Forgiveness Theme Analysis

In “God Sees the Truth, But Waits,” forgiveness emerges as a central concept in the story’s project of edifying readers. By showing the repeated failure, incompletion, or withholding of forgiveness in earthly (or social) contexts, Tolstoy suggests that the only ultimately reliable and worthwhile form of forgiveness is that of atonement from God, in which Aksyonov learns to trust. Importantly, Tolstoy never explicitly narrates the fulfillment of Aksyonov’s spiritual forgiveness; he simply presents a protagonist (Aksyonov) who embodies deep faith that this forgiveness will arrive and who understands that true, meaningful forgiveness can only be sought from God. While all worldly attempts at forgiveness in the story fall short, Tolstoy ultimately suggests that one must overcome the thought that forgiveness is an empty idea and learn to trust, along with Aksyonov, that “God Sees the Truth, But Waits” and will eventually forgive those who live a life of devotion.

The story’s major reflection upon the idea of forgiveness occurs in Aksyonov’s interactions with Makar Semyonov, who frames Aksyonov for murder and ends up incarcerated in Siberia alongside Aksyonov some 26 years later. Tolstoy devotes much of the narrative to an encounter between Aksyonov and Makar after Aksyonov, who suspects Makar for having set him up, nonetheless declines to turn Makar into the authorities for digging an escape tunnel. Tolstoy makes it clear that Aksyonov’s decision to protect Makar does not amount to forgiveness: Aksyonov thinks, “Why should I forgive the man who ruined me […] ? […] Let him pay the price for all my suffering.” Aksyonov protects Makar because he does not wish to see anyone flogged and realizes that “my suspicions [of Makar] may be wrong.”

Makar becomes desperate to obtain forgiveness from Aksyonov, and this desperation emanates from a sense of extreme moral imbalance between him and Aksyonov; Aksyonov has done good to him, whereas he has done harm to Aksyonov. The type of worldly, interpersonal forgiveness that Makar seeks hinges on righting this moral disparity and easing Makar’s guilt; as a result, Makar’s begging for forgiveness is paired with a promise that he will confess to the authorities for the original murder, thereby (hopefully) bringing about Aksyonov’s official exoneration. In other words, the forgiveness Makar seeks rests upon an exchange—confession and apology for the erasure of Makar’s moral debts. Makar confesses to Aksyonov in unambiguous terms: “I murdered the merchant. I planted the knife on you.” Moreover, to reciprocate the grant of forgiveness that Makar hopes to obtain from Aksyonov, Makar intends to share his confession with state officials so that “they’ll grant you [Aksyonov] a pardon.” Makar’s reasoning in these lines emphasizes the tangible benefit that Aksyonov would receive as compensation for his forgiveness.

Aksyonov replies to Makar’s statements with anger, as he insists that the exchange of forgiveness for confession (and probable exoneration) that Makar has proposed would not actually right the moral imbalance that exists between the two men: “It’s easy enough for you to go and tell them, but just think what I’ll have to endure! Where shall I go? My wife’s dead, my children will have forgotten me.” Aksyonov’s response shows that he, too, buys into the expectation that forgiveness of one individual by another (that is, worldly, social forgiveness) requires appropriate terms of exchange for the one of whom forgiveness is requested. Aksyonov suggests that his compensation from the deal (forgiveness for confession) would be inadequate.

The sort of social, interpersonal forgiveness that is contemplated between Aksyonov and Makar—forgiveness that relies upon terms of exchange, such as the trade of forgiveness for confession and exoneration—stands in contrast to the ultimate promise of divine forgiveness and salvation offered by God to the devout. The back-and-forth between Aksyonov and Makar ends abruptly with Aksyonov’s declaration, “God will forgive you.” With this, Aksyonov effectively informs Makar that forgiveness is not his to give, but God’s. In a sense, the moral scales are suddenly rebalanced; Makar’s debt to Aksyonov vanishes momentarily as Aksyonov and Makar both appear as sinners standing before God. “Perhaps,” Aksyonov tells Makar, “I’m a hundred times worse!” And “when Aksyonov heard Makar Semyonov weeping he too wept,” a display of sympathy and solidarity. Ironically, Makar continues to see his situation in more conventional, worldly terms: he “ignored what Aksyonov had said and he confessed” to state officials. Tolstoy wraps up the story by rejecting this decidedly earthly, institutional confession (as opposed to religious confession or atonement) as ineffectual or irrelevant: “when official permission finally came for Aksyonov to return home he had passed away.” What might be seen as the forgiveness of the state (exoneration) is unimportant; it is the judgment of God alone that matters.

Although Aksyonov ultimately declines to give Makar his forgiveness, the fact that Aksyonov is able to overcome his rage at Makar and even consider forgiving him underlines Aksyonov’s Christian virtue. At one point, Aksyonov was “so furious with Makar Semyonov that he could have attacked him on the spot, and taken his revenge.” Moreover, when Makar first approaches Aksyonov for forgiveness, Aksyonov is skeptical of his sincerity. Makar exclaims, “Forgive me!” and Aksyonov challenges him, “Forgive you for what?” Even after Makar elaborates, confessing to the murder, Aksyonov angrily reminds Makar that would benefit little from official exoneration, as he would have no home. However, Makar soon shifts gears in his reasoning for why Aksyonov should forgive him. Whereas before Makar tried promising Aksyonov a confession as compensation for forgiveness, Makar now gives up on this exchange and simply expresses his honest guilt over having framed Aksyonov for murder: “Forgive me! The flogging they gave me was easier to bear than looking at you now!” This pivot convinces Aksyonov of Makar’s sincerity and allows Aksyonov to view Makar as a fellow sinner at God’s mercy, similarly aware of his wrongs on earth. Aksyonov is moved by Makar’s tears, which appear to convey a deep (and genuine) guilt.