A Tomb for Boris Davidovich: Analysis of Major Characters
"A Tomb for Boris Davidovich" is a poignant exploration of revolutionary fervor and the complex characters who navigate the tumultuous landscape of early 20th-century political upheaval. At the center is Boris Davidovich, a Jewish revolutionary whose unwavering commitment to the Bolshevik cause ultimately leads to his tragic demise in a labor camp, representing the idealistic yet disillusioned revolutionary. Contrasting Boris is A. L. Chelyustnikov, whose opportunistic nature allows him to survive the revolution's perils, and Fedukin, a sadistic investigator whose ruthless interrogation methods embody the darker side of ideological loyalty. The narrative also includes Karl Taube, a well-meaning intellectual whose belief in the revolution’s ideals leads to his untimely death at the hands of criminals due to the chaos around him. Similarly, Gould Vershoyle, an Irish revolutionary, finds his search for a just society ultimately crushed in the oppressive environment of a labor camp. Other characters, like Miksha and Baruch David Neumann, illustrate the internal betrayals and historical intolerance that plague revolutionary movements, while A. A. Darmolatov’s story hints at the personal toll of artistic struggle under authoritarian regimes. The interplay of these diverse characters provides a multifaceted perspective on the revolutionary experience, revealing both the fervor and the tragic consequences of their convictions.
A Tomb for Boris Davidovich: Analysis of Major Characters
Author: Danilo Kiš
First published: Grobnica za Borisa Davidovia, 1976 (English translation, 1978)
Genre: Novel
Locale: Central and Eastern Europe
Plot: Social realism
Time: The 1920's to the 1970's
Boris Davidovich (dah-VIH-doh-vihch), a Jew and a Russian revolutionary. Boris has been imbued with a revolutionary zeal from his early youth, fighting against the czarist regime and for the Bolsheviks. As a result, a portrait of a classical revolutionary emerges: brave, resolute, bold, cool, resourceful, loyal to the cause, and blind to questioning of his ideology. Although it is not quite clear whether he joins the revolution out of a sense of justice or in quest of action or adventure, he participates in it without any reservations, which leads to a firmness of character that remains throughout his life. When he falls out of grace and is tortured and threatened with death, he refuses to sign a confession that would implicate others; instead, he prefers to be shot as a traitor rather than to be hanged as a common thief. Through his death in a labor camp during an escape attempt, he epitomizes a revolutionary who dies unjustly at the hands of his comrades. He also resembles the numerous revolutionaries throughout the world who, convinced of the rightness of their cause, are nevertheless stymied in their idealistic expectations and sacrificed to the exigencies of the revolution.
A. L. Chelyustnikov (cheh-LYEWST-nih-kov), a Russian revolutionary, another example of a loyal servant of the revolution, yet for entirely different reasons. A boaster and a womanizer, expert at playing cards, he seems to have become a revolutionary out of opportunism or inertia. He is a typical organization man, even to the point of agreeing to be a fall guy to serve the cause. It is not surprising that he survives the ups and downs of the revolutionary struggle, even though he is not without scars or close calls.
Fedukin (feh-DUH-kihn), a secret police investigator. A revolutionary of yet another sort, Fedukin serves the revolution and the state out of a need to do evil and hurt people to satisfy his sadistic impulses. A tall, pockmarked, and unbending interrogator, of modest education but of some literary talent, he derives the greatest pleasure when he investigates and tortures his former comrades, guilty or innocent. His motto is, “Even a stone would talk if you broke its teeth,” referring to those victims who have passed through his hands. He believes that it is better to destroy one person's truth than to jeopardize “higher” interests and principles and that to sign a confession for the sake of duty is logical and moral and, therefore, deserving of respect. He simply cannot understand the “sentimental egocentricity of the accused, their pathological need to prove their own innocence, their own little truths.” Fedukin thus becomes villainy incarnate, without any alleviating circumstances or rational explanations.
Karl Taube (TAH-uh-beh), a Hungarian revolutionary, representative of a well-meaning European intellectual who joins the revolution as a firm believer in just and idealistic goals. Taube eventually dies during the intraparty intrigues in the Soviet Union. He pays the ultimate price, however, in a bizarre way—he is murdered by common criminals in the prison. He thus becomes a victim of blind fate because, had the leadership not imprisoned him for a flimsy reason, he would not have been killed. Refusing to recognize harsh realities and clinging to his dream of a better life, he perishes for trying to solve problems through reason under circumstances that are governed by passion and blind hatred.
Gould Vershoyle (gewld vur-SHOYL), an Irish revolutionary. His disenchanted search for a better place to live takes him to Spain, where he fights for the Republicans in the civil war, and to Moscow, where he is taken because of his suspicions about the Soviet role in the war. His death in a labor camp in 1945 is another example of a juggernaut crushing everything in its way toward a revolutionary goal.
Miksha, a handyman from Bukovina who works for a Jewish shopkeeper and is a member of the underground. Introduced to the underground by another revolutionary, Aimicke, Miksha sets out to find a traitor in their midst. He suspects a certain girl and kills her, but it was Aimicke who was informing the police. After fleeing to the Soviet Union, Miksha is arrested and forced to confess that he was a Gestapo agent, implicating twelve Russian officials as well; they all get twenty years of hard labor. Miksha thus becomes another example of the revolution devouring its own children.
Eduard Herriot, the leader of the French Radical Socialists. Herriot represents the West European politicians who were unclear about the true nature of the Soviet system. Predictably, he visits the Soviet Union to see whether religion is suppressed there, and he returns convinced that it is not. That is all the more surprising because Herriot is a cautious and sensitive person. Chelyustnikov, who masterminds the official cover-up of the truth during Herriot's visit, signs a guest book in Lyons years later as if thanking Herriot for being so gullible.
Baruch David Neumann, a refugee from Germany and a former Jew. Neumann, who lived in fourteenth century France during the pogroms, suffers the same indignities as those suffered in the twentieth century and, eventually, death for a related reason—human intolerance of different creeds and beliefs. Even though he converts to Christianity to save his life, he later recants, finding it impossible to renounce Judaism. Like Fedukin, Neumann's detractors believe that it is better “to slaughter one mangy sheep than to allow the whole flock to become tainted.” This aspect relates Neumann's case to other stories in the novel, proving that intolerance and inhumanity are as old as humankind.
A. A. Darmolatov (dahr-moh-LAH-tov), a Soviet writer. Even though Darmolatov, a minor Soviet poet, is acquainted with Davidovich, a more significant connection is somewhat obscure. It is not quite clear whether his story is included because of his acquaintanceship with Davidovich, because he develops mental problems trying to be a successful writer under oppressive conditions, or because he becomes a medical phenomenon by developing elephantiasis. His is the only story without victims, Jewish or otherwise, and without enforced confessions.