Leo Tolstoy’s Family Recipe for Mac and Cheese

In 1874, Stepan Andree­vich Bers pub­lished The Cook­book and gave it as a gift to his sis­ter, count­ess Sophia Andreev­na Tol­staya, the wife of the great Russ­ian nov­el­ist, Leo Tol­stoy. The book con­tained a col­lec­tion of Tol­stoy fam­i­ly recipes, the dish­es they served to their fam­i­ly and friends, those for­tu­nate souls who belonged to the aris­to­crat­ic rul­ing class of late czarist Rus­sia. 150 years lat­er, this cook­book has been trans­lat­ed and repub­lished by Sergei Bel­tyukov.

Leo Tol­stoy’s Fam­i­ly Recipe Book fea­tures dozens of recipes, every­thing from Tar­tar Sauce and Spiced Mush­rooms (what’s a Russ­ian kitchen with­out mush­rooms?), to Stuffed Dumplings and Green Beans à la Maître d’Hô­tel, to Cof­fee Cake and Vien­nese Pie. The text comes with a trans­la­tion, too, of Russ­ian weights and mea­sures used dur­ing the peri­od. One recipe Mr. Bel­tyukov pro­vid­ed to us (which I did­n’t see in the book) is for the Tol­stoys’ good ole Mac ‘N’ Cheese dish. It goes some­thing like this:

Bring water to a boil, add salt, then add mac­a­roni and leave boil­ing on light fire until half ten­der; drain water through a colan­der, add but­ter and start putting mac­a­roni back into the pot in lay­ers – lay­er of mac­a­roni, some grat­ed Parme­san and some veg­etable sauce, mac­a­roni again and so on until you run out of mac­a­roni. Put the pot on the edge of the stove, cov­er with a lid and let it rest in light fire until the mac­a­roni are soft and ten­der. Shake the pot occa­sion­al­ly to pre­vent them from burn­ing.

We’ll leave you with bon appétit! — an expres­sion almost cer­tain­ly heard in the homes of those French-speak­ing Russ­ian aris­to­crats.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hear Leo Tol­stoy Read From His Last Major Work in Four Lan­guages, 1909

Leo Tol­stoy Makes a List of the 50+ Books That Influ­enced Him Most (1891)

The Final Days of Leo Tol­stoy Cap­tured in Rare Footage from 1910

Thomas Edison’s Record­ings of Leo Tol­stoy: Hear the Voice of the Great Russ­ian Nov­el­ist

George Orwell’s Rules for Making the Perfect Cup of Tea: A Short Animation

Sev­er­al years back, Col­in Mar­shall high­light­ed George Orwell’s essay, “A Nice Cup of Tea,” which first ran in the Evening Stan­dard on Jan­u­ary 12, 1946. In that arti­cle, Orwell weighed in on a sub­ject the Eng­lish take seriously–how to make the per­fect cup of tea. (Accord­ing to Orwell, “tea is one of the main­stays of civ­i­liza­tion.”) And he pro­ceed­ed to offer 11 rules for mak­ing that per­fect cup. Above, Luís Sá con­dens­es Orwell’s sug­ges­tions into a short ani­ma­tion, made with kinet­ic typog­ra­phy. Below, you can read the first three of Orwell’s 11 rules, and find the remain­ing eight here.

  • First of all, one should use Indi­an or Cey­lonese tea. Chi­na tea has virtues which are not to be despised nowa­days — it is eco­nom­i­cal, and one can drink it with­out milk — but there is not much stim­u­la­tion in it.…
  • Sec­ond­ly, tea should be made in small quan­ti­ties — that is, in a teapot.… The teapot should be made of chi­na or earth­en­ware. Sil­ver or Bri­tan­ni­aware teapots pro­duce infe­ri­or tea and enam­el pots are worse.…
  • Third­ly, the pot should be warmed before­hand. This is bet­ter done by plac­ing it on the hob than by the usu­al method of swill­ing it out with hot water.

Enjoy!

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bun­dled in one email, each day.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

George Orwell and Christo­pher Hitchens’ Iron­clad Rules for Mak­ing a Good Cup of Tea

An Ani­mat­ed His­to­ry of Tea

10 Gold­en Rules for Mak­ing the Per­fect Cup of Tea (1941)

“The Virtues of Cof­fee” Explained in 1690 Ad: The Cure for Lethar­gy, Scurvy, Drop­sy, Gout & More

The Art of the Japan­ese Teapot: Watch a Mas­ter Crafts­man at Work, from the Begin­ning Until the Star­tling End

Was William Shakespeare’s Marriage Closer—and Less Estranged—Than We Thought?: A 17th-Century Letter Changes What We Know About the Bard’s Life.

Image via Here­ford Cathe­dral and Here­ford Map­pa Mun­di Trust

At this point, every aspect of William Shake­speare’s life has pro­duced more spec­u­la­tion than any of us could digest in a life­time. That goes for his pro­fes­sion­al life, of course, but also his even more scant­i­ly doc­u­ment­ed per­son­al life. As far as his mar­riage is con­cerned, the known facts are these: on Novem­ber 27th, 1582 a mar­riage license was issued in Worces­ter to the 18-year-old William Shake­speare and the approx­i­mate­ly 26-year-old Anne Hath­away. Six months lat­er came the first of their three chil­dren, Susan­na. For most of his pro­fes­sion­al life, William lived in Lon­don, while Anne — willed only her hus­band’s “sec­ond-best bed” — remained in his home­town of Strat­ford-upon-Avon.

Accord­ing to one com­mon inter­pre­ta­tion, the Shake­spear­es’ was a shot­gun wed­ding avant la let­tre, moti­vat­ed less by romance than expe­di­en­cy. That would cer­tain­ly explain their appar­ent choice to live apart, though William’s career would prob­a­bly have brought him to Lon­don any­way, and with­out a good rea­son to be in the city, it was­n’t a bad idea to keep the kids out of plague range. (As for his best bed, it would cus­tom­ar­i­ly have been reserved for guests.) But accord­ing to a new inter­pre­ta­tion of an old doc­u­ment by the Uni­ver­si­ty of Bris­tol pro­fes­sor Matthew Steggle, the cou­ple could not only have remained in com­mu­ni­ca­tion, but also lived togeth­er in the cap­i­tal for a time.

“Here­ford Cathe­dral Library holds a frag­men­tary sev­en­teenth-cen­tu­ry let­ter addressed to a ‘Mrs Shak­spaire,’ con­cern­ing her husband’s deal­ings with a father­less appren­tice,” writes Steggle in his research paper recent­ly pub­lished in the jour­nal Shake­speare. “Of the Shake­spear­es record­ed in Lon­don, William Shake­speare is the only viable can­di­date to fit with the letter’s details.” In Steggle’s analy­sis, it “paints a pic­ture of William and Anne Shake­speare togeth­er in Lon­don, and liv­ing, per­haps around 1599–1603, in Trin­i­ty Lane. It fur­ther sug­gests an Anne Shake­speare who is not absent from her husband’s Lon­don life, but present and engaged in his finan­cial and social net­works.”

The New York Times’ Ephrat Livni quotes Steggle as say­ing that “this let­ter, if it belongs to them, offers a glimpse of the Shake­spear­es togeth­er in Lon­don, both involved in social net­works and busi­ness mat­ters, and, on the occa­sion of this request, pre­sent­ing a unit­ed front against impor­tu­nate requests to help poor orphans.” This, Livni adds, would “lend some heft to fem­i­nist read­ings of Shakespeare’s life,” as well as to the pop-cul­ture trend of “rethink­ing the mar­riage and Hathaway’s role in it.” Each era thus con­tin­ues to cre­ate the Shake­speare for whom it feels the need — and the Mrs. Shake­speare as well.

Relat­ed con­tent:

Free Course: A Sur­vey of Shakespeare’s Plays

Why Should We Read William Shake­speare? Four Ani­mat­ed Videos Make the Case

Behold Shakespeare’s First Folio, the First Pub­lished Col­lec­tion of Shakespeare’s Plays, Pub­lished 400s Year Ago (1623)

The Only Sur­viv­ing Script Writ­ten by Shake­speare Is Now Online

Did Shake­speare Write Pulp Fic­tion? (No, But If He Did, It’d Sound Like This)

Did Bach’s Wife Com­pose Some of “His” Mas­ter­pieces? A New Doc­u­men­tary Says Yes

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities and the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

James Joyce, With His Eyesight Failing, Draws a Sketch of Leopold Bloom (1926)

James Joyce had a ter­ri­ble time with his eyes. When he was six years old he received his first set of eye­glass­es, and, when he was 25, he came down with his first case of iri­tis, a very painful and poten­tial­ly blind­ing inflam­ma­tion of the col­ored part of the eye, the iris. A short time lat­er, he named his new­born daugh­ter “Lucia,” after the patron saint of those with eye trou­bles.

For the rest of his life, Joyce had to endure a hor­rif­ic series of oper­a­tions and treat­ments for one or the oth­er of his eyes, includ­ing the removal of parts of the iris, a reshap­ing of the pupil, the appli­ca­tion of leech­es direct­ly on the eye to remove fluid–even the removal of all of Joyce’s teeth, on the the­o­ry that his recur­ring iri­tis was con­nect­ed with the bac­te­r­i­al infec­tion in his teeth, brought on by years of pover­ty and den­tal neglect.

After his sev­enth eye oper­a­tion on Decem­ber 5, 1925, accord­ing to Gor­don Bowk­er in James Joyce: A New Biog­ra­phy, Joyce was “unable to see lights, suf­fer­ing con­tin­u­al pain from the oper­a­tion, weep­ing oceans of tears, high­ly ner­vous, and unable to think straight. He was now depen­dent on kind peo­ple to see him across the road and hail taxis for him. All day, he lay on a couch in a state of com­plete depres­sion, want­i­ng to work but quite unable to do so.”

In ear­ly 1926, Joyce’s sight was improv­ing a lit­tle in one eye. It was about this time (Jan­u­ary 1926, accord­ing to one source) that Joyce paid a vis­it to his friend Myron C. Nut­ting, an Amer­i­can painter who had a stu­dio in the Mont­par­nasse sec­tion of Paris. To demon­strate his improv­ing vision, Joyce picked up a thick black pen­cil and made a few squig­gles on a sheet of paper, along with a car­i­ca­ture of a mis­chie­vous man in a bowler hat and a wide mus­tache–Leopold Bloom, the pro­tag­o­nist of Ulysses. Next to Bloom, Joyce wrote in Greek (“with a minor error in spelling and char­ac­ter­is­ti­cal­ly skewed accents,” accord­ing to R. J. Schork in Greek and Hel­lenic Cul­ture in Joyce) the open­ing pas­sage  of Home­r’s Odyssey: “Tell me, muse, of that man of many turns, who wan­dered far and wide.”

NOTE: Joyce’s draw­ing of Bloom is now in the Charles Deer­ing McCormick Library of Spe­cial Col­lec­tions at North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty. Nut­ting was a sig­nif­i­cant source for the biog­ra­phy of Joyce that was writ­ten by Richard Ell­mann, a pro­fes­sor at North­west­ern. Accord­ing to Scott Krafft, a cura­tor at the library, Ell­mann bro­kered a deal in 1960 for the library to pur­chase Nut­ting’s oil paint­ings of James and Nora Joyce, his pas­tel draw­ings of the Joyce chil­dren Gior­gio and Lucia, along with Joyce’s sketch of Bloom, for a total of $500. The source for the Jan­u­ary 1926 date of the Bloom sketch is an arti­cle, “James Joyce…a quick sketch” from the July 1976 edi­tion of Foot­notes, pub­lished by the North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty Library Coun­cil. Our thanks to Scott Krafft.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2013.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

James Joyce: An Ani­mat­ed Intro­duc­tion to His Life and Lit­er­ary Works

What Makes James Joyce’s Ulysses a Mas­ter­piece: Great Books Explained

James Joyce’s Cray­on Cov­ered Man­u­script Pages for Ulysses and Finnegans Wake

Read the Orig­i­nal Seri­al­ized Edi­tion of James Joyce’s Ulysses (1918)

Why Most Ancient Civilizations Had No Word for the Color Blue

In an old Zen sto­ry, two monks argue over whether a flag is wav­ing or whether it’s the wind that waves. Their teacher strikes them both dumb, say­ing, “It is your mind that moves.” The cen­turies-old koan illus­trates a point Zen mas­ters — and lat­er philoso­phers, psy­chol­o­gists, and neu­ro­sci­en­tists — have all empha­sized at one time or anoth­er: human expe­ri­ence hap­pens in the mind, but we share real­i­ty through lan­guage and cul­ture, and these in turn set the terms for how we per­ceive what we expe­ri­ence.

Such obser­va­tions bring us to anoth­er koan-like ques­tion: if a lan­guage lacks a word for some­thing like the col­or blue, can the thing be said to exist in the speaker’s mind? We can dis­pense with the idea that there’s a col­or blue “out there” in the world. Col­or is a col­lab­o­ra­tion between light, the eye, the optic nerve, and the visu­al cor­tex. And yet, claims Maria Michela Sas­si, pro­fes­sor of ancient phi­los­o­phy at Pisa Uni­ver­si­ty, “every cul­ture has its own way of nam­ing and cat­e­go­riz­ing colours.”

The most famous exam­ple comes from the ancient Greeks. Since the 18th cen­tu­ry, schol­ars have point­ed out that in the thou­sands of words in the Ili­ad and Odyssey, Homer nev­er once describes any­thing — sea, sky, you name it — as blue. It wasn’t only the Greeks who didn’t see blue, or didn’t see it as we do, Sas­si writes:

There is a spe­cif­ic Greek chro­mat­ic cul­ture, just as there is an Egypt­ian one, an Indi­an one, a Euro­pean one, and the like, each of them being reflect­ed in a vocab­u­lary that has its own pecu­liar­i­ty, and not to be mea­sured only by the sci­en­tif­ic meter of the New­ton­ian par­a­digm.

It was once thought cul­tur­al col­or dif­fer­ences had to do with stages of evo­lu­tion­ary devel­op­ment — that more “prim­i­tive” peo­ples had a less devel­oped bio­log­i­cal visu­al sense. But dif­fer­ences in col­or per­cep­tion are “not due to vary­ing anatom­i­cal struc­tures of the human eye,” writes Sas­si, “but to the fact that dif­fer­ent ocu­lar areas are stim­u­lat­ed, which trig­gers dif­fer­ent emo­tion­al respons­es, all accord­ing to dif­fer­ent cul­tur­al con­texts.”

As the Asap­SCIENCE video above explains, the evi­dence of ancient Greek lit­er­a­ture and phi­los­o­phy shows that since blue was not part of Homer and his read­ers’ shared vocab­u­lary (yel­low and green do not appear either), it may not have been part of their per­cep­tu­al expe­ri­ence, either. The spread of blue ink across the world as a rel­a­tive­ly recent phe­nom­e­non has to do with its avail­abil­i­ty. “If you think about it,” writes Busi­ness Insider’s Kevin Loria, “blue doesn’t appear much in nature — there aren’t blue ani­mals, blue eyes are rare, and blue flow­ers are most­ly human cre­ations.”

The col­or blue took hold in mod­ern times with the devel­op­ment of sub­stances that could act as blue pig­ment, like Pruss­ian Blue, invent­ed in Berlin, man­u­fac­tured in Chi­na and export­ed to Japan in the 19th cen­tu­ry. “The only ancient cul­ture to devel­op a word for blue was the Egyp­tians — and as it hap­pens, they were also the only cul­ture that had a way to pro­duce a blue dye.” Col­or is not only cul­tur­al, it is also tech­no­log­i­cal. But first, per­haps, it could be a lin­guis­tic phe­nom­e­non.

One mod­ern researcher, Jules David­off, found this to be true in exper­i­ments with a Namib­ian peo­ple whose lan­guage makes no dis­tinc­tion between blue and green (but names many fin­er shades of green than Eng­lish does). “David­off says that with­out a word for a colour,” Loria writes, “with­out a way of iden­ti­fy­ing it as dif­fer­ent, it’s much hard­er for us to notice what’s unique about it.” Unless we’re col­or blind, we all “see” the same things when we look at the world because of the basic biol­o­gy of human eyes and brains. But whether cer­tain col­ors appear, it seems, has to do less with what we see than with what we’re already primed to expect.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2021.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

A 3,000-Year-Old Painter’s Palette from Ancient Egypt, with Traces of the Orig­i­nal Col­ors Still In It

How the Ancient Greeks & Romans Made Beau­ti­ful Pur­ple Dye from Snail Glands

Dis­cov­er the Cyanome­ter, the Device Invent­ed in 1789 Just to Mea­sure the Blue­ness of the Sky

YIn­Mn Blue, the First Shade of Blue Dis­cov­ered in 200 Years, Is Now Avail­able for Artists

How Ancient Greek Stat­ues Real­ly Looked: Research Reveals Their Bold, Bright Col­ors and Pat­terns

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 29 ) |

William Faulkner’s Review of Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea (1952)

Images via Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

In the mid-20th cen­tu­ry, the two big dogs in the Amer­i­can lit­er­ary scene were William Faulkn­er and Ernest Hem­ing­way. Both were inter­na­tion­al­ly revered, both were mas­ters of the nov­el and the short sto­ry, and both won Nobel Prizes.

Born in Mis­sis­sip­pi, Faulkn­er wrote alle­gor­i­cal his­to­ries of the South in a style that is both ellip­ti­cal and chal­leng­ing. His works were marked by uses of stream-of-con­scious­ness and shift­ing points of view. He also favored titan­i­cal­ly long sen­tences, hold­ing the record for hav­ing, accord­ing to the Guin­ness Book of Records, the longest sen­tence in lit­er­a­ture. Open your copy of Absa­lom! Absa­lom! to chap­ter 6 and you’ll find it. Hem­ing­way, on the oth­er hand, famous­ly sand­blast­ed the florid prose of Vic­to­ri­an-era books into short, terse, decep­tive­ly sim­ple sen­tences. His sto­ries were about root­less, dam­aged, cos­mopoli­tan peo­ple in exot­ic loca­tions like Paris or the Serengeti.

If you type in “Faulkn­er and Hem­ing­way” in your favorite search engine, you’ll like­ly stum­ble upon this famous exchange — Faulkn­er on Hem­ing­way: “He has nev­er been known to use a word that might send a read­er to the dic­tio­nary.” Hem­ing­way: “Poor Faulkn­er. Does he real­ly think big emo­tions come from big words?” Zing! Faulkn­er report­ed­ly didn’t mean for the line to come off as an insult but Hem­ing­way took it as one. The inci­dent end­ed up being the most acri­mo­nious in the two authors’ com­pli­cat­ed rela­tion­ship.

While Faulkn­er and Hem­ing­way nev­er for­mal­ly met, they were reg­u­lar cor­re­spon­dents, and each was keen­ly aware of the other’s tal­ents. And they were com­pet­i­tive with each oth­er, espe­cial­ly Hem­ing­way who was much more inse­cure than you might sur­mise from his macho per­sona. While Hem­ing­way reg­u­lar­ly called Faulkn­er “the best of us all,” mar­veling at his nat­ur­al abil­i­ties, he also ham­mered Faulkn­er for resort­ing to tricks. As he wrote to Har­vey Bre­it, the famed crit­ic for The New York Times, “If you have to write the longest sen­tence in the world to give a book dis­tinc­tion, the next thing you should hire Bill Veek [sic] and use midgets.”

Faulkn­er, on his end, was no less com­pet­i­tive. He once told the New York Her­ald Tri­bune, “I think he’s the best we’ve got.” On the oth­er hand, he bris­tled when an edi­tor men­tioned get­ting Hem­ing­way to write the pref­ace for The Portable Faulkn­er in 1946. “It seems to me in bad taste to ask him to write a pref­ace to my stuff. It’s like ask­ing one race horse in the mid­dle of a race to broad­cast a blurb on anoth­er horse in the same run­ning field.”

When Bre­it asked Faulkn­er to write a review of Hemingway’s 1952 novel­la The Old Man and the Sea, he refused. Yet when a cou­ple months lat­er he got the same request from Wash­ing­ton and Lee University’s lit­er­ary jour­nal, Shenan­doah, Faulkn­er relent­ed, giv­ing guard­ed praise to the nov­el in a one-para­graph-long review. You can read it below.

His best. Time may show it to be the best sin­gle piece of any of us, I mean his and my con­tem­po­raries. This time, he dis­cov­ered God, a Cre­ator. Until now, his men and women had made them­selves, shaped them­selves out of their own clay; their vic­to­ries and defeats were at the hands of each oth­er, just to prove to them­selves or one anoth­er how tough they could be. But this time, he wrote about pity: about some­thing some­where that made them all: the old man who had to catch the fish and then lose it, the fish that had to be caught and then lost, the sharks which had to rob the old man of his fish; made them all and loved them all and pitied them all. It’s all right. Praise God that what­ev­er made and loves and pities Hem­ing­way and me kept him from touch­ing it any fur­ther.

And you can also watch below a fas­ci­nat­ing talk by schol­ar Joseph Frus­cione about how Faulkn­er and Hem­ing­way com­pet­ed and influ­enced each oth­er. He wrote the book, Faulkn­er and Hem­ing­way: Biog­ra­phy of a Lit­er­ary Rival­ry.

Note: An ear­li­er ver­sion of this post appeared on our site in 2014.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

When William Faulkn­er Set the World Record for Writ­ing the Longest Sen­tence in Lit­er­a­ture: Read the 1,288-Word Sen­tence from Absa­lom, Absa­lom!

The Art of William Faulkn­er: Draw­ings from 1916–1925

Ernest Hem­ing­way Cre­ates a Read­ing List for a Young Writer, 1934

‘Nev­er Be Afraid’: William Faulkner’s Speech to His Daughter’s Grad­u­at­ing Class in 1951

5 Won­der­ful­ly Long Lit­er­ary Sen­tences by Samuel Beck­ett, Vir­ginia Woolf, F. Scott Fitzger­ald & Oth­er Mas­ters of the Run-On

Sev­en Tips From William Faulkn­er on How to Write Fic­tion

William Faulkn­er Out­lines on His Office Wall the Plot of His Pulitzer Prize Win­ning Nov­el, A Fable (1954)

Rare 1952 Film: William Faulkn­er on His Native Soil in Oxford, Mis­sis­sip­pi

Jonathan Crow is a  writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. 

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

What Is Kafkaesque?: The Philosophy of Franz Kafka

It’s dif­fi­cult to imag­ine that there was ever a time with­out the word “Kafkaesque.” Yet the term would have meant noth­ing at all to any­one alive at the same time as Franz Kaf­ka — includ­ing, in all prob­a­bil­i­ty, Kaf­ka him­self. Born in Prague in 1883, he grew up under a stern, demand­ing, and per­pet­u­al­ly dis­ap­point­ed father, then made his way through col­lege and entered the work­force. He end­ed up at the Work­ers’ Acci­dent Insur­ance Insti­tute, where he was “sub­ject to long hours, unpaid over­time, mas­sive amounts of paper­work, and absurd, com­plex, bureau­crat­ic sys­tems,” says the nar­ra­tor of the Pur­suit of Won­der video above. But it was dur­ing that same peri­od that he wrote The Tri­al, The Cas­tle, and Ameri­ka.

Of course, Kaf­ka did­n’t actu­al­ly pub­lish those even­tu­al­ly acclaimed books in his life­time. After his death, that task would fall to Max Brod, the writer’s only real friend, and it entailed vio­lat­ing the author’s explic­it­ly stat­ed wish­es. On his deathbed, Kaf­ka “instruct­ed Max Brod to burn all of his unpub­lished man­u­scripts”; instead, Brod “spent the fol­low­ing year or so work­ing to orga­nize and pub­lish his notes and man­u­scripts.” Now that he’s been gone more than a cen­tu­ry, Kafka’s rep­u­ta­tion as one of the great­est lit­er­ary fig­ures of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry is more than secure, and it would take a ded­i­cat­ed con­trar­i­an indeed to argue that Brod did wrong not to toss his papers onto the bon­fire.

Per­haps Kafka’s rep­u­ta­tion would have found a way to grow one way or anoth­er, respond as his writ­ing does to a psy­cho­log­i­cal dis­com­fort we’ve all felt to one degree or anoth­er, in one set­ting or anoth­er: doing our tax­es, wait­ing in air­port secu­ri­ty lines, call­ing tech sup­port. On such occa­sions, we reach for the term “Kafkaesque,” which “tends to refer to the bureau­crat­ic nature of cap­i­tal­is­tic, judi­cia­ry, and gov­ern­ment sys­tems, the sort of com­plex, unclear process­es in which no one indi­vid­ual ever has a com­pre­hen­sive grasp on what is going on, and the sys­tem does­n’t real­ly care.” Typ­i­cal Kaf­ka pro­tag­o­nists are “faced with sud­den, absurd cir­cum­stances. There are no expla­na­tions, and in the end, there is no real chance of over­com­ing them.”

These char­ac­ters are “out­matched by the arbi­trary, sense­less obsta­cles they face, in part because they can’t under­stand or con­trol any of what is hap­pen­ing.” They feel “the unyield­ing desire for answers in con­quest over the exis­ten­tial prob­lems of anx­i­ety, guilt, absur­di­ty, and suf­fer­ing, paired with an inabil­i­ty to ever real­ly under­stand or con­trol the source of the prob­lems and effec­tive­ly over­come them.” Yet “even in the face of absurd, despair­ing cir­cum­stances, Kafka’s char­ac­ters don’t give up. At least ini­tial­ly, they con­tin­ue on and fight against their sit­u­a­tions, try­ing to rea­son, under­stand, or work their way out of the sense­less­ness, but in the end, it is ulti­mate­ly to no avail.” To Kaf­ka, it was all part of anoth­er day in moder­ni­ty. Here in the twen­ty-first cen­tu­ry, it seems we may need to start look­ing for an even more pow­er­ful adjec­tive.

Relat­ed con­tent:

What Does “Kafkaesque” Real­ly Mean? A Short Ani­mat­ed Video Explains

Franz Kafka’s Kafkaesque Love Let­ters

Under­ground Car­toon­ist Robert Crumb Cre­ates an Illus­trat­ed Intro­duc­tion to Franz Kafka’s Life and Work

Franz Kaf­ka Ago­nized, Too, Over Writer’s Block: “Tried to Write, Vir­tu­al­ly Use­less;” “Com­plete Stand­still. Unend­ing Tor­ments” (1915)

“Lynchi­an,” “Kubrick­ian,” “Taran­ti­noesque” and 100+ Film Words Have Been Added to the Oxford Eng­lish Dic­tio­nary

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities and the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

Dante’s Divine Comedy: A Visitor’s Guide to Hell, Purgatory & Paradise

In most places across the world, speak the name of Dante, and your lis­ten­ers will think of Infer­no. Since its first pub­li­ca­tion more than 700 years ago, its depic­tion of Hell has become influ­en­tial enough to shape the per­cep­tions of even those who don’t believe that such a place exists. Take the thor­ough­ly Dan­tean idea that Hell is con­struct­ed of nine con­cen­tric cir­cles, each inhab­it­ed by a dif­fer­ent kind of sin­ner being eter­nal­ly pun­ished in a man­ner that reflects the nature of the offense. The glut­tons on lev­el three, for exam­ple, “are doomed to grov­el end­less­ly in thick, putrid mud” while “bom­bard­ed by icy rain.”

So explains Tom­mie Trelawny, cre­ator of the YouTube chan­nel Hochela­ga, in his twen­ty-minute expla­na­tion of Infer­no at the top of the post. While going over the broad out­lines of Dan­te’s Vir­gil-guid­ed jour­ney into the under­world, he address­es ques­tions you may not have con­sid­ered even if you’ve read this super-canon­i­cal poem before.

Why, for instance, was it writ­ten in the first place? “In Dan­te’s day, the top­ic of sin and pun­ish­ment was a major issue in the Church,” he says. Thus, “ideas around Hell were becom­ing more and more sophis­ti­cat­ed” in art and lit­er­a­ture, not least in order to send a cau­tion­ary mes­sage to the com­mon peo­ple.

For Dante, how­ev­er, the mat­ter was some­what more per­son­al. The poet “was embroiled in a con­flict between rival fac­tions in his native city of Flo­rence. He backed the wrong side, lead­ing to his exile.” Launch­ing into the com­po­si­tion of Infer­no there­after, he set about “putting peo­ple he dis­liked into his vision of Hell,” like the “cler­gy­men who used their posi­tions to amass wealth through church dona­tions rather than serv­ing their flock faith­ful­ly.” They were con­signed to the cir­cle of greed. It’s cer­tain­ly not with­out sat­is­fac­tion that Dante watch­es his real-life polit­i­cal rival Fil­ip­po Argen­ti get torn apart in the riv­er Styx of cir­cle five, reserved for the wrath­ful.

Sure­ly Dante — or at least the fic­tion­al Dante — was also com­mit­ting some kind of sin by rel­ish­ing in the suf­fer­ing of oth­ers, even oth­ers more sin­ful than him­self. But that’s less rel­e­vant to the sec­ond and third parts of the sto­ry, Pur­ga­to­rio and Par­adiso, which togeth­er with Infer­no make up what we now know as Dan­te’s Div­ina Com­me­dia, or Divine Com­e­dy. The lat­ter two-thirds of the work may be less wide­ly read than Infer­no, but they’re no less imag­i­na­tive; when we today describe an expe­ri­ence as pur­ga­to­r­i­al, we’re evok­ing on some lev­el the in-between realm for the mild­ly unvir­tu­ous that Dante envi­sioned on a far-flung island on the oth­er side of the earth. And if you nev­er did get around to read­ing Par­adiso, this video sum­ma­ry may pique your curios­i­ty about it, describ­ing as it does a sto­ry­line in which Dante goes to out­er space: a place very near­ly as inter­est­ing as Hell.

Relat­ed con­tent:

Dante’s Divine Com­e­dy: A Free Course from Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty

Beau­ti­ful 19th-Cen­tu­ry Maps of Dante’s Divine Com­e­dy: Infer­no, Pur­ga­to­ry, Par­adise & More

Rarely Seen Illus­tra­tions of Dante’s Divine Com­e­dy Are Now Free Online, Cour­tesy of the Uffizi Gallery

Visu­al­iz­ing Dante’s Hell: See Maps & Draw­ings of Dante’s Infer­no from the Renais­sance Through Today

Explore Divine Com­e­dy Dig­i­tal, a New Dig­i­tal Data­base That Col­lects Sev­en Cen­turies of Art Inspired by Dante’s Divine Com­e­dy

Based in Seoul, Col­in Marshall writes and broad­casts on cities, lan­guage, and cul­ture. His projects include the Sub­stack newslet­ter Books on Cities and the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les. Fol­low him on the social net­work for­mer­ly known as Twit­ter at @colinmarshall.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast