8
PARTISAN REVIEW
It is in its particular use of history that Marxism distinguishes
itself from all other doctrines. In Marxism history becomes rever–
berant; it is both its science and its rhetoric. It was inevitable that the
counter-revolution should strike at Marxism by reaching out to con–
found its central source of value. Not only were the universally known,
the plain facts of the Russian revolution falsified at the trials; the
historic orientation, the objectives of the leaders as well as their identity
were perverted. By compelling the makers of the revolution to confess
that they betrayed it, Stalin was attempting to justify his own
betrayal. His plot to assassinate the history of Leninism dictates the
implication of his victims in a plot to assassinate Lenin. In thus forcing
history to undo its deeds, to re-write its past, Stalin is subjectively
undertaking to free himself of its necessity.
But the trials are also performances, plays, dramatic fictions.
If
literature reflects life, then their reality or unreality as literature ought
to affect our judgment. It might be useful to examine them from the
point of view of literary criticism. Are they tragedies or comedies?
What perceptions, what psychological insights do they contain? What
do they make of human nature? Considered as closed imaginative
wholes, what is their inner consistency,- what coherence obtains in
them between act, motive, and character?
Various interpreters of the trials have mentioned Dostoevsky,
and, in truth, the confession was one of Dostoevsky's major modes of
creation. But the poles of Dostoevsky's world were pride and humility.
In these plays, however, the characters show themselves to be destitute
of pride; as for their humility, it is banal, mechanized, automatic:
the author seems to have filched whole columns from the
Pravda
to
put in the mouth of his creatures. Moreover, they are completely lack–
ing in individuation; the psychology of each is equal to the psycho–
logy of all the others. There is no conflict: their speeches assist the
very forces with whom they are contending. These are people of will
and stature, yet their motives are unworthy of them and their acts
are shadowy, seldom emerging from the realm of intention and inept
scheming. Finally, the quality of the sentiments expressed, the root–
and-branch philistinism of every remark, removes the last shred of
dramatic plausibility, of emotional conviction. Is it possible that
human beings who have lived so intensely, who admit to such
monstrous crimes and who are nearing death, could fail to rise to
the level of eloq.uence? Manifestly no imaginative artist could have
composed such plays; only a policeman can write so badly.
No, these are not dramas, they are pre-dramas, magical rites.
Both tragedy and comedy have their origin in rites whose purpose was
to produce fertility. Such ritualistic performances were believed to be
effective in casting out the Old Year with its burden of sins and
