Sunday Morning! The Death of Ivan Ilyich by Leo Tolstoy
When he was at the halfway point of his life, Leo Tolstoy became deeply concerned about its endpoint. It was somewhat reasonable, albeit morbid, because at forty-one, he had already reached the normal life expectancy for a Russian male. It was a bit unexpected that he would go on to live another forty-one years. But, Tolstoy was a robust man, large and full of life. He had just completed War and Peace, one of the enduring masterpieces of world literature and was generally happy with things; it was a perfect time to start thinking about the possibility it would all be taken away. And he was reading Schopenhauer, which could do it to anybody! At last , the crisis came to a head one night as he lay awake; it seemed as if the room went black, and Tolstoy felt he heard the voice of death saying “I am here.”
His writing was never quite the same. But Tolstoy’s writing is frequently concerned with death. To some extent, nearly all fiction is concerned with death, because it’s always concerned with time. But, Tolstoy was a particularly intense man, driven to live a good life and live it up to the hilt. He was interested in all aspects of existence. Yet, he was accutely aware that many of us would prefer to avoid the matter altogether.
His classic short story The Death of Ivan Ilyich is about avoiding both life and death until the last moments. The actual death of Ivan, a typical official of the Court of Justice, actually comes before the start of the story; right in the first paragraphs, his colleagues read that he has died in the paper and are not particularly devastated by it. Ivan had been sick for some time, so everyone knew this was coming. They will have to select his replacement- something that has been already decided- and attend his funeral; but they would really prefer to be playing whist. And at the funeral, his wife is most concerned with pulling one of the colleagues aside and finding if he can help her increase the amount of money she will be recieving from the state after her husband’s death. When it seems he cannot, she loses interest in him as well. These aren’t exactly malicious people, but they’re not particularly pleasant. We don’t get the sense they will be grappling with Ivan Ilyich’s death after the story has ended.
But, then, most of us are a little… so-so. Ivan Ilyich’s life, Tolstoy tells us, “had been straightforward, ordinary, and dreadful in the extreme.” The son of a minor official who became a minor official himself, he was the lukewarm bowl of porridge in the middle, neither as uptight as his older brother, nor as profligate as his younger. With the 1864 judicial reforms of Alexander II, new opportunities had opened up for the “new man,” a type that Ivan fits perfectly, and he found his bureau; he is sober-minded, atuned to a pleasant bourgois life, enjoys steady work, and the sense of power he has over the poor clients he deals with, given to no particular passions or ambition, and overall a totally mediocre individual; perfect for a sinecure.
Next, he needs a wife. He meets Praskovya, the loveliest girl in his social circle, who “comes with a little money,” and is overall a “decent catch.” Even here, he seems to be selecting furnishings for his home. They have two children, and she soon comes to detest him, for reasons he can’t understand, but we take it she’s a bit self-absorbed. As a result, however, Ivan has more incentive to work late and play whist with his colleagues. Overall, his preconditioned life proceeds pleasantly and steadily:
This was how things went, nothing changed and everything was fine.
Until everything falls apart. One day, Ivan falls while hanging curtains and hurts his side. For reasons we never quite understand- there’s no sufficient medical explanation- he starts to get worse and worse. The pain increases until he can no longer work, he often a terrible taste in his mouth, is irritable and incapacitated, and the doctors, who are as officious and mediocre as himself, only pretend to know what is killing him. Indeed, everyone around him would rather pretend that he is not ill and will soon recover. The peasant who attends to him becomes the only man Ivan respects because he is the only one who does not insist on living out a lie. And, Tolstoy tells us,
It was this living a lie, all around him and within him, that did the most to poison the last days in the life of Ivan Ilyich.
Ivan has never considered death, but now he is dying. His family refuses to admit it and isolate themselves from him, but he gradually comes to terms with the horrible and inevitable truth: if Caesar is a man and all men are mortal, they he is mortal too. But he still fights off the thoughts.
Yes, Caesar is mortal and it’s alright for him to die, but not me, Vanya, Ivan Ilyich, with all my feelings and thoughts- it’s different for me. It can’t be me having to die. That would be too horrible.
In order to escape these thoughts, he looks back over the pleasant moments in his life and realizes that the only time he was truly happy was childhood, or at least he thinks so. What has happened since? Where did he go wrong? Yes, Ivan cherished the power and authority of his position, but he never abused them. Yes, he married badly, but so do many people. Overall, he steered a middle course, neither terrible nor wonderful; and so, he squandered his life.
As death approaches, the prose becomes shorter and more compact. The numbered sections smaller. The sentences tigther. Ivan’s dread turns to panic and he finally accepts his fate. But why is there all this pain? What does it all mean? Why does he have to go through all this? Why do we all? The story was written soon after Tolstoy’s famed religious conversion, but there are no choirs of heavenly angels here. There is only a brief moment before dying in which Ivan is at peace. And then it’s over.
Instead of death there was light.
It is perfectly understated. As with most of Tolstoy’s later stories, we feel there is a moral lesson here, but he isn’t didactic about it. Any relief we might feel only comes after an accute and harrowing psychological portrait of the death bed. It is hard-earned, in other words. To an extent, the structure mirrors another of Tolstoy’s classic short stories, Master and Man, also about two long and drawn-out deaths. But that ends with an imperious authority figure finding last-minute salvation through an act of self-sacrifice. Here, Ivan remains typical and he dies an ordinary death, and he is saved anyway. If philosophy is the art of dying, as Socrates put it, then Tolstoy seems to say: Give your life some thought before it reaches its endpoint. The bourgeois life is such a wretched lie because it avoids all the facts of life and death, and the two are inseparable.
Death comes anyway. The tragedy of Ivan Ilyich is his life never came. He is not a wretched sinner, nor a good and pious man. Instead, he is us; he is average, and that’s all the more terrible.
So, on that morbid note, what are YOU watching, pondering, playing, reading, creating, or otherwise using to avoid thoughts of your morality this weekend?
Great summation:
“Death comes anyway. The tragedy of Ivan Ilyich is his life never came. He is not a wretched sinner, nor a good and pious man. Instead, he is us; he is average, and that’s all the more terrible.”
Question, is it that he’s *average* or something else? I feel like average is a derivative term for something else? Accurate but not quite the point… oblivious? (too strong) what’s softer than oblivious?
Somehow, life just sort of eluded him.Report
Thank you! I consider that high praise.
I think Tolstoy does consider him the average man, but tragically so. He’s comfortable and disengaged. A bit deluded. Maybe living the unconsidered life. We all probaly do live by our lies, to some extent. Tolstoy insists that we not.
He probably would find a better word for it, or something more piquant anyway. Maybe a modern euphymism would be to say that Ilyich is in his “safe space.”Report
There’s a Russian word “poshlost”. I won’t try to define it, but it’s the word you’re looking for.Report
Thank you very much. Russian is one of those languages I hope to study one day, assuming I can retire early with a winning lottery ticket.Report
I read the Death of Ivan Ilyich at the end of a Tolstoy binge I put myself through several years ago. I have no problem admitting I did this in part out of a deep sense of shame of not grappling enough with hard literature.
Anyway I find it to be hands down one of the more disturbing reads I’ve done due to just how realistic it is. You can end up with a sort of bastardized reading where the message is ‘carpe diem’ but I think that’s wrong. I take it more as find a way to love something, or expose yourself to some type of vulnerability, but without any kind of idealizing of what that entails. Anyone who reads it is haunted by the possibility they might die that way, but Tolstoy really doesn’t give a prescription on how to avoid it. We never know if we’re doing it right and that’s the most terrifying thing of all.Report
“Anyone who reads it is haunted by the possibility they might die that way, but Tolstoy really doesn’t give a prescription on how to avoid it. We never know if we’re doing it right and that’s the most terrifying thing of all.”
Oh yeah, that’s it exactly! The comparison that came to mind when I read it was Ingmar Bergman’s film Cries & Whispers, where it’s just an unvarnished depiction of a lingering death. I really appreciated too that the actual moment of death was so understated- we never know if there really was light instead of death, or if his brain was just blinking out.Report
I haven’t read it, but if they make it into a movie with Jason Isaacs and Steve Buscemi, I’ll pay money for it.Report
Starring Steve Buscemi as Ivan Ilyich, but Jason Isaacs as the peasant steals the film.Report
I’m having the weird deja vu of reading a story and knowing exactly what’s going to happen (I’m 99% sure), because I must have read it before, decades ago.
Details: the story is called Occam’s Scalpel, I am reading it in a volume of Theodore Sturgeon’s collected works that I got from the library because I wanted to reread The [Widget], the [Wadget], and Boff, and I suspect I originally read it in a Best of the Year anthology.Report
I’ve had worse than that happen. A few years ago I thought I should read Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt because I’ve had it on my shelf for so long and always intended to read it. I was over a hundred pages in before I got to a memorable passage and realized I absolutely had read it before.Report
This is particularly easy to do with SF, because things get repackaged and retitled so much.Report