Talk:Nadezhda von Meck

Moved comment

The following comment was left in the article (under "Relationship with Tchaikovsky"):

"Comment: Pressure from her family together with her failing health is probably the main reason for cutting off her support to Tchaikovsky."

If there's a good source for this, the text should be better incorporated into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.36.52.214 (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

This is actually a fairly well-known fact. Brown, Holden, Poznansky and Warrack all mention it in their respective biographies of Tchaikovsky. Jonyungk (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead: "formidable businesswoman"

Quite ambiguous, isn't it? NVO (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Small point

"In 1985 Galina donated to Columbia University a collection including her translation of 681 letters written by Tchaikovsky to his family." Unless I misunderstand, should this not be "her" family (i.e.Galina's)?Hikitsurisan (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Rubinstein

The Rubinstein photo appears to be misplaced in the article, as in, in the wrong section. However, the prominence of the photo is, according to wp tradition, far from out of place. In fact it deserves MORE prominence. I suggest putting it at the front of the article and putting the photo of Nadezhda von Meck down at the bottom. Better yet, just remove the picture of her and make the whole article about the female friends of Rubinstein with only a photo of him. Compare discussion about Rachmaninoff and Horowitz. The only thing I can't figure out is why so many people have such a low regard for Wikipedia and why nobody ain't cofin' up no mony fo' the place. i'm just so stooopid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.21.183.195 (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A word of caution concerning WP biographical articles

Unsourced claims and especially fecklessly done substantial assertions do not have a place in a encyclopaedic work like wikipedia. This is not the place to just make point of some kind. Furthermore I truly have a dislike of trying label people or retrospectively try to guess, speculate on somebodies inner most convictions. Even a the tone plain speculation is also incorrect when not the slightest substantiation is present. Major Torp (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly how many times did she and Tchaikovsky meet by chance?

Here we say it was twice. Elsewhere I've read it was once. The details are invariably absent.

Can we please find some good citations that reveal exactly:

• how many times their paths crossed by chance
• when these happened (dates)
• where it was
• what their reactions were (if known)
• etc?

Did they ever mention these chance meetings in their letters to each other, or to others? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've been doing some research. All boldings are mine. Alexander Poznansky, in Tchaikovsky: The Quest for the Inner Man, p. 344, says:

• Three noteworthy incidents marked Tchaikovsky's stay at Simaki. The most unsettling, for Tchaikovsky at least, was his only face-to-face encounter with Mrs. von Meck during the whole of their relationship. Describing this "most embarrassing occurrence" in a letter to Anatoly on 15 August, Tchaikovsky wrote that the day before he had driven to the forest around four o'clock in complete confidence that he would not meet Mrs. von Meck, who customarily dined at that time. As it happened, he had gone out somewhat earlier than usual, while she was late. "I met her nose-to-nose", he told his brother. "It was terribly awkward. We were face-to-face for only an instant, but all the same, I was dreadfully embarrassed, although I did tip my hat politely. She, it seemed to me, became utterly distracted and did not know what to do. And … behind her were two more carriages with her whole family".

This makes it clear the chance encounter occurred on 14 (26) August 1879. That very evening, as soon as he got back to his cottage, he wrote von Meck a note, Poznansky continues.

• "Forgive me, for God's sake, Nadezhda Filaretovna, for having miscalculated the time. I landed right in your way …".

She responded, saying there was no need for any apologies, indeed she was delighted to see him. She even invited him to visit her own home at a time when she would be away, to see the paintings and other objets d'art she had newly acquired, an invitation he readily accepted. In her reply she also made an allusion to having earlier glimpsed him at the opera when they were both holidaying in Florence. After that earlier occasion, she had written to him saying it was reassuring to know he really existed – see [1] (Note 1). This may be the same occasion of which Tchaikovsky wrote to Anatoly on 5 (17) December 1878:

• "We saw each other once at the theater, but there have not been the slightest hints of a desire to meet, so in this respect I am quite at ease" (Poznansky, p. 316-17). Poznansky goes on: "It is not clear whether their both being at the theater was wholly accidental or arranged by Mrs. von Meck in order to see him, as seems not unlikely."

Then there was his letter to his other brother Modest of 15 (27) December, written after von Meck had left Florence but while he was still there. He said "the sight of her deserted villa brought tears to his eyes". He went on, "I have grown so used to communicating with her daily, to watching her pass by every morning with her whole entourage, and what at first constrained and embarrassed me now constitutes an object of the most genuine regret". (Poznansky, pp. 319-20)

So, this all seems quite categorical.

• (a) They came face to face exactly once, in Simaki on 26 August 1879.
• (b) They saw each in an opera audience exactly once, in Florence in 1878.
• (c) He saw her and her entourage passing by on an unspecified number of occasions during that Florence sojourn, but there's no indication she saw him or was even aware he was watching her.

Does anyone know of any other personal encounters whatsoever?

Note 1: I would have sourced the Florence letter better, but tchaikovsky.research.net is not my friend at the moment. Anyone know what their problem is? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Was Nadezhda a baroness?

I have come across a number of references, including this one: https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=q8sHfp4YXzYC&pg=PT159&lpg=PT159&dq=tchaikovsky+baroness&source=bl&ots=naK0kaXsIK&sig=dT1e0ExFtj0Exiw5XARhX_kTtDA&hl=mi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhrqbd7IffAhUOVH0KHeKRBhMQ6AEwCHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=tchaikovsky%20baroness&f=false

giving Nadezhda von Meck the title Baroness. Was she indeed a baroness?

47.72.51.146 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Russian [Empire] Businesswoman

I understand why it should be thought that 'Russian' suffices for the lead. But if you read the description of what her husband achieved in building up a business, which she inherited, which was building railways across the expanding Russian empire, then the description makes more sense - although it probably isn't actually necessary.

Sbishop (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Sbishop