12. CIRCUMSTANTIAL NOTICES - CHRONOLOGY AND VOLUME OF SHOLOHOV'S WRITINGS
The discovered strange difference between different parts of the Quiet Don forced us to look more closely on the chronology and volume function of Sholohov's writings. Let us analyze the following Table and the Fig.10.
It is assumed that Sholohov was born in 1905. (By the way, in 1994, in the special program on Petersbourg TV, devoted to Sholohov, was formulated the suspicion that this date is incorrect, and in reality Sholohov was born LATER, than it is claimed officially. But we have not analysed this conjecture and will upheld the official point if view).
It is assumed (see the Appendix in the volume VIII of Sholohov's writings, ed.1962, Moscow), that Sholohov started to write the Quiet Don in the end of 1925, i.e. when we was only 20-years old. And very soon, in 1928, when Sholohov was only 23-years old, the parts 1,2,3,4,5 of the Quiet Don were published. The total their volume was really huge - about 47,6 printer's sheets (i.e. about 900 regular pages). It should be mentioned, that this text was printed very fast. The printing was started in the first issue of the magazine "Oktyabr'" in 1928, and was finished in 10-th issue of this magazine in the same year.
Consequently, the manuscript might appear in the editorial board of the magazine only in 1927, or even earlier. If so (and it is hard to doubt in this fact), then for the writing of such large (47,6 printer's sheets) and professional novel, namely, two first books of the Quiet Don, we see ONLY ONE YEAR (in best case), namely 1926. And Sholohov himself wrote that he "in the autumn of 1925 begins to write the Quiet Don, but after finishing the 3-4 printer's sheets, - had stopped" (M.Sholohov, Autobiography. Quoted from the book of V.V.Gura "How the Quiet Don was created", Moscow, 1980, pp.95-96). See also , p.134.
Thus, as the critics of Sholohov's writings claimed, he, - in the age only 20 or 21 years, without general education (he finished only 4 classes), without special education, without life experience and writer's experience, without access to military archives (it should be mentioned that the novel is overfilled by the concrete real facts from this military time), - created the fundamental and high-professional novel during the fantastically short time period.
Though such kind of the arguments cannot be considered as the proof of anything, but nevertheless the feeling of some strange situation certainly appears.
The Sholohov's advocate - L.Kolodnyi' wrote: <<Mikhail Sholohov started his self-contained life in 1918, when he was 13-years old. He took part in the civil war in the brigade consisting of 216 people. He was under conviction "because of going beyond of his rights"... The strong judgment was canceled only because of his young age... If we talk about his only four-classes education in gymnasium, then we should recall the writer Ivan Bunin, who finished only three classes in gymnasium. But this fact did not prevent him, - as in Sholohov's case, - to get the Nobel prize>> .
As we see from the volume table and the graph in the Fig.10, Sholohov published during 40 years of his writer's life about 3,5 printer's sheets per year. If we exclude from this amount the suspected texts (namely, two books and the beginning of the third book of the Quiet Don), this parameter will decrease even to 2 printer's sheets per year.
This activity-volume per year is VERY SMALL in comparison with another professional writers. For example, for Chehov we have 14 printer's sheets per year, for L.N.Tolstoi' - 13 printer's sheets per year, for Emil Zola - 21 printer's sheets per year. On this background, it is hard to understand the strange one-year bright Sholohov's flash, when he during only one year (1926) and in such young age (20- or 21-years old!) ejected to literary market such a huge amount (47,6 printer's sheets) of high-quality literary production. And then (by the way, and before) his writer's activity was sufficiently lower.
Let us repeat, that all these remarks have only circumstantial character and certainly cannot be considered as independent real arguments. Also, in our opinion, it would be incorrect to consider as independent argument the absence (at least as it is claimed today) of the answer on the following natural question: where are the originals of the manuscripts for the books I and II of the Quiet Don. The manuscripts of the book III and IV, - i.e. for non-suspected piece of the Quiet Don, - are today in the archives of "Pushkin's Dom" in Leningrad. But it is claimed, that the most interesting now for us the suspected manuscripts of the books I and II, "were disappeared". It is assumed that they were burned during the fire. From the other hand, in May of 1995 it was announced (in one of the program of TV-"Ostankino"), that the original manuscripts of the first books of the Quiet Don "were lastly found". It would be very interesting to check this information. But we need to underline, that this discussion does not connected with the results of our statistical analysis.
Because some scientists are sure that the co-author (or real author) of the Quiet Don was Cossack writer Fedor Krukov (Fig.11), it would be natural to consider this opportunity. Unfortunately, we did not had the latest and fundamental writings of Krukov, written during the First World War and civil war in Russia. In general, as it is mentioned in , Krukov's biography was practically unknown to the Soviet readers until 1990. A.G.Makarov and S.E.Makarova formulated the following idea: "The Soviet specialists in literature, and especially in the Sholohov's writings, played in Soviet epoch the important role in the understatement of Krukov" , p.14.
We have analyzed only the following his small early stories: Zhazhda, Polchasa, Mat', Shag na meste. All they were written by Krukov before First World War - in 1905-1907, and belong to the beginning of his literary activity. Consequently, we need to say, that we do not expect some clear results from this sufficiently poor material. The results obtained are listed in the Table.
It is clear, that the volumes of the samples is TOO LOW. Consequently the results can be unstable. Nevertheless, it turns out, that the percentage of form-words in Krukov's texts is fairly stable and its fluctuations are small. The low amount of Krukov's texts under consideration, and the fact, that these his stories are not connected with the life of Cossacks, do not allow us to make the conclusion that Krukov has, or has not, some relation with the Quiet Don (as the author or co-author).
BUT, THE RESULTS OBTAINED POSSIBLY CONFIRM THE CONJECTURE THAT KRUKOV WAS THE CO-AUTHOR. Really, as we see from the percentage of the form-words, the difference between Krukov's writings and the first two books of the Quiet Don, is equal only 1,56 % = 21,11 - 19,55. From the other hand, the difference between Sholohov I and the same books of the Quiet Don is equal to 3,48% = 23,03 - 19,55. It follows, that Krukov's style is not so far from the style of the Quiet Don. MIKHAIL SHOLOHOV (Fig.12) IS SUFFICIENTLY FARTHER FROM THE FIRST TWO BOOKS OF THE QUIET DON, THAN KRUKOV.
But of course, the next step in this analysis should be the complete investigation of all latest writings of Krukov, devoted to the history of the Don Cossacks. Without such analysis it is doubtful now to reach the conclusion about the connection of Krukov with two first books of the Quiet Don. From the other hand, as we saw, we have not statistical arguments to exclude Krukov's participation in the writing of the Quiet Don.
In first column - the number of the sample.
In second column - the number of words in the sample.
In third column - the number of form-words in the sample.
In fourth column - the percentage of the form-words in the sample.
1. Fucks W., Nach allen Regeln der Kunst. Diagnosen uber Literatur, Musik, bildende Kunst. Die Werke, ihre Autoren und Schopfer. - Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt., Stuttgart, 1968.
2. Fucks W., Mathematical Theory of Word-Formation. - London, 1955.
3. Morozov N.A. Linguistic spectrums. - Izvestia Akademii Nauk (Russia), (Section of Russian Language), Books 1-4, vol.XX, 1915 (in Russian).
4. Meier H., Deutsche Sprachstatistik. Hildesheim, 1964.
5. Markov A.A. On some application of statistical method. - Izvestia Akademii Nauk. (Russia). Ser.6, vol.X, No.4, 1916. (in Russian).
6. Achmanova O.S. with coauthors. On exact methods for analysis of language. - Moscow, 1961. (in Russian).
7. Frumkina R.M. Statistical methods for analysis of vocabulary. - Moscow, 1964. (in Russian).
8. Golovin B.N. Language and statistics. - Moscow, 1971. (in Russian).
9. Meszherskii' N.A. History of Russian literary language. - Leningrad, 1981. (in Russian).
10. G.Kjetsaa, S.Gustavsson, B.Beckman, S.Gil. The Authorship of The Quiet Don. - Solum Forlag A.S.: Oslo, Humanities Press: New Jersey.
11. "D". Stremya "Tihogo Dona". Zagadki romana. ("D". Stirrup of The Quiet Don. Mistery of the Novel"). - Paris: YMCA Press. 1974.
12. Medvedev R. Who wrote The Quiet Don? - Paris: Christian Bourg. Edit. 1975.
13. G.Kjetsaa. Fight around The Quiet Don. - Seanado-Statica, 22, 1976.
14. G.Kjetsaa. Fight around The Quiet Don. - Pergamon Press, USA. 1977.
15. Ermolaev G. Mistery of The Quiet Don. - Slavic and European Journal. 18, 3, 1974.
16. Ermolaev G. Who wrote The Quiet Don? - Slavic and European Journal. 20, 3, 1976.
17. Kolodnii' L. Whirls over The Quiet Don. Fragments of the past: history of one aspersion in XX century. - "Moscovskaya Pravda", 5 and 7 March 1989. (in Russian).
18. Makarov A.G. and Makarova S.E. Zvetok-tatarnik. (Flower-Tartar. To the source of The Quiet Don). - Moscow, 1991. Printed by VNIIE-gazprom. (in Russian).
19. A.T.Fomenko. Some statistical regularities of distribution of the information density in the texts with scale. - Semiotika and Informatika, Moscow, VINITI, 1980, vol.15, pp.99-124. (in Russian).
20. Fomenko A.T. Duplicates in mixed sequences and a frequency duplication principle. Methods and applications// Probability theory and mathematical statistics. Proceedings of the Fourth Vilnius Conference (24-29 June 1985) - VNU Science Press, Utrecht, Netherlands. - 1987, vol.1, pp. 439-465. (in English).