equally concerned with presenting anvariety of viewpoints as compassionatelynas possible, thus repudiating the stiflingndogmatism of “socialist realism” whosenpalette contains no colors other thanncrimson.nThis thesis is especially important innlight of the Western liberal impressionnthat Solzhenitsyn is “authoritarian” andnunable to appreciate “democracy” withnits disagreements and conflicts, an impressionnapparently reinforced by Solzhenitsyn’snspeech delivered in Junen1976 at Harvard — so very misunderstoodna document. One sees all-too-fewnreferences, on the other hand, to Solzhenitsyn’snLetter to the Soviet Leadersnwritten in 1974, where he begs for tolerancenof all religions and all viewpoints,nand where he warns against ideology asnsuch — as he does again, even morenforcefully, in the monumental GulagnArchipelago. In his Nobel Prize speech,nmoreover, Solzhenitsyn explicitly renouncesnthe role of polemical artist withna univocal message, preferring insteadnto paint in prose, to illustrate life andnemotion as he sees them, thus opposingnthe official Soviet position on art as antool to educate and enlighten the masses,nto change the human heart instead ofnaccepting and recording its fluctuations.nThe impartial and careful student, therefore,nneed not be surprised that Solzhenitsyn’snfiction should illustrate his aesthetics,nno less than did Dostoyevsky’s,nand very much in the same vein: bothnmen are passionate believers in the individual.nBakhtin’s comments about Dostoyevsky’snwork could well be appliednto Solzhenitsyn:nOne of his principal ideas, broughtnforth in his polemic with the socialists,nwas the idea that man is not anfinite and determined number onnwhich any reliable calculation can benbased; man is free and therefore capablenof violating any advance definitionnof him.nAs one of the characters in The FirstnCircle put it: “Something unexpectednalways turns up.”n28inChronicles of CultttrenJ. he bulk of Krasnov’s study dealsnwith The First Circle, in part becausenhe believes it to be (correctly, I think)nSolzhenitsyn’s best artistic production.nLike Dostoyevsky’s Notes from thenHouse of the Dead (similarly Dantesque).nThe First Circle takes place inna real setting, yet not too fantastic fornits authenticity. Krasnov notes the manifoldnsymbolism of the Special Prison: itnis a kind of enchanted castle, where thenAntichrist has fettered some of the bestnminds of Russia to do his evil work (thensharashka is in a former “nobleman’snnest,” as are many of the communistndwellings—from writers’ unions to ministriesnand scientific institutes). It is alsona lyceum whose “academicians” discussnthe ultimate questions of existence morenfreely for being in a limbo outsiden”normal” life, away from the distractions—pleasantnas well as noxious—ofnmundane reality; more importantly,nhowever, the Special Prison is a kind ofnchapel which makes possible a reenactmentnof the Christian mysteries. Krasnovncomes close to claiming that ThenFirst Circle is in reality The NewestnTestament: its hero Nerzhin, who refusesnto compromise his conscience (andnwhose birthday happens to fall on Decembern2 5) will be crucified in the Gulagnfor defying the Emperor. That crucifixionnwill be very slow indeed; we see,nhowever, no hope for resurrection—nexcept perhaps for the chronicle itself,nand the very existence of the spiritualnatmosphere surrounding Nerzhin in thisnark of sanity sailing, as if by a miracle,nupon the sea of madness that is communism.nYet the Christian motif is by no meansnto be too narrowly construed. For it acquiresna truly universal quality as Nerzhinnrefuses to commit himself; when henobliquely confesses to his wife his beliefnin God, Nerzhin makes reference to thenfathers of modern science — Pascal,nNewton and Einstein. Krasnov is quicknto note this, and emphasizes that “Nerzhinnclearly asserts himself as a spokesmannfor modern progress and for thennntechnocratic segment of the Soviet intelligentsian(which, by the way, in recentnyears has been increasingly in thenforefront of the Soviet human-rightsnmovement).” Hence, given that manynmembers of this group are Jewish, “thenreference to Einstein, the founder of thentheory of relativity and a Jew, seems especiallynsignificant, suggesting that thensource of Nerzhin’s religious inspirationnis not limited to Russia’s OrthodoxnChristian heritage.” And it is well tonremember, in this context, that thenonly other regime which repudiatednEinstein’s theory of relativity besidesnStalin’s Russia (until the theory’s successfulnapplications to warfare technologynmade it useful to adopt) was, ofncourse, nazi Germany—the land of another,nequally Grand (and only slightlynless bloodthirsty). Inquisitor.nJvrasnov points out that in Dostoyevskynthe nefarious Inquisitor is a spokesmannfor Satan, and the signs are clearnthat—reified in Stalin—so he was fornSolzhenitsyn as well. Yet even Stalin isnnot painted all black, as neither wasnDostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor. Bothncharacters seem to believe themselvesnto be “suffering for humanity,” to carenfor their children like Plato’s selflessnphilosopher-king who feels he must controlnfor the sake of order and peace.nStalin is seen to be lonely in his old age,nand afraid of death, however monstrousnhis insatiable desire for power. Evidently,nhe cannot provide the best examplenof Solzhenitsyn’s polyphony, being,nafter all, the shadow behind the horrornthat gives the entire First Circle itsninfernal quality. Far better examples arenthe communist Rubin (whom some criticsneven take to be a spokesman for Solzhenitsyn,nwhile others believe he is annexample precisely of that which Solzhenitsynnopposes) and the NietzscheannSologdin, whose individualism is presentednwith great sympathy, reminiscentnof Dostoyevsky’s passionate Dmitrin(which is, not accidentally, Sologdin’snfirst name, too).nKrasnov then proceeds to outline then