1 ANGELINI, CESARE. “Venceslao Ivanov al ‘Borromeo’.” Corriere della Sera, 9 May, 3.

In Italian. The article, written for the centenary of Ivanov’s birth, describes encounters with him in Pavia between 1925 and 1936. Relates the topics of his conversations with various distinguished visitors and his celebrated debate on culture with Croce in April 1931. Reprinted: 1977.1 (with minor changes); 1986.2 (unchanged). For other accounts of Croce’s visit see Gallarati-Scotti, 1960.5; Ivanova, 1990.28; Pellegrini, 1940.4.

2 CHARNYI, M. “Neozhidannaia vstrecha: Viacheslav Ivanov v Rime” [An unexpected encounter: Viacheslav Ivanov in Rome]. Voprosy literatury, no. 3 (March): 194—99.

In Russian. Memoirs of a meeting with Ivanov in Rome in 1937. Following a conversation with Gorodetskii in Moscow, Charnyi traced Ivanov in Rome through the Soviet consul and attended an evening to mark the centenary of Pushkin’s death at the home of Lo Gatto. Lo Gatto read his translation of Evgenii Onegin and Ivanov spoke on Pushkin and Tatiana’ s dream. Reports a conversation with Ivanov on the subject of his nationality, recently changed from Soviet to Italian. Portrays him as caught in the rut of outmoded


mystic views. Acknowledges his talent and erudition, but regrets the direction it has followed. Reprinted: 1967.3 (with minor changes); 1970.1 (with minor changes); 1990.13 (unchanged).

3 DE SANCTIS, GINO. “Sotto la tenda di un circo dimostrò l’assurdità dell’ateismo.” Il Messaggero (Rome), 14 March, 3.

In Italian. An article written to mark the centenary anniversary of Ivanov’s birth (the title refers to Ivanov’s debate with Lunacharskii on atheism). Provides a general review of Ivanov’s career with an emphasis on his conversion to Catholicism. Recalls Ivanov reading him his translation of one of the “Rimskie sonety” [Roman sonnets]. See also De Sanctis, 1948.4.

4 ERENBURG, IL’IA. Sobranie sochinenii v deviati tomakh [Collected works in nine volumes]. Vol. 8: Liudi, gody, zhizn’: Knigi pervaia, vtoraia, tret’ia [People, years, life: Books one, two, three]. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literature, passim.

Reprint of 1961.1. Reprinted in a revised, enlarged version with notes: 1990.19.

5 GASPAROV, M. L. “Antichnyi trimetr i russkii iamb” [The classical trimeter and the Russian iambus]. In Voprosy antichnoi literatury i klassicheskoi filologii [Problems of ancient literature and classical philology]. Akademiia nauk SSSR, Institut mirovoi literatury im. A. M. Gor’kogo. Moscow: Nauka, 393—410.

In Russian. Analyzes and provides comparative statistical tables illustrating the development of the Russian iambic trimeter along two different lines. Includes references to “Tantal” [Tantalus] and Briusov’s “Protesilai umershii” [Protesilaus deceased]) (1913), the first and only Russian tragedies written in iambic trimeter. Also considers Ivanov’s translations of Aeschylus’s “Agamemnon” and the “Oresteia.” Sets these works in the context of the metrical experiments of other poets at the turn of the century. Finds that Ivanov continued the “defeated” metrical tradition of Fet.

6 GROMOV, PAVEL. Aleksandr Blok: Ego predshestvenniki i sovremenniki [Aleksandr Blok: His precursors and contemporaries]. Moscow and Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 210—19, 398—408 and passim.

In Russian. Analyzes several facets of Blok’s complex relationship with Ivanov. Summarizes Ivanov’s system of aesthetics, as outlined in his essays, underlining its relevance to the central artistic questions confronted by Blok. Compares the image of Ivanov projected in Blok’s poetic address of 1912 to the type of poet described in Annenskii’s “Drugomu” [To the Other]. Considers the essays on symbolism written by Ivanov and Blok (1910.5), and the ensuing polemical responses of Belyi (1910.3), Briusov (1910.6), and Merezhkovskii (1910.15).


7 LO GATTO, ETTORE. “Il mistico poeta russo che scelse l’Italia come patria.” Il Giornale d’Italia, 15—16 March, 3.

In Italian. A well-informed centenary review of Ivanov’s literary achievement, theory of symbolism, and relation to Christianity. Recalls Ivanov’s inspiration and guidance over Lo Gatto’s translation of Evgenii Onegin; his knowledge of Italian was so perfect that he could suggest versions of entire verses. Concludes with the hope that Ivanov will achieve greater recognition in the future. Praises the Italian translation of Chelovek [Man] and refers to Lo Gatto’s translation of Ivanov’s book on Dostoevskii, still awaiting the publisher’s decision to print. See also Lo Gatto, 1976.10.

8 MANDEL’sHTAM, OSIP. Sobranie sochinenii v 2-kh tomakh [Collected works in two volumes]. Edited by G. P. Struve and B. A. Filippov. Vol. 2: Stikhotvoreniia. Proza [Poems. Prose]. Introductory essay by B. A. Filippov. New York: Inter-Language Literary Associates, 270, 272, 295, 299, 383, 385.

In Russian. Reprint of 1923.9 (“Buria i natisk” [Storm and stress]), 1955.4 (“Vypad” [The slump], and “O prirode slova” [On the nature of the word]). Reprinted: 1971.7, 1987.17. See also Mandel’shtam, 1969.5. For an English translation, see Mandelstam, 1979.10.

9 MARKOV, VLADIMIR. “On Modern Russian Poetry.” In Modern Russian Poetry: An Anthology with Verse Translations. Edited by Vladimir Markov and Merrill Sparks. London: MacGibbon and Kee, li—lxxx. Reprint. Indianapolis, Kansas City, and New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967.

The preface includes a brief section on Ivanov (pp. lviii—lix). Attributes the “neglect of his poetry” to the lack of an appropriate cultural level among the present-day Russian poetic generation. Places him in the company of Dante and Goethe, and compares him to T. S. Eliot. Ivanov is represented in the anthology by fifteen poems with a parallel translation into English (pp. 130—151, notes on pp. 829—30).

10 MASHBITS-VEROV, I. M. “Tvorchestvo Viacheslava Ivanova” [The art of Viacheslav Ivanov]. In Materialy VII zonal’noi nauchnoi konferentsii literaturovedovcheskikh kafedr universitetov i pedagogicheskikh institutov Povolzh’ia [Materials from the seventh regional academic conference of departments of literary criticism of universities and pedagogical institutions of the Volga area]. Volgograd: n.p., 45.

In Russian. Outlines the main points of the author’s talk on Ivanov’s literary development. For the full version, see Mashbits-Verov, 1969.6.

11 NOBÉCOURT, JACQUES. “Un centenaire: Venceslav Ivanov. Poète et prophète de l’oecuménisme.” Le monde, 31 August, 9.

In French. A short centenary review of Ivanov’s achievement, focusing on the religious and ecumenical significance of his writings with particular


reference to Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners]. Refers to the memorial gathering at Ivanov’s burial place in Rome around Jean Neuvecelle (Dimitrii Ivanov), “son fils, notre confrère et ami, délicat dépositaire d’un message dont il entretient la vie.”

12 PECHKO, L. P. “Ivanov, Viacheslav Ivanovich.” In Kratkaia literaturnaia entsiklopediia [A short literary encyclopedia]. Edited by A. A. Surkov. Vol. 3. Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopedia, 38—39.

In Russian. Provides a brief review of Ivanov’s life and works, followed by a short bibliography of primary and secondary sources. Repeats certain factual errors about Ivanov’s occupation in Baku, earlier repudiated in Ivanov, 1962.4. See also Pechko, 1972.16.

13 PIOVENE, GUIDO. “Ricordo di Ivanov.” La Stampa, no. 76, 31 March, 3.

In Italian. A general centenary review of Ivanov’s life and works, dwelling mainly on Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] and its central themes.

14 RAEFF, MARC. Introductory note to “A Corner-to-Corner Correspondence.” Translated by Gertrude Vakar. In Russian Intellectual History: An Anthology. Edited by Marc Raeff. With an Introduction by Isaiah Berlin. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities, 11, 372—73.

An English translation of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners] constitutes the eighteenth and final section of this anthology (pp. 373—401). The correspondence is characterized in Berlin’s introduction as “the final, fascinating, and tragic document of a declining civilisation, overwhelmed by a cataclysm partly of its own making, consciously averting its eyes from the ‘new shores’ toward which the postrevolutionary society was to drive full steam ahead” (p. 11). Raeff’s preliminary note sets the correspondence in the context of the Russian intellectual tradition and links Ivanov’s view of culture with Chaadaev (pp. 372—73).

15 RAYFIELD, P. D. “Velimir Khlebnikov.” In Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association: 1966. Proceedings and Papers of the Tenth Congress held at the University of Auckland, 2—9 February 1966. Edited by Peter Dane. Auckland, N. Z.: University of Auckland, 113—35.

Setting out to reintegrate Khlebnikov “with the poetic tradition to which he belongs,” this study underlines the extent of his debt to Ivanov and enumerates some of the main areas of affinity between the two poets. These include the sense of time as “omni-present,” the “formula of Hellenism versus Barbarism,” the longing for a “universal myth for the future,” and poetry as a means of escape from death (pp. 114—16).

16 SMIRNOV, NIK. “ ‘Tkach uzornykh slov’: K stoletiiu rozhdeniia Viacheslava Ivanova (1866—1966)” [“A weaver of word patterns”: On the centenary of


Viacheslav Ivanov’s birth (1866—1966)]. Russkie novosti (Paris), no. 1110, 23 September, 5.

In Russian. A centenary article, dated Moscow, July 1966, reviewing Ivanov’s achievement in the light of the assessment of his contemporaries (Shestov, 1916.16; Berdiaev, 1949.5; Bulgakov, 1916.7). Compares Ivanov’s “path from complexity to simplicity” to Pasternak’s development. Praises Svet vechernii [Vespertine light] as a book of “Pushkinian lightness and clarity” in its spirit, “one of the outstanding poetic achievements of the twentieth century.” Finds the philological work and essays of less enduring value, with the exception of Ivanov’s essays on Pushkin, Dostoevskii, and Čiurlonis.

17 STRIEDTER, JURIJ. “Transparenz und Verfremdung: Zur Theorie des poetischen Bildes in der russischen Moderne.” In Immanente Ästhetik — Ästhetische Reflexion: Lyrik als Paradigma der Moderne. Edited by W. Iser. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 263—96.

In German. Deals with the theory of the poetic image, contrasting the Symbolists with the Futurists. Includes some discussion of Ivanov’s writings (pp. 270—73, 513, 515—17), regarded as “the clearest, but also the most one-sided” expression of the religious theories of the Symbolists. Summarizes his theoretical essays of 1908—1912 on symbolism with reference to the concept of transparency in modern Russian poetics and to contemporary debates on symbolism.

18 TERAPIANO, Iu. Review of Svet vechernii [Vespertine light]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 2461, 7 May, 6—7.

In Russian. Describes the contents of the collection and comments on Bowra’s introduction (1962.2). Singles out a few poems for comment, including “Sobaki” [Dogs], described as “one of the most original poems in our poetry, in the line of Baratynskii’s “Nedonosok” [The stillborn].”

19 TERAPIANO, Iu. “Viacheslav Ivanov: K stoletiiu so dnia rozhdeniia” [Viacheslav Ivanov: On the centenary of his birth]. Russkaia mysl’ (Paris), no. 2431, 26 February, 6—7.

In Russian. A centenary article, drawing on the memoirs of Makovskii (1955.3) for a review of Ivanov’s role at the tower. Finds that Ivanov’s verse can be faulted not for its bookishness or complexity but for its excessively abstract content, detached from “simple human emotions.” Incorporates a section from Terapiano, 1949.20.