Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Prize-winning author whose books exposed and chronicled the vast network of Stalin's slave labor camps, lived "a difficult but happy life," his family said.
The author's son, Stepan Solzhenitsyn, told The Associated Press his father died late Sunday of heart failure at age 89.
Solzhenitsyn's unflinching accounts of torment and survival in the Soviet Union's gulag of camps riveted his countrymen, whose sad secret history he helped expose. Those accounts earned him 20 years of bitter exile, but international renown.
And they inspired millions, perhaps, with the knowledge that one person's courage and integrity could help defeat the totalitarian machinery of an empire.
His wife, Natalya, told the Interfax news agency that her husband, who suffered along with millions of Russians in the prison camp system, died as he had hoped to die.
"He wanted to die in the summer — and he died in the summer," she said. "He wanted to die at home — and he died at home. In general I should say that Alexander Isaevich lived a difficult but happy life."
Solzhenitsyn's death inspired many tributes, including one from the man who dismantled the last of the gulag camps in the 1980s, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.
"Solzhenitsyn's fate, as well as the fate of millions of the country's citizens, was befallen by severe trials," Gorbachev said, according to Interfax. "He was one of the first who spoke aloud about the inhuman Stalinist regime and about the people who experienced it but were not broken."
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, a veteran of the Soviet KGB, nevertheless forged a close relationship with the fiercely patriotic Solzhenitsyn.
Solzhenitsyn's literary achievements, as well as "the entire thorny path of his life," Putin said in a statement, "will remain for us an example of genuine devotion and selfless serving to the people, fatherland and the ideals of freedom, justice and humanism."
Beginning with the 1962 short novel "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," Solzhenitsyn devoted himself to describing what he called the human "meat grinder" that had caught him along with millions of other Soviet citizens: capricious arrests, often for trifling and seemingly absurd reasons, followed by sentences to slave labor camps where cold, starvation and punishing work crushed inmates physically and spiritually.
His "Gulag Archipelago" trilogy of the 1970s left readers shocked by the savagery of the Soviet state under the dictator Josef Stalin.
But his account of that secret system of prison camps was also inspiring in its description of how one person — Solzhenitsyn himself — survived, physically and spiritually, in a penal system of soul-crushing hardship and injustice.
His first book was "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," the story of a carpenter struggling to survive in a Soviet labor camp. The book was published by order of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who was eager to discredit the abuses of Stalin, his predecessor.
After Khrushchev was ousted in 1964, Solzhenitsyn faced KGB harassment, publication of his works was blocked and he was expelled from the Soviet Writers Union. But he was undeterred from writing.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, an unusual move for the Swedish Academy, which generally makes awards late in an author's life.
Soviet authorities barred the author from traveling to Stockholm to receive the award and official attacks were intensified in 1973 when the first book in the "Gulag" trilogy appeared in Paris.
The following year, he was arrested on treason charges and expelled the next day to West Germany in handcuffs. His expulsion inspired worldwide condemnation of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev.
Solzhenitsyn eventually moved to America, settling in the tiny town of Cavendish, Vt., with his wife and sons, for the next 18 years. There he worked on what he considered to be his life's work, a multi-volume saga of Russian history titled "The Red Wheel."
The West offered him shelter and accolades. But Solzhenitsyn's refusal to bend despite enormous pressure also gave him the courage to criticize Western culture for what he considered its weakness and decadence.
Gorbachev restored Solzhenitsyn's citizenship in 1990 and the treason charge was finally dropped in 1991, less than a month after the failed Soviet coup.
After a triumphant return that included a 56-day train trip across Russia to become reacquainted with his native land, Solzhenitsyn later expressed annoyance and disappointment that most Russians hadn't read his books.
During the 1990s, his stalwart nationalist views, his devout Orthodoxy, his disdain for capitalism and disgust with the tycoons who bought Russian industries and resources for kopeks on the ruble following the Soviet collapse, were unfashionable. He faded from public view.
But during Putin's presidency, Solzhenitsyn's vision of Russia as a bastion of Orthodox Christianity, as a place with a unique culture and destiny, gained renewed prominence.
Solzhenitsyn is survived by his wife, Natalya, and his three sons, Stepan, Ignat and Yermolai. All live in the United States.
___
Correspondent Jim Heintz in Moscow contributed to this report.
RIP brave man.
On that, Keld, we are in agreement. A giant has left this mortal coil.
That's good to hear, Bill :)
I read 'The Gulag Archipelego' when I was 18 and decided to cancel that vacation to Russia...
Okay. I was never REALLY going to Russia, but it's a hell of a book.
He was a great, great man ... a great mind, a great heart. The courage of a lion and indelibly eloquent. Godspeed.
Very interesting stuff. It's interesting to note that just because a person abhors Communism does not mean they have to extol the virtues of unchecked capitalism either. It's not an either/or proposition.
Yeah, I think he was right about Western culture's "weakness and decadence".
Phaedrus, I was in Paris when Solzhenitsyn delivered his famous commencement address at Harvard entitled A World Split Apart and vividly recall the stir that it occasioned with its attacks on decadent (in Solzhenitsyn's view) Western culture:
In today's Western society, the inequality has been revealed of freedom for good deeds and freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something important and highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; there are thousands of hasty and irresponsible critics around him, parliament and the press keep rebuffing him. As he moves ahead, he has to prove that every single step of his is well-founded and absolutely flawless. Actually an outstanding and particularly gifted person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind hardly gets a chance to assert himself; from the very beginning, dozens of traps will be set out for him. Thus mediocrity triumphs with the excuse of restrictions imposed by democracy.
It is feasible and easy everywhere to undermine administrative power and, in fact, it has been drastically weakened in all Western countries. The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
And what shall we say about the dark realm of criminality as such? Legal frames (especially in the United States) are broad enough to encourage not only individual freedom but also certain individual crimes. The culprit can go unpunished or obtain undeserved leniency with the support of thousands of public defenders. When a government starts an earnest fight against terrorism, public opinion immediately accuses it of violating the terrorists' civil rights. There are many such cases.
Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society. (There is a huge number of prisoners in our camps which are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state resorting to means outside of a legal framework).
Solzhenitsyn's jeremiad built on some of the same tenets originally laid out in Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism in which Weber warned that the materially rich society built out of the ethics of thriftiness and personal responsibility would also necessarily undermine those same virtues. These themes would also be echoed in Jacques Barzun's great From Dawn to Decadence: From 1500 to the Present: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life. Solzhenitsyn was always something of a great White Russian Orthodox throwback and certainly not the advocate of modern liberal politics he was believed to be initially upon his move to VT. Sadly, he spent the last years of his life as something of an official apologist for Putinist thuggery masked as a believed return to that former greatness.
It's interesting to note that just because a person abhors Communism does not mean they have to extol the virtues of unchecked capitalism either. It's not an either/or proposition.
Agreed, Phaedrus. Well said.
RIP, Alex.
Very recently Solzhenitsyn had been loudly critical of the threatened expansion of NATO into Georgia and Ukraine - as well as the Russian failure to respond to the illegal theft of Serbian territory. I doubt he would have written any more books but we have lost a great voice for freedom and morality.
I read his book in college, it touched me. I am sorry to hear of his death.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |