REVIEW ESSAY Solzhenitsyn on Russia's "Jewish Question" Dvesti let Vmeste (1795-1_995) [Two H u n d r e d Years Together]. By Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Moscow: Russkii p u t ' , 2001. 509 pp., 176 rubles. D e u x Si~cles Ensemble (1795-1995), t o m e premier, Juifs et Russes at,ant la r~volution, translated from the Russian b y A n n e Kichilov, Georges P h i l i p p e n k o , a n d Nikita Struve.

By M e x a n d r e Solj6nitsyne. Paris:Arth6me Fayard, 2002. 562 pp., 27 euros.

D a n i e l J. M a h o n e y "The Jewish question," the t h o r n y p r o b l e m of the place of the Jewish p e o p l e in universal history, is at the heart of a great deal of m o d e r n political, philosophical, and theological reflection. For some c o n t e m p o r a r y liberals, the Jewish q u e s t i o n is simply o n e more m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the refusal to accept the "other" and is r e d u c i b l e to the larger p r o b l e m of racism or discrimination. In this view, anti-Semitism is a form of"prejudice" indistinguishable from"homophobia" or any other form of o p p o s i t i o n to diversity or difference. For ideological anti-Semites, the Jew is responsible for the d i s c o n t e n t s inseparable from m o d e r n i t y - - a n d from the hum a n condition simply. If only the Jewish people did not exist the evils that help characterize the h u m a n condition would s o m e h o w be manageable. This ideological M a n i c h e a n i s m locates evil in the p e r v e r s i t i e s of a single p e o p l e and leads, willy-nilly,to totalitarianism and genocide. These fanatics and ideologues have n o t h i n g to teach us a b o u t "the Jewish question" e x c e p t w h a t to avoid. For other infinitely more serious and discerning thinkers, the Jewish p e o p l e are either a sign of the divine p r e s e n c e in h u m a n history or of the undesirability and impossibility of creating a "universal and h o m o g e n o u s state" w h e r e h u m a n differences are effaced altogether. For the Catholic novelist Walker Percy, the Jewish p e o p l e are a salutary obstacle to the t r i u m p h of 104

"theory" or ideology with its plans to create a world that can be manipulated by the h u m a n will. For the political p h i l o s o p h e r Leo Strauss, the unsolvability of the Jewish p r o b l e m is a source of b o t h tragedy and hope, the d e f i n i t i v e sign that t h e r e c a n n e v e r be an "end of history." Into this territory, necessarily w r o u g h t w i t h controversy, steps the Russian Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn with the p u b l i c a t i o n of the first v o l u m e of Two H u n d r e d Years Together, an anticipated two-volume work on R u s s i a n - J e w i s h r e l a t i o n s o v e r the past two centuries. The first volume of Two Hundred Years Together was published in Russia in the s u m m e r of 2001 and in French translation in February 2002. (For b a c k g r o u n d on the book, see the fascinating interview with S o l z h e n i t s y n that a p p e a r e d in the Moscow News, J u n e 20-26, 2001, pp. 2-3 and in Lire, Mars 2002, pp. 97101.) Unfortunately, "this v i g o r o u s and insightful book," as the historian of Russia Geoffrey Hosking called it in a r e c e n t review in the TLS, has yet to be p u b l i s h e d i n E n g l i s h . O n e h o p e s that a m a j o r p u b l i s h e r will have the good sense to make this i m p o r t a n t work available soon to an English-language a u d i e n c e . T h e first v o l u m e is subtitled "Jews and Russians before the Revolution." It deals w i t h R u s s i a n - J e w i s h r e l a t i o n s bet w e e n 1795 and 1916, from the inc o r p o r a t i o n of a b o u t o n e m i l l i o n

SOCIETY 9 NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2002

Jews into the Russian e m p i r e as a result of the partitions of Poland in the late e i g h t e e n t h century, until the eve of the collapse of the Russian old regime in 1917. While the final volu m e of Two H u n d r e d Years Together, d e a l i n g w i t h the Bolshevik and post-communist Russian exper i e n c e s has yet to appear, the first v o l u m e allows us to c o m e to t e r m s w i t h S o l z h e n i t s y n ' s b r o a d app r o a c h to the "Jewish q u e s t i o n " in its R u s s i a n f o r m . W h i l e s o m e of Solzhenitsyn's specific arguments in this volume are undoubtedly o p e n to dispute, this h u m a n e and b a l a n c e d work ought to put to rest the egregious charge of anti-Semitism that has b e e n leveled against Solzhenitsyn by a few of his m o r e i r r e s p o n s i b l e critics. T h r o u g h o u t the work, Solzhenitsyn expresses critical admiration for the Jewish people and repeatedly rebukes those Russian nationalists w h o identify Russian patriotism with hostility to Jews.The book makes clear just h o w firmly opposed Solzhenitsyn is to the anti-Semitic theories espoused by his onetime friend and collaborator Igor Shafarevich who identifies the Jews as the ultimate source of"Russophobia," as well as to the demagogic nationalism of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a figure w h o m S o l z h e n i t s y n has aptly called "the evil caricature of a Russian patriot."

Beyond Mutual Reproaches Solzhenitsyn is fully c o g n i z a n t of the "prickly" character of the problem of Russian-Jewish relations. Ins t e a d of p r o v i d i n g m u c h n e e d e d m e a s u r e d historical analysis, those w h o have a d d r e s s e d the q u e s t i o n have typically s u c c u m b e d to polemics a n d "one-sided rebukes." Many Jewish commentators have cond e m n e d Russia a n d Russians tout c o u r t w h i l e "from t h o s e Russians w h o did write a b o u t this m u t u a l dilemma, we see mostly agitated tend e n t i o u s a c c o u n t s that refuse to see any merit o n the o t h e r side." In the Foreword to the book, Solzhenitsyn writcs that he w o u l d have preferred to lcave this c o n t e n t i o u s issue to others. But his h e s i t a t i o n s w e r e over-

c o m e b y his a p p r e c i a t i o n of t h e pressing n e e d to find a new, s o u n d e r basis for the future of Russian-Jewish c o m m o n life. Only an equitable historical examination can overcome "the a c r i m o n y of the past" and p o i n t the way toward m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d ing. S o l z h e n i t s y n ' s work is a signific a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to s u c h m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g . It is also a c o n c r e t e h i s t o r i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the principles of his 1974 e s s a y " R e p e n t a n c e a n d Self-Limitation": e a c h p e o p l e must come to terms with its o w n sins in a spirit of humility and generosity. Some readers will inevitably be offended by his suggestion that Jews also need to come to terms with their sins, that the story of Russian-Jewish relations is more than a tale of onesided exploitation and victimization. Solzhenitsyn n o n e t h e l e s s hopes that historical u n d e r s t a n d i n g and m u t u a l r e p e n t a n c e can replace self-defeating historical conflict. His b o o k is an act of s t a t e s m a n s h i p that aims to o v e r c o m e "the anger of implacable extremists." He wishes "to find ben e v o l e n t i n t e r l o c u t o r s a m o n g both Jews and Russians." What is most immediately n e e d e d for this p r o f o u n d l y challenging task is painstaking historical and political analysis rather t h a n metaphysical or theological speculation. In a revealing s t a t e m e n t o n "The Scope of Examination," Solzhenitsyn states that he fully appreciates the "metaphysical" and "mystical" d i m e n s i o n s of the Jewish question. Solzhenitsyn even suggests that in the e n d , " s o m e even say that the Jewish q u e s t i o n can be c o m p r e h e n d e d e x c l u s i v e l y in the religious and mystical plane." S o l z h e n i t s y n t h u s a d m i r e s the efforts of r e l i g i o u s t h i n k e r s s u c h as J a c q u e s M a r i t a i n or V l a d i m i r Soloviev to reflect on "the mystery of Israel," o n the mysterious and ind i s p e n s a b l e p l a c e of t h e J e w s in G o d ' s p l a n for h u m a n i t y . But the first step o n the p a t h t o w a r d mut u a l r e c o n c i l i a t i o n is j u d g i n g the q u e s t i o n "by e a r t h l y m e a s u r e s . " Solzhenitsyn thus refuses to wear the hat of the p r o p h e t and instead writes

as a morally and civicly serious historian and political thinker. He exp l i c i t l y leaves u l t i m a t e j u d g m e n t a b o u t the "mystical c o n n e c t i o n s and influences" w i t h i n h u m a n history to God Himself. So m u c h for the mantle of p r o p h e t too indiscriminately att r i b u t e d to Solzhenitsyn by admirers and critics alike. Solzhenitsyn's moral-political approach to the p r o b l e m of relations b e t w e e n Russians and Jews requires a detailed e x a m i n a t i o n of the historical record and a sincere effort to do justice to the claims and c o n c e r n s of both parties. For this reason he draws on the w i d e s t array of sources, including the multi-volume Jewish Encyclopedia p u b l i s h e d in Saint Petersb u r g b e t w e e n 1906 and 1913. He tells the reader that he had to "delve into events" in order to achieve equitable j u d g m e n t and to aw)id the debilitating effects of one-sided polemics.A balanced narrative of events is the p r e c o n d i t i o n for civic reconciliation b e t w e e n Russians and Jews. Solzhenitsyn's effort is all the more impressive b e c a u s e he writes not as a neutral observer does but as a committed Russian patriot. He believes that a painstaking investigation of the e v i d e n c e does not s u p p o r t the claim that p r e - R e v o l u t i o n a r y Russia was d e s p o t i s m of t h e Asiatic s o r t , " a prison of peoples" that viciously persecuted the Jewish people. On the other hand, his h u m a n e c o n c e p t i o n of p a t r i o t i s m requires a g e n u i n e l y penitential c o m i n g to terms with the manifold injustices committed against the Jewish p e o p l e . His approach will assuredly m)t satisfy all of the partisans, especially the passionate extremists o n b o t h sides. An Uneven Record The first w)lume of Two Hundred Years allows us to more fully appreciate the twists and t u r n s of official p o l i c y t o w a r d the Jews u n d e r the Russian old regime. That policy was b y n o m e a n s m o n o l i t h i c . As o n e m i g h t e x p e c t u n d e r an a u t o c r a t i c regime, the attitude of the state saw many p e r m u t a t i o n s , with sometimes a b r u p t and u n p r e d i c t a b l e shifts of

policy from tsar to tsar. Nicholas I t r i e d to " m o d e r n i z e " t h e J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n by e n c o u r a g i n g the introd u c t i o n of secular e d u c a t i o n and by i n t r o d u c i n g the Jews to a settled agricultural life ( w i t h o u t e n d u r i n g success). But he also i n t r o d u c e d some severe n e w restrictions against the J e w s a n d o n l y his d e a t h in 1855 saved the Jewish p o p u l a t i o n from more repressive measures. Tsar A l e x a n d e r II ( w h o r e i g n e d from 1855-1881) was a liberal and forward-looking ruler. He i n i t i a t e d far-reaching reforms, abolished serfdom, e s t a b l i s h e d trial by jury, a n d presided over the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of self-governing zemstvo c o u n c i l s . He and his ministers were on the w h o l e w e l l d i s p o s e d t o w a r d the J e w s a n d a c t e d to a l l e v i a t e t h e w o r s t r e s t r i c t i o n s a g a i n s t t h e m . He also c o n t i n u e d his p r e d e c e s s o r s ' s o m e w h a t ineffectual efforts to int r o d u c e a t r a d i t i o n - m i n d e d Jewish c o m m u n i t y to secular e d u c a t i o n and m o d e r n a g r i c u l t u r e . Like the great reformist Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin at the beginning of the twentieth century, Alexander appreciated that the peasant and Jewish problems were the two festering w o u n d s in the body politic that must be healed if Russia was to b e c o m e a g e n u i n e l y m o d e r n society. But in 1881 the r e v o l u t i o n a r y People's Will assassinated the TsarLiberator, This act of r e v o l u t i o n a r y t e r r o r i s m i n a u g u r a t e d a p e r i o d of reaction marked by increased autocratic restrictions from above and by anti-Jewish p o g r o m s from below. Solzhenitsyn persuasively argues that w i t h o n e crucial e x c e p t i o n pogroms in Russia w e r e n o t government-sponsored but instead were instigated spontaneously from below. In his view, they were e v i d e n c e less of the o p p r e s s i v e character of the Russian state than of the w e a k n e s s of an increasingly sclerotic governm e n t in d e f e n d i n g the lives, civil liberties, and p r o p e r t y of its citizens, especially its J e w i s h ones. Solzhenitsyn is w i t h e r i n g in his ind i c t m e n t of the p r e - R e v o l u t i o n a r y Russian state:"a state w h i c h tolerates such infamy is a scandalously powREVIEW ESSAY

105

erless" one.The ostensibly all-powerful Russian state r e s p o n d e d ineffectively w h e n c o n f r o n t e d by the lawless m o b . S o l z h e n i t s y n r e p e a t e d l y criticizes the g o v e r n m e n t and the police for their " u n p a r d o n a b l e inaction" in a n t i c i p a t i n g and r e s p o n d i n g to the brutal and bloody anti-Jewish p o g r o m s that broke out at Kichinev i n M o l d a v i a i n 1903 a n d i n t h e Ukraine a n d s o u t h w e s t Russia bet w e e n 1905 and 1907. Solzhenitsyn does n o t hesitate to c o n f r o n t "the horrible truth" a b o u t anti-Jewish viol e n c e and freely c o n d e m n s the failure of the Russian g o v e r n m e n t to do w h a t was n e c e s s a r y to p r e v e n t it.To be sure, his tone is at times too def e n s i v e - t h i s patriot is keenly i n t e n t o n d e f e n d i n g the h o n o r of the Russian p e o p l e - - a n d he may u n d e r s t a t e the role that hostility towards Jews played in the decisions of parts of the g o v e r n m e n t apparatus. Nonetheless, o n the whole, his analysis of the pogroms is both b a l a n c e d and convincing. Solzhenitsyn also dedicates some f a s c i n a t i n g p a g e s to a d i s c u s s i o n o f l e f t - w i n g a n t i - S e m i t i s m . He c h r o n i c l e s w h a t he elsewhere calls "the i n c e n d i a r y activity" of the revol u t i o n a r y People's Will in encouraging peasants to take violent action against Jews in the early 1880s. Like Marx in "On the Jewish Question," these ideologues held rapacious Jews responsible for the injustices of commercial society. Solzhenitsyn's discussion helps illuminate the p h e n o m e n a of left-wing anti-Semitism, a sensibility a n d p o i n t of v i e w that w o u l d flourish u n d e r totalitarian c o m m u nist regimes in the t w e n t i e t h century.

Scandalous Restrictions Solzhenitsyn expresses genuine s y m p a t h y for the p r e d i c a m e n t of Jews in Russia at the t u r n of the ( t w e n t i e t h ) century. Jews were still officially c o n f i n e d to the so-called "Pale of Settlement" in the w e s t e r n provinces although growing numbers of t h e m lived in major Russian cities such as Saint Petersburg and Moscow. Many u r b a n Jews thrived in

106

the c o m m e r c i a l sector and h e l p e d propel Russia's e c o n o m i c and social development. Solzhenitsyn writes that "the capitalist system in the econ o m i c a n d c o m m e r c i a l field, t h e d e m o c r a t i c system in the political field are m u c h i n d e b t e d to the constructive c o n t r i b u t i o n of the Jews, and these systems, in return, are more favorable to the b l o s s o m i n g of Jewish life and culture." This was u n d o u b t e d l y the case with Russia u n d e r the old regime. But d u r i n g the years of reaction that foll o w e d t h e a s s a s s i n a t i o n of T s a r A l e x a n d e r II, Jews e x p e r i e n c e d an erosion of the m a n y civil rights that had made their situation increasingly tolerable. It became more difficult for t h e m to attain administrative positions in the state apparatus. In 1890 Jews were barred from participating in some of the activities of the rural zemstvos and in 1892 they lost the right to hold m u n i c i p a l offices. S o l z h e n i t s y n l a m e n t s t h e s e restrictions but does n o t believe that "persecution" is an adequate term for these u n f o r t u n a t e policies. "It was n o t p e r s e c u t i o n p r o p e r l y speaking. It was a series of restrictions, of vexations. Vexing certainly, distressing, scandalous even." In Solzhenitsyn's view, the measures directed against the Jewish p o p u l a t i o n were morally u n a c c e p t a b l e and at odds with the goal of establishing it lawful and selfr e s p e c t i n g Russian political order. David Remnick is u n d o u b t e d l y right to suggest that S o l z h e n i t s y n "puts Jewish suffering into a wider c o n t e x t of Russian suffering; there is an insistent effort to p o i n t out that the vast majority of the p o p u l a t i o n , especially the serfs and t h e n the peasants, were d e p r i v e d of their rights just like the Jews."As Remnick observes there is n o t h i n g anti-Semitic a b o u t t h i s p o s i t i o n . Yet d e s p i t e Solzhenitsyn's firm rejection of antiSemitism and his evident admiration for the Jewish p e o p l e , a small b u t vocal n u m b e r of critics r e s e n t Solzhenitsyn for what they see as his R u s s i a n - c e n t e r e d t r e a t m e n t of the "Jewish question." Some go so far as to suggest that Solzhenitsyn's refusal

SOCIETY 9 NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2002

to make the "Jewish q u e s t i o n " the p r i m a r y criteria for evaluating Russian history is e v i d e n c e of a subtle and r e s i d u a l a n t i - S e m i t i s m o n his part. In my view, this j u d g m e n t is lacking in all generosity. It is also at odds with both logic and good sense. S o l z h e n i t s y n ' s p o s i t i o n is clear and devoid of any anti-Jewish prejudice. He believes that the old regime wasted precious resources harassing a p e o p l e w h o had m u c h to contribute to Russia's d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e res t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d u p o n the Jewish p e o p l e w e r e u n j u s t a n d "patriots" who identified Russian greatness with hostility to the Jews were thoroughly deluded.A Russia in tune with the r e q u i r e m e n t s of m o d e r n civilization n e e d e d to r e s p e c t the liberties of all of its people, from the majority peasant p o p u l a t i o n to the small b u t e n e r g e t i c Jewish minority. But despite its manifest i m p e r f e c t i o n s and its excessively hesitant steps toward c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rule, the old regime looks like a g o l d e n age c o m p a r e d to the t o t a l i t a r i a n i s m i n a u g u r a t e d by the Bolshevik r e v o l u t i o n . To make this p o i n t Solzhenitsyn q u o t e s the Jewish dmigre D.O. Linsky: in comp a r i s o n with the c o m p l e t e destruction of h u m a n liberty u n d e r the Bolsheviks, "the inequality in rights of the J e w i s h p o p u l a t i o n b e f o r e the revolution appears as an inaccessible ideal 7

The Revolutionary Temptation Any a d e q u a t e t r e a t m e n t of the Russian "Jewish question" must s o o n e r or later c o n f r o n t the diffic u l t q u e s t i o n of J e w i s h i n v o l v e m e n t in the various r e v o l u t i o n a r y m o v e m e n t s of the late n i n e t e e n t h and early twentieth centuries. Solzhenitsyn rightly insists that this question c a n n o t r e m a i n "taboo" for the serious historian of Russia and the m o d e r n world. But it is necessary for the historian to tread carefully, displaying scrupulous respect for the facts and doing n o t h i n g to inflame already overheated passions. S o l z h e n i t s y n c o n d e m n s t h o s e extremist e l e m e n t s on the Right w h o have irresponsibly blamed the Jews

for the Bolshevik p l a g u e - - e v e n as he c a n n o t ignore the fact that a disprop o r t i o n a t e n u m b e r of Jews participated in various leftist r e v o l u t i o n a r y movements. Solzhenitsyn c o n f r o n t s this delicate issue equitably and forthrightly. As already noted, he praises the Jewish p e o p l e for their positive contrib u t i o n s to capitalist e c o n o m i c develo p m e n t and d e m o c r a t i c politics. He praises the c o m m i t m e n t of m a n y responsible Jewish leaders to the path of political m o d e r a t i o n . But he also laments the "unreasonable" choice of some de-Judaized Jews for totalitarian and r e v o l u t i o n a r y politics. This choice for r e v o l u t i o n was unreasonable b u t u n d e r s t a n d a b l e : the revolutionary intelligentsia w e l c o m e d educated Jews to their ranks and offered an easy path to assimilation for those Jews w h o had b r o k e n with the traditional Jewish c o m m u n i t y . T h e old regime, in contrast, vacillated b e t w e e n e n l i g h t e n e d efforts at a c c o m m o d a tion b e t w e e n Russians and Jews and imposing humiliating restrictions that could only feed r e v o l u t i o n a r y d i s c o n t e n t . The revolutionaries n o t only w e l c o m e d Jews to their ranks b u t also p r o v i d e d a messianic secular r e l i g i o n - - a universalist, political m i s s i o n - - t o those w h o rejected the seemingly provincial and a n t i q u a t e d traditions of their fathers. Solzhenitsyn explicitly states that Jews c a n n o t be b l a m e d for organizing the revolutions of 1905 and 1917 any more than Russians and Ukrainians c a n be held r e s p o n s i b l e "as a whole" for organizing pogroms. In a vitally i m p o r t a n t d i s c u s s i o n at the c o n c l u s i o n of C h a p t e r Nine of the book, Solzhenitsyn calls o n Russians to reject "simplistic explanations" for the disasters that have marked their national history. It is all too easy "to e x p l a i n e v e r y t h i n g by one, u n i q u e cause; the Jews." In this deluded view, "Russia w o u l d be for a l o n g t i m e at t h e z e n i t h of h e r g l o r y a n d h e r p o w e r if it w e r e n ' t for the Jews!" Solzhenitsyn remarks that this" superstitious belief in the historical force of conspiracies" ignores the " h u m a n weaknesses" that are "the p r i n c i p a l

108

cause of the setbacks" that c o n f r o n t individuals as well as states. He goes on to argue that the weakn e s s e s t h a t have d e t e r m i n e d t h e course of Russia's "sad history" have n o t h i n g to do w i t h the Jews. The schism provoked by Patriarch Nikon's liturgical reforms, Peter the Great's "insane" use of violence, the w a s t e of Russia's r e s o u r c e s on "causes that are n o t o u r own," bureaucratic petrifaction and the "inveterate self-importance" of the nobility, as w e l l as t h e f a i l u r e of t h e g o v e r n i n g class to address the misery of the peasants, "are n o t the effect of a plot h a t c h e d from the outside." Nor was the failure of Russia's tsars to " u n d e r s t a n d the e v o l u t i o n of the world and to define true priorities"a result of some Jewish-Masonic machination. Jews can simply not be held res p o n s i b l e for t h e r e v o l u t i o n a n d h e n c e for the totalitarian tragedy of the t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y as e l e m e n t s of the e x t r e m e Right c o n t i n u e to assert to this day.What can be justly said, in Solzhenitsyn's view, is that revolutionary Jews i g n o r e d the wise counsel that Jeremiah addressed to the Jews d e p o r t e d to Babylon:"Seek the welfare of the city w h e r e I have sent you into exile: pray to Yahweh on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find y o u r welfare" (Jeremiah, 29-7). But the irresponsibility of a m i n o r i t y of radicalized Jews n e i t h e r caused the r e v o l u t i o n n o r e x p l a i n s the moral w e a k n e s s e s and the d e a r t h of enl i g h t e n e d statecraft that led to the ultimate demise of old Russia. Instead of e n g a g i n g in m u t u a l reproaches, Russians and Jews both n e e d to confront uncomfortable facts and to take responsibility for the mistakes that were made o n b o t h sides. And Russians can only b e g i n to take respons i b i l i t y for t h e i r n a t i o n a l d e s t i n y w h e n they reject the t e m p t a t i o n to blame their p r o b l e m s o n e v e r y o n e except themselves.

Stolypin's "Middle Line" In Two H u n d r e d Years Togethet; Solzhenitsyn paints a devastating portrait of a regime that was more

SOCIETY 9 NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2002

sclerotic than oppressive, led by tsars and ministers w h o lacked the good sense to a p p r e c i a t e that b a l a n c e d reform is the only sure m e a n s of conservation.The one g e n u i n e statesman of the final period of the old regime was Pyotr Stolypin, Russian Prime Minister from 1906 until his assassin a t i o n at the Kiev o p e r a h o u s e in S e p t e m b e r 1911 at the h a n d s of a double agent of the secret police and the rew)lutionaries. In C h a p t e r 10 of Two H u n d r e d Years, "The T i m e of t h e D u m a , " Solzhenitsyn provides a fascinating a d d e n d u m to his masterful a c c o u n t of Stolypin's statesmanship in August 1914. It is u n d o u b t e d l y t h e m o s t compelling and rewarding c h a p t e r of

Two H u n d r e d Years Together. Solzhenitsyn's Stolypin p u r s u e d an exiguous "middle line" b e t w e e n reactionaries w h o o p p o s e d essential reforms and revolutionaries who aimed to c o m p l e t e l y destroy the existing order. He was sincerely committed to c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t b u t o f t e n r e s o r t e d to e m e r g e n c y p o w e r s granted by the c o n s t i t u t i o n ( A r t i c l e 8 7 ) to i n t r o d u c e m u c h n e e d e d r e f o r m s against the determ i n e d o p p o s i t i o n of the Left a n d Right. Stolypin's abiding c o n c e r n was to p r o m o t e far-reaching agrarian reform that w o u l d lead to the creation of a "solid class of p e a s a n t p r o p r i e t o r s " in Russia. He h o p e d that a propertyo w n i n g peasantry w o u l d provide the social f o u n d a t i o n for a revitalized monarchy. But Stolypin was also det e r m i n e d to put an e n d to the "wasteful" policy of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n against t h e Jews. He was c o n v i n c e d that Russia's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l charter, the Manifesto of O c t o b e r 1905, logically implied "equality of Jews in all civil rights." He was a sensible m a n w h o u n d e r s t o o d the "absurdity" and arbitrariness of the Jewish disabilities. He believed that Jewish talent and resources could help fuel Russia's social and e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t . His e n l i g h t e n e d a p p r o a c h to the Jewish q u e s t i o n met w i t h vociferous opposition from b o t h the Left a n d the Right. Left liberals in the Duma were

too i n t e r e s t e d in assaulting authority to p r o m o t e the kinds of practical reforms that w o u l d improve the condition of the J e w s - - o r of any o t h e r Russian citizens for that matter. For its part, the n a t i o n a l i s t r i g h t was w e d d e d to the truly stupid belief that the defense of the Russian state demanded multiplying prohibitions against Jews. An " i n n e r voice" even toldTsar Nicholas II that s u p p o r t i n g Stolypin's efforts to improve the situation of Jews in Russia was incomp a t i b l e w i t h his o b l i g a t i o n s as a Christian monarch. Embattled o n all sides, Stolypin p e r s e v e r e d in his efforts to b r i n g R u s s i a n s a n d J e w s t o g e t h e r . Like Solzhenitsyn, he was a patriot w h o did not confuse love of c o u n t r y with hostility to the Jews. He w a n t e d to avoid d e s t r u c t i v e r e v o l u t i o n at all costs and was c o n f i d e n t that a majority of Jews w o u l d t u r n a g a i n s t r e v o l u t i o n if they were truly admitted to the political c o m m u n i t y . In N o v e m b e r 1916, Solzhenitsyn beautifully a r t i c u l a t e s the n o b i l i t y a n d difficulty of Stolypin's "middle line" of d e v e l o p m e n t : " N o t h i n g is m o r e difficult t h a n drawing a middle line for social d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e loud mouth, the big fist, the b o m b , the p r i s o n bars are of no help to you, as they are to those at the two extremes. Following the middle line of development d e m a n d s the utmost self-control, the most inflexible courage, the most p a t i e n t calculation, and the most precise knowledge." Solzhenitsyn reflects o n this remarkable "irony of history" :"The first head of the Russian g o v e r n m e n t to h o n e s t l y tackle the issue of Jewish equality, i m p l e m e n t i n g it in spite of the Tsar," was assassinated by a Jew. This is admittedly a delicate matter b u t one which, he believes, must not r e m a i n a " f o r b i d d e n " t o p i c . In Solzhenitsyn's view, Stolypin's assassin, Dmitri Bogrov, did not have the intellectual maturity to grasp the "full c o n s e q u e n c e of Stolypin as statesman." He s o m e h o w t h o u g h t that his

violent act w o u l d ameliorate the condition of Kiev's sizable Jewish population. Bogrov's brother has testified to as ninth.Yet some of Solzhenitsyn's more Dvered critics have suggested that his straightforward p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d d i s c u s s i o n in A u g u s t 1 9 1 4 of B o g r o v ' s m o t i v e s is s o m e h o w e v i d e n c e of a n t i - S e m i t i s m o n S o l z h e n i t s y n ' s p a r t . But s u r e l y Solzhenitsyn is right to reject the view that a friend of the Jewish people must dissimulate the facts r e g a r d i n g Bogrov's motives for killing Stolypin. Bogrov " m u r d e r e d S t o l y p i n to shield the Jcws of Kiev against repression." But Stolypin's death was good for n e i t h e r Russians n o r Jews. Solzhenitsyn believes that the Tsar w o u l d have b e e n forced to t u r n to Stolypin "amidst the revolving door of n o n e n t i t i e s at the helm of state in 1914-1916." Had Stolypin lived, the c o u n t r y m i g h t n o t have "lost its nerve in war" or have " s u c c u m b e d to the Bolshevik boot.'And a generation later, a l e g i t i m a t e Russian g o v e r n m c n t might not have so quickly given up 1/3 of the c o u n t r y to the Nazis w h o "marched into Kiev and annihilated Kiev's .Jews." Solzhenitsyn also suggests that are '~strong r e a s o n s to s u p p o s e " that Stolypin w o u l d n e v e r have allowed the disgraceful Beilis case to go forward to trial. Menahem Mendel Beilis, a 37-year-old Jew, was falsely accused (and eventually a c q u i t t e d ) of an unsolved a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y g r u e s o m e m u r d c r in the U k r a i n e , a m u r d e r that was fantastically attributed to Jewish "'ritual murder." The trial was extensively covered by the international media and did much to damage Russia's reputation.Again, Solzhenitsyn reflects on the 'capriciousness' of history: "Beilis was acquitted by peasa n t s - - f r o m among those same Ukrainian peasants who had to their c o u n t the Jewish pogroms at the turn of the century, and w h o w o u l d soon k n o w the c o l l e c t i v i z a t i o n and famine of 1932-33--a famine not placed in that r e g i m e ' s l e d g e r of a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . Hcre too the strides of History." Solzhenitsyn has w r i t t e n a fascinating, gripping, and above all mor-

ally serious a c c o u n t of Russia's "Jewish question." Some w e s t e r n liberals may well be perplexed by a book that takes religion and patriotism so seriously. Solzhenitsyn's analysis may strike others as unfamiliar or idiosyncratic since it moves far beyond such familiar and dominant categories as "human rights,""ethnicity," and "victimization." Some readers will be put off by its decidedly Russian orientation. Still others may have difficulty c o m i n g to terms with a perspective that comb i n e s moral j u d g m e n t , deep-seated Russian patriotism, and genuine, if critical, admiration for the Jewish people. The latter p o i n t is of capital imp o r t a n c e . T h e reader c a n n o t help but be m o v e d by Solzhenitsyn's indignation at the unjustified and i n e p t exp u l s i o n of Jews from the Russian front in 1915 in what he d o e s n ' t hesitate to call a g o v e r n m e n t - s p o n s o r e d pogrom."It is so easy to t h r o w back all the responsibility for all the defeats on the Jews!" What was missing d u r i n g the war was the p r i n c i p l e d s t a t e s m a n s h i p that could have formalized an allia n c e b e t w e e n Russians a n d Jews. "Only Stolypin," Solzhenitsyn tells us in Chapter 12, "would have had the i n t e l l i g e n c e and courage" to b r i n g this about. O n c e again, as in The R e d PC'heel, o n e is p r e s e n t e d with the fragility a n d g r e a t n e s s of S t o l y p i n ' s "middle line" as well as the conseq u e n c e s of his a b s e n c e after September 1911 for Russia, the Jews, and the world alike. This very Russian book does not draw any grandiose theoretical conclusions a b o u t " t h e Jewish question." But it r e m i n d s its readers of those universal traits of soul that are essential in every time and place: moderation, repentance, courage, b a l a n c e d j u d g m e n t , and statesmanlike d e d i c a t i o n to the public good.

D a n i e l J. Mahonel, is associate prol e s s o r o f political science a t Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts a n d b o o k review editor o f Society. His latest b o o k s are De Gaulle: Statesmanship, Grandeur, and Modern Democracy (Transaction, 2 0 0 0 ) a n d Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Ascent from Ideology. REVIEW ESSAY

109