I Was Anastasia: A Novel

These chapters highlight several ways in which Anna and Anastasia are linked. One connection between them is that they both face displacement and destabilized identities. Anna feels forced out of Unterlengenhardt following the purge of her possessions and her animals while she was ill; this was orchestrated by Prince Frederick, and as a result, she thinks of him as an adversary. Yet, in earlier memories, Frederick is her rescuer and protector as she departs Winterstein: He is described as a valiant, devoted figure, heroically rowing her boat and then providing Anna a safe haven and a home in the cottage in Unterlengenhardt. This reversal in perception echoes the theme of Memory as a Constructed Narrative, as Anna’s view of Frederick is shaped by context and her emotions.

Just as Frederick is both an adversary and benefactor to Anna, Alexander Kerensky plays an ambiguous role in Anastasia’s story. He is introduced as the villain who has deposed the tsar, but his later actions suggest that he wants to protect the Romanovs by relocating them. Kerensky’s decision to kill Sammi, the bull elephant that was Alexey’s pet, serves as a metaphor: He is destroying a cumbersome burden on the country’s coffers that has no purpose beyond ostentation and display. Kerensky, however, describes the elephant’s killing as a more merciful alternative to letting it starve to death. The moral ambiguousness of this act parallels the precariousness of each woman’s situation. Their survival is dependent on men who are themselves negotiating between power, ethics, and duty.

Frederick urges Anna to dispose of her suitcase, but she refuses. The suitcase holds the four items that form the core of Anna’s private justification for her identity: a photo album of the imperial family, an icon of Saint Anna of Kashin, a chess set with ivory pieces, and a paper knife. These are the items Anna packs when she leaves Unterlengenhardt, and these are the items she brings when she arrives there. Although these four items would be crucial proof supporting her claim that she is Anastasia, Anna does not submit them as evidence into her court case. This choice speaks to Anna’s deeper investment in memory and personal narrative over institutional validation of her claims. 

Anna’s four precious items mirror Anastasia’s earrings, which are one of the treasures of her family and are symbols of their wealth and power.  Anastasia’s diamond earrings are a birthday present and also confirm her identity as a Romanov. Anastasia gets her ears pierced so she can transport her small treasures with her when the family is forced to leave the palace, just as Anna clings to her suitcase. Both women carry intimate items that serve as identity markers when they are in exile, highlighting that The Foundations of Identity lie in memory.

The power of narrative and storytelling is explored in several incidents in these sections, beginning with Anna’s 1968 visit with the Parisian film producer who wants—like Jack, and like the novel itself—to make a public appeal to audiences by telling Anna’s story. In the moment, Anna’s involvement in the film clip of the imperial family seems proof of her identity as Anastasia. She claims she was there and can remember that day, but this is another claim of Anna’s that is never substantiated. Whether this memory is genuine or performed underscores the theme that memory is a curated narrative rather than a record of fact. Anna’s refusal to cooperate with the producer’s storytelling and her plea to Ingrid Bergman that she not be portrayed as a fool highlights her anxiety about how her story is shaped by others for public consumption. 

Hans Johann Mayer’s testimony is another example of memory as a constructed narrative. Mayer is a controversial figure in the historical record: While some historians support his claims of witnessing the execution of the Romanov family and their servants, others have claimed that Mayer was an opportunist who equally offered to testify on Anna’s behalf in return for payment. Historically, Mayer’s testimony was later dismissed as perjury when his credibility was questioned by evidence of forgery. For purposes of the novel, the pathos and conviction of his testimony demonstrates the power of a well-told story: His testimony is believed over Anna’s, raising questions about whose stories are believed and why.

Finally, Lawhon provides another subtle point of connection between Anna and Anastasia through their shared practice of nicknaming people. Anna names people the Oarsman, the Producer, Tartar; similarly, Anastasia nicknames one of their guards Leshy after a Slavic forest spirit. This shared trait suggests a similar disposition, which might be evidence that Anna and Anastasia are indeed the same person.