Showing posts with label " Lev Tolstoy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label " Lev Tolstoy. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 26, 2020

Tolstoy's WAR AND PEACE Armies as Arbitrary

 


                                                                How Armies Operate

Having recently stepped, or crawled, into the start of my ninth decade on earth, I’m reading (re-reading) War and Peace. Reading it all the way through (hopefully) for the first time in Russian. Getting to the first installment of the “war” part at the beginning of Part Two, I notice a lot of familiar things. I was in the U.S. Army for three years, and armies historically always have certain things in common. In Tolstoy’s novel the year is 1805, and the Russian army, under Kutuzov, is allied with the Austrians against the French. As we begin Part Two the commander, Kutuzov, in the company of an Austrian general is on his way to inspect the troops.

 The exhausted Russian soldiers, now bivouacked in a foreign country, must clean themselves and everything up in anticipation of the visit of the commander-in-chief. Though exhausted, they must work like bees for two days to put on a good show. Finally, they are all lined up in formation, in their parade uniforms, when a new order comes down: we don’t want you in your parade uniforms; we’ll do the inspection in your field, fatigue uniforms. So everybody go get changed.

 Does this make any sense? Absolutely none, but the men go off and get changed. In any army, anywhere historically, this kind of thing happens all the time. Sometimes the commander-in-chief never shows up, sometimes he’s there for a total of two minutes. Doesn’t even bother to look at your spic-and-span barracks. Almost always there is some kind of arbitrary change of the rules, as here, in the case of the uniforms. Most of the time there is no explanation for the change. It’s all “just because.”

 In this case there really is a reason why Kutuzov wants to inspect his men in their fatigue outfits. He has along with him an Austrian general, and he wants to impress upon that general the state of disarray amongst his troops. They have just completed a long march and he does not want to throw them immediately into battle, so he, in effect, does not want them looking good for the inspection. So get out of those parade uniforms. Of course, the troops themselves are never informed about any of this, so they are left thinking that the changes are simply arbitrary. Which, as military operations usually go, they usually are arbitrary.

                                                                    Tolstoy, 1862




Wednesday, August 19, 2020

Notes on WAR AND PEACE, Scene of Old Count Bezukhov's Death ОСТРАНЕНИЕ

 




War and Peace (Война и мир)

Old Bezukhov Dies, as His Heirs Plot

Reading Tolstoy is like listening to a great piece of classical music; sheer pleasure, since he is so good at what he does. I'm learning a lot of French as I go, since the book begins in French, and the characters of the Russian upper classes speak French better than Russian.

 Just finished the scene where old Count Bezukhov dies, while hopeful heirs to his money intrigue away in the background. Here Tolstoy uses his favorite device of "ostranenie (making it strange)”, presenting everything through the naive point of view of Pierre, the illegitimate son of the count ("Je suis un bâtard"). ОСТРАНЕНИЕ

 Pierre has no idea he is even in the running for the inheritance, wonders why suddenly people are looking at him with new eyes, even with fear and obsequiousness. Two of his rivals steal the old count's will—which stipulates that he wants his son Pierre declared legitimate, and leaves him all his fortune. 

 This happens right in the middle of the scene describing how the count is given the last rites! Pierre's champion—a busybody relative and indigent noblewoman, Anna Mikhailovna Drubetskoi, who assumes that if she helps him get the inheritance she and her son Boris will be in for some of the money—wrenches the briefcase with the will away from the bad guys. And this all to the accompaniment of Orthodox priests singing prayers and last rites. Great stuff!

 Tolstoy's greatest gift is for portraying rounded characters. Even his minor characters are living, breathing human beings. The busybody relative is a woman I have met, many, many times, in Russia. Her type, elbows out, ready to plunge ahead fearlessly, strides the streets of the Russian Federation in great profusion.



 


Notes on WAR AND PEACE, Napoleon Visits the Plague Victims at Jaffa

 



Notes on Tolstoy's War and Peace


                                               The Beginning of the Novel: Napoleon at Jaffa

I’ve decided to read Tolstoy’s War and Peace in Russian. A good way to occupy my time in The Year of the Great Plague. I have a twenty-volume Collected Works of Tolstoy in Russian. All of FOUR whole volumes are devoted to War and Peace. I hope to make it through the novel by the end of the year, if I make it through the end of the year.

 

The novel begins with a soiree held by Annette (Anna Pavlovna) Scherer at her salon in St. Petersburg in the year 1805. All the Russian aristocrats of that time spoke French as their preferred language of concourse, so War and Peace begins in French. The first line: “Eh bien, mon prince.” Much on the mind of the people in attendance at the soiree are the politics of Europe, and the antics of Napoleon in particular.

 

Since the pandemic is the most important news in 2020, it struck me as interesting that in the early pages of War and Peace an occurrence of the plague is mentioned in passing, by Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, one of the main characters. Prince Andrei suggests that Napoleon showed his greatness “in the hospital in Jaffa, where he offered his hand to those afflicted with the plague.”

 

This incident is depicted in a famous painting by Baron Antoine-Jean Gros (1804), held in the Louvre. The painting shows Napoleon, during his Egyptian campaign, visiting plague-stricken soldiers at a hospital in Jaffa, Syria, on March 11, 1799. Napoleon is reaching out to touch one of the victims, and some have suggested that this is a kind of laying on of hands, analogous to Christ’s touching a leper. Whether Napoleon actually made such a gesture is debatable, but apparently the painting was used to help solidify the myth of the great man. 



Saturday, May 16, 2020

Translation of Poem by KONSTANTIN SLUCHEVSKY, Константин Случевский, "AN EXECUTION IN GENEVA"







Константин Случевский
(1837-1904)

После казни в Женеве (First Variant)

Тяжелый день… Ты уходил так вяло…
Я видел казнь: багровый эшафот
Давил как будто бы сбежавшийся народ,
И солнце ярко на топор сияло.
Казнили. Голова отпрянула, как мяч!
Стер полотенцем кровь с обеих рук палач,
А красный эшафот поспешно разобрали,
И увезли, и площадь поливали.
Тяжелый день… Ты уходил так вяло…
Мне снилось: я лежал на страшном колесе,
Меня коробило, меня на части рвало,
И мышцы лопались, ломались кости все…
И я вытигивался в пытке небывалой
И, став звенящею, чувствительной струной,
К какой-то схимнице, больной и исхудалой,
На балалайку вдруг попал едва живой!
Старуха страшная меня облюбовала
И нервным пальцем дергала меня,
«Коль славен наш господь» тоскливо напевала,
И я вторил ей, жалобно звеня!..
Literal Translation
After an Execution in Geneva

Oppressive day . . . you went away [passed] so sluggishly . . .
I saw an execution; the crimson scaffold
Pressed down upon the people, who seemed gathered in a throng,
And the sun shone brightly on the axe.

They executed [him]; the head bounced like a ball!
The headsman wiped the blood from both hands with a towel,
And the red scaffold was hastily dismantled,
Taken away, and the public square was wet down.

Oppressive day . . .  You went away so sluggishly . . .
I had a dream: I lay stretched on a terrible wheel,
I writhed, torn to pieces,
My muscles cracking under the strain, all my bones broken.

I was being stretched out more and more, in unheard-of torment,
And then I was a ringing, feeling [sensitive] string,
Barely alive, on a balalaika
Held by a sick and emaciated novice nun.

The horrible black old lady singled me out [selected me],
Plucked me with a trembling finger.
“How glorious is our Lord,” she hummed drearily,
And I kept time with her, twanging plaintively away.

d

Literary Translation/Adaptation by U.R. Bowie

An Execution in Geneva

Oppressive day . . . So listlessly you passed . . .
I watched an execution; the scaffold scarlet red
Pressed down its weight, it seemed, on throngs amassed,
While sunlight gleamed on axe’s blade and head.

They did the deed; a child’s ball, the sconce
Bounced high! With towel the headsman wiped
Both bloody hands, exuding nonchalance;
The scaffold disassembled; square wet down.

Oppressive day . . . So listlessly you passed . . .
I had a dream; wracked on a gruesome wheel,
I lay, I writhed, my body torn, harassed,
My sinews whined, my broken bones did squeal. 

As I in grievous torment lay distended,
A shrunken, scraggy nun I did espy,
She held and played a balalaika splendid,
On which one plonking feeling string was I!

The black hag plunked away, she fretted me,
On me she played and mouthed repulsive croon,
“How great Thou art,” she warbled drearily,
While I kept time and twanged on out of tune.

d

                                                      После казни в Женеве (Second Variant)

Тяжелый день... ты уходил так вяло...
Я видел казнь: багровый эшафот
Давил своею тяжестью народ,
И солнце на топор сияло.

Казнили. Голова отпрянула как мяч!
Стёр полотенцем кровь с руки палач,
И эшафот поспешно разобрали;
Пришли пожарные и площадь поливали.

Тяжелый день... ты уходил так вяло...
Мне снилось: я лежал на страшном колесе,
Меня коробило, меня на части рвало,
И мышцы лопались, ломались кости все...

Я всё вытягивался в пытке небывалой
И стал звенящею, чувствительной струной,
К монахине какой-то исхудалой
На балалайку вдруг попал живой!

Старуха чёрная гнусила и хрипела,
Костлявым пальцем дёргала меня,
"В крови горит огонь желанья" - пела,
И я вторил ей, жалобно звеня! ...

Literal Translation
After an Execution in Geneva

Oppressive day . . . you went away [passed] so sluggishly . . .
I saw an execution: the crimson scaffold
Was pressing down on the people with its weight,
And the sun shone on the axe.

They executed [him]. The head bounced like a ball!
The headsman wiped the blood from his hands with a towel,
And the scaffold was hastily dismantled;
Firemen came and wet down the public square.

Oppressive day . . .  You went away so sluggishly . . .
I had a dream: I lay stretched on a terrible wheel,
I writhed, torn to pieces,
My muscles cracking under the strain, all my bones broken.

I was being stretched out more and more, in unheard-of torment,
And then I was a ringing, feeling [sensitive] string,
Alive, on a balalaika
Held by some emaciated nun!

The black old lady vented nasal sounds, snorted,
Plucked me with a bony finger,
“The flame of desire burns in my heart,” she sang,
And I kept time with her, twanging plaintively away.

Literary Translation/Adaptation by U.R. Bowie

An Execution in Geneva

Oppressive day . . . So listlessly you passed . . .
I watched an execution; the scaffold scarlet red
Pressed down its weight on crowds in square amassed,
While sunlight gleamed on axe’s blade and head.

They did the deed; a child’s ball, the mazzard
Bounced! the headsman wiped his bloody hands with care;
They took the scaffold down in haste, haphazard,
Then came the firemen to sprinkle down the square. 

Oppressive day . . . So listlessly you passed . . .
I had a dream; wracked on a gruesome wheel,
I lay, I writhed, my body torn, harassed,
My sinews whined, my broken bones did squeal. 

As I in grievous torment lay distended,
Some sort of scraggy nun I did espy,
She held and played a balalaika splendid,
On which one plonking feeling string was I!

The black hag snuffled words and snorted through her nose,
One bony finger fretted me, she softly crooned,
“In my heart burns desire’s flame,” her ditty swelled and rose,
While I kept time and twanged on out of tune.

d



Translator’s Notes
Russian Writers View Public Executions in Western Europe

In the spring of 1857, traveling in Europe, Lev Tolstoy, in a letter to V.P. Botkin, describes how he was “stupid and callous enough” to go and view a public execution by guillotine: “I’ve seen many horrible things in war and in the Caucasus, but if a man had been torn to pieces before my eyes it would not have been so revolting as this ingenious and elegant machine by means of which a strong, hale and hearty man was killed in an instant.” Twenty years later he was still disgusted: “When I saw the head part from the body and how it thumped separately into the box, I understood, not with my mind, but with my whole being that no theory of the reasonableness of our present progress could justify this deed, and that though everyone from the creation of the world, on whatever theory, had held it to be necessary, I knew it was unnecessary and bad; and therefore the arbiter of what is good and evil is not what people say and do, nor is it progress, but is my heart and I myself” (A.N. Wilson biography of Tolstoy, p. 146-47).

In January, 1870, Ivan Turgenev was present at a public execution outside the Roquette prison in Paris. Turgenev turned away from the actual event, refusing to watch it. Later he wrote an essay, “The Execution of Tropmann,” in which his semi-fictional first-person narrator describes events leading up to the execution, but he too averts his eyes at the last minute, so that only a few details are described: the sound of “a light rattle, as if wood on wood,” as the yoke descends, and later the “dull growl” of the blade. See the article by Emma Lieber in the Slavic Review, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Winter, 2007).

In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novels there are at least two descriptions of executions by guillotine. In The Idiot Prince Myshkin describes an execution he viewed in Lyon, France, and in The Brothers Karamazov Ivan tells Alyosha the story of a man named Richard, who was executed in Geneva.

Here is Myshkin speaking in The Idiot:

“Yes—I saw an execution in France—at Lyons. Schneider took me over with him to see it.”
“What, did they hang the fellow?”
“No, they cut off people’s heads in France.”
“What did the fellow do?—yell?”
“Oh no—it’s the work of an instant. They put a man inside a frame and a sort of broad knife falls by machinery—they call the thing a guillotine-it falls with fearful force and weight-the head springs off so quickly that you can’t wink your eye in between. But all the preparations are so dreadful. When they announce the sentence, you know, and prepare the criminal and tie his hands, and cart him off to the scaffold—that’s the fearful part of the business. The people all crowd round—even women-though they don’t at all approve of women looking on.”
“No, it’s not a thing for women.”
“Of course not—of course not!—bah! The criminal was a fine intelligent fearless man; Le Gros was his name; and I may tell you—believe it or not, as you like—that when that man stepped upon the scaffold he cried, he did indeed,—he was as white as a bit of paper. Isn’t it a dreadful idea that he should have cried—cried! Whoever heard of a grown man crying from fear—not a child, but a man who never had cried before—a grown man of forty-five years. Imagine what must have been going on in that man’s mind at such a moment; what dreadful convulsions his whole spirit must have endured; it is an outrage on the soul that’s what it is. Because it is said ‘thou shalt not kill,’ is he to be killed because he murdered some one else? No, it is not right, it’s an impossible theory. I assure you, I saw the sight a month ago and it’s dancing before my eyes to this moment. I dream of it, often.”
The prince had grown animated as he spoke, and a tinge of colour suffused his pale face, though his way of talking was as quiet as ever. The servant followed his words with sympathetic interest. Clearly he was not at all anxious to bring the conversation to an end. Who knows? Perhaps he too was a man of imagination and with some capacity for thought.
“Well, at all events it is a good thing that there’s no pain when the poor fellow’s head flies off,” he remarked.
“Do you know, though,” cried the prince warmly, “you made that remark now, and everyone says the same thing, and the machine is designed with the purpose of avoiding pain, this guillotine I mean; but a thought came into my head then: what if it be a bad plan after all? You may laugh at my idea, perhaps—but I could not help its occurring to me all the same. Now with the rack and tortures and so on—you suffer terrible pain of course; but then your torture is bodily pain only (although no doubt you have plenty of that) until you die. But here I should imagine the most terrible part of the whole punishment is, not the bodily pain at all—but the certain knowledge that in an hour,—then in ten minutes, then in half a minute, then now—this very instant—your soul must quit your body and that you will no longer be a man—and that this is certain, certain! That’s the point—the certainty of it. Just that instant when you place your head on the block and hear the iron grate over your head—then—that quarter of a second is the most awful of all.
“This is not my own fantastical opinion—many people have thought the same; but I feel it so deeply that I’ll tell you what I think. I believe that to execute a man for murder is to punish him immeasurably more dreadfully than is equivalent to his crime. A murder by sentence is far more dreadful than a murder committed by a criminal. The man who is attacked by robbers at night, in a dark wood, or anywhere, undoubtedly hopes and hopes that he may yet escape until the very moment of his death. There are plenty of instances of a man running away, or imploring for mercy—at all events hoping on in some degree—even after his throat was cut. But in the case of an execution, that last hope—having which it is so immeasurably less dreadful to die,—is taken away from the wretch and certainty substituted in its place! There is his sentence, and with it that terrible certainty that he cannot possibly escape death—which, I consider, must be the most dreadful anguish in the world. You may place a soldier before a cannon’s mouth in battle, and fire upon him—and he will still hope. But read to that same soldier his death-sentence, and he will either go mad or burst into tears. Who dares to say that any man can suffer this without going mad? No, no! it is an abuse, a shame, it is unnecessary—why should such a thing exist? Doubtless there may be men who have been sentenced, who have suffered this mental anguish for a while and then have been reprieved; perhaps such men may have been able to relate their feelings afterwards. Our Lord Christ spoke of this anguish and dread. No! no! no! No man should be treated so, no man, no man!”









Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Notes on Lev Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" TOLSTOY AND DEATH



Tolstoy, Moscow, 1885




Notes to “The Death of Ivan Ilyich”  TOLSTOY AND DEATH

“The Death of Ivan Ilyich” was completed on March 25, 1886, and published later that same year. in July, 1881, Tolstoy had learned of the death (by stomach cancer) of Ivan Ilyich Mechnikov, an acquaintance of his. Mechnikov, a public prosecutor in the Tula district judicial system, according to his widow, had undergone a deep spiritual change in his last months on earth and had come to regard his life as wasted.


Tolstoy died in 1910, twenty-nine years after the man who was the prototype for his fictional Ivan Ilyich. On his deathbed the old man was reported to have said, “I don’t understand what I’m supposed to do.” This is an interesting statement in regard to dying in general: exactly how is anyone supposed to behave on his/her deathbed? What are we supposed to do?


The question is especially relevant for Tolstoy, who was obsessed with death for practically the whole of his life, but still did not know what to do when the time came to face death. As Ronald Blythe suggests, in his introduction to the Bantam paperback translation, Tolstoy, the “lifelong death-watcher,” may have written this story, at least in part, for therapeutic purposes—in an attempt to better understand the process of death by airing the theme in his own art, and, consequently, to come to terms with his own future death.


But a case can be made for asserting that Tolstoy’s attitude in writing this story is somewhat like that of the characters—Ivan’s court colleagues and fellow card players—who react (see chapter one) to the death of Ivan Ilyich by pushing it out of their minds: “Glad it’s him and not me. Sure, he died, but me, I’ll never die; I’m indestructible.”

As Blythe writes, “the chief reason why we can tolerate death in others, even in those near to us, is that it pushes it away from ourselves.” If Tolstoy had really wanted to look squarely into the face of his own death, he could have written the story of a dying artist, of a man with the same spiritual concerns and preoccupations as he himself. Instead, he chose to write about the most ordinary of philistines, a man with practically no redeeming moral or spiritual values.


In so doing Tolstoy (probably subconsciously) was acting somewhat like Ivan’s friend and colleague Pyotr Ivanovich acted in the first chapter of the story. P.I. does his best at the funeral not to look closely at the corpse—with the implicit message on its dead brow: “Get right with the world before it’s too late.” He escapes the proceedings as soon as possible and goes off to play cards. For P.I. cards are the diversion that push the fact of approaching death out of his mind, keeping death at bay. Ironically, cards had also played an important role, as escape and diversion, in the life of Ivan Ilyich.


Tolstoy’s diversion is on a loftier level; it is literary art. But if the author’s fear of death motivated him, at least in part, to write this story, if something like self-therapy played a role, so what? The result is still great art. “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” is one of the greatest works in all of world literature on the subject of death and dying.



Thursday, September 3, 2015

"Anna Karenina" SUMMING UP



(31) "ANNA KARENINA": SUMMING UP

I started out posting my lecture notes on Anna Karenina with an introductory posting on this blog on Dec. 6, 2014. Now we're already pushing into the end of 2015. Counting this final posting, I have put up a total of 32 bits and pieces on the novel, plus, in the middle of this, I have written a long review article on the latest translation into English, by Marian Schwartz.

We could go on indefinitely discussing "AK," since a novel this long and this great presents opportunities for almost endless discussion. A few things we haven't got around to: the meaning of the Biblical epigraph--"Vengeance is mine; I will repay" (the critic Boris Eikhenbaum, in his Tolstoy in the Seventies, devotes a whole chapter to the epigraph); the art theme (revolving around the painter in Italy, Mikhailov); the way that the two Alexeis (Karenin and Vronsky) have a lot in common; Tolstoy's use of irony and sarcasm; the theme of death (especially prominent in the passages describing the slow death of Lyovin's brother, Nikolay); humor and comedy in the novel; the ending of the novel.

About the ending. You sometimes think that Tolstoy might have done better to end the book with Anna's suicide. The final part (Part Eight) of AK meanders along, moralizing, philosophizing, describing, perhaps, as much Tolstoy's own personal problems as those of his alter ego Lyovin. A passage in Ch. 8--the last sentence in that chapter--describes Lyovin's dilemma but is also exactly descriptive of Tolstoy's own personal dilemma: "He was miserably at odds with his very self, and he strained all his spiritual resources to escape from that condition." The whole book is about reasoning one's way through to an acceptance of non-reasoning, but the round and round of this process in Part Eight gets tedious. Tolstoy was stricken with bouts of depression throughout the writing of this novel, but that situation is reflected most obviously in the last part.

Other things worthy of discussion: great prose often develops out of great poetry, and "AK" would not be what it is if not for the influence on Tolstoy of the poetry of Tyutchev and Fet; the three Annas--why are there three--Anna herself, her maid Annushka, and her daughter Annie--and to what extent are the lesser Annas (the maid and daughter) spectral counter-images of the main character? What else? The homosexual officers who make a brief appearance in Part Two, Ch. 19 (what is their role in the novel?); gestures and kinesics and facial expressions (why does Anna habitually narrow her eyes?).

Back when I was teaching Anna Karenina to students at Miami University I used to conclude my lectures with the following:

Anna Karenina is probably the greatest novel ever written. It is certainly the best ever written on the subject of marriage and family life. It reverberated through all of Russian literature during the remainder of the nineteen century and then all through the twentieth and now into the twenty-first. It was Chekhov's favorite novel, Bunin's favorite novel, Nabokov's favorite novel (not counting his own--but even such a consummate egoist as Nabokov was knew deep in his soul that he would never write anything as great as "AK.").

Chekhov's stories are full of subtle pokes at the Great Master, airings out of Tolstoy's marriage-family theme in new ways. Emerging out of Tolstoy as well, Bunin presented a fresh treatment of the love-death theme. In Nabokov's novel Pnin, we have characters reading and discussing "AK," interpreting it. There are even grounds for asserting that Nabokov's treatment of kinesics and the language of gesture in Pnin has its origins in the extensive attention paid to kinesics and gesture in "AK."

The list can go on and on. We find touches of "AK" in Sologub's Petty Demon, in Solzhenitsyn's One Day, in Bulgakov's Master and Margarita. Etc. Etc. Few pieces of Russian prose written after "AK" escape unblemished. The book has influenced almost all Russian writers.

In a word, it's a great novel. I love it and never get tired of reading it. Over and over. Each time I read it a find marvelous new things. Great art is inexhaustible. But some of you sitting out there in my audience today don't like the book. Others have never got around to reading it. My spies at the video stores downtown have provided me the names and photographs (taken with a hidden camera) of those of you who went to these stores in search of a tape of "AK," a movie.

For shame. We'll be posting those photographs out in the hallways of Irvin Hall, Mother Miami, in a sort of "gallery of shame." This is right in the Russian-Soviet tradition of self-criticism and shaming as a means of promoting moral rectitude.

But what about those of you who made the effort, who read and studied this long novel, who mulled over its many themes and characters and STILL DON'T LIKE THE NOVEL? Well, at this point it's time for me to stop trying to promote the book and give up. People have all different tastes, and although it's difficult for me to acknowledge the intelligence of anyone who does not appreciate "AK," I must, at least grudgingly, say, Okay, maybe even some intelligent people don't like Tolstoy.

In conclusion, let me quote from a great writer, and a man who, like some of you readers, worked over "AK," studied its themes and characters, deeply cogitating on anything and everything concerning the novel, and, in the end, found the book sorely lacking in redeeming social qualities.

"Concerning Karenina, I assure you that for me that abomination does not even exist, and it only annoys me to think there are people who place any value on the novel."

Of course, anyone who knows much about the ups and downs and changing of minds over the long lifetime of Lev Tolstoy can easily guess who is responsible for that quotation. It comes from a letter Tolstoy wrote late in his life (cited in Eichenbaum, Tolstoy in the Seventies, p. 162).

Sunday, August 23, 2015

THE TSAR in "Anna Karenina"



(27) Appearances of Tsar Aleksandr II in "Anna Karenina"

In the famous steeplechase scene (Part II, Ch. 22-29) Tolstoy repeatedly emphasizes the presence of the Sovereign and the court at the races [all page references here are to the Marian Schwartz translation, 2014]. P. 177: "he [Vronsky] would arrive when the entire court was already there." P. 182: "The big barrier was directly in front of the tsar's pavilion. The sovereign, the entire court, and the crowds of people--everyone was looking at them [the riders]." P. 186-87: "Alexei Aleksandrovich [Karenin]. . . had decided he would proceed straight from an early dinner to the dacha to see his wife and from there to the races, where the entire court would be present..." P. 193: "The race was unlucky, and of the seventeen men, more than half fell and were badly hurt. By the end of the race everyone was upset, a feeling magnified even more by the fact that the sovereign was not pleased." P. 194: "an officer galloped up and reported something to the sovereign. Anna strained forward, listening."

The emperor is mentioned several times in the novel, once even by name: P. 733: [Lyovin speaking] "Have you heard, Mikhailych, about the war?" He turned to him. "What was that they read in church? What do you think? Should we be fighting for the Christians?

"What's for us to think? Aleksandr Nikolaevich, our emperor, he's thought it over for us; he thinks everything over for us. He knows best."

With Lyovin's [and his own] opposition to sending Russian volunteers to help Serbia in its war against the Turks, Tolstoy, at this point in the novel, obviously is hinting that the sovereign does NOT know best. But there are other, more important reasons why Tolstoy introduces the emperor as a character in his novel.

The main theme of the novel is marriage and family. The main mover of the plot is adultery, that of Anna and Vronsky. Modern readers unaware of Russian history will be unaware how neatly Tsar Aleksandr II fits into those major themes. Aleksandr Nikolaevich first met Ekaterina Mikhailovna Dolgorukova when she was twelve. When he was forty-eight years old he fell in love with her (she was seventeen). Their first sexual contact came in July, 1866, and for the whole rest of his life (he died in 1881, assassinated) he was obsessed with Ekaterina Mikhailovna.

The tsar apparently had had many mistresses in the past, and his wife the tsarina had always looked the other way. She looked the other way this time too, but this time it was different. Ekaterina Mikhailovna became, in effect, a second wife for him, and she bore him three children. In July, 1880, after the death of the tsarina he married EM, and issued a decree, declaring that she would be given the title Serene Princess and that the three children would have all rights of legitimacy. The marriage, of course, was morganatic: none of the children had any right of succession to the throne.

Almost from the beginning the second illegal wife and family were an open secret in court circles. Tolstoy, along with most of the Russian aristocracy, surely knew this secret, and he neatly incorporated the adulterer Aleksandr into his novel on family and adultery. You wonder if the tsar ever read the novel, or if any of his advisors ever dared mention to him his role in it.

For details on the second, illegal family of the tsar, see, e.g., Edvard Radzinsky, Alexander II, the Last Great Tsar.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

THE OPEN-ENDED NOVEL (3): TOLSTOY, "Anna Karenina"



(19) "Anna Karenina" as The Open-Ended Novel


Someone once said that the best way to end a long novel is to kill off the main character. Then there can be no question as to what happens next in the hero's life. In "Anna Karenina" Tolstoy kills off his eponymous heroine, but the novel does not end.

In fact, the novel is two novels in one, detailing the fortunes of two main heroes, Anna and Konstantin Lyovin. These two personas know many of the novel's other principal characters, but they themselves meet only once, briefly. The novel is really "Anna Karenina and Konstantin Lyovin."

The ending of "AK" has certain similarities with the ending of Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment." In ends with Lyovin contemplating how he is to live out the rest of his life, with a new beginning--just as in "C and P" Raskolnikov contemplates new beginnings in his life.

In the final pages of the novel Konstantin Lyovin, far from reveling in his family happiness, is contemplating suicide and searching for some meaning in life. Much of the novel seems to assert that the best meaning lies in family life in communion with nature and land. But in the process of writing "AK" Tolstoy himself suffered deep depressions and disillusionment with family life.

Had he actually gone on to depict the rest of Lyovin's life, he may well have ended up refuting the idealization of family life that is at the heart of his two greatest novels: "Anna Karenina" and "War and Peace."

Life goes on, and marriages go on; divorce was much less an option in Tolstoy's Russia than it is today. This is obvious from the difficulties Anna has trying to divorce her husband. Tolstoy's own marriage was all downhill for at least the final twenty years of it, and late in life he pubished "The Kreutzer Sonata," which is virulently misogynistic and which rejects marriage, family, and any sort of sex, even conjugal sex.

In terms of male-female relationships, maybe the best line in "AK" is Vronsky's remark to Anna in the midst of their troubles:

"'I don't understand,' he said, understanding her."

'Я не понимаю,' сказал он, понимая ее.