¹ Hermann Laroche (German Larosh), ‘Russkaia muzykal′naia kompozitsiia nashikh dnei’ (‘Russian Musical Composition of Our Days’), part 1, Golos (The Voice), 7 November 1873, 308. The remaining four parts appeared on 14 and 28 November 1873 and on 9 and 18 January 1874.

² For a discussion of The Stone Guest, see Richard Taruskin, Opera and Drama in Russia as Preached and Practiced in the 1860s (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1981; repr. Rochester, NY, and Woodbridge: University of Rochester Press, 1993), 249–340.

³ Hermann Laroche (German Larosh), ‘Muzykal′naia zametka’ (‘Musical Note’), Sovremennaia letopis  ′ (Contemporary Chronicle), 1871, 37, repr. in Laroche (Larosh), Izbrannye stat  ′i (Selected Articles), ed. Abram Gozenpud, 5 vols. (Leningrad: Muzyka, 1974–8), iii (1976), 63.

⁴ Hermann Laroche (German Larosh), ‘Russkaia muzykal′naia kompozitsiia nashikh dnei’, part 2, Golos, 14 November 1873, 315.

⁵ See, for example, Richard Taruskin, ‘How the Acorn Took Root: A Tale of Russia’, 19th-Century Music, 6 (1982–3), 189–212, repr. in Taruskin, Defining Russia Musically: Historical and Hermeneutical Essays (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 113–51 (references hereafter relate to the reprint); Dorothea Redepenning, Geschichte der russischen und der sowjetischen Musik, 2 vols. (Laaber: Laaber, 1994 –2008), i (1994), 104 –5 and 267–9; and Francis Maes, A History of Russian Music: From Kamarinskaya to Babi Yar, trans. Arnold J. Pomerans and Erica Pomerans (Berkeley, CA, and London: University of California Press, 2002), 27–9 and 63–8.

⁶ Taruskin, ‘How the Acorn Took Root’, 131–2.

⁷ ‘Anspruchslose Variationszyklen über Volkslieder und folkloristische Themen’. Redepenning, Geschichte der russischen und der sowjetischen Musik, i, 267.

⁸ Gerald Abraham, On Russian Music: Critical and Historical Studies of Glinka’s Operas, Balakirev’s Works, etc., with Chapters Dealing with Compositions by Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Glazunov, and Various Other Aspects of Russian Music (London: William Reeves, 1939), 52–61; Mikhail Pekelis, Dargomyzhskii i narodnaia pesnia: K probleme narodnosti v russkoi klassicheskoi muzyke (Dargomyzhsky and Folk Song: On the Issue of Folkishness in Russian Classical Music) (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal′noe izdatel′stvo, 1951), 181–206; Pekelis, Aleksandr Dargomyzhskii i ego okruzhenie (Alexander Dargomyzhsky and his Surroundings), 3 vols. (Moscow: Muzyka, 1966–83), iii (1983), 205–24. Other notable discussions of Dargomyzhsky’s fantasias are Iosif Ryzhkin, ‘Chukhonskaia fantaziia’, Sovetskaia muzyka (Soviet Music), February 1963, 38–43; Galina Miksheeva, ‘Simfonicheskie fantazii A. Dargomyzhskogo: K voprosu o kharaktericheskom v muzykal′nom stile kompozitora’ (‘Alexander Dargomyzhsky’s Symphonic Fantasias: On the Question of the Characteristic in the Composer’s Musical Style’), Iz istorii russkoi i sovetskoi muzyki (From the History of Russian and Soviet Music), 3 vols. (Moscow: Muzyka, 1971–8), iii, ed. Mikhail Pekelis and Irina Givental′ (1978), 121–37; Yuri Keldysh, ‘A. S. Dargomyzhskii’, Istoriia russkoi muzyki (The History of Russian Music), 10 vols., vi, ed. Yurii Keldysh, Ol′ga Levasheva and Alexei Kandinsky (Moscow: Muzyka, 1989), 117–22.

⁹ Hermann Laroche (German Larosh), ‘Muzykal′nye ocherki’ (‘Musical Sketches’), Golos, 13 October 1877, 244, repr. in Laroche (Larosh), Izbrannye stat ′i, ed. Gozenpud, iv (1977), 156–63 (p. 159).

¹⁰ *** [César Cui (Tsezar′ Kiui)], ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’ (‘Musical Notes’), Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti (St Petersburg Times), 1 April 1869, 90, repr. in Cui (Kiui), Izbrannye stat ′i, ed. I. Gusin (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal′noe izdatel′stvo, 1952), 151–4 (p. 151).

¹¹ --” [Alexander Borodin], ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 20 March 1869, 78, repr. in Borodin, Pis ′ma (Letters), 4 vols., iv (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal′noe izdatel′stvo, 1950), 288–9.

¹² This information is based on performances at the Philharmonic Society (1859–99), the Russian Musical Society (1859–99), the Free Music School (1862–87, 1890–9) and the Russian Symphonic Concerts (1884–95, 1897–9), all in St Petersburg, and at the Russian Musical Society in Moscow (1860–99). For the datasets see, respectively, Boris Berezovsky, Filarmonicheskoe obshchestvo Sankt-Peterburga: Istoriia i sovremennost  ′ (The St Petersburg Philharmonic Society: History and Present Times) (St Petersburg: Kul′tInformPress, 2002), 178–220; Nikolai Findeizen, Ocherk deiatel ′nosti S.-Peterburgskogo otdeleniia Imperatorskogo Russkogo Muzykal ′nogo Obshchestva (1859–1909) (Activity Survey of the St. Petersburg Division of the Imperial Russian Musical Society (1859–1909)) (St Petersburg: Tipografiia glavnogo upravleniia udelov, 1909); Vladimir Stasov, ‘Programmy kontsertov Bezplatnoi Muzykal′noi Shkoly. 1862–1887’ (‘Programmes of the Concerts of the Free Music School, 1862–1887’), Istoricheskii vestnik (Historical Messenger), 27 (1887), 623– 42; Stasov, ‘Programmy Russkikh Simfonicheskikh Kontsertov za vremia 1884–1895 gg.’ (‘Programmes of the Russian Symphonic Concerts for 1884–1895’), Russkaia muzykal ′naia gazeta (Russian Musical Newspaper), 2/2 (February 1895), 109–30; Anna Bulycheva, A. Komarov, A. Naumov, I. Nemirovskaiia, V. Sorokin, N. Tartakovskaiia and N. Teterina, ‘Kontsertnaia zhizn′ Sankt-Peterburga i Moskvy’ (‘Concert Life of St Petersburg and Moscow’), Istoriia russkoi muzyki, 10c/i (2011), 577–964; Nikolai Manykin-Nevstruev, Imperatorskoe Russkoe Muzykal ′noe Obshchestvo: Moskovskoe otdelenie: Simfonicheskie sobraniia 1–500: Statisticheskii ukazatel  ′ (Imperial Russian Musical Society: Moscow Division: Symphonic Concerts 1–500: Statistical Survey) (Moscow: Pechatniia S. P. Iakovleva, 1899). This selection was made with consideration of the availability of reliable data, and excludes a number of prominent venues in St Petersburg and Moscow, including virtuoso concerts, benefit concerts, concert series organized by educational institutions and particularly the copious ‘garden’ summer concerts, which happened effectively on a daily basis by the end of the century.

¹³ See Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Siuita N. 2, full score (Moscow: P. Jurgenson, 1884), 2 and 152.

¹⁴ *** [César Cui (Tsezar′ Kiui)], ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 23 January 1870, 22.

¹⁵ On the national melodies in Baba-Yaga, see Pekelis, Dargomyzhskii i narodnaia pesnia, 181–2.

¹⁶ See Frolova-Walker, Marina, ‘Against Germanic Reasoning: The Search for a Russian Style of Musical Argumentation’, Musical Constructions of Nationalism: Essays on the History and Ideology of European Musical Culture 1800 –1945, ed. White, Harry and Murphy, Michael (Cork: Cork University Press, 2001), 104  –22 Google Scholar (pp. 104  –9). For a theoretical discussion of Glinka’s ostinato variations, see also Kirill Zikanov, ‘Listening to Russian Orchestral Music, 1850−1870’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 2018), 15–81.

¹⁷ The relationship implied by the openings of Baba-Yaga and Kamarinskaya can be described as a hypertextual one, where a new text evokes an existing one by way of transformation, with the nature of this transformation constituting a major semantic charge of the new text. On hypertextual relationships between texts, see Gérard Genette, Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree, trans. Channa Newman and Claude Doubinsky (Lincoln, NE, and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 5.

¹⁸ The final variation of the first section can then be viewed as a breakout point, at which Dargomyzhsky demonstratively casts aside Kamarinskaya as a prototype. Glinka had rejected any programmatic interpretations of Kamarinskaya and insisted that it was the product of ‘innate musical feeling’. Now, Dargomyzhsky imitates the opening of Glinka’s model only to have the witch infiltrate the theme and derail Glinka’s structural layout.

¹⁹ Cui (Kiui), ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, 23 January 1870.

²⁰ Definitions of the grotesque, particularly of the musical grotesque, are notoriously ambiguous and inconsistent, and depend heavily on the specific cultural setting, genre and text. For the purposes of this study, the grotesque is used simply to refer to exaggerated distortions of musical shapes and of programmatic subjects in ugly or repulsive ways, typically for comical effect. In his Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language (1863–6), the Russian lexicographer and ethnographer Vladimir Dal defines the grotesque in music as ‘everything strange, unruly, and therefore funny’. See Dal, Tolkovyi slovar  ′ zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka (Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language), 4 vols. (Moscow: M. O. Wolf, 1863), i, 353. For other definitions of the grotesque in music, see Esti Sheinberg, Irony, Satire, Parody and the Grotesque in the Music of Shostakovich: A Theory of Musical Incongruities (Aldershot: Routledge, 2000); Julie Brown, Bartók and the Grotesque: Studies in Modernity, the Body and Contradiction in Music (Aldershot: Routledge, 2007); and Peter Edwards, György Ligeti’s Le grand macabre: Postmodernism, Musico-Dramatic Form and the Grotesque (Abingdon: Routledge, 2017).

²¹ Hector Berlioz, Grand traité d’instrumentation et d’orchestration modernes, 2nd edn (Paris: Schonenberger, 1855), 128.

²² Cohn, Richard, ‘Uncanny Resemblances: Tonal Signification in the Freudian Age’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 57 (2004), 285–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ The inspiration for such a generation of augmented triads may well have come from Glinka, since the chromatic motion through ♯5/♭6 in major keys has long been acknowledged as a prominent stylistic marker of Glinka’s music and, moreover, one which influenced subsequent generations of Russian composers. See DeVoto, Mark, ‘The Russian Submediant in the Nineteenth Century’, Current Musicology, 59 (1995), 49–76 Google Scholar. In most cases, Glinka employed this technique as a means to shift in and out of the relative minor, and only briefly hinted at augmented triads on the tonic. This is also how Dargomyzhsky usually employed ♯5/♭6, but starting in the 1840s a number of his works demonstrate a change in emphasis, away from treating the resulting augmented triads as transitory sonorities and towards a foregrounding of them in their own right. This is readily apparent in the ‘Eastern Romance’ (1852), which begins and ends with sustained augmented triads on the tonic D, with the B♭ never properly resolved. Similarly, in the conclusion of ‘O Maiden-Rose, I am in Chains!’ (1858), augmented triads, built on both C and C♯, serve as prominent waypoints in an otherwise tonally ambiguous texture. The hypothesis regarding the origins in Glinka of Dargomyzhsky’s idiosyncratic deployment of augmented triads is nuanced further in this article through an exploration of possible connections with Lisztian harmonic practice.

²⁴ Cui (Kiui), ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, 23 January 1870.

²⁵ Findeizen, Nikolai, Aleksandr Sergeevich Dargomyzhskii: Ocherk ego zhizni i muzykal ′noi deiatel  ′nosti (Alexander Sergeevich Dargomyzhsky: Survey of his Life and Musical Activities) (Moscow: P. Jurgenson, 1904), 39.Google Scholar

²⁶ Glinka, letter to Nestor Kukol′nik, St Petersburg, 12 November 1854. Mikhail Glinka, Literaturnye proizvedeniia i perepiska (Literary Works and Letters), 2 vols. (Moscow: Muzyka, 1973–7), iib (1977), 43–5.

²⁷ Frolova-Walker, ‘Against Germanic Reasoning’, 105.

²⁸ On the role of ressentiment towards Western Europe, and of a constructed, essentialized West in the formation of Russian national identity, see Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1992), 190–274.

²⁹ On this opposition, see Frolova-Walker, Marina, Russian Music and Nationalism from Glinka to Stalin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007), 19–23.Google Scholar

³⁰ Mussorgsky, letter to Rimsky-Korsakov, 15 August 1868. Modest Mussorgsky, Pis ′ma i dokumenty (Letters and Documents) (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal′noe izdatel′stvo, 1932), 152–3, trans. Frolova-Walker, ‘Against Germanic Reasoning’, 107.

³¹ Cui (Kiui), ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, 23 January 1870. Cui refers to the satirical writer Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin.

³² For discussions of Dargomyzhsky’s satirical vocal works, see Pekelis, Aleksandr Dargomyzhskii i ego okruzhenie, iii, 135–204, and Redepenning, Geschichte der russischen und der sowjetischen Musik, i, 175–80. For a detailed investigation of Dargomyzhsky’s participation in satirical journals such as Friends (1856–8), The Spark (1859–65) and The Waking Bell (1865–8), see Pekelis, Aleksandr Dargomyzhskii i ego okruzhenie, iii, 55–134. It deserves to be noted that Pekelis made a substantial effort to interpret available evidence as demonstrating the nationalist and politically progressive leanings of his subject in order to satisfy the ideological requirements of his own time. As we shall see, however, Dargomyzhsky’s satirical preoccupations were hardly politically progressive or nationalist according to the Soviet socialist realism conceptions of these terms.

³³ See Dargomyzhsky, letter to Kukol′nik, St Petersburg, 4 February 1863. A. S. Dargomyzhskii (1813–1869): Avtobiografiia–pis ′ma–vospominaniia sovremennikov (A. S. Dargomzhysky (1813–1869): Autobiography–Letters–Memoirs by Contemporaries), ed. Nikolai Findeizen, 2nd edn (St Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia akademicheskaia filarmoniia, 1922), 72–3.

³⁴ Pekelis, Aleksandr Dargomyzhskii i ego okruzhenie, ii (1973), 324–66, and iii, 16; Taruskin, Opera and Drama, 258. The reasons for the operas’ initial failure to establish themselves in the repertory vary substantially depending on the account, but the fact that Esmeralda and Rusalka were hardly staged before the late 1860s is beyond challenge.

³⁵ Dargomyzhsky, letter to Kukol′nik, St Petersburg, 4 February 1863. A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 72–3. The Russian fairy tale referenced by Dargomyzhsky is Baba-Yaga.

³⁶ For an account of Dargomyzhsky’s first trip abroad, see Pekelis, Aleksandr Dargomyzhskii i ego okruzhenie, i (1966), 413–89.

³⁷ The Brussels article about Dargomyzhsky appeared in L’éclair on 16 November 1844, while Fétis’s article in the Revue et gazette musicale was published on 29 December 1844 (both cited in Pekelis, Aleksandr Dargomyzhskii i ego okruzhenie, i, 423–4).

³⁸ François-Joseph Fétis, Biographie universelle des musiciens, 2nd edn, 8 vols. (Paris: Firmin Didot frères, 1860 –5), ii (1861), 430  –1. Fétis’s repeated praise is unlikely to have gone unnoticed by Dargomyzhsky, given his obsessive concern with any mentions of himself in the press.

³⁹ Apart from numerous extensive obituaries, a number of detailed studies of Glinka’s operatic and orchestral oeuvre appeared in the late 1850s and early 1860s, most notably by Fétis and Felix Draeseke. See Fétis père, ‘Michel de Glinka et ses compositions dramatiques’, La revue et gazette musicale de Paris, 24, 8 November 1857, 45; 22 November 1857, 47; and 27 December 1857, 52; and Draeseke, ‘Michael Glinka’, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, 51, 7 October 1859, 15; 14 October 1859, 16; and 21 October 1859, 17, repr. in Draeseke, Schriften 1855–1861, ed. Martella Gutiérrez-Denhoff and Helmut Loos (Bonn: G. Schröder, 1987), 81–90. Draeseke’s articles were a discussion of the two opera overtures and the two Spanish fantasias, the scores of which had been recently published in Germany. For a discussion of Draeseke’s article, see Zikanov, ‘Listening to Russian Orchestral Music’, 40–4. On the perception of Glinka’s music in Germany during this period, see also Andreas Vermaier, ‘O vospriiatii Glinki v Germanii’ (‘On the Perception of Glinka in Germany’), M. I. Glinka: K 200-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia (M. I. Glinka: On the 200th Anniversary of his Birthday), ed. Natal′ia Degtiareva and Elena Gennadievna Sorokina, 2 vols. (Moscow: Moskovskaia gos. konservatoriia im. P. I. Chaĭkovskogo, 2006), i, 354–60.

⁴⁰ Dargomyzhsky was particularly jealous of Kashperov’s success. For example, shortly after Kashperov’s Maria Tudor was staged in Milan at the Teatro Carcano in 1859, Dargomyzhsky wrote to Liubov′ Karmalina: ‘Imagine, Kashperov is now declaring himself as the great Russian composer and a student of the famous Glinka in all the European newspapers!’ Dargomyzhsky, letter to Karmalina, St Petersburg, March 1860. A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 65.

⁴¹ Dargomyzhsky, letters to Sergei Dargomyzhsky, Paris, December 1844 and January 1845. Ibid., 15–21.

⁴² On Liszt’s Hungarian Rhapsodies in particular, and on exoticism in nineteenth-century European music in general, see Locke, Ralph, Musical Exoticism: Images and Reflections (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 126–202.Google Scholar

⁴³ For Draeseke’s review, see above, note 39. When Dargomyzhsky arrived in Brussels in 1864, he noted that Charles Louis Hanssens, the director of the local concert society, ‘loves Kamarinskaia and Jota’. See Dargomyzhsky, letter to his sister Sof′a Stepanova, Brussels, 14 December 1864. A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 83–4.

⁴⁴ On orientalism in French nineteenth-century music, see Ralph Locke, ‘Cutthroats and Casbah Dancers, Muezzins and Timeless Sands: Musical Images of the Middle East’, 19th-Century Music, 22 (1998−9), 20–53. For two methodological discussions of the functions of musical exoticism, see Georgina Born and David Hesmondhalgh, ‘Introduction: On Difference, Representation, and Appropriation in Music’, Western Music and its Others: Difference, Representation, and Appropriation in Music, ed. Born and Hesmondhalgh (Berkeley, CA, and London: University of California Press, 2000), 1–58, and Locke, Musical Exoticism, 13–71.

⁴⁵ The article appeared in L’éclair on 16 November 1844 and is cited in Pekelis, Aleksandr Dargomyzhskii i ego okruzhenie, i, 423–4.

⁴⁶ This point about the interrelationship of exoticism and nationalism has repeatedly been made by Taruskin. For a recent example, see Richard Taruskin, The Oxford History of Western Music, 6 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), iii, 393. See also Taruskin, ‘“Entoiling the Falconet”’, Defining Russia Musically, 152−85 (pp. 176–82), and Locke, Musical Exoticism, 27–8 and 72–9.

⁴⁷ There has been notable research into imperial themes in Russian literature in recent decades. See, for example, Susan Layton, Russian Literature and Empire: Conquest of the Caucasus from Pushkin to Tolstoy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Harsha Ram, The Imperial Sublime: A Russian Poetics of Empire (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003); and Katya Hokanson, Writing at Russia’s Border (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008).

⁴⁸ For example, Susan Layton has pointed out that ‘Russian literature does indeed run the gamut between underwriting and resisting the Caucasian conquest: writers were sovereign in their textual domains but wielded their representational authority to different ends. Total complicity in imperialism was the mode of ephemeral orientalia, especially prominent in the 1830s. At the polar opposite, [Tolstoy’s] Hadji Murat denounced the subjugation of the Muslim tribes as vile aggression. The particularly intriguing middle ground was occupied by young Pushkin, Bestuzhev-Marlinsky and Lermontov […] These three romantic outcasts endorsed imperialism in certain ways, while taking issue with it in others.’ See Layton, Russian Literature and Empire, 8–9.

⁴⁹ Hokanson, Writing at Russia’s Border, 7.

⁵⁰ On the complementary roles of the West, the East and the imperial borderlands in constructions of Russian identity in the nineteenth century, see Vera Tolz, Russia (London: Arnold, 2001), 69–190.

⁵¹ For example, an artwork could furnish evidence that Russia was a European empire by illustrating Russia’s moral imperative to bring Western enlightenment to the uncivilized masses in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Conversely, an artwork could also foreground the anti-European nature of the Russian Empire by contrasting its concern for the welfare of its imperial subjects with the European exploitation of their colonies. On different configurations of Russian imperial visions, along with a discussion of the entanglement of national and imperial identities in Russian discourse, see Bassin, Mark, ‘Geographies of Imperial Identity’, The Cambridge History of Russia, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, ii: Imperial Russia, 1689−1917, ed. Dominic Lieven, 45–63.

⁵² Taruskin, ‘“Entoiling the Falconet”’.

⁵³ Ibid., 154.

⁵⁴ One critic suggested that ‘in many of his works [Rubinstein] truly seems to be a latter-day Beethoven [… while] in others he is stormy and passionate, like Verdi perhaps, but a very special Verdi: through his veins course hot waves of Oriental blood, tempered by the spirit of the Slav. This is the Russian school!’ Quoted from Marina Frolova-Walker, ‘The Disowning of Anton Rubinstein’, ‘Samuel’ Goldenberg und ‘Schmuyle’: Jüdisches und Antisemitisches in der russischen Musikkultur, ed. Ernst Kuhn, Jascha Nemtsov and Andreas Wehrmeyer (Berlin: Kuhn, 2003), 19–60 (p. 60).

⁵⁵ Frolova-Walker, Russian Music and Nationalism, 117–27.

⁵⁶ See Andreas Kappeler, Russland als Vielvölkerreich: Entstehung, Geschichte, Zerfall (Munich: Beck, 1992), 99–232, and Bassin, ‘Geographies of Imperial Identity’.

⁵⁷ The following historical overview is based on Paul Bushkovitch, A Concise History of Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 186–207 and 249–71, and Valerie A. Kivelson and Ronald Grigor Suny, Russia’s Empires (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 183–226.

⁵⁸ For an overview of the imperial reaction to the uprising and the subsequent changes in imperial nationality policies, see Kappeler, Russland als Vielvölkerreich, 207–15. For a general history of the western borderlands during this time period, see Zapadnye okrainy Rossiiskoi imperii (Western Frontiers of the Russian Empire), ed. Mikhail Dolbilov and Aleksei Miller (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2006), 177–258. The subject of Russification is highly contentious, and the only thing beyond contention is that the Russian Empire had a consistent Russification policy that it applied to all nationalities. For discussions of Russification in the wake of the January Uprising, see Russification in the Baltic Provinces and Finland, 1855–1914, ed. Edward Thaden (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981); Thaden, Russia’s Western Borderlands, 1710–1870 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984); Theodore R. Weeks, Nation and State in Late Imperial Russia: Nationalism and Russification on the Western Frontier, 1863–1914 (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996); Weeks, ‘Managing Empire: Tsarist Nationalities Policy’, The Cambridge History of Russia, ii, ed. Lieven, 37–42; and Alexei Miller, The Romanov Empire and Nationalism (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2008), 45–65.

⁵⁹ Kappeler, Russland als Vielvölkerreich, 207–11.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 211–13.

⁶¹ On Russian reactions to the January Uprising, see Maiorova, Olga, From the Shadow of Empire: Defining the Russian Nation through Cultural Mythology, 1855–1870 (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2010), 94–124.Google Scholar

⁶² The conception of artistic negotiations between centre and periphery utilized in this study is derived from James Hepokoski, ‘Modalities of National Identity: Sibelius Builds a First Symphony’, The Oxford Handbook of the New Cultural History of Music, ed. Jane Fulcher (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 452–83.

⁶³ Taruskin, ‘How the Acorn Took Root’, 131.

⁶⁴ ‘Little Russia’ and its derivatives were commonly used in the Russian Empire to describe the people, language and culture of present-day Ukraine.

⁶⁵ Dargomyzhsky himself had based a small piano piece on the melody as a teenager; two other prominent compositions from the 1860s that utilize the melody are the Dance of the Zaporozhians and Gopak, both for orchestra, written by Alexander Serov for his subsequently abandoned opera projects. See Pekelis, Dargomyzhskii i narodnaia pesnia, 19–23. The other theme in the Little-Russian Kazachok, which appears only in the introduction, is an adaptation of a melody that Glinka had composed in 1838 for a setting of a Ukrainian poem, ‘The Wind Is Blowing in the Field!’ by Viktor Zabila.

⁶⁶ This is not to say that all artistic representations of Ukraine were of the exoticizing kind. Although Ukraine was often depicted as mysteriously different from Russia, in other instances it was portrayed as an organic extension of Russia proper, and even as a quasi-mythical wellspring of Russian culture. On depictions of Ukraine in Russian literature, see Shkandrij, Myroslav, Russia and Ukraine: Literature and the Discourse of Empire from Napoleonic to Postcolonial Times (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001)Google Scholar, and Bojanowska, Edyta, Nikolai Gogol: Between Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Note the distinction that Vladimir Stasov placed on the difference between Russian and Ukrainian topoi in his description of Glinka’s abandoned projects: ‘In his first two operas Glinka used many of our national elements, namely Russian and oriental ones, but he had not yet touched the exceedingly poetic and rich Ukrainian element, with which he became particularly and intimately familiar in 1838. Glinka turned to this new element already in Taras Bulba, and now had it on his mind again for this opera.’ See Stasov, ‘Mikhail Ivanovich Glinka’, Russkii vestnik (Russian Messenger), 12 (December 1857), 727n, repr. in Stasov, Stat ′i o muzyke (Articles on Music), 5 vols. (Moscow: Muzyka, 1974), i, 340.

⁶⁸ Nikolai Gogol, ‘Vzgliad na sostavlenie Malorossii’ (‘A Glance at the Making of Little Russia’), Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem (Complete Collection of Works and Letters), ed. I. Vinogradov and V. Voropaev, 17 vols. (Moscow: Izdatel′stvo Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, 2009), vii, 167–8. For a discussion of ‘A Glance at the Making of Little Russia’ and Gogol’s conception of the role of Cossacks in Ukrainian history, see Bojanowska, Nikolai Gogol, 89–169.

⁶⁹ For a selection, see Shkandrij, Russia and Ukraine, 67–125.

⁷⁰ Already by the summer of 1863, the printing of most books in Ukrainian was banned, as was tuition in Ukrainian. See Kappeler, Russland als Vielvölkerreich, 209–11.

⁷¹ *** [César Cui (Tsezar′ Kiui)], ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 6 March 1866, 66.

⁷² Here, Dargomyzhsky exploits the fact that the theme has so far nearly always been stated on the third scale degree (for example, on B in G major), thus shaping the tonal expectations of the listeners. In this passage (see Example 4c), the theme initially comes in as expected, on C as ^3 of A minor, superimposed on an F that resolves down to E to form a second inversion A minor triad (bars 161–3). The same process is then repeated a third lower, in F major (bars 164–7). Next, the A that functions as ^3 of F major slides down to become a pedal on A♭, superimposed on a rocking F–B tritone motion that gradually comes to a halt (bars 166–70). This tritone then resolves inwards to a C–E major third, while the theme commences on the A♭ held over from the preceding bars, forming an augmented triad (bars 171–3). Though the A♭ subsequently slides down to G, placing the passage unambiguously in C major, the established association of the thematic incipit with the third scale degree suggests F minor as the tonality, resulting in heightened tonal ambiguity. In another discussion of the Little-Russian Kazachok, Cui singled out this passage as exceptionally noteworthy. See *** [César Cui (Tsezar′ Kiui)], ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 1 October 1871, 270.

⁷³ ‘Neznakomets’ [Alexei Suvorin], ‘Letopis′ moskovskikh kontsertov’ (‘Chronicle of Moscow Concerts’), Antrakt (Entr’acte), 31 March 1868, 13.

⁷⁴ In other words, these three pitches appear to resemble pitch-class motifs, that is, particular chromatic tones that are marked and problematized throughout a composition. For a historical and theoretical survey of this concept, see McCreless, Patrick, ‘The Pitch-Class Motive in Tonal Analysis: Some Historical and Critical Observations’, Res musica, 3 (2011), 52–67.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Yuri Arnold, Vospominaniia (Memoirs), 3 vols. (Moscow, 1892–3), iii (1893), 14–16, repr. in A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 139–40. It should be noted that Arnold’s account, which informs some of the details of the following narrative, was published nearly three decades after this encounter. At the same time, it is closely corroborated by Dargomyzhsky’s letters written immediately following the events described. For another account of Dargomyzhsky’s trip to Leipzig and Brussels, see Pekelis, Aleksandr Dargomyzhskii i ego okruzhenie, iii, 29–33.

⁷⁶ Yuri V. Arnold, ‘Die Entwickelung der russischen Nationaloper und die russischen Componisten der letzten Jahrzehnte’, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, 59, 21 August 1863, 8; 28 August 1863, 9; 4 September 1863, 10; 11 September 1863, 11; 18 September 1863, 12; 25 September 1863, 13; 2 October 1863, 14; 9 October 1863, 15.

⁷⁷ Dargomyzhsky, letter to to Arnold, St Petersburg, 18/30 August 1863. A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 73.

⁷⁸ Arnold, Vospominaniia, iii, 16. Arnold’s suggestion that Brendel’s patronage could improve Dargomyzhsky’s fortunes in Russia is entirely consistent with modern conceptualizations of nineteenth-century musical nationalism, where regional composers submit to a ‘central’ (typically German) legitimizing agency in a bid for recognition and validation. See Hepokoski, ‘Modalities of National Identity’, 472–7.

⁷⁹ Dargomyzhsky, letter to Arnold, St Petersburg, 5 October 1864. A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 76–7.

⁸⁰ Dargomyzhsky, letter to Stepanova, Warsaw, 25 October/6 November 1864. Ibid., 77.

⁸¹ Arnold, Vospominaniia, iii, 17–18.

⁸² Dargomyzhsky, letter to Stepanova, Brussels, 22 November/4 December 1864. A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 81.

⁸³ Arnold, Vospominaniia, iii, 18.

⁸⁴ Dargomyzhsky, letter to Stepanova, Brussels, 22 November/4 December 1864. A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 81.

⁸⁵ Arnold, Vospominaniia, iii, 17–18.

⁸⁶ Dargomyzhsky, letter to Stepanova, Brussels, 2/14 December 1864. A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 83.

⁸⁷ ‘Sir, if you have a composition that you would like to hear performed here, we would be happy to perform it in our first concert.’

⁸⁸ ‘My friend, are you the one who has arranged all this?’

⁸⁹ ‘You are mad! How do you expect everyone not to know about you? Fétis has your works at the conservatory; he has often talked about you in his articles. It is not our fault if you do not read anything: I only told them that the Russian composer has arrived, and that’s all.’ Dargomyzhsky, letter to Stepanova, Brussels, 22 November/4 December 1864. A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 81–2.

⁹⁰ Dargomyzhsky, various letters from Brussels. Ibid., 80–104.

⁹¹ Dargomyzhsky, letter to Stepanova, Brussels, 2/14 December 1864. Ibid., 83.

⁹² Dargomyzhsky, letter to Konstantin Vel′iaminov, Brussels, 7/19 December 1864. Ibid., 85.

⁹³ Dargomyzhsky, letter to Vladimir Sokolov, Brussels, 19/31 January 1865. Ibid., 104.

⁹⁴ In summer 1867, Cui spoke of ‘Kazachok, Baba-Yaga, and the nearly completed Chukhon Dance’. See *** [César Cui (Tsezar′ Kiui)], ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 3 June 1867, 151, repr. in Cui (Kiui), Izbrannye stat  ′i, ed. Gusin, 95.

⁹⁵ Dargomyzhsky’s autobiographical sketch was first published in June 1866 in Nuvellist (Short-Story Writer) and is reprinted in A. S. Dargomyzhskii, ed. Findeizen, 1–9.

⁹⁶ Pekelis, Aleksandr Dargomyzhskii i ego okruzhenie, iii, 42–3.

⁹⁷ On the history and culture of various Finnic peoples in the St Petersburg Governorate, see Pribaltiisko-finskie narody Rossii (Baltic-Finnish People of Russia), ed. Evgenii Klement′ev and Nataliia Shlygina (Moscow: Nauka, 2003), and Vadim Musaev, Politicheskaia istoriia Ingermanlandii v kontse XIX–XX veka (The Political History of Ingermanland at the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries), 2nd edn (St Petersburg: Nauka, 2004).

⁹⁸ Vladimir Dal, ‘Chukhontsy v Pitere’ (‘Chukhons in St Petersburg’), Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Complete Collected Works), 10 vols. (St Petersburg: M. O. Wolf, 1897–8), iii (1897), 370–83.

⁹⁹ Johann Filip von Schantz, Valituita SuomaLaisia Kansan-Lauluja (Selected Finnish Folk Songs) (Helsinki: Tikkanen, 1855). The lullaby that Dargomyzhsky selected from the collection stands out in this volume with its quintuple metre and its narrow melodic ambitus, limited to a minor pentachord – attributes typically associated with Kalevala runic recitation. Ironically, given the national origins of this theme, a nearly identical copy of it reappears in one of most famous numbers in Mussorgsky’s Boris Godunov, namely Varlaam’s song ‘So It Was in the City of Kazan’. The Balakirev circle members, including Mussorgsky, were in close contact with Dargomyzhsky when Mussorgsky was working on Boris Godunov. The connection between Varlaam’s song and the introduction of the Chukhon Fantasy was observed by a Russian critic in 1900. See ‘Khronika: S.-Peterburg. Kontserty’ (‘Chronicle: St Petersburg. Concerts’), Russkaia muzykal ′naia gazeta, 7, 16 January 1900, 3.

¹⁰⁰ Ivan Korzukhin, ‘Aleksandr Sergeevich Dargomyzhskii’, part 3, Artist, 36 (1894), 57.

¹⁰¹ Bulich, letter to Balakirev, St Petersburg, 26 January 1908. Mily Balakirev and Sergei Bulich, ‘Perepiska’ (‘Correspondence’), Milii Alekseevich Balakirev: Vospominaniia i pis ′ma (Mily Alexeevich Balakirev: Memoirs and Letters), ed. Yurii Kremlev, Anastasiia Liapunova and Emiliia Frid (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal′noe izdatel′stvo, 1962), 271–2.

¹⁰² Balakirev, letter to Bulich, 29 January 1908. Ibid., 272.

¹⁰³ For a particularly vivid display of this rhetoric, see Cui’s review of Balakirev’s folk-song collection, *** [César Cui (Tsezar′ Kiui)], ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 31 December 1866, 348, reprinted in Cui, Izbrannye stat ′i, ed. Gusin, 71–83. For a modern critical perspective on these claims, see Frolova-Walker, Russian Music and Nationalism, 163–74.

¹⁰⁴ See *** [César Cui (Tsezar′ Kiui)], ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 4 December 1871, 334; *** [Cui (Kiui)], ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 12 April 1873, 99, repr. in Cui (Kiui), Izbrannye stat ′i, ed. Gusin, 241; and Cui (Kiui), ‘Bibliografiia: Dve orkestrovye fantazii A. S. Dargomyzhskogo’ (‘Bibliography: Two Orchestral Fantasias by A. S. Dargomyzhsky’), Muzykal ′nyi listok (Musical Leaflet), 16 January 1877, 9.

¹⁰⁵ See, for example, Dal, ‘Chukhontsy v Pitere’; Nikolai Gogol, ‘Shinel′’, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem, iii, 135.

¹⁰⁶ Fyodor Dostoevsky, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem, 30 vols. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1972–88), vi (1973), 74, 299.

¹⁰⁷ Dal, ‘Chukhontsy v Pitere’, 383.

¹⁰⁸ Borodin, ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, 20 March 1869, 78, repr. in Borodin, Pis ′ma, 288–9.

¹⁰⁹ See Cui (Kiui), ‘Muzykal’nye zametki’, 4 December 1871; Cui (Kiui), ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, 12 April 1873, repr. in Cui (Kiui), Izbrannye stat ′i, ed. Gusin, 241; Cui (Kiui), ‘Bibliografiia: Dve orkestrovye fantazii A. S. Dargomyzhskogo’, Muzykal ′nyi listok, 16 January 1877, 9; and Alexander Faminzin, ‘Musikalische Rundschau’, Sankt-Peterburgische Zeitung, 28 October/9 November 1878, 301.

¹¹⁰ The analytical framework employed for formal analysis is predominantly based on James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

¹¹¹ Anon., ‘Muzykal′noe obozrenie’ (‘Musical Survey’), Nuvellist, November 1878, 7.

¹¹² Cui (Kiui), ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, 4 December 1871, 334.

¹¹³ Laroche (Larosh), ‘Russkaia muzykal′naia kompozitsiia nashikh dnei’, part 2.

¹¹⁴ Ibid.

¹¹⁵ Vasily Iastrebtsev, Nikolai Andreevich Rimskii-Korsakov: Vospominaniia V. V. Iastrebtseva (Nikolai Andreevich Rimsky-Korsakov: Memoirs of V. V. Iastrebtsev), ed. Alexander Ossovsky, 2 vols. (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal′noe izdatel′stvo, 1958–60), ii (1960), 493.

¹¹⁶ For a detailed definition of idealized voice-leading distance, see Richard Cohn, Audacious Euphony: Chromaticism and the Consonant Triad’s Second Nature, Oxford Studies in Music Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 6–8.

¹¹⁷ Ibid., 43–6. As Vogler noted, Mehrdeutigkeit is a property not only of augmented triads, but also of diminished seventh and augmented sixth chords.

¹¹⁸ Carl Friedrich Weitzmann, Der übermässige Dreiklang (Berlin: Verlag der T. Trautwein’schen Buch- und Musikalienhandlung, 1853). See also Cohn, Richard, ‘Weitzmann’s Regions, My Cycles, and Douthett’s Dancing Cubes’, Music Theory Spectrum, 22 (2000), 89–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (pp. 89–94).

¹¹⁹ For a series of examples and a discussion of such a function of augmented triads in nineteenth-century music, see Cohn, Audacious Euphony, 43–58.

¹²⁰ Odoyevsky, Vladimir, Muzykal ′no-literaturnoe nasledie (Musical-Literary Oeuvre) (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal′noe izdatel′stvo, 1956), 457.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Glinka mentioned Weitzmann’s participation in Ruslan rehearsals in his memoirs. See Glinka, Literaturnye proizvedeniia i perepiska, i (1973), 307. Glinka’s frequent use of ♯5/♭6 may well have played a role in shaping Weitzmann’s views. In chapter 6 of Der übermässige Dreiklang, Weitzmann generates a basic form of the C augmented triad by conjoining a C major triad with an F minor triad. Richard Cohn has noted that while it is possible to trace this type of generation to the dualist views of his teacher Hauptmann, it may well be that Weitzmann was also influenced by Glinka’s ubiquitous use of ♯5/♭6 and the associated harmonic major scale, which he would have encountered during his time in St Petersburg. See Cohn, ‘Weitzmann’s Regions, My Cycles, and Douthett’s Dancing Cubes’, 92n.

¹²² See, for example, Morgan, Robert P., ‘Dissonant Prolongations: Theoretical and Compositional Precedents’, Journal of Music Theory, 20 (1976), 49–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Todd, Larry, ‘The “Unwelcome Guest” Regaled: Franz Liszt and the Augmented Triad’, 19th-Century Music, 12 (1988–9), 92–115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Henning, Dennis, ‘Weitzmann and the Liszt Machine’, Miscellanea musicologica, 16 (1989), 109–34.Google Scholar

¹²³ This passage was singled out by Laroche as one of Dargomyzhsky’s ‘strokes of genius’. See Laroche (Larosh), ‘Russkaia muzykal′naia kompozitsiia nashikh dnei’, part 2.

¹²⁴ A curious prominent exception can be found in Hugo Riemann, Geschichte der Musik seit Beethoven (1800–1900) (Berlin and Stuttgart: W. Spemann, 1901), 505–6 and 521–2. Riemann not only mentions Dargomyzhsky’s three fantasias, but also includes a musical example from the Little-Russian Kazachok (one of the few music examples in the book) in order to illustrate the monotonous repetition that he considered typical of much Russian music.

¹²⁵ Findeizen, Aleksandr Sergeevich Dargomyzhskii, 39.

¹²⁶ Boris Asafiev, Russkaia muzyka: XIX i nachalo XX veka (Russian Music: The 19th and Early 20th Centuries), 2nd edn (Leningrad: Muzyka, 1979), 150.

¹²⁷ Rimsky-Korsakov’s quotation of Dargomyzhsky was even noted in a review of the première performance of Snow Maiden. See Pekelis, Dargomyzhskii i narodnaia pesnia, 207.

¹²⁸ A two-hand transcription of the Little-Russian Kazachok was Tchaikovsky’s first publication. Tchaikovsky’s first three symphonies (on Russian, Ukrainian and Polish themes, respectively) also retrace Dargomyzhsky’s mapping of the western imperial frontier.

¹²⁹ See, for example, Taruskin, Richard, ‘Chernomor to Kashchei: Harmonic Sorcery; or, Stravinsky’s “Angle”’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, 38 (1985), 72–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁰ For Rimsky-Korsakov’s references to Baba-Yaga, see his letters to Balakirev, Kiel, 21 October/2 November–26 October/7 November 1862; to Balakirev, Greenhithe, 13/25 February 1863; and to Balakirev, Libau, 31 March 1863. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, Literaturnye proizvedeniia i perepiska, 8 vols. (Moscow, 1955–82), v, ed. Anastasiia Liapunova (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal′noe izdatel′stvo, 1963), 24, 43 and 48. For Cui’s reference to ‘Kazachok, Baba-Yaga, and the nearly completed Chukhon Dance’, suggesting the Balakirev circle’s familiarity with Dargomyzhsky’s works in progress, see Cui (Kiui), ‘Muzykal′nye zametki’, 3 June 1867. In his autobiography, Rimsky-Korsakov recalls frequent meetings of the circle with Dargomyzhsky, where the Chukhon Fantasy was frequently performed among other works. See Rimsky-Korsakov, Literaturnye proizvedeniia i perepiska, v, ed. Alexander Ossovsky and Vladimir Rimsky-Korsakov (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal′noe izdatel′stvo, 1955), 52.

¹³¹ See also Cohn, Audacious Euphony, 51–4.