Sei sulla pagina 1di 14
Tolstoy and the Moral Instructions of Death Dennis Sansom Philosophy and Literature, Volume 28, Number

Tolstoy and the Moral Instructions of Death

Dennis Sansom

Philosophy and Literature, Volume 28, Number 2, October 2004, pp. 417-429 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press


University Press DOI: For additional information about this article

For additional information about this article

about this article Access provided by University College Dublin (30 Nov 2017

Dennis Sansom



by Dennis Sansom

M oments before Ivan Ilych dies he asks himself, “What is the right thing?” After 45 years of life, 17 years of marriage, five

children (three who had died), and a successful legal career, he does not know how to answer the question, and the reason why he does not know how to answer the question reveals the theme of the novella. Two millennia earlier, Socrates had said, “the unexamined life is not worth living,” and this is exactly what Ivan’s life has amounted to. When it comes time for him to reflect upon the meaning of life as he approaches his untimely death, he does not have the emotional resources and even existential vocabulary to do so. It is not until something outside of himself happens to him, as he lies dying in great pain that he can begin to see an answer to the question. The answer comes in the form of empathy for another’s suffering, in particular his schoolboy son Vasya. He realizes the value of his life only by actually caring for another. Compassion for others, the desire and ability to bear and feel other’s suffering and their solitude, ironically fortifies Ivan to face his own demise. A transfer of the existential ordeal of another’s destiny into our own self-consciousness, into our own self-value, be- comes the foundation upon which moral relationships are built. Tolstoy wrote The Death of Ivan Ilych in 1886 when he was 57. He had already written and experienced the public fame of the two great novels, War and Peace, and Anna Karenina, and he had already under- gone his equally famous conversion, the change from an aristocratic and elitist life to a radically more vocationally and economically simple

Philosophy and Literature, © 2004, 28: 417–429


Philosophy and Literature

life, primarily through identication with the peasants. He became austere in his habits, giving up his wealth, expensive clothes and house (though his wife and children continued to live in the family mansion, whereas he lived on the family farm, Yasnaya Polyana, and worked with the peasants), alcohol and tobacco, private property, any attachment to social institutions (including the church which he thought was too entangled with the oppressive institutions of society), and any interest in social class and approval. In fact, after his conversion,Tolstoy tried to eliminate any in uence of social conventions on his life. To him, conventions serve the interest of class oppression. Even art was part of this stultifying inuence. As long as art was judged according to beauty or traditions, it perpetuated the exploitive dominance of the rich and powerful. He favored folk art, because to him it at least conveyed emotions, not just conventions of social class. 1 Tolstoy was critical of the convention of marriage. For years he fought with his wife, Sonya, over his new lifestyle, belittling her but never totally rejecting her for not adopting his draconian practices. He left the care of his twelve children to her, and when Alexis at four years of age died (the fourth child to die) just before he nished The Death of Ivan Ilych, he grieved, but not as much as Sonya. In his last days he ran away more from her than for taking off on a spiritual pilgrimage. He felt their continual ghting made him ill. In fact, he forbade her after she had found him from seeing him as he lay dying in his makeshift bedroom at the Astapovo railway station. Though Tolstoy was an idealist about the prospects of spiritual purity, as seen in his last full-length novel, The Resurrection, and he felt the only hope for a spiritual Kingdom on earth was in living out fully and literally Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount,his greatest contributions to understanding human nature comes from his analysis of human weakness and error. In The Death of Ivan Ilych human weakness and error are the same problemthat is, the unexamined life. After opening the novella describing his friendsand familys reactions to Ivans death in section one, Tolstoy prefaces the telling of Ivans life with this revealing comment, Ivan Ilychs life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible.It was most terrible because it was shallow, without serious examination of the tenuousness of securing condence and hope in ones worth before the unpredictability and pain of the course of ones life. The telling of Ivans life up to his last weeks of life is a simple story, and Tolstoy does not show much ambivalence and ambiguity in it. Frankly, there is not much to it. He follows in his

Dennis Sansom


fathers footsteps, gets married, obtains promotions, buys and decorates his dream house. The only deep emotions he deals with are envy and vindictiveness towards more successful colleagues and resentment towards his wife for wanting him to care more for the family. He had climbed the social ladder and felt in control of his life. In fact the primary value in Ivans life, before his literal fall from a ladder while showing the upholsterer how he wanted the drapes exactly hung, was control. Just before his injury becomes life threatening, Tolstoy sums up Ivans life, So they lived, and all went well, without change, and life owed pleasantly.For a life to ow pleasantly, all threats have to be either avoided or overcome. The threats to a pleasant life are those that take away control. They undermine our ability to make and reach successful goals. Only if we are in control of our careers, mates, children, and bodies can we live a predictable and powerful life. Chaos is always the biggest threat to such a life. It can be losing a job, an illness, or a disruptive home life. But the biggest threat is the chaos that comes from facing and being transparent about the internal and irresolvable conicts of frustrated loves and self-acceptance, and that comes from realizing there is something absolutely inscrutable about human free- dom, and that comes from accepting there are no metaphysical guarantees that the future will always be better than the present. The assumed defense against chaos is more control of relationships, job, environment, emotions, and future. The way Ivan tries to gain control in his life and the terror he feels when he knows he cannot keep it reveal the moral lessons to learn from the realization that if it is true to say Socrates is a person; all persons are mortal; therefore, Socrates is mortal,then it is also existentially true to say, all persons suffer and die; I am a person; therefore I will suffer and die.Ivan knows the logical truth of the rst syllogism but never faces the existential truth of the second syllogism. His fall from the ladder is a fall into the truth of the existential syllogism. He loses control of his health, then his career, then his family (except his son), and nally his life. In this fall he has no emotional and moral resources to integrate who he had been when life owed pleasantlywith who he is now, facing his inconsolable pain and imminent death. Sadly, he never learned the truth of the motto inscribed on his graduation portmanteau, respice finem. What kind of ethic and set of values had Ivan lived by, which prevented him from facing the existential truth? What manner of judging human life had Ivan adopted to get ahead but which failed him


Philosophy and Literature

when forced by his meaningless and untimely death to ask, What is the right thing?On several occasions Tolstoy describes Ivans life as aloof from others affairs and pain. As an examining magistrate in a provin- cial town Ivan took up an attitude of rather dignied aloofness towards the provincial authorities, but picked out the best circle of legal gentleness and wealthy gentry living in the town and assumed a tone of slight dissatisfaction with the government, of moderate liberalism, and of enlightened citizenship.And when his wife, Praskovya Fëdorovna, grows irritable at his indifference to her and the childrens needs, he becomes aloof to her (as she to him). His aim was to free himself more and more from those unpleasantnesses and to give them a semblance of harmlessness and propriety.By being aloof he takes more control in his life, and the particular ethical reasoning he adopts to gain this control is a calculus of his preferences. He plans his career, marriage, and dream home according to his preferences and when they are met, life owed pleasantlyfor Ivan. Nothing is seen as having inherent goodness and value (not even his children). Everything is amendable to

a quantication of desires. To apply this ethic Ivan has to remain aloof, that is, abstract from the intangibles, unpredictable, and mysterious elements of his family members, clients, strangers, and coworkers. To make the best and most desirous choices, Ivan has to abstract who people are to him from who they are in their own moral dilemmas and

emotional conicts. The world becomes a stage on which he is the only real actor, and a shallow one at that, because Ivan has to remain abstract from his own emotional insecurities and worries about death, which he does by following conventions without having real convictions for the emotions and life ordeals of the people in them. On the outside Ivan is

a man of social signicancea professional career with a good salary

(he got a substantial raise just before his fall), a beautiful wife and children, and an upscale house. These conventions are tangible forms of what he assumes can meet and satisfy his preferences for a successful and pleasant life. There is a socially functional difference between an institution and a convention. For a society to sustain itself and provide a stable and manageable life, it must have institutions. These are not merely the ways people group together, but they are the public embodiments of an explicit or implicit rational purpose for the societys particular identity. They provide people ways to contribute to the overall social goals, without which the citizens would have to remake daily societys identity

Dennis Sansom


and through which they contribute to social causes bigger than their individual desires. But the concept of convention carries a more restrictive denition. A convention becomes its own goal. It is its own justication, and consequently denes which desires people should seek. Social conven- tions have a logic to themselves. They pretend to give stability and manageability to life by conforming people to an accepted sense of what a meaningful and happy life ought to be. They help gain more control over the ambiguous and threatening aspects of living within society and with the effort to preserve some relationships and values into the future. If we dene rationality as public persuasion and the right ordering of ideas, then conventions help make life more ratio- nally predictable, because their desires should be everyones desires. With them we hope to convince others and ourselves that we are living pleasant and successful lives and that such a life ought to be our moral goal. They present a collective wisdom of how a human life ought to be calculated. They offer a chance at control. Yet, for Tolstoy this way of living a meaningful life is illusory. We cannot fully control our lives, especially in face of death and the mystery of human free will. To live according to social conventions is to pretend to be in control of life and death issues, of the deepest passions, and of the unpredictability of other people. A conventional life is a shallow and wrongheaded life. 2 Ivan lives successfully according to the accepted conventions, but he is also living supercially according to the momentous concerns of life, which he cannot in fact control by his profession, card playing with friends, and even marriage. When Ivan mysteriously develops a bad taste in his mouth he begins to realize his ethic of control does not work anymore. He faces his mortality and realizes the failure of constructing a life on preferences and abstract relationships. In his unremitting pain, he personally knows that there is a large dimension of life he cannot controlthat is, the future. The failure of the ethic of preferential calculus is epitomized in Ivans reaction to peoples reactions to his illness, especially the medical experts, because the conventions, which he had relied upon to live a pleasant life, now fail him one by one. When the doctor rst sees Ivan, he put on just the same air towards him as he himself put on towards an accused person.The doctor acts in an ofcial air, as though he is in absolute control of the situation, and treats Ivan as a body without a soul. Ivan becomes bitter to the abstract


Philosophy and Literature

manner with which the doctors treat him. They never talk about him, about his unity of soul and body. Though Ivan has ignored his own existential syllogism, he knows that his illness is not just about his body. Because it is excruciatingly painful and fatal, it attacks his basic identity. His sense of self is eroded, and this sense involves both his body and self-consciousness as one suffering and moving towards death. The unity of body and soul refers to the experience of identity, which continues through the passing of time, and this experience is never neatly divided between body and soul. Its inherently both. But Ivans doctors only talk about his “floating kidney,and to him it is an offense because such an approach violates his most private and basic possessionhis identity as body and soul. The celebrity doctoris called in as an expert in healing, but he can do no better than abstract the problem from Ivans life and is deaf to the only real question Ivan has, is his case serious or not?What bothers him the most is that no one understands him. It is not just his kidneys hurting. He is dying as a human being. His illness is not just a malfunctioning organ, but a poison which penetrated more and more deeply into his whole being.His kidney might be damaged, but it is not what is sick. Ivan is sick; his whole being is threatened by what he and the doctors cannot control. This loss of control exposes the weakness of his former ethic of preferential calculus to handle the intransigent existential syllogism. In the history of ction there probably has not been a more acerb critique of medical practice than The Death of Ivan Ilych. For Tolstoy the medical profession exhibits three vices: ofciousness, the pretense of control through social conventionalism, and the abstract treatment of people. As Tolstoy tells the story, he sarcastically emphasizes the entry of the celebrity doctor,as though his status assures healing. The doctor assumes command of the situation, and even when it is clear he cannot do anything for Ivan, he acts as though he is still in control. The oddity is that his pretense of doctoring Ivan seems to give relief to everyone but Ivan. It is as though once a celebrity doctoris called into a situation, then everyone can relax because a specialist is addressing what lay people cannot handle. But he never looks into Ivans eyes or emotional state. His concentration upon Ivans kidney is like a surgical knife upon Ivan. It cuts him but does not heal him. Moreover, in the novella medicine is no better than other occupa- tions and conventions. Law, Ivans profession, is just as irrelevant to answer the basic question of What is the right thing?when he is faced

Dennis Sansom


with the existential syllogism. Marriage suffers the same critique. Tolstoy was often critical of marriage as a convention, himself suffering and contributing to a frustrated marriage in which he felt misunder- stood and hopelessly trapped. What is common among the conventions (medical, legal, ecclesiastical institutions, and marriage) is that they pretend to make life meaningful by giving ways to control life. As long as control over life and the various threats of chaos is the paramount concern, then we need conventions to provide ways to maximize our preferences and desires. We cannot live everyday, trying to recreate our lives according to calculated decisions for happiness and the prefer- ences that lead to it. We have to rely on effective patterns, which are amenable to our personal calculations for a successful life. They work and have worked for others because they do give a measure of control, but this level of control comes at a cost to human identity. To want a life of control, there is a loss of individual identity. That is, Ivan is a lawyer, a husband, and a father. The titles themselves are abstract from his most unique identity eventually exposed in his existential syllogism and in the threat of his death. Ivan tries to treat his death as an abstract entity, speaking of it objectively in the third person. But he reaches the point where the only way he can face the issue is to admit he is dying, not just his kidney and not just Socrates. He has to face himself, and the social conventions cannot help him accept his painful mortality because their logic has to do with the realization of preferences enunciated and chosen by someone who is in control of life. An ethic of utilitarian calculations works only for those who have enough power to choose which social conventions to adopt. The calculation of desires does not occur in a social vacuum. Desires are presented within what works and is available in society. A person does not just choose a desire separate from the social network which makes the desire gratifying and which assures the success of choosing it. A social apparatus has to offer and materialize these choices. Conventions associated with work, entertainment, and marriage provide this. If this is the case, it also follows that those who have the most access and control over societys conventions are those who can most likely dene, choose for, and reap the benets of living a life of maximized desires. The ability to gratify the kinds of desires embodied in social conven- tions is proportional to the social power one has. In consequence a life guided by utilitarian calculus is thus abstract from the individuality of others and oneself. Utilitarianism cannot make an ethical choice about what cannot be measured by preference


Philosophy and Literature

for a person, value, an institution, and the self. It can only choose what it can hope to control by its measurements of preference. It cannot inform us how to live ethically when we cannot make calculated choices based on our preferences. When faced with the existential syllogism, utilitarianism and the social conventions, which are needed to enable utilitarianism to work, are mute, because the moral vocabulary of the question of our death is untranslatable into a preferential calculus. Accord to Robert N. Wilson, Tolstoy shows that Ivans life, though simple and ordinary, was truly terrible because he had no sense of the tragic dimension of life. We cannot maneuver life to avoid what cannot be controlled. Failure and inexplicable suffering happen whether one has done the right things or not, and Ivan had not educated himself into the tragic element of human life. 3 Nothing can be measured or controlled when Socratess death is no longer an abstraction but becomes our death. Before the mystery of our death as individuals, the choice is not how to act in ways so that we can control our death and the question of the meaning of life, but the choice is whether there is a reality to which we can nd our real value as individuals and which is not nullied by the existential syllogism. 4 As Ivan is dying, only two people have a positive contribution to his sense of personhoodhis servant and son. Gerasim, his peasant servant, is not afraid or put off by his illness, as is everyone else. In fact, to alleviate the pain, Gerasim allows Ivan to rest his legs on his shoulders as he sits and talks with Ivan. True to Tolstoys conviction that the Russian peasant knows more about real life than the landed aristocracy does, it is instructive that the peasant servant helps Ivan more than the medical experts. Gerasim has nothing to lose because he owns nothing. He does not have to protect his possessions, career, reputation, or even health in touching and caring for Ivan. He is not afraid of Ivan or his illness. But the doctors, other colleagues, and even his wife and daughter are afraid of his illness because they have a lot to lose. The doctors can lose their reputation and expertise if they cannot cure him; his colleagues could possibly lose their health if they get too close (though some of them would actually gain his vacated job); his wife and daughter will lose his income and social status. So, they are afraid. People fear what they cannot control, and what they cannot control they make abstract from their insecurities, and to overcome the frustrations of their insecurities they try to live conventional lives designed to maximize their preferences. Fear drives the way the doctors, friends, and family relate to the infectiousIvan. As he

Dennis Sansom


screams in pain his last three days, the doctors, friends, and family are making all sorts of calculations. But Gerasim has nothing with which and for which to calculate. He meets Ivan honestly and transparently, unafraid, and, because he has nothing to lose, he gives real palliative care to Ivan. The other person is Vasya, his young son. Not much is said of Vasya until the very end, when he comes up and kisses his dying fathers hand. He does not say anything. It is signicant that Tolstoy gives an answer to Ivan crisis in terms of a kiss from Vasya rather than a theodicy. Ivans suffering has driven him beyond any acceptance of a rational explana-

tion of his untimely death and needless suffering. Any attempt to integrate his suffering into a divine plan which either sorts out peoples destinies by justice or cosmic necessity would have been irrelevant. Even

if such an explanation were logically successful in showing that Ivan is

reaping what he had sown or that God needs his pain and demise to contribute to a bigger plan of cosmic harmony, Ivan could not have identied with such a theodicy. It would have been an abstraction from his life in pain and would have been more tting to his previous life and to his former acquaintances. A life engineered by control and aimed at

“flowing pleasantlyby a preferential calculus yearns for a theodicy that explains suffering and premature deaths into a scheme, which is understandable and consistent with our present life. If all of our lives, even the most disagreeable and unpleasant, t in a grand scheme that is rational and predictable, then we can manage the less than total aspects of our lives according to a rational adjudication, which makes

our lives predictable and consistent. A preferential calculus serves that end well, and naturally follows from a theodicy which assures us that all of our lives, even the horrible and disrupting, are under the control of

a divine, calculating scheme. It follows that if we can control our lives,

then we know the divine is in control of our lives. Such a theodicy is abstract from the real issue of serious human suffering. Just as Ivan rejects his doctors because they do not talk about his personhood, only his oating kidney, he would reject any grand scheme theodicy for the same reasonit does not deal with humans, only necessary premises in necessary logical syllogism. What Ivan needs in the moment when his illness is taking away his life is an afrmation of his personhood, of the unity of his soul and body, of an integration of his life into a narrative whole which he can recognize as consistent with his existential syllogism. This is what he gets from Vasyas kiss. Far more is said about the sister than the brother. She is beautiful, smart,


Philosophy and Literature

and nally wins the favor of a suitable beau. She is giddy with excitement when he proposes marriage just days before her father dies. But when Ivan faces his death, she is another faceless person in his life. Vasya has an emotional depth we do not know about until the last scene. He kisses the hand that no one else wants to touch. In Russian Orthodoxy kissing has a sacramental quality. Priests are kissed; icons are kissed; worshipers greet each other with a holy kiss. In Dostoevskys great novels we see the power of kissing to bring reconcili- ation. In Crime and Punishment after Raskolnikov confesses his terrible and wicked murders to the fragile but Christ-like gure Sonya, she tells him that in order to start his process of redemption he must go to the Haymarket Square in St. Petersburg and throw himself down on the earth and kiss the earth in each of the four directions, for he had maligned the earth with his crime. In The Brothers Karamozov a kiss plays an important role in two places. In Ivans imaginative and confusing parable of the Grand Inquisitorhe has Jesus, who had been inveighed upon and prosecuted by the Inquisitor himself, kissing the lifeless, cruel, and deeply insecure prosecutor rather than defending himself. Christs real mission is epitomized in a kiss rather than a theodicy. And in the powerful scene when the near omniscient and omni-benevolent Father Zosima dies and leaves a troubling odor of decay behind, the sensitive and intuitive Aloysha is thrown into an existential crisis of faith, and instead of looking for a theodicy, he throws himself onto the earth, wetting it with his tears and fervently kissing it, for he had at last learned to take in all of the world into his heart. For Tolstoy, as for Dostoevsky, a kiss unites the body and soul. Tolstoys description of what happens to Ivan after the kiss is unantici- pated. He sees a light rather than only darkness. He feels a joy rather than pain. Vasya with his kiss had done something for him that the doctors and social conventions could not do for him. In taking pity upon his son, Ivans life becomes integrated in the compassion of the moment both from Vasya to his father and from Ivan to his son. Jeremy Conway believes at this moment in Ivans life he becomes thoughtful in a two-fold sensereective of his own soul, not just his physical pain, and empathetic towards the pain of Vasya. 5 Ivans thoughtlessness about his own soul, his own deep psychological conicts and conicted drives, prevents him from being thoughtful to others. His attempt to live a life indicative of realized preferences and of self-control also does not prepare him to recognize and respond authentically and sincerely to otherspain and anxiety. It is only when he comes to himself honestly

Dennis Sansom


that he comes to others as a person also in need of salvation from the inevitable and unconquerable illnesses of life. When he nally empties himself of the meaningless false images of human purpose, he then sees how to respond honestly and with integrity to his destiny. 6 By admitting he is not in control of his destiny can Ivan really love his son, and, by extension, others as well, as a unique individual with his own desperate need to unite body and soul, to learn to live without a father, and to nd self-worth in the midst of his existential syllogism. Though Tolstoy does not insert traditional, orthodox symbols or language into Ivans conversion experience, the religious message is suggested. James Olney thinks Tolstoy depicts Ivans deathbed conver- sion as a mystical intuition of the meaning of life. 7 Ivans move from self-pity to compassion is not just a move from isolation due to pain towards his son, Vasya. It is a move from an egocentric universe to a holistic view of life. Vasyas kiss opens the world, the meaning of life, to Ivan. In that tender meeting of body (the lips) and soul (Vasyas pain and love for his father) Ivan glimpses what connects his present suffering with all of his life, both past and future. Compassion for others provides a chance to integrate a persons past to his future and which unites his with the soul of others. It is not until we become reective, examining our own existential syllogism that we can empa- thize with the existential syllogism of others. Through empathy we recognize the individuality and concreteness of others. They are not abstract from us; they become part of our self-understanding and prehension of ourselves. In transforming our thoughtlessness into thoughtfulness of others, we gain an ability to empathize with others, and the more we empathize, the more we can afrm and experience the unity of body, soul, and life in the face of the existential syllogism. This transformation of self-understanding through compassion towards others is the vision of light, the experience of the mystical unity Ivan feels just seconds before he dies. What is the right thing?For Ivan, it is compassion, because it is only by compassion, not control through a preferential utilitarianism, that we can see the light, see people as individuals, and see the unity of people in a love that transcends the existential syllogisms. John Donnelly mistakenly contends that Tolstoy is offering an ethic only a saint or socially privileged person can live out. He argues that for there to be a moral obligation there must rst be the capability to fulll it. Ivans religious conversion into a mystical unity is not possible for everyone. Though the saint or hero may have such a conversion,


Philosophy and Literature

ordinary people do not because they are not equipped, and thus should not be expected to be like Ivan. 8 Yet, Donnelly misses Tolstoys real point. Ivan is not prepared or equipped for his conversion. In fact, the point is Ivan is not ready for it at all. His unexamined life is his problem. He lives a shallow life and hence cannot integrate his life when threatened with chaos. Integration happens only after receiving and giving compassion. The prerequisite for moral conversion is not found in either esoteric religious sentiments or social privilege. It is found in transforming thoughtlessness about oneself and others into the exam- ined life and thoughtfulness (that is, compassion) towards others. As long as Ivan is under the sway of his calculus of preferences, he cannot make that transformation. It occurs when he knows he has to be treated as a person, united in soul and body, and when he knows he can truly care for the pain of another. Ivan dies a happy person because in his compassionate opening towards his sons suffering, he experiences what Algis Valiunas says is the books theme, the ordinary irradiated by the majestic, the incomprehensible, the godly.9 Tolstoy is the challenger of societys ofcialdom, including physicians, and conventionalism. As he sees it, they are not based on compassion but on abstractions and control. It is only by losing oneself in compas- sion, as Ivan comes to do, that one can really examine oneself and also identify with others.

Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama

1. For a good discussion of Tolstoys view of art see Rimvyda Silbajoris, Tolstoys

Aesthetics and His Art (Columbus: Slavica Publishing, 1990), chap. 4, What is Art?

2. See David S. Danaher, Tolstoys Use of Light and Dark Imagery in the Death of Ivan

Illc,The Slavic and East European Journal 39 (1995): 22740; with Danaher, Tolstoy uses dark images (i.e., the black boxand black holeas indicators of the false life, and references to light as indication of the move toward truth (e.g., the light in the black bag).

3. Robert N. Wilson, The Case of Ivan Ilyitch,Aging and Society 15 (1995): 11524.

4. According to Kathleen Parthe, Tolstoy uses the feminine for death, ona, not the

available neuter, ono, so to personalize death. Ivan lived terribly because he did not acknowledge the inevitability of death and its dissipation of life: The Metamorphosis of

Death in Tolstoy,Language and Style 18 (1985): 20514.

Dennis Sansom


5. Jeremy Conway, Transforming Stories: The Death of Ivan Ilych, The Rebirth of a

Reective Life,Philosophy in the Contemporary World 1 (1994): 14.

6. See Luiz Fernando Valente, Variations on the Kenotic Hero: Tolstoys Ivan Ilych

and Guimaraes Rosas Augusto Matraga,Symposium 45 (1991).

7. James Olney, Experience, Metaphor, and Meaning: The Death of Ivan Ilych,Journal

of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 31 (1972): 109, 111.

8. Language, Metaphysics, and Death, ed. John Donnelly (New York: Fordham University

Press, 1978), pp. 11630.

9. Algis Valiunas, Tolstoy and the Pursuit of Happiness,Commentary ( June 1989): 41.