Based on several of his works, Liev Tolstoy appears to hold some level of bias regarding whether there is a natural or right way to die versus an unnatural or wrong way to die. I find Tolstoy’s concept of a right and wrong death are based upon the following two factors: the way in which the person or character dies and what choices they made or accomplishments did they achieve with time they were given. An example of the right kind of death would be dying to save a brother in arms or passing of natural causes, while the wrong death could be someone committing suicide for selfish reasons or not making the effort to maintain their health out of self loathing or pity. Tolstoy clearly shows in his writings that death is inevitable yet simultaneously
…show more content…
The passage discusses the emotion elicited from a tree being cut down by the axe. Initially a sense of helplessness and sadness overwhelms the senses. The tree “shudders”, “its branches breaking”, Tolstoy humanizes the tree when describing its death. The Tree has no choice or say in its death. Man has physical capability over the tree, yet the tree is a living thing, and reading this passage as a stand alone may convince us to view this as a wrong or unnatural death. The tree from what we know has not fallen ill and most likely will not if surrounded by other flourishing greenery, a forest fire did not consume it, it was sought out to fulfill the needs of man and forcefully had its life taken. In this context the death of the tree is both wrong and unnatural, it served a purpose as a part of nature there for all life and its life was taken for its functional use. However in relation to the 3 Deaths complete story and the tree’s actual purpose, Sergey did cut it down for the use of becoming a cross, to venerate the burial site of his uncle Fyodor (Tolstoy 52, 55). In this case one could argue that the death of the tree could be natural because man is dependent upon wood as a resource and to serve a purpose and according to societal and religious standards that Tolstoy was a part of, scripture clearly states that the earth is man’s domain and therefore if the tree is required it is
The passage discusses the emotion elicited from a tree being cut down by the axe. Initially a sense of helplessness and sadness overwhelms the senses. The tree “shudders”, “its branches breaking”, Tolstoy humanizes the tree when describing its death. The Tree has no choice or say in its death. Man has physical capability over the tree, yet the tree is a living thing, and reading this passage as a stand alone may convince us to view this as a wrong or unnatural death. The tree from what we know has not fallen ill and most likely will not if surrounded by other flourishing greenery, a forest fire did not consume it, it was sought out to fulfill the needs of man and forcefully had its life taken. In this context the death of the tree is both wrong and unnatural, it served a purpose as a part of nature there for all life and its life was taken for its functional use. However in relation to the 3 Deaths complete story and the tree’s actual purpose, Sergey did cut it down for the use of becoming a cross, to venerate the burial site of his uncle Fyodor (Tolstoy 52, 55). In this case one could argue that the death of the tree could be natural because man is dependent upon wood as a resource and to serve a purpose and according to societal and religious standards that Tolstoy was a part of, scripture clearly states that the earth is man’s domain and therefore if the tree is required it is