McNulty 1

Zachary McNulty
Professor Galya Diment
Honors 240A (W credit)
29 October 2016
Anna and Stiva
In 18th and 19th century Russia, the establishment of the imperial family as a supposed
exemplification of eternal values of reason, beauty, and justice created an air of expectation
surrounding the Russian nobility (Burbank 62). Following the example of Queen Louise and
Maria Fedorovna, the role of women was firmly established as that of the selfless mother and
spouse while men served the alternate role of the strong, confident, and absolute father figure
(Burbank 67). By developing this symbol, loyalty was transformed into a familial act,
strengthening the bond between ruler and the ruled (Burbank 74). In this context, Annas actions
become far more consequential because they shatter this illusion of unity that the strength of the
Russian aristocracy was founded on. However possibly justified, her actions certainly lack the
selfless nature of the symbolic mother. Oblonskys actions on the other hand do not interfere
with his symbolic domain and by having casual relationships, with the aid of Dollys silence, he
retains this outward appearance of unity. With increasing political polarization under Alexander
IIs rule, this stress on the family as a strong symbol for the unity of the Russian State became
even more important (Lecture 10/3/16). If people were to act as Anna did on a frequent basis,
they could hinder the strength of the Russian hierarchy by tarnishing this image. This could be a
reason a majority of the outbreaks against Anna are caused by women because it is their
symbolic role she is jeopardizing. Since the emphasis is solely on appearances rather than reality,

McNulty 2

the aristocratic class becomes prone to superficiality. It is this superficial nature that Tolstoy
underscores and criticizes through his juxtaposition of the two adulterers. In doing so, he
consciously brings to attention the double-standard with which the two adulterers are treated.
The importance society places on this superficial appearance becomes quite apparent in
the novel through several key characters. On one side, there are characters like Lisa who, even as
a woman, cheats while suffering no consequences. Upon simply meeting her and gazing into her
eyes, people still could not help loving her even when familiar with her actions (Tolstoy 273).
Thus it is not the simple act of unfaithfulness that Anna is condemned for, but rather her
openness of the act. On the other side, there is Karenin who commits no wrong yet who still feels
hated by society because of his disgraceful and repulsive misery (Tolstoy 460). Again, it is not
necessarily the act itself that society frowns up, but upon this failed pretense of unity. Naturally,
Levin has to point out how wrong all this falsehood is. When Oblonsky greets Dolly with a kiss,
Levin is filled with disgust towards his two close friends: Whom was he kissing yesterday [...]
Of course she does not believe in his love [...] Disgusting! (516). Tolstoy uses Levin as an
extension of himself, reflecting upon societys true image and elucidating its dirty details.
Furthermore, by forming parallels between Anna, who is open in her affair and is so concerned
with falsehood herself, and Oblonsky, who is quite superficial especially towards his wife, and
through juxtaposition of their starkly polar treatments by society, Tolstoy can emphasize the
detestable fact that society not only promotes such artificial behavior, but also almost praises it.
However, Annas public openness does not fully explain society's condemnation of her.
Tolstoy takes very deliberate steps in order to form a parallel between Anna and Oblonsky
beyond just the brother-sister relationship and their shared status as adulterers, and there must be

McNulty 3

a purpose for this. As discussed in class, the two characters are quite similar in their strong
personalities, natural charm, sociability, fair share of selfishness, and in their betrayal of love
(Lecture 10/24/16). Nonetheless, the two are not treated in even remotely the same way
regardless of such similarity. Oblonksy is still heavily praised at work initially after the affair and
in social settings throughout the book while Annas actions are deemed improper before her
affair even began (Tolstoy 128)! Tolstoy, with his respect for the bond of love and marriage,
obviously does not condone the affair of either character. Such respect can be seen through Levin
who, when confronted by death, love provides him a unique epiphany: in spite of death, he felt
the necessity of living and loving. (Tolstoy 459) Thus love is a way for one to gain a greater
understanding of oneself and of the ambiguity of the world around him, a quality a man as
confused as Levinand Tolstoycertainly values. Even when an opportunity presents itself, he
does not even consider betraying Kitty, and his jealousy certainly shows he expects complete
fidelity from his wife as well. Furthermore, his deep sense of sin, as confessed in his diary,
towards the idea of such extramarital relations correspondingly paints them as immoral.
However, a majority of the book does not consist of Levins views and is thus shaped by the
collective conscience of other characters and particularly of society. In fact, several characters
highlight societys permanence into the individual conscience. Vronskys brother did not know
what to think of his brothers relationship until the world had decided the point [...] and even
Karenin did not see his wifes actions as unusual and improper until he noticed others in the
drawing room considered it so (Tolstoy 479). Thus even on the individual level, societal
influence is quite present. As a result, most of the time Oblonskys actions are fairly accepted
within the novel. It seems illogical that someone with the respect for love and marriage that

McNulty 4

Tolstoy has to almost condone the actions of Oblonsky by allowing society to be the main voice
in his novel on the topic. Therefore, Tolstoy must be trying to draw attention to the discrepancy
between the treatment of these two characters by such a society. Since the two share so many
similarities, their main difference, gender, is highlighted as the supposed cause. Thus Tolstoy
must be conscious of the double standard his novel highlights.
What further supports my belief of this claim is that Tolstoy seems to be aware of the
social injustice towards women. Women are expected to be this obedient, caring mother, married
off at the soonest opportunity. The confines of this role in most cases are rigid and absolute, and
certainly submissive to men. Tolstoy recognizes this submissiveness through Dolly. She is the
one forced to forgive, to accept the pain of her broken marriage, and to do the hard work while
her husband is away spending money they do not have. In her submissive role, the novel directly
compares Dolly to the peasant women. As she herself notices, [the peasants] interests were
exactly similar to hers (Tolstoy 242). This view of women is reinforced from the male
perspective by Veslovsky, almost like a Oblonsky in training, who gazes in awe at a beautiful
girl as if she had been made pretty specially for him, and he was satisfied with the maker
(Tolstoy 535). This emphasis on female appearance found throughout the novel in Dolly, Anna,
and Kitty highlights the idea that women were quite objectified. This sense of female
submissiveness would certainly lead men to believe they are entitled to things that women are
not and for many women, in their submissive role, to accept this philosophy. Thus it is not hard
to see how a double-standard could be fostered. Since Tolstoy is aware of this injustice towards
women, as evident by his inclusion of these details unnecessary to the flow of the plot, he must
also be consciously aware of the double standard they promote and thus attempt to underscore it.

McNulty 5

Levin and Peasants

Levins views on peasants are consistent only in their inconsistencies. At times these
views may be classified as reactionary and at times it would be more reasonable to consider them
progressive. This contradiction lies primarily in the conflict between Levins varied desires and
his own sense of inner confusion and guilt. As Tolstoy puts it, Had Constantine been asked
whether he liked the peasants, he would not have known what to answer. (Tolstoy 216).
At the heart of this conflict is Levins admiration for the peasant lifestyle and thus a
corresponding desire to aid them in their suffering. As discussed in class, this admiration arises
from their simplicity, their dedication to work, their unified family, their deep faith and pure
acceptance, and above all else their Russianness (Lecture 10/12/16). When Levin immerses
himself in the peasant lifestyle, he can leave behind the men who exploit and abuse their way to
riches, whose earnings are out of proportion of the toil, and simply enjoy the pleasures of an
honest days work (Tolstoy 532). In fact, the way peasants approach work is truly an
embodiment of their approach on life. While mowing, Levin notices that as soon as he began
thinking about it and trying to mow better [he] mowed badly (Tolstoy 229). Life and work
just seem to come naturally to the peasants. It is precisely the fact that the peasants do not have
to overthink things, as Levin is so prone to, and can accept and appreciate life for what it is that
makes them so admirable to Levin. In a world overflowing with uncertainty, confusion, and
doubt, infested with questions of religion, of death, of love and loss, these peasants somehow
manage to be so certain amongst the ambiguity. To Levin, that is truly remarkable. In addition to
this unalterable sense of purpose, the peasants have something that Levin wholeheartedly
desires: a unified family. Unified through a shared sense of work, the family serves each other

McNulty 6

towards a common goal (Burbank 205). As an orphan himself, Levin most likely admired this
dedication to one another and the closeness it prompted within the family.
These qualities, of course, were part of the larger social peasant structure. During the
great immigration following the emancipation of the serfs, and partially due to the urging of the
State, peasants found themselves exploring the unknown borderlands of Russia. In this period of
expansion, many peasants were unsure exactly where they were heading and thus immigrants
tended to associate Russia not with the State but rather with the people and thus any place
inhabited by Russians by that very fact became Russia [...] (Burbank 181). By surrounding
themselves with people that shared those like-minded Russian ideals and nationalism, these
qualities naturally became reinforced in the community as a whole. Not only were these peasants
then unified through a sense of family, but also through a shared sense of their own Russianness.
Unfortunately, this became problematic for Levin because he became surrounded by a crowd of
peasants Russian to their core, all with that famous Russian stubbornness.
The peasants were to Levin his chief partners in a common undertaking and thus their
carelessness, untidiness, drunkenness, and untruthfulness were to him quite hindersome
(Tolstoy 216). As a farmer, that Russianness he so admired came back to bite him. The peasants
tendency for simplicity, as discussed earlier, led them to disobedience. They would ignore the
new Western farming equipment, work as they were accustomed to rather than as they were told,
trust their own experiential knowledge over Levins formal education, and pretty much do
whatever was easiest for them. Naturally, Levin lost money on their accord and could do nothing
about it: the labor supply was limited and he could not possibly oversee all work on the farm
himself, nor did he wish to. As Levin discusses with the old conservative man, progress can

McNulty 7

only be achieved with authority and quite simply Levin had no authority since the abolition of
serfdom (Tolstoy 302). The master-peasant relationship was one of cooperative exploitation
and thus the peasants were not exactly on favorable terms in the exchange (Burbank 205). As a
result, this rigid barrier was formed between Levin and the peasants which required him to stand
his ground or else suffer more substantial losses. However, doing so naturally interfered with his
respect for the peasant lifestyle as it is, asking them to behave in ways they typically would not,
and thus he is unable to separate his financial needs from this respect. Many of Levins
viewpoints, both reactionary and progressive, are towards the idea of a compromise between
these two contradictory desires, allowing them to somehow coexist. When he seems to favor
serfdom, it appears to be because under such authority he could get his work done while still
providing for the peasants and allowing their culture and lifestyle to persist. When he suddenly
tries to revolutionize agriculture in a more progressive style, it is again towards the aim of
profitability as well as an attempt to reduce poverty in the peasant community without an
education that will fundamentally alter their view of life. In this context, Levins contradictory
social interests begin to appear somewhat consistent.
However admirable, both viewpoints ultimately seem to be self-serving. As Nicholas so
bluntly points out, Levin simply wants to show that [he is] not just exploiting the peasants,
(Tolstoy 320). Later on, Levin admits, It is an injustice and I feel it [...] (Tolstoy 535) yet his
actions suggest otherwise. He wallows in his own guilt while [the peasants] are dying without
help [...] while you have in your power the means of helping them. (Tolstoy 221) Levin is given
multiple opportunities to make a real, positive difference in the lives of peasants, yet he
consistently chooses not to. When the idea of hospitals and maternity wards are proposed, which

McNulty 8

could protect so many peasant women from the high-mortality rate of childbirth, he dismisses the
idea. When he is given a chance to participate in politics, he is bored and uninterested, not even
attempting to understand the policies that could quite possibly noticeably improve peasant
prosperity (Lecture 10/24/16). This deep admiration and sense of injustice surrounding the
peasants contrasts so much with Levins complete disregard for the peasants basic human needs
that it is on the verge of illogical. This inaction and almost apathy when it comes to the
real-world difficulties of peasant life force me to conclude that Levin does not quite see peasants
as truly people, else he would empathize with their suffering further, but more as a symbol for
much of what he cherishes in Russian culture. As mentioned earlier, the peasant community
encapsulated much of what it meant to be Russian to Levin. In this context, his sense of injustice
surrounding his privileged life is because he himself feels he is drifting farther away from that
lifestyle he so admires. Similarly, his disgust with the exploitation of the peasants is a disgust for
the exploitation of the qualities that make Russia so great, whose image is insulted by such
exploits. As a result, Levins conflicted, contradictory interests can be logically combined under
the overarching pursuit of self-interest. I do not believe this is an unreasonable conclusion
because at one point in the novel Levin even admits he believes most humans, including himself,
act on self-interest. If it is accepted Levins view of the peasants must be somewhat logical, as
aforementioned, it is fair to assume these views are ultimately self-serving even though they are
rooted in a deep admiration for the peasant way of life. This is one of the few aspects in which
Levin remains consistent.

McNulty 9

Karenin and His Complexity (Primary Prompt)

One aspect that makes Karenin such a complex character is his increasing
acknowledgement of his inner emotional states over the course of the novel. Soon after his
appearance, he gives off this air of pride, formality, and respect. He walks through life with that
same self-satisfied smile wherever his duty takes him, but there seems to be something central
lacking (Tolstoy 102). This deficit first makes its appearance when he acknowledges the
possibility of his wifes unfaithfulness: Karenin was being confronted with life [...] and this
seemed stupid and incomprehensible to him[...] (Tolstoy 129). His unwillingness to
acknowledge such a possibility, a problem without a logically justified solution, brings to
attention his greatest flaws: his pride and excessive rationality.
Possibly a product of his work as a statesman or his time as an orphan, Karenin has
developed this inorganic approach to life. As his motto without haste and without rest
suggests, this approach is highly systematic (Tolstoy 100). This is initially evident when Karenin
decides to confront Anna, composing a logical argument on why she should halt her improper
behavior, hardly appropriate for such an intimate situation. However, his speech fails him and he
cannot get his point across. For Karenin, a man who speaks as if each word is something
valuable he was giving away to feel the uselessness and idleness of his words is truly
devastating (Tolstoy 97, 132). In that instant, he begins to encounter his own frailty and that
emotional abyss he had seldom looked into. However, proud as he is, he fails to truly
recognize it and instead sealed that compartment of his soul which contained his feelings [...]
(Tolstoy 183). Instead of facing his emotions, he shuts them away because he is afraid, afraid to
relinquish control, afraid to admit all is not right, and afraid of looking deep inside himself and

McNulty 10

being ashamed of what he might find. Tolstoy uses this very understandable emotion of fear to
emphasize the struggle of Karenins development and to highlight the self-knowledge each
mistake provides him.
The climax of Karenins development comes when he is forced to meet his dying wife.
As he describes, up until that day he had not known his own heart (Tolstoy 381). The
physicality of the moment forced him to recognize feelings buried deep within his inner self. For
once, Anna was not shutting herself away and as he saw into her, she provided him a glimpse
into his own soul through those powerful eyes. It is this important moment of self-awareness that
opens Karenin up, allowing him future success as a multidimensional character and to develop
further emotionally. This development is evident in his incapability of hiding his emotions from
society any further and his newfound desire to develop intimate relationships. His recognition
that he was quite alone at least suggests that he does not want to be (Tolstoy 460). It is this
reaching out compared to his previous shutting away that proves Karenin to be dynamic.
When analyzing Karenin, as with all characters in this novel, it is important to recognize
he develops within a social environment, shaped by the influence of society and interpersonal
connections. Tolstoy does this consciously because, well, we all develop that way. Karenins
religion, his sense of duty, and his honour are all fostered by this surrounding ecosystem. His
sense of honor is based on a societal position he was born into and on the esteem of those around
him, his sense of religion was taught to him by those close to him and upheld by the society that
brandished it, and his duty is established by a sense of intellectual superiority to his fellow
statesmen and the praise of society. Notice all of these have both a societal and interpersonal
component. That is one reason why the novel has so many characters: each has their own unique

McNulty 11

perspective and can show the reader a different angle of the same character. Using each unique
viewpoint, Tolstoy builds these characters block by block, slowly revealing to the reader each
unique side of them. Like Mikhaylov, the reader must paint this picture of the character only to
go back and make adjustments as their views inevitably change throughout the course of the
nove (Lecture 10/19/16)l. Tolstoy does this to prevent readers from jumping to conclusions,
getting too comfortable seeing the world under a single lens, but to embrace it in all its diversity.
And of course, the people that compose society have an impact on it just as it has its own impact
on them. Thus societal, interpersonal, and personal influences are constantly interacting,
changing, and developing the complex world of 19th century Russia. Under this lens, Karenins
struggle becomes a conflict between the outside influences and his own individuality fighting to
come out. In this context, his failures become small personal victories. When he falls, hated by
society for his disgraceful and repulsive misery, it is because he has become more truthful to
himself and his feelings (Tolstoy 460). When he becomes dishonored by his wifes illegitimate
daughter, he learns to love in wonderful new ways through the child. When his political career
goes down the drain, he conquers his pride in his humility. Thus as society attempts to tear him
down, it actually just reveals him for who he truly is. His fear of recognizing who he is in
conjunction with this societal pressure to conform fail to halt his growth and thus he is able to
break out and develop past those aforementioned flaws. Thus it is precisely the fact that Karenin
does not fit into those typical societal molds that allows him to grow and succeed as a
multidimensional character through this conflict.

McNulty 12

Tolstoy as a Narrator (Extra Credit)

The complexity of the world of Anna Karenina arises in part due to the diversity and
fluidity of the characters that compose it. As a narrator, Tolstoy does his best to allow these
characters to thrive, grow, and suffer on their own accord. He is semi-omniscient, but only
reveals to the reader his knowledge in set intervals, purposely allowing us to form our own
opinions of them in real time as he crafts them block by block (Lecture 10/19/16). This is
meant to mimic how we form opinions of people in real life, basing our views on what we hear
from them, what we hear from others about them, what they do, and what the world tells us to
think. Only when we as readers begin intermingling all this information do we eventually come
to our final conclusions.
In his realist attempt to accurately depict real life in all its facets, Tolstoys characters are
naturally full of contradictions. Whether it is the audacious Vronsky who covers his eyes at
Annas deathbed or the ice-cold Karenin playing lovingly with Annas illegitimate daughter or
pretty much any aspect of Levins personality, the only consistency lies in inconsistency. Anna
herself is probably the biggest of these enigmas. She has famous lines like there are as many
kinds of love as there are hearts only to a few pages later accuse Karenin: Love! she thought,
As if he can love (Tolstoy 125,134). The casual reader would probably interpret this second
quote as a coldness on the side of Karenin, but a more extensive reader would have to notice the
contradiction in Annas statements. Thus, as readers we are expected to notice these subtle
contradictions, to question the objectivity and possible unreliability of each statement, and to
make our own interpretations regardless of what other people believe to be true, just as we do in
real life. If we fail to do so, the whole basis of this novel, the realistic portrayal of life through

McNulty 13

the eyes of those who live it, is not achieved. If the reader fails to acknowledge these subtle
differences, and some of these subtle differences are not so easily noticed, then we are only
seeing one persons side of the story, not our own. In this regard, Tolstoy must have some
respect for our intelligence as readers. Elsewise, he would not have placed such an important
aspect of his novel in some details that could possibly go unnoticed by less intelligent readers. In
fact, many parts of his novel relies on these small details. Whether its a passing glance or the
color of a dress, each small detail could have an endless sea of opportunities or consequences.
For example, upon returning home from her improper actions at the drawing room, Anna finds
Karenin pacing back in forth, out of bed slightly past the time he typically retires. While she
notices this subtle deviation in his behavior, she also calls Karenin by his patronym, Alexey
Alexandrovich (Tolstoy 132). This whole scene is purely a series of subtle details, and is simple
enough, but manages to express so much in so few words. The fact that Anna notices such a
minute difference highlights the previous closeness between the two, and possibly Karenins
own systematic nature, while calling him by his patronym on serves to distance husband and
wife and shatter this previous intimacy (Lecture 10/5/16). Tolstoy could have just mentioned all
this himself, claiming in romantic style that an inexorable tremor vibrated throughout their souls,
leaving them irreparably cleaved in two, but real life is seldom so obvious. Tolstoys narrative
style revolves precisely around the idea that life is not quite so obvious and the character Levin,
who is reasonably assumed an extension of Tolstoy, can be seen suffering in this uncertainty. It
is indubitably something Tolstoy suffered through as well.
Throughout the novel, there are probably tens of thousands of these little details and
depending on what each individual reader notices will lead to different interpretations of the

McNulty 14

characters. Just like in real life, these differences in interpretations can be quite major and thus
the book quite possibly means something unique to each person who reads it. Although Tolstoy
is sometimes not so effective at keeping his opinion out of the mix, this ambiguous judge for
yourself sort of world captures the essence of what it means to be human: contradiction,
ambiguity, and the uniqueness of our subjective experience of the world around us.

McNulty 15