solženicyn's self-censorship: the canonical text of odin den' ivana denisoviča

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Solženicyn's Self-Censorship: The Canonical Text of Odin den' Ivana DenisovičaAuthor(s): Gary KernSource: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Winter, 1976), pp. 421-436Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/305891 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 22:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 22:18:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aatseel

http://www.jstor.org/stable/305891?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SOLZENICYN'S SELF-CENSORSHIP: THE CANONICAL TEXT OF ODIN DEN' IVANA DENISOVICA

Gary Kern, University of California, Riverside

In December 1974, nine months after his expulsion from the Soviet Union, Aleksandr Solienicyn informed the Western public that all his works written in Russia, with the exception of The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956 (Arxipelag Gulag 1918-1956), were "softened down" in the hopes of passing the Soviet censorship. Even his celebrated novella One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (Odin den' Ivana Denisovi'a), he explained, had not escaped this treatement. "Westerners, Mr. Solzhenitsyn warned, should know that any work by a Soviet author has been self-censored and they should take that into account when assessing Soviet writing. 'In general, in all my books, I left out certain things and toned down my works,' he said in Russian. 'Softened down,' he repeated in English for emphasis and to be sure that he had been fully understood." 1

A more detailed account of his labors on One Day was supplied soon after in the book Beating Your Head Against the Wall (Bodalsja telenok s dubom, translated literally as "The Calf Butted the Oak"), completed in June 1974 near Zurich and published early the next year in Paris. In the first section of this work, dated May 1967, Solienicyn described his increasing anxiety as an "underground writer" prior to his first publication.2 Back in 1961, feeling stifled by his secret occupation, without readers or literary companionship, he decided to write something which at least could be shown to others. The result was The Light Within You (Svet, kotoryj v tebe, now known as Sveca na vetru-The Candle in the Wind), a play set in an abstract West and therefore not so pointedly critical of Soviet life. After writing the play, Sol'enicyn took up a work already finished in 1959: "I didn't know what for, I had no plan, I simply took up SE-854 and retyped it in a lightened form (obleg enno), leaving out the sharper passages and judgements and the Captain's long story to Caesar about how the Ameri- cans were fooled in Sevastopol in '45 by our show of well-being. I did it for some reason-and let it lie." 3 This act of revision brought the author some relief: for the first time he did not bother to hide his work.

SEEJ, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1976) 421



422 Slavic and East European Journal

Later in the same year, November 1961, encouraged by the 22nd Party Congress and Aleksandr Tvardovskij's call for a bolder literature, Solenicyn decided to surface as a writer. He chose the lightened version of Si-854 and asked his friend Lev Kopelev to transmit it to the journal Novyj mir, of which Tvardovskij was editor-in-chief. Tvardovskij was thrilled by the work and called its author to Moscow for a meeting with the editorial board of the journal in December. Solienicyn, according to his own account, purposely assumed a gruff and gloomy disposition at the meeting so as to serve notice that he was not about to make concessions. "After all, they didn't know that they held in their hands a piece that had already been lightened, already been smoothed out" (Bodalsia, 30). At this time, how- ever, the board did not request any substantial changes: Tvardovskij merely expressed the wish that Ivan DenisoviE Suxov would not give up hope for release and would not go to work on the fake carpets, and Mar'jamov offered corrections of a few Ukrainian words. Solienicyn, delighted by the absence of coercion, immediately consented to the renaming of the work. To emphasize its "weight," the board preferred to call it a "novella" (povest') instead of a "story" (rasskaz). And, following an established practice, they wanted to alter the title: the board, with Kopelev's partici- pation, created the new title Odin den' Ivana Denisovi6a. (Bodalsja, 30-31.)

But the request for more changes eventually came. In the summer of 1962, Solienicyn was called back to Moscow from a trip to Lake Baikal. The editorial board was anxious for him to "improve" the work to increase its chances of publication. (During all of this time Novyj mir had been collecting support for the work.) Assistant editor Aleksandr Dement'ev made his demands: 1) the conversation between the Captain and Caesar about the film Potemkin should be deleted, as it besmirched one of the glories of Soviet art; 2) the conversation between Ivan and Ale'ka about God should be deleted, as it was artistically and ideologically incorrect; 3) the Benderites should be given an ideologically correct interpretation as murderers of the Soviet people; 4) many other changes should be made following a list which Dement'ev had left at home. Solzenicyn, in reply, proposed to withdraw the work and leave, alarming Tvardovskij and effectively silencing the assistant editor. (Bodalsia, 44-46.)

At the same meeting Solienicyn was informed that the novella had been approved in one important instance, namely by Vladimir Lebedev, a Lenin-prize journalist and Nikita Xruliev's advisor in the arts. But Lebedev, too, wanted changes. After the meeting, Solienicyn-left alone in a room with his manuscript, Lebedev's demands, and the encouragements of the Novyj mir editorial board-began to consider the advantages of "improvement." Without it-total obscurity; with it-the "unimproved" passages would appear in print. In short, he began to make concessions:



Solienicyn's Self-Censorship 423

The main thing that Lebedev demanded was to expunge all those passages in which the Captain was presented as a comical figure (by Ivan DenisoviC's reckoning), as in fact he had been conceived (we must have a "positive hero"!). This seemed to me the least of sacrifices.-I expunged the comic element, the apparently heroic was left, but "insuffi- ciently revealed," as the critics found afterwards. The Captain's protest at the checkout point now became a bit blown-up (the idea was-that the protest was laughable), but even so it didn't destroy the picture of the camp. Next I had to use the word popki4 less often; I cut them down from seven to three; still less-gad and gady5 when applied to the officials (I had layed it on rather thick). And not the author but the Captain ought to condemn the Benderites (I attached such a phrase to the Captain, yet later in the separate edition6 I cut it out again: it was natural for the Captain, but they were disparaged too heavily even without his statement). Again-invent some sort of hope for freedom among the zeks (but I wasn't able to do that). And, the most amusing thing for me, a.despiser of Stalin, name Stalin at least once as the man guilty of these misfortunes. (And truly-he had not even once been mentioned by anyone in the novella! This, of course, was no accident on my part.) I made this concession: I mentioned the "old man with the moustache" (bat'ka usatyj) once . . .. (Bodalsja, 47-48.)

After these changes were made, the work was dispatched to Lebedev, who read it aloud to Xruscev at the latter's dacha. Xrui'ev liked it and called in Anastasij Mikojan to listen. According to Sollenicyn, Xruscev particularly liked the bricklaying scene and the fact that Ivan scrimped on the mortar. Returning to Moscow, the First Secretary had twenty-three copies printed for the Central Committee of the Party (fragments were typeset by Izvestija and reassembled at Novyj mir). Then he rammed the novella through the Central Committee and gave Tvardovskij permission to publish on 20 October 1962, bypassing the Main Censorship Board (Glavlit). (Bodalsia, 49-50. ) 7

In this brief history of the manuscript, one fact is remarkable: the structure of the work was not touched. The demands for changes, even those of Dement'ev, focused on secondary matters. For example, the conversation about the film Potemkin, while implying some criticism of Ejzenstejn's artistic techniques, actually makes a much bolder statement about the conditions of the camp: in the camp they would have eaten the rotten meat which had caused the battleship to mutiny and inaugurate a revolution. By this comparison, the prison inmates are lower than under the tsars. Likewise, Lebedev's demand to eliminate the comic aspect of the Captain fails to eliminate the argument attached to him: he remains a greenhorn, an intellectual hopelessly out of touch with the reality of the camp and therefore in need of protection from the others. In no way can he be construed as a positive hero. Finally, Xru'iev's approval of Ivan's work habits fails to note that this is inner-motivated creative activity counter to the incentives of the camp and the post-revolutionary conditions of his village. By his work, Ivan counters the Marxist doctrine that "being determines consciousness." Solienicyn's reaction to Lebedev's demands




applies just as well to all the comments made on his manuscript: "They didn't touch anything crucial in the novella. The most daring places, which I might have yielded with an anguished heart, were passed over by them as if not even noticed." (Bodalsja, 47.)

Two reasons may be offered for this unusual laxity. First, the work is written in an extremely compressed form with the data on the camp scat- tered throughout the narration. The camp rations, the rules for work and punishment, the number of packages a zek receives, his privileges, his number, his name, the type of work he does-all of these data construct the severe regime of the camp and draw the limits of freedom for each inmate. One must read the work more than once and add up the data with mathematical precision in order to draw the full implications.8 Second, the first readers of the manuscript were conscious of Tvardovskij's approval and of the work's suitability for Xru iev's program of dismantling Stalinism. Although they proceeded circumspectly, they treated the work as an excep- tional document and let things pass which were unthinkable in ordinary times.

There was yet one more request for a change. When Solienicyn sat down to correct the proofs for the journal, he received another message from Lebedev: to delete the words of the gang boss Tjurin, "All the same, Creator, you are there in heaven-you put up with a lot, but you hit hard" ("vse i-taki est' ty, Sozdatel', na nebe-dolgo terpiv', da bol'no b'ev'"). This is Tjurin's comment on the fact that the colonel and security officer who had thrown him out of the army as the son of a kulak were themselves shot later in 1937, whatever their social origins. Again the Novyj mir editors encouraged the author to make this concession, especially since Lebedev had been so sympathetic. But Solvenicyn balked: he regarded the passage as crucial and refused to concede at the expense of God or the Russian peasant. The passage was not changed. (Bodalsja, 51-52.) Only months later did Lebedev begin to understand the impact of the work: "Ah, if only you knew who was dissatisfied and regrets that Ivan Denisovic was printed." And Xruvvev himself, according to Sol'enicyn, lamented: "Ah, if only you knew how we have paid for Solvenicyn! No, never again will we interfere!" (Bodalsja, 99.)

Odin den' Ivana Denisovica was published in the November 1962 issue (No. 11) of Novyj mir. The text was quickly reproduced, reprinted, and translated around the world. Yet this text, which brought the author universal fame, had been altered at least three times in its history: once in 1961 through the author's own initiative, again in December 1961 (title and designation of genre) with the author's sanction, and lastly in the summer of 1962 at the behest of Lebedev. These no doubt are the changes




Solienicyn referred to in his New York Times interview of December 1974. In the same interview he indicated that the full version of the work had been published in Paris in 1973 (YMCA-Press).

Before turning to that text, we should note that two separate editions of the novella appeared in Moscow after the Novyj mir publication. The Soviet publishing history of the work may be presented as follows:

1A Novyj mir: Author's revision summer 1962. Novella approved by XruSev 20 Oct. 62. Journal approved 3 Nov. 62. Censor No. A06787. 1B Roman-Gazeta No. 1, 1963: Manuscript given to the typesetter 1 Dec. 62. Publi- cation approved 18 Dec. 62. Censor A11025. 1C Sovetskij pisatel': Ms. given to the typesetter 15 Dec. 62. Publication approved 4 Feb. 63. Censor A01924.

From these data, we can see that Solienicyn was involved with these two books immediately after the Novyj mir publication. He (or someone else) submitted the novella to the two publishing houses; and he, as we gather from his remark about the "separate edition," revised and/or proof-read the two editions. Since neither edition uses the Novyj mir type, nor the type of the other, it is clear that they were composed separately. Both monographs are very close to the Novyj mir version, but they do offer about a dozen readings divergent from it, as well as a few differences between themselves. The divergences occur in the same places as the YMCA text and some of them are the same as the YMCA text. Thus we may consider the Paris edition as basically the original text and the Soviet divergent readings as the author's surreptitious restorations.

But the matter is not quite that simple. The Paris edition purports to be the author's final text-the canonical text of the work. It carries a brief preface: "This redaction is authentic and final. No editions in the author's lifetime may replace it. A. Solienicyn, April 1968." 9 From these words we might expect that the author has supplied us with the untouched, original version of SE-854. But a glance at the title page will disabuse us of that notion: Odin den' Ivana Denisovica. Povest'. This title, evidently, had become an integral part of the work, and the author accepted it as final. He also accepted most of the changes demanded by Lebedev, as a close reading of the YMCA text reveals: there are eight instances of the word gad, only one applied to the camp officials (11, 16, 63, 71, 98, 103, 115, and 78); there are only two instances of the word popki (36, 44), not the original seven; the bat'ka usatyj is still present (106) but the Captain's derogatory remark about the Benderites is not (86). The retention of these changes suggests that Solienicyn found them artistically valid, for they are not so noteworthy as the title and could easily have been dropped. On the other hand, Solienicyn did not restore all of the passages which he himself




had deleted from S9-854: the Captain's "long story" about the Americans is not found in the Paris edition. Its absence suggests that Sol'enicyn found the process of self-censorship to improve the work in some instances.

Thus the canonical text is not identical to the original, unsoftened first text. And it is by no means identical to the Novyj mir version, from which it differs in at least fifty-two instances (not counting repetitions). Most of these divergent readings concern only a word or two, but sometimes whole passages are involved. Here is a typical case:

YMCA text: Rabota-ona kak palka, konca v nej dva: dlja ljudej delae''-kadestvo daj, dlja

naial'nika delae"'-daj pokazuxu. (No. 10 in List of Divergent Readings.) (Work is like a stick, it has two ends: if you're doing it for people-make it good,

if you're doing it for an official-make it a show.) (My italics-G. K.)

Novyj mir text: Rabota-ona kak palka, konca v nej dva: dlja ljudej delae''-ka'estvo daj, dlja

duraka delae''-daj pokazuxu. (No. 10A.) (Work is like a stick, it has two ends: if you're doing it for people-make it good,

if you're doing it for a fool-make it a show.) (My italics-G. K.)

This example is clearly a restoration. The author originally wrote "official," but later substituted "fool." By this substitution he "lightened" the text, since anyone of any rank can be a fool, but he also played his own- private joke by equating a Soviet official with a fool. The restoration of the original reading permits us to understand the author's intention, as well as to discover his perception of censorable material. Most of the fifty-two divergent readings appear to be restorations-each with its own mystery and possibility of interpretation. By studying these we may gain insights not available to the critics who responded to the Novyj mir text.

To sum up the Paris edition, we may say that it is a final text incor- porating elements from all the stages in its history. Rather than consider it an anomaly, we may look on it as a text which benefitted from the constraint of its author, as might any text, but also from the constraint of others involved in its first publication, which again is not so uncommon. A restric- tive environment may stimulate creative discoveries in an author, and the act of censorship itself may contain "creative moments." 10 The Paris edition, while essentially restorative, takes advantage of such moments and fixes them as final by the free decision of the author. The Soviet editions are not thereby abolished, but rather converted into historical documents, necessary for an understanding of the literature of the time and the development of the individual text. For those who are more interested in the authenticity of a literary text than in its history, the YMCA text becomes canonical. Along with other final texts of the author, it will be widely disseminated in the West, possibly translated and used in classrooms, and perhaps even returned




to Russia through one or another medium. In short, it begins its own history. The task of this paper now is to indicate its distinguishing features: how it compares with the more famous Novyj mir text, and how its differences affect our perception of the work. We shall refer to the canonical Paris text as 1 and to the three Soviet texts as already given: 1A, 1B, and 1C. Our references in parentheses to specific divergences among these texts will be to the section appended here as List of Divergent Readings. The section gives 1 and 1A together; the two Soviet monographs are best considered separately.

The divergent readings between the YMCA and Novyj mir texts may be classified into four groups: stylistic, critical, related to the Captain, related to the gang boss. The first group accounts for about a third of the divergences noted. Here we place italics, footnotes, synonyms, arrangement of paragraphs, changes in grammar and punctuation (Nos. 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17, 27, 33, 36, 37, 43, 44, 46, 47). For the most part, these are of minor importance. In one place a stronger obscenity is used (No. 33), in another-a milder one (No. 9). The name of Ivan's Latvian friend, known to us as logann Kil'gas (Nos. 17A, 27A), is now given throughout as Jan Kil'digs (Nos. 17, 27). The reason for this divergence is not known, but it seems likely that Ivan would call Jan, rather than logann, by the familiar form "Vanja" (No. 27).11 Most important in this group are the words referring to God. Following Soviet practice, the nouns bog (God), gospod' (Lord) and sozdatel' (Creator) are not capitalized in the Novyj mir version (No. 36A); in the canonical text they are (No. 36).

All of the remaining divergences are obviously a matter of censorship, whether self-imposed or enjoined by others. These are mostly pointed words and statements which were deleted for the Novyj mir text. We may therefore draw up a group of critical statements by reference to the material deleted: the hardships of the camp (Nos. 5, 34, 45, 48), the detestable officials (Nos. 10, 42), the religious nature of the Benderites (No. 11), the religious fervor of political agitators (No. 14), the bribes given to police- men outside the camp (No. 21), the doubtfulness of release from the camp (No. 22), the religious strength of the Baptists (No. 23), the arrest of completely innocent people (No. 25), the persecution of the Baptists (No. 51), the White Sea Canal built by slave labor (No. 28), the violence of interrogators (No. 29), the fury of the pursuers of escapees (No. 38), the power of the GPU (Nos. 30, 31), the Magyars' distaste for Roumanians (No. 40), the persistent oppression of the Soviet government (No. 49), the hopelessness of appeal (No. 50). It should be noted that many of these observations can be made from the Novyj mir text: the restored passages add little information, but rather add emphasis, while sprinkling stings and barbs throughout the text, increasing its acerbity.




Let us look at a few examples. Probably the most poignant figure in the novella is the zek Ju-81, whom Ivan sees at suppertime. This is an erect and dignified old man who is determined never to give in-a possible future for Ivan, should he not be released. The Novyj mir and YMCA texts read:

Ob atom starike govorili Suxovu, Eto on po lagerjam da po tjur'mam sidit nescetno, i ni odna amnistija ego ne prikosnulas', a kak odna desjatka konialas', tak emu srazu novuju sovali. (No. 49A.)

(Suxov had heard about this old man that he had been in the camps and prisons countless years, and not one amnesty had touched him, and as soon as one ten-year term was finished they slipped him a new one right away.)

Ob atom starike govorili Suxovu, &to on po lagerjam da po tjur'mam sidit nesietno, skol'ko sovetskaja vlast' stoit, i ni odna amnistija ego ne prikosnulas', a kak odna desjatka kon'alas', tak emu srazu novuju sovali. (No. 49.)

(Suxov had heard about this old man that he had been in the camps and prisons countless years, for as long as the Soviet power had been in effect, and not one amnesty had touched him, and as soon as one ten-year term was finished they slipped him a new one right away. (My italics-G. K.)

This reading leaves no doubt as to the source of the old man's misfortune and the chances for his improvement. (Note also the construction: the old man "sits"-sidit-in the prisons while the Soviet power "stands"-stoit.)

Another bitter remark concerns the kolkhoz-the collective farm in Ivan's village. In the Novyj mir text Ivan's wife informs him:

Muiikov v kolxoze: brigadir Zaxar Vasil'i' da plotnik Tixon vos'midesjati 'etyrex let, zenilsja nedavno, i deti uie est'. Tjanut ie kolxoz te baby, kakie e''e s tridcatogo goda. (No. 19A.) (The men in the kolxoz were the gang boss Zaxar Vasil'iE and the carpenter Tixon, who was eighty-four years old, got married not long ago and already had children. The ones really working the kolxoz were those women who had been there since 1930.) (My italics-G. K.)

The YMCA text is much sharper: Muzikov v kolxoze: brigadir Zaxar Vasil'i' da plotnik Tixon vos'midesjati 'etyrex let, zenilsja nedavno, i deti uie est'. Tjanut le kolxoz te baby, kakix e'ce s tridcatogo goda zagnali, a kak oni svaljatsja i kolxoz sdoxnet. (No. 19.) (The men in the kolxoz were the gang boss Zaxar Vasil'i' and the carpenter Tixon, who was eighty-four years old, got married not long ago and already had children. The ones really working the kolxoz were those women who had been driven hard since 1930, and as soon as they collapsed the kolxoz itself would kick the bucket. (My italics-G. K.)

There are several more references to the kolkhoz which were deleted for the Novyj mir edition (Nos. 8, 18-21, 24, 35). Their restoration makes a sour commentary: there was food before the collective farm system, the system was compulsive, the livestock died, the produce diminished, the old




women work the hardest. In one instance, a confusing passage in the Novyj mir version is clarified by the restored version:

Novyj mir: S nog ui valitsja kavtorang, a tjanet. Takoj merin i u Suxova byl. Suxov-to ego

priberegal, a potom podrezalsja on. I 'kuru s ego snjali. (No. 35A.) (The Captain could hardly stand on his feet, but he kept on grinding away. Suxov

once had a carthorse like that. Suxov himself took good care of it, but afterwards it broke down. And they took the skin off of it.)

YMCA: S nog ui valitsja kavtorang, a tjanet. Takoj merin i u Suxova byl do kolxoza.

Suxov-to ego priberegal, a v uzix rukax podrezalsja on zivo. I 'kuru s ego snjali. (No. 35.)

(The Captain could hardly stand on his feet, but he kept on grinding away. Suxov once had a carthorse like that before the kolxoz. Suxov himself took good care of it, but it broke down swiftly in other people's hands. And they took the skin off of it. (My italics-G. K.)

This brings us to the third group, variant readings concerning the Captain (Nos. 4, 16, 26, 39, 41). The first two are stylistic, the last three deserve special attention. In the Novyj mir text, an unflattering judgement on the Captain, namely that he would collect other people's cigarette butts after a longer stay in the camp, is undermined by the fact that it is made by Fetjukov-the scavenger (No. 26A). In the YMCA text, this judgement is pronounced by the author from Ivan Denisovic's point of view (No. 26). In the YMCA text (No. 39), and not in the Novyj mir text, the Captain defends the naval officers of the Potemkin against Ejzenitejn's portrayal. This appears to be a mark in his favor, though of course the intellectual conversations of Caesar and the Captain are presented as escapism and ignorance of camp life. The YMCA text also expands the Captain's story of his arrest (No. 41). Here he refuses to believe that he was imprisoned because of his work for the English navy and reaffirms his faith in Soviet legality: he blames the English admiral who sent him a gift. This is a totally absurd position, made obvious by Ivan's ironic reflections on the matter. Finally, the Captain's displeasure at being lumped together with Benderites, expressed at Lebedev's insistence in the Novyj mir text (No. 41A) is dropped from the canonical text (No. 41). This, coupled with the restoration of a scene in which a young Benderite crosses himself (No. 11), leaves the followers of Bendera with a more positive coloration in the novella.

The most extensive restorations are made in the story told by the gang boss, Tjurin (Nos. 30-32). In the Novyj mir version, Tjurin rushes home after being discharged from the army as the son of a kulak; he stows away under some clothes on a train, arrives home, takes his younger brother south and turns him over to the care of some vagabonds. Although his




anxiety is extreme, no specific danger is shown. In the YMCA text, Tjurin cannot get a train ticket because tickets are distributed only to the army and the GPU; he hides under clothing to escape the train conductor who is accompanied by GPU agents; he arrives home to learn that his father has been driven out, his mother and younger siblings are to be sent away to a camp, the local soviet has received a telegram about him and plans to arrest him, and activist citizens are searching for him, peeping in the win- dows. These restorations create a story of immediate terror, in place of a somewhat abstract account of panic. (Oddly enough, the Tjurin story-with the exception of the train tickets-was kept in the two Soviet monographs, but caused no comment. See 31B-31C, 32B-32C.)

In sum, the canonical text restores many, but not necessarily all, of the passages deleted from the original manuscript ??-854. It also retains some of the changes incorporated in the Novyj mir text of Odin den' Ivana Denisovi6a. The result is a text which is clearer, politically sharper and slightly less subtle, but more comprehensible and more religiously colored. The last restoration is indicative:

Novyj mir: Tol'ko b to i xotelos' emu na vole, Etoby-domoj. A domoj ne pustjat .... (No. 52A.) (Only he really wanted to go free, so he could go home. But they don't let you go home .. ..)

YMCA: Tol'ko b to i xotelos' emu u Boga poprosit', &toby-domoj. A domoj ne pustjat .... (No. 52) (Only he really wanted to ask God, so he could go home. But they don't let you go home ....)

List of Divergent Readings

1-the canonical text: A. Solienicyn, Odin den' Ivana Denisovi'a. Povest' (YMCA- Press: Paris, 1973), 9-121.

1A-the first published text: Novyj mir, No. 11 (November), 1962 (Moscow), 8-74. This text has been photo-reproduced by Flegon Press (London, 1963), with new pagination 2-68; and by Russian Language Specialties as Izbrannoe (Chicago, 1965), with pagination 1-67. The edition published by Posev, based on Novyj mir, uses different type and pagination: A. Solienicyn, So'inenija (Frankfurt am Main: Posev, 1963), I, 5-133.

[Brackets] indicate the word or passage affected by a divergent reading.

1. On legal na verxu [vagonki], s golovoj nakryviis' odejalom i buglatom (page 10, line 20).




lA. [No italics] (page 9, line 4 from bottom). 2. Pombrigadir sejias v xleborezku pojdet, a brigadir---v tabnoj barak [k narjad- 'ikam.] (10, 1.29). 2A. [v PPC.]12 (10, 1.6). 3. Da ne prosto [k narjaddikam], kak kaidyj den' xodit (10, 1.32). 3A. [k narjadcikam v PPCI (10, 1.7). 4. A vnizu-Bujnovskij, kapitan vtorogo ranga byviij [, kavtorang]. (11, 1.22). 4A. [Deleted] (10, 1.28). 5. I, prodoliaja otpra'ivat'sja prosto dlja porjadka. [Suxov, kak byl v vatnyx brjukax ne snjatyx na no"'] (12, 1.15 from bottom). 5A. [Suxov tem vremenem natjanul vatnye brjuki] (11, 1.15). 6. A Tatarin v svoej staroj 'ineli s zamuslennymi golubymi petlicami 'el rovno, i moroz kak budto sovsem ego ne bral. (13, 5th full paragraph). 6A. Attached to end of preceding paragraph. (11, end of par. 9). 7. Footnote to the word BURa (1. 23): 1BUR-barak usilennogo reiima. (13). 7A. No footnote. (11). 8. Bereg, solidolom umjag'al, botinki novexon'kie, ax!-ni'ego tak Talko ne bylo za vosem' lt, kak &tix botinkov. V odnu kucu skinuli, vesnoj ui tvoi ne budut.

[To.no, kak lo'adej v kolxoz sgonjali.] (15, 1.9 from bottom). 8A. [Deleted] (12, 1.6 from btm). 9. Da na [xrena] ego i myt' kaidyj den'? (16, par. 9). 9A. [fuji] (13, par. 8). 10. Rabota-ona kak palka, konca v nej dva: dlja ljudej delaes-katestvo daj, dlja [naial'nika] delaeg'-daj pokazuxu. (16, par. 12). 10A. [duraka] (13, par. 11). 11. Tam, za stolom, elie loiku ne okunum'i, paren' molodoj krestit'sja. [Benderovec, zna'it, i to novi'ok: starye benderovcy, v lagere poliv, ot kresta otstali.] (17, par. 3). 11A. [Znatit, ukrainec zapadnyj, i to novi'ok.] (13, par. 17). 12. Ili [dorogi] obxodjatsja? (19, 1.7). 12A. [dorogi] (14, 1.13 from btm). 13. Slyino skripel sneg pod nogami. (20, 1.3: separate par.). 13A. Attached to preceding par. (15, 1.15). 14. Baptist Eital evangelie ne vovse pro sebja, a kak by v dyxanie (moiet, dlja Suxova naroino, oni ved', ti baptisty, ijubjat agitirovat' [, vrode politrukov]): (24, par. 2). 14A. [Deleted] (17, par. 4 from btm). 15. (remni koianye byli u kogo, tak otobrali-nel'zja [v Osoblagere).] (25, 1.9). 15A. [v Osoblage remen').] (18, 1. 14). 16. -Vy ne sovetskie ljudi!-dolbaet ix kapitan. (29, 1.3 from btm). 16A. -Vy ne sovetskie ljudi!-dolbaet ix kapitan. -Vy ne kommunisty! (21. 1.4). 17. Sejias [s Kil'digsom], laty'om, bol'ge ob dem govorit', em s doma'nimi. (33, 1.17). The name Kil'digs occurs throughout: 40, 42-48, 50-52, 66-68, 72-73, 76-77, 102, 119. See also No. 27. 17A. [s Kil'gasom] (23, 1.11). The name Kil'gas occurs throughout: 26-34, 41-43, 45-48, 63, 73. See also No. 27A. 18. Kolxoz ukrupnili-tak ego i ran'"e ukrupnjali, a potom mel'Zili opiat'. Nu, e'Ze kto normy trudodnej ne vypolnjaet--ogorody podiali do pjatnadcati sotok, a komu i pod samyj dom obrezali. [ElZe, pisala kogda-to baba, byl zakon za normu tu sudit' i kto ne vypolnit-v tjur'mu saiat', no kak-to tot zakon ne vstupil.] (33, 1.21). 18A. [Deleted] (23, 1.14). 19. Muiikov v kolxoze: brigadir Zaxar Vasil'it da plotnik Tixon vos'midesjati Eetyrex




let, ienilsja nedavno, i deti u'e est'. Tjanut Ze kolxoz te baby, [kakix esde s tridcatogo goda zagnali, a kak oni svaljatsja i kolxoz sdoxnet.] (33, 1.6 from btm). 19A. [kakie esce s tridcatogo goda.] (23, 1.22). 20. Vse krasili sebe doma novye stavjat, bliz ieleznoj dorogi stali doma teper' ne pjat' tysja', kak ran'se, a dvadcat' pjat'.

[Xot' sidet' Suxovu esie nemalo, zimu-leto da zimu-leto, a vse I razberedili ego eti kovry. Kak raz dlja nego raboty, esli budet lisenie pray ili ssylka.]

Prosil on togda ienu opisat'-kak ie on budet krasilkm (34, 1.23). 20A. [Removed and reworked in a later passage: see No. 21A] (23, 1.11 from btm). 21. Po lagerjam da po tjur'mam otvyk Ivan Denisovi' raskladyvat', Eto zavtra, Eto cerez god da cem sem'ju kormit'. Obo vsem za nego nacal'stvo dumaet-ono, budto, i leg*e. [A kak na volju stupid'? ...

Iz rasskazov vol'nyx soferov i ekskavator'Sikov vidit Suxov, Eto prjamuju dorogu ijudjam zagorodili, no ijudi ne terjajutsja: v obxol (sic) idut i tem iivy.

V obxod by i Suxov probralsja. Zarabotok, vidat', legkij, ognevoj. I ot svoix dere- venskix otstavat' vrode obidno ... No, po duse, ne xotel by Ivan Denisovii za te kovry brat'sja. Dlja nix razvjaznost' nuina, naxal'stvo, milicii na lapu sovat'.] (35, 1.2). 21A. [I sidet' emu zimu-leto da zimu-leto. A razberedili ego eti kovry . ..

Zarabotok, vidat', legkij, ognevoj. (. . .) razvjaznost' nuina, naxal'stvo, komu-to na lapu sovat'.] (24, 1.1). 22. Ruki u Suxova esce dobrye, smogajut, neui on sebe na vole [vernoj raboty ne najdet.

Da e9*e pustjat li kogda na tu volja? Ne navaljat li esce d e s ja t k i ne za tak . ..] Kolonna tem vremenem do*la (35, 1.18).

22A. [ni peanoj raboty ne najdet, ni stoljarnoj, ni *estjanoj? Vot tol'ko iz-za li'enija prav ne primut nikuda, da domoj ne pustjat-nu, togda

vporu xot' i za kovry.] Kolonna tem vremenem do'la (24, 1.13).

23. Po voskresen'jam vse s drugimi baptistami sepetsja. S nix lager', kak s guslja voda. [Po dvadcat' pjat' let vkatili im za baptistskuju veru-neui dumajut tem ot very otvadit'?] (35, last 2 lines). 23A. [Deleted] (24, 1.28). 24. V lagerjam Suxov ne raz vspominal, kak v derevne ran'se eli: karto'ku-celymi skovorodami, ka'u-C-ugunkami, a esce ran'se [, po-bez-kolxozov,] mjaco-lomtjami zdorovymi. (38, last par.). 24A. [Deleted] (26, par. 3). 25. A on vyros i samodumkoj nazad [institut koniat'. Tut ego i vzali srazu.] (39, 1.18). 25A. [-v Estonii institut koniat'.] (26, 1.29). 26. -Podoidi, kavtorang, vosem' let posidis'--e'*e i ty sobirat' bude''.

Eto verno, i gordej kavtoranga ljudi v lagere prixodili. --ego-cego, ne do'lysal gluxovatyj Sen'ka Kleviin. (40, par. 2).

26A. -Podoidi, kavtorang, vosem' let posidi''-esce i ty sobirat' budes'. Gordej tebja ljudi v lager' prixodili . ..

Fetjukov po sebe sudit, a kavtorang-to, mo*et i ustoit ... -Cego, cego? (...) (26, par. 4 from btm).

27. Zovut Kil'digsa Jan, Suxov toie zovet ego Vanja. (42, 1.12 from btm). 27A. Zovut Kil'gasa Iogann, Suxov to*e zovet ego Vanja. (28, 1.17). 28. A tebe-xleba dvesti gramm lignix v veier. Dvesti gramm iizn'ju pravjat. [Na dvesti grammax Belomorkanal postroen.] (47, 1.2).




28A. [Deleted] (30, 1.14 from btm).13 29. [V kontrrazvedke bili Suxova mnogo. I ras'et byl u Suxova prostoj:] ne podpi'ew'- bu'lat derevjannyj, podpi'el'--xot' polives' eIde malost'. Podpisal. (51, par. 6). 29A. [Rasiet byl u Suxova prostoj:] (33, par. 6). 30. A biletov, kto pomnit, i za den'gi ne kupit' bylo, [ne to Eto bez deneg. Vse privok- zal'nye ploscadi muiickimi tulupami vystlany. Tam le s golodu i podyxali, ne uexav. Bilety izvestno komu vydavali-GPU, armii, komandirovocnym.] (64, 1.15 from btm). 30A. [ne to Eto bez deneg, tol'ko po knizeckam da komandirovoinym.] (40, last line). 31. -Axali, oxali, soveSZalis' . . .Vse i prikryli menja plascami na tret'ej polke. [Togda konduktora s gepeu'nikami xodili. Ne o bilete 'lo--o gkure.] Do Novosibirska dotaili, dovezli. .. (65, par. 5). 31A. [Deleted] (41, par. 5). 32. -Domoj ja noc'ju prigel s ogorodov. Otca uie ugnali, mat' s rebjati'kami etapa idala. Ui byla obo mne telegramma, i sel'sovet iskala menja vzjat'. Trjasemsja, svet pogasili i na pol sel pod stenku, a to aktivisty po derevne xodili i v okna zagljadyvali. Toju fe nod'ju ja malen'kogo brati'ku prixvatil i povez v teplye strany, vo Frunzju. (65, last par.) 32A. -Domoj ja noE'ju pri'el s ogorodov, noc'ju i u'el. Malen'kogo brati'ku prixvatil i povez v teplye strany, vo Frunzju. (41, par. 9). 33. -Brigadir!-kri~it kavtorang. -Postav' menja s Eelovekom! Ne budu ja s &tim [m... . kom]14 nosit'! (71, par. 6). 33A. [g. . .kom]15 (44, par. 16). 34. I Pavlo s lopatoj medlenno polel vniz.

Me-edlenno ... [Da-a. Vot ona, krov'-to rezanyx &tix ... Troix zarezali, a lagerja ne uznat'.] I ostavat'sja Diru straino, i spuskat'sja straino. Sprjatalsja za [Kil'digsa], stoit.

(73, par. 11). 34A. [Deleted], [Kil'gasa] (46, par. 7). 35. S nog ui valitsja kavtorang, a tjanet. Takoj merin [i u Suxova byl do kolxoza. Suxov-to ego priberegal, a v ulix rukax podrezalsja on Zivo.] I 'kuru s ego snjali. (76, par. 11). 35A. [i u Suxova byl. Suxov-to ego priberegal, a potom podrezalsja on.] (48, 1.2). 36. -U nas tak govorili: staryj mesjac Bog na zvezdy krogit.

(...) Tak ty Eto, v Boga veri'', Suxov? -A to? (...) -I zabem ie Bog eto delaet? (80, par. 9).

36A. Bog printed with small initial letter (bog) in all 3 instances (50, par. 10). Also: Bog on 103, 117 (3 times), 118 (3 times); Gospodi on 117; Gospoda on 119; Sozdatel' on 63. All of these have small initial letters in the Novyj mir text: cf. 63, 71, 72, 40. The Posev edition capitalizes them. 37. Footnote to KVC (1.5): 1 KVc-kul'turno-vospital'naja East'. (81). 37A. No footnote (50, 1. 18 from btm). 38. Voobsce, esli kto beial-konvoju zizn' koniaetsja, gonjajut ix bezo sna i edy. Tak tik inogda raz"jarjat'sja-ne berut begleca ~ivym. [Pristrelivajut.] (83, 1.10 from btm). 38A. [Deleted] (52, 1.12). 39. -Vidite li, my izbalovany sovremennoj texnikoj s"emki...

[-Oficery vse do odnogo merzavcy ... -Istorideski tak i bylo! -A kto i ix v boj vodil? . . . Potom i Eervi po mjasu] prjamo kak doidevye




polzajut. Neuieli ui takie byli? (83, last 2 lines). 39A. [-I ervi po mjasu] (52, par. 8). 40. Otsatnulsja moldavan, a tut mad'jar vysko~il iz toj Ze 32-j da nogoj ego pod zad, da nogoj pod zad! [(Mad'jary voobsie rumyn ne ljubjat.)] (84, par. 2 from btm). 40A. [Deleted] (52, par. 5 from btm). 41. -Da, vidite li, ja profil po'ti celyj mesjac na anglijskom krejsere, imel tam svoju kajutu. Ja soprovoidal morskoj konvoj. [Byl oficerom svjazi u nix.

-Ax, vot kak! Nu uie dostatocno, ctoby vmazat' vam dvadcat' pjat'. -Net, znaete, &togo liberal'nogo kriticizma ja ne prideriivajus'. Ja lublego

mnenija o nasem zakonodatel'stve. (Dudi-dudi, Suxov pro sebja dumaet, ne vstrevaja. Sen'ka Kleviin s amerikancami

dva dnja fil, tak emu Eetvertnuju zakatili, a ty mesjac na ixem korable okolacivalsja,- tak skol'ko I tebe davat'?)

-No uie posle vojny anglijskij admiral, ;ert ego dernul, prislal mne pamjatny podarok. "V znak blagodarnosti". Udivljajus i proklinaju! ...] (86, par. 7). 41A. [Byl oficerom svjazi u nix. I ekce, predstavljaete, posle vojny anglijskij admiral, cert ego dernul, prislal mne pamjatnyj podarok. "V znak blagodarnosti." Udivljajus' i proklinaju! . . I vot-vsex v kubu odnu . . S benderovcami tut sidet'-udovol'stvie malen'koe.] (53, par. 2 from btm). 42. Kto arestantu glavnyj vrag? Drugoj arestant. [Esli b zeki drug drugom ne su'ilis', ne imelo b nad nimi sily na*al'stvo.] (89, par. 10). 42A. [Esli b arestanty drug s drugom ne suCilis'---6ex! . .] (55, par. 16). 43. Ui golovu kolonny [smonali], kogda Suxov podosel k Cezarju i skazal: (90, 1.4). Also: 94, 1.19. 43A. [smonjali] (55, 1.8 from btm). Also: 58, 122. 44. drova, otobrannye na samom smone nadzirateljami, sobrany byli v kutu [vaxty.] (92, 1.19). 44A. [u vaxty.] (57, 1.15). 45. Kto kuda, a brigadirov narjaddik lovit:

-Brigadiry! V PPO! [Eto znacit-na zavtra xomut natjagivat'.] (93, par. 6).

45A. [Deleted] (57, par. 4 from btm). 46. Esli iz pirogov, sladostej podikovinnej Eto ili kolbasa, rybka, tak nadziratel' i otkusit. (A [kaini prava] poprobuj-sejias prideretsja, Ct6 zapreseno, a ct6 ne polo- zeno-i ne vydast. S nadziratelja nadinaja, kto posylku poluiaet, dolmen davat', davat' i davat'.) (94, 1.13). 46A. [zalupil'] (58, 1.20). 47. I vspomnit' derevnju [Temgenivo] (94, last line). 47A. [Temgenevo] (58, par. 10). 48. VoobiEe-to po veteram balanda vsegda zife mnogo, cem utrom: utrom zeka nado nakormit' *tob on rabotal, a ve'erom i tak usnet [, ne podoxnet]. (103, 1.2). 48A. [Deleted] (64, 1.1). 49. Ob atom starike govorili Suxovu, Eto on po lagerjam da po tjur'mam sidit nesvetno [, skol'ko sovetskaja vlast' stoit,] i ni odna amnistija ego ne prikosnulas', a kak odna desjatka konialas', tak emu srazu novuju sovali. (104, 1.4). 49A. [Deleted] (64, 1.1). 50. Xoro'o, cto Suxov obospel, zalil-iz tumbodki, von, v 75-j uperli-[spralivaj teper' s Verxovnogo Soveta!] (108, 1.18). 50A. [Talujsja teper' kuda xoce'.] (66, par. 12). 51. -Zadem ty mne o pope? Pravoslavnaja cerkov' ot evangelija otoila. Ix ne saiajut



Solenicyn's Self-Censorship 435

[ili pjat' let dajut], potomu &to vera u nix ne tverdaja. (118, par. 6 from btm). 51A. [Deleted] (72, par. 11). 52. Tol'ko b to i xotelos' [emu u Boga poprosit'], Etoby-domoj.

A domoj ne pustjat ... (119, 1.9). 52A. [emu na vole] (72, 1.5 from btm).

lB. A Sollenicyn, Odin den' Ivana Denisovica. Povest'. (Roman-Gazeta No. 1 [277]; Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo xudovestvennoj literatury, 1973), 1-47. The Roman-Gazeta (Novel-Gazette) is a series of recently published novels reprinted as monographs in soft-paper form. IC. A. Sollenicyn, Odin den' Ivana Denosovica. Povest' (Moscow: Sovetskij pisatel', 1963), 5-144. Hard cover.

Most of the readings are identical to 1A (the Novyj mir text). The following divergences and points of interest were noted:

2B. Same as 2 (2, column I, 1. 26). 2C. Same as 2 (11, 1.9). 3B. Same as 3 (2, I, 27). 3C. Same as 3 (11, 1.11). 4B. a vnizu-Bujnovskij, kavtorang (kapitan, zna'it, vtorogo ranga byviij). (2, II, 1-2). 4C. Same as 4 (12, 1.4). 5B. Same as 5A (3, I, 10). 5C. Same as 5 (13, 1.9 from btm). 7B. Same as 7A (3, I, 43). 7C. Same as 7 (14). 9B. Da, 6ego ego i myt' kaidyj den'? (4, II, 1). 9C. Same as 9 (18, 1.3). 31B. Same as 31, except that gepeusnikami becomes oxrannikami (25, II, 10). 31C. Same as 31B (76, 1.3 from btm). 32B. Same as 32 (25, II, 19). 32C. Same as 32 (77, 1.8). 35B. [i u Suxova byl. Suxov ego priberegal, a v

,uiix rukax podrezalsja on.] (29, I, 26).

35C. Same as 35B (90, 1.13 from btm). 37B. Same as 37A (31, I, 5). 37C. Same as 37 (96). 41B. Same as 41A, but with the following deleted: I vot-vsex v kucu odnu . . . S benderovcami tut sidet'-udovol'stvie malen'koe. (33, I, 24). 41C. Same as 41B (102, 1.12). 42B. Same as 42A (34, I, 5 from btm). 42C. Same as 42 (105, par. 4 from btm). 46B. Same as 46 (36, I, 14 from btm). 46C. Same as 46(111, 1.15 from btm). 47B. Same as 47 (36, II, 16). 47C. Same as 47 (112, 1.10).

The disagreements between these two texts (5, 7, 9, 37, 42), while few, suggest that they were revised or proof-read separately. The agreements between the two, particularly where they depart from the YMCA text (31, 35), suggest that they were




worked on within a short interval, or according to a plan. Their agreements with the YMCA text support the author's statement that the latter text is (basically) the original reading. Yet in all of these details we cannot rule out the possibility of authorial addi- tions, nor the work of 'utie ruki-typesetters, editors, and squinty-eyed censors.

NOTES

1 The New York Times, Wed., 4 Dec. 1974, section C, 32. 2 This is also mentioned in Sol'enicyn's autobiographical note to the Nobel Founda-

tion, 1971. See Solzhenitsyn: A Documentary Record, ed. Leopold Labedz (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 1973), 26-27.

3 A. Solienicyn, Bodalsja telenok s dubom: Ocerki literaturnoj iizni (Paris: YMCA- Press, 1975), 19.

4 Literally "little priests," but in camp slang "screws," meaning the camp guards. Sollenicyn uses the term exclusively for the guards on the watchtowers.

5 "Snake" and "snakes," vermin, scum, etc. Terms applied to stoolies or any dis- gusting types.

6 Not the final, YMCA text, but one of the two Soviet monographs. These are dis- cussed below.

7 In a May 1963 interview, Tvardovskij stated: "I will never forget how N. S. Khrushchev responded to this tale by Solzhenitsyn-to its hero, who retains the dignity and beauty of the man of labor under inhuman conditions, to the truth- fulness of the account, to the author's Party approach to bitter and stern reality." Quoted in Khrushchev and the Arts: The Politics of Soviet Culture, 1962-1964, ed. Priscilla Johnson (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1965), 212. Solienicyn's account in Bodalsja differs only in slight details from Zores Medvedev's account, based on independent sources. See Zhores Medvedev, 10 Years After Ivan Denisovich, tr. Hilary Sternberg (London: Macmillan, 1973), chap. 2.

8 Such is the attempt of a paper which I am writing, "Ivan the Worker." 9 A. Solienicyn, Odin den' Ivana Denisovica, Matrenin dvor (Paris: YMCA-Press,

1973). Quite naturally, this edition drops the preface by A. Tvardovskij, "Vmesto predislovija," which accompanied all three Soviet editions.

10 The phrase belongs to Aleksandr Slonimskij, "Voprosy gogolevskogo teksta," Izvestija Akademii Nauk, otdelenie literatury i jazyka, XII, no. 5 (Moscow, 1953), 401-16. See also D. Lixa'ev, Tekstologija, kratkij o'erk (M.-L.: Nauka, 1964), 64.

11 A Latvian-American acquaintance tells me that Kil'digs would be a much more common Latvian name than Kil'gas (which he has never heard).

12 PPC - Proizvodstvenno-planovaja Cast'. 13 In the play Olen' i ala'ovka (The Greenhorn and the Shackup), the character

Merescun says: "Ja-sam oficer i vizu: v armii on, mozet, i xoro', no zdes' nado d u ' u lagernika ponimat'. Za pjat'sot gramm cernogo xleba Belomorkanal postroen." A. Solzenicyn, Sobranie so.'inenij (Frankfurt am Main: Posev, 1969), V, 67.

14 The word mandjukom is understood. 15 The word govnjukom is understood.



solženicyn's self-censorship: the canonical text of odin den' ivana denisoviča

Documents