(no subject)

[avva]

Читал воспоминания Шостаковича. Особенно глава про гуманистов впечатляет, но и другие тоже.

Потом увидел, что составитель — Соломон Волков. Задумался... вспомнил, что был какой-то скандал по этому поводу. Что якобы все или почти все эти воспоминания придуманы самим Волковым, вскоре после эмиграции в Америку. Это аукнулось потом в связи с его книгой разговоров с Бродским, по поводу которой были схожие подозрения — тогда я об этом и читал.

Нашёл вот эту страницу (англ.), где представляется как доказанный факт то, что Волков почти всё сочинил сам. Особенно убедительно там выглядит следующиее объяснение: что подписи самого Шостаковича на первой странице каждой главы на самом деле взяты из копий других статей, для советской прессы, которые Шостакович заверял перед публикацией. Волков (так утверждается) брал первую страницу такой советской статьи, вместе с подписью, вставлял в свой текст в начало главы, а дальше придумывал своё продолжение:

Final devastation of Volkov's claims came with the proof a forgery. As documented by Shostakovich scholar Dr. Laurel E. Fay, the signatures at the beginning of the seven chapters that Volkov claimed as "proof" of authenticity were all simply taken from articles previously published by the Soviets. Volkov forged Shostakovich's signature onto the beginning of seven of the chapters of "Testimony" by attaching a page from one of these old articles to the beginning of one of his chapters. Volkov would use the first page only (which often only comes to a few paragraphs in the published book) from a copy of one of these already published, non-controversial Soviet documents which Shostakovich had signed as "read". Then, discarding the rest of the article written by Shostakovich, Volkov would attach his own continuation. The rest of the book is pure Volkov.

[...] The Western scholar that first completely documented all this was Laurel Fay in a paper delivered to the American Musicological Society at Columbus, Ohio, April 12, 1980. This was later expanded and published as:

Laurel Fay: "Shostakovich versus Volkov: Whose Testimony?", The Russian Review, vol.39, no.4, October 1980, pp.484-493

Есть также письмо вдовы Шостаковича, опубликованное в New York Times в 2000-м году. И ответ Волкова (в основном в духе "это всё известные выдумки КГБ, а то, что их сейчас повторяют, доказывает, что там ничего не изменилось" — в 2000-м году такой ответ звучит для меня очень неубедительно). И перевод статьи Владимира Ашкенази, в том духе, что американские критики Волкова не понимают реалий советской жизни.

Сформировалось ли среди экспертов единодушное мнение по поводу этой книги? (автор страницы на Geocities утверждает, что сформировалось, и оно против Волкова, но у него может быть своя идеологическая приверженность...). Есть ли какие-то важные/интересные точки зрения или документы, на которые нужно в связи с этим указать? Могут ли имеющие своё обоснованное мнение по этому поводу о нём рассказать? Заранее спасибо.

Comments

[larosh.livejournal.com]

Наиболее обстоятельно свое мнение изложил одиозный Михаил Лидский.Эта статья настоятельно рекомендуется для прочтения ;-)

http://www.lebed.com/2003/art3287.htm

Также тема неоднократно обсуждалась на форумах Бориса Лифановского. В том числе - и Михаилом Лидским. На ссылках ниже - самая полная информация.

http://forums.lifanovsky.com/viewtopic.php?t=1164&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=testimony

http://forums.lifanovsky.com/viewtopic.php?t=414&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=150

http://forums.lifanovsky.com/viewtopic.php?t=2305&start=0

[(Anonymous)]

There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday on this subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/arts/music/04EICH.html?pagewanted=all&position=
In case you have trouble accessing it, they lay out the history of the controversy, beginning with Fay's 1980 article, then say:

"The most sustained and vehement defense has come from Allan B. Ho and Dmitry Feofanov, who published "Shostakovich Reconsidered" in 1998, raising troublesome objections to Ms. Fay's case. But on Friday, the anti-"Testimony" camp fired back with "A Shostakovich Casebook," edited by Malcolm Hamrick Brown (Indiana University Press).

"At its heart is a new article by Ms. Fay, addressing criticisms and providing a trenchant critical analysis of a Russian typescript of "Testimony." The book also includes other valuable essays and interviews, which move beyond the scholarly controversy to sketch a nuanced picture of Shostakovich's life under a totalitarian regime.

"Mr. Volkov, meanwhile, has also written a new book, "Shostakovich and Stalin: The Extraordinary Relationship Between the Famous Composer and the Brutal Dictator," published last Monday (Alfred A. Knopf). Those looking for Mr. Volkov's personal perspective on the "Testimony" saga will not find it here. Although he refers to the memoir in his preface and occasionally cites it in the book, "Testimony" figures mostly as a guiding inspiration for a way of thinking about Shostakovich...

"But the facts of Shostakovich's life impede efforts to canonize him as a dissident saint. Survival under Stalin forced him to hone strategies of public compromise and private disassociation, but he carried those strategies into a post-Stalin era that required them less. He joined the Communist Party in 1960, when it was not necessary to do so for survival. And in 1973, his name was printed on a letter denouncing the dissident physicist Andrei Sakharov. The "Casebook" contributors compellingly warn of replacing one mask with another, one black-and-white myth with its simple inversion. Truth may well lie somewhere in the middle."

"Truth may well lie somewhere in the middle" is, of course, classic liberal fudging, but in this case I haven't been able to make up my mind one way or the other. I like both Volkov and Taruskin as writers, and they're in opposite camps, so I just listen to Shostakovich's music and try to forget the controversy.

Steve (http://languagehat.com/)

redrick не аргумент

[cema.livejournal.com]

Толя,

redrick воинствующий козёл, он ничего не понимает за пределами собственно музыки. Посмотри подшивку alt.fan.shostakovich и поймёшь, о чём я.

Что там Волков понаписал, и вправду неизвестно, насколько оно достоверно. Но уж подостовернее redrick'а!

Книга о Шостаковиче -МИХАИЛ АРДОВ

[(Anonymous)]

http://magazines.russ.ru/novyi_mi/2002/5/ard.html
http://magazines.russ.ru/novyi_mi/2002/6/ar.html
"Моя давняя близость с детьми Шостаковича — Галиной и Максимом — натолкнула меня на мысль записать их рассказы об отце, и в результате появилась эта книга. Их воспоминания дополнены выдержками из некоторых изданий, чаще всего я цитирую замечательнейшую книгу “Письма к другу. Дмитрий Шостакович — Исааку Гликману” (СПб., 1993) и фундаментальный труд Софьи Хентовой “Шостакович. Жизнь и творчество” (Л., 1986, том 2)".

Нет противоречий между книгой Волкова и Ардова.
Может быть, книга Волкова - сборник анекдотов об эпохе, но верно предающая ее дух.

Лев, Иерусалим

[pingva.livejournal.com]

> Волков записывал слова Шостаковича на магнитофон, расшифровывал и давал Шостаковичу на подпись.

Волков в Testimony в предисловии пишет, что он стенографировал и магнитофона не было. Ну да это неважно.

Оригинальных русских текстов Testimony тоже нету -- по ссылке, скорее всего, двойной перевод. По оригинальным текстам, очевидно, факт подделки был бы сразу очевиден.

Подробный расклад о природе этой подделки даётся у Laurel Fay.

То, что Testimony не аутентична -- никаких сомнений нет. В лучшем случае, о Testimony говорят как о книге, которая "могла бы быть мемуарами шостаковича".

[pingva.livejournal.com]

> http://www.geocities.com/rickredrick/Testimony.html
> For further testimony re the misbegetting of Testimony see Richard Taruskin's article, "The Opera and the Dictator" in The New Republic, 3/20/89.

Да, кстати, Анатолий -- у меня есть скан с микрофильма этой статьи. Неважного качества, но читать можно. Я ее копировал не ради разоблачений волкова, но статья есть :)

My 2 pence

[irene221b.livejournal.com]

Just last week I read an article by Norman Lebrecht (a well-respected cultural critic in London). He is as pro-Volkov as possible, and explains that in America there is a group of "specialists" on Shostakovitch, who made their academic careers studying his works and life as a devoted homo soveticus. For these people to accept Volkov is to shoot themselves in both feet. That most of them are very left-wing and borderline communists does not help either, I'm sure.
For what it worth.

Fun

[cema.livejournal.com]

It's so much fun to see the old discussions from alt.fan.shostakovich rehashed in lj!

I just wish people did more research before writing. I wish the researchers did more research before writing too! Wishful thinking it is.

[riftsh.livejournal.com]

Вот краткое изложение истории К. Ламбтоном (Sunday Times, Oct 22, 2000):

[...]

This image of Shostakovich, the loyal citizen, remained untarnished until, in 1976, a young journalist from Leningrad fled to America clutching signed papers that in 1979 were published as Testimony [...]

A new, revised, Shostakovich emerged from the pages, one who was bitter and scathing about the Soviet system, a secret dissident who littered his abstract works with musical symbols showing contempt for his political masters.

Volkov claimed he had interviewed the composer extensively before his death and that the resulting book had been read and signed by Shostakovich chapter by chapter. Official Soviet reaction was swift and sure. Testimony was denounced as a "lie from beginning to end".

That might have been expected, but a more damaging blow against Volkov was delivered by the American musicologist Laurel Fay - the one who has backed out of the Glasgow symposium - who identified eight passages in Testimony that appeared to come from previously published articles by Shostakovich. These were all on the pages that he had signed, suggesting a hoax. Volkov did not reply to Fay's allegations and Testimony was denounced as cold-war propaganda: part plagiarism, part fake.

That might have been the end of it, but in the era of glasnost the new, or "revisionist" view of Shostakovich in Testimony gained steady support from musicians who had known him well, such as the pianist Vladimir Ashkenazy, violist Rudolf Barshai, and the cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, who memorably dubbed the symphonies a "secret history of Russia".

Maxim, the composer's son, emigrated to the west and finally ended his silence, declaring that his father had worn a "mask of loyalty". Of Testimony he said: "It's true. It's accurate".

That was in 1986. Since then the debate has simmered on. In 1990 the revisionist case was strongly argued by Ian MacDonald in The New Shostakovich, in which he conceded that while Testimony could never be wholly authenticated, it was nevertheless accurate.

In 1998, Professor Allan Ho and pianist Dmitri Feofanov, who will speak at the seminar, pitched in with a 300-page defence of Volkov's supposed plagiarisms, suggesting that Shostakovich's renowned memory would have enabled him to recycle previously written material.

Laurel Fay maintained her position, but the mantle of leading "anti-revisionist" has since been taken up by the University of California's Professor Richard Taruskin, [...] "As any proper scholar could plainly see, the book was a fraud."

[...]

Shostakovich's widow Irina recently wrote an article in The New York Times in which she reiterated her claim that Volkov had barely known her husband. It forced Volkov once again to break his silence and point out that he actually met the composer before she did, and that their relationship had been long and fruitful.

Alexander Ivashkin, professor of Russian music at Goldsmith's College in London, occupies a more central position, reflecting that Testimony "is not a complete fake, it's half way. There is some exaggeration". [...]