# Tchaikovsky's Pathetique: The Hidden Programme



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Most of us have probably heard of the famous Symphony No. 6 Pathetique. Many of us have heard various theories explaining its odd style compared to Tchaikovsky's other symphonies. A few of us may have even drawn our own conclusions about the programme of this unique symphony.

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky himself said the following about the symphony:

"I must finish [the symphony] as soon as possible, for I have to wind up a lot of affairs and I must soon go to London. I told you that I had completed a Symphony which suddenly displeased me, and I tore it up. Now I have composed a new symphony [the Pathetique] _which I certainly shall not tear up._ "

And more importantly, perhaps:

"During my journey I had the idea for another symphony, this time with a programme, but with a programme that will be an enigma to all-let them guess; the symphony will be entitled A Programme Symphony (No. 6)... The programme itself will be suffused with subjectivity, and not infrequently during my travels, while composing it in my head, I wept a great deal. Upon my return I sat down to write the sketches, and the work went so furiously and quickly that in less than four days the first movement was completely ready, and the remaining movements already clearly outlined in my head. The third movement is already half-done. The form of this symphony will have much that is new, and by the way, the finale will not be a noisy allegro, but on the contrary, a long drawn-out adagio."

The "long drawn-out adagio," the famed fourth movement, has been found to allude to a certain hymn of a Russian Orthodox Church funeral mass, the words to it something along the lines of: and may his soul rest forever in peace. The movement itself is also slightly church-like, with some similarities to church music, which Tchaik new well, as he had written music to the St. John Chrysostom mass in Russia at some earlier period in his life, and was himself Russian Orthodox.

Nine days after the premiere of the symphony, Tchaikovsky died of kidney failure (uremia), which was attributed to cholera, which he caught, though lived through.

Note also that a previous summer, Tchaikovsky had had cholerine, a mild form of cholera, which we are not sure as to whether it would have made him immune to the actual illness or not.

If you are not familiar with the illness cholera, here are some key facts:

-The vaccine was invented by using a weakened form of the microbes to build an immunity to the actual bacteria. 
-Famous French scientist Louis Pasteur came out with this vaccine in France in 1880. 
-It was mostly ignored in Russia until after the composer's death. 
-Stomach acid will usually kill the cholera microbes, unless the acidity level is brought up to a more neutral/basic level. 
-Attributing his illness of the stomach to some other usual cause, the composer drank "alkaline" water, which helped to neutralize usual stomach acidity.

So.... What's the deal? The subject of the Pathetique in relation to Tchaikovsky's death is a highly debated subject. Do you think there is a relation, in fact, at all? What do YOU think?!.......

(Also, another Forum member and I have agreed that the beginning of the last movement resembles the beginning of Tchaikovsky's ballet, The Swan Lake. They are also in the same key.)

(Much of this information I know after having done some research on www.tchaikovsky-research.net)


----------



## Dimitri (Jun 27, 2013)

I remember reading (and disclosure, I think this was mostly, if not entirely from Wikipedia) that many believe Tchaikovsky was ordered by a special council to commit suicide because of his homosexuality. There were apparently some witness accounts that attest to this, although there are also ones that attest to the other theories.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Dimitri said:


> I remember reading (and disclosure, I think this was mostly, if not entirely from Wikipedia) that many believe Tchaikovsky was ordered by a special council to commit suicide because of his homosexuality. There were apparently some witness accounts that attest to this, although there are also ones that attest to the other theories.


Glazunov was one of the few to testify to this theory, that it was a consequence of a sort of court martial, since Tchaikovsky was a member of a scholarly Society. For this reason I believe it.  But honestly, he kept it secret for like 25 years, so I believe it was real, in an attempt not to speak ill of Tchaikovsky. He and Glazunov were closer than most surmise, they weren't just colleagues. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in their friendship, Tchaikovsky felt Glazunov trustworthy enough to admit his homosexuality and not fear judgement. What_ exactly_ happened, I'll never be certain. It could have been purposeful negligence of health (Tchaikovsky refused doctors and such, but Glazunov was allowed to visit him), or actual poison (not disease), but perhaps it doesn't really matter. Either way, I highly think it was suicide.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Hmmm.... interesting!

Well, poisoning is definitely ruled out. There was no poison during the period that could imitate the symptoms of Cholera, the cause of the uremia (kidney failure).

As for the pretty widely believed special council theory, it is definitely not true. (Though Glazunov may have testified to it, there were also a great many "mixed up witnesses" as to the composer's death.) See the following from www.tchaikovsky-research.net

"Recent studies suggest that in the context of Russian social attitudes, sexual mores and criminal practice in the late nineteenth century, any scandal or repression with respect to Tchaikovsky were most unlikely, because of his high social standing and a generally tolerant attitude towards homosexuality prevailing in court circles and within the Imperial family."

Furthermore, the Tsar himself took care of the funeral expenses himself, from his own wallet. So an order stemming from the Tsar is highly unlikely.

As for the suicide theories, we have already ruled out poisoning. The reason that the composer did not call for doctors immediately was that he apparently had such symptoms, usually do to something like an upset stomach. To attempt to slightly neutralize stomach acidity in such occurrences is well known to help such mild cases of an upset stomach, and is still in use in several places around the world today. Also! the reason why the composer refused to be treated by the usual - being put in a hot bath for some time, I believe, - was because his mother had died during that certain treatment when the composer was much younger.

It is also said that, while recovering from the cholera, the composer had hope that he would still live. In addition, he had plans to stop composing and to become a gardener in 1896, three years after his death.

Once more, back to conspiracy.... The composer knew that his letters would be revealed to the public after he died, as this happens to the majority of famous people, especially at that time. He has mentioned his sexuality in some letters, especially to his brother Modest, which means that it would be made known at some point. Most people, then, would have a sort of "no need to rush it" attitude towards dying then, and the letter fact is also another reason to rule out the council theory.

Yet it just doesn't seem right that he rights the unique Pathetique symphony, and wraps up the concerto he promised to write by ending it after just one movement....


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

To the excerpts of Chaikovsky's personal letters, we should add two more. The first one was written during the composition of the Sixth Symphony and, unlike the letter quoted above that was written _before_ its composition, gives a very different impression of what kinds of emotions the piece evoked in the composer: "I have never felt such self-satisfaction, such pride, such happiness as in the consciousness that I am really the creator of this beautiful work."

The second letter comes from a recollection of a conversation Chaikovsky had a few days before his death with a friend of his brother Modest. The friend had apparently brought up the subject of death, and Chaikovsky's response does not seem to lend support to the suicide theory: "There is plenty of time before we need to reckon with this horror [death]; it will not come to snatch us off just yet! I feel I shall live a long time."


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

I vaguely remember the first quote, but the second, I have nly seen the last few words of. Interesting contribution....


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

mstar said:


> Hmmm.... interesting!
> 
> Well, poisoning is definitely ruled out. There was no poison during the period that could imitate the symptoms of Cholera, the cause of the uremia (kidney failure).


I read a biography that examines the suicide theory, in which it is claimed that his symptoms were consistent with arsenic poisoning. Wouldn't know if there is anything to it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Wiki has a separate article that examines briefly five theories on Tchaikovsky's death.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

Regarding the religious music in the 6th. There is a short choral for the trombones in the first movement that is a quotation from the Orthodox liturgy. It goes with the words "go with the saints". There is a great deal of pain and death in the symphony regardless of Tchaikovskys mode of death.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Also, you may want to see the site that I mentioned above for more information.


----------



## courtoisfanboy (Dec 24, 2013)

Personally, this autobiographic quality of this piece had a huge affect on me when I performed it with my college's symphony orchestra last year. There was not one night during that quarter that I didn't have a bad dream, or sleep terribly. Especially after I took a two hour bus ride home for the weekend, during which I thought, "maybe I should listen to it and then write down the story that develops in my head." THAT WAS A BAD IDEA. The thing that really made it unbearable was the climax of the fourth movement. During the climax, the main character of the story I wrote drank poison and right http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=W_KS-wMiDpg#t=524 here the glass hit the table. Then the rest of the movement was him accepting his death. After that, there was no doubt in my mind that he intended to kill himself. 
I also discovered the first movement has exact parallels to his childhood and the different events that took place. That's why it really made it hard for me to perform this piece, even though I consider it to be my absolute favorite symphony.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Glazunov was one of the few to testify to this theory, that it was a consequence of a sort of court martial, since Tchaikovsky was a member of a scholarly Society. For this reason I believe it.  But honestly, he kept it secret for like 25 years, so I believe it was real, in an attempt not to speak ill of Tchaikovsky.


This theory of the suicide, along with all of the others, is fabricated nonsense. The alleged testimony of Glazunov came from a highly unreliable source at second hand (R. A. Mooser). Alexander Poznansky, in his fine biography, deals with and dismisses all of these theories. There was never any credible evidence for any of them and the "court martial" theory is the most ridiculous of the lot.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

When Tchaikovsky used the term "program," he usually did so in a nonstandard sense. The clearest example is the "program" he wrote up for the Fourth Symphony in a letter to Nadezhda von Meck. This program was not an extramusical plan for the symphony conceived before its composition, but merely an attempt after the fact to explain its humanistic content in terms an intelligent amateur like his patroness could understand. Tchaikovsky's general thoughts on program symphonies were stated in a letter to Sergei Taneyev, who had expressed his suspicion that the Fourth might have a program. Tchaikovsky responded: 

". . . I don’t see why this should be a mistake. I am far more afraid of the contrary; I do not wish any symphonic work to emanate from me which has nothing to express, and consists merely of harmonies and a purposeless design of rhythms and modulations. Of course, my symphony is program music, but it would be impossible to give the program in words; it would appear ludicrous and only raise a smile. Ought this not to be the case with a symphony which is the most lyrical of all musical forms? Ought it not to express all of those things for which words cannot be found, which nevertheless arise in the heart and clamor for expression?" 

So it would be a mistake to assume Tchaikovsky had some extra-musical story he meant to convey in the Pathetique. When he used the term program in contexts like this it tended to mean a general expressive plan not susceptible of verbal expression, something not unlike A.B. Marx's notion of a poetic "Idee" underlying a musical composition.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

"I am miserable and I'm taking you all with me!!"


----------



## Frei aber froh (Feb 22, 2013)

I played Tchaik 6 in my youth orchestra last year. I first heard the symphony about nine months before our performance, listening to Karajan/BPO at home, and I will never forget the experience. I felt like finally, I had found someone who really understood what I was going through (turns out to have been clinical depression combined with anxiety disorder and a lot of stress); I had one friend and a lot of acquaintances, but in real life, even best friends can only be there for us so often. I feel like Pyotr Ilyich is one of my best friends. Even though I'm in general so, so much happier and well than I was then, I still feel like _Pathétique_ is my autobiography, regardless of the fact that I haven't had suicidal thoughts for a long time. For this reason (and many, many others), it will always be my favorite symphony.

Even if he didn't kill himself (which is really extremely probable), he attempted to on at least one occasion, and even if the figurative main character of the program isn't the composer himself, in my program for it, the main character did commit suicide. As to whether Tchaikovsky's death was natural or unnatural, I don't know whether we really can know for certain. The "court martial" theory seems pretty improbably to me, though (not that I'm an authority or anything), especially due to Alexander Poznansky's debunkings and criticisms.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Hermioneviolageek said:


> I played Tchaik 6 in my youth orchestra last year. I first heard the symphony about nine months before our performance, listening to Karajan/BPO at home, and I will never forget the experience. I felt like finally, I had found someone who really understood what I was going through (turns out to have been clinical depression combined with anxiety disorder and a lot of stress); I had one friend and a lot of acquaintances, but in real life, even best friends can only be there for us so often. I feel like Pyotr Ilyich is one of my best friends. Even though I'm in general so, so much happier and well than I was then, I still feel like _Pathétique_ is my autobiography, regardless of the fact that I haven't had suicidal thoughts for a long time. For this reason (and many, many others), it will always be my favorite symphony.
> 
> Even if he didn't kill himself (which is really extremely probable), he attempted to on at least one occasion, and even if the figurative main character of the program isn't the composer himself, in my program for it, the main character did commit suicide. As to whether Tchaikovsky's death was natural or unnatural, I don't know whether we really can know for certain. The "court martial" theory seems pretty improbably to me, though (not that I'm an authority or anything), especially due to Alexander Poznansky's debunkings and criticisms.


I am always glad to hear of this kind of intense personal involvement with great works of music, and also, that you found comfort and an interpersonal connection across time in the Pathetique. However, there is no good evidence that Tchaikovsky ever really tried to kill himself. He apparently waded into the Moskva River one night in the hopes of catching his death of a cold(!), and this account (by Kashkin?) was likely exaggerated. In my opinion, this does not count as attempted suicide. Poznansky describes it as a tragicomic episode, citing a letter in which Tchaikovsky himself might have been making light of it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The final movement of the Pathetique is as articulate as any farewell letter I could ever imagine.
This was a deeply distressed person.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

hpowders said:


> The final movement of the Pathetique is as articulate as any farewell letter I could ever imagine.
> This was a deeply distressed person.


The music is certainly powerful, but there are important differences in the 'articulation' received by different listeners. Personally, I hear stubborn defiance to fate. Sort of "I hate this, but do your damnedest, I ain't giving in."


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ukko said:


> The music is certainly powerful, but there are important differences in the 'articulation' received by different listeners. Personally, I hear stubborn defiance to fate. Sort of "I hate this, but do your damnedest, I ain't giving in."


The last notes of the Pathetique are barely audible groans. To me that sounds like complete resignation.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

hpowders said:


> The last notes of the Pathetique are barely audible groans. To me that sounds like complete resignation.


That's because you choose to hear them as 'groans'. The point I was hoping to make is that a range of interpretation is possible. It's a symphony, sans program, not a tone poem.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hpowders said:


> The final movement of the Pathetique is as articulate as any farewell letter I could ever imagine.
> This was a deeply distressed person.


So distressed that after sketching the anguished first movement he wrote to his nephew: "You cannot imagine what bliss I feel . . . assured that my time has not yet passed and that I can still work." And the feeling persisted throughout the whole period of its composition. More important, his confidence that he had composed his best work persisted even in spite of a relatively cool reception at the premiere. Now, Tchaikovsky was usually plagued by self-doubt and earlier in life would have been in a neurotic funk over such a reception. But not this time. He knew he had nailed it. The finales of all of his earlier symphonies had been less than convincing in their simulations of triumph and joy, but in the Pathetique he had come up with a thoroughly original solution about whose success he had no doubt.

So, I think it is a mistake to take the expressive qualities of his finale as indicating anything about Tchaikovsky's state of mind at the time he was composing it. Far from being distressed, he was likely feeling an intense form of creative ecstasy. And as for the farewell letter: I'm pretty sure he had no idea he would soon die of cholera.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> So distressed that after sketching the anguished first movement he wrote to his nephew: "You cannot imagine what bliss I feel . . . assured that my time has not yet passed and that I can still work." And the feeling persisted throughout the whole period of its composition. More important, his confidence that he had composed his best work persisted even in spite of a relatively cool reception at the premiere. Now, Tchaikovsky was usually plagued by self-doubt and earlier in life would have been in a neurotic funk over such a reception. But not this time. He knew he had nailed it. The finales of all of his earlier symphonies had been less than convincing in their simulations of triumph and joy, but in the Pathetique he had come up with a thoroughly original solution about whose success he had no doubt.
> 
> So, I think it is a mistake to take the expressive qualities of his finale as indicating anything about Tchaikovsky's state of mind at the time he was composing it. Far from being distressed, he was likely feeling an intense form of creative ecstasy. And as for the farewell letter: I'm pretty sure he had no idea he would soon die of cholera.


He wouldn't have been the first person to express in a letter the opposite of how he truly felt.
Those last few groans at the end of the Pathetique do not jibe with "bliss".


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hpowders said:


> He wouldn't have been the first person to express in a letter the opposite of how he truly felt.
> Those last few groans at the end of the Pathetique do not jibe with "bliss".


I am not disputing your expressive interpretation of the music! What I am objecting to is your assumption that the depression, darkness, gloom, groans of death (whatever) expressed by the music, necessarily has anything to do with what Tchaikovsky was feeling when he composed it. The expressive qualities belong to the music, not (necessarily, though it is certainly possible in many cases) the composer.

This issue has been hashed out in literary criticism, where it is a convention in some schools of interpretation to attribute the feelings expressed by a poem to "the speaker" rather than the poet. Consider "Der Doppelgänger" by Heinrich Heine, a poem famously set to music by Schubert in his cycle, _Schwanengesang_. One can't assume that the feeling of horror expressed when the face of the ghostly double is recognized is a feeling attributable to Heine. It belongs to the character in the poem, not the poet. Edward T. Cone, in his book _The Composer's Voice_, formally introduced this convention into musical interpretation, proposing that one should attribute the expressive qualities of a musical work to the musical "persona," defined as "the experiencing subject of a composition . . . whose inner life the music communicates . . .", rather than to the composer. In your case, Cone would advise saying that the persona of the _Pathetique_ is wracked with deathly groans at the end of the finale (or something like that), because one can no more attribute the feeling in the music to the composer than one can ascribe the horror expressed in "Der Doppelgänger" to Heine. The experiencing subject of the _Pathetique_ is a fictional construction, not simplistically equatable to the composer himself. It is this fictional entity, brought to life in music by Tchaikovsky, with whom one identifies when one is moved in sympathy with the music, not (necessarily) the composer.


----------

