Kallman, Chester: Brief an Henze, Hans Werner. Kirchstetten, Montag, 10. Oktober 1960
author: Kallman, Chester
language: en
availability: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Copyright by the Estate of Chester Kallman. By courtesy of the Estate of Chester Kallman. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Kirchstetten Oct 10 60

Dear wicked scissor-man,[^1]

[^1: This funny nickname may perhaps allude to the fact that Henze demanded a lot of cuts to Auden and Kallman's libretto.]

First of all, congratulations on the first act. Hoch![^2]And now on to considerations of the other two as we have them. I don't know who did the typing, which has lots of easily findable and easily correctable misprints, but no sense of where verse lines should start on a page.[^3] Wystan always says I'm unnecessarily finicky on the point.[^4] Still, I typed all three acts and gave myself a lot of trouble keeping the alignments clear. Now they're all over the place and I can't see how to set them right without cluttering up the pages with probably incomprehensible markings or re-typing the whole damned thing. Which I shall certainly not do. Is it possible for someone to make these changes by consulting the original typed copi e s and markings this copy in a way that the printers will understand? Do find out. At any rate I'm not “in the know” about German proof-reading symbols of the more complicated sort. Verbal corrections and insertions, yes. Line arrangements, no.

[^2: In his previous letter to the librettists on 19 July 1960, Henze wrote that he wanted to write “more of Act I numbers” so that he could discuss them with the librettists at their next meeting in Kirchstetten, which took place from 4 to 6 August 1960. Apparently, Henze had managed to send the librettists Act I, after their meeting.]

[^3: At the beginning of the verses, the layout of the final printed libretto is structured so that it facilitates reading: arias, for example, are indented towards the centre and dialogue verses have more pronounced indents.]

[^4: It cannot be ascertained which document Kallman’s is dissatisfied with. It is certainly related to the typescript of the libretto of Elegy for Young Lovers (or part of it).]

The synopsis will of course have to be slightly revised since the story itself has undergone a few changes since it was written.[^5] I'll do that this week. About the “Genesis” piece, though. Do you really think it belongs in the librettino at all?x x ich meine nein. It might do in one of those explanatory booklets with themes and photos of all three of us being served tea by Stravinsky while Bob Craft masturbates in the foreground, but does it belong with the text itself? Or it might get i t self published in some musical magazine and earn a few dollars, j'espere, for its author on the side. If you really think the librettino must have it, though, then it should come as an after-piece. Placed before the text, it will make people look for things in the text it mentions, and thus get an unbalanced impression from their reading. What do you think?[^6]

[^5: Apparently, the two librettists had already sketched out a synopsis to be used in the opera's theatre programs, which, however, at the time of this letter, required adjustments following some changes to the action.]

[^6: The librettists' article to which Kallman is alluding here was subsequently printed at the end of the libretto, pp. 61–63, with the title Genesis of a libretto .]

I shall also write and send you this week a short insert for Act Two to replace the original scene between Mittenhofer and Mauer that has now been cut.[^7] I think this is necessary for three reasons. One: Mauer entering with Hilda is not enough to justify his appearance on stage in the second act.[^8] Two; He comes with weather reports in the first and third acts (and thus as a messenger of the gods) and should have the same function in the second. Wystan had the brilliant idea that his report in the second act should be wrong.. that is, he should tell Mittenhofer that he expects the weather the next day; and Mitty says, Never mind, I've made other arrangements. This exchange is what leads Mauer to make his closing remarks in Act Three about the weather “madly happening”. In other words, the wanton fatefulness of the blizzard will be further underlined. See? The messenger of the gods, only human, has got the message incorrectly. I think this both important dramatically and in the matter of the three acts balancing one another. And effective. Mittenhofer's outburst will be even more of a shadow and shock after the prediction of fine weather.[^9] Three: Given the musical build up in the second act right up to the Tomorrow ensemble[^10], a little rest from music during this brief (probably three or four lines) dialogue, will freshen the public's ears to receive the full force of Mittenhofer's tirade. Given the intensity of style with which you seem thus far to be composing the work, this brief rest before the climax appears to me very essential.[^11]

[^7: Kallman is referring to the last part of Act II. In the final version, there are Scene XII (The vision of to-morrow) and Scene XIII (The end of the day).]

[^8: The moment Mauer arrives on stage while carrying Hilda in his arms and holding her sunshade over her head, takes place in Act II, Scene IX (The bride).]

[^9: In the final libretto Mauer addresses Mittenhofer in Act II, Scene XII (The vision of to-morrow) when the poet is alone on stage and tells him that he does not have time to pick the edelweiss but predicts that the weather will be “warm enough...” the next day, to go to the mountain. Mauer does not finish the sentence, hinting that perhaps he will therefore be able to pick the flower the next day. Mittenhofer replies: “...Never mind, I shan't need any. Thank you for your thoughtfulness.” The librettists intended to emphasise in this way the fatality of the storm, not foreseen by the “messenger of the gods” Mauer.]

[^10: The “Tomorrow ensemble” takes place in Act II, Scene XII (The vision of to-morrow), featuring the six characters: Elizabeth, Toni, Hilda, Doctor, Mittenhofer and Carolina.]

[^11: After dismissing Mauer, Mittenhofer is left alone in the last scene of Act II (The vision of to-morrow). For him Henze composes a Sprechgesang that is sometimes shouted and full of anger. Here, Kallman suggests to Henze that he include a brief dialogue, without music, before getting to this outburst by Mittenhofer. Perhaps in light of this idea, Henze inserts an instrumental postlude in pianissimo after the concertato of the “Tomorrow ensemble”, which is not placid and light, however, but rather conveys an ominous tension, just before the spoken dialogue between Mittenhofer and Mauer.]

Alvetern . No, dear, we don't think it will do. The “symbol” has to be simple and immediately comprehensible if it is to mean anything at all to the audience. Edelweiss very time-worn and tired echoes from the dreariest German folk-lore will make the differ e nces of its usage her more comprehensible.[^12] Do try to forget about Hitler. That objection is as silly in its way as the Schott objection that Germans[^13] don't behave that way on mountains.[^14] It's the other side of the same coin. Think of the edel-weiss in context, not as an abstract intruder into it. Also, it wrecks the versification of one of the lines to change the work, and makes nonsense of Hilda's “flowers holy-white”[^15]. But all this would be minor if it were not that the plant is too fucking obscure. Re-read the sections in which the substitutions occur and you will see they now communicate nothing at all.

[^12: Henze had requested the two librettists replace the edelweiss with a rare type of plant or root in item 3 of his letter on 7 July 1960. This flower would remain in the libretto as source of inspiration for the poet.]

[^13: The final letter “s” is connected to the rest of the word “German” by a line at the bottom]

[^14: It is probable that Kallman is alluding to one of the various criticisms the libretto of Elegy for Young Lovers received from the publisher Ludwig Strecker (Schott), see Henze's Autobiography, p. 166.]

[^15: “She gave me flowers holy-white” is a verse sung by Hilda in her vision, in Act I, Scene IV (Appearences and Visions).]

People, if they get anything at all, will think it a reference to a Danish composer. If the subtleties in our work are to be apprehended in any way, we mustn't make the approaches to them dark. Please think seriously about this.

We notice cuts, my dear, that we haven't made. The one at the end is easily mended. We should simply like part of it restored, adding simply “A very brave and beautiful couple, ‘in death they were not divided.’” to the text as it now stands. That removes any objection you might have to the request for silence,[^16] but keep s the sententious inaccuracy which is very important dramatically. but. Cutting Elisabeth's bit about “Bed and board” is perhaps a serious mistake.[^17] Remember she's furious; Carolina has spoken to her as though she were simply a convenient “Loch” in the menage and not a person. So she takes it out in being a bit brutal herself. The very frankness of her remarks, too, show a lack of pude u r which is part of her strength. And that they shock Toni slightly is important. Already apprehensive after his talk with papa, her words make him even more cautious in the ensuing scene. You're wrong if you think her out of character there; and the “bed and board” bit, and Toni's reaction to it, are what are in the back of her mind when she asks Hilda later “Do you think I'm a whore?” This second remark without the other is obscure and more shocking than it is supposed to be. Reconsider, my sweet.[^18]

[^16: Here, Kallman is referring to poet Gregor Mittenhofer's request for silence in front of the audience in the Viennese theater before beginning the reading of his poem.]

[^17: Elizabeth's verses quoted here, which Henze would have liked to cut, are not present in the final libretto. So apparently Henze did not follow Kallman's recommendation.]

[^18: Elizabeth’s line to Carolina “Do you think I’m a whore?” remained in the final libretto.]

Frankly, I don't remember if I consented to the cutting of the last three lines of the “Tomorrow” ensemble. If I did, I was wrong. Without them the ensemble lacks a click of rhymes and meaning to bring it to an end; and ending on the word “tomorrow” , which the ensemble begins with, is surely more effecti v e than the present ending. Also, the tossing around of the lines between all the characters should surely not be lost. I leave the decision in our hands.

Oh yes. We see it's still “Huff-and-puff” etc.[^19] Is this a slip? I thought we'd agreed that keeping the real names 1) gave the point to his remarks about them; and 2) placed Mittenhofer among his distinguished contemporaries without any ambiguity. Yes?[^20] And is there no chance of restoring “Let those birds drop their turds” A good laugh never hurt any opera. Let us know.[^21]

[^19: In Act I, Scene V (Wordly Business) the poet Gregor Mittenhofer reads some reviews that his secretary, Carolina von Kirchstetten brings him, in which he is ranked along other living poets who, at the beginning of the creative process on the libretto were named Gorgeous, Milksop and Huff-and-Puff and then in the final libretto would be Stefan George, Rainer Maria Rilke and Hugo von Hofmannsthal.]

[^20: This was apparently an error in the typing of the libretto because Auden, Kallman and Henze had already decided to replace the names of the invented poets (Georgeous, Milksop and Huff-and-Puff) with the names of poets who were contemporaries of the opera’s protagonist (Georg, Rilke, Hofmansthal). This is documented in the attachment to Auden's letter of 12 January 1960 “Answer to your Queries” and also in the “Errata” attached to Auden and Kallman's letter of 31 August, which specifies that Huff-and-Puff should be replaced with Hofmannsthal.]

[^21: In point 7) of his reflections to the two librettists in his letter of 7 July 1960, Henze wrote the following: “‘Let these birds’....etc. I can simply not compose”.]

About printing the spoken parts in a different way in the librettino. I don't really think it's necessary or desirable. On a small page, different kinds of print look fussy and are distracting to the reader. Also, I always think that an element of surprise should be added by not indicating divisions to the reader that will be revealed to him when he hears the work.[^22] Brackets indicating ensembles, however, should be included; if only i n the simplest way.[^23] The dedication we'll do this week. It has been part of our idea to include Huff-and-puff's daughter in our share of the dedication, but since you don&t know her, this must probably be eschewed. A two-part dedication is a little untidy, in any case.[^24]

[^22: As Kallman suggests here, the final published libretto did not have any typographical differences between the sung and spoken parts.]

[^23: The ensemble parts are indicated in the published libretto with long brackets that include the verses sung by different characters together. See, for example, Act III, Scene I (Echos) in the libretto, pp. 47-50.]

[^24: As written at the beginning of the score of Elegy for Young Lovers, the three authors dedicated the work to the memory of Hugo von Hofmannsthal, not his daughter.]

There is a line horizontally separating the text.

Now a little p e sonal narration.

true, it's dippy enough. Anyway. When he got back to the house, he began babbling on about having found out that a chanson he'd written for some Viennese singer had been awarded a prize by the Rundfunk . No amount of questioning on the boys' part brought anything in the way of a title for this prize-winning chanson, however, which would seem to me to be essential if you tell such a story. Doubtless, he was trying to impress them, or at least one of them--he told me later that he had conceived an overwhelming passion for my friend--still, he might have made a better job of it. And was it really necessary to tell them--when I was out of the room--that, though many people considered Auden the Master, he thought the Master was Ezra Pound? A lot that means to them! The next day he began running about in circles and rushing down to telephone Vienna about the new restrictions on train travel through East Germany. And no amount of assurance on our part that millions of people flew to West Berlin all the time, had any effect on him. One can understand him being slightly apprehensive about the restrictions, but surely it was a little late in the day for a West-Berliner, who'd been through one blockade, to panic and insist that he'd have to return at once. Taken by itself it might have been visiting Vienna, my dear: the next day--Saturday--he left at eleven at night to catch a train to Munich, from whence he was to fly back to Berlin. So. Four weeks have passed since then; and we have 1) had no thank-you note; 2) no letter containing the one-thousand-five-hundred-schillings he borrowed from Wystan for his plane ticket. And the day after he left we discovered that both our Kugelschreiber (Parker) were missing; and the “Chinese” cuff-links I bought in Hamburg (they had been in the room he slept in) were also gone. A Marlene Dietrich record is also among the missing, but there's just the possibility that that may have gotten buried under some papers. And that is that. P e rhaps Dahlem ought to be alerted. Oh well, leave it at that. But if you ever see him at an Akademie reception, you might just look to see what cuff links he's wearing; I was very fond of those.

I taped a performance of Homburg the other night, but haven't had a chance to really re-hear it yet. With Herman Prey, this one was.[^25] What I heard I enjoyed extremely. I was extremely tired though and slept through half while it was being recorded. Tonight perhaps. Missed a bit of the Second Act Natalie, Kurfurnstin scene[^26] turning over the damned tape which had gotten twisted. Shame. Maybe you can provide me with the missing bit next year.

[^25: Prey was supposed to sing the role of Mittenhofer for the premiere of Der Prinz von Homburg in Hamburg, on 22 May 1960, but he fell ill (see Henze's Autobiography, p. 160). In any case, he got to sing this opera over the following months, probably either in Spoleto on 24 June 1960, or in Berlin on 23 September 1960.]

[^26: Here, Kallman is referring to Act II, Scene 7 of Der Prinz von Homburg]

According to the Viennese press, Loose and Schoeffler have been hired by Glyndebourne for Elegy . Would that be for Hildy and Hinty? And what month is the premiere there planned for?[^27]

[^27: Emmy Loose was not among the singers in the Glyndebourne premiere of Elegy for Young Lovers in the original language on 13 July 1961. Schöffler was initially cast, only to be replaced by Carlos Alexander (see Henze's telegram to the two librettists). The role of Hilda in Glyndebourne was played by Dorothy Dorow.]

Incidentally, we asked all sort of people here about Alvetern before we came to our d e cision that it was woefully obscure.[^28]

[^28: See the comment below about edelweiss.]

Aside from a wisdom tooth that blew up on me and had to be removed, and an infected jaw after the extraction, I've been alright and so has Miss Master. We fly to England the 22nd of this month, and back to USthe 2nd of November. Thursday I'm going to do my duty by la musica moderna by attending the Vienna premiere of Moses and AAron (done by the Berlin Opera ).[^29] Wystan's staying home. And I'm feeling very proud of myself about a little musical point: I'd always maintained that the “chatter” sections in “Rosenkavalier” should be played, performed and listened to as recitative and not as durchkomponiiert of Strauss' to Hofmannstahl : “Die Arie ist nun einmal die Seele der Oper!.... Geschlossene Nummern, dazwischen Rezitative! Das war, ist und bl ei bt die Oper!”[^30] Show that to Mr. Scherchen or whatever his name is.[^31]

[^29: Schoenberg's Moses and Aron had its German stage premiere in Berlin (West) at the Deutsche Oper (at the time “Städtische Oper”) on 3 October 1959 (Conductor: Hermann Scherchen; Stage director: Gustav Rudolf Sellner; Sets: Michel Raffaelli; with Evelyn Lear, Josef Greindl, Helmut Melchert, etc.). Kallman went to Vienna to see this performance a few days after writing this letter, on 13 or 14 October 1960 when this performance was held at the Staatsoper. See Vienna State Opera Archives.]

[^30: Here, Kallman is quoting a sentence from a letter Richard Strauss sent to his librettist Hugo von Hofmannsthal on 9 May 1929. See Hofmannsthal Briefwechsel]

[^31: The correspondence does not provide enough information to understand why Kallman suggested that Henze should show the letter to Mr. Scherchen. The conductor and composer Hermann Scherchen is never mentioned in the correspondence and it is therefore unlikely that Kallman is referring to him here. The fact that the librettist writes that he is uncertain how to spell the name, suggests that perhaps he might have meant “Mr. Strecker”, the publisher who had heavily criticised the libretto of Elegy for Young Lovers, see Henze's Autobiography, p. 166.]

Let's hear from you soon. Regards to all, especially JUergen[^32] . We'll do our extra bits. Love.
Chester

[^32: It could be Jürgen Henze here, however, this is not certain.]