The Accordance of Will in Women and Marriage in Anna Karenina

Leo Tolstoy, author of Anna Karenina, offers a complex web of women who become entangled in the intricacies of individual will and marriage. Tolstoy asserts that marriage is a chief institution that is upheld by the trust and will of its participants; it cannot be fulfilled if primary will is absent. The concept of will was central to writers of the 19th century. It can be thought of as a human faculty in which humans have a powerful will, a powerful determination to achieve what is desired. This is called the secondary will which is rational, deliberate, and intentional. There is another component of will which is not rational, conscious, or deliberate and this is the primary will. All humans have some aspects of will in common, such as the will to survive. It is a will so crucial that it doesn’t have to be reflected upon at all. According to Tolstoy, true success in life and marriage stems from an individual's ability to be in touch with their deepest will. Those who are not in touch with themselves lead lives in which their desires and instincts are not primary. Anna Karenina explores the women and their marriages as it explores the will of the characters. The women function in a vacuum of lust and jealousy as their morality and primary will is shaped, changed, and judged. This paper will dissect each of the various relationships formed and broken by Tolstoy, individual desires, and the importance of primary will in the success of marriage. 

Tolstoy’s world begins with Prince Stephen Arkádyevich, henceforth referred to as Oblonsky, and his wife, Princess Dárya Alexándrova, known as Dolly. The marriage between Dolly and Oblonsky acts as a foundation for the marriages that follow. Oblonsky’s infidelity introduces a mangled notion of marriage which becomes increasingly relevant as the plot unfolds. Dolly’s forgiveness that ultimately follows illustrates Tolstoy’s ability to allow happiness in the wake of lust and sin. Tolstoy gives a great deal of detail, maybe to a fault, about every individual character. This detail causes the evil and immorality that takes place in Anna Karenina to be convoluted. Readers come to know an excessive amount of information about each character and therefore, evaluations of a person's morality is based on action and thought combined rather than on action alone. Thus, someone who refrains from committing adultery is good, but someone who thinks to do it and refrains is less good. As Tolstoy reveals the mind of his characters to his readers, judgements of them become clouded. Judgements of Oblonsky, then, are unclear. He is sinful in his infidelity and beloved for his ability to beg for forgiveness. Tolstoy uses Oblonsky and Dolly as a template to demonstrate the power of marriage when it functions properly. Though the marriage is strained, the individuals come to understand that marriage is the only way to endure the weight of life. For “if you had to carry a load and use your hands at the same time, it would be possible only if the load were strapped on your back: and that is marriage” (284). If one attempts to carry the load without the help of another by way of marriage, the weight will drag one down to the point of uselessness. Marriage frees individuals from efforts and frees one's hands of work. If one already has a partner, there is no need to pursue one anymore, and there will be energy and time to carry on with other more important matters in life. The arrangement of marriage must be natural to the routine of daily life so that one can become accustomed to its burden so that it may eventually become unnoticeable. If Dolly were to divorce Oblonsky for his misdeeds, the trying nature of their marriage would ensure that the burden would be ever-present and painful. Thus Tolstoy sets the stage for marriage; a union in which there must be trust and distribution of struggle. A state of matrimony that is so precious, forgiveness is acceptable even in the worst of conditions. 

Tolstoy’s concept of women and marriage evolves as the novel delves into the relationship between Anna Arkádyvena Karénina and her husband Alexéy Alexándrovich Karénin. Anna emerges into this novel in a flurry of beauty, smooth skin, and delicate movements as she glides over the ballroom floors of Oblonsky and Dollys Moscow home. “Anna was not in lilac,” as was anticipated of her, but instead her sculpted shoulders surface out of a silk black gown. In the details surrounding her there is a foreshadowing of Anna. She is “willful” and she yearns to “escape” (72). She floats about the ball, appearing as one elegant stem from an opulent vase, but as small curls and folds escape, she becomes undone and trickles out of the facade (72). Anna entered the ball believing her primary will was to satisfy her husband and family back home, however, her introduction to Alexéy Kirílich Vrónsky changed that. Vronsky disturbs her values as a married woman and her morals as a mother. Though no affair takes place, his presence in Anna’s mind erodes her will as she once knew it and allows for her to pursue the willful and daring part of her that itches to come undone. As Anna returns to St. Petersburg she finds her husband, Karenin, disfigured by her lust for Vronsky. She now finds her husband unpleasant in a way she did not before (95). To no fault or awareness of his own, there has been a change and their once loving marriage is henceforth a bore. 

Anna at this point, becomes irrevocably out of love with the oblivious Karenin. Try as she may, Anna can no longer convince herself that Karenin is the man she desires (102). He is the antithesis of her will to participate in spontaneity and thrill as his will always leads him to logic. Karenin partitions each moment of his day with an exactness. “Without haste and without rest,” he runs with clockwork accompanied by the hardened edges of a man who lacks all emotional intelligence (100). Even when he is calling his wife to intimate relations Karenin is measured and exact; freshly washed with a book beneath his arm he calls out to her, “Its time, its time!” (103). He is entirely correct, routinely, prepared, and in culmination, boring. This routine nature quenches the fire in Anna and causes any shred of intimacy left to dissipate (102). Soon, Anna comes to see that Vronsky is her only confidant. Ridden with guilt, she has nowhere left to turn but him (135). The marriage of Anna and Karenin begins to dissolve under the weight of Anna’s dissatisfaction and desire for another. Karenin, however, chooses to suspend disbelief and ignore Annas adulterous behavior. This obliviousness causes the society surrounding Karenin to think of him as reputable, but also dimwitted. They believe he is stupid because they cannot percieve his wisdom and therefore, it is not the person he is speaking with who is incapable, but Karenin himself (123). No one in this society would ever dare call themselves stupid. This air of stupidity amongst a remarkable man with a seemingly spotless reputation stems from his ignorance. Karenin often chooses to disregard the situations and issues that other people see and chooses to be oblivious towards affairs because addressing them would tarnish his image. Beyond his sometimes inane behavior, there is pity for Karenin. In realizing that he has greater depth than previously thought, Tolstoy urges readers to have compassion for him. 

Karenin is a helpless character and trusts in Anna by way of respect rather than ignorance. He is not a jealous man, “jealousy in his opinion insulted a wife, and a man should have confidence in his wife,” (129). He did not view his wife’s adulterous behavior as being confronted with betrayal, but rather as being “confronted with life—with the possibility of his wife’s loving somebody else, and this seemed stupid and incomprehensible to him, because it was life itself,” (129). For Karenin, Anna is not merely a partner nor a wife, but the very soul feeding person and idea that has made up his entire life and fulfilled his will. He compares his loss of Anna to crossing a bridge “over an abyss,” where he “suddenly sees that the bridge is falling to pieces and that he is facing the abyss” (130). Here, the abyss is life unknown and the bridge was the “artificial life Karenin had been living” (130). He is admirable and trusting in his initial lack of jealousy but this lack of jealousy appears to Anna as a lack of care (135). It is this confidence in Anna that leads Karenin to fall into the feared abyss. Insight into his thought process clouds readers judgement of Karenin’s intelligence as he is simultaneously ignorant and trusting. In the framework of marriage only one of these traits may be considered admirable. Although it is done out of love, it is possible that Anna may crave Karenin’s jealousy as a sign of passion. This is a difficult task for him to fulfill as Karenin regards people who feel deep sentiment to be below him as he expresses emotions with irony in “a tone which ridiculed those who could use such words,” (95). He is even superior to the genuine sentiments he himself is expressing because to admit fully to his loving expression would be childish. Karenin’s primary will is to remain above all others, untarnished and free of the dramatic turmoil Anna has brought onto his life and family.

The primary will of Anna is to fulfill her own needs, regardless of the pain it causes others. Vronsky’s will is similar in its selfish nature. The consequences of following their primary will, however, will be different for Anna and Vronsky. In following her primary will, Anna leaves a trail of broken and bitter hearts. While she is not a religious person, she occasionally utilizes religion to blame her faults on God in times of need. She believes that “God made [her] so,” and she cannot help but fulfill her will (266). It is her will to be with Vronsky, to leave her home, husband, and child. Anna attempts to battle this will, but ultimately gives herself over. As she begins to embody her primary will, she becomes deeply in touch with her need to conquer men. Conquests she abandons once finished with them. Anna feels pride in her ability to dominate others, even to conquer married men such as Constantine Dmítich Levin. She feels further pride in provoking jealousy his wife, Princess Catherine Alexándrovna Shcherbátskaya’s, hereafter known as Kitty. Anna “had involuntarily done all in her power to awaken love in Levin (as at that time she always did to all the young men she met),” and “knew she had succeeded in as far as was possible with an honourable married man in one evening,” (637). Anna’s will lies in her need to conquer a man, every man, even the most respectable man, and bring them to submission. It is an aspect of his primary will and true to her nature. This complicates the readers ability to think of her as a decent woman. There are characters such as Dolly, however, that continue to see Anna as a respectable individual. She sympathizes with Anna and in some ways feels as though she wants to see herself in Anna’s place. “Am I better than she?” Dolly rhetorically asks herself (551). For if Dolly had exercised her primary will earlier in life and done the same as Anna then she “might have loved and been loved, the real way,” (551). She is one of the only characters who views Anna's actions as a will to live and as a God given need that is implanted in Anna’s very soul rather than as lunacy (551). Dolly goes so far as to dream of what her life might’ve been if she had a similar will to live, she dreams of the pleasure she would receive from being loved by others and by tempting and conquering them (552). This view of Anna, however, comes with its faults. With an omniscient narrator comes no single point of view, but rather a paradoxical observation. Tolstoy uses indirection, such as Dolly’s perspective, to tell stories from detailed and devastating points of view (807). Presenting a series of light refracting off one another to create a blizzard of minute detail that makes up the entire omniscient narration. Meaning that this insight into Dolly’s view of Anna may be noteworthy, but may also be false. In fact, Dolly is entirely wrong about how Anna is doing and wrongly assumes that she is making Vronsky happy at this moment in time. In this way, Tolstoy invites readers to ask all relevant questions about every conceivable juxtaposition. This romanticised view of Annas will to live is what Dolly chooses to see when she sees Anna because she is unaware of all of the other angles the readers have been presented. Annas control over her life, her will to live, and her conquests are not something to be admired, but rather to fear and pity. 

 This dominant mindset leads Anna to demand things of Vronsky that could not be demanded of any man at that time. “[Vronsky’s] love she felt ought to be wholly concentrated on her alone,” (669). She reproaches him for loving other women, but mostly she reproaches him for not being punished in the same way that she was punished for her adultery, abdication, sin, and pursuing her primary will. While she has been chastised for her sins, Vronsky is congratulated for his success in seducing a married and noble woman. “Vronsky’s mother, on hearing of the matter, was at first pleased” with Vronsky’s affair (158). The men envied him while the woman of society were delighted that their doubt of Anna’s virtues had been confirmed. Vronsky came to notice “that though the great world was open to him personally, it was closed to Anna,” (480). He is portrayed as a romantic figure rather than as a villain sleeping with the wife of a powerful man. His place is defined by privilege in which it is seen as a virtue to be adulterous and to cause scandal. Vronsky himself knows that he will be admired for seducing Anna and his understanding of this outcome is what makes readers dislike him, but nonetheless he remains attractive and compelling. Anna wishes Vronsky could feel all that she has felt in her punishment, however, realizes that she would reproach herself if she were to cause him such pain. In this way, there is no winning. Therefore, there is but one means of escape for Anna, and that is death. In this rash decision, Vronsky’s love for Anna comes to light. In their relationship, his devotion to her was questioned. In her absence, it becomes clear that Vronsky has suffered on her behalf, uprooted his life, and is unable to express the depth of his love to anyone but her. It is this deep feeling, vulnerability, and fear that makes him real, even if the rest of the society cannot see it. As a deep and complex character, Tolstoy shows Vronsky in the round and from every angle. 

Vronsky is introduced by way of Kitty during his decoyed flirtation with her in which he seduces the girl with no intention of marrying her. It proves to be an act of “evil” and he is not portrayed as admirable in this light (52). When Vronsky is introduced he is portrayed as a man against marriage. He viewed family and furthermore, being a husband, as “something alien, hostile, and above all, ridiculous” (52). Admiration for Vronsky grows as he matures in his ability to embrace marriage, children, and family. Between then, however, we see his rules and codes begin to break down (278). The habits and rituals he inherits from the people of his sect of society are old fashioned and pompous (104). He is, however, accustomed to living his life in this certain way (158). Vronsky has the will of a horse with animal-like passion, heart, and sensuality (166). It is this nature and disposition that attracts Anna. Vronsky comes to see how his behavior is ridiculous when he is tasked with showing a prince around for a few days. Vronsky calls him “a big green shining cucumber,” language that is reminiscent of Tolstoy rather than Vronsky himself (322). In comparison to this overtly luxurious prince Vronsky appears decent. When he sees himself mirrored in this arrogant prince, he finds it to be an unflattering image staring back at him. Tolstoy uses passage such as these to display a character from every angle, even the way the characters see themselves mirrored in others. It takes Vronsky to a new level of self awareness, allowing him to become dimensional and insightful. Even after this eye-opening experience of reflection, this moment does not incite change. As Vronsky continues to live by his old fashioned and animal-like will, Anna loses trust in him. Their primary wills can never coincide with one another as their relationship is founded on betrayal. “What proof have I that you tell me the truth,” she asks (326). In asking these questions it is proved that the relationships roots are sickly as that question betrays the will of the two of them. They are not in accord with one another as the type of trust they seek cannot be proven, only known. Mistrust corrodes their relationship from the inside out and eventually, just as in the Steeplechase horse race, Vronsky does something that causes Anna’s back to break. It is his awkwardness and his actions that cause her to kill herself. She believed that his love for her was a mere question of “whether [he] will conquer” her (638). Then, in expressing that she was a “catastrophe and afraid of [herself]”, she finds these words to be dangerous. These words are a hint at what is to come. A hint that among their love of one another “there had grown up some evil spirit of strife, which she could not cast out of his heart and still less out of her own,” (639). It is this divide between the love they shared as a man and his married mistress that drives Anna to her death. Her primary will leads her to conquer and to conquer Vronsky. When she feels his love for her cease and hate begin, her will to live as a passionate, free, and beloved woman crumbles along with her will to survive.  

Among all the pairings of Anna Karenina, Levin and Kitty are arguably the most exemplary. This is in part due to the social importance of marriage to them both as individuals, as well as the idea that Tolstoy strongly identified with Levin’s character. Levin finds pleasure in struggle and deprivation as he enjoys the manual labor that comes with it. He is not able to power through emotional hardship in order to enjoy the release that lies on the other side. His preoccupation with thoughts prevents him from simmering and relishing in the moment and therefore, he gets caught up in issues before he is able to enjoy life. To enjoy the pleasures of the flesh that others indulge in freely is too uncomfortable for him. Levin is ill at ease among the abundance and fanciness of the city and reveles in the deprivation of the countryside. Tolstoy uses Levins discomfort to establish an opposition to appetite for pleasure. Thus, Levin is the opposition to the indulgence and consumption that plagues this Russian society. Also similar to Tolstoy, Levin sees the good in others, and is fair minded (46). His character provides a critique of the world that Tolstoy found to be exorbitant. Levin is not worried about what others think of his unique lifestyle as his primary will doesn’t concern them, yet he is riddled with self doubt and uncertainty. Regardless of his doubt, he is one of the only characters who is in touch with his deepest self. He has a “most” in life that he inevitably follows and is deeper than rationality. Tolstoy values this genuine self. For Levin, his genuine self lies in his primary will as well as marriage.

Levin discovers his primary will when he goes out to be with his workers in the fields. He grips a scythe and his worker tells him, “it will mow of itself” (227). It will be easy, so easy as if it were doing it itself, and he will feel attached to it in motion. This “thing” becomes one with him and he experiences the feeling that he is completely in accord with what he is doing and therefore completely in accord with his own primary will (227). These are the “moments of oblivion” in which one is completely in accord with their primary will and true bliss can be experienced (230). It is oblivion in the sense of the blessed sensation that builds upon itself. These moments cannot be willed, they only happen in spontaneity in conjunction with being aligned with primary will. There are characters, Karenin for example, who don’t want to have that feeling and would choose to be rational instead. Those rational people will think everything through and won’t let go long enough to experience these moments due to self consciousness. Anna, and even Levin at moments, also fall subject to this rationality as they are “alike in that they both feel the influence of and need for moral law,” (856). It prevents them from going with the flow perfectly, even though they may be perceived that way. It also presents them as moral characters even though they appear as selfish and sometimes sinful. Regardless of this rationality, Levin is one of the fortunate characters who is able to let go of preconceived notions and societal standards for long enough to experience bliss. In this same way, he pursues the ideals that are most important to him, regardless of their social acceptability. Whether it be mowing the fields or pursuing marriage. To Levin, marriage is the chief thing in life, “on which the whole happiness of life” depends (87). To others, it is merely a social stepping stone. Levin depends on marriage with his life as in his eyes, it is the only and most important social event he can experience and will fulfill his primary will (87). His eventual bond with Kitty, which proves to be the most successful of all relationships in the novel, is further proof that Levin is the exemplary character of Anna Karenina. Those who are in touch with themselves, in accord with their primary will, and allow for irrational moments of oblivion are the ones who prosper the most in life and in marriage. 

Tolstoy wrote that Anna Karenina’s parts “consist not in the development of events, but in development itself” (832). In saying this, Tolstoy conveyed that “real contingency” shaped the novel (833). To say this means that Anna Karenina is shaped by the real world and the real world is contingent; meaning that the work does not exist in a vacuum. Thus, the emotions, decisions, and events of this novel are subject to change based on reality. It becomes appropriate for characters to agree to marriage one day when the next may bring on events that cause that marriage to be unwanted. It's all contingent. This contingency is partially what lead to the hatred of the sinful content of Anna Karenina. It is based on real life, it reflects life, and therefore, was believed to influence lives. It is of some critics opinions that while much of the novel is “painful” and “unpleasant”, there is nothing in it that is meant “to trouble the senses, or to please those who wish their senses troubled,” (768). Those who interpret this novel as a bad influence on society are unable to reap the benefits of the lessons portrayed. The proper conclusion to be drawn from Anna Kareina is to follow primary will. This conclusion is convoluted as there are two main characters that are truly in touch with their primary will; Anna and Levin. One perishes while the other is granted success, marriage, and happiness. One fails to endure to the end of the novel while the other goes so far as to end the novel itself. One allows moments of oblivion to lead to nothingness while the other allows moments of oblivion to lead to bliss. In this novel, through women, marriage, and primary will, Tolstoy ultimately asserts that there are those who put their happiness in the hands of others and there are those who understand that happiness is what one makes it.