跳转至

Shostakovich: A Life

作品信息

Shostakovich: A Life - Laurel E. Fay

注：原文为英文，中文翻译为机器翻译+简单校对润色，建议对照原文阅读。

Shostakovich: String Quartet No. 8 in C Minor, Op. 110

肖斯塔科维奇：C小调第8号弦乐四重奏，作品110

Chapter 3. Spreading Wings (1926–1928)

在前往华沙之前，肖斯塔科维奇还有一个障碍需要清除。作为音乐学院新重组课程的一部分，研究生必须通过马克思主义理论考试。当十二月下旬得知考试日期时，肖斯塔科维奇在给亚沃尔斯基的信中感到绝望。他确信自己会失败，导致 1) 耻辱，2) 失去津贴，3) 被贴上政治不可靠的标签。但他并没有非常认真地对待这个问题，在同一封信中，他最初指定“圣经”作为问题学科，并用“马克思主义理论”代替，并开玩笑说他在钢琴上和政治上都不可靠，这证明了他并没有把这件事放在心上。

There was one additional hurdle for Shostakovich to clear before going to Warsaw. As part of the newly reorganized curriculum at the Conservatory, graduate students were required to pass an exam in Marxist methodology. When notified of the date of the exam in late December, Shostakovich despaired in a letter to Yavorsky; he felt certain he would fail, resulting in 1) shame, 2) the loss of his stipend, and 3) being labeled a political unreliable. But that he did not take the matter very seriously is evidenced by the fact that in this same letter he lined out—thereby drawing attention to it—his initial designation of“Scriptures”as the discipline in question, substituting instead“Marxist methodology,”and he joked about his pianistic versus political reliability.

回想起来，肖斯塔科维奇在1926年12月最后一周接受马克思主义方法论考试的故事似乎是早期殉难的不祥之兆，尽管在政治上仍然天真的肖斯塔科维奇只是将其作为一个有趣的轶事向亚沃尔斯基讲述。考试由委员会组织，是以五名学生为一组进行的口头考试。当一名学生被要求从社会学和经济学的角度解释肖邦和李斯特的作品之间的差异时，他的回答引起了肖斯塔科维奇和另一位同学长时间的歇斯底里的笑声。一位“优雅”的马克思主义者被肖斯塔科维奇的爆发激怒了，他质询了肖斯塔科维奇的阅读准备，得出的结论是，这位学生根本不可能准备好回答有关巴赫音律系统的社会学原理和斯克里亚宾的音色集合体的问题。肖斯塔科维奇被立即取消考试资格。当他意识到自己实际上连回答一个问题的机会都没有就被取消考试资格时，肖斯塔科维奇成功地向委员会秘书提出了重新考试的要求，同时要求对因他的行为而影响考试的学生进行重新考试。第二天，两人都再次参加了考试。两人都通过了考试，没有受到进一步的影响。

Viewed in retrospect, the story of Shostakovich's exam in Marxist methodology in the last week of December 1926 seems an ominous prescription for early martyrdom, although the still politically naive Shostakovich recounted it to Yavorsky simply as an amusing anec-dote. The exam was conducted orally for a group of five students by a commission. When one of the students was asked to explain the dif-ference, from the sociological and economic standpoints, between the work of Chopin and List, his answer induced prolonged fits of hysterical laughter from Shostakovich and another classmate. Offended by the outburst, an “elegant” Marxist quizzed Shostakovich about his reading preparation, concluding that the student could in no way be prepared to answer questions about the sociological principle of Bach’s system of temperament and Scriabin’s timbral aggregates. Shostakovich was summarily dismissed from the exam. When he realized that, in fact, he had been dismissed without even being given the opportunity to answer a single question, Shostakovich successfully appealed to the secretary of the commission for re-examination, demanding also the re-examination of the student whose exam his behavior had disrupted. Both were tested again the next day. Both passed without further consequence.

Chapter 5. Tragedy-Satire (1932–1936)

1930 年秋，肖斯塔科维奇开始了新歌剧的创作。在选择主题时，他再次没有选择当代作家或题材，而是转向了十九世纪的俄罗斯文学：

提供给我的所有剧本都极其模式化。这些主人公没有在爱或恨上感染我，他们充斥着刻板印象。我多次向高水平的作家求助，但由于种种原因，他们拒绝了歌剧剧本这种“小”作品……

考虑到戏曲舞台的特殊性，主人公的性格特征应该勾勒得格外鲜明有力。歌剧不应该“泛泛”地写“五年计划”，“泛泛”地写社会主义建设，而应该写活生生的人，写“五年计划”的建设者。我们的编剧还没有认识到这一点。他们笔下的主人公是贫血的、无能的。他们（主人公）既不能激起同情，也不能激起憎恨；他们是机械的。这就是我转向经典作品（果戈理、列斯科夫）的原因。他们笔下的主人公既能让人开怀大笑，也能让人痛哭流涕。

Shostakovich began work on the new opera in autumn 1930. In choosing his subject, he turned once again not to a contemporary author or topic but to nineteenth-century Russian literature:

All the librettos offered to me were extremely schematic. The heroes inspired in me neither love nor hate, they were all stereotyped. I appealed repeatedly to highly qualified writers but, for a number of reasons, they rejected “petty” work of the kind of an opera libretto.…

Taking into consideration the specifics of the operatic theater, the character of the heroes should be outlined in exceptionally bold relief and forcefully. One shouldn’t write an opera “in general” about the Five-Year Plan, “in general” about socialist construction, one should write about living people, about the builders of the Five-Year Plan. Our librettists have not yet come to grips with this circumstance. Their heroes are anemic, impotent. They (the heroes) inspire neither sympathy nor hate; they are mechanical. That is why I turned to the classics (Gogol, Leskov). Their heroes make it possible to laugh uproariously and to cry bitter tears.

回到列宁格勒后，肖斯塔科维奇于 1932 年 4 月 5 日开始歌剧第三幕的创作，并于 8 月 15 日在蜜月期间在加斯普拉完成。10 月中旬，他公开了自己的创作过程，阐明了自己的构想与莱斯科夫文学原著的不同之处：

我为《麦克白夫人》工作了大约两年半。《麦克白夫人》是预计的三部曲的第一部分，专门讲述俄罗斯各个时代的妇女状况。《姆岑斯克地区的麦克白夫人》的主题取材于列斯科夫的同名文章……最真实、最悲惨地描绘了一位才华横溢、聪明而杰出的女性在革命前的俄罗斯噩梦般的条件下丧生的命运……

我以一种悲剧的方式来解析这部歌剧。我想说，《麦克白夫人》堪称一部悲喜剧。尽管叶卡捷琳娜·利沃芙娜是杀害她丈夫和公公的凶手，但我仍然同情她。我试图给她的整个生活方式和周围的环境赋予一种阴郁的讽刺特征……

《麦克白夫人》的音乐素材与我之前的歌剧作品《鼻子》有很大不同。我坚信，歌剧中应该有歌唱。《麦克白夫人》中的所有声乐部分都是悠扬、抒情的。

Back in Leningrad, Shostakovich began the third act of his opera on 5 April 1932, completing it in Gaspra, while on his honeymoon, on 15 August. In mid-October, he went public with his work-in-progress, elucidating the differences in his vision from that of Leskov’s literary original:

I have been working on Lady Macbeth for about two and a half years. Lady Macbeth is the first part of a projected trilogy devoted to the condition of women of various epochs in Russia. The subject of Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District is drawn from Leskov’s essay of the same name…a most truthful and tragic portrait of the fate of a talented, clever, and exceptional woman perishing in the nightmarish conditions of prerevolutionary Russia.…

I resolve the opera in a tragic vein. I would say that Lady Macbeth could be called a tragi-satirical opera. Despite the fact that Ekaterina Lvovna is the murderer of her husband and father-in-law, I sympathize with her nonetheless. I have tried to impart to her whole way of life and her surroundings a gloomy satiric character.…

The musical material of Lady Macbeth differs sharply from my previous operatic work, the opera The Nose. It is my deep conviction that in opera there should be singing. And all the vocal parts in Lady Macbeth are melodious, lyrical.

或许，《牧师的故事》上映后，我会再次被一些乐评人指责为肤浅、顽皮，缺乏《麦克白夫人》中“终于”浮现出来的真正的人类情感。但是什么才算是人类情感呢？当然不仅仅是抒情、悲伤、悲剧？难道笑声不也可以获得这一崇高的称号吗？我想在“严肃”的音乐中争取合法的笑声。当听众在我的交响音乐会中放声大笑时，我不会感到震惊，相反，我会感到很高兴。

Maybe, after Tale of a Priest is released, I will be rebuked again by some musical critics for superficiality, for mischievousness, for the absence of the real human emotions that “finally” surfaced in my Lady Macbeth.Butwhat can be considered human emotions? Surely not only lyricism, sadness, tragedy? Doesn’t laughter also have a claim to that lofty title? I want to fight for the legitimate right of laughter in “serious”music.When a listener laughs loudly during my symphonic concert, it doesn’t shock me a bit, on the contrary, it pleases me.

Chapter 6. Crisis (1936–1937)

3 月 14 日，在列宁格勒一个座无虚席的大厅里，弗塞沃洛德·梅耶霍尔德在一次演讲中大胆而出人意料地为肖斯塔科维奇辩护，并恢复上演了他的创作。一位观众回忆了当时的情景：“大厅里冻结了。一阵掌声向肖斯塔科维奇响起，所有的人都像接到命令一样，把头转向他的方向。德米特里·德米特里耶维奇坐立不安，用手帕擦着额头。暴风雨般的掌声再次响起，这次是为梅耶霍尔德。”同年晚些时候，梅耶霍尔德继续劝告这位年轻的作曲家要勇敢、开朗，不要屈服于悲伤。他表示相信，一旦肖斯塔科维奇听到他的新交响曲，他将“再次投入到新的不朽音乐的斗争中”，将他的“脾气”化为灰烬。

肖斯塔科维奇还得到了其他朋友的支持。那年春天，他在莫斯科拜访了他的赞助人图哈切夫斯基，他当时是伏罗希洛夫的副手，也是红军中最高级别的军官之一。一位观察家回忆说 "我在图哈切夫斯基的寓所见到他（肖斯塔科维奇）时，他萎靡不振，神志不清。你必须看到米哈伊尔·尼古拉耶维奇是多么同情他！ 他们两人在书房里密谈了很长时间。我不知道他们谈了些什么，但肖斯塔科维奇出来时如获新生。图哈切夫斯基也试图为肖斯塔科维奇向斯大林求情，但没有成功。格里克曼回忆说，那年春天，肖斯塔科维奇曾一度吐露心声：“如果他们砍断我的双手，我还是会用牙齿咬着笔继续创作音乐。”同样，肖斯塔科维奇在 4 月写信给他的朋友安德烈·巴兰奇瓦泽，他是为数不多公开为肖斯塔科维奇辩护的作曲家之一：

最近，我经历了很多痛苦，也做了很多思考。到目前为止，我得出以下结论：《麦克白夫人》尽管有很多缺点，但对我来说，这是一部我永远无法在背后捅刀子的作品。我可能错了，也可能是我缺乏勇气，但在我看来，一个人不仅需要勇气去谋杀自己的东西，也需要勇气去捍卫它们。由于后者目前是不可能的，也是无用的，所以我不会朝这个方向上做任何事情……如果有一天你发现我已经与《麦克白夫人》脱离关系，那么你要知道，我是百分之百诚实地这么做的。但我认为这不会很快发生。至少在五六年内不会；毕竟，我是一个比较迟钝的人，但在工作中却很诚实。

On 14 March, in a lecture to a packed hall in Leningrad, Vsevolod Meyerhold, whose own name had been invoked scathingly in “Muddle Instead of Music,” spoke up boldly and unexpectedly in defense of Shostakovich and the rehabilitation of his creative work. A spectator recalled the moment: “The hall freezes. An outburst of applause is addressed to Shostakovich, and all heads, as if by command, turn in his direction. Dmitriy Dmitriyevich fidgets, mops his forehead with a handkerchief. Again stormy applause, this time for Meyerhold.”Later in the year, Meyerhold continued to counsel the young composer to be brave, cheerful, and not give in to his sorrow. He expressed his confidence that once Shostakovich heard his new symphony, he would “throw himself once again into the struggle for new monumental music” that would reduce his “spleen” to ashes.

Shostakovich found support from other friends as well. In Moscow that spring, he visited his patron Tukhachevsky, then deputy to Voroshilov and one of the highest-ranking officers in the Red Army. An observer recalled: “I met him [Shostakovich] in the Tukhachevskys’ apartment, dispirited, confused. You had to see with what sympathy Mikhaíl Nikolayevich treated him! The two of them closeted themselves for a long time in the study. I don’t know what they talked about, but Shostakovich came out a renewed man. He strode resolutely to the piano and began to improvise.”18 Tukhachevsky, too, tried to intercede on Shostakovich’s behalf with Stalin, but with no more success. Glikman recalled that at one point that spring Shostakovich confided, “If they cut off both hands, I will compose music anyway holding the pen in my teeth.”19 In a similar vein, Shostakovich wrote in April to his friend Andrey Balanchivadze, one of the few composers to have defended Shostakovich publicly:

I have suffered and done a great deal of thinking in the recent past. So far I have come to the following conclusion: Lady Macbeth, for all her enormous flaws, is for me the kind of work that I could never stab in the back. I could be wrong and it could be that my courage is insufficient, but it seems to me that one needs courage not only to murder one’s own things but also to defend them. Since the latter is currently impossible and useless, I am not undertaking anything in that direction.… If you find out sometime that I have “dissociated myself” from Lady Macbeth, then know that I did it 100 percent honestly. But I think that this won’t happen very soon. Not at least for five or six years; after all, I am slow-witted and very honest in my work.

杰出音乐家对这部交响曲的接受并不能消除肖斯塔科维奇的恐惧，现在，他作为父亲的责任格外重大，自然而然的焦虑又加重了他的恐惧。那年夏天，他几乎没有作曲，九月的大部分时间都在敖德萨担任科津采夫和特劳伯格电影《马克西姆归来》的音乐总监。他还忙着争取其他几个电影项目的合同，但他向一位老朋友吐露，他在 1936 年 1 月“历史性”日子里所预期的后果之一确实发生了：他的收入急剧下降。《真理报》的宣传活动对他的作品演出次数和音乐会演出造成了可预见的损失。以前他每月能挣 10,000-12,000 卢布，现在他只能勉强凑够 2,000-3,000 卢布，并且不得不削减开支。有时他负债累累，这让人想起他贫困的学生时代。

Acceptance of the symphony by distinguished musicians could not extinguish Shostakovich’s fears, now compounded by the natural anxieties of a man who took the responsibilities of fatherhood exceptionally seriously. He composed little that summer and spent much of September in Odessa as musical supervisor for the Kozintsev and Trauberg film, Maxim’s Return. He hustled up contracts for several other film projects as well, but he confided to an old friend that one of the consequences he had anticipated from the “historic” days of January 1936 had indeed come to pass: his income had decreased sharply. The Pravda campaign had exacted a predictable toll on the number of performances of his works and his concert appearances. Where he used to make 10,000–12,000 rubles a month, he was now barely able to scrape together 2,000–3,000 and had been obliged to cut back on expenses.32 At times he was reduced to living in debt, reminiscent of his poverty-stricken student days.

由施蒂德里指挥的列宁格勒爱乐乐团定于1936年12月11日举行《c小调第四交响曲》的首演。肖斯塔科维奇承认，他“吓得浑身发抖”。他的担心是有根据的。音乐会没有如期举行。当天上午，《苏联音乐报》上刊登了一则简短的公告：“作曲家肖斯塔科维奇向列宁格勒爱乐乐团发出呼吁，要求从演出中撤回他的《第四交响曲》，理由是这部作品与他当前的创作理念完全不符，对他而言，这部作品代表了一个早已过时的阶段。”

与作曲家一起参加排练的伊萨克·格利克曼回忆了《第四交响曲》撤回的情况：

我不知道德米特里·德米特里耶维奇是怎么想的，但我从音乐厅的气氛中感觉到了怀疑。在音乐界，更重要的是在边缘圈子里，一直流传着这样的传言：肖斯塔科维奇不顾批评意见，写了一首难度极高的交响曲，充满了形式主义。

然后在一个晴朗的日子里，作曲家联盟秘书 V.E.Iokhelson 和一位来自斯莫尔尼 (Smolnïy)（市党机关总部）的官员一起出现在排练现场，之后是爱乐乐团总监、职业钢琴家伦津，他邀请德米特里·德米特里耶维奇到他的办公室……十五到二十分钟后，德米特里·德米特里耶维奇回来接我，我们步行离开……

我对我沮丧的同伴长时间的沉默感到困惑和不安。最后，他用一种平淡的、几乎毫无感情的声音说，这部交响曲不会上演，在伦津的坚持建议下，它已经被撤回了。由于不想诉诸行政手段，后者说服作曲家本人同意撤回交响乐的演出。

The premiere of the Symphony no. 4 in C Minor, op. 43, with the Leningrad Philharmonic conducted by Stiedry was scheduled for 11 December 1936. In anticipation, Shostakovich admitted that he was “trembling with fright.”34 His apprehension was well founded. The concert did not take place. That morning, a brief announcement appeared in Sovetskoye iskusstvo: “Composer Shostakovich appealed to the Leningrad Philharmonic with the request to withdraw his Fourth Symphony from performance on the grounds that it in no way corresponds to his current creative convictions and represents for him a long outdated phase.”

saak Glikman, who attended rehearsals with the composer, recalled the circumstances of the Fourth Symphony’s withdrawal:

I don’t know about Dmitriy Dmitriyevich, but I sensed suspicion in the hall’s atmosphere. Rumors had been circulating in musical and, more importantly, in fringe circles, that, disregarding the criticism, Shostakovich had written a devilishly difficult symphony, jam-packed with formalism.

And then one fine day the secretary of the Union of Composers V.E.Iokhelson showed up at a rehearsal along with an official type from Smolnïy [headquarters of the city’s Party apparatus], after which the director of the Philharmonic, I. M. Renzin, a pianist by profession, invited Dmitriy Dmitriyevich to his office.… Fifteen to twenty minutes later Dmitriy Dmitriyevich returned for me and we departed on foot.…

I was confused and disturbed by the prolonged silence of my despondent companion. Finally, in a flat, almost expressionless voice, he said that the symphony would not be performed, that it had been withdrawn at the insistent recommendation of Renzin; not wanting to resort to administrative measures, the latter had prevailed upon the composer to refuse consent for the symphony’s performance himself.

也许施蒂德里于 1937 年离开苏联并安全脱离危险的事实为后来作曲家目录中第三交响曲和第五交响曲之间令人尴尬的明显和可以被听出的裂痕提供了一个方便的替罪羊。考虑到当时的政治和审美氛围，毫无疑问，即使是完美的表演，这部庞大的“马勒式”作品也会被视为形式主义的缩影，是对党仁慈指导的傲慢蔑视。

事实上，更耐人寻味的问题不在于它为什么被撤回，而在于它是如何接近公开表演的。这部交响曲的构思雄心勃勃，是一位开明现代主义者的艺术“信条”。最后的乐章是在《真理报》运动发起后写成的，没有对批评界的愤怒做出明显的承认或让步。当时听过《第四交响曲》的人——它在钢琴还原专业界得到了广泛研究——对其深度、尺度和“巨大的气息”所震撼。至少在他的一位同事看来，肖斯塔科维奇撤回作品的真正原因是非常显然的。米亚斯科夫斯基在 1936 年 12 月 11 日的日记中写道：“肖斯塔科维奇因讨论而受到严重迫害，以至于他取消了他的新（第四）交响曲的演出——这是一部具有里程碑意义的、令人眼花缭乱的交响曲。对我们这些与他同时代的人来说真是耻辱。”

Perhaps the fact that Stiedry had left the Soviet Union in 1937 and was safely out of harm’s way furnished a handy scapegoat to account later for the embarrassingly glaring and audible rift in the composer’s catalogue between the Third and Fifth Symphonies. Given the political and aesthetic climate of the time, there seems very little doubt that even in a flawless performance the massive, “Mahlerian”work would have been construed as the epitome of formalism, an act in arrogant defiance of the Party’s benevolent guidance.

Indeed, the more intriguing question is not why it was withdrawn but how it came as close to public performance as it did. The symphony had been conceived on an ambitious scale, as the artistic “credo” of an enlightened modernist; the final movement, written after the launching of the Pravda campaign, made no conspicuous acknowledgment of or concession to the critical furor. Those who heard the Fourth Symphony then—it was widely studied in professional circles in piano reduction—were awed by its depth, its measure, its “colossal breath.” In the mind of at least one of his colleagues “the real reason for Shostakovich’s withdrawal was shamefully clear. Myaskovsky recorded in his diary on 11 December 1936: “Shostakovich was so persecuted by the discussions that he canceled the performance of his new (Fourth) Symphony—monumental and dazzling. What a disgrace for us, his contemporaries.”

除了自己的个人处境和职业危机，以及更广泛的反对艺术中“形式主义”的美学运动之外，肖斯塔科维奇还关心并了解时事，他对笼罩整个苏联社会的可怕事态发展并非漠不关心或无动于衷。妄想症和孤立主义的浪潮不断高涨，阴谋的威胁愈演愈烈，逮捕和审判以及失踪都是生活中无法回避的事实。1936 年 6 月 18 日，马克西姆·高尔基去世（他的死后来被归咎于“托洛茨基分子”和“法西斯分子”，但现在人们相信这是斯大林的命令）。8 月，对季诺维也夫（Zinovyev）和卡缅涅夫（Kamenyev）等人的公开审判大张旗鼓地进行。被正式定罪的密谋者被枪决。安全部门在揭露托洛茨基·季诺维也夫阴谋方面的松懈导致叶若夫于 1936 年 9 月被任命为 NKVD47 负责人；他的名字将成为大恐怖中最恶劣暴行的代名词。1937 年 1 月，莫斯科对“托洛茨基反苏中心”进行了第二次示众审判，又有 14 人被判处死刑。而这只是冰山一角。

肖斯塔科维奇的家人也未能幸免于斯大林不断扩大的清洗网络。许多朋友和同事都失踪了。到 1937 年春，作曲家的姐夫弗谢沃洛德·弗雷德里克斯 (Vsevolod Frederiks) 被捕，他的姐姐玛丽亚 (Mariya) 被流放到中亚，他的岳母索菲亚·瓦尔扎 (Sofya Varzar) 被送进劳改营。1937 年 5 月，当他在加斯普拉将近一个月没有收到索列林斯基的来信时，作曲家惊慌失措，他显然担心自己最好的朋友也会被捕。肖斯塔科维奇原本可能认为，他与列宁格勒 NKVD 的高级官员维亚切斯拉夫·东布罗夫斯基（Vyacheslav Dombrovsky）——一位小提琴家和音乐爱好者——的友谊会使他免受伤害，但到了 1937 年夏天，东布罗夫斯基自己也成了大清洗的受害者，他的妻子根丽埃塔也被送进了劳改营。在这种情况下，肖斯塔科维奇被期望创作出一部作品，作为他思想改造成功与否的公共标尺。

Above and beyond his own personal and professional crisis and the broader aesthetic campaign against “formalism” in the arts, Shostakovich, who was interested in and stayed informed about current affairs, was not indifferent to or immune from the horrifying developments that were enveloping Soviet society as a whole. The rising tide of paranoia and isolationism, the intensifying threats of conspiracies, the arrests and trials, and the disappearances were inescapable facts of life. On 18 June 1936,Maxim Gorky died (his death was subsequently pinned to “Trotskyites” and “fascists” but is now believed to have been on Stalin’s orders). In August, the show trial of Zinovyev and Kamenyev and others took place with macabre fanfare. The duly convicted conspirators were shot. The laxness of the security service in exposing the Trotskyite-Zinovyevite conspiracy led to the appointment of Yezhov as head of the NKVD47 in September 1936; his name would become synonymous with the worst excesses of the Great Terror. In January 1937 the second Moscow show trial of the “Trotskyite anti-Soviet Center” yielded fourteen more death sentences. And this was just the tip of the iceberg.

Shostakovich’s family was not left untouched by the expanding web of Stalin’s purges. Many friends and colleagues disappeared. By the spring of 1937, the composer’s brother-in-law, Vsevolod Frederiks, had been arrested, his sister Mariya exiled to Central Asia, and his mother-in-law, Sofya Varzar, sent to labor camp. When he did not receive a letter from Sollertinsky for almost a month while in Gaspra in May 1937, the composer panicked, obviously fearing his best friend might have been arrested, too.48 Shostakovich may have believed that his friendship with a high-ranking officer in Leningrad’s NKVD, Vyacheslav Dombrovsky—a violinist and music-lover—would insulate him from harm, but by the summer of 1937 Dombrovsky had himself fallen victim to the purges, and his wife, Genrietta, was sent to a labor camp.49 Such were the circumstances under which Shostakovich was expected to produce a work to serve as a public yardstick of the success of his ideological rehabilitation.

1937 年 5 月下旬，图哈切夫斯基元帅在古比雪夫被捕。6月11日，《真理报》宣布他和其他红军高级指挥官被指控犯有叛国罪。经过简易审判后，他们第二天就被枪决了。几天后，当弗里德再次拜访日利亚耶夫时，他注意到日利亚耶夫已经取下了这位军事英雄的肖像。几个月后，日利亚耶夫失踪了。图哈切夫斯基的被捕和处决也让肖斯塔科维奇陷入了危险的境地。他后来向一位年轻的同事透露，他被传唤到列宁格勒的内务人民委员部总部接受审讯，以调查他与图哈切夫斯基的关系以及暗杀斯大林的表面阴谋；根据这一说法，他自己的审讯者意外被捕，从而奇迹般地避免了进一步审讯的可怕后果。无论这一事件是否真的如所描述的那样发生，毫无疑问，肖斯塔科维奇同时代的许多人死于的罪行，其严重程度远不及与一位因叛国罪而被定罪和处决的国家主要军事人物进行密切接触。肖斯塔科维奇深知他的生命处于危险之中。

In late May 1937,Marshal Tukhachevsky was arrested in Kuybïshev. On 11 June, Pravda announced that he and other high-ranking Red Army commanders had been charged with treason. After a summary trial, they were shot the next day. A few days later, when Frid visited Zhilyayev again, he noticed that he had taken down his portrait of the military hero. A few months later, Zhilyayev disappeared.54 The arrest and execution of Tukhachevsky struck dangerously close to Shostakovich as well. He later confided to a younger colleague that he had been summoned for interrogation at the NKVD headquarters in Leningrad to probe his connections with Tukhachevsky and the ostensible plot to assassinate Stalin; according to this account, he was miraculously spared from the dire consequences of further inquisition by the fortuitous arrest of his own interrogator.55 Whether or not this particular incident actually took place as described, there is no question that many of Shostakovich’s contemporaries perished for crimes much less grave than their close contacts with one of the country’s leading military figures convicted and executed for treason. Shostakovich knew well that his life was in peril.

肖斯塔科维奇第五交响曲的完成日期通常被认为是 1937 年 7 月 20 日，距其开始创作仅三个月，尽管五周多后的 8 月 29 日，有消息称他目前正在完成第四乐章。（作曲家声称在三天内写出了第三乐章的广板）10 月 8 日，在列宁格勒爱乐乐团已定于 11 月演出这部作品的情况下，作曲家终于在作曲家联盟为同事们演奏了他的新作。谢尔巴乔夫在前一年也曾因“形式主义”倾向而受到抨击，但他认为这次聆听的音乐“非同凡响，但令人作呕的压抑”。他注意到这首曲子拥有极为严谨、禁欲的基调，以及全曲异乎寻常的专注和情感的完整性，他和其他同时代的人都认为这无疑是肖斯塔科维奇音乐的新特点。

1937 年 11 月 21 日，肖斯塔科维奇的《d小调第5号交响曲》（作品 47）在列宁格勒爱乐乐团公开首演，指挥是名不见经传的叶夫根尼·穆拉文斯基（Yevgeniy Mravinsky）。这一场合的重要性不言而喻。肖斯塔科维奇的命运岌岌可危。《第五交响曲》是一部非程式化的四乐章作品，采用了传统的、易于理解的交响乐风格，其核心在简短的曲目说明中被归纳为“一场漫长的精神之战，以胜利而告终”。据一位目击者回忆，男女听众在广板中放声痛哭；另一位目击者说，随着终曲的进行，听众开始一个接一个地站起来，最后，在穆拉文斯基将乐谱高高举起时，全场爆发了震耳欲聋的掌声。另一位听众在她的日记中写道：“全场观众都站了起来，爆发出热烈的掌声——这表明了他们对可怜的米佳所经历的一切的愤怒。每个人都在说同样的话：‘这就是他的答案，而且是一个很好的答案。’D.D.（肖斯塔科维奇）脸色煞白，紧咬嘴唇，我想他几乎要哭了。”维尼亚明·弗莱什曼是肖斯塔科维奇班上的新生之一，他激动地给外省的家里写信：“这几天最重要的事件是我们的老师 D.D.肖斯塔科维奇在爱乐乐团演奏了《第五交响曲》，音乐的深度、真诚和管弦乐创作的独特才华立刻征服了所有音乐家和非音乐家。”

对肖斯塔科维奇和他的新作品的热情支持并没有引起无条件的欢呼。维萨里翁·谢巴林 (Vissarion Shebalin) 是从莫斯科赶来参加首映式的众多同事之一，他回忆道，大家的热情是如此之高，肖斯塔科维奇多次被叫到舞台上，以至于欢呼声有可能演变成示威游行，鉴于《真理报》对作曲家的批评，这显然是一种不祥的发展。索勒廷斯基和谢巴林的妻子竭尽全力，尽快将这位作曲家从挑衅性的场景中赶走。时任列宁格勒爱乐乐团总监米哈伊尔·丘拉基 (Mikhaíl Chulaki) 证实，事实上，官僚们确实将首演时的肆无忌惮的骚动解释为对党的美学领导的挑战。艺术事务委员会的两名官员被派往列宁格勒观看该作品随后的演出，并调查音乐会组织者是如何安排如此压倒性的成功演出的。他们的结论是，尽管所有证据都表明这部交响曲在公众中取得了巨大成功，但观众并不是由普通的音乐会观众组成，而是由为确保这部作品成功而精心挑选的“植物人”组成。亚历山大·高克 (Alexander Gauk)也参加了列宁格勒第五交响曲的首演，他在第二天返回莫斯科时帮助平息了类似虚假信息的传播，当时他偶然听到——并出面驳斥了——一位官员试图向艺术事务委员会主席克尔任采夫（Kerzhentsev）淡化这部作品的成功，称这是肖斯塔科维奇的一帮朋友从莫斯科为此目的带来的人煽动的。

Shostakovich’s completion of the Fifth Symphony is routinely dated as 20 July 1937, just three months after it had been begun, although more than five weeks later, on 29 August, the news that he was currently in the process of finishing the fourth movement was circulated.56 (The composer claimed to have written the third movement, Largo, in three days.57 ) On 8 October, with the work already slated for performance in November by the Leningrad Philharmonic, the composer finally played his new work for his colleagues at the Composers’ Union. Shcherbachov, who had also come under fire the previous year for his “formalistic” leanings, found the music on this hearing “remarkable, but sickeningly depressing.” He took note of its very strict, ascetic tone as well as of the unusual concentration and emotional integrity of the whole, features he and other contemporaries perceived as unquestionably new in the music of Shostakovich.58

In an atmosphere taut with anticipation, Shostakovich’s Symphony no. 5 in D Minor, op. 47, received its public premiere on 21 November 1937, performed by the Leningrad Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by a relative unknown, Yevgeniy Mravinsky. The significance of the occasion was apparent to everyone. Shostakovich’s fate was at stake. The Fifth Symphony, a nonprogrammatic four-movement work in a traditional, accessible symphonic style, its essence extrapolated in the brief program note as “a lengthy spiritual battle, crowned by victory,” scored an absolute, unforgettable triumph with the listeners. One witness recalled that men and women cried openly during the Largo,59 another that as the finale progressed, the listeners began to rise to their feet, one by one, giving release at the end to a deafening ovation as Mravinsky waved the score over his head.60 Another listener recorded in her diary: “The whole audience leapt to their feet and erupted into wild applause—a demonstration of their outrage at all the hounding poor Mitya has been through. Everyone kept saying the same thing: ‘That was his answer, and it was a good one.’ D. D. [Shostakovich] came out white as a sheet, biting his lips. I think he was close to tears.”61 Veniamin Fleyshman, one of the new students in Shostakovich’s class, wrote home to the provinces in excitement: “The greatest event of these days was the performance in the Philharmonic of the Fifth Symphony of our teacher, D.D. Shostakovich,which immediately won over all musicians and nonmusicians by the depth of the music, the sincerity and singular talent of its orchestral writing.”62

The effusive show of support for Shostakovich and his new work was not cause for unqualified jubilation. Among a number of colleagues who traveled from Moscow to attend the premiere, Vissarion Shebalin recalled that the enthusiasm was so great and Shostakovich was called to the stage so many times that the ovation threatened to turn into a demonstration, obviously an ominous development in light of Pravda’s criticisms of the composer. Sollertinsky and Shebalin’s wife did their utmost to remove the composer from the provocative scene as quickly as possible.63 Mikhaíl Chulaki, then the director of the Leningrad Philharmonic, confirmed that bureaucratic functionaries did, in fact, interpret the unrestrained uproar at the premiere as a challenge to the Party’s aesthetic leadership.64 Two officials from the Committee for Artistic Affairs were dispatched to Leningrad to attend a subsequent performance of the work and investigate how the concert organizers had arranged such a commanding triumph. They concluded, against all the manifest evidence of the symphony’s tremendous success with the public, that the audience did not consist of ordinary concertgoers but of plants, hand-picked to assure the success of the work.65 Alexander Gauk, who also attended the Leningrad premiere of the Fifth Symphony, helped quash the spread of similar disinformation on his return to Moscow the next day when he happened to overhear—and stepped in to overrule—one official attempting to downplay the success of the work to Kerzhentsev, the head of the Committee for Artistic Affairs, as having been fomented by a claque of Shostakovich’s friends imported for the purpose from Moscow.66

穆拉文斯基在准备《第五交响曲》时的严谨态度甚至让作曲家也感到震惊，因为他并不是一个喜欢插手或干涉排练过程的人。在作曲家的记忆中，这是一场名副其实的审问，而穆拉文斯基则回忆道，他自己曾试图寻求作者的帮助，以便正确地理解作者的意图，但结果却令人沮丧：“尽管我不断地纠缠作曲家，但我几乎没有从他身上‘提取’到任何东西。”肖斯塔科维奇守口如瓶，不愿谈论他的第五交响曲，这比简单的排练技巧冲突更为深层次。在 1936 年 1 月《真理报》社论发表后的近 20 个月里，肖斯塔科维奇的名字几乎从报刊上消失了。在此之前，他的观点和关于正在创作的作品的信息经常被放在显著位置，他在谈论他的音乐时毫不掩饰。相比之下，在《第五交响曲》首演之前，他唯一发表的有关该曲的声明只承认了该曲已完成的简单事实。即使在《第五交响曲》显然成功亮相之后，肖斯塔科维奇仍然不愿谈论这部作品。

1937 年 12 月 29 日，首演一个多月后，穆拉文斯基在列宁格勒作曲家联盟的一次聚会上对肖斯塔科维奇的第五交响曲进行了详细的音乐分析，作为持续同行评审过程的一部分。在上一次会议上，成员们恳求作曲家向他们解释他在新交响曲中要表达的意思；后者指着乐谱，表示他已经通过乐谱的表演“解释”了三四遍。穆拉文斯基向他们描述了他用来迫使肖斯塔科维奇向他表明自己的意图所使用的狡猾的、主要是非语言的手段，并断言他自己的解释带有作者认可的独特印记。他提出了用自己的分析来替代肖斯塔科维奇的分析。作曲家则用钢琴提供音乐说明。

在谨慎的开始之后，评论家们热情地接受了这部新交响曲。阿列克谢·托尔斯泰（Alexey Tolstoy）——著名作家、肖斯塔科维奇音乐的长期粉丝，巧合的是，他有时也是肖斯塔科维奇的社交伙伴——的评论在其热情洋溢的语调和言辞方面树立了一个标准，后来的许多评论家都效仿了这一标准。托尔斯泰将肖斯塔科维奇的《第五交响曲》诠释为社会主义现实主义最崇高理想的典范，并推广了“人格的形成”（stanovleniye lichnosti）这一口号，用于解释这部作品的戏剧本质和社会意义的隐喻。对新交响曲的评估是在广泛的公共论坛上进行的，并且不仅限于音乐专业人士。许多评论家并不完全相信终曲中所表现出的欢乐和“乐观主义”的真实性——尤其是在情绪激烈、充满哀伤的广板之后，而广板无疑是作品的重心所在。然而，尽管有一些疑虑，几乎所有人都公开承认，肖斯塔科维奇即使还没有达到那个境界，至少已经坚定地回到了社会主义现实主义的道路上。

直到他的《第五交响曲》通过反复向党内官员、专业音乐界和公众反复演出，并在批评意见晴雨表上显示出一致支持后，肖斯塔科维奇才终于打破了沉默。然后，1938 年 1 月中旬，他大胆地指出，他的第五交响曲在某种程度上是自传性的，其主题是“人类的苦难和所向披靡的乐观主义”。我想在这首交响曲中表达的是，通过一系列内心精神剧烈动荡的悲剧冲突，乐观主义是如何作为一种世界观确立起来的。在同一天发表的另一份声明中，他表达了希望被苏联文化重新接纳的愿望：“对于作曲家来说，没有什么比为人民创作、并与人民一起创作更光荣的了。忘记这一崇高义务的作曲家就失去了接受这一崇高使命的权利……我们的政府和所有苏联人民对音乐的关注给我灌输了信心，我将奉献我力所能及的一切。”

在亚历山大·高克指挥的苏联国家交响乐团演奏他的交响曲的莫斯科首演前几天，肖斯塔科维奇署名发表了一份对第五交响曲的更宽泛、但仍然谨慎的评论《我的创作答案》。他在书中强调了自己交响曲的古典渊源，对自己在第三乐章中取得的成就感到特别自豪，并否定了最后一个乐章在风格上有别于前三个乐章的说法。他接受了托尔斯泰关于“人格的形成”的比喻，并合理解释了交响曲背后的悲剧性冲动：“我在这部作品的中心看到的是人，以及他所有的苦难，从头至尾都是抒情的。交响曲的终曲以一种肯定生命的乐观计划化解了开头乐章中的悲剧性紧张时刻。”作曲家也正是在这里提到，在他的交响曲的许多批评性解释中，“有一种解释让我特别高兴：有人说《第五交响曲》是一位苏联艺术家对公正批评有效的、创造性的答案。”这种对不明批评家言论的赞赏是关于肖斯塔科维奇的一个最经久不衰的神话的来源，作曲家用这句话作为他的第五交响曲的副标题。肖斯塔科维奇从未接受 1936 年对他和他的歌剧的批评。这部交响曲没有任何迹象表明他采纳了克尔任采夫关于研究俄罗斯民间传说的前辈建议，也没有遵循任何其他最明显的改造方法。他既没有为自己的第五交响曲题写副标题，也没有为副标题背书，出版的乐谱上也没有任何副标题。尽管他的许多同行都迫切地、甚至是愧疚地需要将肖斯塔科维奇重新纳入苏联作曲家的行列，但“副标题”的概念并没有在苏联传播，而是在西方被捕捉并传播开来。

Mravinsky prepared the Fifth Symphony with a fastidiousness that alarmed even the composer, who was not one to meddle or intrude in the rehearsal process. What the composer remembered as a veritable inquisition, Mravinsky recalled as his own frustrating attempt to enlist the author’s help in order to interpret his intentions correctly: “As much as I pestered the composer, I succeeded in ‘extracting’ virtually nothing from him.”69 Shostakovich’s tight-lipped reluctance to talk about his Fifth Symphony went deeper than a simple conflict of rehearsal techniques. For nearly twenty months after the appearance of the Pravda editorials in January 1936, Shostakovich’s name had virtually disappeared from the press; before then his opinions and information about works-in-progress had been featured regularly and prominently. He had demonstrated no reticence in speaking about his music. Before the first performance of the Fifth Symphony, by contrast, his only published statement about it acknowledged only the simple fact of its completion. Even after its apparently successful unveiling, Shostakovich’s unwillingness to speak about the work continued.

On 29 December 1937, more than a month after the premiere, Mravinsky presented a detailed musical analysis of Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony to a gathering at the Composers’ Union in Leningrad as part of a continuing peer review process. At their previous session, the members had implored the composer to explain to them what he had meant to say in his new symphony; the latter, pointing to the score, indicated he had “explained” it three or four times already, through its performances. Mravinsky described to them the cunning and chiefly nonverbal means he had used to compel Shostakovich to show him what he intended and averred that his own interpretation bore the exclusive stamp of authorial approval. He offered his own analysis as a surrogate for Shostakovich’s; the composer provided musical illustrations from the piano.70

After a cautious start, critics embraced the new symphony enthusiastically. The review of Alexey Tolstoy—prominent writer, long-time fan of Shostakovich’s music, and, coincidentally, sometime social companion—set a standard in its passionate tone and rhetoric that many subsequent critics would emulate. Advancing an interpretation of Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony as an exemplar of the loftiest ideals of Socialist Realism, Tolstoy popularized the catch phrase “formation of a personality” (stanovleniye lichnosti) as a metaphor to explain the work’s dramatic essence and social significance.71 Evaluation of the new symphony took place in the broad public forum and was not limited to music professionals. Many critics were not entirely convinced by the authenticity of the joy and “optimism” evinced in the finale, particularly after the emotionally charged, funereal Largo, the unquestionable center of gravity of the work. Despite some misgivings, however, almost everyone conceded publicly that Shostakovich, if not yet there, was at least firmly back on the track toward Socialist Realism.

Only after his Fifth Symphony had been successfully vetted through repeat performances to Party officials, the professional music community, and the general public and the readings on the barometer of critical opinion indicated a consensus of support, did Shostakovich finally break his silence. Then, in mid-January 1938, he hazarded the observation that his Fifth Symphony was, to a certain extent, autobiographical, its subject the “suffering of man, and all-conquering optimism. I wanted to convey in the symphony how, through a series of tragic conflicts of great inner spiritual turmoil, optimism asserts itself as a world-view.”72 His desire to be accepted back into the Soviet cultural fold was signaled in yet another statement released the same day: “There is nothing more honorable for a composer than to create works for and with the people. The composer who forgets about this high obligation loses the right to this high calling.… The attention to music on the part of our government and all the Soviet people instills in me the confidence that I will be able to give everything that is in my power.”73

A few days before the Moscow premiere of his symphony played by the USSR State Symphony under Alexander Gauk, a more expansive, if still cautiously formulated, gloss on the Fifth Symphony,“My Creative Answer,” was issued over Shostakovich’s signature. In it he underscored the classical antecedents of his symphony, declared special pride with his attainment in the third movement, and rejected the notion that the last movement differed stylistically from the first three. He embraced Tolstoy’s metaphor of the “formation of a personality” and his rationalization for the tragic impulse behind the symphony: “It was man, with all his sufferings, that I saw at the center of this work, lyrical from start to finish. The finale of the symphony resolves the tragically tense moments of the opening movements in a life-affirming, optimistic plan.”74 It was here, too, that the composer mentioned that among the many critical interpretations of his symphony, “one gave me special pleasure, where it was said that the Fifth Symphony is the practical creative answer of a Soviet artist to just criticism.”75 This passive appreciation of an unidentified critic’s remark is the source of one of the most enduring myths about Shostakovich, that the composer used the phrase as a subtitle for his Fifth Symphony. Shostakovich never accepted the criticism leveled at him and his opera in 1936. The symphony showed no signs that he had taken Kerzhentsev’s paternal advice to study Russian folklore or followed any of the other most obvious recipes for rehabilitation. He neither affixed nor endorsed any subtitle to his Fifth Symphony, nor does any appear on the published score. While many of his peers did feel an urgent, perhaps even guilty, need to reclaim Shostakovich into the community of Soviet composers, the conceit of a “subtitle”was seized upon and propagated not so much in the Soviet Union as in the West.76

指挥家鲍里斯·海金回忆说，在第五交响曲的早期演出之一结束后，肖斯塔科维奇对他说：“我以强音和大调完成了交响曲。大家都说这是一首乐观、肯定生命的交响曲。我想知道，如果我以极弱小调的方式完成它，他们会怎么说？”多年之后，在听完《第四交响曲》（以极弱的小调结束）之后，凯金才完全理解了这个问题的含义。

第五交响曲的终曲是否最终成功地平衡了前一乐章和整个交响曲的沉重感，以及“童话般的情节”（即“开头乐章中悲惨的紧张时刻”在“肯定生命的乐观计划”中得到解决）是否在此得到令人信服的执行，这些问题自第五交响曲首演以来一直没有得到缓解。肖斯塔科维奇交响乐作品中的“终曲问题”是一个会再次出现的问题，尤其是在他的《第十交响曲》中。根据这位年迈、心怀怨恨的作曲家在《见证》中的评论，这一说法广为流传，即肖斯塔科维奇可能故意让《第五交响曲》没有一个真正欢快的结尾，而是想表现一种在胁迫下欢欣鼓舞的感觉。

肖斯塔科维奇不愿用任何词语公开描述和谈论他的音乐，除了最笼统的陈词滥调，这一特征将持续他的余生，这既是出于常识和生存本能，也源于他天生不愿意限定音乐所蕴含的多重意义的倾向。肖斯塔科维奇更喜欢让他的音乐自己“说话”，并将好奇心不可避免地引向他的乐谱。（肖斯塔科维奇晚年曾恼羞成怒地将谈论自己的音乐同于谈论情人。）没有人能够预测斯大林的突发奇想可能会导致什么后果。正如《麦克白夫人》事件所表明的那样，巨大的知名度和评论界的赞誉并不能起到任何保护作用，反而可能会起到相反的作用。无法忽视的一点是，《第五交响曲》一经问世便受到好评和广泛认可，这与《麦克白夫人》受到欢迎的历史有着不祥的类比。1938 年 1 月 29 日，肖斯塔科维奇在列宁格勒参加他的第五交响曲在莫斯科首演的同一天，该市作曲家联盟分会的务实主席、作曲家伊萨克·杜纳耶夫斯基 (Isaak Dunayevsky) 发表了一份声明，他在声明中以肖斯塔科维奇的第五交响曲为例，说明了作曲家联盟在推广音乐作品方面缺乏领导和控制所带来的风险：“不健康的骚动正在围绕这项工作发生，甚至在某种程度上是精神病。在我们的环境中，这可能对作品和作曲家都不利……因为喋喋不休和哗众取宠，我们可能会让最重要的东西从指缝中溜走：根据苏联音乐面临的任务，对作曲家以及他的精神教育产生健康的影响……即使我们不是伟大的预言家，也能预见到这可能导致的后果。”

幸运的是，肖斯塔科维奇的《第五交响曲》并没有在这个时刻成为意料之外的政治反弹或批评反转的牺牲品。肖斯塔科维奇在这样的胁迫环境下创作了这部作品，这部作品取得了非凡的成就，具有无可争议的杰出创造性和品质。在苏联音乐史上的一个决定性时刻，肖斯塔科维奇的第五交响曲为社会主义现实主义音乐设定了极高的标准。在短短几个月内，该交响曲就被作为苏联对国际交响乐作品的骄傲而在全世界积极推广。西方听众认为社会主义现实主义并不妨碍他们欣赏《第五交响曲》的巨大音乐价值；该交响曲的作曲家被公认为本世纪最重要的交响曲家之一。1938 年末，当第五交响曲在莫斯科大剧院的 dekada（苏联音乐展示会）最后一场音乐会上演出时，肖斯塔科维奇被告知斯大林可能会出席。但斯大林没有出席。无论如何，正如作曲家多年后指出的那样，那时他的命运已经好转。

不幸的是，1948 年，杜纳耶夫斯基被忽视的警告再次应验了。

Conductor Boris Khaikin recalled that, after one of the early performances of the Fifth Symphony, Shostakovich remarked to him, “I finished the symphony fortissimo and in the major. Everyone is saying that it’s an optimistic and life-affirming symphony. I wonder, what would they be saying if I had finished it pianissimo and in the minor?”81 Only years later, after hearing the Fourth Symphony (which ends pianissimo and in the minor), did Khaikin fully comprehend the implications of the question.

Whether the finale of the Fifth Symphony succeeds ultimately in balancing the gravity of the preceding movement and the symphony as a whole and whether the Bildungsroman scenario (in which “the tragically tense moments of the opening movements” are resolved in a “life-affirming, optimistic plan”) is here convincingly executed are questions that have not abated since the Fifth Symphony’s premiere. The “finale problem” in Shostakovich’s symphonic works was an issue that would crop up again, notably in connection with his Tenth Symphony. In the light of comments attributed to the aging, embittered composer in Testimony,82 the suggestion has gained wide currency that Shostakovich may have deliberately set himself up to fail in crowning the Fifth Symphony with a genuinely jubilant finale, intending instead to convey the sense of rejoicing under duress.83

Shostakovich’s reluctance to describe and discuss his music publicly in any terms but the most sweeping platitudes, a trait that would endure for the rest of his life, was born of common sense and a survival instinct. It also proceeded from a natural disinclination to circumscribe the multiplicity of meanings music harbors. Shostakovich preferred to let his music “speak” for itself and inevitably directed the curious to his scores. (In a fit of annoyance late in life, Shostakovich equated talking about one’s music with blabbing about a lover.84 ) No one was in a position to predict where the whims of Stalin might lead. As the Lady Macbeth affair had demonstrated, enormous popularity and critical approbation were no protection, rather the opposite. That the immediate acclaim and widespread acceptance of the Fifth Symphony suggested ominous analogies with the history of the reception of Lady Macbeth did not go unnoticed. In Leningrad, on 29 January 1938, the same day that Shostakovich was attending the triumphant Moscow premiere of his Fifth Symphony, the pragmatic chairman of that city’s branch of the Composers’ Union, composer Isaak Dunayevsky, issued a statement in which he used Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony as the chief example of the risks posed by the organization’s lack of leadership and control over the promotion of musical works: “Unhealthy instances of agitation—even of psychosis to a certain extent—are taking place around this work. In our circumstances this might do both the work and its composer a bad turn.… Because of the chatter and the sensation we may let the most important thing slip through our fingers: a healthy influence on the composer and his education in the spirit of the tasks confronting Soviet music.… One does not need to be a great prophet to foresee what this might lead to.”85

Fortunately, Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony did not become, at this juncture, the victim of an unexpected political backlash or critical inversion.Composed under such coercive circumstances, it was a remarkable accomplishment, a work of indisputably outstanding creative originality and quality. At a defining moment in the history of Soviet music, Shostakovich’s Fifth Symphony set the bar for musical Socialist Realism very high. Within a few months it was being actively promoted worldwide as a proud Soviet contribution to the international symphonic literature. Western listeners did not find Socialist Realism an impediment to their appreciation of the Fifth Symphony’s very considerable musical merits; its composer was acknowledged as one of the most significant symphonists of the century. Late in 1938, when the Fifth Symphony was performed at Moscow’s Bolshoy Theater in the final concert of a dekada, a showcase of Soviet music, Shostakovich was forewarned that Stalin might attend. He did not. In any case, as the composer noted years later, by that point his fortunes had already righted themselves.86

Unfortunately, in 1948, Dunayevsky’s unheeded warning would echo again all too prophetically.

Chapter 7. Reprieve(1938–1941)

“在提交第五交响曲后的整整一年里，我几乎无所事事。”第五交响曲的成功为肖斯塔科维奇赢得了创作上的喘息机会，使他从巨大的压力和紧张中解脱出来。他重新得到人们的青睐，并暂时从意识形态可疑艺术家的名单中除名。然而，1936 年《真理报》的社论及其引发的运动给作曲家留下了难以磨灭的伤痕。虽然我们无法猜测在没有外来干涉的情况下，肖斯塔科维奇会朝着怎样的创作方向前进，他的音乐又会如何发展，但其中一些不幸的后果却是不争的事实。肖斯塔科维奇与索列林斯基合作创作芭蕾舞剧《堂吉诃德》的计划泡汤了。更不幸的是，29 岁那年，肖斯塔科维奇的歌剧作曲家生涯戛然而止。他放弃了创作苏联“指环”歌剧的雄心壮志。虽然在他的余生中，不少时间有至少一个歌剧项目被搁置，但他再也没有完成一部歌剧，这对音乐舞台来说是无法估量的损失。

"For a whole year after submitting my Fifth Symphony I did almost nothing.”1 The success of his Fifth Symphony earned Shostakovich a creative reprieve, a respite from enormous pressure and stress. It restored his name to favor and removed him, for the time being, from the roster of ideologically suspect artists. The 1936 Pravda editorials, however, and the campaign they inflamed, left indelible scars on the composer. Although it is impossible to guess what creative directions he might have pursued and how his music might have developed without external interference, some of the unfortunate consequences are indisputable. A plan in the works for Shostakovich to collaborate with Sollertinsky on a ballet treatment of Don Quixote was scuttled.2 Shostakovich never again undertook an original score for the ballet. Even more unfortunately, at the age of twenty-nine, Shostakovich’s career as an operatic composer came to an abrupt and untimely halt. He abandoned his ambition to create a Soviet “Ring” cycle. Though there was rarely a time during the rest of his life when there was not at least one operatic project simmering on a back burner, in what was an incalculable loss for the musical stage, he never completed another opera.

肖斯塔科维奇想重新回到学生的角色，可能与他对自己的教师新工作缺乏安全感有一点关系。作为一名教师，肖斯塔科维奇没有身为作曲家和钢琴家那种与生俱来的自信；他不自觉地意识到自己并非天生我才。但肖斯塔科维奇做任何事情都兢兢业业，他极其认真地对待自己的教学工作，对学生投入了大量的时间和关注。虽然他并不试图发展出一套独特的方法或体系，但他努力传授他认为学生应该掌握的知识。他对学生创作的音乐类型或风格不加限制，只要求他们保持正直，并保证尽可能高的质量，这种教学方法在他的一份教学评价中得到了赞扬。他对新作品的评论委婉而谨慎，但学生们很快就学会了从他的行为中“读出”他是否真的喜欢某样东西。在教学中，他以身作则，慷慨分享专业知识，并以敏锐的洞察力赢得了学生的爱戴。1939 年，学生们和肖斯塔科维奇一起庆祝他晋升为列宁格勒音乐学院教授。

奥列斯特·叶夫拉科夫和格奥尔基·斯维里多夫成为肖斯塔科维奇的第一批作曲系学生，后来维尼亚明·弗莱什曼、尤里·列维京、加林娜·乌斯特沃尔斯卡娅等人也加入了这个班级。他们都被老师惊人的音乐记忆力、对作曲缺陷激光般敏锐的洞察力、出色的视奏能力以及百科全书式的文献知识所折服。肖斯塔科维奇非常严格地要求学生遵守定期作曲的纪律；懒惰与他的本性格格不入，他也不能容忍别人有这种品质。当他布置培养作曲技能的课内练习时，他总是亲自参加。有一次，为了练习快速作曲，学生们拿到了海涅的一篇文章，并被要求为声乐和钢琴配乐，弗莱什曼观察到，“肖斯塔科维奇在五分钟内就写出了他的作品，而且是所有作品中最好的。”肖斯塔科维奇毫不费力地进行精湛作曲技巧的亲身示范绝非罕见。

肖斯塔科维奇教学方法中的一个核心要素——这也是他自己职业成长的珍贵记忆——是通过钢琴四手联弹编曲来探索音乐文献。肖斯塔科维奇希望年轻作曲家掌握键盘技巧和视谱能力，尽管他试图让他们不再依赖钢琴作曲。除了西方和俄罗斯的经典作品——莫扎特、贝多芬、舒曼、柴可夫斯基等，肖斯塔科维奇还与学生们分享了许多他个人的最爱，如马勒的交响曲和《大地之歌》、威尔第的《奥泰罗》，以及由他自己四手联弹改编的斯特拉文斯基的《诗篇交响曲》。肖斯塔科维奇还经常把自己的新作品带到课堂上，以及他的老作品，如《鼻子》。

肖斯塔科维奇对他最好的学生的福利持长期支持的态度。有时，他也会谨慎地提供物质援助，比如 1940 年，患病的叶夫拉科夫在克里米亚急需治疗时。40 年代末，当他听到他以前的学生斯维里多夫沉迷于酒瘾的传言时，他非常担心。当他得知弗莱什曼在二战初期保卫列宁格勒时阵亡，肖斯塔科维奇安排将弗莱什曼未完成的独幕歌剧《罗斯柴尔德的小提琴》（根据契诃夫的短篇小说改编）在撤离时寄给他。1944 年，他亲自完成了弗莱什曼充满希望的作品，并在 20 世纪 60 年代推动了该作品的出版和演出。后辈的学生们也同样受益于他在个人生活和专业方面的关怀。

Insecurity in his own new job as teacher may have had a little to do with Shostakovich's desire to revert to the role of student. As a teacher, Shostakovich did not feel the same innate self-assurance he did as composer or pianist; he was uncomfortably aware that he was not a natural. But Shostakovich was conscientious in everything he set his mind to, and he took his teaching duties extremely seriously, devoting a great deal of time and attention to his students. Although he did not attempt to develop a distinctive methodology or system, he worked hard to impart what he felt they ought to know. He put no restrictions on the type or style of music students might write, demanding from them only integrity and the highest possible quality, an approach that was commended in one of his teaching evaluation-s.He was tactful and circumspect in framing his comments about new compositions, but students quickly learned to "read" from his behavior whether he really liked something or not. Teaching through professional example with generously shared expertise and sensitivity earned him the devotion of his students. In 1939, they helped Shostakovich celebrate his promotion to the rank of professor at the Leningrad Conservatory.

Orest Yevlakhov and Georgiy Sviridov became Shostakovich's first composition students, joined later in the class by Veniamin Fleysh-man, Yuriy Levitin, Galina Ustvolskaya, and others. They were all awed by their teacher's phenomenal musical memory, laserlike insight into compositional flaws, outstanding sight-reading ability, and encyclopedic command of the literature. Shostakovich was exacting in his expectation that his students observe the discipline of regular com-posing; laziness, alien to his own nature, was not a quality he tolerated in others either. When he assigned in-class exercises to develop compositional skills, he would invariably take part himself. On one occasion when, to drill in speed writing, the students were given a text by Heine to set for voice and piano, Fleyshman observed that"Shostakovich wrote his in five minutes and it was the best of all."Such hands-on demonstrations of Shostakovich's effortless mastery were by no means uncommon.

A central element in Shostakovich's pedagogical approach—as it was a cherished memory of his own professional upbringing-was the exploration of music literature through arrangements for piano four-hands. Shostakovich expected young composers to command keyboard skills and sight-reading facility competent for this purpose, although he tried to wean them from dependence on the piano for composing. In addition to the classics of Western and Russian litera-ture-Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Chaikovsky, and so on—
Shostakovich shared many of his personal favorites with his students: the Mahler symphonies and Das Lied von der Erde, Verdi's Otello, and, in his own four-hand arrangement, Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms. Shostakovich also routinely brought his own new compositions to his class, as well as his older works, like The Nose.

Shostakovich took a supportive, long-term view of his best students’welfare. On occasion, he discreetly supplied material assistance, as when the ailing Yevlakhov, for instance, was in desperate need of treatment in the Crimea in 1940.He became extremely concerned in the late 1940s when rumors reached him that his former student Sviridov was addicted to the bottle. On learning that Fleyshman had been killed defending Leningrad during the early days of World War II, Shostakovich arranged to have Fleyshman’s unfinished one-act opera, Rothschild’s Violin (based on a short story by Chekhov), sent to him in evacuation. He took it upon himself to complete Fleyshman’s promising opus in 1944, and pushed for its publication and performance in the 1960s. Students of subsequent generations would benefit similarly from his personal and professional solicitude.

当肖斯塔科维奇能够从公众的视线中获得喘息的机会和一定的职业稳定时，他的许多艺术同行却没有那么幸运。在媒体的长期攻击后，1938 年 1 月 8 日，梅耶霍尔德在莫斯科的剧院最终被柯尔任采夫下令关闭。就在三个月前，肖斯塔科维奇以工作过度为理由，放弃了为梅耶霍尔德准备上演的根据尼古拉·奥斯特洛夫斯基的小说《钢铁是怎样炼成的》改编的戏剧提供音乐的协议。在闭幕前的几天里，当肖斯塔科维奇在莫斯科准备他的第五交响曲在当地的首演时，他参加了梅耶霍尔德的家庭会议，拼命寻求挽回局面的办法。如果说此前，作曲家在写给索列林斯基的信中，有时会对导演及其过分自负的行为说三道四，那么自梅耶霍尔德于 1936 年公开为肖斯塔科维奇辩护，反对《真理报》煽动的迫害之后，情况就发生了变化。

At a time when Shostakovich was able to appreciate a recess from the glare of the public eye and a modicum of professional stability, many of his colleagues in the arts were not as fortunate. After prolonged attacks in the press, on 8 January 1938 Meyerhold's theater in Moscow was finally shut down by order of Kerzhentsev. Just three months earlier, Shostakovich, claiming overwork, had backed out of his agreement to provide music for a play based on Nikolai Ostro-vsky's novel How the Steel Was Tempered that Meyerhold was preparing to stage. 30 In the days preceding the closing, while Shostakovich was in Moscow preparing for the local premiere of his Fifth Symphony, he took part in the Meyerhold family council desperately seeking a way to salvage the situation. If the composer had sometimes made catty remarks in letters to Sollertinsky about the director, and his outsized ego, that had changed after Meyerhold's principled public stand in Shostakovich's defense against the persecution fomented by Pravda in 1936.

与此同时，大清洗仍在继续。1938 年 3 月初，对尼古拉·布哈林和其他一些知名人士的“破坏性”审判备受关注。当月晚些时候，一个反革命作家组织在列宁格勒被揭露，多位著名作家受到牵连。1938 年 5 月，奥西普·曼德尔施塔姆（Osip Mandelstam）被捕（他被判处 5 年苦役，12 月下旬死于中转营）。1939 年 5 月，他们抓捕了伊萨克·巴别尔（1940 年 1 月被枪决）。1939 年 6 月中旬的一个傍晚，肖斯塔科维奇和格里克曼在看完一场足球比赛后回家的路上，在作曲家公寓的楼梯上偶遇梅耶霍尔德。他们邀请导演进屋喝茶。第二天早上，梅耶霍尔德在列宁格勒的公寓中被捕。在她自己惨遭杀害之前，齐娜伊达·拉伊赫在一封为梅耶霍尔德辩护的信上征集签名；据说肖斯塔科维奇也是签名者之一。但毫无结果。梅耶霍尔德于 1940 年 2 月 1 日受到即决审判，一天后被枪决。肖斯塔科维奇直到 1955 年才得知梅耶霍尔德命运的全部真相，当时他在自己的处境并不太安全的情况下采取了坚定的立场，支持为这位导演平反。

Meanwhile, the purges continued. In early March 1938, the highly publicized "wrecking" trial of Nikolai Bukharin and a score of other prominent figures began. Later that month a counterrevolutionary writers' organization was exposed in Leningrad, implicating a number of prominent writers. In May 1938, Osip Mandelstam was arrested (he was sentenced to five years at hard labor and perished in a transit camp in late December). In May 1939, they came for Isaac Babel (he was shot in January 1940). On an evening in mid-June 1939, Shostakovich and Glikman were on their way home from a soccer match when they bumped into Meyerhold by chance on the staircase of the composer's apartment house. They invited the director in for a cup of tea. 35 The next morning Meyerhold was arrested in his Leningrad apartment. Before her own brutal murder, Zinaída Raikh began collecting signatures on a letter in Meyerhold's defense; Shostakovich was said to have been one of those who signed. To no avail. Meyerhold was summarily tried on 1 February 1940 and shot a day later. Shostakovich only learned the full truth about Meyerhold's fate in 1955, when he took a strong stand supporting the director's rehabilitation at a time when his own situation was none too secure.

六月排满了国家考试（今年肖斯塔科维奇是钢琴委员会主席，也是作曲评审团成员），还有音乐学院的毕业仪式。这位作曲家挤出了几个小时的时间来观看足球比赛。1941 年 6 月 22 日星期日，在列宁格勒传奇“白夜”的高峰期，肖斯塔科维奇计划与格利克曼一起观看连续两场比赛，然后出去吃晚饭。在前往体育场的路上，他们听到莫洛托夫宣布德国入侵苏联的广播。

The month of June was occupied with state exams—this year Shostakovich was chairman of the piano commission, as well as a member of the composition jury—and the end-of-year rituals at the Conservatory. The composer eked out a few hours to attend soccer matches. On Sunday, 22 June 1941, at the peak of Leningrad’s legendary“white nights,”Shostakovich planned to attend a double-header with Glikman and go out to dinner afterward. On their way to the stadium they heard Molotov’s radio broadcast proclaiming Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union.

Chapter 8. The War Years(1941–1944)

在宣战后的一周里，音乐学院几乎像什么也没发生一样。考试结束了，学生毕业了，下一年的津贴领取者也选出来了。肖斯塔科维奇立即申请参军，但被告知：“我们需要你的时候会打电话给你。”1941 年 7 月 2 日提交的另一份参军申请也遭到了拒绝。不耐烦的作曲家报名参加了当时正在组建中的国民自卫军：“接下来的几周，肖斯塔科维奇与音乐学院的一个志愿兵大队一起，在列宁格勒周围挖壕沟、修筑武器阵地和反坦克障碍。”当月晚些时候，他被派往音乐学院消防队，保护屋顶免受燃烧弹袭击。他实际上从未有机会扑灭过燃烧弹；音乐学院的官员阿隆·奥斯特洛夫斯基在战争快结束时向他坦言，他们故意找借口让他离开屋顶，尤其是在危险迫在眉睫的时候。他们利用了前线演出对音乐安排的迫切需要。

肖斯塔科维奇开始为独唱、合唱和管弦乐队创作一部以《大卫诗篇》为题材的大型作品。几天后，他放弃了这一作品。随后，他又尝试写自己的文本，但同样不满意。1941 年 7 月 19 日，他开始创作一部即将在音乐史上占据独特地位的作品——《第七交响曲》 ：他后来回忆说：“我很快就写出了第七交响曲《列宁格勒》。我不能不写。战争四起，我必须与人民在一起，我想创造我们陷入战火的国家的形象，并将其铭刻在音乐中。”

8 月初，肖斯塔科维奇明显瘦了一圈，他向朋友格里克曼演奏了第一乐章的展开部和描写纳粹入侵的中心变奏情节的主题。他对自己作品的最终结果尚无把握，并预感到不可避免地会有人指责他模仿拉威尔的《波莱罗》，于是他说：“让他们指责我吧，但这就是我听到战争的方式。”

肖斯塔科维奇于 8 月 29 日完成了《第七交响曲》第一乐章的草稿（总谱于 1941 年 9 月 3 日完成），当时纳粹正在加强对列宁格勒的封锁。当时，列宁格勒主要艺术和知识机构的人员已经从德军前进的道路上撤离。8 月 22 日，肖斯塔科维奇在火车站送走了索列金斯基夫妇，他们与爱乐乐团一起启程前往最终目的地新西伯利亚。格里克曼随音乐学院前往塔什干。令他的朋友们惊愕的是，肖斯塔科维奇本人却拒绝撤离。8 月 29 日，他给索列林斯基写信说，他计划两天后与家人和 Lenfilm 一起撤往阿拉木图。肖斯塔科维奇没有离开。9 月 4 日，纳粹开始炮击列宁格勒。

9 月 14 日，肖斯塔科维奇与许多留在城里的表演艺术家一起，参加了一场为国防基金举办的义演。三天后，9 月 17 日，他的声音在列宁格勒广播电台播出：“一个小时前，我完成了一部大型交响乐作品前两个乐章的乐谱。如果我成功地完成了它，如果我能够完成第三和第四乐章，那么也许我就可以称它为我的第七交响曲了。我为什么要告诉你这些？这样，现在收听我节目的电台听众就会知道，我们城市的生活正在正常进行。”当晚，一些同事聚集在肖斯塔科维奇夫妇的公寓，聆听他们完成的乐章。其中一位在场者记录下了演出给听众带来的令人难以置信的强烈情感冲击。有一次，当防空警报响起时，肖斯塔科维奇提议他们稍事休息后继续演奏，以便他可以护送妻子和孩子前往防空洞。一周后，肖斯塔科维奇在这座饥饿的阴影已经笼罩的城市里，与几位宾客低调地庆祝了他的 35 岁生日。

9月29日，肖斯塔科维奇完成了交响曲第三乐章的乐谱。第二天晚上，当地党总部打来电话，命令肖斯塔科维奇撤离。1941 年 10 月 1 日，他与妻子和两个孩子一起飞往莫斯科，这让他的许多朋友松了一口气。他们不得不轻装上阵：肖斯塔科维奇随身携带的唯一乐谱是《麦克白夫人》、他的《第七交响曲》和斯特拉文斯基的《诗篇交响曲》（乐谱和他自己的钢琴编曲）。1944 年秋天，当他终于能够回到列宁格勒时，他很感动地发现自己的其他手稿都被精心保存在列宁格勒爱乐乐团中。当时更紧迫的担忧是，他被迫留下其他家庭成员，包括他的母亲、姐妹、侄子以及他妻子的亲戚。他离开时被告知他们将被直接疏散。

In the week that followed the declaration of war, activities at the Conservatory proceeded almost as if nothing had happened. Exams were completed, students were graduated, and stipend recipients for the next year were selected. Shostakovich had immediately volunteered for the army but was told, “We’ll call you when we need you.”1 Another application to join, dated 2 July 1941, also met with rejection. The impatient composer signed up with the Home Guard, then in the process of formation: “I am going to defendmy country and am prepared, sparing neither life nor strength, to carry out any mission I am assigned.”2 Shostakovich spent the next few weeks—with a brigade of volunteers from the Conservatory—digging ditches and throwing up weapon emplacements and antitank barriers around Leningrad. Later in the month he was assigned to the firefighting brigade at the Conservatory to protect the roof against incendiary attacks. He never actually had occasion to extinguish an incendiary; Conservatory official Aron Ostrovsky confessed to him toward the end of the war that they had deliberately devised excuses to get him off the roof, especially when danger was imminent, exploiting the pressing need for musical arrangements for front-line performance.3 But posed photographs of the helmeted composer steadfastly standing guard on the roof of the Conservatory, shot on 29 July and disseminated around the globe, served as potent symbols of Leningraders’ heroic resistance.

Shostakovich began a big work for soloist, chorus, and orchestra on the Psalms of David.6 He abandoned it after a few days. Then he tried writing his own text but, again, was dissatisfied. On 19 July 1941, he began the composition of a work that would soon occupy a unique place in the history of music, the Seventh Symphony.7 He composed with feverish intensity; it was so hard to tear himself away that he even took the score with him to the roof of the Conservatory.8 He later recalled: “I wrote my Seventh Symphony, the Leningrad, quickly. I couldn’t not write it. War was all around. I had to be together with the people, I wanted to create the image of our embattled country, to engrave it in music.”

In early August, noticeably leaner, Shostakovich played the exposition of the first movement and the theme for the central variation episode depicting the Nazi invasion to his friend Glikman. As yet unsure of the eventual outcome of his work and anticipating inevitable accusations of his having imitated Ravel’s Boléro, he remarked: “Let them accuse me, but that’s how I hear war.”

Shostakovich completed the draft sketch of the first movement of his Seventh Symphony on 29 August (the fair copy of the score was completed on 3 September 1941) as the Nazi blockade of Leningrad was being consolidated. By then, the personnel of Leningrad’s main artistic and intellectual institutions had already been evacuated out of the path of the advancing German army. Shostakovich saw the Sollertinskys off at the train station on 22 August, when they departed with the Philharmonic for the eventual destination of Novosibirsk. Glikman departed with the Conservatory to Tashkent. To the consternation of his friends, Shostakovich himself resisted evacuation. On 29 August he wrote to Sollertinsky that he was planning to evacuate with his family along with Lenfilm to Alma-Ata in two days. Shostakovich did not leave. On 4 September, the Nazis began shelling Leningrad.

On 14 September, together with many of the performing artists who remained in the city, Shostakovich participated in a benefit concert for the defense fund. Three days later, on 17 September, his voice was broadcast over Leningrad Radio: “An hour ago I finished the score of two movements of a large symphonic composition. If I succeed in carrying it off, if I manage to complete the third and fourth movements, then perhaps I’ll be able to call it my Seventh Symphony. Why am I telling you this? So that the radio listeners who are listening to me now will know that life in our city is proceeding normally.”11 That evening, some colleagues gathered at the Shostakoviches’ apartment to hear the completed movements. One of those present recorded the incredible emotional intensity and immediacy of the impact the performance produced on its audience. At one point, when the airraid sirens sounded, Shostakovich proposed that they continue the music-making after a short break so that he could escort his wife and children to the shelter.12 A week later Shostakovich celebrated his thirty-fifth birthday modestly, with just a few guests, in a city over which the specter of starvation already hovered.

On 29 September, Shostakovich completed the score of the third movement of his symphony. The next evening the call came from local Party headquarters ordering Shostakovich to evacuate. To the enormous relief of his many friends, on 1 October 1941 he was flown with his wife and two children to Moscow. They were obliged to travel light: the only scores Shostakovich took with him were those of Lady Macbeth, his Seventh Symphony, and Stravinsky’s Symphony of Psalms (the score and his own piano arrangement).13 When he was finally able to return to Leningrad in the fall of 1944, he was touched to discover that his other manuscripts had been carefully preserved at the Leningrad Philharmonic. Of more immediate concern was the fact that he was forced to leave behind the other members of his family, his mother, sister, and nephew and his wife’s relatives.14 He left with the understanding that they would be evacuated directly.

肖斯塔科维奇在准备一部重要的新作品时可能获得的满足感，被他对列宁格勒亲人命运的巨大焦虑所削弱。从偶尔的来信中，他了解到家人在被封锁的列宁格勒所遭受的极度困苦，那里的粮食情况十分危急。他被告知他的狗被吃掉了，城里再也没有猫和狗了。他在那里的几个亲戚都患有营养不良。肖斯塔科维奇感到非常沮丧，因为他费时费力的努力和得到的所有援助承诺都没有产生任何结果，尤其是他在离开列宁格勒时曾得到承诺，他的母亲、姐姐和侄子将在一天左右的时间内随他离开列宁格勒。他在古比雪夫的处境不太理想，这加剧了他的不安。公寓里冷得要命。肖斯塔科维奇极度渴望朋友的陪伴，怀念活跃的文化生活对他的刺激。他无法获得足够的纸张、文字或手稿。到 1942 年 2 月，他注意到许多人开始返回莫斯科，他自己也萌生了前往塔什干的念头，但他决定最好还是留在原地，直到能够确保亲属的安全。在 2 月 14 日的一次排练中，他得知家人将无需排队即可从列宁格勒撤离的消息，这让他“高兴了两三个小时”。

3月20日，肖斯塔科维奇与大剧院管弦乐团的首席们一起飞往莫斯科，为在首都演出第七交响曲做准备。出发前一天，他终于在古比雪夫与母亲、姐姐和侄子团聚。尽管他报告说他的母亲已经瘦得皮包骨头，但看到玛丽亚和她的儿子在这场磨难中幸存下来，他还是松了口气。在莫斯科，肖斯塔科维奇找到了他的岳父母（他们也是刚刚从列宁格勒撤离的）并将他们送到了古比雪夫。尽管几周前肖斯塔科维奇与家人搬到了古比雪夫一套更宽敞的四居室公寓，但作曲家还是清楚地意识到，自己肩负着养活新来的亲戚并让他们恢复健康的重任。

The satisfaction Shostakovich might have derived from the preparation of a major new work was undermined by his consuming anxiety over the fate of his loved ones in Leningrad. From the occasional letter, he knew about the desperate hardships his family was enduring in blockaded Leningrad, where the food situation was critical. He was told that his dog had been eaten and that there were no more cats and dogs in the city. Several of his relatives there were suffering from malnutrition. Shostakovich was greatly frustrated that his time-consuming efforts and all the promises of assistance he had received had as yet failed to produce any results, especially since he had been promised when he left Leningrad that his mother, sister, and nephew would follow in a day or so. His agitation was compounded by his less than ideal situation in Kuybïshev. The apartment was freezing. Shostakovich was desperately lonely for his friends and missed the stimulation of an active cultural life. He could not get hold of enough paper, writing or manuscript. By February 1942, he noted that many people were beginning to return to Moscow and himself toyed with the idea of going on to Tashkent, but he decided it was best to stay put until he could ensure the safety of his relatives. At a rehearsal on 14 February, he was given the news that his family would be evacuated from Leningrad without waiting in line, which cheered him up for “two or three hours.”33

On 20 March, Shostakovich flew to Moscow with the principals of the Bolshoy Theater Orchestra to prepare for performances of the Seventh Symphony in the capital. A day before his departure, he was finally reunited with his mother, sister, and nephew in Kuybïshev. Although he reported that his mother was all skin and bones, he was relieved to see that Mariya and her son had survived their ordeal tolerably well. In Moscow, Shostakovich found his in-laws—also recently evacuated from Leningrad—and sent them on to Kuybïshev. Although a few weeks earlier Shostakovich had moved with his family to a more spacious four-room apartment in Kuybïshev, the composer was acutely aware of the burden of his responsibility to feed and restore to health his newly arrived relatives.

不久之后，肖斯塔科维奇向音乐家和朋友演奏了完整的交响曲，其中包括列夫·奥博林和萨穆伊尔·萨摩苏德、艺术家彼得·维利亚姆斯和他的妻子安娜，以及竖琴家维拉·杜洛娃。利特维诺娃回忆起当时的情景：

当德米特里·德米特里耶维奇演奏完后，所有人都冲向他。他很疲惫，很激动。所有人同时开口。关于这个主题（第一乐章的“入侵”插曲），关于法西斯主义。有人立即将这一主题称为“老鼠”。他们谈到了战争、斗争和胜利……萨莫萨德预言这首交响曲将获得巨大成功：它将在世界各地演奏。

那天傍晚……我又去找肖斯塔科维奇夫妇喝茶。他们自然又在谈论交响乐。然后德米特里·德米特里耶维奇沉思着说：“当然是法西斯主义。但音乐，真正的音乐，从来都不是依附于某个主题的。法西斯主义不仅仅是国家社会主义。这种音乐是关于恐怖、奴役和精神束缚的。”后来，当德米特里·德米特里耶维奇熟悉了我并开始信任我时，他直接告诉我，第七交响曲（以及第五交响曲）不仅是关于法西斯主义的，也是关于我们的制度的，总之是关于任何极权主义的。

Soon afterward, Shostakovich played the completed symphony to musicians and friends, among them Lev Oborin and Samuíl Samosud, the artist Pyotr Vilyams and his wife Anna, and the harpist Vera Dulova. Litvinova recalled the occasion:

When Dmitriy Dmitriyevich finished playing, everyone rushed up to him. He was tired, agitated. Everyone spoke at the same time. About this theme [the "invasion" episode of the first movement], about fascism. Someone immediately dubbed the theme "ratlike." They spoke about the war, struggle, and Victory... Samosud predicted enormous success for the symphony: it will be played everywhere.

Later that evening ... I looked in again on the Shostakoviches to drink tea. Naturally, they were talking about the symphony again. And then Dmitriy Dmitriyevich said reflectively: "Fascism, of course. Butmusic, real music, is never attached literally to a theme. Fascism isn't simply National Socialism. This music is about terror, slavery, the bondage of the spirit." Later, when Dmitriy Dmitriyevich became used to me and began to trust me, he told me directly that the Seventh (and the Fifth as well) are not only about fascism but about our system, in general about any totalitarianism.

在首都，肖斯塔科维奇和他的家人住在莫斯科酒店。他们到达后不久，鲍里斯·凯金就在酒店遇到了作曲家。在空袭警报频繁出现的时候，他回忆起作曲家在地下室焦急地踱步，自言自语道：“莱特兄弟，莱特兄弟，你们创造了什么，你们创造了什么？”肖斯塔科维奇在莫斯科逗留期间，频繁地露面和接受采访。他讲述了一个引人入胜的故事，一位勇敢的年轻作曲家拒绝疏散以保卫自己的家乡的故事，不仅通过身体行动，而且还通过人类最受尊敬的努力之一——与战争的破坏性冲动本质上对立的努力——艺术创作。这是一种令人振奋的宣传武器，既能激发灵感，又能激发反抗，几乎从作品构思的那一刻起，它的宣传作用就被巧妙地利用了。

交响曲完成后，肖斯塔科维奇向索勒廷斯基报告：“前三个乐章取得了成功。第四乐章还很新鲜，因此我还不能对它进行充分的批判，但似乎一切都很好。前三个乐章（尤其是第一和第三乐章）经受住了时间的考验，仍然让我感到满意。”一些评论家对结局的简短和“不够”乐观提出了批评。被艺术事务委员会征召指挥第七交响曲首演的萨莫舒德（在该交响曲完成后的几天内就被推举为斯大林奖得主）试图说服作曲家，要使终曲真正有效，他需要的是加入独唱和合唱来歌颂斯大林。但正如肖斯塔科维奇告诉格利克曼的那样：“第四乐章引发了许多其他有价值的言论；我会考虑，但不会付诸实践，因为就我而言，这个乐章不需要合唱团和独唱演员，乐观的态度就足够了。”

1942 年 3 月 5 日晚，肖斯塔科维奇的第七交响曲在库伊比舍夫首演，演出向全国广播并向国外转播。这是一场意义空前的音乐盛会，在长达数月的期待中上演。在音乐会之前，肖斯塔科维奇一如他在音乐首演前的表现，紧张得一塌糊涂：“德米特里·德米特里耶维奇处于极度焦虑和紧张的状态。他从一个房间跑到另一个房间，喃喃自语。他面色苍白，紧握拳头”。肖斯塔科维奇在演出前通过现场和广播向观众发表讲话，解释了他是如何创作出这部作品的，描述了乐曲的特点和内容。三周后，他在《真理报》上发表了一篇鼓舞人心的文章，强调了《第七交响曲》背后深深的爱国主义冲动：

我们正在对抗希特勒的战争是一场极其正义的战争。我们正在捍卫祖国的自由、荣誉和独立。我们正在为人类历史上的最高理想而奋斗。我们正在为我们的文化、科学、艺术以及我们创造和建设的一切而战。苏联艺术家永远不会置身于理性与蒙昧、文化与野蛮、光明与黑暗的历史对峙之外……我将我的第七交响曲献给我们与法西斯主义的斗争，献给我们即将战胜敌人的胜利，以及我的家乡列宁格勒。

In the capital, Shostakovich and his family put up at the Hotel Moscow. Boris Khaikin ran into the composer in the hotel shortly after their arrival. At a time when air raid alerts were a frequent occurrence, he recalled observing the composer anxiously pacing in the basement muttering to himself, “Wright brothers, Wright brothers, what have you wrought, what have you wrought?”15 Shostakovich’s stay in Moscow was crowded with interviews and appearances. His made a compelling story, that of a courageous young composer resisting evacuation to defend his native city not only by physical deeds but also through one of the most venerated of human endeavors—one inherently antithetical to the destructive impulse of war—the creation of art. It was a heady propaganda weapon, evoking both inspiration and defiance, and its publicity was exploited skillfully almost from the moment of the work’s conception.

On completion of the symphony, Shostakovich reported to Sollertinsky: “Three movements turned out successfully. The fourth movement is still much too fresh and thus I can’t treat it sufficiently critically, but it seems that everything is also fine. The first three movements (especially the first and third) have stood the test of time and still continue to please me.”30 Some critics found fault with the finale, with its brevity and “insufficient” optimism. Samosud, drafted by the Committee for Artistic Affairs to conduct the premiere of the Seventh Symphony (within days of its completion already being promoted for a Stalin Prize), tried to persuade the composer that to make the finale really effective what he needed was to include soloists and chorus to sing the praises of Stalin. As Shostakovich told Glikman, “There are a whole host of other valuable remarks occasioned by the fourth movement; I take them under consideration, but not into practice, because as far as I am concerned there is no need for a choir and soloists in this movement and the optimism is entirely sufficient.”

On the evening of 5 March 1942, Shostakovich’s Seventh Symphony received its premiere in Kuybïshev in a performance broadcast nationwide and transmitted abroad. It was a musical event of unprecedented significance, offered in an atmosphere charged by months of anticipation. Before the concert, as was his tendency before the premieres of his music, Shostakovich was a nervous wreck: “Dmitriy Dmitriyevich was in a state of acute agitation and tension. He ran from one room to another, mumbling a greeting in passing. He looked pale, and he was clenching his fists.” Shostakovich addressed the audience, live and radio, before the performance, explaining how he came to write the piece, describing its character and content. In an inspirational article published in Pravda three weeks later, he reinforced the deeply patriotic impulse behind his Seventh Symphony:

The war we are fighting against Hitler is an eminently just war. We are defending the freedom, honor, and independence of our Motherland.We are struggling for the highest human ideals in history. We are battling for our culture, for science, for art, for everything we have created and built. And the Soviet artist will never stand aside from that historical confrontation now taking place between reason and obscurantism, between culture and barbarity, between light and darkness.… I dedicate my Seventh Symphony to our struggle with fascism, to our coming victory over the enemy, and to my native city, Leningrad.

第二天，当一些学生来上课时，肖斯塔科维奇告诉他们，他的新年开局很糟糕，因为他被困在三楼和四楼之间的电梯里十分钟。他多次重复这一点，足以让人怀疑他可能迷信。

肖斯塔科维奇的迷信想法很快就得到了证实。1944年2月11日，他最亲密的朋友和同伴、他最尊敬的人伊万•索勒廷斯基在新西伯利亚突然去世，享年41岁——此前几天他一直抱怨心脏疼痛。战争年代，与索勒廷斯基的分离对肖斯塔科维奇来说非常艰难。1943年春天，他在莫斯科一站稳脚跟，就开始不懈地策划让他的朋友来首都与他会合。肖斯塔科维奇热切地等待着索勒廷斯基九月访问莫斯科，当时他为他演奏了他刚刚完成的第八交响曲，并在十一月再次访问，除了其他活动外，索勒廷斯基还发表了全国广播讲话，纪念柴可夫斯基逝世五十周年。12月中旬，他抵达新西伯利亚，永久迁往莫斯科的计划已经敲定。就在他去世前几天，即1944年2月5日至6日晚上，索勒廷斯基介绍了肖斯塔科维奇第八交响曲在新西伯利亚的首演。

肖斯塔科维奇的悲痛是无法估量的。他向索勒廷斯基的遗孀表示哀悼：“当我听到伊万•伊万诺维奇去世的消息时，我无法用言语表达我的悲痛。伊万·伊万诺维奇是我最亲密、最亲爱的朋友。我的成长都归功于他。失去了他，生活将难以忍受。”他发表的悼词和随后的回忆一样，同样充满个人色彩和辛酸。二十多年后，肖斯塔科维奇在一次电视采访中承认：“当我创作新作品时，我总是想，伊万·伊万诺维奇对此会怎么说？”

The next day, when some students came for their lesson, Shostakovich told them his new year had gotten off to a bad start because he had become stuck in the elevator between the third and fourth floors for ten minutes. He reiterated this often enough to provoke the suspicion that he might be superstitious.

Any disposition Shostakovich might have had toward superstition was soon validated. On 11 February 1944, his closest friend and com-panion, the person he respected most, Ivan Sollertinsky, died suddenly in Novosibirsk at the age of forty-one—in preceding days he had been complaining of heart pains. The separation from Sollertin-sky had been hard on Shostakovich during the war years. No sooner had he secured his own niche in Moscow in the spring of 1943 than he started plotting unremittingly for his friend to join him in the capi-tal. Shostakovich eagerly awaited Sollertinsky's visits to Moscow in September, when he played him his just-completed Eighth Symphony, and again in November, when, among his other activities, Sollertinsky gave a nationally broadcast address commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Chaikovsky's death. When he returned to Novosibirsk in mid-December, plans for his permanent move to Moscow had been finalized. Only a few days before his death, on the nights of 5 and 6 February 1944, Sollertinsky introduced the premiere performances of Shostakovich's Eighth Symphony in Novosibirsk.

Shostakovich's loss was incalculable. He offered his condolences to Sollertinsky's widow: "It is impossible to express in words all the grief that engulfed me on hearing the news about Ivan Ivanovich's death.Ivan Ivanovich was my very closest and dearest friend. I am indebted to him for all my growth. To live without him will be unbearably diffi-cult."71 His published eulogy was no less personal and poignant, as were subsequent reminiscences. More than twenty years later, Shostakovich confessed in a television interview, "When I work on new compositions, I always think, And what would Ivan Ivanovich have said about this?"

Chapter 9. “Victory”(1945–1948)

在战争年代，对苏联艺术家和知识分子的严格管制不可避免地从首要任务清单中消失了。在胜利后的欣喜之中，苏联知识分子普遍相信，战争时期放松的对艺术的限制和压制，将在和平时期转化为更加轻松和开明的文化氛围。他们的希望很快破灭了。偏执的斯大林意识到自己的权力受到来自国内以及资本主义西方（由于苏联与盟军之间接触的结果）的威胁，他带着一种新的紧迫感采取行动，重申他对整个知识界的统治。

During the war years, strict regimentation of Soviet artists and intellectuals had inevitably slipped from the list of top priorities. In the euphoria immediately following victory, faith that the loosening of constraints and repressive control over the arts would translate in peacetime into a more relaxed and enlightened cultural atmosphere was shared widely by Soviet intellectuals. Their hopes were quickly deflated. Perceiving threats to his power both from within the country and—as a consequence of the contacts between Soviet and Allied forces-from the capitalist West, a paranoid Stalin moved with a sense of fresh urgency to reassert his domination over the intelligentsia as a whole.

1946 年 9 月 30 日，音乐学家伊兹拉尔·涅斯捷耶夫发表了一篇高度批评的文章《关于 D. 肖斯塔科维奇作品的评论：由他的第九交响曲引发的一些思考》（Remarks on the Work of D. Shostakovich: Some Thoughts Occasion by His Ninth Symphony）。这篇文章的发表时间正值作曲家全会召开前夕，又正值日丹诺夫在中央委员会宣传鼓动局最近成立的机关报《文化与思想》演讲稿发表，时机和背景都很能说明问题。涅斯捷耶夫承认肖斯塔科维奇最优秀的乐曲是苏联音乐的骄傲，但困惑的涅斯季耶夫对第九交响曲俏皮、怪诞的幽默寻求令人满意的解释：“第九交响曲是一种喘息的机会，是肖斯塔科维奇重要创作之间轻松有趣的插曲，是为了有趣、精致的装饰而暂时放弃伟大、严肃的问题。但是，对于一位伟大的艺术家来说，现在是度假、从当代问题中解脱出来的时候吗？”在肖斯塔科维奇的音乐生涯中，他的音乐不止一次被分为两种截然不同的倾向。第一种倾向，也是过去十年中最突出的一种倾向，涅斯捷耶夫将其描述为对艺术的崇高原则和人文主义的追求。第二种倾向的特点是“玩世不恭、恶毒的怪诞、无情的嘲笑和讥讽、强调生活的丑陋和残酷、风格化的冷酷讽刺”。斯特拉文斯基（“一个没有祖国的艺术家，不相信进步、崇高的理想和深刻的伦理原则”）被认为是后一种倾向的无与伦比的大师，这种倾向源于资产阶级艺术的衰落。文章最后对肖斯塔科维奇提出了明确的指控：“对于过去二十年成长起来的整整一代苏联人来说，肖斯塔科维奇是他们最喜爱的作曲家，是他们的骄傲和希望。这一代人相信肖斯塔科维奇，在他身上看到了最崇高理想和奋斗的表达，看到了生活真理的歌唱者。他们期待作曲家在未来的作品中表现出这种真理。”

哈恰图良在 1946 年 10 月 2 日至 8 日召开的全会上作为主要发言人，召集了全国各地的代表，提出了讨论的问题，概述了中央委员会决议对苏联音乐界和音乐生活的影响。涅斯捷耶夫的文章一经发表，就迫使他着手解决肖斯塔科维奇的第九交响曲问题。哈恰图良巧妙地推迟了评判，承认在英雄的第七交响曲和悲剧的第八交响曲之后，“我们有权期待一部不同的第九交响曲，它更具纪念意义，更与伟大的当代形象联系在一起。目前，肖斯塔科维奇承诺的交响三部曲仍未完成，而现在的《第九交响曲》则回避了完成该三部曲的任务。”他坚定地为肖斯塔科维奇辩护，免去了他受西方阴险影响的指控，将他描述为一位从俄罗斯民族传统中孕育出来的苏联爱国者，同时也是苏联音乐的骄傲。随后的几位演讲者试图玷污这一形象，将这位作曲家从崇高的地位上拉下来，但他们同样被热心的辩护者所击退。更具有威胁性的是对肖斯塔科维奇“模仿者”，包括莫伊西·万伯格和尤里·列维汀在内的年轻作曲家的攻击，他们的音乐被认为没有足够辨别力地受到了肖斯塔科维奇音乐的强烈影响。值得注意的是，当肖斯塔科维奇最终向大会发表讲话时，并没有理会针对他自己的音乐的批评。他既没有做出任何让步，也没有道歉。除了对中央委员会决议的广泛意义发表评论之外，他只是站出来为年轻作曲家辩护。

On 30 September 1946, a highly critical article by musicologist Izrail Nestyev, "Remarks on the Work of D. Shostakovich: Some Thoughts Occasioned by His Ninth Symphony," was published. The timing of its appearance, on the eve of the Composers' Plenum, and its context, alongside the transcript of Zhdanov's speech in Kultura i zhizn', the recently founded organ of the Central Committee's Directorate for Propaganda and Agitation, spoke volumes. Acknowledging Shostakovich's best scores as the pride of Soviet music, a puzzled Nestyev nevertheless sought satisfactory explanations for the appearance of the Ninth Symphony with its playful and grotesque humor: "What remains to be proposed is that the Ninth Symphony is a kind of respite, a light and amusing interlude between Shostakovich's significant creations, a temporary rejection of great, serious problems for the sake of playful, filigree-trimmed trifles. But is it the right time for a great artist to go on vacation, to take a break from contemporary problems?" Not for the first time in Shostakovich's career, his music was separated into two sharply contrasting tendencies. The first, and admittedly most prominent over the past ten years, was characterized by Nestyev as the striving for high principles and the humanism of art. The second was characterized by its "cynical, pernicious grotes-querie, the tone of relentless mockery and ridicule, emphasis on the ugliness and cruelty of life, the cold irony of stylization." Stravinsky ('an artist without a country, without belief in progressive, elevated ideals and deep ethical principles") was invoked as the unrivaled master of this latter tendency, one stemming from the decline of bourgeois art. The article concluded with a clear charge to Shostakovich: "For a whole generation of Soviet people who have grown up over the past twenty years, Shostakovich is their favorite composer, their pride and hope. This generation believes in Shostakovich, seeing in him the expression of the noblest ideals and strivings, a singer of life's truths. It expects this truth from the composer in his future work."

It fell to Khachaturyan, as keynote speaker at the Plenum, which took place from 2 to 8 October 1946 and gathered together representatives from all across the country, to frame the issues for discussion, to outline the implications of the Central Committee resolutions for the world of Soviet music and musical life. The appearance of Nestyev’s article obliged him to tackle the problem of Shostakovich’s Ninth Symphony. Khachaturyan deftly postponed judgment by acknowledging that after the heroic Seventh and the tragic Eighth Symphony, “We were entitled to expect a different Ninth Symphony, more monumental, more associated with great contemporary images. For now the symphonic trilogy promised by Shostakovich remains unfinished, and the present Ninth Symphony evades the task of completing that trilogy.”34 He was firm in his defense of Shostakovich from accusations of insidious influence from the West, describing him as a Soviet patriot bred from Russian national traditions and as the pride of Soviet music. Several subsequent speakers attempted to tarnish this image, to tear down the composer from his lofty pedestal, but they were counterbalanced by equally ardent defenders. More threatening were attacks on Shostakovich’s “imitators,” young composers including Moisey Vainberg and Yuriy Levitin,whose music was thought to manifest the strong influence of Shostakovich’s music with insufficient discrimination. It did not escape notice that when Shostakovich finally spoke to the assembly, he did not bother to address the criticisms leveled at his own music.He made no concessions, no apologies. Beyond his comments on the broad significance of the Central Committee resolutions, he rose only to the defense of the younger composers.

当肖斯塔科维奇与家人和朋友一起迎接 1948 年的新年时，空气中弥漫着一种不祥的预感。莫斯科大剧院惨败的消息迅速传遍了艺术界，因此当肖斯塔科维奇被传唤到与日丹诺夫的会议上时，他不可能对局势的严重性抱有任何幻想。作为一个曾经被定罪，后来又重新回到苏联音乐界、并被提升到了声望的顶峰的形式主义者（此外，他自《第七交响曲》以来所取得的成功都是模棱两可的），肖斯塔科维奇被指为了苏联音乐界的首要惯犯。一位又一位的发言者对《第八交响曲》的复杂语言、以及人们对《第九交响曲》的普遍幻灭提出了质疑。肖斯塔科维奇与他最杰出的同行一样，被认为可以凌驾于批评之上；作为作曲家和教师，他对后几代苏联作曲家产生了巨大的影响；作为作曲家联盟的领导人，他对苏联音乐和音乐家的福祉拥有无与伦比的控制权。这一切都使他变得更加脆弱。

一个悲惨的巧合是，在会议的最后一天，1948 年 1 月 13 日，也就是肖斯塔科维奇不得不在日丹诺夫和他的同行面前卑躬屈膝的同一天，杰出的犹太演员所罗门·米霍埃尔斯的尸体在明斯克被发现。他被谋杀的怀疑后来得到了证实。中央委员会会议结束后，作为家庭朋友的肖斯塔科维奇看望了悲痛欲绝的亲属。米霍埃尔斯的女儿回忆说，肖斯塔科维奇在转达他对米霍埃尔斯丧父之痛的哀悼时说：“我真羡慕他。”肖斯塔科维奇后来向格里克曼描述会议过程时说：“十二年前我还年轻，能够更好地应对各种责难。我老了，我不行了。”

在二月的会议上，肖斯塔科维奇竭力为自己向不可避免的命运屈服的行为做出一副勇敢的表情。他在发言中承认，每当党在艺术问题上进行干预时，总是给苏联艺术带来好处。他认真对待了 1936 年《麦克白夫人》的批评，并反思道，近年来，他一直以为自己的创作已经开始向另一个方向发展，但现在才意识到，他的音乐又一次陷入了群众无法理解的形式主义语言之中：“今天，在中央委员会决议的声明中，党和全国人民谴责了我的创作方向。我知道党是正确的。我知道，党是在关心苏联艺术，关心我这个苏联作曲家。”他承诺道：“我将一再努力，从思想内容、音乐语言和形式的角度出发，创作出人民能够理解和接受的交响乐作品。我将更加努力地在音乐中体现俄罗斯人民的英雄形象。”他还发誓要创作更多的群众歌曲，并在发言的最后号召所有作曲家为实现这一“了不起”的决议而努力。

新闻界掀起了一场反对形式主义作曲家的运动。由于日丹诺夫同志和中央委员会的及时干预，苏联音乐的现状得到了遏制，公民和爱国音乐爱好者公开或私下表达了他们的愤慨。(1949年，莫斯科艺术剧院出版并上演了一部关于“形式主义”作曲家堕落并最终获得救赎的现代戏剧，这部戏剧的主人公被广泛认为是以肖斯塔科维奇为原型。） 1953 年，斯大林逝世后不久，肖斯塔科维奇回顾了他这一时期的生活：“当他们批评我的形式主义时，你不会相信我收到了多少封来自陌生人的毒笔信，这些陌生人几乎不懂音乐。信中有这样的表述：你应该被处决，被杀死，被消灭，你这个恶棍，等等。”

肖斯塔科维奇的苦难并没有随着公开清洗的结束而结束。2 月 14 日，根据中央审查委员会的命令，一长串“形式主义”作曲家的作品被正式禁止演出，并从曲目中删除。肖斯塔科维奇被禁作品的名单包括第六、第八和第九交响曲、钢琴协奏曲、两首弦乐八重奏、第二钢琴奏鸣曲、根据 W. Raleigh、R. Burns 和 W. Shake-speare 以及箴言的文字改编的六首浪漫曲。只有少数几部地位毋庸置疑的作品——例如第一、第五和第七交响曲，以及钢琴五重奏——被明显地从名单中删除了。除了明显的例外情况，75 位谨慎的演奏家和音乐会管理者发现，从他们的节目单中删除被定罪作曲家的所有作品更为稳妥。

1948 年 9 月 1 日，肖斯塔科维奇被莫斯科和列宁格勒音乐学院解除教授职务。在《音乐之声》上刊登的一幅漫画中，一排穿着短裤、面容相同的肖斯塔科维奇式小个子从两所教育机构的内门走出来。在这两所学校的围墙内，一场根除形式主义病症的战斗打响了，肖斯塔科维奇对苏联年轻音乐家的有害影响也随之消除。在一次音乐学校考试中，他十岁的儿子被迫诋毁自己的父亲。然而，学生谴责肖斯塔科维奇的巨大压力至少遇到了小范围的抵制。肖斯塔科维奇和其他名誉扫地的作曲家所幸免的屈辱之一就是被逐出作曲家联盟。

As Shostakovich greeted the new year of 1948 with his family and friends, a feeling of foreboding was in the air.48 News of the debacle at the Bolshoy Theater spread quickly through the artistic community, so when Shostakovich was among those summoned to the convocation with Zhdanov, he could have had no illusions about the gravity of the situation. As a one-time convicted formalist who had been nurtured back into the fold and elevated to the pinnacle of prestige in the world of Soviet music—one, furthermore, whose successes since the Seventh Symphony had all been equivocal—Shostakovich was a prime target for accusations of recidivism. Speaker after speaker raised questions about the complex language of the Eighth Symphony and the widespread disillusionment with the Ninth. That Shostakovich—along with his most eminent peers—was perceived to be above criticism, that as composer and teacher he exerted enormous influence on rising generations of Soviet composers, that as a leader in the Composers’ Union he wielded inordinate control over the welfare of Soviet music and musicians, made him all the more vulnerable.

In a tragic coincidence, on the final day of the conference, 13 January 1948, the same day Shostakovich was obliged to humble himself before Zhdanov and his peers, the body of the distinguished Jewish actor Solomon Mikhoels was discovered in Minsk. Suspicions that he had been murdered were later confirmed. Shostakovich, who was a family friend, visited the grieving relatives after the Central Committee meeting had ended. As he conveyed his condolences over the loss of her father, Mikhoels's daughter recalled that Shostakovich remarked, "I envy him."52 When he subsequently described the conference proceedings to Glikman, he observed, "Twelve years ago I was younger and better able to cope with all sorts of rebukes. I'm getting old. I'm giving out."

At the February meeting, Shostakovich struggled to put a brave face on his own capitulation to the inevitable. In his remarks he conceded that whenever the Party had interceded in artistic matters, it had always brought benefit to Soviet art. Having taken the criticisms of Lady Macbeth in 1936 seriously to heart, he reflected that in recent years he had thought his work had begun to evolve in a different direction, only to realize now that his music had once again lapsed into a formalist language incomprehensible to the masses: "When, today, through the pronouncements of the Central Committee resolu-tion, the Party and all of our country condemn this direction in my creative work, I know that the Party is right. I know that the Party is showing concern for Soviet art and for me, a Soviet composer."65 He promised: "I will try again and again to create symphonic works that are comprehensible and accessible to the people, from the standpoint of their ideological content, musical language and form. I will work ever more diligently on the musical embodiment of images of the heroic Russian people." He vowed also to write more mass songs and concluded his remarks with a rallying call to all composers to the task of realizing this "marvelous" resolution.

The campaign against the formalist composers was fanned by the press. Citizens and patriotic music-lovers vented their indignation, publicly and privately, at the state of affairs in Soviet music that had been checked, thanks to the timely intervention of Comrade Zhdanov and the Central Committee. (Its lessons were subsequently simplified and reinforced by the publication and production at the Moscow Art Theater in 1949 of a contemporary play about the downfall and eventual redemption of a "formalist" composer; the protagonist was widely perceived to represent Shostakovich.67 ) In 1953, shortly after Stalin's death, Shostakovich reflected back on this period of his life: "When they criticized me for formalism, you won't believe how many poison-pen letters I received from absolute strangers, scarcely literate in music. These were the kind of expressions to be found in them: You ought to be executed, killed, exterminated, you scoundrel, and so on."

Shostakovich's tribulations did not end with public purgation. By order of Glavrertkom, the central censorship board, on 14 February a long list of works by the "formalist" composers was officially pro-scribed for performance and removed from the repertory. The roster of Shostakovich's banned works included Symphonies nos. 6, 8, and 9, the Piano Concerto, Two Pieces for String Octet, the Second Piano Sonata, Six Romances on Texts by W. Raleigh, R. Burns, and W. Shake-speare, and Aphorisms. Only a few works of unquestioned stature— the First, Fifth, and Seventh Symphonies, for instance, and the Piano Quintet-were conspicuously omitted from the list.It made little difference. With notable exceptions, 75 cautious performers and concert managers found it more prudent to strike from their programs all works by the condemned composers.

As of 1 September 1948, Shostakovich was dismissed from his professorships at the Moscow and Leningrad Conservatories. In a cartoon published in Sovetskaya muzika, a line of identical little bespectacled Shostakoviches in short pants was shown emerging from the inset portals of the two educational institutions. Within their walls, the battle was engaged to eradicate the disease of formalism, and with it Shostakovich's pernicious influence on young Soviet musicians. His ten-year-old son was made to vilify his father during a music school exam. The extraordinary pressure exerted on students to denounce him encountered, however, at least small pockets of resistance. One of the few humiliations Shostakovich and the other disgraced composers were spared was expulsion from the Composers'Union.

多年后，1965 年，肖斯塔科维奇对伊利亚·爱伦堡在其回忆录中描述的会议过程提出了异议：“1948年初，S.S.普罗科菲耶夫和D.D.肖斯塔科维奇表示，日丹诺夫邀请了作曲家们，并试图展示什么是‘旋律性’，为了与那些有缺陷的作品形成对比，他用钢琴演奏了一些东西。”读完这篇文章后，肖斯塔科维奇立即给爱伦堡寄去了一封抗议信，称从未发生过这样的事情，而他，肖斯塔科维奇，见证了日丹诺夫作为演奏家和教育家的传奇故事的诞生：“事实上，这种事从未发生过。日丹诺夫并没有坐在钢琴前，而是用他的演说方法指导作曲家。”肖斯塔科维奇要求爱伦堡在今后出版的回忆录中纠正这一错误，对此，爱伦堡同意用肖斯塔科维奇对日丹诺夫教育方法的描述来代替。

Years later, in 1965, Shostakovich objected to the way Ilya Erenburg had described the proceedings in his memoirs:“At the beginning of 1948, S. S. Prokofiev and D. D. Shostakovich related that Zhdanov had invited the composers and—in an attempt to demonstrate what ‘melodic’music was, in contrast to the flawed works—had played something on the piano.”50 After reading this, Shostakovich immediately mailed a letter of protest to Erenburg, saying that no such thing had ever taken place, but that he, Shostakovich, had witnessed the creation of the legend of Zhdanov as performer-pedagogue:“In actual fact this never happened. Zhdanov did not sit down at the piano, he instructed the composers using the methods of his oratory.”In response to Shostakovich’s request that, in future editions of his memoirs, he correct this mistake, Erenburg agreed to substitute Shostakovich’s description of Zhdanov’s methodology.

Chapter.10 Public and Private(1948–1953)

伊利亚·爱伦堡的回忆录证实了出席这类大会和会议对肖斯塔科维奇而言是一种令人分心的负担，该回忆录已从他已出版的回忆录原版中删除，其中一段是这样的：

我记得在一个沉闷的日子里，我发现肖斯塔科维奇戴着耳机，他的脸色非常阴沉。我走到他身边。他低声说，他们把他从工作中拽了出来，现在他不得不听……我告诉他：“别听，摘掉耳机。”德米特里·德米特里耶维奇拒绝了：“大家都知道我不懂外语，他们会说这是对大会的不尊重”……第二天，我又看到他戴着耳机，这次他很高兴。他解释说“我想通了，我把耳机插头拔掉了。现在我什么都听不见了。真是太棒了！”

多年后，肖斯塔科维奇向年轻诗人叶夫根尼·叶夫图申科传授了另一个处理这种情况的有用技巧：“叶夫根尼·亚历山德罗维奇，我有我的方法来避免鼓掌。我假装我正在记录这些伟大的想法。感谢老天，大家都看到我的手被占用了。”

That his attendance at such congresses and conferences proved a burdensome distraction is confirmed by Ilya Erenburg's reminis-cences, expunged from the original publication of his published mem-oirs, of one such occasion:

I remember that on one dreary day I spotted Shostakovich with earphones on; his face was very gloomy. I went up to him. He whispered that they had torn him away from work and now he was forced to listen.… I told him, “Don’t listen, take off the earphones.” Dmitriy Dmitriyevich refused: “Everyone knows I don’t know foreign languages, they’ll say it was disrespect to the assembly.”…The next day I saw him again with earphones on, this time happy. He explained: “I figured it out—I unplugged them. Now I can’t hear anything. It’s absolutely marvelous!”

Years later, Shostakovich would impart another useful tip for dealing with such circumstances to the young poet Yevgeniy Yevtushenko: "I have my method, Yevgeniy Alexandrovich, to avoid applauding. I pretend that I am writing down these great thoughts. Thank heavens, everyone sees that my hands are occupied."

肖斯塔科维奇对斯大林之死的“官方”情感——深切的悲痛，对这位领导人为防止新的战争和促进世界工人之间的友谊所做的一切的赞赏，以及没有什么可以阻止共产主义胜利的持久信念——被迅速公开发表。对于斯大林之死所暗示的政治分水岭，肖斯塔科维奇私下里对未来的前景保持着清醒的认识。弗洛拉·利特维诺娃回忆说，虽然他表现出一种如释重负的感觉，但他并没有感到欣喜若狂。当年轻的杰尼索夫问他是否认为现在会发生更好的变化时，肖斯塔科维奇回答说：“爱迪克，时代是新的，但告密者却是旧人。”

Shostakovich's "official" sentiments on the death of Stalin-deep grief, appreciation for all that the leader had done to prevent a new war and foster friendship among the workers of the world, and an enduring faith that nothing could prevent the triumph of communism—were promptly publicized. With respect to the political watershed intimated by Stalin's death, Shostakovich in private remained sober about prospects for the future. Flora Litvinova recalls that while he exhibited a sense of relief, he felt no euphoria. And when the young Denisov asked him if whether he thought there would now be changes for the better, Shostakovich replied: "Edik, the times are new, but the informers are old."

Chapter 11. The Thaw(1953–1958)

1956 年 2 月 25 日凌晨，尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫在共产党第二十次代表大会的一次非公开会议上发表了“秘密”讲话，出人意料地谴责了斯大林，并揭露了“个人崇拜”的可怕后果。虽然这一事件标志着政治史上的一个转折点，但释放劳改营囚犯、为斯大林恐怖的受害者恢复名誉的缓慢进程实际上已经进行了一段时间。肖斯塔科维奇积极参与了这项工作，坚持不懈地为各种受害者，包括来自列宁格勒的老朋友热丽埃塔·东布罗夫斯卡娅和她的儿子们奔走呼吁。

弗塞沃洛德·梅耶霍尔德也是肖斯塔科维奇为其平反而奔走呼号的人之一。负责审查梅耶霍尔德案件的检察官几乎立即对 1955 年夏天传唤肖斯塔科维奇感到后悔；当他告诉肖斯塔科维奇梅耶霍尔德死亡的真相时，作曲家难以承受，几乎无法走出办公室。1955 年 9 月 13 日，肖斯塔科维奇动用他最崇高的官方头衔——俄罗斯最高苏维埃代表和苏联人民艺术家——给检察官写了一封为梅耶霍尔德辩护的长信，有力地证明了这位导演的艺术天才、爱国主义精神以及他对国家无与伦比的创造性贡献。1955 年 12 月，肖斯塔科维奇被认为是有理由地引用了安东·契诃夫信中的一句话——“作家的职责不是控告，不是起诉，而是在有罪的人被判刑并受到惩罚后为他们辩护……伟大的作家和艺术家只有在他们必须保护自己不受政治影响的情况下才应该参与政治。没有他们，控告者、检察官和宪兵将比比皆是”——他几乎肯定是将其作为一种原则立场来阐述的。

In the early morning hours of 25 February 1956, Nikita Khrushchev delivered his “secret” speech to a closed session of the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party, with its unexpected denunciation of Stalin and revelations about the ghastly consequences of the “cult of personality.” While this event marks a turning point in political history, the slow process of releasing prisoners from labor camps and rehabilitating victims of the Stalinist terror had actually been under way for some time. Shostakovich participated actively in this endeavor, agitating persistently on behalf of the most varied victims, including old family friends from Leningrad, Genrietta Dombrovskaya and her sons.

Vsevolod Meyerhold was also among those for whose rehabilitation Shostakovich campaigned. The prosecutor in charge of reviewing his case immediately regretted having summoned Shostakovich in the summer of 1955; when he told Shostakovich the truth about Meyerhold’s death, the composer took quite ill and was scarcely able to make it out of the office.54 On 13 September 1955, employing his loftiest official titles—Deputy of the RSFSR and People’s Artist of the USSR—Dmitriy Shostakovich wrote in defense of Meyerhold a lengthy letter to the prosecutor, testifying forcefully to the director’s artistic genius, his patriotism, and his incomparable creative contribution to the nation.55 Meyerhold was rehabilitated on 26 November 1955, and Shostakovich soon joined the commission established to preserve his artistic legacy. When, in December 1955,56 Shostakovich saw cause to invoke a phrase from one of Anton Chekhov’s letters—“It is the duty of writers not to accuse, not to prosecute, but to champion even the guilty once they have been condemned and are enduring punishment.… Great writers and artists ought to take part in politics only so far as they have to protect themselves from politics. There are plenty of accusers, prosecutors and gendarmes without them.”—he was almost certainly articulating it as a position of principle.

关于梅耶霍尔德死亡的真相，引用自维基百科：

1939 年 6 月 15 日，梅耶霍尔德在剧院导演会议上发表讲话，出席的还有曾主持臭名昭著的莫斯科作秀审判的国家检察官安德烈·维辛斯基。苏联媒体没有报道他的讲话，但有报道称，他曾挑衅地宣称：

如果您最近在苏联剧院所做的就是您所谓的反形式主义，如果您认为现在在莫斯科最好的剧院舞台上上演的表演是苏联剧院的成就，那么我宁愿成为您认为的形式主义者……在追捕形式主义的过程中，您已经消灭了艺术。

演讲结束后，他返回列宁格勒，并于 1939 年 6 月 20 日在抵达后被捕。此后不久，入侵者闯入他的公寓，他的妻子齐娜伊达·拉伊赫被连捅数刀，因伤势过重而死亡。梅耶霍尔德被带到莫斯科的内务人民委员部总部，交到臭名昭著的酷刑大师列夫·施瓦茨曼手中，在刑讯逼供中，他崩溃了，承认自己是英国和日本的间谍。在他生命的最后几天，他给苏联政府首脑维亚切斯拉夫·莫洛托夫写了一封信，这封信被保存在警方档案中，苏联解体后，记者维塔利·申塔林斯基发现了这封信。在信中，他写道：

调查人员开始对我这个 65 岁病弱的老人施加暴力。他们让我趴在地上，用皮带抽打我的脚底和脊柱。他们让我坐在椅子上，从上面大力抽打我的腿……接下来的几天里，当我的腿部出现大量内出血时，他们又用皮带抽打我红肿的淤青，疼痛难忍，就像开水浇在这些敏感部位上一样。我痛得号啕大哭。他们用同样的皮带抽打我的背，抡起拳头从高处打我的脸……无法忍受的身心痛苦让我泪流不止。我趴在地上，发现自己可以像被主人鞭打的狗一样扭曲、扭动和尖叫……经过 18 小时的审讯后，我躺在床上睡着了，为了在一小时后再回去继续更多的审讯。我被自己的呻吟声吵醒了，因为我像伤寒末期的病人一样抽搐……“死亡，哦，当然，死亡比这更容易！”被审讯的人自言自语道。我开始自证其罪，希望这至少能很快令我走上断头台。

Chapter 12. Consolidation(1958–1961)

1960 年，他出人意料地申请加入共产党，他既没有与朋友也没有与家人讨论过这一举动，这至今仍然是他传记中最令人费解的情节之一。

1960 年 6 月下旬，肖斯塔科维奇身在列宁格勒，情绪崩溃。原因是莫斯科即将召开一次大会，以启动他入党的计划。……

即使面对他最信任的朋友，肖斯塔科维奇也很谨慎、守口如瓶。尽管格利克曼和列别丁斯基并不确定他们是否已经了解了朋友的痛苦根源，但他们还是通过将肖斯塔科维奇扣留在列宁格勒，令他错过了预定的党的会议，从而避免了眼前的危机。几天后，肖斯塔科维奇前往德累斯顿，表面上是与他的老朋友利奥·阿恩施塔姆合作拍摄一部纪念二战对这座城市的破坏的电影《五天五夜》。他观看了生动的电影片段，参观了这座被摧毁的城市的废墟 ，然后从“撒克逊瑞士”返回宁静的戈里施。然而在此期间，他并没有为这部电影作曲，而是在白热化中写了一部新的弦乐四重奏，即他的第八首弦乐四重奏，并于 1960 年 7 月 14 日完成。

两天后，即 7 月 19 日，肖斯塔科维奇写信给格利克曼，讲述了他最近的德累斯顿之行：“无论我多么努力地试图完成为这部电影谱曲的义务，我就是做不到。相反，我写了一个意识形态上有缺陷的、没人需要的四重奏。我想，如果有一天我去世了，几乎没有人会写一部作品来纪念我。所以我决定自己写一首。你甚至可以在封面上写上：“谨以此曲纪念这首四重奏的作曲家。”肖斯塔科维奇为格利克曼概述了他在这部作品中所采用的众多主题——取自他自己的作品和其他人的作品。在描述这首四重奏的“伪悲剧性”时，他测量了该四重奏让他流下的眼泪，就像喝了六瓶啤酒后的尿液量一样多。在写这封信时，他已经开始超越其伪悲剧性，欣赏其形式的完美，并期待与贝多芬四重奏一起排练。加琳娜·肖斯塔科维奇也记得她父亲从德累斯顿回来后宣布，他写了一部献给自己的四重奏，一部自传体四重奏。虽然他的说法尚未得到证实，但列别丁斯基声称肖斯塔科维奇的意思是《第八四重奏》是他的最后一部作品；他计划从德累斯顿回来后自杀，但由于他藏匿的安眠药被偷偷拿走，这一计划失败了。

尽管作曲家没有提及这一点，格利克曼和列别丁斯基仍然自然地将肖斯塔科维奇对自己即将加入共产党的担忧视为第八四重奏创作的动力和关键。格利克曼已经意识到，尽管肖斯塔科维奇最初在列宁格勒表现出了决心，但他并不具备坚持自己信念的勇气。他将无法聚集足够的意志力来反抗自己的命运。（肖斯塔科维奇在反复发作的自我厌恶中哀叹他的性格特征是他那地狱般的怯懦。）言归正传，1960 年 9 月 14 日，在莫斯科作曲家党组织的一次会议上，肖斯塔科维奇以全票通过的方式正式成为共产党预备党员。一年后，他从预备党员正式成为正式党员。

这一事态发展让肖斯塔科维奇的许多朋友和同事感到困惑，也让许多其他知识分子感到失望，甚至幻灭。很少有人认真地考虑过这样一种可能性，即到现在为止，一把达摩克利斯之剑仍然悬在肖斯塔科维奇和他的家人头上，正如斯大林时代一样。……列别丁斯基偶尔会对朋友不必要的妥协、傀儡行为以及与其他讨厌的人的交往表现出不耐烦，他将其归咎于他本性中自相矛盾的、甚至是神经质的冲动。更常见的说法是，肖斯塔科维奇的屈服被合理化为长期恐惧的产物，这种恐惧扭曲了他的生活。

事实上，肖斯塔科维奇在加入共产党前就已经是共产党的“忠实儿子”了。他无条件地将他的签名、嗓音、时间和形体交给了各种使党合法化的宣传。特别是从《第十交响曲》开始，他甚至将自己的音乐的很大一部分用于讴歌社会主义现实主义的伟大荣光。他是现阶段的楷模，是公民责任与艺术天才、知名度与职业尊重融合的可塑象征。作为一名事实上的党员，他已经无能为力了。但这一次插曲——伴随着他心烦意乱的反应、逃避和创造性的宣泄——有力地表明，肖斯塔科维奇与之搏斗的恶魔是他自己，他越过了自己的底线。他不是第一个也不是最后一个意识到与苏联体制妥协是一条不归路的人，但为时已晚。

His unanticipated application for membership in the Communist Party in 1960, a move he discussed with neither friends nor family, remains one of the most puzzling episodes of his biography.

In late June 1960, Shostakovich found himself in Leningrad, where he suffered an emotional breakdown. What brought it on was the prospect of an imminent convocation in Moscow to set in motion his initiation as a Party member.

Shostakovich was guarded, secretive even with his most trusted friends. Although Glikman and Lebedinsky were not confident they had gotten to the bottom of their friend’s distress, they were able to ward off the immediate crisis by detaining Shostakovich in Leningrad so that he missed the scheduled Party convocation. A few days later Shostakovich traveled to Dresden, ostensibly to collaborate with his old friend Leo Arnshtam on a film commemorating the World War II devastation of the city, Five Days—FiveNights.He viewed the graphic film footage, toured the ruins of the devastated city, and then repaired to the tranquility of Gohrisch, in “Saxon Switzerland.”39 Instead of scoring the film, however, in a white heat he wrote a new string quartet, his Eighth, completing it on 14 July 1960.

Two days later, on 19 July, Shostakovich wrote to Glikman about his recent trip to Dresden: “However much I tried to draft my obligations for the film, I just couldn’t do it. Instead I wrote an ideologically deficient quartet nobody needs. I reflected that if I die some day then it’s hardly likely anyone will write a work dedicated to my memory. So I decided to write one myself. You could even write on the cover: ‘Dedicated to the memory of the composer of this quartet.’”40 Shostakovich outlined for Glikman the numerous themes—taken from his own works and those of others—he had employed in the quartet. Describing the “pseudo-tragicality” of the quartet, he measured the tears its composition had cost him as the volume of urine after a half-dozen beers. By the time of writing the letter, he was already beginning to get beyond its pseudo-tragicality to admire the perfection of its form and to look forward to rehearsing it with the Beethoven Quartet.41 Galina Shostakovich, too, remembers her father announcing when he returned from Dresden that he had written a quartet dedicated to himself, an autobiographical quartet.42 Although his claim has not been substantiated, Lebedinsky contends that Shostakovich meant the Eighth Quartet to be his final work; he planned to commit suicide after his return from Dresden, a plan foiled when his stash of sleeping pills was removed surreptitiously.

The composer did not mention it, but both Glikman and Lebedinsky naturally ascribe Shostakovich’s alarmabout his impending admission into the Communist Party as the motivating force and key to the composition of the Eighth Quartet. Glikman had already realized that, despite his initial show of determination in Leningrad, Shostakovich did not possess the courage of his convictions. He would not be able to muster sufficient willpower to resist his fate.44 (His infernal cowardice was a character trait Shostakovich bewailed in recurrent bouts of self-loathing.) Without further ado, on 14 September 1960, Shostakovich attended his formal induction as a candidate member of the Communist Party, by unanimous vote, at a meeting of the Moscow composers’ Party organization. One year later, his provisional status was officially upgraded to full membership.

This was a development that left many of Shostakovich’s friends and colleaguesmystified. It left many other intellectuals disappointed, even disillusioned. Few seriously entertained the possibility that, by this date, a Damoclean sword still dangled over Shostakovich or his family, as had certainly been the case during the Stalin era...Lebedinsky, who occasionally demonstrated impatience with his friend’s needless compromises and his socializing with stooges and other unsavory types, chalked it up to the paradoxical, even neurotic, impulses in his nature. More commonly, Shostakovich’s capitulation has been rationalized as the product of chronic fear, the terror that had warped his life.

Indeed, it should be remembered that to all appearances Shostakovich was already a “loyal son” of the Communist Party when he joined. He had ceded unconditionally his signature, his voice, his time, and his physical presence to all manner of propaganda legitimizing the Party. Especially since the Tenth Symphony, he had even devoted a disproportionately large portion of his music to the greater glory of Socialist Realism. He was a role model for the status quo, a malleable symbol of the fusion of civic responsibility with artistic genius, of popularity with professional respect. As an actual member of the Party he could give nothing more. But this episode—with his distraught reaction, escape, and creative catharsis—strongly suggests that the demons Shostakovich wrestled with were his own, that he had crossed his own line in the sand. He was neither the first nor the last to realize, too late, that the path of accommodation with the Soviet system was one of no return.

Chapter 15.Immortality(1970–1975)

肖斯塔科维奇坚持着治愈的希望。1970 年 9 月下旬，他从库尔干写信给夏金扬，说他的体力和工作能力很快就会完全恢复。他还有许多计划，正如他在那年秋天晚些时候在鲁扎与弗洛拉·利特维诺娃的最后一次谈话中明确表示的那样：“但我自己还没有准备好去死。我还有很多音乐要写。”也是在这个场合，肖斯塔科维奇罕见地坦率地回顾了自己的职业生涯，并猜测如果当时的情况不是这样，他的职业生涯可能会有所不同：“你问如果没有‘党的领导’，我会不会有所不同？是的，几乎可以肯定。毫无疑问，我在创作《第四交响曲》时所追求的路线会在我的作品中更加坚定和鲜明。我本可以表现出更多的才华，使用更多的讽刺，我本可以公开表达我的想法，而不是不得不诉诸伪装；我本可以写出更纯粹的音乐。”利特维诺娃注意到他的身体仍然虚弱，当他试图弹钢琴时很容易感到疲倦。1970 年 12 月，格里克曼在列宁格勒见到肖斯塔科维奇时，发现他走路很吃力，右手也像从前一样无力。

Shostakovich clung to the promise of a cure. In late September 1970, he wrote Shaginyan from Kurgan that he expected his strength and capacity for work would soon be completely restored. He still had many plans, as he made clear in his last conversation with Flora Litvinova, which took place later that fall in Ruza: “But I myself am not ready to die. I still have a lot of music to write.” It was on this occasion, too, in a rare moment of retrospective candor, that Shostakovich speculated how, had circumstances been otherwise, his career might have evolved differently: “You ask if I would have been different without ‘Party guidance’? Yes, almost certainly. No doubt the line I was pursuing when I wrote the Fourth Symphony would have been stronger and sharper in my work. I would have displayed more brilliance, used more sarcasm, I could have revealed my ideas openly instead of having to resort to camouflage; I would have written more pure music.”17 That he was still physically weak, tiring easily when he tried to play the piano, was noted by Litvinova. When he saw Shostakovich in Leningrad in December 1970, Glikman observed that he walked with difficulty and his right hand was as weak as ever.18

1970年10月，亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴被宣布荣获诺贝尔文学奖。可以预料的是，苏联媒体随后对这位去年被作家联盟开除的、陷入困境的作家进行了更激烈的攻击。罗斯特罗波维奇和他的妻子维什涅夫斯卡娅在朱可夫卡别墅的招待所向索尔仁尼琴提供了庇护。罗斯特罗波维奇感到有必要向四家苏联报纸发出一封公开抗议信。尽管他的信没有在任何报纸上发表，但却泄露给了西方国家，并成为头条新闻。他的行为被解释为反苏联行为，并被视为是作者与国家的直接对抗。在一封报告著名音乐家对罗斯托罗波维奇行为的反应的信中，文化部的一位官员告知中央委员会，肖斯塔科维奇在谈话中毫不含糊地谴责了罗斯托罗波维奇的行为，尤其对后者引用自己的名字以及他的音乐在过去几年中受到的批评表示不满。有人引用了他的话：“我们必须尽一切可能拯救斯拉瓦，他是我们的骄傲，我们的国家让他声名鹊起，造就了他的世界声誉。”肖斯塔科维奇甚至自愿请求前往罗斯特罗波维奇当时正在巡演的西德与他交谈，但很快就因为身体不适而撤回了这一提议。他的观点被认为完全符合党在这个问题上的“正确立场”。

肖斯塔科维奇在斯大林时期坚持不抵抗权威的立场，使他与勃列日涅夫统治下的俄罗斯日益直言不讳的创造性知识分子中的天然盟友产生了分歧，这是他无法回避的痛苦事实。维什涅夫斯卡娅在回忆录中回忆说，他经常劝告他们：“不要浪费你们的努力。去工作，去娱乐。你们生活在这里，生活在这个国家，你们必须看到一切的真实面目。不要产生幻想。没有别的生活。不可能有别的生活。庆幸你们还能呼吸吧！”尽管据报道他对索尔仁尼琴的文学艺术深表钦佩（在《新世界》出版后，他考虑写一部关于《马特廖娜之家》的歌剧），但即使索尔仁尼琴成为他在朱可夫卡的邻居后，肖斯塔科维奇也没有与索尔仁尼琴建立友谊。1965 年，肖斯塔科维奇签署了一份请愿书，要求为索尔仁尼琴在莫斯科提供一套公寓，但他无法支持索尔仁尼琴公开展示政治异见。相反，虽然像罗斯特罗波维奇和维什涅夫斯卡娅等朋友能够体谅肖斯塔科维奇的行为，但索尔仁尼琴却对作曲家的道德无能和奴性共谋表现出缺乏容忍。1968年夏天苏联入侵捷克斯洛伐克后，索尔仁尼琴曾考虑过在抗议信上征求苏联著名文化人物签名，但在意识到说服他们签名是一项多么无望的任务后放弃了这个想法。他嘲弄了肖斯塔科维奇的举止：“戴着镣铐的天才肖斯塔科维奇会像受伤的东西一样扭动，紧紧抱住自己的双臂，手指无法握住笔。”

In October 1970, it was announced that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. Predictably, this was followed by an intensification of the campaign in the Soviet press against the embattled author, who had been expelled from the Union of Writers the previous year. Rostropovich, who with his wife Vishnevskaya had offered refuge to Solzhenitsyn in the guest house at their Zhukovka dacha, felt compelled to send an open letter of protest to four Soviet newspapers. Although his letter was not published in any of them, it leaked out to the West where it made headline news.19 Interpreted as an anti-Soviet act, it brought its author into direct confrontation with the State. Steps were taken to control the damage. In a letter reporting the reaction of prominent musicians to Rostropovich’s deed, an official of the Ministry of Culture advised the Central Committee that, in conversation, Shostakovich had denounced Rostropovich’s act in no uncertain terms, taking particular exception to the latter’s invocation of his own name and the criticism his music had been subjected to in years past. Hiswordswere quoted: “We must do everything possible to save Slava, he is our pride, our country made his name and his world fame.” Shostakovich even volunteered to go to West Germany, where Rostropovich was then on tour, to talk to him, but quickly retracted the offer on account of his ill health. His views were deemed to be in complete accord with the “correct, Party position” on the matter.

That Shostakovich’s persistent stance of nonresistance to authority—assumed during the Stalinist period—placed him at odds with his natural allies among the increasingly outspoken creative intelligentsia of Brezhnev’s Russia was a painful fact that could not escape him. In her memoirs, Vishnevskaya recalls that he often advised them: “Don’t waste your efforts. Work, play. You’re living here, in this country, and you must see everything as it really is. Don’t create illusions. There’s no other life. There can’t be any. Just be thankful that you’re still allowed to breathe!”21 Although he is reported to have professed deep admiration for Solzhenitsyn’s literary art (and after its publication in Novïy mir he considered writing an opera on “Matryona’s House”), Shostakovich did not establish a friendship with Solzhenitsyn even after the latter became his neighbor at Zhukovka. In 1965, Shostakovich was signatory to a petition requesting an apartment in Moscow for Solzhenitsyn,22 but he could not support his defiant public exhibition of political dissidence. Conversely, although friends like Rostropovich and Vishnevskaya were able to make allowances for Shostakovich’s behavior, Solzhenitsyn manifested scant tolerance for the composer’s moral impotence and servile complicity.23 After the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in the summer of 1968, Solzhenitsyn toyed with the idea of soliciting signatures of prominent Soviet cultural figures on a letter of protest, but he dropped it on realizing how hopeless a task it would be to persuade them to sign: “The shackled genius Shostakovich would thrash about like a wounded thing, clasp himself with tightly folded arms so that his fingers could not hold a pen.”24

尽管没有交响曲可能引起的广泛关注，但这两部新作品都受到了音乐界和评论家的好评。但是，肖斯塔科维奇近来不俗的音乐成就却被同行们普遍认为是不可饶恕的懦弱和共谋行为，这反而影响了人们对他的赞赏。1973 年 8 月底，苏联在《真理报》上对核物理学家安德烈·萨哈罗夫发起了一场大规模的新闻攻势，针对的是他向西方媒体发表的所谓“反苏”言论。在随后的几天里，许多人“自发地”对萨哈罗夫义愤填膺，其中包括一封由十二位音乐家（肖斯塔科维奇名列其中）签署的题为“他玷污了公民的称号”的信，信中明确谴责了这位持不同政见的科学家。

9月7日，苏联作家、人权活动家莉迪亚·楚科夫斯卡娅——巧合的是，她通过女儿的婚姻与作曲家有联系——发表了一封为萨哈罗夫辩护的“公开信”，该信通过地下出版物和西方媒体传播。在信中，她毫不掩饰地表达了她对这位伟大作曲家深深的幻灭：“肖斯塔科维奇在音乐家反对萨哈罗夫的抗议中的签名无可辩驳地表明普希金问题已经永远解决：天才与邪恶是可以兼容的。”即使其他人的批评没有那么直言不讳，他们也和她一样对作曲家串通诽谤萨哈罗夫感到愤怒。人们普遍认为，对于像肖斯塔科维奇这样的人来说，在他的晚年，已经不存在任何可以想象的威胁或风险逼迫他签署这样一份文件。尤里·柳比莫夫承认曾冷落作曲家，以表达自己的不满。有些人寄了信，有些人则躲着他。

没有人相信肖斯塔科维奇是主动在这封信上签名的。人们对如何获得签名提出了不同的解释。事实上，他是否亲笔签署了这封信，这一点值得商榷。不过，他的行为表明，他接受了责难并对自己的错误感到后悔。《见证》中对萨哈罗夫（“潜在的数百万人的谋杀者”）的尖酸刻薄的评论——如果是真的，一定是在这起事件发生后不久口述的——回荡着自我防卫的意味。肖斯塔科维奇向萨哈罗夫的朋友和积极支持者罗斯特罗波维奇解释他试图避免签名的（不成功的）借口：“我很虚弱……我唯一可以散步的地方是我的乡间别墅周围。不幸的是，萨哈罗夫有时也会从这里走过。如果我的签名被放在这封信的底部，我要怎么直视他的眼睛呢？”肖斯塔科维奇告诉住在同一栋莫斯科公寓楼里、有时在家里为他看病的列夫·加洛夫斯基医生，他对自己同意在谴责萨哈罗夫的信上署名深感自责：“直到坟墓我都不会原谅自己。”

Both new works were well received by the musical community and critics, if without the magnified attention that a symphony might have attracted. But appreciation of Shostakovich’s not inconsiderable recent musical accomplishments was undercut by what was widely regarded, among his peers, as an unforgivable act of cowardice and complicity. At the end of August 1973, a massive Soviet press campaign—fomented in what by now was a tried and true, if predictable, manner—was launched against nuclear physicist Andrey Sakharov in the pages of Pravda in reaction to his alleged “anti-Soviet” statements to the Western press. Among the many “spontaneous” outbursts of righteous indignation vented at Sakharov in the days that followed was a letter, “He Disgraces the Calling of Citizen,” signed by twelve musicians—Shostakovich’s name listed among them—condemning the dissident scientist in no uncertain terms.60 Reaction came swiftly.

On 7 September Lidiya Chukovskaya—Soviet writer, human rights activist, and, coincidentally, related to the composer through his daughter’s marriage—issued an “open letter” in defense of Sakharov that was distributed through samizdat and the Western media. In it, she minced no words about her deep disillusionment with the great composer: “Shostakovich’s signature on the protest of musicians against Sakharov demonstrates irrefutably that the Pushkinian question has been resolved forever: genius and villainy are compatible.”61 If others were not so outspoken in their criticism, they shared her outrage at the composer’s collusion in the slander against Sakharov. At this late date, it was widely believed, there was no conceivable threat or risk to someone of Shostakovich’s stature that could have justified his signing such a document. Yuriy Lyubimov admitted snubbing the composer to convey his disapproval.62 Some sent letters. Some avoided him.

No one believes Shostakovich affixed his signature to this letter by design. Different explanations have been offered for how it was secured. Whether, in fact, he physically signed the letter has even been opened to question.63 Nevertheless, his conduct suggests that he accepted responsibility and regretted his mistake. The bitter comments about Sakharov (“a potential murderer of millions”) in Testimony—which, if genuine, must have been dictated very soon after this incident—reverberate with defensiveness.64 Shostakovich explained to Rostropovich, Sakharov’s friend and vocal supporter, the (unsuccessful) excuse he had tried to avoid having to sign: “I’m very weak, ... the only place where I can still take a stroll is around my country house. Unfortunately, that’s where Sakharov sometimes walks. How could I look him in the eye if my signature is put at the bottom of this letter?”65 Shostakovich allegedly told Dr. Lev Kagalovsky, who lived in the same Moscow apartment building and sometimes treated him at home, how he castigated himself for having agreed to place his name on the Sakharov letter: “I won’t forgive myself for it until the grave.”66

上述采访的原文：Mstislav Rostropovich and Galina Vishnevskaya: Russia, Music, and Liberty: Conversations with Claude Samuel, Amadeus, 1995:

Rostropovich: I'll never forget the time Shostakovich was forced, really forced, to sign a letter against Sakharov. Shostakovich tried to explain why he didn't want to sign: "I'm very weak" -- and he really was ill at the time -- "the only place where I can still take a stroll is around my country house. Unfortunately, that's where Sakharov sometimes walks. How could I look him in the eye if my signature is put at the bottom of this letter?" He was forced to sign, however. He really agonized over it, and he stopped taking walks.

罗斯特罗波维奇：我永远不会忘记肖斯塔科维奇被迫，真的是被迫，在一封反对萨哈罗夫的信上签字的情景。肖斯塔科维奇试图解释他为什么不想签字：“我很虚弱（他当时真的病了），我唯一可以散步的地方是我的乡间别墅周围。不幸的是，萨哈罗夫有时也会从这里走过。如果我的签名被放在这封信的底部，我要怎么直视他的眼睛呢？”然而，他最终还是被迫签了字。他真的为此苦恼不已，他不再去散步了。

Samuel: Would you have signed that letter if pressured?
塞缪尔：如果你受到压力的话，你会签署那封信吗？

Rostropovich: No. Absolutely not. Galina and I have refused to sign a number of letters, even very brief letters.
罗斯特罗波维奇：不，绝对不会。 加林娜和我拒绝签署过许多信件，甚至是非常简短的信件。

Samuel: So Shostakovich could have refused?
塞缪尔：所以肖斯塔科维奇可以拒绝？

Rostropovich: I don't blame him. He was very ill with cancer.
罗斯特罗波维奇：我不怪他。 他身患癌症，病得很重。

在去年夏天的一次采访中，肖斯塔科维奇透露，在下一个演出季计划重排施特劳斯的《蝙蝠》时，他将参与重新配器和重新编辑部分乐谱。毫无疑问，他指的是莫斯科歌剧院制作的歌剧，自从他的朋友罗斯特罗波维奇和维什涅夫斯卡娅在罗斯特罗波维奇 1970 年的公开信中表示他对索尔仁尼琴的明确支持之后，在许多专业渠道都对他们关闭的情况下，他们无奈地签约加入了莫斯科歌剧院。1974 年 3 月 29 日，罗斯特罗波维奇不情愿地给勃列日涅夫写了一封信，请求允许他带着家人出国两年，因为他们的“艺术隔离”实际上扼杀了他们在国内的艺术出路，当时他还在排练这部作品。罗斯特罗波维奇不忍心告诉肖斯塔科维奇他要离开。当他和维什涅夫斯卡娅来到肖斯塔科维奇的家中时，他把写给勃列日涅夫的信的副本交给了作曲家。读完信后，肖斯塔科维奇立刻哭了起来：“你们要把我丢在谁的手里等死？”伊琳娜·肖斯塔科维奇在机场送走了罗斯特罗波维奇，罗斯特罗波维奇于 1974 年 5 月 26 日离开了这个国家，两个月后，维什涅夫斯卡娅和他们的两个女儿也离开了这个国家，他们再也见不到作曲家了。

肖斯塔科维奇四肢的病痛给他带来了极大的痛苦。医生现在允许他喝酒作为安慰。朱可夫卡别墅安装了电梯，雷皮诺艺术家疗养院也为他进行了改建，使他能够尽可能地独立行动。1974 年 4 月，当波兰作曲家克日什托夫·迈耶最后一次拜访他时，虚弱而疲惫的肖斯塔科维奇告诉他：“我现在知道我再也好不起来了，但我已经学会不要让它再折磨我了。”1974年4月2日在克里姆林宫出席苏联作曲家联盟第五次代表大会上，人们只能推测肖斯塔科维奇在身体和心理上付出了多大的代价，才站出来发表开幕致辞，他重申了苏联音乐和共产主义理想建设之间的相互依存。

In an interview given the previous summer, Shostakovich had disclosed that in conjunction with a planned revival of Strauss’s Die Fledermaus during the coming season, he would be involved in reorchestrating and reediting some of the score.68 What he was undoubtedly referring to was the production by the Moscow Theater of Operetta that his friends Rostropovich and Vishnevskaya had signed on to in desperation after so many professional outlets had been closed to them in the wake of Rostropovich’s open letter of 1970 and his manifest support of Solzhenitsyn.69 It is unclear whether the composer did, in fact, make any contribution to this production, which Rostropovich was still rehearsing when he reluctantly sent his letter to Brezhnev on 29 March 1974, requesting permission to take his family abroad for two years in view of their “artistic quarantine,” which effectively throttled their artistic outlets at home. Rostropovich could not bring himself to tell Shostakovich he was leaving; when he and Vishnevskaya came to visit, he handed the composer a copy of his letter to Brezhnev. On reading it, Shostakovich immediately started crying: “In whose hands are you leaving me to die?”70 Seen off at the airport by Irina Shostakovich, Rostropovich left the country on 26 May 1974, followed two months later by Vishnevskaya and their two daughters, never to see the composer again.

Shostakovich’s limbs caused him considerable pain. One consolation his doctors now permitted him was alcohol. Installation of an elevator at the Zhukovka dacha and alterations made for his benefit at the Repino artists’ retreat allowed him as much independence of movement as possible. When Polish composer Krzysztof Meyer visited him for the last time in April 1974, a weak and tired Shostakovich told him: “I know now that I will never be cured. But I have learned not to let it torment me any longer.”71 One can only speculate at what cost, physical and psychological, Shostakovich rose to deliver the opening address—reaffirming the constructive interdependence of Soviet music and Communist ideals—to the Fifth Congress of the USSR Union of Composers at the Kremlin on 2 April 1974.

申德罗维奇将这次首演录制成肖斯塔科维奇的又一胜利，现场掌声雷动，鲜花簇拥。据肖斯塔科维奇报告，节目单中还包括《鳄鱼》组曲中的歌曲，也获得了满堂喝彩。然而，观众的回忆却截然不同。作曲家阿尔弗雷德·施尼特克惊讶地发现，尽管首演的是肖斯塔科维奇的新作品，但大厅里的座位却只坐了一半多。涅斯捷连科演出结束后，肖斯塔科维奇站起身来，向观众鞠躬，然后尴尬地走出大厅，尽管音乐会还没有结束。

对于施尼特克来说，这一事件象征着对肖斯塔科维奇音乐兴趣的下降，至少在他那一代音乐家中是这样。对于后斯大林时代的苏联作曲家来说，肖斯塔科维奇的音乐标志着他们学术训练的极限。正如肖斯塔科维奇多年前从音乐学院毕业时，为了寻找自己独特的声音而拒绝了他的学术楷模一样，他们中的许多人也反过来拒绝了他。肖斯塔科维奇始终拥有一批忠实的昔日学生和仰慕者，但对其他许多人来说，肖斯塔科维奇的意义在于与过去的联系，而非音乐的风向标。作为一位年长的政治人物，他的影子仍然巨大而令人窒息。肖斯塔科维奇在官方领域过于公开的妥协，以及他无法确定和捍卫自己的道德底线，加剧了年轻一代对肖斯塔科维奇的矛盾心理。这是斯大林时代的可怕遗产，而他们却幸免于难。爱迪生·杰尼索夫作为作曲家的第一步很大程度上要归功于肖斯塔科维奇的支持和鼓励，但他却最终因肖斯塔科维奇的怯懦行为而与他疏远，甚至感到自己被背叛的人之一。

Shenderovich recorded this premiere as another of Shostakovich’s triumphant successes, complete with ovations and flowers.87 Shostakovich reported that songs from the Krokodil cycle, also featured on the program, had been encored.88 At least one member of the audience, however, recalled the occasion in quite a different light. The composer Alfred Schnittke was astonished to find that, notwithstanding a premiere of a new work by Shostakovich, the hall was scarcely more than half full. After Nesterenko performed, Shostakovich stood, made his bows from the audience, and awkwardly exited the hall even though the concert was not over.

For Schnittke this event was symbolic of the decline in interest in Shostakovich’s music, at least among musicians of his generation. For the post-Stalin generation of Soviet composers, the music of Shostakovich had marked the approved limit of their academic training. Just as Shostakovich had rejected his academic models in search of his distinctive voice when he graduated from conservatory years earlier, many of them rejected him in turn. He always retained a coterie of devoted former students and legions of admirers, but to many others Shostakovich’s significance was as a surviving link to the past and not as a musical bellwether. Esteemed as an elder statesman, his shadow was nonetheless gargantuan and stifling. The ambivalence the younger generation felt toward Shostakovich was only heightened by his all-too-public compromises in the official sphere and his inability to stake out and defend his own moral boundaries, a fearful legacy of the Stalin years that they had been spared. Edison Denisov, whose own first steps as a composer owed much to the support and encouragement of Shostakovich, was one of those who eventually became alienated, even felt personally betrayed, by Shostakovich’s pusillanimous behavior.