42. Soumagnac’s comments in her introduction are handicapped by her unwavering belief that Roland-Manuel was Stravinsky’s ghostwriter. She erroneously assumes, for example, that Roland-Manuel introduced Jacques Maritain’s ideas into the text, when it is clear Stravinsky had known these texts since the early 1920s.
* * *
I. The handwritten Roman numeral “I” is on the top right-hand corner of this page.
II. Stravinsky seems to have dwelled on the word reactive when developing the lectures’ introduction; he uses it several times in the section he wrote called “Getting Acquainted.”
III. Suvchinsky wrote Stravinsky on 31 March 1939 that he had just seen Henri Sauguet’s opera, La Chartreuse de Parme, and enjoyed it very much. Stravinsky replied a day later that he was glad to hear about Sauguet’s success and that he had always liked his music and hoped to see La Chartreuse some day. See SPRK, 3:662–64. It seems, then, that the words written here in pencil were reminders.
IV. Misspelled as “Fenomêne” in the original French. —Trans.
V. Suvchinsky added a small “x)” here in order to indicate a footnote, which he included under the solid line at the bottom of this page. We have changed his x) to an asterisk for the sake of clarity.
VI. Suvchinsky originally wrote “Chronos” and then changed the “C” to a “K.” —Trans.
VII. “A Coincidence of Opposites” is a Neoplatonic term originating with the fifteenth-century German philosopher Nicholas of Cusa.
VIII. The word “structure” is added in pencil above “morphology”.
IX. Misspelled as “thême” in the original French. —Trans.
X. Misspelled as “melo” in the original French. —Trans.
XI. Suvchinsky distinguishes between the written word (mot) and spoken word (parole) in French, as Stravinsky will in his manuscript. —Trans.
XII. Some words in this list are capitalized unusually in the original, for example “La Forme” in contrast to “le poème” and “La cantate.” —Trans.
XIII. Schema.
XIV. Form.
XV. The words “profane” and “sacre” are written on top of each other in the original. —Trans.
XVI. This is Suvchinsky’s footnote to himself, originally marked with “x),” a commentary on the phrase above: “What is not, to my mind, music.”
XVII. The handwritten Roman numeral “II” is on the top right-hand corner of this page.
XVIII. “‘imaginative’ and intellectual imagination” is our translation of Suvchinsky’s somewhat awkward “l’imagination—‘fantaisie’ et intellectuelle” in French. —Trans.
XIX. Suvchinsky uses the French word “facture.” —Trans. “Musical writing” is our translation of “L’ecriture musicale,” which also translates as composition.
XX. Suvchinsky slightly misquotes the line “It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom,” from chapter 3 of Friedrich Engels’s Die Entwicklung des Sozialismus von der Utopie zur Wissenschaft (Socialism: Utopian and Scientific) (1880). He draws a line from this quote to the Russian word added at the bottom of this page: иллюстр (abbreviation of illustration).
XXI. Misspelled as “purté” in the original French. —Trans.
XXII. Misspelled as “academisme” in the original French, an error repeated below. Suvchinsky writes this word in larger letters underlined heavily and draws a heavy arrow between it and “Classicism.” —Trans.
XXIII. Suvchinsky was trying to build a parallel construction around “musique ‘imposée’ et musique ‘soumise,’” but realized this did not work and changed “musique imposée” to “musique qui s’impose,” which still does not work elegantly in French. He then circled this expression. Another rendering of it in English might be “music that ‘subjects’ and music that ‘is subjected.’” —Trans.
XXIV. Suvchinsky heavily underlines this phrase.
XXV. Suvchinsky circles this word in the original.
XXVI. Abbreviation of иллюстрация (illustration).
XXVII. Tchaikovsky. (Suvchinsky perhaps thought of citing the Fifth Symphony as an example.)
XXVIII. Misspelled as “Indépandant” in the original French. —Trans.
XXIX. Framework of history.
XXX. Misspelled as “mècens” in the original French. —Trans.
XXXI. Misspelled as “problême” in the original French. —Trans.
XXXII. The handwritten number Roman numeral “III” is on the top right-hand corner of this page.
XXXIII. Misspelled as “citoien” in the original French. —Trans.
XXXIV. Alexander Kastalsky (1856–1926), Russian composer, choirmaster, and folklorist.
XXXV. Occasionally Suvchinsky writes a French word in the Cyrillic alphabet, as he does here with dégradation.
XXXVI. Dictionary (French).
XXXVII. 1st Symph. of Brahms.
XXXVIII. 4th Symph. of Beethoven.
XXXIX. or somebody else.
XL. Numbering here matches Stravinsky’s and the order of presentation in the file is preserved by the Paul Sacher Stiftung.
XLI. Stravinsky conflates caprice du destin (twist of fate) and hasard (chance) in the expression “caprice de hasard.”
XLII. The grammatical error is present in the French: “C’est que ma biographie musicale et mon oeuvre, … a reçu dès le début de ma carrière les qualités d’un ‘réactif.’” —Trans.
XLIII. “réactif” in French. —Trans.
XLIV. Faussés misspelled as “fausé” in the original French. —Trans.
XLV. “Esquisse” in the original; Roland-Manuel corrects as “esquissée.” —Trans.
XLVI. “conquêtes révolutionnaire” in the original. —Trans. Stravinsky brackets this sentence in the left-hand margin.
XLVII. Stravinsky brackets this sentence with the next one in the left-hand margin.
XLVIII. Stravinsky originally wrote “pas peur de l’avouer” (not afraid to admit it) but Roland-Manuel added “Je n’ai” (I am) at the beginning of this sentence to make it more grammatically correct. —Trans.
XLIX. Stravinsky wrote “autant que je defends” but crossed out “defends” and replaced it with “le fais” to create the clause “autant que je le fais par mes compositions musicales.” —Trans.
L. Stravinsky wrote “La 1ère qui vient de se passée,” but somebody scribbled slightly illegible notes trying to figure out what he was saying. It appears he was trying to say that the first chapter was in the process of being written. —Trans.
LI. Stravinsky writes question marks over the original French for both “general” and “detail.”
LII. Stravinsky circles this word and puts a question mark over it.
LIII. Misspelled as “cathegories” in the original French. —Trans.
LIV. Stravinsky puts an arrow between this line and the next.
LV. There is an “X” next to this sentence in the left-hand margin.
LVI. The sentence “is incarnated, takes shape on an entirely different plane” is written at the bottom of the page, and circled, with an arrow leading to it.
LVII. In the first typed transcription of this page (508, PSS), somebody had modified this by hand in French to read “What is not yet music: sound, noises, even birdsong. What becomes music…”
LVIII. Don’t forget the coda of Tchaikovsky’s 4th Symphony.
LIX. “Interview avec Serge Moreux de L’Intransigeant pour la radiodiffusion, Paris, 28 December 1938,” in French, in Eric White, Stravinsky: The Composer and His Works (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 585–87; typescripts in microfilm 118.1, 185–94, PSS.
LX. Roland-Manuel spells this “Chronos” in the first typed transcription of this page (508, PSS).
LXI. Stravinsky adds this sentence in Russian by hand to the first typed transcription of this page. Translation: A simultaneous examination of musical time and movement represents the question of LENTO and PRESTO i
n music (508, PSS).
LXII. On the first typed transcription of this page, Roland-Manuel writes in French “speak about creative receptivity.” At the bottom of this same page Stravinsky adds in French, “Meditate: to reflect profoundly on this or that” (509, PSS).
LXIII. Stravinsky’s “+phrase, period, development=recapitulation” is an addendum tacked on at the bottom of the page, with an arrow indicating it belongs with point (d) here. The section from “—quote examples” to “Variations” is written on the verso of this unnumbered page as a continuation of the addendum.
LXIV. In French, “l’échelle sonore.”
LXV. Roland-Manuel added “consonance-dissonance” by hand in French on the first typed transcription of this page (510, PSS).
LXVI. Roland-Manuel added “cadences” by hand in French on the first typed transcription of this page (510, PSS).
LXVII. “la parole” in the original.
LXVIII. Misspelled as “plein-chant” in the original French here and below. —Trans.
LXIX. Neumes are an early form of musical notation. The original sentence ends with “cherche en” (seeks out of it). Stravinsky scribbles a possible continuation of the sentence sideways across the envelope. This text is hard to decipher and order. It reads “donne le chant, le plein-chant [sic] musique qui était note [sic] par les neumes. Le 1er cas donne les Liders [sic] des romances comme type. Le 2d les chansons.”
LXX. The original French: “est une pièce qui se compose.”
LXXI. what comes from oneself.
LXXII. I am in the process of creation and at some point this process begins to function through inertia.
LXXIII. Synthesizing numerous accounts into one makes it possible to deduce a certain law of the creative process. Stravinsky added this comment in the left-hand margin, circled it, and attached it to text with arrows.
LXXIV. “I conceived something and in the process of working I arrived suddenly at the unexpected, which must not be confused with that which comes from oneself (imagination).”
LXXV. In French, “L’écriture” —Trans.
LXXVI. In French, “La Facture musicale” —Trans.
LXXVII. In Stravinsky’s French, “serré ou de l’eau” —Trans.
LXXVIII. The original French grammar is doubtful here: “on le s’impose et on l’impose aux autres.” This sentence is circled in the original. —Trans.
LXXIX. The word “l’élévage” (breeding) is added in brackets above “le s’impose.”
LXXX. “Comme règle” and “lois ordre and exterior, interior” was added as an addendum at the bottom of the page and linked to the subheading “L’ordre et le désordre” by an arrow. The word “ordre” is circled.
LXXXI. The dialectic is as such: snobs think that art is synonymous with free creation. This is incorrect. The more limited, the more ruled by canonical and dogmatic laws, the more free art is.
LXXXII. Stravinsky originally wrote the grammatically incorrect “aux problème.” —Trans.
LXXXIII. The two lines here about “cycles” and “current” are added as an addendum on the left margin of the page.
LXXXIV. The words “miracle” and “rapport causal” (causal relationship) are written in brackets below “Le hasard” (chance) and “Genèse” (Genesis).
LXXXV. Stravinsky circles this sentence in the original.
LXXXVI. In French, “soumis” and “insoumis” —Trans.
LXXXVII. Stravinsky is referring to his discussion of Sophocles’ Antigone in “Interview avec Serge Moreux de L’Intransigeant pour la radiodiffusion, Paris, 28 December 1938.”
LXXXVIII. Strauss’s Sinfonica Domestica.
LXXXIX. Beethoven’s Symphony no. 6 in F Major, op. 68 (Pastoral).
XC. The word is in German in the original and would translate as “legitimate” here.
XCI. This page has a “4)” in the upper left-hand corner, and a “-3-” in the upper right-hand corner, the latter in Stravinsky’s hand.
XCII. Stravinsky added the word “pédagogique” (pedagogic) with a question mark and opening but not closing bracket underneath the word “rôle” and then circled both words together.
XCIII. Stravinsky omits punctuation here. The title Pulcinella is written in brackets under the word “conservateur” (conservative) and both are circled together.
XCIV. Stravinsky numbers this page “-4” in the upper right-hand corner.
XCV. Misspelled as “cituations” in the original French. —Trans.
XCVI. Stravinsky wrote the text on the right-hand side of the page and than drew an arrow from it to the bracketed list on the left-hand side (starting with “The Patron”), to indicate it should follow. This list on the left-hand side consists of the questions he has just described as “interesting and topical.”
XCVII. Why have I suddenly started talking about Russian music, not because I am Russian or because I particularly value it in relation to other music. Similarly, do not think I am hostile to the appearance of a national beginning, that goes without saying insofar as such an appearance is unconscious.
XCVIII. Alexander Scriabin and Modest Musorgsky.
XCIX. “De l’exécution” in original French. —Trans.
C. This line appears in the left-hand margin.
CI. Stravinsky first writes “au meme [sic] temps” (at the same time) and then crosses that out and writes “simultanés” (simultaneous).
CII. The wordplay here of “existe—réexiste/sonne—resonne” (exist—reexist/sound—resound) is lost in a proper English translation. —Trans.
CIII. Misspelled as “abbérations” in the original French. —Trans.
CIV. “Classic criticisms—inquire Strecker.” Willi Strecker (1884–1951) was Stravinsky’s publisher and director of the Schott publishing house. In the typescript of this page, Roland-Manuel changes this line to “Classical criticisms to ask Strecker about” (“Klassische Kritiken à demander à Strecker”). An unidentified journal article titled “Klassische Kritiken” and consisting of critical responses to Wagner and Beethoven, is on microfilm 117.1, 493, PSS.
CV. Misspelled as “épylogue” in the original French. —Trans.
CVI. Misspelled as “vous ne pouv” in the original French. —Trans.
CVII. Misspelled as “consciesment” in the original French. —Trans.
CVIII. Roland-Manuel appears to write the grammatically incorrect clause “découle du processus formalisantes pas.” —Trans.
CIX. The boxed notes correspond to circled additions in the right margin in the original. The text given here takes up the bottom half of a full page of notes.
CX. Several spelling errors are present in the original French: “la fonction de la tonalité nous apparaît come [sic] subordonee [sic] à la fonction attractive des pôle [sic].” —Trans.
CXI. Comme misspelled as “comm” in the original French. —Trans.
CXII. Bracketed notes in this example indicate words Roland-Manuel added later, in a second phase of writing.
CXIII. Stravinsky had originally written down these ideas in part in Russian in his outline.
Stravinsky: The View from Russia
SVETLANA SAVENKO
TRANSLATED BY PHILIPP PENKA
In recent years Stravinsky has experienced something of a renaissance in Russia. Performances abound, scholarship is flourishing, and recently Natalia Braginskaya and Valérie Dufour formed the “Stravinsky Between East and West” study group of the International Musicological Society to broaden the dialogue. Such moments of expansive intellectual growth offer excellent opportunities for reflecting on the composer’s lasting influence in his homeland, and on questions most pertinent to Russian scholars. How did Stravinsky shape compositional trends in Russia in the twentieth century? And in what way did he remain intellectually and musically rooted in Russian traditions? By briefly examining Stravinsky’s reception in Russia, use of folklore, and aesthetic affinity with the Acmeist poets of St. Petersburg, I hope to show that he
maintained a steadfast tie with his homeland throughout his life—a tie that explains the importance he continues to hold there today.
Stravinsky’s Reception in Russia
Stravinsky’s career began rather innocuously in Russia, as an “imitator” and devoted student of Nikolay Rimsky-Korsakov, and “fourth-generation Belyayevets.”1 His debut compositions, the Symphony in E-flat and The Faun and the Shepherdess, fit well within the concert repertoire of the time and within Russian concert traditions in general.2 Yet, not entirely without reason, most critics found Stravinsky’s devotion to his “elders” excessive. “The stylization, and his fear of moving away from the manner of his teacher, are apparent … he failed to go beyond slavish imitation,” an anonymous reviewer commented after the Court Orchestra’s premiere of the two works in 1908.3 At the same concert, the influential critic Vyacheslav Karatygin applauded the “excellent technique and good knowledge of the orchestra,” but singled out as the “main fault of the entire suite [The Faun and the Shepherdess] its lack of style.”4 This judgment is rather tantalizing in light of the composer’s future development. Karatygin seems to assume that Stravinsky will follow the dignified, if entirely routine path of becoming a successor to the traditions of the Russian national school. Clearly he expected no more from him.
Stravinsky’s life, and his career in Russia, changed dramatically after the Ballets Russes’ spectacular premiere of Firebird in Paris on 25 June 1910. He had performed sections of the work on the piano at the offices of the journal Apollon in St. Petersburg on 10 April 1910, but Russian audiences received their first impression of its orchestral sound when Alexander Siloti conducted what is known as its first suite—a truncated version of the ballet—in St. Petersburg on 23 October 1910.5 Stravinsky’s newfound success in France did not mean that his music was universally acknowledged in Russia, however. Ever since the premiere of the Scherzo fantastique and Feu d’artifice in 1909, Russian critics had admired Stravinsky’s richness of orchestral color, luxurious harmonies, and brilliant orchestral arrangements, yet they considered his talent to be one-sided and refused to admit his gift for melody and ability to invent striking thematic material. Everyone from superficial newspaper critics to sophisticated musicians who were positively predisposed toward Stravinsky’s music expressed such concerns. “Even though this music is somewhat superficial in spite of all its brilliance,” Karatygin wrote after hearing Siloti’s performance of the truncated Firebird Suite in 1910, “would you not put it the other way around after listening to Firebird: that this music is brilliant despite a certain superficiality?6 “What abundance of invention, what intelligence, temperament, talent, what a wonderful and rare work!” the symphonist Nikolay Myaskovsky wrote a year later about studying a score of the piano reduction of the full ballet. But no sooner had he uttered these words than he followed them with “it lacks originality …. the very essence of its musical material is not yet marked by a vividly expressed individuality.”7 Prokofiev reacted similary when he heard Firebird and Petrushka in London in 1914: “How dazzling the colors in the orchestra are, and how ingenious all those flourishes and grimaces; what a sincere ingenuity and how lively it all comes across! But I did not give in to the charm of the music for one minute. And what music! Nothing but rot. But it is so interesting that I will no doubt go again.”8
Stravinsky and His World Page 36