Speaking of western musical research, Charles Rosen stressed the importance and necessity of historical interpretation. For him, cultural history is not only a disguised fiction, but it is indispensable for any attempt at writing about music[1].
Cultural history, without which it is essentially impossible to speak about music, is composed, as we know, of a multitude of circumstances and coincidences, affecting not only the musical artefacts, but also the relations between those who create this history: why did some people meet at some point? How is the link established between them? Why, in some cases, did this tie last, and in other cases, was it just punctual? What were the mutual influences?
Modern history has placed the significance of micro-stories at the same level as macro-stories, trying to highlight precisely the often invisible and subjective aspect of history, that which is created through personal relationships and intimate confessions.
In Lithuania, we are currently working on a project called "The Nylon Curtain". This project is based on correspondence during the Cold War era, which was circulating through the Iron Curtain between the Western Countries and Lithuania - Lithuania which ended up in the Eastern Block after the Second World War. As the iron curtain was not absolutely hermetic, but permeable for certain personal initiatives, we call it the "nylon curtain". This research aims at bringing out the importance of relationships and influences among individuals, and at the same time their unpredictable and aleatory nature, due to severe restrictions of freedom.
The analysis of this particular correspondence encounters several problems:
- How to make the link between the analyzed objects if chance plays a great role? Hazard is an integral part of historical events, and contemporary historians have already evoked that subject (for example, Charles-Victor Langlois and Charles Seignobos), but in our case, it is directly linked to a confinement policy.
- How to maintain an axiological neutrality of the researcher who lived during this period and knows it from the inside?
- How to transcend the limits of an individual interpretive act as a historiographic act, and give it a more global interpretive scope combining those two problems?
Correspondence as an intimate micro-sphere, or the proximity of a remoteness
The personal aspect of correspondence and the reflection of the everyday life of a given epoch make it one of the most subjective and therefore the most interesting attributes of history. It is not for nothing that it represents one of the most widely read literary genres.
The societal system set up by the Soviet Union has replaced and radically changed the previous social model of Lithuania. In the Lithuanian culture, there appeared limitsimpossible to cross, and at the same time, within them, crackswhich allowed at least a partial preservation of the cultural and intellectual vitality within an artificial and repressive structure. The search for such “cracks”, that is, opportunities to communicate across borders, exchange information and compare common experiences, was one of the main gestures to "ignore" the system. The term "resistance" here would be too strong, because it was not a direct confrontation, such as the illegal smuggling of information to the West. It was rather communication that used the inefficiencies of the system itself, with its unclear or vague areas migrating between "ban" and "permission”. There is no doubt that these invisible links (not quite invisible since, of course, all correspondence went through the inspection of censorship) were vital for the artists and researchers of that period. For Lithuanians, attached to Western values, they were important both for the continuity of their own cultural identity, and for the need to make themselves known, that is to say, not to feel locked up, abandoned and forgotten in the confines of a Europe which had become inaccessible.
At the present time, we have already become accustomed to the notion of a global and open world. Conversely, that of the Soviet period was a very specifically closed world, which in our case interests us in particular for its permeability. To explain this phenomenon of permeability, we want to use German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk’s concept of vital geometry, in the sense of vital topologythat has made it possible to weave links outside a closed official macro sphere.
We allude to personal communication initiatives based on relationships, ideas, desires, and personal opportunities that helped create a “parallel history”. In the frame and context of official history, the formation of individual micro-spheres, namely the intimate world of correspondence, which would develop outside this framework, was one of the few publicly available tools to modulate the everyday environment. One might say that the iron curtain fell not only when the Soviet regime did not stand the test of time but also when the critical mass of interpersonal content, aspirations, intentions and passions, became more important than the imposed and artificial macro structure. This parallel reality simply exploded the ideological sarcophagus placed above society, which no longer conformed to its internal contours. According to Sloterdijk the artifice of the macro sphere is most obvious when it no longer corresponds to the characteristics of the micro spheres.
"The vital spherical geometry"[2] of Peter Sloterdijk borrows the expression “sphere” from philosophers and geometers. Unlike geometers for whom, according to Gaston Bachelard, the sphere "is completely empty"[3], Sloterdijk uses this concept to "explore the possibilities and boundaries of geometric vitalism". For the philosopher, "life is a matter of form". This thesis suggests that "life, the constitution of spheres and thought are different expressions to designate one and the same thing". The author himself considers this configuration of life and theory a little "eccentric"[4]. But it is enough to recall the idea of the psychological topology of the Georgian philosopher Merab Mamardashvili[5], so that Sloterdijk's attempt to analyse geometric forms as patterns of experiences and vital forms is considered rather coherent with our time, in which the immaterial history of everyday events has assumed its importance.
For Sloterdijk, Microspherology is but "a proxemic anthropology"[6](in the sense given by American anthropologist Edward T. Hall[7]). Each link, which can be considered as a unit with spherical contours, establishes a space of a specific relationship. The active nature of such a relationship (in which is placed the hope of realizing personal and / or collective intentions otherwise unrealizable) transforms this relational space into a topological place. The correspondence, which has the peculiarity of being distant in space (in our case, geographically, politically and / or culturally) and at the same time to preserve the intellectual and / or emotional and / or cultural proximity, is undoubtedly one of the interesting cases of proxemic anthropology, precisely because of this duality.
These spheres are specific sharing spaces that have neither centre nor periphery. They have in common a certain climate (according to Sloterdijk[8]), guaranteeing the unity (according to Bachelard[9]) of this form. Such communication spaces, created in very difficult political conditions, are marked by a non-conflictual atmosphere and a strong ethic of coexistence: The syndrome of Western Europe as a cultural centre and Lithuania as its periphery, is completely absent.
Thus, correspondence (in the analysed cases) has participated, independently of borders and "surreptitiously", in the establishment of a communication network, which functioned as an area without boundaries, and with its own specificities and problematics. This network has become a "common" area, centred on culture, on cultural, professional and personal experiences.
The analysis of such links reveals the closed microcosms of this mental cultural geography, its centres of attraction, its trajectories of influences and its topography. Historical research based on this non-public documentation, but which can be made at least partially public (not all letters are preserved or available), allows us to glimpse not only at the development of such relations but also at the genesis of certain cultural phenomena of that time.
Aleatoric aspect
The subjects, communicating through letters and across a closed and protected border (as we know, all correspondence with the Western world was controlled and censored), must be considered as artificial "couples" because they were often formed more or less by chance: either through an unforeseen meeting, or an unexpected trip, or an address passed on, or any other coincidence.
For example, Lithuanian musicologist Vytautas Landsbergis realized at that time, that individual attempts to cross borders of the Soviet Union would not have much chance of success. So, to be able to travel abroad (for example, to participate in a modern music festival), it was strategically better to first make a collective attempt, for example join a delegation formed by Moscow, and also ask for a Socialist country rather than a Capitalist one. In this way Landsbergis and another Lithuanian musicologist, Algirdas Ambrazas, succeeded for the first time in 1963, to participate in the Warsaw Autumn festival in Poland. During this journey Landsbergis discovered the music and thoughts of Olivier Messiaen, and subsequently began corresponding with the French composer. He introduced Olivier Messiaen to the work of the most famous Lithuanian painter and composer, Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis. Messiaen discovered a Lithuanian creator hitherto unknown to him, was interested in his paintings, especially on the subject of correspondence between sound and colour, quoted him in his texts and conferences, and in several letters called him "my brother through the centuries":
"I have just received your gift: the reproductions of paintings, and the musical works, of Čiurlionis. [...][10]. You know what admiration I have for the great painter Čiurlionis, and I want to tell you that I often quote him in my written texts and in my lectures! [...] P.S. You know that (as a musician) I am the apostle of sound-colour. And Čiurlionis (as a painter) was the apostle of colour-sound. It is therefore a brother through the centuries whose works you send me! All my grateful feelings! Olivier Messiaen"[11].
This is just an example to show how, by circumventing certain prohibitions, finding certain cracks in the regime, and also thanks to some degree of chance, a certain collaboration can happen, with more or less importance.
The strangest thing is probably the fact that this virtual epistolary community, constituted through apparently aleatoric links, depending on certain authorizations, or sometimes simply on access to information, seems ultimately very organic. Perhaps because its participants had similar interests, a similar creative curiosity and a common cultural vision, which was not limited to geographical boundaries.
Due to the difficult political conditions and weak and unpredictable permeability of the iron curtain, each new person who succeeded in crossing borders became, perhaps almost automatically, the potential member of an invisible network of communication. This network was growing and expanding slowly but surely, because through the letters circulated the addresses and the advice to meet arriving persons.
So, the strategy to enlarge this virtual community consisted of several steps:
Firstly, information about the departure of further people from Lithuania was sent to correspondents abroad.
Secondly, these new people, now part of the network, became themselves the subjects of epistolary discussions. Their personal activities and more broadly, their contribution to the cultural field were discussed.
Thirdly, they often acted as postmen: they were given to transport what could not be sent by post (books for example), or were asked to convey orally what could not be said in letters.
Fourthly, the network was expanded even in Lithuania through common relations.
For example, Lithuanian composer Julius Juzeliūnas wrote in 1970 to his Parisian friend, painter Žibuntas Mikšys:
" I recently had the pleasure of listening to a concert, directed in Vilnius by Parisian conductor Jean-Claude Casadesus. After the concert, a Parisian Maurice Toussaint (a student of Algirdas Julius Greimas) who had been working at the University of Vilnius for three years already, introduced me to the conductor - we exchanged a few words and so on. At that moment, I was thinking about you, about Paris, about its ancient and rich culture and the days spent in this city, which were short as a dream”[12].
Affinity - Correspondence - Influence
In English, the term "correspondence" means not only an epistolary exchange: "to correspond" also means to be in correspondence with someone, to be “in harmony with the other". The epistolary pair is thus formed by a certain reciprocal attraction which, consequently, is affected by bilateral or unilateral influences. Thus, correspondence creates points of attraction, bringing together communicating persons into invisible binomials, which extend outside the borders. This confirms that the artificial walls, created by totalitarian political structures, did not influence internal constructions: such intimate exchanges were developed according to their own laws within the limits defined by the actors themselves or within the limits imposed and tolerated by the totalitarian regime.
The relationship between two independent and correlative units produces a specific climate,a specific internal atmosphere. It generates a common space in which personal interests, political commitments, and limits of free expression are tested.
The correspondence through the Iron Curtain is a sort of neutral or evenidealspace: it is not the space in which the corresponding units live physically or to which their identities belong. It is a space that merges two units that are physically, geographically and culturally separate, and gives rise to the curiosity to go beyond the imposed boundaries, beyond its usual condition.
Since the epistolary space becomes, at least illusorily, a zone free of constraints, it is marked by a high degree of sincerity. In other words, one says what one really believes in, or one says nothing. Here are no "grey areas": empty words or false thoughts.
The correspondence of the Cold War is strongly marked by an activeelement. What is shared is not only personal experiences or the daily routine (in which, we should emphasize, only the positive moments are highlighted). The letters also give rise to the real cultural acts, implemented not through official channels, but through personal effort. This may include organizing an exhibition, a concert or a radio programme. It is precisely that aspect of the exchanges leading to the real acts which have modulated the "common" cultural space.
The desire to extend cultural exchange was one of the most important aspects of cross-border correspondence. It was achieved in different ways, for example:
- the exchange of books;
- research for specific information and documents;
- the transmission and sharing of received publications in one’s own environment;
- announcement of current cultural events.
Through those exchanges, the cultural space of the Other is appropriated. "Common" culture arises from influences that mature within micro spheres, not from individual acts. In other words, bilateral relations produce micro spheres that multiply and thus develop into larger structures.
Individualism and collectivism
The macro sphere of the Soviet Union proposed an artificial space of security, in which security would be not only territorial but also psychological: guarantee of work, guaranteed purchases of artworks for artists, and assurance of domestic well-being. It is a collective model, in which the creator ceases to exist individually, because he is materially, ideologically, and therefore intellectually dependent.
The element of fear was one of the most important tools of the Soviet era. Whoever tried to cross the border remembers well the long and frightening waiting, the endless control of passports and the feeling of uncertainty in a border area, perceived as a space of no rights. The sentiment of Fearinevitably influenced the creative level, because any temptation to modernize the musical language was punished. Thus, attempts to approach Western modernism could not be collective, but only individual, in a fragmented way, and unstated as such. It is symptomatic that in Lithuania at that time we had no schooldeveloping contemporary language, as it was the case of serialism in Western Europe.
Collectivism was one of the fundamental concepts of Soviet ideology. It was promoted not only for ideological purposes, namely the propagation of mass culture, but also for political purposes, because in the collective environment the behaviour of each individual could more easily be observed and corrected. The invisible walls in the collective concept were created by the element of "mistrust". Thus, individuality in epistolary practice was a problematic element.
The case of Lithuanian composer Vytautas Montvila is eloquent from this point of view. In 1968, he embarked on a very intense correspondence with Western European composers (for example, Sylvano Bussotti, György Ligeti, Karlheinz Stockhausen, György Kurtag, John Cage, Carter Elliott, Luigi Dallapiccola, Henri Pousseur,etc.), with organisers of contemporary music festivals, as well as with foreign publishers. Several times and on his own initiative he made the request to go abroad, but to no avail. His epistolary activities and his growing projects abroad were cut short: Lithuanian archives show that in 1977-1979 he was enrolled at the Faculty of Philosophy and Ethics of the University of Marxism - Leninism of Vilnius, intended for ideological executives.
The case of Vytautas Montvila very clearly demonstrates the ineffectiveness and dangerousness of individual action, rapidly understood as a personal confrontation and direct hostility to the regime. Similar cases existed throughout the socialist territory of the time. For example, in 1968, a young German from the East, Karl-Heinz Borchardt attempted a correspondence with the BBC. True, unlike Montvila, he did it anonymously, but, unlike the Lithuanian composer, he was sentenced to two years’ prison. On the other hand, the Lithuanian composer had to radically change his musical language, which was previously promising and modernist, into a retrograde and outdated writing. Forced to abandon his personal style, he was left in an intellectual imprisonment that lasted not only 2 years, but for the rest of his life.
Conclusion
The correspondence we have analyzed is characterized by a few specific features, related to this period:
- it allows to share personal experiences,
- it allows to share and transmit information sources,
- Political and religious subjects are avoided,
- and most importantly, it is characterized by a very laconic language. This style of writing is typical of the Soviet context: it reflects the inevitable caution, mistrust, and ability to skilfully overcome obstacles instead of confronting them directly.
Therefore, we should treat the correspondence of the Soviet period not only as a historical document, but also as a reference to a certain emotional stateof that period. The latter affects not only the language of the letters, but also what is read between the lines; not only what is said, but also what is implied by what is said. What we should therefore analyze is anabsent history, a tacit history, once again in the sense of Edward T. Hall. In those letters, we encounter a non-verbal language, for example, a stamp on a letter from the United States in 1968, with an image of the Statue of Liberty and the inscription “LIBERTY FOR ALL”. We also encounter the underlying level: the silent language is the true discourse of the Soviet era. So (and unfortunately), he who studies the documents of that time might be able to answer the question "why" certain things are not said, but he will not be able to verbalize "what was not said".
Consequently, the central element of our analysis, which allows us to make the link between the problems raised at the beginning, is that of emotional space: It connects the analyst with the object of his study; it is also the key to understand the atmosphere of that time and to consider it as the principal axis for exploration of intimate relationships in micro spheres; and finally, it is the key to understand that cultural acts in the Soviet era were carried out in spite of a greater or lesser presence of fear, and in spite of the possibilities of the regime’s reaction.
[1]Charles Rosen. Aux confins du sens. Paris: Seuil, 1998, p. 105–106.
[2]Peter Sloterdijk, Bulles. Sphère IParis: Fayard/Pluriel, 2002, p. 13.
[3]Gaston Bachelard, Svajonių džiaugsmas. Vilnius: Vaga, 1993, p. 507.
[4]Peter Sloterdijk, op. cit., p. 13.
[5]Merab Mamardashvili,Psikhologicheskaia topologiia puti: M. Prust "V poiskakh utrachennogo vremeni"(Russian Edition, Published by Izd-vo Russkogo Khristianskogo gumanitarnogo in-ta, 1997).
[6]Peter Sloterdijk. Globes. Sphère IIParis: Fayard/Pluriel, 2011, p. 124.
[7]E. T. Hall, La Dimension cachée, Paris: Seuil, 1971.
[8]PeterSloterdijk. Ni le soleil, ni la mort. Paris: Hachette pluriel, 2004, p. 52.
[9]Gaston Bachelard, op. cit., p. 508.
[10]The letter from Messiaen’s to Landsbergis (23.12.1964).
[11]The letter from Messiaen to Landsbergis (30.1.1981).
[12]The letter from Julius Juzeliūnas to Žibuntas Mikšys (18.12.1970).
Comments