Resurrection

by Leo Tolstoy, Louise Maude (Translator), Richard F. Gustafson

Resurrection (1899) is the last of Tolstoy's major novels. It tells the story of a nobleman's attempt to redeem the suffering his youthful philandering inflicted on a peasant girl who ends up a prisoner in Siberia.

Tolstoy's vision of redemption achieved through loving forgiveness, and his condemnation of violence, dominate the novel. An intimate, psychological tale of guilt, anger, and forgiveness, Resurrection is at the same time a panoramic description of social life in Russia at the end of the nineteenth century, reflecting its author's outrage at the social injustices of the world in which he lived.

This edition, which updates a classic translation, has explanatory notes and a substantial introduction based on the most recent scholarship in the field.

Genres: Classics, Fiction, Russian Literature, Russia, Literature, Novels, 19th Century

578 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1899

About the author

Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: Лев Николаевич Толстой; most appropriately used Liev Tolstoy; commonly Leo Tolstoy in Anglophone countries) was a Russian writer who primarily wrote novels and short stories. Later in life, he also wrote plays and essays. His two most famous works, the novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, are acknowledged as two of the greatest novels of all time and a pinnacle of realist fiction. Many consider Tolstoy to have been one of the world's greatest novelists. Tolstoy is equally known for his complicated and paradoxical persona and for his extreme moralistic and ascetic views, which he adopted after a moral crisis and spiritual awakening in the 1870s, after which he also became noted as a moral thinker and social reformer.

His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

See also:
French → Léon Tolstoï
Spanish → León Tolstói

Reviews

[Steven Godin · Rating 5 out of 5]

At half the size of 'War and Peace' and two thirds the length of 'Anna Karenina' Tolstoy's Resurrection is every bit as epic, and probably his most controversial novel that appears to have strong political and religious implications as the backbone to the story, and what a story. A later Novel for Tolstoy written in 1899 under the leadership of Tsar Nicholas II and an empire repressing political opposition in the centre and on the far left. Starting out as a courtroom drama we soon get drawn into a hugely deep and moving narrative of an unjust system of criminal law, poverty and wealth at each end of the spectrum and one man's personally crusade of redemption for a life lived where he uses his high position in society to take advantage of others.

That man is Prince Dmitri Nekhlyudov who after being called for jury duty discovers to his horror one of three persons on trial is Katyusha, a beautiful young lady who he once seduced and then cruelly abandoned during his time in the armed services. He learns of her plight working in a brothel where she may or may not have been set up to poison a client to steal money, so Nekhlyudov is sent back into the past to realise that he really did love her and soon wants to know as much as possible about the case to try and get her acquitted as he is burdened with guilt for what she had become. Convinced she is innocent of her crime he goes about in any way possible to try and save her as it's harsh labour in Siberia the likely outcome if charged, even willing to give up his life of luxury to be by Katyusha's side regardless of any outcome and to take her hand in marriage, for which she refuses. Nekhlyudov uses his prestige as a well thought of man to try and shake up the foundations of scathing injustice, corruption and hypocrisy at the top level of society. The psychological portrait of Dmitri is quite outstanding as we see him change from an empty, comfortable individual to a man of steely resolute and emotion. The squalid conditions and other prisoners stories he hears while visiting Katyusha awaiting her fate are just not fair in his eyes and starts to help others as well. As for Katyusha she is difficult to read, she doesn't really care for her own injustices anymore and tends to use Nekhlyudov for the benefit of other inmates, spending time locked up has clearly effected her mind and the Prince see's a completely changed person from the one that he once knew. Using a vast array of deeply drawn characters we get a panoramic view of Russian life, from pheasants, convicts and aristocrats, to wealthy politicians, prison guards and lawyers both defending and prosecuting.

Tolstoy is such a great storyteller, mixing gritty realism with compassionate kindhearted warmth. Two things that make Resurrection an almost perfect novel is his gift at Characterization and also fluid writing, as this makes it really hard to find a suitable place to stop reading. It doesn't have the pace of an intense thriller but is in no way a slow-burner either, it's just about spot on, and the novel as a whole is no doubt a Russian masterpiece. Also have to give penguin classics a lot of credit as this version is impeccable, with a great introduction, bonus material and a wonderful translation by Anthony Briggs who has worked on other Russian classics.

[MJ Nicholls · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ignore the cynics. Tolstoy's novel is a moralistic tale, yes, but the finest you are ever going to read. Life-changing.

[Henry Avila · Rating 4 out of 5]

What starts off as a seduction by a Russian nobleman of a orphan peasant girl , in the late 19th century during the Czarist era , will as pages turn and the flow of life advances into the unknown future , consequences follow, bad or good you the reader must decide. Prince Dmitri Nekhlyudov, from Moscow, heir to vast estates is visiting two aunts of his Maria and Sophia, who worship him, in their home in the countryside, they are large landowners too. Just nineteen, Dimitri is a student at the university, which he does more carousing than studying, constantly pestering his widowed mother, Princess Elena for more money. Katerina ( Katusha) Maslova , very pretty , a few years younger than the Prince has no family except an aunt, Matrona, that isn't involved with her, Katerina's mother , a promiscuous woman gave birth to many children without the benefit of a marriage license. And presided over those so carelessly... letting them go into the earth gladly, truth be told she forgot to feed the babies. Katerina had good fortune though, her mother's sister, that same relative, mentioned before, felt sorry for the child, didn't help, she was so adorable and somehow survived . When the two old, lonely ladies the owners of the property fell in love with the baby, they first saw, brought her into their house and raised Katerina. As both a servant and daughter, hence the Prince smitten by the girl , wants her (as he feels, he has every right to Katerina), at first she resists but after another visit succumbs. The cycle begins again an illegitimate son born and dies, and Katerina forced out. Men always chase the beautiful woman and she loses servant jobs, the ladies of the house quite insist . In the end the only option, becoming a prostitute, but miracles occur, while Maslova is on trial for a crime she didn't commit the surprised Prince is a member of the jury. Thus they meet again, ten years later, Dimitri feels remorseful, he will try to help the woman, she doesn't recognize him at first. Guilt consumes him, he is responsible for the girl's situation, her descent to the bottom, the depravity, coarseness, both smoking, and drinking, just imagine , the ultimate degradation still, and the very scandalous behavior as he continues...
living in a not respectable residence obviously too all ...
and she an innocent woman until he spoiled her...
The ruin of Katerina's whole life, all falls on his lap. Dimitri has to make amends, nothing else will relief his ceaseless pain. Even going to Siberia... to aid and try to alleviate the inhuman conditions of the suffering prisoners and particularly Katerina, the woman be loves, he says. Nevertheless the convicts die and die...
His family , start to think this strange behavior may be a sign of a mental breakdown, he is even trying to give the peasants his land in a convoluted way. Tolstoy, more interested in his philosophy (Georgism, from American writer Henry George) than deep characterization, in this novel , pontificates his belief that everyone is equal, the lowest to the highest. Criminals should be forgiven no matter what they did...Not a popular notion today. This novel because of its risque material, sold more books in his lifetime than his two great classics, War and Peace and Anna Karenina...that has changed ...

[Valeriu Gherghel · Rating 3.5 out of 5]

Despre ce este vorba în acest roman? De ce a fost afurisit Tolstoi? Romanul poate fi rezumat în cîteva cuvinte (reproduc un pasaj din cartea lui Viktor Șklovski despre Tolstoi): „Învierea trebuia să fie o operă riguros logică și care să tragă concluzii la fiecare episod dat. Un om a comis o crimă, a sedus o fată și nu s-a căsătorit cu ea. Fata era prima femeie pe care o cunoscuse. Femeia a decăzut, dar omul s-a căit în mod conștient, a găsit religia adevărată, și-a reconsiderat viața și a înviat. Iată un subiect stabilit din punct de vedere logic".

Tocmai aspectul său prea apăsat demonstrativ, prea logic, prea tezist, îl face greu de urmărit astăzi. Tolstoi nu-l lasă pe cititor să decidă singur, îi restrînge libertatea. Vrea să tragă, el, toate concluziile. Dar viața e rareori logică, după cum știe și a verificat oricine. Povestea de iubire (dintre Katiușa și prințul Nehliudov) e mai puternică decît demonstrația moralistului. Talentul și puterea de observație ale lui Tolstoi încalcă logica și anulează puterea argumentelor. În loc să fie o condamnare definitivă a plăcerii erotice (a „desfriului", ca să folosesc chiar termenul lui Tolstoi), romanul devine, în mod subtil, fără vrerea autorului, un elogiu al iubirii și al vieții de nezăgăzuit. Erosul se înscrie în jocul inocent al naturii, care nu ține seama nici de voința întunecată a oamenilor, nici de exigențele lor și nici de morala lor, mai mult sau mai puțin rigoristă.

Asadar, Lev Nicolaevici Tolstoi și-a gîndit romanul, în primul rînd, ca pe un denunț necruțător al plăcerii erotice. Iubirea, sub toate formele ei, e un lucru nelegiuit și murdar. E ciudat că Sinodul rus nu a ținut seama, cînd l-a excomunicat pe Tolstoi, de aceasta intenție explicită a autorului.

Dar romanul nu a plăcut nici cercurilor puritane. Chiar quackerii din America și-au exprimat nemulțumirea. Tolstoi a răspuns criticilor printr-o scrisoare din care citez:

„Am scris această carte urînd din adîncul inimii desfrîul și unul din scopurile sale principale a fost de a exprima acest lucru. Dacă nu am reușit s-o fac, îmi pare foarte rău și mă recunosc vinovat".

Eșecul lui Tolstoi este, mai curînd, eșecul moralistului și nu al scriitorului. Ca discurs despre nocivitatea iubirii, romanul lui Tolstoi nu convinge. Tocmai morala e partea lui cea mai slabă. Ca discurs despre inocența iubirii și despre generozitate, romanul rămîne semnificativ (deși nu este o capodoperă).

Răspunsul la întrebarea prin care am început se află întreg în aceste considerații ale lui Tolstoi (este replica lui la hotărîrea ineptă a Sinodului): „Am început prin a iubi credința ortodoxă mai mult decît liniștea mea proprie. Apoi am iubit creștinismul mai mult decît Biserica, acum iubesc adevărul mai mult decît orice pe lume. Și pînă astăzi pentru mine adevărul coincide cu creștinismul așa cum îl înțeleg eu”.

***

În data de 22 februarie 1901, Sinodul Bisericii pravoslavnice a întregii Rusii îl excomunica solemn pe Lev Nikolaevici Tolstoi. Admiratorii marelui prozator aveau de ce să fie uimiţi. Pretextul acestei excomunicări l-a constituit publicarea, în anul 1899, a unui roman masiv, intitulat Învierea. Putem pune această drastică sentinţă pe seama obtuzităţii clerului dintotdeauna. O putem pune şi pe seama unei lecturi superficiale a romanului. Dar nu e numai atît. Cînd Biserica rusă l-a excomunicat pe Lev Nicolaevici, ea a vrut să ofere o pildă de cum trebuie judecat cel ce voieşte să judece de unul singur. Excomunicarea înseamnă un singur lucru: e interzis să gîndeşti în afara Bisericii.

E foarte posibil ca nici unul dintre membrii Sinodului să nu fi citit cartea. Mai ales că, în 1899, cenzura a scos un fragment masiv din roman. Lipsesc două capitole din partea întîi (cam zece pagini). Naratorul descrie o slujbă în biserica unei închisori și face unele comentarii îndrăznețe. Opiniile pot fi privite ca o sfidare dogmatică. Iisus Christos a interzis oamenilor să se numească pe sine învăţători. I-a oprit să se roage în văzul celorlalţi (precum fariseii în mijlocul drumului). A condamnat formalismul şi simularea. A prohibit luxul preoților, podoabele, suficiența clerului. A interzis judecata aproapelui (numai cine crede a fi fără de păcat să ridice piatra…). Nici una dintre aceste prescripţii nu se mai respectă.

Scandalos i se pare lui Tolstoi însă luarea lor în deşert în chipul cel mai vădit. Citez:

„Nici unuia dintre cei de faţă nu-i trecuse prin minte că acel Iisus, al cărui nume îl pomenise preotul de atîtea ori cu glas şuierător, proslăvindu-l prin tot felul de cuvinte ciudate, era împotriva a tot ceea ce se petrecea aici: interzisese nu numai această vorbărie fără rost şj vrăjitoria pîngăritoare pe care o făceau preoţii - învăţători cu vinul şi cu pîinea, dar în chipul cel mai hotărît nu îngăduia oamenilor să numească învăţători pe alţi semeni de-ai lor; îi oprise să se roage în biserici, poruncind să se roage fiecare în singurătate; interzisese înseşi bisericile, spunînd că el a venit să le dărîme, şi că trebuie să te închini nu în biserică, ci întru spirit şi adevăr; şi, mai ales, oprise nu numai judecarea oamenilor şi întemniţarea lor în închisori, chinuirea, înjosirea şi canonirea lor, aşa cum se făcea aici, dar şi orice silnicie asupra lor... Nici unul dintre cei de faţă nu-şi dăduse seama că tot ceea ce se petrecea aici era cea mai mare pîngărire şi batjocorire a lui Christos însuşi, în numele căruia se făceau toate acestea. Nimănui nu-i dăduse prin gînd că acea cruce aurită, cu medalioane smălţuite la capete, cu care ieşise preotul şi pe care o dădea tuturor s-o sărute, nu era altceva decît simbolul uneltei de tortură pe care pătimise Iisus, tocmai pentru că interzisese ceea ce se făcea acum aici în numele lui... Preotul săvîrşea slujba cu conştiinţa împăcată, pentru că, din copilărie încă, i se insuflase convingerea că aceasta este singura credinţă adevărată, împărtăşită de toţi sfinţii din timpurile vechi, iar acum de conducătorii clerului şi ai statului. El credea nu în schimbarea pîinii în trup, nici în folosul sufletesc al atîtor cuvinte, nici că a mîncat într-adevar o fârîmă din trupul lui Dumnezeu - în acestea era cu neputinţa sâ creadă - dar credea că trebuie să crezi în acestea”.

Să reţinem, prin urmare: preotul din romanul lui Tolstoi crede că trebuie să creadă în credinţa cutare. Da fapt, aceasta dorinţă aprinsă de a crede că trebuie să crezi într-o credinţă anume (sau în alta) e tocmai una din formele necredinţei. Această multiplicare excesivă a verbului „a crede”, această complicare reflexivă a lui (preotul crede în orice, numai în Iisus Christos, nu), atestă absenţa adevăratei credinţe, golirea ei de un conţinut real.

Pentru a fi denunţat această iluzie, Lev Nikolaevici Tolstoi a fost expulzat din Biserica pravoslavnică. La moartea lui, petrecută în dimineaţa zilei de 7 noiembrie 1910, Tolstoi nu a fost asistat de un preot. La mormîntul lui de la Iasnaia Poliana, nu s-a ţinut nici o slujbă, n-a vorbit nimeni. A început să ningă. Mulțimea a îngenuncheat în zăpadă și a continuat să se roage cu voce tare. Atîta tot...

[Taufiq Yves · Rating 5 out of 5]

If War and Peace is Tolstoy’s signature masterpiece, then Resurrection is the 1 that really sums up his philosophy and beliefs. When I was younger, I thought finishing a Tolstoy novel was impossible - those books are massive! But 1 after another, I couldn’t stop reading his work. His writing is so powerful and moving that every time I finish 1, I end up thinking about it for weeks, or maybe months.

This novel isn’t that long. It follows the journey of a nobleman, Dmitri Nekhlyudov, as he tries to atone for his past, and through his story, Tolstoy explores his views on life, class, religion, and morality. Nekhlyudov is the main character, and Maslova is the secondary thread - like a cello and violin playing together, their emotional journeys unfold in harmony: shame, guilt, redemption, compassion, release, and spiritual awakening.

Tolstoy uses Nekhlyudov to ask some tough questions: Why does evil persist in society? Why can’t we get rid of it? Why do people hurt each other? How do we stop this cycle? These questions don’t come out of nowhere - they arise naturally as the story progresses.

Nekhlyudov feels compelled to help Maslova. First, because he wronged her in the past and her downfall is partly his fault. Second, because helping her makes him feel good. it’s a kind of selfish, hypocritical redemption. But as he gets more involved - helping her appeal her case, dealing with bureaucrats, meeting all kinds of people in prison, and helping other innocent folks - his inner conflict deepens. He starts seeing the suffering of people outside his privileged bubble and realizes how empty and corrupt his own life has become. The people around him are fake, their words hollow, their love transactional. That’s when his spiritual side wakes up, and the animalistic part of him starts to fade. He begins a new phase of soul-searching.

This time, though, it’s not just a fleeting moment of guilt. it’s a real transformation, thanks to his contact with the lower classes. And that’s all because of Maslova. She doesn’t ask him to save her; instead, she asks him to help her fellow inmates. As Nekhlyudov works to help these strangers, he starts to see how unfair society really is. He wonders: Why do some people get to judge and punish others? Why are those in power so lacking in compassion? Why do they blur the lines between right and wrong?

Reading his questions made me think deeply too. There are just so many issues. At the end of the day, why are people so pitiful? Why do we hurt each other? Honestly, if I keep going down this rabbit hole, I’ll never stop - so I’ll leave it there.

Nekhlyudov’s journey shifts from self-pity to genuine empathy. He reflects on the sins and emptiness of his social class and takes action - like giving land back to the peasants, hoping to improve their lives. Whether or not the peasants understood or appreciated it doesn’t matter to me. The act itself is powerful. Action means change, and even failed attempts are better than empty talk.

1 of the most important ideas he brings up is the value of labor. The nobility doesn’t work, and that leads to hypocrisy, vanity, indulgence, and boredom. They rely on violence to maintain the status quo and keep their parasitic lifestyle going. So they use religion, law, exile - whatever it takes - to get rid of “troublemakers.” Most people who get arrested, judged, exiled, or executed aren’t truly guilty - they just threaten the interests of the ruling class. Cut off from society and unable to work, they spiral downward. Even innocent people become corrupted, and that corruption spreads. Honestly, you could say that most evil comes from not working. You see similar ideas in Romain Rolland’s Mother and Son and Goncharov’s Oblomov. Another example: Britain used to exile prisoners to Australia. It was harsher than the death penalty, but once there, some prisoners found purpose through labor and even became landowners or influential figures. Environment really shapes people.

Tolstoy criticizes the aristocracy, but he doesn’t blindly praise the masses or revolution either. He points out the flaws in revolutions and shows that not all revolutionaries are noble - some are opportunists or power-hungry. He also critiques the Orthodox Church, calling it a tool of oppression, even “anti-Christ.” He argues that blind faith is worse than someone who believes in nothing but themselves. What he advocates is personal transformation. self-purification - and changing society through education and nonviolence. He doesn’t offer concrete solutions, but he’s not alone. Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance is a real-world example. Not perfect, but it shows that change is possible if people have strength and hope.

When it comes to faith, Tolstoy leans toward Protestantism - he believes people should be free to read and interpret the Bible themselves, not rely on church authority. He wants people to strip away all the fake rituals and focus on sincere self-understanding and purification.

Based on this Christian foundation, Tolstoy offers two ideas to reduce evil:

1. First, admit that everyone is sinful. If you’re guilty, you can’t go around punishing others. You need to stay true to yourself, listen to your conscience, and align your actions with your beliefs. If you don’t, you become a hypocrite, and that breeds more evil. To make the world better, start by cleaning up your own soul. Do real things, 1 step at a time. Don’t expect gratitude or recognition. Don’t assume everything you do is right or effective. Just do what you can. This path is yours alone, and you’ll have to face loneliness.

2. Second, keep faith in humanity. Believe that everyone has a spark inside, even if it’s tiny. Don’t judge by appearances. For example, Maslova’s inner transformation in prison was invisible to Nekhlyudov. When she got kicked out of the hospital, he thought she’d seduced the doctor and fallen again. But the truth was, the doctor tried to take advantage of her, and she resisted. She had truly changed. People can’t fully understand each other, but remember: despite all the ugliness in the world, society survives because people still care for 1 another. That compassion exists everywhere - even in prisons. It’s the light of humanity. Even if 99% of human nature is bad, that 1% of kindness gives us hope. It’s like Pandora’s box - evil spills out, but hope remains, and that’s why humanity endures.

That’s the main storyline from Nekhlyudov’s perspective. Maslova’s journey of redemption and forgiveness is another emotional arc. If Nekhlyudov’s story is about society and humanity at large, Maslova’s is about personal conflict - between genders, between classes - and ultimately, about love.

Maslova was kicked out of the estate, became a prostitute, got caught up in someone else’s crime, and was wrongly convicted. All of it traces back to Nekhlyudov using and abandoning her. She’s a textbook victim of the aristocracy. The noble ladies who raised her did it out of boredom, not love. Nekhlyudov treated her like a flower he casually picked. She never had a choice - only suffering. Yet through it all, she kept a kind and innocent heart. She didn’t manipulate her words, and she felt compassion for those around her - even if she didn’t fully understand why. Like when she said, “That old lady is really nice, really nice.”

In the end, she truly forgives Nekhlyudov. She realizes that even if they got together, it wouldn’t be out of love - it would be out of guilt. She accepts her fate, guilty or not, and tells him not to follow her. He has his own life to live. In the Bible, Mary Magdalene was said to be a prostitute who followed Jesus and became a saint. That contradiction - prostitute and saint - is like the idea of a virgin birth. It seems paradoxical, but it’s not. Everyone has sin. A prostitute is just another sinner. But a kind-hearted prostitute is like a pure child - full of human strength. Compassion isn’t limited by status. Maslova, with her “dirty” label, is spiritually pure - unlike the fake noblewomen. Tolstoy doesn’t write much about her, but you can feel her pain, her endurance, her empathy, her will to live, her forgiveness, and her rekindled faith. Love isn’t just romantic - it’s the invisible tenderness and mercy inside us. It’s the force of life.

5 / 5 stars

[Luís · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the heart of 19th-century Russia, a man feels guilty for leading a woman he loved to decay and then does everything to achieve redemption.
One could say at first glance that the story is somewhat lengthy, but what satisfaction one finds once the reading has finished! It is a source of satisfaction for me because it is not a simple love story or a narrative that one would like to put in; for me, the story was only a pretext for the author to reflect on the conditions of detention for criminals in Russian prisons and the conduct of trials. It is a gigantic pamphlet on justice and, at the same time, a vast critique of the status quo of society, which would like to be a premise for the class struggle that the aristocracy's representatives had ridiculed. We can feel Tolstoy speaking behind his pen. At the same time, we get attached to the characters; we want to know the rest, to reach the end to tell whether or not Nechljudov will marry Katjusa finally...

[MihaElla · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was said repeatedly before, hence I take myself the liberty to appeal to it because this book puts a lot of emphasis on it. As a gentle and kind reminder, the real question is not whether life exists after death. The real question is whether you are alive before death. Or, as for the very suggestive title of the book, the ultimate meaning of the resurrection is a death of the old and birth of the new. But, first thing first, what is (the) old, what is (the) new? And, what it happens when this breaking out (the transformation process, or resurrection in itself) is too precipitous and violent? Well, as per evidence, the mind may lose its balance more or less permanently, mostly depending on one’s own inner constitution. In some cases, the effect is not very grave, severe, and the crisis may pass without leaving deep marks...
But, of course, this is not the case for Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy. He was affected deeply and irrevocably. That is why he reflected himself through his characters, either through their inherent tendencies or on account of the influence of the environment upon their plastic constitution. Eventually, the spiritual resurrection or awakening stirs them up to the very depths of their personality. It is the time he is asked to choose between the “everlasting no” and the “everlasting yes”…
But the prince in the book (or the count in real life) being so long accustomed to the oppression of the intellect, obviously the mental inertia becomes hard to remove. In fact, it has gone down deep into the roots of his being, so now the whole structure of his personality is to be shattered, overturned. The process of resurrection is stained with struggles, tears, blood (not physically but more like a faster internal circulatory process..), deep pain, mental anguish, but again but, it is only after such pain and turbulence that all the internal, profound and solid, impurities are purged and he is – presumably – reborn with a new outlook on life, on its meaning, on its purpose, sense, etc. – as if all these words doesn’t mean one and the same thing...
Apparently, this is a story about “the saved one”, an illegitimate dark-eyed girl that in her youth years became unusually lively and pretty, and her presence cheered everyone. She grew up half servant, half lady. She was wooed, but would marry no one, feeling that life with any one of her wooers would be hard, spoiled, as she was, more or less, by the comparative ease she enjoyed in the manor. But life ceased to have any charms for her when an event happened that basically consummated her ruin, and from that day she began to lead a life that in most cases ends in painful disease, premature decrepitude and death..
Profoundly, this is a story about social injustice, private ownership, mother land, about courtrooms and the penal judicial system, about convicts and jails, about exploits, exploited and exploiters, about corruption and antagonistic feelings, harsh indecent regulations, and lots of blockheads, and also lots of cold, hungry, idling, sickly, degraded, brutalized human beings...
And it’s also about a man who is trying to correct his customary habits of life, whose soul was being racked by a fierce and complicated struggle, and is pleased with the consciousness of performing an important duty (civic and personal too) by trying to save the one who’s life he has ruined in her youth, as root cause. Some fortuitous meeting brings everything to his mind, and compels the acknowledgement of his heartlessness, cruelty and baseness which made it possible for him to live undisturbed by the sin which lay on his conscience. The task of his life – after he assumed a new meaning in life – is to “seek the truth and the kingdom of God, and the rest will come of itself”. If he succeeded or not, that is for the author to know only. According to the book of books, when they were about to crucify Jesus, Pilate asked him a question. “What is truth?” . And Jesus remained silent. Something has always been said – even if it is only that nothing can be said . But I have always felt that Pilate understood. Only because he was a Roman, he might have understood 😉 Well, that happens usually when more languages are being used. One speaks of the other world, another speaks of this world and takes every word literally..
Wrapped in my own crazy thoughts with various mingled feelings filling my chest, I am exceedingly glad that I managed to read this book. It’s an absolutely remarkable novel, unique in its own way, same as the other famous masterpieces of Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy.

[Fernando · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Como en todos los seres humanos, en Nejludov había dos hombres: uno, el hombre moral que buscaba su bien en el bien de los demás; otro, el hombre animal, que busca su bien personal a costa de todos los demás."

“Resurrección” es la última novela que escribió Tolstoi en 1899 y la tercera más extensa después de sus obras magnas, “Guerra y Paz” y “Anna Karenina”. Siempre la literatura rusa ha sido una de mis preferidas y sigue siendo Fiódor Dostoievski, de quien leí toda su obra uno de mis escritores predilectos. Agrego también a esta lista de escritores eslavos a los geniales Alexandr Pushkin, Nikólai Gógol, Mijaíl Bulgákov y en menor medida a Iván Turguéniev y Antón Chejov.
Entre los primeros también ubico a este gigante eterno que se llamó Lev Nikoláievich Tolstoi.
Cada vez que me acerco a cualquiera de sus cuentos o novelas, experimento una sensación de placer sumado a un intenso aprendizaje que se desprende de su vasta obra. Es como si fuera un abuelo a quien quiero mucho y me aconseja, me guía y me ayuda.
Pude reconocer este tipo de sensaciones al leer maravillas como el cuento "Cuánta tierra necesita un hombre", al que recomiendo leer sin titubeos así también como en el caso de "La muerte de Iván Ilich" o "La sonata a Kreutzer", todos ellos escritos con el sello de su maestría insuperable.
Independientemente de esa rivalidad que algunos pretendieron imponer entre él y Dostoievski, me quedo con reconocer que entre semejantes maestros lo importante es disfrutar de ese legado literario que se lee en miles y miles de páginas maravillosas.
Ahora bien, respecto de "Resurrección", considero que es su libro más "dostoievskiano" por varias razones.
En primer lugar por la historia entre los dos personajes principales, tanto en lo que concierne al príncipe Dmitri Ivanovitch Nejludov como en lo que le sucede a Catalina "Katusha" Maslova. Ambos personajes se conocen durante su juventud y luego de un encuentro íntimo se separan para vivir vidas completamente diferentes, en el caso de Nejludov en forma acomodada y sin inconveniente alguno, rodeado de dinero heredado por su madre y sin sobresaltos, mientras que el de Maslova es completamente distinto.
Agraciada tanto en hermosura como físicamente pasará de ser una joven sensual, tímida y hermosa hasta caer en lo más bajo, trabajando en un burdel como prostituta y luego del envenenamiento de un cliente será enjuiciada en forma errónea y enviada a prisión.
Es a partir de esta instancia que Nejludov, quien forma parte del tribunal de acusación, descubrirá que se la ha juzgado equivocadamente y pondrá en marcha toda una serie de recursos para intentar liberarla. Se siente culpable incluso de haber inducido (según él) a Maslova a caer tanto en la prostitución como en el hecho de terminar presa y no soporta esa culpa que lo atormenta. Se reencontrarán y la seguirá por toda Rusia mientras trata se reúne con todo tipo de abogados, jueces y funcionarios de las más esferas para lograr la libertad de Maslova. Todo entre ellos está rodeado de esa serie de desaciertos, encuentros y alejamientos propios de las novelas de Dostoievski.
Los sufrimientos interminables de Katusha son enfrentados con estoicismo, valor y coraje y junto con Nejludov tendrán algo en común: la aceptación del arrepentimiento y la búsqueda de la redención.
Por otro lado la ambientación de la novela, que en un gran porcentaje de la historia transcurre en las cárceles rusas, tanto la del pueblo en donde juzgan a Maslova como en Siberia posee características muy similares, algo que Dostoievski sufrió bien en carne propia, luego de ser detenido por participar en un grupo revolucionario que quería atentar contra el zar, posteriormente juzgado en 1849 y enviado por cuatro años a una prisión de trabajos forzados en Siberia. La manera en que Tolstoi describe todo ese submundo carcelario aberrante y lúgubre se equipara a las vivencias que Dostoievski plasma en su libro "La casa de los muertos" en forma cruda y descarnada.
El príncipe Nejludov ve con sus propios ojos todo el atropello y vejámenes a los que son sometidos los presos, puesto que para él, más allá de todo, los sigue considerando personas, seres humanos.
En tercer lugar por la naturaleza de las exposiciones, denuncias y pensamientos políticos, jurídicos, humanos y religiosos desplegados por Tolstoi por toda la novela.
Respecto de lo jurídico y político queda claro que Tolstoi expone y denuncia casualmente algo que ha acompañado a todos los gobiernos de antes y aún hoy en día: la corrupción, el abuso del poder y los acomodos de las clases altas y ricas en detrimento y explotación de los pobres y de la clase trabajadora.
Tolstoi arremete contra todo: jueces, fiscales sin escrúpulos, abogados comprados, defensores ineficientes, en fin... contra el sistema judicial completo. No repara en condenar a la sociedad acomodada y despreocupada, de clase alta, que vive lejos de los problemas, recostada en montañas de dinero y llena de preocupaciones frívolas y superfluas. Todo esto es lo que experimenta Nejludov con una familia amiga de la alta nobleza, lo Kortchaguin mientras va barajando la posibilidad de desprenderse de ese mundo a punto tal de ofrecerle todas sus tierras a sus mujiks (siervos, campesinos) para que ellos las trabajen por su cuenta. Éstos verdaderamente impresionados por el ofrecimiento de su barin (amo, señor) no pueden creer lo que les ofrece.
Durante la lectura de esta novela tuve siempre la sensación de que Nejdulov se parecía al príncipe Mishkin de la novela "El Idiota", también de Fiódor Dostoievski pero con más aplomo, convicción y sustento a la hora de poner en marcha la concreción de sus ideales.
Cuando Tolstoi narra lo que sucede en las distintas prisiones encuentra dentro de ella presos de todas las clases, tanto hombres como mujeres: presos políticos, nihilistas, asesinos, ladrones e incluso muchos presos que son inocentes pero igualmente encarcelados en forma injusta debido a la poca voluntad de los juristas que deberían hacerse cargo de sus casos y no lo hacen.
Todos los pensamientos de este tipo de presos, especialmente los políticos me hizo recordar a lo que postulan los personajes de la novela "Los demonios" de Dostoievski. Uno de los presos en la novela de Tolstoi, Novodvorov, expresa claramente algo sobre el poder que tiene tiene hoy singular vigencia cuando dice: "Las masas no respetan más que el poder. Hoy el poder es el Gobierno, y por eso lo respetan y nos odian; mañana estaremos nosotros en el poder y será a nosotros a quienes respetarán".
Si hasta parece que este personaje fuera un antepasado de V, del comic "V de Venganza" cuando afirma "El pueblo no debería tenerle miedo a los gobiernos. Son los gobiernos los que deberían temerle al pueblo."
Sobre el final del libro se sucede un encuentro con un viejo que roza el aspecto religioso, aunque la religión aparece en distintas partes del libro. Tolstoi dedicó la última parte de su propia vida a un análisis exhaustivo y profundo de las cuestiones cristianas que rodean al ser humano y como no podía ser de otra manera las volcó en este libro.
Por último, se puede apreciar la profunda conciencia social y humana de Tolstoi y cómo establece por un lado su posición en contra de filósofos como Nietzsche, apoyándose en otros como George Henry y estableciendo una conexión con otras ideologías como las de un nuevo pensador de aquellas épocas, Carl Marx e incluso opinando sobre Darwin.
Esto nos da una idea clara de quién fue Lev Tolstoi: un ser humano único y excepcional y un escritor grandioso, algo que justifica lo importante que es y será para la literatura rusa y mundial.

[Corinne · Rating 5 out of 5]

What moved me the most in this novel is: how true is what Tolstoy says about the judicial system, even in our world of today. And this is not just in France, but all over the world. When I read those sections on judicial errors, imprisonment for lack of official papers, inhuman treatment of prisoners, and the fallacy of the 'correctional system', I really had the impression that very little has changed since his time.

But, before I get carried out, here are some more points that also moved me deeply, as I could relate to all them personally:

Nekhludoff’s internal void, when he feels he has not really done anything useful so far, to give a meaning to his life. Then he is called into the jury duty, where he sees how his former recklessness has ruined the life of a woman and her child. And, he decides to act.

His transformation is not a linear process. At every instant, he is struggling with two internal forces, equally valid and equally strong, and it’s hard to tell which one is going to win. Tolstoy does a great job in unravelling this process, this severe inner conflict in depth, and the gradual change in the lifestyle of Nekhludoff.

Maslova, over whom Nekhludoff has this conflict, doesn’t make his job easy either. In a less experienced writer’s hand, she would have fallen for Nekhludoff's offer immediately, but that would have been unrealistic, and the story would have lost its challenge. In fact, at the end, just the opposite of what’s expected happens! Yet, what happens also appeases the heart of Nekhludoff, and we see his true sacrifice. Isn't this how life is really?

Nekhludoff had stopped believing in himself and started believing in others. This gave him a serious conflict between his conscience and animal instincts; unconsciously, he started to hate himself, thus others as well. When he starts to believe himself again, he feels tender toward himself, experiences a freedom and joy he has never known before. This is something I can relate to, both in my professional and personal world; it gave me the courage to be like him even more.

Nekhludoff had become so obsessed with the 'social mirrors' that, even when he started to act for Maslova, he kept asking himself if he was really doing all that for his conscience, or to look good in the eyes of others. This is so true! No matter how hard I try, my old habit of looking into the social mirrors always comes back.

I loved Tolstoy’s insight where he shows how Maslove reasons in favor of her ‘profession’, to give a meaning to her life. This is something I've always done about my job of a business consultant, although I know how wrong I am. Yet, I have to keep this job to feed mouths.

Then Maslova starts to transform during her travel across Siberia, under the influence of those two fellow prisoners, whose opinions become important to her. She changes, to live up to their eyes, because she feels they care for her. This happened to me too, when I met someone who cared for me.

In fact, in one novel, Tolstoy has enacted two great resurrections: one of Nekhludoff and one of Maslova!!!

Now, coming back to the judicial system. I absolutely agree with the paragraph where Tolstoy says that those who are the most nervous, strongest, talented, yet the least careful and lacking cunning, fall victim to the judicial systems. And, the ‘correctional methods’ are total misnomers, because they correct nothing; only destroy the individual. This is a universal phenomenon, as I've seen.

How can we 'correct' people, by confining them behind bars, by humiliating them? Why call these methods 'correctional' at all? Can't we think of better means? Let's hope.

[Piyangie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Resurrection is one man's story of atonement for a sin committed in his youth. Partly based on a true story and partly autobiographical, the story tells of Dmitri Ivanovich Nekhlyudov's attempt to make amends to Katerina Maslova (Katusha), whom he seduces and abandons, as he considers himself to be the primary cause of her moral degradation and physical suffering. Seeing her years later as a jury member, and being partly responsible for the careless verdict that causes a miscarriage of justice, Nekhlyudov makes it his mission to seek justice for her and to redress this unfair sentence. While taking this course of action, Nekhlyudov realizes that it was not the criminal justice system that was guilty towards her but himself. It was Nekhlyudov's much-needed awakening that caused him to reevaluate the life he previously led in idle debauchery.

The novel is a strong attack on the criminal justice system. The miscarriage of justice was only a tool for Tolstoy to probe into the defects and abuses of power within the institutions that exercised criminal justice. It also allowed Tolstoy to expose the appalling conditions of the prisons and the degradations to which prisoners were subjected. This revelation is truly shocking. It looks as if the Russian criminal justice system was running on the whims and fancies of the upper-class men who thought it just to condemn those who were not on par with them, either in class or in views.

The main storyline of Katusha and Nekhlyudov is based on a true account that Tolstoy heard from a lawyer friend. The injustice of this true story and his youthful life of debauchery inspired the indignant and remorseful Tolstoy to create this sensitive story. Having turned towards a spiritual life, Tolstoy may have felt the need for self-atonement.

Resurrection is both a story and a social commentary. While the main story portrays the shallowness of the idle upper-class nobility and their sickening misconduct towards those below them in class, it also exposes the judicial and social injustice, especially towards the lower classes, and bureaucratic callousness in general. Tolstoy brings out all these with much power and in detail. When he tells the story of Katusha, her sufferings, her fall in society, he tells it with warmth. Only when he attacks the unjust criminal justice system, the ignorant and callous bureaucrats, and the system of governance in general, does he tend to be preachy.

However powerful the theme and sensitive the story were, the novel failed to engross me fully. The reason could be either his preachy tone that disturbed the warmth of the story or the social commentary that overrode the storyline. It could also be due to my not understanding Nekhlyudov's resurrection fully. Tolstoy failed here to convince me that he was, in truth, "resurrected", that he had truly altered his lifestyle. Throughout the story, one can see him wavering. Call me sentimental, but the very fact that Katusha and Nekhlyudov weren't united gave the impression that Nekhlyudov was not fully committed to the path of redemption. And even though Tolstoy stresses it as Katusha's decision, and that she didn't accept his sacrifice out of love for him, it sounded like a lame excuse to my ears. I couldn't help feeling that Tolstoy's attempt at absolving Nekhlyudov was somehow not successful.

More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/

[Dalia Nourelden · Rating 4 out of 5]

تتناول الرواية قصة الأمير  نيكليندوف وهو شاب من طبقة النبلاء ، وكاترين ماسلوفا الفتاة الفقيرة اليتيمة التي كانت  تقيم مع خالتيه فجمعته بها فى البداية  علاقة حب بريئة فى وقت كانت حياة الامير حياة هادئة مليئة بالخير حتى التحق بالجيش فتغير كليا وتحول الحب البرئ لشهوة و سيطرت الأنا الحيوانية عليه فيعتدى عليها ويترك له المال فتضيع الفتاة وترتكب اعمال منافية للاداب ، وتمر السنوات . وينضم الأمير لهيئة المحلفين فى أحد المحاكم وفى أحد المرات  يتم إدخال فتاتين ورجل متهمين بجريمة قتل ويتفاجأ بأن كاترين واحدة منهم وقد أتهمت بجريمة قتل ويتعرف على ماحدث لها ويتبين مدى الضرر الذى سببه وأن سلسلة المآسى التى تعرضت لها الفتاة كانت من صنع يده وبرغم براءة الفتاة يحدث خطأ فى الحكم وتدان الفتاة ويتم الحكم عليها بالسجن . فيشعر نيكلدوف بالذنب وتأنيب الضمير ويقرر ان يصلح اخطأئه فيسعى الى لقائها ويطلب منها العفو و يعرض عليها الزواج . ويبدأ فى محاولات لتغير الحكم واثبات برائتها .

وطبعا لايكتفي تولستوى بأن يتحدث فى قضية واحدة فلم يكتفى بعرض قصة الفتاةالبسيطة والأمير فيتعرض بداية بالطبع لأحكام القضاء والظلم الذى يقع أحيانا ،
وأثناء محاولة الأمير لتغيير الحكم عليها يبدأ فى النظر للمجتمع الذى ترعرع فيه بشكل مختلف


لقد اصبح الامير نيكليندوف شديد الاشمئزاز من المجتمع الذى شب وترعرع وتثقف في أحضانه ذلك المجتمع الذى يتظاهر بأنه لايرى آلام ألوف والوف الناس كي ينعم وحده بمباهج الحياة ومتعها لقد كان شديد الاقتناع من أن جميع من يضمهم ذلك المجتمع ، عاجزون عن ادراك مافي الحياة من بؤس ومبلغ مافيها من قسوة. انه الآن لايستطيع إقامة أى علاقة مع أحد أفراد هذا المجتمع دون أن يحس وخز الضمير



ثم تعرض لأحوال السجون والمساجين وبدأ يرى مدى الظلم لأشخاص سجنوا وشردوا وعذبوا ليس لمخالفتهم القوانين الاساسية وانما لأنهم حجر عثرة فى سبيل كبار الموظفين والاغنياء الذين يريدون ان ينعموا مطمئنين بالثروات التى ينهبوها من الشعب .


كان أولئك التعساء يثيرون اشمئزازه ولكنه اشمئزاز لايختلف جوهره في شئ عما يثيره في نفسه غيرهم  من البليدين الذين يراهم خارج السجن بثياب فاخرة وتزين صدورهم أوسمة لامعة ، لماذا يسجن أولئك البؤساء فى حين يظل من لايختلف عنهم في شى يسير في الأرض مرحا أكثر من ذلك




 "لم يكن يحسب حسابا للنظرية القائلة بأن من الأفضل ان يبرأ عشرة مجرمين من أن يدان برئ واحد . وكان الواقع هو العكس . اذ انهم كانوا يلقون فى سجونهم بعشر أبرياء كي يقصوا عن المجتمع مجرما واحدا ، كما يحدث فى العمليات الجراحية اذ يعمد الى استئصال بضعة من الجزء السليم عندما يستأصل عضوء موبوء


وتعرض ايضا  للمتهمين السياسين ومايلاقونه من ظلم وتعسف فيدرج قصص كثيرة وقضايا أشخاص كثيرين حتى تتوه احيانا بينهم ، وركز على الشخصيات البريئة التى تزج بالسجن.

وكان من نتيجة وتأثير رؤية نيكلدوف للمساجين عن قرب وسماعه لمشاكلهم ومظالمهم

ظهر له ان مجرد معرفة الإنسان بأن هناك أقواما فى جهة من الدنيا قريبة أو بعيدة ينزلون بإخوانهم أنواعا شتي من العذاب والآلام والإذلال أمر يختلف عن مشاهدة ذلك بأم العين ساعة بعد ساعة ويوما إثر يوم خلال ثلاثة أشهر


فلاحظ وتوصل الى كثير من الامور منها :

راى ان فى دوام تعريض هؤلاء لخطر الأمراض والموت ما يعدهم لحالة نفسية يرى فيها نفسه،أفضلهم وأسماهم خلقا مدفوعا بغريزة حب البقاء للقيام بأكثر الأعمال قسوة وضعة وتبريرها أمام ضميره .
كما لاحظ ان اجبارهم على معاشرة رفاق السوء ، كالقتلة واللصوص وموقدي الحرائق يعرضهم للعدوي بالفساد.
خلص اخيرا إلى ان المعاملة التي يعاملون بها وتطبيق مختلف الإجراءات الرهيبة عليهم ..... قد يبتغي من كل ذلك اقناع هؤلاء بان جميع مظاهر العنف والقسوة ليست من الأمور والأعمال الاي لاينبغي منعها فحسب ، وإنما هى مما يجب أن ينص القانون عليها لفائدتها


وتعرض ايضا لعلاقة المالك والمزارعين واحوالهم
وبين مظاهر الفقر والبؤس والمرض لدى الكثيرمن القرويين واراء ذوى النفوذ واصحاب المال فى ذلك


" ذلك المجتمع الذي يتظاهر بأنه لايري آلام وألوف الناس كي ينعم وحده بمباهج الحياة ومتعها . لقد كان شديد الاقتناع من ان جميع من يضمهم ذلك المجتمع ، عاجزون عن ادراك مافي الحياة من بؤس و مبلغ مافيها من قسوة "


عيب الرواية اولا : كثرة الشخصيات والمواضيع والقضايا فشعرت كثيرا انى تائهة وشعرت احيانا بالملل
 
ثانيا : قلة الجزء الدرامى فيها فقصة نيكلدوف وماسلوفا التى كنت اظن انها ستكون الفكرة الاساسية كانت فى طرحها كأنها فكرة ثانوية خاصة فى الجزء الثانى من الرواية فجعلت منها اقرب لكتاب لعرض الاراء والافكار والتعليق عما يحدث اكثر من كونها رواية 

ثالثا : عدم التركيز على اظهار مشاعر وانفعالات الشخصيات ففى بعض الاوقات خاصة مع نيكلدوف وماسلوفا كنت اتخيل كيف كان سيكون الأمر لو كان دوستويفسكى هو من كتب عنهم كيف كان سيظهر انفعال الشخصيات وقلقهم وترددهم.

روايةانسانية ، فكرية ، اجتماعية

كانت رحلة مرهقة لكنها ايضا رحلة رائعة ولتكون بذلك ثالث رواية اقراها لتولستوى وعلى ما اعتقد ثالث اكبر اعماله
والى لقاء آخر عزيزى تولستوى 🤩😍

٢٩ / ٦ / ٢٠٢٠

[°°°·.°·..·°¯°·._.· ʜᴇʟᴇɴ Ροζουλί Εωσφόρος ·._.·°¯°·.·° .·°°° ★·.·´¯`· · Rating 5 out of 5]

ΝΑΜΠΟΚΟΦ:
«Οταν διαβάζεις Τουργκιένιεφ ξέρεις ότι διαβάζεις Τουργκιένεφ. Οταν όμως διαβάζεις Τολστόι, αρχίζεις και δεν μπορείς να σταματήσεις».

Ένα υπέροχο,ανατρεπτικό μυθιστόρημα γεμάτο οργή και πάθος και αγάπη για τον συνάνθρωπο που αναφέρεται στη μοναχική πορεία προς την ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣΗ.

Την ανάσταση ως έννοια προσωπικής κάθαρσης,συνειδητοποίησης και μοναχικού ταξιδιού.

Ξεκινάμε απο την καλοσύνη και την αγνότητα της ψυχής μας περνάμε μέσα απο την διαφθορά,την αδιαφορία και την αλλοίωση της προσωπικότητας και καταλήγουμε πάλι στην υπέρτατη αρετή της ατομικής ελευθερίας φτάνοντας στην Ανάσταση.

Η Ανάσταση είναι αυταπάρνηση και μετάλλαξη. Είναι αποτοξίνωση της ύπαρξη μας απο καταστάσεις και τρόπους ζωής.
Τα λόγια και οι σκέψεις του Τολστόι μοιάζουν τόσο επίκαιρα και προφητικά που γίνονται τρομακτικά.

Στην εποχή του η πραγματικότητα κραυγάζει ανατριχιαστικά και συνεχόμενα.
Ο λαός που αργοπεθαίνει μέσα στη φτώχεια και τις στερήσεις.
Οι αγρότες που σαπίζουν μερόνυχτα δουλεύοντας πάνω στη γη που δεν τους ανήκει. Που καρπίζει απο τον ιδρώτα και το αίμα τους αλλά το κέρδος ανήκει στους γαιοκτήμονες και στους άρχοντες.

Τα παιδιά σβήνουν απο αρρώστιες και πείνα.
Οι γυναίκες δουλεύουν υπέρμετρα και καταρρέουν σωματικά και ψυχολογικά.
Οι γέροι υποφέρουν και υπομένουν.

Οι φυλακές είναι γεμάτες φτωχούς εγκληματίες λαϊκών στρωμάτων που τις πιο πολλές φορές αδίκως καταδικάζονται και εξορίζονται.
Το σύστημα δικαιοσύνης πιο διεφθαρμένο απο ποτέ.
Οι πολλοί αποφέρουν και υποφέρουν.
Οι λίγοι καρπώνονται και εκμεταλλεύονται ασυνείδητα.

Όταν ο λαός πεθαίνει απο ανέχεια και αδικία οι έχοντες και κατέχοντες απολαμβάνουν όλα τα αγαθά και ασχολούνται με την ανία που τους προκαλεί η άνεση και το χρήμα.


Στη δική μας εποχή με την αλματώδη άνοδο του βιοτικού επιπέδου οι λίγοι ανόητοι και άχρηστοι χτίζουν πολυτέλεια και παίζουν το παιχνίδι του πολέμου και της τρομοκρατίας με όπλα την εξουσία και το κέρδος.

Απώτερος σκοπός το χρήμα και η υποδούλωση μαζών.
Όλα αυτά την ώρα που παιδιά πεθαίνουν απο ασιτία και λαοί πνίγονται στο αίμα τους σε ενα πολεμικό σκηνικό χωρίς έλεος.

Ένας τέτοιος άνθρωπος του πλούτου και της τρυφηλότητας ήταν ο ήρωας της ιστορίας μας. Αδιάφορος,ασυνείδητος,βολεμένος και άπραγος για το καλό των άλλων. Ένας εγωκεντρικός πρίγκιπας,διαφθορέας σωμάτων και ψυχών.

Ένας ακόμα εγκληματίας προστατευμένος απο την υψηλή κοινωνία με εχέγγυα τους κληρονομικούς τίτλους τιμής και καταξίωσης και την μεγάλη περιουσία.

Ώσπου...αρχίζει να πιστεύει στον εαυτό του. Ώσπου...έπαψε να πιστεύει στους άλλους και στην γνώμη τους. Ώσπου...σταμάτησε να ασχολείται με τα επικριτικά σχόλια της «καλής» κοινωνίας και εναντιώθηκε στο εγώ του.
Κάπου εκεί ξεκινάει το ταξίδι του για την προσωπική του Ανάσταση. Επειδή η Ανάσταση είναι προσωπική και μόνο, η επανάσταση είναι συλλογική όμως δεν λυτρώνει κανέναν εάν δεν υπάρχει υπαρξιακή συνείδηση σε ατομικό επίπεδο.

Εφαλτήριο του ο έρωτας και μια γυναίκα που κατάντησε πόρνη μετά απο δική του συναίνεση.
Φτάνει στο σημείο μηδέν και ξεκινάει απο την αρχή. Με γνώμονα την πραγματικότητα που εξακολουθεί να κραυγάζει και με έναν δύσκολο δρόμο προσωπικής εμπειρίας που οδηγεί στην Ανάσταση.

Ίσως κάποιες φορές να είναι πλέον αργά. Ίσως τα φορτία που κάποτε ήταν η απλή καθημερινότητα να είναι τώρα ασήκωτα.
Ίσως φοβηθούμε να κρίνουμε το νόημα της ζωής.

Όμως όποιος θέλει να ζήσει αληθινά θα συγκρουστεί αναπόφευκτα με το υπαρξιακό περιεχόμενο απέναντι στην κοινωνία.
Σκοπός μας είναι η σημασία της επιλογής και το νόημα που θελουμε να ζήσουμε μέσα απο τις πράξεις μας.

Τι άλλο να πω γι’αυτό το καταγγελτικό βιβλίο που αφορίζει κάθε είδους δεσποτισμό;

ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΕ ΤΟ


Καλή ανάγνωση!
Πολλούς ασπασμούς.

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The whole trouble lies in that people think that there are conditions excluding the necessity of love in their intercourse with man, but such conditions do not exist. Things may be treated without love; one may chop wood, make bricks, forge iron without love, but one can no more deal with people without love than one can handle bees without care.”
- Leo Tolstoy, Ressurection



While not as big or beautiful as Tolstoy's great, BIG novels (War and Peace, Anna Karenina), there is still something grand and beautiful about 'Resurrection'. The novel is basically a critique of both organized religion and the injustices of criminal law and justice. It tells the story of a noble (Nekhlyudov) who recognizes a woman (Maslova) he ruined in his youth while serving on a jury. Through careless mistakes, institutional inflexibility, and apathy, Maslova eventually is sentenced to live in Siberia.

The novel is the story of Nekhlyudov's journey of abandoning his old life (wealth, property, class) and following Maslova to Siberia. It is a story of Nekhlyudov's search for redemption from his past, his awaking to the reality of how the state and its bureaucracy crushes both the innocent and the poor, and a philosophical examination of how the fundamental's of Christianity are often overlooked by the State (and organized religion) when people lose sight of the very basic idea of loving other people.

While reading the novel I was constantly thinking of Ferguson. I was wondering how Tolstoy would approach the heavy incarceration rates of black Americans. It seems he would write a novel pretty close to the one he wrote in 1899. It is amazing to me how similar our times really are. Social injustice seems to always exist. That is why you can have Dickens, Tolstoy, Orwell, Sinclair, Baldwin, Steinbeck, etc., all writing about similar themes on different continents and in different eras and they all seem to capture the same mood with the same type of power.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Natural love is the fundamental law of human life.”

It started with an online book search at my local library. I was interested in reading books that dealt specifically with fictionalized stories about jury trials. I was surprised when this book came up in the search.

My only experience reading Leo Tolstoy has been “Anna Karenina” and that was not exactly an easy read. What would I be in for with this one? Was I up for the challenge?

This paperback version included an introduction by *Anthony Briggs, a chronology of events of Tolstoy’s life events, a notes section; and, a summary by chapters. Clearly, this version would be excellent for any college student or book group needing to read, discuss and/or study this book.

Tolstoy is mostly known for ‘Anna Karenina’ and ‘War and Peace.’ This was his last novel which was published in 1899. And, even if it isn’t well-known, it still carries narrative power.

Tolstoy was also known for creating stories that embodied moral improvement. This was his life’s vision for a time, until he got personally sidetracked and found himself in need of money and enjoying fame. This cost him a sense of himself, which included his moral standards. There was even conjecture that this change may have influenced how he chose to write this story. Perhaps a need to regain his soul again? This would most likely be reflected in the early reviews of the book, which were conflicted on whether or not they appreciated the transformation in Tolstoy’s writing.

If anything, this would be considered his most controversial work. Mostly, because it wasn’t ‘War and Peace’ or ‘Anna Karenina.’ But also because of its subject matter. The law, the courts, the judgments, the punishments, the prisons, the brutality of the whole system of justice of the time.

Through his story he chooses to expose and condemn the prison system. Readers will get a sense of how Tolstoy views government and the legal system and how both treat the ‘lower’ classes. As well as Tolstoy’s overall view of human nature through his character development. Because his characters are well-fleshed out and play integral roles within the story.

The premise finds Katerina Maslova charged with murder. Questions surround her guilt. Will the injustice of the system expose the truth? Will the various individuals attached to the case be able to advise and help her? What will eventually happen in the end to bring these issues to a ‘satisfactory’ conclusion? Or not.

Having read “Framed” by John Grisham, it becomes all to understandable how wrongful imprisonments occur. Is this that kind of a case? And, if it is, will justice prevail in the end?

Readers will be exposed to depravity, poverty, debasement, and gloom throughout the pages which may not be easy to read.

All we can hope is that as readers we will recognize that even if this wasn’t his most known or popular work, there is still a brilliance to Tolstoy’s narrative. Readers will be able to reflect on personal responsibility, the nature of sin, and the possibility of moral resurrection. Could this possibly be, something Tolstoy wanted for himself – a moral resurrection of sorts?

“Every man and every living creature has a sacred right to the gladness of springtime.”

And yes, this book did give me my fictionalized jury trial.

*Anthony Briggs is known for his writing, translating and editing books in the fields of Russian and English literature.

If interested, “Framed” by John Grisham review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Ali Salehi · Rating 4 out of 5]

دوستان
قراره بپردازیم به «رستاخیز» از رئیس ادبیات روس «لف تالستوی»
«تالستوی» ، شاهکارش به عقیده من «مرگ ایوان ایلیچ» هست و بعد «آناکاری نینا» و در نهایت «جنگ و صلح»
این اثر یک اثر حماسی ، عاطفی و حتی در خور فلسفه نیست.
«رستاخیز» ، یک انتقاد بزرگ در قالب داستانی عاشقانه از سیستم های قضایی و محکومین زمانه «تالستوی» هست و بنابر این نمیشه از این محتوا توقع ، یک فرم مثل «مرگ ایوان ایلیچ» یا «آناکاری نینا» داشت. اینجا «تالستوی» متفاوت عمل میکنه.
شروع ، مثل تمام شروع های «تالستوی» خوبه. خیلی خوبه به حدی که ما بیش و کم 50 تا 70صفحه رو یک نفس و مهیج میخونیم. در حالی که تماما شخصیت پردازیه.
فضای داستان ، درمیاد و ساخته میشه برای ما. به عقیده من تا به این لحظه در کارنامه مطالعاتی من ، هیچ اثری به حد «رستاخیز» در ساختن فضای «دستگاه دادگاه قضایی» و «عدالت مرده» موفق نبوده. ما به خوبی حس میکنیم که در دادگاه حضور داریم و محکومیت «کاتیوشا» فاحشه مظلوم رو میبینیم. در اواسط کتاب ، داستان شدیدا افت میکنه و مخاطب خسته میشه. تا پایان داستان هم مخاطب خسته و فرسوده باقی میمونه. و این شاید به جرات بشه گفت تنها نقطه ضعف کتاب همینه.
«تالستوی» در حین نگارش کتاب درگیر مسائل مذهبی و معنوی بوده و در ارتباط با «موافقت با مذهب» و «تاثیر تجربه و مذهب بر زندگی انسانی» پایان بندی اثر رو در اورده. الحق والنصاف هم خوب در اورده. تاثیر مذهب بر زندگی انسان انکار ناپذیره. چیزی که ما اینجا در این کتاب میبینیم ، تالستوی در «جنگ و صلح» هم نیست. حتی در داستان های کوتاهش هم نیست. اثر تلاش بر حماسی بودن میکنه اما حماسی نمیشه. حتی به دراماتیک هم نمیرسه چه به حماسه که سخت ترین فرم نوشتنه.
حضور شخصیت های گذرا و متعدد (به نوعی یک پرده‌ای) مثل تمام آثار تالستوی ، در این اثر هم موج میزنه.
طرح داستانی رو بشدت دوست داشتم و شاید تنها علتی که من رو هدایت کرد که تا خط آخر داستان رو بخونم همزادپنداری من با شخصیت «نخلیودوف» هست. چرا که من هم مثل اون دوره فساد رو در زندگیم داشتم و به جرات میتونم بگم یکی صد شخصیت پردازی خوب در تاریخ ادبیات جهان ، متعلق به «رستاخیز» از «تالستوی» هست.
اگر دنبال اثری هستید خفقان نجوای عدالت رو در روحتون بیدار کنه ، دنبال اثری هستید که بتونه خوب یه مدت سرگرم و به شان و منزلت انسانی نزدیک ترتون کنه ، «رستاخیز» مال شماست اما هرگز در حد «جنگ و صلح» «مرگ ایوان ایلیچ» و «آناکاری نینا» نیست.
ترجمه «سروش حبیبی» عزیز به عقیده من بهترین ترجمه ممکن برای این اثره.

[سـارا · Rating 4 out of 5]

من قلم تولستوی رو دوست دارم، با همه زیاده گویی‌هاش. اما تولستوی تو رستاخیز با همیشه‌اش کمی تفاوت داره. پیرنگ داستان و حرفی که سعی در بیانش داره خیلی جاها به تکرار میفته و این در کنار شخصیتای سفید و‌ سیاه داستان بنظرم از نقاط ضعفه رستاخیزه. اینکه تمامی آدم‌های ثروتمند و اشراف بد و ظالمن و تمامی فقرا، روستاییان و حتی مجرمان بی گناه و مظلوم.
اما با تمام این‌ها من از رستاخیز لذت بردم. بخش‌های اول و روایت سرگذشت‌ها عالی بودن. فضاسازی و توصیفات هم همین طور. و در نهایت چیزی که سعی در بیانش داشت واقعیتیه که غیرقابل انکاره؛ نبودن قانون، ظلم‌ها و بی‌عدالتی‌هایی که همچنان بعد از ۱۵۰ سال که از نوشتن این کتاب گذشته، به همون شکل شاهدشیم..

[Pavel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have NO idea why this book is less popular then "War and Peace" or "Anna Karenina". Zero ideas. Look at goodreaders: "AK" - 25,866 ratings, "WaP" - 11,258 ratings, "Resurrection" - 691 ratings. This is so unfair. I would never risk to write an actual review on this text, but reading it was one of the biggest turning points in my life at some point.

[Ivana Books Are Magic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps Resurrection is not Tolstoy at its best, but even so, this novel is a powerful piece of writing, a gem of philosophy and a great insight into Tolstoy's thinking. It is definitely a novel that spoke to me, and even if I don't agree with all of the Tolstoy's thoughts in this book, I was touched, inspired and provoked by this book. What more can a reader want?

The characters were intriguing, but often they were a bit overshadowed by the strong philosophical aspect of this novel. Quite frankly, I was left hungry for more insight into the main female character's motivations and inner states, especially as the novel progressed. Much is said in this novel and it is as much a commentary about the Russian society of its time, as a study on the human nature. To be more precise, the fight between materialistic and spiritual aspect of a human being is often the main topic of this novel.

Tolstoy touched on many subjects in this one, from anticipating social revolutions to come with his talk about workers (farmers) rights to his thoughts on penal systems. Tolstoy expressed an abundance of ideas and really developed his critical thinking in this book. Still, for me personally Resurrection pales in comparison with his better known works such as Anna Karenina or War and Peace. I think it's because I found it easier to relate to characters in Anna Karenina and War and Peace. In addition, I don't like how in this novel Tolstoy sort of ignores the female characters. In other works of his that I have read, female characters were always portrayed with great care. Here it's not the case. Everything sort of resolves around the main character Nekhlyudov and his quest for spiritual awakening. I didn't like him as much as I expected, especially as the novel progressed, and when you have issues with the protagonist, that gets into the way of enjoying the book.

Some readers have complained about the moralizing and didactic tone of this book. On overall, I didn't find this novel to be too moralistic. Yes, the narrative is a bit "preachy" at times, but most of the time, the story makes sense. Moreover, the novel even offers some fresh ideas. In the first part of the book, I could only complain about the repetitiveness of some 'moralistic thoughts'. However, towards the ending I did get the impression that Tolstoy was pushing some of his ideas onto his readers, and it was a bit too much for my liking. In that sense, the novel isn't as well balanced as his other works.

I have to say that I wasn't impressed with his puritan conclusion. The way the main character 'figured' everything out didn't sit well with me. The ending did disappoint me a little, I have to admit that. I wanted to know what happened with the characters, but instead of a proper ending, we got an interpretation of the Bible. Now, philosophical writing is not the easiest thing to balance with this kind of novel- and somehow the ending just didn't cut it.

As much as I love to read Tolstoy's thoughts, in this novel sometimes they felt a bit repetitive. I already read a few well known Tolstoy's essays, and seeing some of his thoughts repeated felt a bit out of place. I would say that at times the novel definitely suffered for it. Moreover, I had this feeling that Tolstoy was contracting himself. One second he is saying that everyone has to find their own answers and that religion is useless, the other he says it's all in the Bible. In one passage Tolstoy speaks about human nature in a realistic way, in the other he says it is solution to love everyone. Idealism mixed with realism without a sense of balance can lead to a novel that feels unfinished. What is really the message of its all?



Those last pages left so many thing unsaid, the novel would perhaps have been better without them. So, to conclude- while the novel was very interesting as the whole, some parts of it were definitely too preachy for my liking. Nevertheless, Tolstoy is a great writer and you could do worse than opt for this novel. Indeed, there are many fascinating ideas in Resurrection, you just need to take them with a great of salt as some of them truly belong to another time and place.

[La pecera de Raquel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reseña https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVEtN...

Tercera novela que leo de Tolstoi después de Anna Karenina y Guerra y Paz.

Novela de crítica social y del sistema en el que vivió el autor, con una narración muy sencilla, en un hilo temporal continuo, un solo protagonista y un personaje secundario que le acompaña durante toda la novela, pone en jaque los valores, la moral, el gobierno, los funcionarios, la burocracia, la corrupción, la justicia, sus tribunales, las cárceles, los presos, los privilegios de las altas clases sociales, los terratenientes, el castigo, el egoísmo humano, la individualidad, la iglesia y por supuesto, no hay novela que se precie de Tolstoi que no se critique a Dios. Tolstoi hace esta crítica a través de las historias que el resto de variopintos personajes secundarios, intervienen en la trama, que no son pocos…

Me ha sorprendido como al inicio de la novela la acción es exactamente igual que ver una película americana de un juicio. Acusados, abogados, fiscales, jueces, pruebas deliberación y sentencia. Una sentencia que debido a ella se desarrolla el resto de la acción hasta el desenlace, quizás para mí, lo más flojo de la novela, era previsible pero no el que me gustaba…

Aún así, mis dieces Mr. Tolstoi.

Mi reseña:

[Andrei Tamaş · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ultimul roman al lui Tolstoi este inspirat dintr-un caz real de la sfârşitul secolului al XIX-lea. Urmând parcă traiectoria trasată de cel din urmă şi cel mai pregnant roman dostoievskian, "Fraţii Karamazov", autopsia "Învierii" se deschide cu un proces în care destinele a doi oameni se reintersectează într-o manieră ciudată. Prinţul Dimitri Nehiliudov, figură impozantă a aristocraţiei în declin, îşi îndeplineşte sarcina obştească de a fi jurat într-un proces, pe vremea când, în materia justiţiei penale, încă se mai folosea curtea cu juri. Ironia neagră a existenţei face ca acuzata să fie tocmai Katiuşa Maslova, slujnica de a cărei puerilitate emoţională şi, deopotrivă, carnală, Nehiliudov profitase în primii ani ai tinereţii sale.
Ceea ce urmează este o disecţie umanistă a conştiinţei şi una ştiinţifică a feudalităţii, un adevărat act de acuzare la adresa Bisericii, a administraţiei robotice care se exonerează de responsabilitatea "crimei" invocând, în propria ei conştiinţă, primatul ordinii şi al "ordinului".
Despre operă s-ar putea afirma că reprezintă o varietate aparte de Bildungsroman. O varietate aparte deoarece derogă de la "regula comună", fără a distorsiona însă principiile care stau la baza acestui tip romanesc. Având în vedere definiţia clasică, despre Bildungsroman ni se spune că "urmăreşte (ex variis) evoluţia unui personaj. La Tolstoi există o oarecare diferenţă de nuanţă. Cititorul nu parcurge mecanic paginile cărţii, trăgând la final o concluzie clişeică, potrivit căreia binele învinge răul, ca în basmele populare, ori o reminescenta filosofică indefinibilă, ca la numele germane ale genului, ci senzaţia că este prezent în roman şi, cu toate acestea, nu poate cunoaşte următoarea literă a firului conştiinţei personajelor (subsemnatul l-a numit deja, în mintea sa, un "Bildungsroman de conştiinţă"). Cititorul, pierzându-şi parcă încrederea în sufletul uman, cum, de altfel, pare-i-se, a avut-o şi autorul, se simte ca un Simon Petru purtând povara lui Cristos. Unind cărbunele folosit la trasare şi terminându-ne treaba cu compasul, Bildungsromanul este unul al incertitudinii, unul care iese din tiparele clasice. Acestuia îi este distorsionată "evoluţia" de care vorbeşte definiţia, cei doi termeni (evoluţie şi incertutudine) fiind diametral opuşi.
Fără ca acest aspect să constituie sâmburele romanului şi, deopotrivă, intenţia autorului, cea mai mare parte a acestuia este dedicată luptei de clasă. "Învierea" este un strigat cu ecou al oropsiţilor, un strigat în care, preluând antiteză folosită pe coperta ediţiei de la Polirom, "imaginea celulelor mizere de închisoare se suprapune cu bogăţia strălucitoare (a) palatelor nobiliare".
Titlului i s-ar putea atribui cu greu semnificaţii religioase. Singurul lucru care mi-a încolţit în minte cu privire la acest aspect a fost întrebarea retorică a lui Iisus, în timp ce era atârnat pe cruce: "Tatăl meu, tatăl meu, de ce m-ai părăsit?", care ar putea reprezenta o dezicere a acestuia de faptele săvârşite, lucru de-a dreptul contradictoriu, în măsura în care ştia că are să învie. Sub acest aspect, Tolstoi m-ar acuza că interpretez fără a fi animat de ceva aposterioric, Biblia. De altfel, Evanghelia după Matei, în pasajul referitor la mântuire, ar încadra ideea religioasă a romanului, cu un contur asemănător: întrebat cine va fi mai mare în împărăţia cerurilor, Iisus a spus: "... cine se va smeri pe sine ca pruncul acesta, acela este mai mare în împărăţia cerurilor".

Ideea imoralităţii proprietăţii private este susţinută vehement şi este repetată necontenit de-a lungul romanului (ceea ce l-ar îndemna pe cititor să îşi abată un strop gândul la mişcările socialiste de sfârşit de secol, care au culminat cu revoluţia din 1917): "Întâi i-a jefuit pe toţi, a jefuit tot pământul, le-a luat oamenilor agoniseala şi s-a pus peste toate, pe ăia care s-au ridicat împotriva lui i-au bătut şi apoi au scris legea, să nu furi şi să nu omori. Să fi scris mai întâi legea asta".

Fineţea cu care este surprins un analitic şi totodată pătimaş element masculin este de natură aposteriorică (să nu istorisim viaţa amoroasă a lui Tolstoi şi dandanaua cu soţia sa): "Împotriva căsătoriei cu Missy (...) era faptul că ea avea deja 27 de ani, aşa încât mai avusese în mod sigur iubiri - gând chinuitor pentru Nehiliudov. Orgoliul lui nu putea să se împace cu gândul că ea ar fi putut iubi pe altcineva decât el, fie şi în trecut. Fireşte că ea nu avea cum să ştie că îl va întâlni pe el, dar simplul gând că ea ar fi putut să iubească înainte pe altcineva îl vexa".

Remarcile dojenitoare la adresa transformării credinţei în superstiţii telurice de masă nu lipsesc nici ele: "interzisese nu numai poliloghia asta fără nicio noimă şi vrăjile profanatoare ale preoţilor-învăţători asupra pâinii şi vinului, dar interzisese cât se poate de categoric ca unii oameni să se numească învăţători ai altor oameni, interzisese rugăciunile în temple şi poruncise că fiecare să se roage singur, interzisese chiar templele, spunând că el a venit să le distrugă şi că nu în temple trebuie făcută ruga, ci în suflet şi în adevăr".

Dialectica cu privire la caracterul moral al legiuirii şi, deopotrivă, la seva originară a acesteia surprind:
"-Da, bineînţeles. Întotdeauna au fost şi vor fi erori judiciare. O instituţie omeneaca nu poate fi perfectă.
-Mai mult decât atât, proporţia celor nevinovaţi este uriaşă, pentru că ei, care au crescut într-un anumit mediu, nu consideră că faptele savarsite de ei sunt infracţiuni.
-Iertaţi-mă, dar asta nu e just. Orice hoţ ştie că hoţia este un lucru rău şi că nu trebuie să furi, că hoţia e imorală.
-Nu, nu ştie. I se spune: nu fura, dar el ştie că fabricanţii îi fură munca reţinându-i din plată, că guvernul, cu toţi funcţionarii lui, îi fură la nesfârşit sub formă de dări. El ştie că noi, proprietarii de pământ, l-am furat demult, luându-i pământul care trebuie să fie un bun comun, iar pe urmă, când adună şi el vreascuri de pe pământul asta furat ca să le pună pe foc, îl băgăm la puşcărie şi vrem să îl convingem că e hoţ. Dar el ştie că hoţ nu este el, ci acela care i-a furat pământul, şi că el este obligat în faţa familiei să obţină cum poate restituirea din ceea ce i s-a furat."

În fine, lupta ideologică a individului educat împotriva abuzului înfăptuit de propria clică, şi zbuciumul, şi contradicţiile... şi conştiinţa îşi întind vlăstarele peste tot în roman: "Totul se trage din faptul că oamenii ăştia recunosc drept lege ceea ce nu este lege şi nu recunosc drept lege legea cea mai însemnată, veşnică, imuabilă, înscrisă de însuşi Dumnezeu în inimile oamenilor. De asta îmi vine aşa greu cu oamenii ăştia. Mi-e pur şi simplu frică de ei -zise Nehiliudov. Şi oamenii ăştia chiar sunt înspăimântători. Mai înspăimântători ca tâlhării. Un tălhar poate avea, totuşi, milă, dar ăştia nu pot: ei sunt asiguraţi contra milei cum sunt asigurate pietrele astea împotriva vegetaţiei. Cică sunt înspăimântători Pugaciovii şi Razinii, dar ăştia sunt de o mie de ori mai înspăimântători. Dacă s-ar da o temă psihologică: ce ar trebui făcut pentru ca oamenii zilelor noastre, creştini, cu simţul omeniei, să săvârşească cele mai cumplite fărădelegi fără să se simtă vinovaţi, soluţia ar fi una singură: trebuie ca aceşti oameni să fie guvernatori, directori, ofiţeri, poliţişti, adică, în primul rând, trebuie ca ei să fie convinşi că există ceva care se numeşte slujbă de stat şi că în acest cadru te poţi purta cu oamenii ca şi cum ar fi nişte obiecte, fără nimic omenesc şi fratern faţă de ei, iar în al doilea rând, ca acesti oameni de stat să fie legaţi unul de altul astfel încât răspunderea pentru consecinţele a ceea ce fac ei să nu cadă asupra niciunuia dintre ei. În lipsa acestor condiţii nu s-ar putea săvârşi în vremurile noastre asemenea atrocităţi că acelea pe care le-am văzut eu acum. Totul se trage de la faptul că oamenii cred că există situaţii în care te poţi purta cu un on fără dragoste, ori asemenea situaţii nu există."

Mai mult decât toate acestea, care în contrast cu finalul "semideschis" al romanului nu spun aproape nimic, deşi prin ele însele reprezintă enorm, ideea centrală şi ultima treaptă a scării care duce spre panorama desăvârşirii se concretizează în altceva: IDEEA SACRIFICIULUI SUPREM, a nimicniciei sinelui, pentru ceea ce creştinismul ar numi "mântuire", însă trecând dincolo de acest concept, imboldul dedicării totale pentru celălalt, măreţia şi patosul descoperirii propriei meniri, însămânţată, aici printr-un fapt aposterioric, în nucleul conştiinţei.
De aceea, "Învierea" lui Tolstoi reprezintă un roman cât o viaţă. E ceva ce subsemnatului nu i-a fost dat să citească de mai bine de un an şi, prin urmare, un roman pe care subsemnatul l-ar recomandada fără reţineri tuturor.

Andrei Tamaș
29 aprilie 2017

[Issa Deerbany · Rating 4 out of 5]

احد الارستقراطيين ينتخب عضوا في هيئة محلفين لاحد المحاكم , يتفاجئ ان التي تحاكم بائعة هوى قام هو بإغواءها وهي شابة في مقتبل العمر.
شعر بالمسؤولية عن تغير حياتها الى ما صارت وعليه ويبدا العمل على الدفاع عنها والتكفير عن ذنبه.
خلال الرواية يتعرض تولستوي بشيء من السخرية الى حياة الطبقة العليا في المجتمع الروسي وكذلك الى القضاء الروسي وطريقة العمل في المحاكم واختيار القضاة والمحلفين.
قابلها في السجن ودعاها لتغفر له وعرض عليها الزواج اذا وافقت على ذلك.
ومن خلال الرواية تعرض تولستوي الى اجراءات نقل السجناء المحكومين بالاشغال الشاقه الى سيبيريا والعذاب الذي يتحمله هؤلاء السجناء للسير مسافات طويلة جدا وبكافة وسائل المواصلات.
كما هو جاهد حتى حصل لها على عفو فإتها ترفض الزواج به حتى لا يتعذب في العيش معها .
حتى هنا استطاعت ان تضحي بحبها له .

رواية رائعه جدا وخاصة النوازع النفسية لشخصيات الرواية والبحث عن الخير الكامن في الانسان .

[El · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dear Tolstoy:

I heart you.

Love,

El.

______________________

I had some reservations about reading this book because I knew going into it that it was the last novel he wrote, and I know that in his later years he became especially religious and it showed in his writing, and jeez, do we really need more of that sort of preachiness?

Apparently we do.

Resurrection isn't as popular as Tolstoy's other two major novels, Anna Karenina and War and Peace, nor is it as long as those others. Apparently when it was first published, however, it outsold both Anna Karenina and War and Peace before its popularity waned over the years. I'll agree that it's not as broad in scope or vision, but the story itself still managed to intrigue me.

When Prince Nekhlyudov is called to serve on a jury, he realizes that one of the accused is Katusha Maslova, a woman he recognizes from his younger days. She had served as a maid in his house, at which time he was a pig, seduced her, and abandoned her after; she lost her job because of it, and she had to prostitute herself in order to survive. It's through this new occupation that she is arrested and tried for murder; Nekhlyudov realizes (a bit melodramatically) that had he not treated her the way he had, she would not have come to this end. He spends his time trying to save her from being sent to Siberia, knowing that she could not possibly have done what she was accused of doing.

Unlike Anna Karenina and War and Peace, Resurrection takes place primarily in the prison, or in Nekhlyudov's immediate surroundings. The focus is on him for the most part as he struggles with the realization that there's an entire other side to life than he has been aware of all these years, that things aren't quite as rosy as they have been for him as an aristocrat. He's guilty in the way he has lived and strives to make the world a better place by changing society however he can. A bit of an idealist, that Nekhlyudov, but then it seems everyone goes through a phase like that in their life.

Some of the complaints I've seen about this book is the heavy-handed nature of Tolstoy's writing. He was on a mission with this book, and it's pretty apparent in the writing, particularly in the last 75-100 pages or so. Tolstoy's characters all had beef with some group or another, and they at one time or another take shots at criminals, landowners and aristocrats, peasants and the poor, the penal system, Russians, Christians, Germans, suffragettes, Nihilists, Socialists, etc. Nekhlyudov spends a considerable amount of time talking with different people and discussing/arguing their beliefs in his effort to see how the other part of society lives. For the first time in his life the rose-tinted glasses have come off and he's aware of the social changes that needed to be made, and he absolutely became a mouthpiece for Tolstoy's personal opinions on how the incarcerated are treated. But for some reason I didn't find it distracting.

Probably because Tolstoy could puke on a piece of paper, put a cover on it, and I would read it.

As Occupy Wall Street has become such a huge social campaign in our own time, I couldn't help but read Tolstoy with that in the back of my mind. I believe he would have plenty to say about the movement.

"Forgive me, but that is not so: every thief knows that stealing is wrong and that he ought not to steal - that stealing is wicked," said Rogozhinsky, with a calm, self-assured, slightly contemptuous smile which specially irritated Nekhlyudov.

"No, he does not. You tell him: 'Don't steal!' and he sees the factory owners stealing his labour by keeping back his wages; he knows that the Government, with all its officials, never stops robbing him by means of taxes."

"This sounds like anarchism," Rogozhinsky said, quietly defining the meaning of his brother-in-law's words.

"I don't know what it sounds like. I only know what happens," Nekhlyudov continued. "He knows that the Government robs him; he knows that we land proprietors robbed him long ago when we took the land which ought to be common property. And now if he gathers a few sticks from that stolen land to light his fire we clap him in gaol and tell him he's a thief. Of course he knows that not he but the man who robbed him of the land is the thief, and that ever restitution of what has been stolen from him is a duty he owes to his family."

What strikes me the most is just how little issues have changed - apparently Russian society in 1899 isn't all that different from American society in 2011, and that's actually a pretty depressing thought.

[Mark André · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book. Great storytelling! Unexpected ending. Ultra cool cover. (‘61 Signet Classic)

[Chrissie · Rating 3 out of 5]

So what is this book, Tolstoy's last novel (published in 1899), about? Five things:
1. The brutality and injustice of both the legal and prison system.
2. The grimness of life for the peasantry in Russia in the early decades of the 1800s.
3. Land ownership.
4. Religion.
5. The importance of compassion and empathy for others.

The book is clearly written as a polemic! As such it was too preachy for my taste. Knowing that Tolstoy at midlife transformed himself from a dissipate aristocrat into a penitent, saintly celibate, and pacifist and vegetarian too, had me a bit worried when I picked up the book. My worries were confirmed. Being his last novel, he voices loud and clear his life philosophy, focusing particularly on the topics listed above.

Land should not be owned; Tolstoy followed the theories of American political economist and philosopher Henry George. The clergy as well as the legal institution of society are corrupt. Tolstoy's view is that we are all sinners and thus we have no right to judge others. Rather than reforming the legal and penal system, it should be done away with. (Alternatives are not discussed!) The end concludes with passages from the Gospel of Mathew. With these passages as our guide humanity and society can be improved…..and resurrection of goodness attained.

Often in the book we are filled in on subsidiary characters’ diverse circumstances and earlier life events. These episodes are TOLD, rather than shown. It is hard to become engaged; Tolstoy is again using these characters to deliver a message!

Life of the peasantry is grimly portrayed, but at the same time we do see acts of kindness and goodness. It is the detailed description of the harshness of that life that I appreciated; it is so real, so grippingly and so honestly portrayed. Facial expressions. Housing conditions. Bawdiness and conviviality. The living conditions are vividly portrayed. This is exactly what I want from historical fiction.

This story is based on a real event; a man got a servant girl pregnant and then deserted her. Nothing unusual in that! Then years later he served on the jury at her trial. She had become a prostitute. Guilt and misgivings wracked him and so he tried to marry her. She died before marriage. In this novel Tolstoy draws a similar story, but not quite the same. Similarities can also be drawn between the novel’s central character and Tolstoy himself. The central character‘s internal turmoil reflects the battle between good and evil in our souls, the conflict between egotism versus morals and ideals. For me this conflict immediately had me thinking that we were seeing into Tolstoy’s own personal turmoil. These parts I appreciated while they lasted, but then the book falls back again into a lecture of sorts.

The two central characters are Prince Dimitri Ivanovitch Nekhludov and Maslova, a.k.a. Katusha. Nekhludov’s portrait is drawn with more depth and complexity than Katusha’s, I think because Tolstoy is thinking of his own life. Her character is less developed than his. That she will not marry him, because she loves him and knows in her heart that this will hurt him, is not inconceivable. Their different stations in life are not something we today so readily acknowledge. , but it is a bit simplistically drawn.

After having read this, I want to read a full biography on Tolstoy and have chosen:Tolstoy: A Biography by A.N. Wilson.

The audiobook narration by Neville Jason was very good. Perfect speed and easy to follow. He does use special intonations for the different characters, but this is not pushed to the extreme and doesn’t become overly theatrical.

******************

My rating of other books by Tolstoy:
Anna Karenina 3 stars
The Cossacks 3 stars
The Death of Ivan Ilych 1 star

Other related books:
The Wives: The Women Behind Russia's Literary Giants 4 stars
The Last Station: A Novel of Tolstoy's Last Year 3 stars

[Mat · Rating 4 out of 5]

در کتاب رستاخیز داستان زندگی پرنس نخلیدوفی رو میخونیم که در اوایل جوانی مرتکب خطای بزرگی میشه و در بزرگسالی تازه متوجه اثرات مخرب اون گناه بر زندگی فرد مقابلش میشه. ضربه ی حیرت آوری که مواجهه با نتیجه ی عملش بهش وارد میکنه زندگی پرنس رو به طور کل تغییر میده. عذاب وجدان ناشی از اون باعث میشه دقیق تر به مسائلی که دورو برش صورت میگیره نگاه کنه. به نظام استبدادی تزارها و فلاکت کشاورزان از جور اربابهاشون، نظام قضای حاکم بر جامعش و تبعید زندانیان بی گناه و همچنین نگاه متفاوت ملت و حکومت به دین. خودش رو در قبال تمام این مسائل مسئول میبینه که چطور تا الان بهشون آگاه نبوده.
بعضی مفاهیم انقدر تکرار شدن که به نظر کلیشه ای و شعاری میان، ولی حقیقت اینجاست که این نقدهای به ظاهر کلیشه ای هنوز موفق نشده که بر گمراهی جامعه و نظام های حکومتی فائق بیاد و نیازه هربار رجوع بشه به تاریخ که این عدم برابریا و بی عدالتیا همیشه در هر دوره ای وجود داشته و تکرار میشه. این خود انسانها هستن که باید برای خودشون دادگاه درونی تشکیل بدن و اعمال خودشونو قضاوت کنن.
در رابطه با ترجمه، من ترجمه ی سروش حبیبی از نشر نیلوفر رو خوندم که بسیار روون و دلنشین بود.

[Sepehr · Rating 3 out of 5]

یک کاتارسیس معیوب :

چند نکته از تالستوی بگویم ؛ او در جوانی افسری عیاش بود و در پیری غذاهای ساده می‌خورد و پا به پای دهقانان کار می‌کرد و همواره خود را آدم بدی می‌دانست. اما به گواه بزرگانی که با او دیدار می‌کردند، این سادگی و اخلاق گرایی او نقابی برای پوشاندن جنبه متبختر و نارسیستی بود که از خصایص همیشگی تالستوی بود.
رستاخیز در نثر و قلم، همان غول روسی را در پشتش دارد که جنگ‌و‌صلح و آناکارنینا را نوشته. شفاف و پر مایه. اما حضور افراطی این تالستوی متاخر در داستان، بوی گند سوگیری و این اخلاق‌گرایی و نقد اجتماعی که قصد دارد به مخاطب حقنه کند، کیفیت اثرش را به شدت برای مخاطب امروز پایین می‌آورد.
اطناب و تکرار و درجا زدن‌های مدام، ایثارهای غیر منطقی و نیمه پیامبرگونه قهرمان داستان و کاراکترهای سفید - سیاه هرچند دلایل محکمی بودند که با این اثر چندان مهربانانه برخورد نکنم اما توصیفات تالستوی و ظرافت نثرش و دیالوگ‌های به یاد ماندنی‌اش، مرا وا می‌داشت به اکراه چهار ستاره برایش منظور کنم اما با آن پایان‌بندی تماما مذهبی‌اش بر من مسجل شد که سه ستاره حق مطلب را به قدر کافی ادا می‌کند.

بهار هزار و چهارصد و چهار

[Skorofido Skorofido · Rating 4 out of 5]

Μπορεί η «Άννα Καρένινα» κι ο «Πόλεμος και Ειρήνη» να είναι τα πιο γνωστά έργα του κόμη Τολστόη (γιατί μια noblesse την είχε ο τύπος), όμως το αληθινό του best seller ήταν η «Ανάσταση»…
Ο Νεχλιούντοφ είναι ένας πρίγκηπας που πριν από χρόνια είχε διακορεύσει την Κατερίνα Μάσλοβα, υπηρέτρια – ψυχοκόρη της θείας του. Και όπως συνηθίζεται σε τέτοιες περιπτώσεις, ο νεαρός την έκανε με ελαφρά πηδηματάκια για άλλες επίγειες ηδονές και η ατυχήσασα, βρέθηκε μ’ένα μωρό στην κοιλιά και χωρίς δουλειά. Μετά έχασε το μωρό και βρήκε δουλειά ως «περιπεσούσα γυνή».
Αυτά συνέβησαν last years γιατί μετά από δέκα χρόνια, ο Νεχλιούντοφ και η Μάσλοβα συναντιούνται και πάλι όχι πλέον ως εραστές αλλά σε μια αίθουσα δικαστηρίου: εκείνος ως ένορκος κι εκείνη ως κατηγορούμενη για ‘φαρμακεία’, κοινώς πως ξεκλήρισε κάποιον πελάτη της. Από δικαστική πλάνη, η Μάσλοβα καταδικάζεται σε καταναγκαστικά έργα στη Σιβηρία και τον Νεχλιούντοφ τον πιάνουν όψιμες ενοχές και θέλει να παντρευτεί με παπά και με κουμπάρο την ‘ατυχήσασα’ γιατί αισθάνεται υπεύθυνος για τον δρόμο της ακολασίας που έχει πάρει.
Το βιβλίο είναι ένα κατάφωρο ‘κατηγορώ’ για το δικαστικό σύστημα της Ρωσίας εκείνης της εποχής (και όχι μόνο θα πω εγώ) όπου έτσι και μπλεχτείς στα δίχτυα του, δεν ξεμπλέκεις με τίποτα. Αθώοι, μικροαπατεώνες, πολιτικοί κρατούμενοι και δολοφόνοι, όλοι σ’ένα σακί βράζουν… Εάν ήμουν καθηγητής συγκριτικής λογοτεχνίας, θα έβαζα στους φοιτητές μου να κάνουν συγκριτική μελέτη της «Ανάστασης» με τον «Ζοφερό Οίκο» του Ντίκενς [λειτουργία του δικαστικού συστήματος], ή με το «Έγκλημα και τιμωρία» του Ντοστογιέφσκι [η ηθική διάσταση του εγκλήματος] αλλά δεν είμαι κι έτσι την γλύτωσαν οι φοιτητές…
Ειρωνικός και καυστικός, ο συγγραφέας σφάζει με το γάντι την εκκλησία, την κοινωνική ανισότητα, τους δημόσιους υπαλλήλους [θα κρατηθώ και δεν θα μιλήσω αλλά κάποιες μάστιγες είναι αιώνιες…] Θα αναφέρω ένα μικρό απόσπασμα του Τολστόι για τους δημόσιους λειτουργούς, κυβερνήτες, κλπ, κλπ: «Τρομαχτικότεροι από τους ληστές. Ο ληστής μπορεί και να σε λυπηθεί, αυτοί εδώ δεν μπορούν να σε λυπηθούν: είναι ασφαλισμένοι απέναντι στη λύπη, όπως αυτές οι πλάκες από τα φυτά».
Ψυχολόγος, κοινωνιολόγος, αναλύει τη σχέση των δύο αδελφών, τα συναισθήματα των φυλακισμένων, σχέσεις συζυγικές κι εξωσυζυγικές…
Αν και γραμμένο 120 χρόνια πριν, οι περιγραφές είναι σύγχρονες, στιγμή δεν αισθάνθηκα πως διάβαζα κάτι παλαιακό και άκυρο (γι’αυτό και είναι και κλασικόν…)
Ομολογώ πως στην αρχή, μου φάνηκε αργό, διάβαζα μερικές σελίδες και μετά το άφηνα στην άκρη, όσο όμως περνούσαν οι σελίδες, τόσο έμπαινα στον κόσμο του Τολστόη…
Δεν βάζω πέντε αστέρια γιατί το τέλος ήταν ολίγον διδακτικίστικο και προσηλυτιστικόν… too good to be true που λένε και στο χωριό μου… too easy…

[Maria Roxana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Am citit acest roman în adolescență, eram convinsă că îl voi savura diferit peste douăzeci de ani! ”Învierea”, o reîntâlnire fericită și mai ales, plină de înțelesuri!

”Una dintre cele mai răspândite prejudecăți este aceea că fiecare om are însușiri proprii bine determinate, că există adică oameni buni sau răi, deștepți sau proști, energici sau blegi, și așa mai departe. Oamenii nu sunt așa. Putem spune despre un om că e mai adesea bun decât rău, mai des inteligent decât prost, mai adeseori energic decât bleg sau dimpotrivă, dar dacă susținem că un om e totdeauna bun sau deștept și că altul e totdeauna rău sau prost, spunem un neadevăr. Și totuși, noi împărțim oamenii totdeauna așa, și e greșit. Oamenii sunt ca râurile. Apa tuturor râurilor e la fel,una și aceeași peste tot, dar fiecare râu este când îngust, când repede, când lat, când încet, când curat, când rece, sau tulbure, sau cald. Așa e și cu oamenii. Fiecare poartă în sine fărâme din toate însușirile, dar manifestă câteodată unele din ele, altă dată, altele, și i se întâmplă foarte des să nu semene cu el însuși, deși rămâne totuși aceeași ființă. ”

”Oare eu sunt nebun, de văd ceea ce alții nu văd, sau nebuni sunt cei care fac ceea ce văd eu?”

”Sunt multe credințe, dar sufletul e numai unul singur.”

[Fardin Jamali Soofi · Rating 4 out of 5]

روایتی از ستم، فراموشی، بیداری و عذاب وجدان!!!

[Amirhossein · Rating 4 out of 5]

خب اولین چیزی که یاد گرفتم این بود که بعد از تموم کردن یه کتاب سنگین سراغ کتاب سنگین دیگه ای نرم.
رستاخیز آخرین رمان تولستوی هست و نوشتن اون تقریبا 10 سال زمان برده. تولستوی این کتاب رو وقتی نوشته که به "عرفان مسیحی" و آنارشیسم و انتقاد از نهاد های اجتماعی، به ویژه کلیسای ارتدکس، دولت و نظام قضایی روی آورده بود و یجورایی خشم اون به بی عدالتی ها در اوج خودش بوده.

کتاب به رستاخیز مسیح اشاره ای نداره، درواقع "بیداری وجدان و تولد دوباره اخلاق" رو نشون میده. چند تا نماد تو کتاب بود که بنظرم جالب بودن.

پرنس نخلیودوف اشراف زاده که عضو هیئت منصفه دادگاه هست، در یک محاکمه چهره یک دختر بنظرش آشنا میاد. "کاتیوشا ماسلاوا" همون دختری هست
که زمانی اون رو فریب داده بود و این دیدار دوباره تو دادگاه باعث شد چیزی درونش روشن شه و اون چیز همون وجدانش بود. در واقع تولستوی، نخلیودوف رو نماد قشری از جامعه نشون داده که پتانسیل بیداری و تغییر رو دارن.
کاتیوشا ماسلاوا، نماینده تمام ستم دیدگان و کسانی هست که توسط سیستم اجتماعی تحقیر شدن
زندان ها و راه سیبری، نماد خود جامعه بیمار هست.

کتاب بیشتر یک رساله هست تا یک رمان. تولستوی در این کتاب خیلی از ساختار های اجتماعی رو نقد کرده
سیستم قضایی: اون میگه که قضات و وکلا و هیئت منصفه دغدغه اصلی شون اجرای عدالت نیست. درواقع فقط به فکر پیشرفت در شغل و روابط عاشقانه خودشون هستند. عده ای از اونها براشون مهم نیست که چه چیزی در انتظار محکومان هست و عده ای به قدری ایده آل گرا هستند که همه چیزهایی که ضد چهارچوب ذهنی شون باشند رو رد می کنند.
زندان ها و تبعید گاه ها: تولستوی میگه این مکان ها نه تنها انسان ها رو اصلاح نمیکنند، بلکه درد اونها رو بیشتر و یه مجبرم بدتر به جامعه تحویل میدن. خیلی از جاهای کتاب میشد دید که تولستوی نوشته، فردی که خودش گناهکاره چطور میتونه یه نفر دیگه رو به خاطر گناهی که کرده مجازات کنه، به تبعید بفرسته یا حتی اعدام کنه.
یکی از چیز هایی که من قبلا شنیده بودم ولی نمیدونستم چرا این بود که تولستوی یک مسیحی هست که به کلیسا اعتقاد نداره. گفتم مگه میشه همچین چیزی اخه؟ ولی بنظرم باید به کلمه اضافه کنیم که در نتیجه بشه "کلیسای نهادینه شده". کلیسای نهادینه شده به عنوان یک سازمان، نهاد و ساختار قدرت، عمل میکند. در واقع این نهاد برای حفظ قدرت و نفوذ و امتیازات خود ، با حکومت ها متحد میشه. در روسیه تزاری، کلیسای ارتدکس یکی از ارکان اصلی حاکمیت تزار بود و برای حمایت از اون، امتیازات زیادی دریافت میکرد.
علاوه بر این، تولستوی معتقد بود که ریاکاری مذهبی انجام میشه و آموزه هایی که تو کلیسا انجام میشه، به شعار توخالی و حتی توهین به آموزه های حقیقی مسیح تبدیل شده.

در انتهای کتاب تولستوی اعتقاد اصلی خودش رو بیان میکنه، ایمان اون مبتنی بر عشق به همنوع، ترک خشونت، ساده زیستی و بخشش همدیگر هست. خیلی به وجدان فردی و عمل به آموزه های اخلاقی مسیحیت اعتقاد داشت تا عمل به آیین ها.

پیام نهایی تولستوی:راه نجات نه در انقلاب های سیاسی خشونت بار، بلکه در انقلاب درونی تک تک انسان ها است

بعضی زیاده گویی های تولستوی شخصا رو اعصابم بود. مثل این میمونه که تو خیابون داری راه میری و یه آدم کاملا رندوم میبینی، حالا یکی تو ذهنت میاد از سیر تا پیاز زندگی اون آدم و کار و با و زن و بچش توضیح میده که بعد ها اصلا به دردت هم نمیخوره. یا تکرار کردن یه موضوع به 678 روش مختلف یکی دیگه از رومخی های کتاب بود
بنظرم تا مدت های زیاد دیگه نباید سراغ تولستوی بیام. میدونید که، عسل خیلی شیرینه، ولی زیاد بخوری کم کم دیگه مزه تلخی میده.