Tchaikovsky's Death

This isn't strictly related to the Kuchka, since Tchaikovsky wasn't a member of their circle, but I wrote it anyway, so here it is:

There are two main theories accounting for the death of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Alexandra Orlova has advanced the theory that he committed suicide. The "official" Soviet musicology is that he died of cholera, represented here by Alexander Poznansky. Below I will analyze the evidence associated with each theory.

Summaries of Current Theories
Orlova's theory is as follows: Tchaikovsky was involved in a homosexual relationship with the relative of a nobleman. The nobleman discovered this, was upset and planned to complain to the Tsar, which according to the law could have resulted in various unpleasant legal actions against Tchaikovsky, as well as general disgrace. Another consequence would be the shaming of Tchaikovsky's alma mater, the School of Jurisprudence in St. Petersburg. The reputation of the school was so sacred that a group of concerned fellow-alumni convened a secret "court", with Tchaikovsky in attendance, and determined that he must kill himself (thereby avoiding the public exposure) for the good of the school's reputation. Tchaikovsky agreed to this out of overwhelming fear of being exposed. He took poison in the ensuing days and his family members and doctors, when they discovered the truth, concocted the story of cholera to make the whole situation seem as uncontroversial as possible.
The primary motivation for this theory is Tchaikovsky's life-long torment with his homosexuality, as revealed by Orlova in various excerpts of letters from Tchaikovsky to family. These portray him as fairly unstable and Orlova suggests that he would have taken his own life rather than face the disgrace of public exposure and the legal penalties for his actions.
Primary evidence in support of this theory is a conversation Orlova had with Alexander Voitov, an alumnus and historian of the School of Jurisprudence, who told her the story of the secret court as he heard it from the wife of Nikolay Jacobi, the man who initiated it. Further accounts from Vasily Bertenson (one of the primary physicians at Tchaikovsky's bedside), Tchaikovsky's nephew Yury Davydov, Y. Zander (son of an assisting doctor to Bertenson) and Alexandr Ossovsky (music scholar and contemporary of Tchaikovsky) also mention poison or suicide. Orlova also points out that the details of the cholera story as described by Modest Tchaikovsky and primary doctor Lev Bertenson don't seem to match in certain particulars, which may indicate hasty fabrication in an attempt to cover the truth. Furthermore, it seems that medical precautions for cholera were not being observed at all at Tchaikovsky's bedside and at his viewing and funeral. Also, the unusually strong attempt to definitively establish the cause of death as cholera, initiated soon after Tchaikovsky died, by detailed letters to the press from Modest and Lev Bertenson, seems suspicious.
Overall, Orlova feels that there are enough questions about the cholera theory, and enough source material for a suicide/poison theory, that it is reasonable to assume that the long-time public opinion favoring the suicide story is on track.

In Alexander Poznansky's view, the rumors and gossip of suicide in connection with Tchaikovsky's death are the natural result of the mist of secrecy created by his homosexuality and the unexpectedness of his passing. Poznansky endeavors to put the rumors to a thorough test to see if they hold up. In particular he intends to focus on the external evidence of suicide brought up by Orlova, for if the external evidence can be dissolved, then any remaining motivation is useless in proving a case.
That said, most of his strongest points are those undermining the motivations advanced by Orlova. Poznansky's study of homosexual culture in St. Petersburg indicates that it flourished in both in the city, at court, and among close relatives of the Tsar himself, who held Tchaikovsky's music in high esteem. Tchaikovsky was only one of many prominent homosexuals, with some holding high positions at court and some being far more open than he, none of whom were prosecuted for their actions. This suggests that Tchaikovsky had nothing to fear in the way of legal action against him. Poznansky argues that the secret court of former classmates is unfathomable due to the fact that the School of Jurisprudence already had a fairly rich heritage of homosexual practice at the school, and homosexual alumni in the area. Why would they have gone after Tchaikovsky when he was primarily identified with the public as a composer, not as an alumni of the school? Even if the alumni group had for some reason decided that Tchaikovsky must be dealt with, Tchaikovsky had no reason to submit to their demand of suicide. He retained little fondness for the school and was at the peak of his own career, in the midst of numerous creative projects, and a favorite composer of the Tsar. He probably would have scoffed at their demand.
Poznansky further argues, backed by a quote from a Tchaikovsky letter, that Tchaikovsky was reconciled with his homosexual condition; he felt it was natural and was at peace, indicating that he would not have been especially terrified of exposure anyway.
Beyond this undermining of the motivation for suicide, Poznansky offers a few arguments against Orlova's actual evidence. Records indicate that Tchaikovsky was still corresponding and making plans with the future in mind after the time when he would have taken the poison. The conflicts in the press which Orlova sees as a controversy over suicide, Poznansky explains as a controversy over whether malpractice occurred in Tchaikovsky's treatment for cholera. The discrepancies in Modest Tchaikovsky and Lev Bertenson's published accounts of the final events can be seen as each of them independently trying to describe things in a way that clears them of any neglect or wrong-doing, possibly resulting in an inaccuracy here and there.

Analysis of Evidence
The biggest problem with both of these arguments is that they too often do not consist of the type of material likely to result in a realization of the truth. Orlova's initial writing is not particularly scholarly. She has some compelling and interesting pieces of "evidence", but she is really just trying to deduce a plausible context for them and is "supposing" the details that aren't certain. Outraged by this, Poznansky then overreacts to an astonishing degree, ridiculing her article as if she were trying to prove an indisputable case in court and has failed miserably. Further exchanges on the issue between David Brown, Poznansky, and Richard Taruskin consist mostly of overreactions to each other's overreactions with the arguments becoming further polarized instead of being drawn together towards the truth. Each side has a somewhat irrational air which probably leaves most unbiased readers suspecting that the truth lies with neither party, but is somewhere in between.
A more specific issue that seems to be present in the two original papers is quote mining from Tchaikovsky's letters. Conflicting quotes are taken in order to support both his supposed life-long anxiety and his supposed eventual reconciliation with his homosexuality. It would be more responsible for both authors to give a thorough context for any quotes from letters and to show why it is a credible source for their point.

Analyzing Orlova's Theory
I think that what makes Orlova's story believable to many people is the perceived link between the Soviet government's official denial of Tchaikovsky's homosexuality (accepted everywhere else) and their denial of anything but cholera as the cause of his death. The ridiculousness of the one implies a similar level of falsehood with the other. Orlova subtly suggests this link in her opening paragraph:
"Among musicians and the older residents of Leningrad there is no doubt: Tchaikovsky committed suicide, however much official Soviet musicology insists on maintaining the 'cholera' version instituted immediately after Tchaikovsky's death by his brother and the doctors who attended him. The broader public too believes in suicide connected with Tchaikovsky's homosexuality.[i] "
This is probably why many people seem to have latched onto the suicide story without looking further into the evidence. Unfortunately, there is no concrete evidence offered of a link between the Soviet stance on the two issues.
Orlova jumps to conclusions too much to avoid drawing a rebuke. She states that "one would not normally expect to find medical details in the obituaries of a composer...It is evident that some people were at pains to explain, to prove something (pg. 129)." Then on page 131 for some reason she decides that among all the conflicting evidence "it is impossible to disbelieve the medical bulletins" that were hung on the door of Modest's apartment. Therefore the conflicting personal accounts of Modest and Lev Bertenson must be questioned as if a conspiracy is for sure. By page 136, Orlova has built up her theory so carefully and with so many precarious assertions that this sentence apparently seems logical to her: "Further events, as recorded by Modest, are probably fictitious; it is pointless to examine them further here."[ii]
It seems like Orlova has only thought through her theory from her own point of view. She hasn't considered how tenuous it seems to others.

Analyzing Poznansky's Theory
There are also some particular problems with Alexander Poznansky's arguments. In general, he misunderstands her focus. On page 210 of his article he criticizes her for "resort[ing] to the conspiracy theory" to explain the differences in the testimonies of Modest and Lev Bertenson.[iii] He doesn't seem to realize that her whole point was that there was a conspiracy and these details seem to lend support to it. Why should she present a different explanation? She may have considered several, but evidently felt that hers was the best. Poznansky might have saved an enormous amount of fussing by looking carefully and rationally at Orlova's article, conceding that there are some suspicious-looking things to account for, and then presenting his research showing how unlikely it is that her scenario took place. As it is, he royally overreacted and provoked "a good deal of heat but precious little light" as David Brown said.[iv]
In his zeal, Poznansky has gotten carried away into some arguments that are no stronger than Orlova's. His statement concerning the likelihood of a slow-acting poison to be found in St. Petersburg was entertaining. He refers to an unnamed toxicologist who goes as far as to say that such a poison would be "unusually rare."[v] Poznansky pushes this across as a solid point, combined with his own reasoning: "poison in general is a fast-acting agent, as anyone who reads murder mysteries knows."[vi] Silly Alexandra, she was evidently looking in all the wrong places for proof.

Conclusions
My own conclusion is that the suicide-conspiracy theory is unlikely, given the homosexual climate in the city and in the government at the time, as argued by Poznansky. Although his arguments are in the end stronger and more reasonable, it was a bit of a drag wading through the emotional muck and polemic to arrive at this point. Maybe what the issue really needs is an impartial scholar or two to wade in and sort through the muck with an open mind an a willingness to look objectively at the evidence as a whole, not in any reaction to either side. The problem is most of these scholars seem to be too smart to get involved.

[i]Alexandra Orlova and David Brown. “Tchaikovsky: The Last Chapter,” Music and Letters, 62 no. 2 (April 1981), 125.
[ii] Ibid. 136.
[iii] Alexander Poznansky. “Tchaikovsky’s Suicide: Myth and Reality,” 19th-Century Music, 11 no. 3 (Spring 1988), 210.
[iv] David Brown, "How Did Tchaikovsky Come to Die—and Does It Really Matter?" Music and Letters 78 no.4 (Nov. 1997), 588.
[v] Poznansky, 207.
[vi] Ibid.