No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Chaikovskii’s Visit to Prague in 1888
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
Abstract
The foreign travels of Petr Il'ich Chaikovskii have never been a particular issue to scholars of his life and work. Even in such demonstrably important cases as his visits to the opening of the Bayreuth Festival and to Paris during which he heard Bizet’s Carmen for the first time, his tours—which brought him as far as New York City for the opening of Carnegie Hall—are treated perfunctorily, without objectivity, balance, or due regard for the impact his travel may have had on his music. This is not surprising, since Chaikovskii was not by profession a touring virtuoso; it is his musical composition which looms large in the biography as a whole. An experience which was called “the high point of earthly glory” the composer was destined to achieve, however, merits examination in detail. Chaikovskii himself claimed his visit to Prague in February 1888 constituted the “best and happiest days of [his] life” and brought him a “moment of absolute bliss.” An investigation of why Chaikovskii considered his stay there important is essential. Because the exploration of these questions depends on a scrutiny of Russian sources, this article will also be an investigation of how documents are used (or misused) to write history.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1981
References
This article is based on a paper given at the Tenth World Congress of the Czechoslovak Arts and Sciences in Washington, D.C., October 18, 1980.
1. This is one of many comparable areas of neglect. In a political age we know virtually nothing about the composer's attitudes toward politics, and we lack a truly convincing explanation of his response to the great philosophical issues debated in the Russia of his time.
2. Modest Il'ich Chaikovskii, , Zhizn’ Petra Il'icha Chaikovskago, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Moscow, 1901-3), 3:223 Google Scholar.
3. Ibid., 3:222. Chaikovskii made the statement in a speech in Prague.
4. Dnevniki P. I. Chaikovskogo (Moscow and Petrograd, 1923), p. 198. In English, see The Diaries of Tchaikovsky, trans. Wladimir Lakond (New York, 1945), p. 233.
5. Chaikovskii conducted the first version of his Overture in F in St. Petersburg on November 14, 1865 and the entracte and dances from his opera The Voevoda in Moscow on February 19, 1868. When conducting in these early years the composer suffered a phobia—that his head would have fallen off if he had not held it in place—which no doubt affected his attitude toward conducting. On February 13,1877, Chaikovskii conducted Marche slave in Moscow “very unskillfully, very uncourageously and unconfidently. “ Though nothing came of the idea at the time, he commented further (in a letter to his sister): “In general at this time I will seek out occasions to appear publicly as a conductor of my works. I must overcome my insane shyness, since, if my plan of travel abroad materializes, I will have to be my own Kapellmeister” (see Chaikovskii, P. I., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Literaturnyeproizvedeniia iperepiska [Moscow, 1953-], 6:114 Google Scholar (hereafter cited as PSS). Regarding Chaikovskii's claims of his own ineptitude as a conductor, see Chaikovskii, M. I., Zhizn, 1:176-77,266Google Scholar. In English, see The Life & Letters of Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky by Modeste Tchaikovsky, ed. Rosa Newmarch (London, 1906), pp. 53, 89-90.
6. See Muzykal'nyefel'etony izametki Petra Il'icha Chaikovskago (1868-1876g.) (Moscow, 1898), pp. 357-59 or, in English, Rosa, Newmarch, Tchaikovsky. His Life and Works, With Extracts from his Writings, and the Diary of his Tour Abroad in 1888, ed. Edwin Evans, Sr. (London, 1900), pp. 168–71 Google Scholar. In fairness it must be recognized that Chaikovskii was a complex man, and the mere fact of his stating an opinion or giving a reason for his action does not make that statement or opinion a reliable indication of his views over any length of time. What exempts the composer's remarks about conducting from suspicion are first that he prepared them for publication and second that his explanation is consistent with later pronouncements. Regarding his wish to propagandize abroad for other Russian composers, Chaikovskii planned a concert in Paris, for which he was to have arranged the finances himself. In anticipation of this concert he met with Rimskii-Korsakov, Liadov, and Glazunov the day before he left St. Petersburg to arrange a program (Muzykal'nye fel'etony, p. 361). This concert never took place.
7. Arnol'd Aleksandrovich Al'shvang makes the interesting claim that Chaikovskii turned to conducting because Nikolai Rubinshtein was no longer alive to propagandize for his works (Al'shvang, P. I. Chaikovskii, 3rd ed. [Moscow, 1970], p. 545).
8. See, for example, the exchange of letters between Napravnik and Chaikovskii at the time of the first performance of Cherevichki ( Napravnik, E. F., Avtobiograficheskie, tvorcheskie materialy, dokumenty, pis'ma, ed. Iu. V. Keldysh [Leningrad, 1959], pp. 143–Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Materialy).
9. Napravnik, Vladimir Eduardovich, “Moi vospominaniia o Chaikovskom,” in Vospominaniia o P. I. Chaikovskom, 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1973), p. 255 Google Scholar.
10. See Napravnik, E. F., Materialy, pp. 113-16, 124, 151-52, 263, 366Google Scholar.
11. Kashkin, Nikolai Dmitrievich, Vospominaniia o P. I. Chaikovskom (Moscow, 1896),pp. 147–51Google Scholar.
12. M. I. Chaikovskii, Zhizn', 3:198-99.
13. See Iakovlev, Vasilii Vasil'evich, Dni i gody P. I. Chaikovskogo. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva (Moscow and Leningrad, 1940), p. Leningrad Google Scholar.
14. See P. I. Chaikovskii, PSS, 13:534; Chaikovskii's emphasis.
15. Ibid., 14:24.
16. Ibid., p. 30.
17. Ibid., p. 58; my emphasis.
18. Vasilii Vasil'evich Iakovlev, for example, in an article rare for being devoted specifically to Chaikovskii's conducting, points out that the legend of Chaikovskii as a poor conductor was nourished by some of his failures but exaggerated by Chaikovskii himself and his close friends and that “fear and neurosis” make up only one aspect of his conducting—artistic results make up the other, evidence of which he cites (see Iakovlev, , Izbrannye trudy o muzyke, 2 vols. [Moscow, 1964-71], 1:411–16Google Scholar).
19. Critics generally affirmed Chaikovskii's ability as a conductor. Kashkin's observations about the Fifth Symphony refer to an exception, and Modest, despite his disapproval of Chaikovskii's conducting, cites reviews in his biography from the international press which are predominantly favorable. Chaikovskii, amused but proud, cited a special case to his Paris agent concerning his St. Petersburg debut: “The Petersburg concert has been perhaps the most beautiful day of my artistic life. It was a veritable triumph. It is claimed that I am a very good conductor. Mr. Cesar Cui (who detests me cordially) could not refrain from writing in his notice of the concert that I conducted the orchestra perfectly and that I have a great talent for it” (Chaikovskii, PSS, 14:68).
20. Prague, of course, was not a national, but a provincial capital. In Russian sources we hear of an interest in Chaikovskii's music in Prague as early as December 1874, when “Dr. L. Prochazka” requests scores of his quartets (see Napravnik, E. F., Materialy, p. 99Google Scholar). Prague is also the city in which Chaikovskii chose to conduct Evgenii Onegin and the Violin Concerto for the first time and the Fifth Symphony in its first performance outside of Russia (see Iakovlev, , Dni i gody, pp. 737–Google Scholar).
21. This account has been summarized from Štěpánek, Vladimir, Pražské návštěvy P. I. návštávy Čajkovského (Prague, 1952), pp. 17–20 Google Scholar.
22. The fullest Russian account comes from Modest (see Chaikovskii, M. I., Zhizn, 3:218-24Google Scholar). Readers of Newmarch's Life of Tchaikovsky are at a disadvantage: she edited out half of the account of the Prague trip contained in Modest's original. Stepanek elaborates Modest's account with information from Czech sources and excerpts from press releases (see Štěpánek, Pražské návštěvy návštávy, pp. 29-46,67-100).
23. Chaikovskii, M. I., Zhizn, 3:221Google Scholar. (This speech was reprinted in P. I. Chaikovskii, PSS, 14: 620-22.)
24. P. I. Chaikovskii, PSS, 14:363-65.
25. Ibid., p. 365.
26. Štěpánek mentions, in addition, the desire of the Praguers to follow the example of Paris and other cultural centers in welcoming Russian music (see Stepanek, , Prazske ndvstevy, p. 18 Google Scholar).
27. Chaikovskii, M. I., Zhizn, 3:222Google Scholar.
28. See, for example, letters of February 10/22, 1888 to Meek and to Anatolii Chaikovskii (P. I. Chaikovskii, PSS, 14:363-65); see also part of Chaikovskii's banquet address of February 7/19, 1888 (quoted in Chaikovskii, M. I., Zhizn, 3:221Google Scholar) and StSpanek, , Prazske ndvstevy, pp. 64–66Google Scholar.
29. Chaikovskii, M. I., Zhizn, 3:223Google Scholar.
30. Ibid., pp. 223-24.
31. In fact, at least two articles about the Prague visit were published in Russia, but they either did not satisfy Chaikovskii's desire for publicity, or he did not know about them (see Novosli dnia, February 12, 1888 and Muzykal'noe obozrenie, February 25, 1888).
32. Chaikovskii, P. I., Muzyko-kritkheskie stat'i (Moscow, 1953), pp. 363–64 Google Scholar.
33. Russkii vestnik, February 1894, quoted in ibid., p. 419.
34. Modest's insistence on Chaikovskii's modesty may well be part of the idealized public image of the composer he seemed to be promoting throughout Zhizn'. While Chaikovskii was certainly not a braggart, he was not monkish either. It took a later generation of Chaikovskii scholarship to reveal some of the less saintly aspects of his personality, such as Vladimir Napravnik's anecdote relating to a visit with the composer at Klin: “very rarely did he express an observation which bore witness to the fact that in the depth of his soul he knew his own worth. Thus, once in conversation with me, when the subject turned to Alexander 111, Petr Il'ich said, ‘What is a tsar to me! 1 myself in music am a tsar! “’ (see Napravnik, V. E., Vospominaniia, pp. 257–58Google Scholar). One does not find such things in Modest.
35. See, for example, Iakovlev, , Dni igody. p. 737Google Scholar and Hájek, Ladislav, Paměti Augustina Bergra; choreografa a baletniho mistra Ndrodniho Divadla v Praze a několike světovych seen (Prague, 1942), p. 158 Google Scholar.
36. Napravnik, E. F., Malerialy, p. 151Google Scholar.
37. See P. I. Chaikovskii, PSS. 14:364-65.
38. A synopsis of the action, with a drawing of scenes from the production, was published in Zlatd Praha, March 2, 1888, pp. 237-38. The choreographic divisions of the ballet are listed on posters of the performance preserved at the Narodni Muzei, Prague; that from the first performance is reproduced in Slonimskii, lurii Iosifovich, P. I. Chaikovskii i balelnyi teatr ego vremeni (Moscow, 1956), plates between pp. 144–45Google Scholar.
39. In 1869 Chaikovskii had composed an opera based on this story, some of the music of which he later incorporated into Swan Lake (notably the love duet of Odette and Siegfried in Act II). Given the composer's fascination for the tale, it is hardly surprising that he agreed to compose to it again in 1886. Indeed, Vsevolozhskii may have been aware of Chaikovskii's attraction to it and proposed it for this reason.