Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 1991. British and American Philologycal Studies (Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 20)
József Hruby: Two "Last Men in Europe": A. Koestler's Darkness at Noon and G. Ornwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four
58 eventually loses, whereas Nineteen Eighty-Four is the conversion to what Rubakhov, despite his doubts, cannot eventually shed, the public mind. On the psychological level they are reciprocal stories. Rubashov destroy his past when he decides to devote his entire life to the Party and to the Cause wich the Party serves. He willfully submits Iiis personality to the Party, the embodiment of the collective consciousness, assimilates the Party's ideology both emotionally and intellectually. The Self is dissolved in the multitude. In the present he does not exist as an I, he is an unreal person. His Ego is in darkness, he may have a future, but that is uncertain as well. In a sense he is hovering between the past and the future. He is doomed to die, so he cannot reach the future in his physical reality. His only hope (a slender one) is that he will appear in the future as part of historyContinuity is, however, ensured. Gletkin, his second interrogator a second generation revolutionary, static and unchangeable as the system is, belongs to and stands for the future. He is not one of the men of ideas, the revolutionaries (The Rubashovs), he ushers in a new age, the age of the bureaucrat. "In those days we made revolution, now you make politics". ^ Rubashov, the representative of the Old Guard is much superior to Gletkin, who stands for the New Guard. Gletkin is not a revolutionary, he only makes use of revolutionary dialectics, not handling it creatively, as Rubashov does, only using it as an instrument. Apart from being the bureaucrat, Gletkin is also the technician. He is used to manipulating people is if they vere inert objects, as if they were material for use or subjects for experiment. He has no pre-revolutionary memories, no hesitations, no scruples. He draws his methods from experience, and is the precursor of O'Brien, the Ingsoc Comissar. It is tragic for Rubashov to realise that he is one of those who are responsible for having created the Gletkins. Gletkin is the ideological son and rightful heir of the revolutionaries. Rubashov's total submission to the Party made it impossible for him to discover that the Party abolished decency and the autonomous individual. In exchange it offered a chance to serve it and through it the historical process. Conscience was only a clog on social progress. Solitary confinement enables Rubashov to analyze himself, his role in history , The prison releases in him feelings, instincts which erupt into consciousness. Because of his blind obedience to the Par ty, he had no compromise for mankind, only zealous passion to achieve the ultimate goal. Pity became a bourgeoise sentiment. The situation was as
