Dostoevsky in English

I haven’t posted anything for a while, but having got over pre-Christmas flu, festivities, and catching up with work after both, I am now back in the saddle. I decided to post a list of links to English translations of Dostoevsky’s works, partly because someone suggested it would useful, partly to have an overview what’s available and in how many versions, and also so that I can find the links when I need them – for original Russian texts, lib.ru has everything except most of Dostoevsky’s correspondence, so one rarely needs to look further (I would however recommend conradish.net for Russian learners, as it has useful reading aids), but translations are a bit more scattered, and even the most complete collection – the University of Adelaide Ebooks series – does not have everything that is available. I’ve included links to everything I could find, giving multiple versions because different formats may be useful for different things, and you never know whether some may disappear. Most of the translations available on-line are Constance Garnett’s, but there are also a few versions by other people, including Fred Whishaw and Marie von Thilo – I’ve used * in the separate works lists to indicates those that are not by Garnett, but I may have missed a few, and there are a couple where I’m not 100% sure whose version it is.

It comes as no surprise to discover that Crime and Punishment is available on the largest number of websites, but it is perhaps more surprising that this is the only text available in a dual language version – I would have thought the internet was ideal for presenting side-by-side texts, and it would be really useful for students. Let’s hope someone takes the hint and we see more parallel texts in future. At the other end of the scale, there were a few stories that were proving rather elusive, including a couple of my favourites, A Nasty Story and Another Man’s Wife and a Husband Under the Bed, but I did eventually manage to track them down in a collection on Archive.org (translated as An Unpleasant Predicament and Another Man’s Wife - managing to turn possibly the best story title ever into something quite mundane!), while The Landlady (definitely not a favourite) eventually turned up in two different collections, with Garnett’s version of The Gambler and Hogarth’s version of Notes from Underground.

There is, on the other hand, hardly any of Dostoevsky’s non-fictional work available, which is a great pity, because it deserves a wider readership than it usually gets. There is Google books preview of Winter Notes on Summer Impressions, but not the complete text. There’s very little of his journalism, because very little of it has been translated. The only bits of Diary of a Writer that are available are the short stories and one slim volume that features a couple of pieces, while from the earlier period I particularly regret the absence of his brilliant Petersburg feuilletons. On the other hand, there are two early volumes letters and reminiscences, which I wasn’t really expecting to find. So I think there’s enough to keep most people going. I hope other people will find the list useful, and if you do come across any versions I’ve not included – particularly if you find any more of the non-fiction – please let me know and I’ll update.

Pre-exile works

Poor Folk Ebooks@Adelaide | Literature Network | Project Gutenberg | Archive.org

The Double Ebooks@Adelaide | Eserver Collection | Literature Network

White Nights Ebooks@Adelaide

Mr Prokharchin Ebooks@Adelaide

A Faint Heart Ebooks@Adelaide

Polzunkov Ebooks@Adelaide

A Little Hero Ebooks@Adelaide

A Christmas Tree and a Wedding Ebooks@AdelaideLiterature Network

Works of the 1860s

Insulted and Injured Ebooks@Adelaide | Eserver Collection (incomplete) | Literature Network |Archive.org* | other

House of the Dead, or Prison Life in Siberia Project Gutenberg | Archive.org | Free Fiction BooksArchive.org [2]*

Uncle’s Dream Ebooks@Adelaide

The Permanent Husband Ebooks@Adelaide

The Crocodile Ebooks@Adelaide | Eserver Collection | Literature Network

Notes from Underground Ebooks@Adelaide | Eserver Collection | Literature Network | Project Gutenberg | Archive.org | Free Fiction Books

Crime and Punishment Ebooks@Adelaide | Eserver Collection | Literature Network | Archive.org | Russia Today | dual language version | Free Fiction Booksother

The Gambler Ebooks@AdelaideLiterature Network | Project Gutenberg | Free Fiction Books*

The Idiot Ebooks@Adelaide | Literature Network | Project Gutenberg | Archive.org* | The Free Library | Free Fiction Books*

Works of the 1870s

The Possessed Ebooks@AdelaideLiterature Network | Project Gutenberg | Free Fiction Books

A Raw Youth Ebooks@Adelaide | Archive.org

Bobok Ebooks@AdelaideLiterature NetworkAbout.com

A Gentle Spirit Ebooks@Adelaide | Eserver Collection | Literature Network

The Little Orphan (A Little Boy at Christ’s Christmas Tree) Literature Networkother

The Dream of a Ridiculous Man Ebooks@AdelaideLiterature Network

The Brothers Karamazov Ebooks@Adelaide | Eserver Collection | Literature Network | Project Gutenberg | Archive.org | Free Fiction Booksother

Collections

Short stories by Fiodor Dostoievski [includes An Honest ThiefA Novel in Nine LettersAn Unpleasant PredicamentAnother Man's WifeThe Peasant Marey, and others]

The Novels of Dostoevsky: Nyetochka Nyezvanov [sic] and The Friend of the Family (The Village of Stepanchikovo and its Inhabitants)

The Friend of the Family, and The Gambler

Poor Folk and The Gambler

The Gambler and Other Stories [includes Poor People and The Landlady]

Letters from the Underworld, trans. C. J. Hogarth [includes A Gentle Maiden (A Gentle Spirit) and The Landlady]

Uncle’s Dream and the Permanent Husband, trans. Fred Whishaw

Pages from the Journal of an Author, trans. S. Koteliansky and J. Middleton Murry (1916), including the speech delivered at the Pushkin Memorial on 8th June 1880

White Nights and Other Stories (also on Free Fiction Books)

Correspondence & reminiscences

Letters of Fyodor Michailovitch Dostoevsky to his family and friends, trans. Ethel Colburn Mayne (1914)

Dostoevsky: Letters and Reminiscences, trans. S. Koteliansky and J. Middleton Murry (1923), including selections from Anna Grigorevna Dostoevskaya’s reminiscences.

Top ten letters in Russian literature

Letters play a significant role in some of my favourite works of Russian literature, and a couple in particular have been very much on my mind lately. So here is my top ten, which manages to encompass everything from the absurd to the tragic. Apologies for the plot spoilers (especially in entries 10, 7 and 4), which were unavoidable. I adhere to my usual rule that no writer may appear more than once.

10. Lermontov, A Hero of Our Time. The letter Vera writes to Pechorin in ‘Princess Mary’, in which she informs him she is leaving and will never see him again, is remarkable not so much in itself as for the reaction it causes. Pechorin, so cool and calculated in his actions elsewhere, rides after her in such a frenzy that he kills his horse. The image of his anguish outlasts his own acid comment, ‘anyone who saw me at that moment would have turned away in contempt’. Russian text | English text

9. Olesha, Envy. Two letters feature prominently in part one the novel as important expressions of their authors’ personalities. Kavalerov’s outburst of hatred for the man who saved him, in chapter 11, fixes the dominant characteristics we have already defined, but Volodya’s letter, in chapter 13, is downright sinister, admitting his jealousy of Kavalerov, and hinting at a viciousness we might otherwise not suspect in his character. Meanwhile his paean to the machine has become a key passage in the formation of the New Soviet Man. Russian text

8. Babel, Salt. This skaz narrative takes the form of a letter from a soldier, Nikita Balmashev, describing an incident on a train, in which a woman’s deception is discovered and punished. Full of mangled Bolshevik jargon and horrifying in its casual violence, this is far from being the only letter in Red Cavalry, but it is, I think, the most memorable. Russian text

7. Shalamov, Injector. There are, understandably, few humorous moments in Kolyma Tales, but this story – a classic urban myth-type tale about a machine being mistaken for a convict – is a notable exception. Many letters feature in the stories, because receiving them was such an important moment in the lives of the convicts, but I love this one in particular, although the context is very different, because it provides such a rare glimpse of Shalamov’s playful side, but also because of its brilliant execution of Soviet officialese. Russian text

6. Pushkin, Evgeny Onegin. In a work that in so many ways turns on reading and writing – and was probably responsible for the persistence of these themes in Russian literature – Tatyana’s letter to Onegin acts as the culmination of her literary education. Was ever a love letter so misplaced? Russian text | English text

5. Gogol, Diary of a Madman. Letter-writing dogs – what more could you want? (Letter-writing cats is the obvious answer to that, but we can’t have everything, and in any case cats clearly wouldn’t be interested in the minutiae of their owners’ – sorry, servants’ – lives.) Punctuation and spelling are all correct, even if Poprishchin notes something a bit ‘doggy’ in the style. Russian text | English text

4. Chukovskaya, Sofia Petrovna. Another work in which letters play a significant role, it is the final one, from the heroine’s incarcerated son Kolya, that is really heart-rending, in part because of his innocent inquiries about friends whose fates we have witnessed, but of which he is unaware, but mainly because of his mother’s response. Having devoted her entire life to Kolya, Sofia Petrovna’s final act is to betray him, destroying the letter and deciding not to write an appeal as he requests. One of the best depictions of the madness and moral compromises of the Stalin era. English text

3. Teffi, Subtly Worded. Teffi’s evocations of emigré life are hilarious, and this fabulous little anecdote about the complexities of aesopian language and evading the censorship is possibly my favourite. Russian text | English text

2. Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment. Letters abound in Dostoevsky’s fiction, from his first, epistolary novel, Poor Folk, to Prince Myshkin’s letter to Aglaya in The Idiot that becomes central to our understanding of his character, particularly when it is placed in a copy of Don Quixote, to The Adolescent, where the entire plot revolves around the possession of a letter and its contents. But the winner has to be the letter Raskolnikov receives from his mother – a masterpiece that places him in an untenable position; defining him as the perfect son and brother for whom every sacrifice is worthwhile, she equally makes it plain to him that such a perfect son would in no way allow his sister to sacrifice herself. Unpicking her contradictory messages is one of the great pleasures of literary analysis. Russian text | English text

1. Grossman, Life and Fate. Anna Semyonovna’s letter to her son Victor Shtrum, written from the Berdichev ghetto on the eve of the massacre of the town’s Jews, is one of the most moving things I’ve ever read in my life, and it is all the more remarkable because Grossman wrote it as an expression of his own grief for leaving his mother to that fate. I find it unbearable to read, so one can only imagine how unbearable was the burden of his guilt. Russian text

The Crystal Palace fire

Seventy-five years ago, on 30th November 1936, the Crystal Palace was destroyed by fire. Contemporary newsreels give a good impression of the events of that evening:




You can also see the Pathe newsreels here, and parts of the Crystal Palace is on Fire video made by the Crystal Palace Foundation.

What really struck me as I was looking for accounts and images of the fire is the extent to which it was and continues to be seen as a spectacle, comparable with all the palace’s previous performances. This letter by Edgar McWilliam, written the day after the fire, describes traffic and pedestrians surging up the hill to watch. The report from The Guardian on 1 December 1936 also focused on the crowds of on-lookers:

The immensity of the crowd destroyed the possibility of evacuating the area around the tower. Anerley Hill, where the tower was most likely to fall, was one solid, seething mass of people. Mounted and foot police struggled to force the crowd back. Even the fire engines were hemmed in. [...] It was a strange crowd which came out to see the end of a famous London landmark. There were the connoisseurs forearmed with a knowledge of local topography. There were the sort of young men and women to be seen at almost any free entertainment in the streets. There were vast numbers of cyclists, both men and women. There were youngish men and women with traces of Bloomsbury, Hampstead and Chelsea in their clothes and speech, taking the whole affair very gravely. But among these were to be seen many elderly men and women to whom the destruction of the Palace meant the end of a chapter in their lives.

That sense of both the spectacle of the fire, and what the building meant to people, is also apparent in this lovely animation, The Crystal Palace is on Fire, by Peter Rest. And this ‘souvenir’ postcard of the fire is a good indication of the perception of the fire as the palace’s final performance:

This all seems to present a distinct contrast with how the fire was reported internationally, where it seems its significance wasn’t always understood, as a feature in Life magazine, 23 December 1936, shows (pp. 33-35). Describing the palace as a ‘gigantic greenhouse,’ the article rather sniffily labels one of the pictures, ‘Wreckage of Crystal Palace art consisting of hideous plaster copies from the Egyptian, Greek, Pompeian, Byzantine and Gothic. If it had been real art, the fire would have done a billion dollars damage’, which rather misses the point. Here, the spectacular nature of the fire lies merely in its size, but the innate sense of the palace itself as a show, and its copies as architectural, archaeological and artistic theatre, eludes the author.

Seventy-five years later, the sphinxes and statues adorning the terraces have been transformed from archaeological pastiche to real ruins, but that sense of spectacle is still apparent.

Sphinx, Crystal Palace park, November 2011

Walking through the ruins gives a taste of what an extraordinary sight the palace must have made. It indicates how powerful the trace of something that has essentially vanished can be. In the case of the Crystal Palace, I think that’s because its real power lay not in Joseph Paxton’s innovative design for the iron-and-glass structure alone – it was always its appeal to the imagination that mattered most.

In Herzen’s footsteps: a visit to Ventnor

You never quite know where your research is going to take you, but I have to admit I didn’t expect it to be to the Isle of Wight. That, however, is where I ended up a couple of months ago as a result of my Russians in London post on Alexander Herzen, after I was contacted by Bob and Esme Williamson, owners of St Augustine Villa, a charming hotel on the Esplanade in Ventnor, and probably the most distinctive building in the town.

St Augustine Villa, Ventnor, Isle of Wight

Whilst researching the history of hotel, which was built in 1846 by the Reverend Richard John Shutte (1800-1860), who had earlier been a canon at St Paul’s Cathedral and by 1855 was rector at Halden, Kent, the owners discovered that Herzen and his family had rented the house – then barely ten years old – during their stay in September 1855.

Reverend Shutte's tombstone, St Catherine's Church, Ventnor

The Williamsons learned about Herzen’s stay when they were contacted by a Dutch researcher at the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam, who had made a remarkable discovery whilst looking through Thomas Carlyle’s letters to Herzen in the Institute’s archives. Among the Herzen papers, there were several drawings, by an unknown hand, and depicting unknown scenes. By an extraordinary coincidence, the researcher had spent time in Ventnor as an au pair in the 1960s, and she recognized two of the pictures as being of St Augustine Villa:

St Augustine Villa, Ventnor, 1855

The others are of the coast around Ventnor. It was easy to establish that Herzen stayed at the house – two of the letters he sent from Ventnor in 1855 are addressed ‘St Augustins Villas’ (the inaccuracy is fairly typical). But the authorship of the drawings was much initially less certain. It seemed unlikely that Herzen himself would have drawn them – his sketch-maps and the other little doodles that appear in his letters are distinctly amateurish, and in any case one rather suspects he would have viewed art as something of a distraction (his letters overall reveal a man consumed with work and family life, with little time or inclination for other pursuits). There was a suggestion that his son Sasha might have been responsible, but it soon became apparent that there was a trained artist in their entourage: Malwida von Meysenbug (see her Memoirs of an Idealist, pp. 44-46).

Comparing the sketches of Ventnor to pictures by von Meysenbug in Vera Leuschner’s book, Malwida von Meysenbug: Die Malerei war immer meine liebste Kunst [Painting has always been my favourite art], leaves one in no doubt; the style is so similar that the pictures must be hers.

Coast near Ventnor, by Malwida von Meysenbug, 1855

This, incidentally, is why I was so disgusted with E. H. Carr (see my previous post): Malwida von Meysenbug was a talented artist and writer, and he reduces her to an unutilized (ergo, hysterical) womb. One knows only too well the extent to which women’s achievements have been denigrated or ignored, and Carr was hardly the only guilty party, but it does feel particularly offensive when it’s being done right in front of your eyes. It’s also very unfortunate that Tom Stoppard’s characterization of von Meysenbug in Salvage, the final part of his Coast of Utopia trilogy, seems based entirely on Carr’s opinion; her art, as far as I could see, is never mentioned, and she does not step beyond her role as governess and surrogate mother. Anyway, I’ve already said my piece on that subject, so back to today’s topic.

So off we went to Ventnor to follow in Herzen’s footsteps and stay at St Augustine Villa. And I can only recommend that you, dear reader, do the same. The hotel is lovely, and in a fabulous position, as the pictures show. Bob and Esme are very welcoming hosts, and provide excellent (and enormous) breakfasts (be warned – you won’t want much lunch). It was really interesting thinking about Herzen, von Meysenbug and the children staying there, and imagining how they spent their time. Although he doubtless spent a lot of time in the house working (what precisely he was working on while he was there I have yet to establish), I conjured up an entirely fanciful and anachronistic picture of Herzen strolling down the Esplanade eating an ice cream (probably because of the very memorable Minghella’s blackcurrant and cream ice cream I sampled) and having a pint in the Spyglass Inn. We spent a lot of time looking at old photographs of Ventnor – which is a really interesting place – and working out what has changed, mainly due to reconstruction after the war, in order to get an idea of what it was like in the mid-nineteenth century.

So what do we know about the family’s stay there? To be honest, not a huge amount, because the letters are concerned, as usually, overwhelmingly with Herzen’s work and domestic arrangements. There were in fact two trips to the town. The first, at the end of September 1854, lasted around a week. So far, I’ve not managed to find out where they stayed, but it’s clear that Herzen was as taken with Ventnor as we were; in the one letter he wrote during this visit, to his regular correspondent Maria Reichel, on 28th September, he comments, ‘this is an amazing place, i.e., one never expected to find such charms in England.’ (Sobranie sochinenii v 30-i tomakh, 25, p. 202) Von Meysenbug expands slightly on this in her Memoirs:

[Herzen] proposed a small trip to the sea which I had previously suggested to him and which he had turned down.

So we left. Domengé came with us, and we took the boat over to Wight Island, the natural beauty of which I had long wanted to see. On the journey across the island to the little city of Ventnor on the southern side, Herzen, his son, and Domengé sat atop the stagecoach, the children and I sat inside. Delighted by the glorious road, I called up to them: ‘Isn’t that beautiful? Wasn’t I right in suggesting this?’ Laughingly, Herzen called down: ‘I didn’t want to tell you, but yes, you were right: its glorious and I’m glad we came.’

We spent happy days in beautiful Ventnor. In the evenings we were usually with the Pulszkys, who were spending the summer there. Therese’s mother, an educated and intelligent Viennese lady, had come to visit them, and this made for many a pleasant hour with her keen humor and wit. The Kossuths were also there, and he was much more pleasant in a more intimate setting than he had been at the formal gatherings in London. At the time, our thoughts were preoccupied by the war Russia had started with Turkey. Herzen, more so than the others, was very excited. He prophesied the Russian defeat and wished for it, since he believed it would lead to the downfall of autocracy. (pp. 222-3)

Von Meysenbug also, Herzen informs us, spent all her time in the water, presumably using a bathing machine like those in this photo from 1911:

probably hired from Blakes, providers of beach huts, deck chairs and the like since 1830 – an unexpected sign of continuity, and a strong indication of how established Ventnor was as a resort years before Herzen’s and Meysenbug’s visit.

No further details are given, and the rest of the letter is taken up with recipes for treating cholera, which was then raging in London – a stark reminder of the differences between life then and now, which are often easy to overlook.

The trip was clearly enjoyable enough to ensure a return the following year for a more extended stay. Again, von Meysenbug’s description is brief:

Herzen himself suggested that we again go to Ventnor on the Island of Wight for a few weeks. Of course, the children and I welcomed this suggestion. We rented a comfortable home on the ocean, and the wonderful sea air and charmingly beautiful coast revived our good spirits. The Pulszkys were also there again. They frequently came in the evening, and I enjoyed being together with Therese, whose sensitive personality became less of a mystery to me than it had been in the political excitement of London life. News reached us there about the taking of Malakoff. This meant that Sebastopols [sic] would probably fall and the war would be over. We rejoiced at the news, not only out of consideration for human life, but especially for Russia, since it could be assumed that the new emperor would attempt domestic reforms after the close of this war he had inherited. (pp. 240-1)

Herzen is even more sparing in his details. He writes to the Italian activist Luigi Pianciani on 8th September that Ventnor was chosen largely because of the cost of going to Jersey, their first idea, and because the children’s seasickness would have been a problem on the longer voyage (p. 299). The following day, a letter to Maria Reichel includes a note from Tata (Natalya), about her nameday party, which is, typically, somewhat more informative than her father’s missives:

Daddy gave me two wonderful books, «Die Völker des Erdballs» [The Peoples of the Globe] by von Burghaus, and there are wonderful pictures in them. Sasha gave me a little knife, Mselle Buch – a toy boat, oysters, and a scarf, Louisa – a glass basket, Olya had been saving a penny for a long time, and she bought me some chocolate by herself. (p. 300)

In his next letter to Reichel, dated 20th September, Herzen is slightly more forthcoming about his activities: ‘For three days the weather has been like June – and I’m bathing recklessly in the sea. But before that there were four days of storms, rain and bitter cold. [...] The children are perfectly healthy. Tata and Olya bathe every day. Sasha, too.’ (p. 301) Some fondness for Ventnor is evident, but it’s tinged with his usual ambivalence about England as a whole: ‘If it were not so boring, I would live here, but there are no resources at all. And getting to Ryde is expensive. Another winter in England – it’s awful to contemplate. But where can we go?’ The complaints then take over; in another letter, dated 25th September, Herzen reports catching a cold (p. 302), and in his final letter from Ventnor to Reichel, he notes that the weather has recently been ‘dreadful’ (p. 304), while a postscript from Sasha to the same letter reads: ‘we’re already preparing to leave for Richmond; however, it’s quite boring here – the weather is awful, you go walk anywhere – and in that case it’s better to be at home’ – clearly he was his father’s son.

And that’s it. I’ll publish the translations in full in a separate post, but essentially they show the extent to which Herzen, even on holiday, was preoccupied with work, his household, and his business and domestic affairs back in London. He pays far less attention to his own present circumstances than those of his family and entourage elsewhere. A bit of bathing aside, there doesn’t seem to have been much to distinguish the holiday from his usual life, and given that a number of other exiles, such as the Hungarians Lajos Kossuth and Ferenc Pulszky, were in Ventnor at the same time, even his evening socializing must have very much resembled his normal London activity, discussing the Crimean war and the political situation in Russia. With Malwida von Meysenbug’s pictures we have a glimpse of another side of the visit, of walks along the beautiful coastal path and an appreciation of the landscape that seems to escape Herzen, his enthusiastic initial response to their first visit aside.

Although I appreciate Herzen very much as a writer, and admire his commitment, there are times when I wish he had been a bit more well-rounded. His lack of engagement with his surroundings means that for me at least he sometimes seems quite an elusive figure despite his copious memoirs and letters. A comparison with Turgenev, who visited Ventnor in 1860, reveals a much more concrete sense of the person in the place, because he responded to it as an artist; as both Freeborn (pp. 407-12) and Waddington (pp. 95-110) have shown, Ventnor played a significant role in the development of Turgenev’s idea for Fathers and Sons, and the nearby Blackgang Chine appears in the story Phantoms. This, I would suggest, is also why Turgenev’s visit to Ventnor has not only been fictionalized by Richard Freeborn in his novel The Russian Crucifix: A Victorian Mystery, but also features in Stoppard’s Salvage (pp. 303-8), whereas Herzen’s does not, despite his being the major focus of that play. In fact, his absence from the scene is emphasized because Malwida von Meysenbug and Olya Herzen are present, shrimping and collecting shells on the beach; it is they who notice Turgenev, talking to the doctor who supposedly becomes the model for Bazarov. (The Herzen family actually holidayed in Bournemouth that summer, apparently after Herzen realized that Ventnor was going to be overrun by Russians.) It suggests a figure who is curiously absent from parts of his own life.

Turgenev’s stay in Ventnor is commemorated in a local heritage museum plaque.

Herzen’s visit may not have left as much of a trace in his works, but with the identification of von Meysenbug’s drawings of Ventnor, I hope that their stay at St Augustine Villa will be similarly marked. Theirs was obviously an odd household, but whatever the personal shortcomings of the one and marginalization of the other by history, they were both figures of some distinction and importance.

My thanks to Bob and Esme Williamson for their hospitality, to Mieke Ijzermans, whose research contributed greatly to this post, and to John Levin for being a wonderful companion with whom to explore the area, and for his permission to use the photographs of Richard Shutte’s gravestone and Blakes’ deckchair hire. The photos of St Augustine Villa and of the Turgenev plaque are my own. Both my own and John Levin’s photographs, and the copies of the drawings by Malwida von Meysenbug, are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative works 2.0 England and Wales License.

Sources

E. H. Carr, The Romantic Exiles: A Nineteenth-Century Portrait Gallery (London: Peregrine, 1968; first publ. 1933)

Carol Deithe, ‘Keeping Busy in the Waiting Room: German Women Writers in London following the 1848 Revolution, in Exiles from European Revolutions: refugees in mid-Victorian England, ed. Sabine Freitag (New York and Oxford: Berghahn, 2003), 253-74

Richard Freeborn, ‘Turgenev at Ventnor’, Slavonic and East European Review 51, no. 124 (July, 1973), 387-412

Richard Freeborn, The Russian Crucifix: A Victorian Mystery (London: McMillan, 1987)

A. I. Gertsen, Sobranie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh. Tom dvadtsat’ piatyi: pis’ma 1853-1856 godov (Moscow: Nauka, 1961)

Vera LeuschnerMalwida von Meysenbug: Die Malerei war immer meine liebste Kunst (Bielefeld: Verlag fuer Regionalgeschichte, 2002)

Malwida von Mysenbug, Memoiren einer Idealistin (1869) | Memoirs of an Idealist, trans. Monte B. Gardiner (1999)

Tom Stoppard, The Coast of Utopia (London: Faber and Faber, 2008)

Patrick Waddington, Turgenev and England (Basingstoke: McMillan, 1980)

The games Russian boys play

Whilst doing some research for my Russians in London series (to be resumed at some unspecified point), I came across a truly unexpected document from the pages of Chums, a middle-class boys’ weekly magazine published between 1892 and 1941, later associated with the scout movement, but in its early years probably most notable for its serial publication of Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island in 1894. The article in question, from November 1893, is an interview with Sergei Stepniak-Kravchinsky. The very fact of an interview with such a figurehead of the revolutionary movement (who, let us not forget, had assassinated the chief of the ‘Third Department’ – the secret police – General Mezentsov) in a Boy’s Own-type publication is curious enough, but the subject of the interview is perhaps even more extraordinary: Russian boys’ games.

I have to admit at first I couldn’t understand why Kravchinsky would want to be involved in something so trivial – it seems to go against everything one ever reads about Russian revolutionaries, who were nothing if not serious and single-minded. But then I started thinking about the motives of the interviewer (one Frank Banfield). For readers of Chums, Kravchinsky – pseudonym and all – would represent the height of daring. The comparison with pirate captains and highwaymen – equally regarded as friendly to young boys when off duty – indicates a view of Russian revolutionaries as exotic swashbucklers. But that in itself, it seems, is sufficiently exciting for young minds; delving any deeper would quickly lead into more problematic territory, hence the anodyne subject matter of Russian versions of hopscotch and skittles. And that, despite initial appearances to the contrary, would surely accord entirely with Kravchinsky’s motives, which I suspect were mainly to do with refining his public persona. The interview allows him to have it both ways; he remains the dashing revolutionary of boys’ imaginations, whilst showing how normal, unthreatening, and even cuddly he is. In exposing the dishonesty of the boys who cheat at Vibitki, he emphasizes his own honourable nature, so that when, at the end of the conversation, he refers to the oppression of young people in Russia, the righteousness of his cause is clear, the bland response of Mr Banfield notwithstanding.

So, for your delectation, I present possibly the strangest contribution to the literature of Nihilism ever written:

CHUMS, 8 Nov 1893, p. 169

RUSSIAN BOYS AND THEIR GAMES

A Chat with Stepniak, the Russian Nihilist

Is there any man in London who knows more about the ways of conspiritors than another, that man is Sergius Stepniak. Guy Fawkes wasn’t in it with the plotters whom this gentleman is hand-in-glove with. The Czar won’t have him in Russia at any price. Still, I knew that persons who can plan revolutions are often – for that matter, like pirate captains and highwaymen – personally very amiable.

‘He’s just the man,’ thought I, ‘to tell one something interesting about Russian boys and their games, and that will suit ‘CHUMS’ admirably.

So, if men with masks and daggers had lurked at every corner of the road, I don’t think I should have been daunted in the least, after my mind was made up as to my duty.

Consequently, about four in the afternoon, I might have been seen knocking at the door of a neat villa-cottage in Blandford Road, Turnham Green. Away on the right from the front door-step one obtaind quite a pretty view of the Chiswick meadow and woodland. But there was no time for mooning over landscapes, though there was in the near background such a dear old square-towered church, ‘bosomed high in tufted trees.’ A sudden rumpus arose, a very loud fierce barking, and on the door being opened by a comely maid-servant, two black dogs rushed forward. I didn’t turn a hair, because I keep three dogs of my own – fox-terriers – Jack, Floss, and Tiney, if I may go into such details. These two black ones must have known I liked dogs, for they began wagging their tales; and after the servant showed me into the drawing room they were as quiet as mice, and I saw no more of them.

In a few minutes Mr. Stepniak came in, and we shook hands. He was smoking a briar; and his request, I took my own pipe out of my coat-pocket, and we puffed away in concert.

‘Is your real name “Stepniak”,’ said I, ‘or is it only your writing name?’

‘It’s my writing name,’ said he.

‘What is your real name?’ I asked.

He smiled, shrugged his shoulders, and, in a word, declined to tell me. Here was a delightful mystery – a man who had some good reason or another for refusing to say who he was.

Of course, I did not press him on the matter, because that would be impolite. Therefore, I said -

‘I approach you, Mr. Stepniak, on behalf of “CHUMS,” a paper with an enormous circulation among the boys of the British Empire.’

He immediately assumed an attitude of more respectful attention.

‘What games,’ said I, ‘do Russian boys play?’

‘They play ball,’ said he.

‘Nothing else?’ I asked.

‘When I was a boy myself,’ he said, ‘I never played.’

I looked at him with some severity of manner, as I oberved -

‘But what do the boys do, then?’

‘They read,’ he said slowly. Then recollecting himself, he went on -

‘Oh, yes, I remember. We have a national game. The knuckles of sheep! If the joints of the feet of the sheep are taken, they will make something like that:-

‘In Russian we call that Babka; the plural is Babki.

‘We put the knuckles in rows, so:-

Each boy playing has his own knuckle, filled with lead, and each throws his own knuckles at the rows, and tries to overturn as many of them as he can.’

‘Have you any other first-class game?’ I asked anxiously.

‘Yes, we have another called Gorodki, which means fortress or town, It is just like Babka, only it is played with pieces of wood, put in rows, like this:-

- three or four rows or more; then each boy throws at them a piece of wood shaped in this fashion’:-

‘What other fun have the Russian boys?’ I asked.

For answer, Mr. Stepniak drew this figure, which the boys, he said, marked out on the ground:-

Each boy playing,’ said Mr. Stepniak, ‘takes a little stone. One begins and throws it into No. 1 division. Then he hops up to it, and if he knocks it out with one twist of his foot, he can go again, this time throwing it into No. 2.

‘The stone must always be jerked out over the end marked A. It must never rest on a line. If it does, the player must pick it up, and another little Muscovite comrade go on.’

‘What do you call that?’ I asked.

‘I have forgotten the name,’ Mr. Stepniak replied sadly.

‘It reminds me, said I, ‘of “Hopscotch,” a game I played as a boy down in Cornwall.

‘But,’ I continued, ‘you must have some other games?’

‘Yes,’ said Mr. Stepniak, there is Svaika. It is played with sticks like this,’ and he drew roughly as follows:-

‘This is a pointed piece of wood. One boy fixes his piece in the ground, and another boy tries to hurl his own pointed cudgel in such a way as to knock the other’s out of the earth, and at the same time to fix his own in the ground.’

‘Anything more?’ I asked.

‘Well, there is Gorelki,’ said he. ‘Boys stand behind each other in a line. About a foot from each one is a girl, so:-

‘A is a boy, and the boy and girl farthest from him start off running, and try to meet ahead of the others before A catches them. If they escape, they take their place just in front of A. Then the next pair start. It A catches one, the boy has to take his place, while he plants himself with the girl at the head of the line.’

‘Do you play “Blindman’s Buff”?’ said I.

‘Of course,’ said Mr. Stepniak. ‘That is an international game. Ah, but I must tell you, at Easter, they play Vibitki. Each boy has an egg – a red egg. First they knock the small ends together till one is broken. The boy that breaks both ends of the other’s egg with his own gets that egg as his prize. It is,’ went on Mr. Stepniak, ‘quite a science in buying to recognize which egg has the thickest shell, testing it with tte teeth. And they cheat at it.’

‘The dishonest little wretches,’ I exclaimed. ‘How is it done?’

‘They prick a little hole in the side of the egg and suck out the white. After that they pour in a thin glue, which hardens at the ends when they are heated over a fire; and, of course,’ said Mr. Stepniak, ‘no ordinary egg has a chance in a contest with eggs prepared in this fashion.’

After that he explained to me Kator, a drawing-room game played with eggs.

‘Don’t your boys play cricket?’

‘No,’ said he.

‘Nor football?’

‘No,’ he again replied, ‘but many games with ball.’

From what Mr Stepniak here told me I inferred that Russian boys know a thing or two about ‘Rounders.’

‘Boys,’ said I, ‘in Russia are not oppressed, are they?’

‘Oh yes, they are. At first the Government of the Czar only put spies on students; now they put them on boys, so as to nip Nihilism in the bud, as they would say. Boys of fourteen are sent to Siberia. 300 young people under twenty are exiled there every year.’

‘What an awful shame,’ I said; and I assured him that ‘CHUMS’ readers would be heart and soul with me in this sentiment. Then I got up and wished Mr. Stepniak ‘good-bye.’

FRANK BANFIELD

Four short links: Soviet design

The promised posts on Herzen are still in preparation, but in the meantime, a few recent features on Soviet design have reminded me that their poster art wasn’t an isolated phenomenon (incidentally, good sites for Soviet posters keep cropping up – I found this French one after I published my four short links post). Favourite of all is:

1. Soviet fabrics, 1920s-1930s, via The Retronaut. Some truly beautiful pieces here, with both pictorial and abstract designs containing typical motifs of construction and agriculture as well as massed ranks of workers and sportsmen. I like this five-year plan design, combining tractors, factories and mines:

Some of these fabrics really counter the usual view of the Soviet Union as the ultimate in drabness, but I wonder how much of this type of stuff actually got made. There were lots of brilliant design ideas around in the 1920s in particular, aimed at transforming everyday life, but an awful lot of them, it seems, never got further than the drawing board. But I think these are fabulous nevertheless.

2. From the sublime to the ridiculous, with adverts for Soviet groceries from English Russia. Appetizing, eh? Food packaging never received quite the same attention of other (more aspirational?) areas of Soviet life, but there are some typical examples here, including a few that sparked off an unexpected bout of nostalgia…

3. I have far fewer nostalgic feelings about Soviet cigarettes (again from English Russia), doubtless because I have smoked far too many of them in my time. But you can’t deny the quality of some of the package designs. That alone should tell you something about the relative importance of eating and smoking in Soviet culture, but if you’re still unconvinced, this article from Russian Life gives plentiful background on the Russian smoking epidemic. Dieselpunks also has some good Soviet cigarette posters.

Connoisseurs will have noticed the big omission from the English Russia collection: the classic Belomorkanal design:

First produced to celebrate the opening of the White Sea Canal – built by slave labourers provided by the Gulag – and containing without doubt the most vile cigarettes known to mankind (’5th class’ tobacco, the packets proudly proclaim), with a cardboard tube that seems to have the opposite effect of a filter, smoking these things is an experience I would not recommend to anyone. There was always that depressing point in the night when everybody had run out of decent cigarettes and there was only a packet of Belomorkanal left, and you knew very well that eventually you’d end up having one, and you knew beforehand how much you’d regret it… Possibly the best thing about giving up smoking is knowing that I will never taste Belomorkanal again. But the longevity of the brand is quite remarkable, and I can’t help admiring those babushki who still puff away on them, if not with a look of enjoyment, then at least without the appearance that they’re overdosing on toxic chemicals.

4. Finally, this review of Made in Russia: unsung icons of Soviet design on brainpickings brought back memories of a few gems, including the dialless telephone, and the collapsible communal drinking cup, ‘a telescopic beacon of hope in an icky world of strangers’ germs.’

E. H. Carr on women

I’ve been re-reading parts of E. H. Carr’s The Romantic Exiles (1933) in preparation for a couple of forthcoming posts on Alexander Herzen, and it’s left an unpleasant taste that I have to address before I can even get onto Herzen. Clearly I’m far from being the first person to take issue with Carr – Norman Stone’s damning review for the LRB of The Twilight of the Comintern (25% of the article is available without subscription), as well as some the correspondence it provoked, and a review of Jonathan Haslam’s biography of Carr, give a flavour of some of the bile he has inspired – so I don’t think I’m going to say anything particularly new here. Nevertheless, because of the subject of my next posts, it has to be said: Carr’s attitude to women was appalling.

My main concern, because of the period I’m going to be writing about, is his treatment of Natalia Ogareva and Malwida von Meysenbug. I’ve previously felt a bit uncomfortable with his portrayal of Ogareva, both here and in his Bakunin biography, because he seems happy to blame her for the love triangle, whilst absolving Herzen and viewing Ogarev merely as a pitiable patsy. What got to me this time was how condescending Carr is. This is already apparent in the fact that he always refers to women by their first names, as though they are children, whilst the men are addressed by surname, like proper grown-ups. But it’s also evident in other ways. His snide commentary on the first days of the Ogarevs’ life together reveals what he really thinks of Ogareva:

Natalie rapidly exhausted the pleasing novelties of housekeeping. She tried self-education, and found herself a dull pupil. She tried her hand at fiction, and sent one of her stories to the popular journal Notes of the Fatherland; but the editor returned it with the comment – surely written with his tongue in his cheek – that a tale about the mistress of a married man was unfit for insertion in his respectable columns. She tried gardening, and found more satisfaction than she had anticipated in the sheer physical labour of digging. (p. 161)

This sort of insinuation, branding Natalia Ogareva with the soul of a navvie whilst apparently discussing her search for an outlet for her creative energies, seems quite typical. Back-handed character assassination is, in fact, something of a speciality: introducing Malwida von Meysenbug, who played such a central role in raising Herzen’s daughters, Carr notes, ‘A light touch and a careless joie de vivre were qualities which she neither possessed herself nor admired in others.’ (p. 128). Why is the absence of such traits deemed so noteworthy? I don’t get the impression that Herzen, particularly after the death of his wife and son, had much joie de vivre either, but Carr overlooks that. Presumably women’s only role in life was to be decorative, and certainly Malwida failed to qualify, as Carr goes on to make clear:

She was not [...] destined to inspire a lasting passion. Her photographs suggest a strikingly handsome woman. But dignity of profile was nullified by a poor complexion and weak, obviously myopic, eyes; and her contemporaries did not find her attractive. Herzen, a few years later, bluntly refers to her as ‘an awful fright’. (pp. 128-9)

Emphasizing the failure of her love-life, Carr makes no reference to Meysenbug’s talent as an artist (this will become relevant to the story in my forthcoming posts), or the importance of her very interesting Memoirs of an Idealist.

Most significantly, Carr repeatedly tars both women with the same brush: hysteria, arising from their maternal instincts. Upon first realizing how attached she was Herzen’s younger daughter Olga, whilst on holiday apart from the family in Broadstairs, Meysenbug ‘became almost hysterical with loneliness.’ (p. 132) When the Ogarev’s arrive in London, Ogareva and Meysenbug are presented as mirror-images of each other: ‘The two childless women, both sexually unsatisfied and both possessed by an almost hysterical yearning for children, were predestined rivals.’ (p. 164) This rivalry ultimately causes the break-up of Herzen’s family: ‘Before Natalie returned from the Continent, Malwida asked and obtained permission to take Olga with her to Paris for the winter. The child never returned, except as an occasional visitor, to her father’s house. Herzen had to thank Natalie for the loss of one of his children’ (p. 177). Evidently Herzen himself was incapable of intervening and bore no responsibility for the arrangement of his own household.

Ogareva’s hysteria is not only seen as the root of everything, but also provides additional scope for insinuations about her character:

The years of social ostracism had made her morbidly sensitive. The first symptoms of the hysteria of later years began to appear. She felt herself, probably without reason, ignored and despised. She was sure that Turgenev, who years ago had dedicated a story to her, now hated her. Tolstoy, when invited by Ogarev to their lodgings, failed to appear; and she took his absence as a personal slight to herself. The only one of her husband’s literary friends with whom, curiously enough, she was completely at home was the rather simple-minded Ostrovsky, the popular author of bourgeois comedies. (p. 162)

Am I alone in spotting the echoes of Anna Karenina in this description? It really makes me wonder how close it is to the reality of the situation. These similarities re-emerge in later rifts with Herzen over the sacred memory of his wife, caused by Ogareva’s ‘frenzy of self-pity and self-assertion’ (p. 219), and again, Herzen is presented as entirely passive and blameless.

Perhaps these are accurate descriptions – it’s impossible to tell because of the absence of proper references. But when the same accusation is levelled against two of the key female figures in the story as the cause of all the problems of the innocent, piggy-in-the-middle, man, one has to be suspicious. If nothing else, the constant criticisms of the characters and actions of Malwida von Meysenbug and Natalia Ogareva are completely uncalled for. I’ve had my fill recently of biased and judgemental biographies, as they do not do justice to their subjects even if they believe they are defending them. Carr’s misogyny is bad enough in itself, but it also skews his portrait of Herzen, and I’m bloody annoyed on both counts.

Vasily Grossman: links

Vasily Grossman in 1945

The BBC Radio 4 adaptation of Life and Fate is in full swing, but I’ve been away/really busy, so I haven’t managed to listen to any of it yet (perhaps later today, if I finish the article I’m working on…), or write the follow-up post I was intending about the conference. But as Grossman mania sweeps the country (okay, that may be a slight exaggeration), I can at least provide a few links to round up the best offerings on the web (this is clearly displacement activity, as I really should be trying to finish that article).

Grossman’s works: Many of the original texts can be found on the inevitable Biblioteka Maksima Moshkova (where would we be without it?), but apart from ‘The Hell of Treblinka’ (which for some reason is categorized as a povest’), it doesn’t include much of his war writings. For some these go to the Voennaia literatura website, where you will find War stories and Sketches, Years of War (in RAR format – to extract the files, use unrarx for mac, 7-zip for Windows), and For a Just Cause. English translations of a small number of stories and reports are available on SovLit: In the Main Line of Attack, In the War, In the Country, A Tale about Happiness, and The Resident. But of course, if you haven’t already discovered Grossman, you should read Robert Chandler’s translations, Life and Fate, Everything Flows, and The Road, and Anthony Beevor/Luba Vinogradova’s A Writer at War.

Other resources: For Russian readers, there are various links here on Grossman’s life and works. There’s brief biography on SovLit and an essay on The Berdichev Revival. The website of the Centre for the study of Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate and the Battle of Stalingrad in Turin brings together various resources, and is is playing an increasing role in promoting the life and work of Grossman, by coordinating publications and conferences, and through its travelling exhibit.

On Life and Fate - the book and the adaptation: Among the many pieces that have appeared to accompany the production, see Anthony Beevor in the Radio Times, a preview and review of the first plays in the Telegraph, reviews of the adaptation in the Economist and the book in the London Review of Books, and an article on Grossman and the adaptation on Prospect – there’s also an earlier essay by Robert Chandler on Grossman and the novel for Prospect. In the last couple of weeks, the Guardian has published a number of articles and comment pieces, including and article by Francis SpuffordPass Notes on Life and Fate, In Praise of Life and Fate, and a review of Journey, the fifth play of the adaptation, which follows Sofya Leviton into the gas chamber. Previous pieces include this article by Luke Harding on Grossman’s life, work and reputation. Keith Gessen’s article in the New Yorker is good for background. Among the blogs, Trewisms has good posts about the novel both in response to recent events and previously, as well as commenting on the Grossman-fest in Oxford. See also Shiraz Socialist, and openspace.ru for a Russian perspective on the sudden growth of interest in Grossman in Britain. A new blog, The Faculty of Useless Knowledge, has also written about the meaning of the ‘arrest’ of the novel.

Other stuff: Reviews of Robert Chandler’s translation of Everything Flows from the Independent and the Los Angeles Times, plus a couple of essays by Robert himself on Grossman and the novel from Vulpes Libris and the Book addict’s guide to good books. Robert’s article on translating in this week’s New Statesman arose out of concerns about the lack of recognition given to translators – including the BBC’s failure to give proper acknowledgement to him as the translator on which their adaptation was based until a campaign rectified the situation. The Independent also reviewed The Road, Robert’s collection of Grossman’s short stories and essays, and to mark the publication of that volume, I published an interview with Robert Chandler.

Life and Fate on the BBC

I’m still recovering from a couple of memorable days at St Peter’s College Oxford, where the BBC’s event to celebrate the Radio 4 adaptation of Vasily Grossman’s vast and still under-appreciated novel Life and Fate was followed by an interdisciplinary conference on Grossman. I’m still gathering my thoughts on the latter, so I’ll save that for another occasion, and focus on the BBC day for now.

I found the first session of the day the most interesting: a discussion of the dramatization of the novel for the radio, chaired by Bridget Kendall and featuring the director of the adaptation, Alison Hindell, and the dramatizers Jonathan Myerson and Mike Walker. It gave a good insight into the process, from the initial decision to reject a straightforward chronological adaptation in favour of a more mosaic-like approach, turning the novel into 13 plays, to keeping a 15-minute slot empty until the overall production could be assessed to see what needed adding – the decision was to incorporate a condensed version of the Gulag story to balance out the comparison of Nazism and Stalinism. What became apparent was how important characters are to radio drama, and that changing the entire structure to being together different characters’ stories in single plays rather than spreading them throughout episodes was probably the right decision, but will it end up a bit like a soap opera because of this? is that an inevitable result of the process of adaptation? That remains to be seen, but I think the restructuring of the novel for the adaptation has the potential to reveal aspects of the original that are not immediately apparent. The fact that you can download all the plays and listen to (most of) them in any order also excites my interest, as well as generally being a good thing for people who can’t just drop everything to listen to it all next week. You have to applaud the BBC’s ambition in bringing the production to the radio, and I’m very much looking forward to it, even though some of it will be difficult listening.

From my point of view, the rest of the day was less compelling, as discussions of Grossman’s biography and the significance of Life and Fate didn’t really tell me anything new. But it was revealing in another respect. Working in literary studies, I’m used to academic conferences with tiny audiences, where we’re basically talking to ourselves. I’m not sure how many people attended, but particularly for the main attraction, the appearance of Andrew Marr to record Start the Week, the chapel was pretty packed. I’m sure there were a few radio 4 aficionados who didn’t have any specific interest in Grossman, or had heard about the adaptation and wanted to find out more, but there were also clearly quite a lot of people there who were really engaged with the topic and had read or were reading the novel. For a literary scholar constantly fighting against (and being worn down by) the perception – not only in government, but also in parts of the academic establishment – that what we do has no value or wider purpose, it was good to see evidence to the contrary: people are interested in literature and want to know more about it. The Amazon Movers and Shakers page provides confirmation: sales the new edition of Robert Chandler’s brilliant translation that was used as the basis for the adaptation increased by 17,450% in 24 hours, and other editions/translations of Grossman have also shot up.

The day ended with one of the stars of the adaptation, Janet Suzman, reading Anna Semenovna’s letter to her son Viktor from the Berdichev ghetto, on the eve of the massacre of the town’s 20,000 Jews. It was extraordinary, powerful, terrible and moving. This week sees the 70th anniversary of that massacre, in which Grossman’s mother was killed. I can think of no better way of marking it than introducing a new audience to Life and Fate. The first play is on Sunday 18 September.

Gulag Voices: two books

This year has seen the publication of two books titled Gulag Voices: an anthology of memoirs edited by Anne Applebaum, and a collection of oral histories by Jehanne Gheith and Katherine Jolluck, so this seems like a good opportunity to look at both of them.

I had previously read all but one of the extracts included in Applebaum’s Gulag Voices: An Anthology, so it was a chance to remind myself how remarkable some of these works are. It’s a well-chosen selection, with one reservation: the decision to exclude Shalamov. In the introduction, Applebaum states that, along with Solzhenitsyn and Evgeniia Ginzburg, Shalamov is sufficiently readily available in English to make his inclusion unnecessary (pp. xiv-xv). I disagree; not even half of his stories have been translated into English, and even now far fewer readers are aware of him than of Solzhenitsyn. One might suggest the fictionalized status of Shalamov’s stories should exclude them from this selection of mainly more straightforward memoirs, but I think he would have contributed an important extra dimension.

The book is structured loosely to mirror the individual’s progress through the system, from arrest to release, but the choice for the first extract is slightly disappointing. Dmitry Likhachev’s memoir does indeed give a clear account of arrest and initial imprisonment, but it differs little from other reports, and as Applebaum herself comments (p. 2), his work is most notable for its description of the early stages of the labour camp system during his imprisonment on Solovki, so including one of the most typical sections at the expense of one of the most unusual seems like a missed opportunity. It looks as though the same thing is going to happen in the next extract, by Alexander Dolgun, when we read:

Dolgun was interrogated in Sukhanovka, a prison and torture chamber from which few emerged alive or sane. Other prisoners considered Dolgun’s survival so exceptional that Solzhenitsyn sought out his testimony when writing The Gulag Archipelago. The selection that follows describes an earlier period of Dolgun’s interrogation, at Lefortovo Prison. (p. 14)

Fortunately, what follows proves fascinating, as Dolgun records the practical and psychological techniques he uses to survive interrogation and isolation.

The extracts are generally quite short (the book is just under 200 pages long) and cover different areas such as informers (Lev Kopelev), camp bosses (Lev Razgon), faith communities (Nina Gagen-Torn), and a prisoner’s transformation, changing sides to become a guard after her release (Isaak Filshtinsky). Two of the most harrowing pieces of writing to emerge from the Gulag are necessarily included: Elena Glinka’s ‘The Kolyma Tram’, which depicts mass rape, and Hava Volovich’s description of the death of her child. Hard though it may be to believe after reading those, humanity is apparent elsewhere. Gustav Herling’s chapter ‘The House of Meetings’, with its detailed observation and understanding of the psychological and emotional challenges facing prisoners and their relatives, ends with the news that a child has been conceived in the ‘normal’ surroundings of a rare conjugal visit (p. 122); the depth and warmth of feeling he describes here indicates that the sense of community normally associated with women’s memoirs of the Gulag at least at times existed amongst male convicts as well.

By the time I’d finished the book, I wanted to re-read several of the memoirs featured in full, and I hope that readers who are new to the subject will similarly be inspired to seek out some of these works. They are of profound historical importance, but still relevant today, even as ‘living memories of the society which created the Gulag are beginning to disappear’ (p. xiv). That this generation is fast dying out is immediately apparent in Gheith and Jolluck’s Gulag Voices: Oral Histories of Soviet Incarceration and Exile, as several of the subjects interviewed have since died; even those who were imprisoned as children under Stalin are now elderly.

The interviews, which were evidently conducted with great sensitivity and are frequently very moving, by and large cover different areas from the usual trajectory of arrest, imprisonment, transport, camp and exile, to which we have become accustomed through reading so many published memoirs. The camps do feature, but  so do life as ‘special settler’ exiles, and in orphanages as children of ‘enemies of the people’ – aspects of the experience that are generally less documented in memoir literature. The particular value of oral testimony is that it can mediate the experience of those who are more marginalized and less educated, and therefore unlikely to write or publish memoirs – although that is not the case with all the interviewees included here – so we gain significantly different perspectives than those of the intelligentsia, whose experience is well known. In many ways the picture that emerges from these interviews is very similar to that of published narratives. But by looking, for most of the testimonies, beyond the dissident movement and the writings associated with it, we get a significantly different view of the attitudes towards the Soviet regime of those who were persecuted by it; for most, their internalization of Soviet values survived their frequently horrific experiences, and it is remarkable how little bitterness is expressed by most of the interviewees.

Gheith and Jolluck are very clear-sighted about the problems of oral history, such as the presence of incorporated memories (pp. 8-9), which is quite refreshing, as the current popularity of oral history seems to have led in some circles to the assumption that such testimonies are automatically superior to or more authentic than written accounts, as though they represent the holy grail of scholarly knowledge, for which memoirs by the likes of Evgeniia Ginzburg are but a poor substitute. That idea seems to be based on the supposition that oral history is in some way more directly mediated than a narrative that premeditatedly orders experience into a story, which is, frankly, dubious; the former may have a greater sense of immediacy or spontaneity, but the gap between the experience and the telling is no less present, and the process of mediation is merely different. While it can often give voice to testimony that would otherwise remain unheard, at other times the proximity of an interviewer may in itself create a problem. For example, it is quite noticeable that the interviews here do not touch on intimate questions. This may, as the authors note, be due to a greater reticence normal in Russian life (p. 11), but the contrast with the testimonies of Glinka and Volovich in Applebaum’s book, and indeed Czelawa Greczyn’s written account of her son’s death in the documents section of Gheith and Jolluck’s, suggests that distance from an audience makes it possible to write about experiences that cannot be spoken of.

This is not remotely to question the validity or significance of Gheith and Jolluck’s work. It’s an important and useful book that increases our knowledge and understanding of the experience of Stalinism by providing access to different dimensions and perspectives. But reading it alongside the written accounts in Applebaum’s collection gave a clear insight into the strengths and limitations of both types of testimony. As I said, Gheith and Jolluck are very alive to the issues surrounding oral testimony, and aim for maximum transparency with regard to the interview transcripts, indicating, for example, where the order has been changed to aid comprehension. This was very welcome, emphasizing the intrinsically interpretative nature of the editing process which, even if it was undertaken for entirely practical reasons, in itself exposes the fallacy of direct mediation. But at the same time it did also reveal what was lost in that process, and on a couple of occasions I was left wishing for unedited transcript.

The other thing I felt was missing was analysis. I don’t mean this in a negative way, as the book is essentially a collection of primary source material. But having heard Jehanne Gheith speak at AAASS (as it was then) a few years ago, and read her article, ’“I never talked”: enforced silence, non-narrative memory, and the Gulag,’ Mortality, 12.2 (2007), 159-75, I know she interprets her material in really interesting ways. I hope more of that will come soon.

  • Anne Applebaum, Gulag Voices: An Anthology (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011)
  • Jehanne M. Gheith and Katherine R. Jolluck, Gulag Voices: Oral Histories of Soviet Incarceration and Exile (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)