Visiting the Soviet Union in 1932 was a disillusioning experience for Arthur Koestler. He was disenchanted by what the revolution had led to, but told what he called the “necessary lie”, continuing to support Stalin’s Soviet Union until it signed a peace treaty with the Nazi’s in 1939. With many of his old comrade’s put on show trials and executed under the Stalinist Regime, the now ex-communist Koestler wanted to explain where and why the revolution went wrong. Furthermore, he searched for an explanation as to why so many of these old-line Bolsheviks, who had been essential to the party during the revolution, were publicly confessing to crimes against the party that would lead to their execution. In 1940 Koestler wrote the novel Darkness at Noon, which addresses these issues through the inner ethical conflictions of the main character Rubashov. A decorated member of the old guard, Rubashov is among the last of a dying breed and spends the novel in a prison through a series of three trials ultimately leading to his execution. Throughout the novel, Rubashov is confronted with an inner confliction that begins to develop emotional and heartfelt tendencies questioning the ethical validity of the very logic and ideology that he has sworn by in his past forty years of service to the party. This “silent partner” or “grammatical fiction”, as Rubashov describes it, progresses through the duration of the three trials until finally gaining dominance over the old “logical Rubashov” in the moments leading to his death. Exploring the development of this inner confliction between the two sides of Rubashov exposes the ethical dilemma of Machiavellian logic, and attempts to explain why a just society cannot be created by the use of violent and unjust means. Through this realization and explanation, Rubashov gives the reader clues of why he believes the revolution went wrong. Finally, we are faced with the question of why someone like Rubashov, as a faithful old-line Bolshevik, would sign a confession admitting crimes against the party. Answering this question requires analysis of another theme in the novel, which is the portrayal of Rubashov as a Christ figure. By exploring these themes, this paper will conclude with answers to the questions Koestler was addressing in writing Darkness at Noon. Rubashov enters the prison as an old-line Bolshevik holding true to the party’s logic and ideology. However, from the beginning there are hints exposing Rubashov’s “mystic” side, including his toothache and the sounds of rushing water. Rubashov’s toothache symbolizes his conscience, which has been suppressed and pushed deeper into his subconscious through his service to the revolution and the party. As Rubashov progresses through the three trials, he begins to question the ethics of the party’s ideology through what we may call “flashbacks” to ethically questionable tasks he has carried out in the past. By exploring each of these “flashbacks” a trend is observed in which Rubashov’s individualistic side gains dominance. After reading the novel, a logical starting point for the development of Rubashov’s emotional side would be his conversations with the inmate in cell 402. Clues pointing to this conclusion include the fact that the first word exchanged was “W-H-O”. Upon hearing this request, Rubashov thought to himself “According to the revolutionary etiquette, he should have started with a political tag; then given the news; then talked of food and tobacco; much later only, days later, if at all, did one introduce oneself” . This first interaction shows that their relationship throughout the novel will serve the purpose of exposing the flaws of Rubashov’s logical side, while helping to develop a sense of individuality. Every interaction between inmate 402 and Rubashov deals solely with human interaction and the extension of personal interests. Although they share two completely different ideologies, their friendship exists as a sole function of their individuality. After Rubashov’s first conversation with inmate 402, the image of La Pietá surfaces in his mind. This image occurs many times in the novel, and is always symbolism of Rubashov’s developing emotional side. In this particular instance, Rubashov is reminded of a time he was carrying a task on for the party. This required him to expel from the party a man, Richard, who had altered propaganda with his own phrases and ideas that were inconsistent with the central committee’s message. Rubashov met Richard in a museum, where they held a secret meeting in which only Rubashov knew the bitter outcome. During the meeting, Rubashov informed Richard that he was no longer a member of the party. Upon hearing this, Richard is clearly upset, and expresses his helplessness to which Rubashov has no reaction. Rubashov condemns Richard to a very bleak fate, and the Machiavellian logic at the core of the party’s ideology allowed him to carry on this task with no emotional obstacles. Even though Rubashov did not verbally express his conscience or a feeling of guilt, there is symbolism suggesting that his subconscious realized the ethical implications of his actions. During the meeting, right before Rubashov utters the phrase that condemns Richard, “Rubashov felt for the aching tooth with his tongue. He felt the need to touch it with his finger before pronouncing the decisive word, but forbade himself.” This toothache is visceral symbolism showing that deep in Rubashov’s subconscious, he is experiencing guilt. Several more “flashbacks” before the end of the novel will have similar implications and will help further develop this side of Rubashov. Having already read the novel, certain similarities between Rubashov’s meetings with Richard and with Gletkin become apparent. When meeting with Richard, Rubashov is portrayed much in the way that Gletkin is during the last trial. In the trial, Gletkin’s posture remains stiff and straight, as does Rubashov’s in the museum. Gletkin is condemning Rubashov to death for crimes against the party, just as Rubashov is condemning Richard to an outcome necessarily leading to a dismal fate. In both cases, the crimes committed were not physical actions, but were ideas incongruent with the central ideas of the party. Upon further analysis, the parallels between these two instances could be calling into question the Machiavellian logic of ultimate ends. Rubashov had condemned Richard to his bleak fate (unjust means) in order for the advancement and success of the party. However, the end to these means was the Stalinist regime, characterized by his purges and show trials. Through the use of unjust means, the actions of the Bolsheviks necessarily led to the unjust end that was Stalinism. Rubashov’s execution, a product of the Stalinist Purges, can also be seen as an end to the unjust means that condemned the fate of Richard and so many others. Although not apparent until the end of the book, this is one of the first scenes in the book that can be interpreted to show the flaws of Machiavellian logic, which prove to be significant in Rubashov’s realization of why the revolution went wrong. Rubashov directly addresses and begins to question the issue of Machiavellian logic in his journal entry appearing before the second hearing. When considering revolutionary action, Rubashov writes, “A revolution conducted according to the rules of cricket is an absurdity” . By “the rules of cricket”, Rubashov is most likely referring to the ethics of responsibility, and explains that they were “Neo-Machiavellians in the name of universal reason”. Rubashov admitted that they (the party members) were “thinking and acting on credit”, meaning that their means would only be justified in the event that they reached the correct end, in which case they would be absolved by history. Rubashov expresses this in a quote that Gletkin refers to in the third trial: “He who is in the wrong must pay: he who is in the right will be absolved” . It is for this reason that the common practice among party members was to think every idea to its final and logical conclusion before acting accordingly. Rubashov calls this “the law of historical credit” and adds, “It was our law”. However, further reading shows that Rubashov begins to realize an incongruity between the ethics of responsibility (cricket morality) and the ethics of ultimate ends (Neo-Machiavellianism). Rubashov first begins to question how anyone in the present can decide what will be absolved by history in the future, calling it “work of the prophets without their gift” and “replacing vision by logical deduction” . He concludes his journal entry by exposing the importance of faith in one’s self, citing No. 1’s unshakeable faith, then concluding with the quote “The fact is: I no longer believe in my infallibility. That is why I am lost.” At this point, Rubashov’s “silent partner” (individualistic side) begins to gain dominance in his thought. Rubashov’s thought on this matter is not fully completed until the hours leading to his execution. At this crucial point in the novel, Rubashov clearly exposes the incongruity and incompatibility of the ethics of responsibility with the Machiavellian ethics of ultimate ends. Through his realization, he is also presenting this as an aspect of his own reason for why the revolution went wrong. In the time leading to his execution, an “oceanic sense” overcomes Rubashov. This idea of the “oceanic sense” will be discussed further in this paper, but for now it will be discussed only as a turning point in which Rubashov reaches his final realizations (Koestler’s answers to the initial questions addressed). Since his “mystic” side has gained dominance, Rubashov explores the ethical implications of this dilemma, and starts by realizing the faulty logic used by the party. Rubashov thinks, “Perhaps it was not suitable for a man to think every thought to its logical conclusion” and calls it “the running-amuck of pure reason” . By identifying this “mistake in the system” Rubashov understands that it is impossible for man to logically think any situation to its exact end. Before he is killed Rubashov thinks of his version of utopia, in which a new movement will combine “economic fatality and the ‘oceanic sense’”, and that will “preach that only purity of means can justify the ends” . It is at this crucial point in which Rubashov’s emotional side gains dominance and he rejects Machiavellian logic. Rubashov dies understanding that it is impossible to reconcile the ethics of responsibility with the ethics of ultimate ends, and believing that this was one of the main reasons that the Revolution went wrong. Rubashov had other problems with where the revolution went, and expressed his discontent with the difference between the “new guard” and the “old guard”. Rubashov constantly referred to Gletkin, a member of the “new guard”, as a “Neanderthaler”. He used this ugly term because these “Neanderthalers” lacked the essence of humanity, as a result of being raised in a system that condemns individuality. Rubashov realized that this new breed of Soviets came to existence as a product of Bolshevik teachings. In this instance, Rubashov is contributing the suppression of individualistic thoughts as a reason as to why the revolution went wrong. However, in this sense he seems to be questioning more than just Machiavellian logic, but also the entire Bolshevik ideology. Throughout the novel, Rubashov’s inner confliction between his “silent partner” (emotional side) and his old-line logical Bolshevik self progresses until the moment of his execution. Through analyzing this theme, it has become apparent that the novel ends with Rubashov’s realization that the end cannot justify the means. Through discovering this ethical dilemma, Rubashov explained the several reasons discussed as to why he believed the revolution went wrong. Now, it is important to address the other issue that Koestler wanted to address in the novel: why an old-line Bolshevik like Rubashov would admit to his “crimes” against the party that he has so faithfully served. Although this question is also deeply intertwined within the theme of Rubashov’s inner-conflictions, another theme arises: the idea of Rubashov as a Christ figure. The title itself, “Darkness at Noon”, refers to a solar eclipse during the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Opening the cover of the book unleashes a plethora of religious symbolism throughout the entire novel, from the imagery of La Pietá to the fragment of a bible verse that Rip Van Winkle constantly tapped through the wall – “ARIE YE WRETCHED OF THE EARTH” . The most obvious and important religious symbolism remains the portrayal of Rubashov as a Christ figure. Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor scene (The Brothers Karamazov: Book V) best resembles Rubashov’s story, with the three temptations of Christ portrayed as the three trials of Rubashov. The first temptation was portrayed when Ivanov offered Rubashov a cigarette, and like Christ he refused. The second temptation for Rubashov was when Ivanov offered for him to accept the authority of history and the logic of the party, and again Rubashov resists. The third temptation comes in the form of Rubashov’s confession, the temptation of utility. Gletkin told Rubashov “The one way in which you can still serve the party is as a warning example” . Rubashov succumbed to the temptation, and signed his confession. It is in this sense that we can view Rubashov as a failed Christ figure, leaving the question unanswered as to why Rubashov signed the confession. Although Rubashov was a failed Christ symbol, there are still many explanations as to why he signed the confession. Two reasons in particular stood out, one explaining a motive for each “side” to Rubashov. In giving in to the last temptation by signing the confession, Rubashov preserved his name in history. As Marx might say, Rubashov avoided being thrown aside into the “dustbin of history”. This logical decision was also doing a service to the party, meaning his last action before being executed was still conforming to the party’s ideology. Signing the confession also satisfied a part of Rubashov’s “silent partner”, considering that in signing it Gletkin said, “And then you and some of your friends of the older generation will be given the sympathy and pity which are denied to you to-day” . Desiring sympathy and the pity of others is as visceral and emotional as a human can get, and by signing the confession he (the “individualistic Rubashov”) has a chance to satisfy this desire. Essentially, both sides of Rubashov seek immortality in the confession. When Arthur Koestler wrote Darkness at Noon, his main goals were to explore the reasons why the Revolution led to Stalinism, and why old-line Bolsheviks repeatedly confessed to crimes against the party at show trials before being executed. Through the development of Rubashov’s “silent partner”, he explores the ethical dilemmas leading Rubashov to the conclusion that you cannot reconcile the ethics of responsibility with the ethics of ultimate ends. This appears to be Rubashov’s main answer to the first question, but he further questions the ideology of the Bolsheviks, whose instruction created this breed of “Neanderthalers” who lack any sense of individuality. The answer to the question of why someone like Rubashov would sign a confession can be interpreted a few ways, but mainly Rubashov wanted to avoid being tossed into the “dustbin of history”, and instead sought immortality. Rubashov’s last action was an act of service the party, however the last thoughts were purely “mystic”. The “oceanic feeling” that Rubashov felt with increasing intensity (symbolized earlier in the book by the water rushing down through pipes during his arrest) is explained by Freud as a desire for ones individuality to be absorbed into something greater (a grain of salt dissolved into the ocean), as well as thoughts of death. Although Rubashov would be remembered as doing a service to the party he died in a purely individualistic state of mentality.