Kallman, Chester/Auden, Wystan Hugh: Brief an Henze, Hans Werner. Kirchstetten, Freitag, 15. Juli 1960
author: Kallman, Chester; Auden, Wystan Hugh
language: en
availability: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Copyright by the Estate of W. H. Auden and Chester Kallman. By courtesy of the Estate of W. H. Auden and Chester Kallman. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

nach dem Glyndebourne Brief

Kirchstetten July 15th 1960[^1]
Absurd commentaries by Dr. Ludwig Strecker (in pencil) publishing director of Schott’s[^2]
,

[^1: The year was deduced from the content of the letter. Kallman refers to some of the issues set forth concerning changes to the libretto of Elegy for Young Lovers in the letter Henze sent on 7 July 1960. The initial indication, after the Glyndebourne letter refers precisely to the fact that this letter was written in response to the letter Henze wrote after he had travelled to Glyndebourne to meet the producer and stage director Günther Rennert for the first performance of the opera in its original language, that is, in English. In that letter, Henze suggests numerous changes to the libretto.]

[^2: Since this letter contains three handwritten additions by the director of the publishing house Schott, Ludwig Strecker, it can be inferred that Henze had personally shown him the letter or sent it to him and then later received it with comments. Strecker was to publish Elegy for Young Lovers and had previously asked the two librettists some questions, as can be deduced from his notes. However, it is known from Henze's Autobiography p. 166, that Strecker was not enthusiastic about the libretto and wanted to prevent the opera from being produced. It is unlikely that Henze showed the two librettists Strecker’s comments in this letter; instead, it is more likely that he noted the name of the author of the comments for his own archiving or perhaps even with a view to the possible publication of the correspondence. Regarding his difficult collaboration with Strecker, see also Henze's letter to Grete Weil-Jockisch on 14 March [1960].]

No, we won't reproach you for your shower of correspondence[^3] because we were trying t o get in the proper mood to do Mahagonny[^4] at the time, but, my dear, I must admit to shrieking with aesthetic horror when I ran across a reference to La Boheme in your last letter.[^5] No no no no. Stay away! Here we are trying to d o a full-length portrait of a really great artist and you face us with the economies of Puccini.[^6] First of all, leave them to Puccini who had over a century of Italian Opera to work from and, so far as I'm concerned, exhausted the economies based on its conventions much as Mahler exhausted the expansive luxuries based on german symphonic conventions: opera must learn to think emotionally again. And that means cruelty and clarity. And that means a concept of economy that has nothing to do with the limited gamut of effects Puccini was after. Just look at Boheme . One result of its disgre t ion is that it is impossible to believe that one of those artists ever did a bit of work that was worth anybody’s time or attention. But I’m rambling. Back to Elegy.

[^3: Of the shower of letters mentioned here, only the one dated 7 July 1960 seems to be preserved at the Paul Sacher Foundation, since this one was typed on carbon paper, probably unlike the others of which Henze did not keep a copy.]

[^4: Kallman is referring to the work of translating the libretto of Kurt Weill and Bertolt Brechts’ opera Aufstieg und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny into English with the title The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny, the first edition of which was only published by Godine in 1976.]

[^5: There is no reference to Puccini’s La Bohème in Henze's previous letter (dated on 7 July 1960) kept at the Paul Sacher Foundation. As Kallman’s expression suggests, Henze may have written other letters that have yet to be located or no longer survive.]

[^6: At the end of the letter dated 7 July 1960, Henze had written to the two librettists that he was unable to extend a musical form over a long period and that he wanted to compose in a very concentrated way. Perhaps in response to this economy of musical means he might have quoted Puccini in a later letter, which has yet to be located.]

Herein are some of the First Act cuts indicated and tallied. The Money Ceremony cannot be cut. [See item 5) in the list of demands Henze proposed in his letter on 7 July 1960.] If you soften[^7]

[^7: Here, Ludwig Strecker added an annotation in the space between the two paragraphs. According to Strecker, softening Mittenhofer should not mean making him ridiculous. This sentence refers to the fact that, in the letter dated 7 July 1960, Henze had asked the two librettists to make the main character less cruel. Moreover, Strecker writes that Kallman's subsequent reference to Wagner and Yeats is not convincing.]

[Addition of Ludwig Strecker cannot be published for legal reasons]

Hinty, you destroy him. Please remember he is a monst er . As Wagner was, as Yeats was. And also pleas e remember that he has not had a quarrel with Karoline , he is merely a lion who doesn't at times realise the strength of his own brand of Humour. And he didn't know she was ill. Also— his boisterous dismissals of his rivals not only establishes his rank as a poet in the audience's minds, it is also, we feel, how he would express himself about them. Second-rate critics in literary magazines, and even in private, take a serious professional attitude towards contempories, never serious first-rate writers;[^8]

[^8: Here, Strecker adds an annotation in which he writes that Hinterhofer should not be serious in this scene. However, he adds that his question remained unanswered. It was not traceable at the time what question Strecker asked the librettists. In this respect, however, the correspondence between Henze and Strecker kept at the Paul Sacher Foundation may be enlightening.]

[Addition of Ludwig Strecker cannot be published for legal reasons]

and certainly not in private. If you make Hinty serious in that scene, you will make him a bore; and though Elizabeth may be bored with him for her own reasons, the public certainly must never be. If you find the scene difficult, so much the better. That means you will have to uncover musically that vein of sly mischief in yourself that you have thus far been too German to allow its full freedom. Out with it, We know it's there. Be as funny musically as you were verbally when you talked about Stockhausen to us. Scratch. Be a cat; not a cuddly St. Bernard. [Only one line free between both text paragraphs. Pencil entries are therefore narrow.]

The scene cannot be changed to Hinty's House.[^9] If that is done, all of H i lda's raison d'etre as a character is d e stroyed. One can hardly assume that she spent her honeymoon in his house; and if she can move about from one place to another, what becomes of her waiting for her bridegroom? Where is the dramatic effect of her liberation then. Of course the inn parlors of Alpine Inns are middle-class stuffy; but that's just what we need--that hideous respectable heaviness-to contrast with the drama of people who have rebelled against it but are neverthe less rooted in it. Let the vista of Hammerhorn lighten the decor; and also provide the necessary contrast: Death via too much air versus Death via too little air. Elegy cannot have the same operatic trappings as Homburg or Hirsch.

[^9: At the suggestion of the stage director Günther Rennert's, Henze had proposed in the list (item 1) in his letter dated 7 July 1960 to change the location of the action from the inn Der Schwarze Adler to Hintenhofer's private home. The introduction to Act I in the final libretto reads: The scene represents the parlor and terrace of Der schwarze Adler, an inn in the Austrian Alps.]

Splitting the Second Act in the middle is just about possible. But it must only be for Glyndebourne. The Interlude idea, however, is simply an impossible bit of fidgety kitsch, unworthy of consideration. [See item 14) in the list of demands Henze proposed in his letter on 7 July 1960.] For one thing, it will kill the effect of Hulda's later entr e nce and it will also kill the whole interwoven plan of the dramatic action. The second Act must concentrate on the interactions of character. There's enough scenic hullabaloo in the th ir d [Here, Strecker added a comment and wrote that there are not scenic difficulties, but obvious shortcomings of the libretto.] [Strecker's annotation is added in the free line between the two paragraphs of text. The paragraph is marked laterally with two pink pen lines.]

[Addition of Ludwig Strecker cannot be published for legal reasons]

Please remember, stage directors should begin their business when a work is finished, xxx not before. If he finds the setting and some of the action difficult , it's his job as a director to solve those problems, because we're not making those problems just to be difficult, but because some things must be so. Well, that's enough for now. We'll discuss the other points [Henze's list of demands contained 26 points. See his letter on 7 July 1960.] when we see you. [In his letter dated 7 July 1960, Henze asked the librettists, if he could visit them in Kirchstetten. The composer actually visited Auden and Kallman from 4 to 6 August 1960.]

Love
Chester

Forti abbracci.
Wystan .
[A line links Auden's signature to the P.S. written in the bottom right-hand corner.]

P.S. It is of course, possible to substitute a rare plant no one has heard of for Edelweiss, but why?. [See item 3) in the list of demands Henze proposed in his letter.]