1 ASMUS, V. “Filosofila i estetika russkogo simvolizma” [The philosophy and aesthetics of Russian symbolism]. In Literaturnoe nasledstvo [Literary heritage]. Vol. 27—28. Moscow: Zhurnal’no-gazetnoe ob’edinenie, 1—53.

In Russian. Considers the philosophy and aesthetics of the Russian symbolists with reference to Briusov, Belyi, Ivanov, and Blok. Outlines literary debates on the calling of the artist and social function of art. Portrays Ivanov as a “convoluted and far from sincere theoretician of symbolism” who was unable to escape from a closed circle of mystification and reactionary illusions in his understanding of art. Discusses his debt to Nietzsche and comments on his approach to Pushkin, distorted by symbolist aesthetics. Notes his views on the theatre and “sobornost’” [communality] and his failure to accept the revolution. Contrasts him and Belyi unfavorably with Briusov and Blok in this respect.

2 DUKOR, I. “Problemy dramaturgii simvolizma” [Aspects of the dramaturgy of symbolism]. In Literaturnoe nasledstvo [Literary heritage]. Vol. 27—28. Moscow: Zhurnal’no-gazetnoe ob’edinenie, 106—66.

In Russian. Includes some critical comments on Ivanov’s theory of drama, and quotes from his essays on the theatre (pp. 109—10, 118—20). Omits any direct discussion of his plays.

3 FLOROVSKII, GEORGII. Puti russkogo bogosloviia [The paths of Russian theology]. Paris: 458—59, 566—67. Reprint (with a preface and index). Paris: YMCA-PRESS, 1981.

In Russian. Finds that Ivanov’s path slightly bypassed Christianity, although it has recently turned in the direction of Catholicism. Ivanov was too steeped in antiquity and in art, substituting aesthetics for religion, a dangerous tendency to which symbolism was prone. His strength lay in his sense of the religious purpose of history, well conveyed in Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A


correspondence from two corners]. Includes a bibliography of literature about Ivanov. See also Florovsky, 1926.1.

4 GOFMAN, V. “Iazyk simvolistov” [The language of the symbolists]. In Literaturnoe nasledstvo [Literary heritage]. Vol. 27—28. Moscow: Zhurnal’no-gazetnoe ob’edinenie, 54—105.

In Russian. Includes two principal sections (pp. 62—76, 95—105) on Ivanov’s theory of language and use of language in his verse. Both topics are approached from a comparative perspective and viewed in the context of symbolist aesthetics and poetics. Numerous parallels are drawn with Belyi, Blok, Bal’mont, and Briusov. Attention is paid to Ivanov’s use of Latin, to his recourse to different cultural traditions, to his unusual combinations of words, to his sound effects, and to his archaic language and syntax.

5 GOLENISHCHEV-KUTUZOV, ILIJA. “Dostojevski i Vjacheslav Ivanov” [Dostoevskii and Viacheslav Ivanov]; “Vjacheslav Ivanov.” In Iz nove ruske knizhevnosti [From recent Russian literature]. Belgrade: Savremenik srpske knizhevne zadruge, 59—73, 74—88.

In Serbian. The first essay is a reprint of 1935.4. The second essay consists of two previous articles written in Russian, 1930.4 and 1930.5, translated into Serbian and merged into one continuous essay on Ivanov. See also Shishkin, 1988.59, 1989.53; Golenishcheva-Kutuzova, 1993.24.

6 NUSINOV, I. “Kak Prometei byl ob"iavlen pervoprichinoi zla: Viacheslav Ivanov, ‘Prometei’ “ [How Prometheus was declared to be the prime source of evil: Viacheslav Ivanov, “Prometheus”] . In Vekovye obrazy [Age-old images – rather Images living for centuries]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo “Khudozhestvennaia literatura,” 140—48.

In Russian. The fifteenth, penultimate section of a long essay on the history of the image of Prometheus deals with Ivanov’s tragedy Prometei [Prometheus] (1919). Criticizes his interpretation of the myth of Prometheus as presented in the preface and dramatic action of his play. Finds that his Prometheus is alien to the image of Prometheus in classical antiquity and in the works of Goethe and Shelley. Ivanov has interpreted Prometheus in the light of Dostoevskii’s negative depiction of revolutionaries in his novel Besy [The devils]. In his rejection of the socialist revolution he has continued the reactionary traditions of Dostoevskii and the bourgeois intelligentsia. Reprinted: 1958.4. For a refutation, see Losev, 1976.11.

7 ZHIRMUNSKII, V. Gete v russkoi literature [Goethe in Russian literature]. Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo “Khudozhestvennaia literatura,” 575—606, 668—70.

In Russian. Chapter 7, “The symbolists,” considers Goethe in the theoretical writings and translations of the symbolists and includes discussion of


Ivanov’s image of Goethe. Comments on his essay of 1912 “Gete na rubezhe dvukh stoletii” [Goethe on the boundary of two centuries] and traces references to Goethe in other writings by Ivanov such as his article on Čiurlonis, his essay on the creative process “O granitsakh iskusstva” [On the boundaries of art], and Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners]. Compares Ivanov’s interpretation of Goethe to that of Belyi and Ellis. Criticizes Ivanov’s distorted reading of various works by Goethe in the light of his own religious ideas and preoccupation with mystical love; this has led to an erosion of the “historical progressive” aspects of Goethe. Comments in this context on Ivanov’s repeated references to Goethe’s poem “Selige Sehnsucht,” translated by him as “Blazhennaia toska” [Blessed longing] and partly quoted as the epigraph to Cor Ardens: part 1. Cites examples to illustrate the archaizing tendencies of Ivanov’s translations from Goethe. For an earlier considerably shorter version, see Llteraturnoe nasledstvo, 1932.7. Reprinted: 1981.28.