Fyodor Dostoyevsky‘s From The House of the Dead is not a novel. Though its principal character, its narrator, the upper-class Goryanchikov, is probably a fictitious identity, it is also probably the author, himself, masquerading, so the overall impression is that of a recollection of real experience. We do not know if the other inmates of the prison camp where the book is set are faithful descriptions of real people, but they certainly come across as such. If there is anything that lingers after reading this book, then it is the immediacy of its realism.
Dostoevsky
spent years in such a camp, in Siberia, of course, after surviving his own
execution via a last minute reprieve which arrived, apparently, as his
executioners as were ready to take aim. It was a bit of a wheeze and quite
often used by the Russian royals and their system. Perhaps they were always
late in the signing of such orders, since they were probably preoccupied with
the counting of their serfs’ earnings, or should I say the earnings from the
serfs. One has to be careful to look after the welfare of one’s subjects, after
all, because if these people were actually to starve to death, one would take a
cut in income and one might have to run the fountains at Peterhof half an hour
or less each month. I exaggerate, perhaps but one senses that Dostoyevsky did
not.
And
it is the detail of the descriptions offered by its author that bring this
living death to life. When he describes how even a misplaced word or glance
could result in a prisoner receiving literally hundreds of lashes, one begins
to understand the nature of absolute power derived from God.
It
is perhaps the descriptions of these beatings that linger the longest in a
reader’s memory by the end of this book. Dostoyevsky, via Goryanchikov, of
course, describes the state of the flesh on the backs of the persons who had
just returned from their ordeals. He even allows those tasked with the delivery
of these disciplinary measures to describe the minutiae of their technique. We
learn, for instance, that the ultimate weapon for the corporal punishment
artist is the birch. It was the particular flexibility of this wood that
enabled the true expression of the beater’s persona, in that its ability to
store energy meant that a few tens of lashes from the birch could be as
destructive as a hundred from a cane. The reader should take note of the
advice. It may come in useful.
One
of the more book’s arresting memories is how often such punishments appear to
happen. After all, it’s the deterrent effect which is their most important
function, so to be effective in this they should be used as frequently as
possible. It will make them think twice, then thrice and so on…
But
in the end, as the composer Laos Janacek concluded, it is the humanity of the
people involved that shines through. Some of these people committed the most
horrible crimes and most of them enjoyed relating their stories. And there was
always, it seemed, an internal logic in their stories that arises to justify
action, no matter how disastrous the effects may have proved, no matter how
dire the consequences may have been. It is not that they were proud of what
they had done, but its reality had become part of them, part of their present
and future, as well as their past. One wonders if the royals and their loyals
used to indulge similarly by recounting the histories of those they condemned.
Overall,
one marvels at how these prison camp inmates simply get on with their lives.
They eat their food, whatever it is, involve themselves in illicit trade, run
their own drinking establishments, of sorts, and probably engage in conjugal
acts of whatever character can be imagined. And they cooperate when they are
not getting beaten. The next century had Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of
Ivan Denisovich and frankly, little would appear to have changed, apart from
the eventual ownership of the facility.
