lished One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,nlashed out at Solzhenitsyn forninsulting “the memory of a man whonwas very dear to me,” AleksandrnTvardovsky.nTvardovsky, the talented editor whon”discovered” Solzhenitsyn, died in 1971nwithout telling his own story. Lakshinnis cut to the quick by Solzhenitsyn’sn”accusations and reproaches” directednat Tvardovsky. In fact, Solzhenitsyn hasnexplained his reasons for criticizing hisnfirst publisher, how Tvardovsky “feltnas though he had created me, moldednme from clay.” Likewise, Khrushchevnhad tried to use Solzhenitsyn to discreditnStalin and thereby consolidatenhis own power. The plan backfired. ThenSoviet system could not stand any internalncriticism, or even honesty in anwriter. By 1964 Khrushchev had beennreplaced and in 1974 Solzhenitsyn wasnexiled.nWhen the Moscow writers’ organizationnvoted in 1967 against the publicationnof Solzhenitsyn’s novel. CancernWard, Tvardovsky regretfully notifiednhim of Novy Mir’s refusal. But whennSolzhenitsyn went ahead and publishednit as samizdat, Tvardovsky felt betrayed.nLakshin is incredulous that Solzhenitsynncould condemn the editorial boardnof Novy Mir for not having put up an”courageous resistance.” He is deeplynhurt by Solzhenitsyn’s acerbic condescensionntoward Tvardovsky for refusingnto stand up to the Soviet authorities.nLakshin proclaims Tvardovsky’s goodnintentions and loyalty to ideals:nTvardovsky did not regard his Partynmembership card as a meaninglessnscrap of cardboard. It was linked innhis mind with a very genuine, honestn—perhaps even hypertrophied—sensenof duty. . . . The actual idea of communismnas a happy state of democraticnequality still ruled his mind andnwas an essential part of his personalnideal.n”erhaps Solzhenitsyn’s treatmentnof Tvardovsky has been too harsh. Onnthe other hand, it is now abundantlynclear that Tvardovsky symbolizes thenantithesis of Solzhenitsyn’s literary andnmoral independence. God will judge,nas Lakshin says, who is right and who isnwrong. But Lakshin’s tirade, whichnleads him finally to accuse Solzhenitsynnof “Stalinist” hatred, is no reliablensource for what actually happened ornfor what it meant.nMary Chaff in contributes a biographicalnessay on Tvardovsky whichncaptures the tragic spectacle of a genuinenreformer who was, nevertheless, antrue believer in the October Revolution.nBoth Solzhenitsyn and Tvardovskynchallenged the monolith of Soviet reality.nBoth were knocked down. “Tvardovsky’snpredicament was the more cruelnsince each defeat shook his faith in thensystem to the core while setbacks onlynconfirmed Solzhenitsyn in the justicenof his cause.” The same Tvardovskynwho as a nineteen-year-old Bolsheviknhad denounced his father as a kulak,nwho had risen to the top echelons ofnthe Soviet literary establishment andnwas deposed, expressed hurt and bitternessnover his father’s exile in his lastnmajor poem, “By Right of Memory.”nAnother poem which Tvardovsky wasnfond of reciting, probably one which henwrote himself, captured his despairingnmood:nIntelligently LiberalnCord Meyer: Facing Reality: FromnWorld Federalism to the CIA; Harpern& Row; New York.nby Alan J. LevinenC-iord Meyer was a prominent Americannliberal leader of the late 1940’s.nThis memoir-history records, with exceptionalnclarity, his pdyssey from organizingnthe United World FederalistsnDr. Levine is a frequent contributor tonthese pages.nnnIt is as though our time’s grownnhollow;nWhat filled it once has gone.nAnd even what we hoped wouldnfollownWill never now be done.nThe body lives today, tomorrow;nThe soul from it is gone.nLinda Aldwinckle’s essay on the politicsnof Novy Mir argues the merits ofnthe attempt to reform the Soviet systemnfrom within. She shows that it wasnfinally Tvardovsky’s and Lakshin’s faithnin socialism which separated them fromnSolzhenitsyn. Still, she herself seemsnto share the belief in an ideal socialismnnot discredited by historical experiments.nThe story of the struggle to discoverna humane Marxism is a patheticntestimony to why the true reformersnwho remain loyal to the system are inevitablyndestroyed by it.nPerhaps Solzhenitsyn’s greatestnachievement lies in the fact that, likenthe bearded Tolstoy, he embodies somenessential of the Russian spirit, of thenRussian understanding of the naturenand destiny of man and the traditionsnof the Orthodox Church. He is a resisternin the lineage of those 13th-centurynRussian believers who resisted thenMongols and never forgot that faith andnlove are deeper and more real than anynother human value. •nto some of the highest positions in thenCentral Intelligence Agency. It alsongives a fine examination of the problemsnof the CIA and a view of the world situationnthrough the eyes of an especiallynwell-qualified and sagacious observer.nPerhaps one of the most interestingnrevelations of the book is that, fornMeyer, there is no inconsistency in hisncareer. No big alteration has ever takennplace in his moral outlook or personalityn—a fact that will doubtless be difficultnfor many of those who now wear thenlabel “liberal” to accept. He has met,niS3nMay/June 1981n