{"id":1561,"date":"2021-04-06T07:56:13","date_gmt":"2021-04-06T07:56:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vocilibereurss.fupress.net\/2021\/04\/06\/arcipelago-gulag-2\/"},"modified":"2021-12-20T07:33:22","modified_gmt":"2021-12-20T07:33:22","slug":"arcipelago-gulag-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vocilibereurss.fupress.net\/en\/arcipelago-gulag-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The Italian reception of “The Gulag Archipelago”"},"content":{"rendered":"[vc_row type=”in_container” full_screen_row_position=”middle” column_margin=”default” column_direction=”default” column_direction_tablet=”default” column_direction_phone=”default” scene_position=”center” text_color=”dark” text_align=”left” row_border_radius=”none” row_border_radius_applies=”bg” overlay_strength=”0.3″ gradient_direction=”left_to_right” shape_divider_position=”bottom” bg_image_animation=”none”][vc_column column_padding=”no-extra-padding” column_padding_tablet=”inherit” column_padding_phone=”inherit” column_padding_position=”all” background_color_opacity=”1″ background_hover_color_opacity=”1″ column_shadow=”none” column_border_radius=”none” column_link_target=”_self” gradient_direction=”left_to_right” overlay_strength=”0.3″ width=”1\/1″ tablet_width_inherit=”default” tablet_text_alignment=”default” phone_text_alignment=”default” column_border_width=”none” column_border_style=”solid” bg_image_animation=”none”][vc_column_text]\n
\"\"

Source: picture submitted by the author.<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Title:
\n<\/em><\/strong>Arkhipelag Gulag [The Gulag Archipelago]\n

Author: <\/em><\/strong>Aleksandr Isaevich Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008)<\/p>\n

Publishing House: <\/em><\/strong>Mondadori<\/a><\/p>\n

Place: <\/em><\/strong>Milano<\/p>\n

Years: <\/em><\/strong>1974-1978<\/p>\n

Description:
\n<\/em><\/strong>The first volume of the Italian version of The Gulag Archipelago<\/em><\/a> was published by Mondadori in May 1974, a few months after the YMCA Press edition in Paris. The second and third volumes were published by Mondadori in February 1975 and in May 1978. This article mostly takes into account the response connected to the first volume published in 1974.
\nThe Gulag Archipelago<\/em> is a precise and complex record of the Soviet concentration camp system presenting the testimonies of prisoners and outlining the history of Soviet repression, whose roots are identified in the October Revolution and, controversially, within the very theoretical premise of Marxism.
\nThe work was published against the background of the Cold War, and generated fierce debate in Catholic and Marxist circles and was widely discussed in the press.
\nThe political-ideological position of Solzhenitsyn and his interpretation of history which traced connections between Stalinism, the Revolution and Marxism was the main focus of the debate in Italy. The Italian Left criticized his analysis; the PCI (the Italian Communist Party) and left wing extra-parliamentary groups were mistrustful of the dissenting author and found Solzhenitsyn’s views embarrassing because they undermined fundamental pillars of their political beliefs.
\nThe PCI, committed to projects that were not always appreciated by Moscow such as Eurocommunism and Historical comprise, refused to take a position on the book to avoid antagonising the Soviets. Moreover, Solzhenitsyn was criticized for his explicit mistrust of the Detent\u00e8 process, which was considered by the institutional Left the only way for the USSR to move towards democracy (cf. Sensini 2007<\/span>).<\/span>
\nThe extra-parliamentary left attributed to Solzhenitsyn a conservative and right wing vision of history, and even accused him, among other things, of favouring of the Pinochet regime, expressing distaste for the general political direction of his reasoning (cf. Lomellini 2010). The actual contents of Archipelago<\/em> were pushed to the margins and ideologically motivated criticism, typical of the Cold War period, prevented a less polarised analysis of the work. Accusations of anti-communism prevailed and the work’s content was largely ignored.
\nThis negative response, was not, however, universal and there was a positive reception in some left wing circles of the book’s ethical and political themes. The PSI (the Italian Socialist Party), for example, regarded Solzhenitsyn as an important part of the campaign of Dissent and used his work as proof of the unreliability and ambivalence of the PCI’s attitude towards the CPSU (cf. Sensini 2007)<\/span>.
\nThe weekly magazine \u201cL\u2019Espresso\u201d dedicated significant space to the \u201ccase\u201d and led the campaign in favour of Solzhenitsyn by contextualising the criticism of his work and outlining the editorial events and differing intellectual positions that influenced the debates.\u00a0 The magazine opened a discussion on Soviet repression.
\nSome Marxist intellectuals, although dissociating themselves from Solzhenitsyn’s historical and political interpretations, saw the need to engage with the work and its author.\u00a0 Among these were F. Fortini<\/a>, V. Strada<\/a>, L. Foa, P. Sinatti<\/a> and R. Rossanda, who denounced the mistrustful attitude of the Italian left towards Solzhenitsyn and Dissent in general (cf. Fortini\u00a0<\/span>1971 e 1974, Strada 1976<\/span>,\u00a0<\/span>Foa<\/span>\u00a01974,\u00a0<\/span>Sinatti<\/span> 1974 and Rossanda 1977).
\n<\/span>Reception of Solzhenitsyn’s work among Catholics and liberals, who on the whole saw Soviet repression as an inevitable consequence of Socialism, was more positive. Gustav Herling, among the first to review the work in Italy, defined Archipelago<\/em> as \u201ca colossal monograph of the legalisation of terror\u201d, whose history did not start with Stalin, but with the Revolution (<\/span>Herling<\/span>\u00a01974:\u00a0<\/span>12<\/span>)<\/span>.<\/span>
\nFor \u201cLa Fiera Letteraria\u201d<\/a>, evidence from the gulags represented a condemnation of communist ideology, as \u201cthe horrors of the Soviet concentration camp\u201d were the only possible consequence of Marxist revolution.
\nThe Vatican State magazine \u201cCivilt\u00e0 Cattolica\u201d emphasized the spiritual message voiced by Solzhenitsyn, highlighting the impossibility of achieving Christian ideals within Soviet socio-economic structures. There was, nevertheless an attempt to separate Solzhenitsyn’s interpretation of history from the more reactionary aspects of his politics; the liberals rejected the nationalistic character of his arguments which had strong Slavophile and anti-western tones and which several Italian intellectuals considered similar to the tenets of Fascism (cf. Bo 1974 e\u00a0<\/span>Ronkey<\/span>\u00a01974)<\/span>.\u00a0<\/span>
\nThe idea that\u00a0Archipelago<\/em> was practically ignored by the press and the Italian intelligentsia in the 1970s is not born out by the evidence. The book was widely discussed after its publication, although, perhaps, its true importance was not fully appreciated due to the tendency of those involved in the debate to regard it through superficial, ideologically tinged lenses (cf. Reccia 2019)<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Alessandra Reccia
\n<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0[30th\u00a0<\/sup>June 2021]\n

Translation by Diletta Bacci<\/p>\n

Bibliography<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n