Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Russian Music at Home and AbroadNew Essays$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Richard Taruskin

Print publication date: 2016

Print ISBN-13: 9780520288089

Published to California Scholarship Online: May 2017

DOI: 10.1525/california/9780520288089.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM CALIFORNIA SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.california.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of California Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CALSO for personal use (for details see http://california.universitypressscholarship.com/page/535/privacy-policy-and-legal-notice).date: 22 November 2017

Crowd, Mob, and Nation in Boris Godunov

Crowd, Mob, and Nation in Boris Godunov

What Did Musorgsky Think, and Does It Matter?

Chapter:
(p.58) 3 Crowd, Mob, and Nation in Boris Godunov
Source:
Russian Music at Home and Abroad
Author(s):

Richard Taruskin

Publisher:
University of California Press
DOI:10.1525/california/9780520288089.003.0004

The two authorial versions of Musorgsky’s Boris Godunov reflect contrasting historiographical and ideological traditions that were being debated in the 1860s and 1870s, when the opera was being written. The difference is epitomized by the St. at St. Basil’s shrine in the original version, which depicts the crowd (i.e., the Russian people) according to the tradition of Nikolai Karamzin, the autocracy’s official historiographer, as submissive and dependent; and the so-called Kromy Forest scene which replaced it in the revised version, which depicts the crowd as actively rebellious and as a powerful agent, according to the then recent revisionary writings of Nikolai Kostomarov. What then of the widespread custom, dating from the Moscow Bolshoy Theater revival of the opera for Mujsorgsky’s centenary in 1939, of including the two scenes in a conflated version of the opera that the composer never imagined? Despite its manifest incoherence from an historiographical standpoint, it has become popular owing to its aesthetic and dramatic qualities. It thus crystallizes a key problem in academic reception studies, which have generally followed a modernist bias that upholds authors over audiences.

Keywords:   Musorgsky, Boris Godunov, Karamzin, Kostomarov, Russian historiography

California Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.