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

63 Crime and Punishment. Rubashov's crime is twofold: by neglecting, during his entire political career, the grammatical fiction, morality, he has committed a crime against humanity. By flirting with the silent partner, the I, the first person singular, he committed a crime against the Party. So he has two bills to settle, and, caught in the thick cobweb of obedience to the Party and moral responsibility towards Mankind he does not see any way out. He realizes that he deserves Iiis death. He deserves his death at the hands of the Party, that "can never be mistaken". He is guilty because he considered that anything was morally permissible for something outside morality. It is important to note here that in this respect Winston Smith and Julia are also quilty. By taking the oath before O'Brien they fell into a moral trap: they took the oath of (in the case of necessity) throwing acid into a child's face. It is obvious that a revolution carried out by such means ("without ethical ballast") can only lead to a new and similar tyranny. "New Goldstein would be but old Big Brother writ large".

2

1 Rubashov in Darkness at Noon chooses the confessions and the trial in the name of revolutionary honour. "Honour is to be useful without fuss".

2

2 - says Rubashov when reacting to the notion of honour of the Tsarist prisoner.

2^ In Darkness at Noon Koestler reveals that the totalitarian mind is not only to be understood in terms of the Machiavellian ethics. That is old style politics and hardly explains historical incidents like the Moscow Trials or the imprisonment of a party leader, like Rubashov. The execution of Rubashov and of the others does not make good political sense, if seen from a pragmatic point of view. Since they are all good party men, it seems that No. I. would be undermining his own position by liquadating them. This apparent gap seems to be bridged by the use of unconventional methods; a mystique is created, which cannot be tested on rational or logical grounds. In Rubashov's world politics becomes an irrational mystery that can easily be betrayed even by the insiders, by its most faithful adherents. Rubashov evokes the memory of a conversation at a diplomatic reception with a foreign diplomat. He certainly did not betray his country. The only thing that happened was a really cordial conversation. However tenous this thread is, according to the Party's logic, which Rubashov wholeheartedly subscribed to, it can lead to betrayal. What he achieved with the diplomat was friendly neutrality. But even a friendly smile is a spontaneous reaction, which is immoral and may lead to anything. Rubashov committed the crime, now he awaits the punishment.