1 ABRAMOVICH, N. Ia. [N. Kadmin]. Istoriia russkoi poezii: Ot drevnei narodnoi poezii do nashikh dnei [A history of Russian poetry: From ancient folk poetry to the present day]. Vol. 2: Istoriia russkoi poezii: Ot Pushkina do nashikh dnei [A history of Russian poetry: From Pushkin to the present day]. Moscow: Izdanie Aktsionernogo Obshchestva “Moskovskoe Izdatel’stvo,” 286—88.
In Russian. Includes a short section on Ivanov, defined as a monastic poet-scholar, lacking in lyricism and feeling, dominated by religious and philosophical preoccupations, and living as much in the depths of the past as in the depths of the present. Praises his reflective poems on nature from Prozrachnost’ [Transparency], his attempt to copy Petrarch by building a poetic monument to his beloved with the “live blood of feeling,” and the beauty of his images of poetic contemplation (“Utrenniaia molitva” [Morning prayer] and “Zolotye sandalii” [Golden sandals]).
2 BERDIAEV, N. “Epigonam slavianofil’stva” [Imitators of slavophilism]. Birzhevye vedomosti (Petrograd), no. 14678, 18 February, utrennii vypusk, 2.
In Russian. Deals mainly with the Slavophile ideas of Ern and S. Bulgakov, disputing their understanding of the correct balance of relations between the Russian people and the state. Refers to Ivanov in this context, while underlining his differences. Ivanov responded in his article “Zhivoe predanie: Otvet N. A. Berdiaevu” [A living tradition: A reply to N. A. Berdiaev] (1915), which provoked a further response from Berdiaev, 1915.3. See Robakidze-Kavkas’elli, 1915.7; Rosenthal, 1992.21, 1993.48; Bogomolov, 1993.8; Egorov, 1993.17; Meštan, 1993.36.
3 BERDIAEV, NIKOLAI. “Omertvevshee predanie” [A dead tradition]. Birzhevye vedomosti (Petrograd), no. 14771, 8 April, utrennii vypusk, 2.
In Russian. A reply to Ivanov’s essay “Zhivoe predanie: Otvet N. A. Berdiaevu” [A living tradition: A reply to N. A. Berdiaev] (1915). Criticizes Ivanov for presenting a definition of Slavophilism that is too abstract and metaphysical, and in which the links with Platonic doctrine are overemphasized. Ivanov’s vision of an ideal “holy Rus’” no longer corresponds to a living tradition. Disagrees with his view of state power, and with his development of the image of Alesha Karamazov into a platform for his views. See Berdiaev, 1915.2; Robakidze-Kavkas’elli, 1915.7;
4 FISHER, VLAD. Review of Petrarka: Avtobiografiia. Ispoved’. Sonety [Petrarch: Autobiography. Confession. Sonnets]. Translated by M. Gershenzon and Viach. Ivanov. Moscow, 1915. Golos minuvshego, no. 5 (May): 270—74.
In Russian. Praises Gershenzon’s introductory article, but criticizes Ivanov’s translations for severely distorting the sense of the original. Finds fault with his use of language and rendering of the form of the sonnet, and gives “fatal examples” of such instances. For later comments on Ivanov’s translations of Petrarch, see Mureddu, 1981.15, 1984.20; Nelson, 1986.36; Balašov, 1988.3; Tomashevskii, 1989.60; Venclova, 1991.42.
5 IZMAILOV, A. “Pol i potolok” [Sex and the ceiling]. In Osinovyi kol: Kniga parodii i sharzha (2-i tomik “Krivogo zerkala) [The aspen stake: A book of parodies and caricature (the second volume of “The crooked mirror”] . Petrograd: n.p., 91.
In Russian. A verse parody of Ivanov with an epigraph from his poem “Spor” [Debate] from the fourth book of Cor Ardens, “Liubov’ i smert’” [Love and death]. Reprinted: 1960.6. See also Izmailov, 1910.13; Morozov, 1960.6; Plotkin, 1960.7; Tiapkov, 1980.16.
6 KARATYGIN, V. “Lektsiia-kontsert pamiati A. N. Skriabina” [A lecture and concert in memory of A. N. Scriabin]. Rech’ (St. Petersburg), no. 343, 13 December, 6.
In Russian. Notes that Ivanov dealt with Scriabin’s ideas (his mystical concept of universal synthesis) rather than with his music. Despite not sharing Ivanov’s theurgic view of Scriabin, Karatygin found that his lecture made a profound and unsurpassed impression, exceeding even the highest expectations of his admirers. See also Braudo, 1916.6.
7 ROBAKIDZE-KAVKAS’eLLI, GR. “Voina i kul’tura: Spor o slavianofil’stve” [War and culture: The debate on Slavophilism]. Kavkaz (Tiflis), no. 103, 8 May, 3.
In Russian. Comments on the recent polemical debate on Slavophilism between Ivanov and Berdiaev in the newspaper Birzhevye vedomosti. Finds that both writers are arguing over the same question (love of Rus’) but on different levels (apart from their discussion of the nature of power). See Berdiaev, 1915.2, 1915.3.
8 SOLOGUB, FEDOR. “Iskusstvo nashikh dnei” [Art in our times]. Russkaia mysl’ (Moscow and Petrograd), no. 12: 35—62 (second pagination).
In Russian. In a discussion of the religious orientation of contemporary
art and symbolism, quotes from Ivanov’s Po zvezdam [By the stars], refers to “Tantal” [Tantalus] as an example of tragic art devoted to the people, and emphasizes the religious and philosophical roots of Ivanov’s art (pp. 35, 48, 61). As well as these explicit references, many of Ivanov’s ideas on the connections between symbolism, religion, death, and sacrifice are closely reflected in the essay. See also 1913.7.
9 VERESAEV, V. Review of Alkei i Safo: Sobranie pesen i liricheskikh otryvkov v perevode Viacheslava Ivanova [Alcaeus and Sappho: An anthology of songs and lyrical fragments translated by Viacheslav Ivanov]. Vestnik Evropy (Petrograd), no. 2 (February): 389—94.
In Russian. A review of Ivanov’s book of translations from Alcaeus and Sappho (Moscow, 1914). Praises Ivanov’s fidelity to the meter of the originals, his versification technique, and his introduction. Criticizes several aspects of his translations quite harshly: the tendency to obscure the clarity and simplicity characteristic of the originals, an excessive use of archaisms and neologisms, the inappropriate introduction of Russian folk expressions, and in general an excessive freedom in adapting the originals in a manner inconsistent with their meaning. Reprinted: 1930.15. See also Dil’, 1914.3, 1916.10; Kuzmin, 1914.7;, Zakharov, 1916.21; Levinton, 1977.4.