Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina"

173 Pages·2007·1.19 MB·English

Modem Critical Views
LEO TOLSTOY
Edited with an introduction by
Harold Bloom
SterlingProfessoroftheHumanitiesYaleUniversity
Copyright©1986
ISBN:0877547270
Contents
Editor's Note......................................... ix
Introduction......Harold Bloom........................ 1
Tolstoyand the Attempts to Go Beyond the Social
Forms ofLife......Gyorgy Lukacs................... 9
Goethe and Tolstoy......Thomas Mann.................. 15
Parallels inTolstoy......Viktor Shklovsky................. 49
The GreenTwig and the Black Trunk......Philip Rahv..... 53
Tolstoyand Homer......George Steiner.................. 67
Tolstoyand Enlightenment......IsaiahBerlin............. 75
The Dialectic ofIncarnation:
Tolstoy's Anna Karenina......R. P.Blackmur......... 99
Formand Freedom: Tolstoy's
Anna Karenina......Barbara Hardy.................. 119
What Is Art?......John Bayley.......................... 141
AManSpeaking to Men: The Narratives of
War and Peace......W. Gareth Jones................ 153
The Reader as Voyeur: Tolstoyand the
Poetics ofDidactic Fiction......Gary SaulMorson..... 175
Resurrection......Edward Wasiolek....................... 191
Some FatefulPatterns inTolstoy......W. W.Rowe........ 201
Idylland Ideal: Aspects ofSentimentalismin
Tolstoy's Family Happiness......NataliaKisseleff....... 211
Symbolismin The Death of IvanIlych
Robert Wexelblatt.................................. 221
Tolstoyand the Forms ofLife......Martin Price........... 225
Chronology.......................................... 255
Contributors......................................... 257
Bibliography.......................................... 259
Acknowledgments..................................... 261
Index............................................... 263
Editor's Note
Thisvolume gatherstogether arepresentativeselectionofthebestcriticismdevotedtoTolstoythatis
availableintheEnglishlanguage.Theessays,reprintedhereinthechronologicalorder oftheir
publication,cover a periodfrom1920through1983,andcanbecalleda history-in-littleofthetwentieth-
centuryreceptionofTolstoy'sworkinAnglo-Americancriticism,althoughContinentalandRussian
commentariesarealsoincludedhere.Theeditor isgratefultoMs.Olga Popov,withoutwhoseerudition
hewouldnothaveknownofsome oftheseessays.
Theeditor's"Introduction"centersentirelyuponTolstoy's magnificent lateshortnovel HadjiMurad,so
astointimatesomethingofTolstoy'sHomericpowersinnarrative.WiththegreatHungariancritic,
GyorgyLukacs,weexpecta socialemphasis, butthatemphasisisseverelytestedwhenLukacsadmits
thatTolstoytranscendedbothromanticismandtheformofthenovel,andnearlyrenewedtheHomericor
nationalepic,arenewalthatLukacsrejectsuponMarxisthistoricalgrounds.ThomasMann,whohad
portrayedLukacsinTheMagicMountainasLeoNaphta,theJewishJesuitandNietzscheanterrorist,
somewhatcountersLukacsherebycomparingTolstoytoGoethe.AsMannshrewdlynotes, eventhe
mostsocialofTolstoy'sconceptsandvisionsinvariablyoriginatedasintensepersonalneeds.
Viktor Shklovsky'sbriefexcursusonTolstoyanparallelsprovidesa fineinstanceoftwentieth-century
Russianstylisticcriticism.WithPhilipRahv'sruminationsuponTolstoy'sshortnovels,thestartling
naturalnessofthatcosmosisemphasized.SomethingofthesametributeispaidbyGeorgeSteiner inhis
comparisonofTolstoyandHomer,whichcanbecontrastedusefullytotheeditor'scomparisoninhis
introductoryremarks.
InIsaiahBerlin's essay,Tolstoyisseenasa martyroftheEuropeanEnlightenment,sacrificingeverything
uponthealtaroftruth.Insomesense,thisisparalleltoR.P.Blackmur'sreadingof Anna Karenina,
whichconcludesthathumanlifecouldnotstandAnna's"intensity,"perhapsatropefor Tolstoy'sdrive
towardstruth.InBarbaraHardy'sverydifferentanalysis,Anna isseenassufferingfromthediseaseof
nihilism.WhenJohnBayley,assessingTolstoy'soutrageoustractWhatIsArt?,concludesthat
Tolstoy'sanswer is"Myownnovels,"wereceivea wryilluminationuponTolstoyantruthandTolstoyan
intensity.
WarandPeacebecomesthefocuswiththeexaminationofthatepic novel'svariednarrativesbyW.
GarethJones.InGarySaulMorson's essayonthepoeticsofTolstoy's"didacticfiction,"thereisan
emphasisinsteaduponthefirstSevastopolstory,asaninstanceoftheoxymoronic elementinalldidactic
fiction,evenTolstoy's.WithEdwardWasiolek'sreadingof Resurrection, wearegivena salutary
reminder of whatis mostpositiveinTolstoy'sfiction,hisrefusaltodespair.ThisisakintoW.W.Rowe's
tracingoffatefulor overdeterminedpatternsinTolstoy,patternsthathisstronger andmoreflexible
personagesareabletotranscend.
AreadingofFamilyHappiness,byNatalia KisseleffcallsintoquestionTolstoy'spositiveand
transcendingtendencies,exposingtheir dangerousnearnesstosentimentalism, whileacknowledgingthat
Tolstoyhimselfwasawareofthisunhappyproximity.RobertWexelblattdefinesanapproachtoTolstoy's
ultimatetranscendence,themysticalvisionofimmortalityinTheDeathofIvanIlychthrougha
comparisonwithKafka'sMetamorphosis.
Thisvolume endswithMartinPrice'slucidanalysisof moralcharacter inWarandPeaceandAnna
Karenina.Price'sobservationsconfirmTolstoy'sacuityasatragicwriter,adimensionsodifferentfrom
theepicheroismofHadjiMuradastorenewour senseof wonder atTolstoy'srange.
Introduction
WithGodhehasverysuspiciousrelations;theysometimesremindmeoftherelationof"twobearsinone
den."
—MAXIMGORKY,ReminiscencesofTolstoy
I
Tolstoy,whileatworkuponhissublimeshortnovel, HadjiMurad,wroteanessayonShakespearein
whichhejudgedKingLear,HamletandMacbethtobe"emptyandoffensive."Readingoneofhisfew
authenticrivals,Tolstoy"feltanoverpoweringrepugnance,a boundlesstedium."Homer andtheBible
wereequalshecouldrecognize,butShakespeareunnervedhim. Thecustomaryexplanationisthat
TolstoywasmorallyoffendedbyShakespeare,butthetruthislikelytobedarker. HadjiMuradhasa
mimeticforcedifficulttomatchelsewhere.Tofindrepresentationsofthehumanthatcompelustosee
realitydifferently,or toseeaspectsofrealityweotherwisecouldnotseeatall,wecanturntoonlya few
authors:theYahwistor "J"writer (whomadetheoriginalnarrativesinwhatarenowGenesis,Exodus,
Numbers),Homer andDante,Chaucer andShakespeare,CervantesandTolstoyandProust.Ofallthese,
Tolstoymostresembles"J."TheartofTolstoy's narrativesnever seemsart,andthenarrativesthemselves
movewithanauthoritythatadmitsnoreservations onthereader'sside.GorkywroteofTolstoythat:"He
talks mostofGod,ofpeasants,andofwoman.Ofliteraturerarelyandlittle,asthoughliteraturewere
somethingalientohim."TheReminiscencesofTolstoyiscontinuallyastonishing,butperhapsmost
memorablewhenGorkydescribesTolstoyplayingcards:
Howstrangethatheissofondofplayingcards.Heplaysseriously,passionately.Hishandsbecome
nervous whenhetakesthecardsup,exactlyashewereholdinglivebirds insteadofinanimatepieces of
cardboard.
Thatistheauthor ofHadjiMurad,rather thanofWhatisArt?TolstoyholdsHadjiMuradinhishands,as
ifindeedheheldtheman,andnota fiction.IreadTolstoyonlyintranslation,andbelievethatImissan
immensevalue,butwhatremainsinHadjiMuradoverwhelms meafreshateveryrereading.Tolstoy
finishedthenovella inSeptember 1902,shortlyafter hisseventy-fourthbirthday.Perhapsthestorywas
hisprofoundstudyof his ownnostalgias,hisreturntohisownyouth,whenhehadparticipatedas a
volunteer intheCaucasiancampaign(1851),attheageoftwenty-three,andwhenhewroteTheCossacks
(1858,published1863).
EverythingoutwardinHadjiMuradishistorical,andTolstoyevidentlywaspreciseandfaithfulin
adheringtodocumentedfact,andyettheinwardstoryisaphantasmagoria sopowerfulastodevour and
replacewhatever wemightyearntocallreality.HadjiMurad,likeeveryother major figureinthe
narrative,wasbotha historicalpersonage,anda livinglegendinTolstoy'stime, yetheisTolstoy's
vitalisticvisionatitsmostpersonal,persuasive,andpoignant,beinga visionoftheend.Thatistosay,
HadjiMuradisasupremeinstanceofwhattheheroicChernyshevsky,criticandmartyr,praisedas
Tolstoy'sprimegifts:purityof moralfeeling,andthesoul'sdialectic,itsantitheticaldiscoursewithitself.
PerhapsHadjiMuradcanalsobereadasthereturninTolstoyofthepurestoryteller,whotellshisstory
asacontestagainstdeath,soastodefer change,of whichthefinalformmustbedeath.Tolstoy'sruinous
meditationsuponthepower ofdeathensuefromhisawesomesenseof life,a vitalityasintenseashisown
HadjiMurad's.Hiscrisisinthemid-1870s,whenhewroteAnna Karenina,assetforthinhisConfession
(1882),supposedlyturnedupona dreadofnihilism,a convictionthatnomeaningofanylifecouldbe
preservedonceitceased.ButTolstoy'sfamousrefusaltodividelifefromliterature,whichcouldleadto
theabsurdityofhis"Shakespeare"essay,ledalsotoHadjiMurad. Consider theopeningofthenovella (I
givetheAylmer Maudetranslation):
Iwasreturninghomebythefields.Itwasmid-summer,thehayharvestwasover andtheywerejust
beginningtoreaptherye.Atthatseasonoftheyear thereis a delightfulvarietyofflowers—red,white,
andpinkscentedtuftyclover; milkwhiteox-eyedaisies withtheir brightyellowcentresandpleasantspicy
smell;yellowhoney-scentedrapeblossoms;tallcampanulaswithwhiteandlilacbells,tulip-shaped;
creepingvetch; yellow,red,andpinkscabious;faintlyscented,neatlyarrangedpurpleplantainswith
blossomsslightlytingedwithpink;cornflowers,thenewlyopenedblossomsbrightblueinthesunshine
butgrowingpaler andredder towardseveningor when growingold;anddelicatealmond-scenteddodder
flowersthatwitheredquickly.Igatheredmyselfa largenosegayandwasgoinghome whenInoticedina
ditch,infullbloom,a beautifulthistleplantofthecrimsonvariety,whichinour neighborhoodthey call
"Tartar"andcarefullyavoidwhenmowing—or,iftheydohappentocutitdown,
throwoutfromamongthegrassforfearofprickingtheirhands.Thinkingtopickthisthistleandputitinthecentre
ofmynosegay,Iclimbeddownintotheditch,andafterdrivingawayavelvetyhumble-beethathadpenetrateddeep
intooneoftheflowersandhadtherefallensweetlyasleep,Isettoworktoplucktheflower.Butthisprovedavery
difficulttask.Notonlydidthestalkprickoneveryside—eventhroughthehandkerchiefIhadwrappedroundmy
hand—butitwassotoughthatIhadtostrugglewithitfornearlyfiveminutes,breakingthefibresonebyone;and
whenIhadatlastpluckedit,thestalkwasallfrayedandthefloweritselfnolongerseemedsofreshandbeautiful.
Moreover,owingtoitscoarsenessandstiffness,itdidnotseeminplaceamongthedelicateblossomsofmy
nosegay.Ithrewitawayfeelingsorrytohavevainlydestroyedaflowerthatlookedbeautiful initsproperplace.
ItdoesnotmatteratallthatthethistleissoobviouslyasynecdocheforHadjiMuradhimself.Whatisatworkhere
istheauthorityofTolstoy'sownrecalcitrance.Likethethistle,Tolstoy'sstanceisfirm,rootedintheblack-earth
fields."Whatreality!"wethink,aswestareatTolstoy'sfictivecosmos.IfinBalzaceveryjanitorisagenius,in
Tolstoyeveryobjectresistsinanimatestatus,beitthe"Tartar"thistleorthelowottomanthatrebelsagainstPeter
IvanovichatthebeginningofTheDeathofIvanllych:
PeterIvanovichsighedstillmoredeeplyanddespondently,andPraskovyaFedorovnapressedhisarmgratefully.
Whentheyreachedthedrawing-room,upholsteredinpinkcretonneandlightedbyadimlamp,theysatdown atthe
table—sheonasofaandPeterIvanovichonalowpouffle,thespringsofwhichyieldedspasmodicallyunderhis
weight.PraskovyaFedorovnahadbeenonthepointofwarninghimtotakeanotherseat,butfeltthatsuchawarning
wasoutofkeepingwithherpresentconditionandsochangedhermind.AshesatdownonthepoufflePeter
IvanovichrecalledhowIvanllychhadarrangedthisroomandhadconsultedhimregardingthispinkcretonnewith
greenleaves.Thewholeroomwasfulloffurnitureandknick-knacks,andonherwaytothesofathelaceofthe
widow'sblackshawlcaughtonthecarvededgeofthetable.PeterIvanovichrosetodetachit,andthespringsofthe
pouffle,relievedofhisweight,rosealsoandgavehimapush.Thewidowbegandetachinghershawlherself,and
PeterIvanovichagainsatdown,suppressingtherebelliousspringsofthepouffleunderhim.Butthewidowhadnot
quitefreedherselfandPeterIvanovichgotupagain,andagainthepoufflerebelledandevencreaked.Whenthiswas
allover,shetookoutacleancambrichandkerchiefandbegantoweep.Theepisodewiththeshawlandthestruggle
withthepoufflehadcooledPeterIvanovich'semotionsandhesattherewithasullenlookonhisface.Thisawkward
situationwasinterruptedbySokolov,IvanIlych'sbutler,whocametoreportthattheplotinthecemeterythat
PraskovyaFedorovnahadchosenwouldcost
twohundredroubles.Shestoppedweepingand,lookingatPeterIvanovichwiththeairofavictim,remarkedin
Frenchthatitwasveryhardforher.PeterIvanovichmadeasilentgesturesignifyinghisfullconvictionthatitmust
indeedbeso.
Ithasbeenremarkedthatthepouffleorottomanhereismorememorable,hasmorevitality,thanthepersonages
haveinmostotherauthors'fiction.OfHadjiMuradIammovedtosaythateverythinginit—people,horses,
landscapes—exuberantlyisrammedwithlife.IsaakBabel,whoseOdessaTalesaremyownfavoriteamongall
modernshortstories,rereadHadjiMuradin1937,andrecordedhishappyshockathisrenewedsenseofTolstoy's
vitalisticforce:
Heretheelectricchargewentfromtheearth,throughthehands,straighttothepaper,withnoinsulationatall,quite
mercilesslystrippingoffallouterlayerswithasenseoftruth....
Tolstoy,whomoralizedbothabominablyandmagnificently,haslittleoriginaltosayconcerningthepragmaticsof
literaryrepresentation.Whatmightbecalledhistheoryofsuchrepresentationisoutrageousenoughtobe
interesting:
Theartofthefuturewillthusbecompletelydistinct,bothinsubjectmatterandinform,fromwhatisnowcalledart.
Theonlysubjectmatteroftheartofthefuturewillbeeitherfeelingsdrawingmentowardunion,orsuchasalready
unitethem;andtheformsofartwillbesuchaswillbeopentoeveryone.Andtherefore,theidealofexcellencein
thefuturewillnotbetheexclusivenessoffeeling,accessibleonlytosome,but,onthecontrary,itsuniversality.And
notbulkiness,obscurity,andcomplexityofform,asisnowesteemed,but,onthecontrary,brevity,clearness,and
simplicityofexpression.Onlywhenarthasattainedtothat,willartneitherdivertnordepravemenasitdoesnow,
callingonthemtoexpendtheirbeststrengthonit,butbewhatitshouldbe—avehiclewherewithtotransmit
religious,Christianperceptionfromtherealmofreasonandintellectintothatoffeeling,andreallydrawingpeople
inactuallifenearertothatperfectionandunityindicatedtothembytheirreligiousperception.
IntheageofProustandFinnegansWake,ofGravity'sRainbowand"AnOrdinaryEveninginNewHaven,"
Tolstoy's"artofthefuture"isstill,thankfully,farintheunapparent.YetthereisastrengthinTolstoy'sown
attemptstowritehisartofthefuturethatmakesushesitate,partlybecauseTolstoyseemsatmomentstohavefound
hiswaybacktoanartthatneverquitewas,evenintheremotepast,andyetsomethinginuswantsittohaveexisted.
Thereis,inatalelike"HowMuchLandDoesaManNeed?"
(1886),a balancebetweenethosandpathosthatcausedJamesJoycetocallitthefineststoryhehadever
read.Imyself givethattributetoHadjiMurad, butthetaleisa dreadfullyimpressivenightmare,andyeta
visionofreality,irresistibleinitsBiblicalirony.Isay"Biblicalirony"withpreciseintention,because
Tolstoy'sironiesseemtomeneither Classical(sayingonethingwhilemeaninganother)nor Romantic
(playinguponcontrastsbetweenexpectationandfulfillment).Rather,theyresembletheironies ofthe
Yahwist,andturnalwaysupontheincongruousclashbetweenincommensurateordersofreality,human
anddivine,erosandthespirit.ItisnotaccidentalthatTolstoywasobsessedwiththeBiblicalstoryof
Josephandhisbrothers,becauseinsomesensemuchofTolstoy'sgreatestartisa transumptionofthat
story.ToreadthetaleofJosephasTolstoyreadit maybea wayofseeingwhatTolstoyvaluedinliterary
representation,andmayhelpustoappreciatemorefullythegreatness,almostbeyondthereachofart,of
HadjiMurad.
II
Itishardlyinvidioustosaythat HadjiMuradisthestorythatHemingwayalways wishedtowrite,but
couldnotaccomplish.Ifwecouldimagineanearlytwentieth-centurystorywrittenbytheauthor ofthe
Iliad,thenitwouldbeHadjiMurad.LikeHomer,Tolstoyneither lovesbattlenor hatesit;bothepicpoets
simplyacceptitastheconditionof life.Theworldof HadjiMurad,whatever preciserelationithastothe
actualitythatTolstoyexperiencedasayoungsoldier intheCaucasus,isa scenewherebattleisthenorm,
andopenwarfareismorallypreferabletosocietaltreachery,whether thesocietybeRussianor Tartar,the
realmofczar Nicholasor theImamShamil.Overtbattleisalsonobler thanthesadimpingementsof
societaldepravityuponthosewhofight,withthesuperbexceptionofHadjiMuradhimselfandhislittle
bandoffollowers,devotedtothedeath.Insucha fictivecosmos,HadjiMuradthemancombinesin
himselfallthepositiveattributesdividedintheIliadbetweenAchillesandHector,whilebeingfreeofthe
negativequalitiesofbothheroes.Indeed,ofallnaturalmenofheroic eminenceinWesternliterature,
HadjiMuradisthemostimpressive.
HowdoesTolstoysoshapehisrepresentationofHadjiMuradastoarousenoneofour proper skepticism
(or hisown)ofthepotentialheroismofthenaturalman?Nosensitivereader ofTolstoy'sstorywould
dismissHadjiMuradaswearecompelledtodismissthefishermaninTheOldMan
andtheSeaorColonelCantwellinAcrosstheRiver andIntotheTrees.Hemingway'snaturalvitalistsareneither
naturalnorvitalenough,andtheirsacredinnocenceistooclosetoignorance.HadjiMuradisshrewderaswellas
morecourageousthananyoneelseinhisstory.Hediesinbattle,knowinghemust,becausehehasnoalternative.
ButhedieswithoutAchilles'rageagainstmortality,orHector'scollapseintopassivity.Hecandiewithabsolute
dignitybecauseheknowsthatheisnotonlythebestoftheTartars,butsuperioralsoinhorsemanship,daring,
fightingskill,andcharismaticleadershiptoanyoftheRussians.Famousforallhisexploits,hislaststandwillbenot
lessfamous,andyetheneednotcomforthimselfwithsucharealization.Perhapshisheroiccompletenessisimplicit
comfortenough.
OfthetwochiefHomericheroes,AchillesexcelsinforceandOdysseusincraft,butHadjiMuradisforemostin
bothqualities.LikeAchilles,HadjiMuradhaschosenimmortalfame,andyet,likeOdysseus,hewishestoreturn
home,torescuehiswomenandhisson.UnlikeOdysseus,hefails,andyetTolstoy'sartmakesitimpossibletojudge
HadjiMurad'slastexploitasafailure.Thehero,ineveryphaseleadinguptohishopelessbreak-outandfinalbattle,
remainselemental,aforcelikewind,akindofpureflame.ThatforceandpurityarenotlesselementalintheTartar
hero'sdying:
alltheseimagespassedthroughhismindwithoutevokinganyfeelingwithinhim—neitherpitynorangernorany
kindofdesire:everythingseemedsoinsignificantincomparisonwithwhatwasbeginning,orhadalreadybegun,
withinhim.
Elementaldying,strongprocessasitis,goesonsimultaneouslywiththelastspasmofHadjiMurad'ssublime
vitality:
Yethisstrongbodycontinuedthethingthathehadcommenced.Gatheringtogetherhislaststrengthherosefrom
behindthebank,firedhispistolatamanwhowasjustrunningtowardshim,andhithim.Themanfell.ThenHadji
Muradgotquiteoutoftheditch,andlimpingheavilywentdaggerinhandstraightatthefoe.
Someshotscrackedandhereeledandfell.Severalmilitiamenwithtrumphantshrieksrushedtowardsthefallen
body.Butthebodythatseemedtobedeadsuddenlymoved.Firsttheuncovered,bleeding,shavenheadrose;then
thebodywithhandsholdingtothetrunkofatree.Heseemedsoterrible,thatthosewhowererunninigtowardshim
stoppedshort.Butsuddenlyashudderpassedthroughhim,hestaggeredawayfromthetreeandfellonhisface,
stretchedoutatfulllengthlikeathistlethathadbeenmowndown,andhemovednomore.
Hedidnotmove,butstillhefelt.
WhenHadjiAga,whowasthefirsttoreachhim,struckhimontheheadwithalargedagger,itseemedtoHadji
Muradthatsomeonewasstrikinghimwithahammerandhecouldnotunderstandwhowasdoingitorwhy.That
washislastconsciousnessofanyconnectionwithhisbody.Hefeltnothingmoreandhisenemieskickedand
hackedatwhathadnolongeranythingincommonwithhim.
Thesynecdocheofthemown-downthistle,called"theTartar"inthenovella'sfirstparagraph,remindsusof
Tolstoy'soriginaltribute:"Butwhatenergyandtenacity!Withwhatdeterminationitdefendeditself,andhowdearly
itsolditslife!"HadjiMuradalso"stoodfirmanddidnotsurrendertoman"andmarvelouslydemonstratedthe
vitalitythatwillnotsubmit.ButwhydoesthisarchaicheroismsocaptivateTolstoyand,throughTolstoy,the
readersofthestory?GorkysaidofTolstoy:"Healwaysgreatlyexaltedimmortalityon theothersideofthislife,but
hepreferreditonthisside."WeshouldalsorecallGorky'smemorythatTolstoylikedtoremarkofWarandPeace:
"withoutfalsemodesty,itisliketheIliad."HadjiMuradisevenmoreliketheIliad;uncannnilyso,becauseitshero
isHomerictothehighestdegree,andyetsomethingbeyondevenHomer,whichremainstobeexplored.
ItistotallypersuasivethatHadjiMuradisvirtuallywithoutflaw,grantedhiscontextandhistradition.Tolstoy,asan
artist,intendstotransumethewholeoftheheroicconcept,fromallarchaicsources,andinhisHadjiMuradhe
fulfillsthatintention.Thearchaicherofallssomewherebetweenmanandagod,butHadjiMuradisonlyaman.
WhilethearchaicheroofepichasashisspecialexcellencewhatJ.M.Redfieldcalls"notintegrationbutpotency,"
HadjiMuradiswhollyintegrated.WhatRedfieldcalls"theambiguityofthehero"doesnotapplyatalltoHadji
Murad,whoseelementalforce,unlikethatofAchilles,hasinitnoneofthelatencyofthesavagebeast.Withoutin
anywaymoralizinghishero,TolstoyremovesfromhimthechildlikeelementthatneverabandonsAchilles.
AfterHadjiMuradisdead,andevenashiskillersrejoice,Tolstoyrendershisherothetributeofatruethrenody:
Thenightingales,thathadhushedtheirsongswhilethefiringlasted,nowstartedtheirtrillsoncemore:firstone
quiteclose,thenothersinthedistance.
Wecanremembertheuniversaladage,thatifnaturecouldwrite,itwouldbeTolstoy.Hisartitselfisnature,and
deservesthatShakespeareanpraise,despitehisjealousdismissalofShakespeare.HecouldnotrivalShakespeare,
buthecameneartobeingHomer'sequal.
GYORGY LUKACS
Tolstoy and the Attempts to
Go Beyond the Social
Forms of Life
Thegreater closenessofnineteenth-centuryRussianliteraturetocertainorganic naturalconditions,which
werethegivensubstratumofitsunderlyingattitudeandcreativeintention,madeitpossiblefor that
literaturetobecreativelypolemical.Tolstoy,comingafter Turgenev—whowasanessentiallyWestern
Europeannovelistofdisillusionment—createda formofnovelwhichoverlapstothemaximumextent
intotheepic.Tolstoy'sgreatandtrulyepic mentality,whichhaslittletodowiththenovelform,aspiresto
a lifebasedona communityoffeelingamongsimplehumanbeingscloselyboundtonature,alifewhich
isintimatelyadaptedtothegreatrhythmofnature,whichmovesaccordingtonature'scycleofbirthand
deathandexcludesallstructureswhicharenotnatural,whicharepettyanddisruptive,causing
disintegrationandstagnation."Themuzhikdies quietly,"TolstoywrotetoCountess A.A.Tolstoyabout
hisstoryThreeDeaths."Hisreligionisnature,withwhichhehasspentallhislife.Hehasfelledtrees,
sownrye,reapedit,hehasslaughteredsheepandsheep havebeenbornonhisfarm,childrenhavecome
intotheworld,oldmenhavedied,andheknowsthislawfromwhichhehasnever turnedawayasthe
ladyofthemanor hasdone,heknowsitwellandhaslookeditstraightandsimplyintheeye...Thetree
dies
(TranslatedbyAnnaRostock.FromTheTheoryoftheNovel:AHistorico-PhilosophicalEssayontheFimnsofGreatEpic
Literature.Copyright©1971byTheMerlinPress.)
quietly,simplyandbeautifully.Beautifullybecauseitdoesnotlie, makes nogrimaces,isafraidof
nothingandregretsnothing."
TheparadoxicalnatureofTolstoy'shistoricalsituation,whichprovesbetter thananythingelsehowmuch
thenovelisthenecessaryepicformof our time, manifestsitself inthefactthatthisworldcannotbe
translatedintomovementandaction,evenbyanauthor whonotonlylongsfor itbuthasactuallyseen
anddepicteditclearly;itremainsonlyanelement oftheepic work,butisnotepicrealityitself.The
naturalorganic worldoftheoldepics was,after all,a culturewhoseorganiccharacter wasitsspecific
quality,whereasthenaturewhichTolstoypositsastheidealandwhichhehasexperiencedasexistentis,
initsinnermost essence, meanttobenature(andis,therefore,opposed,assuch,toculture).This
necessaryoppositionistheinsolubleproblematic ofTolstoy's novels.Inother words,his epicintention
wasboundtoresultina problematicnovelform,notbecausehefailedtoovercomeculturewithin
himself,notbecausehisrelationshiptonatureasheexperiencedanddepicteditwasasentimentalone—
notfor psychologicalreasons—butfor reasonsofformandoftherelationshipofformtoitshistorico-
philosophicalsubstratum.
Atotalityof menandeventsispossibleonlyonthebasisofculture,whatever one'sattitudetowardsit.
ThereforeinTolstoy's epic worksthedecisiveelement belongs,bothasframeworkandasconcrete
content,totheworldofculturewhichherejectsasproblematic.Butsincenature,althoughitcannot
becomeanimmanentlycompletetotality,isobjectivelyexistent,theworkcontainstwolayersofrealities
whicharecompletelyheterogeneousfromoneanother bothasregardsthevalueattachedtothemandthe
qualityoftheir being.Andrelatingthemtooneanother,whichwouldmakeitpossibletoconstructa
workthatwasatotality,canonlytaketheformofthelivedexperienceofgoingfromonerealitytothe
other.Or,toputitmoreprecisely,sincethedirectionchosenisa givenresultofthevalueattachedtoboth
realities,itistheexperienceof goingfromculturetonature.Andso,asa paradoxicalconsequenceofthe
paradoxicalrelationshipbetweenthewriter'smentalityandthehistoricalageinwhichhefindshimself,a
sentimental,romantic experiencefinallybecomesthecentreoftheentirework:thecentralcharacters'
dissatisfactionwithwhatever thesurroundingworldofculturecanoffer themandtheir seekingand
findingofthesecond, moreessentialrealityofnature.Theparadoxyarisingfromthisexperienceis
further increasedbythefactthatthis"nature"ofTolstoy'sdoes nothavea plentitudeandperfectionthat
wouldmakeit,liketherelativelymoresubstantialworldattheendofGoethe'snovel,a homeinwhich
thecharactersmightarriveandcometorest.Rather,itis
a factualassurancethatanessentiallifereallydoes existbeyondconventionality—a lifewhichcanbe
reachedthroughthelivedexperiencesofa fullandgenuineselfhood,theself-experienceofthesoul,but
fromwhichonemustirremediablyfallbackintotheworldofconvention.