‘For a country to have a great writer is like having another government,’ remarks one of the characters in The First Circle. This observation has always been especially true of Russia and a reading of Solzhenitsyn’s work confirms that it has as much relevance today as at any time in the past. The First Circle is a political tour de force as well as a major literary achievement: in fact by far the most vivid and eloquent account of Stalinism to have emerged from the contemporary Soviet Union. This fact has been obscured for Western Marxists by the tendency for bourgeois critics to acclaim any Soviet writer who can be construed to be oppositional as a towering literary genius. Solzhenitsyn deserves better than to be uncritically assimilated with a Pasternak—and discrimination should also be made between his master-piece, The First Circle, the weaker Cancer Ward and the more modest but entirely successful novella, One Day In The Life of Ivan Denisovitch. Above all Solzhenitsyn’s work must be read politically: the following is intended as a commentary on a political reading of ‘The First Circle’.

Despite great documentary interest most Samizdat writings are groping and confused attempts to grapple with Soviet reality in a society where politics and history have been replaced by apologetics for over a generation. It is not surprising that the resulting vacuum should very often be filled by traditional Russian obscurantism or bourgeois ideology filtering in from the West. The threadbare official political culture has proved quite unable to challenge these despite, or perhaps because of, its monopoly control of education and the media. It is probably the political tradition of the Russian novel which helps Solzhenitsyn to surmount so successfully the severe obstacles which limit or defeat the more purely political Soviet writings available to us so far. It gives him a confidence and a method of communicating and examining his experience which these writers lack.

The model by which Solzhenitsyn is influenced is Leo Tolstoy rather than Chernyshevsky. The First Circle is particularly reminiscent of Resurrection, possibly Tolstoy’s greatest novel and certainly his most subversive. Tolstoy relates in this novel the experiences of a liberal aristocrat, Nekhlyudov, who is called to serve on a jury to try a servant girl whom he once seduced. He tries to save the girl from the merciless and arbitrary oppression of Tsarist justice. Through the girl and her fellow prisoners Nekhlyudov comes to see that ‘all these people were arrested, locked up, exiled, not really because they had infringed justice or behaved unlawfully but only because they were an obstacle, hindering the officials and the rich from enjoying the property they have taken away from the people . . . all this talk about justice, law, religion, God and so on was mere words veiling the coarsest cupidity and cruelty’. The novel is studded with naive insights like this which the narrative renders entirely compelling. With some necessary modifications the contemporary Soviet reader must discover much that is familiar. In Cancer Ward the patients are discussing Tolstoy. Rusanov, an illiterate official of the Security Ministry, knows that this writer is politically suspect. He is not at all discountenanced when informed that Tolstoy was denounced by the ‘Synod’, though he is unfamiliar with the name of this Government agency. Resurrection is, in fact, the record of Tolstoy’s conflict with the Holy Synod and there is an unforgettable portrait of its chief official:

‘The position occupied by Toporov, involving as it did an incongruity of purpose, could only be held by a man who was dull and morally obtuse. Toporov possessed both these negative qualities. The incongruity of the position he occupied was this. It was his duty to maintain, and to defend by external measures not excluding violence, that Church which, by its own declaration, was established by God himself and could not be shaken by the gates of Hell nor by any human effort. This divine and immutable God-established institution had to be sustained and defended by a human institution—the Holy Synod—managed by Toporov and his officials. Toporov did not see this incongruity, nor did he wish to see it, and he was therefore much concerned lest some Romish priest, some pastor, or some sectarian, should destroy that Church against which the gates of Hell could not prevail. Toporov, like all those who are quite destitute of the fundamental religious feeling which recognizes the equality and brotherhood of man, was fully convinced that the common people were creatures entirely different from himself, and that the people needed what he could very well do without; for at the bottom of his heart he believed in nothing, and found such a state very convenient and pleasant. Yet he feared lest the people might also come to such a state, and looked upon it as his sacred duty, as he called it, to save them from it. His position towards the religion he was upholding was the same as that of the poultry keeper towards carrion he feeds his fowl on: carrion is very disgusting, but fowls like it and eat it, therefore it is right to feed fowls on carrion.’

The targets of The First Circle are strikingly similar, the corruption and cynicism of Soviet officials, the arbitrary and vicious workings of the State’s apparatus of coercion. The action of this novel mainly revolves around the inmates of Mavrino, a ‘special’ prison where those with technical or scientific skill are put to work on urgent research jobs and allowed slightly easier conditions than those which prevail in the vast Stalinist prison system. The prisoners represent a vast and varied galaxy of the Soviet intelligentsia under Stalin ranging from oppositionist to ‘honest Stalinist’. The prison administration provides an equally diverse cross section of the Soviet bureaucracy. Thus it seems only consonant with the minimum demands of realism that, under Stalin’s rule, the fate of the ‘fictional’ prisoners and administrators should be seen to be so directly dependent on the lightest decisions of the real historical characters in the book, Stalin and his immediate minions. Thus the novel contains numerous sharp vignettes of life on the ‘outside’, including an evocation of Stalin in his study and of his personal secretary, Poskryobyshev, whose knock on his study sounded ‘rather as though the person outside had softly pawed the door like a dog’. Though in every way calculated to give a Zhdanov a nightmare, The First Circle is in some ways the first socialist realist novel ever to have been written. The choice of Mavrino (a Soviet prison in ‘real life’) as focus for the novel enables Solzhenitsyn to give a near-complete panorama of Soviet society at the time, from the teeming labour camps to the plush interiors of the Ministry of State Security. The work on which the prisoners are engaged is the perfecting of a technique for ‘speech clipping’ and ‘scrambling’ telephone conversations; a technique which, it is thought, may also enable the authorities to develop a ‘voice print’ which identifies anyone speaking on the telephone (a headline in Soviet Weekly this year read ‘Voice Prints as good as Finger Prints’). The first application of this technique allows Solzhenitsyn to tie together the different characters and milieux that he introduces right up to the last pages of the novel. The central action of the novel is very compact, all taking place within three days: a precisely chosen three days in December 1949 just after the excommunication of Tito, coincidental with the triumphant consummation of the Chinese Revolution and on the eve of the campaign against ‘rootless cosmopolitanism’. This temporal and technical unity in what might otherwise have been a decentred and episodic work corresponds to the underlying unity of the political themes which are being developed. The political and aesthetic dimensions are harmonized with remarkable brilliance. The central theme is quite simply an investigation of how the Stalinist system could actually work, the fine interlocking of private ambition and public compulsion, bureaucratic inertia and terroristic dynamism. The portrayal of the different types of State Security official is devastatingly credible. It illustrates most vividly Amlarik’s dictum that the Security organs spend half their time trying to prevent the people expressing their thoughts and the other half trying to find out what those thoughts are. However, Solzhenitsyn does not spare the representatives of the political machine of the Party proper and no illusions are encouraged about its self-regenerative capacities. Thus Stepanov, the Mavrino Party Secretary, divides his time between black-market pig-breeding and preparing for new heresy-hunts and purges. Other Party members fruitlessly seek to manipulate the repressive machine in the interests of interdepartmental rivalry: they happen to be Jewish and thus about to fall under suspicion as ‘cosmopolitans’. A slightly more indulgent, though scarcely less sardonic view is taken of the non-political bureaucrats since their office involves less hypocrisy. Thus Colonel Yakonov, Director of Research at Mavrino amuses himself by following international politics: ‘His idea of playing chess was simply to follow the match between East and West, trying to guess the future moves. Whose side was he on? When things were going well at work he was, of course, for the East. But if things were going badly and he was having trouble, he rather tended to the side of the West. Beyond this however, it was his belief that victory went to those who were strongest and most ruthless. This, alas, was what history was about.’