Avant-la-lettre Reverbations of the „Cancel Culture” Phenomenon in Enescu’s Years of Exile

NORELA-LIVIANA COSTEA

„ACTUALITATEA MUZICALĂ” MAGAZINE

ABSTRACT: History and time are two interdependent concepts that undergo continuous changes – from changes of perspective to changes of the reflections of the collective consciousness or of the one who lives them – then or later. But how many times are these two altered to become convenient to those at their helm? In this study I set out to discover the result of the influence that the phenomenon of “cancel culture” has had over the image of the composer in the last decade he spent on this earth.

KEYWORDS: CANCEL CULTURE, EXILE, PARIS, RHAPSODIES

THE LAST years of George Enescu's life are marked by the exile tacitly imposed by the new regime and by the inevitable consequences of the totalitarian philosophy of government, whose ways of altering reality had bad results culturally (and this did not happen only in Romania, but – as we well know – on the territory of the entire communist bloc). One of the methods that were frequently used by those in power was to carry out sustained campaigns to discredit certain characters in the local cultural landscape who did not meet the newly imposed norms and who, moreover, refused to cooperate with the governing structures. Among the famous victims that were targeted by these campaigns we find Constantin Brâncuși, Mircea Eliade or (of course) George Enescu ... but the list continues with a large and sad number of artists who lived to see their art die... For some time now, it seems that these campaigns are being justified again, materializing in a phenomenon called “cancel culture”. Due to the growing influence of social platforms and in the context of collective radicalization for the support of minorities, this has been increasingly used, becoming a powerful weapon (and not always useful). But “cancel culture” affects history since ancient times and was implemented in principle by almost all political, ideological or religious regimes that sought to gain ground and followers as quickly as possible. In the following I will try to define this process, exemplifying some famous victims from universal history, then stopping at the permanent efforts of the communist regime to discredit George Enescu, by exercising this phenomenon (even if it was not defined as it is nowadays).

In the most cases the expected result of a “cancel culture” campaign is the negative change of attitude towards an individual or group (religious, political, etc. – usually a minority), which leads to a boycott, to “cancellation” from social circles or to statements or actions offensive to the target of the attack (www.dictionary.com, no year). Basically, the power of different media platforms is used for a welldefined purpose, namely to turn a public person into an “non-frecventable” person. “Cancel culture” is for some a way to signal past mistakes. For others, it is an excessive and aggressive reaction to manipulating public opinion. One recent example is the elimination of historical figures associated with racism, following protests in the United States over the attempted arrest of George Floyd. But an initial manifestation (of course, on another scale) of this type of behavior is found even in public trials that culminated in whipping and other public punishments in the city squares, so popular in the Dark Ages. I am referring in particular to the trials of the witches of Salem (who also set a precedent for the communist regimes that resumed the “purging” behaviors of those considered different). Another phenomenon of “cancel culture” that affects universal history from the beginning is that of the “discovery of America”; in fact, the explorers had discovered the lands occupied by indigenous cultures (it is true, an unknown land, but not an unpopulated land!); the omission of this

Proceedings of the „George Enescu“ International Musicology Symposium Simpozionul Internațional de Muzicologie „George Enescu” distinction represents precisely the annulment of the identity of these peoples, here, leading to the decimation of the aboriginal inhabitants of those lands. However, the (self-)criticism so zealously practiced by the cultural strata during the regime would not have worked if – paradoxically for a secular, atheist regime – there had not been a Christian heritage in the history of our people (forbidden by the regime, with the correspondent (again, on another scale) of (self-)flogging – this “historical punishment”). The same was intended for George Enescu1 . “Enescu was appreciated only for the fact that his eventual return to Romania would have raised the prestige of the communist regime in Bucharest. And don't think that they were not promised, as people say, “all the riches in the world” to his return: from recognition to income and a possible recovery of a part of the fortune that had been confiscated in Romania (Comandașu, 2011). Although what happened to George Enescu after he left Romania in 1946 was brought to light in the country, the efforts to discredit the composer did not stop. The musician had come to the attention of the communist authorities since the consolidation of the regime. Thus, during the almost ten years in which the composer was in France, in Romania there was an extensive campaign to „flag” George Enescu's creation – on the already cemented pattern of the chronicles of “criticism and self-criticism” , whose only expected result was to highlight the errors of inspiration of “foreign” , “exotic” or “nonnational” origin. In order to increase the influence of these “objective criticism”, they were printed in national publications with large circulations. ... And the fact that the Romanian press was censored, verified and published exclusively under the auspices of the Communist Party is no longer a secret2 . Perhaps the most important material published in this process supported by the “cancellation” of the scientific current due to the “cosmopolitan policy of the nobility”, is the Resolution of 1949 – year in which the Society of Romanian Composers became the Union of Composers of the Romanian People's Republic. Here we find a mention of the strong and exclusive connection that composers must have with the people – ultimately the need to lower the academic level of the compositions, so that they do not (anymore) require much of the intellect of the ordinary listener. With the above-mentioned transformation of the Company, George Enescu was no longer on the list of members, for a few years (and in no case would it be the management committees). Moreover, during the years of his absence, he was harshly criticized in the meetings of the Romanian Composers and Musicologists’ Society, especially by composers as Elly Roman or Savel Horceag (Cosma, 2020, p. 291).

Thus, Enescu's works were interpreted only insofar as they fit the ideology of the Resolution - by an unintentional coincidence by the author, but assumed by the regime. Rhapsodies and Suites, having a clear national character, were among them; in fact, these works were - when necessary - also the object of praise. We notice very clearly this strategy in the article written by Zeno Vancea: „...Due to a superficial contact with the masses and with the real local ambiance, as well as through a deliberate integration in the western musical currents, George Enescu achieved the national specificity only in a few of his works, such as Sonata III for violin, The adagio from the Violin Suite, the Country Suite (Săteasca, na), the Romanian Poem, the three (?!, Na) Rhapsodies ... Only these were subject to the use of Romanian folk music” (Cosma, 2020, p. 258). It seems, therefore, that his “national” spirit was lost after the above-mentioned works, being criticized by Iosif Petre, in an article in the Flame of 1949, with a pompous title: „Pentru combaterea unui hipnotic periculos” (Let us combat a dangerous hypnotic). Here it is mentioned that Enescu's music “breaks with life and the wonderful source of inspiration that is the people and is overwhelmed by the musical rot of the sunset” (Cosma, 2020, p. 262). There is a presence of “exotic, mythological themes, unrelated to the thinking and feeling of our people, such as Acteon, Armida, Agamemnon, Hecuba, Marsyas, Oedipus, which” populate our music, which completely lacked Doja, Horia, Tudor Vladimirescu, Bălcescu »“ (Cosma, 2020, p. 272). In the Diplomatic Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – which I recently had the opportunity to consult – I found even a few articles from 1961 (the year of the second edition of the “George Enescu” Festival) in which this is also confirmed. inclination towards works with influences of national origin:

1 The case of Enescu was special, however, if we consider the desire of the leadership to assimilate him to the regime without too many questions, on a possible return to the country. But even so, the efforts to cancel his compositional value did not remain without an echo in those times, leading to the almost total absence of Enescu from the concert posters, as we will see. 2 In a report of the Press Directorate issued by Gh. Mavrocordat on July 6, 1945, we find the following statements regarding the coordination of control and censorship of the press: „the province has to meet the conditions of the Armistice regarding the control of the press. (...) We consider it absolutely necessary to draw up a plan for the organization of a state agency responsible for both the dissemination of official material and the reception and dissemination of information to foreign news agencies. (...) The Press Directorate aims to support the ongoing press campaigns on the application of the Armistice, the popularization of the Soviet Union and the strengthening of their relations, support for the actions of the Progressive Youth, the Anti-Fascist Women's Union, all democratic organizations, all political and economic campaigns of the Government, those in progress as well as those that will arise” (Petcu, 2016, p. 381)

Ex. No.1: „Magazinul”, 06.09.1961 (Diplomatic Archives in MAE)

The “cancel culture” phenomenon actually reduced Enescu to a few works composed in his youth, long before Enescu's genius had reached the depth of maturity that characterizes his ultimate opposites. Although they are not worthless, they only represent a very small part of his personality. Undoubtedly, this caused him great dissatisfaction, as can be read in the article written by George Georgescu (in an article published in the Cotidianul – Daily-News – of September 1, 1961) which I will annex.

Moreover, in parallel with this continuous contestation, the party continued taking advantage of Enescu's reputation for the benefit of their own image. Right from the first months after the establishment of the regime, although the composer had already left the country, he was on the candidates lists of the “Democratic Parties” for the Grand National Assembly (Marea Adunare Națională). Leaders have tried, in a wide-ranging campaign to strengthen their political power, to use the musician's reputation – as well as the reputation of other important intellectuals – to improve his reputation in the country, but especially abroad. The absence of a categorical refusal of affiliation from George Enescu is moreover interpreted as a tacit accession, especially since he was elected on November 25, 1944 as “president of the music subsection within the ARLUS General Council” . However, in the file instrumented on his name (Voicu-Arnăuțoiu, 2015-2021) there are two documents regarding the approval that he would have given to the leaders in Dorohoi County. These were telegraphed from the Romanian Legation in Washington to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bucharest. The documents date from 27 October 1946, have the same number (49447), but the text differs, as can be seen: “(...) I hereby declare that I accept the decision taken by the Bloc of Democratic Parties in Romania and receive an isolated candidate in the parliamentary elections of November 1946, on the list of the Democratic Parties in Dorohoi County.” The second message stated: (...) Master George Enescu asked the above-mentioned Diplomatic Office to send you the following statement, written and signed by His Excellency: “As a tribute to M.S. King Mihai I and as a sign of love for our peasantry, I agree to be on the list of intellectual deputies outside of any party. I insist that I do not involve in politics and I do not take any obligation in the political field. Long live the country and the King!” (File S.I.E. no. 5483, CNSAS Archives) (Voicu-Arnăuțoiu, 2015-2021). The last tour undertaken in the U.R.S.S. was also capitalized politically, the leaders of the time using especially the musicians’ testimonies about the extraordinary feedback he enjoyed. Thus, even if Enescu's presence in the Soviet territory did not present a premiere – because his artistic relations with Russia had been established since the beginning of the century (since 1909) – the communist government tried on this occasion to highlight as well as the alleged benefits of the recent establishment of the

Proceedings of the „George Enescu“ International Musicology Symposium Simpozionul Internațional de Muzicologie „George Enescu” totalitarian regime (although not even Soviet historiographers spoke then or later about any ideological association of the composer during his visit). However, these details did not reach the general public at the time; the composers’ presence was therefore assumed by those in power as a metaphorical ladder which, in the perspective of the ordinary reader, confirmed the “passage” they had acquired from the Master of Romanian culture and intellectuality. Nothing worse, though! As he himself stated, he considered himself the representative of the hated (then) bourgeois-landlord class. His music did not obey the canons of the regime, it was not “uplifting”, it often urged melancholy, unwanted states, sometimes even leading to the dreaded musical tragedy; but in order to reap the benefits of his international reputation, he was only locally criticized in obscure musicological articles. Along with many other Romanian composers, George Enescu was criticized in culture magazines, which had, by now, become real propaganda platforms. His compositions were criticized as modern music, “not connected to the people”, lack of “ideological commitment”, or, in other words, lack of attachment to the “popular masses”, being considered too cosmopolitan. In his own country, Enescu was erroneously presented as “the simple son of the nation, apostle of poverty and class struggle” (Jurnalul, 2021), and his destiny and redemption were invariably linked to his return to the nation. One of the photos of his grave, where the Romanian composers paid their last respects, is clearly retouched, most likely by the „Security Services” . The picture was part of the musicologist Viorel Cosma's collection, which he published, without any explanation, at the Farewell Concert. The photograph does not show the wreath of flowers of Free Europe (Europa Liberă) and the cross brought by Maruca Enescu; also, the inscriptions on the two visible wreaths differ from those recorded by the archive report of Free Europe, in a last effort to transform Enescu from an artist of the world in an “artist of the people” ...

Ex. No. 2: The delegation of Romanian musicians, in 1956, at the grave of George Enescu (Source: Viorel Cosma, Farewell Concert) (Eskenazy, 2021)

One can hardly imagine his sadness in his last years when, helpless in facing the illness, far away from his loved ones and every day less able to sing, he found that even the works with which he identified most as an artist, were not played... But, even if during his life Enescu suffered a lot because of the constant campaigns (on the “cancel culture” pattern) on his national cultural value; even if, as can be seen, his efforts to consolidate the Romanian music school were invalidated during his lifetime, and this caused him great sorrow, over time they will not spoil the beauty and richness of the scores whose musical fabric was woven with a thread of love for the country through which he longs for his homeland – as only our Master knew it.

Annex:

A.1: Cotidianul, 01.09.1961 (Diplomatic Archives of MAE)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (n.d.). Retrieved from www.dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/cancel-culture/ Comandașu, C. (2011, decembrie 8). România Muzical. Retrieved from www.romania-muzical.ro: https://www.romania-muzical.ro/articol/george-enescu-un-exil-supravegheat/154461/22/2 Cosma, O. L. (2020). Universul Muzicii Românești (2 ed.). București: Ed. Muzicală. Eskenazy, V. (2021, mai 18). Europa Liberă. Retrieved from romania.europalibera.org: https://romania.europalibera.org/a/arhiva-podcast-victor-eskenasy-george-anescu-in-arhiva-europeilibere/31261097.html Jurnalul. (2021, Februarie 18). Retrieved from www.jurnalul.ro: https://jurnalul.ro/cultura/carte/senzationaluladevar-istoric-dezvaluit-la-omul-si-timpul-la-tvr-1-866791.html Petcu, (. M. (2016). O cronologie a cenzurii în România. București: Editura Tritonic. Voicu-Arnăuțoiu, I. (2015-2021). Muzicieni în Arhive. Retrieved from www.muzicieni-in-arhive.ro: https://www.muzicieni-in-arhive.ro/george-enescu-ro.php