r/tolstoy

Leo Tolstoy on why philosophy can never really replace religion and the power of religion, from "On Life", Chapter 3, "The Delusions of the Scribes":

"How wonderful! The fact that all the teachings of the great minds of humanity so awed men by their greatness that rude people generally ascribed to them a supernatural character and recognized their founders as demigods, — which serves as the chief token of the importance of these teachings, — serves for the scribes, so they think, as the best proof of the irregularity and obsoleteness of these teachings. The fact that the unimportant teachings of Aristotle, Bacon, Comte, and others have always remained the possession of a small number of their readers and admirers, and on account of their falseness never could have influenced the masses, and so were not subjected to superstitious distortions and increments, is taken as a proof of their truth. But the teachings of the Brahmins, of Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao-tse, Confucius, Isaiah, Christ, are regarded as superstitions and delusions, only because these teachings have transformed the lives of millions.

They are not in the least troubled by the fact that billions of people have lived according to these superstitions, because even in their distorted form they give men answers to the questions as to the true good of life, and that these teachings are divided up, but even thus serve as the basis of reasoning of the best men of all ages, while the theories which are acknowledged by the scribes are divided by them alone, are always subjects of dispute, and often do not survive a decade, and are forgotten as quickly as they rise."

Leo Tolstoy about the absurdity of war, from "What I Believe" Chapter 10:

"Leaving their parents, their wives and children, they go in their buffoon attire, blindly submissive to some superior whom they hardly know; cold, hungry, worn out by a march above their strength, they follow him like a herd of oxen to the slaughter. But they are not oxen – they are men! They cannot help knowing that they are driven to slaughter, with the unsolvable question, ‘Why must I go?’ And with despair in their hearts they go on, many dieing off through cold, hunger, and infectious diseases, until those who are left are placed under bullets and cannon balls, and ordered to kill men whom they know nothing about. They kill and are at last killed themselves, and not one of those who kill their fellow- creature knows why he does so."

I’d like to better understand the difference between Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism/Evangelical Christianity seems much clearer to me, but when it comes to Catholicism vs. Russian Orthodoxy, I’m less sure.

From what I understand, the fundamental difference is that Catholicism recognizes the Pope and the Vatican as the supreme authority and successors of Saint Peter (apostolic succession), while the Orthodox Church does not and instead has a more synodal structure. I’ve also heard there are differences regarding the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, but I’m not exactly sure what they are.

So what is the big difference between them, the deeper theological or spiritual divide?

I’m asking because while reading Fyodor Dostoevsky, I noticed he was a deeply Orthodox Christian who nevertheless criticized Catholicism very harshly (for example in The Brothers Karamazov, especially the chapter “The Grand Inquisitor”). The same seems true of Leo Tolstoy. I’d really like to understand the deeper differences that led to these kinds of criticisms.

Thanks a lot!

Anyone else feel like Vera was heavily underutilized in war and peace?

In the first book she has a fiery entrance. The oldest sister, clearly jealous of Natasha and Nikolai’s relationships with Boris and Sonya.

Then she marries Berg and pretty much disappears from the narrative entirely. Her marriage is important — it plays into Count Rostov’s financial troubles — but it feels as though there was a thread Tolstoy did not finish exploring.

Thoughts?

I recently came across a brief mention in Rosamund Bartlett’s Tolstoy biography that in 1861, Tolstoy challenged Turgenev to a duel. I knew he had a short fuse as a young man, but I had never heard this story. I started looking into it more, and was really surprised by the complexity of Tolstoy and Turgenev’s relationship. I closely read their letters and Tolstoy’s diary from this period. In short, they had a very off-and-on relationship. They would be the best of friends one day, and the next, they would be badmouthing each other.

In May 1861, the two were having breakfast at Afanasy Fet’s country estate. Fet’s wife, asked Turgenev if he was pleased with his daughter’s English governess. Turgenev responded that he was, adding that she “requires my daughter to take the ragged clothes of the poor in her hands and, having mended them with her own hands, return them to their owners.”

“And you consider this a good thing?” Tolstoy asked.

“Of course; it brings the benefactor closer to the pressing need,” Turgenev responded.

Tolstoy retorted, “But I think that a dressed-up girl, holding dirty and stinking rags on her lap, is playing an insincere, theatrical scene.”

Turgenev then got very angry and threatened to slap Tolstoy in the face. Tolstoy then sent for his weapons from his estate and challenged Turgenev to a duel.

After a series of letters and apologies spanning months that seemed to exacerbate the feud, with Turgenev ultimately challenging Tolstoy to a duel, the two agreed to cease all communications. In a letter to Fet, Tolstoy wrote, “Turgenev is a scoundrel who ought to be thrashed, a message I ask you to convey to him just as scrupulously as you convey his charming remarks to me, despite my repeated requests that you not speak of him.”

The silence, remarkably, lasted nearly 17 years, until Tolstoy penned a letter to Turgenev, asking for his forgiveness.

I wrote an article about it if anyone is interested in reading more

 

I love Tolstoy deeply, which is why The Kreutzer Sonata left me with a strange sense of disappointment. It is probably the only work of his that I have real problems with.

What I miss here is the openness I usually associate with Tolstoy. In his greatest works, every character seems to exist from within. Even when Tolstoy has strong moral concerns, the world of the novel remains larger than any single idea. In The Kreutzer Sonata, the opposite seems to happen. The story feels shaped by the need to express a thesis, and everything is drawn toward that thesis.

Pozdnyshev is not a flat character. He is vivid, tormented, contradictory, and in the second part, when he tells his personal story rather than theorizing about marriage, sex, and the social habits of the upper classes, he becomes painfully human. There are moments where it is possible to understand him, even to feel some compassion for him.

Still, the text never really opens beyond him. We remain trapped inside his voice, with only a silent listener beside him. His vision is partial, obsessive, and distorted, yet no other perspective is allowed to stand beside it with equal force. The result feels strangely unpolyphonic for Tolstoy.

This is clearest in the treatment of the wife. Tolstoy knew how to give women extraordinary inner depth. Anna Karenina and Natasha Rostova are obvious examples. Here, instead, the wife seems reduced almost entirely to the position of someone subjected to another person’s gaze, judgment, and violence. She is not granted the fullness that Tolstoy was so capable of giving.

For that reason, I find The Kreutzer Sonata powerful, disturbing, and memorable, yet also unusually narrow. It feels less like one of Tolstoy’s worlds and more like a brilliant mind forcing a whole story to serve an idea.

And you?

Did anyone find a reason as to why Pierre was starting a secret society and potentially planning a rebellion/coup? It talked so much about how he became wise and peaceful, no longer trying to find a deep meaning or getting involved in society or politics. He instead chose to settle down with his family and obey Natasha. That ending felt so out of character for what he was supposed to be and it just seemed like Tolstoy didn’t know what to do with him in the end.

I’m currently at the part where Anna tells Vronsky she’s pregnant, and honestly I absolutely hate both of them as characters.

I understand the nuance. I understand Anna is stuck in a loveless marriage, feels emotionally trapped. But I personally can never get behind infidelity, so it’s making the entire situation difficult for me to invest in.

Vronsky especially annoys me. He's your classic vain playboy who’s used to admiration and acts impulsively without considering the consequences. Poor Kitty (ofc the fault lies with her and her mom too)

And Anna’s avoidant behavior toward her husband especially when he tries to warn her after the party is just frustrating.

Anna and Vronsky are selfish hedonists who are prioritizing desire over everyone around them. Maybe, I am reducing them to some one dimensional caricatures with that sentence but that's how they've come across to me as for now.

I generally hate cheating tropes in fiction, so maybe this book was always going to be a challenge for me. On top of that, there are moments where the novel feels misogynistic or sexist in ways that leave a bad taste in my mouth.

What keeps me going is Tolstoy’s writing itself. It's brilliant. Also, the social dynamics and psychological observations are incredible (I really like Levin as a character!!) But emotionally, I’m struggling because I actively dislike spending time with Anna and Vronsky characters.

For people who’ve read it:

1. Does the story become more psychologically compelling even if you dislike them?

2)Is it worth pushing through if the cheating aspect is already bothering me this much?

No spoilers please.

What are your thoughts on the significance of that scene?

Anna still putting on a facade but charming everyone in the room. Even later on mentioning she could have Levin, if she wanted. That seemed somewhat out of character for her. But maybe showing how little she cared for society at that point.

Levin, briefly, infatuated with her. I almost felt like he believed her to be an interesting partner. Even kitty could sense he'd been struck by her.

I’ve read Anna Karenina. That’s all I’ve ever read from Tolstoy before. Crime and Punishment and some short stories by Dostoyevsky are the only other Russian literature I’ve ever read.

The plan was to read The Count of Monte Cristo, Napoleon : A Life (by Andrew Roberts), Les Misérables, and only then War and Peace; in that order.

I finished Monte Cristo and then I felt like War and Peace called me to read it. I don’t know if this is the right time for me to start it, and yet I have started it. I am not disappointed by Book 1 Chapter 1 at all.

It has established the setting and shown a few characters, while setting up others that I am sure will be important in the subsequent chapters and maybe the story as a whole, if War and Peace even has something that could be considered a story.

I’m reading the Maude translation.

I’m open to any thoughts, perspectives and opinions.

It's the one that the following is excerpted from:

>What is War and Peace? It is not a novel, even less is it a poem, and still less a historical chronicle. War and Peace is what the author wished and was to able express in the form in which it was expressed.

I liked this quote about the book from the author himself, and found out that it is part of an Appendix to the book entitled "A Few Words on War and Peace". I could not find the original text in Project Gutenberg's version.

Does anyone have the full text that the above quote is derived from?

Also, I've only yet reached Chapter XVII of Book 1 and I already *love* this wonder of literature and collective human experience (history) distilled in beautiful prose. NO SPOILERS please. If anyone has read the article by Tolstoy that I'm looking for, does it have any spoilers?

Favorite non-fiction works by Tolstoy? I'm genuinely curious if anyone read here Tolstoy's non-fiction works. Aka not big novels such as Anna Karenina and War and Peace, works that deal more directly about the meaning of life, spirituality, anarchism etc. Such as Confession (1882) What I Believe + The Kingdom of God is Within You (1884). On Life (1887, very underrated and unknown philosophical book by him) A Letter to a Hindu (1908) etc? To name a few. Also many other essays and articles etc l.

Hi friends, I was hoping this sub could help me get a little more depth out of my Tolstoy readings.

Who are some prominent Tolstoy experts? And where can I find their essays, lectures, and so on, especially interpreting War & Peace and Anna Karenina?

Thanks so much!