No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Textual Evolution of The Silent Don
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2019
Extract
Since its appearance in 1928, Mikhail Sholokhov's Silent Don has undergone countless revisions so that a definitive edition which included all the variant readings would necessarily contain lengthy and complex annotation. Moreover, the task of editing a definitive edition without Sholokhov's personal supervision and without access to his manuscripts and letters is clearly impossible. One can, however, detail accurately the major changes which have occurred in various editions of the novel, realizing that almost every edition (about 135 by 1958) contains some emendation.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1959
References
1 The title of the English translation is retained for convenience despite its inaccuracy, about which V. V. Gura cleverly remarked: “ The Quiet Don [ Tikhij Don] was first published in English at the beginning of 1934 under the name And Quiet Flows the Don [I spokojno protekaet Don].” The word “silent,” which was attached to the complete translation, is not equivalent to either “tikhij” or “spokqjnyj”. Mikhail Sholokhov, Sbornik statej, ed. B. A. Larin (Leningrad, 1956), p. 265.)
2 Considerable work has been done in the Soviet Union on the earlier versions of the novel, but as far as I know virtually none of it is available in this country. The major Russian student of the problem appears to be V. V. Gura: Zhizn'i tvorchestvo M. A. Sholokhova (Moscow, 1955); Istorija sozdanija pervoj knigi romana M. Sholokhova “Tikhij Don,” Uchenye zapiski Vologodskovo pedagogicheskovo instituta, XII (1953).
3 In preparing the present essay, I have collated the following editions of Tikhij Don: (1) the serialization: Book I, Oktjabr’ (Nos. 1-4, 1928); Book II, Oktjabr’ (Nos. 5-10, 1928); Book III, Oktjabr’ (Nos. 1-3, 1929; Nos. 1-8, 10, 1932); Book IV, Novy mir (Nos. 11-12, 1937; Nos. 1-3, 1938; Nos. 2-3, 1940); (2) the second editions of the first three volumes, Gosizdat, 1929, 1930, 1933; (3) the first illustrated edition, Gosizdat, 1935, 1936, 1937; (4) an early “complete” edition, Gosizdat, 1941; (5) a 1946 reissue of the 1941 edition; (6) the popular two-volume Leningrad edition, 1948; (7) the four-volume “revised” edition 1953; and (8) volumes 1I-V of the Sobranie sochinenij, “revised by the author,” 1956-57.
4 “Tikhij Don” M. Sholokhova (Moscow, 1954), p. 219 Google Scholar. No consideration is given to the obvious importance of this murder in the psychological motivation of Gregor Melekhov who henceforth finds Red violence and vindictiveness unpalatable. The controversy over Sholokhov's portrayal of Podtielkov was first discussed at length by L. Levin (“Iz temy o Tikhom Done” Literaturnyj sovremennik (May, 1941), pp. 122-23). Sholokhov has seen fit to disregard a biographical work on Podtielkov cited by Levin and the evidence of military records cited by Yakimenko.
5 Stalin wrote Felix Cohn (July 9, 1929) concerning a brochure by Mikulina which contained certain errors but was basically acceptable. Critical of attempts to withdraw the brochure from sale, Stalin compares Mikulina with Sholokhov: “The most famous writer of our time, comrade Sholokhov, permitted a number of coarse errors and definitely untrue pieces of information in his Silent Don concerning Syrtsov, Podtielkov, Krivoshlykov, and others; but does it follow that The Silent Don is a wholly worthless thing deserving withdrawal from sale?” (Sochinenij, XII (Moscow, 1948), 113.) This statement may be partly spurious because scarcely anyone, least of all Stalin, would in 1929 have called Sholokhov “the greatest writer of our time.“
6 The line taken by An. Tarasenkov, who spear-headed the campaign, was clearly espoused by state publishing houses. Tarasenkov wrote: … along with the distinguishing achievements in Sholokhov's literary language, one is obliged to mark a certain increase in local “Don” words and expressions in the first two books of The Silent Don. In the third and fourth books of the novel, Sholokhov, having renounced provincialism, arrived at the truly subtle simplicity of the highly artistic Russian literary language. It is a shame that even in the last edition of The Silent Don (Goslitizdat, 1949) the first two books of the novel are not entirely freed from excessive “localism” in language… . One is obliged to advise Sholokhov, brilliant master of literary form that he is, and so demanding toward his own work, to clean up the language of the first two parts to the very last detail. (“Za bogatstvo i chistotu russkovo literaturnovo jazyka,” Novy mir (Feb., 1951), p. 215.)
Some of the words which Tarasenkov found especially offensive are: “khrushkij sneg” (scrunchy snow), “bochilas” (uneven, protruding—from “bochitsja” which is to stick one's hip out and place one's hand on it), “oskliz” (slippery-slime), “zakhljustany” (slovenly). Now these words are not “bad words.” They are simply words which a cultivated Russian would not use for normal communication. They are peasant words. What is curious is that they are rejected categorically, without consideration of the contexts in which they might occur and with no thought for the artistic function they might perform if carefully used. Nor are words rejected merely from expository or narrative passages; even the language used in dialogue is subject to purification. “The language of the heroes [of They Fought for Their Country] is soiled with naturalistic turns of speech…. The heroes of the novel—Soviet soldiers—fill their speech to excess with long, florid oaths. The novel will gain greatly if before publication, the author will rework these unfortunate chapters.“ (ibid.)
Three phrases which have “soiled” the work are: “zapekli tebe dushy moi shtany” (crazy for anything in pants; literally, “any pants have put your soul ablaze“), “paskuda dlinnokh- vostaja” (a foul woman trying to put on airs by dressing flashily), “akh, jazvi tebja” (“damn you” but not necessarily a serious curse). And again, what is wrong with these phrases is not only that they are crude or vulgar but that they are in poor taste, at least to a “cultivated” Russian like Mr. Tarasenkov.
The 1953 edition clearly demonstrated that Sholokhov was trying to be a respectable Russian (not Cossack) novelist.
7 See Maurice Friedberg, “New Editions of Soviet Belles-Lettres,” ASEER, XIII (Feb., 1954), 72-88.
8 Of his many remarks to this effect, the strongest was that a person must write “so that ninety-five words are distinguished and the other five good.” (“Za chestnuju rabotu pisatclja i kritika,” Literaturnaja gazeta, March 18, 1934, p. 2.)
9 Literaturnaja gazeta Dec. 26, 1954, p. 2. The only deficiency regarding language that Sholokhov has publicly admitted is his early excessive use of local Don terms which would be unintelligible to the average reader. See his address to the Bulgarian Writers Congress (1951), quoted in Isaac Lezhnev, “Za chistotu jazyka,” Zyezda (June, 1953), pp. 161-62.
10 Tamara Khmelnitskaja, “Realism of Sholokhov,” Soviet Press Translations, IV (May
15 , 1949), p. 302.
11 From materials at the Gorky Institute, quoted in “Besstrashie i sila pravdy,” Literturnaja gazeta, May 24, 1955, p. 1.
12 For a translation, see my essay “ The Silent Don in English,” ASEER, XV (April, 1956), 272. Sholokhov's publication of this footnote as late as 1933 testifies to his courage and steadfast adherence to truth.
13 The Silent Don, tr. Stephen Garry (New York, 1946), I, 479-80. ;
14 Levin, op. cit., pp. 124-25; I. Lezhnev, “Epopeja narodnoj zhizni,” Oktjabr’ (May,
1955 ), pp. 165-66. f
15 For a discussion of Sholokhov's curious performance during the anti-Cosmopolitan campaign, see my unpublished M. A. thesis, Sholokhov and the Soviet Critics Since 1947, (Columbia, 1954), pp. 51-55.
16 His letter to Gorky appears in I. Lezhnev, Mikhail Sholokhov (Moscow, 1948), pp. 14- 15.
17 Literatwnaja gazeta Dec. 26, 1954, p. 2.
18 This passage occurs in Vol. II, Part 4, Chap. 16 which was not translated into English.
19 Jürgen Rühle, “Das Schisksal eines Kosakenromans, Michail Scholochow und Der stille Don,” Der Monat (No. 90) (March, 1956), p. 27.