Question about "The Mahler Family Letters"

[Toblacher]

Started reading "The Mahler Family Letters" by McCatchie and was startled by the very first letter (page 18-19).
GM is writing to his aunt and uncle (dated 1876 or 1877) and says at the end of the letter:
"What is J Stransky doing? Please say hello to him from me"  The footnote says he is referring to Josef
Stransky (1872-1936) the conductor who succeeded him at the NY Philharmonic.

Really??? Stransky was then only 5 years old at the time the letter was written.  Why would he ask about a little boy?
Was he a family friend of his aunt and uncle?  As his successor at the NYP, this would have been
quite a coincidence.

I think he may have been referring to another J Stransky.  Thoughts?

[Jot N. Tittle]

Sharp observation, Toblacher!

Something must be amiss here. The date of the letter seems right, but is surmised, provided by H-LdLG. One possibility is that the name was misread by the transcriber of the original handwriting. Another is that there was another J. Stransky.

We ought to consult Stephen McClatchie, the editor, translator, and annotator of the book.

     . & '

[James Meckley]

Toblacher,

The name Josef Stransky is mentioned twice in de La Grange's Volume 1. The first mention—on page 37—addresses your question:

*  *  *

At the end of the summer [of 1876], Mahler invited Rudolf Krzyzanowski to his home, to take part in an Iglau charity concert. He took him to Ledetsch to visit one of his aunts, Frau Freischberger who, according to the Czech conductor Josef Stransky,⁴¹ was one of his mother's sisters. According to him, this tall woman had gray eyes that reflected her innate kindness, and she was treated with respect in the little town, where it was considered an honor to be invited to her home. One day the young Stransky was taken to see her by relations, and she at once told him that her young nephew Gustav Mahler, who was already the pride of the family, was there with a friend of his, and that they would soon be back from a walk.

The two young people did in fact soon return, deep in animated conversation. At the tea table Mahler finally noticed the new visitor, ruffled the young Stransky's hair, and demanded his name. He then asked him if he was the son of the teacher for whom he had written a "Eulogy in memory of the Empress Maria Anna." Mahler took an enthusiastic part in the general conversation, but the child noticed that his friend remained gloomy and silent. Mahler's aunt finally asked Krzyzanowski—for it was he—why he said nothing, and it was Mahler who replied with a laugh. "You must take him as he is. He will always be a bulldog."⁴²


41. Josef Stransky later succeeded Mahler as the conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra.
42. New York Herald Tribune, March 22, 1931. Josef Stransky: "Meeting with Gustav Mahler."

*  *  *

So apparently Mahler really did meet—in 1876—the same Josef Stransky who would later succeed him as conductor in New York.

James

[barry guerrero]

"So apparently Mahler really did meet—in 1876—the same Josef Stransky who would later succeed him as conductor in New York."

Yes, this is confirmed in the Fischer bio.

[James Meckley]

Yes, this is confirmed in the Fischer bio.

So how are you liking the Fischer biography?

James

[barry guerrero]

It's very good. Clearly, it steers a middle ground between the various De La Grange volumes, and the various shorter biographies such as Carr and Blaukopf.

I like it that Fischer doesn't present Mahler as a saint or martyr figure. Mahler was not above exaggerating or bending the truth in an effort to 'get ahead' in his career. That happened far more than once. While he was very sensitive and, quite obviously, very musical, he was also extremely driven. That 'drive' was not only a bi-product of pure ambition, it was reinforced by necessity once Gustav became the main bread-winner for the Mahler family (such as it was). In addition, Mahler's terms for marriage were beyond extreme - not to mention just plain bizarre - for a woman who was barely more than half his age. It's amazing that the much discussed 'marital crisis' didn't happen far sooner.

Fischer makes the blanket statement that Mahler would have been better off marrying Natalie Bauer-Lechner. While that seems obvious at first, Mahler clearly did B-L a huge favor by not forcing such extreme conditions and demands upon her. Obviously, B-L. may not have felt that way, but I can't imagine B-L would have accepted those terms any more naturally than Alma did. During the time that B-L. was hanging about, Justine (Mahler's sister) was around to help bear the load in terms of domestic duties. Alma was alone with EVERYTHING to do. While she freely accepted Mahler's terms for marriage, it really wasn't terribly fair for a young woman who was beautiful, educated, somewhat talented and naturally 'horny' (far more than Mahler, apparently). It's little wonder that her life turned out the way it did.

Anyway, you get the idea.