16 The sketchbook was at last published in 1969 with a short foreword by François Lesure, Craft’s “Genesis of a Masterpiece” lecture from Ohio State University, and a supplementary booklet including Craft’s “Commentary to the Sketches,” a number of letters from Stravinsky to Roerich and Findeizen (in somewhat unreliable translations), the choreography directions from the printed four-hand piano reduction used by Stravinsky and Nijinsky in rehearsal, and a note by Craft on “The Performance of the ‘Rite of Spring.’”
17 AMC, 282.
18 See for instance Stravinsky’s letter to Souvtchinsky, 11 May 1967, informing him that he had asked Rufina Ampenoff to pay him $1,000 on the composer’s account.
19 AMC, 322.
20 CherP, 157–8.
21 Ibid.
22 See Arminé Montapert’s somewhat self-congratulatory letter of 17 December 1963 to the Stravinskys (PSS).
23 Letter of 21 April 1963 (PSS).
24 Arminé wrote on 17 March 1963, offering to act as official stockholder (as required by law), free of charge (PSS).
25 Mario Bois, Près de Strawinsky, 93.
26 The factual information about these agreements is taken from CherP, 156, there being no other accessible source.
27 Ibid., passim.
28 Early in 1967, Stravinsky wrote to Theodore grumbling about his uncommunicativeness, but Theodore sent a puzzled reply that they had written (about Kitty’s pregnancy) but, receiving no reply, had concluded that his father had for some reason dropped them. Perhaps, he adds, their letters had got lost. See Stravinsky’s letter of 28 January and Theodore and Denise’s of 8 February, respectively (PSS).
29 See, for instance, Milène Marion’s letter of 20 October 1969 to her brother Theodore (SCNY).
30 The former incident is recounted by Soulima Stravinsky in his memoir Are You the Son …?; the latter was told to me by Elliott Carter, who witnessed it after a dinner at the Côte Basque in New York.
31 As reported by Dushkin to Francis Steegmuller (Columbia, Steegmuller).
32 A copy of this will is preserved in PSS.
33 DB, 225, entry for 10 January 1968.
34 SCF (94), 490; AMC, 334–5. Europe may, however, already have been postponed before the Berkeley concerts. See Craft’s letter of 3 May to Rufina Ampenoff, referring to a plan to meet in Zurich in August to discuss the archive contract (PSS).
35 SCF (94), 477.
36 ASS, 179, diary entry for 23 April 1968.
37 Letter of 26 April 1968 (PSS).
38 In SCF (94), 458, note, Craft claims that the two Wolf arrangements were both made in the afternoon of 15 May, but this contradicts his note in DB, 227, that Stravinsky made them on the 15th, 16th, and 17th. In SPD, plate 26, a manuscript page of the second song is reproduced in facsimile with the information (again by Craft) that it was completed on 28 June.
39 SCF (94), 457–8.
40 Ibid., 458, note.
41 At least Craft’s account in SCF (94), 476, shows that he was somewhat vague on the subject, which probably comes to much the same thing. Pavel Litvinov was not, as he states, a “condemned Soviet writer,” but a physicist who (with Yuly Daniel’s wife, Larisa) had appealed to world opinion to support the protest of a group of Soviet intellectuals against the imprisonment of the writers Alexander Ginsburg, Yury Galanskov, Alexei Dobrovolsky, and Vera Lashkova after a notorious “witch trial” in Moscow in early January 1968. Spender’s telegram thanking Stravinsky for his support is dated 14 January; Stravinsky’s own statement is dated the 16th. It should, however, be added that Craft’s text for the Stravinsky statement differs significantly from the draft preserved in Stravinsky’s Spender file in PSS. In particular, the composer there refers to “Pavel Litvinov and the condemned writers” (thereby distinguishing between them), and he adds: “Judging from the examples of their work that I have read, and from the new Soviet poets in general, the young Russian writers are among the most vital in the world,” a passage Craft omits altogether. Exactly what Stravinsky had read is hard now to establish.
42 Hurok wired on 25 April, and Stravinsky wired back presumably on the same day (his Western Union copy is confusingly misdated the 24th). According to SCF (94), 484, Stravinsky later donated a monogrammed silver spoon to the McCarthy for President Committee. A fortnight later, McCarthy was nonetheless beaten to the nomination by Humphrey, who himself subsequently of course lost the election to Nixon.
43 See Theodore’s letter of 8 June, Françoise’s of 9 June, respectively (PSS).
44 SCF (72), 346, note 1. Curiously, this intriguing information was expunged from SCF (94).
45 Letter of Edward Bigelow to Stravinsky, 14 May 1968, quoted in Joseph, Stravinsky and Balanchine, 303.
46 Ibid., 302.
47 Letter to Craft, 24 May 1968 (PSS). Attempts to choreograph the Symphony of Psalms (for instance, by Béjart in 1962) had invariably been blocked by Boosey and Hawkes, presumably—though not provably—at the composer’s behest. See, for instance, Rufina Ampenoff’s letter to Stravinsky of 26 April 1962 (PSS); also Bois, Près de Strawinsky, 76–7.
48 AMC, 347.
49 See SCS, 282, 299. Craft had edited both scores for performance, and had intended to conduct them as part of a Harvard symposium in August, but had cried off supposedly because of Stravinsky’s ill health. The Harvard performances had been conducted by Claudio Spies.
50 Private communication from Robert Craft.
51 DB, 227.
52 See, for instance, Berman’s letters of 13 February and 5 May 1968 to Craft (PSS), and Souvtchinsky’s to Yudina of 8 April, in Bretanitskaya (ed.), Pyotr Suvchinsky i ego vremya, 382–3. Craft’s assertion in CherP, 194, note 58, that “Stravinsky at this time [i.e., in the month before 8 September 1968] had no intention of going to Switzerland at all” has charitably to be seen as a slip of memory which just happens to support his case against the family, since it supposedly gives the lie to André Marion’s claim that Stravinsky had told Montapert that Vera and Craft were taking him to Switzerland “to change the status of the Swiss account in their favor.” Stravinsky had in fact apprised Rufina Ampenoff of the Zurich plan in a letter of 3 May 1968 (PSS), and according to Libman (AMC, 347) the Dolder suite had been booked for a month before they flew to New York on 8 September.
53 Craft lists the dates of Stravinsky’s main visitors at the Dolder in CherP, 154–5. According to this, Souvtchinsky left on 3 October; the contract letter was signed on the 9th (PSS).
54 CherP, 156–7. See also 195, note 61, where Craft pretends that the fact that the letter was typed by Ampenoff for Stravinsky’s signature casts some unspecified doubt on its authenticity. In general, though, Craft’s attempts to discredit Ampenoff are so transparent that it is hard to imagine any attentive reader being swayed by them.
55 Letter of 17 November 1968, in SB, 197.
56 See above, chapter 31. In their respective depositions to lawyers in the subsequent litigation, Vera stated that her husband had made the call, Theodore that Vera had done so (copies of the depositions held in SCNY). In CherP, 158, Craft says that Stravinsky phoned.
57 Vera Stravinsky: deposition.
58 CherP, 159. Vera admitted that there had been no witnesses to the gift, and also that her diary entry recording the gift was written at a later date. See her deposition of March 1975.
59 Theodore Strawinsky: deposition. Craft pretends in CherP that Theodore himself had designs on the manuscript, but it is clear from all relevant correspondence and from Theodore’s deposition that he regarded himself as merely the score’s custodian.
60 Theodore Strawinsky: deposition.
61 The page is reproduced in facsimile in SPD, 76, but with a characteristically loose English translation of the inscription. Theodore misremembered the eventual text as being in French, but admits he was not present when it was finally written onto the score. See his deposition of 29 November 1976 (SCNY).
62 CherP, 155.
63 See, for example, Milène’s lett
er of 20 October 1968 to Theodore (SCNY).
64 CherP, 155; SCF (94), 484–5.
65 Craft writes in CherP all the time as if he thinks that the fact of Marion’s name on the Basle account made him the composer’s heir. It is hard to believe that Craft really thinks this. Yet the alternative conclusion, that he is fabricating the whole assumption in order to represent Marion as a swindler, is even more incredible. See especially CherP, 155–6 and note 58.
66 See Milène’s letter of 9 October to Theodore and Denise, and of 20 October to Theodore (SCNY).
67 This is my best guess as to the contents of the letter. The alternative assumption—that Stravinsky was removing the children’s interest in the Swiss money, and that this gave them a green light to retaliate—is not borne out by Theodore’s deposition, or by Milène’s letter to him of 20 October 1969, in which she refers to the postscript in question.
68 Letters to Craft of 10 October and 15 November 1968, respectively (PSS).
69 Undated letter of December 1968, in SB, 200–1.
70 Bois, Près de Strawinsky, 78. Bois (73–9) gives an amusing history of Stravinsky’s views on the idea of a sexually explicit Rite of Spring and the various strategies he employed to avoid seeing the Béjart production. According to Bois, Souvtchinsky thought the production a masterpiece and consistently stood between Stravinsky and an outright ban, but this is not consistent with Souvtchinsky’s letter to the composer of 7/8 June 1965 (PSS): “Last night I went to the Opéra to hear Les Noces, Renard, and (with regret) the Rite. I shut my eyes, but even so the stage picture ‘leaked in’ and obstructed my listening. I shan’t go again.” Stravinsky’s own supposed remark (R&C, 86; T&C, 143) that the production “belonged at the Folies-Bergères” is probably apocryphal. See also Valérie Dufour, Strawinsky à Bruxelles, 147–54.
71 CherP, 162–3; DB, 228 (entry for 30 December 1968).
72 Letter of 2 March 1969 (PSS).
73 DB, 228 (entry for 18 January).
74 Letter of 3 February 1969 (PSS).
75 Letter of 3 March 1969, in SB, 201–2.
76 Letter of 14 May 1969 (UCLA, Morton).
77 The sketch is reproduced in facsimile in ASS, 139.
78 SCF (72), 370. The entry was omitted from SCF (94). Stravinsky worked from the Czerny edition, sometimes including Czerny’s dynamics and phrase marks. The many faults in transcription include errors of instrumental range, wrong accidentals, confused voice-leading, and at one point in the B minor Fugue an obviously unintentional seven-bar repeat. Stravinsky also arranged the F major Prelude and Fugue from Book II, probably later (the score is undated), since the hand is slightly shakier and the part-writing in the Prelude (for strings) more confused than before. Nevertheless the fugue, for three clarinets, is a minor stroke of genius, the swift three-part counterpoint responding marvelously to this utterly Stravinskian sonority. Craft’s mention (SPD, 489) of an arrangement of the D minor Prelude and Fugue from Book II is a simple misreading for F major. The two keys have the same key signature.
79 See SPD, 488. He had finished arranging the corresponding prelude on the 27th of April.
80 DB, 228.
81 It must have been almost complete, since the arrangement is end-dated the 27th of May.
36 A FINE AND PRIVATE PLACE
1 Letter of Berman to Craft, 18 December 1969 (PSS).
2 See, for instance, Vera’s letter to Souvtchinsky of 15 July 1969, partly quoted (in the form of a diary entry) in DB, 230.
3 Letter of Vera to Souvtchinsky, 15 July (PSS).
4 “Le mal est dans mon âme.” See SCF (94), 501 (original in French).
5 SPD, 578.
6 According to her deposition, she visited him every day except at weekends, though Craft recalls, somewhat vaguely, that she made “a few token appearances.” See CherP, 165.
7 Soulima Stravinsky, Are you the son …?
8 According to CherP, 172, André was not formally notified of the cancellation until 30 September 1969, but this was probably no more than the dotting of the final “i.”
9 CherP, 166–7.
10 Are you the son …?
11 SCF (94), 502.
12 Ibid. See also DB, 230.
13 CherP, 166.
14 Letter to Weissberger, 30 August 1971 (SCNY).
15 See Chapter 35, note 67, and related main text.
16 SCF (94), 503. See also CherP, 171.
17 Letter of 23 July 1969 (HRC, Nabokov).
18 AMC, 353.
19 Lincoln Kirstein, letter of 25 June 1969 to Nicolas Nabokov (HRC, Nabokov). Kirstein actually gives this as a weekly figure, but Craft told Steegmuller, more believably, that it was monthly: letter of 8 August 1970 (Columbia, Steegmuller).
20 Kirstein to Nabokov, 25 June.
21 Weissberger published two volumes of his photographs: Close-up (New York: Arno Press, 1967) and Famous Faces (New York: H. N. Abrams, 1973).
22 By no means all Stravinsky’s friends, nevertheless, approved of Weissberger. Eugene Berman, after itemizing (and exaggerating) the tale of the Stravinskys’ recent woes, added: “Nor am I quite relieved to know IS and Vera now in the ‘good hands’ of Arnold Weissberger, this social wolf in whatever clothing he is wearing. He is a pretty sharp operator himself, and although he is, or was, familiar with some IS affairs in the past, I am afraid that his teeth are getting longer by the minute and his appetite bigger.” Letter to Craft, 24 August 1969 (PSS).
23 AMC, 358. See also CherP, 172.
24 The contract, replacing the one brought by Souvtchinsky during Stravinsky’s illness in the autumn of 1967, is dated 27 October 1969.
25 CherP, 171–2.
26 Craft again claims that Stravinsky signed this deed reluctantly and under pressure from Vera, and he describes an extraordinary pantomime in which Montapert is supposed to have turned up one lunchtime, unannounced and in a great rush, and forced Stravinsky to sign the deed while covering the relevant text with his hand. See CherP, 164.
27 DB, 230, note 2.
28 In February 1979, Weissberger, in his capacity as trustee, announced to Vera his intention to “invade the Principal of the Trust and to assign and transfer to you all of the Copyrights and such other assets of the Trust as I deem it desirable for you to have in the light of your intolerable situation” (letter of 28 February: SCNY). Stravinsky’s will, drawn up by Weissberger, gave his trustees “sole and absolute discretion” to invade the trust “for any reason whatsoever” on Vera’s behalf; but legally this was a less wide-ranging power than it sounds. The trustee’s discretion in such cases, it transpired, “did not relieve him from obedience to the great principles of equity which are the life of every trust” (Carrier v. Carrier, 1919, quoted in George V. Bobrinskoy Jr. letter to Surrogate Millard L. Midonick, in the Surrogate’s Court, New York, 7 September 1979).
29 I have accepted Libman’s view that Stravinsky probably did not foresee the consequences of his affidavit and perhaps was not fully aware of its import. See AMC, 359–60. Weissberger obtained a medical opinion for 11 December 1969 that the composer was “in full possession of his mental faculties.” See CherP, 200, note 91. But a clinical opinion is something very different from a psychological judgment, which requires intimate knowledge of the person.
30 Letter from Milène to Xenya Stravinsky, 30 December 1969, in SB, 206.
31 Horgan, Encounters with Stravinsky, 190 et seq.
32 Are you the son …? Craft denied that this visit ever took place, and he also knocked a whole week off Theodore’s November stay. See CherP, 167, 176.
33 Letter to Weissberger, 13 August 1971 (SCNY). Craft notes that Sigmund Rothschild could not read music or any foreign language, and had barely heard of Stravinsky, though why a ballet specialist should have been any better equipped to value music manuscripts is hard to comprehend. See ibid., and SSCIII, 513. The remarks about the appraisers in DB, 233 (entry for 5 January 1970), are incidentally nowhere to be found in Vera’s actual diary and appear to be an editoria
l invention. In AMC, 360–1, Libman relates her day-return flight to Los Angeles on 28 December to collect the manuscripts.
34 AMC, 364.
35 AMC, 362.
36 “The Maker of Libretti,” in T&C, 287. The article—in part an account of this and a subsequent dinner—is de facto attributed to Stravinsky, because the book is.
37 Quoted in SCF (94), 507. The group photograph is reproduced in SPD, 491, and there is another photograph, of Stravinsky and Balanchine in conversation, presumably on the same occasion, in DB, 232.
38 Letter of 27 January 1970, in SB, 206–7.
39 “This is a very cosy gathering we have here.” Encounters with Stravinsky, 197.
40 AMC, 366–8.
41 SCF (72), 382. The passage was omitted from the 1994 edition.
42 SCF (94), 518.
43 In CherP, 176, Craft ascribes the change of plan to a recommendation from Lax, but in ImpLif, 294, note 42, the recommendation is said to have been Hurok’s. The point is trivial but symptomatic of the difficulty Craft often seems to have in remembering details to which he apparently attaches importance. Libman told Steegmuller in July 1971 that Stravinsky himself did not want to go to Évian (or, presumably, Europe at all), and that they went because Craft wanted to go.
44 AMC, 371.
45 SCF (94), 519. Many of the other outings described by Craft were probably made without Stravinsky, a point that the author seems to leave deliberately vague.
46 Ibid., 523. See also Souvtchinsky’s letter to Morton of 4 August 1970 (UCLA, Morton).
47 Ibid., 522.
48 In CherP, 176, Craft maintains that Stravinsky found Theodore’s visits so tiring that he would go to bed and pretend to be asleep or ill when warned of his son’s arrival.
Stravinsky Page 102