Eugene Onegin

"Tomorrow too will be the same."

"All poets, I need hardly mention,
have drawn from the love abundant themes;
I too have gazed in rapt attention
When cherished beings filled my dreams.
My soul preserved their secret features;
The Muse then made them living creatures.
Just so in carefree song I paid
My tribute to the mountain maid,
And sang the Salghir Captives' praises.
And now, my friends, I hear once more
That question you have put before;
'For whom these sighs your lyre raises?
To whom amid the jealous throng
Do you today devote your song?

Whose gaze, evoking inspiration,
Rewards you with soft caress?
Whose form, in pensive adoration,
Do you now clothe in sacred dress?'
Why no one, friends, as God's my witness,
And maddened pangs of love's refrain
Oh, blest is he who joins his pain
To fevered rhyme: for thus he doubles
The sacred ecstasy of art;
Like Petrarch then, he calms the heart,
Subduing passion's host of troubles,
And captures worldly fame to boot!-
But I, in love, was dense and mute.

The Muse appeared as love was ending
And cleared the darkened mind she found.
One, free, I seek again the blending
Of feeling, thought, and magic sound.
I write...and want no more embraces,
My straying pen no longer traces,
Beneath a verse left incomplete ,
The shape of ladies' heads and feet.
Extinguished ashes won't rekindle,
And though I grieve, I weep no more;
And soon, quite soon, the tempest's core
Within my soul will fade and dwindle:
And then I'll write this world a song
That's five and twenty cantons long!"

The personification of the Muse is marvelous here... "The sacred ecstasy of art"- The true worshipers! One is to suffer and strip himself completely- then he is able to truly write.

"And found the source of lyrics fire
Beneath the skies of distant lands,
From Goethe's and from Schiller's hands."

Such creation these masters produce in our minds...

"He sang of love, by love commended,
A simple and affecting tune,
As clear as maiden thoughts, as candid
As Infant slumber, as the moon
In heaven's peaceful desert flying,
That queen of secrets and of sighing.
He sang of parting and of pain,
Of something vague, of mists and rain;
He sang the rose, romantic flower,
And distant lands where once he'd shed
His living tears upon the bed
Of silence at a lonely hour;
He sang life's bloom gone pale and sere-
He'd almost reached his eighteenth year."

Song of humanity, sung by a true poet. He sings it in such a mournful tone... It's marvelous how he defines this vagueness of "mists and rain"- how pain is to be found in such vague things...

"We all take on Napoleon's features,
And millions of our fellow creatures
Are nothing more to us than tools
Since feelings are for freaks and fools."

Reminds me of something Gogol wrote- saying that Napoleon was the anti-Christ... Hilarious.

"Upon her balcony appearing,
She loved to greet Arora's show,
When dancing stars are disappearing
Against the heaven's pallid glow,
When earth's horizon softly blushes,
And wind, the morning's herald, rushes
And slowly day begins its flight.
In winter, when the shade of night
Still longer half the glove encumbers,
And near the misty moon on high
An idle stillness rules the sky,
And late the lazy East still slumbers."

"Long since her keen imagination,
With tenderness and pain imbued,
Had hungered for the fatal food;
Long since her heart's sweet agitation
Had choked her maiden breast too much:
Her soul awaited someone's touch."

You see how delicately he addresses the most sensitive point in a woman's life? How gently he touches it and admires it?

"Tatyana, O my dear Tatyana!
I shed with you sweet tears too late,
Relying on a tyrant's honour,
you're now resigned to him your fate
My dear one, you are doomed to perish;
But first in dazzling hope you nourish
And summon forth a somber bliss,
You learn life's sweetness...feel its kiss,
And drink the droughts of love's temptations,
As phantom daydreams haunt your mind:
On every side you seem to find
Retreats for happy assignations,
While everywhere before your eyes
Your fateful tempter's figure lies."

This if phenomenal. It's immortal.

************
"But whom to love? To trust and treasure?
Who won't betray us in the end?
And who'll be kind enough to measure
Our words and deeds as we intent?
Who won't sow slander all about us?
To whom will all our faults be few?
Who'll never bore us through and through?
You futile, searching phantom-breeder,
Why spend your efforts all in vain,
Just love yourself and ease the pain,
My most esteemed and valued reader!
A worthy object! Nevermind,
A truer love you'll never find!"

This verse I memorized... This is the ultimate question of mankind. Whom to love and whom to trust... Phantom-breeder says SO much in this passage-- it distinguishes the melancholy from the optimists... It is as if Pushkin mocks the melancholy, because that is what they DON'T need- more of themselves...

"Perhaps in thought we reassemble,
Within a dream to which we cling,
Some other and more ancient spring,
That sets the aching heart atremble
With visions of some distant place,
A magic night, the moon's embrace..."

Distant place...distant realm. It is as if we are more alive in our thought...

"He got so lost in his depression,
He just about went mad, I fear,
Or else turned poet, (an obsession that I'd be the first to cheer!)"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I almost cried. How beautiful, and oh so sad. It shows that life moves on, and Fate can be so cruel, so heartless. No matter what it does to the victims, it's still silent and moves on. Love, passion, no matter. All will soon pass, given the right opportunities. She married, he was left alone in his depression for ever.

Most romantic poetry I've ever and will probably read. I really can't image better. Pushkin is the ultimate Poet. He says everything so incredibly delicately and fine... And with such a personality- such humor. Turgenev and Gogol all combined into one...

Also seems like a very good translation:

http://www.stihi.ru/2004/04/16-1484

Father Sergius by Leo Tolstoy

The state of sin isn't noble, it doesn't care whether it would make a good story to do this, it just reduces man to its vilest being. In the book, he didn't sleep with that first woman, when he was young- when it would have changed his life- but slept with a nobody of a girl, all of a sudden, just like that. After all his years, he "fell" for a worthless creature. Doesn't that show that desire is just heartless and cruel, and that lust doesn't care who it is, and whether it is valuable. Sin can't ever be beautiful, because it would settle for anything, no matter what it was.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an extremely important story by Tolstoy, that made me connect to it multiple novels because it is so classic. It describes this incredible vulgarity that destroys the "Good and the Beautiful" in the most grotesque way...

The Gypsies by Alexander Pushkin

"But even amongs you innocents there is no lasting happiness! Inside your worn and tattered tents surge dreams of violence and distress, and as you wander through the steppe catastrophe in hiding waits, dark passions everywhere run deep, there is no refuge from the Fates."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gypsies do not have any morals whatsoever (as he portrays it) they are like wild animals. Not very different from civilization. I guess human nature is the same no matter where, and no matter under what conditions- imprisoned or free. The gypsies make it more apparent. Beautiful poem about a civilized person and a gypsy, and how they react to different things. She thought it was okay to cheat, but he thought it was okay to kill. The old man got mad, so maybe they have limists? Or just different limits. But isn't it all teh same in the end? In both forms of society?

I love how romantic Pushkin is- how he so marvelously portrayed society and an anarchic sort of life- and how each have flaws... They are essentially the same. Society as well as the gypsies are described does not truly have morals either. They basically live the same types of life but in complete different ways- But in the end, they both reach the same conclusion; that morality is based on society and does not exist. Morality is very limited- and stops at duty- not at love, which is endless.

The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky

"Faith does not, in the realist, spring from the miracle but the miracle from faith. If the realist once believes, then he is bound by his very realism to admit the miraculous also. The Apostle Thomas said that he would not believe until he saw, but when he did see he said, 'My Lord and my God!' Was it the miracle that forced him to believe? Most likely not, but he believed solely because he desired to believe and possibly he fully believed in his secret heart even when he said, 'I do not believe till I see."

So what he is saying is that he willed himself to believe and therefore believed- as if it was a mere illusion. So then, miracles do not exist?

"For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism today, the question of the Tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from earth but to set up Heaven on earth."

Marvelous. To completely get rid of the need for God. A sort of utopia on earth- that is why it is atheistic! If one does not need a higher Being, then one focuses on earth and tries to make it a paradise instead of focusing on the afterlife.

"And if you love you are of God."

"By the experience of active love. Strive to love your neighbor actively and indefatigably. In as far as you advance in love you will grow surer of the reality of God and the immorality of the soul. If you attain to perfect self-forgetfulness in the love of your neighbor, then you will believe without doubt, and no doubt could possibly enter your soul. This has been tried. This is certain."

Another breakthrough in spiritual thought, similar to Tolstoy's The Coffeehouse of Surat. As one exercises love, one gets closer to God. Exercising this love within us is what makes us be closer to Him, for it is the only part of Himself in us, for He is love.

"(...) and yet I am incapable of living in the same room with anyone for 2 days together, as I know by experience. As soon as one is near me, his personality disturbs my self-complacency and restricts my freedom. In 24 hours I begin to hate the best of men: one because he's too long over his dinner; another because he has a cold and keeps blowing his nose. I become hostile to people the moment they come close to me. But it has always happened that the more i detest man individually the more ardent one becomes my love for humanity."

For one wants to move from the specific to the general. It is easier to deal with the concept of humanity than having an individual near you. I can relate to this more that I wish. Unfortunately.

"He got up, and throwing up his hands, disclaimed, ' Blessed be the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck- the paps especially."

Haha this exclamation was quite funny when I read it. Such a funny man Dostoevsky is!

"

"That's right, isn't it, Von Sohn? Here's Von Sohn. How are you, Von Sohn?"

"Do you mean me?" muttered Maximov puzzled.

"Of course i mean you," cried Fyodor Pavlovich. "Who else? The Father Superior could not be Von Sohn."

"But I am not Von Sohn either. I am Maximov."

"No, you are Von Sohn..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story shows the most reckless creatures can have honest and compassionate hearts. How once can find himself in something new despite the horrible conditions/situations he is in. Perhaps, those brothers were the most honest and close to God than anyone else. Even if Alyosha was perfect, in their own ways so were the other 2, in their insecure way, just like him. Each one was good in their own way. And yes, Dostoevsky did prove that there's a God, for only God could've regenerated the brothers' hearts like that.- For what within our pathetic selves can regenerate, let alone produce anything good? Situations in life can impel us to do extraordinary things for one another, things one would've never imagined, and would not have done under normal circumstances. That is the power of God, right there.

I love the way Dostoevsky portrays his characters, how pathetic they are- and yet one can feel this immense pity and sympathy coming from him. It's absolutely remarkable. Only he can do such a thing, and maybe Gogol. :)

Devils by Dostoevsky

"
"(...)A leaf is good. Everything is good."

"Everything?"

"Everything. Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy; that's the only reason. That's all! He who knows becomes happy at once, that very moment..."

"But what about a person who's starving to death or who abuses and violates a little girl- is that good?"

"Yes it is. And if someone blows his brains out for that child, that's good, too; and if he doesn't blow his brains out, that's also good. If they knew it was good, it'd be good, but as long as they don't know it's good, it isn't good. That's my entire idea, that whole thing' there isn't anymore!"

...

"They're bad,' he began suddenly,'because they don't know they're good. When they find out, they won't rape little girls. They m,ust find otu taht they are good, and then they'll all become good at once, to the very last one."

...

"I pray to everything. Do you see that spider crawling along the wall? I look at it and feel grateful it's crawling."

"I bet that by the time I come again, you'll even be believing in God."

"Why?"

"If you found out you believed in God, then you'll believe; but since you don't believe in God, you still don't believe." Nikolai V said with a laugh.

"That's not right," Kirolov said, "you've twisted my idea. A worldly witticism."

This was very amusing. What faith in humanity Kirolov must've had! If we are so good, then why is it so hard for us to be so? Why is it easier to be bad?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

S's character was interesting, he seemed to live on the intensity that evil brings and lavish on the corrupted feelings (as in disgrace), for instance him sleeping with women and having no problem admitting it. The ironic thing was, he was viewed as a gentleman, and even was, except that his mindset was of the vilest human...What a contrast! How looks and behaviors can deceive! How a gentleman could have a mind of a psychopath. Extremely interesting.

The character in his pure evil is extremely attractive, since he feels no remorse whatsoever- and that is very rare in a human because he ceases to be a human and turns into a beast. A beast inside a human...

There were a few scenes that were hilarious, which showed the true character of S. For instance, how he took this man by the nose- as if he just snapped and could not control himself. A gentleman's behavior can only last for so long when an animal is raging inside...

The Coffehouse of Surat by Leo Tolstoy

""So on matters of faith," continued the Chinaman, the student of
Confucius, "it is pride that causes error and discord among men. As
with the sun, so it is with God. Each man wants to have a special
God of his own, or at least a special God for his native land. Each
nation wishes to confine in its own temples Him, whom the world
cannot contain.

"Can any temple compare with that which God Himself has built to
unite all men in one faith and one religion?

"All human temples are built on the model of this temple, which is
God's own world. Every temple has its fonts, its vaulted roof, its
lamps, its pictures or sculptures, its inscriptions, its books of
the law, its offerings, its altars and its priests. But in what
temple is there such a font as the ocean; such a vault as that of
the heavens; such lamps as the sun, moon, and stars; or any figures
to be compared with living, loving, mutually-helpful men? Where are
there any records of God's goodness so easy to understand as the
blessings which God has strewn abroad for man's happiness? Where is
there any book of the law so clear to each man as that written in
his heart? What sacrifices equal the self-denials which loving men
and women make for one another? And what altar can be compared with
the heart of a good man, on which God Himself accepts the sacrifice?

"The higher a man's conception of God, the better will he know Him.
And the better he knows God, the nearer will he draw to Him,
imitating His goodness, His mercy, and His love of man.

"Therefore, let him who sees the sun's whole light filling the world,
refrain from blaming or despising the superstitious man, who in his own
idol sees one ray of that same light. Let him not despise even the
unbeliever who is blind and cannot see the sun at all."

So spoke the Chinaman, the student of Confucius; and all who were
present in the coffee-house were silent, and disputed no more as to
whose faith was the best."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tolstoy was acquainted with extremely high spiritual thought- this complex concept is rarely to be seen, especially in the age he lived in. The fact that the closer one is to God, the closer he wants to imitate him is practically foreign even in today's age. What exactly does it mean to be close to God? To enjoy God's presence...which today, especially with the current evangelical movement, is extremely shallow and dejected. To enjoy God can be the hardest and yet the most satisfying thing. And then of course we would want to be like Him, for we find spiritual pleasure in Him.

Also, I love how Tolstoy doesn't discriminate all Christian denominations... how each can have some sort of truth from the "one ray of the same light". No matter what angle one looks at it- if one truly and sincerely believes in God then they cannot but have the truth.

Walk in the Light and 23 Tales by Tolstoy

"I remained alive when I was a man, not by care of myself, but because love was present in a passerby, and because he and his wife pitied and loved me. The orphans remained alive, not because of their mother's care, but because there was love in the heart of a woman, a stronger to them, who pitied and loved them. And all men live not by the thought they spend on their welfare, but because love exists in man.
I understood that God does not wish men to live apart, and therefore he does not reveal to them what each one needs for himself, but he wishes them to live united, and therefore reveals to each of them what is necessary for all."

So we really do need each other!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In man dwells love
2. It is not given to man to know his own needs
3. All men live not by care for themselves, but by love

Can love be completely extinguished in a person?

--

Also on a side note- whenever I refer to this book I really mean Father Sergius by Tolstoy--!

The Death of Ivan Ilych by Tolstoy

Family Happiness

"When we talked our voices resounded and seemed to hang in the still air over us, as though we were the only creatures in the midst of the whole world, and were alone together under that blue dome, in which the mild sunshine played flashing and quivering."

"And he would acknowledge himself, later, that everything in the world in which I had no share seemed to him so absurd that he could not understand how one could be interested in it. It was just the same with me. I used to read, and to interest myself with music, with his mother, and with the village school: but it was all simply because each of these pursuits was associated with him and won his approbation. But as soon as there was no idea of him associated with my pursuit, my hands dropped at my side, and it seemed to me quite amusing to thing there was anything in the world beside him."

I like how the entire world apart from them is so ridiculous and absurd...as if they had another world to themselves and are watching the people going about their day- leading their meaningless lives while they- they are living.

"Each stage has its love...and still I love you, but with a different love."

The different stages of love is the main point of this story- that love changes and is constantly reshaped throughout our lives.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A young lady and an old man are married, experiencing passionate love,and in the end that love faded, but remained a different- more mature kind of love.

Resurrection by Tolstoy

"'Disgusting is the animality of the beast in men,' he though, 'but when that beast in man is in its pure form, you survey it from the height of your spiritual life and despise it; whether you have fallen or not, you remain what you have been, but when this animal is concealed beneath a pseudo-aesthetic, poetical film and demands worship, then you become all rapt in it, and, worshiping the animal, no longer distinguish right from wrong. Then it is terrible."

How interesting! "this animal is concealed beneath a pseudo-aesthetic, poetical film and demands worship"! Is it really the animal, the beast within us behind the poetry and romanticism? Is it the I? I haven't come across such a thing before...does the romantic in us destroy in the end?

"He loved her not for his own sake, but hers and God's."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mainly about this man who seduced this girl, while young- they were both in love at the time, and left her with 100 roubles. From then on she became a prostitute, and her life got worse from that point. She was accused of poisoning someone and the man was on the jury, even though she still was condemned. He spent the whole time devoting his time to her and the case. She ended up by marrying someone else. He ended up becoming a Christian. So his new Christian life began...

Amazing book. Too bad they didn't marry. It shows the sick perversion of man in power, compared to the ones how aren't but are still ad. People in power corrupt themselves and at the same time corrupt the criminals. If everyone should live by God's commandments (as suggested in the book) there would be a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. ---

"'Just so we act,' thought Wekhlyu'dov,'living in the insipid conviction conviction that we are ourselves the masters of our life, and that it was given to us for our enjoyment. This is obviously foolish. If we have been sent here, this was doesn't by somebody's will and for a certain purpose. We, however, have decided that we are living for our own joy, and apparently we are suffering from it, as will the husbandman who is not doing the will of his master. But the master's will is expressed in injunctions (commandments. Let the people execute these injunctions, and there will be on earth the Kingdom of God, and people will attain the highest good, which is within their reach."

If only man would obey God. We suffer because we do not, we are made, programmed to obey, But yet we refuse to do so. That's been humanities biggest problem, and what a problem!

===also funny passage with the Catholic mass and how they did everything Christ told them not to do--- I love Tolstoy's satire!

The Idiot by Dostoevsky *

"The picture depicted Christ, who has just been taken from the cross. I believe that the painters are usually in the habit of depicting Christ, whether on the cross or taken from the cross, as still retaining a shade of extraordinary beauty on his face: that beauty they strive to preserve even in his moments of greatest agony. In Rogoshin's picture there was no trace of beauty. It was a faithful representation of the dead body of a man who has undergone unbearable torments before the crusifixion, been wounded, tortured, beaten by the guards, bean by the people, when he carried the cross and fell under its weight, and, at last, has only just been taken from the cross- that is, still retaining a great deal of warmth and life; rigor mortis has not yet set in, so that there is still a look of suffering on the face of the dead man, as though he were still feeling it (that has been well caught by the artist); on the other hand, the face has not been spared in the least; it is nature itself, and, indeed, any many's corpse could look like that after such suffering. I know that the Christian Church laid it down in the first few centuries of its existence that Christ really did suffer and that the Passion was not symbolical. His body was therefore fully and entirely subject to the laws of nature. In the picture the face is terribly smashed with blows, swollen, covered with terrible, swollen, and blood-stained bruises bruises, the eyes open and squinting; the large, open whites of the eyes have a sort of dead and glassy glint. But, strange to say, as one looks at the dead and glassy glint. But, strange to say, as one looks at the dead body of this tortured man, one cannot help asking oneself the peculiar and interesting question: if such a corpse (and it must have been just like that) was seen by all His disciples, by His future chief apostles, by the women that followed Him and stood by the cross, by all who believed in Him and worshiped Him, then how could they possibly have believed, as they looked at the corpse, that that martyr would rise again? Here one cannot help being struck by the idea that if death is so horrible and if the laws of nature are so powerful, then how can they be overcome? How can they be overcome when even He did not conquer them. He who overcame nature during His lifetime and whom nature obey, who said Talitha cumi! and the damsel arose, who cried Lazarus come forth! and the dead man came forth? Looking at that picture, you get the impression of nature as some enormous, implacable, and dumb beast, or, to put it more correctly, much more correctly, though it may seem strange, as some huge engine of the latest design, which has senselessly seized, cut to pieces, and swallowed up- impassively and unfeelingly- a great and priceless Being, a Being worth the whole of nature and all its laws, worth the entire earth, (which was perhaps created solely for the coming of that Being! The picture seems to give expression to the idea of a dark, insolent, and senselessly eternal power, to which everything is subordinated, and this idea is suggested to you unconsciously. The people surrounded the dead man, none of whom is shown in the picture, must have been overwhelmed by a feeling of terrible anguish and dismay on that evening which had shattered all their hopes and almost all their beliefs at one fell blow. They must have parted in a state of most dreadful terror, though each of them carried away within him a mighty thought which could be never wrested from him. And if , on the eve, of the crusifixion, the Master could have seen what He would loo, like when taken from the cross, would He have mounted the cross and died as He did? This question took, you can't help asking yourself as you look at the picture."

I have never given this any thought, always considering the paintings of Jesus Christ as a guess of what He might have looked like. but in all I've seen, It's true they are not portraying the truth. Basically denying most of His humanity. very interesting. He would've been battered! Anyway, He didn't "overcome" the laws of nature because He didn't want to. It was his choice.
But also, that's interesting to think that nature (and I'm thinking of Nature as a creature) was created of the sole purpose of killing Jesus Christ. To show humanity who Christ is. At first I thought of this as, a fraud. Honestly. But further thinking led me to actually believe differently. Nature was created to show humanity, for us to understand, how much Christ loved us. And as Dostoevsky mentions, if He would've seen Himself on the cross...of course He did! He already knew, He is God Himself- He knew foresaw everything- and yet He still did it. Seeing the future only added to the misery.
Also, Jesus' worshipers at the time- Imagine how they would've felt! What loss and disappointment. Even the disciples were slow to believe. Very, very interesting.

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

"This new feeling hasn't changed me, hasn't made me happy or suddenly enlightened, as I dreamed- just like the feeling for my son. Nor was there any surprise. And faith or no faith- I don't know what it is- but this feeling has entered into me just as imperceptibly through suffering and has firmly lodged itself in my soul.
I'll get angry in the same way with the coachman Ivan, argue in the same way, speak my mind inappropriately. There will be some wall between my soul's holy of hollies and other people, even my wife, I'' accuse her the same way of my own fear and then regret it, I'll fail in the same way to understand with my reason why I pray, and yet I will pray- but my life now, my whole life, regardless of all that may happen to me, every minute of it, is not only not meaningless, as it was before, but has the unquestionable meaning of the good which is in my power to put into it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tolstoy compared to Turgenev, Pushkin, Gogol and Dostoevsky is somewhat of a moralist, hoping for the good in humanity, the hope of redemption such as the character in Anna Karenina. I mean, all the others focus on the weakness of humanity, the oddities, the dreams- while Tolstoy emphasizes the sin, how it can eat at you, while redemption is always there. I prefer the others to Tolstoy- too optimistic for my taste- even though of course, he is right- it is better to have hope. For where would we be without it?

And goodness, out of the thousand and something pages- one quote!

The Adolescent by Dostoevsky

"Silence is always beautiful, and a silent person is always more beautiful than the one who talks."

The magic of contrast!

"In my opinion, man is created with a physical inability to love his neighbor. There's some mistake in words here, from the very beginning, and 'love for mankind' should be understood as just for mankind which you yourself have created in your soul (in other words, you've created your own self and the love for yourself) and which therefore will never exist in reality."

Haha! So there is no hope for mankind! If love cannot safe us, what can? Our love for yourselves and others is a mere illusion and it doesn't exist- it is more of a concept that something that could be practiced. Interesting thought.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This book was my first Russian classic! And what an introduction into the field! It changed my life, and my view on literature in general. It revealed to me that stories have so many layers that are unseen by us...but work out together in the end to produce a marvelous effect. Just like this novel. This one is not his best book, but glad I picked it up one day in the library, not knowing that I would be blown away- and not be the same ever again.