SW(Final8/31) Written by Allan B. Ho and Dmitry Feofanov
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- 7. An Error about the Eighth Symphony
- VI. Testimony’s ‘Deep Throats’ 548
- 1. Lev Lebedinsky
- 2. Leo Arnshtam
Catalogue, Les Editions du Chant du monde, at do mention a voice and piano score of the Shostakovich-Khachaturian ‘Song about the Red Army’. 542 Pauline Fairclough says the same thing in ‘Slava! The “Official Compositions”’, Cambridge Companion to Shostakovich, p. 262 (hereafter Fairclough, ‘Slava!’). 543 Hulme, p. 230, Fairclough, ‘Slava!’, pp. 263 and 380, note 14. 157 Facsimile of ‘Hymn of the SSSR’ composed by Aram Khachaturian and Shostakovich, and orchestrated, notated, and signed by the latter. 158 c. ‘A Maiden’s Wish’ In Shostakovich in Context, p. 211, note 52, Rosamund Bartlett questions the subtitle given in Testimony to Gaetano Braga’s ‘Serenade’, which plays an important role in ‘The Black Monk’ and which Shostakovich arranged in September 1972. She writes: It is curious that the serenade is referred to in Testimony (p. 224) as ‘A Maiden’s Prayer’, which is the name of a popular piece for piano by the 19 th -cent. Polish composer Badarzewska (1838–62), and is one of the pieces of music to be heard in The Three Sisters, Chekhov’s third play, written six years after the composition of ‘The Black Monk’. It is worth noting that here Bouis’s English translation is in error: ‘Braga’s serenade, “A Maiden’s Prayer,” plays an important part in The Black Monk’. The passage in the Russian text (Heikinheimo typescript, p. 322) actually reads: ‘Braga’s serenade has a special role in “The Black Monk”’. It is three paragraphs later that Shostakovich adds: ‘And Chekhov, he too was affected by this music, this ‘girl’s [maiden’s] prayer’. Otherwise he would have not written so about it. So affectionately’. This ‘girl’s prayer’, thus, may not be a subtitle at all, but rather a reference to the girl in the song and the religious imagery of its text. 544 544 According to Bartlett, Shostakovich in Context, p. 211, Chekhov described the song as concerning a ‘girl with a disturbed imagination [who] one night hears some mysterious sounds which are so beautiful and strange that she is forced to acknowledge them as a divine harmony which we mortals cannot understand’. Better known as the ‘Angel’s Serenade’, the text reads as follows (Carl Fischer, New York, 1918): What tones are those that are softly and sweetly playing, Did’st hear them mother, as on the wind’s pinions they’re straying; Pray tell me, mother, whence those heavenly sounds proceed? Calm thee, my darling, I hear no voice as you! Only the Zephyrs floating by, Only the moon uprising, Of that sweet song, poor flow’ret weak and fading, Who could have sung it for thee? No! No! No! Ah! No! for it was no earthly melody, That did awake me, so sweetly and so tender; It more resembled the sound of angels singing, To join their legions they’re calling, calling me, Farewell, my dearest mother, Sweet angels, I follow thee! 159 7. An Error about the Eighth Symphony Testimony, like any set of memoirs, contains its share of errors. 545 However, even these minor mistakes can indirectly hint at the authenticity of the text. Consider the following passage from page 197 that has been quoted by others, but without mention of its factual inaccuracy: ‘So what if I inform you that in my Eighth Symphony, in the fourth movement, in the fourth variation in measures four through six, the theme is harmonized with seven descending minor triads? Who cares?’ As Raymond Clarke perceptively observes: Shostakovich’s reference to the score is imprecise, as the passage to which he is referring is in the eleventh variation (i.e., the twelfth appearance of the theme, if one counts the second appearance of the theme as the first variation), it comes in bars three to six, there are only four descending triads, and they are major. Despite this imprecision, there is no ambiguity about which passage the composer is referring to. If anti-revisionists had noticed these mistakes, they would claim, ‘Of course Shostakovich didn’t write this — he wouldn’t have made so many errors in talking about his own music’. But if Volkov had forged Testimony, it would have been natural for him to make it as watertight as possible, and if he had intended to make a reference to a passage in a Shostakovich score, he would have ensured that his little puppet Mitya identified it correctly. Although Shostakovich makes four errors in one sentence, I think these errors are plausible in the context of informal speech: moreover, the numerical repetition of ‘fourth movement . . . fourth variation . . . bars four . . .’ suggests that these are not genuine errors at all, by which I mean that Shostakovich was probably merely inventing numbers off the cuff, because, in order to make his general point about analysis, it was not essential that the numbers were accurate — after all, at this stage he 545 In praising Dubinsky’s Stormy Applause, Taruskin writes: nobody who knows how to read expects documentary veracity from memoirs. Musically informed critics have caught Dubinsky out on many spurious details, much as I caught myself repeatedly in little involuntary lies as I tried to set down a few memoirs of my own above. [. . .] No memorist worth his salt scruples at the sacrifice of literal truth to something higher. (Russians call that something khudozhestvennaya pravda—literally, ‘artistic truth’ — meaning truth to an idea.) For if there were not something higher to motivate memoirs, they would never get written. [. . .] The essential truth of this remarkable book lies in its embittered tone, its self-justifying selectivity, its manifestly biased judgments and skewed perceptions, and, despite frequent hilarity, its evocation of a depression and a disaffection that no amount of commercial or artistic success could assuage (On Russian Music, pp. 359-60; emphasis added). Curiously, he and others ‘who know how to read’ remain blind (or close minded) to the equally essential truth in Testimony. 160 wouldn’t have even known for certain whether this comment would be included in the memoirs. 546 Clarke concludes that ‘trivial examples such as this help to authenticate Testimony. I don’t think any anti-revisionist would seriously propose that, in the 1970s, with no knowledge of whether there would even be any future dispute over the authenticity of Testimony, let alone the extent of the debate, Volkov would have planted such an “error” in the expectation that someone like me would cite the “error” as proof of Shostakovich’s authorship. That level of deception would not have been considered necessary at that time’. 547 546 Email from Clarke to Ian MacDonald, 1 February 2002; forwarded by Clarke to the authors, 17 January 2006. 547 Ibid. 161 VI. Testimony’s ‘Deep Throats’ 548 As noted above and in Shostakovich Reconsidered, many of Testimony’s most hotly contested and revelatory passages now have been corroborated by other evidence and, in spite of the numerous allegations of errors by Shostakovich scholars such as Fay and Orlov, the text today appears to be more accurate than ever. If we are to believe Irina Shostakovich’s claim that Volkov was not close to Shostakovich and had only three brief meetings with him (i.e., insufficient time to yield a 400-page memoir), and if we are to believe Brown’s evidence that Volkov had no record as a Shostakovich scholar, one has to wonder how a young journalist, born in 1944 and at the time only twenty-seven to thirty years old, could have fabricated Shostakovich’s memoirs so well that the manner of speaking has fooled the composer’s children and close friends who have read the Russian text, and even minute details, such as seeing Fiddler on the Roof or a momentary ‘cow burning’ scene, prove to be accurate. How could Volkov be aware of all of the sometimes contradictory aspects of Shostakovich’s life and personality, what was on his mind, and the like, even during the composer’s early years, long before Volkov was born? 549 The critics of Testimony suggest that Volkov had his own ‘deep throats’. But what is the evidence of this? In A Shostakovich Casebook, one finds numerous suggestions of named and unnamed informers. The problem is that not a scintilla of evidence is provided that these had a hand in Testimony, and not one person in thirty years has come forward to say that they helped Volkov fabricate the memoirs. Let us examine the ‘evidence’ (or should we say wild guesses) in A Shostakovich Casebook (emphasis added): (1) Maxim (1982): ‘various hearsay and testimonials that did not originate with my father found their way into the book. I know who the originator was, but won’t talk about it now’. 550 To date, Maxim has never revealed the so-called ‘originator’. Have Brown and Fay investigated this? 548 The nickname of an unidentified insider who helped Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein unravel the Watergate scandal that eventually led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation. On 31 May 2005, W. Mark Felt revealed that he was the secret truth-teller immortalized in their book All the President’s Men, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1974. 549 Heikinheimo, p. 397, considered the same points (transl. by Lång): An important conclusion can be drawn from all this fuss and from the comparison between Volkov’s two books [Testimony and St. Petersburg: A Cultural History, which Heikinheimo also translated into Finnish]: Shostakovich’s Testimony is definitely a genuine work. That was, of course, confirmed in the first place by the many Russian artists who had known him. Testimony is the brilliant sharp talk of a genius, while Volkov’s book on St. Petersburg is a collage by a mediocre plodder, though a valid source book per se. Khrennikov’s main thesis, that Volkov could have forged the entire book of memoirs, is totally absurd: Volkov couldn’t ever have achieved something like that. Besides, there are so many details from the time before Volkov’s birth, that he couldn’t possibly have known anything about those events. Heddy Pross-Weerth, a scholar in her own right who translated many Russian texts over her long career, voiced a similar opinion in a letter of 22 February 2000: I had no reason whatsoever to doubt that the memoirs were genuine. Solomon Volkov, who was born in 1944, was certainly in no position credibly to falsify the contemporary 162 (2) Rostropovich (1986): ‘perhaps his [Shostakovich’s] friends were too gossipy and Volkov made use of them’. 551 (3) Sabinina (1992): ‘some of it Volkov could have heard from Shostakovich’s students’. 552 (4) Nikolskaya (1992): ‘My interlocutor, in saying this, seems to suggest that he had a hand in helping Volkov put his book together’. 553 This handwritten aside in parentheses on the typescript of her 1992 interview with Lev Lebedinsky refers to his statement ‘Yes, I met Dmitri Dmitrievich quite often and I think he was candid with me. Many of our conversations with him are reflected in Volkov’s book’. 554 (5) Yakubov (1992): ‘If Volkov weren’t afraid of being exposed, he could become the center of a new sensation even now. But this would entail his confessing what in the book is genuine and what he himself introduced or wrote on the basis of stories told to him by informants in Moscow and Leningrad — informants such as that very same Lev Lebedinsky, whom I mentioned earlier, or Leo Arnshtam, among others. 555 [. . .] I believe that Volkov’s source was a bitter and spiteful individual, someone such as Lev Lebedinsky. Volkov could very well have heard from Lebedinsky exactly the sort of statements that he attributes to Shostakovich in his book’. 556 statements and entirely individual reflections of a man 38 years older. The manner of speech, diction, choice of words and educational background are unmistakably those of someone who belonged to the first Soviet generation and couldn’t be emulated by someone from the third generation. (Ich hatte keinerlei Veranlassung an der Echtheit der Memoiren zu zweifeln. Der erst 1944 geborene Solomon Wolkov war gewiß nicht imstande, zeitgeschichtliche und private Aussagen, sowie ganz individuelle Reflexionen des 38 Jahre Älteren glaubwürdig zu fälschen. Sprachstil, Diktion, Wortwahl und Bildungshintergrund sind unverkennbar die eines Angehörigen der ersten sowjetischen Generation, nicht nachvollziehbar von einem Repräsentaten der dritten Generation.) Finally, Martti Anhava, a Finnish expert on Russian literature, wrote a review of the second Finnish edition of Testimony (titled ‘Todistus’) that was first published in Parnasso, 39/4, 1989, pp. 205–13, then reprinted in his book Professori, piispa ja tyhjyys, pp. 40–65. He discusses the authenticity of the Shostakovich memoirs in light of Fay’s attacks on it, and after analyzing the style and factual content of Testimony, concludes that the book is authentic — that it is highly implausible that Volkov could have forged such a complex book that shows literary mastery, courage, and empathy. 550 Fay, A Shostakovich Casebook, p. 47. 551 Ibid., p. 45. 552 Nikolskaya, A Shostakovich Casebook, p. 155. 553 Ibid., p. 187, note o. Fay again refers to this statement in A Shostakovich Casebook, p. 49. 554 Nikolskaya, A Shostakovich Casebook, p. 171. 555 Ibid., p. 178. 556 Ibid., p. 180. Brown again points to Lebedinsky in A Shostakovich Casebook, p. 333. 163 (6) Irina Shostakovich (2000): ‘As for the additions, Mr. Volkov himself told me that he had spoken to a lot of different people about Shostakovich, in particular to Lev Lebedinsky, who later became an inaccurate memoirist and with whom Shostakovich ended all relations a long time before. A friend of Shostakovich’s, Leo Arnshtam, a cinema director, saw Mr. Volkov at his request, and Arnshtam later regretted it. A story about a telephone conversation with Stalin was written from his words’. 557 Just as Brown has repeated his error about the Fourth Symphony and ‘Muddle Instead of Music’ multiple times without checking his facts (cf. pp. 9–10 above), here he prints no less than eight references to informers without questioning the evidence. Two of these ‘deep throats’ are named, so let us consider them in greater detail. 1. Lev Lebedinsky In her 1992 interview with Lebedinsky, Irina Nikolskaya noted in a handwritten aside rather than in her main text that Lebedinsky ‘allegedly hinted’ at having some involvement in the memoirs. 558 One wonders what led her to perceive this? Did she, perhaps, misinterpret Lebedinsky’s statement that ‘many of our conversations with him are reflected in Volkov’s book’ to mean conversations between Lebedinsky and Volkov? Clearly, in the context of Lebedinsky’s response, he was referring to his conversations with Shostakovich, which led him to believe in the authenticity of the memoirs. 559 Or was Nikolskaya influenced by Lebedinsky’s previous statement, that he was willing to sign his name under every word in the memoirs: I consider this book to be one of the most important publications devoted to the composer. Its authenticity is beyond question. I am prepared to sign my name under every word in the book. It is the truth about Shostakovich. 560 In her own article, Fay finds that The compiler’s aside in parentheses — by Irina Nikolskaya, who interviewed Lebedinsky — is remarkable. Evidently she understood the tone of Lebedinsky’s comment as intimating that he had helped Volkov compile Testimony. 561 557 Irina Shostakovich, A Shostakovich Casebook, p. 132. 558 In the original publication in Melos, 1/4–5, Summer 1993, p. 78, the note reads: ‘(My interlocutor allegedly hints at his own participation in [the] creation of Volkov’s book. Irina Nikolska [sic])’. 559 For similar reactions by many others, cf. ‘The Ring of Truth’, Shostakovich Reconsidered, pp. 256–70. 560 Nikolskaya, A Shostakovich Casebook, p. 171. 561 Fay, A Shostakovich Casebook, p. 49. 164 Indeed, what is remarkable is that Fay accepts this aside without question. If Nikolskaya genuinely suspected that Lebedinsky was a secret informer who provided Volkov with details he otherwise would not know, why didn’t she simply ask the question? In every interview conducted by Nikolskaya for this article, she asked her subjects about their opinion of Testimony: ‘I asked everyone I interviewed about Solomon Volkov’s book’. 562 Some denounced the memoirs, whereas a few, such as Lebedinsky, stood by it. Are we to believe that Nikolskaya, an experienced interviewer, 563 suspected that Lebedinsky was Volkov’s collaborator on Testimony and did not ask him, point-blank, ‘Did you have a hand in the writing of the Shostakovich memoirs?’ One also wonders why neither Fay nor Brown have investigated this, but remain content to repeat what is, in fact, only Nikolskaya’s perception of a ‘hint’ by Lebedinsky. Lebedinsky, as noted in Shostakovich Reconsidered, p. 272, note 7, was not shy in claiming credit for collaborating with Shostakovich on Rayok. Why, then, has no hard evidence emerged over the past thirty years that Lebedinsky had a hand in Testimony? No letter has been found to corroborate this, even though Elizabeth Wilson 564 and others have had access to Lebedinsky’s materials. When asked about Lebedinsky, Volkov stated that, on the matter of Testimony, he was contacted by the latter only in New York when the publication of the memoirs was announced; that Lebedinsky did not help with Testimony; and that Irina Shostakovich’s mention of Lebedinsky is motivated by personal anger for disclosing some private information about Irina herself in his ‘inaccurate memoirs’. 565 2. Leo Arnshtam The notion that Arnshtam was a ‘deep throat’ is still weaker. Again, no evidence is provided that he worked on the memoirs. Moreover, Irina does not even explain why she believes the story about Stalin phoning Shostakovich in 1949 had to be ‘written from his [Arnshtam’s] words’, especially since he was not present at this event, and both Shostakovich and his first wife Nina are known to have spoken about this call themselves. 566 When asked about Arnshtam, Volkov stated that he did contact him once 562 Nikolskaya, A Shostakovich Casebook, p. 151. 563 Cf. Nikolskaya’s biographical sketch in A Shostakovich Casebook, p. 393. 564 In a letter to Allan Ho, 4 October 1994, Wilson mentioned working with material from Lev Lebedinsky’s archives. It is unlikely that she would withhold any evidence that Lebedinsky had a hand in Testimony. 565 If Lebedinsky collaborated with Volkov, one might expect him to appear somewhere in the memoirs. He does not, and Arnshtam receives only a brief mention. Also cf. p. 51 above. Gerald C. Ginther, in Revisionism in the Music History of Dmitry Shostakovich: The Shostakovich Wars (thesis: M.A. in Russian, University of Canterbury, 2008), p. 5, asserts that Lebedinsky ‘provided much material to Volkov about Shostakovich’. However, he cites no evidence of this other than, on p. 25, quoting Alex Ross’s suggestion that Lebedinsky was ‘a secondary ghostwriter (of Testimony)’ (cf. Ross, ‘Unauthorized’, The New Yorker 80/25, 2004, p. 1. 566 Cf. pp. 52–53 above and Shostakovich Reconsidered, p. 434. Others said to have been present were Yury Levitin (Wilson, p. 212) and Anusya Vilyams (Wilson, 2 nd edn., p. 245, note 16; citing Sofiya Khentova, V mire Shostakovicha (In Shostakovich’s World), Kompozitor, Moscow, 1996, p. 33; and Krzysztof Meyer, Shostakovich: Zhizn’, Tvorchestvo i Vremya (Shostakovich: Life, Work, and Times), p. 295). 165 to commission an article for Sovetskaya Muzyka about film music, but that he doesn’t know whether this ever materialized. 567 Isn’t it interesting that both Arnshtam (1905–80) and Lebedinsky (1904–92) were named as collaborators only after they were unable to respond? (Although Nikolskaya’s interviews with Lebedinsky et al. were conducted between July and December 1992, her article first appeared in summer 1993.) If they were genuinely suspected of being ‘deep throats’, why were they not contacted by Fay or Brown earlier, while they were alive and could confirm or deny the allegation? In conclusion, given the fact that absolutely no evidence has emerged in over thirty years to demonstrate that Volkov collaborated with anyone other than Shostakovich himself, it seems clear that Testimony is exactly what Volkov has always claimed it to be: the ‘Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich as related to and edited by Solomon Volkov’. Download Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling