Vestnik RKhD, No 139 1983. p. 154.
К N. Leont'ev, Works, St Petersburg 1913, v. 7, pp. 20b-7. Of course, Solzhenitsyn's metamorphosis took place purely in ideological terms. As
a politician and thinker, the distance from Solzhenitsyn to Leont'ev is like from here to the stars. Therefore, in the political sense, he very likely will always remain a sectarian of the 'immobile Aksakov cast', one of those whom Leont'ev so despised. It was not Solzhenitsyn who marked the start of F-Nationalism in modern times. That remained to be done by another more realistic dissident politician, as the reader will discover
Ibid., p. 124.
Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., p. 305.
Vestnik RKhD, No. 139, p. 156.
Ibid., p. 135.
Norman Podhoretz, 'The Terrible Question oi Alexander Solzhenitsvn', Commentary, Feb. 1985, p. 20.
Lev Losev, 'Velikolepnoe budushchee Rossii' ['Russia's Marvellous Future'], Kontinent, No. 42, 1985, pp. 292 — 3.
Podhoretz, op. cit., p. 21.
Ibid., p. 23.
I would have probably long since lost count of all the discussions I have ventured in the Soviet literary press on the theme of 'the sociology of literature', had not one of my Soviet opponents, in an enraged article remarkably reminiscent of Solzhenitsyn's jeremiads, presented a long bibliography of my transgressions. Here it is: 'A. Yanov, "The Young Iiero Movement, Sociological Notes on the Fiction of the 60s" ["Dvizhenle molodogo geroia. Sotsiologicheskie zametki о khudozhestvennoi proze 60-kh godov"], Novyi mir, 1972, No. 7; A. Yanov, "The Working Theme. Sociological Notes on Literary Criticism" ["Rabochaia tema. Sotsiologicheskie zametki о literaturnoi kritike"], Literatura i sovremennost', No. 11, Moscow: 1972; A Yanov, "The Production Play and the Literary Hero of the 1970s" ["Proizvodstvennaia p'esa i literaturnyi geroi 1970-kh"], Voprosy literatury, 1972, No. 8; A. Yanov, "Cinema and the Scientific- Technical Revolution. Sociological Notes" ["Kino i nauchno-tekhnicheskaia revoliutsia. Sotsiologicheskie zametki"], Iskusstvo kino, 1972, No. 11; A. Yanov, "Blue Aeolis and Grey Reality" ["Goluboi Eolis i seraia deistvitel'nost". Sotsiologicheskie zametki"], Detskaia literatura, 1973, No. 2; A. Yanov, "Emotions and Arguments, Critical Notes on One Reader Discussion" ["Emotsii i argumentv. Kriticheskie zametki ob odnoi chitatel'skoi diskussii"], Molodoi kommunist, 1973, No. 3. Criticisms of A. Yanov's articles were made by G. Brovman (Iskusstvo kino, 1972, No. 11); V. Kantorovich (Iskusstvo kino, 1973, No. 4); F. Chapchakhov (Literaturnaia gazeta, 16 Aug. 1972) and others. However, I think the time has come to look more thoroughly and, so to speak, systematically, into what A. Yanov so insistently dwells on' (Valentin Khmara, 'Make No Graven Images' [Ne sotvori sebe kumira'], Literaturnoe ohozrenie, June, 1973).
A. I. Solzhenitsyn, op. cit., v. 11, p. 21.
Ibid., p. 53.
Ibid., p. 89.
Ibid., p. 108.
[bid., p. 208.
Ibid., p. 231.
Ibid., p. 230.
Quoted from A. Yanov, 'Alternative' ['Alternative' 1 Alolodot kommunist, 1974, No. 2, p. 71.
Sol/.henitsvn, op. cit., v. 12, pp. 66—113.
Ibid., p. 87.
Ibid., p. 114.
Ibid , p. 167.
Ibid., p. 525.
Ibid., p. 528.
Ibid., v. 11, p. 98.
Ibid , p. 297
Ibid., p 160 Lp 153 of English translation of first edition].
Ibid. [153].
Ibid., p. 33b.
Ibid. p. 289.
3b Ibid., pp. 161, 246.
Ibid. p. 3b3.
Ibid., v 12, p. 519.
Ibid., p. 511.
Ibid., pp 524-30.
Ibid., p. 529.
Ibid., p. 520.
Ibid., p. 511
Ibid p. 497
Ibid., v. 11, p. 92. 4b Ibid. p. 116.
Ibid p 120
Ibid.
Ibid., v. 12, p. 300.
Ibid. p. 305.
Ibid., pp. 305-6.
Ibid., p. 512.
Ibid., p. 513.
Ibid p. 514.
Vestnik RKhD, No. 139, p 154
Ibid. p. 134.
16
Diabolerie Two
So far we have observed the prophets of the Russian Idea over the course of four generations — three under Orthodox monarchy and one under Soviet rule. This should be enough to enable us to recognize some standard patterns of behaviour and techniques of argumentation. How do they react, for example, when a contradiction between their doctrine and reality forces them to the wall (as happened to Solzhenitsyn over August 1914)1 We have already seen one of these patterns: it consists in the removal of a political dispute to the realm of metaphysics, to a struggle between absolute Good and absolute Evil, Russia vs. the Devil. That was what the VSKhSON ideologists and Veche readers did by resurrecting the idea of 'satanocracy'. It is also what Vladimir Maksimov and Boris Paramonov are doing by replacing contemporary politics with metaphysics and Slavophile political doctrine with 'cultural philosophy'.
Another typical pattern, we observed, is to blame non-Russians for Russia's misfortunes. Thus, for second generation Slavophiles, the role of the devil/serpent was fulfilled by parliamentary Europe:
There was a time when the Russian upper classes, seduced by the temptation of Western civilization . . . rushed to renounce their nationality . . . Not having the opportunity to be reborn as Westerners, they hurried to disguise themselves as them instead. The lie of alien nationality swaggered about openly in a powdered wig . . . Another time came . . . Russian people . the upper classes of society were born again . . . [with] the fullest spiritual servility toward Europe.1
That was Ivan Aksakov. The third generation of Slavophiles firmly shifted the guilt for all of Russia's maladies onto the Jews.
Finallyp the third, and most remarkable, pattern of argument resorted to by adherents of the Russian Idea in an extreme situation is to combine the Jews and the Devil into one rhetorical figure representing all the world's E\ il Yu. M ОЛп/goev did thus and so did Sol/hemtsMi in his lu st descent into diaboleiie, \\ here l/rai1 Parvus proved con\eniontl\ to he both a .lew and Satan
The Jewish calling
Solzhenitsyn's ideological about face in August 1914 left linn with the follow mg .nsoluble problem that the liberals who, according to the Russian Idea's dictum were supposed to be responsible for the collapse of the Orthodox monarchy, were not, in fact, guilty accoiding to Solzhenitsyn the noxelist. Instead of coming up with a potent continuation of the part\ line, he had created confusion. The first edition of August 1914 was relentless in leaving no loopholes in its denunciation of the Orthodox monarchy. How could he reconcile this contradiction0
In line wuh the second tradnional pattern of behaviour of preachcrs of the Russian Idea, and with little regard for the damage he might do to the artistic integrity of his novel, Solzheniisvn introduced the Jewish theme into his new edition. At the centre of the novel are two characters who have no relation to the history of the August catastrophe — Petr Stolypin, who transpareiith s> mboliz.es Rus>ia, and the Jew, Mordechai Bogrov, who kills this swnbol of Russia and is ihus true to the certain1 'three-thousand-year-old calling'? of his cunning race. In the artistic sense this story line ruin.s Ajqjtisl Iе) 14, while intending to save it in the partisan political sense. Yet then, was apparently no other wa\ to show that despite its decay, so ampl\ demonstrated by Solzhenitsv n himself, the Orthodox monarchy did not die on its own but was toppled by 'demon>\
Solzhenitsyn leaves his readers not the slightest doubt that Stolypin symbolized the happ\ future of Orthodox monarchy in Russia — and its sole hope of resisting the 'demons'. 'True to his name he realh was a pillar L'stolp' 'n Russian means 'pillar'] of the state. He became a centre of Russian life as none of the tsars had done. (And really, his qualities were tsar-like). There was once again a Peter over RusMa 3 Under the guidance of this new Peter, Russia was lecovering irreversibly.'4 Once again there can be no doubt that when Mordechai Bogrov shot Stolypin, he was shooting at the very heart of the aiate'.5 He killed 'not onk the prune minister, but an entire state program', thus altering the 'course of history of a people 170 million strong' 6