Russian Opera

When Sergei Prokofiev chose to adapt War and Peace for the Soviet opera stage in the 1940s, he faced both operatic conventions and Soviet ideological demands that ran counter to the philosophy and structure of Tolstoy’s sprawling masterpiece. Prokofiev’s early decision to split his opera into Peace and War, making the first a romantic love story of individuals and the second a collective story of the people’s love for Mother Russia, marked a major divergence from Tolstoy. This article explores how Prokofiev reworked Tolstoy’s philosophy of love and human connection to make his opera acceptable for the Soviet stage. Moving away from Tolstoy’s family ideal in Peace, with its basis on intimate sibling bonds, Prokofiev shifted the family to War, turning it into a national Russian family of Father Kutuzov, Mother Russia and their children – the Russian people. The opera uses choral glorification of these heroic parents to foster on a national scale the type of intimacy Tolstoy had advocated in the home.

The subject of this study is the dramaturgical and musical means used in the "scene of madness" in the opera "Boris Godunov", composed by Modest Petrovich Mussorgsky (Модест Петрович Мусоргский). The opera has two editorial offices, the first composed in 1869 and premiered in 1929, while the second one was composed in 1872 and premiered in 1874. At the time of its creation, the Mussorgsky defined the genre of this opera as a “four-act musical work”, which more precisely indicated the peculiarity of the piece both in relation to Pushkin's tragedy and also in relation to musical works. By avoiding words such as opera, plot, drama, the composer deliberately sought to avoid associations with the governing stereotypes in the operatic romantic spectacle.

"Mieczysław Weinberg (1919-96) is a unique figure in Soviet music. A Jewish-Polish composer, he was born and raised in Warsaw, but fled to the Soviet Union following the outbreak of WWII. He left his family behind, never to see them again; they perished in the Holocaust. He found acceptance in the USSR and quickly made a name for himself as a composer, establishing a close friendship with none other than Dmitri Shostakovich. From 1942, Weinberg’s father-in-law was Solomon Mikhoels, director of the Moscow State Jewish Theater and chairman of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. Mikhoels’ state-sanctioned assassination in 1948 signalled another dark time for Weinberg, as a period of official anti-semitism began in the USSR. Weinberg’s family links to the 1952-3 ‘Doctor’s Plot’ lead to him being arrested and imprisoned for several months in 1953. As a result of such hardships, much of Weinberg’s music was commemorative in nature, culminating in his 1967-8 opera The Passenger. The opera is unique for directly dealing with the Holocaust, having much of its on-stage action set in Auschwitz itself.
In this paper, I explore how Weinberg sought to come to terms with such hardships through his music; how he dealt with his own exile, imprisonment and with the effects of the Holocaust in general, and how he maintained a touching and humanistic idiom throughout all of his works. In particular, I will be examining The Passenger, and the obstacles it presents for modern-day audiences."

The article is devoted to certain problems of Rimsky-Korsakov’s creative method and its evolution from the 1870s to the 1900s. Some theoretical works of the composer (in particular, his article "Analysis of ‘The Snow Maiden’") are considered in the context of his opera creativity and his basic aesthetics principles.
Keywords: Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, creative method, musical style, aesthetics, artistic beauty, analytical researches, operas, "The Snow Maiden", "The Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh and the Maiden
Fevronia" //
Статья посвящена проблемам творческого метода Н. А. Римского-Корсакова, его эволюции на протяжении 1870–1900-х гг. Аналитические литературные работы композитора, в частности
«Разбор “Снегурочки”», рассматриваются в контексте его оперного творчества и эстетических принципов.
Ключевые слова: Н. А. Римский-Корсаков, творческий метод, музыкальный стиль, эстетика, аналитические работы, оперы: «Снегурочка», «Сказание о невидимом граде Китеже и деве Февронии».

The fifteen operas of Russian composer César Antonovich Cui (1835-1918) heretofore have never been addressed in a comprehensive fashion. For the first time this study analyzes together Cui's six full-length operas (Prisoner of the Caucasus, William Ratcliff, Angelo, Le Flibustier, The Saracen, and The Captain's Daughter) and his shorter stage works (a comedy, one-act tragedies, and children's operas). Using evidence in printed sources, it examines their musico-dramatic features within the context of the conditions under which they were composed and performed. These conditions include the reception accorded them and their relation to the works of Cui's contemporaries and to his own operatic ideals. Several indications of likely influences from other models or genres have been posited or identified in such figures ranging from Meyerbeer to Balakirev, as have likely exchanges of musical ideas between Cui and other composers, especially Rimsky-Korsakov. This study shows that Cui and his operas maintained a persistent, if not pervasive, position in the musical life of the era, and that to a certain extent his works bore relation to contemporaneous historical events and political circumstances. His position is both enriched and complicated by his intense and polemical activity in music journalism, wherein among other things he promoted the esthetic ideals of his circle and advocated for the works of Russian composers. The study uncovers, and at times reinterprets, the problematic and interesting aspects of Cui's musico-dramatic style — which incorporated certain stylistic features characteristic of Russian art music — in recognition of his avoidance of Russian subjects (except primarily Pushkin). These factors are intertwined with the shifting tastes of his Russian audience, for whom most of the operas were composed. As this study demonstrates, Cui's primary operatic achievements lie in being the first member of the "mighty handful" to have an opera performed (William Ratcliff); being the first of them to have an opera performed in the West (Prisoner of the Caucasus) and the first Russian to premiere an opera in Paris (Le Flibustier); completion of Dargomyzhsky's Stone Guest (with Rimsky-Korsakov) and Musorgsky's Fair at Sorochintsy; and his considerable contribution to the repertory of children's opera in Russia.

The music of Sergej Prokofiev can be partially interpreted in the light of literary devices of “ostranenie” [making strange or de-familiarization] identified by the Russian Formalists. Rudolph Stephan and Carl Dahlhaus proposed a similar approach to Stravinsky’s neoclassic parodies. In his Opera “The Fiery Angel”, Prokofiev merges the technique of Leitmotiv and vocal declamation with his typical displacements, superimpositions, and unbalanced phrases to set in music (and theatre) Bryusov’s symbolist novel. The original text was shortened and re-arranged as a libretto by the composer himself. Beyond seemingly realistic settings, the plot also exploits some means stated by the very circle of Russian Formalists such as word repetitions, rhythmic alliterations, ritardo and estrangement. A compelling case of convergence then unfolds between formalism and symbolism – usually opposed to one another both in music and literature. Prokofiev sheds light on their actual, though contentious relationship, as the ambiguity between evil and sanctity pervades Bryusov’s love story.

Per certi aspetti, lo stile di Prokof’ev può essere accostato idealmente ai meccanismi di straniamento individuati in letteratura dai formalisti russi – paragone interdisciplinare già istituito a suo tempo da Carl Dahlhaus e Rudolph Stephan per interpretare le parodie neoclassiche di Stravinskij. Nell’Opera “L’angelo di fuoco”, Prokof’ev fonde la tecnica del Leitmotiv e uno stile vocale declamato con i suoi tipici espedienti di spostamento, sovrapposizione e fraseologia asimmetrica per trasferire nel suo teatro musicale l’omonimo romanzo simbolista di Valerij Brjusov. Il libretto, approntato dal compositore stesso, trascende, insieme con la musica, un’apparente rappresentazione realistica della parola tramite quelle iterazioni foniche, ripetizioni di parole, allitterazioni, zone di ritardo e straniamento che gli stessi formalisti russi avevano tanto indagato. Si verifica così una stimolante convergenza fra gli ambiti del formalismo e del simbolismo, da sempre ritenuti contrapposti tanto in letteratura quanto in musica. Prokof’ev getta invece squarci sul loro rapporto, controverso, come quello fra angelico e diabolico nella storia d’amore narrata da Brjusov.

For the first time in Russian musicology, the article explores dramaturgical parallels between the operas “Eugene Onegin” by Pyotr Tchaikovsky and “Rusalka” by Alexander Dargomyzhsky at the level of plot, main characters images, libretto dramaturgy, and musical composition. The details are provided, including little known information on how Tchaikovsky felt about the “Rusalka”. Dramaturgical intersections of Dargomyzhsky’s opera with Alexander Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin”, which, in turn, could attract Tchaikovsky’s attention at the first stage of composing the opera, are considered. In this regard, the history of creation of the initial scenario of “Eugene Onegin” and participation of music critic Nikolay Kashkin in it are carefully reconstructed, details of composer’s private life are addressed. A hypothesis about the possible influence of Dargomyzhsky’s “Rusalka” on the dramaturgic idea of Tchaikovsky’s opera is proposed, a number of plot and situational parallels between the two operas are revealed. The dramaturgy and compositional scheme of the first two acts of “Rusalka” and “Eugene Onegin” are consistently compared, including the development of the conflict; the techniques of reprise and inversion in relation to the first act, which unify the third act of Tchaikovsky’s opera and the fourth act of Dargomyzhsky’s opera, are discovered. Two interrelated ideas in the dramaturgy of both operas are considered in the context of the denouement: the impossibility of substituting happiness and the impossibility of returning lost happiness.

Keywords: Pyotr I. Tchaikovsky, Nikolay D. Kashkin, Alexander S. Dargomyzhsky, Aleksandr S. Pushkin, “Eugene Onegin”, “Rusalka”, scenario, libretto, composition and dramaturgy of the opera, idea of happiness.

В статье впервые в отечественном музыкознании исследуются драматургические параллели между операми «Евгений Онегин» П. И. Чайковского и «Русалка» А. С. Даргомыжского — на уровне сюжета, образов главных героев, драматургии либретто, музыкальной композиции и драматургии. Приводятся сведения, в том числе малоизвестные, об отношении Чайковского к «Русалке». Отмечаются драматургические пересечения оперы Даргомыжского с романом А. С. Пушкина «Евгений Онегин», которые, в свою очередь, могли привлечь внимание Чайковского на первом этапе сочинения оперы. В связи с этим подробно реконструируется история создания первоначального сценария «Евгения Онегина» и участия в нем музыкального критика Н. Д. Кашкина, затрагиваются обстоятельства личной жизни композитора. Выдвигается гипотеза о возможном влиянии «Русалки» Даргомыжского на драматургический замысел оперы Чайковского, выявляется ряд содержательных и ситуационных параллелей между двумя операми. Последовательно сопоставляются драматургия и композиционный план первых двух актов «Русалки» и «Евгения Онегина», в том числе развитие конфликта; обнаруживаются объединяющие третий акт оперы Чайковского и четвертый акт оперы Даргомыжского приемы репризности и инверсии по отношению к первому действию. В контексте развязки рассматриваются две взаимосвязанных идеи в драматургии обеих опер: невозможности «замены счастья» и невозможности вернуть утраченное счастье.

Ключевые слова: П. И. Чайковский, Н. Д. Кашкин, А. С. Даргомыжский, А. С. Пушкин, «Евгений Онегин», «Русалка», сценарий, либретто, композиция и драматургия оперы, идея счастья.

"Editorial Review
http://smart.ivyportal.com/object.F452C388-6BF9-4663-96C9-30FEAE85BABB.ivy
Zene, szó, dráma - színjátékok és szín(e)változások. A történelem szemantikája Puskin és Muszorgszkij művészi szkepszisében.
Mezősi Miklós

Mintegy húsz éves kutatómunka eredményeit összegzi Mezősi Miklós könyvében, melynek két része Puskin Borisz Godunov című romantikus tragédiája és Muszorgszkij Hovanscsina című nemzeti zenedrámája (miként a szerzők műveiket nevezték) műfajpoétikai vizsgálata kapcsán érzékelteti a hagyományos drámától való elmozdulást. Ennek nyomán kísérli meg tisztázni a történelmi dráma műfaji kérdéseit. A témához lazábban kapcsolódó irodalom jegyzékével kiegészített gazdag bibliográfia, a kották jegyzéke, a diszko- és kinematográfia, illetve a szerzőnek a tárgykörben megjelent munkáiról készült bibliográfia az önmagában is értékes, rendkívül gondolatgazdag, olvasmányos stílusban íródott kötetet még értékesebbé teszik.
Miklós Mezősi presents the findings of his twenty-year research work in this book. Consisting of two main parts, the monograph offers a critical interpretation of  Boris Godunov, Pushkin's “romantic tragedy” and Khovanshchina, Musorgsky's “national musical drama” (as the playwrights  themselves called their works). It focuses on the process as these plays move away from the traditional drama. With this in mind he seeks to clarify the problems of historical drama. The rich bibliography of scholarship and musical scores, the disco- and cinematography along with a list of the author's works published in the subject all add to the value of this compelling and well-written book.

A "Zene, szó, dráma...." a 19. századi orosz krónikás dráma műfajpoétikai szempontú interpretációja. Puskin és Muszorgszkij egy-egy történelmi színműve, a Borisz Godunov című „romantikus tragédia” és a Hovanscsina c. „nemzeti zenedráma” műközpontú, szövegorientált vizsgálatával a történelmi dráma műfajának a helyét keresi az újkori európai irodalomban és zenében. A „romantikus tragédia” puskini definíciójában a "роман" elem (az orosz nyelvben e francia jövevényszó jelentése: „regény”) mintha a drámai műfajból a regény irányába tett kilépésre utalna. A könyvnek ez a szerzői utalás a tétje és az Első rész voltaképpeni témája. A kortárs kritikus, Visszarion Belinszkij Puskin történelmi tragédiáját „párbeszédes formájú epikus költeménynek” nevezte. Belinszkij műfaji meghatározása az elbeszélői jelleg felé megtett elmozdulás érzékeltetésével azt a műfajpoétikai változást sejteti, ami a shakespeare-i chronicle plays (az ún „királydrámák”) óta a dráma műfajában végbement. Az addig klasszikusnak tekintett drámai formának a Borisz Godunovval kezdődő meglazulása tehát „regényibbé” alakítja, elbeszélő karakterrel ruházza fel az eredendően drámának készülő műalkotást. (Ezzel egyébként maga Puskin belső – műfajpoétikai – fejlődése is analóg, amennyiben a Borisz Godunov után a puskini életmű egésze is a regény felé látszik elmozdulni.) A könyv bevezető része két fejezetből áll: az első felveti a témát és összefoglalja a könyvben követett gondolatmenet főbb csomópontjait, a második pedig kísérlet egy íráspoétika felvázolására. Az „íráspoétikai” fejezetnek mind tematikusan, mind módszertani vonatkozásban az a funkciója, hogy a történelmi dráma kialakulásához vezető irodalom-, kultúra- és mentalitástörténeti utak felvázolásával elméletileg és történetileg megalapozza a műfaj elhelyezését és interpretációját. A két nagy Muszorgszkij-opera közül a könyvben túlnyomórészt a Hovanscsinát tárgyalom; a Borisz Godunovot egy rövidebb fejezetet leszámítva csak utalásszerűen érintem. A Puskintól filológiailag és tematikusan független Hovanscsinát mélyebb – belső: kompozíciós és poétikai – rokonság fűzi a puskini Borisz-drámához, mint a Puskin-dráma alapján készült Muszorgszkij-operát. A Hovanscsina opera puskini poétikája, vagyis a polifóniának és az iróniának a Puskin megteremtette és a Hovanscsinát is vezérlő dramaturgiája a magyarázata annak, hogy vizsgálódásaim az orosz krónikás dráma egészénél szűkebb területre szorítkoznak: a Puskin-dráma és a Hovanscsina között fennálló viszony megragadására és definiálására. A könyvben az orosz drámai krónikás színmű műfajpoétikája három fő aspektusát tekintem át.

This article considers Musorgsky’s opera Boris Godunov in light of the outbreak of political violence in Russia during the 1860s and 1870s. Attempting to make sense of Dmitry Karakozov’s ideologically motivated attack on Alexander II in 1866, Russians sought parallels in literature—where authors such as Dostoevsky and Turgenev had begun to explore the psychology of ideological commitment—and in history, the Time of Troubles (1598–1613) serving as a particularly salient point of reference. Boris Godunov, on which Musorgsky began work in 1868, brought these two strands together: set during the Time of Troubles, the opera features the upstart Pretender Dmitry, a historical figure in whom some writers found an ancestor of the modern political terrorist. But Musorgsky’s treatment of the Pretender character diverges sharply in his two versions of Boris Godunov, suggesting shifting ideas about the role of this figure both in the opera and in history. Musorgsky’s first attempt at the character produced a Pretender every inch the undeterrable “new man” of Russian literature; evincing little subjectivity beyond his obsession with his cause, the Pretender of 1869 escapes out a tavern window in Act 2 and exists thereafter only as a musico-dramatic idea. In Musorgsky’s 1872 revision of the opera, however, the Pretender pops up again in Poland, where both his self-determination and his dogged recitative style are easily bowled over by Marina Mnishek’s triple-metered tunefulness. Like Ratmir in Ruslan and Liudmila’s enchanted garden, this Pretender forgets his cause—but par-
ticipates in the opera’s most ravishing music. Drawing on a wide swath of literary and historical writings, this article explores Musorgsky’s participation in an urgent contemporary discussion about the personal ramifications of absolute commitment to an idea and the limits of individual agency.

Although Rachmaninoff has not generally been associated with Symbolism (whether Russian or generally), a close reading of his opera "Francesca da Rimini" exhibits certain features that have generally been considered representative of musical Symbolism. These include the disruption of functional harmonic syntax, the recurring use of distinctive harmonies to signify extra-musical content, and the disruption of linear temporal narrative through musical cyclicism.

La figura del compositor valenciano Vicente Martín y Soler (1754-1806), ha sido objeto de diversos estudios realizados a lo largo de los últimos años, entre los que destacan las aportaciones a su etapa rusa (1789-1806), período muy prolífico principalmente para el teatro musical de la corte rusa, tanto en ballets como en óperas. Poco se conoce de estas composiciones, aunque presentan gran interés, en especial las versiones “rusificadas” de las exitosas óperas vienesas de Martín y Soler, Cosa rara y L'arbore di Diana. Para ser interpretadas en la escena rusa, estas óperas sufrieron diferentes cambios, tanto en el  libreto como en la música, con el fin de adaptarlas por un lado a las exigencias sociales y moralizadoras impuestas por la zarina Catalina II, y por otro a los gustos del público ruso. En este trabajo estudiaremos este proceso de cambio y adaptación que sufrieron estas obras. En ellas, el libreto se tradujo al idioma ruso, se insertaron nuevas escenas y se realizaron cambios en el argumento y el carácter de los personajes. La música también sufrió alteraciones para adaptarse a las peculiaridades del habla rusa y al nuevo texto, siendo el propio Martín y Soler el encargado de su realización, hecho que otorga a estas versiones un nuevo carácter de originalidad. Estas modificaciones obtuvieron un resultado sorprendente, ya que su éxito fue aún mayor que el de las originales vienesas, y su vida en los escenarios rusos más longeva.

In this paper, I attempt to formalize opinions, not on the political implications of the opera and the symbolism attributed, but instead the emphasis on the splendor of the musical setting concerning Ruslan and Lyudmila’s love bond, juxtaposed against the fated love affair of Pelias and Melisande, whose relationship is ruled by destiny alone, bringing into question the futility of the fight against fate and the inevitability of a preordained future. The love triangle between Golaud, Pelias, and Melisande ends in tragedy and could be quickly taken at face value as a mere episodic story of the treachery of love and jealousy. Still, upon more in-depth analysis, this love triangle could suggest that perhaps Melisande’s Melisande’ ss an analogy for that sensation of feeling utterly lost, one’s inabilities to discern the correct way to go accurately. After tasting the fruit of success, happiness, etc., we are unable to cope knowing that mode of living is gone.

Šostakovič dice di sentirsi in empatia con lei perché "è circondata da mostri", da fantocci prepotenti, e l'omicidio diventa perciò l'unico mezzo che questa donna ha per ribellarsi ed emergere nel maschilista mondo socialista del patriarcato, affermando la sua libertà. Uccidere per raggiungere la felicità, questa è la base di tutto, ma Šostakovič ce la fa andare egualmente in simpatia, contrapponendole figure di più basso livello. Katerina più che pazza è una ribelle, sfida la società da cui è alienata e reagisce istintivamente seguendo quello che secondo lei è il giusto.

Постановка «Хованщины» театром «Ла Скала» в 1933 году под управлением дирижера Витторио Гуи (1885–1975) стала хронологически второй на итальянской оперной сцене. При изучении сценических версий этой оперы в Италии, постановка 1933 года обычно оказывается в тени премьеры, состоявшейся в 1926 году. Однако спектакль под управлением В. Гуи был не рутинным возобновлением, а самостоятельным творческим высказыванием. За этот же семилетний период в Советском Союзе произошел большой научный и художественный сдвиг в области изучения и исполнения наследия М. П. Мусоргского в авторских версиях. П. А. Ламм, при поддержке Б. В. Асафьева, инициировал издание собрания сочинений Мусоргского, основанного на автографах композитора. Вышли в свет первые тома этого собрания, включая клавир и партитуру оперы «Борис Годунов» и клавир оперы «Хованщина». Было осуществлено несколько постановок и концертных исполнений «Бориса Годунова» по нотным материалам в редакции Ламма. Упомянутые события стали своего рода противовесом к повсеместно распространенным творческим обработкам Н. А. Римского-Корсакова. В. Гуи знал о работе советских ученых, но не имел доступа к рукописи полной оркестровой партитуры «Хованщины», созданной Асафьевым. Поэтому дирижер осуществил собственную сценическую редакцию оперы, взяв за основу партитуру Н. А. Римского-Корсакова, но изменив ее структуру, а в отдельных фрагментах также оркестровку и тональный план. Целью этих изменений была попытка приблизить постановку к оригинальному замыслу Мусоргского.

The 1933 production of Khovanshchina at La Scala conducted by Vittorio Gui (1885–1975) was chronologically the second one on the Italian opera stage, the first being the 1926 premiere. In studying the Italian productions of Khovanshchina, the 1933 stage version is usually overshadowed by the premiere; however, the performance under V. Gui’s direction was not a remake, but an independent work of artistic expression. The period of seven years between the first and second Italian productions marked a significant shift in academic and artistic attitudes to studying and performing author’s versions of M. P. Mussorgsky’s legacy in the Soviet Union, as opposed to the creative arrangements by N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov, which up to that time had been considered the standard versions. Thus, P. A. Lamm, with the support of B. V. Asafyev, initiated the publication of Mussorgsky’s Complete Works based on the composer’s autographs. The first volumes of this collection were published, including the piano-vocal score and the full score of the opera Boris Godunov and the piano-vocal score of the opera Khovanshchina. Additionally, there were several productions and concert performances of Boris Godunov based on sheet music as revised by Lamm. V. Gui was aware of the work carried out by Soviet scholars but did not have access to the manuscript of the orchestral score of Khovanshchina created by Asafyev. For this reason, he created his own stage version of the opera, having built it upon Rimsky-Korsakov’s score but changed its structure and, in individual fragments — the orchestration and the tonal plan.

В данной публикации представлена первая авторская версия статьи Б. В. Асафьева «Почему надо исполнять “Бориса Годунова” Мусоргского в подлинном виде?». Текст приводится по машинописному чистовику, сохранившемуся в фонде П. А. Ламма в Российском государственном архиве литературы и искусства. Второй вариант текста этой статьи опубликован и широко известен. Однако для понимания сути научно-творческого конфликта, возникшего между Б. В. Асафьевым и П. А. Ламмом по поводу этого асафьевского текста, а затем разросшегося до разногласий в понимании творчества Мусоргского в целом, необходима публикация первого варианта статьи.

The present publication introduces the first version of Boris Asaf’yev’s article ‘Why Musorgsky’s Boris Godunov should be performed in its original version?’ The text is reproduced after the fair typescript found in P. A. Lamm’s file at the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art. The article’s second version was published and is well known. However, the publication of the article’s first version is important inasmuch as it helps to understand the essence of the conflict that broke out between Asaf’yev and Pavel Lamm around this text and later led to their dramatic disagreement regarding the understanding of Musorgsky’s oeuvre as a whole.

The ballet Mlada, presented in 1879 on imperial stage of Saint-Petersburg Bolshoi Theatre, is one of the most mysterious ballets of Marius Petipa. It has a complex and a long history. The plot twist is the subject of influences and inspirations of several ballet compositions in an early theatre history. Furthermore, this Petipa’s unique creation includes the representation of ancient Slavic people of Baltic countries. The present paper aims to call into question a possible impact of the ballet Ruslan and Ludmila on Petipa’s ballet. Ruslan and Ludmila, or the fall of Chernomor, evil wizard was fist created by Adam Glushkovsky (1793-1870) in Moscow in 1821. And then in 1824, the French maître de ballet Charles-Louis Didelot (1767-1837), decided to transpose the same ballet with modifications on imperial stage in Saint-Petersburg. The importance of Russian fabulous opera’s tradition is perceived in both ballets, as well the presence of pantheon of Slavic divinities. The purpose of the presentation is to draw an eventual comparison between these two creations while taking into consideration the libretto texts, the scenic elements as scenery and costumes and the reception of two ballets in a Russian society.

This paper focuses on Catherine II's The Early Reign of Oleg (1790) as a demonstrative performance of the sovereign's policy. In the context of Catherine's early nationalistic pride and her 'Greek project', the performance is understood as a synthesis embodying in music the vision of Russia as an Empire ready to receive the heritage of Byzantium, thanks to Sarti's use of modes combined with the Russian folk elements introduced by Canobbio and Pashkevich. In this context, Nikolay L'vov represents the joining link, having theorised that Russian folk music originated from ancient Greek music.

Two operas - Sibelius's 'The Maiden in the Tower' and Rimsky-Korsakov's 'Kashchei the Immortal' - utilise the motif of the Tower of Virtue, often encountered in Western literature and music. This short article (written for the Buxton Festival production in 2012) analyses both works, and considers some more general aspects of the motif.

Автограф «Хованщины» М. П. Мусоргского рассматривается в статье в нескольких малоизученных аспектах: авторской структуры оперы и ее вариантности (шесть картин как отражение новаторской драматургии «Хованщины», пять актов как попытка привести ее к нормативам «большой оперы»), авторских и неавторских купюр и их атрибуции по почерку, орудиям письма и причинам возникновения. Впервые предпринимается исследование слоя помет и правок в автографе Мусоргского, принадлежащих Н. А. Римскому-Корсакову. Приводится свод утраченных или не найденных на настоящее время фрагментов авторского текста «Хованщины». Редакция Римского-Корсакова впервые рассматривается и как целостный текст, и как процесс, в том числе: документы-автографы, музыкальные и литературные (в частности, впервые анализируется корсаковское предисловие к первому изданию клавира оперы), история создания (приводится сводная хронологическая таблица), взгляды редактора на различные аспекты «Хованщины», от сюжета и либретто до созданных Мусоргским фрагментов партитуры. Выясняется особый статус таких партитур: они не подвергались купюрам, изменения нотного текста в них минимальны. При сравнении клавира и партитуры редакции по отношению к оригиналу (в частности, в отношении темпов) делается вывод о движении Римского-Корсакова в сторону автографа / The article considers the autograph of “Khovanshchina” by M. Mussorgsky in several aspects: author's structure of the opera and its variability (six scenes as a reflection of “Khovanshchina”’s innovative dramaturgy; five acts as an attempt to bring it to the standards of the “big opera”), author's and non-author's cuts and their identification by handwriting, writing tools and causes. The layer of marks and corrections belonging to N. Rimsky-Korsakov in Mussorgsky's autograph is being studied for the first time. A set of lost or not found yet fragments of the “Khovanshchina” author’s edition is given. For the first time, Rimsky-Korsakov's edition is considered both as an integral text and as a process including both musical and literary autograph documents (in particular, Korsakov's preface to the opera’s full score’s first edition is analyzed for the first time), the history of its creation (the chronological table of it is provided), the editor's views on various aspects of “Khovanshchina” from its plot and libretto to fragments of the score created by Mussorgsky. The special status of such scores is clarified: they were not subjected to cuts, changes in the score are minimal. When comparing the full score and the edited score in comparison to the original (in particular, concerning the tempo), the conclusion is made about Rimsky-Korsakov’s incline towards the autograph

At the turn of the 1860s and 1870s, 40 years after the publication of Pushkin’s “Boris Godunov”, the image of this tsar attracted the attention of Russian public again. In 1866, the censorship ban on the theatrical production of Pushkin's play was lifted and in 1870, the tragedy was first staged. In 1869, Modest Musorgsky completed the first version of his “Boris Godunov”. In 1870, Alexey Tolstoy published the final part of his historical trilogy, the tragedy “Tsar Boris” (staged in 1881). Previously, there have not been any purposeful attempts to correlate the way Godunov was depicted in opera and literature with his representation in painting and graphics of the 19th century; these representations themselves remain little studied. We see the value of our work in filling this gap. The article traces Boris Godunov’s iconography through the epochs of Nicholas I and Alexander II. It is found that there existed a composition by Vyacheslav Schwarz “The Death of Boris Godunov”, which has not been mentioned in the literature on the artist before. It is shown that the interpretation of Godunov’s character given by Nikolai Ge in his pictorial sketch “Tsar Boris and Tsarina Marfa” (1873–1874) was the closest visual one to that by Pushkin and Musorgsky. It is also noted that in Russian painting and graphics of the period it is unthinkable to find something corresponding to the Kromï scene, which defined the finale of Musorgsky’s opera (when it was first staged in 1874) and became the unprecedentedly expressive representation of a Russian rebellion.

This article is devoted to the history of an unrealized stage performance of B. V. Asafyev's orchestral score for M. P. Mussorgsky's Khovanshchina, and is based on archival documents, stored in The Russian State Archive of Literature and Art, The Russian National Museum of Music, The St. Petersburg Central State Archive of Literature and Art and The Museum of the Bolshoi Theatre of Russia, most of which have introduced into scholarly discourse for the first time. The circumstances under which the opera was planned to be staged in The State Academic Theatre of Opera And Ballet in Leningrad (today-The Mariinsky Theatre, St. Petersburg) have been studied. The fragments from the reports of the Artistic Council of Opera at The State Academic Theatre of Opera and Ballet meetings, the Correspondence between B. V. Asafyev and P. A. Lamm, the manuscript "P. A. Lamm. A biography" by O. P. Lamm and other unpublished archival documents are cited. The author comes to the conclusion that most attempts to perform Khovanshchina were hindered by the political ideological constraints of the 1930s, and the existing supposition that Asafyev's orchestral score was an artistic failure doesn't find clear affirmation, neither in the historical documents, nor in the existing manuscript of the orchestral score.

During the reign of Catherine the Great (1762–1796) the problem of the Turkish threat over Europe had become an excuse for negotiations aiming at stabilizing the geopolitical balance between the European countries . This preoccupation was present in the diplomatic discourse, where after its ‘decline’, the Ottoman Empire was evaluated as a fake giant, incapable of representing a serious military menace . However, the presence of ‘The Turk’ in the mind of Western audiences is attested by the diffusion of Oriental themes in different works of art . In the field of musical theatre, these can be found, among others, in such operatic performances as the opéra comique La rencontre imprévue, ou Les pèlerins de la Mecque by Christoph Willibald Gluck (1763), and Mozart’s Singspiel Die Entführung aus dem Serail (1782) . In Russia, the response to the Eastern Question was the ‘Greek project’ – a series of geopolitical plans that the Empress developed with her counsellors Aleksandr Bezborodko an...

В статье раскрываются особенности жанра и драматургии оперы "Опричник" (1872) П. И. Чайковского, как сближающие ее с операми современников, так и отличающие от них и предвосхищающие другую оперу композитора — "Пиковую даму": в трактовке исторической драмы, главных героев, главенствующей роли "фатального комплекса" (на уровне литературного текста, музыкальных тем, оркестровки, ариозной мелодики). Проводится параллель: Андрей Морозов — Герман / Tchaikovsky's “The Oprichnik” appeared on the Russian stage in 1874 in the entourage of such operas based on historic plots as Rimsky- Korsakov's “The Maid of Pskov” and Musorgsky's “Boris Godunov”. These reflected Russian society's tremendous interest in history which had previously manifested itself in literature and drama. Although Tchaikovsky also selected a plot for his opera from Russian history (after a play by L. Mei), he crafted not a historical opera but rather a drama, many of its features unexpectedly resembling his late masterpiece “The Queen of Spades” (1890). “The Oprichnik” is ouslymanifested itself also a “drama of Fate”, and Andrei Morozov could be called the “Hermann of the 16th century”. In “The Oprichnik”, critics at the time justly noted features of influences of the composer's predecessors and: contemporaries, and the composer himself was also deeply dissatisfied with much in his opera. However, it was not just the critics, but even Tchaikovsky himself who found it difficult to discover any traces of the new lyrical style born in his operatic music in this piece, the more so as the innovative principles of the dramaturgy would only be fully embodied in “The Queen of Spades”

Данный материал представляет собой первую публикацию переписки Б. В. Асафьева с П. А. Ламмом за неполные три недели 1928 года – с 13 января по 2 (?) февраля. Интенсивность эпистолярного общения двух ученых в эти дни связана с активной работой Б. В. Асафьева по написанию статей для сборника «К восстановлению “Бориса Годунова” Мусоргского» и их редактированием по замечаниям П. А. Ламма. Публикация сборника была запланирована к премьере оперы в редакции П. А. Ламма и Б. В. Асафьева в ленинградском Государственном академическом театре оперы и балета, состоявшейся 16 февраля 1928 года. Среди всей корреспонденции особо выделяется письмо П. А. Ламма от 13 января с критикой первоначального текста статьи «Почему надо исполнять “Бориса Годунова” Мусоргского в подлинном виде?». Этот документ содержит многочисленные маргинальные пометы и комментарии прочитавшего ламмовские реплики Асафьева. Учитывая важность асафьевских доводов, также как и их эмоциональную составляющую, в постраничных сносках приводится не только фрагмент статьи, с которым у Ламма возникло несогласие, но также и текст асафьевских комментариев к конкретным ламмовским возражениям. Публикатором расшифрованы сокращения, безоговорочно исправлены описки, ошибки и иные неточности в текстах документов.

The present material introduces the previously unpublished correspondence between Boris Asaf'yev and Pavel Lamm dating from 13 January-2(?) February 1928. The intensity of both scholars' communication during those days was related to Asaf'yev's active work on the articles for the collection 'To the Restoration of Musorgsky's Boris Godunov' and on their revision in accordance with Lamm's criticism. The publication of the collection was scheduled for the première of the opera in the edition of Lamm and Asaf'yev at the Leningrad State Academic Theatre of Opera and Ballet (GATOB), which took place on 16 February 1928. Lamm's letter of 13 January criticizing the original text of Asaf'yev's article 'Why Musorgsky's Boris Godunov should be performed in its original version?' stands out among the whole correspondence. This document contains Asaf'yev's numerous marginalia and comments referring to Lamm's observations. Taking into account the importance of Asaf'yev's reasons, as well as their emotional tone, in the footnotes to our article we have quoted not only the excerpts from the article that gave rise to Lamm's objections, but also Asaf'yev's comments to these objections. The editor has deciphered the abbreviations and corrected the slips of the pen, errors, and other inaccuracies in the texts of the documents.