1 BELYI, ANDREI. “Khimery” [Chimaera]. Vesy (Moscow), no. 6: 1—18. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.

In Russian. Includes a scene (pp. 9—11) between a youth and a “pheoretician of Dionysianism” who has returned from abroad after studying the cult of Dionysus for many years in order to test his theory in practice. The theoretician observes the mad youth’s state of Dionysian ecstasy with scholarly


curiosity, takes notes for his research, and vanishes into the evening mist. Belyi’s parodic portrayal of Ivanov provoked the latter’s response “O ’Khimerakh’ Andreia Belogo” [On Andrei Belyi’s “Chimaera”] (1905), answered in turn by Belyi in 1905.2.

2 BELYI, ANDREI. Raz’iasnenie V. Ivanovu [A clarification for V. Ivanov]. Vesy (Moscow), no. 8 (August): 45. Reprint. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint LDT, 1968.

In Russian. Written in response to Ivanov’s “O ’Khimerakh’ Andreia Belogo” [On Andrei Belyi’s “Chimaera”] (1905). Attempts to clarify his position in “Khimery” (1905.1) and defends himself with more than a touch of irony against the charge of anti-Dionysianism.

3 BLOK, ALEKSANDR. “Tvorchestvo Viacheslava Ivanova” [The art of Viacheslav Ivanov]. Voprosy zhizni (St. Petersburg), no. 4—5 (April — May): 194—206.

In Russian. Sees Ivanov as a highly original and complex writer whose work as poet and theoretician has appeared in a period of transition, akin to the Alexandrian epoch. Relates the development of his poetry from Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] to Prozrachnost’ [Transparency] to the ideal progression from dark symbol to transparent myth elaborated in his essay “Poet i chern” [The poet and the rabble] (1904). Reprinted: 1931.1; 1935.2; 1962.1; 1989.9. See Maksimov, 1975.8; Isupov, 1991.15.

4 B[OGDANOVICH], A[NGEL]. Review of Severnye tsvety: Assiriiskie [Northern flowers: Assyrian]. Mir Bozhii (St. Petersburg), no. 10 (October): 92—94 (second pagination).

In Russian. Derides the contents of the fourth issue of this periodic miscellany, directing damning comments at the works of decadent writers (Remizov and Gippius) and at Ivanov’s contributions, the cycle “Zmei i solntsa” [Snakes and suns], and the tragedy “Tantal” [Tantalus]. Finds as much “Assyrian” content in the volume as “poetry” in the works of Ivanov, described as a new Trediakovskii.

5 BRIUSOV, VALERII “Russian literature.” The Athenaeum (London), no. 4068 (14 October): 500—02.

Surveys recent Russian literature, including a brief, positive reference to Ivanov’s classical tragedy “Tantal” [Tantalus]: “If the contemporaries of Aeschylus had been able to become acquainted with ‘Tantalus,’ they would certainly have adjudged a crown to the author.”

6 CH[ULKOV], G. Review of L. Zinov’eva-Annibal, Kol’tsa: Drama v trekh deistviiakh [Rings: A drama in three acts]. Voprosy zhizni (St. Petersburg), no. 6 (June): 258—59.

In Russian. Defines the central theme of drama as the overcoming of the


limitations of earthly love and death through the transformation wrought by suffering, and relates this theme to a long quotation from Ivanov’s introductory essay, “Novye maski” [New masks], and to Zinov’eva-Annibal’s play, interpreted as a Dionysian drama dealing with the resolution of personal tragedy.

7 CHULKOV, G. Review of Severnye tsvety: Assiriiskie [Northern flowers: Assyrian], Voprosy zhizni (St. Petersburg), no. 6 (June): 248—58.

In Russian. Reviews the four miscellanies that appeared between 1901 and 1905, devoting a substantial section to the fourth volume of 1905, which included verse by Ivanov and his tragedy “Tantal” [Tantalus]. Underlines Ivanov’s originality as a poet and his daring metrical and lexical innovations. Praises “Tantal” as a tribute to the genius of the Russian people as well as to the talent of its author, and analyzes the transformation its central myth undergoes (pp. 254—56).

8 DZHONSON, I. Review of Prozrachnost’: Vtoraia kniga liriki [Transparency: A second book of lyric verse]. Pravda: Ezhemesiachnyi zhurnal iskusstva, literatury, obshchestvennoi zhizni, no. 5 (May): 171—74.

In Russian. Provides a lengthy and satirical critique of Ivanov’s collection, in terms of both its formal qualities and its content. Relates the poet’s language to Lomonosov’s theory of a high style, replete with Church-Slavonic archaisms and suited to the treatment of elevated subjects, and sees his main model as Trediakovskii. Derides the notions of “transparency” and “poets of the spirit,” and criticizes Ivanov’s poetry for its coldness, lack of emotion, and inadequate reflection of current social issues. Acknowledges a limited degree of talent and cites a few isolated poems of value.

9 GERTSYK, E. “O ‘Tantale’ Viacheslava Ivanova” [On Viacheslav Ivanov’s “Tantalus”] . Voprosy zhizni (St. Petersburg), no. 12 (December): 163—75.

In Russian. Starting from the premise that “poetic art of our times leads increasingly to the liberation and affirmation of the individual personality,” analyzes “Tantal” [Tantalus] as a tragedy of freedom and fate, developing the themes of classical tragedy in the light of a modern post-Kantian and post-Byronic awareness. Relates the drama to the struggle to overcome individualism through sacrifice elaborated in Ivanov’s essays, and to the lyric verse of Sologub.

10 NEGRESKUL, OL’GA [O. Mirtov]. Review of L. Zinov’eva-Annibal, Kol’tsa: Drama v trekh deistviiakh [Rings: A drama in three acts]. Obrazovanie (St. Petersburg) 14, no. 8: 96—98 (second pagination).

In Russian. Sees the play as typical of the work of decadent writers, “mini Bal’monts,” who write of imagined and invented emotions, not sanctioned by life’s experience. Finds its meaning confused, and not in the least illuminated by Ivanov’s introductory essay, “Novye maski” [New masks].


11 VENGEROV, S. “Ivanov (Viacheslav Ivanovich).” In Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Encyclopaedic dictionary]. Dopolnitel’nyi tom. Vol. Ia. St. Petersburg: F. A. Brokgauz and I. A. Efron, 806—07.

In Russian. Provides the first outline in a reference work of Ivanov’s poetic output, scholarly work on ancient Rome and Greece, and essays on aesthetics. Criticizes Ivanov’s poetry for its distance from life, attempted resurrection of classical forms, overintellectual use of symbols, and obscurity. Points out, however, that all these characteristics derive from Ivanov’s understanding of the necessarily obscure nature of the symbol and of the hieratic function of art. Lists archaisms, neologisms, and slavonicisms. Cites the frequent comparison of Ivanov to Trediakovskii. See Kuznetsova. 1993.33 for the correspondence between Ivanov and Vengerov related to this article.