Translator replies
Sir: In the absence of George Feifer I should like to answer some of the arguments raised by Messrs Floyd and Bazarov (Letters, August 19), against our biography of Solzhenitsyn from my own perspective.
One thing should be made clear at the outset. Solzhenitsyn is a public figure and we have a perfect right to discuss him from our own perspective, just as Mr Floyd does from his. An example of Floyd's viewpoint might be his statement that Solzhenitsyn in one of his short stories "drew a sharp contrast between the ordinary people and the Communist Party officials whose whole mentality and behaviour are firmly set in a Stalinist mould." Whether such a statement can be used against Solzhenitsyn in Russia is for Mr Floyd's conscience alone to judge, just as it is for us alone to make our own judgments in resnect of our writings. Neither Solzhenitsyn nor anyone else can tell anybody whether to write about him or what to write. Otherwise all public debate about all unorthodox figures in Russia, or any other dictatorial country, will become Impossible.
This said, it must be emphasised that the safety of Solzhenitsyn and his circle was uppermost in our minds throughout all research and writing. For example, we obeyed requests for elimination of names even when they seemed unreasonable to us. Thus the closest friend of Solzhenitsyn's youth is identified simply as X even though his full name was previously mentioned in a published document.
It pains me greatly, as I know it does George Feifer, that Solzenhitsyn should take a hostile attitude to our work. It is some small consolation, however, that this attitude is not based on any first hand knowledge of the text, but merely on an adverse report made to the writer by a friend who read a part of an early draft, since then largely rewritten, and was displeased by a reference to himself, since then amended. Solzhenitsyn's present attitude to our biography appears to be based on a misunderstanding caused bY difficulties in communicating with him and by his generalised dislike of all attention directed at his person rather than his work.
As for Solzhenitsyn's former sister-in-law's statement I am surprised by Mr Floyd's assumption that her criticism is based on "reading the proofs" of our book. Having met her he should know as well as I do that she could not have read them for the simple reason that her English is far too rudimentary. At best she could have made out a few snippets. / am grateful to Mrs Turkina for the help she once gave us and I can understand her change of position once Solzhenitsyn made his displeasure with her role in our project clear to her. But I cannot accept her pretence that her criticism is based on a thorough knowledge of a long and complot text which does not exist in anY launguage she is fluent in. As for Mr Bazarov, he is easilY disposed of. We were not the onlY ones in early October, 1970, to report the belief of some of Solzhenitsyn's friends that he would "go to Stockholm/for the Nobel Prize/even if this means the he-v,v sarrifice of parting with Russia." The Chicago Tribune for instance, carried a similar report at the same time. And though in the end Solzhenitsyn chose not to gO, the correctness of this report, (which, incidentally, we quoted among others denying such In' tention) has since been confirmed. The fact is that Solzhenitsyn changed his mind at least a week afte ' our article was published. Per Egil Hegge, the Scandinaviao newsman who saw SolzhenitsYo repeatedly at the time, acted as trusted intermediary between hill and the Swedish authorities Env was expelled from Moscow for Ill! troubles, reports that "those why, persuaded Sozhenitsyn to stay e: . home were one of his close' friends whom I do not wish name and the physicist Ana!, Sakharov who one weekend lactr, led' him out at Rostropovicb' country estate. This happen4 either in the days of October 17-i or October 24-25. They made itd clear to him that Russia needeA him more than the Swedes af2", that the risk that he would not u" allowed to return was too great fe, him to be able to take the chane,„' He gave in to this argument." tr. E. Hegge, Meltommann i Moskva, Oslo, 1971, p. 35). of I suppose it is the knowledge facts such as these that mare Bookbuyer pay our work th compliment of calling it researched. It would be wise of NI Bazarov not to rush into Prin„, accusing us of "incredible i80: rance " until he has done Ills homework. David BO 63 Drayton Gardens, London SVVICI
Previous page
