Haldey O. Mamontov's Private Opera

Mamontovs Private Opera
The Search for Modernism

in Russian Theater
Olga Haldey
M a mon tovs pr i vate oper a
Russian Music Studies

Malcolm Hamrick Brown, founding editor
Mamontovs Private Opera

The Search for Modernism
in Russian Theater
ol ga h a l dey
Indiana University Press

Bloomington & Indianapolis
This book is a publication of

Indiana University Press
601 North Morton Street
Bloomington, IN 47404-3797 USA
www.iupress.indiana.edu
Telephone orders 800-842-6796
Fax orders 812-855-7931
Orders by e-mail iuporder@indiana.edu
2010 by Olga Haldey
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses
Resolution on Permissions constitutes
the only exception to this prohibition.
The paper used in this publication
meets the minimum requirements of
the American National Standard for
Information SciencesPermanence
of Paper for Printed Library Materials,
ANSI Z39.48-1992.
Manufactured in the United States of
America
Library of Congress Cataloging-inPublication Data
Haldey, Olga, [date]
Mamontovs Private Opera : the search
for modernism in Russian theater / Olga
Haldey.
p. cm. (Russian music studies)
Includes bibliographical references and
index.
ISBN 978-0-253-35468-6 (cl : alk.
paper) 1. OperaRussiaMoscow
19th century. 2. Moskovskaia Chastnaia
Opera. 3. Mamontov, Savva Ivanovich,
18411918. I. Title.
ML1737.8.M67H35 2010
792.5094731dc22
2009051156
1 2 3 4 5 15 14 13 12 11 10
To erik
Con ten ts
acknowledgments ix
Note on Transliteration and Translation xi
list of Abbreviations xiii
Introduction 1
1 The Silver Age and the Legacy of the 1860s 15
2 Serving the Beautiful 35
3 Echoes of Abramtsevo 68
4 Visual Impressions 88
5 Opera as Drama 130
6 From Meiningen to Meyerhold 171
7 Politics, Repertory, and the Market 208
8 Faces of the Enterprise 261
Appendix A. Brief Chronology of Savva

Mamontovs Life and Career 291
Appendix B. Selected Premieres and Revivals

at the Moscow Private Opera 295
Notes 297
works cited 339
Index 345
Ack now l edgm en ts
This book is the culmination of a long road of scholarly pursuit that

started almost a dozen years agoever since Savva Mamontov had
materialized in my head, quite unexpectedly, one memorable October
afternoon. I would like to note a few individuals who helped me along
on that journey.
First, my thanks go to Margarita L. Mazo, who in a typically brilliant flash of inspiration first linked Mamontov and Diaghilev in my
mind, and to Myroslava Mudrak, who taught me to love and even comprehend modernist arta skill without which this project would have
never been realized. To Charles M. Atkinson and Tama I. Kott, who
read more versions of Mamontov-related papers, articles, and manuscript drafts than I (or they) would care to remember, I offer my deepest
apologies. I am grateful to Barbara Haggh-Huglo, Dan Zimmerman,
David Haas, Lynn Garafola, and Malcolm H. Brown for their helpful
editorial suggestions, and to Jane Behnken at Indiana University Press
for her prompt and cheerful assistance. I would also like to acknowledge
the University of Maryland Graduate School, whose summer research
grant was invaluable in completing the book and purchasing publication
permissions for its plates.
Finally, I wish to thank Mr. Savva Ivanovich Mamontov and his
colorful cohort of students, associates, allies, and critics, who even after
so many years of rather close acquaintance, never failed to impress,
fascinate, and inspire me. I hope I did them justice.
ix
Not e on T r a nsl it er at ion

a n d Tr a nsl at ion
Throughout this book, I have used the Library of Congress system for
all transliterations of Russian text, with the following modifications:
ya, yo, yu, y, yi. and are both transliterated as i, and their combination at ends of words as y. Proper names
containing the letters above have been spelled similarly: Yury, Valery,
Elena, Ekaterinburg.
In rendering proper names and places, English variants or spellings of proper names have been sought whenever possible without substantially altering the pronunciation. For example, I used Victor, not
Viktor, Claudia Winter, not Klavdiya Vinter; but Elizaveta, not
Elizabeth, Nikolai, not Nicholas. Commonly accepted spellings of
well-known names have been preserved; e.g., Tchaikovsky, not Chaikovsky; Alexandre Benois, not Alexander Benois or Aleksandr
Benua.
In captions, endnotes and bibliography, in order to facilitate catalogue searches by the readers, all Russian-language bibliographic citations conform to the unmodified Library of Congress system, not common spelling or the modified system used in the main text. The latter is
used for title translations (in square brackets after the first appearance
of a title), as follows: Benua, Aleksandr, Aleksandr Benua razmyshliaet
[Alexandre Benois Contemplates]. Places of publication are rendered in
their common English equivalent; e.g., Moscow: Muzyka; St. Petersburg:
Kompozitor. After the first appearance, titles are referred to in their
language of publication.
xi
xii n o t e o n t r a n s l i t e r at io n a n d t r a n s l at io n
Within the main text, all Russian titles are rendered in translitera
tion at their first appearance, with common English translations to follow in square brackets, thus: Zhizn za tsarya [A Life for the Tsar], Maska
i dusha [Mask and Soul]. Thereafter, English translations are used, with
the exception of journal and newspaper titles, which remain in the original Russian.
Common Western book titles appear in their original languages
throughout. Western opera titles appear in their original languages,
unless mentioned as part of a title in a Russian-language bibliographical citation. If that is the case, they have been transliterated using the
unmodified Library of Congress system in a title, and appear in their
original languages in its translation, as follows: S. K-ov, Bogema Puchchini [Puccinis La bohme].
Unless otherwise indicated, all translations from Russian and other
foreign languages are mine.
A bbr ev i at ions
Archives

BM

MATM

RMLAH

RGALI

RNL

RSL

SRM

STG
State Central Theater Museum named after Alexander

Bakhrushin [The Bakhrushin Museum], Moscow, Russia
State Museum of the Moscow Academic Art Theater
[The Moscow Art Theater Museum], Moscow, Russia
Museum of Literature and Art History named after
Janis Rainis [The Rainis Museum], Riga, Latvia
Russian State Archive of Literature and Art [Rossiisky
Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Literatury i Iskusstva], Moscow,
Russia
Russian National Library, St. Petersburg, Russia
Russian State Library, Moscow, Russia
State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia
State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia
Selected Nineteenth-Century Periodicals

MV
ND
NBG
NS
NV
Moskovskie Vedomosti
Novosti Dnya
Novosti i Birzhevaya Gazeta
Novosti Sezona
Novoe Vremya
xiii
xiv a bbr e v i at io n s
PG
PL
RMG
RS
RV
SPV
Peterburgskaya Gazeta
Peterburgsky Listok
Russkaya Muzykalnaya Gazeta
Russkoe Slovo
Russkie Vedomosti
Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti
M a mon tovs pr i vate oper a
Introduction
Russian musical modernism has long been seen as an oxymoron in

musicological discourse, and perhaps understandably so. After all, the
adventurous idiosyncrasies of late Scriabin filled barely half a decade; the
iconoclastic genius of Stravinsky, albeit fueled by his heritage, flourished
far away from his native soil under the fashionable spotlights of Paris;
and the youthful futurism of Prokofiev has been seen in some quarters
as a mere surface veneer grafted upon a classical edifice.1 Other manifestations of modernity in Russian music have been dismissed as either
inconsequential or nonexistent.
Meanwhile, scholars of Russian history, literature, and visual and
performing arts have never suffered from a lack of modernism to explore,
as they actively discuss the various aspects of the historical-cultural
phenomenon known as the Silver Age. A time period encompassing
the last decade of the nineteenth through the first two decades of the
twentieth century, it saw a veritable explosion of early modernist trends
in philosophy, aesthetics, literature, and the arts.2
The discussion of the Silver Age on both sides of the Atlantic has
been dominated by literary scholars, who see it as primarily the Age
of Symbolism.3 Indeed, the era saw a proliferation of prominent symbolist literati, including Valery Bryusov (18731924), Vyacheslav Ivanov
(18661949), Andrei Bely (18801934), and Alexander Blok (18801922),
who collectively defined the philosophical and aesthetic foundation of
Silver Age art and culture, and as a consequence will figure prominently
2 m a m o n t ov s p r i vat e op e r a
in the narrative to come. Yet painting the picture of the Silver Age with
only a symbolist brush is misleading, as the history of its visual arts
makes clear. Russian painters of the period followed a dizzying mosaic
of trends and styles, including but not limited to symbolism, impressionism, neo-primitivism, cubo-futurism, and rayism, all of which found
inspiration in Western art, yet claimed allegiance to Russian antiquity
while celebrating Russian modernity. This ideological multiplicity defines the Silver Age, a cultural landscape in which numerous visions of
modernity vied for prominence with each other, and in its early years
the Russian fin de siclealso with the still vital realist and naturalist
trends of the not-so-distant past.
The concept of reconciliation and fusion of competing visions is
fundamental to the Silver Age phenomenon. At its heart was a thriving bohemian subculture of clubs, cabarets, and private gatherings, at
which poets, painters, and other artists met, debated and exchanged
ideas, and collaborated on joint projects.4 For that reason, the necessarily collaborative art of theater is central to the era, and the kernels
of modernism found in staged art of the period are vital to our understanding of it.
The Silver Age of theater is represented historically by the commedia
dellarte experiments of Vsevolod Meyerhold (18741940), the retrospectivism of Nikolai Evreinov (18791953) and his Ancient Theater,5 and
the warped synthesism of Pobeda nad solntsem [hereafter, Victory over
the Sun], a futurist Gesamtkunstwerk created by Alexei Kruchonykh
(18861968), Mikhail Matyushin (18611934), and Kazimir Malevich
(18781935), whose 1913 premiere all but spelled out modernity on stage.6
The music for Victory over the Sun was written by Matyushin, a painter,
and as such has been dismissed as amateurish, and the weakest aspect of
the production. Discussions of Meyerholds and Evreinovs theaters do
not count music among their accomplishments either, prompting one to
wonder if in fact there was no such thing as Russian musical modernism.
The present study aims to refute that persistent notion by locating and
deconstructing a long-overlooked cradle of Russian artistic modernity,
in which music played a prominent, indeed indispensable roleopera
theater. Or rather, our subject is one particular opera theaterthe Moscow Private Opera (MPO).
i n t roduc t io n 3
The Company
The MPO was an opernaya antreprizaan operatic enterprise, or a private opera companythat operated in Moscow and St. Petersburg at the
turn of the twentieth century. It was created, sponsored, and directed by
Savva Ivanovich Mamontov (18411918; plate 1).7
An heir to a business empire, a railway tycoon responsible for creating the transportation system that ushered Russia into the modern age,
Mamontov has earned a worthy place in history as an important representative of the countrys merchant capital. He received an excellent
education, first with a private tutor (who taught, among other subjects,
such gentlemanly pursuits as riding and fencing), then at a private school,
and finally at Moscow University. He was fluent in German, French, and
Italian and for a time took English lessons; he traveled widely in Europe,
Central Asia, and the Middle East. His youthful diaries are peppered with
Greek and Latin quotations and references to contemporary literature,
criticism, politics, and the arts. Savva Mamontov grew to become one of
the countrys leading art patrons, who brought together three generations
of the foremost Russian painters in an artist colony he had established
at his country estate of Abramtsevo, near Moscow. At various times his
friends and associates described this remarkable man as a talented sculptor, writer, librettist and translator, a brilliant character actor, and a born
stage director. Unlike traditional art patronage, however, these gifts remained hidden from public view: Mamontovs social status obliged him
to keep his personal artistic aspirations private. Not so private was his
lifelong passion for theater, especially opera. In his student days he was
a regular presence in his uncles box at the Bolshoi Theater; studied his
favorite works at the piano, which he played fluently; and took singing lessons in Moscow and Milan that almost resulted in a professional operatic
career. Yet some still professed shock when he was revealed as both the
artistic and the financial force behind the MPO, the company he led from
1885 to 1892 and then again between 1896 and 1899, during which time it
became one of the most influential theatrical institutions of fin-de-sicle
Russia. The revelation was the scandal of the social season: in September
1899, the notorious millionaire and Maecenas was arrested and put on
trial for embezzling hundreds of thousands of rubles from his sharehold-
ers, only to spend themsurely an unprecedented incident in the history

of jurisprudenceon an opera company.8 Mamontovs acquittal in June
1900 brought the courthouse down in a tumultuous standing ovation.
But the subsequent bankruptcy brought his association with his most
important artistic project, the MPO, to a close. The company operated,
under new management and with modest success, for four more seasons
before being dissolved permanently in the spring of 1904.9
At the peak of its creative activity, however, Mamontovs Private
Opera was a viable market enterprise that successfully competed with
the powerful Imperial Theaters and made a major imprint on the artistic
lives of both Moscow and St. Petersburg. The company employed the
cream of Russias performing forces. Among its singers were RimskyKorsakovs celebrated muse, soprano Nadezhda Zabela (18681913), and
the legendary bass Feodor Chaliapin (18731938), whose international
career was launched from Mamontovs stage. Young Sergei Rachmaninov (18731943) received his training as a conductor there. The company
also employed at various times almost two dozen painters, among them
Vasily Polenov (18441927), Victor Vasnetsov (18481926), Valentin Serov
(18651911), Konstantin Korovin (18611939), Mikhail Vrubel (18561910),
and other recognized masters.
Throughout its fifteen-year history, the MPO playbill featured over
eighty-five titles. Among the foreign operas it premiered on the Moscow stage were Verdis Otello, Wagners Lohengrin, Glucks Orfeo, SaintSans Samson et Dalila, Thomas Mignon, Humperdincks Hnsel und
Gretel, and Puccinis Les villi and La bohme. The companys contribution to the history of Russian opera includes its staged premiere of
Musorgskys Khovanshchina and a return of his Boris Godunov and
Borodins Knyaz Igor [Prince Igor] to the repertory after years of oblivion.
The opera composer most central to the MPO repertoire, however, was
undoubtedly Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (18441908). Mamontov directed
an acclaimed 1885 production of Snegurochka [The Snow Maiden] (the
Moscow premiere of that opera; see plate 34), and in 1896 premiered the
new, definitive version of Pskovityanka [The Maid of Pskov]. The MPO
also had the honor of presenting the world premieres of no less than six
Rimsky-Korsakov operas: Sadko (1897), Motsart i Saleri [Mozart and
Salieri], Vera Sheloga (both 1898), Tsarskaya nevesta [The Tsars Bride]
(1899), Skazka o tsare Saltane [The Tale of Tsar Saltan] (1900), and Kash-
chei Bessmertnyi [Kashchei the Deathless] (1902; for the precise dates of
these and other premieres, see Appendix B). As a result, the composer
called the time in his creative life between 1896 and 1902 his privateopera period, while Mamontovs enterprise earned the nickname of
Rimsky-Korsakovs Theater.
These are the known facts about the MPO; its basic biography has
already been written.10 The present investigation aims to interpret and
contextualize these facts in order to illuminate the surprisingly deep
and fundamental impact of Mamontovs company on the development
of staged art in the early twentieth century, in Russia and beyond. As we
shall see, the MPO revolutionized opera production by introducing major innovations in acting, directing, and design, and became a crucible
for the emerging modernist trends in stage aesthetics. Reflecting the
fin-de-sicle fascination with artistic correspondences, Mamontov saw
opera as a perfectly integrated art form, to be created through the collaboration of his outstandingly talented team of performers, directors,
and designers. His team echoed the spirit of the times, if not necessarily
Wagnerian theories, as they strove for the ideal of a true synthesis of the
arts. To achieve this goal, the MPO became a veritable school of theater
design, transforming a disdained craft into a modern, internationally
recognized art form, and placing a designer at the head of its production team (see chapters 34). The company also promoted the vision of
opera as a staged drama. Almost single-handedly, Mamontov created
the concept of operatic stage director, training the first generation of
Russian opera rgisseurs and developing novel acting and staging techniques influenced by contemporary spoken drama troupes, such as the
Meiningen Theater. His approach would prove highly influential on both
operatic and dramatic stages of the new century, as it impacted the work
of revolutionary stage directors Konstantin Stanislavsky (18631938),11
Alexander Sanin (18691956), and Vsevolod Meyerhold, all of whom
were aware of Mamontovs work and benefited from personal interaction
with him (see chapters 56).
Another revolutionary iconoclast whose career and artistic outlook
were shaped by his early encounter with Mamontov was Sergei Diaghilev (18721929). The historical relationship of the MPO and the Ballets
Russes and the direct connection between their leaders form one of the
focal points of the present study. Savva Mamontov was a copublisher
and sponsor of Mir Iskusstva [World of Art], an art journal edited by

Diaghilev that united decadent painters, litterateurs, philosophers, and
aestheticians, promoted the development of new artistic trends, and
became a voice of the countrys young modernist movement. Several of
Mamontovs designers contributed to Mir Iskusstva while still employed
at his company and later worked with Diaghilev on his Russian Seasons,
a Parisian theatrical venture that would become the Ballets Russes. Diaghilev would also collaborate with the singers and stage directors connected with the MPO, producing a number of operas that were not only
central to that companys playbill but thoroughly identified with it. These
parallels have led leading Diaghilev scholar Lynn Garafola to view the
MPO as a musical and artistic blueprint for Diaghilevs initial Russian
Seasons.12 The present study goes further by positing the existence of a
mentor-student relationship between Mamontov and Diaghilev based on
their shared aesthetic views and vision of modernist staged art. This relationship resulted in Mamontovs support for the Mir Iskusstva journal
(see chapter 4). Even more consequentially, it led to Diaghilevs adoption
of both the organizational principles and the creative methodology of
Mamontovs enterprise, which he implemented at his own new venture,
the Ballets Russes. The final chapter of this book traces this process, as
well as Diaghilevs emulation of Mamontovs position of artistic director, which allowed him to eclipse his mentor by realizing his long-held
dream of conquering Paris.
The Liter ature

The name of Savva Mamontov is familiar to any educated Russian. After
all, his Abramtsevo estate is a museum to which schoolchildren from
the Moscow region take their mandatory sixth-grade trips. Recently he
even warranted a fictionalized biography in the popular series Zhizn zamechatelnykh lyudei [Lives of Notable People].13 Yet a curious Russianist
who wants to learn more about Mamontovs contribution and the significance of his most personal and arguably most important artistic project,
the MPO, would encounter an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand,
the multifaceted Mamontov makes an appearance in just about every
study of Russian fin-de-sicle culture published since the 1940s, and the
general impression today, at least among Russian scholars, is that the
topic has literally been researched to death.14 On the other hand, very few
studies have been exclusively dedicated to Mamontov, and prior to my
own work, only one thin monograph specifically focused on the MPO.15
The existing, primarily biographical accounts furnish both facts and
their interpretation for the mountains of scholarly works that feature
Mamontov cameos. As a result, this larger body of literature treats the
subject superficially and offers no original contribution to the study of
the Mamontov phenomenon.
In addition, if our curious Russianist happens to be a musician, he
or she would be disappointed to find that the Mamontov studies have
been primarily the province of art historiansafter all, even during
his lifetime, the mans public face in the cultural world was that of an
art patron who supported and employed some of the countrys most
outstanding painters. Understandably, in an art-historical studyeven
a valuable and sympathetic one such as Evgeny Arenzons recent set of
biographical essays16the MPO warrants only a cursory mention, with
the emphasis on its approach to visual design and no attempt at a comprehensive assessment of an opera production in all its interdisciplinary
complexity. The few theater studies that mention the subject treat it in
a similarly one-sided manner, addressing the issues of acting and staging at the MPO, but not music or design. When the subject matter is
tackled by musicologists, the company becomes a focus of conversation
primarily as a vehicle for a composers, singers, or conductors art. This
includes perhaps the best researched and most comprehensive Soviet-era
treatment of Mamontovs company, the 1974 monograph Russky opernyi
teatr na rubezhe XIXXX vekov i Shalyapin [Russian Opera Theater at
the Turn of the Twentieth Century and Chaliapin] by leading Soviet opera
scholar Abram Gozenpud.17 Gozenpuds study has undeniable merits.
Among them, his attempt at drawing a broad historical-cultural context
for the companys operations and his focus not merely on matters musical but also on issues of staging and design (although the author tends
to borrow his evaluations of these issues from the sister disciplines) are
a welcome comprehensive approach that will be developed in the present study. Yet the books very title illustrates the skewed nature of its
narrative: it portrays the MPO as merely a vessel for the great singers
art, propagating a popular misconception about the company that views
Chaliapins participation as its only claim to fame.
Gozenpud thus joins a great majority of Mamontov scholars who

commonly attribute the MPOs undeniable accomplishments to the talented group of artists and musicians associated with the company. Meanwhile, they tend to dismiss Mamontovs personal artistry, denying him
any individual contribution to his favorite project beyond his infectious
enthusiasm and the generosity of his pocketbook. This study aims to
dispel this persistent yet inaccurate notion by highlighting Mamontovs
innovative work as a rgisseur, and beyond that, as the Moscow Private
Operas artistic director, the creator of the overarching central concept
for each production. Savva Mamontov was the heart and soul of his company; its engine, not merely the source of its monetary fuel. Without his
artistic leadership, it reverted to an ordinary commercial troupe that left
little mark on Russias cultural landscape and soon perished, unnoticed
and unlamented. In the same way, the Ballets Russes perished with the
death of Diaghilev, whose personal artistic contribution to his company
has long been acknowledged by critics and scholars.18 Throughout this
book we shall discover how, through a combination of personal charisma
and targeted recruiting, Mamontov assembled a diversely talented team
that together and under his guidance was able to realize his own private
operahis distinct, personal vision of the operatic genre as a powerful
staged drama revealed through visual spectacle.
This vision stemmed from Mamontovs idiosyncratic aesthetic philosophy that was developed over the decades of his involvement with the
arts. This aesthetic platform has proven to be a source of fascination and
a major focus of attention for Mamontovs champions among scholars
across disciplines and across the world. For the most part, their interpretations followed one of two trajectories: Mamontov was portrayed
either as a defender of realism on stage, or as an ardent nationalist. The
descriptions stemmed from researchers good intentions, their desire
to legitimize Mamontov within the historical canon as a part of some
positive development. Different approaches to constructing that positive
history inside and outside Russia have resulted in the divergences between the presented models. In Soviet scholarship, the history of the arts
was typically viewed as a gradual evolution toward realism. In order to
neutralize Mamontovs problematic background as a greedy capitalist
and insert him into the canon of importantand ideologically sympatheticartistic personalities, Rossikhina, Gozenpud, and virtually all
Soviet-era Mamontov scholars were obliged to situate their protagonists

achievements, specifically in staging and repertoire policy, within that
preconceived realist framework.19 This tradition of casting Mamontov as
an adherent of realism explains the lack of Russian research before the
1990s into his connections with the aesthetic trends of the Silver Age,
including symbolism, Mir Iskusstva, and the Ballets Russes. Links with
early twentieth-century modernism would have been detrimental to
Mamontovs cause in Soviet art and music history, the disciplines that
treated any such links as ideologically deviant.20
That is not to say that scholars outside Soviet Russia offered a betterrounded and more comprehensive portrait of Mamontovs aesthetics.
On the contrary, they failed to achieve this objective, equally spectacularly and for surprisingly similar reasons: their desire, with the best of
intentions, to write their hero into a preconstructed positive history of
Russian music. Instead of realism, the magical password to legitimacy
for a Russian subject in Western scholarship has been nationalism. As a
result, historian Stuart Grovers 1971 dissertation Savva Mamontov and
the Mamontov Circle, prior to my own research the only full-length
study of Mamontov in a language other than Russian and the leading source of information on the subject for English-speaking scholars,
is predictably subtitled Art Patronage and the Rise of Nationalism in
Russian Art.21 The works one-sided nationalist slant is evident and
uncompromising.
In musicology, the nationalist tradition began with the first Western publication on the history of Russian music: Csar Cuis fantastically biased 1880 La musique en Russie.22 It continued in the work
of Rosa Newmarch, Michel Calvocoressi, and Gerald Abraham, the
elders of Russianist musicology who were all much influenced by Cuis
work.23 They were also profoundly impacted by the equally tendentious
nationalism of Vladimir Stasov, whose mantle of an unrepentant realist
was, interestingly enough, inherited by Soviet scholars.24 The nationalist interpretation of Russian music history has finally received a welldeserved mortal blow in recent years in the revisionist scholarship of
Richard Taruskin. Among that ecumenical scholars many interests,
Savva Mamontov has never been at the top of the list. He did, however,
make a cameo appearance in Taruskins acclaimed tome Stravinsky and
the Russian Traditions.25 Although this is justifiably one of the most
respected and widely read studies on Russian music, its treatment of

Mamontovs contribution is still unfortunately indebted to Grovers
workat least in factual matters. Interpretively, Taruskin situates Mamontov in the context of what he calls the neo-nationalist movement, which he associates specifically with the visual arts. The term,
with its built-in implications of nationalism reborn, seems somewhat
problematic to me, yet it takes a large step forward and away from a
traditionally nationalist narrative in its emphasis on the decorative,
modernist approach to art and theater. As we shall see in chapters 3 and
4, these aspects of modernist aesthetic were reflected in some of Mamontovs activities, including his Abramtsevo workshops that studied
and imitated folk crafts and his opera productions such as The Snow
Maiden and Sadko. Yet Taruskin is still guilty of limiting Mamontovs
vision primarily to one art (dcor) and a single unified aesthetic (neonationalism), thus excluding some of his most personal, creative, and,
by his own estimation, artistically dominant projects, such as those
based on ancient Greek mythology.26
It is not my intention to claim in this book that either realist or
nationalist trends were absent from Mamontovs ideological makeup.
On the contrary, their impact on his artistic philosophy and decisionmaking process will be analyzed in chapters 6 and 7, respectively. What
I would argue, however, is that realist, nationalist, and even neo-nationalist models have all proved inadequate in assessing Mamontovs
contribution due to their artificially created ideological purity. In their
attempts to construct a single-issue aesthetic niche for their protagonist,
Mamontov scholars were often forced to simplify his complex, contradictory aesthetic makeup, and purge from the list of his associates those
deemed ideologically suspect. In addition, the primary sources used to
support their arguments were treated selectively: the evidence that conformed to a preconceived theory was admitted, that which did not was
downplayed, ignored, or sanitized by strategically placed cuts.27
The present study aims to embrace the complexities and contradictions native to Mamontovs mercurial personality as a man and an
artist, an approach that is essential for understanding his aesthetics as
realized in the daily operations of the MPO. These contradictions are
seen not as aberrations to be explained away, but rather manifestations
of an inherently transitional aesthetic environment in which, as I will
argue throughout this book, Mamontov truly belongsearly Silver Age

decadence. The nature of decadent aesthetics in turn-of-the-century
Russia was a state of ideological flux that saw it equally embrace futurism and pass-ism; naturalism, decorativism, and transcendence.
Russian decadent culture was based on collaboration and convergence
of the arts, as their practitioners stumbled forward out of the dying
century toward the seductive promise of modernity. That journey, full
of uncertainty, fascinating discoveries, and blind alleys offers perhaps
the clearest portrait of Savva Mamontovs adventures in opera. It also
provides the main impetus and a starting point for the present study,
underlying both its interdisciplinary premise and its goal of tracing the
uneasy coexistence of numerous, often contradictory philosophies and
trends that lay at the foundation of the MPO. As we shall see, the most
enduring characteristic of Mamontovs company mirrored its leaders
personality in its aesthetic multiplicityboth the source of its greatest
strength and its most debilitating weakness.
The Sources
Let me close with a few necessary comments on the primary sources
upon which this book is based. First, the reader should be forewarned
not to expect stunning revelations of previously uncatalogued letters, or
sensational claims of exclusive access to a newly available family archive.
For decades now, the archival materials that allow us to chart Mamontovs creative persona and assess his contribution to the world of art have
been for the most part (barring an occasional restoration effort) fully
available to both local and foreign scholars. Their rather unique accessibility (to Russians, that isor Westerners willing to travel) might be
one reason for a common scholarly perception of Mamontov as a known
quantity, and a consequent reluctance of some researchers to spend time
interpreting the evidence so easily obtained. As a result, a remarkable
number of important documents have been overlooked or left unexplained, in addition to the ones read tendentiously to support a predetermined point of view. Meanwhile, the materials themselves frequently
resist direct interpretation, since they reflect the biases, prejudices, and
singular perspectives of their authorstheir own individual and often
contradictory truths. This last issue is particularly relevant to Mamontov
studies that rely to a great extent upon the large body of published and
unpublished autobiographies.
Mamontovs charismatic personality attracted a variety of talented
people in all branches of the arts into his circle of influence. Many of
those people went on to build distinguished careers of their own, and to
record their life stories in the form of written memoirs, some of which
contain vivid recollections of their associations with Mamontov. Feodor
Chaliapin, Sergei Rachmaninov, Konstantin Stanislavsky, Alexandre
Benois, Vasily Shkafer, Nadezhda Salina, Pyotr Melnikov, and Mikhail
Ippolitov-Ivanov are only a few memoirists whose Mamontov stories
made it into print. These stories are colorful and seductively palpable.
It is tempting to accept them at face value, while overlooking their venerable authors sometimes barely concealed attempts at self-aggrandizement; their ideological agendas, professional biases, and personal
grudges. For example, in art-historical scholarship, one particularly
controversial memoir has been that of Princess Maria Klavdievna Tenisheva (18671928). Princess Tenisheva had plenty of reasons to dislike
Mamontov: her operatic ambitions were thwarted by his flat refusal
to admit her to the MPO stage; her Talashkino estate was established
explicitly to compete with Abramtsevos workshops and its reputation
as an artistic Mecca. Yet her understandably skewed assessment of Mamontov and the MPO has been viewed as a reputable source, particularly by Western scholars.
In the musicological community, the picture of Mamontov has been
significantly colored, both in Russia and elsewhere, by the recollections
of one of his most important collaborators, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov,
recorded in the composers memoirs, Letopis moei muzykalnoi zhizni
[Chronicle of My Musical Life],28 and reflected in his voluminous correspondence with the MPO soprano Nadezhda Zabela, who, as we shall
see in chapter 5, had her own axe to grind. Rimsky-Korsakovs denial of
Mamontovs musicality, a consequence of both aesthetic disagreements
and personal resentment, has typically been accepted as an objective
and unbiased opinion of a highly respected source, leading some music
scholars to patronizingly dismiss the tone-deaf tycoons forays into
their realm. Clearly, memoirs and correspondence cannot be read uncritically. Despite the pitfalls they present, however, if studied attentively
and contextually they allow us to illuminate both Mamontovs ideas
and activities, and those of his associates. As such, these sources play an
important role in the present study.
Another frequently biased yet invaluable source of information
about Mamontov and the MPO used extensively throughout this book
is the voluminous body of reviews of the companys productions. The
Russian operatic press loved talking about the MPO, observing and interpreting every success and gloating over every misstep. This coverage,
mostly to be found in the theater and music sections of Moscow and
St. Petersburg dailies, was of course never dispassionate, as ideological
and aesthetic agendas colored both perceptions and commentaries.
Parsing press biases in Mamontov coverage is difficult: because of the
limited number of late-nineteenth-century Russian periodicals that
published opera reviews, few media outlets systematically promoted
a specific political or cultural agenda. Rather, individual critics were
known for the views expressed, more or less aggressively, in their writings. When a certain critic worked exclusively for one newspaper (as
did, for example, Mikhail Ivanov of St. Petersburgs daily Novoe Vremya), it acquired a reputation (in this case, conservative) similar to his.
When critics freelanced, or wrote for several publications at the same
time, more than one periodical would have an opportunity to expose
their ideas. In addition, in order to appeal to a wider constituency,
newspapers commonly syndicated the columnists with directly opposing ideological stances, while journalists were known to express widely
divergent opinions about the same topic (such as the quality of a specific MPO production) depending on the style, agenda, and projected
readership of a particular outlet expected to publish their work. The
result was a press coverage that was volatile, unpredictable, frequently
contradictory, and almost always deliciously acrimoniousa fact that
delighted Mamontov, a fan of scandalous publicity (see chapter 8), and
allowed me to enliven these pages with some juicy quotes I hope my
readers will enjoy.
Most importantly, this confluence of conflicting ideologies and aesthetic trends completes the picture drawn by the memoir literature,
archival photographs, and unpublished correspondence. Viewed in
their entirety, these sources present Mamontovs company as a brilliant, messy, exciting, and conflicted artistic institution. It authored a
revolutionary new approach to the operatic genre; it illuminated a path
toward modernism for its numerous descendants in the world of staged

art, yet so often failed to walk that path. Mamontovs innovations, some
imperfectly executed or even self-sabotaged, inspired, guided, and directed a generation of artists, who appropriated, developed, and patented
his ideas, and by so doing earned their places in the history books. It is
time for their mentor to join them.
on e
The Silver Age and the

Legacy of the 1860s
From the early days of the Moscow Private Opera through the present
day, Mamontovs supporters and his detractors, his contemporaries and
modern scholars have all identified one characteristic of his company
that made it unique. The artistic policies, internal structure, and daily
operations of Mamontovs enterprise were to a large extent driven by
ideologythe aesthetic views of its leadership, most importantly Mamontov himself. As the exact nature of that ideology remains a matter
of debate, it is a goal of this study to illuminate the nature of Mamontovs aesthetic platform and trace its impact on various aspects of his
companys operations, as well as its relationships to its critics, competitors, and audiences. This question is crucial to understanding the role
played by the MPO in the history of Russian theater at the dawn of the
Silver Age.
From the moment it opened its doors, Mamontovs company positioned itself at the epicenter of the cataclysmic aesthetic shift that saw
the new generation of modernist artists confront, battle, and ultimately
displace their predecessors. As a result, it was inevitably drawn into the
aesthetic debate that underlined that struggle, and as we shall see, its
response to the issues of the debate was an outgrowth of Mamontovs
personal aesthetic preferences, shaped and tested over three decades. We
shall start, therefore, with an overview of the major ideological currents
that guided the development of the arts in Russia from the 1860s, the
time of Mamontovs personal aesthetic maturation, through the 1890s,
the time of the aesthetic coming-of-age of his company.
15
In the late nineteenth century, as Western civilization stood on the

verge of the modern era, an age-old debate over the meaning and value
of art in society was once again taking center stage in the aesthetic
discourse. The debate focused on the extent of arts engagement with
reality. Its main issue has been summarized by Charles Harrison as
follows: Should we measure all forms of cultural production alike according to what we might summarily call their realism, [or] does the true
potential of culture lie . . . in its autonomy vis--vis social and utilitarian
considerations and in its pursuit of the aesthetic as an end in itself?1
Both trends of thought coexist in constant dialogue within Western
cultural discourse to this day, their relative centrality to the spirit of an
age in perpetual flux, continuously rethought and reevaluated. At any
moment in history one of these trends may become dominant, while
the other is marginalized but never completely absent from aesthetic
consciousness.
As the autonomy of art, arguably, lies at the very core of modernist
aesthetics, the discourse was becoming increasingly polemical in Russia
and elsewhere as the new century approached. In order to position themselves within that discourse, clarifying (and perhaps simplifying) it,
critics, philosophers, and aestheticians seized upon a convenientand
conventionaldichotomy, the followers of realism waving the banner of
truth and modernist aestheticians dedicated to beauty.2 Naturally,
to the practitioners of the artswhether poetry, painting, or musicthe
issue was more complex. To them, the dividing line between truth and
beauty was, at best, blurred: whatever the aesthetic affiliation, rare was
an artist who would not wish his or her works to be both beautiful and
relevant.
A perfect example of that complexity is the philosophy of Charles
Baudelaire, creator of the first aesthetics of modernit. In his 1863 Le
peintre de la vie moderne, the poet urged artists to experience and to
capture the reality of their fluid and transient modern world. And yet, he
was also a dedicated follower of writer and aesthetician Thophile Gautier, who had famously declared: Nothing truly beautiful can serve any
useful purpose whatsoever; everything useful is ugly . . . The most useful part of the house is the toilet.3 With Gautier, Baudelaire proclaimed
aesthetic autonomy an essential quality of true art, and beauty its highest goal. Since Baudelaire, wrote Matei Calinescu, the aesthetics of
t h e s i lv e r ag e a n d t h e l e g ac y of t h e 1 8 6 0 s 17
modernity has been consistently an aesthetics of imagination, opposed

to any kind of realism.4 And it is this side of Baudelaires argument that
made a particularly strong impact on young Russian intellectuals of the
early Silver Age. His writings on the subject were quoted by heart and
paraphrased in print; the following fanciful piece of Baudelairiana is
typical: The foundation of poetry lies in a mans striving for the highest beauty, and the realization of that striving is enthusiasm completely
independent of . . . truth, that steering wheel of reason, for [it] is natural,
too natural not to introduce a sharp, dissonant note into the dwelling of
pure beauty.5 Following Baudelaire and other like-minded artists, Russian modernist aestheticians placed the cult of beauty at the foundation
of their escapist philosophy. According to Dmitry Sarabyanov, a leading Soviet-era scholar of Russian modernist art, in turn-of-the-century
Russia worshipping pure beauty was a sign of the times: Beauty turned
into an all-encompassing, global category, into a deified subject. The
cult of beauty became a new religion.6 One of the leaders of this artistic
trend, poet Valery Bryusov, summarized the aesthetics of his generation
in a 1902 article with a characteristically controversial title Nenuzhnaya Pravda [Useless Truth], writing: In art, imitation of nature is a
means to an end, not the end in itself . . . The real world is merely a prop
used by the artist to give shape to his dreams.7 In a 1903 lecture Klyuchi
tain [The Keys to the Mysteries], the poet elaborates:
One must not, in order to satisfy knowledge and science, see in art only a
reflection of life. . . . There is no art that would repeat reality. In the world
around us, there is nothing corresponding to architecture and music.
Neither the Cathedral of Cologne nor Beethovens symphonies reflect our
surroundings. . . . Art relates to reality like wine to grapes.8
The establishment of the cult of beauty as a foundation for turn-ofthe-century aesthetics in Russia did not go unchallenged, initiating a
heated debate between the adherents of truth and beauty. One of beautys
most visible and controversial detractors was Leo Tolstoy, Russias greatest living writer and arguably its most revered cultural figure. In his
1898 monograph Chto takoe iskusstvo? [What is Art?], Tolstoy rejected
the false theory of beauty as superfluous and immoral.9 Since its true
purpose, according to him, was pleasure of the privileged upper-class
minority, the art of beauty was not worth the sacrifices and labor of the
common people who helped to create it while providing luxurious living

for an artist. As a consequence, the writer also denounced the majority
of his own creative output as worthless, for in his novels the aesthetic
considerations had prevailed over what he now believed to be arts true
missionserving the common good:
More and more often, the people of high society, who see the contradiction between the good and the beautiful, exalt beauty as the highest ideal,
thus relieving themselves of the demands of morality. . . . The substitution
of the ideal of beauty, i.e., pleasure, for the ideal of morality constitutes
[one of] the horrible consequences of the degenerate art of our time.10
Tolstoys rejection of the aesthetic independence of art and his denigration of the cult of beauty as moral depravity had a mixed reception
in Russias intellectual circles, from unbridled enthusiasm to silent embarrassment to outrage. As we shall see, the outrage was expressed primarily by younger intellectuals, who exalted instead the transcendent
philosophy of their own idol, Vladimir Solovyov (18531900). While
similarly concerned with the questions of the nature of goodness and
the promotion of righteousness, Solovyov equated the search for beauty
with the search for the salvation of the world. Beauty to him was an idea
that objectively existed in the material worldan extension of the Word
becoming flesh. As embodied perfection, it was not a means to any end
and did not serve any purpose, because it was in itself the goal toward
which the world must strive. Goodness and truth, while accepted as
important concepts in Solovyovs philosophy, were described as merely
steps toward that goal, meaningless without beauty: Beauty is . . . a
realization in material forms of that very ideal meaning which, prior to
that realization, is called Goodness and Truth. . . . [They say that] goodness does not need beauty. But in that case would not goodness itself be
incomplete?11 Solovyovs mystic realismhis belief in the materiality
of ideas, as well as objectsdiffered in its subtlety and sophistication
not only from the utilitarianism of true realists but also from the audel idealism of the new generation. Unsurprisingly, his acolytes would
tend to read his writings somewhat selectively, appropriating some passages and reinterpreting others as needed to support their own aesthetic
platformbeauty, exalted as the highest ideal. The early works of Nikolai
Berdyaev (18741948), another important philosopher, and a represen-
tative of the 1890s generation much influenced by Solovyov, contain a

pointed reference to the truth-beauty debate under consideration here.
In an essay published in 1907 but probably written earlier, Berdyaev
wrote: [We] must accept an independent meaning of beauty and artistic creativity in human life. Beauty is an ideal goal of life, elevating and
ennobling a man. We accept the idea of the independent meaning of
beauty, understanding in it the self-purpose of beauty.12 According to
Berdyaev, this theoretical aesthetics that under no circumstances would
consider art a reflection of reality defined the foundations of a movement that, in retrospect, stands as one of the most significant artistic
trends of the Russian Silver Age, namely, symbolism.
Symbolism and Decadence

Symbolism, a movement that, to quote Bernice Rosenthal, sought to
transcend mundane reality through beauty and aesthetic creativity,
was one of the most enduring artistic trends of the Silver Age, and one
of the earliest manifestations of modernism in the Russian arts.13 Just as
Russian symbolism in many respects resembled its French counterpart,
the term symbolism in Russia, as in France, was not immediately accepted. Throughout the 1890s and into the early 1900s the label preferred,
particularly by critics of the movement, was decadence. In critical and
scholarly discourse, the term decadence has acquired multiple meanings, and has been classified variously as a philosophical concept and an
artistic style, as well as a particular aesthetic movement.
The idea of decadence as an ideology of degeneracy and decay was
discussed by a variety of the nineteenth-century writers, ranging from
Dsir Nisard, who in 1834 first expanded the usage of the term beyond
the history of the Roman civilization and applied it to the romantic
movement, to Friedrich Nietzsche, who condemned its desire for weakness and used it to critique the music of Wagner.14 The negative connotations attached to the term included its associations with creative
decline, pessimism, bohemian lifestyle, amorality, and sexual deviance.
Ironically, all these pejorative labels appeared to have been validated
on the pages of rebours, an infamous novel by Joris-Karl Huysmans
that would become an instant classic of decadent literature as well as a
favored straw man for the movements detractors. The 1884 publication
of rebours is commonly seen as the birth of decadence as an artistic

movement, soon given a voice on the pages of the poetic journal Le
dcadent, launched in 1886. As the title of the journal makes clear, Paul
Verlaine and other radical literati who contributed to Le dcadent did
not shy away from the controversial term. On the contrary, they used it
for self-identification and publicity, and by so doing transformed it from
an insult into a slogan. In their polemical writings, the editors of Le dcadent specifically targeted the prevailing view of decadence as cultural
decline; instead, they saw and portrayed themselves on the cutting edge
of modernist aesthetics. Like Charles Baudelaire before them, they defined decadence as an awareness and acceptance of modernity:
The true decadent will not only try to harmonize his work with the most
outstanding features of modern civilization but will also resolutely and
courageously express a progressive creed, a firm belief in what Baju calls
la marche ascensionelle de lhumanit. In other words, the decadent is
in the avant-garde.15
The editors of Le dcadent thus discussed their movement primarily

as an attitude toward contemporary life. They seemed reluctant, however, to point to the characteristics of decadence as an artistic style.
Scholarship since has been equally hesitant to define the stylistic trend
of decadence, pointing to the vague and fluid nature of the term, noting
the history of its usage as a pejorative label, and assigning various aspects
of the phenomenon to other aesthetic trends such as aestheticism, art
nouveau, and symbolism, among others. In a notable exception, John
R. Reed in his monograph Decadent Style offers a thorough classification of stylistic decadence. Its characteristics include the cult of beauty,
distaste for the quotidian, fascination with an object of art for its own
sake, individualism, escapism, and an obsession with the decorative
and the ornamental. Fascinated by the remote past and disenchanted
by the present, the decadents sought to refashion nature into an elegant
ornamentation of the artists own self. As Reed notes with respect to
Aubrey Beardsley, All of experience [is] reduced to design, but a design that is, in itself, compelling.16 According to Brooks Adams Law of
Civilization and Decay (1896), decadent style prefers lavish ornament to
purity of form;17 that is, it concentrates on the surface details of an art
object at the expense of its underlying structure, sometimes to the point
of the utter dissolution of the latter. Thus, according to Paul Bourgets

oft-quoted critique of decadent poetry: A decadent style is one where
the unity of the book decomposes in order to give place to the independence of the page, where the page decomposes in order to give place to
the independence of the phrase, and the phrase in order to give place to
the independence of the word.18 Reeds analysis of the deconstructive
nature of decadent style closely resembles Robert Morgans discussion
of musical modernism as realized specifically in the early atonal works
of Schoenberg.19 In both cases, the shift of significance from background
structure to surface detail lies at the foundation of the style as it dissolves
the boundaries of traditional formsa parallel that once again reveals
decadence to be an important aspect of modernity.
In turn-of-the-century Russia, a strong association of decadence
with modernity was arguably the reason for the invariably derogatory
application of the term in critical discourse. Widely and indiscriminately, it was used to denigrate early modernist trends in literature and
the arts. And since the Russian critics rarely parsed their terms, a follower of aestheticism, impressionism, decadence, art nouveau, or any
other fin-de-sicle movementindeed any artist with a demonstrated
predilection for a modernist philosophy or techniquewould be typecast as a decadent. In hindsight, it seems paradoxical that while decrying the modernity of the decadent style, the majority opinion in Russia
wholeheartedly embraced the vision of decadence as cultural decline,
expressed in Max Nordaus infamous treatise Degeneration.20 In polemical discourse, decadence would be described as a kind of a contagious
disease, and the decadents portrayed as dangerously sick men spreading
the infection among the weak-minded. Leo Tolstoy once warned: It is
a mistake to pay so little attention to the decadents; this is a sickness of
our time, and it deserves serious scrutiny.21 On the pages of the Russian
press, the terms dekadentstvo [decadence], vyrozhdenie [degeneracy],
and upadnichestvo [decline], used as synonyms in Nordaus book, were
interchanged with similar frequency.
Another favored insult was symbolismpossibly because the
symbolists were the most active and well-organized among Russian
decadents. It is unlikely that most critics concerned themselves with
discerning and qualifying the similarities and differences between the
two movements and their corresponding artistic styles. Valery Bryusov,
for instance, accepted the synonymous use of decadent and symbolist as a matter of course, albeit hinting at the possibility of discriminating between the two terms. That possibility, however, proved fascinating
to the scholars of the period. Thus, according to Reed, decadence and
symbolism share an ideological foundation: Both use prominent symbols, reject the inelegant contemporary world, and stress the longing
for another sphere of beingaesthetic, ideal, even supernatural.22 The
difference between the two is that the symbolist approach to the realization of that common philosophy is more radical and experimental.
In other words, Reed views decadence and symbolism as two adjacent,
sequential steps on an aesthetic-historical continuum, with the belief in
the suggestive and transformative power of art present in both styles but
expressed more strongly in symbolist poetics.
While this hypothesis accounts for the interchangeable use of the
two terms by scholars and critics, both in Russia and in France, it does
injustice to the subtle differences of emphasis and interpretation seen in
the writings of the period dedicated to the common subjects of fascination, such as the meaning of beauty and the role of art. These subtleties are reflected in the usage of the two terms in modern studies of
Silver Age aesthetics, in which symbolism is employed as a general,
all-encompassing stylistic category, with decadence as its temporal
qualifier. For example, literary scholars distinguish between the two
generations of symbolist poets in Russia: the decadent symbolists of the
1890s and early 1900s, such as Bryusov, Konstantin Balmont (18671941),
Dmitry Merezhkovsky (18651924), and Zinaida Gippius (18691945),
who assigned to art primarily decorative and escapist functions (i.e.,
Reeds decadents); and the mystic symbolists of the later 1900s and
1910sAndrei Bely, Alexander Blok, and Vyacheslav Ivanov, who emphasized the theurgic, transformative power of artistic creativity (i.e.,
Reeds symbolists).23 Although the writings of the mystics (specifically
Ivanov) will be touched upon in later chapters, it is the generation of the
decadents with which this study is primarily concerned.
The decadent symbolists, led by Valery Bryusov, adopted the motto
of art for arts sake, called for decorating the world, and promoted the
use of symbols to gain knowledge of its mystery and free the imagination
of individual artists to transcend reality in their work. In his 1894 book
Russkie simvolisty [Russian Symbolists], Bryusov declared his solidarity
with his French counterparts, recognized decadence as the foundation of

symbolist poetics in Russia, and claimed, similarly to Le dcadent, that
symbolism was a progressive, modernist trend, albeit not an exclusive
form of poetry of the future.24 Bryusov believed that the only worthy
subject matter for art was the glorification of beauty; truth was to be left
to the newest inventions of scientific progress, portrayed in his writings
as the icons of an aggressively utilitarian bourgeois modernity opposed
to an aesthetic modernism of the artistic world. Let us leave representation of reality to photography, to the phonographthe innovations of
technicians, he wrote.25
The Mir Iskusstva Group

Bryusovs ideas on decadence and symbolism (published either under his
own name or a pseudonym, Aurelius) reached his audience via a variety of printed medianewspapers, literary journals, and self-published
booklets in his hometown of Moscow and elsewhere. One of the most
important and powerful outlets for his views, however, turned out to be
an art journal. The St. Petersburg-based Mir Iskusstva, which published
his bombshell, Useless Truth, also opened its pages to poetry and criticism by Merezhkovsky, Balmont, Gippius, and other decadent literary
figures. The Mir Iskusstva group was a loosely defined cultural club of
artists, literati, musicians, and aesthetes26 led by the then little-known
art critic and collector Sergei Diaghilev (18721929) and his more illustrious partnerpainter, critic, and art historian Alexandre Benois
(18701960). The group organized annual exhibitions of modern art and
sponsored regular concerts of contemporary music. Arguably its most
significant achievement, however, was Mir Iskusstva, the journal published between 1898 and 1904. A bright, edgy, and irreverent forum for
the countrys most innovative talents in literature, philosophy, and the
arts, the journal quickly established itself as the voice of Russias young
modernist movement by uniting the most illustrious representatives of
literary decadence with the painters and aestheticians of the Russian
style moderne.27 Each contributor had the option of participating in editorial work, as well as submitting reviews, position articles, and plates.
The first issue of Mir Iskusstva appeared in October 1898. It opened
with the aesthetic platform of the group, outlined by Diaghilev, the
journals editor-in-chief, in a series of articles under the common title

Slozhnye voprosy [Complex Questions]. One of these complex aesthetic questions was the polemic between the followers of truth and
beauty in art, tackled by Diaghilev in an essay Vechnaya borba [Eternal Struggle]. Calling his young contemporaries a generation seeking
beauty, Diaghilev branded Leo Tolstoy an ungrateful servant and enemy
of art, who had slapped it in the face by rejecting its intrinsic value and reducing it merely to one of the Christian virtues. Diaghilev believed the
great power of art to be contained precisely in its self-purposefulness,
self-usefulness, and most importantlyits freedom, and concluded with
a declaration of the groups aesthetic principles: A creator must love
beauty alone.28
The allegiance to the cult of beauty and pure art proclaimed in Diaghilevs essay placed the Mir Iskusstva group squarely into the decadent
campto the great delight, as we shall see, of its detractors. Ironically,
Diaghilev found the label of decadent infuriating: he shared the common view of the term as indicative of moral degeneracy and creative
decline and devoted the entire inaugural essay of Complex Questions
to building a defense against the alleged decline of new art by portraying it as progressive and modern.29 The argument could have been lifted
directly from Le dcadent or from the pages of Baudelaire, whom Diaghilev quoted on multiple occasions in his editorials. He also revealed his
allegiance to the aestheticians of beauty by eagerly joining in criticism
of their ideological opponents, the realists. Yet most tellingly, he and
his Mir Iskusstva colleagues joined forces not against the multitude of
Western-European utilitarians, but rather mined their own aesthetic
heritage in search of convenient straw men. They found plenty: just as
in France, Germany, or England, the debate between truth and beauty
had an extensive and convoluted history in Russia, going back at least
half a century.
Despite ridiculing the aesthetics of truth as worn-out and old-fashioned, Diaghilev and his fellow decadents understood the necessity of
confronting it in order to overcome its powerful sway over the tastes
and opinions of the Russian public. In a sense, they had to face their
own past, their mentorsan older generation of writers, painters, and
musicians who came of age during the triumph of realist aesthetics in
the 186070s, and some of whom were instrumental in bringing about
that triumph. Some giants of the realist age, such as eminent critic and
art historian Vladimir Stasov (18241906), were still active and highly
influential in the 1890s. Othersprominent literary critic Vissarion
Belinsky (181148) and renowned writer and publicist Nikolai Chernyshevsky (182889), among othersinspired posthumous reverence. As
part of a mounting rebellion by the young modernists against [their]
teachers, [their] enemies, as Diaghilev aptly put it,30 poet, philosopher,
and future member of Mir Iskusstva Dmitry Merezhkovsky attacked
Belinskys brand of literary criticism grounded in sociology in a 1892
essay Prichiny upadka i novye techeniya v russkoi literature [The Causes
of the Decline and the New Trends in Russian Literature].31 Diaghilev
himself, with the impertinence of youth, issued a pointed challenge to
Chernyshevsky in Eternal Struggle, writing: The unhealthy figure [of
Chernyshevsky] is not yet digested, and our judges in art still cherish at
the back of their minds that barbaric image that dared to touch art with
unclean hands and thought to destroy or at least tarnish it.32
As the passionate arguments sampled above make clear, it is impossible to appreciate the magnitude of the aesthetic shift that inaugurated
the Silver Age without first addressing the foundations of an entrenched
ideology against which the decadents were fighting. Let us therefore
turn our attention to the history of the realist doctrine whose confrontation with and eventual triumph over aestheticism defined the
ideological landscape in Russia of the 1860sthe time when our story
begins.
Realism versus Aestheticism: 1840s60s

The birth of realist ideology in Russia can arguably be traced to a radical
naturalist school of literary criticism that developed in St. Petersburg in
the mid-1840s. Led by Vissarion Belinsky, naturalist critics believed that
literature should be dedicated to an unflinching depiction of reality: social background, details of the environment, and the grim everyday life
of its characters. Reality itself was viewed as the protagonist of a novel
or a play, while human beings represented merely aspects of that reality. By way of examples, the naturalist school singled out for praise the
writings of Nikolai Gogol and selected early works of Fyodor Dostoevsky
(e.g., Bednye Lyudi [Poor Folk]), seen as depicting, in Belinskys words,
the khudozhestvennaya statistika [artistic statistics] of contemporary

Russia.33 After Belinskys death in 1848, his argument continued to be
promoted by the younger generation of realist critics grouped in the
mid-1850s around the St. Petersburg literary journal Sovremennik. This
second wave of realist criticism took its cues from the pages of perhaps
the most widely read and most important masters thesis in Russian
history, Nikolai Chernyshevskys notorious Esteticheskie otnosheniya
iskusstva k deistvitelnosti [Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality], defended
and published in May 1855. Chernyshevsky then proceeded to apply the
theoretical premise of his thesis to specific literary works in a series of
essays, O gogolevskom periode v russkoi literature [On Gogols Period in
Russian Literature], published in Sovremennik in 185556. These were
followed in the late 1850s and early 1860s by an extremely popular series
of Sovremennik articles penned by talented journalist Nikolai Dobrolyubov (183661); after his untimely death, the banner of realism was
carried, arguably, to its furthest extreme by Dmitry Pisarev (184068),
the author of a radical 1865 work, Razrushenie estetiki [The Destruction
of Aesthetics].
Developing the ideology of Belinskys naturalism, mixed with the
materialism of Feuerbach, and the rationalism of the English utilitarians, Russian realists outlined their own version of utilitarianism. In
Aesthetic Relations, Chernyshevsky stated that for a fully developed
intellect there is only the true, and no such thing as the beautiful. He
viewed art as inherently inferior to the reality that it imitates, either as
is (the real) or as should be (the ideal), calling upon it cheerfully to admit its inferiority the way science does. In what became a wildly popular
slogan, he declared: the beautiful is life, and saw art of the future as a
precise description of reality, in the manner of history and sociology.34
Chernyshevsky argued that faced with a choice between a picture of an
apple and an actual object, a person would invariably prefer the latter;
or, as his followers were fond of saying, Raphael and Shakespeare are
worth less than a good pair of boots.35 Dobrolyubov and other critics
expanded on Chernyshevskys militantly black-and-white aesthetics by
focusing on the concept of arts usefulness. They declared art valuable
when it documents real life, but only to the extent that it carries a message, a purpose, and serves social change via education of the people.
Fyodor Dostoevskywho, like many of Russias best poets and novelists,
including Ivan Turgenev, Afanasy Fet, Ivan Goncharov, and at the time,
Leo Tolstoy, protested the extremism of the realistssummarized their
position in his journal Vremya:
Utilitarians demand from art a direct, immediate, concrete usefulness
that adjusts to circumstances, submits to them, and does so to such a
degree that if at a certain time society works on resolving, for example, a
certain question, art (according to some utilitarians doctrine) must have
no other goals than to resolve that same question.36
What particularly angered Dostoevsky and ensured the paucity of good

writers in the realist camp in the early years of the debate was the critics position that in judging the value of an artwork, quality should
be viewed as an incidental side effect, secondary to function. A badly
written novel, Dobrolyubov argued, could be considered worthwhile if
it is a faithful mirror of life; yet even a highly artistic literary work lacks
value if it fails in its realist mission. As Dostoevsky noted in his critique
of Dobrolyubovs works,
Without openly attacking khudozhestvennost [artistry], utilitarians at the
same time completely reject its necessity. As long as the idea is evident, as
long as the purpose for which a work is written is evidentthat is enough;
and artistry is an empty business, of the third rank, almost unnecessary.
. . . We have noticed that they take special pleasure in raging against a
literary work whose main attribute is its artistry.37
The favored target of the critics rage was the poetry of Russias
literary icon, Alexander Pushkin (17991837), whose six-volume complete edition made its inaugural appearance in 1855, the year of Chernyshevskys thesis. The edition immediately became both a lightning rod
for the realist thunderbolts, and a rallying point for the Russian aesthetes, their opposition. The realists dismissed Pushkins works as elitist,
old-fashioned, useless album trifles (a term coined by Dobrolyubov),
and proclaimed them inferior to those of Gogol, who ideally fulfilled
their ideological expectations. The aesthetes clarified their own position
by rushing to Pushkins defense. In response to Chernyshevskys Gogol
essays mentioned above, writer, critic, and notable aesthete Alexander
Druzhinin (182464) proclaimed art for arts sake that groups motto.38
Dostoevsky who, as we have seen, aligned himself philosophically with
the aesthetes, declared:
Art is its own purpose and must be justified by its very existence. There
should be no question of usefulness in art. . . . Writers, poets, painters,
and actors must not be concerned by anything quotidian or currentbe
it politics, the internal life of the society to which they belong, or even
some burning national issuebut only with high art. To be concerned
with anything but art is to humiliate it, drag it down from its heights,
and mock it.39
The debate between the realists and the aesthetes reached the peak of
intensity between the late 1850s and mid-1860s. As the sample opinions
above indicate, it was vehement, polarizing, and absolutely uncompromising. The two camps showed no desire to engage each others arguments or even to acknowledge the enormity of the gray area between the
stark black-and-white extremes of their entrenched positions. This tradition of aesthetic absolutism began with Chernyshevsky, who declared in
Aesthetic Relations that truth is unitary; there cannot be different ways
of perceiving truth, and by extension reality: there can be only one way,
to which the force of reason must ultimately bring everyone.40 In addition, the high passion shown by the Russian aestheticians and unheard
of anywhere else in Europe where similar arguments also took place has
another explanation: in Russia, the allegedly artistic debate acquired
clear political overtones. With all public debate stifled by the stringent
censorship of the repressive Nikolaian era (182555), liberal Russian intellectuals from Belinsky on used literature and literary criticism to evaluate the appalling social conditions in their country and call for reform,
while getting around the censor by supposedly depicting or discussing
fictional characters. For example, Dobrolyubovs celebrated essay on
Alexander Ostrovskys play Groza [The Thunderstorm] expressed the
critics outrage at the oppressive reality of what he famously called the
dark kingdom of provincial merchant life, while ostensibly showcasing
the plight of the plays unfortunate heroine.
After the ascension of Alexander II in 1855 offered the prospect of
political and economic reform, realism was increasingly portrayed by
its practitioners and seen by its consumers as more than an aesthetic
choicerather, as an urgent and necessary political stand. The more
precise the literary depiction of the horrific reality, the argument went,
the more readers would thirst for change. As a result, the participants
in the supposedly innocuous debate about the nature of art and beauty
split along the ideological fault lines: progressive realism versus conservative aestheticism. Thanks in part to the considerable polemical talents
of Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, and Pisarev, the realists succeeded in
winning over public opinion by painting their opposition as elitist reactionaries who did not care about their social responsibilities, while
draping themselves in the fashionable rhetoric of liberalism. The cream
of Russias radical intelligentsia came to feel virtually obliged to accept the arguments [Chernyshevsky] made in his essay: the volume had
acquired something like the force of intellectual law.41 By ca. 1870, the
most influential realist critics had either died or departed from the scene,
but the damage, as they say, was done. Prose short stories and ideological novels championed by the realists replaced poems and plays of the
aesthetes as main vehicles of literary expression. In all artistic endeavors,
the evidence of an authors social consciousness was demanded by the
strict censorship of the left.42 Pushkin lost; the aesthetes with their
pure-art idealism were forced out of the ideological mainstream.
By that time, realism was also on its way toward becoming the prevailing ideology in artistic fields other than literature and criticism.
Most notably, the dominance of historical and mythological subjects in
the French-based curriculum of the St. Petersburg Academy of Fine Arts
prompted thirteen young painters to officially secede from their alma
mater in 1863. Forfeiting the prestige and security enjoyed by the members of the artistic establishment, they created, in 1870, an independent,
radical exhibition society, Tovarishchestvo Peredvizhnykh Vystavok [Association of Traveling Exhibitions], and became known as the Peredvizhniki, or the Wanderers. The subjects chosen by the Wanderers paralleled
the naturalist school in literature by exposing the drunken poverty of the
lower classes, the corruption of state and church officials, the dark side
of patriarchal family relations, and other social ills.43 Years later, painter
Ilya Repin (18441930), arguably the most talented among the group,
recalled repentantly in his Pisma ob iskusstve [Letters on Art]:
The Hellenes of art who traced their lineage to pure Phidias, Praxiteles, Apelles, and Polygnotus, to Botticelli, Raphael, Titian, and Veronese
reborn in Italy in the fifteenth century, were toppled. Their regal composition, that necessary sphere for expressing the greatest spirit of the
gods, seemed now a cold stylization; the serenity of their graceful lines
an artificial study; the harmony of the whole was explained by the lack of
means. . . . Art for arts sake was a banal, shameful phrase to an artist; it
smelled of some kind of lechery and pedantry. Artists were forced to teach
and moralize to society, so they would not feel like spongers, lechers, or
other such nobodies. Raphael himself isnt worth a penny, [said] a hero
of that time, Bazarov.44
According to Repins memoirs, the Wanderers believed that their art

should have a moral center: In our [work], morality ruled everything;
that virtuous old maid subordinated everything to her power and allowed nothing but charity and tendentious journalism.45
In the musical world of St. Petersburg, realist ideology paralleling
that of the Wanderers was represented by the so-called Moguchaya
Kuchka [Mighty Handful; hereafter the Kuchka], or the New Russian
School of Composition, analogous to the New Russian School of Painting, as the Wanderers were called.46 All three terms, incidentally, were
coined by Vladimir Stasov, a mentor and self-appointed spokesman
for both groups and a staunch believer in their supposedly common
purpose.47 In his essay Perov i Musorgsky [Perov and Musorgsky],
Stasov drew a parallel between the two artists as characteristic representatives of their respective circles, who practiced the ideology of socially
conscious art by faithfully representing the truth of its darker aspects,
i.e., through realism:
Both Perov and Musorgsky, with complete sincerity and incorruptible
truth, expressed in their works only that which they saw with their own
eyes, which existed in reality, and did not waste their time thinking up
fantasies and idealisms. [Their characters are] recreated with the truth
that can rarely be found in art, and even less so in music.48
Indeed, the ideology of the Kuchka was initially formulated on the

premise of the so-called musical truth. The catchphrase, coined by
young Modest Musorgsky in relation to the groups idol, the older-generation composer Alexander Dargomyzhsky (181369), might perhaps
be more appropriately applied to Musorgskys own early works.49 It was
Musorgsky who, in an oft-quoted 1872 letter to Stasov, best articulated
the aesthetic approach that, by this time, had become the prime ideological current in all the Russian arts. He wrote: The artistic representation
of beauty alone, in the material sense of the word, is coarse childishness,
the infancy of art. Instead, the composer proclaimed the faithful imi-
tation of the speech patterns in colloquial Russianthat is, a detailed

representation of everyday realitythe true mission of an artist.50
The ideological war against the aesthetics of beauty waged by (and
increasingly, on behalf of) the Wanderers and the Kuchka in the late
1860s and 1870s was not confined to the privacy of art studios and publishing houses. It took place on theatrical stages, at exhibitions, in concert halls, and most visibly and importantly, in the press. According to a
leading historian of Russian art, Elizabeth Valkenier, precisely because
the situation in Russia up through the 1880s offered so few other options,
the artistic scene was viewed not as a field for the free play of different
styles and subject matters but as a battlefield.51 Stasov, in his role as one
of the battlefields most powerful generals, demanded that the Russian
arts be both truthfulthat is, realistand increasingly, nationalist.
His call for a defined national style has been traced to his dismay at the
condescending reception by the Western critics of the inferior and
derivative Russian art exhibited at the 1862 London International Exhibition, the first World Fair in which Russia participated.52 Meanwhile,
the plea for the countrys return to its unique national path was also
part of an important and increasingly influential philosophy in Russia that developed during the 1840s and 50s in parallel with the realist
doctrinethe philosophy of the pochvenniki.
The Pochvenniki and the Mamontov Family Circle

The pochvenniki [men of the soil] was a diverse group of Slavophile-leaning intellectuals clustered around the literary journals Moskvityanin,
Vremya, and Epokha. The pochvenniki believed that the early eighteenthcentury reforms that westernized Russia under Peter the Great represented a catastrophic mistake that made the country lose its way. Modernization and westernization would lead only to the corruption and
decadence that they perceived as rampant in their contemporary Europe.
Instead of following in its wake, they called for Russia to rediscover its
own unique identity founded, they believed, on its traditional connections to the East and on Orthodox Christianity with its promotion of the
communal spirit, or sobornost.53 The model of this so-called Russian
Idea was located in the heartland of Russia, literally in its pochva (soil;
hence the term pochvenniki). The established way of life in Russian vil-
lages, ruled by the obshchina (community, or commune), was offered

as the ultimate blueprint for the future political organization of the
country.54 The Slavophile views were based on the idealized, romantic
Herderian notion of the folkthe wisely nave village populace, pure
of heart, uncorrupted by urban civilization, and preserving the soul of
the nation in their mythology, arts, and culture.55
The views of the pochvenniki ran contrary to those of the realists
who saw Russian village life as anything but idyllic. Rather, it was to
them a gloomy, backward, horrifying symbol of their countrys problemspolitical, social, and culturaland was to be portrayed as such in
literature and the arts. Stasov, ever the revolutionary, shared that notion,
which is why he had never accepted the basic premise of the pochvennikis national idea, although he did agree with their advocacy of the nationalist inspiration for the Russian arts. Besides, as a staunch defender
of the realist truth, he could never have officially allied himself with the
aesthetic platform of the pochvenniki. For instance, writer, publicist,
and one-time editor of Moskvityanin Apollon Grigoriev (182264), the
movements founder and one of the most prominent and idiosyncratic
aestheticians of the period, was a pointed critic of the materialism and
utilitarianism of Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, and their disciples.56 In his
writings, Grigoriev never openly embraced aestheticism, yet his vision
of art as an organic and intuitive expression of its creators emotions
rather than a faithful description of real life, and his absolute commitment to the ideal of Art . . . in an age that turned violently against
art and aesthetics57 placed him firmly on the side of the aesthetes in the
truth-beauty debate. It also allied him with the Dostoevsky brothers
Mikhail, owner of Vremya and Epokha, and Fyodor, who served as editor and leading contributor to both.58 A relentless critic of Dobrolyubov
and the realist aesthetics, Fyodor Dostoevsky shared Grigorievs belief
in the primacy of beauty, both in art and in daily life. This belief was
crystallized in his much-quoted diary entry, krasotoyu mir spasyotsya
[the world shall be saved by beauty], and realized in one of his most
significant literary achievements, the novel Idiot [The Idiot].59 In one of
his articles for Vremya, Dostoevsky wrote:
Art has its own wholesome, organic life and consequently basic and unchanging laws for that life. Art is just as much a necessity to man as food
and drink. The need for beauty, and for creativity that expresses it, is in-
separable from man, and without it he perhaps would refuse to live. Man
yearns for it, finds and accepts beauty unconditionally, simply because it
is beauty, and bows before it with awe without asking what it is used for,
and what could be bought with it. And perhaps, the greatest mystery of
artistic creativity lies in that the image of beauty created by it immediately becomes an idol, unconditionally. . . . Beauty is a part of everything
healthythat is, the most aliveand is a necessary requirement of a human organism. It is harmony; it is a condition of peace; it represents the
ideal for man and humanity.60
Together with the concept of sobornost, the cornerstone of Slavophile

thought (the term Slavophile came to replace pochvennik, which was
rarely used past 1860), Dostoevskys philosophy of art would inspire the
work of Vladimir Solovyov and, through him, shape the transcendentalism of Vyacheslav Ivanov and the mystic symbolists. Thus, in some
respects, the Slavophile movement served as a harbinger of Silver Age
aesthetics.
While the power base of the realist movement was composed primarily of the St. Petersburg liberal intelligentsia and university students,
the majority of the prominent pochvenniki came from the Moscow merchant circles. After the reforms of the 1860s plunged Russia into the
long-delayed industrial age, the emerging big capital gradually increased
its influence over the countrys economic and cultural life during the
second half of the nineteenth century. Influential Moscow businessmen, instrumental in the development of Russias native industry and
the modernization of its economic policies, habitually expressed Slavophile views that extended beyond their business practices. For example,
the silk king Fyodor Chizhov (181177), one of the strongest critics of
foreign influence on Russias economy, was an impassioned advocate
of the Slavophile cause in the arts. A student of art history, specifically
traditional Russian icon painting, he became a friend and patron of one
of the greatest Russian painters of the 1840s, Alexander Ivanov (180658),
who based his work on that tradition.61 Millionaire wine seller Vasily
Kokorev (181789) who, like Chizhov, frequented the Slavophile literary
and artistic salons in the 1850s60s, gathered an excellent collection of
Russian paintings at his home and opened it to the public.62 One of the
first private collections of that kind in the country, Kokorevs gallery
predated and possibly inspired the work of Pavel Tretyakov (183298),
whose family also belonged to the Slavophile circles, and whose collec-
tion, deeded to the city of Moscow in 1882, is known today as the State
Tretyakov Gallery.
The pochvenniki dominated Moscows intellectual and artistic
landscape at the time when the first-guild merchant, millionaire wine
seller, and railway industrialist Ivan Fyodorovich Mamontov moved his
family there from Siberia. Upon their arrival, the Mamontovs quickly
established cordial social and familial relationships with prominent
Slavophiles. Ivan Mamontov was a close friend and business associate
of Kokorev and Chizhov, and a relative of the Morozovs, the Ryabushinskys, the Alekseevs, and the Tretyakovs. Among frequent visitors to
his house were the Aksakov family of writers, father Sergei (17911859)
and his sons Konstantin (181760) and Ivan (182386); historian Mikhail
Pogodin (180075) who, after the death of Apollon Grigoriev, replaced
him as the editor of Moskvityanin; and other prominent pochvenniki.
Such was the atmosphere in which Ivan Mamontovs second son, Savva,
grew up. He was in his early teens when the family arrived in Moscow,
and there began the development of his aesthetic views, which will be
discussed in detail in the following chapter.
t wo
Serving the Beautiful
Growing up in his fathers house, Savva Mamontov was exposed to the

Slavophile ideology on a daily basis. His youthful diaries reveal that he
was well versed in their politics, and clearly admired Kokorev and Pogodin.1 Savva was evidently an avid reader; copies of Vremya, Moskvityanin,
and Russkaya Beseda (another Slavophile publication), as well as books
by Sergei Aksakov, whom he revered, were freely available to him. A
lifelong relationship with Fyodor Chizhova mentor and father figure
had a particularly lasting effect on him, shaping the business philosophy
of the future railway tycoon. Savva Mamontov grew to become one of
the countrys leading nationalist businessmen, whose unwillingness to
allow foreigners to establish control over Russias heavy industry would
eventually lead to the crash of his financial empire. His contemporaries
also credited him with creating the foundation for the countrys railway
transportation system, which provided for its resource-based economys
survival during World War I.2
While the Slavophile influence on Mamontovs business practices is
indisputable, it does not necessarily follow, as Grover assumed, that his
nationalism spread beyond the office doors.3 Fyodor Chizhov, businessman cum art historian, was certainly a role model for him. We might
also speculate, for instance, that Savvas interest in folklore, ranging from
fairy-tale subjects for paintings to village crafts (see chapter 3), could
have been influenced by the reverence for the folk that the pochvenniki
had inherited from Herder. There is no documentary evidence, however,
to confirm such a hypothesis. Mamontovs Westernized sympathies, on
35
the other hand, can be clearly discerned in his aesthetic views, artistic
taste, and lifestyle. Fluent in several languages, he traveled extensively
throughout his lifetime and demonstrated encyclopedic knowledge of,
and unbridled enthusiasm for, Western European art and culture.
Perhaps a balance to the Slavophile influence in his house was provided by the Westernized stance of some members of the 1860s realist
movement, to which he was exposed while a student at the Moscow University.4 While the majority of the important realist critics were based
in St. Petersburg, young Savva Mamontov and his fellow students had
plenty of opportunities to attend public lectures on the subject and read
Sovremennik and other realist publications sold in Moscow bookstores.
During his university years, Savva also acquired first-hand experience
of realist theater by joining the Sekretarev drama circle led by Russias two leading realist playwrights, Alexander Ostrovsky (182386)
and Alexei Pisemsky (182081).5 Together with his classmates, some of
whom, including Glikeriya Fedotova, would become prominent dramatic actors, Mamontov performed in excellent productions directed
by Ostrovsky himself. 6 The Sekretarev plays were attended by the cream
of Moscow society and reviewed by the most respected media outlets of
both capitals.7 Such attention given to an admittedly amateur troupe
can be only partially attributed to the personal involvement of a famous
playwright. More important, perhaps, is the fact that prior to 1882, the
Imperial Theaters enjoyed a royally decreed monopoly on both drama
and opera productions in Russia. Informal, private circles like the Sekretarev provided the public with its only alternative to the repertoire
choices and staging practices of the so-called kazna, or kazyonnaya
stsena (the crown stage, that is, the state-owned theater companies,
such as the Maly Drama Theater). Mamontov thus already had a taste of
this alternative at the dawn of his artistic career while at the same time
immersing himself in the aesthetics of truth. In the early 1860s, realism
was still a radical new idea, not universally accepted and thus all the
more attractive to a curious young student. By the end of that decade,
however, realism became the mainstream ideology in Russia, and the
aesthetes appeared soundly defeated. As Repin recalled in his Letters
on Art: Pure art was pushed to the background as something useless,
dulling perception, and in any case, it was understood only by a few
veteran aesthetes. Artistic success belonged to Trutovskys illustrations
s e rv i n g t h e be au t i f u l 37
of Krylovs fables.8 Meanwhile, Savva Mamontovs aesthetic education

took a surprisingly unconventional turn.
The Roman Friends

In the late 1860s, Mamontov and his family started spending a large
part of the year abroad, mostly in Italy. While in Rome, they befriended
a number of Russian artists who met at the houses of Mark Antokolsky
(18431902), arguably Russias finest sculptor of the period, and the Pra
khov brothers, art historian Adrian (18461916) and eccentric philosopher, poet, and publicist Mstislav (184079). Mamontov began a serious
study of sculpting in Antokolskys studio, became an accomplished tour
guide to the citys art galleries and ancient ruins, and publicly proclaimed
living in art his true vocation.
The subculture of the Roman colonya Rome-based group of expatriate Russian painters, sculptors, art historians, and musiciansmust
have provided an astonishing change for the young Muscovite. From his
teen years, both at home and at the university, he witnessed daily heated
political debates over Russias present misery and future path. In Rome
he saw Russian intellectuals who deliberately removed themselves from
the social and political concerns of their day. Equally oblivious to their
countrys historic mission envisioned by the Slavophiles and to the social
agenda thrust upon the arts by the realists, these artists lived abroad,
painting the ruins of the Colosseum instead of their native towns and
villages. In both theory and practice, Mamontovs new Roman friends
actively cultivated the ideology of the aesthetes that in Russia of the time
would have been considered decidedly retrograde.
Savva Mamontov soon became one of the most enthusiastic proponents of the ideas endlessly discussed by his new friends, particularly
Mstislav Prakhov. With his idealistic nature, Mstislav presented both a
source of admiration and a target of endless jokes: the groups ideal of
living in art he understood literally. Mamontovs 1874 letter from Moscow to a close friend and fellow Roman, painter Vasily Polenov, contains
a colorful description of him: Mstislav Prakhov is still staying with me;
he is walking on clouds, smelling heavenly flowers, and only wears pants
because its cold. Oh, oh, oh, what an idealist, Ive never seen anyone like
that. Nevertheless, for a railway magnate kept away from Rome and art
by mundane business affairs, the idealists presence was indispensable,

as Mamontov himself testified, adding: Thanks to him I still keep my
feelings on a necessary elevated plane, for otherwise I would soon truly
become no better than any shopkeeper.9
Mstislav Prakhovs aesthetic views can be discerned from a rarely
quoted portion of Polenovs well-known letter to Mamontov in which
the Roman days are remembered:
At the time when the aesthetic was thrown out of art, and the doctrine
of tendency was established in its place, [Mstislav Prakhov], in his nave
idealism, had the courage to swim against the current and quietly but
firmly assert the aesthetic as a necessity to human beings, not only to
potential artists, but as one of the most essential foundations of human
existence.10
The tendency mentioned by Polenov refers to the so-called tendentious

art of the 1860s: art with a social function, the art of truth, not of beauty.
Both Prakhov and Mamontov, according to their friend, followed a different ideologythe ideology of the aesthetes whom Savva had heard
Dobrolyubov ridicule while at Moscow University. Mamontovs interest
in aestheticism, perhaps sparked initially by reading Dostoevsky and
Apollon Grigoriev, was undoubtedly fueled by his relationship with his
Roman friends, and by the early 1870s had formed the foundation of
his personal aesthetic views. From now on, quoting Soviet musicologist
Abram Gozenpud, he sought not so much truth, but rather beauty in
art.11
Despite frequently being accused of Mstislav Prakhovlike idealism
by friends, critics, and researchers,12 Mamontov, a student of Chizhov,
always exhibited a very practical, hands-on approach to art. An artist,
not a philosopher by nature, he was rarely satisfied with mere rhetoric
and understood his new aesthetic creed not as an abstract fantasy, but
as a call to action. According to Polenov, Mamontov grabbed on to the
Romans aesthetic ideals, which he understood not theoretically, but
with the senses, and immediately began to put them into practice.13 In
the spring of 1870, Mamontov purchased a country estate, Abramtsevo,
near Moscowa former family nest of the Aksakov family he knew
since childhood. At Abramtsevo, he succeeded in creating his own artist
colonya Mecca for painters, sculptors, musicians, literati, and other
intellectuals. With Mamontov and his Roman friends as the founding

members, this informal group became known as the Mamontov Circle.
It organized a variety of artistic activities, from painting sessions and architectural projects to collective readings and amateur theatricals (these
will be discussed in detail later in the book). Finally, in 1885, the circle
branched out, actively participating in Mamontovs new venture, the
Moscow Private Opera.
The company became Mamontovs favorite child, for as both director and patron he was finally in a position to project his aesthetic views
directly to his audience. Until recently, research published both in Russia
and elsewhere has offered, alternatively, realism14 and nationalism15 as
the core of Mamontovs aesthetics that was to be implemented at the new
theater. However, as we have seen, the sources for these labels are the divergent yet equally one-dimensional views of Mamontov propagated by
his detractors, apologists, competitors, and, most unfortunately, scholars who, perhaps with the best of intentions, painstakingly constructed
alternative histories of Mamontovs enterprise molded to their personal
notions of progress. What dooms these accounts is their insistence on
ideological uniformity: the real Mamontov was much too complex to be
labeled; his aesthetic views were unsystematic, fluid, and full of contradictions. Selective reading of the primary sources that supported earlier
studies cannot therefore do justice to his often frustratingly inconsistent
yet remarkable aesthetic vision that laid the foundation for the MPO.
Viewed for the first time in their entirety, these still largely unpublished
materials form the basis for the following discussion.
Mamontovs Aesthetic Platform

Savva Mamontovs colorful personality creates an obvious impediment
to any attempt to reconstruct his theoretical views and outline his aesthetic platform. Mamontov was not an abstract thinker. He conceived
but never wrote a treatise on his aesthetic views and teaching methodology (his school, as he called it); his literary style, while often lofty,
is rarely sophisticated. An infinitely practical man, he despised empty
rhetoric, saying: I passionately love art, consider it a great gift from
God, and hate it when there is empty talk . . . around itall this seems
so trifling to me; in a word, unworthy.16
At the same time, he was also a teacher. You look upon any young
artist employed at the Private Opera as your student, wrote an alumnus
of Mamontovs school, gifted stage director Pyotr Melnikov (1870
1940). I also came to the troupe as such a student, and for this I am
deeply and sincerely grateful to you.17 The warmth of this remark is
characteristic of the extraordinary level of adoration Mamontov inspired in his students. Great teacher, master, prophet in art are
only a few of the many epithets peppering their letters, as well as the
letters from people who never actually worked for Mamontov (some had
never even met him), but considered his aesthetic principles a foundation for their own work. Typical is this telegram to Mamontov in commemoration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his company, an event
widely celebrated in Moscow. Its author, the great stage director and
the collaborator of Diaghilev and Stanislavsky Alexander Sanin, enjoyed free access to the MPO performances and rehearsals early in his
career as a beneficiary of an open-door policy Mamontov had instituted
for his friends, colleagues, and talented protgs: Today the brightest
thoughts, the most precious tender feelings go to you, dear splendid
artist, teacher, to your inspirational creative genius, to its mighty power,
breadth, and eternal youth. [I] venerate, love, remember, thank [you],
bow down low.18
The role of the MPO as a studio theatera school for Russian operatic forces19 with an expressed goal of employment and training of
singers, directors, and designerswill be explored in detail in chapter
8. But some of the basic premises of Mamontovs aesthetic curriculum
need to be examined here, as they vividly illustrate his own views. To
start with, he considered the intellectual and aesthetic development of
opera singers to be an essential part of their training, and believed that
the educational establishment failed in its responsibility to the younger
generation:
Not everyone will understand what I with deep conviction say about
art, and the majority (God forgive them!) will even brush it aside. . . . It
doesnt matter to me, but it matters to the youngthey will suffer and will
be thrown back into the same soup; that means that another generation
could be lost. . . . Large institutions (conservatories, art schools) are stuck
in the same routine, and there is no one to awaken the consciousness of
the young and their love for pure art (turn aroundtremblethe Safon-
ovs rule!).20 But it is necessary to hammer and break through the crust
tirelessly and persistentlythis is a sacred duty for the people warmed
by the heat and illuminated by the divine light of art.21
Believing himself responsible for the minds and souls of his students,
Mamontov saw it as his sacred duty to speak to them at length on the
subject of aesthetics. Fortunately for us, when he could not do so in
person, he maintained diligent correspondence. His aesthetic views can
therefore be discerned from these written conversations with students
(mostly singers and stage directors) and associates (composers, designers, the companys repertoire advisor Semyon Kruglikov, and other close
allies). Most of these letters are still unpublished. This is understandable:
few of Mamontovs correspondents are giants of Russian cultural history who received attention in separate studies (indeed, even his own
position as such is still a matter of debate). What is most fascinating
about these neglected epistolary treasures, however, is the amount of
attention paid by Mamontov and his students to their companys aesthetics and its artistic mission. In addition, the letters do not read as
official business transactions between an employer and his employees:
the correspondents share a common set of references, terminology, and
favorite colloquialisms, demonstrating an intimate tone of confidence
and friendship. A fragment from Pyotr Melnikovs letter shows how
much value Mamontovs students placed on these exchanges: I value
your letters very much, and preserve them carefully. In them you are the
person whom I and many others love, and who is not known nor even
suspected not only by the masses, but also by the majority of the people
interested in art and theater.22
There are elements of patronizing, fatherly didactics, and pep-talk in
Mamontovs letters, especially when circumstances prevented him from
directly participating in the staging of an important production. Arise,
fire up, get up and show everyone that in both of you there is a sacred
fire that I have noticed! . . . [Show] that my school brings life to art,23 he
urged the singers for one such production, adding in another letter: I
trust your word that you would stand up for the Private Opera and for
my principles.24 According to the memoirs of Mamontovs students, he
steadfastly went about instilling in them his artistic philosophy (what he
referred to as his school or his principles) from their first day with
the company.25 Naturally, aesthetic issues often constitute a subject of

their letters to him. It is logical to assume that it would be in the young
singers best interests to tell their mentor (and, we need not forget, their
employer) exactly what he wanted to hearthat is, to express his own
aesthetic views in the language that he would use, and in the wording
pleasing to him. Consequently, whether or not we could prove that the
views expressed in the letters of Mamontovs students are indeed what
they truly believed, we can in fact define their teachers aesthetic platform as it was reflected through their eyes.
We should also expect a large chasm between the beautiful rhetoric
of the letters and the reality of what was practically implemented in
the daily operations of a market enterprise struggling to reconcile its
ideology with its business interests. This discrepancy will be a subject of
a detailed investigation in chapter 7. The following section exclusively
treats Mamontovs aesthetic theories, set in the context of the continuing
struggle between realism and modernism on the Russian operatic stage
of the early Silver Age.
The Cause and the Mission

As we know, from the late 1860s the Russian intelligentsia saw realist
truth as the primary aesthetic trend of their time, its ideological mainstream: Musorgsky would not be alone in calling it the true mission of
an artist.26 Mamontovs correspondence reveals that he and his troupe
also believed that they had a mission. It is represented in their common
vocabulary by the word deloa word with a double meaning in the
Russian language, translated alternatively as business enterprise (for
example, otkryt svoyo deloto start ones own business), or as mission or cause (for instance, delo zhiznia lifes mission). In the
former meaning, the MPO was itself a delo, that is, an enterprise. In the
latter, the word figures prominently, for example, in Russian political
phraseology, as in a popular slogan: nashe delo pravoe, my pobedim [our
cause is just, we shall be victorious]. Savva Mamontov and his students
used the word frequently as a part of a phrase, delo iskusstva [the cause
of art], as in the following excerpt from Mamontovs letter to Csar Cui:
I believe that I can take from you much that would help me intellectually to move the cause of art that is the joy of my life.27 They also liked
to play on the double meaning of delo in their letters, using the word for
business enterprise in a sense of an ideological cause, or mission of that
enterprise. Their correspondence is full of references to our cause, our
common cause, our dear cause, and our beloved cause. Here is an
excerpt from a congratulatory note by Melnikov writing from Paris on
the occasion of Easter and the companys recent triumphs:
I rejoice with all my heart in the success of the cause, the great cause
that you have, with Gods help, begun so successfully. As one of the good
wishes for the holidays let me wish for the least amount of dirt and mundane sleet to stick to this radiant cause, and that nothing should dull your
eternal, powerful energy and good will to serve the beloved cause.28
Love and work for the cause was Mamontovs daily charge to his
troupe. To one of his most loyal disciples, singer and stage director Vasily
Shkafer (18671937), whom we shall meet often on the following pages,
he wrote: I rejoice with all my heart that you are working hardbe
happy in it, for this is necessary for the pure and noble cause. . . . Love
art, work sincerely for its cause, spit in the face of banality and gossip
. . . cause, cause, and cause.29 The students, in turn, pledged their lives
to the cause. For some of them, that cause was the company itselfits
continued survival, its success, and their own daily work as part of it
(indeed, the word delo may also be translated as work).30 More sophisticated minds such as Shkafers, however, were better able to articulate
the meaning of delo as the aesthetic platform implemented by the MPO,
as its own true mission in Musorgskys words. My whole soul will
belong to the cause, to the artistic objectives that you have placed at the
foundation of this wonderful company, Shkafer wrote to Mamontov at
the very beginning of their collaboration.31 A year later, he added: Our
common cause, our task has become so close and dear to me that I see
meaning, goal, and purpose in human life; I believe that staged art is
not an idle mans folly, and that our work is a true cause, a serious task
with a great future.32
Mamontov and his associates took a strongly idealistic approach to
their cause. For instance, their service to it was supposed to be anonymous: quest for personal glory was to be avoided and despised. Mamontov himself led the way by adamantly refusing to publicize his association with the company (one of the worst-kept secrets in Moscows
artistic circles, as his trial would reveal),33 and publicly admitted his role
only years after its demise. Members of the press corps were persuaded
to play along, and would typically discuss Mamontovs involvement
without mentioning his name.34 He gave no signed interviews about
the upcoming productions, nor did he allow his artistic contribution
to be acknowledged on playbills (with a single notable exception, to be
discussed below). Indeed, the MPOs official figureheads were his associates, company administrators Nikolai Krotkov and Claudia Winter:
in its early years, the company was known as Krotkovs Private Opera
(188592), later as Winters Private Opera (18961900). According to a
company insider, painter and architect Ilya Bondarenko (18701946),
Mamontov did not like to advertise his name. There was this story: after
a brilliant, spectacular performance of Sadko the audience shouted: Mamontov! Mamontov! Savva Ivanovich left the theater . . . Sitting always
in the directors box on the left, he was always afraid that someone would
call: Mamontov, and then he would tell me: Lets go home.35
Apart from being anonymous, service to the cause of art was to be an

altruistic endeavor: while commercial success was sought as a measure
of access and prestige (see chapter 7), financial viability was sacrificed,
if need be, to artistic interest: as we shall discover, some of Mamontovs
most important productions, such as Glucks Orfeo, brought little into
the coffers.
From the first days of the Moscow Private Opera through the present day, both Mamontovs apologists and his detractors claimed to have
discovered the ideological principles of his enterprise. Their assessments
have been known to contradict each other, and have not always aligned
with the reality of their protagonists creative endeavors. For a clearer
view of Mamontovs ideology, I suggest tapping into a somewhat obscure source that might perhaps come closest to the truth. It is a series
of program letters by Vasily Shkafer who, inspired by his mentors
idealism, set out to outline the companys aesthetic platform in writing.
A representative excerpt follows:
Life, light, and warmth must reign in a theater of true creativity. It is not
an opera-selling venture, where artisans entertain and amuse an idle
crowd of their peers for a set fee. Here, something sublime takes place;
with its help, a man may know the great truth of life, and know himself
. . . We must be proud that in our humble lot we have the joy to demonstrate that a Russian opera theater is no variety show, that it lives by the
pure ideals of art and rejoices in everything that serves the high ideals
of creativity.36
The creative atmosphere of the MPO that was highlighted so poetically

in Shkafers letter differed from both the business-like management of
other commercial opera companies and the suffocating bureaucratic
straitjacket of the Imperial stage.37 Shkafer was well acquainted with
the former, after working for several provincial enterprises; in another
program letter, he wrote:
Our theater of the Russian Private Opera is given a huge, great task, and
we, the young actors, the workers of this stage, must come together into
an unbreakable unity, so that with a common effort we can clean up the
atmosphere of the old circus theater where art is for sale, and where there
is nothing but crudeness, lies, and falsehood.38
After experiencing the Mariinsky stagewith its excellent singers,

chorus, and orchestra undoubtedly the brightest jewel in the Imperial
crownFeodor Chaliapin in his memoir compared it to Mamontovs
company as the luxurious sarcophagus to the lovely green field full
of simple fragrant flowers.39 Another peculiarity of the MPO was, of
course, its pedagogical aspect. As Shkafer pointed out, the theater of the
Russian Private Opera is an exceptional institutiona kind of academy,
with its own rules and regulations.40
The Pure Art of the MPO

Clearly, Mamontov and his academy of idealists shared a common
cause, a mission. A number of Soviet scholars have claimed that this
mission was aligned with the aesthetics of truththe realist cause of
the 1860s. Yet, while the realists believed that art must awaken people
to the horror and ugliness of everyday life in order to shock them into
action, Mamontov did not accept the social function of art, at least not
in a traditional sense. There is no need to make people face the difficult,
the desolate, the depressing. Life itself will make sure to offer each his
share of terror and decay, he wrote to his cousin and younger colleague,
Konstantin Stanislavsky,41 adding: there is only one consolationlive
in art; . . . seek beauty and joythere lies all the happiness of our lives.42
By thus contrasting the joy and beauty of art to the depressing truth of
life, Mamontov positioned himself against the realist current, echoing
instead the escapist philosophy of the Silver Age. Indeed, we might
wonder whether symbolist philosophy and literature of the early 1900s
influenced his letter, dated 1908. To place Mamontovs aesthetics within
the framework of the developing ideology of the decadents described in
chapter 1, it will be helpful to consider his earlier correspondence.
The first thing we encounter is the motto adopted by Mamontov
back in the 1870s and printed on the MPO playbills, programs, and
stationery since 1885: vita brevis, ars longa [life is brief, art is lasting]. In
Russian, the opposition is even more pointed: zhizn korotka, iskusstvo
vechno [life is short, art is eternal].43 The idealist in Mamontov led him to
teach his students, first and foremost, to love art and to serve it selflessly,
with firmness and perseverance, with purity and sincerity. I demand
service to art that I myself serve with an open heart, he declared.44 In a
note to Stanislavsky after the triumphant opening night of the Moscow
Art Theater, an institution almost as indebted to Mamontovs aesthetics
as the Moscow Private Opera, Mamontov wrote: Warmly and sincerely
happy about last nights success; I firmly believe that the cause into which
one puts ones soul and love cannot help but bring a positive result. One
needs serenity, strength, and perseverance. A bureaucrat, able beyond
reproach, remains dry and formalist; art permits neither. It needs to be
loved.45 Mamontovs students got the message and sometimes remembered it, at least in their rhetoric, long after their mentor stopped paying
their salaries. As late as 1910 Vasily Shkafer, about to accept a prestigious
appointment as the chief stage director of the Bolshoi Theater, wrote to
Mamontov the following:
My soul is pure before you, my spiritual father who has been and remains
in my artistic life the carrier of the high ideals of art. Your precepts are
sacred to me, and in my further artistic career I will strive honestly and
firmly to stay on the straight path of serving the beautiful.46
The ideals of loving and serving art would, of course, remain mere
words unless based on what Mamontov called artistic tasteknowledge, understanding, and appreciation of art. According to Bondarenkos memoir,
[Mamontovs] deeply artistic nature, sensitive to aesthetic representations, understood art as an essential element of culture. It is no wonder
that he . . . wrote into my album: A man who understands art may consider himself happy.47
Mamontov insisted that his students read; that they attend theater,
lectures, concerts, and exhibitions of contemporary art. He served enthusiastically as their personal guide through art galleries, and talked
constantly about artistic matters.48 Melnikov recalled:
In the company of Savva Ivanovich, in daily conversations with him that
circled constantly around art (he even wrote a play about it once, titled
Okolo Iskusstva [Around Art]), theater, music, singing, opera, painting,
and sculpture, all of us, without noticing it, learned a lot and got a real
education.49
Young singers, enthralled by their mentors charismatic personality,

listened, memorized, and swore by his opinions. To quote his highly
emotional protg, soprano Alevtina Paskhalova:
You are the teacher in art, I have always known it and still do, and you also
know how highly I value your opinion . . . May God give you good health
and joy, and to spend summer well, so later, with fresh strength, you may
continue teaching us about art and understanding its beauty. You are its
true and, one may say, its only servant.50
Years later, Stanislavskynever an employee but evidently a self-professed studentinvited Mamontov to the dress rehearsal of one of the
Moscow Art Theaters signature productions, Maurice Maeterlincks
LOiseau bleu. In an oft-cited but rarely interpreted note, he wrote: I
would like very much to see you at the theater tomorrow, as my teacher
of aesthetics.51
So what was Mamontovs aesthetic creed, never published as a philosophical treatise but gradually formulated in his correspondence and
daily conversations with an adoring circle of young disciples? After all,
the precept to love, understand, and serve art is merely a pretty platitude that could be applied to the realists of the 1860s just as easily as
to the decadents of the 1890s. Unlike the realists, however, Mamontov
clearly equated art with beauty, rather than with truth: serving art
meant, in Shkafers words, sluzhenie prekrasnomu [serving the beauti-
ful]. It is possible that Shkafers words were his own: in both letters and
published memoirs, he demonstrated a rather sophisticated personal
philosophy, although it was, by his own admission, strongly influenced
by Mamontov. Let us look, therefore, to another piece of correspondence:
a brief, little-known telegram from Alevtina Paskhalova on the occasion
of Mamontovs name day; that is, a kind of a birthday card. It reads:
Congratulations on your saints day. [I] wish you many years of good
health. Let your motto art for arts sake be preserved for a long time,
along with your precept, serving beauty. [Your] grateful, sincerely devoted Paskhalova.52 What is most remarkable about this telegram is the
identity of its sender. Not a poet, a philosopher, an art historian, or even
an erudite stage director like Shkafer, Paskhalova was a young girl who
came from the provincial town of Saratov to study singing at the Moscow Conservatory. According to her memoirs, she knew no one remotely
artistic in Moscow prior to meeting Mamontov in 1894 and singing Zerlina in his home production of Don Giovanni.53 She was unsophisticated
and seems not to have done much reading. Her vocabulary, syntax, and
grammar leave much to be desired (in fact, I had to make corrections for
the telegram to be intelligible). Consequently, there is little probability
of her coming up with the motto iskusstvo dlya iskusstva [art for arts
sake] on her own, or even picking it up from the symbolist literature of
the day. Paskhalovas letters to Mamontov suggest an intimate friendship
with her teacher, a kind of father-daughter relationshipa relationship
that Mamontov seems to have encouraged. When writing to her, he used
second person singular, rather than plural, with no patronymic; even his
closest associates, Melnikov and Shkafer, were not addressed that way.
She often signed her letters your Sparrow, a nickname invented for her
by Mamontov and known to few in the troupe. Paskhalova comes across
as enthusiastic, eager, and probably infatuated with her mentor. It would
seem only natural that she should memorize his favorite sayings (your
motto and precept, she says) and repeat them word for word, revealing
to us her teachers aesthetic philosophy in his own language.
Thus, instead of art as a representation of reality (a realist motto),
Mamontov preferred art for arts sake as his own. As we have seen, he
was not unique in adhering to that principle: in the 1890s the demand for
the autonomy of art expressed in Valery Bryusovs writings, as well as in
Sergei Diaghilevs Complex Questions, became the foundation for the
emerging Silver Age philosophy. It is revealing that the motto of the Mir
Iskusstva group formulated by Alexandre Benoissvobodno iskusstvo,
skovana zhizn [art is free, life is fettered]is not that far removed from
Mamontovs life is short, art is eternal. And while Benois himself, as
we shall see, would not be thrilled by his association with Mamontov,
his friend and colleague Diaghilev, who had recognized their shared aesthetic values, welcomed the collaboration, the sources and consequences
of which will be explored later in this book.
Mamontov and Antiquity: Orfeo

An aspect of Mamontovs artistic philosophy that perhaps separates
him the most from the realists, placing him instead at the cutting edge
of evolving modernist aesthetics, was his obsession with classical antiquity, particularly Greek mythology. For Mamontov, as for the decadents,
idealized images of the ancient world were symbols of pure, eternal
beautythe essence of art. He was an expert on ancient art54 and evidently an avid collector: according to Russkoe Slovo, one of the rooms of
his Moscow mansion was decorated and furnished in the style of Pompeii, complete with authentic artifacts.55 True to his practical approach
to his own idealist philosophy, Mamontov was involved in at least four
projects with a Hellenic theme, all of them in collaboration with his
closest friend Vasily Polenov, a painter who specialized in mythological,
Biblical, and historical subjects.
The first such project was a dramatic tableau vivant, Afrodita [Aphrodite], produced for the All-Russian Congress of Artists that took place
in Moscow in 1894, and that Mamontov co-chaired. The opening tableau
in a series titled The Ages of Art, Aphrodite boasted an elaborate stage
set, with costumes and music by Polenov, and featured Stanislavsky as
a Greek sculptor who recited a poem written by Mamontov; the latter
also directed. The main theme was appropriate: The ages will pass, devastating storms will fall upon the future generations, but the beauty of
Aphrodite[s statue] will endure forever.56 The second Hellenic collaboration between Mamontov and Polenov was the 1897 MPO production
of Glucks Orfeo. The first two acts of Nikolai Krotkovs opera Ozherele
[The Necklace] staged in December 1899 (see chapter 4) were also set in
Ancient Greece (that is, the Greek colonies in Southern Italy during the
Hellenistic period). Finally, in 1905 Mamontov and Polenov embarked

upon Prizraki Ellady [The Phantoms of Hellas]57an opera both composed and designed by Polenov to a text by Savva Mamontov and his
son Sergei, a minor symbolist poet and dramatist. While the score of
this work did not survive, it is known to have been completed in 1907,
to be produced and published by Mamontov soon afterward.58 There is
also a record of its being performed in 1924.59 Archival materials suggest
the existence of at least two more incomplete projects with an Ancient
Greek theme in which Mamontov was involved around the turn of the
century, with various collaborators.
The most significant of Mamontovs Hellenic projects was, undoubtedly, Orfeoa production viewed by a number of scholars as a chose
manque. There are valid reasons for such an assessment: Orfeo never
generated much success; in fact, it mostly played to an empty house. In
addition, the lead singerMamontovs protg, mezzo-soprano Maria
Chernenkowas sharply criticized in the press for the deficiencies in her
vocal production and inability to use her naturally strong voice. More
detrimental to Orfeos reputation among scholars, however, was its supposed ideological incongruity within the constructed histories of Mamontovs aesthetics. For instance, as the production has no connections
to the ubiquitous Russian nationalism, it lacks interest for Grover, whose
work ignores Mamontovs Western influences. Rossikhina dedicates a
whole chapter of her book to Orfeo, but only to document the operas
misfortunes without any attempt at reconstructing its aesthetic raison
dtre. Her rationale is equally clear: the main premise of her monograph
is the triumph of realism on the Russian operatic stage, which again
makes Orfeo irrelevant. Even Gozenpud, generally the most tolerant
of the Soviet scholars to Mamontovs decadent leanings, believed that
Orfeo did not coincide with the magistralnaya liniya [main trajectory]
of the Private Operas development.60 He did, however, acknowledge
the significance of this production as a reflection of Mamontovs aesthetic views, the fact that makes its analysis indispensable to the present
discussion.
Indeed, Orfeo was one of Mamontovs favorite creations. It was his
only signed work throughout his association with the company: for the
first and only time, he allowed his name to be acknowledged on programs and playbills as a codirector of a production, sharing credit with
Polenov. Mamontov incurred a great financial loss in order to stage

the opera and keep it onstage. Despite its lack of financial success or
initiallycritical acclaim, he was proud of the production and considered it his personal aesthetic creed or, in his own words, an attempt to
teach the Moscow public a lesson in aesthetics.61 Among Mamontovs
associates, there was no unanimous support. Polenov, after complaining
about the productions lack of polish at the dress rehearsal and lobbying
Mamontov in vain to replace Chernenko as the lead, actually boycotted
the premiere.62 Shkafer, meanwhile, was predictably ecstatic:
[An Orfeo audience member] probably felt himself imperceptibly flying
away from that gray, mundane, banal life to some other world, the world
of wondrous dreams, and [his] eyes shed a tear of joy and exaltation that
seized [his] heart. Crudeness and harshness involuntarily disappeared in
such moments, the heart wanted love, caresses, forgiveness. The best, the
loftiest feelings of man won over the animal, and he was close to the ideal
created by God. This is the main goal and purpose of theater.63
The supporters hoped that St. Petersburg would be kinder to Orfeo than
its hometown of Moscow, which, despite Shkafers rapture, was left cold
by it. They were right, as Melnikov testified:
I was sure that St. Petersburg would appreciate the stylishness of your
production, that bright talent penetrating the whole performance of the
opera, filling every movement of the characters on stagein a word,
all that covers the impression of the whole production with a beautiful
mist, and makes one think that one did not spend time in a theater, but
simply saw a divine ancient dream, undisturbed even for a minute by
crude reality.64
It is understandable that Mamontovs Orfeo might prove puzzling to a

Soviet scholar like Rossikhina. Both the subject matter and the ideology
of this divine ancient dream, undisturbed even for a minute by crude
reality are completely alien to the realist mentality of the 1860s. And,
apparently, of the 1890s, as the following outburst from Vladimir Stasov
demonstrates:
Five years ago, in 1893, I. E. Repin started his sermon on art for arts
sake, and his persecution of topic and content in painting. This interesting doctrine had its followers. Perhaps, some of those gentlemen began
to follow that cult independently of Repin; perhaps, in the hearts of some
of them there already lived the sprouts of sweet passion for thoughtlessness and meaninglessness, for lack of subject and lack of substance
perhaps! Perhaps, they were all born as those Hellenes, those classical
Greeks from the times before Christs birth, so that the only thing in the
world that exists for them is beauty, and they could not care less about
anything else!65
This article by Stasov was published on 24 February 1898two days

after the MPO began its first tour of his native city of St. Petersburg.
Glucks Orfeo was featured prominently on its playbill. As we shall see,
Stasov loved Mamontovs work, although he completely misread some
of its ideological foundations. He wrote several articles in support of the
company; none mentioned the existence of Orfeo.
Stasov was always known for his astuteness: he knew his ideological
opponents and wrote scathing critiques of the events and aesthetic currents that were sufficiently noticeable to cause him concern. From the
quotation above, it is evident that he recognized the fact that classical antiquity was becoming an increasingly popular subject as the new century
approached. Prominent in the works of the French symbolists, it was
now appearing in Russian literature, visual arts, theater, and music, and
not only by those authors whom Stasov could easily dismiss as inconsequential young decadents. To cite just a few examples from the operatic
world, Sergei Taneevs Oresteia, based on a play by Aeschylus, dates from
1895, while Rimsky-Korsakovs Servilia, on an Ancient Roman subject,
was written in 1901. Even Rimskys 1896 masterpiece Sadko, despite the
Russianness of its subject, was portrayed by its contemporary press as a
revival of an ancient Slavic myth: I felt as if I was transported into the
ancient times of Perun and Dazhdbog, and spent several hours living in
that epoch. . . . A deep love for antiquity is very much felt throughout the
entire opera.66 It appears that the success of Orfeo in St. Petersburg (pace
Stasov) may be partially explained by the fact that the symbolists fascinated with antiquity had a stronger power base in the northern capital
than in Moscow. The idealism and escapism of Hellas appealed, for instance, to the members of the Mir Iskusstva group, for whom the myths
of Ancient Greece would become a favored theme of easel paintings
and theatrical projects.67 Furthermore, St. Petersburg symbolists were
strongly influenced by the ideas on ancient drama discussed in Friedrich
Nietzsches cult opus, Die Geburt der Tragdie. Nietzsches description
of the eternal struggle between Apollo and Dionysus, his ideas of a synthesis of the arts, his interpretation of Wagners music dramas, and his
vision of the communal art of the future that would resurrect the spirit
of ancient tragedy by merging artists with their audience appealed to
many Silver Age poets, writers, and philosophers. Symbolist writings are
filled with references to antiquity: a 1908 essay by poet Andrei Bely titled
Teatr i Sovremennaya Drama [Theater and Modern Drama], with its
numerous references to Greek tragedy (in a Nietzschean interpretation),
is a good example.68 As the followers of Solovyov, mystic symbolists such
as Bely were particularly engrossed in the subject, as evident also from
the works of Vyacheslav Ivanov, who wrote several scholarly treatises
and numerous articles on the subject of Dionysism.69 The potency of the
Orphic myth to the mystic symbolists, who regarded it as a symbol of
the eternal power of beauty, art, and music, is difficult to overestimate.
Indeed, in Vladimir Solovyovs well-known poem Tri Podviga [Three
Heroic Deeds], the highest form of heroism is that of Orpheus, who leads
Eurydice, a symbol of beauty, out of Hades. In 1912, Vyacheslav Ivanov,
a Solovyov disciple, wrote a preface to a series of books on mysticism
published by Musaget; the series was entitled Orfei [Orpheus].70 It is a
remarkable illustration of Savva Mamontovs sensitivity to the issues
and subject matters most significant to the history of Russian symbolism
that, while he certainly cannot be counted among Vyacheslav Ivanovs
mentors or acolytes, he did choose the myth of Orpheus as his personal
aesthetic statement.
Mamontov and Realism: Boris Godunov

As we have seen, Vladimir Stasov, that scourge of Hellenism, did not
find Mamontovs production of Orfeo particularly inspiring and, master
of the ideological narrative that he was, he conveniently neglected to
acknowledge its existence. Instead, he publicly exalted the feature of the
MPO playbill that most endeared the company to him, despite its leaders
questionable leanings. That feature was the prevalence in the repertory
of Kuchkist historical dramas, still commonly viewed as the essence of
operatic realism. The productions of Rimsky-Korsakovs The Maid of
Pskov, Musorgskys Khovanshchina and Boris Godunov, Borodins Prince
Igor, even Alexander Serovs Rogneda and Tchaikovskys The Oprichnik
(Stasovs ideological quarrels with their authors notwithstanding) all

provided stimulation for his essays. Years later, the same productions
also laid the foundation for Rossikhinas study that cast Mamontov in a
leading role as the realist standard-bearer of Russian theater.
The dominance of Kuchkist operas in Mamontovs repertoire is
undeniable. And while, as we shall see in chapter 7, it can partially be
explained by the pressures of the commercial marketplace, it is equally
undeniable that Mamontov liked many of the Kuchkist works he staged
and willingly invested his energy and artistry in creating the innovative
productions Stasov so enjoyed. At the Moscow Private Opera, as in the
larger cultural universe it inhabited, realism coexisted with emerging
modernismuneasily, perhaps, but for the most part peacefully. Yet
it is characteristic of Mamontovs personal aesthetics that whenever a
conflict arose between the two ideologies in a production that he staged,
truth would always defer to beautya principle amply demonstrated by
the production history of Boris Godunov.
Soon after the MPO premiere of Musorgskys masterpiece on 7 December 1898, Mamontov wrote a letter to Rimsky-Korsakov, who had
authored the new edition of the score. This well-known and much interpreted document, first published in Andrei Rimsky-Korsakovs fivevolume biography of his father, focused specifically on the penultimate
tableau of Boris Godunov, the scene near Kromy. Mamontov wrote:
[The Kromy scene] made a grave impression upon me during the dress
rehearsal. One must be fair to Mr. Lentovsky, who directed the staging.
He made the scene of the rowdy mob disgustingly realistic. There were
axes; stakes; crude disheveled peasants tearing [the boyar] Khrushchevs
coat to pieces; screaming females. . . . I decidedly protested and demanded
that this scene be cut altogether.71
Since the Kromy scene, a depiction of a popular uprising, has been

viewed as the ideological center of the opera by Soviet musicologists,
Mamontovs reputation was in serious trouble. Several scholars chastised him for misunderstanding Musorgskys realist chef-doeuvre and
underestimating the ideological significance of the scene.72 Meanwhile,
Abram Gozenpud defended Mamontov from being branded a decadent
reactionary by citing the naturalist staging of assistant stage director
Mikhail Lentovsky (18431906) as the main cause of the conflict.73 By so
doing, the researcher aimed to reposition the argument about the controversial letter and portray its author as a defender of true, progressive
realism against the decadent excesses of pathological naturalism, thus
minimizing the damage the document had done to his legacy.74
At first glance, Gozenpuds theory seems plausible. The extremes of
naturalisma fashionable trend in turn-of-the-century drama theater
that was gradually making its way onto the operatic stageoften provoked Mamontovs harsh criticism for their lack of beauty and artistry.
His attitude is revealed in a number of public comments made in the
late 1900s and 1910s about new operatic productions by the naturalist
stage directors Nikolai Arbatov at the Solodovnikov Theater, Konstantin Mardzhanov at the Svobodnyi Theater and, to Mamontovs dismay,
MPO alumnus Pyotr Olenin (see plate 26) at Zimins Private Opera. In
his review of Mardzhanovs 1908 production of Musorgskys Sorochintsy
Fair, which featured live farm animals, Mamontov protested such excessive verisimilitude as unnecessary, anti-artistic, and even educationally
harmfulthat is, sending to the audience the wrong message of truth,
instead of beauty.75 Five years later, after sitting through Mardzhanovs
bedroom-centered Belle Hlne, he expressed horror at its creativity
founded on cynicism, concluding: Clearly, these people have no understanding of staged art.76
As these outbursts demonstrate, Mamontov had a problem with stage
naturalism, believing that it violated the code of beauty. However, Gozenpuds portrayal of realism and naturalism as two contradictory and opposing aesthetic forcesone progressive, the other decadentdoes not
align with Mamontovs views. To him, naturalism was merely a stronger
form of realism. Indeed, that is how the movement was perceived by the
critics and aestheticians of the time, both inside and outside Russia. Boris Godunov was staged as a realist drama. As we shall see in chapter 5,
Feodor Chaliapin in the title role created a masterpiece of psychological
characterization with Mamontovs knowledge, guidance, and support.
If the problem Mamontov had with the scene near Kromy was limited,
as Gozenpud suggested, merely to the degree of naturalism in staging,
he could have simply restaged the offending sceneand he initially did.
But finally, despite Rimsky-Korsakovs protestations, the Kromy scene
was permanently excised from the MPO production of Boris Godunov,
as is evident from the reviews of the companys 1899 St. Petersburg tour.
It appears that witnessing Lentovskys overly realistic staging of the scene

brought home to Mamontov how significantly his own aesthetic views
diverged from what he believed to have been Musorgskys. Indeed, the
unexpected aesthetic culture shock could have been the cause of his
letter to Rimsky-Korsakov in which, after discussing his Kromy problem,
Mamontov went on to focus on the broader issues of realist ideology, both
Kuchkist and that of the Wanderers. He wrote:
All great people make mistakes, hold biases in tribute to their times.
Those were the times of emphasizing heavy realism; it was necessary to
thrust gaping wounds into ones face, point to rotten foot-wraps, and
paint vomiting drunkards. At that time, Repin . . . went to an anatomic
theater to watch blood flow in order to portray that horror in his painting
of Ivan the Terrible with his murdered son. Thank God, this time is past;
art is moving away from the pathological and seeks touching and elevated
feelings elsewhere. Grief, suffering, poverty will sooner find empathy in
the hearts of the people educated on the basis of sensitive comprehension
of beauty . . . than by offending their sense of harmony with the stench of
pus and the stale air of a peasants house overflowing with foul language.
Such is my conviction, and I follow it in my work for art.77
It is remarkable that Mamontovs squeamishness about the Kromy

scene may in fact have aligned with Musorgskys opinion after all. According to the controversial memoirs of his poet friend, Count Arseny
Golenishchev-Kutuzov, the composer was allegedly uneasy about the
scenes realistic ugliness and approved, even applauded, conductor Eduard Napravniks decision to cut it from the operas Mariinsky Theater
premiere.78 Moreover, in a fascinating twist of fate, Musorgskys change
of heart about the Kromy supposedly resulted from the influence of
Golenishchev-Kutuzovs own philosophy of unapologetic aestheticism
the same philosophy that made the poetic count a minor hero of the
Silver Age, and that engendered Mamontovs own reaction to the graphic
violence of the Kromy.
Mamontov, of course, could not have known about GolenishchevKutuzovs memoirs, as the manuscript did not resurface until the 1930s.
Instead, he knew and trusted, along with many others, the Stasov-conjured persona of Musorgsky the realist, as ironically Mamontov scholars
would later trust their protagonists realist image that we shall witness
Stasov construct with equal determination.79 Thus unaware of the au-
thorial blessing of his approach to the Kromy scene, Mamontov faced

a familiar artistic dilemma that surfaced every time a realist opera was
staged by his company. He acknowledged the need to preserve and relate
an aesthetic message built by the composer into his work, but at the same
time seemed to have been repulsed by that message. Instead, he saw the
operatic genre as a beautiful, colorful, indulgent, escapistin a word,
decadentspectacle, as witnessed particularly by his love of myth and
fairy tale, including Rimsky-Korsakovs Sadko and The Snow Maiden,
his favorite opera.
It has frequently been remarked that a rejection of realism by the Silver Age artists led to their enthusiastic embrace of the world of fantasy.
Myth and fairy tale were central to the Russian symbolist aesthetic
truly, Calinescus aesthetic of imagination. Similarly, to Mamontov
and his associates, theatereven when representing historywas primarily a fantasy world. They saw the creation of the world of wondrous
dreams, illusion, and make-believethe beautiful mist of Orfeoas
the main goal and purpose of theater. Theater could also be the world
of witty, elegant fun, joyous entertainment: Mamontovs partiality to
comic opera and operetta is well documented. Yet, as a wondrous dream
or a fun spectacle, it was not to be a faithful mirror of reality. Reality
was the everyday, and the everyday meant either ugliness or boredom:
Beware of mediocrity and boredom in the theater, Mamontov wrote
to Shkafer, echoing the escapist fantasies of the decadents.80
Visions of Artistic Truth

The aesthetic shift from reality to fantasy we have been observing
is brought into sharp relief by analyzing the changing meaning of a
catchphrase ubiquitous in Russian art criticism during the period in
questionkhudozhestvennaya pravda [artistic truth]. From the 1860s
on, it was a beloved slogan of realist critics, used to exalt the art of the
Wanderers, the Kuchka, and evidently the MPO. As late as 1897, an
unrepentantly Kuchkist MPO supporter described what he perceived
to be the companys objectives in the following ecstatic dithyramb: [Its
goal], a declared motto of the Russian School of Dargomyzhsky, is artistic truth! Truth in the text, the music, and the acting; truth in the
overall impression created by these elements together; the truth of life;
psychological, quotidian, and historical truth!81 Such a hymn to artistic truth, understood in the realist meaning of the term as truth in
art, would have done Stasov proud back in the 1860s. Thirty years later,
however, it must have sounded curiously anachronistic. Indeed, Stasovs
comrade-in-arms, the Kuchkist composer and critic Csar Cui, stated in
an 1899 Novosti Dnya interview that true realism in opera was impossible due to the nature of the genre, and that he would never strive for it
in his own compositions.82 The catchphrase artistic truth was still as
popular with the critics in the 1890s as in the 1860s, but the emphasis
had shifted overwhelmingly from the veracity to the artistry of representation. Witness, for instance, Shkafers recollection of the very first
MPO production he ever sawthe 1896 revival of The Snow Maiden:
A lovely, fragrant, wonderful spring fairy tale was gradually unfolding
before my eyes. . . . It was all so poetic, so unexpectedly and deeply touching and exciting. I all but cried out from the wondrously joyful feeling
that swept over me. I was in ecstasy! I saw artistic truth on stage.83 The
poetic spectacle Shkafer described was certainly no representation of
daily life in a Kuchkist sense: artistic truth was replaced by artistic
truth, in which the beautiful prevailed over the real. Several years later,
the great modernist stage director Vsevolod Meyerhold, whom we shall
meet frequently on these pages, used the same phrase artistic truth
when discussing the influence of Feodor Chaliapin, the Mamontov companys brightest star, on his own idea of symbolist theater. He wrote:
In Chaliapins acting, there is always truth, but not the truth of lifea
theatrical truth. It is always elevated above life, this somewhat decorated
artistic truth.84
The reenvisioning of artistic truth seems to have begun in the
late 1880s. Characteristically, Stasov immediately sensed the new emphasis on artistry in the use of the phrase, and rebelled against what he
perceived to be essentially its opposition to the realist vision. Enjoy the
following expansive diatribe (italics are added for emphasis):
I believed that our current aesthetes could surprise me no longer. . . .
[Their recent article states:] Everyone remembers the relatively recent
time when so-called realism was the prevailing direction in Russian art.
. . . Naked truththat was the motto of that movement; naked truth in
technical devices; that is, in precise representation of reality, in drawing,
in composition, in color, without any artifice, without a certain style and
school, without beauty . . . However, the dominance of that school was

relatively brief. It soon demonstrated its lack of substance; it contained no
seeds of development. The element of realism gradually widened, and the
concept of artistic truth and beauty entered it. Since then, Russian art has
entered upon a new path. . . . You read this and dont believe your eyes.
Has the New School of Painting truly exited the stage; has realismits
main tone and goalrevealed itself to be false and has given way to something else, have scenes from daily life of the people lost interest in the
eyes of a contemporary Russian artist? No, on the contrary, our realist
school is alive and well, it flourishes as well as one could wish. 85
As we have seen, Mamontovs aesthetic principles, based on the

concept of artistic truth and beauty, were part of a growing ideological
current. First noticeable in Russias cultural landscape in the mid-1880s
(the MPO first opened its doors in 1885; the Stasov quotation above is
from an 1887 article), it openly challenged the mainstream aesthetics
of realism in the 1890s, and by mid-1900s replaced it as a dominant
ideology. This new aesthetic, based on the concepts of art for arts sake
and transformation of the world through the power of beauty and creativity, became the ideological foundation of the Silver Age. Despite
their differences, the early symbolist artists and poets, including those
affiliated with Mir Iskusstva and, to a great extent, with its ideological descendant, the Ballets Russes, shared these fundamental beliefs.
Savva Mamontovs Moscow Private Opera proved to be a potent force
that developed these early modernist ideas and propelled them into the
twentieth century.
Mamontov and Modernity

As we have seen, Mamontovs artistic views thus closely paralleled the
emerging aesthetics of the Silver Ageamazingly and uniquely so, for
a man brought up in the 1860s. The question suggests itself: can we in
fact go as far as calling Mamontov a modernist? The answer is difficult
and perhaps impossible to provide. Just as the MPO was a place of convergence for the old and the new, Mamontovs philosophy is contradictory, containing elements of both. Still, from the information available
to us, his aesthetic views and artistic tastes were most closely aligned
with those of the first generation of Russian moderniststhe decadent
symbolists. Indeed, his cult of beauty and belief in the autonomy of art
echo the philosophy of his friend Valery Bryusov. On the other hand,
while Mamontovs faith in the transformative power of art mirrors some
ideas of the mystics, overall his views bear little resemblance to the
eschatology of Vyacheslav Ivanov.
In the world of visual arts (see chapter 3), Mamontov loved and promoted many early Silver Age trends: the impressionism of Konstantin
Korovin and Isaac Levitan (18601900), the style moderne of Valentin
Serov, and the proto-symbolist mysticism of Mikhail Vrubel and Victor Borisov-Musatov (18701905). Golubaya Roza [the Blue Rose], the
first organized group of Russian symbolist painters, initially called itself
Alaya Roza [the Scarlet Rose] in honor of Savva Mamontov, who had
once written a Beauty and the Beastlike fairy tale by that name. The
later painterly styles, however, were alien to Mamontovs artistic sensibility: like many representatives of the early, decadent period of the Silver
Age, he would never accept the avant-garde.
Similarly, in theater Mamontov was fascinated by the symbolist
experiments of Vsevolod Meyerhold and the Moscow Art Theater (see
chapter 6). It is hardly a coincidence that Stanislavsky called Mamontov
his teacher of aesthetics while personally inviting him to a Maeterlinck
production. But the more avant-garde theatrical ideas were clearly foreign to Mamontov. For instance, in his opinion, futurist attributes on
stage (such as machinery) contradicted the ideals of pure art.86 In one of
his reviews, he wrote: Of course, it is hard to predict what [Olenins new
production] might look like. But judging by the tendencies displayed in
Musorgskys Boris we may expect brave inventiveness and novelty, such
as . . . a phonograph, an automobile, some new limericks, and other
laughable arguments having little to do with pure art.87
Throughout his career as both artist and critic, Mamontov continuously searched for that elusive and precarious balance between reality
and dream world. It is revealing that Reed discusses just such an inbetween aesthetic position as one of the major characteristics of the
self-consciously transitional decadent style, an illegitimate offspring
of aestheticism and naturalism,88 while Sarabyanov analyzes it as a feature of the Russian style moderne.89 To Mamontovs great chagrin, some
of his contemporaries evidently agreed, gleefully throwing at him the
insulting label of decadent.90 Yet he certainly deserved that reputation
in his role as a theorist of art. And arguably, his choice of art form as its
practitioner was equally damning. Indeed, few artistic endeavors at the

time could rival the self-consciously pass-ist reputation of opera, with
its escapist pageantry, its aristocratic old-world glitter, its seductively
bohemian lifestyle, and its fascination with its own glorious history.
The only other genre that could match operas famed degeneracy was
balletparticularly in Russia where it was justifiably viewed as a playground for the rich and decadent. It is a testament to the power of decadent aesthetics in the country that one of its first openly acknowledged
modernists, Sergei Diaghilev, chose to make first opera and later ballet
his own personal playground.
Both Mamontov and Diaghilev, of course, found the accusations of
decadence distasteful and offensive. At the root of their protests, however, was a belief that the term, which to them spelled creative impotence
and obsession with the past, was inaccurate and misrepresented their
shared aesthetic position. The two would have much preferred being
called modernists, for in their approach to art, their common passion was novelty. Both insisted that art that did not strive for constant
development was doomed to stagnation.91 Like Diaghilev, Mamontov
tirelessly searched for the new faces: new performers, new artists, new
composers, and new music. I must search for new . . . operas. But where
to find them? he once exclaimed in desperation.92 He tirelessly pushed
his students to change, to develop, and to perfect their roles. Talent dies
without development. Why would you want to be an artist near art?
he wrote to Shkafer and Maria Chernenko.93 In this respect his most
talented student, Chaliapin, was to him a source, early on, of infinite joy,
and ultimately of disappointment. Where is his old desire to work, to
perfect himself, to move forward? Mamontov asked one interviewer.94
And to another, he stated: Today, F. I. Chaliapin remains the same wonderful artist and singer, but he no longer exists as a living artistic force.
Today he does not strive to move forward, like before.95
According to the sources cited by his biographer Mark Kopshitser,
to his dying day Mamontov attended every new theatrical production
(even those of which he disapproved) and art exhibition, at which his
sharp eye, good judgment, and an ability to spot talent remained valuable.96 His correspondence is full of battle rhetoric: he fights for the
new, organizes military assaults against the establishment, and so
on. His students and associates clearly saw his hunger for the modern
as an important part of his artistic persona. For instance, Shkafer in

his memoirs compared his mentor to another MPO stage director,
Mikhail Lentovskythe same Lentovsky mentioned above in connection with Boris Godunov. As Shkafer suggested, the differences in
their directing styles were merely a reflection of their divergent aesthetic views, specifically with respect to their approaches to modernity,
which in Mamontovs case strongly resemble Diaghilevs: Mamontov
the aesthete greedily grabbed for the new, wished to go forward by
whatever means necessary. M[ikhail] V[alentinovich] Lentovsky was
filled with the past of the old theater, and he accepted the edgy new
artistic searches and revelations with great difficulty.97 Similarly, in a
letter congratulating Mamontov on his name day (the same occasion
on which Alevtina Paskhalova sent her telegram), Semyon Kruglikov
painted a colorful picture of Mamontov the artist-revolutionary. Like
Paskhalova, Kruglikov appears very sincere in his admiration. But even
if he was merely trying to please his friend and employer, we may still
assume that the language used in his note would have been agreeable
to Mamontov and might have even reflected his own vision of himself.
Kruglikov wrote:
Revolution is a horror, but in the best sense of the word it exists in any
striving forward, and any champion of progress is, to some extent, a
revolutionary. And you are a revolutionary, and what a revolutionary!
One of the most insistent and impatient ones: you forever strive for the
new and new shores, whatever obstacles appear on your way. . . . You are
an enemy of conservative mold and conservatory stagnation; you are an
innovator by your very nature, your intellectual outlook, and your artistic
impulses. The French revolutionaries used to sing a ira. But it is not
enough for you to see that something you wish for, at some later time will
go forward. You demand it now, this minute; you are only happy when it
is already going forward, and your song is a va. Apparently, thats why
you are [called] Savva.98
In light of Mamontovs love of modernity, and his and Diaghilevs

shared passion for decadent staged art forms, it may appear strange that
Mamontov chose to employ his talents in the service of operaa genre
that few believed had a futurewhile ignoring ballet, which Diaghilev
embraced and made into a staple of the early-twentieth-century modernist repertoire. Of course, Mamontovs personal abilities and predilec-
tions would partially explain that: a trained bel canto singer and actor,
he was certainly no classical dancer. He did incorporate some relatively
untraditional choreography into his productions (for example, in tableau
6 of Sadko). His interest in stage movement was profound and paralleled
early Ballets Russes experiments; it will be the subject of a separate discussion in chapter 4. However, he apparently did not see the independent
genre of ballet as suitable for implementing his artistic ideals, believing
it somewhat empty and shallow, devoid of serious meaning. As he commented in 1904,
To feed the public cute, varicolored little ballets does not achieve the goal.
A trifle remains a trifle, however prettily colored. Give me classical operas,
produced and performed with strict artistry, that make me tremble with
awe; give me stylish, happy, brightly and energetically performed comic
operas, without the luxuries but with artistic meaning and brillianceI
will take off my hat and bow low.99
Mamontovs statement predates the first productions of the Ballets

Russes. At age sixty-eight in 1909, he would have been too frail to travel
to Paris to see it perform. It is hard to predict whether or not Mamontov
would have considered Diaghilevs productions ideologically shallow
(undoubtedly, some of them would have attracted his criticism). But it
is certainly possible that the enormous number of second-rate ballets
Mamontov saw at the Bolshoi Theater throughout his lifetime lowered
the genres value in his estimation. Perhaps his preference for opera
stemmed from his love of literature that demanded poetry to accompany
the music. Perhaps he simply did not realize the enormous possibilities
of the genre. As it happened, he believed opera to be the perfect vehicle
to transmit his aesthetic ideals to his audience.
Theater as School; Theater as Church

As mentioned above, Mamontovs artistic philosophy abounds in contradictions. One such contradiction was a coexistence in his mind of
the belief in the autonomy of art and the need to teach it to the public.
Mamontov wanted to educate his audience about beauty, to teach it a lesson in aesthetics, and to raise the level of its cultural awareness. Indeed,
according to Melnikov, the original program of the Private Opera [was]
the development of public taste.100 As Mamontov wrote to Shkafer in

the aftermath of his arrest, If I must still be active in life, much will be
completely changed, to come closer to the ideal, to what is necessary for
raising the level of public understanding.101 He was especially anxious
about the younger audience; if he failed to convert them, another generation would be lost. He aimed to attract young people to the theater
by providing reduced-price and even free morning performances, and
justified it as follows: The morning audience is the most interesting (this
is young Russia craving developmentthese are not fancy dandies and
simpering ladies bored with everything) . . . Morning performances
must be packed with peoplethis must be the law for the Private Opera
[as] an educational, cultivating institution.102
In this regard, the idea most wholeheartedly approved by Mamontovs Soviet apologists (and most remote from Diaghilevs vision) was his
idea of creating the so-called peoples theater; that is, a theater that, in
both its repertoire and its prices, would cater to poor and lower middleclass audiences. Here is an excerpt from his interview with Russkoe
Slovo:
Let us not forget that the stage is not an entertainment for the rich or a
show for amusement-seeking persons with the capital, but a school, a
platform from which pure and noble art flows to people. . . . People need
music, people love operafor me this is an incontrovertible fact . . . That is
why I express a warm wish for the construction in Moscow of a grandiose
building of the Peoples Opera in which thousands could be accommodated for a mere 1015 kopecks.103
This quotation in particular played in Mamontovs favor after the

revolution: researchers interested in his work found an opportunity to
rescue him from being labeled a capitalist. Instead, his name was placed
into the so-called fellow traveler category, which allowed some research to be done as early as the 1940s. What was understandably left out
of the Soviet literature was the fact that, while the idea of enlightenment
of the masses was present in his mind, his curriculum did not include
raising his audiences class consciousnessthe goal of the Kuchkists, the
Wanderers, and the literary critics of the 1860s. Mamontovs agenda was
the development of the publics aesthetic tasteits sense of beauty, rather
than of social responsibility. In this sense, his aesthetic position is again
opposed to that of the realists. Instead, it has a lot in common with the
views of early-twentieth-century modernists and their understanding

of the purpose of theater.
Specifically, Mamontovs beliefs in the transformative powers of
staged art align with the ideal of theater as church expressed by the
mystic symbolists104 a group that advocated Vladimir Solovyovs free
synthesis of art and religion.105 As a hedonist and far from a devout
Christian who was once called the sun worshipper,106 Mamontov could
never have fully accepted Solovyovs synthesis, but he did see art as a
type of worship, often claiming, as Solovyov did, that religion is declining and art ought to fill its place.107 His letters and those of his students
are filled with quasi-religious phraseology and references to the sanctity
of art. Artthats our religion! exclaimed Mikhail Vrubel.108 Raise
the spirits of talented people; call them to noble heights. Be an apostle,
and everyone will love and respect you, Mamontov wrote to Shkafer.109
And to Stanislavsky: May God help you firmly and decisively to lead the
sacred cause of art, and may He send you people who will support you
fully and firmly.110 In the following excerpt from one of his program
letters mentioned above, Shkafer expressed a hope of transforming
theater into a temple of arta popular idea enthusiastically shared by
the symbolists of both generations.
The theater of the Russian Private Opera serves the future, and in the
present it must direct all its energy, all its strength to keeping the bright,
the pure, and the joyous that have descended, blessed, and transformed
an ordinary theatrical enterprise into a temple of art. Here everyone has
felt the sanctity, the purity; the ideals of the good and of the truth.111
Notice how Shkafer links the ideals of pure beauty and art professed by
Mamontov and his associates with dobro [the Good] and istina [Truth,
in a higher, more sublime sense of the word than pravda, the truth of the
realists]. This is another echo of Solovyovs philosophy as expressed in
his 1889 essay, Prekrasnoe v Prirode [The Beautiful in Nature]:
Beauty . . . is not an expression of any meaning, but only the ideal meaning, it is an embodiment of Idea. . . . Looked at, specifically, from the point
of view of its internal unquestionable nature, as absolutely desirable or allowable, Idea is Good; from the point of view of the particular definitions
embraced by it, as a mental content for the mind, Idea is Truth; finally,
from the point of view of perfection as a completeness of its realization,
as actually sensed in a felt existence, Idea is Beauty.112
Mamontov never denied that theatrical enterprise was a business,

and earning a living was a part of it. Yet, he had little tolerance for people
who, in his own words, cling to art as a way to make money, but lack
talent and dedication to serve its sacred cause. All that mediocrity,
those little people; it is not given to them to look up, to absorb the flight
of angels on high, he said,113 and in another letter added bitterly:
Everyone [at the Imperial Theaters] thinks only about pay raises and
pensions, and no one cares about art. It appears that a man possesses not
five but six senses. The first five (sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell)
require development, and the sixth is banality that requires annihilation. While with rare exceptions banality reigns everywhere, the sermon
about pure and sublime art would be considered idle talk, and the people
serving it, shallow.114
Konstantin Stanislavsky was apparently Mamontovs favorite partner in conversations about art as a new religion. You know, of course,
that I love you very, very much for your love of art. Believe me that it is a
great cause, a high sermon, he wrote to the young director.115 With Stanislavsky Mamontov shared his most daring and advanced views about
the purpose and meaning of theater. In one letter, filled with biblical
references, he expressed sentiments very similar to some of Solovyovs
ideas, and at the same time typical of his own way of thinking:
In the eyes of the majority in our social circle, you and I are a pair of eccentrics, maybe even mentally deranged people. But in that derangement
of ours, something sacred, noble, and pure exists that saves society from
becoming like animals and calls it toward the ideal. In the early days,
such [people] would be hanged or stoned to death, but now the times are
different: now respectable people merely shrug their shoulders. But the
masses still absorb something, and whatever is absorbed nothing can
poison. Through the ages, art has had an irresistible influence upon men,
but in our time, I think, due to the shakiness of other aspects of the human spirit, it would shine even brighter. Who knows, maybe, theater is
fated to replace the sermon?116
Mamontovs views on the role of theater in modern society adhere

very closely to the symbolist writings of the 1890s and early 1900s. Like
him, the symbolists sought to transcend reality through beauty and art,
despised naturalist theater, and avoided social and political stands in
their work. Indeed, Mamontovs words in his letter to Stanislavsky seem
to echo those of symbolist writer Alexei Remizov, who believed that

theater is not a copy of human degradation; theater is a cult, a liturgy
in whose mysteries, perhaps, Redemption is hidden.117 Like Mamontov,
the symbolists envisioned a theater that would assume the psychological and social functions formerly served by religion.118 Still, Mamontov
believed that while artists-worshippers influenced the audience through
their service by instilling tender and sublime feelings and inspiring it to
strive for the ideal (or for the noble existence, in Solovyovs words), the
audience itself was passive, reactive to the artist as creative agent. Never
in his wildest dreams would Mamontov have gone as far as the mystic
symbolist writers, Georgy Chulkov (18791939) and Vyacheslav Ivanov,
who, in the later 1900s, wanted to bridge the gap between an artist and
his audience by making everyone in the theater equal participants in
a common liturgy. Then again, other symbolists disapproved of their
radicalism just as much as Mamontov would have. Perhaps, in the final
analysis, his aesthetic principles did not move far beyond the threshold
of the new century. Nevertheless, absorbing throughout his long life the
diverse ideas of realism, Slavophilism, and art for arts sake, by the 1890s
Savva Mamontov developed his own personal philosophy that ideologically and aesthetically echoed that of the Russian decadents, and thus
truly belongs to the Silver Age.
In the remainder of this book, we shall investigate how philosophy
translated into practice by tracing the impact of Mamontovs decadent
aesthetics on specific policies he promoted in various aspects of his artistic endeavors. We begin with a creative field that gave Mamontov
the most exposure as part of Russias cultural canon, yet also arguably
marginalized him the most by making him the exclusive property of
art historianshis lifelong commitment to the visual arts. Mamontovs
involvement with Russias leading painters, sculptors, architects, craftsmen, illustrators, and other artist members of the Abramtsevo Circle is
the subject of the following chapter.
t h r ee
Echoes of Abramtsevo
The best-known aspect of Savva Mamontovs colorful career is undoubtedly his role as a Maecenas.1 The tradition of sharing a part of
ones wealth with ones countrymen while exalting ones own name
through charity work or art patronage had deep roots in Russias business circles, to which the Mamontov family belonged.2 In the late nineteenth century, art patronage was viewed as both a noble, respectable
pastime and good business practice by the Moscow capitalist elite.
Theater historian Konstantin Rudnitsky explains: Moscow entrepreneurs and businessmen, while risking substantial sums of money for
the sake of art and education, wished at the same time to glorify their
own names. The Tretyakov gallery, the Mamontov opera company, the
Shchukin collection, the Bakhrushin museum were founded.3 A variety
of well-wishers, from Vladimir Stasov 4 to an anonymous admirer whose
letter is preserved among Mamontovs papers, 5 compared him to his
brother-in-law Pavel Tretyakov, whose charitable gesture of donating
his gallery to the city of Moscow brought him widespread admiration
and respect. Meanwhile, in a letter quoted in the previous chapter, Mamontov described himself to Stanislavsky as an eccentric in the eyes
of his social circle, an accusation that was never leveled at Tretyakov.6
Indeed, contrary to Stuart Grovers assertion that involvement with
the arts helped further Mamontovs business interests,7 Vasily Shkafer
described in his memoirs a rude reprimand his mentor once received
from finance minister Carl Witte for babying some opera company
instead of paying attention to his railroads.8 Evidently, there was some
68
e c hoe s of a br a m t s e vo 69
aspect to Savva Mamontovs artistic activities that broke the unwritten

code of the socially acceptable; something that distinguished him from
other patrons.
In the great tradition of the Russian merchant class, Mamontov considered it his duty to provide financial support to artists. Like Shchukin,
Morozov, and Tretyakov, he commissioned and bought their works; he
was also in the habit of discretely supplying numerous cash loans that
would never be repaid. However, his motivations differed substantially
from those of other representatives of his social circle who considered
supporting the arts their social, religious, or patriotic duty. Ilya Bondarenko, one of the beneficiaries of Mamontovs patronage, pithily defined its unique quality in his memoir, writing: [Others] collected art.
Savva Ivanovich created art. That is a significant difference, and that is
where his advantage lies.9
In his assessment, Bondarenko was not thinking only of Mamontovs work as a sculptor, although this talentacknowledged, developed,
and promoted by as sharp a critic as Mark Antokolskybrought him
much-desired (and well-deserved) public recognition late in life (see plate
5). Nor was Bondarenkos judgment specifically addressing Mamontovs
four decades of experiments in ceramics and majolica, for which he
would be awarded gold medals at two consecutive Paris World Fairs.
Mamontov was a gifted sculptor, but certainly not one of Antokolskys
rank; and his majolica designs, while original, lacked Vrubels vision. If
his artistic endeavors were limited to sculpting and ceramics, Mamontovs place in the history of the Russian arts would remain, if respectable,
rather modest.
What made Mamontovs activities unique (and in his social circles,
likely rather inappropriate) was his ability to create art around him; he
made it happen. His associates from different artistic fields described in
their letters and memoirs the unbridled energy and enthusiasm of the
magician who could break through their writers block, laziness, or
depression. For instance, MPO soprano Nadezhda Zabela, who would
prove to be one of Mamontovs severest critics (see chapter 5), once wrote
to him: Somehow you are surprisingly able to settle things, to make
people act, and to turn them toward their true path; you were a big help
to me in this way.10 Painter Victor Vasnetsov, the creator of the Snow
Maiden designs, marveled at Mamontovs ability to uplift and to build
creative enthusiasm around him: working with [Mamontov], it was

easy to fly up to heavenly clouds.11
Mamontovs ability to inspire, described by Vasnetsov, became evident even in the early days of his friendship with the members of the
Roman colony. In the 1870s, when business commitments prevented
him from spending as much time in Rome (and later Paris, where some
Romans would migrate) as he would have liked, he kept in touch with
his friends by writing to them directly or through his wife, Elizaveta,
who during that time lived permanently in Italy. As this correspondence
reveals, Mamontov carved a twofold niche for himself as a member of
the group: creating art (as a sculptor) and supporting artists (through
commissions and direct financial aid). Somewhere in between these
two activities, however, lay his true and increasingly evident mission
supporting his friends by inspiring (and later, as we shall witness, directing) their creativity. Back in Moscow after his first extended trip to
Italy, Mamontov wrote the following to Elizaveta, who was still in Rome:
Overall, to my great pleasure I note that my heart is drawn towards
our Roman friends even more strongly than before; and fool that I am,
I was afraid I would dry up . . . What is Morduch [Antokolsky] working
on? Please, describe in detail. Is Basil really not painting comme il faut?
Whip him up, its your responsibility!12
During that time, Mamontovs friendship with BasilVasily Polenovgrew deep; he also became closer to Polenovs former classmate
and Paris roommate, Ilya Repin. In letters to Polenov, Mamontov discussed his personal artistic frustrations, related news from Rome, and
of course demanded detailed accounts of both painters time in Paris:
Tell me, at least in secret, what you are doing, i.e., what you and Repin
are paintingI promise I wont tell. For I am interested, as God is my
witness. I am sculpting happily; pity that nothing [good] is coming out
but Im still sculpting . . . For Christmas I was in Rome, of course.13
By the mid-1870s, however, Mamontov was growing dissatisfied.
While still visiting Rome and Paris regularly, he began a persistent campaign to convince his Roman friends to return to Russia. Ah, damn it,
how wonderful it would be if Repin, Morduch, and yourself could really
be in Moscow; what a good, active, artistic life we would lead, he wrote
to Polenov.14 He further enticed the artists during their intermittent visits
to Moscow by creating ideal working conditions for them: renting stu-
dios, helping with the sale of their works, organizing open lectures and
publicity. But it was his country estate of Abramtsevo that would finally
bring them back, becoming the Russian artistic Mecca, and eventually
the crucible for the Moscow Private Opera.
The Mamontov Circle

The Abramtsevo or Mamontov Circle, as it came to be known among
Russias intellectual elite, was an informal group that united, over more
than a thirty-year period, three generations of the greatest Russian
artists. Apart from Polenov, Repin, and Antokolsky, its members included the Vasnetsov brothers, Victor and Apollinary (18561933), and
Vasily Surikov (18481916), all usually affiliated with the Wanderers.
The artists of the next generation included landscape painters Ilya Ostroukhov (18581929) and Isaac Levitan; Mikhail Nesterov (18621942),
whose passion lay in religious subjects; and sculptor Paolo Trubetskoy
(18661910). Most importantly, Repin and Polenovs studentsValentin
Serov, Konstantin Korovin, and Alexander Golovin (18631930)joined
in, as well as the maverick genius Mikhail Vrubel. In the 1890s, these
artists would lay the foundation for modernist art in Russia: Korovin
would become its Manet, Golovin its Pissarro, Serov its Czanne, and
Vrubel its Van Gogh.15 Finally, the youngest members of the Mamontov
Circlepainters Victor Borisov-Musatov, Pavel Kuznetsov (18781968),
Nikolai Sapunov (18801912), Sergei Sudeikin (18821946), Nikolai Ulyanov (18751949), and Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin (18781939)would grow
to be major representatives of symbolism in Russian painting.
The artists of the Mamontov Circle exhibit an enormous variety of
styles and techniques, ranging from traditional realism to impressionism, symbolism, and neo-primitivism. What brought them together was
the unique personality of Savva Mamontov. Indeed, his name figures
so prominently in many painters biographies that it is not surprising
to find it more frequently in the works of art historians than those of
musicologists. From 1873 onward, Mamontovs Abramtsevo was a summer retreat where painters lived for months, resting and working in
spacious studios or on beautiful natural locations around the estate. In
winter, similar hospitality was provided at Mamontovs Moscow mansion. Guests could be personally invited by the host or introduced by
an intimate of the circle. In the latter case, Mamontov and the rest of
the group apparently needed to approve the newcomer before he or
she became a permanent fixture at their gatherings: according to art
historian Dora Kogan, since the Roman days, the circle called itself the
family and jealously guarded against invasions by outsiders.16 Visitors to Abramtsevo enjoyed an opportunity to discuss their art, finding
inspiration, appreciation, and sophisticated criticism in their colleagues,
as well as their host. I love asking for [Mamontovs] advice, Repin once
wrote to Serov. He is a sensitive personsmart and artistic.17
The list of Mamontovs hand-picked guests was not limited to artists.
Discussion topics covered, apart from purely painterly matters, music,
poetry, drama, philosophy, politics, and religion. Members of the circle
modeled for each other and made art together. Repin, Vasnetsov, and
I have sculpted [portraits of] each other; and now the three busts are
triumphantly displayed. Youll see them when you get here, Mamontov
wrote to Polenov from Abramtsevo.18 Pyotr Melnikov, an intimate of the
circle, recalled Repin painting Mamontov as his Nikolai-Chudotvorets
[Nicholas the Miracle Worker].19 The hosts children modeled for numerous masterpieces by Polenov, Serov, Nesterov, and Victor Vasnetsov,
including the latters Tri Bogatyrya [Three Knights] and a Serov classic,
Devochka s Persikami [Girl with Peaches]. For the younger members, Mamontov would organize field trips abroadto France, Italy, and Spain
and to the Russian North that he saw as an untapped treasure chest
for landscape painters. Among the results of Korovins trips, Melnikov
listed his famous Ispanki [Spanish Girls] that used to hang in Savva
Ivanovichs study, and the equally famous Severnaya Idilliya [Northern
Idyll] in his living room.20
One of the most important communal projects of the Mamontov
Circle was the 1882 construction of the Abramtsevo church, often viewed
by scholars as the groups inauguration as an artist colony.21 Members of
the circle effectively created the building from scratch: from the architectural design, masonry, and carpentry to icon painting and floor mosaics.
An outgrowth of the work conducted by Vrubel, Victor Vasnetsov, and
Adrian Prakhov in Kiev, where they were commissioned to restore St.
Cyrils Cathedral, this project was an indication of the future that lay
ahead for the group. Another such indication was domashny teatr [home
theater]amateur theatricals initially mounted during Christmas holi-
days at the Moscow house, and later also at Abramtsevo during the
summer. At first merely entertainment for the children, these productions eventually grew into more serious artistic endeavors, becoming the
main focus of the groups collective creativity. As such, they also became
public affairs, performed in the presence of invited dignitaries from the
Moscow intelligentsia, with printed programs, newspaper advertising,
and official press reviews. Productions of the Mamontov Circle included
spoken dramas, operettas, and spoofs (some of Mamontovs own creation), as well as operatic scenes and even complete operas. The whole
circle participated in designing sets, costumes, lighting, and makeup,
as well as singing, acting, dancing, playing the piano, and anything
else required by the stage director, Mamontov (a small orchestra for the
operas would usually be the only hired help). According to Vasnetsov,
it was considered inappropriate to refuse an assignment due to a perceived lack of talent or experienceboth were acquired and developed
in practice.22
Mamontovs home theatricals were the first practical experience of
his painter friends with designing for the stage. At the Academy, set design was taught for a single semester on paper and models, without taking into account the peculiarities of theatrical perspective that required
a designer to adjust his vision to a much larger canvas and a greater distance in order to create the necessary illusion.23 Those who learned that
skill on their own became professional decorators. As such, they rarely if
ever returned to the easel, and were derided, often justly, as mere artisans
by their colleagues. Mamontov provided his painter friends with their
first opportunity to experimentin an informal atmosphere, without
the pressure of a paid job or demand for perfectionwith transferring
their techniques from an easel onto a backdrop. In the large study of his
Moscow residence and the Abramtsevo ballroom, the Russian school of
theater design was born. Its radically innovative approach to the painterly medium would revolutionize Russian stage production and, in the
flamboyant designs of the Ballets Russes, would take Europe by storm
and influence modernist art for years to come.
The collective creativity of such diverse artistic personalities as those
composing the Mamontov Circle was only possible, of course, because
the collaborators had a common aesthetic platform that would unite
them, despite their differences, for a single creative purpose. This plat-
form was their allegiance to the philosophy of art for arts sake, developed by the founding members during their tenure in Rome and Paris
and enthusiastically embraced by the younger generation. Mamontov
and his artists also shared another, more practical interest, noted by
Elizabeth Valkenier: [At] Mamontovs Abramtsevo circle . . . decorative aspects of art were of primary importance.24 This fascination with
the decorative and the ornamental resulted from the circles continuous
in-depth study of Russian folk art. Abramtsevo boasted woodcarving,
furniture making, and ceramics workshops, where the traditional crafts
were resurrected and even taught to local villagers. Apart from working
in these workshops, the artists also studied traditional pottery painting,
costumes, toys, and the form of woodcut printed miniature called the
lubok,25 as well as medieval architecture and icon painting, putting their
knowledge to the test in the construction of the Abramtsevo church. Apparently, each artist would try his or her hand at multiple crafts. Some
exhibited particular preferences, such as Maria Yakunchikova and Elena
Polenovas study of traditional embroidery, the Vasnetsov brothers interest in icon painting, also shared by Vrubel, and the latters enduring
fascination with majolica. As will be evident from the discussion below,
the Mamontov artists study of folklore did not have as its purpose a
faithful, realistic copying of folk art, but rather an absorption and aesthetization of its motifs and techniques.
The philosophical and artistic agenda of the Mamontov Circleits
allegiance to the aesthetics of pure art, its interest in the decorative,
formalist aspects of art (a central characteristic of the decadent style)
as well as the imaginative application of folk motifs in the works of its
membersopened a new page in the history of Russian art. It is on that
page that we first discern the word modernism. Why then have scholars on both sides of Russias borders so consistently propagated a myth
of Abramtsevo as a power base of the Wanderers?
Mamontov and the Wanderers

As we have seen, the Wanderers call for an artist to learn higher obligations, dependence on the instincts and needs of his people, and the
harmonization of his inner feelings and personal strivings with the general striving26 was alien to Mamontov and his circle. They refused to
accept a Russian artists supposed obligation to give up creative freedom

in order to take a stand on social and political issues, as the leader of
the Wanderers, Ivan Kramskoy (183787), once put it in a letter to Ilya
Repin.27 Instead, they adhered to Dostoevskys demand for the works
of art without a preconceived tendency, produced solely because of
an artistic urge, dealing with strictly neutral subjects, [and] hinting at
nothing tendentious.28 Nevertheless, a common misconception about
Mamontov as a supporter of the Wanderers and their ideology prevails
in much secondary literature. In a glaring example, respected American
scholar Glenn Watkins managed to conflate the two groups in both
of his widely acclaimed studies of musical modernism. The following
fascinating ideological mlange is excerpted from his Pyramids of the
Louvre:
At Mamontovs estate at Abramtsevo near Moscow, a colony of painters,
composers, singers, actors, architects, art historians, and archaeologists,
who dubbed themselves The Wanderers, threw the first challenge to the
official Petersburg Academy of Art, which had dominated taste since the
time of Catherine the Great in the mid-eighteenth century. In an attempt
to define an art that was useful to the people, they rejected, not unlike
Herder in Germany, the Western aesthetic of art for arts sake and
sought to formulate an art based on their Russian national heritage.29
Here, Watkins mistook the Abramtsevo Circle for the Association of

Traveling Exhibitions; alluded to the Wanderers secession from the
Academy, which occurred a decade prior to Mamontovs purchase of
Abramtsevo, as a part of its history; and even conflated the divergent
philosophies of the realists, Slavophiles, and aesthetes. Unfortunately,
he also completely misrepresented Mamontovs aesthetic platform to
his wide readership.
The roots of the scholars confusion lie in the fact that the formative
years of the Mamontov Circle overlapped with the creation of the Wanderers Association. Many of the Abramtsevo artists were also card-carrying members of the Association, or at least participated in its annual
exhibitions. This apparent aesthetic contradiction is easy to reconcile,
however, if we realize that The Wanderers, as an ideologically unified
organization with the single purpose of serving society the truth about
itself, has always been an illusory concept. The illusion was carefully
constructed and maintained, in cooperation with Kramskoy, and not
always by praiseworthy means, by Vladimir Stasov, the groups selfappointed spokesman. As Valkenier astutely observed,
Stasov expended not only his energies but also considerable cunning to
create (shape would be a more exact word) a certain public image that
did not always correspond to the painters preferences and aspirations.
In fact, he did not hesitate to distort their views in order to promote his
own vision of a Russian school of painting that was both national and
civic-minded.30
A good example of Stasovs promotion of the realist public image

of an artist without the latters knowledge or consent is the critics relationship with Ilya Repin. Repin started his career as Stasovs favorite
realist. However, in the early 1870s, after spending time at the Roman
colony and later settling in Paris on a three-year Academy scholarship,
his views on art and the mission of an artist began to alter. Early in his
Paris tenure, now a close friend of Polenov, the Prakhov brothers, and
Mamontov, Repin wrote an alarming letter to Kramskoy: When will
[Russian art] fight its way out of the fog?! Its a misfortune that terribly
fetters it with barren accuracy in . . . techniques; and in its ideas, with
rationalized concepts drawn from political economy. How far removed
poetry is from such a situation!31 Despite Repins changed attitude toward the aesthetic and social mission of the Wanderers, Stasov managed
to pressure him into painting works with a correct realist message for
at least another decade (Kryostnyi Khod v Kurskoi Gubernii [Religious
Procession in Kursk District] dates from 1883). The critic also succeeded
during that time in manipulating the public into believing in the Repin
that he had created. He fought bitterly against any of the artists friends
who dared to attempt a different approach to his output. Thus, in his
Novoe Vremya article dated 8 January 1877, Stasov responded furiously
to the threat posed by Adrian Prakhov, who had suggested that Repins
talent might allow him to paint, apart from the endless barge haulers,
other subjects as well.32 Only in the 1890s did Repin, by then a respected
member of the Academy with a voice of his own, finally dare to set the
record straight, publicizing his views (from the safety of Paris) in a series
of essays titled Letters on Art. Stasov never forgave him. Predictably
enough, Soviet art historians who created the posthumous image of
Repin faithfully followed Stasovs portrait of the artist. They ignored
Letters on Art and other writings, in which Repin stated his preference
for art for arts sake over realist truth and defended the value of painterly
technique over moralizing content. They also purged his biography of
any personal connections that could jeopardize his retouched realist
image. Among the names conveniently forgotten were those of Adrian
Prakhov and Savva Mamontov.
Repin was not the only Wanderer who managed occasionally to escape Stasovs prescriptions on what form and content were suitable for
art. Another of the critics pet projects was sculptor Mark Antokolsky,
whom he exalted as a true realist for his statue of Ivan the Terrible.33 In
1872, Antokolsky rebelled against Stasovs stifling tutelage and the path
that the critic had chosen for him by adamantly refusing to follow his
Ivan with a statue of the eighteenth-century rebel peasant leader Emelyan
Pugachov. In his defense, the sculptor wrote to Stasov: I no longer want
to spoil other peoples nerves with my art, to arouse bile . . . and hatred
among people. This is the consequence of tendentiousness [in art], and I
have given it up.34 Antokolskys letter dates from a year when the Roman
colony was particularly active, holding regular gatherings at his studio.
Conveniently, Antokolskys refusal to accommodate Stasovs demand for
the Pugachov statue freed him to work on another commissionfrom
Mamontov who, by contrast, left the choice of subject matter up to the
sculptor. The statue of Christ profaned by the crowd that would later
grace Mamontovs study (see plate 2) was one of Antokolskys masterpieces, and an image completely different from what Stasov would have
him project.
As we can see, despite the pressure to conform, Russias most talented artists found ways to affirm their independence from the demands
of realist ideology. However, Kramskoy and Stasov still held the trump
cards: starting in 1870, the annual exhibitions of the Wanderers Association were the most prestigious venue for Russian artists to display
their works outside the Academy. Consequently, they represented the
only public market available for them to sell their paintings, receive
new commissions, and thus make a living as professionals. According
to Valkenier, by the late 1870s the process of selecting the paintings for
these exhibitions became exceedingly prescriptive, rejecting any work
that did not conform to the Wanderers narrow vision of art: the exhibits
now consisted almost exclusively of realist genre paintings, while any
experiment with form and color was disallowed. The artists had two
choices: to starve, or to compromise by painting genre works for the

exhibitions, while privately creating art more personal in content and
more advanced in technique, in the hope of one day finding an outlet
for it. Savva Mamontov gave his artist friends a third option. His keen
eye, excellent taste, and little patience for either moral or critical realism35 made him an ideal judge of their experiments. His vast capital and
willingness to invest it in art created a one-man market for the works
that could not fulfill either realist or academic expectations. Finally,
Mamontovs social position as a recognized authority on art, a popular
host to Moscows intellectual elite, and a brother-in-law to Russias most
steadfast collector of native art, Pavel Tretyakov, provided the artists he
supported with de facto recognition, valuable connections, and muchneeded exposure.
Not everyone could partake of Mamontovs generous patronage,
however. He was highly selective in his friendships. Thus, despite dutifully attending the exhibitions, this apparent insider of the Wanderer
circles was never close to Kramskoy (or to Stasov, for that matter). Instead, he preferred the liberal wing of the Associationthe artists with a
broader view of their mission, a more beauty-oriented aesthetic outlook,
and a keener interest in and tolerance for technical innovation. In the
1870s, Mamontovs intimates included Antokolsky, Repin, and particularly Polenov, who, as the most sophisticated and the least realist of the
Wanderers, was an object of Stasovs pointed disdain. During the 1880s,
Mamontov also became close to Vasily Surikov, who at that time had
just discovered art for arts sake and was much taken with the new techniques of color usage he had observed while visiting Polenov in Rome.
Mamontov was equally particular about the works that he bought. There
is no record of his ever purchasing a Kramskoy, a Perov, or a Makovsky,
but, according to a letter to Polenov, he was passionately happy to have
acquired several sketches by Fyodor Vasiliev (185073).36 The early death
of this talented landscape painter unfortunately prevented him from
becoming a Levitan of the 1870s. In retrospect, the association of such
a true decadent with realist circles seems a curious misunderstanding
on both sides.
Perhaps the most instructive case of Mamontovs role in creating an
outlet for the new post-realist trends born within the Association is his
relationship with and patronage of Victor Vasnetsov. At the beginning
of his career, Vasnetsov was a typical representative of the realist movement, his paintings sympathetically depicting the poor and the desolate
of Russian society. By the late 1870s, however, he began taking his subjects from ancient Slavic history, myths, and fairy talesa tendency that
alarmed Stasov and Kramskoy but deeply intrigued Savva Mamontov
when Vasnetsov was introduced to him by Repin.
The new Vasnetsov was considered a traitor and was boycotted by
the realist-affiliated students at the Moscow College of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture. Two Wanderers threatened to resign from the
Association if Vasnetsovs canvas Posle Bitvy Knyazya Igorya Svyatoslavicha s Polovtsami [After the Battle of Prince Igor with the Polovtsy]
(inspired by the twelfth-century epic Slovo o Polku Igoreve [Tale of Igors
Campaign], newly translated by Mstislav Prakhov) was accepted by the
selection committee; when it was eventually exhibited, Stasov refused to
review it. The critic was even more infuriated by the Bitva Russkikh so
Skifami [Battle of the Russians with the Scythians], which, with its openly
anachronistic subject matter, offended his concept of the historical painting as a representation of the truth. Stasov branded Vasnetsovs fairy
tales unsuccessful trumped-up stories, his Tri Tsarevny Podzemnogo
Tsarstva [Three Princesses of the Underground Kingdom] dry wooden
idols lacking soul and inspiration,37 and his masterpiece, Alyonushka
a whiny, ugly, and sentimental figure completely unnatural for [the
painters] talent.38
In his extensive treatise titled Dvadtsat Pyat Let Russkogo Iskusstva
[Twenty-Five Years of Russian Art], the critic declared that all those
bogatyri, at a battlefield, at a crossroads, in magical flight, in thought,
etc., were completely worthless when created by Russian painters.39
Despite the apparent generality of his critique, every single subject on
Stasovs hit list was a reference to a painting by Victor Vasnetsov. Indeed,
the painters name appears in the very next sentence: the critic called the
style of Vasnetsovs works on gray Russian antiquity unrecognizable,
while later in the treatise praising his early, realist canvases such as S
Kvartiry na Kvartiru [From Apartment to Apartment], Chai v Kharchevne
[Tea at a Diner], and Preferans u Chinovnika [The Card Game] as the
painters best.40 Meanwhile, Mamontov encouraged his protg, paid
for his studio and living expenses, bought his works, and commissioned
new ones. Indeed, two of the bogatyri paintings dismissed by Stasov as
worthless, Vityaz na Raspute [A Knight at a Crossroads] and KovyorSamolyot [Magic Carpet] as well as Alyonushka and The Three Princesses,
all at one time decorated the walls of Mamontovs Moscow mansion (see
plate 3). Mamontov also brokered outside commissions for the painter,
including a prestigious one from the History Museum for the frescos
depicting the Stone Agea work that even Stasov grudgingly admired.41
Mamontov would remain close to Vasnetsov for the rest of his life, and
the artist would become one of the most important collaborators on his
patrons theatrical projects.
In her definitive work on the Wanderers, Valkenier explains Stasovs disapproval of the new trend in Vasnetsovs career by suggesting
that the painter started to glorify the wrong historic tradition.42 She
believes that in the critics view, Vasnetsovs topics were too ancient
to be of relevance to contemporary society, with their legends of good
princes running contrary to the modern orientation toward the poor
and, more importantly, ignoring the true realities of history. That is,
Valkenier still considers Vasnetsov a painter with a historical orientation, comparing him to another Abramtsevo insider, Surikov, whose
best-known works, Boyarina Morozova and Utro Streletskoi Kazni [The
Morning of the Streltsy Execution], feature scenes from seventeenth-century Russian history. It is characteristic, however, that while there were
several canvases by Vasnetsov in Mamontovs house, there were none by
Surikov.43 It is also important to note that Stasov never had a problem
with Surikovs understanding of history. It appears that the critic was
worried not by the fact that Vasnetsov was abandoning genre paintings
for historical subjects, but by his new approach to those subjects. The
direction the painter was taking, away from proper realist storytelling
toward legends and fairy talesthat is, from history toward mythologyis what Stasov probably feared the most.44 Yet, that new direction
was precisely what Mamontov admired and supported. He used both
his personal encouragement and his considerable resources to promote
Vasnetsovs stylized primitivism45 that would later so intrigue the Mir
Iskusstva artists that they felt compelled to launch their journal with an
issue dedicated to the painter.
Victor Vasnetsov was one of only a few painters of the older generation whose work was accepted (sometimes grudgingly) by Mir Iskusstva,
and featured in their eponymous journal. In general, starting in the
late 1870s, the relationship between the original Wanderers, by now a

powerful establishment in their own right, and their younger colleagues
supported by Mamontov, became increasingly strained. Serov, Korovin,
Vrubel, Nesterov, Levitan, and other young painters detested the realists for their rejection of individual artistic expression and their preoccupation with socially relevant content at the expense of technique. To
Sergei Diaghilev, for example, the restrictive manner in which the older
Wanderers enforced the monopoly on artistic taste they had come to
think was their birthright to exercise46 indicated a lack of sincerity
he demanded of modern art in Complex Questions.47 To Vrubel, the
subordination of artistic freedom to social causes meant a rejection of
art and an assault on its audience:
[An artist] must not become a slave: he has his own original, special cause
in which he is the best judge; the cause he must respect, and not denigrate
its significance by using it as a tool of tendentious journalism. To do so is
to deceive the public: playing on its ignorance, to steal from it that special
pleasure that separates the spiritual state in front of an artwork from that
in front of an unfolded newspaper. In the end, this could even lead to a
complete atrophy of the need for such pleasure. It would mean stealing
the best part of life from a person!48
Another point of generational contention was access to and acceptance of contemporary Western art. While the older painters admired
the dramatic, realistic story-telling of Hans Makart (184084) and Jan
Matejko (183893), the younger ones studied the Pre-Raphaelites, built
an uneasy relationship with the impressionists, and adored the French
symbolists, particularly Pierre Puvis de Chavannes (182498). Even the
more liberal Wanderers such as Repin parted ways with their students
on that issue: the conflict that led to Repins departure from the Mir
Iskusstva editorial board was sparked precisely by the journals scathing criticism of Matejko.49 But the most problematic issue between the
realists and their successors, as Valkenier points out, was the spirit of
intolerance and bureaucracy that reigned in the Wanderers selection
committee charged with choosing works for the annual exhibits and
accepting new members into the Association:
The older painters were loath to encourage the young and very grudgingly
admitted them first as exhibitors in the annual shows and then to full
membership in the Association. Serov gained membership in 1894 after
several years of exhibiting; Korovin was never admitted, even though he

had nine works accepted by the jury between 1889 and 1898; and Vrubel
never made it past the jury. While these painters, now recognized as
masters of Russian art, were being slighted, many a mediocre Salon talent long since forgotten . . . was readily admitted to the exhibits and to
the Association.50
Even card-carrying Wanderers such as Repin, Polenov, and Vasnetsov suffered from that approach. In addition, thanks to the Associations restrictive by-laws, which gave only its founding members votes
on the selection committee, the liberal Wanderers had no opportunity
to help their younger colleagues. By the 1890s, the need for change was
imminent. And as usual, Savva Mamontov was the driving force behind
that change. A long-standing and active member of the Moscow Society of Art Lovers, in 1895 Mamontov, together with Polenov, wrote the
mission statement and by-laws of a new exhibition society. The Moscow
Association of Artists [Moskovskoe Tovarishchestvo Khudozhnikov],
or MAA, established in 1893 but officially registered in early 1896, was a
Moscow equivalent of the St. Petersburg Society of Artists, established
in 1890.51 Both organizations appeared in response to the suffocating
atmosphere created by the merger between the dried-up remnants of the
Wanderers threatened by the emergence of new artistic styles, and their
former adversaries at the Academy:
For a few years now, the former difference between the two chief camps of
our artiststhe Wanderers and the Academicianshas been disappearing, like a brook in the sand. [The Wanderers] genre has mellowed and
crumbled; a stamp of mediocrity and weariness is upon it. On the other
hand, genre has also found its place among Academic painters.52
The new exhibition societies attempted to present an alternative for

young artists who essentially had no place to exhibit their innovative
works in public. Mamontovs involvement in the Moscow organization
included a place on the admission committee, as well as chairmanship
of the jury that both selected the works and awarded annual prizes. His
guidance is discernable in the MAAs more liberal policies, as compared
to the Wanderers and even to its counterpart in the northern capital. Its
primary goal, stated in the founders official registration request, was
to ensure that with the creation of the MAA, a large number of artists
would be freed from the influence of the Wanderers Association, which
pressures [them] with its one-sided direction.53 The admission process

for the new members was refreshingly democratic: closed ballot of the
general assembly. Despite the MAAs apparent anti-Wanderer stand,
no styles were excluded from its exhibitions, the only criterion being
artistic quality of the work, as judged by the selection committee. Works
ranged from traditional realist genre paintings to the newest trends
presented by the adherents of art for arts sake, with an emphasis on
landscape and a preference for coloristic painterly style, as opposed to
the dry narrative of the late Wanderers.54 A remarkable innovation of
the MAA was its practice of exhibiting decorative crafts alongside easel
painting and sculpture. The practice was established at the Sixth MAA
Exhibition in February 1899 and subsequently became the norm. The
MAA policy of concurrent exhibition of arts and crafts was unprecedented in the history of Russian arts. The two genres were traditionally
separated not only by style and technique, but also by their unwritten
hierarchy, the crafts commonly being dismissed as artisan fare of marginal importance.55 The practice of equating the artistic value of easel
and crafts was a legacy of Abramtsevo, and one can hardly overestimate
its significance for the development of the dcor-obsessed Russian style
moderne.
The Moscow Association of Artists thus essentially offered a historical transition point from the exclusively realist exhibits of the Wanderers in the 1870s and 1880s to the modernist annuals organized by
Diaghilev starting in 1898 under the banner of Mir Iskusstva, in which
realist works were no longer welcome. Ensuring an occasionally awkward coexistence of widely divergent artistic trends (from realism to
symbolism) in the same show was a Mamontov trademark. In 1894, the
First All-Russian Congress of Artists took place in Moscow. Among
its goals were resolving the conflict between the older and the younger
generation, discussing the new trends in contemporary Russian art,
and providing safeguards for its continuing development. According
to the press reports, the congress delegates did not progress far beyond
a declaration of principles. Yet, Mamontovs active participation in its
organization (he also supervised the exhibitions, tableaux vivant, and
other artistic activities accompanying the congress) speaks volumes of
his position in the 1890s as a living bridge between the old and the new
aesthetics in the arts.
As mentioned earlier, Mamontovs relationship with the arts of the

late 1900s and 1910s was complicated. At his age, it was probably difficult for him to adjust to the lightning pace of innovation. Mamontov
was especially upset about the fate of talented older painters like Repin
and Polenov, whose legacies were now predictably neglected by younger
artists and ignored by audiences. In one letter to Polenov, Mamontov
expressed dismay at the poor publicity for his old friends latest show,
and grumbled that instead, everyone ran to the exhibition of the stupid
Blue Rose (the latest word in artistic insolence)but why?56 Mamontov
defended his old friends as best he could, in private correspondence and
in the press. Half-serious, half tongue-in-cheek, he wrote to Polenov:
I have already made my debut as a journalist. Well, they havent beaten
me up yet, but it would probably end this way, for I am no good at singing
praises, and to the contrary point out weaknesses. A little article about
sculptor Trubetskoy turned out well. I want to write about Repin and
Polenov, and what I write is my own business: I am not going to ask for
their advice. But seriously, it is wrong to keep silent about the people who
have worked so long and hard.57
Pressed by Paris Opra Comique director Albert Carr (18521938) to

procure designs by a younger artist, rather than supplying those by
Vasnetsov, for its 1908 production of The Snow Maiden, Mamontov responded testily: When one can profit from the work of Vasnetsov or
Polenov, one has no need of Korovin or Bilibin.58 The latter response
needs to be judged in the context of the falling-out between Mamontov
and Korovin over the artists shameful behavior during his patrons arrest and trial.59 Their (still largely halfhearted) reconciliation would not
be forthcoming for several years. As a consequence, Mamontov, also
clearly offended by Carrs assessment of Vasnetsovs work, cannot be
expected to be completely objective in his recommendation. Similarly, in
an interview two years later, while publicly acknowledging Korovin as a
wonderful artist, Mamontov expressed his doubts about his more daring
formal experiments, judging them to be an empty pursuit of fashion.60
Mamontov was even less enthusiastic about cubo-futurism and
other avant-garde trends in nonrepresentational art: to him, such art
lacked sincerity, as well as beauty. For example, while not particularly
excited about Fyodor Fedorovskys impressionist designs for the 1913
production of The Sorochintsy Fair (see chapter 2), Mamontov did find
the following saving grace: The only joy is that [the sets] do not reflect
the latest disgracesall those cubisms, futurisms, rayisms.61 He was
not alone in his rejection of these radical artistic movements: Alexandre Benois, the artist and aesthetician of the Mir Iskusstva group, that
cradle of Russian modernist art, consistently opposed the avant-garde
in his published works.62 In fact, the foresight that Mamontov demonstrated in his support for modernist art is unparalleled by anyone of
his generation. For instance, as made clear by his letter quoted above,
he disapproved of the direction that his protg artists, the Blue Rose
group, took after 1907. Yet he did champion their earlier work. Blue
Rose member and future constructivist Georgy Yakulov (18841928)
worked at Mamontovs ceramics workshop. Nikolai Sapunov and Sergei
Sudeikin were granted theater commissions (see below). The leader of
the group, Pavel Kuznetsov, was employed as an interior designer of the
Yaroslavl train station in Moscow. That building was created by architect
Fyodor Shekhtel (18591926), the greatest representative of the Russian
style moderne in his field and another intimate of the Mamontov Circle
during its later years.63 According to his nephews memoirs, Mamontov
also commented favorably on the set designs created by the future neoprimitivist star Kuzma Petrov-Vodkin for the Nezlobin Theaters revival
of a signature MPO production, Tchaikovskys Orleanskaya deva [The
Maid of Orleans].64
The most impressive demonstration of Mamontovs allegiance to
contemporary art is his discovery, lifelong financial support, and untiring promotion of Mikhail Vrubel. Before Mamontov, Vrubel was an
unknown quantity in Russias artistic circles. As noted above, he never
made it past the jury for any of the Wanderers exhibitions; he was not
any luckier at those of the Academy. In his single official commission
participation in the restoration of St. Cyrils Cathedral in Kiev, supervised by Adrian Prakhovhe was not permitted to work on figures, but
rather was given the unglamorous job of designing ornamental panels
on the lower side walls of the church.65 Of course, those who wanted
to slight the artist with this restriction could not have foreseen that, as
Dmitry Sarabyanov points out, Vrubels work on ornament that started
in the 1880s at St Cyrils [would] in many ways direct the development of
the mature style moderne, with its particular attention to the decorative
and the ornamental.66 Nevertheless, the painters work was sufficiently
anonymous for Stasov (to Diaghilevs great delight) to misattribute his

designs to Victor Vasnetsov.67
It was Mamontovs efforts that introduced Vrubel to Russias artistic
community as well as to the general public. By doing so, he enormously
influenced the development of Russian art of the early twentieth century: according to Camilla Gray, Vrubel, more than any other artist,
was an inspiration to the Russian avant-garde.68 The first public display
of the painters work took place at the All-Russian Exhibition in Nizhny
Novgorod in the summer of 1896. Mamontov, the art director for the
Fair, commissioned Vrubel to create two huge mosaic panels, Mikula Selyaninovich, inspired by a Russian folk epic, and the symbolist Printsessa
Gryoza [Dream Princess]. After the works were unanimously rejected
by the selection committee, Mamontov proceeded to erect a separate
pavilion for exhibiting them, just beyond the fair grounds, in order to bypass the committees prohibitive order. The scandal created by this affair
made the public flock to see Vrubels notorious workssomething the
committee obviously did not anticipate. Mamontov, however, did expect
this reaction, and exploited it to promote his favorite artist.69
In his memoirs, Chaliapin, who had first met Mamontov at the Nizhny Novgorod Exhibition, recalled his mentor taking him to Vrubels
pavilion. The singer described Mamontov teaching Vrubel to him:
explaining his works advantages over the realist ones by pointing out
the depth and emotional impact of the panels, and guiding him though
the rough terrain of the artists modernist technique.70 Chaliapin was
clearly not an exception; Mamontov must have taught Vrubel to all his
students who would later work closely with the painter at the MPO.
In Mamontovs theater Vrubel was allowed to work on his favorite
subjects. He designed water scenes and costumes for Rimsky-Korsakovs
fairy tales and was able to project his lifelong obsessionhis Demon
onto the stage by designing the sets for Anton Rubinsteins opera based
on Mikhail Lermontovs eponymous poem. Mamontov also introduced
the artist to ceramics and majolica. Working in the majolica workshop
at Abramtsevo helped Vrubel to develop his characteristic color palette
with its signature peacock blues.71 It also gave him an opportunity to
continue experimenting with thick, decorative, complex, multidimensional surface patterns first evident in his illustrations for the 1890 edition of Lermontovs The Demon (see plate 7).72 In addition, the tile pat-
terns and majolica sculptures Vrubel created earned him the gold medal
at the 1900 Paris World Fair, thus allowing the wider world of art its first
glimpse of his unique artistic style.
As we have seen, from the early 1870s Savva Mamontovs activities
as a patron, a leader of the Abramtsevo artist colony and the Mamontov Circle, a public figure, and a recognized authority on art among
Moscows intellectuals made a significant impact on the development
of post-realist art in Russia. In his position, Mamontov aimed to bridge
the generation gap between the most talented and progressive wing of
the Wanderers and their successors, as well as to support and promote
Vrubel and other representatives of early modernist art of the 1890s
and early 1900s. Mamontovs most valuable contribution to the birth
of Russian style moderne, however, was the opportunity to experiment
in stage design that he offered his painter friends by involving them in
the daily operations of his enterprise, the Moscow Private Opera. Their
groundbreaking work for theater is the focus of the next chapter.
fou r
Visual Impressions
In retrospect, Mamontovs decision to commission easel painters to design his operatic productions seems natural: he had access to Russias
premier artistic forces and would certainly want to benefit from it. In
reality, the idea was unprecedented, at least in the Russia of Mamontovs
time. There, easel and design were viewed as two professions no less different than, say, painting and singing. After the initial reports came in,
stating that at the MPO, the execution of set designs has been entrusted
not to typical decorators-artisans, but to painters, the common reaction
was widespread amazement coupled with understandable skepticism.1
As Russkoe Slovo critic Alexander Gruzinsky put it: clearly, not every
decorator is an artist, nor can every artist-painter necessarily make a
good decoratorthis much is obvious.2
Not only did the skepticism subside, but Mamontovs innovation
fundamentally altered the role of the designer on the Russian stage,
both dramatic and operatic. The Moscow Art Theater was the first
to follow in Mamontovs footsteps, when its leader Stanislavsky employed an MPO alumnus, painter Victor Simov, as his chief decorator.
The Imperial stage was not far behind. Soon after his appointment as
the new head of the Moscow crown theaters, Vladimir Telyakovsky
(18601924) secured Konstantin Korovins designing talent for the
Bolshoi, and upon his transfer to St. Petersburg as the director of the
Imperial Theaters, added Alexander Golovin to the Mariinsky staff.
In 1905, Vsevolod Meyerhold employed the three youngest painters of
the Mamontov Circle, Nikolai Sapunov, Sergei Sudeikin, and Nikolai
88
v i s ua l i m p r e s s io n s 89
Ulyanov, to design the Povarskaya Studio productions (see chapter 6).

Finally, Sergei Diaghilev used Serov, Korovin, Golovin, and a number
of St. Petersburgbased artists in his Parisian Russian Seasons, later
making these painters designs an integral part of the Ballets Russes.
Thus, appointment of easel painters as set designers, unheard of before
Mamontov, would become commonplace within two decades after the
MPO first opened its doors.
Another fundamental change brought about by Mamontovs new
approach concerned the perceived value of design works. Previously,
stage sets were prized less for their quality and more for their utility,
including adaptability to productions other than their own. The most
useful were generalized settingsa Renaissance palace, a medieval
castle, a rococo boudoirthat could be taken out of storage as needed
after having been located by literally browsing the Imperial Theater catalogue.3 The individuality of each particular project obviously suffered
as a result. Indeed, whenever a production-specific design was judged
too unique to be reused, it would habitually be destroyed or recycled.
Unfortunately, such fate befell the set from one of Mamontovs own
productions, the tableau vivant Aphrodite, created for the art program
of the All-Russian Congress of Artists (see chapter 2), which was never
returned either to designer Polenov or to stage director Mamontov after
the show. A letter to Polenov, in which Mamontov comments on the
disappearance of the Aphrodite set, illustrates both his personal philosophy and his distaste for the status quo: I believe that your Aphrodite
and Orfeo are real masterpieces that truly belong in a museum. And do
you know that your Aphrodite is tyu-tyu [gone]? The museums night
watchmen must have used it for foot wraps.4 The lack of independent
artistic value placed on the sets by most theaters also meant that preparing separate designs for each new production was a luxuryeven for
the state-supported Imperial stage, let alone for cash-strapped private
enterprises. Yet this was common practice at the MPO, a fact noted
with incredulity by critics such as Gruzinsky, who, in the review cited
above, discussed completely new sets being prepared for the MPOs
production of Prince Igor.5
Mamontovs tireless promotion of his approach and the success of
his company gradually led to a more widespread acceptance of the new
practice: stage sets began to be viewed as independent artworks that
really did belong in a museum. Previously rarely mentioned outside

theater reviews, they started attracting attention as distinct objets dart,
equal to painting and sculpture. Stasov dedicated a whole section of his
article Moskovskaya Chastnaya Opera v Peterburge [Moscow Private
Opera in St. Petersburg] to the work of Mamontovs designers, and
made the Snow Maiden sets the centerpiece of a Victor Vasnetsov feature
published in the inaugural issue of his journal Iskusstvo i Khudozhestvennaya Promyshlennost [Arts and Crafts] in October 1898. That article,
in which the designs were analyzed in a manner previously reserved
for easel, also included color plates of the artists sketchesa laborious
and expensive process, still rare in Russia at the time. The only other
journal to use color plates was Stasovs competition, Sergei Diaghilevs
Mir Iskusstva, launched simultaneously with Arts and Crafts with its
inaugural issue also dedicated to Vasnetsov. Naturally, Diaghilev the
decadent was an enthusiastic convert to Mamontovs design-friendly
philosophy (as we shall see, the personal relationship between the two
might have had something to do with it as well). Earlier that same year,
Diaghilev featured the designs of Victor Vasnetsovs brother Apollinary
for the MPO production of Khovanshchina at the first Mir Iskusstva
exhibition alongside conventional easel, and later published their source
sketches in his journal.
Mamontovs decision to involve painters in the work of his company
caused stage design, previously viewed as an inferior and nonartistic
occupation, finally to be ranked equal with easel. It is significant that
Mamontovs approach to the value of design paralleled his attitude to
the decorative crafts reflected in the exhibition policies of the Moscow
Association of Artists discussed in chapter 3. Together with the folkinfluenced crafts, theatrical design would become one of the most important stylistic experiments of the Russian style moderne.6
The Production Team

Another of Mamontovs innovations concerns the way his designers
talents were utilized at his company. Each production was assigned
from its earliest phase either to a single painter, or to a team of painters
who in this case would work together on the same scenes rather than
dividing the work between them. This seemingly logical method was
rarely adhered to at Russias model stage and Mamontovs main competitorthe Imperial Theaters. There, whenever new sets were ordered,
several decorators would be hired to work separately on their assigned
tableaux, perhaps to speed up the process. For instance, Novosti Dnya
named as many as five decorators on the production team of the 1897
Bolshoi revival of Glinkas Ruslan i Lyudmila [Ruslan and Lyudmila],
each responsible for a specific scene.7 Mamontovs designers, on the
other hand, were responsible for the production as a whole. This responsibility included but was not limited to sketching and painting the sets.
An artist or a team of artists who designed the sets would also create
sketches for costumes and stage accessories; personally supervise hair,
makeup, lighting, and special effects. The result of this approach was
a production that created a unified, harmonious visual impressiona
characteristic frequently commented on by the press.8 For instance, in
his review of the MPO production of Saint-Sanss Samson et Dalila,
St. Petersburg critic Vladimir Baskin noted: The opera is staged with
particular care. Here, it is not only the highly characteristic sets and
costumes that transfer the spectator into the legendary Biblical epoch
and create the necessary atmosphere, but also the lightinga feature
that rarely creates a theatrical illusion on our stages.9 The critic did
not venture a hypothesis as to how the theatrical illusion he described
might have been achieved, noting only that it was an attribute of many
MPO productions.
The methodology of creating a unified visual impression would
become a subject of thorough study only when it was revealed to be
an integral part of the Ballets Russes phenomenon. Arnold Aronson
describes it as follows: The costume was made to work harmoniously
with the setting and, in many cases, the designs . . . virtually fused the
two together so that the costumes might be seen as moving fragments
of scenery. For such visual unity to be achieved, costumes and sets were
usually designed by the same person.10 Until recently, Diaghilev scholars habitually declared this practice to be unique to the Ballets Russesa
perception supported by reference publications such as the Grove Dictionary of Art and the International Encyclopedia of Dance, from which
the above quotation is derived. The history of this misconception dates,
predictably enough, to Diaghilev and his team, who clearly understood
the unique value of this innovative production method and wished,
consequently, to secure their exclusive rights to it in the public eye. This

desire is easily traceable through the Ballets Russes memoir literature,
in which the method is emphasized as that companys trademark. Here,
for instance, is an excerpt from the recollections of choreographer Serge
Lifar: A painter . . . will be entrusted with all the artistic details. Not
only will he be made responsible for providing the designs for both sets
and costumes, he will also be expected to design all the properties and
other accessories: in a word, to be responsible for the whole scenic presentation . . . down to its smallest details.11 As we have seen, Lifar could
have easily been talking about the MPO, whose designers worked in a
manner identical to Diaghilevs. Indeed, another Ballets Russes insider,
Alexandre Benois, rarely inclined to give Mamontovs company credit
for any of Diaghilevs innovations, in his article dedicated to Korovin
called the artists stage work the first example of a set and costume
designer united in one person, which resulted in amazing, never before
seen harmony.12
Indeed, the MPO design team frequently assumed a leading role
in the creative process: not limiting themselves to the visual aspect, the
painters would often assume part of the stage-directing duties as well.
The latter has proved one of the best-documented aspects of their work,
due to an abundance of memoir literature on the subject: Mamontovs
singers found being directed by the designers an unusual and rewarding
experience, and frequently commented on it. During its early years, the
company did not even have a stage director on its staff: in a table of the
MPO premieres Vera Rossikhina compiled for her monograph, she listed
Mamontov and the painters in the directing column for the 188587
time period. During these first seasons, Polenov and Victor Vasnetsov
participated most actively in the companys work, utilizing the multifaceted experience they had acquired in the Abramtsevo theatricals. Specifically, the codirecting of Dargomyzhskys Rusalka must be credited
to Vasnetsov. According to lead soprano Nadezhda Salina, apart from
creating an amazing backdrop for the underwater act, he personally decorated the singer with garlands of water lilies, and staged the mermaid
dance and pantomime. The painter also created the groundbreaking
personality of the mad Miller for act 3. When Anton Bedlevich, who sang
that role, rebelled against his torn shirt and disheveled hair and changed
his costume just prior to his entrance, Vasnetsov reportedly personally
restored his artistic vision with the help, among other things, of some
floor dust and a quantity of flour.13 This amusing anecdote related by
Salina clearly demonstrates the altered power structure at Mamontovs
enterprise: the leadership role that in an opera company traditionally
belonged to a singer was transferred instead to a director-designer.
After his company reopened in 1896, Mamontov for the first time began employing and training professional stage directors for his productions (see chapter 5). As a result, the directing duties of the designers
at that time, primarily Korovin, Serov, and Vrubelcorrespondingly
diminished. However, they apparently still participated in the rehearsal
process, at least in an advisory capacity. Stage director Pyotr Melnikov,
who first worked with Korovin at the MPO and later for years at the
Imperial Theaters, recalled the artists similar level of involvement from
his Bolshoi years: [Korovin] was never involved in stage directing [while
at the Bolshoi]. But during the rehearsals, while watching a performance,
he would occasionally make such fabulous comments, and often give
amazing advice. A true theatrical genius!14 Feodor Chaliapins memoirs
contain perhaps the most detailed information on the painters participation in the MPO operations. The singers association with Mamontovs
designers was so close and long-term that it even became a subject of a
separate study.15 In both Stranitsy iz moei zhizni [Pages from My Life]
and Maska i dusha [Mask and Soul], Chaliapin gratefully acknowledged
the great influence the painters had on his artistic development during
his time with the company. Specifically, he noted their assistance in illuminating the inner world of his characters by altering their outward
appearance; Platon Mamontov and other memoirists also frequently
commented upon it. The history of the transformation of one signature
Chaliapin role will serve as a good illustration.
As one of the most enduringly popular operatic characters on the
Russian stage, Gounods Mephistopheles was expected to look a certain
way. He was always portrayed as a restless creature with dark hair, a
goatee, a costume la Henry IV complete with a short cape, a French
beret with a red feather, small horns made of foil, and the manners of a
provincial Harlequin. This was the image Chaliapin had been taught to
present while at the Mariinsky Theater, where tradition was respected
above all else (see plate 14). Instinctively dissatisfied, the singer rebelled
against the clich during his 1896 Nizhny Novgorod debut with Ma-
montovs company; but without a new concept in his mind, he failed his
part altogether.
The first step toward creating a new Mephistopheles was Chaliapins
work with Polenov on changing the characters external image. The result
of their work, first presented during Chaliapins Moscow debut in the fall
of 1896, was striking and original: Polenovs Satan was a blond. A visiting
Swedish painter, Arnold Zorn, testified that Western Europe had never
seen nor heard the role in that way.16 Polenovs vision helped Chaliapin
shed some of the preconceptions acquired by observing and performing
at the Mariinsky stage. However, the transformation of Mephistopheles
did not stop with this first success: Chaliapin was displeased with the
costume that still imitated a seventeenth century French chevalier with
a feathered beret (see plate 11). Three years later, a reviewer of a Moscow
daily Novosti Dnya noted: The artist inserted several new little details
in the part of Mephistopheles, which was performed as always with rare
artistry. Thus, contrary to tradition, Chaliapin sang the whole of act 3
in a black costume, and it certainly made an impression.17 The black
costume referred to by the critic is probably the one preserved in an extant 1897 photograph (see plate 15). The difference is striking, both from
the Mariinskys and from Polenovs versions of the character. Chaliapin
finally rejected the blond hair, the beret (although he kept the feather),
and opted instead for a simple black cloak that enveloped his figure like a
pair of wings, presenting a terrifyingly quiet creatureunhurried, powerful, sarcastic, and condescending. This was an image he would explore
in the future, both in Faust and later in Boitos Mefistofele; the image
borrowed from Goethes poem and, arguably, rather inappropriate for a
French opera. Baskin pointed out this perceived stylistic discrepancy in
his review of Chaliapins performance, saying:
Mr. Chaliapin pays serious attention to the demonic side of the character; this is of course very good, but he overlooks the fact that the French,
operatic Mephistopheles is much different from Goethes original, and
this difference is revealed particularly in his outward appearance, manners, dexterity, gracefulness, etc. In this aspect, Mr. Chaliapin seems to
be moving in the wrong direction, by presenting him as rather angular,
sometimes sharp and even rude, for example, in the scene with Siebel
in act 2. Such a Mephistopheles would perfectly satisfy us in Goethes
tragedy, but not in a French opera.18
As the critics reaction makes clear, Chaliapins Mephistopheles was

shaped contrary to operatic tradition. The new image was created in
large part by his outward appearancehis costume, makeup, and stage
movement. It would be impossible for Chaliapin to create the image
without going to the designers first: all costumes were executed according to their specifications. Just as the blond 1896 Mephistopheles was
a creation of Polenov, the final version betrays an unmistakable influence of Vrubel, whose image of Goethes character was realized in his
1896 Faust triptych.19 In later years, the singers continuously evolving
interpretation of his favorite character conformed even more closely to
Vrubels vision (compare plates 8 and 16).20
During his tenure at Mamontovs company, Chaliapin was also influenced by the eschatological visions of Vrubels Demon: in 1899 the
artist completed Demon Letyashchy [The Demon in Flight], and immediately started working on Demon Poverzhennyi [The Demon Cast Down]
characterized by his wife as a modern Nietzschean.21 A year later, already a Bolshoi Theater superstar, Chaliapin appeared in the title role of
Rubinsteins Demon [The Demon]. The baritone part was prohibitively
high for the singer, but the image held too powerful an attraction. It
was the image that caused Nadezhda Salina as Tamara to faint at the
premiere without finishing the final duet,22 and that was recognized
immediately by both critics and audiences as Vrubels Demon.23 Savva
Mamontov appeared to have recognized it too. It is revealing that in
1900, despite his bitterness over Chaliapins defection to the Bolshoi, he
sculpted a bust of the singer, the only portrait of him he ever made. It
was his portrait as the Demon.24
Apart from their involvement in directing, the designers participated
in virtually every aspect of the companys operationseverything at the
Moscow Private Opera had to be artistic. For example, after a disastrous January 1898 fire all but destroyed their building, the Solodovnikov
Theater, its interior was completely redesigned. A cold, drafty former
warehouse, the subject of constant press complaints, was transformed
into a true temple of art, as attractive as it was comfortable. This was
the work of Mamontovs artists: Vrubel created the new curtain and
ceiling panel, with Bondarenko in charge of architectural design. Even
more characteristic is the artists contribution to the publicity for the
productions, such as designing playbills and program covers. For instance, Novosti Dnya reported on the programs decorated with Mr.
Vrubels original vignettes, sold at intermissions during the premiere
of Orfeo.25 The following season, another critic noted a certain affinity
between the images on the MPO printed programs and the impression
created by the enterprise as a wholea unity undoubtedly sought and
promoted by Mamontov and his designers:
One of the indications of the approaching opening night was a product
offered at the Kuznetsky Bridge shops, and worthy of the enterprise itself
in the artistry of its production. We are talking about the colored printed
program covers created by painter M. A. Vrubel. The drawing is successfully conceived and beautifully executed. At the front, Bayan is playing
his gusli; the mermaids behind him are engrossed in listening against
a backdrop of a wonderful Russian landscape. To the right, the words:
Russian Private Opera and the year 1898 are drawn in capriciously
decorative letters.26
This description of Vrubels drawing is reminiscent of the playbills

and printed programs created by Polenov, Vasnetsov, Korovin, and Vru
bel himself for the theatricals of the Mamontov Circle, still preserved
at the Abramtsevo Museum (see plate 6). These designs are characterized by a particular attention to decorative patterns: frames, ornaments,
and fancy letteringthe typical features of Mir Iskusstva covers and
vignettes, some of which were to be created by the same artists. These
features would later be analyzed by art historians as signature elements
of the Russian style moderne book illustration. Abramtsevo artists such
as Elena Polenova were in fact the pioneers of that genre, described by
Sarabyanov as one of the most significant and innovative Silver Age art
forms.27
Collabor ative Process

Clearly, the painters were involved in every aspect of daily operations at
the MPO, from visual design to directing to advertising. This required
their extensive, regular interaction with singers, stage directors, conductors, machinists, stagehands, as well as with Mamontov himself. Such
collaboration was practically nonexistent in an opera theater of the day,
which made the creative process inefficient and frustrating. Rimsky-
Korsakovs dismal experiences with the 1894 Mariinsky production of

Mlada occasioned an unusually bitter outburst in the composers autobiography that practically begged for a Mamontov to intervene:
Set design, costume design, stage machinery, directing, and music sections move in the Russian Imperial opera in different directions, and
there is no person at the Directorate who coordinates them all. Every one
of these sections knows only its own affairs, and would more readily stab
others in the back than collaborate with them. When an opera is to be
produced and everything should come together, it turns out that much
does not fit; but despite that, no one considers himself responsible for the
actions of another.28
During 189699, the MPO staged seven of Rimsky-Korsakovs operas,

four of them world premieres. Here, unlike at the Imperial Theaters, the
composer was able to benefit from the methodology developed by Mamontov and his team that had ensured their success: productions were
created by a community of artists, actors, musicians, and stage directors
during intensive brainstorming sessions.
A particularly revealing illustration of this method is the 1897 world
premiere of Rimsky-Korsakovs masterpiece Sadko. The production became one of the Moscow Private Operas greatest artistic successes, as
well as its greatest public-relations coup. Initially offered to the Directorate of the Imperial Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburg, Sadko was
rejected by the theaters selection committee; in a famous statement the
tsar, who traditionally had a final say in determining the repertoire of
what was after all his court theater, requested something a little more
cheerful. Offended, Rimsky-Korsakov severed his connections with the
Imperial Theaters for several years, which opened the door for Mamontov to lobby for the rights to the score through a mutual friend, Semyon
Kruglikov, who managed to secure Rimsky-Korsakovs approval.29 The
subsequent staging and resounding success of Sadko at the MPO was
perceived by Russias political liberals as a triumph of private initiative over the Imperial bureaucracy, essentially as a victory of modern
capitalism over outdated feudal law. The plot of the opera, a parable
of free enterprise, capitalism avant le mot,30 exalted these very virtues
personified by its resourceful merchant hero, which certainly helped
bolster the above-mentioned reading and made the production by a
private company particularly appropriate. Sadko brought long-awaited

legitimacy and prestige to Mamontovs enterprise. It was now unconditionally acclaimed by public and press alike as an institution of great
cultural significance that promoted the neglected output of Russias most
important living composer.
The true source of the MPOs success, meanwhile, lay beyond the
attraction of a scandal and the quality of the score. In his memoirs, Ilya
Bondarenko, who witnessed Mamontovs work on Sadko, called the
process a truly communal action.31 Young Vasily Shkafer, who had
joined the company as an assistant stage director just a few weeks before
the rehearsals began, recalled the first group session on the opera in his
memoirs. With most of the troupe present, an impromptu sight-reading
of the score was punctuated by the designers voicing their ideas on sets,
costumes, and makeup and followed by a collective discussion of stage
directions and special effects.32 More often than not, the preliminary
work on a production was taken out of the theater building altogether.
Instead, it occurred around Mamontovs tea table or at the country dacha
of his companion, the troupes mezzo-soprano Tatyana Lyubatovich.
That practice, later to be systematized by Stanislavsky, is a standard for
drama troupes to this day. It is described in Bondarenkos memoirs as
follows: Nightly tea parties, starting at 8:00 pm, always occurred in the
presence of Chaliapin, the painters Korovin and Serov; Vrubel came by;
and here at the tea table, plans for future productions were discussed,
future stage images were sketched.33
Collective creativity and decision-making resulted in an infectious
spirit of camaraderie that reigned at the company during the height of its
success. The team members not only worked together: they lived, ate, entertained, took vacations together, and roomed together in Paris, where
they were sent by Mamontov for their annual summer study tours.34
Those unsuited to this atmosphere did not stay with the company long;
according to Bondarenko, this was the fate of stage director Mikhail
Lentovsky, employed during the 189899 season: In all productions
of Mamontovs Russian Private Opera the collectivity principle always
ruled, but Lentovsky absorbed this collectivity principle the least; he was
the least comfortable with it. He could not fit in and left soon after.35
Interestingly enough, one of the reasons for Lentovskys departure was
his conflict with Serov and other MPO painters. Evidently he adamantly
refused to bend his work to their vision, and as a result his life at the
company quickly turned complicated. In a letter to Mamontov, Lentovsky complained bitterly that his employer had effectively thrown him
to the wolves by declining to take his side against the designers.36 The incident demonstrates once more the role of the painters in the companys
power structure, as well as the importance of the collaborative process
in its effective operation. To quote another Mamontov employee, singer
Varvara Strakhova, the best MPO productions represented a product of
collaboration between an artist-musician and an artist-painter, assisted
by the creative ideas of their silent director Savva Mamontov.37
In light of the previous discussion, it is easy to see why the concept
behind Mir Iskusstva would have appealed to Mamontov. The result of a
creative collaboration between artists, musicians, critics, poets, writers,
and philosophers, the journal was a great illustration of the collectivity
principle to which he himself subscribed. And just as the methods of
Mamontovs early Abramtsevo productions would be applied and developed in the professional atmosphere of the MPO, the Mir Iskusstva
group transferred their experiences with the journal to other artistic
ventures, most notably theatrical ones. Alexandre Benois description
of their work on the ill-fated Mariinsky commission for Delibes ballet
Sylvia may serve as a good illustration; it is notable that out of the five
artists mentioned, twoKorovin and Serovwere former members of
Mamontovs team:
Some of us have taken possession of the dining room; others were busy in
[Diaghilevs] study, while even the back rooms were strewn with drawings
and sketches. I . . . had just sketched the plan of the dcor for the first act;
Lanceray was occupied with the third act. . . . Korovin was working at the
second scene of the second act; Bakst had been entrusted with creating
Orions cave and almost all the costumes; even Serov, carried away by the
general enthusiasm, had started on a sketch of the principal satyr. 38
In her monograph on the Ballets Russes, Lynn Garafola discusses

the creative process employed in the creation of Sylvia as a professional strategy that would be used in the productions of Diaghilevs
enterprise.39 The collaborative methodology that the researcher dubbed
the committee style40 was viewed by Parisian audiences of the Ballets
Russes as an exciting innovation, and was compared favorably to the
status quo. Critic Valerian Svetlov wrote:
How different things are in the new Diaghilev ballets. Composers, painters, ballet masters, authors and those interested in the arts come together
and plan the work to be done. Subjects are proposed, discussed, and then
worked out in detail. Each makes his suggestions, which are accepted or
rejected by a general consensus of opinion, and thus in the end it is difficult to say which individual was responsible for the libretto, and what
was due to the common effort. . . . So too with the music, the dances: all
is the result of this collective effort. . . . Thus, both artistic unity of design
and execution are achieved.41
The MPO was obviously an unknown quantity in Paris; after all, even
in Moscow its professional secrets would not be publicly revealed until
years later. It is all the more remarkable then to witness Svetlovs account
of Diaghilevs practices outlining Mamontovs collaborative methodology with such uncanny precision.
Synthesis of the Arts

At the conclusion of his report, Svetlov formulated the ultimate goal of
the creative method he described as artistic unity of both design and
execution. Indeed, the collaboration between the MPO artists, musicians, and stage directors who collectively shaped each production,
guided by the unifying artistic vision of the supervising designer, aimed
at just that. In the process, it contributed to the realization of perhaps
Mamontovs most cherished aesthetic idealsynthesis of all the arts on
the operatic stage.
The nature of opera as a perfectly synthesized artistic medium was
indeed the reason for Mamontovs fascination with the genre, despite its
complexity and great expense. He saw opera as the perfect art form, and
believed that the conventional understanding of it as primarily a musical work was inherently flawed. In a letter to Shkafer, he protested:
Musicians follow the performance of the notes, but no one ever talks about
the total harmony of the role as a whole . . . Thats why life, brightness,
brilliance, and enchantment are paralyzed on the operatic stagethere
is no continuous current, it keeps being interrupted . . . What is this? This
is stupidity, a lack of development, and a lack of understanding of stage
aesthetics. . . . A B-flat is a good thing, but [not if] it falls onto a wounded
soul, onto an artistic feeling hurt by a shattered illusion.42
Unfortunately, Mamontovs distrust of B-flats would bring him

into a dangerous conflict with Rimsky-Korsakov, Russias most venerable living opera composer and one of the MPOs most important assets. Throughout his career, Rimsky-Korsakov had always been firmly
convinced that music, indeed singing, was operas structural dominant,
while other aspects of its production were relatively unimportant.43 Selfprofessedly sight deaf, he was reluctant to discuss painterly and visual
matters related to his operaseven Vrubels designs, despite his close
friendship with the artist and his wife, Nadezhda Zabela.44 He was not,
and would not be, included in the collaborative process of Mamontovs
enterprise beyond occasionally conducting the orchestra. For the production of his operas, he demanded flawless execution of musical details
and nothing else, and would not accept any consideration of staging or
design taking precedence over the precise realization of the score. Forgetting his own frustration over the production of Mlada only four years
earlier (see above), the composer faulted Mamontov for relegating music
to a secondary position in his search for a perfect artistic synthesis, and
once complained furiously in a letter to Kruglikov: To [Mamontov],
visual impressions are precious, and to me aural ones.45
Mamontov, just like Diaghilev, has often been accused of privileging
the visual aspects of his productions over the aural ones.46 In all honesty, he frequently invited such criticism. Six days before the premiere
of Orfeo, a production plagued by purely vocal problems, an oblivious
Mamontov wrote to Polenov: The opera runs pretty well, beautifully
and smoothly. Orfeo and Euridice are very graceful figures, but Amours
image is still not workingthe costume needs rethinking.47 Characteristically, the appearance of the singers and not their voices is the subject
of discussion; it is remarkable that Polenov, a painter, was evidently more
concerned with the vocal aspects of Orfeo than Mamontov, a former
singer. On the other hand, unlike Polenov, who begged him for a few
extra rehearsals, Mamontov understood that a voice, unlike a costume,
could not be reinvented in a week, and the show (particularly a charity
event like the premiere of Orfeo) had to go on.
Ideally, the visual and the aural were equally important to Mamontov, as the unified aesthetic impression created by the synthesis of all
artistic media was the professed goal of each production. In letters to
Shkafer, he discussed the unique nature of the operatic genre, in which

every word, every movement, every facial expression should be perfectly
in tune with every measure of the musical score,48 and described his
favorite opera, The Snow Maiden, as a masterpiece of unity between text
and music.49 Indeed, at the Moscow Private Opera, the visual concept
realized in design and staging was supposed to enhance the impression
created by the music, an approach rare outside the MPOs walls. Witness, for instance, Gruzinskys comparison between two productions
of Alexander Serovs Rogneda after that opera, staged by Mamontov in
1896, was revived at the Bolshoi the following year:
Comparing the Bolshoi Theater production of Rogneda to what we have
seen and heard last year on the Solodovnikov Theater stage, we should
note the following. Bold, decorative sketches created by the painter, Korovin, wonderfully suited the energetic musical brush strokes with which
Rogneda is written, resulting in a complete correlation between the internal content of the composition and its external realization. Our aesthetic
sensibility, somewhat offended by the harsh musical colors, is kept in this
state also by the intelligent staging, resulting in an overall unity of impression. But among the sets by [the Bolshois chief decorator] Mr. Waltz
(unquestionably excellent in their own right), [Alexander] Serovs music
felt out of placeit was too crude.50
Mamontovs designersPolenov, Serov, Korovin, and Vrubelwere

known for their sensitivity to all facets of operatic music. To their boss,
however, music in opera primarily meant singing. At least, vocal technique and role interpretation (solo, ensemble, and choral) were the only
musical aspects of opera production in which he was personally involved
(see chapter 5). Meanwhile, the orchestra pit was left squarely in the
hands of the conductor.51
The MPO employed a number of conductors over the years (see
plates 29, 30, 31). Most were experienced, competent professionals trained
to work under pressure with highly complex scores (even Rimsky-Korsakov grudgingly acknowledged that much in his memoirs).52 According
to press reviews, some (Vladimir Zelyonyi, Giuseppe Truffi) were better
interpreters than others (Eugenio Esposito, Enrico Bevigniani, Alessandro Bernardi). None were acknowledged for their musical genius; and
only one was noted for his musicianship and great potential. This was the
young Sergei Rachmaninov, who worked as an MPO assistant conductor
and pianist during the 189798 season. Rachmaninov was indeed a great
musician. Unfortunately, in 1897 he had absolutely no experience conducting opera and was forced to learn on the job; by the time he could
be useful to Mamontov, he no longer worked for him.53
Similarly, the MPO orchestra was competent, but not first rate. The
best Moscow instrumentalists worked at the Bolshoi Theater: as a statesponsored institution, it was able to offer them tenure contracts with full
benefits including sick leave and a pension plan, something no private
enterprise could match. Furthermore, typically for any private opera
company, Mamontovs orchestra employed a relatively small number of
full-time musicians. The parts for rarely used instruments were arranged
for those available, guest-performed, or omitted (a fact that considerably
displeased Rimsky-Korsakov in the production of Sadkounderstandably so, given the intricacy of the operas orchestration).54 Most tellingly,
while it was acceptable to replace or cancel an opera due to a singers
illness or the sets not being ready on time, no MPO production was ever
canceled or delayed because the orchestral parts were not adequately
rehearsed.55
To be fair, Mamontov did consider the quality of the MPO orchestra
to be a shortcoming. Toward the end of the 189899 season he reported
to Rimsky-Korsakov an increased number of musicians and the addition
of new instruments.56 He also hired a new conductor, Tchaikovskys student Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov (18591935), who combined an education
and musicianship comparable to Rachmaninovs with professionalism
stemming from many years of opera conducting experience in Tiflis.
Presumably, Mamontovs plan was to raise the quality of musical execution at his company to the level of the other aspects of its operations
in order to achieve the balance necessary for a true synthesis of the
arts.57 But overall, throughout his association with the company, Mamontov discussed specifically musical issues of opera production very
little. Perhaps the innovator in him did not feel that what he called the
performance of the notes required his attention as an artist, for unlike
in staging and design, no new word was to be said there.
Thus, Mamontovs approach to the operatic genre was untraditional
and arguably, problematic. He saw opera first and foremost as a staged
spectacle, a fusion of the visible, if not exclusively the visualsinging,
acting, movement, sets, costumes, props, makeup, lighting, special ef-
fects, and so on. Mamontov was keenly aware of the uniqueness of his
view, which he on one occasion formulated as follows:
However good [the music] is, without the spectacle it would end up on the
shelf of oblivion after the second night. Why? . . . Apart from the charm
of the music, [opera] demands classic beauty of characters; powerful,
soul-absorbing acting; sets and costumes enchanting with their charm; a
strict artistic stylein a word, a perfectly unified spectacle . . . The beauty
of sound combined with the beauty of poetry, strictly beautiful movement,
the power of acting, and the enchanting beauty of color and designthis
is something that has never yet been achieved!58
In all productions that he personally directed, Mamontov strove for the

elusive ideal of this perfectly unified spectacle. His work did not go
unnoticed by the press. Novosti Sezona described the 1897 production
of Musorgskys Khovanshchina as a perfect, truly amazing blend of
excellent staging, excellent casting . . . masterful sets, accessories, and
costumes.59 Reporting on the companys St. Petersburg production of
Borodins Prince Igor, Baskin noted: The directorate of the Muscovites
apparently cares a great deal about the unity of impression, remembering that opera is a synthesis of all the arts; that is why serious attention
is paid here to the visual aspect as well as to the music itself.60
A particularly telling comment comes from Ivan Lipaevs review
of Puccinis La bohme, one of Mamontovs most personal works as a
stage director: The ensemble is amazing, starting with wonderful sets
by Korovin and ending with many accessories.61 What is most notable
in Lipaevs remark is a word used to describe the performance: ensemble. Normally, this term would be utilized by theater correspondents
to define the interaction of actors in spoken drama; it was frequently
used in this manner in relation to Mamontovs goal of fusing singing
and acting in his productions (see chapter 5). Lipaev, however, clearly
expanded his usage of the term to include Korovins set designs for La
bohme. In The Snow Maiden, another signature Mamontov production,
the rare, harmonious, artistic ensemble Lipaev described in his review
referred to sets, costumes, accessories, lighting, and staging, as well as
the musical performance.62 As the quoted reviews demonstrate, the term
ensemble in relation to Mamontovs company took on a new meaning,
indicating the harmonious blending of all elements of a production. It is
in this meaning, increasingly common by the early twentieth century,

that the term would habitually be employed by critics and scholars of
Diaghilevs Ballets Russes.
Despite favorable press reviews, Mamontov was restless and dissatisfied, even with his favorite productions, Orfeo and La bohme. Undaunted by his arrest in the fall of 1899, he was determined to create
his perfect spectacle, even if he had to direct it from his jail cell.63 The
Necklace, an opera with a Hellenic theme written to his own libretto
by a friend, minor composer Nikolai Krotkov, and designed by Vasily
Polenov, premiered in Moscow on 27 December of that year. The process
of conceptualizing the production from afar forced Mamontov finally to
verbalize his ideas and goals, which he outlined in a series of letters to
Shkafer, who both directed and starred in the work. Mamontovs most
profound aesthetic statements quoted throughout this book were made
in connection with this project, including those addressing his approach
to synthesis of the arts. He wrote:
The music, the true beauty of singing, the power of acting, the beauty of
stage movement, the beauty of set designs. . . . This is what The Necklace
is, in my opinionit is the beginning of a new trend in art. Musicians need
to feel and understand that in the art business their communication with
artists would elevate both; they need to realize that, however good a musical creation is, on stage, without an artist, it would vanish.64
After opening to lukewarm interest and disappointing reviews, The

Necklace broke, cancelled after only two performances. The critics predictably (and not without merit) branded the libretto a mixture of nave
sentimentality with the fog of decadence and mediocre symbolism.65
They were equally unflattering about the quality of the music. How justified they were in that respect we will never know for sure: unlike the
libretto, the score of the opera did not survive. Yet it is clear that Krotkovs mediocre talent was unlikely to rise to the tremendous aesthetic
challenge posed by his librettist Mamontov. And as Mamontov himself
would discover, to his immense disappointment, even with an artist,
but without a musician at the helm, his artistic creation vanished just
as surely.
Mamontovs dream of a perfectly synthesized operatic spectacle
could not be realized in The Necklace. Sergei Diaghilev was luckier: he
had Stravinsky (rather than Krotkov) to complement Fokine, Bakst,

Benois, and Golovin. With his own creative team complete, Diaghilev
would be able to achieve in his Ballets Russes the balance between the
arts that eluded his predecessor. The result, as they say, was history:
The Firebird, being the result of an intimate collaboration between choreography, music, and painting, presents us with the most exquisite miracle
of harmony imaginable, of sound and form and movement. The old-gold
vermiculation of the fantastic backdrop seems to have been invented to
a formula identical with that of the shimmering web of the orchestra . . .
Stravinsky, Fokine, Golovin in my eyes are but one name.66
The Wagnerian Connection

The ecstatic outburst quoted above, from an anonymous reviewer of The
Firebird, is just one example of the enormous wave of enthusiasm that
surrounded Diaghilevs early Parisian productions. A common topic
of discussion in the public and the press was the idea of a synthesis of
the arts that seemed to have been, for the first time, perfectly realized
by the Ballets Russes. At the time, that idea was commonly viewed as
an extension of the Wagnerian concept of Gesamtkunstwerk, and as a
result, any attempt to implement art synthesis was judged through the
Wagnerian prism. The following discussion traces the influence of the
Wagnerian discourse on Diaghilev studies and Silver Age scholarship,
and investigates the possibility of a Wagnerian connection in Mamontovs approach to synthesis of the arts.
Diaghilevs audiences believed his productions to be superb realizations of the Wagnerian ideal. His exotic tours de force, Clopatre and
Schhrazade, were discussed in the press as the true Gesamtkunstwerke,
indeed superior even to Wagners original: [Clopatre is] a dream-like
spectacle beside which the Wagnerian synthesis itself is but a clumsy barbarism, declared Camille Mauclair.67 This view of the Ballets Russes was
carefully and deliberately crafted by its insiders. For instance, Alexandre
Benois argued in his review of the companys 1910 season that Diaghilev
had achieved the Gesamtkunstwerk only dreamt about by Wagner.68
Prince Lieven in his memoirs could not imagine any spectator who does
not feel after experiencing Petrushka that mood of exalted satisfaction,
which can be given only by a great complete work of art.69
Positioning themselves as the heirs to the Gesamtkunstwerk dream

was vital to Diaghilev and his crew: it allowed them to attract to their
theater the crme de la crme of the Parisian intellectual and artistic
elite, most of them acknowledged acolytes of the Bayreuth Master. And
marketing consideration aside, Diaghilevs team was not entirely disingenuous in their self-proclaimed Wagnerian connection. It was a personal choice, as well as a sign of the times; it was also a part of their intellectual heritage. The history of Russian Wagneriana has been written,70
and is in any case outside the scope of this book; yet a brief summary
here might be useful.
According to Rosamund Bartlett, by the time the complete Ring
cycle finally appeared in Russia in 1889, the countrys intellectuals were
well versed in Wagners theories. Already in the 1860s, despite the fact
that the treatises of the Dresden revolutionary were barred from publication, over 225 articles and reports were written about the composer in
the Russian press.71 Many were sparked by the composers concert tour
of St. Petersburg and Moscow in 1863 and by the St. Petersburg premiere
of Lohengrin in 1868. The bitter Wagner war that was to rage in the Russian press for the next several decades involved, on the composers side,
Apollon Grigoriev, the venerable writer Vladimir Odoevsky, and Wagners main champion, composer and critic Alexander Serov. The opposition presented an intriguing combination of opposites: on the one hand,
conservatives like Feofil Tolstoy, who asserted the supremacy of Italian
opera; on the other, Dargomyzhsky, the Kuchka, and Vladimir Stasov
who, from their own realist and nationalist perch, opposed Wagner and
the Italians with equal vigor.72
The next significant phase of the Wagner polemics in Russia was
inspired by the first Bayreuth Festival in 1876, which was exhaustively
discussed in the Russian press by respected correspondents exhibiting a
wide variety of views. Among the critics officially dispatched to cover the
festival by their respective media outlets were the Russian Hanslick,
Hermann Laroche; the venomous Kuchkist Csar Cui; and their perhaps most objective colleague Pyotr Tchaikovsky, then a reporter for the
Moscow daily Russkie Vedomosti. Finally, the 1889 guest tour of Angelo
Neumanns German Opera, which performed, in addition to two Wagner concerts, four sets of the Ring in St. Petersburg and two in Moscow,
was covered and discussed in the press with equal intensity.
It appears that by 1898, the year of Mir Iskusstvas founding and

Mamontovs first tour of St. Petersburg, Wagner was gradually gaining
acceptance in Russias capital as a significant opera composer, if not a
popular one. His operas were being offered by touring foreign troupes,
and were also slowly finding their way to the Imperial stages of both
capitals. However, as will be discussed in chapter 7, barring the idiosyncrasies of the 1860s debate (such as the personal animosity between Alexander Serov and Stasov that added much fuel to their Wagner polemics),
the three-way disposition of the Wagner war of 1898 was curiously
similar to that of 1868, thirty years earlier. Even some of the generals
(for instance, Stasov and Cui) remained at their posts. The Wagnerian
camp, for its part, lost a faithful field marshal in Alexander Serov; it did,
however, gain Sergei Diaghilev.
The Mir Iskusstva members knew and admired Wagners music;
Diaghilev himself was an avid fan. It is difficult to say, however, whether
his pronouncement, not only have we accepted Wagner, we love him
passionately, made in the last of the Complex Questions editorials,
referred to Wagners scores or to his aesthetic ideas, including Gesamtkunstwerk.73 The group certainly believed it their job to popularize the
latter. Henri Lichtenbergers trendy 1898 Wagner digest, Richard Wagner:
Pote et penseur, was translated and published in installments in Mir
Iskusstva under the title Vzglyady Vagnera na Iskusstvo [Wagners Views
On Art]. Friedrich Nietzsche, whose Die Geburt der Tragdie was daily
reading for the Mir Iskusstva editorial board, was represented on the
pages of the journal not by that classic volume, but by a translation of
his monograph Richard Wagner in Bayreuth.74
Savva Mamontov, of course, read the journal he sponsored, including its Wagner articles. Since the composers theories are never
mentioned in his extant correspondence, there is no hard evidence that
Mamontov was aware of them prior to these Mir Iskusstva publications. However, such ignorance is hardly possible. Back in the 1860s,
Apollon Grigorievs promotion of Wagners ideas in several influential
Slavophile journals (including his reprints of Alexander Serovs essays)
would certainly have been readily available to him. Mamontov missed
Wagners 1863 visit to Moscow; ironically, at that time he was studying
Italian bel canto in Milan. However, as a man avidly interested in all
artistic and intellectual currents of his time, he could not have missed
the press polemic between Alexander Serov and Vladimir Stasov over
Lohengrin that was making waves in the music world in 1868. There is
also no evidence that Mamontov ever visited the Bayreuth Festspielhaus. But it is highly unlikely that, as a friend of Nikolai Rubinstein,
who was a member of the Moscow Wagnerverein, and an intimate of
the Moscow Conservatory circles, he would not have been familiar with
Tchaikovskys coverage of it.
As for Wagners music, Mamontov did know some of it. He staged
Lohengrin at the Private Opera in February 1887, and later claimed to
have staged Tannhuser as well (no evidence of this production is available). He also apparently considered producing Siegfried and Die Walkre
at the MPO during the 189899 and 18991900 seasons. The reasons for
his contemplating the Ring productions (thwarted by the lack of suitable
forces), however, might have been more ideological and commercial than
aesthetic (see chapter 7). There is also documentary evidence that Tristan
and Parsifal were under discussion for possible inclusion in the 18991900
season repertoire. The initiative was Melnikovs, who suggested, interestingly, that instead of reviving Lohengrin, in which nothing new could
be said, Mamontov ought to stage Parsifal or Tristan und Isolde, both
wildly famous yet completely unknown in Russia.75 While Melnikovs
assertion regarding Tristan was not entirely accurate (the opera was unknown in Moscow, but it was premiered in St. Petersburg in March 1898
and staged at the Mariinsky the following year), the production of Parsifal, if realized, would indeed have been the Russian premiere.
We do not have access to Mamontovs reply, so it is unclear whether
or not he knew these works, or what he thought about his assistants
proposal. However, Melnikovs discussion of the operas, including
MPO casting possibilities, without mentioning their authors name or
the voice types needed to perform them indicates that he expected his
addressee to have at least some knowledge of the works. It is unknown
whether Mamontov would have pursued Wagnerian projects further had
he stayed at the helm of the company after 1900; the composers increasing popularity would probably have impacted his decision. Personally,
however, Wagner was not Mamontovs favorite. As late as 1910 he would
admit in an interview: Still, I just dont understand Wagner, illustrating his statement with an amusing anecdote about falling asleep midway
through a performance of Die Walkre at the Paris Opra.76
While some of Wagners theoretical ideas, especially his view of a

synthesis of the arts as a vehicle for serving drama, paralleled Mamontovs own approach to stage directing (see chapter 5), Mamontovs understanding of art synthesis, despite its seemingly Wagnerian rhetoric, likely
stemmed from other sources. One of these sources, tentatively suggested
by Rossikhina, was the amateur theatricals of the Mamontov Circle in
which artists from different fields exchanged and blended their ideas as
well as performed the tasks outside their own areas of expertise (such as
Vasnetsovs acting, Korovins singing, and Serovs belly dancing).77
But even outside Abramtsevo, it is hard to disagree with Taruskin,
who states that it is high time to stop ascribing to Wagners influence
every turn-of-the-century manifestation of the tendency to mix artistic
media or see union as their highest aim.78 Synthesis of the arts proved
to be one of the most potent ideas floating through the cultural universe
of the fin de sicle. Already Charles Baudelaire viewed a systematic effort to break down conventional boundaries between the arts as the
main characteristic of decadence. After centuries of artistic specialization resulting in some subjects belonging to painting, others to music,
others to literature, Baudelaire observed a radically different principle
taking hold in contemporary art: Is it an inevitable result of decadence
that every art today reveals a desire to encroach upon neighboring arts,
and the painters introduce musical scales, sculptors use color, writers
use the plastic means, and other artists, those who concern us today,
display a kind of encyclopedic philosophy in the plastic arts themselves?79 In his own creative works, particularly in the famous poem
Correspondences (which made as much impact on Russian decadents as
it did on their French counterparts), Baudelaire revealed his allegiance
to the very same principle. Meanwhile, in Germany, Nietzsche in Die
Geburt der Tragdie called for the return to ancient drama that united
all the arts and discussed Wagners role in that process. And in Russia, Vladimir Solovyov believed art to be a theurgydivine agency of
revelation and prophecy, with the power to transform the world.80 In
order to achieve its goal, all branches of the arts needed to be combined,
and therefore the highest, most synthetic and thus most theurgic of
the arts had to be theater, which was to become the temple of the new
art-religion.
Solovyov and Nietzsche proved potent sources of inspiration for

the mystic symbolistsAlexander Blok, Andrei Bely, and Vyacheslav
Ivanov. According to Rosenthal, Ivanov studied Wagners ideas of music
drama and art synthesis, but in his 1909 book Po Zvyozdam [Lodestars]
discussed them as merely the first step toward harnessing the power of
theurgic art.81 He believed that Wagners greatest achievement was his
attempt to recapture in his music dramas the lost sense of collectivity
(sobornost) between art and the people, present in ancient rites and to
some extent in Greek tragedy but lost to the modern world.82 As mentioned in chapter 1, the concept of sobornost, much debated by Solovyov
and other philosophers, became a cornerstone of mystic symbolism. So
it is interesting to note Ilya Bondarenkos description of Mamontovs
production of Sadko as a truly sobornoe deyanie [communal action].83
Writing in 1941, Bondarenko deliberately applied to an MPO creation
the term used by Ivanov in his calls for the synthesized art-religion of
the future. Considering the fact that in Stalinist Russia it would have
been politically astute to avoid any such connections (for the safety of
the writer as well as of the cause he promoted), we must conclude that
the ideological link between Mamontov and Russian symbolism was
extremely important to Bondarenko. He was, incidentally, one of Mamontovs closest friends during the 190010s and perhaps was privy to
his opinions about the symbolists that were not preserved either in correspondence or in the press.
Ivanov himself, of course, could not have considered Mamontovs
company as a vehicle capable of realizing his ideals of vse-edinstvo [allunity]; after all, it no longer existed by the time he started developing
his ideas. Instead, he placed his hopes in Alexander Scriabins colossal
Mysterium, the plans for which are partially accessible in the extant
sketches for its Predvaritelnoe Deistvo [Preparatory Act]. The description of this synthesized music drama turned religious rite provides us
with an (admittedly vague) picture of the complete synthesis of the arts
(music, poetry, visual arts, dance, drama, even architecture) organized
into a type of liturgy:
In this artistic event there will not be a single spectator. All will be participants. . . . The cast of performers includes, of course, an orchestra, a large
mixed choir, an instrument with visual effects, dancers, a procession,
incense, rhythmicized textual articulation. . . . The form of the cathedral,

in which it will all take place, will not be of one monotonous type of stone,
but will continually change, along with the atmosphere and motion of the
Mysterium. This of course will happen with the aid of mists and lights,
which will modify the architectural contours.84
Unlike Ivanov, Mamontov never viewed himself as a theurgist.

Instead, like Bryusov, Diaghilev, and other decadents, he was a selfprofessed hedonist: not trying to transform the world, he preferred to
decorate it. While he apparently admired Scriabins music ca. 1908 and
was aware of his theosophical ideas,85 no information is available about
his opinion of the composers late style. It is all the more remarkable to
read, in the Moscow daily Kurier, the following description of the premiere of Mamontovs Orfeo: The production of Orfeo was thorough,
from the artistic set designs to the interesting staging, even to the extent
of burning sacrificial incense in the auditorium, all of which helped to
enliven Glucks slightly old-fashioned opera.86
This review of Orfeoa production that, as we have seen, was conceived as a realization of Mamontovs aesthetic creeddoes put his
concept of synthesized opera production conspicuously in line with
Scriabins own description of Mysterium. And lest we wonder about the
significance of this single episode as an illustration of Mamontovs views,
theatrical projects he realized and contemplated in the later 1900s may
shed some light on the issue. In a letter to Polenov regarding a scene from
The Phantoms of Hellas, Mamontov advised his collaborator not to introduce too much coloratura into one of the female parts, reminding him
that since a dance is going on at the same time, [it] will be very difficult
to perform.87 As this remark suggests, singing and dancing were to be
merged in the new opera, for which Mamontov was not only librettist but
also author of the overall artistic idea. Even more remarkably, one week
after that letter, Mamontov wrote to Polenov again, describing a new
project he had conceived based, unsurprisingly, on yet another Greek
myth. He wrote: I have translated Yabloko Razdora [The Apple of Strife].
This could be a very beautiful, noble piece, but not in operatic form, but
in some new one. There is ballet here, melodrama, singingin a word, a
new form. It may offer fascinating beauty.88 Clearly, The Apple of Strife,
if realized, would have been a remarkably innovative work that fully
abandoned traditional operatic forms in order to achieve a complete
synthesis of the arts. It certainly would have placed Mamontov squarely

in the modernist camp.
Mamontov and the Decadents

None of the actual MPO productions were quite as radical as The Apple
of Strife of Mamontovs imagination. Nevertheless, the press routinely
accused the company of modernist bias, and its leader of breeding,
shielding, and disseminating everywhere the seeds of his beloved decadence.89 As we have seen, Mamontov, despite his aestheticist philosophy,
his interest in and support for modernist art, his cutting-edge theatrical
experiments, and his openly bohemian lifestyle, did not see himself as a
decadent any more than Sergei Diaghilev did.90 Yet his work, especially
the dcor of his productions, was all too often charged with decadent
leanings. For instance, according to Russkoe Slovo, Konstantin Korovin
was commonly nicknamed a decadent as early as 2 November 1896
(the date of Alexander Gruzinskys comment in that paper).91 Mikhail
Vrubels decadent affiliations dated from earlier still: young journalist
and future renowned realist writer Maxim Gorky (18681936), in his report on the 1896 Nizhny Novgorod Exhibition, described Vrubels panels
exhibited there by Mamontov as a direct reflection of that fashionable
malaise named decadence.92
Although Korovin and Vrubel were not the only MPO artists afflicted with Gorkys fashionable malaise,93 the press criticism was typically aimed at the pair as the designers with the most exposure. Their
work was perceived as the face of the Moscow Private Opera design
team. Indeed, Korovins creative touch, on the level of overall concept
and/or execution, can be identified in almost every Mamontov production between 1896 and 1899. Vrubel rarely designed sets at that time.94
His art, however, more than that of any other painter, represented the
face of the company: his signature decorative vignettes graced programs
and playbills, and his arresting images were also exhibited on the Solodovnikov Theater curtain and ceiling panel.95 It was Vrubels work that
was the primary target of a feuilleton whose author declared the buildings decadent interior design an example of not even art spared for
arts sake.96 Apparently, Vrubels decadent sets were similarly unable
to attract anything but criticism: they were routinely described as an-
noying and anti-artistic.97 His imaginative ornaments once reportedly evoked a feeling of disgust by their resemblance to a pack of giant
rats in a Novosti Dnya critic, who then proceeded to caution the artist
on his use of decadent painterly techniques.98
The charge was not to be taken lightly: the Russian operatic press
of the 1890s used the accusation of decadent or symbolist tendencies
as a harsh and comprehensive indictment of a theatrical venture. It is
interesting to observe how Moscow journalists adjusted their tone depending on their general attitude toward the MPO and its leader. Thus,
a wicked Russkoe Slovo feuilleton dedicated to Mamontovs arrest in
September 1899 depicted his partiality for decadent art as one of the
fatal character flaws that led to his downfall. As the author sarcastically pointed out, only a few steps appear to separate the Solodovnikov
Theater from the Taganskaya Prison, the new home of the ubiquitous
chief of railroads, millionaire, Maecenas, art patron, and planter of
decadent art.99 Similarly, if the critics wished to censure a particular
Mamontov production, sharp comments on its decadent designs would
abound in the reviews. On the other hand, if a specific production
was to be commendedan increasingly common occurrence as the
companys popularity and support in the city grewthe critics often
preferred to avoid discussing its set designs altogether. Alternatively,
the decadence of the dcor might be downplayed: the sets would be
described as very bold and a little decadent100 or exhibiting a slightly
decadent bias.101 Finally, a critic might issue a halfhearted compliment
like the following: The designs are splendid, although not free of the
usual symbolist slithering.102
The decadence of Korovin and Vrubels designs referred primarily to their innovative painterly techniques. Unlike the worldly, sophisticated Parisian elite that would later flock to see Diaghilevs productions, the majority of Mamontovs audience comprised conservative
middle-class Muscovites who in the 1890s were only minimally exposed
to contemporary European art.103 Instead, they would have been familiar with the work of two local artistic groups, the Academy painters
and the Wanderers. Despite differing in their choice of subject matter,
these groups shared a generally traditional approach to form, color,
and painterly technique.104 As a result, thick textures, rough, broad
brushstrokes, and strikingly unusual color combinations employed
by Mamontovs decadent painters, along with their experiments with

perspective, and their preference for color over shape shocked many of
their spectators.
According to press accounts, the public apparently experienced
the visual culture shock produced by the designs as a sense of incompleteness, an impression of a sketch rather than of a serious, finished
work.105 For example, according to Gruzinsky, the Khovanshchina sets,
although wonderfully conceived, were executed clumsily, perhaps
even with deliberate carelessness.106 Similarly, washed-out colors and
vague shapes of objects portrayed on the backdrops were increasingly
noted as characteristic of the decadent painterly style. A correspondent of the St. Petersburg daily Novoe Vremya, for instance, indicated
in his 1898 review of the companys tour that the sets, while announced
as being new, just recently painted on the playbills, looked pale and
worn out. He finally concluded: Clearly, the artists who created them
are drawn toward the decadent style of painting.107 In a review published by the same critic two weeks later, no hesitation was displayed:
It is difficult to approve of the decadent, as if worn-out style of the set
designs, although their composition is original, he wrote.108 Indeed, the
qualities that the conservative Novoe Vremya reporter found so hard
to approve were equally disturbing to that newspapers avowed enemy,
Vladimir Stasov. In a section of his essay The Moscow Private Opera
in Petersburg, which treated the companys designers, Stasov addressed
the unfinished quality of the sets and, notably, attributed it to time
constraints. According to the critic, the problem lay in the fact that the
great artistic ideas of Mamontovs painters were executed in a hurry:
Justice requires us to note that frequently the composition of the sets
in Mamontovs theater is better than their execution: this has occurred,
probably, only due to the hurried nature of the work and thus the occasional lack of time for the completely detailed, precise, and perfect
execution of the composition on such huge canvases.109 Justice requires
us to note that the sets Stasov was discussing in his article were not first
unveiled during the companys 1898 St. Petersburg tour. Instead, they
were already utilized for a period ranging from two months (Sadko) to
several years (The Snow Maiden). Any rush job would certainly have
been corrected by that time, especially considering the fact that winter
months were normally a low season for Mamontovs designers, since
premieres rarely occurred after the Christmas holidays, and particularly taking into consideration the enormous significance attached to
the troupes first visit to the capital. The incompleteness Stasov noted
in his essay was most likely the result, either of the critics own (mis)
understanding of the artists modernist techniques or of his attempt, in
a desire to support Mamontovs enterprise, to explain away the unusual
characteristics of its designs and thus protect it from the accusations of
decadence.
Historicism and Stylization

Stasov had a good reason for coming to (what he thought was) the defense of the MPO: he held Mamontov in high esteem and considered
him an ideological ally. Yet as seen in chapter 3, whenever Stasov put
his formidable influence behind a cause, he was relentless in ensuring
that the cause behaved in line with his expectations, or at least making
certain it was publicly presented as such. In his discussions of Mamontovs enterprise, therefore, the critic deliberately sought out and praised
the qualities that he himself considered admirable, while ignoring or
explaining away the others. With respect to visual design, Stasovs battle
cry was historicism.
In Russian theater criticism of the 1890s, historicism was understood as fidelity to historical accounts in all details of scenery, costumes,
accessories, and so on. It was an accepted style for designing all stage
productions, dramatic and operatic, and particularly those based on a
historical subject. The historicist approach to design was viewed as a progressive trend;110 the Imperial Theater productions that did not adhere
to it were criticized as obsolete. An art historian by trade, Stasov used
his considerable clout to demand so-called archeological exactness
from all historical productions he reviewed.111 The critic had his own
reasons for raising the historicist banner: to him, a precise rendition of
historical details was a realization of the idea of truth on stage.112 In his
well known critique of the Mariinsky revival of Glinkas Ruslan, which
condemned the production as an example of tastelessness, senselessness, and ignorance on the part of decorators and costume designers,
Stasov described the sorcerer Chernomor and his attendants as some
kind of crowd of beggars and invalids in torn clothes. Prince Svetozar
evidently looked like a janitor, and sorceress Naina like a witch from
a street puppet show. As an example of a correct staging of Ruslan,
the critic offered the 1867 Prague production directed by the Kuchkas
leader Mily Balakirev. The designer of the Prague Ruslan was art historian and archeologist Gornostaev, who earned Stasovs approval by
possessing, apart from fine taste and painterly talent . . . a very solid
art-historical knowledge with a special expertise in ancient Russian
art.113 It is noteworthy that Stasov defined Ruslan as a fairytale opera,
yet issued the same demand for authenticity in its designs that he would
for a real historical subject.
Having accepted Mamontov as a comrade-in-arms and having observed a great number of historical operas on his playbill, Stasov naturally expected the idea of historical authenticity to be preserved on the
MPO stage. The critic reviewed the companys productions in accordance with this assumption. He pointed out various details in the Streletskaya Sloboda [The Streltsy Compound, act 3] set from Khovanshchina
that in his opinion truly resurrected the old Moscow, and approved the
recycling of a Maid of Pskov set for The Oprichnik as permissible and
lawful, for both operas depict the epoch of Ivan the Terrible. Vasnetsovs
Berendei Palace from The Snow Maiden (see plate 9) was described as not
only poetic, but also full of old Russian truth.114
Some of Stasovs observations on the historical approach evident
in the companys productions are clearly on target. As we shall see in
chapter 6, Mamontov was influenced to an extent by the historicism
trend. He accepted the need for historical research in staging operas set
in the past, as evident from a Russkoe Slovo report on the production of
Verstovskys Askoldova Mogila [Askolds Tomb]: Historical costumes
have been prepared for the opera. Set designs, armor, and all the accessories have been created from sketches by well-known painters.115 In
applying historicism to his productions, Mamontov saw an additional
benefit of avoiding traditional operatic clichs: an unconventional setting of Gounods Faust in a medieval German town is a good example
of his approach. Unlike Stasov, however, he did not limit himself by
history, as is evident from his reaction to some historicist productions
he would witness in his later years. Platon Mamontov recalled the following outburst from his uncle, after attending a historically informed
performance of Evgeny Onegin [Eugene Onegin]: They should have at
least given us beauty, Uncle Savva said, instead of putting charwomen on

stage and saying that the landowners always had those in the old days!
Know-it-alls! They forgot all about Tchaikovsky!116
The reference to beauty, even at the expense of the historical truth, is
of course characteristic of Mamontovs thinking. His aesthetic priorities
were markedly different from Stasovs, and while in historical operas
such as Boris Godunov, Khovanshchina, and Rogneda their visions might
have overlapped, they diverged noticeably in dealing with fairy tales
or mythology. To Stasov, as we have seen, the historical approach was
just as necessary for staging Glinkas Ruslan as, for example, the same
composers Zhizn za tsarya [A Life for the Tsar]. Mamontov, on the other
hand, turned to a different idea in designing his legends and fairy tales:
the symbolist idea of uslovnostidealization, or stylization.
The Russian decadents of the Silver Age embraced stylization as an
essential quality of the new theater, opposed to the outdated realism and
appropriate particularly for a realization of ancient myth. Valery Bryusov, for example, concluded his 1902 manifesto Useless Truth with
a call for all artists to move away from the useless truth of the modern
stage to the conscious uslovnost of ancient theater.117 It is unsurprising,
therefore, that the first time we encounter the idea of uslovnost in Mamontovs correspondence, it happens to be in relation to Glucks Orfeo.
In a letter to Polenov in which Mamontov first brought up the subject of Orfeo, he made the following request with respect to its designs:
Compose the sets in a strict classical style. It seems to me that they
must be done in completely light-colored, stylized tones, especially
paradise (i.e., the Elysian Fields).118 In another letter later that month,
he confirmed: The picture should be very light and overall somewhat
uslovnaya [stylized].119 Mamontov was sufficiently pleased with the results of Polenovs work to suggest a similar approach for his Necklace. He
wrote to the painter: The visual aspect [of The Necklace] is not complex
but requires a noble artist such as yourself; that is, the same tone needs
to be presented here as that which you managed to lift so incomparably
high in Aphrodite and Orfeo. The same pure, noble, and somewhat stylized Greece.120
A rare group photo of the final apotheosis from the 1897 production of Orfeo offers an illustration of Mamontovs concept of uslovnost
(see plate 35). In the center of the composition is an idealized ancient
Greek temple (rather than a specific building) set against the backdrop
of an idealized Mediterranean landscape. An ahistorical approach is
evident here. Its cause, however, was not ignorance, which would have
been Stasovs habitual charge. Polenovs knowledge of classical ancient
art and architecture was impressive. He traveled extensively in Greece
and the Middle East, and frequently used minutely realistic details of
his experiences in his mythological and Biblical works exhibitedand
laudedby the Wanderers. In his designs for Orfeo, the painter could
have easily used specific locations and monuments.121 Instead, he chose
to disregard the possibility of a realist reading and follow Mamontovs
request for a stylized treatment of his subject.
Victor Vasnetsov demonstrated a similar approach to Russian antiquity in his acclaimed designs for act 2 of Rimsky-Korsakovs Snow
MaidenBerendeis Palace (plate 9), which earned such high praise from
Stasov as an example of old Russian truth. Taruskin, meanwhile, called
Vasnetsovs design the first major post-realist, post-Wanderer departure
in Russian painting, and endorsed a Silver Age reading of it as the first
page in the history of Russian modernism.122
Interestingly, these two contradictory assessments refer to the very
same feature of Berendeis Palaceits indebtedness to a thorough knowledge of folk art that its author had accumulated in Abramtsevo workshops. Despite what Stasov evidently believed, Vasnetsov did not approach the Snow Maiden sets as a realist, by copying traditional models,
although such a method would have been completely acceptableafter
all, the production did, to Stasovs delight, use original or precisely imitated village costumes. Instead, the painter absorbed traditional designs
he had studied, and created his own artistic variation on them, spinning
a novel poetic system from old peasant folk motives.123 For example,
the ornaments decorating the palace walls that so excited Stasov are
highly atypical for Russian folk architecture; on the other hand, they
were commonly used in traditional brocaded and embroidered clothing.124 Folk embroidery patterns observed at an Abramtsevo workshop
were thus translated into a different artistic medium, so that the
traditional vocabulary of ornamental forms was enlarged, and this in
turn paved the way for a new plastic system.125
This aesthetization of folklore evident in Vasnetsovs Snow Maiden
designs may also be discerned in Vrubels majolica, Elena Polenovas
book illustrations, and the work of other Abramtsevo-affiliated artists.

Indeed, it would become one of the fundamental principles of the Russian
style moderne. As such, it found a particularly concentrated manifestation in the flamboyant Ballets Russes designs by Leon Bakst. Similarly
to Vasnetsovs, Baksts designs never claimed archeological exactness
while managing to look authentically Russian to their audiencesa
clear example of Diaghilevs company adopting a crucial design concept
developed at Mamontovs enterprise.
One of the most far-reaching applications of this approach at the
MPO was Korovins 1897 set designs for Rimsky-Korsakovs Sadko.
The sets attracted much criticism at the time for their flattened, twodimensional appearance that seemed to ignore basic laws of painterly
perspective. A diligent student of Polenov and an excellent easel painter,
Korovin chose to abandon the accepted approach to theatrical design,
which called for creating the illusion of three-dimensional reality on the
backdrop. Instead of the real world, he searched for inspiration in old art
forms, such as traditional icon painting and the lubok prints (see chapter
3, n.25). Both genres long fascinated Mamontovs artists, particularly due
to their use of flat, perspectiveless space:
The artists in Savva Mamontovs Circle paid close attention to the perspectival conventions of the old icon painters and miniaturists. In their
sketches and finished works, they were inspired by the dynamic patterns
in icons and miniatures, asymmetrical architectural compositions, repeated motifs, strong contrasts between wide surfaces and deep narrow
openings, arabesques and bright colorsin short, the plastic vocabularyof the old Russian masters.126
A unique photograph of the Torzhishche [the Marketplace, scene

4] from Mamontovs production of Sadko clearly illustrates Korovins
approach (see plate 36). The buildings on the left side of the stage are
two-dimensional (note especially the roofs); there is no shading or any
other attempt to create an illusion of depth. There is no blending of
colors; the artist even abandons his signature fragmented brushwork
for thick, rough, primitive brushstrokes imitating a childs drawing.
An aesthetic application of the lubok style, this manner would later become typical of the Russian neo-primitivists Mikhail Larionov, Kuzma
Petrov-Vodkin, Natalia Goncharova, and young Kazimir Malevichthe
artists who, despite an acknowledged influence of Czanne and Matisse,
had always traced the main source of their inspiration to Russian lubok
and icon painting.127 Perhaps even more telling are the sails of the ships
on Korovins backdrop: their stylized shapes, borrowed from the lubok,
would emerge in the paintings and book illustrations of Ivan Bilibin and
Wassily Kandinsky.
It is perhaps unsurprising that Larionov, Goncharova, and the Russian Czannistesindeed a majority of the Russian avant-garde artists
of the early twentieth centurywould start their careers as students
of Konstantin Korovin. By the time they finish their training in the
late 1900s and early 1910s, their work, though still cutting-edge, would
receive philosophical justification, get placed in the context of similar
artistic trends in the West, and find its audience. In 1897, however, the
use of the lubok as a source for formal experimentation was a completely
novel idea in Russian painting. It was equally unusual in stage design,
and Korovin, of course, chose the controversial approach deliberately.
Like Rimsky-Korsakov, he was facing the challenge of finding a comparable realization in a different artistic medium of the ancient Russian
folk legend of Sadko. And like the composer, who turned for help to
ancient folk poetry and original epic melodies, the artist tapped into the
oldest layer of folk painterly tradition available to him, and assimilated
this tradition into a modern creative vision of his subject. Realized in
Mamontovs production, this vision turned out to be remarkably compatible with Rimsky-Korsakovs score.
The structure of Sadko is epic in its proportions; its loose dramatic
intrigue; its juxtaposition of sweeping tableaux separated in time and
space; and its characters, which symbolically represent Christianity and
paganism, the realm of the real and the world of fantasy. With its tendency toward portraying its characters and its worlds as carefully crafted
doubles, mirrors of each other, the music of Sadko has its own iconic
quality, its own two-dimensionality.128 The composer here created two
contrasting soundscapes: one of the legendary real, rendered via the
adaptation and stylization of folk music and Orthodox chant, another
of the equally legendary unreal, realized through the artificially designed symmetry of octatonic scales and augmented triads.129 People
and creatures occupying these soundscapes are their reflectionsjust as
intangible, and just as symbolic and profoundly meaningful as the faces
of saints on the old icons and the figures in the lubok prints.
The composer himself seems to have been acutely conscious of the

decorative, designed quality of his music for Sadko and other so-called
fantastic operasof their underlying artifice. In a letter to Nadezhda
Zabela,130 Rimsky-Korsakov described his fantastic operas as lacking
humanity (that is, realistic drama), and their compositional process
as coloring in the little boxes (i.e., design patterns), as opposed to the
free painting typical of a more traditional work like The Tsars Bride.131
The tone of the letter suggests that the composer considered the decorative two-dimensionality of Sadko to be a stylistic weakness. However,
Korovins reading, realized in his designs for Mamontovs production,
accepted and affirmed the perspectiveless quality of the music with an
equally flattened lubok-inspired dcor, thus not only asserting the ancient folk roots of the plot, but also proclaiming the operas modernity,
almost against the wishes of its author. A strikingly novel reading such as
this was of course unlikely to find a favorable reception in a conservative
majority of Moscow critics and audiences. It was, in effect, an artistic
creation for its own sake. But at least one reviewer, Nikolai Kashkin, in
his report on Sadkos premiere for the Moscow daily Russkie Vedomosti,
commented favorably on Korovins designs, finding his approach original and appropriate for a folk epic.132
Stylization in Stage Movement

Thus, in designing the MPO productions, Mamontov and his artists
aesthetically translated their ancient Greek and Russian models via
the use of uslovnost, or stylization. True to their principle of creating a
unified visual impression for each production, they went beyond sets,
costumes, makeup, and props, and applied the same aesthetic standards
to stage movement. Consider, for example, the following comment by
a reviewer of Orfeo: One had to invest much work in order to lend
every single movement of the masses the fluidity and harmony necessitated by the Greek character of the opera, and we must admit that
this work was crowned with complete success. . . . The movements of
the masses in act 1 and tableaux 3 and 5 displayed that very fluidity and
harmony.133 The phrase plavnost i garmonichnost, translated here as
fluidity and harmony, suggests an image of unified, synchronized, and
ultimately deliberate, predetermined, stylized gestures and movements
of the chorusthe image diametrically opposed to the so-called individualized crowd of realist operas on which Mamontovs enterprise
made its reputation.134
The principals of Orfeo were evidently moving in a similar manner,
with every gesture carefully choreographed by Mamontov himself. This
stylized stage motion, blended with the stylized sets, was in fact central to
the artistic conception of that production, dictating its other aspects, including casting. Thus, as we have seen, mezzo-soprano Maria Chernenko
(plate 35, front center) might not have been the best choice for the leading
role from a purely musical standpoint. However, the singers rare talent
for expressive gesture made her indispensable in a part conceived essentially as vocalized pantomime. Indeed, Orfeo was not the only example
of Mamontov integrating his unique choreography into an operatic production. For instance, in Saint-Sanss Samson et Dalila, every moment
of Delilahs role was again carefully choreographed for Chernenko.
More significant still is the case of Alexander Serovs Yudif [Judith]
a production designed by its composers son, a Repin student, an
Abramtsevo insider, and perhaps one of Russias most original modernist painters, Valentin Serov. The stage movement for a leading character,
Holofernes, portrayed by Feodor Chaliapin, was choreographed twodimensionally in a simulacrum of ritualized figures in profile postures
that Serov had found in albums of ancient Assyrian bas-reliefs. The same
images also served as models for the operas sets and costumes (see plates
12, 13). In his memoirs, Ilya Bondarenko described how the bas-relief idea
was born: His arms spread, [Serov] walked around the dining room like
a true Assyrian, bending over and staring with bulging eyes. Mamontov
approvingly stressed that the movement should be much sharper than
in the book illustration, since one would need to make allowances for
the stage.135
In his discussion of Chaliapins interpretation of Holofernes, Abram
Gozenpud, again with the best intentions of protecting Mamontov and
Chaliapin, toned down the radical nature of Serovs modernist approach,
claiming that the singer created a realistic image, despite the stylized
character of poses and movements.136 Since according to Dmitry Sarabyanov a combination of the stylized and the natural, the real was a
distinct trait of the Russian style moderne, the two aspects of the production need not be perceived as mutually exclusive.137 Yet Gozenpud
apparently viewed them as such. And possibly, so did Chaliapina fact

that may shed light on an intriguing little mystery that surrounds the
singers work on Judith.
The MPO premiere of Judith took place on 23 November 1898. By
mid-December, Chaliapin declared that he would no longer perform the
role of Holofernes, ostensibly to concentrate on Musorgskys Boris Godunov, which premiered on 7 December. The singers decisionunprecedented for Mamontovs disciplined troupehas never received a satisfactory explanation. Clearly, the part of Boris is larger, more prominent,
and musically superior to that of Holofernes. But perhaps other factors
might have been involved. As we shall see in the next chapter, Chaliapins
primary focus was always the drama of his roles. While concerned with
costume, hair, makeup, and other details of his characters appearance,
the singer considered the visual aspect a means to realizing the overall
dramatic concept, which at this early stage of his career leaned toward
the then-fashionable psychological naturalism. As a result, Chaliapin
might have found that Serovs stylized approach, deliberately restrictive
of his range of motion, contradicted his current interests, realized to
such a great extent in Musorgskys character.
Later, during his tenure at the Imperial Theaters, the restless Chaliapin returned to Judith, which was revived with his participation in 1911.
According to Gozenpud, in the Mariinsky version, the elements of stylization, only outlined in the earlier production, became stronger. Some
critics even doubted the legitimacy of such an approach to Alexander
Serovs opera.138 Among the elements that strengthened the stylized
tone of the production were its ballet scenes, choreographed by Michel
Fokine to create living bas-reliefs. The critics also observed that the
movements of singers on stage were evidently patterned after those of
the dancers. They failed to notice, however, that the result was the same
stylized fluidity and harmony that Mamontov had first envisioned in
his unique operatic pantomimes.
It is notable that Mamontovs concept of signification through choreography was applied exclusively in the operas whose plots were based
on (broadly defined) mythwhether the ancient Greece of Orfeo, the eschatology of The Demon, or the Biblical Oriental exotica of Samson and
Judith. He wanted to capture in motion the essence of mythits ephemeral, preternatural quality. The team of symbolists running Diaghilevs
Ballets Russes was convinced that the outdated genre of opera could
not capture that quality; to them, it could only be revealed in ballet. The
ritualized dance of the nymphs in Nijinskys Laprs-midi dun faune was
a realization of their visionwhich makes it particularly intriguing to
speculate whether that production might have been partially influenced
by Mamontovs Judith. Act 3 of that opera was included in the Ballets
Russes inaugural 1909 season, with Chaliapin in the title role offering essentially the same interpretation he had developed at the Moscow Private
Opera. The sets were painted anew under Valentin Serovs supervision,
while all costumes and accessories, according to press accounts, came
directly from Mamontovs 1898 production.139 To be sure, that last idea
may have come to Diaghilev as an afterthought: the Imperial Theaters
refused to rent their costumes for his risky venture. The choice, however,
was not arbitrary: with Fokines stylized dances, Chaliapins ritualized
movement, Serovs Assyrian set designs, and Mamontov-approved costumes and props, Diaghilevs Parisian Judith became a true realization
of Mamontovs decadent dream.
Mamontov and Diaghilev

The resurrection of Mamontovs Judith on Diaghilevs stage was certainly
a unique experiment. Yet Diaghilev scholars have noted numerous connections between the Moscow Private Opera and the Russian Seasons,
a theatrical venture that would become the Ballets Russes. For instance,
Serov, Korovin, and Golovinthe designers trained at Mamontovs companycollaborated with Diaghilev on his Parisian productions. Operas
presented as a part of the Russian Seasons, including Boris Godunov,
The Maid of Pskov, Sadko, Maiskaya noch [May Night], Prince Igor, and
Khovanshchina, as well as Judith, were all central to the MPO repertoire, and indeed directly identified with the company. Diaghilevs lead
singers, Chaliapin and tenor Dmitry Smirnov (18811944), started their
careers under Mamontovs tutelage.140 Finally, we have already witnessed
stage director Alexander Sanin, creator of Diaghilevs spectacular Boris
Godunov, publicly acknowledging Mamontov as his mentor.141 Nevertheless, few researchers who have recognized these facts have attempted to
explain them as anything more than a series of historical coincidences.
Lynn Garafola went furthest in calling the MPO the musical and artis-
tic blueprint for Diaghilevs Russian Seasons, but she stopped short of
establishing any firm connections between Mamontovs enterprise and
the Ballets Russes beyond their sharing of repertoire and personnel.142
As we have seen, however, there are numerous points of ideological convergence between the two companies and their leaders. These
include, but are not limited to, an adherence to the art for arts sake philosophy, a striving for the realization of a synthesis of the arts through
a collaborative creative process, and the fostering of a unified visual
impression for each production; a guarded stand on realism, and a rejection of unqualified historicism; and, finally, a reliance on stylization
in staging and design. It is possible that Garafolas caution, apart from a
natural inclination to place her own hero in the limelight, stems from a
paucity of documentary evidence that proves that the correspondences
between the two enterprises are more than coincidental. Both in Russia
and elsewhere, scholars from various disciplines drew parallels between
Mamontov and Diaghilev. Most commonly they cite Mamontovs cosponsorship of the journal Mir Iskusstva during its first year of publication, as well as discussing his designers collaboration with Diaghilev
on his various ventures, including the Ballets Russes. Garafola went so
far as to hint at a similarity in the methodologies of the two companies,
which she linked to the egalitarian traditions of Russias merchant enterprises.143 But until now, researchers have always avoided discussing
personal connections between Mamontov and Diaghilev. The reason
was a lack of information: archival evidence is scarce, memoir literature
conflicting and confusing, and no typically prolific correspondence between the two men has been preserved. Russian art historian Eleonora
Paston, in a paper read at a Diaghilev conference, declared with frustration that the subject still awaited its researcher.144 Meanwhile, there are
documents availablesome unpublished, others published but never
interpretedthat shed fresh light on the hitherto poorly understood
friendship between Mamontov and Diaghilev.
First of all, the Pickwick Club on the Nevaa circle of young St.
Petersburg intellectuals who would give birth to Mir Iskusstvawas
no secret to Mamontov. In Benois Vozniknovenie Mira Iskusstva [The
Birth of Mir Iskusstva], Mamontovs nephew Yury Anatolievich is listed
as an active member of this circle between 1890 and 1892.145 His uncle
must have been aware of this. He frequently visited his St. Petersburg
relations, while Yury was friendly with his Moscow cousins, as well as
Mamontovs painters. In a photograph taken at Abramtsevo in 1888, he
is pictured with his brother Mikhail, Sergei Mamontov, Ilya Ostroukhov,
and Valentin Serov (see plate 4). In fact, it is possible that it was from
Yury Mamontov that Serov and Korovin first heard the name Benois.
As for Diaghilev, the evidence preserved at the State Russian Museum indicates that in the fall of 1897 he was actively engaged in preparing the first Mir Iskusstva exhibition. It would take place in St. Petersburg in early 1898 and include paintings by Moscow artists, of whom the
great majority were at that time working for Mamontov. In October
November 1897, Diaghilev frequently visited Moscow in order to select
the paintings to be exhibited. His adventures there are chronicled in
his correspondence with Alexandre Benois. In a letter to Benois dated
8 October, Diaghilev asks: What do you think of Vrubel?146 Mikhail
Vrubel, as we remember, was Mamontovs favorite painter and protg;
even though after his 1896 marriage to Nadezhda Zabela he no longer lived at Mamontovs house, he still had a studio there. Meanwhile,
the artists name had never before entered Diaghilevs correspondence;
Benois apparently did not know him either. It is logical to assume that
Diaghilev met Vrubel in Moscow that fall. It is equally plausible that they
must have been introduced by Mamontov, who was actively involved in
the preparation of the exhibition, as he not only employed the artists
Diaghilev surveyed, but personally owned many of their works.
Another letter from Diaghilev to Benois from that period concerns
one of Mamontovs designers, Apollinary Vasnetsov. This is the earliest
surviving letter in which Diaghilev directly mentions Mamontov by
name. He writes: Mamontov has promised Apollinarys set designs.147
The designs in question were those for Musorgskys Khovanshchina, in
rehearsal at the MPO since October 1897. Whether it was the need to see
those sets that first brought Diaghilev to Mamontovs theater, or whether
he saw them by chance during one of his visits and later decided to borrow them for the exhibition, is immaterial. More important is the fact of
his presence in the theater during Khovanshchinas rehearsals.148
While in Moscow, Diaghilev would also have had a chance to observe the rehearsals of Orfeo that premiered on 30 November 1897, three
weeks after Khovanshchina. He left no direct comment on Mamontovs
production, but the following remark in one of the Complex Questions
articles is noteworthy: Not only have we accepted Wagner, we love him

passionately, but that does not prevent us from eternally admiring Don
Giovanni and adoring Orfeo.149 The mention of Orfeo in this context
might pass unnoticed except for the fact that Diaghilev would have had
no opportunity to familiarize himself with the opera other than watching it at Mamontovs theater. Prior to the MPO production, Orfeo had
never graced Russias professional operatic stages; a few student performances at the conservatories took place well before Diaghilevs arrival
in the capital. The score was available, but there would have been no
reason to study it: in the 1890s, Russian music lovers were not interested in Orfeo. It was not considered representative of Glucks mature
reformist style (unlike Alceste and the Parisian operas) and was viewed
as tedious and old-fashioned. Even Rimsky-Korsakov once remarked to
Zabela: Orfeo is boring, and no one needs it.150 To place Orfeo on the
same artistic level with Wagners music dramas, adored by the Russian
symbolists, and Mozarts Don Giovanni, immortalized by Mir Iskusstvas beloved E.T.A. Hoffmann, Diaghilev needed more than just to have
known the opera. He needed to have seen Orfeo in a new, modernist
lightan opportunity that at the time could have been provided only
by Mamontovs innovative production.
Despite Diaghilevs professed adoration, Polenovs sets for Orfeo
did not make it to the Mir Iskusstva exhibition. Neither did Korovins
lubok-inspired designs for Sadkothey could not have been ready in
time. They would, however, be displayed in St. Petersburg on the last day
of Diaghilevs exhibition: on 22 February 1898, Sadko opened the MPOs
triumphant inaugural tour of the Russian capital, during which Korovins sets made a deep impression on the Mir Iskusstva artists.151 Halfway
through the tour, another historic occasion took place: on 18 March 1898,
the publishing agreement for Diaghilevs journal was signed. Scholars,
used to Mamontovs fabled generosity, never before questioned the reasons for his involvement with Mir Iskusstva. Meanwhile, the timing
was rather inopportune: Mamontov was on the verge of bankruptcy,
his financial empire was in tatters, and his primary responsibilitythe
Moscow Private Operastill required his attention. Still, he enthusiastically committed a substantial sum of money in order to launch Mir
Iskusstva, rather than spending it on his business or his opera company.
Indeed, if he did have that much money to spare, Mamontov could have
chosen to sponsor Stasovs realist journal Arts and Crafts: it appeared

simultaneously and in open and direct competition with Diaghilevs
decadent publication, and was desperate for funding. I would argue that
Mamontovs reasons went far beyond those of a generous patron. Rather,
his philosophical and artistic principles, vastly different from Stasovs,
had much in common with the ideological platform of Mir Iskusstva,
while his personal friendship with Diaghilev gave him an added incentive to support his initiative. Furthermore, there is evidence to posit
the existence of a mentor-student relationship between Mamontov and
Diaghilev, based on their shared aesthetic views and vision of modernist
theater. The nature of that relationship, which would lead Diaghilev to
use Mamontovs company as a model for his Ballets Russes, will be discussed in detail in chapter 8. In the meantime, we shall turn our attention to an issue that rivaled stage design in its centrality to Mamontovs
conceptualization of operatic genrethe issue of opera as drama.
plate 2. Mamontov and artists in his study; left to right: Ilya Repin, Vasily Surikov,
Mamontov (at the piano), Konstantin Korovin, Valentin Serov, Mark Antokolsky.
Antokolskys statue of Christ is at the background. Mark Kopshitser, Savva Mamontov,
plate 16.
plate 1. (facing page) Savva Mamontov. BM, photography division; used by permission.
plate 3. Dining room in Mamontovs Moscow mansion; Victor Vasnetsovs Magic Carpet
is behind Mamontov on the wall. Mark Kopshitser, Savva Mamontov, plate 29.
plate 4. A gathering at Abramtsevo, 1888; left to right: Valentin Serov, Sergei Mamontov,
Ilya Ostroukhov (at the piano), Mikhail Mamontov, Yury Mamontov. Mark Kopshitser,
Savva Mamontov, plate 31.
plate 5. Savva Mamontov at his studio (1910s). Mark Kopshitser, Savva Mamontov, plate 74.
plate 6. A playbill for the play Black Turban (designerVictor Vasnetsov; text
Savva Mamontov). Mark Kopshitser, Savva Mamontov, plate 51.
plate 7. Mikhail Vrubel, Tamaras Dance (1890). Mikhail Vrubel, Perepiska. Vospominaniia
o khudozhnike, plate 34.
plate 8. Mikhail Vrubel, Mephistopheles

and His Acolyte (1896). Abram Raskin,
Shaliapin i russkie khudozhniki, 50.
plate 9. Victor Vasnetsov, set sketch for Berendeis Palace, The Snow Maiden (MPO, 1885).
Militsa Pozharskaia, Russkoe teatralno-dekoratsionnoe iskusstvo kontsa XIXnachala XX
veka, plate 7.
plate 10. Vasily Polenov, set sketch for Euridices Tomb, Orfeo (MPO, 1897). Militsa
Pozharskaia, Russkoe teatralno-dekoratsionnoe iskusstvo kontsa XIXnachala XX veka,
plate 8.
plate 12. Valentin Serov, a costume sketch for Holofernes, Judith (MPO, 1898). Ekaterina
Grosheva, ed., Fdor Ivanovich Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 1: opposite 385.
plate 11. (facing page) Vasily Polenov, a costume sketch for Mephistopheles, Faust
(MPO, 1896). Ekaterina Grosheva, ed., Fdor Ivanovich Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo,
1: opposite 128.
plate 13. Chaliapin as Holofernes, Judith (MPO, 1898). Ekaterina Grosheva, ed., Fdor
Ivanovich Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 2: opposite 176.
plate 14. Chaliapin as Mephistopheles, Faust (Mariinsky Theater, 1895). Ekaterina

Grosheva, ed., Fdor Ivanovich Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 2: opposite 72.
plate 15. Chaliapin as Mephistopheles, Faust (MPO, 1897). Ekaterina Grosheva, ed., Fdor
Ivanovich Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 2: opposite 72, verso.
plate 16. Chaliapin as

Mephistopheles, Faust
(Bolshoi Theater, 1912).
Abram Raskin, Shaliapin i
russkie khudozhniki, 51.
plate 17. Chaliapin as Varangian Trader, Sadko (MPO, 1898). Ekaterina Grosheva, ed.,
Fdor Ivanovich Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 2: opposite 161.
plate 18. (facing page) Tsvetkova as the Snow Maiden (MPO, 1896). BM, photography
division; used by permission.
plate 20. Zabela as Volkhova, Sadko (MPO, 1898). BM, photography division; used by
permission.
plate 19. (facing page) Tsvetkova as Ioanna, The Maid of Orleans (MPO, 1899).
BM, photography division; used by permission.
plate 22. Strakhova as Marfa, Khovanshchina (MPO, 1897). BM, photography division;
used by permission.
plate 21. (facing page) Zabela as the Snow Maiden (MPO, 1897). Mark Kopshitser,
Savva Mamontov, plate 60.
plate 24. Lyubatovich as Carmen (MPO, 1896). BM, photography division; used by
permission.
plate 23. (facing page) Paskhalova as the Snow Maiden (MPO, 1898). BM, photography
plate 25. Bedlevich as Khan Konchak, Prince Igor (MPO, 1896). BM, photography
plate 26. Olenin as Rangoni, Boris Godunov (MPO, 1898). BM, photography division;
used by permission.
plate 28. Shkafer as Kabil, The Necklace (MPO, 1899). BM, photography division; used by
permission.
plate 27. (facing page) Chernenko as the Princess, Dargomyzhskys Rusalka (MPO, 1898).
plate 29. Enrico Bevigniani. BM, photography division; used by permission.
plate 30. Vladimir Zelyonyi. BM, photography division; used by permission.
plate 32. La bohme, act 1 (MPO, 1897); Rodolfo (left)Sekar-Rozhansky.

plate 31. (facing page) Iosif (Giuseppe) Truffi. BM, photography division; used by
permission.
plate 33. Boris Godunov, act 2 (MPO, 1898); BorisChaliapin, ShuiskyShkafer. BM,
photography division; used by permission.
plate 34. Cast photo, The Snow Maiden (MPO, 1887); The Snow MaidenSalina. BM,
photography division; used by permission.
plate 36. (facing page) Sadko, scene 4, The Marketplace (MPO, 1897); SadkoSekar-Rozhansky,
LyubavaRostovtseva. BM, photography division; used by permission.
plate 35. Orfeo, act 3 apotheosis (MPO, 1897); (center) OrfeoChernenko, EuridiceNegrin-Schmidt,
AmourKlopotovskaya (with a bow). BM, photography division; used by permission.
plate 37. Cast photo, Mandarins Son (MPO, 1900); first from leftLossky, second
from rightStavitskaya. BM, photography division; used by permission.
plate 38. (facing page) Tale of Tsar Saltan, finale (MPO, 1900); dcorMikhail Vrubel.
plate 39. Old Judge, Idyll. Shut 13 (1899), 89.
plate 40. Old Judge, Boundless Joy. Shut 4 (1900), 89.
fi v e
Opera as Drama
As we have seen, Savva Mamontovs name virtually never graced the

Moscow Private Operas playbills. As founder and patron of the company, he was certainly never on its payroll; indeed, he had no official
job description within Mrs. Winters private operatic enterprise.1 In
the memoir literature, we see many references to Mamontov as the
guiding spirit of his company,2 the creative center of each production,
whose mere presence in the theater galvanized the cast into producing
their best work in rehearsal or performance. 3 Yet, while poetic and
flattering to our protagonist, these descriptions are admittedly vague,
and make one wish for a simple declarative statement on what exactly
Mamontov did at the company, apart from keeping it financially afloat.4
The next two chapters of this book take as their starting point just such
a simple declaration from a former employee whose legacy is rarely associated today with opera theater. Looking back at his brief tenure at
the MPO, Sergei Rachmaninov recalled: Mamontov was a born stage
director.5
It is notable that Rachmaninov did not exactly mean the title as a
compliment, but instead as a wistful indictment of Mamontovs comparative lack of interest in purely musical matters. This, of course, is
a familiar accusation that a number of Mamontovs associates, from
Polenov to Rimsky-Korsakov, made in reference to his view of opera as
a colorful spectacle rather than a piece of music that just happens to be
staged. A number of surviving archival documents demonstrate, moreover, that Mamontov craved not only visual brilliance, but alsoand
130
op e r a a s dr a m a 131
perhaps more sopowerful drama. This view is clearly revealed in his

comments on The Tsars Bridean MPO production that he was forced
to relinquish, after his arrest in September 1899, to Rimsky-Korsakovs
supervision. In a letter to Shkafer regarding poor audience turnout for
the third performance of the opera, Mamontov wrote:
Sincerely happy for the success of The Tsars Bride. [But] what happened
is what I was afraid of. From the third night on, the ticket sales have
weakened. The music is probably wonderful, the staging apparently is
also successful, the vocal performance is also good, but is there a powerful talented performance of the drama? Musicians sometimes put this
issue on the back burner. So, strict musical judges are pleased, while the
audience keeps yawning.6
The creation of the powerful drama on stage that Mamontov considered so necessary for the productions success was to him a responsibility of the stage director. He viewed that position not as that of a stage
manager, whose role was limited to coordinating singers entrances and
exits, but in a radically modern light as a true author of a staged production, who led rehearsals, designed mises-en-scne, coached the soloists,
as well as coordinated other aspects of the work.7 There were virtually
no precedents in Russian opera theater for such a novel job description,
and thus no model for Mamontov to follow.8 Unsurprisingly, his conceptualization of the stage directors role developed in parallel with his
views on synthesis of the arts and in the same familiar environment of
Abramtsevo. Theater, as we have seen, was important to the regulars of
the Mamontov Circle, starting with the Mamontov Drama Nights led
and documented by Mstislav Prakhov in the late 1870s and culminating
in the full-length 1882 performance of Ostrovskys The Snow Maiden
that became the groups aesthetic manifesto.9 It was in these home theatricals that Mamontovlong a frustrated actor and a reliable dramatist
and librettist of the Circlefirst took upon himself the stage directors
role. Outside the walls of Abramtsevo, he would wear the same mantle
for the 1894 production of Aphrodite and the 1880 concert performance
of Schumanns Manfred, a joint production of the Maly Drama Theater
and the Moscow Conservatory.10 Informed by these experiences, the
coming-of-age of Mamontov the stage director arrived with the Moscow
Private Opera, where his artistry reached a new level of complexity and
sophistication.
Mamontov as Stage Director

Mamontovs contemporaries valued his MPO stage directing work very
highly. His associate Pyotr Melnikov declared it exemplary, indeed artistically ideal, for I believe you have no rivals in this field.11 The critics
evidently agreed; Evgeny Petrovsky of Russkaya Muzykalnaya Gazeta,
an important St. Petersburg monthly, once lamented the modesty of the
companys playbill that conceals the name of the truly gifted artist responsible for the Moscow Operas general staging.12 Both the press and
the general public tended to pick up quickly on which productions benefited from Mamontovs close supervision and which did not. A telling
example of the difference is provided by the 1898 production of RimskyKorsakovs May Night. The opening performances of the opera gave every
indication of a flop: the dull, humorless acting was particularly lamented
by the press, as well as by the companys insiders such as Semyon Kruglikov, who was keeping the composer apprised of the fate of his work. A
few days later, both Kruglikovs letters and the press reviews began to
report a remarkable transformation: May Night suddenly became a hit.
Apparently Mamontov was away on business during the final rehearsals
and opening night; after returning to Moscow, he completely restaged
the opera. Kruglikov described the result as follows: In staging, May
Night runs so much better its unrecognizable; . . . all the performers are
finally in place. [The soloists are] not just better than before, but simply
very good; the crowd scenes are full of life and of purely Mamontovian
original movement.13 As evidenced by Kruglikovs letter, Mamontovs
presence and involvement in the staging of Rimsky-Korsakovs opera
made a significant and recognizable difference to its fortunes. What the
letter does not tell us is exactly how this miracle was accomplished
what it was about Mamontovs directing that was able to produce such
spectacular results.
One relatively accessible source of information on the subject is
the memoirs of MPO troupe members, which provide at least some
anecdotal evidence of Mamontovs methodology and techniques. He
watched rehearsals from the back of a room (the large study in his house
or the theater auditorium), observing each mise-en-scne as a whole,
as if studying a painting. When correcting a tone, pose, or gesture of a
single performer, he might limit himself to a brief comment while still
seated, using sharp, palpable, visually arresting imagery to elucidate

the internal motivations of a character; he could also come on stage to
demonstrate. Bondarenko recalled a rehearsal of Vrazhya sila [Power
of the Fiend]:
A talented artist, Olenin, performing the role of Eryomka, was lounging elegantly in a chair. Mamontov couldnt stop himself and shouted
through the whole theater: Olenin, dont sit like a duke! Suddenly
everyone jumped to attention. Mamontov flew up onto the stage and
demonstrated how a simple Eryomka should sit, discarding the learned,
fake-classical poses.14
Whenever a new mise-en-scne was to be created, or an existing one

adjusted, Mamontov would, as a rule, work on stage, personally demonstrating and explaining his reasons for the change. He was extremely
demanding, and could keep the singers on stage for hours, until a scene
worked exactly as planned: the dress rehearsal of Sadko went on until
dawn. At the same time, his charisma, enthusiasm, and brilliant demonstrations inspired the cast, resulting in few complaints.
For each role he could find its specific, characteristic attributes of appearance, facial expression, and voice, and could briefly but clearly create the
whole portrait of a character. He could show some characteristic movement typical for this character, and in this movement, in the intonation
and the facial expression, the image was instantly revealed, became clear
and understandable. Using these special means, he could describe a character, and analyze it in detail. The face of Savva Ivanovich was extremely
animated; the face of a true, slightly neurotic artist who could express, in
his voice, hands, and body anything he wanted to show.15
Unfortunately, no Mamontov-directed productions can be reconstructed in their entirety: the montirovochnye knigi [rehearsal books] that
he occasionally used (for example, for The Necklace) did not survive. Indeed, few such books existed in the first place: unlike that of the methodical Stanislavsky and the meticulous Meyerhold, Mamontovs idiosyncratic stage directing was based on improvisation and a spontaneous, live
creative process. Consequently, many scholars have dismissed his work
as amateurish, random sparks of inspiration, rather than an established,
systematic methodology. Platon Mamontov, himself a professional opera
director, disagreed, mounting a vigorous defense of his uncles principles
in his memoir. Throughout that manuscript, he attempts to reconstruct

the method behind the MPOs directing madness, emphasizing the longterm planning and careful research that went into each production. For
example, he highlights Savva Mamontovs insistence on acquainting the
performers with the historical, cultural, and stylistic contexts of an opera, to promote a better understanding of each characters development
and relationships with others within the drama.
Before each new production Uncle Savva gathered all the participants and
started the work with a complete, detailed introduction to and discussion
of the entire piece using the piano-vocal score, with all the parts performed by the appointed singers. This was accompanied by explanations;
specifically, he brought the performers attention to the requirements
and suggestions of the composer. He touched upon the epoch, style, and
artistic aspect of the work according to its libretto. He asked the painters
involved in a production to acquaint the performers with their plans and
ideas on visual design.16
Platon Mamontovs memoir aims to portray Mamontovs methodology as a stable system strictly implemented in each production from
the earliest days of the company. This idealistic representation is contradicted by the archival documents that trace a complicated, tortuous,
long-term process of establishing the new position of stage director,
outlining its fields of responsibility, and determining the necessary areas of expertise. In September 1897 Vasily Shkafer, newly appointed as
MPO stage director, anxious to understand the limits and requirements
of a job that he had never held before and that, in effect, did not exist
in any of his former places of employment, wrote Mamontov a letter.
Unfortunately, only a fragment of this interesting document survives,
but it appears that the letter was Shkafers attempt to summarize his job
description, as he understood it after a long face-to-face discussion with
his boss. He wrote:
When staging an opera, not only a new, never before performed one, but
also an old one, played according to the ubiquitous, often absolutely senseless, set-in-stone traditions of the crown theaters, a stage director should
first of all not only acquaint the participants with the general picture of
the drama, but include as far as possible every character, every detail that
could play a role in the dramatic as well as musical aspect. (It is important
that not only the conductor is in agreement with the stage director, but
that the two complement each other). The chief stage director has to present to the actors all existing literature on the discussed subject, as well as
sculpture and painting, the necessary associates of staged art.17
At first glance, Shkafers letter echoes Platon Mamontovs rosy picture above.18 However, the future and the conditional are used much
more often in the document than the present tense, and the ideas are
outlined in the manner of what should be (rather than what has been)
done. That is, the letter presents the position of stage director at the
Moscow Private Opera as a plan to be implemented, rather than an
established system to be preserved. Indeed, Shkafer goes on to critique
the current approach to probably the most complex MPO production to
dateMusorgskys Khovanshchina, which was in active stage rehearsal
at the time of writing and was apparently plagued by problems. Singers
had difficulties not only rendering the composers subtle declamation
but also comprehending the nature of their characters, and they had a
very vague idea of the historical events in which these characters were
to play such a pivotal role. According to Shkafer, Mamontovs work with
the soloists, his explanations and demonstrations, while wonderful, were
insufficient for most performers to penetrate this complicated work.
Shkafer wrote:
In Khovanshchina [Mr. Petrov], apparently without any understanding of
the character of Shaklovityi, gave the impression that he had no knowledge of what kind of person that Shaklovityi was, and was just singing
beautiful notes, without any inner sense, without a sign of penetrating the
role. In this case you, Savva Ivanovich, . . . demonstrated and explained
his role to Mr. Petrov as probably no other man of art could (I am speaking of contemporary ones), and yetthere was still no Shaklovityi in Mr.
Petrovs singing. I believe that before approaching the role, even at the
first reading, Mr. Petrov needed to learn not only Shaklovityis history,
but that of the whole musical drama of Khovanshchina with all its characters, and to do this with the conviction that this is the primary objective,
and only later to begin reading the notes and develop the character in
music and acting.19
Shkafers letter clearly demonstrates that, as of fall 1897, the background

research hailed by Platon Mamontov as fundamental to his uncles approach to stage directing was still in its infancy. Indeed, it is entirely
possible that a trip to the settlement of the Old Believers near Moscow,
organized by Mamontov for the Khovanshchina cast in order to study a

major group of characters that populate Musorgskys opera, was a direct
result of Shkafers critique.
This is not to suggest that a systematic method of directing an opera
production was absent at the MPO. But it is important to recognize the
true pace of its development during the three seasons that saw Mamontov at the head of the company: slowly, by trial and error, learning
from mistakes and turning weaknesses of specific troupe members into
advantages. This included the weaknesses of Mamontov himself: specifically, his widely acknowledged dislike for the daily grind of drilling
and polishing required in mounting a theatrical production. This big
picture attitude, accompanied by an often blatant disregard for details,
frustrated and infuriated even Mamontovs admirers, such as Stanislavsky.20 Shkafer recalled:
Mamontov, with his artistic nature, could not and did not like to work
thoroughlyto figure out the details. To bury himself in the depths of research, to create slowly, step by stephe could not and most importantly
did not like to do that, preferring to sketch out, quickly and energetically,
with wide brushstrokes, a characteristic contour, the skeleton of the production, throwing in it a few colorful spots.21
Apart from throwing light on Mamontovs strengths and weaknesses as a stage director, what is most fascinating about Shkafers account is his reference to the MPO staging methodology as a three-step
process: preliminary research; creation of characters and mises-enscne; and finally, practicing and polishing the details. Shkafer suggests
that Mamontovs talent as a stage director laid primarily in character
and scene design, that is, the second phase of the process. He had no
patience and, even more likely, no spare time in his busy schedule for
the painstaking, time-consuming research and drilling. These he left to
Melnikov and Shkafertwo frustrated young singers he trained to be
his assistants.
Mamontovs Assistants: The Three-Phase

Stage Directing Model
During its first period of operation (188592), the MPO did not have a
stage director position. Pyotr Melnikovs, therefore, was the first name
listed under rgisseur on the company payroll. He started working for

Mamontov in May 1896 during the Nizhny Novgorod Exhibition, and
shared stage directing duties with his employer during the reopened
MPOs first season. Vasily Shkafer joined the enterprise as a stage director in the fall of 1897, replacing Melnikov, who from then on was
based primarily in Paris. During the 189899 season, Shkafer pulled
double duty as a singer and stage director; at the same time, Mamontov
was still directing productions; Melnikov paid a visit in November for
some directing work; and yet another stage director, Mikhail Lentovsky,
was appointed for the season. This complicated and seemingly illogical
arrangement has passed unnoticed by researchers: the changes were
reported but the reasons behind them were never analyzed. Meanwhile,
the evidence suggests that early in the 189798 season, Mamontov developed a three-phase stage directing model and began implementing
it at the MPO. The model was constructed for a team of three directors,
whose functions were precisely defined and interdependent. Indeed, the
model was designed specifically for Mamontov, Melnikov, and Shkafer
to work together, dividing their duties to utilize each stage directors
strengths to the best advantage. The following section elucidates the roles
of Melnikov and Shkafer within Mamontovs directing model, as well as
clarifying the role played by Mikhail Lentovsky.
The son of a Mariinsky star, Pyotr Melnikov was raised backstage.
He received an excellent education, possessed an encyclopedic knowledge of history, literature, visual arts, and music, and was intimately
acquainted with the inner workings of opera theater. Melnikovs first
dream was to follow in his fathers footsteps as a singer. However, their
shared range (bass-baritone) only underscored the wide discrepancy in
their vocal abilities. Being a Melnikov and knowing he would be constantly compared to his father, Pyotr could not afford to be a mediocrity.
After meeting Mamontov, Melnikov turned his ambition to stage directing: as he once wrote to his employer, While studying singing now, I still
view it as my final goal to learn every detail of the theater business, so in
time I may lead a troupe of my own.22 Pyotr Melnikov would indeed become a prominent opera director, working at the Bolshoi and Mariinsky
theaters and after 1920 at the Riga National Opera in newly independent
Latvia. He would also be invited, together with the renowned avantgarde drama director Nikolai Evreinov, to direct productions of the
Paris Private Opera in 1928, and have the honor of staging the premiere
of Rimsky-Korsakovs Skazanie o nevidimom grade Kitezhe [Legend of
the Invisible City of Kitezh] at La Scala in the 1930s.23 Throughout this
distinguished career he consistently acknowledged that it was his first
job at Mamontovs enterprise that shaped his artistic future.
Melnikovs strength as a stage director, evident to Mamontov since
their collaboration during the 189697 season, increased dramatically
after Melnikovs move to France the following summer. Fluent in several languages, an avid reader with an eye for detail, now with access to
the best European theaters and libraries, he was an invaluable asset for
preliminary research, and was utilized by Mamontov in that capacity.
Melnikovs letters from Paris are filled with historical details, literary
references, costume ideas, and makeup tips. Comfortable in all branches
of the arts, he easily communicated with the companys designers (one
of them, Konstantin Korovin, would become his colleague at the Imperial Theaters for more than a decade), and, just like Mamontov, was able
to realize in his creative thinking the synthesis of the arts the MPO was
striving to achieve. Admiring and respecting Mamontov as the professor to whose classes he returned time and time again,24 Melnikov in
turn was accepted for his independent, creative mind and was allowed to
voice his opinions on casting and mises-en-scne for new productions.
He could be rather critical and, again just like Mamontov, paid attention
to the dramatic essence of each character. In one of the letters Melnikov
made the following comment on Khovanshchina casting: In my opinion, only Sekar should have sung Golitsyn. He himself in real life is a
true Vasenka Golitsyn, and his foreign accent would be totally in place
here. He is the only one who could more or less portray a barin.25
Both strong personalities, Mamontov and Melnikov occasionally
found it hard to work together. Increasing tension would sometimes
lead to a blowout and a temporary cooling down in the tone of their
correspondence, soon revived by yet another project. At other times
the two directors saw eye to eye, their collaboration reflected in the
mises-en-scne of a completed production, as evident in the following
comment Melnikov made about The Maid of Orleans: I felt a small satisfaction after I found out recently that you took my little staging ideas
into consideration. Believe me: therein lies the final satisfaction for a
man who loves the cause for its own sake.26 Melnikov and Mamontov
also discussed repertoire plans and exchanged thoughts on new projects

(their Wagnerian ideas were mentioned in chapter 4). It is to Melnikov
that Mamontov would send his new libretto V dvenadtsatom godu [1812].
Melnikov, for his part, reported on the productions he saw in Paris and
sent scores of newly published Western operas, with particular fondness
for Massenet.
Unlike Melnikovs, Shkafers letters do not contain repertory lists,
casting advice, or mise-en-scne suggestions; his role within the enterprise and his relationship with its leader appear to be quite different.
A provincial, less illustriously educated than Melnikov, Vasily Shkafer
studied singing all his life. A weak lyric tenor, he was fortunate to have as
his teachers Darya Leonova, Musorgskys friend and best-known interpreter, and Fyodor Komissarzhevsky, a former Mariinsky principal and
teacher of Stanislavsky and of his own daughter Vera, Russias most famous dramatic actress of the 1900s. Both mentors taught Shkafer much
about drama and declamation, but little about hitting the high notes,
so essential to a traditional operatic career. Despite subsequent study
in Italy, the young singers professional life was unremarkable until he
first saw the MPO production of The Snow Maiden in September 1896,
fell in love with the theater, and resolved to get a job there one day.27 In
the fall of 1897, Vasily Shkafer put his singing career on hold and joined
Mamontovs company as its official rgisseurin reality, an assistant
stage director.
As with Melnikov earlier, Mamontov took Shkafer on as a student,
discovered his strengths and weaknesses, and skillfully used both to
his advantage. While Melnikov was a good researcher but his actual
stage experience was limited to what he learned at the MPO, Shkafer
had worked for several provincial troupes, including the respected Tiflis
Opera. There, he observed and participated in stage rehearsals, and understood both the necessity for and the methodology of the final, polishing phase of preparing a production. Mamontov also discovered in his
young protg the talent of a character actor, not unlike his own (character roles would indeed become Shkafers specialty as a singer), and
as a consequence, a talent for demonstration. Hard-working, modest,
and soft-spoken, Shkafer lacked Melnikovs arrogance and independent
streak. Yet while this lack of assertiveness and creative independence
was Shkafers main weakness as a stage director, he related easily to the
singers and had a gift of communicating Mamontovs directing ideas

without remaking them after his own mold (a fault of which Melnikov
was frequently accused).28
In his program letter quoted earlier in this chapter, Shkafer laid
out the duties of the companys chief rgisseurthat is, Mamontovs
own function within the three-phase stage directing model. In another
letter dated from the same period, September 1897, he offered a detailed
description of what he thought his own duties would entail:
You, Savva Ivanovich, are an authority figure in front of your artistic
audience; you make certain demands of them all, and at the same time
give them a certain plan of action, and in rehearsals you are a judge of
that plan. My role, as far as I am trying to understand it, appears to me as
follows. First of all, I must be a nice, good comrade to all those creatures
great and small who are related to our cause. I must be the closest, most
necessary person who takes care of all the needs and questions of the artists that are related to staging; that is, I should always be at their service.
. . . Furthermore, I must work out in detail those plans, those artistic
tasks given by you to each performer; that is, I should shed light from all
angles on the work required. My duties should also include a passionate
desire to engage any employee in the idea upon which this company is
founded, and which you and all those standing at the helm of our cause
intend to realize.29
Shkafers letters provide a wonderful illustration of the three-phase

stage directing model. With Melnikov involved in preliminary research,
and Mamontov in mise-en-scne creation and determining the general
direction of a production, Shkafers role involved the execution of the
artistic principles developed during the first two phases of the creative
process: there was no better man for the drilling and polishing phase.
This was the essence of his work during the 189798 season; the following years, when he started appearing as a singer, his duties would be
curtailed for the productions in which he participated. For instance,
Melnikov came from Paris to direct Eugene Onegin, in which Shkafer
performed his single lyrical role of Lensky. The Maid of Orleans, in which
he was cast in the character role of Charles VII, was directed personally
by Mamontov. In other cases, Shkafer would limit his directing work to
the episodes in which he himself participated. This apparently happened
with The Tsars Bridethe press discussed Bomelys scenes (particularly
the one with Lyubasha in act 2) as the only dramatically compelling mo-
ments in the opera. Similarly, Kabils scenes were reportedly the single
bright spot on the otherwise gloomy horizon of The Necklace.
One of Shkafers most important singing roles at the MPO was Mozart in the world premiere of Rimsky-Korsakovs dialogue opera Mozart
and Salieri, in which he performed alongside Chaliapin. According to
Shkafers memoirs, Mamontov allowed the two singers time and freedom to, as the singer put it, sygratsya [learn to play together]that is, to
develop their own onstage ensemblebefore voicing his suggestions.30
Indeed, Mozart may be viewed as the first independent directing work of
Shkafers creative life. Like Melnikov, he would make stage directing his
career, starting at the Novy Theater, replacing Melnikov at the Bolshoi,
and retiring in 1924 as the chief rgisseur of the Mariinsky.31 Always eager
to acknowledge his debt to his mentor Mamontov, Shkafer wrote to him
years later: After being in your school for a year, I can somehow sense the
very kernel of the goalhow to achieve and on what to build the success
of an opera production. This is especially clear to me after starting my
own work in the field of stage directing. It is fascinating work.32
As we have seen, the MPO three-phase stage directing model was
based on collaboration and division of responsibilities between Mamontov, Melnikov, and Shkafer. A question easily suggests itself: if the
triumvirate worked so well, what would have been the reason for inviting
Lentovsky into the company? In order to answer it, we need to assess
both his personal qualities as a stage director and the timing of his introduction to the troupe.
Mikhail Lentovsky was an anomaly among Mamontovs employees.
He was not a young, novice performer, but an experienced and rather
notorious entrepreneur who had specialized primarily in operetta, with
severalnow defunctenterprises to his credit. As such, he was not in
a position to become Mamontovs student, to be reshaped in his mentors
own image, as were Shkafer and (partially) Melnikov. In late fall 1898,
when the new director joined the company, Mamontovs business empire
was in trouble and required his constant attention in order to forestall
the disaster that would eventually strike. The amount of time he could
devote to the MPO began to diminish correspondingly. Meanwhile, the
companys projects became increasingly more ambitious, including such
enormously complicated works as Judith, The Maid of Orleans, and Boris
Godunov. Apart from the complex psychological makeup of their main
characters, all three operas involved large crowd scenes, difficult and
time-consuming to stage. It appears that Mamontov may have intended
that Lentovsky replace him in the triumvirate by taking over the second
stage-directing phase, so that only the general artistic guidance would
be left to Mamontov himself.
Initially, the two stage directors shared the responsibility for Judith
and Boris Godunov, Mamontov working with the soloists and ensembles
and Lentovsky staging the crowd scenes. The result was disastrous: a
talented man in his own medium, Lentovsky lacked Shkafers gift of
absorbing and interpreting Mamontovs ideas. He also appeared to possess a Melnikov-like arrogance, without the latters education, sensitivity, artistic taste, and ability to communicate with the designers, which
resulted in a conflict with Serov and his colleagues.33 An individualist
director, Lentovsky had trouble adjusting toor even comprehending
the purpose ofthe teamwork inherent in the three-phase model. In a
letter to Mamontov he complained that in agreeing to join the company,
he expected the staging to be unquestionably his own domain.34 Moreover, the directing styles of Mamontov and Lentovsky differed so radically that their productions, instead of exemplifying the companys goal
of harmonious art synthesis, appeared fragmented and disintegrated.
As a result, rather than spending less time at rehearsals, Mamontov was
forced to spend more, restaging Lentovskys crowd scenes, such as the
Kromy of Boris Godunov (see chapter 2). For The Maid of Orleans, Lentovskys duties were limited; by the end of the season, he was gone.
Although Lentovskys tenure with the MPO proved to be a mistake,
it reveals Mamontovs desire to see his stage directing model function
independently, without his involvement. As it happened, after he was
removed from the company due to his arrest and bankruptcy (see introduction, n.8), and its leadership was transferred to the MPOs administrator Claudia Winter and its new conductor, Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov,
the three-phase model gradually disintegrated. Melnikov had little in
common with the new administration and left, giving up stage directing
for several years before landing a job at the Bolshoi. Shkafer found it difficult to carry the whole model on his own as efficiently as before and was
eventually forced out as well. While the model functioned, however, the
MPO offered exciting and innovative directing work, studied attentively
by Stanislavsky and Sanin, who both frequented the rehearsals. The work
of Mamontov and his assistants was even more closely observed by those
to whom it was addressedthe singers. Several of them, while never
actually directing for Mamontovs company, benefited from his personal
coaching and expertise. They would go on either to direct occasionally,
like Chaliapin, or even to give up singing entirely and become, like baritone Pyotr Olenin and bass Vladimir Lossky (see plate 37), important
stage directors in their own right.
Thus, the Moscow Private Opera, which we have already recognized
as a training ground for Russias theater designers, also educated the
countrys first generation of professional opera directors. One of the core
ideas they would absorb at Mamontovs company and later incorporate
into their own work was that of the artistic ensemble, a rare and prized
quality on the operatic stage of their day.35 Indeed, the principles of artistic ensemble laid the foundation for the MPO opera as drama; it will
be discussed in the following section.
The Artistic Ensemble and The Star

A lively, engaging interaction between the charactersthat is, artistic
ensemble in the traditional sense of the term36was an absolutely necessary attribute of dramatic art to Mamontov from the Abramtsevo days.
At the MPO, he particularly enjoyed directing the projects that allowed
him to re-create that atmosphere of camaraderie on stage. To accomplish
it, he would typically work with the cast together, as a groupshaping
dialogue, creating stage business, and otherwise facilitating the onstage
relationships between the singers (see plate 32).
The concern for ensemble revealed in Mamontovs rehearsal techniques is also evident in the larger issues of company policy, particularly
in the approach to dealing with the stars. In the mid-1880s, the early days
of the MPO, Mamontov made it a rule to invite famous European singers to participate in his productions alongside the Russian cast. While
financially viable, the idea had ruined his dream of artistic ensemble:
guest performers had neither opportunity nor desire to interact with
their colleagues on stage. The issue proved a source of increasing frustration for Mamontov, contributing to his eventual decision to fold his
venture in 1892.37 After its resurrection four years later, the number of
foreign stars at the MPO was sharply reduced, limited to a few guest
appearances per season and never resulting in a long-term contract, a

common practice at the Bolshoi.
Yet the MPO did employ one singer who clearly operated in a star
capacityFeodor Chaliapin. A separation from the ensemble was inevitable: however carefully he was integrated into the group by a stage
director, the singers magnetic stage presence would make him stand out,
precluding the possibility of onstage harmony that could only be created
if all performers were perceived as equals. Memoirs and press reviews
that discussed the productions in which Chaliapin had participated
could not help but focus almost exclusively on him. For instance, Shkafer
(though contradicted by some other eyewitness accounts) declared in
his autobiography that Chaliapin reigned alone in the Khovanshchina
production. The observation applies even more to Boris Godunov, an
opera whose dramatic structure centers so intensely on its protagonist
(particularly in Rimsky-Korsakovs edition, which reverses the order of
the final scenes). Press accounts did address the artistic ensemble created
by Mamontov in this production. The choice of artistic personnel was
good, wrote Kashkin, and consequently there was good ensemble.38
Csar Cui concurred, saying: Boris is performed very together, with an
excellent ensemble.39 Still, there was no denying the obvious: Chaliapin
did stand out. Indeed, it appears that in staging operas dominated by a
single male protagonist with the right voice range, Mamontov cleverly
used Chaliapins dominant position within the cast. His separateness
from other performers and their desire to play up to him would thus
strengthen, rather than ruin, the dramas in which he portrayed charismatic rulers or spiritual leaders such as Boris, Dosifei, or Holofernes. This
way, the singer could have the story built around him without distorting
its meaning. Consequently a clearly star-dominated production would
achieve an otherwise impossible ensemble, as evident from a striking
photograph depicting a scene from Boris Godunov (see plate 33).40
Chaliapins name has proved a magnetic attraction to Russian critics and music lovers ever since his MPO days. Indeed, one of the most
enduring and damaging myths plaguing Mamontovs enterprise implies
that the singers participation was both its single claim to fame and its
sole means of survivalthe reason, perhaps, why he is given a somewhat
disproportionate amount of attention in the Mamontov literature.41 It
is unquestionable that Chaliapins departure for the greener pastures of
the Imperial stage spelled trouble for the company: the singer was an
inspiration to its cast, as well as a box-office attraction. But his popularity
came at a price: the Chaliapin cult that increasingly began to dominate
the publics relationship with the MPO had its downside. There were
screaming fans who interrupted performances demanding that their idol
encore literally every note he sang. There was also the increasingly starlike attitude of the singer himself, which occasioned the following ironic
diatribe from Novosti Dnyas sharp-witted Petersburg correspondent:
Chaliapin is truly becoming an idol of Petersburg ladies and young girls.
This is a unique, unprecedented case in the history of the arts. Chaliapin
laid the foundation for the type of the cutie-pie bass. Up to this point,
as we know well, there were the cutie-pie tenors or, less frequently, the
cutie-pie baritones; there were no cutie-pies yet in the bass clef. And
here he comes, and with his mighty octave sends the hearts aflutter.42
Most importantly, however, in a company that prided itself on its collaborative creative process that privileged no one, Chaliapin required
(and increasingly, expected) special treatment. Apart from the need to
stage some productions around his personality, his presence at the MPO
affected the repertoire policy itself: Chaliapin was the only member of
the troupe who could justifiably boast in his memoirs of Mamontovs
promise to stage any opera he wished.43
After Chaliapins impending departure became public knowledge
toward the end of the 189899 season, the Moscow press corps salivated
over the prospect. Reporters proclaimed that the singers loss would be
disastrous for the MPO, wondered why the administration was letting
its major asset go, and predicted its impending doom as a result of such
shortsightedness.44 However, had Mamontov stayed with the company,
its transition to a post-Chaliapin era might have proved smoother than
the critics imagined. Mamontovs plan, reported to Rimsky-Korsakov by
both Kruglikov and Zabela, was to strengthen the ensemble quality of
the troupe even more:45 now that the star was gone, compromises were
no longer necessary.
While Mamontov certainly regretted losing a great actor in Chaliapin, the misfortune of losing a great voicea most significant loss to any
opera companydid not seem to trouble him much. Such an attitude
seems to invite accusations that, driven by a vision of his personal Gesamtkunstwerk, Mamontov put the artistic ensemble (both visual and
dramatic) above the musical one. Cui, perplexed by his favorite directors interest in a modern opera he hated, wrote: I think that you, Savva
Ivanovich, are more touched by the plot and dramatic performance than
by the music itself.46 Rimsky-Korsakovs conflict with Mamontov, as
we have seen, revolved around the composers belief that aural impressions were not precious enough to the MPO. The situation changed
radically in the fall of 1899: Mamontov was gone, Ippolitov-Ivanov was in
charge, and Rimsky-Korsakov himself was directly involved in the production of his operas. As a student and friend of Rimsky-Korsakovs,
noted Gozenpud, Ippolitov-Ivanov was guarding his interests. For the
conductor, the question of musical ensemble stood at the forefront.47
Unfortunately, it did so at the expense of the artistic ensemble: according to press reports, any intent of harmoniously fusing music, drama,
and design was gone.48
Earlier we saw Ivan Lipaev use the term ensemble when discussing
synthesis of the arts in Mamontovs productions. Indeed, the dramatic
ensemble was to Mamontov one of the necessary ingredients of art synthesis. Singers interacting, playing off each other, and working together
in harmony on stage was a part of the same ideal that compelled singers
and stage directors to work together with designers and everyone else
involved in a production. As a result, acting and staging considerations
often informed Mamontovs decisions on the visual design of the production, particularly with respect to stage movement, his special concern.
In his letters and sketches addressed to Polenov regarding the designs
for Orfeo and The Necklace, the projected movement of the characters is
built into the set design. For example, the shape of Euridices tomb was
constructed for Orfeo to lie on and embrace; Daphnes column in act 3
of The Necklace was designed to mirror Chernenkos figure and posture
at the moment when her heroine turns to stone. Similarly, dramatic
concerns often played a role in what would traditionally be considered
purely musically motivated decisions in opera production: casting.
Casting
Mamontovs casting decisions frequently generated heat: he was criticized
by the press, as well as by some of his employees, for misjudging singers vocal abilities and for the bad habit of offering leading roles to un-
qualified beginners. Peterburgsky Listok, for example, blamed the young,

inexperienced performers with their weak student-caliber voices for
the low attendance during the companys 1899 St. Petersburg tour, and
recommended a change in casting policy if the troupe ever wished to
visit the capital again.49 An author of one wicked Novosti Dnya feuilleton
even had two fictional opera buffs, Vasenka and Petenka (that is, little
Vasily and little Pyotr), declare their intention to establish a Society for
Protecting Inexperienced Artists from Responsible Parts among the
MPO audience, saying:
Pray, is this nice? These young people are barely ready to start school, but
instead, in front of an audience of fifty or so, with indescribable desperation they sacrifice themselves for the sake of art that is completely alien
to them. Comes a high notetheir voices break off; comes a sceneits a
pain to watch. Thus, a spectator could get completely exhausted: he has to
jump out of his skin applauding, for, God forbid, there could be a suicide
right there backstage. To each his own temperament! Some operatic child
sings like that once, twice, and then would just go off and kill himself.
Positively, some things should be spared for arts sakea human life, for
instance.50
Even Shkafer, perhaps forgetting his own humble beginnings, noted in

his memoir that Mamontovs weakness for stage art and young actors
often made him disregard the strictly musical side of a performance.51
In order to probe the justice of such criticism, it would be instructive
to examine Mamontovs main casting criteria by focusing on his two
most controversial decisions, both heatedly discussed at the time they
were made.
The first of these much-debated cases got Mamontov into hot water
with Rimsky-Korsakov at what seemed to be the highest point in collaboration between the composer and his director. During the companys 1898 St. Petersburg tour, for the performance of The Snow Maiden
that was supposed to take place under the composers baton, Mamontov
replaced the composers favorite Nadezhda Zabela in the title role with
a beginner, our old friend Alevtina Paskhalova (see chapter 2). Despite
Rimsky-Korsakovs strenuous objections, Paskhalova appeared in two
performances, on 16 and 20 March. The role was returned to Zabela toward the end of the tour, for the third and final performance of The Snow
Maiden on 13 April, soon after a personal appeal by Stasov, who had
requested to hear the opera again with Zabela as the lead.52 While the
opera itself might have been repeated for the critics benefit, it is highly
unlikely that Stasovs letter influenced Mamontovs casting decision,
succeeding where Rimsky-Korsakov himself had failed: the composers
good will was far more vital to the MPOs fortunes. The real reason for
Zabelas reinstatement was rather mundane: the tour was not originally
expected to last beyond Easter, and Paskhalova, a senior at the Moscow
Conservatory, was only allowed a short leave of absence. By the time
the decision to extend the tour was made, she had already returned to
Moscow, had resumed her classes, and was therefore unavailable for the
final performance. Zabela, who knew and had performed the role before,
was a natural choice to replace her.
Mamontovs decision to cast Paskhalova as the Snow Maiden was
criticized both by Rimsky-Korsakovs acolytes and by many scholars who
accepted the composers interpretation of it as the whim of a rich despot
who cared nothing for music or the arts.53 What we have learned about
Mamontovs personality and aesthetic views reveals this explanation to
be simplistic and unjust. The history of the MPO demonstrates time and
again that, if the decision to cast Paskhalova had indeed been merely a
whim, a spur-of-the-moment flash of misguided inspiration, Mamontov
would have allowed himself to be persuaded to change his mind.54 The
fact is, as Evgeny Arenzon correctly pointed out, Zabela was not the
companys official Snow Maiden: the role belonged to the troupes leading soprano, Elena Tsvetkova. The only reason for the casting question
to be on the agenda in the first place was Tsvetkovas temporary leave
of absence between November 1897 and September 1898. In a letter to
Mamontov regarding the success of The Snow Maiden in St. Petersburg,
Melnikov mentioned the inability to showcase her performance at the
capital as the single disappointment of the tour. It still upsets me that
we could not show the Blossom in this role, he wrote. This is a great
hole in [the production]. Our Little Blossom is so crystalline, pure, and
touching in this role that one is involuntarily brought to tears.55
The Snow Maiden was Tsvetkovas signature part at the MPO. The
reason for Zabelas expected appearance in it during the St. Petersburg
tour was the fact that she was hired as Tsvetkovas understudy and temporary replacement, taking over her major roles such as Olga in The
Maid of Pskov and Mimi in La bohme. Paskhalovas participation in
the production, on the other hand, was a kind of working audition: she
would officially join the troupe only in the following season. Contrary to
rumors, she was not actually a new discovery for Mamontov. In his letter
quoted above, Melnikov noted: I have been convinced once again by
little Paskhalovas participation that you dont forget your old friends, a
surprisingly constant trait of yours. The remark hinted at the first time
Melnikov had met Mamontovand Paskhalova: the two sang together
in an amateur production of Don Giovanni that Mamontov directed in
the early 1890s, with Melnikov in the title role and Paskhalova as Zer
lina.56
As we can see, therefore, Mamontov knew Paskhalova well, saw her
on stage, worked with her as a director, and understood her capabilities.
It is very hard to believe that he would jeopardize the companys first
tour of the capital by casting a singer he knew would not fit the part.
Mamontovs reasoning becomes clear after a careful analysis of the extant photographs of the MPOs three Snow Maidens (see plates 18, 21, 23).
While Tsvetkovas and Zabelas photos show a similar concept of the role,
Paskhalovas image differs radically from both: her Snow Maiden is not
a grown woman but a mischievous adolescent. According to the press,
if there was a fault with Tsvetkovas rendition, it was her presentation of
the character in the prologue and the opening acts:
Miss Tsvetkova creates a sympathetic image of the Snow Maiden, graceful and well thought out. But there is too much sensibility in her singing,
instead of a childlike carefree attitude disturbed only by fleeting moments
of sadness. Only at the end is true feeling awakened in the Snow Maiden,
and here Miss Tsvetkovas tone was exactly right. What was lacking was
a contrast with the opening.57
The critics (in this case, Kashkin) argued that Tsvetkovas Snow Maiden
(plate 18) turned into a passionate woman too early, well before the final
scenes.58
Zabelaan expert on fantastic creatures and a wonderful Sea
Princess in Sadko (see plate 20)was more likely to bring the necessary
coldness to the role, but her interpretation (which Mamontov surely
knew after she had worked for him for three months) was still that of a
grown woman (plate 21). Mamontov wanted a child. It is possible that in
Tsvetkovas absence he attempted an experimenta completely different visual and dramatic solution for the story. We must not forget that
The Snow Maiden (first the play, then the opera) had been his obsession
since as early as 1882. The casting of Paskhalova (plate 23) was not the
decision of an impresario or a despotic patron, but of a stage director. An
opportunity to realize a radically new dramatic concept was too enticing: it outweighed any consideration of voice quality, stage experience,
or backstage politics.
The second fierce casting battle (this time in-house, since Mamontovs initial concept never reached the stage) occurred over the role of
Ioanna (that is, Joan of Arc) in Tchaikovskys The Maid of Orleans. Two
performers were considered for the role: Chernenko and Tsvetkova. The
discussion took the vocal ability little into account: both singers were
viewed as reasonably suitable, though they were still expected to have
some problems with the notoriously awkward part. Even the fact that
Chernenko was a mezzo-soprano was not an issue, since the composer
created two versions of the roleone for a higher and another for a lower
voice. The argument over casting had to do primarily with the dramatic
aspect of the role of Joan of Arc: Mamontov and his associates were debating the choice of image for the heroine. Zabela, aware of the dispute,
in a letter to Rimsky-Korsakov pointed out the seeming irrelevance of
purely musical concerns to Mamontovs decision-making process:
Savva Ivanovich and I are talking a lot about the new operas that are going
to be staged. He has all of twenty-three titles written down, out of which
Cuis Angelo and Tchaikovskys The Maid of Orleans will most likely be
staged. Particularly the latter, because Savva Ivanovich is dreaming about
what an outstanding character Chernenko could create, although it is
still completely unknown whether or not this part would suit her vocal
abilities.59
In the spring of 1898 when the production was first discussed, the
role was apparently intended for Tsvetkova. Kruglikov mentioned in
one of his letters that Mamontov seemed to like the idea of seeing in
this role not the heroically constructed physique of a performer, but
our tender, fragile Mimi with her soft, luminous eyes. Even the main
idea wins this way: the power is in the spirit, not the muscles.60 Over
the summer, however, an intense debate erupted between Mamontov
and Melnikov, who was in Paris doing the preliminary research for the
opera, with the latter favoring Tsvetkova and the former Chernenko for
the role. Mamontovs letters unfortunately did not survive, so his argument will have to be reconstructed from Melnikovs responses. Evidently,
Chernenko was supposed to create an image of a warrior maid: You
write that the foundation of this character is strength and heroism. . . .
You insist on Ioanna being grande et molto belle, writing that here we
need strength, powerful energy, and most importantly talent and exaltation.61 Melnikov did not share that view: in his opinion, the strength of
the heroine was to be spiritual, rather than physical. The foundation of
this character is mystery, he wrote:
It was the inner power that only on a few occasions, like a momentary
flickering fire, lighted up this fragile childlike body with its colossal
strength, and even more with the impossibility of even a simple supposition of any unusual power in that very ordinary vessel, impressed
everyone around it so much that her people demonstrated the heights
of bravery, and the enemy ran, subdued by the single unimaginable fact,
without a moments thought of raising a hand against its perpetrator.
According to history, Ioanna never even held a sword.62
The debate over Ioannas image is perhaps peripheral to this discussion. What is most illuminating, however, is that both Mamontov and
Melnikov constructed their arguments around the dramatic image that
each of the performers would produce. Other candidates for the role
were discussed from the same point of view: when Melnikov in the same
letter suggested another soprano to sing the heroine, he commented on
her coldness on stage, which would suit Ioanna wonderfully. Even the
inspiration for both warrior and mystical child images of the Maid
came from spoken drama traditionsrespectively, German and French.
Melnikov wrote:
There are two interpretations of [this character]. The first is German, developed not by Schiller but by German actresses, of whom I have seen five
or six. It is like some grenadier who has lost all femininity, and charges
into battle with her hair down, which is the only circumstance making
the audience suspect a female body under the armor. . . . I believe more
and more each day in the second, purely French, modern interpretation of
the Maid. It is a fragile childs body (Ioanna is burned at nineteen); there
is nothing unusual in her faceand only at moments of need inspiration
transforms her completelyto the point where the people around her
worship her as a saint.63
While Melnikovs sympathies were clearly with the French interpretation, which led him to severely criticize Maria Ermolovas acclaimed
performance at the Imperial Maly Theaters production of Schillers Die
Jungfrau von Orlans, Mamontov admired that performance. Indeed, he
was much more familiar with the German interpretation of the character
than Melnikov who, by his own admission, only saw second-rate productions by provincial troupes.64
Eventually Mamontov and his assistant felt they needed to arrive
at a compromise. Melnikov actually suggested they create two different
Ioannas, one for each performer; and if the music sometimes ends up
being too powerful for either of them, quimporte! Nous jetons un rayon
de lumire! he half-jokingly added. Instead, Mamontov created a fusion
of two images in a single performerElena Tsvetkova.
The fact that the role was given to Tsvetkova suggests the French
interpretation. Meanwhile, extant photographs of the singer in costume
(the only visual images of the production still in existencePolenovs
sets did not survive) show a breastplate and a helmet, with the hair worn
down, rather than plaited in childlike tresses as Melnikov suggested,
indicating the German reading (see plate 19). The idea proved a success:
a new operatic image created by merging two interpretations of the
character, both taken from spoken drama, emphasized Ioannas internal complexity, which in turn focused attention on her moral dilemma.
Soviet musicologist Abram Gozenpud cited The Maid of Orleans as one
of Mamontovs best directing jobs.65 The production also became Tsvetkovas personal triumph as an actress: Ippolitov-Ivanov, who conducted
one of the performances, recalled her interpretation touching him so
much that his eyes impulsively filled with tears, and [he] was forced to
conduct from memory because [he] could not see the score at all.66
Mamontov as a Singers Coach

At the MPO, sensitive casting was viewed as a necessary first step in
a long process of character development. One of the most important
aspects of Mamontovs activity as a stage director was his coaching of
the singers. As we have seen, this work has routinely been dismissed,
even by Mamontovs most ardent partisans, as being limited to a few
insightful comments from the back of the hall. Archival evidence in-
dicates, however, that for the productions in which he was most deeply
involved, Mamontovs work with singers was very thorough and surprisingly comprehensive. Elena Tsvetkova, acclaimed by the critics as an
outstanding actress capable of dramatic power equal to Chaliapins, was
only one of many Mamontov singers who benefited from his expertise.
Ippolitov-Ivanov recalled that Mamontov worked through the role of
Ioanna with the outstandingly talented Elena Yakovlevna Tsvetkova
down to the last gesture, pose, and facial expression . . . approaching the
part as a sensitive psychologist.67 Note the level of detail observed by
the conductor in the process of Tsvetkovas coaching. A trained singer
himself, Mamontov understood the specifics of operatic performance.
When necessary, he taught his students singing, including the basics of
the Italian bel canto style.68 More often, however, he outsourced voice
lessons (for which he contentedly footed the bill) to foreign coaches,
while he concentrated on the rarely taught and more elusive subjects:
diction, phrasing, acting, characterization, and stage movement. This
last aspect was particularly important to him, as we have seenboth for
shaping a character and for creating a complete illusion of synthesized
stage spectacle.
The benefits of Mamontovs coaching were not limited to artists in
leading roles, but rather extended to the whole troupethat is, to any
singer willing to invest the time into studying with him. Those who took
to his lessons with particular diligence were known to move up in the
troupe (to the great chagrin of their more traditionally minded rivals, as
we shall see). Among these were two of the troupes second-tier mezzosopranos, Maria Chernenko and Tatyana Lyubatovich.69 While both
suffered from deficiencies in their vocal production, reviewers were often
willing to overlook the problems, mesmerized by the compelling stage
characters they created. Chernenkos Orfeo was one such image: Baskin
commented on the singers plasticity, classic simplicity, and beauty of
movement, and emphasized these qualities as absolutely necessary for a
mythological subject.70
One of Lyubatovichs signature roles was Carmenthe role in which
Mamontov first saw her at the Tiflis Opera in 1884 (see plate 24). The
reviewers of Carmen noted deficiencies in Lyubatovichs voice; however,
all stressed her exceptional dramatic gift; the most frequently used adjective for her performance was intelligent.71 Lipaev was particularly
impressed with Lyubatovich in this role, focusing on her in his two-page

Novosti Sezona review of the production:
Miss Lyubatovich performed the title role of Carmen. She understood
Carmens dramatic situation positively splendidly. Exceptionally sensitive
acting, as well as makeup and facial expressions, all spoke for the artist.
Overall, Miss Lyubatovich is a positively wonderful Carmen. However,
this part includes much purely romance singing, for which the vocal
power of the venerable artist was not always sufficient. This deficiency,
however, does not diminish in the least her characteristic and solid interpretation of the heroine.72
A memorable character created at the MPO by both Chernenko and

Lyubatovich was Saint-Sanss Delilah. Tatyana Lyubatovichs interpretation was universally praised, her power as an actress rendering the
problems of the shaky middle register negligible:
Miss Lyubatovich recreated the ancient heroine with plasticity, but at the
same time underscored the treachery and hatred in her character, the
characteristic features that are rarely brought to the forefront by other
performers of Delilah. This is that much harder to accomplish due to the
music [that] has nowhere marked or portrayed these traits in Delilah.
Bringing forth the needed shading here depends entirely on the actress.
This is a fine nuance, rarely achieved.73
After Lyubatovich could no longer sing the part, Maria (Masha) Cher
nenko provided a worthy replacement. Indeed, mastering the drama of
the role under Mamontovs coaching came naturally to her; it took another year for her voice to catch up. In anticipation of the operas revival
in 1900, Mamontov wrote to Shkafer: Make Masha study the part now
(shes probably forgotten it), and do it well, sensibly. She has acted it very
well before, and now she can also sing it better. . . . If the question were
raised about a different DelilahGod forbid, then it would be filth. Here
an image and acting, plasticity is necessary.74
Mamontovs fascination with Chernenko (see plate 27), whom he
discovered at the Conservatory and hired, first as a chorister and later
as a soloist, has been a puzzle to both his contemporaries and scholars.75 Some presumed a romantic involvement (an accusation commonly
brought forth whenever Mamontov made a controversial casting decision regarding a female singer).76 Others deplored the waste of time and
energy in Mamontovs intent of making a Chaliapin out of Masha

Chernenko,77 an awakening Galatea to his Pygmalion.78 The only person who seemed to have understood Mamontovs obsession with the
singer was Pyotr Melnikov. In an insightful letter, he wrote:
Let us put the voice aspect aside: it speaks for itself, and it is certainly
important, but it does not represent everything you look for in your employees. Masha has little of the mature, independent, and direct stage
talent; but she has something else that may be dearer to you than any
original talent. She has a wonderful ability to absorb everything she is
shown, and moreover, to sincerely represent someone elses ideas. You
have personally parted forever with singing and the stage, but you live
through personalities such as Mashas, as if she were your reflection in a
mirror. You create a certain role; Chaliapin cannot interpret it the way
you understand it, for he already has his own interpretation; outside it he
is insincere, and therefore bad. But Masha presents a particularly suitable
subject, capable of preserving much of your own reading, which would
live on even beyond yourself and therefore, leave its mark on art.79
Melnikov is likely correct, at least partially: the stage was Mamontovs unrealized ambition, a lacuna all the more difficult to accept
because of his unquestionable talent (he could certainly have become
a Stanislavsky, if not a Meyerhold). Nevertheless, Maria Chernenko,
whom Mamontov expected to mirror his demonstrations, was apparently an exception, rather than the rule. While demonstrating multiple
interpretive possibilities for each role, he would demand independent
thinking and creativity, rather than imitation.80 Whether or not his
students were able to move beyond the teachers vision, creating their
own interpretations of their characters depended on their abilities. Some
borrowed the original wholesale, as Melnikov observed in relation to
Anton Bedlevichs performance of Ivan Khovansky in Khovanshchina:
Bedlevichs first entrance is interesting, and this is your achievement: at
every moment I saw you, and there are some instances when you yourself
were on stage, your own figure.81 Others, like Chaliapin, absorbed and
built upon the image demonstrated during a study session, coming up
with their own distinct readings. This was Mamontovs goal: the method
of character analysis that he taught his singers was a tool they could apply to their future parts. As Paskhalova once observed, working on a
single role with [Mamontov] means learning to play other roles.82 As a
result, the MPOa school of stage directing and design that also emphasized acting and aesthetic educationbecame a widely recognized,
highly respected, and sought-after training program for singers, with
good job prospects upon graduation (more on this in chapter 8), and an
increasingly selective admissions policy.
Molding a Singing Actor

In his above-quoted letter that assessed the potential qualities of Mamontovs ideal recruits, Melnikov was astute to observe that vocal ability,
although desirable, was not necessarily the primary criterion for choosing an MPO employee. Indeed, in a letter to Shkafer, Mamontov gave
the following characterization of one of the troupes sopranos: Gladkaya
is not a bad singer, but unfortunately she completely lacks talent, and
would never, ever be able to arouse the audienceGod decided that,
and not us.83 Since the subject of his criticism was not the singers voice,
Mamontov evidently did not consider good singing much of a talent.
She has a wonderful voice, but there is some kind of silt in her brain, he
complained about Gladkaya, a future Mariinsky star, adding: The girl
sang all the notes correctly, of course, but understood nothing.84
Mamontov considered stage presence an absolutely essential inborn
talent, and looked for it in every new employee. Without it, he wrote,
a singer does not rise above a good artisan; with it, even without an
adequately polished voice and with undeveloped musicality (but with
its necessary presence, however), an artist already becomes noticeable.85
He believed that intellectual and artistic development, another necessary
quality, could be acquired through diligent work, as long as good will
and a desire to learn were present. This was one of the reasons for his
closeness to Shkafera singer who refused to limit himself to narrow
tenor concerns.86 In letters to Shkafer, Mamontov laid out his understanding of drama on the operatic stage. Using singers such as Marie
van Zandt and actors such as Sara Bernhardt and Jean Monet-Sully to
illustrate his point, he called for a truly Wagnerian fusion of opera and
drama:
Look at Monet-Sully, how he grabs you and wont let go even for a second,
making you follow his thought, a passing motion of his hand, his face,
his eyes. In drama, this is completely in the hands of a performer, but in
opera, a performer absolutely must connect all these movements with

music, with every measure. The deeper a performer fuses the internal
impulses of his character with the sound of the voice and the orchestra,
the stronger the impact on a listeners soul. In this harmony lies the great
mystery of a staged operatic creation. 87
To achieve this perfect harmonious blend of drama and music, Mamontov conceived of a new type of singeran artist-singer, or, using
the term coined by his follower Stanislavsky, a singing actor. As Shkafer
recalled, the MPO put forth a new task, unusual for an opera singer,
to become an actor and to learn acting on stage the same way they do
in spoken drama.88 The task was indeed unusual: at conservatories and
especially at private opera studios, acting tended to be given short shrift;
at best, young singers were advised to imitate their elders. Where, from
whom could we learn the real thing? Shkafer exclaimed.89 He himself,
even with the school of Leonova and Komissarzhevsky under his belt,
was still unaccustomed to acting. Mamontov had to use all his influence
with his student (particularly strong because of his brilliant success with
Chaliapin) to convince him and the others to try it out:
You must step over the barrier called a bit ashamed. Step over it! Youll
see! Do you know where to a large degree Chaliapins huge acting success
comes from? Talent? Yes, but no one knows what that is. The brain? Yes,
but that is not enough. He has a great desire and at the same time decisiveness to be affected and to act out on stage. Such bravery and decisiveness
bring much. Try it out.90
One of Mamontovs demands of his singing actors was to conceptualize a role as a whole, including the moments they were not singing or
even present on stage. He treasured every moment of an operatic drama,
including those in which a singer was silent; the dramatic current of a
characters development was not to be interrupted. He outlines his position, typically, in a long letter to Shkafer:
I want to prove that the singers influence upon the operatic audience is
not limited only to the moment when he is singing, that is, presenting a
word and a sound . . . No, an uttered word should be completed with a
movement, a facial expression, and it is possible that for several seconds
or even a whole minute (an eternity on stage!) of an orchestral interlude
the singer is only acting, and here in silence the most powerful moment
of the role is being developed. This happens in opera all the time. And do
you know how often artists ignore it? . . . This is most often a sin of the
conservatory boys and girls, since . . . their acting teacher for the most part
is a complete idiot. Thats why life, light, brilliance, and inspiration are
paralyzed on the operatic stagethere is no continuous current, it keeps
being interrupted. This stupidity reaches such a state that conservatorytrained ladies (I have often witnessed it) in strong dramatic roles allow
themselves to adjust their costumes and hairdos during the rests in their
parts, and the men even walk into the wings to spit. What is that? That is
idiocy, ignorance, and a lack of understanding of stage aesthetics.91
To a modern sensibility, Mamontov is stating the obvious. Yet acting

during the rests in a musical score was rarely attempted on the operatic
stage of his time. This made critics all the more attentive and eager to
point out that some of the most captivating moments of MPO productions occurred when performers were not singing. For example, rave
reviews were occasioned by the act 2 finale of The Maid of Pskov, the
entrance of Ivan the Terrible into Pskovaccording to the score, an
orchestral interlude. Similarly, one of the highlights of Elena Tsvetkovas
interpretation of Mimi in La bohme, according to the press, was her exit
in the finale of act 3another moment of pure pantomime.
Every MPO singer who studied with Mamontov was expected to
develop his or her acting ability, to become a singing actor. A natural
model for emulation suggested by their mentor was, of course, spoken drama. Mamontovs students were expected to regularly attend the
Maly Theater, as well as the Moscow Art Theater after it opened in the
fall of 1898. Those staying in Paris on Mamontovs summer scholarships (among them Chaliapin, Sekar-Rozhansky, Shkafer, Melnikov,
Chernenko, Eberle, Galtsyna, and Lyubatovich) were particularly recommended the Comdie Franaise. I am diligently attending the Comdie Franaise, wrote Melnikov, and see it as a university for myself
and my fellow actors.92 Shkafer poured out his impressions in an excited
missivehis first from Paris:
On my very first day, Pyotr [Melnikov] and I set off for the Comdie Franaise, where we saw an excellent production of Ruy Blas. Since you, Savva
Ivanovich, know this institution better than I do, it only remains for me
to say with what envy I watched this group of actors, who, with their hard
work, love, energy, serious attitude, and faith in themselves, their sacred,
pure, and lofty vocation in life, serve art, move it forward, and offer a
vivid example for people like usstill uncertain, stumbling, searching
for support, etc. Obviously, such institutions are created through decades,
even centuries, and, who knows, maybe our not yet sufficiently powerful
soil will also bear such fruit. Sitting in that institution, I invariably flew
to our dear motherland, and thought constantly of you, Savva Ivanovich,
and of your childthe Private Russian Opera.93
It is characteristic that Shkafer compared the French drama troupe

to the MPO. The young stage director was clearly searching for a frame
of reference for Mamontovs theater that at the time had no equivalent
on the Russian operatic or, prior to the debut of Stanislavskys troupe,
dramatic stage. Some singers found it easier than others to adjust to the
new environment. The former shared and supported Mamontovs goals;
the latter considered them bewildering and even incompatible with the
foundations of operatic art. To elucidate Mamontovs concept of the
ideal singer for his troupe, let us compare the approaches to their work
demonstrated by two of his most talented employees, both of whom
would leave their mark on the history of operaFeodor Chaliapin and
Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel.
I Want to Be a Musician: Nadezhda Zabela

Both Chaliapin and Zabela are important names in the history of Russian music. While Zabelas post-Mamontov career was less illustrious
than Chaliapins, she has earned an impressive reputation of her own
as a great musician, and particularly as Rimsky-Korsakovs legendary
muse. It is also well known that while Chaliapin enjoyed a privileged
status in Mamontovs troupe, and his presence had a significant influence on repertoire choices, staging, and design, Zabelas position was
more difficult and more controversial. Chaliapin had every opportunity
opened to him by Mamontov; Zabela and her patron Rimsky-Korsakov
both felt, not without merit, that she was often ignored by her director.
The composer wrote: This systematic neglect of an artist such as yourself is truly astonishing.94 It would be easy to accept Zabelas explanation of her predicament by a personal antipathy on Mamontovs part.
This theory, however, does not bear close scrutiny. On a personal level,
Mamontov liked Zabela well enough to play matchmaker to her and
Mikhail Vrubel, and even to finance their honeymoon in Switzerland.
On a professional level, he employed her at the Panaev Theater, a St.
Petersburg operatic venture that he had sponsored in 189596, and later

hired her as Tsvetkovas replacement at the MPO for the 189798 season.
Although their artistic differences soon became apparent, Mamontov
renewed her contract after Tsvetkovas return in the fall of 1898. Besides,
any conflict with Zabela would have been most unpleasant to him, as it
would directly affect her admirer, Rimsky-Korsakov, as well as Vrubel,
Mamontovs own beloved protg. In reality, Zabela had every chance
to earn a position among the female cast equal to Chaliapins among the
male singers. What prevented that from happening was the fact that her
attitude toward her own job and the companys mission differed markedly from Mamontovs. The distinction is apparent in a series of letters
Zabela wrote to Rimsky-Korsakov during the time of her association
with the MPO.
From Zabelas correspondence with the composer, it is evident that
she viewed herself as a singer, rather than an actress. To her, studying a
part meant primarily learning the music, not learning about the character. She rarely referred to it as a rolea term borrowed from spoken
drama, which Mamontov and his associates preferred.95 Characteristic
is Zabelas reaction to receiving a section of the Tsars Bride score. The
Adagio from the aria is wonderfully beautiful, and can showcase the
voice and ability of a singer in the best possible light, she wrote to the
composer. I am now singing it every morning and evening, and want
to achieve a complete cantabile. God knows if I can do it; I have a great
desire to perfect myself.96
In her desire to perfect herself, Zabela resembled many of her
colleagues at Mamontovs company. Yet while they wanted to perfect
their acting abilities, her aspirations lay in another direction: I want to
understand all the nuances, and to be not just a singer but a musician.97
Zabela believed that the dramatic possibilities of an operatic production
should stem exclusively from the choice of a vocal range. Discussing with
Rimsky-Korsakov her desire to sing Kupava in the MPO Snow Maiden
production, she voiced her doubts about her suitability for the part, not,
however, in terms of the openly dramatic character of the role, but in
terms of voice quality. Actually, a lyrical soprano could also sing [Kupava], she wrote, but it is true that if Tsvetkova sings the Snow Maiden
and I do Kupava, it would not be very interesting, for the voices are very
homogeneous.98
Acting did not appeal to Zabela; indeed, she viewed Mamontovs

push to act out on stage as embarrassing and unacceptable. Mamontov
realized that. While he valued her voice and musicianship, he apparently began to feel, as time went by, that her attitude went against the
basic principles of his company. The singer, however, never seemed to
understand his position; after a performance of A Life for the Tsar, she
wrote to Rimsky-Korsakov: The part of Antonida seems to work very
well for me; for some reason it is considered difficult but for me it is
amazingly easy. Even S. I. [Mamontov] graced me with a compliment in
the following form: Still, what a beautiful voice you have! What does
that still mean, I wonder?99 Another characteristic episode occurred
at the performance of May Night, in which Zabela was cast in the role of
Pannochkaa drowned girl turned water nymph. The singer reported it
as follows: I was singing [Pannochka] without the little wreath, and did
not act the corpse; of course Savva Iv[anovich] was displeased, sarcastic,
and before my entrance kept inviting me to the second quadrille because
he was convinced that I looked like I was going to a ball.100
According to Zabela, only superior vocal prowess justified a singers
appearance on stage. Consequently, she had much to criticize in Mamontovs approach that took into account acting ability, visual appearance, movement, and many other factors. To her, the idea of casting a
weaker singer who looked and acted the part, as opposed to a superior
singer who did not, seemed anti-musical: I am convinced again today
that the Private Opera has nothing to do with music.101 Her reaction to
the casting of Koltsov as Sadko (see n.51, above) was perhaps the harshest
of all the employees (to be fair, she was the one who had to sing duets
with him . . . ). And while Mamontovs choice in that case was indeed
unfortunate, it is characteristic that Zabela never even considered that it
might have been informed by factors other than vocal ability. Similarly,
she did not believe that any production could succeed without the voices:
I wonder how The Maid of Orleans fares: neither Chaliapin nor Sekar
participate in it, and the whole weight of this, they say, weak opera will
be carried on Tsvetkovas weak little shoulders, and of course Stavitskaya
in the role of Agnes.102
Faithful to the Italian tradition in staging, Zabela also had little
sympathy for Mamontovs notion of artistic ensemble. In response to
Rimsky-Korsakovs letter in which the composer mentioned Mamon-
tovs intent of building his productions around the ensemble rather than
star performers, she wrote: Id like to know what this caring about the
ensemble means. It seems that S. I. means by it to throw away all the
good soloists and make the troupe out of the most green, inexperienced
youths who dont know how to sing in time.103
Yet, despite her reluctance to act and her occasional blatant refusal
to follow the stage directors instructions (for example, regarding her
costume and acting in May Night), Zabela remained in the troupe. In
order to neutralize her discord with the rest of the ensemble but still utilize her voice and sensitive musicality to the best advantage, Mamontov
made sure to keep her away from the roles that focused on acting while
casting her whenever solid cantilena was required. While discussing the
prospects for the role of Iante, a young Greek princess in The Necklace,
he suggested the following: I am thinking that Khrennikova seems
heavy for Iante. Really! She is very sweet; has a fresh, excellent voice,
but it is really a dramatic soprano. Can she create a light, delicate Greek
girl, wont she be heavy? I wonder. Better give it to Zabela. She will sing
clearly, correctly; and God knows there is not much acting there.104
Similar reasoning prompted Melnikov to suggest that Zabela be
cast in the trouser role of Prince Charming (if shes not bowlegged)
in Massenets Cendrillon, which he was planning to direct.105 Among
other roles with not much acting given to Zabela were Michaela in
Carmen and Euridice in Orfeo. The latter was certainly a very important
assignment: as we have seen, it was Mamontovs signature production.
Zabela, however, was unimpressed, complaining to Rimsky-Korsakov
about participating in an opera that was not attracting audiences (i.e.,
Orfeo), or about singing a secondary part:
Our opera company cant seem to get opened. We are rehearsing a host
of operas, among them Carmen, which has never been a box-office hit.
For some reason I am singing Michaela, although we have a whole host of
young singers who beg to sing this role, but you see, they are cast as Tatyanas and Marguerites, and I am singing Michaela for some reason.106
The host of young singers encroaching on her territory was a

source of constant anxiety to Zabela. By the fall of 1898, the company
employed nine sopranos: Mamontov never refused entry to his apprenticeship program to anyone with abilities, so there was clearly a
shortage of work for all. More and more, Zabelas letters were filled with
venom about Mamontov promoting young and, in her opinion, inexperienced singers. She was particularly incensed about Anna Stavitskaya
(see plate 37), who had joined the company during the 189899 season
and attracted the directors attention because of her obvious ability and
desire to act:
They say that on the Imperial stage young singers are given no path, but
here, poor little old ladies like us have no life because of the newcomers.
Particularly dangerous is Stavitskaya, declared by S. I. to be a genius, a
second Duse etc.; her name is already printed in large type. I have heard
her in Onegin, and with all my desire to find something special in her,
found nothing. I even find that she gives a surprisingly wrong type of
Tatyana; . . . as for singing, she is not bad but not good either, her voice is
small, shaky, with a cats timbre. And still S. I. gradually gives her all the
lyrical parts; he did not get to your operas yet, but I already anticipate that
soon she will be singing the Maid of Pskov, Sheloga, and maybe even the
Sea Princess, while I am singing Michaela and Euridice.107
Interestingly, Zabela was jealous even of the purely dramatic roles

that held little musical interest to her personally but in which Stavitskayas small voice was no deterrent while her acting ability was a plus.
She wrote: I am happy I was not cast as Agnes [in The Maid of Orleans]
because I consider her part boring, but S. I. views it as interesting, which
is why he has given it to Stavitskaya.108 Zabela believed that Mamontovs
casting principles resulted from pure favoritism, occasionally supporting her opinion with a variety of rumors always abundant in theater
life. For example, after Cuis Angelo, due to be staged in 1899, was postponed until the following season, she explained it to Rimsky-Korsakov
as follows: Angelo, I think, will not run at all, because it seems that Cui
declared that he did not wish a mezzo-soprano to sing Katharina. What
would be the fun for S. I. to stage an opera in which none of his favorites
participates?109 Csar Cui himself held a different view, however. In a
letter to Mamontov he agreed that it would be more advantageous to
schedule his first Moscow premiere at the beginning rather than the
end of a season, so that audiences would have more time to become
acquainted with the opera.110 He also enthusiastically endorsed Mamontovs choice of personnel, including the mezzo-soprano, writing: Your
casting appears splendid to me. I value Chernenkos talent highly. Its a
pity about Chaliapin but, well, it cant be helped. I dont know Olenin
at all, but since you chose him for Galeofa, I dont doubt that he is a
talented artist.111
Clearly, Zabela felt possessive about any soprano role given to another performer, but particularly about the Rimsky-Korsakov operas in
which she was singing, especially Sadko. Commenting on a performance
of the opera, she wrote to Rimsky-Korsakov: Even van Zandt appreciated this music; . . . so much that she wants to sing the duet of the Sea
Princess with Sadko in concert. Heres another rival for me, and this one
is truly very dangerous, although she could hardly sing this part with as
much love as I do.112
Her position as favorite singer of Russias most eminent living opera
composer was a source of great pride to Zabela. I am only in A-major
[i.e., happy] when I am singing, she wrote to him; when my voice
sounds very good; when you are listening to me, and I feel that you are
very pleased.113 Unfortunately, this distinction also made her feel superior to and separated from the other performers, whom she believed to
be jealous of her success. As evident from the memoir literature, it was
customary for the MPO employees (including Chaliapin) to drop by the
theater every day, even when they were not scheduled for a performance
or a rehearsal. Zabela was the exception: she would not appear unless
personally summoned, or unless there was a Rimsky production she
wanted to hear; the internal life of the company did not interest her.
I havent been to the theater since Sadko, she wrote to the composer,
and would probably go only Friday for Mozart. What would I do there?
They dont want to know me, they dont let me sing, and I dont want
to know them.114 One of the most remarkable illustrations of Zabelas
attitude was a letter she had sent to Rimsky-Korsakov on 11 December
1898. It reads: [My bad mood] has now passed, mainly because for a
long time now, for almost a whole week, I havent been to the [theater]
but stayed at home; and I dont want to know what is going on there,
and how our homegrown divas printed in large type are distinguishing themselves.115 What is remarkable about this letter is the date: four
days after the premiere of Boris Godunov, a major event in the life of the
company, which Zabela, despite her professed admiration for Chaliapin
and with complete disregard for the work of her comrades, had clearly
boycotted.
Thus, having entered the MPO with an opportunity to be fully included into Mamontovs ensemble of singing actors, Nadezhda Zabela
chose instead to hold to her concept of an operatic performer as a musician rather than stage artist, resisting with increasing hostility Mamontovs attempts to integrate her into the troupe. Despite mounting tension,
she signed with the company for the second season. She had no choice:
there was little hope for a job at the Imperial Theatersa traditionallyminded institution clearly more suitable to her approach, but without a
vacancy for her until 1904.116 Zabela was forced to stay with the company
whose leader, troupe, and mission she neither understood nor respected.
When Rimsky-Korsakov asked her how to announce her at a concert of
his works in which she was to participate, she replied: When you announce my participation, it will be necessary to add an artist of the Moscow Private Opera to my name. S. I. would never forgive me if I omitted
this title of mine, in his opinion very prestigious, and in minerather
sad.117 Gradually, both Mamontov and his associates began feeling just
as frustrated with her as she was with them. Mamontovs assessment of
her in late 1899 was harsh, yet insightful: Zabela is a star with a crooked
mouth; she is dramatically worthless, but the audience wants to believe
she is good because she sings well.118
The Boundaries of Interpretation: Feodor Chaliapin

While Zabelas public success was founded on the high quality of her
singing, Chaliapins vocal ability was not the main reason for his enormous popularity. Initially critics attempted to analyze his performances
in the same manner as those of other opera singers: they discussed the
strength of his voice, its range, flexibility, and other fine points of singing technique. It soon became evident, however, that Chaliapins power
lay elsewherea fact reflected in the reviews. For instance, the Novosti
Dnya article on Boris Godunov did not contain a single word on the vocal
presentation of the title role; instead, the critic, Evgeny Rozenov, focused
on the drama of the protagonist:
Chaliapin in the role of Boris has achieved new heights of musical-dramatic performance, which has hardly ever existed on the operatic stage.
In the monologue Dostig ya vysshei vlasti [I Have Achieved the Highest
Power, act 2], he has reached such a high degree of artistry in his act-
ing, facial expressions, flexibility of intonation, variety of dramatic nuances, and strength of psychological characterization, that it remains
for criticism merely to bow silently before the talent, joining the ecstatic
crowd.119
Chaliapins own memoirs, as well as those of his colleagues, reveal

that he was a beneficiary of Mamontovs coaching. While the singer
does not mention long study sessions with his mentor, recalling only the
brief insightful comments that illuminated his understanding of major
roles, other witnesses mention these sessions.120 They were apparently no
secret from the troupe, nor from Mamontovs close associates such as
Stanislavsky, who, Kuznetsov claims, was aware of Mamontovs intense
rehearsal work with Chaliapin [and] attended their study sessions, exercising his right, according to the family tradition, to attend the others rehearsals.121 In his study of Chaliapins early career, Gozenpud discussed
Mamontovs coaching of the singer for his starring role of Boris: He
worked through the part of Boris with Chaliapin: the scenes with Shuisky, with the children, and the last tableau. Mamontov paid the closest
attention to the psychological angle, the behavior of the characters.122 As
a result of Mamontovs guidance, as well as the personal artistic choices
that brought Chaliapin to their study sessions in the first place, his understanding of the operatic genre as primarily powerful staged drama
was diametrically opposed to Zabelas, which explains the difference in
their standing within the troupe. Perhaps the most illustrative example
of their divergent philosophies is the two singers respective approaches
to rendering a composers score.
Zabela was well known for her meticulous attention to the score;
this was one of the reasons she was so prized by Rimsky-Korsakov, who
actively disliked any interpreting of his works. It was also a reason
for the respect awarded to Zabela by researchers who follow a traditional musicological decree of sanctity of the authorial intent. Chaliapin, on the other hand, had to be defended, both by his contemporaries
and by Soviet scholars, from accusations of taking significant liberties
with the score. Zabela herself touched upon the subject while reporting
to Rimsky-Korsakov on the premiere of Mozart and Salieri, an opera
constructed around Chaliapins character: I was sitting next to Savva
Iv[anovich], and we both reveled in the wonderfully elegant impression
from [Mozart and Salieri]. That lucky Chaliapin phrases so wonder-
fully: his phrasing seems to have commas, semi-colons, and exclamation

points, and at the same time, all this is within the limits of the written music, without changing a thing.123 Seventy-five years later, Abram
Gozenpud made essentially the same point regarding Boris Godunov,
stating in particular:
In literature on Chaliapin, one often sees remarks that the artist occasionally changed from singing to speech. However, he himself vehemently
denied it. The impression of changing to the speech mode was created by the unusually natural quality of his vocal inflection. Without an
opportunity to ground himself in music, Chaliapin failed frequently (a
recording of him declaiming a Knudsen poem leaves a sad impression,
and seems a weak imitation of a poetry reading by a bad actor). Chaliapin
asserted that he had always sung and never spoken over music. And it
was true.124
The literature to which Gozenpud responded in his 1974 study was

probably an article by Lev Lebedinsky titled Stsena Chasy s Kurantami v Ispolnenii Shalyapina [The Chime Clock Scene as Performed by
Chaliapin], published in the March 1959 issue of Sovetskaya Muzyka.125
Lebedinskys analysis of an extant Chaliapin recording of the Chime
Clock scene (that is, the final hallucination scene) from act 2 of Boris
Godunov points out numerous divergences from the written score. For
example, the singer alters the text of the monologue, sometimes by replacing Musorgskys libretto with original lines from Pushkins play. Lebedinskys transcription shows the speech mode used on several occasions
when the composer prescribed definite pitch. The climactic moment of
the scene, during which the character begins to hallucinate, is performed
unaccompanied: Musorgskys orchestra is silenced for two whole measures so that nothing detracts from the emotion in the voice. Overall,
Chaliapins intention, made clear by Lebedinskys excellent analysis, was
to change the musical character of the scene. The singers part, conceived
by the composer as bare-boned recitative that grows out of and follows
the orchestra, is reshaped to become a dramatic, declamatory vocal line
that dominates and is supported by the orchestral accompaniment.
My own study of Chaliapins 1927 Covent Garden recording of the
hallucination scene, recently restored and released on CD, suggests that
the singers daring went even further than Lebedinsky proposed.126
While his transcription includes only a few unpitched notes and notes
of indeterminate pitch, my analysis indicates a much wider use of these

two kinds of singing. Indeed, it appears that Chaliapin is employing
three distinct modes of sound production: singing, speech, and a kind
of speech-singing.127 He alternates among these different modes according to the dramatic situation as reflected in the text of the monologue:
the more agitated the character becomes, the closer the singer moves
toward the speech mode. Table 5.1 outlines the specific distribution
of the three modes of sound production over the four sections of the
scene, divided according to the psychological state of the protagonist:
an opening contemplation, a description of his agitated state of mind,
hallucinations, and a final prayer. While a precise gradation between the
modes is impossible as they flow seamlessly into one another, sections
of contemplation and prayer are mostly performed in the singing mode,
while the description is overwhelmingly speech-sung. The hallucination
section utilizes all three modes: for example, while pleading with the
child (Im not your evildoer), Chaliapin uses the singing mode; the
description of the apparition is speech-sung, while the climactic points
at the beginning and the end of the section are clearly spoken (see table
5.1 for details).
Indeed, the speech-singing and speaking modes would be used by
Chaliapin to dramatize his roles beyond Boris. For example, they were
to enhance his interpretations of Salieri in Rimsky-Korsakovs opera
(pace Zabela) and Holofernes in Alexander Serovs Judith.128 Nor was
Chaliapins approach unique within the MPO troupe. As early as October 1896, Gruzinsky complained in Russkoe Slovo about Anton SekarRozhanskys use of the speech mode in the finale of Carmen, demanding
that, whatever the justification with respect to dramatic interpretation
might be, the boundary dividing singing from common speech must
never be crossed.129
Returning to Chaliapins interpretation of the hallucination scene,
my analysis of the recording concurs with Lebedinskys assessment
that the vocal line, contrary to Zabelas claims and Chaliapins own
assertions quoted by Gozenpud, varies substantially from the original,
even in the sung sections, becoming even freer in the speech-sung and
spoken episodes. A similar picture arises from the analysis of Boriss
other monologues, particularly I Have Achieved the Highest Power in
act 2, mentioned by the Novosti Dnya reviewer, and the death scene
Table 5.1. An Analysis of the Three Modes of Sound Production in Chaliapins

Interpretation of the Chime-Clock Scene from Boris Godunov
Section
Contemplation

Description

Hallucination

Prayer

Text
Ugh, its so hard! Oh, let me get some air . . .
I felt as if all my blood had rushed to my face
And then heavily subsided.
Oh, cruel conscience, how harshly you punish!
Yes, if inside yourself
A single stain, a single one by chance appeared,
Oh, then you are in trouble,
You would like to run, but there is nowhere to run.
Your soul will burn; your heart will be filled with poison.
It will feel heavy, so heavy,
Like hammer strokes its ringing in your ears
With curse and condemnation . . .
And something is stifling you; you are suffocating,
And your head is spinning,
And boys, yes, boys covered in blood, are in your eyes!
There, over there, what is that? There, in the corner?
Its quivering, its growing . . .
Its getting closer . . . its trembling and moaning . . .
Off, off with you! . . . Not me . . . I am not your evildoer . . .
Off! . . . Off with you, child! . . .
Not me . . . not me, no . . . not me,
It was the will of the people! . . .
Off . . . Oh! . . . Off, child, off with you!
My Lord! You desire not the sinners death;
Have mercy on the soul of the criminal, Tsar Boris!
Note: The translation of the monologue is mine; fidelity to the original Russian text rather
than issues of musical prosody was the most important consideration in translation; the
singing mode is indicated by normal type, the speech-singing mode by italics, and the
speech mode by underlined italics; all extraneous text inserted by Chaliapin into the
monologue as an expansion or substitution for the original is printed in bold type.
in act 4. Unlike Zabela, who never allowed herself to deviate from the
authorial text, as her few extant recordings indicate,130 Chaliapin was
convinced that strengthening the drama of the score was worth violating its integrity.131
During his MPO years, Feodor Chaliapin was particularly engrossed
in exploring the dramatic possibilities inherent in his characters; in the
later revivals of the roles, his performances are reported to have mellowed somewhat. According to Kruglikov, who compared Chaliapins
renditions of the role of Salieri in 1898 and 1901, in the original production the singer acted more freely and speech-sang even the arioso
sections, a practice he would later abandon.132 Shkafer also suggested in
his memoir that Chaliapins interpretation of Salieri might have been infused with too much naturalism early on, and that he gradually softened
his approach. This would certainly be in agreement with Mamontovs
aesthetics. Similarly, the singers initial portrayal of Ivan the Terrible
in The Maid of Pskov was based on then-fashionable psychiatric evaluations of the tsar. Later in the season his naturalist stance relaxed, possibly under the influence of Mamontov who, as we have seen, detested
unabated naturalism.
The comparison made here between Feodor Chaliapin and Nadezhda Zabelas approaches to their work reveals a portrait of an ideal
Mamontov singer: a singing actor, capable of an interpretation blending drama with music. While Zabela did not share Mamontovs vision,
Chaliapin proved to be his most talented student. The core of the repertory that the singer would take with him to the Imperial Theaters, and
on which he would later build an international career, was developed at
the MPO. In most of his classic roles, therefore, he followed the creative
guidelines set up by his stage director Mamontov, whose artistic principles were thus disseminated through his student. Varvara Strakhova,
Chaliapins close friend and frequent partner on stage, confirmed as
much when she wrote:
It would be right to view the years that Chaliapin spent with Mamontov as
the period of his highest spiritual exertion and greatest creativity, qualitatively and quantitatively. This was the moment of the wildest flowering
of his genius. There he created his phenomenal stage characters; and particularly then and there Feodor Ivanovich became the Chaliapin whose
very name later meant so much to the world.133
si x
From Meiningen to Meyerhold
It is clear, I hope, from the discussion above that Mamontovs enterprise

was run in many ways like a drama theater, with acting and stage directing concerns being equal to and occasionally superseding purely musical, vocal considerations. Despite the fact that acting was Mamontovs
passion, and directing his favorite pastime, one cannot explain such a
fundamental role of spoken drama practices at his company purely by
the nostalgic desire to re-live the experiences of his youth. The uniqueness of the MPO among Russian opera houses of the 1890s, both stateowned and private, resulted partly from the influence of Western European drama troupes: never before had an opera theater been so inspired
by its stage rival.
Extant archival documents reveal that the implementation of spoken drama principles was a deliberate, openly acknowledged practice at
the MPO. Mamontov loved the Maly Drama Theater and insisted that
his singers attend it. He also held the French dramatic tradition in the
highest regard: we have seen him offer the Comdie Franaise, and great
French dramatic actors such as Sara Bernhardt, Eleonora Duse, and Jean
Monet-Sully, as models for his young troupe. But arguably, the most significant impact on MPO operations and Mamontovs own directing was
created by an acclaimed German company that had made waves around
Europe since the 1870s and toured Russia twice, in 1885 and 1890. This
company was the Meiningen Court Theater, owned by Duke Georg II of
Saxe-Meiningen, and directed by the duke himself, his actress wife, and
his assistant stage director Ludwig Chronegk.
171
According to Gozenpud, Mamontov attended performances of the

Meiningen troupe during both of their tours.1 Stanislavsky in his memoirs also mentions attending Chronegks rehearsals, which indicates that
visitors were allowed to be present. Knowing Mamontov, it is inconceivable that he would have missed such an opportunity. His correspondence
reveals a detailed knowledge of the German troupes internal operations,
making it evident that he was either personally present at rehearsals,
and also probably talked to Chronegk, or at least received Stanislavskys
detailed reports. Mamontovs intimate acquaintance with the Meiningen
Theater is equally evident in his own work as a stage director. Indeed,
both the directing and the operational practices of the two companies
were so similar that, considering Mamontovs documented access to the
Germans, it is unlikely this was coincidental. In fact, Mamontov and his
associates were fully aware of the artistic and organizational correspondences between the troupes. While some of these may be described as
parallel trends rather than direct influences, others were discussed by
members of Mamontovs team in terms of implementing, as Kruglikov
once put it, our Meiningen on the MPO stage.2
This tantalizing Meiningen connection has so far attracted almost
no scholarly interest.3 Such a gap in Mamontov scholarship may have
been caused by a variety of factors, including an ideological onea
reluctance to acknowledge a foreign influence over a stage director portrayed as a Russian nationalist. More importantly, the lack of research on
the subject may be attributed to the dearth of relevant primary sources.
While the directing practices of the Meiningen troupe are detailed in the
dukes extensive diaries, no comparable material exists in Mamontovs
hand.4 Fortunately, I have discovered a previously untapped source of
information on Mamontovs stage directing: an expansive archive of
research notes and rehearsal books belonging to Pyotr Melnikov, which
is preserved at the Rainis Museum in Riga, Latvia. While most of these
materials are related to the years of Melnikovs work at the Imperial
Theaters and the Riga National Opera, at least one set of documents can
be dated earlier. These are the detailed directors notes on Tchaikovskys
Eugene Onegin, the work that Melnikov staged for Mamontov in the fall
of 1898. While the materials on many other operas he first directed at
the MPO and later recreated elsewhere cannot be incontrovertibly dated
from the earlier time period, the Onegin notes correspond directly to
f rom m e i n i n g e n t o m e y e r hol d 173
Melnikovs letter to Mamontov dated summer 1899, which refers to the

1898 production (see below).
The Onegin materials prove that Melnikov, a highly meticulous person, saved his research and staging notes made during his tenure with
Mamontov, and used them in his later work at the Imperial Theaters,
building on the earlier foundation. This opens up the possibility that the
notes on some other Melnikov-directed operas preserved at the Rainis
Museum may also contain traces of the original Mamontov productions.
Using these materials as a basis and complementing them with Mamontovs own statements contained in his correspondence and observations
on his productions in press reviews, we can paint a much more comprehensive picture of the MPOs spoken drama practices. Mamontovs
intent to implement some of the Meiningen policies and procedures will
then become even more evident. The areas of correspondence between
the two companies, as well as the avenues of discernible Meiningen influence on the MPO, including historicism and authenticity, approaches
to visual design, casting, rehearsal techniques, role rotation, and the
treatment of crowd scenes, will be investigated below.
Historicism and Authenticity

History was a specialty of the Meiningen Theater: some of its most acclaimed productions included Schillers Die Jungfrau von Orlans and
Shakespearean chronicles. Similar productions were equally prominent
on the playbill of Mamontovs company, which fed its audiences a steady
diet of Russian historical operas. It will be instructive, therefore, to analyze the correspondences in the ways the two troupes approached historical dramatheir natural point of convergence, and a genre in which
they both excelled.
As we have seen, Mamontovs work on an opera, particularly a historical opera, began with preliminary research. Since Melnikov was
primarily responsible for this work, his notes are particularly helpful
in understanding its scope and methodology. The research on productions portraying historical events included studying historical sources,
geographical locations, and contemporaneous iconography, particularly
to observe ways of wearing clothes, as well as the habits, mannerisms,
and behaviors that would be appropriate for the characters on stage. In
discussing with Mamontov the possibility of reviving La traviata as a

powerful drama, rather than a worn-out concert in costumes, Melnikov
insisted that in act 1, real barons should be on stage, not a real mess.5
This kind of painstaking research was quite unusual for the Russian
theaters of the time. It was habitual, however, for the Duke of Meiningen,
who was responsible for researching his companys productions. For instance, both directors were known to make trips to historical locations in
order to envision and orient their sets correctly. For their respective representations of Joan of Arcs story, each journeyed to Domrmy, Rouen,
and Orlans before making recommendations on sets and staging. They
also paid particular attention to such details as the time of year when
events reportedly occurred. Thus, the duke made his designer repaint
the backdrop for Wallensteins Lager after learning that the action took
place in December. Melnikov even requested a specific designer for 1812,
chosen according to his skill at rendering the autumnal colors needed for
act 3. He wrote: A bright set design of fall colors was a long time coming,
having handy as we do the paintbrush of Kostya [Korovin], who senses
those tones so strongly!6
When working on an opera that, apart from representing a certain
moment in history, was based on a particular literary work, Melnikov
carefully studied the original text, in addition to historical sources. Just
as Mamontov in his letters frequently discussed the staging possibilities
of a new opera with reference to a libretto rather than a score,7 his student was well known for basing his staging on a literary original rather
than on a composers adaptation of it. Melnikovs notes for Onegin and
May Night are literally made up of excerpts from the respective printed
editions of Pushkin and Gogol that he cut out and glued into his notebooks. The details of scenery, characters movements, and objects in
view are carefully underlined (see figure 1, p. 203), later to be utilized in
staging notes and design requirements.
Peripheral characters present in the literary source but excised in the
libretto were studied in order to be incorporated into the stage business
delegated to choristers and supernumeraries. The country ball scene
from Onegin, an acclaimed success of director Melnikov, was such a
daring achievement that even Mamontov got worried. The scene was
created by directly following the description of that event in the novel,
as evident from Melnikovs margin notes, in which he penciled in the
names of the extras who would be playing Pushkin characters absent in

Tchaikovskys opera (see figure 2, p. 204).
In a letter to Mamontov, Melnikov defended his work by filling the
pages with quotations from the novel:
You accused me of putting a stain on our cause by letting Vorontsov and
Vanya the barber on stage in Onegin! But Vorontsov represented at my village ball the provincial fop Pustyakov, and Vanya my cousin Buyanov,
in feathers and a cap (you all know him well, of course!). If you know
Vorontsov, he is a true provincial fop in life, and Vanya the barber, who
had spent ten years in the dressing rooms of Yuzhin and Lensky, [also]
gave such a Tugoukhovsky at the court ball that no chorister could have
mastered.8
A faithful representation of the original source was a cornerstone

of the historicist approach to staging with which both the MPO and the
Meiningen Theater were associated. In fact, both companies at some
point claimed authenticity as their highest goal. According to Osborne,
The Duke came to be widely acknowledged as a champion of the unadapted word of a dramatist, and high, not to say extravagant, claims
were made for his fidelity to authorial intention.9 Mamontovs letter to
Stasov, Russias greatest champion of authenticity, contains the following assessment of the 1887 production of Dargomyzhskys Kamennyi
gost [The Stone Guest]: Obviously, we made no cuts.10 However, despite the rhetoric, both directors allowed themselves a certain freedom
with the works they staged. The duke was known to have amended an
original text to improve the historical accuracy of the drama if his research revealed a detail unknown to or ignored by the playwright. Texts
could also be adapted to tighten the action and to accommodate the
predominantly visual character of the mises-en-scne. Similarly, the
operas staged by Mamontov and his crew were occasionally reshaped for
similar reasons: to incorporate details excised from the original literary
source, or to streamline the development of the drama. For example, the
reviewers of the 1896 production of Alexander Serovs Rogneda discussed
substantial changes made to the opera by Mamontov in cooperation with
the composers widow, Valentina Serova-Bergman (18461924), herself
a composer: one tableau was cut, two others shifted to different places
within the opera. The critics unanimously praised this radical reshaping
of the work: the new scene arrangement tightened the action, eliminated
delays, and revealed internal motivations and relationships between the

characters obscured in the original libretto. Aesthetics aside, the excision
of the Kromy scene from Boris Godunov might have served a similar
purpose of strengthening the drama of the protagonist by eliminating a
scene arguably peripheral to his plight.
Visualization Technique
The similarities in approach to historical research between the directors
of the MPO and the Meiningen Theater do not in themselves prove the
Germans influence on Mamontovs work. More likely, they demonstrate
a remarkably parallel thinking process, which Mamontov probably recognized when he first saw the Meiningen troupe, and which facilitated
his study of their practices. This parallel thinking is also evident in
the similarly visual approach taken by both directors to creating their
productions. The visual approach revealed to audiences in picturesque
mises-en-scne and particular attention paid to set and costume design
was made known to performers at a much earlier stage in the preparation
of a production. The extant archival documents show that in addition to
verbal explanations, both the duke and Mamontov used what I would
call a visualization technique: the use of images to create mises-en-scne,
develop characters movements, or communicate directing ideas to associates. Just as the dukes notes and letters contain numerous sketches
of sets and accessories, so do Mamontovs. In a letter to Shkafer, he
mentioned one such sketch: Dont forget, there must be a richly carved,
beautiful gold-plated box, and not a small oneremember my drawing?11 (see plate 28).
Sketching was also a natural way for Mamontov to communicate
his intentions to the designers. In a letter to Polenov regarding Orfeo,
Mamontov described the set for act 1 as follows: Heres what the libretto
states: Beautiful remote grove of laurels and cypresses. On a small clearing, surrounded by trees, is Euridices tomb. The tomb should be a beautiful Greek sarcophagus, surrounded by a single step on which Orfeo is
prostrated.12 The description is supplemented by a sketch of the laurel
grove, and the rectangular tomb with the surrounding step to the left of
center. Polenovs extant sketch (see plate 10) demonstrates that the artist followed Mamontovs instructions to the letter. While exercising his
painterly imagination in creating the sections of the backdrop omitted

in the directors description (for example, a distant mountain with a
temple, and a winding path leading to it from the tomb), Polenov incorporated every single detail contained in Mamontovs original sketch.
It is characteristic that Melnikov used sketching with similar frequency in his directing work: his untraditional vision of Larinas house
(en face, not profiled as it was usually positioned) heads the Onegin notebook (figure 1). The directors production notes preserved at the Rainis
Museum are filled with sketches (see figure 3, p. 205), all intended for
Konstantin Korovin, the designer who, as we know, worked exclusively
with Melnikov for almost two decades, both at the Bolshoi and at the
Mariinsky. The presence of sketches in Melnikovs notebooks is not surprising: apart from the fact that most of his directing techniques were
inherited from his mentor, Korovin must also have become accustomed
to visual cues after fifteen years of working for Mamontov.
Visualization technique was used not only for the sets and misesen-scne, but also for shaping the work of individual performers. The
duke was known to supply his actors with drawings of their characters
to illustrate the correct way of wearing costumes. Mamontovs drawings
also include details of costumes and accessories, but concentrate more
on poses and movements of the characters, supplemented by precise instructions. Dont let Melgunova gesticulate too much in portraying the
drowned woman, he wrote regarding the staging of 1812. She should
beckon a little with her hand, and all the time the eyes sparkle, the head
is bowed low, and the hand is under the chin. The description is followed by a full-figure drawing of the character in the desired pose.13
Apart from having to learn drawing (an art that, as he confessed,
had eluded him), Mamontov also utilized his substantial talent as a
sculptor to direct scenes and shape the images of individual characters.
Regarding the staging of a particularly tricky scene from The Necklace,
he wrote to Shkafer:
I have been working a lot lately, and my eyes were tired, but now they work
well again, so I will probably illustrate this scene with either drawings or
sculptures over the next few days. In my opinion, this method of creating a role may be even more serious than a live demonstration; there is
an opportunity here to look and think deeply, and absorb more in depth
the internal motivations of a depicted person. There is a reason, appar-
ently, that Sarah Bernhardt and Monet-Sully were both sculptors. This
is real working-out. [My son] Sergei Savvich has some successful little
wax figures of mine: 1) Iante in act I; 2) Sad Daphne in her first entrance;
3) Daphne turning to stone. Then there is a Kabil. All this I would ask
Sergei Savvich to show Polenov and all the performers. This should add
some inspiration.14
Mamontovs students, both singers and stage directors, absorbed this

practice. It is well known that Chaliapin, a talented graphic artist, used
to make detailed pencil sketches of his roles.15 Melnikov, whose skill level
at drawing the human body was closer to Mamontovs than Chaliapins,
included numerous rudimentary character sketches in his notebooks,
such as his rehearsal book for Siegfried (see figure 4, p. 206).
It appears that unlike the Duke of Meiningen, Mamontov and his
students used character sketches for much more than a fashion show:
visualization technique revealed and helped develop a characters personality. In her letter to Mamontov from Paris, Chernenko discussed
his idea of staging Rubinsteins The Demon with her in the title role
originally written for a baritone. The notion was so experimental that
visualization was necessary to conceptualize it. Chernenko wrote: I am
awaiting the drawings of the Demon from you, but not too many: that
would be very bad, you would be spoiling me; I must search for myself.
But a fewthat would be very interesting and, most importantly, would
inspire me very much.16
Beyond the image of a single performer, Mamontov might choose to
illustrate a complete scene using visualization technique. In one of his
letters, he included a series of sketches for the confrontation of Daphne
and Kabil in act 1 of The Necklacethe moment eventually judged by
critic Yuly Engel as the best in the production. The scene is dramatically challenging: during a seductive solo for the sorcerer Kabil, played
by Shkafer, princess Daphne, portrayed by Chernenko, undergoes a
transformation from grieving lover to jealous killer without uttering a
sound. Mamontov supplied Shkafer with a detailed layout of the characters poses, movements, gestures, and facial expressions throughout
the entire scene, supplementing his description with several drawings
(see figure 5, p. 207).17
It appears that The Necklace was Mamontovs first attempt at a completely visualized concept of a production. Even more than Orfeo, the
opera was conceived as vocalized pantomime, choreographed down to

every grouping, movement, and gesture. All was illustrated in what Mamontov called his partitura [full score]. That full score (which unfortunately did not survive) provided a detailed guide to the stage director,
the performers, and even to the designer, who was to create sets and
costumes following the directors plan. In a letter to Polenov, who was
skeptical about the project, Mamontov urged the artist to consult the
score:
At Shkafers (he is the stage director) you will find the detailed, worked
out plans for acting and movement according to my drawings. Have a look
at them, and this might help you make peace with the plot. In it, there
should be an expression of the mystery of some unknown force living
through the ages. . . . The Necklace should be excellently acted out, as if
from a score. (And I have provided my fully detailed scoreplease have
a look at it at Shkafers.)18
It is unlikely that Mamontov was aware of the use of visualization

technique by the Duke of Meiningen, although he might have heard
about it from Chronegk. Indeed, he was convinced that the method he
had developed was uniqueto the operatic world, at least. He believed
that it would ensure the success of the production, writing: If you do
everything according to my drawings and indications, [The Necklace]
will be big news on stage, since no one works in this manner.19 Moreover, as a part-time music publisher, Mamontov believed that in order to
ensure the quality of future productions for a new opera, the directors
score must be printed alongside the composers. Thus, in a letter to
Polenov regarding the publication of The Phantoms of Hellas, he wrote:
I will do everything in my power, for I am truly happy for the success
of your work. Hellas, nicely printed, with good drawings as the directors
production notes, would probably make me just as happy as it would
make you.20
The End of Typecasting

The approaches to historical and literary sources and the use of visualization technique seem to have been developed by Mamontov and his
team independently of the Meiningen Theater. Let us now turn to other
characteristic Meiningen traits, the MPO implementation of which may
be more confidently attributed to direct influence. This applies, first of

all, to the end of traditional casting methods. At both companies, attention to the artistic ensemble led to phasing out of the old Fach system,
a method of casting by character or voice type followed by both drama
and opera theaters of the nineteenth century.21 Casting was individualized, with the performers egos subordinated to the directors vision.
At the same time, there was no set type of performer to portray a particular character. Mamontovs adventurous idea of casting Chernenko,
a mezzo-soprano, in the baritone role of the Demon has already been
mentioned. Another of his students, Anna Stavitskaya, wrote to her
mentor in some confusion soon after starting her work for the company:
You have recommended all these dramatic parts to me. They seem to
suit my temperament very much, but my voice is purely lyrical, and is
hardly suitable to all those parts.22 She would soon discover that it was
not parts but roles that were recommended to her, and that voice
type mattered to Mamontov very little. Her debut, witnessed by Zabela
(see chapter 5), was in the dramatic role of Tatyana in Melnikovs Onegin
production.23
It is characteristic that both Chernenko and Stavitskaya, with whom
Mamontov could experiment most freely outside the Fach system of
typecasting, were beginnersyoung singers fresh from the conservatory, in their first or second year of employment. Yet both were cast in
leading roles, an unheard-of practice on the Imperial stage. Just as in
Meiningen, there were no obstacles at the MPO to the immediate casting of promising new singers. Indeed it was encouraged, sometimes
provoking resentment from the more experienced cast members who,
as Zabela once bitterly put it, had no life because of the newcomers (as
quoted in chapter 5, n.107).
Like the Meiningen Theater, Mamontovs company was struggling
to reconcile its ensemble principles with the still predominant, audiencesupported star system. Neither the Duke of Meiningen nor Mamontov
completely rejected the star system, but both chose their stars carefully,
making sure either that they rehearsed with the rest of the cast (like
Chaliapin did) or that their alienation from the troupe enhanced, rather
than ruined, the message of the work. As we have seen, visual appearance was particularly important in Mamontovs casting decisions. For
instance, one of the reasons for the special position enjoyed by Marie
van Zandt within his company was her unique visual suitability for her
signature roles: with a tiny child-like figure and beautifully expressive
eyes, she was a perfect Mimi, Lakm, and Mignon. Similarly, French
director Andr Antoine, an admirer and a follower of the Meiningen
troupe, believed that the principal criteria in the recruitment of actors
[at the Meiningen Theater] seemed to be physical and visual, in particular the ability of the actor to display the Meiningen costumes to the best
advantage.24 And while costume wearing was not perhaps Mamontovs
most important standard in choosing a performer for a particular role
(nor was it, surely, for the Duke of Meiningen), the costumes played an
important part in both directors approach to their work.
The Role of Costume in Char acter Development

Critics of the Meiningen Theater complained that its lavish, elaborate
costumes drew a disproportionate amount of attention to themselves
and away from the actors. Similar criticism would later be directed at
Mamontovs company (and eventually, at Diaghilevs Ballets Russes).
Indeed, both Mamontov and the duke were well aware of the attractiveness of their costumes and made sure to utilize them to the best possible
advantage. More importantly, however, the directors made sure that the
effects produced by the costumes enhanced the overall dramatic concept
of a production. For example, both routinely disregarded the common
stage practice that clad leading actors in costumes designed to flatter and
separate them from the rest of the cast. Instead, the costume of Joan of
Arc in Meiningens Jungfrau was expressly designed to match those of
the other performers. Similarly, Gozenpud notes that in Mamontovs
production of Prince Igor, [lead singer] Sokolov did not parade Igors
imposing appearance in his movements, makeup, or costume. In the
prologue his helmet and chain mail were almost identical to those of
his soldiers, while his clothes at the Polovtsy camp matched those of
the other prisoners.25 The Soviet scholar explained this directing decision as an attempt to humanize the title character and make him more
sympathetic. What clearly needs to be considered as well is Mamontovs
admiration for Meiningens Jungfrau production. This admiration is also
evident in the similarities between the costumes of the Germans Joan
of Arc and his own: a breastplate of chain mail over a plain white dress
and leggings. Moreover, in both Mamontovs and Meiningens versions

of The Maid of Orleans, Joans costume was designed to match those of
the other soldiers. As Gozenpud noted, in the coronation scene, both
her costume and her position within the stage space separated her from
the king and his resplendent court, allying her instead with standardbearing guards that surrounded the procession.26
Deliberately contrasting the leads costume with those of the other
characters on stage could also serve a dramatic purpose. For example,
despite Chaliapins objections, Mamontov approved Ilya Bondarenkos
costume design for Boris Godunov in black silk with violet and silver
patterns, instead of the traditional red and gold brocade (see plate 33).
The idea was quite brilliant: dressing the tsar in dark clothing for his first
entrance in a triumphal coronation scene underscored his alienation
from the courtiers and the crowd, revealed in the opening monologue.
As Mamontov explained to the singer, a familiar story would be presented to the audience as a mourning for Russias history.27 Thus, at the
MPO as in Meiningen, a costume did not merely support the artistic ensemble but could also emphasize a focal point of the drama by providing
an opportunity for a directors commentary on a character wearing it.
As costumes played such a significant role in both Mamontov and
the dukes approach to drama, both directors made sure their performers were completely comfortable in them. In order to achieve that, they
insisted that costumes be worn well before the dress rehearsal. At the
Meiningen Theater, this was in fact a formal requirement, recorded in
the dukes own hand:
In costume dramas, rehearsals with weapons, helmets, armor, swords etc.
must take place at as early a stage as possible, so that in the actual performance the actors are not hindered by the unfamiliarity and the heavy
weight of the equipment. . . . The actors should rehearse in costume
either in the actual one or, if this is not yet ready or has to be treated with
special care, one of a similar cut.28
A similar desire to overcome the awkwardness of dressing up and

increase the comfort level of his singersand perhaps the experience of
watching Chronegk rehearsemay have prompted Mamontov to give
the following advice to Shkafer regarding his acting and directing work
in The Necklace:
I advise you that, when you begin working on your scenes, especially
those with Daphne, both of you should wear something approximating
a costume. She needs it to get completely comfortable with a Greek dress
(it lacks a corset, and requires attention to get used to the pleats and bare
arms). This is very important for the scene; otherwise the enemies named
somehow and doesnt matter may creep in. For your own part, you
would need to get used to a wide-sleeved robe with the arms bare, so that
the arm movements could be incorporated into the acting.29
Role Rotation
As we have seen, there is much similarity in the two companies approaches to directing a solo performer, from casting principles to the use
of costumes in character development. Moreover, there is clear archival
evidence that Mamontov adoptedat least in theorythe Meiningen
iron rule of role rotation; that is, a lack of casting hierarchy that separated the principals from the second-tier performers. In Meiningen, a
leading actor could even be fired for refusing to do a cameo; according
to the duke, each member of his troupe must regard it as a matter of
honor to take walk-on parts, for the battle cry of our members must be:
all for one and one for all.30
Implementing such a strict policy at the MPO was extremely difficult, however. While Georg II of Saxe-Meiningen was not only the
leader of his company but also a ruling prince, Mamontov needed to
convince his singers to put their egos on hold for the sake of the cause.
We have already witnessed Zabelas indignation at the prospect; many
others were similarly skeptical. In a letter to Mamontov prior to the
start of the 189798 season, the newly appointed repertoire director
Kruglikov described a scene between himself and one of the singers,
the tenor Inozemtsev. This remarkable letter is the only surviving document in which the implementation of a Meiningen policy at the MPO
is directly addressed by a member of Mamontovs team. Kruglikov
wrote:
Seeing in the repertory list I have prepared for him, apart from numerous
large parts, also a host of various messengers and choir soloists, [Inozemtsev] made a pitiful face and started begging me quite sweetly to spare
him from all that, which he used to sing at the beginning of his career. I
pointed out to him our Meiningen principle, but apparently he was little
consoled by it. This story with Inozemtsev got me thinking. Is not our
Meiningen already on a shaky ground, and wont it completely go to hell
at the beginning of the season, when it would be necessary to talk with
this, that, and the other [singer], more talkative and less shy than your
brown-noser Inozemtsev?31
Despite Kruglikovs apprehension, a large part of the troupe followed

along with Mamontovs idea. For example, critics wrote with amazement
about a tiny unison chorus of minstrels in The Maid of Orleans: normally
sung by choristers, it was performed by six female principals.32 Apart
from Mamontovs own authority, the singers could also have been inspired by Chaliapin, who never shrank from episodic roles, particularly
if their dramatic possibilities piqued his interest. One of his signature
parts was that of Vladimir Galitsky in Borodins Prince Igora role that,
according to one critic, is usually completely lost, or at least hides deep
in the background.33 Playing the leading role in Boris Godunov, he was
always jealous of the singer cast in the secondary part of Varlaam and
eventually learned it himself. Even more of a cameo was the role of the
Varangian Trader in Sadko (plate 17), limited to a short song and participation in two ensemble finales. Yet Chaliapins interpretation of this
character prompted Stasovs famous panegyric to the performer, Radost
Bezmernaya! [Boundless Joy!] (see chapter 7) in no less a measure
than the singers portrayal of the central character of Ivan the Terrible
in The Maid of Pskov.34
The implementation of the Meiningen role rotation policy (although,
one must admit, not always as successful as in the examples cited above)
was unusual enough. But Mamontov went further: he wanted his soloists to follow the German companys rule of mandatory participation
in crowd scenesan unheard-of practice in conventional theater, in
Russia or elsewhere. The duke, however, considered it quite necessary,
writing:
It is a regrettable error, which often has artistically damaging consequences, that the members of a company who are employed as actors
have little esteem for such roles, or regard them as unworthy of a genuine
artist; and that, whenever possible, they try to avoid such roles, or else,
if they can be forced to perform them, make their reluctance all too apparent. In Meiningen, all the artists, without exception, are required to
assume such non-speaking parts.35
Mamontovs first experiment in implementing this practice took

place in the first new production of the 189798 seasonthe year when,
judging by Kruglikovs letter quoted above, the MPO consciously began
to adopt Meiningen policies. This production was Musorgskys Kho
vanshchina, an opera in which the importance of crowd scenes cannot
be overestimated. A Novosti Dnya correspondent present at the dress
rehearsal reported his impressions as follows:
The opera is staged very thoroughly, with the best forces of the troupe.
A curious novelty is the participation of absolutely every member of the
troupe, even those without separate roles; these artists, who normally
perform leading roles, for the interest and enlivening of the production,
will go on stage in the Streltsy chorus and in general crowd scenes. Such
an innovation can only raise the quality of the performance.36
The same principle is also evident in the directing work of Mamontovs assistants. For instance, Shkafers first officially independent production was Rimsky-Korsakovs The Tsars Bride. And even though his
authority was often usurped by the composer, the influence of his mentor Mamontov is evident in the following press report: All the young
forces of the troupe will participate in the oprichnik chorus, which will
undoubtedly bring special interest to the production.37 One is reminded
of the fact that the first production on which Shkafer worked directly
with Mamontov was, as it happens, Khovanshchina, in which this Meiningen policy was first put into practice. For his part, Melnikov used a
similar idea in his glitzy restaging of the epilogue from Glinkas A Life
for the Tsar in the 1913 production of that opera dedicated to the 300th
anniversary of the Romanov dynasty. The scene recreated the historic
1613 coronation of the first Romanov tsar, Mikhail Fyodorovich. Soloists
of the Imperial Theaters, both Mariinsky and Bolshoi, were present on
stage in the non-speaking roles of the historical characters who originally took part in the coronation. Essentially, for the first and last time
in their mature careers, these stars were used as extras.38
Crowd Scenes
Participation in crowd scenes was perhaps the most unusual requirement to which Mamontov subjected his singers. This, however, was not
an arbitrary demand stemming from the directors desire to, as Zabela
once put it, take us all down a peg.39 Instead, he realized that the soloists involvement was essential to staging these scenes following the
Meiningen approach. The dukes crowd was not an amorphous mass
speaking with a single voice, but a collection of individuals and small
groups, each behaving according to their own temperament and agenda.
Trained actors appeared in these scenes either as separate personages, or
as leaders of the groups of extras. As the duke himself explained:
The leaders are given written parts with cues in which those very general
terms normally used by the dramatist, such as noise, uproar, murmuring, shouts, screams, and suchlike are expanded by the director
into words, which must then be memorized by the appropriate extras. . . .
This accounts for the quite startling effect created at the first appearance
of the Meininger, which was achieved by the liveliness of the involvement
of the masses, by the real participation of the crowd, which contrasted so
starkly with the woodenness, awkwardness, and lack of interest that we
had previously had to accept.40
The purpose of the individualized treatment of the crowd was to

create the illusion of a natural reaction to the events on stage, as realized
in each person or groups gestures and movements. As we know, stage
movement was an important part of Mamontovs directing as well, not
only in solos but also in crowd scenes. One such scene was a staged fight
occurring in act 3 of The Necklace. In a letter to Shkafer, Mamontov
instructed him to involve both solo singers and choristers in order to
break the crowd into small groups, thus making the scene appear more
realistic: Continue with the fight. Work out the skeleton well, with
the separate fighting episodeslet the young people (Zina, Manya, and
anyone from the chorus who is into it) try to make it interesting.41 In
the scenes involving the individual characters as well as the crowd, both
the duke and Mamontov had to break through the tradition of the mass
arranged in a neat semicircle facing the audiencea tradition as old as
the Greek chorus. The duke prescribed that
the arrangements of actors and crowds should not produce frozen tab
leaux, which halt the action of the drama, and which are clearly posed for
the benefit of the audience. They are designed to support the dialogue by
completing it, by realizing what is implicit in it, or, if they do appear to
distract from it, to emphasize the changes brought about by the dialogue
in the relationship between the characters on stage.42
For example, in the Curia scene from a Meiningen production of Julius

Caesar, the director demanded that, instead of exiting and leaving the
stage to the leads, the populace should remain and listen to the proceedings, with their backs to the audience. In the Citizens Assembly scene
[Veche, act 2, scene 2] from The Maid of Pskov, which he personally
staged, Mamontov issued a similar demand to his bewildered chorus.
Platon Mamontov recalls:
During early rehearsals, Savva Ivanovich was displeased with the way the
chorus behaved on stageit felt wooden, lifeless, and awkward; and as
at the Bolshoi Theater, it even stared at the conductors baton. Stopping
the rehearsal, Savva Ivanovich ran up on stage and began personally to
position individual groups, turning them to the messenger, and during
Tuchas speech, facing him. In those positions, most of the chorus had
their backs to the audience. I clearly remember Savva Ivanovich shouting
loudly: I need a crowd, movement of the people; a force of nature, not a
church choir.43
Russian historical operas such as The Maid of Pskov and Boris particularly benefited from the Meiningen approach: mass scenes in these
operas were originally conceived by their composers as choral dialogue,
so the staging in this case realized the authorial intent. Interestingly,
in discussing Mamontovs treatment of the crowd, Gozenpud invoked
Stasovs comparison between Perovs depiction of the Russian populace
and the choral pages of Musorgsky scores.44 The scholar posited that
Mamontovs approach to these scenes came from studying the canvases
of Russian historical painters such as Surikov.45 More likely, however, the
idea came to him from watching Chronegks troupe rehearse.
One of the most remarkable and widely acclaimed examples of Mamontovs Meiningen-style crowd control was his staging of Sadko.
According to Strakhova, who performed the role of a bard, Nezhata:
The famous Market scene was conceived and staged exclusively by [Mamontov], and the result was a masterpiece: the huge stage of the Solodovnikov Theater was bathed in sunlight (Mamontov was a sun worshipper), and filled with traders, noble guests, gusli players, and jesters.
The whole tableau created an impression of a living piece of the Novgorod
marketplace.46
In staging Sadkos crowd scenes, Mamontov followed the path of The

Maid of Pskov and later Khovanshchina. While in the opening feast scene
and final glorification he portrayed the chorus as a single character with

a unified reaction to events, the Marketplace featured the individualized
crowd in the best Meiningen tradition. Each chorister received a specific
task, and the general picture was constructed as a sum of these tasks.
Evgeny Petrovsky noted the fresh and lively impression created by the
staging of Sadko in his report for Russkaya Muzykalnaya Gazeta:
Some figures are truly artistic. Two gloomy old menthe blind pilgrims
led by a young boyparticularly attracted attention . . . ; they were even
disturbing in their remarkable realism . . . Loving attention is paid to the
acting of the extras and the chorus. Many choral groups were truly amazing in their expressiveness, unheard of in operatic choirs.47
Such detailed work was so unusual on the Russian operatic stage that
it made a few critics uncomfortable. They recognized the Meiningen
approach, but its suitability to opera was a matter of debate. Kruglikov,
before his conversion to Mamontovs point of view caused him to join
the MPO troupe, made the following comment regarding one of the
crowd scenes in The Maid of Pskovthe finale of act 2:
Everyone is trembling, standing as if sentenced to death, and here at the
front, a silly old man with a stick, in a fur hat that he forgets to take off
while bowing . . . is scolding misbehaving kids. This Meiningenesque
detail could easily have been avoided, particularly since it contradicts the
oppressive mood of the moment.48
While in some productions, the goal was to represent the crowd as

a sum of individuals, in others the drama required a huge mass of the
populace, quite unfeasible in the limited space of a theatrical stage. The
duke devised a special technique for creating the necessary illusion,
which he described as follows:
If the impression of a great crowd is to be created on the stage, the groups
must be so arranged that those who stand at the sides extend deep into the
wings. From no seats in the auditorium should it be possible to see that
the group is finite. On the contrary, the arrangement should permit the
audience to have the illusion that there is an even greater mass of people
behind the scenes.49
The MPO faced the mass problem numerous times: the stage of the Solodovnikov Theater was larger than that of the Bolshoi, yet the company
employed a total of fifty-six choristers, versus Bolshois hundred-plus.

Operatic scenes requiring a mass of people often looked awkward; the
half-empty stage was commented upon, for instance, by the reviewers of Boris Godunov. In that opera, as you may recall, the staging of
crowd scenes was left to Mikhail Lentovsky. Mamontov and Melnikov,
for their part, had followed the Meiningen recipe for counteracting the
dramatic disadvantages to the size of their chorus since the companys
first season. In Gozenpuds discussion of their staging of the prologue to
Prince Igor, the dukes technique is described to the letterwithout any
reference, however, to its source: It was impossible to unfold expansive
crowd scenes in the theater. Therefore, the mise-en-scne of the prologue
was constructed in such a way that the audience only saw a section of
the square, creating an impression that the majority of the crowdthe
soldiers and the peoplewere backstage.50
Such unconventional use of the masses to hide the actual stage shape
also met another objective. The directors of both companies utilized
staging as well as backdrop design to reconceptualize stage space and
free their productions from slavish adherence to its traditional rectangular shape. Mamontov, for instance, often chose to narrow the huge
stage of the Solodovnikov for intimate chamber works such as Mozart
and Salieri.51 He would later use the same technique for Miniatyury
[Miniatures]a triple bill of one-act operas he staged in 1907; his letter to Polenov, who created the sets, contains a pointed reference to the
unusually small size of the backdrop canvas.52
Alternatively, some productions required a sense of space beyond
the limits of the stage. While in some productions, such as Prince Igor,
this space was created by manipulating the positions of the chorus and
extras, in other cases a director needed a designers help. Meiningen
backdrops were known for their utilization of special openings such
as window, arches, and doorways that created the illusion of depth by
affording a view beyond the confines of the set. A similar principle was
employed in perhaps the MPOs most famous set, Vasnetsovs Berendeis Palace (plate 9), on which the rooftops of the village are seen
through the arched windows of the tsars palace at the foreground. The
backdrop for the Market scene in Sadko (plate 36) features the sails of
trader ships visible beyond the city walls. Melnikovs staging of the village ball scene for Eugene Onegin went further still, creating the much-
discussed unfolding set, on which several rooms of the house were seen
by the audience simultaneously, with the characters moving among
them.53
Overall, among the various techniques characterizing the Meiningen directing style, its approach to crowd scenes was the most wholeheartedly adopted by Mamontov and his team, since it was particularly
suitable for adaptation to Russian historical operas. According to press
reviews, it was the crowd scenes in which the Meiningen influence on
Mamontovs troupe was most evident to an outside observer. These
scenes were universally viewed as the most innovative directing contribution of the German troupe, and equally acclaimed as the MPOs
strongest staging asset.
Meanwhile, arguably the most important characteristic of the Meiningen Theater absorbed and (at least partially) implemented by Mamontov was never seen by anyone outside the company. This trait was
at the very heart of its daily operationsspecifically, the level of control
exercised by the stage director over all aspects of a theatrical production. It was the dukes fabled iron grip on his employees that contributed
so much to the birth of the directors theater that Mamontov was to
import into Russia.
Directors Theater
In Meiningen, a strict system of rules and regulations covered every aspect of an actors life, including casting, participation in walk-on roles,
memorization of lines, and rehearsal attendance. Rule breaking could
result in a fine, or even dismissal; indeed, as Osborne points out, what
the Duke was doing to his actors smacked of despotism.54 This picture of
unwavering authoritarianism hardly resembles the friendly, cooperative
atmosphere at the MPO, where singers rarely required a written summons to show up for rehearsals, and where the rules were followed more
out of enthusiasm for the cause than fear of unemployment. Nevertheless, despite the collaborative nature of Mamontovs creative process,
at his company, just as in Meiningen, all aspects of a production were
controlled by the director. Evidently, Mamontov did not view this as a
contradiction to the collaborative method, but rather as an extension of
itan assurance that the process would yield results without dissolving
into endless debate. You are the director, he once wrote to Shkafer, so
do your job without discussion. Talk is a disgusting sauce that spoils
any good meal.55
The directors control was barely noticeable to a person unfamiliar
with the daily operations of the enterprise. For example, Stasovs essay
on Mamontovs designers is characteristically oblivious to the unseen
presence behind their work:
While working for S. I. Mamontovs theater, [the designers] were not in
anybodys employ, including Mamontovs, but they remained completely
free, independent artistseach in their own fieldwho continued their
own, non-commissioned work while working for S. I. Mamontovs theater. Besides, no one restricted the artists: there were no orders, no rules
for them here; no corrections, no additions, and no subtractions. Is this
not happiness and a huge advantage?!56
It is true that Mamontov rarely invaded his artists territory: he knew

the quality of their work, and rarely interfered when sets were being
painted. Yet his comments, while few, were typically to the point, and
were respected accordingly. Bondarenko recalled: He never gave advice to Vrubel, but sometimes he would say: Misha, this colorit is the
wrong color. [Vrubel] would look and say: You know, you are right, for
Mamontov never criticized needlessly.57 However, at the initial stage,
when the overall visual concept of a production was being decided, Mamontov closely supervised his painters, making sure his directing ideas
were incorporated into their work. Examples of this control abound
in his prolific, detail-filled correspondence with Polenov regarding the
designs for Orfeo and The Necklace. In his letters, Mamontov laid out
specific requirements for each scene, often accompanied by sketches.
Some sets were apparently created in direct collaboration between Mamontov and his designers, including those for Orfeos second act, The
Underworld: Korovin and I invented it together; it should be interesting, Mamontov happily bragged to Polenov.58 Meanwhile, there was
no dictatorial tone in Mamontovs correspondence with the painters.
Instead, there seemed to be an unspoken agreement: despite occasional
differences, these close friends and collaborators somehow always managed to find a compromise without encroaching on each others visions.
The true test of a directors character came when Mamontov had to deal
with Rimsky-Korsakov: both were strong-willed artists who believed

their own authority superseded any other; the roots of their conflict will
be explored in chapter 8.
Unlike Mamontov, the duke, who mostly staged the classics, had
no experience in dealing with liveand demandingauthors. Overall,
however, both directors control over their troupes covered the same
important areas. It would be helpful to include here Osbornes comprehensive summary of the Meiningen operation within the framework of
directors theater:
The repertoire of the company was determined at directorial level, and
within the constraints of the commercial theater it shows a high degree of
coherence, both in its reflection of the artistic strengths and specialties of
the company, and in its consistent national and educational orientation.
The texts used in the productions were edited and prepared at directorial
level, in accordance with principles, which also clearly reflect the overall
artistic policy. Actors were carefully considered in terms of consistent
criteria, before being engaged; they were prepared individually for their
parts and required to take part in extensive rehearsal. Casting was not
done by Fach, but by the director, taking into account the specific aims
and requirements of the production and the strongly visual orientation
of the style. Scenic design was the responsibility of the principal member
of the directorial team, the Duke himself, and he supervised closely the
execution of his designs by scene painters who were familiar with, and
sympathetic to, the aims of the company . . . Costume design was also in
the hands of the Duke, and the wearing of costume was controlled with
great firmness and attention to its implications for the interpretation of
the drama. Arrangements, crowd scenes, and stage business were worked
out carefully at directorial level, were carefully rehearsed, and carried
out according to plan. Off-stage control of the production was, in short,
comprehensive and overwhelming.59
At the MPO, every single area of operations mentioned above as the

directors responsibility was personally supervised by Mamontov (see
chapter 7 for a discussion of repertoire policy). Unquestionably, the level
of consistency and control practiced at the Meiningen Theater was never
equaled at Mamontovs enterprise; indeed, it was unparalleled in theater history. Nevertheless, observing the Meiningen troupe probably
introduced Mamontov to the concept of the directors theater, which he
gradually began to implement in his own company. This process was
never completed, as it was interrupted by Mamontovs essential removal

from power over the 18991900 season. Instead, it was taken over by the
young Russian drama troupes: the Moscow Art Theater, whose director
Stanislavsky, as we have seen, was a devotee in equal measure of both
Mamontov and Chronegk, and a host of experimental studios that flourished in the 1900s and 1910s. Particularly closely associated with the new
method was visionary stage director Vsevolod Meyerhold, whose early
career intersected in a fascinating manner with those of both Mamontov
and Stanislavsky.
Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, and

the Povarskaya Studio
Until now, Stanislavskys Moscow Art Theater has been traditionally
viewed in the literature as the first Russian stage to have absorbed and
implemented the lessons of the Meiningen troupe and their French disciple, Andr Antoine. Rudnitsky stated as much, adding: At the Art
Theater, a director for the first time in Russia became the true leader of
a theater and the author of a production, the creator of a unified work
of staged art, blending together the efforts of the dramatist, actors, designer, composer, and connecting his creation with modern life, and
modern audience.60 Rudnitskys opinion is supported by the documents
of the period. In his diary, the Bolshoi Theater administrator Vladimir
Telyakovsky called Stanislavskys troupe, albeit in a derogatory sense,
the Russian Meiningen.61 Sergei Diaghilev noted in his well-known
Mir Iskusstva review of the troupes 1902 St. Petersburg tour that the
Moscow actors have succeeded in mounting a classic, and producing it
in the most polished manner, such as befits a modern, a most modern
spectator. [They] know what discipline is, and that . . . is what combines
all the colors into a single painting.62
As we have seen, Mamontov and Stanislavsky, who cooperated and
exchanged ideas from the start of their directing careers, most likely
attended Chronegks rehearsals together. The older director then seized
an early opportunity to implement the Meiningen principles in a professional theater setting. Stanislavsky observed, learned from the experience, and later utilized the same methods in the Moscow Art Theaters
inaugural production, Alexei K. Tolstoys historical drama Tsar Feodor
Ioannovich. Mamontov served as an adviser to that production. In a letter inviting him to the dress rehearsal, Stanislavsky wrote: We would be
very happy to see you at the rehearsal as a man of the theater . . . and a
great artist [bolshoi khudozhnik]. Help us correct the mistakes that have
unavoidably crept into such a complicated production as Tsar Feodor.63
After the premiere, Mamontov received another note: Cant wait to see
you to hear your honest opinion about the production. Sincerely respectful, grateful Alekseev.64
While there were differences in Mamontov and Stanislavskys views,
they also agreed on much of what they liked about the Meiningen approach, as well as what they disliked about it. Specifically, both believed
that implementing directors theater with the strictness displayed by the
Germans led to a loss of creativity on stage, a neglect of acting in the
traditional senseas role interpretation through the genius of an individual performer. Stanislavsky believed, for example, that the Meiningen
production of Die Jungfrau von Orlans, discussed earlier, revealed a
wide discrepancy between the quality of the acting and that of the stage
direction.65 Both Mamontov and Stanislavsky watched with apprehension as directors theater gained currency in experimental drama theaters as well as opera troupes of the 1900s whose directorsamong them
Nikolai Arbatov, Konstantin Mardzhanov, and Pyotr Olenindeclared
themselves followers of the Art Theater. Stanislavsky admitted as much
in his autobiography, writing that Chronegks impact on his own directing style created the new breed of Russian stage directors. The directors
of the new type, he wrote, became mere producers who made an actor
into a stage property on the same level with stage furniturea pawn to
be moved around in their mises-en-scne.66
Mamontov, who was dedicated to coaching actors and had experienced the genius of Chaliapins interpretations in his productions, could
not accept the new fashion either. He was particularly upset by the fact
that the young directors used slogans he himself pioneered, such as
ensemble, while taking their meaning to the absolute extreme where
he was never willing to go. His reactions are recorded in his nephews
memoirs:
Uncle Savva was sincerely outraged at all the noise made by the innovative opera directors. They wrote: Who cares who is singing and who
is acting! Ensemble is important. We dont need talents! We dont need

artistic individuality! We need discipline. According to the innovators,
theater needed only an author and a director; it needed only a faceless,
unified mass, a tool in the hands of a decorator and a stage director. The
crowd should present real life, and the soloists are just details against
the backdrop of the crowd. Uncle Savva argued in print against these
views, publishing several reviews of the productions that particularly
outraged him.67
The overly strict implementation of directors theater probably contributed to the doom of a fascinating project that brought Mamontov
and Stanislavsky together with an Art Theater alumnus, the young,
audacious stage director and future leader of Russian theater, Vsevolod Meyerhold. Their joint venture, inaugurated on 5 May 1905, was
a small, experimental drama theater, a Moscow Art Theater affiliate
that became known as the Theater-Studio on Povarskaya Street. While
his older colleagues were, as we shall see, involved with the Studio to
varying degrees, Meyerhold, as its director, had a free hand in determining the direction of the work. From the first rehearsal of the as yet
unopened studio, his firm conviction that the director should be the
single, all-powerful master of a production was evident. The young directors vision required that the actors carry out relatively modest tasks,
their individuality completely subsumed by the overall picture created
and dictated by the stage director. After watching a dress rehearsal
of Maeterlincks La Mort de Tintagiles, Stanislavsky noted the same
discrepancy between the genius of the directors concept and the lack
of personal engagement on the part of the actors that he had observed
at the Meiningen Theater. In his memoir he mentioned, however, that
the dictatorship of the stage director might have served a practical purpose here: most Povarskaya Studio actors were novices, unable to comprehend Meyerholds sophisticated vision of Maeterlincks drama, and
their inexperience was concealed by treating them like clay for shaping
mises-en-scne.68
Whatever circumstances prompted it, Meyerholds move toward
absolute power of the director over the troupe, which would eventually
lead to his revolutionary ideas of bio-mechanics, began to take shape at
the Povarskaya Studio. The directors theater concept absorbed by Mamontov from the two Meiningen tours, and partially revealed in his own
companys productions and the work of the newly opened Moscow Art
Theater, was thus realized in its most extreme form by Meyerhold and
other young stage directors of the 1900s. The journey Mamontov started
would lead Russian staged art directly to modernism.
From Realism to Symbolism

At first glance, the end of the road Mamontov took has nothing to do
with its beginning. The evidently great influence of the Meiningen Theater, a realist institution, on directing practices of the MPO seems to
directly contradict everything we know about Mamontovs aesthetics.
The Meiningen signature historicism is equally difficult to reconcile
with Mamontovs experiments with decorativism, stylization, and other
modernist staging and design techniques. The apparent contradictions
are at the heart of Mamontovs enterprise: even more than in its designs
that balanced achievements of realism with new modernist trends, in
its approach to drama the MPO stood at a historic point of transition.
In this respect, it was not unlike the Meiningen Theater, which, born
at the dawn of naturalism in theater, combined the classicist love for
striking tableaux vivant with the demands of onstage realism. Turn-ofthe-century naturalist playwrights and directors would acknowledge
the Meiningen influence while at the same time consigning the German
troupe without regret to the nineteenth-century past. The MPO faced a
comparable aesthetic dilemma, which, ironically, grew especially problematic as a consequence of the companys unique strengththe close
collaboration between its stage directors and set designers.
As we have seen, in the late 1890s the Russian arts were ready to leave
behind the confines of realism. However, for a short while, they found
themselves traveling along separate aesthetic paths: while prose literature and drama reached even deeper into the human psyche, the visual
arts and poetry tried to transcend human nature and penetrate the mind
and eventually the divine through the intermediaries of myth and symbol. The most cutting-edge style in drama was naturalism; in painting,
it was symbolism. Artistic attributes of both coexisted in Mamontovs
productions, many of them historical operas that required appropriately
Meiningen-style staging, whether or not it happened to coincide with
the directors aesthetic views. Furthermore, since the company was so
in touch with the current trends in spoken drama, it was bound to be

caught up in the early stages of the next aesthetic revolution experienced
particularly painfully by Stanislavskys company.
Built on the Meiningen premise, the Moscow Art Theater achieved
its early resounding success as a champion of naturalist artand almost immediately found itself branded as conservative and irrelevant.
As Valery Bryusovs Useless Truth article proclaimed from the pages
of Mir Iskusstva, Russian arts were embracing symbolism, and the Art
Theater was out of touch. Stanislavsky and his codirector NemirovichDanchenko quietly agreed with Bryusov, feeling that Tsar Feodor and
other historical dramas they produced were taking them in the wrong
direction. This was particularly hard on Nemirovich, himself a playwright disgusted with tiresome realism. Stanislavsky also worried that
his art was too tied up with crude reality, afraid of becoming forever a
Wanderer of the stage.69 The phrase could have been invented by Mamontov, who clearly shared the sentiment. Indeed, his ties to the visual
arts made him suspicious of naturalism from the start. For Stanislavsky,
the transition away from a Wanderer of the stage was assisted by the
subtle art of Anton Chekhovs mood theateritself a transitional style
somewhere between realism and symbolism. Chekhovs belief that stage
art required a certain uslovnost was reflected in his plays produced by the
Art Theater in the early 1900s. Fellow playwright Maxim Gorky wrote
to him at that time: Do you know what you are doing? You are killing
realism. And you will kill it soonto the death, for a long time. This
form has outlived its timethats a fact! No one could go further than
you have, on that path. . . . Most importantly, what you write does not
look simple, i.e., does not look like truth. . . . And I am thrilled about it.
Enough of [realism] already!70 It is no wonder, then, that a few months
after Gorky wrote this letter to Chekhov, he asked Stanislavsky to introduce him to Mamontov. Stanislavsky obliged, sending his mentor the
following note:
I have a favor to ask. Gorky (the writer) is very interested in you, and
he is having lunch at our house tomorrow afternoon. Why dont you
come? You would make my wife and me very happy. If you agree, we
are expecting you around 44:30 pm, for at 7:00 pm everyone will be off
to the theater to see [Ivan] the Terrible; maybe you would like to come
with us.71
The title role in the play Mamontov and Gorky were invited to see, Alexei
K. Tolstoys Smert Ivana Groznogo (The Death of Ivan the Terrible, a prequel to Tsar Feodor), was performed by Vsevolod Meyerhold.
It was Meyerhold, not Stanislavsky or Nemirovich, who later made
Chekhovs call for stylization the centerpiece of his essay condemning naturalism on stage.72 The idea was lodged in his mind even when,
after having left the Moscow Art Theater to launch his directing career
in the provinces, he was justly accused of crude realism and what his
critics dubbed super-Meiningen-ism. Although he, like Mamontov,
began his career as a realist, Meyerhold was soon dissatisfied, feeling
constricted by an excessive grounding in the everyday. Yet his bold early
experiments in stage symbolism, such as the 1904 staging of Stanislaw
Przybyszewskis Schnee, failed spectacularly before his provincial audiences. Meyerhold needed help; he needed a new kind of theater, writing:
[We need] to strive for the Highest Beauty in Art, to fight the routine,
to search constantly for new expressive means for the new dramaturgy
that still does not have its theater, for it has moved too far ahead, just as
modern painting has moved too far ahead of staging and acting techniques.73 Luckily, his old mentor Stanislavsky was equally frustrated.
After his tentative attempt at staging a Maeterlinck triple-bill at the
Moscow Art Theater resulted in a rare, humiliating flop, Stanislavsky
needed Meyerholds fearlessness and fresh perspective just as much as
his former protg needed his clout and expertise. Meyerhold returned
to Moscow; Russias first symbolist theater, the Povarskaya Studio, was
born. In his memoirs, Stanislavsky described the creed of the new venture as follows:
Realismthe everydayhas outlived its age. The time has come for the
unreal on stage. . . . One must represent not life itself, as it flows in reality,
but how we vaguely sense it in dreams, visions, in the moments of sublime
heights. This state of mind needs to be represented on stage, just as the
new painters do it on canvas, the new generation of musicians in music,
and the new poets in their verses.74
On the Povarskaya Studio personnel roster, Meyerhold and Stanislavsky are listed on the top of the page, right next to each other, as codirectors.75 On the bottom of the same page there is another name, marked
consultantthe name of Savva Mamontov. Clearly, he was not treated
as the other directors equal in the troupes hierarchy. Yet his enthusiasm
for the project knew no bounds. Now daily in the company of the Blue
Rose painters, and hard at work on the libretto for The Phantoms of Hel
las, he was as ready and eager as Stanislavsky to serve as a midwife to the
new theater. He lent Stanislavsky his pet designersNikolai Sapunov,
Sergei Sudeikin, and Nikolai Ulyanov, all Blue Rose members, and all
trained by him in the craft of stage design. He organized a permanent
exhibition of modern Russian sculpture in the theater lobby. He was the
only person, apart from Meyerhold and Stanislavsky, invited to speak at
the inaugural meeting of the troupe that took place at the Moscow Art
Theater on 5 May 1905. His attendance at the first open rehearsal of the
Theater-Studio on 11 August is documented in Stanislavskys correspondence.76 And although the fact that the rehearsal took place in the village
by the name of Mamontovka, near Moscow, is merely a fun coincidence,
it is tempting to view it as a symbol of Mamontovs profound engagement with the project. He even invited himself, rather unceremoniously,
into the sacred world of hiring and casting, which made even the everdeferential Stanislavsky feel a little claustrophobic.77
If even Stanislavsky, despite his admiration for Mamontov, tried
discreetly to put some distance between his teacher of aesthetics and
the Povarskaya Studio, what about Meyerhold? As far as we know, the
young director never wrote to Mamontov, and no direct evidence places
him at the MPO performances or rehearsals. Yet we also know that he
was an admirer of Mamontovs company: in a 1921 discussion forum
titled Do We Need the Bolshoi Theater? he cited the MPO as an ideal
for which to strive, calling upon his listeners to continue along the path
taken by Savva Mamontovs opera theater where Rimsky-Korsakov was
first staged, Vrubel worked, and Chaliapin started his career.78 He also
shared many of Mamontovs aesthetic principles, including his belief in
the synthesis of the arts, which was reflected in his own work aimed at
fusing together word, gesture, color, and sound.
More importantly, the productions that Meyerhold directed at the
Povarskaya Studio exhibit certain characteristics familiar from Mamontovs MPO experiments. For example, one of the most distinctive
attributes of his La Mort de Tintagiles was its carefully choreographed,
deliberate stage movementwhat Meyerhold would later come to call
motionless [nepodvizhnyi] or stylized [uslovnyi] theater. The productions mises-en-scne distributed human figures around the stage
in a manner reminiscent of ancient frescos and bas-reliefs, which, in

Rudnitskys words, revealed the characters internal dialogue through
the music of plastic movement: Live reliefs were born. . . . The uslovnost
of gesture was almost ritualistic. The directors notes are highly precise
in relation to each actors poses. Meyerhold dictates every single motion
in advance.79
In his book on Meyerhold, Konstantin Rudnitsky essentially credited him with the invention of motionless theater. Yet Stanislavsky, in his
symbolist productions of 1904, had already begun replacing the Meiningen realism with statuary devices la Maeterlinck. And as we have
seen, essentially the same concept was realized in the MPO productions
of Orfeo and Judith. Rudnitsky never offered Mamontovs company as a
possible model for the Povarskaya Studio experiments. He should have:
both Orfeo and Judith were in the active repertoire of the MPO during
the 189899 season when the Moscow Art Theater first opened. Judith,
a much-acclaimed premiere that featured Chaliapin in a starring role,
was the talk of the town that year. It is highly unlikely that either Stanislavsky or Meyerhold would have missed that production, striking in
its motionless uslovnost.
The Povarskaya Studio never opened to the public. Officially, this
was a result of the 1905 Revolution during which, as Stanislavsky wrote,
Muscovites no longer had any time for theater.80 In reality, inherent
stylistic contradictions of the project doomed it from the start: the highly
decorative impressionist designs of Sapunov and Sudeikin could not be
reconciled with the austerity of Meyerholds symbolist mises-en-scne,
while the young actors trained at the Meiningen-influenced Art Theater
could not accept either style. After watching a dress rehearsal of Tinta
giles, Valery Bryusov was categorical:
In many respect, an attempt was made in this production to break away
from the realism of the contemporary stage and bravely accept uslovnost
as the principle of theater art. The movements were more about plasticity
than imitation of reality; some groupings resembled Pompeian frescos
represented in a tableau vivant. . . . On the other hand, the habits of stage
tradition [and] the years of Art Theater training made themselves powerfully known. [The Povarskaya Studio] has demonstrated to everyone
that it is impossible to rebuild theater on the old foundations. We should
either continue building the theater of Antoine/Stanislavsky, or start from
scratch. 81
Meyerhold realized that the Povarskaya Studio was not to be the

theater of his dreams. Maybe Diaghilev would build a new theater,82
he mused, even entering into short-lived negotiations with the budding
impresario about the possibility in 1907. Frustrated by contemporary
spoken drama, Meyerhold also searched for answers among its sister
arts. It seems almost inevitable that his next step, barely four years after the Povarskaya Studio, would be opera. Meyerhold believed that
the operatic genre was ideally suited for the realization of his uslovnyi
theater principles, because it was, by its very nature, unrealistic: Us
lovnost is the basis of operatic artpeople are singing; therefore, one
should not bring the elements of naturalism into acting, for uslovnost
that immediately stands in disharmony with the real reveals its apparent
unsoundness, and thus, the foundation of art crumbles.83 In addition,
Meyerhold shared Mamontovs familiar vision of opera as a kind of
vocalized pantomime that would adapt well to the plastic choreography he developed in La Mort de Tintagiles. His first chance to test that
hypothesis was Tristan und Isolde (1909), his inaugural production as a
Mariinsky Theater stage director.
Meyerholds Tristan was unanimously hailed by his contemporaries
as a masterpiece of symbolist theater; it is still viewed as such today.
Yet, surprisingly, the production was directorially a stylistic mix: the
motionless theater of the principals, whose movements were choreographed throughout, was framed by realistic crowd scenes that were, if
anything, Meiningen-esque. The only other opera production of the time
that exhibited the same unusual combination of static, relief-influenced
choreography for the lead with individualized crowd of mass scenes was
Mamontovs production of Judith, which similarly contrasted Chaliapins character with the chorus. Therefore, it can be convincingly argued, I believe, that without the knowledge of MPOs Judith, Meyerholds
Tristan would have never been born.
In 1911, together with his Mariinsky designer, Abramtsevo alumnus Alexander Golovin, and Diaghilevs choreographer Michel Fokine,
Meyerhold gave new life to yet another signature Mamontov work, Or
feo. The type of stylization used in that sensational production, highly
praised by poet Mikhail Kuzmin and by Alexandre Benois, differed
from Mamontovs: instead of a divine ancient dream with a complete uniformity of stage movement, the audiences saw the decorative
neoclassicism of Glucks theater. No trace of Tristans realistic crowd

remained; Fokine-choreographed expressive gestures and movements
of the singers mimicked those of the dancers.84 The choice of Orfeo as
the subject is significant, however: it may reflect Mamontovs early influence, in the same way that the tribute to Orfeo revealed that influence in
Diaghilevs articles, while the Moscow Art Theaters 1900 production of
Ostrovskys The Snow Maiden with Vasnetsovs designs was Stanislavskys open homage to his old mentor.85
As we have seen, Mamontov, Stanislavsky, and Meyerhold all went
through the same stylistic transition in their approach to staged drama,
gradually abandoning their Meiningen-esque realism for symbolist stylization. Meyerhold went further than his older colleagues did, but it
was Mamontovs directing work that showed him the way. As in its approach to design, the MPOs directing practices were in a constant state
of stylistic flux, with multiple conflicting trends of contemporary theater
explored and (sometimes uneasily) reconciled in its productions. Shaped
by Mamontovs intense fascination with spoken drama, his company
created its own unique fusion of opera and drama, realism and symbolism, and in turn paved the way for modernist drama theater of the early
twentieth century.
figure 1. Pyotr Melnikov, Eugene Onegin notebook (page 1). RMLAH; used by
permission.
figure 2. Pyotr Melnikov, Eugene Onegin notebook (page 16). RMLAH; used by
permission.
figure 3. Pyotr Melnikov, May Night notebook (insert). RMLAH; used by permission.
figure 4. Pyotr Melnikov, Siegfried notebook (page 1). RMLAH; used by permission.
figure 5. Mamontovs letter to Shkafer with drawings of Daphne and Kabil (fragment).
RGALI; used by permission.
sev en
Politics, Repertory, and the Market
Throughout this book, we have discussed Mamontovs aesthetic principles and their application to his innovative approach to the operatic
genre, as staged drama realized through visual spectacle. Mamontov
had a well-deserved reputation as a fountain of creative ideas, ranging
from the reasonable and practical all the way to the wild, unachievable,
and just plain ridiculous. Some succeeded brilliantly, making his companys reputation; others flopped spectacularly, either in rehearsal, or
worse, in front of a live audience. Contemporary press reviews of MPO
productions and initiatives are today the most accessible barometer of
Mamontovs public triumphs and his equally public failures.
Ideologically biased, politically polarized, acolytes, foes, or allegedly
neutral, dispassionate observers, Russian theater critics wrote constantly
about the company. To this point, these writings have been invoked as
a means of documenting which of Mamontovs ideas made it onto the
MPO stage and became visible (and often controversial) enough to warrant mention in the dailies. Meanwhile, the creative process itself has
been analyzed as a kind of art for arts sakeintensely focused on the
nature and expression of its own artistry, impacted by a variety of aesthetic and performative trends in which its participants were involved,
but seemingly unaffected by the reality of the companys existence:
the constant fluctuations and attendant pressures of the theater market.
Mamontov would have loved it, if only it were so. To his grudging acknowledgment and occasional dismay, the reactions of the public and
the press intruded constantly on his decision-making process, as well
208
p ol i t ic s , r e p e rt ory, a n d t h e m a r k e t 209
as shaping the public face of his company and its historical legacy. The
present chapter will examine MPOs often difficult relationship with the
press as a reflection of the complex politics of the Russian opera market
in the 1890s.
One October day in 1898, composer Nikolai Krotkov, an occasional
visitor to these pages, sent a letter to his friend and collaborator, Mamontov, in which he outlined an idea for a fanciful project they might
one day undertake together. He rhapsodized:
Imagine a theater proscenium; behind it, there are two images of something, one heavy, mediocre, but pompous; another young, full of genius,
life, and high aspirations. . . . General characterfantasy, imageslight,
transparent, the colors of Goethe and Schumann. . . . The breadth and
richness of your thought and imagination will find a suitable realization for these two main characters, and will surround them with other,
secondary images full of poetry. These are the symbols of artistic growth
on the stages of the Bolshoi Theater and the Private Opera. The parallels
are masked. What do you think? The form is a one-act fantasy opera with
your libretto and my music. Premiere in the near future.1
Had Krotkov truly intended to be cryptic with his allegory, few initiates would have been at a loss to penetrate such a thin disguise. From
the moment its doors opened to the paying public, the Moscow Private
Opera effectively announced its intention to be treated as a professional,
commercial enterprise. As such, it was immediately placed in symbolic
opposition to Moscows most venerable operatic institutionthe mighty
Imperial Bolshoi Theater.2 The Bolshoi had every advantage entering
this competition: tradition; the prestige of a model operatic stage that
attracted choice performing forces; an excellent building with superior
acoustics; and, last but not least, the limitless financial resources of the
Imperial court.
Mamontov was keenly aware that his fledgling company was viewed
as a brazen upstart defying an operatic Goliath. Carefully and deliberately, he marketed the MPOs rebel image. The underdog status was
relished, trumpeted, used to fire up the troops and shore up support
in a word, to take maximum advantage of the rivalry. His team truly
believed they were fighting an uphill battle with the entire Imperial
establishment; even the Maly Drama Theater would come under fire
should it dare to stage a classical play with a suspiciously operatic sub-
ject. Apart from raising the troupes morale, there were also commercial
reasons for Mamontov to stoke the fire. After all, the Moscow theaters
were ultimately competing for the same audience, as we can discern from
the Novosti Dnya review of the opening night of Rimsky-Korsakovs The
Maid of Pskov:
There was a large audience despite the fact that on the same night at the
Maly Theater, Moscows favorite A[lexander] P[etrovich] Lensky unofficially celebrated his twenty-year anniversary as an actor of the crown
stage, and quite officially premiered, for his benefit performance, a new
play by Mr. Nemirovich-Danchenko. I will not reproach [the MPO] for
taking such a big risk here, but note that, under different circumstances,
the ticket sales for The Maid of Pskovs opening night would have been
even more brilliant.3
The critics obvious disappointment notwithstanding, the big risk of

putting an MPO premiere on a direct collision course with an acknowledged event in the cultural life of the city was a calculated one. It exposed a goal Mamontov set for his company from the start: to steal the
spotlight permanently from its opposition and to become the place to
be for Moscows cultural and intellectual elite.
The goal was ambitious, to say the least, especially considering the
violent prejudice against private theatrical ventures that dominated public opinion in the city. The history of Moscows private enterprises prior
to Mamontovs arrival was a never-ending tale of woe: none survived
their first season. This includes an anonymous drama troupe mentioned
by a Russkoe Slovo reviewer of the MPOs inaugural performance,4 as
well as numerous opera theaters, from the sad productions of Unkovsky and Ostrovidov,5 to the venerable Pryanishnikovs company.6 The
latter reportedly inspired Mamontov to revive his Private Opera after his
first failed attempt in the 1880s; he would also inherit Pryanishnikovs
prima donna, Elena Tsvetkova. Yet despite the acknowledged quality
and influence of Pryanishnikovs work, his troupe could not avoid adding bankruptcy to its list of accomplishments.7 The market, therefore,
did not look promising for Mamontovs new venture. As Garteveld succinctly put it in Russkoe Slovo, the MPO had to battle more than its
powerful neighbor across the street: it also had to face the terrifying
shadows of the past.8
Competing on an Equal Plane

The main danger posed by the terrifying shadows was a strong conviction held by most Russian intellectuals that a private company could not
match the Imperial Theaters in production quality. Such evidently unequal competition would therefore be, as Nikolai Kashkin once declared
in Russkie Vedomosti, a truly unthinkable idea.9 Only two strategies
were viewed as capable of keeping a private opera company financially
viable. One option was to turn it into what was called a narodnaya opera
[peoples opera house]a theater whose cheap tickets attracted the cashstrapped lower classes that could not afford real (i.e., Imperial) opera, and whose repertoire pandered without reservation to mass taste.10
Another was relying on the star power of contracted foreign singers.
Mamontov had already tried the latter, back in the 1880s; the stars did
keep his budget in the black, but the work gave him little artistic satisfaction.11 Indeed, the MPO was an oddity among private enterprises
Moscow had seen thus far: as we know, its commercial interests served
an aesthetic agenda. As a result, fewer compromises were acceptable.
To be taken seriously, the newcomer had to beat the Bolshoi Theater at
its own game; the quality of the operatic experience simply had to be
superior to those of its rival. Gradually, press reviews began to register
the critics astonishment: Mamontovs company was not only attempting but succeeding at something that, to quote Sergei Plevako of Novosti
Sezona, had never, ever been done by a private company.12 A building
that rivaled the Bolshoi in size and acoustics; substantial capital invested
in each new production; the quality of the troupe, including chorus and
orchestra; the splendor of the staging and visual designall the factors
that had reportedly sunk its predecessors13 raised the MPO to a level
absolutely unthinkable for a private stage.14
Still, this was not enough. The most stubborn prejudice Mamontov
faced was the belief that a private company could not compete with
a crown theater on an even repertoire plane. That is, if the same opera were staged at the MPO and the Bolshoi, the model stage was
presumed superior. Alexander Gruzinsky of Russkoe Slovo and other
well-intentioned critics continuously advised the company to avoid as
much as possible the operas included in the Bolshoi Theater repertoire,15
particularly those staged there with particular opulence, since these
productions would inevitably invite comparisons not to the advantage

of the Private Opera.16 The cost of compliance would have been painfully high, however. The MPO would have lost the right to perform
Glinkas classic A Life for the Tsar, a staple of the Bolshoi repertoire to
this day; Gounods Faust, arguably the most popular opera in Moscow
at the time; and yet another crowd pleaser, Tchaikovskys Eugene Onegin,
since, according to Gruzinsky, that opera had already been performed
at the crown stage more than a hundred times.17 Perhaps more importantly, Rimsky-Korsakovs The Snow Maiden, the aesthetic manifesto
of the Mamontov Circle, would have to be taken off the playbill as well.
Indeed, a Russkie Vedomosti reporter considered the choice of The Snow
Maiden for the companys opening night a risky maneuver, because it
belongs to the group of operas that have been performed rather well at
the Bolshoi Theater.18 The critics choice of words is significant: rather
well is not exactly a ringing endorsement; yet, even a moderately successful production at the Bolshoi was expected to be a cut above the best
attempt by a private enterprise.
The opinion of the press was clearly stated; Mamontov did not obey.
Within two weeks of its opening night, the MPO unveiled its staging
of Eugene Oneginon the very same evening it was billed at the Bol-
shoi! The event occasioned a rather annoyed review from Semyon Kruglikov, a future ally but, for the moment, a skeptical columnist of Novosti
Dnya:
Tonight the public was given a choice between two Eugene Onegins. Without hesitation, we went to the Solodovnikov Theater. Our reasoning was
as follows: we are long familiar with the performance of Tchaikovskys
popular opera by the crown troupe. But in [the MPO]s production we
clearly should expect to see something novel or at least outstanding, capable of completely overshadowing everything we know about Onegin
from the Bolshoi Theater. Otherwise, it seemed to us, the private stage
would not have dared to invite such a risky comparison.19
Kruglikov was disappointed. Tchaikovsky was not a Mamontov favorite; his involvement in Onegins staging had been marginal. Only in
Melnikovs 1898 production would the opera become everything the
critic had once hoped to see. But the very fact of pitting MPOs Onegin
directly against the Bolshois was a clear sign: the new team would not
be intimidated by its powerful neighbor. Within two months, the same
daily, Novosti Dnya reviewed another opera from the Bolshoi repertoire,
performed at the Solodovnikov Theater with an ensemble so excellent
that its like could rarely be heard on the Russian operatic stage, neither
the private nor, truth be told, the crown one.20
Mamontov was determined to exploit to the fullest the clear advantage of a private venture over a large government department overburdened by bureaucracy: its flexibility in navigating the market. Initially,
this was reflected only in the feverish pace of operatic performances:
seven, sometimes eight a week against the Bolshois three or four. But
more importantly, both critics and audiences expected it to facilitate
the staging of so-called novinki [novelties]: premieres of new operas, or
revivals of works neglected long enough to warrant the term. The press
was relentless in its demands for the novinki, meeting each premiere of
a familiar work, however well staged and performed, with open sarcasm.
The repertoire list of the Private Opera at the Solodovnikov Theater
keeps growing, but unfortunately almost exclusively thanks to operas
very renowned and very beloved, noted Kashkin in Russkie Vedomosti,21 declaring ironically in another article that no Russian operatic
stage could survive without Gounods Faust, so the MPO could not, of
course, escape this common fate.22 Meanwhile, Ivan Lipaev of Novosti
Sezona also invited the company to get off the diet of the tired and
worn-out operas, and for goodness sake stage something new!23
The critics zeal was born of desperation. Responsible for their choice
of operas to the Ministry of the Imperial Household, crown theaters authorized new productions rarely and reluctantly, with many interesting
works from both Russian and foreign repertoire taken off the playbill as
too difficult or too radical. As a result, the operatic press was faced with
the colorless repertoire that reigns on the Imperial stage in both our
capitals lately.24 Even St. Petersburg critics whined; and yet the Bolshoi
fared immeasurably worse than the Mariinsky: on the rare occasions
when new productions were authorized for Moscow, the process could
literally take years. The promised Tannhuser was stuck in rehearsal
for so long, reported Novoe Vremya, that it was ready only in time for
Lent, upon which a directive was sent down from Petersburg to delay
it until the spring or even next season.25 Premieres aside, a revival of
Gounods Romo et Juliette, an opera hardly of Wagnerian complexity,
took the Bolshoi long enough to occasion the following remark from
Kruglikov in a weekly Semya: To be preparing a revival of an opera for

two months truly means not to be in a hurry. But everything is relative.
Wagners Siegfried has been rehearsed at the Bolshoi Theater for about
three years now. What is two months next to that? It looks like they are
moving along with poor Romeo rather nicely.26
The sarcasm, however, did not help to mend the ways of the Bolshoi.
And while Novoe Vremya was gazing with hope toward Petersburg,
calling for its skillful and powerful hand [to] awaken the sleeping kingdom and pointing to the touring Italian troupes as models of variety
and efficiency,27 other papers turned to their own Private Opera. To keep
their attention, Mamontovs company had to offer an alternative to the
two models of operatic enterprise already familiar to the Muscovites: a
greedy private venture that sacrifices art for money, and a bureaucracyladen sleeping giant resting on its laurels and not caring enough about
art even to sell it. In other words, the MPO had to present itself publicly
as a company that was highly professional, intellectually weighty, with
its own original approach and cutting-edge artistic agenda, yet flexible, commercially viable, and attuned to the ideological and aesthetic
concerns of its audience. The market craved such an institution desperately, and Mamontov, for his part, was determined to have the MPO fill
that niche. To convince the cautious and prejudiced public, however, he
first needed to woo the pressand not by blindly following its lead. He
refused to cede the repertory staples to the crown and, as we shall see,
would put out the novelties very much on his own schedule. Instead, he
set out to manipulate the critics disgust with the status quo and their
natural curiosity about the newcomers to win support and publicity for
his company. And, as with all great causes, before he could recruit, he
had to advertise.
Marketing Str ategies

Advertising was crucial to Mamontovs success. It was the most effective
means of manipulating the market, for it served two goals: disseminating information about MPO productions among educated opera lovers
while courting the newspapers that, then as now, lived off the advertising revenues. The Moscow Private Opera advertised on the front pages
of most major Moscow (and, during the tours, Petersburg) newspapers,
and followed the common practice of supplying the press with advance
notices of its premieres and weekly repertoire lists. In addition, in 1897
the company signed a contract with Semyon Kegulsky, the new editor
of Novosti Sezona, the only Moscow daily that exclusively covered the
theater. For a daily fee of twenty-five rubles, the contract stipulated the
size and placement of the MPO ads in Novosti Sezona (front page; large
type; page-wide spread above other ads), required Kegulsky to print
3,000 extra copies of his paper a day (1,000 to 1,200 copies were the
norm), and specified the exact pattern of their citywide distribution,
including hotels, restaurants, markets, department stores, waiting rooms
of doctors and lawyers, government offices, and public buildings.28 It was
also quite common for Mamontov to plant advertisements in this and
other newspapers, disguised as articles and reviews. Drafts of three such
reviews (one of Verstovskys Gromoboi and two of The Necklace) have
been preserved among his correspondence, one with a note: Give this
to Kegulsky.29 Apart from new productions, Mamontov advertised new
singers joining his troupe: for example, the literary style of a Novosti Sezona evaluation of an Italian guest tenor who toured with the company
in late 1897 unmistakably betrays his authorship.30
While paid advertising was necessary to ensure the newspapers
goodwill toward the company as well as its visibility on the theater market, it was perhaps no less important to court individual journalists, the
opinion-makers whose remarks could make or break a show. Members of
the press corps were used to receiving VIP treatment at the theaters they
reviewed, including season tickets and free access to performers; when
snubbed, they were known to retaliate. Novosti Sezona once publicly accused certain newspapers of systematically dressing down MPO productions in their reviews and even printing deliberate misinformation
(an example was provided)all because the company evidently failed
to provide these papers with advertising revenue and their reporters with
season tickets.31 Another way of courting the press and other members
of the cultural elite was through charity performances whose proceeds,
in full or in part, benefited a popular cause. The premiere of Orfeo, for
example, was part of a larger event benefiting the Moscow Art Lovers
Society, of which both Mamontov and Polenov were members.32 During
the companys 1898 Petersburg tour, a portion of the proceeds from the
premiere of Rogneda was forwarded to the Help Fund for Writers and
Scientists, a popular charity supporting journalists and other workers

of the quill. The gesture was apparently viewed by Mamontovs associates as a covert bribe intended to woo members of the press core still
unconvinced of his companys merits.33 Melnikov commented in a letter
from Paris: I can see that you have finally wormed your way into the
editorial boards, and suspect the charity performance for the Literary
Fund to be the sacrificial lamb.34
Still, Zabelas complaint to Rimsky-Korsakov that all the press was
supposedly in Mamontovs pocket was clearly an exaggeration. Take,
for example, Novosti Sezonaa newspaper that not only benefited from
MPO advertising revenue and season tickets, but through its exclusive
contract enjoyed direct financial support that almost quadrupled its
circulation. Yet although Mamontovs investment bought exposure via
advertising and reviews (often unsigned editorials), it gave him little or
no control over editorial policy and personnel choices.35 As we shall see,
Novosti Sezona would use its MPO coverage to push a highly aggressive
ideological agenda frequently to the detriment of his own: in pursuit of
good publicity, Mamontov created a monster. And while Novosti Sezona
critics, despite their partisanship, were sympathetic to his companys
mission, as they understood it, there were plenty of negative reviews of
MPO productions, even at the height of its success. Mamontov did not
mind: any publicity was good publicity. What was more important is
that the company was noticed, talked about, argued over, and valued
for its contribution to the intellectual and artistic life of the city. The
impossible was achieved: the Moscow Private Opera was in the spotlight
of theatrical discourse.
In the Spotlight
A good illustration of the MPOs new place in the cultural landscape
of the old Russian capital was the public reaction to the disastrous fire
that all but destroyed the Solodovnikov Theater on 20 January 1898. In
their extensive coverage of that event, journalists assessed not only the
damage that the fire caused the building, but also the damage that the
possible loss of the troupe would cause the city. In its account, Novosti
Sezona called the Solodovnikov the best of our private theaters,36 while
Novosti Dnya described the company as the center of attention of theat-
rical Moscow.37 Lest one wonder if the reports were merely a sympathy
vote in the face of catastrophe, reviews of the companys activities during
the following season leave little room for doubt. For instance, the 1899
premiere of The Maid of Orleans was characterized by Novosti Dnya as
one of the biggest events of the current musical season, a distinction
almost never awarded to the Bolshoi.38
As newspapers frequently commented, the MPO developed its own
stable, loyal, enthusiasticand sizableaudience.39 The company was
enjoying more than critical acclaim; it was becoming (what a scary
thing to say! Mamontov would exclaim) popular. Indeed, the 1898
Solodovnikov fire was a blessing in disguise, for it allowed the troupe
to extend its influence beyond its native city toward the notoriously
difficult, discerning, and fastidious theatrical elite of St. Petersburg.
The MPOs first tour evidently caught Russias northern capital unprepared. Despite earlier reports of Mamontovs exploits that occasionally
appeared in its dailies, tout Ptersburg was in for a culture shock: an
opera troupe from conservative Moscow, whose reputation as a cultural
backwater was shared even by its own citizens and certainly by sophisticated Petersburgers, was suddenly the talk of the town. The opening
night, featuring the St. Petersburg premiere of Sadko with the composer
at the podium, created a furor, as reported to the Muscovites by a local
correspondent for Novosti Dnya: Rimsky-Korsakovs opera enjoyed
brilliant success. The author was called for endlessly, after each tableau;
the ovations were truly grandiose. It seems that no one expected such
a high level of staging and performance for our excellent composers
magnificent creation. During intermissions, there was a buzz in the air;
everyone was in an elated, celebratory moodboth the performers and
the audience.40
Perhaps the most spectacular expression of that celebratory mood
was Vladimir Stasovs immediately notorious essay Boundless Joy!
which exalted Feodor Chaliapins interpretation of Ivan the Terrible in
Rimsky-Korsakovs The Maid of Pskov. Stasovs article seems to have
been read by just about everyone in the city; it received an unprecedented
number of commentaries from other critics.41 The level of popularity
it achieved (and the amount of scandalous publicity it generated for
the MPO, to Mamontovs delight) can be illustrated by the fact that its
title, boundless joy, was soon transformed into a favored journalistic
catchphrase. At first it referred only to Stasovs unbridled enthusiasm,

as in the following commentary (notice the use of quotation marks):
Boundlessly and with purely youthful enthusiasm, he greeted the appearance of Mr. Chaliapin as boundless joy, and dedicated to him in
Novosti an entire panegyric that would be capable of embarrassing even
a more experienced artist than Mr. Chaliapin.42 Later, the catchphrase
started being used, tongue-in-cheek, in cartoons and feuilletons to refer
to Chaliapins fame ([Chaliapins performance] is clearly boundless joy,
but the theater is as empty as ever),43 to the company itself (last years
boundless joy has subsided, wrote the same critic about the reduced
attendance for its 1899 tour), and to the Kuchkist repertoire with which
it was associated, thanks in part to Stasovs youthful enthusiasm: Of
course, boundless joy is a good thing, but the ecstasy of melodic recitative is completely lost on me.44 The catchphrase was also used to refer
to Stasovs other aesthetic crusades, not necessarily musical ones: for
instance, a popular cartoon by the Old Judge that commented on one of
Stasovs rare victories in his continuing war with Diaghilevs decadents
was titled Boundless Joy (see plate 40). Finally, critics used the catchphrase to discuss subjects completely unrelated to opera, Stasov, or the
artsfor example, in reference to the boundless joy of occult sances,
an increasingly popular pastime of the Petersburg upper crust.45 Evidently, not only the artistic activities of Mamontovs company but even
the polemics they generated became a part of Russias general cultural
discourse of the late 1890s.
Gaining the Upper Hand

As the above discussion demonstrates, thanks to a combination of innovative artistry and clever marketing, Mamontovs rebel theater earned
a legitimate, respected place in the Russian operatic market in less than
two seasons. It was seen as a viable competitor to the Imperial stage; its
successes and failures were to be judged accordingly. In an 1899 interview with Petersburg-based Csar Cui, a Novosti Dnya critic casually
referred to the coexistence of two opera theaters, a crown one and a
private one as part of Moscows artistic landscape.46 Indeed, almost a
year earlier, the normally cautious Russkoe Slovo columnist summarized
the companys accomplishments thus:
The Private Opera has finally lived to see its time arrive, and its situation
is clearly improving. The success is complete, both artistically and financially. The public dutifully applauds the performers; box office returns are
brilliant. . . . Our Private Opera has finally lived to see its lucky streak:
even despite the guest tour by the Figners at the crown stage, the private
one does excellent business and steadily attracts an audience! Its own
repertoire, its own performing forcesthese alone allow it to face the
future with some confidence, and have practically no doubts about the
possibility of a comfortable and deficit-free existence as a private opera
theater alongside a crown one . . . Art is not afraid of competition.47
The last remark is, of course, somewhat idealistic: the spirit of competition underlined the relationship between the MPO and its crown
adversary just as much in 1898 as in 1896. At the heart of that competition was the question of repertoire: premiering or reviving an opera
overlooked by the Bolshoi was a sure way of attracting the attention of
both the public and the press, and was used to full advantage even before Mamontov. As Kruglikov once noted, the best operatic novelties,
both Russian and foreign, are first presented to the Muscovites not by
the Bolshoi Theater stage, but rather by private operatic stages. His examples included Pryanishnikovs 1892 Moscow premiere of Prince Igor 48
and Mamontovs productions of The Snow Maiden (1885) and Samson
et Dalila (1896), the latter occasioning the article.49 Every time an opera
ignored by the Imperial Theaters was successfully staged at the MPO, the
press could not contain its glee. For instance, not a single review of Sadko
to be found in either capital failed to mention that Rimsky-Korsakovs
opera was rejected by the Mariinsky repertoire committee, yet lived to
see fifteen sold-out performances at the Solodovnikov in less than two
months.50 And in every article of this kind, the critics would drop not
so subtle hints that the crown stage should begin a serious revision of
its repertoire policy.
The Imperial Theaters were taking notice, if not of the press criticism, then of the public success of Mamontovs productions. Gruzinsky
of Russkoe Slovo commented on the fact that, evidently, the triumph
of Rogneda at the MPO had prompted a revival of that long-forgotten
work at the Bolshoi the following season.51 In its report on the proposed
Mariinsky production of Sadko during the 18991900 season, Novosti
Dnya attributed the decision to the big success of Rimsky-Korsakovs
opera in Moscow.52 Interestingly, Rogneda and Sadko were apparently

not isolated incidents, but rather parts of a general trend. The list of
operas either revived or premiered at the Bolshoi Theater within one or
two seasons after their Solodovnikov productions also includes Prince
Igor (MPO, fall 1896; Bolshoi, winter 1898), Carmen (MPO, fall 1896;
Bolshoi, fall 1898), The Snow Maiden (MPO, fall 1896; Bolshoi, fall 1897),
and The Oprichnik (MPO, winter 1897; Bolshoi, winter 1899), to name
just a few. Critics noted the unusual situation of a model stage being
led by the hand by a private company. Some voiced their appreciation
of Mamontovs courage to stage operas without a prior record of success and, by implication, the Bolshois cowardice. In his review of the
Bolshoi Theaters revival of The Snow Maiden, Gruzinsky mentioned
the fact that this was only the thirteenth performance since the opera
was premiered at the Bolshoi, adding that at the MPO it survived more
performances over the single 189697 season.53 Eighteen months later
Andrei Kornev, Gruzinskys replacement at Russkoe Slovo, commented
cautiously:
In most cases, our private operatic stage . . . has indirectly dictated the
operatic repertoire of the Bolshoi Theater (the majority of the best . . .
operas were first staged on our private stage, and then, after a significant
time period, on the stage of the Bolshoi Theater, whose repertoire directors for a long time appeared to view the merits of these compositions
with skepticism).54
The press also noticed a reversal in the attitude toward new productions at the Private Opera and the Imperial stage. In the newspapers,
the Bolshoi Theater was chastised for staging Mamontovs hits merely
to satisfy the public demand, merely for the sake of staging theman
attitude traditionally attributed to the greedy commercialism of private
enterprises.55 The MPO, on the other hand, was acclaimed for its vigorous artistic spirit,56 great enthusiasm, and a passionate love for the
cause57 that set it apart from the businesslike atmosphere of the Imperial troupe. Anonymous leaders of the company were similarly praised
for investing not only their labor and money, but their very souls into
the beloved cause,58 an assessment that mirrored the self-image lovingly
constructed, sincerely believed in, and tirelessly promoted by Mamontovs team.
Approaching National Repertoire

The differences observed by the press between Mamontovs enterprise
and the Imperial troupe were understood as fundamental, going to the
core of each companys structure and aesthetic platform. As a Novosti
Dnya critic once put it, their divergent approaches revealed their different operational principles; their different ideologies. As a crown institution, he continued, the Bolshoi Theater has its own artistic goals, its
own aspirations, its own understanding of the duties of an opera theater,
distinct from those of the MPO. Whether this understanding is right
or wrong is another question, the reviewer concluded, but clearly, the
[Bolshois] directorate cannot waver from its predetermined path.59
Specific symptoms of the perceived ideological chasm included,
among other factors, different levels of fidelity to a composers published
score and in-house rules allowing or prohibiting encores. Most critics,
however, focused on the companies repertoire policies, particularly with
respect to national repertoire, as measured by the relative percentages of
Russian and foreign operas on playbills. To the critics, this was evidently
the main point of contention and the main point of comparison between
the two troupes. Thus, at the end of each season, major Moscow newspapers featured lengthy statistical reports that measured and publicized
the number of Russian and foreign works staged at the theaters, and even
tallied the number of performances for every opera.
The first time the press was able to make a comparison between the
Bolshoi and the MPO, the crown stage did not fare too badly: Novosti
Dnya proclaimed the 189697 season a great victory for Russian music
after reporting the roughly equal percentage of national and foreign
works performed there (59 performances of Russian versus 58 of foreign
operas). According to the report, in the earlier years Russian operas
constituted hardly a third of the repertoire.60 The following season, the
elated journalists reported that national works accounted for almost two
thirds of the Bolshoi repertoire list (66 Russian versus 29 foreign operas).
Meanwhile, the 189899 season proved disappointing to the press, with
the balance returning to approximate parity (73 Russian versus 80 foreign performances). The situation that two years before was viewed as a
great victory was now proclaimed intolerable; even a special Russian
opera subscription series did not help the Bolshois sinking reputation.
Mamontov was partly to blame for this. Since its opening season, the
number of Russian opera performances at his Private Opera consistently
exceeded the number of foreign ones, which delighted the Moscow press.
Moreover, with each passing year the proportion tilted more and more
in favor of the national repertoire: 109 Russian operas versus 70 foreign
performances were reported in 189697, 96 versus 43 in 189798, and
finally, an overwhelming 94 versus 19 in the 189899 season.
These statistics seem to indicate a clear partiality toward local fare
at Mamontovs enterprise, thus seeming to justify Western scholars
view of Mamontov himself as an integral part of the Russian nationalist
revival movement. A thorough analysis of Mamontovs correspondence
as well as the press coverage of his companys productions paints a much
more complex picture of the political and ideological atmosphere in
Russian society at the time. As we shall see, Mamontovs team started
out as a willing participant in the press-led nationalist crusade, with its
guaranteed exposure and preferential treatment, but soon found itself
trapped in the aggressive rhetoric of rising nationalism and in its own
good intentions.
The Dirty War for Our Native Art

The Balkan war of 1875 proved a defining moment for the majority of
Russias liberal intelligentsia. The plight of their Southern Slavic brothers
fueled an unprecedented upsurge in nationalist feelings in the country,
which gradually began to infect its cultural and artistic landscape. The
openly nationalistic Tsar Alexander III (188194) encouraged these feelings throughout his rule and promoted their expression in the arts via
Imperial patronage.61 The extent of the Tsars support for national art
became public knowledge after the Museum of Alexander III (now the
State Russian Museum) opened in St. Petersburg in March 1898, just
over three years after his death.62 The new museum was to house the late
tsars collection of Russian paintings, primarily those of the Wanderers,
gathered during the 1870s and 1880s. The widespread popular support
for this project is indicative of a turn of the tide of public opinion toward was called nashe rodnoe (our nativei.e., Russian national) art.
Similar tendencies began to develop in the music world, including opera
theater.
A highly conservative institution by nature, enamored with Italian

tunes and Italian stars, opera lagged a few years behind the other arts
in adopting the nationalist cause. According to the press of Mamontovs
time, which loved discussing the issue, Moscow audiences were solidly
behind our native art by the early to mid-1890s. A Novosti Sezona editorial suggested that, by that time, Muscovites had finally ended [their]
blind attraction to the foreign. If there is a small group of people who still
reject the significance of the Russian compositional school, the majority
is now firmly convinced of the beauty and richness of Russian operas.63
The true test of the strength of that conviction came with Mamontovs
stage premiere of Musorgskys Khovanshchinaa complex, difficult
work by a Kuchkist composer, never before heard in the city. Kruglikov,
in a rare appearance as a Novosti Dnya guest columnist, recalled a lukewarm reception for the operas concert premiere in St. Petersburg in
1887. He blamed the critics reserve on the fact that in the 1880s, opera
theaters bias toward Western, particularly Italian music was still very
strong, while Russian music was hardly in favor at the time. Kruglikov
observed: A noticeable and long-desired turn in our society toward Russian national music, which brought back and offered an honored place
in the repertoire to a host of compositions by Dargomyzhsky, RimskyKorsakov, Borodin, and [Alexander] Serov, had to have naturally initiated the staging of the unjustly suppressed Khovanshchina.64
In their reports on the anticipated Khovanshchina production, the
Moscow critics never missed a chance to point out that the opera had
never been staged by the Imperial Theaters; the St. Petersburg performance noted by Kruglikov was offered by a group of conservatory students and amateur musicians led by Rimsky-Korsakov.65 By the late
1890s, the nationalists, for whom both the Art Academy and the conservatories had long symbolized Western dominion over Russian arts,
evidently began to view the Imperial Theaters in a similar lightas a
crown-sponsored institution whose policies deliberately suppressed Russian opera in favor of foreign repertoire. Press criticism of the Bolshoi
Theater, even more cautious with respect to staging Russian works than
the Mariinsky, turned particularly relentless after the appearance of the
MPO and its successful productions of these works. For instance, the
premiere of Rimsky-Korsakovs The Maid of Pskov occasioned the following outburst from Kruglikov in Novosti Dnya:
So, the Moscow premiere of The Maid of Pskov has finally taken place.
Rimsky-Korsakovs eldest opera has waited its turn for a long time, but
certainly not to be presented to the Moscow audience from the Bolshoi
Theater stage. Why would they do that?! They have other things to do
besides such trifles! They proudly leave all those [Prince] Igors and Maids
of Pskov to private operatic enterprises. 66
An editorial of Novosti Sezona flatly accused the Bolshoi of stubbornly

ignoring the vox populi: according to that paper, only under the pressure
of competition did the theater finally decide to break the seal of silence
and begin staging Russian operas:
But while starting to do so, they seem to have preserved their skepticism
by announcing only two or three operas for this season. It is as if they are
afraid that the cause will fail; that the audience reaction will prove negative, because the public taste may have already changed.67
A more restrained commentator (and one less partial to the New Russian
School than Rimsky-Korsakovs student Kruglikov), Nikolai Kashkin
of Russkie Vedomosti, could not contain his sarcasm after the premiere
of Sadko:
This great work by a Russian composer was rejected by the St. Petersburg
[Imperial] Theater directorate, which preferred to stage Humperdincks
Hnsel und Gretel, a sentimental little operetta in which a few pages of
pretty music hardly redeem the lowly flight of the whole. . . . During
the premiere of Sadko on the stage of the Private Opera, the Moscow
Bolshoi Theater once more offered its audiences Humperdincks Hnsel
und Gretel: so in Moscow the fates again brought these two works into
competition with each other, but here Rimsky-Korsakovs music could
finally speak for itself.68
In an earlier article, Kashkin even complained about the lack of attention given to his late friend Tchaikovskys works.69 That was, perhaps,
going a bit overboard: during the 189697 season Tchaikovsky was the
most frequently staged Russian composer at the Bolshoi, leading the
list with sixteen performances of two operas. At the same time, the
representatives of the New Russian School were conspicuously absent
from that list: no operas by Musorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin, or
Cui were performed. In the mid-1890s, years after most of these operas
were written, the Kuchkists were still known only to a narrow circle of
enthusiasts, while the audience at large, with no professional training
to study published scores, had no access to them due to lack of performances. Ironically, wrote Kashkin, Musorgskys name has been more
familiar to the public from the press war on his account than from his
own works. 70 And indeed, the press war for access to and public recognition of Kuchkist operas raged on. Critics argued (quite correctly) that
by now these operas were better known in Western Europe than in their
own country, and tried to shame the crown theaters and the public into
taking an interest in them. Ivan Lipaev of Novosti Sezona wrote:
While lectures on Musorgsky are delivered in Paris and Cuis operas are
staged in Brussels, the majority of our citizens dont even suspect how
much sympathy Russian composers inspire abroad. Before we open our
eyes and awaken from hibernation, the verdict is already in over there,
and we are left only to wonder how come weve never thought of it before.
And in the meantime, a composer endures and suffers so much that the
world grows dark to him, his inspiration grows cold, and the years lead
him to his grave. It happened to Glinka; it happened to Dargomyzhsky.
And later, the same fate awaited all those who cherished the ideals of those
musical geniuses and followed in their footsteps, proving that the New
Russian School of musical composition is not a bizarre, farcical invention,
but a valuable national cause.71
The critic was right: the situation was becoming absurd. There was a
legitimate reason for the campaign waged by the press on behalf of national opera. However, in the best tradition of Russian musical journalism since the conservatory controversy of the 1850s and the SerovStasov
polemic over Ruslan,72 theirs was a dirty war. The goal was worthy and
to them justified any means, including mudslinging, name calling, guilt
by association, and all other kinds of verbal abuse. Kashkin described
the beginning of this tradition as follows:
In the old days of the 1860s, when all impressions of everyday life were
new to us, our musical press was quite bellicose. Thanks to the late [Alexander] Serov, a bold and controversial decisiveness of verdicts could
with equal ease raise a composer to the status of genius or attempt to
erase him from the face of the earth as a mediocre nobody. Moreover, the
same person could be proclaimed a genius or a mediocrity by different
judges of his talent.73
This time, howeverunlike in the 1850s and 60s when divergent points
of view were represented by equally powerful voicesthe overwhelming
majority of critics, at least in Moscow, were in agreement on the issue,

and the few dissenters among them were not so politely silenced. Particularly aggressive was Novosti Sezona. It accused the daily Kurier of
ignoring its duty to society by not publishing a substantial enough report
on Khovanshchinas premiere. And after a certain R., a Moskovskie
Vedomosti columnist, printed an unsympathetic review of that event,
he was immediately branded a staunch conservative, an ally of Ivanov,
Baskin, Laroche, e tutti quanti, and just as solid and knowledgeable
as the above-mentioned critics.74 If even the sophisticated intellectual
Hermann Laroche was branded an ignoramus, the St. Petersburg conservatives Mikhail Ivanov, Vladimir Baskin, and their supporters were
treated with even less deference (although in fairness, unlike the elderly
and sick Laroche, they did have an opportunity to respond in kind). For
example, for disagreeing with Stasov over the infamous Boundless Joy
essay, the conservative but astute Baskin was called a quasi-critic. He
was further advised that while Mr. Stasov would always remain a true
critic and a true preacher of Russian art, Mr. Baskin himself never has
been and never will be a critic, and will never be able to preach anything,
except perhaps the world significance of Mr. Ivanovs feuilletons.75
While journalists could defend themselves through their respective newspaper outlets, the Moscow public did not stand a chance. The
media, the most powerful weapon in any ideological war, gave it no
choice: in their zeal to promote Russian opera, the nationalist press created a direct connection between musical style and patriotism. One of
the most significant and attractive musical characteristics of an opera
was now its Russianness. According to Russkie Vedomosti, this quality was one of the best in The Maid of Pskov.76 Novosti Sezona discussed
Khovanshchina as a splendid proof of Musorgskys genius as a national
composer,77 while Sergei Plevako in Russkoe Slovo chastised the listeners for their perceived indifference to its wonderfully original Russian
music whose Russian tunes, full of truth and sincerity, . . . spoke to
the heart and, breaking it, awakened the memories of the immediacy of
Russian life.78 Any true Russian was now duty-bound to know and love
Russian operaat least according to one Peterburgsky Listok columnist,
who stated as much in his review of Sadko: Those who have not seen
it, who have not heard its . . . magical music, are not acquainted with
one of the capital creations of our national art. National indeed, since
Sadko is a purely Russian work from head to toe, and any real Russian
who does not know it should be truly ashamed.79 Love for Russian opera was promoted not only as a patriotic gesture but also as a healthy
habit, as the following pearl from Novosti Sezona indicates: The need
for healthy Russian creative works has been revealed ever more distinctly
in our society; ever stronger rang its desire to return to native music,
forgetting the pretty and lifeless music of Italian and French, Western
composers.80
We should not be surprised by now that the juiciest, most incendiary quotes have been provided by Novosti Sezona. During the 189798
season, its contributing writers became the true leaders of the nationalist crusade. Using highly aggressive, unrestrained language, they
proclaimed without hesitation that which was only hinted at in other
publications. That is why a tinge of anti-Semitism and xenophobia
unfortunate side effects of the press warare particularly noticeable in
the Novosti Sezona editorials of that period. There, the works of the New
Russian School were presented as the only truly Russian operas, while
compositions by Russified foreigners such as Napravnik or Westernoriented locals like Tchaikovsky were branded quasi-Russian.81 Operas
by Anton Rubinstein and other assimilated Jews were clearly labeled
foreign. We do not dispute that the music of Meyerbeer, Rubinstein,
Mendelssohn, and others is worthy of full respect and adoration, but
would still ask Mr. Kugel and his associates to show at least a little indulgence to Russian composers as well.82 Mr. Kugel and his associates
were the editorial board of a St. Petersburg weekly, Teatr i Iskusstvo. The
Western, contemporary musicoriented policy and the foreign-sounding name of the editor made this puny little journal Novosti Sezonas
favorite straw man. Responding to a reserved review of Sadko in Teatr i
Iskusstvo, its editorial reads:
This is not the first time Mr. Kugel allows himself such sneak attacks
against everything Russian. Rather, he systematically advances such
ideas. Mr. Kugel does not like Russian music; a Muscovite accent irritates his ear; Russian writers are illiterate, in his opinion; it seems the
time is drawing near when Mr. Kugel will declare that Russia as a whole
is not to his taste.83
Equating distaste for Kuchkist music with betraying ones country was
a favorite weapon of the nationalist press, particularly Novosti Sezona.
Thus, despite the reliably Russian name of its editor, everything Russian [was] alien and not at all dear to poor Moskovskie Vedomosti, as
evidently to this newspaper the triumph of Russian music is undesirable. The following diatribe in its honor would have made Stasov
proud:
[Moskovskie Vedomosti] has always tried to prove the insignificance of
real Russian music, which does not include works by Tchaikovsky and
Rubinstein; but this paper has always considered these composers the
only Russian composers while completely ignoring others, up to and
including Glinka and his Ruslan.84
The Russian Oper a Under Pressure

Such was the ideological climate in Moscow as of 8 September 1896,
the day Mamontov reopened his company under the name Claudia S.
Winters Private Russian Opera at the Solodovnikov Theater. Initially,
the Russian Opera part of that title had nothing to do with repertoire: it simply meant that the enterprise employed primarily Russian
singers and, more importantly, staged its productions in Russian. This
included foreign operas: until fairly recently, the custom of performing
operas in their original languages was unknown in Russia. Typically,
opera companies were identified by their linguistic affiliation: Italian
Opera, French Opera, German Opera, and so on; for example, the
official name of the crown troupe housed at the Bolshoi Theater was the
Moscow Imperial Russian Opera. While opera companies filled their
playbills with works in many national styles, their singers customarily
performed in the language of the company irrespective of its repertoire.
For example, a certain Italian Opera, which left St. Petersburg in February 1898, immediately prior to Mamontovs arrival, wrapped up its tour
with Tchaikovskys Eugene Oneginin Italian, of course.
The MPO was a Russian Opera. Foreign repertoire was typically
performed in the Russian language, with meticulous attention paid to
the quality of the translations. As a rule, Mamontov would translate
each potential foreign premiere prior to making a decision whether or
not it would even be included in the repertoire;85 his translation of Puccinis La bohme is considered definitive to this day. Even operatic war
horses readily available in Russian were retranslated before being pro-
duced by the company; and the requirement to know their assigned parts
in authorized translations was included in each MPO singers official
contract.86
Meanwhile, the Moscow press, whose siege of the Bolshoi Theater
repertoire committee had been producing meager results, was naturally
thrilled to see the MPO inaugurate its opening season with The Snow
Maiden, a rarely performed Rimsky-Korsakov masterpiece. The critics
immediately set out to guide the new venture onto what they called
a correct path. What they meant was transparently evident in the
early reviews of Mamontovs productions. From the beginning, these
reviews contained hints that the companys repertoire policy, not merely
its language of choice, should justify the two words emphasized on
its playbills by the drawn index fingers. These two words are Russian
opera.87 Mrs. Winters enterprise appears to be on a correct path,
wrote Kruglikov in Novosti Dnya. One cannot but welcome the idea to
create in Moscow an opportunity for relatively moderate-income folk
to hear excellent examples of primarily Russian operatic art, which are
rarely or never staged here.88 Lipaev of Novosti Sezona reminded the
new company that, traditionally, the commercial success of a private
enterprise depended on its repertoire (and, as we have seen, duplicating
the Bolshois playbill was considered unthinkable). So far, he wrote,
the directorate appears to be following a correct path. Two out of three
opening performances have been Russian operasthis is a good sign.
The critic then continued lobbying for the national repertoire, linking
it directly to the new ventures financial survival:
We should note that in Moscow, according to the most respected sources,
Russian opera is desirable, and would inspire strong sympathy. Moreover,
the majority of the public is inclined to demand it. If the directorate
responds to this, it will profit, if notthen its activity would go against
public opinion, and this in itself will not end well. It would be strange
to adopt an idea of exclusivity, that is, that we insist only upon this one
thinggive us only Russian opera. We simply view this as the main goal
of the Private Opera, with no desire at all to lessen the significance of
staging model examples of Western European operatic music. But Russian opera should come above all else. 89
In his glowing report on the premiere of Rogneda, Lipaev called the

production a living proof of what the Private Opera should strive to
achieve. The sooner it stages [other] Russian operas, the better off it will
be.90 Some of these other operas had been suggested back in September by Kashkin, who expressed a wish that the Private Russian Opera
keep moving in the direction revealed in its inaugural production, approved of the companys announced intent to stage Tchaikovskys The
Oprichnik, and hinted that in the meantime, we would also like to hear
Rimsky-Korsakovs May Night.91
By mid-October, reports on Mamontovs company showed traces
of impatience, and even frustration: while performances were frequent
and premieres numerous, no new Russian operas were among them
(Rogneda would not be staged until 31 October). For instance, Gruzinsky
publicly confessed in Russkoe Slovo that, due to the frequent productions of worn-out operas from the Italian repertoire, he was beginning
to doubt the good intentions of our new private opera.92 Even Kashkins
usually measured tone turned nastier, as in the following critique:
Since 8 September, when the Russian Private Opera started its performances at the Solodovnikov Theater, this company has exhibited enormous activity, amazing at least in quantity. It is enough to mention that
in less than six weeks, about forty opera performances were given, with
twelve new operas staged. Despite such significant results (numerically),
this theater still has no individual face, and as a result it has not won the
decisive support of the audiences, which could have been expected given
the size of its performing forces, and the financial means at its disposal.
We greeted the launch of this likeable enterprise with great pleasure, but
now anxiety unwillingly develops that this enterprise shall wither and
die due to the lack of a specific plan and direction for its activities.93
The desirable individual face and direction is revealed toward the

end of the essay, following a lengthy discussion of the rising level of
artistic expectations among the most influential portion of the operatic
audiencethe intellectual elite. The critic expressed his hopes for the
companys future as follows:
The flourishing of Russian music over the last thirty years has naturally
attracted the attention of the Russian audience, and there is no doubt
that currently the majority is interested in the new Russian operas. The
Bolshoi Theater has not been spoiling us in that regard, so if the Private
Opera energetically takes up the cause of Russian opera, one could hardly
doubt its success.94
Other newspapers echoed Kashkins directive, urging the company to

start fulfilling its promises by staging new Russian operas as soon as
possible.95 Several reviews of the Rogneda production concluded with
explicit wishes that the company waste no time in preparing its next
Russian premiere.
Meanwhile, staging exclusively or even predominantly Russian repertoire was not easy for a young company such as the MPO. To start
with, it was a much more expensive exercise than staging foreign works,
due to the unfair assignment of publishing fees and royalties that privileged the Imperial Theaters. The issue was addressed in Novosti Dnya,
whose correspondent wrote:
The process of staging Russian operas by private enterprises . . . is constantly hindered by music publishers who demand a much too high perproduction fee for these operas. For example, Bessel receives 75 rubles per
performance of Rimsky-Korsakovs The Snow Maiden from the directorate, beyond the authors per-act libretto royalties. Adding the libretto
payment, the complete royalties for The Snow Maiden rise above 100
rubles per night. Given that crown theaters pay 10 percent of each nights
box-office receipts in authors royalties, in order for the royalty payments
by private theaters to equal those of crown theaters, the Private Operas
receipts must reach 1,000 rubles per night. Meanwhile, this number cannot be reached every night, particularly with cheap ticket prices.96
Per-performance royalties were indeed a heavy burden for Mamontovs young company.97 But in the larger financial picture, they amounted
to small change. More immediately, the MPOs market viability rested
as is typical of any private enterpriseon the speed with which new
productions could be mounted. Yet Russian repertoire was notoriously
difficult to stage. The operas were long; they included large choral scenes
and numerous secondary characters, requiring much rehearsal time. The
fact that they were so rarely staged helped with the marketing, but meant
that the singers, not to mention the chorus and orchestra, were unlikely
to be familiar with their parts. In addition, rendering the subtle, complex musical declamation of, for instance, Musorgsky scores required
expertise that Mamontovs troupe was only in the process of acquiring.
Russkoe Slovo guest columnist Victor Garteveld was virtually alone in
acknowledging the difficulties Mamontovs company faced because of
the pressure exerted by the press. He wrote:
It would of course be desirable for the enterprise to stage as many outstanding Russian operas as possible, since they are closer than most foreign operas to our public, in mood and spirit. But to stage exclusively
Russian operas, particularly those by modern composers, is absolutely
impossible for a private enterprise, for a number of reasons. First of all,
any Russian opera is much more difficult to stage than most foreign ones
(with the exception of Wagner, of course), and as a result, it requires
numerous rehearsals. Let us take, for example, any Rimsky-Korsakov
opera. The above-mentioned composer is probably the finest orchestrator
in Europe today; he places great demands not only on his orchestra, but
also on the soloists and the chorus. The difficulty of his writing and the
complexity of his score have caused many opera theaters to think twice
before agreeing to tackle such hard work. And everything said above
about Rimsky-Korsakov also applies to Borodin, [Nikolai] Solovyov, Cui,
[Alexander] Serov, and so on. So, if during the current season the Private
Opera stages, as promised, three operas such as Rogneda, Prince Igor,
and The Oprichnik, its heroism could only be truly appreciated by people
familiar with the internal operations of the theater business.98
The majority of the Moscow press corps did not much care about
any of that, however. The critics acknowledged the infamous challenges
in staging native repertoire. They criticized the MPO for performing
it without adequate polish (indeed, this was the tenor of many reviews
throughout the 189697 season). But with the exception of Kashkin, they
did not relent in pressuring it to stage more Russian operas. Instead,
they seemed to be annoyed by the fact that valuable rehearsal time that
should have been spent learning Russian repertoire was taken instead
by foreign operas. This attitude is reflected, for instance, in Kruglikovs
Novosti Dnya review of La bohme, in which he called this truly spectacularly staged opera a real daughter of the enterprise, as opposed to
its stepchildren, Prince Igor and The Maid of Pskov. Would we see the
same approach to the promised The Oprichnik and Khovanshchina? he
asked in conclusion.99
The Oprichnik was a disaster. Its premiere was announced for the
current season; there were only two weeks of it left, so adequate rehearsal time was simply not available. Ready or not, the production had
to run then, or be postponed until the fall, which surely would have attracted a storm of criticism. Interestingly, Kruglikovs main complaint
was not that the opera was performed badly (a complaint which would
have been justified), but that a Puccini opera was staged better than
Tchaikovskys:
The Oprichnik was not lucky enough to become a favorite child of Mrs.
Winters enterprise: it is a stepchild of the company, just like Igor and
The Maid of Pskov. Perhaps this is meant to emphasize that Tchaikovsky
is closer to Rimsky-Korsakov and Borodin than to Puccini, but this is a
confirmed fact anyway; it requires no evidence to support it.100
It is also notable that in his rhetorical zeal, Kruglikov managed to

suppress any memory of his own reviews of Prince Igor and The Maid of
Pskov just two months earlier. These reports hailed the great public success of both productions, supposedly fully justified and well deserved
by their staging and performance.101 Evidently, while the critics were
not always satisfied with the quality and polish of the MPOs performances of the Russian repertoire, the ideological significance of these
productions outweighed any objections as to their level of preparation.
By mid-season, from around the time of The Maid of Pskovs premiere in
December 1896, the tone of the press reviews gradually began to change.
At first barely perceptible, the shift was more pronounced by the opening
of the 189798 season, even more so after the production of Khovanshchina, and fully apparent by the Christmas premiere of Sadko. Instead
of hinting, pushing, or demanding Russian operas from the MPO, the
press was now discussing Mamontovs mission.
The Myth of Mamontovs Mission

Throughout this book, we have been paying close attention to the mission of the MPO as it was understood by Mamontov and his closest
friends and associates. Below is the medias version of that mission as
it was packaged and fed to the public in both capitals. As we shall see,
the two mission statements are, to a large extent, incompatible. In their
zeal to promote national music, the press effectively hijacked Mamontovs ideal of serving art, and replaced it with its own cause, spelled
out pithily by Russkoe Slovo: to serve exclusively Russian music.102
To summarize the critics pitch, the companys sole goal was the cultivation of native music by staging Russian operas, either new ones
or those previously neglected and little known to the public. Indeed,
the great, sacred cause of propagandizing Russian works of art was

allegedly adopted by the MPOs enlightened leaders from the very
inception of the venture.103 It always worked hard for Russian art and
Russian composers, approached the production of their works with
special care, and served as the hotbed of Russian music, inspiring
love for Russian composers and operas in society, and never betraying
its banner on which the memorable words Native Art are carved in
golden script. Critics also emphasized the important educational and
ennobling influence the companys mission had upon the public. They
reminisced nostalgically about the crowds of thousands that gathered
within the Solodovnikov walls for its Russian opera performances, and
suggested that both the public, long fed up with barbers and traviatas,
and Mamontovs young troupe were thus steered toward national musical self-awareness. Novosti Sezona even managed to fuse Mamontovs
ideals with its own by describing the new, disinterested cause of the
individuals not officially named as the love of everything beautiful,
and the enlightened desire to carve a worthy and deserved place for our
national music.104
In response to the noble, nationalist mission that the MPO now
supposedly had, the reviews of its performances were filled with exclamations like glory and honor and expressions of gratitude for its great
service to Russian art, which history would never forget. Each Russian opera premiered or revived by the company was declared to have
been extracted from oblivion, to which it was originally condemned by
our stale and backward musical institutions (read: the Imperial Theaters) that should therefore answer to future generations for their crimes
against art. In the hands of the Private Opera, of course, the rescued
masterpieces could not have wished for a better fate.105 Meanwhile, the
Bolshoi was continually accused of turning a deaf ear to the demands
of the public and the press, and ridiculed for the cult of [Trubetskoys
opera] Melusina, so valiantly and so unsuccessfully propagandized
from its stage.106 As Kashkin put it, without private initiative, Moscow
would sink to the level of a distant province, where artistic news arrives
late and mostly by accident. But since Mamontov rose to the defense
of Russian opera, it had a chance not only to appear on the crown playbills, but even to sneak out to foreign countries, so it might be possible
one day to hear it in Berlin or Vienna.107
The more assured the Moscow critics became of the realization of

their own prognoses, the more disappointment they voiced with the
perceived MPO policy shift during the 18991900 season, which saw the
revival of several foreign operas. A Russkoe Slovo columnist wrote:
The turnaround in the direction of our Private Opera . . . is now completely defined. With their latest productions of Les Huguenots, Lakm,
and the projected revival of Rigoletto, the former defender of the interests
of our national art has clearly stepped onto the path of ordinary associations, with their complete lack of any definite direction and complete
dependency on the taste of the mass audience.108
The critics attributed the changes to Mamontovs forced absence from

the companys helm that season (see n.102). However, while the ever
unpopular (and Jewish) Meyerbeer was indeed news on the MPO stage,
this was not the case with Rigoletto and particularly Lakm.109 Delibes
delicate opera, one of Mamontovs personal favorites, premiered in the
fall of 1896 to glowing reviews. Yet, as his companys supposed nationalist cause became fully solidified, the foreign repertoire that previously
received its share of attention from the press was routinely ignored,
censured, or explained away. For example, as he chastised the Bolshoi
Theater for staging Hnsel und Gretel and neglecting Sadko, Kashkin
failed to mention that the MPO also had Humperdincks opera in its
repertoire; indeed, it gave its Moscow premiere. The company was criticized as being unfaithful to its motto for opening the 189798 season
with Faust, instead of a Russian opera. Novosti Sezona actually refused
to consider that performance its true opening night, opting instead for
the matinee of A Life for the Tsar the following day. Indeed, that newspaper made it a special point to rationalize any appearance of a foreign
opera on Mamontovs stage. Excuses varied from lamentable yet unavoidable commercial compromises (in the theater business, one must
often stage not what is desirable or necessary, but what is expedient due
to various external circumstances)110 to the following puzzling commentary: While non-Russian operas did appear, they were performed
rarely, and represented mere episodic occurrences of foreign music,
highlighting even better and more sharply the significance of Russian
music. Between 3 October and 2 November, the Russian Private Opera
gave thirty performances, twenty of them Russian operas and only ten
foreign.111
Perhaps the most creative justification for the presence of foreign

works in Mamontovs repertoire was offered by Vladimir Stasov, who
suggested that while S. I. Mamontov sometimes also presents foreign
operas on his stage, he does so purely as an act of kindness to the weakest and most backward part of his audience that is still in the initial
stages of their education in true, Russian music.112 One can imagine,
therefore, that the presence of Glucks Orfeo on the companys playbill
during its 1898 St. Petersburg tour would have been challenging to Stasov the nationalist on ideological, as well as aesthetic groundsanother
reason he might have chosen conveniently to forget all about it when
writing about Mamontovs work.
The Moscow critics, however, had no such luxury. When Orfeo first
appeared on 30 November 1897, it was a spectacularly produced, significant premiere, with all proceeds from the opening night going to
charity; it had to be reviewed. Yet the press was clearly confused: as Gruzinsky noted, It is rather difficult to imagine the same operatic troupe
performing Musorgskys Khovanshchina and Glucks Orfeo; there is an
enormous chasm between the goals and objectives of the two operas.113
The Moscow publics indifference to Orfeo seemed to have vindicated
the critics, who ironically believed that it represented a betrayal of Mamontovs mission, as they understood it. Kashkin grumbled that the
time wasted on the ill-fated Orfeo caricature would have been better
spent rehearsing Rimsky-Korsakovs May Night.114 Indeed, any foreign
influence on the hotbed of Russian music was viewed as a dangerous
precedent and discouraged. This was particularly true of guest tours by
European stars, who tended to add insult to injury by singing their parts
in foreign languages. Therefore, while obliged to the directorate for the
great aesthetic pleasure provided by the fabulous Marie van Zandtin
the role of Lakm, no less!Novosti Dnya still insisted that a Russian
opera company must be independent of foreign aid.115
It is clear that the increasingly unforgiving attitude demonstrated
by the press toward the foreign presence on Mamontovs stage did not
have aesthetic considerations at its core. The company was seenand
marketed to the publicnot as an artistic venture, but rather, to quote
Novosti Sezona, as a purely ideological institution that pursues only
the triumph of Russian art.116 However justified was the crusade for
public recognition of Musorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin, and other
Russian opera composers, the myth of the MPO as a defender of our

native art created by the press had little to do with music. Instead, it had
everything to do with politics. Unheard went the wise and lonely voice of
Garteveld, who wrote in the conclusion of his Russkoe Slovo op-ed: An
opera theater is not a political or administrative institution, in which a
certain face should be clearly expressed, but rather an artistic institution that should primarily possess a beautiful face. In other words, it
should be placed above partisanship.117
Instead, the repertoire of Mamontovs enterprise was portrayed as
a realization of the party line. Constructed by both critics and apologists, this piece of historical fiction quickly developed a life of its own.
As a part of the Mamontov legend, it unfortunately penetrated not only
public perception, but also scholarly literature, where it persists to this
day. This stubborn myth is responsible, for example, for completely unsubstantiated claims made by several researchers about Mamontovs
alleged concern about a non-Russian conductors ability adequately to
perform Russian operas.118 Such concern was never voiced by Mamontov
or his associates; indeed, it was never even advanced by their contemporary press. Instead, it was imposed as an afterthought by scholars who
bought into the myth of the MPO as a staunch defender of our native
art. An in-depth look at Mamontovs approach to compiling repertoire,
as reflected in his correspondence and realized in decision-making, reveals that myth to be in part true, in part the result of the critics own
campaign, and in part their wishful thinking.
Mamontovs Repertoire Policy

In his study of the Meiningen Theater, Osborne defined three major
principles guiding that companys repertoire policy: political (plays that
glorified the country and its rulers), stylistic (plays that supported the
companys aesthetic agenda and showed the talents of its troupe to the
best advantage), and commercial (plays most likely to sell tickets).119
These categories may prove equally useful for analyzing Mamontovs
approach to compiling a playbill, as his reasoning seems to have followed along similar lines. As we shall see, an opera could be selected for
the quality of its score, its aesthetic message, the dramatic possibilities
inherent in its plot, and/or an opportunity it provided to showcase the
companys famed ensemble and the principles of a synthesis of the arts

to which it aspired. Yet politics and market trends also factored strongly
in the selection process. Indeed, political and commercial considerations
often overlapped, due to the prevailing nationalism of a large number
of opera-going Muscovites, the corresponding backlash against the Italians, and the public sentiments evoked by Russias changing relationships with its European neighborsGermany and France.
Even a superficial perusal of the MPO repertoire list reveals that
the great majority of the works staged were recognized masterpieces of
Russian and Western European music. The musical qualities of an opera
undoubtedly played a role in its selection. Other factors proved at least
as (if not more) important, however. For instance, Orfeo was evidently
chosen first and foremost for the aesthetic message of eternal Hellenic
beauty contained in its plot.120 A significant attraction of the fairy tales,
like The Snow Maiden and Sadko, as well as the historical pageants,
such as The Maid of Orleans and the proposed Les Huguenots, would
have been their inherent potential as stage spectacles that promoted
the companys goal of a synthesis of the arts. But the most overwhelmingly important consideration proved to be the dramatic possibilities
provided by the storyline. To illustrate, in a letter to Mamontov regarding the proposed staging of Cuis Angelo, Melnikov noted: The drama
presents a certain interest. Written following the strict rules of ancient
dramas, it offers good material to the actors; all the roles are interesting.
The musical setting is barely mentioned in the letter; evidently, directing opportunities offered by the libretto, and the roles it provided for
the companys actors were what attracted Melnikov to the score. For
another amusing yet characteristic example, in a letter that responded
to Mamontovs new libretto for 1812 that he had just received, Melnikov
spent four pages dissecting the plot, the roles, and the mises-en-scne;
then he finally remembered to ask: Who is composing the music?121
Melnikov was writing to a sympathetic addressee: as we have already
witnessed, Mamontov did tend on occasion to discount the quality of the
musical setting as a factor in a new operas stage success. On the other
hand, when writing a libretto for a work that he would later produce, he
aimed from the beginning to build the drama into the score. This way,
the blending of acting and singing he required from his troupe would
naturally result. A letter to Shkafer shows him practically salivating
over the dramatic possibilities of an evil leitmotif in The Necklace,

which would transform as it traveled through the opera, and which he
demanded that Krotkov incorporate into his setting.122 Meanwhile, when
faced with staging a musically inferior composition (as The Necklace
turned out to be), Mamontovs goal was to employ the power of drama
(and when available, the distraction of visual effects) to counterbalance
the weakness of the music. If there are weak points in the opera, he
wrote to his singers, you must carry it with the strength of acting and
movement.123
Whenever possible, of course, Mamontov chose works that combined strong drama with good music. This quality may have particularly
attracted him to Musorgskys works, and helped him make peace with
at least some aspects of the pressure to stage Kuchkist operas. Indeed, a
Novosti Dnya reviewer of Boris Godunov stressed the fact that by and
large, this production was practically no longer an opera, from a typical
point of view, but rather a drama, merely strengthened and deepened
with the emotions evoked by the music.124 One of the main attractions
of the Kuchkist operas for Mamontov was their emphasis on musical
declamationthe fusion of opera and drama that provided rich opportunities for his singing actors. Melnikov wrote:
I understand Angelo as a true music drama; that is, it is the same drama
we see at the Comdie Franaise, with every actor meticulously, clearly,
and unhurriedly singing the poetry of his role. . . . Cui, just like Musorgsky in Khovanshchina, comes to an actors rescue, and weaves the fabric
of musical declamation; but still the declamation should be placed above
all else.125
An opportunity to showcase the achievements of his school was

clearly an important consideration for Mamontov in his repertoire
choices. In fact, some in the press believed that a unique, synthesized
approach to opera production practiced by his troupe and its particular
attention to stage drama were the reasons that it could tackle many operas that were never successful elsewhere.126 As Rozenov once pointed
out in Novosti Dnya, typical operatic fare did not necessarily require
specially developed and trained singing actors, and stage directors
with encyclopedic knowledge. Russian historical operas, on the other
hand, needed special expertise, without which they were performed
partly the Italian way, partly on gut instinct.127 Musorgsky again pre-
sented a particular challenge: apart from purely technical, vocal knowhow, performers required extensive knowledge of history and literature
in order to penetrate the psychological complexity of their characters.
No vocal prowess could redeem a weak actor in these roles, as Rozenov
observed in another article:
Khovanshchina does not require anything special from the voices of its
performers, but it demands much from their artistic understanding. Perhaps that is the reason it has not yet appeared on crown stages. Routine
manners of the Italian school, attention to fermatas on high notes, and
showpiece arias on the proscenium lose their value here, while distorting
the very essence of the opera beyond recognition. A Musorgsky opera
demands a completely new, unheard-of level of intellectual and spiritual
development from its performers.128
As we know, Mamontovs teaching methods were specifically designed

to raise the level of artistic understanding in his troupe, as well as foster ensemble acting. A telling example of an opera chosen primarily to
showcase the companys ensemble approach is the Russian premiere of
Puccinis La bohmea work staged despite the unanimous condemnation of the press, and made a success despite our audiences aversion to
lyrical operas.129
To say that Russian music critics took a dislike to La bohme would
be an understatement. There literally was no media outlet in either Moscow or St. Petersburg that failed to publish a lengthy report on the new
opera, and there was no review to be found that missed a chance to abuse
Puccinis music. Kashkin, for example, confessed to having no inclination to discuss the work altogether due to a feeling of shock, mixed
in part with indignation, disgust, or something like that.130 Lipaev of
Novosti Sezona offered the following assessment of the score:
The orchestral fabric is too thick, so the voices are barely heard; consumptive Mimi sings better than a healthy person; healthy painter Marseilles
is virtually constantly slithering in the low register, like a sick man; the
musical description of the crowd is artificial, affected, and reveals a kind
of thoughtlessnesswe confess, it was difficult to sit through the performance until the end.131
The complexity of the score and the composers apparent disregard for
the sacred rule of traditional Italian opera that privileged a coherent, eas-
ily comprehensible vocal line, clearly proved problematic to the press. It

was incensed about the impressionist parallel triads and indignant about
the use of polytonality in the depiction of the crowd in act 2. Puccini
was accused of crossing the limits of the aesthetically possible, and
predictablylabeled a decadent. Only toward the end of the season,
perhaps due to the fact that by that time it was selling out the house, did
the critics warm somewhat to this graceful and poetic opera.132
The press reviews of La bohme also contain notes on the operas
staging. It is described, uniformly (and according to Kashkin, regrettably) as beyond reproach; the ensemble as flawless. The reviews further
include some analytical commentaries that may explain Mamontovs
interest in this work. Kruglikovs reviewin comparison with others
only mildly disapprovingis particularly enlightening, due perhaps to
its relative objectivity. The critic praised the engaging plot and excellent
libretto of the opera as perhaps its most winning qualities. He also emphasized Puccinis skill at constructing effective crowd scenes by dividing the chorus into small independent groupsthe operatic equivalent
of the Meiningen crowd that was a specialty of Mamontovs enterprise.
Most importantly, however, Kruglikov noted that the composer of La
bohme seemed to have a natural inclination to write for the stage:
He senses the dramatic situations well, captures the emotions accurately,
and hardly ever slows down the pace of dramatic action, which progresses
in a lively fashion without being stuck in musical prolixity. Puccini is
capable of expressing his ideas in a concise, laconic form, and his music, however weak on its own, somehow manages to be suitable to the
moment.133
It was the operas quality as a great stage drama that attracted Mamontov to itthe same quality that he found in Musorgsky and some other
works from the Russian repertoire.
Russian Repertoire
The performance history of La bohme demonstrates that pressure from
the press was not always a factor in Mamontovs repertoire choices. He
selected operasRussian or Westernthat piqued his interest, and was
perfectly willing to go against the grain and work on winning over his
audience on the merits of a production. Furthermore, despite the press-
constructed myth, his enterprise never intended to market itself as a

Russian company. The production of The Snow Maiden, whatever critics believed, was not meant as a nationalist statement; it was an aesthetic
manifesto of his troupe. However, in pushing the MPO to stage works
from the Russian repertoire, the press had a very powerful ally, an ally
Mamontov could not ignorepublic opinion. The public voted with their
wallets, and the vote was unanimous, according to the printed statistics.
Russian operas, Rogneda and Prince Igor, are selling out the house at the
Solodovnikov Theater, reported Russkoe Slovo.134 Verdis Rigoletto and
Un ballo in maschera attracted a smaller audience to the Solodovnikov
Theater than did the Russian repertory, a fact that very definitely characterizes the tastes and aspirations of the public, commented Novosti
Dnya.135 Three months into the companys opening season, several Moscow newspapers published the following announcement:
It would be interesting to report some statistical data on the public attendance of Russian opera performances at the Solodovnikov Theater:
Rogneda by [Alexander] Serov was given 10 times, attended by 19,800
people; Borodins Prince Igor, 9 times, with 11,900 people; Rimsky-Korsakovs The Maid of Pskov, 6 times, with 12,700 in attendance. Altogether,
these three operas were attended by 44,400 people. These numbers prove
conclusively that the Muscovites are quite interested and attracted to
Russian opera.136
The situation changed little during the following season. Khovanshchina performances continue to sell out, despite frequent repetition and
raised prices, wrote Novosti Dnya.137 Sadko, as we have seen, sold out
the Solodovnikov Theater fifteen times in less than two months. At the
same time, according to Russkoe Slovo, by the third performance of Mamontovs beloved Orfeo, it went on before the completely empty theater,
clearly depressing the cast.138
The Moscow audience was a force to be reckoned with. It was increasingly clear that native composers did best at the box office,139
and if the company were to carve a niche for itself in the Russian opera
market and cultivate its own loyal followingin a word, to surviveit
had to compromise. Aesthetic ideals had to be adjusted to the will of
the public, and the nationalist card had to be played. From the beginning, this apparently caused great problems for Mamontov. Melnikov
recalls him literally running off to Paris, so as not to be present at
the premiere of Prince Igor.140 A brilliant businessman, Mamontov had

to assess the situation realistically: as he once bitterly remarked, we
work here for the Russian crowd, and if we are to survive and scrape the
much-needed pennies together, its peculiarities need to be taken into
account.141 Meanwhile, the artist in him undoubtedly found great joy
and inspiration in staging masterpieces like Sadko, The Maid of Pskov,
Khovanshchina, Judith, and Boris Godunov. He refused even to consider
mediocre creations by Mikhail Ivanov and Nikolai Solovyov despite the
fact that both composers were also syndicated critics of Novoe Vremya
and Peterburgskaya Gazeta respectively, and their good will could have
provided free publicity for the company. Instead, Mamontovs combative
spirit attracted him to a different kind of free publicitythat generated
by staging the still controversial Kuchkist repertoire, which placated
the nationalist press, did wonders at the box office, and allowed him on
occasion to smuggle in his own artistic agenda.
Nevertheless, over the years Mamontov became more and more
concerned about the rising nationalist frenzy of his audience, and the
increasingly nationalist image projected by the company itself as a result
of complying with market demand. Melnikov made a similar observation in one of his letters from Paris, writing: The Private Opera has now
acquired a purely Russian physiognomy. If [we] begin producing foreign
repertory now, it must be done with great care, for as you have seen for
yourself, the audience does not respond as well to foreign repertoire as it
does to Russian one.142 The situation was aggravated by the fact that the
189899 season was to be Chaliapins last with the company, so any projects conceived with the singer in mind would have to be implemented at
that time. Since, as Melnikov pointed out in another letter, a large portion of the Russian operatic repertoire, from A Life for the Tsar on, was
focused around a bass-baritone, rather than the more conventional tenor
protagonist, the remaining Chaliapin projects would almost certainly
be native works. Indeed, with ninety-four performances of local operas versus a mere nineteen of foreign ones, the companys third season
proved to be its most Russian ever. It also proved its most successful
one in monetary terms. Yet Mamontov apparently felt anxious and dissatisfied, addressing the issue in a much quoted and interpreted letter
to Csar Cui, just prior to the companys second trip to St. Petersburg
in the spring of 1899:
One can observe a significant fact: the audience clearly expresses its sympathies for Russian operas, and wants nothing to do with the foreign repertory except for Faust . . . A well-performed Romo et Juliette or Samson
et Dalila barely fill half the theater. Last Sunday, even A Life for the Tsar
played to a full house. . . . At the Private Opera, Slavs, princes, boyars,
knights, boyarinas, peasants, and jesters never leave the stage. This is all
well and good, but sometimes it is suffocating. Is there no beauty in other
images, and in a more general, broader [artistic] sphere? Is it right to
pander, without question, to the tastes of the mass audience, and is it not
my duty as a leader of an artistic institution that has acquired some significance and power, in our multimillion-strong village named Moscow,
to push and promote other sounds and images, no less ennobling to the
soul? I did that. Orfeo is staged splendidly; it is being performed in a strict
style, but it is too nave, so audiences got bored and are staying away; but
I still performed it, and made students listen to Gluck on mornings and
holidays. I wanted to produce Alceste, but didnt have the guts. I have not
touched Mozart yet. . . . The audience of the Private Opera (a good half of
it honest, sincere gray mass) obviously craves Russian epics; touching historical subjects; even folk operas. This is clear as the day. . . . Verstovskys
wretched Askolds Tomb is selling out the house. It is pitiful and silly to
the point of a joke, but it succeeds through its sincerity, and the audience
is very happy. My God, this needs to be taken into account!143
The letter to Cui offers us a glimpse into the heart of Mamontovs

internal conflict. His aesthetic principles were getting lost in the routine
of pleasing the public and the newspapers; he felt trapped in the web of
press-constructed mythology and his own publicity-seeking and good
intentions. The image of Mamontov revealed in this intense document
shatters his fictional portrayal as a nationalist. At the same time, the
letter is highly significant for understanding his aesthetic views and, as
such, cannot be ignored. This evidently presented a dilemma for both
Vera Rossikhina and Abram Gozenpud, the only Soviet-era musicologists who published in-depth studies of the MPO. Rossikhina opts not
to deal with the issue at all: in her book, she quotes sections of the letter
but omits all passages related to Mamontovs doubts, his desire to seek
beauty outside Russian opera, and his interest in foreign repertoire.144
Gozenpud does confront the problem in his study of Russian turn-ofthe-century opera theater, but attempts to explain it away. According to
the scholar, the letter reflected Mamontovs lack of comprehension of the
current social climate and the important task facing national operatic
art, as well as his fear of orienting the MPOs repertoire exclusively on

historical subjects. On the other hand, Gozenpud continues, Mamontov
understood the needs of his democratic audiences who thirsted for Russian opera. He eventually overcame his doubtsheroically, perhaps, as
he went against his personal tasteand staged Boris instead of Alceste.145
The researcher fails to mention, however, that the letter in question,
although undated, is a response to Cuis missive of 23 January 1899;146
its postscript indicates that it was written about a week before Lent.
Thus, the letter represents Mamontovs musings at the conclusion of
his companys most nationalist season. The consequences of the doubts
expressed in it, therefore, should be sought not in the production of Boris
Godunov, which occurred before the letter was written, but rather in the
repertoire decisions made during the spring and summer of 1899 for the
following, 18991900 season.
The Repertoire Crisis

By spring 1899, the MPO faced a repertoire crisisanother worry expressed in Mamontovs letter to Cui. The well of neglected native masterpieces had been drained. Promising young composers of both Moscow and St. Petersburg increasingly succumbed to the will of Mitrofan
Belyaev, whose patronage, dispersed in the form of prizes, stipends, and
publishing contracts, disproportionately privileged chamber and other
instrumental music over opera, viewed as superfluous and outdated.147
As a result, the only significant local composer still writing operas was
Rimsky-Korsakov, who chaired Belyaevs Glinka Prize committee but
himself was exempt from its patrons benevolent censorship. RimskyKorsakovs latest creation, The Tsars Bride, was tentatively secured for
the fall, but the MPO had no other Russian premieres scheduled for the
upcoming season.
Mamontov decided to address the problem in two ways. To continue
supplying the audience with new Russian repertoire, he commissioned
two operas to be composed to his own libretti: the large-scale historical
War and Peace clone 1812, and the Greco-Roman myth-fantasy The Necklace. In retrospect, it seems ironic that the libretti were initially intended
for, respectively, Rachmaninov and Rimsky-Korsakov; we wonder how
Mamontov could have so egregiously misjudged these composers tal-
ents. But there was clear logic to his choices. The most successful works
of Rimsky-Korsakov to date were The Snow Maiden and Sadko, both
fairy-tale fantasies in certain respects similar to The Necklace. And if
we recall that the composers operatic ventures immediately following
The Tsars Bride were the fairy Tale of Tsar Saltan, and then Servilia, set
in ancient Rome, Mamontovs delusions suddenly appear much more
insightful than they felt at first glance. As for Rachmaninov, during
his Private Opera tenure his most successful work was a one-act opera,
Aleko, whose style of poetic realism was not far removed from that required for 1812 (particularly its intimate peace scenes with the echoes
of May Night). After both composers turned down the commissions,
1812 went to young Vasily Kalinnikov (18661901), a Kruglikov student
raised on the ideals of the Kuchka, while The Necklace was entrusted
to Krotkov, a one-time student of Brahms, whose compositional style,
Mamontov hoped, would be suitable to a classical subject.
In addition to commissioning new Russian operas, Mamontov decided to turn Chaliapins departure into an opportunity to restructure
his companys repertoire policy, to provide for a better balance between
local and foreign works. As early as spring 1898, according to Zabelas
sarcastic comment to Rimsky-Korsakov, Mamontov was digging up
some ancient Italian operas and translating them into Russian, intent on
refreshing our repertoire with them.148 Melnikovs letters of 189899 are
packed with comments on the newest creations of the French muse that
would lighten the load of heavy Russian dramas. Mamontovs abandoned Der Brenhuter translation reveals his passing interest in contemporary German comic opera as well. Perhaps the most telling clue is
a short announcement published in Moscow newspapers in April 1899,
which offered the MPOs repertoire projections for the coming year.149
The list included three foreign premieres: Wagners Die Walkre, Offenbachs Les contes dHoffmann, and Otto Nicolais Die lustigen Weiber
von Windsor. The Tsars Bride, still unconfirmed, was not mentioned; no
other Russian operas were announced.
By the fall, the press began to comment on a sudden shift in the
companys repertoire policy, but, as mentioned above, attributed it to
Mamontovs absence. Yet it was likely that his continued influence behind the scenes steered the change of course. Indeed, this change should
be perceived as neither sudden and unexpected, nor related solely to the
frustration with the nationalist agenda expressed in Mamontovs correspondence. Throughout the companys existence he actively engaged
with foreign repertoire, his choices again a reflection of both personal
taste and sensitivity to market trends. As we shall see, the Muscovites
preferences in foreign fare were being shaped by a variety of factors.
And while the citys boycott of Italian opera was a predictable result
of the nationalist trend stoked by the press, its attitude toward other
European operatic styles proved a rather unexpected consequence of a
sharp change in the international policies of the Russian Empire in the
mid- to late 1890s.
The Dreaded Italians and the Fashionable French

In his memoirs published in a Riga daily Segodnya, seventy-year-old
Pyotr Melnikov insisted on taking full credit for the Russian direction
of the MPO, recalling that Mamontov infinitely preferred the Italian repertoire. However faulty his memory might have been at that point (and
however tinged with wishful thinking), his mentors passion for Italian
opera is a historical fact. Between 1885 and 1892, Mamontov introduced
Moscow to the cream of Italian operatic talent, featuring renowned stars
such as Angelo Masini, Francesco Tamagno, and Antonio Cotogni on
the playbills of his then Italian Private Opera.150 Clearly, if his personal
taste were the single decisive factor driving the repertoire policy, the
high drama of Italian opera he loved would have been much better represented at his enterprise than it was.
Unfortunately, the press, campaigning for the national opera, chose
to make the Italians its favorite straw man. Novosti Sezona declared Italian works tedious;151 Russkoe Slovo protested any and all appearances of
operas from the worn-out Italian repertoire on Mamontovs stage,152
while Novosti Dnya suggested that Un ballo in maschera had no business
being featured on the playbill of a Russian opera house.153 Meanwhile,
Kashkin thundered in Russkie Vedomosti that any operatic audience that
preferred the repertoire with the most vulgar plot and music imaginable would demonstrate a deplorable lack of taste.154 Even some foreign
celebrities whose livelihood in the olden days depended on Verdi and
Rossini joined the crusade against the fallen idols. For instance, in an
interview with a Petersburg newspaper, the famous brothers de Reszke
proclaimed: Italian music has gone out of fashion; no one is interested

in it; and there is no doubt that the music of our epoch is not Italian music.155 The motivations for the juicy quote (unsurprisingly, it was picked
up immediately by the Moscow press) might have been the desire partly
to curry favor with the local critics and partly to promote the Wagnerian repertoire the brothers were in town to perform. Similarly, Russian
anti-Italianism was in equal measure ideologically and commercially
motivated. After all, the barbers and traviatas did more than lure audiences away from healthy nationalist values toward the cosmopolitan
wasteland. Italian opera traditionally represented the main box-office
competition to the native works touted by the critics.
As we have seen, the Moscow publichalf bullied, half convinced
by the mediaflocked to Mamontovs Russian premieres. Meanwhile,
with the single exception of La bohme, whose decadent appeal evidently made up for its dubious geographical provenance, Italian operas
sold poorly. There was little choice but to limit the traditional Italian
repertoire to a bare minimum, reserving it for van Zandt or another
European guest star with enough clout to attract connoisseurs. Instead,
Mamontov concentrated on exploring another foreign operatic style,
less known in Russia and thus less of a targetlate nineteenth-century
French opra lyrique.
Within a month of opening, the MPO playbill featured Faust, Carmen, Mignon, and Samson et Dalila, with Lakm added on 5 November. While Faust and, to a lesser extent, Lakm were known in the city
through their Bolshoi Theater productions, the other three titles were
relative newcomers. Even Carmen, incredibly popular in the provinces,
was surprisingly never staged at the Bolshoi; like Mignon and Samson, it
would occasionally be showcased by touring foreigners. Unless we count
the unfortunate Samson experience at Unkovskys company mentioned
above, none of the three operas were ever performed in Moscow in Russian, by a Russian troupe.
Mamontov had big plans for the French repertoire. His knowledge
of it was encyclopedic and his acquaintance with Parisian opera theaters
intimate. He also had an enthusiastic ally in Melnikov, whose two-year
Paris tenure made him a friend and devotee of Massenet, completely unknown in Russia at the time. In a letter dated 19 May 1898, Melnikov proposed that the MPO mount a Russian premiere of Massenets Thas, tak-
ing it upon himself to guarantee the composers attendance. To support

his argument, he noted that the event would provide Mamontov with an
occasion to play once more on Franco-Russian sympathies.156
This mysterious remark referred to a rather unusual market situation Mamontovs company encountered at the start of its opening season. Finding itself at a low point in its tense relationship with Germany,
Russia had recently signed an official friendship pact with France, a
well-publicized event that enjoyed widespread popular support. As with
any other mood of the Russian society, its sudden Francophilia was
reflected in its artistic life. At the start of the 189697 theater season,
Moscow newspapers reported packed houses at French drama and opera
performances, accompanied by strong public displays of patriotism and
French sympathies. This is an excerpt from a Novosti Dnya review dated
early October 1896: A display of Franco-Russian sympathies continues
in our theaters. Every night during the shows, the public demands the
performance of our anthem and La Marseillaise, which are being performed in all the theaters, accompanied by the enthusiastic ovations of
audiences.157 The Solodovnikov Theater was no exception: thus, at the
premiere of Carmen, due to overwhelming public demand, the evening
began with the performance of the Russian anthem and La Marseillaise, both repeated three to four times, after which the opera itself was
performed.158 One could argue (and Melnikovs remark certainly points
in that direction) that the appearance of a large number of French operas
in the MPOs repertoire that fall was a shrewd response to the public
demand occasioned by the signing of the Franco-Russian Alliance. On
the other hand, it is also plausible that the public enthusiasm for all
things French gave Mamontov an excuse to indulge his own interest in
an operatic style whose lightness, grace, and elegance he admired, and
even to teach his critics a little lesson in aesthetics.
Before Mamontov, the Moscow press tended to review French and
Italian operas in more or less the same manner, making no distinctions
between the two compositional styles. It was understandable: opra lyrique was mostly known to the Muscovites via hastily assembled productions by Italian troupes, which themselves rarely differentiated between
Verdi and Delibes.159 After watching the MPO performances, critical
comments on the quality of the primas coloratura gradually gave way
to observations of a different kind. Kruglikovs review of the premiere
of Mignon is characteristic. After declaring the performance smooth

and polished, such as we rarely have the pleasure of seeing not only on
a private, but also on a crown stage, he noted:
The audience witnessed a harmonious, meticulous, and, most importantly, stylish rendition of a typically French opera in this best creation of
Ambroise Thomas. A performer capable of penetrating its style must not
only forget for a time all the devices used to realize a strong drama that
lies at the foundation of a Verdi opera as well as a French opera grand
spctacle (i.e., Meyerbeer and Halvy), but also develop a lighter, more
intimate, so to speak, performing style, and a livelier manner of singing
recitatives that should resemble real human speech as closely as possible,
and should be as distant as possible from a singers desire to show off the
high notes.160
The critic concluded by praising the conductor, Mr. Zelyonyi for teaching the performers this characteristically French style of declamation.
In reality, of course, their coach was Mamontov. Just as his appreciation
of Italian opera stemmed from its high drama, not its high notes, he
could not help but admire the great dramatic and ensemble possibilities
of the French repertoire. He used operas like Mignon to train his singers in the craft of stage interaction, previously mastered only by spoken
drama troupesand only the best ones, such as the Meiningen Theater.
The success of Mamontovs methodology is reflected in Kruglikovs review, in which the term harmonious refers specifically to ensemble
strength.
The Wagner War

If the French and Russian repertoires were the most fashionable commodities on the Russian theater market in the late 1890s, German opera, particularly Wagners music dramas, was unquestionably the most
controversial. While Wagnerian productions were increasingly being
offered by touring German troupes and would soon find their way onto
the Imperial stage, the critical response to them was nothing short of
explosive. The disposition of the Wagner war reflects the ideological split
within the Russian operatic press, divided into three main factions, to
be labeled, for the purpose of this discussion, conservative, Kuchkist,
and modernist.
The conservatives preferred traditional Italian operatic forms (that

is, barbers and traviatas), and eyed both Musorgsky and Wagner with
suspicion. Characteristically, a conservative critic who wished to flatter
Mamontov once compared his company to our own Italian Opera.161
The Kuchkists advocated the absolute primacy of Russian operas,
primarily those by the New Russian School, and frequently took the
familiar nationalist stand in their arguments. Stasov, for instance, contributed to the already elaborate Private Opera mythology by declaring
that Mamontovs dearest, most precious dream was to turn the MPO
into a specialized theater dedicated to national repertoire, with the goal
of performing all the operas from the Russian School that have so often
been ignored and trampled into dirt by the crown theaters.162 The third
political faction of the operatic press were the modernists, to whom the
nationalist arguments of the Kuchkists were most frequently addressed.
The modernists were distinguished by their Westernism, their Wagnerism, and their critique of the other two factions equally old-fashioned
idols. They were essentially absent in Moscow of the late 1890s, where
they lacked a power base. In St. Petersburg, a small but aggressive modernist journalistic faction was led by Russias single specialized music
monthly, Russkaya Muzykalnaya Gazeta, founded in 1895.
Nikolai Findeizen and Evgeny Petrovsky, who ran Russkaya Muzykalnaya Gazeta, took upon themselves the responsibility for promoting
Wagners works, which were being decimated, in a rare show of unity, by
both the Kuchkist and the conservative press. Even more than Puccini,
Wagner was universally viewed in Russia as an unrepentant decadent.
The conservatives dubbed his music ultramodernist and portrayed
the transcendental-philosophical style of his mature operas as intellectually and emotionally barren, its leitmotifs speaking naught to the
heart.163 A true star of the anti-Wagnerian campaign was Csar Cui,
who from his syndicated Novosti pulpit proclaimed Wagners theories
unhealthy and his operas worthless and pretentious. His explanation
for the public interest in them was the power of Wagners threatening
name, which has hypnotized our music lovers and holds them in terror
and slavish obedience,164 as well as the fear of the so-called highest
intelligentsia that some famous foreigner might suspect [them] of ignorance.165 The radical Wagnerians responded with a scathing feuilleton
by Evgeny Petrovsky, who claimed (correctly, perhaps) that the true
motive for Cuis criticism was the professional jealousy of a composer

without an audience.166
As often happens, the very controversy around Wagners name was
attracting attention to his music, which was still, in the late 1890s, relatively unknown to Russias mass audiences. Wagner was a hot commodity on the opera market, which undoubtedly contributed to Mamontovs
interest in his works (see chapter 4). He knew how well controversy and
scandal sold opera tickets. He probably also hoped that staging Wagner
(or even a well-publicized intention of doing so) would dismantle the
tired image of the MPO as the defender of native art in favor of a sharper,
modernist guise.
As it turned out, instead of capitalizing on the Wagner war, his
company was unexpectedly thrust into the thick of it the minute its
unscheduled St. Petersburg tour began. On 22 February 1898, the very
day Mamontov opened his Lent season at the Great Hall of the St. Petersburg Conservatory (formerly an opera theater), the illustrious German
Opera of Dr. Leve, featuring brothers Jean and Edouard de Reszke, the
celebrated expatriate Flia Litvinne, and the esteemed conductor Hans
Richter, inaugurated a series of Wagner performances literally across the
street from the MPO, at the Mariinsky Theater. Both tours were highlights of the musical life in the Russian capital. Both troupes presented
operas never before staged in the city. The rivalry between them was
inevitable, and just as inevitable was the escalation of the Wagner war
in the press, as both the Wagnerians and the anti-Wagnerians now had
live, superior examples of their points of view readily available.
Everyone commented on the competition, and everyone saw it as
primarily an ideological dispute that would inevitably result in a triumph
for their side. This uncompromising partisanship may help explain why,
in their MPO coverage, not a single St. Petersburg critic proposed a
comparison, so obvious in retrospect, between Mamontovs synthetic
conception of the operatic genre and Wagners Gesamtkunstwerk. Cui
and Stasov would certainly have never attempted it: these ardent nationalists considered any ideological affinity with Wagner an insult to
Mamontov, whom they saw as an ally. Instead, both critics used their
reviews of his tour to advance their aggressive anti-Wagnerian platform.
For instance, in his comments on Orfeo, Cui offered a lengthy expos
on Glucks healthy opera reform versus Wagners unhealthy one.167
Stasov, in his polemics with Mikhail Ivanov of Novoe Vremya over the
merits of Sadko, argued ferociously, and with a delicious disregard for
logic, against any possibility of Tannhusers influence on the construction of the Market scene, which features a set of three songs by competing foreign traders.168
Smelling an opportunity for free publicity, Mamontov was delighted
to fan the flames. Programming Sadko, The Maid of Pskov, and Khovanshchina against Der fliegende Hollnder, Lohengrin, and Die Walkre
was not enough. So, in a series of interviews that his lead singers, Feodor
Chaliapin and Anton Sekar-Rozhansky, gave to the press in conjunction with the tour, bothsupposedly independently and by their own
volitionused a Wagnerian catchphrase, music of the future in reference to Rimsky-Korsakov and Musorgskys approach to music drama.
There is no concrete evidence to prove that Mamontov was behind it;
yet these casual slips of the tongue are typical of the subtlety he often
demonstrated in shaping public debate.
Predictably, the gamble succeeded, giving rise to a heated exchange
in the press over the relative merits of the two musics of the future.
The conservatives begged to be excused from listening to either variety,
as one critic wrote:
They say that it brings us closer to the truth when one is speaking over the
music rather than singing; this is possible. But what can I say: a pigeon
house is closer to heaven than a belle-tage. But since it is not my destiny
to touch the heavenly expanse with my essence, I would rather stay in a
belle-tage, and wont climb up to a pigeon house. Music drama is basically a utopia anyway; so allow me to stick to the nicer, more pleasant
forms of musical utopia.169
The Kuchkists, unsurprisingly, used nationalist arguments to further

their cause against both the conservatives and the modernists. Typical is
the following proclamation from Cui after the Petersburg stage premiere
of Khovanshchina: Glory and honor to the Moscow Russian Private
Opera, which serves Russian art with such honesty and which brought
us so much artistic pleasure last night, particularly after the foreign
Walkre.170 In his review of Der fliegende Hollnder, Cui declared its
music mediocre, traditional, and hardly deserving of even the modest
success that it has achieved here. He then concluded with yet another
journalistic gem:
If a composers name did not appear on playbills and was thus unknown
to the listeners, how often the audience would be puzzled by a completely unexpected, unbelievable, fantastic result of such an innovation.
Imagine, they could have disapproved of Wagner, and approvedof
Musorgsky!!171
The section of the audience specifically targeted by Cuis sarcasm was

the so-called tout Ptersburgthe aristocratic and cultural (but not quite
cultured, according to the critic) elite close to the Imperial Court; that is,
the establishment, a long-standing foe of the Kuchka. Enraged with their
preference, real or imagined, for the German troupe, he fumed:
Faced with a choice between a foreign and a Russian opera, between
the great Richard (as [Alexander] Serov used to call Wagner) and some
rejected local paper-stainer, between singing athletes and some Mr. Rozhansky, there could be no hesitation. Tout Ptersburg saw it as its duty
to turn away from the national and bow to the foreign.172
Clearly, to Cui the Mamontov-Leve rivalry boiled down to the dichotomy of Russian versus foreign. Yet Wagners decadent creations apparently terrified some critics to such an extent that even foreign works
on Mamontovs repertoire list scored unexpected support. Mostly this
emanated from the conservatives: to them, even a Russian opera was
preferable to Wagner; indeed, any opera was a blessing by comparison.
In his review of Orfeo, a Novoe Vremya columnist wrote:
Despite the absence in its music of any drama or stage action, Orfeo offers
a beautiful, serene impression, particularly after the ultramodern music
of Wagner and his acolytes, willing and unwilling. . . . At the end of the
performance, act 3 of Faust was given, and its music was again a breath
of fresh air after everything we have heard this Lent.173
Meanwhile, there was a certain section of the press that preferred

the Moscow troupe to the Wagnerians for yet another reason: to them,
any opera would have been preferable to a German one. Portrayals of the
competition as a RussianGerman rivalry surfaced as early as the companies opening nights, as we can discern in the following critique:
Music lovers were divided: while some, at the Mariinsky Theater, heard
Wagner singing praises to German epic heroes in his Lohengrin, performed by the German troupe, others streamed to the neighboring former
Bolshoi Theater where, for the first time on a Petersburg stage, a musical
realization of the arch-Russian legend of the rich merchant Sadko was

performed.174
Yet again, Mamontov and his troupe witnessed foreign policy intruding into matters of art. The political tension between Russia and Germany
that occasioned the signing of the Franco-Russian Alliance appeared to
have been resolved on a diplomatic level, and the Court, thanks particularly to the young empress Alexandra, born a German princess, was becoming quite Germanophile. The public did not forget, however, that only
recently the country stood on the brink of war. As with the Francophilia
of 1896, the anti-German sentiments of 1898 spread to opera theater. In
some reviews of Wagner productions, these sentiments were hidden; in
others, more openly displayed. For instance, a Petersburg correspondent
of Novosti Dnya portrayed the atmosphere at the Wagner premieres as a
defiant celebration of Germanness:
Performances of the German Opera have attracted a choice audience:
German dialect predominates, and the Petersburg children of the Vaterlandand legion is their namefeel like the true heroes of the day. Now
at the Mariinsky Theater, the fanfares thunder, the brass roars, and Wagners beloved leitmotifs resound with irritating fluidity on a daily basis, all
to the glory of pure Wagnerism that has found many adepts here.175
With even more open hostility, another Novosti Dnya critic likened the
arrival of the Wagnerian troupe to a foreign invasion, dropping satirical
jibes on the courts Germanophilia and referring by name to the German
commander whose untimely demise was widely believed to have saved
Russia from catastrophe:
The season has opened today on all fronts. I cannot remember ever having
such a variety of entertainment as that expected this Lent. Particularly
numerous are German entertainers: [they] are such a legion, its terrifying. Had we not known that our relationship with the Germans was most
cordial, and that after the death of Moltke no new stratagems were being
prepared, one could think that Landwehr battalions were infiltrating Russia disguised as opera singers, and that Wagnerian opera was the latest
version of the good old Trojan horse.176
Whatever their particular problems with the Wagnerian troupe, the

majority of St. Petersburg critics were delighted with the success of the
MPO, which was apparently beating the Germans in their unexpected
competition.177 Quidam, the critic responsible for the Trojan horse essay,
came up with a particularly colorful description of this battle, perhaps
aided by the fact that his conservative tastes made him equally skeptical
about both companies:
The Wagnerian Germans sit gloomily on the riverbanks of the Fontanka
and the Moika and cry: the competition between the two musics of the
future is impossible, and one of them must perish. And at the time when
you cuckoo away, oh, dear cuckoo-bird is thundering triumphantly
from the Conservatorys Great Hall, a quiet and timid whisper is heard
from the Mariinsky Theater, saying: Ich bin so traurig, ja, ja, so traurig,
ich wahr doch niemals so traurig wie heute. . . .178
Newspapers reported with glee that the impresarios of the German

troupe even petitioned the Russian government for taxation leniency,
blaming the Muscovites for their financial woes. No one bothered to
inquire whether the difficulties were real, or merely an excuse to exploit
a loophole in the Russian tax code to increase profits. To find out, all
the critics had to do was study the attendance figures for both theaters,
which were regularly published in St. Petersburg dailies (see table 7.1).
As the table shows, Mamontovs troupe enjoyed a slight advantage
over the Germans in terms of the number of tickets sold. It did succeed
in turning the attention of the citys sophisticated audience away from
the Wagnerian troupe, and thus, in some critics view, won a certain
moral victory. In purely monetary terms, however, while Mamontov did
extremely well (enough to warrant a two-week extension of the tour),
Leves enterprise must have done substantially better. Ticket prices were
never published, so a precise comparison cannot be made. However,
critics did mention the MPOs affordable prices, as opposed to the Mariinskys exorbitant subscription costs.
All this information was freely available; yet no member of the
press chose to take advantage of it. No one cared: as usual, ideologically
charged diatribes registered only those facts their authors wished to be
acknowledged. The situation was not limited to St. Petersburg papers,
or to the publicity that surrounded the 1898 tour. Indeed, the Wagner
war offers us a glimpse into a larger picture of Mamontovs complex
relationship with the press, a relationship that played a vital role in the
fortunes of his company.
Table 7.1. Attendance Records of St. Petersburg Performances

by the Moscow Private Opera and Its Competition
Lent Season (NB: data on 16 Mar and part of 7 Mar not reported.)
Moscow Private Opera
Performance Tickets Sold
Date
Wagnerian Troupe
Performance
Tickets Sold
Sadko
1,710
The Maid of Pskov 810
Sadko 760
Khovanshchina 780
Sadko
1,300
no performance
Rusalka
1,900
La bohme
1,870
May Night 715
Sadko
1,900
The Maid of Pskov 1,370
The Oprichnik 840
no performance
Faust
1,830
The Snow Maiden no info
Sadko
1,780
Rusalka
1,760
Rogneda
1,730
The Snow Maiden 860
Khovanshchina 380
Orfeo/Samson 598
Faust
1,370
no performance
Sadko
1,900
Samson et Dalila 538
Lohengrin
1,630
Hollnder
1,560
Die Walkre
1,620
Hollnder
1,420
no performance

Die Walkre
1,620
Lohengrin
1,140
Lohengrin
1,750
Die Meistersinger
1,680
no performance
1,420
no performance

Siegfried
1,700
Hollnder
1,027
Tannhuser
no info
Siegfried
1,100
Wagner highlights 620
Cavalleria rusticana
no info
Tristan
1,750
Faust
1,470
Basso porto/ Die Walkre 830
Cricket/Meisters. 730
Tristan
1,000
Basso porto/ Die Walkre 1,450
Huguenots
1,235
Siegfried 710
Lohengrin
1,610
Huguenots
1,270
no performance

MPO total
26,631
22 Feb
23 Feb
24 Feb
25 Feb
26 Feb
27 Feb
28 Feb
2 Mar
3 Mar
4 Mar
26 Feb
5 Mar
6 Mar
7 Mar
8 Mar
15 Mar
16 Mar
17 Mar
18 Mar
19 Mar
20 Mar
21 Mar
22 Mar
23 Mar
24 Mar
25 Mar
26 Mar
27 Mar
Wagner total
28,922
(continued on next page)
Table 7.1. (continued) Attendance Records of St. Petersburg Performances

by the Moscow Private Opera and Its Competition
Easter Season (NB: data on April 10, 1314, 1819 not reported)
Date
Mariinsky Theater
Rusalka
1,070
Orfeo/Faust 810
Sadko
no info
Mignon 940
Orfeo/Life f. Tsar
1,420
Snow Maiden
no info
Faust
no info
Sadko 740
Mignon 895
Rogneda 460
Hnsel/Orfeo
no info
no info
Sadko
Ballet
Romo et Juliette
Demon
no performance
Mlada
Samson
Ruslan
Ballet
Aida
Onegin
no performance
Ballet
1,750
1,370
no info

1,050
no info
no info
1,120
1,750
1,670

no info
Mariinsky total
8,710
MPO total
MPO grand total
8 Apr
9 Apr
10 Apr
11 Apr
12 Apr
13 Apr
14 Apr
15 Apr
16 Apr
17 Apr
18 Apr
19 Apr
6,335
32,966
Source: Novosti i Birzhevaya Gazeta, FebruaryApril 1898.
Mamontov and the Press

Russian journalists wrote often and passionately about Mamontovs enterprise. As we have seen, not all reports were enthusiastic; in fact, some
were largely negative. However, writings by both MPO supporters and
detractors reveal that there was more at stake for their authors than the
fate of a particular premiere. Indeed, more often than not, a review of
a company production merely provided a pretext for initiating broader
arguments on opera politics and aesthetics, in which the reviewers
agenda was promoted, accompanied by enthusiastic stone throwing at
his opponents.
The ideological biases of the critics were reflected in everything they
wrote about the troupe, from extended policy essays to dry unsigned
notes in the daily chronicles. For example, while discussing ticket sales
for the 1898 tour, the companys supporters would tout a sold-out performance but avoid commenting on a poorly attended one. Critics from the
other camp did the opposite: kept quiet about a packed house and noted
empty seats. Such willful blindness is particularly remarkable when

the comments refer to the same evening, as we can observe in the press
response to the premiere of Khovanshchina. In the conclusion to his
report, the Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti critic expressed regret that
our public does not attend these performances too well: the theater was
largely empty.179 Meanwhile, Csar Cui in his rave review of the same
premiere (see above) recorded excellent opening-night attendance. In
reality, the exact number of sold tickets for the Khovanshchina premiere
totaled 780, which would have filled about half the theater.
This metaphor of a glass half-empty or half-full seems to imply that
the critics who covered the MPO performances were divided into two
groupsfriends and foes. Gozenpud offers just such an appraisal, opposing progressive Stasov, Cui, and Findeizen to the representatives
of the reptile press, Ivanov, Solovyov, Baskin, and Burenin.180 Let us put
aside the questionable belief adopted by Soviet musicologists from biased
Kuchkist critiques that a conservative viewpoint necessarily implies professional incompetence. What is particularly noteworthy is Gozenpuds
unusual grouping of the companys friends. Indeed, as we have seen,
the conservatives, the Kuchkists, and the modernists all at one time
or another expressed their support for Mamontovs company. Yet they
expressed little support for each other or their respective agendas, as the
Wagner war clearly reveals. Moreover, while the companys supposed
enemies frequently backed its activities, its friends just as frequently
criticized them. Pace Gozenpud, Russias opera politics, particularly in
St. Petersburg, was never two-dimensional. It was three-dimensional
at the very least; and the MPO, right at the epicenter of the ideological
storm, was very careful not to align itself directly with the conservatives,
the Kuchkists, or the modernists, while taking full advantage of the
publicity their charged coverage offered it.
The three factions divergent approaches to the Russian repertoire
staged by the MPO are also illustrative of the delicate balance Mamontov
aimed to preserve with respect to the nationalist crusade. As we have
seen, the Kuchkists hailed his repertoire policy when it aligned with
their nationalist agenda, criticized or dismissed any deviation from the
correct path, and enthusiastically participated in the creation of the
Private Opera myth. The conservatives, for their part, viewed Mamontovs playbill as radical due to the prominence of operas by Kuchkist
composers, and the companys controversial anti-establishment stand.

Yet, the modernists saw the very same playbill as essentially conservative, built as it was on twenty-year-old works that to them represented an
old-fashioned, outdated set of valuesthe realist truth. Their position is
elucidated in a review of the MPOs 1899 St. Petersburg tour published in
Diaghilevs Mir Iskusstva, an increasingly influential voice of the modernist press. The critic, Andrei Koptyaev, wrote:
The activities [of the MPO] are commonly labeled radical. But this is
radicalism faute de mieux. Judge for yourself. Apart from the fact that
this label is given to any enterprise that risks staging Russian operas, the
national repertoire in itself is unthinkable without the operas of our leading innovators of the 1870s: Musorgsky, Borodin, and Rimsky-Korsakov.
Without Kuchkist operas, there is nothing to stage: the audience cannot
really be kept forever on a diet of Glinka, Dargomyzhsky, and Tchaikovsky.
[However], the views on musical radicalism have considerably changed
today, compared to the 70s, and we must admit that in many respects,
the works of our innovators demonstrate touching conservatism. . . . The
Moscow troupe has allowed the long-ignored operas of Rimsky-Korsakov,
Borodin, and Musorgsky to see the light of day. Glory and honor to it for
that; and it is not its fault that these works have already lost their flavor
of the moment, and much in themthat which only responded to the
combative mood of the 70sis already foreign to us.181
The conflicting views of the MPO repertoire policy reflected in the

press coverage again reveal Mamontovs company to be a product of its
timethe time of an aesthetic shift on the Russian stage. Mamontovs
market was poised at an aesthetic crossroads: three different concepts of
an operatic genrethe traditional Italian model of middle-period Verdi,
Kuchkist realism, and emerging modernism, represented to Mamontovs
contemporaries by Wagner and Puccinicoexisted in the same market
and competed for the attention of the same audience. The companys popular success, both in Moscow and St. Petersburg, was aided by its pressconstructed status as a nationalist cause clbre. Yet as we have seen, that
success was secured, perhaps in equal measure, by clever marketing
Mamontovs uncanny ability to manipulate the press coverage to assure
free publicity and to promote his own aesthetic agenda. Responding to
the political and ideological realities of the time, he skillfully navigated
Russias treacherous operatic world to cater to his increasingly polarized
audience during a time of both political and aesthetic instability.
eight
Faces of the Enterprise
Throughout this book, it has become evident that Mamontovs Private

Opera embodied a bewildering array of contradictions. Ideologically,
realist trends, modernist innovations, radical nationalism, and operatic
tradition battled each other in the minds of the troupe, its leaders, and
its audiences. In each production, an elusive balance of visual spectacle,
high drama, and flawless musical execution was a goal always striven
for, yet rarely reached to every collaborators satisfaction. Most crucially,
the vision of what the MPO ultimately represented was always fluid:
part temple of high art, part commercial market venture; part popular
education initiative, dedicated to imparting the basics of stage aesthetics
to the gray masses, and part teaching workshop committed to raising
well-rounded, thoughtful, enlightened singing actors. Such a multivalent self-image could not help but impact the operational practices and
internal power structure of Mamontovs company. Indeed, it led to the
creation of a new type of enterprise, recognized as distinctly different
from its predecessors and most of its contemporaries, and a model for
the modernist theater of the near future.
Money Matters
After the government monopoly on theatrical productions was lifted
in the early 1880s, Russias theater world found itself populated by an
ever greater variety of state and private companies with diverse and
often confusing goals and repertories. To make sense of that increas261
ingly diversified market, critics and audiences relied to a large extent on

money matters: a companys ticket prices, its box office receipts, and its
resulting overall financial health. Ticket prices offered the most public,
easily available, and arguably the most telling piece of the money puzzle:
they elucidated a companys target clientele and its self-representation as
a high art theater for educated (and well-to-do) elite as opposed to a
peoples theater with the goal of entertaining the lower classes. As we
shall see, MPO price policies proved resistant to such easy rich-versuspoor interpretations.
When the Solodovnikov Theater first opened its doors in September
1896, early critics found its ticket prices to be obshchedostupnyeliterally, affordable to all. The new company was immediately proclaimed
to be an obshchedostupnyi teatra theater that survives on sales volume rather than production quality and critical success, but also serves
the public by providing it with access to an otherwise unaffordable art
form.1 Indeed, sympathetic members of the press corps praised Mamontovs low-price policy as a vehicle of public education, aiming to
spread cultural enlightenment and, of course, love for Russian music
in layers of society normally unable to attend opera theater for financial
reasons.2 The critics had a pointcheap opera was rare. The Bolshoi
Theater had few truly affordable gallery seats available, while most touring companies kept their prices high in order to survive. The advantage
of the Solodovnikov was its large seating capacity (at ca. 2,200 seats,
roughly comparable to the Bolshoi) that assured a reasonable financial
return even though the gallery seats for evening performances started
at twenty-three kopecks, and matinees cost half of these already bare
minimum prices.
Having pigeonholed the MPO as a peoples theater, the press aimed
to perpetuate that status by issuing dire warnings to the companys leaders not to forget their duty to art and to the public in pursuit of profit.3
The warnings fell on deaf ears, however: by the end of the calendar year,
Novosti Dnya already complained about the fact that the company had
raised the prices for the new operas mid-season.4 Indeed, according to
extant financial records, from 1 January 1897 the complete MPO price
scale was noticeably raised and kept at that level through the end of
the following season.5 In addition, during the companys stay at the
Hermitage Theater in October 1897 and at the International Theater in
fac e s of t h e e n t e r p r i s e 263
February 1898, the prices went up even more, occasioning complaints

from the press.6 Finally, during the 189899 season, even the most biased
critics could not have possibly called the Solodovnikov Theater prices
obshchedostupnye.
As we have seen, Mamontov shared, to an extent, the press belief
in the MPOs mission of enlightenment. Affordable tickets could have
provided a natural way of attracting to the Solodovnikov the widest
possible audience that would benefit from his lessons in aesthetics. If
so, why did Mamontov decide to raise the price scale three months into
the opening season? I would argue that his reasoning had to do with
the significance of ticket prices for the companys image. Prices were
more than a financial issue, or an issue of access; they were an issue of
prestige. The price scale at the Imperial Theaters was kept traditionally
high, projecting the public face of a valuable, high-minded artistic institution that served a select group of sophisticated intellectuals. It was that
mantle of artistic excellence that Mamontov intended to appropriate,
not only with superior production quality and imaginative repertoire
choices, but also with a comparable public image as projected through
the price scale. While affordability brought popularity and, as many critics noted, higher financial returns from the sheer volume of sales, high
prices brought the respect and approbation due an established, serious
institution. They reflected an air of quality, stability, and tradition previously afforded exclusively to the Imperial stage. It was the image that the
Moscow Private Opera aspired to achieveat any cost.
Similar considerations likely prompted Mamontov to raise prices
significantly for the companys second St. Petersburg tour in the spring
of 1899. The increase that put the companys price scale virtually on par
with the Mariinsky Theater, and that the local daily Peterburgsky Listok
called completely unjustified, could have been partially responsible for
lower attendance compared to the first tour and, as a result, a rumored
financial deficit.7 On the other hand, according to the same daily, the
tour attendance might have been affected by audience apathy: after
the action-packed spring of 1898, all Petersburg theaters reported lower
attendance than the previous Lent season. Both the press and the audiences seemed bored: the Mariinsky was presenting its usual medley of
guest stars in a typically eclectic repertoire; the aura of scandal surrounding the competition between the MPO and the Wagnerian troupe
Table 8.1. Attendance Records of St. Petersburg Performances

by the Moscow Private Opera and the Mariinsky Theater
Performance
Tickets Sold
Date
Mariinsky Theater
Performance
Tickets Sold
Boris Godunov 930

Sadko
no info
The Maid of Orleans 930
Mozart and Salieri/
Orfeo 785
Faust
1,420
The Maid of Orleans 460
Rusalka 720
Sadko 1,120
Faust 700
Aida 660
Vera Sheloga/
A Life for the Tsar 760
Boris Godunov 770
Aida 220
Prince Igor
1,150
Vera Sheloga/Orfeo 210
Sadko 830
Prince Igor
1,270
Khovanshchina 410
Faust
1,270
Lakm 520
Prince Igor 740
Boris Godunov 700
Mozart and Salieri/
La bohme 470
Sadko
no info
Rusalka 860
Scenes 600
A Life for the Tsar 690
Faust
1,900
Prince Igor 430
1,300
Boris Godunov
7 Mar
8 Mar
9 Mar
Aida
Lohengrin
no performance
1,750
no info

10 Mar
11 Mar
12 Mar
13 Mar
14 Mar
15 Mar
16 Mar
Onegin
no performance
Faust
no performance
Judith
Faust
no performance
1,040
925
1,210

1,750
1,125

17 Mar
18 Mar
19 Mar
20 Mar
21 Mar
22 Mar
23 Mar
25 Mar
26 Mar
28 Mar
29 Mar
30 Mar
31 Mar
Judith 640
Don Giovanni
1,140
Judith 617
no performance

Don Giovanni
1,300
Judith 812
Don Giovanni 780
Huguenots
1,750
Don Giovanni 735
Huguenots
1,540
Onegin 670
no performance

Tannhuser 890
2 Apr
3 Apr
4 Apr
5 Apr
6 Apr
7 Apr
8 Apr
9 Apr
Huguenots
840
no performance

Onegin 940
Tristan 715
Onegin 660
Tristan 720
no performance

Tristan
1,020
MPO total
23,685
Mariinsky total
23,569
Source: Novosti i Birzhevaya Gazeta, MarchApril 1899; NB: data on 8 Mar and 3 Apr
not reported.
was gone. Absent an ideological battle, no enterprising journalists were

comparing the two companies relative popularity. If such a comparison
were to be made, however (see table 8.1), it would indicate that despite
the slightly shorter tour, which would account for much of its reported
30 percent decline in attendance, Mamontovs troupe still beatalbeit
just barelyits Imperial rival in the number of tickets they sold (23,685
vs. 23,569). With both prices and attendance records thus roughly comparable, Mamontov achieved a victory beyond profit and deficit: as in
Moscow, so now in St. Petersburg his company claimed a place for itself
in the public mind as the Imperial Theaters equal.
Not that the issues of profit and deficit should be dismissed as peripheral. As we have seen, financial securityreal or imaginedwas
an important part of the MPOs public image that Mamontov aimed
to project in order for his aesthetic agenda to be taken seriously. After
all, insolvency was the primary reason for the premature demise of his
many predecessors in the extravagant and exorbitantly costly private
opera business. The Moscow press corps was only too happy to point
this out on a daily basis, as they tracked the companys reported expenditures during its first season. One Novosti Dnya article, after listing an
enormous range of the companys expenses, including renting the hall
(the actual cost of which was even higher than the newspaper projected),
performers wages, the cost of new productions, and so on, called for
belt-tightening strategies. Specifically, it questioned the wisdom of keeping an expensive (and inferior) Italian ballet troupe in the city where,
unlike in St. Petersburg, ballet was unpopular, and was cultivated at the
Bolshoi by tradition and at the Private Opera by delusion.8 Evidently
Mamontov agreed: by the following season, the Italians (except for their
prima Iola Tornaghi, the future Mrs. Chaliapin) were sent home; separate ballets were no longer produced and all operatic dance scenes were
performed by cheaper local performers.9
Another common fundraising tool available to Mamontov would
have been the system of the so-called benefsy [benefits]opera performances, part of the proceeds from which went to a star headliner popular with the public. The fans invariably flocked to their favorites benefit,
ensuring a full house, usually at raised prices. The benefits were a routine
part of doing business at every Russian theater, from the Imperial stage
to the tiniest private association. In fact, Zabelas correspondence with
Rimsky-Korsakov suggests that they were virtually a daily event at the

MPO in the post-Mamontov era.10 One could easily see, however, why
the practice would have been abhorrent to him: with the rampant backstage drama it occasioned, it raised individual stars above their peers, to
the detriment of the troupes camaraderie and artistic ensemble. Thus, as
the leader of the company, he sanctioned only two benefit performances:
one in November 1897 for Elena Tsvetkova before her year-long leave of
absence; another in February 1899 for Feodor Chaliapin at the end of
his tenure. Both benefits were gestures of gratitude to the companys
two brightest stars in consideration of their contributions, not a means
of boosting the bottom line.
Meanwhile, Mamontovs company could have used the boost on
more than one occasion. Beyond the necessary expenses, it was further
financially burdened by a streak of annoying accidents and greater misfortunes that plagued it throughout its existence. For instance, apart from
the fire that devastated the Solodovnikov Theater in early 1898, the illfated building was also the target of two separate lawsuits in three years.
The lack of access to its regular stage resulted in shortened seasons and
temporarily forced the troupe into smaller, less suitable, and more expensive buildings. The shorter seasons (particularly 189899, which started
almost three months late) had an additional disadvantage: unlike a typical theatrical enterprise that hired its employees from the first through
the last performance of a current season, Mamontovs company followed
a long-term contract policy intended to be competitive with the practices
of the Imperial stage. The stars of the company, Chaliapin and SekarRozhansky, both had 3-year, 36-month contracts; other leading soloists
signed 12-month or 24-month ones. Each contract ensured an employee a
monthly salary, whether or not the theater was open for business. Singers
of secondary roles were contracted from the opening to the closing day
of the official season, regardless of whether the Solodovnikov opened
on time. Chorus and orchestra were also employed seasonally, signed at
half-pay until they were actually working. As a result, whenever a season
started late (over ten weeks late in the fall of 1898) the whole troupe had
to be paid out of pocketa situation observed with some admiration by
Russkoe Slovo.11 The pocket, of course, was Mamontovs.
In his discussion of the companys financial fortunes, Gozenpud addressed the only official document ever published on the subject, which,
as it happens, testifies to the Moscow Private Operas solvency. Ironically, the document is indeed a testimonya sworn statement by the
companys administrator, Mrs. Claudia Winter, witness for the defense,
read into the transcript of Mamontovs trial in June 1900. Confirming
the deficit of 20,000 rubles resulting from the summer season at the 1896
Nizhny Novgorod Fair, Mrs. Winter stressed that the enterprise was
now solvent and did not need Mamontovs financial support. Gozenpud
questioned the veracity of the statement, which was aimed, after all, at
dispelling accusations of squandering the shareholders money on an
opera company. In reality, the scholar wrote, the deficit stood not
at 20,000 rubles but at an unaccountably larger sum; even afterward,
Mamontov had to spend huge sums of money on the theater.12 Gozenpud thus refused to entertain the possibility that the MPO ever became
truly financially independent. Garafola agreed, although she did allow
that the company was conceived as a commercial venture.13 Yet no
Mamontov scholar has ever produced convincing evidence to resolve the
issue one way or the other. The discussion below is based on the materials
preserved at the Bakhrushin Museum.14
Due to the fact that only the first seasons accounting records are
available in full, with next to nothing preserved for the second and third
seasons, this is what we can state with reasonable certainty about the
MPOs finances. For the 189697 season, Mrs. Winter, the companys
bookkeeper, reported an average per-performance return of 1,000 rubles, with average per-performance expenses equaling 1,394.90. By the
end of the season, this discrepancy produced a deficit of just over 45,000
rubles.15 Indeed, the records show that the deficit would have reached
a staggering 65,000 rubles, were it not for Marie van Zandts wildly
successful guest tour, which produced 19,431.75 rubles of pure profit in
five days. For its inaugural season, then, Gozenpud and Garafolas assertions about Mamontovs company are confirmed by documentary
evidence.
Few financial records have been preserved for 189798; the newspapers at the end of the season reported, however, that were it not for
the fire, the MPO would have undoubtedly shown a healthy profit. The
successful St. Petersburg tour might have taken care of whatever the
company had lost during the last winter month, but as mentioned above,
no hard data is available.
Finally, the results of the third season are as follows. The press reported completely sold-out performances throughout the season, despite
Chaliapins frequent illnesses; under the new price scale (see above),
per-performance return averaged 1,500 rubles. Even if average per-performance expenses remained at 1,394.90, the company would still show a
profit of almost 12,000 rubles for the season. We can be certain, however,
that the expenses must have gone down considerably: the 40,000-rubles/
year ballet was gone, and the number of new productions stood at six,
compared to twenty-five during the first season. As a result, the profit
margin was undoubtedly higher, easily covering the late season opening
(for which Mamontovs out-of-pocket expenses are recorded in Winters
book as 13,240 rubles) and whatever small deficit might have occurred
during the spring St. Petersburg tour.
An in-depth analysis of all available evidence thus reveals that the
fledgling company, despite the inevitable early setbacks, was at a minimum breaking even by its third year of operation and possibly even
showing a profit. Financial independence for the MPO was unquestionably Mamontovs goal: with his own position rapidly deteriorating, he
would not have been able to support it much longer. At the same time,
while self-sufficiency was becoming a necessity, commercial success was
never his main objective. A commercial enterprise was only one of the
companys many faces. The idea of his venture turning a profit was attractive to Mamontov the railway tycoon; the vision of it as a temple of
pure art appealed to his idealistic side. But to Mamontov the heart and
soul of home theatricals, to Mamontov the member of the Sekretarev
drama circle, who braved his fathers wrath by almost becoming a professional opera singerin a word, to Mamontov the man of the theater
(as Stanislavsky called him)the daily process of collective creativity
was most likely the end in itself. Theater for its own sake was his highest
goal, the raison dtre of his companys very existencewhich leads us
to an examination of yet another face of the enterprise, both public
and private: the MPO as a studio theater.
The Moscow Private Oper a as a Studio Theater

Studio theater (sometimes also known as laboratory theater) is a designation that has been applied to a wide range of experimental troupes
that have proliferated around the world over the past century or so. The
fascination with the concept parallels the rise in popularity of Stanislavskys system of method acting developed in the confines of several
Moscow Art Theater studios.16 According to Stanislavsky, however, the
term was coined by Vsevolod Meyerhold and first applied to the Povarskaya Studio, on whose official personnel roster their names, as well as
the name of Savva Mamontov, are prominently displayed.17
As discussed in chapter 6, Mamontovs passion for the venture knew
no bounds. The project was of tremendous importance for himcomparable to that of the journal Mir Iskusstva a few years earlierand
arguably held more significance for him than his sometimes excessively
enthusiastic attention did for the Povarskayas young troupe. As we have
seen, Mamontovs support for Diaghilevs undertaking was based upon
his recognition of Mir Iskusstvas founding principle of collective creativity as a twin to the creative processes adopted by his own company.
His involvement with the Povarskaya Studio was founded on a similar
recognition of a shared creative principle; a desire, perhaps misguided,
to resurrect the aspect of his now-defunct Private Opera that was most
precious to himnot the glamor and success of a commercial enterprise,
but the spirit of learning and experimentation of a studio theater.18
As a theatrical term, studio has been defined in two ways: as an
experimental lab for advancing stagecraft, and as a training ground
for theater personnel. For instance, in his renowned Dictionnaire du
Thtre, Patrice Pavis describes it as a laboratory theater in which experiments on acting and staging are carried out with no concern for
commercial profitability, and without even considering it essential to
present a finished play to the general public.19 Meanwhile, International
Dictionary of Theater Language discusses the studio primarily as a laboratory for the training of performers, directors, playwrights, designers,
technicians etc., although it goes on to acknowledge its predilection for
experiments and research.20
The concept of a teaching studio inherent in the latter definition
readily applies to Mamontovs company: throughout this book, we have
seen him train a generation of set designers, stage directors, and singing actors. More controversial is the idea of applying to the MPO the
label experimental laboratory, the most common definition of studio
theater. This emphasis on experimentation was fundamental to Stan-
islavskys understanding of the term when it was first applied to the

Povarskaya Studio, as his memoir reveals:
[Our ideas] demanded preparatory, laboratory work. There was no place
for it at the theater with its daily performances, complex operations, and
strictly parsed budget. For this, we needed a special kind of institution,
which [Meyerhold] aptly dubbed a theatrical studio. It is not a real theater, and not a school for beginners, but a laboratory for experiments by
more or less accomplished artists.21
Yet although the term studio might have been new, Stanislavsky surely
recognized its familiar premise. After all, he was a habitual observer
of the MPOs daily life since its first Italian days back in 1885. Back
then, two distinctly different approaches to new productions developedlikely due to the necessity of working with so many guest singers.
The bulk of the star-driven repertoire was dealt with as in the real
theater, with its daily performances and budget concerns. Yet certain
productionsamong others, Rusalka, The Snow Maiden, and Die lustigen Weiber von Windsorwere singled out for experimentation with
mises-en-scne, set design, and stage movement. In these productions,
much individual attention was given to acting by all members of the
troupe, including the chorus; stage directing included a flexible mixture
of techniques, combining collective creativity with the laws of directors
theater.22 Finally, the significance of the processboth the repertoire
chosen and the manner in which it was stagedoccasionally took precedence over the possibility of commercial success, as amply demonstrated by the sparsely attended performances of The Stone Guest. In
other words, these few productions were approached in the manner of
a studio theater.
In its second incarnation, Mamontovs troupe (now much larger
and working in a much bigger building) demonstrated an admirable
ability to integrate its commercial concerns with elements of a studio
environment. Indeed, studio-like experimentation during production
individual coaching of singers, innovative approaches to movement,
visual design, and stage directing techniques, daring, radical repertoire
selectionsunderlay the box-office success of Sadko, The Maid of Pskov,
Khovanshchina, Boris Godunov, Judith, and The Maid of Orleans. The
studio approach is even more transparent, however, in Mamontovs socalled failures. Rimsky-Korsakovs Mozart and Salieri, an intensely
psychological chamber opera for two, with no arias to be found, proved

commercially unsustainable, even with Chaliapin on the playbill; the
cutting-edge operatic choreography of Glucks Orfeo, a much more audience-friendly production, met with incomprehension, derision, and
empty seats. Interestingly, the most common complaint about MPO
productions throughout the companys existencetheir unfinished
quality, often believed to be the result of a rush to printmay also be
viewed as an aspect of its studio environment; its unfortunate side effect, if you will, spilling over into the companys commercial universe.
We have seen Mamontovs dislike of the drilling and polishing process
necessary to complete a production; he would habitually dismiss his associates concerns about the rough patches (as seen in Polenovs experience with Orfeo), or delegate the final stages of rehearsal to another. This
nonchalant attitude reveals him to be a quintessential studio director,
concerned with the process more than the product. As long as his artistic
vision was made manifest, he almost did not care if anyone saw it or if
it made any money for him. Granted, the businessman in him would
not have permitted the MPO to become the glorious waste of effort
that was the Povarskaya Studio, whose sparklingly innovative productions really were seen by no one at all. Yet the two companies had more
in common than Meyerhold scholarsor Meyerhold himself, for that
mattermight have realized. They were united by the shared premise
of the laboratory theater, although in Mamontovs case his studio avant
le mot, in yet another MPO contradiction, existed within and coexisted
with a commercial enterprise.
During the early years of Mamontovs company, its studio-style
productions were made possible by casting young Russian singers such
as Nadezhda Salina, Tatyana Lyubatovich, and Anton Bedlevich. Relatively inexperienced, dedicated to the craft and their leaders vision, they
personified the two interrelated aspects of the studio environment: the
need for training and openness to experimentation. In the 1890s, a young
singer with a fresh voice, adventurous spirit, willingness to stretch the
limits of the profession, and few entrenched performance traditions
became the MPOs ideal hire. The companys recruitment strategies were
consciously based on identifying potential candidates among the senior
classes of the Moscow and St. Petersburg conservatories, provincial singing schools, and even private studios. Once selected, the young recruits
were auditioned (often informally, at Mamontovs house), then seduced

and dazzled with a promise of a steady job, the opportunity to perform
in the capital cities, personal attention, and most importantly, immediate access to leading roles.
That last provision would have been particularly tempting: fledgling
opera singers were traditionally kept away from difficult and prestigious
major parts. Instead, they were used as understudies to their elders or
assigned cameo roles, with little onstage time and thus precious few opportunities to gain the kind of experience that would make them eligible
for the leads in the future. This practice usually left most singers with
two options: to move to a small provincial town where the employment
standards were lower but the performance quality corresponded to those
standards, or to resign themselves to walk-on roles and secondary parts
for the rest of their careers. The MPO, then, offered them a unique third
option: steady employment in a desirable location; a learning experience of singing the leads in a company with a high production quality;
exposure to varied, innovative repertoire in a rare, artistic studio environment; and the extra bonus of Mamontovs tuition. As a result, the
enterprise became a respected, publicly recognized graduate program, so
to speak, for young vocalists with stage ambitions. Novosti Dnya called
it a school for Russian operatic forces that have grown considerably due
to the development of music education in this country,23 while Novosti
Sezona lauded the new breed of opera performer created by Mamontovs recruitment policy.24 By its third season, the company had its pick
of talented youngsters from across Russia, accepting into its troupe a
tenor each from the musical colleges of Odessa and Tomsk, a baritone
from the Kiev Conservatory, and the sopranos from those of St. Petersburg and Moscow.25 Some new recruits fantasized about following in the
footsteps of Chaliapin; all viewed employment at the MPO, if only for a
year, as a smart career move. The graduates of Mamontovs studio were
consistently winning lucrative contracts in the provincial theaters, the
Imperial stage, and abroad; as Melnikov once proudly remarked, These
days it is not easy to compete with Private Opera alumni.26
Meanwhile, the administration of the Imperial Theaters paid increasingly close attention to the daily operations of its competitor in an
attempt to explain and replicate the MPOs success. It was attributed
to the very nature of Mamontovs company: smaller, bureaucratically
unencumbered, and therefore flexible, with a young enthusiastic troupe

performing in an unpretentious, intimate environment. We have already
seen the Bolshoi begin to copy some of Mamontovs signature repertoire
choices. In fall 1898, it attempted to copy the enterprise itself by creating the Novy [New] Theater, a smaller affiliate where alternating drama
and opera performances were to be staged with the young forces of the
Bolshoi and Maly theaters at reduced prices. The purpose of the Novy
was to combine the flexibility and intimacy of a small company with the
quality and unlimited resources of a crown institution, and therefore, to
beat Mamontov at his own game. The plan failed: the new initiative was
missing the two essential ingredients in Mamontovs recipe: a modern
approach to staging and an innovative repertoire.
The opening of the Novy Theater coincided with major administrative changes at the Imperial Theaters; among them the appointment of
Vladimir Telyakovsky as the manager of the Bolshoi. The savvy Telya
kovsky was not involved in the creation of the Novy. He immediately
recognized the futility of the new undertaking without a major shift in
approach to repertoire, production techniques, and personnel. Instead
of mimicking the MPO, he aimed to merge the best attributes of the
two companies by thoroughly reforming the production practices at the
Bolshoi while sparing no expense in hiring Mamontovs alumniand
not just the stars, Chaliapin and Korovin. After his appointment as the
general manager of the Imperial Theater system in 1901, Telyakovsky
stepped up the hiring process, and in 1906, in an ultimate gesture of
acknowledgment, he invited Mamontov himself to become the chief
stage director at the Bolshoi. His offer was declined. Pyotr Melnikov
then took the positionaccording to the latter, upon Chaliapins recommendation, but perhaps as a result of Telyakovskys wish to have
Mamontov-trained stage directors working for him. After all, Vasily
Shkafer was hired to direct productions at the Novy in 1904; in 1907, he
was already at the Mariinsky, staging the world premiere of RimskyKorsakovs latest masterpiece, Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh. At
their respective posts, both stage directors were working with familiar
faces: singers and designers trained at Mamontovs studio. Shkafer had
the additionaland evidently terrifyingpleasure of working alongside
Meyerhold, the Mariinskys chief stage director, then in the middle of
creating his signature symbolist Tristan und Isolde.
Mamontov rejoiced in his former employees infiltration of the enemy bastion: Your place is at the Imperial Theaters, he once wrote to
Shkafer.27 After his trial and subsequent bankruptcy, his business empire
was in tatters, and he was badly in need of a new project to embrace.
Why then did he refuse Telyakovskys flattering offer to get back to the
theater life that he loved? The reason for Mamontovs decision had to do
with the role he played within the Moscow Private Opera.
Structure, Hier archy, and Issues of Authority

The image of Mamontov the philanthropist, millionaire patron of the
arts, but not an artist, persists to this day. In a recent book, Murray Frame
places him among a group of merchant entrepreneurs who financed
theatrical enterprises such as the notorious conservative anti-Semite
Alexei Suvorin (18671912), the owner of the Maly Drama Theater in
St. Petersburg, or Mamontovs namesake Savva Morozov (18621905), a
fellow tycoon, aspiring revolutionary, and the money bag behind Stanislavskys Moscow Art Theater.28 Throughout this book, we have observed
a different Mamontovthe sculptor, the litterateur, the stage director,
and the spiritual center of his company; the source of its creative energy,
not merely its finances. This Mamontov was a theater man, passionately
involved in every aspect of his companys operations, from voice coaching to the use of electricity. He commanded unprecedented respect as a
teacher and mentor. Indeed, the theater itself, with its precarious amalgam of conflicting methods and approaches, such as the democracy of
collective creativity and the hierarchy of directors theater, seems to have
molded itself in the image of its creator, whose unique personality was an
inherently controversial blend of autocrat and bohemian. Mamontovs
greatest talent was that of organizer and coordinator, capable of bringing
together diverse creative minds and making them work as a team, as he
inspired and guided them toward the realization of the overall aesthetic
goal he envisioned for each production. Nikolai Krotkov, a collaborator
on two operas, The Necklace and The Scarlet Rose, once wrote to Mamontov: I cherish your special ability to make me work as if taking dictation
from you. You have many creative ideas, and you are able to present them
in such a palpable way that what remains is only to transfer them to paper
using correct symbolsnotes in music, words in literature.29
Of course, taking Mamontovs dictation presupposed, together

with the benefits of his inspiration and famously acute artistic judgment, allowing him a certain level of control over the end result of the
creative process, a control Mamontov clearly cultivated, as his recruitment policies suggest. Had he accepted the job at the Bolshoi, working
in this manner would no longer have been possiblevery likely the
reason for his refusal. As Gozenpud argues, Mamontovs inability to
submit to anothers authority might have prevented (aesthetic differences notwithstanding) the possibility of his collaboration with Stasov
on the production of Khovanshchina. The researcher even attributes the
departure of Rachmaninov from his post as an assistant conductor to
the clash of creative wills,30 a more controversial hypothesis that may or
may not be sustainable.31 Nevertheless, it is clear that Mamontov found
it difficult to collaborate with any talented and strong-willed creative
personality unless a certain division of labor was established between
themthe path he chose in working with Melnikov, for instance. The
internal organization of his enterprise could thus be understood as a
concentric structure, with himself at the center, surrounded by a committee of select collaborators and advisors hand-picked for a particular
production, and a larger group of students and colleagues comprising
the outer layer. All levels of this structure were tightly connected and interrelated, and permeated both by centripetal forces carrying ideas from
the outer circles to the center, and centrifugal ones spreading inspiration
and energy from the center to the periphery.
Without ever holding an official title, Mamontov was what we today would call the artistic director of his company. The concept was
unknown in turn-of-the-century Russia, so it is understandable that the
contemporary press, while increasingly aware of Mamontovs connection to the MPO, did not immediately realize the extent of his involvement. Stasov was the first to forge a direct link between Mamontovs
name and his company by openly referring to it as mamontovsky teatr
[Mamontovs theater]. In Stasovs writings, Mamontov was portrayed
as the companys creator and patron; he was also given full credit for
establishing its repertoire policy, however partisan the critics interpretation of it. Yet Mamontovs direct, personal contribution to the creative
process remained unrecognized. Stasov credited him, for example, with
involving his painter friends in designing sets for the company, but not
with establishing the overall concept of those designs. In the critics view,
Mamontovs role with respect to his theater compared to those of Pavel
Tretyakov and Mitrofan Belyaev, his fellow capitalists, who impacted
the creation of topical Russian art, in painting and music respectively,
through their targeted patronage. The unique nature of Mamontovs
artistry thus appeared to have escaped Stasov, just as it escaped Murray
Frame, who simply chose a different group of tycoons with which to
align him.
The appearance of the term mamontovskaya opera [Mamontovs
opera theater], coined a year after Stasovs essay by Peterburgsky Listok,
does not prove that the press was now seeing more than financial support
in Mamontovs involvement.32 There are other hints, however, of the shift
in critical perspective. For instance, in October 1899 Novosti Dnya published a satirical limerick that portrayed the stiff competition between
Moscows opera theaters during the 18991900 season as a horse race.
Titled Theatrical Races, the poem opened with a humorous portrait
of the Bolshoi that, with all due pomp and circumstance, declared itself
big (i.e., bolshoi). Yet size and grand traditions were proclaimed to be
useless to what was essentially a department of music (in this case,
a government bureaucracy). Nevertheless, the Bolshoi was considered
the favorite to win the race due to the recently acquired thoroughbred
Chaliapin, bred in the stables of S. I. Mamontov.33 The author thus gave
Mamontov full credit for discovering the great singer and molding his
talent, joining a widespread consensus within the operatic community.
Mamontovs separation from the MPO in the wake of his arrest made
his true position within the company even more evident to the press. In
his review of the troupes unsupervised revival of Lakm in November
1899, Novosti Dnya columnist Evgeny Rozenov made the following observation: Overall, one must note that the number of artistic blunders
at the Private Opera has increased considerably since it lost its talented
leader.34 In this short sentence, without his name even being mentioned,
Mamontovs role as artistic director of the MPO was thus publicly acknowledged for the first time.
Rozenovs statement is particularly fascinating since it reveals his
own belated enlightenment on the subject of Mamontovs involvement.
In an extended policy essay published at the start of the 189798 season,
the critic praised an experienced, thinking, and sensitive leader whose
recent addition to the troupe was to breathe fresh power into it. 35 Since
Mamontov was at the head of the company from the beginning, the critic
evidently meant Semyon Kruglikovmusician, critic, and Rozenovs
predecessor at Novosti Dnya, who left his position as a regular columnist
in order to join the MPO with the fancy title rukovoditel khudozhestvennoi chasti, literally translated as a leader of the artistic aspect, that is,
artistic director. In reality, according to his correspondence with Mamontov, Kruglikov viewed his role primarily as repertoire advisor: his
knowledge of music being weaker than that of the visual arts, Mamontov must have wanted an experienced musician on his staff. Kruglikov
also participated in contract negotiations with singers and conductors,
hired chorus and orchestra, and accomplished similar tasks that, while
administrative in nature, required auditions and artistic judgment. The
two men shared a passionate interest in the artistic mission and success
of the company: as Kruglikov once put it, you and I share a lover, but
we do not seem to fight over her.36 Their collaboration was facilitated by
having much in common in their aesthetic views, including Kruglikovs
unwillingness, despite his Kuchkist ties, to surrender the MPO to the
nationalist cause. He wrote:
I see the objectives of Russian Private Opera broadly, and not at all from
the kvas [i.e., nationalist] angle. Russian art should remain first for our
mutual lover, but particularly to serve it well and sensibly, she must serve
art as a whole, keenly listening to all its currents in the sense of trends,
epochs, and nationalities, and capably separating the talented from the
mediocre.37
Despite Kruglikovs importance to the company, however, it was Mamontovs opinion that determined the final course of action. Before
making a decision, he frequently chose to listen to other advisors, even
on the matters Kruglikov viewed as his responsibility, complaining of
being slighted: I felt many times during the season that you were not
always pleased with me, especially when, in some musical questions, you
found it more convenient to confide in someone else rather than in me.
It was very painful to me.38 Clearly, it was not Kruglikov but Mamontov who was in fact the artistic director of the MPO. He delegated some
responsibilities to Kruglikov, but the latter was not essential to daily operations. It is possible that the primary reason Kruglikov was invited to
join the team were his connectionsin the press as a music critic, in the
artistic circles of Moscow through his work for the Philharmonic Society, and, most importantly, to his former teacher, Rimsky-Korsakov. The
wisdom of Mamontovs choice was revealed almost immediately, after
Kruglikov had successfully lobbied the distrustful composer to secure
the MPOs greatest coup to datethe production rights for Sadko.
As a leader of an opera theater that prided itself on the originality
of its repertoire, and as a businessman with a keen understanding of the
rules of publicity, Mamontov valued and cultivated connections to contemporary opera composers, both Russian and foreign. He knew Puccini,
encouraged Melnikovs friendship with Massenet, and advised Shkafer
on how best to capitalize on Saint-Sanss impending visit to Moscow.
Among Russian composers, Mamontovs most important collaborator
was, of course, Rimsky-Korsakov: nine of his operas were staged at his
company, six of them world premieres and five written expressly for the
theater. In a sense, Rimsky-Korsakovs music held the same iconic, defining place at the MPO that Stravinskys did at the Ballets Russes.
It is unquestionable that Mamontov realized Rimsky-Korsakovs
significance as Russias greatest living composer, respected his opinion,
and appreciated his special relationship with his enterprise. After all,
the composers continued good will was vital to the companys prestige,
as well as ensuring its financial survival. Nevertheless, the relationship
between Mamontov and Rimsky-Korsakov suffered whenever Mamontov felt that the composer was beginning to usurp his authority as the
producer of his operas, the creator of their staged versions. A complete
breakdown in their collaboration occurred in the spring of 1899 over The
Tsars Bride. Prompted by Zabela, Rimsky-Korsakov wrote Mamontov
a letter in which he outlined a set of conditions for the production, including casting, an issue vital to Mamontovs own artistic vision. The
composer went as far as threatening to revoke the operas production
rights in rehearsal should his conditions not be met.39 Mamontov was
not amused by the ultimatum. Typically a prompt, polite, and prolific
correspondent, he refused to answer the letter, thus quietly making his
position known. Rimsky-Korsakov might not have changed his mind,
but he clearly backed down, writing to Zabela:
You are writing that [Mamontov] is unhappy with me and says that he has
had enough of courting me; its time for me to court him. But the thing
is, I really dont ask for any courting. . . . And as for myself, I dont plan to
court him either, and if Inaively, perhapsoccasionally imposed myself

on him, wishing to look after the production of my own pieces and help
himthat is in the past, and will not happen again. . . . Anyway, it seems
to me that the issue of courting is absolutely pointless. Nobody should
court anyone. If composers didnt write operas, entrepreneurs would have
nothing to produce; and if there were no operatic stages, there would be
no need for composers to write operas. And operas should be staged the
best way possible, and the author is the best judge and the best advisor
even to the best stage director in Russia.40
According to Gozenpud, it was Mamontovs synthesized approach

to opera production that served as the basis for his conflict with the
composer, who believed in the absolute dominance of the musical aspect.41 Indeed, as we have witnessed, the two rarely saw eye to eye on
matters of stage aesthetics. Rimsky-Korsakov was either oblivious to
or unconcerned with many of Mamontovs goals, as is evident in his
off-hand dismissal of the significance of Orfeo.42 Still, whatever their
aesthetic differences were, it was clearly the issue of authority that separated them the most. While Rimsky-Korsakov believed the composer to
be the best judge in all matters related to the production of his operas,
Mamontov asserted and guarded his own authority as the companys
artistic director, his own creative ownership of the works he staged, and
he refused to relinquish these to anyone, even to the author. As the story
of his conflict with the composer makes clear, he was willing to risk
everythingincluding alienating his companys most important asset
in order to safeguard his creative autonomy. When The Tsars Bride was
finally staged, the only concession Rimsky-Korsakov received was the
one Mamontov was willing to grant him from the beginningNadezhda
Zabela singing the title role. As a result, a prolonged chill ensued in the
relationship between the composer and his director, a fact responsible
for a rather unflattering characterization of Mamontov in the Chronicle
of My Musical Life.43
Fifteen years later, the leader of another theatrical venture would
face a similar conflict regarding the staging of a Rimsky-Korsakov opera. This leader, of course, would be Sergei Diaghilev, and the conflict
would revolve around the daringly unauthentic 1914 Paris production of
Le Coq dOr. Nadezhda Rimsky-Korsakov, the composers widow, was
incensed by what she called Diaghilevs mutilation of the opera, and
even publicly threatened legal action.44 Diaghilev was undeterred. The
staging of Le Coq dOr was in fact the second time his artistic ideas had
clashed with Mrs. Rimsky-Korsakovs vision of her late husbands legacy.
The first such clash occurred in 1910 over Schhrazade, a ballet staged
using a heavily edited score, with the composers original program abandoned for a racier harem extravaganza. In an open letter published in
a St. Petersburg daily Rech that responded to Mrs. Rimsky-Korsakovs
attack on that production, Diaghilev defended his position against the
accusations of immorality and disrespect. He argued: Defending
the rights of [the authors] should not mean protesting against any artistic phenomena connected with their names, when these phenomena
could only be faulted for the novelty of their idea and the boldness of its
execution.45 Like Mamontov before him, Diaghilev viewed the principle
of collaborative creativity in very practical terms, as benefiting from
the diverse talents of team members, but possible only under the firm
leadership of an artistic director. As such, he was determined to protect
his right to conceptualize a stage production in his own way, irrespective
of authorial intent and the wishes of the composers family. The comparison made here is not accidental. As I will argue below, Diaghilevs
attitude stemmed directly from his acquaintance with and admiration
for Mamontovs methods of organizing his enterprise, his marketing
strategies, and his role as the companys artistic director.
Mamontov and Diaghilev Revisited

Diaghilevs correspondence provides little insight into Savva Mamontovs role in shaping his early career. He mentioned him sporadically
in his letters throughout 189899, and after Mamontovs sponsorship
of Mir Iskusstva ended in late 1899, not at all. Diaghilev never wrote a
memoir in which he would, like Chaliapin, Salina, and Shkafer, publicly
acknowledge his debt to his mentor. One could argue, therefore, that Diaghilevs relationship with Mamontov could have been purely businesslike, just as with many other financial backers Diaghilev encountered
during his career, and that the correspondences in their aesthetic views,
while inspiring Mamontov to help Diaghilev, meant little to the latter.
Lynn Garafola disagrees with this hypothesis, pointing to the memoirs
of Diaghilevs close friend of that period, Walter Nouvel, dictated to
Arnold Haskell. According to Nouvel, the young Diaghilev was full
of admiration for Mamontoff.46 Nouvels recollection, apart from being the only direct eyewitness report on the subject, is noteworthy for
another reason: as the head of Mir Iskusstvas music division, he was
responsible for the coverage of the MPOs activities and thus must have
had more occasions than anyone to discuss the matter with Diaghilev,
his editor-in-chief. Garafola suggests that meeting Mamontov marked
a turning point in Diaghilevs career, setting it firmly on a course of
entrepreneurship. She writes:
Mamontov turned the dilettante of art into a builder of artistic empires.
[He] opened the eyes of the Westward-gazing Petersburger to the artistic
riches of Moscow; introduced him to many of the painters who would figure in his activities during the next fifteen years; instilled in him a regard
for collaborative relationships; steered him, in fact, toward the theater.47
In light of the discussion undertaken throughout this book, it is

hard to disagree with Garafolas statement. However, the scholar never
specified the causes and methods responsible for the remarkable transformation she described. Clearly, a few brief meetings and a hefty check
would not have been able to accomplish it. I believe that the convergence
between them was facilitated by Mamontov appearing in Diaghilevs life
at exactly the right time, a moment filled with bitterness and frustration over the direction of his artistic endeavors and the attitude of his
closest friends.
In a letter from Paris in the spring of 1897, Alexandre Benois harshly
criticized the results of twenty-five-year-old Diaghilevs first attempt at
organizing an art exhibit. In response, Diaghilev wrote:
I am aware that my nature and my activities (if they could be called
that), Lord knows, are not that profound; I do not possess a philosophers
nature, and am little inclined to that all-pervading atmosphere of skepticism. But the only thing I value and love in the people around me, cest
quand on me prend au srieux, and that I cannot find in those precious
few to whom my soul is drawn the most.48
A thirst to prove himself and to be taken seriously was foremost on

Diaghilevs mind during the year he met Mamontov. By this time, his
aspirations as a composer had been thwarted by Rimsky-Korsakovs
uncompromising criticism.49 His lack of painterly talents made him feel
inferior to his artist friends Benois, Eugene Lanceray, Lon Bakst, and
Konstantin Somov, while their condescending attitudes caused his selfesteem to sink even lower. With the preparations for the Mir Iskusstva
exhibition and the journal well underway, Diaghilev still felt that he
was not doing anything artistically worthwhile. He saw himself not as a
writer but as a bookseller, so to speak; not as a star but, in his own words,
merely an accompanist, forced to swallow his pride as he acceded to
the demands of real artists.50 Diaghilevs attempts to organize a new society of young artists that would have sponsored the 1898 Mir Iskusstva
exhibition were unsuccessful: the painters refused to take any financial
risk, suggesting instead that he bankroll the event out of his own pocket.
Diaghilev was furious, writing to Benois: No one has breadth and nobility of feeling. Everyone mistakes his wallet for his artistic principles.51
It was at that moment that Diaghilev met Mamontov. Not only did
Mamontov share many of his aesthetic views, he was justifiably renowned
for habitually placing his artistic principles above his financial interests.
But perhaps Mamontovs position within his opera company would have
intrigued Diaghilev the most; it certainly seems to have had the most
lasting influence on him. Mamontovs role as the artistic director of the
MPO was an example of what Diaghilev wanted to become. Without
being a narrow specialist in any branch of the staged art, Mamontov was
sufficiently well-rounded and authoritative to be able to conceptualize
the complete artwork of an operatic production, and then to assemble a
committee of specialists to implement it. He was more than an impresario; he was, in his own field, an artista role ideally suited to Diaghilevs
own combination of talents. This was the position that he, from that
moment on, must have aspired to achieve within his own circle.
During his frequent visits to Moscow in the fall of 1897 (see chapter
4), Diaghilev had ample opportunity to observe the main organizational
principles and daily operating methodology of the MPO. Among several
pieces of evidence documenting his presence at the theater, there is witness testimony of a young mezzo-soprano, Varvara Strakhova, who had
just been accepted into Mamontovs troupe and was hard at work on her
first leading roleMarfa in Khovanshchina (plate 22). In her memoirs,
Strakhova described the structure of the company as concentric (similar to the model discussed above), writing: At the center [of the circle]
stood S. I. Mamontov, who was surrounded by outstanding people of
art, including Polenov, V. Serov, M. Vrubel, S. Kruglikov; sometimes we
would see Antokolsky, Pavel Trubetskoy, Diaghilev, K. Korovin, RimskyKorsakov, Glazunov, Rachmaninov, and Cui.52 One should of course
make allowances for the passage of time and Strakhovas later familiarity with Diaghilevs name (after emigrating in 1917, she settled in Paris).
Nevertheless, it is enlightening to see that his name is listed next to those
of Korovin and Rachmaninov, both of whom in the fall of 1897 were Mamontovs closest associates and full-time employees. Strakhovas memoirs indicate that, during his visits to Moscow that fall and possibly later,
Diaghilev took full advantage of Mamontovs generous open-door policy
by frequently and routinely attending the companys performances and
rehearsals. Overall, the evidence suggests that Diaghilev must already
have been familiar with the MPOs internal structure and management
principles by the time of its 1898 Petersburg tour, during which Mamontov became the official co-publisher of Mir Iskusstva.
Earlier in this book, we touched upon the unusual circumstances
of Mamontovs decision to sponsor Diaghilevs journal, and the aesthetic, rather than purely philanthropic, foundation for this decision.
It is interesting to note that the contemporary press apparently viewed
their collaboration in a similar light, as evident from a clever Novosti
Dnya feuilleton that satirized a stereotypical Moscow capitalist wasting his millions on worthless projects undertaken by unscrupulous St.
Petersburg entrepreneurs. Despite the essays sardonic tone, the MPO
and Mir Iskusstva were viewed by its author as exceptions from the described tendency; both were presented as serious institutions based on
similarly noncommercial principles that left him at a loss.53 It is unsurprising that the unique connection between Mamontov and Diaghilev,
while attracting the attention of both critics and scholars, has never been
adequately explained. Even Diaghilevs closest friends, including his selfproclaimed mentor, Alexandre Benois, had difficulty comprehending the
true nature of his relationship with Mamontov.
In his published articles and memoirs, Benois discussed Mamontovs achievements very little. He compared the creation of the Moscow
Private Opera, along with the Moscow Art Theater, to his own Pickwick
Club on the Neva (an idea also explored by Garafola), but offered no
assessment of its value.54 He acknowledged attending the 1898 St. Petersburg tour, but discussed only his impressions of Chaliapin and the
designers.55 He appreciated the role of the enterprise in the development
of modernist theater design, but attributed the concept of a unified visual

impression to Korovin alone, while avoiding the issue of Mamontovs
role within the company.56 Furthermore, in his monumental Istoriya
russkoi zhivopisi v XIX veke [History of the Russian Painting in the 19th
Century], Benois described Mamontov as an artist by nature and inclination who, in a whirlwind of events and projects, never managed to
create anything, and assigned him a venerable but passive role as the
Tretyakov of modernist art.57 Mamontovs artistic contribution to the
MPO, therefore, passed either misunderstood or unacknowledged by
Benois the art critic. Moreover, whenever Mamontov is mentioned in
Benois private correspondence or memoirs, the overall impression created is that of the wariness and dislike of a refined Petersburg esthete for
a wild, unpredictable Muscovite invading his pure and orderly artistic
world. In Benois recollections about the early days of the Mir Iskusstva
group, the appearance of Mamontov is depicted as follows: We could
not stop talking about the journal during the whole period of preparation
for the exhibition, and particularly after the opening. Apart from [Princess] M[aria] K[lavdievna] Tenisheva, who thirsted for noble glory, the
famous Moscow Maecenas, uncontrollable mad dog Savva Mamontov,
had now appeared on our horizon.58 Apparently, Princess Tenishevas
thirst for glory did not worry Benois at that point: he considered her
under his artistic influence, her desire for the spotlight easily manipulated. He was decidedly apprehensive, however, about Mamontov. This
wild card, considering Benois opinion of him, must have been brought
into the project by Diaghilev; his immense energy, unpredictable and
uncontrollable, was perceived as a threat. Benois recognized the immense power of Mamontovs charismatic personality, and was worried
that his influence on Diaghilev might counteract his own, particularly
since Benois himself was in Paris at the time, growing ideologically and
aesthetically apart from the Mir Iskusstva editorial board. Indeed, the
very first article he submitted to the journal was rejected because its
stand against art for arts sake conflicted with the aesthetic platform outlined in Diaghilevs Complex Questions.59 Benois fear was expressed
in a letter to Tenishevas friend, Princess Chetvertinskaya, in which he
wrote: Lord, give [Diaghilev] strength to withstand the pressure from
Mamontov who, while magnificent and venerable, is also quite lacking
taste and very dangerous.60
Benois had good reasons to worry. The evidence suggests that Diaghilevs personal relationship with Mamontov quickly reached the level
of intimacy typical of friends and colleagues rather than merely that of
a publisher and an editor. This development was facilitated by the fact
that their approach to art, and particularly their preferred methods of
promoting it, had much in common, especially at a point where they
diverged from Benois own. For example, Benois was apprehensive about
confronting the groups ideological enemies in public, and constantly
worried about offending someone, as Diaghilev pointed out in one of
his letters.61 In order to keep the peace, he was willing to compromise to
the point of joining an art society headed by his brother, Albert Benois,
despite its establishment roots and disdain for young painters.62 Diaghilev, on the other hand, rejoiced in the idea of an open press war and used
scandal and bad publicity to promote his journal, deliberately seeking
and even initiating it, as Taruskin has demonstrated in relation to the
Mir Iskusstva polemics with Stasov.63 This famously successful tactic
could easily have been learned from Mamontov, who, as we have already
observed, frequently used controversial repertoire and ideological debate
for promotional purposes. Perhaps the earliest time Mamontov utilized
negative publicity that way was during the 1896 Nizhny Novgorod Exhibition, in order to promote the works of Vrubel rejected by the selection
committee (see chapter 4). Diaghilev must have been aware of this, since
Mamontovs maneuver directly affected his own 1898 Mir Iskusstva exhibition, at which Vrubels works were first presented to the St. Petersburg public. In the advance press coverage, the still unknown Moscow
painter was introduced in terms of the scandal his decadent panels had
created in Nizhny Novgorod. For example, a correspondent of Peterburgskaya Gazeta, in his article covering the opening of the Mir Iskusstva
exhibition, recounted with much enjoyment the story of Vrubels eviction, mit Trommel und Trompeten, from the Nizhny Novgorod Fair. The
critic then suggested that Vrubels paintings, unbelievable trash [with]
no picture and no thought, must have been exhibited this time in order
to prove how right the selection committee was to begin with.64 And,
just as in Nizhny Novgorod, the negative publicity served only to attract
more spectators attention to Vrubel.
Whether Diaghilev was aware in advance how the negative publicity
would work in Vrubels case, or was able to appreciate it after the fact,
he certainly acquired a taste for Mamontovs method of promotion. He

used it repeatedly and successfully to benefit the journal, and gleefully
reported the results to his mentor. In the single surviving letter from
Diaghilev to Mamontov, dated 1 December 1898, among various business matters we find the following remark: Have you read Burenin yet?
What great advertising!65 This phrase refers to a lengthy review of the
inaugural issue of Mir Iskusstva, published three days earlier by the art
columnist of Novoe Vremya. Despite what Diaghilevs comment might
suggest, the article was not a panegyric: Burenin characterized the contents of the journal as insolent decadent lies of our ignorant aesthetes,
and had the following to say about the editor personally: The abovequoted nonsensical blabbering of the newly self-declared prophet of his
age and his generation represents a product of pride-induced insanity,
one of the biggest characteristics of which is an ego rising to the state of
megalomania precisely as a result of its own worthlessness [and] internal
inadequacy.66 Diaghilevs short letter has the feeling of a muted conversation between two coconspirators. The lack of explanation for his remark about great advertising and the lack of quotation marks indicating
irony clearly suggest that Diaghilev expected full comprehension from
his addressee. The writing style is also noteworthy: it is markedly different from the style used in the journals official correspondence, as well as
from the formal language found in correspondence between Mamontov
and the journals assistant editor, Dmitry Filosofov.67 Diaghilev did use
the second person plural to address a man thirty years his senior, but so
did Mamontov and his close associates such as Melnikov and Shkafer,
who all used this respectful form in their correspondence. This is why
the signature of Diaghilevs letter is particularly noteworthy: instead of a
more formal option, he used I shake your hand, the same phrase found
in his letters to Benois and other close friends.
There is little direct evidence of Mamontovs continued mentorstudent relationship with Diaghilev after the fall of 1899, when he terminated his sponsorship of Mir Iskusstva as a result of his arrest and
bankruptcy. What we can prove is that Mamontov stayed in touch with
Diaghilev and continued moral, if not financial, support for his activities
for at least the following five years. For example, Mamontov continued
to introduce him to the young artists he discovered, as revealed in a letter to Diaghilev from symbolist painter Victor Borisov-Musatov, dated
1904. He wrote: On my arrival in Saratov, I found here a Scarlet Rose

exhibition organized by Kuznetsov and Utkin, both of whom you know
through Mamontov.68
Furthermore, in the famous 1899 caricature of Diaghilev as a milkmaid milking Tenisheva the cow, which provided a pretext for the princess cutting off her support for Mir Iskusstva, the cartoonist known as
The Old Judge depicted a mammoth (in Russian, mamont, i.e., Mamontov) looking on approvingly at the milking process (see plate 39). And
while Mamontovs prominence in the original cartoon is easily explainable by its date, it is rarely noted that a year later, The Old Judge published another Diaghilev cartoon dedicated to the fallout between Mir
Iskusstva and Ilya Repin (see plate 40). The cartoon portrays Stasov in
a peasant costume dancing a folk dance in front of a kneeling, penitent
Repin, while Diaghilev the milkmaid watches defiantly, hands on hips.
Tenisheva the cow, so prominent in the earlier image, is now a tiny figure on the horizon; Mamontov the mammoth, however, is depicted in
the same prominent dimensions and in the same place, the upper right
corner of the cartoon. Accidentally or not, he is now standing just behind
Diaghilev.
Finally, Mamontov was one of only three people invited to make
official speeches at a dinner party honoring Diaghilev after the closing
of the 1905 exhibition of the Russian historical portraitsDiaghilevs
last official campaign in Russia before he moved his activities abroad.69
We do not know what Mamontov said; but we do know what Diaghilev
would do. Indeed, we shall see that while Diaghilevs road to Paris was
not necessarily suggested to him by Mamontov directly, it certainly followed his example.
The Road to Paris

Mamontov always dreamed of taking his troupe to Paris. He conceived
of the idea as early as 1888, during his companys early days, and, unsure
of himself, asked Stasov and Rimsky-Korsakov for their advice on the
viability of a Paris tour during the 1889 International Exhibition. In response the two discouraged him from pursuing it, pointing to a Parisian
opera companys plans to stage A Life for the Tsar, wondering about the
impact that such a small enterprise could have during the World Fair,
and worrying about compromising the cause. In truth, with everything

they knew about Mamontov at that point, they had no reason to think
he could pull it off.70
The Paris dream was resurrected ten years later. And while there
is no direct evidence to prove that Mamontov discussed his plans with
Diaghilev, there was no need. Within two weeks of the 1898 St. Petersburg tour, the news hit major newspapers of both capitals. Novosti Dnya
reported:
The success of Rimsky-Korsakovs new opera Sadko in Moscow and St.
Petersburg has inspired the creators of the Moscow Private Opera to take
the whole troupe to Paris in 1900, during the World Exhibition, with the
following operas in its repertoire: Sadko, May Night, The Maid of Pskov,
and The Snow Maiden by Rimsky-Korsakov, Igor by Borodin, Rusalka and
The Stone Guest by Dargomyzhsky, as well as Glinkas Ruslan.71
The papers were known to print advance notices of MPO events that
were not in fact taking place: the premiere of Mozart and Salieri was
announced for mid-March, but would not occur until November that
year. However, in a letter from Paris the following summer, Shkafer
described the preliminary scouting of the operatic market that he, Melnikov, and other members of the troupe had been conducting there, and
expressed confidence that his mentors secret intentions of conquering
the worlds reigning cultural capital would meet with great success.72
While under house arrest in late 1899 (see chapter 4, n.63), Mamontov evidently delegated his work on the Paris tour to Melnikov, who
took upon himself the delicate negotiations with Prince Tenishev, Maria
Tenishevas husband and the head of the Russian Section at the 1900
Exhibition, who had the power to approve or veto the participants.73 The
negotiations either never reached the paperwork stage, or the paperwork
did not survive. They were, however, public knowledge among the intimates of the company, enough to have been the subject of correspondence between Rimsky-Korsakov and Zabela. In his letters from January
1900, the composer expressed essentially the same sentiment about the
proposed tour that he had held back in 1888, voicing his skepticism about
the idea and wariness of Melnikovs intrigues.74
Meanwhile, only the reality of his bankruptcy in the aftermath of
the June 1900 trial stopped Mamontov on his road to Paris. His plans
were fated forever to remain his secret intentions. He did, however,
attempt to send an aesthetic message to Paris in 1907, when, at RimskyKorsakovs personal request, he agreed to advise the Opra Comique on
its planned production of The Snow Maiden. Initially he expected to go
to Paris personally in order to stage the production, but no such invitation was extended by the theaters director, Albert Carr. Mamontov
had to limit his participation to overseeing The Snow Maidens visual
design; Vasnetsovs sketches of sets and costumes were duly dispatched
to Carr, evidently making quite an impression.75 Interestingly, after the
news of Mamontovs participation hit Parisian newspapers, an enterprising correspondent solicited an interview with Carrs main competitor,
Diaghilev, whose spectacular Boris Godunov was to be premiered simultaneously with Rimsky-Korsakovs opera. The interview contains yet another hitherto overlooked testament to Diaghilevs appreciation for Mamontovs expertise: while commenting on the Snow Maiden production
team, Diaghilev publicly took full credit for recommending Mamontov
to Carr.76 We will likely never know whether or not he was telling the
truth; it is, after all, possible that both he and Rimsky-Korsakov made
similar recommendations to the Opra Comique. But knowing Diaghilevs personality, we can be certain that he would never have made such
a statement if he had any doubts about the level of artistry Mamontovs
participation would bring to the project, and the consequent boost to his
own reputation as a talent scout who had discovered him for Paris.
The fate of The Snow Maiden was a monument to bad marketing:
poor advertising, backstage warfare, and, most importantly, competition provided by Diaghilevs Boris effectively demolished any chance
of it rising beyond a succs destime. Mamontovs son Sergei, who witnessed the premiere, testified in Russkoe Slovo that the Paris newspapers
unanimously praised the production, yet the success of Musorgskys
Boris has been incomparably greater.77 Mamontovs bitterness over the
impending fiasco might have been a reason for some rather unpleasant
remarks he made in a 1907 interview, in which he accused Diaghilev of
squandering government funds for his and Chaliapins personal glory.78
In reality, the motivation behind both mens intent to conquer Paris
was remarkably similar. In a letter to Albert Carr, Mamontov wrote:
I would very much like to be useful to you, in order to make the true
poetry of Russia, the delicate sentiments of our people, known in France.
They believe us to be drunken peasants. Well, that is not true.79 Diag-
hilev, in turn, expressed his lifes ambition in a letter to Benois, saying:

I want to pamper Russian art, to clean it up and, most importantly, to
offer it to the West, to exalt it in the West.80
Ultimately, it was not the Moscow Private Opera but Diaghilevs
Ballets Russes that, absorbing the most talented minds and innovative
practices of Mamontovs enterprise, offered their shared aesthetic dream
to Paris and the world. It was the Ballets Russes that with productions
such as Le Coq dOr completed the journey of Russian operatic staged
art away from the nineteenth century toward the artistic and operational principles of modernity. Yet at the root of that historic triumph
lies an unacknowledged but essential truth. As in his understanding of
a synthesis of the arts achieved through collaboration and his adoption
of the creative mantle of artistic director, so in his vision for the future
of Russian modernist staged art Sergei Diaghilev was guided by Savva
Mamontov.
Chaliapins artistry, Korovins two-dimensional backdrops, Stanislavskys system of method acting, Meyerholds motionless mises-en-scne,
and the Gesamtkunstwerke of Diaghilevs Ballets Russes have all been
acknowledged in both scholarly discourse and popular imagination as
the faces of Russian modernist theater. All made a profound impact
around the world that can still be felt today. All testify to the genius
of their creators. And as I hope to have proven in the present study,
none would have been possible without Mamontovs golden touchhis
money, yes, but more importantly his contradictory, irrepressible, brilliantly exasperating inspiration. Rarely does one man make such a mark
on history. Savva Mamontovs own artistry and the ideas he implanted
in his students in his search for modernism in Russian theater would
forever change the world of art in the twentieth century.
a ppen di x a
Brief Chronology of Savva

Mamontovs Life and Career
1841

1848

1859
1862

1863

1864

1865

1868

1870

3 October: Savva Ivanovich Mamontov born in Yalutorovsk,

Siberia, a second son of millionaire wine seller, first-guild
merchant Ivan Fyodorovich Mamontov.
The Mamontov family moves to Moscow. Savva is educated at
home with a German tutor, later at private schools in Moscow
and St. Petersburg.
Savva enters Moscow University.
Savva leaves the university at the insistence of his father,
because of his involvement with the Sekretarev drama circle
as well as his suspected sympathies for liberal student groups.
He is sent to Baku and later to Iran on business.
Savva is sent to Italy to study the silk trade. He neglects his
duties in order to study bel canto singing and is recalled to
Moscow by his father just as he is about to sign a contract with
one of Milans opera houses.
Mamontov returns to Moscow to work in his fathers business.
He joins the Moscow Art Lovers Society.
25 April: Mamontov marries his cousin Elizaveta Sapozhnikova,
whom he had met in Italy and who shares his interest in the
arts. The couple honeymoons in Rome where they befriend
the members of the expatriate colony of Russian artists.
Mamontovs father dies; Savva takes over the family business,
including a position as the majority stockholder and chairman
of the board in the Moscow-Yaroslavl Railroad Company.
March: Savva and Elizaveta Mamontov buy the Abramtsevo
estate near Moscow from the Aksakov family.
291
292 a pp e n di x a
1 87375

187779

1878

1879

1882

1883

1884

1885

188892

189293

Most of the Russian Romans return permanently to Russia;

their close association with Mamontov continues, including
prolonged stays at his Moscow mansion and at Abramtsevo;
the beginning of the Mamontov Circle.
Mamontov Drama Nights, regular gatherings of the Circle
devoted to reading and discussing plays. All participants are
required to prepare their assigned roles.
The first theatrical production of the Mamontov Circle: a series
of tableaux vivantDemon and Tamara, Apotheosis of the Arts,
Judith and Holofernes.
The first staged production of the Mamontov Circle: act 2 of
Apollon Maikovs Dva Mira [Two Worlds]; sets and music by
Vasily Polenov.
Alexander Ostrovskys The Snow Maiden is staged by the
Mamontov Circle; sets and costumes by Victor Vasnetsov.
The first opera production of the Mamontov Circle: Gounods
Faust (act 3); sets by Polenov, piano accompaniment by
Professor Fitzengagen of the Moscow Conservatory; MephistophelesSavva Mamontov.
Mozarts Don Giovanni is staged by the Mamontov Circle; Don
GiovanniPyotr Melnikov, ZerlinaAlevtina Paskhalova.
9 January: The first incarnation of the Moscow Private Opera
opens under the name Krotkovs Private Opera (with a mixed
Russian-Italian cast, it would operate full-time through the
end of 188687 season); the history of the MPO begins.
FebruaryMarch: The Meiningen Theater troupe tours St.
Petersburg and Moscow.
Mamontovs opera company is known as the Moscow Italian
Opera; it operates during Lent only, with performances in
Italian and mainly touring foreigners in solo roles. Guest
singers include Angelo Masini, Francesco Tamagno, Antonio
Cotogni, Marcella Zembrich, Sigrid Arnoldson, Marie van
Zandt, Antonio and Francesco dAndrade, Maria Duran,
Adelaide Borghi, Giuseppe Kaschmann, Jules Devoyod, and
other leading European stars (some past their prime), as well
as Nikolai Figner and Medea Mei-Figner from the Imperial
Mariinsky Theater in St. Petersburg.
Ippolit Pryanishnikovs private operatic enterprise performs
in Moscow; the company is bankrupted by the end of the
season but is generally considered to have sparked Mamontovs
interest in reviving the MPO with a full-time Russian troupe.
br ief chronol ogy of sav va m a mon tov s life a n d ca r eer 293
1894

189495

1896

1898

1899

1900

April: The First All-Russian Congress of Artists is held in

Moscow, to coincide with the opening of the Tretyakov
Gallery. The event is dedicated to building bridges between
the older and the younger generation of artists. Mamontov
supervises the art program, which includes a tableau vivant
Aphrodite (text and stage direction by Mamontov, sets and
music by Polenov; AgasandreStanislavsky), and the premiere
of Anton Arenskys opera Raphael. Mamontov and Polenov
participate in the establishment of the Moscow Association of
Artists.
Claudia Winters opera company, tacitly sponsored by
Mamontov, operates at the Panaev Theater in St. Petersburg.
Singers include Feodor Chaliapin, Nadezhda Zabela, and
Tatyana Lyubatovich; sets and costumes by Mikhail Vrubel.
MayAugust: The All-Russian Exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod;
Mamontov supervises the arts program, exhibits the crafts
of the Abramtsevo workshops, creates an exhibition dedicated
to the development of the Russian Northern region, and builds
a special pavilion to exhibit Mikhail Vrubels mosaic panels
rejected by the selection committee. The MPO is revived and
performs in Nizhny Novgorod throughout the summer. 8 Sep-
tember: The MPO opens its winter season at the Solodovnikov
Theater in Moscow under the name of Claudia S. Winters
Russian Private Opera, with Mamontov as the undeclared
artistic director (it will operate under his management through
the end of 189899 season).
20 January: Fire at the Solodovnikov Theater; the troupe is
moved to the International Theater. FebruaryApril: The first
St. Petersburg tour of the MPO.
MarchApril: The second St. Petersburg tour of the MPO.
Summer: An audit reveals a serious discrepancy in the finances
of the Moscow-Yaroslavl Railroad Company; Mamontov
steps down as the chairman of the board. 12 September:
Mamontov is arrested on a charge of embezzlement; initially
in solitary confinement at the Taganskaya Prison, he is later
released under house arrest due to his failing health. He
continues to direct the MPO activities through third parties.
MayJune: Mamontovs highly publicized jury trial takes
place in Moscow (see introduction, n.8). 8 June: Mamontov
and his codefendants are acquitted of all criminal charges,
and the case is transferred to civil court, which would
subsequently declare Mamontov bankrupt.
294 a pp e n di x a
1 9001901

1903

1904

1905

1907

1918

The MPO operates officially as an association (a company

owned by its employees), unofficially as a commercial enterprise run by Claudia Winter and Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov;
Mamontovs participation is irregular, and his authority is
shaky. There is no information of his involvement with the
company after this season.
Summer: Mamontov leads an operatic enterprise at the
Hermitage Theater in Moscow; sets by the Blue Rose artists
Nikolai Sapunov, Sergei Sudeikin, and Pavel Kuznetsov; tenor
Dmitry Smirnov (later with the Imperial Theaters and
Diaghilevs Russian Seasons) makes his debut in Eugenio
Espositos comic opera Camorra.
The MPO is dissolved at the end of the 19031904 theatrical
season. The majority of the troupe, including Ippolitov-Ivanov,
joins the new Zimins Private Opera, which would operate
continuously until 1917, mostly at the Solodovnikov Theater.
Several MPO productions are revived with their original sets
and costumes. Director and patron of the company, Sergei
Zimin views it as the descendant of the MPO and counts its
history from 1885.
May: Stanislavsky and Meyerhold found an experimental
affiliate of the Moscow Art Theater, the Povarskaya Studio.
The Studio intends to house several troupes (one of them
operatic) that would perform both classical and innovative
repertoire alternatively in the city and the provinces.
Mamontov serves as a consultant for the Studio and oversees
its decorative aspect. Three productions are prepared, and
open dress rehearsals are held starting in August; the Studio
closes late in the year with the advent of the 1905 uprising
(the revolution of 19051907).
On Rimsky-Korsakovs request, Mamontov advises Albert
Carr, director of the Opra Comique in Paris, on the production of The Snow Maiden and supplies him with the set
and costume sketches by Vasnetsov.
24 March, Moscow: Savva Ivanovich Mamontov dies of
pneumonia at age 76.
a ppen di x B
Selected Premieres and Revivals

at the Moscow Private Opera
Year
Date
Title
Designer/s
1885 9 Jan
Dargomyzhsky, Rusalka

17 Jan
Gounod, Faust
1 Apr
Verdi, Aida

18 Aug
Glinka, A Life for the Tsar
8 Oct
Rimsky-Korsakov, The Snow Maiden
1886
20 Mar
Krotkov, The Scarlet Rose

17 Dec
Dargomyzhsky, The Stone Guest

28 Dec
Puccini, Le villi
1887 9 Feb
Wagner, Lohengrin
1889
27 Mar
Verdi, Otello
1896
17 May
Rubinstein, The Demon
8 Sept
Rimsky-Korsakov, The Snow Maiden
9 Sept
Verdi, Aida

17 Sept
Thomas, Mignon

18 Sept
Saint-Sans, Samson et Dalila
1 Oct
Bizet, Carmen
3 Oct
Gounod, Faust

8 Oct
Humperdinck, Hnsel und Gretel

31 Oct
Alexander Serov, Rogneda
5 Nov
Delibes, Lakm

15 Nov
Borodin, Prince Igor

12 Dec
Rimsky-Korsakov, The Maid of Pskov

295
Vasnetsov,
Levitan
Polenov
Polenov,
Korovin
Levitan, Simov
Vasnetsov
Polenov,
Korovin
Korovin
Korovin
Korovin
Korovin
Vrubel
Vasnetsov
Korovin
Korovin
Korovin
Korovin
Polenov,
Korovin
Korovin
Valentin Serov
Korovin
Korovin
Korovin,
Appolinary
Vasnetsov
296 a pp e n di x B
Year
Date
Title
1897
11 Jan
Puccini, La bohme

23 Jan
Tchaikovsky, The Oprichnik

12 Nov
Musorgsky, Khovanshchina

30 Nov
Gluck, Orfeo

21 Dec
Verstovsky, Askolds Tomb

26 Dec
Rimsky-Korsakov, Sadko

1898
30 Jan
Rimsky-Korsakov, May Night

23 Nov
Alexander Serov, Judith

25 Nov
Rimsky-Korsakov, Mozart and Salieri
7 Dec
Musorgsky, Boris Godunov

15 Dec
Rimsky-Korsakov, Vera Sheloga
1899 3 Feb
Tchaikovsky, The Maid of Orleans

22 Oct
Rimsky-Korsakov, The Tsars Bride

16 Nov
Kalinnikov, Prolog to 1812

21 Nov
Verstovsky, Gromoboi

10 Dec
Cui, Prisoner of the Caucasus

29 Dec
Krotkov, The Necklace
1900 9 Feb
Cui, Mandarins Son

21 Oct
Rimsky-Korsakov, The Tale

of Tsar Saltan
1902
12 Dec
Rimsky-Korsakov, Kashchei

the Deathless
Designer/s
Korovin
Malyutin
Appolinary
Vasnetsov
Polenov,
Korovin
Korovin
Korovin,
Malyutin
Korovin
Valentin Serov
Vrubel
Bondarenko,
Korovin
Korovin
Polenov
Vrubel
Vrubel
Vrubel
Vrubel
Polenov
Vrubel
Vrubel
Malyutin
not e s
Introduction
1. Numerous examples of this popular view may be seen, for instance, on the
pages of Richard Taruskins Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions: A Biography of
Works Through Mavra (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).
2. The term Silver Age, coined years after the fact by that eras muse and icon,
poet Anna Akhmatova, has become controversial of late, as is bound to happen to
any overused historical label; see Omry Ronen, The Fallacy of the Silver Age in Twentieth-Century Russian Literature (Amsterdam: Harwood, 1997). However, it is still
commonly used to designate both the time period and the cultural ideology of early
Russian modernism, and will be used as such in the present study.
3. For recent examples, see Boris Gasparov, Robert P. Hughes, and Irina Paperno,
eds., Cultural Mythologies of Russian Modernism: From the Golden Age to the Silver Age
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), Irina Paperno and Joan Delaney Grossman, eds., Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia of Russian Modernism (Stanford, Calif.:
Stanford University Press, 1994), and Galina Rylkova, The Archaeology of Anxiety: The Rus-
sian Silver Age and Its Legacy (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007).
4. The word artist will occur frequently in the following discussion, particularly in the primary sources, and needs to be accompanied by a translators note.
What is translated into English as the word artist may in Russian mean actor, both
dramatic and operatic (a cognate, artiste), painter (khudozhnik), orfrequently, in
relation to Mamontova man of art, that is, an artist in spirit rather than occupation (in Russian, also khudozhnik).
5. On the Silver Age cabaret culture and its influence on Meyerhold, Evreinov,
and other Russian modernist stage directors, see Barbara Henry, Theatricality, Antitheatricality, and Cabaret in Russian Modernism, in Russian Literature, Modernism
and the Visual Arts, ed. Catriona Kelly and Stephen Lovell (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000), 14971.
6. For more information on Victory over the Sun, including costume sketches,
see Camilla Gray, The Russian Experiment in Art, 18631922 (London: Thames and
Hudson, 1986), 15859, 185.
297
298 n o t e s t o pag e s 3 7
7. For a standard biography, see Mark Kopshitser, Savva Mamontov (Moscow:

Iskusstvo, 1972), and somewhat more fictionalized Ekaterina Kiselva, Dom na Sadovoi [A House on Sadovaia Street] (Moscow: Moskovskii Rabochii, 1986); see also the
chronology of Mamontovs life and artistic career in appendix A.
8. The circumstances of the trial are briefly as follows. Mamontov, together with
several colleagues from the Moscow-Yaroslavl Railroad Company, was accused of
fraud and embezzlement of the company funds. Specifically, the prosecution alleged
that Mamontov personally appropriated over a million rubles to support his exorbitant lifestyle; his involvement with the MPO was offered as an example of said excess.
The defense team, headed by the legendary attorney Fyodor Plevako, argued that the
missing funds had not been stolen for Mamontovs personal use. Rather, they were
transferred from one of his enterprises to others; specifically, two Siberian factories
purchased at the request of the government in order to keep them from being acquired
by a German industrial conglomerate and used for military purposes. It was alleged
(although never proven) that a loan arranged by the prime minister, Carl Witte, was
supposed to cover the purchase and return the money to the railroad coffers, but the
internal power struggle within the government led Witte to step aside and let Mamontov take the blame. While Mamontovs activities broke the rules of fiscal discipline,
his motives were shown to be purely altruistic and serving Russias best interests. His
patronage of the arts and specifically the MPO was portrayed as equally unselfish;
furthermore, it was proven that no company funds were used to support it. On 8
June 1900, after a two-week trial, the jury acquitted Mamontov and his codefendants
of any criminal wrongdoing. The matter of the missing funds was left unresolved,
pending a transfer of the case to a civil court, which declared Mamontov bankrupt
later that year. For a full account of the proceedings, see Delo Mamontova, Artsibusheva, Krivosheina i Drugikh: Polnyi i Podrobnyi Otcht [The Case of Mamontov,
Artsibushev, Krivoshein, and Others: Full and Complete Account] (Moscow, 1900),
preserved as item 72, fund 155, BM.
9. The troupe and most of its assets were absorbed by the newly established
Zimins Private Opera (190417); for more information, see appendix A and Viktor
Borovskii, Moskovskaia opera S. I. Zimina [Moscow Opera of S. I. Zimin] (Moscow:
Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1977).
10. See Vera Rossikhina, Opernyi teatr S. I. Mamontova [S. I. Mamontovs Opera
Theater] (Moscow: Muzyka, 1985).
11. Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky (real name Alekseev): drama and opera
director, cofounder of the Moskovskii Khudozhestvennyi Teatr (the Moscow Art Theater, or the MKhT), creator of the so-called Stanislavsky system of method acting, a
teaching methodology for dramatic actors still actively in use throughout the world.
12. Lynn Garafola, Diaghilevs Ballets Russes (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1989), 15.
13. Vladislav Bakhrevskii, Savva Mamontov (Moscow: Molodaia Gvardiia,
2000).
14. For instance, when I applied to RGALI to begin my study of the Mamontov
sources, the lead archivist remarked (politely) that I must be either ignorant or bored
to concern myself with such an old subject.
15. Rossikhina, Opernyi teatr S. I. Mamontova.
16. Evgenii Arenzon, Savva Mamontov (Moscow: Russkaia Kniga, 1995).
n o t e s t o pag e s 7 16 299
17. Abram Gozenpud, Russkii opernyi teatr na rubezhe XIXXX vekov i Shaliapin,
18901904 [Russian Opera Theater of the Late 19thEarly 20th Centuries and Chaliapin, 18901904] (Leningrad: Muzyka, 1974).
18. Both Mamontovs and Diaghilevs ventures had heirs who professed artistic
continuity and claimed the mantle of authenticity. Yet arguably, both Zimins Private
Opera and the Ballets Russes de Monte Carlo are quite separate artistic phenomena
with their own independent accomplishments and histories, and should be viewed
as such by their students, irrespective of (although not denying) any acknowledged
influences.
19. Indeed, Rossikhinas 1954 dissertation, upon which her posthumously published monograph was based, specifically addressed the establishment of realism on
the Russian operatic stage.
20. More recently, Arenzon, a former curator of the Abramtsevo museum, tentatively addressed Mamontovs connections with the Russian modernist movement
in his book, despite its primarily nationalist slant and modest scope that did not
allow for an in-depth exploration of the topic. This approach will be continued in
the present study.
21. Stuart Grover, Savva Mamontov and the Mamontov Circle, 18701905: Art
Patronage and the Rise of Nationalism in Russian Art (Ph.D. diss., University of
Wisconsin, 1971).
22. Csar Cui, La musique en Russie (Paris: Fischbacher, 1880).
23. See, for instance, Gerald Abraham, On Russian Music (London: Reeves,
1939), Michel Calvocoressi and Gerald Abraham, Masters of Russian Music (London: Duckworth, 1936), and Rosa Newmarch, The Russian Opera (New York: Dutton, 1914).
24. Indeed, Mamontovs campaign for the elevation of Russian music was discussed in Soviet research as well: for example, Rossikhinas work emphasizes the Russianness, as well as the realism, of the MPO playbill, while attempting to downplay
its Western productions. On the origin of this view of Mamontov, see chapter 7.
25. Taruskin, Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions, 49097.
26. It is illustrative of the relative significance Mamontov placed on his various
artistic projects that the neo-nationalist haven of the Abramtsevo workshops was
abandoned, soon after their creation, primarily to the care of Mamontovs estranged
wife Elizaveta and her artist friends, Maria Yakunchikova and Elena Polenova, as
Mamontov himself concentrated on the work of the MPO; for details see chapter 3.
27. That last technique, particularly rampant in the Soviet-era studies, would be
especially misleading to a Western researcher without access to the archives, who
would be forced to rely on these studies for information and have no choice but to
accept their argument at face value.
28. Nikolai Rimskii-Korsakov, Letopis moei muzykalnoi zhizni [A Chronicle of
My Musical Life]; in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Works], vol. 1 (Moscow:
Muzgiz, 1955).
1. The Silver Age and the Legacy of the 1860s
1. Charles Harrison, Modernism, in Critical Terms for Art History, ed. Robert
S. Nelson and Richard Schiff (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 195.
300 n o t e s t o pag e s 16 2 1
2. While critics of the period never made it their goal to define these extremely
complex and admittedly vague concepts, such definitions can be inferred and will
be used as follows. Truth is a catchword that signifies the faithful representation
of external reality in art, and through that representation, the usefulness of art as
an ideological vehicle promoting moral and social causes. The art of truth tends to
concentrate on meaning, i.e., the content of art in direct relation to a contentious
external world, rather than to its form and technique. Beauty, meanwhile, stands for
the aesthetic quality of art, valued for its own sake, independent of any social agenda.
The art of beauty tends to place a higher value on form and technique than on any
external meaning. That is, the arrangement and intrinsic properties of word, color,
and/or sound hold more significance than the relevance of their subject matter to
contemporary social issues.
3. Il ny a de vraiment beau que ce qui ne peut servir rien; tout ce qui est utile
est laid . . . Lendroit le plus utile dune maison, ce sont les latrines; Thophile Gautier,
Preface to Mademoiselle de Maupin (Paris: Charpentier, 1880), 22.
4. Matei Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-garde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmodernism (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1987), 55.
5. Quoted in Sergei Diagilev, Poiski krasoty [In Search of Beauty], Mir Iskusstva 34 (1899): 3738. Diaghilev acknowledged Baudelaire as the author of the quotation but did not specify its precise source. My own thorough search did not reveal
the origins of the quote either; it is possible that Diaghilev used a free paraphrase, as
the sentiment occurs in a variety of Baudelaires writings.
6. Dmitrii Sarabianov, Stil modern: istoki, istoriia, problemy [Style Moderne:
Sources, History, Issues] (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1989), 33.
7. Valerii Briusov, Nenuzhnaia pravda [Useless Truth], in Sobranie sochinenii
v 7 tomakh [Selected Works in 7 Volumes], vol. 6 (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia Li
teratura, 1975), 6465.
8. Briusov, Kliuchi tain [The Keys to the Mysteries], in Sobranie sochinenii 6:
8081.
9. Lev Tolstoi, Chto takoe iskusstvo? [What Is Art?]; in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii
(Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Khudozhestvennoi Literatury, 1951), 30: 177.
10. Ibid., 17273.
11. Vladimir Solovv, Obshchii smysl iskusstva [The General Meaning of Art],
in Filosofiia iskusstva i literaturnaia kritika (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1991), 7475.
12. Nikolai Berdiaev, Sub specie aeternitatis. Opyty filosofskie, sotsialnye i literaturnye, 19001906 [From the Perspective of the Eternal: Philosophical, Social, and
Literary Experiments, 19001906] (St. Petersburg: Izd. M. V. Pirozhkova, 1907), 3132.
Here and below, unless otherwise stated, the emphasis is in the original.
13. Bernice Rosenthal, Theater as Church: The Vision of the Mystical Anarchists, Russian History 4, no. 2 (1977): 122.
14. See Calinescu, The Idea of Decadence, in Five Faces of Modernity, 151221.
15. Quoted in Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity, 176.
16. John R. Reed, Decadent Style (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1985), 11.
17. Quoted in Reed, Decadent Style, 4.
18. Ibid., 10.
19. See Robert Morgan, Secret Languages: The Roots of Musical Modernism,
in Modernism: Challenges and Perspectives, ed. Monique Chefdor, Ricardo Quinones,
and Albert Wachtel (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986): 3353.
n o t e s t o pag e s 2 1 27 301
20. Max Nordau, Degeneration, 8th ed. (New York: D. Appleton, 1896).
21. Quoted in Avril Pyman, A History of Russian Symbolism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 1.
22. Reed, Decadent Style, 1415.
23. For a more detailed discussion of this generational division, see Simon Morrison, Russian Opera and the Symbolist Movement (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2002), 2. Unlike the present study, the author goes on to focus primarily on the
mystic generation.
24. Briusov, Russkie simvolisty [Russian Symbolists], in Sobranie sochinenii 6:
27.
25. Briusov, Kliuchi tain, in Sobranie sochinenii 6: 81.
26. John Bowlt, Synthesism and Symbolism: The Russian World of Art Movement, in Literature and the Plastic Arts, 18801930, ed. I. Higgins (New York: Harper
& Row, 1973), 35.
27. The term stil modern, translated here as Russian style moderne, as used here
and below, is a standard term in Russian art history and criticism. It refers to a variety
of the early modernist trends in visual arts of the early Silver Age, and parallels such
Western European developments as Jugendstil and art nouveau. Furthermore, as
described in Sarabyanovs writings cited throughout this study, style moderne closely
resembles Reeds definition of decadent art, which leads one to believe that the two
discussed essentially the same phenomenon, a hypothesis also confirmed by reception history.
28. Sergei Diagilev, Vechnaia borba [Eternal Struggle], Mir Iskusstva 12 (1899):
1216.
29. Sergei Diagilev, Nash mnimyi upadok [Our Alleged Decline], Mir Iskusstva
12 (1899): 811. For a translated version, see Lynn Garafola and Nancy Van Norman
Baer, eds., The Ballets Russes and Its World (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,
1999), 7684.
30. Diagilev, Nash mnimyi upadok, 11.
31. Dmitrii Merezhkovskii, Prichiny upadka i novye techeniia v russkoi literature [The Causes of the Decline and the New Trends in Russian Literature], cited in
Fan Parker and Stephen Jan Parker, Russia on Canvas: Ilya Repin (University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980), 107.
32. Ibid.
33. Belinskys views are summarized from Vissarion Belinskii, Estetika i literaturnaia kritika [Aesthetics and Literary Criticism], 2 vols. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Khudozhestvennoi Literatury, 1959).
34. Charles A. Moser, Esthetics as Nightmare: Russian Literary Theory, 18551870
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989), 79.
35. James Billington, The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian
Culture (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), 349.
36. Fdor Dostoevskii, G.-bov i vopros ob iskusstve [G.-bov and the Question of
Art], in Dostoevskii ob iskusstve [Dostoevsky on Art] (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973), 63.
37. Dostoevskii ob iskusstve, 67.
38. See Aleksandr Druzhinin, Kritika gogolevskogo perioda russkoi literatury i
nashi k nei otnosheniia [Critique of the Gogol Period in Russian Literature and Our
Relations to It], in Literaturnaia kritika [Literary Criticism] (Moscow: Sovetskaia
Rossiia, 1983), 12276.
302 n o t e s t o pag e s 2 8 3 1

40. Moser, Esthetics as Nightmare, 6.
41. Ibid., 56.
42. Billington, The Icon and the Axe, 38788.
43. For an exhaustive treatment of the groups activities, see Elizabeth Valkenier,
Russian Realist Art. The State and Society: The Peredvizhniki and Their Tradition (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1989).
44. Ilia Repin, Pisma ob iskusstve [Letters on Art], in Dalkoe i blizkoe [The
Far and the Near] (Leningrad: Khudozhnik, 1986), 38082. The nihilist Bazarov, a
character in Ivan Turgenevs novel Ottsy i Deti [Fathers and Sons], is a literary prototype of the so-called new people who championed realist art.
45. Quoted in Vladimir Stasov, Prosvetitel po chasti khudozhestva [A Man of
Artistic Enlightenment], in Izbrannye trudy [Selected Writings] (Moscow: Iskusstvo,
1952), 3: 211.
46. For a more detailed explication of the term Kuchka, see Taruskin, What is
a Kuchka? in Musorgsky: Eight Essays and an Epilogue (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1991), xxxiiixxxiv.
47. In reality, as will become evident throughout this book, both the Wanderers
and the Kuchka were complex phenomena, their aesthetics encompassing but not limited to the realist doctrine. The two groups are discussed here in their early formative
stages when their ideological platforms were relatively unified. It is this brief period
that would later be mythologized by critics like Stasov and thus enter and become
embedded in the public consciousness, irrespective of the changing and ultimately
diverse views of particular artists.
48. Stasov, Perov i Musorgskii [Perov and Musorgsky], in Izbrannye trudy, 2:
136, 143.
49. In Russian musicological literature, Alexander Dargomyzhsky is generally
considered, chronologically speaking, the next great opera composer after Glinka
(see, for example, Iurii Keldysh, A. S. Dargomyzhskii, in Istoriia russkoi muzyki
[History of Russian Music] (Moscow: Muzyka, 1989), 6:83134). His opera Rusalka
(1855) was hailed by the Kuchkists, who believed, nevertheless, that its scenes featuring realistic representation of characters and naturalist declamation outshined its
more traditional portrayal of the fantastic (see the quote from Csar Cui cited in
Keldysh, 6: 8687). Dargomyzhskys last opera, Kamennyi gost [The Stone Guest], a
revolutionary word-for-word setting of a Pushkin drama in verse, particularly impressed Musorgsky and other Kuchkists. The opera was completed, after its authors
death, by Kuchka members Csar Cui and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and first performed in 1872.
50. Musorgsky to Stasov, 18 October 1872; in M. P. Musorgskii: Literaturnoe
nasledie [M. P. Musorgskii: Literary Heritage], ed. Mikhail Pekelis and Aleksandra
Orlova (Moscow: Muzyka, 197172), 1: 141.
51. Valkenier, Peredvizhniki, 119.
52. Ibid., 57.
53. The term sobornost, first defined by early Slavophiles Ivan Kireevsky and
Aleksei Khomyakov and later explored by Vladimir Solovyov, Nikolai Berdyaev, and
Pavel Florensky, among others, emphasizes willing subordination of individuals
to the absolute values (religious, philosophical, national, etc.) of their community;
n o t e s t o pag e s 3 2 3 8 303
searching for what people have in common rather than what divides them, in order
to achieve societal unity and harmony. Although the idea of sobornost has Hegelian
roots, it was believed to represent a uniquely Slavic mindset (steeped in Orthodox
Christianity, as well as in the communal lifestyle of the peasantry), a superior alternative to the corrupt individualism of the West.
54. Billington, The Icon and the Axe, 37475.
55. For details on Herders philosophy as it was appropriated by the group, see
Johann Gottfried Herder, Against Pure Reason: Writings on Religion, Language and
History (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1993), 3898.
56. Ivan I. Baloueff, review of Grigoriev, Apollon. Sochineniia. Kritika [Works,
Criticism], ed. V. S. Krupitsch; Russian Review 30, no. 1 (1971), 84.
57. Marcus C. Levitt, review of Russias Last Romantic, Apollon Grigoriev (1822
64) by Robert Whittaker; Slavic and East European Journal 46, no. 1 (2002), 167.
58. Wayne Dowler, Echoes of Pochvennichestvo in Solzhenitsyns August 1914,
Slavic Review 34, no. 1 (1975), 110.
59. Quoted in Dostoevskii ob iskusstve, 37.
61. Arenzon, Savva Mamontov, 3542.
62. Ibid., 1317.
2. Serving the Beautiful
2. Mamontovs importance in the development of Russias industry and transportation system was first publicly acknowledged in an essay by writer and publicist
Vlas Doroshevich, titled Russkii chelovek [A Russian Man], published in RS on 22
May 1915; quoted in Kopshitser, Savva Mamontov, 24041.
3. See Grover, Savva Mamontov and the Mamontov Circle, above.
4. The realist writers and critics such as Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov,
and even Vladimir Stasov (prior to 1862, see chapter 3) were all avowed Westernizers;
others, such as playwrights Ostrovsky and Pisemsky (see below) were connected to
the Slavophile circles.
5. The Sekretarev circle gathered at the home of a Moscow chinovnik [bureaucrat] named Sekretarev.
6. Glikeriya Fedotova (ne Pozdnyakova) was one of the finest actresses of the
nineteenth-century Russian stage. She had worked for years at the Imperial Maly
Drama Theater, where she created the title roles in Alexander Ostrovskys plays, The
Snow Maiden and Vassilisa Melentieva.
7. For instance, Luch sveta v tmnom tsarstve [A Ray of Light in the Dark
Kingdom], Dobrolyubovs essay on Ostrovskys play The Thunderstorm, mentioned
earlier, was essentially a review of the production that crowned Mamontovs acting
career at the Sekretarev circle.
8. Repin, Pisma ob iskusstve, in Dalkoe i blizkoe, 381. Ivan Andreevich Krylov (17691844) was a Russian poet known for his witty, moralistic fables, some loosely
based on Aesop and Jean de la Fontaine, others more original.
9. Mamontov to Polenov, 12 February 1874; item 2865, fund 54, STG.
10. Polenov to Mamontov, 6 April 1900; item 197, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
304 n o t e s t o pag e s 3 8 45
11. Gozenpud, Russkii opernyi teatr i Shaliapin, 118.

12. Gozenpud, for instance, qualified the above-quoted description of Mamontovs aesthetic views by calling him nave.
13. Polenov to Mamontov, 6 April 1900; item 197, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
14. See, for example, Rossikhina, Opernyi teatr S. I. Mamontova; the monograph
is based on the authors 1954 dissertation titled Mamontovs Opera Company and
the Establishment of Realism on the Russian Stage.
15. See Grover, Savva Mamontov and the Mamontov Circle.
16. Mamontov to Shkafer [October 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
17. Melnikov to Mamontov, Moscow, [November 1898]; item 36, fund 155, BM.
18. Published in RS 9, 13 January 1910, 5.
19. Teatralnaia khronika [Theatrical Chronicle], ND 5847, 5 September 1899, 2.
20. Vasily Safonov was the director of the Moscow Conservatory in the late 1890s,
and as such was one of the people Mamontov held personally responsible for the
status quo.
21. Mamontov to unknown person [Fall 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920,
RGALI.
22. Melnikov to Mamontov, 8 July 1899; item 170, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
23. Mamontov to Shkafer and Chernenko [November 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund
920, RGALI.
25. See for example, Fdor Shaliapin, Stranitsy iz moei zhizni [Pages from My
Life], in F. I. Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo [F. I. Chaliapin: Literary Heritage], ed.
Ekaterina Grosheva (Moscow: Muzgiz, 1959), 1: 126; Nadezhda Salina, Zhizn i stsena
[Life and Stage] (Moscow: Vsesoiuznoe Teatralnoe Obshchestvo, 1941), 63.
26. Musorgsky to Stasov, 18 October 1872; quoted in Taruskin, Stravinsky and
the Russian Traditions, 438.
27. Mamontov to Cui [late April 1899?]; item 83, list 1, fund 786, RGALI.
28. Melnikov to Mamontov, 2 April 1898; item 21, fund 155, BM.
30. See, for example, an unusually exalted missive from a young soprano, Anna
Stavitskaya, whose style normally avoids exclamation marks; Stavitskaya to Mamontov, 27 August 1899; item 237, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
31. Shkafer to Mamontov, 11 September 1897; item 280, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
32. Shkafer to Mamontov, 10 August 1898; item 280, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
33. See introduction, n.8.
34. For instance, in the Russkoe Slovo coverage of the plans for constructing a
new, permanent building for the Moscow Private Opera, the project is attributed to
one of Moscows leading capitalists; see RS 33, 2 February 1898, 2.
35. Ilia Bondarenko, S. I. Mamontov i ego opera [S. I. Mamontov and His
Opera Company], unpublished lecture at the Russian Theater Society (Vsesoiuznoe
Teatralnoe Obshchestvo), 7 April 1941 (TS; item 24, list 1, fund 964, RGALI), 7.
37. Soprano Nadezhda Salina, who had transferred to the Bolshoi Theater after
three years with Mamontov, called her job at the Imperial Theaters sluzhba [a civil
service job]; see Salina, Zhizn i stsena, 100.
n o t e s t o pag e s 45 5 2 305
39. Fdor Shaliapin, Maska i dusha [Mask and Soul], in F. I. Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 1: 242.
41. Konstantin Sergeevich Alekseev-Stanislavsky was a cousin of Mamontovs
wife, Elizaveta Mamontova (ne Sapozhnikova); see also introduction, n.11.
42. Mamontov to Stanislavsky, 2 January 1908; item 9239, Stanislavsky fund,
MATM.
43. Rossikhina, Opernyi teatr S. I. Mamontova, 64.
44. Mamontov to Shkafer [Fall 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
45. Mamontov to Stanislavsky, 15 October 1898; item 9235, Stanislavsky fund,
MATM.
46. Shkafer to Mamontov, 25 December 1910; item 280, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
47. Bondarenko, S. I. Mamontov i ego opera, 25.
48. See, for example, Shaliapin, Stranitsy iz moei zhizni, in F. I. Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 1: 126.
49. Ptr Melnikov, Moia pervaia vstrecha so Stanislavskim. Savva Ivanovich
Mamontovpokrovitel khudozhnikov i artistov [My First Meeting with Stanislavsky. Savva Ivanovich Mamontov, a Patron of Artists and Actors], Segodnya 334, [Riga,
1940]; item 282622, Melnikov fund, RMLAH.
50. Paskhalova to Mamontov, 17 July 1898; item 187, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
51. Stanislavsky to Mamontov, 13 October 1908; item 236, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
52. Paskhalova to Mamontov, 4 December 1898; item 187, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
53. Alevtina Paskhalovas memoirs are preserved as item 13 of fund 200, GM.
54. See, for instance, a letter preserved in the Prakhov fund of the State Russian
Museum that requests Mamontovs appraisal of a collection of ancient Greek coins;
item 1027, fund 139, SRM.
55. Markiz Tuzhur-Portu, Arabeski stolichnoi zhizni [Arabesques of the Life
in the Capital], RS 256, 16 September 1899, 2.
57. Hellasa poetic name for Ancient Greece; Hellenea resident of Hellas.
58. See letters from Mamontov to Polenov, 3 June 1905 and [no date]; items 2891
and 2915, fund 54, STG.
59. See a letter from Polenov to the participants of the performance; item 1060,
fund 54, STG.
61. Mamontov to Polenov, 9 November 1897; item 2884, fund 54, STG.
62. See a quote from Polenovs letter to his wife in Rossikhina, Opernyi teatr S. I.
Mamontova, 114. Mamontov, incidentally, was not merely being stubborn: his reasons
for casting Chernenko will be further discussed in chapter 4.
64. Melnikov to Mamontov, 9 April 1898; item 23, fund 155, BM.
65. Stasov, Vystavki [Exhibitions], in Izbrannye trudy, 3: 218.
66. Russkaia Chastnaia Opera [Russian Private Opera], NS 420, 23 December
1897, 3. Indeed, throughout the late 1890s the Russian folk epic of Sadko, on which the
opera is based, was commonly viewed as a native parallel to the ancient Greek myth
of Orpheus (see Vladimir Marchenkov, The Orfeo Myth in Modernity: RimskyKorsakovs Opera Sadko, in The Orfeo Myth in Musical Thought of Antiquity, the
306 n o t e s t o pag e s 5 2 5 8
Renaissance and Modern Times, Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1998). Remarkably, Mamontov staged Sadko less than a month after the premiere of Orfeo. One is
tempted to speculate that their mythological connection did occur to him; there is
no direct evidence, however, that he ever linked the two productions.
67. Consider, for instance, Mir Iskusstvas first, unrealized theatrical project, the
ballet Sylvia (1901; see chapter 4), Lon Baksts designs for the dramas of Sophocles
(1904) and Euripides (1902), and his 1908 cult canvas, Terror Antiquus. The Ballets
Russes productions Narcissus (1911), Daphnis et Chloe, and Laprs-midi dun faune
(1912) also explore Greek myth as a subject matter.
68. Andrei Belyi, Teatr i sovremennaia drama [Theater and Modern Drama],
in Simvolism kak miroponimanie [Symbolism as a Worldview] (Moscow: Respublika,
1994), 15367.
69. See Rosamund Bartlett, Wagner and Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 11739.
70. Marchenkov, The Orfeo Myth in Modernity, 16263.
71. Andrei Rimskii-Korsakov, N. A. Rimskii-Korsakov: Zhizn i tvorchestvo [N. A.
Rimsky-Korsakov: Life and Works] (Moscow: Muzgiz, 1937), 4: 15152.
72. See, for example, Vasilii Iakovlev, Boris Godunov v teatre [Boris Godunov
in the Theater], in Izbrannye trudy o muzyke [Selected Writings on Music], vol. 3
(Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1983), 235.
74. This classification of naturalism as an aspect of decadence was common in
Soviet aesthetic vocabulary, as Gozenpud surely knew when he used the distinction
in his defense of Mamontov.
75. Vladimir Artinov, S. I. Mamontov o Svobodnom Teatre [S. I. Mamontov
on Svobodnyi Theater], RS 233, 10 October 1913, 8.
76. P. S., S. I. Mamontov o Elene Prekrasnoi [Mamontov on La Belle Hlne],
Teatr 366 (1913): 7.
77. Andrei Rimskii-Korsakov, N. A. Rimskii-Korsakov, 4: 152.
78. See Taruskin, Musorgsky: Eight Essays and an Epilogue, 23.
79. For a detailed treatment of Musorgskys relationship with Stasov and Golenishchev-Kutuzov, a discussion of Kutuzovs aesthetic views, and significance of his
memoirs, see Taruskin, Who Speaks for Musorgsky? in Musorgsky: Eight Essays
and an Epilog, 337.
80. Mamontov to Shkafer [November 1899], item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
81. E. R., Russkaia Chastnaia Opera: Oprichnik [Russian Private Opera: The
Oprichnik], ND 5170, 25 October 1897, 2.
82. S. K., U Tsezarya Kiui [At Csar Cuis], ND 5944, 11 December 1899, 3.
83. Vasilii Shkafer, Sorok let na stsene russkoi opery [Forty Years on the Russian
Operatic Stage] (Leningrad: Izdanie Teatra Opery i Baleta Imeni S. M. Kirova, 1936),
13233.
84. Vsevolod Meierhold, K postanovke Tristana i Izoldy v Mariinskom Teatre
[On the Production of Tristan und Isolde at the Mariinsky Theater], in Stati, pisma,
rechi, besedy [Articles, Letters, Speeches, Conversations] (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1968),
1: 144. Meyerholds perception of Chaliapin is particularly interesting in light of the
long tradition of viewing the singer as a proponent of realism; see chapter 4 on the
modernist traits in Chaliapins art.
n o t e s t o pag e s 59 6 5 307
85. Stasov, Pokhod nashikh estetikov [A March of Our Aesthetes], in Izbrannye trudy, 3: 6768.
86. Incidentally, Russian futurists and constructivists who advocated the presence of machinery on stage would have agreed with Mamontovs assessment, as they
rejected the autonomy of art in favor of treating it as a weapon for reshaping the
world.
87. Savva Mamontov, O techenii opernogo sezona v moskovskikh teatrakh
[On the Progression of the Operatic Season in Moscow Theaters], draft article (1908);
item 26, list 1, fund 799, RGALI. It is interesting that Yakovlev, who criticized Mamontovs production of Boris Godunov, considered the above-mentioned staging
by Olenin exemplary; see Iakovlev, Teatr Mamontova [Mamontovs Theater], in
Izbrannye trudy o muzyke, 3: 234. It is also worth noting that Musorgskys opera
held a special significance for Olenin: the role of Rangoni was his MPO debut (see
plate 26).
88. Reed, Decadent Style, 14.
89. Sarabianov, Istoriia russkogo iskusstva kontsa XIXnachala XX veka [History of Russian Art of the Late 19thEarly 20th Centuries] (Moscow: Moskovskii
Universitet, 1993), 23.
90. For details, see chapter 4.
91. Diaghilevs attitude to modernity is often discussed in the literature; see for
example The Ballets Russes and Its World, 160.
92. Mamontov to Cui [March 1899?], quoted in Rossikhina, Opernyi teatr S. I.
Mamontova, 166.
93. Mamontov to Shkafer and Chernenko [November 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund
920, RGALI.
94. E., K 25-letiiu Chastnoi Opery. U S. I. Mamontova [On the 25th Anniversary
of the Private Opera. At S. I. Mamontovs], Teatr 568 (1910): 8.
95. Sh., Beseda s Mamontovym [A Conversation with Mamontov], RS 6, 9 January 1910, 5.
96. Kopshitser, Savva Mamontov, 235.
97. Shkafer, Sorok let na stsene russkoi opery, 162. Shkafers description of his
mentor as the aestheteStasovs favorite insultalso clearly aligns Mamontov with
the decadent generation.
98. Kruglikov to Mamontov, 3 December 1898; item 145, list 1, fund 799, RGALI. A
Musorgsky scholar will spot the Kuchkist slogan to the new shores! in Kruglikovs
dithyramb; the man was, after all, a Rimsky-Korsakov student and, as we shall see,
did not always see eye to eye with his boss, the aesthete.
99. Mamontov to Shkafer, 27 July [1904?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
100. Melnikov to Mamontov, 8 July 1899; item 170, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
101. Mamontov to Shkafer [October 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI. For
the details of Mamontovs arrest and trial, see introduction, n.8.
102. Mamontov to Shkafer [November 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
103. Vladimir Artinov, Snegurochka v Narodnom Dome [The Snow Maiden at
the Peoples House], RS 287, 13 December 1913, 7.
104. Rosenthal, Theater as Church.
105. Solovv, Obshchii smysl iskusstva, in Stikhotvoreniia, estetika, literaturnaia kritika, 134.
308 n o t e s t o pag e s 6 5 6 9
106. Varvara Strakhova-Ermans, Vospominaniia o Shaliapine [Recollections of

Chaliapin] (TS; item 988, fund 468, BM), 5.
107. Stanislavskys memoirs are quoted in Garafola, Diaghilevs Ballets Russes,
162.
108. Mikhail Vrubel, Perepiska. Vospominaniia o khudozhnike [Correspondence:
Recollections of the Artist] (Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1963), 154.
110. Mamontov to Stanislavsky, 22 August 1899; item 9236, Stanislavsky fund,
MATM.
111. Shkafer to Mamontov, 29 September 1898; item 280, list 1, fund 799,
RGALI.
112. Solovv, Prekrasnoe v prirode [The Beautiful in Nature], in Stikhotvoreniia,
estetika, literaturnaia kritika, 99101.
113. Mamontov to Shkafer [December 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
114. Mamontov to Shkafer, 27 July [1904?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
115. Mamontov to Stanislavsky, 17 May 1903; item 9238, Stanislavsky fund,
MATM.
116. Mamontov to Stanislavsky, 22 August 1899; no. 9236, Stanislavsky fund,
MATM.
117. Quoted in Konstantin Rudnitskii, Rezhissr Meierhold [Meyerhold the Director] (Moscow: Nauka, 1969), 37.
118. Rosenthal, Theater as Church, 124.
3. Echoes of Abramtsevo
1. This, for instance, is a central focus of Dora Kogans investigation of the
Mamontov Circle; see her Mamontovskii kruzhok [The Mamontov Circle] (Moscow:
Izobrazitelnoe Iskusstvo, 1970).
2. This tradition was especially strong among the merchant families of the Orthodox Old Believers, the denomination to which the Tretyakovs, Morozovs, and
Kokorevs belonged; the Mamontovs, however, did not.
3. Konstantin Rudnitskii, Russkoe rezhissrskoe iskusstvo, 18981907 [The Russian Art of Directing, 18981907] (Moscow: Nauka, 1989), 36.
4. Stasov, Moskovskaia Chastnaia Opera v Peterburge [The Moscow Private
Opera in St. Petersburg], NBG 93, 4 April 1898, 2.
5. Unknown to Mamontov, July 1898; item 290, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
6. Mamontov to Stanislavsky, 22 August 1899; item 9236, Stanislavsky fund,
MATM.
7. Grover, Savva Mamontov and the Mamontov Circle.
8. Shkafer, Sorok let na stsene russkoi opery, 167. Indeed, Grovers examples of
Mamontovs exhibiting Serov and Korovins paintings in his Russian North pavilion at the 1896 Nizhny Novgorod Exhibition, mounting Vrubels majolica above the
front entrance of the Metropol hotel, and his desire to decorate railway stations with
works of art would rather suggest that Mamontov might instead have been using his
businesses to promote the cause of art.
10. Zabela to Mamontov, [Spring 1896?]; item 84, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
n o t e s t o pag e s 70 7 6 309
11. Quoted in Nikolai Geineke, Savva Ivanovich Mamontov i ego rol v istorii
russkoi opery [Savva Ivanovich Mamontov and His Role in the History of Russian
Opera], draft article, 28 February 1942 (item 20, fund 532, BM), 8.
12. Mamontov to Elizaveta Mamontova, Moscow to Rome, 23 February 1873; item
320, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
13. Mamontov to Polenov, Moscow to Paris, 12/23 February 1874; item 2865, fund
54, STG.
14. Ibid.
15. Unless otherwise noted, all mentions of the family name Serov refer to
painter Valentin Serov, not his father, composer Alexander Serov.
16. Kogan, Mamontovskii kruzhok, 6.
17. Repin to Serov, 1892; quoted in Arenzon, Savva Mamontov, 75.
18. Mamontov to Polenov, Abramtsevo, 23 August 1880; item 2870, fund 54,
STG.
19. Melnikov, Moia pervaia vstrecha so Stanislavskim.
20. Ptr Melnikov, Savva Ivanovich Mamontov i ego okruzhenie [Savva
Ivanovich Mamontov and His Circle], Segodnya 313 [Riga, 1940], 4; item 282623,
Melnikov fund, Rainis Museum.
21. See, for example, Gray, The Russian Experiment in Art, 1621.
22. Viktor Vasnetsov, Vospominaniia o Savve Ivanoviche Mamontove [Recollections of Savva Ivanovich Mamontov], in Vsevolod Mamontov, Vospominaniia o
russkikh khudozhnikakh [Recollections of Russian Painters] (Moscow: Akademiia
Khudozhestv, 1950), 65. Indeed, Vasily Polenovs activities as a composer that would
result in the creation of Aphrodite and The Phantoms of Hellas could be traced to his
experiences in Mamontovs theatricals.
23. Alexandre Benois, who in his memoirs described his disappointment with
the theater design class he took at the Academy, also recalled his astonishment at
Konstantin Korovins ability to translate painterly techniques to the backdrop; see
Aleksandr Benua, Aleksandr Benua razmyshliaet [Alexandre Benois Contemplates]
(Moscow: Sovetskii Khudozhnik, 1968), 211.
25. Lubok (pl. lubki)a traditional handcolored woodcut print similar to the
English chapbooks, produced in Russian towns from the seventeenth to the early
twentieth century for circulation among the peasantry. Lubok subjects ranged from
Bible illustrations to political satire; their style owed much to traditional icon painting
and manuscript illustration in its disregard of proportion and perspective; see Gray,
The Russian Experiment in Art, 97.
26. Kramskoy to Stasov, 27 July 1886; in Ivan Kramskoi, Pisma. Stati [Letters.
Articles] (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 196566), 2: 252.
27. Kramskoy to Repin, 28 September 1874; in Kramskoi, Pisma 1: 26869.
28. Fyodor Dostoevsky, A Propos of the Exhibition, in Diary of a Writer, trans.
Boris Brasol (New York: Braziller, 1954), 7981.
29. Glenn Watkins, Pyramids at the Louvre: Music, Culture, and Collage from
Stravinsky to the Postmodernists (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1994), 80. See
also Glenn Watkins, Soundings: Music in the Twentieth Century (New York: Schirmer,
1988), 19697.
310 n o t e s t o pag e s 76 8 1
31. Repin to Kramskoy, 16 October 1874; in Ilia Repin, Izbrannye pisma v dvukh
tomakh, 18671930 [Selected Letters in Two Volumes, 18671930] (Moscow: Iskusstvo,
1969), 1: 143.
32. See Stasov, Priskorbnye estetiki [Miserable Aesthetes], in Izbrannye trudy, 1:
28795. Prakhovs article, under the tongue-in-cheek signature Profan [Ignoramus],
was published in Pchela 4547 (December 1876). The barge haulers mentioned in
Stasovs article are a reference to Repins painting Burlaki na Volge [The Volga Barge
Haulers] (1873), the artists first public success and the critics favorite.
33. This work, incidentally, earned Antokolsky a gold medal from the Academy
and a generous scholarship to Romea remarkable achievement for an unconverted
Jew in Imperial Russia.
34. Antokolsky to Stasov, 9 March 1872; quoted in Andrei Lebedev and Genrietta
Burova, Tvorcheskoe sodruzhestvo: M. M. Antokolskii i V. V. Stasov [Creative Collaboration: M. M. Antokolsky and V. V. Stasov] (Leningrad: Khudozhnik RSFSR,
1968), 62.
35. Elizabeth Valkenier, Ilya Repin and the World of Russian Art (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1990), 31.
36. Mamontov to Polenov, Moscow to Paris, 12/23 February 1874; item 2865, fund
54, STG.
37. Stasov, Vystavki, in Izbrannye trudy, 3: 195.
38. Stasov, Iskusstvo XIX veka [Art of the 19th Century], in Izbrannye trudy,
3: 66667.
39. Stasov, Dvadtsat piat let russkogo iskusstva: Nasha zhivopis [Twenty Five
Years of the Russian Art: Our Painting], in Izbrannye trudy, 2: 454. Bogatyri are legendary knights, the heroes of Russian epics and fairy tales, whose plots usually situate
them at the medieval Kievan court of Prince Vladimir.
40. Stasov, Dvadtsat piat let russkogo iskusstva: Nasha zhivopis, in Izbrannye
trudy, 2: 465.
41. Stasov, Iskusstvo XIX veka, in Izbrannye trudy, 3: 667.
43. Indeed, Camilla Gray contends that despite his frequent visits to Abramtsevo,
Surikov cannot be counted among the members of the Mamontov Circle, because
he did not participate in its communal projectschurch construction, theatricals,
and reading nights (on the latter, see chapter 5); Gray, The Russian Experiment in
Art, 22.
44. Even in discussing paintings on mythological and Biblical themes, as well
as on semi-legendary ancient subjects, Stasov demanded strict historical accuracy
and realist depiction of the real ancient world; see his critique of Semiradsky that
follows the discussion of Vasnetsov in Dvadtsat piat let russkogo iskusstva: Nasha
zhivopis, in Izbrannye trudy, 2: 45455.
45. John Bowlt, The Silver Age: Russian Art of the Early Twentieth Century and the
World of Art Group (Newtonville, Mass.: Oriental Research Partners, 1982), 48.
47. Diagilev, Vechnaia borba, 13.
48. Vrubel, Perepiska. Vospominaniia o khudozhnike, 5960.
49. See Sergei Diagilev, Pismo po adresu I. Repina [A Letter Addressed to Repin], Mir Iskusstva 10 (1899): 48.
n o t e s t o pag e s 82 8 6 311

51. Dmitrii Severiukhin and Oleg Leikind, Zolotoi vek khudozhestvennykh
obiedinenii v Rossii i SSSR, 18201932 [The Golden Age of Artistic Associations in Russia and the USSR, 18201932] (St. Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Chernysheva, 1992), 13335.
The MAA would prove to be one of the most enduring exhibition societies in Silver
Age Russia, surviving until 1924.
52. Bukva [I. F. Vasilevskii], Peterburgskie nabroski: Dve vystavki [Petersburg
Sketches: Two Exhibitions], RV 66, 8 March 1898, 3.
53. Quoted in Arenzon, Savva Mamontov, 166.
54. Severiukhin and Leikind, Zolotoi vek, 133.
56. Mamontov to Polenov [mid- to late 1900s?]; item 2911, fund 54, STG.
57. Mamontov to Polenov, 27 September [1907?]; item 2903, fund 54, STG.
58. Mamontov to Carr, Moscow to Paris, 17/30 November 1907; list 1, fund 799,
RGALI. Notably, Carr was convincedthe Snow Maiden contract was taken away
from Korovin and given to a French decorator who was required to execute the sets and
costumes following Vasnetsovs sketches sent by Mamontov (see chapter 8 for details).
59. According to several eye-witnesses, after Mamontovs arrest, Korovin panicked and attempted to disassociate himself from the disgraced tycoon by destroying
Mamontovs letters to him and all other personal effects that could prove that their
relationship went deeper than that between an employer and an employee.
60. Sh., Beseda s S. I. Mamontovym, RS 6, 9 January 1910, 5.
61. Artinov, S. I. Mamontov o Svobodnom Teatre.
62. See, for example, a discussion of his polemics with Zolotoe Runo in Mark
Etkind, A. N. Benua i russkaia khudozhestvennaia kultura [A. N. Benois and Russian
Artistic Culture] (Leningrad: Khudozhnik RSFSR, 1989), 18589.
64. Platon Mamontov, Savva Ivanovich Mamontov: Vospominaniia [Savva
Ivanovich Mamontov: Memoir], unpublished manuscript; item 4, list 2, fund 799,
RGALI.
65. Gray, The Russian Experiment in Art, 33.
66. Dmitrii Sarabianov, Russkii variant stilia modern v zhivopisi kontsa XIX
nachala XX veka [The Russian Variant of Style Moderne in Painting of the Late
19thEarly 20th Centuries], in Russkaia zhivopis XIX veka sredi evropeiskikh shkol
[Russian Art of the 19th Century among the European Schools] (Moscow: Sovetskii
Khudozhnik, 1980), 219.
67. See Vrubels letter to the editor and Diaghilevs response in Mir Iskusstva 5
(1899): 4041.
69. Grigorii Sternin, Khudozhestvennaia zhizn Rossii na rubezhe XIXXX vekov
[Artistic Life in Russia of the Late 19thEarly 20th Centuries] (Moscow: Iskusstvo,
1970), 2021.
70. Shaliapin, Maska i dusha, in Literaturnoe nasledstvo 1: 243.
71. The majolica works produced at Maria Tenishevas Talashkino estate, which
from its inception positioned itself as a rival to Abramtsevo, exhibit similar characteristics; however, Mamontovs and Vrubels work with majolica predate that of its
competition.
312 n o t e s t o pag e s 8 6 9 5

4. Visual Impressions
1. Teatr i muzyka [Theater and Music], RS 273, 11 October 1896, 3.
2. A. G., Vozobnovlenie opery Rogneda [A Revival of Rogneda], RS 295, 2
November 1896, 3.
3. Such catalogues are preserved, for example, in Pyotr Melnikovs archive at
RMLAH.
4. Mamontov to Polenov, 5 October 1899; item 2888, fund 54, STG.
5. Teatr i muzyka, RS 273, 11 October 1896, 3.
6. See Sarabianov, Russkii variant stilia modern, 197.
7. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 4907, 2 February 1897, 3. The decorators named
were Carl Waltz, as well as Stavitsky, Smirnov, Sergeev, and Lebedev.
8. Note, for instance, the harmony of costume, makeup, and accessories used to
create the image of Polovtsian Khan Konchak (Prince Igor), portrayed here by an MPO
veteran, bass Anton Bedlevich, a member of the troupe from 1885 (see plate 25).
9. V. Baskin, Teatralnoe ekho [Theatrical Echo], PG 87, 30 March 1898, 3. The
author of this critique invites a special comment: the conservative, ardently antiKuchkist Baskin had a bad reputation among Soviet musicologists, who followed
the nationalist press of the 1890s in discounting his politically incorrect opinions by
branding him an ignoramus (see chapter 7). However, I believe that his consistently
conservative stand opposed to both the realists and the modernists gave Baskin
(as well as his fellow conservatives Mikhail Ivanov, Nikolai Solovyov, and Victor
Burenin) a unique voice in Russias cultural landscape that surely deserves to be
heard.
10. Arnold Aronson, Scenic Design, in International Encyclopedia of Dance,
5: 541.
11. Serge Lifar, Serge Diaghilev: His Life, His Work, His Legend; An Intimate Biography (New York: Putnam, 1940), 130.
12. Aleksandr Benua, Konstantin Korovin: Po povodu ego iubileia [Konstantin
Korovin: On the Occasion of His Jubilee], in Aleksandr Benua razmyshliaet, 211.
13. Salina, Zhizn i stsena, 6364. See also Rossikhina, Opernyi teatr S. I. Mamontova, 6567.
14. Melnikov, Savva Ivanovich Mamontov i ego okruzhenie. The short comments from the back of the auditorium described by Melnikov were also a characteristic feature of Mamontovs personal directing style (see chapter 5).
15. Abram Raskin, Shaliapin i russkie khudozhniki (Leningrad: Iskusstvo,
1963).
17. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5849, 7 September 1899, 23.
18. V. Baskin, Govoria o Fauste [Speaking of Faust], PG 70, 13 March 1899, 3.
19. See Raskin, Shaliapin i russkie khudozhniki, 5052.
20. At the same time, the date of Vrubels Faust triptych, completed while he was
directly exposed to Chaliapins work on Gounods opera, may also suggest that the
painters original vision may itself have been influenced by Chaliapins artistry.
21. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 24 September 1901; item 907, fund 640, RNL.
n o t e s t o pag e s 9 510 2 313
22. Salina, Zhizn i stsena, 118.

23. A feuilleton by Vlas Doroshevich that described the publics rediscovery of
Vrubel as a result of Chaliapins interpretation is quoted in Raskin, Shaliapin i russkie
khudozhniki, 51. According to Salina, both the costume and the makeup la Vrubel
were created for Chaliapin by Konstantin Korovin.
24. A photograph of the sculpture can be found in Arenzon, Savva Mamontov,
149.
25. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5208, 1 December 1897, 3.
26. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5530, 21 October 1898, 3.
27. Sarabianov, Russkii variant stilia modern, 197.
28. Nikolai Rimskii-Korsakov, Letopis, 181.
29. Rimsky-Korsakovs own account of the incident can be found in Letopis, 208
209.
30. Richard Taruskin, Sadko, in New Grove Dictionary of Opera 4: 120.
32. Shkafer, Sorok let na stsene russkoi opery, 14142.
34. It is notable that the memoirs on Diaghilevs Ballets Russes contain similar
descriptions of his creative team living together as a large family (see below).
36. Lentovsky to Mamontov, 31 March 1899; item 152, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
37. Strakhova-Ermans, Vospominaniia o Shaliapine, 8.
38. Alexandre Benois, Reminiscences of the Russian Ballet (London: Putnam,
1941), 214.
39. Garafola, Diaghilevs Ballets Russes, 155.
40. Ibid., 15556.
41. Quoted in Lifar, Serge Diaghilev, 130.
42. Mamontov to Shkafer, [November 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
43. Andrei Rimskii-Korsakov, N. A. Rimskii-Korsakov, 15960.
44. See Rimsky-Korsakov to Zabela, 30 September 1900; item 796, fund 640, RNL.
Nadezhda Zabela-Vrubel, MPO soprano from 18971902, was Rimsky-Korsakovs favorite singer and close personal friend. The composer idealized her voice, believed
her to be the perfect interpreter of his operas, and created expressly for her the parts
of Marfa in The Tsars Bride, the Swan Princess in The Tale of Tsar Saltan, and the
Princess in Kashchei the Deathless. For more information, see Liudmila Barsova,
N. I. Zabela-Vrubel glazami sovremennikov [N. I. Zabela-Vrubel in the Eyes of Her
Contemporaries] (Leningrad: Muzyka, 1982).
45. Quoted in Arenzon, Savva Mamontov, 153.
46. See Taruskin, Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions, 492.
47. Mamontov to Polenov, 24 November 1897; item 2885, fund 54, STG.
48. Mamontov to Shkafer, [Fall 1899]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
49. Artinov, Snegurochka v Narodnom Dome.
50. A. G., V Bolshom Teatre [At the Bolshoi Theater], RS 263, 1 October 1897, 3.
51. The reasons for Mamontovs relative neglect of the instrumental side of the
operatic production are not entirely clear. Either he was less curious, or believed himself to be unqualified to offer an opinion: a trained singer and a reasonably competent
pianist, he apparently could not read orchestral scores.
314 n o t e s t o pag e s 10 2 10 9
52. Rimskii-Korsakov, Letopis, 209.

53. Rachmaninov would utilize the skills acquired at Mamontovs enterprise
a few years later, when in 1904 he would take over the Bolshoi Theater orchestra;
see Vasilii Iakovlev, RakhmaninovDirizhr, in Izbrannye trudy o muzyke, vol. 2
(Moscow: Muzyka, 1971), 37290.
54. Rimsky-Korsakov, Letopis, 209.
55. Nikolai Kashkin was one of several critics who complained about Mamontovs orchestra frequently being overworked and under-rehearsed; see N. K-in, Pskovitianka, RV 348, 17 December 1896, 3.
56. See Rimsky-Korsakov to Zabela, 12 May 1899; item 793, fund 640, RNL.
57. Indeed, the press commented on Ippolitov-Ivanovs appointment specifically
in this light; see, for instance, an editorial Chastnaia Opera [Private Opera], in NS
617, 8 September 1899, 2.
59. Khovanshchina, NS 390, 23 November 1897, 2.
60. V. Baskin, Kniaz Igor [Prince Igor], PG 79, 22 March 1899, 3.
61. Quoted in Gozenpud, Russkii opernyi teatr i Shaliapin, 154.
62. I. L., Chastnaia Opera, NS 40, 10 September 1896, 2.
63. After his arrest on 12 September, Mamontov spent about two months in solitary confinement at Moscows Taganskaya Prison; following a petition by family and
friends, the fifty-eight-year-old tycoon was subsequently released and placed under
house arrest due to health problems (for the details of the indictment, see introduction, n.8).
64. Mamontov to unknown and Shkafer [Fall 1899]; item 23, list 2, fund 920,
RGALI.
66. Quoted in Lifar, Serge Diaghilev, 176.
67. Camille Mauclair; quoted in Aronson, Scenic Design, 541.
68. Quoted in Janet Kennedy, The Mir Iskusstva Group and Russian Art, 1898
1912 (New York: Garland, 1977), 343.
69. Peter Lieven, The Birth of the Ballets Russes (London: Allen and Unwin, 1936),
131. Taruskin signals his agreement with Lievens assessment by not only quoting his
description of Petrushka in Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions (see p. 661), but
borrowing it for the title of the relevant section of the book.
70. See Bartlett, Wagner and Russia.
71. Bartlett, Wagner and Russia, 14.
72. A line from Alexander Serovs review of Lohengrins premiere, in which he
publicly apologized to Wagner for the Russian productions excessive realism . . . incompatible with the operas mythical and mystical content (quoted in Bartlett, Wagner and Russia, 38), serves as a remarkable illustration of the aesthetic incompatibility
between Wagners myth-laden staged dramas and the Russian realist doctrine.
73. Sergei Diagilev, Osnovy khudozhestvennoi otsenki [Foundations of Artistic Judgment], Mir Iskusstva 34 (1899): 52.
74. Kennedy, The Mir Iskusstva Group and the Russian Art, 100.
75. See Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 8/21 July 1899; item 170, list 1, fund 799,
RGALI.
76. Sh., Beseda s S. I. Mamontovym.
n o t e s t o pag e s 1 10 1 4 315
77. Rossikhina, Opernyi teatr S. I. Mamontova, 60. The researcher, however, refers
only to the painters stage-directing experience.
79. Quoted in Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity, 166.
81. Rosenthal, Theater as Church, 134.
84. Quoted in Simon Morrison, Scriabin and the Impossible, Journal of the
American Musicological Society 51, no. 2 (Summer 1998): 292.
85. The anonymous author of the Rannee Utro article, V tupikakh i osobniakakh [In Mansions and Blind Alleys] ([1907]; item 15, list 3, fund 799, RGALI)
briefly reports on chatting with Mamontov after a Scriabin concert. The topics of
conversation (unfortunately, the journalist does not go into detail) included Emil
Coopers interpretations of Symphony no. 3 and Pome dextase, Scriabins compositional style, and the composers recent interest in theosophy.
86. Kuriers anonymous review, dated 1 December 1897, was also quoted in the
press digest published in NS 399, 2 December 1897, 2.
87. Mamontov to Polenov, 17 August [1907?]; item 2902, fund 54, STG.
88. Mamontov to Polenov, 24 August 1907; item 2894, fund 54, STG.
89. See remarks quoted in Shkafer, Sorok let na stsene russkoi opery, 151.
90. It should be noted that decadents and aesthetes were discussedand
indictedin the same chapter of Max Nordaus Degeneration; see Nordau, Degeneration, 296337.
91. A. G., Vozobnovlenie opery Rogneda.
92. Sternin, Khudozhestvennaia zhizn Rossii na rubezhe XIXXX vekov, 21.
93. In particular, Serovs modernist designs for Judith come to mind, to be discussed below.
94. Vrubel would take over as MPOs chief designer after Korovins move to the
Bolshoi in the fall of 1899, for the following three seasons (18991902). Among his
finest achievements during this period are sets and costumes for Rimsky-Korsakovs
The Tsars Bride, The Tale of Tsar Saltan (see plate 38), and Kashchei the Deathless, all
starring his wife, Nadezhda Zabela.
95. More anonymous but equally conspicuous was the work of architect Ilya
Bondarenko, the author of the Solodovnikov Theater reconstruction project. Represented on the pages of this book primarily as Mamontovs close friend, archivist, and
memoirist, Bondarenko is considered to be one of the most original and innovative
architects of the Russian style moderne, an equal of Shchusev and Shekhtel; see Elena
Borisova and Grigory Sternin, Russian Art Nouveau (New York: Rizzoli, 1988), 85.
96. Staryi Chelovek, Za kulisamiVI [Backstage6], ND 5648, 17 February
1899, 3. The underlying assumption behind the joke, comprehended easily by readers, was a belief that any artist subscribing to the art-for-arts sake philosophy was
by definition a decadent.
97. See reviews in RS 342 and 343, 11 and 12 December 1899, respectively.
98. E. R., Tsarskaia Nevesta v Chastnoi Opere [The Tsars Bride at the Private
Opera], ND 5897, 25 October 1899, 3.
99. Novyi, Otovsiudu [From Everywhere], RS 254, 14 September 1899, 3.
316 n o t e s t o pag e s 1 1 4 19

101. A. Gr., Orfei na stsene Teatra Solodovnikova [Orfeo on the Solodovnikov
Theater Stage], RS 323, 1 December 1897, 3.
103. Sergei Shchukin, Ivan Morozov, and other sophisticated collectors of modernist art who came out of Moscows increasingly wealthy middle class cannot be
considered representative of that group. The 2,200-seat capacity of the Solodovnikov
Theater all but ensured that, even when in the audience, true connoisseurs of Korovins and Vrubels art would always be in the minority.
104. Repins Impressionist Parisian works and some of Arkhip Kuindzhis landscapes may be considered an exception; however, they do not display the radical
approach to color evident, for instance, in Korovins designs.
105. Twenty-five years earlier, a similar reaction was exhibited by the first audiences of the French Impressionists, as a response to their radically altered approach
to the concept of finished work.
106. A. G., Khovanshchina, RS 306, 14 November 1897, 3.
107. Teatr i muzyka, NV 7903, 26 February 1898, 3.
108. Teatr i muzyka, NV 7913, 9 March 1898, 3.
109. Stasov, Moskovskaia Chastnaia Opera v Peterburge.
110. The view of the historicist trend on the Russian stage as progressive was partially shaped by the success of the Meiningen Theater, which toured the country in
1885 and 1890; for an extended discussion of the Meiningen phenomenon and its
impact on the MPO, see chapter 6.
111. Stasov himself, incidentally, did not use the term when discussing Mamontovs enterprise; but see a review in NV 8272, 9 March 1899, 3, in which sets and
costumes for Boris Godunov are praised for their archeological exactness. On the
use of archeological exactness in the Western European drama theaters of the late
nineteenth century, see Glynn Wickham, A History of the Theater (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 204ff.
112. Cf. Stasovs approach to historical painting outlined in chapter 3.
113. Stasov, Opera Glinki v Prage [Glinkas Opera in Prague], in Izbrannye
trudy, 1: 15758.
115. Teatr i muzyka, RS 333, 11 December 1897, 3.
116. Platon Mamontov, Savva Ivanovich Mamontov.
117. Briusov, Nenuzhnaia pravda, 73.
120. Mamontov to Polenov, 21 September 1899; item 2887, fund 54, STG.
121. This in fact was a common practice for the MPOs historical productions
such as The Maid of Pskov, whose sets were modeled after Pskovs traditional archi
tecture.
122. Taruskin, Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions, 493. The scholar quotes a
1914 assessment of Vasnetsovs work by Sergei Makovsky, editor of literary journal
Apollon.
123. Borisova and Sternin, Art Nouveau, 46.
n o t e s t o pag e s 1 19 2 6 317
124. A similar design had been used in the fabric for Boris Godunovs costume,
reproduced on Golovins 1901 portrait of Chaliapin; I am indebted to Myroslava M.
Mudrak for this observation.
125. Borisova and Sternin, Art Nouveau, 24.
126. Ibid., 45.
128. The story of Sadko plays out in two locations: the medieval Russian city of
Novgorod and the fantastic Underwater Kingdom. The tableaux are constructed symmetrically; secondary characters reflect on the fates of the central figures. The opera
includes two bards (Sadko and Nezhata), two wives for Sadko (the human Lyubava
and the Sea Princess Volkhova), and two moral authority figures (the Ancient One,
representing Christianity, and the Sea Tsar, who represents the nature gods) whose
confrontation leads to the resolution of the main intrigue and Sadkos return to the
human world. For a detailed discussion, see Simon Morrison, Semiotics of Symmetry, or Rimsky-Korsakovs Operatic History Lesson, Cambridge Opera Journal
13 (2001): 26193.
129. In Rimsky-Korsakovs theory of harmony, a tone-semitone (i.e., octatonic)
scale is classified as one of the artificial scales.
130. Incidentally, the first meeting between Rimsky-Korsakov and Nadezhda
Zabela took place during a performance of Sadko that the composer attended at Mamontovs theater; Zabela performed the role of the Sea Princess in a costume designed
by her husband, Mikhail Vrubel. To Rimsky-Korsakov, this would always be Zabelas
signature part; in some of his letters he addresses her as the Sea Princess.
131. Rimsky-Korsakov to Zabela, 17 May 1900; item 795, fund 640, RNL.
132. Nikolai Kashkin, Sadko, RV 7, 7 January 1898, 23.
133. Orfei v Russkoi Chastnoi Opere, NS 399, 2 December 1897, 2.
134. For a discussion of Mamontovs application of the individualized crowd principle, see chapter 6.
137. Sarabianov, Istoriia russkogo iskusstva kontsa XIXnachala XX veka, 23.
139. Teatr i muzyka, RS 84, 14 April 1909, 5.
140. Dmitry Smirnovs debut took place at the Hermitage Theater in summer 1903,
in the leading role in Eugenio Espositos comic opera Camorra, set to Mamontovs
libretto. Mamontov staged the production and personally coached its young cast.
141. See Sanins telegram in RS 13, 9 January 1910, 5, mentioned above. Sanin was
also vocal about his debt to Mamontov in his private correspondence, as evident in
his letter to Sergei Mamontov soon after his fathers arrest, dated 15 September 1899;
item 367, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
143. Ibid., 15152.
144. Eleonora Paston, Khudozhestvennye printsipy mamontovskogo teatra
[Artistic Principles of Mamontovs Theater], in Sergei Diagilev i khudozhestvennaia
kultura XIXXX vv. [Sergei Diaghilev and the Artistic Culture of the 19th20th Centuries] (Perm: Permskoe Knizhnoe Izdatelstvo, 1987), 29.
318 n o t e s t o pag e s 1 2 6 3 1
145. See Aleksandr Benua, Vozniknovenie Mira Iskusstva [The Birth of Mir
Iskusstva] (Leningrad: Komitet Populiarizatsii Khudozhestvennykh Izdanii pri Gos.
Akademii Istorii Materialnoi Kultury, 1928).
146. Diaghilev to Benois, 8/20 October 1897; item 939, fund 137, SRM; sections of
the letter reprinted in Benua, Vozniknovenie Mira Iskusstva, 2728.
147. Diaghilev to Benois, [November 1897]; item 939, fund 137, SRM; reprinted in
Sergei Diagilev i russkoe iskusstvo [Sergei Diaghilev and Russian Art], ed. Ilia Zilbersh
tein and Vladimir Samkov (Moscow: Izobrazitelnoe Iskusstvo, 1982), 2: 3031.
148. Ironically, Vladimir Stasov was supposed to have been a consultant for that
production (see Gozenpud, Russkii opernyi teatr i Shaliapin, 158). The collaboration
did not take place, more likely due to the distance between Mamontovs and Stasovs
aesthetic positions, rather than the distance between their respective places of residence, Moscow and St. Petersburg. Indeed, it is illustrative of Mamontovs aesthetics
that, instead of Stasov, the St. Petersburg observer of Khovanshchinas staging turned
out to be Sergei Diaghilev.
149. Sergei Diagilev, Osnovy khudozhestvennoi otsenki, 52.
150. Rimsky-Korsakov to Zabela, 8 December 1898; item 792, fund 640, RNL.
151. See Aleksandr Benua, Moi vospominaniia [My Memoirs] (Moscow: Nauka,
1980), 2: 213.
5. Opera as Drama
1. This lack of an officially defined job description prevented Mamontov from
rejoining the company after the conclusion of his 1900 trial; the new administration,
well aware that the newly-bankrupt tycoon no longer held the purse strings, simply
ignored him.
2. See, for instance, Strakhova-Ermans, Vospominaniia o Shaliapine, 5.
3. See Bondarenko, S. I. Mamontov i ego opera, 25.
4. On Mamontovs financial relationship with the MPO, see chapter 8.
5. Sergei Rakhmaninov, Vospominaniia [Memoirs], in S. Rakhmaninov: Li
teraturnoe nasledie [S. Rachmaninov: Literary Heritage], ed. Zaruia Apetian, 3 vol.
(Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1978), 1: 55.
6. Mamontov to Shkafer, 28 October 1899; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
7. For an illustration of the stage manager option, see Rossikhinas discussion
of a stage directors role at the Imperial Theaters in Opernyi teatr S. I. Mamontova,
46.
8. In her dissertation, Lucinde Braun advances the venerable Mariinsky stage
director Osip Palecek as a model of a modern rgisseur; see her Studien zur russischen Oper in spten 19. Jahrhundert [Studies in Russian Opera of the Late 19th
Century] (Mainz: Schott, 1999), 12651. Paleceks attempts, however, were tentative
and unsystematic, and they remained largely unacknowledged by his contemporaries;
he is never mentioned in Mamontovs letters, or advanced as an example in any press
reviews of the MPO.
9. On the Mamontov Drama Nights, see Arenzon, Savva Mamontov, 75.
10. For more information on that production, including a glowing report on
Mamontovs rehearsal techniques from lead actor Alexander Yuzhin-Sumbatov, see
Arenzon, Savva Mamontov, 7.
n o t e s t o pag e s 13 2 4 4 319
11. Melnikov to Mamontov, [date?]; item 170, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
12. P., Moskovskaia Russkaia Chastnaia Opera: Sadko [Moscow Russian Private Opera: Sadko], RMG 3 (1898): 290.
13. Quoted in Gozenpud, Russkii opernyi teatr i Shaliapin, 17778.
15. Platon Mamontov, Savva Ivanovich Mamontov, 19.
16. Ibid., 119.
17. Shkafer to Mamontov, September 1897; item 280, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
18. Indeed, so does the description of the first rehearsal of Sadko in his memoirs;
see Shkafer, Sorok let na stsene russkoi opery, 14142.
19. Ibid.
20. See Konstantin Stanislavskii, Moia zhizn v iskusstve [My Life in Art] (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1983), 8687.
22. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 19 May 1898; item 24, fund 155, BM.
23. The Melnikov fund at BM contains programs, reviews, and other materials
related to the La Scala premiere, as well as a promotional booklet for the Paris Private
Operas 192829 season. The bulk of the materials connected to his work at the Imperial Theaters are preserved at RMLAH.
25. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 4 April 1898; item 22, fund 155, BM. Barin
noble, landowner, master (to a servant or a peasant on his land).
26. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 8/21 July 1899; item 170, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
28. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 8/21 July 1899; item 170, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
31. For information on the Novy Theater, see chapter 8.
32. Shkafer to Mamontov, [1903?]; item 280, list 1, fund 799, RGALI. Shkafers
reference to a year in Mamontovs school means his first season of apprenticeship
in 189798, before he was allowed to work independently.
33. See chapter 4: n.36.
34. Lentovsky to Mamontov, 31 March 1899; item 152, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
35. On the realization of the artistic ensemble in Chaliapins directing see Nikolai
Kuznetsov, Mamontov, Shaliapin, Stanislavskiireformatory opernogo iskusstva v
Rossii kontsa XIXnachala XX vekov [Mamontov, Chaliapin, StanislavskyReformers of Operatic Art in Russia in the Late 19thEarly 20th Centuries] (Ph.D. diss.,
Moscow State Conservatory, 1996), particularly the eyewitness accounts quoted on
pages 65 and 12425.
36. For a discussion of the nontraditional application of the term ensemble to
the MPO productions in the sense of artistic synthesis, see below and chapter 4.
37. As mentioned in the introduction, Mamontovs MPO initially operated between 1885 and 1892 and then was closed until 1896. For a detailed discussion of the
role played by foreign stars during both periods of MPOs operations, see Olga Haldey,
Verdis Operas in Mamontovs Theater: Fighting a Losing Battle, Verdi Forum 30
(20032004), 325.
38. N. K-in, Boris Godunov, MV 339, 9 December 1898, 3.
320 n o t e s t o pag e s 1 4 4 50
39. Ts. Kiui [Csar Cui], Moskovskaia Chastnaia Russkaia Opera [Moscow
Private Russian Opera], NBG 67, 9 March 1899, 3.
40. This method of star-centered directing was Mamontovs trademark from the
early days of his company, leading to acclaimed successes such as Aida and Otello (see
Haldey, Verdis Operas in Mamontovs Theater). In the late 1890s, apart from the
examples discussed, he demonstrated a similar example of creative directing in an
acclaimed production of Faust with Chaliapin as Mephistopheles and Jules Devoyod
guest starring as Valentin. Both singers, as undisputed stars with their own faithful
followings, could not help but be drawn into an onstage competition: as a result, the
antagonism between their characters became even more pronounced, strengthening
the drama.
41. See, for instance, Rossikhinas monograph. Gozenpuds study also discusses
the MPO almost exclusively from the point of Chaliapins contribution. The author
has even added the singers name to the title of his monographin none of the other
six books included in his series on Russian opera theater did he concentrate so much
on just one personality.
42. Quidam, Peterburg [Petersburg], ND 5677, 18 March 1899, 3.
43. Shaliapin, Stranitsy iz moei zhizni, in Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 1: 128.
44. See, for example, Chastnaia Opera, RS 262, 22 September 1899, 3. The article
was occasioned by Chaliapins final performance with the MPO (his contract with
Mamontov officially expired on 21 September).
45. See, for instance, Gozenpud, Russkii opernyi teatr i Shaliapin, 226.
46. Cui to Mamontov, 23 January 1899; item 147, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
48. See, for instance, Kashkins review of The Tsars Bride mentioned above.
49. K zakrytiiu Moskovskoi Chastnoi Opery [On the Closing of the Moscow
Private Opera Season], PL 97, 9 April 1899, 3.
50. Staryi Chelovek, Za kulisamiVI.
51. Shkafer, Sorok let na stsene russkoi opery, 163. One example of a clear misjudgment on Mamontovs part was his universally criticized invitation of a certain tenor
Koltsov as an understudy for Sekar-Rozhanskys Sadko.
52. Stasov to Mamontov, 9 April 1898; item 239, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
53. See, for example, Rossikhina, Opernyi teatr S. I. Mamontova, 128130.
54. After all, Koltsov did not replace Sekar-Rozhansky in Sadko (see n.51 above).
55. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 4 April 1898; item 22, fund 155, Bakhrushin
Museum. Tsvetok [Blossom] or Tsvetochek [Little Blossom] was Tsvetkovas nickname in the troupe, derived from her last name.
56. Vsevolod Mamontov, Chastnaia Opera S. I. Mamontova (fund 155, BM),
16061. In his own memoirs, Melnikov even hinted at a romance with his co-star during that production.
57. N. K-in, Teatr i muzyka, RV 251, 11 September 1896, 3.
58. Gozenpud (see Russkii opernyi teatr i Shaliapin, 127) questions Kashkins
judgment, but since no recordings are available, this does not mean that the critic
was wrong, or for that matter that Mamontov disagreed with him.
59. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 4 June 1898; item 905, fund 640, RNL.
60. Kruglikov to Mamontov, 24 June 1898; item 145, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
n o t e s t o pag e s 15 1 5 7 321
61. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 11 and 30 August 1898; item 35, fund 155, BM.
62. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 13 July 1898; item 30, fund 155, BM.
63. Ibid.
64. Apart from Ermolova, Mamontovs inspiration was most likely the Meiningen Theater production of Schillers play; it was a staple of the German troupes
repertoire during their two Russian tours (see chapter 6 for details).
66. Mikhail Ippolitov-Ivanov, 50 let russkoi muzyki v moikh vospominaniiakh [50
Years of Russian Music in My Recollections] (Moscow: Muzgiz, 1934), 97.
67. Ibid.
68. See, for example, Mamontovs letter to Shkafer with advice for Vladimir Los
sky, who was having trouble with Italian recitative in Don Giovanni; item 23, list 2,
fund 920, RGALI.
69. Lyubatovich was the leading mezzo of the troupe during the 1880s; by the late
1890s, however, her voice was past its prime, and she moved to secondary, character
roles in which her acting ability was an asset.
70. V. Baskin, Orfei Gliuka [Glucks Orfeo], PG 81, 24 March 1898, 3.
71. See, for example, Teatralnaia khronika, ND 4784, 1 October 1896, 2.
72. I. L., Chastnaia Opera, NS 61, 1 October 1896, 23. This comment from
Lipaev is particularly valuable due to the critics overall interest in the ensemble
quality of the companys performances.
73. V. Baskin, Teatralnoe ekho.
74. Mamontov to Shkafer, [January, 1900?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
75. Chernenkos name and signature appear on the 189697 choir rosters preserved in fund 155, BM.
76. Indeed, this questionable tradition was started by Princess Tenisheva, who in
her memoirs accused Mamontov of ruining her budding operatic career. According to
Tenisheva, her MPO audition had been deliberately sabotaged because Mamontovs
lover, Tatyana Lyubatovich, for whom he kept the theater, was allegedly afraid of
the competition. See Maria Tenisheva, Vpechatleniia moei zhizni [Impressions of My
Life] (Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1991), 6970.
77. Mamontov to Melnikov, 14/28 May 1898; item 36, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
79. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 9 April 1898; item 23, fund 155, BM.
80. For details on such character analysis see, for example, Vladimir Losskys
recollections of his single study session with Mamontov dedicated to the image of
Gounods Mephistopheles; in Vladimir Losskii, Memuary, stati i rechi [Memoirs, Articles and Speeches] (Moscow: Muzgiz, 1959), 150.
82. Paskhalova to Mamontov, [Summer 1898?]; item 187, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
84. Mamontov to Shkafer [November 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
85. Mamontov to Melnikov, 14/28 May 1898; item 36, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
86. Shkafer to Mamontov, Paris to Moscow, 10 August 1898; item 280, list 1, fund
799, RGALI.
322 n o t e s t o pag e s 15 7 6 5
88. Shkafer, 40 let na stsene russkoi opery, 169.

89. Shkafer to Mamontov, 11 September 1897; item 280, list 1, fund 799, RGALI; for
more colorful examples of acting advice to novice singers at the Imperial Theaters,
see Chaliapins memoirs.
90. Mamontov to Shkafer, [November 1899]; item 23, list 2, fund 799, RGALI.
92. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 9 July 1898; item 29, fund 155, BM.
93. Shkafer to Mamontov, Paris to Moscow, 10 August 1898; item 280, list 1, fund
799, RGALI.
94. Rimsky-Korsakov to Zabela, 25 November 1898; item 792, fund 640, RNL.
95. For instance, stage director and musicologist Vladimir Pokrovsky, in his
article on Chaliapin, noted that the singer never referred to studying a part but
rather to a role; see: Vladimir Pokrovskii, Chitaia Shaliapina, Sovetskaia Muzyka
11 (1968): 73.
96. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 28 October 1898; item 905, fund 640, RNL.
97. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 1 November 1898; item 905, fund 640, RNL.
98. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 31 August 1898; item 905, fund 640, RNL.
99. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 27 January 1899; item 906, fund 640, RNL.
100. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 5 December 1898; item 905, fund 640, RNL.
102. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 28 February 1899; item 906, fund 640, RNL.
103. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 19 May 1899; item 906, fund 640, RNL.
105. Melnikov to Mamontov, 28 July 1899; item 39, fund 155, BM.
106. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 28 October 1898; item 905, fund 640, RNL.
Incidentally, Mamontov never cast Stavitskaya in the fiendishly complicated Rimsky-Korsakov parts. Zabelas comments demonstrate merely her personal bias, and
a refusal to acknowledge Mamontovs ability to assess the vocal limitations of his
singers with objectivity.
108. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, [February 1899]; item 906, fund 640, RNL.
110. Angelo was in fact on the repertoire list for the 18991900 season, and Mamontov personally pushed for its production, but the new administration of the company chose to ignore his advice, staging instead Cuis earlierand weakeropera,
Kavkazskii Plennik [Prisoner of the Caucasus], in which Zabela did sing the lead.
111. Cui to Mamontov, 23 January 1899; item 147, list 1, fund 799, RGALI. The remark
about Chaliapin refers to the fact that the singer, having already signed the contract
with the Bolshoi, would not be able to participate in the rescheduled production.
114. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, [March 1899]; item 906, fund 640, RNL.
116. Interestingly, several of Mamontovs homegrown divas whom Zabela ridiculed in her letters (including Paskhalova and Gladkaya) made the Mariinsky Theater
roster before she did.
n o t e s t o pag e s 16 57 2 323
118. Mamontov to Shkafer, [October 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
119. E.R., Boris Godunov, ND 5579, 9 December 1898, 3.
120. See, for example, Platon Mamontov, Shaliapin i Mamontov [Chaliapin and
Mamontov], in F. I. Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 2: 43549.
121. Kuznetsov, Mamontov, Shaliapin, Stanislavskii, 5556.
125. Lev Lebedinskii, Stsena Chasy s kurantami v ispolnenii Shaliapina [The
Chime Clock Scene as Performed by Chaliapin], Sovetskaia Muzyka 3 (March 1959):
3345.
126. The recording used was Iskusstvo F. I. Shaliapina: stseny i arii iz russkikh
oper, vol. 1 (Russian Disc RDCD00391, 1994). I had no access to the vinyl recording
cited by Lebedinsky as his source (his article includes a serial number but no date or
other details), but the Russian Disc recording used is the most accessible version in
Russia, and was available in 1959. Thus, it could have been Lebedinskys source. On
the other hand, if the scholar used a different recording, this may account for some
of the discrepancies described below.
127. While the effects of the speech-singing mode may be similar to the Sprechstimme, the techniques are essentially different: rather than hitting and then sliding off the suggested pitch, as Schoenberg proposed, Chaliapins pitches fluctuate
between definite and indefinite pitch in the general pitch area notated in the score.
Sprechstimme, furthermore, suggests a reference to Schoenbergs style and, therefore,
would not be appropriate.
128. See the discussion of Chaliapins use of speech mode in Judith in Iu. E.,
Iudif [Judith], RV 265, 25 November 1898, 34; and Justo, Chastnaia Opera: Iudif
Serova [Private Opera: Serovs Judith], ND 5566, 26 November 1898, 3.
129. A. G., Teatr i muzyka, RS 265, 3 October 1896, 3.
130. See, for example, Singers of Imperial Russia, vol. 3 (Pearl, GEMM CD 9004-6,
1992).
131. Mamontov clearly shared this conviction. Aesthetic considerations aside, it
might have contributed to his decision to excise the Kromy scene from his production of Boris, discussed in chapter 2. An even starker example is the reordering of the
scenes in Serovs Rogneda (see chapter 6).
6. From Meiningen to Meyerhold
3. Prior to my own work, the possibility of a Meiningen influence on the MPO
was acknowledged only by Arenzon, who limited his discussion of the topic, literally,
to a footnote; see Arenzon, Savva Mamontov, 97.
4. Notable studies of the Meiningen Theater and its legacy include Max Grubes
classic The Story of the Meininger, trans. Ann Marie Koller (Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press, 1963), Steven DeHarts The Meininger Theater, 17761926 (Ann
324 n o t e s t o pag e s 174 8 4
Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research Press, 1981), and John Osbornes excellent The Meiningen
Court Theater, 18661890 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), which has
been much utilized in the present study, particularly its extensive quotations from
the Dukes diaries.
5. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 9 July 1898; item 29, fund 155, BM; Melnikov
used the word kasha (the closest English equivalent is porridge).
6. Melnikov to Mamontov, 27 July 1898; item 33, fund 155, BM.
8. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 8 July 1899; item 37, fund 155, BM. Alexander
Lensky and Alexander Yuzhin-Sumbatov were two leading actors of the Imperial
Maly Drama Theater; for more on Yuzhin-Sumbatov, see chapter 5, n.10. Tugoukhovsky is a comic character in Alexander Griboedovs play Woe from Wit; here,
he is invoked as an easily recognized character type that also populated Pushkins
Eugene Onegin but was excised from Tchaikovskys opera.
9. Osborne, The Meiningen Court Theater, 146.
10. Kopshitser, Savva Mamontov, 112.
13. Mamontov to Shkafer, [October 1899]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
15. Pokrovskii, Chitaia Shaliapina, 73.
16. Chernenko to Mamontov, [Summer 1898]; item 267, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
18. Mamontov to Polenov, [OctoberNovember, 1899]; item 2912, fund 54, STG.
19. Mamontov to Shkafer, [October 1899]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI.
20. Mamontov to Polenov, 30 October [1907?]; item 2905, fund 54, STG.
21. The German term Fach can be translated as profession or specialization.
22. Stavitskaya to Mamontov, 14 July 1898; item 237, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
23. In her report to Rimsky-Korsakov, Zabela focused particularly on the drama
in Stavitskayas portrayal of the characterexcessive drama, in Zabelas estimation.
To her, Tatyana was a purely lyrical part.
24. Quoted in Osborne, The Meiningen Court Theater, 16667.
26. Ibid., 222.
27. Ibid., 208.
As was his practice, in this letter Mamontov again supplemented his writing with
a sketch.
32. See, for example, Cuis article in NBG 69, 11 March 1899, 3. It is also characteristic of Mamontovs approach that the chorus originally written for male voices was
performed by sopranos and mezzo-sopranos. The director did, however, approach a
renowned Tchaikovsky specialist, critic Nikolai Kashkin, to ask his opinion on the
switch.
33. V. B., Kniaz Igor [Prince Igor], PG 79, 22 March 1899, 3.
n o t e s t o pag e s 1 8 4 9 3 325
34. Casting Chaliapin in secondary roles had its drawbacks, of course, due to his
star quality and magnetic stage presence. In Prince Igor, for example, his Galitsky
completely overshadowed Borodins rather one-dimensional protagonista fact commented upon in the press. Chaliapins appearances as the Varangian Trader were rare,
probably, for the same reason; in this case, the harmony of the artistic ensemble was
more important than the rotation rule.
36. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5181, 4 November 1897, 3.
37. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5877, 5 October 1899, 3. One is left to wonder how
Shkafer managed to slip the idea past Rimsky-Korsakov, who was maniacally strict in
following the score. It is possible that the composer appreciated the stronger sound
of the chorus when supplemented by the soloists voices.
38. The role of the young tsar was performed by the Bolshois star tenor, Vasily
Sobinov. Interestingly, according to Melnikovs account, Sobinov always regretted not
accepting an invitation, straight from the conservatory bench, to join Mamontovs
enterprise. Despite his respected position, fame, and a devoted fan club, he believed
that working for Mamontov would have made him a better singer. See Melnikov,
Moia pervaia vstrecha so Stanislavskim.
43. Platon Mamontov, Shaliapin i Mamontov, 441.
44. See Stasov, Perov i Musorgskii.
47. E. Petrovskii, Sadko, RMG 3 (March 1898): 288.
48. S. K-ov, Pskovitianka [The Maid of Pskov], ND 4860, 16 December 1896, 3.
51. Ibid., 196. Interestingly, a similar technique was also utilized by Gustav Mahler
in his production of Don Giovanni, as well as in numerous commedia dell arte and
Baroque stylizations by Meyerhold.
52. Mamontov to Polenov, [1907?]; item 2915, fund 54, STG.
53. See, for example, Kashkins review, Novaia postanovka Evgeniia Onegina
[A New Production of Eugene Onegin], in RS on 29 October 1908, and Kruglikovs in
Golos Moskvy for the same day. Both are preserved in the Melnikov fund of the Rainis
Museum. It is notable that one critic attributes Melnikovs design idea to the influence
of Stanislavskys Moscow Art Theater, a company influenced in equal measure by the
Meiningen Theater and the MPO.
60. Rudnitskii, Rezhissr Meierhold, 14.
326 n o t e s t o pag e s 19 3 2 0 2
61. Vladimir Teliakovskii, Dnevniki directora Imperatorskikh Teatrov [Diaries of

the Director of the Imperial Theaters], vol. 1 (Moscow: Artist, Rezhissr, Teatr, 1998),
20.
62. Mir Iskusstva (1902); quoted in Lifar, Serge Diaghilev, 110 and Osborne, The
Meiningen Court Theater, 14243.
As Mamontov and Stanislavskys acquaintance predated the beginning of the latters
stage career, it was typical for Stanislavsky to sign his letters to Mamontov with his
real last name, Alekseev (see introduction, n.11), rather than his stage pseudonym.
65. Stanislavskii, Moia zhizn v iskusstve, 132.
66. Ibid., 134.
67. Platon Mamontov, Savva Ivanovich Mamontov, 17980.
69. Ibid., 288.
70. Gorky to Chekhov, after 5 January 1900; in Maksim Gorkii, Sobranie
sochinenii v 30-i tomakh [Collected Works in 30 Volumes] (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Khudozhestvennoi Literatury, 194956), 28: 113.
71. Stanislavsky to Mamontov, 27 September 1900; item 236, list 1, fund 799,
RGALI.
72. Meierhold, Naturalisticheskii teatr i teatr nastroeniia [Naturalist Theater
and Mood Theater], in Stati, pisma, rechi, besedy, 1: 120.
73. Vsevolod Meierhold, K proektu novoi dramaticheskoi truppy pri Moskovskom Khudozhestvennom Teatre [On the Projected New Drama Troupe Attached
to the Moscow Art Theater] (1905), in Stati, pisma, rechi, besedy, 1: 89.
75. A copy of the roster is preserved as item 226, fund 216, BM.
76. See Stanislavskys letter to the Studios administrator, Sergei Popov, dated 12
August 1905; item 248, fund 216, BM.
77. A conversation with Sergei Popov in which Stanislavsky searches for a way to
decline Mamontovs proposal to hire a particular actress without offending Savva
Ivanovich is related in Popovs Vospominaniia o Teatre-Studii na Povarskoi [Recollections of the Povarskaya Theater-Studio], TS, 8 August 1938; item 220, fund 216, BM.
78. Meierhold, Nuzhen li nam Bolshoi Teatr? [Do We Need the Bolshoi Theater?], in Stati, pisma, rechi, besedy, 2: 486.
79. Rudnitskii, Rezhissr Meierhold, 51, 5859.
81. Avrelii [Valerii Briusov], Iskaniia novoi stseny [The Searches of the New
Stage], Vesy 1 (1906): 7274. Bryusovs reference to the Antoine/Stanislavsky theater alludes to the two directors common admiration for the Meiningen troupe (for
Andr Antoine, see chapters 5 and 6).
82. Meyerholds diary; quoted in Rudnitskii, Rezhissr Meierhold, 73.
83. Meierhold, K postanovke Tristana i Izoldy v Mariinskom Teatre [On the
Production of Tristan und Isolde at the Mariinsky Theater], in Stati, pisma, rechi,
besedy 1: 144.
84. Rudnitskii, Rezhissr Meierhold, 14748.
n o t e s t o pag e s 2 0 2 13 327
85. Interestingly, Gorkys first meeting with Mamontov (see n.71) took place a
week after the premiere of The Snow Maiden, the reason for the writers visit to the
city. Gorky was thrilled with the openly unrealistic play, with Vasnetsovs setsand
with Mamontov, writing to Chekhov: Saw Mamontovwhat an original character!
I dont think he is a crook at all; its just that he loves everything beautiful too much
. . . Still, is it even possible to love beauty too much? (Gorky to Chekhov, between 1
and 7 October 1900; Sobranie sochinenii 28: 133; the comment about Mamontov being
a beauty lover rather than a crook reveals some knowledge of the trial proceedings
earlier that year; see introduction, n.8, above).
7. Politics, Repertory, and the Market
1. Krotkov to Mamontov, 25 October 1898; item 143, list 1 fund 799, RGALI.
2. This symbolic opposition was even reinforced geographically: Mamontovs
building was located right across Theater Square from both the Bolshoi and its spoken
drama counterpart, the Imperial Maly Theater.
3. S. K-ov, Teatralnaia khronika, ND 4860, 16 December 1896, 3.
4. Teatr i muzyka, RS 242, 8 September 1896, 3.
5. S. K-ov, Teatralnaia khronika, ND 4773, 20 September 1896, 2.
6. Pryanishnikov, Ippolit Petrovich (18471921)Russian baritone and impresario; trained and debuted in Milan (Maria di Rohan, 1876); as a Mariinsky soloist
(187886), created the role of Mizgir in Rimsky-Korsakovs The Snow Maiden, and a
number of Tchaikovsky characters, including Lionel (The Maid of Orleans), Mazeppa,
and Eugene Onegin (in the St. Petersburg premiere of the opera); later worked in Tiflis
(188689) and Kiev (188992), and for a single season, 189293, led a well-regarded
private operatic enterprise in Moscow.
7. Itogi sezona [Results of the Season], ND 4931, 26 February 1897, 3.
8. V. Garteveld, E pu si muove, RS 289, 27 October 1896, 23.
9. Quoted in Vsevolod Mamontov, Chastnaia Opera S. I. Mamontova, 162.
10. Chastnaia Opera, RS 262, 22 September 1899, 3.
11. For details of Mamontovs early efforts, see Haldey, Verdis Operas in Mamontovs Theater.
12. S. P., Russkaia Chastnaia Opera [Russian Private Opera], NS 428, 8 January
1898, 2.
13. Itogi sezona, ND 4931, 26 February 1897, 3.
14. Orfei v Russkoi Chastnoi Opere [Orfeo at the Russian Private Opera], NS
399, 2 December 1897, 2.
15. A. G., Teatr i muzyka, RS 261, 28 September 1896, 3.
17. A. G., Teatr i muzyka, RS 253, 20 September 1896, 3.
18. K., Teatr i muzyka, RV 250, 10 September 1896, 3.
19. S. K-ov., Teatralnaia khronika, ND 4774, 21 September 1896, 2.
21. N. K-in., Teatr i muzyka, RV 272, 2 October 1896, 3.
22. N. K-in., Teatr i muzyka, RV 255, 15 September 1896, 2.
23. I. L., Chastnaia Opera, NS 93, 2 November 1896, 23.
328 n o t e s t o pag e s 2 13 19
24. Ibid.
25. Nam pishut iz Moskvy [They Write to Us from Moscow], NV 7878, 1 February 1898, 45.
26. S. K-ov, Muzykalnaia zametka [Note on Music], Semia 44, 3 November
1896, 14.
27. Nam pishut iz Moskvy, NV 7878, 1 February 1898, 45.
28. The contract is preserved as item 71, fund 155, BM.
29. Mamontov to Shkafer, [December 1899]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI. The
article Ozherele [The Necklace] was published in ND (see no. 5956, 23 December
1899, 3), signed S. K. Another Necklace advertisement appeared earlier in Teatralnaia
khronika, ND 5917, 14 November 1899, 3. I have not been able to trace the fate of the
Gromoboi review.
30. Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 413, 16 December 1897, 2.
31. Ya., Voprosy dnia [Issues of the Day], NS 446, 29 January 1898, 2.
32. The good cause of the production was the single socially acceptable reason
for Mamontovs name to appear on a theater playbill.
33. They would not have been surprised: Bondarenkos story of the rebuilding of
the Solodovnikov Theater after the fire contains quite a few references to a persuasion
in an envelope delivered to a variety of Moscow bureaucrats.
35. Having learned from the experience, Mamontovs support for Mir Iskusstva
would be much more targeted, as evident, for instance, in the emphasis on crafts
during the journals inaugural publication year.
36. Pozhar Solodovnikovskogo Teatra [Fire at the Solodovnikov Theater], NS
438, 20 January 1898, 2.
37. Pozhar v Solodovnikovskom Teatre [Fire at the Solodovnikov Theater], ND
5257, 20 January 1898, 23.
38. Orleanskaia Deva [The Maid of Orleans], ND 5633, 2 February 1899, 2.
39. See, for example, Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 534, 7 December 1898, 2;
Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5858, 16 September 1899, 23.
40. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5291, 23 February 1898, 3.
41. Indeed, it would initiate a vicious press war between the conservative and the
nationalist press, with language on both sides bordering on the unpublishablebut
more on that later.
42. A. S., Muzykalnyi Peterburg [Musical Petersburg], ND 5296, 28 February
1898, 3.
43. Quidam, Peterburg, ND 5677, 18 March 1899, 3.
44. Quidam, Peterburg, ND 5675, 16 March 1899, 3. The melodic recitative
discussed in the article refers to Musorgskys style of musical declamation.
45. See, for example, a report in ND 5302, 6 March 1898, 3; note also a similarly
tongue-in-cheek reference to a certain learned professor Wagner.
46. S. K., U Tsezaria Kiui, ND 5944, 11 December 1899, 3.
47. Novyi, Otovsiudu, RS 328, 25 November 1898, 3. The Figners referred to in
the article are Nikolai Figner and Medea Mei-Figner, the star tenor-soprano team
from the Mariinsky Theater who created the leading roles in Tchaikovskys The Queen
of Spades and other operas.
n o t e s t o pag e s 2 19 2 6 329
48. In its 189293 season, Pryanishnikovs troupe also staged the Moscow premiere of Rimsky-Korsakovs May Night (like Prince Igor, a future staple of Mamontovs repertoire), as well as Leoncavallos Pagliacci; see Gozenpud, Russkii opernyi
teatr i Shaliapin, 11112.
50. See, among others, Ts. Kiui, Moskovskaia Chastnaia Russkaia Opera, NBG
54, 23 February 1898, 3.
51. A. G., V Bolshom Teatre, RS 263, 1 October 1897, 3.
52. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5243, 6 January 1898, 3.
53. A. G., V Bolshom Teatre, RS 253, 21 September 1897, 3.
54. A. Kornev, Muzykalnye nabroski [Musical Sketches], RS 40, 9 February
1899, 3.
55. Igor v Bolshom Teatre [Prince Igor at the Bolshoi Theater], NS 440, 22
January 1898, 2; the article collates and summarizes representative passages on the
subject from all the major Moscow newspapers.
56. Chastnaia Opera, NS 617, 8 September 1899, 2.
57. V. Ladov, K otkrytiiu Chastnoi Russkoi Opery [On the Opening of the
Private Russian Opera], PL 64, 7 March 1899, 4.
58. Novyi, Otovsiudu, RS 328, 25 November 1898, 3.
59. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5714, 25 April 1899, 3.
62. It is likely that Mamontov and his associates attended the grand opening of
the Alexander III Museum on 7 March 1898, as the MPO was in the middle of its St.
Petersburg tour, with Tchaikovskys The Oprichnik on the playbill for that night (see
table 7.1).
63. Russkaia Opera [Russian Opera], NS 318, 9 September 1897, 2.
64. S. K-ov, Koe-chto o Khovanshchine [Something about Khovanshchina],
ND 5189, 12 November 1897, 3.
65. The only theater that showed any interest in staging Khovanshchina prior
to 1897 was, unsurprisingly, Mamontovs company in its early years of operation. It
is possible that Mamontov saw the St. Petersburg performance; in a letter to Stasov
dated January 1888, he discussed his intention to produce the opera.
66. S. K-ov, Teatralnaia khronika, ND 4860, 16 December 1896, 3.
67. Russkaia Opera, NS 318, 9 September 1897, 2.
68. N. K-in, Teatr i muzyka, RV 357, 28 December 1897, 4.
69. N. K-in, Pskovitianka, RV 348, 17 December 1896, 3.
70. N. K-in, Khovanshchina, RV 329, 27 November 1897, 3.
72. For a translated sample of articles discussing Anton Rubinsteins proposal to
establish a conservatory in Russia, and arguing over the merits of Glinkas Ruslan and
Lyudmila, see Stuart Campbell, Russians on Russian Music, 18301880 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994), 6493.
73. N. K-in, Khovanshchina, RV 329, 27 November 1897, 3.
74. Pechat o Khovanshchine [Press on Khovanshchina], NS 381, 13 November
1897, 2.
330 n o t e s t o pag e s 2 2 6 33
75. O chm govoriat i pishut [What Is Being Spoken and Written About], NS
464, 26 February 1898, 3.
76. R., Teatr i muzyka, RV 340, 9 December 1896, 3.
77. Khovanshchina, NS 384, 16 November 1897, 2.
78. S. P., Iz pisma priezzhego [From a Letter by a Tourist], RS 41, 10 February
1898, 3.
79. Iu. K., Moskovskaia Opera [Moscow Opera], PL 66, 9 March 1899, 3.
80. Russkaia Chastnaia Opera [Russian Private Opera], NS 342, 5 October
1897, 2. The journalist who advocated healthy Russian creative works as a part of
ones cultural diet refrained in this case from creating an explicit dichotomy between
healthy Russian and unhealthy Western operas. As we shall see, however, the
missing label did exist, particularly for contemporary Western music; it was a familiar
onedecadence.
81. Russkaia Opera, NS 318, 9 September 1897, 2.
82. NS 421, 24 December 1897, 2.
83. O chm govoriat i pishut, NS 431, 12 January 1898, 2.
84. Posle spektaklia: Pechat o Khovanshchine [After the Performance: The
Press on Khovanshchina], NS 382, 14 November 1897, 2.
85. See, for example, his correspondence with Shkafer regarding Siegfried Wagners Der Brenhuter.
86. Such a contract is referred to in Kruglikovs letter to Mamontov, 19 June 1897;
item 145, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
87. A. G., Vozobnovlenie opery Igor [Revival of the Opera Prince Igor], RS 310,
17 November 1896, 23.
88. S. K-ov., Teatralnaia khronika, ND 4763, 10 September 1896, 2.
92. A. G., Vozobnovlenie opery Igor.
93. N. K-in, Teatr i muzyka, RV 288, 18 October 1896, 2.
94. Ibid.
95. S. K-ov, Teatralnaia khronika, ND 4831, 17 November 1896, 2.
97. Ironically, the situation would all but assure Mamontovs interest in the operas of Musorgsky. As Kruglikov once reminded him, the composer died without
an heir, thus, both Boris and Khovanshchina could be performed royalty-free. See
Kruglikov to Mamontov, 23 June 1898; item 145, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
98. V. Garteveld, E pu si muove.
99. S. K-ov, Bogema Puchchini [Puccinis La bohme], ND 4890, 16 January
1897, 3.
100. S. K-ov, Oprichnik Chaikovskogo [Tchaikovskys Oprichnik], ND 4901, 27
January 1897, 3.
101. See, for example: S. K-ov, Teatralnaia khronika, ND 4831, 17 November
1896, 2.
102. Teatr i muzyka, RS 215, 5 August 1900, 3. The author discusses the possibility of Mamontovs return to the enterprise after his acquittal in the embezzlement
n o t e s t o pag e s 23 4 3 8 331
case, and hopes that under his leadership the company would return to its original
mission.
103. The word propaganda here and below is used deliberatelyboth by the
reporters who aimed to underscore the ideological nature of Mamontovs company as they saw it, and by this author who aims to preserve that connotation in the
translation.
104. For the original sources of the digest offered here, see the following articles:
V Chastnoi Russkoi Opere [At the Private Russian Opera], ND 5156, 10 October
1897, 3; Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 438, 20 January 1898, 2; Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 342, 5 October 1897, 2; Ts. Kiui, Moskovskaia Chastnaia Russkaia
Opera: Boris Godunov Musorgskogo [Moscow Private Russian Opera: Musorgskys
Boris Godunov], NBG 67, 8 March 1899, 3; E. R., Russkaia Chastnaia Opera: Oprichnik [Russian Private Opera: The Oprichnik], ND 5170, 25 October 1897, 2; Russkaia
Chastnaia Opera, NS 371, 3 November 1897, 2; Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 534,
7 December 1898, 2; Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 367, 30 October 1897, 2; E. R.,
Kavkazskii Plennik [Prisoner of the Caucasus], ND 5943, 10 December 1899, 23,
and 5946, 13 December 1899, 23; and Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 342, 5 October
1897, 2.
105. See Iu. K., Moskovskaia Opera, PL 65, 8 March 1899, 3; Iu. E., Orleanskaia
Deva, RV 40, 9 February 1899, 3; E. R., Kavkazskii Plennik, ND 5943, 10 December
1899, 23; and Khovanshchina-IV, NS 380, 12 November 1897, 2.
106. See Russkaia Opera, NS 318, 9 September 1897, 2; and N. K-in, Teatr i
muzyka, RV 343, 12 December 1896, 3.
107. N. K-in, Sadko, RV 7, 7 January 1898, 23.
108. Vox, Chastnaia Opera: Vozobnovlenie Opery Deliba Lakme [Private Opera:
Revival of Delibes Opera Lakm], RS 305, 4 November 1899, 3.
109. Still, we know that a revival of Les Huguenots was in Mamontovs mind at
least since summer 1898, as evident from the vehement objections in Melnikovs letters of the period.
110. Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 342, 5 October 1897, 2.
111. Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 371, 3 November 1897, 2.
113. A. Gr., Orfei na stsene Teatra Solodovnikova, RS 323, 1 December 1897, 3.
114. N. K-in, Teatr i muzyka, RV 43, 12 February 1898, 3. A similar attitude to La
bohme was noted earlier in Kruglikovs Oprichnik review.
116. Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 342, 5 October 1897, 2.
117. V. Garteveld, E pu si muove.
118. See, for example, Kopshitser, Savva Mamontov, 188; Gozenpud, Russkii oper
nyi teatr i Shaliapin, 226.
120. Similarly, in his search for operatic prospects, Mamontov scrapped the virtually completed translation of Siegfried Wagners Der Brenhuter, which, to his disappointment, turned out to be a pretentious piece of German trash, for the beauty
of Saint-Sanss Proserpine. See Mamontov to Shkafer, [October 1899?]; item 23, list
2, fund 920, RGALI.
332 n o t e s t o pag e s 23 8 4 8
121. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 6 July 1898; item 26, fund 155, BM; Melnikov
to Mamontov, Paris, 9 July 1898; item 29, fund 155, BM.
123. Mamontov to Chernenko and Shkafer, [November 1899?]; item 23, list 2, fund
799, RGALI.
124. E. R., Boris Godunov, ND 5579, 9 December 1898, 3.
125. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 24 June 1898; item 25, fund 155, BM.
127. E. R., Russkaia Chastnaia Opera: Oprichnik, ND 5170, 25 October 1897, 2.
128. E. R., Khovanshchina, ND 5194, 16 November 1897, 23. A translation of a
large portion of this article may be found in Stuart Campbell, Russians on Russian
Music, 18801917 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 12428.
129. Itogi sezona, ND 4931, 26 February 1897, 3. For a detailed examination of the
production and its reception, see Olga Haldey, La Bohme la Russe, and Puccini
Politics of Late Nineteenth-Century Russia, in Opera Journal 37, no. 4 (2004), 319.
130. N. K-in, Teatr i muzyka, RV 21, 21 January 1897, 2.
131. I. L., Po teatram [Through the Theaters], NS 165, 16 January 1897, 2.
132. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 4928, 23 February 1897, 3.
133. S. K-ov, Bogema Puchchini, ND 4890, 16 January 1897, 3.
134. Teatr i muzyka, RS 318, 26 November 1896, 3.
136. Teatr i muzyka, RS 6, 6 January 1897, 3; reprinted in ND, NS, and other
newspapers.
138. Teatr i muzyka, RS 326, 4 December 1897, 3.
139. Teatr Solodovnikova [The Solodovnikov Theater], RS 272, 30 September
1898, 3.
140. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 8 July 1899; item 170, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
141. Quoted in ibid.
143. Mamontov to Cui, [FebruaryMarch 1899]; item 83, list 1, fund 786, RGALI.
146. Cui to Mamontov, 23 January 1899; item 147, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
147. On Mitrofan Belyaevs patronage and its consequences, see Taruskin, Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions, 4771.
148. Zabela to Rimsky-Korsakov, 2 May 1898; item 905, fund 640, RNL.
149. This information was typically solicited directly from leaders of theater companies at the conclusion of each season.
150. For a detailed treatment of Mamontovs love affair with Italian opera, see
Haldey, Verdis Operas at Mamontovs Theater.
151. I.L., Chastnaia Opera, NS 93, 1 November 1896, 23.
152. A.G., Vozobnovlenie opery Igor.
153. S. K-ov, V Teatre Solodovnikova [At the Solodovnikov Theater], ND 4884,
9 January 1897, 3.
155. [n.a.], O chm govoriat i pishut, NS 464, 26 February 1898, 3.
n o t e s t o pag e s 2 49 6 0 333
158. I. L., Chastnaia Opera, NS 61, 1 October 1896, 23.
159. See, for instance, A. G., Chastnaia Opera, RS 305, 4 November 1896, 2.
161. Teatr i muzyka, NV 7900, 24 February 1898, 4.
163. A. S-n, Muzykalnyi Peterburg, ND 5311, 15 March 1898, 3.
164. Ts. Kiui, Opery Vagnera: Moriak-Skitalets [Wagners Operas: Der fliegende
Hollnder], NBG 66, 7 March 1898, 3.
165. Ts. Kiui, Moskovskaia Chastnaia Russkaia Opera, NBG 54, 23 February
1898, 3. It is illustrative of Cuis elevated position in the Soviet musicology that Gozenpud judged his review to be objective; see Russkii opernyi teatr i Shaliapin, 180.
166. E. P-sky, Iz chelovecheskikh dokumentov [From Human Documents],
RMG 4 (April 1898): 36879.
167. Ts. Kiui, Orfei Gliuka na stsene Moskovskoi Chastnoi Russkoi Opery
[Glucks Orfeo on the Moscow Private Russian Opera Stage], NBG 83, 25 March 1898,
3.
168. Stasov, Umoritelnyi muzykalnyi kritikan [Hilarious Musical Criticizer],
NBG 61, 3 March 1898, 2.
169. Quidam, Peterburg, ND 5675, 16 March 1899, 3.
170. Ts. Kiui, Moskovskaia Chastnaia Russkaia Opera: Khovanshchina [Moscow Private Russian Opera: Khovanshchina], NBG 57, 27 February 1898, 3. Die
Walkre was premiered at the Mariinsky on 24 February, the night before MPOs
Khovanshchina.
171. Ts. Kiui, Opery Vagnera: Moriak-Skitalets.
172. Ts. Kiui, Moskovskaia Chastnaia Russkaia Opera, NBG 54, 23 February
1898, 3.
173. Teatr i muzyka, NV, 11 April 1898, 4.
174. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5292, 23 February 1898, 3. A reference to the
former Bolshoi Theater alludes to the St. Petersburg Conservatorys Great Hall, the
MPOs location during the tour. In its former incarnation as an opera theater, it was
known as the Grand [i.e., The Bolshoi] and housed the Imperial Russian troupe
prior to its move across the street, to the refurbished Mariinsky.
175. A. S., Muzykalnyi Peterburg, ND 5296, 28 February 1898, 3; note a typically
apocalyptic reference to the legions of the Antichrist.
176. Quidam, Peterburg, ND 5292, 23 February 1898, 3.
177. This included RMG, which, despite its pro-Wagnerian position, reviewed both
Russian and German performances with commendable objectivity.
178. Quidam, Peterburg, ND 5302, 6 March 1898, 2; note the biblical imagery
again, as well as a cleverly metaphoric usage of the operatic texts: the opening line
of the tenor aria from act 1 of The Maid of Pskov, and a Wotan imitation that rings
with authenticity.
179. M., Russkaia Opera, SPV 56, 27 February 1898, 3.
181. A. Koptiaev, Sezon Moskovskoi Opery [The Season of the Moscow Opera],
Mir Iskusstva 1112 (1899): 127.
334 n o t e s t o pag e s 2 62 6 9
8. Faces of the Enterprise

1. The same label would be applied two years later to Stanislavskys Moscow
Art Theater, whose ticket prices were yet another aspect of its operations modeled
on the MPO.
2. Teatr i muzyka, RS 264, 1 October 1896, 3.
5. For Moscow Private Operas financial records see item 211, fund 155, BM.
6. V Chastnoi Opere, ND 5157, 11 October 1897, 2. In all fairness, this specific
price increase was a necessity, as both of these temporary locations had much smaller
auditoriums than the Solodovnikov, which could have led to significant financial
deficits had prices stayed the same.
7. K zakrytiiu Moskovskoi Chastnoi Opery, PL 97, 9 April 1899, 3.
9. Very little is known about the ballets staged at the MPO, or the dancers involved in them. Ballets were staged only during the companys first season; most
were apparently divertissements, paired with shorter operas to provide a full evenings entertainment. The only ballet performed independently seems to have been
Delibes Copplia, premiered by the Italian troupe in Nizhny Novgorod on 22 June
1896, with Iola Tornaghi as both choreographer and soloist. Torhaghi was evidently
tasked with overseeing all the MPO staged dances during the 189697 season, and
most of the operatic dance scenes after the Italians were sent home and the Russian
substitutes were hired in their place. Mamontov, whose keen interest in expressive
gesture and movement, including choreographing entire productions, has been
discussed throughout this book, rarely got involved in choreography proper. When
he did, it was always with a specific visual and/or aesthetic goal in mind, as was the
case with the seductive serpantin [serpent dance], fashionable in Russian variety
shows, which he inserted into the Underwater Kingdom Scene of Sadko.
10. Zabelas situation exemplifies the most shameful aspect of the benefit system,
as practiced at the post-Mamontov MPO: the beneficiary of the performance would be
announced in the playbill to attract the fans, but the raised funds in fact went to the
general operating budget rather than to the singer for whom they were supposedly intended. See Rimsky-Korsakov to Zabela, 15 January 1900; item 795, fund 640, RNL.
11. Novyi, Otovsiudu, RS 328, 25 November 1898, 3.
14. Information is derived from items 205211, fund 155, BM.
15. Indeed, the deficit would have stood at 65,000 if one includes the 20,000
rubles of left-over debt from Nizhny Novgorod. That debt, however, was not entered in
the accounting book for the regular season and thus, as Mrs. Winters trial testimony
suggests, was in fact covered by Mamontov out of pocket; see Delo Mamontova,
Artsyusheva, Krivosheina i Drugikh.
16. For a specialized study of the Moscow Art Theater studios, see Rebecca B.
Gauss, Lears Daughters: The Studios of the Moscow Art Theatre, 19051927 (New York:
Peter Lang, 1999).
17. Baz Kershaw argues that the first studio theaters were created by the Western
European stage directors of the 1880s, and names Andr Antoines Thtre Libre and
n o t e s t o pag e s 2 6 9 7 6 335
Frei Bhne by Otto Brahm as early examples; see Studio Theater Movement in The
Oxford Encyclopedia of Theatre and Performance, ed. Dennis Kennedy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 2: 129798; the Povarskaya Studio is, however, the first
to bear the popular studio label.
18. Indeed, Mamontov evidently meant to resurrect that spirit literally. According to Sergei Popovs memoirs, Stanislavskys plan for the Povarskaya Studio included
creating several rotating theatrical troupes that would present their new repertoires
alternately in the capital cities and the provinces. One of those troupes was supposed
to be operaticthat is, Mamontovs; in fact, his protg, soprano Tatyana Shornikova
is listed on the studio roster.
19. See Patrice Pavis, Laboratory Theatre, in Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms,
Concepts, and Analysis, trans. Christine Shantz (Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1998), 195.
20. [n.a.], Studio Theatre, in International Dictionary of Theatre Language, ed.
Joel Trapido (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1985), 837.
22. Which is not to say that Mamontovs star-driven productions lacked artistry
of stage direction and set design; for instance, both were utilized to tremendous effect in the 1885 production of Aida. Involvement of guest soloists, however, naturally
limited the ensemble possibilities of such productions; in Aida, only Lyubatovich
(as Amneris) benefited from Mamontovs coaching (see Haldey, Verdis Operas at
Mamontovs Theater, 1112 for details).
23. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5847, 5 September 1899, 2.
24. Russkaia Chastnaia Opera, NS 534, 7 December 1898, 2.
26. Melnikov to Mamontov, Paris, 30 August 1898; item 34, fund 155, BM. Interestingly, during its final years of operation the Meiningen Theater also came to be
viewed as an actors school where young performers would learn their craft before
moving on and making their careers elsewhere.
27. Mamontov to Shkafer, [fall 1899]; item 23, list 2, fund 920, RGALI. Mamontovs negative attitude to Chaliapin and Korovins defection to the Bolshoi had less
to do with the events themselves than with being deeply offended by their behavior
toward him after his arrest.
28. Murray Frame, The St. Petersburg Imperial Theaters: Stage and State in Revolutionary Russia, 19001920 (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2000), 15.
29. Krotkov to Mamontov, Vienna, 17 May 1897; item 143, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
31. Extant documents suggest that, although Mamontov recruited Rachmaninov
to the company because of his respect for his prodigious talent, the young conductor
was much too low on the food chain to wield any kind of authority that would have
clashed with Mamontovs own. The reason for his resignation seems clear: the nervous
breakdown in the wake of the fiasco of his First Symphony, which rendered him unable to write music and brought him to Mamontov in the first place, was over, and the
companys insane rehearsal and performance schedule would surely have prevented
him from resuming composition.
32. Iu. K., Moskovskaia Opera, PL 65, 8 March 1899, 3.
33. Lolo, Teatralnye skachki [Theatrical Races], ND 5875, 3 October 1899, 23.
34. E. R., Lakme, ND 5906, 3 November 1899, 3.
336 n o t e s t o pag e s 27 7 8 5
35. E. R., Russkaia Chastnaia Opera: Oprichnik, ND 5170, 25 October 1897, 2.

37. Ibid. Kvas is a lightly alcoholic, native Russian drink brewed from rye; as the
favorite drink of the lower classes, its name is frequently used to denote grassroots,
unsophisticated nationalism.
38. Kruglikov to Mamontov, 16 February 1898; item 145, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
39. See Rimsky-Korsakov to Zabela, 12 and 20 May 1899; item 793, fund 640,
RNL.
40. Rimsky-Korsakov to Zabela, 6 July 1899; item 793, fund 640, RNL.
42. See chapter 4, n.150.
43. See Rimskii-Korsakov, Letopis, 20912. The collaboration between RimskyKorsakov and Mamontov resumed in 1907 when the composer approached the best
stage director in Russia, asking him to consult on the Parisian production of The
Snow Maiden (see below).
44. See Vdova N. A. Rimskogo-Korsakova o Zolotom Petushke [Rimsky-Korsakovs Widow on Le Coq dOr], Teatral 133, 17 May 1914, quoted in: Sergei Diagilev i
russkoe iskusstvo, 1: 466.
45. Sergei Diagilev, Otvet N. N. Rimskoi-Korsakovoi [Response to N. N. Rimskaia-Korsakova], in Sergei Diagilev i russkoe iskusstvo, 1: 222.
46. Arnold Haskell, in collaboration with Walter Nouvel, Diaghileff: His Artistic
and Private Life (London: Gollancz, 1935), 55.
48. Diaghilev to Benois, spring 1897; item 939, fund 137, SRM.
49. See Taruskin, Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions, 46162.
50. Diaghilev to Benois, December 1897; item 939, fund 137, SRM.
51. Diaghilev to Benois, 24 May 1897; quoted in Benua, Vozniknovenie Mira
Iskusstva, 25.
53. Staryi Chelovek, Za kulisamiXXI, ND 5688, 29 March 1899, 3.
54. Benua, Aleksandr Benua razmyshliaet, 506.
55. Benua, Moi vospominaniia, 4: 213.
56. Benua, Aleksandr Benua razmyshliaet, 211.
57. Aleksandr Benua, Istoriia russkoi zhivopisi v XIX veke [History of Russian
Painting in the 19th Century] (St. Petersburg, 1902), 225.
58. Benua, Vozniknovenie Mira Iskusstva, 3031.
59. The incident is described in Etkind, Aleksandr Benua i russkaia khudozhestvennaia kultura. Note the typically Soviet ideological approach evident in this description: Benois position is depicted as progressive for promoting genre and representational painting, while Diaghilevs stand for pure art is considered reactionary.
60. Quoted in Benua, Vozniknovenie Mira Iskusstva, 32.
61. The letter, dated 2 June 1898, is quoted in Benua, Vozniknovenie Mira Iskusstva, 35. Interestingly, Benois cut this single phrase from an otherwise complete quotation; the full version may be found in item 940, fund 137, SRM.
62. See Diaghilev to Benois, 24 May 1897. Again, Diaghilevs criticism of Benois
position is not included in the published version, Vozniknovenie Mira Iskusstva, 25
26; it can be found in item 939, fund 137, SRM.
n o t e s t o pag e s 2 8 5 9 0 337

64. A. G., Vystavka russkikh i finliandskikh khudozhnikov [Exhibition of Russian and Finnish Artists], PG 15, 16 January 1898, 2.
65. Diaghilev to Mamontov, 1 December 1898; item 15, fund 155, BM.
66. V. Burenin, Novye khudozhestvennye zhurnalyII [New Art Journals2],
NV 8173, 27 November 1898, 2.
67. For instance, despite the fact that Filosofov was certainly well acquainted with
the copublisher of the journal he helped edit, his extant letter to Mamontov, preserved
at BM (see item 49, fund 155), concludes with the highly formal primite uvereniya v
moyom glubokom uvazhenii (accept assurances of my deep respect).
68. Borisov-Musatov to Diaghilev, 1904; item 40, fund 27, SRM.
69. The others were Valentin Serov and the leader of the Moscow decadent symbolists, Valery Bryusov; the precise content of the speeches is unknown. Notably,
Bryusov was well acquainted with the activities of the MPO and was one of the first to
congratulate Mamontov, in an open letter, on his companys twenty-five-year anniversary (on the aesthetic convergence between Mamontov and Bryusov, see chapter 1).
70. Stasov to Mamontov, St. Petersburg, 12 April 1888; item 239, list 1, fund 799,
RGALI.
71. Teatralnaia khronika, ND 5306, 10 March 1898, 2.
72. Shkafer to Mamontov, Paris, 28 August 1898; item 280, list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
73. Arenzon suggests that Mamontovs decision to cosponsor Mir Iskusstva with
Princess Tenisheva was an attempt to cultivate a relationship with her husband in advance of the World Fair; see Arenzon, Savva Mamontov, 170. While this was unlikely
to have been his primary motivation, it is entirely possible that Mamontov expected
to reap a fringe benefit from his decision to help Diaghilev.
74. See letters from Rimsky-Korsakov to Zabela dated 15 and 23 January 1900;
item 795, fund 640, RNL. It is hard to believe that years of working with Mamontov
did not improve Rimsky-Korsakovs opinion of him that he had formed in the 1880s
without ever setting foot inside his theater. The composers position may be explained
by the fresh memory of his conflict with Mamontov, as well as an acknowledgment
of the companys precarious position in his absence.
75. See Gregory Halbe, Music, Drama, and Folklore in Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakovs Opera Snegurochka (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 2004), 3438.
76. Sergei Diagilev, Russkaia muzyka v Parizhe [Russian Music in Paris]; quoted in Diagilev i russkoe iskusstvo, 1: 207208.
77. Matov, Snegurochka v Parizhe [The Snow Maiden in Paris], RS 118, 22 May
1908, quoted in Diagilev i russkoe iskusstvo, 1: 417.
78. V tupikah i osobniakah, Rannee Utro, 1907; item 15, list 3, fund 799, RGALI.
On the other hand, the interviewer acknowledged that it was he who described to
Mamontov the financial scandals around the Boris production that had just hit the
Russian newspapers; given Mamontovs attitude toward art for moneys sake, his
response might have been prompted by the one-sided information given to him.
79. Mamontov to Carr, 15 December 1907; list 1, fund 799, RGALI.
80. Diaghilev to Benois, 24 May 1897; quoted in Benua, Vozniknovenie Mira
Iskusstva, 26.
wor ks cit ed
Abraham, Gerald. On Russian Music. London: Reeves, 1939.

Apetian, Zaruia, ed. S. Rakhmaninov: Literaturnoe nasledie. 3 vols. Moscow: Sovetskii
Kompozitor, 197880.
Arenzon, Evgenii. Savva Mamontov. Moscow: Russkaia Kniga, 1995.
Bakhrevskii, Vladislav. Savva Mamontov. Moscow: Molodaia Gvardiia, 2000.
Baloueff, Ivan I. Grigoriev, Apollon. Sochineniia. Kritika, edited by V. S. Krupitsch.
Russian Review 30, no. 1 (1971): 8384.
Barsova, Liudmila. N. I. Zabela-Vrubel glazami sovremennikov. Leningrad: Muzyka,
1982.
Bartlett, Rosamund. Wagner and Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995.
Belinskii, Vissarion. Estetika i literaturnaia kritika. 2 vols. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe
Izdatelstvo Khudozhestvennoi Literatury, 1959.
Belyi, Andrei. Simvolism kak miroponimanie. Moscow: Respublika, 1994.
Benois, Alexandre. Reminiscences of the Russian Ballet. London: Putnam, 1941. See
also Benua, Aleksandr.
Benua, Aleksandr. Aleksandr Benua razmyshliaet. Moscow: Sovetskii Khudozhnik,
1968.
. Istoriia russkoi zhivopisi v XIX veke. St. Petersburg, 1902.
. Moi vospominaniia. 5 vols. Moscow: Nauka, 1980.
. Vozniknovenie Mira Iskusstva. Leningrad: Komitet Populiarizatsii Khu
dozhestvennykh Izdanii Pri Gosudarstvennoi Akademii Istorii Materialnoi
Kultury, 1928.
Berdiaev, Nikolai. Sub specie aeternitatis. Opyty filosofskie, sotsialnye i literaturnye,
19001906. St. Petersburg: Izd. M. V. Pirozhkova, 1907.
Billington, James. The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture.
New York: Vintage, 1970.
Borisova, Elena, and Grigory Sternin. Russian Art Nouveau. New York: Rizzoli, 1988.
Borovskii, Viktor. Moskovskaia opera S. I. Zimina. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor,
1977.
339
340 wor k s c i t e d
Bowlt, John. The Silver Age: Russian Art of the Early Twentieth Century and the World
of Art Group. Newtonville, Mass.: Oriental Research Partners, 1982.
. Synthesism and Symbolism: The Russian World of Art Movement. In Literature and the Plastic Arts (18801930), ed. Ian Higgins. New York: Harper &
Row, 1973: 3548.
Braun, Lucinde. Studien zur russischen Oper in spten 19. Jahrhundert. Mainz: Schott,
1999.
Briusov, Valerii. Sobranie sochinenii. 7 vols. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia Literatura,
1975.
Calinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-Garde, Decadence,
Kitsch, Postmodernism. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1987.
Calvocoressi, Michel, and Gerald Abraham. Masters of Russian Music. London:
Duckworth, 1936.
Campbell, Stuart. Russians on Russian Music, 18301880. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
versity Press, 1994.
. Russians on Russian Music, 18801917. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003.
Cohen, Selma Jeanne, ed. International Encyclopedia of Dance. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1998.
Cui, Cesar. La musique en Russie. Paris: Fischbacher, 1880.
DeHart, Steven. The Meininger Theater, 17761926. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Research
Press, 1981.
Dostoevskii, Fdor. Dostoevskii ob iskusstve. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973. See also Dos
toevsky, Fyodor.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Diary of a Writer, trans. Boris Brasol. New York: Braziller, 1954.
Dowler, Wayne. Echoes of Pochvennichestvo in Solzhenitsyns August 1914. Slavic
Review 34, no. 1 (1975): 10922.
Druzhinin, Alexander. Literaturnaia kritika. Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossiia, 1983.
Etkind, Mark. A. N. Benua i russkaia khudozhestvennaia kultura. Leningrad: Khu
dozhnik RSFSR, 1989.
Frame, Murray. The St. Petersburg Imperial Theaters: Stage and State in Revolutionary
Russia, 19001920. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2000.
Garafola, Lynn. Diaghilevs Ballets Russes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Garafola, Lynn, and Nancy van Norman Baer, eds. The Ballets Russes and Its World.
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999.
Gasparov, Boris, Robert P. Hughes, and Irina Paperno, eds. Cultural Mythologies of
Russian Modernism: From the Golden Age to the Silver Age. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1992.
Gauss, Rebecca B. Lears Daughters: The Studios of the Moscow Art Theater, 19051927.
New York: Peter Lang, 1999.
Gautier, Thophile. Mademoiselle de Maupin. Paris: Charpentier, 1880.
Gorkii, Maksim. Sobranie sochinenii. 30 vols. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo
Khudozhestvennoi Literatury, 194956.
Gozenpud, Abram. Russkii opernyi teatr na rubezhe XIXXX vekov i Shaliapin, 1890
1904. Leningrad: Muzyka, 1974.
Gray, Camilla. The Russian Experiment in Art: 18631922. London: Thames & Hudson,
1998.
wor k s c i t e d 341
Grosheva, Ekaterina, ed. F. I. Shaliapin: Literaturnoe nasledstvo. 2 vols. Moscow:

Muzgiz, 195960.
Grover, Stuart. Savva Mamontov and the Mamontov Circle, 18701905: Art Patron
age and the Rise of Nationalism in Russian Art. Ph.D. diss., University of Wis
consin, 1971.
Grube, Max. The Story of the Meininger, trans. Ann Marie Koller. Coral Gables, Fla.:
University of Miami Press, 1963.
Halbe, Gregory. Music, Drama, and Folklore in Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakovs Opera
Snegurochka. Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 2004.
Haldey, Olga. La Bohme la Russe, and Puccini Politics of Late Nineteenth-Century
Russia. Opera Journal 37, no. 4 (2004): 319.
. Verdis Operas in Mamontovs Theater: Fighting a Losing Battle. Verdi Forum
30 (20032004): 325.
Haskell, Arnold, in collaboration with Walter Nouvel. Diaghileff: His Artistic and
Private Life. London: Gollancz, 1935.
Henry, Barbara. Theatricality, Anti-theatricality, and Cabaret in Russian Modern
ism. In Russian Literature, Modernism and the Visual Arts, ed. Catriona Kelly
and Stephen Lovell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: 14971.
Herder, Johann Gottfried. Against Pure Reason: Writings on Religion, Language and
History. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1993.
Iakovlev, Vasilii. Izbrannye trudy o muzyke. 3 vols. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor,
197183.
Ippolitov-Ivanov, Mikhail. 50 let russkoi muzyki v moikh vospominaniiakh. Moscow:
Muzgiz, 1934.
Keldysh, Yuri, ed. Istoriia Russkoi muzyki. 10 vols. Moscow: Muzyka, 19872006.
Kennedy, Dennis, ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Theatre and Performance. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003.
Kennedy, Janet. The Mir Iskusstva Group and Russian Art, 18981912. New York:
Garland, 1977.
Kiselva, Ekaterina. Dom na Sadovoi. Moscow: Moskovskii Rabochii, 1986.
Kogan, Dora. Mamontovskii kruzhok. Moscow: Izobrazitelnoe Iskusstvo, 1970.
Kopshitser, Mark. Savva Mamontov. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1972.
Korovin, Konstantin. Konstantin Korovin vspominaet . . . Moscow: Izobrazitelnoe
Iskusstvo, 1990.
Kramskoi, Ivan. Pisma. Stati. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 196566.
Kuznetsov, Nikolai. Mamontov, Shaliapin, Stanislavskiireformatory opernogo
iskusstva v Rossii kontsa XIXnachala XX vekov. Ph.D. diss., Moscow State
Conservatory, 1996.
Lebedev, Andrei, and Genrietta Burova. Tvorcheskoe sodruzhestvo: M. M. Antokolskii
i V. V. Stasov. Leningrad: Khudozhnik RSFSR, 1968.
Lebedinskii, Lev. Stsena Chasy s kurantami v ispolnenii Shaliapina. Sovetskaia
Muzyka 3 (March 1959): 3345.
Levitt, Marcus C. Russias Last Romantic, Apollon Grigoriev (182264), by Robert
Whittaker. Slavic and East European Journal 46, no. 1 (2002): 16667.
Lieven, Peter. The Birth of the Ballets Russes. London: Allen & Unwin, 1936.
Lifar, Serge. Serge Diaghilev: His Life, His Work, His Legend; An Intimate Biography.
New York: Putnam, 1940.
Losskii, Vladimir. Memuary, stati i rechi. Moscow: Muzgiz, 1959.

Mamontov, Vsevolod. Vospominaniia o russkikh khudozhnikakh. Moscow: Akademiia
Khudozhestv, 1950.
Marchenkov, Vladimir. The Orpheus Myth in Musical Thought of Antiquity, the
Renaissance and Modern Times. Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1998.
Meierhold, Vsevolod. Stati, pisma, rechi, besedy. 2 vols. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1968.
Morgan, Robert. Secret Languages: The Roots of Musical Modernism. In Modernism: Challenges and Perspectives, ed. Monique Chefdor, Ricardo Quinones, and
Albert Wachtel. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986: 3353.
Morrison, Simon. Russian Opera and the Symbolist Movement. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2002.
. Scriabin and the Impossible. Journal of the American Musicological Society
51, no. 2 (Summer 1998): 283330.
. Semiotics of Symmetry, or Rimsky-Korsakovs Operatic History Lesson.
Cambridge Opera Journal 13 (2001): 26193.
Moser, Charles A. Esthetics as Nightmare: Russian Literary Theory, 18551870. Prince
ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989.
Nelson, Robert S., and Richard Schiff. Critical Terms for Art History. Chicago: Uni
versity of Chicago Press, 2003.
Newmarch, Rosa. The Russian Opera. New York: Dutton, 1914.
Nordau, Max. Degeneration, 8th ed. New York: D. Appleton, 1896.
Osborne, John. The Meiningen Court Theater, 18661890. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
versity Press, 1988.
Paperno, Irina, and Joan Delaney Grossman, eds. Creating Life: The Aesthetic Utopia
of Russian Modernism. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1994.
Parker, Fan, and Stephen Jan Parker. Russia on Canvas: Ilya Repin. University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980.
Paston, Eleonora. Khudozhestvennye printsipy mamontovskogo teatra. In Sergei
Diagilev i khudozhestvennaia kultura XIXXX vv. Perm: Permskoe Knizhnoe
Izdatelstvo, 1987: 1729.
Pavis, Patrice. Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concepts, and Analysis, trans. Chris
tine Shantz. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Pekelis, Mikhail, and Aleksandra Orlova, eds. M. P. Musorgskii: Literaturnoe nasledie,
2 vols. Moscow: Muzyka, 197172.
Pokrovskii, Vladimir. Chitaia Shaliapina. Sovetskaia Muzyka 11 (November 1968):
7183.
Pozharskaia, Militsa. Russkoe teatralno-dekoratsionnoe iskusstvo kontsa XIXnachala XX veka. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1970.
Pyman, Avril. A History of Russian Symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994.
Raskin, Abram. Shaliapin i russkie khudozhniki. Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1963.
Reed, John R. Decadent Style. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1985.
Repin, Ilia. Dalkoe i blizkoe. Leningrad: Khudozhnik, 1986.
. Izbrannye pisma v dvukh tomakh, 18671930. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1969.
Rimskii-Korsakov, Andrei. N.A. Rimskii-Korsakov: Zhizn i tvorchestvo. 5 vols. Mos
cow: Muzgiz, 1937.
wor k s c i t e d 343
Rimskii-Korsakov, Nikolai. Letopis moei muzykalnoi zhizni. In Polnoe sobranie

sochinenii: literaturnye proizvedeniia i perepiska. Vol. 1. Moscow: Muzgiz, 1955.
Ronen, Omry. The Fallacy of the Silver Age in Twentieth-Century Russian Literature.
Amsterdam: Harwood, 1997.
Rosenthal, Bernice. Theater as Church: The Vision of the Mystical Anarchists. Russian History 4, no. 2 (1977): 12241.
Rossikhina, Vera. Opernyi teatr S. I. Mamontova. Moscow: Muzyka, 1985.
Rudnitskii, Konstantin. Rezhissr Meierhold. Moscow: Nauka, 1969.
. Russkoe rezhissrskoe iskusstvo, 18981907. Moscow: Nauka, 1989.
Rylkova, Galina. The Archaeology of Anxiety: The Russian Silver Age and Its Legacy.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007.
Sadie, Stanley, ed. The New Grove Dictionary of Opera. 4 vols. New York: Grove, 1992.
Salina, Nadezhda. Zhizn i stsena. Leningrad: Vsesoiuznoe Teatralnoe Obshchestvo,
1941.
Sarabianov, Dmitrii. Istoriia russkogo iskusstva kontsa XIXnachala XX veka. Mos
cow: Moskovskii Universitet, 1993.
. Russkaia zhivopis XIX veka sredi evropeiskikh shkol. Moscow: Sovetskii Khu
dozhnik, 1980.
. Stil modern: istoki, istoriia, problemy. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1989.
Severiukhin, Dmitrii, and Oleg Leikind. Zolotoi vek khudozhestvennykh obedinenii
v Rossii i SSSR (18201932). St. Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Chernysheva, 1992.
Shkafer, Vasilii. Sorok let na stsene russkoi opery. Leningrad: Izdanie Teatra Opery i
Baleta Imeni S. M. Kirova, 1936.
Solovv, Vladimir. Filosofiia iskusstva i literaturnaia kritika. Moscow: Iskusstvo,
1991.
. Stikhotvoreniia, estetika, literaturnaia kritika. Moscow: Kniga, 1990.
Stanislavskii, Konstantin. Moia zhizn v iskusstve. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1983.
Stasov, Vladimir. Izbrannye trudy. 3 vols. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1952.
Sternin, Grigorii. Khudozhestvennaia zhizn Rossii na rubezhe XIXXX vekov. Mos
cow: Iskusstvo, 1970.
Taruskin, Richard. Musorgsky: Eight Essays and an Epilogue. Princeton, N.J.: Prince
ton University Press, 1993.
. Stravinsky and the Russian Traditions: A Biography of Works Through Mavra.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
Teliakovskii, Vladimir. Dnevniki direktora Imperatorskikh Teatrov. 3 vols. Moscow:
Artist, Rezhissr, Teatr, 19982006.
Tenisheva, Maria. Vpechatleniia moei zhizni. Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1991.
Tolstoi, Lev. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo Khu
dozhestvennoi Literatury, 1951.
Trapido, Joel, ed. International Dictionary of Theatre Language. Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood, 1985.
Turner, Jane, ed. New Grove Dictionary of Art. New York: St. Martins, 2000.
Valkenier, Elizabeth. Ilya Repin and the World of Russian Art. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1990.
. Russian Realist Art. The State and Society: The Peredvizhniki and Their Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1989.
Vrubel, Mikhail. Perepiska. Vospominaniia o khudozhnike. Leningrad: Iskusstvo,

1963.
Watkins, Glenn. Pyramids at the Louvre: Music, Culture, and Collage from Stravinsky
to the Postmodernists. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1994.
. Soundings: Music in the Twentieth Century. New York: Schirmer, 1988.
Wickham, Glynn. A History of the Theater. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1985.
Zilbershtein, Ilia, and Vladimir Samkov, eds. Sergei Diagilev i russkoe iskusstvo. 2
vols. Moscow: Izobrazitelnoe Iskusstvo, 1982.
Discography
Iskusstvo F. I. ShaliapinaI. Stseny i arii iz russkikh oper. Russian Disc RCDC00391, 1994.
Singers of Imperial Russia, vol. 3. Pearl GEMM CD 9004-6, 1992.
I n de x
Locators in italics refer to figures (f), plates (pl), and tables (t). All plates appear between
pages 129 and 130.
art for arts sake, 16, 22, 27, 30, 48, 51,
59, 67, 74, 75, 77, 78, 83, 126, 208,
284, 315n96. See also beauty; pure
art
art nouveau, 20, 21, 301n27
art synthesis. See synthesis of the arts
Arts and Crafts (Iskusstvo i Khudo
zhestvennaya Promyshlennost),
90, 129
Abramtsevo, 3, 6, 38, 67, 6887, 120,

123, 127, pl4, 143, 201, 291, 292, 308,
310n43, 311n71; home theatricals
at, 7273, 92, 96, 99, 110, 131; workshops at, 10, 12, 74, 86, 119, 293,
299n26. See also Mamontov Circle
(Abramtsevo Circle)
Abramtsevo Circle. See Mamontov
Circle (Abramtsevo Circle)
Abramtsevo museum, 6, 96, 299n20
aestheticism, 20, 21, 25, 29, 32, 38,
56, 60; aesthetes, 23, 2729, 32,
3638, 58, 62, 75, 286, 307nn97,98,
315n90
Aksakov, the family of, 34, 38, 291;
Sergei, 35
Alekseev, the family of, 34; Konstantin, 194, 298n11, 305n41, 326n64.
See also Stanislavsky (Alekseev),
Konstantin
All-Russian Congress of Artists, 49, 83,
89, 293
All-Russian Exhibition at Nizhny
Novgorod. See Nizhny Novgorod
Exhibition
Antokolsky, Mark, 37, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78,
pl12, 283, 310n33
Arbatov, Nikolai, 55, 194
Bakst, Lon, 99, 106, 120, 281, 306n67

Balakirev, Mily, 117
Ballets Russes, 5, 9, 59, 63, 125, 126,
278, 294, 299n18, 306n67, 313n34;
Laprs-midi dun faune, 125,
306n67; Clopatre, 106; collaborative methodology of, 99; Coq dor,
27980, 290; Daphnis et Chloe,
306n67; Diaghilev and, 6, 8, 105,
129, 181, 290; Firebird, 106; Narcis
sus, 306n67; Petrushka, 106, 314n69;
Schhrazade, 106; synthesis of the
arts and, 106, 290; visual design at,
73, 89, 9192, 120. See also Diaghilev, Sergei
Balmont, Konstantin, 22, 23
Baskin, Vladimir, 91, 94, 104, 153, 226,
259, 312n9
345
346 i n de x
Baudelaire, Charles, 16, 17, 20, 24, 110,

300n5
Beardsley, Aubrey, 20
beauty, 1620, 2224, 28, 3033,
38, 4649, 5256, 59, 6366, 78,
118, 198, 238, 300n2, 327n85,
331n120. See also art for arts sake;
pure art
Bedlevich, Anton, 92, pl25, 155, 271,
312n8
Belinsky, Vissarion, 25, 26, 28, 32,
301n33, 303n4
Bely, Andrei, 1, 22, 53, 111
Belyaev, Mitrofan, 245, 276, 332n147
Benois, Alexandre, 12, 23, 49, 85, 92,
99, 106, 126, 127, 201, 28186, 290,
309n23, 336nn59,61,62
Berdyaev, Nikolai, 18, 19, 302n53
Bilibin, Ivan, 84, 121
Bizet, Georges: Carmen, pl24, 15354,
162, 168, 220, 248, 249, 295
Blok, Alexander, 1, 22, 111
The Blue Rose group (Golubaya Roza),
60, 84, 85, 199, 287, 294
Bolshoi Theater (Moscow), 3, 144, 185,
187, 188, 199, 209, 214, 217, 221, 228,
234, 262, 276, 327n2; employment
at, 46, 88, 93, 95, 102103, 137, 141,
142, 177, 189, 193, 273, 275, 304n37,
314n53, 315n94, 322n111, 335n27;
performances at, 63, 91, 102, pl16,
21114, 21921, 22324, 22930,
235, 248, 265, 273, 325n38. See also
Imperial Theaters (crown theaters)
Bondarenko, Ilya, 44, 4647, 69, 95, 98,
111, 123, 133, 182, 191, 296, 315n95,
328n33
Borisov-Musatov, Victor, 60, 71, 28687
Borodin, Alexander, 223, 224, 232, 233,
236, 260; Prince Igor (Knyaz Igor),
4, 53, 89, 104, 125, pl25, 181, 184,
189, 219, 220, 224, 232, 233, 242,
243, 264t, 288, 295, 312n8, 325n34,
329n48
Bryusov, Valery, 1, 17, 21, 2223, 48, 60,
112, 118, 197, 200, 326n81, 337n69
Burenin, Victor, 259, 286, 312n9
Carr, Albert, 84, 289, 294, 311n58

Chaliapin, Feodor, 4, 7, 12, 45, 58, 61,
95, 98, 143, 145, 153, 155, 15761,
164, 170, 178, 180, 194, 199, 218, 253,
26566, 268, 27273, 276, 280, 283,
290, 293, 306n84, 319n35, 320n41,
322n95; and designers, 86, 9395,
123, 182, 312n20, 313n23; and
Diaghilevs Russian Seasons, 125,
289; transfer to the Bolshoi Theater
of, 95, 14445, 243, 246, 320n44,
322n111, 335n27
Chaliapin, Feodor, roles in: Boris Go
dunov, 55, pl33, 144, 165, 16769,
169t, 184, 317n124, 323n127;
The Demon, 95; in Faust, 9395,
pl1416, 320n40; Judith, 12325,
pl13, 200, 201, 323n128; The Maid of
Pskov, 184, 217; Mozart and Salieri,
141, 16667, 170, 271; Prince Igor,
184, 325n34; Sadko, pl17, 184
Chekhov, Anton, 197, 198, 327n85
Chernenko, Maria (Masha), 50, 51, 61,
123, pl27,35, 146, 15051, 15355,
158, 163, 178, 180, 305n62, 321n75,
Chernyshevsky, Nikolai, 2529, 32,
303n4; Aesthetic Relations of Art to
Reality, 26, 28
Chizhov, Fyodor, 33, 34, 35, 38
Chronegk, Ludwig, 171, 172, 179, 182,
187, 193, 194. See also Meiningen
Theater
Chulkov, Georgy, 67
Comdie Franaise, 158, 171, 239
crown theaters, crown stage. See Imperial Theaters (crown theaters)
Cui, Csar, 9, 42, 108, 146, 163, 224,
225, 232, 239, 24345, 283, 302n49;
Angelo, 150, 163, 23839, 322n110;
as a critic, 58, 107, 144, 218, 25154,
259, 333n165; Mandarins Son (Syn
mandarina), pl37, 296; Prisoner of
the Caucasus (Kavkazsky plennik),
296, 322n110
Dargomyzhsky, Alexander, 30, 57, 107,
223, 225, 260, 302n49; Rusalka, 92,
i n de x 347
pl27, 25758t, 264t, 270, 288, 295,

302n49; The Stone Guest (Kamennyi
gost), 175, 270, 288, 295, 302n49
decadence, 11, 1923, 31, 61, 105, 110,
11316, 306n74, 330n80; decadent,
6, 11, 1925, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 54,
55, 57, 5962, 67, 74, 78, 90, 110,
11215, 118, 125, 129, 218, 241, 248,
251, 254, 285, 286, 301n27, 307n97,
315nn90,96, 337n69; Le dcadent,
20. See also symbolism
Delibes, Leo, 249; Coppelia, 334n9;
Lakm, 181, 235, 236, 248, 264t, 276,
295; Sylvia, 99, 306n67
Devoyod, Jules, 292, 320n40
Diaghilev, Sergei, 5, 6, 8, 2325, 40, 49,
6164, 81, 83, 86, 8992, 99101,
105108, 11214, 120, 12529, pl39
40, 181, 193, 201202, 218, 269, 279
90, 294, 299n18, 300n5, 307n91,
318n148, 336nn59,62, 337n73; Com
plex Questions (Slozhnye voprosy),
24, 48, 81, 108, 12728, 284. See also
Ballets Russes; Mir Iskusstva
directors theater, 19095, 270, 274
Dobrolyubov, Nikolai, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32,
38, 303nn4,7
Dostoevsky, Fyodor, 2527, 3233, 38,
75
Druzhinin, Alexander, 2728
Gippius, Zinaida, 22, 23

Glinka, Mikhail, 225, 260, 302n49;
Glinka Prize, 245; A Life for the Tsar
(Zhizn za tsarya), 118, 161, 185, 212,
235, 243, 244, 264t, 287, 295; Ruslan
and Lyudmila, 91, 11618, 225, 228,
258t, 288, 329n72
Gluck, Christoph Willibald, 202; Al
ceste, 128, 24445; Orfeo, 4, 44, 49
53, 57, 89, 96, 101, 105, 112, 11819,
12224, 12728, pl10,35, 146, 153,
162, 176, 178, 191, 200202, 215,
236, 238, 242, 244, 252, 254, 257
58t, 264t, 271, 279, 296, 306n66
Gogol, Nikolai, 2527, 174
Golenishchev-Kutuzov, Arseny, 56,
306n79
Golovin, Alexander, 71, 8889, 106, 125,
201, 317n124
Goncharova, Natalia, 12021
Gorky, Maxim, 113, 19798, 327n85
Gounod, Charles: Faust, 9395, 117,
pl11,1416, 212, 213, 235, 244,
248, 254, 25758t, 264t, 292, 295,
312n20, 320n40, 321n80; Romo et
Juliette, 21314, 244, 258t. See also
Chaliapin, Feodor
Grigoriev, Apollon, 32, 34, 38, 107, 108
Gruzinsky, Alexander, 88, 89, 102, 113,
115, 168, 21112, 219, 220, 230, 236
ensemble (artistic ensemble), 104,

141, 14346, 162, 165, 180, 182,
19495, 213, 238, 240, 241, 250,
266, 319nn35,36, 321n72, 325n34,
335n22
Ermolova, Maria, 152, 321n64
Esposito, Eugenio, 102; Camorra, 294,
317n140
Evreinov, Nikolai, 2, 137, 297n5
Hoffmann, E. T. A., 128, 246

Humperdinck, Engelbert, Hnsel und
Gretel, 4, 224, 235, 295
Huysmans, Joris-Karl, rebours, 1920.
See also decadence
Fedorovsky, Fyodor, 8485

Fedotova, Glikeriya, 36, 303n6
Fokine, Michel, 106, 124, 125, 201202
Franco-Russian Alliance, 249, 255
Gautier, Thophile, 16, 300n3
Imperial Theaters (crown theaters),

4, 36, 91, 116, 125, 134, 20914,
21825, 231, 240, 251, 263, 265, 266,
27273, 318n7; employment at, 45,
66, 88, 93, 124, 138, 14445, 163,
165, 170, 17273, 220, 272, 274, 294,
304n37, 319n23, 322n89; production methods of, 89, 97, 180, 185,
211, 318n7; repertoire of, 97, 108,
213, 219, 223, 224, 234, 250. See also
348 i n de x
Bolshoi Theater (Moscow); Maly

Drama Theater (Moscow); Mariinsky Theater; Novy Theater
Ippolitov-Ivanov, Mikhail, 12, 103, 142,
146, 152, 153, 294, 314n57
Ivanov, Alexander, 33
Ivanov, Mikhail, 13, 226, 243, 253, 259,
312n9
Ivanov, Vyacheslav, 1, 22, 33, 53, 60, 67,
11112
Kalinnikov, Vasily, 1812 (V dvenad
tsatom godu), 139, 174, 177, 238,
24546, 296
Kandinsky, Wassily (Vasily), 121
Kashkin, Nikolai, 122, 144, 149, 211,
213, 224, 225, 23032, 23436, 240,
241, 247, 314n55, 320n58, 324n32
Kokorev, the family of, 308n2; Vasily,
3335
Komissarzhevsky, Fyodor, 139, 157
Komissarzhevsky, Vera, 139
Korovin, Konstantin, 4, 60, 71, 72, 81,
82, 84, 9293, 98, 102, 110, 11314,
121, 127, pl2, 191, 283, 29596,
308n8, 311nn58,59, 313n23; approach to design by, 92, 102, 104,
12022, 128, pl36, 284, 290, 309n23;
and the Mir Iskusstva group, 99,
128; painterly technique of, 84, 96,
114, 174, 316nn103104; reputation
as a decadent of, 11314; and the
Russian Seasons, 89, 125; work at
the Imperial Theaters of, 88, 93, 138,
177, 273, 315n94, 335n27
Kramskoy, Ivan, 7579
Krotkov, Nikolai, 44, 105106, 209, 292;
The Necklace (Ozherele), 4950, 105,
118, pl28, 133, 141, 146, 162, 17779,
182, 186, 191, 207f, 215, 23839,
24546, 274, 296, 328n29; The Scar
let Rose (Alaya roza), 274, 295
Kruchonykh, Alexei, Victory over the
Sun (Pobeda nad solntsem), 2, 297n6
Kruglikov, Semyon, 41, 62, 97, 101, 132,
145, 150, 172, 18385, 246, 27778,
282, 307n98, 330n97; as a critic,
170, 188, 212, 214, 219, 22324, 229,

23233, 241, 24950
Kuchka (the Mighty Handful, the
Russian Five), 3031, 57, 107, 117,
246, 254, 302nn46,47,49; kuchkist,
5354, 5658, 64, 107, 218, 22325,
227, 239, 243, 25051, 253, 25960,
277, 302n49, 307n98, 312n9. See also
nationalism; realism; truth
Kuznetsov, Pavel, 71, 85, 287, 294. See
also The Blue Rose group (Golubaya
Roza)
Lanceray, Eugene, 99, 281
Larionov, Mikhail, 12021
Laroche, Hermann, 107, 226
Lensky, Alexander, 175, 210, 324n8
Lentovsky, Mikhail, 54, 56, 62, 9899,
137, 14142, 189
Leonova, Darya, 139, 157
Lermontov, Mikhail, The Demon (De
mon), 86, pl7
Levitan, Isaak, 60, 71, 78, 81, 295
Lipaev, Ivan, 104, 146, 15354, 213, 225,
22930, 240, 321n72
Lossky, Vladimir, pl37, 143, 321nn68,80
lubok, 74, 12022, 128, 309n25
Lyubatovich, Tatyana, 98, pl24, 15354,
158, 271, 293, 321nn69,76, 335n22
Maeterlinck, Maurice, 60, 198, 200; La
mort de Tintagiles, 195, 199201;
Loiseau bleu, 47
Malevich, Kazimir, 2, 120
Maly Drama Theater (Moscow), 36, 131,
152, 158, 171, 20910, 273, 303n6,
324n8, 327n2. See also Imperial
Theaters (crown theaters)
Malyutin, Sergei, 296
Mamontov, the family of, 34, 308n2;
Elizaveta (ne Sapozhnikova), 70,
291, 299n26, 305n41; Ivan Fyodorovich, 34, 35, 268, 291; Platon
Nikolaevich, 93, 11718, 13335,
187; Sergei Savvich, 50, 127, pl4, 178,
289, 317n141; Yury Anatolievich,
12627, pl4
i n de x 349
Mamontov Circle (Abramtsevo Circle),

9, 39, 67, 7175, 85, 87, 88, 96, 110,
120, 131, 212, 292, 308n1, 310n43
Mardzhanov, Konstantin, 55, 194
Mariinsky Theater, 97, 99, 213, 273, 292,
318n8, 333n174; employment at, 45,
88, 137, 139, 141, 156, 177, 201, 273,
322n116, 327n6, 328n47; performances at, 56, 9394, 97, 109, 116,
124, pl14, 185, 201, 219, 223, 258t,
26364, 273; Wagnerian troupe at,
252, 25456, 333n270. See also Imperial Theaters (crown theaters)
Massenet, Jules, 139, 24849, 278; Cen
drillon, 162; This, 248
Matyushin, Mikhail, 2
Meiningen Theater, 5, 17176, 17890,
19298, 200202, 237, 241, 250, 292,
316n110, 321n64, 323nn3,4, 325n53,
326n81, 335n26; Julius Caesar, 187;
Jungfrau von Orlans, 173, 181, 194.
See also Chronegk, Ludwig
Melnikov, Pyotr, 12, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48,
51, 6364, 72, 93, 109, 132, 13642,
148, 149, 15153, 156, 162, 174, 189,
216, 23839, 24243, 24649, 272,
275, 278, 286, 288, 324n5, 325n38,
331n109; directing career of, 93, 137,
14041, 17275, 17778, 180, 185,
18990, 203206f, 212, 273, 312n3,
319n23, 325n53; as a singer, 137, 149,
158, 292, 320n56
Merezhkovsky, Dmitri, 22, 23, 25
Meyerbeer, Giacomo, 227, 235, 250; Les
Huguenots, 235, 238, 257t, 264t,
331n109
Meyerhold, Vsevolod, 2, 5, 58, 60, 88
89, 133, 155, 193, 195196, 198200,
26971, 290, 294, 297n5, 306n84,
325n51; as an actor, 198; motionless
theater (nepodvizhnyi teatr; stylized
theater/uslovnyi teatr), 199201, 290;
as an opera director, 201202, 273
Mir Iskusstva: group, 2325, 49, 52, 59,
80, 83, 85, 99, 108, 126, 128, 284,
306n67; exhibitions, 90, 12728,
282, 285; journal, 6, 9, 2324,
8081, 90, 96, 99, 108, 126, 12829,

193, 197, 260, 269, 28087, 328n35,
337n73. See also Diaghilev, Sergei
modernism, 1, 2, 9, 14, 19, 21, 23, 42,
54, 74, 75, 119, 196, 260, 290, 297n2;
modernist, ix, 1, 5, 6, 10, 1517,
2021, 23, 25, 49, 5859, 6162, 65,
71, 73, 83, 8587, 113, 116, 123, 128
29, 196, 202, 25053, 25960, 261,
284, 290, 297n5, 299n20, 301n27,
306n84, 312n9, 315n93, 316n103;
modernity, 1, 2, 11, 17, 2021, 23, 59,
62, 122, 290, 307n91. See also style
moderne
Morozov, the family of, 34, 308n2; Ivan,
316n103; Savva, 69, 274
Moscow Art Theater, xiii, 46, 47, 60, 88,
158, 193200, 202, 269, 274, 283,
294, 298n11, 325n53, 334nn1,16.
See also Maeterlinck, Maurice; Ostrovsky, Alexander; Stanislavsky
(Alekseev), Konstantin; Tolstoy,
Alexei K.
Moscow Association of Artists (MAA;
Moskovskoe Tovarishchestvo Khudozhnikov), 8283, 311n51
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 244; Don
Giovanni, 48, 128, 149, 264t, 292,
321n68, 325n51
Musorgsky, Modest, 30, 42, 43, 139,
187, 22425, 231, 236, 23940, 241,
251, 253, 254, 260, 302n49, 306n79,
307n98, 328n44, 330n97; Boris
Godunov, 4, 5357, 60, 62, 118, 124,
125, pl26,33, 14142, 144, 164, 165
69, 176, 182, 184, 187, 189, 239, 243,
245, 264t, 270, 289, 296, 307n87,
316n111, 317n124, 323n131, 330n97,
337n78; Khovanshchina, 4, 53, 90,
104, 115, 117, 118, 124, 125, 127,
pl22, 13536, 138, 144, 155, 185, 187,
223, 226, 232, 233, 236, 23940, 242,
243, 253, 257t, 259, 264t, 270, 275,
282, 296, 318n148, 329n65, 330n97,
333n170; The Sorochintsy Fair (Soro
chinskaya Yarmarka), 55, 8485. See
also Chaliapin, Feodor
350 i n de x
nationalism, 9, 10, 35, 39, 50, 222, 238,

261, 336n37; nationalist, 810,
3132, 35, 107, 172, 22223,
22627, 23437, 24245, 24748,
25153, 25960, 277, 299nn20,26,
312n9, 328n41. See also Kuchka
(the Mighty Handful, the Russian
Five)
naturalism, 11, 26, 55, 60, 124, 170,
19698, 201, 306n74
Nesterov, Mikhail, 71, 72, 81
Nicolai, Otto, Die lustigen Weiber von
Windsor, 246, 270
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 19, 5253, 95, 108,
11011
Nizhny Novgorod Exhibition, 86,
93, 113, 137, 267, 285, 293, 308n8,
334nn9,15. See also Vrubel, Mikhail
Nordau, Max, Degeneration, 21, 315n90
Novy Theater, 141, 273. See also Imperial Theaters (crown theaters)
Olenin, Pyotr, 55, 60, pl26, 133, 143,
164, 194, 307n87
Ostroukhov, Ilya, 71, 127, pl4
Ostrovsky, Alexander, 36, 303n4; Snow
Maiden (Snegurochka), 131, 150,
202, 292, 303n6, 327n85; Thunder
storm (Groza), 28, 303n7
Paskhalova, Alevtina, 47, 48, 62, pl23,
14750, 155, 292, 305n53, 322n116
Perov, Vasily, 30, 78, 187
Petrov-Vodkin, Kuzma, 71, 85, 120
Pisarev, Dmitri, 26, 29
Pisemsky, Alexei, 36, 303n4
pochvenniki, 3135. See also Slavophile
Pogodin, Mikhail, 34, 35
Polenov, Vasily, 4, 3738, 4951, 7072,
76, 78, 82, 84, 92, 9496, 101, 102,
105, 112, 11819, 120, 128, pl1011,
130, 146, 152, 17679, 189, 191, 215,
271, 282, 292, 293, 29596; Aphro
dite (Afrodita, tableau-vivant), 49,
89, 118, 131, 293, 309n22; The Phan
toms of Hellas (Prizraki Ellady), 50,
112, 179, 199, 309n22; Two Worlds

(Dva Mira), 292. See also Gluck,
Christoph Willibald; Krotkov,
Nikolai
Polenova, Elena, 74, 96, 11920,
299n26
Povarskaya Studio (Theater-Studio
on Povarskaya Street), 89, 193,
195, 198201, 26970, 271, 294,
326n77, 334n17, 335n18. See also
Maeterlinck, Maurice; Meyerhold,
Vsevolod
Prakhov: Adrian, 37, 72, 7677, 85,
310n32; the brothers, 37, 76; Mstislav, 3738, 79, 131
Prokofiev, Sergei, 1
Pryanishnikov, Ippolit (Pryanishnikov
opera company), 210, 219, 292,
327n6, 329n48
Puccini, Giacomo, 233, 251, 260, 278; La
bohme, 4, 104, 105, pl32, 148, 150,
158, 181, 228, 23233, 24041, 248,
257t, 264t, 296, 331n114, 332n129;
Le villi, 4, 295
pure art, 24, 29, 36, 40, 45, 60, 74, 268,
336n59. See also art for arts sake
Pushkin, Alexander, 27, 29, 167, 174,
175, 302n49, 324n8. See also
Musorgsky, Modest; Tchaikovsky,
Pyotr
Rachmaninov, Sergei, 4, 12, 102103,
130, 24546, 275, 283, 314n53,
335n31
realism, 89, 1617, 18, 2526, 2830,
36, 39, 42, 50, 5359, 67, 71, 78, 83,
118, 126, 188, 19698, 200, 202, 246,
260, 299nn19,24, 306n84, 314n72;
realist, 2, 9, 10, 18, 2433, 3637,
42, 4549, 51, 5459, 64, 65, 7481,
83, 86, 87, 107, 113, 119, 12223,
129, 186, 196, 198, 201202, 260,
261, 302nn44,47,49, 303n4, 310n44,
312n9, 314n72, 327n85. See also
Kuchka (the Mighty Handful, the
Russian Five); truth
i n de x 351
Remizov, Alexei, 67
Repin, Ilya, 29, 30, 36, 51, 56, 7072,
7579, 81, 82, 84, 123, pl2,3940,
287, 310n32, 316n104
de Reszke, the brothers Jean and Edouard, 24748, 252
Rimsky-Korsakov, Nadezhda (ne Purgold), 27980
Rimsky-Korsakov, Nikolai, 4, 5, 12,
5456, 86, 97, 101103, 12021,
13031, 14446, 192, 199, 223, 224,
232, 233, 236, 24546, 253, 260,
266, 27880, 281, 283, 287, 289, 294,
302n49, 307n98, 313n29, 317n129,
322n107, 325n37, 336n43, 337n74;
Boyarina Vera Sheloga, 4, 163, 264t,
296; Kashchei the Deathless (Kash
chei Bessmertnyi), 45, 296, 313n44,
315n94; Legend of the Invisible City
of Kitezh (Skazanie o nevidimom
grade Kitezhe), 138, 273; The Maid
of Pskov (Pskovityanka), 4, 53, 117,
125, 148, 158, 163, 170, 184, 18788,
210, 217, 22324, 226, 23233,
242, 243, 253, 257t, 264t, 270, 288,
295, 316n121, 333n178; May Night
(Maiskaya noch), 125, 132, 16162,
174, 205f, 230, 236, 246, 257t, 288,
296, 329n48; Mlada, 97, 101, 258t;
Mozart and Salieri (Motsart i Sal
eri), 4, 141, 164, 16668, 170, 189,
264t, 26970, 288, 296; Sadko, 4, 10,
44, 52, 57, 63, 9798, 103, 111, 115,
12022, 125, 128, pl17,20,36, 133,
149, 161, 164, 184, 18788, 189, 217,
21920, 224, 22627, 233, 235, 238,
242, 243, 246, 253, 25455, 25758t,
264t, 270, 278, 288, 296, 305n66,
317nn128,130, 319n18, 320nn51,54,
334n9; Servilia, 52, 246; Snow
Maiden (Snegurochka), 4, 10, 57, 58,
69, 84, 90, 102, 104, 115, 117, 119,
pl9,18,21,23,34, 139, 14750, 160,
212, 219, 220, 229, 231, 238, 242,
246, 25758t, 270, 288, 289, 294,
295, 311n58, 327n6, 336n43; The
Tale of Tsar Saltan (Skazka o tsare

Saltane), 4, pl38, 246, 296, 313n44,
315n94; The Tsars Bride (Tsarskaya
Nevesta), 4, 122, 131, 14041, 160,
185, 245, 246, 27879, 296, 313n44,
315n94; and Zabela, 4, 12, 122, 128,
14748, 150, 15966, 216, 246, 265
66, 27879, 288, 313n44, 317n130,
324n23. See also Ballets Russes;
Diaghilev, Sergei; Rimsky-Korsakov, Nadezhda (ne Purgold);
Vrubel, Mikhail; Zabela-Vrubel,
Nadezhda
The Roman artist colony, 3739, 70,
72, 74, 76, 7778, 29192. See also
Antokolsky, Mark; Polenov, Vasily;
Prakhov, the brothers; Repin, Ilya;
see under Mamontov, the family of,
Elizaveta (ne Sapozhnikova)
Rubinstein, Anton, 22728, 329n72; The
Demon (Demon), 86, 95, 124, 178,
180, 295
Rubinstein, Nikolai, 109
Russian Seasons. See Ballets Russes
Russkaya Muzykalnaya Gazeta, 132,
188, 251, 333n177
Safonov, Vasily, 4041, 304n20
Saint-Sans, Camille, 278; Proserpine,
331n120; Samson et Dalila, 4, 91,
123, 124, 154, 219, 244, 248, 257
58t, 295
Salina, Nadezhda, 12, 9293, 95, pl34,
271, 280, 304n37, 313n23
Sanin, Alexander, 5, 40, 125, 142,
317n141
Sapunov, Nikolai, 71, 85, 88, 199, 200,
294. See also The Blue Rose group
(Golubaya Roza)
The Scarlet Rose (Alaya Roza) group.
See The Blue Rose group (Golubaya
Roza)
Schiller, Friedrich, 15152, 321n64. See
also Maly Drama Theater (Moscow);
Meiningen Theater
Scriabin, Alexander, 1, 11112, 315n85
352 i n de x
Sekar-Rozhansky, Anton, pl32,36, 138,

158, 161, 168, 253, 266, 320nn51,54
Sekretarev drama circle, 36, 268, 291,
303nn5,7
Serov, the family of: Alexander,
107109, 223, 225, 232, 254; Judith
(Yudif ), 12325, pl1213, 141,
142, 144, 168, 200, 201, 243, 264t,
270, 296, 309n15, 314n72, 315n93,
323n128; The Power of the Fiend
(Vrazhya sila), 133; Rogneda, 53,
102, 118, 17576, 215, 21920,
22932, 242, 25758t, 295, 323n131;
Valentin, 4, 60, 71, 72, 8182, 89,
93, 98, 99, 102, 110, 12325, 127,
pl2,4,12, 142, 282, 29596, 308n8,
309n15, 315n93, 337n69; Valentina
(ne Berman), 175
Shchukin, Sergei, 68, 69, 316n103
Shekhtel, Fyodor, 85, 315n95
Shkafer, Vasily, 12, 4348, 51, 58, 62,
65, 68, 98, 13437, 13942, 144, 147,
15659, 170, 185, 278, 280, 286, 288,
307n97, 319nn18,32; as a singer,
pl28,33, 137, 139, 14041, 156, 177;
directing career of, 46, 105, 14041,
179, 185, 273, 325n37; Mamontovs
letters to, 57, 61, 64, 65, 100102,
105, 131, 154, 15658, 17677, 182
83, 186, 191, 207f, 238, 274, 321n68,
330n85;
Silver Age, 1, 2, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 22,
25, 33, 42, 46, 49, 53, 56, 57, 59,
60, 67, 96, 106, 118, 119, 297nn2,5,
301n27, 311n51. See also decadence; modernism; style moderne;
symbolism
Simov, Victor, 88, 295
Slavophile, 3137, 75, 108, 302n53,
303n4; Slavophilism, 67. See also
pochvenniki; sobornost
Smirnov, Dmitry, 125, 294, 317n140
sobornost, 31, 33, 98, 111, 302n53. See
also Slavophile
Solodovnikov Theater, 55, 102, 113,
114, 18789, 212, 213, 219, 220,
228, 230, 234, 242, 249, 26263,

266, 29394, 315n95, 316n103,
328n33, 334n6; fire at, 95, 21617,
266, 293
Solovyov, Nikolai, 232, 243, 259, 312n9
Solovyov, Vladimir, 1819, 33, 53, 63,
6567, 11011, 302n53
Somov, Konstantin, 282
Stanislavsky (Alekseev), Konstantin, 5,
12, 40, 4547, 49, 60, 6566, 68, 88,
98, 133, 136, 139, 142, 155, 157, 159,
166, 19394, 197, 200, 202, 268, 290,
293, 298n11, 305n41, 326n64; and
Meiningen Theater, 172, 19394,
197, 326n81; and Povarskaya Studio, 195, 198200, 26970, 294,
326nn76,77, 335n18. See also Alekseev, the family of; Moscow Art
Theater
Stasov, Vladimir, 5254, 68, 80, 86, 90,
14748, 175, 184, 187, 191, 21718,
225, 259, 27576, 287, 306n79,
318n148, 329n65; and modernist
aesthetics, 5152, 5859, 11516,
pl40, 218, 285, 287, 307n97; and
nationalism, 226, 228, 236, 251;
and realism, 9, 25, 3032, 56,
7680, 11619, 129, 302n47, 303n4,
310nn32,44, 316nn11112; and
Wagner polemics, 107109, 25253
Stavitskaya, Anna, pl37, 161, 163, 180,
304n30, 322n107, 324n23
Strakhova, Varvara, 99, pl22, 170, 187,
28283
Stravinsky, Igor, 1, 106, 278. See also
Ballets Russes
style moderne, 23, 60, 83, 85, 87, 90, 96,
120, 123, 301n27, 315n95
stylization (uslovnost), 29, 80, 11819,
12126, 196202, 325n51. See also
Meyerhold, Vsevolod
Sudeikin, Sergei, 71, 85, 88, 199, 200,
294. See also The Blue Rose group
(Golubaya Roza)
Surikov, Vasily, 71, 78, 80, pl2, 187,
310n43
i n de x 353
symbolism, 1, 2, 9, 1923, 53, 71, 83,

105, 111, 19698, 202; symbolist,
1, 2, 2123, 33, 46, 48, 50, 5253,
5760, 6567, 81, 86, 111, 114, 118,
124, 128, 198, 200202, 273, 286,
337n69. See also art for arts sake;
beauty; decadence; pure art; Silver Age
synthesis of the arts, 2, 5, 53, 65,
100101, 103106, 11011, 113, 126,
131, 138, 142, 146, 199, 238, 290,
319n36
Talashkino, 12, 311n71. See also Tenisheva, Maria
Taneev, Sergei, Oresteia, 52
Tchaikovsky, Pyotr, 103, 107, 109, 118,
212, 224, 22728, 233, 260, 324n32,
327n6, 328n47; Eugene Onegin, 117
18, 140, 163, 17275, 177, 180, 189
90, 203204f, 212, 228, 258t, 264t,
324n8, 327n6; The Maid of Orleans
(Orleanskaya deva), 85, pl19, 138,
14042, 150, 152, 161, 163, 182, 184,
217, 238, 264t, 270, 296, 324n32,
327n6; The Oprichnik (Oprichnik),
53, 117, 220, 230, 23233, 257t, 296,
329n62, 331n114
Telyakovsky, Vladimir, 88, 193,
27374
Tenisheva, Maria, 12, pl3940, 284,
287, 288, 321n76, 337n73. See also
Talashkino
Thomas, Ambroise, Mignon, 4, 181, 248,
250, 258t, 295
Tolstoy, Alexei K.: Death of Ivan the
Terrible (Smert Ivana Groznogo),
198; Tsar Feodor Ioannovich, 193
94, 197, 198
Tolstoy, Leo, 1718, 21, 24, 27
Tornaghi, Iola (Chaliapin, Iola Igna
tievna), 265, 334n9
Tretyakov, the family of, 34, 308n2;
Pavel, 33, 68, 69, 78, 276, 284;
the Tretyakov gallery, xiii, 34, 68,
293
Trubetskoy, Pavel (Paolo), 71, 84, 283

Truffi, Iosif (Giuseppe), 102, pl31
truth, 1619, 2324, 28, 3032, 36, 38,
42, 4447, 5455, 5759, 65, 75, 77,
79, 11619, 197, 253, 260, 300n2. See
also Kuchka (the Mighty Handful,
the Russian Five); realism
Tsvetkova, Elena, pl1819, 14850,
15253, 158, 16061, 210, 266,
320n55
Ulyanov, Nikolai, 71, 89, 199. See also
The Blue Rose group (Golubaya
Roza)
uslovnost. See stylization
utilitarian, 16, 2324, 2627; utilitarianism, 18, 26, 32. See also naturalism; realism
Vasiliev, Fyodor, 78
Vasnetsov: Appolinary, 71, 90, 127, 295
96; the brothers, 71, 74; Victor, 4,
6974, 7880, 82, 84, 86, 90, 92, 96,
110, 117, 11920, pl3,6,9, 189, 202,
289, 292, 294, 295, 310n44, 311n58,
316n122, 327n85
Verdi, Giuseppe, 247, 249, 250, 260;
Aida, 258t, 264t, 295, 320n40,
335n22; Un ballo in maschera, 242,
247; Otello, 4, 295, 320n40; Rigo
letto, 235, 242; La traviata, 174, 234,
248, 251
Verlaine, Paul, 20
Verstovsky, Alexander, Askolds Tomb
(Askoldova mogila), 117, 244, 296;
Gromoboi, 215, 296, 328n29
Vrubel, Mikhail, 4, 60, 65, 69, 71, 72,
8182, 93, 98, 101, 102, 127, 191,
199, 282, 311nn67,71, 313n23; Mamontovs patronage of, 8587, 127,
15960, 285, 308n8, 317n130; set
and costume designs by, 86, 95,
pl20,38, 293, 29596, 315n94; style
and technique of, 74, 81, 8586,
9596, 11315, 119, pl78, 312n20,
316n103
354 i n de x
Vrubel, Nadezhda. See Zabela-Vrubel,

Nadezhda
Winter, Claudia, 44, 142, 228, 267,

29394
Wagner, Richard, 5, 19, 53, 10611,

128, 139, 156, 213, 232, 248,
25057, 25960, 263, 295, 314n72,
328n45, 333n177; Der fliegende
Hollnder, 253, 257t; Lohengrin,
4, 107, 109, 253, 254, 257t, 264t,
295, 314n72; Die Meistersinger
von Nurenberg, 257t; Parsifal, 109;
Siegfried, 109, 178, 206f, 214, 257;
Tannhuser, 109, 213, 253, 257t,
264t; Tristan und Isolde, 109,
201202, 257t, 264t, 273t; Die
Walkre, 109, 246, 253, 257t,
333n170
Wagner, Siegfried, Der Brenhuter,
330n85, 331n120
The Wanderers (Peredvizhniki), 2931,
56, 57, 64, 71, 7483, 85, 87, 114, 119,
222, 302n47
Yakulov, Georgy, 85. See also The Blue

Rose group (Golubaya Roza)
Yakunchikova, Maria, 74, 299n26
Yuzhin-Sumbatov, Alexander, 175,
318n10, 324n8
Zabela-Vrubel, Nadezhda, 69, 101,
127, pl2021, 145, 15966,
16870, 180, 183, 18586, 315n94,
322nn107,110,116, 334n10; and
Rimsky-Korsakov, 4, 12, 122, 128,
14750, 15966, 216, 246, 26566,
27879, 288, 293, 313n44, 317n130,
324n23
Zandt, Marie van, 156, 164, 18081,
236, 248, 267, 292
Zelyonyi, Vladimir, 102, pl30, 250
Zimins Private Opera, 55, 294, 298n9,
299n18
Olga Haldey is Assistant Professor of Musicology at the University of

Maryland, College Park. She formerly taught music history and literature
at the University of MissouriColumbia and earned a Ph.D. in Musicology
from Ohio State University.

Haldey O. Mamontov's Private Opera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haldey O. Mamontov's Private Opera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haldey O. Mamontov's Private Opera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mamontovs Private Opera

The Search for Modernism

M a mon tovs pr i vate oper a

Russian Music Studies

Mamontovs Private Opera

Indiana University Press

This book is a publication of

Note on Transliteration and Translation xi

list of Abbreviations xiii

1 The Silver Age and the Legacy of the 1860s 15

2 Serving the Beautiful 35

5 Opera as Drama 130

6 From Meiningen to Meyerhold 171

7 Politics, Repertory, and the Market 208

8 Faces of the Enterprise 261

Appendix A. Brief Chronology of Savva

Appendix B. Selected Premieres and Revivals

works cited 339

Ack now l edgm en ts

This book is the culmination of a long road of scholarly pursuit that

Not e on T r a nsl it er at ion

State Central Theater Museum named after Alexander

Selected Nineteenth-Century Periodicals

M a mon tovs pr i vate oper a

Russian musical modernism has long been seen as an oxymoron in

ers, only to spend themsurely an unprecedented incident in the history

and sponsor of Mir Iskusstva [World of Art], an art journal edited by

The Liter ature

Gozenpud thus joins a great majority of Mamontov scholars who

Soviet-era Mamontov scholars were obliged to situate their protagonists

respected and widely read studies on Russian music, its treatment of

argue throughout this book, Mamontov truly belongsearly Silver Age

toward modernism for its numerous descendants in the world of staged

The Silver Age and the

In the late nineteenth century, as Western civilization stood on the

modernity has been consistently an aesthetics of imagination, opposed

common people who helped to create it while providing luxurious living

tative of the 1890s generation much influenced by Solovyov, contain a

Symbolism and Decadence

of rebours is commonly seen as the birth of decadence as an artistic

The editors of Le dcadent thus discussed their movement primarily

of the utter dissolution of the latter. Thus, according to Paul Bourgets

with his French counterparts, recognized decadence as the foundation of

The Mir Iskusstva Group

journals editor-in-chief, in a series of articles under the common title

Realism versus Aestheticism: 1840s60s

the khudozhestvennaya statistika [artistic statistics] of contemporary

What particularly angered Dostoevsky and ensured the paucity of good

According to Repins memoirs, the Wanderers believed that their art

Indeed, the ideology of the Kuchka was initially formulated on the

tation of the speech patterns in colloquial Russianthat is, a detailed

The Pochvenniki and the Mamontov Family Circle

lages, ruled by the obshchina (community, or commune), was offered

Together with the concept of sobornost, the cornerstone of Slavophile

Serving the Beautiful

Growing up in his fathers house, Savva Mamontov was exposed to the

of Krylovs fables.8 Meanwhile, Savva Mamontovs aesthetic education

The Roman Friends

by mundane business affairs, the idealists presence was indispensable,

The tendency mentioned by Polenov refers to the so-called tendentious