’naia stat’ia G. M. Fridlendera)” [Essays of literary criticism (Introductory essay by G. M. Fridlender)]. Russkaia literatura, no. 3: 109—47.
55 SZILARD, LENA. A karneválelmélet: Vjacseszlav Ivanovtól Mihail Bahtyinig [The theory of carnival: From V. Ivanov to M. Bakhtin], Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 171 pp.
In Hungarian. Analyzes Ivanov’s concept of Dionysianism and studies its influence on Bakhtin’s theory of carnival elements in literature. Ivanov’s approach to the history of Dionysianism is likened to that of Kerenyi; his understanding of its psychology bears some ressemblance to the ideas of Jung, and his description of its semiotic-symbolic system can be seen as a forerunner of Bakhtin’s description of the semiotic system of the carnival. Ivanov’s theory of catharsis and view of Dionysianism as the incarnation of the dyad paved the way for Bakhtin’s theory of carnival consciousness, perceived as a translation of Ivanov’s ideas on Dionysus into the secular language of the next generation. Includes a bibliography of works by and about Ivanov and Bakhtin. On Bakhtin and Ivanov, see Bakhtin, 1929.1, 1963.2, 1979.2; Clark and Holquist, 1984.4; Crone, 1988.13; Kotrelev, 1988.35; Igeta, 1989.26; Jackson, 1989.29; Grabar, 1993.26; Iovanovich, 1993.27; Terras, 1993.53. For a review, see Salma, 1992.23.
56 SZILARD, LENA, and BARTA, PETER. “Dantov kod russkogo simvolizma” [The Dantesque code of the Russian symbolists]. Studia Slavica (Budapest) 35, no. 1—2: 61—95.
In Russian. Includes references to Dantesque elements in Ivanov’s aesthetics and poetic imagery within the context of a survey of the significance of Dante for the Russian symbolists. See also Davidson, 1982.3, 1983.6, 1984.6, 1986.13, 1989.15; Asoian, 1988.2, 1989.3; Potthoff, 1991.34.
57 TARANOVSKII, K. F. “Zametka o dialoge ‘skuchnyi razgovor’ v pervom nomere Apollona (oktiabr’ 1909 g.)” [Notes on the dialogue “A boring conversation” in the first issue of Apollon (October 1909)]. Russian Literature 26 (3): 417—23.
In Russian. Discusses the identity of the various figures taking part in the “boring conversation” published in the first issue of Apollon (see 1909.18). Agrees with Lavrov’s and Timenchik’s identification of the
philosopher as Ivanov (see 1978.7). Notes the presence of masonic elements in the opening section of the dialogue.
58 TIMENCHIK, R. D. “Blok i ego sovremenniki v ‘Poeme bez geroia’: Zametki k teme” [Blok and his contemporaries in the ‘Poem without a hero’: Notes on the subject]. In Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Academic proceedings of Tartu state university]. Vol. 857: Biografiia i tvorchestvo v russkoi kul’ture nachala XX veka. Blokovskii sbornik IX. Pamiati D. E. Maksimova [Biography and art in Russian culture of the early twentieth century. Blok anthology IX. To the memory of D. E. Maksimov], edited by Z. G. Mints. Tartu: Tartuskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 114—23.
In Russian. Includes brief comments (p. 117) on the image of Ivanov as Faust in Akhmatova’s “Poema bez geroia” [Poem without a hero]. Quotes Akhmatova’s note on the link between Berdiaev’s portrait of Ivanov (in 1949.5) and “Poema bez geroia” [Poem without a hero]. See Liamkina, 1978.9; Maksimov, 1985.12; Timenchik, 1989.59.
59 TIMENCHIK, ROMAN. “Ob odnom iz poslednikh sobesednikov Akhmatovoi: Iubileinye zametki” [On one of Akhmatova’s last interlocutors: Centenary notes]. Daugava (Riga), no. 6 (June): 100—02.
In Russian. Comments on Akhmatova’s agreement with the characterization of Ivanov given by Berdiaev in his memoirs Samopoznanie [Self-knowledge] (see 1949.5), read by Akhmatova in the early 1960s. Quotes her note on the link between the substance of Berdiaev’s portrait and her “Poema bez geroia” [Poem without a hero]. See also Timenchik, 1989.58.
60 TOMASHEVSKII, N. Introduction to Lirika. Avtobiograficheskaia proza [Lyric verse. Autobiographical prose], by Francesco Petrarch. Compiled and with an introduction by N. Tomashevskii. Notes by N. Tomashevskii and V. Bibikhina. Moscow: Pravda, 15—17.
In Russian. Includes comments on Ivanov’s translations of Petrarch (reprinted in the volume), marking a new era in the Russian tradition of translations of Petrarch. Notes the bookish, literary features of his versions and links these to critical comments by Bunin. See also Fisher, 1915.4; Mureddu, 1981.15, 1984.20; Nelson, 1986.36; Balašov, 1988.3; Venclova, 1991.42.
61 TOPOROV, V. N. “Mif o Tantale: Ob odnoi pozdnei versii — tragediia Viach. Ivanova” [The myth of Tantalus: On a late version — the tragedy by Viach. Ivanov]. In Paleobalkanistika i antichnosť: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov [Paleobalkan studies and antiquity: A collection of academic papers]. Edited by V. P. Neroznak. Moscow: Nauka, 61—110.
In Russian. The first section (pp. 61—89) surveys the semantic connotations of the Greek name Tantalus. The second section (pp. 89—110) provides a detailed commentary on Ivanov’s drama “Tantal” [Tantalus]. Outlines the history
of the projected trilogy and develops a detailed comparison between its first part, “Tantal,” and its third part, Prometei [Prometheus]. Finds close links between the themes and language of the two parts. Interprets “Tantal” as a tragedy of loneliness and freedom. See also Toporov, 1986.52. On Prometei, see also Briusov, 1920.3; Pribylovskii, 1921.6; Mureddu, 1993.40.
62 VENCLOVA, TOMAS. “Viacheslav Ivanov and the Crisis of Russian Symbolism.” In Issues in Russian Literature before 1917. Selected Papers of the Third World Congress for Soviet and East European Studies. Edited by J. Douglas Clayton. Columbus, OH: Slavica, 205—15.
Considers the debate on symbolism with particular reference to the contributions by Ivanov, “Zavety simvolizma” [The precepts of symbolism] (1910) and Briusov (1910.6). Contrasts the views of Ivanov and Briusov and finds that the main question of the debate is not the “question of literature’s autonomy as opposed to its submission to extra-literary goals,” but a “question of recognition versus non-recognition of the dialogic principle in culture and of the organic unity of its different spheres.” While Briusov’s monistic position influenced the Russian Formalist school, Ivanov’s pluralistic stance to a certain extent prefigured the school of semiotics. Illustrates the operation of the dialogic principle in Ivanov’s work with reference to his essay “Ty esi” [Thou art] (1907) and to his “Venok sonetov” [Crown of sonnets] (1910). Emphasizes the importance of his legacy to the Acmeists and Futurists. Concludes that “Ivanov was, therefore, probably the most seminal figure among the Russian Symbolists.”
63 VOLOSHIN, MAKSIMILIAN. “Istoriia moei dushi” [The story of my soul]. Iskusstvo Leningrada, no. 3: 86—101; no. 4: 27—42.
In Russian. Publishes extracts from Voloshin’s diary with several cuts. The entries for 2, 6, 10, and 11 March 1907 contain numerous references to Voloshin’s confused feelings about the relationship between his wife, Margarita Sabashnikova, and Ivanov. Reports dreams and conversations on the subject with Sabashnikova, Ivanov, and Zinov’eva-Annibal (no. 3, p. 97—99). Later entries for October and November 1907 record the news of Zinov’eva-Annibal’s death and Ivanov’s description of it as a mystic marriage with Christ through death. On 2 January 1909 Voloshin notes the extinction of his personal feelings toward Ivanov and sense of hostility toward his spiritual teachings (no. 4: 29—30, 32). Parts of this material are reprinted in an expanded version in Voloshin, 1991.43. See also Bogomolov, 1991.2, 1993.8; Kupchenko, 1991.21.
64 WINTERNITZ DE VITO, ROSELLA. “Un motivo-chiave nella poesia di Vjačeslav Ivanov: la stella.” Il Veltro: Rivista della Civiltà Italiana, Year 33, no. 1—2 (January — April): 106—16.
In Italian. Surveys instances of the image of the stars in the poetry of
Ivanov and analyzes the key function of this symbol within the context of his worldview. Draws parallels with the poetry of Tiutchev, Baratynskii, and Maiakovskii. See also Davidson, 1984.6; Bryś, 1989.13.
65 ZAITSEV, BORIS. “Literaturnye portrety” [Literary portraits]. Znamia, no. 10 (October) :187—202.
Reprint of 1963.14 (“Viacheslav Ivanov,” pp. 195—99).
66 ZELINSKII, VLADIMIR. “Strana izgnaniia ili zemlia obetovannaia: Zabytyi spor o kul’ture” [A land of exile or the promised land: A forgotten debate about culture]. Nashe nasledie 3 (9): 132—34.