Sholokhov by V. Osipov (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 545 artistGreta Gerell give an intimateaperfue of the Merezhkovskiis'life and work in the emigration,particularly,perhaps, of the very real hardships,the handto -mouth existence they were forced to lead - and of Gerell's charity. Hippius's more abstract letters are often accompanied by warm and very human notes of thanks from Dmitrii Sergeevich Merezhkovskii.The letters written after his death have a desolate, courageous qualitythat, as Pachmuss rightlyclaims, adds a new dimensionto the portraitof Hippius conjuredup in Zlobin's 'Tiazhelaia dusha'. It is to this biographicalaspect of our knowledge of Hippius that the letters contributemost. Her correspondentwas not closely involvedwith the intellectual life of the Russian emigrationand Hippius'sexcursionsinto literatureand religion are, therefore, more subjective,less programmaticthan in the letters publishedin the magisterial'Intellectand Ideas in Action', though nonetheless interestingfor that. Pachmuss,of course, is totallyin command of her subject and presentsher publication, essentialreading for specialistson Hippius and Merezhkovskiiand desirablefor scholarsinterestedin the Russian emigration in France, with her usual meticulous enthusiasm. University ofDurham AVRIL PYMAN Osipov, V. Sholokhov. Molodaya gvardiya,Moscow, 2005. 628 pp. Illustrations. Bibliography.$27.00. IN I995 Valentin Osipov published Tainaia zAhin' Mikhaila Sholokhova (7The Secret Life of MikhailSholokhov), which thanked the writer's family for their help throughout his life. Osipov's latest work contains 628 pages as against 414 in Tainaiazhizn' and he has used this extra space largely to expand on Sholokhov 'sstrugglewith those controllingliteratureunder Stalin, Khrushchevand Brezhnev. In I93I Gorkii sent TikhiiDon (QuietFlowstheDon)to Stalin, who asked Sholokhov:'Why do you treat Kornilov so kindly?'He replied:'I have faithfully set down things which show the personalityof this man who had been brought up in an officer's code of honour [vospitannogo na ofitserskom kodeksechesti], who had fought bravely againstthe Germans and who loved Russia in his own way. Afterall he even escaped from being a prisonerof war in Germany.' Stalin was indignant:'How can you say he was an honourable man? He was setting up gallows everywherein a sea of blood. He was acting against the People!' Sholokhov admits that this blunt truth did persuade him and that he later toned down his text. He rememberedsubsequently:'Stalin's yellow eyes narrowed down like a tiger about to spring ... At the end of our meeting he said: "Some people think that this third book of your novel will give much pleasure to our enemies, the White emigres."I replied: "There's not much in the novel to please the Whites.Afterall I do show how they were completely crushedon the Don and the Kuban'." Stalin replied:"Allright I agree. The way your book three describesevents can only work in favourof our revolutionin Kuban'."' Even after Stalin had given clearance,Fadeev persistentlytried to persuade the author that Grigorii Melekhov should be reconciled with Communism. 546 SEER, 84, 3, JULY 2006 Sholokhov said he would sooner not publish TikhiiDon than falsifyhis work with such a distortion of Grigorii'snature. In I993 the Makarovscould find little to admire in Melekhov, claiming that he was without ideals and ready to strike down anyone without pity. Osipov quite rightly points out that this judgement takes no account of Grigorii's tormented search for the truth, which has made him the most memorable hero in Soviet literature. In I932 Sholokhov declared that he did not wish any furtheramendments or cuts made to his novel. In spite of this, successive'editors'sought to make the text more politicallycorrect descendingeventuallyto the absurdedition of I953, a travestyof the originaltext. Stalincould make some shrewdjudgements of literatureand he felt that the Soviet Union must show that it could produce great works of art. Founding the Writers' Union in 1934 he explained that RAPP had been dissolved because those directing it had lost touch with the wider public: 'Why do you demand that a writershouldknow the Marxistdialecticif he does not support the Party?Tolstoi, Cervantesand Shakespearedid not know the dialecticbut that did not prevent them being great writers.' As Stalin's terror increased, almost one in four of those who joined' the Writers'Union died in the camps or were shot. In I958, fiveyearsafterStalin's death, Zoshchenkowould stillsay: 'Literatureis a dangerousbusiness only the production of white lead can be as bad for...