How come Czechia is commonly known as the Czech Republic, but Slovakia isn't also commonly known as the Slovak Republic?

Although, the geographic name Czechia was recommended for use by the relevant Czech institutions at the beginning of the modern Czech state in 1993, in a short time, it was quickly replaced by conventional political name “the Czech Republic”, almost symmetrically reflecting the negative attitude of the political elite and the population to its Czech equivalent "Česko", partially from the initial unpreparedness of national Czechs at the time of the separation of Czechoslovakia in 1993 and the preponderant indifference to the new state's name. On the sutuation praticipated long time identifying with the new state formation. By far outweighing the ratio, the opposition to the name "Česko" has not contained any rational reasons, expressing purely subjective aestheticism of "I do not like it," without any officially proposed alternative (not only linguistically and historically justified), though the condition was due to the fact that no Czech authorities distributed as they were ordered. That is why the name knows only a relatively smaller proportion of native English speakers, however, in 2016 was finally adopted as official geografic name by UN (UNGEGN, UNTERM), ISO and EU terminological style guides. Until that time, Czechia was not included in those lists and in the field “short name” was nonsensically repeated political name Czech Republic. Although the Czech name has been adopted over the years, its English translation of the above reasons still missed the broader spectrum use. Fortunately, after the standardization (since 2016), the name has been slowly spread among English speaking people, however still majority of them use that clumsy political one.

History of the problem is the core of my article “Czechia - the name dispute”, which can be found here: Czechia - the name dispute (from 2013, thus, without description of the solution in 2016)

Why Czechia in common language ?

Our country has more than 1200 years old history and only very small part of it is the history of republican system. Czechia read "check-i-ya) is a geographical name, which is independent on time and state-political changes in the country, thus, it can be used for our country both in historical and contemporary context. The Czech Republic is transient political name, which does not work in broader context and all bad consequences of incorrect universal use of it appear everywhere. It belongs to diplomatic protocol only. Only shortsighted prefers to call country by the name, which is changeable. Simply, the Czech Republic is nothing else, than the current state formation in Czechia. The name Czechia is very old, coming from Latin and has its equivalents in all languages - Chequia (ES), Chéquia (PT), Tchéquia (Brazilian PT), Tchéquie (FR), Cechia (IT), Tschechien (DE), Tjekkiet (DK), Tsjechië (NL), Tsjekkia (NO), Tjeckien (SE), Cehia (RO), Çekya (TR), Češka / Чешка (HR, RS), Чехия (RU, BG), Чехія (UA, BY), Τσεχία (GR), etc. Why English should be only exception?

An Attempt at Analysis of Resistance to the Czech State's One-Word Name

One day, almost twenty years after the establishment of the modern Czech state, one of the most active fighters for the one-word name of this country said: „I wonder why such a united front opposes the name Česko and its English version. Just only the English version. We should call a symposium on this subject“. I shared both his astonishment and his exhaustion. Right, the meaning of his question was the rhetorical „Quo usque tandem…..“. Still, I decided to try a possibly thorough analysis of this phenomenon, which is surviving persistently in all layers of Czech society.

I. Reasons

In the beginning, let us examine some facts that fundamentally determine this phenomenon, even if they do not touch it directly and thus escape the standard detection methods. As we know, the attitude of the average Czech to his homeland is more indifferent than other Europeans´ relationship to their own countries. The mentioned characteristic makes the citizen less resistant to external and internal pressures and, consequently, unable to understand (let alone protect) his vital interests. If these statements are correct, we should ask about the reasons for this situation. They are the following:

 1  The historical loss of national self-confidence, a late offspring of the "Munich" complex. Back in September 1938, the lack of courage showed by the state's political representation paralyzed a large part of the nation. As a result of this psychological trauma, the people patiently surrendered to fate, and their morality disintegrated without recovery. This subject deserves a much more detailed analysis, which falls outside the scope of this article. There may be different views on how we should or should not behave at a historically significant moment. Still, one thing is sure: The decision to act so that the majority of the people survive physically, resulted in the downfall of national pride and damaging the people's characters, despite the heroic deeds done by those who did not accept the situation.

 2  The Czechs' high degree of identification with the Czechoslovak State. Few people are aware that the Czech National Revival was essentially all-Slavic. This movement was the intellectual center of the emancipation of Slavic peoples in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Therefore, the Czechs spontaneously adopted the feeling that they are "Czecho-Slavic" or "Czecho-Slovak". So, the Czech legions in WW1 called themselves "Czechoslovak," although we could only exceptionally find any Slovak soldiers among them. A similar situation was in the fight with Hungary over Slovakia's southern border in 1919. During the existence of Czechoslovakia, the Czechs usually did not hesitate to call themselves Czechoslovaks, but we could hardly find a similar approach beyond our present-day eastern border. The state was much more Czech than Slovak, and so its break-up affected Czechs much more deeply. We feel the results of this disillusionment up to the present day.​

 3  A "flagellant syndrome", which manifested itself in the prominent politicians' activities after the "velvet revolution“. So, for example, the Czech-German declaration in the 1990s, "solving" seemingly after years the problem between Czechs and Germans after WWII: while the German side included the expressions "we admit that..." and "we are aware of..." (six years' terror and genocide in Czechia), the Czech part says humbly and faithfully "we regret" (meaning the crimes committed during the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans after the war). Good from the Czech side, but, the term is not merely a sign of goodwill for Germans: it is a sign of weakness.

 4  Praising and admiring the incompetent multiculturalism as against the precious domestic cultural values which disappeared from people's consciousness. Getting to know one's roots is a necessary step to universal values and cannot be labeled as nationalistic. The universally proclaimed cosmopolitanism and post-positivism have never worked as a real striving for the world's civil society but as an escape from responsibility for one's environment. Only if we respect our own identity, we become a creative and beneficial part of the world. If not, we join the grey average and fall into oblivion. Still, from the viewpoint of the "citizens of the world", the feeling of being a Czech is a sort of naive, faded junk that turned into a social faux-pas.

 5  A complete departure of foreign policy from the traditional friendly relations and bonds which had inspired the international respect for our country. As we have already mentioned, it was in the 19th century that the Czechs constituted the intellectual center of the Slavic nations´ striving for emancipation. During the twenty years´ existence of the modern state, we managed to bury forever the remnants of these traditions (the official recognition of Kosovo, among others). We presented ourselves as opportunists who refuse to learn not only from negative but - beyond common sense - even from positive experiences of our past. Metaphorically, the foreign policy of the modern Czech state is the policy of a paper-boat captain on Victoria's waterfall. To put it bluntly, there is no foreign policy, there is merely servility to the powers; the only difference from the previous (communist) practice lies in the direction of its vector to one or the other cardinal points.

 6  The tragic level of education and information sources in general. The schools and the media often ignore or discredit historical and cultural milestones, personalities, and events on which a citizen could authentically build his national pride. On the contrary, education in this country resembles something like instruction in the inferiority complex. The media, nowadays a universal source of knowledge, play a significant role in this process. They find support in the current quasi-critical historiography, which emphasizes historical antagonisms and does not help the citizen to come to terms with the country's history.

As a result, national pride is mostly present when the "Czech Republic" wins a sports championship, and it lasts as long as the proud citizen gets sober and returns to everyday reality. This sort of patriotism manifests itself by the fans' jumping and shouting, "Češi, do toho!" - "Czechs, ahead!" One would expect the name of the country instead, but the Czech Republic is too long to chant, the acronym CR a bit weird, and Česko? No, the Czechs do not like it. Why? The answer is obvious: Because they subconsciously feel as if something were missing. Moreover, people do not know the real reason for their frustration and intuitive disagreement with the name. Therefore they invent arguments against its (nonexistent) linguistic and aesthetic weakness.

II. The problem "Česko"

We are finally getting to the core of the matter: Why is the name "Cesko" and the English equivalent Czechia to so many people so difficult to adopt? What is wrong with them? Is there anything missing?

 1  The citizen misses some visible and audible element of dignity and respectability in the name. Therefore he is so keen on using the word "republic" as if it were a magic wand that can provide the country with noble and distinguished character. "Česko" seems too short, and hardly worthy of notice. Where does the feeling come from? It is easy to guess: "Slovensko" is missing. The division and shortening of the name make one think of the loss of the territory, which the Czechs have never put up with. Therefore the young people, free from the weight of the past, would have no problem with "Česko" unless their teachers insisted on "Česká republika."

 2  Aesthetic euphony is another necessary quality in which the name Česko is lacking, says the general public. Some poets and writers (more or less competent) specify the complaint: “Česko sounds hard and hissing, it has not the poetic charm which is so typical of our language and country!” Sadly, they do not bring any proposal, what the name should look like. Instead, they prefer the Republic – a word whose “poetic character” might fascinate, at best, an author of ministerial circulars. In any case, a country's name is one of the terms that require accuracy of meaning, not a superficial likableness. The opponents also ignore the fact that other countries´ names originated by a similar word-formative process; maybe they think “the others” do not have to sound beautiful.

 3  Not universal but frequent is the Moravian complaint about neglecting the eastern part of the country in the state's name. The criticism does not include any proposal but only the erroneous idea that Česko is identical to Čechy. (In English, the names Czechia and Bohemia are not alike, so the confusion does not occur.) Surprisingly, the title Česká republika is acceptable. This longer name seems to substitute the traditional non-official expression “české země” (the Czech lands). We asked the Moravian movement representatives directly, why they reject Česko and accept Česká republika, but we only received an evasive answer. If I were a “moravist,” I would not be satisfied; from their point of view, the only solution would be “Čechy a Morava” (“Bohemia and Moravia”), as it was under the Protectorate.The former state´s name Československo (Česko-Slovensko in 1918) did not include Moravia, either. Why they do not mind this „omission“is a mystery.

 4  Finally, let us mention a marginal fake argument about the “wrong” spelling of Česko. It should be written as “Češsko” demanded the opponents, claiming wrongly, that the name of the country is derived from the names of its inhabitants (Čech, Češka). It was easy for linguists to disprove the claim because the names of the country are derived in Czech language from the adjective form (český - Česko, slovenský - Slovensko, polský - Polsko etc.). The form "češský" has never existed.

     Do the principal reasons for rejecting „Česko“ come from a curious remnant of national pride? Certainly not. In the first case, it is resentiment; in second one, the citizen wishes to present his homeland as a „paradise on earth,“ as the national anthem has it. A genuine patriot would adopt a name that reflects the country´s historical and cultural development. Political attributes limit the name's validity. „Česká republika“ is the title of the current state-political formation in the country and society. It does not cover the 1100 years´ statehood of the territory. Sadly, few people worry about it. So we witness tragicomic phenomena, such as a renowned historian´s wording „působení Cyrila a Metoděje v České republice“ („the activities of Cyril and Methodius in the Czech Republic“ - 863 AD!!!! and many other nonsenses arising from wrong universal use of the current political name. ​

We have listed some principal reasons for rejecting the name Česko. Now let us examine why the word “republic” meets with approval and favor. Here are some of the reasons:

 1  A “republican” tradition developed due to the establishment of the new Czechoslovak state in 1918. The term “republika” indicated people's pride in independence and freedom and became accepted usage. The following decades brought many historical and political changes; accordingly, the state´s name was changing. If we do not mention the degrading period of the Protectorate, there were the attributes Czechoslovak, Czechoslovak Socialist, Czech and Slovak Federal, and finally Czech; the only permanent element was the Republic. This fact may be a reason for mechanical clinging to this word. To some extent, it is understandable.

 2  A remnant from the communist era, when it was a routine to use only the state titles. In this way, the “Peace Camp” members differed from the others at first sight. Naturally, the primary purpose was to pretend that these states were governed on the “res publica” (“public affairs”) principle. Thus the media articles and news were teeming with People´s, People´s -Democratic, and Socialist Republics. Since the complete titles of states would need almost more space than the message proper, the writers and speakers used acronyms, such as (in Czech spelling) SSSR, ČSSR, ČSR, SSR, MLR, PLR, NDR, ČLR. A remnant of them is the frequent ČR, or in transcription CR (which makes the confusion even funnier because CR is the ISO code of Costa Rica).

 3  Many years' everyday excessive use of the word “republic”, even in small talk, makes people take it for a part of the country's proper name. The Republic means nothing else than a type of political management. Many people get astonished or excited when we alert them to the problem.We can call a person by name, or we can also mention his/her social or professional position. Sometimes we have to cite both, another time it may be highly inappropriate. We can tell the difference in everyday life. However, we fail to distinguish when the state's name is concerned. As if there were only „the accountant Mr. Karásek“, but no „Mr. Karásek“. We can imagine embarrassing and funny situations concerning Mr. Karásek's introduction; concerning the country's name, fun disappears, embarrassment and faux-pas remain. 

III. The problem "Czechia"

How easy and logical presentation proposal (of  course, rejected by institutions responsible for it) - using unversally applicable, timeless name of our country. The reasons for rejecting „Česko“ are self-evident. Still, the name makes progress and we can assume that it will eventually become accepted usage because there is no other choice. On the other hand, why is there a similarly strong resistance against the English equivalent „Czechia“? Why does a citizen oppose it so vehemently, even if his knowledge of English may be poor or zero?

Having created the „problem Česko,“ the Czechs transferred it automatically in the „problem Czechia.“ Why just in the English equivalent? A vast majority of the population have no idea about the natural existence and function of the country's one-word name in other languages (Tchéquie in French, Chequia in Spanish, Cechia in Italian, Chéquia in Portuguese, Tschechien in German, Tjeckien in Swedish, Tsjechië in Dutch, Чехия in Russian, Çekya in Turkish, צ'כיה in Hebrew, etc.). They hardly notice that these names are formed identically or similarly as in English. Even if they saw the fact, they would not care. But English is the universal means of communication in the present-day world; despite poor education in languages, an individual cannot but be aware of it, thus making it most relevant. For this reason, he immediately sees a problem in it, similar to „problem Česko“.

A rank-and-file citizen can influence the usage of his native language. On the other hand, the English version of the country's one-word name depends on the respective state institutions and organs. Sadly, the persons working there suffer from identical prejudice and errors or even create and spread them. They often use and misuse their power to fight against the one-word name. So, for the most part, it is the Czech political representatives' fault that the name Czechia occurs marginally, and its future is indefinite. Unfortunately, anglophone countries declared in 1993 that the choice of the English name is a matter of our government. It is then the government's fault that Czechia disappeared from the vocabulary of many foreign media and institutions in anglophone territories. In case the Czech side uses the name, the respective institutions repeatedly declared their positive attitude to Czechia. It never happened. On the contrary, "Czechia "was often blocked by Czech ambassadors. So the problem spread to countries that had adopted respective equivalents of "Czechia", which started to prefer the formal political title.

It was necessary to give some reasons for the negative approach. For this purpose, several myths were invented. They worked sufficiently; the public's dislike of "Czechia“ grows from personal feelings and emotions, and so every reason is welcome, however weak it may be. Since there are no facts to form a basis of the refusal, some distorted information must replace them. The most frequent fake arguments are as follows:

a) a dubious origin of the word

b) its overall weakness

c) maybe even an insulting character

d un-English character

e) historical inaccuracy

Medial misinterpretation plays a vital role in the origin of such myths. In the beginning, a respected authority utters a careless, irresponsible, purely subjective comment. The reporters take the words up and adapt them to attract public interest. Next comes an average reader/viewer, who usually has insufficient language knowledge but feels free to profess his opinion. 

By far the most cases result from a lack of education and responsibility. An uneducated person is not dangerous because he or she can eventually change his wrong attitude. On the contrary, the genuine enemy of the country´s name Czechia is a half-educated individual. A typical representative of this group is a politician who assumes that his position gives him the right to comment on everything. His self-confidence results from his obsessive urge to feel educated. Therefore he fights against all arguments, however convincing they may be. If he did not, he would admit that there is something he does not know. Since the half-educated (and also unscrupulous) individuals make up a considerable part of this state´s parliament and government, they will respect, parrot, and protect all sorts of stupid opinions and viewpoints. Why? Because, if they did not, they might endanger their own re-election: they depend on voters of a similar character. In this regard, these politicians are extremely sensitive; on the other hand, they neglect the voters´opinion, in their own interests (power and money) are concerned. The false arguments that they use for this purpose penetrate automatically into the public. The resulting vicious circle offers no exit and can only be cut from outside. (That is the aim of our efforts.) We can list the said false arguments in the following order according to their frequency:

 1  The name is of „eastern“ origin and thus denominates something underdeveloped or backward. (Alexander Vondra: “We [who is „we“? - author´s note] don´t want it, it sounds like Russia.“) , Mr. Vondra does not know that „Czechia“ and all similar variants come from Latin, and he is not concerned with its origin. He would hardly say what he said if he knew that the Latin form Czechia or Cechia reaches back to the ear 17th century. Moreover, an average inhabitant, missing reliable mental support, cherishes a mental rescue-crutch: a feeling of superiority over everything that exists to the east of him. It is the other side of his inferiority complex. As far as the names are concerned, he cites, for example, Bulgaria, Latvia, Armenia, but forgets Bohemia, Moravia, Austria, Australia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Columbia, and others. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of the absence of Latin in present-day secondary education.​

Concerning this category, we can mention the (artificially produced) "Chechnya affair". Rumour had it that the names Czechia and Chechnya were similar enough to be confused, and if so, it could damage our tourism. Who would visit a country where a permanent war is going on? In reality, Chechnya not only sounds quite different but also does not constitute an independent state. In the end, the real story emerged: In comments on the Boston marathon bomb attack in 2013, Chechnya was confused with the Czech Republic, not with Czechia. The myth was dead, but it survived in the media and in the heads of its inventors, who never interpreted the Boston story truthfully. In any case, an individual's lousy knowledge of geography is no argument against a government's option for the country's name. There is always someone who confuses cocaine with caffeine, astronomy with agronomy, or, among countries' names, Austria with Australia, Slovakia with Slovenia, but hardly anybody would require a change. By the way, if we were not confused with the incriminated far-away part of Russia but, say, the highly developed Sweden, hardly anybody would complain. This all results from the notion that our country is not sufficiently prominent or respectable on a global scale.

 2  The name lacks respectability (see above the passage "why Republic ") and may even be insulting. Those who share this opinion are not able to explain it. It comes from what we cite under 1) and also from would-be expert claims of some linguists or historians: they say that it is either derived - or directly translated – from the German "Tschechei. " In their opinion, this word is pejorative because Hitler used it, although it had existed long before. The pre-war editions of the German national Brockhaus encyclopedia define it as the standard "name of the western part of Czechoslovakia. "It survives in the vocabulary of border-area inhabitants, who naturally do not feel it as pejorative. After the negotiations with Czech representatives in 1993, the Germans diplomatically opted for "Tschechien“. The respective theorists probably based their proposal on materials from the early stage of the Protectorate when the name "Böhmen und Mähren "was not yet introduced. "Czechia", on the other hand, is 75 years older than Tschechien. In the 1920s-30s, the American media used it as a natural denomination of the Czech state in its historical context.

  3   The name is un-English or sounds „weird“ in English. This opinion also occurs, especially with those opponents who prefer „Czechland“ or „Czechlands. “ Yes, this alternative would sound more natural in English. However, contrary to „Czechia,“ it is an artificial neologism without any historical background. iI cannot „come from nowhere“, unless the English-speaking experts opted for it If they did, we would not object to their request. Some North-American names of non-English (Indian) origin, such as Saskatchewan, Idaho, Kansas, Wyoming, Massachusetts, do not sound English, but everybody uses them. And how about Lithuania, Chile, Zimbabwe? Do they sound natural? They are non-English names of non-English countries, so they do not have to sound natural in English. One more conjecture has appeared in the press: the name Czechia is linguistically wrong because it suggests the pronunciation [che-chi-ya] (chi like „chip“). This false argument is irrelevant. In many words, the written ch sounds k: architect, technic, archive, ache, chimera. Spelling is one thing; the correct pronunciation is another one: it is necessary to learn it. 

 4  The name does not correspond with history. Czechia never existed „de facto.“ This claim is the least frequent but the most dangerous. It originates among half-educated intellectuals who feel sufficiently qualified to force their opinions upon the public. They find a breeding ground on anonymous internet databases, such as Wikipedia, where they can modify the content like censors. Almost all of them rank among heart-and-soul bureaucrats. They cannot see a state in its historical and cultural continuity or distinguish between the letter of the law and its spirit. They argue that it is impossible to apply the name Czechia retrospectively to the „Kingdom of Bohemia“ or the „Crown Lands of Bohemia.“ They fail to notice that other states do so routinely; for example, Germany has existed as an integrated state only since 1871. Due to this absurd approach, the mentioned source of information inspires authors to produce absurd deductions as already was demostrated above (Prince Bořivoj and Charles IV. - extracts from a book on Czech history, written in English and based on information from Wikipedia.) Some of Wikipedia´s writers and administrators became aware of this absurdity. After long and thorough deliberation, they replaced this nonsense by another, even worse one: „...now the Czech Republic, previously the Crown Lands of Bohemia consisting primarily of the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Margraviate of Moravia.“ This muddle occurs in many articles dealing with Czech history.

The protagonists of this creed refuse to accept the following apparent facts:

 1  A simplified term is necessary for a nonprofessional recipient to understand the information; moreover, it is valid generally. Many books had the title „History of Czechoslovakia“ or „Czechoslovak History, “ although none of them covered only the period of the state´s existence, starting in 1918. On the other hand, the first „post-November“ team-work historical synthesis (also published in English) bears the title „A History of the Czech Lands, “ although this collocation has never been the Czech state´s official or political name. The authors did not apply the relevant, correct, and logical title „Dějiny Česka“/“A History of Czechia. “ However, it is a standard way the countries present themselves, even if some periods of their history do not apply the particular name. This sensible method helps the recipient to keep his bearings. We can see the difference when we compare the two headings: „A History of Czechia“ vs. „A History of the Czech Republic. “

 2  Their peculiar interpretation of terms is inconvenient: it baffles the standard recipient and inspires such informational gems as "Prince Bořivoj and Charles IV. "

 3  It is beneficial to offer a clear and transparent definition of our state and its continuity.

All kinds of information trying to set the myths to the right have insufficient coverage. The chief editors of the most popular media usually reject them; thus, the articles only appear in professional periodicals, on the websites of the Civic initiative Česko/Czechia and on the web of English Wikipedia (where they are systematically deleted by Czech administrators).

​

​

IV. Common Problem

The common problem concerning both Česko and its English equivalent Czechia is the would-be aesthetic assessment, "I do not like the name," declared without any justification. This irrational personal attitude is, by far, the most frequent. It would not be noteworthy if it only occurred with "rank-and-file "citizens. Surprisingly, we find an even higher percentage of this unprofessional approach in persons and institutions responsible for public affairs. The country's geographic name is not a mere object of aesthetic pleasure. First of all, it must serve the state's basic needs. Who else should be aware of this essential request, if not the state's representatives? 

The difference in meaning and function between the Czech state's geographic vs. political name is the core of the matter within its professional sphere. Oddly enough, some persons are unable or unwilling to distinguish, be it on account of ignorance or arrogance. We could hardly imagine a member of Parliament of the French Republic (République française) who would not know that his country, apart from the political title, also can be called France. In our country, however, we often witness the very opposite.

V. Substitutes

In daily life, the one-word (short, geographic) name is a natural and logical necessity. While the responsible persons or institutions ignore this need, the do-it-yourself public can invent a name. Since the upper circles reject the correct name, the people create a wrong makeshift: a simple (or rather foolish) abbreviation of the political title by omitting the "republic. "The resulting "Czech "works as an adjective, but not as a proper name of the country "Česko." In English, adjectives are never identical with the countries' names. It would be inconvenient, apart from other reasons. It is easy to succumb to the illusion if well-known institutions offer it. We adduce an example from sports: The Czech Olympic Committee and the Czech Ice-Hockey Union placed the wrong form on the sportsmen's outfit; as a result, many other unions believed that it was the adequate equivalent to the word Česko. The Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports (who distribute hundreds of millions from the state budget to particular sports and mainly to state representation) shared this trend. After long-lasting protests, the unions replaced "Czech "by another, but no less inappropriate inscription "Czech Team. " In vain were the logical objections that the "Czech Team "applies to the national representatives and equally, say, to Sparta Prague or the local Sports Club in Kotěhůlky.

The brusque „Czech“ survives in the names of many business companies and organizations (for example, Synlab Czech, Toyota Motor Czech, Huyndai Motor Czech, Gillette Czech, and others). It shows lack of knowledge and interest on the part of the corporations but also indifference and disregard on the part of Czech authorities.The gravest harm comes from the the world-renowned Pilsen Prazdroj brewery who have been labelling their export production „Pilsen – Czech“ for more than ten years now; they insist they do not mean the country but an attribute of the product – it is „Czech beer“. True or not, the wording of the message does not prove it. „Czech“ also decorates sports hats and T-shirts, and a variety of tourist souvenirs. This would-be name of the country does not result from anglophone speakers´ usage, as some of its advocates try to make us believe; it is typical „Czenglish“, a genuine product „Made in Czech“ (language). Understandably, its creators´ knowledge of English is low or limited to a narrow field of practical usage. On the other hand, it is alarming that some professionals in the field of English language sometimes accept it.

Thus it is no wonder that an average citizen takes this erroneous form for the correct translation of "Česko" into English. Contrary to the fuss over "missing euphony and dignity" in the word Česko, the public does not apply aesthetic criteria. People accept the one-syllable, brusque "check "-sound without reservation. Moreover, they use it as a source of would-be witty puns, such as "Czech it out "or the official ( ! ) Czechpoint. According to the law, the state's essential symbols must not be altered or abused; the name is undoubtedly one of them. However, this principle is often infringed even on international occasions, including the Olympic games. Examples: Individual and wilful versions of the name in the media; a sports team wearing T-shirts in the form of flags with reversed color order; heraldic errors in the state's coat of arms; wrong sizes of color parts in the state flag; the fans' ugly attributes made of incredible variants of the state's name, its flag, or coat of arms. All these occur every day.

The Czech politicians have tried hard to eradicate the country's correct name; they have done nothing to stop spreading garbles. They only wake up from their lethargy when somebody uses the proper form. At that moment, they open a fierce discussion. With a bit of exaggeration, we could interpret their approach: "Treat the country's name as you like, damage it as you wish, every atrocity (Czech Republike, Czech Rep, Team Czech) is permitted; only don't admit the correct title."

VI. Consequences

Linguistic, historical, and geographical arguments and political and social relations show that the one-word name is necessary and cannot be substituted by the political title. Every avoidance of this necessity leads to verbal and terminological chaos; it reduces the country´s ability to identify itself. This situation harms the state from outside and inside. In domestic politics, it contributes to disunity and dispute. On the international scene, it evokes intuitive doubts about such a unit; the more so because we are the only exception from Europe´s standard and one of four exceptions on a global scale. Symptomatically, our partners are the Dominican Republic, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Česko/Czechia is not a country of considerable prominence, concerning the size, the number of inhabitants, and the actual influence (let alone the long-time political indifference and minimal international activities of its representatives). The country´s image becomes the hazier, the less it can conventionally define itself. This handicap harms all spheres, particularly economics. Stability, reliability, and visibility are necessary for a trademark. The good old brand „Made in Czechoslovakia“ has logically one possible heir: „Made in Czechia“.

VII.Conclusion 

We are arriving at the core of the question that we asked at the beginning of this paper: Why does a part of the Czech population (with the political elite at the head) refuse so stubbornly and permanently to solve the issue?

After years of work in our Civic Initiative, after hundreds of articles, press conferences, requests, appeals (mostly without response), we can give a plain answer: The public does not feel a necessity to appear as a well-established, locally and historically anchored state. Thus, the state´s management takes an opportunistic, inconstant line without a vision and idea, as if the leaders had lost or reversed the essential scale of values. 

Some time ago, the President used the name Czechia in a conversation with a foreign politician. The media faced it as a novelty and opened discussions on the (non-existing) choice „either the political title or the one-word name. “ With only minor exceptions, a vast majority of the renowned authorities showed that they were far from understanding the proper crux of the issue. (Let alone the journalists, the would-be „experts“ in various professions, a crowd of bloggers and internet chatters.) The most contributions to this dump of opinions consisted of vague emotional responses whose authors could not understand WHAT was said and WHO brought up the old problems.

In an imaginary vote (based on the wrong task „either-or“and resulting in the relation 2-3: 1), we proudly declared that common sense gets a bad deal and that we do not want to have a name. The future will show the consequences. The vital issue is more profound and broader than our ignorance of the problem in its linguistic, historical geographic and political context; it is the fact that we do not feel the necessity of possessing a permanent value. Because, if we did, we could easily understand the partial attributes of the matter. 

Vladimír Hirsch (2013)

Translation: Eva Horová

 

What is the correct pronunciation of Czechia

Czechia is pronounced correctly /ˈtʃɛkiə/ - written by symbols of the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet), in simple transcription "checki-ya"

Listen here: How to pronounce Czechia :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFvNbq-IaaQ¨

Czechia pronunciation 

The word comes from the root "Czech" (adjective, language, inhabitant), which is pronounced /ˈtʃɛk -/ (IPA), simply "check" and originally Latin suffix "-ia"
.
Notice: the digraph "cz" comes from the old Czech orthography, typical for West Slavic languages (Czech, Polish), which was taken over by Latin and later also by English for the name to express pronunciation of /t͡ʃ/ (IPA key). In Polish is "cz" digraph still used, in modern Czech (since the standardization of modern orthography in 19th century) is substituted by consonant "č" (however it was introduced already at the break of 14th and 15th century), usually denoting the voiceless postalveolar affricate consonant [t͡ʃ] like the English "ch" in the word chocolate. "Č" originated in Czech language, and from it was adopted in Slovak, Croatian, Macedonian, Slovenian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. It is used also in Latvian and Lithuanian.

Czechia jersey

Česko jersey

Ice hockey jerseys Česko / Czechia

Team Czechia

Czech terminological pathology and its consequencies

The long-lasting negative attitude to this country´s geographical name Česko and its English equivalent Czechia from the political representatives of the state and also from some media exhibitionists, is a gross and detrimental error: the state, being deep-rooted in history, urgently needs the name.

Why? First, it is useless to distinguish between "short" and "long" names. This typology ignores the essential attributes – the political name and, on the other hand, the geographical name. Also, surprisingly enough, there still survives a wrong assumption that the geographical name aspires to replace the political one, although nobody has ever claimed anything like that. It has always been about natural co-existence of the two names. The point is, how and when each of them should be used. While the political name is only applicable in official documents, such as international treaties, the geographical name has its clearly defined natural function in all other cases. In the said "all other cases", the political name can never replace the geographical name because, unlike the latter, it has a temporary character ignoring the historical continuity of the state, and so its function is limited to the current state subject. Using it without time limits is wrong, confusing and inappropriate. 

From this point of view it is quite irrelevant whether or not its geographical equivalent was used in the past because it is clearly defined at present time, in spite of all efforts to call it in question. The implications of words are subject to changes and it depends on the use or institutionalization, how the respective meaning is understood. The decision was made as early as 1993 and any recall is useless. Česko is clearly defined as Čechy & Morava & Slezsko (Czechia = Bohemia & Moravia & Silesia) and thus the name covers the entire territory of the state. 

Oddly enough, the Czech leaders do not dislike the fact that their "ČR" - or "CR" in English texts - is the only state in Europe which does not use its own geographical name. (Moreover, CR is the two-letter ISO code of Costa Rica.) Whatever the reason may be - local patriotism (the "movements" Moravané, Za Moravu, Naša Morava etc.) or quasi-aesthetic prejudice – it is nothing else than a feeling-based, subjective, short-sighted viewpoint. But the name of the state should meet objective criteria, being intelligible, plain, and clear. In Mathesius´ words, it is necessary to subject the language to such simplification that allows further work on it.

The name Česko, Czechia in English, perfectly fulfils this requirement, and it is quite irrelevant whether or not I like it: this name does the state a good service because it bridges and welds together its various forms in the course of time. By the way, how would the vast majority of the states whose territories underwent various social-political changes in the course of history, present themselves, if they insisted - for similar trifling reasons - on the respective occasional names? Apparently, the result would be quite confusing. The same applies to this country. A well-established subject needs a simple brand which makes it transparent and stable. As with persons, it is primarily the name. In the 20th century, the name of the present state was changed six times, although it continued as one historical unit. A state that changes its name with every change of its political or constitutional system (in this country, this occurred six times in the 20th century) will naturally be considered as underdeveloped and unstable: its brand, a kind of fundamental credit, will prove vague and indistinguishable, with negative consequences in general and in economic activities in particular.

Some excuses are based on generally accepted myths, e.g., the name in Czech language was invented artificially, the English equivalent can be mistaken for something else, and many others. Not only are these myths false and can easily be dispelled with appropriate arguments but, primarily, they are irrelevant to the essence of the problem. That is to say, even if they could not be dispelled, we would lose the chance of presenting this country as a stable, continual and indisputable state unit, independent - historically and geographically, from within and from without - of political and social changes. Obviously, the clumsy "Made in the Czech Republic" does not represent the country positively. Aware of this, a few entrepreneurs recently suggested a comeback of the brand "Made in Czechoslovakia", a desperate idea which contradicts international law. Although the natural solution – "Made in Czechia" - was close at hand, the problem was not tackled but avoided. It is a frequent habit to cite some states which do not use any one-word name, and to claim automatically that our state does not need it either. True, there are a few of them among the almost two hundred states but this fact is no argument. States such as the Dominican or the Central African Republics do not use the geographical name because, unlike our country, they have none. Moreover, they do not have such historical continuity which would allow to erroneously apply the political name (as in our case).

Those who refer to "the United States" or "the United Kingdom" compare the incomparable. The size of these countries in political and geographical maps is enormously different from ours and, moreover, while you can hardly find any names of this kind in the maps, you will certainly find more than a hundred republics. As far as the United States are concerned, the name does not imply any particular political system: the word "state" is universal and relates to any form of state organization. It follows from the above that rejecting the geographical name, which is politically neutral, universal, and naturally applicable in common speech, is as tragicomical as sawing off the branch we are sitting on.

Vladimír Hirsch

Published in editorially modified form on 24th March 2015 under the name
"Náš stát název Česko nutně potřebuje (Lidovky.cz - Česká pozice)

Czechia, not "Czech Republic", in common language

Website : Czechia - The Heart Of Europe

Webpage "Czechia - The Heart Of Europe" about geography, history, arts, music literature, sports and tourism of Czechia with photographs, videos and educational section.

Vladimír Hirsch / Axonal Transit - Review by Felix L.Díaz (Lux Atenea)

LUX ATENEA WEBZINE: VLADIMIR HIRSCH “AXONAL TRANSIT”.: Quiero dar las gracias al artista checo VLADIMIR HIRSCH por su cortesía con LUX ATENEA WEBZINE al enviarme este promocional. Edición r...

I want to thank the Czech artist VLADIMIR HIRSCH for his courtesy to LUX ATENEA WEBZINE sending this promotional.

Edition: CD with booklet 4 pages 
Date: December 2014
Label: INTEGRATED MUSIC RECORDS
Reference: Catch 065
Tracklist: Axonal Transit: 1- Linear  2 -Diametric 3- Parametric  4- Gyroscopic; Craving Urania: 5 – Craving Urania
Artists: Vladimir Hirsch (keyboards, synthesizers and electronics)
Guest artists: Czech Integrated Ensemble (in the first four tracks)
Musical work: Written by Vladimir Hirsch
Artistic Design: Vladimir Hirsch
Technical data: Recorded and mixed in February 2012 (Axonal Transit) & July 2014 (Craving Urania) in Catch Arrow Studio Recordings by Vladimir Hirsch, mastered by Vojtěch Haňka

You will listen these musical compositions a thousand times: Each one. Masterpiece par excellence.

Last December 30 was released the new album by the prolific Czech artist Vladimir Hirsch entitled "Axonal Transit". Thee album was published by Integrated Music Records label (classical in his discography), "Axonal Transit" comes with impressive design created by Vladimir Hirsch himself, pictures by Martha Camarillo, printing a modernist aesthetic to the cover, enhancing its image as the advanced concept of art that has always characterized this experienced composer.

The extraordinary album "Axonal Transit" is divided into two musical sections, one homonym of over forty minutes vertebrate by four themes, in which Vladimir Hirsch incorporated the Czech Integrated Ensemble, and another one titled "Craving Urania”, a single composition of the same name that lasts more than twenty minutes.

On the road to three decades devoted body and soul to the search of beauty and sublime in musical art, "Axonal Transit" shows full spectrum of sound experimentation and innovative path by its structure and definition, which gives Vladimir Hirsch’s style that artistic pioneer halo in each new musical work. Lux Atenea Webzine musical lovers and readers may enjoy when purchasing this magnificent and glowing album destined to become a treasured collector's work prestige.

A creative flame to light new musical territories that will turn on when the theme "Linear" make us crumple inexorably into this dark abyss where everything vibrates and moves to sink further into it. A deathly journey in which we will be overwhelmed and exhausted by the immense expansion of the obscure, but the sublime greatness of contemporary music will continue on "Diametric", while this spiral colossally stands before our eyes with the majesty of the measureless, leaving the vision we had of ourselves completely distorted in "Parametric" composition, where our self will reach its progressive annulment to insignificance, therefore suffering a supreme sensory expansion in "Gyroscopic", so that time and distances lose their importance in the new existential perspective.

Then on track "Craving Urania", over 20 minute, the sound environment will radically change from dense and close to the ethereal and distant, passing from contemporary music decorated with dark-ambient experimental profile, to clearly defined industrial textures and this permanent state of instability where nothing is permanent or constant. A sound evolution within the musical avant-garde trends that are characterizing this second decade of the century, and that "Craving Urania" lofty reaches a polished sound despite its complexity when recreating this tortuous path to Chaos the eventual disappearance.

“Axonal Transit”, from Czechia, avant-garde universalism created by one of the great masters in contemporary and experimental music. Enjoy!!!

Felix L.Díaz

(translated by Martha Camarillo)

Heathen Harvest: INVOCATIO - Interview with Vladimír Hirsch by Clavdía Adimiron

Czech sound alchemist, Vladimír Hirsch, has been composing and experimenting with modern classical, dark ambient, and industrial music for over two decades. By using both electro-acoustic and digital techniques he is able to create fascinating scapes of aural expression. From the sacred union of these styles and their own intricate facets and dimensions emerges what Vladimír Hirsch calls INTEGRATED MUSIC, his living essence manifested.

Heathen Harvest:  Vladimir, what was life like growing up in a country in political turmoil such as Czechoslovakia, and how has this manifested through your art?

Vladimir Hirsch:  I grew up in a family which was “the enemy of the regime”, my father was imprisoned in a communist concentration camp, because he – as a lawyer – rejected to participate in the system of prosecuting opponents of the regime and was blamed on charges of conspiracy. Of course, all the persecutions we were exposed to would be a book of stories – and the character of the socio-pathological situation in our land participated in the formation of my artistic attitude at some point. For a very long time, all “suspected” cultural activities were prohibited and I was totally isolated and composed music only for my drawer. Only in my late years of prolonged agony under the communist regime, did I form a post-punk band and in 1987 played for the first time in public. It is necessary to say I have never been a songwriter of protest songs. All the time, I have been focusing on, more or less existential themes that I consider as the only substantial exploration.

However, it was really hard to live in that Orwellian State, on the other hand, it served as an overwhelming experience of how grand human decay can be expressed. If some concrete political consequences of the former regime appeared somewhere in my music, I consider them as a superficial expression and out of my basic conception. In fact, there has not been any change in the quality of world politics since that time, only in tactics and in specific strategies of leading the herd. We live in a seemingly different environment, but it is a feigned democracy, with a sophisticated system of manipulation, subconsciously intoxicating human minds, conforming their style of life and values towards individualism and a diversion from spiritual understanding of being. The manipulators understand, that for their reign, it is not necessary to kill or pursue anyone these days. The natural hierarchy of values has been quietly substituted by their holograms. The result of that act, formal existence without content, leads to a significant loss of spirit and subsequently a loss of consciousness of that process. It is invisible and painless, so a lot of us do not feel any lack. This form seems to be more dangerous, because of its hidden character and easy acceptance of that status quo as a pleasant comfort. This desolating fact is what I want to show in some degree with my work by challenging the traditional templates of understanding: “positive” and “negative”, “beauty” and “ugliness”, etc.

HH:  Your art emanates some truly horrific sounds; wherein seems to dwell something otherworldly. Do you believe it‟s possible your art evokes the presence of something otherworldly?

VH:  I am glad you have that feeling. From my point of view, it is natural to long for “other worlds” – which means for me longing for the cognition of our real matrix. I admit – I am aware of their presence intensely in my mind, being at the same time absorbed by a mordant, overwhelming feeling of impossibility to genuinely reach them . I realize that there is no other path, than only to try to somehow transform our physical reality. That trial cannot be under way without a fight and pain, whether inner, silent, latent or blatant and violent. So, I attempt to realize that struggle in music with the belief that the music is able to be an authentic description and expression of that transubstantial act. This might be the reason why some listeners get a physical impact or accented “physical” sense from my music despite its spiritual themes. This confrontational style sounds probably maddening and horrific, but when I find myself in that transient “hyper state” of my own existence while creating music, I don´t feel any horror or joy, any positive or negative connotations, only some kind of awakening and relief from overcoming them. Therefore, I am very often surprised by some people’s descriptions of my music as bombastic, with dramatic gestures, I don’t consider them that way, I feel it as the epitome of the natural cognitive process.

HH:  What kind of effect would you like for your art to have on those who listen with intent?

VH:  Excellent question and an important one. Thank you. I have never received it. I would like to know myself what they imagine! I would like them to escape from the limitations of rationality, which seems to pervade everything, into another dimension. Music is able to explore and reveal a deeper underlying reality in contrast to the phenomenological world. Ideally, the audience would discover and open that space. But I must say, sometimes I am surprised by some reviewers descriptions. For example, my music has been referred to as devilish, dark and disturbing. However, for me it is the complete opposite, because the intent is a spiritual purgatory and the impact might feel like as an intense violent flooding. On the other hand, music is mightier than its creator, saying more than is even originally intended. It is the miracle of art. Simply, I would like them to open their subconsciousness.

HH:  At times ominous and nightmarish and at others solemn and beautiful; are these reflections two faces of the same phenomenon? Or do you view them as observations of two different currents of light (and dark?)

VH:  A permanent presence of inner feud is a basic attribute of our existence. This struggle seems to be something important. I am captured and fascinated by it and it serves as my main creative force. Therefore the mode of my musical expression often has a confrontational nature about it. Many of my works are abrasive and physical while somehow being solemn and contemplative simultaneously. For me, they make sense together because they arise from the same source, just like spirit and matter living together, fighting each other, but cannot be separated in our human world. There is something that reconciles both worlds, I feel music is that path which leads closer to that point.

It is impossible to see light – thus also to call it – without simultaneous existence of darkness. Its co-existence does not inevitably mean anything contradictory, if we had not constructed so many artificial antagonisms during our history. The dual nature of reality only appears to be dichotomous, when it is really of the same whole. We are able to create opposing attributes that are absolutely not in conflict. Sometimes we try to find our leading thread inside the labyrinth, sometimes we try to get rid of it by conscious or unconscious self-lobotomy, feeling unbearable discomfort from it. There is no easy escape from our oppositional-categorization prison we made paradoxically for ourselves.

HH:  While much of your music does not even contain lyrics, your art still remains immensely profound; what do you feel is the reason for this?

VH:  Usually I create music thematically, which represents for me some inner epic construction. Musical language is more abstract, its potential contains larger means of expression than words. There is also the danger that lyrics can mislead and overshadow the musical intent. That is why I use vocals and voices in my solo works only as a musical instrument. In rare cases I also use some lyrics, but allow them mostly to be submerged and purposely unclear. However, in my other projects, predominantly Skrol, the music has a more traditional song form and lyrics are more appropriate.

HH:  What do you feel is lacking from the majority of contemporary “art”, that it is without the sense of the profound?

VH:  Contemporary art bothers me the most by its formalism, the silent assent to loss of content, fear of authenticity, contempt for emotions, rejection of serious topics, dilettantism and an epidemic of some sort of primary manipulative intentions of creators. There is some unwritten agreement in the art of today, that it is not necessarily substantial to say anything, actually, the message – and especially a more profound one – should be avoided like an infectious illness or rejected with derision. Instead, it flows in the stream of purposive slickness and calculation of apprehension for targeted social or taste fashioned groups of people. I consider it as one of the logical results of gradual despiritualization.

HH:  The process of artistic creation is a very sacred thing; in what ways do you prepare yourself mentally, physically, emotionally, and spiritually before creating or performing?

VH:  I used to work in consecutive phases. Idea, conception, creation. Ideas are elusive, so I probably cannot count it as a phase of work, but it is usually some result of an inner continual searching process, that lives its own life. At the moment when it is found by my consciousness, it remains there like some permanent question until the end of the work. Anyway, I am never prepared. I am not the commander of those mechanisms and to say the truth, I don´t want to be. It would be a rape of spirit.

The preparation for performing depends on the character of the project. The Industrial audience is usually vociferous, used to a continual stream of noise. In my music, I work a lot with dynamics and the range of sound levels moves from discrete to extremely loud. In quiet passages, the loudness of the audience is very annoying and harming not only to music, but also my own ability to concentrate, so I am very happy when shows take place in churches or for example, a film festival, where people are naturally or instinctively immersed in the experience. In general, of course, I need to submerge and not be distracted. Such ideal venues and atmosphere are hardly ever-present, so I have unconsciously developed during the years some mechanisms which shield against distractions.

HH:  Your music is not only aural, but also very visual. What artists/artworks have inspired your compositions? (Painters, musicians, sculptors, etc..)

VH:  I could write a very large paragraph of influences and huge list of artists, but I will mention the names of those that really tempted me to work similarly. From music, I have always been attracted by the spiritual strength in the aching reality of Miloslav Kabeláč, close encounters of space and detail of György Ligeti, mathematical order in chaos of Iannis Xenakis, as well as pure and sharp bone-penetrating existentialism of Swans, the ability to move in microspace of Giacinto Scelsi or animate industrialism of SPK. In other art that inspired in some way my artistic philosophy or my general visions, I can mention the metaphysical transformation of pain in Mikuláš Medek’s paintings, Graham Greene’s salvation of the damned or Jorge Luis Borges’s authentic imaginary worlds in writing.

HH:  What role (if any) does philosophy play in your artistic expression? Spirituality?

VH:  Of course I work with some philosophical principles, both consciously and mostly unconsciously, which result in a natural flow of expression. Spiritual insight is definitely my main inspiration in music.

HH:  Do you work with any other mediums of artistry such as painting or writing poetry?

VH:  Yes, I had some short period years ago when I tried to paint. But painting did not express all I wanted as I had no formal training. I admit I do still like two of my paintings, but unfortunately I threw them out. I have written short stories for a very long time and also lyrics for my musical projects. I have some periods when I am inspired to write, but it is sporadic.

Vladimír Hirsch at Cross Club (Underlying Scapes)

HH:  In early 2012 you played some live performances in Berlin. How did those go?

VH:  It was at a Berlin film festival called Directors Lounge, and my performance was interesting because of the presence of an audience that normally would not appear at my shows. Whether I want it or not, one is always placed into some category. My music is not acceptably classical for the classical music milieu and for its classical aspect not too industrial, noise or dark ambient for people that usually listen to that stuff. But, only that second scene is able to accept my style, so, I usually play at industrial and similar concerts. The positive response was a pleasant surprise. The audience in Berlin was able to go behind the line of standard categorization, as the event was a film festival, so they behaved as if in the cinema, quiet and submerged. I performed the album ‘Underlying Scapes’ to Marianna Auster’s video collage, which was synced thematically to the music. We wanted to invoke an out-of-body-experience based on the confrontation between sound manipulation of subliminal structures of the brain and its transformation into an emotionally and surrealistically charged visual narrative.

HH:  Your live shows have been referred to as frightening and unsettling by some; is this the desired effect you have for your audience, or do you think this is merely a reflection of society’s inability to deal with such deep and thought-provoking emotions you express?

VH:  The second one, without doubts. I hope I make music as an authentic scan of my mind, expressing inner fights, doubts, dreams, nightmares, rages, etc., without any intent to mindlessly provoke.

Contemporary society is pathologically cultivating general blindness, being scared more from the loss of illusions and the loss of comfort, than from its own decline and fall. It is definitely losing its ability to solve problems, producing more and more sophisticated toys that generally help in invocating ignorance of reality. Therefore fear of that kind of music and inability to be confronted is rampant. Better to blame artists for cynicism, aggressiveness or malicious intent, while at the same time speaking cheaply about beauty and positivity, rather than seeing and facing all those things in the real world. I want listeners to awake from that facade. If we leave personal taste out of consideration, I understand somebody cannot deal with those feelings, which can be reflected in their own apprehensions and doubts. As such, I am scared more from optimism than despair.

HH:  „Graue Passion‟ stands out for me as one of your most powerful pieces of work. It is in my opinion true musical mastery. As I understand, it took several years to get its proper release. When listening to it today do you feel it is complete or do you wish to re-work it someday?

VH:  It was reworked several times, as I was not satisfied with the result for more than 7 years. Really strange, after those fully prepared conceptual trials, the project remained in my head like some nightmare. Paradoxically, “Graue Passion” is the result of one night’s revision, made spontaneously after a sudden, accidental impulse.

HH:  In 2001 you performed some exclusive concerts in the U.S. How was this experience for you, and do you have any plans or desire to return to the U.S. in the near future?

VH:  It was interesting in many ways, because of the many absolutely opposite feelings I received from the experience, from disgust to astonishing amazement that cannot be surpassed. Playing in the States cannot be so easily defined, as it really depended on the venue and state. Sometimes, I felt that the audience seemed standoffish, as if they have already heard it all before. However, I have never forgotten the show in Detroit, in the center of a totally dead district, where I had the same feelings I had reading Ray Bradbury´s “The Martian Chronicles”, where all inhabitants of some town died out and the main character is walking there in dry wind, that moves all artificially looking martian corpses, like fallen leaves down streets, expressing some definitive emptiness. With still five minutes before the show, there was not any person inside the hall, but during one short moment, it became full of people that disappeared after the show as quickly as they appeared. I went out and in the street only the sound of garbage was heard rolling in the wind. Surreal, unreal, incredible. Btw, it was one of the best shows I have ever had. The tour, was called “Fire Martyrs Tour”, with 16 concerts in 16 states in three weeks and over 6000 miles on the road. Doubtless, I would like to return back again, but with the possibility to choose places of performances.

HH:  Your newest work entitled “MISSA ARMATA. INVOCATIONES “was released in November 2012; could you tell us about it?

VH:  It is actually a new release of old stuff which has been reworked. “Missa Armata” is the original version of Mass. With the new version, I returned back to the first original, because of its strictness, considering it more authentic. “Invocations” is a reworked version conceived now as musical prayers. Both compositions share a common redemptive theme. Missa Armata is more noise-industrial oriented, while Invocationes compliments it with ritual dark-ambient.

HH:  Being a modern composer do you feel your music is understood and/or appreciated by people, or do you feel it is largely goes over the heads of most people?

VH:  In general, I think that overwhelming majority of people will switch off their media player after few seconds of listening, so, music is “going over their heads”, as you said, but without a chance to really get in. The standard reaction is “I am sorry, I cannot undergo it”. I realize that the inevitable fate of this kind of music is to stay on the margin of society. It is natural and I am reconciled with this fact. Once, some Czech reviewer wrote – probably from his own experience – that my music is either loved or hated, with always sophisticated reasons of respondents for one or the other – it never has an indifferent reaction.

HH:  When listening to your music, one can get the sense that it involves a particular transcendence from out of the pits of political, social, and religious dogmas, perhaps even one‟s own personal hell into a more enlightened and spiritual mature being. Are these the sort of themes you explore within your music?

VH:  Absolutely! You described it exactly in very enlightened way by your own question. I could not say it better, perfect definition.

HH:  You have been involved with other projects such as Skrol, Luminar Ax, and Aghiatrias at different points throughout your career. Do you prefer working in a collaborative environment with other creative individuals, or do you find greater fulfillment from working solo?

VH:  My investment in conjoint projects was always at the maximum and the overwhelming majority of them were based on my solo works. All those cooperations were usually in the beginning inspiring and a connection of people and their creative effort, constituting some interesting and original potential, but I can say without any pretension, that I have preferred working independently for many years, because I can freely realize my intentions, without any external intervention. On the other hand, I still enjoy performing on stage with a conjoint project much more than solo concerts. The connection between people on the stage is something unique, when you are metaphorically making some part of the building rise to a transcending space with another person(s).

HH:  Moving away from music for a moment, I know that you practiced as a physician during the 1990‟s. Were you still creating music at this point, or was your focus on your medical career?

VH:  I always considered myself as a worker in the medical field and had never had any ambition to make a career from it, feeling that work as a duty with a granted social sense and even sometimes enjoying it for the same reason. I was always making music during those times; however being a physician was time- consuming and exhausting, but I always needed to indulge in that creative space – I couldn’t and cannot live without it. Albeit, it is worth mentioning, that my job was sometimes very inspiring for musical creation in some way.

HH:  In 1999 you left the world of medicine; was this an effort to focus on your art once more? If so, what triggered your decision to leave such a prominent profession to return to the world of art?

VH:  I have always wanted to engage in music full-time, but it has not been realized. To create this kind of music is not compatible with the possibility to earn a living. In 1999, I got totally exhausted from my double life and my musical work started to be more and more demanding, therefore I decided to leave the medical world and change it for employment that allowed me to live without harming my musical aims.

HH:  In this day in age, it is increasingly more difficult to find an inspired work of art to shake us from this somnambulist state of being, your work being an obvious exception to this monotony. What have you found to be inspiring enough to share with world? What is it you are trying to express through your music?

VH:  As you know, from what I have already mentioned, there are not too many things that I consider inspiring in contemporary art, or maybe I have not come across them yet. Besides the artists I have already mentioned, I have drawn inspiration from some films – for example, the Czech director František Vláčil from the 60s and Tarkovsky, as they deal with a deep impact of spiritual questions inside an individual with amazing mastery of expression, poetic language, atmosphere and aesthetics. I also love Tarkovsky’s symbolism.

In my works, I have specifically been inspired for instance by Teologia Spiritualis Mystica, which is a description of the contemplative process for the purpose of higher cognition. This is used in the album Contemplatio Per Nexus, attempting to describe all steps of that process, which is apparent by the name of particular tracks. There is also somehow strange inspiration in Symphony No.4 (Graue Passion), from the lack of description the long period between the death and entombment of Christ. Originally I was inspired by Dostoevsky’s description of the painting of Hans Holbein, “Graue Passion.” He writes that it alone can shake the Christian faith in the Resurrection, because of the strong mortal portrayal of Christ’s dead body. 

HH:  Do you consider yourself a religious person?

VH:  Yes, I do, but I am not fully in accordance with institutional structures of religion. I consider spirituality as something strictly personal. I don’t like to speak about it as it can be heard in my music.

I think some my albums apparently give it away, e.g. “Graue Passion”, “Exorcisms” or “Contemplatio Per Nexus”, above mentioned “Missa armata” or “Invocationes”. Sometimes, I have to laugh reading some reviews, describing my stuff as diabolic or covertly devilish. This is exactly what I am talking about – superficial understanding of music as some assemblage of associated symbols with predetermined meaning and their inclusion into closed boxes with – once and for all – assigned categorization.

HH:  On your album „Exorcisms‟, the titles in Latin combined with the haunting aural soundscapes of the music, causes me to envision a purging. Much like the church will exorcise a demon, an exorcism of this kind casts out the church from one‟s self. Would this be an accurate interpretation of this piece? Please enlighten us…

VH:  Yes, exorcism is in general considered the religious practice of evicting malevolent spiritual entities from a person, but the name means also a prayer, used for the same purpose. This is the case in my album. I used there also some real names of those prayers, e.g. “Ecce Crux” (Behold the Cross) or “Averte! (Turn Away!) “

HH:  With that, I’d like to thank you for this candid interview, Vladimír. You can leave us with your choice of words.

VH:  Many thanks for the thoughtful questions, Clavdía. Music composition whether in a simple or sophisticated form, must exhibit a moment when all its springs merge into one powerful current that lifts Man above his being – an ecstatic eruption transporting us above ourselves. Solely this moment gives meaning to music and justifies its existence.

                                                                          Clavdia Admiron