Treacherous 'Charm' in Anna Karenina · this shows that perceived beauty in Anna Karenina is inseparable from sincere, ethically generated experience. Tolstoy excuses members of St

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Treacherous "Charm" in Anna KareninaAuthor(s): Curt WhitcombSource: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 214-226Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/309374Accessed: 23-03-2017 15:08 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted

digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about

JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal

This content downloaded from 199.120.21.3 on Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:08:44 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

TREACHEROUS "CHARM" IN ANNA KARENINA

Curt Whitcomb, the Iowa State University

Dictionary listings of prelest' ("charm," "beauty," "enchantment," "delight") suggest that it is a positive quality.1 In Anna Karenina, however, Tolstoy highly qualifies its affirmative sense and makes it serve purposes which no dictionary would predict. The word occurs as least eighty-seven times in the novel, where nearly every main character draws upon it at one time or another.2 However, what matters most about prelest' is not its frequency or distribution, but the differing senses characters invest in it. Tolstoy's urban aristocrats usually speak of the "enchanting" without reflec- tion, and treat the word as a habitual part of their expressive vocabulary.3 On the other hand, Tolstoy's favored characters almost always speak of prelest' only to capture and frame intense personal experience.

It is these latter who most clearly illustrate the particular shade of "charm" that will occupy us here. For Levin, Dolly, and Kitty prelest' is a treacherous aesthetic construct, since it nearly always promises an ironic turn of events. Their delight comes either from spontaneous "perfect moments" or from strongly moving transitory points in their lives, each of which is genuine but temporary by nature. This is why the enchantment of peak experience betrays those who most completely embrace it. When Levin, Kitty and Dolly consciously regard the prelest' of their pinnacles, they become watchers rather than doers, and, thus, unknowingly confuse the aesthetic practice of depicting with the unframeable process of living.

The dual sense of prelest' throws light on two particular issues in Anna Karenina: artistic and religious experience. When Vronsky and Anna find charm in Mixajlov's picture of the fishing peasant boys, they give an addi- tional clue to readers who measure its value against Tolstoy's theory of art. The answer to whether its appeal is genuinely infectuous or merely superficial lies in the very nature of its "enchantment." Spiritual beauty as vysota (elevation) conforms to the pattern set by prelest'. Whereas some characters use the word in shallow contexts without consequence, others associate it with inspiring periods of their lives. Yet the latter moments of elevation, like those of genuine charm, desert those who begin to savour them. All of

SEEJ, Vol. 39, No. 2 (1995): p. 214-p. 226 214


Treacherous "Charm" 215

this shows that perceived beauty in Anna Karenina is inseparable from sincere, ethically generated experience.

Tolstoy excuses members of St. Petersburg society from the consequences of admiring "charm," since they invest far less in it than do those who reflect his values. Prelest' is part of the expressive vocabulary they apply to perceived beauty in Anna Karenina. It belongs to the social language that reflects and promotes what one interpreter calls the "savage ricochet of self-reference" (Mooney, 25). Linkov shows how Tolstoy's aristocrats portray their experiences by resorting to aesthetic models: "He cnywaHIHO CBeTCKHe repoi <<AHHbI KapeHHHOi II nOCTO5IHHO npH6eraloT K

nIITepaTypHblM o6pa3aM AJl1 BbIpaxenIHHI CBpHx 3pOTrIeCKHX 3MOIHHI, KaK 6yATO 3HnaeHHie HCKyccTBa RSl HHX 3THM H orpaHHIHBaeTcI" (Linkov, 59). Uspensky makes this point about a particular character: "HOlITH BCI

peib BecJIOBCKoro COCTOHT H3 BOCKJIHaTeJlbHbIX npeAnoxeHHH, conep- malKHX B ce6e Iira6oHHbIe JIHTepaTypHble cpaBHeHHnr.. ." (Uspenskij, 268).4

Prelest' is a part of the casual aesthetic jargon the critics describe above.5 Speakers devalue its sense whenever they claim to find "enchantment" in the frivolous or routine. When applied by Vronsky to popular stage per- formers at the Buff (VIII, 163), by Oblonsky to a current Petersburg joke (IX, 298, 299), or by Karenin to a carriage (VIII, 244), "charm" does not refer to anything which can seriously disappoint. Vronsky finds his time spent with Kitty "charming," but has no serious feeling for her. His adverb prelestno refers only to the pleasure of the experience, a "purer," but equally diverting version of the aesthetic pleasure the popular stage gives him (VIII, 72). Vronsky does not suffer the loss of "charm" here, and seems to forget that it ever existed when he meets Anna.

Levin, however, cannot perceive his most authentic moments as "enchanting" without seeing them disappear. In Part III, Ch. 12 he feels the

charm both of the peasant life he yearns for (. . . 3Ty TpyAOByIo, IIHCTyIO H o6mylo npenecTHylo )KH3Hb") and of the night sky overhead: "KaK Bce npeiecTHo B 3Ty npenecTHylo HOlb!" (VIII, 324, 325). Without being part of the work behind the "charming" harvest scene, he himself nonetheless admires, aesthetically judges, and makes plans to imitate it. Levin and other Tolstoy heroes: ". .. make a work of art of the lives of the Cossacks and the peasants . . . an aesthetic whole. Each takes the fatal step, each wants to live in this stylized, natural world which his own mind has created. Each searches for an entry into this painting, into this aesthetic object but, in the end, is rebuffed." (Baumgarten, 198-199-his italics).

Levin's wish to join the peasantry turns out to be as brief as the night under which he makes it. The charm and enchantment of this night, however, inhibits further contentment with his work as gentry farmer:

". .. BCe 3TO H3MeHHJIO ero B3rJIlA Ha 3a~BenHHoe y Hero XO3IHCTBO, 'TO


216 Slavic and East European Journal

OH He MOr yxKe HHKaK HaxO)IHTb B HeM npeKXHero HHTepeca H He MOr He BHOAeTb Toro HenpHriTHoro OTHOLLIIHH CBOerO K pa60THHKaM, KOTOpOe 6bIno OCHOBOiH Bcero Aejia" (VIII, 377). Levin successfully mows because he has managed (temporarily) to enter the picture by living unreflectively. When he returns to his visiting half-brother Koznyshev, however, he has already begun to portray his experience aesthetically: "14 c KaKHM cTapHKOM IA TaM noJpyxKHrUnc! 3TO TbI He MOxelllb ce6e npeAcTaBHTb, WTO 3a npenecTb!" (VIII, 303). "Enchantment" does not characterize his subsequent relations with the peasants, who suspect his motives for re- form because they consider him a landlord rather than a mower (in Part 3, Ch. 29).

By admiring the charming harvest scene as an outsider, Levin does not reflect Tolstoy's own conviction: "XyAOXHHK 6yxAymero 6yxeT KITb

O6bIlHOI KXH3HbIO JlIoAeH, 3apa6aTbIBaa cBoe cyuAecTBOBaHHe KaKHM- naI60 TpyAOMM" (XV, 216). He instead comes close to imitating his half- brother, whose stylized depiction of Pokrovskoe as a bucolic paradise only irritates him. Levin takes offense at Koznyshev's compliment because he insists on seeing his estate not as a gallery landscape, but as home and workplace. Koznyshev's vicarious praise betrays no genuine knowledge of the estate's actual operation: "TTb He nOBHepHIb ... KaKoe Anrr MeHF HacIaxAeHxe 3Ta xoxRIalAKaKI IeHb. HH OJHOi MbICJIH B rOJIOBe, XOTb mapoM nOKaTH" (VIII, 283). Fishing in the "charming" lap of nature is a diversion for him, like the pastimes of city life for Vronskyj: "BcAKar OXOTa TeM xopoma, HTO HuMeemlb jenio c npHpoAxoH. Hy ITO 3a npenecTb 3Ta cTajibHaR Boia!" (VIII, 286). Thus even though Koznyshev's medium is intellectual rather than social, his aesthetic reactions match those of Vronsky, Oblonsky, Tverskaya, Petritsky, Veslovsky, and others who speak of "charm" lightly.

In narrated monologue Levin retains a pure, beautiful memory of his childhood and mother ("npenJecTHoro, CBITOFO H IeaRia )KeHIIHHbI"), which poetically colors his expectations of his future wife, "TaHHCTBeHHa5, npenecTHa5I KITH" (XVIII, 32, 115). These betray him when his rejected proposal leaves him disappointed and bitter. His disillusionment is intensi- fied because he had so carefully pictured the charm of their future together. When Levin rediscovers his love for Kitty, he also recreates his aesthetic

frame for her: "... HcnyraHHal, po6Ka5, npHCTb6KeHHnaq H OTToro elme 6oJnee npeniecTHaR. . ."; ". . CBOIO npenecTHylo ronioBy .."; ". .. B npeniecTHbix cHIOiiIX cnacTbeM Jia3ax .. ," ". .. rpeniecTHa TeM HOBbIM CHIHHeM cqaCTbq .,. ." (VIII, 448, 450, 466; IX, 31). Tolstoy makes this portrayal of their marriage ceremony one of the most inspired passages in the novel, but he also keeps its "charm" situational.6 Levin finds that the most dominant aspects of their new life together are mundane rather than enchanting: "H OH yAXEnBCIHC, KaK OHa, 3Ta no3TH'ecKa5, npeniecTHai KHTn,



MornJa B nepBbIe xe He TOJIbKO HeeaH4, B nepsBbe IHH ceMeHoH )KXH3HH gyMaTb, IIOMHHTb H XJIOIOTaTb 0 CKaTepTAIX ... H T.A." (IX, 57). While their marriage compares well with most others in Anna Karenina, it is no longer based on enchantment.

Levin will not use the word prelest' again to describe his married life with Kitty, but he does apply it to Anna during his visit. Mikhaylov's portrait

(". . . He KapTHHa . . . XHBaS npeiecTHaS x)eHnIHHa .. .." IX, 305) inspires Levin to perceive her charm even before they personally meet. Mandelker argues convincingly that the portrait elevates Levin to a level of understand- ing that lets him feel sympathy for Anna as his alter ego (Mandelker, 10-13). Having yielded so completely to his vision, however, he is all the more stunned by the reality of Kitty's anger. The prelest' Levin sees in Anna is transient, like other moments of sincerely felt charm in the novel. She has lost it completely when she reminds Kitty about Levin's visit shortly before her suicide. Levin deals with Nikolay's death by distancing it through an elegiacally transformed memory that makes the horror of this immediate experience more tolerable: "Ax, KaKOHi 6b6In yxaCHbIi H I peineCTHbIH enjiOBeK" (IX, 149). In doing so, he fends off the tormenting confrontation with his own mortality which later will nearly drive him to suicide. Levin confesses to Stiva that he thinks of his own personal death with little delight: "H 3HaembI, rnpeiecTH B XKH3HH MeHbwle, KorJa gyMaemb o cMepT4H-HO cHOKOHHee" (VIII, 441).

Kitty, like Levin, places too much trust in the permanence of charm. During her cure she makes Varen'ka's patient, selfless charity into an image of prelest' (VIII, 254, 268), only to see this poisoned by her experience with the Petrovs. Varen'ka continues to effectively help others because good works are not charming visions for her, but necessary responses to reality. Yet it is the pictured beauty of charity which betrays Kitty after moving her to imitate Varen'ka. Kitty later attributes prelest' to Varen'ka herself as a sign that she will find a happy marriage. She first makes sure that Koznyshev overhears the praise: "A rTO 3a npenecTb MoqS BapeHbKa!" (IX, 141). She then explains to her mother why the marriage should take place: "FIepBoe-oHa npenecTb" (IX, 143). Varen'ka herself is, arguably, a quite positive character; Kitty is disappointed only because she trusts a delightful storyline that she herself has scripted.

At this point, Tolstoy has already shown the diabolical side of prelest' by repeatedly underscoring Anna's "enchantment" at the ball (VIII, 101-102). This most directly refers to her actual beauty as she steals Vronsky away.7 Yet in Kitty's internal monologue it also shows with cruel irony that her romanticized picture of Anna's charm was not trustworthy. When Dolly parts with her sister-in-law soon afterward ("Hpouai~, MoS npenecTb), we cannot help but remember the word's earlier significance for her own sister (VIII, 120). With each use of prelest', Kitty wrongly places trust in her



aesthetically constructed genres, for example, the "romantic tale" with Vronsky and "society novel" of Anna, a "saint's life" in imitation of Varen'ka, and Varen'ka's "family chronicle" with Koznyshev.

Dolly does not use words like prelest' casually, yet applies it several times in succession to her beloved children. On the family estate she first resists the temptation to idealize them: ". . BCe-TaKH OHa He Moria He rOBOpITb ce6e, ITO y Hee npenecTHble jeTH" (VIII, 308). She then accepts her role as the "mother of these exquisite creatures" (MaTb 3TIX npenecTeH) and takes particular delight in her youngest daughter, ".. . npenIecTHa CBOHM HaHBHbIM yJIIBJIeHHeM npelj BCeM..." (VIII, 309, 310). Mandelker finds here that even Dolly ". . . is no stranger to the impulse to be aestheticized in a picture" (Mandelker, 16). Only hours later, however, their misbehavior convinces their mother that they are a lost cause. When Levin reassures Dolly about the children, he inwardly feels spite because she had just mentioned Kitty, his own lost object of "enchantment." He is overconfident and inexperienced at parenthood, and therefore thinks: ".. . Hawo TOJIbKO He lOpTHTb, He ypOIXOBaTb

HTei, H OHIH 6yayT npenecTHbi. )a, y MeHqI 6yayT He TaKHIe AleTH" (VIII, 320). Levin forgets that Dolly is alone in her struggle to raise the family that her husband largely forgets. Tolstoy here grants an admission that more is involved in parenting than merely taking a child's "delightful" nature for granted.8 Levin believes that only this unimpeded laissez-faire stance is needed to guarantee their charm. Although Dolly sometimes admires her children aesthetically, she never drops the struggle to foster their creative, disciplined growth.

When Dolly finds prelest' in Turovtsyn at the dinner party in Part IV, the quality takes on two levels of meaning. Its positive sense reflects the jovial atmosphere that Stiva artfully produces. In this benevolent aura Levin is reconciled with Kitty and comes to think more favorably of Turovtsyn, whom he earlier had considered "insignificant." She persuades him to agree with Dolly about the young man's charming nature, so that he won-

ders: ". .. KaK OH npexne He IlOHHMaJI Bcei npeniecTI WToro eJIOBeKa" (VIII, 458). Levin thus learns not to judge others according to preconcep- tions; indeed, he gives in entirely to Kitty's view. All of this is due to the temporary spirit of good will which infects the guests.

Yet the sense of prelest' here is not unclouded. While it fails to herald actual disappointment, it is associated with a potentially destructive course for Dolly. Levin sees only her gratitude to Turovtsyn for helping cure her children from scarlet fever. He does not know that Dolly has taken notice of the other, probably much as Petrov had been taken by Kitty at Soden. Turovtsyn is the best contender for the affair she contemplates on the way to Anna's, and is also attracted to her (IX, 205). While Tolstoy's disgust for adultery does not necessarily make it bad for Stiva's harried wife, certain



details suggest that such an affair would not be "enchanting." For example, her aesthetically descriptive "party" language ("Tka, yaIBHTsenIbHO, npe-

necTb!-cKa3aJia JonniH, B3rJIIrIBRa Ha TypoBIAbIHa, qyBcTBoBaBsIero, WTO rOBopIIH O HeM . . .") recalls Anna's "enchanting" conversation with Vronsky, in which she seconds Tverskaya's crack about Karenin: "O Aa!- cKa3ana AHHa, CHqI yJIbI6Koi CIaCTbs . . . ." (VIII, 458, 168).9

We thus see Dolly in a situation resembling that which began her sister-in- law's tormenting double life. Moreover, Turovtsyn's fleshy lips and witty remarks (VIII, 447) align him with her husband Stiva and with other well nourished characters who naively live for their own pleasure. One of these is Vasen'ka Veslovsky, who flirts with Kitty and nearly shoots Levin by acci- dent. It is true that Kitty gives Turovtsyn a good mark for helping Dolly treat her children. Yet earlier she misjudged Vronsky, who frequents the same circles as Veslovsky and who also pursues another's wife. Levin's positive change of heart is also less than fully persuasive, because the word now makes it conditional on a happy, but temporary, occasion: "... HcKpeHHO BbICKa3bIBa5I TO, WTO OH Tenepb xyBcTBoBaIn" (VIII, 458). The above parallels indicate that, should Dolly have actively responded to Turovtsyn's "charm," she probably would have encountered severe disillusionment. Like Levin's dream of joining the peasantry, however, her romantic fantasy on the way to Vozdvishenskoe does not last. It evaporates before the actual sight of Anna's plight that helps save Dolly from experiencing her own.

We see thus far that prelest' in Anna Karenina betrays expectations of family and peasantry, about which Tolstoy's own attitudes were complex, contradictory and intense. This makes it tempting to search biographies of him or apply tools of psychoanalysis in order to determine whether "charm" in the novel is actually "dirty ice cream" (Anna's phrase for all that she can no longer delight in-IX, 380). If we believe that prelest' comes undone due to internal contradictions, we might also be tempted by the method of deconstruction.10 Yet in Anna Karenina the most winning moments are genuine high points for Tolstoy's characters, who become disillusioned only when they fail to set off their aesthetic perceptions from the unframeable ethical process of living."l This is precisely why the memories of Serezkha and Vronsky outshine their real presence for Anna (XVIII, 130, 419).

Kitty gains the wisdom to know that any particular enchantment (prelest') and delight (naslakdenie) in her expectant condition is temporary (XIX, 276). Trusting in the durability of perfect moments is simply not safe for those who recognize and treasure their occurence. Although Vronsky is one of those who have made aesthetic language habitual, at certain key points in the novel he does regard prelest' with heartfelt enthusiasm. He sincerly admires the beautiful lines of his horse Fru-Fru ("npenecTHbIe 4opMbI" VIII, 227), and delights in her performance during the race: "O,



npenecT1 MOn!" (VIII, 235). The charm here is literally treacherous, since its intoxicating effects blind him to the incipient danger of the fatal jump.

In Book VIII, Vronsky suffers the consequences of prelest' even while still deeply feeling its aura. The word occurs last in his internal monologue, when he looks upon the spoiled beauty of Anna's face (IX, 403). Umrixina ties Fru-Fru's death to Anna's by underscoring the fading remnants of prelest' in both passages (Umrixina, 384). Beauty seems to rebuke him both in his dying horse (". .. CMOTpenia Ha Hero CBOHM npeInecTHbIM rJIa3OM") and in his dead lover: ". .. H Ha npeJIecTHOM IHIAe ... Bblpa)KeHHe, KaK 661 CJIOBaMH BbiroBapHBaBmree TO cTpauiHOe CJIOBO-O TOM, xOT OH pacKaeTcl .. ." (VIII, 236; IX, 403). Vronsky's reaction to Anna's corpse is emblematic: "1 OH CTapaincA BCHOMHHTb ee TaKOIO ... npenlecTHOf . .. OH CTapaJICA BCHOMHHaTb iyuumHe MHHyTbI C HelO, HO 3TH MHHyTbI 16biIH HaBcerja OTpaBJneHbI (XIX, 403).

Prelest' in the Italian passages warrants detailed commentary, since Tol- stoy's ideas about art bear on its meaning.12 When Vronsky, Anna and Golenishchev have surveyed and blandly judged Mikhaylov's other paint- ings, they suddenly express delight in a picture of fishing peasant boys:

"Ax,-KaKaa npelecTb, WTO 3a npenlecTb! NyAxo! KaKaq npenlecTb!" (IX, 51). Vronsky's exclamation happens to fit the pattern we have already established. Once charmed by Mikhaylov's works, the painting of Anna in particular, he becomes disenchanted with his own efforts and abandons painting. Like Levin's delight in the harvest scene and Kitty's in charity, Vronsky's pleasure in artistic endeavour gives way to the knowledge that he cannot make it a lasting part of his own life. However, this is not the most intriguing aspect of "charm" in the scene.

In order to fully assess the meaning of prelest' in this passage, we must confront the problem of how to view this painting. Bayley carefully equivo- cates on the issue:

"But when with Anna and Vronsky we suddenly catch sight in a corner of Mikhaylov's studio of his picture of two boys angling, we are, like them, completely won over by it. Tolstoy makes a picture seem good which cited as an example in What is Art? would seem awful, and the reason is that he can make the picture alive for us in the novel by the element of participation (Bayley's italics). We are vividly aware of the attitudes of the three spectators, of their ennui with Mikhaylov's big religious work . . and of how their bogus appreciative vocabulary is extinguished by spontaneous delight at the sight of the angling picture. The point is not that the painting is "good art"-the novel does not pronounce on this-but that it gives these people whom we know real pleasure instead of merely engaging with their aesthetic expectations ... Tolstoy has made it come alive .. ." (Bayley, 238).

Mandelker also is skeptical about the bucolic content while accepting the genre portrait as both infectuous and universal ". .. because it appeals to a wide audience and, most importantly, stimulates the viewer's desire to share the thoughts and experiences of another" (Mandelker, 8). Both of



these views place the picture into Tolstoy's category of real but "indiffer- ent" art, infectuous but lacking a theme worthy of encouragement (XV, 185-186).

If the sincerity of the painting actually "infects" Mikhaylov's visitors, then it would seem to fit Tolstoy's definition of genuine art. The narrator does tell us that Mikhaylov had worked on this painting with heartfelt inspiration (VIII, 52). However, the passage gives no clear proof that Mikhaylov's feeling is what has infected his guests. Tolstoy's concept of infectuousness breaks down here because the pleasure of charm, as we have seen thus far, is not universal. Like his prototype Kramskoy, Mik- haylov would have communicated his direct experience with peasant life. Yet his gentry customers may see only what Koznyshev admires on Levin's estate, while remaining ignorant of the world represented in the painting. If so, then it would differ little from a particularly pleasing stage performance in Petersburg. Christian's view of the painting bears out this view: "The tendency to equate art with the charming, the pleasurable, the superficially attractive, was bitterly resisted by Tolstoy" (Christian, Tolstoy ... , 188). Indeed, the narrator himself encourages it by referring to the work as a kartinka once it has been purchased by the "art lovers" (IX, 53).

In the novel's only other reference to fishing, the narrator comments

about Koznyshev's hobby at Pokrovskoe: "OH iio6HII yAHTb pbl6y H KaK 6yTro ropAanIC TeM, ITO MO)KeT JIIO6HTb TaKoe rxIynoe 3aHAITHe" (VIII, 284). He doubtfully considers fishing itself "stupid," since it was probably closer to the genuine life of Tolstoy's narod than was Levin's woodcock hunting. He almost certainly mocks Koznyshev's own attitude toward fishing. Levin's half-brother probably "merges with the people" by picturing himself as a fishing peasant in a "charming," rustic setting. His imagination would thus place him into a derivative genre portrait that lacks the sincerity of Mikhaylov's painting. This would be entirely consistent with his superficial aesthetic perception of Pokrovskoe's charms. Mikhaylov's patrons also recognize their own images of the countryside more readily than the reality, as Vronsky's egoistic reforms at Vozdvilenskoe prove.

Mikhaylov, significantly, avoids enthusiasm over finished work. This is because prolonging the charm of that which has passed would only impair his ability to live creatively in the present (IX, 52). In his essay, "What Is Art?," Tolstoy identifies as false those works which evoke memories of previously experienced and derivative aesthetic feelings (XV, 140). Even if Mikhaylov's picture of the fishing boys does not fit this category of itself, the reactions of his aristocratic patrons are probably inspired not by the trueness of his art, but by fondness for stylized portrayals of the peasantry they poorly know. Since we cannot read their minds, however, we cannot come to definitive conclusions about the painting's value as art under Tol- stoy's criteria.



Vysota ("elevation," "exhaltation") is the metaphysical equivalent of prelest' in Anna Karenina. It entails the same pitfalls for those characters who let spiritual experiences become too gratifying. The narrator conveys in quasi-speech Kitty's sense of an "elevated" world, as she gives herself to the work of pious charity: ". . . OTKpbIICI HOBbIHI MHp... MH p B03- BbIIiIeHHbIHI, rpeKpacHbIH, C BbICOTbI KOTporO MOXKHO G6bhil CHOKOHIHO

CMOTpeTb Ha 3TO npoueAmee... 3TO 6biGJa peJIHrHsi Bo3BbImeHHaq, TaHHCTBeHHaIa, CB3aHHa c pa5joM npeKpacHblX MbicJIeH H T IyBcTB..." (VIII, 264). Like her vision of prelest', however, Kitty's encounter with the sublime comes to a tainted concluson with the Petrovs. This falls fully into place when we encounter a different voicing of her language from Lidiya Ivanovna, who impresses upon Karenin her conviction: "... BbicmaH BbICOTa xpHCTHaHHIHa: Kmo ynumcaem ce6a, mom so36btCUmcR" (IX, 92- Tolstoj's italics). The spiritually promiscuous countess espouses Redstock's teachings, but sees no reason to deny herself of Landau's entertaining seances. This makes her an unexpected double of Stiva Oblonsky, who never intends to stay within marriage vows. Lidiya Ivanovna speaks of religious matters as conventionally as Tverskaya's circle does of stage per- formances, and never risks inspiration as sincere as Kitty's.

Under the countess' tutelage Karenin quickly accepts the chance to turn humility into pride: ". . B ero yHH1DeHHH HMeTb Ty, XOT5I 6bi H BbIAy-

MaHHyIO BbICOTy .. . ." (IX, 94). Anna's husband had experienced genuine elevation by sincerely forgiving her at her deathbed in Part IV, Chapter 17. However, like Kitty, he painfully discovers that exhaltation cannot continue as daily routine: ". . . ero He AOHycTqT OCTaTbCA B HeM" (VIII, 491). Like the ebbing of prelest' for others, this realization disillusions him: "OH xyBCTBOBaJI, TO 3a 3TO B Ayme ero rIOlHHMaJIOCb qyBCTBO 3no6bI, pa3pymiaBmee ero cHOKOHiCTBHe H BCIO CIHay nHOAiBra" (VIII, 497). When Oblonsky presents the case for divorce, however, Karenin has already given his feeling an aesthetic veneer and found in it a bittersweet satisfaction which is autonomous from Anna and any genuine ethical activity: "... BMeCTe C 3THM rope H cTbIJiOM OH HCHbITbIBaJI paJocTb HI

yMnsieHHe nperi BbICOTOH CBoero CMHpeHHS" (VIII, 505). This adds an unexpected spiritual dimension to the warning of the Shcherbatskys' priest about worldly "delights": "npeJIecTH MHpa I aH-bBonIa" (IX, 12).

Whereas Kitty responds to the loss of prelest' and vysota by returning to the ethical challenges of immediate life, Karenin reverts to an ever more devalued and insincere type of elevation: ". .. BOCCTaHOBHJIOCb TO CIIOKOHCTBHe H Ta BbICOTa, 6nIarogapI KOTOpbIM OH MOT 3a6blBaTb 0 TOM, qero He XOTeI IIOMHHTb" (IX, 105).13 He thereby gains nothing of meaning from his experience with the "higher" realm. From her apprentice altruism, in contrast, Kitty has acquired the skills to treat Levin's dying brother Nikolay. At her delivery the narrator speaks of Levin's "ele-



vated" position in language recalling Karenin's: "OH IyBcTBoBaJI ce61 Ha KaKOHI-TO HeJiocAraeMoH BbIcoTe, C KOTopoH OH CTapaTenIbHO cnycKaJIcI, qTo6bI He o6HgeTb Tex, c KeM FOBOpHJI" (IX, 329). Yet their experiences are far apart, because Levin abjures the pride Karenin cultivates and considers that Kitty is the one who has risen higher (IX, 329). Moreover, his feeling is born of participation in the ethical flux of life (to a far less degree than Kitty's, of course), while Karenin's is aesthetically contrived and divorced from the reality that onlookers see all to well. Levin inevita- bly feels the loss of sincere elevation ("JIeBHH c oropmeHHeM

B3JOXHyJI ... 3TO 6buIo coBceM He TO yBCTBO, KOToporO OH OXHAJI"), but immediately finds that new, positive feelings about his infant son take its place (IX, 331).

Tverskaya's, Koznyshev's and Lidiya Ivanovna's particular circles cheapen sincere feeling in their respective worlds: the material, the intellectual, and the spiritual.14 They also provide an easy model for others to imitate. Anna's politely calculated praise of Kitty's charm to Levin (IX, 306) shows that she has acquired the mannered behavior of Betsy and her guests. When Levin yields to the influence of well-turned but cliched speech in Moscow (Silbajoris, 148; Mandelker, 5), he begins to imitate his half-brother. Karenin wholly masters the self-referential spirituality of the third circle. More interesting, however, are those moments of genuine beauty which can only be lived rather than admired: Dolly's joys in her children, Levin's ethical impetus toward the peasantry, and Kitty's discovery that she knows how to help others. Their disappointments take nothing from these pinnacles, but only set them in relief. Yet they also prove that all three levels of aesthetic temptation-physical, cerebral and mystic-work as one to lead characters away from genuine ethical knowledge of others and themselves.

NOTES

1 This article incorporates research done during the 1991 NEH Seminar, "The Counter- Tradition of Russian Literature," conducted by Gary Saul Morson at Northwestern Uni- versity. Unless otherwise noted, all references to Tolstoy's works are from L. N. Tolstoj: Sobranie soiinenij. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo xudozestvennoj literatury, 1963.

2 Babaev aptly describes the usual function of repeated words in Tolstoj's novelistic art: "3TH nOBTOpmSOIInHecI cJIOBa yKa3bIBaIOT HanpaBJIeHHe aBTOpCKOHi MbICJIH H MOryT CJIy)KTb <<HHTbIO ApajHHbI>> B CJIO)KHbIX nepexoxax <<mHpoKoro H CBO60oIHOro poMaHa>>" (Babaev, 177). One unifying "thread" which Babaev's description does suit well is "poloienie," a word repeated dozens of times throughout the novel to underscore the helpless frustration felt by characters who resent the "positions into which they have been placed. (cf. Holquist) Yet repeated language in Anna Karenina is crucial not always as leitmotif or as "semantic complex" (Eremina's term, 48). The significance of prelest' lies precisely in its problematic nature as a concept that sometimes promises its very opposite.



3 Sklovskij's concept of literary dynamics throws light on the relative senses of prelest' that I will clarify: "Each art form . . . travels down the inevitable road from birth to death; from seeing and sensory perception, when every detail in the object is savored and relished, to mere recognition, when the object or form becomes a dull epigone which our senses register mechanically, a piece of merchandise not visible even to the buyer" (Sklovskij, 38. Cited in translation by Erlich, V).

4 His deference to I. V. Stalin's linguistic authority on Gallicized Russian in this argument does not diminish the relevance of his point to our topic.

5 Naslaidenie and udovol'stvie are "pleasure words" which frequently accompany prelest' and thereby call attention to the satisfaction which even superficial aesthetic depiction brings to speakers.

6 This is no rebuke of solid domestic foundations, a rare and valued commodity in the novel. See Schultze for a count of the less than happy marriages in Anna Karenina (Schultze, 100-102).

7 Even though the narrator portrays Anna as the embodiment of prelest' here, she says the word on her own only five times. She twice praises Dolly's "charming" children (VIII, 84), but completely loses interest in them after seeing Vronsky at the ball. When she finds Liza Mercalova "enchanting" in Part III, Ch. 18, she also hears her witty complaint about

work and philanthropy: "3aveM xe n 6yiy pa6oTaTb, Koria MoI pa6oTa HHKOMy He Hy)KHa? A HapOrHO IupHTBOpAITbCAI IA He yMeIo H He xoxy" (VIII, 354). Bored and trapped by her situation, Anna later will enchant Levin and confess similar sentiments: "... AI HHKOfra He MorJIa ... 1H Tenepb, Koria MHe TaK Hy~HO KaKoe-HH6ylb 3aHITHe, I He Mory" (IX, 309). In each of these cases prelest' forecasts ironic reversal of the situations which produce it. Anna's other two uses of the word appear in the main body of this paper.

8 In spoken comments about Anna Karenina, Gary Saul Morson has distinguished Levin's belief in a formulaic rule for childbearing (i.e. not learning French) from Dolly's creative sense of what is proper for each contingency.

9 In Baxtinian terminology we would say that Dolly's speech contains a "character zone" of Anna's (Baxtin, Voprosy literatury i istetiki, 132-133).

10 DeMan's thoughts about the definitive aspect of the modern do suggest Tolstoy's spirit of the uniquely irreproducible moment: "We are touching here upon the radical impulse that stands behind all genuine modernity when it is not merely a descriptive synonym for the contemporaneous or for a passing fashion. Fashion (mode) can sometimes be only what remains of modernity after the impulse has subsided, as soon-and this can be almost at once-as it has changed from being an incandescent point in time into a reproducible cliche, all that remains of an invention that has lost the desire that produced it" (DeMan, "Literary History and Literary Modernity," 147). DeMan questions the very plausibility of a modernity that is so ephemeral, but fleeting yet perfect moments in Tolstoy are indisputable. For the characters who create them, unframed ethical experience is itself a sort of "radical impulse."

11 Mandelker makes this point in her study of portraiture in Anna Karenina: ". .. at best, our artistic structuring of experience lends coherence and epiphanic illumination to otherwise random and chaotic experience ... The danger is in the enclosure that constricts and the frame that misrepresents" (Mandelker, 4) Stenbock-Fermor and Armstrong consider the latter a mistake of Anna, who unconsciously adopts the role of heroine by novelizing her own life (Stenbock-Fermor, 46; Armstrong, p. 122).

12 In ?to takoe iskusstvo, Tolstoy considers art genuine (1) if the artist's sincerity of experience "infects" the perceiver with similar feelings, and (2) if the work's meanings are accessible to humanity as a whole. He further divides genuine art into that which spiritually uplifts the perceiver and that which lacks moral purpose. Critical opinion is not



unanimous about the relevance of passages concerning Mixajlov's work to the rest of the novel. Gudzij considers the Mixajlov chapters only loosely tied to the main story and potentially dispensible, but giving Tolstoj a chance to discuss art (Gudzij, 105). Vetlov- skaja views them as extremely important (Vetlovskaja, 17), and IScuk regards them as inseparable from the novel (IScuk, 26).

13 As the object of gossip at the reception in Part V, Karenin recalls 'ackij's position in Gore ot uma.

14 HoBeaeHHe KHSIrHHH BeTCH TBepcKOHi H rpaRHHH JIaHJHHR IBaHOBHbI-3TO ABe CTopOHbI OJIHO H TOH xe MejaajH" (Bursov, 235). Bursov here is referring to their hypocrisy, but hypocrisy presupposes outward loyalty to depicted constructs. In the circles of each their respective terms (prelest' and vysota) are equally debased. Brostrom equates both ratio- nality and sexual passion as commensurate in Tolstoy, since each leads to falsehood and constricted vision (Brostrom, 104). A student visiting Koznyshev shows his "enlightened view" by tattling about district scandals (VIII, 284) and thereby "intellectually" parallels the sensually oriented gossip of Tverskaja's salon. Vetlovskaja discusses Koznyshev's public speechmaking and intellectual argument at the elections as a form of false art. One spectator even finds it to be prelest'. (Vetlovskaja, 31)

WORKS CITED

Armstrong, J. The Unsaid "Anna Karenina." London: MacMillan P, 1988. Babaev, E. "Sjuiet i kompozicija romana Anna Karenina." Tolstoj-xudoionik: Sbornik statej.

Moscow: AN SSSR, 1961. 150-206. Baumgarten, M. "Irtenev, Olenin, Levin: Three Characters in Search of Nature." Centennial

Review 14.2 (1970): 188-200. Baxtin, M. "Slovo v romane." Voprosy literatury i estetiki. Moscow: Xudozestvennoj li-

teratury, 1975. 72-233. Bayley, J. Tolstoy and the Novel. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988. Brostrom, K. "Ethical Relativism and Absolutism in Anna Karenina." American Contribu-

tions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists. Ed. Victor Terras. Vol. 2. Colum- bus: Slavica, 1978.

Bursov, B. "Roman Anna Karenina." L. N. Tolstoj: Sbornik statej. Ed. D. Blagoj. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Ministerstva prosveStenija RSFSR, 1955. 220-258.

Christian, R. Tolstoy: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1969. DeMan, P. "Literary History and Literary Modernity." Blindness and Insight: Essays in the

Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1983. 142-165. Eremina, L. "V slove otkryvaetsja mir . . ." Russkaja re' Vol. 6 (1978): 41-47. Erlich, V. Russian Formalism. New Haven: Yale UP, 1981. Gudzij, N. Lev Tolstoj. Moscow: Xudovestvennoj literatury, 1960. Holquist, M. "The Supernatural as Social Force in Anna Karenina." The Supernatural in

Slavic and Baltic Literature: Essays in Honor of Victor Terras. Ed. Amy Mandelker and Roberta Reeder, Columbus: Slavica, 1988.

Ivvuk, G. "O xudo'estvennoj vozdejstvij romana L. N. Tolstogo Anna Karenina." Filo- logiceskie nauki 3 (1978): 21-30.

Karamzin, N. Izbrannye socinenija. 2 vols. Moscow: Xudozestvennaja literatura, 1964. Linkov, V. Mir i Lelovek v tvorcestve L. Tolstogo i I. Bunina. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo

Moscovskogo universiteta, 1989. Mandelker, Amy. "A Painted Lady: Ekphrasis in Anna Karenina." Comparative Literature

43.1 (1991): 1-19.



Mooney, H. Tolstoy's Epic Vision: A Study of War and Peace and Anna Karenina. Tulsa: U of Tulsa, 1968.

Schultze, S. The Structure of Anna Karenina. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1982. Silbajoris, R. Tolstoy's Aesthetics and His Art. Columbus: Slavica, 1990. Sklovskij, V. Xod konja. Moscow-Berlin: 1923. Stenbock-Fermor, E. The Architecture of Anna Karenina. Lisse: Peter de Ridder P, 1975. Tolstoj, L. Sobranie socinenij. Moscow: Xudoiestvennoj literatury, 1963. Umrixina, S. "Smert' Anny Kareninoj v svete struktury romana." Grani (1979), No. 111-112. Uspenskij, I. "Roman Anna Karenina." Tvorcestvo L. N. Tolstogo: Sbornik statej. Moscow:

AN SSSR, 1954, pp. 201-278. Vetlovskaja, V. "Poetika Anny Kareninoj." Russkaja literatura Vol. 4 (1979): 17-37.


Documents

Treacherous 'Charm' in Anna Karenina · this shows that perceived beauty in Anna Karenina is inseparable from sincere, ethically generated experience. Tolstoy excuses members of St