A new article of mine has just been published at the Center for a Just Society: a tribute to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and thoughts on what made him such a powerful figure in world history.
Can we still use terms like good and evil as if they signified something real? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn certainly thought so. Much of his genius was that he recognized genuine evil in the Soviet system, and named it so….
[Link: Solzhenitsyn: Calling Evil What It Is - by Thomas Gilson]
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
Solzhenitsyn is a favorite of mine. He should be ranked with Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Chekhov as among the greatest Russian writers.
Your piece is quite good. Thanks.
Well, at the risk of calling down upon myself the wrath of those with little or no experience with or understanding of the former Soviet Union—but in particular of Russian nationalism—Solzhenitsyn is significantly less of a saint when it comes to his views regarding other nationalities and countries now free of the Soviet (read: Russian) yoke. (I’m speaking with some knowledge—having a graduate degree in Soviet Studies from Harvard and a total of 14 years of living in Ukraine… just recently having repatriated back to the U.S.)
Solzhenitsyn was, in fact, a deeply-troubled nationalist. In 1990 he termed the Ukrainian language “dirty Polish,” which sparked a deep sense of betrayal among Ukrainians, with open letters-to-the-editor from Ukrainian dissidents who “sat” with Solzhenitsyn in the gulags. Solzhenitsyn claims it is “provocative” for Ukraine to seek recognition of the Ukrainian Famine as “genocide” (which several countries, including the United States, have recognized): what sparked this comment was the “appalling” act by President Bush to lay a wreath at the monument in Kyiv dedicated to the victims of the Famine. In June of this year NATO was in Kyiv for further work on the slow process of integrating Ukraine into the alliance. Solzhenitsyn, in a word, had a cow. Ukraine is slowly reinstituting its own language into schools, translations of books and movies, etc… all met by self-serving accusations of “human rights abuses” by Russians.
Ukraine is not alone in this respect, for Solzhenitsyn shares similar views of the other post-Soviet republics. (Ask the Georgians [! predictably, the West is now trembling before the Russians similarly to its appeasment of Hitler's incursion into the Sudetenland!], the near-obliterated Chechens, and the Baltic countries.) But Ukraine is a particular target because of the myth Russians hold about their “own” history. The just-concluded celebrations of the 1020th year of the proto-state Kyivan-Rus accepting eastern Christianity sparked deep angst among the Russians. Why? Simply because there is a strong movement in Ukraine to unite the disparate orthodox faiths into one Ukrainian Orthodox Church (as is seen in other eastern European countries). Moscow did not even exist (formally) until 157 years AFTER the 988 christening of Kyivan-Rus, so that Russian demand that history reflect the “Russian” character of Ukraine is akin to the United States demanding Great Britain be called “American” simply because London is the capital of the state from which many Americans derive their cultural identity. And, by the way, Americans and Brits speak the same language… whereas Russians and Ukrainians do not.
For all the good Solzhenitsyn represented and the evil he endured, he contained within himself the betrayal of his own cause: a reactionary and racist pan-Slavism (= all the Slavs together with the Russians in charge). Consider Richard Pipes’ piece in the Moscow Times (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1016/42/369634.htm) and William Harrison’s piece in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/04/solzhenitsyn.russia).
When it came to Solzhenitsyn’s blatant lack of criticism of Russia’s centuries-long nationalist evils and blindness to his own pan-Slavic ethnocism (even unto the time of his own death), Solzhenitsyn’s ability to distinguish good from evil was reduced to that of the typically-ignorant moral relativist. When history’s book is finally written, Solzhenitsyn will go down as a minor asterisk: he was no hero… and certainly no Dostoevsky or Tolstoy or Chekov.
It seems all too often true: those who do great good also have great flaws. It makes the one great exception, Jesus Christ, stand out all the more.
Regardless, Solzhenitsyn’s message to the West must be heeded. Read or listen to it here.
Holo,
Tolstoy too had views that I expect that you would find quite objectionable. How does this bear upon the quality of the literary output?
I find that I’m largely persuaded by what you say (but I might attempt a limited defense of S.)But I still find his works quite brilliant. I’ve never read a work of history that has impressed me more than did The Gulag Archipelago.
Hi Franklin:
Actually, I must agree with you: Solzhenitsyn was a brilliant and very brave man. He set an example for others. (Do you remember his three rules for dealing with prison guards?) His works were, indeed, very good… except in his latter years. I read his stuff extensively–including Denisovich in the original Russian. (Gulag prison language is an art form of its own, and something not easily translated…) Solzhenitsyn was great… but comparing him to the others is a stretch. I’m sorry, but Solzhenitsyn can’t hold a candle to the accounts of the Grand Inquisitor or themes of nihilism or atheism or evil or good found in Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky, albeit distantly, didn’t curse the darkness… Solzhenitsyn was an expositor who was rarely satisfied with anything apart from his own vision–a vision that, admittedly, in some cases was very good. The other authors you name wrestled deeply with trying to understand the Russian “soul,” whereas Solzhenitsyn imposed his vision of that soul.
My point was the following claim made in the original comment: “For all the good Solzhenitsyn represented and the evil he endured, he contained within himself the betrayal of his own cause: a reactionary and racist pan-Slavism.” I stand by that because I’ve experienced it in his later writings, in his general comments, and the attitudes his own countrymen have towards other nationalities. It is a shame–really–that a man with such good ideas and the good example he set betrayed the very cause into which he poured his soul.
Contrast Solzhenitsyn with Sakharov (admittedly, perhaps not a fair comparison): a man who also endured Soviet tyranny, exile, etc., but who stood his ground to the very end–never once betraying his ideals. Sakharov (to me) was a hero… Solzhenitsyn’s heroism faded into his condescension towards other nationalities.