All the names in Anna Karenina

[kev67]

I have started reading Anna Karenina. It is my first Russian book. One thing that has struck me is that there are a lot of names. Not only are there a lot of characters, but they are frequently called by different names. I thought I would have more trouble than I have had, but I have been noting down the names in a pad and perhaps that helped. For example, the character the book starts with is variously called Oblonsky, Stepan Arkadyich or Stiva. I think his full title is Prince Stepan Arkadyich Oblonsky, and Stiva is a nickname. Anna Karenina herself is often referred to as Anna Arkadyevna. There are a surprising number of princes and princesses in the book, considering they do not seem to be siblings.

[Danik 2016]

What fascinated me when I read The Brothers Karamazow (I don´t remember if it was my first Russian novel) was as what struc me as the aristocratic structure of the Russian names themselvelves: You have the first name of the character + the first name of the father + the suffix for son or daughter + family name (with a femenin suffix for the women).
That link about Russian names might be of interest:
http://rbth.com/blogs/2014/05/22/ivanov_ivanenko_ivanovich_the_meaning_of_russian_s urnames_36851.html

[Emil Miller]

It's worth remembering that Tolstoy was a member of the aristocracy and he was writing about a society that he was a part of.

[Jackson Richardson]

David Margashack, who did the previous generation of Dostoyevsky translations for Penguin, didn't use the patronymics (Ivanovich or Ivaneva) but called them Mr or Mrs or Miss.

The Penguin translation of the book kev is reading which I knew was called "Anna Karenin" rather than Anna Karenina. The Russian female ending was presumed un English, but to my mind it's a Russian novel, so stick to Russian convention.

[Jackson Richardson]

Using the first name and patronymic doesn't strike me as very aristocratic. I gather it was standard use throughout Russian society and rather more informal by Western European standards than using a title.

[Danik 2016]

It strikes me as aristocratic because you get the lineage of the father by means of his surname and his first name.
In my country there is hardly any blood nobility left there never was much anyway. The imperial family came from Portugal and back to Portugal it went when the monarchy was over.Our nobility of the 19C is only remembered today by some street names.
It´s a very different experience of the English and of the Russian one.

[Jackson Richardson]

But all Russians used patronymics, so if anything its use is leveling.

Technically with English titles, the first name is no longer used. Mrs Margaret Thatcher becomes Baroness Thatcher. This is a bit embarrassing for some new life peers that they won't be referred to by their first name.

I agree with kev that there amount of princes in Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky is odd, but a prince was not necessarily royal, it was just a high rank of nobility.

[Danik 2016]

Yes for the Russian and people from some other countries it is (or was) normal to use patronimics. It´s unusual for foreigners.
Is there a recent nobility in England, "new life peers"?

[Jackson Richardson]

Is there a recent nobility in England, "new life peers"?

At the risk of seeming a hopeless snob....

The hereditary nobility formed the second chamber of parliament, the House of Lords, the equivalent of the Senate.

Following reforms some fifteen years ago, the hereditary members have been severely reduced. Since the 1950s there has been a further category of members of the House of Lords (or House of Peers) who are not hereditary, hence life peers. They are appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the opposition and make up the bulk of the working members. They take a title as a Baron or Baroness, but they can't pass it on to their descendants.

The family name and title of a lord are not always the same – hence Peregrine Cavendish is the Duke of Devonshire. Life peers can chose a title different from their family name but in practice that is now never done. Margaret Thatcher was already Lady Thatcher, since she had made her husband Sir Denis Thatcher. When she was made a life peer she chose the title of Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven (Kesteven is the part of Lincolnshire were she was born.)

But whether she was Miss Roberts, Mrs Thatcher, Lady Thatcher or Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, if she was Russian she would have still been Margaret Alfredevna and she would have been that even if she never gone into parliament. (Would that she hadn’t.)

[Danik 2016]

Thanks, JR. It is certainly not snobish you answering my question. For you English it must be natural to have the nobility as part of the population in the House of Lords. For us Brazilians they only subsist as street names if you don´t include some very old descendants of the imperial family who are still alive.
What strikes me as very curious are the life peers. I thougt that the English Peerage was always hereditary.
As long as we had Emperors in Brazil, basically nobility titles could be bought or confered by the Emperor as a reward for services to the country. When the country was declared a Republic in 1889, the titles got out of fashion. I believe people simply ceased to use them.
I see your point: she would have been Margaret Alfredevna even it she had remained poor and unknown all her life.

[kev67]

At the risk of seeming a hopeless snob....

But whether she was Miss Roberts, Mrs Thatcher, Lady Thatcher or Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, if she was Russian she would have still been Margaret Alfredevna and she would have been that even if she never gone into parliament. (Would that she hadn’t.)

Why Alfredevna?

Mrs Thatcher was unusual because she was allowed to adopt a hereditary title, so her son Mark could inherit it. Mark Thatcher was a controversial person.

[Jackson Richardson]

A Her father was Alfred Roberts, so if she was Russian she would be Margaret Alfredevna.

B She didn't have a hereditary title, but she made her husband a baronet. A baronet is not a member of the House of Lords but they have a hereditary knighthood. So her husband was Sir Denis Thatcher, she was Lady Thatcher and on Denis' death her son Mark became Sir Mark Thatcher. As kev implies arms dealing is a controversial activity.

[Danik 2016]

Just two questions more regarding the English nobility (which is much more alive today than I thought):
1-Are English politicians free to confer a life title on whoever they want (family members for example)?
2- Do these life titles (which don´t seem connected to any property) confer any privileges or benefits on their owners, besides being addressed as "Sir X" or "Lady Y"?
Kev, excuse me for this digression, which was in fact motivated by the as I see now inadequate use of the term "aristocratic". What I really wanted to say is that the Russian naming system with the patronimics reforces the idea of inheritance from the father´s side. It can be a positive or a negative inheritance. Here is an example of the second instance:
http://www.shmoop.com/the-overcoat/akaky.html

[Jackson Richardson]

The Queen appoints people to honours but except for certain orders, she has to act on the advice of her Prime Minister. Certainly if a Prime Minister appointed family members to a political role there would be a scandal. Denis Thatcher was not given a political position nor a seat in the House of Lords - he was made a baronet to be known as "Sir Denis Thatcher".

Sir (or Dame in the case of a woman) is an honour that does not mean membership of parliament.

Titles were indeed originally territorial - the Duke of Westminster owns a lot of land in Westminster - but not necessarily. A Life Peer will be a Baron or Baroness, known as Lord or Lady X, and has a voting seat in the House of Lords. It can be given purely as an honour, but usually it is because members are required to sit in the Upper House (ie the House of Lords.)

When a senior politican is made a lord after a career in the (elected) House of Commons, it is sometimes said they are being kicked upstairs.

[kev67]

I had not come across the term 'patronimics' before this thread. To me it does not seem like it is necessarily linked to nobility, although it implies inheritance rights. When I used to spend my summer holidays with my grandparents in rural Ireland, people would sometimes identify someone by who they were related to, e.g. Jim, Pat's son. A lot of surnames end in 'son', Johnson, Williamson, etc. People with those surnames are no doubt descended from a man whose father was John or William. Fitz, Mc, Mac all meant son of. I think the Irish O' means 'of'. I knew a Sean O' Neill at school. Russian patronymics sound like they are a bit more formal than identifying people by their relationships to other people they know, but not fossilized into unchanging surnames like our Robsons and Wilsons.

Life peers can be high accomplishing people from various walks of life, not just politicians. There are some scientists. David Puttnam the film director and producer is one. Melvyn Bragg, who mainly presents television and radio programmes so far as I can tell, is another. Very senior judges were also titled Lord or Lady. The House of Lords used to be our supreme court, in which appeals against judgements in lower courts could be decided upon. Only the law lords used to sit on those cases, and now I think they sit in the Supreme Court. Twelve Church of England bishops sit in the House of Lords, but they are not called Lords. There are still a few hereditary lords in there. It is not a particularly sensible way of running a country, but attempts to reform it have a way of foundering.

[Jackson Richardson]

It has been suggested that no Prime Minister would want to make the second chamber elected because then they would have as much moral authority as the House of Commons. (And bishops are lords but they don't like to use the title nowadays so as not to seem pompous.)

[Danik 2016]

Anyway the British nobility is very much alive. Making the second chamber elected would warrant a more democratic process, but that is not enough. You must have good candidates with sound moral standards and the will and the ability to contribute positively to government. Both our chambers are elected and yet the composition is very bad.
I´m posting the link of the short story "The Overcoat", by Gogol. Right at the beginning it tells about the choice of the first name of the baby. And I think it is one of the best Russian short stories ever:
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Over.shtml

[kev67]

It has been suggested that no Prime Minister would want to make the second chamber elected because then they would have as much moral authority as the House of Commons. (And bishops are lords but they don't like to use the title nowadays so as not to seem pompous.)

Lords Spiritual or Spiritual Peers according to Wikipedia, and there are 26 of them.

[prendrelemick]

An appointed second house means there doesn't need to be any popularist showboating. Its members are of an age to be beyond any vaunting ambition, and because they are Lords for life, they are free to act on their consciences. They can't propose or pass any laws. Their job is to scutinise proposals from that other (elected) place (mainly to see if it is even legal), mark it, and send it back.

I think it is a system that works well. To have two houses of commons would be twice the shambles we have now. The only tweaking I would like, is to draw its members from a wider range of society. We need plumbers and electricians in there, and people who know what it is to bring up 3 kids on the dole.

[Jackson Richardson]

Back to kev's Opening Post. Dickens' novels often come with a cast of characters at the beginning (and risks plot spoilers). I'm sure it would be useful to have a similar list for Tolstoy.

[mona amon]

I have started reading Anna Karenina. It is my first Russian book. One thing that has struck me is that there are a lot of names. Not only are there a lot of characters, but they are frequently called by different names. I thought I would have more trouble than I have had, but I have been noting down the names in a pad and perhaps that helped. For example, the character the book starts with is variously called Oblonsky, Stepan Arkadyich or Stiva. I think his full title is Prince Stepan Arkadyich Oblonsky, and Stiva is a nickname. Anna Karenina herself is often referred to as Anna Arkadyevna. There are a surprising number of princes and princesses in the book, considering they do not seem to be siblings.

Your post reminds me of how I felt when I read my first Russian novel, Dr. Zhivago. I had to keep referring to the list of characters (with all aliases and nicknames) that the editors had helpfully provided, but by the time I read Anna Karenina I'd read a fair few, and was used to it.


Back to kev's Opening Post. Dickens' novels often come with a cast of characters at the beginning (and risks plot spoilers). I'm sure it would be useful to have a similar list for Tolstoy.

War and Peace has some 100 or more characters, and I'm sure I was not keeping track of half of them. I read it in three volumes, and by the time I came to volume 3 I'd forgotten most of volume one. That is one big book.