Death occupies a central role in Tolstoi’s consciousness, i particular after he lost his brother (not to mention the early loss of his mother). In The Death if Ivan Ilich, Tolstoy explores a dying man’s review of his life, its meaning, and possible resolution. In 250 words explore Tolstoy’s conclusion for tis relevance to both author and reader. Enlcose your remarks as comments to this POST.
17 thoughts on “Ivan Ilich and the Meaning of Death”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
After reading The Death of Ivan Ilych, I am struck by the difference in writing style of this novella and the two earlier works, Anna Karenina and War and Peace. These books exalt much of the mundane and make reading hundreds of pages of plot and setting natural and fluid. In contrast The Death of Ivan Ilych is uncomfortable as Tolstoy takes us through the life of a dying man and we feel his suffering and discontent. Tolstoy introduces us to the protagonist with, “Ivan Ilych’s life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible.” As we follow Ivan through his unhappy family life, the reupholstering of his new house, or his successes in the courts there is emptiness to it all and you can feel Tolstoy’s contempt. Characters like Pierre and Levin, who are plagued by doubt through the entirety of their life, constantly search for meaning. Ivan is not searching. He finds his satisfaction through bridge and his career as a judge, both serving as a middle-aged man’s escape from family life. His thoughts lack depth and are mainly self-serving.
As members of the class have mentioned before me, this is intentional. Ivan’s materialism, greed, and thoughtlessness generate disgust like the stench of his dead body in the first chapter. Then on his deathbed, Ivan has an epiphany, sees ‘the truth’ and how poorly he led his life. This contrast emphasizes Ivan’s discovery, which shows that only through a direct encounter with death will we be able to overcome our fear.
As Jack put it so well, most of Ivan Ilych’s life is lived meaninglessly, in a drawn-out process of dying. There is a constant back-and-forth of truth and denial throughout the story, beginning with Ivan’s acquaintances at his funeral and their own rejection of their mortality: “The mere fact of the death of a near acquaintance aroused, as usual, in all who heard of it the complacent feeling that, ‘it is he who is dead and not I.’” Ivan himself denies death in this way for a long time. Tolstoy goes on to depict Ivan’s life as more or less a farce, “simple and ordinary and therefore most terrible”, in which by following the approved path of society Ivan rejects any kind of gut feeling that he ought to live any differently.
The evidence of lies become most apparent only as he begins dying, and notices the self-deceiving way he is treated by others: “What tormented Ivan Ilych most was the deception, the lie, which for some reason they all accepted, that he was not dying but was simply ill, and he only need keep quiet and undergo a treatment and then something very good would result…. This deception tortured him—their not wishing to admit what they all knew and what he knew, but wanting to lie to him concerning his terrible condition, and wishing and forcing him to participate in that lie.” The obviousness of lies surrounding his deathbed eventually awakens Ivan to the lies that have been present his entire life. For a long time, he will not even consider the question of whether he had lived as he ought to have done. But his recollections of his childhood, and the societal influences and self-deception that colored everything after, eventually makes him willing to wrestle with the truth. As he dies, he accepts the meaningless of his former life and he accepts Christ. In this way, the death of the body is the death of falsehood—and the beginning of truth and life. I am reminded of Levin’s envy at the truth he sees in his dying brother’s eyes, something he feels he cannot yet understand. Perhaps some of the lies we tell ourselves can only be understood through the lens of our own physical demise.
A meaningless life is merely the drawn-out process of dying. This seems to be the ideological core of Tolstoy’s “The Death of Ivan Ilich.” Living a life in which “all is vanity,” and worldly success is the aim, is equated to the death of one’s soul, of one’s morality. As others have pointed out, Tolstoy’s attitude here is akin to Socrates’, whom he quotes in his “Confession”: “For what do we, who love truth, strive after in life? To free ourselves from the body, and from all the evil that is caused by the life of the body.” Ivan’s death is no tragedy, rather it is the crowning achievement of his life. Tolstoy’s complex vision of the afterlife is embodied in Ivan’s ultimate understanding that “instead of death there was light.” His death seems to be an exit from his seemingly miserable life and an entrance into the glorious life as a part of the infinite body of God (or something along those lines, Tolstoy’s vision of the afterlife is anything but clear). Though perhaps this is undermined by the (perhaps) cold realism of the last sentence: “He drew in a breath, broke off in the middle of it, stretched himself out, and died.” This comes immediately after he says to himself “There is no more death.” Thus the last sentence could be read as a rejection of the afterlife as a comforting delusion, one that only serves as a comfort in our brain’s death throes.
In response to Sam’s question, I believe that Ivan’s ultimate acceptance of Christ is in fact in keeping with Tolstoy’s brand of Christianity (as he puts forth in “What I Believe”). Ivan’s redemption is a classic example of the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard in chapter 20 of Matthew (a parable that Tolstoy seems to applaud in his religious writings). Those who accept the invitation to Christ’s Kingdom of Heaven, regardless of how late in life, will be received.
“[…] I heard the words of Christ and understood them; and then life and death no longer seemed to be evils; instead of despair I felt the joy of possessing a life that death has no power to destroy.” These words are the main link between “What I Believe” and “The Death of Ivan Ilyich”. In the former work Tolstoy outlines conditions necessary for the earthly happiness and in the latter he presents a character (based on a real judge), who throughout his life is deprived or rather deprives himself of those conditions. He is a city man and has no contact with nature. He kills himself, literally, deciding whether he should have straight or curved cornices for his curtains. All the items he purchased for his new home in St. Petersburg later remind him of his petty existence: “The same room, the same pictures, curtains, wallpaper […].” His family life is far from happy and he feels alone and abandoned. The family is ashamed of his condition; his wife and daughter are attending soirees instead of providing companionship for a dying husband and father. Lying in a deathbed, Ivan realizes that even his work was a desolate office duty that was ebbing life out of him. His death is long and painful.
In contrast to Ivan Ilyich, Tolstoy presents Gerasim – a healthy, strong ‘peasant lad’, always dressed in a ‘clean Russian peasant costume’, suggesting that despite moving to the city, he never severed ties with his origins in the country. Even the smell of tar being emitted from his boots is described as pleasant, suggesting that he finds enjoyment in labor. Most importantly, Gerasim is the only character in the novella, who is not afraid of death: “It’s God will. We shall all come to it some day”, he says. (Side note: twice after describing Gerasim, Tolstoy adds a remark about his white, healthy peasant teeth, which somehow reminded me of “Death In Venice”, where the rotting teeth will become the symbol of decaying soul and imminent death.) It was when looking at Gerasim that Ivan realized that his life was all wrong. For Tolstoy, Gerasim lives the right life, and it’s the kind of life that ‘death has no power to destroy’. Only when Ivan comes to this conclusion he is able to embrace death.
As almost everyone noted, the Death of Ivan Ilych tells more of Ivan’s life than his death. Moreover, I agree that his life was like a living death. He lived without passion or any strong convictions. He works a job in government, has only a brief period where he worries about money, and marries his wife because it was convenient and seemed what he should do – not because he had any strong feelings toward her. He even mentions that he wanted to be recognized by authority, so clearly he wanted to fit nicely into the societal and cultural structure of his time without having a distinct identity of his own. When his brother in law comes he says of Ivan: “Why, he’s a dead man! Look at his eyes—there’s no life in them. But what is it that is wrong with him?” This seems to hint that it is not only a physical ailment that plagues Ivan, but some type of spiritual lacking as well.
Throughout the entire text, there is the notion that people do not recognize that their own deaths must occur, but recognize others’ deaths (e.g. Ivan’s acquaintances in the beginning “it is he who is dead and not I”). Ivan specifically states Caius is a man, men are mortal, therefore Caius is mortal,” had always seemed to him correct as applied to Caius, but certainly not as applied to himself.” The Death of Ivan Ilych tells of them man’s inevitable encounter with death which he had thought would never come – of which he would never have to place his life in context. He recognizes that he does not want to die, that he does not know if he lived his life correctly, but in the end it inevitably does not matter. Death is a personal act – a spiritual loss of the self in which there is no pain and only light.
I also think that this story shows more about Tolstoy’s view of life. Ivan did not live fully, but rather artificially. As explained from the beginning when he was dealing with his clients, he made decisions from either society’s majority opinion or financial means. Ivan never truly establishes close, personal relationships with his “friends” who played bridge with him. Rather than expressing their sincere condolences, people like Peter Ivanovich only attended Ivan’s wake for a brief moment before escaping again to the milieu of Russian aristocracy—of drinks, bridge, and spending pleasant evenings.
I also think Tolstoy wrote this novella to illustrate the meaninglessness of materialism. Ivan wanted to move up in society. He desired for wealth and power. However, even though he continued to ascend governmental ranks and earned praise from the public, Ivan neglected his own family. Hence, he isolated himself from his family, which slowly deteriorated the relationship he forged with them. In my opinion, I think Tolstoy depicted the slow deterioration of Ivan’s body not only as a symbol for this example, but also of Ivan’s façade in faking his strength over the possibility of death. Hence, it seems as if Tolstoy believes that to solve these troubles is meaningful human interaction. Rather than erecting barriers in front of people, one should destroy them in lieu of deeper human interaction. Then, could one unfetter himself from high society’s constraints, and finally experience peace like Ivan before he died. His suffering has vanished in favor of joy.
As several of us have pointed out, the story’s title seems at first glance to be a bit misleading. “The Death of Ivan Ilich” traces Ivan’s life from the beginning of his professional career up to his death, which might well lead to the suggestion that the story should be titled “The Life of Ivan Ilich”. Indeed, Ivan Ilich is alive for the entire novella, save the first chapter and the final word of the final chapter. However, the nature of Ivan’s life, his obsession with material things and his vanity, is such that, in Tolstoy’s eyes, his death occurs over the duration of the novella. From the beginning of his career up until his injury, Ivan’s life is dominated by greed and desire for comfort. Tolstoi links Ivan’s professional ambition with his love for material objections by punctuating every promotion with a new round of acquisitions, of clothes, accessories, even a new house. Tolstoi’s disdain for Ivan and his immoral lifestyle is obvious in his narration and in his choice to have Ivan experience his fatal wound while hanging new drapes.
This reading, which Garrett already touched on, emphasizes the moral depravity of Ivan Ilich’s life up to the point of, and indeed, following, his injury. When he wishes to remember happier times, he can only conjure moments from his childhood, before his death began. Despite it’s neatness and the support for it that can be found in the novella, I find this reading wholly unsatisfying. Or rather, I find it unsatisfying that this reading seems to work so well. Tolstoi seems to suggest that the only way for Ivan to understand the morally lifeless life he has led is for him to suffer extraordinarily, and that there is no hope for salvation otherwise.
I agree with Luke in many ways. I do believe that our dissatisfaction with the story of Ivan’s life is intentional, and part of the story’s power, as it so effectively mirrors his own experiences and his pitifully morose reflection on the time he spent alive; but what I gleaned primarily from the story reminded me of the conversation we had in class last week regarding the epiphanic aspect of death, and the final sense of clarity, if we might call it that. I see a commonality between Ivan’s final moments and those of Andrei in W&P; the scenes suggest a sort of latent desire for death and depict its necessary function as not only a biological shutoff, but a spiritual or moral awakening. Of course, this idea is wholly unoriginal and heavily religious, but for Tolstoi this awakening happens so quickly that it might be seen as attenuating an argument for doing good in life. I get the sense that in Ivan’s final moments, like in Andrei’s, he experiences joy because he is able to conceptualize death in a way that nobody–not even Tolstoi– can do unless he or she has crossed a sort of threshold, which seems to happen only at the very end. Illusions, fears, and misunderstandings about death work the way they do because they are conceptions from the vantage point of life, rather than death. I see a tiny overlap between the two, and in this liminal state, Tolstoi’s characters understand something in a way inconceivable to the living. Ivan has gone his entire life under the illusion that he is living well; he then spends most of his “dying” days (or weeks, or months) under the illusion that ALL is lost; but at the moment of death, he is stripped of any illusion and understands not the meaning of life but the meaning of death, or perhaps more specifically the meaning of the soul. Of course, the situations are inherently sad, and the story of Ivan is grim and bitter to read, but I find something rather hopeful in this idea, as it suggests to me that, although he clearly struggled with the idea, Tolstoi thought of the process of dying not merely as a wrenching reflection on life, but as an uncomfortable yet surmountable obstacle to true clarity and spiritual peace in Heaven. Unfortunately, I think he is wrong, but it’s a nice idea.
I’ve always read this story as being more about Ivan Ilych’s life than about his last hours, as well. One of my favorite parts is the beginning, when Tolstoy describes the way Ivan Ilych’s circle of professional acquaintances reacts to the news of his illness and death. This description is, from the get-go, keenly cynical and critical of society, but what I think is interesting is the way that Tolstoy “defamiliarizes” the situation to draw attention to realities that we ignore, having been brought up in a context in which those realities are accepted as normal. I am thinking in particular of lines like “But the more intimate of Ivan Ilych’s acquaintances, his so-called friends, could not help thinking also that they would now have to fulfill the very tiresome demands of propriety by attending the funeral service and paying a visit of condolence
to the widow,” or Peter Ivanovich’s decision to go play cards after leaving the wake. I don’t know that this technique can quite be called irony, but it reminds me of Kierkegaard’s idea that ‘aesthetic irony’ can be used to free an individual from the ‘immediacy’ of his/her societal context: “Just as philosophy begins with doubt, so also a life that may be called human begins with irony.” The emphasis on defamiliarization lines up with Tolstoy’s.
I’ve never given as much thought to the deathbed scene; I always sort of thought it was just sort of there because it had to be to lend meaning to the account of Ivan Ilych’s life. One thing I do notice is the line “It is finished!” at the very end, which echoes John 19:30, Jesus’ last statement before he gave up the ghost.
I completely agree with Weyland that Tolstoy is offering a very unforgiving critique of society in relation to life, death, and mourning. For me, The Death of Ivan Ilyich said more about the relationship between society and death rather than about the person that was dying. Ivan, as my peers have clearly noted, remains cold and bitter throughout his final moments and “felt nothing”. It appears as if neither the dying man nor those attending him have any time for death, and never really allow themselves to give Ivan’s death their full attention. Mourning customs in the west are often reduced to conventional reactions – removing the tragedy by often leaving the gory in between bits of death unsaid, and unfelt. The main reason why we tolerate death in others is because it pushes it away from ourselves….I think Tolstoy did a hauntingly beautiful portrayal of this by highlighting the inevitable aloneness of the dying process; particularly after supper when Ivan realizes that “his life had been poisoned and was poisoning the life of others…..he had to go on living like this, on the brink of disaster without a single person to understand and pity him”. We have often discussed Tolstoy’s crisis with faith after losing his brother – but it was very interesting to observe how the room in which Ivan is spending his last hour does in fact contain love, and that to me offers a sincere hope to this bleak story. Possibly capturing the way Tolstoy himself wrestled with the idea of science and faith and recognizing that life goes on.
I think that The Death of Ivan Ilyich can generate a myriad of readings and interpretations, but if we are to understand Tolstoy’s intention with this work it is necessary to view it in a biographical context. Tolstoy wrote this novella six years after his radical Christian conversion and it seems to me that this novella is heavily Christian in its conception, imagery, and message. I agree with Jacob that this text allies with Socrates’s teaching that “the destruction of the body is a blessing and we should desire it” but I think this text goes beyond a Socratic/Platonic embracing of death and also preaches a Christian message of redemption and deliverance.
Even though Tolstoy portrays Ivan Ilyich’s life as one of petty materialism and illusory exteriors, his repentance of his life on his deathbed is enough to redeem him in the eyes of the Lord. The description of the revelation Ivan undergoes two hours before dying, in which he realizes that his life was entirely selfish and meaningless, is rich with religious imagery, showing the protagonist undergoing a radical process of metanoia: “At that very moment Ivan Ilych fell through and caught sight of the light, and it was revealed to him that though his life had not been what it should have been, this could still be rectified.”
He realizes he must ask for forgiveness from his wife and son, for life is about serving others and not pursuing selfish interests. But when they are unable to hear his pleas he does not worry because he knows “He whose understanding mattered would understand.” Having truly repented, Ivan is redeemed and, like Christ, conquers death by achieving life immortal—fittingly, he dies stretched out.
My major question is how does Ivan Ilyich’s Christianity, in which Ivan accepts Christ at the last hour of his life, having no where else to turn, at all coincide with the Christianity of action and deed that Tolstoy preaches in “What I Believe?”
When Peter Ivanovich pays tribute to Ivan Ilych at his funeral, he grows aware of “a faint odour of a decomposing body”. This theme of inescapable inevitability scents the entire story, which is an apt reflection of Tolstoi’s obsession with the idea of death in the latter half of his life.
At the outset, however, Ivan Ilych is oblivious to the notion of his own destructibility. He is a successful judge who lives simply, observing all of the social proprieties and conventions expected of a man of his rank. But Ivan deludes himself: just as he embodies the behavior of a man “of moderate means who wants to appear rich”, so does he deny the idea of the fragility of his existence—a thought foreshadowed by Peter Ivanovich’s conviction that “it should not and could not happen to him”. Ironically, while rearranging his curtains (and thereby attempting to perpetuate the illusion of his wealth), Ivan tumbles and shatters the illusion of his invincibility, even though he does not acknowledge it at the time.
As Ivan’s health deteriorates after his injury, Ivan convinces himself that no one really cares about his impending suffering and death. Everything—from losses at bridge to meaningless quarrels with his wife—serves to solidify his belief that every movement of the universe is directed to poison and destroy him. “And he had to live all alone on the brink of an abyss, with no one who understood or pitied him”. For him, this is agony, and it is accentuated by the fact that he cannot find any answers to explain it. Ivan’s appeal, “there is no explanation! Agony, death…. what for?”, echoes Tolstoi’s questions during his brother’s deterioration.
Eventually, the absence of answers drives Ivan to despair. He lashes out against everything living and everything in which he sought consolation—his wife, friends, God, etc. But finally, as the candle wanes, Ivan recognizes that he is making his loved ones “wretched”, and that there is something redeeming in death, and possibly beyond death. This final acceptance is reminiscent of Tolstoi’s alignment with the Socratic teaching that “the destruction of the body is a blessing, and we should desire it”.
In the last chapter, we see that Ivan finally finds some happiness and eventually decides to accept his death. I agree with Matt in the sense that Ivan did not seem to be unaware of his sickness, but instead he was lying to himself while he was sick. The reason that Ivan was lying to himself seemed to be because he was so afraid of death; somewhat like Levin, Ivan seems to think that he hasn’t fulfilled what his life is destined to be, and will never be truly happy with what he has.
Throughout the story, we see that Ivan marries his wife, not because of love, but simply because it is convenient to get married; and although he thinks that he will enjoy her company, he quickly finds himself arguing with her over the littlest things. When Ivan has a job that pays a very reasonable amount of money, he still finds himself feeling that it isn’t enough. Finally, even upon buying a beautiful house and decorating it exactly how they have dreamed it to be, Ivan is still unhappy with his life.
I found it interesting when Ivan realized that he was causing sadness and pain for his family, and that things would be easier for them once he has died; in this moment, it seems as though Ivan finds relief. Overall, I think that Tolstoy meant to show that since Ivan was so preoccupied throughout his entire life worrying about what he wanted to accomplish next, rather than spending loving time with his family, the major part of his life became his death; something that Ivan was so afraid of became his defining feature.
Garrett, it’s interesting that you’ve taken the last chapter as the end of living death for Ivan. He does find relief from it in his family, but I’m not sure that Tolstoy is endorsing his answer. I don’t think it’s right to say that Ivan was living a life unaware of the problem of death. I guess he is while he climbs the social ladder, but not once he gets sick. Tolstoy seems to think of doctors and medicine as responding by treating physical symptoms of a deeper problem. It’s not that Ivan’s sickness makes him confront the problem of death because it is now immanent. I think we have to look at his physical sickness as a sign of his facing the problem.
What about when he does die? He seems to find relief by feeling sorry for his family, but I’m wondering whether that’s an escape instead of a solution. Is he just martyring himself — that is, making the purpose of his life/death to help his family? Or does love of them relieve his fear of death. It’s got to be the former: when Ivan says that death “is no more,” he’s not accepting it but insisting that it doesn’t exist for him. If we divide responses to death by the characters in Anna Karenina, Ivan is closer to Karenin than he is to Levin. He doesn’t confront death without fear, but tries to find an escape.
It would be obvious to think that the focus is death by just considering the title, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. The entire story tells of the life of Ivan and the dying, not death, of Ivan. This story begins at the end—already putting a focus in death. Right away, we know that a man named Ivan Ilyich has died. Some acquaintances of his read this news in the paper, but are not terribly affected by the news of their friend’s death. Then, the story reverts back to before Ivan was dead and we learn about Ivan and his life leading up to his death.
Ivan marries a woman, who he doesn’t particularly love, but she is approved by society and she has two children, so he remains with her. Eventually, Ivan gets a high paying job that will allow him to support his family. Ivan is decorating his apartment, to show his wealth, and falls while he is hanging up some curtains. He thinks nothing of it, but soon, his side starts to hurt and he complains that something in his mouth tastes weird. Ivan is convinced to see a doctor, and none of the doctors know what is wrong with him. Ivan is nasty to all of his family and realizes he will die. He finds comfort in his helper, Gerasim, because Gerasim is kind to Ivan and Gerasim does not fear death.
As Ivan is dying, he wonders if he lived a good life and tries to deny that he wasted his life. The last three days of life, Ivan screams the entire time, but then he accepts that he lived a worthless life. Ivan sees a light and his family is all around him crying and he forgives his family, then dies. I think that Tolstoy began the story at the end, and titled it about death because the life of Ivan was really the worst part of his life and the most “unalive” part. So really, his life was the death of him. Only in his dying stage does Ivan really understand the meaning of life and have a good outlook about life.
As Nabokov points out, The Death of Ivan Ilyich is really the story of Ivan’s life, not his death. Tolstoy equates Ivan’s supposed life to death because Ivan merely feigns to live; he is a slave to custom, propriety and social norms who considers that he lives correctly because he emulates the best members of society. It is not until the final paragraphs of the story that Ivan realizes his mistake and asks, “but what is the right thing?”. The question provokes Ivan to for the first time feel empathy for his son and wife and consider his situation’s effects on his family. When Ivan attempts to apologize and cannot speak clearly, it is of no importance because God understands. From there all fear of death fades, replaced by a light. His final words are:“‘Death is all over,’ he said to himself. ‘It’s no more.’”
For Tolstoy Ivan’s death is an awakening from the living death that Ivan had lived for so many years. His physical death is paired with a spiritual rejuvenation and while his body dies, Tolstoy conveys the sense that Ivan’s soul finally begins to live in the last moments of the book. The message seems to be twofold: one, that life without love and kindness is no life at all; and two, that death is only death of the body and a new life for the soul. For me, the problem is that Ivan only realizes that he has not lived at the moment of his death. This revelation occurs almost simultaneously with the departure of his fear of death, perhaps implying that a man who lives well should not fear death. Ivan, however, is a peculiar example because he never contemplates death as a man who is truly living, but only as a man who is already about to die.
Through the story “the Death of Ivan Ilych” Tolstoy explores the concept of death through the perspective of Ivan Ilych, the dying man himself, and those around Ivan who experience the death of their so-called “loved one”. Tolstoy begins the story by presenting a certain meaninglessness associated with death. Most of Ivan’s friends and coworkers who attend his funeral are merely concerned with trivial aspects of the funeral or with their future position in the workplace in the absence of Ivan. This hollowness that Tolstoy portrays mirrors his confusion and struggles with whether or not there is a purpose to death or even living life at all.
After we see Ivan’s funeral, Tolstoy turns back the clock by presenting Ivan’s struggle with death in a first person perspective. I think its interesting that Sam points out how Ivan’s death is the manner in which he redeems himself in the eyes of the Lord. Ivan realizes that his entire life has been about materialism, which has acted as a “poison” that “penetrated more and more deeply into his whole being”. Through his death and suffering Ivan slowly comes to conclude that his misery is a result of not living life properly and because of this, he must die in agony. I think that through this story Tolstoy is trying to portray a difficulty in understanding the meaning of life and death but that once the end is close enough, one will come to accept and confront death courageously, as Ivan did.