Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (82 page)

54
. It should be emphasized “that the mere mention of Lossky’s name” was never made in public; Rand recorded these recollections privately with her future biographer. Barbara Branden (28 June 1993C) states that she “
never
heard [Rand] mention him publicly.”

55
. Kline (18 August 1993C) notes that during the period of Lossky’s last days, Zenkovsky had sent him a copy of his
Osnovy khristianskoi filosofii
(Foundations of Christian philosophy), which was to be published in two volumes. Apparently, Lossky was much too weak to write anything in Zenkovsky’s copy except “Sochuvstvuiu” [I sympathize].

56
. B. Branden, interview, 9 October 1992.

57
. B. Branden, interview, 26 January 1992.

58
. B. Branden, interview, 6 May 1992.

59
. There is some evidence substantiating Rand’s knowledge of the ancients. She exhibits an understanding of Aristotle and Plato. In her work on epistemology, she also deals briefly with the contributions of pre-Socratic philosophers such as Pythagoras, Protagoras, Zeno, and Parmenides. See
Introduction
, 8, 90, 248, 262. And in her journals, Rand criticized Thales as the father of cosmology. Rand (19 June 1958), “From Ayn Rand’s unpublished writings: Philosophic notes, 1949–1958,” in Binswanger 5.4.7–8.

60
. Despite his doubts, Boris Lossky (27 October 1992C) does not question his father’s philosophical influence on Rand. He believes that Rand may have been well acquainted with his father’s works, even if she did not actually study with him.

61
. For this suggestion, thanks to Cox (17 March 1993C).

62
. B. Lossky, 29 May–4 June 1992C. Barbara Branden (28 June 1993C) indicates that the temperature readings recorded in her biography were not derived from her taped interviews with Rand. Branden states that the unusual temperature readings were garnered from two separate sources.

63
. Rand quoted in
Current Biography
1982, 332.

64
. Central Committee report quoted in Fitzpatrick 1979, 76–77.

65
. Solzhenitsyn (1973, 372) reports that there were nearly three hundred prominent Russian humanists who were exiled in 1922. Additional small groups were exiled in 1923.

66
. Rand (January 1969), “The ‘inexplicable personal alchemy,’” in
New Left
, 117.

67
. Rand quoted in
Current Biography
1982, 332.

68
. B. Branden (1986) writes that Rand “graduated from the university with the highest honors” (54). I could not substantiate this claim by reference to the Leningrad dossier on Alissa Rosenbaum.

69
. B. Branden 1986, 55; “Who is Ayn Rand?” in Branden and Branden 1962, 165. Also during this period, Alissa enrolled in a Leningrad school for young people who wished to pursue a career in the Russian film industry. She learned useful information on the craft of film that she would later apply to movie scripts. B. Branden 1986, 57.

70
. B. Branden 1986, 55–63. Childs (1982) observed that Rand was “in effect one of the first Russian Jewish dissidents” to come to America (33).

71
. In
We the Living
, Rand dramatizes how statism destroys the best in people. But she ends the novel on a positive note; although statism destroys the best people
physically
, it is unable to destroy them spiritually. As such, Kira dies smiling that “so much … had been possible” (446).

72
. B. Branden 1986T. Branden (28 June 1993C) also remarks that the committee never gave Rand the forum they had promised her. Rand was bitterly disappointed that she was denied this opportunity. In the immediate aftermath of her HUAC testimony, Rand, in her “Notes on the Thomas committee” (November 1993), in Schwartz 7.6, argued that Congress had the right to ask questions of fact with regard to Communist Party membership since the organization was committed to criminality. She also lamented that many of the “friendly witnesses” (including Adolphe Menjou and Morrie Ryskind) were blacklisted in the post-McCarthy era. Later, however, Rand argued that in a genuinely free society, “There would be no hearings.” B. Branden 1986, 200–203, Rand in Peikoff 1976T, Lecture 6.

73
. Rand (20 October 1947), “Ayn Rand’s HUAC Testimony,” in Binswanger 8.4.1–11; Willis, “Introduction,” in Heilman 1976, 1–3.

CHAPTER 4. THE MATURATION OF AYN RAND

1
. Rand (4 May 1946), quoted in Peikoff 1991a, xiv.

2
. Rand (October–November 1963), “The goal of my writing,” in
Romantic Manifesto,
162.

3
. Ibid., 163.

4
. Rand 1964b, 3. This interview was reprinted in Haley 1993.

5
. Rand (September 1971), “Brief summary,” in
Objectivist
10:1091.

6
. Some of these stories (e.g., “Her Second Career”) do not relate directly to Rand’s experiences in Russia.

7
. Peikoff, “Editor’s preface,” in
Early Ayn Rand
, 5.

8
. Ibid., 108. One can find a similar disdain for
both
the state
and
the Church in
Thus Spake Zarathustra
, the first book of Nietzsche’s that Rand ever read. See Nietzsche [1883–85] 1905, 144.

9
. In later years, in Rand (17 February 1960), “Faith and force: The destroyers of the modern world,” in
Philosophy,
85, she argued: “Communists, like all materialists, are neo-mystics.” I explore this identity more thoroughly in Parts 2 and 3.

10
. Rand (1931–32), “Red Pawn,” in
Early
Ayn
Rand,
111.

11
. Rosenthal (15 November 1993C) remarks that Rand’s synopsis deals with a real-life Soviet prison at the Solovetsk monastery.

12
. Rand (1931–32), “Red Pawn,” in
Early Ayn Rand,
130–31.

13
. Peikoff, “Editor’s preface,” in
Early Ayn Rand
, 172, writes that this story was cut from the novel, “presumably” because it was unnecessary to the establishment of Kira’s character.

14
. Rand (1931), “Kira’s viking,” in
Early Ayn Rand
, 179.

15
. Peikoff and Scott 1988T; Reedstrom 1993b.

16
. Rand in Peikoff 1976T, Lecture 11.

17
.
We the Living
, 446. During World War II, Italian film-makers produced a faithful (if unauthorized) film version of the book, starring Alida Valli as Kira, Rossano Brazzi as Leo, and Fosco Giachetti as Andrei. Directed by Goffredo Allessandrini, the film was initially shown in two parts to cheering Italian audiences. Though it depicted the grim reality of life under communism, the film may have been banned by Mussolini’s government for its implicit attack on all forms of totalitarianism, including fascism. The Nazis may have blocked the film’s entry into Germany because they believed that Andrei, the communist idealist, was too sympathetic a character. This is ironic, considering Rand’s virulent anticommunism! The film was lost to audiences for many years, until it was rediscovered, remastered, and rereleased in 1988 with English subtitles. The movie is distributed through Duncan Scott Productions. Reviews and different perspectives on the film are provided by Edelstein (1988), Ericson (1988), McGrady (1988), Peikoff and Scott (1988T), Chase (1988), Bradford (1988), Kamhi (December 1988), “Ayn Rand’s
We the Living
,” in Torres and Kamhi (1982–94), and Vermilye 1994, 27–28. I cite “Torres and Kamhi (1982–94)” for ease of reference. In fact,
Aristos
was edited by Torres from July 1982 to September 1991, and Torres and Kamhi from January 1992 to the present.

18
. Rand in Peikoff 1976T, Lecture 8.

19
. Rand (October 1958), “Foreword,” in
We the Living,
viii.

20
. Merrill 1991, 21–40. Merrill observes correctly that Rand’s revisions were not extensive. He points out some minor modifications of interest. In the first edition, Leo recites Kant at social gatherings; in the later edition, Leo quotes Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Oscar Wilde. Rand’s antipathy toward Kant was obviously not as pronounced in 1930–33 when she worked on the original manuscript. In the 1936 edition, Rand may have used Kant strictly as a Western philosophic symbol. Leo acknowledges Western sources to aggravate his Slavophile associates. Rand also writes that people “looked at Leo as they looked at the statue of Apollo.” Apparently, Rand rejected the Dionysian, and embraced the Apollonian, metaphor from an early point in her literary and intellectual development.
We the Living
, 127–28. Cox (1986) discusses Rand’s stylistic revisions.

21
. The following passages appear in the first (1936) edition of
We the Living
(92–95) and in a comparable scene in the second edition (79–80).

22
. Hicks 1992, 6. Echoing Rand’s own views, Oyerly (1990, 5) argues that Rand’s stark condemnation of the masses in the first edition of
We the Living
, was “poetic metaphor” entirely due to Rand’s early linguistic difficulties. Nathaniel Branden (1971b, 13), by contrast, argues that Rand made important philosophical changes in the second edition.

23
. Barbara Branden (28 June 1993C) states that in any event, such a “full philosophical explanation” would have been inappropriate in a novel. She suggests that the so-called Nietzschean elements of
We the Living
are really only features of Rand’s youthful, over-dramatized, literary style. In Branden’s view, these elements were never an authentic part of Rand’s perspective; “In fact, in the years I knew her, she often spoke of her deep respect for ‘the common man,’ saying that in many ways … the American common man had a greater intelligence [and] commitment to reason and individualism than was generally understood.”

24
. Rand (1934),
Ideal,
in
Early Ayn Rand
, 234.
Ideal
, like Rand’s 1939 play,
Think Twice,
was never performed. She wrote two other plays that were produced on Broadway. An adaptation of
We the Living
, called
The Unconquered,
did not have a successful run.
Another play, written in 1932–33, originally titled
Penthouse Legend
, had a fairly successful Broadway presentation. It was published in 1968 as
Night of January
16
th
. The play is a courtroom drama, and it featured a gimmick in which a jury is drawn from the audience. Rand considers the work an example of “Romantic symbolism.” She discusses the play’s history in Rand (June 1968), “Introduction,” in Rand [1933] 1968.

25
. Peikoff, “Editor’s preface,” iin
Early Ayn Rand
, 181–84.

26
. Rand (9 April 1934), “From Ayn Rand’s unpublished writings; Philosophic journal,” in Binswanger 4.4.2.

27
. Ibid., 3. Barbara Branden (28 June 1993C) suggests that the mature Rand would never have published such an antireligious comment. This underscores the fact that Rand’s journals were indeed, “thinking on paper,” rather than carefully edited for public consumption. Rand believed that she was primarily an advocate of reason, and that once reason won, faith and religion would cease to be issues.

28
. Rosenthal (15 November 1993C) observes too, that Chinese also lacks a word for “privacy.”

29
. Rand (1934), “From Ayn Rand’s unpublished writings: Philosophic journal,” in Binswanger 4.4.2.

30
. Ibid., 5. Torres and Kamhi note that there is a similarity between Rand’s concept of “sense of life” and Ortega y Gasset’s concept of “metaphysical sentiment” as presented in his work
On Love: Aspects of a Single Theme.
Torres and Kamhi (September 1991), “Ayn Rand’s philosophy of art: A critical introduction,” parts 3 and 4, in Torres and Kamhi 1982–94, 6 n. 12. The “sense of life” concept, which I explore in
Chapter 7
, has implications for Rand’s aesthetics. Though it is clear that Rand read Ortega y Gasset, there is currently no available journal evidence to suggest that she formed this concept as a direct result of his influence.

31
. Rand (15 May 1934), “From Ayn Rand’s unpublished writings: Philosophic journal,” in Binswanger 4.4.5–6.

32
. Rand (4 December 1935), quoted in Branden and Branden 1962, 192.

33
. Some have assumed that Roark was modeled on Frank Lloyd Wright. For two accounts of the relationship between Rand and Wright, see B. Branden 1986, 140, 172, 189–91, 208–9, and Secrest 1992, 494–98, 510.

34
. Saint-Andre (5 August 1993C) notes that in many ways, Rand assigned to Roark the “positive” aspects of the Nietzschean superman (heroic strength of will and defiance of social convention), and to Wynand, the “negative” ones (cruelty and ruthlessness). A very similar technique was used by Gorky in his novel
Klim Samgin
(1925–1936). Gorky assigned “positive” Nietzschean aspects to his heroes and “negative” Nietzschean aspects to his villains. Rosenthal, “Introduction,” in Rosenthal 1986, 36. Wynand, of course, is not a villain in
The Fountainhead
, but he is the embodiment of all that Rand believed was wrong with the Nietzschean ethos.

35
. See Nietzsche [1886] 1966, 228 [par. 287]. Rand quotes a slightly different translation.

36
. Rand (25 December 1935), quoted in Peikoff (March 1992), “Afterword,” in
Fountainhead,
697.

37
. Rand (9 February 1936), in ibid., 698–99.

38
. Rand (22 February 1937), in ibid., 700.

39
. Thanks to Cox (3 May 1993C) for emphasizing this particular aspect of Toohey’s character.

40
.
Fountainhhead
, 338. Rand was always “haunted” by this metaphor from
Thus Spake Zarathustra.
She lamented later that she felt as though
she
had become a philosophical “fly swatter” in her ongoing critique of contemporary thinkers. She thought Marx was a worthy adversary, but had grown tired of fighting intellectuals such as Freud or Rawls. Rand (November–December 1975), “A last survey, part one,” in Rand [1971–76]
1979, 4:382. Rand [1971–76] 1979 is hereafter cited as
Ayn Rand Letter
by volume and page number in text and notes.