Testimony (book)

Testimony
Author	Solomon Volkov (editor), Dmitri Shostakovich
Original title	Свидетельство
Translator	Antonina W. Bouis
Country	United States of America
Language	Russian
Genre(s)	memoires
Publisher	Harper & Row
Published in English	October 31, 1979
Media type	book
ISBN	0-87910-021-4

Testimony (Russian: Свидетельство) is a book that was published in October 1979 by the Russian musicologist Solomon Volkov. He claimed that it was the memoirs of the composer Dmitri Shostakovich. From its publication, its portrayal of the composer and his views was controversial: the Shostakovich of the book was sometimes critical of fellow composers, and most notably was strongly anti-Soviet in his views. The book also contained comments on his own music, indicating that it was intended as veiled criticism of the Soviet authorities and support for the dissident movement. The authenticity of the book is still disputed.

Contents 1 Volkov’s claim 2 Recycled material 3 Shostakovich and Volkov 4 Friends’ attitudes 5 Significance of the debate 6 Notes 7 Further reading

[edit] Volkov’s claim

Volkov said that Shostakovich dictated the material in the book at a series of meetings with him between 1971 and 1974. Volkov took notes at each meeting, transcribed and edited the material, and presented it to the composer at their next meeting. Without being asked to do so, Shostakovich then signed the first page of each chapter. Unfortunately it is difficult without access to Volkov's original notes (claimed to be lost) to ascertain where Shostakovich possibly ends and Volkov possibly begins.

[edit] Recycled material

The strongest criticisms of the book were raised by Laurel Fay first in 1980, then in 2002 (when she claimed to have finally managed to access an original manuscript of Testimony in Russian — which, in fact, is not the original manuscript, but a publishing house copy, which differs significantly from the real original manuscript).^{[citation needed]} She found that passages at the beginning of eight of the chapters duplicate almost verbatim material from articles published as Shostakovich’s between 1932 and 1974. Critics of the book therefore claim that Volkov persuaded Shostakovich to sign each page containing the composer’s own material, before attaching to it fabricated material of Volkov’s own.^{[citation needed]}

An interesting point is that despite translation into 30 different languages the Russian original has never been published. Doubters ask the question: was Volkov covering his tracks by not permitting the Russian-language version? This question was answered by Dmitry Feofanov in 1997,^{[citation needed]} when, at the local meeting of the AMS, he demonstrated form publishing contracts, which customarily vest copyright and publication rights in a publisher, and not an author. Thus, assuming Volkov signed a standard contract, he would have no say whatsoever in whether an edition in this or that language appears; such decisions would be made by his publisher.^[1]

Contrary to previous reports that Volkov never responded to this criticism, he in fact made himself available in 1999 at a press conference at Mannes College to answer any and all questions regarding Testimony. None of his critics showed up.^[2]

Moreover, supporters of the book’s authenticity have two arguments. Firstly, they provide evidence that Shostakovich had a photographic memory, which allowed him to recite long passages verbatim. Secondly, they note that not all the pages which Shostakovich signed are of recycled material. In particular, he signed the first page of the book, which contains unrecycled and controversial material, as well the first page of the third chapter.^[3]

The second point was answered by Dr. Fay in her second article.^{[citation needed]} According to her, Shostakovich didn't sign the first page of the manuscript. His signature is only found on the third page, which again consists entirely of recycled material. — However, when Henry Orlov examined the original manuscript in August, 1979, he stated that all the signatures were in the first pages of the chapters:

"Significantly enough that, except for the inscription by his hand at the head of the eight chapters, the manuscript bears no traces of his handwriting, no alterations or even slight corrections."^[4]

As noted above, Fay did not examine the original manuscript but probably an edited copy distributed illicitly by the Finnish translator of Testimony, Seppo Heikinheimo.^[5]

Thus, the Shostakovich signatures may have no bearing on Volkov's case. The first point, Shostakovich's photographic memory, is also of dubious relevance given the manner in which Volkov claims to have assembled the manuscript. As he writes in the preface to Testimony, and as Fay reminds readers in her second article, Volkov's interviews with Shostakovich consisted of questions to which the composer provided "brief" and "reluctant" answers, and which Volkov compiled in a "mound of shorthand notes." These fragmented notes were then "divided up [and] combined as seemed appropriate."^[6]

Thus, even if we accept that Shostakovich had a photographic memory, we are still left with the notion that Volkov transcribed the composer's memories in personal shorthand, shuffled and re-shuffled these "penciled scribbles" (Volkov's term), and managed to reproduce entire paragraphs of previously published material verbatim, right down to the original typography and layout.

[edit] Shostakovich and Volkov

A second argument against the book is that Volkov did not meet Shostakovich often enough to have received the material. Shostakovich’s widow, Irina, has stated that Volkov met him only three or four times. His ill-health at the time meant that she rarely left him, so that she would have known about any other meetings.^[7]

However, some other witnesses support Volkov’s version. In particular, the composer’s friend Flora Litvinova recalls Shostakovich saying, in reference to an un-named Leningrad musicologist (Volkov was from Leningrad): “We now meet constantly, and I tell him everything I remember about my works and myself. He writes it down, and at a subsequent meeting I look it over.”^[8]

Also Maxim Shostakovich has commented on Testimony and Volkov more favourably after 1991 when the Soviet regime fell. To Allan B. Ho and Dmitry Feofanov, he confirmed that his father had told him about "meeting a young man from Leningrad [Volkov] who knows his music extremely well" and that "Volkov did meet with Shostakovich to work on his reminiscences". Maxim emphasized repeatedly: "I am a supporter both of Testimony and of Volkov."^[9]

[edit] Friends’ attitudes

Each side of the debate has amassed statements opposing or supporting the book’s authenticity. In 1979, a letter condemning the book was signed by six of the composer’s acquaintances: Veniamin Basner, Kara Karayev, Yury Levitin, Karen Khachaturian, Boris Tishchenko and Mieczysław Weinberg.^{[citation needed]} Initially, the book was also criticised by the composer’s son, Maxim, but later he and his sister Galina have become supporters of Volkov.^[10] The widow Irina continues to reject the book.

Supporters of the book discount the statements of those who were still in the USSR at the time as extorted or fabricated. They point to endorsements of the book by emigres and after the fall of the USSR, including Maxim and Galina Shostakovich.^[11]

However, endorsing the factuality of the book does not necessarily mean endorsing it as what it claims to be, i.e., the authenticated memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich. For instance, Maxim Shostakovich has said that the book gives a true picture of the political situation in the USSR and correctly represents his father's political views, but continues to speak of the book as being "about my father, not by him".^{[citation needed]}

Others who endorse the book are not necessarily even aware of the questions about Shostakovich's signatures raised by Laurel Fay (see above, Recycled material) and therefore their competence in judging the book's authenticity as Shostakovich's memoirs (as opposed to its factual authenticity) is in question. Also, they include musicians whose personal acquaintance with Shostakovich was extremely limited (e.g., Vladimir Ashkenazy).

The claim that the condemnation of the book by the six Soviet composers was extorted or fabricated is also questionable. None of the five composers who were still living in the 1990s has disassociated himself from the condemnation after the fall of the USSR. Kara Karayev died in 1982, but his son Faradzh Karayev has testified in 1999 that his father had read the German translation of Testimony and told his family that "Mitya [Dmitri Shostakovich] couldn't have written this, let alone allowed its publication. It is clearly a fabrication".^{[citation needed]} (This claim is also supported by Kara Karayev's diary entries from the same period.) In an article written in the same year, "The Regime and Vulgarity", Elena Basner has told that her father Veniamin Basner, Mieczysław Weinberg (both of whom died in 1996), and Boris Tishchenko were also acquainted with (and indignant about) the book before signing the condemnation.^{[citation needed]}

As a translator of Testimony, the Finnish musicologist Seppo Heikinheimo (1938–1997) had a copy of the Russian-language manuscript of Testimony in his possession, and he claims that he showed the text to dozens of Russian musicians, many of whom knew Shostakovich. According to Heikinheimo, Mstislav Rostropovich (in 1979) considered that Testimony is authentic, as did Rudolf Barshai, Kirill Kondrashin, Yuri Lyubimov, Gidon Kremer, Emil Gilels, and Sviatoslav Richter.^[12]

[edit] Significance of the debate

There is no necessary connection between accepting Testimony's provenance and accepting that Shostakovich was a dissident, or vice versa. The spectrum of opinion on these issues includes some who believe that Volkov may have faked Testimony, but that it accurately reflects Shostakovich's views (e.g. Elizabeth Wilson).^[13] They point to the fact that Volkov is known to have met with Shostakovich, and that he could have obtained further accurate information from other of the composer's acquaintances. Others (e.g. Richard Taruskin)^{[citation needed]} have suggested that the book does reflect what Shostakovich told Volkov, but that it was Shostakovich's attempt to reinvent himself as a dissident to protect his image after his death.

[edit] Notes

[edit] Further reading

• Brown, Malcolm Hamrick (ed.): A Shostakovich Casebook. Indiana University Press 2004. ISBN 0-253-34364-X
• Fay, Laurel: Shostakovich versus Volkov: Whose Testimony? – The Russian Review, vol. 39 no. 4 October 1980 pp. 484–493.
• Ho, Allan B. and Feofanov, Dmitry (ed.): Shostakovich Reconsidered. Toccata Press 1998. ISBN 0-907689-56-6 .
• Litvinova, Flora: Remembering Shostakovich in Znamya (The Banner), December 1996.
• Volkov, Solomon: Shostakovich and Stalin: The Extraordinary Relationship Between the Great Composer and the Brutal Dictator; Knopf 2004. ISBN 0-375-41082-1
• Ian MacDonald: The New Shostakovich, Pimlico (2006); ISBN 978-1845950644