WhetherRubashov calling a hero is might be a reach, discussing his moral awakeningthrough the Three Hearings is a true insight of his character.
This might be a good indicator where theChrist-like claim can be substantiated. Throughout the novel, readers are in Rubashov’s mind, which is importantto determine whether he is guilty or innocent of the crimes that he is accusedof. Rubashov may not even be a reliablenarrator because throughout the novel, he retraces his memories and questionstheir authenticity.
Harold Straussstates in “The Riddle of Moscow’s Trials:” Because his are still the standards of a man who has dedicatedhimself unswervingly for forty years to the program of the revolution, to thestruggle for its abstractly conceived ends by any necessary means, howsoeverhorrible. When such a man allows doubt to creep into his mind, when hequestions whether the revolution might not after all cost too much in humansuffering, he knows he is guilty. This senseof guilt comes up often especially on those he betrayed like Arlova, hissecretary-mistress or Richard.
Arlovawas especially problematic because he had an intimate relationship withher. When she was appointed a librarianposition in the bureaucratic unit, she garnered a lot of suspicion. The Party gave him a choice and he decides todo what would be best for the Party not for the life of someone else: “He hadsacrificed Arlova because his own existence was more valuable to theRevolution….
the duty to keep oneself in reserve for later on was moreimportant than the commandments of petty bourgeois morality,” (128-129; SecondHearing, Chapter 4). Richard can be seen as a reflection of himself, a personthat was dedicated to the Party but was disillusioned by the message. However at the time, Rubashov was seeing whatRichard has done (changing the Party’s message to his own ideals on a flyer) astreason.
There was no room forindividualism within the Party. The onlything that matter to him was the Party and spreading the message as he states: “The Party can never be mistaken,” said Rubashov. “You and I canmake a mistake. Not the Party. The Party, comrade, is more than you and I and athousand others like you and I.
The Party is the embodiment of therevolutionary idea in history. History knows no scruples and no hesitation.Inert and unerring, she flows towards her goal. At every bend in her course sheleaves the mud, which she carries, and the corpses of the drowned. Historyknows her way. She makes no mistakes. He who has not absolute faith in Historydoes not belong in the Party’s ranks.
” (43-44; First Hearing, Chapter 9) Rubashovrefuses to protect him. His unwaveringcommitment to the Party will not allow him to tap into his individuality, whichat the end leads to his own execution:The old disease, thought Rubashov. Revolutionaries should notthink through other people’s minds. Or,perhaps they should? Or even ought to? Howcan one change the world if one identifies oneself with everybody? How else canone change it? (23; First Hearing, Chapter 8) Hisconviction of eliminating the individual out of the Party’s logic gave him theability to carry out the Party’s demands without thinking of the consequencesit might cause in the future. The wholeobjective is to carry out the Party’s goals at all costs. It isn’t until he was arrested that he giveshimself the ability to reflect his individuality and morality to realize thatthe Party is wrong and that his duty to his commitment to the Party was harmfulto others: “Up till now, he had never imagined Arlova’s death in such detail.It had always been for him an abstract occurrence; it had left him with afeeling of strong uneasiness, but he had never doubted the logical rightness ofhis behavior,” (145; Second Hearing, Chapter 6).