ZORBA THE GREEK, Βίος και Πολιτεία του Αλέξη Ζορμπά, NIKOS KAZANTZAKIS: LETTING THE VIRGINITY OF THE WORLD RENEW ITSELF.

 

ZORBA THE GREEK, Βίος και Πολιτεία του Αλέξη Ζορμπά, NIKOS KAZANTZAKIS: LETTING THE VIRGINITY OF THE WORLD RENEW ITSELF.


An interval of more than fifty years. First the music – then the dance – much later the film – and even much later the novel in itself. In the mid-1960s the dance of the film Zorba the Greek (1964), composed by Mikis Theodorakis, Μιχαήλ Θεοδωράκης (*1925 – 2021), was enacted in every corner of the world. Even in the smallest towns of the small South American Republics you could see girls and young women showing off with the elaborate steps of the sirtaki, συρτάκι. As far as I can recall, I only saw the film (which enjoyed a monumental commercial success, world-wide) for the first-time in the late 1970s in London. And it was much later, in 1998, that I decided to confront the novel in itself, in a French version, while sojourning in the most suitable place on earth for such a reading: Crete.


 


 I wrote in my diary, just while throwing myself into the first pages of Zorba:

10.09.1998. I took refuge in a tavern in the small town of Kavros. It is a pity that they indulge in “techno” music. I prefer the noise of the cars passing by outside. They have a more original rhythm.

Zorba the Greek”, The great homage of Kazantzakis to Crete, the Crete of the “African coast”. (...)Afterwards came the film – London? - of which I keep the memories of the French Madame, of those ladies who rampaged through her house after her death, of the splendid widow interpreted by Irene Papas, as well as the face of Anthony Quinn, and the Orthodox priests.


And now, 25 years after that first reading, I was seized by a calm curiosity as to how would I react at my second reading in French, this time accompanied by the Greek original, after the sloppy infatuations with girls dancing the in the 1960s, the film version by late 1970s, and those two weeks in Crete, were I was being transported like a cloud through the paysages and the people that inspired Kazantsakis.


 

The film, directed by Michael Cacoyannis (who also wrote the screen-play) is based on the novel by Nikos Kazantzakis (Νίκος Καζαντζάκης, (*1883-1957), published in 1946 as Life and Times of Alexis Zorba (Βίος και Πολιτεία του Αλέξη Ζορμπά). It starred Anthony Quinn as Zorba, a most suitable selection, as he was in fact born as Manuel Antonio Rodolfo Quinn Oaxaca, a “Mexican-American”, who only obtained American citizenship in 1940, (*1915-2001). With a father born in Ireland. who fought for Pancho Villa during the Mexican Revolution, and his mother being a Mexican woman who got pregnant as a 16-year girl, all the basic ingredients were there to incarnate a boisterous Macedonian Greek, who fought against the Turks, escaped to Russia, came back, was a self-made miner, loved his santouri and danced as often as pious people go to church. Not to be forgotten: a heavy womaniser.  

 

                                       First encounter at Piraeus, Basil and Zorba.

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

There is Irene Papas (1929-2022), appearing as the “widow”, Alan Bates (1934-2003) plays the role of Basil, the Englishman whose father was born in Greece, and Lila Kedrowa, French-Russian, (1918-2000) appears as “Madame Hortense”, a stupendous performance which won her an Oscar for best supporting actress.

The first-person narrator in the novel, whom we might describe as an “alter ego” of Kazantzakis, would say to himself that “she looks like Sarah Bernhardt, when she was of the same age...”


                                             „The last possibility of a last, true love….”

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

Madame Hortense, is an aged French lady who runs a small alberge in a village where Zorba and the first-person narrator will install their provisional headquarters. She has retired to that isolated part of the island, and keeps remembering her “golden years”, when the entire Mediterranean sea was the manoeuvring room (rather bed) of her ars amatoria, including the chief-admirals of the French, Italian, Russian and English fleets. She claims to have saved Crete and their inhabitants from incessant bombarding, as the admirals were keener on spending time with her, but:

"How many times the woman you see here has saved the Cretans from death! How many times the guns were ready loaded and I seized the admiral's beard and wouldn't let him 'boom-boom!' But what thanks have I ever had for that? Look what I get in the way of decorations…" 1

The film is based on the novel, but it is not the novel.

Let us just sum up the “film”. An Englishman, a writer whose father was Greek, comes to Crete to attempt to revive an old mine which belonged to his father. In the port near Athens, he meets Alexis Zorba, a former warrior and miner. Both struck immediate friendship, and they take residence in the pension of Madame Hortense. She and Zorba soon start a passionate love-affair. The lignite mine is unsafe, Zorba thinks about using the forest on a nearby mountain, in possession of a monastery, for logging. The thus freshly obtained wood will be used to shore up, to consolidate the tunnels of the mine. Construction of a rudimentary cable-car starts, to bring the logs down to the beach. Basil finally decides to spend one night with the beautiful “widow”. The event is witnessed by someone who soon rumours it to the whole town, provoking the death of a young man, who in love with the “widow”, prefers to commit suicide. His family is going to take a cruel revenge on the “widow”, by cutting her throat.

Madame Hortense dies, the ladies of the town rampage through her rooms, stealing every valuable thing. Zorba’s concocted artifice for the transportation of logs ends in a catastrophe. At his petition, Zorba teaches Basil how to dance, on the beach, to liberate his body and his soul from failure.

There are substantial differences between the 1964-film and the text of the novel as such, above all concerning the substrata permeating the novel in every page. And for those who are only aware of the film, it is indeed advisable to visit the novel, as they would be able to gauge the “naked rawness” of life in Crete, at that time (1929). Crete, that island which was perhaps the most remarkable melting-pot between Europe and Africa, between the Greeks and Turks, the Arabs and Christians, the Jews and the Muslims.

The film does respect, to a large extent, the linear narration of the main events contained in the original novel, yet it does mutate the first-person narrator (“a young Greek intellectual”) into an uptight Englishman, in principle a writer, half Greek (his father was born in Greece), yet also half a tourist. Such an alteration did indeed procure the film a saleable glamour, and accentuated the contrast between the supposed reservedness and naive incomprehension of an upper-class Englishman, who almost always wears a suit, and the boisterous spontaneity of the Cretans, splashing joie-de-vivre and hospitality, on the sly though carrying the seeds of unpredictable, violent roughness, leading to tragedies. We have then a watered-down, much better parfumated, indeed almost flashy glamorous drama 


 
The first encounter between Basil (Alan Bates) and the "widow"  (Irene Papas), as Basil gives her his umbrella.                   ------------------------------------------------------


           Doubting as to whether to engage into that “step”, unaware that it is to lead to tragedy.

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

The novel aims much, much higher.

The novel aims much, much higher – and it does attain those proposed peaks. The first-person narrator is a “young Greek intellectual”, Kazantzakis’s alter ego, let us refer to him from now on as alter ego. He is a socialist, but also a patriot, he is a man of spirituality, devoted to his Greek church à sa manière, but also a Nietzschean. When he arrives in Crete, he is reading Dante Alighieri’s Divina Comedia (his “travel companion”2) , and writing an essay on Buddha It is the year 1929, a friend of his, Stavridakis, who has gone to the the Russian Caucasus to help the local Greek communities facing persecution, set off his decision to abandon the sterile intellectual discussions in Athens, and come to Crete. Stavridakis is to reappear later in the novel.The Alexis Zorba (Αλέξης Ζορμπάς) of the novel is a fictionalized version of the mine worker George Zorbas (Γιώργης Ζορμπάς, 1867–1941), whom Kazantzakis met, as he had indeed attempted to bring back into life an old lignite-mine.

From the first page to the last, the grandeur and the decline, the paradoxes, the ups and downs, the contradictions of the Greek nation (“that marvellous synthesis between Orient and Occident”), and of those Greek communities scattered all around the world, constitute one of the main Leitmotive.

Stavridakis reappears later in the novel, sending a letter:

Half-a-million Greeks are in danger in the South of Russia and the Caucasus. A lot of them speak only Russian or Turkish, but their heart speaks Greek with fanaticism. They are of our blood. (…) … they are the true descendants of your beloved Ulysses. Hence we loved them and we are not going to let them die. (…) Because they are in danger of dying. They lost everything they once had, they are hungry, they are naked. On one side they are being persecuted by the Bolsheviks, on the other by the Kurds. Refugees from everywhere have come to be piled up in a few towns of Georgia and Armenia.”3

Yet a different tone comes from another friend in Africa, who also urges alter ego to abandon his books and join him down there. Karayanis, at a mountain near Tanganyika:,

Politics, that is what ruins Greece. Also the cards, the lack of instruction and the flesh. (…) I hate the Europeans, that’s why I am erring here, amidst the mountains of Vassamba. I hate the Europeans, but, above all, I hate the Greeks and that it is Greek. “

He has already prepared his grave, and the inscription on the tombstone:

Here lays a Greek who detests the Greeks.”4


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


The burdensome, still fuming “embraces” between the Turks and the Greeks very much so, as well. One just have to read how Zorba, 65 years old in the novel, describes to alter ego his participation in the war against the Turks in Crete, in 1896, at the age of 32:

"And now I suppose, boss, you think I'm going to start and tell you how many Turks' heads I've lopped off, and how many of their ears I've pickled in spirits— that's the custom in Crete. Well, I shan't! I don't like to, I'm ashamed. What sort of madness comes over us?... Today I'm a bit more level-headed, and I ask myself: What sort of madness comes over us to make us throw ourselves on another man, when he's done nothing to us, and bite him, cut his nose off, tear his ear out, run him through the guts—and all the time, calling on the Almighty to help us! Does it mean we want the Almighty to go and cut off noses and ears and rip people up?”5

Similar descriptions of the carnages and tragedies accompanying the Greeks, and of the small town in Crete, abound in the novel. The scene of the killing of the beautiful “widow” in the film is just marked by the knife of the man approaching the throat of the woman. In the novel the rendering of the episode is rougher and preciser:

“”… he beheaded the woman in one single coup. “I take the sin upon myself!” he screamed, and threw the head of the victim onto the threshold of the church...”6

Humour does also materialise, mostly unexpected.

Just then, as we entered the village, a beggar-woman clothed in rags rushed towards us with an outstretched hand. She was swarthy, filthy, and had a stiff little black moustache. "Hi, brother!" she called familiarly to Zorba. "Hi, brother, got a soul, have you?" Zorba stopped. "I have," he replied gravely. "Then give me five drachmas!" Zorba pulled out of his pocket a dilapidated leather purse. "There," he said, and his lips, which still had a bitter expression, softened into a smile. He looked round and said: "Looks as if souls are cheap in these parts, boss! Five drachmas a soul!"



 
 
 
 
31 years afterwards, open-air concert in Munich, 1995. Theodorakis (70 years old) receives Anthony Quinn (80), and both dance Zorba the Greek

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

Anticipating the collapse of the old ideas

Written probably in 1996, the blurb on the back-cover of the French edition we read in 1998 states, lucidity and simplicity enjoying their utmost robustness, Kazantzakis’ foresight:

“The Cretan Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) knew, avant l’heure, that we were at a turning point of the world, where everything is being destroyed and created, where the human being decomposes itself before a new birth. He knew that the old receipts were no longer valid, that it was necessary to take leave from the ideas: “Patrie, religion, science, art, glory, communism, fascism, equity, brotherhood...”7



 

 

                       Cover and back-cover of the French edition we read in 1998, and re-read in 2023.

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

And that consciousness of being at the crest of a colossal wave, soon bound to destroy the old sand-castles on the beach of mankind, creating a vast emptiness, yet perhaps also planting the seeds of a future present (yet to be imagined), is the intellectual and emotional backbone sustaining Zorba the Greek. A convinced Socialist, close to the Greek communist party, yet never a member, friend of the Soviet Union, yet also to be disappointed by Stalinism, Kazantzakis had a Nietzschean coloratura having translated from German into Greek Thus Spoke Zarathustra, doctoral thesis in Athens and in Paris on Nietzsche. That coloratura he unleashes, with full poetry and full tenderness, onto the Greek-Macedonian Zorba, a sort of Nietzschean Sinbad the Seaman, but speaking rather with a Dionysian accent, a proletarian destroyer of bookish interpretations, mistrusting every theological discourse, a fanatic arguer in pro of carpe diem.

Dance as a way to liberate one’s soul to communicate that which cannot be transmitted by words.

Dance is for Zorba not just an “entertainment”. It is an intimate and rewarding language, which transmits that which cannot be expressed by words. There are many striking, at times hilarious, episodes narrated by Zorba of his sojourns in Russia (then the Soviet Union), yet perhaps the most moving relates to his friendship with an uninhibited Russian, near Novosibirsk. Zorba’s Russian was composed of about six or seven words (no, yes, bread, water, I love you, come, how much?), the Russian’s Greek did almost certainly not surpass four words. Yet they understood and enjoyed each other's company as if they were in paradise. When Zorba did not understand the words of the Russian, then the former stood up and started dancing:

like a possessed one…” (...)“And I looked at at his hands, his feet, his breast, his eyes, and I understood everything”.8

                 The famous scene at the end of the film, "let us look into the future, dancing..."
 
                                    ------------------------------------------------------

And here re-surges, again, the rough but core-centred improvised philosopher of language:

Ah, my poor fellow! Men have sunk very low, may they go to hell! They let their bodies become mute, and they speak only through the mouth. But, what do you expect a mouth to be saying? What could a mouth say? If you could only have seen how the Russian listened to me, from head to feet, and how he understood everything!»9

There is another film in which this conception of “dance” as an intimate dialogue with one’s own soul, and as a way of transmitting that which words cannot transmit. Never on Sunday, Ποτέ την Κυριακή (1960), where Ilya, a prostitute interpreted by Melina Mercouri, (Μαρία Αμαλία "Μελίνα" Μερκούρη, *1920-1994) had to intervene to stop the fighting between a Greek, who had abandoned himself to his dance in a Greek tavern, and an American scholar (a Hellenist, “Homer Trace”) who applauded the Greek out of admiration, only to unleash his rage.



Ilya tells the American:

In Greece when a man dances, it is for himself, it makes him better in his soul. He is angry, because by applauding him, you treated him as an entertainer…”

Never on Sunday dwells to some extent on some of the issues present in the Kazantszkis’s novel, in particular the “intellect versus down-to-earthness” parable, as the American scholar, who is looking for explanations of the decline of Greece, will try to extract Melina Mercouri from her existence as a prostitute, while the woman would love to “bring the American scholar” down, to a more humble, more elementary life, “embracing the primary fires of life”, as in the case of Zorba.

Burn all your books and then we will make something out of you!”

Alter ego leaves a lot of clues throughout the novel of they key philosophical issues he was trying to tackle, then in 1943, as he started the writing of Zorba. The events of that year, and of the nearest ones, do not seem to have biased Kazantzakis in his construction of that particular odyssey through Crete in 1929.

There is a constant attempt to reconcile Western ratio with Oriental psyche (in the Greek meaning of this word), that is why he is writing an essay on Buddha, a permanent confrontation with the grey ideas, on the one hand, and the mineral sound of Greek light, as materialised in Crete. He also dialogues with Zorba, asking him to many “whys” and “what-fors”, who then makes him a clear-cut proposal:

I am going to tell you an idea which just came to me, patron, but you must not be angry: put all your books together, and then light a fire. After that, who knows, you are not an idiot, you are a brave guy … we may be able to make something out of you!.

He is right, he is right! I screamed within me. He is right, but I cannot!”10,

Not few readers were tempted, and perhaps nowadays they still are, to classify Kazantzakis’ novel as an entertaining, intellectual eulogy of the “bon sauvage”. It is indeed not such an attempt, but readers may be enticed onto such a road by the word “primitive” (English and French versions), which appears quite often in the text, in particular when the Kazantzakis’ alter ego, attempts to de-cipher Zorba.


When I had finished reading Zorba's letter, I remained undecided for quite a while. I did not know whether I should be angry, or laugh, or just admire this primitive man who, by removing the crust hiding life—logic, morality, honesty—attains its very substance. All the little virtues, so useful, were not present in him. He only had an uncomfortable, difficult dangerous virtue, which urges him irresistibly towards the utmost limits, towards the abyss.”11

πρωτόγονος άνθρωπος (Νέα ελληνικά) is usually translated as “primitive human-being” (the word anthropos in Greek includes both male and female), πρωτό being “first” (which relates to the Latin origin of “primitive”, “primus”, “the first''), γόνος possessing the meaning of “son” or “offspring”, or “creature”, but also that of “sperm”, “pollen”. Zorba is not a “primitive” (in the sense the word is used (or rather frequently misused) today, not the uneducated-one, le bon sauvage, but someone who bath in in the first elements, whose backbone is constituted of those primaeval forces which render a human-being healthy, agile, always fresh, always curious, the sea, the sun, the wind, bread, music, hard work, long voyages and, in the case of Zorba… women.

Perhaps a more pertinent description:

Like a child, he sees everything for the first time. Persistently he gets surprised and interrogates. Everything appears to him as a miracle, and, every morning, when he opens his eyes and sees the trees, the sea, the stones, a bird, he remains with his mouth shut ”12.

He boasts that the only book he has ever read was Sinbad the Seaman.

Already in Crete in 1998 I felt uncomfortable about the utilization of the word “primitive” in the French version. In my “Cretan” diary, near to the paragraphs and phrases I copied by hand from the French translation, I attempted a first re-interpretation (in German), opposing “primitif” to “barbarisch”, the latter qualified as “foreign” and “destructive”, the former being upgraded as “back (a return) to the Elements...”



It is worth revisiting another paragraph, to understand while “primitive” in this case should be substituted by a “man of the first-Elements”, “the origin in itself“, “the eternal recourse to the basics”. This is the reaction of alter ego, while listening to Zorba eulogising the “red wine”, “What on earth is again this prodigious liquid? You drink this red juice and, see, it is your soul which expands, it does no longer fit in the old carcass , it defies God to a fight. What is this, patron, tell me?13:


I did not speak. Listening to Zorba, I experienced the virginity of the world renewing itself. All the daily, colourless things regained the splendour they had on that First Day, when they exited the hands of God. Water, woman, the star, bread returned to the mysterious primitive source, and the divine whirlwind 14burst again throughout the air”.

So it is the “origin in itself” which keeps reappearing, renewing itself. To be noticed that in the English version the Greek word for “virginity” is translated as “pristine freshness” -  not at all a bad suggestion.

The Cretan landscape as an example of “good prose”

On the 14th of September 1998 I wrote in my Cretan diary:

“Finished the “Alexis” by Kazantsakis the day before yesterday, a novel deeply rooted in his biography. In 1917 he attempted - and failed - a mining project - Lignite - with a "Georges Zorba".

One tends to describe the leitmotiv of the opus as the contradiction - and at the same time the fascination of one for the other - between the "primitive" and the "scholar". The narrative, and its ever-exploding subject matter, shatters this scheme on almost every page. Alexis simply assumes that the human-being is "bad". So, an animal of a special kind. The scholar seeks explanations everywhere. He writes about Buddha and seeks his peace. The whole thing sometimes sounds a bit stereotypical, and sometimes appears that way in the text. The novel was also written in 1943 (*) and surprisingly doesn't seem contaminated by the world-war atmosphere.”

25 years afterwards, I would apply nuances almost everywhere. Today’s readers, in particular the younger ones, may find Kazantzakis’ prose at times too flowery, at times too passionate, too much “given in” to recurrent “Nietzschean Romanticism”. In the year 1943 too many things were at stake in the world, and no one knew what was still to come. You cannot expect anyone, at that time, to remain calm, distant, uninterested.

However, there are moments in which the prose attains peaks of sublime simplicity, transpiring the Cretan landscape.

“The sea, autumn softness, islands bathed in light, a veil of a small, fine rain covering the immortal nudity of Greece. Happy be the man, I thought, whom was given, before dying, to navigate through the Aegean sea. “15

And the following can only be understood, once you have been there:

 “This Cretan landscape resembles, so it appeared to me, to the good prose: well articulated, austere, exempt of superficial richness, powerful yet restrained. It expresses the essential with the most simple means.”16

“Suddenly my knees weakened: on the road of the village, under the olive trees, marching at a balanced pace, all red, her black “fichu” over her head, svelte and dashing forward, the widow appeared. Her curved swagger was truly that of a black tigresses, and it seemed to me that a bitter perfume of musk spread itself through the air.”17


For Zorba “defeat” or “failure” is neither the one, not the other. It is simply a signal, an invitation to continue, that the next project, the next voyage are looming in front of us. And they will be a success.

Having lived with this novel, its film, its music, its men and women for more than half-a-century, I cannot but conclude that it remains as one of the most refreshing, stimulating, invigorating European novels of the 20th century. A must for everyone who would love to see “the virginity of the world renewing itself”. And take part in that process.

A sea-water refreshing sunrise, a timely invitation to life, reminding us that “books” are better understood (perhaps even deservedly thrown away) when bathed in grapes, figs, sand, sea and sun. 

Berlin, VIII.MM.XX.III.





1French edition, Omnibus, Paris, 1996, including a presentation by Bernard Gestin, “Le chemin escarpé de Nikos Kazantzaki”, page 41. We also revised an English translation, by Carl Wildman. The Greek version of 1968 was consulted many times, to verify the translations. All translations from French and Greek into English are the responsibility of the author of this blog, unless otherwise indicated.

2French 35.

3French 127.

4French, pages 125-26.

5French edition, pg 23. English edition, translated by Carld Wildman.

6French edition, pg. 216. Our translation.

7French edition, back cover.

8French edition, 70.

9French edition , 70.

10French edition, 88.

11Greek 187 French 137 English 127

12French 138-39.

13French 51.

14 Greek page 73, French 51, English 44

15French 20.

16French 34.

17 French 112




--

 
 


LEV TOLSTOY: THE KREUTZER SONATA (Крейцерова соната): ON THE (IM)POSSIBILITY OF LOVE.

 

LEV TOLSTOY: THE KREUTZER SONATA (Крейцерова соната): ON THE (IM)POSSIBILITY OF LOVE.


Whether Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, Лев Николаевич Толстой, (*9 September [O.S. 28 August]1828 - 20 November[O.S. 7 November]1910), ever regretted having published The Kreutzer Sonata (Russian: Крейцерова соната), remains a question mark, whose answer may never materialise. It was a scandal right from the moment the manuscript hit the printing house, it was censored and it appeared complete, to begin with, in German in 1890. The first Russian version was printed in 1891, after the Czar of Russia, Alexander III, issued his imprimatur, nihil obstat, giving in to the pleas of clemency addressed by Countess Alexandra Andreevna Tolstoy, great-aunt of Lev Tolstoy, tutor of Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna. Others argue that it was Tolstoy’s wife herself, who directly appealed to the Czar.

 



The initial censorship did, no doubt, enhance the interest in the opus. It enjoyed quick success, and it remains a canon of European literature, right to our epoch. There are at least 15 film-versions, first two in Russia, 1911 and 1914, the latest 2008 in the United Kingdom (directed by Bernard Rose) and in Spain, 2013. Not to mention the numerous adaptations for the theatre. 

 


But it also generated yet another source of conflicts with his wife, perhaps even an insurmountable estrangement, Sofja Andrejewna Tolstaja, Соoфья Андреeевна Толстая (*3. September, O.S. 22. August 1844, 4. November 1919 in Jasnaja Poljana), who bore Tolstoy 13 children and with whom she remained married for 50 years. Sofja Andrejewna, born “Behrs”(German ascendancy) felt the need to reply in her own words, thus writing “Whose Fault? The narration of a woman”. Written in the years 1892-1893, it was only published hundred years afterwards, in 20081

 


A first summary (but not the only one, and above all not the last one): The first-person narrator (who remains unnamed and almost invisible) describes a train trip, in which a man (“prematurely aged”) is going to join a discussion between the passengers of a compartment about the perennial issues of love, sex, marriage, social constraints and the uncontrollable instincts of both men and women. We invite the reader to get acquainted with the never exhausted disquisitions on the man-woman problematic in the text of the novel in itself. Here we are more interested in presenting the literary structure, and to unveil two or three clues which may help us to understand what indeed did Tolstoy attempt to achieve with such an aggressively polemic, naked and remorseless dissection of the traps and delusions threatening the search for love, both outside and inside marriage. 


 

The first version of the novel was written on the occasion of the “silver-anniversary” of the marriage between Lev and Sofja. We could not possibly accept the suggestion that it was a “present”. It was named after Beethoven’s Kreutzer Sonata, Sonata No. 9 in A Major for piano and violin, Op. 47 ("Sonata per il Pianoforte ed uno violino obligato in uno stile molto concertante come d’un concerto"), dedicated to the French violinist Rodolphe Kreutzer (in fact the second dedicacé, the first one having fall out with Beethoven, hence the defenestration).

Shortly afterwards, Tolstoy wrote a kind of a “postface” to the novel, to answer the many queries of readers, who were as much puzzled and no less intrigued as to what on earth was the message intended by the Russian writer in that “short-novel” (Novelle in German).

The main male character is thus a Russian who tried to escape from his riotous juvenile debauches into marriage and children, only, after a few tranquil years, to drown deeper into the mud of unresolved physical attractions, repulsionsand suspicions. It seems that love is always threatened by filth and treason, and that marriage hardly provides a sanctuary. An echo arrives from far away: “So foul a sky clears not without a storm”, Shakespeare, King John, Act 4, Scene 22.

Two quotes from the Bible (Matthew) open the novel, hinting already that we are going to need a tremendous amount of holy-water to get to the end. 


 

It is not surprising that in the preface to the bilingual (French-Russian) edition, which we first used to get some acquaintance with this novel, Nina Kehayan begins by asking:

D’ou vient le malaise dans lequel La Sonate à Kreutzer laisse le lecteur?“3 What is the origin of the malaise which suffocates the reader? She adds, some lines afterwards, “...one is tempted to scream “this is too much” while closing the book, as such is the bleakness impregnating every page…”

Many of Tolstoy’s friends were at least puzzled, if not annoyed and angry. Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (Антон Павлович Чехов) (*1860-1904), a trained surgeon, who guarded a keen empathy but also a healthy distant towards some of the awkward positionings of “Big Brother” Tolstoy, was adamantly critical of the way Tolstoy tackled the relationship between male and female, and disregarded every scientific proposition which Tolstoy may have attempted to bring onto his side of visioning love and sex. 

 



Yet a warning (others are still to come) should be given ad initium with regard to the Russian original and the translations, as specified by one translator into English of this novel and other stories:

On comparing with the original Russian some English translations of Count Tolstoy’s works, published both in this country and in England, I concluded that they were far from being accurate. The majority of them were retranslations from the French, and I found that the respective transitions through which they had passed tended to obliterate many of the beauties of the Russian language and of the peculiar characteristics of Russian life. A satisfactory translation can be made only by one who understands the language and spirit of the Russian people. As Tolstoy’s writings contain so many idioms it is not an easy task to render them into intelligible English, and the one who successfully accomplishes this must be a native of Russia, commanding the English and Russian languages with equal fluency.”4

We have no intention of claiming to have achieved such a status, albeit we will do our best, using our knowledge of the languages concerned, to at least place some warning-signs across the Tolstoyian language minefield.

Let us, before embarking into an interpretation of the “message(s)”, or rather apocalypses, underpinning The Kreutzer Sonata, just provide a summary of what in fact happens in this short-novel. It is still worth reading today, albeit better be it done privately, as the current eruptions of “political correctness” may as well send the reader of such opus into prison.

It must be read also to appreciate, once again, the splendid skills of Tolstoy as a writer and a story-teller. We have to wait 27 pages to encounter the first mention of a concrete family-name, which identifies the key male character, Pozdnyshev, who describes himself as having been a land-owner, completed university studies and a “maréchal de la noblesse” (… и был предводителем...)5 In summa, an educated member of the “upper class”. He is going to unravel throughout the train-voyage his drama and the tragedy which will accompany all his life (if such a privilege, life, were still to be available to him

 


Tolstoy gives, right at the beginning, specific physical and mental traits to the travelers, enabling him to avoid the usage of family-names, and even first-names by simply referring to “an ugly and aged woman, with a tormented face, who smoked and wore a bonnet and a masculine overcoat”, her acquaintance, “an early-forties man, talkative, carrying new and elegant suitcases”, and “a man, not really tall, whose movements were untoward...”6 It is only when we get to the key tragic scene in the novel, that Tolstoy starts naming some of the other personages in the novel:“Our valet de chambre Egor…”, “Vasia, the sister of my wife…”, “Ivan Fedorovich, the surgeon…”, “Lise, one of my children...”

His wife seeks refuge in the piano, and the family hires a violinist, Troukhatchevsky, to aid the woman in improving her musical skills. The two seem to insist on playing Beethoven's Kreutzer Sonata. At first everything would unfold peacefully. One day, however, Pozdnyshev would arrive suddenly back to his home in Moscow, and will find the two, his wife the pianist, and the violinist, seated together. He infers only one thing (“treason!”) and a dagger will come to life, in order to end a life, that of his wife.

In one of the many attempts by Pozdnyshev to cogitate some explanations for the inexplicability of his actions, or simply to camouflage his Krankheit, he asserts that men only think of, and exists for, “Wein, Weiber und Gesang” (written in German in the original Russian text)7, “Wine, females and chant”, hence hinting that the wrong combination of those three delicatessen, or the excessive consumption of any of them lead to debauch, illness, madness and … tragedy. We do not know whether Tolstoy knew that that German motto is usually attributed to Martin Luther (although some disagree), who would have written “Wer nicht liebt Wein, Weib und Gesang, der bleibt ein Narr sein Leben Lang” (He who does not love wine, woman and chant, will remain a fool all his life”). The motto, albeit expanded, even figures in the second strophe of the German national anthem (nowadays never sang):

Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treu,

Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang

Sollen in der Welt behalten

Ihren alten schönen Klang…“

And Johannes Strauss composed a waltz (1869) with the same title: “Wein, Weib und Gesang”.

But there is a crucial difference. The quote in German in the Russian original, as well as in its translations into English and French mentions “Weiber”, not “Weib”. “Weiber” is the plural of “Weib”, hence, “females” not “a female”. In the footnote accompanying the Russian text, the plural form is also used: “женциниы». Tolstoy, or its editors, also translated “Gesang” as песня, although the latter in German is “Lied”. 

 



Did Tolstoy deliberately alter the original version, to reinforce the message (through Pozdnyshev) that a man is encouraged to be libertine? The motto supported by Luther and other Lutheran writers, as well as by Johann Strauss, which eulogises the joys of love, singing and wine, as pertaining to the nature of men and women, is hence biased towards a much more raucous, libertine view of the world.

And then we confront the eruption of a pathological interpretation (or misinterpretation) of music, again through Pozdnyshev:

“They played the “Kreutzer Sonata '' by Beethoven. Do you know the first presto? Do you know it?, he screamed. Ah! What a dreadful thing, that sonata. Above all that movement. And music altogether is a dreadful thing. What indeed is this thing? I don’t understand it. What is music? What does it do? And why does it  affect the way it does? It is said that music aims to elevate the soul… what a stupidity, what a lie (untrue)!.”8

“It inflames the wrong, unnecessary feelings at the wrong moment…” might be the summary we can inflict upon the Philippica against music – or at least against music like the Kreutzer Sonata.

“Let us take as an example that Sonata Kreutzer, the first presto. Could one really play such a presto in a saloon amidst ladies en décolleté?“9

Of course one could. Pozdnyshev simply cannot understand that the eruption of innermost feelings provoked by a masterpiece of art does not necessarily have to be satiated, and assuaged, by sensual embraces. And it all depends on the interpretation. As Beethoven himself seemed to have defined it, “it is a man trying to reach his lover, he is stuck in bad weather and his lover may not wait for too long, hence, a certain “agitation”. It is, no doubt, a female-male dialogue. Herewith two examples for comparison. First the rather suave, tranquil, almost-bucolic interpretation by Anne Sophie Mutter (violin) and Lambert Orkis (piano)10. They required 15:65 for the first-movement. Now listen to the fiery, “Russian” interpretation by two giants of the 20th century11, Leonid Kogan (violin) and Emil Gilels (piano), Leningrad, 1964. They required only circa 11 minutes for the first-movement.

 


                                  Anne Sophie Mutter (violin) and Lambert Orkis (piano)

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

A usual interpretation of The Kreutzer Sonata is that of a thunder against seeking excessive delights in the fleshy entanglements between men and women, perhaps even an advocate of chastity (at a given moment…), as a way of keeping a healthy life, or at least a not too conflict-loaded life. But did Tolstoy really have to “extreme” the issue by constructing a male character who is simply krank, a low-class hedonist, driven by satanic impulses, un homme malade?

The possible onslaught against Tolstoy of having “overdone” it was on the table, ad initium. Hence the initial censorship. Yet there is also humour in the novel, mostly a sarcastic one.

Why does Tolstoy refuse to identify the first-person narrator and all the discussants in the voyage en train, except for Pozdnyshev, but only after twenty-seven pages? It is the description of a confession in a dark theatre, populated by invisible, faceless people. Perhaps a paraphrase, Pozdnyshev in fact is confessing to Godand the world, to an anonymous public.

Pozdnyshev also receives a specific physical trait, an awkward one:

“from time to time he issued strange sounds, resembling an expectoration or a broken laugh.”12

Thereby Tolstoy indicates that, in his most innermost that man is completely broken.

At the end of the narration, Pozdnyshev does not cease to cry, and only says: “Well, forgive me…” (Ну, простите…). He then lies in his banquette and covers his face. The first-person narrator relates that he needs to leave the train at the next station, but before he touches Pozdnyshev, who was not sleeping, and says to him: “Goodbye…” (прошайте), extending his hand. Pozdnyshev also extends his hand, “ony just smiling, yet in such a pitiful war, that I wanted to cry”, says the first-person narrator. And then Pozdnyshev again, “Yes, forgive me.” As the French translator adds in a footnote at that page, простите and прошайте are homonyms, implying that the destroyed and repented former husband “had been forgiven”, after his tearful confession, echoing en avant what Tolstoy is going to argue at the end of his “postface”: Христианское учение идеалв есть то едниое учение, которое может руководить челоьечеством 13, «The Christian doctrine of the Ideal is the only doctrine capable of conducting mankind.”

 


What does Tolstoy argue in the famous “postface”? He goes against what he called “perceived and accepted” customs in the Russian society at the time (bot not only there) regarding sexuality and marriage, rejecting the postulate that sexuality must be enacted always, as it is supposed to be healthy. He also rejects the low-voiced acceptance of infidelity” as a normal phenomenon, even within marriage, a supposed in-born impulse in men and women. Thirdly, he spurns the assertion that the task of “procreation” could diminish the joy of carnal embraces. And, to the astonishment of almost everyone, he criticises the efforts of poetry and literature in general to present the “search for sensual love” as the most sublime, soul-enhancing task. Humanity has other tasks, much more relevant and God-conforming. He may have a point there...

Is this a call for “chastity” as the healthiest way of life?

Tolstoy did undergo profound changes during the 1870s, remaining a Christian, albeit an anarchic and pacifist, an adherent of “non-violence” (which was to influence Mahatma Gandhi) but becoming also an advocate of vegetarianism. He acknowledged that the figure of Pozdnyshev was an “extreme case”, that deliberately sharpened the traits of an ill, obsessive jealous man who never attained a certain inner-equilibrium, mainly because he lacked a sense of appreciation of art. Hence his apprehension vis-à-vis music, suggesting even that, as indicated by Confucius,  that “the state” should control music in order to avoid stirring diabolical passions, unrestrained desires among the populace.

Tolstoy then as a “Provocateur”? To some extent yes, in order to warn of the dangers accompanying excessive “hedonism”. In that sense, at least, a suitable reminder for our age.

 


The reader may notice that this contribution to the blog comes after the one on Henry Miller, Tropic of Cancer. It is not a coincidence.


Berlin, VII  MMXXIII


1German edition, Munich, 2008, Manesse Verlag.

2It is also the epigraph of the novel Nostromo, by Joseph Conrad.

3Tolstoï, Léon. La sonate à Kreutzer Крейцерова соната, Folio Bilingue, Edition Gallimard 1994, Nina Kehayan, revised the French translation in conformity with the final text of the Russian edition of the Complete Works of Tolstoy, Moscow, 1936, Volume 27. She also wrote the preface and the accompanying notes. P. 7. Translations from French and Russian into English are the responsibility of the author of the blog, unless otherwise indicated.

4 Translator´s preface in the The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Kreutzer Sonata and Other Stories,.. The version therewith presented of The Kreutzer Sonata has been abridged at many levels, including the disappearance of full paragraphs and phrases, to begin with, the two first phrases “at the beginning”.

5 Pages 60-61.

6 Pages 28-29.

7 Pages 136.

8 Pages 222-223.

9 Pages 226-227.

   10 Beethoven.Violin.Sonata.No.9.Op.47.kreutzer.[Anne-Sophie Mutter.-.Lambert.Orkis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COGcCBJAC6I

  11 Beethoven - Violin sonata n°9 "Kreutzer" – Leonid Kogan / Emil Gilels, Leningrag, 29.03.1964

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC7qA9NRBNo I. Adagio sostenuto - Presto 0:00 II. Andante con variazioni 11:15 III. Presto 26:18

12 Pages 30-31.

13 Pages 330-334.



 



CLASSICS REVISITED

VIRGINIA WOOLF, "A ROOM OF ONE’S OWN": OR RATHER, "A LIFE OF ONE’S OWN".

  VIRGINIA WOOLF, A ROOM OF ONE’S OWN : OR RATHER, A LIFE OF ONE’S OWN. 52 Tavistock Square, London, WC1, a pla...