Conclusiones

After Oresteia’s premiere at the Mariinsky Theatre in St Petersburg in 1895, the critics decided that Taneyev’s work enjoyed some close relation to that of Aeschylus: ‘[Aeschylus] wrote in dead language, and [Taneyev] wrote a dead opera’ (Anon. 1895b). One critic concluded that there was no reason in ‘bringing back the dead in order to put to sleep those who are still living’ (Anon. 1895a). Many reviewers agreed that Taneyev’s musical language was plain and unmemorable, with the exception of the choral scenes, which they found melodically rich and interesting. But many of these reviewers were not prominent or even professional musicians, and while they found the music of Oresteia lacking in memorable melodies, many of Taneyev’s colleagues had different opinions. Thus, Rimsky- Korsakov wrote after hearing Taneyev play the opera on the piano at his

62 Anastasia Belina

4. Taneyev’s choice also reflected the stance of Russian revolutionary- democratic criticism of the last decades of the nineteenth century, which ‘discovered in Ancient Greece characteristics of ideal social order’ (Korabelnikova 1979: 100). One of the most important characteristics of this kind of order was the right of every citizen to appeal to and take part in civil court.

house in St Petersburg that he ‘astonished us all with pages of extraordinary beauty and expressiveness’ (Rimsky-Korsakov 1935: 323). Tchaikovsky, although he did not approve of the subject for Taneyev’s Oresteia, never- theless admired the work so much that in 1893 he convinced the Directorate of the Imperial Theatres in St Petersburg to produce it at the Mariinsky Theatre (Zhdanov 1951: 188). A music critic and composer, Herman Larosh, a friend and colleague of both Tchaikovsky and Taneyev, wrote that the music of Oresteia was ‘noble, delicate, rich in beautiful melodies’, and that it suited very well ‘the character of his chosen story and reflects all its nuances with wonderful truthfulness and warmth’ (Larosh 1974–78: 345). Thus, many members of the professional com- munity were far from believing that Taneyev’s opera lacked in musical invention and interest.

Aeschylus created his trilogy for an audience that knew several ver- sions of the myth, but he introduced a number of important changes and innovations in his own version. Michael Ewans discusses these changes in detail, listing among the most important a move away from Homer’s ‘all- too-feminine Clytemnestra’, who was ‘chaste and at first unwilling’, and who was seduced by Aegysthus into helping him kill Agamemnon, to a ‘strong, masculine-inspired Clytemnestra who does the murder herself ’

(Ewans in Aeschylus 1995: xxviii–xxix).5 _{Greek history and Greek and}

Latin were among the obligatory subjects in nineteenth-century Russian universities, and many translations of philosophical and literary works from Greek appeared in various academic journals and publications of the time. However, none were of considerable merit, and many were of poor quality. I. F. Annensky published the first important translation of Greek tragedy, Euripides’ The Bacchae in 1894, the year in which Taneyev com- pleted his Oresteia. The works of Aeschylus were not well known, and only one Russian translation of The Oresteia existed when Taneyev began his work on the opera (Aeschylus 1864).

Taneyev’s listeners were much less acquainted with the tragedy, and some of his changes were necessitated by this lack of familiarity with the story. For example, while Aeschylus does not refer to Clytemnestra’s intent to kill Agamemnon until after his return (Aeschylus 1995: 34), Taneyev’s audience learned of her decision before Agamemnon came back. Aeschylus’ Aegysthus enters the stage after Agamemnon’s death, but Taneyev’s Aegysthus appears before Agamemnon’s arrival. Aegysthus’ early entry in the opera allowed Taneyev to develop his role, by giving Aegysthus a monologue in which he disclosed another part of the history

of the house of Atreus – Thyestes’ feast.6_{Taneyev’s Clytemnestra tells the}

audience about the sacrificial murder of her daughter Iphigenia, while in the original tragedy, the event is recounted by the Elders.

This article aims to explore the ways in which the female roles of Clytemnestra and Cassandra in Taneyev’s Oresteia compare and relate to their counterparts in Aeschylus’ version, and attempts to show how these women fit into the general context of the nineteenth-century Russian opera. Musical analysis here will be contextual and descriptive, to illustrate how the music supported and enhanced the portrayal of these two characters.

Taneyev’s Oresteia is a three-act opera and the acts are named accord- ing to the corresponding parts of Aeschylus’ tragedy: Agamemnon, The

63

Representation of Clytemnestra and Cassandra in Taneyev’s Oresteia

5. The translation by Michael Ewans has been used throughout this article. It was found to be most appropriate because it attempted to make the tragedy more accessible and suitable for the modern stage, and it is also one of the most recent translations in existence (see Ewans in Aeschylus 1995: xv).

6. Agamemnon’s father, Atreus, killed his own nephews, and fed their flesh to their father, and his brother, Thyestes.

Libation Bearers, and Choephoroe. In addition to the central female roles of

Clytemnestra and Cassandra that are discussed here, there are also those of Electra and the goddess Athena, and women, of course, form a part of the chorus.