“The Execution of Tropmann” by Ivan Turgenev is an indictment of capital punishment, written with emphasis on the emotions of a third party observer to an execution, with the intent of persuading the reader to abhor the practice themselves. Turgenev exercises three principle techniques in making this work as vivid and effective as it is: first, he utilizes a narrative structure, recalling his experiences as the aforementioned witness to a murderer being put to death. Second, he evokes a sense of intimacy with the condemned; that is, he uses specific details about the personality of the soon to be deceased, humanizing that individual, and thus making the reader sympathize with Tropmann, while still understanding the barbarism of the acts which he committed. Finally, Turgenev uses suspense to make the reader feel an appropriate discomfort and to make the essay more compelling. Taken collectively, these techniques make the essay a startling, perhaps unpleasant, and even morbid read. But it is difficult to overestimate the weight of the issue that Turgenev discusses, i.e., capital punishment, and when one considers that importance, the essay is then no longer a dark, graphic story, but a powerful, political work.
The essay begins with Turgenev stating that he was invited to witness the execution of Tropmann, a murderer who killed an entire family. He states that he was to be among “a small number of other privileged persons” in being able to both witness the execution and visit the prison where Tropmann was being held. Immediately, Turgenev describes his regret at accepting the invitation; he states “I accepted it without giving it much thought” (Lopate 306) and continues to say that he only refrained from rescinding his acceptance out of “false pride” (306) and to avoid being thought of as a coward.
With the framing of the story completed, Turgenev ends the first section of the essay by stating that writing this essay is punishment towards himself, but that the reader might gain from the piece. This serves two functions: first, it makes clear the author’s purpose- this is a decidedly political piece, albeit one that is rightly described as a personal essay as well. Second, the juxtaposition of authoring this essay being a punishment for Turgenev while also perhaps being beneficial for the reader establishes a tone- it puts forth the idea to the reader that they ought to learn from Turgenev’s mistake. This implies that Turgenev desires a large audience of thoughtful, ideally politically minded people, to read his work and to effect social change in abolishing the death penalty (or, as he says at the end of the essay, “at least, the abolition of public executions” (324)). He does not wish for his traumatic experience to have been in vain.
And so he shares this trauma with the reader. The bulk of the essay is suspenseful. This suspense is appropriate in that it mirrors the suspense felt by one condemned to die; with every page Turgenev moves the reader closer to the ultimate event, bit by bit. The recurring motif used to advance this feeling of dread is the crowd of people gathered to witness the execution. The first usage of this motif is in section four:
There was already a great number of people about– and behind the lines of the soldiers, bordering the empty space in front of the prison, there rose the uninterrupted and confused din of human voices. (310)
The crowd seems to have a collective voice. At this point in the essay, it parallels that of Turgenev. He too is confused in that he doesn’t know what he’s gotten himself into. But as the narrative progresses, Turgenev is able to realize the gravity of what he’s consented to witness, and by that point it’s too late and he no longer bears any resemblance to the bloodthirsty crowd.
Suddenly the two halves of the gates, like some immense mouth of an animal, opened up slowly before us– and all at once, as though to the accompaniment of the great roar of the overjoyed crowd which had at last caught sight of what it had been waiting for, the monster of the guillotine stared at us with its two narrow black beams and its suspended axe. . . . [M]y legs gave way under me. (322)
By that point the essay is at its climax, Tropmann is about to be executed and shortly after the essay ends with a brief reflection from Turgenev. Prior to all of this, however, we get to know Tropmann as more than just a murderer. The quality emphasized most, and earliest, is youth. In the first sentence describing his meeting Tropmann, Turgenev writes “I saw at once, diagonally opposite me, a young, black-haired, black-eyed face” (315) and shortly after writes that Tropmann has “a pleasant, youthful baritone” (316). Interestingly, amidst Turgenev’s references to Tropmann’s youth, there are also things said by the other characters that remind the reader of this quality. The priest, for example, repeatedly refers to Tropmann as “my child” (316), and M. Claude (the chief of police) talks to Tropmann in a way that illustrates a power dynamic reminiscent of a young student and a school teacher. Indeed, Turgenev explicitly references this and likens M. Claude to being like a schoolmaster cajoling his pupil.
The function of putting on display Tropmann’s youthfulness appears to be in line with the function of the essay as a whole; Turgenev attempts to make the reader feel uncomfortable with what they are reading, just as he was uncomfortable with what he saw. The element of youth adds to an already morally questionable event an especially perverse quality. The inherently depraved, sadistic nature of a public execution is even less palatable when it is shown that the object of that sadism and depravity is not even fully an adult yet, in anything but perhaps the most strictly legal sense.
The second quality that Turgenev examines is the dignity with which Tropmann handles the events that he’s subjected to. This quality is examined in a more overt way than the rather subtle examination of youthfulness that precedes it. In fact, not only does Turgenev give readers a reason to believe that Tropmann’s handling of his execution is dignified, but Turgenev also explains the particular impression that said handling had on him.
Let me say, by the way, that if Tropmann had begun to howl and weep, my nerves would certainly not have stood it and I should have run away. But at the sight of that composure, that simplicity and, as it were, modesty– all the feelings in me– the feelings of disgust for a pitiless murderer, a monster who cut the throats of little children while they were crying, Maman! Maman!, the feeling of compassion, finally, for a man whom death was about to swallow up, disappeared and dissolved– in a feeling of astonishment (318)
One important thing here is that Turgenev clearly does not try to persuade the reader by compelling them to forget, for a moment, the evil things that Tropmann did (or at least was accused of doing). He is not a good individual. But, in a strange way, in the brief period of time preceding his death, he is respectable. Given that’s the case, that Tropmann is guilty of horrific crimes but still retains some dignity and some humanity, Turgenev evokes a sense of fundamental human value. In the debate on capital punishment, this is an essential argument; Turgenev seeks to prove that even the most diabolical people have worth, and from that one could rationally infer that that worth ought not be squandered and perhaps even approach a discussion on human rights, such as the right to life.
Turgenev does include some details that could cause one to question Tropmann’s guilt entirely, such as the latter’s repeated insistence that he had accomplices and that a wound on his hand was the result of trying to save one of the small children from being killed. But these details are not the focus of the essay and would almost even be superfluous if this essay were fictional, and thus had no obligation to relay a truthful account of what Turgenev witnessed. It is interesting, however, that Turgenev chooses not to focus on them. It is interesting because Turgenev’s disgust, and angst, and all of his negative feelings towards the execution, do not stem from a feeling that it is being done to an innocent individual, but that it is being done to an individual who still should not be executed in spite of his guilt.
In his powerful essay “The Execution of Tropmann”, Ivan Turgenev advances his political motivations as persuasively as one would find in a treatise, yet eloquently and humanely in a personal essay. In his examination of capital punishment, Turgenev shows human depravity where one would hope to find none (in a crowd of common people), and explores human worth where one would still not expect to find any (in a brutal murderer). Turgenev makes his readers feel uncomfortable, experience extreme suspense, and gain a new perspective.
Works cited:
Turgenev, Ivan, “The Execution of Tropmann” in The Art of the Personal Essay: An Anthology from the Classical Era to the Present. Lopate, Phillip. “IV Other Cultures, Other Continents” New York: Anchor, 1994. Print.