Heinrich Böll – The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum

Reading well, at least as it’s taught at university, is not much different from detective work. From incomplete information, we make deductions and classifications, and test hypotheses against textual evidence. What does this word really mean, what was this character’s real motivation? Often, the “best” works seem to be those revealing the least, having us fumbling the most. Obscurantism occasionally lies very close to greatness.

The German author Heinrich Böll’s The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum is different because it’s a detective story that we wish were not one. Like many of the great German novellas, into whose tradition it neatly falls, Böll’s work is dominated by an interrogation of what it means to narrate. Katharina Blum meets and falls in love with a criminal, then shoots a journalist. But whose story is this to tell?

This plot, which we learn almost on the first page, is not what keeps us reading. Rather, it is the determination of Katharina’s motive or, more broadly, what’s in her heart. As we read, we encounter different ways of presenting / understanding her that seem to have a claim to be the truth.

Narrative coldness.

What we notice first is this strikingly cold narrative. The narrative voice seems obsessed with distancing itself from any kind of bias or emotional contribution to our experience. “And so, those are the facts”, it declares after an early chapter. At another point, it names all the sources for the novel. Generally, it uses the passive voice and the German indirekte Rede, or reported speech, which in formal use is its own grammatical construction and gives the narrative a kind of serious “report” feel to it. All of this effort to be honest about the work’s narrative, which stretches as far as a sly apology by the narrator every time the strict chronological telling is interrupted, makes us wonder what such approaches conceal.

Yet we can also take the narrator at face value, and trust that they were trying their best to tell the truth. We can do this because we have two actors who are manifestly not doing this – the police, and the journalists. But first, there’s Katharina herself.

Katharina

In his afterword, written ten years later, Heinrich Böll calls Katharina the “embodiment of the economic miracle” that took place in West Germany after the Second World War. She has her own flat, drives a car, and does her own budgeting – sending money to her poorly mother and her incarcerated brother. We read of interest rates and savings accounts. A generation earlier, a novel about a young woman from the countryside going to the city would end up with the woman being exploited, but here, Katharina manages more or less to hold her own life together…

…At least until the novel’s events begin. The novel is set in 1974, just as the economic miracle ended due to the oil price chaos in 1973. And this change of fortunes is mirrored in Katharina’s own life. Things taken for granted turn out to be less stable. The police is one such topic – when Katharina begins to get bullied by the press, her pleading is “can’t the state do something?” Her employment situation, once her name starts going through the gutter, also wobbles. She receives threatening phone calls. All the signs of her freedom start to turn on her.

Katharina lives in a world of change, and while it has benefited her, her focus on her “honour” is precisely an attempt to find something solid that she can keep safe. She is under constant threat throughout her life from men who are trying to proposition her, and so she tries hard to protect herself from this. When we first hear her voice in the narrative, in the context of questioning at the police station, it is in a mode of pedantry: she is insisting that the police use the right language for her experience. “Zärtlichkeit” and “Zudringlichkeit” are both to do with sexual attention, but Katharina insists that she is experiencing the latter word, which is unidirectional, while the police keep mistakenly writing the former and suggesting thereby that Katharina herself reciprocated or encouraged when she did not.

Yet pedantry is one way of creating an oasis of personal agency in a world where you have very little. Like the cold narrative style, it is an attempt to control a message.

The Police

After Katharina Blum takes Ludwig Götten home following a party, she is pounced upon by the police, who have been trailing him. Somehow, however, Ludwig has escaped – and Katharina must know how, even perhaps be an accomplice. The narration puts us in the place of the police, who are trying to get to the bottom of things. Normally, as I noted at the beginning, readers slip quite willingly into the interrogator’s shoes – crime novels are popular for a reason. Here, however, this becomes quite uncomfortable both for the overwhelming power of the police relative to Katharina, and our own complicity in the invasion of her privacy.

Besides comparing ways of telling Katharina’s story, The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum is, in a more earthy manner, concerned with privacy and our right to it. When the police first raid her flat, they insist on collecting everything with writing on it. Rather than finding a smoking gun, we are forced to see Katharina’s life broken down into components and painstakingly analysed. We go through notebooks, through family photos, through her finances, and even through her car’s odometer reading. We certainly learn, or think we learn, something about her life. But the cost is, naturally, that we begin the process of destroying that life.

The Tabloid

More so than the police, the greatest damage done to Katharina’s honour comes from the tabloid, “NEWSPAPER”. A German reader would recognise Bild, their popular if sensationalist and unreliable tabloid, akin to something like the UK’s Daily Mail. If the police are able to throw her in a cold room and interrogate her, the newspaper’s treatment of her is somehow more deadly and poisonous. No sooner than Katharina is released from her first questioning, we learn that she is being written about in a way that has, at best, only limited intersections with the truth. It is a pattern that’s repeated throughout the articles quoted in the novella.

Her friends, the upper-middle-class Blornas, are misquoted in a way that makes Katharina look bad. At other points, the reporter “improves” quotes out of an apparent duty to “provide simple people with help articulating their thoughts.” The only person who is convinced that the paper got him right is the priest from Katharina’s hometown, who has an obvious agenda (he calls her a communist). When he’s later confronted by Blorna, his source for this association proves to be “his nose.” It turns out he can smell communists. We would sigh, or maybe laugh, if it weren’t part of Katharina’s life being turned upside down by the paper that reports him.

The paper does damage – there’s a reason why Katharina ultimately shoots the man responsible for the stories. Yet part of that damage is buried under plausible deniability. After the story of Katharina first emerges, she starts receiving threatening phone calls, for example from men propositioning her, in yet another invasion of her privacy. Can we blame the newspaper for that? Certainly, but not in a way where the dots could be connected in a court, and by then the damage would be done anyway. That’s the power of institutions when they are not on our side.

But Böll does not leave the matter there – he also wants to connect the paper more directly to death. He does this through Katharina’s ailing mother, who is already in hospital. Here the journalist is denied an interview by the hospital workers, who state that her condition is very fragile, but the journalist is undeterred. Making use of a disguise, he sneaks in and gets his scoop. The cost is Katharina’s mother’s life – she expires soon afterwards. To rub salt into her wounds, in the newspaper report the author claims that it was the shock of Katharina’s misdeeds that prompted her mother’s death!

And so, Katharina is progressively dehumanised, in the sense that she is replaced as a human in the public eye by another – false – human according to the paper’s editorial decisions – a communist, a bad person. Is it not surprising, then, that she turns to violence?

“how violence develops and where it can lead”

The full title of the novel is The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum, or: how violence develops and where it can lead, and it was the second part that was most interesting to me before I had any idea what the book was actually about. One thing we might notice is that the second title reflects the coldness of the general narration – we have a report’s title more than a story. How Katharina becomes dehumanised and miserable enough to shoot a reporter is presented with a focus on the causes rather than on either Katharina’s mental state (which remains mostly hidden) or on any moral judgment of the murder. Murder remains bad, but readers are expected to want to understand how it might come about.

Simply put, it seems to come about from a decline in social trust. We hear a lot about it today in the context of our own political situations and nations’ changing demographic profiles, but Böll depicts the problem long before our own time. Katharina moves to a big city, which is, of course, a good thing and an achievement, and successfully makes a few friends there. Still, at the same time, she’s aware of how the social and technological progress she’s reliant upon for this success can have its negative sides: “I know so many women who are alone, who spend their evenings alone in front of the TV,” she says. Just as her world became bigger, for many people it can become smaller as they close themselves off from the world. (For example, by reading the gutter press without ever having the experiences that might conceivably balance it).

As soon as the paper starts printing rubbish, the trust Katharina feels in society collapses – recall her cry for help to the police to do something about the libel being printed. (The police are leaking information anyway). The institutions she had expected to help her have not complied with her reasonable idea of justice, while the people she had expected to treat her kindly – strangers – are instead contacting her in a way that is threatening. With her name and honour dragged through the mud she is essentially locked out of society, which is a position where violence becomes a plausible-seeming answer to her problems. So that’s one way that violence comes about. Herr Blorna experiences something similar, as his association with Katharina leads to his own career and world collapsing – though in his case it only ends in fisticuffs.  

There’s another instance of violence, too, as we’ve seen – the death of Katharina’s mother. Here, there’s a kind of trust issue at stake. The reporter both ignores the advice of the doctors to leave her alone and adopts a disguise to achieve his goal. In other words, he completely ignores the social rules whose obedience confirms our status as good citizens. The result, Böll chooses to emphasise, is yet more violence.

Conclusion

In theory, newspapers are supposed to tell the truth, just as the police in their investigations are supposed to discover it. In The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum, we see a paper that fails to tell the truth and an investigation that mostly probes a private life with little success at its stated goal. Only the novel’s chosen narrative approach, of a bloodless directness that names its sources and tries to be clear about sources of bias, seems to stand against this by telling us what really happened. However, in reality, this only complicates things further. We might notice, for example, how little Katharina herself speaks, even if she gets the last word. Too often she is only being quoted by others or described.

And should we even trust her own words? Aren’t humans often inarticulate about what’s within their hearts? The narrator might try to be neutral, but neutrality is itself a mask that allows biases safe passage. Really, shouldn’t we know who he or she is, so that we can make our own judgements? Or alternatively, shouldn’t we be given sources without mediation or introduction, so that we can assemble the story ourselves? (This is still not neutrality, because the ordering and choice of sources is itself an influence on our perception of them, but it’s closer to neutrality). Ultimately, we might say that if the narrative makes us distrust bad newspaper reporting, its wider message is not consoling about our capacity to locate objectivity.

Someone I went to school with now works at one of those newspapers, and when I asked him at a chance meeting whether that made him complicit in their occasional hateful and socially destructive messaging, his unencouraging answer was that the paper wasn’t left or right-wing, and that if people wanted to read populist rubbish that was their choice and equally their choice as a paper to write in a way that catered to it. He was quite confrontational in manner, obviously in part a response to my tactless question, but also in a way that to me seemed to indicate that even though he presented himself as being above what he wrote, it was beginning to affect his soul. I can’t say I was too happy for his success.

With that said, The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum definitely feels like it has no answers to the existence of papers like Bild. It might have been motivated by its author’s rage at the presentation of the Baader-Meinhof group of terrorists in the papers at the time, but the work has very little to say about the people who actually read the papers and how such papers’ influence might be diminished. Instead, it focuses on their effect on an individual. In that, it’s an emotional appeal clad in cold language, rather than a rational argument. Böll himself calls the text a “pamphlet” in the afterword and that’s really what it is –  a short, effective story, told interestingly. But not one with any answers.

What Truth can we write under Stalin? Grossman’s Stalingrad

“It’s not enough to say, “I wrote the truth.” The author should ask himself two questions: “First, which truth? And second, why?” We know that there are two truths and that, in our world, it is the vile and dirty truth of the past that quantitatively preponderates. But this truth is being replaced by another truth that has been born and continues to grow” – Maxim Gorky, to Vasily Grossman.

This quote, which I find more harrowing than almost anything else I have read recently – and I have just finished Snyder’s Bloodlands – comes from the introduction to the new translation of the Jewish (ethnicity) – Ukrainian (birthplace & upbringing) – Russian (language & literary tradition) – Soviet (time) writer Vasily Grossman’s Stalingrad by Robert and Elizabeth Chandler. The novel was first published as For a Just Cause (За Правое Дело), which I think is also a great (if ironic) title, but Grossman preferred Stalingrad, which is why the Chandlers chose this one.

Whether in the complexities of the author’s identity, or in Gorky’s twists and turns, or in the novel’s title and the many changes between editions to account for a shifting censorship environment, we can see one of the central problems of the work – truth itself. The great Russian critic, Vissarion Belinsky, once wrote that literature was the finest place for discussing the problems of the day because at that time it was less rigorously policed than philosophy or the papers. Belinsky, however, never met Stalin.

Stalingrad is an attempt to write a great novel under Stalin and it is about as good as is possible, given that constraint. The Chandlers’ translation pulls together scraps from the various drafts and editions of the novel to approximate what Grossman might have wanted for his work and reveal its real brilliance. Their notes at the novel’s end are in depth and fascinating, highlighting just how major and minor the censorship could be. Characters and whole chapters disappear or are added, bodies that touched in the manuscript remain chastely apart. The closer we get to publication, the fuzzier we get – we go from saying someone was in a camp, to a euphemism for the same, then at times to merely a blank space.

The story of Stalingrad concerns the lives of the Shaposhnikov family. There’s a matriarch, three sisters and a brother, and various grandchildren, husbands and ex-husbands. Through them, we have a kind of cross-section of Soviet society, ranging from kolkhoz volunteers to power plant operators, researchers and soldiers, doctors and teachers. The Soviets wanted a Soviet War and Peace. While in many ways this novel is worse than Tolstoy’s, one area where Grossman vastly outstripped Tolstoy was in actually showcasing an entire society. During the war, he worked as a war correspondent, so he really did see everyone and everything. (He was among the first to write about Treblinka).

As stories go, Stalingrad is fine – the problem lies in the characters. There are too many of them, and not enough plot, which makes it all hard to follow. The characters we have are also fairly flat. Both nuance and doubt are impossible here. A general can burst into tears while looking at an enflamed Stalingrad, but never can he feel scared or want to turn back. We read that Krymov, one of the sister’s ex-husbands, has had to execute several “traitors”, but Grossman can do nothing to suggest that there might be something wrong with this. (In Life and Fate, early on we have a meeting of powerful people where one of them makes a slip up about Stalin, and the sheer force of the menace that immediately arises is enough to send shivers down your spine – but here Grossman could not even get close to writing this).

The central topic of the book is the Battle of Stalingrad. It comes to consume everything, and everyone, whether they are fighting or fleeing. This sense of onrushing history keeps us reading by papering over the less interesting bits and the occasional limp characterisation. But war is, in some ways, a bad topic for literature. Such a war as the one against the Nazis refuses much by way of nuance.  

Here’s Sofya Osipovna, a Jewish friend of the Shaposhnikov’s: “You’re wrong. I can tell you as a surgeon that there is one truth, not two. When I cut someone’s leg off, I don’t know two truths. If we start pretending there are two truths, we’re in trouble. And in war too – above all, when things are as bad as they are today – there is only one truth.” This dialogue is on the same topic as Gorky earlier. Now, from a literary perspective, allowing for two truths at least presupposes a conflict, a need to clarify. But this novel is mainly about one truth instead – that the Germans are evil, and the Soviets – good. Nothing that makes the Soviets, or at least the Russians (the official line), look bad can be written. Looting and collaboration are carefully removed by the time of publication.

What kind of nuance is left to the author? Obviously, Grossman thought the idea of Gorky’s truth was hogwash. So how could he hint at something else?

The first way is by the act of hinting itself, by forcing the reader to connect the dots. One of the great lacunae of Stalingrad concerns the fate of the Jews. For Grossman, this was personal – his mother was murdered in his hometown of Berdichev (Berdychiv). Viktor Shturm, one of the key Jewish characters of the novel, receives a letter from his own mother, written before she was executed. But we never read it. Only in Life and Fate, a novel that could not be published in the Soviet Union, could Grossman say what the letter said. Yet we know the letter exists, and the reader would have to fill in this gap for themselves.

At another point, a German character flies over the terrain east of Warsaw:

“Forster had glimpsed a thread-like single-track railway, running between two walls of pine trees to a construction site where hundreds of men were swarming about amid boards, bricks and lime. Something of strategic importance was evidently being built here.”

Those last words are so heavy with irony they might bring the plane down. They bring us to the second way that Grossman criticises truth – using Germans. The Soviets had one truth, the Nazis another. While he could not criticise the Soviet truth, he could break down the Nazi truth in a way suspiciously easy to adapt to the Soviet one. The camp has no strategic utility – it just annihilates people, probably Jews. Forster deludes himself, but we sense the truth. Could characters on the other side, justifying their own camps, not be similarly deluded?

Another character, Schmidt, while under fire in Stalingrad, wonders how he might build bridges to his colleagues. He’s an old communist, and suspects he is not alone in not wanting to fight. But he cannot connect to his colleagues – to voice doubt in public or private would be to court immediate execution. It’s a similar scenario to the one the Soviets experienced in the Great Terror, of people unable to unite, even though they might manage to make change if they could, all because of the state’s power and surveillance. At another point, some soldiers declare their propaganda was always a lie: “To be honest with you – now that the war’s almost over – all this talk about the unity of the German nation is bullshit.” Here, too, could we not say something similar about the Soviets?

Yes, and no. A defensive war is generally one which unites people. To speak of Soviet unity is probably less of a lie than German unity. The Soviets, at least, knew why they were in the trenches. Grossman also does show some hints of Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis, but the collaborators were only ever a small part of the Ukrainian people, a people who mostly wanted to protect their homes and families like everyone else. Those who did collaborate often soon realised that the Soviets were bad, but the Nazis were much worse. (It’s also worth noting that many of the heroes of Stalingrad are Ukrainians, and Ukrainian itself is spoken at a few points, so this is far from an anti-Ukrainian book. And by the time he could write freely in Life and Fate, Grossman was willing to dispel Russian unity as well – see Lyudmila’s visit to Saratov in that work, where a simple bus journey is enough to show us how selfish the Russian people really were.)

The final way that Grossman begins to challenge a kind of fixed, stultifying, “Gorkian” truth, is through his treatment of death in the novel. This was another weakness, for me, of War and Peace. While in theory Tolstoy could kill any character, in reality he keeps Andrey alive long after Borodino so he gets a proper goodbye. Only Petya gets the kind of death that suggests war is stupid, unglamorous, and cruel.

Grossman is an anti-Tolstoy – he wields his scythe with relish. “All deaths are stupid,” says one of the characters, deep into the fighting. “There’s no clever way to get killed.” Instead of stupid, we might say unromantic. As soon as the Germans arrive, Stalingrad becomes something of a slasher movie: people die all the time, without warning, without any kind of authorial protection seeming to act upon them.

“There was a whistle of iron over the Volga. A thick bubbly column of greenish water leapt up just in front of the dinghy’s bow, then crashed down on top of it. A moment later, in the middle of the river, amid foaming white water, the dinghy’s tarred black bottom was shining gently in the sun, clearly visible to everyone on the launch.”

This paragraph, as sudden as the bomb itself, ends the life of a major character. They get no goodbye, not even a revelation. But that’s life, or rather death. That’s war. Here’s the grand revelation we get for the first death of the book:

As he continued up the slope, he could hear the engine struggling.

Then he heard the howl of a falling bomb. He pressed his head to the steering wheel, sensed with all his body the end of life, thought with awful anguish, “Fuck that” – and ceased to exist.

So much for the author coming in to tell us about God and meaning. “Fuck that” – probably that’s far closer to the truth of war than any adoring contemplation of trees.  

If death is not romantic, and the Germans express doubts about their purpose which are just as applicable to the Soviets as they are to the Nazis, and the topic of the Jews is constantly there in the background, as a blank space, to suggest that perhaps the Soviet narrative of the war (primarily Russian suffering) might have its own limits – then, it’s fair to say, Grossman has done a lot to give readers something to think about. After all, Stalingrad came out under Stalin! Frankly, it’s impressive how good this work is, given that.

It’s far from great, however. The limitations that censorship placed upon Grossman’s characters are too powerful. It’s like they are aware we might be eavesdropping, and thus prefer to keep silent about those things that are most likely to make them human – their doubts, their unsanctioned passions. In Life and Fate, Grossman’s modestly titled sequel, all of these shackles come off. It’s extraordinary how much better that book is, from the very first page, than Stalingrad. At about a hundred and fifty pages in I can see already that this is brushing up against War and Peace. (After finishing it, I can say it’s just as good, and far more timely reading now).

Now, an interesting thought is how the two books might fit together when considering this truth problem. Stalingrad begins to dismantle certain Soviet truths, albeit carefully, subtly. Life and Fate, with its openness to discuss the importance of autonomous kindness against totalitarian control, seems to be proposing a truth of its own. Just as they share characters (and I think Stalingrad is worth reading just to help give depth to the people and destinies of Life and Fate), they also work together on the same themes. It’s a hard ask to say we should read nine hundred pages that are merely pretty good, just to enhance another nine hundred that are definitely really good. But hopefully not an impossible one. I certainly don’t regret it.

Leo Tolstoy – The Cossacks

The Cossacks is an early work by Leo Tolstoy, finished in 1863 to pay off his gambling debts. This, I suppose, makes him a real Russian writer of that period. (Dostoevsky’s The Gambler came out three years later). It’s Tolstoy’s last novel before he wrote War and Peace, so one reason to read it is to consider what kind of leaps he made between this work’s relative mediocrity and that work’s titanic majesty.

The Cossacks tells the tale of one Olenin, a rich young man without parents who joins the army, partly to pay his debts, and partly to find himself. These details are largely true to Tolstoy’s own life. We begin with Olenin in Moscow, having a farewell party with his friends. He then goes to the Caucasus, meets the Cossack people who live there, falls in love with a girl, Maryana, and has to deal with a rival claimant for her love, the Cossack Lukashka.

In this novel, in embryo, is much of what we think of as Tolstoy as a writer and his concerns. On the first page, just as we learn that the noblemen are having their party, we see that the working people and the religious are heading to work and church – a contrast between idle and serious lives that he was only to feel more strongly about as he grew older. There is also the contrast between town and country which we will recall from Anna Karenina, where Levin’s most authentic experiences are all on his estate.

Tolstoy is most visible in Olenin’s obsession with living well, however. Olenin prefigures characters (or authorial stand-ins, depending on how generous we are feeling) like Levin and Pierre who are given large chunks of their novels to ask more or less the same questions and receive only slightly different answers. “I’ve made a mess, made a mess of my life. But now it’s all over, you’re right. And I feel that a new life is beginning.” This is what Olenin says as he leaves his friends. Already, we can see a kind of religious sensibility that it might surprise us to learn was always with Tolstoy – later revelations in the book emphasise cleanliness (Olenin complains of “filth”), falsehood, and other such charged terms.

What makes Olenin more interesting, or at least surprising, compared to the characters from later works, is that he manages to try more ideas than they do, and it is less clear which ones the author considers right. As he goes to the Caucasus to find himself, Olenin does not indulge in binging or cards, instead spending most of his time with an old Cossack hunter, or else hunting alone. Exactly halfway through the book, Olenin has a revelation while in the forest – he feels “causeless happiness and love for everything”, coming to see his purpose as total selflessness. (Even before reading Schopenhauer, we can see how receptive Tolstoy would be to his ideas). After his revelation, Olenin tries to do some good deeds, but finds that nobody wants him to do anything (which seems to me an extremely rare example of a situation where Tolstoy manages to laugh at himself).

In any case, Olenin’s new philosophy does not really last. “Happiness is the only thing that matters: he who is happy is right” he declares upon deciding that he will attempt to pursue the Cossack girl, Maryana. Rather than do as little damage as possible, he soon manages to do quite a lot.

But I should not exaggerate. The Cossacks is a book that is surprisingly light on violence and action. In fact, the author whose work it most reminded me of was Turgenev, with whom Tolstoy had an on-off friendship and who, as the older writer, may still have been a significant influence at this stage of Tolstoy’s career. As is the case with most of Turgenev’s works, The Cossacks is basically just a gooey love story where nothing happens. There are also a lot of nature descriptions of the sort that remind me of Turgenev’s famous Sportsman’s Sketches / Hunter’s Album (Zapiski Okhotnika).

This is one of the things that is most disagreeable with the novel, actually. It’s striking how little violence there is. The raids and expeditions Olenin undertakes are mentioned rather than described (as they are in Tolstoy’s short story, “The Raid”, for example). Here we might find a difference between the current and later Tolstoy which reveals the former’s weakness. What was happening in the Caucasus in the early 19th century and before was a brutal, at times genocidal (ask the Circassians, whose clothing, worn by everyone in the novel, seems the only sign they still exist), campaign of imperial conquest. Tolstoy could be critical of war in general, as in The Sevastopol Sketches, but at this stage, he seems to have struggled to see into the eyes of the victims in the way that he did in Hadji Murat.

There are two deaths in The Cossacks. The first, is an “Abrek”, or Chechen. He is killed early on by the Cossack Lukashka. His things are stolen, and then his body is ransomed. One of the best scenes concerns the meeting of Lukashka and the dead man’s brother, who comes to collect him. Here, for a brief moment, we see the kind of hatred that senseless war provokes. But then it disappears. And in any case, it is the Cossack who is guilty of the murder, not a Russian.

The portrayal of the Cossacks here is something we might compare to two other works – Gogol’s Taras Bulba and Babel’s Red Army Cavalry or the diary it grew from. Tolstoy’s Cossacks are primarily interesting to him for providing another way of living. Whether this is the hunter Uncle Yeroshka and his connection with nature, or the carefree Lukashka and naively coquettish Maryanka, these people are living a life that appeals to that permanent longing within Tolstoy’s breast to live more closely to the world, and more innocently. (A key intellectual influence on him, early on, was Rousseau – and Cossacks here are by and large functioning as noble savages). As a result of this focus, we see the Cossacks in environments other than those of the other two books – on the fields, farming, or at home.

In Red Army Cavalry, the Cossacks are essentially epic heroes. They lack interiority and are all action. Even though there is little violence here, Lukashka still demonstrates a similarly simple morality. When Olenin tries to make him think about the consequences of killing the Chechen’s brother, Lukashka’s response is suitably uncaring. “So what? It happens! Our brothers get killed, too, don’t they?” It turns out that limited education is not necessarily a route to moral enlightenment – the Cossacks here are notably not playing the role of peasants in Tolstoy’s later works. They are just happier for their ignorance. As a result of all this, it is perhaps inevitable that the story ends the way it does, with a kind of reminder that such an ‘ignorance is bliss’ morality is widespread in the Caucasus and Olenin is the stranger with strange ideas.

Gogol’s Cossacks in Taras Bulba are also depicted as a kind of powerful, elemental, violent force. (Tolstoy’s own are compared to animals regularly). But Gogol’s aim, at least partly, seems to have been the justification of the annexation of Cossack-controlled territory into the Russian Empire, and the assimilation of the Cossacks to the Russians through a shared religion.

Tolstoy does little of this myth-making – the difference between the Russians and the Cossacks is a key point, made quite powerfully at the end when they essentially all close ranks against him. In fact, Tolstoy’s novel challenges a narrative of easy integration by making the Cossacks seem closer to the other peoples of the Caucasus than to the Russians. This is primarily done through language. There are Cossack words that Tolstoy needs to explain in the footnotes, alongside other Caucasus-specific language like “aul” (village), which is generally left untranslated in English versions and would seem just as strange to a Russian reader sitting in one of the two capitals. Then there is the way that many of the Cossacks are fluent in Tatar and other languages of the region, while Olenin is left looking confused on the sidelines. In other words, the novel presents a spectrum of identities, ranging from Russian to Chechen, with the Cossacks sitting uneasily in the middle, without making any real argument either for or against their assimilation into Russia. In fact, we could even say they seem a pure people who would be spoiled by Russia – in this limited regard, we might even suggest that the novel is anti-colonial.

Overall, however, the novel just isn’t that great. The characters are not really “alive” in the same way that they are in other Tolstoy works. We might say the Cossacks are vivid – but I would say, instead, that they are caricatures every bit as silly as Tolstoy’s peasants. And whereas the peasants are only part of, say, Anna Karenina or War and Peace, here the Cossacks are essentially the only characters. In other words, we are surrounded by silly stereotypes.

Another problem is one of balance. In the later novels, we have a huge cast of characters to enable an equally complex range of comparisons. Levin and Vronsky, Pierre and Bolkonsky, and so on and so forth. Here we only really have Olenin, with Lukashka a largely simple figure for a foil. This makes the story too simple. Coupled with the equally simple characters, it’s just not that exciting to read, as if it’s an episode from a longer novel, not a novel in itself.

Somehow between this novel being published in 1863 and the beginning of War and Peace’s serialisation in 1865, Tolstoy leapt forward as a writer in a few key ways. The first is that he learned how to write real-seeming characters better, and in great numbers. There is the odd detail in The Cossacks that really made me see the people, but they are rare rather than general. (“A third, in a new-looking sheepskin jacket, is pacing about the room, stopping now and then to crack an almond in fingers that are rather thick and strong, but with clean nails, and keeps smiling at something; his eyes and face are burning” – for a first view of Olenin, this really does tell us a lot). The second thing is that he chose a far more interesting story than just a man falling in love with a Cossack girl. In fact, in War and Peace, he pretty much chose every story under the sun.

With a few exceptions like Ivan Ilyich, Tolstoy’s work gains its awesome power from accumulation. The Cossacks accumulates nothing because its characters don’t seem too real, and it is too focused. By contrast, in Hadji Murat, Tolstoy learned how to use the vignette to tell a huge story, or give a hint of it, in a much smaller space. This, it seems to me, is what made Babel’s Red Army Cavalry possible. But in 1863 Tolstoy had a long way to go before he learned how to write like that.

Historical note: What exactly Cossacks are is complicated and just as uncertain as their placement on the spectrum of identities within Tolstoy’s book. This warrior people, partly Turkic and Slavic in origin, have now largely been assimilated into the dominant ethnic groups of the areas where they historically operated – what is today’s southern Russia and Ukraine. Both Ukraine and Russia today claim Cossack inheritance as their own exclusive right, but as is typical with such historical claims, the truth is that both nations probably have to share the harvest. Good luck trying to make that happen…