Discovering Russian Literature discussion

Here's the text for the third reading:

God Sees the Truth, but Waits

Enjoy!
&
Happy Holidays!

There is a lot in this story that I won't address, but I will say that all I could think after reading was, "to forgive is divine". Forgiveness of this kind, offered purely and from one who has been deeply wronged, almost transcends being human (in my opinion). Perhaps to experience such a horror and be able to forgive in this lofty way can be viewed, in a spiritual sense, as more fulfilling than any simple life that Aksionov could have had with his family/being a merchant. I'm not sure if that's what Tolstoy was getting at, but it seems to me that perhaps Aksionov might have at least tried to justify things this way in his mind.

I'm not sure how to connect the title directly to the story. I see it more like "Insha'allah". The sign of piety, each person must recognize that we, by our own selves, can do nothing. We acknowledge that our life, breath, soul, and will, are all dependent on God.

I agree with Violet as well. It talks about the power of forgiveness. That and 26 prison years reminded me of late Nelson Mandela. "to forgive is divine" and Aksionov didn't forgive when he was asked, he has already forgiven him Semyonich, that's why he didn't reveal about the tunnel/hole the Governor.

Truly, compared to the Russian story standard, this one has a happier ending.

I'm currently amusing myself with the thought " what if Edmond Dantes decided to follow Aksionov's example?" The Count of Monte Cristo

Shanez wrote: "I'm currently amusing myself with the thought " what if Edmond Dantes decided to follow Aksionov's example?" The Count of Monte Cristo"

It would have totally ruined the story.. I don't think people like Villefort, Caderousse and Danglars deserve any mercy whatsoever. They deserved to be punished like that for ruining 3 innocent lives!!. What Dantes did was really awesome and totally justifiable. But I think he should have let that bastard Danglars suffer more coz he was the brain behind that vicious plan. But Villefort received one hell of a treat didn't he... That was class !!

@ Violet and Shanez

I get what you mean, I, too, was not sure how the title is very fitting for the story because it seems although God knows that Aksionov is innocent, He still let Aksionov be imprisoned for twenty-six years before giving him freedom...

After reading for the second time, I think the story delivers an answer for the question: "'Why me, God?" I know there's a view on suffering among the traditional Christians, however personally I don't feel strong about that view. I rather choose to believe human actions and consequences are away from God's jurisdiction till we die, so "He waits" He sees the truth of both Makar and Aksionov and He will decide/judge in the end.

By forgiving Makar, Aksionov shows his virtues and Makar asked for forgiveness and acknowledged his crime and he did it with his free will just like Aksionov used HIS free will to forgive. So they both pleased God in the end.

God knows everything so he waits because he knows that Aksionov will forgive and that Makar would confess. He waits in order that the two prisoners could change and evolve in a spiritual way.
It reminded me of Javert and Jean Valjean (Les Misérables): Javert doesn't understand why Valjean doesn't look for vengeance and in front of so much goodness he is powerless, is baffled and has a moral crisis (I still haven't read the book but I've seen the movie).

Did Aksionov "forgive" as a saint would or just "accepted" what he thought of God's will? I think he accepted God's will and so he forgave.

Wen wrote: "Did Aksionov "forgive" as a saint would or just "accepted" what he thought of God's will? I think he accepted God's will and so he forgave."

In my opinion he forgave like a saint. He evolved a lot in those 26 years, praying and helping the other convicts so I had the feeling he behaved like a saint.

dely wrote:

In my opinion he forgave like a saint. He e..."

That's a good point. However, it's not for sure that he changed because he was sanctified. He could've changed to escape the tragedy of his case.

Wen wrote: "That's a good point. However, it's not for sure that he changed because he was sanctified. He could've changed to escape the tragedy of his case. "

I think that another person, in the same situation, would have thought about vengeance or would have lived 26 years thinking about the injustice he had lived.
It's easy to say "I can pardon" but is it really so easy to do? I don't think so. Forgiveness must come from the bottom of the heart and in human hearts there is often grief and anger hidden behind a lot of hypocrisy. I think only saints can really forgive with all their heart. And it's not easy to behave like a good man for 26 years to escape the tragedy; such changes come from deep inside, we must feel them, we can't pretense to be different as we are because the truth comes out sooner or later.
Of course it's only my personal opionion ;-)

Hello everybody. My opinions about the main character is as follows;, I also post it as a review. With the best wishes.

In somewhere throughout the text, Tolstoy makes Ivan Dmitrich Aksionov say to himself that,

"It seems that only God can know the truth; it is to Him alone we must appeal, and from Him alone expect mercy."

I remember these very words from opening part of the holy book, and that was really striking!

According to my opinion, this short story points out the useless of struggling against His will and one should accept what is his/her destiny.

Aksionov seems to portray a very selfish character, at the end of the story, although he had a chance to free himself from his chains and go back to his family, he didn't; he wanted to suffer his own miserable imprisonment under the cover of "forgiveness". Then the question comes, for what and why he didn't?

He claims that there were nobody left knowing him, his wife was dead and his children have forgotten him.

But I didn't buy these words :), but also I couldn't find out the reason for that. One thing comes to my mind, may be he became the God himself, since only the God could be this much merciful! :)

In short; if we assume that Aksionov is a man, then what did he is unacceptable; but if he had become the God (or Übermensch), then his action can not be fully understand by us therefore no body is qualified enough to comment critically on his action due to our lack of divine perspective.

Seems like very interesting read!

Seems like very interesting read!

M. Özgür wrote: "Aksionov seems to portray a very selfish character, at the end of the story, although he had a chance to free himself from his chains and go back to his family, he didn't; he wanted to suffer his own miserable imprisonment under the cover of "forgiveness". Then the question comes, for what and why he didn't?"

Why selfish if he doesn't want to go home?
He was freeing his soul from the chains of anger and vengeance. The material chains are nothing compared to the chains of the soul; if the soul is free, also a man in chains feels free.
Forgiveness wasn't an excuse to live better in the labor camp, it wasn't a cover. I also hadn't the feeling that he was sad or despaired to be a convicted; he has accepted his fate. He really believed in the power of praying, he really changed from inside (at least this is what I felt reading the story). I think it's also because of this he didn't want to betray the real murder because he didn't want to let him suffer like he did. This is mercy.

There isn't only God or common humans; there are also saints, saint-like persons or very compassionate people so I think that his changing is believable.

Selfish because he didn't choose to go home, he lacked empathy and withheld his compassion from his wife and children while he limitless gave it to Makar Semyonich, may be the last person on earth that deserved.

About the saints, up to some extent, I agree with you Dely; but I'm thinking that if you remove vengeance desire, passion, lust, hate or love, benovelence, even compasion (not Aksionov's amount of course :) ) from a human soul, then the remaining thing (no matter it is called saint, angel or God) is really a human at all?

M. Özgür wrote: "Selfish because he didn't choose to go home, he lacked empathy and withheld his compassion from his wife and children while he limitless gave it to Makar Semyonich, may be the last person on earth ..."

That's s a very interesting question. I think he didn't want to go home because there really isn't anything there waiting for him. He learned his children had grown up to be good people, I think any father can be happy with just that. His wife is dead. The question is, would the children will like to have a father who was absent almost all their lives, a man they hardly know, convicted once for murder and the only person who could have mend the broken bond ( mother) is dead. Aksionov is too old to be productive. Perhaps he didn't want to burden himself on them. I don't think he lacks empathy. Interesting question though.

M. Özgür wrote: "Selfish because he didn't choose to go home, he lacked empathy and withheld his compassion from his wife and children while he limitless gave it to Makar Semyonich, may be the last person on earth that deserved."

I think exactly the opposite :D
In my opinion a selfish person wouldn't have cared about a murder and would have thought only for himself: to go to his home, his beloved ones and so one. It's exactly in helping the most miserables that we do a good action that comes from the heart. When we are able to "kill" our ego stopping to think only about ourselves, only then we can do something good for the neighbor. Take for example Saint Francis of Assisi. He left his family and wellness to help the lepers and living in poverty. We can call it sacrifice but not giving it a negative meaning; we must look to the etymology of the word "sacrifice": to do something holy.
Aksionov has sacrificed himself but he has helped another person. Makar, in fact, understands his fault, he feels guilty for the suffering he had done and confesses his crime. Aksionov has saved the soul of Makar because thanks to his forgiveness Makar understood that he acted in a bad way.


About the saints, up to some extent, I agree with you Dely; but I'm thinking that if you remove vengeance desire, passion, lust, hate or love, benovelence, even compasion (not Aksionov's amount of course :) ) from a human soul, then the remaining thing (no matter it is called saint, angel or God) is really a human at all?

All these feelings are part of the human being, you are right, but there are good feelings and bad ones. A person should learn to "train" good feelings like compassion, pity and love trying to progress becoming a better person. Feelings like hate, vengeance never bring to something good and we should learn to have control over them or even better to change them with good feelings. I know it's difficult but it's possible and this short story teaches us that it is possible.