'Tchaikovsky's Last Days': I

Author(s): Alexander Poznansky and David Brown

Source: Music & Letters , Aug., 1998, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Aug., 1998), pp. 463-468
Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/855392

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Music & Letters

This content downloaded from

147.213.4.22 on Sun, 28 Nov 2021 18:05:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CORRESPONDENCE

To the Editors of 'Music & Letters'

PARRY
PARRY S THIRD
S THIRD
STRING
STRING QUARTETmentioned,
QUARTET mentioned,even
eventhough
though
other
other
scholars
scholars
are'. are'.
This This
misses
missesthe
thepoint
pointofofthethe
nature
nature
of the
of the
preface:
preface:
it is it is
II should
shouldlikelike
to clarify
to clarify
a statement
a statement I an
I made in my an attempt
attempt
made in my totoplace
placethethe
workworkin some
in somesort sort
of of
review
review of of
Michael
Michael
Allis's Allis's
edition of
edition
Parry's of
Third
Parry's Third perspective
historical/critical
historical/critical perspectivebefore
before
its reappear-
its reappear-
String
String Quartet
Quartet (see Music
(see & Music
Letters,
& lxxviii
Letters, ance,
ance, not
(1997),
lxxviii not totodiscuss
(1997), discuss anyany
opinions
opinions of the
of work
the work
472-3).
472-3). Page
Page
xv of xvJeremy
of Jeremy
Dibble's book
Dibble's
on Parry afterwards.
afterwards.
book on Parry The
The suggestion
suggestion of aof'reluctance
a 'reluctance
to to
makes
makes it it
clear
clear
that that
the manuscript
the manuscript acknowledge
of this quartet
of acknowledge
this quartetDibble's
Dibble'spioneering
pioneeringwork work
on Parry'
on Parry'
was
wasidentified
identifiedby Stephen
by Stephen
Banfield;Banfield;
however, thereon
on my
mypart
however, part therefore
theretherefore hashas
no no
factual
factual
basis.basis.
No one
No one
were
were apparently
apparently
some some
contributions to the quar-is
contributions is
tomore
more
the aware
awarethan
quar- thanI am
I am
of of
thethe
importance
importance
of of
tet's
tet'sdiscovery
discoveryby Michael
by Michael
Allis, although
Allis,Dr Dibble's
Dibble'swork,
although work,
DrandandI have
I have
referred
referred
to itto
elsewhere
it elsewhere
Dibble
Dibble does
does
not not
quantify
quantify
the workthe involved.
work I involved.
on
on several I
severaloccasions
occasions (see,
(see,
forfor
example,
example,my review
my review
should
should like
like
to place
to place
Dr Dibble's
Dr Dibble's
indebtedness
indebtedness
to
of
of his
hisbook, to
book,C.C.
Hubert
Hubert
H. H.
Parry:
Parry:
his Life
his Life
and Music,
and Music,
Dr
DrAllis
Allis
on on
record
record
(as indeed
(as he
indeed
does himself
he doesin in
himself
in The
TheBritishinMusic
British MusicSociety
Society
News,
News,
lviii lviii
(une (une
1993),1993),
the
thebook's
book's
introduction)
introduction)
and to correct
and to any mis-209-10).
correct209-10).
anyI Imis-
should
shouldalso
also
like
like
to point
to point
out out
that,that,
in in
leading
leading impression
impression
I may Ihave
maygiven
have
in my
given
review.
inaddition
addition to
tothe
my review. the
score,
score,
parts
parts
of the
of the
quartet
quartet
are inare in
J.
J.BARRIE
BARRIEJONES fact available.
JONES
The
TheOpen
OpenUniversity
University MICHAEL ALLIS

Walton
Walton Hall,
Hall, Department of Academic Studies,
Milton
Milton Keynes
Keynes
MK7 MK7
6AA. 6AA. Royal Academy of Music,
Marylebone Road,
London NW1 5HT.
II should
should likelike
to thank
to thank
J. Barrie
J.Jones
Barriefor Jones
his for his
review
review of of
my my edition
edition
of Parry's
of Third
Parry's StringThird
J. BarrieString
J. Barrie Jones
Jonesreplies:
replies:
Quartet
Quartet (Music
(Music& Letters,
& Letters,
lxxviii (1997),
lxxviii472-3).
(1997),
Dr 472-3).
Dr Allis
Allis isisquite
quitecorrect,
correct, andand
I offer
I offermymy apolo-
apolo-
There
There are,
are,
however,
however,
a numbera number
of misleading of gies
misleading
gies to
to him.
him.I Iconfess
confess that
thatmy myonlyonlyexcuse-not
excuse-not a a
comments
comments whichwhich
need to
need
be addressed.
to be addressed.
Jonesgood Jones
good one-is
one-is that
thatone
onemight
might read
reada volume
a volume many many
mistakenly
mistakenly conjectures
conjectures
that thethat
sourcethe of mysource
times
times butofthe
but my
the preface
preface only
onlyonce.
once.
ThisThis
incident
incident
onlyonly
information
information regarding
regarding
the reappearance
the reappearance
and iden- goes
goes and
to
to show
show
iden- how
howcrucial
crucialprefaces
prefaces cancan
be. be.
In myIn my
tification
tification of the
of quartet
the quartet
manuscript
manuscript .own
is 'in fact . .isown
'in defence,
defence,
fact . . .however,
however, maymay I point
I point outoutthatthat
I I
Jeremy]
Jeremy] Dibble's
Dibble's
book onbook
Parry'.
on'In Parry'.
fact' the'In fact'
realized
realized my
my the
error
errorquite
quitesoon
soon andandintimated
intimated thisthis
sources were conversations I had with Professor in the above letter to the Editors some six weeks
before
Stephen Banfield and Philip Thomas (who also Dr Allis's communication?

kindly sent me a copy of the manuscript, hence

their inclusion in my list of acknowledgements),
which actually predate Dibble's book, as does the 'TCHAIKOVSKY'S LAST DAYS': I
rest of the information contained in the preface.
The continual juxtaposition by Jones of Dibble In his review-article 'How Did Tchaikovsky
and myself regarding comments on structuralCome to Die-and Does it Really Matter?'
features of the quartet is also misleading. Bearing(Music & Letters, lxxviii (1997), 581-8), in which
in mind the obvious and striking nature of these he reviews my book Tchaikovsky's Last Days: a
features, it is not surprising that Dibble and IDocumentary Study (Oxford, 1996), David Brown
make similar points. I am therefore being criti- merely recycles his previous pronouncements on
cized for not citing a source which I have not used.the subject of Tchaikovsky's death, instead of
Continuing in similar vein, Jones expressestaking account of the evidence presented in my
surprise that 'nowhere in the preface is Dibblebook. In the final analysis, the allegation that

463

This content downloaded from

147.213.4.22 on Sun, 28 Nov 2021 18:05:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tchaikovsky took his own life on the orders of a While he correctly reports that I took to task all
'court of honour' that was seeking to protect his informants, starting with Orlova, who produced
Alma Mater's reputation from the taint of the no documentary material to support their extra-
composer's homosexual involvement with a ordinary claims,3 Brown calls 'disgraceful' what he
young aristocrat is based on nothing more than construes as my own wilful choice not to obtain a
second- or third-hand hearsay. By continuing to written statement from Inna Voitova, the widow of
promote this fantasy, Brown once more shows his the alleged primary source for the 'court of
refusal to take full consideration of the psychology honour' story, Aleksandr Voitov, to the effect that
and sociology of rumour. It is a common experi- she never heard of it from her husband, but that I
ence that individuals who spread rumours tend referred instead to my telephone conversation with
both to invent 'facts' without actually realizing her. Brown may put his wrath to rest. I was unable
what they are doing and to distort them further to meet Mrs Voitova during my short stay in St
at every stage of transmission. Petersburg, but after my book had been published
I was, however, amazed to find in Brown's I received from her a signed document dated
article some extraordinary 'revelations' about 1 September 1997 which runs as follows: 'Dear
myself. After summarizing the conclusions on Mr. Poznansky! In answer to your enquiry, this is
Tchaikovsky's final illness by the late Russian to declare that the rumours spread by Mrs A. A.
microbiologist Nikolay Blinov, Brown states, in Orlova in the West about the so-called 'court of
all innocence: 'There seems to be a dynastic honour' and the suicide of the composer P. I.
obsession with Tchaikovsky's end in the Blinov Tchaikovsky in the name of my late husband
family, for it appears that Alexander Poznansky is Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Voitov (who died in
Blinov's son' (!). This is emblematic of the schol- 1966) have no basis in fact and belong to the
arly methods of Brown and the person who realm of fiction and elaborate fantasies' (my
originated the entire controversy, Alexandra translation from the Russian).4
Orlova: they readily grasp at and parade any So much for Brown's argumentum ad hominem,
piece of nonsense they happen to hear, if they always a poor tool in intellectual debate, centring
deem it helpful for their purpose, without further on my Russian origin, my imagined family and-
enquiring as to its veracity or testing it against implicitly-my lack of scholarly integrity.5 As
more reliable, or documentary, evidence.' In this regards an argumentum ad rem, he declares that
case, I am prepared to present my birth certificate my earlier biography of the composer- Tchai-
to prove that I am not related in any way kovsky: the Quest for the Inner Man (New York,
whatsoever to the late Dr Nikolay Orestovich 1991; London, 1993)-suffers from two 'fatal
Blinov, of whose existence I did not even know
until after his death.2 3 As a professional archivist, Orlova ought to have
asked Aleksandr Voitov to sign her transcript of their
conversation and thus ensure its accuracy, which she
never did. Similarly, Nataliya Kuznetsova-Vladimova,
' Thus, in her original account Mrs Orlova managed Brown's other source of information, never produced an
to misname the very person who, according to her, was entry from her father's diary that, according to her, tells
responsible for the entire 'court of honour' story-the the story of Tchaikovsky's suicide.
widow of Nikolay Jacobi (whom she called Elizaveta, 4 As regards Anthony Holden's television film Who
instead of Ekaterina); she never bothered to enquire Killed Tchaikovsky?, cited by Brown, and Holden's belief
into the circumstances of the Stenbock-Fermor family to that Inna Voitova confirmed to him that she heard the
which belonged the young man whom Tchaikovsky 'court of honour' story from her husband, it must be
allegedly tried to seduce, and then she appropriated my remembered that Holden does not speak Russian. Any
own findings without attribution. Brown, for his part, native Russian speaker watching Holden's film will realize
never tried to verify Orlova's 'evidence'. that Mrs Voitova was not saying anything about the 'court
2 In fact, in the preface to the very book that Brown was of honour' affair, while Holden's interpreter made it
reviewing (p. ix), I wrote: 'During my recent visits to the appear that she had acknowledged it. Holden's failure
Tchaikovsky archives in Klin I was pleased to discover that to master the Tchaikovsky material in a proper fashion is
evident from the fact that his film ends with a photograph
a thorough research on Tchaikovsky's last illness, sup-
ported by documentation, had been undertaken by the of the composer's nephew Bob Davydov which is said to
late Russian microbiologist Nikolay Blinov and that, be a portrait of the young Tchaikovsky!
independent of my own endeavors, the conclusions 5 Does Brown seriously believe that such scholars as
Blinov has reached are identical to mine'. Incidentally, I Richard Taruskin or Simon Karlinsky reject the suicide
anticipated most of Nikolay Blinov's argument about theory merely because of their 'Russian origin'? To
cholera in my first refutation of Orlova's thesis, an article Brown's credit, however, he abstained from speculating
which Brown chose not to mention at all; see Alexander on my sexual orientation, which regrettably could not be
said about Paul Griffiths, whose review of my biography is
Poznansky, 'Tchaikovsky's Suicide: Myth and Reality',
19th Century Music, xi (1987-8), 199-220. cited by Brown.

464

This content downloaded from

147.213.4.22 on Sun, 28 Nov 2021 18:05:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
flaws': that 'it discounts Tchaikovsky's music' and Brown extends the charge of 'advocacy' to my
that in it my 'stance is not that of a scholar, but of documentary study of Tchaikovsky's last days: 'It
an advocate, at least when it comes to Tchai- is as though he [Poznansky] sees Tchaikovsky in
kovsky's sexual nature'. I made clear at the the dock accused of suicide. There is evidence to
outset of the book that it was concerned with support the charge, but no conclusive proof; there
Tchaikovsky's life, not compositions. The latteris evidence against the charge, but no conclusive
have received ample attention in Brown's own proof. Therefore the accused is to be judged "not
four-volume biography of Tchaikovsky (even guilty", and "acquitted".' Brown misreads, or
though the reader may not always agree withmisrepresents,
the my procedures. Once again, Tchai-
kovsky does not stand in need of an advocate: if he
author's critical interpretations), and I have never
claimed any expertise in musicology. indeed took his own life, it was a matter of his
private
As to his charge that I write as 'an advocate', it choice, and the task of the biographer is to
makes no sense. Advocate of whom or of what? ascertain the truth. In fact, my approach is not
Tchaikovsky needs no advocacy, nor does homo- juridical, but criminological, which requires that
every piece of evidence about the alleged
sexuality: it is a condition known to many, and it
depends on one's views or prejudices whether one conspiracy-cum-suicide be subjected to close
considers it natural or not. That Tchaikovsky at scrutiny, respecting the maxim 'that if a single
some point came to think of it as natural followsfact cannot be encompassed by a theory, that
from his use of that very word in a letter to histheory has then to be unequivocally rejected'.8
brother Anatoly on 13/25 February 1878 from It will be idle, and out of place here, to reiterate
Florence: 'Only now, especially after the tale ofmy objections to Brown's 'evidence', every single
my marriage, have I finally begun to understand piece of which is considered in my study and dealt
that there is nothing more fruitless than notwith to the satisfaction of those readers and
wanting to be that which I am by nature'.6 A reviewers (among the latter, several prominent
passage from another of the composer's letters inmusicologists) who accept my conclusions.
March 1879, quoted by Brown (and which I was Brown's accusation that I twist and manipulate
the evidence apparently reflects his own methods
the first to publish in full), does not prove anything
to the contrary: the sentiment it reveals is clearlyand projects upon me his own questionable tech-
that of social, rather than sexual, guilt. Thatniques. Any interested reader may compare my
Brown cannot see in this passage any resemblance mode of argument with its coercive treatment by
to the sensibilities of some of Dostoevsky's char- Brown to see what can be made out of a straight-
acters merely suggests that he is unfamiliar with forward scholarly disquisition. One example may
that writer, just as he had previously failed in anysuffice. Brown wishes to give the impression that
meaningful way to enquire into the status ofon the grounds of mere supposition I argue
against the reliability of Yury Davydov's personal
homosexuality in nineteenth-century Russia or
into the epidemiology of cholera.7 testimony concerning the episode of the glass of
water at Leiner's restaurant (which is in itself of
6 P. I. Chaikovskii: Pis'ma k rodnym, Moscow, 1940,little relevance to the death of the composer, who
p. 374; see my discussion in Tchaikovsky, pp. 184-5, and could have contracted cholera at any point during
Tchaikovsky's Last Days, pp. 9-22. Cf. similar conclusionsthe last few days of his life) and that I subse-
independently reached by another scholar after his own
quently use inference from that supposition to
study of the composer's archives in Klin: 'It would be a
deny the credibility of Davydov's other pronounce-
profound mistake to believe that Tchaikovsky all his life
ments. In fact, after questioning his testimony on
suffered from his "anomaly". As can be seen in his letters,
in the last decades of his life he achieved a happy the basis of circumstantial evidence, I concluded
(not supposed!) that it is fictional, after his own
psychological balance-after fruitless attempts to struggle
against his nature' (my translation from the Russian) in daughter, Xeniya Davydova, admitted this to be
V. S. Sokolov, 'Pis'ma P. I. Chaikovskogo bez kupiur:
the case. Consequently, I regard it as legitimate to
neizvestnye stranitsy epistoliarii', P. I. Chaikovskii: zabytoe i
dismiss his occasional talk of the composer's
novoe, vospominaniia sovremennikov, novye materialy i doku-
suicide as another show of dramatics. One other
menty, ed. P. E. Vaidman & G. I. Belonovich, Moscow,
1995, p. 121. clarification: I do not accuse Aloys Mooser,
7 Suffice it to recall the emotional turmoil undergone
by the protagonist of Notes from the Underground-despite There is nothing in this text to suggest that the composer's
all his professed cynicism-in his dealings with a female insomnia and his anguish next morning was due to
remorse after his sexual encounter with a coachman,
prostitute. Nor is Brown's reference to the entry of the
composer's diary from September 1886 any more persua- rather than, simply, to one of his frequent physical
sive: Tchaikovsky wrote his diary entries in an abrupt indispositions.
telegraphic style which often defies causal connections. 8 Poznansky, Tchaikovsky's Last Days, p. viii.

465

This content downloaded from

147.213.4.22 on Sun, 28 Nov 2021 18:05:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Georgy Orlov, Nataliya Kuznetsova-Vladimova or recent study I have demonstrated that, given the
Aleksandr Voitov of being liars, as Brown seems to busy schedule of Tchaikovsky's activities during
allege. I do not doubt that the main informants the week prior to his illness, there was no time for
heard the rumour of Tchaikovsky's suicide or him at all to attend the proceedings of the imagin-
conspiracy-cum-suicide at some point in their ary 'court'.'2 Even Brown has had grudgingly to
lives. But it is quite another matter to accept acknowledge this, and one is only left wondering
their attribution of such stories to a particular why he still continues to believe in the story.
person with a direct link to the composer. One This leads us to Brown's main point, that is, to
must distinguish between an outright lie and self- the question he asks in the title of his article: does
indulgence in some such fantasy, which is indeed it really matter how Tchaikovsky came to die? It is
often barely conscious, so that one may substanti- indeed most surprising to lear from a scholar and
ate the reliability of what has been said. biographer that it may not really be important for
It must be clearly understood that the us 'whether Tchaikovsky died by his own hand or
conspiracy-cum-suicide theory involves two issues not, and if he did, whether the court-of-honour
of unequal probability. As I have repeatedly story is authentic or not'. Is it not the duty of any
emphasized, that Tchaikovsky took his own life biographer to make the maximum possible effort
or died from poison remains theoretically possible, to recover the facts about every aspect of his
albeit extremely unlikely, since there is no shred of subject's life? Is it not his task to dispel all
evidence to support it.9 (The same may be said elements of mythology surrounding his subject?
about many other famous deaths, much less well If this were not so, there would be no difference
documented than Tchaikovsky's, from that of between scholarly biography and biographical
Alexander the Great onwards.) fiction. I would therefore rephrase Brown's title
To my mind, however, the crucial evidence thus: 'How Did Tchaikovsky Come to Die?-and
against the idea of suicide comes from new mater- Why it Matters'.
ial found in the Tchaikovsky archives, such as the Brown correctly insists that the idea of the Sixth
exchange of letters between his brother Modest Symphony as 'some sort of suicide note' is non-
and his nephew Bob Davydov five years after sense, but unfortunately not everyone happens to
Tchaikovsky's death, with casual references to his share his opinion. Since the arrival of the 'court of
illness, and the private notes of Nikolay Tchai- honour' theory in the West, performances of
kovsky, similarly never intended for publication.10 Tchaikovsky's last symphony are almost invariably
But there is not even any theoretical possibility accompanied by annotations treating it as a testi-
that the 'court of honour' episode took place in mony of homosexual martyrdom. And apart from
real life. Within the social and cultural context of Tchaikovsky, who, as I have pointed out, requires
late nineteenth-century Russia it is absolutely no advocacy, there remains the need to exculpate
inconceivable that a group of learned lawyers those innocent individuals who cannot speak for
and highly placed civil servants would have con- themselves, namely, several of his former class-
spired to bring about the suicide of such a famous mates accused, in a cavalier manner, of collectively
artist, who enjoyed the patronage of the Tsar, for murdering the great composer. Finally, it is
the sake of protecting the reputation of the School imperative to remove from scholarly circulation a
of Jurisprudence which in fact hardly had any piece of morbid fantasy that purports misguidedly
reputation to protect, long renowned as it was for to portray nineteenth-century Russian society as
more intolerant of its sexual minorities than the
pervasive debauchery." Furthermore, in my most
9 Alexander Poznansky, Samoubiistvo Chaikovskogo: mif rest of Europe, and that forces Tchaikovsky to
i real'nost', Moscow, 1993, p. 150. suffer an even uglier fate than his contemporary
10 Brown wants us to believe that Modest and Bob and fellow homosexual Oscar Wilde.
Davydov deliberately planted their epistolary exchange in To sum up, it is no 'monomania about Tchai-
the archives in order to continue the cover-up and mislead
kovsky's sexuality and the impossibility of his
future generations of scholars! But what about Nikolay
having killed himself', as Brown puts it, but,
Tchaikovsky's scribblings in which he tries to calculate the
significance of numbers in the composer's life and in the
process several times mentions his last illness (published homosexuals who, with no hindrance, continued their
in full in N. O. Blinov, Posledniaia bolezn' i smert' P. I. sexual practices long after their graduation. Note also the
Chaikovskogo, Moscow, 1994, pp. 190-92)? To see this as student hymn celebrating the joys of pederasty which I
have cited elsewhere.
yet another deliberate ruse with the same purpose would
stretch anyone's credulity beyond any limit. 12 Poznansky, Tchaikovsky's Last Days, p. 216. It goes
1 Poznansky, Tchaikovsky, pp. 31-49. Archival research without saying that there exist a good number of further
allows it to be established that virtually every class in St objections to the conspiracy-cum-suicide theory which its
Petersburg's School of Jurisprudence included several proponents have never bothered to meet.

466

This content downloaded from

147.213.4.22 on Sun, 28 Nov 2021 18:05:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
rather, the quest for truth, that accounts for my I apologize unreservedly. But I think readers (and
determination to bury the fable of conspiracy and Dr Poznansky) will agree that my deduction, if
suicide once and for all. Brown calls for a truce, mistaken, was reasonable.
but only provided that the last word be his. Given Second, I refer to the recently arrived Voitova
that condition, it is hardly going to happen, letter. Obviously, the two accounts cannot both be
especially if he and his supporters continue to accurate-but I wonder whether Voitova's will-
speak in the same belligerent tone as hitherto.'3 ingness to talk freely on the matter of Tchaikovs-
ky's death with Anthony Holden in private, but
13 Brown finds some of my criticisms offensive and even
not on camera, might explain why, when pressed
claims that, owing to my alleged animosity towards for a written declaration which she knew would
Orlova, my Russian book Samoubiistvo Chaikovskogo
'would have been unthinkable for publication in the certainly become public, she might, as a lifelong
citizen of the former Soviet Union and still resi-
West'. In this, as in many other things, he is in error:
the German translation of that study will appear shortly dent in Russia, be, very understandably less than
(in Cajkovsky-Studien, iii (Mainz, 1998), 9-137). Although, forthcoming. Readers must make up their own
in my opinion, Orlova deserves harsh censure for sloppi- minds. But this letter in no way mitigates Poz-
ness in her scholarship, I have never meant such censure
nansky's offence. When he wrote his book he did
as a personal attack, and-in contrast to Brown-I have
never resorted to such expressions as 'disgraceful' or not have this letter, only his own report of a phone
'poppycock', which are entirely out of place in a sober call, which by his own definition was 'rumour' of a
intellectual discussion. sort he would not have accepted as evidence from
others. Thus he should have remained silent. He
ALEXANDER POZNANSKY
did not. That is disgraceful (and I make no
Hamden,
apology for using the word. Incidentally, if he
Connecticut,
USA.
finds my use of such a word 'out of place in a
sober intellectual discussion', I wonder what he
thinks of Richard Taruskin's letter below.)
David Brown replies: Dr Poznansky seems to be a unique phenom-
I shall proceed from the particular to the
enon. Born and brought up in the USSR in pre-
general. glasnost' years, he is the only example I know of an
First, the matter of Dr Poznansky's paternity. unreconstructed Soviet-style writer operating in
The circumstances which led to my conclusion are Western musical circles. His method is thoroughly
intriguing. In August 1995, before ever I had heard traditional. Select your orthodoxy (in this instance,
of Nikolay Blinov, I exchanged letters on Tchai- that Tchaikovsky died of cholera according to the
kovsky with a person of total reliability and official story), then push it for all you are worth.
integrity. In the more informal part of one letter Allow no merit in the opposing case, nitpick if
Dr Poznansky was mentioned, and my corres- necessary. Manipulation is a fundamental weapon
pondent observed, purely in passing, that Poz- (hence Paul Griffiths's comment (my review-art-
nansky 'goes by another name in Moscow and icle, p. 581) on Poznansky's practice when pushing
St Petersburg-Alexandre Nikolaevich Blinov' another, related orthodoxy: that Tchaikovsky was a
(which would signify his father was called Nikolay homosexual at ease with his orientation). Per-
Blinov). I thought no more about it until, in 1996, sonalize your attacks to devalue your opponents,
I received a copy of Nikolay Blinov's book on the thus discrediting not only the counter-arguments
circumstances of Tchaikovsky's death. Immedi- but their source. And do not hesitate to use
ately this seemed to solve a mystery that had insinuation or even misrepresentation, or t
long puzzled me. Why had Poznansky, a non- make assumptions about opponents, or to accus
musician, been so fascinated by Tchaikovsky? them of employing the very methods you use.
Well, now I knew. Blinov had explained his own But these are only the tactics; there is a broade
interest-that an ancestor had been a colleague of strategy too. Keep up the pressure remorselessl
Tchaikovsky's father and a godfather to the future Dr Poznansky began his campaign ten years a
composer-and this, of course, was an interest Dr (see n. 2 in his letter, above), and since then he h
Poznansky would share. Thus their books on the never missed a chance of returning to it. Eve
composer's death appeared to be complementary though the subject is so minuscule, he has alrea
investigations of the same subject from their two produced two books on it. But he must know w
authors' respective professional viewpoints: as from his Soviet background that hammering hom
microbiologist and social historian. If I am an orthodoxy again and again may brainwash t
wrong in my conclusion of a father-son relation- vulnerable into believing that they, too, believe i
ship, as Dr Poznansky now asserts, then of course it. And even his above response is opportunistic.

467

This content downloaded from

147.213.4.22 on Sun, 28 Nov 2021 18:05:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
is less
less aa letter
letterthan
thana awhole
wholemini-article,
mini-article,complete
complete 'My
'Myownownposition
position
is what
is what
it hasitalways
has always
been', he
been', he
with
with footnotes.
footnotes.I Iwill
willpick
pick
upup
onon
only
only
a few
a few
points.
points. writes:
writes:'that
'that
I do
I do
not not
know know
what what
happened,
happened,
though though
His
His very
very first
firstsentence
sentencemisrepresents
misrepresentsme:me:
I amI am my
mypersonal
personalbelief
belief
remains
remains
that [Tchaikovsky]
that [Tchaikovsky]
did did
guilty
guilty of
ofnot
not'taking
'takingaccount
account
of of
thethe
evidence'
evidence' commit
commitsuicide'.
suicide'.
He portrays
He portrayshimselfhimself
as an honest
as an honest
presented
presentedin inhis
hisbook.
book.ButBut
waswasthat
that
notnot
precisely
precisely and
anddisinterested
disinterestedscholar,
scholar,
pursuing
pursuing
nothingnothing
but but
what
what II did?
did?So Sodoes
doeshis
hislast:
last:
I have
I have
spoken
spoken
with
with
a a the
thetruth
truthin in
thethe
faceface
of a of
powerful
a powerful
and tendentious
and tendentious
'belligerent
'belligerenttone'.
tone'.Where?
Where?My
Mytone
tone
is stem
is stem
at at opposition
opposition that
that
harbours
harbours
all kinds
all kinds
of darkof dark
times-but did I not bend over backwards to agendas-family
agendas-family vendettas,
vendettas,
Russian
Russian
nationalism,
nationalism,
sexual
sexualpolitics,
give credit where credit was due, to set out evid- politics,
youyou
name
name
it. it.
ence that was unfavourable to my own side of theNow
Nowopen
openTheThe
New
New
Grove,
Grove,
for seventeen
for seventeen
years years
argument, to commend Dr Poznansky and now
now
histhe
themost
mostauthoritative
authoritative
English-language
English-language
work where I could? Isn't it, if anything,music
music
thereference
referencesource,
source,
at MratBrown's
Mr Brown's
article on
article on
Tchaikovsky,
Tchaikovsky,
other way round?-is not Dr Poznansky's response andand
youyou
will will
find this
find(xviii.
this 626,
(xviii. 626,
pervasively tetchy, at times even ill-tempered,628):
628):
in'That
'That hehe
committed
committed suicidesuicide
cannotcannot
be be
doubted',
doubted',and
tone, with snipings at any who think differently and
'the'the
story
story
that that
he diedheofdied
cholera
of cholera
from him? Thus, in the first 40 words of his from
firstdrinking
from drinking unboiled
unboiled
waterwater
is a fabrication'.
is a fabrication'.
In In
between
footnote he nitpicks, faulting Orlova for having got comes Alexandra Orlova's fourth-hand
a forename wrong in 1981(!), a microscopic sliprumour
of about the honour court etc. These are
absolutely no relevance to current matters.
notHe
the words of an agnostic. Since then, of course,
Mr Brown has done nothing but backpedal, as
claims that my failure to see a connection between
more proficient or experienced scholars in a vari-
a Dostoyevskyan character-type and a post-coital
ety of
emotional response of Tchaikovsky (a connection I disciplines have discredited the source he so
believe is non-existent) 'merely suggests thatrashly
he and gullibly swallowed in an effort to create
a sensation;
[Brown] is unfamiliar with that writer'. That is an but until he acknowledges that he was
outrageous assumption and, of course, totally wrong, rash and gullible, his efforts to exculpate
false. And so on, and so on. If Dr Poznansky'shimself will be unavailing.
Mr Brown still defends the suicide rumour on
'article' were presented as part of a postgraduate
submission at any good university he would getthe agrounds that nobody has yet proved that it
could
very rough ride at the viva. I believe no reader of not have happened. It is also true that
nobody has yet proved that Tchaikovsky was not
Music &' Letters will find this approach acceptable
the victim of death-rays from Mars. Mature
or be deceived by it. But with a layman reading
less carefully and more prepared to acceptscholars
the know that such proofs are impossible,
and concentrate not on establishing mere possibil-
author's conclusions without having scrutinized
ity but on evaluating probabilities. He also defends
the arguments, this technique can be as effective
as it is unprincipled. the rumour on the grounds that many people have
believed it. Many people have also believed that
Salieri poisoned Mozart, that Boris Godunov
murdered the infant Dmitry and that Lyndon
Johnson contracted John F. Kennedy's assassina-
'TCHAIKOVSKY S LAST DAYS': II tion. Would any kind of scholar but a musicologist
advance such an argument in support of the truth
of any of these assertions?
On the face of it, it astonishingly ill behoved
David Brown, who started the whole row, to Why shouldn't musicology be as scholarly a
discipline as microbiology or cultural history, the
suggest all of a sudden that it doesn't really
matter how Tchaikovsky came to die. But when disciplines
I practised by Mr Brown's opponents? I,
for one, am mortified to see him, in effect,
read his desperate little piece, and saw how much
he was now conceding to the other side, my defending musicology's right to amateurism. And
that is why I, for one, have been after him. I am
impulse was to forgive. I am willing to receive
not wedded to a competing theory, nor am I out to
this latest piece as a rather costive way of saying
he's sorry. vindicate Tchaikovsky. I want to vindicate musico-
The apology is incomplete, however, and eva- logy. Mr Brown, and those who follow his ex-
sive, and therefore unacceptable. He has not really ample, are doing our profession harm. That is
owned up, and he is still displaying the invincible what he does not yet see, and probably will never
see. The editors of Music &' Letters should have
unprofessional naivety that has brought so much
discredit not only on him but on all of us who call seen this and pointed it out to him as diplomatic-
ourselves musicologists. ally as possible. Since they did not do their duty,

468

This content downloaded from

147.213.4.22 on Sun, 28 Nov 2021 18:05:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms