Moscow Premiere of 1812 Overture

Excepting music majors and classical music aficionados, most people are unaware that, despite being one of the most recognizable pieces of music in history, Tchaikovsky had utterly loathsome feelings towards the 1812 Overture.

---

Beaming with nationalistic sentiment and war-like grandeur, the 1812 Overture was a response to the surprising defeat of France by the Russians at the Battle of Borodino in September of 1812. While the piece evokes a sense of overwhelming victory and tenacity, it belies the fact that, as many armies who’ve invaded Russia understand, it’s not necessarily the warriors, but the weather, that will make or break the enemy.

The piece itself was composed in a matter of six weeks at the urging of Nikolai Rubinstein. The problem for Tchaikovsky, and the likely reason he had such disdain for what would become his signature composition, was the expectation that he should create a piece that appealed to all aspects of society — religious, political, and cultural. The 1812 Overture was expected to commemorate their ousting of the French from Russia, the completion of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, the 25th Anniversary of Alexander II‘s reign, and the 1882 All-Russian Arts and Industry Exhibition. Even a man of Tchaikovsky’s genius may have had existential crisis.

The 1812 Overture opens with a hymn (Troparion of the Holy Cross) paying homage to Russia’s Eastern Orthodox tradition. The arrival of the French on Russia’s doorstep is illustrated by a Russian folk song (At The Door, At My Door) while being juxtaposed with the French National Anthem (La Marseillaise). During this point and counterpoint, neither side is permitted to gain an upper-hand. This is meant to convey the struggle present between warring factions. Ultimately the Russians were successful in ridding their country of Napoleonic invaders. But Tchaikovsky’s expectations for the 1812 Overture were overshadowed by the realities of human nature and problematic musical logistics.

Tsar Alexander II was assassinated in 1881 and Tchaikovsky’s desire to see the piece performed in the city square was squelched by the fact that it was practically impossible to sync the cannon fire with the orchestral score. The piece would finally be performed at the All-Russian Arts and Industry Exhibition in 1882 sans cannons, brass band, and cathedral bells. 

Whether Tchaikovsky ever came to terms with the supposed failure of the 1812 Overture, we may never know. The fact remains, though, that it continues to be one of the most recognizable and performed orchestra pieces in history. We also have to keep in mind, Tchaikovsky, like so many of us, was his own worst critic.

---

I hope you enjoyed today’s blog. My apologies for not updating more frequently. I’ve started a new job and relocated. So I’ve not had much time for updates. I’ll try to update more frequently.

As always, let me know if you have any ideas or topics you’d like me to explore.

Regards,

PH

---

Source:

http://www.classicfm.com/composers/tchaikovsky/guides/1812-hated-hit/

Increase Mather, the Bedrock of American Puritanism

While Increase Mather’s son, Cotton, holds a more prestigious position in American history, it was Increase who oversaw the spread of Puritanism in America during the 17th Century. Increase supported the Salem Witchcraft Trials, presided over Harvard College, and advocated for the inoculation of smallpox. In the latter, he was greatly derided and criticized.

---

Increase Mather was born on June 21, 1639 in Dorchester, Massachusetts. He received his education from Harvard in 1656 and from Trinity College in Ireland in 1658. During the years between the restoration of Charles II, or Interregnum, Mather was a congregational minister in southern England. When the English Puritans, led by Cromwell, were ousted, Mather was forced to move back to the New England where he soon became known as a controversial spiritual and political leader. Mather’s opposition to the Half-Way Covenant, wherein children of Congregationalists could become full members of the Church without a conversion experience, only baptism, led him to break with what may  be called progressive sects of Congregationalism. He was also at odds with Solomon Stoddard who advocated an open-door policy for churches in Northampton.

During Mather’s tenure as president of Harvard College, he championed a curriculum focused on scientific inquiry. It was also during this time that Mather would renegotiate the charter of Massachusetts Colony with James II and William III. It was, though, this charter, his support of Governor Sir William Phipps, along with his aforementioned support of the Salem witchcraft trials and smallpox inoculations that predicated the decline of the Mather’s political and spiritual power in New England.

With typical Puritanical and Calvinistic panache, Increase wrote numerous tracts employing biblical tropes e.g. the persecution of the Jews, the struggle between good and evil. These literary parallels were designed to show how far Christians had separated themselves from their God and sown evil and discontent by ignoring the Bible and their religion. In this way, Mather used his writings to paint New England’s Native Americans, specifically the Algonquians and their leader, Metacom, as evil incarnate and representatives of Satan on earth. Despite the anachronism, Mather’s racism and nativism was couched in an understandably millenarian and predestination theology.

In his view, despite the horrors and seeming divine displeasure with the colonists of New England, Mather believes, much like the Prophet Jeremiah, that God is simply testing the faith of his chosen people and that they should not feel as though God has abandoned them.

While Increase never gave up his religion or belief in the supernatural, he did argue that science and religion could in fact be intimate bedfellows and build off each other. By purpose or accident, Mather became one of the greatest proponents of England’s Royal Society. He also urged his parishioners to not jump to conclusions with regards to supernatural versus natural phenomena. That said, like practically every person then and now, Mather was a complex individual. He openly supported the witchcraft trials of Salem. However, he was hesitant to advocate the use of confession by torture and generally dismissed the use of “spectral evidence” in trials.

One of Mather’s most important tracts, or jeremiads, Ichabod: or, The Glory Departing (1702) explained that at the time when it seems that God has abandoned his chosen people, it was never too late — they could repent and be accepted into the kingdom of God. Decades after they were written many of Mather’s tracts were used to justify the American Revolution, Manifest Destiny, and the Second Great Awakening.

Increase Mather died on August 23, 1723, in Boston, Massachusetts. His legacy, notwithstanding the decline in influence of the Mather family, continued to spread throughout the United States during times of religious, social, and political distress.

---

I hope you enjoyed today’s entry! Sorry I haven’t been updating regularly.

In peace,

PH

---

Sources:

http://salem.lib.virginia.edu/people/i_mather.html

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Increase-Mather

http://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/harvard-glance/history-presidency/increase-mather

http://matherproject.org/node/36

 

Maharana Pratap (the Great?)

When we consider early modern Indian history our minds tend to remember (if we remember anything) the rule of Mughal emperors such as Akbar, Babur,  Jahingar, or Shah Jahan. All of these rulers gained fame or infamy from their respective rules. Most notably, Shah Jahan is remembered for his building of the majestic mausoleum to his beloved wife, Mumtaz Mahal, the Taj Mahal. But it would seem there is another ruler of India, not as well known, but possibly just as important — Maharana Pratap. 

---

Born in the Kumbhalgarh, Rajasthan on May 9, 1540, Pratap was destined to be become the 54th ruler of Mewar. In 1567, though, the capital of Mewar, Chittor, was surrounded by Emperor Akbar’s forces and, rather than surrender, Pratap’s father, Maharana Udai Singh II, moved his family to Gogunda.

While in exile in Gogunda, Udai established a temporary government. However, in 1572, Udai passed away and a series of disagreements over who would succeed him erupted. In respect of his father’s wishes, having been swayed by his favorite queen, Rani Bhatiyani, her son, Jagmal, was set to become the next Maharana. The late Maharana’s nobles (the Chundawat Rajputs), realizing this would spell disaster, forced Jagmal to leave the throne to Pratap. In response to this slight, Jagmal swore revenge and left for Ajmer to join the armies of Akbar.

Even though Pratap had officially become the ruler of Mewar and 54th ruler of the Sisodiya Rajputs, his heart remained heavy. He had not been back to his homeland since 1567, and his father died never seeing his home again. Akbar was equally distraught, but for different reasons.  Akbar was, in essence, ruler of all of India. But there remained one area of contention — Hindustan.

While Akbar retained control of Chittor, it wasn’t enough. The people of Chittor and Mewar as a whole were aligned politically and philosophically with the Maharana Pratap. Despite sending several emissaries to Mewar to discuss capitulation, it was for naught. The last of these emissaries, Raja Man Singh, a member of the Sisodiya Rajputs, was the final nail in the diplomatic coffin for Pratap. By now Akbar realized that Pratap would never submit and began readying his armies for an invasion of Mewar.

Knowing that it would be nearly impossible to mount a successful campaign against Pratap in an environment of unwavering devotion to the Maharana, Akbar attempted to sow seeds of discontent among the people of Mewar. This was not successful. Akbar even appointed Pratap’s younger brother, Kunwar Sagar Singh, to rule Chittor. Kunwar would soon come to regret his treachery and committed suicide in the Mughal Court.

In a way of boosting his own morale and that of his subjects, Pratap moved the Mewar capital to his birthplace of Kumbhalgarh. He commanded his subjects to leave for the Aravali Mountains; they readily acquiesced. The Maharana and his troops began raiding Mughal strongholds and blocking important passages, thus denying Mughal armies important resupply routes. Pratap, always a man of the people, devoted himself to penitence to show that he was entirely with his people who were undergoing tremendous hardships. He swore to eat only from leaf-plates, sleep on the floor, and not shave. To this end, Pratap lived in mud-huts.

The first major skirmish between the armies of Pratap and Akbar occurred at the Battle of Haldighati, where the Rajput army of 20,000 faced off against an army of Mughals four-times their size.

The Battle of Haldighati ended in a stalemate, to the incredulity of the Mughals. Over the next few years the Mughals continued trying to take over Mewar, while Pratap continued his attempts at reclaiming Chittor. Both armies were exhausting themselves, more so Pratap who was becoming increasingly distraught and disheartened by the fact that his people continued to live in poverty and slavery under Mughals. This state of despair was temporarily abated by the injection of funds from Bhama Shah, who gave his entire fortune to Pratap which kept the army of 25,000 supported for the next 12 years.

In a letter, supposedly written by Pratap, he suggested that he would submit to Akbar to mitigate the suffering of his people. When the letter arrived at the court of Akbar, a literate Rajput, and admirer of Pratap, Prince Prithiraj, told Akbar that it must be a forgery as the Maharana would never give up Mewar.

In response to the letter, Prithiraj penned a poem, in the form of an official letter, to Maharana inquiring of his intent. The letter to Pratap led him to reverse his decision regarding submission to the Mughals. In turn, Akbar ended his obsessive pursuit of Pratap, refocusing on Punjab and India’s Northwest Frontier. The Maharana would regain Udaipur, Kumbhalgarh, and most of Mewar, but not Chittor.

When Maharana Pratap chose his successor, Amar Singh, he swore him to eternal conflict against those who would usurp or challenge India’s independence. When Pratap Singh I died on January 29, 1597, following a hunting accident, he would go down as a tireless advocate for his nation, its people, and his honor.

I hope you enjoyed today’s entry! Thanks for reading!

In peace,

PH

---

Source:

http://www.chittorgarh.com/maharana-pratap.asp

The Battle of Cerignola

I recently read Jared Diamond‘s Guns, Germs, and Steel. Diamond’s hypothesis that the rise of western civilization was a direct result of innovation related to weaponry (gunpowder, mainly), the introduction of new diseases to unprepared natives, and the evolution of tools and weapons from our paleolithic and neolithic ancestors to steel, allowed the western world to gain hegemony and superiority over those without such defenses. The 1503 Battle of Cerignola, believed to be the first battle in which handguns were a decisive factor for success, is such an example.

---

While the Battle of Cerignola was not against unprepared natives per se, it was a unique situation in which the ease and unencumbered use of new weaponry, against pikes and large-scale artillery, proved to be the decisive factor in victory.

Following the Treaty of Grenada (November 1500), France and Spain launched a concerted effort to capture the city of Naples. The Battle of Cerignola was part of the larger Second Italian War / Italian War of Louis XIII. Because the Treaty of Grenada was vague in regards to the dividing of spoils e.g. which state was going to receive which territory, both France and Spain claimed ownership over different areas. Their disagreement would reach a climax over the city of Naples.

Initially, the French held a considerable advantage over their Spanish counterparts. They, however, squandered it. Additionally, the Spanish were led by an extremely competent general, Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba.

Despite their numerical advantage, the French, having forced Cordoba out of Cerignola and Canosa, did not pursue Córdoba and focused more on pointless endeavors throughout the Italian Peninsula. Fortunately for Córdoba he received much needed supplies from neighboring Venice. Most importantly, though, 3,000 Landsknechts from Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian, provided the extra support the Spanish needed to fend off French threats.

Due to a certain degree of machismo, the French general, Louis d’Armagnac, Duke of Nemours, who was ridiculed by his subordinates for what they perceived as cowardice, rashly ordered an attack against the Spanish at Cerignola.

Again, the French had the initial upper-hand with their combination of heavy cavalry and pikemen, as well as heavy artillery. Further, the Spanish were almost immediately disadvantaged by the explosion of their gunpowder. To their credit, the Spanish had capable arquebusiers and strongly fortified their positions. It would be during the Battle of Cerginola that Nemours would be killed by a handgun. Warfare at this time was still greatly dependent on the survival of military leaders. If the general leading the charge was killed in action, the who formation would fall apart. After Nemours was killed, his troops were in disarray, and Córdoba pushed forward to repel them completely off the field.

Even after the Battle of Cerignolo, Spanish control of Naples was not guaranteed. It would take two additional skirmishes between the Spanish and French for France to quit its presence and Naples and concede the city to Spain.

I hope you enjoyed today’s entry!

In peace,

PH

---

Source:

Battle of Cerignola, 26 April 1503. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_cerignola.html

Enoch Powell Revisited

As anti-immigration and xenophobic sentiments are again gaining traction around the world, it seems British MP Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech, given at a Conservative Party conference in 1968, has renewed significance to our society.

---

The politics of Enoch Powell, mostly derived from his Rivers of Blood speech, are not as clear cut as the speech might suggest. The speech, while extremely vitriolic, may not have fully epitomized Powell’s actual feelings on race. Politicians are elected to represent their constituents — in the case of Powell, the basis of his controversial speech was a female resident from his district of Wolverhampton South West. What remains unknown is the exact identity of the constituent, which further problematizes Powell’s ideology: Was the constituent real or was she simply a creation of Powell to further a message that may not have been as readily accepted as thought?

Enoch Powell was born on June 16, 2012, in Stechford, Birmingham. Powell was a gifted student and excelled in the classics and languages. In fact, by the time of his death, he had mastered 12 different languages. Somewhat surprisingly, Powell expressed no interest in politics as a young man. His ambition was to become Viceroy for India leading him to master Urdu.

Powell’s initial involvement in politics came as a critic of PM Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement of Adolf Hitler. According to Powell, war with Germany and Hitler was inevitable and necessary. As such, Powell joined the Royal Warwickshire regiment and rose almost immediately to the position of Brigadier. Despite this being a major military role Powell, never really content with monotony, said after the war “I should like to have been killed in the war.”

Owing to his disagreement with Chamberlain and the Conservatives concerning appeasement, he voted for Labour in 1945. This was only a temporary realignment and by 1950, Powell had been elected to Parliament as the Conservative MP for Wolverhampton South West. His political ideology was one of determined British nationalism with a dash of pragmatism. He was a proponent of the British Empire and the Commonwealth, but realized that as the British Empire was waning, changes had to be made. In 1956 he would oppose British attempts at regaining the Suez Canal in Egypt. Powell’s emphasis on British nationalism came at the expense of relations with the United States and some of Europe. He was suspicious of Margaret Thatcher’s decision to build Britain’s nuclear arsenal and helped prevent British involvement in the Vietnam War to the disappointment of the United States.

With all of his opposing views and labored considerations, Powell’s rise to fame (or infamy) came on April 20, 1968. The British Empire, as noted above, was on the road to collapse. As a result, many peoples of the former British Commonwealths were relocating to Britain. In his Rivers of Blood speech, Powell painted a dire picture reminiscent of Virgil’s Aeneid, “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'” 

Keeping in mind that fears (real or imagined) inform the spirit of an era, the rhetoric spoken by Powell was representative of many people. But these fears are often misplaced and misdirected. However, they generally accomplish their goal — redirecting emphasis from real issues to non-issues. When a dominant group sees their position in society and/or government being (supposedly) usurped or challenged, it is much easier to blame the foreign Other than to address domestic issues.

Following his speech, Powell was dismissed from Edward Heath’s Shadow Cabinet. Though he remained one of the most prolific and admired Conservatives in Britain. In fact, much of Conservative success in 1970, can be attributed to Powell.

Where Powell’s attribution as a racialist become ambiguous regards his views on the Mau Mau people of Kenya. Further, he supported pro-homosexual reform and sought to end the death penalty. In an interview with commentator David Frost in 1969, Powell was asked if he considered himself a racialist. To this question, Powell responded:

It depends on how you define the word “racialist.” If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically “No.”

When Powell lost his seat in 1987, he had a right to a peerage given by Queen Elizabeth II. However, because he had voted against the Life Peerages Act of 1958, he opted out of receiving a Lordship. Powell died on February 8, 1998.

---

As I alluded to at the beginning and throughout this entry, the question of Enoch Powell’s racism is open to debate. While it doesn’t appear that Powell ever regretted giving the speech, it is still questionable whether he was actually racist. What isn’t questionable or up for debate is the power of words.

Rhetoric has consequences. Even if Powell was not racist, he emboldened and gave voice to those who were. While none would deny that Hitler was racist. It is a bit more ambiguous when we are speaking of Donald Trump. Donald Trump may not personally be racist, but he is giving a voice to those who are vehemently racist and hateful/fearful of the Other.

Even though racist and anti-immigrant attitudes are on the rise, I still hold out hope that the majority of people are good and caring. These are the people who use reason and logic over hearsay and alternative facts. As a world community we have an obligation to everyone to ensure that all our lives are filled with peace, love, and security.

I hope you enjoyed today’s entry! It’s nice to be back!

In peace,

PH

---

Sources:

Enoch Powell Biography — http://www.biographyonline.net/politicians/uk/enoch-powell.html

1968: Powell slates immigration policy — http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/20/newsid_2489000/2489357.stm

My grandparents, Enoch Powell and the day they fell out over his ‘rivers of blood’ speech — https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/oct/22/my-grandparents-enoch-powell-and-the-day-they-fell-out-over-his-rivers-of-blood-speech

Historical Musings Returns!

Good tidings, everyone!

After a rather extended hiatus (due to a laptop suicide) I will be blogging again starting tomorrow (April 20, 2017). I look forward to researching and broadening mine and your horizons. As always, if there are any suggestions or comments, don’t hesitate to let me know!

In peace,

PH

No Updates

Hi, all! 

Due to my laptop officially resigning itself to the dustbin, it’s very difficult to write a worthwhile entry. As a result, it will be awhile before I can update. 

Thanks to everyone who has been reading. I’ll do my best to update soon. 

In peace, 

PH

Talat Paşa, Chief Architect of the Armenian Genocide

Talat Paşa was born in 1874 at Edirne, Ottoman Empire. His father was a minor Ottoman official and he himself worked at a telegraph company. This position did not last long, as he was arrested for engaging in subversive political activities in 1893. Interestingly, when he was released two years later, he was became chief secretary or posts and telegraphs in Saloniki. It was in this role that Talat was able to provide assistance to the Young Turks. The Young Turks were a paramilitary and political group whose goal was to undermine the Empire and usher in a Turkish government wherein those who were not Turkish would be expelled or worse murdered.

In 1908, Talat was again dismissed from his position in the telegraph office for being a member of the Committee of Union and Progress. CUP was the conspiratorial arm of the Young Turks. He came into his own, though, that same year by becoming a for Edirne in the Ottoman Parliament. In 1909 and 1912 he was appointed minister of the interior and secretary-general of the CUP, respectively.

With the outset of World War I, Talaat supported the Allied powers i.e. England, France, Russia. However, Enver Paşa, minister of war, persuaded Talat and the Ottoman Empire to come in on the side of the Germany and the Central powers i.e. Germany, Austria-Hungary.

Shortly after the war was in full effect, it became Talat’s responsibility to deal with deportation of Armenians living in the Empire’s eastern quarters. The reason for their forced removal and murder was two-fold: first, as noted above, the Young Turks imagined a country that was dominated by ethnic Turks and Islam and devoid of differing religious, political, or social views. The Armenians, considered by many to be the first group to fully embrace Christianity, were deemed an immediate threat; second, it was very likely that the Armenians, sharing a border with Russia, would embrace their Russian contemporaries, who, despite being Eastern Orthodox, were still Christian in belief and, apart from their religious similarities, the Russians were not seen as a political or geographic threat. By the end of the war, and the subsequent rise of the Turks, it is believed that over 600,000 Armenians were butchered and even more were displaced.

Before the war ended, Talat would become grand vizier (ruler) of the Ottoman Empire. Though, he would resign on October 14, 1918, prior to the Empire’s surrender to the Allies. Following the cessation of hostilities, Talat, along with Enver Paşa and Cemal Paşa, fled to Berlin, Germany; where, on March 15, 1921, Talat was killed by Soghomon Tehlirian, an Armenian, as revenge for the genocide.

Cemal Paşa

 

Soghomon Tehlirian

 

One last thing to consider about the Armenian Genocide. On August 22, 1939, another butcher of innocent men, women, and children was quoted as saying, in a speech at Obersalzberg, Germany, that:

Our strength lies in our quickness and in our brutality; Genghis Khan has sent millions of women and children into death knowingly and with a light heart. History sees in him only the great founder of States. As to what the weak Western European civilisation asserts about me, that is of no account. I have given the command and I shall shoot everyone who utters one word of criticism, for the goal to be obtained in the war is not that of reaching certain lines but of physically demolishing the opponent. And so for the present only in the East I have put my death-head formations’ in place with the command relentlessly and without compassion to send into death many women and children of Polish origin and language. Only thus we can gain the living space [lebensraum] that we need. Who after all is today speaking about the destruction of the Armenians? [italics added for emphasis]

Now there is some speculation as to whether Hitler actually spoke these words. We need to keep in mind that, in the march to war, propaganda is used by all sides to justify their ends. That said, it would seem likely that Hitler would have made such a statement. Even to this day, there are people, group, and entire countries (including the United States) who will not acknowledge that something devastating and genocidal occurred against the Armenian people between 1915-1918.

As I’ve written previously, it is denial of events that allow continued atrocities to occur. It is the responsibility of historians and an informed public to prevent genocides and exploitation of individuals and groups.

In peace,

PH

---

Sources:

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/talaat.html

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Talat-Pasa

Premiere of Felix Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto in E Minor

Felix Mendelssohn, painting by Eduard Magnus, c. 1845

Felix Mendelssohn, born on February 3, 1809, was one of the most prolific and appreciated Romantic period composers. His works embraced the Classical tenets, but elaborated on them with Romantic themes. Mendelssohn’s parents were Jewish, but considering the events of the time, while still being proud of their heritage, they converted to Christianity, so as to not make the lives of their children miserable.

Abraham and Lea Salomon Mendelssohn cared deeply about their children and wanted to do everything they could to help them succeed. As such, in 1811, the family moved to Berlin. In Berlin, young Felix took piano lessons with Ludwig Berger and studied composition with Carl Friedrich Zelter.

Later, Felix and his sister would travel to Paris where he would become acquainted with the works of Mozart. During his childhood, Felix composed five operas, 11 symphonies for string orchestras, concerti, sonatas, and fugues. For many years these works were archived in the Prussian State Library in Berlin, but were lost during World War II. At the age of 17, Mendelssohn reached his full stature as a composer when his Overture to A Midsummer Night’s Dream. This particular composition foreshadowed the rise of Rimsky-Korsakov in its animated orchestration. Despite being born in Germany, Mendelssohn found he was more deeply appreciated and respected in England. In fact, he would become Queen Victoria’s favorite composer. Because of his English patrons, Mendelssohn’s influence rivaled that of George Frideric Handel.

Following his return to Germany, specifically Leipzig, Mendelssohn opened a conservatory with fellow composer Robert Schumann. It would be on March 13, 1845, that Mendelssohn’s Violin Concerto in E Minor, Op. 64 premiered in Leipzig.

This concerto is the most performed of any violin concerto. Sadly, on the day it premiered, Mendelssohn was very ill and the performance was conducted by Mendelssohn’s assistant Niels Gade. Arranged in three movements, the Violin Concerto opens with an exuberant and turbulent “Allegro molto appassionato” written in sonata form, it is followed by a smoother and restful “Andante,” the concerto concludes with an exciting, sprite, and vibrant “Allegretto non troppo—allegro molto vivace.” What sets the concerto and Mendelssohn apart was his decision to not include pauses between each movement. The reason for this was that Mendelssohn found mid-movement applause as distracting. His views on audience applause is in large part the reason most orchestral performances request that the audience hold their applause until the end.

Mendelssohn’s success and influence did not come without detractors. Following his death on November 4, 1847, English composers became increasingly infatuated with Richard Wagner, Claude Debussy, and Igor Stravinsky. In doing so, they diminished Mendelssohn’s lesser works.

I hope you enjoyed today’s entry!

In peace,

PH

---

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Felix-Mendelssohn

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Violin-Concerto-in-E-Minor-Op-64

Patricio Aylwin, Chile’s First Democratically Elected President Post-Pinochet

Patricio Aylwin’s term as President of Chile came after the 17 year dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990). Aylwin’s influence in Chile, though, lasted several decades.

Patricio Aylwin accepting the presidency while Augusto Pinochet looks on.

---

Born in Viña del Mar on November 26, 1918, Aylwin never saw himself as a leader. In his political capacity, he viewed himself more as a steward for the Chilean people. During his lengthy political career, Aylwin was several times elected to head the Christian Democratic Party. Even then, his goals were always on creating a better Chile. While he may not have considered himself a leader, the overwhelming number of Chileans did. They supported Aylwin because he attempted, along with other proponents of democracy, to stop the coup orchestrated by Pinochet. As we know, they weren’t successful. But it did set the stage for his subsequent rise to president, through democratic means, in 1990.

Aylwin’s presidency was marked by economic stability and commitment to the truth. It may have seemed contradictory, as a president elected by democratic means, to have exercised more control than Pinochet over the economy, but as Aylwin noted at the time: “…the market is cruel.” Ultimately, his decisions related to the economy brought Chile out of its economic decline. His commitment to finding the truth centered on the killings, by the Pinochet government, of opposite leaders and critics. Aylwin created the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission whose mission was to discover how many people had been murdered during Pinochet’s regime, and bring those who had escaped prosecution to trial. In their research, the Commission found that almost 3,200 people had been murdered by the military. The commission, several years after its founding, would indict and find Pinochet himself guilty. Despite the many positives that came out of the Commission’s efforts, Aylwin still found himself frustrated that he could not bring justice to more people.

When Salvador Allende, the first democratically elected Marxist president in the Western Hemisphere, came to power in 1970, Aylwin was the leader of the opposition. But when it became obvious in 1973 that Pinochet was gaining more traction and would likely lead a coup, Aylwin put aside his differences and worked with Allende in a last-minute attempt to negotiate with Pinochet to prevent the coup. Sadly, Allende was killed and the his government overthrown on September 11, 1973.

When Pinochet gained power, Aylwin was elected to lead the opposition by parties across the political spectrum. They believed him best suited to counter the militarism of Pinochet’s junta. Unfortunately, when he was elected president, many of his supporters were disappointed and angered by his belief that the way to win justice for those negatively impacted by Pinochet’s regime was through slow and steady means, not a rapid, no holds barred approached. This points to Aylwin’s pragmatism and forethought. The fact is, had Aylwin immediately set out to bring to trial those guilty of murder, Pinochet and his junta would not have stepped down.

It should be noted that Aylwin was turned off by the Marxism represented by Allende and initially supported Pinochet and the military as a means of preventing the Marxist tide from completely wiping out Chilean democracy. When it became apparent, however, that Chile was strolling down the road to becoming a dictatorship, with Pinochet leading the charge, Aylwin realized that, for the sake of the Chilean people, Allende needed to be kept in power.

Prompted by Pinochet’s promise to change the constitution to allow himself to remain president until the end of the century, Aylwin challenged Pinochet by democratic means, forcing him to call an election, which Aylwin won. Again, though, as noted above, Aylwin and his government was somewhat hamstrung. In order to get Pinochet to step down, Aylwin was forced to allow Pinochet to retain control of the military. This decision would result in two military threats led by Pinochet. The first threat of force came when Aylwin decided to investigate Pinochet’s human rights violations, and the second came when Aylwin started an investigation into Pinochet’s son’s financial dealings. Aylwin was having none of it, though. He summoned Pinochet to his office and roundly reprimanded him. That, though, was the extent of his authority of Pinochet, as the 1990 constitution did not allow Aylwin to dismiss him.

When Aylwin died on April 19, 2016, President Michelle Bachelet summed up her feelings on him: “Chile has lost a man who always knew how to place the unity of democrats above their differences, which helped him build a democratic country once he assumed the presidency, and in this sense we owe a lot to Don Patricio.” 

Patricio Aylwin may not have believed himself to be a leader. But his humble actions made him one.  In a world where leaders rise because of egos and their thirst for power, the legacy of Aylwin is proof that a person can lead without narcissism and totalitarianism.

I hope you enjoyed today’s entry!

In peace,

PH

---

Sources:

Patricio Aylwin, law professor who succeeded Pinochet as Chile’s leader, dies at 97. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/patricio-aylwin-law-professor-who-succeeded-pinochet-as-chiles-leader-dies-at-97/2016/04/19/f2d29c6e-0646-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html?utm_term=.73e71e014657.