A Prague Tale
I planned this post before the Ricochet conversations here, here and here (by Paul Rahe and Katievs). But it asks readers to confront similar themes (e.g., duty and the family) in the context of tyranny rather than freedom.
We know the names of the great anti-Communist dissidents: Solzhenitsyn, Havel, Benda, Walesa. Their courage is awe-inspiring. What we may not know, or at least not fully appreciate, is that dissent, for many, was a family enterprise.
Imagine it is the late 1970s and you and your husband are prominent dissidents in Czechoslovakia, as the country was then called. Many underground activities—deliberations, seminars, the writing of samizdat essays and official Charter 77 communications—take place in your home. The StB (Czech state security) subjects you to constant monitoring and frequent house searches. It has turned off your phone, intercepts your mail, bars you from travelling outside the country, and fires you from your chosen employment (you have a doctorate in mathematics from Charles University).
One day your husband is arrested, indicted for subversion, and sentenced to four years in prison. You write him 70 letters during the first month of his incarceration. And all of the dissident activity must be sustained in his absence. You continue to hold meetings and draft and circulate samizdat essays and Charter communiqués. But the pressure from the StB doesn’t cease in your husband’s absence. Friends, close friends, begin to avoid you. They see in you, very clearly, what the consequences are for standing up to the regime. So at the very moment when you need your friends the most, they abandon you. Your isolation increases.
But this is not the isolation of prison, which, paradoxically, Solzhenitsyn says is pregnant with moral development. For in prison there is finally time, and more time, to think! No pressure to apply for party membership, to go to the party’s meetings or listen to its propaganda, or to vote in sham elections. Is this not a new kind of freedom? And there is one more, according to Solzhenitsyn: “No one can deprive you of your family and property—you have already been deprived of them. What does not exist—not even God can take away. And this is a basic freedom.”
But you don’t have this freedom. Your six children depend on you. They must be taught how to survive and flourish. Daily tasks need attention. Yet precautions must be taken. Always look through the peephole before answering the door; always open it first with the chain on. Whenever coming home, press the buzzer in a certain way to distinguish your arrival from others. The world is dangerous and hostile, so speak carefully whenever outside the home and never speak of things discussed in the home. State security agents are likely to barge in again soon, so new hiding places must constantly be found for important documents. And the agents might show up, of course, at any time—even when the children are home by themselves. The most important thing they must remember: Never leave an StB officer alone in a room.
Beyond all of this, the children are not exempt from painful sacrifices. The regime knows what useful tools children can be. One of your sons is refused entry into high school, despite being quite gifted in math and science. Another, an actor, is chosen by a prominent director for a leading role in a film, only to be told later that the offer has been rescinded. Is it right that the children bear this burden? Shouldn’t you do everything in your power to exempt them from such sacrifices? And why should they be deprived of their father, shouldn’t he simply sign a paper repudiating his activities and return to his family?
You convince the children of the justice of your cause—that they must stand firm with their father. They need to feel in their bones that yes, they must endure such sacrifices. They watch the movie High Noon and come to admire Marshall Will Kane. They read the Bible, Chesterton, Tolkien (a banned author who can only be read secretly in samizdat editions). You talk to them about Frodo and his burden and temptation and about Sauron’s desire to be God-King. And they come to recognize much in “The Scouring of the Shire,” the penultimate chapter of The Return of the King, when the hobbits return to the Shire to find it transformed. A friend explains to them why he has entered the service of the new “Chief”: “We’re the First Eastfarthing Troop now. There is hundreds of Shirriffs all told, and they want more, with all these new rules. Most of them are in it against their will, but not all. Even in the Shire there are some as like minding other folk’s business and talking big. And there’s worse than that: there’s a few as do spy-work for the Chief and his Men.”
You do all of this and so much more. And when your husband, Václav Benda, is finally released from prison, you tell him this: He must immediately resume his role as spokesman for Charter 77 so that the Communist authorities know that his imprisonment had no effect.
Welcome to the life of Kamila Bendová. The Communists claimed to be creating a “new man.” But as Czeslaw Milosz wrote, “Human material seems to have one major defect: it does not like to be considered merely as human material.” Mrs. Bendová saw quite clearly the ambition of the Communists. No thank you, she said, please move along.
I will never forget my afternoon at the Benda flat with Mrs. Bendová and her son Patrik. Her husband passed away in 1999. She has 20 grandchildren. She can look back and know that she helped shape her country for the better. And perhaps we have to credit Communism—at least for the chance it gave the Kamila Bendovas of the world to display their virtue and greatness. The heroism of the fathers would not have been possible without the heroism of the mothers.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: A Prague Tale
Could it be that, by way of example, we do more for our children when we step up to the plate and assume public responsibility?
Re: A Prague Tale
Interesting, Prof. Taylor, that you frame what Václav Benda and Kamila Bendová did as "greatness" and "heroism" rather than duty and obligation. Dissidents like them indeed sacrificed much and helped to shape history itself, but did they have a societal obligation (or a moral obligation) to go to the great lengths they did? No one would have blamed them if they'd kept to themselves to try to avoid prison and shield their children from such hardship...
Jun '10
Re: A Prague Tale
This is one of those stories that inevitably raises the question: what would I have done under similar circumstances? Thank God for those who care more about freedom than security and spiritual values more than earthly success.
And, yes, there is no more powerful moral force than a mother who cares about the moral education of her children.
God bless Kamila Bendova.
May '10
Re: A Prague Tale
Great and marvelous woman! Thank you for telling us about her! I think if I have another baby girl (an unlikely prospect), I will name her Kamila. A boy I will name Vaclav.
I'll say this for oppressive regimes, they're great for drawing heroism out of ordinary humanity.
Sep '11
Re: A Prague Tale
Diane, you've hit on the key question I think. What if what is in fact morally obligatory also entails great sacrifice? The perpetuation of Communism depended upon people being willing to accomodate themselves to the Lie. There were in fact relatively few "true believers" during this period in Czechoslovakia. As Havel argues, everyone was both a victim and supporter of the system--nobody had totally clean hands.
Nov '10
Re: A Prague Tale
Flagg Taylor, Guest Contributor
Diane, you've hit on the key question I think. What if what is in fact morally obligatory also entails great sacrifice?
Sep '11
Re: A Prague Tale
Lucy Pevensie
Flagg Taylor, Guest Contributor
Diane, you've hit on the key question I think. What if what is in fact morally obligatory also entails great sacrifice?
Oct 11 at 9:57am
Exactly right Lucy.
May '10
Re: A Prague Tale
Flagg Taylor, Guest Contributor
Diane, you've hit on the key question I think. What if what is in fact morally obligatory also entails great sacrifice?
I'd answer that the fact that a thing involves great, even heroic sacrifice does not mean that it isn't obligatory.
Re: A Prague Tale
"The heroism of the fathers would not have been possible without the heroism of the mothers."
That is as beautiful a sentence about the Cold War as I have ever read.
Jun '10
Re: A Prague Tale
Well, I had a hard time reading this post, Flagg, because my eyes suddenly were watering too much.
Thanks very much for this superb post.
This reminds me of a short exchange I had with Robert J. Kaplan at a book signing: I asked him if he thought the Cold War was unique in history. He stopped everything and just stared out into space for a couple seconds and said, "Yes, I think so. I would have to think about it -- but, my initial impulse is to answer yes."
I know that there has been suffering always but the exact circumstances that you relate here are heart rending in such a deep way when I consider what she was up against.
Katievs has it right -- we need to see more little girls named Kamila.
Sep '11
Re: A Prague Tale
Larry Koler: Well, I had a hard time reading this post, Flagg, because my eyes suddenly were watering too much.
Thanks very much for this superb post.
Larry,
I am so glad this post touched you. My last night in Prague I met with someone who knows Kamila Bendova a bit and is quite familar with the Czech experience of Communism. I gave her a recap of my time at the Benda flat and we talked about Kamila's extraordinary courage. We both got a bit teary as we were talking. It simply overwhelms me to really consider all that she had to confront.
Re: A Prague Tale
katievs: Great and marvelous woman! Thank you for telling us about her! I think if I have another baby girl (an unlikely prospect), I will name her Kamila. A boy I will name Vaclav.
I'll say this for oppressive regimes, they're great for drawing heroism out of ordinary humanity. · Oct 11 at 9:10am
No. They're not. This isn't just history to me. This isn't abstract. Oppressive regimes create cowards, row upon row of them, one after another. People get used to people getting locked up, and they justify being quiet about it because they have a responsibility to their families, or because they've somehow figured out how to game a reasonably survivable place in the system (or a great one). I promise you: oppressive regimes breed cowardice. You hear about the heroes because they're the exceptions.
Jun '10
Re: A Prague Tale
Well, Claire, that sure puts a damper on things. Katievs' point still stands but you are right that in this success story we must realize that the huge majority of cases don't turn out so well.
But, Claire, this is a celebration of one woman -- so join in, why don't ya....