Was Shostakovich really martyred by Stalin?

This essay is also available to read at https://theironfoundry.wordpress.com/2024/11/01/was-shostakovich-really-martyred-by-stalin/

Analysing whether Soviet composer Dmitri Shostakovich was ever genuinely at risk in Stalinist Russia, and how this assumption impacts his image.

In Western countries, we have a tendency to politicise all aspects of life in the Soviet Union, and furthermore view the entire existence of the state through a Stalinist, Russocentric lens. Although life in the Soviet Union was highly politicised in many areas through Marxist-Leninism, people still lived ordinary lives that most of us could find relatable. We seem to be fascinated by the ways of the USSR, possibly due to the ghosts of Cold War propaganda that still remain, possibly not. However, this impression can become rather problematic when it begins to control our overall perception of nearly 70 years of social history and its many different peoples. By addressing life in the Soviet Union as nothing but totalitarian and repressed, it subtracts a sense of normality and identity from its citizens. These were different cultures to our own, and to name the people within the Soviet Union as nothing but victims reduces them to a product of morbid curiosity. People suffer worldwide at the hands of their governments, or often other people’s governments, but it is only ever really former communist countries who receive this apathetic pity. Why this happens is not the topic of this essay, but rather a conversation for another time. Nevertheless, these attitudes are continually harmful and in my opinion have altered the perception of Shostakovich with irreversible effect.

Dmitri Dmitriyevich Shostakovich (1906-1975), born in St Petersburg (later Petrograd, then Leningrad) is arguably the most famous Soviet classical musician of all time. He is without a doubt my favourite composer, and I believe he always will be. One of the reasons that Shostakovich is so famous today is due to his relationship with the Stalinist government. People love the notion of the tortured artist - Van Gogh, Munch, Beethoven… Shostakovich is not excluded from this attraction. He was born into a middle class family to revolutionary parents, and was clearly always somebody who aimed to uphold humanist values, and did what he could to assist those around him where possible. This makes his supposed martyrdom appear considerably more tragic.

Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk

1934 brought the first performance of Shostakovich’s opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk, also known as Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District. This was a piece based on the book of the same name by Nikolai Leskov. The story tells of womanhood, adultery, sex, passion, and murder - topics certainly full of drama. It achieved worldwide success, and particular acclaim within Russia by critics, fellow musicians, and the public. So much so that two years later in January 1936, Iosif Stalin himself attended a performance at the Bolshoi Theatre along with several other high-ranking politicians, such as Molotov and Zhdanov (often recognised for the later Zhdanov Doctrine). It has been said by Shostakovich that during a sex scene, Stalin began to laugh, and he continued to laugh throughout - promptly leaving at the end of the third act before the performance had finished.

Two days later, a scathing article appeared in Pravda, the official newspaper of the Soviet Union, entitled ‘Muddle Instead of Music’. The article condemned the opera, labelling it as ‘vulgar’ and ‘bourgeois’, and accusing Shostakovich of formalism. The accusation of formalism within the arts during this period of Soviet culture was not exactly uncommon, and often used by critics as a quick and easy way to discredit a piece of work. This is because it didn’t necessarily mean anything specific, and was only seen as a contradiction to socialist realism. The Tate website defines formalism as ‘the study of art based solely on an analysis of its form - the way it is made and what it looks like’. Evidently, this is rather abstract when applied to the analysis of music. Some like to claim that Stalin himself wrote this article as it was published anonymously, but that is a completely unfounded theory and highly unlikely.

The manner in which the overseeing of the arts under Stalin functioned was rather bureaucratic and expansive. Many do not realise how little Stalin actually involved himself in controlling it. His involvement (or lack thereof) also varied from category to category. For example, he loved literature and film but admitted to having insufficient knowledge in regard to music. This is why it is unreasonable to assume that he was the author of ‘Muddle Instead of Music’.

Critics and musicians who had previously praised Shostakovich and Lady Macbeth now reversed their applause with undue antagonism and hostility, outcasting him into disgrace and absolving themselves of any possible wrongdoing. His reputation withered at an alarming rate, causing a loss in commissions, performances, income, and personal relations. A few people did remain by Shostakovich’s side and spoke in his defence, most notably the theatre director Vsevolod Meyerhold, who will be discussed again further on. From this it is clear to see that Stalin’s disapproval of Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk had a significant impact on the public reception of Shostakovich and his music and consequently his success and financial security, as well as the emotional damage of being betrayed by fellow musicians and former peers. By this point, Shostakovich had been rather a significant composer. He had completed his first symphony in 1925 at only 19 years old, and had created many pieces across a wide spectrum of forms and styles. This was not an attack on an unknown. It was intended to do damage, to make an example. By creating such a dramatic upheaval, the government showed the creative industry that such a diversion from their expectations in creating music understandable for the proletariat would not be tolerated. The scene was gradually being set for the beginning of the Great Purge.

Complexities Arise - The Great Purge

Shostakovich had become a target. However, this is also where we can start to see how protected he actually was. That may sound contradictory, but when we view the career trajectory of other musicians who had been denounced or disparaged, this was a unique and interesting case. The Russian avant-garde had exploded during the 1920s, bringing a range of new music to the foreground. Yet, none of these monumental composers have really been remembered in the consciousness of the Western general public. Take, for example, one of my favourites - Alexander Mosolov. Mosolov created some very interesting and remarkable pieces, but it is uncommon to find people who are aware of his work. This is because he failed to impress the government continually, and was eventually expelled from the Composers’ Union just a few days after Shostakovich had been castigated in Pravda - reportedly for participating in a ‘drunken brawl’ in a restaurant. The next year, in November 1937, Mosolov was arrested for counter-revolutionary activities and sentenced to 8 years in the Gulag. He served only 8 months, after being defended by fellow composers Glière and Myaskovsky, but the damage was done. He was forgotten and never returned to his former status. This happened all over the culture sectors to many different people.

The Great Purge, or the Great Terror, soon began to wreak destruction across the Soviet Union - both for the ordinary person and those in significant positions and roles. Often stated to have started with the trial for the assassination of Sergei Kirov in August 1936, a notable member of the Bolshevik party and close friend to Stalin, the purges aimed to seek out, arrest, and/or execute anybody who could be perceived as a threat to the society that Stalin aimed to build. It was a grand display of absolute power, and a warning to anyone and everyone that they should be very careful. When we translate this event to Shostakovich’s own life, we can see that many people who he associated with and several members of his family were arrested and even executed over the course of the 2–3 years that perpetrators were actively being sought out. He himself was never touched. As aforementioned, his opera Lady Macbeth caused him much grief, and he was forced to withdraw his 4th Symphony from performance in December 1936, but he never found himself arrested.

Where we begin to see sensationalism firmly creep into Shostakovich’s biography is the year 1937, with the arrest of esteemed general Mikhail Tukhachevksy. Shostakovich was friends with the general, and claimed to have often eaten dinner with his family. This connection led to him being called into an interview with the NKVD (the People’s Comissariat for Internal Affairs), where he was asked about his relation to Tukhachevsky, and reportedly told that he ‘must remember’ something within the next few days. When Shostakovich turned up to the next interview, he was supposedly told that the interviewer had been arrested, and he was no longer needed. There are some people who do not even believe this story, and some who say that it was the fine line between life and death for Dmitri Dmitriyevich. A quick google pulls up an article by the BBC entitled ‘Shostakovich: The Composer Who Was Almost Purged’, and there are many other similar pieces of reportage out there. This is how people who may not typically be interested in classical music are often enticed into engaging with Shostakovich - through the notion that he was on the verge of being executed. Personally, I do not believe that he was at such a threat of being arrested. This is because, as I have alluded to before, many people around him had been harshly victimised for much less than he had been in the spotlight for.

Was this a matter of fame? Were the government scared to punish or eliminate somebody who had a reputation? Absolutely not. I previously mentioned Vsevolod Meyerhold - one of the people who supported Shostakovich throughout his career and through his censorship. Meyerhold had an incredible reputation, he was one of the most important figures in the whole of the arts within the Soviet Union up to his death. He was a theatre director, producer and actor who had a worldwide reputation and his own theatre; he is still occasionally a big name today due to his stylised and individual methods and approaches to work. He had worked with Shostakovich several times, most notably on Myakovsky’s play The Bedbug - Meyerhold directed it and Shostakovich composed the incidental music.

Meyerhold’s story is truly tragic. He refused to comply with new regulations in conforming to socialist realism, and his theatre was closed down in January 1938. June 1939, he was arrested. Intruders, rumoured to have been working for the NKVD, broke into his flat and stabbed his wife Zinaida Reich to death, carving out her eyes. Meyerhold was tortured horribly in interrogation. He confessed to being a spy just to make it stop. He was 65 years old at the time. He was then executed by firing squad in February 1940.

Bearing in mind that Meyerhold had a much larger number of connections, more people who were aware of him, more people who had respect for him, the fact that both he and his wife were still killed so brutally is testament to the fact that fame was no protection. It is unfortunate to have to use the story of his demise to emphasise how untouched Shostakovich was as an individual.

Dmitri Shostakovich and Vsevolod Meyerhold, 1936

Redemption

Shostakovich worked hard to regain his reputation, which climaxed with the production of his 5th Symphony - now his most renowned piece. Perhaps this is why Shostakovich was spared from more serious trouble, as through his denunciation he publicly continued to toe the line. The symphony is powerful and moving, but it also adhered to a traditional structure and refrained from including obvious avant-garde elements. Upon its release in November 1937, official critics applauded Shostakovich for this tour de force as an appropriate response to their reprovals. This piece of work set his career out firmly for the foreseeable future; it proved that the government could encourage an artist to simultaneously conform and flourish.

The 1940s - War, Condemnation, Peace

Although the Great Purge had now passed, the 1940s brought terrific hardship for Russia. Nazi Germany had launched Operation Barbarossa in June 1941 - the invasion of the Soviet Union. The Battle of Stalingrad is possibly the most famous event in public knowledge of the invasion, however we have to look further north to the Siege of Leningrad in order to understand what Shostakovich and his family were going through.

The Nazi and Finnish allied armies surrounded Leningrad, and accompanied by aerial bombardment, they aimed to slowly starve out the inhabitants rather than take it by force. It lasted 872 days, from September 1941–January 1944. Civilian deaths are estimated to around 800,000–1,000,000 people.

The Siege of Leningrad - it was normal to see people drop dead in the streets.

Shostakovich desired to do something for his city, and signed up to fight several times but was rejected for ‘medical reasons’, although it is generally assumed that he was rejected due to his importance in Soviet society. Instead, he was posted as a watchman like many other people within the arts scene in order to extinguish fires on roofs after bombing raids. His big accomplishment, however, was his glorious 7th Symphony, or the Leningrad Symphony. He composed the first 3 movements amongst the turmoil of the city, and completed the finale after having been forcefully evacuated to Moscow and then Kuybyshev (Samara).

There was a strong and insatiable desire to bring the 7th Symphony back to Leningrad, and under conductor Karl Eliasberg, the Leningrad Philharmonic began to reform. Only 15 members of the entire orchestra had survived to this point, around mid-1942, and the piece required almost 100. Pleas went out to anybody who could play an instrument to an acceptable standard, and even amateur partisan musicians were taken off the Eastern Front. The rehearsals were brutal, scores copied out entirely by hand in front of candlelight, some people perished between practices. The musicians were completely emaciated and weak, but through sheer will and power they pulled through to be able to perform the concert. Citizens who hadn’t been out in months all gathered to the concert, it brought people together under severe hardship. A bombardment had been ordered by the Soviet military on German forces preceding the concert to ensure as little disturbance as possible, and the performance was broadcast out onto the front towards the invading forces through loudspeakers. This story is a clear display of the human spirit, and will undoubtedly stick with me forever.

Eliasberg conducts the starving orchestra.

It understandably had a lasting effect on Shostakovich’s image. He was now perceived as a national hero for what he had provided to his city - both within the Soviet Union and across the world, where he had previously been generally judged as nothing but a Stalinist pawn.

Yet, as has already been clarified, fame was no preventative from government interference. Another anti-formalism campaign erupted in 1948, under the Zhdanov Doctrine. The practice of Zhdanovism aimed to further crack down on ‘cosmopolitan’ behaviours within the arts, and to reintroduce a sense of order in the post-war climate. Long speeches made by Zhdanov and Khrennikov (another composer who gladly acted as a state lapdog) repeatedly barraged against Shostakovich and a significant portion of his repertoire, claiming that he was subverting young composers and musicians into developing a neurotic and out of touch musical taste. Although this decree didn’t have the same lasting effects as his previous denunciation, the Great Purge was over, it was still humiliating. Above all, it proved that despite what he had provided to his country, Shostakovich was still forced into submission.

On the other hand, referring to the topic of this essay, it is important now to realise that this was not an act of Stalin, and Shostakovich did not really suffer from it. The Zhdanov Decree is often used as part of the rhetoric describing Shostakovich as a Stalinist victim, but it is clear to see here that this simply does not apply. There is a difference between this claim and reality that should be clarified, and this is in fact emphasised by the composition of his ‘Antiformalist Rayok’ - also known as the ‘Learner’s Manual’. The Antiformalist Rayok was a satirical piece, which included quotations from the Zhadnov speech sung in a chorus. This piece was never performed during his lifetime, as you can imagine it probably would have greatly damaged his career. The important thing is that it displays Shostakovich’s humour and light-heartedness regarding the situation, and shows how it wasn’t taken all that seriously.

One of the last important events in Shostakovich’s life during the 1940s in relation to his connection with the government was an appearance at the Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace in New York City in March 1949. A month before, Shostakovich received a personal phone call directly from Stalin himself, asking him to be a delegate to the conference. Shostakovich refused politely, reportedly stating that he could not be a delegate when some of his music was banned in the USSR. Stalin then asked who had banned his music, and assured that any restrictions would be lifted (they were). To me, this is an incredibly important piece of information when looking at Stalin and Shostakovich’s relationship. If it is true, the fact that Stalin did not know who had banned his works highlights his lack of involvement within musical affairs and his willingness to revoke any condemnation further pushes the point that Shostakovich was never under any great danger. Yes, this could be seen as an obvious attempt in persuading Shostakovich to participate in something that he did not necessarily want to, but the importance of the situation lies specifically in that Stalin personally was clearly not ‘out for his head’.

Shostakovich’s appearance at the conference in the United States did not run particularly smoothly. Anti-communist protestors lined up on the streets just to berate him! Although he had been congratulated and idolised through the Second World War, the American opinion of Shostakovich remained relatively hostile until 1979, with the posthumous publication of Testimony.

American protestors outside the conference.

Testimony - The Old and New Shostakovich

This was a book released in America by musicologist Solomon Volkov - he claimed that it was Shostakovich’s memoirs that he had been the editor for. This is one of the greatest controversies surrounding Shostakovich, as many people including myself believe them to be faked (something often informally dubbed ‘The Shostakovich Wars’), either partly or completely. I will not go into the detail of why or why not they are real, as that is not the relevant aspect of the subject. What is relevant is that within Testimony, Shostakovich is written to have greatly criticised the Soviet Union and the Stalinist government. This changed people’s perception of him in the West, and it began to paint the image of him as a martyr. It was here that it became common to believe that he was being targeted by Stalin, and that he was suffering voicelessly with no outlet. This is because nobody had really heard any of Shostakovich’s personal opinions abroad, in a pre-internet world dictated by the Cold War, you wouldn’t have had the chance. This creates the impression that he was silenced his whole life out of fear, seeing as it was a posthumous release that had been brought to the United States.

However, if we look at Shostakovich’s personal correspondence (such as his letters to Isaak Glikman), we can see that he was anything but meek and frightened. He was very vocal and outspoken in his opinions, and he certainly was not afraid to defend those around him. Of course, this is information only available in retrospect. The book of letters to Glikman was only published in 2001, 22 years after Testimony. A lot of his letters that are publicly available have still not been translated into English, which is a detriment to his Western perception. Thankfully, the DSCH Journal has recently begun the process of translating some of them within their publication after a crowdfunding success.

Conclusion

The long-reigning idea that Dmitri Shostakovich was incessantly and viciously pursued by Stalin, and turned into a nervous, fragile wreck has done great damage to how we analyse both his music and his being. It depicts him as a man who was incapable, a man who dictated his life on the terms of another. The reality is that Shostakovich suffered, he saw his friends and family suffer, his fellow countrymen, his work. Yet, what is also true is that what we know about Shostakovich is only what has been deemed significant enough for us to know, especially the information that can be easily transformed through sensationalism. When you view his life through Stalin’s actions, you cease to view him as a human - and he was incredibly human. He was a remarkable man, with extraordinary talent, and a kind but steadfast personality. Furthermore, an important fact to keep in mind was that although he experienced much hardship, it was not on the same level that other people may have experienced. It is obvious when we view his biography and directly compare it to many other figures, such as Meyerhold and Mosolov who I have mentioned, that he was kept safe. We are fortunate today that he was, but it would be naive to believe that that is down to coincidence or luck.

Written 31st October 2024

Comments

Displaying 0 of 0 comments ( View all | Add Comment )