A series of five Blogs discussing the literary component of
the story of Judith found in the Apocrypha in light of composer
Alexander Serov’s own professed expectations for opera,
to determine what may be considered quintessentially
Russian about his first opera, Judith.
A Russian Judith? Literary Reflections on
Alexander Nikolayevich Serov’s First Opera
Part 5
Conclusion
Serov’s choice of the story of Judith for his first opera was not without its own dramatic irony. That he had avoided writing a national opera prevented comparison with Glinka. Having derogated Glinka’s second opera as a music critic, an opera on a Russian topic by Serov the composer would be seen as his answer to Ruslan and Lyudmilla.
Although Serov had hoped that Judith would secure his reputation as a serious musician, his first opera soon was eclipsed by operas seeking to establish a national Russian style, such as Mussorgsky’s Boris Godunov (1868, first version) and Alexander Dargomyzhsky’s Stone Guest, completed by Cui and orchestrated by Rimsky-Korsakov (1872) after Drgomyzhsky’s death.
Judith garnered little attention outside Russia; even Serov’s beloved Wagner found little to praise in the work of his steadfast Russian disciple, leading to a lasting rift between the two composers. That the opera of stern, serious language and massive rudimentary construction whose score Boris Asafev likened to “the irregular but enduring and powerful stonework of the walls and towers of ancient cities” apparently could not endure the test of time may be due in part to the four Serovian paradoxes identified by Taruskin. 1
First, as an opera based on an Italian model, Serov’s Judith defied the slavophilic ideal that Russian music had an obligation to be nationalistic. Second, although advocating the organic marriage of music and drama as a music critic, as a composer Serov allowed the inner acts of Judith to veer from the biblical subject in both dramatic situations and the accompanying music. The story that could have been told in three acts expanded to five, thus undermining dramatic integrity. Third, having chastised Glinka for the orientalism found in Ruslan and Lyudmilla, Serov nonetheless incorporated oriental elements in not one, but two acts of Judith. Finally, while preaching the Wagnerian doctrine that a composer of musical drama should be his own librettist, only the first act of Judith, the act most closely adhering to the biblical story, bears Serov’s imprint; the libretto for the remaining four acts was the work of a team of writers. 2 The resulting script, however, met Serov’s previously articulated ideal for opera: the plot appealed to the senses in vividly portrayed emotions motivated by the strongest, most elemental passions. 3 Lust for power, the vicissitudes of trust and betrayal, and the stark opposition of good and evil feature prominently in Judith.
Abiding by his views that an opera plot should be consistently clear and understandable, devoid of details that would obfuscate its intent, Serov let the moments of highest dramatic impact and cogency dictate his adherence to the biblical story of Judith. Although the orientalism found in Acts 3 and 4 appears to contradict Serov’s clearly documented principles of opera composition, it serves an important purpose. While the sexual theme intensifies gradually over five days in the Apocrypha, Serov’s conflation of the story into a single day does not allow the same degree of development. The inclusion of overt sexual references in the guise of innocuous diversions offers an immediate glance into the mindset of the enemy camp, while prefiguring the lustful habits of its leader.
Serov’s opera is a study of extremes. Judith is even more resolute and Holofernes even more egotistical than their biblical counterparts. Serov’s characterizations emphasize both inter- and intrapsychic contrasts and contradictions that build on those portrayed in the Book of Judith, primarily in the additions the composer made to the original story. Judith’s lengthy monologue reveals the considerable risk she is willing to take under the Auspices of God, as well as a rare, fleeting doubt of the success of her plan. By means of a delirious episode, Holofernes manifests the pathological scope of his lust for power. Avra’s pithy commentary infuses into the opera the moral element absent in the biblical narrative.
The conflicting emotions, megalomaniac pride, sexual innuendoes, and sense of destiny that Serov brings to the story of Judith disclose the mutability of the human condition that figures prominently in a realistic approach to life as depicted in nineteenth-century Russian works of art. In what Apollon Grigoriev, Serov’s mentor in journalistic polemics on behalf of Wagner, delineated as a blend of subjective striving toward the Ideal and objective ability to reproduce the phenomena of the outside world, Judith embodied the true spirit of pochvennichestvo in which “the Ideal insinuates itself like a lining, or soars over the work.” 4
Pochvennichestvo, first coined by Dostoevsky from the Russian word pochva meaning soil or foundation, came to designate a strong faith in the resilience and continuity of Russian traditions. Pochvennichestvo received its highest expression in art and literature through which it was made available to consciousness in concrete form. 5
Applying the idealism of Friedrich Schelling, the pochvennicki viewed the world as a coherent whole with organic ties to nationhood and to life, from which the arts derive their validity. 6 Art meeting nationalistic criteria reflects realism in its inclusion of the moral elements of life. True realism is not naked realism that, according to Serov the critic, betrays the ideal through its neglect of morally uplifting content. 7
While strongly committed to a distinct nationality with indigenous literature and drama, the pochvenniki welcomed foreign influences. A statement in the journal Vremia, edited and published from 1861 to 1863 by Dostoevsky and his brother Mikhail as a tool of the pochvennichestvo position, provides a clue to the Russianness of Serov’s Judith: “We foresee that the Russian idea may well be a synthesis of all the ideas that have developed in Europe.” 8
Vremia’s fence-straddling posture mirrors the stance of its proponent Serov and his literary colleague Grigoriev, both of whom pledged allegiance to the Wagnerian concept of Gesamtkunstwerk in their explication of true realism based on the Ideal. In a review of Judith, Grigoriev likened Serov’s opera to a Wagnerian musical drama in its naturalism of form not based on preconceived notions of text and music. In Judith, Grigoriev concluded, Serov creatively reproduced the world in realistically typical images devoid of superficiality or an abundance of extraneous details, but rich in morality. 9 When a work of art correctly presents the unique and basic traits of reality, it exemplifies the Ideal and embodies veianie, the Russian equivalent of the German Zeitgeist. In Grivoriev’s estimation, Serov’s Judith achieved veianie. 10
In yet another display of Russianness, the Russian Meyerbeer who drew operatic inspiration from the masters of west European music in turn influenced the works of his east European colleagues. Music critic Herman Laroche catalogued numerous Serovianisms in Mussorgsky’s Boris Godunov, and Mussorgsky himself revealed his indebtedness to Serov’s description of the delirious Holofernes in Boris Godunov’s hallucination. 11 Taruskin has identified a literal plagiarism from Judith in Mussorgsky’s use of Holofernes’ War Song in his opera Porazhenie Sennakherbia (1867) that also pits Assyrians against Hebrews in battle. Finally, Taruskin points to Serov’s choice of Mikhail Sariotti to sing the role of Holofernes as a pivotal factor in defining Russian opera. In a decisive break with the basso cantante tradition, the parlando style of singing that Serov introduced became the trademark of the Russian basso. 12
Alexander Serov’s first opera may straddle the fence in its unique synthesis of foreign and native musical influences, but from a literary perspective, Judith lands firmly on the Russian side, especially as it pertains to psychological descriptions of its characters. Serov held in common with both Grigoriev and Dostoevsky a belief in a Russian aesthetic humanism exemplified in an essential unity of beauty and good, art, and morality. Gogol, who advocated an Orthodox culture grounded in the Russian church, believed a culture founded in the spirit of Orthodoxy was truly Russian. Obsessed with an acute moral consciousness, Gogol’s aesthetic critique of contemporary life decried its vulgarity; art should not be created simply for the sake of art, Gogol proposed, but to inspire humans in their struggle for the Kingdom of God. 13 Dostoevsky’s view of reality as inseparable from religious principles builds on Gogol’s thinking. 14 about psychological aspects of human nature / of Gogol’s realism which exposed / mirrored harsh social realities of the time.
What better way for Serov to confirm his ties to the Russian soil and his adherence to the principles of pochvennichestvo as elucidated by Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Grigoriev than to draw on the Apocrypha for a story that, despite its non-national content, presents the spirit of Orthodoxy. With its typical imagery derived from a reality that reflects a high ethical content, criteria Grigoriev deemed essential to satisfy veinie, Judith, Alexander Serov’s first opera, exemplifies the ideal of nineteenth-century Russianness. 15
For more about the role of the nurse character in Serov’s Judith, see Judith Barger, The Nurse in History and Opera: From Servant to Sister (Lexington Books, 2024).
Notes
- Izbrannie trudi, ii (Moscow, 1954), 336; cited in Gerald Abraham, Essays on Russian and East European Music (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 54.
- Richard Taruskin, Opera and Drama as Preached and Practiced in the 1860s, Russian Music Studies No. 2 (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1981), 45–48.
- Taruskin, Opera and Drama, 50.
- Iakor’ (1863), no. 13, 243–44, and no. 12, 223; both cited in Taruskin, Opera and Drama, 83.
- Taruskin, Opera and Drama, 81.
- Taruskin, Opera and Drama, 81.
- Alexander N. Serov, Kriticheskie stat ‘i III (Saint Petersburg, 1892), 1542; cited in Taruskin, Opera and Drama, 82.
- Vasily C. Zenkovsky, A History of Russian Philosophy, vol. 1., trans. George L. Kline (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), 414.
- Iakor’ (1863), no. 13, 243–44); cited in Taruskin, Opera and Drama, 84.
- Iakor’ (1863), no. 13, 243–44); cited in Taruskin, Opera and Drama, 84.
- Richard Taruskin, “Serov and Musorgsky,” in Slavonic and Western Music, Slavonic and Western Music: Essays for Gerald Abraham, Russian Music Studies no. 12, ed. Malcolm H. Brown (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press, 1985), 144, 150.
- Taruskin, Opera and Drama, 66.
- Vasily V. Zenkovsky, A History of Russian Philosophy, vol. 1, trans. George L. Kline (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), 406, 408.
- Vasily V. Zenkovsky, A History of Russian Philosophy, vol. 1, trans. George L. Kline (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), 428.
- Tamara Livanova, Operanaia kritika v Rossii II, part 4 (Moscow, 1973) cited in Taruskin, Opera and Drama, 84.
