Desperately Seeking Solzhenitsyn

by Michael Johnson

Michael Johnson worked as a reporter and editor in New York, Moscow, Paris and London over his journalism career. He is now based in Bordeaux, France, where he writes for the International Herald-Tribune and other publications. He covered European technology for Business Week for five years, and served nine years as chief editor of International Management magazine. In 1990 he was appointed chief editor of the French technology weekly 01 Informatique where he worked as Editorial Director for two years. He also spent four years as Moscow correspondent of The Associated Press. He is the author of four books and recently edited “24/7 Innovation” for an Accenture consultant and “Nokia: The Inside Story”, written by historian Martti Haikio, for the Nokia Corporation. A fluent French speaker, he also speaks Russian

When Nobel Prizewinning author Alexander Solzhenitsyn died five years ago, I experienced several days of flashbacks to the surrealistic times of Soviet power. I had been a correspondent in Moscow in the 1960s and 1970s and my most vivid memory was encountering the great writer face to face. He wasn’t particularly happy to see me.

Solzhenitsyn was tailed and harassed by the KGB for most of his life, and had made a dangerous game of dodging the authorities. Two of his early novels, The First Circle and The Cancer Ward, had been smuggled out of the country by trusted foreign contacts and published abroad to great acclaim. He would later go on to expose the Soviet labor camp system in his classic Gulag Archipelago, a work that reverberates to this day.

But he considered any interaction with the free-wheeling Western media to be risky, and he was right.

Of course every correspondent in Moscow wanted to be the first to find him after he won the Nobel in 1970. I was a young reporter and I intended to be the one to smoke him out. I was unconcerned about the consequences this publicity might have for him.

My search began with Lev Kopelev, a writer who was at a friendly stage in their up-and-down relationship. They had been fellow zeks (colloquial form of “ZK”, short for zaklyuchonny, or “locked up”), labor camp inmates, in the 1940s and 1950s. In the evenings, they argued ideology with such spirit that Solzhenitsyn based the character Rubin, in The Cancer Ward, on Kopelev. (Later in life, both living abroad, they sadly had a falling out and they died without making peace.)

I got to Lev through his wife Raisa Orlova, who had asked me to obtain a copy of an American book she wanted to translate into Russian, a biography of Martin Luther King Jr., who had recently been assassinated.

Lev was a burly, bearded, bear of a man and former Bolshevik activist who could never quite make the break with his Marxist past. At this stage in life he was no KGB informer but his sympathies were ambiguous. Solzhenitsyn, I later learned, did not totally trust him. As Solzhenitsyn put it in a memoir, quoting an old Russian proverb, “Even fire cannot clean a barrel that once held tar.”

But Lev and his wife Raisa were warm and welcoming, inviting my wife and me to their small, gloomy home for tea and a get-acquainted meeting. Raisa wanted something from me and I wanted something from Lev. Raisa spoke good English and worked as a translator. Lev was also a competent linguist but German was his main foreign language. His English came out in short, prepared bursts in a loud basso. We spoke Russian together.

My presence made him nervous but he tolerated our visit with good humor. As tea was served, I mentally rehearsed the main item on my agenda: to obtain Solzhenitsyn’s telephone number, or at least his address, neither of which any foreign journalist had yet been able to find. We all knew that Solzhenitsyn was a leading candidate for the Nobel and that the award would be sensational news if it came to pass. While the award would help certify him as a major writer, it was also certain to lead to more trouble for him. Boris Pasternak had been down this path in 1958. Pasternak’s big novel,Doctor Zhivago, had also been a foreign sensation but was banned in the Soviet Union. The Nobel honor infuriated then-premier Nikita Khrushchev, who threatened Pasternak with expulsion from the country and withdrawal of his Soviet citizenship. In the end, Pasternak chose to remain in the Russia he loved so much, but without the prize.

At the Kopelev apartment, between sips of tea and informal chitchat, I made my request as politely as I could, explaining that the world would be waiting to hear from the great man, and promising to communicate his sentiments worldwide on the AP wires. Kopelev refused to budge. “Solzhenitsyn needs and deserves his privacy,” he said, with some justification. But he did agree to be the intermediary for carrying the news to Solzhenitsyn if he won. This seemed a fair deal, given the risks.

Access to the AP teleprinter in my office meant that I would have the news the moment it was announced. If the news was good, I agreed that I would ring Lev, and he would ring Solzhenitsyn. I would get nothing from the arrangement other than the satisfaction of being the messenger.

A week later, I was on duty at the AP when the teleprinter came alive, bells ringing, with a one-paragraph bulletin from our Stockholm office quoting the Swedish Academy as awarding the prize to Solzhenitsyn. I let out an involuntary whoop. Before the paragraph had finished printing I was on the phone to Lev, who received the news with an even greater whoop. He immediately relayed the news to Solzhenitsyn by phone but I was still none the wiser as to his whereabouts.

The award of the prize would change many lives in Russia and abroad, and would further show up the regime of Leonid Brezhnev as fearful of dissent, free thinking and the power of the written word.

With no further help from Lev, I set about contacting Russian acquaintances who might have an inkling of Solzhenitsyn’s whereabouts. He was known to have spent many years in Ryazan, a few miles south of Moscow, but recently had lived with various friends in and around the capital. He could have been almost anywhere. Moscow was then a city of 6 million.

I tried to be smart about this search. I invited Chicago Tribune correspondent Frank Starr to join me the next morning and we set off for Peredelkino, the town with a name that always reminds me of the sound of Russian church bells. Peredelkino was an obvious place to look — it is the writers’ community 30 miles outside of Moscow. We knew that he had been sheltered from time to time by Lydia Chukovskaya, a writer friend who lived there. But most of the larger properties in the village were controlled by the Writers’ Union, the organization that protected well-behaved writers, those who practiced some form of state-mandated Socialist Realism.

There was no response at the Chukovskaya front door and so at random we tramped through the mud and knocked on other doors around the village, including the Writers’ Union office. Nobody was willing to admit knowing anything. Eventually we found ourselves walking through Pasternak’s gate and up the steps of his big, wooden house. I rapped on the door. Pasternak had long since died, but the house will always be known as his residence. It is now a Pasternak museum.

Stanislav Neuhaus came to the door and was most pleasant, a rare treat for uninvited foreigners. He ushered us in and we chatted for half an hour. Stanislav was the son of Heinrich Neuhaus, the late Russian pianist and teacher. Neuhaus junior, who was Pasternak’s stepson, had been practicing for a recital he was scheduled to give that evening in Moscow.

He didn’t know where Solzhenitsyn was camping, he said, but he talked a bit about Pasternak, and we were happy to listen. Living there was like inhabiting a holy place, Neuhaus said. This was the house where Pasternak had written his best works but he also cowered in fear of the night-time stomp of police boots and a knock at the door to take him away to be shot, as had happened to so many of his writer and artist friends.

Nobody knows quite why Stalin left Pasternak alone, Neuhaus said. He was allowed to write his poetry and even Doctor Zhivago in relative freedom but with few exceptions was not authorized to publish.

After an interesting but unsuccessful day, Starr and I returned to our wives in Moscow.

The next day, still burning with desire to find Solzhenitsyn, I followed up some new speculation confided to me by a cellist acquaintance, Natalya Gutman, a protégée of the cellist Mstislav Rostropovich. She told me she had heard that Solzhenitsyn was spending a lot of time at Rostropovich’s dacha in Zhukovka, a cluster of comfortable homes where some of the scientific and artistic elite lived, about 30 minutes from Moscow. “He and might be there now,” she said.

This was what hungry journalists would call a hot tip. On Day 2 of the search an Italian colleague, Pietro Sormani of Corriere della Sera, and a Swiss journalist, Roger Bernheim of Neue Zurcher Zeitung, joined me in the hunt. We drove straight through the icy fog to Zhukovka early in the morning, ignoring the 30-mile restriction of foreigners’ travel that was in force at the time. The police did not bother us.

We quickly found our way to Dmitri Shostakovich’s house, the first landmark Ms. Gutman had indicated, and there we were flagged down by a short, stout policewoman. Bluffing our way through her questions, we asked outright where Rostropovich’s dacha was. Surprisingly, she gave us directions in the most clear and courteous manner. We had been prepared for a worst-case outcome – a reprimand or possible arrest for running around loose in a state-run complex without authorization.

We followed the rambling pathways and eventually came upon the cellist’s dacha. It reminded me of the big wooden farm houses in Indiana where I grew up. We cautiously climbed the steps, snow squeaking underfoot, our teeth chattering and knees knocking from the chill and the excitement. It was mid-winter under the usual leaden skies.

I could see off to the side of the property a handsome concert hall under construction. Work had been suspended till spring. Clean, sharp-edged bricks were scattered around the site. Such high-quality materials were rare in Russia and we recognized these as probable German imports. Only elite properties could expect clearance for such materials.
A lone birch tree, covered in frost, was struggling to survive on the front lawn. Nothing stirred.

I knocked at the door, expecting Rostropovich or his wife Galina Vishnevskaya, the operatic diva, to appear. A housemaid answered the door promptly. She was a heavy woman in her 50s, missing most of her teeth, a scarf over her hair and an apron over her sweater and woolen skirt. She looked like she needed a bath and she spoke in a heavy provincial accent. I asked to see Rostropovich, and she replied matter-of-factly, “Khozyain za rubezhom.” (“The master is abroad.”)

I then inquired whether Alexander Solzhenitsyn was living there. “I have never heard the name,” she said, “but there’s a man with a beard living in the garage over there,” pointing to the outbuilding across the property. Hmmm, we thought. A beard. Could it be him?

We thanked the maid and set out across the snow-covered lawn to the garage. More imported building materials and a cement mixer littered the driveway. I approached the door and knocked a few times. When no one responded, I called out “Alexander Isayevich?”. A pause of a few seconds ensued, then came a piercing voice, none too inviting, “Kto eto?” (“Who’s there?”) I replied that we were foreign journalists from Moscow who had come to congratulate him on his Nobel Prize.

The door burst open and we were transfixed by this little man with a magnificent head of reddish hair that spread down his face into a bushy beard. He gave us the once over with his beady blue eyes. We recognized him immediately from photographs as the author of a series of literary masterpieces, all banned in Russia. When he was satisfied in his own mind that we were not KGB operatives in disguise, he confirmed his identity.

Solzhenitsyn spoke rapidly, like a man with a lot on his mind, in a strange, high-pitched voice. I started by asking him for his reaction to being selected for the Nobel (probably some inane question such as “How does it feel?”). He avoided the question, perhaps dreading headlines around the world that might make his situation even more difficult.

He replied that he regretted he could not invite us into his humble quarters because he was a guest himself in the apartment owned by Rostropovich. It seemed like a poor excuse to turn us away but we understood the real reason.

We could see inside that he was housed in a partially completed apartment being constructed inside the garage. The danger that this represented for Rostropovich — harboring an outspoken critic of the regime — was not lost upon us. Both of these men were heroic figures willing to risk their liberty, perhaps their lives, to speak out for human rights in Russia. Since 1966, when a show trial sentenced two writers to hard labor in the gulag, most Soviet intellectuals had kept their liberal views to themselves.

The conversation that followed was brief and to the point. Solzhenitsyn confirmed that he knew about the prize but felt he could not comment on it because his host was away.

Although he had by then considerable experience with the West, he seemed doubtful about our motives and probably wondered about our common sense. He was obviously not prepared for our questions. He said he had made no decision about whether to accept the prize or to do as Pasternak had done: reject it. And he repeated how much he regretted that we could not be invited in for tea. He was talking in circles.

I told him we fully understood, and did not intend to bother him further, and with that we wished him the best of luck and departed.

As we made our way back to my car, I stopped to take a photo of the garage with the trembling birch tree, a fitting symbol for the events we were witnessing, in the foreground. It was published internationally along with the story confirming that Solzhenitsyn had not yet been bothered by the authorities and was sheltered by his friend Rostropovich. I threw in a couple of quotes, hoping the reader would grasp how restrained Solzhenitsyn was acting, and why.

Indeed, the consequences for harboring Solzhenitsyn were terrible for the cellist and his wife. Both were eventually forbidden to travel abroad, and Rostropovich was even blocked from performing in public at home. He recalled later, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, stopping in a doorway in central Moscow and bursting into tears as he realized what the regime was doing to him. His wife writes movingly in her autobiographyGalina of their friendship with Solzhenitsyn and their commitment to supporting him.

Solzhenitsyn accepted the Nobel award via the Norwegians but was refused access to the Swedish embassy in Moscow. Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, known for his extreme timidity, declined to offer his support despite his own Academy granting the award. Solzhenitsyn would eventually learn to live with the West’s contradictions. Later he would be refused an audience with U.S. President Gerald Ford, who also feared poking a stick at the Russian bear.

In three years that followed, under scrutiny from the police, Solzhenitsyn continued his prolific literary output, and, lacking permission to publish at home, spirited his work to foreign countries. In his 1977 book Invisible Allies he praised Jim Peipert, Steve Broening and Roger Leddington, my colleagues and successors in the AP office, for helping him move his archives abroad, using small bundles or, in one case instance, hiding pages of typescript in their shoes.

He later decided to go public by meeting foreign correspondents. He granted a joint interview to Robert Kaiser of The Washington Post and Hedrick Smith of The New York Times. He later recalled that their questions, such as “Do you know (the sometimes-liberal poet) Yevtushenko?” were of “surpassing triviality.”

Many other avenues were explored successfully, including diplomatic channels. The U.S. embassy had also kept its distance from Solzhenitsyn while trying to negotiate what we used to call “détente”. But when a friendly Soviet intermediary handed the American military attaché a full manuscript of a new Solzhenitsyn book, the attaché asked for a top-level meeting in the embassy’s tank, the one secure room that was regularly swept for KGB listening devices. The attaché recalled for me recently how he argued for an official okay to stuff the manuscript in with his furniture he was then packing for his imminent return to Washington. “The ambassador stopped me right there,” the attaché said. “‘Just don’t tell me about it.’” The manuscript was secreted in the container and a few weeks later crossed the border safely.

The shipment was delayed for two months in transit, however, leading to great personal anxiety on the attaché’s part. “Was I going down in history as the man who lost Solzhenitsyn’s next book?” he remembers worrying. Finally it did arrive, though, and the manuscript was quickly extricated and forwarded to Solzhenitsyn’s New York publishing contact. Exactly what was in the package remains a mystery but several months later the three volumes of Solzhenitsyn’s historic study of the gulag network of Soviet labor began to appear.

Some time later I attended a Rostropovich concert in Moscow and happened to sit a few rows behind Lev Kopelev. At the end of the concert I approached him and extended my hand. He abruptly turned away, probably concerned that KGB eyes were upon him. Familiarity with a Western correspondent in public could only complicate his life.

Within a couple of years, both Solzhenitsyn and Rostropovich were expelled from the country and deprived of their Soviet citizenship. The Kremlin’s hope was that they would be lost in a sea of chaotic free expression in London, Paris or New York, never to surface again.

Instead, both went to the United States where they were welcomed as the great men they were. Rostropovich became conductor of the National Symphony Orchestra in Washington and Solzhenitsyn built himself a splendid house in the state of Vermont – the closest climate he could find to Russia’s, and continued writing his great Red Wheel cycle on the origins of the Soviet Union.

They both returned to Moscow after the breakup of the USSR in the 1990s, Solzhenitsyn continuing his prolific output and Rostropovich making music again, almost as if nothing had happened.

Posted first on the Open Letters Monthly, posted here with the authors and the Open Letters' kind permission.

An earlier version of this memoir-in-progress appeared on Facts & Arts - click here.



Sketch of Solzhenitsyn by the author Michael Johnson:

1

 


This article is brought to you by the author who owns the copyright to the text.

Should you want to support the author’s creative work you can use the PayPal “Donate” button below.

Your donation is a transaction between you and the author. The proceeds go directly to the author’s PayPal account in full less PayPal’s commission.

Facts & Arts neither receives information about you, nor of your donation, nor does Facts & Arts receive a commission.

Facts & Arts does not pay the author, nor takes paid by the author, for the posting of the author's material on Facts & Arts. Facts & Arts finances its operations by selling advertising space.

 

 

Browse articles by author

More Essays

Added 17.07.2018
There are two ways of tackling chronic lifestyle diseases such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes: discover new drugs and treatments or persuade people to make positive lifestyle changes to avoid developing them in the first place. Health coaching is one of the most powerful ways of changing people’s mindsets for the long term. Practitioners are rapidly taking their place alongside executive coaches, life coaches and personal trainers as another means of making us better people through one-to-one improvement sessions.
Added 16.07.2018
Getting rid of loneliness is also about letting go of cynicism and mistrust of others. So next time you meet someone new, try to lose that protective shield and really allow them in, even though you don’t know what the outcome will be.
Added 12.07.2018
From the beginning Donald Trump’s administration has been marred by corruption and outright contempt for the rule of law – with the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey “because of the whole Russia thing”, and persistent efforts to undermine Robert Mueller’s Russia probe; with his refusal to divest himself of private businesses, his attacks on judges who rule against him, and much else besides. Trump’s shameless claim to unbounded executive power manifested itself recently in repeated calls to deprive unauthorized immigrants of their due process rights. The conditions in migrant detention centers are horrifying and photos from one facility in McAllen, Texas showed children being held in cages. According to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Facebook report, this border facility is an enormous warehouse “filled with cages. Cages for men. Cages for women. Cages for mamas with babies. Cages for girls. Cages for boys.”  Such an unconscionable state of affairs makes the current exhibition of Alberto Giacometti at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City all the more electrifying. The show features more than one hundred and seventy-five sculptures, paintings, and drawings, spanning more than forty years and across all the various media with which he worked.  
Added 12.07.2018
I sometimes meet with apologies from venues when a piano’s action may not be serviced to top form. I reply with a smile that such apologies are unnecessary, for in my youth I had to pull up as many keys as push down upon them when playing on battered uprights before elementary school children. In those days I played as often with my palms up as down, like a day at the gym dedicated to both push and pull. Once, however, just before a recital in a private South Carolina home, I encountered a woman whose main concern was – though my naked hands were plain before her – that I remove any rings I might be wearing before playing upon her piano’s vulnerable ivories.
Added 12.06.2018
Extract: “Nothing is beautiful except what is true,” Cézanne once said, “and only true things should be loved.” As the philosopher Jacques Derrida put it: “The truth in painting is signed Cézanne.” Perhaps it is this above all else that makes him the indispensible painter for our times, this era of so-called ‘post-truth.’ For Cézanne “painting was truth telling or it was nothing.” That is what it meant to paint from nature, to be primitive, to be free from all affectation, to be like those “first men who engraved their dreams of the hunt on the vaults of caves…” This is why we need to look and look again at Cézanne. And it is perhaps best that he has come to the National Gallery, to D.C., but a stone’s throw away from where truth is daily made a mockery of, and lies are proffered with breathtaking ease.
Added 06.06.2018
Extracts from the article: "Johnson and Johnson recently announced that it was halting a clinical trial for a new Alzheimer’s drug after safety issues emerged. This latest failure adds to the dozens of large, costly clinical trials that have shown no effect in treating this devastating disease. The growing list of failures should give us pause for thought – have we got the causes of Alzheimer’s all wrong?".............."Another option is to look at the risk factors for developing Alzheimer’s. One of these is type 2 diabetes." ............"Testing these [diabetes] drugs in animal models of another neurodegenerative disorder, Parkinson’s disease, also showed impressive effects, ............These new theories bring a fresh view on how these diseases develop and increase the likelihood of developing a drug treatment that makes a difference. To see any protective effect in the brain in a clinical trial is completely new, and it supports the new theory that Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease are caused, at least in part, by a lack of growth factor activity in the brain. These new theories bring a fresh view on how these diseases develop and increase the likelihood of developing a drug treatment that makes a difference."
Added 01.06.2018
Extract from the article: "The most common defense of truth is the pragmatic one – namely, that truth works; that true beliefs are more likely to get the job done than those that are not true. The pragmatic account of the value of truth is not wrong, but at the same time it is not enough. Truth is not valuable for solely instrumental or extrinsic reasons. Truth has intrinsic value as well. When we reduce the value of truth to instrumentality, it is a very short step to saying that we just want beliefs that work for us, regardless of whether they are true or not."
Added 14.05.2018
During the first century of modern art, Paris was a magnet for ambitious artists from all over Europe. Remarkably, the current exhibition at Paris’ Petit Palais tells us that “Between 1789 and 1914, over a thousand Dutch artists traveled to France.” Prominent among these were Ary Scheffer, Johan Jongkind, Jacob Maris, Kees van Dongen. But of course most prominent were Vincent van Gogh and Piet Mondrian.
Added 10.05.2018
The Jewish Museum in New York City is currently presenting the work of Chaim Soutine (1893-1943), featuring just over thirty paintings by one of the most distinctive and significant artists of the early twentieth century. Focusing on still life paintings, of which he was a master, "Chaim Soutine: Flesh" includes his vigorous depictions of various slaughtered animals - of beef carcasses, hanging fowl, and game. These are dynamic works of great boldness and intensity, and taken together they constitute a sustained and profoundly sensuous interrogation of the flesh, of carnality - of blood, skin and sinew.
Added 08.05.2018
The impact of air pollution on human health is well-documented. We know that exposure to high levels of air pollutants raises the risk of respiratory infections, heart disease, stroke, lung cancer as well as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. But there is growing evidence to suggest that air pollution does not just affect our health – it affects our behaviour too.
Added 05.05.2018
 

The May bank holiday is intimately linked to labour history and to struggles over time spent at work. In the US, May Day has its origins in the fight for an eight-hour work day at the end of the 19th century.

Added 01.05.2018
Quote from the article: "Who is talking about how globalized the world was between 1880 and 1914 -- until war broke out and fascists subsequently determined the course of history -- and the parallels between then and now? Globalization always had a down side, and was never meant to last forever -- but the gurus chose not to talk about it. It is always just a question of time until economic nationalism reappears, but the gurus have done a poor job of addressing the nexus between economics and politics, and its impact on business, which is the real story."
Added 29.04.2018
"......if we did manage to stop the kind of ageing caused by senescent cells using telomerase activation, we could start devoting all our efforts into tackling these additional ageing processes. There’s every reason to be optimistic that we may soon live much longer, healthier lives than we do today."
Added 29.04.2018
Many countries have introduced a sugar tax in order to improve the health of their citizens. As a result, food and drink companies are changing their products to include low and zero-calorie sweeteners instead of sugar. However, there is growing evidence that sweeteners may have health consequences of their own. New research from the US, presented at the annual Experimental Biology conference in San Diego, found a link with consuming artificial sweeteners and changes in blood markers linked with an increased risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes in rats. Does this mean we need to ditch sweeteners as well as sugar?
Added 25.04.2018
Female doctors show more empathy than male doctors. They ask their patients more questions, including questions about emotions and feelings, and they spend more time talking to patients than their male colleagues do. Some have suggested that this might make women better doctors. It may also take a terrible toll on their mental health.
Added 25.04.2018
The English-born Thomas Cole (1801-1848) is arguably America's first great landscape painter - the founder of the Hudson River School, the painter who brought a romantic sensibility to the American landscape, and sought to preserve the rapidly disappearing scenery with panoramas that invoke the divinity in nature. The Metropolitan Museum of Art's "Thomas Cole: Atlantic Crossings" is an astounding exhibition featuring a painter of extraordinary power and vision, underscoring his environmentalism and the deep sense of loss that pervades many works as he reflects on deforestation, the intrusion of the railroad, and the vanishing beauty of the untrammeled wilderness.
Added 23.04.2018
Quantitative evidence from three independent sources — auction prices, textbook illustrations, and counts of paintings included in retrospective exhibitions — all pointed to the fact that some important modern artists made their greatest work late in their careers — Cézanne, for example, in his 60s, and Kandinsky and Rothko in their 50s. But the same evidence indicated that other important artists produced their greatest work very early — Picasso, Johns, and Stella, for example, all in their 20s. Why was this was the case: why did great artists do their best work at such different stages of their careers? I couldn’t answer this question until I understood what makes an artist’s work his or her best.
Added 19.04.2018

People of all ages are at risk from diseases brought on by loneliness, new data has revealed.

Added 09.04.2018

I was a senior university student in Baghdad, Iraq. It was March 2003, and over the past few months, my classmates had whispered to each other about the possibility of a US-led invasion and the likelihood that 35 years of dictatorship and tyranny could be brought to an end.

Added 26.03.2018
In 1815, 69-year old Francisco de Goya painted a small self-portrait. Today it hangs in Madrid’s majestic Prado Museum. Next to it are the two enormous paintings of the uprising of May, 1808, in which Madrid’s citizens had been slaughtered by Napoleon’s troops, that Goya had painted in 1814 for King Ferdinand VII, to be hung in Madrid’s Royal Palace. One of these, of the execution of Spanish civilians by a French firing squad, is now among the most famous images in the history of Western art.