Modest Tchaikovsky - Revision history

Brett: Text replacement - "any event" to "any case"

2024-02-29T09:24:33Z

Text replacement - "any event" to "any case"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:24, 29 February 2024
Line 26:		Line 26:
	His immediate confession to [[Anatoly]] led to the latter's increased horror, and, characteristically, to the charge of "blind imitation". How much of this charge is true remains an open question. Modest's famous biography of Tchaikovsky offers numerous proofs of his skill in distorting personal and family history. Although he insists that he was aware of his tastes from the start, one cannot rule out that the disclosure about Pyotr's proved crucial in his own final choice of sexual identity. "With this discovery", he wrote, "everything became different. Mankind split into 'ours' and 'theirs' [...] the earlier self-contempt changed into self-satisfaction, and pride in belonging to the 'chosen'" <ref name="note8"/>.		His immediate confession to [[Anatoly]] led to the latter's increased horror, and, characteristically, to the charge of "blind imitation". How much of this charge is true remains an open question. Modest's famous biography of Tchaikovsky offers numerous proofs of his skill in distorting personal and family history. Although he insists that he was aware of his tastes from the start, one cannot rule out that the disclosure about Pyotr's proved crucial in his own final choice of sexual identity. "With this discovery", he wrote, "everything became different. Mankind split into 'ours' and 'theirs' [...] the earlier self-contempt changed into self-satisfaction, and pride in belonging to the 'chosen'" <ref name="note8"/>.

	According to Modest, the revelation bore fruit three years later when Pyotr discussed the matter for the first time openly with the twins, and came to realize that Modest, not surprisingly, responded to his erotic concerns with reciprocity, which [[Anatoly]], who grew up decidedly heterosexual, failed to do. It is worth mentioning that from 1865 to 1867 Tchaikovsky's correspondence with the twins is uncommonly candid as regards sexual problems, including hints at and allusions to Modest's affairs with his classmates. In any ~~event~~, the recognition of what Modest calls their "moral resemblance" resulted in exceptional intimacy, and this relationship lasted for the rest of their lives: "I became a confidant in all his [Pyotr's] amorous escapades" <ref name="note9"/>. Thus the frustrated lover triumphed by exploiting what may have been an accident, the first instance when his urge to identify with the elder brother served as an advantage: the rival twin, [[Anatoly]], against whom he would have otherwise stood no chance, began for all practical purposes gradually to lose out.		According to Modest, the revelation bore fruit three years later when Pyotr discussed the matter for the first time openly with the twins, and came to realize that Modest, not surprisingly, responded to his erotic concerns with reciprocity, which [[Anatoly]], who grew up decidedly heterosexual, failed to do. It is worth mentioning that from 1865 to 1867 Tchaikovsky's correspondence with the twins is uncommonly candid as regards sexual problems, including hints at and allusions to Modest's affairs with his classmates. In any case, the recognition of what Modest calls their "moral resemblance" resulted in exceptional intimacy, and this relationship lasted for the rest of their lives: "I became a confidant in all his [Pyotr's] amorous escapades" <ref name="note9"/>. Thus the frustrated lover triumphed by exploiting what may have been an accident, the first instance when his urge to identify with the elder brother served as an advantage: the rival twin, [[Anatoly]], against whom he would have otherwise stood no chance, began for all practical purposes gradually to lose out.

	It appears that despite a series of involvements in the course of Modest's life, Pyotr remained the chief object of his passionate love, in which the sensual element, if any, was reduced to a minimum and replaced with affectionate, although unequal, partnership, which was not lacking in a sense of responsibility or moral ground. Rescuing his brother by personal example from what he considered at that stage an embarrassment played a major role in Tchaikovsky's disastrous decision to marry [[Antonina Milyukova]]. In turn, Modest seems to have totally succumbed to Tchaikovsky's influence and guidance, as follows from his unpublished letter of 22 October/3 November 1877 in which he emphatically recognized his moral debt to him: "If I have become any good for anything, it is thanks to you, do you understand this [...], it is not a 'façon de parler', but the very truth. The fact that I am not a lazybones, not a crook, not a queen, is due only to you, since I felt I was all these things; but I knew your displeasure, which is for me the worst torment" <ref name="note10"/>.		It appears that despite a series of involvements in the course of Modest's life, Pyotr remained the chief object of his passionate love, in which the sensual element, if any, was reduced to a minimum and replaced with affectionate, although unequal, partnership, which was not lacking in a sense of responsibility or moral ground. Rescuing his brother by personal example from what he considered at that stage an embarrassment played a major role in Tchaikovsky's disastrous decision to marry [[Antonina Milyukova]]. In turn, Modest seems to have totally succumbed to Tchaikovsky's influence and guidance, as follows from his unpublished letter of 22 October/3 November 1877 in which he emphatically recognized his moral debt to him: "If I have become any good for anything, it is thanks to you, do you understand this [...], it is not a 'façon de parler', but the very truth. The fact that I am not a lazybones, not a crook, not a queen, is due only to you, since I felt I was all these things; but I knew your displeasure, which is for me the worst torment" <ref name="note10"/>.
Line 55:		Line 55:
	Whether it was due to his fiasco with ''Ines de las Sierras'', or to the futility of his opposition regarding ''[[Yevgeny Onegin]]'', or to any other reason, it appears that he gave up for the entire subsequent decade (which may have caused him considerable disappointment) any further efforts to talk his brother into co-authoring an opera. In 1886 and 1887 they entertained for a time the idea of working together on the ballet ''[[Undina (projected ballet)\|Undina]]'', but soon dropped it <ref name="note28"/>. In fact, it is suggestive that their eventual, and most successful, collaboration on ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'' transpired in a very roundabout way, the initiative having been neither Tchaikovsky's nor Modest's, but rather that of [[Ivan Vsevolozhsky]], the Director of the Imperial Theatres, who was interested in a brilliant musical production that would combine eighteenth-century, singing, and dancing. Moreover, it was not at all Tchaikovsky to whom [[Vsevolozhsky]] initially suggested in 1885 producing an opera based on [[Pushkin]]'s tale, but the minor composer Nikolay Klenovsky, now altogether forgotten. In his turn, Klenovsky dismissed two other librettists before turning, on [[Vsevolozhsky]]'s advice, to Modest. It seems that Modest somehow managed to create in others a belief in his competence in libretto writing, although this must have been the first official commission of this sort he was ever offered. He started to work on the libretto, but almost immediately various persons involved with the theatre began to exert pressure to transfer the commission of the opera from Klenovsky to his own brother. What followed, although it took about two years, remains obscure: the extant documentation indicates that Modest came close to completing his part of the agreement; the same cannot be said about his collaborator: although Klenovsky's letters are full of assurances that the work was well on the way, apparently no product materialized and no manuscripts have been found.		Whether it was due to his fiasco with ''Ines de las Sierras'', or to the futility of his opposition regarding ''[[Yevgeny Onegin]]'', or to any other reason, it appears that he gave up for the entire subsequent decade (which may have caused him considerable disappointment) any further efforts to talk his brother into co-authoring an opera. In 1886 and 1887 they entertained for a time the idea of working together on the ballet ''[[Undina (projected ballet)\|Undina]]'', but soon dropped it <ref name="note28"/>. In fact, it is suggestive that their eventual, and most successful, collaboration on ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'' transpired in a very roundabout way, the initiative having been neither Tchaikovsky's nor Modest's, but rather that of [[Ivan Vsevolozhsky]], the Director of the Imperial Theatres, who was interested in a brilliant musical production that would combine eighteenth-century, singing, and dancing. Moreover, it was not at all Tchaikovsky to whom [[Vsevolozhsky]] initially suggested in 1885 producing an opera based on [[Pushkin]]'s tale, but the minor composer Nikolay Klenovsky, now altogether forgotten. In his turn, Klenovsky dismissed two other librettists before turning, on [[Vsevolozhsky]]'s advice, to Modest. It seems that Modest somehow managed to create in others a belief in his competence in libretto writing, although this must have been the first official commission of this sort he was ever offered. He started to work on the libretto, but almost immediately various persons involved with the theatre began to exert pressure to transfer the commission of the opera from Klenovsky to his own brother. What followed, although it took about two years, remains obscure: the extant documentation indicates that Modest came close to completing his part of the agreement; the same cannot be said about his collaborator: although Klenovsky's letters are full of assurances that the work was well on the way, apparently no product materialized and no manuscripts have been found.

	In any ~~event~~, in November 1889 Tchaikovsky received a formal offer to write music for ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'', and he accepted. "The libretto", Tchaikovsky wrote in a letter early in 1890, "has been previously prepared by no other than my brother Modest for a certain Mr Klenovsky (who, however, wrote nothing). I read it and liked it, and one fine day I decided to abandon everything [...] and to leave for some place abroad so that I could work there without impediment" <ref name="note29"/>. As it is, libretto writing constitutes a special kind of literary activity that seems to have better suited Modest's temperament: it concerns re-interpretation rather than inspiration, and tends towards the simplistic and melodramatic. Of numerous changes that [[Pushkin]]'s storyline underwent at the hands of the librettist, Modest is personally responsible for only few, such as Herman's spectacular suicide at the end. Others resulted from pressures exerted on him: thus, on grounds of staging, [[Vsevolozhsky]] insisted that the dramatic period be transferred from the reign of Aleksandr I to that of Catherine the Great, and the crucial episode of Liza's drowning in the Winter Canal was inserted, despite Modest's feeble protests, on Tchaikovsky's own decision. There is hardly any doubt that the composer held the whole story, and, in particular, the character of Herman, close to his heart.		In any case, in November 1889 Tchaikovsky received a formal offer to write music for ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'', and he accepted. "The libretto", Tchaikovsky wrote in a letter early in 1890, "has been previously prepared by no other than my brother Modest for a certain Mr Klenovsky (who, however, wrote nothing). I read it and liked it, and one fine day I decided to abandon everything [...] and to leave for some place abroad so that I could work there without impediment" <ref name="note29"/>. As it is, libretto writing constitutes a special kind of literary activity that seems to have better suited Modest's temperament: it concerns re-interpretation rather than inspiration, and tends towards the simplistic and melodramatic. Of numerous changes that [[Pushkin]]'s storyline underwent at the hands of the librettist, Modest is personally responsible for only few, such as Herman's spectacular suicide at the end. Others resulted from pressures exerted on him: thus, on grounds of staging, [[Vsevolozhsky]] insisted that the dramatic period be transferred from the reign of Aleksandr I to that of Catherine the Great, and the crucial episode of Liza's drowning in the Winter Canal was inserted, despite Modest's feeble protests, on Tchaikovsky's own decision. There is hardly any doubt that the composer held the whole story, and, in particular, the character of Herman, close to his heart.

	This involvement accounts for a series of interventions he made with the text written by his brother, cutting what he thought verbose and introducing parts of his own, of which the most significant are the effective finale of the third scene of the second act and Liza's arioso in the sixth scene of the third act. While work on an opera usually involves a relationship of some complexity between the librettist and the composer, in this case it provided Modest with an excellent opportunity to quell his frustration as a collaborator by accommodating his ideas to the wishes of his adored brother. Still, this was not without its costs: Tchaikovsky, always sensitive to psychological discomfort, responded with a remarkable measure of tact to what he suspected was Modest's annoyance at his interventions in his work: "It seems to me, Modin'ka, you find it somewhat disagreeable that in some places I spoiled some of the verses in your libretto, and I well understand that feeling. If one writes something, one should write it all. But, first, we are separated from each other by thousands of kilometres, which makes it impossible to communicate and confer regarding every detail. And, second, I have changed and added so little!" (3/15 March 1890) <ref name="note30"/>.		This involvement accounts for a series of interventions he made with the text written by his brother, cutting what he thought verbose and introducing parts of his own, of which the most significant are the effective finale of the third scene of the second act and Liza's arioso in the sixth scene of the third act. While work on an opera usually involves a relationship of some complexity between the librettist and the composer, in this case it provided Modest with an excellent opportunity to quell his frustration as a collaborator by accommodating his ideas to the wishes of his adored brother. Still, this was not without its costs: Tchaikovsky, always sensitive to psychological discomfort, responded with a remarkable measure of tact to what he suspected was Modest's annoyance at his interventions in his work: "It seems to me, Modin'ka, you find it somewhat disagreeable that in some places I spoiled some of the verses in your libretto, and I well understand that feeling. If one writes something, one should write it all. But, first, we are separated from each other by thousands of kilometres, which makes it impossible to communicate and confer regarding every detail. And, second, I have changed and added so little!" (3/15 March 1890) <ref name="note30"/>.

Brett at 19:11, 23 August 2023

2023-08-23T19:11:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 23 August 2023
Line 153:		Line 153:
	==External Links==		==External Links==
	* [[wikipedia:Modest_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky\|Wikipedia]]		* [[wikipedia:Modest_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky\|Wikipedia]]
			* {{viaf\|120738072}}

	==Notes and References==		==Notes and References==

Brett: Text replacement - "Klin House-Museum Archive" to "{{RUS-KLč}} at Klin"

2023-08-08T07:52:04Z

Text replacement - "Klin House-Museum Archive" to "{{RUS-KLč}} at Klin"

Tony: /* Notes and References */

2022-12-17T11:19:59Z

Notes and References

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:19, 17 December 2022
Line 177:		Line 177:
	<ref name="note20">Tchaikovsky, M. I. {{und\|Катерина Сиенская. Мистерия в восьми картинах}} [Catherine of Siena. A mystery in eight scenes] (Moscow, 1907).</ref>		<ref name="note20">Tchaikovsky, M. I. {{und\|Катерина Сиенская. Мистерия в восьми картинах}} [Catherine of Siena. A mystery in eight scenes] (Moscow, 1907).</ref>
	<ref name="note21">{{bib\|1992/49\|Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Il'ych}} (1992), p. 668.</ref>		<ref name="note21">{{bib\|1992/49\|Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Il'ych}} (1992), p. 668.</ref>
	<ref name="note22">Letter from Modest Tchaikovsky to the composer, 18/30 October 1869 — [[Klin]] House-Museum Archive (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5047.</ref>		<ref name="note22">Letter from Modest Tchaikovsky to the composer, 18/30 October 1869 — [[Klin]] House-Museum Archive (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5047).</ref>
	<ref name="note23">[[Letter 368]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 29 October/10 November 1874.</ref>		<ref name="note23">[[Letter 368]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 29 October/10 November 1874.</ref>
	<ref name="note24">[[Klin]] House-Museum Archive.</ref>		<ref name="note24">[[Klin]] House-Museum Archive.</ref>
	<ref name="note25">[[Klin]] House-Museum Archive (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5094: partially published in {{bib\|1958/14\|Музыкальное наследие Чайковского. Из историй его произведений}} (1958), p. 126-127.</ref>		<ref name="note25">[[Klin]] House-Museum Archive (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5094): partially published in {{bib\|1958/14\|Музыкальное наследие Чайковского. Из историй его произведений}} (1958), p. 126-127.</ref>
	<ref name="note26">\|[[Letter 565]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 18/30 May 1877.</ref>		<ref name="note26">\|[[Letter 565]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 18/30 May 1877.</ref>
	<ref name="note27">Modest's letter ~~criticising~~ Tchaikovsky's choice of ''[[Yevgeny Onegin]]'' has not survived. See the composer's reply in [[Letter 570]], 9/21 June 1877.</ref>		<ref name="note27">Modest's letter criticizing Tchaikovsky's choice of ''[[Yevgeny Onegin]]'' has not survived. See the composer's reply in [[Letter 570]], 9/21 June 1877.</ref>
	<ref name="note28">See {{bib\|1958/14\|Музыкальное наследие Чайковского. Из историй его произведений}} (1958), p. 186-187.</ref>		<ref name="note28">See {{bib\|1958/14\|Музыкальное наследие Чайковского. Из историй его произведений}} (1958), p. 186-187.</ref>
	<ref name="note29">[[Letter 4014]] to [[Yuliya Shpazhinskaya]], 26 January/7 February 1890.</ref>		<ref name="note29">[[Letter 4014]] to [[Yuliya Shpazhinskaya]], 26 January/7 February 1890.</ref>

Tony: /* Dedications */

2022-12-17T10:55:26Z

Dedications

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:55, 17 December 2022
Line 88:		Line 88:

	==Dedications==		==Dedications==
	In 1878 Tchaikovsky dedicated his [[Twelve Pieces, Op. 40]] for piano to Modest.		In 1878, Tchaikovsky dedicated his [[Twelve Pieces, Op. 40]] for piano to Modest.

	==Correspondence with Tchaikovsky==		==Correspondence with Tchaikovsky==

Tony: /* The Biographer */ Added "is" for sentence structure

2022-12-17T10:53:49Z

The Biographer: Added "is" for sentence structure

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:53, 17 December 2022
Line 78:		Line 78:
	All this occasioned biographical gaps and puzzles, to the bewilderment of later students. It led him, for instance, to obscure the affair of Tchaikovsky's marriage to [[Antonina Milyukova]] and to explain his violent response to it by referring simply, with no further motive, to a psychological breakdown—which is in part responsible for the popular image of the composer as a hysterical subject. Moreover, in this process of romanticization, and under the influence both of public attitudes and his own private wish to identify with his brother, Modest projected upon him several of his own characteristics, such as a penchant for melodrama (evident in his playwriting), excessive ''Weltschmerz'' (typical of his diaries rather than Tchaikovsky's), and a touch of mysticism, to be amended by consulting epistolary and other sources.		All this occasioned biographical gaps and puzzles, to the bewilderment of later students. It led him, for instance, to obscure the affair of Tchaikovsky's marriage to [[Antonina Milyukova]] and to explain his violent response to it by referring simply, with no further motive, to a psychological breakdown—which is in part responsible for the popular image of the composer as a hysterical subject. Moreover, in this process of romanticization, and under the influence both of public attitudes and his own private wish to identify with his brother, Modest projected upon him several of his own characteristics, such as a penchant for melodrama (evident in his playwriting), excessive ''Weltschmerz'' (typical of his diaries rather than Tchaikovsky's), and a touch of mysticism, to be amended by consulting epistolary and other sources.

	All things considered, it imperative to protest against the view, which is now gaining some influence, that Modest was secretly jealous of his brother and may even have wished him ill, and that this is what makes his biography unreliable <ref name="note36"/>. There exists not a scrap of evidence to support such an allegation. Furthermore, it is both logically and psychologically implausible. If Modest were to have entertained, even in the slightest, anything of the sort, it would have surfaced in his narrative in the insidious manner of which he was quite capable, as is testified by his artful treatment of various persons whom he did not like, on the surface entirely respectful, but resonant with double entendre. Of course, nothing of the sort is discoverable in Modest's texts regarding Tchaikovsky: on the contrary, he made a remarkable effort to rectify, justify and glorify everything that his brother ever did.		All things considered, it is imperative to protest against the view, which is now gaining some influence, that Modest was secretly jealous of his brother and may even have wished him ill, and that this is what makes his biography unreliable <ref name="note36"/>. There exists not a scrap of evidence to support such an allegation. Furthermore, it is both logically and psychologically implausible. If Modest were to have entertained, even in the slightest, anything of the sort, it would have surfaced in his narrative in the insidious manner of which he was quite capable, as is testified by his artful treatment of various persons whom he did not like, on the surface entirely respectful, but resonant with double entendre. Of course, nothing of the sort is discoverable in Modest's texts regarding Tchaikovsky: on the contrary, he made a remarkable effort to rectify, justify and glorify everything that his brother ever did.

	Towards the end of his life, as though anticipating the reproaches which posterity would level at him for all the things he had passed over in silence or left blurred in his biography of Tchaikovsky—a strategy that he had consciously adopted, in deference to the times he lived in—Modest set about writing, but did not manage to complete, his "Autobiography," in which he devoted a great deal of space to intimate details of his brother's life. At the very start of this document there is a note to the reader: "If some day people glance at this manuscript, as I am counting on, though I almost have no hope that they will—may they be rewarded for the interest they take in my obscure existence by what I have to say about my brother Pyotr."		Towards the end of his life, as though anticipating the reproaches which posterity would level at him for all the things he had passed over in silence or left blurred in his biography of Tchaikovsky—a strategy that he had consciously adopted, in deference to the times he lived in—Modest set about writing, but did not manage to complete, his "Autobiography," in which he devoted a great deal of space to intimate details of his brother's life. At the very start of this document there is a note to the reader: "If some day people glance at this manuscript, as I am counting on, though I almost have no hope that they will—may they be rewarded for the interest they take in my obscure existence by what I have to say about my brother Pyotr."
Line 84:		Line 84:
	Finally, a few words on Modest's self-portrayal. The very logic of the biographical method deriving from documents and aiming at the appearance of objectivity increasingly forced him into self-effacement. Still, one discerns a few signs of Modest's desire to impress upon the reader that he enjoyed a greater role in his brother's creative labours than he actually did: for example, in his insistence that it was he who invented the title "''[[Pathétique]]''" for Tchaikovsky's last symphony, while its occurrence in a letter from [[Pyotr Jurgenson]] to the composer two months earlier speaks forcefully against that <ref name="note37"/>. While this and similar concessions to vanity are minor and relatively innocuous, Modest's maladroit attempts to disguise his neglect of his brother on the first fateful day of his illness created a series of implausibilities in his account of Tchaikovsky's last days which are still exploited by partisan scholars who promote the myth of his suicide.		Finally, a few words on Modest's self-portrayal. The very logic of the biographical method deriving from documents and aiming at the appearance of objectivity increasingly forced him into self-effacement. Still, one discerns a few signs of Modest's desire to impress upon the reader that he enjoyed a greater role in his brother's creative labours than he actually did: for example, in his insistence that it was he who invented the title "''[[Pathétique]]''" for Tchaikovsky's last symphony, while its occurrence in a letter from [[Pyotr Jurgenson]] to the composer two months earlier speaks forcefully against that <ref name="note37"/>. While this and similar concessions to vanity are minor and relatively innocuous, Modest's maladroit attempts to disguise his neglect of his brother on the first fateful day of his illness created a series of implausibilities in his account of Tchaikovsky's last days which are still exploited by partisan scholars who promote the myth of his suicide.

	On the other hand, for the most part, the necessarily impersonal character of his narrative made Modest feel newly frustrated, along with the need to conceal in his biographical magnum opus the whole sexual dimension of Tchaikovsky and thus offer to the reader only a truncated image of the composer. This recognition may well have prompted him later on to start a parallel project, namely, his own autobiography, with the intention of telling the truth about both his own and his brother's personal life. Although he never completed it, the extant text is remarkable in its candid confession of homosexuality, most rare and unusual in that period, and in that respect comparable, perhaps, only to the autobiography of John Addington Symonds.		On the other hand, for the most part, the necessarily impersonal character of his narrative made Modest feel newly frustrated, along with the need to conceal in his biographical magnum opus the whole sexual dimension of Tchaikovsky and thus offer to the reader only a truncated image of the composer. This recognition may well have prompted him later on to start a parallel project, namely his own autobiography, with the intention of telling the truth about both his own and his brother's personal life. Although he never completed it, the extant text is remarkable in its candid confession of homosexuality, most rare and unusual in that period, and in that respect comparable, perhaps, only to the autobiography of John Addington Symonds.
	''{{right\|Alexander Poznansky}}''		''{{right\|Alexander Poznansky}}''

Tony: /* The Biographer */

2022-12-17T10:43:00Z

The Biographer

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:43, 17 December 2022
Line 68:		Line 68:
	It may appear that the prospect of writing that biography provided Modest with an opportunity he must have longed for: to appropriate his beloved brother by recreating fully his life and thus finally to identify with him. It was probably not by chance that the original idea that the work should be written by a team of four—Modest himself, [[Sergey Taneyev]], [[Nikolay Kashkin]] and [[Herman Laroche]]—came to nothing: whatever their objective disagreements may have been, this project surely ran up against Modest's deep-seated, even if probably subconscious, urge to proceed on his own. When this was settled, he had to deliberate on the shape the future work would take and on the part he would play in his own narrative. I submit that this question made him confront a plethora of contradictory impulses which, in the last analysis, are responsible for a series of idiosyncrasies in the eventual product. First, there was the matter of genre: it is tempting to speculate that Modest's innermost desire was to write it in the form of a memoir. That would allow him to preserve an intimate link with his subject, but would naturally incur the charge of subjectivity. Although he decided in the end on a different mode, much personal spontaneity, typical of the memoiristic style, remained, especially in the first volume. It endowed the text with a recognizable flair of the great man's life penned by a family member, with all the virtues and faults of that kind of endeavour, such as affectionate insight, on the one hand, and wilful omissions on the other.		It may appear that the prospect of writing that biography provided Modest with an opportunity he must have longed for: to appropriate his beloved brother by recreating fully his life and thus finally to identify with him. It was probably not by chance that the original idea that the work should be written by a team of four—Modest himself, [[Sergey Taneyev]], [[Nikolay Kashkin]] and [[Herman Laroche]]—came to nothing: whatever their objective disagreements may have been, this project surely ran up against Modest's deep-seated, even if probably subconscious, urge to proceed on his own. When this was settled, he had to deliberate on the shape the future work would take and on the part he would play in his own narrative. I submit that this question made him confront a plethora of contradictory impulses which, in the last analysis, are responsible for a series of idiosyncrasies in the eventual product. First, there was the matter of genre: it is tempting to speculate that Modest's innermost desire was to write it in the form of a memoir. That would allow him to preserve an intimate link with his subject, but would naturally incur the charge of subjectivity. Although he decided in the end on a different mode, much personal spontaneity, typical of the memoiristic style, remained, especially in the first volume. It endowed the text with a recognizable flair of the great man's life penned by a family member, with all the virtues and faults of that kind of endeavour, such as affectionate insight, on the one hand, and wilful omissions on the other.

	Close to Modest's own time, the worst example would be Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche's biography of her brother, and one of the best would be the life of Nikolay Leskov written by his son. The alternative would be an impartial narrative based exclusively on the documents, and that is what Modest ostensibly set out to achieve. In an interview printed in the periodical ''Family'' (Семья) he mentioned as the model he intended to emulate Thomas Moore's biography of [[Lord Byron]] <ref name="note33"/>. Not was only Moore [[Byron]]'s closest friend and passionate admirer, but it was well known that before embarking upon his task he destroyed [[Byron]]'s own private papers. By referring to Moore, therefore, Modest betrayed unwittingly his own intentions and procedures: not only selectivity regarding the documents he was prepared to make public, but also interference with them if he thought it imperative. This basic conflict between two tendencies—memoiristic and documentary—must have caused Modest frustration that he never resolved. He had to accept that the documents, carefully selected and arranged, would possess a much greater persuasive force in fulfilling his agenda, that is, in impressing upon the reader the image of the composer he wished, than would his own personal ruminations.		Close to Modest's own time, the worst example would be Elisabeth Forster-Nietzsche's biography of her brother, and one of the best would be the life of Nikolay Leskov written by his son. The alternative would be an impartial narrative based exclusively on the documents, and that is what Modest ostensibly set out to achieve. In an interview printed in the periodical ''Family'' (Семья), he mentioned as the model he intended to emulate Thomas Moore's biography of [[Lord Byron]] <ref name="note33"/>. Not was only Moore [[Byron]]'s closest friend and passionate admirer, but it was well known that before embarking upon his task he destroyed [[Byron]]'s own private papers. By referring to Moore, therefore, Modest betrayed unwittingly his own intentions and procedures: not only selectivity regarding the documents he was prepared to make public, but also interference with them if he thought it imperative. This basic conflict between two tendencies—memoiristic and documentary—must have caused Modest frustration that he never resolved. He had to accept that the documents, carefully selected and arranged, would possess a much greater persuasive force in fulfilling his agenda, that is, in impressing upon the reader the image of the composer he wished, than would his own personal ruminations.

	This, however, led to the apparent withdrawal of his own presence from the narrative, with the consequence that the last two volumes comprise mostly excerpts from Tchaikovsky's voluminous correspondence, accompanied by short interpolations by the author to clarify the details. In the process, the biographer's perspective, although it is never wholly absent, became obfuscated, even confused, and at times it is contradicted by the very evidence purporting to uphold it, which undercuts both the consistency and the credibility of the discourse. What resulted is, of course, not a biography in any modem sense, but what [[Nikolay Kashkin]] correctly called "the materials for a biography" <ref name="note34"/> which, incidentally, constitute within the Russian tradition of life-writing a respectable sub-genre: one is reminded, for instance, of similar "material", on [[Pushkin]], collected by Pavel Annenkov and Pyotr Bartenev.		This, however, led to the apparent withdrawal of his own presence from the narrative, with the consequence that the last two volumes comprise mostly excerpts from Tchaikovsky's voluminous correspondence, accompanied by short interpolations by the author to clarify the details. In the process, the biographer's perspective, although it is never wholly absent, became obfuscated, even confused, and at times it is contradicted by the very evidence purporting to uphold it, which undercuts both the consistency and the credibility of the discourse. What resulted is, of course, not a biography in any modem sense, but what [[Nikolay Kashkin]] correctly called "the materials for a biography" <ref name="note34"/> which, incidentally, constitute within the Russian tradition of life-writing a respectable sub-genre: one is reminded, for instance, of similar "material" on [[Pushkin]], collected by Pavel Annenkov and Pyotr Bartenev.

	It remains uncertain as to what extent Modest was aware of his own motivation. One's impression is that much of his bias in regard to a number of individuals is emotional and perhaps unreflective, owing either to personal dislike or to the belief that they had caused some kind of harm to his beloved brother. The memoirists, starting with [[Nikolay Kashkin]] and [[Herman Laroche]], took measures to connect Modest's versions of Tchaikovsky's relationship with, for instance, the Rubinstein brothers and [[Nadezhda von Meck]], and later scholars have revised many of his pronouncements about the composer's attitude toward his musical contemporaries, including the "Mighty Five" <ref name="note35"/>.		It remains uncertain as to what extent Modest was aware of his own motivation. One's impression is that much of his bias in regard to a number of individuals is emotional and perhaps unreflective, owing either to personal dislike or to the belief that they had caused some kind of harm to his beloved brother. The memoirists, starting with [[Nikolay Kashkin]] and [[Herman Laroche]], took measures to connect Modest's versions of Tchaikovsky's relationship with, for instance, the Rubinstein brothers and [[Nadezhda von Meck]], and later scholars have revised many of his pronouncements about the composer's attitude toward his musical contemporaries, including the "Mighty Five" <ref name="note35"/>.

Tony: /* The Collaborator */

2022-12-17T10:28:52Z

The Collaborator

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:28, 17 December 2022
Line 61:		Line 61:
	The cost was, however, slight in the face of their mutual success. "I am firmly convinced", Tchaikovsky wrote in this connection, "that ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'' is a very fine and, most importantly, a very original work, and I say this not only in respect to its music but in general" <ref name="note31"/>. The critical response to Modest's libretto varied from strong censure to the proclamation that it was, "in its own way, a ''chef d'oeuvre''" <ref name="note32"/>. It is true that when read in retrospect, some portions of it appear awkward, and even (like Herman's repeated effusions on the subject of his love for Liza) inadvertently humorous. But it remains no less clear that Tchaikovsky's music worked a marvel and transformed the whole into a superior and sublime artistic experience.		The cost was, however, slight in the face of their mutual success. "I am firmly convinced", Tchaikovsky wrote in this connection, "that ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'' is a very fine and, most importantly, a very original work, and I say this not only in respect to its music but in general" <ref name="note31"/>. The critical response to Modest's libretto varied from strong censure to the proclamation that it was, "in its own way, a ''chef d'oeuvre''" <ref name="note32"/>. It is true that when read in retrospect, some portions of it appear awkward, and even (like Herman's repeated effusions on the subject of his love for Liza) inadvertently humorous. But it remains no less clear that Tchaikovsky's music worked a marvel and transformed the whole into a superior and sublime artistic experience.

	The success of ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'' prompted the brothers to collaborate again in 1891, this time at the composer's own initiative, on the one-act opera ''[[Iolanta]]'' based on the play ''King ~~Rene~~'s Daughter'' by [[Henrik Hertz]]. Although the surviving documents do not allow any particular insight into Tchaikovsky's treatment of Modest's scenario, there is an impression that, despite a series of personal misfortunes, they worked in relative harmony. Like all of Tchaikovsky's operas, ''[[Iolanta]]'' was greeted by a mixed reception, and its libretto was disapproved by the critics, but this was hardly the reason why, in April 1893, the composer declined Modest's last two offers of cooperation in that genre: on a libretto ''Nal and Damaianti'' (the story derived from the ''Mahabharata''), which years later was used by [[Anton Arensky]]; and another, on the subject of the long-suffering ''[[Undina (projected opera)\|Undina]]'', which he was preparing at the time for [[Sergei Rachmaninoff]]. By then Tchaikovsky felt full confidence in his brother's abilities and justified his refusal on the grounds of mere personal taste. It appears paradoxical, but also instructive, that only long after his brother's death did Modest achieve what may be considered, from a certain viewpoint, a fulfilment of his promise as a librettist: although he did collaborate in those years with several minor composers (among them with [[Eduard Nápravník]] on his opera ''Dubrovsky''), it was his aforementioned mystery play, ''St. Catherine of Siena'' which, in my view, exhibits remarkable operatic qualities as regards both conception and execution, and one may only regret that it never aroused any interest in the world of music.		The success of ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'' prompted the brothers to collaborate again in 1891, this time at the composer's own initiative, on the one-act opera ''[[Iolanta]]'' based on the play ''King René's Daughter'' by [[Henrik Hertz]]. Although the surviving documents do not allow any particular insight into Tchaikovsky's treatment of Modest's scenario, there is an impression that, despite a series of personal misfortunes, they worked in relative harmony. Like all of Tchaikovsky's operas, ''[[Iolanta]]'' was greeted by a mixed reception, and its libretto was disapproved by the critics, but this was hardly the reason why, in April 1893, the composer declined Modest's last two offers of cooperation in that genre: on a libretto ''Nal and Damaianti'' (the story derived from the ''Mahabharata''), which years later was used by [[Anton Arensky]]; and another, on the subject of the long-suffering ''[[Undina (projected opera)\|Undina]]'', which he was preparing at the time for [[Sergei Rachmaninoff]]. By then, Tchaikovsky felt full confidence in his brother's abilities and justified his refusal on the grounds of mere personal taste. It appears paradoxical, but also instructive, that only long after his brother's death did Modest achieve what may be considered, from a certain viewpoint, a fulfilment of his promise as a librettist: although he did collaborate in those years with several minor composers (among them with [[Eduard Nápravník]] on his opera ''Dubrovsky''), it was his aforementioned mystery play, ''St. Catherine of Siena'' which, in my view, exhibits remarkable operatic qualities as regards both conception and execution, and one may only regret that it never aroused any interest in the world of music.

	===The Biographer===		===The Biographer===

Tony: /* The Collaborator */

2022-12-17T10:17:03Z

The Collaborator

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:17, 17 December 2022
Line 53:		Line 53:
	Modest's next and more elaborate effort ended, however, in disaster. In the spring of 1877, on his own initiative, he produced a detailed opera scenario ''Ines de las Sierras'', based on the novella by the French romanticist Charles Nodier, which offered a remarkable hodge-podge of nonsense: an ancient curse, a twice-murdered maiden, and the silliest possible ''quid pro quo'' <ref name="note25"/>. Tchaikovsky's response was not devoid of sarcasm: "This is what I want to tell you regarding ''Ines''. It did not rouse even a shadow of interest in me. Nor did it give me the slightest desire to start working—a sure sign that this scenario possesses no potential for a good opera. I find that the sufferings of ''Ines'' are melodramatically romantic and resemble certain cheap novels. And there are no true characters at all [...] No, my friend Modya, you are not fit to be a librettist, but merci for your good intentions" (18/30 May 1877) <ref name="note26"/>. Although the composer was often sensitive to his brother's opinions, he proved intransigent in cases where their disagreement centred on what he believed to be a major creative issue—as occurred, for instance, with his choice of [[Pushkin]]'s ''[[Yevgeny Onegin]]'' as the subject of an opera, a choice that Modest, strongly but in vain, tried to discourage <ref name="note27"/>.		Modest's next and more elaborate effort ended, however, in disaster. In the spring of 1877, on his own initiative, he produced a detailed opera scenario ''Ines de las Sierras'', based on the novella by the French romanticist Charles Nodier, which offered a remarkable hodge-podge of nonsense: an ancient curse, a twice-murdered maiden, and the silliest possible ''quid pro quo'' <ref name="note25"/>. Tchaikovsky's response was not devoid of sarcasm: "This is what I want to tell you regarding ''Ines''. It did not rouse even a shadow of interest in me. Nor did it give me the slightest desire to start working—a sure sign that this scenario possesses no potential for a good opera. I find that the sufferings of ''Ines'' are melodramatically romantic and resemble certain cheap novels. And there are no true characters at all [...] No, my friend Modya, you are not fit to be a librettist, but merci for your good intentions" (18/30 May 1877) <ref name="note26"/>. Although the composer was often sensitive to his brother's opinions, he proved intransigent in cases where their disagreement centred on what he believed to be a major creative issue—as occurred, for instance, with his choice of [[Pushkin]]'s ''[[Yevgeny Onegin]]'' as the subject of an opera, a choice that Modest, strongly but in vain, tried to discourage <ref name="note27"/>.

	Whether it was due to his fiasco with Ines de las Sierras, or to the futility of his opposition regarding ''[[Yevgeny Onegin]]'', or to any other reason, it appears that he gave up for the entire subsequent decade (which may have caused him considerable disappointment) any further efforts to talk his brother into co-authoring an opera. In 1886 and 1887 they entertained for a time the idea of working together on the ballet ''[[Undina (projected ballet)\|Undina]]'', but soon dropped it <ref name="note28"/>. In fact, it is suggestive that their eventual, and most successful, collaboration on ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'' transpired in a very roundabout way, the initiative having been neither Tchaikovsky's nor Modest's, but rather that of [[Ivan Vsevolozhsky]], the Director of the Imperial Theatres, who was interested in a brilliant musical production that would combine eighteenth-century, singing, and dancing. Moreover, it was not at all Tchaikovsky to whom [[Vsevolozhsky]] initially suggested in 1885 producing an opera based on [[Pushkin]]'s tale, but the minor composer Nikolay Klenovsky, now altogether forgotten. In his turn, Klenovsky dismissed two other librettists before turning, on [[Vsevolozhsky]]'s advice, to Modest. It seems that Modest somehow managed to create in others a belief in his competence in libretto writing, although this must have been the first official commission of this sort he was ever offered. He started to work on the libretto, but almost immediately various persons involved with the theatre began to exert pressure to transfer the commission of the opera from Klenovsky to his own brother. What followed, although it took about two years, remains obscure: the extant documentation indicates that Modest came close to completing his part of the agreement; the same cannot be said about his collaborator: although Klenovsky's letters are full of assurances that the work was well on the way, apparently no product materialized and no manuscripts have been found.		Whether it was due to his fiasco with ''Ines de las Sierras'', or to the futility of his opposition regarding ''[[Yevgeny Onegin]]'', or to any other reason, it appears that he gave up for the entire subsequent decade (which may have caused him considerable disappointment) any further efforts to talk his brother into co-authoring an opera. In 1886 and 1887 they entertained for a time the idea of working together on the ballet ''[[Undina (projected ballet)\|Undina]]'', but soon dropped it <ref name="note28"/>. In fact, it is suggestive that their eventual, and most successful, collaboration on ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'' transpired in a very roundabout way, the initiative having been neither Tchaikovsky's nor Modest's, but rather that of [[Ivan Vsevolozhsky]], the Director of the Imperial Theatres, who was interested in a brilliant musical production that would combine eighteenth-century, singing, and dancing. Moreover, it was not at all Tchaikovsky to whom [[Vsevolozhsky]] initially suggested in 1885 producing an opera based on [[Pushkin]]'s tale, but the minor composer Nikolay Klenovsky, now altogether forgotten. In his turn, Klenovsky dismissed two other librettists before turning, on [[Vsevolozhsky]]'s advice, to Modest. It seems that Modest somehow managed to create in others a belief in his competence in libretto writing, although this must have been the first official commission of this sort he was ever offered. He started to work on the libretto, but almost immediately various persons involved with the theatre began to exert pressure to transfer the commission of the opera from Klenovsky to his own brother. What followed, although it took about two years, remains obscure: the extant documentation indicates that Modest came close to completing his part of the agreement; the same cannot be said about his collaborator: although Klenovsky's letters are full of assurances that the work was well on the way, apparently no product materialized and no manuscripts have been found.

	In any event, in November 1889 Tchaikovsky received a formal offer to write music for ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'', and he accepted. "The libretto", Tchaikovsky wrote in a letter early in 1890, "has been previously prepared by no other than my brother Modest for a certain Mr Klenovsky (who, however, wrote nothing). I read it and liked it, and one fine day I decided to abandon everything [...] and to leave for some place abroad so that I could work there without impediment" <ref name="note29"/>. As it is, libretto writing constitutes a special kind of literary activity that seems to have better suited Modest's temperament: it concerns re-interpretation rather than inspiration, and tends towards the simplistic and melodramatic. Of numerous changes that [[Pushkin]]'s storyline underwent at the hands of the librettist, Modest is personally responsible for only few, such as Herman's spectacular suicide at the end. Others resulted from pressures exerted on him: thus, on grounds of staging, [[Vsevolozhsky]] insisted that the dramatic period be transferred from the reign of Aleksandr I to that of Catherine the Great, and the crucial episode of Liza's drowning in the Winter Canal was inserted, despite Modest's feeble protests, on Tchaikovsky's own decision. There is hardly any doubt that the composer held the whole story, and, in particular, the character of Herman, close to his heart.		In any event, in November 1889 Tchaikovsky received a formal offer to write music for ''[[The Queen of Spades]]'', and he accepted. "The libretto", Tchaikovsky wrote in a letter early in 1890, "has been previously prepared by no other than my brother Modest for a certain Mr Klenovsky (who, however, wrote nothing). I read it and liked it, and one fine day I decided to abandon everything [...] and to leave for some place abroad so that I could work there without impediment" <ref name="note29"/>. As it is, libretto writing constitutes a special kind of literary activity that seems to have better suited Modest's temperament: it concerns re-interpretation rather than inspiration, and tends towards the simplistic and melodramatic. Of numerous changes that [[Pushkin]]'s storyline underwent at the hands of the librettist, Modest is personally responsible for only few, such as Herman's spectacular suicide at the end. Others resulted from pressures exerted on him: thus, on grounds of staging, [[Vsevolozhsky]] insisted that the dramatic period be transferred from the reign of Aleksandr I to that of Catherine the Great, and the crucial episode of Liza's drowning in the Winter Canal was inserted, despite Modest's feeble protests, on Tchaikovsky's own decision. There is hardly any doubt that the composer held the whole story, and, in particular, the character of Herman, close to his heart.

Tony: /* The Playwright */ Added "is" for sentence structure

2022-12-17T10:02:02Z

The Playwright: Added "is" for sentence structure

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:02, 17 December 2022
Line 44:		Line 44:
	One quality of his famous brother that Modest, despite repeated efforts, never succeeded in emulating was his tenacious ability to follow, under any circumstances, a regular work routine. This, in particular, seems to have bothered the composer, as is clear from his letter to his sister-in-law of 10/22 November 1886: "Modest, as always, leads a very hollow and fashionable life, and feels it very much a burden, but owing to the weakness of his character he is unable to sit down and, at least for a span of time, do his work without visiting or receiving anyone" <ref name="note18"/>. This partially accounts for Modest's failure as a writer to achieve true professionalism and full mastery over his chosen medium: whatever he wrote carries the clear mark of a dilettante. One suspects, however, that there existed a yet deeper cause of all this, that is, Modest's half-conscious rivalry with his brother in a futile attempt to come to terms with the latter's genius, which was bound to cripple his own creativity. Be that as it may, one is left with no doubt about the intensity of Modest's emotional investment in his playwriting — to the extent that it could even impinge upon his passionate devotion to Pyotr, as it did during the composer's last illness.		One quality of his famous brother that Modest, despite repeated efforts, never succeeded in emulating was his tenacious ability to follow, under any circumstances, a regular work routine. This, in particular, seems to have bothered the composer, as is clear from his letter to his sister-in-law of 10/22 November 1886: "Modest, as always, leads a very hollow and fashionable life, and feels it very much a burden, but owing to the weakness of his character he is unable to sit down and, at least for a span of time, do his work without visiting or receiving anyone" <ref name="note18"/>. This partially accounts for Modest's failure as a writer to achieve true professionalism and full mastery over his chosen medium: whatever he wrote carries the clear mark of a dilettante. One suspects, however, that there existed a yet deeper cause of all this, that is, Modest's half-conscious rivalry with his brother in a futile attempt to come to terms with the latter's genius, which was bound to cripple his own creativity. Be that as it may, one is left with no doubt about the intensity of Modest's emotional investment in his playwriting — to the extent that it could even impinge upon his passionate devotion to Pyotr, as it did during the composer's last illness.

	On the fateful day when Tchaikovsky fell ill with cholera, Modest, too preoccupied with the rehearsals of his newest play ''Prejudices'', did not pay sufficient attention to the alarming symptoms and left his brother for a few crucial hours without medical assistance, which delayed the urgently-needed diagnosis and thus indirectly contributed to the tragic outcome. Modest's sense of guilt is responsible for subtle distortions and omissions that vitiate his lengthy account of Tchaikovsky's last days and make it factually unreliable. Still, there remains a psychological puzzle, viewed by his contemporaries as a sign of insensitivity, in the fact that Modest did not bother to cancel the premiere of his play at the Aleksandrinsky Theatre in [[Saint Petersburg]], which took place on the very day of Tchaikovsky's funeral <ref name="note19"/>.		On the fateful day when Tchaikovsky fell ill with cholera, Modest, too preoccupied with the rehearsals of his newest play ''Prejudices'', did not pay sufficient attention to the alarming symptoms and left his brother for a few crucial hours without medical assistance, which delayed the urgently needed diagnosis and thus indirectly contributed to the tragic outcome. Modest's sense of guilt is responsible for subtle distortions and omissions that vitiate his lengthy account of Tchaikovsky's last days and make it factually unreliable. Still, there remains a psychological puzzle, viewed by his contemporaries as a sign of insensitivity, in the fact that Modest did not bother to cancel the premiere of his play at the Aleksandrinsky Theatre in [[Saint Petersburg]], which took place on the very day of Tchaikovsky's funeral <ref name="note19"/>.

	It noteworthy that what may be considered Modest's finest literary achievement, the tragedy in verse ''St. Catherine of Siena'', was written almost fifteen years after the composer's death, and with it he may have finally reached beyond his brother's shadow <ref name="note20"/>. Strikingly different in subject and style from the rest of his output, this is perhaps his only play that merits ''einen Versuch zur Rettung''. Set in the early Renaissance, it is rich in dramatic effects and imbued with an authentic spirit of mysticism. One cannot help observing affinities with early modernist aesthetics in Pyotr Tchaikovsky's mature work, and it has even been suggested that if he had lived he would have felt comfortable with the artistic movements of the Russian 'Silver Age' <ref name="note21"/>. This is even more evident in the case of Modest: a mystery play like ''St. Catherine of Siena'' could easily have been written by a younger Symbolist contemporary, such as [[Dmitry Merezhkovsky]].		It is noteworthy that what may be considered Modest's finest literary achievement, the tragedy in verse ''St. Catherine of Siena'', was written almost fifteen years after the composer's death, and with it he may have finally reached beyond his brother's shadow <ref name="note20"/>. Strikingly different in subject and style from the rest of his output, this is perhaps his only play that merits ''einen Versuch zur Rettung''. Set in the early Renaissance, it is rich in dramatic effects and imbued with an authentic spirit of mysticism. One cannot help observing affinities with early modernist aesthetics in Pyotr Tchaikovsky's mature work, and it has even been suggested that if he had lived he would have felt comfortable with the artistic movements of the Russian 'Silver Age' <ref name="note21"/>. This is even more evident in the case of Modest: a mystery play like ''St. Catherine of Siena'' could easily have been written by a younger Symbolist contemporary, such as [[Dmitry Merezhkovsky]].

	===The Collaborator===		===The Collaborator===

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:52, 8 August 2023
Line 161:		Line 161:
	<ref name="note4">[[Letter 395]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 12/24 March 1875.</ref>		<ref name="note4">[[Letter 395]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 12/24 March 1875.</ref>
	<ref name="note5">Yuryev, Yu. {{und\|Записки ; vol. 1}} (Moscow; Leningrad, 1963), p. 412.</ref>		<ref name="note5">Yuryev, Yu. {{und\|Записки ; vol. 1}} (Moscow; Leningrad, 1963), p. 412.</ref>
	<ref name="note6">Modest's autobiography («Автобиография») — typescript in the [[Klin]] ~~House-Museum Archive~~ (б{{sup\|2}}, No. 21), p. 95.</ref>		<ref name="note6">Modest's autobiography («Автобиография») — typescript in the {{RUS-KLč}} at [[Klin]] (б{{sup\|2}}, No. 21), p. 95.</ref>
	<ref name="note7">Modest's autobiography — typescript in the [[Klin]] ~~House-Museum Archive~~ (б{{sup\|2}}, No. 21), p. 71.</ref>		<ref name="note7">Modest's autobiography — typescript in the {{RUS-KLč}} at [[Klin]] (б{{sup\|2}}, No. 21), p. 71.</ref>
	<ref name="note8">Modest's autobiography — typescript in the [[Klin]] ~~House-Museum Archive~~ (б{{sup\|2}}, No. 21), p. 71.</ref>		<ref name="note8">Modest's autobiography — typescript in the {{RUS-KLč}} at [[Klin]] (б{{sup\|2}}, No. 21), p. 71.</ref>
	<ref name="note9">Modest's autobiography — typescript in the [[Klin]] ~~House-Museum Archive~~ (б{{sup\|2}}, No. 21), p. 71.</ref>		<ref name="note9">Modest's autobiography — typescript in the {{RUS-KLč}} at [[Klin]] (б{{sup\|2}}, No. 21), p. 71.</ref>
	<ref name="note10">Letter from Modest Tchaikovsky to the composer, 22 October/3 November 1877 — [[Klin]] ~~House-Museum Archive~~ (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5097). For more about the relationship between the brothers see {{bib\|1993/186\|Tchaikovsky. The Quest for the Inner Man}} (1993).</ref>		<ref name="note10">Letter from Modest Tchaikovsky to the composer, 22 October/3 November 1877 — {{RUS-KLč}} at [[Klin]] (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5097). For more about the relationship between the brothers see {{bib\|1993/186\|Tchaikovsky. The Quest for the Inner Man}} (1993).</ref>
	<ref name="note11">Letter from Modest Tchaikovsky to the composer, 27 August/8 September 1882 — [[Klin]] ~~House-Museum Archive~~ (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5232.</ref>		<ref name="note11">Letter from Modest Tchaikovsky to the composer, 27 August/8 September 1882 — {{RUS-KLč}} at [[Klin]] (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5232.</ref>
	<ref name="note12">[[Letter 373]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 26 November/8 December 1874.</ref>		<ref name="note12">[[Letter 373]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 26 November/8 December 1874.</ref>
	<ref name="note13">[[Letter 130]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 1/13 February 1869.</ref>		<ref name="note13">[[Letter 130]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 1/13 February 1869.</ref>
Line 177:		Line 177:
	<ref name="note20">Tchaikovsky, M. I. {{und\|Катерина Сиенская. Мистерия в восьми картинах}} [Catherine of Siena. A mystery in eight scenes] (Moscow, 1907).</ref>		<ref name="note20">Tchaikovsky, M. I. {{und\|Катерина Сиенская. Мистерия в восьми картинах}} [Catherine of Siena. A mystery in eight scenes] (Moscow, 1907).</ref>
	<ref name="note21">{{bib\|1992/49\|Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Il'ych}} (1992), p. 668.</ref>		<ref name="note21">{{bib\|1992/49\|Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Il'ych}} (1992), p. 668.</ref>
	<ref name="note22">Letter from Modest Tchaikovsky to the composer, 18/30 October 1869 — [[Klin]] ~~House-Museum Archive~~ (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5047).</ref>		<ref name="note22">Letter from Modest Tchaikovsky to the composer, 18/30 October 1869 — {{RUS-KLč}} at [[Klin]] (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5047).</ref>
	<ref name="note23">[[Letter 368]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 29 October/10 November 1874.</ref>		<ref name="note23">[[Letter 368]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 29 October/10 November 1874.</ref>
	<ref name="note24">[[Klin]] ~~House-Museum Archive~~.</ref>		<ref name="note24">{{RUS-KLč}} at [[Klin]].</ref>
	<ref name="note25">[[Klin]] ~~House-Museum Archive~~ (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5094): partially published in {{bib\|1958/14\|Музыкальное наследие Чайковского. Из историй его произведений}} (1958), p. 126-127.</ref>		<ref name="note25">{{RUS-KLč}} at [[Klin]] (a{{sup\|4}}, No. 5094): partially published in {{bib\|1958/14\|Музыкальное наследие Чайковского. Из историй его произведений}} (1958), p. 126-127.</ref>
	<ref name="note26">\|[[Letter 565]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 18/30 May 1877.</ref>		<ref name="note26">\|[[Letter 565]] to Modest Tchaikovsky, 18/30 May 1877.</ref>
	<ref name="note27">Modest's letter criticizing Tchaikovsky's choice of ''[[Yevgeny Onegin]]'' has not survived. See the composer's reply in [[Letter 570]], 9/21 June 1877.</ref>		<ref name="note27">Modest's letter criticizing Tchaikovsky's choice of ''[[Yevgeny Onegin]]'' has not survived. See the composer's reply in [[Letter 570]], 9/21 June 1877.</ref>