Copyright by Deborah Annette Wilson 2003 ABSTRACT

Sergei Prokofiev’s is best known in the version first presented at the Kirov Theater in Leningrad, on January 11, 1940, with choreography by

Leonid Lavrovsky. Frequently overlooked is an earlier score, commissioned by the

Bolshoi Theater in and completed in 1935, which differs significantly from the commonly known 1940 variant. To this day, the 1935 version of Romeo and Juliet, which contains a happy ending where Romeo and Juliet both live, has never been performed. This dissertation explores the history of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet and the complicated process that resulted in the world-wide acceptance of Lavrovsky’s 1940 staging as the legitimate version of the ballet, despite Prokofiev’s protests.

This dissertation debunks the general view that Prokofiev did not face censure or direct criticism in 1936, after the publication of two editorials in criticizing the music of Shostakovich and other Soviet composers. This study presents evidence that indicates this is untrue, that a planned 1936 production of Romeo and Juliet at the

Bolshoi Theater in Moscow was cancelled out of fear and caution in the aftermath of the two Pravda editorials.

Romeo and Juliet is viewed in this dissertation as an on-going project rather than as a fixed and final product, as it is usually regarded. The project is considered in the larger context of the social, political and artistic environments of the time. The

ii manuscript scores I worked with are compared to known printed scores, and the

discrepancies are discussed and analyzed. The dissertation also brings to light a number

of pre-compositional documents that were previously unknown.

Two opposite interpretations of Prokofiev’s return to the in the

1930s have resulted in disparate political agendas viewing it as a turning point in

Prokofiev’s career. Western musicologists traditionally have viewed it as a mistake,

while Soviet scholars have seen it as the beginning of his richest creative period. This

dissertation, using Romeo and Juliet as a case study, challenges the notion of a significant shift in Prokofiev’s compositional style, showing instead the remarkable continuity of the compositions written before and after his return.

iii To Dave and Charlotte Wilson

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Margarita Mazo, for her invaluable support and guidance. I am grateful to the members of my committee, Lois

Rosow and Donald Harris, and to Graeme Boone, Charles Atkinson, Irene Masing-Delic, and Vlady Steffel for their time and expertise. I would also like to thank the entire

Musicology Department for providing me with a supportive environment throughout this process.

My archival research in , London, and was made possible through fellowships and grants from the Ohio State University’s Graduate School, the School of

Music, and the Center for Slavic and East European Studies. I am grateful for their generosity.

I would like to thank Irina Medvedeva, Deputy Director of the Glinka Museum,

Noëlle Mann, the archivist of The Serge Prokofiev Archive, and the archivists, librarians and staff at the various other archives and libraries I worked in for their support and patience.

Special thanks goes to the Russian Research Institute for the Preservation of

Cultural and Natural Heritage, especially Yuri Vedenin, Pavel Shulgin, Evgeniia

v Andreyeva, Alexander Yeremeyev, and Sergei Pchyolkin. They provided me with invaluable assistance on so many levels; this project would not have been possible without their help.

I would also like to acknowledge my teachers and mentors over the years, especially Jeanne Gray, Sarah Johnson, Howard Weiss, and Sandy Wilson, who helped instill me with a love of music and learning.

Finally, I want to thank my family and friends for their unwavering support and encouragement.

vi VITA

November 17, 1964 ...... Born in Rochester, New York

1987 ...... B.M., Music Education, Crane School of Music Potsdam College, SUNY at Potsdam

1992 ...... M.A., , Eastman School of Music University of Rochester

1992-1999 ...... Graduate Student and Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University

1999-2003 ...... Lecturer The Ohio State University, Marion Campus

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Music

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgments ...... v

Vita ...... vii

List of Figures ...... x

List of Examples ...... xii

List of Abbreviations ...... xiii

Note on Transliteration and Translation ...... xiv

Chapters:

Introduction ...... 1 Methodology and Overview of Chapters ...... 5

1. : Two Historiographies ...... 12 Prokofiev’s Return to the Soviet Union ...... 24 Romeo and Juliet and Its Place in Prokofiev’s Work ...... 33

2. Setting the Stage: Theater and in Russia in the Early Twentieth Century . . . 39 and Early Twentieth-Century Experimental Theater . . . .39 Sergei Radlov and His Approach to Theater ...... 43 Radlov’s 1935 Production of Romeo and Juliet ...... 50 Russian Imperial Grand Ballet and Marius Petipa ...... 55 and the Russes ...... 59

3. The Collaborative Process and the Creation of Romeo and Juliet ...... 67 The Romeo and Juliet Project ...... 67 The January 1935 Outline of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet ...... 72 The May 1935 Compositional Plan of Romeo and Juliet ...... 79 Composition of the 1935 Piano Score of Romeo and Juliet ...... 95

viii 4. The Compositional Process: Blocks of Time ...... 101 Prokofiev’s Early Ballets and Pre-Compositional Timings...... 102 Pre-Compositional Timings in Romeo and Juliet...... 117 Prokofiev and Film Music ...... 119 Blocks of Time ...... 122

5. “All Kinds of Missteps”: Cancellation of the Bolshoi Theater Production of Romeo and Juliet ...... 135 The Undanceable Theory ...... 137 The Happy Ending Theory ...... 139 Return to the Tragic Ending ...... 142 Cancellation of the Bolshoi Theater Production of Romeo and Juliet ...... 148 Censorship and Romeo and Juliet ...... 150

6. “Never Was a Tale of Greater Woe Than Prokofiev’s Music For Romeo”: The Orchestral Suites, The Brno Premiere, and The 1940 Kirov Theater Production of Romeo And Juliet...... 154 The Two Orchestral Suites From Romeo and Juliet ...... 156 The 1938 Brno State Theater Premiere of Romeo and Juliet ...... 159 The Creation of ’s Romeo and Juliet ...... 165 The 1940 Kirov Theater Production of Romeo and Juliet ...... 172 Critical Reception of Romeo and Juliet ...... 179

7. Conclusion ...... 185

Bibliography ...... 188 I. Archival Documents ...... 188 II. Books, Articles, Dissertations ...... 190

ix LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

0.1 Chronology of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet ...... 9

3.1 Act I from a 1935 outline of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in Prokofiev’s hand. In the upper right hand corner, Prokofiev dated the document Jan. 1935, and labeled it as the plot of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (in abbreviated Russian: “Soderzhan Rom i Dzh Shekspira”). SPA, Notebook 27 (January-June 1935) ...... 75

3.2 Translation of Prokofiev’s Jan 1935 scenario outline. SPA, Notebook 27 (January-June 1935)...... 77

3.3 Act IV (the ‘Happy Ending’) of Romeo and Juliet from the May 1935 Compositional Plan (in Prokofiev’s shorthand Russian). RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 66, l. 2 r...... 81

3.4 Text of the May 1935 Compositional Plan for Romeo and Juliet (incorporating changes made by Prokofiev during composition of the music)...... 82

4.1 Translation of pre-compositional plan for (June 1924)...... 107

4.2 Translation of pre-compositional plan for The Steel Step, prologue and act I (August 11, 1925)...... 111

4.3 Translation of pre-compositional plan for On the Dnepr (January 1931)...... 115

4.4 Comparison of timings by number of the May 1935 pre-compositional plan and the September 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet. Bold indicates a discrepancy of more than thirty seconds...... 117

4.5 Blocks of Time analysis of Act I, scene 2, the Balcony Scene...... 129

x 5.1: Facsimile of notebook for Romeo and Juliet. The numbers 105 and 106 refer to the piano score manuscript. RGALI, fond 1929, op. 1, no. 61, l. 11 r...... 145

6.1 Coordination of orchestral suites with the 1935 score (by number). . . . 157

6.2 Chronological arrangement of the fourteen numbers comprising Romeo and Juliet suites one and two...... 158

6.3 Program from the December 1938 production of Romeo and Juliet at the Brno State Theater...... 160

6.4 Translation of the program of the 1938 Brno production of Romeo and Juliet (translation by Jeff Holdeman) ...... 161

6.5 Comparison the 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet to the 1940 Kirov Theater production of the ballet...... 173

6.6 Blocks of Time comparison of Act I, scene 2, the Balcony Scene of Romeo and Juliet in the 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet and in the 1940 Kirov Theater production...... 176

6.7 Text of for Romeo and Juliet incorporating Lavrovsky’s changes. Compiled from typed document with changes and additions for Lavrovsky’s production marked in Prokofiev’s handwriting and compared with published libretto. RGALI, fond 1929, op. 1, no. 66, l. 7-10. Additions to the earlier version are bolded. Omissions are noted with [ ]...... 181

6.8 Sections from the 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet not included in the published version ...... 184

xi LIST OF EXAMPLES

Example Page

4.1 “Romeo,” Block A ...... 125

4.2 “Romeo,” Block B ...... 125

4.3 “Romeo,” Block C ...... 126

4.4 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block A ...... 130

4.5 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block B ...... 130

4.6 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block C ...... 132

4.7 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block D ...... 132

4.8 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block E ...... 132

4.9 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block F ...... 133

4.10 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block G ...... 133

xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BN Bibliothèque Nationale de France (National Library of France), Paris.

BMO Bibliothèque-Musée de l’Opéra, ( Library and Museum), Paris.

GABT Gosudarstvennyi Academicheskii Bol’shoi Teatr (State Academic Bolshoi Theater), Moscow. Also referred to as the Bolshoi Theater.

GATOB Gosudarstvennyi Academicheskii Teatr Opery i Baleta (State Academic Theater of Opera and Ballet), St. Petersburg. Also the Mariinsky Theater (pre-Revolutionary and present-day) and the Kirov Theater (1935-1991).

GTsMMK Gosudarstvennyi Tsentral’nyi Muzei Muzykal’noi Kul’tury imeni M. I. Glinki (M. I. Glinka State Central Museum of Musical Culture), Moscow. Also referred to as the Glinka Museum.

MKhT Moskovskii Khudozhestvennyi Teatr (Moscow Art Theater), Moscow.

RNB Rossiiskaia Natsional’naia Biblioteka (Russian National Library), St. Petersburg. Known also as the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library.

RGALI Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Literatury i Iskusstva (Russian State Archive of Literature and the Arts), Moscow.

SPA The Serge Prokofiev Archive, London.

TsGALI Tsentral’nyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Literatury i Iskusstva (Central State Archive for Literature and the Arts), St. Petersburg.

xiii NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION AND TRANSLATION

Several systems of transliterating the Russian Cyrillic alphabet into Roman letters have been developed, each with its own strengths and shortcomings. I have chosen to employ the United States Library of Congress system, except when popularly accepted alternative spellings exist. Therefore, I refer to Prokofiev, Tcherepnin and Lavrovsky, rather than Prokof'ev, Cherepnin and Lavrovskii, and Moscow, rather than Moskva.

There are numerous name changes that have taken place in Russia and the former

Sviet Union in the last century. Perhaps the most prominent example of this is the city of

Saint Petersburg. Founded and named by Peter the Great in 1703, the city’s name was changed to the more Russian-sounding Petrograd in 1914. After Lenin's death in 1924, it was changed to Leningrad. In a city-wide referendum in 1991, the original name of Saint Petersburg was restored. In this dissertation I will refer to all places and people by the names used at the time, with explanatory notes to avoid confusion.

Unless otherwise noted, all translations from Russian are my own.

xiv INTRODUCTION

“Never was a tale of greater woe than Prokofiev’s music for Romeo.” - , 1940

Sergei Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet, one of the most often performed twentieth- century ballets, has become a favorite of audiences around the world, despite its origins as a Soviet ballet written during the height of Stalin’s first wave of repression against artists, writers, and composers in the mid-1930s. Its success, however, was neither immediate nor easy. As implied by the remark quoted above, made by Galina Ulanova, the ballerina who danced the role of Juliet at the ballet’s Soviet premiere, Prokofiev’s music for Romeo and Juliet was at first viewed as difficult and undanceable. Ulanova later came to regard Romeo and Juliet as her favorite ballet, but her initial reaction can be seen as a metaphor for the long, complex, and often tragic history of the ballet as a whole.

Romeo and Juliet is best known in the version first presented at the Kirov Theater in Leningrad, on January 11, 1940, with choreography by Leonid Lavrovsky. Frequently overlooked is an earlier score, commissioned by the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow and completed in 1935, which differs significantly from the commonly-known 1940 variant

(see Figure 0.1: Chronology of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet). To this day, the 1935 version of Romeo and Juliet, which contains a happy ending where Romeo and Juliet

1 both live, has never been performed. Prokofiev scholars have long been aware of the

1935 version, but until recently little attention has been given to it. Such lack of consideration ignores that as late as 1947, Prokofiev considered the 1935 score, not the

1940 staging, to be the authoritative version.1 This dissertation focuses on the creation of the 1935 score of Romeo and Juliet, and the complicated process that resulted in the general acceptance of Lavrovsky’s 1940 staging of the ballet as the legitimate version, despite Prokofiev’s protests.

In January 1936, the 1935 version of Romeo and Juliet was in rehearsal, and plans for a spring 1936 premiere at the Bolshoi Theater were well under way, as reported in a short press release in the January 29 issue of Sovetskoe Iskusstvo.2 This is the last mention in any known source of the intended 1936 Bolshoi Theater production. Even the fact that the production had been canceled was never publicized.

In his 1941 autobiography, published in the Soviet Union and possibly written in response to ideological pressures, Prokofiev gave two reasons for the cancellation of the

Bolshoi production. The ballet was not performed, Prokofiev wrote, because the Bolshoi

Theater considered the music to be undanceable, and because there was widespread

1 Prokofiev wrote two letters to Upravlenie po okhrane avtorskikh prav [Administration for the protection of author’s rights], on March 25, 1940, and February 12, 1947 (RGALI, fond 1929, op. 2, no. 349) and two letters to Glavrepertkom [Central Repertory Committee], dated April 26, 1940, and October 2, 1940 (RGALI, fond 1929, op. 2, no. 350). The issue at hand was a dispute over the composer’s honorarium for various performances of Romeo and Juliet, but Prokofiev also repeatedly stressed that he and Sergei Radlov had given permission to alter the ballet for the 1940 production only. Prokofiev therefore wanted the work to be considered, for purposes of payment, a 4-act ballet as he wrote it, rather than a 3-act ballet as Lavrovsky had staged it.

2 Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 29 January 1936, 4

2 outrage in the Soviet press about giving Shakespeare’s tragedy a happy ending. Further examination of archival material, newspaper and journal articles, and Prokofiev’s personal correspondence, however, shows neither explanation to be accurate.

In order to understand Prokofiev’s misleading account of events, the framework of the artistic and political atmosphere in the Soviet Union in the 1930s must be explored.

Although Prokofiev’s music came under heavy criticism from the Stalin government and artistic-control agencies in 1948, it has been widely accepted that he did not face personal censure or direct criticism before that time. This dissertation shows that this is simply untrue, that the cancellation of the Bolshoi production of Romeo and Juliet was in fact directly related to the aftermath of the infamous 1936 Pravda articles criticizing

Shostakovich’s music.

The commission from the Bolshoi Theater to write Romeo and Juliet seems to have been a decisive factor for Prokofiev in making his controversial move back to the

Soviet Union in the 1930s. Romeo and Juliet was composed during the period when

Prokofiev was spending nearly all of his time in the USSR, but had still not committed to re-locating his family and giving up his apartment in Paris. Nearly all of his commissions by this time were from Soviet sources. Prokofiev used the commission for Romeo and

Juliet as leverage for securing an apartment in Moscow, as well as to obtain travel documents for himself and his family. By the time the Bolshoi Theater production of the ballet was canceled, Prokofiev and his family were settled in Moscow as permanent residents. When Prokofiev’s situation at the time is viewed in this context, it is more

3 understandable why a performance of Romeo and Juliet became so important to him. It was the work that returned him to his homeland, and therefore, seeing it staged, even in an altered version, became a priority.

Prokofiev was a prolific composer, producing significant works in nearly every genre, including , , film scores, , , , and ballets. He worked and corresponded with many of the great figures of the early twentieth century, such as Sergei Diaghilev, , Vsevolod Meyerhold,

Sergei Eisenstein, , Sergei Koussevitsky, ,

Mstislav Rostropovich, and many others.

Prokofiev composed some of the best-known and well-loved music of his era, including the ‘Classical’ , The Love For Three Oranges, Romeo and Juliet,

Peter and the Wolf, , piano, violin and concerti, and numerous pieces for solo piano. Yet he remains one of the least understood and least studied twentieth-century composers. The reasons for this relative lack of attention are myriad, but center around his peripatetic lifestyle, his frequent temper tantrums and infamous lack of social graces, and most of all, his return to Soviet Russia after spending nearly twenty years living in America and Europe. The most prominent Soviet composers, most notably Dmitri Shostakovich, lived for a number of years after Stalin’s death and therefore had the opportunity to “redeem” themselves artistically for the politically- oriented music they felt compelled to write under Stalin’s regime. Prokofiev was not granted this luxury; he died on the same day as Stalin, March 5, 1953. This, perhaps, is another reason Prokofiev receives less attention than some of his colleagues.

4 Methodology and Overview of Chapters

This study of Romeo and Juliet is unique in that I view the ballet as an on-going project that took a number of different forms rather than as a fixed and final product, as it is usually regarded. The materials I worked with are considered in the larger context of the social, political and artistic environments of the time. The various scores I worked with are compared to known scores, and the discrepancies are discussed and analyzed. I also work with and discuss the importance of a number of pre-compositional documents that were previously unknown.

Much of the information in this dissertation was gathered from archival material located in Moscow, St. Petersburg, London, and Paris. In Moscow I worked primarily at two archives, the Glinka State Central Museum of Musical Culture (GTsMMK) and the

Russian State Archive of Literature and the Arts (RGALI). At GtsMMK I worked with the Prokofiev archive, which includes a handful of pages from Prokofiev’s 1935 manuscript of the piano score of Romeo and Juliet, many letters, primarily from before

1932, as well as printer’s proofs for the 1946 publication of the piano score of Romeo and

Juliet. RGALI holds the majority of known Prokofiev materials, although a number of letters and documents were closed and not available to scholars until March 2003, fifty years after the composer’s death. At RGALI I worked with a number of Prokofiev scores, including the remaining pages of the 1935 piano score manuscript of Romeo and

Juliet, correspondence, and other material, including sketchbooks and compositional plans. Also at RGALI, I examined material in the archives of the State Academic

Bolshoi Theater (GABT) and the papers of Pavel Lamm, Prokofiev’s copyist for Romeo and Juliet.

5 In St. Petersburg I worked with the archives of Sergei Radlov and Vera Alpers in the Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books of the Russian National Library (RNB).

I also looked at the archives for the State Academic Theater of Opera and Ballet

(GATOB), which are located in the Central State Archive for Literature and the Arts

(TsGALI).

At the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BNF), I worked with the large collection of letters from Prokofiev to Souvchinsky. While in Paris I also examined a number of letters from Prokofiev to Sergei Diaghilev, located in the Bibliothèque-Musée de l’Opera (BMO).

The Serge Prokofiev Archive (SPA), housed at Goldsmiths College in London, holds a vast collection of letters and documents from the years Prokofiev lived in the

West. I was able to locate and work with a number of previously unknown sketches and documents about Prokofiev’s ballets written before Romeo and Juliet, as well as with previously unknown material pertaining to the creation of Romeo and Juliet.

The dissertation is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 discusses Western and

Soviet views of Prokofiev’s life and works, and the two separate historiographies that have developed from these divergent views. The issue of Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet

Union and its myriad effects are also discussed.

Chapter 2 provides background material about theater and ballet in early twentieth-century Russia, and the trends that influenced Prokofiev and his collaborators in the creation of Romeo and Juliet. Much of the chapter focuses on the career of the theater director Sergei Radlov, Prokofiev’s primary collaborator for Romeo and Juliet.

6 In Chapter 3, the attention shifts to the 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet, sketched out in the spring of 1935 and composed that summer at the Bolshoi Theater retreat at Polenovo. The process used by Prokofiev and Radlov to turn Shakespeare’s drama into a viable ballet is recreated, including their decision to give the tragedy a happy ending.

Chapter 4 examines Prokofiev’s compositional process, and “blocks of time” as a compositional method is introduced. Musical and dramatic analyses of the 1935 score with blocks of time structure as its foundation conclude the chapter.

Chapter 5 centers around the Bolshoi Theater production of Romeo and Juliet planned for spring 1936, but mysteriously canceled. The discrepancies between

Prokofiev’s own account of the cancellation and what accounts in the press and in personal letters seem to reveal is discussed, as well as possible reasons for Prokofiev’s later reinterpretation of these events.

Chapter 6 addresses the transformation from the 1935 piano score of Romeo and

Juliet into the version of Romeo and Juliet known and performed today. Within months of the cancellation of the Bolshoi Theater production of Romeo and Juliet planned for spring 1936, Prokofiev prepared two concert suites from the ballet. The suites were performed all over the Soviet Union as well as abroad, fulfilling Prokofiev’s hope that familiarity with the music would facilitate a staging of the ballet. In January 1938,

Prokofiev signed a contract with the Brno State Theater in Brno, Czechoslovakia for a production of Romeo and Juliet later that year. Prokofiev’s score was radically altered by the in Brno, resulting in a highly abridged one-act version of Prokofiev’s four-act ballet.

7 In Spring 1938, negotiations with the Kirov Theater for the Soviet premiere of

Romeo and Juliet began. Leonid Lavrovsky was appointed as choreographer for the production. The second part of Chapter 6 examines the uneasy collaboration between

Lavrovsky and Prokofiev during the rehearsal process. Prokofiev fought to get the ballet staged as he and Radlov wrote it back in 1935, but Lavrovsky had other plans.

Lavrovsky attempted to shape Romeo and Juliet into a form more representative of the tradition in which he was trained. Prokofiev and Lavrovsky each stubbornly resisted the ideas of the other, while both attempted to maintain an outward facade of cooperation and . In the end, Prokofiev conceded to most of Lavrovsky’s demands, resulting in a large number of changes fundamentally altering the dramaturgy of the ballet.

Throughout this dissertation, I maintain the idea of Romeo and Juliet as a continous process rather than as a stylistic turning point in Prokofiev’s ballets. Romeo and Juliet, of course, is a unique composition with its own specific set of challenges in its compositional and performance history. An examination of how Prokofiev approached and solved these challenges for Romeo and Juliet, however, reveals remarkable parallels with how Prokofiev approached and solved challenges encountered in the composition of his other ballets. These parallels allow me to bridge the perceived gap in compositional style and negotiate a continuity in Prokofiev’s approach to ballet as a theatrical genre.

Therefore a thorough study of the creation and performance history of Romeo and Juliet produces a model that promotes a greater understanding of Prokofiev’s general approach to ballet based on aspects of unity rather than difference.

8 Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet: Chronology

December 1934 Prokofiev sees Sergei Radlov’s dramatic production of Romeo and Juliet in Moscow.

January 1935 Prokofiev returns to Paris and writes out scene-by-scene synopsis of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.

April 1935 Prokofiev meets with Radlov and in Leningrad; they begin sketching out plans for a ballet based on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, with a happy ending where Romeo and Juliet both live. The collaborators anticipate a production at GATOB in Leningrad.

May 16, 1935 Prokofiev begins May 1935 compositional plan for Romeo and Juliet.

Spring 1935 Plans for a production at GATOB fall through; plans begin for a 1936 production of Romeo and Juliet at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow.

June – October 1935 Prokofiev composes piano score of Romeo and Juliet at Polenovo, the summer retreat of the Bolshoi Theater.

September 1, 1935 Hearing of the first three acts of Romeo and Juliet at the Bolshoi Theater.

September 8, 1935 Prokofiev finishes the piano score of Romeo and Juliet and immediately begins orchestrating the ballet.

October 4, 1935 Official hearing of Romeo and Juliet at the Bolshoi Theater.

December 6, 1935 Postcard from Prokofiev to Radlov asking if Radlov has reconsidered the happy ending.

January 25, 1935 Hearing of the first three acts of Romeo and Juliet sponsored by Sovetskoe Iskusstvo.

Figure 0.1: Chronology of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet

9 Figure 0.1 (continued)

January 28, 1936 “,” unsigned editorial in Pravda criticizing Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District.

January 29, 1936 Short press release about Romeo and Juliet in Sovetskoe Iskusstvo. This is the last known reference to the planned 1936 Bolshoi Theater production of the ballet.

February 6, 1936 “Ballet Falseness,” unsigned editorial in Pravda criticizing Shostakovich’s ballet .

April 16, 1936 Letter from Prokofiev to Vera Alpers about “all kinds of missteps” at the Bolshoi Theater, the only known reference to the cancellation of the planned 1936 Bolshoi Theater production of Romeo and Juliet.

Summer 1936 Prokofiev compiles the first two orchestral suites from Romeo and Juliet. Most likely Prokofiev removed the happy ending during this period.

November 24, 1936 Premiere of the first orchestral suite from Romeo and Juliet.

April 15, 1937 Premiere of the second orchestral suite from Romeo and Juliet.

January 19, 1938 Contract to produce Romeo and Juliet at the Brno State Theater in Czechoslovakia signed.

August 1938 Prokofiev and Leonid Lavrovsky consult about a production of Romeo and Juliet at the Kirov Theater in Leningrad.

December 30, 1938 Premiere of Romeo and Juliet at the Brno State Theater in Czechoslovakia.

10 Figure 0.1 (continued)

Autumn 1939 Romeo and Juliet in rehearsal at the Kirov Theater in Leningrad. The dancers threaten to strike in December because they find Prokofiev’s music undanceable.

January 11, 1940 Soviet premiere of Romeo and Juliet at the Kirov Theater in Leningrad.

March 25, 1940 Letter from Prokofiev to Upravlenie po okhrane avtorskikh prav [Administration for the protection of author’s rights]. Prokofiev and Radlov had authorized Lavrovsky’s changes to Romeo and Juliet for the 1940 Kirov Theater production only.

April 26, 1940 Letter from Prokofiev to Glavrepertkom [Central Repertory Committee]. Prokofiev and Radlov had authorized Lavrovsky’s changes to Romeo and Juliet for the 1940 Kirov Theater production only.

October 2, 1940 Letter from Prokofiev to Glavrepertkom [Central Repertory Committee]. Prokofiev and Radlov had authorized Lavrovsky’s changes to Romeo and Juliet for the 1940 Kirov Theater production only.

December 1946 Production of Romeo and Juliet at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow, with choreography by Lavrovsky. This production is nearly identical to the 1940 Kirov Theater production.

February 12, 1947 Letter from Prokofiev to Upravlenie po okhrane avtorskikh prav [Administration for the protection of author’s rights]. Prokofiev and Radlov had authorized Lavrovsky’s changes to Romeo and Juliet for the 1940 Kirov Theater production only.

11 CHAPTER 1

SERGEI PROKOFIEV: TWO HISTORIOGRAPHIES

Prokofiev scholarship has traditionally focused on his decision to leave the infant

Soviet Union in favor of life in the West, the reversal of that decision and his return to

Russia in the mid 1930's, and the effects of these moves on both his personal and his professional life. Although the central events of Prokofiev’s life are now well established, the interpretation of these events and how they affected his creative output remain contentious. It is important to understand the issues that have influenced Prokofiev studies in general before moving to a detailed discussion of one work, in this case Romeo and Juliet.

Politics and ideology have played and continue to play a leading role in Prokofiev research, often at the expense of the music itself. One result of Prokofiev’s return to the

Soviet Union is the development of two separate historiographies of the composer, one

Western and one Soviet. In the typical Western view, Prokofiev’s most fruitful years were those he spent in the West, and his return to the Soviet Union was predominantly detrimental to his life and his career. From the Soviet point of view, Prokofiev’s years in the West were unsuccessful, and he found himself personally and professionally only after he returned to his homeland. These two historiographies are generally treated as

12 mutually exclusive, and can be identified in nearly every study of Prokofiev and his music. As can be seen in the discussion below, even authors who claim to avoid ideology can easily be identified as stemming from one of these two historiographies by the particular stance of the narrative.

The following paragraphs attempt to outline the known facts of Prokofiev’s life while avoiding subjective interpolations as much as possible. Biographical descriptions of Prokofiev’s childhood and adolescence are almost all drawn from Prokofiev’s own reminiscences, taken from the detailed diaries he kept his entire life.3 These reminiscences have been published in two versions. The so-called “long” autobiography, first published in 1952, covered only Prokofiev’s childhood and early years at the St.

Petersburg Conservatory, ending in 1909. 4 The more condensed “short” autobiography was published in 1941. The narrative is less detailed, but covers both Prokofiev’s childhood

3 Until recently, the 1927 Soviet diary, which covered the three-month concert tour in early 1927 of Prokofiev’s first visit to the Soviet Union after leaving in 1918, was the only volume of Prokofiev’s diaries available. It was published as part of larger collections in 1991, in both Russian and English versions. M. E. Tarakanov, ed., Sergei Prokof’ev, 1891-1991: Dnevnik, Pis’ma, Becedy, Vospominaniia [Sergei Prokofiev, 1891-1991: Diary, Letters, Conversations, Remembrances] (Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1991). Sergei Prokofiev, Soviet Diary and Other Writings, trans. Oleg Prokofiev, ed. Oleg Prokofiev and (Boston: Faber and Faber, 1991). Prokofiev’s diaries through 1933 were published in late 2002 by Prokofiev’s elder son, Sviataslav Sergeevich. Unfortunately, until March 2003, Prokofiev’s post-1933 diaries were held in closed archives, unavailable to scholars.

4 Sergei Prokofiev, Avtobiografiia, 2d. ed., ed. M. G. Kozlova (Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1982). The English edition of the long autobiography is Prokofiev by Prokofiev: A Composer’s Memoir, ed. David H. Appel, trans. Guy Daniels (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979).

13 and his adult life, through 1940.5 Sergei Sergeevich Prokofiev, the only surviving child of Maria Grigorevna and Sergei Alekseevich Prokofiev, was born on April 11 (April 23,

New Style) 1891, on the Ukrainian estate of Sontsovka, managed by his father. His mother was an amateur and soon recognized the blossoming musical talent in her son. For two summers, the composer Reinhold Glière traveled to Sontsovka to teach the young Prokofiev. In 1904, Prokofiev and his mother moved to Saint Petersburg so Sergei could attend the Saint Petersburg Conservatory. His relationship with his professors there was often antagonistic. Prokofiev resented the “extremely dull and uninteresting” exercises, while his teachers, including , and

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, became frustrated with their talented, but headstrong and inflexible pupil.6 His early years of study were interrupted by the events of the 1905 revolution, but in 1909, at the unusually early age of 18, Prokofiev completed the course in composition, earning the official designation of free artist. Instead of continuing on in the free composition class, Prokofiev enrolled in the piano class of Anna Esipova and studied with . Prokofiev left the Saint Petersburg

Conservatory in 1914, at age 23, after winning the Anton Rubenstein Prize in piano with a performance of his own Piano No. 1.

5 S. I. Shliftshtein, ed, S. S. Prokof’ev: Materialy, Dokumenty, Vospominaniia, [S. S. Prokofiev: Materials, Documents, Remembrances], 2d ed. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Muzykal’noe Izdatel’stvo, 1961). There are two versions of the short autobiography in English: Sergei Prokofiev: Autobiography, Articles, Reminiscences, trans. Rose Prokofieva (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, n.d.) and Sergei Prokofiev, Soviet Diary and Other Writings, trans. Oleg Prokofiev, ed. Oleg Prokofiev and Christopher Palmer (Boston: Faber and Faber, 1991). It is the short autobiography that contains Prokofiev’s comments about Romeo and Juliet, and therefore the version most frequently cited in this dissertation.

6 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 17.

14 In the aftermath of the two 1917 revolutions, the first of which removed the Tsar, the second of which brought Lenin and his Bolsheviks to power, Prokofiev left Russia in

May 1918, presumably for just a few months while the political and economic situation settled down. He spent the next fifteen years abroad, based first in , then later in Paris. In the United States, Prokofiev developed a name as a brilliant pianist, but recognition as a composer was harder to achieve. Performances and commissions seemed easier to obtain in Europe, where many of his fellow émigrés now lived. Success in Europe was not immediate but, with the help of Sergei Koussevitzky, Sergei

Diaghilev, and others, he was able to rely more on his compositions and less on performance to make a living.

In 1923 he married the singer Carolina Codina, who had taken the stage name of

Lina Llubera. They met in New York in 1918, and their involvement intensified when

Lina moved to Europe to continue her vocal studies. They had two children together,

Sviatislav, born in 1924, and Oleg, born in 1928.

At the end of the 1920s, Prokofiev began to reestablish his ties with the Soviet

Union. In January of 1927 he returned to Russia for the first time since his departure in

1918. The three-month tour was a success on all levels, and Prokofiev began to consider the controversial notion of returning on a more permanent basis. By 1932 nearly all of his commissions were Soviet and he was spending a large portion of every year in the

USSR. In May 1936, in the midst of the increasingly conservative atmosphere in the

Soviet Union, caused by backlash of criticism leveled at Shostakovich earlier in the year,

Prokofiev finalized the startling decision to give up his Parisian apartment and make the

Soviet Union his permanent home.

15 The remaining seventeen years of Prokofiev’s life encompassed the hardships of

World War II and the 1948 ideological attack on music, led by . In 1941

Prokofiev left Lina and the boys and later married , co-librettist for many of his compositions written after 1939. After the 1948 Zhdanov attack, Prokofiev found it nearly impossible to obtain performances and commissions. As a result, the last four years of his life were spent in extreme poverty.7 Despite personal and professional difficulties, Prokofiev continued to compose prolifically, working up until just hours before his death. Perhaps the greatest of the many ironies in his life was that Prokofiev died on March 5, 1953, the same day as Stalin, the man responsible for the repression that dominated the last two decades of Prokofiev's life.

Within the confines of the two historiographies mentioned earlier in the Chapter, however, different emphases are found in various volumes. This can be observed within the three biographies of Prokofiev written by the Soviet musicologist Israel Nestev. The first of these was published in 1946, in English translation only.8 Like most Soviet biographers, Nestev concentrated on the years before 1918 and the years after

Prokofiev’s return to the USSR, skimming only briefly over the years spent outside of

Russia. Nestev’s descriptions, however, were more balanced than those of later accounts, including his own. This was possible because the book was published in the West only.

7 , who spent the summers from 1947 to 1951 with Prokofiev at his summer home outside of Moscow, tells how he repeatedly appealed to the Composer’s Union on Prokofiev’s behalf, for enough of a stipend to at least buy food [Mstislav Rostropovich, taped interview with author, September 17, 1999].

8 I. V. Nest’ev, Sergei Prokofiev: His Musical Life, intro. Sergei Eisenstien, trans. Rose Prokofieva (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946). This version has never been published in Russian.

16 This relative balance can be seen in Nestev’s discussions about pieces from Prokofiev’s

Western period. About the ballet (The Buffoon), for example, written in 1915 for

Diaghilev’s , Nestev noted:

The careful emphasis laid on the crude and cynical scenes, the accentuated mechanical rhythms, and the predominance of sharply exaggerated, mercilessly caricatured masks would have had the most depressing effect on the modern Soviet audience.9

This seems to be more observation than criticism. Other details elicited a more positive response from Nestev:

Nevertheless, the composer’s amazing gift for musical narrative, his ability to give the most accurate and laconic expression to his ideas, reached a high-water mark in The Buffoon. The orchestration, spare, stinging, sharply graphic, with abundant use of the piano and percussion instruments … with subtle and ingenious employment of diverse string effects, is extremely striking.10

Nestev’s second biography was published in Russian in 1957, with an English translation following in 1960.11 The 1957 work was more than twice the length of the

1946 biography. Accordingly, Nestev was able to discuss many individual works in more detail. Perhaps because it was published in the Soviet Union and subjected to the censorship process, the ideological slant is much more visible. The section on

Prokofiev’s years in the West is still more abbreviated than the other sections. More tellingly, compositions that had received measured admiration in 1946 now bore a scathing review. In 1946, The Buffoon merely would not be appropriate for Soviet audiences, though much in the work could be praised. In 1957 the condemnation was global:

9 Nestev, Sergei Prokofiev: His Musical Life, 87.

10 Nestev, Sergei Prokofiev: His Musical Life, 87.

11 I. V. Nest’ev, Prokof’ev (Gos. mus. izd-vo, 1957). The English translation is published as Prokofiev, trans. Florence Jonas (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1960). 17 On studying the score of The Buffoon today, one regretfully notes its lack of meaningful content; it is a far cry from the democratic folk tradition of advanced Russian art. The grotesquerie in The Buffoon is essentially an end in itself. Folk life and folk art are refracted through the prism of modernist eccentricity. As a consequence, despite its seeming gaiety, the work is fundamentally pessimistic.12

Not only was the overall assessment more negative, the criteria for evaluation had changed dramatically as well. In 1946 the focus was on the effectiveness of the composer’s technique, but in 1957 the emphasis was on how a composition fit into the big picture of Soviet ideology. After four pages of biting criticisms about The Buffoon and unflattering comparisons with compositions by Stravinsky and Rimsky-Korsakov,

Nestev finally conceded, “Nevertheless, for all the grotesque and eccentric effects in the music of The Buffoon, it would be a mistake not to see in it certain manifestations of a keen and vital talent.”13 The tacit implication of the 1946 biography was that Prokofiev came into his own as a composer only after leaving the decadent West and returning home. In the 1957 publication, this implication became the unifying theme.

In 1973, Nestev’s third and final biography of Prokofiev was published.14 The result, published during a period of relative openness in the Soviet Union, is an insightful, thorough study. Although Nestev’s Soviet biases are still evident, this volume generally treats Prokofiev’s career in a more fair and balanced manner, including expanded coverage of the years he spent outside of Russia. As if to offset the first, English-only biography, the 1973 version has not been translated into English. More than just a

“revised and expanded edition,” as labeled on the front cover, this work is one of the

12 Nest’ev, Prokofiev (English translation), 186.

13 Nest’ev, Prokofiev (English translation), 186.

14 I. V. Nest’ev, Zhizn’ Sergeia Prokof’eva, 2d ed. (Moscow: Sovetskii kompositor,1973).

18 most complete biographies of Prokofiev available in any language, preceding by over fifteen years the less ideologically charged biographies that became the norm in the late

1980s. As a Soviet musicologist who knew the composer personally, Nestev had access to materials that others still do not, even today. Despite this, though, the volume is still a reflection of the typical Soviet historiographic view of Prokofiev’s life and works.

Other notable Soviet biographies about Prokofiev are those by Sabinina,

Morozov, and Savkina.15 These three volumes are aimed at a more general audience than

Nestev’s studies were, and therefore are less scholarly, emphasizing biography rather than musical analysis. Like most authors, Soviet and Western, these three writers divide

Prokofiev’s life into three style periods, which correspond to the country of his residence at the time. Music composed up to 1918 is considered Prokofiev’s “Russian” period,

1918-32 his “Western” period, and 1932-53 his “Soviet” period. To various extents, each of these three biographies reflected the typical Soviet historiography of Prokofiev by minimizing discussion of the years he spent abroad and criticizing the “formalist experimentalism” of this period, while embracing the composer’s return to his motherland and stressing the importance of his Soviet compositions.

It was more than a decade after his death before the first Western monograph on

Prokofiev was published, in 1964.16 Like the works of Sabinina, Morozov, and Savkina, this volume is a biography aimed at a general audience rather than a scholarly study of

15 M. D. Sabinina, Sergei Prokof’ev (Moscow: Muzyka, 1956). Sergei Morozov, Prokof’ev, Zhizn’ zamechatel’nykh liudei, vol. 10 (Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 1967). N. P. Savkina, Sergei Sergeevich Prokof’ev (Moscow: Muzyka, 1981), published in English as Prokofiev: His Life and Times, trans. Catherine Young (Neptune city, NJ: Paganiniana, 1984).

16 Lawrence Hanson and Elisabeth Hanson, Prokofiev: A Biography in Three Movements (New York: Random House, 1964). 19 Prokofiev’s music. The authors, Lawrence Hanson and Elisabeth Hanson, were a British husband-and-wife team of biographers. As non-musicians, their goal was primarily to clarify details of Prokofiev’s biography for the English-speaking public. As the title of their work reveals, Prokofiev: A Biography in Three Movements, Hanson and Hanson also grouped Prokofiev’s compositions into three style periods based on where the composer was living at the time, as Soviet writers had done.17 Not surprisingly, their assessment of these periods varied from that of their Soviet predecessors, reflecting the typical Western view of the composer’s life and works. Hanson and Hanson, fore example, praised the experimentalism and freedom of Prokofiev’s years abroad. In their introduction, Hanson and Hanson discuss Nestev’s 1957 biography and some of their motivations for writing their own version of Prokofiev’s biography:

Nestyev [sic] sets out to prove that Prokofiev got harm and nothing but harm from his many years in the West [. . .] and that he became a great composer only when he returned to Soviet Russia for the final years of his life. [. . .] The result is a picture of Prokofiev and his music, which is riddled with misjudgments deliberately made to support a political creed. In the interests of truth and of Prokofiev himself, we have tried to provide a corrective to this view. We have no political axe to grind.18

Despite their claim of having no political axe to grind, the Hansons’ biography clearly reflects the typical Western viewpoint of Prokofiev and his works.

Victor Seroff’s 1968 biography was more blatantly ideological in nature than the

Hansons’ book.19 Seroff’s title, Sergei Prokofiev, A Soviet Tragedy: The Case of Sergei

Prokofiev, His Life and Works, His Critics, and His Executioners, clearly expressed the

17 The book was published simultaneously in Great Britain under the title Prokofiev, Son: An Introduction to His Life and Work in Three Movements (London: Cassell, 1964).

18 Hanson, Prokofiev, xi.

19 Victor Seroff, Sergei Prokofiev, A Soviet Tragedy: The Case of Sergei Prokofiev, His Life and Work, His Critics, and His Executioners (New York: Funk and Wagnales, 1968). 20 author’s views. Where Hanson and Hanson suggested the possibility of unfair treatment and censorship of the composer by the Soviet government, Seroff blatantly accused it.

One of the most notable points of departure between Seroff and other biographers was the attention he gave to the question of Prokofiev’s marriages. In his 1946 biography, Nestev did not mention either of Prokofiev’s wives. In the later two biographies, he wrote only that in 1941 Prokofiev divorced Lina and married Mira. Other Soviet biographers, when they mentioned Prokofiev’s marital status at all, wrote the same. Hanson and Hanson also wrote that Prokofiev left Lina for Mira in 1941, but included a footnote with more information:

Silence and conflicting reports have obscured the events leading to this marital break, and some time may elapse before the full story can, or will, be revealed. Lina’s subsequent life, however, points up the fact that political pressures were at work because of her Western background. In the purge year of 1948 she was arrested and imprisoned. No reason had been given or has one ever been advanced. She was not released until after the deaths of Stalin and Prokofiev, which occurred within a few hours of each other in 1953. In 1959 Lina brought an action against Prokofiev’s second wife, claiming his properties and royalties on the grounds that her divorce was illegal. Though the case was dismissed and judgment given to the second wife, Lina soon received a state pension which has continued to this day. For obvious reasons even this information, from close Soviet sources, cannot be personally acknowledged.20

Seroff chose the issue of Lina’s fate as his platform for portraying the inhumanity of Stalin’s government and the sway it held over Prokofiev. He alleged not only that

Lina and Prokofiev were never divorced, but also that Prokofiev and Mira were never married.21 Seroff claimed that since Mira was the niece of the Minister of Heavy

Industry, and since Stalin had recently married the minister’s sister, this gave Mira direct influence in governmental affairs. Therefore, Prokofiev was forced against his will to ally

20 Hanson, Prokofiev, 276, fn. 1.

21 Seroff went as far as to suggest that Prokofiev and Mira traveled on separate trains during the World War II evacuations “for the sake of decorum.” (Seroff, A Soviet Tragedy, 251). He believed the entire arrangement was concocted by Prokofiev and Lina together to protect the boys. 21 himself with a woman with top official connections in order to protect himself from being sent to the forced labor camps or worse.22 Seroff’s Prokofiev was a man who would abandon his wife and children for a woman he did not love, just to save his own skin. The discussion of Prokofiev’s music in Seroff’s volume was secondary; his primary goal was to expose the broken, weak man into which Seroff was certain the Soviet Union had turned him. This is a view that has been retained in the work of several Western writers, even today. Although Seroff raises some interesting points, his book is difficult to read because of its lack of objectivity. Unlike the Hansons, Seroff did have an axe to grind, and he made no attempt at objectivity or balance.

In the late 1980s, as the restrictions on foreign researchers eased in the Soviet

Union, two more Western biographies on Prokofiev were published.23 The goal of both of these books was to present a more objective view of the composer to the non-Russian speaking world. Each of these authors, Harlow Robinson in 1987 and David Gutman in

1990, addressed the political issues raised by Hanson and Hanson, Seroff, and others, but attempted to put these issues in the context of Prokofiev’s music and avoided taking an ideological position themselves as much as possible. This trend has continued since the fall of the Soviet Union with two more volumes, Michel Dorigné’s 1994 biography in

French, and Daniel Jaffé’s 1998 Sergey Prokofiev.24 Dorigné worked closely with

Prokofiev’s two sons while preparing his book and received access to materials that were

22 Seroff, A Soviet Tragedy, 249.

23 Harlow Robinson, Sergei Prokofiev: A Biography (New York: Paragon House, 1987). David Gutman, Prokofiev, The Illustrated Lives of the Great Composers (New York: Omnibus, 1990).

24 Michel Dorigné, Serge Prokofiev (Paris: Fayard, 1994). Daniel Jaffé, Sergey Prokofiev (20th-century Composers) (London: Phaidon Press Limited, 1998). 22 not available to earlier researchers. Jaffé worked with Oleg, the younger son, and had access to photographs and other personal materials.25 His book is well written and insightful, but adds little new information to Prokofiev research.

The trend towards a more objective view of Prokofiev can also be seen in Soviet and Russian works since 1990. As their Soviet counterparts did, Russian authors tend to focus on stylistic analysis as a way out of the necessity to discuss politics. This is as true today as it was during the Soviet era. To celebrate the 1991 centenary of Prokofiev’s birth, several volumes of documents and materials about the composer were published in

Russia.26 Many of these focused on information not widely available in the Soviet Union up to that point, with an emphasis on material from Prokofiev’s years abroad. Especially useful for Russian and Western scholars alike is Viktor Varunts’ compilation of articles written by Prokofiev and interviews with the composer spanning the years 1913 to 1952.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, no Russian monograph on Prokofiev has been published. Russian scholars currently tend to focus on individual compositions or compositions within a single genre.

25 Sadly, Oleg Prokofiev died suddenly in August 1998. He helped many Prokofiev scholars, including me, and was very open with his memories, materials, and insights about his father.

26 V. P. Varunts, ed., Prokof’ev o Prokof’eve: Stat’i i interv’iu (Moscow: Sovetskii kompositor, 1991); M. E. Tarakanov, ed., Sergei Prokof’ev, 1891-1991: Dnevnik, Pis’ma, Becedy, Vospominaniia (Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1991); The entire April 1991 issue of Sovetskaia Muzyka was devoted to Prokofiev and included a number of previously unpublished letters and documents.

23 Prokofiev’s Return to the Soviet Union

The defining moment in any study of Prokofiev, musical or biographical, is his return to Stalinist Russia in the mid 1930s after nearly twenty years of living in the

United States and France. As with Prokofiev biographies in general, ideology and politics play a critical role in determining whether a particular scholar viewed Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union as good or bad for him and his creative output. In a 1999 interview between the Russian musicologist Yelena Pol’diaeva and the curator of the Serge

Prokofiev Archive in London, Noelle Mann, they discussed the two common views of

Prokofiev’s return, the Soviet and the Western:

N.M. It is well known that for the West, the most important period in Prokofiev’s biography was the Western period. After that, when he returned… E.P. …his style was “disfigured under the pressure of .” In this is concentrated the paradigm of Prokofiev’s biography in two inter-reflecting facets. In the Soviet model, the youth period is qualified as a period of “searching.” The Western period is the intermediary “years of wandering,” between searching and “finding,” that is, the return to his homeland. The final period is his progressive creative blossoming. According to the Western model, the most productive period is the 1920s, while coming back to the USSR is a fatal mistake, after which nothing could be done. He was broken down morally and physically, and his style was mutilated in the Stalin meat grinder.27

Pol’diaeva’s summary clearly portrays the two separate historiographies of

Prokofiev’s life and works.

The most outspoken advocate of the Western viewpoint is the American musicologist . This is clearly seen in his 1991 article in honor of the one hundredth anniversary of Prokofiev's birth, “Prokofiev, Hail . . . and Farewell?,” where he relished the possibility that the current popularity of Prokofiev's music would not weather the test of time, due to perceived affiliations between Prokofiev and the

27 Noëlle Mann and Yelena Pol’diaeva, “O Prokof’eve eshchyo mozhno uznat’ mnogo novogo,” Muzykal’naia Akademiia, No. 2, 2000, 248.

24 Stalin regime.28 Taruskin argued that works such as Prokofiev’s music for the film

Alexander Nevsky cannot and should not be separated from the propagandist message of the film, and therefore of the music itself. Discussing a 1990 performance in San

Francisco conducted by Kurt Masur, Taruskin wrote:

More upsetting yet was the ovation that followed. Not that it signified approval of [’s] political message; what dismayed was precisely that no political message at all had been received, just a rousing piece of music. Just music. Agreeable noise. Is that what is meant by “succeeding as art”? Surely not: such a display is only further evidence that pretending art — or “” at the very least — is by definition apolitical has done more than anything else to marginalize it and trivialize it in our musically disappointing century.29

Although he praised Prokofiev’s music in general and in Alexander Nevsky specifically, Taruskin concluded that we must not separate the music from the message.

For those born since the 1930s the composer of “” was the first composer we got to know and he will always seem a family friend. It would be hard to kiss him goodbye. But his place in the repertory seems already to be slipping — most noticeably in his homeland, where there is less prejudice against attending to what his music is “saying.” If we in the West ever succeed in snapping out of our formalist stupor, our musical lives will be incomparably enriched, but there will be sacrifices. Prokofiev may have to be one of them.30

Taruskin continued this theme in a May 1995 New York Times article entitled

“Great Artists Serving Stalin Like a Dog.”31 This time his target was Prokofiev’s score to

Eisenstein’s film . His arguments are similar to those presented in 1991:

Ivan the Terrible painfully poses all the hardest questions involving art and its purposes. The chief one is this: Is it possible to forget that this movie and this score, whatever their artistic merits, conveyed as poisonous a message as art has ever been asked to monger? And from that follow these: Whatever the sympathy we feel for the human plight of artists who worked under killing constraints, and however strong our human impulse,

28 Richard Taruskin, “Prokofiev, Hail . . . and Farewell?,” The New York Times, 21 April 1991, sec. 2., 25.

29 Taruskin, “Prokofiev, Hail . . . and Farewell?,” 32.

30 Taruskin, “Prokofiev, Hail . . . and Farewell?,” 32.

31 Richard Taruskin, “Great Artists Serving Stalin Like a Dog,” The New York Times, 28 May 1995, sec. 2, 22.

25 therefore, to focus on their “purely artistic” achievement, is it really possible to ignore the content of their work? And if possible, is it desirable that we make ourselves indifferent to the horrific ideas to which they lend such compelling artistic support? For make no mistake: Ivan the Terrible is dedicated to the proposition that abstract historical purposes justify bloody acts in the here and now.32

Taruskin does admit that at times, especially the last five years of his life,

Prokofiev was a victim of the Stalin regime, but this, in his opinion, does not exonerate the composer for compositions like Alexander Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible, written, he argues, to appease Stalin and glorify the Soviet state.

Ian MacDonald, however, in his 1995 Internet article, “Prokofiev: Prisoner of the

State,” felt Prokofiev was a perpetual victim of the regime, to the detriment of his music, health and personal life. This portrayal of Prokofiev as victim still reflects the typical

Western point of view of Prokofiev’s return. MacDonald saw Prokofiev’s decision to return as a combination of the composer’s nostalgia and naiveté:

Nonetheless, Prokofiev remained convinced he should go. Without a doubt, nostalgia was the main impulse, with the lure of being a big fish in a small pond an enticing secondary consideration. However, he seems also to have genuinely believed that the situation in Russia would better not only his own work, but the state of music in general.33

Once Prokofiev had made his move to the Soviet Union permanent, MacDonald felt the regime quickly turned on Prokofiev by withholding promised benefits and opportunities, and striking out against the composer’s works, seemingly randomly:

32 Taruskin, “Serving Stalin Like a Dog,” 22.

33 Ian MacDonald, “Prokofiev, Prisoner of the State: An Interpretation of the Composer’s Relationship with the Soviet Regime in Three Parts, , Into the Fire, and The Protest Music” (www.siue.edu/~aho/musov/sergei.html, copyright 1995). 26 Desperate to contribute something — anything — to the 20th anniversary, the composer threw together a concoction of folk-tunes and Party singalongs entitled “Songs of Our Days.” Mysteriously held back till 1938, the work was thereupon dismissed as “pale and lacking in individuality.” Prokofiev must by now have been utterly bewildered. If he wrote like a simpleton, he was a depersonalized Left deviationist; if he wrote like Prokofiev, he was a mercenary Formalist. Individual, non-individual… there must have seemed no rhyme or reason to it — and, of course, none existed.34

MacDonald takes too narrow of a view on the effects of Prokofiev’s return.

MacDonald’s article chronicles various acts of censorship and even sabotage of

Prokofiev that McDonald felt the Stalinist government committed. Much of McDonald’s information is taken from Seroff’s 1968 biography discussed earlier in this chapter, in which Seroff used any means he could to portray the Soviet Government as malicious and manipulative in its goal to break and control Prokofiev in the last years of his life.

Consequently, since MacDonald relied heavily on Seroff’s findings, much of the misinformation and exaggeration present in Seroff’s text also appears in MacDonald’s work.

Any discussion about the effects of Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union seems eventually to ask the question: Why did he return? There are a number of commonly- given responses to this question that, like the issue of the effects of his return, tend to reflect whether the respondent is from Russia or from the West.

Western scholars have tended to see Prokofiev’s return as an escape from the

West. Dorothea Redepenning summarized the ‘typical’ Western view in her article on

Prokofiev in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd edition.35 She noted that Prokofiev himself justified his decision as stemming from homesickness and

34 MacDonald, “Prisoner of the State,” 5.

35 Dorothea Redepenning, “Prokofiev, Sergey,” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, vol. 20, ed. (London, MacMillan, 2001), 409-423. 27 nostalgia: “I must see the real winter again and hear the in my ears.”36

Redepenning dismissed Prokofiev’s explanation, writing, “Such sentiments seem out of tune with his down-to-earth, clear-thinking character.”37 She saw Prokofiev’s return as motivated by competition — that Prokofiev wanted to be indisputably, the most successful composer in whatever country he was in:

One reason for Prokofiev’s departure from America had been Rachmaninoff’s greater success, and in Europe he came second to Stravinsky; he returned to the Soviet Union just when Shostakovich was out of the running as a rival.38

In this point of view, Prokofiev first found competition with Rachmaninoff in

America to be too much, so he moved to France. Here, writing ballets for Sergei

Diaghilev and the Ballets Russes, the competition with Stravinsky for Diaghilev’s favor proved to be too much for Prokofiev. Redepennning then asserts that Prokofiev did not decide to return to the Soviet Union until after the infamous Pravda articles in January of

1936, which condemned Shostakovich and his music, making it nearly impossible for him to get his music performed. Unfortunately for Redepenning’s argument, Prokofiev’s decision to return was made long before January 1936. Although he did not receive an apartment for his family in Moscow until May 1936 by 1932, nearly all of Prokofiev’s commissions were Soviet, and he was spending much of the year in the Soviet Union.

Since many Western scholars see when he got an apartment in the USSR as the time of

36 Quoted in Redepenning, “Prokofiev,” 413.

37 Redepenning, “Prokofiev,” 413.

38 Redepenning, “Prokofiev,” 414.

28 his official return, it is interesting to note that Prokofiev requested an apartment and asked the administration of the Bolshoi Theater for help in expediting the process in June

1935.39

Redepenning also lists the promise of travel privileges as a reason for Prokofiev’s decision to return, a promise that was broken just a few years later:

We must also assume that a decision to return to the Soviet Union was made palatable to him by promises of privileges. He retained his passport, with which he could travel abroad without the humiliating petitions usually necessary in the Soviet Union, and he continued to give guest performances in Europe and even undertook an American tour in 1938. Then the trap snapped shut: he was asked to hand in his passport for the transaction of a formality, but did not get it back, so that there could be no question of further tours abroad.40

Like Redepenning, Richard Taruskin believes that Prokofiev’s decision to return to the Soviet Union was spurred primarily by competition from Stravinsky:

Why did Prokofiev, this famous and successful artist, return to Stalinist Russia after fifteen years’ celebrity as an émigré? The official Soviet answer had been that in spiritually bankrupt surroundings Prokofiev had reached a creative impasse that only his all-forgiving socialist motherland could succor. […] To those familiar with the details of Prokofiev’s career in the West, moreover, it seems clear that it was Stravinsky, the rival who always outshone him, who more than anything else drove Prokofiev back into the arms of the Soviets.41

Taruskin expressed this same view the following year in his discussion of

Prokofiev’s opera :

And yet, ironically enough, his inability to get The Fiery Angel produced seems in large part to have motivated his return. Frustrated in his bid for leadership in the world of Parisian , where he saw he would always play second fiddle to Stravinsky (and feeling that ‘there is no room for me’ in America ‘while Rakhmaninov is alive’), he beat a tactical retreat to a more provincial pond where he would be beyond dispute the biggest fish.42

39 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 982, l. 19. Letter dated June 5, 1935.

40 Redepenning, “Prokofiev,” 414.

41 Richard Taruskin, “Art and Politics in Prokofiev,” Society, 29 (November and December 1991), 62.

42 Richard Taruskin, “Prokofiev, Sergey,” The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, v. 3, ed. Stanley Sadie (London, Macmillan, 1992), 1137. 29 Prokofiev’s “bid for leadership in the world of Parisian modernism” led, in

Taruskin’s view, not only to Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union, but to second-rate music while he was in the West:

If the works of Prokofiev’s last and longest period are artistically commendable but unhappily tainted, most of the fruits of his emigration are bruised or rotten, justifiably discarded and unrevivable. Their surface and their rarity (but for a couple of concertos) in performance have invested them with a certain enduring snob appeal. Beneath that surface, though, is emptiness, the perfect emptiness of a prodigiously gifted musician who was “absolutely” a musician, who just wrote music, or rather, who wrote, “just music.”43

Nelly Kravets, a Russian musicologist who now lives and works in Israel, showed the typically Russian/Soviet response to the question of Prokofiev’s return in her 1995 article, “‘. . . Life will not forgive you, people will not understand you’: On Prokofiev’s emigration.”44 Although she attempted to discuss Prokofiev’s return objectively, her background as a Soviet-raised musician and scholar shows through, in that she seems to view the composer’s return as an inevitable homecoming, and primarily beneficial to his subsequent career:

In my opinion Prokofiev’s life in the West was a gradual prolonged preparation for his second emigration back to Russia — a process which was happening more subconsciously than consciously.45

The center of Kravets’ article is her discussion of the possible reasons for

Prokofiev’s decision to return after nearly twenty years in the West. Five of her six reasons stress Prokofiev’s Russian origins and correlations between Prokofiev’s

43 Taruskin, “Art and Politics in Prokofiev,” 62.

44 Nelly Kravets, “‘. . . Life will not forgive you, people will not understand you’: On Prokofiev’s emigration,” in Verfemte Musik: Komponisten in den Diktaturen unseres Jahrhunderts (New York: Lang, 1995), 333-41.

45 Kravets, “On Prokofiev’s Emigration,” 335.

30 compositional style and Russian musical traditions. She cites Prokofiev’s concept of

“new simplicity” and the acceptance in Russia of “simplicity of form, less complex , and comprehensible melodies,”46 his obsession with opera, his friendships with Miaskovsky, Asafiev, and Meyerhold, his overwhelming homesickness, and the popularity of Prokofiev’s music in Soviet Russia. Only Kravets’ third reason,

Diaghilev’s death, highlights Prokofiev’s dissatisfaction with life in the West, rather than longing for the familiarity of his homeland.

In the 1999 Mann - Pol’diaeva interview in Muzykal’naia Akademiia, both Mann and Pol’diaeva expanded on the reasons listed by Kravets. Mann mentioned that Oleg

Prokofiev, the composer’s younger son, when asked about the reasons for his father’s return, always answered, “In France, Prokofiev never lived fully.”47 Mann agreed with

Oleg and expanded on his answer:

Physically, of course, he was there [in France], but his heart, and most of all his intellect, remained in Russia. In Russia were his most important correspondents with whom he discussed important questions. Of course, he appeared in France and the rest of the world as a pianist, but he needed a circle of close friends, with whom he could talk about important problems of life. He did not have that in the West.48

Pol’diaeva then brought up the Western theory of competition with Stravinsky as a reason for Prokofiev’s return:

Stravinsky, in the Conversations with Craft, talks about competition (primarily with Stravinsky himself), which Prokofiev was unable to endure. This is strange, though. Prokofiev’s affairs were going very well, and really, is it possible that two such different Russian composers would get in the way of each other so that one had to leave?49

46 Kravets, “On Prokofiev’s Emigration,” 337.

47 Quoted in Mann and Pol’diaeva, “O Prokof’eve eshchyo mozhno uznat’ mnogo novogo,” 247.

48 Mann and Pol’diaeva, “O Prokof’eve eshchyo mozhno uznat’ mnogo novogo,” 247.

49 Mann and Pol’diaeva, “O Prokof’eve eshchyo mozhno uznat’ mnogo novogo,” 247. 31 Pol’diaeva’s reaction is reflective of the general Soviet/Russian view of

Prokofiev’s return. Prokofiev’s heart and history were in Russia, so he was unable to see the horror of the Soviet régime, or if he did see it, he was naïve enough to think his fame and celebrity would protect him.

The problem with both the Western and the Russian/Soviet views of Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union, I believe, is that they seek to provide a single answer, to determine whether Prokofiev’s return sparked a creative blossoming or if it was a fatal mistake. The reality of the situation, however, is a much more complex system of interacting and sometimes contradictory impulses that is more understandable using the concept of multiple identities. In her work on Shostakovich, Margarita Mazo defined multiple identities:

Identity [is] a multifaceted and fundamentally pluralistic phenomenon, a phenomenon that is fragmented, dispersed, and heterogeneous, with a complexity of polarities, even conflicts, all existing in their simultaneity. One would believe that a modern person, as someone who can accept the multiplicity of truths, is certainly capable of accepting the preponderance and complexity of identity. Taking that as a lens, then, allows us to examine how the individual understands, constructs, and performs the self.50

Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union, then, would best be viewed not in terms of good or bad, successful or unsuccessful, but rather as a network of reasons and results, reflecting different aspects of his pluralistic identity. Prokofiev as a man and as a composer had a number of different facets to his personality, each valid, not mutually

50 Margarita Mazo, “Beyond Nationalism: Constructing and Negotiating Heterogeneous Identity,” formal response to the session “Defining a Nation: Polish Communities and Symbols in Music,” American Musicological Society, Kansas City, 1999.

32 exclusive as most authors present them. The various Prokofievs, identified by Taruskin,

MacDonald, Redepenning, Kravets, Pol’diaeva and others, all co-existed within the same man.

Romeo and Juliet and Its Place in Prokofiev’s Work

The common scholarly assessment of Romeo and Juliet, both in Russia and in the

West, views it as Prokofiev’s first “Soviet” ballet, setting it apart from his ballets written earlier, while he was living in the West. In Soviet writings, it is Prokofiev’s return to the

Soviet Union that sparks a new direction in Prokofiev’s compositional style, first seen in

Romeo and Juliet. The Soviet critic Mikhail Druskin, for example, began his 1940 review of the ballet by stating:

Romeo and Juliet opens a new phase in the creative works of Prokofiev. Long years of searching for simplicity and expressive writing are marked with great success. It is no accident that this success is connected with the period of the composer’s return to his homeland.51

In 1957, in the second of his three Prokofiev biographies discussed earlier in this chapter, Israel Nestev identified the same phenomenon:

Romeo and Juliet marked a truly revolutionary leap in Prokofiev’s artistic development, a leap from cold experimentalism to a consistent affirmation of realism. [...] Here we find no trace of surface inventiveness, grotesquerie or expressionist hyperbole, and none of the anemic intellectual abstractions of his Paris period.52

In her 1962 monograph on Prokofiev’s ballets, Svetlana Katonova mentioned in passing that Prokofiev wrote a few short ballets in the West, each of which was flawed by

51 M. Druskin, “Balet ‘Romeo i Dzhul’etta’ Prokof’eva,” Sovetskaia muzyka (No. 3, 1940): 10.

52 I. V. Nest’ev, Prokofiev, translated by Florence Jonas (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1960), 266.

33 “clear signs of musical crisis.” Her discussion begins in earnest with Romeo and Juliet, the first of the three “ballet masterpieces” written by the composer after his return to his homeland.53

Although they downplay the role Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union had in this change, Western writers, especially the more recent authors, also identify Romeo and

Juliet with a shift in the composer’s style. Harlow Robinson wrote, “Romeo represents a giant step forward in Prokofiev’s evolution as a dramatic and symphonic composer. It is a remarkable synthesis of different aspects of his musical personality.”54 David Gutman noted, “Yet within these constraints Prokofiev breaks new ground with his most cohesive piece of musical theatre to date. With Romeo and Juliet he had transcended the limitations of his earlier experiments in the genre.”55 In his 1998 monograph, Daniel

Jaffé wrote “Romeo and Juliet marks the culmination of Prokofiev’s dramatic art. In none of his earlier works had he drawn so convincing a gallery of characters.”56

The interpretation of these changes varies from author to author, but each of them viewed Romeo and Juliet as a stylistic turning point in Prokofiev’s compositions. In some aspects, this is justifiable. Prokofiev’s six pre-Romeo and Juliet ballets, Ala and Lolli,

The Buffoon, Trapeze, Stal’noi Skok (The Steel Step), The , and On the

Dnepr, are all single-act ballets. Romeo and Juliet and the two ballets written after it,

53 Katonova, Balety S. Prokof’eva, 7.

54 Robinson, Sergei Prokofiev, 303.

55 Gutman, Prokofiev, 160.

56 Jaffé, Sergey Prokofiev, 136.

34 and The Stone Flower, are full-length, multiple-act ballets. It is interesting to

note further that the one-act ballets were all composed for European audiences, while

the three full-length ballets were written for the Soviet stage. Prokofiev made the

following observations about this phenomenon in a discussion of On the Dnepr:

We [] love long ballets that fill up an entire evening. Abroad they prefer them shorter and offer either three one-act ballets in an evening, or a one-act ballet together with a short opera. The difference in this point of view arises because we attach more importance to the plot and its development, while abroad they consider that the plot of a ballet plays a secondary role. Three one-act ballets give the opportunity to receive in one evening a greater variety of impressions, from three sets of artists, choreographers and composers.57

Despite the outward differences between Romeo and Juliet and the ballets that

preceded it, though, there are many stylistic similarities as well. The lyricism of The

Prodigal Son, for example, is often compared to that of Romeo and Juliet. Both The

Buffoon and Cinderella share fairy tale roots, while traditional Russian folktales are the basis for On the Dnepr and The Stone Flower.

In his many writings, Prokofiev often discussed aspects of his compositional style. While he acknowledged shifts in emphasis at various points in his career, he saw his compositional style as reflecting a number of simultaneously occurring trends, rather than viewing each shift as a turning point. He felt that identifying specific turning points, which implied a rejection of what came earlier, was not accurate, and moreover, distorted his intentions. He preferred to say that his aesthetic goals changed from piece to piece, resulting in a variety of styles in his work. This is a circular rather than a linear view of stylistic change. A turning point indicates rejection and prohibits a return to earlier

57 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 69. 35 methods. A shift in emphasis, however, implies the possibility of revisiting an earlier style if the composer so desires. Prokofiev identified four styles or “lines,” as he called them, in his autobiography:

Here I want to stop for analysis of the primary lines along which my work has moved. The first is the classical line, with its beginnings in my early childhood, when I heard my mother play the sonatas of Beethoven. This line takes a neo-classical form (sonatas, concertos), and imitates the classic eighteenth century (, Classical Symphony, parts of the ). The second is the innovative line, coming from the meeting with Taneev when he reproached my ‘simple .’ At first this line was a search for my own harmonic language, then changed into a search for a language to express strong emotions (The Phantom, Despair, Sarcasms, , a few of the Romances, op. 23, The Gambler, They are Seven, the , Symphony No. 2). Although this line primarily addresses harmonic language, it also concerns innovations in the intonations of melody, in instrumentation and in drama. The third is the or perhaps the motor line, probably springing from a Schumann toccata which made a big impression on me when I heard it (Etudes, op. 1, Toccata, op. 11, Scherzo, op. 12, Scherzo from the Concerto No. 2, Scherzo from the Concerto No. 5, also the compressed, repeating figure in the Scythian Suite, The Age of Steel and passages in the Concerto No. 3). This line, perhaps, is the least important. The fourth line is the lyrical line. It appears at first to be contemplative, at times not entirely associated with melody, or in any case, with long melody (Fairy Tale, op. 3, Dreams, Autumnal, Romances, op. 9, Legend, op. 12), sometimes more or less associated with long melody (the Choruses on texts of Balmont, the beginning of the No. 1, the Romances on texts of Akhmatova, Grandmother’s Tales). This line was either left unnoticed or discovered at a later time. For a long time the presence of the lyrical in my work was strongly denied, and, unencouraged, it developed slowly. But then, as time passed, I began to pay more and more attention to this line.58

Prokofiev saw all four of these lines as reoccurring, coexisting and complementary aspects of his style. The examples he chose for each line were taken from all of his works, regardless of genre or time of composition. As Prokofiev himself noted, however, the so-called lyrical line began to receive more of his attention as time passed. This may or may not be the result of Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union, even though Western writers portray it as such.

Writers looking for a specific turning point in Prokofiev’s style frequently turn to what the composer himself called “New Simplicity.” Loosely equivalent to the lyrical

58 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 31-32. 36 line, “New Simplicity” is most often used to label music composed after Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union. In fact the concept and even the term became prominent in

Prokofiev’s own descriptions of his music as early as 1930. Prokofiev described “New

Simplicity” as a reaction against modernism, the rejection of complexity and dissonance in favor of clarity of expression characterized by clearly defined melodies supported by uncluttered orchestration.59 These are characteristics frequently attributed to both Romeo and Juliet and The Prodigal Son. Yet, like the ‘lines’ described in his autobiography,

“New Simplicity” was one tool in his stylistic arsenal, one that he used more frequently in his later years, but never exclusively.

There is some validity in considering Romeo and Juliet as a stylistic turning point in Prokofiev’s ballet compositions, but it can be very limiting for understanding the larger picture of Prokofiev’s creative output. This study proposes an assessment that more strongly emphasizes the parallels between Romeo and Juliet and Prokofiev’s earlier ballets and views Romeo and Juliet as reflecting one aspect of Prokofiev’s compositional style, not as a rejection of all that came before. As shown in Chapter 4, Prokofiev’s approach to ballet composition remained remarkably consistent throughout his career, and further, recalls the techniques he used more successfully in the related genres of film music and incidental music for plays. More than just writing the notes, per se, this approach also included Prokofiev’s choice of collaborators for his ballet projects, the

59 M. Bayer, “Prokof’ev provodit razlichie mezhdu modernizmom i sovremennost’iu,” Musical Leader (Chicago), 3 February 1930, translated by V. P. Varunts, published in V. P. Varunts, Prokof’ev o Prokof’eve (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1991), 89-90. B. Usher, “Prokof’ev nadeetsia, chto nastupaet period ‘novoi prostoty’ v myzyke,” Los Angeles Evening Express, 19 February 1930, translated by V. P. Varunts, published in Varunts, Prokof’ev o Prokof’eva, 90-91. “Nazad k prostote muzyki,” Prager Presse (Prague), 12 January 1932, translated by V. P. Varunts, published in Varunts, Prokof’ev o Prokof’eva, 100- 101. 37 working relationships he developed with these collaborators, the types of projects selected, the artistic and aesthetic goals of the work, the actual compositional method, including extensive pre-compositional planning, and even the criteria for measuring the success or failure of a composition. As discussed in Chapter 6, Prokofiev’s inflexibility during the rehearsal process of the 1940 production of Romeo and Juliet is legendary.

These colorful , though, obscure the high degree of collaboration and cooperation between Prokofiev and Sergei Radlov that went into the creation of the 1935 score. This flexibility and dependence on the creative ideas of his collaborators during the planning stages is a trait found in the history of all his ballets, as is the inflexibility and often open hostility directed at anyone who tried to alter what Prokofiev considered a finished composition. Despite this, it was extremely important to Prokofiev to see his works staged, and the practice of compromise in order to get a performance happened more than once in the history of Romeo and Juliet, and can be found in several of his other ballets as well.

38 CHAPTER 2

SETTING THE STAGE: THEATER AND DANCE IN RUSSIA IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY

Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet was greatly influenced by various trends in Russian theater and dance during the period of the ballet’s creation. The purpose of this chapter is to contextualize Prokofiev’s ballets, especially Romeo and Juliet, in terms of the major trends and figures working in the theater and dance in the early years of the twentieth century, and establish how each was influential on Prokofiev and his collaborators in the creation of Romeo and Juliet.

Vsevolod Meyerhold and Early Twentieth-Century Experimental Theater

In Russia, theater was perhaps the most influential and experimental of the performing arts in the early twentieth century. Unlike music and dance, which existed primarily in only the largest cities and in just a few state-sponsored venues, experimental theater was much more widespread, thriving throughout the country, including in small studio theaters.

Perhaps the most preeminent theater director in Russia during the early twentieth century was Vsevolod Meyerhold (1873-1940). He was on the leading edge of experimental theater in Russia for nearly forty years. Meyerhold started as a realist,

39 working with Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko and Konstantin Stanislavsky, but soon branched out, experimenting with , commedia dell’arte style, elements from

Japanese kabuki theater, biomechanics, and , and other styles as well.60

After studying with Nemirovich-Danchenko at the Moscow Philharmonic Society

Theater school, Meyerhold became one of the original members of the Moscow Art

Theater (MKhT), founded in 1898 by Nemirovich-Danchenko and Stanislavsky. MKhT productions explored Nemirovich-Danchenko’s and Stanislavsky’s theories of realism in stage productions.61 In 1902 Meyerhold left MKhT to co-direct his own company, the

Troupe of Russian Dramatic Artists. After a short tenure in the Russian provinces,

Meyerhold returned to Moscow in 1905, and at Stanislavsky’s behest, headed the

Moscow Theatre-Studio, attempting to find an effective method of theatrical symbolism.

Although a number of productions were rehearsed, none were ever staged at the Theatre-

Studio, and the studio was permanently closed after the 1905 revolution.62

In 1906, Meyerhold became the director of the St. Petersburg company of the well-known actress Vera Komisarjevskaya for two years. After being dismissed by

Komisarjevskaya, Meyerhold became director of the Imperial Theaters of St. Petersburg in 1908, staging plays at the Alexandrinsky Theater and operas at the Mariinsky Theater, including a number of very prominent and innovative productions, such as the 1909 production of Richard Wagner’s Tristan and Isolde, notable for his use of the

60 Samuel L. Leiter, The Great Stage Directors: 100 Distinguished Careers of the Theater (New York: Facts On File, 1994), 201.

61 Leiter, The Great Stage Directors, 274.

62 Leiter, From Stanislavsky to Barrault, 46. 40 grotesque.63 Meyerhold remained the director of the imperial Theaters until 1917, at the end of the . While creating acceptable productions for the conservative Imperial Theaters, Meyerhold indulged his experimental side designing controversial stagings for unofficial venues like cabarets and private residences.64 It was during this time that he immersed himself in commedia dell’arte style, using its old street fair traditions to create an exaggerated, ironic style of the grotesque.65 One result of this was the journal The Love for Three Oranges, published by Meyerhold from 1914-16.

The title for the journal was taken from a commedia dell’arte play by , which was very influential on Meyerhold and his approach to theater at the time.66

Meyerhold welcomed the Russian Revolution and the new Soviet government.

He became a member of the Communist party and directed the first Soviet play, a 1918 production of Vladimir Mayakovsky’s Mystery-Bouffe.67 In 1921, as the head of the

Meyerhold Workshop, Meyerhold developed a number of new theories of revolutionary art. Chief among these was his theory of biomechanics, “a form of training aimed at developing actors who would be part athletes, part acrobats, part animated machines.”68

Like many of his fellow revolutionaries, Meyerhold viewed the machine as a representative symbol of modern, and therefore, according to the then current view,

63 John W. Frick and Stephen M. Vallillo, eds, Theatrical Directors: A Biographical Dictionary (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1994), 266.

64 Leiter, The Great Stage Directors, 201.

65 Leiter, From Stanislavsky to Barrault, 51.

66 Frick and Vallillo, Theatrical Directors, 266.

67 Leiter, From Stanislavsky to Barrault, 54.

68 Roose-Evans, Experimental Theater, 26. 41 Soviet life. Biomechanics as an acting method was supposedly linked to scientific notions, especially that of conditioned reflex behavior and time-motion studies. All movements of an actor, according to Meyerhold, were to be reduced to just their most essential aspects, and be based on rhythm, a center of gravity, and stability.69 The results gave Meyerhold’s productions a fluid almost musical quality. In fact, Meyerhold’s 1926 staging of Gogol’s The Inspector General inspired perhaps one of the most “modern” operas, Shostakovich’s , also based on a short story by Gogol.

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Meyerhold began to chafe under the restrictions imposed by the Stalin regime in all areas of the arts. Instead of encouraging experimentalism, as was done in 1917, the government attempted to control creative output, insisting on conformity to the state-sponsored policy of socialist realism.

Meyerhold became increasingly outspoken in his criticism of the government, and was arrested, sent to a concentration camp and executed in 1940.

Meyerhold and his ideas were extremely influential on Prokofiev. The two men first met in 1916, while Meyerhold was director of the Imperial Theaters, and their friendship lasted until Meyerhold’s arrest, in 1939. When they first met in 1916,

Prokofiev hoped that Meyerhold would direct his opera The Gambler at the Mariinsky

Theater. Meyerhold was busy with other projects, but did suggest the young composer consider writing a new opera based on Gozzi’s The Love for Three Oranges. When

Prokofiev departed for America in 1918, Meyerhold’s farewell gift was the 1914 inaugural issue of The Love for Three Oranges journal, which contained a Russian translation of Gozzi’s play. Prokofiev sketched out a libretto for The Love for Three

69 Leiter, From Stanislavsky to Barrault, 55-6 42 Oranges during his ocean voyage, and the results, Prokofiev’s most successful opera, premiered in Chicago in 1921. Prokofiev and Meyerhold met several times during

Prokofiev’s 1927 concert tour of the Soviet Union, his first trip back since leaving in

1918. During this time, Prokofiev saw a production of The Love for Three Oranges in

Leningrad, staged by Meyerhold’s former student and Prokofiev’s collaborator for

Romeo and Juliet, Sergei Radlov. Prokofiev and Meyerhold also worked together on revisions to Prokofiev’s opera The Gambler, in the hopes of staging it in Leningrad with

Radlov as director. The production never happened. From 1927 on, Meyerhold and

Prokofiev were regular correspondents. They worked on a number of projects together, including incidental music for a new production of , and Prokofiev’s opera

Semyon Kotko, but none of these were staged during Meyerhold’s lifetime.

Sergei Radlov and His Approach to Theater

Prokofiev’s primary collaborator in creating Romeo and Juliet was Sergei

Ernestovich Radlov (1892-1958), a student of Meyerhold. Radlov became a well-known avant-garde director in Leningrad in the 1920s and 1930s, specializing in experimental stagings of Shakespeare’s tragedies. Radlov was an innovative stage director who found success in a variety of styles and genres. Much of his work was influenced by

Meyerhold, though his own unique style, especially prominent in his stagings of

Shakespeare’s tragedies, was also clearly visible.

In 1913, Radlov became a poetry student at Meyerhold’s newly opened studio in

St. Petersburg. The studio was a side project of Meyerhold’s while he was director of the

Imperial Theaters in St. Petersburg. Radlov quickly became a leader in the Eighteenth-

43 Century Group within the studio. This group was characterized by their experimental stagings based on “romantic subjects and a softness, elegance, and affectation of performance.”70 Radlov’s literary endeavors, including poems, articles, and translations, frequently appeared in Meyerhold’s The Love for Three Oranges journal.

Radlov soon became an apprentice director under Meyerhold. In 1918 he helped found the Theater of Experimental Productions, a branch of the Theater Department of the People’s Commissariat of Education. Radlov also became a teacher at

KURMASCEP, The Courses for Mastership of Scenic Productions in Petrograd, and became its manager after Meyerhold’s departure in 1919.71

From 1918 until the mid-1920s, Radlov was associated with several experimental theaters as a director and playwright. His work from this period is clearly influenced by

Meyerhold’s concepts of synthetic theater, incorporating topical political agitation with circus and acrobatic elements. In 1919, for the second anniversary of the October

Revolution, Radlov staged a production of Kamensky’s Sten’ka Razin at the Theater of the Baltic Fleet with choreography by another future Prokofiev collaborator, Boris

Romanov.72 Especially notable during this period were the productions at the Popular

Comedy Theater, where Radlov worked from 1920-1922. Following the closure of the

70 David Zolotnitsky, Sergei Radlov: The Shapespearean Fate of a Soviet Director, tr. Tatiana A. Ganf, Natalia A. Egunova, and Olga V. Krasikova ([n.p.]: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995), 4.

71 Zolotnitsky, Radlov, 5.

72 Elizabeth Suritz, Soviet Choreographers in the 1920s, tr. Lynn Vission, ed. Sally Banes (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990) 53.

44 Popular Comedy, Radlov organized the Theatrical Experimental Workshop, where he had a falling out with Meyerhold. Nikolai Golubentsev, an actor with the workshop, described a 1923 visit by Meyerhold to a Workshop production:

Meyerhold’s interest was gradually but clearly fading. An expression of either boredom or distaste appeared in his eyes. And when, finally, we started our best performance, Opus No. 1, he frankly turned away from the stage and looked out at the window. Radlov was alarmed.73

According to Valentina Khodasevich, a set and costume designer who frequently worked with Radlov, he had every reason to be alarmed:

After the first act Meyerhold appeared behind the wings, looking gloomy and angry, and attacked Radlov, accusing him of plagiarism, shouting in the presence of terror-stricken actors that what he had just seen was talentless, and as for the ideas, they had been stolen from him! After which he rushed headlong out of the room. . . . [Radlov], a very gentle and polite man, listened to him with trembling lips and even his face twitched. After this episode, Meyerhold, whenever possible, spoke against Radlov in public, and Radlov did the same against Meyerhold. Their friendship was at an end.74

It was their joint work on Radlov’s 1926 production of Prokofiev’s The Love for

Three Oranges that helped end the feud between Radlov and Meyerhold. Though short- lived, the break with Meyerhold had long-term ramifications for Radlov’s career. The

Theatrical Experimental Workshop ceased to exist soon after Meyerhold’s visit, and

Radlov focused his energies on his teaching at the Institute for Stage Arts, a position he held from 1922 to 1928. He severed his formal relationship with the Institute in 1928 and, with many of the same students, formed the Theater of the Young, which, in 1934, was renamed the Studio Theater under the Direction of Sergei Radlov. In his productions for the Institute of Stage Arts, Radlov’s vision as a director matured, moving away from the direct influence of Meyerhold found in nearly all of his earlier stagings. Adrian

73 Quoted in Zolotnitsky, Radlov, 32.

74 Quoted in Zolotnitsky, Radlov, 32.

45 Piotrovsky, a lifelong friend and collaborator of Radlov’s and future librettist for

Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet, commented in 1924 on Radlov’s new “orientation on the primary elements of performance, namely tempo, scenic space, emotionality . . . and the rejection of extremes such as excessive psychologism [sic] and a passion for mechanical tricks.”75 Although Radlov continued to produce comedies, in the mid-1920s, as will be discussed later in this chapter, he began to concentrate on staging tragedies, especially those of .

Radlov also had close ties to the dance world and was actively involved in a number of ballet productions before collaborating with Prokofiev on Romeo and Juliet.

In 1925, while he was still at the Institute for Stage Arts, Radlov was hired by the State

Academic Theater of Opera and Ballet (GATOB)76 to oversee a production of Schreker’s opera Der Ferne Klang. Radlov directed a number of operas at GATOB, including

Prokofiev’s Love for Three Oranges and Musorgsky’s Boris Godunov.77 In 1931, Radlov was appointed artistic director of the theater, a post he held concurrently with the leadership of his Studio Theater. In 1932 Radlov directed his first ballet, Asafiev’s The

Flames of Paris, with choreography by Vasily Vainonen. In his early comedies, Radlov incorporated acrobatic and circus components into his productions to make them more appealing to an audience of Soviet workers. In staging Shakespeare’s tragedies, he strove

75 Quoted in Zolotnitsky, Radlov, 36.

76 The former Mariinsky Theater of Opera and Ballet. In 1935, the theater was renamed the Kirov State Academic Theater of Opera and Ballet and in 1992 was renamed the Mariinsky State Academic Theater of Opera and Ballet. For references before December 1934, the theater is referred to as GATOB, for events occurring after 1934, GATOB and the Kirov Theater are used interchangeably.

77 Radlov’s production of The Love for Three Oranges is discussed in greater detail earlier in this chapter. The 1928 production of Boris Godunov was the first to use Musorgsky’s own instrumentation. 46 to make the works more ‘alive’ by infusing elements of lightness and optimism into the texture. In his production of The Flames of Paris, he saw himself as an innovator, bringing the emotional intensity of the dramatic theater to the ballet stage:

This ballet is not a pure ballet, it was created as one of the harbingers of a future breakdown of genres, [and] the chorus is organically woven into the fabric of the dance and .78

Every dance, both solo and of the corps-de-ballet, has both an emotional and a logical motivation and organically flows from pantomime. To speak about the French Revolution with the ‘typical’ ballet language is not possible. Here, a continuous and forceful action is needed. This is provided by emotionally rich pantomime, crowd scenes, and finally, the chorus, which I use for the first time in a ballet production.79

These were effective, but not original ideas, and Radlov, despite his assertions otherwise, was not the first to incorporate them. His concepts, from the use of pantomime and the rejection of classical ballet steps to the contemporarily relevant subject matter, can be traced back to others, most notably the naturalism of Michel

Fokine, which will be discussed later in this chapter.

In 1934 Radlov and Asafiev again collaborated on a ballet for GATOB, The

Fountain of Bakchisarai, based on a poem by . Radlov was described in the credits as General Artistic Supervisor, a foreshadowing of the role he would play in the creation of Prokofiev’s ballet version of Romeo and Juliet. The choreographer for

The Fountaion of Bakchisarai was a former student of Radlov’s at the Institute for Stage

Arts, Rostislav Zakharov.

The of Bakchisarai, like The Flames of Paris, was staged in the then- popular style dubbed “choreo-drama,” for its combination of dance and pantomime.

78 Quoted in David Zolotnitskii, “Baletnaia Rezhissura Sergeia Radlova,” Balet (April-May 1998), 30.

79 Quoted in Zolotnitskii, “Baletnaia Rezhissura,” 30.

47 Again, this was not a new idea. In 1928 the critic Gvozdev declared, “A narrative pantomime with a new, modern plot — that is the fundamental, chief task of modern ballet.”80 Elizabeth Suritz observed:

[By the late 1920s], when the leading genre in literature was the psychological novel, when drama and cinema attempted to show real life and people in that real life, the choreographic theater, which in the last analysis faced similar goals, moved towards the dance-drama.81

Radlov and Zakharov’s The Fountain of Bakchisarai was considered an innovative production not because it “[had] both an emotional and a logical motivation and organically [flowed] from pantomime,”82 but because of the manner in which these ideas were expressed. The ballet was one of the first to treat successfully a literary classic on the Soviet stage. It started a trend of ballet productions based on Pushkin and

Shakespeare, including Romeo and Juliet.83

The first time Prokofiev and Radlov worked together was for Romeo and Juliet in

1935, but their acquaintance began during Prokofiev’s years at the St. Petersburg conservatory. Radlov’s personal papers include a letter from Prokofiev addressed “My dear Maestro,” expressing his regrets for having to miss two gatherings, and inviting

Radlov to his home for a game.84 In the diary of his 1927 concert tour of the Soviet

Union, Prokofiev wrote, “I am astonished and delighted with the ingenuity and liveliness

80 A. Gvozdev, 1928. Quoted in Suritz, Soviet Choreographers, 323.

81 Suritz, Soviet Choreographers, 322.

82 Quoted in Zolotnitskii, “Baletnaia Rezhissura,” 30.

83 Asafiev wrote the music to a number of Pushkin-inspired ballets, including Prisoner of the , The Peasant Girl, The Stone Guest, and A Cottage in Kolomna.

84 RPB, fond 625, no. 465, l. 5. The letter is undated, but identifies Prokofiev’s address as 90 Sadovaia ulitsa, where he lived until 1909.

48 of Radlov’s production [of The Love for Three Oranges], and embrace my old chess partner.85 Even in his later correspondence with Radlov, Prokofiev talked as much about chess as music:

I just cannot keep quiet, I must tell you about the game where I beat Tartakover. I am sending you the moves so you may study the characteristic particulars of my style and properly incinerate me this fall when we meet. I should be in Leningrad during the second half of October and the second half of November, if you haven’t changed your dates for Oranges.86

Though they already knew each other, Prokofiev and Radlov’s professional relationship was facilitated through the efforts of Meyerhold. It was on Meyerhold’s suggestion that Radlov directed the 1926 production of The Love for Three Oranges that

Prokofiev saw in February 1927, while touring the Soviet Union. Prokofiev’s reaction to the production was overwhelmingly positive. He devoted over four pages in his diary to

Radlov’s Oranges, describing the performance and his reaction in minute detail:

Somehow all the inventive little touches got me into the swing of the performance right from the start, and it was clear the production had been conceived with enthusiasm and talent. Other tricks followed and each amused me very much: Truffaldino, when summoned from the hall, actually flew down from the top of the stage (a doll instantly substituted by a man); there was an absolutely fantastic hell which grew to an overwhelming size with dolls floating and cavorting around on all levels of the stage; the magician Tchelio was amusingly dressed up as Grandfather Frost; and the table with Smeraldina hidden underneath ran after Leander, the better to overhear the plot he was hatching with Clarissa.87

The commedia dell’arte elements of Gozzi’s play made Prokofiev’s opera a perfect vehicle for the techniques Radlov learned from Meyerhold and practiced during

85 Prokofiev, Soviet Diary, 79. Entry for February 10, 1927.

86 RPB, fond 625, no. 465, l. 1. Postcard dated April 21, 1933.

87 Prokofiev, Soviet Diary, 77. Entry for February 10, 1927. The emphases are Prokofiev’s.

49 the early 1920s, especially for his productions at the Popular Comedy. Though

Meyerhold was not directly involved, his influences saturated Radlov’s production of The

Love for Three Oranges. The critic Anton Uglov wrote:

The elements of ‘Meyerholdism,’ biomechanics in the acting and in the sets (a rope net- trapeze from the floor to the ceiling of the stage, flying devils, etc.) [and] a cinematographic use of colored reflectors, make the opera an enticing spectacle.88

Since Prokofiev enjoyed Radlov’s production so much, he saw it a second time a week later. Ivan Excousovich, the general director of GATOB, asked Prokofiev to write down all of his comments and criticisms of the performance.89 These comments were apparently passed on to Radlov, perhaps for consideration in his 1932 revival of the production.90 From 1927 on, Radlov and Prokofiev kept in touch with each other’s projects though Asafiev and Meyerhold, and occasionally communicated directly, as in the 1933 postcard mentioned earlier.

Radlov’s 1935 Drama Production of Romeo and Juliet

Although the influence of Meyerhold and commedia dell’arte elements were the basis of Radlov’s staging of Prokofiev’s The Love for Three Oranges in 1926, it was

Radlov’s experimental stagings of Shakespeare that served as the creative starting point for Prokofiev and Radlov’s Romeo and Juliet ballet.

88 Quoted in Zolotnitsky, Radlov, 77.

89 Prokofiev, Soviet Diary, 103. Entry for February 19, 1927.

90 RNB, fond 625, no. 217. This three-page handwritten document is labeled as Radlov’s 1926 rehearsal notes for The Love for Three Oranges. In fact, it is Prokofiev’s handwriting, and is most likely the notes requested by Excousovich in 1927. Prokofiev wrote down precise remarks by rehearsal number in the score such as “Reh. no. 49. Pantalon should not sing, but orate. Reh. no 51. Livelier tempo” (l. 1). 50 Radlov was just one of several influential Soviet directors who became interested in staging Shakespeare’s tragedies. In the mid-1920s and 1930s, the plays of

Shakespeare were frequently performed in productions by Meyerhold, Stanislavsky,

Tairov, Akimov, Okhlopkov, and others. During these years, directors moved away from the circus-based entertainments popular following the , and began searching for ways to present the “classics” of world literature in a manner understandable and more importantly, relevant to the proletarian masses. The starting point for these productions was the portrayal of Shakespeare as a realist with a message that transcended time and place. Although he was writing about one particular production of Othello, staged by Radlov in 1935, the comments of the critic A. Smirnov concisely summarized the goal of performing Shakespeare tragedies in general during this time:

The instructive aspect of this performance, so ardently received by the public . . . has shown that the best way to bring Shakespeare closer to us is to restore him in his pure form, without any modernization or embellishments.91

Three directors, Nikolai Akimov and Nikolai Okhlopkov in Moscow, and Radlov in Leningrad, produced the most popular and talked-about productions, often competing with concurrent performances of the same play. The critics debated the merits and drawbacks of each production, compared the vision of each director and how successfully this vision was communicated to the audience.92

91 Quoted in Zolotnitsky, Radlov, 139.

92 From 1934-1936, for example, nearly every issue of Teatr i Dramaturgia, Rabochii i Teatr, Literaturny Leningrad, and other journals of the performing arts, included at least one article or review about a production of Shakespeare. A new production by Akimov, Okhlopkov or Radlov would create an especially large stir: the relative merits of two 1935 productions of Othello by Okhlopkov and Radlov were still being discussed in 1939 articles celebrating the 375th birthday of the . (cf: “Shekspir na Sovetskoi Stsene.” Vecherniaia Moskva, 19 April 1939). 51 Radlov wrote prolifically about his approach to Shakespeare. Among his concerns was the issue touched upon by Smirnov, the challenge of presenting classics without “modernization or embellishment.” In a 1936 article, “Shakespeare and

Problems for Directors,” Radlov wrote:

It seems to me that the central questions are as follows: Which is more important? The play as staged by the director, or his personal interest in this performance? The theme treated by the author, or the personal success of the director in this production? How the director is able to convey Shakespeare or how he demonstrates his own directorial personality? . . . We must be convinced that Hamlet is more interesting than Akimov, that Othello is more valuable than Radlov, that Romeo and Juliet is larger than Popov, and that Anthony and Cleopatra is bigger than Tairov.93

One of the debates that raged in the journals centered around the question, was

Shakespeare an optimist or a pessimist? Radlov asserted that the question was misleading. Since Shakespeare was fundamentally a realist, there are elements of optimism and pessimism in all of his works.94 To Radlov, the director’s challenge was to present both elements without overshadowing one or the other:

If saying that [Shakespeare] is an optimist, one should not color the entire play with rose- colored paint. If saying that he is a pessimist, one should not color everything with thick black paint.95

Radlov was not alone in this understanding. The concept of portraying comedic elements within the context of a tragic drama had been explored by many authors and directors at the time. In 1934, a play by Vsevolod Vishnevsky called Optimistic Tragedy

93 Sergei Radlov, “Shekspir i Problemy Rezhissury,” Teatr i Dramaturgiia 35 (Feb. 1936), 57.

94 RNB, fond 625 [Radlov], no. 141, l. 2. Sergei Radlov, “Moia rabota nad Shekspirom,” Unpublished paper read March 7, 1936.

95 Radlov, “Shekspir i Problemy Rezhissury,” 58.

52 was staged. The production was a popular and critical success, and the term “optimistic tragedy” was borrowed by the press and the directors themselves in describing the combination of optimism and pessimism they found in the tragedies of Shakespeare.

By 1934, Socialist Realism, the official government-sanctioned approach to literature and the arts, was firmly established. Socialist Realism, as defined by Andrei

Zhdanov at the First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers in 1934, aimed “to depict reality in its revolutionary development,” and called upon Soviet artists and writers to produce “works attuned to the epoch.”96 On April 28, 1934, Radlov’s Studio Theater gave its first performance of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. The production would serve as the inspiration for Radlov and Prokofiev’s ballet the following year. In staging

Romeo and Juliet, Radlov strove to underscore what he saw as parallels in Shakespeare’s text with contemporary Soviet society:

The fundamental motive of the production could perhaps be formulated as such: Romeo and Juliet is not a play about love, not a poem about love, and not a portrayal of two overly lofty and delicate souls without a place on our crude and vile planet. Romeo and Juliet is a play about the struggle for love, about the struggle for the right to love by young, strong, and progressive people fighting with feudal traditions and feudal opinions about marriage and family. The entire play is alive and imbued with the unifying breath of struggle and passion, making it, perhaps, the most Komsomol of all of Shakespeare’s plays.97

The Komsomol, the Communist Youth League,98 was the social and political arm of the Communist Party for youth ages 14-28. Established by Lenin in 1918, the

Komsomol played a vital role in securing support for Bolshevik rule during the civil war

96 Quoted in Boris Schwarz, Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 1917-1970 (London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1972), 110.

97 Sergei Radlov, “Iunost’ Teatra,” Teatr i Dramaturgiia 27 (June 1936), 23.

98 Komsomol is an acronym derived from Kommunisticheskii Soiuz Molodiozhi, literally the Communist Union of Youth but traditionally translated as the Communist Youth League.

53 following the October revolution. Lenin quickly understood that the future of the Party

lie in the proper education of its youth. During its first 50 years the Komsomol was

responsible for the political training of over 100 million Soviet youth.99 In the late 1920s,

the entire organization was declared a shock brigade for the first of Stalin’s 5-year plans

(1929-1932). The Komsomol built power stations, railroads, and factories, helped with

agricultural collectivization, and aided in the dissemination of pro-Soviet propaganda.100

It was in this atmosphere of pro-youth fervor and the acknowledgement of their role in

building a an ideal Soviet future that Radlov declared Romeo and Juliet to be a

Komsomol drama, thus making it politically useful and relevant, and compliant with the ideals of Socialist Realism. In a review aptly entitled “The Optimistic Shakespeare,”

Adrian Piotrovsky gave his views of Radlov’s Konsomol interpretation of Romeo and

Juliet:

[Radlov’s] production clearly divides the different types of youth. On one side is the sullen, feudal Tybalt and the feudal-lyric Paris. Revealing the color of the great optimism of youth are the cheery friends of Romeo, Benvolio and especially Mercutio. This is a novel about two entirely different lands with the thick blood and strong will of young people endeavoring to struggle against the dying old-fashioned feudal ethics for the right to happiness and love.101

The essence of Radlov’s interpretation and the rationale behind labeling the play

as Komsomol, then, is the idealization of the role of youth in forming a new and better

world. In this version, Romeo and Juliet’s death is not a tragedy, they sacrificed their

lives for the greater cause.

99 B. A. Balashov and V.V. Lutskii, “Komsomol,” Bol'shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia: A Translation of the Third Edition, ed. A. M. Prokhorov, vol. 5 (New York: Macmillian, 1973) 232.

100 Balashov and Lutskii, “Komsomol,” 235.

101 Adrian Piotrovskii, “Optimisticheskii Shekspir: ‘Romeo i Dzhul’etta’ v teatre-studii p/r S. E. Radlova” (Sovetskoe iskusstvo (Moscow) 23 May 1934) 2. 54 Radlov was aided in his interpretation of Romeo and Juliet as a Komsomol drama

by a new translation prepared by his wife, Anna Radlova. One of the challenges of

working with literature in a foreign language is finding an appropriate translation. Within

the boundaries of meaning set forth by the author, it is possible in any translation to stress

a number of different aspects. It is possible to do a literal translation, for example,

ignoring poetic details such as rhyme and meter. Another variant is to change word

choice and imagery to preserve rhyme and meter. What is not possible, however, is to

create a translation that captures all aspects of the original. Translation, then, can have a

profound effect on interpretation and meaning. By using his wife’s translation, which

emphasized the youth and vitality of the main characters, Radlov was better able to

support his socialist realist view of Romeo and Juliet as a Konsomol drama. This

emphasis, then, spilled over into Radlov and Prokofiev’s 1935 ballet Romeo and Juliet,

where the idea of youth paving the way to the future is taken one step further, by ending

the ballet happily, with Romeo and Juliet living to lead the way themselves.

Russian Imperial Grand Ballet and Marius Petipa

Another influential factor that shaped Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet, was various styles of ballet, especially the Petipa-era Russian Imperial Grand Ballet, Sergei

Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, and the concept of choreo-drama championed by Boris

Asafiev. Both Prokofiev and Radlov worked with some of the best-known names in avant-garde theater in Russia in the first years of the twentieth century, and many of the

55 ideas they encountered were influential in their creation of Romeo and Juliet in 1935.

Both men were also acquainted with a number of innovators in the dance world, and these connections also helped shape Romeo and Juliet.

By the early 1900s, European-style ballet had been established as a staple of

Russian court life. Dance was formally introduced to the Russian court in the first years of the eighteenth century by Peter the Great, as part of his attempts to westernize the

Russian nobility. In the mid-1700’s, Catherine II formally created the Imperial Theater

System and established the Imperial Theater School.102 At the turn of the twentieth

century, ballet in Russia was synonymous with the work of choreographer Marius Petipa

(1818-1910). Petipa, a Frenchman by birth, came to Russia in 1847 as premier danseur

and occasional ballet master for the Imperial Theaters in St. Petersburg. He became

Chief Choreographer in 1869, a post he held until his retirement in 1903.103 During his

tenure in St. Petersburg, Petipa staged over 75 ballets and the dances for 36 opera

productions. Most of these works and those crafted in imitation of Petipa's style bear the

description “Grand Ballet.”104 The grand ballet style as developed by Petipa was highly

formulaic in terms of narrative unfolding, scene structure, and dance. Usually in four

acts with upwards of nine scenes, these ballets were notable for their complex narrative

structures and visual spectacle.105

102 Tim Scholl, From Petipa to Balanchine: Classical Revival and the Modernization of Ballet (New York: Routledge, 1994), 2.

103 Vera M. Krasovskaia, “Marius Petipa,” International Encyclopedia of Dance: A project of Dance Perspectives Foundation, Inc., ed. Selma Jeanne Cohen, vol. 5 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 157.

104 In Russian, Bol’shoi balet, from the French designation Ballet à Grand Spectacle.

105 Scholl, From Petipa to Balanchine, 4. 56 In Petipa-era ballets, the ballerina was the center of a production, with the leading male character regulated to a secondary role, “a consort but never a king.”106 This emphasis on the ballerina rather than the leading male character was a change of focus from earlier French romantic ballets, caused primarily by the introduction of pointe technique. At first used as a novelty, dancing sur les pointes became a staple of the ballerina’s technique in both solo and ensemble work after it was introduced in France in the second half of the nineteenth century. The male hero had dominated the ballet stage in earlier centuries, but by the 1890s, his role was to physically support the ballerina as she executed increasingly difficult leaps, turns and poses.107

The ballet historian Tim Scholl viewed the emphasis on the ballerina and the standardized plot structure found in Petipa’s ballets as stemming from a portrayal of

“theatricalized” female sacrifice. According to Scholl, the focus is on the central female character:

The typical Petipa work has a , a vision scene, and a scene of reconciliation in which the male protagonist and heroine are rejoined — with each scene slightly adapted to the new narrative exigencies. [...] Ultimately, the structure, rather than the themes of the romantic ballet proved most important for Petipa, as the literal or metaphorical death of the heroine became less significant than the narrative structure it determined.108

The mad scene signified the conclusion of the opening narrative scenes and the transition from reality to the fantastic scene that followed. The vision scene, referred to as the ballet blanc, consisted of a for the female soloists and corps de

106 Scholl, From Petipa to Balanchine, 12.

107 Scholl, From Petipa to Balanchine, 12-13.

108 Scholl, From Petipa to Balanchine, 6-7. 57 ballet. The final resolution was a set of triumphal , usually with a series of national and character dances.109 Although Petipa introduced these features to , they were not his innovations, but rather common French practices of the time.

As might be inferred from the relationship between the ballerina and the male hero, ballet in Russia during Petipa’s era followed a strict hierarchy, reflecting the larger court-based society of which it was a part. At the top of the pyramid was the choreographer, whose artistic vision reigned supreme. The emphasis was on the presentation of awe-inspiring spectacle. Little effort was given to coordinating the different elements of ballet. Scenery and costumes had no direct link to the action on stage, and often were reused in several different productions. Music and plot as well were seen as subservient to the overall structure-driven format.

Prokofiev, when adapting Romeo and Juliet for the ballet stage, seemed to reject most elements of the Petipa-era formula as described above, but he retained some important elements as well. First of all was the overall form of the ballet. Shakespeare’s

Romeo and Juliet contained five acts with twenty-four scenes. Following Petipa’s model that shaped the expectations of the time, Prokofiev modified Shakespeare’s structure, and the ballet was constructed in four acts with nine scenes.

Most Petipa-era ballets conclude the first act by featuring the ballerina in a mad scene. Juliet does have such a scene, when she refuses her parents’ demand to marry

Paris, but this takes place in Act III, scene 1, much later in the ballet than called for in the typical Petipa-era work. There is no equivalent of the fantasy scene typical in the grand ballet tradition as described by Scholl in Romeo and Juliet. There is, however, a

109 Scholl, From Petipa to Balanchine, 7. 58 reconciliation scene, the happy ending where Romeo arrives before Juliet’s death.

Missing, though, are the triumphal divertissements, with their national and character

dances. In general, Romeo and Juliet are given equal narrative importance by Prokofiev

in 1935; the character of Romeo does much more dramatically than merely support Juliet

from the background.

Lavrovsky’s alterations for the 1940 Kirov production, especially in the balcony

scene, returned the emphasis, in part, to the ballerina dancing the role of Juliet. As will

be discussed in Chapter 6, many of Lavrovsky’s changes reflected a return to elements of

the typical Petipa-era ballet. This idea of music being subservient to the plot was rejected

by Prokofiev and Radlov, but re-instated by the more conservative Lavrovsky.

Lavrovsky’s changes were a source of much tension between the two men. Prokofiev

was used to and expected to be treated as an equal, whereas Lavrovsky was raised in the

tradition where the choreographer’s vision was the rule.

Sergei Diaghilev and the Ballets Russes

One of the most powerful influences on Prokofiev as a ballet composer was the

innovations and experiments of Sergei Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes. Diaghilev took a

special interest in Prokofiev, wanting to make him one of the Ballets Russes composers, along with Stravinsky. Diaghilev referred to Prokofiev as his second son (the first was

Stravinsky), and when he felt Prokofiev was straying as a composer, he asked Stravinsky to take him under his wing.110 Diaghilev commissioned four ballets from Prokofiev, Ala

110 Harlow Robinson, Selected Letters of Sergei Prokofiev (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998), 64.

59 and Lolly (1914-15), which was never staged, The Buffoon (1915, rev. 1920), Stal’noi

Skok [The Steel Step] (1925-6), and The Prodigal Son (1928-9). Although Romeo and

Juliet is a four-act ballet in the style of the Petipa-era grand ballet, at the same time it contains many influences from Prokofiev’s association with the Ballets Russes.

By 1905, ballet as an art form in Russia was considered to be stagnant and formulaic, suffering from a “leadership crisis and artistic malaise” following the so-called

“Golden Age” of ballet in the 1890’s under Petipa’s leadership.111 Petipa had been forced into retirement in 1903, leaving an artistic void that remained unfilled. The

Feburary 1905 uprising in Russia began as a workers’ protest, but soon spread to nearly all levels of society. Artists and musicians joined in the fray: among the protests was a dancers’ strike at the Mariinsky Theater. The Mariinsky strike and other acts of revolt served as a catalyst for the immense stylistic changes that took place in the arts during the first two decades of the twentieth century. Diaghilev formed the company that would become the Ballets Russes in the aftermath of the strike. The demands of the striking dancers included salary increases, a shorter work week, a voice in management, and the right to choose their own company managers.112 Many dancers were frustrated with the status quo, and wanted the freedom to explore ideas that would become the hallmarks of the Ballets Russes, especially the cooperation and interaction between the different elements of ballet production.

Several of the student leaders of the 1905 dancers’ strike, most notably Michel

Fokine, , and Tamara Karsavina, would later become stars in the West as

111 Lynn Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 4. 112 Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 4.

60 members of the Ballets Russes. The strike divided the company of the Imperial Ballet into dissidents and management loyalists. Despite an official amnesty, a few of the strike leaders were dismissed, one was sent to a psychiatric hospital, others received stern warnings, and were denied promotions or leading roles.113 These dancers began to seek foreign engagements, resulting in a large proportion of the Mariinsky’s rising young stars leaving the company and finding fame elsewhere.

One of the first to leave the Mariinsky and strike out on his own was the dancer and choreographer Michel Fokine. An adherent to the principles of naturalism, Fokine rebelled against what he saw as the stale conventions of the Petipa repertory. In his

Memoirs of a Ballet Master, he wrote:

When I played a ‘mime’ role, I represented an authentic image of the period. But when I danced a “classic” part, I portrayed a leading dancer — outside the confines of place or time . . . I felt that, the more historically authentic were the costumes of the mimes, the more idiotic we, the classic dancers, must have appeared in the midst of them . . . in pink tights and short skirts looking like open umbrellas.114

During Petipa’s tenure at the Imperial Ballet, it had become traditional to conclude the final act of a ballet with a set of national and character dances.115 The character dance was a means of expressing historical particularity and a sense of exoticism. By the turn of the century, these dances had become highly stylized, their inspiration stemming from classical dance rather than national or folk tradition. The critic Alexander Shiryaev noted:

113 Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 5.

114 Michel Fokine, Memoirs of a Ballet Master, trans. Vitale Fokine, ed. Anatole Chujoy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1961), 118. Quoted in Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 8.

115 Scholl, From Petipa to Balanchine, 7.

61 A follower of the classic ballets, Petipa went to the character dance from them, and not from folk dances. . . . No matter how externally brilliant and effective the character dances of Petipa may have been, it would be more correct to consider them classical on some national theme than actual national dances, even in a purely theatrical sense.116

In his quest for authenticity that eventually led to his choreographic masterpieces for Diaghilev’s troupe, Fokine became an avid scholar of history, the visual arts and music. He traveled extensively and absorbed impressions of cultures past and present, noting their separate means of expression:

Just as life differs in different epochs, and gestures differ among human beings, so the dance which expresses life must vary. The Egyptian of the time of the Pharaohs was very different from the Marquis of the eighteenth century. The ardent Spaniard and the phlegmatic dweller in the north not only speak different languages, but use different gestures. These are not invented. They are created by life itself.117

Fokine abandoned the traditional national and character dances and applied his theories about national dance to his choreography. He started using traditional dance rather than classical movement as his source of inspiration, creating what came to be known as the genre nouveau:118

The genre nouveau differed from character dance both in its fidelity to historical sources and in its overt emotionalism. But it also departed from its predecessor in another way. Implicit in Fokine’s ethnographic method was a respect for human diversity and the multiplicity of cultural expression — the belief that in the best of all possible worlds pluralism would reign. . . . Here, Russia’s vast and growing empire, and the Pan-Slavic ideology that supported it, found ready theatrical expression.119

Thus, slowly, the Petipa-era formulas were broken down and replaced.

116 Quoted in Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 11.

117 Quoted in Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 9.

118 Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 11.

119 Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 13.

62 One of the hallmarks of the Ballets Russes was the cooperation and interaction between the different aspects of ballet production, rather than the strict hierarchies of the

Petipa years. The roots of this cooperation stem from the late 1890s, before the dancers’ strike of 1905. In the late 1890s, a small group of St. Petersburg intellectuals began publishing the journal (The World of Art). The journal’s founder and editor was Sergei Diaghilev, the future impresario of the Ballets Russes. Modest in its beginnings in 1898, the journal became the forefront of the artistic avant-garde in Russia until its demise in 1904. Other members of Mir iskusstva group, including the painters

Alexander Benois and Léon Bakst, would continue working with Diaghilev and become the artistic core of the Ballets Russes.

In 1899, Diaghilev was appointed as an assistant to Prince Sergei Volkonsky, the newly-appointed Director of the Imperial Theaters. Working with his Mir iskusstva colleagues, Diaghilev took over as editor of the Yearbook of the Imperial Theaters. The group turned what had been a modest review of the year’s events into a collectors’ edition known for its variety, quality and technical perfection.120 In 1901, buoyed by their success with the yearbook, the group next tackled a dream project of Benois, the

“perfect” staging of Léo Delibes’ ballet Sylvia.121 Despite Volkonsky’s initial support, the participation of so many “outsiders” to the Imperial Theater in the project became a problem. Volkonsky asked Diaghilev to officially resign from the Sylvia project: he could continue with the production, but the administration of the theater would receive the public credit, not Diaghilev’s group. Diaghilev refused these conditions and would

120 Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 165.

121 Scholl, From Petipa to Balanchine, 44. 63 not consider any type of compromise. He was summarily dismissed from the Imperial

Theater by Tsar Nicholas II, and permanently barred from employment in any government service.122

Though Sylvia never reached the stage, the planned production was an important precursor to the Ballets Russes. Artistically, Sylvia set the pattern for the synthesis of production elements that became a vanguard of Ballet Russes “style.” Diaghilev’s banishment from the official theater system forced the group to take their enterprise abroad, eventually bringing scores of Russian dancers with them.

After Diaghilev’s dismissal, other members of the Mir iskusstva group continued their work in St. Petersburg. Alexander Benois and Léon Bakst continued to receive commissions from the Imperial Theater as set and costume designers. In 1907, Fokine and Benois worked together on a Mariinsky Theater production of Nikolai Tcheripnin’s ballet Le Pavillon d’Armide.123 Though officially barred from state service, Diaghilev himself continued to mount art exhibitions and theater productions in Russia and in

Europe until 1909 under the patronage of Grand Duke Vladimir, the President of the

Imperial Academy of Arts.

In 1909 the Ballets Russes broke its remaining financial ties to Russia and established itself in Paris as an independent company. The enterprise’s first ballet production was a revival of the 1907 Le Pavillon d’Armide production which first introduced Fokine to the group. For the next several years, the Ballets Russes would

122 Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 167.

123 Alexander Benois, Reminiscences of the Russian Ballet, trans. Mary Britnieva (London: Putnam, 1941), 246. Quoted in Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 26.

64 define itself through the choreography of Fokine, , and Leonid Massine, the stage designs by Benois, Bakst, Nicholas Roerich, Michel Larionov, and Natalia

Goncharova and dancers such as Tamara Karsavina, Anna Pavlova, Sergei Lifar, and others. Most of the leading composers in Russia contributed music to the early Ballets

Russes seasons, including Rimsky-Korsakov, Tcheripnin, Borodin, Glinka, and

Glazunov. Stravinsky’s music became a staple of the company with Firebird in 1910.

Starting around 1912, Diaghilev continued to work with composers in Russia, but turned more and more to the music of European composers like Debussy, Ravel, de Falla and

Satie.

When Fokine joined the Ballets Russes in 1907, he was an innovator, breaking out of the confines of the outdated Petipa-era formulas. By 1914, however, these innovations had themselves turned formulaic, and Fokine left the group.124` Vaslav Nijinsky, already a renowned dancer with the troupe, became Diaghilev’s protégé and new choreographic star. Nijinsky created only four ballets for the group, yet these works thrust the Ballets

Russes to the forefront of modernism in dance. Nijinsky’s genius lay in his ability to incorporate current experimental trends yet retain a distinctly individual voice. Chief among his inspirations were the stage experiments and innovations of Vsevolod

Meyerhold, discussed earlier in this chapter.

Leonid Massine, who choreographed Prokofiev’s The Steel Step for the troupe, began his career as a choreographer for the Ballets Russes in 1915. With Massine’s

124 Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 85.

65 works, design began to overshadow other components as the unifying element of a production. This was due in part to the addition of futurist painters Michel Larionov and

Natalia Goncharova to the Ballets Russes company:

This dramatic shift in the relationship of choreography and visual design coincided with Massine’s apprenticeship and ripening artistry as a dance master. Unlike the vast majority of choreographers, who create their maiden works by imitating or reacting against choreographic models, Massine learned the rudiments of his craft from the painter’s static images.125

The final seasons of the Ballets Russes were dominated by the creations of

Georges Balanchine. Balanchine’s name eventually became synonymous with choreographic , but when he joined the Ballets Russes in 1924, he was a confirmed modernist, bringing with him the acrobatic elements employed at the time in the most progressive Soviet productions.126 Balanchine adopted neoclassicism with

Stravinsky’s Apollon Musagète, produced in 1928. Garafolo wrote about Apollon

Musagète:

The Balanchine work fused choreographic neoclassicism with several other “classical” ideas. One of these was idealism: the identification of art with a timeless Parnassus of the spirit. A second was neo-orthodoxy, trend of the 1920s, when numerous artists and intellectuals exchanged agnosticism for the verities of religious faith. . . . Also present [were] the allegorical treatment of the theme and the mythological subject matter, both of which recalled conventions of -ballet, to say nothing of devices exploited in Diaghilev’s earlier period works. These conventions survive only vestigially in current productions of . But like the music, they stressed the “classicism” of the original, allying Balanchine’s return to Petipa with trends extrinsic to the choreography itself.127

Similar neoclassical ideas were explored by Balanchine in 1929 in his choreography for Prokofiev’s The Prodigal Son.

125 Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 85.

126 Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 135.

127 Garafolo, Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes, 139-40. Garafolo points out that the title Apollon Musagète was later shortened to Apollo, and Balanchine reworked the choreography several times, so that the version performed today differs significantly from the 1928 original (p. 140). 66 CHAPTER 3

THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS AND THE CREATION OF ROMEO AND JULIET

Right from the beginning, Prokofiev sought out the help of a trusted group of colleagues in creating Romeo and Juliet. As was pointed out in Chapter 2, Prokofiev’s main collaborator was Sergei Radlov, but other people and processes helped shape the ballet as well. This chapter shows how Prokofiev proceeded from the original idea of writing a ballet based on Shakespeare’s tragedy Romeo and Juliet to the process of composing the score in the summer of 1935.

The Romeo and Juliet Project

Prokofiev wrote in his autobiography that plans for the work that became Romeo and Juliet began in the latter part of 1934. After spending the fall in Paris with his family, Prokofiev arrived in Moscow at the beginning of November 1934 to work with director on the incidental music for Tairov’s Egyptian Nights, a drama based on the lives of Anthony and Cleopatra, culled from fragments of plays by Pushkin,

Shakespeare, and George Bernard Shaw. Prokofiev and Radlov most likely saw each other during this time and discussed a possible collaboration on a ballet version of

67 Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.128 By 1934 Prokofiev was seriously considering returning to his homeland on a permanent basis. Since his first visit in 1927, Prokofiev had been spending large quantities of every year in the USSR, and nearly all of his commissions were Soviet. Egyptian Nights opened on December 14 at the Moscow

Chamber Theater, and Prokofiev returned to Paris a few days later.129

Perhaps the most complete exposition of the beginnings of Romeo and Juliet is found in Israel Nestev’s 1973 biography of Prokofiev.130 According to Nestev, in 1934

Prokofiev was hunting around to find ideas for an opera to be staged at GATOB. He read a number of novels. Asafiev introduced Prokofiev to Adrian Piotrovsky, who suggested two Pushkin subjects, The Captain’s Daughter and Peter the Great’s Arab.

Prokofiev, inspired by Asafiev’s recent successes staging ballets at GATOB, began thinking about a ballet based on Peter the Great’s Arab, but soon came to the conclusion that it contained “too little material with which to build a big ballet.”131 Prokofiev,

Piotrovsky and Asafiev brainstormed for an appropriate subject for a multi-act ballet.

They narrowed the choice down to Pelleas and Melisande, Tristan and Isolde, and

Romeo and Juliet. Prokofiev thought it over for a few days, and chose Romeo and

Juliet.132

128 Radlov noted that the two men first discussed the idea of writing a ballet based on Romeo and Juliet when Prokofiev saw Radlov’s troupe perform his drama production of the play during their 1934 tour in Moscow (Sergei Radlov, Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 29 (23 June, 1935), 3).

129 Robinson, Prokofiev, p. 296.

130 Nestev, Zhizn Prokof’eva, 368-370.

131 Nestev, Zhizn Prokof’eva, 368.

132 Nestev, Zhizn Prokof’eva, 367. 68 One aspect of Nestev’s narrative is a bit puzzling. Prokofiev knew Radlov and his work, yet according to this account, it is Piotrovsky, whom Prokofiev most likely did not meet until this time, who introduced the two men and suggested they work together on Romeo and Juliet. It seems unlikely that this is how it really happened, but it is not impossible. Piotrovsky was longtime friend and colleague of Radlov’s and was aware of

Radlov’s reputation as an interpreter of Shakespeare. He was also aware that Radlov had just staged a successful drama production of Romeo and Juliet earlier that year. Once

Shakepeare’s play had been chosen as the theme, perhaps then Radlov became a logical choice for collaborator. Without further documentation, though, it is not possible to establish beyond doubt how the events actually unfolded.

In Nestev’s account, Boris Asafiev was one of the masterminds behind the Romeo and Juliet project. Even if he was not directly involved (and Nestev’s account is the only indication that he might have been), he definitely played an important role in bringing

Prokofiev and Radlov together on the project. Radlov and Asafiev worked together many times in the 1920s and 1930s. Asafiev was the composer for The Flames of Paris and

The Fountain of Bakchisarai, both ballets directed by Radlov at GATOB. He also had composed the incidental music for Radlov’s 1934 drama production of Romeo and Juliet.

During these years, Asafiev and Prokofiev frequently corresponded, and Asafiev played an important part in organizing Prokofiev’s 1927 concert tour of the USSR and in encouraging him to return to Russia permanently.

Prokofiev himself, in his 1941 autobiography, tells us that talks were held about a performance at the Kirov Theater. It is unclear in the statement whether or not any official agreement was reached; we are told only that “the Kirov Theater went back on its

69 word and instead I entered into a contract with the Moscow Bolshoi Theater.”133 This has been interpreted as an official contract by most authors, with the breaking of the contract explained by Radlov’s departure from the theater in December 1934 in the aftermath of the assassination of the Leningrad Party Boss, Sergei Kirov, and the eventual renaming of

GATOB in his honor.134 The actual chronology of events does not fully support this interpretation. Radlov wrote his letter of resignation from GATOB on June 22, 1934, nearly six months before Kirov’s assassination.135 All known materials about Romeo and

Juliet show that the idea for the project was conceived in November or December 1934, during Prokofiev’s trip to the Soviet Union.

Unofficial negotiations for the production of a large-scale work by Prokofiev with

GATOB, now renamed the Kirov Theater, continued into the first months of 1935. In a

January 24, 1935, letter Miaskovsky wrote Prokofiev about a meeting he had with

Asafiev in which Asafiev expressed his concern that the Leningrad Theater Union was afraid of Prokofiev and would do anything to keep his music from reaching the stage.136

Prokofiev wrote to Asafiev on February 9, 1935, asking for information about negotiations with the director of the Kirov Theater, R. A. Shapiro, for productions of

The Gambler and Romeo and Juliet.137

133 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 75.

134 Cf. Robinson, Prokofiev, 297; Jaffé, Sergey Prokofiev, 134.

135 RNB, fond 624, no. 351. Copy of Radlov’s official letter of resignation.

136 Prokof’ev and Miaskovskii, Perepiska (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1977), 434.

137 Harlow Robinson, ed., Selected letters, 138.

70 In his autobiography, Prokofiev wrote that after plans fell through with the Kirov, a contract was signed with the Bolshoi theater. The earliest indication of the Bolshoi’s interest in staging the ballet is an April 9, 1935, telegram from the Bolshoi Theater director V. Mutnikh to Piotrovsky asking him to immediately send his agreement to begin work on the libretto for Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet.138 In a June 17, 1935, statement by Mutnikh, he announced the theater had commissioned four new works, including “the ballet Romeo and Juliet by Prokofiev.”139 Throughout the rest of 1935, there are frequent references to Romeo and Juliet in internal GABT documents, indicating an official agreement to stage the ballet. Satisfied that the work would be performed when completed, Prokofiev, Radlov, and Piotrovsky began work on the scenario for Romeo and

Juliet in April 1935.

138 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2 (GABT), no. 995, l. 346. Signed and stamped copy of April 9, 1935, telegram to Adrian Piotrovsky.

139 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2 (GABT), no. 995, l. 117. Minutes of the Repertoire Council of GABT meeting from June 17, 1935. The other commissioned works were the operas Dekabristi by Shaporin and Revizor by Shvedov, and the ballet Spartak by Asafiev.

71 The January 1935 Outline of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet

In August 1936, Prokofiev gave an interview to the journal Teatr i Dramaturgiia in which he discussed how he conceived of musical ideas for a stage production.140 He qualified his statement to refer to incidental music or a soundtrack to a film, but the process he described seems to be nearly identical to how he approached the composition of Romeo and Juliet, as will be discussed later in this chapter and in Chapter 4:141

When I am invited to write music for a dramatic production or a film, I hardly ever agree immediately, even if I already know the text of the play. I take 5 to 10 days in order to “see” the production, that is to see the characteristics of the various roles, the illustration of their emotions, the illustration of events. Simultaneously with this thinking, important themes usually suggest themselves. When I say “yes,” then, I usually have the main thematic material already in my head and, therefore, the starting point for the work is already established.142

Though the interview was given nearly a year after the composition of Romeo and

Juliet, it underscores the relationship that Prokofiev saw between the various types of narrative genres. He was very careful to distinguish between music for a ballet or an opera on the one hand, and incidental music for a play or a movie soundtrack on the other. To Prokofiev, the difference between these two types of composition seemed to lay primarily in the sophistication level and expectations of the audience:

In an opera or a ballet performance or a symphonic concert, the listeners come with the specific wish to hear music, while it is of no interest to a spectator at a dramatic performance whether or not music accompanies the stage presentation.143

140 Sergei Prokofiev, “Izuchaite tekst, teatr, orkestr: Beseda c S. S. Prokof’evym” (Teatr i Dramaturgiia 41, August 1936) 489-91.

141 One aspect of this interview that needs to be pointed out is that Prokofiev presented himself as a veteran composer of film scores and incidental music, when at the time of the interview he had written only one , completed only one set of incidental music, and had just recently been commissioned to write music for two productions commemorating the centennial of Pushkin’s death.

142 Prokofiev, “Izuchaite tekst, teatr, orkestr,” 489.

143 Prokofiev, “Izuchaite tekst, teatr, orkestr,” 489. 72 The audience expectations differed, according Prokofiev, by the specific genre of the production. To Prokofiev himself, though, the role of music seemed to serve a similar function regardless of genre: it illustrated and enhanced the narrative presented on the stage.

The earliest-known material regarding Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet ballet is an outline of Shakespeare’s play written out in Prokofiev’s handwriting in January 1935.144

This document, which has only recently been discovered in the Serge Prokofiev Archive in London, seems to be the result of Prokofiev’s attempts to familiarize himself with

Romeo and Juliet as he described in the 1936 interview discussed above. As part of his initial process of picturing in his mind what a ballet production of Romeo and Juliet might look like, Prokofiev condensed Shakespeare’s play down to what the composer considered to be the bare essentials. Included were the traits for each of the roles, the expression of their emotions and an outline of the primary events in the play. From this, according to the August 1936 interview, Prokofiev most likely began to “see” how he would portray each character musically.

Prokofiev’s outline of Shakespeare’s play is a two-page hand-written document in two distinct sections, the first section in English, and the second in Russian. In the upper right-hand corner of the first page, Prokofiev wrote in Russian “January 1935: Content of

Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare.”145 This phrase, as well as the rest of the Russian text in the outline, is written in Prokofiev’s characteristic shorthand style. Throughout his

144 SPA, Notebook 27 (January-June 1935). Photocopy. Dated January 1935 in Prokofiev’s hand. This is the first discussion of this document in a scholarly document.

145 “Ianv, 1935. Soderzhan Rom i Dzh. Shekspira.” This phrase is much lighter than the rest of the document, indicating that Prokofiev wrote it in pencil on the original. 73 life, he would leave out most of the vowels when writing in Russian. He used this “style” for nearly all of his handwritten work, including , professional letters and letters to friends. Only when typing or writing in languages other than Russian, did Prokofiev consistently write out every word in full.

An examination of Prokofiev’s January 1935 outline is revealing in that it shows

Prokofiev’s thought processes as he considered turning Romeo and Juliet from a stage tragedy into a ballet. The first page of the outline is written on staff paper and includes

Acts I, II, and III of Shakespeare’s play (see Figure 3.1, Act I from the January 1935 outline). The title of each scene is written in English, followed by a short synopsis in

Russian. The second page includes Acts IV and V, and is written on unlined legal-size paper. The title and the synopsis of each scene for these two acts are written in Russian.

The distinct differences in paper type and style and language indicate that Prokofiev most likely wrote the two pages at two different times. Only the first page is dated, so there is no way to know whether the difference in time was a matter of days or a matter of months.

From Prokofiev’s renditions of characters’ names in Russian, it seems that he was most likely working directly from an English text rather than from a Russian translation.

This is easily seen when comparing Prokofiev’s use of names to the forms used in the translations available in 1934. For example, Prokofiev used the literal transliteration

‘Ledi Kapulet,’ while Shchepkina-Kupernik used the Italian ‘Sin’ora Kapuletti.’ and

Radlova used the Russian ‘Gospozha Kapulet.’ While it is possible that Prokofiev had access to a different translation (at least five others were published in the 1800s),

Shchepkina-Kupernik’s and Radlova’s were the most readily available at the time.

74 Figure 3.1: Act I from a 1935 outline of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in Prokofiev’s hand. In the upper right hand corner, Prokofiev dated the document Jan. 1935, and labeled it as the plot of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (in abbreviated Russian: “Soderzhan Rom i Dzh Shekspira”). SPA, Notebook 27 (January-June 1935).

75 Prokofiev’s 1935 score of Romeo and Juliet deviates from Shakespeare’s text in several places, but none of these changes are in the January 1935 outline: it is merely

Prokofiev’s synopsis of Shakespeare’s text. The changes made to the play in order to transform it into a viable ballet were added later, most likely in collaboration with Radlov and Piotrovsky. Prokofiev’s descriptions in the outline are short and concise, without much detail (see Figure 3.2, Translation of the January outline). The sketchiness of the document and the frequency of incomplete sentences and thoughts indicate that Prokofiev probably prepared this outline for his own use.

In the January 1935 outline, a document most likely intended to develop ideas for writing an appropriate musical setting, music is mentioned only twice, in Act IV, scene 4 announcing the arrival of the bridegroom, and in Act IV, scene 5, where the wedding music has turned to a funeral dirge. This is in stark contrast to the compositional plan written four months later, where musical character is noted for nearly every number. The emphasis in the January 1935 outline was primarily on the unfolding of narrative events.

It is interesting to point out, however, that already in this pre-compositional state,

Prokofiev was beginning to “see” in sound how he would portray certain scenes, and this, according to the 1936 interview, was what he needed to say “yes” to a project.

76 77 78 The May 1935 Compositional Plan of Romeo and Juliet

Prokofiev returned to Moscow in March 1935, after a two-month stay in Paris, and remained in the Soviet Union through the fall of 1935.146 In April he traveled to

Leningrad to work with Radlov and Piotrovsky on Romeo and Juliet. These meetings resulted in a 4-page compositional plan for the ballet in Prokofiev’s handwriting, dated

“Leningrad, May 16, 1935.”147 It is this plan that Prokofiev used as his guide as he composed the ballet in the summer of 1935. Prokofiev wrote out this plan for his own use, and the elements he used in the document, such as pre-compositional timings, reflect what I hope to show was his typical approach for composing a ballet score. Prokofiev wrote the majority of the plan in purple and black ink. Later revisions to the plan were made with various colored pencils, and in a few instances, different colored ink.

The May 1935 plan seems to have been written at several different sittings. This is most clearly seen by the pen color of what I will refer to as the primary layer, the layer that was most likely completed before Prokofiev sat down to compose. This layer includes the sequential numbering of each movement, the description of the primary action in the movement, some general musical characteristic, and most astonishingly, the precise length of the movement in minutes and seconds. The date, the title and the first scene of the primary layer for Act I are in purple ink. Prokofiev switched to black ink in the middle of this first page for the primary layer for scene 2 of Act I. The primary layer of all of Act II and the heading for Act III is written in purple ink. The primary layer of

146 Though Prokofiev spent most of 1935 in the Soviet Union, his family was still in Paris. The family gave up their Paris apartment and “officially” moved to the USSR in May 1936.

147 RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 66, l. 1

79 the two scenes of Act II are in black ink, and the primary layer of Act IV, which begins in the middle of the last page of the four-page document, switches back to the purple ink.

Though the pen color of this layer varies, the numbering is consistent, implying that

Prokofiev wrote it from start to finish, then went back and began making changes.

One of the changes in the later layers of the plan is the segmentation of individual movements. As he composed, Prokofiev revised the plan in a number of places. He added one new movement, combined what was planned as two separate movements into one, split what was one movement into two, and deleted a planned movement. After he made these changes, he crossed out the old sequential numbers and wrote in the new ones in pencil. The original plan called for 58 musical numbers; the revised version has a total of 56. Beside each of the revised numbers, Prokofiev wrote in a big X in red pencil, the significance of which he explained in a July 8, 1935, letter to Vera Alpers:

All in all there are 58 numbers . . . and for me there is no greater pleasure that to make a cross next to a completed number (a black cross if the music is conceived in principle, a red cross when the number is composed and written down). 148

Also in pencil, Prokofiev inserted comments about the character of the music and even wrote in a few short musical fragments (see Figure 3.3, facsimile reproduction of

Act IV of the May 1935 plan, and Figure 3.4, translation of the entire May 1935 plan).

Four elements can be found in this draft. First, the general character for each musical number is described in a few words. Secondly, key dramatic points are outlined.

Thirdly, musical characteristics are noted, and finally, timings are notated for each musical number. For example, general characteristics are given as in number 4: “Quarrel between the servants. Not very impetuous.” And Number 5: “Fight. Impetuous.” In

148 RNB, Fond 1201, no. 160. Letter from Prokofiev to Vera Alpers, July 8, 1935. 80 Figure 3.3: Act IV (the “Happy Ending”) of Romeo and Juliet from the May 1935 Compositional Plan (in Prokofiev’s shorthand Russian). RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 66, l. 2 r.

81 82 83 84 Number 5, too, there is a description of an important dramatic moment: “At the end: the

Prince enters, the fighting stops”. In other places, the verbal descriptions relate to the character of the music as well, as in Number 8: “Servants, heavy scherzo”, Number 10:

“Arrival of the guests. Minuet? Slow, not dance-like”, and Number 11: “Entrance of

Romeo, Benvolio and Mercutio a) March b) 8 measures of Romeo, thoughtful.”

A unique component of this draft that is discussed further in Chapter 4, is the inclusion of precise timings. This is remarkable, considering that this is primarily a pre- compositional plan. For each musical number Prokofiev gave an approximate timing, in minutes and seconds, and in some instances, as in number 12, sections within a number are given these timings as well.

A comparison of the May 1935 plan with the January 1935 outline shows a number of differences, all of them changes necessary in order to transform a play into a ballet. Shakespeare’s play contains a brief prologue and five acts, with each act divided into a number of scenes, varying from three scenes in Act V to six scenes in Act II. For the ballet version of Romeo and Juliet, the structure is rearranged into an introduction and four acts. As in the original play, the acts are divided into scenes, but in the ballet, there are only nine scenes all together. These scenes are further divided into fifty-eight (later revised to fifty-six) individual numbers, each containing just one or two dramatic or descriptive events. As described in Chapter 1, Prokofiev’s rearrangement of

Shakespeare’s scene structure into four acts with nine scenes corresponded with the expected form of the imperial grand ballet style on the Russian stage as established by

Marius Petipa. Since there was no spoken dialogue to help the audience understand the

85 narrative flow, as there is in a drama production, Prokofiev and Radlov chose to have each musical number concentrate on just one or two key events, portrayed by dance, so the audience could follow the story.

The most significant changes made by Prokofiev, Radlov, Piotrovsky and

Zakharov in transforming Shakespeare’s play into a viable ballet are those that occur in the ballet’s Act IV. Instead of the “traditional” ending where Romeo and Juliet both die, the collaborators instead changed the timing of events in the fourth act so that Romeo arrives before Juliet awakes, thereby avoiding the double suicide.

The ramifications of the decision to re-write Shakespeare will be addressed further in Chapter 5. Here the discussion will focus on why the collaborators decided to have the ballet end happily. In his 1941 autobiography, Prokofiev stated that in writing

Romeo and Juliet, he wanted a “lyrical” topic. It is not known precisely what Prokofiev meant by the use of this word, but most likely it referred to the type of story to be told.

By his choice of the word “lyrical,” Prokofiev most likely meant a topic that would fit into the guidelines of Socialist Realism, as discussed in Chapter 2.

Audience expectations also may have been a reason for including a happy ending.

In press reviews about the happy ending of Romeo and Juliet, it was pointed out that audiences attending a ballet expect to leave the theater uplifted, not depressed.149 This was in part required by the tenets of Socialist Realism, where the primary function of the

149 Kut, Sovetskoe Isskustvo, 29 January 1936. This interview is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

86 arts is to uplift and inspire the . The happy ending, then, was necessary for the transformation from play to ballet, since a ballet, especially a Soviet ballet, could not be expected to end with death.

Prokofiev himself talks about one more reason for the happy ending. As he pointed out in his autobiography, “Living people can dance, the dead cannot dance lying down.”150 In a genre where dance is the focal point, it does make sense to consider an ending in which the two principal characters are alive and can express themselves through dance.

Most likely, though, the happy ending was an extension of the “komsomol” themes so important to Radlov in his 1934 drama production of Romeo and Juliet, and discussed in Chapter 2. In that production, the death of Romeo and Juliet was not a tragedy; it instead served to show society the errors of the old ways and propel it forward into a new era. Equating this with the Soviet youth movement served to underscore the parallels with current society, where the youth would show the way to the new Soviet era.

By re-writing Shakespeare, the librettists of the ballet were able to eliminate the tragedy of Shakespeare’s play and end the ballet triumphantly, with youth leading the parade to the utopia of the new age.

The May 1935 plan, then, reflects sketches for many aspects of the ballet and shows the distinct influence of Prokofiev’s collaborators, Sergei Radlov and Andrei

Piotrovsky. In the August 1936 interview referred to earlier in the chapter, Prokofiev discussed his ideal collaboration with stage or film directors. Prokofiev stated that he

150 Prokofiev, Autobiography, 75.

87 wanted guidance, he wanted to understand the director and the vision for the final project, so that the music could be integrated seamlessly with the other elements of the production:

I love it when the playwright or the director can give me concrete requirements for exactly the kind of music they want. It helps me when they say “I need a minute and a quarter of music here,” or “give me sad and tender music here.” These requirements are important to me, because that way I know what a non-musician wants in a particular instance, or, more precisely, since many of our playwrights and directors understand music excellently, what, in general, the author of the production wants from the music suitable for a particular moment. After that it is easier for me to compose music, than if a director or playwright is silent and I must approach music only from the point of view of a professional musician. In other words, in the first case, there appears to be a more multifaceted view of the situation, and of course one does not need to fear that difficulties might appear in reconciling my point of view with the point of view of the playwright or director, if to some degree our views are divergent.151

All of this is to say that to compose in these genres, Prokofiev needed a “visual” emotional image as an impulse for the music.

The materials surviving from the early history of Romeo and Juliet, especially the

May 1935 plan, hint that after he wrote the January 1935 outline and agreed to compose music for the ballet, guidelines similar to what Prokofiev described in 1936 were established. The professional relationship between Prokofiev and Radlov appears to have been a comfortable and productive one. As discussed in Chapter 2, Romeo and Juliet was not the first time the two men worked together, nor would it be the last. In 1938, three years after Romeo and Juliet, the two men again worked together on a well-received dramatic production of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Although there is no known documentation of Prokofiev and Radlov’s working relationship for the creation of Romeo and Juliet, it can be assumed that the process was similar to that described for Hamlet.

151 Prokofiev, “Izuchaite tekst, teatr, orkestr,” 489. 88 As shown by an eight-page handwritten letter from Radlov to Prokofiev about the music needed for Hamlet, read in light of Prokofiev’s own words about what he wanted from a director, their collaboration was a good one. Radlov described in great detail how he saw each role, what he thought the inner motives of each character were, and how he wanted to portray that character musically. 152 He suggested the mood and character for each musical theme, and described how he wanted to use it. Several of the musical themes, for example, Radlov wanted to repeat three or four times, altering the orchestration to fit the shifting moods onstage. At the end of each long description, Radlov added timings for the section in brackets.153 Also telling is Radlov’s closing paragraph: “For the realization of this task, miraculous craftsmanship is needed, of course, but I am certain that

Prokofiev possesses it.”154 One can imagine a similar process for Romeo and Juliet, resulting in the May 1935 compositional plan.

Prokofiev’s own recollections about Hamlet underscore both what Prokofiev wanted from a director, and the comfortable relationship between himself and Radlov:

My method of working on music for a dramatic production consists of obtaining from the director what he wishes for from the music for the production, then fighting with him about my wishes, and finally, from the reconciliation after the fight, making a definitive conclusion about what kind of music should be written.

For the production of Hamlet, only the first section of these events took place, because Sergei Ernestovich Radlov, at my request, set forth his wishes in a quite detailed letter. These wishes so much coincided with my own, that all that remained was to settle only a few small details, then write the music.155

152 RNB, Fond 625, no. 346. Undated letter to S. S. Prokofiev.

153 RNB, Fond 625, no. 346, l. 2. Section 1, for example, has the notation: “The duration of this number: maximum, to the meeting of the son with his father, 1 3/4 minutes.” There are 6 sections, or numbers, in Radlov’s letter.

154 RNB, Fond 625, no. 346, l. 8.

155 Sergei Prokofiev, “O muzyke k Gamlety Shekspira [On the music to Shakespeare’s Hamlet],” S. S. Prokof’ev: Materialy, Documenty, Vospominaniia (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Muzykal’noe Izdatel’stvo, 1961), 101. 89 Sergei Radlov was Prokofiev’s primary collaborator for Romeo and Juliet, but he was not the only one. Adrian Piotrovsky’s name appears on most published editions of

Romeo and Juliet as a co-librettist, though the extent of his contribution is not entirely known. Piotrovsky was a lifelong friend and colleague of Radlov’s, as was discussed in

Chapter 2. They frequently worked together for productions in Radlov’s studio theater, and as a theater critic, Piotrovsky frequently wrote about Radlov’s work in major journals such as Sovetskoe Iskusstvo and Teatr i Dramaturgiia. Piotrovsky worked on other ballet libretti, including Shostakovich’s ill-fated ballet, The Limpid Stream.156 Piotrovsky worked in the literature department of GATOB in Leningrad, a post he held at least until mid-1936. According to Prokofiev’s autobiography, Romeo and Juliet was first intended for production at GATOB in St. Petersburg. By late 1934, when both Radlov and

Prokofiev date the first ideas for the ballet, Radlov was no longer working at GATOB, but Piotrovsky was. Perhaps Piotrovsky’s involvement as co-librettist was partially to make sure of a current connection with the theater to help facilitate a production. When plans at GATOB fell through and a commission to produce the ballet at the Bolshoi

Theater in Moscow had been secured, Piotrovsky was included as a librettist on the project. A telegram dated April 9, 1935, from the GABT director V. Mutnykh, to

Piotrovsky requested Piotrovsky to “immediately send your agreement to start work right

156 The history of The Limpid Stream and the official denouncement of Shostakovich’s music in 1936 will be discussed further in Chapter 5.

90 away on the libretto of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet.”157 Beyond this, and a few brief mentions of Piotrovsky as a co-librettist in press articles from late 1935 and early 1936,

Piotrovsky’s association with the ballet is undocumented.

In a June 23, 1935 article in Sovetskoe Iskusstvo about Prokofiev’s new ballet,

Radlov talked about a quartet of collaborators for Romeo and Juliet: “Sergei Prokofiev, the composer of the ballet, Adrian Piotrovsky, my co-author of the libretto, ballet master

Rostislav Zakharov, with whom I hope to stage the proposed production, and myself.”158

Prokofiev noted in his autobiography, “In the Spring of 1935 Radlov and I worked out a scenario, carefully consulting with a ballet master on all technical questions.”159 The ballet master consulted was most likely Rostislav Zakharov. As discussed in Chapter 2,

Zakharov was a former student of Radlov’s and in 1934, Zakharov was the choreographer for Radlov’s production of The Fountain of Bakchisarai. It would not be at all surprising if Radlov suggested Zakharov as the ballet master for Romeo and Juliet. What is not known, though, is to what extent Zakharov was involved in the project: Was he a casual consultant or an active contributor?

In a 1962 article, Galina Dobrovolskaia determined for the first time that work began on the scenario for Romeo and Juliet in late 1934, “according to Zakharov’s memoirs concerning his meeting with Prokofiev in Leningrad, organized at the initiation of Radlov. There the timings for the production were determined, and the character of

157 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 995, l. 346.

158 Sergei Radlov, “Balet Romeo i Dzhul’etta,” Sovetskoe Iskusstvo 29 (23 June, 1935), 3.

159 Shlifshtein, ed., S. S. Prokof’ev: Materialy, 75.

91 the music for every number was discussed.”160 This passage contains a number of items that need to be commented on further, but for now, the focus is the role of Zakharov in

1934 and 1935. Dobrovolskaia made no further mention of Zakharov in her article, except to point out that Zakharov was the ballet master for the 1943 production of

Prokofiev’s ballet Cinderella. Her point seems to have been to show that Zakharov was involved on some level with the creation of Romeo and Juliet and that it must have been a positive experience, since Prokofiev and Zakharov worked together again on another ballet. In 1962, this was completely new information. It changed nothing, though, about how scholars discussed or thought about Romeo and Juliet. Even the most comprehensive biography of Prokofiev, Nestev’s 1973 The Life of Sergei Prokofiev, mentions Zakharov only in association with Cinderella.

Nearly 35 years later, the Russian musicologist Svetlana Petukhova continued

Dobrovolskaia’s line of thought, and suggested in her 1997 doctoral dissertation on

Romeo and Juliet that the role of Zakharov has been severely underestimated. Petukhova contended that Zakharov was an equal partner in the collaboration and most likely completed a full choreographic plan for Romeo and Juliet.161 She came to this

160 G. Dobrovol’skaia, "Iz Istorii Sozdaniia Romeo i Dzhul'etta S. S. Prokof'eva: Kompozitor v Rabote nad Dramaturgiei Baleta [From the History of Composition of Romeo and Juliet by S. S. Prokofiev: The Composer at Work on the Dramaturgy of the Ballet]," Muzyka Sovetskogo Baleta: Sbornik Statei (Moscow: Muzyka, 1962), 239.

161 S. A. Petukhova, “Pervaia Avtorskaia Redaktsiia Baleta Prokof’eva Romeo i Dzhul’etta,” Ph.D. diss., Moscow State Tchaikovsky Conservatory, 1997.

92 conclusion by reading between the lines of both Zakharov’s memoir as described by

Dobrovolskaia, and Prokofiev’s statement about consultations with a ballet master in his autobiography.

Zakharov’s comments, in full, as they were published in 1954, help us to clarify his actual role in the creation of Romeo and Juliet:

In 1935 Sergei Prokofiev planned the ballet Romeo and Juliet. The ballet was commissioned from Prokofiev by the Bolshoi Theater of the USSR, and I was invited to be the future ballet master and to stage the production. Together with Prokofiev we discussed the compositional plan of the ballet, its dances and scenes, and the timings for each individual number.

But I did not get to stage the new production, since the director of the Bolshoi Theater rejected Prokofiev’s music. Four years later it was staged at the Leningrad Theater of Opera and Ballet named for Kirov with L. Lavrovsky as the ballet master.162

According to these memoirs, then, Zakharov was indeed the ballet master mentioned by Prokofiev in his autobiography. The section also hints, with the use of the phrase “future ballet master,” that Zakharov did not complete the task of choreographing the ballet, that his role was that of consultant rather than co-creator.

Further clarifying Zakharov’s role is a signed copy of a letter dated September 5,

1935, in the archives of the Bolshoi Theater, from the Bolshoi Theater administration to

Zakharov in Leningrad. The letter is an official invitation to Zakharov to come to

Moscow to stage Romeo and Juliet, with a planned premiere for the second half of the up-coming season. It informed Zakharov that if he wished to accept the invitation, he must negotiate with the director of GATOB to release him from his contract in

Leningrad.163 A few days earlier, on September 1, 1935, Prokofiev had sent a postcard

162 R. V. Zakharov, Iskusstvo Baletmeistera (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1954), 177-178. Emphasis mine.

163 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 978, l. 136.

93 from Moscow to Radlov about progress on Romeo and Juliet, which confirmed the choice of Zakharov for choreographer. The note reads: “Today was a hearing of [the first] three acts. Mutnykh confirmed his wish to stage it in the Spring. They started negotiations with Zakharov. It looks as though the stage designer will be

Khodasevich.”164

Since these two items are the last known documents associating Zakharov with

Romeo and Juliet, it seems that he did not receive permission from GATOB to break his current contract; moreover, on January 29, 1936, a short notice appeared in Sovetskoe

Iskusstvo, announcing that P. Gusev had been appointed ballet master for the upcoming production of Romeo and Juliet, and the stage designer would be V. Khodasevich.165 As a footnote, the Bolshoi archives include a contract signed by Zakharov in June 1936, bringing him to Moscow to work at the Bolshoi on a permanent basis, but this was at least two months after plans to stage Romeo and Juliet were dropped.166 Therefore,

Zakharov revealed only part of the story in his memoirs. Zakharov stated that he was not the ballet master for Romeo and Juliet because the planned production of the ballet at the

Bolshoi Theater did not take place. What Zakharov failed to say, however, was that by the time the production plans for the ballet were canceled, Zakharov had already been replaced by Gusev as the intended ballet master.

164 SPA, Notebook 28 (July-December 1935). Photocopy. Dated 1 September 1935 in Prokofiev’s hand. 165 Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 29 January 1936, 4

166 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 1052, l. 139.

94 Perhaps the full story and the extent of Zakharov’s involvement with the first version of Romeo and Juliet will never be known, but from the information provided by

Radlov, Prokofiev, Zakharov, the January 29, 1935 press release, and the Bolshoi Theater archival material, a few of the pieces can be put together. It can be surmised that Radlov wished Zakharov to work on Romeo and Juliet as the ballet master. He had worked with him in the past and knew what he could do. At Radlov’s initiation, Prokofiev and

Zakharov met in Leningrad and discussed items such as the musical character and the timings for individual numbers of the planned ballet. In the fall, while Radlov was out of town, Prokofiev finalized arrangements for a Spring 1936 production of Romeo and

Juliet which resulted in Zakharov being officially invited to work on the production.

Most likely Zakharov was unable to break his contract with GATOB in Leningrad at the time, and the Bolshoi appointed Gusev to take Zakharov’s place.

Composition of the 1935 Piano Score of Romeo and Juliet

The summer of 1935 was a busy and ultimately productive one for Prokofiev.

Soon after completing the May 1935 compositional plan, he took up residence at the

Bolshoi Theater retreat of Polenovo, located near the village of Tarussa, south of

Moscow, on the Oka River. During the four months he spent there, he completed the entire piano score of Romeo and Juliet, as well as the Violin Concerto no. 2, two symphonic suites, two opuses for piano, and an album for children.167

167 Robinson, Prokofiev, 305. 95 These few months were pivotal in the events that would bring Prokofiev back to the USSR permanently. Documents in the Bolshoi Theater archives, as well as a letter from Prokofiev to the Bolshoi Theater indicate that the theater administration was instrumental in obtaining passports and possibly housing for Prokofiev and his family, because of Prokofiev’s commission from the Bolshoi to compose Romeo and Juliet. The earliest of these documents is a June 1935 letter from the Bolshoi administration to the

Foreign Department of the Moscow Regional Government, asking for a passport for Lina, so she could travel to France while he remained in the USSR to work on Romeo and

Juliet:

The composer S. S. Prokofiev is working on composing the music for a ballet commissioned by the Bolshoi Theater. It is essential that S. S. Prokofiev manage his affairs in Paris, where he has lived for several years and where his children are located. In connection with the aforementioned work, S. S. Prokofiev is not able to travel to Paris at this time. The Administration of GABT of the USSR petitions for issuing a passport — valid until June 15 — for his wife, Lina Ivanovna Prokofieva.168

On September 1, 1935, Prokofiev wrote a letter to Vladimir Ivanovich Mutnykh, the director of the Bolshoi Theater, complaining about having to live in a hotel and asking for the theater’s help in obtaining an apartment in Moscow:

My large-scale work on a ballet for the Bolshoi makes me address you with a request to help me with an apartment in Moscow. I live with my family in a hotel, and it does not give me the quiet necessary for my work, not to mention the excessively unmanageable expenses. After finishing the ballet, I will begin a large-scale for the twentieth anniversary of the Soviet state, by commission from the Radio Committee, and for this I also need to have suitable conditions for my work.169

168 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 982, l. 19. Letter dated June 5, 1935.

169 SPA, Notebook 28, June-December 1935. Letter dated September 1, 1935.

96 Although I was unable to find a specific request from the Bolshoi Theater for an apartment for Prokofiev, it is possible that the theater did intervene on his behalf, since

Prokofiev and his family received an apartment in central Moscow in May 1936.170

In September 1935, the theater administration requested a passport for Prokofiev so he could leave the USSR for a month-long concert tour in November. In December

1935, a request from the theater was submitted for another passport so Prokofiev could complete the second leg of the concert tour:

The administration of GABT requests the issue of a foreign passport for the composer S. S. Prokofiev, who is currently working on a composition commissioned by GABT.171

The composer S. S. Prokofiev in November of this year traveled abroad on a concert tour. In connection with the composition of a ballet, which Prokofiev is working on commission from the director of the Bolshoi Theater, he has interrupted his concert tour and arrived in Moscow. So that S. S. Prokofiev, no later than January 20, 1936, can again travel abroad for the end of his concert tour, the administration requests that you issue him a new foreign passport.172

The actual composition of the music for Romeo and Juliet took place during the summer and early fall of 1935, at Polenovo. Prokofiev finished the piano score, consisting of fifty-six musical numbers, on September 8, 1935, and immediately began orchestrating the ballet.

From all accounts, especially his own, Prokofiev’s stay at Polenovo was a particularly peaceful and productive time. His letters to friends and colleagues are optimistic and jocular. Prokofiev described his surroundings and his daily routine while composing the ballet in a July 8, 1935, letter to Vera Alpers:

170 Robinson, Prokofiev, 313.

171 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 982, l. 39.

172 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 982, l. 68.

97 The retreat is very pleasant, the surroundings are picturesque, and all of the inhabitants have some kind of connection to the Bolshoi Theater. There are 150 people in 5 buildings, but I have a completely separate little cottage with a terrace on the bank of the Oka. And I enjoy the quiet and peacefulness of being out of earshot from the others. I swim in the Oka, play tennis and chess, go on walks in the forest with our ballerinas, read a little, and for about five hours a day, I sit and work.173

To the composer , he wrote:

I’m spending the summer at an estate that belongs to the Bolshoi Theater, near Serpukhov. It’s a marvelous little spot, a bit noisy when 3/4 of the Bolshoi Theater troupe comes here on vacation, but it’s actually fun, especially since I have a separate little cottage with a Blüthner and a terrace overlooking the Oka River, where it is very quiet and conducive to good work. Lina Ivanovna and the children also came here in August; everyone made a great fuss over the boys and spoiled them to pieces. Now all the opera and ballet people have gone away, and I’m sitting over the score up to eight hours a day. Besides the ballet, I have written a Second Violin Concerto, two symphonic suites, two opuses for piano (one of them is called Thoughts), and an album for children.174

The following letter to his friend Ephraim F. Gottlieb, an insurance agent in

Chicago, seems to refer to one of several press releases about Romeo and Juliet that were published in various places during the summer of 1935:

From the enclosed article you will see in which way I am busy. This work takes practically all my time, therefore please excuse the briefness of my letter. In order to finish this ballet in time I will not go to Paris - it is Mrs. Prokofiev who will make the journey so as to bring here the boys for the second half of the summer. Meanwhile I will stay at the estate of the Grand Theater where artists and people connected with this theater are taking their vacations. It is a beautiful place on the river Oka. I will have there a tiny bungalow (a kind of izba) with a piano, so that nobody will disturb me there.175

In August, Prokofiev left Polenovo briefly for a concert tour. From Baku, he wrote Lawrence Creath Ammons, a Christian Scientist and friend of the Prokofiev family in Paris:

Thank you for your card from England. L[ina] and the children left Paris on July 31 and arrived safely to Moscow, but I could see them only for 36 hours as I had to go to the

173 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 982, l. 68.

174 Sergei Prokofiev, Selected letters of Sergei Prokofiev, trans. and ed. Harlow Robinson (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998), 135.

175 SPA, Notebook 28, June 6, 1935. Written in English.

98 Caucasus for concerts. Health is all right and Romeo and Juliet is coming out splendidly. During the 35 days of my wife's absence (which I spent in a most charming country place near Moscow) there was not a single day when I have not composed something. Heartiest greetings to Mrs. Ammons and to yourself from SP176

As we can see, even before Prokofiev began composing Romeo and Juliet, he was actively promoting the new ballet. Besides the letters to friends mentioned above,

Prokofiev contacted at least one publisher about Romeo and Juliet. In an April 1935 telegram from Moscow, Prokofiev wrote Antonini Corat in Paris about a French publication: “To you I propose a French translation of my new ballet. I will finish the composition in six months.”177

Word about the new ballet traveled quickly, and Prokofiev was contacted by colleagues from all over, offering to help bring Romeo and Juliet to performance. The first of these offers came from A. Rimsky-Korsakov, most likely the son of Nikolai

Rimsky-Korsakov, one of Prokofiev’s former teachers:

I am sending you my revision of Romeo and Juliet, which is just a first version of the ballet scenario. You know very well that any libretto can be completely changed in the process of working with the director and the composer. I ask you to take this into consideration while evaluating the text of the scenario that I propose to you.178

Prokofiev seems to have rejected this proposal, inexplicably scrawling at the bottom of the letter, “no relation to the composer’s family.”179

In June 1935, in response to Prokofiev’s letter from the beginning of the month,

Ephraim Gottlieb offered to help get a performance of Romeo and Juliet in New York

City:

176 SPA, Notebook 28, Aug 9, 1935. Written in English.

177 SPA, Notebook 27, April 24, 1935. Written in French.

178 SPA, Notebook 27, April 15, 1935.

179 SPA, Notebook 27, April 15, 1935. 99 I am extremely happy of the fact that the Bolshoi Theater of Moscow has commissioned you to write a new ballet on Romeo and Juliet. They couldn’t have chosen a more capable man than you. Send me a copy of it and I will submit it to my friend Edward Johnson who is at present at the head of the Company, as I am anxious that this great American should give the American premier of the Romeo and Juliet ballet.180

Gottlieb received a letter from Prokofiev in November 1935, but no mention of

Romeo and Juliet was made, even though the ballet was scheduled to be premiered in early 1936 at the time. Gottlieb made one more attempt to get a copy of the ballet in

December 1935.

I was hoping to receive word from you regarding your new ballet Romeo and Juliet. You didn’t comply with my request in sending me a copy of it. As stated in my letter, I was anxious to show this to Mr. Edward Johnson, who is at the present time General Manager of the Metropolitan Opera Company. Therefore, please send it as soon as it is published.181

Prokofiev received another offer from the Universal-Edition A. G. publishing company concerning rights to American performances of a suite from the ballet as well as publication of Romeo and Juliet in Europe, America, and Russia.182 These proposals seem especially ironic in retrospect, since despite them, Romeo and Juliet was not staged until the Brno, Czechoslovakia House production premiered in December

1938.

180 SPA, Notebook 28, December 5, 1935. Written in English.

181 SPA, Notebook 28, December 5, 1935. Written in English.

182 SPA, Notebook 28, September 12, 1935. Written in German. 100 CHAPTER 4

THE COMPOSITIONAL PROCESS: BLOCKS OF TIME

The most striking element of the sketches and draft scores for Romeo and Juliet is the detail of musical timings present in even the earliest scenario sketch, as described in

Chapter 3. This attention to matters of time and timing had been a concern of Prokofiev’s from the beginning of his career as a ballet composer. Despite the variety in musical styles before and after his return to the Soviet Union, Prokofiev’s compositional procedures in creating his ballets seem to have been remarkably consistent. As early as

1915, in the manuscript of The Buffoon, Prokofiev noted the timing in minutes and seconds of several sections of the ballet. These timing do not seem to be pre- compositional, but they do show Prokofiev’s preoccupation with the control of time as a basis of narrative structure. As is shown in this chapter, three of the six Prokofiev ballets written before Romeo and Juliet, Trapeze, The Steel Step, and On the Dnepr, have detailed pre-compositional plans in Prokofiev’s hand.183 In each of these plans, musical numbers are described by the dramatic or descriptive character of the on-stage action, the type of music needed, and an approximate timing for the number. Taking into consideration the preliminary, draft nature of the rest of the information in these plans,

183 The three ballets for which pre-compositional timings have not been found are Ala and Lolli, The Buffoon, and The Prodigal Son. 101 the precision of the timings is remarkable. These timings also appear at the end of nearly every number in his various musical manuscripts, including those ballets for which pre- compositional sketches have yet to be found. This chapter will discuss Prokofiev’s compositional procedures and his unique approach to musical montage, which I call

“blocks of time,” which sprang from his concern with time and timings in narrative genres.

Prokofiev’s Early Ballets and Pre-Compositional Timings

From the time he was a child, Prokofiev showed an affinity for theatrical genres that he would pursue his entire career. His first and greatest love was the opera, though his struggle to gain the recognition he craved as an opera composer met with limited success. Prokofiev was known for his shrewd business sense, and opera was the only large-scale genre that he would write without first securing the promise of a performance.

Ballet, at least initially, held less of an attraction for the young Prokofiev. While studying Tchaikovsky’s Sleeping Beauty at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, he commented “I didn’t like all of those ballet-style numbers.”184 It was only after seeing

Ballets Russes performances in 1913 and meeting Diaghilev in 1914 that Prokofiev reconsidered his dislike of ballet.

Prokofiev’s introduction to the world of Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes was a heady experience for the young composer. He had been aware of the troupe from its beginnings; his conducting professor at the conservatory, Nicholas Tcheripnin worked

184 Sergei Prokof’ev, Avtobiografiia, 2d. ed. (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1982), 161.

102 with the group, as did Walter Nouvel and Alfred Nurok, champions of Prokofiev’s music at the St. Petersburg Evenings of Contemporary Music. After seeing a few Ballets Russes performances firsthand and speaking with Stravinsky, Prokofiev realized what a successful collaboration with Diaghilev could mean to his career. In a June 12, 1914

(Old Style), letter to his friend and fellow conservatory student Nicholai Miaskovsky,

Prokofiev gushed:

The news of the coming season of Diaghilev’s ballets is two productions: Stravinsky’s and my ballet. Our friends at the Evenings of Contemporary Music must have been working on him: when Nouvel introduced me to him, Diaghilev right away started to talk about a ballet. I tried in vain to switch the topic to opera and The Gambler, but nothing came of it. He didn’t like ’s libretto. So, I am waiting for the libretto of a new ballet on a Russian theme. A draft of the piano score is due at the end of November and the complete score in March. However Nijinsky, who will be doing the choreography, may go off to America for Christmas, in which case he would not have enough time to stage the dances and work with the dancers. That is why there is an option to postpone the new ballet until the 1916 season. For 1915 we could make a ballet based on an orchestral arrangement of a suite of some of my piano pieces, which I would orchestrate in the winter. Finally, there is a third option, very typical of Diaghilev — to use my Second Concerto, which sends him into rapture. But as a last resort I am ready for the third alternative, since it would launch me on a dazzling career as a pianist. In a day or two Nijinksy will be coming here and the three of us will decide what to do.185

Miaskovsky was less impressed. In a return letter he expressed his opinion of ballet as a frivolous and inferior art: “It does not please me at all that you have become enamored with balletomania.”186

The libretto for the new ballet, to be called Ala and Lolli, was written by the poet

Sergei Gorodetsky. Boris Romanov, a dancer and choreographer with the Mariinsky

Theater and frequent performer with the Ballets Russes, helped with the libretto and choreographic advice. The setting was the Scythian Empire which flourished in what is

185 Harlow Robinson, ed., Selected letters of Sergei Prokofiev, trans. Harlow Robinson (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998), 237-8.

186 Sergei Prokof’ev and Nikolai Miaskovskii, Perepiska (Moscow: Sovetskii kompozitor, 1977) 135.

103 now southern Russian around 400 BCE, then mysteriously disappeared. Prokofiev reported in his autobiography that “Gorodetsky had dug up a few good Scythian characters but could not think up a dramaturgical plot, and it was only after many meetings that we put together some sort of story.”187 For Prokofiev, this process was very difficult:

At nine o’clock I was at Gorodetsky’s. From the first word, I was convinced the he had absolutely no dramaturgical imagination. He thinks of ballet only as a picture rather than as action. My first request, that the action begin with the raising of the curtain, was forgotten.188

In 1914, working on his first ballet, Prokofiev already “saw” a completed production in his mind before he began composing, the process he described in the 1936 interview discussed in Chapter 3, and was frustrated that Gorodetsky did not work the same way.

Prokofiev played his score for The Buffoon in 1914, for Nurok and Nouvel of the

St. Petersburg Evenings of Contemporary Music, who quickly reported to Diaghilev that

“Prokofiev was turning out some weird stuff on a weird subject.”189 Diaghilev, as well, was less than pleased with Prokofiev’s score, calling it too derivative of Stravinsky’s The

Rite of Spring and Firebird, also set in the pagan Slavic past. Diaghilev had Prokofiev come to Italy immediately, where he gently suggested that Prokofiev forget about Ala and Lolli, and commissioned him for a new ballet instead, which would eventually

187 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 33.

188 Sergei Prokofiev, Dnevnik: 1907-1918 (Paris: sprkfv, 2002), 512. Diary entry for October 11, 1914 (Old Style).

189 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 33.

104 become The Buffoon. Although Diaghilev was diplomatic and supportive when dealing

directly with Prokofiev, he was brutally honest in a letter to Stravinsky:

Prokofiev says he is not looking for Russian effects — it’s just music in general. It certainly is music in general, and very bad music at that. He is gifted, but what can you expect of him if the most cultured man he associates with is Tcherepnin, who impresses him with his avant-gardism? I’ll bring him to see you. He must change totally, otherwise we will lose him forever.190

Prokofiev, though, saw no reason to throw away what he saw as perfectly good

music, and arranged the score from ballet into the four-movement Scythian Suite. The

suite, premiered in 1916, received mixed reviews, but was a popular success and was

frequently performed in Russia and Europe throughout the early 1920s. No sketches of

any type survive for Ala and Lolli. Most likely Prokofiev left these materials in Russia

when he left in 1918, and they were lost in the war.

Prokofiev’s first ballet to reach the stage, The Buffoon, was commissioned by

Diaghilev in 1915, after he rejected Prokofiev’s music for Ala and Lolli. Not wanting to take any chances, Diaghilev himself worked with Prokofiev to create an acceptable libretto and overall plan for the ballet. They chose a series of stories about a buffoon, from a collection of Russian folk tales compiled by Alexander Afanasiev, and arranged them into six scenes. With a planned 1916 premiere, Prokofiev returned to Petrograd to compose the score.191 Because of World War I, Prokofiev was unable to travel to Europe

for rehearsals and revisions, so The Buffoon was not staged until May 1921. In early

1921, in consultation with Diaghilev, Prokofiev agreed to substantially rework The

Buffoon. He added five symphonic entr’actes and completely rewrote the finale. An

190 Quoted in Robinson, Prokofiev, 109-10.

191 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 34. St. Petersburg was renamed Petrograd in 1914.

105 examination of the manuscript of the ballet reveals a number of features that can be found in nearly all of Prokofiev’s ballet scores.192 The first feature is a high degree of correlation between text events in the libretto and musical events in the score. In later works this is shown in scenario sketches, but in The Buffoon, Prokofiev wrote entire lines of text right into the manuscript. A second feature is an awareness of form, structure, and narrative pace indicated by precise timings for each musical section. In later ballets, these timings are worked out in the scenario draft before composition of the music. For

The Buffoon, no pre-compositional scenario is known to exist, so it cannot be proved unconditionally that they are pre-compositional, but precise timings from 1915 are indicated at the end of each section, as they are in all of Prokofiev’s later ballet scores.

As noted in the previous discussion, Prokofiev was very concerned with the careful coordination of musical and narrative events in even his earliest ballets. He wrote out detailed sketches for many of his ballets, outlining this coordination, including pre- compositional timings. The earliest known pre-compositional sketches with timings for a

Prokofiev ballet are those for Trapeze, composed in 1924. On a small piece of paper, badly worn and folded into quarters, Prokofiev wrote out a preliminary outline for a fourteen-minute ballet with five musical numbers (see Figure 4.1: Translation of Trapeze plan).193 In pre-compositional plans for later ballets, Prokofiev indicated the approximate timings for each individual number, but for Trapeze, he gave only the timing for the ballet as a whole. Compared with the May 1935 plan of Romeo and Juliet, this outline is

192 The Buffoon manuscript is housed in the Pierpont Morgan Library in New York City as part of the Lehman Deposit.

193 SPA, Notebook 3, January-June 1924.

106 Figure 4.1: Translation of pre-compositional plan for Trapeze (June 1924).

107 much more general, especially in terms of timings, but the basic elements — a description of the on-stage events, the type of music needed and an approximate timing

— are all there.

Trapeze, a short one-act ballet, was written for the choreographer Boris Romanov, whom Diaghilev had tapped to choreograph Ala and Lolli before canceling the ballet.

Romanov, who was now living in , commissioned what would become Trapeze for his touring dance troupe, the Russian Romantic Theater. Prokofiev wrote a five-section

"quintet-ballet" that could also be performed as a concert piece.194 Until recently, very little was known about Trapeze, except that it was performed in Europe several times in

1925. Because the notebooks containing a rough plan for Trapeze and Prokofiev’s diaries that discuss the composition process have only recently been made available to scholars, it has been assumed that Prokofiev was unaware of any plot or theme as he wrote the work.195 According to the one-page outline of the ballet in Prokofiev’s hand, though, the ballet was to include fourteen minutes of music in five scenes. There is no

194 Romanov later requested and received two movements of music that were not included in the concert version of the work, the Quintet op. 39.

195 The plan itself is undated, but its placement within the chronologically-organized folder and a reference to a meeting at the Hotel d’Lena in Paris later referred to in a dated letter from Romanov to Prokofiev, indicate it was written in June 1924. Prokofiev’s diaries from 1907 to 1933 were published by the Serge Prokofiev Foundation and made available to scholars for the first time in October 2002. The November 2002 issue of Three Oranges Journal, also published by the Serge Prokofiev Foundation, contains an article about the creation of Trapeze by Noelle Mann that draws on Prokofiev’s diary entries and material in the Serge Prokofiev Archive (Noelle Mann, “Trapéze: A Forgotten Ballet by Serge Prokofiev and Boris Romanov,” Three Oranges Journal, 4 (November 2002), 7-14. Mann has discovered that Trapeze was actually a re-working of a 1913-14 Romanov ballet called What Happened to the Ballerina, the Chinamen, and the Tumblers and discusses the plot in her article (Mann, “Trapéze,” 11).

108 story line indicated in the plan, but Prokofiev noted the character of the music needed, including a theme and variations for the solo ballerina, and some action highlights including a duel and mourning over the dead ballerina.196

In many ways foreshadowing the difficulties Prokofiev and Lavrovsky would encounter during rehearsals for the 1940 Kirov Theater production of Romeo and Juliet,

Prokofiev and Romanov ended up with serious disagreements about Romanov’s staging of the ballet. In March 1925, Prokofiev played the music for Trapeze for Romanov for the first time. Romanov was complimentary, but asked Prokofiev to reorganize some of the movements because he had changed his mind about the scenario.197 Prokofiev complied, but complained in his diary:

I composed this work following the instructions of the written scenario and it was not easy for me to write the final part, having had to submit myself to that plan. And now, “please be good enough to change.” But I will not change the concert Quintet because of the integrity of the tonal organization.198

In late September of 1925, Romanov asked Prokofiev to authorize him to remove twenty-seven measures from the first section of the ballet.199 Prokofiev reluctantly agreed, but a few weeks later he wrote Romanov, vehemently objecting to all of the changes Romanov had requested:

The more I think of the way your staged the , the clearer it becomes to me that it is not right. When you showed it to me last Sunday, I thought that, with time, I might get used to it, but in fact it is the opposite. Your fault lies in the fact that in the summer you explained your plan to me in great detail. I composed the music strictly sticking to it, but now you have completely changed the whole scene. Remember: at first there were merry cobblers and gloomy functionaries – and the music follows this. But now it is being

196 Trapeze plan, SPA, Notebook 3, January–June 1924.

197 Mann, Trapéze, 13.

198 Quoted in Mann, Trapéze, 13.

199 Mann, Trapéze, 13.

109 played with the curtain down. I don’t like this. I want movement, I want the curtain to rise immediately over 3 or 5 bars – I even wrote the clarinet line with this in mind. Then, in the middle of the Overture there must be a love scene, of real tenderness, out of which is born the drama at the end of the ballet; but now you bring out a prostitute with a cigarette – once more in dissonance with my music. And there is a third dissonance: the lack of movement on the stage at the end of the Overture when the music is clearly rhythmical and skipping. I already commented on that. Think about this my dear! And perhaps make some changes.200

The problem, in Prokofiev’s mind, was that Romanov drastically changed his vision for the ballet after Prokofiev had finished the music, carefully coordinating with the events on stage, as Romanov had originally described them. This is a theme that surfaces several times in conjunction with Prokofiev’s ballets, including Romeo and

Juliet, and it emphasizes that timing was an integral part of Prokofiev’s “envisioning” the music.

Prokofiev’s next ballet was another commission from Diaghilev and the Ballets

Russes, The Steel Step, composed in 1925-26. In an August 11, 1925 letter to Diaghilev,

Prokofiev described his progress on the ballet working with the co-librettist Georgi

Yakoulov.201 Included with the letter are the libretto for Act I, a musical plan including a list of personnel needed, and an outline of the action for the entire ballet. The musical plan describes eight numbers divided into a prelude, Act I and an entr’acte, each with a brief description of the on-stage events, the character of the music, and the timing for the number rounded to the nearest 1/2 minute (see Figure 4.2: Translation of The Steel Step plan, prologue and act I).202

200 Quoted in Mann, Trapéze, 13.

201 SPA, Notebook 6, July-December 1925.

202 SPA, Notebook 6, July-December 1925.

110 Figure 4.2: Translation of the pre-compositional plan for Stal’noi Skok, Prologue and Act I (August 11, 1925).

111 Diaghilev envisioned The Steel Step, to be a ballet about proletarian life in Soviet

Russia.203 The libretto was put together by Prokofiev and Georgi Yakulov, a Soviet artist. The choreographer was Leonid Massine, who created dances in the style of 1920s ballets about the 1917 Russian Revolution, such as Deshevov’s The Red Whirlwind, and

Gliere’s The Red Poppy. The 1920s revolutionary theme was also reflected in the constructivist sets and costumes, also by by Yakulov. The original title of the ballet, as it appears in the notes and sketches described above, was Ursin’ol. According to author

David Nice, Ursin’ol was Yakulov’s idea of a “Soviet”-sounding acronym, which he derived from a combination of the French initials for the USSR [URS], and Stravinsky’s

Le Rossignol.204 The Steel Step was a critical and popular success in Europe, fascinating audiences with its vision of proletariat life. The French reviews were mostly complimentary, of both the music and the choreography, and it was considered the success of the 1927 Ballets Russes season. Following the ballet’s success in Europe,

Prokofiev tried a number of times to get The Steel Step performed in the USSR, but to no avail. Perhaps naively, Prokofiev was puzzled by the harsh Soviet criticism and rejection of the work.

After the success of The Steel Step in Europe, Diaghilev commissioned Prokofiev to compose what would be his last work for the Ballets Russes, The Prodigal Son, written in 1928-9. Musically and choreographically, The Prodigal Son is steeped in neo- classicism. The libretto was written by , based on the New Testament

203 Sketches located in SPA, Notebook 6, July-December 1927.

204 David Nice, Prokofiev: From Russia to the West 1891-1935 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 215.

112 parable. The choreography was by . The music, as requested by

Diaghilev, was “simple, timeless and poetic.”205 Upon receiving Kochno’s scenario,

Prokofiev composed the music for the ballet very quickly. Diaghilev expressed surprise at how fast Prokofiev had worked, but was pleased with the results. Staging the ballet did not go as smoothly, however. Although The Prodigal Son was a popular and critical success immediately, Prokofiev complained that Balanchine's choreography “did not fit the music.”206 Prokofiev blamed part of the problem on his arriving at rehearsals too late in the process to insist on changes. Again, as in Trapeze, Prokofiev wrote the music for

The Prodigal Son with a set scenario in mind, carefully coordinating the music with planned events on stage. When he saw Balanchine’s choreography, however, Prokofiev realized that Balanchine’s vision for the ballet was different from his, and the two men clashed violently. No pre-compositional sketches have been found for this ballet.

Prokofiev’s final ballet written before his return to the Soviet Union was On The

Dnepr (1931), written for and the Paris Opera. The pre-compositional plan, dated January 1931 by Prokofiev, describes a twenty-seven and a half minute ballet in two scenes and 13 numbers.207 This plan is more detailed than the plans for Trapeze and

The Steel Step, and closely resembles the May 1935 pre-compositional plan for Romeo and Juliet. The general character is noted for each number on On The Dnepr, as in

Number 5: “Pas de deux. Not a love dance”, Number 1: “Soft-lyrical overture,” and

Number 9: “Ballerina from the Opera. Lyrical grotesque.” Key dramatic points are

205 Robinson, Prokofiev, 224.

206 Shiftstein, Materialy: Documenty, 75.

207 SPA, Notebook 24, January-June 1931. 113 outlined, as in Number 5: “He lifts her and holds the pose.” There are also descriptions of musical material, as in Number 7: “Lifar and the men. D-major in 3/2.” Each number for the ballet includes a short description of on-stage events, the character of the music, and a time, rounded to the nearest 1/2 minute. (see Figure 4.3: Translation of On the

Dnepr plan).

Prokofiev worked closely on the libretto for On the Dnepr with Sergei Lifar, who had danced the role of the Prodigal Son. Lifar also choreographed On the Dnepr and danced the lead role. A number of materials in the Sergei Prokofiev Archive, including scenario sketches and a pre-compositional plan with timings, show that once again,

Prokofiev carefully planned the correlation of musical and dramatic events.208

In the process of composing pre-Romeo and Juliet ballets, Prokofiev worked with some of the biggest names in early twentieth-century ballet, including

Sergei Diaghilev, Boris Romanov, Sergei Lifar and George Balanchine. Although each of these ballets explored quite different musical and stylistic territory from the others, a number of common threads can be found. For each ballet, Prokofiev seemed to have followed the process he outlined in the 1936 interview presented in Chapter 3, where he had to “see” the production in his mind’s eye before he agreed to write the music. This process of “seeing” the completed production helped Prokofiev obtain the high degree of correlation between the music and on-stage events that permeates his ballets, operas, incidental and film music. This tie becomes so much a part of the music itself that when a

208 SPA, Notebook 24, January-June 1931. It is interesting to note that the working title for the ballet was A Sunday Evening.

114 Figure 4.4: Translation of pre-compositional plan for On the Dnepr (January 1931).

115 choreographer or director changed Prokofiev’s vision for a particular work after the music was composed, he became angry and frustrated. The duration of actions, then, was a very important element. Prokofiev carefully coordinated the timing of musical events to correspond with the dramatic action, so when that was changed, the two elements no longer worked together as he had envisioned. As it had in both Trapeze and The

Prodigal Son, this became the source of the disagreements between Prokofiev and

Lavrovsky for the 1940 Kirov production of Romeo and Juliet.

Pre-Compositional Timings in Romeo and Juliet

As discussed in Chapter 3, the May 1935 pre-compositional plan for Romeo and

Juliet contains timings for every number of the ballet. A comparison of timings in the

May plan to the timings in the final piano score shows an extremely high degree of correlation between the two documents (see Figure 4.4: Comparison of May 1935 plan to the September 1935 piano score). More than that, this degree of correlation is astounding, especially since most of the timings in the May plan are pre-compositional.

Prokofiev inserted the duration of the completed movement at the end of fifty-one of the fifty-six numbers in the piano score. For thirty-three of these, or 58.93 percent, the timings correspond precisely with the timings projected in the May compositional plan, and forty-eight numbers, or 85.71 percent, are within thirty seconds of the May timings.

The timing indicated by the marking at the end of each number in the piano score is the actual duration of the movement, figured by counting the number of beats using

Prokofiev’s indicated tempo markings. Most of the timings in the May plan, as shown in

Chapter 3, are part of the primary, pre-compositional layer. They are written in the same

116 117 pen color as the descriptions of each number, and are connected to the descriptions by a line (see Figure 3.3: Facsimile of May 1935 plan, p. 81). Prokofiev seemed to have edited the plan as he composed, making changes in a different-colored pen and in pencil, so the fact that the timings are in the same pen-color as the primary-level descriptions indicate they were written at the same time. A few of the changes made by Prokofiev were to the timings, as in Number 12, but a majority of the timings throughout the document are unaltered. Another factor that shows that most of these timings are pre- compositional, is that there are a few instances where the two sets of timings do not correspond, and no correction was made to the May plan, as in Number 10, “The Arrival of the Guests.” The May plan indicates this number should be three minutes long, but the completed number in the piano score is four minutes and thirty seconds long.

As noted in Chapter 3, Rostislav Zakharov indicated that he helped Prokofiev determine the choreographic character and the timings for Romeo and Juliet. From this, several scholars, including Dobrovolskaia, Petukhova and, to a certain extent, Nestev, have assumed that the details present in the May plan, including the pre-compositional timings, were not Prokofiev’s usual compositional method, but were the results of his collaboration with Radlov and Zakharov. In fact, as the first part of this chapter shows, a high degree of pre-compositional organization is a basic characteristic of Prokofiev’s compositional method for ballet, independent of whom he was working with and dating

118 as far back as 1924, in the sketches for Trapeze, if not already in The Buffoon (1915).209

Detailed pre-compositional plans, therefore, seem to be a feature of Prokofiev’s approach to writing a ballet.

Prokofiev and Film Music

Prokofiev’s attention to timings and a high degree of pre-compositional temporal organization is not unique to his compositions for ballet; it was also a large factor in his effectiveness in writing music for films. Though Prokofiev would become an extremely successful and sought-after film music composer, he initially resisted invitations to work on film projects. The producer I. Rummel approached Prokofiev in 1932 to write music for the film Lieutenant Kizhe. In his memoirs, Rummel recounted that “Prokofiev categorically rejected my proposal. His time was scheduled far into the future, he had never written music for film, and he didn’t know ‘what kind of sauce to put on it.’”210

Rummel did not give up his pursuit, and in early 1933, Prokofiev finally agreed to compose the music for Lieutenant Kizhe. Once again, he requested information from

Rummel about “the dimensions of the musical pieces, their character and length.”211 He explained that he was interested in “the era, the internal meaning of each event, the

209 Indications of similar characteristics can be found in the manuscript for The Buffoon (1915), but no separate documents indicating pre-compositional intentions have been found, as was discussed earlier in this chapter.

210 I. Rummel. “Iz Istorii Poruchika Kizhe,” Sovetskaia Muzyka, No. 11, 1964, 69.

211 Rummel, “Iz Istorii Poruchika Kizhe,” 69.

119 personality of each hero.”212 This approach is nearly identical to Prokofiev’s own description, three years later, as to how he approached writing music for dramatic productions and film in the August 1936 interview discussed in Chapter 3.

Usually when Prokofiev composed dramatic or film music, he was part of the project right from its conception. Prokofiev began work on the music for Lieutenant

Kizhe, though, only after the director, Alexander Faintsimmer, had already finished the planning and shaping of the film. Prokofiev attended the filming and, as Rummel noted,

“carefully watching, he would note down all the details, the pantomime of the actors, their movements, and it seemed that at that moment he already knew what kind of music he would write for this or that fragment.”213 Although the suite compiled from the soundtrack was much more successful than the film itself, it was Lieutenant Kizhe that established Prokofiev’s reputation as a film composer.

Prokofiev’s next film project came five years after Lieutenant Kizhe, in 1938.

Alexander Nevsky was the first of three films the composer would write with the great

Soviet filmmaker .214 Eisenstein and Prokofiev enjoyed a close and comfortable working relationship; it was perhaps the most successful collaboration in the careers of both men. After the overwhelming success of Alexander Nevsky, Eisenstein wrote an hommage to Prokofiev’s compositional skill, entitled P-R-K-F-V for the customary way Prokofiev signed his name.215 Eisenstein’s astute observations in this

212 Rummel, “Iz Istorii Poruchika Kizhe,” 69.

213 Rummel, “Iz Istorii Poruchika Kizhe,” 70.

214 The other two films were the two parts of Ivan the Terrible, in the mid 1940s.

215 Sergei Eisenstein, “PRKFV,” in Autobiography, Materials, Documents, 252-264. 120 article about Prokofiev’s approach to the task of writing music for a film further elaborates the process described by Rummel about the composition of music for

Lieutenant Kizhe:

How does Prokofiev work out the structural and rhythmic elements of his musical equivalent for a given film sequence?. . . The hall is dark. But not so dark that we cannot see his hands on the arms of his chair in the light reflected from the screen. . . A picture is being run on the screen. And with utmost precision Prokofiev’s tense fingers strike the arm of his chair as if tapping out a message on a telegraph key. Is he beating time? No. He is doing far more than that. His fingers are feeling out the structural pattern of duration and tempo interwoven with action and intonation that make an integral whole of isolated sequences.216

Eisenstein pointed out an important characteristic of Prokofiev’s music to accompany narrative genres: his music does not merely illustrate the action on stage, it goes further and becomes an integral part of the scene structure. Prokofiev produced the aural embodiment of “duration and tempo” of the visual action on the screen, or on the stage, for that matter. Even in instances like Lieutenant Kizhe, where Prokofiev began work fairly late in the creative process, the music becomes more than a decorative dressing. Perhaps it was the intense efforts that Prokofiev invested in writing music that participated equally in the dramatic whole that caused him to resist so strongly when outsiders changed or rearranged his music, as happened in 1938-9 when working with

Leonid Lavrovsky on Romeo and Juliet.217

216 Eisenstein, “PRKFV,” 258.

217 The volatile working relationship between Prokofiev and Lavrovsky is addressed in Chapter 6. 121 Blocks of Time

Eisenstein, in many of his films, including Alexander Nevsky and Ivan the

Terrible, was known for his innovative use of montage, the technique of juxtaposing two or more images in order to express a new idea. It was used extensively in film in the

1920s and 1930s, but also in live theater. Eisenstein himself experimented with what he called the “montage of attractions” in his stage productions. Prokofiev translated the filmic concept of montage into musical terms using a method I have labeled “blocks of time.” These blocks can be found in his film music and incidental music for plays, but they are also the foundation of his ballet compositions, including Romeo and Juliet.

Prokofiev’s scores for all of these works are constructed using short “cells” of musical material, which he then pieced together to form the individual musical numbers. These blocks are the manifestation of Prokofiev’s concern with the coordination of music, stage action and narrative unfolding, incorporating dramatic as well as musical information.

The blocks function as the foundation of a composition, and all other elements grow from them.

Blocks of time have some characteristics seemingly in common with leitmotifs; in fact, Svetlana Petukhova, in her Ph.D. dissertation on Romeo and Juliet, analyzes the ballet in terms of leitmotifs.218 Like leitmotifs, blocks of time are reoccurring, and, in places, associated with a particular person, place or state of mind. In most other ways, however, blocks of time function in very different ways from leitmotifs.

218 S. A. Petukhova, “Pervaia Avtorskaia Redaktsiia Baleta Prokof’eva Romeo i Dzhul’etta,” Ph.D. diss., Moscow State Tchaikovsky Conservatory, 1997. 122 Leitmotifs are usually recurrent melodies or themes designed to represent or symbolize a specific person, place, event, or state of mind in a dramatic work. Although they may be altered on subsequent appearances, the changes are usually slight, so that they are clearly recognizable by the listener. As we know, the term was first used in connection with the operas of Richard Wagner, where leitmotifs were identified as a unifying feature that provided dramatic comprehensibility and commentary, rather than as elements of musical structure or form.219

As used by Prokofiev, however, blocks of time are the backbone of the overall musical structure. They are how Prokofiev controlled not only the representation of a character or event, but most of all the passage of time and movement: time shaped and led the form of the composition, rather than visa versa, as is more commonly found in compositional practice. Leitmotifs are by nature short, as to be easily remembered and recognized. Blocks of time, however, are often extended sections. Leitmotifs are usually melodically determined and controlled, while blocks of time expand and contract to fill varying amounts of time as determined primarily by the dramatic action on stage.

Although the technique of creating a by employing sequences of unrelated blocks of material can be found in the music of other composers, most notably that of Igor Stravinsky, Prokofiev’s use of these blocks seems to be unique.

Unlike Stravinsky, who paid careful attention to large-scale structural proportions and

219 Arnold Whittall, “,” The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd ed, vol. 14, ed. Stanley Sadie (London: Macmillan, 2001), 443.

123 events such as the golden mean,220 Prokofiev often used block structure to create traditional forms such as ABA. The second number, “Romeo,” in Romeo and Juliet is an example of this. Since the first number, the Overture, is typical in that it presents themes from throughout the ballet, “Romeo” presents the first blocks of the ballet. Also typical of Prokofiev’s structure, each rehearsal number delineates a separate block. The first block, A, lasts thirty seconds and is characterized by pizzicato strings and an ascending melodic line in the (see example 4.1: “Romeo,” Block A). The second block, B, features a disjunct melody in the clarinet, lasting ten seconds (see example 4.2: “Romeo,”

Block B). The B block is then stated again, this time with the violins playing the melody.

It is twice as long in this statement, lasting for twenty seconds. The second statement of the A block begins in measure 32. It again features pizzicato strings and an ascending melodic line in the bassoon, but this time, the blocks lasts for only ten seconds instead of thirty seconds. The number ends with a new ten-second long block, C, that functions as a coda, giving the overall form for the movement as ABA coda (see example 4.3:

“Romeo,” Block C).

Prokofiev’s use of blocks to create traditional forms is often very clever, as in his introduction of a new block, C, at the end of “Romeo,” which serves as a coda and at the same time, as a transition to the next number. He uses this technique throughout Romeo and Juliet, incorporating blocks of time written specifically to serve as transitions. This can be seen in No. 9, “Preparations for the Ball,” No. 14, “Juliet’s Variation,” and in

220 Margarita Mazo explored the implications of the golden mean in Stravinsky’s Les Noces in her paper “Stravinsky’s Svadebka and the Parisian Artistic Landscape,” American Musicological Society, Columbus, Ohio, 2002. 124 Example 4.1: “Romeo,” Block A (Prokofiev, “Romeo and Juliet,” Sobranie Sochinenii, vol. 9, arr. for piano by L. Atovm’ian (Moscow: Muzgiz, 1960), 15, measures 1-14).

Example 4.2: “Romeo,” Block B (Prokofiev, “Romeo and Juliet,” 15, measures 15-23). 125 Example 4.3: “Romeo,” Block C (Prokofiev, “Romeo and Juliet,” 16, measures 41-44).

many other places. Therefore blocks of time structure does not preclude transitions, but incorporates them into the timing of an event — material is added or subtracted as needed to fill the required length of time.

Although I am using examples from Romeo and Juliet only, blocks of time seems to be a consistent technique of Prokofiev’s in all of his ballet compositions, and in his film and incidental music for plays as well. The pre-compositional timings, when they exist, and the timing indications at the end of every musical number in each of his ballets,

I believe, are Prokofiev’s marker for constructing and arranging individual blocks into the dramatic and musical texture. Thus, in the May 1935 pre-compositional plan for

Romeo and Juliet, in No. 30, “Quarrel between Tybalt, Mercutio and Romeo,” Prokofiev broke down the dramatic action into three section, each describing the character of the music, with a timing for each section:

1) Tybalt and Mercutio look at each other like bulls (in the , a trill: blood boils), the beginning of the fight. 2) Entrance of Romeo to the theme of Laurence’s cell. (30 seconds). 3) Tybalt throws down a glove, Romeo returns it. Tybalt takes a sword, Romeo returns it, Mercutio rushes at Tybalt. 30 + 30 + 45 seconds.221

221 RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 66, l. 2. See also Figure 3.4 in Chapter 3, page 82, Translation of the May 1935 Compositional Plan. 126 Each of these thirty or forty-five second sections is treated by Prokofiev as a separate block. As in the “Quarrel Between Tybalt, Mercutio and Romeo,” Prokofiev does associate certain blocks with certain events, people or places, but the timing of each reoccurrence is modified to coordinate with the action on stage.

The raw material that would become individual blocks were the notations in the musical sketchbooks that Prokofiev carried with him constantly, noting down themes and ideas whenever they would hit him. It was his lifelong practice to write down musical ideas as they came to him, and then later organize them into specific compositions.

Sometimes in the sketchbooks there would be just a melody noted, but more often, an entry would include accompaniment and even meter.222 Thus, for example, when

Prokofiev decided he needed a heavy dance, for No. 12, “Dance of the Knights,” as labeled in the May 1935 compositional plan for Romeo and Juliet, he would turn to his sketchbooks until he found a sketch that would work for that particular block. The selected block would then be expanded or contracted in each appearance to fit the amount of time needed to coordinate with the action on stage.

Blocks of time, then, are the compositional and structural tool Prokofiev utilized to obtain the correlation he desired between musical and dramatic events. It bears returning once more to the 1936 interview discussed earlier in the chapter and in Chapter

3. Right from the time he agreed to accept a commission for a dramatic production or

222 RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 285, l. 13, 16; RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 285, l. 5, 6, 8, just as a few examples.

127 film, it seems that Prokofiev already had in mind a number of blocks of time that he would use to build his composition to coordinate with the visual elements of the composition.

As one more example of what blocks of time are in the ballets of Prokofiev and how they work, I would like to examine the balcony scene, which ends the first act of

Romeo and Juliet, in some detail. This scene will also be used in Chapter 6 to illustrate the types of changes made by Lavrovsky for the 1940 Kirov Theater production of the ballet (see figure 4.5: Blocks of Time analysis of Act I, scene 3, the Balcony Scene).

The Balcony Scene consists of two musical numbers, numbers 17 and 18. The libretto indicates that No. 17 begins with an empty stage.223 Prokofiev constructed the number using two blocks, which I have labeled A and B respectively in figure 4.5, each 40 seconds long (see example 4.4: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block A, and example

4.5: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block B). The second block begins at rehearsal number 123, with Juliet’s entrance.224 In the 1935 piano score, at the end of No. 17,

Prokofiev noted the movement was one minute and twenty seconds long. As pointed out earlier in the chapter, Prokofiev’s pre-compositional timings for Romeo and Juliet have a remarkably high correspondence to the completed timings in the 1935 score, but this number is one of the few exceptions. In the May 1935 compositional plan, Prokofiev noted this number would be thirty seconds in duration.

223 RGALI, fond 1929, op. 1, no. 61. This is the libretto Prokofiev submitted to Lavrovsky in 1938, in preparations for the 1940 Kirov Theater production of Romeo and Juliet. With the exception of the happy ending, which had been replaced, this libretto follows the 1935 piano score of the ballet.

224 All rehearsal numbers referred to in this section follow Prokofiev’s own markings in the 1935 piano score.

128 129 Example 4.4: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block A (Prokofiev, “Romeo and Juliet,” 84, measures 1-12).

Example 4.5: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block B (Prokofiev, “Romeo and Juliet,” 84, measures 19-29). 130 The Balcony Scene continues with no break in between the numbers 17 and 18.

No. 18 begins with a twenty-second block of material, which I have labeled C (see example 4.6: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block C). Here, according to the libretto, Romeo appears, Juliet is embarrassed. Musically, this block combines sections of sixteenth-note chords with a melody that is associated with Juliet’s newly-found awareness of her femininity, first heard in No. 9, “Juliet the Young Girl.” The love dance proper between Romeo and Juliet begins at rehearsal number 125 in the 1935 piano score. The dance consists of four different blocks, each delineated by Prokofiev himself with rehearsal numbers. The first block of the dance, D, is heard twice, each time lasting for 30 seconds (see example 4.7: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block D). The E block is heard only once, and it, too, is thirty seconds long (see example 4.8: 1935

Balcony Scene, beginning of Block E). Prokofiev continued this symmetry with the first presentation of block F, which is indeed thirty seconds long (see example 4.9: 1935

Balcony Scene, beginning of Block F). The block is repeated in a varied form, this time contracted to twenty seconds. F is then heard a third time, again in its twenty-second long contracted version. The final block of the love dance, G, is heard twice (see example 4.10: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block G). The first presentation is thirty seconds long, while the repetition has been contracted into a twenty-second block.

No. 18 and the Balcony Scene as a whole end with a repetition of the A material that began No. 17, notated in quarter notes rather than eighth-notes, making it twice the duration of its first appearance in the scene. Thus, the scene ends with the same block it began with, bringing a sense of closure to the scene and the first act of the ballet. The scene is through-composed, but consists of repeated blocks rather than being constructed

131 Example 4.6: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block C (Prokofiev, “Romeo and Juliet,” 85, measures 37-44).

Example 4.7: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block D (Prokofiev, “Romeo and Juliet,” 85, measures 51-53).

Example 4.8: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block E (Prokofiev, “Romeo and Juliet,” 89, measures 1-6).

132 Example 4.9: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block F (Prokofiev, “Romeo and Juliet,” 90, measures 13-21).

Example 4.10: 1935 Balcony Scene, beginning of Block G (Prokofiev, “Romeo and Juliet,” 91, measures 57-62).

133 by motivic development. No. 18, like No. 17, is an exception as far as correspondence in timing between the May 1935 compositional plan and the 1935 piano score. In the May plan, the number was to be three minutes long, but, as marked by Prokofiev in the score, it is four minutes and thirty seconds long.

134 CHAPTER 5

“ALL KINDS OF MISSTEPS”: CANCELLATION OF THE BOLSHOI THEATER PRODUCTION OF ROMEO AND JULIET

In June 1935, Prokofiev took up residence at Polenovo, the summer retreat of the

Bolshoi Theater, and began the composition of Romeo and Juliet, working from the May

1935 compositional plan. He finished the piano score on September 8, 1935, and

immediately began the process of orchestration. Although the rest of the Bolshoi Theater

personnel had returned to Moscow at the beginning of September, Prokofiev remained

behind until early October, taking advantage of the lack of distractions to work on

orchestrating the ballet.225

Throughout the summer and fall of 1935, the artistic community of Moscow was

kept abreast of the progress of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet through frequent press

releases in publications such as Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, Izvestiia, and Vecherniaia Moskva.

These progress reports created a sense of anticipation by providing details about nearly

every aspect of the creation of Romeo and Juliet, including the genesis of the idea to adapt Shakespeare for the ballet stage, the compositional and orchestration processes, the hiring of personnel such as the choreographer and stage designer, a number of hearings,

225 Letter to Vera Alpers, October 23, 1935. 135 the progress of the rehearsals, and the plans for a 1936 premiere at the Bolshoi Theater.

The reports were often just a sentence or two, as in the October announcement in

Vecherniaia Moskva that the score for the ballet had been completed:

The composer S. Prokofiev has finished the music for his new ballet Romeo and Juliet. The Bolshoi Theater of the USSR will start rehearsing the ballet as soon as the score is received from the composer.226

In January 1936, the rehearsals for Romeo and Juliet seemed to be going well.

Plans for a spring 1936 premiere were well under way, as reported in a short press release in the January 29, 1936, issue of Sovetskoe Iskusstvo:

The production of the ballet by S. Prokofiev, Romeo and Juliet, at the Bolshoi Theater of the USSR is the charge of ballet master P. Gusev. The director is S. Radlov. The stage designer is B. Khodasevich. The premiere will take place at the end of the season.227

This, however, was the last mention of the planned 1936 Bolshoi production in any newspaper or journal. Even the fact that Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet had been canceled was never published. This silence seems strange, given the abundance of information printed about the ballet up to that point. Romeo and Juliet was not staged at the Bolshoi Theater until 1946, and it was not the Prokofiev/Radlov/Piotrovsky ballet that was presented, but a reworked version with choreography by Leonid Lavrovsky and many changes in Prokofiev’s score, the version which premiered in 1940 at the Kirov

Theater in Leningrad.

The only known source that addresses the cancellation in any manner is a letter to

Vera Alpers dated April 16, 1936. In it, Prokofiev did not write that the premiere was canceled, nor did he mention any names or any reasons for this cancellation. Instead, he

226 Vecherniaia Moskva, October 5, 1935.

227 Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, etc.

136 avoided any direct references, writing only: “After all kinds of missteps with Romeo and

Juliet, I have become keen on music for children, and you should receive the results from me soon.”228

The lack of information about the decision not to stage Romeo and Juliet in 1936 raises two major questions that have never been examined or even raised by scholars.

First, why was the production canceled, when, as of January 29, 1936, just a few months before the scheduled premiere, everything seemed in order? Second, once the decision to cancel the production was made, why was it not publicized, or even mentioned in private correspondence? These questions are the topic of the remainder of this chapter.

The Undanceable Theory

In the 1941 autobiography, Prokofiev wrote that the planned 1936 Bolshoi production was canceled because the ballet was considered to be undanceable: “During the course of the summer the music was written, but the Bolshoi Theater found the ballet undanceable and broke the contract.”229

The label undanceable was certainly applied to Romeo and Juliet during rehearsals for the 1940 Soviet premiere at the Kirov Theater in Leningrad, but there is no

228 RNB, fond 1201, no. 160, Letters from Prokofiev to Vera Alpers, no. 17, April 16, 1936. Much of Prokofiev’s correspondence is unavailable to scholars until March, 2003. Perhaps there are more detailed letters about the cancellation included among these letters. The children’s piece Prokofiev referred to in this letter is Peter and the Wolf, one of his most popular compositions.

229 S. I. Shlifshtein, ed., S. S. Prokof’ev: Materialy, dokumenty, vospominaniia, 2d ed. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1961), 75. 137 hard evidence that this term was ever used to describe the ballet in 1935 or 1936, or that undanceability had anything to do with the cancellation of the 1936 production.230 In fact, in the 1935 and 1936 press releases about Romeo and Juliet, not one referred to the ballet as undanceable. To the contrary, nearly all of the articles praised Prokofiev’s music for Romeo and Juliet in general, and two of them specifically addressed the score’s inherent danceability. An unsigned article in Vecherniaia Moskva on October 15, 1935 reported, “The harmonic language [of the ballet] is rich and modern. The rhythms are fresh and varied, and most importantly, genuinely danceable.”231 A January 1936 article in Sovetskoe Iskusstvo stated, “The musicologist A. Ostretsov acknowledged that

Prokofiev’s music ‘completely satisfies one of the most important requirements of ballet music: it is danceable.’”232

The statements in the press and the lack of any direct reference to the score’s undanceability do not conclusively disprove that the ballet was considered undanceable in 1936, but they do raise some questions. If, indeed, undanceability was a reason for the cancellation, it would have been typical for Prokofiev to address it in his private correspondence, especially in letters to Maiaskovsky, Alpers, and Vernon Duke, to whom he frequently wrote about his compositions and professional endeavors. Granted, many of Prokofiev’s letters, especially from 1936 onwards, have only recently (March 2003) been accessible to scholars, but since the undanceability issue was discussed in the press

230 The issue of undanceability and the 1940 Kirov Theater production of Romeo and Juliet is discussed in Chapter 6.

231 Vecherniaia Moskva, October 5, 1935.

232 A Kut, Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, No. 5 (January 29, 1936), 1.

138 and in Prokofiev’s correspondence in 1938 and 1939 in conjunction with the production of Romeo and Juliet at the Kirov Theater in 1940, it seems unlikely that all mention of undanceability was suppressed in 1936, and therefore, undanceability does not seem to have been a factor in the cancellation of the 1936 Bolshoi Theater prodction of Romeo and Juliet.

Since it seems that Romeo and Juliet was not considered “undanceable” in 1936, the question remains as to why, in 1941, Prokofiev claimed undanceability as the primary factor for the cancellation of the Bolshoi Theater production.

The ‘Happy Ending’ Theory

In the 1941 autobiography, Prokofiev also attributes the Bolshoi cancellation to the outrage caused by his and Radlov’s decision to change Shakespeare’s tragedy and give Romeo and Juliet a happy ending:

At that time there sprang up many conversations around our attempts to end Romeo and Juliet happily: in the last act Romeo arrived a minute earlier, found Juliet alive, and everything ended well. The reasons that pushed us into that barbarism were purely choreographic: Living people can dance, the dead cannot dance lying down. Our justification was that Shakespeare himself sometimes vacillated in regard to the outcome of his works (King Lear), and at the same time he was writing Romeo and Juliet he also wrote Two Gentleman of Verona, where everything ended well. It is interesting that in London, it was reported as a simple establishment of fact that Prokofiev was writing a ballet Romeo and Juliet with a happy ending, while our Shakespeare scholars proved to be more holy than the pope himself and rushed to the defense of the vanquished Shakespeare.233

233 S. I. Shlifshtein, ed., S. S. Prokof’ev: Materialy, dokumenty, vospominaniia, 2d ed. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1961), 75.

139 Not surprisingly, as Prokofiev pointed out, the happy ending was discussed by the press in some detail. The outcome of these discussions, though, was not as one-sided as

Prokofiev presented it in 1941. There were a few dissenting voices, but there were also a sizeable contingent of critics who praised the ending.

Both of the articles that came down strongest against the happy ending were reviews of an October 4, 1935 official hearing sponsored by the Bolshoi Theater. The critic Boris Gusman, writing for Izvestiia, praised Romeo and Juliet as the only one of

Shakespeare’s tragedies that might be successfully adapted to the ballet stage, but questioned the revised ending:

One example is the completely bewildering attempt of the librettists (S. Radlov and A. Piotrovsky) to attach to Shakespeare a happy ending. It wasn’t by chance that Shakespeare built his work as a tragedy. A different ending would not be able to show the same social situation that Shakespeare chose and that he so clearly portrayed in Romeo and Juliet. The entire construction of the form and its development are inseparable from its tragic ending.”234

The unidentified critic writing for Vecherniaia Moskva was also not convinced by the happy ending played at the Bolshoi:

Contrary to Shakespeare, the young heroes do not die: submerged in sleep from the fake poison, Juliet wakes up in time. There is general rejoicing. Juliet and Romeo happily spin around in a pas de deux. Curtain. In the words of S. Radlov, the optimistic outcome does not contradict the main ideas of Shakespeare: the struggle for the right to love. However... Shakespeare nevertheless preferred to bury his heroes. The entire development of the plot depends on the ending that gives it this or that direction. In this particular ballet, which has the tendency to follow Shakespeare entirely, such a “lightened” ending sounds not only unexpected, but is not organic and contradicts the previous action.235

234 Boris Gusman, “Novy balet Prokof’eva,” Izvestiia, October 6, 1935.

235 Vecherniaia Moskva, October 5, 1935.

140 On January 25, 1935, Prokofiev played through the first three acts of the piano score at a hearing sponsored by Sovetskoe Iskusstvo. In his write-up of the evening, the critic A. Kut summarized the reaction of several musicologists and critics in the audience.

Although it was not played that evening, Kut devoted a large part of his article to the happy ending:

S. Prokofiev did not play the final act of the ballet, which, on account of its ending, has already managed to provoke a huge controversy in artistic circles and in print. It is not possible, of course, to settle this controversy without considering the ballet as a whole. The question is how to end the ballet: with the prosperity or with the burial of Juliet and Romeo.236

Kut used an unattributed quote rather than the thoughts of any specific audience members in his coverage of reactions against the happy ending:

Others spoke out strongly for retaining Shakespeare’s ending. “It would not be anything terrible if the ballet ended with death. In the dramaturgical sense, a somber ending to the ballet does not necessarily give a pessimistic character to the ballet as a whole. The cheerful tone of all of Prokofiev’s works, vividly present in the high points of the ballet, would not be weakened if the outcome of the ballet followed in the footsteps of Shakespeare.”237

In contrast, when discussing reactions in favor of a happy ending, Kut quoted in some detail the opinions of individual scholars:

“Whoever is against changing the ending,” said S. S. Dinamov, “does not know that Romeo and Juliet appears in the work of at least eight authors. It is a collective work. Personally, I am all for changing the ending. Ballet is ballet. It is necessary, so that people leave after the ballet with pleasure. Ballet as a genre is such that it must end well. From this comes the conclusion that the two main heroes in a Shakespearean drama by Prokofiev must not die.”

D. O. Zaslavskii also agrees that a ballet must end “happily,” but he proceeds from somewhat different considerations. With that, the “dramaturgically lightened” variant of Shakespeare’s tragedy which we see in the libretto of the ballet, a happy ending to Romeo and Juliet is indeed possible.

Also speaking out in favor of the joyful ending was O. S. Litovskii.238

236 A Kut, Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, No. 5 (January 29, 1936), 1.

237 Kut, Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 1

238 Kut, Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 1 141 Kut himself seemed to favor the happy ending though he did not state so directly. As Prokofiev wrote in his autobiography, the decision to change

Shakespeare’s ending to Romeo and Juliet did cause considerable discussion, but it is misrepresentative to say that public opinion about the happy ending was primarily negative.

Return to the Tragic Ending

Although the happy ending of the 1935 version Romeo and Juliet does not seem to have been the impetus behind the cancellation of the 1936 Bolshoi Theater production, something did cause Prokofiev to rewrite the last act of the ballet and restore

Shakespeare’s tragic ending. In the 1941 autobiography, Prokofiev blamed dissatisfaction with the happy ending to Romeo and Juliet on “our Shakespeare scholars,”239 and credited an unnamed person’s observation as the impetus behind changing the happy ending:

What convinced me to change my mind [about the happy ending] was something else. Someone said: “Your music does not succeed in expressing true joy at the end.” That was true. After several meetings with choreographers it turned out to be possible to give the ballet a fatal outcome, and after that was born the music for that ending.240

There is evidence, however, that it was Prokofiev himself who had second thoughts and pushed for the restoration of Shakespeare’s original ending to the ballet.

From September 1935 to January 1936, there were three hearings of Romeo and Juliet, each performed by Prokofiev at the piano, from the piano score. At the first of these

239 S. I. Shlifshtein, ed., S. S. Prokof’ev: Materialy, dokumenty, vospominaniia, 2d ed. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1961), 75.

240 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 75.

142 hearings, held on September 1, only the first three acts were played, not because of any misgivings about the happy ending, but because Prokofiev had yet to finish the fourth act.241 The second, official Bolshoi Theater hearing of the ballet, including the happy ending, was held on October 4, 1935. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the reviews of this hearing praised Prokofiev’s music, but questioned the decision to change

Shakespeare’s ending. These reviews may have been the catalyst for the eventual return to the tragic ending and the reference in the 1941 autobiography to outraged Soviet scholars. A cryptic comment in a postcard hints that Prokofiev may have had misgivings about the new ending as early as December 1935:

I’m traveling through a variety of warm places, hanging around between Arabs and donkeys. I’m playing the exact same program all the time in order to have time to orchestrate Romeo. In two weeks I return to Paris to get my winter coat, then directly to Moscow. How are you? Do you remember about Romeo? Have you been pushing yourself? Have you come up with a brilliant [genial’niy] ending?242

Prokofiev’s inquiry about the “brilliant ending” may explain why just the first three acts of the ballet were played at the press hearing on January 25, 1936. If he had misgivings or perhaps had already decided to remove the happy ending, it would make sense for him not to play the fourth act. Otherwise, it seems strange that Prokofiev would omit the final act, even though he had played it at the Bolshoi Theater hearing three months earlier.

241 The fourth act was finished on September 7, the entire piano score was completed on September 8. The only known record of this hearing is a copy of a postcard from Prokofiev to Radlov dated September 1, 1935: “I found your letter after I returned from my trip to the Caucasus. I plan to finish the piano score of the ballet in the next few days. Today was a hearing of three acts. Mutnykh confirmed his desire to stage [the ballet] this spring.” [London, Notebook 28, June-December 1935].

242 St. Petersburg Public Library Archive. Fond 625, no. 465, l. 2

143 No known sources identify either when Prokofiev decided to change the happy ending or when the new ending to Romeo and Juliet was actually composed. It seems that Prokofiev must have decided not to use the happy ending after he had finished the piano score and had begun orchestrating the ballet. By this time in his career, Prokofiev had developed a shorthand orchestration system, where, after he finished the piano score, he would go back through and annotate instrumentation details directly into the manuscript. In places where he needed more space, he would mark in a number using a dark blue pencil, which referred to a separate notebook (see figure 5.1: Facsimile of orchestration notebook for Romeo and Juliet).

Prokofiev discovered this method during his December 1925 tour of America while he was orchestrating the ballet The Steel Step:

During the tour I did not stop working on orchestrating the ballet. Since the branches of Pro Musica were scattered all over the States, all the way to , several days were spent traveling by train. I tried to use that time for orchestration. The shaking [of the train] hindered writing, so I decided to do all of the preliminary work on the train, deciding not only what instrument would play this melody or that accompaniment, but scoring each measure completely, including the instrumentation of chords, bowings, accents and nuances, creating a solid foundation, so that all that remained was the mechanical copying into the full score of everything that was thought out and penciled onto the piano score. At first it seemed impossible to fit all of the instrumentation details onto the piano score, but after a little practice, I could do it without any difficulty. Furthermore, there was always an empty line between staves to copy out additional voices or accents. If, however, I were unable to fit it all in, I marked in a reference to a separate page, where I copied out any interlacing or difficult string passages. For a long time, this method served me very well.243

For Romeo and Juliet, the orchestration process took Prokofiev several months of intense work, which he started immediately after finishing the piano score, as he wrote to

Vera Alpers in a letter dated October 23, 1935:

243 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 57-58. 144 Figure 5.1: Facsimile of orchestration notebook for Romeo and Juliet. The numbers 105 and 106 refer to the piano score manuscript. RGALI, fond 1929, op. 1, no. 61, l. 11 r.

145 After a hot and moderately pleasant trip to the Caucuses in August, I ensconced myself in Polenova, finished composing Romeo and Juliet, and orchestrated a fair amount. Everyone else left here in September, so there was no one to bother my work.244

Left by himself at Polenova, Prokofiev worked quickly, as he reported to

Miaskovsky:

I finished composing Romeo and immediately immersed myself in orchestration. So far, I keep my speed of around twenty pages per day (that is, about twenty pages in Lamm’s copy from “it”), but it is difficult. Most important is not to fall into ‘Asafiev-isms,’ that is [into] the line of least resistance.245

As Prokofiev finished orchestrating each section, he passed the manuscript to his copyist, the composer Pavel Lamm, who then wrote out the full score according to

Prokofiev’s directions.

Prokofiev’s orchestrational annotations in the piano score of Romeo and Juliet stop at the end of number 51, the first number in the fourth act. The final eight measures of 51 are crossed out, and Prokofiev has amended the timing for the number, so it reads

3:50 - :25 = 3:25. He also wrote in “from here go to the new No. 52, the death of Juliet.”

The ‘old’ No. 52 and nos. 53 through 56 comprise the happy ending. ‘Old’ No. 52 and

No. 53 are crossed out, and most telling, have no orchestrational annotations. Nos. 54, 55 and 56 are not crossed out, but they, too, have no orchestrational markings. The lack of annotations indicates that the happy ending was undoubtedly dropped during the time

Prokofiev was orchestrating the ballet.

Dating when the new ending for the ballet was actually composed is more difficult. Lamm kept a very detailed notebook of his work for Prokofiev. For each job given him, Lamm listed the name of the composition, the section to be worked on, the

244 RBN, letter to Vera Alpers dated October 23, 1935.

245 Perepiska Prokof’ev and Miaskovsky, pg 440. Letter dated September 11, 1935. 146 type of work to be done, the cost per page, the number of pages completed by Lamm, the total cost for the work done, and a notation indicating that Lamm had received payment.

Many of these entries refer to Lamm’s work on Romeo and Juliet. Unfortunately, Lamm does not provide dates for any of these transactions.246

By evidence found in Prokofiev’s correspondence with Lamm, it seems that during the second half of 1936, when he was putting together the first two orchestral suites from the ballet, Prokofiev was keeping his options open for the ending of Romeo and Juliet. On August 6, 1936, after the cancellation of the Bolshoi production, Prokofiev wrote Lamm asking him to finish certain sections that he needed for the orchestral suites he was compiling from the ballet:

I include here Act III of Romeo (your score, my original and additional pages with references). I ask you very much to fill the holes which I filled with the exclusion of the part. Also, please do No. 51, i.e. the beginning of Act IV. I will need all of this for the suite, so this is why it is better to do this work first and then continue copying Acts I and II.247

Note that Prokofiev mentions the entire ballet, except numbers 52 through 56, the numbers that comprise the happy ending. If he had already composed a new ending,

Prokofiev most likely would have included it in the sections for Lamm to copy. The suites themselves also seem to skirt making any decision about the ending. The final section of the second suite is taken from No. 51, Juliet’s Funeral, which takes place while

246 RGALI, fond 2743, op. 1, 16, l.l. 48-56.

247 RGALI, fond 2743, op. 1, 183, l. 10. Letter from Prokofiev to Lamm, August 6, 1936.

147 Juliet is under the effects of the sleeping potion. This leaves the ending of the suites ambiguous. In any future production of the ballet, Prokofiev could end it either way without contradicting himself.248

Therefore, Prokofiev showed he was having doubts about the happy ending as early as December 1935. In 1936, when he compiled the orchestral suites, he left open the possibility to end the ballet either happily or tragically in the future. Lamm’s notebooks do not help date when the ending was re-written, but most likely it was before

April 1938, when Prokofiev send a score to the ballet to the State Theater in Brno,

Czechoslovakia, which premiered the ballet in December 1938, with a tragic ending.

Cancellation of the Bolshoi Theater Production of Romeo and Juliet

There are a number of documents in the official archives of the Bolshoi Theater that confirm production plans for Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet at the end of 1935-36 theater season. Much of this material is signed by the director of the theater, V.

Mutnykh. The earliest of these documents is an August 21, 1935 vision statement from

Mutnykh for the theater. Near the end of this report, repertoire plans for the 1935-36 season are listed:

New Productions: S. S. Prokofiev has just about finished the piano score of Romeo and Juliet, which is due September 1. If it is suitable, we will produce it this season.249

248 The suites and the compilation process are discussed in Chapter 6.

249 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 982, l. 63.

148 From around this same time is an undated repertoire plan for the 1935-6 season in a collection of documents dated April 2 through September 31, 1935. Listed under the heading “Should be received this season from authors working by contract with the theater” are two ballets: Spartak, music by Asafiev, and Romeo and Juliet, music by

Prokofiev.250 In the same collection of documents is an undated work plan of the repertoire department for September 1935 listing Romeo and Juliet as in preparation.251

On September 9, 1935, Mutnykh wrote the Leningrad ballet master Rostislav

Zakharov, inviting him to work on the ballet:

The Director of the State Academic Bolshoi Theater of the USSR offers you the role of ballet master for the ballet Romeo and Juliet. The production is planned for the second half of the current season.252

As noted in Chapter 2, Zakharov was unable to accept the position because of his duties at the Kirov Theater.

Another undated repertoire list for the theater is sandwiched in between two documents dated January 19, 1936 and January 20, 1936. On the reverse side, under the heading “Plans for the 1936-37 Season,” are listed two ballets, Asafiev’s Prisoner of the

Caucases and Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet.253 Since there is no mention of these being premieres, it is most likely that in mid-January 1936, the Bolshoi Theater was planning to continue Romeo and Juliet into the next season.

250 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 995, l. 2.

251 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 995, l. 37.

252 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 978, l. 136.

253 RGALI, fond 648, op. 2, no. 988, l. 75.

149 According to the dates of the material in the theater archives, plans for the

Bolshoi Theater production of Romeo and Juliet seem to have been discarded in early

1936, some time after January 29, the date of the press release listing the ballet master as

P. Gusev and the review of the January 25 press hearing, both published in Sovetskoe

Iskusstvo. The only proof that production plans for the ballet were abandoned is the April

1936 letter from Prokofiev to Vera Alpers, discussed earlier in the chapter, where he mentions “all kinds of missteps with Romeo and Juliet,” and the fact that Romeo and

Juliet was not staged at the Bolshoi Theater until the 1946 revival of the 1940 Kirov production. What were these “missteps” that Prokofiev referred to in his letter? The answer lies in an examination of other events in the Soviet Union in early 1936.

Censorship and Romeo and Juliet

On January 28, 1936, an unsigned editorial in Pravda, entitled “Muddle Instead of

Music,” shook the Soviet music world to its foundation. The article harshly criticized

Dmitrii Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District for its crudity and vulgarity, calling it unfit for the Soviet stage.254 A week later, on February 6, 1936, another unsigned editorial, “Ballet Falseness,” condemned Shostakovich’s ballet The

Limpid Stream, about life on a collective farm, for its ideological falsehoods. Although

Shostakovich was the only composer mentioned by name in either editorial, they were

254 The editorial “Muddle instead of Music” commented on the Western popularity of the opera, noting, “Lady Macbeth enjoys great success with audiences abroad. Is it not because the opera is absolutely unpolitical and confusing that they praise it? It is not explained by the fact that it tickles the perverted tastes of the bourgeoisie with its fidgety, screaming, neurotic music?” Quoted in Boris Schwarz, Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 1917-1970 (London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1972), 124.

150 interpreted by the music community as a warning shot for all.255 Regional chapters of the

Composers Union throughout the USSR held meetings to discuss the editorials and their implications. The transcripts of these meetings in Leningrad and Moscow, featuring comments by the leading composers of the day, were published in Sovetskaya Muzyka.256

The Bolshoi Theater had been involved with productions of both of the

Shostakovich works criticized in the editorials. It was at the Bolshoi Theater, in January

1936, that Stalin himself saw Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District. His negative reaction to the opera is said to have been the catalyst for the first of the two Pravda articles.257

Even before this, in December 1935, Mutnykh, was criticized by a workers’ committee for staging modern works such as Lady Macbeth.258 The words of a worker identified only as Comrade Iasheumov sum up the general themes of the fourteen-page document:

It is too bad that Comrade Mutnikh has left. I wanted to say that he did not understand us. We did not say that we do not need this opera [Lady Macbeth]. Instead we asked why the Bolshoi Theater has gone down the path of least resistance, why does it stage this new opera when it could be staged at the Nemirovich-Danchenko Theater instead. We workers demand productions with more value from the Bolshoi Theater than this opera.259

255 The two articles caused an uproar in other artistic circles as well. The theater journal, Teatr i Dramaturgiia devoted large sections of its March and April 1936 issues to responses from leaders in the theater world, including Radlov and Meyerhold.

256 Schwarz, Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 124.

257 Schwarz, Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 123.

258 RGALI, Fond 648, op. 2, no. 1014, l. 84-97. Observations of Workers on the Opera Lady Macbeth.

259 RGALI, Fond 648, op. 2, no. 1014, l. 94.

151 The Bolshoi Theater was also planning a production of Shostakovich’s The

Limpid Stream for its 1935-36 concert season, as we know from repertoire plans in the official documents of the Bolshoi Theater.260

The criticism of the two Shostakovich works in Pravda, the connections of these works with the Bolshoi Theater, and the ensuing uproar caused by the Pravda editorials undoubtedly made Mutnykh and the Bolshoi Theater administration a little nervous and perhaps a bit cautious about releasing any new productions, such as Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet, without careful political consideration first. Perhaps even more important in complicating any future staging of Romeo and Juliet, was the fact that Adrian Piotrovsky, one of the co-librettists for Romeo and Juliet, was also one of the librettists for

Shostakovich’s The Limpid Stream. Therefore, Romeo and Juliet became too risky to stage at this time. Piotrovsky was connected to Shostakovich’s The Limpid Stream,

Radlov was an avant-garde director, ripe for being accused of formalism himself,261 and

Prokofiev was still considered more European than Soviet by the Stalin government, having just committed to returning to the Soviet Union permanently, and therefore suspect for his Western connections.

Although Prokofiev’s music came under heavy criticism from the Stalin government in 1948, it has been widely accepted that he did not face personal censure or direct criticism in 1936. This now seems to be untrue; it seems that the cancellation of the Bolshoi production of Romeo and Juliet was clearly related to the aftermath of the

Lady Macbeth and The Limpid Stream articles. It is important to stress again that there

260 RGALI, Fond 648, op. 2, no. 988, l. 75.

261 Radlov, in fact, was arrested in 1945 and spent several years in prison camps. 152 are no surviving records of the cancellation of Romeo and Juliet, let alone of the reasons

behind the decision. Moreover, there are a number of pages that have been torn out of

the sections of the official archives of the Bolshoi Theater from the early months of 1936.

It is possible that some of these pages contained material relevant to the cancellation of

the ballet. The materials that are available, however, do support my hypothesis that

Romeo and Juliet was not staged at the Bolshoi Theater in 1936, as had been planned and

documented in the records of the theater, because of the atmosphere of fear and caution

caused by the aftermath of the two Pravda editorials condemning the music of

Shostakovich in January and February 1936.

Also supportive of this hypothesis is that after the January 29, 1936,

announcement about production plans for Romeo and Juliet and quite regular

representation in the journal Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, Prokofiev’s name is not mentioned

again in the journal until November 1936, and then only in a one-line mention of an up-

coming musical evening with an unspecified program.

The connection between the Pravda editorials and the cancellation of the Bolshoi

Theater production of Romeo and Juliet may very well have prompted Prokofiev to write

to Vera Alpers about “all kinds of missteps with Romeo and Juliet.” This connection might also have caused Prokofiev to continue the cover-up when he wrote his memoirs in

1941. In order to have a logical excuse for the cancellation, he most likely borrowed the primary criticism expressed by participants in the 1940 Kirov Theater production of the ballet and transferred it to the canceled 1936 plans.

153 CHAPTER 6

“NEVER WAS A TALE OF GREATER WOE THAN PROKOFIEV’S MUSIC FOR ROMEO”: THE ORCHESTRAL SUITES, THE BRNO PREMIERE, AND THE 1940 KIROV THEATER PRODUCTION OF ROMEO AND JULIET

After the cancellation of the 1936 Bolshoi Theater production of Romeo and

Juliet, Prokofiev began trying almost immediately to find a new home for his ballet, but was unable to secure a production until 1938, at the Brno State Theater in

Czechoslovakia.262 Romeo and Juliet was not staged in the Soviet Union until January

1940. In the summer of 1936, unwilling to waste the results of nearly a year of work creating Romeo and Juliet, Prokofiev compiled two concert suites from the 1935 piano score of the ballet.263

The first suite was premiered in Moscow on November 24, 1936, while the second suite was premiered in Leningrad on April 15, 1937. Both suites were played world wide soon after their premieres, including performances in Paris, New York City

262 RGALI, fond 1929, op. 1, no. 811, l. 5, letter to Prokofiev from the Kharkov State Theater, September 14, 1936, apologizing for not being able to follow through with plans to stage Romeo and Juliet at this time.

263 A third concert suite was compiled in 1946, after the ballet had been performed a number of times.

154 and Prague. The critical reception of the suites was primarily positive, both in USSR and abroad. Despite the favorable reception of the suites, Prokofiev was still unable to secure a staging of Romeo and Juliet. He noted in his 1941 autobiography:

The ballet itself was unlucky: In 1937 the Leningrad Choreographic School signed a contract to stage a production of the ballet for its 200-year jubilee, and in 1938 the Opera Theater of Brno (Czechoslovakia) also signed a contract. The Choreographic School, however, broke the contract and thus the premiere took place in Brno in December 1938.264

No doubt Prokofiev reasoned that the suites might work as positive advertising, introducing the music, and therefore the ballet, to people making programming decisions who might not otherwise be aware of it. This tactic eventually paid off, and Romeo and

Juliet was premiered by the Brno State Theater in Brno, Czechoslovakia, on December

30, 1938, although in very different form from the 1935 piano score. In the spring of

1938, Prokofiev finally obtained the promise of a Soviet production of Romeo and Juliet, to take place at the Kirov Theater in Leningrad. The theater appointed Leonid Lavrovsky as the choreographer, and in August 1938, Prokofiev and Lavrovsky began working together on their plans for the ballet. That was, again, Prokofiev’s rotten luck: the two men had very different aesthetic approaches, and the road to the eventual premiere of the ballet at the Kirov Theater on January 11, 1940, was long and difficult.

264 S. I. Shlifshtein, ed., S. S. Prokof’ev: Materialy, dokumenty, vospominaniia, 2d ed. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’stvo, 1961), 76.

155 The Two Orchestral Suites From Romeo and Juliet

In his 1941 autobiography, Prokofiev noted:

I made two symphonic suites from the ballet, each consisting of seven movements. They do not follow each other consecutively; both suites develop parallel to each other. Some numbers were taken directly from the ballet without alteration, others were compiled from different sources within it. These two suites do not cover the entire music and I shall perhaps be able to make a third. Besides the suites I compiled a collection of ten pieces for piano, selecting the parts best suited for transcription. The suites were performed before the ballet was produced.265

In the early autumn of 1936, Prokofiev started assembling the two orchestral suites from the 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet. As he stated in the 1941 autobiography, most of the materials for the suites were taken directly from the 1935 score, with only minor changes.266 Ten of the fourteen numbers in the two suites appear as they were presented in the ballet. One example of this is “Masks,” the fifth number of the first suite. It corresponds exactly to No. 11 in the 1935 score, “Masks.” The remaining four numbers are conglomerations of two or more numbers from the ballet.

Number seven from the first suite, “Death of Tybalt,” uses sections from No. 31, “Tybalt fights with Mercutio,” No. 33, “Romeo decides to avenge Mercutio’s death,” and No. 34,

“Act II finale” (see figure 6.1: Coordination of orchestral suites with the 1935 score (by number). Although the material in both of the suites is nearly note-for-note from the

1935 score, the arrangement of numbers is such that no complete narrative thread exists

— instead the results are two concert suites that serve as static snapshots of scenes from

Romeo and Juliet (see figure 6.2, Chronological arrangement of the fourteen numbers comprising Romeo and Juliet suites one and two).

265 Sshlifstein, Prokofiev: Materialy, 75.

266 One of these changes was instrumentation. The 1935 score called for three trumpets and six French horns, the suites use two trumpets and four French horns. 156 157 158 As discussed in Chapter 5, Prokofiev left the suites ambiguous as to whether or not Romeo and Juliet die. From the suites either the happy or a tragic ending is possible.

This is not important in terms of the suites themselves, since they were not constructed to have any narrative consistency, but it was important for Prokofiev to consider in terms of future productions. If Prokofiev had committed himself one way or the other in the suites, he would most likely have to stick to that version of the ending in any staging of

Romeo and Juliet.

The 1938 Brno State Theater Premiere of Romeo and Juliet

Perhaps because of the success of the two suites from Romeo and Juliet in

Europe, Prokofiev finally secured a production of the ballet in 1938, at the Brno State

Opera House in Brno, Czechoslovakia. The contract with the Brno State Theater was signed on January 19, 1938.267 Most primary documents about the Brno production of

Romeo and Juliet are said to have been destroyed in fires during the second World War, but some information does survive, including the program from the production (see figure 6.3, Program from the December 1938 production of Romeo and Juliet at the Brno

State Theater, and figure 6.4, Translation of the program of the 1938 Brno production of

Romeo and Juliet).

Ivo Vana Psota, the artistic director of the Brno Ballet, was the choreographer and director of the Brno production of Romeo and Juliet. He also danced the role of Romeo.

Vera Semberova danced the role of Juliet. According to her memoirs, Semberova had

267 RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 3, no. 222.

159 160 Figure 6.3: Program from the December 1938 production of Romeo and Juliet at the Brno State Theater.

161 very strong ideas of how Juliet should be danced, so she created her own solo choreography and worked with Psota on the duets between Romeo and Juliet.268

Semberova decided Juliet should not be danced on pointe, as was common practice for the female lead. She explained her rationale for excluding pointe from the role of Juliet:

I felt strongly that the strict classical dance forms, as they were understood in 1938, sometimes tended to dominate the music and did not allow a truthful expression of the emotions that I believed Juliet must have felt. On pointe I felt I would be overly restricted and not able to select what I thought would be the fitting movement forms for the appropriate expression; pointe would not allow me the freedom of movement to portray Juliet as I envisaged her.269

As was discussed in Chapter 2, dancing on pointe was considered the embodiment of the feminine, so Semberova’s portrayal of Juliet was a rejection of femininity as it was previously constructed in ballet productions.270 Semberova claimed that Psota was originally against the idea of a pointe-less Juliet, but soon accepted it.271

In the Brno production, Romeo and Juliet was presented as a love story within the framework of a prologue and an epilogue danced by three angels on pointe. Having the angels dance on pointe further underscored that the heroine of the ballet did not.

Although the January 1938 contract was for fifteen performances, the Brno production of Romeo and Juliet closed after only eight performances. The Nazis invaded

Czechoslovakia in early 1939 and soon thereafter closed down the Brno State Theater.

Despite the circumstances behind the shortened run, Prokofiev initiated a contract dispute

268 Zora Semberova, “Prokofiev’s First Juliet,” Ballet Review, v. 22, no. 2 (Summer 1994), 20-23.

269 Semberova, “Prokofiev’s First Juliet,” 21.

270 Garafolo, p. 128.

271 Semberova, “Prokofiev’s First Juliet,” 21. 162 with the Brno Theater in 1941. The contract specified fifteen performances and despite the fact that the remaining seven performances were not given because of the Nazi invasion, Prokofiev pig-headedly demanded payment for all fifteen performances.272

Since no score or detailed information about the music used in the Brno production is currently known to exist, one must make educated guesses based on the fragmentary material that is available. According to Vera Semberova and ballet scholar

Gunhold Oberzuacher-Schuller, whose material is obviously based to a certain extent on

Semberova’s comments, the Brno production used the music contained in the two suites from Romeo and Juliet, not the 1935 score.273 How this came about and Prokofiev’s reaction to the change is not known. Letters in RGALI that have just become available to scholars may reveal more, but for now I can only surmise from other evidence.

An examination of the program of the Brno production of Romeo and Juliet shows that it was definitely an abbreviated version of the ballet, but comparing the Brno program with the suite movements re-arranged narratively, in the order they would have appeared in the ballet, indicates that although similar, the Brno production was most likely not just the suites choreographed as stated by Semberova and Oberzaucher-

Schüller. According to Semberova, the ballet was a “condensed form of the music,”274 which ended up being about half of the length of the 1935 score.275 This condensation

272 RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 3, no. 129. Two letters in French from Prokofiev to the Director of the Brno State Theater, September 20, 1940 and February 15, 1941.

273 Gunhold Oberzaucher-Schüller, “The Forgotten First Staging of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet,” Dance View, v. 13, no. 4 (Summer 1996), 7-9.

274 Oberzaucher-Schüller, “The Forgotten First Staging of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet,” 8.

275 Semberova, “Prokofiev’s First Juliet,” 20

163 was done by Ivo Vana Psota and the music director at the Brno Theater, Guido Arnoldi.

A comparison of the dramatic action implied by the suite movements and the scene-by- scene descriptions of the action in the Brno libretto also indicates that in all likelihood, the music used in the Brno production was not just the suites orchestrated. This leaves two possibilities as to the source of the music. The first possibility is that just the musical numbers in Prokofiev’s 1935 score that corresponded to the actions described in the Brno libretto were used. The other possibility is that the fourteen movements of the two suites were adapted and rearranged into the eleven sections in the Brno libretto, nine scenes with a prologue and epilogue. Based on the information available, it seems to me that the first possibility, choosing selections from the 1935 score, is the most probable.

Oberzaucher-Schüller makes an interesting remark about the musical content of the Brno production of Romeo and Juliet. He wrote that Prokofiev “wanted to revive the form of the multi-act ballet of the late nineteenth century”276 with Romeo and Juliet, but

Psota instead staged the work as a “series of set numbers with continuity.”277

Oberzaucher-Schüller continued with the observation that: “The compositional technique was based less on leitmotifs than on sweeping arcs of melody and harmonically self- contained units.”278 Oberzaucher-Schüller seems to be describing the blocks of time structure discussed in Chapter 4.

276 Oberzaucher-Schüller, “The Forgotten First Staging of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet,” 7.

277 Oberzaucher-Schüller, “The Forgotten First Staging of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet,” 7.

278 Oberzaucher-Schüller, “The Forgotten First Staging of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet,” 7-8. 164 The Creation of Leonid Lavrovsky’s Romeo and Juliet

In January and again in April 1938, the Kirov Theater in Leningrad wrote

Prokofiev and invited him to write either an opera or a ballet for the theater, on a topic of his choice. Prokofiev had recently secured a performance of Romeo and Juliet at the

Brno State Theater in Czechoslovakia, but he was undoubtedly anxious to get a performance of the ballet in the Soviet Union. Although there are no known documents confirming this supposition, most likely Prokofiev proposed that the Kirov Theater stage his already written, yet unperformed ballet, Romeo and Juliet.

Leonid Lavrovsky, a choreographer at the Kirov Theater, was chosen by the theater directors to be the ballet master for the Kirov’s production. Lavrovsky had been mentioned as choreographer for short-lived plans to stage Romeo and Juliet for the

Jubilee of the Choreographic school in Leningrad in Jan 1938.279 Rostislav Zakharov, whom Prokofiev and Radlov had wanted to stage Romeo and Juliet for the Bolshoi

Theater in 1935-36, was no longer at the Kirov Theater; he had become a ballet master at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow. Sergei Radlov, Prokofiev’s co-librettist for Romeo and

Juliet, who played a very active role in the preparations for the planned 1936 production of the ballet at the Bolshoi Theater, seems to have had no role in the 1940 Kirov production.

279 Shlifstein, Prokofiev: Mateerialy, 75.

165 Lavrovsky wrote very detailed memoirs about his experience staging Romeo and

Juliet, as did Galina Ulanova, the ballerina who danced the role of Juliet. Prokofiev, however, wrote just a short paragraph in his autobiography about the 1940 Kirov Theater production of Romeo and Juliet:

The Kirov Theater produced the ballet in January 1940 with all of the characteristic mastery of its dancers. This mastery might have been more appreciated if the choreography had more precisely followed the music. Due to the special acoustics of the Kirov Theater and the need to make the rhythms as clear as possible for the dancers, I was compelled to alter the orchestration of the ballet in many places. Because of this, the same places in the suites are more translucent than in the ballet score.280

The accounts of Lavrovsky and Ulanova, as well as a number of letters and telegrams, provide invaluable insights into the numerous arguments and disagreements that marked the rehearsal process of Romeo and Juliet. Unlike Prokofiev, however, once the ballet finally premiered, in January 1940, Lavrovsky and Ulanova were both pleased with the results. From their points of view, it had been a long hard road, but the critical and popular success of the ballet balanced out the earlier difficulties. Later in life,

Ulanova called Juliet her favorite role, yet at the celebration following the premiere of

Romeo and Juliet, she jokingly toasted Prokofiev with the now-famous parody of

Shakespeare’s words that provides the title for this chapter, “Never was a tale of greater woe than Prokofiev’s music for Romeo.”281

In creating his staging of Romeo and Juliet, it seems that Lavrovsky used

Prokofiev’s music and the 1935 score as a starting point in shaping his scenario for the ballet, but as something he could change if it conflicted with his own goals for the

280 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 75-76.

281 Galina Ulanova, “The Author of My Favourite Ballets,” S. Prokofiev: Autobiography, Articles, Reminiscences, trans. Rose Prokofieva (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, n.d.), 224.

166 production. He wrote about his first meeting with Prokofiev, when he heard the music for Romeo and Juliet for the first time, that he was very moved by the music, but he saw immediately that some changes were needed:

My mind was made up – I was determined to produce the ballet. I told Prokofiev as much, and he was very pleased, but his face fell when I said that a good many numbers were still missing, that some of the music would have to be rewritten and extended. He wrinkled his nose and made a sour face. Later I came to know that grimace well, but now I was seeing it for the first time. “Why do you think your changes will improve matters”? he asked. I did not reply. An awkward pause followed. Then Prokofiev asked quickly what changes were needed and where. I said that I did not wish to invent anything on the spot, but when I had thought the whole thing out properly and drawn up a plan of the production we would discuss it together.282

Lavrovsky defended his decision to change Prokofiev’s ballet on the basis that the score as Prokofiev wrote it did not reflect his artistic expectations or requirements:

“There was not a single dance in the music of the opening scene of the first act.”283 He asked Prokofiev to add one, but the composer categorically refused. Prokofiev unsuccessfully attempted to stand his ground and get Lavrovsky to back down, telling him, “You must manage with what you have got.”284 The disagreement about what constitutes a ‘dance’ underlines the fundamental disagreement between Prokofiev and

Lavrovsky. In the Petipa-era style of Imperial Ballet in which Lavrovsky was trained, discussed in Chapter 2, music for a ballet was a collection of more or less interchangeable numbers based on a fairly rigid formula, in which the vision of the choreographer took precedence over that of the composer. This formula comprised set choreographic forms such as pas-de-deux and solo variations, as well as large corp-de-ballet dances.

282 Leonid Lavrovsky, “Repository of Creative Talent,” S. Prokofiev: Autobiography, Articles, Reminiscences, trans. Rose Prokofieva (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, n.d.), 270.

283 Lavrovsky, “Repository of Creative Talent,” 272.

284 Lavrovsky, “Repository of Creative Talent,” 272.

167 Prokofiev, on the other hand, approached ballet as a collaborative art, in which all artistic components were treated as equally important. He gave careful thought to issues of theatricality as he composed, and each musical number served to enhance the characters or the basic story line. Therefore, he was unable to comprehend how or why it was necessary to rework a ballet that had been completed for three years. Prokofiev saw inserting an unplanned-for dance as completely disruptive of his carefully planned and coordinated structure, just as he had fifteen years earlier when Romanov significantly changed the scenario for Trapeze. Rather than trying to resolve the fundamental clash of aesthetics, Lavrovsky acted by asserting the supremacy of his vision as the choreographer:

In the face of such stubborn opposition I was forced to resort to a measure I would not recommend to anyone else: without saying a word to the composer I went to a music shop, hunted through a pile of Prokofiev’s music and choosing the Scherzo from his Second Piano , used it as the basis for the music of a number in the first scene called the Morning Dance: a maidservant of a simple tavern on a square in Verona meets a manservant of the Capulets and the two perform a lively folk dance. There was a sequel to this. Prokofiev dropped into the theatre during a rehearsal. When we came to the Morning Dance I saw a look of utter bewilderment on his face. “You have no right to do a thing like that,” he protested. “I’m not going to orchestrate that number.” “Then we shall have to play it on two pianos,” I retorted. “That will be very awkward for you.” He got up and walked out of the theater. We did not meet or telephone for several days after that.285

Eventually Prokofiev gave in and orchestrated the number. This incident seemed to set the pattern for the entire rehearsal process: When they disagreed, both men stubbornly held their own ground, but eventually, perhaps afraid to jeopardize and possibly lose another production of Romeo and Juliet, Prokofiev backed down and made the changes Lavrovsky required.

285 Lavrovsky, “Repository of Creative Talent,” 272.

168 As mentioned earlier, Sergei Radlov, despite the role he played in creating the

1935 version of Romeo and Juliet, was excluded from the 1940 Kirov Theater production of the ballet. In a letter obviously in reply to Radlov’s inquiries about Lavrovsky and the changes he was requesting, Prokofiev played down the tension:

So far it is nothing too terrible. With the music of the overture, he wants Romeo to stand thoughtfully in Mantua. In a different place, he removes the honey cake seller. In order not to kill his fantasy, I gave him this. And something else in the order of the ballet — the Capulets (little things), while other attempts I stopped.286

At this point, early in the rehearsal process, Prokofiev seems to have thought that he could manage Lavrovsky and that he would be able to preserve the original spirit of the 1935 version of Romeo and Juliet in Lavrovsky’s interpretation of the ballet.

Prokofiev soon realized this might not be true. In October 1939, Lavrovsky requested two additional variations, one for Romeo and one for Juliet. He felt that Juliet needed a solo variation in the middle of the first act, at the Capulet’s ball, right after her dance with Paris, and that Romeo needed a solo variation in the Balcony Scene, right before the Love Dance.287 Prokofiev saw both of these variations as unnecessary and disruptive to the narrative flow.

Lavrovsky wrote that Prokofiev composed the music for Juliet’s added variation quickly and easily. “In the same way, after literally ten minutes work at the piano,

Prokofiev composed the missing dance for Juliet, known as Juliet’s Variation at the

Capulet Ball, using a theme taken from the score.”288 A number of documents, however,

286 RNB, Fond 625, no. 465, l. 3. Letter from Prokofiev to Radlov, dated February 21, 1939. Emphasis Prokofiev’s.

287 RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 593, l. 2. Letter from Lavrovsky to Prokofiev, October 17, 1939.

288 Lavrovsky, “Repository of Creative Talent,” 272.

169 refute this version of events. On October 20, 1939, Prokofiev received a telegram reading “Immediately send the music for the variations. Lavrovsky.”289 Nine days later, on October 29, he received a second telegram. “For the second time I ask you to send the variations for the music of Romeo and Juliet. Work has stopped. Lavrovsky.”290

Prokofiev responded:

I am sending you the changes to Romeo’s variation and Juliet’s variation. I am sorry I was delayed, but your choreographic thoughts stray from the line of the intent of the music. Therefore, it was very difficult to work.291

Once again, Prokofiev tried to stand his ground and protect his artistic vision. He considered Romeo and Juliet to be an already completed work, and therefore resented

Lavrovsky disrupting the narrative flow and aesthetic vision of the 1935 score.

Eventually, though, Prokofiev had to compromise, though not without a few barbed remarks, and give Lavrovsky the two variations he had requested.

In his 1941 autobiography, Prokofiev mentions undanceability as a factor in the cancellation of the planned 1936 Bolshoi Theater production of Romeo and Juliet, as discussed in Chapter 5. The label undanceable, however, was actually applied to the

1940 Kirov Theater production of the ballet by Galina Ulanova in her memoirs of

Prokofiev. Although she eventually considered Romeo and Juliet to be one of her favorite ballets, Ulanova at first was unable to understand Prokofiev’s concept of dance and rhythm:

289 RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 593.

290 RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 593.

291 RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 2, no. 216. 170 At first, as I said before, the music seemed to us incomprehensible and almost impossible to dance to. But the more we listened to it, the more we worked, experimented and searched, the more clearly emerged the images that music created. And gradually as we came to understand the music, we no longer found it difficult to dance to; it became clear both choreographically and psychologically.292

Like Lavrovsky, Ulanova found working with Prokofiev in rehearsals very trying, especially since she found the music so difficult:

Time was flying, the rehearsals were in full swing, but we were still badly hampered by the unusual orchestration and the chamber quality of the music. The frequent change of rhythm, too, gave us a great deal of trouble. To tell the truth we were not accustomed to such music, in fact we were a little afraid of it. It seemed to us that in rehearsing the Adagio from the first act, for example, we were following some melodic pattern of our own, something nearer to our own conception of how the love of Romeo and Juliet should be expressed than that contained in Prokofiev’s “strange” music. For I must confess that we did not hear that love in his music then. We did not tell Prokofiev anything of this, we were afraid of him. All our doubts, perplexities and suggestions were transmitted to the composer through Lavrovsky. Prokofiev seemed unapproachable and haughty, and we felt that he had no faith in ballet or in ballet artists.293

Even with Lavrovsky’s interventions, the dancers remained puzzled by

Prokofiev’s music, and just before Romeo and Juliet was to open, on January 11, 1940, they threatened to boycott the premiere, fearing they would make fools of themselves onstage, trying to dance to this “strange” music.294

292 Ulanova, “The Author of My Favourite Ballets,” 224.

293 Ulanova, “The Author of My Favourite Ballets,” 222.

294 Robinson, Sergei Prokofiev, 373.

171 The 1940 Kirov Theater Production of Romeo and Juliet

In February 1935, Prokofiev wrote Radlov that the changes to Romeo and Juliet requested by Lavrovsky were, “so far, nothing too terrible.” By the time the production reached the stage in January 1940, Lavrovsky had in fact significantly changed the original spirit and intent of the 1935 version as written by Prokofiev, Radlov, and Adrian

Piotrovsky.

Lavrovsky’s changes to the 1935 version of Romeo and Juliet included adding a musical number, replacing a musical number with new music, and omitting musical numbers (see figure 6.5, Comparison of the 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet to the

1940 Kirov Theater production of the ballet). In Act I of the ballet, all of Lavrovsky’s changes are additions. The first change is the addition of a large corp-de-ballet number to Act I, scene 1. No. 3 in the 1940 score, “Morning Dance,” was the dance from the

Scherzo movement of Prokofiev’s second added by Lavrovsky to rectify

“the lack of a single dance” mentioned earlier in the chapter. The next change occurs in

Act I, scene 2. No. 14 in the 1940 score, “Juliet’s Variation, is the solo variation for

Juliet that Lavrovsky added to the ball scene. The final change in the first act is a complete restructuring of the Balcony Scene, including the addition of a new musical number, No. 20 in the 1940 score, “Romeo’s Variation.” This scene and the effects of

Lavrovsky’s changes to the dramaturgy of the scene are discussed in more detail later in the chapter.

In the second act of the ballet Lavrovsky extended the ending of the folk dance that opens the first scene of the act. In No. 23 of the 1940 score, “Romeo and Mercutio,”

Lavrovsky omitted twenty-five measures of Prokofiev’s music. No. 25, “Dance with

172 173 174 ,” is another addition. A fifty-five second long dance, No. 23 in the 1935 piano score, was omitted from the 1940 version. Act II, scene 2 has no changes. In scene

3 of the second act, the only changes are extensions of the endings of both of the folk dances, No. 30, “Public Merrymaking,” and No. 31, “Further Public Festivities.”

Act III, scenes 1 and 2 of the ballet are unchanged in the 1940 score. In the third scene of the act, Nos. 46, “Juliet’s Room,” and 48, “Morning ,” have extended endings. The biggest changes in this scene are the deletion of two dances in the 1935 score. Prokofiev wrote a “Dance of the Moors” and a “Dance of the Two Captains” for the scene of the wedding party just before Juliet is discovered in her room, supposedly dead.

The fourth act of the ballet is completely different from the 1935 piano score in the 1940 version, not because of Lavrovsky’s changes, so far as is known, but because

Prokofiev rewrote the act, removing the happy ending and restoring Shakespeare’s tragic ending where both Romeo and Juliet die.

Returning now to the closing of Act I in Romeo and Juliet, the Balcony Scene, I would like to examine Lavrovsky’s changes in further detail to determine the aesthetic reasons for restructuring the scene. The changes in architectural structure, especially, are clearly seen using the blocks of time analysis put forth in Chapter 4 (see figure 6.6,

Blocks of Time comparison of Act I, scene 2, the Balcony Scene of Romeo and Juliet in the 1935 piano score of Romeo and Juliet and in the 1940 Kirov Theater production).

As described in Chapter 4, the Balcony Scene as Prokofiev wrote it in 1935 consists of two musical numbers, numbers 17 and 18. Lavrovsky disrupted this structure in the 1940 version of Romeo and Juliet by adding the solo variation for Romeo, No. 20

175 176 in the 1940 score. He also rearranged the content of the original two numbers by taking

the first two blocks, C and both repetitions of D, from what was No. 18, and added them

to the first number of the scene, No. 19 in the 1940 score. He also extended the new No.

21, which was blocks E, F, and G in the 1935 score, by repeating blocks F and G a few

more times than Prokofiev did in 1935.

To understand why Lavrovsky made these changes, one needs to be familiar with

the typical layout for these types of scenes used by Petipa and others in the Russian

Imperial Grand Ballet tradition. The typical scene would begin with an extended lyrical

pas de-deux between the two leads. The choreographic emphasis would be on the female

dancer, and would include many lifts. The second section would be a short virtuosic

variation for the male dancer. The choreography often included grand leaps in a large

circle. Next would be a solo variation for the female dancer, often concluding with a

chain of 16 to 32 pirouettes in one place (usually center rear of the stage). The scene

would conclude with both dancers, often with the male entering first from the left front

and the female entering slightly later from the right rear and pirouetting downstage to

meet the male dancer. The solo chain of pirouettes can also occur in this section.

Lavrovsky certainly did not change Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet into a full-scale spectacle in the Russian Imperial Ballet style, but he did try to recast it, to a certain extent, into a form and a formula he was more comfortable with. In an August 1939 letter to Prokofiev, Lavrovsky informed the composer that the two solo variations he had requested for the first act, discussed earlier in the chapter, did not meet his expectations.

He asked Prokofiev to try again. In order to aid the composer in understanding what he wanted, Lavrovsky sent him a section of a more traditional ballet by Nicolai Tcherepnin

177 and suggested Prokofiev use it as a model. Two months later, after much prodding,

Prokofiev did complete the requested revisions, but, as mentioned earlier, included an abrupt note stating that he found Lavrovsky’s choreographic ideas completely in opposition to the original concept of the ballet, and therefore he had found the requested revisions extremely difficult.

In his revised Balcony Scene of 1940, Lavrovsky kept the beginning just as

Prokofiev wrote it in 1935, but instead of having Romeo go directly into the added solo variation, Lavrovsky moved the beginning of the love dance forward in the score to serve as a introduction of sorts to the solo variation. As mentioned earlier, Lavrovsky rejected

Prokofiev's first attempt at this variation. In his 1939 letter Lavrovsky wrote that the tempo of the variation as Prokofiev first wrote it was too slow. He also said “the character of the musical material, especially that of Romeo … should and must be energetic and masculine.”295 This energetic and masculine Romeo could perform the types of leaps usually found in solo male variations. Prokofiev's more introverted and thoughtful Romeo most likely would not. Finally, the love dance proper was slightly extended and choreographed as a true pas-de-deux, a term Prokofiev pointedly avoided using in this scene, with all of the lifts and poses one would expect in a pas-de-deux section. Granted, Lavrovsky did not turn this scene into a formulaic scene in the Grand

Imperial Ballet style, but the changes he did make to Prokofiev's 1935 structure all seem to be in order to accommodate sections of this formula.

295 RGALI, Fond 1929, op. 1, no. 593, l. 2. Letter from Lavrovsky to Prokofiev, October 17, 1939.

178 It is interesting to note that when Prokofiev added new music, such as Romeo’s

variation in the Balcony Scene, he still used blocks of time construction. Through this

technique, Prokofiev managed to integrate the new material into the old — musically, at

least — with no obvious stylistic discrepancies. The ability to add and take away blocks

underscores the adaptability of blocks of time both musically and dramatically. Even

though Lavrovsky changed the basic aesthetic approach in Romeo and Juliet, using

blocks of time structure, Prokofiev was able to effectively accommodate the new

material.

Critical Reception of Romeo and Juliet

Despite the threat of a dancer’s boycott in late December 1939, the Soviet

premiere of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet took place on January 11, 1940. To the relief of all involved, the ballet immediately received high critical and popular acclaim. The

January 21, 1940 review in Sovetskoe Iskusstvo was typical in its praise:

The success of Romeo and Juliet, a production of rare beauty, content and interest, is not just an ordinary success for Leningrad ballet, it is a success for all of Soviet choreography, and a testament to its colossal creative and ideological growth.296

In May 1940, the Kirov Theater production of Romeo and Juliet traveled to

Moscow and played to rave reviews. In 1946, the Bolshoi Theater mounted its own

production of the ballet, with Lavrovsky as the choreographer and Ulanova dancing the

296 E Liukom, “Romeo i Dzhul’etta: Balet S. S. Prokof’eva v GATOB im. Kirova,” Sovetskoe Iskusstvo (January 21, 1940). 179 role of Juliet. In 1954, MosFilm released a widely acclaimed film of the 1946 Bolshoi

Theater production. When the score of Romeo and Juliet was published in 1946, it was based on Lavrovsky’s productions, not the 1935 version as written by Prokofiev.

In 1941, in his autobiography, Prokofiev gave his opinion of the 1940 production:

The Kirov Theater produced the ballet in January 1940 with all of the characteristic mastery of its dancers. This mastery might have been more appreciated if the choreography had more precisely followed the music.297

Characteristically, he praised the skill of the dancers, but criticized Lavrovsky

(without naming names) for not following the choreographic intentions of the musical score as Prokofiev had written it.

The critical and popular success of the 1940 production of Romeo and Juliet did not seem to affect Prokofiev’s negative view of the production. He remained critical of the “new” ballet, and, as referred to in Chapter 1, as late as 1946, he was still claiming the

1935 version to be the authentic version. He also stated that he had approved

Lavrovsky’s changes for the 1940 production only, and was dismayed that the ballet was published in its 1940 incarnation, not the 1935 version. Despite Prokofiev’s efforts, though, the 1935 score was ignored and to this day, has yet to be performed. It is

Lavrovsky’s version that is known and loved throughout the world.

297 Shlifshtein, Prokof’ev: Materialy, 75-76. 180 181 182 183 184 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

It is not possible to study the history of Romeo and Juliet without examining the two separate historiographies of Prokofiev’s life and works, the Western and the Soviet.

The Western point of view traditionally has seen Prokofiev’s return to the Soviet Union in the 1930s as the effective end of his compositional career, while the Soviet assessment viewed his return as the beginning of his most fruitful creative period. Even today, more than a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union, these two separate views remain in force.

Most likely, the “truth” lies somewhere between these two extremes, incorporating aspects of both.

Romeo and Juliet was written during the years Prokofiev made his decision to return to the Soviet Union permanent, and is often cited as a turning point in Prokofiev’s compositional style. This “new” style, labeled New Simplicity by Prokofiev himself, is not just Prokofiev’s answer to Socialist Realism, and it was not used for the first time in

Romeo and Juliet. It is instead a style he cultivated in the 1920s, while living in the

West, and found in compositions like his 1929 ballet The Prodigal Son. New Simplicity, then, is just one aspect of Prokofiev’s compositional vocabulary, not a New Prokofiev adjusting to the Soviet Regime, as it is usually portrayed.

185 Throughout his career as a ballet composer, Prokofiev had a certain approach to writing ballets and other programmatic music. He “saw” the character of the music needed, even at the pre-compositional stage. His compositions, then, were the musical manifestation of the snapshot he saw. Rather than composing conventional symphonies and sonata forms driven by developmental symphonism, Prokofiev wrote music descriptively. The controlling element was time; every musical event was carefully coordinated to dramatic events on stage. A single block of material, unlike leitmotifs, can be expanded and contracted to the exact length needed. Once I identified blocks of time technique in Romeo and Juliet, I was able to see it in all of his early ballets as well.

As stated at the onset of this study, Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet is best known today in the version of the ballet choreographed by Leonid Lavrovsky and first performed at the Kirov Theater in Leningrad on December 11, 1940. It was a long and complicated process that resulted in the acceptance of the 1940 production as the standard version of the ballet, despite Prokofiev’s repeated protests.

Although Romeo and Juliet exists in the 1935 Prokofiev/Radlov/Piotrovsky version and the 1940 Prokofiev/Lavrovsky version, these two versions are not all that different in many aspects. In the musical score, the main difference is in the fourth act.

The ballet concludes with a happy ending in 1935 and with a more traditional ending in

1940. As a project, however, each version is a product of its time and circumstances.

The 1935 version of Romeo and Juliet incorporated elements of experimentalism, and the

Soviet fascination with Shakespeare and the concept of Optimistic Tragedy in the 1930s.

186 The 1940 version of Romeo and Juliet backed away from the experimentalism of the earlier version and instead employed more traditional forms and expressions, similar to the Petipa-era Imperial Grand Ballet in Russia at the turn of the twentieth century.

The history of Romeo and Juliet reveals that the Soviet censorship of Prokofiev’s music occurred earlier than has been thought. Up until now, it was widely accepted that

Prokofiev escaped direct censorship in 1936 in the aftermath of the Shostakovich Pravda articles, that his “Western” status protected him somehow. The history of the 1936

Bolshoi Theater Production of Romeo and Juliet explored in this dissertation, however, shows this is not true.

The information in this dissertation shows a number of aspects that have not been considered before and adds depth to our understanding of Prokofiev’s masterpiece,

Romeo and Juliet.

187 BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS

Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Départements de la Musique et de l’Audiovisuel [National Library of France, Departments of Music and Audio-Visual Materials], Paris [BN]. Res. Vin. des 92 (45): Letters of Prokofiev to Souvchinsky.

Bibliothèque-Musée de l’Opéra [Opera Library and Museum], Paris [BMO]. Fond L.A.S. Prokofieff, Serge Fond Kochno, Boris

Gosudarstvennyi Tsentral’nyi Muzei Muzykal’noi Kul’tury imeni M. I. Glinki [M. I. Glinka State Central Museum of Musical Culture], Moscow [GTsMMK]. Fond 33: Sergei Prokofiev Fond 357

Muzei Gosudarstvennogo Academicheskogo Bol’shogo Teatra [Museum of the State Academic Bolshoi Theater], Moscow [GABT Museum]. Fond Romeo and Juliet, ballet by Sergei Prokofiev

Muzei Gosudarstvennogo Academicheskogo Teatra Opery i Baleta [Museum of the State Academic Theater of Opera and Ballet], St. Petersburg [GATOB Museum].

Rossiiskaia Natsional’naia Biblioteka, Otdel Rukopisei i Redkikh Knig [Russian National Library, Department of Manuscripts and Rare Books], St. Petersburg [RNB]. Fond 625: Sergei Radlov and Anna Radlova Fond 1201: Vera Alpers

188 Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Literatury i Iskusstva [Russian State Archive of Literature and the Arts], Moscow [RGALI]. Fond 648, op. 2: GABT Fond 648, op. 4: GABT Fond 648, op. 5: GABT Fond 653, op. 1: “Muzgiz” Fond 962, op. 5: Committee for Artistic Affairs of the USSR Fond 1929, op. 1: Sergei Prokofiev Fond 1929, op. 2: Sergei Prokofiev Fond 1929, op. 3: Sergei Prokofiev Fond 2040, op. 1: Boris Asafiev Fond 2743, op. 1: Pavel Lamm

Rossiiskii Tsentr Khraneniia i Izucheniia Dokumentov Noveishi Istorii [Russian Center for the Preservation and Study of Documents of Recent History], Moscow [RTsKhIDNI].

The Serge Prokofiev Archive, Goldsmiths College of the University of London, London [SPA].

Tsentral’nyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Literatury i Iskusstva [Central State Archive for Literature and the Arts], St. Petersburg [TsGALI]. Fond 260, op. 1: GATOB Fond 337, op. 1: GATOB

189 II. BOOKS, ARTICLES, DISSERTATIONS

Alekseev, M. P., ed. Shekspir i Russkaia Kul’tura. [Shakespeare and ]. Leningrad: Nauka, 1965.

Alley, Ross. “Cinderella: What’s in a Ballet Score?” Dancing Times, January 1998, pp. 305-9.

Aranovskii, M. G. Melodika S. Prokof’eva. [The Melodics of S. Prokofiev]. Leningrad: Muzyka, 1969.

Arkina, N. “O Nekotorykh Osobennostiakh Sovetskogo Khoreografiia.” [“On a Few Peculiarities of Soviet Choreography”]. Teatr (No. 11, 1970), pp. 19-25.

Asaf’ev, Boris. Kriticheskie Stat’i, Ocherki i Retsenzii. [Critical Articles, Essays and Reviews]. Leningrad: Muzyka, 1981.

______. “O Muzyke Bakhchisaraiskogo Fontana.” [“On the Music for The Fountain of Bakhchisarai”]. Akademik B. V. Asaf’ev: Izbrannye Trudy, vol. 5, pp. 141-3. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1957.

Bakhrushin, Iu. A. Istoriia Russkogo Baleta. [The History of Russian Ballet]. Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossiia, 1965.

Balashov, B. A. and V.V. Lutskii. “Komsomol.” The Great Soviet Encyclopedia: A Translation of the Third Edition. Vol. 5, pp. 231-42. Ed. A. M. Prokhorov. New York: Macmillian, 1973.

Belova, Ekaterina. Rakursy Tantsa: Televizionnyi Balet. [Towards the Foreshortening of Dance: Television Ballet]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1991.

Berezark, I. “Zhivoi Shekspir.” [“The Living Shakespeare”] Literaturnyi Leningrad, 5 October 1933.

Berger, L. G., ed. Cherty Stilia S. Prokof’eva: Sbornik Teoreticheskikh Statei. [S. Prokofiev’s Stylistic Characteristics: A Collection of Theoretical Articles]. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1962.

190 Billington, James. The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture. New York: Random House, 1966, rep. New York: Vintage, 1970.

Blok, V. Metod Tvorcheskoi Raboty S. Prokof’eva. [S. Prokofiev’s Method of Creative Work]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1979.

______. “Notograficheskie Zametki: Knizhnoe i Notnoe Obozrenie.” [“Notational Remarks: A Book and Notes Survey”]. Sovetskaia Muzyka (No. 5, 1958), pp. 149-52.

______, ed. S. S. Prokof’ev: Stat’i i Issledovaniia. [S. S. Prokofiev: Articles and Research]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1972. Sergei Prokofiev: Materials, Articles, Interviews. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1978.

Boelza, Igor. Handbook of Soviet Musicians. Ed. Alan Bush. London: Pilot, 1943.

Bogdanov-Berezovskii, V. Stat’i o Balete. [Articles on Ballet]. Leningrad: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1962.

Bogdanova, A. Opery i Balety Shostakovicha. [The Operas and Ballets of Shostakovich]. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1979.

Brown, Malcolm Hamrick, ed. “Prokofiev’s Correspondence with Stravinsky and Shostakovich.” Trans. Natalia Rodriguez and Malcolm Hamrick Brown. Slavonic and Western Music: Essays for Gerald Abraham, pp. 272-92. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1985.

Dan’ko, L. G. Sergei Sergeevich Prokof’ev, 1891-1953. 2d ed. Leningrad: Muzyka, 1983.

Dobrovolskaia, G. “Iz Istorii Sozdaniia Romeo i Dzhul’etta S. S. Prokof’eva: Kompozitor v Rabote nad Dramaturgiei Baleta.” [“From the History of Composition of Romeo and Juliet by S. S. Prokofiev: The Composer at Work on the Dramaturgy of the Ballet”]. Muzyka Sovetskogo Baleta: Sbornik Statei, pp. 237-56. Moscow: Muzyka, 1962.

Dolinskaya, Elena. “Eshchio Raz o Teatral’nosti u Prokof’eva.” [“One More Time on Prokofiev’s Theatricality”]. Iz Proshlogo i Nastoiashchego Otechestvennoi Muzykal’noi Kul’tury, vol. 2. Moscow: Moskovskaia Gosudarstvennaia Konservatoriia, 1993.

______. “Prokof’ev i Miaskovskii.” [“Prokofiev and Miaskovsky”]. Moskovskii Muzykoved 2 (1991), pp. 88-102.

191 Dorigné, Michel. Serge Prokofiev. Paris: Fayard, 1994.

Druskin, M. “Balet Romeo i Dzhul’etta Prokof’eva.” [“The Ballet Romeo and Juliet by Prokofiev”]. Sovetskaia Muzyka (No. 3, 1940), pp. 10-19.

______. “Muzykal’nyi Teatr Prokof’eva.” [“The Musical Theater of Prokofiev”]. Izbrannoe: Monografii, Stat’i, pp. 212-24. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1981.

Duke, Vernon. Passport to Paris. Boston: Little and Brown, 1955.

Eisenstein, Sergei. “Aleksandr Nevskii.” Sovetskii Istorichestkii Fil’m: Sbornik Statei. Moscow: Goskinoizdat, 1939.

Faier, Iu. F. O Sebe, O Muzyke, O Balete.” [On Myself, On Music, On Ballet]. 2d ed. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1974.

Fanning, David. “Leitmotif in Lady Macbeth.” Shostakovich Studies. Ed. David Fanning, pp. 137-159. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

France, Anna Kay. Boris Pasternak’s Translations of Shakespeare. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.

Frick, John W. and Stephen M. Vallillo, eds. Theatrical Directors: A Biographical Dictionary. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1994.

Garafola, Lynn. Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Gladkov, Aleksandr. Meyerhold Speaks Meyerhold Rehearses. Ed. Alma Law. Trans. Alma Law. Russian Theatre Achive, vol. 11. Ed. John Freedman, Leon Gitelman and Anatoly Smeliansky. [n.p.]: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997.

Glebov, Igor’ [Boris Asafiev]. Sergei Prokof’ev. Leningrad: Triton, 1927.

Glikman, Isaak. Meierkhol’d i Muzykal’nyi Teatr. [Meyerhold and Musical Theater] Leningrad: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1989.

Gojowy, Detlef. Neue Sowjetische Musik der 20er Jahre. [New Soviet Music of the 1920s]. Regensburg: Laaber-Verlag, 1980.

Gosudarstvennyi Tsentral’nyi Muzei Muzykal’noi Kul’tury imeni M. I. Glinki. Avtografy S. S. Prokof’eva v Fondakh Gosudarstvennogo Tsentral’nogo Muzeia Muzykal’nogo Kul’tury imeni M. I. Glinki: Spravochnik. [Autographs of S. S. Prokofiev in the Collection of the State Central Museum of Musical Culture Named After M. I. Glinka: A Reference]. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1977.

192 ______. Muzykal’nyi Teatr Sergeia Prokof’eva: Iz Fondov Gosudarstvennogo Tsentral’nogo Muzeia Muzykal’noi Kul’tury imeni M. I. Glinki. [The Musical Theater of Sergei Prokofiev: From the Collection of the State Central Museum of Musical Culture Named After M. I. Glinka]. Moscow: [n.p.], 1997.

Gray, Camilla. The Russian Experiment in Art 1863-1922. Rev. and enlarged by Marian Burleigh-Motley. World of Art. London: Thames and Hudson, 1986.

Grigor’ev, S. L. Balet Diagileva. [Diaghilev’s Ballet]. Translated by N. A. Chistiakova. Ballets Russes. Moscow: ART, 1993.

Grigorovich, Iurii Nikolaevich. The Authorized Book of “Romeo and Juliet.” Neptune City, N.J.: T.F.H., 1990.

______. Muzyka i Khoreografiia Sovremennogo Baleta. [The Music and Choreography of Modern Ballet]. Leningrad: [n.p.], 1974.

Groteva, E. Bol’shoi Teatr Soiuza SSR. [The Bolshoi Theater of the USSR]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1978.

Gusman, Boris. “Novyi Balet Sergeia Prokof’eva.” [“A New Ballet by Sergei Prokofiev”]. Izvestiia, 6 October 1935.

Gutman, David. Prokofiev. The Illustrated Lives of the Great Composers. New York: Omnibus, 1990.

Gvozdev, A. A. and Adrian Piotrovsky. “Petrogradskie Teatry i Prazdnestva v Epokhu Voennoro Kommunizma.” [“Petrograd Theaters and Festivals during the Epoch of War Communism”]. Petrogradskie Teatry na Poroge Oktiabria i v Epokhu Voennogo Kommunizma 1917-1921. Istoriia Sovetskogo Teatra, vol. 1, pp. 81- 290. Leningrad: Leningradsksoe Otdelenie Gosudarstvennoi Literatury, 1933.

Hanson, Lawrence and Elisabeth Hanson. Prokofiev: A Biography in Three Movements. New York: Random House, 1964.

Howard, Camille Cole. The Staging of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” as a Ballet. San Francisco: Mellen Research, 1992.

Iarustovskii, Boris. “Prokof’ev i Teatr.” [“Prokofiev and Theater”] Sovetskaia Muzyka (No. 4, 1961), pp. 66-80.

Istoriia Sovetskogo Dramaticheskogo Teatra. [The History of Soviet Drama Theater]. Vol. 3, 1926-1932. Moscow: Nauka, 1967.

Jaffé, Daniel. Sergey Prokofiev. 20th-Century Composers. London: Phaidon, 1998.

193 Kandinskii, A., ed. Iz Istorii Russkoi i Sovetskoi Muzyki. [From the History of Russian and Soviet Musik]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1971.

Kandinskii, A., and Iu. Rozanov, eds. Iz Istorii Russkoi i Sovetskoi Muzyki. [From the History of Russian and Soviet Musik]. Vol. 2. Moscow: Muzyka, 1976.

Karp, P. M. and S. I. Levin. “Kammennyi Tsvetok” S. S. Prokof’eva. [“The Stone Flower” by S. S. Prokofiev]. Sokrovishcha Sovetskogo Baletnogo Teatra. Leningrad: Gos. Muzykal’noe izd-vo, 1963.

Katonova, S. Balety S. Prokof’eva. [The Ballets of S. Prokofiev]. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1962.

______. Muzyka Sovetskogo Baleta: Ocherki, Istorii i Teorii. [The Music of Soviet Ballet: Essays, History, and Theory]. Leningrad: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1980.

Kaufmann, Helen L. The Story of Sergei Prokofiev. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1971.

Kholopov, Iu. Sovremennye Cherti Garmonii Prokof’eva. [Modern Lines of Harmony of Prokofiev]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1967.

Khrushchevich, I. P., ed. Teatr Opery i Baleta imeni S. M. Kirova. [The Theater of Opera and Ballet Named After S. M. Kirov]. Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1957.

Kiebuzinska, Christine. Revolutionaries in the Theater: Meyerhold, Brecht, and Witkiewicz. Theater and Dramatic Studies, No. 49. Ed. Oscar G. Brockett. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1988.

Kirilenko, K. N. and M. G. Kozlova. “S. S. Prokofiev: Pis’ma k V. E. Meierkhol’du.” [“S. S. Prokofiev: Letters to V. E. Meyerhold”]. Muzykal’noe Nasledstvo. Vol. 2, part 2, pp. 214-31. Moscow: Muzyka, 1968.

Koegler, Horst. “Juliet in Sneakers.” Dance and Dancers, 498 (November 1991), pp. 8-9.

Koliazin, V. F. Tairov, Meierkhol’d i Germaniia – Piskator, Brekht i Rossia: Ocherki Istorii Russko-Nemetskikh Khudozhestvennykh Sviazei. [Tairov, Meyerhold and Germany — Piskator, Brecht and Russia: Essays on the History of Russian- German Artistic Connections]. Moscow: GITIS, 1998.

Kopytova, G., ed. V. E. Meierkhol’d “Pikovaia Dama”: Zamycel, Voploshchenie, Sud’ba. [V. E. Meyerhold’s “The Queen of Spades”: Plan, Embodiment, Fate]. St. Petersburg: Kompozitor, 1994.

194 Korshunova, B. P. and M. M. Sitkovetskaia, ed. V. E. Meierkhol’d: Perepiska 1896-1939. [V. E. Meyerhold: Correspondence 1896-1939]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1976.

Kosacheva, Rimma. O Muzyke Zarubezhnogo Baleta, 1917-1939: Opyt Issledovaniia. [On the Music of Foreign Ballets, 1917-1939: An Experiment in Research]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1984.

______, ed. Muzykal’nyi Teatr: Sbornik Nauchnykh Trudov. [Musical Theater: A Collection of Sceintific Works]. Moscow: Gos. Institute Teatral’nogo Iskusstva imeni A. V. Lunacharskogo, 1983.

Kovnatskaia, Liudmila. “‘Chto vam pishut iz SSSR? Mne — Malo…’” [“‘What Does He Write to You From the USSR? To Me — Little’”]. Muzykal’naia Akademiia, No. 2, 2000, pp. 203-216.

Kozinn, Allan. “Stirring a Stew of Politics and Music,” The New York Times, 25 February 2003.

Krasovskaia, Vera M. “Marius Petipa.” International Encyclopedia of Dance: A project of Dance Perspectives Foundation, Inc. Ed. Selma Jeanne Cohen. Vol. 5, pp. 149-62. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

______. Russkii Baletnyi Teatr Nachala XX. Veka. [Russian Ballet Theater at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century]. Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1972.

______. Sovetskii Baletnyi Teatr 1917-1967. [Soviet Ballet Theater 1917-1967]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1976.

______. “Shekspir v Smene Baletnykh Epokh.” [“Shakespeare in the Changes of Ballet Epochs”]. Sovetskii Balet (No. 1, 1986; No. 2, 1986). “Ballet Changes, Shakespeare Endures.” Trans. Selma Jeanne Cohen. Ballet Review, 19 (Summer 1991), pp. 71-80.

______. Stat’i o Balete. [Articles on Ballet]. Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1967.

Kravets, Nelly. “‘. . . Life Will Not Forgive You, People Will Not Understand You’: On Prokofiev’s Emigration.” Verfemte Musik: Komponisten in den Diktaturen unseres Jahrhunderts, pp. 333-41. New York: Lang, 1995.

Kremlev, Iu. A. Esteticheskie Vzgliady S. S. Prokof’eva. [The Aesthetic Views of S. S. Prokofiev]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1966.

Kriukov, A. N., ed. Materialy k Biografii B. Asaf’eva. [Materials from the Biography of B. Asafiev]. Leningrad: Muzyka, 1981.

195 Krticka, Stanislav. “Quido Arnoldi.” Ceskoslovensky Hudebni Slovink osob a instituci, p. 33. Prague: Statni hudebni vydavatelstvi, 1963.

Kut, A. “Balet Romeo i Dzhul’etta na Soveshchanii v Sovetskom Iskusstve.” [“The Ballet Romeo and Juliet at a Conference at Sovetskoe Iskusstvo”]. Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 29 January 1936, p. 1.

Ladygin, Lev. “Muzykal’noe Soderzhanie Baleta Romeo i Dzhul’etta i Varianty ego Khoreographicheskogo Voploshcheniia.” [“The Musical Content of the Ballet Romeo and Juliet and Variants of its Choreographic Embodiment”]. Moskovskii Muzykoved 2 (1991), pp. 117-36.

Lamm, O. P. “Druz’ia Pavla Aleksandrovicha Lamma i Uchastniki Muzykal’nykh Vecherov v Ego Dome.” [Friends of Pavel Alexandrovich Lamm and Participants in the Musical Evenings at His Home”]. Iz Proshlogo Sovetskoi Muzykal’noi Kul’tury. Vol. 1, pp. 72-103. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1975

______. Stranitsy Tvorcheskoi Biografii Miaskovskogo. [Pages from the Creative Biography of Miaskovsky]. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1989.

Lavrovsky, L. M. Dokumenty, Stat’i, Vospominaniia. [Documents, Articles, Remembrances]. Ed. E. Ia. Surits and N. M. Sadovskaia. Moscow: Vcerossiiskoe Teatral’noe Obshchestvo, 1983.

Lebedeva, T. A., ed. Muzyka i Sovremennost’. [Music and Modernism]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Myzykal’noe Izdatel’stvo, 1962.

Leiter, Samuel L. From Stanislavsky to Barrault: Representative Directors of the European Stage. .Contributions in Drama and Theatre Studies, No. 34. New York: Greenwood Press, 1991

______. The Great Stage Directors: 100 Distinguished Careers of the Theater. New York: Facts On File, 1994.

Levidova, Inna Mikhailovna. Shekspir: Bibliografiia Russkhikh Perevodov i Kriticheskoi Literatury na Russkom Iazyke, 1748-1962. [Shakespeare: A Bibliography of Russian Translations and Critical Literature in the Russian Language]. Moscow: Kniga, 1964.

Lifar, Sergei. Diagilev i s Diagilevym. [Diaghilev and With Diaghilev]. Ballets Russes. Moscow: ART, 1994.

______. Memuary Ikara. [The Memories of Icarus]. Trans. G. S. Beliaeva. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1995.

196 ______. Stradnye Gody, s Diagilevym, Vospominaniia. [The Years of Suffering, With Diaghilev, Remembrances]. Moscow: Muza, 1994.

Litovskii, O. “Eshchio o Kriticheskom Osvoenii Klassiki” [“More on the Critical Assimilation of Classics”]. Teatr i Dramaturgiia 29 (August 1935), pp. 7-8.

Loos, Helmut. “Ballett und Suiten Romeo und Julia von Sergej Prokofjew.” [“The Ballet and Suites Romeo and Juliet by Sergei Prokofiev”]. Die Instrumentalmusik: Struktur, Funktion, Asthetik, pp. 171-78. Brno: Masarykova University, 1994.

Liukom, E. “Romeo i Dzhul’etta: Balet Prokof’eva v GATOB imeni Kirova.” [Romeo and Juliet: Prokofiev’s Ballet at GATOB Kirov”]. Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 21 January 1940.

London, Justin. “Leitmotifs and Musical Reference in the Classical Film Score.” Music and Cinema. Ed. James Buhler, Carol Flinn, and David Neumeyer, pp. 85-98. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England Wesleyan University Press, 2000.

MacDonald, Ian. “Prokofiev, Prisoner of the State: An Interpretation of the Composer’s Relationship with the Soviet Regime in Three Parts, The Gambler, Into the Fire and The Protest Music.” www.siue.edu/~aho/musov/sergei.html, copyright 1988/1995.

Mann, Noelle. “Trapéze: A Forgotten Ballet by Serge Prokofiev and Boris Romanov.” Three Oranges Journal, 4 (November 2002), pp. 7-14.

Mann, Noelle and Yelena Pol’diaeva. “O Prokof’eve eshchyo mozhno uznat’ mnogo novogo.” [“About Prokofiev we can still learn more”]. Muzykal’naia Akademiia, No. 2, 2000, pp. 241-252.

Martynov, I. Sergei Prokof’ev: Zhizn’ i Tvorchestvo. [Sergei Prokofiev: His Life and Works]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1974.

Massine, Leonide. Moia Zhizn’ v Balete. [My Life in Ballet]. Trans. M. M. Singal. Moscow: ART, 1997.

Mazo, Margarita. “Beyond Nationalism: Constructing and Negotiating Heterogeneous Identity.” Formal response to the session “Defining a Nation: Polish Communities and Symbols in Music.” American Musicological Society, Kansas City, 1999.

197 McAllister, Rita. “Sergey Prokofiev.” The New Grove Russian Masters. Vol. 2, pp. 109- 71. The Composer Biography Series, ed. Stanley Sadie. New York: Norton, 1986.

Meierkhol’d, B. E. Perepiska. [Correspondence]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1976.

Meserer, C. “Baletmeister i Balerina.” [“Ballet Master and Ballerina”] Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 24 May 1940.

Miaskovskii, N. Ia. Sobranie Materialov v Dvukh Tomak. [A Collection of Materials in Two Volumes]. Ed. S. Shlifshtein. Moscow: Muzyka, 1964.

Minturn, Neil. The Music of Sergei Prokofiev. Composers of the Twentieth Century, ed. Allen Forte. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

Morozov, Sergei. Prokof’ev. Zhizn’ Zamechatel’nykh Liudei, vol. 10. Moscow: Molodaia Gvardiia, 1967.

Morrison, Simon. “Selected Letters of Sergei Prokofiev [book review],” Notes, 55/3 (Mar. 1999): 670-2.

______. and the Symbolist Movement. California Studies in 20th- Century Music, Vol. 2. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

“Na Prem’ere Baleta Romeo i Dzhul’etta.” [“At the Premiere of the Ballet Romeo and Juliet”]. Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 14 January 1940.

Nabokov, Nicolas. Old Friends and New Music. Boston: Little and Brown, 1951.

______. “An Atlantic Portrait: Sergei Prokofiev.” The Atlantic Monthly, 170 (No. 1, July 1942), pp. 62-70.

Nels, Sofia Markovna. Shekspir na Sovetskoi Stsene. [Shakespeare on the Soviet Stage]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1960.

Nest’ev, I. V. “O Stile S. Prokof’ev.” [“On S. Prokofiev’s Style”]. Sovetskaia Muzyka (No. 4, 1946), pp. 10-26.

______. Prokof’ev. Moscow: Muzika, 1957. Prokofiev. Trans. Florence Jonas. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1960.

______. Sergei Prokofiev: His Musical Life. Intro. Sergei Eisenstein. Trans. Rose Prokofieva. New York: Knopf, 1946.

198 ______, ed. Sergei Prokof’ev: Stat’i i Materialy. [Sergei Prokofiev: Articles and Materials]. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor: 1962.

______. “V Obshchenii s Sovremennikami.” [“Towards Contact with Contemporaries”]. Sovetskaia Muzyka, (No. 4, 1967), pp. 77-85.

______. Zhizn’ Sergeia Prokof’eva. [The Life of Sergei Prokofiev]. 2d ed. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1973.

Nest’eva, Marina Izrailevna, ed. S. S. Prokof’ev. Chelovek, Sobytiia, Vremia. Moscow: Muzyka, 1981.

Nice, David. Prokofiev: From Russia to the West 1891-1935. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.

“Novyi Balet S. Prokof’eva.” [“A New Ballet by S. Prokofiev”]. Vecherniaia Moskva, 5 October 1935.

Oberzaucher-Schüller, Gunhold. “The Forgotten First Staging of Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet.” Dance View, 13 (No. 4, Summer 1996), pp. 7-9.

Olivkova, V. “Romeo i Dzhul’etta” S. Prokof’eva. [“Romeo and Juliet” by S. Prokofiev]. Putevoditeli po Sovetskoi Muzyke. Moscow: Muzgiz, 1952.

Olkhovsky, Andrey. Music Under the Soviets: The Agony of an Art. Studies of the Research Program of the U.S.S.R., No. 11 and Praeger Publications in Russian History and World Communism, No. 32. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1955.

Ordzhonikidze, G. “Prokof’ev v GABTe.” [“Prokofiev at GABT”] Sovetskaia Muzyka (No. 10, 1974), pp. 27-36.

______. “Shekspir i Prokof’ev.” [“Shakespeare and Prokofiev”]. Shekspir i Muzyka. Leningrad: Muzyka, 1964.

Petukhova, S. A. “Pervaia Avtorskaia Redaktsiia Baleta Prokof’eva Romeo i Dzhul’etta.” [“The First Author’s Edition of Prokofiev’s Ballet Romeo and Juliet”]. Ph.D. diss., Moscow State Tchaikovsky Conservatory, 1997.

Piotrovskii, Adrian. “Optimisticheskii Shekspir: Romeo i Dzhul’etta v Teatre-Studii p/r S. E. Radlova.” [“The Optimistic Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet at the Theater Studio under the Direction of S. E. Radlov”]. Sovetskoe iskusstvo, 23 May 1934.

______. Teatr, Kino, Zhizn’. [Theater, Cinema, Life]. Ed. A. A. Akimova. Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1969.

199 Pisani, V. “A Kapustnik in the American Opera House: Modernism and Prokofiev's Love for Three Oranges,” The Musical Quarterly, 81/4 (Winter 1997): 487-515.

Pis’mo k Drugu: Dmitrii Shostakovich—Isaaky Glikmany. [Letters to a Friend: Dmitry Shostakovich—Isaac Glikman]. Moscow: DSCH, 1993.

“Prazdnik Sovetskogo Khoreograficheskogo Iskusstva: Ogromnyi Uspekh Baleta S. S. Prokof’eva Romeo i Dzhul’etta.” [A Celebration of Soviet Choreographic Art: The Enormous Success of S. S. Prokofiev’s Ballet Romeo and Juliet”]. Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 18 May 1940.

Press, Stephen. Prokofiev’s Ballets for Diaghilev. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 2003.

Prokofiev, Oleg. “Moi Otets, Ego Muzyika i Ia.” [“My Father, his Music and I”]. Muzikal’naia Akademiia (No. 2, 1995), 180-5. “Papers from the Attic: My Father, His Music, and I.” Trans. Andrei Navrovov. Yale Literary Magazine (No. 2, September 1979), pp. 17-29.

Prokofiev, Sergei. Avtobiografiia. 2d. ed. Ed. M. G. Kozlova. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1982. Prokofiev by Prokofiev: A Composer’s Memoir. Ed. David H. Appel. Trans. Guy Daniels. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979.

______. The Bolshoi Ballet Company in Sergei Prokofiev’s “Romeo and Juliet”: A Gala Celebrating the 200th Anniversary of the . Artistic Director, Yuri Grigorovich. Long Branch, N. J.: Kultur International Films, 1975, videocassette.

______. “Romeo and Juliet.” Sobranie Sochinenii, vol. 9. [Complete Works, vol. 9]. Arr. for piano by L. Atovm’ian. Moscow: Muzgiz, 1960.

______. Diaries: 1907-1933. 3 vols. Paris: Sprkfv, 2002.

______. “Izuchaite Tekst, Teatr, Orkestr: Beseda c S. S. Prokof’evym.” [“Study the Text, the Theater and the Orchestra: A Conversation with S. S. Prokofiev”]. Teatr i Dramaturgiia, 41 (August 1936), pp. 489-91.

______. Romeo and Juliet: Complete Ballet. Kirov Orchestra, Leningrad, cond. . Recorded at the Kirov Theater, Leningrad, August 1990. Philips Classics Productions 432 166-2, 1991.

______. Romeo and Juliet: Suite No. 1 for Full Orchestra, opus 64-bis. Leipzig: Peters, [n.d.].

200 ______. Romeo and Juliet: Suite No. 2, opus 64-ter. Melville, N.Y.: Belwin Mills, [n.d.].

______. Romeo and Juliet: Suites 1 and 2. National Symphony Orchestra, cond. Mstislav Rostropovich. Deutsche Grammophon 410 519-2, 1983.

______. Romeo i Dzhul’etta: Film-Ballet. Produced and directed by L. Arnshtam and L. Lavrovskii. Moscow: Mosfil’m, 1954, videocassette.

______. Selected Letters of Sergei Prokofiev. Trans. Harlow Robinson. Ed. Harlow Robinson. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998.

______. Soviet Diary and Other Writings. Trans. Oleg Prokofiev. Ed. Oleg Prokofiev and Christopher Palmer. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1991.

Prokofiev, Sergei and N. Ia. Miaskovskii. Perepiska. [Correspondence]. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1977.

Radlov, Sergei Dmitrievich. “Dzhaz — Teatr Vragov Narodov.” [“Jazz — Theater of the People’s Enemies”]. Sovetskaia Kul’tura, 40 (October 1990), pp. 15-20.

Radlov, Sergei Ernestovich. “Balet Romeo i Dzhul’etta.” [“The Ballet Romeo and Juliet”]. Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 23 May 1934, p. 2.

______. “Kak Ia Stavliu Shekspira.” [“How I Stage Shakespeare”]. Khudozhestvennaia Literatura, 3 October 1936.

______. “Iunost’ Teatra.” [“Youth of the Theater”]. Teatr i Dramaturgiia, 27 (June 1934), pp. 20-5.

______. “Ne Putat’ Poniatii.” [“Do Not Confuse Concepts”]. Teatr i Dramaturgiia, 37 (April 1936), p. 198.

______. “Shekspir i Problemy Rezhissury.” [“Shakespeare and Problems for Directors”]. Teatr i Dramaturgiia, 35 (February 1936), pp. 57-62.

______. “Velikii Realist: k 375 Letiiu co Dnia Rozhgeniia Vil’iama Shekspira.” [“A Great Realist: For the 375 Anniversary of the Birth of William Shakespeare”]. Leningradskia Pravda, 23 April 1939.

Radlova, Anna. “Kipiachenyi Dukh: O Perevodakh Tragedii Shekspira.” [Boiled Spirit: On Translations of Shakespeare’s Tragedies”]. Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 26 February 1933.

201 ______. “O Roli i Otvetstvennosti Perevodchika (Pis’mo v Redaktsiiu).” [“On the Role and Responsibilities of a Translator (Letter to the Editor)”]. Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 11 April 1934.

Raffé, W. G. “The Newer Soviet Ballet: The Fountain of Bakhchisarai.” Dancing Times (August 1935), pp. 471-4.

Robinson, Harlow. “Fantasist: Prokofiev’s Music Helped Shape 20th-Century Dance.” Ballet News, 5 (No. 11, May 1984), pp. 20-3, 45.

______. “Love for Three Operas: The Collaboration of Vsevolod Meyerhold and Sergei Prokofiev.” Studien zur Musik des XX. Jahrhunderts in Ost- und Ostmitteleuropa, pp. 79-102. Berlin: Spitz, 1990.

______. Sergei Prokofiev: A Biography. New York: Paragon House, 1987.

Robinson, Harlow, ed. Selected Letters of Sergei Prokofiev. Trans. Harlow Robinson. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1998.

“Romeo i Dzhul’etta v balete.” [“Romeo and Juliet as a Ballet”] Vecherniaia Moskva, 16 September 1935.

Roose-Evans, James. Experimental Theatre from Stanislavsky to Peter Brook. 4th ed. London: Routledge, 1989.

Rostropovich, Mstislav. Taped interview with author, September 17, 1999.

Rozhdestvenskii, G. “O Sud’be Baleta S. Prokof’eva Romeo i Dzhul’etta,” [“On the Fate of S. Prokofiev’s Ballet Romeo and Juliet”]. Sovetskaia Muzyka (No.12, December 1973), pp. 56-8.

Rudnitsky, Konstantin. Russian and Soviet Theatre: Tradition and the Avant-Garde. Trans. Roxane Permar. London: Thames and Hudson, 1988.

Sabinina, M. D. Sergei Prokof’ev. Moscow: Muzyka, 1956.

______, ed. Muzykal’nyi Teatr: Sobytiia, Problemy. [Musical Theater: Events, Problems]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1990.

Samarin, Roman and Alexander Nikolyudin, ed. Shakespeare in the Soviet Union: A Collection of Articles. Trans. Avril Pyman. Moscow: Progress, 1966.

Samuel, Claude. Prokofiev. Trans. Miriam John. New York: Grossman, 1971.

202 Savkina, N. P. Sergei Sergeevich Prokof’ev. Moscow: Muzyka, 1981. Prokofiev: His Life and Times. Trans. Catherine Young. Neptune City, N.J.: Paganiniana, 1984.

Scholl, Tim. From Petipa to Balanchine: Classical Revival and the Modernization of Ballet. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Schnittke, Alfred. A Schnittke Reader. Ed. Alexander Ivashkin. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2002.

Schwarz, Boris. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia: 1917-1981. 2d ed. Bllomington: Indiana University Press, 1983.

Semberová, Zora. “Prokofiev’s First Juliet.” Ballet Review, 22 (No. 2, Summer 1994), pp. 20-3.

Sergei Prokof’ev: Operno-Baletnye Proizvedeniia na Chekhoslovatskoi Stsene. [Sergei Prokofiev: Opera and Ballet Productions on the Czechoslovakian Stage]. Prague: Natsional’nyi Muzei v Prage, 1985.

Seroff, Victor. Sergei Prokofiev, A Soviet Tragedy: The Case of Sergei Prokofiev, His Life and Work, His Critics, and His Executioners. New York: Funk and Wagnales, 1968.

Shakespeare, William. The Complete Pelican Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Orgel and A.R. Braunmuller. New York: Penguin, 2002.

______. “Romeo i Dzhul’etta.” [“Romeo and Juliet”]. Tragedii. Trans. Boris Pasternak, pp. 15-126. Moscow: Pravda, 1993.

______. “Romeo i Dzhul’etta.” [“Romeo and Juliet”]. Trans. Anna Radlova. Teatr i Dramaturgiia (No. 9, September 1934), pp. 49-63; (No. 10, October 1934), pp. 44-62.

______. “Romeo i Dzhul’etta.” [“Romeo and Juliet”]. Izbrannye Perevody, vol. 1, pp. 465-576. Trans. T. L. Shchepkina-Kupernik. Moscow: Sovetskii Pisatel’, 1957.

Shcherbakov, V. “Narodnaia Komediia S. E. Radlova,” [“The People’s Comedy of S. E. Radlov”]. Voprosy Teatra No. 13: Sbornik Statei i Publikatsii. Ed. V. V. Frolov, pp. 166-87. Moscow: Rossiiskii Institut Iskusstvoznaniia, 1993.

Shlifshtein, S. I. “Muzyka Romeo i Dzhul’etty.” [The Music of Romeo and Juliet”]. Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 24 May 1940.

203 ______. S. S. Prokof’ev: Notograficheskii Spravochnik. [S. S. Prokofiev: A Notational Guide]. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1962.

______, ed. Sergei Sergeevich Prokofiev: Al’bom. [Sergei Sergeevich Prokofiev: An Album]. Moscow: Muzyka, 1981.

______, ed. S. S. Prokof’ev: Materialy, Dokumenty, Vospominaniia. [S. S. Prokofiev: Materials, Documents, Remembrances]. 2d ed. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Muzykal’noe Izdatel’stvo, 1961. Sergei Prokofiev: Autobiography, Articles, Reminiscences. Trans. Rose Prokofieva. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, n.d.

Shveitser, A. D. “Pasternak — Perevodchik: K Voprosu o Strategii Perevoda.” [“Pasternak as a Translator: On the Question of Translation Strategies”]. Sbornik Nauchnogo Truda, 426, pp. 155-61. Moscow: Moskovskii Gos. Lingv. Universitet, 1996.

Skorik, M. Ladovaia Sistema S. Prokof’eva. [The Harmonic System of S. Prokofiev]. Kiev: Muzichna Ukraina, 1969.

Slonimskii, Iu. Chudesnoe Bylo Riadom s Nami: Zametki o Petrogradskom Balete 20-x Godov. [It was Wondrous Next to Us: Notes on Petrograd Ballet in the 1920s]. Leningrad: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1984.

______. Sovetskii Balet: Materialy k Istorii Sovetskogo Baletnogo Teatra. [Soviet Ballet: Material on the History of Soviet Ballet Theater]. Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1950.

______, ed. Marius Petipa: Materialy, Vospominaniia, Stat’i. [Marius Petipa: Materials, Remembrances, Articles]. Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1971.

Sokolova, N. “Khudozhestvennoe Oformlenie Baletov.” [“The Artistic Staging of Ballets”]. Sovetskoe Iskusstvo, 27 May 1940.

Sollertinskii, I. I. “Muzykal’nyi Teatr na Poroge Oktiabria i Problema Operno-Baletnogo Naslediia b Epokhu Voennogo Kommunizma.” [“Musical Theater on the Threshold of October and Problems of Opera and Ballet Heritage During the Epoch of War Communism”]. Petrogradskie Teatry na Poroge Oktiabria i v Epokhu Voennogo Kommunizma 1917-1921. Istoriia Sovetskogo Teatra, vol. 1, pp. 291-356. Leningrad: Leningradsksoe Otdelenie Gosudarstvennoi Literatury, 1933.

______. Stat’i o Balete. [Articles on Ballet]. Leningrad: Muzyka, 1973.

204 Smirnov, A. “Obnovlionnyi Shekspir.” [“Renovated Shakespeare”]. Literaturnaia Gazeta, 30 September 1933.

Stephenson, Ken. “Melodic Tendencies in Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet.” College Music Symposium, 37 (1997), pp. 109-28.

______. “The Tonal Style of Sergei Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet.” Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1989.

Sulcas, Roslyn. “The Fountain of Bakhchisaray.” Dance Magazine (March 1995), pp. 98-9.

Surits, Elizabeth. “Balet S. S. Prokof’eva Shut i Zarubezhnaia Kritika,” [S. S. Prokofiev’s Ballet The Buffoon and Foreign Criticism”]. Voprosy Teatra No. 13: Sbornik Statei i Publikatsii. Ed. V. V. Frolov, pp. 138-65. Moscow: Rossiiskii Institut Iskusstvoznaniia, 1993.

______. Khoreograficheskoe Iskusstvo Dvadtsatykh Godov. [Choreographic Art in the 1920s]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1979. Soviet Choreographers in the 1920s. Trans. Lynn Vission. Ed. Sally Banes. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990.

Tarakanov, M. E., ed. Istoriia Sovremennoi Otechestvennoi Muzyki. [The History of Contemporary Music of the Fatherland]. Vol. 1 (1917-1941). Moscow: Muzyka, 1995.

______, ed. Sergei Prokof’ev, 1891-1991: Dnevnik, Pis’ma, Becedy, Vospominaniia. [Sergei Prokofiev, 1891-1991: Diary, Letters, Conversations, Remembrances]. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompozitor, 1991.

Tarlinskaja, Marina. Shakespeare’s Verse: Iambic Pentameter and the Poet’s Idiosyncrasies. American University Studies, series IV, English Language and Literature, vol. 41. New York: Peter Lang, 1987.

______. Strict Stress-Meter in English Poetry Compared with German and Russian. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1993.

Taruskin, Richard. “Art and Politics in Prokofiev.” Society, 29 (November and December 1991), pp. 60-3.

______. Defining Russia Musically: Historical and Hermeneutical Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

______. “Great Artists Serving Stalin like a Dog.” The New York Times, 28 May 1995, sec. 2, p. 22.

205 ______. “Prokofiev, Hail . . . and Farewell?” The New York Times, 21 April 1991, sec. 2, p. 25.

Teider, V. A., ed. Kafedra Khoreografii GITISa: Vchera, Segodnia, Zavtra . . . k 50- Letiiu. [The Department of Choreography at GITIS: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow . . . On Fifty Years]. Moscow: GITIS, 1996.

Tymanina, N. V. “Monografiia o Prokofi’eve: Knizhnoi Notnoe Obozrenie.” [“Monographs on Prokofiev: An Overview”] Sovetskaia Muzyka (No. 4, 1958), pp. 149-51.

Varunts, V. P., ed. Prokof’ev o Prokof’eve: Stat’i i Interv’iu. [Prokofiev on Prokofiev: Articles and Interviews]. Moscow: Sovetskii Kompositor, 1991.

Vasilenko, S. Ia. Balety Prokof’eva. [The Ballets of Prokofiev]. Biblioteka Muzykal’nogo Samoobrazovaniia. Leningrad: Muzyka, 1969.

Werth, Alexander. Musical Uproar in Moscow. London: Turnstile Press, 1949; rep. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1973.

Wiley, Roland John. Tchaikovsky’s Ballets: , Sleeping Beauty, Nutcracker. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Wilson, Elizabeth. Shostakovich: A Life Remembered. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Wright, George T. Shakespeare’s Metrical Art. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Worrall, Nick. Modernism to Realism on the Soviet Stage: Tairov-Vakhtangov- Okhlopov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Zakharov, R. V. Iskusstvo Baletmeistera. [The Art of a Ballet Master]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1954.

______. Zapiski Baletmeistera. [Memoirs of a Ballet Master]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1976.

Zarubin, V. I. Bol’shoi Teatr. [The Bolshoi Theater] Biografiia Moskovskogo Doma. Moscow: Moskovskii Rabochii, 1990.

______. Bol’shoi Teatr: Pervye Postanovki Oper na Russkoi Stsene, 1825-1993. [The Bolshoi Theater: First Performances of Operas on the Russian Stage, 1825- 1993]. Moscow: E. Lak, 1994.

206 Zolotnitsky, David. “Baletnaia Rezhissura Sergeia Radlova.” [“The Ballet Director Sergei Radlov”]. Balet, 95 (March-April 1998), pp. 29-32.

______. Sergei Radlov: The Shakespearian Fate of a Soviet Director. Trans. Tatiana A. Ganf, Natalia A. Egunova, and Olga V. Krasikova. Russian Theatre Achive, vol. 4. Ed. John Freedman, Leon Gitelman and Anatoly Smeliansky. [n.p.]: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1995.

207