/ О Вяч. Иванове / Энциклопедические статьи / Pamela Davidson. Viacheslav Ivanov: A Reference Guide (Reference Guide to Literature). G. K. Hall Company. New York. 1996 
События
1973
1973
1 BAKHTIN, MIKHAIL. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Translated by R. W. Rotsel. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 7—10.
A translation of 1963.2, the revised version of 1929.1. For a later translation see 1984.1.
2 BOWLT, JOHN E. “Synthesism and Symbolism: The Russian ‘World of Art’ Movement.” Forum for Modern Language Studies 9: 35—48.
Includes passing references to Ivanov’s relations with the “World of Art” movement and its members in the context of a discussion of the links between symbolism and parallel movements in the visual arts and music. Comments on Ivanov’s interest in Ciurlonis and Scriabin. Reprinted in a revised version: 1975.3. See also West, 1975.15; Lapshina, 1977.3; Bowlt, 1986.9; Rannit, 1986.40; Depperman, 1988.16; Jackson, 1993.28.
3 BROWN, CLARENCE. Mandelstam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 36—42, 54, 92, 149 and passim.
Includes various passing references to Mandel’shtam’s relations with Ivanov. The main section concerns his letters of 1909 to Ivanov (1971.7), quoted in translation, and the accompanying poems enclosed with the letters. Further references can be traced through the index.
4 DANCHENKO, V. T. Dante Alig’eri: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’ russkikh perevodov i kriticheskoi literatury na russkom iazyke. 1762—1972 [Dante Alighieri: A bibliographical guide to Russian translations and literary criticism in Russian. 1762—1972]. Edited by M. P. Alekseev. Moscow: Kniga, passim.
In Russian. Lists approximately thirty references to Dante in the poetry and essays of Ivanov.
5 FILIPPOV, BORIS. “Viacheslav Ivanov.” Grani, no. 89—90: 204—28.
In Russian. An expanded version of 1972.7, incorporating the earlier essay (pp. 211—27) with an additional preliminary section (pp. 204—11), comprising an autobiographical account of the author’s first encounters with the works of Ivanov. In 1921 he developed a taste for poetry when first reading the “Zimnie sonety” [Winter sonnets]. Later, in labor camp, he reconstructed
from memory the cycle of sonnets “Dva grada” [Two cities] from Chelovek [Man]. In Novgorod in 1941, together with other “residents” including the philosopher S. A. Alekseev-Askol’dov, he assembled the texts of Perepiska iz dvukh uglov [A correspondence from two corners], Cor Ardens and Mladenchestvo [Infancy]. Comments on Askol’dov’s great love of Ivanov’s verse and earlier lectures on his work to a secret philosophical circle in St. Petersburg in the mid-1920s. Regards Ivanov as a national and supranational poet, who, like Dostoevskii, understood both the holiness and the danger of beauty. Adds various comments to the second, previously published part of the essay, on the links between Ivanov’s concept of memory as resurrection and the ideas of Fedorov, and on the current revival of interest in his work in the Soviet Union. Reprinted: 1981.6.
6 GERTSYK, EVGENIIA. “Viacheslav Ivanov.” In Vospominaniia: N. Berdiaev. L. Shestov. S. Bulgakov. V. Ivanov. M. Voloshin. A. Gertsyk [Memoirs: N. Berdiaev. L. Shestov. S. Bulgakov. V. Ivanov. M. Voloshin. A. Gertsyk]. Paris: YMCA-PRESS, 37—72.
In Russian. Gertsyk’s book of memoirs was written between 1935 and 1942, and includes an account of her meetings and conversations with Ivanov in St. Petersburg, the Crimea, Rome, and Moscow. Describes her first visit to the tower in St. Petersburg and evokes the contrasting personalities of Ivanov and Zinov’eva-Annibal. Records Ivanov’s state after his wife’s funeral in October 1907, his readings from her diary, automatic writing, and mystic seances with Mintslova (described in an extract from a letter from Adelaida Gertsyk). Relates Ivanov’s visit to a woman of the Khlyst religious sect who subsequently attended his lecture in St. Petersburg. Depicts Ivanov’s visit to her home in Sudak in the Crimea in the summer of 1908. Relates their conversations on the spheres of good and evil and on Goethe, and transcribes extracts from her diary about Mintslova. Gertsyk returned to St. Petersburg in the autumn to spend the winter of 1908—1909 sorting out the manuscripts of Zinov’eva-Annibal. Notes Mandel’shtam’s visit, the emergence of the Acmeists, and Apollon. Portrays Ivanov’s Christianity as personal rather than confessional and outlines the content of a lecture of his at the Religious-Philosophical Society. Concludes with a description of her visit to Ivanov and Vera in Rome in 1913 after the birth of their son, Dimitrii. Met Palmieri and Ern; left after seeing Ivanov and Vera off to be married in Livorno. Other chapters in the book contain several references of interest concerning Ivanov’s relations with Voloshin, Sabashnikova, Shestov, Morozova, Berdiaev, Ern, and Gershenzon.
7 IVASK, IURII. “Rai Viacheslava Ivanova: Pervyi tom sobraniia sochinenii” [Viacheslav Ivanov’s paradise: The first volume of the collected works]. Sovremennik (Toronto), no. 25 (November): 47—54.
In Russian. Reviews the first volume of the collected works (1971), focusing mainly on the previously unpublished “Povest’ o Svetomire tsareviche” [The tale of tsarevich Svetomir]. Provides a detailed synopsis and
interpretation of this “highly original” work, singling out “Pesnia Otrady” [The Song of Joy], sung by Paradise personnified, as the key to its inner meaning and best lines ever written by Ivanov, artistic and full of intuition. Dwells on Ivanov’s sense of the tragic, on his limited sense of evil despite his awareness of temptation, compared to Dante, Goethe, and Dostoevskii’s The Devils. Considers the poetry of Kormchie zvezdy [Pilot stars] and Prozrachnost’ [Transparency]. Finds much abstraction in the description of natural settings such as Taormina or Lake Nemi. Ivanov only occasionally (as in Mladenchestvo [Infancy]) uses bookish, archaic words to contrast with low language in the manner successfully developed by Tsvetaeva. Praises Deschartes’s introduction. See also Ivask, 1976.6, 1983.13. On “Povest’ o Svetomire tsareviche,” see also Banerjee, 1978.2; Ivask, 1988.28; Stoinich, 1988.61; Terras, 1988.63; Venclova, 1988.65; Łuźny, 1989.42, 1990.41.
8 MOROZOV, A. A., ed. “Pis’ma O. E. Mandel’shtama k V. I. Ivanovu” [O. E. Mandel’shtam’s letters to V. I. Ivanov]. Zapiski Otdela rukopisei (Moscow), Gosudarstvennaia ordena Lenina biblioteka SSSR imeni V. I. Lenina, no. 34: 258—74.
In Russian. The text of Mandel’shtam’s letters to Ivanov of 1909—1911 (first published in 1971.7) is accompanied by a detailed four-page introduction, outlining Mandel’shtam’s relations with Ivanov and analyzing the content of the letters. The introduction includes the text of Mandel’shtam’s inscriptions on two copies of Kamen’ [Stone] presented to Ivanov and extracts from Kablukov’s diary record of Mandel’shtam’s meetings with Ivanov. The letters are printed together with the twenty-six poems originally enclosed with them and followed by notes clarifying references. For a later publication of the letters, see Mandel’shtam, 1990.44. For an English translation with notes, see Mandel’shtam, 1979.10. See also Morozov, 1979.13; Myers, 1992.14.
9 SCHERRER, JUTTA. Die Petersburger Religiös-Philosophischen Vereinigungen. Forschungen zur Osteuropäischen Geschichte. Osteuropa-Institut an der freien Universität Berlin, Historische veröffentlichungen, 19. Berlin: Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 53—55, 159—61, 165—67, 325—26.
In German. Includes comments on Ivanov’s philosophical and religious position, on his participation in mystical anarchism, and on his view of the people and the intelligentsia.
10 TERRAS, VICTOR. Review of Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works]. Vol. 1. Slavic Review 32, no. 3 (September): 661—62.
Views the introduction “as a primary rather than a secondary source,” while pointing out that Deschartes is “content with the modest role of disciple who deems it sufficient to reflect the master’s views faithfully.” “Her frame of reference is the spiritual world of Viacheslav Ivanov” rather than any wider historical perspective. Describes “Povest’ o Svetomire tsareviche” [The tale of
tsarevich Svetomir] as “written in the authentic manner of a Byzantine romance” and notes a number of errors in the text. Indicates some of the different levels on which the work may be read (as medieval romance, religious allegory, recapitulation of Russian symbolism, philosophical treatise, or autobiographical account of a spiritual search) and raises the question of the aesthetic problems created by such a “syncretistic work,” compared in this respect to the second part of Goethe’s Faust.
