In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

 Notes Abbreviations Used in Notes RGALI Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv literatury i iskusstva, Moscow TsGALI Tsentral’nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv literatury i iskusstva, St. Petersburg Introduction 1. Matil’da Kshesinskaia, Vospominaniia (Moscow: ART, 1992), 179–80, 191. 2. I use Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of a “field of cultural production” in broad terms to conceptualize the struggle for artistic autonomy in a state of power relations where the field of cultural production and the field of power were of necessity unusually close (Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. and intro. Randal Johnson [Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993]). My concept of artistic repossession describes strategies of resistance or subversion, reflecting Michel de Certeau’s work on tactics available to the ordinary person to reclaim autonomy of action from all-pervading forces such as commerce and politics, but applying it not to the everyday life of the average person but to “everyday life” in the realm of high culture (Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984]). There are dangers with strictly applying the frames developed by either theorist for analyzing Western culture to the Soviet context, and implicit adjustments have to be made at every step, for example, concerning myths of individual initiative versus myths of collectivism, myths of democracy versus myths of democratic centralism, and so forth. Only a loosely functioning understanding of either theorist can be useful for interpreting Soviet cultural politics, but it is helpful to look at the work of either theorist as they address issues similar to those at the core of this book. My concept of artistic repossession offers a way of understanding how these theorists’ works can be adapted to take into account the differences in the environment of cultural production in the West and the Soviet Union and the internal politics of their cultural institutions. 3. Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 2. 4. Stephen Kotkin, Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 21–22. 5. Kotkin, Magnetic Mountain, 22. 6. Alena Ledeneva, Russia’s Economy of Favors: Blat, Networking, and Informal Exchange (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 76, 103. 7. James C. Scott, Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). 8. Michel Foucault, “The Subject and Power,” afterword to Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics by Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow (New York: Harvester Press, 1982), 225. 1. Survival: The Mariinsky and Bolshoi after the October Revolution Epigraph: Iurii Slonimskii, Sovetskii balet. Materialy k istorii sovetskogo baletnogo teatra (Moscow, Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1950), 44. 1. Novoe Vremia, 25 October (7 November) 1917, 5. 2. Tamara Karsavina, Theatre Street (London: Readers Union Constable, 1950), 205. Karsavina gives 8 November (26 October, O.S.) 1917 as the date, but as she describes political events that took place on 7 November (25 October, O.S.), and as there was a ballet she performed in at the Mariinsky on 7 November but not on 8 November, it can be assumed that she erred in her dating of the events. 3. While I emphasize ballet’s roots as a courtly art for the purpose of discussing the fate of ballet in Soviet Russia, I do not wish to deny the important interrelationship between elite and popular forms in dance and its impact on the development of ballet, for example, by the absorption of virtuoso techniques of Italian grotteschi dancers in the eighteenth century and by the influence of national dances in the nineteenth century, of modern-dance and avant-garde movements in the twentieth century, and of social dances throughout the history of ballet. Nevertheless, the art form’s origins as princely entertainment and royal self-representation had a profound impact on the self-definition of ballet and the outside perception of it, especially in Russia, where it was consciously imported as a Western court art. 4. St. Petersburg’s Mariinsky Theater was the most important opera and ballet theater of the imperial period. When talking about the role of ballet in tsarist Russia, it is thus natural to focus on the Mariinsky.  z Notes to pages 3–11 5. Mary Clarke and Clement Crisp, Ballet: An Illustrated History (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1992), 76. 6. Marius Petipa arrived in St. Petersburg from his native France in 1847 and became the defining choreographer of classical ballet, creating masterworks such...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.