BI CHRONICLESnand a conservative. When the newneditor of the American Journal of Philology,na European with many commentariesnand critical editions to hisncredit, opined that it was still interestingnto discover what a word meant in anspecific context, there was a specialnopen session held at the annual professionalnmeetings where some 50 peoplenmocked the idea that “in 1987 anyonencould still believe that a word has anparticular meaning in a specific context.”nIt is wrong to deny that these peoplenare taking the ethical element out ofnliterature. They are out to overthrownfalse authority and liberate the readernfrom submission to dubious claims tonreverence and respect. For them therenis only an ethical aspect. All objectivenevidence that could refute their claimsnare denied ex hypothesi. Mead’s dissertationnmust be adequate because shenbecame a role model for feminists, justnas the Communists must have burnedndown the Reichstag. Our theory is thenfinal adjudicator of truth and so-callednobjective evidence, even historical documentationnor the rules of Greekngrammar are rejected a priori.nHere there is complete agreementnamong liberals, Marxists, and Nazis.nThe enemy is the traditional view thatnthere is a reality, open to investigation,noutside of ideology. Even amongn”conservatives” there are ideologuesnwho share the theorist view.nThere are practical consequences.nWhy does the American Civil LibertiesnUnion oppose local communitiesnsetting up Christmas creches but supportnthe right of Nazis to stage provocativenmarches in Skokie, Illinois? In mynopinion, for the same reason that Yalenpresident Bartlett Giammati wrote lettersnto freshmen warning them againstnJerry Falwell, while granting the highestnacademic honors to a Nazi. It is thenreason, by the way, that tenure in thenhumanities is usually awarded withoutnany substantial, refereed publicationsnand that some humanities scholars ofninternational reputation never hold antenure track position. These, of course,nare facts. If they do not fit with ourntheories, we are free to ignore them.nThe de Man affair deserves morendiscussion than it will receive. Thensignificant issue in education today isnwhether high school principals shouldnhave the power to censure their stu­ndents’ newspaper, not whether ournacademic intellectual life is permeatednby the Nazi Big Lie. At least, that isnthe theory.n—E. Christian KopffnVladimir Lakshin, a literary criticnand an erstwhile member of the editorialnboard of the literary magazinenNovy Mir during Alexander Tvardovsky’sntenure as editor in chief, gleefullynreports “an unprecedented development”nin the 1988 subscriptions tonthat magazine. In his article “To RownHigher,” which appeared in the Decembern20 issue of the weekly MoscownNews, Lakshin writes: “For the firstntime ever, Novy Mir has passed thenmillion-subscriber mark! Surely, thisnmust be an absolute all-time record forn’thick’ literary magazines anywhere; annaccomplishment deserving of an entrynin the Guinness Book of World Records.”nHe also reports that the magazinenDruzhba Narodov, which publishednAnatoly Rybakov’s hit novel Childrennof the Arbat, has collected 770,000nsubscriptions, while the magazinenZnamya will have to double its circulationnto cope with the crush of 550,000nsubscribers.nIt goes without saying that there isnnothing mysterious in that “unprecedentednrecord,” and Lakshin himselfnundoubtedly is well aware of it. Lastnyear, Novy Mir published a host ofnsuperb, hitherto banned authors andnbooks. For the first time in the historynof the Soviet Union, the magazinenprinted Platonov’s The Pit, Nabokov’snessays, Joseph Brodsky’s poetry. Thisnyear, Novy Mir’s editorial board plansnto print, along with Boris Pasternak’snDoctor Zhivago, Yuri Dombrovsky’sn”The Unneeded Things Department,”nsome pieces by the late VarlaamnShalamov, and many other works.nAll of them have been freely availablenin the democratic world for decades.nOf course, during 1987, previouslynbanned Soviet or emigre authors werennot the sole attraction. Novy Mir alsoncame out with Chingiz Aitmatov’s ThenChopping Block, a bold book as boldnessngoes in the Soviet Union, andnNikolai Shmelev’s riveting article “AdvancenPayments and Debts,” as thrillingnas any work of fiction. Znamyanlikewise printed several extraordinarynnnworks of fiction and journalism, hithertonunimaginable in the pages of anSoviet periodical, such as Anna Akhmatova’sn”Requiem” or Tvardovsky’snpoem “By Right of Memory” or MikhailnKoryakov’s articles.nHence the exultation of VladimirnLakshin, who skillfully and courageouslyndefended Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’snOne Day in the Life of IvannDenisovich against neo-Stalinist attacksnafter Novy Mir printed it and who hadnto leave the magazine following Tvardovsky’sndownfall. As far back as 1964,nwhile Khrushchev was still in power, Inmet Lakshin in Novy Mir’s offices, andnhe told me that Solzhenitsyn’s booknhad split the Soviet Union right downnthe middle: “Tell me your attitude tonIvan Denisovich, and I’ll tell you whonyou really are!” insisted the critic. Apparently,nthe same is true for then”thick” magazines mentioned by Lakshin.nHard-liners and “goodthinkers,”nto use George Orwell’s term, can hardlynbe expected to derive much pleasurenfrom seeing the names of Nabokov,nBrodsky, Platonov, Dombrovsky, andnPasternak’s novel appearing in the Sovietnpress. It is highly doubtful thatnparty “goodthinkers” swell the ranks ofnsubscribers. One has to think they arendoing exactly the opposite: tryingnmighty hard to put the brakes onnglasnost.nBut this freedom of subscription tonliterary magazines is a prototype ofnfree elections. It would be interestingnto find out — unfortunately, Lakshinnavoids the subject — the 1988 subscriptionnfigures for, say, Kommunist,nPartiinoye stroitel’stvo, or othernideologically “correct” periodicals.nThrough a free expression of theirnwill — subscription — the Soviet readersnhave voted for free literature andnfreethinking; Lakshin was right to subtitlenhis article “What the Readers ArenVoting For.” This begs an interestingnquestion: Who and what would thenSoviet voter vote for in the event ofngenuinely free elections not just in thenmatter of subscriptions but in all areasnof social and spiritual life?n— Mihajlo MihajlovnSeveral ineorrect line divisions appearednwithin February’s poem, “AutumnnDay.” See page 16 in this issuenfor the amended version.n