When Testament
edited by Solomon Volkov came out in
1979, I and many others read it. It's
a well written, interesting book. We
had no reason to question that it was
just what it purported to be, transcribed
interviews with Shostakovich presenting
to the world the great composer's memoirs
as he would have wished them to be published.
A film was made dramatizing some incidents
reported in the book (over-dramatizing,
some would say).
A wave of controversy
began to swell, with many critics taking
absolute sides. In 1989 Russia abandoned
Communism and suddenly there was concern
over copyrights and royalties. There
were those who defended the book word
for word as being exactly what it purported
to be. There were those who insisted
it was a fraud, Volkov's memoirs, not
Shostakovich's, a personal statement from Volkov, his way of
getting even at Russians who had slighted him and his friends,
hiding behind Shostakovich. There are those who have a vested
interest in embarrassing Volkov as much as possible. There are
those who have a vested interest in defending him. The literate
music lover is in a difficult position in deciding just whom to
believe, and this book will help you make up your mind - pick and
choose - as it did me.
I would like to think
that I am, like many of the authorities
quoted, somewhere in the middle in all
this, and after reading this book I
am now pretty sure of it. What is collected
here are many comments from people who
should know what Shostakovich was thinking
and saying. And statements by Volkov
as to when and how often he met Shostakovich,
are evaluated according to the recollections
of those who should know.
The arguments have
raged in the press, as reported in this
book, and I'm not going to summarize
them in any great detail here, but I
will say that after reading this book
I have an opinion, which is:
Volkov, who was correspondent for
a major Russian music magazine, had
interviewed a lot of Russians and
probably encountered a lot of hearsay
about what Shostakovich had said on
various occasions. People had likely
quoted Shostakovich to Volkov, but
made him promise not to use their
names. He decided to write a book
of memoirs in collaboration with Shostakovich
and, to prime the pump, collected
statements written by Shostakovich
at various times and published in
various places. These he presented
to Shostakovich, whom he hoped would
elaborate on them. But Shostakovich
was willing to only to read them and
sign these pages. Volkov left Russia
and moved to the West where he needed
to earn a living. He wrote a very
lively, informative book including
all the hearsay* he recalled, grafting
it onto the pages Shostakovich had
signed. Once he had sold the book
claiming that it was word for word
from Shostakovich, he couldn't back
down and admit to what is in effect
a literary fake. He's already spent
the money. He doesn't want to be sued.
He's angry at those who are trying
to take away from him his fame and
reputation for what is, in his and
perhaps many people's opinions, a
relatively minor deception.
It seems it may have
been a little bit Shostakovich's fault.
He tended to fire from the hip, get
upset and come out with things he really
didn't mean or, on reflection, shouldn't
ever have said. Shostakovich was a musician,
a man who wrote music because his expression
in other areas of human activity was
blocked. Writing music was what he needed
to do, what he could do best. Other
great composers have been like this,
noted either for reticence in speaking,
or for imprecision in speaking that
led to misunderstandings and conflict.
When Shostakovich was old and sick,
he had the wisdom to remain silent in
front of Volkov, yet Volkov, identifying
with his readership, defended our right
to know. So, Volkov didn't remain silent;
he wrote the best book he could. So,
he used "artistic license,"
so what. He's not the first. Nor is
he the first not to want to admit it
in a court of law.
Shostakovich's son
Maxim, and Mstislav Rostropovich, arguably
Shostakovich's closest musical friend,
both take particular exception to Volkov's
attribution to Shostakovich of negative
comments regarding Prokofiev. They avow
that Shostakovich had the greatest admiration
for Prokofiev, and frequently used the
word "genius" in referring
to him, and that Shostakovich was influenced
by Prokofiev's music in some of his
later works. Apparently both Shostakovich
and Prokofiev believed that Prokofiev's
melodic gifts were superior to Shostakovich's. As to the
negative comments about Evgeny Mravinsky, for many years music
director of the Leningrad PO, those close to Shostakovich say that
he was grateful to Mravinsky for the many excellent first
performances of his works. Shostakovich clearly had some
disagreements with Mravinsky in later life, but Shostakovich was a
kind and dignified man and would not be likely to attack Mravinsky
in print. Furthermore, he would not likely have left such
statements in his published memoirs to reflect against his
surviving family. One of the legal issues in the ongoing dispute
is the heirs' assertion
of their copyright so as to expunge
these embarrassing passages from Volkov's
book.
Volkov is in a difficult
cleft. If the work really does represent
the literal, word-for-word memoirs of
Shostakovich, then his wife and children
are entitled to at least part of the
royalties, and to some control over
publication. On the other hand if it
really is a creative work of compilation
from many sources, then maybe they are
not. If the case goes to trial, everybody
will lose and the lawyers will end up
with all the money. If I were Volkov's
attorney, I'd advise him to do just
what he's doing. Say as little as possible,
stick to your story, and don't show
anybody anything in writing. In other
words, don't let anybody see your original
manuscript, which is just as Volkov
has acted.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
After you read this book your opinion
may differ from mine, but it will be
an extensively informed opinion.
There is also much
interesting information regarding Shostakovich
and his music that doesn't relate to
the Volkov situation. For instance,
the Twelfth Symphony, "The
Year 1917," the "Lenin Symphony",
that is generally considered a surrender,
a cave-in to vulgar Socialist Realism
- one commentator avows it should be
struck from the roster of Shostakovich
Symphonies - apparently contains a musical
satire of Lenin and his manner of speech,
something that no Westerner is likely
to notice or appreciate without a lot
of help. And there are many personal
anecdotes that give us a picture of
Shostakovich as a kind, generous, and
deeply compassionate man. There are
a number of comments related to the
interpretation of his music.
At last a book that
does what Volkov didn't do, presents
signed, attributed observations of what
Shostakovich actually said, and signed,
attributed opinions about what he might
or might not have said, might or might
not have thought. Volkov really doesn't
come out so badly after all.
[*It is no particular
difficulty to discover who were most
likely to have been Volkov's chief informants
and collaborators. Who are the people
in Russia who swear that every single
word in Testament is true?]
Paul Shoemaker
