342
PARTISAN REVIEW
exist in ancient Jewish dogma as some kind of mystical, victorious arrival –
the year that the temple in Jerusalem will be restored. Yet the anti-Semitic
writings imply that this date refers to the necessity of the Jewish conquest of
the world, that either we are going to get them or they are going to get us.
The journal
Veche
published a comment, an open letter to Shafarevich,
written by the esteemed Igor Rostislavich, saying that Shafarevich's ideas
were the kernels that would bear fruit a hundredfold, that his words would
be watered and grow as plants and multiply. One can imagine the results of
this propagation.
There are many other vulgar-, simplistic responses to Shafarevich that I
could cite, such as those from
Young Guard
and
Our Contemporary.
For ex–
ample, Sakharov was referred to as an exemplar of hatred for his fatherland,
an incarnation of Russophobia. There are also metaphorical references to
Stalin's supposed struggle with the supposed enemies of the people, the trials
of the 1930s, according to which Stalin, as the legendary Hercules, was
forced to clean out the Aegean Stables, one of his twelve tasks. Soviet
democrats have been accused of calling for American intervention. Then the
only hope for the Russians would be to be defended by the soldiers who
fought in Afghanistan, a euphemism for the belief that only a general could
then save Russia.
It
is true that Shafarevich has been criticized by liberals and democrats
in the Soviet Union, but their criticism is weak and not well-founded.
Shafarevich, on the other hand , has been given many opportunities to speak
out. He was even granted expression in the very liberal newspaper,
Moskovskie Novosty (The Moscow News),
although he is of course not a liberal
but an extreme conservative. The liberals are for some reason trying to be
friendly to Shafarevich , to find a common language. The question of why
there is such trepidation and timidity in response to him naturally arises.
I think that the problem is not with Shafarevich's stupid and frivolous
ideas but with those who stand behind him and with the ground onto which
his ideas are falling. It is embittering to have to acknowledge that the great
authority of Solzhenitzyn stands behind Shafarevich . Lest there be any
misunderstanding, let me immediately characterize my position with regard to
Solzhenitzyn. I value highly his early works,
One Day in the Life of Ivan
Denisovich
and
The Gulag Archipelago.
Yet Solzhenitzyn has not stood still,
like some sort of icon. During the period of his emigration, his views have
gone through a great evolution, and I cannot accept without question the
Solzhenitzyn of
The Red Wheel
and other writings of his since his earlier
works.
Solzhenitzyn and Shafarevich have been close friends for many years,
comrades-in-arms with shared viewpoints. For example, they published a
