Tchaikovsky – Symphony #6 in B minor, “Pathétique

For the work of a composer often criticized for insincerity and bombast, Tchaikovsky’s Symphony #6 is a remarkably personal statement.  It is his last completed piece, crowning a career that focused on symphonic music (the earlier symphonies plus several impressive tone poems and important concertos for the piano and violin), ballet (with The Nutcracker, Swan Lake, and Sleeping Beauty remaining repertoire staples), and opera (particularly the masterful Eugene Onegin).  Among the symphonies, the Sixth is distinctive for extreme emotional contrasts – even by Tchaikovsky’s standards – and a high degree of coherence in the melodic material, with several important themes being based on descending scales.

 

The unique position of the “Pathétique” Symphony, however, is inevitably tied to the eerie circumstances of its composition – most centrally, that Tchaikovsky died six days after the work received its first performance, in spite of having been in apparently good health while conducting the premiere himself.  Certain facts are well established, while other questions remain controversial.  We know that the composer began planning the work at least one year before its premiere, intending to call it “A Program Symphony,” by which me meant a symphony motivated by a particular story or extramusical association.  He steadfastly refused to disclose the program to anyone, even his brother Modeste, with whom he was very close.  After the composer’s death, however, a page with the symphony’s “program” was discovered:

 

The following is a sketch of the symphony – Life!  The first movement – all impetus, confidence, thirst for action.  Must be short.  (Finale – death – the result of destruction.)  (2nd movement – love; 3 – disillusionment; 4 – dies away towards the end, also short.)

 

It is apparent that the Symphony #6 grew away from this program as it evolved, particularly in the length of the first movement, which, at twenty minutes, can hardly be considered “short.”  But many of the original elements were preserved, including the “thirst for action” of the first movement, the “disillusionment” of the self-consciously bombastic third, and the undercurrent of death in the finale.  Tchaikovsky found his labors on the symphony to be deeply moving and at times disturbing.  In letters to his nephew, he wrote, “When composing it in my mind during my wanderings, I often shed bitter tears” and “I am positive in holding it to be the best and, above all, the ‘most genuinely sincere’ of all my works. I love it as I have never loved any of my other musical children.”

 

The audience at the work’s premiere was puzzled, particularly by the last movement, which ends in quiet resignation.  Traditionally, the last movement of a symphony was fast and brought a definitive sense of closure; if the piece had started in a minor key, the finale would often end in the major, signifying the artist’s triumph over conflict.  Tchaikovsky was saddened by the audience’s lukewarm reception, but he attributed this partly to his having billed the work as a “program symphony” without disclosing the program.  It was after the premiere that Modeste (who still did not know what program his brother had intended) suggested the nickname “Pathétique,” which the composer adopted immedi­ately.

 

Addressing the question of how or why the composer died, mere days after the first perform­ance, is where the controversy begins.  Officially, Tchaikovsky died of cholera, the same disease that had claimed his mother when he was fourteen.  That cholera was present in St. Petersburg at the time was common knowledge, however, particularly among the educated classes; most of the risk could be averted through basic precautions, such as boiling drinking water.  It has long seemed unlikely to scholars that Tchaikovsky fell victim to the disease without at least having engaged in some willful recklessness, per­haps even intentionally drinking contaminated water.

 

Tchaikovsky’s homosexuality, which was considered sinful and illegal in late nineteenth-century Russia, was a constant source of shame.  For nearly a century after Tchaikovsky’s death, it was speculated that an alleged affair with the nephew of one Duke Stenbock-Fermor was about to be brought to light (upon the Duke’s complaint), and that the composer was pressured to take a deadly poison in order to avoid a scandal.  The story began with the wife of a Russian judicial senator, was passed on to a historian in 1913, and finally was introduced to the United States with the 1980 immigration of Soviet musicologist Alexandra Orlova.  Energetic work by scholars over the following several years began unraveling this legend, their revisionist account resting heavily on research indi­cating that homosexuality was, in fact, widely tolerated among the upper classes.  The official account of Tchaikovsky’s death by cholera is currently accepted as accurate.

 

This resolution, however, falls far short of answering many of the disturbing questions surrounding the piece.  If Tchaikovsky was facing the prospect of having an affair exposed, even if he would not be subject to legal punishment, what would it mean for his psyche?  He had gone through great pains throughout his life to conceal or even “correct” his homosexuality, including entering into a short-lived, disastrous marriage with a student he met at the St. Petersburg Conservatory, leading to an earlier suicide attempt.  How would his career survive such a further public disgrace?  And if the pro­gram of the symphony was “life,” with Tchaikovsky’s deep affection for it surely suggest­ing an autobiographical nature, what do we make of the bleak, utterly resigned finale?  It seems irresistible to conclude that, while Tchaikovsky may not have literally been intending suicide, he wrote the Symphony #6 in a deep state of depression and with the belief that the most fruitful part of his life was over.

 

In any case, the piece has plenty to offer even if one rejects the hypotheses about the composer’s troubled state of mind.  The first movement, evolving from a poignant melodic fragment first presented by the bassoon in a lugubrious introduction, contrasts nervous energy with soaring lyricism in one of Tchaikovsky’s most epic large-scale structures.  The second movement has the feel of a waltz, but whereas the rhythmic pulse of a waltz goes in groups of three beats, this lilting dance alternates “steps” of two and three beats – resulting in a peculiar, but still somehow graceful, meter in five.  The third movement is both a scherzo and march, with the march tune being among Tchaikovsky’s best known melodies.  The finale is uncommonly expressive, with extensive dissonances between the string and wind sections, a second theme full of yearning and nostalgia (marked “with sluggishness and devotion” by the composer), and a magnificent chorale for the low brass just before the haunting final section.  Some of the questions sur­round­ing Tchaikovsky’s life may never be answered, but his music will always be able to survive on its own.

 


2003-04 PCO repertoire