Srdce Václava Talicha se ztratilo. K problému poválečné očisty (2. část)

• Authors: Jiří Křesťan

Title variants

EN

Václav Talich Has Lost Heart: On the Purging of the Nation (Part 2)

• Languages of publication: CS

Abstracts

EN

Part 1 of this article, published in Soudobé dějiny , vol. 16 (2009), no. 1, pp. 69–111, analyzed the dilemmas facing Václav Talich (1883–1961), Principal Conductor of the National Theatre Opera and the Czech Philharmonic during the Second World War. Part 1 also considers the consequences he had to face after the Liberation, including the changes in his relations with the historian, musicologist, and post-war Communist politician Zdeněk Nejedlý (1878–1962). Part 2 focuses on the debate that accompanied the ‘Talich Case’. In 1945, after the Liberation, Talich was accused of collaboration with the Nazis. Though the investigation showed that his behaviour had not been impeccable, it did not conclude that Talich should be punished. None the less, his public work as a conductor was restricted after the war. The article discusses the attitudes of leading fi gures in musical life, journalists, and politicians towards the ‘Talich Affair’, and refutes the view that proponents of a certain political view or artistic trend came out together against Talich. Among those who defended him and demanded that he should be allowed to work in music were a number of Communists (including the playwright and director Emil František Burian, the poet Vítězslav Nezval, the opera singer Přemysl Kočí, and, in his own way, the politician Antonín Zápotocký). Another erroneous view, formulated by the musicologist Mirko Očadlík (1904–1964), was that it all had to do with a dispute between Talich and the ‘Nejedlý School’, which was carrying on the musical legacy of Bedřich Smetana. Talich was given support also by many musicians, particularly from the Czech Chamber Orchestra, which he founded in 1946. The author puts the Talich case into the broader context of the post-war settling of scores with real or imagined henchmen and sympathizers of the German forces of occupation. He considers the character of the people forming the moral judgements, by examining their attitudes towards Communism and its desired dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle. Particularly Nejedlý, who repeatedly criticized Talich publicly after the war, and did not try to understand the motives behind his behaviour in the Protectorate, showed very little courage when standing face to face with Stalinist repression. On the whole, however, it is fair to say that the politicians involved (including President Edvard Beneš) showed considerable restraint in the Talich case, and made it possible to investigate his war-time behaviour thoroughly according to the law. The author rejects as simplistic the conclusions that clearly place the blame on Talich or other artists working in the Protectorate or, on the contrary, present these people as blameless victims of attacks by their enemies. Every life story is individual, the author argues, each episode must be judged in its historical context. Respect for Talich’s art and talent will not diminish, if we concede that during the Second World War he had to make compromises resulting from Nazi pressure, his own doubts, or simply fatigue and having grown accustomed to the reality of Protectorate life.

Discipline

• HISTORY: HISTORY

• Publisher: Institute of Contemporary History, Czech Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Soudobé dějiny (Contemporary History)
• Year: 2009
• Issue: 2-3
• Pages: 243-275

Contributors

author

Jiří Křesťan

• Soudobé dějiny, redakce, Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR, v.v.i., Vlašská 9, 118 40 Praha 1, Czech Republic