1 AKHMATOVA, ANNA. My Half Century: Selected Prose. Edited by Ronald Meyer. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 19, 20, 36, 43, 44—45, 85, 88—89, 140, 142.
2 ASEEV, NIKOLAI. “Moskovskie zapiski: Poet Nikolai Aseev rasskazyvaet o svoikh vstrechakh s Viach. Ivanovym” [Moscow notes: The poet Nikolai Aseev recounts his meetings with Viach. Ivanov]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no 3933, 12 June, 13.
3 CALEBICH CREAZZA, GIOVANNA. “Tema tvorchestva u Sologuba i Viacheslava Ivanova” [The subject of artistic creation in Sologub and Viacheslav Ivanov]. Europa Orientalis 11, no. 2: 57—73.
In Russian. Considers the links between Sologub’s and Ivanov’s views of artistic creation in terms of their differing understanding of aesthetic and ethical categories. Relates Sologub’s essay “Iskusstvo nashikh dnei” [Art of our days] (see 1915.8) to Ivanov’s essays on aesthetics and to his idea of “forma formans.” Pinpoints areas of divergence between the two poets’ aesthetic theories. See also Lavrov, 1976.9.
4 CHISLOVA, Iu. “Ivanovskie chteniia v IMLI” [Lectures on Ivanov at IMLI]. Izvestiia Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk, Seriia literatury i iazyka, 51, no. 2 (March — April): 103—06.
In Russian. Provides a detailed account of the content of the papers given at the conference on Ivanov held at the Institute of World Literature (IMLI) in Moscow in June 1991.
5 CYMBORSKA-LEBODA, MARIA. Dramat pod znakiem Dionizosa: Myśl estetyczna a poetyka gatunków symbolistów rosyjskich [Drama under the sign of Dionysus: The aesthetic thought and genre poetics of the Russian symbolists]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej, 46—59, 121—63 and passim.
In Polish. Reconstructs the model of symbolist theatre and drama, as well as the motivation for this approach. Focuses principally on theoretical and dramatic works by Belyi, Sologub, and Ivanov. Demonstrates a transition from aspects of symbolist theory (chapter 1) to its “textual actualizations” (chapters 2—4). The core of chapter 1 is devoted to a discussion of Ivanov’s theory of drama as action (“deistvo”) rather than spectacle (“zrelishche”), an opposition linked to the polyphonic and monologic concepts of culture. Ivanov’s and Belyi’s models of the mystery play are also discussed. Chapter 3 on Sologub relates his reflections on drama to Ivanov’s. Chapter 4 on Ivanov discusses the structural role of the ritual origin of the genre in his tragedy “Tantal” [Tantalus] with reference to the functions of the protagonist as both priest and sacrifice and to the role of the chorus. A bibliography and English summary (but no index) are included at the end of the book. See also Cymborska-Leboda, 1983.5, 1984.5, 1986.11, 1986.12, 1987.3, 1988.14, 1990.14, 1992.6, 1993.11.
6 CYMBORSKA-LEBODA, MARIA. “Viatcheslav Ivanov et sa conception du drame rituel.” Opera Slavica (Brno) 2, no. 3: 39—44.
In French. Outlines ideas on Ivanov’s concept of drama as ritual. For a fuller treatment see 1992.5.
7 KASACK, WOLFGANG. “Ivanov, Vjaceslav Ivanovic.” In Lexicon der russischen literatur des 20. Jahrhunderts: Vom Beginn des Jahrhunderts bis zum Ende der Sowjetära. New, expanded edition. Munich: Verlag Otto Sagner, 462—65.
8 KHODASEVICH, VLADISLAV. “Belyi koridor” [The white corridor]. In “Nekropol’” i drugie vospominaniia [“Necropolis” and other memoirs]. Edited by E. M. Ben’. Moscow: Mir iskusstva, 256—75.
Reprint of 1954.2, including details of the original publication of the essay in 1925 and 1937.
9 KORETSKAIA, I. V. “Viach. Ivanov: Metafora ‘arki’” [Viach. Ivanov: The metaphor of the “arch”] . Izvestiia Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk, Seriia literatury i iazyka, 51, no. 2 (March — April): 60—65.
In Russian. Investigates the sources and context of the image of the arch in Ivanov’s aesthetics and poems. Defines its function as a metaphor of man’s unity with God and of the dialectical nature of the creative process in relation to the categories of ascent and descent.
10 KOTRELEV, N. V. “Ivanov, Viacheslav Ivanovich.” In Russkie pisateli 1800—1917: Biograficheskii slovar [Russian writers 1800—1917: A dictionary of biographies]. Vol. 2. Edited by P. A. Nikolaev. Moscow: Nauchnoe izdatel’stvo “Bol’shaia Rossiiskaia entsiklopediia,” Fianit, 372—77.
In Russian. Outlines the main stages of Ivanov’s biography and literary output up until his emigration. Characterizes different spheres of Ivanov’s activity, including his participation in various literary and philosophical circles. Considers the characteristic themes of his collections of essays and his attitude to the revolution. Includes an extensive bibliography of primary and secondary sources, and lists contemporary reviews of major works.
11 MASLIN, M. A., ed. Russkaia ideia [The Russian idea]. Compiled and edited by M. A. Maslin. Notes by R. K. Medvedeva. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo “Respublika,” 8, 10—11, 226—27, 462—63.
In Russian. An anthology of nineteenth- and twentieth-century essays on the Russian idea, including Ivanov’s essay “O russkoi idee” [On the Russian idea] (1909) (pp. 227—40), prefaced by comments by V. Tolmachev and followed by notes on the text. Maslin’s introduction also includes brief comments on Ivanov.
12 MAZAEV, A. I. “Ot ‘misterii’ k ‘sobornosti’: Viach. Ivanov i A. Skriabin o sinteze iskusstv” [From “mystery” to “communality”: Viach. Ivanov and A. Scriabin on the synthesis of the arts]. In Problema sinteza iskusstv v estetike russkogo simvolizma [The problem of the synthesis of the arts in the aesthetics of Russian symbolism]. Moscow: Nauka, 142—234, 319—22.
In Russian. The book consists of an introduction on the synthesis of the arts, followed by sections on V. Solov’ev, Belyi, Ivanov and Scriabin, and Blok. The section on Ivanov and Scriabin falls into three parts. The first part (pp. 142—87) analyzes Ivanov’s concepts of Dionysian mystery, theurgic art, and “sobornosť” [communality], the sources of his ideas in Khomiakov, V. Solov’ev, and Dostoevskii, his utopian theory of the theatre, his links with Meierkhol’d, and the critique of his ideas by Belyi and Frank (1910.8). Draws on several essays by Ivanov, particularly on his article of 1914 about Ciurlonis and the synthesis of the arts. The second part considers Scriabin’s evolution from the idea of the synthesis of the arts to the concept of the mystery, and comments on his “Mysterium” and “Predvaritel’noe deistvo” [Preliminary action], concluding with a brief mention of Mandel’shtam’s view of the composer. The third part compares the ideas of Ivanov and Scriabin, focusing on Ivanov’s lectures and essays written on Scriabin after his death. See also Karatygin, 1915.6; Braudo, 1916.6; Engel’, 1916.11; Brown, 1979.3; Matlaw, 1979.11; Myl’nikova, 1985.14; Mueller-Vollmer, 1988.47; Rubtsova, 1989.52; Mets, 1991.28; Jackson, 1993.28; Kluge, 1993.31.
13 MICKIEWICZ, DENIS. “Viacheslav Ivanov’s ‘Apollini’: A Moment in Modernist Poetics.” In The Silver Age in Russian Literature. Selected Papers from the Fourth World Congress for Soviet and East European Studies, Harrogate, 1990. Edited by John Elsworth. London and New York: Macmillan; St. Martin’s, 74—103.
Analyzes Ivanov’s sonnet of 1909 “Apollini” (written for the first issue of Apollon and reprinted as the third part of “Poetu” [To the poet] in Cor Ardens). Comments on its significance in the context of Ivanov’s philosophy, aesthetics, and poetic technique as an illustration of the “type of semantic energy which pervades his art.” Considers various modes of defamiliarization employed in the poem and relates them to modernist poetics. Links the abundance of archaisms with Ivanov’s poetics of myth making. Dismantles the poem into a series of organizing principles, demonstrates the “lack of a solid line of chronological or causal dependencies in the plot,” and considers the use of literary echoes. See also Mickiewicz, 1971.9; Davidson, 1989.15.
14 MYERS, DIANA. “‘Hellenism’ and ‘Barbarism’ in Mandel’shtam.” In Symbolism and After: Essays on Russian Poetry in Honour of Georgette Donchin. Edited by Arnold McMillin. London: Bristol Classical Press, 85—101.
Relates Mandel’shtam’s vision of Hellenism and portrayal of the theatre in his poetry to Ivanov’s theoretical essays. Contrasts the Dionysiac element in Ivanov’s understanding of Hellenism, identified with barbarism, with Mandel’shtam’s more ordered Christian vision. On Mandel’shtam and Ivanov, see also Morozov, 1973.8, 1979.13; Mandelstam, 1979.10; Mandel’shtam, 1990.44.
15 NIVAT, G., ed. Viatcheslav Ivanov. Genève. Rome. Saint-Petersbourg: Catalogue d’une exposition à la fondation Martin-Bodmer, Cologny, 1er au 30 Juin 1992. n.p., n.d., 53 pp.
In French. A brief catalogue of an exhibition of books, manuscripts and photographs relating to Ivanov, held at the Martin Bodmer foundation at the time of the fifth international symposium on Ivanov, convened at Cartigny, near Geneva, in June 1992. Includes a chronology of Ivanov’s life and French translations by Nivat of extracts from the memoirs of Lidiia Ivanova and Belyi and of poems by Ivanov.
16 OBATNIN, GENNADII, and SOBOLEV, ALEKSANDR, eds. “Sovesť narodnaia uzhe smushchena: Viacheslav Ivanov o sobytiiakh semnadtsatogo goda” [The people’s conscience is already troubled: Viacheslav Ivanov on the events of 1917]. Nezavisimaia gazeta, 30 September, 5.
In Russian. Reprints with a brief introductory note three uncollected essays by Ivanov from the Moscow newspaper Luch pravdy: “Predatel’stvo” [Treachery], “Kraeugol’nyi kamen’” [The corner-stone], “Lovushka” [A trap]
(1917). The essays are concerned with Russia in the aftermath of the First World War and the revolution.
17 OBATNIN, G. V., and POSTOUTENKO, K. Iu. “Viacheslav Ivanov i formal’nyi metod: Materialy k teme” [Viacheslav Ivanov and the formal method: Materials on the subject]. Russkaia literatura, no. 1: 180—87.
In Russian. Publishes archival materials related to “Pushkin i formal’nyi metod” [Pushkin and the formal method], a talk given by Ivanov on 9 June 1924 at GAKhN (Gosudarstvennaia akademiia khudozhestvennykh nauk), previously delivered at the Bolshoi theatre on 6 June 1924. Cites comments on the talk by Zamiatin, Gershenzon, and Shengeli. Prints the record of the talk and of the ensuing discussion (including comments by Shengeli, Iarkho, Kenigsberg, Gudzii, and Sokolov) from the archive of GAKhN. The talk was the basis for Ivanov’s essay “K probleme zvukoobraza u Pushkina” [On the problem of the sound-image in Pushkin] (written in Rome 1925, published in Moscow in 1930). Discusses the relationship of this essay and of “O noveishikh teoreticheskikh iskaniiakh v oblasti khudozhestvennogo slova” [On the latest theoretical research in the field of the artistic word] (1922) to the position of the formalists. See also Stankiewicz, 1986.48.
18 PARNIS, A. E. “Viacheslav Ivanov i Khlebnikov: K probleme dialoga i o nitsshevskom podtekste ‘Zverintsa’” [Viacheslav Ivanov and Khlebnikov: On the problem of dialogue and the Nietzschean subtext of “The menagerie”] . De Visu, no. 0: 39—45.
In Russian. Discusses Nietzschean elements in the 1911 revised version of Khlebnikov’s prose poem “Zverinets” [The menagerie], composed in the summer of 1909 and dedicated to Ivanov. Relates animal metaphors in the work to Nietzsche and Ivanov and considers them in the light of the early phase of Khlebnikov’s relationship with Ivanov (1908—1909). Considers Ivanov’s long poem Mladenchestvo [Infancy] (1913—1918) as a continuation of the dialogue. Disputes part of Duganov’s work on Khlebnikov and Ivanov. Reprinted: 1993.43. On Khlebnikov and Ivanov, see also Khlebnikov, 1940.2; Rayfield, 1966.15; Stepanov, 1975.14; Al’tman, 1985.1; Parnis, 1986.37, 1990.49, 1992.19; Duganov, 1990.17.
19 PARNIS, ALEKSANDR. “Viacheslav Ivanov i literaturnaia sreda nachala veka: Neskol’ko slov o ‘metre’ simvolizma i ego opponentakh” [Viacheslav Ivanov and the literary world at the beginning of the century: A few words about the “maître” of symbolism and his opponents]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no 3933, 12 June, 13.
In Russian. An introductory note on the relationship between Ivanov and the Futurists (Livshits, Khlebnikov, Kruchenykh, and Aseev) to accompany the publication of Aseev’s memoirs of 1920 about Ivanov (see 1920.1, 1992.2).
20 PLIUKHANOVA, MARIIA, and SHISHKIN, ANDREI. “Ivanovskaia konferentsiia v Kartin’i: Zheneva, 2—5 iunia 1992 goda” [The Ivanov symposium at Cartigny: Geneva, 2—5 June 1992]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 3937, 10 July, 16—17.
In Russian. Pliukhanova provides a summary of some of the papers given at the fifth international symposium on Ivanov, held at Cartigny near Geneva in June 1992. In “Govoriat uchastniki konferentsii” [Interviews with participants of the conference] Shishkin conducts brief interviews with three participants: Rudich, Egorov, and Szilard.
21 ROSENTHAL, BERNICE GLATZER. “Transcending politics: Vyacheslav Ivanov’s Visions of Sobornosť.” California Slavic Studies. Vol. 14. Edited by Henrik Birnbaum, Thomas Eekman, Hugh McLean, and Nicholas Riasanovsky. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press, 147—70.
Traces the evolution of Ivanov’s concept of “sobornosť “ [communality] in terms of a progression from cultic theatre to the Russian idea and to “monantropism,” drawing on his essays and on Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners]. Comments on his relation to Slavophile and Western traditions of thought. Examines his interpretation of the Bolshevik Revolution and Civil War as part of the eschatological transition to a new order. Notes affinities with the theatrical views and social ideals of Rousseau. See also Egorov, 1993.17; Meštan, 1993.36; Rosenthal, 1993.48.
22 RUPNIK, MARKO IVAN. “Il significato teologico missionario dell’arte nella saggistica di Vjačeslav Ivanovič Ivanov.” Ph.D. dissertation, Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Faculta Missiologiae (Rome), 236 pp.
In Italian. Considers the sources and principal tenets of Ivanov’s system of symbolist aesthetics in the context of an investigation of the theological significance of art and culture. Draws on Ivanov’s essays and relates his ideas to the issues confronting modern art. The thesis is divided into six chapters and includes a bibliography; chapters 3 and 4 are also printed in a separately bound booklet. See Dissertation Abstracts International 54/02:395C.
23 SALMA, N. “O knige vengerskoi issledovatel’nitsy Leny Silard ‘Teoriia karnavalizatsii. Ot Viach. Ivanova do M. Bakhtina’” [On the book by the Hungarian critic Lena Szilard ‘The theory of carnival: From V. Ivanov to M. Bakhtin’]. Russkaia literatura, no. 4: 220—23.
In Russian. Reviews Szilard’s study of the links between Ivanov and Bakhtin (1989.55) and outlines the stages of the transformation of Ivanov’s Dionysianism into the theory of carnival.
24 SHISHKIN, A. B. “K istorii poemy ‘Chelovek’ Viach. Ivanova” [On the history of Viach. Ivanov’s poem “Man”] . Izvestiia Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk, Seriia literatury i iazyka, 51, no. 2 (March — April): 47—59.
In Russian. Outlines the two stages of the poem’s composition (1915 and 1917—1918). Reconstructs the history of its publication: turned down by Makovskii for Apollon in 1915, partly published in Russkaia mysl’, 1915, no. 1, planned as part of a book of poems, not passed by the censor in 1919, listed in the forthcoming publications of Alkonost publishing house, published as a book in Paris, 1939, translated into German and Italian. Comments on its subject, on other works in the same tradition, on related prose works by Ivanov, and on its formal architectonics with particular reference to the form of the crown of sonnets. Describes plans for a commentary on the poem by P. Florenskii. Traces the history of Ivanov’s own comments on the composition and idea of his work from archival sources, correspondence, and records of public readings of the work. Notes responses to the work by Gershenzon, Florenskii, Makovskii, Kablukov, Bulgakov, Berdiaev, and Ustrialov (see 1916.19). See also Ternovsky, 1987.23; Makovskii, 1952.9; Malcovati, 1989.45.
25 SHISHKIN, ANDREI. “Viach. Ivanov. Nadpis’ na knige “Cor Ardens” N. A. i L. Iu. Berdiaevym” [Viach. Ivanov. An inscription to N. A. and L. Iu. Berdiaev on a copy of Cor Ardens]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 3937, 10 July, 17.
In Russian. Publishes the text of a poem inscribed by Ivanov in 1911 on a copy of Cor Ardens presented to the Berdiaevs, with brief accompanying details of its source and context.
26 UELAND, CAROL. “Viacheslav Ivanov’s ’Malicious Counter-Revolutionary Verses’: Pesni smutnogo vremeni reconsidered.” Canadian-American Slavic Studies 26, nos. 1—4: 77—96.
Considers Ivanov’s response to the revolution in his “Pesni smutnogo vremeni” [Songs of a time of troubles] (1917—1918). Analyzes the seven poems of the cycle and relates them to his essays of the period and to his interpretation of Dostoevskii. Argues that the cycle “far from being some sort of a momentary aberration, integrally fits the patterns of the symbolic system of Ivanov’s poetry” and that its key themes are repeatedly echoed in his essays. For a Russian translation, see Ueland, 1993.54. See also Alianskii, 1967.1; Pyman, 1990.51.
27 UELAND, CAROL. “Viacheslav Ivanov’s Pushkin: Thematic and Prosodie Echoes of Evgenii Onegin in Mladenchestvo.” In Cultural Mythologies of Russian Modernism: From the Golden Age to the Silver Age. Edited by Boris Gasparov, Robert P. Hughes, and Irina Paperno. California Slavic studies, 15. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press, 337—55.
Discusses Ivanov’s autobiographical poem Mladenchestvo [Infancy] (1913—1918) and its relation to Pushkin’s Evgenii Onegin. Examines the role of Pushkin in Ivanov’s biography and critical writings with reference to his essays “Dva maiaka” [Two beacons] and “Roman v stikhakh” [A novel in verse] (1937). Analyzes thematic and formal aspects of the reminiscences from Evgenii Onegin in Mladenchestvo with reference to the use of the “Onegin stanza.” Comments on Ivanov’s superimposition of his philosophical views onto Pushkin’s characters from the novel as a response to the basic incompatibility between his style and Pushkin’s poetics. See also Ternovsky, 1987.23.
28 WACHTEL, MICHAEL. “Die Korrespondenz zwischen E. R. Curtius und V. I. Ivanov.” Die Welt der Slaven (Munich), Year 37, no. 1—2: 72—106, 399—400.
In German. Publishes seventeen letters from the correspondence between Ivanov and Curtius (1932—1949, with a gap caused by the Second World War) and one letter from Curtius to Wittkowski (1954), together with an introduction and accompanying essay. The correspondence demonstrates the extent to which Curtius admired Ivanov’s work as well as the thinkers’ common spiritual convictions. The accompanying essay traces Ivanov’s influence on Curtius’s philosophy of culture from the latter’s book on contemporary Germany (1932.3) to his later study of European literature (1953.1). See also Curtius, 1933.4.
29 WACHTEL, MICHAEL. “Die Korrespondenz zwischen Vjačeslav Ivanov und Karl Krumbacher.” Zeitschrift für Slawistik 37, no. 3: 330—42.
In German. Publishes the correspondence between Ivanov and the German Byzantinist Karl Krumbacher (1856—1909) with an introduction and notes. The correspondence dates from the period of Ivanov’s stay in Italy when he was writing his dissertation (1892—1894). It includes seven letters from Ivanov (two in Latin, five in German) and three from Krumbacher. The letters demonstrate, among other things, Ivanov’s interest in Byzantine culture and in metrics.
30 WANNER, ADRIAN J. “Metamorphoses of Modernity: Russian Readings of Baudelaire.” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 316 pp.
Studies the Russian reception of Baudelaire between 1892 and 1991, and devotes two sections to Ivanov within this context (pp. 166—83, 211—13). Investigates his reading of Baudelaire’s poem “Correspondances” in the essay “Dve stikhii v sovremennom simvolizme” [Two elemental forces in contemporary symbolism] (1908) and later article of 1936, “Simbolismo.” Notes a vacillation between apprehension and fascination, and a disregard for Baudelaire as a religious thinker. Analyzes Ivanov’s translations from Baudelaire, published in Cor Ardens, and suggests an explanation for the “mirror-image” transformation of their original order. See Dissertation Abstracts International 53/06:1940A.
31 WHITE, MARY JO. “The Role of Greek Antiquity in Russian Symbolist Theory.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 230 pp.
Explores the ways in which Belyi’s and Ivanov’s symbolist theory and Belyi’s novel Peterburg [Petersburg] contributed to the Russian transformation of the Greek tradition. Traces the main routes along which Belyi and Ivanov traveled back to the Byzantine and Greek sources that inform their theory (Nietzsche and V. Solov’ev). The sources include Hesiod’s Theogony, the tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides, Plato’s dialogues, and certain discourses of the Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus. See Dissertation Abstracts International 53/03:804A.