Censoring the Muses: Opera and Creative Control in Nicholas's Russia (1825–1855)

IF 0.3 2区艺术学 0 MUSIC

Cambridge Opera Journal Pub Date : 2022-02-23 DOI:10.1017/S0954586721000112

Daniil Zavlunov

{"title":"Censoring the Muses: Opera and Creative Control in Nicholas's Russia (1825–1855)","authors":"Daniil Zavlunov","doi":"10.1017/S0954586721000112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article offers the first systematic investigation of the institution of opera censorship in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I. Drawing on new archival sources, it examines censorship legislation, the organisation of dramatic (i.e., theatre) censorship, the workings of its bureaucracy, censors’ reports and protocols and Nicholas's personal decrees on productions of specific operas, and printed and manuscript librettos. From these, it distils the patterns of state intervention in opera, revealing a remarkable fluidity – even capriciousness – of approaches. Decisions to ban or permit, and specific intrusions into the texts, were based on the censors’ adherence to or disregard for the Empire's censorship laws, Nicholas's inclinations and impulses, changes in cultural policy, practical needs of the Imperial Theatres, the shifting political climate at home and abroad, and, most of all, the national point of origin of the operatic work under review. In addition to surveying the trends, the article offers three case studies: Glinka's Zhizn’ za Tsarya (A Life for the Tsar), Verdi's Rigoletto and Meyerbeer's Les Huguenots.","PeriodicalId":42672,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Opera Journal","volume":"34 1","pages":"37 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Opera Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954586721000112","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article offers the first systematic investigation of the institution of opera censorship in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I. Drawing on new archival sources, it examines censorship legislation, the organisation of dramatic (i.e., theatre) censorship, the workings of its bureaucracy, censors’ reports and protocols and Nicholas's personal decrees on productions of specific operas, and printed and manuscript librettos. From these, it distils the patterns of state intervention in opera, revealing a remarkable fluidity – even capriciousness – of approaches. Decisions to ban or permit, and specific intrusions into the texts, were based on the censors’ adherence to or disregard for the Empire's censorship laws, Nicholas's inclinations and impulses, changes in cultural policy, practical needs of the Imperial Theatres, the shifting political climate at home and abroad, and, most of all, the national point of origin of the operatic work under review. In addition to surveying the trends, the article offers three case studies: Glinka's Zhizn’ za Tsarya (A Life for the Tsar), Verdi's Rigoletto and Meyerbeer's Les Huguenots.

查看原文本刊更多论文

审查缪斯:尼古拉俄国的歌剧与创作控制(1825-1855)

本文首次对尼古拉一世统治时期的俄罗斯歌剧审查制度进行了系统的研究，利用新的档案资料，研究了审查立法、戏剧(即剧院)审查的组织、官僚机构的运作、审查人员的报告和协议、尼古拉对特定歌剧制作的个人法令、印刷和手稿的剧本。从中，它提炼出国家干预歌剧的模式，揭示出方法的显著流动性——甚至是反复无常。禁止或允许的决定，以及对文本的具体侵入，都是基于审查者对帝国审查法的遵守或无视，尼古拉斯的倾向和冲动，文化政策的变化，帝国剧院的实际需要，国内外政治气候的变化，最重要的是，正在审查的歌剧作品的国家起源点。除了调查趋势之外，这篇文章还提供了三个案例研究:格林卡的《沙皇的一生》、威尔第的《弄臣》和梅耶比尔的《胡格诺派》。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Cambridge Opera Journal MUSIC-

CiteScore

0.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Containing lively and provocative essays, Cambridge Opera Journal has a well-established reputation for publishing first-rate scholarship on opera in all its manifestations. The Journal not only contains material on all aspects of the European canon, it has now widened its scope to publish high-quality essays on American opera and musical theatre, on non-Western music theatres, and on contemporary works. Carefully researched and often illustrated with music examples and pictures, articles adopt a wide spectrum of critical approaches. As well as major articles, each issue generally includes reviews on recent publications of importance in the field.