A Life in MusicPHILIPS. TAYLORINDIANAINDIANA University Press Bloomington & Indianapolishttp://iupress.indiana.edu1-800-842-6796 NTON ArUBINSTEINTAYLOR NTON ArUBINSTEINThe frst modern biography in English oftheRussiancomposer-pianist AntonRubinstein,thisbookplaces RubinsteinwithinthecontextofRussianand Western European musical culture during the second half of the nineteenth century, explor- ing his rise from humble origins in Bessarabia tostaggeringinternationalfame,aswellas his subsequent rapid decline and marginaliza-tion in later musical culture. Taylor provides a balanced account of Rubensteins life in three key areas of activity: his career as a piano vir- tuosoandconductor,asacomposer,andas thefounderofRussiasfirstconservatory. Widely considered the virtuosic heir to Liszt, andrecognizedinternationallyasanequiva-lentculturalicon,heperformedwithmost leadingmusiciansoftheday,includingLiszt himself,Joachim,ClaraSchumann, Vieux-temps, Wieniawski, Saint-Sans, and Ysae. In 1859,RubinsteinfoundedtheRussianMusic Society, which led to the establishment of the St. Petersburg Conservatory three years later. Among the frst students to enroll at the new conservatory in September 1862 was the young Tchaikovsky. The relations between Rubinstein andhismostfamouspupilareexaminedin detail,asarethosebetweenRubinsteinand his younger brother Nikolay, who founded the Moscow Conservatory in 1866. Rubinstein was awarded innumerable orders, decorations, and marks of distinction, and his compositions were performed all over Europe. Clearlywrittenandhighlyreadable, Taylor makesavailablemoreinformationaboutthe lifeofRubinsteinthananypreviouscompila-tioninanylanguage,presentingmaterialthat can currently only be accessed in Russian. PHILIPS. TAYLORholdsaSingleHonors degreeinRussianfromtheUniversityof Wales,apostgraduatediplomaintechnical translationfromPolytechnicofCentralLon- don, and is a member of the Institute of Trans- lating and Interpreting, U.K . Jacket illustration: Postcard of Anton Rubinstein ca. 1880s. Courtesy Alexander Rabinowitch.MUSICBIOGRAPHYRUSSIAN MUSIC SERIESMalcolm Hamrick Brown, Founding EditorIn this timely and well-researched book, [Philip Taylor] has given the Russian maestro his due after yearsof comparative neglect. Bravo!Edward Garden, Professor of Music(Emeritus), Shefeld UniversityAnton RubinsteinAnton Rubinstein ca. 1880.Russian Music SeriesMalcolm Hamrick Brown, founding editorP HI L I P S . TAY L ORAnton RubinsteinA Life in MusicindianauniversitypressBloomington and IndianapolisPublication is made possible in part with the generous support of Dan and Susan Sterner.This book is a publication ofIndiana University Press601 North Morton StreetBloomington, IN 47404-3797 USAhttp://iupress.indiana.eduTelephone orders800-842-6796Fax orders812-855-7931Orders by e-mailiuporder@indiana.edu 2007 by Philip TaylorAll rights reservedNo part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permissionin writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses Resolution on Permissions con-stitutes the only exception to this prohibition.The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Infor-mation SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.Manufactured in the United States of AmericaLibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataTaylor, Philip S.Anton Rubinstein : a life in music / Philip S. Taylor.p.cm. (Russian music series)Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.ISBN-13: 978-0-253-34871-5 (hardcover)ISBN-10: 0-253-34871-4 (hardcover)1. Rubinstein, Anton, 1829-1894. 2. ComposersRussiaBiography. I. Title.ML410.R89T293 2007780.92dc22[B]200603291412345121110090807To the memory of my late parentsThomas and Mary Gwyneth TaylorContentsForeword by Leslie HowardixAcknowledgmentsxiiiIntroductionxvNote on TransliterationxxviiAbbreviations for Sourcesxxix1. Prologue: The Historical Context12. Return to Russia and First Opera, 184853223. Foreign Tour, 185459464. The Founding ofthe Russian Music Society and RussiasFirst Conservatory, 185967825. Europe and America Concert Tour, 1867731236. A Villa at Peterhofand Operatic Successes, 1873851567. The Historical Concerts and Second Term as Director ofthe St. Petersburg Conservatory, 1885911948. Dresden, 189194220Appendixes239Notes283Bibliography309Index319ForewordThe subject ofthis revelatory book is the Russian composer and pianist AntonGrigoryevich Rubinstein (in no way to be confused with the late Polish masterArtur Rubinstein, who was no relation). Born in Balta Podolia (Ukraine) on 28November 1829 (he died in Peterhofon 20 November 1894), he was Russian ofGerman extraction and Christian by virtue ofhis progenitors forced conver-sionfromJudaism.Thisadmixtureservedhiscriticswell,butitwasalsothereason for his versatility and solid Western European cultural standards. AntonRubinstein has suffered the unhappy fate ofhaving his name and fame as com-poser, pianist, and pedagogue perpetuated while nearly all his enormous cata-logue ofcompositions has disappeared from the general repertoire.Rubinsteinsreputationrestsonhishavingbeen,bygeneralconsensus,thegreatestpianistsinceLiszt,and the many accounts ofhis performances rangefromdeeplysensitivetoelectrifying,although,unfortunately,hediedjustalittle too early to leave us any recordings. His repertoire was enormous and all-embracing, and his most famous series ofconcerts was the cycle ofseven His-toricalRecitalswithwhichhetouredEuropein1885.Theseprogramsbeganwith early keyboard music ofthe English, French, Italian, and German schools,moving through all the important classical and early romantic composers andending with a selection ofRussian piano music. Schumann and Chopin featuredin his music above all others. Only early music ofLiszt appearedRubinsteinfeltthatLisztslaterforaysintomodernharmonywereunacceptableandBrahms was not featured at all. (Rubinsteins antipathy to Brahms may be easilyaccountedfor:BrahmsborrowedagreatmanyideasfromRubinsteinsmu-sic without acknowledgment but, aided and abetted by Clara Schumann, thencausticallycriticizedRubinsteinsoutput,rootandbranch.)Cuttinghimselfofffromboththeconservativeschoolof EuropeanmusicasexempliedbyBrahms, and the modern school as exemplied by Liszt, left Rubinstein some-what isolated as a composer, all the more so as he regarded all his Russian fore-runners as distinctly amateur, he mistrusted the growing school ofnationalism,and he took a very long time to appreciate that a relative cosmopolitan Russianlike Tchaikovsky had any worth. He thought all along that real music had diedwith Schumann and Chopin. Not surprisingly, then, he was a very conservativecomposer indeed. But this had its virtues: while the Russian school was emerg-ing in something ofa hit-or-miss fashion, Rubinstein, with his thorough Ger-manbackground,broughtagreatdealof ordertochaos.HeisreveredinallbooksaboutRussianmusicforhisabidinginterestinrich,broad,andhighlycompetent music education, and, ofcourse, he will always be remembered forhaving founded the St. Petersburg Conservatory. (His brother Nikolay was thedirector ofthe Moscow Conservatory and an equally old-fashioned academic,ifunfairlyrememberedforhiscriticismsof theearlyworksof Tchaikovsky.)AntonRubinsteinbelievedthatallpotentialRussiancomposersoughttobegiven better grounding in the essentials ofmusical languageup to this pointthe great classical forms ofEuropean music, opera excluded, were almost non-existent in Russia. It was Rubinstein who wrote the rst signicant body ofRus-sianSonatas(ten),Concertos(eight),Symphonies(six),andStringQuartets(ten), and whose very industry and competence were an inspiration to his com-patriot brothers in composition.What sort ofa composer was Rubinstein? The only piece ofhis music thatcould be said to have survived, at least in every domestic library, is a pretty butrelatively insignicant piano piece written in his seventeenth year. The instantfame ofthe Melody in F would nearly eclipse the rest ofRubinsteins productionin the same way that Paderewskis Minuet in G and Rakhmaninovs C minorPreludewereto do some years later. But in this little piece ofRubinsteins wecan sense his interest in Mendelssohns Songs without Words, and he was to pro-duce some hundreds ofsimilar tries for piano, a good many ofwhich are ofmore than passing interest. He also composed operas (thirteen ofthem!) rang-ingfromRussianlegendstoJewishandChristianstoriesonlyoneof whichhas survived in the theater, and then only in Eastern Europe: The Demon. ButitiscertainlyinterestingthatGustavMahleronceturneddownHugoWolf sopera Der Corregidor in order to prepare The Demon for the Vienna Opera, andevenacursoryglanceshowsthatTchaikovskysEugeneOneginisheavilyin-debtedtoRubinsteinswork.AmongRubinsteinssymphonies,thesecond(agrand piece which started life with four movements but ended up with seven),theOceanSymphonywasforatimeverypopularandmeritsarevival,alongwiththemore modestly proportioned but beautifully crafted and delightfullyidiosyncratic Fifth Symphony. Although Rubinstein was a cosmopolitan heavilyinuencedbyMendelssohnandSchumann,everynowandthenabitof realRussiabreaksthroughforexample,insongslikeTheAsraorGoldRollsHere before Me (wonderfully recorded by Chaliapin), in the delicate treatmentofa folk song in the last movement ofthe excellent piano quartet, and in theexplosive nale ofthe brilliant rst piano sonata.Just because a composer is rather derrire-garde is no reason to dismiss him;after the passage oftime it no longer matters so much whether a piece is anach-ronistic. What counts is that, in its own terms, a work be consistent, interesting,and inventive. There is a great deal ofsuch music by Rubinstein which rendershis neglect shameful. Although those hoping for another Tchaikovsky in Rubin-stein will be disappointed, it is clear that Tchaikovsky would have been a verydifferentcomposerwithoutRubinsteinsexample.(Acaseinpoint:thesimi-larity ofthe introduction to the cadenza in the rst movement ofRubinsteinsFourth Piano Concertohappily still in the repertoireand the same momentinTchaikovskysFirst,whichappearedthefollowingyear,isscarcelylikelytohave been accidental!)In recent years there has been an upturn in Rubinsteins fortunes thanks toxForewordrecordings, and it is now possible to hear the piano music, the symphonies, andthe concertos. A few other orchestral works have appeared, and some chambermusic and songs, as well as The Demon, but there is still a long way to go beforethe bulk ofhis work is available. The present writer has had the good fortuneto perform in many ofRubinsteins chamber and vocal works, and has playedandrecordedagooddealof thepianomusic.Totakejustonebodyof workfrom his vast output, Rubinsteins four piano sonatas make an excellent intro-duction, even if the performer has quite a bit to do to render the many variouselementsof someof themovementshomogeneous.Butthisperhapswasthesecretof Rubinsteinasapianistthathecouldconvincetheaudienceof theworth ofa piece, and even hold their rapt attention when the work was oflesserimportance. It is certain that, as well as being highly respected for his perfor-mances ofthe great piano masterpieces, he had great success with the works ofsuch as Moscheles, Thalberg, and Henselt, composers ofthe second rank, withthe best will in the world! And frankly there is sometimes a touch ofthe saloninRubinsteinsownmusicagainstwhichonemustbeonguardtosavefromitselfashehimself musthavedoneinperformance.Sadlymuchof Rubin-steins music is presently out ofprint, but some detective work in libraries andonwebsiteswillyieldresults.Clearlyhismusicisagooddealmoreinterest-ing than its scarcity would suggest, and the present booklled with informa-tion and insightshould prove an ideal impetus for the proper revival ofa necomposer.Leslie HowardLondon, 2006ForewordxiAcknowledgmentsThe author would like to thank the following for their kind assistance:Raisa Ourasova ofthe Foreign Exchange Department at the National LibraryofRussia, St. PetersburgJane Rosen, librarian ofthe Society for Co-Operation in Russian and SovietStudiesThe Goethe Institute, LondonThe British Library and the employees ofNorthamptonshire Public LibrariesD. Holohan, B. Lowe, H. Zajaczkowski, Marius van Paasen, Margaret Finger-hut, and Professor N. CornwellLast,butnotleast,ProfessorMalcolmHamrickBrownwithoutwhoseen-couragement this book would probably never have been completed.IntroductionWholly devoted to his art, he did not valuethe opinion ofpeople and believed but little in thepraises ofadmirers who were oftentimes partialtowards him; not in transient fashion, but in hisown deep feeling did he try to fathom thesecrets ofart.Vladimir Odoyevsky Sebastian Bach Russian Nights, 1844Posterity has not been entirely kind to Anton Rubinstein (18291894). Withinfty years ofhis death his reputation as one ofthe foremost musical gures inallof Europehadshrunktoamerenothing.AnyonetryingtoassessRubin-steins achievements and the reasons for this paradoxical fall from grace has tokeep in mind the three key aspects ofhis lifes work: his career on the concertplatform, his educationalist work in founding Russias rst music conservatory,and his achievements as a composer. At the same time one must view these fac-tors from two different standpoints: his reception both inside and outside Rus-sia(after1872thisalsoincludesAmerica).Ratherlike Meyerbeer, who beganhis career in Berlin but went on to write for the Italian and French stages withenormoussuccess,Rubinsteinmaybeconsideredaninternationalist.Here-mained proud ofhis Russian nationality, but he also occupied an ideal positiontobridgethegapbetweentwoseparatespheresof musicalculture:thenewlyemerging Russian school and the well-developed musical traditions ofWesternEurope. This is an important point and largely explains why the cosmopolitanRubinstein fell out offavor in Russia when the Bolsheviks seized power. In fact,political issues consistently played a role in Rubinsteins fate. The Great War of191418andtheOctoberRevolutionof 1917inRussiachangednotonlythemap ofEurope but also the tastes and attitudes toward music. Hardened by thehorrors ofwar, death, and deprivation, people no longer found solace in the highromanticism ofthe late nineteenth century. While tastes and fashions were justas likely to change again, there were always victims. The rise ofNazism in 1933and the attempts to eradicate all traces ofJewish culture was just the next stagein the effacement ofRubinsteins legacy.Countless words have been written about Rubinstein the virtuoso. His depthoftone, his skill with the pedal, his perfect phrasing that allowed him to makethe instrument sing are but a few ofthe qualities ofhis playing most frequentlycited. Since his artistry was never captured in actual sounds, however, only hiscontemporaries reviews and commentaries can give any impression ofit. Whenhediedinthewinterof 1894phonogramrecordingswerestillanovelty,buteven had they succeeded in capturing some part ofthe famous Rubinstein leg-end, they would probably not have done him justice. He was by the end ofhislife a bitter and disappointed man and not the Titan who had taken Europe andAmerica by storm in the 1870s. His career as a concert virtuoso lasted for almostfty years, although even after 1886, when he ofcially retired from the concertplatform,hecontinuedtoappearregularlyincharityconcerts.Thefearthatpeople might forget him if he did not maintain his public prole haunted him.In this he was certainly driven by vanity and ambition that sprang not from thetransient glory ofthe concert platform but out ofa jealous desire to succeed asa composer. In this he was guided by an instinctive beliefin the universality ofmusicasalanguage,resisting(inhisearlyyears,atleast)thegrowingimpor-tance ofthe nationalist schools.Rubinsteins innate conservatism extended also to his technique ofcompo-sition at a time when great advances were being made in all aspects ofcomposi-tion, especially harmony and orchestration. He could not, and would not, accepttheir value and believed that the music ofBerlioz, Liszt, and Wagner were ab-errations leading composers along a false path in art. In their music he saw noth-ing more than a dressing up ofideas, which was an evil sign ofthe times, anunhealthy weaknesshowever strong-willed and well done in itselfas the signofa lack ofsolid invention and creative power.1 In his own music Rubinsteintried to look back to a time before the advent ofmusical theories, programs,and national styles, and no doubt rmly believed that he was a standard bearerfor the lost world ofmusic as it was before the European revolutions of1848.He did eventually make a few concessions to contemporary trendsthe gradualacceptance ofprogram music and the limited use ofnational folk songs in sym-phonic music and operabut generally he refused to bow to any sort ofmere-triciousfashion.Heregardedcompositionasacraftthatmustbepracticedlikeany other: sometimes the product might not be very successful, but mostimportant was to keep trying and perhaps one day patience would be rewardedwith a masterpiece. By the mid-nineteenth century, that approach was distinctlyoutof fashion,but,forRubinstein,compositionbornof calmreectionandslow maturation was largely alien. The desire for action and impulsiveness wereirresistible components ofhis character.The era when Rubinstein rst began to make an impact on Russian musicallifewasoneof hugesocialchange.Russiawasonlyjustbeginningtoemergefrom the oppressive regime ofNicholas I (r. 182555) and the paralyzed intel-lectual life ofthe country was beginning to revive. Rubinsteins plan to found amusicacademyinSt.Petersburghadbeenturneddownin1852,butby1859the idea had found favor in imperial circles and the Russian Music Society wasborn. This was followed by the St. Petersburg Conservatory three years later. Inthe years preceding these events Rubinstein had undertaken a long concert tourof WesternEuropeandhadcomeunderthecharismaticinuenceof Liszt,xviIntroductionwhose model as an artist he consciously emulated. An inveterate enemy ofchar-latanismandmediocrity,Rubinsteinsetveryhighartisticstandards.Hehadalways maintained that only years ofpatient and seless devotion could producean artist ofany caliber, and therefore he detested dilettantism ofany kind. Evena measure ofpoverty was benecial for a budding talent, as it instilled a needto strive and succeed. Rubinsteins contact with Liszt reinforced these values andfueled him once again with reforming zeal. The rst fruit was the article Com-posersinRussiawhichappearedintheViennesepressin1855andcausedastorm ofprotest in Russia. Far from assisting Rubinstein in gaining support formusical reform in his own country, the article actually hampered his plans byuniting various disaffected groups (composers, critics, amateur musicians) who,fortheirownreasons,wereradicallyopposedtohisviews.Thisprovedtobeonlytherstof severalobstaclesthathefaced.DespitethechangesinRus-sias political climate, it was not without difculties that the Conservatory wasfounded. Rubinsteins endeavors would almost surely have been in vain at thattime had it not been for the direct intervention ofGrand Duchess Yelena Pav-lovna(18061873),whousedherinuencewiththeRussianMinistryof theCourt to put pressure on the government.Bothperiodsof Rubinsteinsdirectorshipof theConservatory(186267;188791) were marked by vigorous attempts to consolidate the authority ofthedirector and limit external interference from the court and various governmentdepartments.Thisbroughthimintofrequentconictwithstatebureaucrats,with other members ofthe teaching staff, and also with certain inuential sec-tions ofRussian society intent on undermining his authority. He steadfastly re-fused to be intimidated by any display ofanimosity toward him and pursuedhisartisticaimswithatenacityborderingonthetyrannical.Inthisregard,Rubinstein was almost completely unable to compromise on any matter relatingto his artistic principles, and he could be overbearing and inexible in his deal-ingswithpeople.Undoubtedlythereweresomewhosupportedandadmiredhis tough and uncompromising stance, but others saw it only as vanity and aninsatiable lust for power. Perhaps his single-mindedness and unswerving deter-mination to achieve his aims were in themselves the source ofmuch hostility,andwereinterpretedbyhisopponentsasawillfulanddespoticambition.InRubinsteinsdefense,itwouldbefairtosaythattheRussianintelligentsiaofthat time was replete with big personalities who were very vocal in expressingtheir views, and a man having less moral strength than the Conservatorys rstdirector would never have been able to achieve what he achieved. The antago-nism between Rubinstein and his opponents was a specic feature ofSt. Peters-burgs musical development. Acrimonious bickering over the merits and demer-its ofa conservatory did not play a conspicuous part in shaping the musical lifeofMoscow. When Antons younger brother, Nikolay Rubinstein, a man with amorephlegmatictemperament,foundedtheMoscowbranchof theRussianMusic Society and the Conservatory a year or two later, he was largely sparedpersonal animosity. Generally speaking Anton simply ignored the polemics, nodoubt believing that if the conservatories could prove their worth in the face ofIntroductionxviirancorous criticism, the argument would be won in his favor simply by default.Thisturnedouttobeavainhope,astheargumentswerebeingconstantlyjuggled by his opponents always with the aim ofcasting him in an unfavorablelight.MostvociferousamongthemwerethecriticsSerov(untilhisdeathin1871), Stasov, and Cui, all ofwhom rarely missed an opportunity to attack thework ofthe Conservatory, and Rubinstein, in any way they could. For them theissue ofthe Conservatory, whether or not they realized it, had become inextri-cably entangled with their attitude toward Rubinstein himself.The source ofthis antagonism is bound up with the emergence ofthe NewRussian School headed by Balakirev. In Germany Liszt had waged war againstphilistinism in art with the formation ofthe Neu-Weimar-Verein and his sup-portforBerliozandWagner.Stasov,alsoguidedbyanadmirationforLiszt,wanted to create a school in Russia that would be both progressive and nation-ally distinctive. Throughout the 1870s Stasov and the other members ofBalaki-revs circle maintained contact with Liszt, and the delegations headed by Cuiin1876,andBorodinthefollowingyear,wereintendedto seek his protectionand patronage. For Liszt there seemed to be absolutely no contradiction in thesupport that he had once given to the young Rubinstein and the praise that henow lavished on these, his younger compatriots. In Russia, however, things wereviewed in a very different light. The St. Petersburg Conservatory and the NewRussian School came into being within months ofeach other, but it was not justopen rivalry that divided them. Something went far deeper. Before Rubinsteinsdeparture for Western Europe in 1854, attitudes toward him had not been par-ticularly hostile. When he returned to Russia with his head brimming with ideasabout founding a conservatory in 1859, he had already made his mark, not onlyontheconcertplatformbutasacomposer.Oneof hisoperashadbeenper-formed in Weimar, and his Ocean Symphony had been heard at the Gewandhaussubscription concerts in Leipzig. At this time Balakirev and his fellow kuchkists2had achieved nothing worthy ofnote, and one can easily see how a reaction setin against the man who was telling them how the musical affairs ofRussia wereto be organized henceforth. This attitude was at least partially based on envy ofRubinsteinsEuropeanreputationatatimewhenevenGlinkasworkswerebarelyknownoutsideRussia.Inpublishinghisarticle Composers in RussiaRubinstein had unwittingly played into the hands ofhis critics, providing themwith all the ammunition they needed to begin a war ofwords. With all the skilloftrained lawyers, they proved to be quite adept at focusing on the aspects ofhis writing that could best be turned to their advantage.In1855, when Composers in Russia appeared, music education in Russiawasalmostcompletelyunsystematic.Thegovernmenttrainedsingersandor-chestral players for the imperial stage, but in most other respects music was apastime for members ofthe aristocratic elite who had studied with resident for-eign musicians. Rubinsteins clear intention in the article had been to cultivatea more serious attitude toward the teaching and composition ofmusic in Russia.While stressing the importance ofprofessionalism, he had heaped scorn on themusical dilettantes, and among Russian composers had dismissed everyone ex-xviiiIntroductioncept Glinka. In the eyes ofhis contemporaries, he had made a fateful associationbetween the achievements ofthe edgling Russian school and amateurism, andthis amounted to nothing less than a slur on national art. Rubinstein made mat-ters worse with his ambiguous attitude toward the undisputed founder oftheRussiannationalschool.Ontheonehand,hehadsungthepraisesof Glinkaand declared him a genius, but, on the other, he had also declared that the operasZhizn za Tsarya [A life for the tsar] and Ruslan i Lyudmila [Ruslan and Lyud-mila] had failed because the composer had been mistaken in allowing the na-tionalstyletotakeprecedenceovertheneedtoexpressuniversalemotions.Rubinsteins critics interpreted this as an attack on the holy grail ofthe Russianschool. Yet, later on, when Rubinstein recanted and tried to write in a pseudo-national style, the same critics despised him even more, as ifhe were trying tosteal the Emperors clothes.In his role as principal conductor ofthe Russian Music Society concerts dur-ingthe1860s,Rubinsteinwasoftenaccusedof favoringsecond-rateGermanmusic over works by native composers. Again this was a distortion ofthe truth,for at that period there were very few works by native composers. That the Rus-sian Music Society struggled to nd pieces by Russian composers who are nowlargelyforgotten,forexample,AfanasyevandFitingof-Shel,onlyprovesthattheaccusationwasunfounded.Evenmoreimportant,itwasRubinsteinwhoconductedsomeof theveryrstorchestralworksbyCuiandMusorgskyasearly as the winter season of185960. The programs ofthe Russian Music So-ciety concerts consistently showed a balanced repertory and frequently includedworks for which Rubinstein had little personal sympathy, patently demonstrat-ing his impartiality. In an attempt to demolish Rubinsteins standing, his criticstrained their sights on the Conservatory and on Rubinsteins compositions. Itwasaneffectivestratagemtoassociatethesetwotargetssincetheargumentcould be put like this: listen to this mans musicit is bad, derivative, unorigi-nal, and the product ofdull academic training. This is what a foreign institutionlike a conservatory will produce when it is transplanted onto Russian soil: all itwillturnoutismediocretalents,writinghackworks.Thenthesamecriticscould effectively contrast this supposed mediocrity with the vibrant works ofnative composers whose imaginations had not been polluted by alien theoriesabout music, who listen to the songs ofthe peasants and their own inner voicethathasnotbeenstultiedbyforeignpedantry,andcomposeworksthataremeaningful to their fellow Russians.For Stasov and his cohorts, everything associated with the Conservatory wascorrupt and repulsive. Even a talent ofTchaikovskys stature was suspect, as hewasaproduct ofthe same Conservatory and was, as they saw it, therefore ir-revocablytaintedwiththesameperniciousdefects.Rubinsteinsresignationin 1867 cooled the protests, especially as Rimsky-Korsakov was invited to teachattheConservatoryin1871,buttheoppositiontoRubinsteinasacomposerand as a musical educationalist remained. In his speech ofthe same year, com-memorating the ninth anniversary ofthe Conservatorys founding, Rubinsteinpaidtributeto the achievements ofthe New Russian School in an attempt toIntroductionxixshore up old differences. Although attitudes between the opposing camps hadsoftenedtosomeextentbytheearly1870s,thepropagandawarwasfarfromover. In 1880, in Paris, Cui published a 174-page book, La Musique en Russie, inan effort to increase awareness ofthe kuchkists in Western Europe. AlthoughitcouldbesaidthatRubinsteinhaddonemuchthesamewithhisarticleonRussian composers, Cuis work had a far more lasting effect, conditioning West-ern opinion about the kind ofmusic people should expect to hear from a na-tive Russian composer. It was a masterly coup, for its approachable yet authori-tative style made it one ofthe most important source works on Russian musicof thetimeinalanguageother than Russian. In a narrower sense, but one ofspecicimportanceatthetimethebookappeared,italsoservedasawayofcounterbalancingthesuccessthatNikolayRubinsteinhadrecentlyachievedwithhisTrocadroconcertsof September1878wherethespotlighthadbeentrained largely, though not exclusively, on the works ofconservatory compos-ers, namely, Anton Rubinstein and Tchaikovsky. Even three decades later Cuisbookhadnotoutliveditsusefulness,forwhenDiaghilevs SaisonsrussestookParis by storm, it had rmly established the yardstick by which all Russian musicwastobejudged.Theproponentsof realRussianmusichadcreatedwhatRichardTaruskinhascalledthemythosof authenticity,3whichexcludedfrom its ranks anyone who was not a member oftheir exclusive club. The samemyth was ably and eagerly promulgated by later French and British writers onRussian music and for many decades was responsible for the ambivalent attitudetoward Tchaikovsky in Western criticismthat the composer was only as goodas the Russianness ofhis works had made him. In the case ofRubinstein, ofcourse, ambivalence was not even an issue, and the critics, one and all, squarelywrote him off because his music was not perceived as Russian at all.As the old adage goes, It is the victors who write the history, and therefore itis not entirely surprising that the views ofStasov, Cui, and their Western imita-tors prevailed for a century and more. Their crusade began as a noble cause butended as a grotesque caricature. In the campaign to legitimize their own posi-tion they had attempted indiscriminately to annihilate that oftheir opponents.There is a direct comparison here with the polemic that raged around Wagnersoperasduringthe1870s,forwhentempershadcooled,eventheimplacableHanslickcouldwrite: I and others who share my views would probably havewritten more dispassionately about Wagner had our pulses not been agitated bythe immoderate, often ludicrous excesses, ofour adversaries.4 For a long timethese same excesses distorted the brilliant achievements made by the kuchka,Tchaikovsky, and the conservatories. The inward-looking and anti-cosmopolitancultural policies ofthe Stalinist years only served to strengthen the stereotypicalattitudesalreadyestablishedbyStasov,Cui, and others. Balakirev, Musorgsky,and the other kuchkists were duly awarded state canonization, because theywereportrayedasradical,revolutionary,andanti-establishment.Popularitysaved Tchaikovsky, despite his having been labeled the morbid poet ofa bour-geois, decadent, and dying society, and he, too, received due recognition fromthe state in 1940, the year ofhis centenary. In life, as in death, Rubinstein neverxxIntroductionearned any sort ofdistinction and remained a perpetual outsider. In a nal twistofirony, he even lost out to Rimsky-Korsakov when the St. Petersburg Conser-vatory was named after him.NaturallyitisRubinsteinsachievementsasamusicianandpublicgurethat are ofthe greatest interest to the music historian, but the nature ofhis up-bringingandhisrelationshipswithothermembersof hisfamilyclearlycan-not be ignored, especially in view ofthe important role played by his youngerbrother, Nikolay. The most enduring inuence on Antons life was his Prussian-born mother, Kaleriya Khristoforovna (18071891). A stern and highly practicalwoman, she instilled into her sons a love oforder and patient determination inachievingtheirgoals.Forallof Antonsadultlifeshewashispersonalcon-dante, and it is largely because she carefully preserved his letters that we are nowable to piece together much that would have otherwise remained unknown. Al-though Anton rarely kept any correspondence addressed to him (the rare excep-tion was Liszts letters) his letters to Kaleriya Khristoforovna cover a period ofmore than forty years. In particular, they show that the relations between Antonand his brother, Nikolay, were often far from harmonious. The rivalry betweenthembeganquitesoonafterAntonreturnedtoRussiain1842,followinghisrstconcerttourof WesternEuropewithhisteacher,Villoing.Forhiselderbrother, Yakov, who was a medical student and therefore in no way his profes-sional rival, Anton always showed far more sincere fraternal concern. Yakov diedsuddenlyin1863fromcausesthatarenotclearfromanypublishedmaterial,and the loss must have been a bitter blow to Anton. On the other hand, the cold-ness shown by Anton at Nikolay Rubinsteins funeral in 1881 was noted by sev-eralbystanders,andTchaikovskywasinlittledoubtwhenheconcurredwithhis publisher, Jurgenson, that it was the result ofjealousy.Rubinsteinsrelationswithhisyoungestsister,Soya(18411919),donotseem to have been particularly close during the early years ofher life in Odessa.She was twelve years his junior and remained close to her mother. In July 1854Kaleriya Khristoforovna moved to Moscow to take up a post teaching music ata girls boarding school and remained there until the end of1859. Judging byAntonsletters,KaleriyaandSoyalodgedwithYakovinSt.Petersburgforatime, and remained in the capital intermittently until 1868. By then Rubinsteinwas nancially secure. He was able to give his mother and sister a yearly allow-ance ofone thousand rubles, and there was even talk oftheir moving to Ger-many. In the end, when Anton quitted the Conservatory and departed for West-ern Europe, his mother and Soya returned to Odessa. The Russian musicologistand Rubinstein scholar, Lev Barenboym, took pains to emphasize Soyas revo-lutionary activities. The true extent ofthese activities is unclear, but it is quitepossible that she was some sort ofpolitical activist. In 1879 Vera Figner (18521942) had organized a branch ofthe Peoples Will group in Odessa, which ad-vocated radical ideas, including the overthrow ofthe autocracy and the creationofa constituent assembly. Another prominent revolutionary, Andrey Zhelyabov(185081), had also studied at the University ofOdessa until his expulsion in1871, and he was later hanged for the part he had played in the assassination ofIntroductionxxiAlexanderIIin1881.Whenthenewemperor,AlexanderIII,accededtothethrone, vigorous attempts were made to eradicate the activities ofthe PeoplesWill organizations, and in 1883 Figner was arrested. According to Barenboym,itwasSoyasassociationwithFignerthatresulted in her being placed underpolice surveillance, and for several years she was prohibited from visiting eitherSt. Petersburg or Moscow. Rubinsteins relations with Soya grew much closerafterNikolaysdeath,anditwaswithherthathesharedhismostintimatethoughts about the loss oftheir brother. The bond between them was strength-ened still further after the death ofKaleriya Khristoforovna. By then Rubinsteinhad separated from his wife, for reasons indicated below, and was living alonein Dresden. His correspondence with Soya and with his daughter, Anna, is aparticularly useful source ofinformation on his life during this period.In 1865 Anton married Vera Chekuanova, and between 1866 and 1872 theyhad three children. The proceeds from the tour in the United States in 187273hadenabledhimtopurchaseavillaatPeterhof,asmalltownnotfarfromSt. Petersburg on the GulfofFinland. Because ofhis busy schedule ofconcertengagements,Rubinsteinwasfrequentlyabsentfromhomeforlongperiods,and the upbringing ofthe children was left mostly in Veras hands. Antons strictupbringing had instilled in him a beliefin the need for authoritarianism, butVeras approach to the childrens education was a good deal softer and more lib-eral.Towardtheyoungestchild,Aleksandr, whowasbornwithasthmaandaweak heart, she was especially affectionate. She made a number ofcostly tripsto Italy with the boy to seek out medical help and to allow him time to recuper-ate. While Anton was able to earn money from his concert appearances, he con-tinuedtoshoulderthecostwithoutcomplaint.InJanuary1886hetoldhismother that Vera and the children were spending the winter in St. Petersburg,as they found it more cheerful there than in Peterhof. It was the kind ofunnec-essary expense that eventually was bound to affect his nancial security: As farasthelatterisconcernedwehavelongagolostallsenseof scale.Inthenalanalysisitisamatterof indifferencewhethermoreisspenthereorabroad.Andwhileeveryonehereiswell,wearesparedthetormentsof movingfromone place to another, and that is something you cannot underestimate.5 AfterRubinsteinstoppedgivingconcertsinmid-1886,Veracouldnottoleratetheneed to economize. Again he confessed to his mother in January 1889: Vera iswell but unhappy: 1) she loves the South, but she has to live in the North; 2) sheloves her husband as all wives do, but she has in me only an artist; 3) she lovesalotof moneyasallwomendo,butshehastocontentherselfwithlittleespecially since I stopped giving concerts! All this together makes her nervy, thatis, nervously irritable!!6 On his reappointment as director ofthe Conservatoryin 1887, Rubinstein rented an apartment in St. Petersburg, which only acceler-ated the growing rift between husband and wife. He spent the summer of1890not at Peterhofas usual but at Badenweiler in Germany. When he returned toSt. Petersburg in August ofthat year, he nally cut his ties with the Conserva-toryandmovedtoDresden.Thenalillnessanddeathof hisyoungestson,Aleksandr, in October 1893 brought about a briefreconciliation with Vera, andxxiiIntroductionin June ofthe following year he returned to Peterhofwhere he died four monthslater.For the most part Rubinstein had forged his way through life with barely abackward glance. Fais ce que tu dois, advienne ce qui pourra is the advice hegavehisdaughter,Anna,when she was about to take her examinations, but itcould also have served as his own mantra. Do what you must and come whatmay, had served him throughout his life, in all his personal endeavors and hadgiven him the condence to overcome problems however great they were. Thisextremebullishnesstendstoobscurethefactthatthiscomplexandinmanywayscontradictorymanhadavulnerableside.Theself-doubtsthatplaguedhim in later years became manifest at rst in humorous asides, as, for instance,whenheremarkedwrylyin1880:Thisyearhumanitycanbreatheeasilyitwillnotbecheeredbyanynewcompositionsof mine!?Sevenyearslaterhetold the German composer, Carl Reinecke, that my compositions only pleasebecause ofme, and, in the nal analysis, that is not a sufciently well-foundedreason to carry on writing. Enormous industry had eventually led Rubinsteinto the beliefthat he had written himselfout, and when his publisher, BartholdSenff, brought out a catalogue ofhis complete works as part ofthe 1889 jubileecelebrations, far from being pleased, he felt only utter disenchantment. Yet againin 1892 he declared to his sister, Soya, that he planned to give up composingbut once more was drawn back to it. A lifetime ofperpetual toil had become ahabit he found impossible to give up.* * *One glance at the extensive bibliographies on Rubinstein provided by CatherineDrinker Bowen and Larry Sitsky reveals an alarming array ofsource materialsforthewould-bebiographertoassimilate.Themajorityiscontainedinlate-nineteenthandearly-twentieth-centurynewspapers,periodicals,andotherpublications that are not always easy for researchers to nd and are ofvariablequalityandusefulness.Somearesimplytoospecicforageneralbiographysuch as aspects ofkeyboard interpretation, pedaling, and so on; others make upa large corpus ofwhat could be called memoirist literature. Although some ofthis material is ofvalue, it is too often anecdotal in character and lacks the bene-t ofrsthand information. Rubinstein, for example, atly refused to provideEugen Zabel, the journalist and editor ofthe Nationalzeitung with any detailsfor his biography, Ein Knstlerleben, published by Senff in 1892, and the authorwas forced to approach Tchaikovsky (in vain, as it happens) in an effort to elicitinformation about Rubinsteins early years at the Conservatory.7 In the presentwork this author has tried to allow Rubinstein to speak for himself, adding com-mentaries, wherenecessary, forthesakeofnarrativestructureandclarity. Hehas also tried to be guided by the published documentary material only, avoid-ing, as far as possible, anecdotal descriptions. At times this has resulted in ratherarid listings ofconcert itineraries and programs, but since this was the natureofRubinsteins career as a virtuoso, excluding these details would have some-how robbed him ofstature. The concert programs, and particularly those oftheIntroductionxxiiiRussian Music Society during the years Rubinstein was the director, are ofgreathistoricalinterest,astheyreectthechangingtastesthatoccurredoverthethirty-ve-years between 1859 and 1894.The earliest ofRubinsteins published letters date from 1850, and from thatyearonitispossibletoreconstructhisbiographyfairlyaccuratelybasedonthose letters. That the letters are available is almost entirely owing to the Rus-sian musicologist Lev Barenboym. Until the late 1940s very little ofRubinsteinscorrespondence was available to scholars, and the discovery ofvaluable archi-valmaterialattimesreadslikeadetectivestory.Muchhasbeenirrevocablylost, however. We know, for example, that around 1909 Rubinsteins daughter,Anna, destroyed a large bundle ofhis letters to his wife, at Veras own request.By1980Barenboymclaimedtohavelocatedperhapsathousandletters,ofwhichapproximatelyhalf haveappearedinprint.Therstsuchpublication,A.G.Rubinsteyn:Izbrannyepisma[A.G.Rubinstein,Selectedletters],ap-peared in 1954 but is quite limited in scope. Three decades later a collection of510 letters, most ofthem appearing in print for the rst time, was published inthe three-volume work A. G. Rubinshteyn. Literaturnoye naslediye [A. G. Rubin-stein.Literaryheritage](Moscow:Muzka,198386),alongwithanumberofotherkeydocumentslistedattheendof AppendixA.Mentionmustalsobemade ofBarenboyms two-volume biography, Anton Grigoryevich Rubinshteyn.Zhizn, artisticheskiy put, tvorchestvo, muzkalno-obshchestvennaya deyatelnost[Life, artistic career, creative work, public work in the eld ofmusic]. This pio-neering and well-documented work contains a wealth offactual information forwhich any latter-day biographer must be greatly indebted, but it appeared dur-ingtheKhrushchevthawandwaswrittenfromadefensiveandapologeticposition. In order to rehabilitate Rubinstein in the eyes ofthe Soviet ideologues,Barenboym needed to remind people that Rubinstein had been born a man ofthe people, that he had high democratic principles and took his civic duties se-riously,and,perhapsmostimportantof all,thatinhis frequent brushes withtsarist ofcialdom there was a nascent Communist bursting to get out.The other main source for anyone researching Rubinsteins life is Avtobiog-racheskiyevospominaniya[Autobiographicalreminiscences]thatappearedinthenewspaperRusskayastarinaaspartof thecomposers jubilee celebrationsin 1889. Rubinstein himselfdictated these memoirs to a journalist in four sepa-rate sessions, but given the ad hoc manner in which they were delivered, it is notsurprisingthatthereareinaccuracies.Evenso,theautobiographyremainsanimportant document and is one ofthe few sources ofinformation on his life upto 1850. Rubinsteins early childhood in Bessarabia (now part ofMoldova andUkraine), and later in Moscow, are shrouded in mystery, as little is known abouthisparentsorigins.Toovercomethissignicantproblem,thisauthorhasat-tempted to provide a socio-geographic outline ofthe milieu from which Rubin-steins descendants originated. This seemed far preferable to the speculative andsemi-ctionalizedaccountsof AntonschildhoodthatappearedinCatherineDrinker Bowens earlier biography. Rubinsteins childhood is not the only grayarea in need offurther elucidation. The publication ofnew material from Rus-xxivIntroductionsianarchiveswouldgreatlyenhanceourunderstandingof hislifeinRussia,and would throw considerable light on his relations with the Russian court andtheoriginsandnatureof theoppositiontowardhimfromtheconservativepress. In her recent article, The Disowning of Anton Rubinstein, Marina Frolova-Walkerhasrightlysuggestedthatitscauseswerecomplexandanti-Semitismwas only one factor.8 His Jewish origins were undoubtedly an impediment to at-taining proper recognition in Russia and certainly account for the anti-Semiticattacksonhim,particularlyduringthereignof AlexanderIII.Butanevengreater barrier existed for him, particularly at the start ofhis career, and thatwas the problem ofclass in a country where social standing was innitely moreimportant than talent or ability. Born the son ofa merchant, he did not achieveelevationtothehereditarydvoryanstvo[gentry]until1877.Publiclyheap-peared to disdain such honors, but privately he coveted them. A ercely proudman, Rubinstein probably felt that his talent placed him in a class outside thenorm. When he was nally awarded the rank ofPrivy Counselor in 1888, forinstance,hedeclared:BeforeIwasaking,andformanyagod.NowIamageneral, so that, properly speaking, means a demotion for me. But in our coun-try a person without a title even to this day is a nothing.9 An attitude such asthis was bound to rufe imperial feathers, and Rubinsteins irascible tempera-ment and outspoken manner would earn him many enemies.* * *The appendixes contain a list ofRubinsteins works, the programs ofthe His-toricalConcerts,agenealogicaltable,andselectionsfromGedankenkorb[Abasketof thoughts](asortof diaryRubinsteinbeganinthe1880sandcon-tinued to write until his death, except during the years when he was preoccupiedwithotherliteraryworks).Hegaveauthorizationforittobepublishedpost-humously,andthebookeventuallyappearedinLeipzigin1897.Itconsistsof470 entries, or aphorisms, ofwhich a small number are translated in the appen-dix under rubrics rather than in the random manner ofthe original. Translatingthe whole ofA Basket of Thoughts would take up far too much space, but eventhe limited selection given here will provide the reader with a vivid insight intoRubinsteins aesthetics and the breadth and scope ofhis interests in art, morality,religion, history, and politics. The entries may raise a smile ofamusement, or afrown ofdisapprobation, but rarely are they devoid ofinterest. Whether cynical,paradoxical,true,thought-provoking,prophetic,orfalse,theymakeforfasci-nating and stimulating reading.IntroductionxxvNote on Transliteration,Orthography, and the SystemofApplying DatesThe transliteration ofRussian names and words are mostly standard, but notethe following:e = ye, following a vowel or a soft sign. Thus Taneyev rather than TaneevIdepartfromthissystemwhereestablishedconventionrequiresit,forex-ample:Rubinstein, not RubinshteynTchaikovsky, not ChaykovskiyCui, not KuyLaroche, not LaroshThe soft sign is omitted in personal names (e.g., Pikkel, Bessel, Sapelnikov,Menshikova, Lvov, Alyabyev, Lyubov, Grigoryevich, Ilich) except in transliter-ated titles.The titles ofRubinsteins works are given in accordance with their rst pub-lication,whenknown.ThusDieKinderderHaide,ratherthan . . . Heide;DerThurm zu Babel, rather than Der Turm zu Babel; Die Maccaber, rather than DieMakkaber. Since Nron was set to a French text, this title is used in preferenceto Nero.Place names in Poland, Eastern Prussia, the Baltic States, and so on, are givenas they were known in Rubinsteins lifetime. Later names are shown in the Gen-eral Index, for instance, Derpt, later Dorpat, now Tartu (Estonia).All dates are generally given in their dual form in accordance with the Juliancalendar (used in Russia before 1918) and the Gregorian calendar, unless newstyle (n.s.) or old style (o.s.) is specied. Although cumbersome, this avoids thepossibility ofconfusion when making comparisons between places and dates.In documents that apply only to Western Europe, a single date (the Gregoriancalendar) is given. During the period in question, the Julian calendar lagged be-hind the Gregorian by twelve days.Abbreviations for SourcesAGR LevAronovichBarenboym.AntonGrigoryevichRubinshteyn:Zhizn,artis-ticheskiyput,tvorchestvo,muzkalno-obshchestvennayadeyatelnost[Life,artistic career, creative work, public work in the eld ofmusic]. 2 vols. Len-ingrad: Gosudarstvennoye muzkalnoe izdatelstvo, 1959/1962.AR Avtobiogracheskiye rasskaz [Autobiographical stories], in A. G. Rubinsteyn:Literaturnoye naslediye [A. G. Rubinsteyn: Literary heritage], ed. L. A. Baren-boym, 3 vols. (Moscow: Muzka, 198386), 1:65104.CBFA Catherine Drinker Bowen. Free Artist: The story of Anton and Nicholas Rubin-stein. New York: Random House, 1939.CPSS P. I. Tchaikovsky. P. I. Chaykovskiy: Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy. Literaturnyeproizvedeniya [P. I. Tchaikovsky: Complete collected works. Literary works].18 vols. Moscow, 195381.FOZD NikolayFindeyzen.A.G.Rubinshteyn: Ocherkyegozhizniimuzkalnoyde-yatelnosti[A.G.Rubinstein:Anoutlineof hislife and musicalactivities].Moscow, 1907.LMBHZ LaMara(pseudonymofIdaLipsius).BriefehervorragenderZeitgenossenanFranz Liszt. Nach den Handschriften der Weimarer Liszt-Museums mit Un-tersttzungvondessenCustosGeheimrathGilleherausgegebenvonLaMara. Vols 12, Leipzig, 1895.LIS G.A.Laroche.Izbrannyestativ5-ivpuskakh[Selectedarticlesin5vol-umes]. Vols. 24. Leningrad: Muzka, 197577.LN Lev Aronovich Barenboym, ed. A. G. Rubinsteyn: Literaturnoye naslediye [A. G.Rubinstein: Literary heritage]. 3 vols. Moscow: Muzka, 198386.MABS AlexanderMArthur[LillianMcArthur].AntonRubinstein:ABiographicalSketch. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889.NEUS A. A. Neustroyev. Aleksandr Villoing i pervoye kontsertnoye puteshestviye poEvropyeA.G.Rubinshteyna,18401842[Alexander Villoing and A. G. Ru-binsteinsrstEuropean concerttour,18401842).Russkaya starina65, no. 1(January 1890).NGR Lev Aronovich Barenboym. Nikolay Grigoryevich Rubinshteyn: Istoriya zhiznii deyatelnosti [Nikolay Grigoryevich Rubinstein: The history ofhis life andwork]. Moscow: Muzka, 1982.NSCJT Gerald Norris. Stanford, the Cambridge Jubilee and Tchaikovsky. Newton Ab-bot, U. K.: David and Charles, 1980.RMG Russkaya muzkalnaya gazeta [Russian music newspaper].RMM Anton Rubinstein. Music and Its Masters: A Conversation. Translated by Mrs.J. P. Morgan. 2nd ed. London: Augener, [1921?].1 PrologueThe Historical ContextThe second halfofthe eighteenth century saw a vast expansion in the territoriesof theRussianEmpire.Onthedeathof CatherinetheGreatin1796theem-pire extended some 305,794 square miles from the GulfofFinland to Alaska ontheNorthAmericancontinent.1TheseacquisitionsweregainedchieyintheWest at the expense ofPoland in the three partitions of177295 (and later bytheannexationof theDuchyof Finlandin1808),andsouthwardinawholeseries oflargely successful wars against the Ottoman Empire. The new acquisi-tionsCatherinemadethroughhermilitaryanddiplomaticvictoriesbroughtwiththemanincreaseinpopulationthatbecameincreasinglyheterogeneousinitsethniccomposition.Furthermore,theRussiangovernmentfrequentlyadopted an open-door policy to attract settlers to the newly won territories.UnderEmpressElizabeth(r.174161),forexample,severalhundredSerbiansandMontenegrinshadbeenallowedtosettleinanareabetweentheriversDnieper and Bug. This autonomous region came to be known as Little Serbia.Catherine the Great (r. 176296) continued this policy when in 1762 she openedthedoorsof theempiretoforeignimmigrants,exceptJews,inanattempttocolonize the thinly populated tracts ofsouthern Russia. To ensure the economicprosperity ofthe entire region, Catherine founded many important new citiessuch as Yekaterinoslav, Kherson, and the great port ofOdessa. The rst two ofthese cities became the centers oflarge provinces (gubernii ), which in 1764, to-gether with Little Serbia, formed the basis ofthe Government ofNew Rus-sia (Novorossiya), later administered by Prince Potyomkin. After the subjuga-tionof theTatarKhanatein1783,thenewprovinceof Tauris(anareathatincluded the entire Crimean peninsula) was added to New Russia, as was Bes-sarabia when it became part ofthe Russian Empire in 1812.By the last third ofthe eighteenth century four principal classes (sosloviya)formed the bedrock ofRussian society: at the top were the nobility (dvoryanstvo)andtheclergy(dukhovenstvo)andbeneaththemthemerchantclass(kupe-chestvo)andthepeasantry(krestyanstvo).2Therigidstraticationof societyinto classes (or estates) was reinforced by a legal structure that dened the ob-ligations toward the state that were incumbent upon each social group. In thiswell-orderedstructure,thepolicyof thecentralgovernmenttowardtheJewswas complex and contradictory. Throughout much ofthe eighteenth century itwas marked by hostility tempered by pragmatism. Initially Jews were excludedfrom New Russia, but then the government had a change ofheart. In order tocolonizethenewlyannexedsouthernterritories,Russianeededtoexpanditsurban centers and, to do that, the numbers ofmerchants and townspeople hadto be increased. As John Klier points out, the Jews came to be seen as the rawmaterial ofurban development.3 In 1769 the Jews nally acquired ofcial per-mission to reside in New Russia, and the migration ofsettlers increased greatlyafter the rst partition ofPoland in 1772. The acquisition ofBelorussia, withitswell-developedurbaninfrastructureanditslargeJewishpopulations,re-sulted in a steady ow ofcolonists toward the South. By successive imperial de-crees of1773, 1783, and 1791, the Jews were permitted to reside in Belorussia,Yekaterinoslav,andTauris,andlatertheareawasextendedtoencompasstheUkrainian provinces. The success ofthis policy ofcolonization initially broughtits rewards, and Jews were accorded the same rights and privileges as other sub-jects ofthe newly acquired territories. As John Klier remarks, Jews were at oncerecognised as Russian subjects and were not regardedasforeignersor aliens.4This situation continued for more than twenty years, and the Jews were not sub-jectedtodiscriminatorylegislation.However,theconnementof theJewstodesignated areas on the fringes ofthe Russian Empire resulted in the formationofthe so-called Jewish Pale ofSettlement. By the time that Nicholas I accededto the throne in 1825 the Pale consisted ofthe provinces ofGrodno, Vilno, Vol-hynia, Podolia, Minsk, and Yekaterinoslav. Within these areas Jews had right ofmovement, and rst-guild merchants were allowed to visit St. Petersburg, Mos-cow, and other important commercial centers ofthe empire.Paradoxically the Jews paid for the economic transformation ofNew Russia,for a decree of1794 forced them to pay taxes at double the rate ofChristiansliving in the Pale. This did not stop the nobility from blaming them for impov-erishing their own Orthodox serfs, and as a result the Jewish Statute was passedin1804.Thestatuteaffordedthe Jews the protection ofthe law on the samebasis as other subjects ofthe Crown and also conrmed their right to an edu-cation, but at the same time it prevented them from residing on the landownersestatesand,moreimportant,prohibitedthemfromleasingagriculturalland,from keeping inns, and from distilling or selling intoxicating liquor. The gov-ernmentconsideredtheseoccupations,inwhichmanyJewswereactivelyen-gaged,asharmfuland,byprohibitingthem,attemptedtosteertheJewsintoagriculture and small-scale industry. Despite this, a project for establishing Jew-ish agricultural colonies, proposed in 1806, never had any real success.In spite ofthe discriminatory aspects ofthe 1804 statute, the situation wasstillrelativelyfavorabletotheJews.Systematicexpulsionsfromtheestatesofthe nobility were not widespread, and there were still strong incentives attract-ingJews from the western provinces to New Russia, and Odessa in particular.The Jewish population ofOdessa grew steadily throughout the nineteenth cen-tury. In 1815, for example, the Jewish population ofthe city was less than fourthousand, but by 1861 it had more than quadrupled to seventeen thousand. Bes-sarabia had also traditionally attracted Jewish settlers because ofits commercialimportance on the trading route between the Black Sea region and Central Eu-rope. Its name derived from the Walachian Basarab dynasty that had ruled it atone time, and, like Moldavia and Walachia, it was once a northern province of2Anton Rubinsteinthe Ottoman Empire. In 1806 Russia contested the region on behalfofits Chris-tian populations, but the ghting had dragged on inconclusively for many years.The war came to an end only in 1811, with the appointment ofField MarshalKutuzov as supreme commander on the Turkish front. By the Treaty ofBucha-rest, in 1812, Russia gave up its claim to Moldavia and Walachia but gained Bes-sarabia,thelargeregionlyingbetweentheriversDnestrandPrut.Thepeacewassignedhurriedlybecauseof theimpendingwarwithFranceonRussiaswestern borders. On 24 June 1812 Napoleon crossed the river Nieman, and theinvasion ofRussia began. After the Napoleonic Wars Bessarabia retained con-siderable regional autonomy. From 1818 to 1828 it had a Moldavian governorand archbishop, and the Jewish Statute introduced elsewhere in the empire didnot apply to Bessarabia. The autonomous status ofthese newly acquired terri-toriesprovedbenecialtotheJewishsettlers,and,whenBessarabiawasab-sorbedintotheJewishPale,theycrossedtheDnestrandthetownssituatedalong the river gained considerably in economic importance. After 1828 the cen-tral government began to reverse the policy ofautonomy and the Jewish legis-lation began to apply equally to Bessarabia.Theperiodof relativetolerancetowardtheJewishsettlershadcometoanabruptendwith the accession ofNicholas I to the Russian throne. Under thebanner ofOrthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality, the state policy championedby Sergey Uvarov, the minister ofeducation, Nicholas strove tirelessly to assertthe authority ofthe Orthodox Church and to russify the diverse peoples ofhisrealm. Although the Jews were by no means the only social group to suffer, theywere doubly persecuted because oftheir faith and also because oftheir distinctcultural institutions. The policy ofhis reign, writes Florinsky, was to bringabout an assimilation ofthe Jews through the elimination oftheir religious fa-naticism and racial exclusiveness. 5 The most notorious anti-Jewish legislationofNicholass government was the Recruitment Statute ofthe Jews of26 August1827.UnderthisactJewishfamilieslostanyimmunitytheymighthavehadfrom military service, which was set at twenty-ve years and was notorious forits harshness. Even minors were not spared, for children as young as twelve wereconscripted into Cantonist battalions. The brutality inicted on the conscripts,on the one hand, and incentives in the form ofprivileges, tax exemptions, andtheofferof landormoney,ontheother,producedmanyconvertstoChris-tianity. The Jews were forced to bow down before the Greek cross through theact ofbaptism.Family BackgroundIt was against this complex historical and social background that Antonspaternalgrandfather,RomanIvanovichRubinstein,hadgrownup.Theyearofhisbirthisunknown,butcertainfactspointtothelate1770s.ThiswastheperiodwhenmanyfamilieswereresettlinginNewRussiafromthewest-ern provinces, and we can be certain that he and his immediate forebears hadknown the hardships faced by Jewish families living on the fringes ofthe vastPrologue3Russian Empire. The Rubinsteins settled in Berdichev, a town then located nearthe borders ofthree provincesVolhynia, Podolia, and Little Russia (Ukraine).For almost three hundred years Berdichev had been a part ofthe Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth, and the towns historical ties to Poland were strong. Anactive Jewish community sprang up around 1721, and, as a major center ofHa-sidism, Berdichev became known as the Jerusalem ofVolhynia and the Jew-ishcapital.From the mid-eighteenth century Berdichev grew steadily in size,especially after 1765 when King Stanislaw Augustus issued a decree allowing afairtobeheldinthetown.Mostof thecommercecenteredonagriculturalsupplies, but the textile industry also played an important part in Berdichevseconomy,andin1795PrinceRadziwillgranted seven Jewish cloth merchantsthe monopoly on the cloth trade in the town. After 1798 trade in the town beganto decline, but owing to food shortages and the high cost ofbread in Odessa,the merchants ofBerdichev grew very wealthy in the period after 1812.By the early years ofthe new century Roman Ivanovich had evidently becomean inuential gure in and around Berdichev. According to Barenboym, he or-ganized the rst settlement ofJewish ploughmenthe village ofRomanovka.Beyond these bare facts, little is known about Roman Ivanovichs biography ex-cept that he married twice. From the rst marriage there were three sons.6 Thetwo older sonsAbram and Grigory (future father ofthe composer, who wasbornin1807)followedthefamilytraditionandengagedinfarming.Astherstborn, they were spared the rigors ofarmy life, but the third son, Yakov, wasconscripted into the army under the terms ofthe imperial decree of1827, whichstated:EveryJewishmaleboyof twelveyears,totheproportionof seveninevery hundred ofpopulation, [is] to be conscripted for the Imperial Army andtoproceedimmediatelytothecantonmentschool,toremainintheImperialArmy 25 years.7 Yakov was later appointed to a hussars regiment and attainedthe rank ofeld captain (he died in 1853). Two sons were born in the secondmarriage: Emmanuil and Konstantin, both later trained as doctors at the medi-cal school ofMoscow University.Abram, his wifes brother, and Grigory hired a plot ofland near Dubossar(now Dubbsari in Moldova) on the river Dnestr, which formed the natural bor-der between Russia and Bessarabia. The land rented by Abram and Grigory be-longed to powerful landowners, the Radziwills, who were ancestors ofthe an-cientPolish-Lithuanianfamilythathadplayedsuchaprominentroleinthehistoryof theircountryduringthefteenthandsixteenthcenturies.Becauseofthe double tax law and various restrictions imposed on Jews living in the Pale,theirliveswereoften precarious. The landowners took full advantage oftheirprivileges,usingthemtoexercisealmostunlimitedcontrolovertheirJewishtenants. Roman Ivanovich suffered much the same fate. As Barenboym tells us:Persecuted by the Radziwills and local ofcials, he was nally thrown into theprison at Zhitomir, and only by sacricing the remnants ofhis fortune was heable to regain his freedom. The enormous family ofRoman Rubinstein, consist-ing at that time ofmore than thirty persons, was left with absolutely no meansof subsistence.8 The plight offamilies like the Rubinsteins was exacerbated by4Anton Rubinsteinthecholeraepidemicof 183031.ThemortalityrateinPodoliaandVolhyniawas particularly high, and this had direct social consequences for the popula-tion. The responsibility for the collection oftaxes in the Jewish settlements wasleft to the kahals (Jewish autonomous communities) on the basis ofa poll taxset at three rubles, thirty kopecks, per capita times the number ofpersons re-corded in the previous census in 1816. The large numbers ofdeaths from chol-eraputanenormousstrainonthekahalstomaintainthelevelof paymentsdemanded from them, and government legislation that was intended to ease thetax burden ofthe badly affected areas was severely hampered by excessive bu-reaucracy. The desire to escape onerous taxation must have been an importantfactor in Roman Ivanovichs decision, in July 1831, to accept the Russian Ortho-dox faith. Deciding to have the entire family baptized was entirely pragmatic,for it would enable them to leave the Pale and reside in Moscow and St. Peters-burg. Materially this strategy proved entirely successful, and by the early 1840s(bywhichtimethefamilywasalreadywellestablishedinMoscow),RomanIvanovich had regained his position in society. Such was his prestige in the Mos-cow merchants guild that he had his portrait painted. He is pictured in a short,old-fashioned, velvet jacket, proudly displaying the gold medal from the era ofAlexanderIthatwasevidentlyanawardforthecharitableworkhehadper-formed for the guild. In this portrait Findeyzen saw a likeness to Anton that waseven greater than the likeness to his own father: The broad forehead, the in-telligent, penetrating eyes, and the whole cast ofthe face, except for the large,hookednose,couldhavebelongedtoA.G.Rubinsteinhadhelivedintooldage.9Rubinsteinsmother,KaleriyaKhristoforovna,camefromanimpoverishedJewishfamilyoriginatingfromLissainPrussianSilesia(nowLesznoinwest-ern Poland). She was born in 1807 (Barenboym claims that other sources give1811).10 She moved to Odessa in the early 1820s with her family, and it was therethat she met Grigory Romanovich and where they probably married. Nothingis known about their lives in the period after the marriage. Because ofthe con-ict with the Radziwills, it seems likely that Grigory Romanovich soon lost themeansof supportinghimself byfarming.KaleriyaKhristoforovnasfamilyinOdessa and Roman Ivanovich in Berdichev may have helped the couple, but stilltheir lives must have been unsettled by the constant need to nd work. It wouldhavebeenagainstabackgroundof considerableuncertaintythattheirrstchild, Nikolay, was born, but the child did not survive infancy. Two more sonssoon followedYakov in 1827 and Anton two years later in 1829. Another sixyears would pass before brother Nikolay was born in 1835.At Antons birth, the onset oflabor evidently occurred suddenly. That he wasnot born in any ofthe larger towns or cities ofthe region, but at an inn in thevillage ofVkhvatinets (sometimes given as Wechwotinez in the German trans-literation) suggests that the family was often on the move.Vkhvatenets is now part ofthe urban conurbation ofRbniua in the RepublicofMoldova and is located on the left bank ofthe Dnestr River. The river valleyroute on this stretch ofits course is now known as the Transdnistria and extendsPrologue5fromMogilev-Podolsky(nowMohyliv-PodilskyiintheUkrainianRepublic)in the north to Odessa where the river ows into the Black Sea. From Mohyliv-Podilskyi the roads run north to the towns ofVinnitsa (Vynnytsia), Berdichev(Berdichyv) and Zhitomir (Zhytomyr). The inn was no longer standing by theendof thenineteenthcentury,forFindeyzensays:Thestoneruinsof thisbuildinghavebeenpreservedforposterityonaphotographthatisstoredatthe Rubinstein Museum. On the site ofthe building, which in 1895 belongedto P. I. Gryaznov, a peoples school, named after A. G. Rubinstein, was openedin1901.11As birth certicates for Jews were not introduced in Russia until 1835, inac-curacies about Antons date ofbirth found their way into some early biographi-cal sources. For many years even Anton himselfwas not clear on this point. Thematterwasnotnallyresolveduntilshortlybeforethepublicationof Rubin-steins Autobiography in 1889, as testied by the following passage:I was born in 1829 on 16 November. Up to the present time I had supposed theyear ofmy birth to have been 1830, and my birthday18 November, but this hasproved incorrect. Only recently did I chance to establish the exact date ofmy birth:some papers were found which claried this.12The Rubinsteins Move to MoscowRubinstein remembered very little ofhis life in Southern Russia, as theentire family moved to Moscow when he was only four years old. The Rubin-steins were just one ofmany converted families that moved north from the Paleto nd work in the big cities ofthe Russian heartland. Rubinstein himselfde-scribed the journey to Moscow:All our relatives (three families) traveled in one enormous wagon. When wecrossed some bridge or other over the river Yauza, a large house was rented fromMadame Poznyakova. The house was situated by a pond overgrown with trees.Here we managed to set up home relatively well. At rst we were comfortably welloff. All three families lived and worked together as one household. But this didnot last long. Soon we moved to Ordnka in the Zamoskvorechye. It was here inOrdnka where father split up with his brother and his brothers wifes brother. Hisaffairs went by turns well, then badly, but this did not especially sadden him.13Grigory Romanovich was still a young man oftwenty-ve when the familyarrivedinMoscow,acitythenwithapopulationof amere350,000inhabi-tants.14 By this time the household had been enlarged by the birth ofa daughter,Lyubov, in the early 1830s, and by Nikolay who was born in Moscow on 2/14June 1835. The Rubinsteins eventually settled in the Zamoskvorechye, an areaof Moscowtraditionallyassociatedwiththemanufactureof goods,suchaslinen and canvas, much ofit supplied to the royal court. The occupations oftheartisans (posadskiye lyudi ) who once worked there are preserved in some ofthestreet names, and during the late nineteenth century the Zamoskvorechye be-6Anton Rubinsteincame the seat ofthe Moscow merchant class and enjoyed great prosperity. WhenGrigory Rubinstein arrived in Moscow the district was considered a quaint cor-nerof oldMoscow,fullof windingalleywayswithsmall,oftensingle-storybuildings, dilapidated and run-down factories, and workshops surrounded byfences oftall planks. It was a world inhabited by merchants, poor factory own-ers,pettyofcials,small-timenobility,andfactoryworkerstheverypeoplewhom Aleksandr Ostrovsky, himselfborn in the Zamoskvorechye in 1823, por-trayed with such candor and realism in his plays.ItwouldbesomeyearsbeforeGrigoryRomanovichobtainedtheofcialpermission needed to engage in business activities in Moscow. Eventually he ob-tainedaguaranteefromoneof hisacquaintancesamongtheMoscowmer-chants, and this enabled him to make the transition from a merchants son ofthe Zhitomir rst guild into a Golutvin village merchant ofthe Moscow thirdguild.15 His rst initiative was to set up a smithy and an enterprise to manu-facturewire.Afterwardheorganizedanenterprisetomanufacturepinsandpencils that at one time employed seventy workers. The workshop was situatedonthegroundoorof asmallstonebuilding,andthefamilyoccupiedtherooms above. Grigory Romanovich seems to have been industrious and capablebut overly trusting in his business affairs, too good-hearted, even sentimental.He was often thought to be a poet and a dreamer, and consequently lacked thequalities needed to make his business thrive. Although his education had beenpatchy and he had never received any systematic instruction, he was consideredan educated man and spoke Russian and German perfectly. In his reminiscencesofNikolay Rubinstein of1897, Kashkin reported Nikolay as having said: I amthe embodiment ofmy father: he loved to live it up, love, and play cards.If Nikolaytookafterhisfather,Antonwasmuchclosertohismother.Kaleriya, in all respects, was strong and willful, had stoical courage, and ruledthe Rubinstein household with an iron rod. In his reminiscences published inRusskoyeslovo(Russianword)in1905,PyotrVeynbergdescribesherintheseterms: In all my long years I have hardly ever met a woman with such a lucidmind when it was a matter ofeveryday life and relationships, with such prac-tical common sense, yet at the same time such strength and a will ofiron thatsometimesapproachedrealdespotism,withsuchsteadfastnessinherconvic-tions,andwithapurelymasculinecastof nature.16 Many ofKaleriya Khris-toforovnastraitslaterappearedinAntonscharacter.Likehismother,Antonshowed tenacity and patience in attaining his goals and refused to be discour-agedbydifcultiesandsetbacks.Healsoinheritedfromheraloveof order,which became apparent later in his extraordinary organizational and adminis-trative skills. On the other hand, her method ofbringing up the children wasunquestionablyharsh,frequentlyresortingtobeatingsandwhippings.Itwassaid that Nikolay was his mothers favorite, and for that reason he suffered morethantheotherchildren.ThisiscorroboratedbyaletterfromTchaikovskytoNadezhdavonMeckmanyyearslaterconcerningrumorsthatNikolayhadphysically abused his students:Prologue7What you write about R[ubinstein]s attitude toward the students ofthe conserva-tory is entirely correct, unfortunately. There is one thing that justies it. He tellsme that in their childhood he and Anton went through the most brutal school ofbeatings and whippings, and since they both turned out to be bigwigs, he thinksquite sincerely that an iron hand striking someones face, which at the same time isa caring hand, is the symbol oftrue pedagogy. I have never seen him beat anyone,although I have heard that it has happened; I confess I didnt believe it.17Findeyzen tells us that Kaleriya Khristoforovna received her rst instructionin music from a local trumpeter but had evidently gone on to become a ca-pable pianist and was later to teach in a private music school. She began givingAnton his rst piano lessons when she noticed his special talent for music, butshe made few allowances for his tender years and the lessons were often accom-paniedbyscoldingsandbeatings.InlateryearsAntonneverreproachedhismother for methods that may seem draconian in our more enlightened age. Onthe contrary, he wrote: I am indebted to her in many ways, having found in hermy rst and nest mentor.18The Rubinstein children grew up in the very heart ofthe Zamoskvorechye,but details ofthese years are sketchy and even Anton could only halfrememberhis childhood experiences. Many years later, shortly after the appearance ofhisofcial autobiography in Russkaya starina, he attempted to write his memoirs,asking Kaleriya Khristoforovna: If you could help me with regard to my earlychildhoodthatwouldbeverynice.WhenwasIChristened,forexample?Inwhich year did we move to Moscow? When did I get lost on the streets ofMos-cow? I think it was at the Krmsky brod [Crimea ford] near the Tartars. We livedfor a while at that time on Pyatnitskaya Street before moving to the Ordnka.In a word it would be very desirable for me to learn in more detail about thattime.19 Sadly the proposed (second) autobiography was never completed, andKaleriya Khristoforovnas reply to her sons letter is unknown and may well havebeen destroyed.The Zamoskvorechye did not have the reputation ofbeing a particularly in-tellectualquarterof thecity.Theauthorsof PoMoskvye[AroundMoscow],writing in 1917, remarked: Fifty years ago educated people were rarities there.And where were you to nd them? The Zamoskvorechye felt no inclination forscience: only the sixth in number ofthe Moscow high schools was establishedon the right bank ofthe Moscow River.20 Nevertheless the Rubinstein house-holdwasasmallintellectualoasis.Theyoungerhalf-brothersof GrigoryRo-manovich, Konstantin and Emmanuil, had also come to Moscow, and, as noted,bothstudiedmedicineatMoscowUniversity.Theirpresenceensuredthatasteady stream ofvisitors came to the house on the Ordnka, and informal gath-eringswerearranged on Sundays, often attended by as many as thirty guests.Thevisitorsmostlyconsistedof traders,students,andsometimesevenmusi-cians such as the violinist Ivan Iogannis and the cellist Schmidt (subsequentlythe teacher ofKarl Davdov). Among the other visitors were young professionalslikeMoritsRozenberg,amedicalstudentwholaterrecordedhismemoirsofAnton. Rozenberg would sometimes arrive in the company ofhis married sister,8Anton RubinsteinVavara Bogdanovna Grunberg, and her daughter Yuliya, a girl ofabout ten whowas already giving piano concerts in Moscow under the guidance ofher teacher,Alexandre Villoing. By this time Kaleriya Khristoforovna was giving piano les-sons to Anton which lasted at least two hours a day. In eighteen months he hadalreadymaderemarkableprogress,andhisrepertorynowincludedworksbyMoscheles, Kalkbrenner, Czerny, and Clementi. Kaleriya Khristoforovna prob-ably realized that she had taught her son as much as she was able to teach andneeded to nd a reliable teacher to continue Antons studies. In view ofthe prog-ress Yuliya Grunberg had made, and the reputation Villoing enjoyed as a teacherin Moscow, the choice seemed obvious.VilloingVilloingsfather,Jean,wasaFrenchimmigrantwhohadedFranceduring the Revolution of1789. He secured himselfthe position ofchefin thehousehold ofCount Chernshyov in Moscow for a salary considered quite colos-sal at the time. Aleksandr, the fourth ofve children, was born on 29 February/12 March 1804, and at the age oftwelve was apprenticed to a pharmacist at theGolitsn Hospital in Moscow. His training in pharmacy was short-lived, how-ever, and in 1821 he abandoned it to study music under Franz Xavier Gebel, whohadbeenapupilof AbbVoglerandAlbrechtsbergerinVienna.21Untilthe1830s he led a more or less nomadic existence, working at an institute for thedaughters ofthe nobility in Poltava, and as a teacher in the houses ofvariouslandowners.Intheearly1830sheestablishedhimself inMoscowandgaveanumber ofconcerts as a virtuoso performer, but eventually he gave up the con-certplatforminfavorof teaching.In1837KaleriyaKhristoforovnaengagedhim to teach Anton, and the next two years was a period ofintensive study forthe boy.He was my sole teacher. I had no other teachers in my life. I studied with him fromthe ages ofeight to thirteen. After that my lessons ceased, and I never studied withanyone again.Villoing had a good hand position and a good ear. He paid a great deal ofatten-tion to tone. This came from the Field school, ofwhich he was one ofthe nestpupils.22Antons studies went so well that by the age ofnine Villoing declared him readyfor his rst public concert. Aleksandr Bashilov, Privy Councilor and Marshal oftheNobility,gavehisbackingtoacharityconcertinaidof thepoor,andon11/23July1839,inthePetrovskyParkinMoscow,AntonplayedtheAllegrofromHummelsConcertoinAminor,theFantasyonthemesfromMose,anAndante (probably the Andante in D, Op. 32) by Thalberg, Liszts Grand GalopChromatique,andpiecesbyFieldandHenselt.Thisconcertwasfavorablyre-viewed by the Moscow journal Galatea, which observed: In this child the soulofan artist and a feeling ofelegance is fully revealed; such great musical giftsare concealed within him that, through perfection and the full development ofPrologue9histalent,theyoungartistmay,withtime,achieveanhonoraryplaceamongthe musical celebrities ofEurope.23The huge success ofthis concert prompted Villoing to suggest a major Euro-pean concert tour beginning in the autumn of1839. Anticipating the possibilityofa long separation from his son, Grigory Rubinstein accompanied Anton onan excursion to Mozhaysk during August. There they watched military maneu-versinthepresenceof EmperorNicholasI,andtheysawtheunveilingof amonumentonthesiteof theBattleof Borodino.Theyfoundtimetoattenda performance ofa play called Volshebnaya strela [The magic arrow] given by atroupe ofactors at the local theater, and they also made the acquaintance ofacertain I. V. Lokhvitsky, who later published a briefrecollection ofthe Rubin-steinfamily.LokhvitskyrecalledthatAntonwasaverylivelyandextremelysympatheticchild.24IntheendtheproposedtourwasvetoedbyKaleriyaKhristoforovna,whowas strongly opposed to exposing her son to the rigors ofthe concert platformbefore he had acquired a comprehensive musical education. As Neustroyev re-marked: Madame Rubinstein told Villoing that she wished to see her son in-stalled at the Paris Conservatory for his subsequent, serious, and all-round edu-cation.25 Villoing appeared to concur wholeheartedly: She did not meet withany opposition to this plan on his [Villoings] part but, on the contrary, com-plete willingness to put it into action.26 If they were in complete agreement onthispoint,onewonderswhymorethanayearwentbybeforeshewasper-suadedtoletAntongo.Farmorelikelyisthat,fromtheverystart,KaleriyaKhristoforovna and Villoing had quite different views on the best way to perfectAntons musical development. It took Villoing a whole year to convince her thatthe primary purpose ofthe tour was not a mercenary one and that the concertshe planned would merely help to defray the costs ofthe journey and cover liv-ing expenses. By the middle of1840, however, there was another impelling con-sideration:GrigoryRomanovichsbusinessaffairswerefastdeteriorating,buttowhatextentKaleriyaKhristoforovnahopedthatthetourmightultimatelyraise sufcient funds to extricate them from serious nancial difculties is hardto say.First Concert Tour (184043)From the very outset there appeared to be something ofa contradictionabout the exact purpose ofthe trip. Was it to further Antons musical education?Orraisefunds?OrwasitanopportunityforVilloingtoshowhispupiltoEurope?Noonedoubtedtheyoungpianistsexceptionaltalentthatextendedbeyond mere virtuosity to a perceptive understanding ofthe music he was per-forming. Indeed, this is what distinguished him from the myriad child prodigiestouring Europe in the 1830s and 1840s.Under Louis Philippes July Monarchy the musical life ofFrance was thriving,and Paris had gained the enviable reputation as the foremost city ofEurope forpianists. A measure ofthe vibrancy ofParisian concert life was evident in the10Anton Rubinstein183536seasonalone,asmorethantwohundredpianorecitalsweregivenatthe two major concert venues: the Salle Erard and the Salle Pleyel. Kalkbrenner,whohadreturnedtoParisfromEnglandin1824,wasenjoyingthelastfad-ing remnants ofhis distinguished virtuoso career, and if his name slowly dis-appearedfromtheParisianconcertbillsof thelate1830s,thenotherequallyeminentnamestookhisplace.Chopinsettledthereafterthecollapseof thePolish Revolt of1830, and Liszt and Thalberg were frequent visitors to the city.Infact,itwasonlyafewyearsbeforeRubinsteinsrstvisittoParisthattheinfamous duel between Liszt and Thalberg took place at the home ofPrincessBelgiojoso.Havingscoredanastonishingcoupwiththispublicspectacle,theprincess consolidated her achievement by inviting six distinguished composer-pianists(Liszt,Thalberg,Pixis,Herz,Czerny,andChopin)tocollaborateonthe set ofvariations based on Suoni la trombe from Bellinis I Puritani, whichcame to be known as the Hexamron.When the arrival ofAnton and Villoing was reported in the Revue et GazetteMusicale during the autumn of1840, these events were still quite fresh, but the184041 season was dominated by yet another contest. This time it was not be-tween giants ofthe keyboard but between Giulia Grisi, the favorite ofthe Italiantheater, and Pauline Viardotgreat sopranos vying for the attention ofthe Pa-risian public. The vogue for Italian operas and singers was at its height, andIPuritani, Il Pirata, and Norma were being performed by Tamberlick, Lablache,Grisi, Mario, and Rubini to enormous public acclaim. One ofAntons enduringimpressions was ofhearing these legendary singers, among whom he was espe-cially impressed by Rubini, whose bel canto singing style he tried to reproducein his own piano playing:In Paris I heard Rubini. The famous Italian opera was there, later moving on toRussia. It produced on me, a twelve-year-old boy, a tremendous impression, whichhas remained with me all my life. He sang magically. I have never heard the likesof it since, but there never has been anything to compare with him. I have alwaystried to imitate his singing. He was my teacher. But I only became conscious ofthislater. I met him.27Villoing and Anton remained in Paris for six months, but despite the wealth ofnew and powerful impressions and a host ofnew acquaintances, Antons devel-opment as a musician made very little real progress.28 The most inuential voiceamongthekeyboardpedagogueswasthatof Pierre-Joseph-GuillaumeZim-mermann; he had occupied the post ofprofessor ofthe piano at the Conserva-tory since 1816 and was the teacher ofboth Csar Franck and Alkan. He heardAnton play at one ofthe musical salons in the spring of1841 and declared theboysplayingtobeamusicalrevelation,butVilloingsattemptstosecureanofcialaudiencewithZimmermannandCherubini,theagingdirectoroftheconservatory,provedunsuccessful,andanynotionof studyingtherewasquickly dismissed.Villoings own career as a virtuoso had not been particularly successful, andNeustroyev, who knew him in the 1870s, remarked he had ngers that were soPrologue11incapable ofplaying, it seemed to me he could never have had any sort ofwell-developedtechnique.29 Villoing must have realized early on that Anton had abrilliant future before him, and the jealousy with which he guarded him almostcertainly stemmed from a vicarious desire to realize his own unfullled hopesand dreams.Antons rst appearances in Paris were given in private salons. On 5 Decem-ber 1840, for example, he took part in a concert given by the composer PaulineDuchambge, who was celebrated for her drawing-room romances. His rst ma-jor concert took place at the Salle Pleyel on 23 March 1841, when he performed:Villoing: Allegro from the Piano Concerto in C minor30Thalberg: Fantasy on Russian themes, Op. 17BeethovenLiszt: AdelaidaLiszt: Grand Galop ChromatiqueBesides solo playing, Anton also took part in several concerts with other art-ists. On 25 April he appeared with Jacques Offenbach at a time when the futurecomposer ofLes Contes dHofmann was still striving to become a cello virtuoso,and together they played the second and third movements ofBeethovens CelloSonata in A. At another concert he accompanied the renowned Belgian violinistHenri Vieuxtemps, the pupil ofCharles Briot; just a few years earlier Vieux-temps had scored an enormous success in Russia, and his Violin Concerto in Ehad been rapturously received in Paris in January.ThecriticswerewonoverbyyoungAntonstalent.Oneecstaticwriterob-servedthatintheThalbergFantasyhehadplayedatwo-octavearpeggiatedchord with such accuracy and speed that it produced the impression ofa singlestroke. Villoing had been wise, perhaps, in rst presenting his pupil to the Pa-risian public in advance ofLiszts impending concert in the French capital, forthe great Hungarian virtuoso had recently returned from a concert tour ofBrit-ainandIrelandandon27March1841heappearedattheSalleErard. Antonwas stunned by his playing, and perhaps for the rst time saw a true model towhichhehimself mightaspire.AsAntonlaterrecalled,Lisztsopinionsanddirectivesweresacredandabsolute,buttheydidnotquitesquarewithVil-loingswayof seeingthings.Liszthadlongfeltakindofrevulsion forinfantprodigiesperformingtricksasasourceof amusementfordistinguishedso-ciety and, in so doing, cheapening the very art ofwhich they were such daz-zling exponents.31 There developed in him what Robert Wangerme has calledthe conscientiousness and shamelessness ofthe romantic virtuoso, who se-duces the public by his brilliant virtuosity but yearns to be recognized as a trueartist in the eyes ofhis enlightened peers.32The moral dilemma which Liszt sought to resolve in his art was ofless im-mediate concern to Chopin, who had become increasingly reclusive as a concertartist. He now only appeared before audiences made up ofthe aristocracy andhis adoring pupils and friends. It was therefore a somewhat extraordinary eventwhen, on 26 April 1841, he was persuaded to make a rare public appearance at12Anton RubinsteintheSallePleyel.Intimidatedbythecrowd,Chopinwasneverthelesshappytoreceive guests informally, and Villoing and Anton were able to visit him. Manyyears later, in his Lectures on the History of Piano Music, Rubinstein recalled hisrst encounter with the great Polish composer-pianist:I was eleven years old when, in 1841, I was presented to Chopin. On that occasionhe played me his Impromptu when it was in manuscript.33 Although I was still achild, this meeting with Chopin created a strong impression on me, and even nowI can remember all the furnishings ofhis apartment on the rez de chause, rueTronchet, 5, near the Madeleine, and the Pleyel piano covered with green baizestanding in the middle ofthe room, and on the piano: the gift ofLouis-PhilippetoFrdricChopin.34Liszts advice to Villoing had been to take his pupil to Germany, but rst theytraveled to The Hague where Anton gave his rst concert at the Diligentia Hallon 18 June. On 19 and 24 June 1841 he played for the Dutch court at the palacesofPaauw (Wassenaar) and Soestdyk (Baarn). For ten years the old king WilliamI had struggled to come to terms with the humiliating loss ofBelgium, which,through the intervention ofFrance and the other European powers, was estab-lished as an independent kingdom in 1830. He eventually abdicated in favor ofhis son who came to the throne as William II in October 1840. Already in 1816thenewkinghadmarriedGrandDuchessAnnaPavlovna,thesisterof TsarAlexanderIof Russia,whosehandNapoleonhadoncesought.Thatsummerher grandson, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, himselfjust thirteen yearsold, visited the Dutch court and heard Anton play. The grand duke was destinedtoplayanimportantroleinthepoliticalandculturallifeof his country, andthis encounter with Rubinstein paved the way for establishing inuential con-tacts with the Russian court. After giving several more concerts in Amsterdamand The Hague, Villoing and his pupil nally arrived in Germany in mid-July.From this point forward all pretense that the tour was intended to further An-tons musical education was clearly abandoned.The rst concert in Germany took place at the theater in Cologne on 19 July,where Villoing accompanied his pupil in a performance ofhis own Piano Con-certoinCminor.ThenfromJulytotheendof theyeartheymadefurtherappearances in Ems, Bonn, Baden-Baden, Frankfurt-am-Main, Karlsruhe, Augs-burg, and Munich. Villoing was responsible for devising the programs ofAntonsconcerts, and as the young pianist later remarked: He [Villoing] observed thegreatest discipline with me, and I carried out all his demands.35 The programsofthese early concerts laid great stress on brilliance and were designed to showoff the young players technical