Notes on the 1992 Revision of The Tales

The Revision of The Tales

[An Excerpt from To Fathom The Gist, Vol 2 – The Arch Absurd]

The Marketing Narrative of The Revision

We print below the full text of the marketing description of the 1992 version of The Tales, which, at the time of writing, appears on Amazon. com:

Gurdjieff wrote Beelzebub’s Tales in Russian and Armenian, and the original manuscript was typed and revised in Russian. An English translation was produced in successive steps at the Prieuré. It consisted initially of a word-by-word interlinear translation with each word in English placed above the corresponding Russian word in the typescript. Reworked by different pupils at different times, the translation was finally edited by the well-known author and editor A.R. Orage, mostly in New York. Although he worked closely with Russian speakers and, indeed, Gurdjieff himself, Orage knew no Russian and was unable to read Gurdjieff ’s original text.

The English version was first published in 1950, just a few months after Gurdjieff died. He had overruled objections that the translation needed more work, insisting that the time had come to launch his ideas into the mainstream of Western thinking. As the English text was the initial publication of the book in any language, it was assumed by many readers to have been written or specifically approved by Gurdjieff. Although a prefatory note stated that the original was written in Russian and Armenian, the significance of this was easily disregarded in the absence of a published edition of the original Russian text. The note also stated that the author had personally directed the translation, and Gurdjieff had often been present when the translation was read aloud to English-speaking pupils and visitors.

What few readers knew was that, in fact, all of Gurdjieff ’s work in completing the book was in Russian. His spoken English, like his spoken French, was effective and memorably colorful for his purposes as a teacher in conversation with his pupils, but since his arrival in Western Europe in the early 1920s, he had not taken the time to master either language. He could not have judged, much less approved, the English text and had to rely on Mme. de Salzmann, who was fluent in Russian and English, for reassurance that the meaning was preserved. Gurdjieff did not approve the writing style of the English translation.

Although before his death Gurdjieff had insisted on immediate publication, he reportedly acknowledged that the English book was a “rough diamond” and asked Mme. de Salzmann to revise it at a later time. Her first priority was to prepare the French edition based on the Russian manuscript, a task that was not completed until 1956. Thereafter, she began work with selected American pupils to revise the English language version. The primary aim was to bring it closer in substance to the Russian text, using the widely admired and well accepted French edition as a model. A secondary but important aim was to have it correspond more faithfully in style to Gurdjieff ’s Russian writing, particularly to make it as clear and understandable as the Russian. Mme. de Salzmann herself worked for a number of years with the editorial team and then left them to complete the project. The revision, despite interruptions, was finally completed more than 30 years later.

It is important to understand that this is a marketing narrative. Professional marketeers, whose job is to create demand for and popularize products, whether they be toy trains, toasters or toothpaste, know that it is not enough to employ superlatives to describe the product they wish to promote. They need to invent a narrative, a story that can penetrate the mind of the potential buyer, to which they might automatically associate when any mention of the product enters their world.

Having stated this, we can now examine the marketing narrative piece by piece. We will ignore much of the first paragraph, except for the following text:

Although he worked closely with Russian speakers and, indeed, Gurdjieff himself, Orage knew no Russian and was unable to read Gurdjieff ’s original text.

The text here implies, without directly saying so, that Gurdjieff was working in Russian, Orage was working in English, and that the two of them were unable to communicate about the meaning of the text because of language difficulties. It is an implication rather than a stated fact. The fact, quite clear from publications of Orage’s letters and notes from those many
years (1925 – 1931), as well as from many other sources, is that Gurdjieff reviewed the English text in great detail during the writing process, aside from his continual review of it that began once the initial manuscript of the book was created.
In the second paragraph quoted above, we encounter the words:

As the English text was the initial publication of the book in any language, it was assumed by many readers to have been written or specifically approved by Gurdjieff.

And the evidence is abundant that indeed it was, down to the final discussions between Frank Pinder and Gurdjieff, when Gurdjieff says “It’s a rough diamond.”

It is even clear in Gurdjieff ’s own writing in Life Is Real Only Then, When ‘I Am,’ also quoted earlier in this book, where he realizes the need to have the book entirely rewritten from his listening to public readings of the book. Such public readings could not have been in Russian, because there was no Russian public for him to read to. The readings were in English. Gurdjieff was indeed the one who amended and then approved the English version of the text.

We are then informed:

Although a prefatory note stated that the original was written in Russian and Armenian, the significance of this was easily disregarded in the absence of a published edition of the original Russian text.

We have already quoted and commented extensively upon this “prefatory note” which reads as follows:
Original written in Russian and Armenian. Translations into other languages have been made under the personal direction of the author, by a group of translators chosen by him and specially trained according to their defined individualities, in conformity with the text to be translated and in relation to the philological particularities of each language.

It would seem that the writer of the marketing narrative has failed to appreciate the significance of the text he refers to, since it states unambiguously that the book was written in Russian and Armenian rather than just one of those languages and that Gurdjieff himself “chose” and “specially trained” the translators, not only in translation but also in the philology of the target languages.

What few readers knew was that, in fact, all of Gurdjieff ’s work in completing the book was in Russian.

In fact no readers knew this, nor could any reader ever know this, because it is not at all true. There are accounts of Gurdjieff dictating sections of the book in Armenian to Lily Chaverdian, of working with Louise March in German and of working with Orage. And there are the many public readings of the English text he organized and the many changes he made in respect of word choice and the flow of the text in English that are quite obvious when one considers the differences between The 1931 Manuscript and the 1950 edition.

His spoken English, like his spoken French, was effective and memorably colorful for his purposes as a teacher in conversation with his pupils, but since his arrival in Western Europe in the early 1920s, he had not taken the time to master either language.

Here the marketeer presumes to know what he could not possibly know—how much time Gurdjieff spent learning English (or French for that matter)—and indeed speaks with apparent authority as if he himself knows what it takes to master a language. The implication of the text seems to be that if one wants to teach The Work one hardly needs to know much about the language your pupils speak. The marketeer glosses over the existence of letters that Gurdjieff hand-wrote in English to Orage, Louise March and other English and American pupils. He dismisses the many published accounts of Gurdjieff expressing himself brilliantly and clearly in English to C. S. Nott, J. G. Bennett, Fritz Peters, Frank Lloyd Wright, Margaret Anderson, Solita Solano and on and on.

Naturally this is the crux of what the marketing narrative wants to establish, since if Gurdjieff were a master of languages, if indeed he were the “God of languages” he claimed to be, then it is difficult to establish the validity of any other English language version of Gurdjieff ’s writings than the one he is known to have created and approved. So we now read:
He could not have judged, much less approved, the English text and had to rely on Mme. de Salzmann, who was fluent in Russian and English, for reassurance that the meaning was preserved. Gurdjieff did not approve the writing style of the English translation.

Now Mme. de Salzmann is suddenly elevated to a fluency in English which Gurdjieff “could not possibly have achieved,” even though she never lived in any English speaking territory throughout the whole of her life. It is a matter of record that Gurdjieff never involved her in work on the English version of The Tales. He chose his experts in English: Orage, Toomer and Heap, all of whom had extraordinary talent in English and its literature. Mme. de Salzmann worked only on the French version. The invention that Mme. de Salzmann was a great expert in English is necessary for the credibility of the marketing narrative.
Although before his death Gurdjieff had insisted on immediate publication, he reportedly acknowledged that the English book was a “rough diamond” and asked Mme. de Salzmann to revise it at a later time.

Gurdjieff’s “rough diamond” quote is taken out of context here in an effort to demote the 1950 edition. It was a response by Gurdjieff to a comment about punctuation and spelling errors.

It is linked in this marketing narrative to Mme. de Salzmann’s comment, as though it were made a moment before he asked her to revise his book. We are not aware of any evidence that Gurdjieff made such a request and hence we cannot know its context.

Her first priority was to prepare the French edition based on the Russian manuscript, a task that was not completed until 1956.

Thereafter, she began work with selected American pupils to revise the English language version. The primary aim was to bring it closer in substance to the Russian text, using the widely admired and well accepted French edition as a model. A secondary but important aim was to have it correspond more faithfully in style to Gurdjieff ’s Russian writing, particularly to make it as clear and understandable as the Russian.

The genesis of the French version of The Tales is unclear. Certainly many of the chapters had already been translated into French prior to Gurdjieff ’s death. This is clear from Louise March’s recollection of her working on the German version while Mme. de Salzmann was working on the French Version. Additionally, Elizabeth Bennett (in Idiots in Paris) mentions readings of chapters from The Tales to French pupils.

The existence of the mysterious Russian manuscript is questionable. We have found no records of Gurdjieff organizing readings to Russian pupils. We cannot imagine how he could have organized public readings to Russian audiences in Paris without such events being noted and commented upon. We know his writing process, so we know that for a genuine Russian manuscript to exist it must embody corrections made following the observation of audience reaction.

The only record we have found of there being an original manuscript is in a letter from Louise March to Dr. Alfons Paquet that she wrote when she began work on the German translation. It reads:

The book is now three volumes, the largest part written in Russian, a smaller part in Armenian.

There is another significant problem with the idea of a Russian manuscript. If it exists, then it was written in pre-revolutionary Russian. In 1918 the newly established Bolshevik Government of Soviet Russia began to implement changes to the Russian language, including a revision of the alphabet. The Council of People’s Commissars issued edicts and, having taken control of all printing shops, implemented changes which included the removal of the letters Ι, Θ, V, Ђ and Ъ. With these changes came other language changes, one of which was the greater use of adverbs. The Russian language was in flux.

It is possible that the original Russian manuscripts typed by Mme. de Hartmann (and others) exist, but they could not reasonably be the basis for a French translation. Louise March records that Jeanne de Salzmann worked from the English translation, although no doubt she referenced the Russian manuscript at times, as did Louise March and Orage too, in all probability. There are, as we have pointed out, innovations in the French translation which we presume came from Gurdjieff specifically for the French version, but we cannot know that for sure.
It seems strange that the French translation took so long (six years) to produce but it is possible that work on it was delayed in the wake of Gurdjieff’s death, since the editors were Mme. De Salzmann and Henri Tracol, two people who were heavily involved in establishing The Gurdjieff Foundation.

The reference to “the widely admired and well accepted French edition” would be odd indeed if this were anything other than a marketing narrative. Who are the people who so “widely admire” it and “accept” it so well?

Our view, following a little research into the French version, is that it appears to be slightly inferior to the English and German versions of The Tales. We have not analyzed many paragraphs from the French version, but where we have, we have found word choices that seem to us less exact than those made in the English and German versions. Note that we do not claim fluency in French, so this is a very subjective opinion.

We suspect that poor word choice could have occurred for two reasons.

1. Once Gurdjieff died, what he left unfinished would not and could not be matched by anyone else. This naturally casts doubt on any text that was incomplete when he died, but most likely the loss of quality would only manifest in word choice and the flow of the text.

2. Gurdjieff was creating objective literature. His process for this involved observing an audience while the book was read out, so that he could make corresponding edits. We are not at all convinced that Mme. de Salzmann or anyone else was capable of doing that.

Finally the marketing narrative ends on an utterly surreal note:
Mme. de Salzmann herself worked for a number of years with the editorial team and then left them to complete the project. The revision, despite interruptions, was finally completed more than 30 years later.
It’s odd that this sentence is included in this marketing narrative at all at all, since it undermines much of what precedes it. Did Mme. de Salzmann not really care about completing this project?
If this is true, Mme. de Salzmann did not actually approve the final English text of The Revision.
Really?
So who did?