What Men Live By

“What Men Live By” bases itself around its central religious and moral themes, mirroring a parable in its apparent simplicity and directness. The use of rhetorical and literary strategies allows the narrative to create a self-proving argument. Each action takes on multiple meanings, all of which eventually tie themselves back to Human Connection as Divine and the need for compassion in God. This thesis is directly stated within the work: The angel Michael says, “I have now understood that though it seems to men that they live by care for themselves, in truth it is love alone by which they live. He who has love, is in God, and God is in him, for God is love” (Part 12, paragraph 6). This thesis and method of storytelling allow for a religious and moral argument to be stated while still utilizing a style meant to be universally understandable.

In the context of Tolstoy’s development as a writer and thinker, this story fits securely into his views on art and religion in the last two decades of the 19th century. These ideas culminated in his 1897 essay What Is Art?, in which he attempts to answer the eponymous question, arguing that true art must be “universal,” i.e., relatable and understandable by all. “What Men Live By” uses a parable format in line with this school of thought. Parables are succinct and focus on moral dilemmas to expose universal truths, just as in Tolstoy’s story.

Writing in this style is not only in line with these ideals, but it also allows the story a place in the long history of religious writing. The story avoids mention of any religious authorities beyond God, and in moments where they could appear, their absence shows neglect. Michael, attempting to find shelter at the shrine, finds that it locked. It is not a priest but a kind cobbler who appears to help him. Through their own instinctual generosity and love, the characters are able to find God within themselves and each other, not through the authority of a church. The use of parable style to mirror traditional religious stories while putting forth a different idea of faith allows the story to place itself not within a tradition but in conversation with it.

The characters within the story are less individuals than they are vessels for the discussion of these moral dilemmas. While Simon and Matryona still have their own needs and inner lives—they worry over where to get bread and desire for better circumstances—these thoughts are there to add context to the moral decisions they must make. Simon is all the more generous for helping Michael because when he meets him, he is mostly worried about caring for his own family. Matryona is all the more kind because she is shown struggling over household finances. Michael, whose journey sits at the story’s center, does not have his thoughts explored by the narration at all. The only time his personal experiences are spoken of intimately is in dialogue at the end of the story, when he speaks of the truths he learned from Simon and Matryona.

Continuing in this style, the side characters are similarly representative. The gentleman’s portrayal as rude, demanding, and greedy not only shows the futility of living in such a way but also presents a picture of the profligate nobility in contrast to the kind and hardworking Michael, Simon, and Matryona. The adoptive mother of the twins likewise serves a representative function. Similarly to Simon and Matryona, she opened her home and heart to those who needed it desperately and has been rewarded. Where the gentleman’s presence casts light on their generosity through contrast, the adoptive mother does so through her similarities. That she and the family sit and talk together, unlike the gentleman who leaves Simon’s as soon as possible, is also symbolic—it proves humans benefit from time spent in one another’s company. It is no accident that her story leads Michael to the final truth and his reascension, the story ending with his anagnorisis, or epiphany.

The plot is simple in that all themes, assertions, and development are shown in just three scenes. But these scenes and actions contain multiple meanings. Though each truth is realized by Michael due to a specific event, those are not the only moments in which Tolstoy renders them to be true. Though Matryona’s acceptance of Michael shows him that “in man dwells Love” (Part 11, paragraph 1), Michael also says that “the stench of death” surrounded Matryona before her acceptance of him” (Part 11, paragraph 1), and had she forced him out, she too would have died. This proves the second truth: Men are not given to know what they need. Matryona, thinking that she was protecting herself and her family from a strange man, might have chosen the path that led to her own death. Michael’s presence greatly helps the family, illustrating that Matryona does not know what she needs. The third truth is similarly proved, as it is the invocation of God in Simon’s question—“[H]ave you no love of God?” (Part 4, paragraph 3)—that pierces Matryona’s anger and saves Michael from being ejected. Thus, Matryona lives by God, the mention of him keeping her from death.

Similarly, in terms of broader themes, Matryona’s reaction to Simon returning home with Michael not only shows her struggle between Generosity and Pragmatism but also the dangers of misunderstandings, the family’s precarious financial situation, and Matryona’s role as the distributor and organizer of household goods. Each scene expresses multiple meanings, connecting each theme with all the others and reinforcing that all three of Michael’s truths are parts of a whole. While the story emphasizes The Unknowable Nature of Divine Power, it also presents a simple conclusion for living a Christian life: “[T]hough it seems to men that they live by care for themselves, in truth it is love alone by which they live. He who has love, is in God, and God is in him, for God is love” (Part 12, paragraph 7).