• Features
  • Reviews
  • Teaching
  • Watch & Listen
  • About

The past is never dead. It's not even past

Not Even Past

Secrets of the Crypt

by Carolyn Pouncy

Everyone loves to be proven right, but novelists don’t often expect it—especially five hundred years after the period where their books are set. After all, that’s half the fun of writing and reading fiction: filling in the gaps left by the historical record. So to have a set of novels that explore the relationship between Russians and Tatars in the sixteenth century twice intersect with contemporary developments is surprising.

The first conjunction, as I wrote on this blog last summer, involved the publication of my Winged Horse in the same month that Vladimir Putin decided to annex Crimea. That might be considered a historical accident. The second overlap is quite different: as I discovered not long ago, twenty-first-century science supports my imaginary past in a remarkable way.

First, a brief review of the history. After Grand Prince Vasily III died late in 1533, the situation in Russia deteriorated fast. The hand-picked council of guardians Vasily appointed was pushed aside within months by his widow, Elena Glinskaya. Despite threats from without and within, Elena maintained a shaky hold on power until her sudden death in April 1538 left the country under the nominal authority of her seven-year-old son, the future Ivan the Terrible. Several aristocratic clans, most notably the Shuisky and Belsky princely families, battled to control the young grand prince until 1547, when he married and was crowned as Russia’s first tsar.

Grand Prince Vasilii III of Moscow and Elena Glinskaia, 1526. Public domain (created before 1916) via Wikimedia Commons

Grand Prince Vasily III of Moscow and Elena Glinskaya, 1526 (via Wikimedia Commons)

Because Elena was no more than thirty when she died, the gossips had a field day speculating about the cause of her death. Even before that, Elena’s morals, or lack thereof, had attracted considerable attention, inside and outside Muscovy. Rumors included assertions that her chief adviser, Ivan Telepnev, had fathered her two sons during her husband’s lifetime, that he retained his status as her lover after Vasily’s demise, and that she had hired Sami shamans to ensure successful pregnancies with these children of questionable heritage.

Once Elena usurped a role normally reserved for men, the hostile whispers intensified. The campaign that she and Telepnev waged against her two brothers-in-law and her uncle Mikhail fed the flames, especially after the brothers-in-law and uncle died in captivity between August 1536 and December 1537. A mere four months passed between the death, reputedly by starvation, of the younger brother-in-law and Elena’s demise.

The favorite story about her death involved her having been poisoned by the Shuisky clan, whose leader Vasily promptly clapped Telepnev in irons and within three months had married a cousin of the young grand prince, a classic power move that indicated possible self-positioning for a grab at the throne. But there has never been concrete evidence that a murder took place. When a group of twentieth-century scientists excavated the bodies of Elena and other royal figures—including Ivan the Terrible’s first wife, Anastasia, also rumored to have died from poison—they found high levels of dangerous substances such as mercury and arsenic. But because mercury was used in medicines at the time and arsenic in cosmetics, the scientists refused to confirm the poisoning hypothesis.

As a historian, I hesitate to charge actual historical figures with a crime without clear proof of guilt, even in a novel and five centuries after the fact. Nevertheless, in the absence of evidence novelists do get to invent plausible explanations, so long as they confess their sins at the end. And nothing spices up a novel faster than romance and murder. So in The Shattered Drum (Legends of the Five Directions 5: Center) I invented an elaborate plot that played on all the rumors about Elena’s affair with Telepnev, her death, and the clan politics surrounding it, then assigned the implementation to a trio of fictional characters representing the opposing sides. The novel came out last summer, and I chalked it up as complete and moved on to the next, which incorporates another recent discovery: spy chambers in what was then the outermost wall surrounding Moscow.

<Image: Elena Glinskaya: Forensic facial reconstruction by S. Nikitin, 1999. By Shakko CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons>

Elena Glinskaya: Forensic facial reconstruction by S. Nikitin, 1999 (photo credit: Shakko CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

Then I learned that the story was not, in fact, over. A group of Kremlin Museum scientists has re-exhumed the bodies of the various grand princesses once buried in the Ascension Cathedral in the Kremlin. They published their results, almost all of which are fascinating when disentangled from the minutiae of archaeological recording—especially in reference to Elena Glinskaya.

Most notably, the plot point that I considered the most outrageous—that Elena not only had an affair with Telepnev but became pregnant with his child, a scandalous development for a woman whose husband had died four years before—turns out to be well within the realm of possibility. The contemporary scientists discovered that, as noted above, Elena’s bones contained high levels of mercury and arsenic. In addition, they found formations in her skull that suggested she had ingested poisonous mushrooms. But her bones also contained unusually low levels of iron, which the scientists attributed to her having suffered a massive hemorrhage not long before her death—probably in childbirth. Indeed, two infant bones were found in her sarcophagus: the tibia of a newborn or infant not more than two months old, and the other an upper jawbone of a six-month-old.

There were other strange objects in the sarcophagus: broken pottery and the bones of pigs and cattle. The scientists didn’t explain these, anymore than they explained the presence of bones from two infants. But they did conclude, quite emphatically, that Elena died of mercury poisoning and that not long before she died she bore a child—fathered, they assume, by Ivan Telepnev. They don’t identify the culprits in her murder, but if we apply the principle of cui bono (who benefits), it doesn’t look good for the Shuisky clan.

It’s a cliché to say that truth is stranger than fiction, but clichés become clichés for a reason. I like to think my solution is a little more elegant, although you’ll have to read the novel to find out what that is. But the astonishing part is to discover that something I’d written off as pure invention has a basis in truth after all.

And oh yes, the scientists think Anastasia died of mercury poisoning as well. Maybe I’ll write that novel, too, one day. But if I do, I’ll be very careful about what I make up.

Originally posted as “Person or Persons Unknown,” on the Blog of the NYU Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia (December 19, 2018).

Carolyn Pouncy, the managing editor of Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, writes fiction set in sixteenth-century Russia under the pen name C. P. Lesley.

A Bend in the River by V.S. Naipaul (1979)

by Joseph Parrott

imageMuch like its eponymous waterway, V.S. Naipaul’s A Bend in the River meanders steadily through the dark reality of postcolonial Africa, alternately depicting minimalist beauty and frightening tension. Like Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, subtle prose reveals the timelessness of the continent’s remote corners alongside human corruptibility. Yet, Naipaul moves his narrative closer in time to contemporary Africa, demonstrating that the horrifying legacies of colonialism did not end with Europe’s retreat. In A Bend in the River, the struggle to establish national identities in the wake of Western imperialism takes center stage, with “black men assuming the lies of white men” in order to govern.

The work follows Salim, an ethnically Indian trader who moves to the newly independent hinterland of an anonymous Francophone state modeled on the former Belgian Congo. The rise and fall of African modernity occurs slowly under the disembodied image of the dictatorial “Big Man” – a depiction eerily similar to Mobutu Sese Seko – who introduces relative security through the constant threat of violence. While building his mercantile business and conducting an affair with a married woman, Salim witnesses the nation devolve into a state of xenophobia, corruption, and general malaise. The character’s growing feelings of alienation and the struggle to maintain his livelihood provide the novel with narrative momentum. They also demonstrate the divisions that often emerged during the creation of postcolonial national identities and the problems common to the despotic state. Thus, Naipaul’s insular setting serves as a symbol of the transitory nature and uncertain future of the continent as a whole: “This piece of earth – how many changes had come to it! Forest at a bend in the river, meeting place, an Arab settlement, a European outpost, a European suburb, a ruin like the ruin of a dead civilization, the glittering Domain of new Africa, and now this.”

More than just a piece of fiction, Naipaul’s work offers an introspective reflection on the practices of western modernity and the meaning of life in a period of upheaval. Essentially likeable, Salim becomes the vehicle for trenchant observations on morality, passion, and progress. A cast of supporting characters represents the failures of contemporary society: Metty, the naive servant clinging to abandoned social conventions; Mahesh, the superficial franchiser of the first western fast food chain in the bush town; Ferdinand, a malleable and ultimately disenchanted youth who becomes an African nationalist; and Raymond, the satirical former colonial who desperately seeks to portray the mercurial Big Man as the savior of Africa. Relatively uneventful and filled with intentionally unresolved subplots, the novel moves from one life experience to another as the protagonists seek only to survive under trying circumstances. Yet, the author’s eye for detail and crisp writing adeptly create a sense of tension and drama that pervades even the quietest corners of the book, culminating in an ambiguous ending reminiscent of Marlowe’s journey on an older river. Meditative, challenging, yet wholly engrossing, Naipaul’s novel deserves its fame as a monument of postcolonial literature.

Telling Stories, Writing History: Novel Week at NEP

by Joan Neuberger

Not Even Past has always reviewed and commented on historical films. This week we take a look at some of our favorite historical novels.  Historians often criticize novels set in the past, partly because they see fiction writers as falsifying and distorting the record, but also because they seem to simplify the past by narrating historical events through the lives of fictional individuals.

But historical fiction has had an enduring appeal, both the novels that use historical settings purely as colorful background for formulaic melodramas and those that attempt to explore the past in ways just out of the reach of historians. The bedrock of the historian’s work is, of course, our commitment to documentary evidence.  Sure, we speculate, we ask “what if,” and we tell stories, but our first responsibility is to the evidence and that limits us when it comes to understanding the complexities of historical experience. Historical novels allow us to imagine what it felt like to be an Empress, what motivated an act of heroism in the face of mortal danger, what a soldier, torn between exhilaration and fear, sees and smells and feels on a chaotic battlefield.  In a recent discussion, best-selling historical novelist Philippa Gregory said that historical fiction can get to a “truth beyond historical truth.”

All the novels we review this week show us aspects of historical experience that we value both as general readers and professional historians. They all have strong, complex characters, whose decisions, actions, thoughts, and feelings show us significant facets of history, even if they don’t adhere to the historical record–or perhaps especially when they don’t adhere to the historical record. Good historical novels don’t detract from the work we do as historians, they complement it.

Last year I was on a panel at the AHA (The American Historical Association annual convention) on historical fiction. The other panelists included the novelists Geraldine Brooks and Peter Ho Davies and two historians who have experimented with writing historical fiction, Donald Ostrowski and Jane Kamensky. The discussion was lively and raised a number of interesting issues about historical fiction. You can see a video of the whole two-hour session here.

Three topics raised then are worth mentioning today. First, Geraldine Brooks said that while she does an enormous amount of research, she needs holes in the research in order to find her own way into the lives of her characters; in order to find both her own voice and a way of conveying her characters’ voices.

Second, after discussing the ways that historical fiction can make the past real by bringing it close to us, by making peoples’ lives in the past seem similar to our own, Sarah Maza (in the audience) noted that it is equally important to show the distance between the present and the past. The effectiveness of any work of history, whether documentary or fictional, can often be found in the particular balancing of proximity and distance. In that sense, novels and non-fiction historical writing share with each other the characteristic element often noted about photographs–that they function most powerfully in their ability to convey our fundamental, unconscious sense of living in the past and present simultaneously.

Third, the best historical fiction also carefully balances the demands of accuracy and invention. Jane Kamensky defended the value of “deception” in fiction not as a trick or as melodrama (as in Hollywood films that insist on inventing love stories because audiences like them), but because novels are at their heart a deception in the service of a kind of knowledge. The whole point of writing a historical novel for some historians is to escape the binding of documentary evidence. But other writers start out enjoying the freedom from footnotes and then find themselves inching their way back towards maximum accuracy. This is not necessarily a contradiction: accuracy of details about clothes and food, or the rituals of life at a royal court, or among peasants haying or workers striking can literally set the stage for creatively exploring interior lives. But as historian Lisa Hilton got deeper into her research for a novel about an isolated French village during World War II, she found herself wanting it to be as “real” as possible. When she was finally able to get her laconic neighbors to talk about the war and the Nazi occupation, she found that “the war consisted of a series of sharply-weighted individual decisions, often insignificant in themselves, but collectively forming a history too delicate for written sources to convey.”

Some historians have begun to cross the line in the other direction, writing what they sometimes call “creative history.” Thomas Keneally did it first or at least most spectacularly, in 1994 in Schindler’s List. Numerous historians have recently followed that path in writing what Alison Frazier calls “lightly fictionalized history” (watch for Frazier’s contribution to NEP Novel Week later this week).  The historian of science, Rebekah Higgitt devotes a post on her blog “teleskopos” (and cross-posted to the excellent History of Science blog, Whewell’s Ghost) to the problems of lightly fictionalizing  in novels about science. She ends by confessing that for her there sometimes can be too much history in historical fiction. I have certainly felt that way when reading some acclaimed historical novels: enough already! get on with the story, get back to the drama!

I think the best historians have found ways to talk about the complexities of history as it is lived, and that we have learned to combine carefully nuanced analysis of texts with more vivid story-telling, but as readers, we still sometimes want more than our commitment to documents allows us. We want to free ourselves to imagine our subjects taking up their own lives and, as Dickens put it, to be the heroes of their own lives. The best historical fiction does that.

Recent Posts

  • NEP’s Archive Chronicles: A Brief Guide Through Some Archives in Gaborone and Serowe, Botswana
  • Review of Hierarchies at Home: Domestic Service in Cuba from Abolition to Revolution (2022), by Anasa Hicks
  • Agency and Resistance: African and Indigenous Women’s Navigation of Economic, Legal, and Religious Structures in Colonial Spanish America
  • NEP’s Archive Chronicles: Unexpected Archives. Exploring Student Notebooks at the Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire (IFAN) in Senegal
  • Review of No Place Like Nome: The Bering Strait Seen Through Its Most Storied City
NOT EVEN PAST is produced by

The Department of History

The University of Texas at Austin

We are supported by the College of Liberal Arts
And our Readers

Donate
Contact

All content © 2010-present NOT EVEN PAST and the authors, unless otherwise noted

Sign up to receive our MONTHLY NEWSLETTER

  • Features
  • Reviews
  • Teaching
  • Watch & Listen
  • About