rancorous criticism, the argument would be won in his favor simply by default.This turned out to be a vain hope, as the arguments were being constantlyjuggled by his opponents always with the aim of casting him in an unfavorablelight. Most vociferous among them were the critics Serov (until his death in1871), Stasov, and Cui, all of whom rarely missed an opportunity to attack thework of the Conservatory, and Rubinstein, in any way they could. For them theissue of the Conservatory, whether or not they realized it, had become inextri-cably entangled with their attitude toward Rubinstein himself.

The source of this antagonism is bound up with the emergence of the NewRussian School headed by Balakirev. In Germany Liszt had waged war againstphilistinism in art with the formation of the Neu-Weimar-Verein and his sup-port for Berlioz and Wagner. Stasov, also guided by an admiration for Liszt,wanted to create a school in Russia that would be both progressive and nation-ally distinctive. Throughout the 1870s Stasov and the other members of Balaki-rev’s circle maintained contact with Liszt, and the “delegations” headed by Cuiin 1876, and Borodin the following year, were intended to 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 of each other, but it was not justopen rivalry that divided them. Something went far deeper. Before Rubinstein’sdeparture 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 onlyon the concert platform but as a composer. One of his operas had been per-formed in Weimar, and his Ocean Symphony had been heard at the Gewandhaussubscription concerts in Leipzig. At this time Balakirev and his fellow kuchkists2

had achieved nothing worthy of note, and one can easily see how a reaction setin against the man who was telling them how the musical affairs of Russia wereto be organized henceforth. This attitude was at least partially based on envy ofRubinstein’s European reputation at a time when even Glinka’s works werebarely known outside Russia. In publishing his article “Composers in Russia”Rubinstein had unwittingly played into the hands of his critics, providing themwith all the ammunition they needed to begin a war of words. With all the skillof trained lawyers, they proved to be quite adept at focusing on the aspects ofhis writing that could best be turned to their advantage.

In 1855, when “Composers in Russia” appeared, music education in Russiawas almost completely unsystematic. The government trained singers and or-chestral players for the imperial stage, but in most other respects music was apastime for members of the aristocratic elite who had studied with resident for-eign musicians. Rubinstein’s clear intention in the article had been to cultivatea more serious attitude toward the teaching and composition of music in Russia.While stressing the importance of professionalism, he had heaped scorn on themusical dilettantes, and among Russian composers had dismissed everyone ex-

xviii Introduction