Pasternak and Ivinskaya (Feltrinelli, Milan, 2020)

Smugglers, Rebels, Pirates in Chinese edition

The last post concerning my activities (excluding research posts) on the Zhivago front dates from March 2019 so it is time to bring my readers up to date.

First of all, I would like to mention that Smugglers, Rebels and Pirates (Hoover Press, 2015) is now available in an elegant Chinese translation that appeared in 2018: Ri wa ge yi sheng chu ban ji, Guangxi Normal University Press, Nanning. The graphic work is excellent.

The text also contains an appendix on first editions of Doctor Zhivago in Chinese. As these editions are not often to be seen by Western readers, I add pictures of the covers below.

           

In fall 2019 the Franco-German TV channel ARTE showed the documentary by the gifted Georgian director Nino Kirtadze titled Je vous invite à mon exécution: Dossier Docteur Jivago.

Poster for Nino Kirtadze’s documentary

It was also shown at the Leipzig Film Festival. The documentary was produced by Pumpernickel films.

I think the outcome is splendid. It is evocative, informative, and rich in texture. I reported in a previous post on working with Nino for this documentary. For more information on Nino and the documentary see here.

           

On March 19, 2020, the Italian translation of Zhivago’s Secret Journey (Hoover Press, Stanford, 2016) and Moscow has Ears Everywhere (Hoover Press, Stanford, 2019) will be out in a single volume titled Pasternak e Ivinskaja. Il viaggio segreto di Zivago. The publisher is Feltrinelli, Milan.

Pasternak e Ivinskaja. Il viaggio segreto di Zivago, Feltrinelli, Milan, 2020

The volume also includes a translation of the article “The hunt for the seventh typescript” that was described in a previous post. So, all my work on Doctor Zhivago is now available also in Italian language.

            I would like to take this opportunity to mention two more publications that might be of interest to Pasternak aficionados.

The first is a book that came out in 2016 in Moscow titled Moskva Borisa Pasternaka v sobytiyah i litsah: Albom-katalog (Москва Бориса Пастернака в событиях и лицах. Альбом-каталог). It is the catalogue of an exhibit on Pasternak and it is beautifully illustrated. The editors are N.A. Gromova and A.E. Rudnik.

Moskva Borisa Pasternaka, 2016

The book is on sale at  ozon.ru.

Finally, last but not least,

From the forthcoming Projet Bermuda 12, copyright by Michel Montheillet

I have been in touch with the talented French graphic designer, Michel Montheillet. Michel contacted me a few weeks ago and sent me 8 beautiful pages retelling Pasternak’s struggle over the publication of Doctor Zhivago that will appear at the end of May/beginning of June in the graphic novel volume Projet Bermuda 12 by Expé Éditions. I like his work very much and I encourage you to keep an eye out for the publication of this new number of Projet Bermuda.

From the forthcoming Projet Bermuda 12, copyright by Michel Montheillet

With Michel’s permission, I include the above two drawings.

P.E.N. International, Isaiah Berlin, and the Ivinskaya Case

One third of my book Moscow has Ears Everywhere. New Investigations on Pasternak and Ivinskaya (Hoover Press, Stanford, 2019) is devoted to one episode of the Cultural Cold War that followed on the heels of the Pasternak case and is intimately related to it. I am referring to the “Ivinskaya case” (the account in my book originates from the article Mancosu 2018). One can trace the roots of the Ivinskaya case to 1946, when Olga Ivinskaya and Boris Pasternak started their love affair and to Ivinskaya’s first labor camp experience between 1950 and 1953. The passionate story between Ivinkskaya and Pasternak encompassed Ivinskaya’s first conviction in 1950, her liberation in 1953, the crisis surrounding the publication of Doctor Zhivago in 1957, and Pasternak’s persecution by the Soviets, on account of the Nobel Prize, from 1958 till his death. Olga Ivinskaya was always at Pasternak’s side and, at times, personally shielded him from the pressure exercised by the Soviets. After Pasternak died in May 1960, Ivinskaya and her daughter, Irina Emelianova, were sentenced and sent to labor camps. Olga was sentenced to eight years and Irina to three years. The charge brought against them was of having received money from abroad originating from Pasternak’s royalties in the West. This led to international outrage and to the Ivinskaya case. In my book, I describe the campaign that was carried out in the West in order to persuade the Soviet authorities to revoke or soften the labor camp sentences for Ivinskaya and Emelianova. Intellectuals in the United Kingdom were especially active in the campaign and a special committee was formed in Oxford. Moreover, P.E.N. International, through its General Secretary David Carver (General Secretary of P.E.N. International from 1951 to 1974; for more biographical information on Carver click here), also pressured the Soviets for a reversal of the “savage” sentences. While I recounted these events in detail in my book, recent documents have emerged concerning the activities of P.E.N. and contacts between Isaiah Berlin (who had joined P.E.N. in 1961) and David Carver that, while not altering the general picture, complement it in interesting ways. In this post, I would like to present these new documents with some commentary to explain the background to the events. It is my hope that this post might be useful to future historians interested in the activities of P.E.N. International on behalf of persecuted writers and intellectuals.

The documents to be presented originate from the McFarlin Library, University of Tulsa, The Isaiah Berlin Manuscripts Collection (IBMC) at the Bodleian Library in Oxford, and the Harry Ransom Center (HRC) at Austin. I am extremely grateful to Henry Hardy for having brought the Carver-Berlin correspondence to my attention and to the curators of the McFarlin Library, University of Tulsa, and the Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas at Austin, for permission to publish (for the holdings of P.E.N. at the University of Tulsa click here; for the holdings of P.E.N. at the Harry Ransom Center click here). Despite my attempts, it has not been possible to determine who owns the rights for Carver’s letters. Finally, I thank the trustees of the Isaiah Berlin Literary Trust (Wolfson College, Oxford) for permission to cite the Berlin letters.

Olga Ivinskaya was arrested on August 16, 1960 and her daughter, Irina Emelianova, on September 5, 1960.

Olga Ivinskaya, Boris Pasternak, and Irina Emelianova, 1959

They were sentenced in December 1960 and news of the sentencing arrived to private individuals in the West only on January 1st. The first to receive the news was Georges Nivat, Irina’s fiancé, who had been forced to leave the USSR just before the planned wedding with Irina (Nivat left the USSR on June 10, 1960). The detailed reconstruction of the turbulent period going from Pasternak’s death to the arrests of Olga and Irina constitutes the first two-thirds of Mancosu 2019. Once the news of the sentencing arrived in the West, Nivat lost no time to get in touch with his Oxford contacts (George Katkov and Max Hayward) and this set in motion a process that led to the constitution of the Oxford Committee, organized by Katkov, which included intellectuals of the caliber of Bertrand Russell, Rebecca West, and others. The aim of the committee was to secretly pressure the Soviets to release the two women. Also P.E.N. International swiftly got into action and appealed to the Soviets through David Carver, its General Secretary.

David Carver with his wife Blanche

Carver addressed Alekseĭ Surkov (1899–1983; head of the Soviet Writers’ Union from 1953 to 1959), who during the Ivinskaya case was chairman of the foreign commission of the Soviet Writers’ Union.

Surkov was Pasternak’s arch-enemy and he is greatly responsible for many events that affected the Pasternak case (see Mancosu 2013), including the decision to ban Pasternak from the Soviet Writers’ Association. That decision was taken at the end of the Nobel Prize crisis and effectively cut off any possibility for Pasternak to earn his living in the USSR. Much of the troubles that were to follow originated with this ban. Surkov was also greatly responsible for the way the Ivinskaya case developed.

Here is how I summarize the Carver-Surkov exchange in my book:

The exchange between David Carver and A. Surkov began in January with a telegram from Carver to Surkov expressing concern about the condemnation of Ivinskaya and Emelianova. A press release dated January 19, 1961, informed the public of the contents of Carver’s telegram to Surkov, which urgently appealed to Surkov to intervene to “secure [the] release [of] Madame Olga Ivinskaya and her daughter.” A telegram along similar lines was sent on January 23 by the English Centre of International P.E.N. Surkov replied on January 24, dismissing the relevance of the Ivinskaya case to a body such as P.E.N. According to Surkov, there were neither moral nor legal grounds for intervening in the case, for Ivinskaya and her daughter had been condemned in a court of law for criminal offenses related to “currency machinations.” Carver replied on January 24 by pointing out that everyone in the West was well aware of who Ivinskaya was and of her relation to Pasternak. Carver asked that the trial proceedings be made public. He also wrote a longer letter on January 30 in which he reiterated his plea for clemency and pointed out how badly this case would affect the relations between P.E.N. and the Soviet Writers’ Union.

No answer was sent to this request, but Carver met Surkov while the latter visited England with the Soviet delegation in February 1961. Surkov replied to Carver on April 4 with a long letter that summarizes the Soviets’ point of view on the Ivinskaya case. Surkov claimed to have studied the three thick volumes making up the trial proceedings and, while he made no concessions on any point, his letter delivered some interesting information.[…] Surkov then expressed his point of view on the proper way to establish relations between P.E.N. and the Soviet Writers’ Union. Carver closed the exchange with a letter dated April 26. Surkov, as we know, did his best to smear Ivinskaya’s reputation, but he also made a terrible blunder. At a reception at the Soviet embassy in February, he promised that Ivinskaya would be released within a few months. Carver reminded him of that promise in his last letter, dated April 26, 1961. This was certainly a source of embarrassment for Surkov, who probably had to justify his statement in front of higher authorities in the USSR. (Mancosu 2019, pp. 125-126)

Aleksei Surkov

We will momentarily see that the first letter presented below, from Carver to Berlin, dated April 19, 1961, begins with a mention of the letter Carver had prepared in reply to Surkov, which was sent on April 26, 1961. The reference in the same letter to the “Wiston House Conference” is a reference to the visit of the Soviet delegation in February 1961 that I mentioned above.

But before I provide the background for the meeting at Wiston House, let me cite from a letter by Carver to Pethick Lawrence explaining why Surkov had become the main Soviet referent for P.E.N.’s attempts to influence the Soviets on the Ivinskaya case. On January 23, 1961, Carver explained to Lawrence:

The Moscow radio story of yesterday morning is almost certainly, I feel, a direct result of my cable to Mr. Surkov which went off to him last Thursday [this was the telegram Carver sent to Surkov on January 19]. Don’t imagine for one moment that I feel Surkov himself is likely to be on our side on this, but he is an important functionary and was received here as a guest of P.E.N. at a reception about a year ago. Also, I have been corresponding with him about the possibility of having Russian writers as observers at P.E.N. Congresses. So we are using him as a “letter box”. (PEN Box 153.6; HRC)

Carver used very similar words in a letter, also written on January 23, to Maurice Edelman. The goal of the letters was that of asking Lawrence and Edelman, who were both members of the House of Commons, to raise the issue of the Ivinskaya case in the House. In his future dealings with Surkov, Carver would find drastic confirmation of how little Surkov was on his side on this and other matters.

Let us now return to the meeting at Wiston House. On February 23, 1961, British and Russian politicians met at Wiston House, near Stying, Sussex, for a four-day conference on “the principles and practice of coexistence.” The conference was organized by the Great Britain–USSR Association, presided over by Earl Attlee. The Russian delegation was headed by Alekseĭ Surkov and included Alekseĭ Adzhubei, editor of Izvestia and son-in‑law of Khrushchev. In addition, Georgiĭ Zhukov, a minister in charge of cultural relations with foreign countries, was part of the delegation. On the British side, the delegates included, among others, William Hayter, former British ambassador in Moscow, and Isaiah Berlin. Whatever the goals of the four-day conference might have been, it became clear to everyone involved that the Soviet delegation had arrived with the explicit intent to put an end to the protests concerning the Ivinskaya case that had been raised in the previous month.

Surkov, Zhukov and Adzhubei in London on February 21, 1961

This took two forms. The first, as reported in the Daily Telegraph of February 24, consisted in Adzhubei’s  “foisting on the British Press documents intended to blacken the character of Mrs. Olga Ivinskaya, friend of the late Boris Pasternak”. I described and analyzed these documents at length in Mancosu 2019. But in addition to the “public” performance by Azhubei, such as it was, there was Surkov’s “private” performance at the conference and, in particular, what he told Isaiah Berlin in what Berlin calls in one of the letters to be presented below the “never-to-be-forgotten bus journey from Covent Garden at midnight to Wiston House”. Surkov’s main aim was to convince Berlin and the other British delegates that Olga Ivinskaya was a whore. In a very long letter to Rowland Burdon Muller from mid-March 1961, which I published in its entirety in Mancosu 2019, Berlin summarizes Surkov’s performance on the bus journey to Wiston House as follows:

in the bus, Mr Surkov began to tell me why Pasternak’s mistress had to go to jail for 8 years for receiving money from P.’s royalties abroad. She was described as a filthy whore; a woman engaged on subverting not only the financial but the moral politics of the Soviet State; a liar, a cheat, & an evil influence. I was told that while the English clapped their hands with joy when the bloodstained murderer Hammarskjöld—the enemy of liberty & justice—murdered Lumumba, they cried out with hypocritical horror when a squalid prostitute—who led a man of genius to write his worst book—the worthless Zhivagowas imprisoned for receiving stolen goods—100‑000 dollars sent by the pimp Feltrinelli through the spies he filtered into Russia for P’s ill gotten royalties obtained by betraying his country—then the great British public threw up its hands in horror! Did I know with whom I was sympathising? this woman’s husband committed suicide in 1941. Why? because he found her secret diary: containing no fewer than 74—74 he repeated in a voice of thunder which reverberated down that poor bus—lovers! this is the strumpet the British public felt sorry for, Lord Russell wrote about in the Times etc. etc. etc.

Isaiah Berlin

I cd only riposte by saying that I cd not check or deny their facts: the trial had not been attended by foreign journalists: but that (a) Pasternak ws the second most famous author in the world now, never mind whether justly or not; anything touching him automatically obtained world wide repercussions; (b) nobody wd believe the Russian story, however true: for the motives for persecution were too great. If, I said, the governor of Napoleon III, who had been denounced by, say, Victor Hugo, had put his mistress, Mme Sainte Beuve, a widow, in gaol for alleged currency offences, who wd have believed them? Karl Marx? One can imagine what he wd have written! or Herzen? or Mazzini? They cd imprison “evil influences” (it is now plain to me that they mean to canonise Pasternak, who really did loathe them, on the principle of “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”) as much as they wished: but the effect in the West cd be very melancholy. They wd alienate even the left wing intelligentsia, etc. So we went at it ding-dong till we got to Wiston House, Wilton Park, Sussex, & dropped to bed exhausted at 2 a.m.— (IBMC, MS. Berlin 269, fols. 178–81; Isaiah Berlin Literary Trust: © the Trustees of the Isaiah Berlin Literary Trust 2018; an excerpt from the letter has already been published in Berlin 2013, 29–32)

After the visit of the Soviet delegation, which gave Carver the opportunity to speak with Surkov in London, Surkov replied with a very long letter dated April 4. All the Carver-Surkov correspondence was published for the first time in the original English in Mancosu 2019 although Italian, Russian (Afiani and Tomilina 1991), and French (Le Dossier 1994) translations had been available much earlier, the Italian one as early as September 1961 in Tempo Presente. A plan to publish the correspondence in English in 1961 failed when the New Statesman, which had been offered the letters, declined to publish them (as it emerges from a letter from John Freeman of the New Statesman to Max Hayward dated September 12, 1961; the letter is preserved in the Max Hayward papers at St Antony’s College, Oxford).

It is with the mention of Surkov’s letter dated April 4 that the next letter from Carver to Berlin opens.

19th April, 1961

Dear Sir Isaiah,

I enclose a copy of a very long letter, as you will see, from Alexei Surkov. It seems to me very interesting that he should have taken the trouble to write at such length and go into so much detail in regard to the Ivinskaya case. Presumably he has been instructed to do so because of the very considerable stir the case made in the West, the extent of which in England, must have been observed by him and his colleagues when they were over here for the Wiston House Conference.

In regard to his comments on Madame Ivinskaya, it seems curious that he does not seem to realise that whatever Ivinskaya did prior to the trial has no bearing whatever on the charges made against her in regard to currency irregularities. If she is [an] immoral woman the Russian courts should not have let this weigh with them. Again Surkov presumably knows that there are letters from Pasternak which make it clear that he was very apprehensive of some such persecution being instituted after his death. The letter makes no mention of the daughter whose sentence was perhaps even more shocking than that of her mother, especially since the Soviet authorities prevented her marriage to her French fiancé.

When replying to this letter I would like to be able to say that I trust that nothing in the letter can be taken to affect the promise he gave to you, (of which Edward Crankshaw has told me) that Madame Ivinskaya would be released in some twelve months. This seems to me to be of crucial importance because the effect of this promise was to muzzle us all here. Crankshaw made no further reference to the matter in his OBSERVER article on the Wiston House Conference and I abandoned the general appeal to all P.E.N. Centres to bombard Moscow with telegrams and letters.

The latter part of this letter, and its discussion of relations between Soviet writers and P.E.N., follows quite logically on the conversation I had with Surkov at the Soviet Embassy just before I met you as you came in to the reception. I have had the letter a few days but have not been able to find the time to deal with it until now, so that I would very greatly appreciate a word from you as soon as possible. I do not want to delay replying much longer.

I am sending Crankshaw a copy of the letter and also Mark Bonham-Carter, who is naturally very interested as Pasternak’s English publisher.

Yrs etc etc

 D[avid] C[arver] [signed]

Sir Isaiah Berlin, C.B.E.,

Headington House,

Headington,

OXFORD.        Enclosure ….. (PEN Box 153.7, HRC)

An interesting part of this letter is the claim that the effect of Surkov’s promise in England “was to muzzle us all here”. While trying to strike a delicate balance between raising an energic protest without antagonizing the Soviets, thereby losing the ability to influence the course of events, even a comment such as the one by Surkov could give hope and call for restrain. The later correspondence, to be presented below, will shed more light on the exact nature of the “promise” Surkov had made. Edward Crankshaw (1909-1984) was a British writer and journalist who devoted much attention to the Ivinskaya case (see also Crankshaw 1984) and wrote two especially effective articles on it, the first published in early March (this is the article referred to in the letter above) and the second on October 1, 1961, which will be mentioned below. Berlin praised both articles in letters to Crankshaw.

Now for Berlin’s reply to Carver’s letter.

HEADINGTON HOUSE,

OLD HIGH STREET, HEADINGTON, OXFORD.

TEL. OXFORD 81005.

22 May, 1961.

Dear Mr. Carver,

I am exceedingly sorry not to have replied to your letter of 19 April, but I was away in Paris during the flurry in North Africa and your letter, which was sent on to Paris, got lost there as a result of the same flurry and only came back weeks later. I know all about Surkov and the case of which you speak for he addressed a long and very lying sermon on the subject in the bus that took us from Covent Garden into the country where an unhappy weekend was spent by the Anglo-Russian symposiasts. You say how curious it is that he does not realise that Ivinskaya’s previous life is not relevant to the case, etc, He does realise all this perfectly well and could not care less. He wishes to convey the notion that she is a prostitute, a low woman, not worthy of our sympathy, and men who can regard the death of Lumumba with equanimity should not make a fuss about the temporary imprisonment of a liar, a cheat, an embezzler and an evil influence. I think you are absolutely right not to bombard Moscow with letters, etc. about this case just then. But I do not think that Surkov has much power of authority and although it is right to treat his promise (if promise it was) as something of great value, since we have heard no more about this lately, it could do no harm if something were done from time to time to convey to them that we have not forgotten. What they hope for is oblivion. I feel that a memorial addressed to them now, signed, if possible, by fairly left-wing writers and those they know -e.g. Maugham, Russell, Graham Greene, Moravia, Mauriac, and of course if you can get them Sartre, etc. just to ask what is happening and whether there is any hope of clemency could not do any harm. It would be as well to stress that the writers of Europe continue to be concerned about this and will go on asking questions. There is no need to include the names of well-known “enemies” like Rebecca West, Stephen Spender, or for that matter myself. – I am not regarded as an enemy exactly – but my name will not add lustre to the document.

Yours sincerely,

Isaiah Berlin [signed] (PEN Box 153.7, HRC)

Meanwhile, as Berlin’s reply was taking too long to arrive, Carver had already sent his reply to Surkov, as he reports in the next letter to Berlin.

26th May, 1961.

Dear Sir Isaiah,

Thank you very much for your letter.

I realise, of course, that my letter to you had been delayed.

I duly wrote to Surkov in answer to his long letter to me and I made there pointed reference to his promise that Ivinskaya should be released within a period of months. I have not heard again yet but he is  believed to be coming to this Country with a party of Soviet writers towards the end of next month and they are all expected here, at Glebe House , at the Midsummer Eve subscription party which we happen to be holding for members. In view of this, I think I had better delay organising the kind of memorial which you suggest, and of which of course I heartily approve, until I have had a chance to talk to him. I am sure you are right that we must not let him imagine that we have forgotten the poor woman.

Best regards,

Yours sincerely,

D[avid] C[arver] [signed]

General Secretary.

Sir Isaiah Berlin, C.B.E., Headington House,

Old High Street,

HEADINGTON,

Oxford. (PEN Box 153.7, HRC)

What Carver had written to Surkov concerning the “promise” was as follows:

Your letter makes no mention of Madame Ivinskaya’s daughter, whose sentence has, perhaps, shocked people in the west almost more profoundly.

I would like to express the hope that nothing you say in your letter should be taken to affect the promise you gave while in England that Madame Ivinskaya would be released within a period of months. (For the full letter and the entire Carver-Surkov exchange see Mancosu 2019, document 4.51, pp. 233-245). What follows is Berlin’s reply.

HEADINGTON HOUSE,

OLD HIGH STREET, HEADINGTON, OXFORD.

TEL. OXFORD 81005.

29th May, 1961.

Dear Mr. Carver,

I am sure you are quite right. If you could raise the matter with Surkov on his arrival, although he would certainly not be best pleased – that would be excellent.

Yours sincerely,

Isaiah Berlin [signed] (PEN Box 153.7, HRC)

The next letter is from Berlin to Crankshaw. Edward Crankshaw, who worked for The Observer, had shown an early interest in the Ivinskaya case with the first article on it written on January 22, 1961. In addition to some early articles, he wrote a major story for The Observer on October 1, which brought the reader up to date with the Carver-Surkov exchange (which had meanwhile been sent to the different branches of P.E.N.). The article repeated Surkov’s obscene characterization of Ivinskaya with the intent of conveying to the British public the extent of Surkov’s crassness. In the article Crankshaw returned to the issue of the “promise” and in his letter Berlin clarified what exactly had been said in “the unforgettable bus journey” (I take the opportunity to correct what I said in the passage of my book, cited above: Surkov’s promise was made in the bus ride not at the reception at the Embassy).

Edward Crankshaw. Photo by Jane Bown

TO EDWARD CRANKSHAW [Carbon copy]

2nd Oct. 1961

First let me congratulate you warmly on your piece on Pasternak in the Observer yesterday. It is a noble, unanswerable and definitive piece on the whole subject – I do not see how this could be done otherwise or better. There is only one correction I should like to make – Surkov did not of course “promise” that Madame I[vinskaya] would be liberated as a matter of weeks – not that he was in a position to make any such promise anyway – he only let drop the possibility that she might in fact not be imprisoned for more than a year or two – all this happened in that unforgettable bus journey from Covent Garden and was never adverted to again. I shall not write to the Observer to correct the record, but I thought I ought to let you know, and I shall send a copy of this to Carver. It makes no difference, of course, to the burden of your indictment. [next sentence added by hand] than[k] you also for not mentioning my name – (Letter from Berlin to Crankshaw, dated October 2, 1961. P.E.N. Archive, 1932-1983. 1984.004. McFarlin Library. Department of Special Collections and University Archives. University of Tulsa.)

The next letter, from Berlin to Carver, contained the carbon copy of the letter to Crankshaw (see above) as enclosure.

HEADINGTON HOUSE,

OLD HIGH STREET, HEADINGTON, OXFORD.

TEL. OXFORD 81005.

2nd October, 1961.

Dear David Carver,

I enclose a copy of my card to Edward Crankshaw – this is only to set the record straight. If you did write to Surkov to say that he had “promised” this would not have been quite an exact rendering of what occurred, but perhaps it does not make a great difference. He could always reply that he neither wished nor had the power to divert the course of “justice”, but I fear he will let the whole matter drop.

Anyway, we have all done what we can at this end.

It is sad that only we should have bestirred ourselves – why have the Americans, the Italians, the French, not done a little more? I do not see how we can be expected to do any more.

Yours sincerely,

Isaiah Berlin [signed] (Letter from Berlin to Carver, dated October 2, 1961. P.E.N. Archive, 1932-1983. 1984.004. McFarlin Library. Department of Special Collections and University Archives. University of Tulsa.)

Crankshaw replied to Berlin’s letter on October 24. I report the beginning of the letter (preserved at the Isaiah Berlin Manuscripts Collection at Oxford), which mentions the matter of the “promise”.

24th October, 1961.

Sir Isaiah Berlin, C.B.E.,

All Souls College,

Oxford.

My dear Isaiah,

How very sweet of you to trouble to write about my Ivinskaya piece. I am so glad you thought it was all right: it caused me a good deal of heart-searching before I raised the matter again; but as it was clearly going to be raised, I thought it might as well take it on myself and try to hit the right tone. Thank you for telling me that it came off. As you know, there are very few people whose good opinion I value. And you are at the head of them.

I am only sorry that I was careless about the use of the word “promise”. I blame myself for this. But I think it better to say nothing more until the matter comes up again when, if it seems desirable, I can correct myself. (IBMC, MS. Berlin; Isaiah Berlin Literary Trust: © the Trustees of the Isaiah Berlin Literary Trust 2019)

Let us now go back to the exchange between Carver and Berlin. In a letter dated October 5th, Carver provides Berlin with a report of the conversations he had had with Surkov in late June when he realized that Surkov had no intention to help with improving the lot of Ivinskaya and her daughter.

5th October, 1961.

DC/mg.

Dear Isaiah Berlin [handwritten]

Thank you very much for your letter and the copy of your card to Edward Crakshaw. “Promised” does seem a little too strong from what you say, but I certainly got the impression from Crankshaw that Surkov’s final words to you amounted to that.

I quite realise that he could argue that in any case he had no authority to make any promise. But at that time I did not know that he was, to a certain extent, discredited vis-à-vis the USSR government.

I had intended to write and tell you of the conversation I had with Surkov here, at Glebe House, on the 23rd June and very much regret that I did not do so.

You will remember that he was to come to a party here with a number of Russian writers, including Polevoi, and that you agreed that I should tackle him about Ivinskaya. He duly arrived with a gift of L.P. records of Gagarin’s feat and the voices of renowned Russian writers, a volume of Georgian poetry translated into rather bad English and a bronze medaillon struck to commemorate the centenary of Chekov. We talked of relations between Soviet writers and P.E.N.; I heard again a lot about COM.E.S. and then later during the party, I referred to his conversation with you. I said in fact that we were all depending on him to obtain the release of Mrs Ivinskaya and dwelt on the lamentable effect the persecution of her and her daughter had made in the West. The usual smile was on his face and remained while he said “I know too much about Mrs. Ivinskaya to wish to assist her to obtain her release”. I let him see that I was horrified by this, but I failed to move him at all.

When D’Angelo’s open letter reached me after I had talked to Max Hayward and previously Dr. Katkov, and had read Conquest’s long article in ENCOUNTER, I decided that it would be best to allow the relevant passages of Surkov’s long letter to me to be made public so that the whole story could be told and I agree with you that Crankshaw has done it admirably.

The texts of the telegrams and letters that passed between Surkov and myself together with D’Angelo’s letter and a statement by Hayward (anonymous) have been sent to all the national centres of P.E.N. with the suggestion from me that the national executives should consider what action to take, vis-à-vis their own press, following publication of Crankshaw’s article in THE OBSERVER. I don’t think there is any doubt that the result will be a considerable amount of further airing throughout the world.

Hayward assures me that anything that can be done to expose Surkov is likely to help Madame Ivinskaya. I can only hope that he is right. Perhaps now, the Americas, Italy, France and all the rest of them will do something more.

My International Executive Committee meets in Rome on November 1st with Moravia presiding and one of the main items for discussion on the Agenda will, of course, be the action taken in London.

Kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,

DC [signed]

General Secretary.

Sir Isaiah Berlin

Headington House,

Old High Street,

Headington,

OXFORD.

(Letter from Carver to Berlin, dated October 5, 1961. P.E.N. Archive, 1932-1983. 1984.004. McFarlin Library. Department of Special Collections and University Archives. University of Tulsa.)

This letter of October 5 refers to a number of events that we need to summarize briefly. First of all, we need to clarify the reference to the meeting at Glebe House with Surkov in June. The P.E.N. records contain a list of all the Soviet writers in attendance at the meeting that took place on June 23, 1961. Among them were Boris Polevoi, Svevolov Ivanov and his wife Tamara Ivanova. Second, let us say something about the reference to Sergio d’Angelo’s letter. D’Angelo had found out about Surkov’s April letter to Carver (which had been treated confidentially but, apparently, not sufficiently so) and thus saw the accusations against him (d’Angelo) that were contained in it (among other things, Surkov said that d’Angelo was an international swindler). D’Angelo wrote an open letter  to Surkov challenging Surkov to provide proofs of his accusations. D’Angelo sent a copy of his letter to Surkov to David Floyd asking the latter to forward the letter to the General Secretary of P.E.N. for maximum publicity and distribution.  The accompanying cover letter to P.E.N., written by d’Angelo, is dated July 27, 1961. However, since the letter was published in Italian in the June 21 issue of Vita, its composition goes back to the month of June. As it transpires from correspondence between Carver and Floyd, the letter was first translated into English by David Floyd, and then Max Hayward improved the translation (the English version of the letter is now published in Mancosu 2019, document 4.51; the letter from d’Angelo to P.E.N., the letter from Floyd to Carver (undated) and the reply from Carver to Floyd, dated August 30, 1961, are found in the PEN Box 153.7, HRC). I now cite from the memo that Carver sent to the P.E.N. centers on September 25, 1961 (PEN Box 153.7, HRC), for it reflects Carver’s reasons for making the various letters available to the P.E.N. centers.

Olga Ivinskaya And Her Daughter Irina.

I regret I must refer again to the imprisonment of Olga Ivinskaya, literary collaborator of the Russian poet Boris Pasternak, and her daughter Irina. You will remember that this matter was discussed at the International Executive Committee last May (when I referred to a letter I had received from Mr. Surkov) and was reported on in the Minutes of that meeting since circulated to all Centres. Reference was also made to Sir Isaiah Berlin in February this year that both women would be released within a period of months. Because of this promise, P.E.N. refrained from further pursuing the question of their release.

Mr. Surkov visited Glebe House as one of a party of Russian writers late in June, when I took the opportunity of reminding him of his promise, and was bitterly disappointed and disturbed to learn that he had no intention of fulfilling it.

Mr. Surkov’s letter to me contained a number of charges against the Italian publisher of Dr. Zhivago and other persons, including Signor Sergio D’Angelo. I have now received a letter from Signor D’Angelo, enclosing an open letter intended for the press, in which he replies to Mr. Surkov’s charges. I must stress very emphatically that I have no knowledge as to how Signor d’Angelo obtained a sight of Mr. Surkov’s letter to me, since it has only been shown to a very few leading P.E.N. personalities in London (as Mr. Surkov himself suggested at the close of his letter); this was felt to be in the best interest of Mrs. Ivinskaya as, in view of Mr. Surkov’s promise, silence was then believed to be fundamental to her safety and eventual release.

Now, in view of Signor D’Angelo’s open letter, and as it is clear he hopes to secure maximum publicity for his refutal of Mr. Surkov’s charges in the world’s press, it has been decided to release the contents of Mr. Surkov’s letter to me in so far as they refer to Mrs. Ivinskaya, so that Signor D’Angelo’s letter can be judged in the context of the original charges. The relevant parts of Mr. Surkov’s letter and my reply are therefore being given to the press, and an article dealing with the whole matter is likely to appear in one of the leading British Sunday newspapers on October 1st [this was Crankshaw’s article on the Observer] You will find, enclosed with this letter, the texts of the correspondence that has passed between Mr. Surkov and myself on this subject, including the texts of telegrams sent early this year. I also enclose an English translation of Sergio d’Angelo’s letter, and a brief memorandum by an English friend of the late Boris Pasternak which comments on certain aspects of Mr. Surkov’s expressed views of Mrs. Ivinskaya.

You will appreciate that the release of this material, forced upon me by events, has been decided  upon solely to help the unfortunate woman who has been condemned to eight years’ imprisonment in the Soviet Union. (PEN Box, 153.7, HRC)

Now back to Berlin’s reply to Carver’s letter of October 5th.

6 October 1961

Headington House

Dear Carver,

Thank you for your letter of 5 October. The account of your conversation with Surkov does not of course surprise me in the least. They have made up their mind to do exactly what Crankshaw said they intended to do, and that is a decision taken well above Surkov’s head, and he is merely the tough and cynical executant.

All that happened in that never-to-be-forgotten bus journey from Covent Garden at midnight to Wiston House was that after Surkov had revealed the full depth of Madame I[vinskaya]’s depravity, and other members of his party joined in about her financial dishonesty and acts likely to undermine the financial policy of the Soviet Union, etc., Surkov finally said, with a sort of crocodile smile, that perhaps she would not have to stay in prison all the eight years, or whatever it was – perhaps ‘a year or two’ (that is my recollection) would be enough. I said that one year was better than two, and six months better than one year, to which he rejoined nothing at all and spent himself on amiabilities about Baroness Budberg and other London friends.

I do not myself believe that anything done to expose Surkov will help Madame I. – I think they have made up their minds about that and Surkov is merely reproducing a carefully officially prepared line to which they all stick. He may, being an exceedingly clever man, have helped to work out the official version, but once it is adopted it ceases to be his property, and his personal fate has little to do with the fate of the victims. The only thing which could save them would be a change of heart on the part of some person in real authority from Mr K[rushchev] downwards – and how that is to be compassed I have no idea. If the people I still preserve a tenuous connection with inside the Soviet Union are not to get into further trouble (they have had a good deal already – I do not know if I ever told you about my conversations with various semi-condemned writers), it were best if my name were kept out of this. But there is no harm in saying, perhaps, that Surkov, in general conversation with no one in particular, seemed to hold out hope of a shorter sentence owing to the general clemency and humanity of the Soviet authorities (or similar rot).

Yours sincerely,

Isaiah Berlin (Letter from Berlin to Carver, dated October 6, 1961. P.E.N. Archive, 1932-1983. 1984.004. McFarlin Library. Department of Special Collections and University Archives. University of Tulsa.)

Carver replied on October 11.

11th October, 1961.

DC/mg.

Dear Berlin,

Thank you very much for your letter and for letting me have the picture so fully.

I feel with you that it is all pretty hopeless. Surkov is a such a tough, cynical creature that there is no hope of moving him and, as you say, we need to get at some person in real authority. Margaret Storm Jameson wrote a note to Madame Furtseva when she was here, as one woman to another, but got no reply.

Furtseva and Surkov

The Russian Service of the BBC persuaded me to do a piece for them which went out last night. I retold the story simply and that is apparently what they wanted. I enclose a copy of my talk. I was persuaded to do this by Lieven, who said he wanted something from somebody in a more objective position, Crankshaw being so well known as a political journalist.

I will certainly do what I can see that your name is not mentioned.

Yours, DC [signed]

Sir Isaiah Berlin, C.B.E., F.B.A.,

Headington House,

Old High Street,

Headington, Oxford. (Letter from Carver to Berlin, dated October 11, 1961. P.E.N. Archive, 1932-1983. 1984.004. McFarlin Library. Department of Special Collections and University Archives. University of Tulsa.)

TO DAVID CARVER

12 October 1961

Headington House

Dear Carver,

Thank you very much for your letter and the excellent enclosure. I thought your talk absolutely appropriate and I hope it penetrates Surkov’s thick hide to the necessary depth. But I fear he is a hopeless case. And so are they all, including Ehrenburg, who is falsely credited with civic courage. I am sure there is nothing more to be done at present; and it is very creditable that the sharpest voices were raised in England. I hope that you will have sent copies of your talk to the other national centres of P.E.N.

Yours sincerely,

Isaiah Berlin (Letter from Berlin to Carver, dated October 12, 1961. P.E.N. Archive, 1932-1983. 1984.004. McFarlin Library. Department of Special Collections and University Archives. University of Tulsa.)

Here is the the text of the talk by Carver that was broadcast on the B.B.C.’s Russian Service on October 10. The talk was circulated to P.E.N. Centers a few days after October 17.

Olga Ivinskaya

Since drafting the letter to Centres dated October 17. 1961, Mr. Carver obtained permission from the B.B.C. to send out to all Centres the text of a broadcast by him which went out over the B.B.C.’s Russian Service on October 10. 1961, which it was felt would interest Centres since it is on the subject of Olga Ivinskaya. In any reproduction of this talk, due ACKNOWLEDGMENT must be made to the B.B.C., London.

***

Who is Olga Ivinskaya?

Until a comparatively short time ago her name, in the West, was known to only a handful of intellectuals as being the close friend and literary assistant of one of the most admired of living poets – Boris Pasternak.

Then, Boris Pasternak died and – suddenly – the world was startled and shocked to hear reports of the arrest of this woman, and her daughter Irina, in Moscow, and of their condemnation to Siberia – the mother for eight years and Irina for three. I say ‘shocked’ because this savage sentence has, without doubt, profoundly stirred and horrified all thinking people in the West.

The protestations of Alexei Surkov in speeches, conversations and in letters that those women had been involved in illegal traffic in roubles and therefore it was necessary to make an example of them has done nothing to shake the firm belief held here that the trial and condemnation of Olga Ivinskaya and her daughter is an act of sordid revenge.

That Pasternak feared for Mrs. Ivinskaya’s safety is quite clear from letter to friends written during the last few months of his life. Certainly those few in the West who knew something of the inner history of the systematic persecution to which the poet had been subjected were worried and apprehensive.

I did not know Pasternak – I have never met Mrs. Ivinskaya. But, in my capacity as General Secretary of the international organization known as P.E.N., I have met and talked with Mr. Surkov on several occasions. Mr. Surkov is known to me principally as a high executive of the Union of Soviet Writers. It was to him that the cable was addressed appealing to Soviet writers to protect Pasternak from persecution when he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1958. It was to him also that I addressed several telegrams and letters, early this year, begging him to intercede with his government on behalf of Mrs. Ivinskaya and her daughter.

I turned to Mr. Surkov because I had this contact with him already. We had exchanged views on the question of whether or not Soviet writers would attend annual P.E.N. Congresses and meet their colleagues from all over the world, exchange opinions with them and so let in that draught of fresh air on a cultural level which, I believe, is our greatest, perhaps our only, hope for future peace and understanding.

I have always understood that Mr. Surkov favoured  this contact between Soviet writers and their colleagues abroad. His interest in the Italian-based European Community of Writers certainly suggests it. But in the very long letter he addressed to me last April – in reply to my letters and telegrams – he devoted page after page to vicious attacks on Mrs. Ivinskaya’s morals and referred only comparatively briefly to developing contacts between Soviet writers and their colleagues in International P.E.N.

Does Mr. Surkov believe that such terrible events as the persecution of Boris Pasternak, and the savage sentence on the woman who was for fourteen years his greatest friend, foster these cultural links which are so vital to our survival? Or doesn’t he care?

The tragic story of Olga Ivinskaya and her treatment at the hands of those who affect to admire Pasternak  as a great Russian writer has – in my views – destroyed the patient work of years. It has, in fact, confirmed in their belief those who support the policy of the closed door – those who mistakenly urge that contact, whether cultural or otherwise, between people with widely different political systems can bring profit to neither.

One thing is clear: Mr. Surkov doesn’t understand the extent to which enlightened opinion in the West has been shocked by this persecution of Mrs. Ivinskaya and her daughter.

She is a whore, he repeats again and again, she was a bad influence on Pasternak and a trafficker in illegal currency. But as I and many others have told him – we, in the West, are not concerned with Mrs. Ivinskaya’s morals, we are not arguing about the alleged currency crimes; what we are saying is simply this ‘Let her and her daughter go free in the name of humanity: release this aging woman who was the trusted friend of the greatest creative writer of his generation.’

There is no place in the annals and history of a modern state with its record of superb achievement in the arts and the sciences for such a degrading story.

P.E.N.

62 Glebe Place

London S.W.#

October 17/1961

DC/hr. (P.E.N. Archive, 1932-1983. 1984.004. McFarlin Library. Department of Special Collections and University Archives. University of Tulsa.)

Irina Emelianova in Potma (1962)

The final part of the exchange between Carver and Berlin relevant to the Ivinskaya case is from November-December 1964. Irina Emelianova had already been freed in 1962 and the correspondence below concerns what attitude to take towards Surkov and the Soviet Writers’ Union after Ivinskaya’s liberation in November 1964.

HEADINGTON HOUSE,

OLD HIGH STREET, HEADINGTON, OXFORD.

TEL. OXFORD 81005.

20th November [1964]

Dear David Carver,

Ought we now – P.E.N., I mean – to signify our satisfaction at the release of Ivinskaya which we must assume to have occurred? Having rightly persecuted Surkov, etc., over all this, we ought, I suppose, to react – if only because it makes future protests (the need for which will, alas, probably not be absent) more effective if we chalk something up in favour of the oppressors whenever they display ‘clemency’ even for non­existent offences: still, about this you would know better than I. I had no idea before reading the Bulletin of the English Centre that Surkov had let himself go about P.E.N: it does us nothing but credit.

Yours sincerely,

Isaiah Berlin [signed] (PEN Box, 153.7; HRC)

[Carbon Copy]

mg.                27th November, 1964.

Dear Sir Isaiah Berlin,

Thank you for your letter of the 20th November addressed to Mr. Carver. He is at present away from the office but will see your letter immediately on his return to Glebe House early next week.

Yours sincerely,

Secretarial Assistant to Mr. David Carver.

Sir Isaiah Berlin, CBE., FBA., Headington House,

Old High Street.

Headington,

Oxford. (PEN Box, 153.7, HRC)

4th December, 1964.

DC/mg.

Dear Isaiah Berlin,

Thank you very much for your letter which, back from a short visit to Brussels, I have now seen.

On the whole I am inclined to think that beyond merely telling the Soviet Writers Union that we are glad to see that Ivinskaya has been released we should leave matter as they are. I have to write to Konstantin Simonov to follow-up a discussion we had in Budapest a few weeks ago when he and three other Soviet writers attended a Round Table Conference as observers, and I could very easily put in a sentence then. I rather jib at talking of clemency, particularly in the case of Ivinskaya when I remember how monstrous the whole thing was and how ill she became during the last year of incarceration.

Yes, certainly Surkov let himself go about P.E.N. and it will interest you perhaps to see the IZVESTIA article in which he made his accusations. I also enclose the text of my reply which, of course, was not printed. It did, however, form the basis of a number of articles in the European press, particularly in France and Italy.

Budapest was the first P.E.N. International meeting in forty-three years at which Soviet writers were present in any capacity. If this leads to a real relationship between Soviet writers and P.E.N., either direct or through their Union, I can only feel that it would be very desirable. There is talk of my going to Moscow to discuss ways and means ­– I shall certainly go if invited. Yours is the perfect comment on the Surkov attack and I appreciated it greatly.

Kindest regards,

Yours sincerely,

DC [signed]

General Secretary

Sir Isaiah Berlin, c.a.,

Headington House,

Headington,

OXFORD.     Enclosures (PEN Box, 153.7, HRC)

HEADINGTON HOUSE,

OLD HIGH STREET, HEADINGTON, OXFORD.

TEL. OXFORD 81005.

7th December [1964]

Dear D.C.

Thank you for your letter of the 4th. “Clemency” is perhaps not the right word – it certainly isn’t on any true appraisal of what was done – I entirely agree with you about that – the only question is whether from a strictly utilitarian point of view this would be useful for the purpose of saving further victims who, I fear, are bound to crop up behind the Iron Curtain. But in general, I think you are probably quite right: we could simply acknowledge our satisfaction at this release and communicate this to them in cool and correct terms.

I hope you go to Moscow: it cannot possibly do any harm and might do good.

Yours sincerely,

Isaiah Berlin [signed] (PEN Box, 153.7; HRC)

This completes the exchange between Carver and Berlin on the matter of the Ivinskaya case. It is only a small portion of a very complex case. The reader who would like to grasp the case in its totality is referred to Mancosu 2019. I will conclude by mentioning that the Carver–Surkov debate was to flare up again in 1964 (see the reference in the last two letters to Surkov’s “letting himself go about P.E.N.”) in connection with an article published by Surkov in Izvestia on January 4, 1964. However, since that exchange was only tenuously related to the Ivinskaya case, I will not treat it here.

Bibliography

Afiani, Vitaliĭ I., and Natal’ia G. Tomilina, eds. 2001. A za mnoiu shum pogoni: Boris Pasternak i vlast’; dokumenty 1956–1972 [But the hunters are gaining ground: Boris Pasternak and the regime; Documents, 1956–1972]. Moscow: ROSSPĖN.

Berlin, Isaiah. 2013. Building: Letters 1960–1975. Edited by Henry Hardy and Mark Pottle. London: Chatto & Windus.

Crankshaw, Edward. 1984. Putting Up with the Russians 1947–1984. London: Macmillan.

Le dossier de l’Affaire Pasternak: Archives du Comité Central et du Politburo. 1994. Preface by Jacqueline de Proyart. Paris: Gallimard.

Mancosu, Paolo.  2013. Inside the Zhivago Storm. The Editorial Adventures of Pasternak’s Masterpiece. Milan: Feltrinelli.

Mancosu, Paolo.  2018. “We Need to Help The Russians Save Face: ‘The Ivinskaya Case’ in the West”, Russian Literature, Vol. 100-101-102 (2018), pp. 127–220.

Mancosu, Paolo.  2019. Moscow has Ears Everywhere. New Investigations on Pasternak and Ivinskaya. Stanford: Hoover Press.

“Moscow Has Ears Everywhere” is out!

I am delighted to announce the publication of “Moscow Has Ears Everywhere. New Investigations on Pasternak and Ivinskaya” (Hoover Press, Stanford, 2019). What follows is the description from the flaps of the book and the advance praise for the book signed by three eminent specialists of Slavic Studies.

“Moscow Has Ears Everywhere. New Investigations on Pasternak and Ivinskaya” (Hoover Press, Stanford, 2019)

The struggle between the Soviet Communist Party and Boris Pasternak over the publication of Doctor Zhivago did not end when he won the Nobel Prize, or even with his death. After the prize the Soviets vilified and impoverished him. After his death, they turned against Olga Ivinskaya, his literary assistant, companion, and the model for Zhivago’s Lara, sending her and her daughter to a labor camp for accepting Pasternak’s royalties from the West.
            In Moscow Has Ears Everywhere, Mancosu provides the first examination of what happened after the scandal that followed the award of the Nobel Prize to Pasternak in October 1958.

            Pasternak had said he would not accept the royalties for his work. However, when exclusion from the Soviet Writers’ Union left him with no other source of income, he reconnected with Sergio d’Angelo, the scout for the Feltrinelli publishing house in Milan, the first to publish Zhivago in the West. Mancosu also describes how d’Angelo became part of a campaign to smuggle money to Pasternak.

            After the poet died, Ivinskaya received some of those funds. Mancosu shows that the KGB intercepted Pasternak’s “will,” a document that transferred Pasternak’s royalties to his longtime companion. The Soviets then arrested Ivinskaya and her daughter, Irina Emelianova, and sent them to a labor camp.

            Finally, Mancosu provides new evidence showing that Western literary figures used a campaign of clandestine persuasion rather than confrontation in an attempt to win the women’s release. Mancosu’s new book—the first to explore the post–Nobel history of Pasternak and Ivinskaya—provides extraordinary detail on these events, in a thrilling account that involves KGB interceptions, fabricated documents, smugglers, and much more. Scholars will relish the rich assemblage of new archival material, especially letters of Pasternak, Ivinskaya, Feltrinelli, and d’Angelo from the Hoover Institution Library and Archives and the Feltrinelli Archives in Milan. But Moscow Has Ears Everywhere speaks to everyone who has read the story of Zhivago and his Lara. In many respects, this is its final chapter.

Below are the advance praises for the book signed by three eminent specialists of Slavic Studies.

Paolo Mancosu’s richly documented and profoundly moving account of
some of the most dramatic episodes in the cultural life of the Cold War
period is a major contribution to Pasternak scholarship and Russian
studies.
—Lazar Fleishman, Stanford University


Paolo Mancosu’s new book is a treat for the specialist and the general
reader. Mancosu has unearthed an enormous amount of new documentary
evidence that sheds a completely new light on a story we thought
we knew well: Pasternak’s persecution following the Nobel Prize award,
the arrests of Olga Ivinskaya and Irina Emelianova, and their subsequent
release. Mancosu unveils the surprising twists of the story and weaves a
rich tapestry describing the political, literary, and private relations among
the protagonists. Most important, he gives us insights into their inner
lives—the lives of outstanding and ordinary people enmeshed in the cruel
hostility of the Cold War. It is a splendid achievement.
—Anna Sergeeva-Klyatis, Moscow State University


Professor Mancosu’s book investigates the post–Nobel Prize events in
Pasternak’s life and the repercussions of his confrontation with Soviet
power on his beloved Olga Ivinskaya and her daughter Irina Emelianova.
It represents a quantum leap in our understanding of those events, both on
account of the impressive number of unknown archival sources Mancosu
brought to light as well as for the thorough and careful interpretation of
those tragic events. Mancosu’s first-rate
study is a must read for anyone
interested in the relationship between literature and politics during the
Cold War.
—Fedor Poljakov, University of Vienna

Jacqueline de Proyart (1927-2019)

It is with great sadness that I recently learned that Jacqueline de Proyart passed away in Paris on January 30. Jacqueline de Proyart was a French Slavic scholar who taught at Poitiers and Bordeaux. She was known, among other things, for her work on Pasternak and Chekhov. In addition, she played a central role in Boris Pasternak’s life.

I first got in contact with Jacqueline in January 2012. I wrote her an email in which I asked her a question concerning one of the Russian editions of Doctor Zhivago. Her answer ended up determining my subsequent engagement with the publication history of Doctor Zhivago. That first email led to more emails, then to a personal acquaintance, which in turn turned into a friendship. Jacqueline was a generous and noble spirit. Her friendship meant very much to me and my wife. All my research on Doctor Zhivago benefited enormously from her advise and support. And of course, she was also one of the main characters in the saga which is the subject of my books, namely the publication history of Doctor Zhivago and Boris Pasternak’s life. I shall miss her very much.

I would like to celebrate her memory by briefly recounting here how it happened that in February 1957 Boris Pasternak nominated Jacqueline de Proyart de Baillescourt, a young French countess whom he had recently met at the beginning of January in his dacha in Peredelkino, as his literary agent responsible for all decisions (‘literary, juridical, and pecuniary’) concerning his work and in particular entrusted her with the task of preparing and publishing the original text of the novel in Russian.

Jacqueline recounts the story of her first acquaintance with Boris Pasternak in the introduction to Pasternak 1994a. The year was 1956. In order to improve her Russian, she was sent by her professor, André Mazon, to Moscow. The official justification was developing contacts between the Tolstoy library/museum at the Institute of Slavic Studies in Paris, which she was in charge of, and the Tolstoy museums in Moscow and Yasnaya Polyana. In Paris, she had also studied with Pierre Pascal and Nina Lazarewa. Through the latter, she had been able to become familiar with the artistic sensibility of pre-revolutionary Russia, including its spiritual and religious aspects. She arrived in Moscow on November 23, 1956 (see below her “Propusk” dated November 22, 1956).

While attending courses at the State University of Moscow (MGU), she took time to explore Moscow and to realize that traces of the Russian sensibility she had been exposed to in Paris could still be found, hidden behind the ideological façade, in certain museums and institutions. One such place was the Scriabin Museum. She had in fact been invited for tea in a part of the museum that was restricted to “Scriabin’s friends”, a group of people “who shared the same spiritual values”. Given Pasternak’s deep connection to Scriabin – Pasternak was under his spell as a youth and even considered a career as a composer – it is perhaps not surprising to find out that “in this sanctuary, the name of Boris Pasternak was uttered with admiration and fervor” (Pasternak 1994a, p. 15). She was told she had to meet Pasternak, for otherwise her stay in Russia would be meaningless. When arriving in Moscow, Jacqueline did not even know whether Pasternak was dead or alive. What she knew about him went back to a lecture course by Roman Jakobson, which she attended in 1951 when she was a student at Harvard, and to a selection of verses (mainly from Lieutenant Schmidt and The Year 1905) contained in the anthology by Jacques David, Anthologie de la Poésie Russe, which had been published in the late 1940s. Little did she know that the meeting that was soon organized to allow her to meet the poet would change her life. She laid eyes on a typescript copy of Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago for the first time at the Scriabin Museum in mid-December 1956. The copy had been promised to Dmitriĭ Ivanov, aka Jean Neuvecelle, and thus she could not have access to it immediately. To make up for the disappointment, a few friends from the circle took her to visit Pasternak on the evening of January 1, 1957.

The impression the poet made on her was immediate and “his warm tenderness soon had the better of my shyness” (Pasternak 1994a, p. 18). At the end of a sparkling evening, full of intellectual conversation, Jacqueline expressed her desire to read the novel. Pasternak asked Nikolaĭ Shatrov, one of the persons who had accompanied Jacqueline to see Pasternak, to fetch the copy that was still in Simonov’s hands, the very copy which had been used – but of course Jacqueline knew nothing about this – by the main editor of Novy mir when writing his negative report on the novel in September 1956. On the evening of January 2, 1957, she already had the first part of the novel. After one week, she already had enough information about the Italian translation –which was being prepared by the publisher Feltrinelli– to propose, on January 9, to act on Pasternak’s behalf in arranging for a French translation with Gallimard. The names of Hélène Peltier, Michel Aucouturier, and Louis Martinez also came up, and it turned out that Pasternak was already familiar with them (he did not reveal at this stage that he had already given a copy of the novel to Peltier). Pasternak also showed her the contract he had signed with Feltrinelli.  Pasternak gave de Proyart the second part of the novel on January 16 and 17, and on those dates he gave her “the rights for publishing and translating abroad the Autobiographical Essay, since no contract tied Pasternak to Feltrinelli for this work” (p. 23).

On January 17, Pasternak wrote a letter to Hélène Peltier (on Peltier see Mancosu 2016) where he said:

I want that every choice, every initiative, all the rights concerning the handling abroad (not only in France) of the affairs related to my writings, including the edition of the original Russian text, be concentrated only in your hands and in those of Madame de Proyart, for your exclusive profit, without any deduction, of which I have no need whatsoever. (Pasternak 1994a, p. 63.)

On February 6, 1957, Pasternak wrote to Peltier:

I am leaving the previous letter unfinished. Jacqueline is leaving, and I am rushing. Here it is in brief. I am burdening madame de Proyart with a power of attorney, which would be desired of you as well. Questions of danger, carefulness, etc. are a complete philosophy, mind- numbing and with the ability to break your heart as well as mine. For example, if Mr. Michel Aucouturier (please send him my warmest greetings) does not mention my novel in his article in “Esprit” [March 1957]—which, quite likely, would be a sensible thing to do—what else is left of me at all? Is it not logical, that for the joy of writing the novel, I must pay, risking and putting myself in danger! Do not forget the thing that I told you. I am not dictating anything and am not suggesting anything. I would like for you and Jacqueline to do things in complete independence, in accordance with your own thoughts and inherent courage. And I thank you, endlessly thank you. Glory to you!

By the time Jacqueline left Moscow on February 8, Pasternak had given her a corrected version of Doctor Zhivago, which improved on the copy that had been sent to Feltrinelli in May 1956, a copy of the Autobiography, and a mandate nominating her as his representative. Lack of communication with Feltrinelli, who discovered the real nature of Pasternak’s mandates on her behalf only in January 1959, and the lack of clarity in the mandates themselves (as Jacqueline herself admitted), was at the core of the troubles that followed.

When Jacqueline returned to France she brought with her a letter, dated February 6, 1957, addressed to Gallimard in which Pasternak asked Gallimard to “have faith in Madame Jacqueline de Proyart as my representative in all business matters of a literary, juridical, and financial nature that could arise between your publishing house and me. I give her full power and I authorize her to replace me abroad in an unlimited way until the complete forgetfulness of my person.” (For a photographic reproduction of the original document in French, see Pasternak 1994b.) While this document had little effect on the destiny of Zhivago in France, it will by contrast be quite relevant for the autobiography and for other issues that led later to a stormy relation between Feltrinelli and de Proyart (Mancosu 2013).

Well, the rest is history, as one says. Jacqueline corresponded extensively with Pasternak (Pasternak’s side of the correspondence is published in Pasternak 1994a); she was one of the translators of Doctor Zhivago into French; she wrote the preface for one of the volumes of the 1961 Michigan edition of Pasternak’s Works; she was Pasternak’s representative in the West in 1959 and 1960; she prepared the revised edition of the Russian text of Doctor Zhivago published by Michigan in 1967, and she published extensively on him. In addition to Pasternak 1994a and Pasternak 1994b, Jacqueline’s long involvement with Pasternak is recounted in detail in Mancosu 2013, 2016, and 2019, to which we refer the reader.

Bibliography

De Proyart, J. (1964), Pasternak, Gallimard, Paris.

De Proyart, J. (1985), Études sur la littérature Russe du Moyen-Âge à nos jours et sur l’histoire de la Russie sous le règne d’Alexandre III, Thèse d’État, Université de Bordeaux III.

De Proyart, J. (2005), Brice Parain et Boris Pasternak, in Besseyre, M., Brice Parain. Un Homme de Parole, Gallimard/BnF, Paris, 2005, 189-196.

Mancosu, P. (2013), Inside the Zhivago Storm. The Editorial Adventures of Pasternak’s Masterpiece, Feltrinelli, Milan.

Mancosu, P., (2016), Zhivago’s Secret Journey: from typescript to book, Hoover Press, Stanford.

Mancosu, P. (2019), Moscow has Ears Everywhere. New Investigations on Pasternak and Ivinskaya, Hoover Press, Stanford.

Pasternak, B.(1958), Le Docteur Jivago, Gallimard, Paris.

Pasternak, B. (1967), Doktor Zhivago: s poslednimi popravkami avtora, Rev. and corr. by Jacqueline de Proyart, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, third printing, [Doctor Zhivago: with final corrections by the author.]

Pasternak, B. (1994a), Lettres à mes amies françaises. 1956-1960, Introduction et Notes de Jacqueline de Proyart, Gallimard, Paris.

Pasternak, B. (1994b), Le Dossier de l’Affaire Pasternak. Archives du Comité Central et du Politburo, Préface de Jacqueline de Proyart, Gallimard, Paris.

The Hunt for the Seventh Typescript

In Zhivago’s Secret Journey: from typescript to book (Hoover Press, 2016), I analyzed the typescripts of Doctor Zhivago that Pasternak sent outside the USSR and studied the role they played in the publishing history of Doctor Zhivago. The book discusses in detail six typescripts that arrived to the West and I showed that the source of the first Russian edition of Doctor Zhivago, the so-called Mouton edition – a pirated edition covertly organized by the CIA – was one of two identical typescripts that arrived in Oxford. One of the typescripts was owned by Pasternak’s sisters (it was sent to them through Isaiah Berlin) and the other was the property of George Katkov. One important consequence of this result, which rests on a philological comparative analysis of the relation between the Mouton text and the six typescripts, was that the Feltrinelli typescript, contrary to what had been assumed by most scholars, was not the one that was microfilmed for the CIA. And that is sufficient to eliminate the various cloak and dagger accounts of how the Feltrinelli typescript was intercepted by various intelligence agencies and was reproduced for the CIA. In my book, I was careful to qualify my claims by allowing for the possibility that more than six typescripts might have left the USSR. In particular, in a footnote on p. 138, I mentioned some intriguing evidence about the possibility that a typescript might have reached the USA already in October 1957. Further work on this topic led me to show that there was indeed a typescript that reached the USA by October 1957.

Across Borders, 2018

In a recent article titled “The hunt for the seventh typescript” I have been able to show that Henry Carlisle and Rinehart & Co. in New York had available a typescript of Doctor Zhivago in October 1957. In the article, I reconstruct the story of how the typescript made its way from Peredelkino to the United States – it was brought there by Vladimir Bronislavovich Sossinsky –  but I also argue that this typescript played no role in the publication history of Doctor Zhivago. Thus, all the key claims made in my book are unaffected by this further research, which however completes the picture of the history of the typescripts that were sent by Pasternak outside the Soviet Union. The article appeared in Across Borders: 20th Century Russian Literature and Russian-Jewish Cultural Contacts. Essays in honor of Vladimir Khazan.  Edited by Lazar Fleishman and Fedor Poljakov (Stanford Slavic Studies. Vol. 48), Peter Lang Verlag, Berlin etc., 2018, pp. 587-623.

At long last, Peredelkino!

This year  has been full of events related to Doctor Zhivago. Two important anniversaries explain the flood of activities. November 22 coincided with the 60th anniversary of the publication of Doctor Zhivago by Feltrinelli in Milan. In addition, the centenary of the October Revolution (October in Russia but November in the West on account of the different calendars) added to the interest on Doctor Zhivago. Here is the chronicle of my activities in this connection.

Throughout the year I have been collaborating with three different documentaries

SAM_2803 copy

BNF, Paris. Nino Kirtadze is on the left and Anne Verdure-Mary on the right

on Pasternak and Doctor Zhivago which are being produced by the BBC, by Producciones Arboleda in Spain, and by the Franco-German channel ARTE. I took an especially active role in the ARTE documentary. I spent the last week of June in Paris shooting with the gifted Georgian director Nino Kirtadze. This involved five days of shooting at, among other places, the Bibliothèque nationale de France (site Richelieu-Louvois). The visit to the BnF also allowed me to study in detail three long postcards that Boris Pasternak sent to Brice Parain, lecteur at Gallimard. I thank Anne Verdure-Mary, conservateur of the Département des manuscrits at the BnF, for her help in facilitating the consultation of the documents and for her help in obtaining the rights for publishing. The transcription of the three postcards will soon appear in an article of mine that is forthcoming in a volume edited by Lazar Fleishman. Kirtadze, her assistants, and I also managed  to fly to Milan on June 30 in order to shoot with Carlo Feltrinelli at the new Feltrinelli Foundation in Milan. For the occasion, Carlo Feltrinelli brought out from

IMG_5636 copy

With Carlo Feltrinelli at the new Feltrinelli Foundation. The original typescript of Doctor Zhivago is on the table

the safe the original typescript of Doctor Zhivago. This is the typescript that Boris Pasternak sent to Giangiacomo Feltrinelli through Sergio d’Angelo in May 1956 and that was used to prepare the Italian edition in 1957. In addition, Carlo Feltrinelli proudly told us that the large “passeggiata” facing the new Feltrinelli Foundation has been named after Boris Pasternak (see here). The ARTE documentary should be released in February 2018.

On July 10, I gave a talk on the publishing history of Doctor Zhivago at the Fondazione Sardegna in Cagliari.  On July 30, I presented my book Zivago nella Tempesta (Feltrinelli 2015) at the Festival “Sette sere, sette piazze, sette libri” in Perdasdefogu (Sardinia). I thank Alessandra Piras and Giacomo Mameli for having organized the events and Prof. Luciano Marrocu (University of Cagliari) for the insightful introductory comments and the moderation of the first event as well as for his comments in the second event. Special thanks also to Gavino Murgia who provided the beautiful music that accompanied the event.

On October 2, I gave a talk at the University of Pisa (Dipartimento di Filologia, Letteratura e Linguistica) at the behest of Professor Stefano Garzonio. The title of the talk was “I dattiloscritti dello Zivago e la fonte dell’edizione pirata russa della CIA” (“The Zhivago typescripts and the source of the pirate Russian edition by the CIA”). The talk presented the main results contained in my book Zhivago’s Secret Journey (Hoover Press, 2016).

On November 8, Carlo Feltrinelli and I gave a joint talk at EL BORN Centro de la Memoria in Barcelona.

img054

Poster for the talk at the Centro de la Memoria

The talk was part of a series of talks on the Russian Revolution. It was an interesting time to be in Barcelona: the date of our talk coincided with the general strike. Fortunately, the Centro managed to stay open despite the strike and we were able to deliver the talk. It was an honor to have as moderator an eminent publisher such as Jorge Herralde, founder and director of Editorial Anagrama. And, of course, a great pleasure to continue sharing with Carlo Feltrinelli the Zhivago adventure.

On November 16, I presented Zivago nella Tempesta (Feltrinelli 2015) at the Feltrinelli bookstore in Ferrara. The event came about thanks to the initiative of my friend and colleague Marcello d’Agostino (Università Statale, Milan) and his wife Savina Scavo. It was organized as a conversation with Marco Bertozzi,

20171116_174401

With Marco Bertozzi in Ferrara

a philosopher at the University of Ferrara. It was a great pleasure to share the stage with Marco, whose subtle reading of my book and insightful questioning made the evening a great success.

The most exciting event for me this semester was a trip to Moscow

Фото 02.12.2017, 4 57 17 copy.jpg

Paolo Mancosu in Moscow

from November 29 to December 3. I had not been back in Moscow since my two month stay as a guest of the Steklov Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences in summer 1990. The invitation this time came from the publishers of the Russian translation of my book Smugglers, Rebels, Pirates. Itineraries in the publishing history of Doctor Zhivago (Hoover Press, 2015). The Russian title is: Контрабандисты, бунтари, пираты, Перипетии истории издания«Доктора Живаго» (Азбуковник, Москва, 2017). I am delighted with the edition. The publishing house Azbukovnik is run by Leonid Grigorovich and Irina Barsel. Leonid and Irina organized two events at the Moscow Book Fair (Non fiction, no. 19) and an event at the House/Museum Pasternak in Peredelkino. As chance would have it, my assistant and collaborator Paul Borokhov was in St. Petersburg during this period and came down to join me for the talk in Peredelkino and for the second event at the Moscow book fair. 1019496123 copyThe first event at Non fiction no. 19 took place on November 29. Azbukovnik presented its recent titles including, in addition to the Russian translation of my book,  a book edited by Lazar Fleishman titled Новое о Пастернаках [New studies on Pasternak], (Азбуковник, Москва, 2017). The book contains, among many other interesting things, a long article I co-authored with Paul Borokhov: “Sergio d’Angelo’s correspondence with Olga Ivinskaya and Boris Pasternak” (pp. 218-309). In addition to the organizers of the event, Leonid and Irina, I was delighted to share the stage with Elena Vladimirovna Pasternak and Lazar Fleishman. Elena Vladimirovna and Lazar  were also present for the talk in Peredelkino, on December 1, and for the second event at the Moscow Book Fair, on December 2.

Visiting Pasternak’s house/museum in Peredelkino,

afisha-nf2 copy

Poster for the talk in Peredelkino

on December 1, was very moving. After so many years of engagements with Pasternak and Doctor Zhivago, it was quite an emotional moment to visit the place where the poet lived and worked. For the occasion, I delivered a talk on my recent work on the Ivinskaya case titled “Olga Ivinskaya and the loss of Pasternak’s “will” “. Paul Borokhov joined me and provided simultaneous translation. The talk has been posted on youtube at the following link. My talk was followed by a talk by Lazar Fleishman. The atmosphere was pleasant and convivial; the conversation after the talks went on for hours.

Finally, on December 2, there was the second meeting organized by Azbukovnik at the Moscow Book Fair. At the center of attention was Elena Vladimirovna Pasternak’s new book on Leonid Pasternak (Boris’ father, a famous painter).

Фото 02.12.2017, 1 23 00 copy

Irina Barsel, Lazar Fleishman, Elena V. Pasternak and Paolo Mancosu at Non fiction no. 19

But other recent publications by Azbukovnik (including Smugglers in Russian) were also discussed.

The last event of the semester was a talk with Stefano Garzonio at the Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS in Pavia. The event was organized by prof. Andrea Sereni, a friend and a colleague. After brief presentations

IMG_6858

Paolo Mancosu and Stefano Garzonio in Pavia

by myself and Prof. Garzonio, the event consisted of a conversation between the two of us and questions from the audience. I am very grateful to Stefano not only for his deep and illuminating comments at the event in Pavia but also for the way he has encouraged me and supported my research on Doctor Zhivago in the past five years.

Most of these events have been covered by the press: L’Unione Sarda (30 July 2017), La Nuova Sardegna (30 July 2017), El Periódico de Catalunya (10 November 2017), Il Resto del Carlino (16 November 2017), La Provincia Pavese (6 December 2017), Il Foglio (December 7). A recent full page interview on the author’s work on Doctor Zhivago has appeared in Il Messaggero of December 18, 2017 (the interview was also published in Alganews on December 19).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Souvarine and Berberova

In his magisterial “The Encounter of the Russian Emigration with Doctor Zhivago” (2009; second edition as Fleishman 2013), Lazar Fleishman investigated the role of the Russian emigration in the publication and the reception of Doctor Zhivago. Among other things, Fleishman was interested in the role of TsOPE (ЦОПЭ) and Nina Berberova in the saga of the publication of the Russian text. This post is a footnote to Fleishman’s book and contributes some interesting details connected to TsOPE and to Berberova’s role, or lack thereof, in the publication of the Russian text of the novel. The new material comes from the correspondence between Boris Souvarine and Nina Berberova.

Let’s begin with some background. At least six typescripts of Doctor Zhivago arrived in the West between May 1956 and March 1957. The story of those typescripts and their role in the publication history of Doctor Zhivago is recounted in my “Zhivago’s Secret Journey: from typescript to book” (2016). None of those typescripts reached the political organization of Russian emigrés known as TsOPE. Indeed, Pasternak was wary of any publication of his novel that could be traced to émigrés political organizations because this would have worsened his position in the Soviet Union.

TsOPE stands for “Central Union of Postwar Immigrants”, a Munich based group; in 1957 it renamed itself “Central Union of Political Immigrants”. While the acronym TsOPE remained the same, the group changed the nature of its work and expanded.

In September 1957 a New York office was opened of which Nina Berberova became the secretary.

Nina-Berberova-1

Nina Berberova

In a letter to Yuri Ivask, who had asked details about TsOPE, she wrote:

To answer your question: TsOPE is the Central Union of Political Immigrants in Munich. They publish an illustr.[ated] monthly “Svoboda [Freedom]” for which I work. The almanacs will be called “Almanacs of Freedom.” This isn’t a political party and there won’t be any politics, no “Bolshevik-eating” either, just a literary space for which it seems there is a need. By the way, the first issue will contain some hitherto unknown prose by Pasternak. (Berberova to Ivask, 15 February 1958, Berberova Papers, Beinecke Library, Yale)

It is obvious that TsOPE was interested in the work of Pasternak. But were they involved in the publication of Doctor Zhivago in Russian? As far as we can tell, it took almost a year and a half from the arrival of the first typescript of Doctor Zhivago in the West (the one brought by d’Angelo to Feltrinelli in May 1956) until efforts were made on the part of members of TsOPE to get hold of a typescript of Doctor Zhivago. In November 1957, just a few days before the first worldwide publication of Doctor Zhivago (in Italian), a member of TsOPE, Victor Frank, was looking for a copy of the Russian typescript. On November 18, 1957, he wrote to his mother, Tat’yana Seergevna as follows:

I dream of organizing its publication in Russian. Here, at TsOPE, we have the money for that, and I have written to Katkov with a request to find out whether it is possible to obtain the Russian text. It would be funny and embarrassing if the novel was published in all languages, except for Russian—and it would be impossible to harm Pasternak now because the novel is being published abroad anyway and the Soviet authorities know that there are a number of copies of the Russian text beyond their borders. (Quoted in Fleishman 2009, 43–44)

George Katkov had visited Pasternak in September 1956 and had received his own copy of the typescript in March 1957. But he knew that Pasternak would have been endangered by a publication originating from émigrés organizations such as TsOPE and surely he did not heed Frank’s request for the original Russian typescript.

Meanwhile plans for publication of the Russian text were taking shape in France. Pasternak had given two typescripts of his novel to two young French scholars, Hélène Peltier and Jacqueline de Proyart. The two typescripts were in France by February 1957. Peltier and de Proyart were charged by Pasternak with the task of finding a publisher for the French translation and also to look into the possibility of publishing the Russian text. Gallimard was soon contacted and plans for the translation of Doctor Zhivago into French were under way by the summer of 1957.

At the same time Nicolas Nabokov,

th-1

Nicolas Nabokov

the secretary of the Congress for the Freedom of Culture, and Boris Souvarine proposed to Gallimard a limited edition of the Russian text. Boris Souvarine (1895–1984) was a French Marxist and a founder of the French Communist Party. In the early twenties, he had been a member of the Comintern, from which he had been expelled in 1924 on account of his anti-Stalinist stand. He was also a historian, essayist, and journalist with a deep knowledge of Soviet matters.

On August 29, 1957, Brice Parain –lecteur at Gallimard– wrote the following memo for Claude Gallimard:

Memo for Mr Claude Gallimard. B. Pasternak. NABOKOV (not the writer but the musician, the one at UNESCO) who is very excited by Pasternak’s novel (he has read it in Russian using the text which is in England) would like and could arrange for a publication of a Russian edition in France with a limited edition of 1000 copies not for sale so that the book could at least be found in Western libraries. One would of course first need to obtain Pasternak’s authorization. If the answer is positive, Boris SOUVARINE asks whether you would be willing to put your name on this Russian edition. NABOKOV would cover the entire costs of the operation. This edition would be strictly not for sale in order not to hamper PASTERNAK’s conversations with the Soviet government. 29 August 1957, B. PARAIN (Archives Gallimard, Paris)

A second memo, dated November 21, 1957, says:

Pasternak’s novel. Boris SOUVARINE and NABOKOV (the one at UNESCO) having learned that we have negotiated for PASTERNAK’s novel with FELTRINELLI insist that we should consider the possibility of a Russian edition with our imprint. Let me remind you that their proposal is the following: this Russian edition will be limited to approximately 1,000 copies, not for sale; all the expenses will be covered through funds that they will put together and it will only be under this condition that we will engage with the proposal. What they desire is to be sure that the complete Russian text will exist, even if it is not published in the USSR, so that it could be distributed to libraries and institutions in the Western world. B. PARAIN, 21 November 1957 (Archives Gallimard, Paris)

These two memos give us the context for the Souvarine-Berberova correspondence that I would like to bring to the attention of the reader. In the Souvarine Papers at Harvard there is a letter from Nina Berberova to Boris Souvarine written on December 17, 1957.

Boris Souvarine

Boris Souvarine

The letter, which bears the stamp “Z.O.P.E. American Branch 430 West 57th St. New York 19, N.Y.” contains some interesting elements and shows that TsOPE had not yet managed to get a typescript of Doctor Zhivago:

Nina Berberova-Kochevitsky

December 17, 1957

Dear Boris,

Here are a few lines from someone whom you surely have forgotten a long time ago. I am in New York, I work, and I went through some pretty strange hard times. I have been married since 1954 (to a musician). At times I see again some mutual friends who speak about you (when they return from Europe). For a very long time I kept a distance from any “emigrantskie” business. In September an organization (Munich) asked me to take care of their business in the USA. It is TsOPE (Central’noe Ob’edinenie Politicheskikh Emigrantov). Some recent emigrants want to publish a thick and heavy (and slighly inflated, on the one hand) collection of “Russian literature”, which, they claim, is still alive! I try to do some things and I have promised them to ask you if you have in your hands Pasternak’s typescript (Doctor Zhivago), in Russian, of course. The fact is that these lads in Munich have a printing press which they own and something in this direction could be done, if you understand what I mean [the last clause in English in the original, PM]. There is total disinterest on their part on financial matters, no one wants to profit from it. But they heard that in Paris, where apparently the manuscript circulates, there are people who actually want to profit from this. Perhaps it would be good for you (if you are looking for a publisher) to get in contact with them. Here is the address:

            Herr Georg Pismenny

            Hohenzollernstrasse 79/I

            München 13, Germany

I plan to come visit you in 1959. I have already started saving money. I have a thousand things to tell you and a thousand to ask you. AFK [Alexander Fyodorovich Kerensky] is old and sad, BIN [Boris Ivanovich Nikolaevsky] sleeps on different couches here and there; Volsky (de Plessy Robinson) does not write to me anymore. I heard that the Sputnik was the coup de grace for him.

All the best,

Nina Berberova

(Souvarine Papers, Houghton library; carbon copy also available in the Berberova Papers, Beinecke Library, Yale; original in French)

What information can we draw from the letter? First of all, it is clear that TsOPE was actively looking for a typescript of Doctor Zhivago and that Frank’s efforts had not been crowned with success (otherwise there would have been no reason for Berberova to continue looking for the typescript). Secondly, Berberova had some vague information about a typescript circulating in Paris and the fact that Souvarine had something to do with it.

Souvarine replied to Berberova on December 28, 1957. On the Zhivago issue he wrote:

What you say about Doctor Zhivago is inexact. I am well informed on this: the typescript does not circulate, no one has it, except Feltrinelli who has entrusted copies to Gallimard and Collins for the translations. The instructions are well respected, there are no leaks, the translators are serious and will not let go of the Russian text. In France four translators are at work, each one responsible for one fourth of the novel.

            Someone whose name I am not authorized to mention has the intention to publish the original Russian in one year, in an edition not for sale and only for libraries. Let us hope that no obstacles will come in between. If anything new comes up, I will inform you. (Souvarine to Berberova, December 28, 1957; Berberova Papers, Beinecke Library, Yale; original in French)

It is almost certain that Souvarine was intentionally hiding the fact that, in addition to the photocopy of Feltrinelli’s typescript for Gallimard, there were also the typescripts owned by de Proyart and Peltier in France. Regardless, the above information corresponds exactly with the contents of the Gallimard memos and it is easy to see that the unnamed person was Nicolas Nabokov. Souvarine knew the translators of the novel and appeared to be well-informed about the French publication projects.

On January 20, 1958, Souvarine wrote  a short letter to Berberova:

Dear friend, there are some news. Someone has arrived from Moscow with an authorization written by Pasternak for the publication of his text in Russian. But then it was realized that he had already given a similar authorization to others. Feltrinelli, for his part, claims to have all the rights. From this mess, anyway, sooner or later a Russian edition will appear. The essential is that it be done well.

Yours, B.S. (Souvarine to Berberova, January 20, 1958; Berberova Papers, Beinecke Library, Yale; original in French)

The person who had come back from Moscow was Hélène Peltier who brought back several news and letters from Pasternak. Pasternak had been informed by Peltier that a plan to have the Russian text published with Mouton, a Dutch publisher, was discussed on December 12, 1957, among Jacqueline the Proyart, her husband Daniel, Hélène Peltier, Clemens Heller and two Mouton representatives (on the whole episode see de Proyart 1994 and Mancosu 2013). Among the letters Peltier brought back from Moscow was one for Feltrinelli explicitly asking Feltrinelli to leave de Proyart and Peltier in charge of the Russian edition of the text with Mouton. The Souvarine-Nabokov project of publishing the Russian text was derailed by the fact that Pasternak had entrusted the project to de Proyart and Peltier.

Berberova replied on January 26, 1958:

Dear friend,

As I know you are overwhelmed by work and what your days look like, I am quite touched by your letter giving me news of Zhivago. I hope that the differences between Feltrinelli and “the man who came from Moscow” will not end up in court and will not delay the publication of the book. You say: “The essential is that it be done well.” As something tells me that you will be in charge of it+, I am sure it will, IF they will let you do it.

In the note corresponding to + she added:

“It is neither a question nor an insinuation. You need not answer me.” (Souvarine Papers, Houghton library; original in French)

A note from Brice Parain to Souvarine preserved in the Souvarine Papers confirms that Souvarine had been lent the Russian typescript on September 9, 1958. By that time the Mouton edition, a CIA sponsored pirate edition, had already come out in early September 1958 in Holland (see Mancosu 2016). While the TsOPE office in New York, received two copies of the Mouton edition and passed one to the Russian daily Novoe Russkoe Slovo, little can be concluded from that as to Berberova’s knowledge of what had happened with the Russian edition. Indeed, from two letters exchanged between Berberova and Souvarine at the end of 1958, it becomes clear that she was in the dark as to who was behind the Mouton edition. In a letter to Souvarine, dated December 7, 1958, Berberova wrote that in the last months she had vaguely felt his presence in the Doctor Zhivago affair. Souvarine replied to Berberova on December 10, 1958 claiming only some involvement in the French developments: “non je n’y suis pour rien, sauf dans une certaine mesure, en France, mais ce serait trop long à raconter”. And while it is unfortunate that Souvarine did not say more about his involvement with Doctor Zhivago in France, by implication he excluded any role in the publication of the Russian edition of Doctor Zhivago.

It is my sense that after the information Souvarine had given to Berberova, TsOPE gave up on the idea of publishing a Russian edition of Doctor Zhivago. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that when Katkov visited Victor Frank in Munich in early March 1958, Katkov went to speak to the American Consul in Munich concerning Pasternak and the publication of Doctor Zhivago in Russian. As part of a follow up the Consul, Edward Page, Jr., wrote to the Department of State in Washington:

A few preliminary inquiries by the Consulate General tend to indicate that there are no plans by Soviet emigrès, or similar groups in Munich, to bring out a Russian edition of DR. ZHIVAGO.

[signature] Edward Page, Jr., American Consul General, (cited in Zhivago’s Secret Journey, p. 178)

Let us conclude by revisiting Berberova’s article in Svoboda published in July 1958, which prima facie seemed to provide evidence for claiming that she had inside information about the efforts connected to the publication of the Russian Zhivago. She wrote:

Doctor Zhivago has so far only been published in Italian, and yet all across Europe and America articles concerning it have appeared. Various rumors abound, some of which can be verified, while others can’t. It is reliably well-known that the novel will soon be published in France, England, and the US. Will it be released in Russian? Without a doubt – but not in the Soviet Union. …

“But where is the Russian edition?” the reader will ask. “Where is it? Are we really never going to see it?” Rumors, and only rumors – unverified and contradictory – are flying from Europe to America and back. The following conclusions can be drawn from them:

The novel will be published in Russian in Paris at the end of 1958, but it is not yet known whether it will be widely available or if it will appear only as a “semi-fancy” edition for libraries and collectors. This is essentially already settled, or at the very least, had been settled until recently. In recent days there have been rumors that Pasternak gave the rights to publish the novel in Russian abroad to one person who had been to Russia, but not Feltrinelli. Since Feltrinelli, seemingly, has all the rights (being both Pasternak’s publisher and agent), is an argument brewing over this issue, and could this argument influence the release of the book? All of these are merely conjectures. An argument, or even potentially a court battle, between two individuals who have Pasternak’s approval to publish his novel in Russian, is undoubtedly a threat to the successful publication of the novel. We hope that things do not go that far.” (N. Berberova, About the novel “Doctor Zhivago”, cited in the original Russian in Fleishman 2009, p. 111)

Referring to these passages, on p. 113 of his 2009 book, Fleishman wrote:

The provided citation from Berberova’s article is evidence that she was, undoubtedly, aware of the efforts underway in preparing the Russian publication of Pasternak’s novel and was informed – or, more precisely, found it necessary to tell readers – of the conflict that erupted between the (unnamed in the article) countess Jacqueline de Proyart (who met with the poet in January 1957) and Feltrinelli (who signed a contract/agreement with Pasternak in the summer of 1956).

On p. 154 Fleishman added:

We will add here that the late A. M. Milrud, who was the curator of TsOPE’s activities, in discussions with us told us how he was provided with a proof of the Russian edition of Zhivago for correction in a great hurry, for practically just one day. N. Berberova’s remarks in her article about the prospects of the publication of Zhivago in Russian are also clarified in this light. We can understand why, despite her underscoring of the conflict (presumably, exaggerated) between the two sides who were granted publication rights by Pasternak, Berberova was absolutely certain that the book would be published without delay – before the end of the year. It’s also clear why news of the appearance of the first Russian copies specifically at TsOPE were announced in NRS [Novoe Russkoe Slovo] so relatively early – already in the second half of September – before Jacqueline [de Proyart], Hélèn [Peltier], and [Giangiacomo] Feltrinelli himself had hoped for the Russian edition to see the light of day.

However, it seems to me that Berberova in her article was simply repeating the information, by then outdated, that she had obtained from Souvarine in January 1958. Her statements do not show that she was in any way au fait of what was going on with the Mouton saga.   However, Milrud’s testimony, reported by Fleishman, still leave open the challenge of understanding how much TsOPE was involved in the events related to the Mouton edition. And while it is by now accepted by scholars that there was no printing of the Russian text on the part of TsOPE, other forms of involvement (proof checking, distribution, etc.) are a definite possibility.

Bibliography

Fleishman, Lazar. 2009. Vstrecha russkoĭ ėmigratsii s ‘Doktorom Zhivago’: Boris Pasternak i kholodnaia voĭna [The encounter of the Russian émigré community with “Doctor Zhivago”: Boris Pasternak and the Cold War]. Stanford Slavic Studies 38.

Fleishman, Lazar. 2013. Boris Pasternak i Nobelevskaia premiia [Boris Pasternak and the Nobel Prize]. Moscow: Azbukovnik (a new edition of Fleishman 2009).

Mancosu, Paolo. 2013. Inside the Zhivago Storm: The Editorial Adventures of Pasternak’s Masterpiece. Milan: Feltrinelli.

Mancosu, Paolo, 2016, Zhivago’s Secret Journey, Hoover Press, Stanford.

Pasternak, Boris. 1994. Lettres àmes amies françaises: 1956–1960. Introduction and notes by Jacqueline de Proyart. Paris: Gallimard.

Zhivago’s Secret Journey is out

I am delighted to announce that Zhivago’s Secret Journey: From Typescript to Book (Hoover Press, Stanford, 2016) is now out.

51N1HHa6T8L._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_I append the description found in the flaps of the cover together with the endorsements by Prof. Robert Service (Oxford) and Prof. Lazar Fleishman (Stanford) found in the back cover.

Boris Pasternak began writing Doctor Zhivago in 1945. In 1948 he sent the first four chapters to his sisters in England, aware of the dangers his work in progress would pose for him with the Soviet authorities. The novel was completed in 1955 and between May 1956 and March 1957, Pasternak sent at least six typescripts outside the USSR. This book tells the story of those typescripts.

Continuing the research he began in his 2013 book Inside the Zhivago Storm, Paolo Mancosu conveys through newly discovered archival sources the excitement and pleasure generated by the exploration of events that were treated as top secret by all those involved.

Pasternak had sent Doctor Zhivago abroad hoping to pressure the Soviets to publish the novel at home. Although this effort failed, the astounding success of the translations took everyone by surprise. The book became a tool of the Cold War, with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) secretly orchestrating  a pirate publication of the Russian text in Holland in 1958. Two long-standing mysteries concerning the publication of this pirate edition were determining which typescript served as basis for the edition and who passed the typescript to the CIA. Through a detailed philological analysis, Mancosu solves the first problem and then offers, in the last chapter, a new perspective on who might have given the typescript to the CIA.

Mancosu’s riveting narration of the history of the publication of Pasternak’s epic work takes the reader on a whirlwind tour covering the network of contacts that, from Russia to England, from Poland to Italy, from France to Uruguay, brought about the publication of the novel in Russian and other Western languages. This book constitutes a huge leap forward in our understanding of the most complex political-literary case of the twentieth century.

 

“Just when we thought that most of the mysteries had been cracked, Paolo Mancosu’s book shows how the foreign publication of Boris Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago was an even more complex process than anyone could have imagined. A wonderful work of a true scholar.”
Robert Service, Emeritus Professor of Russian History, St Antony’s College, Oxford

“Paolo Mancosu’s path-breaking  investigations, carried out in public and private archives in several countries, have resulted in a brilliant monograph on the history of the first (the CIA-assisted) publication of the Russian original text of Boris Pasternak’s novel Doctor Zhivago in 1958. Mancosu’s new book resolves almost all the riddles that have haunted Pasternak scholars for more than half a century.”
Lazar Fleishman, Professor of Russian Literature, Stanford University

Zhivago in Mexico and South America (Argentina and Chile)

This is the third and last installment of the series on Doctor Zhivago‘s pirate editions in Mexico and South America. I have decided to leave the original quotes in Italian and Spanish.

Argentina. Tesone went to Buenos Aires to deal with “the pirates” and arrived on January 2, 1959.

Tesone copy

Antonio Tesone

In a letter to Feltrinelli, dated January 8 1959, Tesone informed Feltrinelli that he had managed to have the pirate edition prepared by E.D.R. in Buenos Aires sequestered. He wrote:

Caro Signor Feltrinelli,

Sono qui dal giorno due e la situazione è attualmente a questo punto:

Tre sono le edizioni pirate di cui si abbia sicura conoscenza. Vagamente si parla anche di altre, ma finché queste restano –come finora–totalmente alla macchia, da un lato, non è possibile colpirle e, d’altro lato, non arrecano alcun fastidio.

It is thus sure that despite his being in Buenos Aires, Tesone had not heard anything about the Uruguaian editions, let alone the Mexican one. They are never mentioned in any other documents preserved in the Feltrinelli archives. Of the three pirate Argentianian editions  Tesone had become aware of the first one was quickly dealt with:

Contro l’edizione D.E.R. (Distributori Editori Riuniti: gente infida in tutto il mondo quelli della E.D.A.! [Editori Distributori Associati was Feltrinelli’s distribution agency, P.M.]) si è chiesto, ottenuto ed eseguito un decreto di sequestro, ponendo sotto vincolo anche tutto il materiale di composizione. Attualmente pende la causa di convalida e di merito e mi sto battendo, come sempre e dovunque, per far accogliere la mia solita tesi che non incombe a noi l’onere di provare l’esistenza del famoso contratto con Pasternak. Sotto il profilo commerciale, questa edizione pirata non presenta peró più alcun problema per noi.

The owner of D.E.R, Damián Carlos Hernández, was one of the people that Noguer (and Feltrinelli) sued for copyright infringement (see appendix).

We will have to come back to Tesone’s legal claim, for it is the cornerstone of the legal wrangles and complexities in which Feltrinelli found himself when trying to assert his rights to Doctor Zhivago. After the first court judgment in Buenos Aires of May 5, 1959, the sequestering order was removed (see appendix). There is however no trace that this edition ever came to light. Tesone continued his letter thus:

Maggiori difficoltà si sono incontrate con la seconda edizione corsara: quella de El Forjador (forgiatore di nome anche se forcaiolo di fatto).

YIVAGO-COVER copy

El Doctor Yivago, Editorial Forjador, Buenos Aires, 1958

Si tratta di un disperato in istato di dissesto che giuoca tutte le carte su questa scadentissima edizione tirata su carta straccia con corpo tipografico piccolissimo e praticamente non leggibile. Anche qui si è chiesto ed ottenuto un decreto di sequestro, solo che non si riusciva ad eseguirlo per l’assoluta irreperibilità delle copie. Avevo progettato di far intervenire la nostra Ambasciata nei confronti del ministero argentino degli interni per sollecitare un’indagine della polizia. Senonché Giancola, l’addetto commerciale, è stato improvvisamente destinato all’Onu ed è immediatamente partito per l’Italia il giorno stesso che io sono arrivato. Babuscio Rizzo, l’ambasciatore è per contro rientrato dall’Italia solo ieri e mi ha intrattenuto questa mane in un lungo colloquio. Molta cordialità e convenevoli, ma anche la solita inerzia diplomatica: se possibile, evitare a tutti i costi un incidente con l’autorità locale e negare con diplomatica eleganza di introdurre la e.d. Nota Verbale al Governo Argentino. Ero preparato al tradizionale fin de non recevoir, e così ho preannunciato che, se necessario, avrei espresso a titolo assolutamente personale, quale privato cittadino di uno stato amico, meraviglia e stupore per l’illegalità trionfante in campo editoriale in un paese grande e civile (ma non troppo!) come l’Argentina. Tanto è bastato alla nostra inestimabile diplomazia per gettar la spugna, assumendo che in tal caso li avrei violentati a presentare quella nota verbale che intendevano rifiutarmi. Buono a sapersi, anche se ritengo che ormai la cosa sia superata avviandosi, anche qui, la battaglia alla scaramuccia finale. Ieri infatti El Forjador, col coraggio dei disperati, è salido a la calle, facendo la prima apparizione in qualche libreria. Ho subito disposto perché sui due più importanti quotidiani locali –La Prensa e la Nacion – apparisse in data di oggi e in tutte le edizioni la Notificacion allegata alla presente e, nel contempo, ho invitato l’avvocato Mendilaharzu, che è il legale efficiente e competente nominato dall’Editorial Noguer, a sollecitare dal Giudice dell’Ufficio di istruzione un ordine di sequestro penale diramato per telegrafo a tutte le stazioni di polizia. Questa sera ho saputo che il provvedimento è stato concesso e si trova già in stato di esecuzione presso le librerie.

The translator is not named but the translation was made from the Italian text. The edition has 384 pages. The publication date on the copyright page reads November 30, 1958.

Tesone’s notification in La Nacion de Buenos Aires is shown below.

La Nacion

The notification against El Forjador, La Nacion, January 8, 1959

We will see that contrary to Tesone’s predictions, the legal battle against El Forjador, and his owner Demetrio Castagnola, was to become a difficult one. The edition is the following one. There were at least two printings of it but both of them appeared after the Nobel Prize.

I will come back below to the legal action pursued jointly by Feltrinelli and Noguer against El Forjador.

Let us now move to the last pirate edition and Tesone’s description of it.

Resta da dire della terza edizione per 10.000 esemplari preparata da una certa casa Indice e di fatto finanziata da un tale Granda sotto l’alto e discreto patrocinio del direttore della Casa de la Moneda! Questa è l’unica edizione decente anche se economica. Ne ho fatto controllare il valore letterario da un docente dell’Università di Cordoba e mi è stato detto che è buono.

            Sinora con questa gente vige un gentlemen’s agreement per cui noi soprassediamo a chiedere il sequestro e loro ad iniziare la distribuzione in attesa di perfezionare un eventuale accordo. Siamo ancora lontani, ma spero di avere domani un colloquio decisivo e conclusivo con Granda: miro ad acquistare l’intera edizione ad un prezzo conveniente: costo più una modestissima aliquota di utile, per sovrastampare Edit. Noguer e G.G. Feltrinelli, estromettere i clandestini e distribuire noi fissando il prezzo che il mercato consente.

Below is the cover page of the Indice edition.

Indice copy

El Doctor Yivago, Indice, Buenos Aires, 1958

The translation was made by Juan Robledo; it has 469 pages. In one of the first pages it is indicated that the book was printed on December 26, 1958 by Juan Castanola e Hijo (Rio de Janeiro 735, Buenos Aires). It makes reference to the French edition and it is quite clear from the beginning that it was translated from French. It also claims copyright for “Ediciones Indices, Buones Aires, 1958”.

It appears that Tesone’s plan for this last edition bore fruit. In a letter from Pardo to Feltrinelli, dated February 10, 1959, José Pardo, listing the new Noguer editions for Spain and South America, added:

Hay, además, la edición comprada a Granda – 12.000 ejemplares, que se pondrá a la venta muy pronto.

It thus appeared that Noguer had in fact bought the Indice edition. But was it put on sale? If it did, it was not before mid-February 1959. My own copy has a signature with the date 24-V-59. The copy I have in my hands does not show any Feltrinelli or Noguer copyright and/or any printing alterations that had been mentioned by Tesone.

In conclusion, Noguer, Feltrinelli, and Tesone seem to have been unaware of the Mexican and the Uruguayan editions. Of the three Argentinian editions only the first and the third led to a serious legal confrontation. However, in the legal case against El Forjador and D.E.R., we find two more publishers “Quetzal Editora”, whose distributor is identified as Dionisio Carlos Sáenz, and the “Ediciones Graphos”.

Sommario Doctor Zhivago copy

The summary of Doctor Zhivago published by Editora Quetzal in 1958

Quetzal had published a booklet of 89 pages that contained a digest of Doctor Zhivago by Gabriel Jimenez Correa. According to the book’s colophone, it was printed on November 20, 1958, by Hartug Bros. in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala. It was obviously distributed in Argentina and other Latin American countries. It claimed to be a digest carried out on the original Russian but looking at the translation, it is more likely that the original Italian had been the source of the digest. Here is how it looked.

I have found no information about how “Ediciones Graphos” was involved in the Doctor Zhivago case.

Whether Noguer and Feltrinelli could have been successful in fighting the ‘pirates’ was questioned by other less scrupulous South American publishers and this allows me to bring in Chile into the picture.

Chile. The following passage, taken from a letter written by the director of Noguer, José Pardo, to Feltrinelli on February 10, 1959, gives a clear idea of the atmosphere surrounding such matters:

Distinguido colega:

Me es muy grato acusar recibo de su atenta del 4 en la que me informa amablemente sobre la gestión que llevó a cabo cerca de Vd. Ed Sr. Aldunade de la casa Zig-Zag de Santiago de Chile.

El Se. Aldunade nos había visitado en el mes de Enero pidiendo una sub-licencia para publicar en Chile una edición “abreviada” (!!!) de EL DOCTOR JIVAGO. Tal edición –según explicó– no debía rebasar la 250 ó 300 páginas, para hacerla asequibile a un amplio sector de lectores (!!!).

Yo manifesté al Sr. Aldunate que no entraba en nuestros propósitos otorgar una sub-licencia para Chile, pero que aun cuando rectificasemos este criterio lo que haríamos nunca serîa otorgar una sub-licencia para una versión mutilada. Le dije que lo impedía no solo nuestro contrato con Vd. Sino nuestro respeto por el autor y su obra y nuestra ética professional.

En el curso de la conversación el Sr. Aldunate se mostró muy escéptico sobre nesutra posibilidades de defense ante posibles ediciones “piratas”. No me pareció muy discrete por su parta sacar a colación este tema, pues para nadie es un secreto que Zig-Zag ha sido y es una editorial pirate. Me limité a decirle que en Chile tenîamos tomadas las medidas precautorias del caso y que estábamos dispuestos a pegar fuerte.

Pardo concluded by saying that although at the beginning there had been problems with stocking the book in Chile, the problem had now been overcome. Zig-Zag had not been the only publisher in Chile interested in Doctor Zhivago. Some further information about Chile’s interest in Doctor Zhivago is found in the preface to the translation of the Autobiography (Autobiografia) published (without any agreement with Feltrinelli) by Editorial del Nuevo Extremo of Santiago del Chile with a print date of January 29, 1959. In the preface the publishers wrote:

En febrero 1958 escribimos nuestra primera carta pidiendo los derechos para traducer al castellano la novella de Boris Pastérnak: El Doctor Zivago.

            Esto sucedía más de medio ano antes de que el gran poeta y novelista ruso fuera agraciado con el Premio Nóbel de Literatura. Seguros que nuestras gestiones tendrían exito, y de que podríamos entregar a Chile uno de los más interesantes testimonies artísticos de la época, dimos comienzo a la traducción de la obra. Desgraciadamente, no legamos un acuerdo complete con el entonces poseedor de aquellos derechos. Y todo, salva la convicción de haber luchado larga y lealmente, quedó en nada.

            Varios meses después supimos que existían nuevas posibilidades de llevar a buen término nuestro empeno: teníamos al alcance de nuestras manos una edición de El Doctor Zivago em lengua rusa. Pero ya era tarde para iniciar su traducción. Había otras ediciones en castellano que estaban por llegar a Chile, por lo que la magnitude de la empresa –tanto en tiempo come en costo– se tornaba difícil de sobrellevar.

In any case, we have seen that Aldunade’s project of a digest was eventually carried out by Quetzal.

Back to Argentina: The battle for the copyright against El Forjador and the “explosive document”

The above description might be of interest as part of the history of the editions of Doctor Zhivago but the legal battle against El Forjador’s owner, Demetrio Castagnola, (and some of the other pirates, see appendix) led to such an entangled situation that it can be used as a case study for the complexities of defending Pasternak and the copyright at the same time. I will present Tesone’s legal claim, the legal strategy followed by the Noguer legal representative, Eduardo Mendilaharzu, and the panic that ensued in Milan as a consequence of it; finally, I will conclude with the legal defeat of Feltrinelli in the Buenos Aires court.

Tesone’s legal claim. Let me begin by recalling that there was a contract between Feltrinelli and Pasternak signed by the latter on June 30, 1956 (for a photographic reproduction see Mancosu 2013, pp. 206-207). While the KGB informed the Central Committee of the CPSU in August 1956 of the existence of such a contract, the details were not exactly known and Pasternak’s protection depended on it not being known that he was earning royalties from the West. While it was important to protect Pasternak before and after the publication of Doctor Zhivago in Italian in November 1957, Pasternak’s well-being became an even bigger concern after the award of the Nobel Prize in October 1958. Thus, axiom number 1, the contract could not be shown. Tesone’s thesis was that in any kind of legal battles, it was not incumbent on Feltrinelli to show the contract and that widespread knowledge that the Italian translation was the first publication worldwide of Doctor Zhivago, should have been sufficient to protect the copyright. In addition, the Italian legislation allowed for a notary to summarize an official document so that the summary could have the same legal value as the original. Antonio Tesone received from Feltrinelli a photocopy of the famous contract on March 1, 1957. Feltrinelli kept the original in a bank in Switzerland (see also appendix). We can see Tesone’s thesis implemented even later, namely from the letter to the Greek lawyer John D. Fotopoulos dated January 22, 1960 concerning the legal action against “Kathimerini” and “Ethnicos Kirix”, two newspapers in Greece that were publishing Doctor Zhivago without any agreement with Feltrinelli. Replying to the request for a copy of the contract, Tesone wrote:

Per ciò che si riferisce alla parte strettamente giuridica della Sua relazione, mi limito ad osservare:

1) che non occorre esibire il contratto di edizione tra Pasternak e Feltrinelli Editore per invocare in Grecia la protezione del diritto d’autore come disposta dalla Convenzione di Berna. È suddificente, mi sembra, invocare il fatto incontestabile che la prima pubblicazione è avvenuta in Italia (art. 4 al 3 C.d.B.) perchè l’opera sia considerate italiana e l’autore e i suoi aventi causa abbiano perciò solo diritto alla protezione convenzionale.

As a replacement for a photocopy of the contract, Tesone often provided –as in this case– a notarized document from which it resulted that there existed a regular publishing contract for the printing, publication and sale of Doctor Zhivago and that Pasternak had ceded to Feltrinelli the rights for the translations in foreign languages.

Having explained Tesone’s thesis, let’s go back now to January 1959, when Tesone optimistically reports to Feltrinelli, in his letter from Buenos Aires, that the battle was nearing its end. From later correspondence it appears that Tesone had been overly optimistic. Tesone had gone to Buenos Aires, surely intentionally, without a copy of the contract with Pasternak. The judge in charge of the legal case against El Forjador insisted on seeing a copy of the contract. On January 30, after his return to Italy, Tesone sent a photographic reproduction of the contract to Noguer’s lawyer Mendilaharzu with precise instructions as to its use. Here is how Tesone recounts the January events to José Pardo of Noguer on August 10, 1959:

Fin dai nostri primi colloqui milanesi, ho tassativamente escluso che Feltrinelli fosse disposto ad utilizzare il contratto sottoscritto dall’Autore per prevalere dei pirati nelle procedure da introdurre contro gli stessi in Argentina o altrove.

            Ella ricorderà, sono certo, che costituiva preoccupazione dominante dell’Editore Feltrinelli che venisse salvaguardata l’integrità morale e fisica dell’Autore, altrimenti posta in pericolo dalla produzione di carte che lo compromettono irremediabilmente nei confronti delle Autorità del suo paese.

Let us pause for a second to remark how such statements fly in the face of those account in the Pasternak literature that describe Feltrinelli as “bent on extracting maximum business advantage from the situation” out of the Pasternak case (see Barnes 1998, p.326, and also p.p. 332 and 365).

Tesone continues by saying:

Così ricorderanno i Sigg. Avalis e Mendilaharzu che sono partito per l’Argentina senza questo documento in valigia e che, solo a seguito della vivissima insistenza di un Giudice e alla tassativa condizione che il contratto venisse esibito non allegato agli atti, ho acconsentito a spedirne una copia successivamente al mio rientro in Italia.

            Esiste, infine, la mia lettera del 30 gennaio 1959 con la quale fissavo limiti rigorosi e non superabili per l’uso del contratto Feltrinelli-Pasternak e richiedevo che il destinatario Mendilaharzu, una volta dimostrata in via private la nostra buona fede al Magistrato, provvedesse all’immediata restituzione di questo esplosivo documento all’editore Feltrinelli.

Mendilaharzu was the lawyer that was representing Noguer (and thus also Feltrinelli) in the legal case against the pirates in Argentina. As the above should make clear, something went wrong with the use of the document. Indeed, during the first week of July, Tesone had been informed, in a letter dated June 29, of an unexpected move by Mandilaharzu who, of his own initiative, had requested a rogatory letter aimed at having the copy of the contract sent to Pasternak so that he could acknowledge his signature on the contract as genuine. The reaction of Tesone and Feltrinelli was immediate. Here is what Tesone writes to Pardo on July 7, 1959:

 

Spett.le S.A.                                                                Milano, 7 luglio 1959

Editorial Noguer

Paseo de Gracia 98

Barcellona

 

Caro Avv. Pardo,

Non sono riuscito a realizzare una prenotazione telefonica con lei che avevo riservato questa mane per le ore 18 di oggi.

            Le scrivo dunque quanto avrei volute dirle, anche da parte del Sig. Feltrinelli.

            Ho appena ricevuto una lettera del Dott. Mendilaharzu in data 29 giugno 1959, con la quale mi informa essere in corso di attuazione la rogatoria in Russia, accompagnata da una copia del contratto Feltrinelli-Pasternak, perchè quest’ultimo riconosca l’autenticità della propria firma apposta in calce a tale scrittura.

            Tanto il Sig. Feltrinelli che io siamo estremamente sorpresi per la gravità della cosa che dovrà essere impedita a tutti i costi, con un deciso intervento da parte dell’Editorial Noguer.

            Il Dott. Mendilaharzu ha purtroppo commesso una grave scorrettezza, abusando della fiducia che gli era stata concessa da parte nostra ed evadendo dai tassativi limiti che erano stati da me posti con la lettera del 30 gennaio scorso relativa all’uso autorizzato e agli usi vietati del noto contratto.

            Nè avrei mai ritenuto, dopo aver letto la lettera Argullòs in data 6 giugno scorso, che Avalis e Mendilaharzu avrebbero proseguito sulla pericolosa strada intrapresa, l’esito della quale non può che essere disastroso per tutti, come Ella stesso riconosce nell’ultima parte della Sua lettera in data 10 giugno.

            Se da un lato, è inevitabile che le autorità sovietiche faranno pressioni all’Autore per impedire la conferma della rogatoria, d’altro lato, è chiaro che Feltrinelli e Noguer – in caso di persecuzioni derivanti a Pasternak da questa sciagurata iniziativa– riceveranno su scala mondiale una propaganda negativa e infamante che annullerà d’un colpo tutti i vantaggi acquisiti dagli stessi quali titolari dell’esclusiva nelle zone di rispettiva influenza.

            E questo, senza parlare dei rapporti umani che sarebbero irrimediabilmente pregiuducati una volta che si potesse sostenere che per amore di lucro non avete esitato a giocarvi l’integrità fisica dell’Autore.

            Io so, avvocato Pardo, che Lei è un gentiluomo e conosce da molti anni il mio Cliente Feltrinelli; ma gli altri, i Vostri concorrenti, i giornalisti, i pirati e, in genere, l’opinione pubblica mondiale non potrebbe ritrarre da questo disgraziato affare –se non fosse tempestivamente arestato–che un giudizio profondamente negativo sul piano morale e commerciale.

            E’ dunque necessario che l’Editorial Noguer e il Sig. Argullòs per l’Iber Amer di Barcellona confermino per telefono e telegrafo le istruzioni che passo immediatamente a dare a Mendilaharzu ed Avalis con la lettera allegata in copia.

            Il Sig. Feltrinelli attende di avere sollecite assicurazioni che i responsabili della grave situazione di pericolo così inconscientemente create hanno finalmente rimediato al mal fatto.

            In difetto, dovremmo inevitabilmente reagire con tutta la decisione e l’urgenza che il caso richiede perseguendo anche sul terreno giudiziario le responsabilità di coloro che sono all’origine di questa incredibile vicenda.

            Confido di leggerla d’accordo con noi, e sopratutto, attendo con il Sig. Feltrinelli di sapere con certezza che la rogatoria non avrà mai luogo.

            La prego di accogliere I migliori saluti, anche da parte del Sig. Feltrinelli che dovrà rinviare di qualche tempo il suo previsto viaggio in Ispagna.

Suo dev.mo

Antonio Tesone

 

The letter also contained the howler for Mendilaharzu.

 

Egregio Signor                                                 Milano, 7 luglio 1959

Dr. Eduardo F. Mendilaharzu

Avenida de Mayo 749

Buenos Aires

 

Riscontro la sua del 29 giugno scorso.

            Il Sig. Feltrinelli ed io Le rivolgiamo formale ed espresso invito:

  1. – ad astenersi dal sollecitare l’esperimento della rogatoria in Russia all’Autore Boris Pasternak;
  2. – ad ottenere che la Magistratura non proceda neppure d’ufficio all’esperimento di tale rogatoria;
  3. – a rinunciare, se necessario, a tutte le procedure in corso se il loro preseguimento è subordinato all’esecuzione di tale incombente probatorio;
  4. – a ricordare che con la mia lettera 30 gennaio 1959 sono stati fissati limiti rigorosi e tassativi all’uso del contratto Feltrinelli-Pasternak;
  5. – a non fare conseguentemente più alcun uso d’ora in avanti dell’unica copia fotografica da me trasmessa di detto contratto, che dovrà anzi essere rispedita per posta aerea all’Editore Feltrinelli.

In mancanza di Sua ottemperanza alle istruzioni non modificabili di cui sopra, sono dolente Dott. Mendilaharzu di doverle scrivere che saremo costretti a tenere responsabili dell’inammissibile situazione attuale per tutte le conseguenze di pregiudizio e danni derivanti a chiunque, tutti coloro che hanno contravvenuto al mandato da noi conferito in occasione della trasmissione del documento.

            La gravità della situazione di pericolo posta in essere per l’Autore con questa incomprensibile iniziativa giudiziaria non mi consente, purtroppo, di assumere una posizione diversa.

            Riceverà conformi istruzioni dall’Editorial Noguer cui ho provveduto a scrivere altra lettera in data odierna.

            Copia della presente viene da me inviata, per quanto di sua competenza, anche al Sign. Avalis dell’Iber Amer Argentina.

            Le porgo distinti saluti.

Antonio Tesone.

In sending to Feltrinelli copies of the above correspondence, Tesone dryly commented:

“Dopo queste missive ho l’impressione che Spagna e Argentina diventeranno, per me e per Lei, paesi proibiti o quasi. Vero è però che questa gente ha meritato la nostra reazione ed ho dovuto fare grande fatica per contenere in termini urbani la contestazione.”

             We do not have the letter Pardo wrote in reply to this letter of July 7, 1959 but we know that Pardo replied on July 17 asking for explanations as to the prohibition of any use the contract. The letter from Tesone to Pardo, dated August 10, 1959, was Tesone’s reply to such request.

There is no question that this was the gravest crisis Feltrinelli had to face concerning his own actions with respect to Pasternak’s safety. Feltrinelli’s and Tesone’s analysis of the situation is also fully persuasive. Sending a copy of the contract to the USSR would have meant giving it to the Soviet authorities who would have forced Pasternak to deny that the signature was his and would have also retaliated against him. In addition, they would have become prey of all the negative campaign that would have ensued, which could easily have characterized them as sacrificing Pasternak for some pesos. The tone of the letters leaves no doubt as to the anguish that Mendilaharzu ill-conceived initiative provoked in Milan. Mendilaharzu had probably asked for the rogatory letter because the first judgment had been negative for Noguer and Feltrinelli (see “Sentencia de primera instancia dated May 5, 1959” reported fully in the appendix), despite the fact that the photocopy of the contract had been produced but its veracity had been questioned by the defendants (the pirates).

There had been many previous situations in which Feltrinelli had been asked to show the contract (negotiations and legal action for the movie, the confrontation with The University of Michigan Press concerning the Russian edition, the Greek pirate editions, etc.). He and Tesone never went against what I called axiom 1: the contract was not to be shown. This one exception almost proved disastrous. I think it sheds much light of the human, moral, business, and legal complications that were the essence of the Zhivago affair.

All of this was the consequence of the legal case against El Forjador and some of the other Argentinian pirates. In 2012 the Constitutional Court in Buenos Aires put on line the two court judgments (May 5, 1959, “primera instancia” and September 1, 1959, “segunda instancia”) concerning the case between Noguer and El Forjador at the following link, which contained the text I fully report in the appendix (I am not sure the link is active anymore).

http://www.constitucionweb.com/2012/11/editorial-forjador-y-otros-sdefraudacion-de-derechos-de-autor-cncrim-corr-sala-iv-0109959-editorial-noguer-s-a-fallos-252262-1962.html

Noguer and Feltrinelli lost and the pirates won. But it had been a calculated retreat. Noguer and Feltrinelli scored a moral victory by asserting the primacy of the moral and physical preservation of Boris Pasternak.

 

Appendix.

SENTENCIA DE 1º INSTANCIA
— Buenos Aires, mayo 5 de 1959. —
Resultando: Se presenta Eduardo F. Mendilaharza en representación de “Editorial Noguer” (S. A.), de Barcelona (España), imputando el delito de defraudación de derechos de autor (arts. 71 y 72, incs. a] y c], ley 11.723), al propietario responsable de “Editorial Forjador”, Demetrio Castagnola; al de “D.E.H.” (Distribuidora Editores Reunidos, S. R. L.), Damián Carlos Hernández; al de “Ediciones Graphos”, al de “Quetzal”, cuyo distribuidor doloso sería Dionisio Carlos Sáenz, y al de toda otra edición en castellano de “El Doctor Zhivago”, de Boris Leonidovic Pasternak, que no lleve la marca editorial de su representada o no esté autorizada por ella, en virtud de Lener, “Editorial Noguer” (S. A.) la exclusividad de traducción al español de dicha obra.
Tal derecho de exclusividad deriva del contrato de concesión celebrado entre los representantes de aquélla y “Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Editore, Sociedad en Comandita”, en Milán (Italia), en nov. 14/958, por el cual la última declara y confirma que es titular de los “copyrights” de dicha obra en virtud del contrato celebrado con el autor y en virtud, asimismo, de la Convención Internación de los derechos del autor de Ginebra, puesto que le primera edición ha sido publicada en noviembre de 1957 en Milán (Italia), es decir, en un país adherido a la citada Convención. El contrato mencionado, en certificación y testimonio extendido por el escribano Enrique Gabarro y Samso, de Barcelona (España), de la escritura extendida por el de Milán (Italia), Dr. Gianfranco Franchini, con la debida legalización diplomática, corre agregado de fs. 22 a 25 en los autos caratulados Editorial Noguer” (S. A.) v. “Editorial Forjador” y otros, s/daños e intereses, del juzgado nacional de 1ª instancia en lo civil a cargo del Dr. Alberto R. Gartland, que corre por cuerda.
Tendiente a acreditar la titularidad del derecho de edición y traducción por parte de “Giangiacomo Feltrinelli Editore”, el denunciante presenta fotocopia del contrato privado que se habría celebrado entre éste y el autor, fechado en Moscú en jun. 30/956, y cuya cláusula 4ª autoriza a aquél para ceder al extranjero los derechos de traducción parcial o integral de la obra, debiendo repartir por mitades con el autor las ganancias resultantes. Expresa el denunciante que “el original, por el valor y la importancia que tiene, está depositado en un Banco de Suiza”, y que no puede proporcionar otros elementos probatorios de que la cesión de Pasternak a Feltrinelli se ha realizado realmente, fuera de los que allí enumera, dadas las circunstancias especiales del autor que son de pública notoriedad, aclarando “que la práctica editorial es la de celebrar contratos de este tipo en forma privada”.
Con la finalidad de probar que la primera publicación de la obra “El Doctor Zhivago” realizada en el mundo fue la edición de Feltrinelli de nov. 15/957, presenta el denunciante copias fotográficas del reverso de la portada de dicha edición y de las ediciones alemana, inglesa, francesa y española, que reconocen a aquella como la primera. De fs. 125 a 129 corren agregadas reproducciones fotográficas de una solicitada publicada por la “Editorial S. A. Mouton y Cía.”, de la ciudad de la Haya, por la cual se destaca que la edición en ruso hecha por dicha editorial no fue autorizada por el editor Italiano, expresando al respecto el denunciante Mendilaharzu, “de lo quo surge el reconocimiento expreso de los derechos de Feltrinelli Editore hasta para publicar en ruso”, y agrega que “tiene entendido que sería materialmente imposible la prueba negativa en todos los países del mundo tendiente, a acreditar que no ha sido publicada la obra citada y que no preexiste una otra autorización a la de Feltrinelli. Que todos los elementos de juicio citados constituyen la presunción “juris tantum” de la primera publicación, que lo es la de Feltrinelli, en los términos de la Convención de Ginebra”. Luego de sugerir la solicitud de informes de editores argentinos acerca de cómo, en el consenso de éstos, de la de Feltrinelli la primera edición en el mundo, expresa que “considera que no podría realizar otra prueba que la referida, tendiente a acreditar que la primera publicación es la de Feltrinelli”.
A fs. 16 y 66, presta declaración testimonial Ofelia Secchia y refiere que, a solicitud del imputado Castagnola, facilitó a éste su domicilio y teléfono “para utilizarlos a raíz de un aviso que colocaría en los diarios, ofreciendo la venta de un libro”.
A f. 68, depone Mercedes Sobrino, que adquiriera en comercio de plaza un ejemplar de “El Doctor Zhivago”, en la “Editorial Forjador”.
A f. 67 y f. 09, respectivamente, Santiago Sentís Melendo y Rogelio Tomás Avalis manifiestan haber visto vender en la vía pública las ediciones impugnadas.
A fs. 132/vta., concluye el denunciante expresando: “Que en Italia, como en los restantes países de Europa, las leyes sobre derechos de autor no imponen formalidades a los efectos del amparo del derecho; que algunas, como Italia, tienen instituido un Registro voluntario de obras editadas en el país a los efectos de mejor pre constituir la prueba de un derecho, razón por la cual Feltrinelli realizó tal inscripción, como lo prueba el certificado glosado a f. 34, al cual sólo falta la legalización por parte de nuestro Min. de Relaciones Exteriores de la firma del cónsul argentino”.
En la demanda promovida por “Editorial Noguer” (S. A.) contra “Editorial Forjador y otros, sobre daños e intereses, ante el juzgado nacional de 1ª instancia en lo civil a cargo del Dr. Alberto R. H. Gartland, secretaría del Dr. Julio S. Gerez, donde la actora consiguió se librara manda, miento de secuestro de la edición Impugnada bajo caución, al presentarse en autos Demetrio Castagnola, en su carácter de único propietario de la “Editorial Forjador, que tiene en trámite la edición de la obra debatida (f. 29 del juicio que corre por cuerda), manifiesta que Feltrinelli publicó la obra en Italia contra prohibición que le hizo conocer Pasternak y que la primera publicación de aquella se efectuó en una revista literaria soviética en forma incompleta, citando al respecto un artículo de Juan Rodolfo Wilcock publicado en “La Prensa” de nov. 9/958, en que se expresa que “la Convención Universal de Ginebra, ratificada por la República Argentina, no es aplicable a este caso por ser Pasternak ruso, la obra «El Doctor Zhivago» rusa, desde que la Unión Rusa de los Soviets no ratificó la referida Convención Universal… si la primera publicación de la obra se hubiera efectuado en Italia, y se tratara de una edición autorizada por el autor, la obra podría tener la protección de la Convención de Ginebra. Como esto no ocurrió en el caso de «El Doctor Zhivago» como ya se ha dicho, el editor Feltrinelli y después la «Editorial Noguer» quieren valerse de la Convención de Ginebra para privar a otros editores del derecho que ellos están usufructuando, desde que de ningún documento resulta que abonen derechos de autor a Pasternak o que tengan concluido con éste algún pacto” en relación con los referidos derechos… Tampoco debemos olvidar que la U.R.S.S. no protege las obras de autores extranjeros, publicadas fuera de Rusia, salvo los casos en que la Unión Soviética tiene concluido un acuerdo con país en que se publicó la obra. Todas las obras argentinas pueden traducirse y publicarse en Rusia, sin abonar derecho alguno a su autor, siendo lógico que nosotros tengamos idéntico derecho con respecto a las obras rusas. Lo mismo ocurre con Italia y por ello la edición de Feltrinelli no es ilícita, a pesar de no tenerse autorización de Pasternak, desde que las obras de éste, y especialmente «El Doctor Zhivago», son propiedad pública en Italia y también en España…”.
A f. 21 de los autos “Editorial Noguer (S. A.) v. “D.E.R.” (S. R. L.), s/daños e intereses, promovidos por igual razón que el anterior y donde se lograra secuestrar bajo caución los plomos destinados a imprimir la edición impugnada, manifiesta Damián Carlos Hernández, en representación de la demandada, de la que es integrante, que la actora, para probar la exclusividad del derecho de traducción y publicación en castellano de la obra, debe acreditar: “a) que el autor era titular de su obra en todos los países del mundo; b) que aquél cedió válidamente a la Editorial Feltrinelli el derecho exclusivo de traducción a todos los idiomas de «El Doctor Zhivago»; c) que en esa cesión se cumplieron los requisitos exigidos por la ley italiana de protección del derecho de autor”.
En cuanto al punto a), dice que Pasternak no tiene sobre su obra el derecho exclusivo de traducción en virtud de no ser incluido tal derecho expresamente entre los que le pertenecen como autor en el art. 7 de la “Ley básica de derechos de autor” para La U.R.S.S. y además por no considerar violatorio de tal derecho a la traducción de la obra el art. 9 de la ley citada. Manifiesta que “este particularísimo régimen legal —que se funda en los beneficios de la difusión popular de las obras intelectuales dentro y fuera, de las fronteras soviéticas—, se confirma con otra disposición de la “Ley complementaria” de oct. 8/928 (texto oficial ruso publicado en “Sobranie Uzakonenil de las Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas”, Nº 132, de 1929, texto 861), cuyo art. 16 dispone que “el derecho de hacer traducciones y, de igual modo, las actuales traducciones al idioma ruso, de obras literarias publicadas en idiomas extranjeros dentro de los límites de la U.R.S.S., o fuera de sus limites, podrá ser declarado monopolio de la República por una Resolución del Consejo de Ministros de la U.R.S.S. Quiere ello decir que la regla general es también aquí la libertad de traducir.. .”.
El suscrito ha tenido a la vista el texto de la “Ley básica de «copyright» de la U.R.S.S.” en la publicación efectuada por la UNESCO bajo el título “Copyright laws and treaties of the world” en 1956, que se encuentra en el Reg. Nac. de la Propiedad Intelectual, actualizada por comunicaciones cursadas por la entidad internacional, haciendo saber modificaciones de las diversas leyes. El art. 7 establece que “el autor debe tener el derecho exclusivo de publicar su obra, bajo su nombre real, seudónimo, o sin indicar su nombre (anónimo), y a reproducir o dar curso a su obra por cualquier conducto legal dentro del período de tiempo fijado por la ley y a trasmitir los beneficios de ese derecho en cualquier forma legal”: el art. 9 preceptúa: “las siguientes no son infracciones a los derechos de autor: a) traducción de la obra de otra persona a un idioma distinto…”; el art. 16 dice: “El derecho de autor podrá ser enajenado en su totalidad o en parte por un contrato de edición, testamento o cualquier otra forma legal”; y el art. 20 establece, por último, que “el derecho de autor sobre cualquier obra puede ser compulsoriamente comprado por el Gobierno de la Unión Soviética o por el Gobierno de la República Constituyente en cuyo territorio fuera publicado primeramente como manuscrito, sketch o en cualquier otra forma de presentación”.
En cuanto a lo expresado en el punto c), manifiesta que, en el supuesto de haberse realizado realmente la cesión, no domiciliándose Pasternak en Italia, no le es aplicable la “ley italiana de derechos de autor” de 1941, que establece ese requisito para brindar su protección.
El suscrito tuvo también a la vista la ley italiana 633, para la protección del derecho de autor y otros derechos conexos con el ejercicio de los mismos, de abr. 22/941, actualmente en vigencia de acuerdo con la publicación de la UNESCO ya citada, en cuyo art. 185 se dice: “De acuerdo con las previsiones del art. 189 de esta ley, se aplicará a todas las obras de autores italianos en cualquier parte donde hayan sido publicadas por primera vez. También se aplicarán a las obras de un autor extranjero domiciliado en Italia, cuando sean publicadas por primera vez en Italia. Aparte de las condiciones de protección indicadas en el parágrafo precedente, esta ley podrá además ser aplicada a la obras de autores extranjeros, cuando se cumplan los requisitos indicados en los artículos siguientes”, estableciendo el art. 186 que “las convenciones internacionales para las protecciones de las obras intelectuales regirán el campo de aplicación de esta ley a las obras de los autores extranjeros”. El segundo parágrafo de este artículo y el 187 fueron suspendidos por el decreto Nº 82, de pag. 23/946 del Gobierno Italiano, sobre supresión de algunas prescripciones concernientes a la esfera de aplicación de la ley 633, y
Considerando:
Que la Convención Universal sobre derecho de autor aprobada en ser. 6/952 por una Conferencia Intergubernamental reunida en Ginebra bajo los auspicios de la UNESCO con la intervención de nuestro país, fue ratificada por decreto-ley Nº 12.088/57 , publicado en el “Bol. Of.” de octubre 15. Tal ratificación tiene vigencia por la validez otorgada a los actos del gobierno “de facto” por ley posterior del gobierno constitucional.
El art. 3 de la citada Convención establece que todo estado contratante considerará satisfechas las formalidades exigidas según su legislación interna, como condición para la protección de los derechos de los autores “para toda obra protegida de acuerdo con los términos de la presente Convención, publicada por primera vez fuera del territorio de dicho Estado por un autor que no sea nacional del mismo, si, desde la primera publicación de dicha obra, todos sus ejemplares, publicados con autorización del autor o de cualquier otro titular de sus derechos, llevan el símbolo, acompañado del nombre del titular del derecho de autor y de la indicación del año de la primero publicación”. Vale decir que la oposición de ese signo constituye sólo una presunción “prima facie” de reserva de derechos, que permitirá eximir al editor de las formalidades nacionales, mas para que su edición sea protegida deberá acreditar que sus ejemplares fueron “publicados con autorización del autor o de cualquier otro titular de sus derechos”.
La medida de esa protección la establece el art. 2, cuando dice: “Las obras publicadas de loe unción a les de cualquier Estado contratante, así como las obras publicadas por primera vez en oí territorio de tal Estado, gozarán en cada uno de los otros Estados contratantes de la protección que cada uno de estos Estados conceda a las obras de sus nacionales publicadas por primera vez en su propio territorio”. Equipara, pues, este artículo, al extranjero con el nacional en cuanto a protección de su derecho y dado que al editor nacional de una obra publicada por primera vez en nuestro propio territorio se le exigirá —para acreditar la titularidad del derecho de propiedad intelectual— probar debidamente la cesión por parte del autor, o que se encuentra en el caso del art. 4, inc. c, ley 11.723 (“los que con permiso del autor la traducen…), es obvio que igual exigencia cabe hacer al editor extranjero.
En tal sentido, considera, el suscrito que no es suficiente para acreditar la cesión de derechos de traducción por parte de Boris I. Pasternak a Feltrinelli la fotocopia de un contrato privado que se habría celebrado entre las partes y que corre a fs. 92/3. Tampoco lo sería el original de dicha fotocopia, que no haría fe suficiente por tratarse de un instrumento privado cuya autenticidad puedo ser puesta en duda. Ello a despecho de que sea común suscribir en forma privado contratos editoriales o de la imposibilidad de que el cedente ratifique ahora el acto —de haberse este realizado realmente— por la situación política en que se encuentra. Tal situación es, precisamente, la que da caracteres especiales a este caso y dificulta la prueba acerca de la verdad de lo acontecido.
No estando suficientemente acreditada la cesión no corresponde entrar a considerar si el cedente, en caso de haberla realizado, lo habría hecho con derecho de acuerdo con la ley rusa ya trascrita: si las limitaciones que ésta contiene afectan la cesión; y si influye para la solución del caso la circunstancia de que la Convención de Ginebra de 1952 no haya sido ratificada por la U.R.S.S. Tampoco es menester entrar a considerar si está suficientemente probado que la edición de “Giangiacomo Feltrinelli Editore, Milano” de 1957, fue la primera publicación mundial de la obra.
La forma de tutela penal de los derechos intelectuales queda concretada en la ley 11.723 por medio de los arts. 71, 72 y siguientes. La primera norma reprime con la pena establecida en el art. 172 al que “de cualquier manera y en cualquier forma defraude los derechos de propiedad intelectual que reconoce esta ley”. La Cam. Crim. Cap. ha establecido, en fallo publicado en “La Ley”, t. 2, p. 454 , que es condición imprescindible anterior y previa para la aplicación de esa norma, que exista una defraudación en el sentido jurídico de este vocablo, surgiendo ello del texto expreso de la ley y de lo manifestado en oportunidad de su sanción por el miembro informante del proyecto en la Cámara de Diputados de la Nación.
El art. 72, aplicable en este caso, estatuye que “se considerarán casos especiales de defraudación y sufrirán la pena por él establecida, además del secuestro de la edición ilícita; a) El que edite, venda o reproduzca por cualquier medio o instrumento, una obra inédita o publicada sin autorización de su autor o derechohabientes…”. La punibilidad surge de la circunstancia de qué el titular del derecho sobre la obra editada, vendida o reproducida no baya autorizado la edición, la venta o la reproducción.
La misma cámara ha establecido, en fallo publicado en “La Ley”, t. 17, p. 724, que el requisito de que la conducta reputada dolosa reúna los elementos del delito de defraudación es aplicable sólo al art. 71, no al 72, pues los enumerados en éste, a pesar de ser considerados “casos especiales de defraudación”, son susceptibles de ser reprimidos con la pena que establece el art. 71, sin que se requiera otra cosa que la presencia de los elementos integrantes de cada uno de ellos (conf. Gómez. “Leyes penales comentadas”, t. 4, p. 287).
La Convención Universal sobre derecho de autor, aprobada en Ginebra en 1952, es un acuerdo internacional de derecho privado y no puede modificar en modo alguno los elementos del delito de defraudación de derechos intelectuales estatuidos con anterioridad a su sanción por la ley 11.723 pues ésta, como toda la materia penal, es de regulación exclusiva del derecho público interno o local, de acuerdo con principios unánimemente establecido en derecho internacional y cuya violación lesionaría la soberanía del Estado afectado. Siendo ello así, la ratificación de la citada Convención no modifica el régimen de tutela penal del derecho de autor estatuido en la ley 11.723 no obstando para arribar a tal conclusión el carácter de Ley Suprema de que la Convención está investida por el art. 31, Const. Nac., dado que tal carácter le es conferido en la materia que regula, es decir, la tutela en el aspecto del derecho privado de la propiedad privada.”
El delito enunciado en el art. 72, inc. a, ley 11.723, está comprendido entro los que ocasionan lesión patrimonial —sin olvidar por ello la protección del derecho moral del autor sobre su obra—; en consecuencia, es menester que exista, para que se perfeccione, perjuicio identificado.
Encontrándose indeterminada la titularidad del patrimonio afectado por lo que queda expuesto y discutido, por otra parte, el derecho a publicar la obra, en los juicios que corren por cuerda; siendo independientes los procesos civil y criminal; y no afectándose sus resoluciones —art. 77, ley cit. , corresponde arribar a esta causa a una resolución de carácter provisorio.
Es menester dejar claramente establecido que el pronunciamiento a que el suscrito llega en esta causa, en modo alguno significa amparar a editores irresponsables de nuestro medio o hacer ilusoria la protección internacional otorgada a los editores extranjeros por la Convención de Ginebra. Si de autos surgiere con evidencia y suficientemente acreditado que el derecho representado del denunciante deriva de quien realizara la primera publicación de la obra, con autorización fehaciente del autor, no vacilaría en otorgarle toda la protección que la ley argentina otorga al nacional en idéntica situación.
Por ello, conforme a lo precedentemente dictaminado por el agente fiscal y de acuerdo con lo dispuesto en el art. 435, C. Pr. Cr., resuelvo sobreseer provisionalmente en esta causa; déjense sin efectos las órdenes de secuestro decretadas; líbrese en tal sentido oficio a la Policía Federal y exhorto al juez en lo criminal en turno de Mar del Plata. — Jorge Alberto Aguirre (Sec.: Oscar Jorge García Rúa).

_____

SENTENCIA DE 2º INSTANCIA.
Buenos Aires, setiembre 1 de 1959.—
Considerando:
Como lo pone de manifiesto el a quo en la resolución de f. 142, a la que se remite el pronunciamiento recurrido, no se ha acreditado en autos que la edición Feltrinelli de la obra “El Doctor Zhivago”, de Boris Leonidovic Pasternak, se haya publicado con autorización de su autor o de cualquier otro titular de sus derechos como lo exige el art. 3 de la Convención de Ginebra para que la obra sea protegida.
El mencionado artículo solamente exime al editor del cumplimiento de algunas formalidades pero no de acreditar que la edición puesta en circulación es legítima, sea ésta o no la primera, pues también siendo la primera puede ser clandestina y no merece protección alguna.
Por ello y por no haber acreditado el recurrente que sea la persona particularmente ofendida por el delito que denuncia, se confirma la resolución apelada en cuanto fue materia de apelación, con costas.
— ERNESTO N. BLACK — ARTURO M. JOFRE — JOSE F. ARGIBAY MOLINA.

 

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Carlo Feltrinelli was his generous and continued support and for having given me permission to quote from the Feltrinelli archives in Milan.

Bibliography

Unpublished sources:

Fondo Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Milan: Fascicoli Gaisenhayner, Pardo, Tesone.

Archivio Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Carte Pasternak: fascicolo Collins.

Published sources:

Araújo, M., 1958, Para Comprendeer ‘O doutor Jivago’” COPAC, Rio de Janeiro.

Barnes, C., 1998, Boris Pasternak, A literary bibliography, vol. 2. 1928-1960, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Feltrinelli, C., 1999, Senior Service, Feltrinelli Editore, Milano. Translated into English, with a few cuts, as: Senior Service, Granta Books, London, 2001. The American edition, published in 2001 by Harcourt, cuts several additional important parts of the book.

Garcia, Ivan, and San Vicente, Ricard, 2011, Sobre El doctor Jivago i les seves versions, [in Catalan], TRILCAT, 45 pp.

Grandi, A., 2000, Giangiacomo Feltrinelli. La dinastia, il rivoluzionario, Baldini&Castoldi, Milano.

Iannello, G., 2009, ‘Zivago tradito’: storia delle traduzioni manomesse del romanzo di Pasternak in Italia, in Parysiewicz Lanzafame, A., ed., Pietro Zveteremich. L’uomo, lo slavista, l’intellettuale. Atti del convegno di studi, Centro di Studi Umanistici, Messina, 2009, pp. 109-116.

Mancosu, P., 2013, Inside the Zhivago Storm. The editorial adventures of Pasternak’s masterpiece, Feltrinelli, Milan.

Mancosu, P., 2015, Smugglers, Rebels, Pirates. Itineraries in the publishing history of Doctor Zhivago, Hoover Press, Stanford.

Pasternak, 1957, Il Dottor Zivago. Romanzo, Feltrinelli, Milan,

Pasternak, 1958a, El Doctor Yivago, translated by Vladimir Koslov and Jorge Diez Cardoso, Ediciones Capricornio, Mexico.

Pasternak, 1958b, El Doctor Jivago, (Galeria Literaria), translated by Fernando Gutiérrez, Noguer, Barcelona-Mexico.

Pasternak, 1958c, El Doctor Yivago, translated by Juan Robledo, Ediciones Indice, Buenos Aires.

Pasternak, 1958d, El Doctor Yivago, El Forjador, Buenos Aires.

Pasternak, 1958e, El Doctor Zhivago, translated by Vicente Oliva, Minerva, Montevideo.

Pasternak, 1958f, El Doctor Zhivago, Editora Quetzal.

Pasternak, 1958g, O doutor Jivago, translated by Oscar Mendes and Milton Amado, Editora ITATIAIA, Belo Horizonte, first edition.

Pasternak, B., 1958h, Doktor Zhivago. Roman, Feltrinelli (-Mouton), [The Hague].

Pasternak, B., 1958i, Le Docteur Jivago, Flammarion, Paris.

Pasternak, B., 1958k, Doctor Zhivago, English translation by Max Hayward and Manya Harari, Collins Press, London.

Pasternak, B., 1958l, Doctor Zhivago, with revisions to the English translation, Pantheon, New York.

Pasternak, 1959a, Doctor Yivago, Ediciones Ciceron, Montevideo.

Pasternak, 1959b, O doutor Jivago, translated by Oscar Mendes and Milton Amado, Editora ITATIAIA, Belo Horizonte, second edition.

Pasternak, 1959c, Autobiografia, translated by Olga Ricart de Weeren, Editorial del Nuevo Extremo, Santiago del Chile, Chile.

Pasternak, B., 1959d, Doktor Zhivago. Roman, Société d’Edition et d’Impression Mondial, Paris.

Pasternak, 1960, O doutor Jivago, translated by Augusto Abelaria with preface by Aquilino Ribeiro, Livraria Bertrand, Lisbon.

Pasternak, 1964, Doktor Zhivago. Roman, Zemlia i Fabrika, Moscow [but in reality, Flegon Press, London].

Pasternak, B., 1994, Lettres à mes amies françaises. 1956-1960, Introduction et Notes de Jacqueline de Proyart, Gallimard

Zendejas, F, 1958, La pasón de Pasternak (premio nobel 1958). Con fragmentos del libro « El Doctor Yivago »/El misterio del caso Pasternak, México: Libro Mex Eds., pp. 147.

 

Zhivago in Mexico and South America (Mexico and Uruguay)

The Spanish edition

Feltrinelli began selling the translation rights to the Zhivago in Spring 1957. The first to obtain translation rights was Collins, followed in the fall by Gallimard. On November 25 1957, Feltrinelli had expressed himself pessimistically about the possibility of publishing the novel in Spain. He wrote to his agent Gaisenheyner:

“Zu Spanien haben wir dass Buch nicht verkauft werden es auch auf grunder der dort wirkenden politischen Lage nich noch verkaufen.”[sic] (Fondo Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, dossier Gaisenheyner))

But in 1958, Feltrinelli sold the translation rights for the Spanish language to the Editorial Noguer of Barcelona (with an important branch in Mexico). Noguer signed the contract with Feltrinelli on November 14, 1958

8932985690

El Doctor Jivago, Noguer, Barcelona-Mexico,

Feltrinelli also gave Noguer the rights and distribution over Mexico, Central America, and all of South America, except Brazil. Indeed, Noguer immediately published two editions in Mexico (15,000 copies in 1958) in November (the copyright page says October for the first edition but that’s misleading). On November 26 , in La Vanguardia Española (p. 19), Noguer justified the late launching of the book in Spain (i.e. with the third edition) on account of the heavy demand in Latin America. The person who was key to the publication of the Zhivago at Noguer was José Pardo, who informed Feltrinelli about the success of the book on February 10, 1959. The book had been published just after the Nobel Prize award. In two months, that is until the close of 1958, it had sold 63,000 copies (including the 15,000 published in Mexico). In 1958 there were eight editions (printings). By February 10, two more printings had been published with one more in the making (the eleventh). The translation was the work of Fernando Gutierrez. This translation, carried out from the Italian edition, was thus the only licensed one and as such it was the only one that could be sold from Mexico to Argentina.

So much for the authorized Spanish edition. But soon after the Nobel Prize six different pirate editions were being prepared and five of them actually appeared, in addition to a digest of the novel. It is now quite difficult to list them in chronological order as we have scant information, for obvious reasons, as to when exactly the editions were prepared and when they exactly came out. Of the six pirate editions, one came out in Mexico, two in Uruguay and two in Argentina. A third pirate edition in Argentina was stopped successfully by Feltrinelli’s lawyer Tesone. In this post I will deal with Mexico and Uruguay.

Mexico. The pirate edition that came out in Mexico was published by “Ediciones Capricornio”and was titled “El Doctor Yivago”.

el-doctor-yivago-boris-pasternak-novela-308-MPE15522081_4142-O

El Doctor Yivago, Capricornio, Mexico, 1958

This edition is now quite difficult to find. It has 537 pages and was translated by Vladimir Koslov y Jorge Diez Cardoso. This translation was carried out on the English translation published by Collins (which is different from the Pantheon translation, itself a revised translation of the Collins one). It is easy to confirm this by looking at the list of main characters of the novel (taken straight out of the Collins edition), the table of content (which translates the title of Chapter 11 as “La hermandad del bosque” (Forest brotherhood) as opposed to “la milicia” or “el ejercito” as in the Italian and French versions), and the very first page of the translation. That the translation is the Collins one and not the revised Pantheon one is shown by the fact that the very first line of translation gives the hymn as “Memoria Eterna”: the British translation has “Eternal Memory” whereas the American one changed it to “Rest Eternal”. The French uses “chant funèbre” and although the Italian translation has “Memoria Eterna” it misses a whole sentence later in the page that is contained in this translation (and the British text). In any case the syntactic analysis of the first page of translation shows unequivocally that the Collins translations was the source.

32376

F. Zendejas, La Pasión de Pasternak, LibroMex, Mexico, 1958

A brief mention should also be made of a book that contained fragments of Doctor Zhivago (also spelled ‘Doctor Yivago’), also without Feltrinelli’s permission, namely Zendejas’ La Pasión de Pasternak (1958).

The book contains, in addition to two essays on Pasternak by Francisco Zendejas and Victor Alba, respectively, two prose fragments (which had already appeared in the literary supplement Mexico en la Cultura of November 9, 1958) and eight poems of the Zhivago cycle translated from English. The book contains some beautiful drawings by Vlady, i.e. Victor Serge’s son, who had settled in Mexico with his father in 1941 (On Vlady see Jean-Guy Rens, Vlady. De la Revolución al renacimiento, Sigli XXI Editores, México, 2005). It was published on November 22, 1958.

Uruguay. Moving now to Uruguay, we have two editions. The first by Editorial Minerva was translated by Vicente Oliva. It has 542 pages.

Minerva

El doctor Zhivago, Editorial Minerva, Montevideo, 1958

It came out in at least two editions (the second one of which was printed on December 10, 1958) but both of them after the Nobel Prize.

The other edition was printed by Ediciones Ciceron and came out in 1959 (589 pp.). The translation was by Juan Manuel Alfieri.

Both editions were made from the Italian translation, as it is soon revealed by the omission of a line of prayer in both translations (this omission is found in Zveteremich’s translation and it was an obvious oversight since the original Russian typescript has it and it is in fact found in both the French and the English translations). Incidentally, the Italian translation made by Pietro Zveteremich (see Mancosu, 2013, pp.29-34) was modified in the course of the years (see Iannello 2009).

Ciceron

El Doctor Yivago, Ediciones Ciceron, Montevideo, 1959

Despite being pirate editions they both claim copyright in the first pages of the book. In the next post I will discuss the pirate editions published in Argentina. Unlike those discussed so far, the Argentinian situation was to create some interesting troubles for Feltrinelli and Pasternak.