Saturday, May 26, 2012


Commentary

The Successful Tragedy Of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn arrives in the German city of Frankfurt on February 15, 1974, after being expelled from the Soviet Union.
TEXT SIZE - +
By Viktor Yerofeyev
Editor's note: Russian novelist and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was born 90 years ago today, on December 11, 1918. The following appreciation was written for RFE/RL's Russian Service on the occasion of Solzhenitsyn's death on August 3 of this year.

He was the last classic Russian writer.

In terms of his ethical and aesthetic composition, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was rooted in the tradition of humanism. He was a complex molecule comprised of Russian values. He was both a writer and a social activist. He was a critic of the regime and a victim of the regime. He was both a subject and an object of Russian history.

He believed in justice.

Interview With Linguist Leonid Krysin On Secret Work Of Preserving Solzhenitsyn's Writing
He thought that human beings were, in their basic nature, good, but that social circumstances could distort them, ruin them. In order to establish justice as a foundation of society, Solzhenitsyn took religion as a common denominator. For him, belief in God was utilitarian in the sense that it justified the struggle against totalitarianism. And the result is the integrated figure of a fighter. From the perspective of 20th-century philosophy, of course, all this is terribly primitive, naive, helpless. But from the perspective of the struggle against communism, it was the only possible formula by which a writer could exist.

When it comes down to it, the social doctrine that he despised created Solzhenitsyn as a writer. Without this external enemy, he would have had nothing to write about. His ideas about human nature, about history and the uniqueness of Russia were determined by the idea of moral resistance to evil, including deception and violence.

The Foreign West

For Solzhenitsyn, the West was just a base for continuing the struggle against the hated regime of the Soviet Union. The West was always foreign to him, the source of the ideology of liberalism that he viewed as antithetical to Russia. He never hid his disdain for the Western lifestyle, the consumer essence of which was repugnant to him.

So why should we all love him?

First and foremost, for "The Gulag Archipelago." By collecting the testimony of repressed individuals, he proved that communism destroys human beings, and proved it using the entire history of the Soviet Union. As a result, "Euro-communism" virtually vanished from Europe, while in Russia the book became the intellectual precondition for the destruction of the Soviet Union.

About the rest of his works, it is possible to debate.

In his novella "One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich," which turned Solzhenitsyn into a cult figure as a writer of Truth, he resurrected an important theme of Russian literature -- the theme of "the little man" who, despite his lack of education, understands and feels the world more truly than educated people, the intelligentsia. In rough terms, what we are talking about is a Russian variation of the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau: Natural man is the only person whose instincts can be trusted.

We see the same theme in Solzhenitsyn's "Matryona's Home," in which the heroine is a simple-hearted woman who is depicted as a virtual saint. This is the old Slavophile call for a return to Holy Rus, to a myth that must be taken on faith.

And so Solzhenitsyn became a leading light of the so-called village prose movement, which questioned modern civilization in its entirety -- both the Soviet and Western variants.

Then Came Putin

Solzhenitsyn's heroic personal fate masked the essential conservatism of his art. He courageously and successfully fought the Soviet regime, which considered him a particularly dangerous enemy because it -- like Solzhenitsyn -- purported to be devoted to the common man and hostile to Western values.

After the death of Josef Stalin, it was only possible to murmur under one's breath against the idea of the "holiness" of the Russian people -- the Soviet government also came to believe in the unique qualities of the Russian folk.

Solzhenitsyn was never able to find a common language with the Russia of the Boris Yeltsin era.

But then came Vladimir Putin.

Solzhenitsyn agreed to meet and chat with him as someone who had restored the Russian state. The writer practically ceased all criticism of Putin's regime.

Solzhenitsyn treasured God and goodness, and so closed the circle of the traditional Russian writers. He did not leave behind a literary school or political followers. The essence of his life was the destruction of communism. Everything else was just detail.

He ended up alone. Successful and tragic at the same time.

Viktor Yerofeyev is a novelist and a regular contributor to RFE/RL's Russian Service. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL.
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Petro from: Netherlands
December 12, 2008 11:36
Unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn's humanism did not go as far as to reject Russia's well-rooted imperialism towards its neighbours. In particular, (especially in his later writings) he denied the right to independence and integrity to Ukraine, and even existence of its people. In this he can be said to be an ardent follower of the old Russian chauvinism towards Ukrainians and the like nations.

by: Oleksander from: USA
December 12, 2008 14:11
There is no doubt that Solzhenitzyn made
an important contribution by exposing the
conditions and system of repression in the
soviet " Paradise ". He became known in
the West as a champion of human rights .
Various interest groups promoted him and
his works above and beyond politically
repressed non russians because he was russian. There are many works from that
era , written by his contemporaries , non
russians , that are far more condemning of the regime , that have never been
promoted .
His popularity and effectiveness waned
once he came to America . Soviet Russia ,
knew that as soon as they " exile " him ,
he will become an non entity . They knew
exactly what they were doing . He almost
totally slid into oblivion .
Disappointed in his irrelevelance , after the demise of the soviet union , he went
back to Russia . However as Yeltsin was
trying to build a democracy , that did not
suit Solzhenitzyn because he was dreaming
of reconstituting russia as an imperialistic super power not a democratic
country . So when Putin came to power and
started his hand wringing about the
" greatest tragedy of the XX century "
the destruction of the soviet union ,
Solzhenitzyn became his ardent supporter.
It seems strange that a man , whom millions considered a champion of the
oppressed , a defender of human rights,
would in the end turn out to be just a
closet , imperialistic chauvinist.

by: David from: Texas
December 13, 2008 01:25
Alone? What do you mean alone? This was a good piece until the end. He was very happy with his family. He has children. One son who is a conductor. He seems successful to me. Literary schools or political followers is not a measure of success. He said he had outlived his life. Svetlana Smetanina wrote, "They said that when they diagnosed him with cancer in the labour camp, he vowed that if he recovered he would devote the next 50 years to telling the truth and nothing but the truth. That period expired in 2004. So, in his last years he felt that he was outliving his allotted time." The weatern culture has infected Russia, so few are attracted to his ideals. I feel his books are seeds that will restore Russia to a bright future.

by: Tatiana from: Shereshevo
December 13, 2008 20:28
Solzhenitsyn is big and made a lot for all of us. We cannot judge him but everybody can disagree - he just gave us his vision. It is people who left him and refused to hear ideas - too hard to hear about the past. Orwell wrote: Who controls the Past Controls the Future”.
It will be a time when we all would open his books and understand more. He was the last who believed in Russian missionary role in the world. He died and his ideology for Russia as a missionary country died too. Russians became smaller, more lonely and lost. Russians never understood him completely or respected him honestly as well as other countries.
All big countries and empires are coming with empire ideas to the world and brining their missions to small countries. Small independent countries need to find their own Solzhenitsyn’s to find the truth and define national mission. Too bad Solzhenitsyn phenomena are a very rare in the world...Let’s value THE WRITER.


by: Anton from: Auckland
December 17, 2008 02:29
"last classic writer..." - To me it sounds like a great overstretch. The only readable thing by his hand is above mentioned "One day of Ivan Denisovich", or maybe someone can name another one? All the rest was political journalism, but hardly a literature - enough to compare with Tolstoy or Dumas.

The political side of Solzhenitsyn, however, reveals his full ignorance of what Russian people think and want. After his return to Russia, he could not express anything better than a primitive 19c-style nationalism, and when he discovered no public support for it, he just locked himself in his "dacha", hiding from Russia behind a 3-meter high fence. And, talking of a writer - what exactly did he write after his return? Personally I see him as ridiculous - a bearded guru with no followers but with a lot of ambitions.

by: Bob Shuster from: Wheaton, USA
December 30, 2009 17:12
To say that Solzhenitsyn's religion was utilitarian, a tool in his struggle with the Soviet regime really turns his life and thought upside down and inside out. His experiences in prison (the contact with a wide range of people as well as his own suffering) turned a passionate Marxist materialist into a devout Christian. His faith in God became the center of his life. One of the great themes of his work is God working in the world, both in national destinies and in individual souls. In many ways throughout his work he makes the point that reality cannot be understood without the spiritual dimension, above all the Christian faith. Any attempt will result in the poverty of systems like Soviet communism or Western consumerism. For myself, I think that he was sometimes unfair to the Western nations that gave him shelter (but perhaps he felt the drugged victim needs sharp slaps to awaken it to is danger) and a tendency to exaggerate Russian spirituality and underplay Russian (as opposed to Soviet) imperialism. But for me, the unclassifiable Gulag Archipelago, The First Circle, his prose poems, The Oak and Calf, the short stories, the Feast of the Victors, The Love Girl and the Innocent are both passionate and dispassionate explorations of what it means to human, what it means to be fallen and redeemed, how God moves in a sinful world.

Latest Commentary

No records found for this widget:963

More Commentary

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Afghan Parliament OKs Security Pact

Latest Comment (1 total)

donky kong: No surprise. Both candidates support this too. Choosing between Obama or Romney is ... More

No Saturday Night Fever, As Armenia Mulls Eurovision Blackout

Latest Comment (24 total)

Rafi: There's no need to bring in a straw man, and make me say ... More

Brzezinski Calls Putin Rule 'Anachronism'

Latest Comment (4 total)

Batanage:
Look who is Talking now, Brezenski the hypocrite.

The guy who spread fundemetelists around ... More