Analysis of the authentic life in the three works
Tolstoy (1886) had a dark and brooding view of life, filled with the oppressed and the oppressor. In this work, the oppressed is the hero Ilych, while the oppressor is life itself and the many trials the hero has undergone. The author portrays a life that is filled with misery and wretchedness. This is the manner in which Russian authors such as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and others attempted to describe life. When the ‘hero’ Ivan Ilych attempts to recall the past in an attempt to justify his claim that he had led a simple and ordinary life, and wants to raise questions as to why he has to die in such a painful manner. “…then all became confused, and there was still less of what was good; later on again there was still less that was good, and the further he went, the less there was….” However, when he tries to remember the life, all he recollects is pain, even events of his childhood when he was presumably leading an innocent life. The life portrayed by Tolstoy speaks of disillusionment and dissatisfaction, and this is not a very authentic description of life.
Boethius (526) believed that life was a treadmill and his account of life and philosophy during his imprisonment is but an expatiation of sin and remorse that a condemned man feels when on the verge of death. He suffered from the inherent dread of death, and his outpourings are a confession and begging for mercy for the sins he committed during his lifetime. Boethius was a prisoner when he wrote the books and was assured of horrible and painful death, and consequently, his writings assume an extreme nature, that of forgiveness a man seeks in his final moments when everything he has done or imagined he has done comes back to haunt him. ‘Now he lies there; extinct his reason’s light, his neck in heavy chains thrust down, his countenance with grievous weight downcast; ah! the brute earth is all he can behold”. This is different from the manner in which Tolstoy interprets life, so while Tolstoy believed that life did not have any pleasures and joys, Boethius believed that life should be lead in a frugal manner that frowned on amassing wealth and indulging in pleasures. While Tolstoy believed that there were no moments of joy and pleasure in life, Boethius believed that it was only a rigorous life that gave any hope for life. While Tolstoy believed that life was a curse and it was better if one never lived at all, Boethius argued that we are born so that we can expatiate for our sins and give up worldly pleasures. Boethius’s work shows great elements of fatalism and doom, and one cannot say that this is an authentic description of life. A reading of the work would lead us to believe that life was morbid. He tries to argue that men are essentially good but only when they take to wickedness do they become similar to animals. The overall tone of the work is to discourage a person into giving up the urge to collect material wealth and worldly possession, and this is in line with what the Greek philosophers such as Socrates attempted to preach, but few rarely followed. If there is no urge to grow rich and gain wealth and power, then man would exist and lead the life of animals. It is an ambition that drives the man. Tolstoy’s writing is often torturous and reveals the pain and self-torture that he underwent while writing the book. The work by Boethius shows the deep remorse and repentance the author went through when imprisoned and awaiting death. Therefore, both the stories are not the best view of authentic life as they have tried to put forth their misery and torture into their perspective of life.
Rilke (1903-1908) has a different perspective on life when he tries to assure the young poet Franz Xaver Kappus. His letters are filled with hope, and the author shows that life is what one makes out of it by using his creative abilities “.If your everyday life seems poor, don’t blame it; blame yourself; admit to yourself that you are not enough of a poet to call forth its riches; because for the creator there is no poverty and no poor, indifferent place..”. This is a different and contrasting view of life as taken by Tolstoy, and while these two authors believed that life was essentially filled with torture and pain and one could only regret living, Rilke viewed life as essentially beautiful that could be shaped by the self and it was a question of creative ability that one had that allowed life to be molded to the best of one’s capability. For Tolstoy and Boethius, there were no emblems of hope on which one could find sustenance and joy, and all objects in the books are symbols of gloom and despair. Rilke takes an opposite view and speaks of the sustenance that books could give to a person, and he recommends the work of J. P. Jacobsen ‘Niels Lyhne’. According to the author, these books would immerse the reader in a joy-filled world that had a great many treasures filled with learning. When one learns to love this world and learning, the love would be returned thousands of times. Therefore, it can be seen that Rilke’s vision was different from the one viewed by the other two authors.
Justification of which depiction of the authentic life is best
The depiction of authentic life as depicted by Rilke (1903-1908) can be regarded as the best among the three works. Tolstoy (1886) attempts to represent life more as a punishment, and his work shows life as filled with gloom and misery. The manner in which the hero Ilych attempts to speak of the misery of his earlier years when he cannot recall even one pleasant event is a reminder of how dark and fore bidding life was. If one were to go by the manner in which Tolstoy represented life, then life would be more of a chore and a curse, and there is nothing pleasant to look forward to. The manner in which Boethius (526) has portrayed is more of a condemned man who is on the verge of death and wants to seek repentance for his alleged misdeeds. Life, according to the author, should be filled with piety, frugalness, and amassing wealth, and indulging in the pleasure of the Flesh would not give a person anything. The life as represented and interpreted by Boethius is fit for only sages and philosophers and not for the common man.
On the other hand, life, as interpreted by Rilke, speaks of hopes, aspirations, and a desire to harness and unleash the creativity of the self, while Tolstoy believes in gloom and death. Rilke does not ask to portray life as filled with dread and gloom, and neither does he preach to the reader to abandon all pursuits of pleasure and learning. While he asks the reader to maintain the proper perspective and sense of direction, he shows how life can be made much richer through prose and poetry and how one can add to the pleasure of life and such elements are absent from the works of Tolstoy and Boethius. Rilke believes that life is filled with little things that can give joy and pleasure, while Tolstoy believed that life is torture and Boethius believed that life was a way to atone for sins. Therefore, while Tolstoy and Boethius attempt to force the view that life is a curse, filled with suffering, pain, and agony and the true path to bliss are through the atonement, Rilke does away with all this dogma and teaches one to be creative and take life as it comes to make it worthwhile and beautiful.
References
Boethius. 526. The Consolation of Philosophy. (Revised) Lorrie S. Chisholm. 1994. 2008. Web.
Rilke Rainer Maria. 1903-1908. Letters To A Young Poet. (Translated) Franz Xaver Kappus – June 1929. 2008. Web.
Tolstoy Leo. 1886. The Death of Ivan Ilych. (Trans) Louise and Aylmer Maude. 2004. Web.