In the 19th century in Russia there were two contrasting movements. In rural areas there was a movement that could hardly be called a movement. In fact, it was more of a fixture. The indigenous foundation existing from time immemorial kept alive the spirit of the land and the system of a subjugated underclass. Many of the most representative elements of this structure actually existed in the lumpenproletariat (the pre-emancipation serfs and the post-emancipation peasants). This movement rarely had a visible voice because it was uneducated and not exposed to the means of amplification. Other writers of the time presented idealized conceptions of the fundamental aspects of these indigenous peoples. Ivan Turgenev in his serialized Sketches from a Hunter's Album attempted to capture the plight of this group. In this work we can also see the fundamental human characteristics of these people. Two particular pieces, "Living Relic" and "Kasyan from the Beautiful Lands", ignored the difficulties of the peasants and concentrated on describing two quintessential examples of the Eastern conception of man. In "Living Relic" the subject is Lukeria, a completely disabled peasant girl who lives alone in a shed on the narrator's estate. Kasyan, the focus of the other story, is a quiet, wandering peasant. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe ideas of the West spread to the cities. Supporters of the Western movement often tried to rationally tear away the mystical cover that Russia had unconsciously used to cover its non-progressive ways. This group had a strong voice and knew how to use it. Because of the plethora of supporters, the moral or historical teachings of Westerners cannot be reduced to a single voice. However, Nicholas Cherneshevsky represented many of the most important characteristics of the Westernizers, fundamentally in his pure belief in rationality. Cherneshevsky, of course, had specific lessons of utility arising from his own rationality. He believed that rationality could only lead to the search for maximum pleasure, and therefore usefulness in life. This idea was also in vogue among rationalists in Russia at the time of all the works under discussion. From these two poles came Konstantin Dimtrievich Levin in Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. On the question of utility and issues of everyday life Levin seems to agree with Cherneshevsky. In this respect he is very different from the completely apathetic oriental image. However, although this difference is not insignificant, he is inevitably closer to the Eastern conception of man than to that represented by Cherneshevsky and his brother Koznyshev. Levin's essential thought process and behavior – his soul as Tolstoy might want to call it – mark him as fundamentally similar to these characters. Levin supports Cherneshevsky's main statement about the correct activity of man. Both agree that utility is the object of everyday life. Cherneshevsky says that "[man] is guided by self-interest, which leads him to abstain from a lesser gain or a lesser pleasure in order to obtain a greater gain or a greater pleasure" (52). This pleasure can be achieved through action and work. In his words, "Idleness is the absence of action; it obviously cannot produce the phenomenon which is called pleasant sensation" (47). Utility is Cherneshevsky's name for the good achieved when everyone strives to achieve greater personal pleasure. Levin finds great joy in his work, so much so that aAt one point, as he pondered his ideas for improving the efficiency of his estate, "The idea threw Levin into great excitement. He did not sleep half the night, pondering in detail the implementation of his idea" (388). Levin discovers Cherneshevsky's lesson on idleness. Every time he returns home from the city where idleness is the way of life, he feels satisfied when he returns to work, Tolstoy says of Levin in hindsight: “living so long in Moscow, a life of only conversation, food and drink, was degenerating” (796). One can see their similar views on specific utility on their reflections on physical beauty , those enchanting sources of fragrance, those exquisite but fleeting sources of delight to our eyes, are pleasure or enjoyment. The plant on which they grow is utility" (57). As Levin sits eating with Oblonsky, Levin speaks similarly of the carefully manicured nails of one of Oblonsky's friends, and goes on to say, "We in the country try to have our hands in conditions that are more comfortable for work" (43). Levin's sense of utility, singular concern for the unglorified life, as well as his desire to spread these ideas through his writings, appear to be the ultimate goal of the scheme of Cherneshevsky's utility. Unlike the Sketches and Levin at the end of Anna Karenina, Cherneshevsky believes that utility is the source of the meaning of life sphere of human motivations and conduct arise from a single nature, are governed by a single law" (49). This law is that of maximum utility. Cherneshevskij offers the connection between utility and rationality. Not all Russian rationalists have come to the conclusion that utility is the ultimate goal of all life, but Cherneshevsky believes that it could not be otherwise. «Only good deeds are prudent; only he who is good is rational; and it is rational only to the extent that it is good” (57). Although Levin agrees with Cherneshevsky's fruit of rationality, he does not feel akin to Cherneshevsky in the mode of thinking that helped reach this conclusion. In this difference one can see the oriental in Levin. Kasyan and Lukeria possess no apparent practical use. Kasyan opens up for a brief conversation to tell the narrator that: "I have no occupation of any kind. I have a poor mentality, ever since I was little. I work as long as I can, but I am a poor worker" (133). Kasyan is said to have the ability to "heal" people, but uses this ability at his own discretion, and often not when another requests it. Kasyan is a definite nomad and has no claims to be useful to anyone else. The ability to be somewhat useful in practice has been taken away from Lukeria. Fortunately his condition requires no care or time from another person, but he is clearly unable to do anything for anyone else. He can't help but reach for the water cup. Turgenev makes it clear that their lives have meaning, but this meaning does not arise from usefulness. The mode of thought Cherneshevsky uses to reach his conclusion about utility, rationality, involves an important tool: words. He feels that every question in life can be simplified into a simple syllogism or metaphor. With a couple of cleverly placed words Cherneshevsky believes he can dispense with even the world's most enduring questions. At a certain point he asks: "Is man a good or bad being?" He quickly goes on to say, “On the first application of scientific analysis, everything turns out to be as clear as possible” (38). After demonstrating the ease with which this problemis solved by resorting to buzzwords such as "predicate" and "deductions", he concludes: "From the theoretical point of view the problem of the good and bad qualities of human nature is solved so easily that it cannot even be called a problem" (39 ) In the first paragraph of the essay he eliminates any idea of ​​God. «The sciences demonstrate that no dualism is evident in man... since everything that happens and manifests itself in man comes solely from his real nature, he cannot have another nature" (29). quote is important because it demonstrates Cherneshevky's faith in words, it is also important because here, at the beginning of his work, we see Cherneshevky's refusal for something higher than words and rationality, something more than a singular nature addresses these supposedly big questions in just a few paragraphs, Cherneshevsky could never be called concise. The most striking aspect of Cherneshevsky's work is that at 120 pages his essential ideas can easily, and probably. for better, be compressed to 15 pages (as we learned the hard way). Even in 15 pages there is plenty of room for Cherneshevky's logical and almost comic wandering. while Levin finds agreement with Cherneshevsky on utility, he has a more fundamental difference that cannot be easily reconciled. This problem begins with words, the tool of the rationalist. It is with words and what they represent that Levin separates from Cherneshevskij and joins the oriental characters of Sketches. When Lukeria shows up, she immediately volunteers: "Look how talkative I've become." As the story develops, the feeling described in this statement becomes the great irony of the story. She is described by the farm overseer as "a quiet person, if ever there was a quiet person" (p367). There is an obvious physical reason that forces Lukeria into silence as Lukeria lives in a shed where no one visits her. Yet it is something more than this physical eventuality that defines Lukeria as silent. Although Lukeria is happy to have a conversation with the narrator, it is clearly no great loss to her when he leaves her again to quiet and solitude. “Now that you're leaving, I'll keep quiet as long as I want” (366). When the narrator suggests that Lukeria could be taken to the hospital, she tells him that she doesn't want that: "I'm not afraid of being alone. Really it's better, really it is!" (361). Lukeria is not only able to do without words and people, but consciously rejects these things. Kasyan is a "wandering sheep" and clearly does not seek either people or conversations. Even once he was with the narrator Kasyan, he "maintained a stubborn silence and answered all my questions peremptorily and unwillingly" (128). After the couple goes into the forest to hunt, the narrator is "bored by his [Kasyan's] silence" (131). This causes the narrator to sit down to unconsciously partake in the beauty of a silent existence. The narrator says of the experience, “You stand still and keep looking: words cannot express the joy and stillness, and how sweet the feeling that creeps into your heart” (131). In this short passage some hints of the meaning that these lives possess. These oriental characters do not acquire any meaning through Cherneshevsky's utilitarian conception of life. They are impractical for other human beings and, moreover, they reject the tool of rationality (i.e. words) that redeems usefulness. The meaning of life seems to be based on a beauty intrinsic to life, which is completely distant from everything that is evaluated or determined by rationality, from everything that could be placed in Cherneshevsky's unique nature. Turgenev illustrates this principle most effectivelystripping anything of conventional value from The Life of Lukeria and examining the pure act of living through her. Lukeria is given nothing more than the barest existence, “I feel that I am alive, I am breathing – and that is all I have of me” (359), yet her life seems to be filled only with beauty. This is how she describes her time spent alone: ​​“Sometimes I lie alone like now – and it's as if there's no one else on the whole earth except me. And I'm the only person alive! And a wonderful feeling comes over me, as if I had been visited by some thought that grips me – something wonderful it is” (361) Since Kasyan does not share his solitary experiences with the narrator, we are left with the small glimpse of his private life given during the hunting trip. The tone is reminiscent of the mystical and wondrous tone of Lukeria's time alone. Kasyan and Lukeria's existences are imbued with such beauty that, ultimately, they seem to transcend mortality in a way that Cherneshevsky could only categorically reject in reference to his unified nature as a man. Kasyan was awarded the titles "healer" and "holy man". While Lukeria is given no such titles, her physical description pretty much identifies her as an idol. This physical description is not about his appearance, but rather an aura that accompanies his existence. She shines bronze; it seems with the light of life. This light definitely does not come from any earthly source, as it does not accommodate ordinary vital organs. Lukeria is able to live and shine without any earthly subsistence. It eats nothing and survives only on water. This invokes an intrinsically superhuman composition. While Kasyan magically keeps others alive, Lukeria magically maintains her own earthly existence. This must be strongly qualified because ultimately the Eastern image will culminate in a strong sense of an omniscient God. The sanctity of the characters intrinsically derives from a complete faith in a higher God. Because of the static gaze on these characters it is unclear whether their holiness is directly attributable to their belief in God. What we do know is the beauty and sustenance these characters find in existing free from the routine of normal existence. From Levin's first appearance, his hesitation towards the conversation is evident. When we meet Levin, he approaches his good friend Oblonsky with little to say. In his first visible meeting with his deeply rationalist brother, Koznyshev, Levin enters to find him arguing furiously with a "professor." Levin apparently cannot decipher the cryptic speech of the rationalists, and classifies it as "a sea of ​​subtle distinctions, reservations, quotations, allusions and appeals to authorities, and it was with difficulty that he understood what they were talking about" (30). Yet the moments in which he finally realizes the futility of words are those fleeting moments in which his life finds pure, unreserved joy. The first of these major events occurs when Levin is knocked down while mowing the fields with the farmers. In a small segment of Tolstoy's sweeping panoramic look at this scene, Tolstoy says, "The more Levin mowed, the more often he felt moments of unconsciousness in which it seemed as if the scythe was mowing by itself, a body full of life and energy ." own conscience and as if by magic, without thinking about it, the work turned out to be regular and precise on its own. These were the most blissful moments" (289). Levin had found a phenomenon completely inexplicable by rational methods, but it seems infinitely full of happiness. This moment gives a glimpse of a phenomenon reminiscent of the inexplicable force that drives Lukeria. After the timeless day spent on the field, Levin returns to his brother, with whom the eveninghe had had an irritating argument earlier. Koznyshev immediately pounces on Levin to talk about everything, but especially about the conversation the night before. Tolstoy says of their meeting: "Levin listened to his brother and did not understand a single word, and did not want to understand" (295). The most immediately noticeable moment of shimmering yet wordless beauty comes when Levin and Kitty are finally united. in their love. Levin and Kitty meet for the first time in the Oblonskys' living room. From the first sight Kitty is "overjoyed and so confused with her joy that there was a moment... [she] thought she would break down and begin to cry" (437). At the same time, Levin "feels as if he must sob from the ecstasy that floods his heart" (437). They reach this point without exchanging more than a few meaningless words. When they sit down to dinner for Levin, feelings reminiscent of the night after the mowing return. «Everyone took part in the conversation except Kitty and Levin... But these ideas, once... so important in his eyes, seemed to have come to him as if in a dream, and now he no longer felt the slightest interest in him. It seemed strange to him that they were so eager to talk about what was of no use to anyone" (445). It is after dinner that the true uselessness of words in the face of true meaning is affirmed. As Levin begins to speak for Kitty he discovers that all that manages to get out is "a poorly expressed idea," yet they soon move completely into a realm of wordless communication. Everyone writes down the first letter of the words they're thinking of, and the response is invariably something like the mumbled "I see." Kitty At first Levin realizes the difference between the rational discussion at the dinner table and that between himself and Kitty “He was struck by this transition from the confusing, long-winded [emphasis added] discussion with Pestsov and his brother to this laconic communication , clear, almost wordless of the most complex ideas" (453). In the end not a word is said but some meaningless muttering, and yet: "In their conversation everything had been said" (455). When Koznyshev initially arrives at Levin's estate, the two men tour the estate on horseback. Koznyshev attempts to describe the aesthetic charm of the country that brought him from the city. Koznyshev's visit occurs before one of the intense moments discussed above, and yet, even here Levin, it is said, "did not like to talk and listen to the beauty of nature. Words for him detracted from the beauty of what he saw" (p275) . This is the same feeling that the reader and Levin alike leave in the Mashkin Upland fields and in the Oblonskys' dining room. Another revealing moment in the novel comes when Levin thinks he has found the meaning of life in the effort to achieve ultimate usefulness. This is the moment mentioned above where he stays up all night with excitement. It seems that this excitement comes from the "vague hope of finding a remedy for all this [the inefficiency of his farm] – all was mixed in a sense of inner turmoil and anticipation of a solution at hand" (387). At the time Levin thinks that this answer, which will apparently give him lasting happiness, will come through improving the efficiency of his farm and farmers. Levin believes he can find happiness through usefulness, as Cherneshevsky proposed. But there is a clear sense of uncertainty. All his excitement is based on the hope that happiness can be achieved through his work. In the moments before his final epiphany Levin wonders in amazement, "Why is everything being done? Why am I here making it work?" (896). Finding God, supposedly the ultimate epiphany (when one reaches the final truth), Levin realizes that the happiness he had hoped to find through usefulness could not, 1990).