Goodbye Levin


I finally finished Anna Karenina last week.  Was shattered and moved.  By Anna crouching next to the train, red bag discarded, waiting for the “midpoint between the two wheels” to come even with her, by the glimpse of Vronsky after her death – “his face, aged and full of suffering” – going off to fight the war in Serbia, and, most of all, by the revelation of what the book has been about: the question of how to live.

Levin is the character shown explicitly to be seeking an answer to this question, but Anna too is preoccupied by it.  In fact, Levin and Anna are revealed to be mirror images of each other.  She’s the hither side of Levin, the side that fails to find a satisfactory, good enough answer to the question, who takes her life as a consequence.

Levin also contemplates not living without an answer; Tolstoy has him remark, shockingly casually, even after his longed-for marriage to Kitty and the birth of their son:

And, happy in his family life, a healthy man, Levin was several times so close to suicide that he hid a rope lest he hang himself with it, and was afraid to go about with a rifle lest he shoot himself.

But, unlike Anna, “Levin did not shoot himself or hang himself and went on living”. By accident, he comes on his answer in the wonderful scene with the peasant in the barn:

“Mityukha makes it pay right enough, Konstantin Dmitrich!  He pushes till he gets his own.  He takes no pity on a peasant.  But Uncle Fokanych … he won’t skin a man.  He lends to you, he lets you off.  So he comes out short.  He’s a man, too.”

“But why should he let anyone off?”

“Well, that’s how it is – people are different.  One man just lives for his own needs, take Mityukha even, just stuffs his belly, but Fokanych – he’s an upright old man.  He lives for the soul.  He remembers God.”

“How’s that?  Remembers God?  Lives for the soul?”  Levin almost shouted.

“Everybody knows how – by the truth, by God’s way.  People are different.  Now, take you even, you wouldn’t offend anybody either …”

“Yes, yes, goodbye!” said Levin, breathless with excitement, and, turning, he took his stick and quickly walked off towards home.

A new, joyful feeling came over him.  At the muzhik’s words about Fokanych living for the soul, by the truth, by God’s way, it was as if a host of vague but important thoughts burst from some locked-up place and, all rushing towards the same goal, whirled through his head, blinding him with their light.

Tolstoy captures the experience of revelation with effortless accuracy.  We recognise it all – the incidental nature of the exchange, the slightness of what’s said, Levin’s instant recognition of the “hint,” the quick work of elaboration and incorporation into his being, the conventionality of the answer when it comes.


These final chapters are majestic.  As the translators note, the “stream of consciousness” in which Tolstoy narrates Anna’s last hours …

gives us what are surely the most remarkable pages in the novel, and some of the most remarkable ever written.

She has woken in the morning from the nightmare Vronsky himself has had much earlier, the nightmare that has prefigured her death throughout the book.

In the morning a dreadful nightmare, which had come to her repeatedly even before her liaison with Vronsky, came to her again and woke her up.  A little old muzhik with a dishevelled beard was doing something, bent over some iron, muttering meaningless French words, and, as always in this nightmare (here lay its terror), she felt that this little muzhik paid no attention to her, but was doing this dreadful thing with iron over her, was doing something dreadful over her.  And she awoke in a cold sweat.

The muzhik appears again just before her death, and just after it, playing out the nightmare scene:

A little muzhik, muttering to himself, was working over some iron.  And the candle by the light of which she had been reading that book filled with anxieties, deceptions, grief and evil, flared up brighter than ever, lit up for her all that had once been in darkness, sputtered, grew dim, and went out for ever.

Again, Tolstoy gets the nightmare image so right and I feel the horror of it alongside Anna. 

But what does he mean by the reference to the book she’s been reading of evil?  That she deserves her death because of the adultery?  In the Introduction, the translators suggest this is the main idea of the novel, “the one he struggled with most bitterly and never could resolve,” that her suicide “was the punishment for her adultery.” 

I disagree that this is the main idea of the novel.  If it were the meaning of the recurring goblin figure and the idea of a “book” she was reading, it will have been the first time Tolstoy has failed in a masterpiece of 800 pages.  And I do not think he failed.

He saw the danger of the conclusion, yes, but he trusted Anna herself to overcome it.  And so she does.  It’s not her culpability that leads to her death; it’s her fidelity. 


Reading the translators’ Introduction I was thrilled to discover I’d noted something about Tolstoy’s style my hero, Vladimir Nabokov, had also noted.  The translators cite the example of the incident at the railway station early in the novel when the watchman is killed:

… several men with frightened faces suddenly ran past.  The stationmaster, in a peaked cap of an extraordinary colour, also ran past.  Evidently something extraordinary had happened.

They note:

Vladimir Nabokov says of this passage: “There is of course no actual connection between the two [uses of ‘extraordinary’], but the repetition is characteristic of Tolstoy’s style with its rejection of false elegancies and its readiness to admit any robust awkwardness if that is the shortest way to sense.”

This “rejection of false elegancies” is brilliant. Both in Tolstoy and its description, and more elegant than my  “smoothness without perfection.” 

The fact I can notice and respond to this vigour in Tolstoy’s prose as well as a native Russian speaker like Nabokov is testament to the translators’ choice to retain such passages, rather than tone them down as in other English translations. 

If you’re going to read this marvel of a book make sure it’s the translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky.  They’ve been rightly awarded the highest honours for their translation.


When asked to name the three best novels ever, William Faulkner said,

Anna Karenina, Anna Karenina, Anna Karenina.

I agree with him. If you read no other novel but Anna Karenina, you will have experienced the best of the best, the peerless work of a genius.


Image: Greta Garbo, from the 1935 version of the film, Anna Karenina, by David O. Selznick

If you enjoyed this post …

If you enjoyed this post you may enjoy the following post which contains rare, archival footage of Tolstoy and his family on their estate. It also contains scenes from the events surrounding his death at the station master’s house, and is set to the exquisite music of Tchaikovsky:




5 thoughts on “Goodbye Levin

  1. “It’s not her culpability that leads to her death, but her fidelity.”

    Perhaps you will elaborate on this idea for me a bit? I’m not quite sure what you mean.

    I surely need to read Anna again. It’s actually been years.

    I’m afraid I don’t fully get Levin because I’m still pre-epiphany, myself. Endlessly, hopelessly, annoyingly, loudly pre-epiphany…


    • Oh yes, do read it again. Could have even better chats.

      Re epiphanies … maybe you should get yourself a muzhik and a barn. I don’t know what there is to get about Levin, esp if you read him as a sanitised version of Lev T himself. He’s got the idealism, romanticism, pigheadedness, disillusionment (with romantic love), grandiosity, megalomania, hypersensitivity, even the thoughts of suicide. And they’re just his good points.

      About A’s fidelity, I meant her fidelity to life, to love, to the ideal, to not settling for life with her unloving husband, to gobbling up life, to not being a good girl. I once read Emma Bovary described as a “small town extremist.” Anna is like her big sister, a Petersburg extremist. This is also why I see her as being linked with Levin. Both of them have this struggle with conformity.


      • OK, I like your thinking about Anna.

        I’ll reconsider Levin. I do need to go back to the book. I’m working with the perceptions of my 19-year old self. What did she know?

        I’m also going to pull out Elif’s book again. I’ll get back to you.


Your comment will be an adornment to this blog ...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s