I cannot understand how my brother can have inferred from my letter that the quartet had no success. It must have pleased, since it was repeated at least once during the season. Cui spoke of it as a “beautiful, talented, fluent work, which showed originality and invention.” Laroche considered it “more serious and important than the first quartet”; and Famitzin thought it showed “marked progress. The first movement displayed as much style as Beethoven’s A minor quartet.” On November 1st (13th) Napravnik conducted the first performance of _The Tempest_ in St. Petersburg. _From V. V. Stassov to Tchaikovsky._ “_November_ 13_th_ (25_th_), 10 _a.m._ “I have just come from the rehearsal for Saturday’s concert. Your _Tempest_ was played for the first time. Rimsky-Korsakov and I sat alone in the empty hall and overflowed with delight. “Your _Tempest_ is fascinating! Unlike any other work! The tempest itself is not remarkable, or new; Prospero, too, is nothing out of the way, and at the close you have made a very commonplace cadenza, such as one might find in the finale of an Italian opera--these are three blemishes. But all the rest is a marvel of marvels! Caliban, Ariel, the love-scene--all belong to the highest creations of art. In both love-scenes, what passion, what languor, what beauty! I know nothing to compare with it. The wild, uncouth Caliban, the wonderful flights of Ariel--these are creations of the first order. “In this scene the orchestration is enchanting. “Rimsky and I send you our homage and heartiest congratulations upon the completion of such a fine piece of workmanship. The day after to-morrow (Friday) we shall attend the rehearsal again. We could not keep away....” _The Tempest_ not only pleased Stassov and “The Band,” but won recognition even in the hostile camp. Laroche alone was dissatisfied. He considered that in his programme music Tchaikovsky approached Litolff as regards form and instrumentation, and Schumann and Glinka as regards harmony. _The Tempest_ would not bear criticism as an organic whole. “Beautiful, very beautiful, are the details,” he continues, “but even these are not all on a level; for instance, the tempest itself is not nearly so impressive as in Berlioz’s fantasia on the same subject. Tchaikovsky’s storm is chiefly remarkable for noisy orchestration, which is, indeed, of so deafening a character that the specialist becomes curious to discover by what technical means the composer has succeeded in concocting such a pandemonium.” _To Anatol Tchaikovsky._ “_November_ 21_st_ (_December_ 3_rd_).