by Leo Tolstoy

Other authorsVera Traill (Translator)
Hardcover, 1947


Checked out
Due Aug 18, 2021


London : H. Hamilton, 1947.


Resurrection (1899) is the last of Tolstoy's major novels. It tells the story of a nobleman's attempt to redeem the suffering his youthful philandering inflicted on a peasant girl who ends up a prisoner in Siberia.Tolstoy's vision of redemption achieved through loving forgiveness, and his condemnation of violence, dominate the novel. An intimate, psychological tale of guilt, anger, and forgiveness, Resurrection is at the same time a panoramic description of social life in Russia at the end of the nineteenthcentury, reflecting its author's outrage at the social injustices of the world in which he lived.This edition, which updates a classic translation, has explanatory notes and a substantial introduction based on the most recent scholarship in the field.… (more)

User reviews

LibraryThing member ctpress
On trial for murder is a young prostitute, Maslova. She is innocent. Among the jury is Prince Nekhlyodov who discovers that Maslova is in fact Katusha - a young servant-girl he seduced and got pregnant years back. Now she's sentenced to ten years of penal servitude.

Nekhlyudov realizes that he have
Show More
ruined Katusha - that he himself have lived a selfish, materialistic life - he embarks on an extreme mission to better himself. This path toward redemption is fascinating. How he tries to help Katusha now in prison - and helps other prisoners, how he denounces his life among the elitist, upperclass society, how he give away his fortune and land, how he travels to isolated parts of Russia and meets the poor, the outcast, the criminals - following in the footsteps of Katusha, whom he have promised to marry.

We also follow Katushas road toward redemption - a prostitute she has lost all self-worth and is brought back to life again in prison-life and through the kind hand of Nekhlyodov.

I liked the first two-thirds of this novel a lot. Then the novel descends into an exploration of many of Tolstoy's religious and political ideas - they are weaved into the story - but somehow the story is pushed aside to give way for Tolstoy's own views of the church, the poor, the establishment, the criminals etc.

Nonetheless I'm glad I read it. I found so much to ponder upon in Prince Nekhlyodov "self-improvement" mission - much rang very true and beautiful.
Show Less
LibraryThing member baswood
Tolstoy takes his readers on a journey through a Russia that is sinking under the weight of a conservative administration led by Tsar Alexander III in the last decade of the 19th century. We view it through the eyes of Prince Nekhlyudov, (but many believe it is Tolstoy himself). It is virtually a
Show More
police state where the vast majority are peasants barely released from serfdom controlled by a system that can lock up, deport or murder anybody that agitates against it. The landowning elite have authority that seems self perpetuating and live a life that can completely disregard those that are under their power. Prince Nekhlyudov is one of those landowners who having served in the army has become corrupted because as Tolstoy says Military service always corrupts a man, placing him in conditions of complete idleness . But Nekhlyudov has a conscience and it is beginning to stir, he is concerned about his affair with a woman married to one of his friends in society and is thinking of extricating himself so that he can marry the young Princess Korchagina. He gets a summons to do jury service and to his horror recognises one of the accused as a servant of his family, who he had seduced when on leave from the army. Katusha Maslova is on trial for the suspected poisoning of a client and we learn that since her dismissal from service with Nekhlyudov's family she has become a prostitute. Nekhlyudov begins to see that Katusha's downfall is his responsibility and when her conviction is a result of a mal administration that he could have stopped he feels doubly responsible and vows to put things right.

Nekhlyudov's position in society and his family's influence gains him entrance to the upper echelons of the government and judiciary that serves the Tsarist regime. he becomes frustrated and then angry with the self serving people with whom he meets in their official capacity; he follows due process but even with the best lawyers he is unable to squash the conviction and sentence of hard labour in Siberia, he therefore plans to follow Katusha to Siberia and marry her, if necessary, in an effort to offer her his protection. When he finally gains access to the prison he finds that Katusha is no longer the innocent girl he seduced and she sees him initially as a nuisance then a meal ticket as he struggles to gain her trust. Part one of the novel takes us through the workings of the judiciary system and Tolstoy's acute observations pins the corruption and mal practice squarely on the shoulders of those who serve within it. We witness the lifestyle of the rich as Nekhlyudov becomes increasingly uncomfortable in their presence, because his eyes are opened by their complacency and misuse of power. When he gains entry to the prisons themselves we witness the appalling conditions under which the prisoners are held, but human spirit manages to survive. We see the same thing when Nekhlyudov visits his estates and attempts to free the peasants by giving them rights to the land. They are immured in the system and they resent any change, rather like some of the prisoners.

In this first half of the book; Tolstoy's writing and observations are full of interest and he bring the scenes he depicts to life, while at the same time doing a hatchet job on the church, on evangelism, on the legal system, corruption in high places and the landowning elite. However I find the character and actions of Nekhlyudov more problematic, I am not entirely convinced by his conversion to the lot of the poor and underprivileged and he comes across more of a sponge or even a cypher, soaking up everything around him, I feel his isolation and increasing discomfort, but am surprised at his resolution which seems a little out of character. This changes in the second and third parts of the novel which portrays the prisoners enforced journey to Siberia. The novel seems to breathe once the prisoners are led out of their fetid prison with Nekhyludov following as best he can; it is a sort of exodus and as horrific as the journey is and the conditions of the halting stations are, on the three thousand mile journey, there is less pessimism and more time for Nekhyludov to come to terms with his guilt and for Tolstoy to convince his readers. The relationship with Katusha deepens and broadens and the concentration on the plight of the political and criminal prisoners gives the novel a storyline and coherence that contrasts with the machinations of the first part which takes place in the claustrophobic city. This is an epic novel and it needs the vastness of the Russia landscape in which to work it's magic.

Tolstoy's [Resurrection] is a ringing indictment of Alexander III's Russia. It is also the story of one man's and probably one woman's redemption from a life led for purely selfish reasons. Along the way it eschews the benefits of socialism. but is profoundly pessimistic that such a system could work because human nature would always work against it. Hope of salvation is for individuals to come to understand in their own terms the words of Christ at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel according to St Mathew. The journey for Nekhyludov ends with him finding peace and liberation:

"And it happened to Nekhlyudov as it often happens to people living a spiritual life. The thought that at first had appeared so strange so paradoxical, laughable even, ever more frequently finding confirmation in life, suddenly appeared to him as the simplest incontrovertible truth......................The answer that he had been unable to find was the same that Christ gave to Peter: to forgive everyone always, forgive an endless number of times, because there was no man living who was guiltless and therefore able to punish or reform."

Some readers of [Resurrection] have found it too preachy, but I think this is missing the point. Tolstoy is concerned with setting out the wrongs of his world and the role that people play in it, but his message is that it is up to the individual to find their own redemption, however they can. Resurrection is a word that immediately evokes a religious connotation and it is no accident that Tolstoy should choose it as a title for his novel, however it is only in the final few pages that this is made explicit.

[Resurrection] is not a quick read but then it is nowhere near the length of [War and Peace]. The writing is superb throughout and if the first part was a little slow to get going by the time the prisoners started their trek to Siberia and Tolstoy embarked on one of his grand set pieces then I was hooked. This is a classic and I am sure it would benefit from a re-read, but as I found it uneven this time round, a four star read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member carioca
This is Tolstoy's last major novel, a deep and intimate account of a nobleman who wishes to repent for his youthful mistakes and seeks forgiveness from a woman he had seduced and who had since gone into prostitution. A beautiful work demonstrating Tolstoy's personal philosophies and belief in
Show More
redemtion through loving forgiveness.
Show Less
LibraryThing member jphamilton
This novel isn't as well known as Anna Karenina or War and Peace, but it was a pleasure to read. I've read quite a bit about Tolstoy and know that Resurrection took him ten year to write, and, by the conclusion, he was ready for it to be over so he could move on to something else. Knowing about his
Show More
desire to move on, may have flavored my thoughts about the book's ending being rushed and quickly concluded. The story involves a lower-classed woman who is sexually taken advantage of by an estate owner, like Tolstoy admitted to doing later in his life. Is this part of that old bit about writing what you know? Whatever, it was some very nice writing and touched on many of Tolstoy's favorite themes.
Show Less
LibraryThing member JVioland
The attempt by a man of conscience to redeem himself for a sin committed years earlier against a peasanta woman whose life he ruined, despite her refusal to admit that any thing he had done had ruined her life. A story of alienation in a world of an uncaring government and church. A good book, but
Show More
it doesn't rise to the best of Tolstoy.
Show Less
LibraryThing member lauralkeet
In his youth, Prince Dmitri Nekhlyudov fell in love with Katusha Maslova, an orphan girl raised by his aunts. Unbeknownst to him, their brief affair resulted in pregnancy and Katusha was turned out of the house and left to find her way in the world. Many years later, Dmitri finds himself on a jury
Show More
where Katusha is one of three accused of a crime. He learns Katusha turned to prostitution to survive. He is so worried their relationship will be discovered that he fails to advocate for her during jury deliberations, and she is sentenced to penal servitude in Siberia.

This experience has a strong effect on Dmitri. He feels at fault both for Katusha’s life circumstances and the sentence. He is also disillusioned by the court system, and shocked at the plight of the lower classes. Dmitri intercedes on Katusha’s behalf, working on legal appeals to reduce her sentence. He also believes he should marry her to improve her lifestyle (never mind whether Katusha wants this …). He puts his affairs in order and prepares to accompany Katusha to Siberia, while also advocating for other prisoners who have been unjustly convicted.

Published in 1899, Resurrection was Leo Tolstoy’s last novel, and through Dmitri he describes a dramatic shift in his own views on social issues of the day. As a treatise, it was probably quite effective. As a novel, I found it lacking in both plot and pacing. Dmitri saw himself as noble, but was actually weak and cowardly. Katusha is the stronger person, and I wish she had figured even more prominently in the novel. The ending is downright preachy, as Dmitri has a kind of “born again” experience and finds new purpose in life. Meh.
Show Less
LibraryThing member booksontrial
The last major novel by Tolstoy. According to Wikipedia, Vladimir Nabakov heaped superlatives upon "Anna Karenina", but questioned the reputation of "War and Peace", and sharply criticized "Resurrection" and "The Kreutzer Sonata". My opinion is the exact opposite.

To me, this is a more mature and
Show More
riveting work than "Anna Karenina", because it contains deeper spiritual and social insights, the upshot of the author's personal struggles and growth in the intervening years. In "Anna Karenina", we witness the despair and destruction of the main character, in "Resurrection", the tender hope and revival of two souls.

As Levin is a self-portrait of Tolstoy in "Anna Karenina", so is Prince Nekhlyudov, the hero of this book. Called to jury duty in the criminal court, Nekhlyudov recognized the defendant as the innocent Katusha whom he had loved but also seduced many years ago. He recalled his tender first love for Katusha, and his later betrayal and misuse of her. The reality of his subsequent life forced itself upon him, "a stupid, empty, valueless, frivolous life". He decided to redeem himself and save her or at least try his best to relieve her misery.

Tolstoy painted a condemning portrait of the Russian society, specifically the prison system and the government service, which he blamed for oppressing and depraving the human spirit. He changed my perceptions of the Holocaust, Abu Ghraib, and even happenings in our daily life. How otherwise normal, kind human beings can commit horrible crimes against others, and how insensitive and cruel we can be when "following orders" and "doing our job".

In sharp contrast, the relationship and interactions between Nekhlyudov and Katusha become the more lively and riveting, like plants growing in the desert. There is the whole gamut of emotion, joy, devotion, pity, contempt, anger, forgiveness and love. That is what I as a reader can relate to and it's also why I care about their fate to the very end.

Rationalization of a Sinful Life

"Everybody, in order to be able to act, has to consider his occupation important and good. ... People whom fate and their sin-mistakes have placed in a certain position, however false that position may be, form a view of life in general which makes their position seem good and admissible. In order to keep up their view of life, these people instinctively keep to the circle of those people who share their views of life and their own place in it. This surprises us, where the persons concerned are thieves, bragging about their dexterity, prostitutes vaunting their depravity, or murderers boasting of their cruelty. This surprises us only because the circle, the atmosphere in which these people live, is limited, and we are outside it. But can we not observe the same phenomenon when the rich boast of their wealth, i.e., robbery; the commanders in the army pride themselves on victories, i.e., murder; and those in high places vaunt their power, i.e., violence? We do not see the perversion in the views of life held by these people, only because the circle formed by them is more extensive, and we ourselves are moving inside of it."

Systematic Depravation of Men

"If a psychological problem were set to find means of making men of our time--Christian, humane, simple, kind people--perform the most horrible crimes without feeling guilty, ...It is only necessary that ... they should be fully convinced that there is a kind of business, called government service, which allows men to treat other men as things without having human brotherly relations with them; and that they should be so linked together by this government service that the responsibility for the results of their deeds should not fall on any one of them individually. Without these conditions, the terrible acts I witnessed today would be impossible in our times. It all lies in the fact that men think there are circumstances when one may deal with human beings without love. But there are no such circumstances."

Qualities of Men

"One of the most widespread superstitions is that every man has his own special, definite qualities; that a man is kind, cruel, wise, stupid, energetic, apathetic, etc. ... And this is untrue. Men are like rivers: the water is the same in each, and alike in all; but every river is narrow here, is more rapid there, here slower, there broader, now clear, now cold, now dull, now warm. It is the same with men. Every man carries in himself the germs of every human quality, and sometimes one manifests itself, sometimes another, and the man often becomes unlike himself, while still remaining the same man."
Show Less
LibraryThing member gbill
I certainly admire Tolstoy's relentless pursuit of truth and his courage in standing up to both the Russian government and the Church over the latter part of his life.

He advocated for the poor and while I don't particularly agree with all of the fundamentalist views he increasingly took (e.g.
Show More
chastity, refraining from alochol, socialism, non-resistance to evil by force), his aim was to improve himself and ultimately mankind through his writing.

Unfortunately I think the combination of essentially preaching through his works and his advancing age negatively impacted the quality and artistry of his writing; at 70 as he was authoring "Resurrection" (20+ years after Anna Karenina), I believe he was past his prime.

There are still flashes of brilliance here (including the very first paragraph of the first chapter), and it is still Tolstoy after all, but I think "Resurrection" is probably a book only a Tolstoy fanatic would love.
Show Less
LibraryThing member asxz
Just wonderful. Tolstoy is so sharp, so modern, so biting. He may be my favorite Victorian ever.
LibraryThing member Michael_Godfrey
If I wanted to read an evangelical tract I'd go to a Christian bookshop. As the great works of the literature canon go it's one I wish I'd by-passed.
LibraryThing member goosecap
I can’t quite tell you what I think but I’ll tell you what I don’t think. On the one hand, I respect a sort of fear of this book, if the fear is offered with a certain respect; it led to Lenin in a way that “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina” did not. So much was implicated in the
Show More
moral muck of czarism, not least the czarist church, that it was quite a frightening explosion that swept it all away. But some criticisms are not just. Are we to reject the book because there’s not enough flirting, despite the importance of the promises and pitfalls of love to the story? Are we to be so enamored of the purely personal, to everything we can blazon our names on, that we are to resent every appearance of “Nekhlyudov” meaning “Somebody” and “Maslova”, “Woman”? Do we regret all the hours of our lives not spent eating pizza so bitterly that a story about people with lives to live and business to accomplish and not just hours to fritter away and alcohol to steal, must be rubbish? But perhaps this is not the problem. Perhaps the problem is that it isn’t long enough. The longest and most grandiose is the best Tolstoy, and the less long and the less grandiose is second, and the only moderately long moral drivel that serves no purpose whatever, except for our individual and collective regeneration, but to which no grandiose war can be ascribed and in which no personal yet safe, near yet distant thing can be found. “Anna Karenina” is very subtle and ambiguous. Who’s it even about—Anna or Levin? That “War and Peace” is “something more than a novel”, but a piece of manly adornment, such as may be tacked on a uniform, need not be discussed. Of course I don’t think it’s bad writing, no. But it is less developed; especially W&P is developed in details but on the whole has no real purpose for existing. So what if Napoleon invaded Russia? What is this, trivia? When Napoleon invaded Russia, were there twelve historians and ten marshals, or the reverse? What are we trying to learn? Better than some of Dickens, where he’s just reliving sixteen, reliving childhood and young love, but not perfect. “Resurrection” tries to be perfect: an appropriate response might be wonder, awe, or fear—trepidation. Considering him an enemy might be appropriate, if there’s no contempt, but wondering if bananas are on sale next week because of plot pacing being boring is not grown-up. The plot pacing is fine, but any semi-literate can pace a plot. And that human suffering should not be considered a good problem to solve because only really good subtle ambiguous things are good, and a man in prison suffering who has done nothing wrong, perhaps only good things, like trying to be an honest Christian, “well that’s not really culture, you understand; I’m a specialist and I’m better than you are, but this isn’t that, so it’s nothing worth. Books should be culture, and only involve cultural topics; human suffering is the province of, I don’t know, social work or law, but it’s not really important. There’s nothing really interesting to say about a man suffering who’s only tried to help his fellows; that’s only religion, not culture.” There are no words, my friends, to condemn such an opinion as this; in fact, it is sufficiently bad that it would not be wise to try. So that’s what “Resurrection” isn’t. What it is in its fullness I can’t say, although as I said it could be terrible, “terrible as an army with banners”, as Solomon said of Love. And I know as little of armies and love as I do—incidentally, if you don’t mind—of Russian verbs.

…. *reads* Although that’s why people don’t like exhortation; “Be good! It’s more dramatic!”

But my comments stand.

As for the specifically Russian and czarist-era elements, I think the importance here is to see that the familiar face of fascism is not the only one. (In a way, this could be quite liberal as well as liberating and true to see. The little birds are for Trump! The natalist babies, the little ones!) If I don’t read that much specifically American fiction—more Tolstoy than Steinbeck for some reason—it’s not because I think that America is uniquely awful, that one has to escape, that failures spouting fascism is our unique and essential experience…. Once there was an old lady who thought that peasants eating was as bad as nobles working, and she spoke in dulcet Slavic tones, you know. Life happens to everybody, which is why I don’t specialize in what I already know about.

…. “Nekhlyudov distinctly saw that both these men were richly endowed by nature, but had been neglected and crippled like uncared-for plants.” Cf West Indian Archie

…. There is a sense in which government has the power to aggravate evil, which is why if I had to choose between the two I guess I’d be an anarchist rather than a Marxist, because Marxist officialdom can exaggerate the evil of man just like czarist officialdom can, regardless of what the theories are or may be. But evil is prior to a civilization which might exaggerate it. Corruption can exist in simple people, and even in animals, about whom most people know little and usually care less. People are often romantic about animals, but animals like people can be good or bad, friendly or unfriendly, adapted or maladaptive, corrupted or healed, as surely as abused or kindly treated.

Nekhlyudov is probably something of an anarchist, a believer in Plato’s democracy and not a people’s tyranny really, which is sympathetic and a voice that should be heard, but about nature he is a romantic. I am like late Wordsworth; I loved nature, but it has wounded me.

…. Life makes me sick because of those who lie about God, but I cannot believe that sickness is of God like lies are of sickness.

…. I suppose we are all romantic about something, but some of us are romantic about the workings of watches, some of bread, and others of God.
Show Less
LibraryThing member colligan
"Resurrection" arrived on my reading pile at just the right time. I had just been disappointed by Goncharov's "Malinovka Heights". Tolstoy's work restored my faith in the Russian literary tradition. "Resurrection" is an entertaining portrait of one man's journey to address the consequences of
Show More
morally questionable behaviors earlier in his life. Along the way we get a detailed picture of the Russian penal system of the time and it's impact on the lives of the Russian people.

The novel lays out struggles with morally ambiguous personal and societal situations. Clearly, Tolstoy has an agenda. However, he presents it in an appealing and non-pedantic fashion. The novel is well-written and an enjoyable read.
Show Less
LibraryThing member breic
I haven't read any Tolstoy for years, and I had very high expectations for this novel. What a disappointment. There's no subtlety, this book just clobbers you on the head, with plot, characters, themes, everything. While a lot of the criticism of the criminal justice system is interesting and,
Show More
sadly, timeless, I found the story to fail as a novel.
Show Less


Original language



Page: 0.2009 seconds