The Death of Ivan Ilych

Robleh Wais

This is a subtle work with a narrative power to compel the reader to wonder about its real point.

We wonder why Ilych, the novel's protagonist, was dying from such a superficial injury. At first, we are mildly surprised by the mishap, and as the story continues, a modern reader is bound to feel a sense of detached pity, not just for Ivan Ilych, but for the people of that time. The practice of medicine in the 19th century was nothing more than a collection of eclectic algorithmic diagnoses and treatments. An effective treatment of minor disorders was limited. The notion of infection being the result of cellular transmissive agents, such as bacteria or viruses, had not been developed. Surgery was in its infancy. Tolstoy's fictional Ilych, as he progresses in his medical treatment, illustrates with horrifying clarity the primitive state of medical science at that time. Of course, this was not an intentional effort on Tolstoy's part. He probably thought his work was portraying the realistic state of medical science. But, just imagine if your doctor explained a mere appendicitis case with such mumbo-jumbo as floating liver and melancholy! Worst yet, if the treatment didn't cure you, they could only control your pain with morphine. To think it's only appendicitis! At least, that's what I surmised it to be. Of course, we have our incurable maladies today, yet we look back, with arrogance, at a time when what we take for granted in the field of medicine was a death sentence. This is the theme that Tolstoy develops and uses to take us into the world of Ilych.

Moreover, Tolstoy does an excellent job of not overdramatizing his subject's condition. We feel, hope, and pray with Ivan that he may live and understand his illness. Therein, we also understand what Ilych finally does, too, that hope, the subsumption of desire, is not enough. He must have faith and belief in an ideal to suffer his pitiable fate.

Tolstoy represents God in the work as a faceless, pervasive, yet almost gentle probing being that takes Ilych, born of this life, into the next with that terrifying instrument: death. Death is always set diametrically to him. This contrapuntal texture makes for a powerful theme. Ilych wants a cure for his sickness, but Death cruelly won't relent. Balancing the plot action are Ilych's mental soliloquies about his earlier life. He did have life at one time, but never knew anything more than his orthodoxy of living. While Ilych ponders the question of why he must die, he remembers the events of his past and feels doubly wronged. He never did anything to deserve to die. He was upstanding, and he was fair in all his dealings with friends and family. Yet, he is evanescing to an inescapable death. Why? Here is where Tolstoy has the reader entranced. We are forced to ask ourselves, why has he lived, and why has this dumb luck fate befallen him?

This is an existential question, Tolstoy explores in the latter portion of the story perforce. At this point, Ilych has given up all hope of his survival. He becomes increasingly introspective, mundane, and resigned. At points, his hope of living on is renewed, only to be destroyed by another bout of deteriorating illness.

In the end, he accepts his fate because of an appeal to Christian belief in the goodness of God. My identification with Ilych was broken at this point. I had not expected Tolstoy to make such a blatant appeal to Christianity. I later discovered that Christianity became a focal point for him after many personal setbacks. This is unfortunate, too, because the story had such a well-defined theme, and to conclude with something like a Jehovah's Witness storyline. Well, you know what I mean... Readers of Sartre or Camus would have found much to identify with up to the denouement. The existential questions of meaning and purpose are so well explored through Ilych's mental ruminations. It was truly a disappointment to have it come down to a Christian moral play endpoint.

Anna Karenina

Tolstoy achieves something few writers have been able to do in the romantic novel genre. He brings to life an epic tragedy. No need to suspend disbelief, you will wonder how anybody couldn't believe this exploration of the lives of the wealthy Russian gentry given here. The character of Levin strikes me as most intriguing. He is a farmer, yet an intellectual, a closed-minded aristocrat, while entertaining the revolutionary changes of his time. It was riveting for me to see Tolstoy wrestling with the then-nascent philosophy of Marxism through Levin's brother. There are plots and sub-plots galore, all tied together with the unfolding tragedy of Anna and Vronsky. One other comment on the Levin character is that Tolstoy uses him very well. He gives the reader a sense of realism through the perceptions of this man. For instance, when he portrays the early spring at Levin's estate, one senses the atmosphere of the setting through his meticulous concern for his farm and the peasants he employs. There are some flaws to this novel. One is Tolstoy's concern with romantic dialogue. The conversations of Levin and Oblonsky ring true to the modern reader. You could imagine yourself having a chat with these characters. This familiarity is lost when Vronsky engages Anna in dialogue. The exchanges seem affected, one step removed from Elizabethan prose. This is because Tolstoy wrote in a 19th-century romance style. Nonetheless, I found their passion forced, out of sync with the tone in the rest of the novel. It is sometimes stultifying to the movement of the plot. The ending is perfect, however. Anna's choice is as it should be, given the course of events, and Vronsky is led to his inevitable fate.

Next, Crime and Punishment

A review of Master and Man, a short story by Leo Tolstoy.Master and Man

Return to Portal List of Articles