Description
The Nazi occupation of the Netherlands commenced with the invasion of German military forces on May 10, 1940. After a devastating bombardment of Rotterdam four days later, the Dutch army surrendered. At first, much remained as before: concert life and radio programs continued after only a short intermission; newspapers still appeared. But as of the autumn of 1940, the varnish of Nazi correctness and tolerance wore thin; governmental organizations were slowly but surely restructured. In 1941, a Dutch counterpart of the German Reichskulturkammer (‘Kultuurkamer’) was installed with separate branches (‘gilden’) for Music as well as Letters. Censorship was proclaimed: the press was vigorously “gleichgeschaltet”, a process heavily influencing the thusfar independent and wide-ranging contents of the newspapers and magazines.Important to know here is that, since the late nineteenth century, Dutch society was characterized by its so-called ‘pillarization’. Non-permeable social hubs identified themselves through their ideological, religious and/or political convictions. All profiled their own churches, sports clubs, schools, broadcast companies, newspapers, periodicals and the like. This pillarization remained more or less in tact during the Nazi occupation, albeit that Jewish or communist periodicals would disappear (or go undergrond).
This societal structure is pivotal for understanding the Dutch Beethoven reception during WWII, because the various pillars remain to formulate heterogeneous images of Beethoven and his music. By studying a large amount of newspaper and magazine articles – a first stocktaking over the period 1933-1945 recently resulted in some 70,000 items –, a nuanced, multifaceted comparison will be offered to the overall project
The current hypothesis is that the Beethoven “Bild” under the influence of the Nazi’s shows a gradual shift from a Beethoven as a Romantic genius – as well as an artistic symbol of Humanism and Enlightenment, and as a precursor of the left-wing movement (‘the Tolstoi of music’) – to a Beethoven as an artist actively participating in society through his music. Before the Nazi occupation, the image of Beethoven as a pre-eminent “German” composer was widely accepted within the Dutch discourse. During WWII, only Nazi sympathizers seem to have stuck to this image, whereas more neutral discussants in the Netherlands referred to Beethoven increasingly as an internationalist, if not a universal composer. That is to say, these opinions were proclaimed the ‘loudest’ by leading intellectuals and professionals; the Beethoven image of the tormented hero seems to have remained the mythical concept within the popular press throughout the investigated period.
The above sketched evolution of the Dutch Beethoven reception will be critically evaluated through a profound, comparative discourse analysis via three perspectives. The project will break down the various mediums within the various pillars (the synchronic line of inquiry) versus a comparison over time (the diachronic line of inquiry). At the same time, the various and – as it happens – contradictive opinions will be given ample attention (the polyphonic line of inquiry). Given the large amount of available data, computer aided text mining methodologies will be needed. The Bonn workshop meeting will be used to calibrate the project for optimal international comparison and methodological fine-tuning.
For the interpretation of the material, one needs to realize that (news) coverage, essays, reviews and the like relevant to Beethoven (1) not only influence specific target groups, but that at the same time (2) the content is strongly catered towards general esthetics, opinions and interests of the supposed reader – hence the necessary distinction between catholic and protestant publications, communist or nazified ones. Despite the above, (3) the articles may at the same time still be expresssions of highly individualized opionions of (sometimes anonymous) authors or editorial boards. A last disclaimer that needs to be brought into the equation, is that (4) under strong censorship much can not be said, let alone published. An informed read-between-the-lines attitude is therefore indispensable. That a reprint of a given book leaves out the remark that Beethoven can be considered ‘a rebel’ may be telling in this perspective (Eduard Reeser’s Muziekgeschiedenis in vogelvlucht – ‘Music history from a bird’s eye view’ – 1938 edition versus the 1942 one).
| Period | 9 Sept 2022 |
|---|---|
| Event title | Sources – Protagonists – Propaganda. The Reception of Beethoven and His Music in Nazi-Occupied European Countries : Beethoven reception |
| Event type | Conference |
| Location | Bonn, GermanyShow on map |
Keywords
- beethoven music nazi occupation netherlands