Leo Tolstoy:

The True Beauty

of Nature

Based on the Reading of

Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina

Julia Schwartz

December 19, 2001

*                *                *

Leo Tolstoy, whose real name was Count Lev Nikolai Tolstoi, was a complex man who struggled to find meaning in his life and organize the society he lived in and observed into a set code of principles. “Moralistic to the core,”[1] Tolstoy ended his life with a clear set of the morals he held for his ideal man. In his book Anna Karenina, Tolstoy tries to clarify his beliefs and give them to his country, Russia, through his characters and their actions. His beliefs were considered to be outrageous in their time, and these, paired with his development of a new sense of religion founded on his own principles, led to his excommunication from the Catholic Church. “Tolstoy juxtaposed in [Anna Karenina] crises of family life with the quest for the meaning of life and social justice,”[2] and in doing so, created a novel that is considered to be one of the greatest love stories of all time.

                    Tolstoy’s main belief is in that of nature as a model for all levels of existence. Within this exclusive realm of nature and natural behaviors and proceedings, Tolstoy weaves a complex plot of his ideas and philosophies for the proper existence of man both in society and in his own mind. While this is Tolstoy’s main focus in his philosophies, he is also has firm beliefs for other outlooks as well. Tolstoy’s other beliefs hold true to this fundamental thought, and are clearly built with the foundation of the characteristics of a natural existence in mind. Tolstoy believes that trust and truth must be present for any relationship, including those of friends, spouses, lovers, and acquaintances, and that a clear set of traditional morals must be acknowledged and abided by in fulfilling the process of one’s life. He also has much confidence in the role of work in one’s life. While Tolstoy is a firm believer in the benefit of manual labor to achieve a release from the stresses of everyday life, he also believes in mental exercise, intellectual development, and the process of logic. Through the quests for the true meaning of one’s life, the characters study the roles of love, religion, and place in society to try to find where they belong in the elusive realm that is known as life.

                Tolstoy’s everlasting quest, and that of many of his characters, is to find the meaning of the individual’s life. His thoughts and struggles with himself in his own life are expressed mainly through the character Konstantin Levin, who “echoes [Tolstoy’s] disapproval of intellectuality and urban sophistication, and he becomes tormented by the same doubts about the meaning of life and the relation of human beings to the infinite that assailed Tolstoy when he was completing Anna Karenina.”[3] Levin’s struggles to come to grips with who he is in the world and the meaning of his life is a common exercise for the more conscious characters in Russia introduced in his novel Anna Karenina. The title heroine, Anna, also struggles with the meaning of her life, along with Levin and others. Tolstoy, in his real life, went through this struggle as well, and finally ended up submerging himself deeply into the principles of Christianity.

                One of Levin’s greatest concerns in his life that that he is that he is worthless to the overall history of the world, and that the world itself is only a speck of sand in the universe. This idea scares him, and makes him realize that he is nearly suicidal, to the point where “…he hid a rope so that he might not be tempted to hang himself, and was afraid to go out with his gun for fear of shooting himself” (892). While Levin realizes that his life is too precious to those around him to sacrifice, he doesn’t see the point in merely living for others. The only one whom Levin sees worth living for is Kitty, because “with love, one would always be happy, for happiness lies only within oneself” (458). His mind, however, constantly races about, trying to find an explanation for his existence. “ ‘I do value my idea and my work very highly; but in reality only consider this: all this world of ours if nothing but a speck of mildew, which has grown up on a tiny planet. And for us to suppose we can have something great- ideas, work- it’s all grains of sand’” (429), thinks Levin to himself. The only things that can tear Levin away from his pondering of “the endless nothingness before which men cower”[4] are Kitty, and physical labor.

Tolstoy holds great store in the relief of pressures that manual labor can accomplish. This is shown prominently for the first time when Levin takes to the fields to mow his expansive meadows with his peasant laborers.

                The longer Levin mowed, the oftener he felt the moments of unconsciousness

                                in which it seemed that the scythe was mowing by itself, a body full of life and

                               consciousness of its own, and as though by magic, without thinking of it, the work

                                turned out  regular and precise by itself. These were the most blissful  moments. (289)

The labor that Levin carries out with his peasants is a welcome respite for him from the stress he is encompassed with in his life. Tolstoy’s belief in this is supported by his own belief that, “for men, physical labor seems to be the only way to obliterate the specter of nothingness.”[5] It is ironic that the physical labor can give Levin rest in his life, for when he is in a physical state of rest, Levin becomes more troubled, because he is struck by the question of the worth of his life. He often retreats back into the fields to work with his men for this sense of calm.

                While Levin sometimes works with his peasants, he does not feel that he is on the same level with them. Levin feels the differences between himself and the peasants, and for a short while, he contemplates becoming a peasant himself- but then he realizes he has too many ties into his elite world- the most important, of course, being Kitty, who has yet to return Levin’s love at this point. He also realizes that he would too soon be frustrated by their lifestyle, which is utterly the opposite of what his current life is.

                                    To Konstantin, the peasant was simply the chief partner in their common

                                  labor, and in spite of all the respect and the love, almost like that of kinship,

                                   he had for the peasant…still, as their partner, while sometimes enthusiastic

                                    over the vigor, gentleness and justice of these men, he was very often…

                                    exasperated with the peasant for his carelessness, disorganization, drunkenness,

                                    and lying. If he had been asked whether he liked or didn’t like the peasants,

                                    Konstantin Levin would have been absolutely at a loss as to what to reply.  (271)

Levin is constantly plagued by intellectual discussions about the peasantry- namely, the education of the peasantry. During the era in which the novel takes place, many of the characters express concern over the education and care of the peasantry. Some feel that the education of the peasantry is a must, for the peasants will work better having an education. Others feel that there is no need for the peasants to be educated in classical learning, as it does not apply to their fields of work. Levin is of the latter category. This is contradictory to Tolstoy’s views, because in Tolstoy’s real life he founded a school for peasant children on his estate: “he saw that the secret of changing the world lay in education.”[6]

                While Tolstoy saw great need for education, and approved of it, as shown through many ways, such as the intellectual debates for it and the struggles of the parents (i.e. Dolly and Anna) of educating their children. Tolstoy also shows his approval of education, especially solitary learning, of women, through contrasts between Anna and Kitty. Both have solitary household lives on large country estates with no children. However, while Kitty “has no serious interests…she does nothing and is perfectly satisfied” (553), Anna is constantly reading books from St. Petersburg bookshops. Through Levin once again, Tolstoy shows his disapproval and disbelief at the tedious life that many women, such as Kitty, lead. He clearly prefers the more forthcoming pastimes of Anna, who stimulates her mind when she is not concerned with housework- although Tolstoy seems to think Anna a bit arrogant for not taking part in housework, but in frivolous actions, like changing her dress three times in one afternoon. Levin does “not understand that [Kitty is] instinctively aware of [her lack of activity], and preparing herself for this period of activity which was to come for her when she would at once be the wife of her husband and mistress of the house, and would bear, and nurse, and bring up children” (553). Tolstoy accepts this traditional notion of motherhood as above and as more important (in the case of women) than intellectual activities like reading.

                Tolstoy finds an immense need for morality in the lives of upstanding people; this ideal is expressed through countless descriptions of characters in Anna Karenina. Tolstoy believes that each person should live by “code of principles, which define with unfailing certitude what he should and what he should not do” (348). One of the ways Tolstoy distinguishes the good and evil between his characters, is the way they look at and act upon the morals they hold. Whether the characters do or do not live by respectable morals shows both Tolstoy’s attitudes towards the characters and his approval or disapproval of their action. For example, Anna’s husband, Aleksey Alexandrovich, is portrayed as the least kind of the main characters. Tolstoy depicts him as a cold, unfeeling man, even though he reveals Karenin’s feelings throughout the book. His feelings, however, are constantly overshadowed by his actions, which appear to be done selfishly and with the only cause of denying Anna her happiness and her opinions. Tolstoy further brings Karenin to shame through a morality that seems to be the very reverse of what Tolstoy is preaching throughout the novel; the reverse of what is shown to be those morals of a good man. “ ‘Honesty is only a negative qualification’” (816), says Karenin, completely rebuking what is commonly depicted as good in this novel, and thus further showing Karenin as an evil man.

Similarly, even while Vronsky’s overall action of falling in love with Anna and taking away her life and ultimately ruining it is chronicled, Tolstoy still looks favorably upon Vronsky. One cannot help but to like Vronsky, even in wake of what his relationship with Anna is doing to her and her family. This is because Tolstoy constantly makes reference to Vronsky’s “code of principles” (348). In Vronsky’s regret for causing Anna pain, he feels so miserable that he attempts to punish himself- fatally. Karenin too feels miserable and repents for Anna, but while his words show extreme repentance and forgiveness towards Anna, he ultimately does not carry out actions that demonstrate this inclination. Vronsky, however, while he does not profess his regret as clearly in words, professes his regret by actions. The second time Anna brings the two men to sorrow and penitence, a similar chain of events occurs. Karenin is practically unconcerned, and feels “relief at the news that there [is] still hope of [Anna’s] death” (469), so that he does not have to worry about her, while Vronsky is so devastated, he almost ceases living himself.

Trust and telling the truth are two of the most important virtues that Tolstoy believes an admirable person should possess. He himself even said that “the one thing that is necessary, in life as in art, is to tell the truth.”[7] Like many of Tolstoy’s beliefs, these attributes contribute to the overall approval or disapproval Tolstoy reflects in his characters. Between married couples, especially, truth is of the utmost importance, and the lack of trust between two partners, especially of the women towards their men, is often a cause for conflict in the relationship. Dolly and Stiva, Anna and Vronsky, and Kitty and Levin all come into at least one conflict as a result of the (sometimes temporary) loss of trust. Coincidentally, each couple also experiences at least one quarrel in which the wife feels afraid that her husband (and in Anna’s case, lover) is seeing or is in love with another woman. In the solid relationships, like Levin and Kitty’s, this conflict can be resolved quickly with words- because there is much trust in the relationship and they are aware that they tell each other everything. In the case of Vronsky and Anna, however, Anna constantly fears that Vronsky is no longer in love with her, due highly to the fact that they did not tell each other everything because they began and continued an illicit relationship. Their relationship was founded on passion, not friendship and trust. This causes many problems for them. “The good of society is dependent upon scrupulous obedience of the moral law engraved in every human heart.”[8] Tolstoy holds great store in the relationship of Kitty and Levin, and it is clearly the most stable and intact relationship of all of the love relationships in Anna Karenina and has the signs of a lifelong union, unlike the turbulent relationships of Vronsky and Anna and Stiva and Dolly. 

The role of religion in Anna Karenina is a curious one. While some characters firmly embrace religion, some do not. Others, like Levin and Karenin, develop religious beliefs through their own struggles: Karenin espouses religion under the influence of Countess Lydia Ivanova’s companionship after the departure of his wife, while Levin realizes that he prayed to God during the time his wife Kitty was bearing his son, Mitya. Hidden beneath his non-religious exterior, Levin really contained the veritable belief in God, or else he would not have turned to this source in his time of need. Religion, for most of the characters, is an expression of the thoughts and morals that they hold for themselves. Tolstoy, after his own personal search for the meaning of life in general, and the meaning of his life, did in fact develop his own form of a religion, with five main concepts.

                                        …[Levin] had been stricken with horror…of life, without any knowledge

                                    of whence, and why, and how, and what it was. The organism, its decay,

                                    the indestructibility of matter, the law of the conservation of energy,

                                    evolution, were the words that usurped the place of his old belief. These

                                    words and the ideas associated with them were very useful for intellectual

                                    purposes. But for life they yielded nothing, and Levin suddenly felt like

                                    a man who…by his whole nature…he is as good as naked, and that he must

                                    inevitably perish miserably.  (888)

The uncertainty of life for some, Levin included, is so overpowering that one must find an answer for this uncertainty. “ ‘Without knowing what I am and why I am here, life’s impossible…’ ” (891), maintains Levin. Through religion, a man can have an explanation the measures of life, and a means to distinguish what the meaning of life ought to be. In addition, religion can yield a meaning for one’s personal life, and a reason for getting to life’s end. Ultimately, Tolstoy accepts this precept, for when Levin has found himself involved with a sense of religion, higher being, and ultimate purpose to supersede the intellectual yields of life, he finds himself at peace. “ ‘…My life now, my whole life apart from anything that can happen to me, every minute of it is no longer meaningless, as it was before, but it has an unquestionable meaning of the goodness which I have the power to put into it’” (923).

                Tolstoy has clear views on society and the manner by which those in high society live their lives. He expresses a clear dislike for the extravagant lifestyle in which most of the characters in Anna Karenina live. While they all have more than adequate means for their existence, only the ones who do not live extravagantly are those shown Tolstoy’s good favor. While Kitty and Levin possess ample wealth, this is only addressed through the peasantry watching their wedding. Without this, one would not know of the immense wealth Levin holds, because he and Kitty do not live an overly extravagant lifestyle in comparison to others. In contrast, the overly opulent lifestyle in which Anna and Vronsky live seems over the top to Tolstoy, and his disapproval at this type of living shows that it is unnecessary. Tolstoy seems to say that those who live in this type of lifestyle are trying to make up for what they don’t have socially. Since Vronsky and Anna are living together out of wedlock and to their own disgrace in society, they make up for it in their lifestyle, while Levin and Kitty have no need for that type of lifestyle because they have a stable relationship with each other that is full of love, and a favorable place in society. Levin and Kitty also have the blessing of many good friends and family members to make them happy, unlike Vronsky and Anna who lack these joyful elements and are drawn to find happiness in material things like their home and lifestyle.

Levin and Kitty are easily Tolstoy’s favorite characters, and Levin is the most down to earth man with the most natural philosophies of all the characters in the novel. He could easily be considered Tolstoy’s model of virtue. His discomfort in the city and at parties of the highest caliber of society express Tolstoy’s distaste for both of these practices. Likewise, Levin’s anxiety at political functions and lack of participation in intellectual and political debates show Tolstoy’s dislike for the pedantry of those who feel the need to prove their intellect and place in society. Tolstoy especially dislikes the “little Petersburg dandy” (66) because they are all “turned out by machinery, all on one pattern, all precious rubbish” (66). Tolstoy looks at the city as a means of stifling one’s true personality, while he sees the country as open and free. This analogy is often referred back to indirectly,  and is simply a restating of the natural, traditional belief of society: a city is stuffy, bustling, and stifling, while the country is open and free. These stereotypes translate directly into Tolstoy’s generalizations about the people who live in each type of environment.

Tolstoy seems biased not only against city life, but particularly against Petersburg life in general. The mockery at the people in Moscow, Italy, and France is not nearly as intense as is the mockery towards those in Petersburg. While the homes of the protagonists are in or around Petersburg, they spend, at most, only half of their documented time there. While Tolstoy does acknowledge differences between people in Petersburg, the traits he points out about the characters in these sects are all what he considers to be negative attributes of man:

                                    In his Petersburg world all people were divided into utterly opposed classes.

                                    One, the lower class, vulgar, stupid, and, above all, ridiculous people, who

                                    believe that one husband out to live with the one wife to whom he is lawfully

                                    married; that a girl should be innocent, a woman modest, and man manly,

                                    self-controlled, and strong, that one ought to being up one’s children, earn

                                    one’s bread, and pay one’s debts; and various similar absurdities. This was the

                                    class of old-fashioned and ridiculous people. But there was another class of people,

                                    the real people. To this class they all belonged, and in it the great thing was to

                                    be elegant, generous, plucky, gay, to abandon oneself with a blush to every passion,

                                    and to laugh at everything else.  (131)

Still, even in his scorn at the ‘better’ class of Petersburg elite society, he does not lower himself to directly mock them; instead, he plays on the past knowledge of his readers, hoping they will value the detail that Tolstoy himself so highly prized, and will see that what is positive on the surface is in fact negative deep down underneath.

                The single most important element of a successful existence, in Tolstoy’s view, can be expressed using one word: natural. Every belief and every ideal Tolstoy holds for anyone and anything reverts back to the basic principle of what is natural. What is natural is what encompasses honesty of character, and actions traditionally viewed as the original ambition for life as proposed by life’s creator. It is “…the unnaturalness altogether of grownups, all alone without children, playing at a child’s game” (720) which makes Anna and Veslovsky’s frivolous activities seem shallow and wrong. Anna is so entirely in the wrong in still outwardly loving her husband Karenin in the midst of her liaison with Vronsky because “it was all false; because it was all pretense, and not from the heart” (268). Anna did not act the way she felt naturally around her husband after she met and fell in love with Vronsky, but pretended that she still had the exact same relationship with him as she did before. The façade of her love was unnatural, and thus brought about severe conflict between the characters- even more so than if Anna had followed and admitted to the natural occurrence of the events that took place within her and admitted them to her partners. Her eventual death could have been avoided if she simply held up and acknowledged her natural feelings about Vronsky and not submitted to him each time she managed to bring the subject about.

                Furthermore, the skill to be able to submit to natural forces and bring the natural light of one’s soul into the open is a quality that Tolstoy admires unfailingly. The emergence of natural energies from an acquaintance met momentarily at a society engagement brings the reader to observe “in her the glow of the real diamond among imitations. This flow shone out in her exquisite, truly enigmatic eyes”
 (343). The sincerity that certain characters possess, especially the women in society, stands out so clearly among all of their acquaintances who decorate themselves in false elegance and “abandon [themselves] with a blush to every passion, and [laugh] at everything else” (131). Tolstoy conveys the message that “if the heart does not speak” (309), then there is hardly any reason for the voice to speak either.        

                 Through the journeys of his characters, Tolstoy relays a powerful message of the true objective in life and how to act along the way to this ultimatum. Through intentionally contradictory characters and the autobiographical character Levin, Tolstoy compares and contrasts those in his novel to bring his readers to the intended sense of what is right and what is wrong in and about society. Through the concept of nature and natural progression, one learns how to properly live his or her life according to Tolstoy. Tolstoy uses his arguments concerning society, politics, and ideals for characters to implement his ideas. He sees morality as the key to living life, which comes hand in hand with other properties of nature, such as honesty, roles of the individual, and discouragement of pretense and pretending to be someone that one isn’t. Countless other celebrated authors of Tolstoy’s time and beyond commented on his detailed writing style and the powerful messages he was able to convey to his readers. His messages are timeless, for as the renowned Russian composer Tchaikovsky has said, “ ‘The main feature, or rather the man note which resounds through every page of Tolstoi, even the seemingly unimportant ones, is love, compassion for Man in general (and not only for the humiliated and the offended), pity of some sort for his weakness, his insignificance, for the shortness of his life, the vanity of his desires…’”[9] Tolstoy is to be taken as a direct advocate of nature, a true traditionalist, and a powerful author, but above all, Tolstoy is to be taken as simply a man who wondered the ageless questions of “Who am I? Where am I from? Where am I going?” like every ordinary man in the world, and came to a resolved decision through long and careful thought which caused him the great agony that is prevalent in the characters of Anna Karenina.