p ’For many years now," wrote Dmitry Shostakovich, in 1965, ’it has been on my mind that I should start writing my memoirs, that I should write about the people who have been important in my life and for my music.’ This intention was never realised. Eight years later the composer noted: ’What a pity I have not kept a diary or note-book, or written memoirs. I have met many interesting people and seen many interesting things... No, I cannot say that I live in the past; I live now, and will live longer-a hundred years! But it is important also to remember one’s past. However, I have not given up hope of returning to this.’ Now, of course, as the life of this great contemporary of ours sinks gradually into the past, we are bound to feel sorry that he left no detailed autobiographical material, which might have served as an in’ valuable commentary to his monumental musical legacy.

p But did he really leave nothing? Certainly, Shostakovich did not keep a diary, and the reminiscences which he noted down from time to time are fragmentary. Over a period of almost fifty years, however, i. e. throughout his adult life, the composer wrote many articles for the press, spoke at various conferences and was interviewed by hundreds of journalists. He spoke about many aspects of his life and times: about the global problems of music and those which directly affected him; about the defence of his country and the struggle for peace; about the content of his own works, his reasons for writing them and his plans for the future; about the great musicians and writers of the past and about his friends and contemporaries; about important events and fleeting, but vivid, impressions... In short, his utterances were extremely diverse, covering almost everything that closely affected his own life, his country and the world-that world which is embodied so profoundly in his music. Shostakovich’s words, then, are also part of his legacy, affording us deeper insight into his music.

p In his youth, Dmitry Shostakovich made a pledge to himself: ’/ shall work ceaselessly in the field of music, to which I shall dedicate my whole life.’ And indeed, even when struck down by illness, he continued to compose. ’One must work continuously,’ he asserted, ”and thai applies to every composer. If ata_gwen time you A cannotjarrit^ anything great, then write somethim_small._a_bagatelle^ Coming from Shostakovich’s lips, these were not merely fine words: both in his youth and in old age he devoted himself utterly to music.

p This being the case, it is remarkable that Shostakovich managed to find any time at all for public speeches, for meeting journalists and for writing articles. Of course, these activities were not at all regular: some years, for various reasons, they slackened off considerably, while in other years his ‘non-musical’ output was quite prodigious. But taken in sequence, all his statements, his ’diary entries’, allow one to retrace the life of a composer who could not conceive of himself without society, out of touch with people.

p Even when arranged in chronological order, of course, Shostakovich’s speeches and so on are devoid of any system, and lack the intimacy of a diary. On the contrary, they are mostly the composer’s response to certain concrete, and isolated events. But they do build up a fairly complete picture of Shostakovich’s views and principles, showing their constant development. His appraisals of many things, and his attitudes to the work of certain composers (e.g., Scriabin and Wagner) evolved considerably over the years. Taken together, Shostakovich’s articles, speeches, notes and interviews allow us to follow the course of his musical career, to feel the atmosphere of his age, and to sense the impulses which inspired his muse. Not least, they conjure up a vivid picture of one of the century’s greatest musicians - both as an artist and as a man. Basically, his utterances amount to a kind of ’Master’s diary’ -not an intimate, private diary, but a diary open to all, ‘written’ in front of our eyes. This, perhaps, is where the unique importance of Shostakovich’s literary legacy lies.

p Finally, the enormous quantity of written material left by Shostakovich testifies equally to the extent of his public activities and to the constant attention given him by the press. Over several decades, the main Soviet newspapers—Pravda, Izvestia, Literaturnaya Gazeta, Sovetskaya Kultura and various local papers from Moscow, Leningrad and other cities-regularly published interviews with the composer and articles by him. The purpose of this book is to bring many of these together and make this ’open diary’ available to all who hold the name of Dmitry Shostakovich dear.

p It was a similar aim that determined how the collection was compiled. The book contains all sorts of writings of various importance-^rom extracts taken from important articles to short notes on topical matters; they are arranged, irrespective of importance, in strict chronological order, according to year and (with very few exceptions) date of publication. This principle is not strictly academic, but serves the book’s main purpose-to present the composer’s utterances in their natural time sequence.  [6•* 

p It should be pointed out that this book is not an exhaustive collection of all Shostakovich’s writings. The academic analysis and publication of the whole of his ” literary’ legacy is a task for the future. We feel, however, that the extracts included here are not unrelated, and for all their diversity they are united by the integrity of the composer’s personality.

p The compilers have included only material intended for publication by Shostakovich himself, more or less ignoring his personal correspondence (with the exception of 7 a few fragments whose publication was approved by Shostakovich himself). We felt it would have been wrong to include the composer’s correspondence because of the attitude to this delicate question which he himself exhaustively and unambiguously expressed in his. article on Chekhov: ’/ am very sorry that Chekhov’s correspondence with Olga Knipper has been published, much of it being so intimate that one would rather not see it in printed form. I say this particularly because of the writer’s extremely exacting attitude to his works, which he never would publish until they were brought to perfection’

p The principle by which the book was compiled also dictated the nature of the commentaries which accompany the selected texts for each year. They, too, are not scholarly in the strictest sense, but merely a first attempt to outline the most important facts and landmarks from Shostakovich’s life and music, as a background to the main section-the composer’s own words. This is their only function. And for this reason the commentaries - a year-by-year account of the main events in the composer’s life, taken from various periodicals - are by no means comprehensive or particularly detailed.

p There is an enormous quantity of material available, and it has only just begun to be studied. The composer’s future biographers will have great scope. Meanwhile, this book offers Shostakovich’s admirers only a brief sketch of his life.

p The reader will notice how the character and content—and, to a certain extent, the language and style - of Shostakovich’s ”diary entries’ change over the years. This is inevitable. His views evolved, his interests, likes and tastes all developed. Much that seemed essential in his youth moved into the background; extreme views were often tempered, and things said, perhaps, on the spur of the moment were displaced by mature, firm convictions. But Shostakovich’s unshakable belief in the great mission of art, the passionate belief of an artist and humanist, can be heard clearly in utterances separated by several decades. And in these utterances we can discern the most essential traits of Shostakovich as artist, citizen and man, traits which remained constant throughout all these decades: honesty before himself and others, high principles, a gentle disposition, reluctance to compromise in his art, frankness, and a complete lack of affectation or ostentation.

p In analysing Shostakovich’s life and music, one cannot avoid the question of the composer’s attitude to criticism and self-criticism. From the very outset, of course, his music gave rise to heated arguments, which continued right through his life, though they were gradually drowned by a chorus of praise. Like any composer of his stature, Shostakovich found neither immediate nor universal recognition. And the criticism that came his way was not always meant kindly. This, as we have said, was almost bound to happen, as it did with Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Glinka, Chaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Prokofiev... But what is most striking is Shostakovich’s own attitude 8 towards criticism. Unlike some of his colleagues, who publicly-declared that the critics did not interest them, but secretly built up a bitter hatred of them, Shostakovich always-even when the criticism was manifestly unfair, and when he could not agree with it—tried to extract some benefit from it and saw it as a stimulus to look again at his own course and perhaps take corrective measures. For this reason, Shostakovich’s words about Prokofiev, a composer whom he valued extremely highly, can equally be applied to himself: ⁽A man of immense creative powers, Prokofiev was able to pick out from the melee that surrounded his works those arguments which were fair and of value, and paid close attention even to the most insignificant comments. But Prokofiev did not follow criticism blindly. He boldly defended those works which he considered to require no alteration.’

p Dmitry Shostakovich was cast in the same mould. For all his mildness, delicacy

p and sensitivity, when it came to questions of principle, when it came to the essence of

p his life,..music, he would stand absolutely firm. His statements, too, illustrate both

p his delicacy and his intolerance of shortcomings and of everything that seemed to him

p i foreign to the high ideals of Soviet life and socialist art.

p One of the composer’s biographers once noted that Shostakovich did not like speaking about himself or his works, because everything was already said, fully and eloquently, in his music. Almost all those who knew the composer had this impression, especially as his natural modesty, shyness even, always seemed to hinder him from speaking about himself. Now, however, looking at all his statements as a whole, one begins to doubt the truthfulness of this idea-at least partly. Perhaps Shostakovich really did not like speaking about his music, but nonetheless he often did so (though probably rather reluctantly), apparently aware of the needfulness and usefulness of such comment for many listeners, as well as to avoid misrepresentations (his remarks on programme music are particularly characteristic). The brilliant composer’s personality and work were always indivisible. As the conductor Yevgeny Mravinsky said, ’For me, Shostakovich’s greatness lies above all in the significance of that social and moral idea which runs all through his work.’

p Always, even in times of serious illness, Dmitry Shostakovich remained accessible and open to people. And it is this quality., we feel, that makes it both possible and justifiable to compile many of his statements from various years as a kind of ‘diary’. For it would be hard to name another artist who was so closely, linked to life, who drew so much from its fullness and impulses, while enriching it,- influencing it and repaying it a hundredfold with his music.

L. Grigoryev
Ta. Platek