Names in Tolstoy's "The Death of Ivan Ilych"

Since "The Death of Iván Ilých" is a novella not a drama, it doesn't come with a printed list of characters. That seems a shame. The text contains a number of "triple-decker names" and characters who are sometimes identified by nicknames. Therefore, in the hope of promoting a better understanding of Tolstoy's work, I offer below a list of characters, grouped in terms of their relationship to the tragic Iván. Feel free to print it out. By the way, the name Iván Ilých is comparable to the English "John Doe. [Note: diacritical marks in Russian transliterations denote a stress; so, for example, "Iván" is pronounced "ee-VAHN."]. Pictured above is Count Tolstoy.

Characters in "The Death of Iván Ilých"

Family

Iván Ilých Golovín (sometimes called "Jean" by wife, known as "Vanya" in childhood)

Praskóvya Fedorovna Goloviná [née Mikhel], wife
Lisa, daughter
Vladímir ("Vasya") Ivánich, son
Feodor Petrovich, "Petríshchev," Lisa's fiancé, an "examining magistrate" (as had been Iván)
Ilya Epímovich Golovín, father, a Privy Councilor
Iván's two brothers ("Mitya" and "Volódya", cf. ch. 6?)
one sister ("Kátenka", again cf. ch. 6, married to Baron Greff)

Legal Colleagues (and Other Fellow Government Functionaries)

Iván Egórovich Shébek
Fedor Vasílievich
Peter Ivánovich
Ivan Semenovich
Alexéev
Vínnokhov
Shtábel
Schwartz
Mikháil Mikháylovich
Happe
F. I. Ilyín
Peter Petróvich
Zachár Ivánovich

Domestic Help

Sokolóv, butler
Gerásim, butler's assistant
Peter the footman
Dmítri

Doctors

Nicoláevich
Leshchetítsky
Mikhail Danílovich

"Outliers"

Princess Tráfonova ("sister of the distinguished founder of the Society 'Bear my Burden'")
Emile Zola, as author of Iván's pleasure reading
Sarah Bernhardt (in town for a show!!)

See you on the 23rd.

Discussion Questions for "The Prince," Monday, January 26th

Interpretive Questions

Do you agree with Machiavelli's statement (p. 201) that "though one may have the strongest of armies, one always needs the backing of the inhabitants to take over the province?"

Why does Machiavelli say (p. 205) that in order successfully occupy a province, one must keep the "weaker powers" in check?

What does Machiavelli mean when he writes (p. 206) of the Romans, "Nor did they ever like what is constantly on the lips of our sages today, to enjoy the benefits of the present time, but rather enjoyed the benefits of their ingenuity and prudence; for time brings out everything, and it can bring with it the good as well as the bad and the bad as well as the good."

Machiavelli says (p. 207), "The desire to acquire is truly a very natural and common thing; and whenever men who can, do so, they are praised and not condemned; but when they cannot and want to do so just the same, herein lies the mistake and the condemnation." What does he mean by "the mistake and the condemnation"?

Is Machiavelli correct when he assets (p. 209) that "whoever is the cause of another's coming to power ruins himself"?

Machiavelli says (p. 209) that "a prudent man should always take the path trodden by great men ... so that, if his own ingenuity does not come up to theirs, at least it will have the smell of it." How will he or his public know that he's treading such a path?

Machiavelli says (p. 211) there are princes who are "obliged to beg" and others who are "able to use force." The first "always come to a bad end and never achieve anything," the latter "seldom find themselves in danger." Agree or disagree?

Does Machiavelli's recounting of the biography of Agathocles the Sicilian bear out his statement (p. 214) "that in capturing a state the conqueror should consider all the injuries he must inflict, and inflict them all at once, so as not to have to repeat them daily, and in not repeating them to be able to give men a feeling of security and win them over with the benefits he offers."

"A prince can never be safe when the common people are his enemy, for there are so many of them; he can be safe with the nobles, for there are so few of them." (p. 216). Does this mean a prince can afford to have some of the nobles be his enemies?

Machiavelli states (p.220), "I say that it would be good to be thought of as generous; however, generosity employed in such a way as to give you a reputation for it harms you; yet if it is employed virtuously, and as one should employ it, it may not be recognized and you will not escape the infamy of its opposite." If this is true, why be generous?

On pages 223-224 Machiavelli puts forth the proposition that it is better to be loved than feared, but one must not be hated. What is his logic and do you agree?

In the paragraph beginning "A prince must nevertheless make himself feared ..." (p. 224), is Machiavelli saying that it's better to take life or property?

In his chapter "How a Prince Should Keep his Word" (p. 225ff) what is Machiavelli's position on a what a prince's regard should be for the truth?

What does Machiavelli say (p. 227) that nothing is more essential for a prince than to have a regard for religion?

In the chapter "How a Prince Should Act to Acquire Esteem (p. 233), " Machiavelli makes statements such as "Nothing makes a prince more esteemed than great enterprises and evidence of his unusual abilities" and "a prince should strive in all his actions to give the impression of the great man of outstanding intelligence." In doing this, does he run the risk of appearing to lack humility?

"And the irresolute princes, in order to flee present dangers most often follow the neutral road, and most often they ruin themselves. " (p. 234). Does Machiavelli make a convincing case in this section against maintaining neutrality?

"A prince ... should always seek advice, but only when he wishes and not when others wish it ; indeed he should discourage everyone from giving him advice on any subject, unless he asks for it (p. 236)." Does Machiavelli go overboard here in counseling a prince to be so picky about how he receives counsel?

Evaluative Question

Is Machiavelli, as many have maintained, evil?

What profit, if any, might our new president gain from Machiavelli's text?

Read More Great Literature in 2009

As a counterbalance to my last post (on the often cynical new book Great Idea at the Time), I would like to share with you a gleaning from the little book A Key to Culture : Introductory Reading from the Great Books Course, by one Francis Neilson. I came across this book during a recent visit to the library at my son's college in Ohio.

A Key to Culture was published in 1948 by the C. C. Nelson Company of Appleton, Wisconsin. Neilson intended it as a bibliography of readings to help his audience to learn more about the historical backdrop of the Great Books.

"Over a period of half a century, much of my time has been given to the classics and I still want many more years to satisfy my hunger for them," he writes. He advises his readers to become adept at the "art of making time" for the Great Books, and recommends a rigorous discipline of devoting two hours a day, three days a week to their study.

Neilson considers his book an adjunct to "the Hutchins Project." There's an ingenuousness to Neilson's book, long out of print I'm sure, that I've found nowhere else in my own reading about this cultural movement.

Happy New Year!

A great book about Great Books

Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam recently published a popular book on the great books movement in 20th-century America entitled A Great Idea at the Time.

Beam entertainingly traces the movement's story its two-fold guise as both a college-curriculum reform and an adult self-education initiative. The book begins with accounts of the efforts of some early European advocates of the sustained study of the classics: Frederic William Farrar, Auguste Comte, John Lubbock. Lubbock published a list in a popular magazine of the 100 greatest books ever written, and was the forebear of subsequent efforts to delimit "best of the best" that have continued to this day. Beam also profiles leading exponents in the United States: Charles Eliot, John Erskine, Robert Maynard Hutchins, and Mortimer Adler.

The heart of A Great Idea at the Time concerns the heyday of the Great Books in America in the 1950s and 60s that coincided with the publication by the University of Chicago and the Encyclopaedia Britannica of the multivolume Great Books of the Western World. A key figure during this period was William Benton, the Chicago ad man who brought his business acumen to the project. The set sold like gangbusters, though Beam considers the biggest selling point of the set -- which included not only great works of literature, philosophy, and history, but also key texts in science and medicine such as Ptolemy's Almagest and Harvey's On the Circulation of the Blood -- to have been anxiety among middle-class Americans that the growth in their intellectual stature had not kept pace with that of their material well-being.

Beam does his homework. He travels to Annapolis to visit St. John's College, whose "all great books, all the time" curriculum was initiated by two of Hutchins's protégés, and to Chicago, still home to the Great Books Foundation. His description of campus movements of the 1990s to overthrow the legacy of DWMs (dead-white males) forms another important chapter of the saga. At the end of the book he offers a humorous annotated bibliography of works that have made the "canon" over the years.

My one critique of A Great Idea at the Time is that it's hard to discern Beam's real point-of-view regarding the classics. The subtitle: The Rise, Fall, and Curious Afterlife of the Great Books is misleading in this regard, because Beam's account is by-and-large more sympathetic, but I'll refrain from spoiling the ending for you. Let's just say that Beam might identify with his hypothetical undergraduate student sitting in the library, his assigned inscrutable though undeniably "great" tome in his lap, gazing out the window onto the quad and wishing he were playing frisbee with his buddies instead. At times all we great bookies do.

Find A Great Idea at the Time in our collection by clicking here.

Next Meeting: "The Prince," by Machiavelli, Monday, January 26th 7 p.m.

The group's next meeting takes place on Monday, January 26th, 2009, in the Main Library Auditorium. The reading will be selections from The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli, which some commentators consider the most misunderstood book ever written. Please note there is no meeting in December (winter break!!!).

Questions for "The Beast in the Jungle" Discussion, Monday, November 24th

Interpretive Questions

If you were asked to describe the relationship between John Marcher and May Bartram, and were limited to one word or a short phrase, what would that word or phrase be?

Could John have had a normal life if he had not met Meg again after an interval of ten years? (John could not remember a lot of details of their first meeting -- it was May who reminded John of the "secret" he confided in her).

Had John, in his own mind at least, had a meaningful life with May (p. 192, top of page, "The state of mind ...")?

The description of John's life is deliberately vague -- government job, some friends, work in his garden. May's life is somewhat more significant in its details: a relation who must have engendered some affection as "the old Lady" arranged in her will to provide for her so that she could have some financial independence. Has James done this deliberately?

What are May's initial intentions toward John? Have they changed by the end of the story?

The relationship between May and John is devoid of any physical intimacy. Is this a relationship that one or the other wants to make "sterile" or feels must remain so? Is the author trying to say something about this state?

When did May perceive that she knew what John's "beast" was? Was her perception correct?

Can you define that "beast" (p. 196, 2d paragraph and p. 197, line 4 -- "the man to whom nothing on earth was to happen"). Could John have changed that? Could he have done so because of or in spite of May's help?

Read the description of May during John's second-to-last visit before she died (p. 176). By her appearance and the almost stage-like setting of her house what is she meant to symbolize?

Is this a story written in hyperbole to demonstrate the neurotic relationships between two people? A passionate love story encased in refined prose?

Taming "The Beast in the Jungle"

Gentle Reader,

We meet on Monday the 24th to talk about "The Beast in the Jungle," by Henry James. As I've wrestled with the Beast, a few suggestions spring to mind to help ease your way to understanding this densely thicketed product of James's mature phase:

1. Try reading the work as a fable, a story with a moral.
2. "X-ray" (survey the structure of) the story, and you will notice that the narrator's omniscient observations occupy upwards of 90 percent of the text. The rest consists of conversations between the only two characters, John Marcher and May Bartram. Do a quick read of the entire story by paying your sole attention to their conversations. It's sometimes hard to keep track of who is speaking, so pencil in your own notation of "he said:" and "she said:".
3. Note that the estate where the opening encounter between Marcher and May takes place is called "Weatherend." Note also: both their names contain months of the year.
4. Pay attention to James's scheme as to time and space. After the opening encounter, James takes you back in time to another place (Italy). He later "fast forwards" to their lives in London.
5. Think about how the work is divided into six numbered parts. What is James's design in doing this? Does the "deep" narrative divide neatly into six parts? Three parts? Two parts?
6. Take a look at the electronic version of the text by clicking here. Do a search on the word "beast" to find the contexts for this key symbol.
7. Finally, train yourself to take in enough oxygen during those s-o-o-o long narrator paragraphs (by my estimation some paragraphs number 500 words in length). If you keep at it, you will build up stamina and James's prose will yield its subtle meanings.