Anniversary Essays on Tolstoy

《Anniversary Essays on Tolstoy》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在行业资料-天天文库。

1Thispageintentionallyleftblank

2ANNIVERSARYESSAYSONTOLSTOYAcenturyafterLeoTolstoy’sdeath,theauthorofWarandPeaceiswidelyadmiredbuttoooftenthoughtofonlywithreferencetohisrealismandmoralsense.ThemanysidesofTolstoyrevealedinthesenewessaysspeaktotoday’sreaderswithastonishingforce,relevance,andcomplexity.Inalively,challengingstyle,leadingscholarsrangeoverhislonglife,fromhisfirstworkChildhoodtotheworksofhisoldagelikeHadjiMurat,andthemanygenresinwhichheworked,fromthemajornovelstoaphorismsandshortstories.Theessayspresentnewapproachestohiscentralthemes:love,death,religiousfaithanddoubt,violence,theanimalkingdom,andwar.Theyalsoassesshisreceptionbothinhislifetimeandsubsequently.Settingnewagendasforthestudyofthisclassicauthor,thisvolumeprovidesasnapshotofcurrentscholarshiponTolstoy.donnatussingorwinisProfessorofSlavicLanguagesandLiteraturesattheUniversityofToronto.

3

4ANNIVERSARYESSAYSONTOLSTOYeditedbyDONNATUSSINGORWIN

5CAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITYPRESSCambridge,NewYork,Melbourne,Madrid,CapeTown,Singapore,SãoPaulo,Delhi,Dubai,TokyoCambridgeUniversityPressTheEdinburghBuilding,CambridgeCB28RU,UKPublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyCambridgeUniversityPress,NewYorkwww.cambridge.orgInformationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9780521514910©CambridgeUniversityPress2010Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.Firstpublishedinprintformat2010ISBN-13978-0-511-67963-6eBook(EBL)ISBN-13978-0-521-51491-0HardbackCambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyofurlsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication,anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.

6TothememoryofLidiiaDmitrievnaGromova-Opul’skaia(1925–2003)

7

8ContentsAcknowledgmentspageixListofcontributorsxIntroductionDonnaTussingOrwin11TolstoyandmusicCarylEmerson82Sublimevisionandself-derision:theaestheticsofdeathinTolstoyAndreasSchönle333Tolstoy’speaceablekingdomRobinFeuerMiller524LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodetsDonnaTussingOrwin765LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov:thedialogueonfaithIrinaPaperno966Thewormofdoubt:PrinceAndrei’sdeathandRussianspiritualawakeningofthe1860sIlyaVinitsky1207Tolstoy’sspiritualityG.M.Hamburg1388TrackingtheEnglishnovelinAnnaKarenina:whowrotetheEnglishnovelthatAnnareads?EdwinaCruise159vii

9viiiContents9ViolenceandtheroleofdramainthelateTolstoy:TheRealmofDarknessJustinWeir18310Whatmenquoteby:Tolstoy,wisesayings,andmoraltalesGarySaulMorson19911The“proletarianlord”:LeoTolstoy’simageduringtheRussianrevolutionaryperiodMichaelA.Denner219Bibliography245Index258

10AcknowledgmentsTheCentreforEuropean,Russian,andEurasianStudies(CERES)attheUniversityofTorontoandtheSocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncilofCanada(SSHRC)contributedfundstorealizethisproject.IwouldliketothankDr.EdithKleinforeditingthefinalmanuscriptforsubmissiontoCambridgeUniversityPress,andArkadiKlioutchanskiforhispreparationofthelistofworkscitedandtheindex.ManythankstoLindaBree,MaartjeScheltens,andFrancesBrownofCambridgeUniversityPressfortheirhelp.Asalways,IthankmyhusbandCliffordOrwinforhissupportandunderstandingduringtheprocessofassemblingthisvolume.AcademicianL.D.Gromova-Opul’skaia,towhosememorythisvolumeisdedicated,inspiredTolstoyscholarsbyherintelli-genceanddedicationtohertasksasatextologist.Sheledbyexample;indeed,peoplenaturallyfollowedherbecauseofhercommonsenseandgenerosityofspirit.Iadmiredherverymuch,andmissherandhergoodcounsel.ix

11Contributorsedwinacruise,ProfessorofRussianontheAlumnaeFoundation,MountHolyokeCollegemichaela.denner,AssociateProfessorofRussianStudies,StetsonUniversity,andEditorofTolstoyStudiesJournalcarylemerson,a.watsonarmouriiiUniversityProfessorofSlavicLanguagesandLiteratures,PrincetonUniversityg.m.hamburg,OthoM.BehrProfessorofHistory,ClaremontMcKennaCollegerobinfeuermiller,EdythaMacyGrossProfessorofHumanities,ProfessorofRussianandComparativeLiterature,BrandeisUniversitygarysaulmorson,FrancesHooperProfessoroftheArtsandHumanities,NorthwesternUniversitydonnatussingorwin,ProfessorofSlavicLanguagesandLiteratures,UniversityofTorontoirinapaperno,ProfessorofSlavicLanguagesandLiteratures,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeleyandreasscho¨nle,ProfessorofRussian,QueenMaryUniversityofLondonilyavinitsky,AssociateProfessorofSlavicLanguagesandLiteratures,UniversityofPennsylvaniajustinweir,ProfessorofSlavicLanguagesandLiteratures,HarvardUniversityx

12IntroductionDonnaTussingOrwinOnehundredyearsago,onNovember20,1910(orNovember7,accordingtotheRussiancalendaratthattime),CountLeoTolstoydiedofpneumoniainthehomeofthestationmasteratarailwaystopcalledAstapovo.Inthesevendaysduringwhichhelingered,reportersgatheredattheobscurestationtowirecapitalsallovertheworldabouthisillnessanddeath.Itwasthefirstgreatmediacircus,madepossiblebytheexistenceofthetelegraph,aswellasbyTolstoy’sownglobalreach.Hewascelebratednotonlyasawriteroffiction,butalsoasamoralthinkerandreformerwhosejeremiadsandsolutionsinfluencedpeopleeverywhere,fromMahatmaGandhiinIndia,tothefoundersofthekibbutzmovementinPalestine,toJaneAddams,thefounderofthesettlementmovementinChicago.WhenIlectureintheolderbuildingsattheUniversityofTorontooratotheruniversitiesinNorthAmerica,IimagineTolstoy’sideasechoingintheseplacesfromthedayswhenmypredecessorsdebatedtheminthelaternineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.AfterTolstoy’sdeath,therewasabattletoassimilatehisconsiderableauthoritytovariouscausesoftenatoddswithpositionshehadtakenwhilehewasaliveandabletodefendhimself.Theconcludingchapterinthisvolume,byMichaelA.Denner,documentsthedifferentandcontradictorywaysthatTolstoywasusedduringtheRussianRevolutionanditsaftermath(1917–24)byallsidesoftheconflict,fromdarkredtolilywhite,aboutRussiaanditsfuture.EventheBolsheviksembracedTolstoy,especiallyintheearlyyearsaftertheRevolution.Oncetheybegantoconsolidatetheirpower,however,theyregardedTolstoyanismandTolstoyasrivals,andtheyundertookanunprecedentedpropagandacampaigntoseparatethetwo.Theypersecutedthemovementwhileassimilatingtheman,whosemessagetheyproceededtotailortotheirownspecifications.TheirunprecedentedsuccessinthispropagandaeffortcreatedanofficialSovietTolstoy.(ThisTolstoyandthe“real”oneareinfactdistantcousins,thoughnotkissingones.)IntheyearssincethefalloftheUSSR,scholarsinRussiaandabroadhavebeenreadingTolstoyoutside1

132donnatussingorwintheSovietlens.Thepresentbookcontinuesthatprocesswithelevenoriginalessays,eachofwhichrepresentsanewdepartureinTolstoystudies.AllofthemengageTolstoy’sintentions,andthereforehisthoughts.Theyhavebeenarrangedtoencouragethereadertocomparethem,andthisbriefsummaryoftheircontentsisintendedtostimulatethecomparison.ThebookbeginswithCarylEmerson’spieceonTolstoyandmusic.Tolstoy’sabidingloveofmusic,and,moreimportantly,hisrelianceonitinhisaesthetics,revealstheromanticintherealist.Ifmusicexpressesfeeling(asTolstoydeclaredinadiaryentryin1852),thenpsychologicalprosemustdependinvariouswaysonmusic,asEmersonindeedshows.Tolstoy’stheoryofartasinfection,accordingtowhichanartistpourshisfeelingsintotherecipientofhisart,isdeeplymusical.Hewantedtobelievethatinandofitselfinfectionasaformofpurecommunicationwasgood,thoughitcouldbeusedtobadends.Hethusdistinguishedbetweenmeansandendsinthefolkstory“TheEmptyDrum”(1891).TheheroEmelyanusesthedrumemployedbytheTsartosummonsoldierstowartoleadthemtoariver,wherehesmashesthedrum,andreleasesthesoldiersfromtheTsar’spower.Inareversedirection,EmersonexploreshowinTheKreutzerSonata(1889)aninitiallypureinfectionbyartcanovertime,andinrelationtothecharacterandsituationoftherecipient,mutateintosomethingugly,evenmurderous.Ina“coda,”EmersondiscussesmusicaladaptationsofTolstoythatmighthavepleasedorinfuriatedhim.Thesecondchapter,byAndreasSchönle,treatssomethingevenmorefundamentaltoTolstoy(andlife)thanmusic:death.Allgreatarteitherdepictsorrespondstoit,ofcourse,butIwouldobservethatTolstoy’sanarchicindividualismmakesitcentraltohisaesthetics.SchönlestartswiththedeathofMamaninChildhood(1852)andtheboy’sreactiontoit.Thesublimityofthisdreadandincomprehensibleeventgeneratesbothfearandpleasureasthebereavedchilddistanceshimselffromitbyabsorbingitinimagination.ThisformofthesublimeisKantian,thoughTolstoyneednothavelearntitdirectlyfromthemaster.(SchönledigressestobringintheastonishinglyrelevantreactionofthepoetZhukovskytothedeathofhisfriend,andRussia’sgreatestpoet,AlexanderPushkin.)ThechaptergoesontorevealTolstoy’sfascinationwithcorpses,and“theirabilitytogenerateaestheticpleasure”:thedeadChecheninTheCossacksisbutoneinstanceofthis.AnobsessionwiththedeadcontinuesthroughoutTolstoy’slongcreativelife,butSchönledoesdetectachangeinhisattitudewhichheattributestothewritingsofSchopenhauer,whosenotionofthesublime“enablestheselftoriseabovethewilltolive,whichhadproducedanillusorynotionofindividuality.”ButwhatSchönlecallsthe“seduction”ofthe

14Introduction3SchopenhaueriansublimeiscounterbalancedinTolstoy’slateryearsbyanabsorptioninlife,andaKantianemphasisonmoralactionintheeveryday.NatureandthematerialworldarealsoformativethemesinTolstoy’sart,whichinthisrespectasinsomanyisinfluencedbyphilosopherJean-JacquesRousseau.FundamentallyforTolstoy,humanbeingsareanimalswithbigbrains.Thismeansthatwehaveaspecialrelationtootheranimals,andalsoobligationstothemasourkin.RobinFeuerMiller’schaptercomparesTolstoy’sviewofanimalstothoseofpresent-daythinkerslikePeterSinger,MarthaNussbaum,andespeciallyNobelPrizewinnerJ.M.Coetzee,authorofTheLivesofAnimals.Tolstoy’sattentiontotheanimalinmanhelpsaccountfortheearthinessofhisfiction.Overall,however,itseffectisnottodenigratehumans,buttoraiseanimalstothelevelof“non-humanautonomousbeings”whichwecannotsimplyregardasobjectstoserveourneedsandpleasure.InTolstoy’saesthetics,“[a]successfulartisticrenderingofthehareorthewolfwouldembodyboththefeelingsoftheartistandtheessentialquiddityoftheanimalitself.”AlthoughhumanbeingsareusuallyheldtoahighermoralstandardthanotheranimalsinTolstoy’sart,attimestheyactsimplyinaccordwiththeiranimalnatures.Thishappensmostbrutallybutunder-standablyinwar,andhereMiller’sstudyintersectswithmineonwarinTolstoyandtheuntranslatableRussianconceptofmolodechestvo.Mychapterponderswhyanauthorsoopposedtowarmightwritesomuchaboutit,andevendescribeitsympathetically.TheanswerresidespartlyinTolstoy’sculturalheritage,butalsoinawartimeexperiencethattaughthimthejoysofanger,whichhehadtodepictandsomehowexplain.Combatcanalsoeducate.WarishellinTolstoy’sart,butsomegoodthingscanresultforthosewhomustengageinit.Onthehuntandatwar,manisananimal,andexperiencesanimalfearsandpleasures,butthatisnotthewholestoryinTolstoy’sart.IrinaPapernoinvestigatespreciselythesideofTolstoythatdevelopsoutofhis“bigbrain,”andisnotsimplynatural.Shearguesthatinthelate1870sTolstoywasfedupwithart,whichtendedtoslipoutofthemoralcontroloftheartist,andwaslookingtophilosophytoexpressmoreclearlyandpreciselywhatthemoral“I”wantedtosay.HethereforeproposedtohisclosefriendNikolaiStrakhovthattheyexploreandelucidatetheirreligiousworldviewtogetherinadialogueon“personalfaithintheageofreasonandscience.”Strakhovturnedoutnottobetheidealpartnerinthisendeavor,butthroughitTolstoygottothepoint,in1879,wherehewantedtowritehisownconfession,whichhefinishedin1882.InitthegeneralreadertooktheplaceofStrakhovashisinterlocutor,and,after1879,Tolstoy’slettersto

154donnatussingorwinStrakhovlosttheirconfessionaltoneandcontent.StrakhovcontinuedtotreatTolstoyashisguru,althoughitwasthemanandhisart,andnothisphilosophizing,thatmostimpressedhim.Meanwhile,Tolstoyhadfoundawaytocommunicatemoredirectlywithothersthanthroughart.Tolstoy’spreoccupationwithspiritualitydidnotcomeoutoftheblue,anditwasmediatedbyarespectforsciencetypicalforhisage.IlyaVinitskyexploresthewayscienceandformsoftranscendentalismintermixinTolstoyandhiscontemporariesinthe1860s.Thekeyelementsinthiscounterintuitivemarriageareethical;allRussianthinkersofthetime,whatevertheirpoliticalstripeorbenttowardscience,hadmoralgoals.FocusingonthedeathofAndreiinWarandPeace(1865–69),VinitskyarguesthatTolstoyimagineslifeafterdeathasamergingintoallthatislivinginnature.HediscardsthenotionofahierarchicalHerderianchainofbeingthatPierrecelebratesinhisconversationwithAndreiattheford.Butatthesametime,theindividualsoulseemsstilltoexist“asoneofthecountlessphenomenaoflifeinnature.”GaryHamburgdiscussesthecontentofTolstoy’slaterspirituality.Inhisoldage,Tolstoyrejectedthedistinctionbetweenreasonandrevelation.Nonetheless,theteachingsofreasonrequirefaith,becausehumanbeingsarestillmoresentientanimalsthanreasoningbeings.AccordingtoHamburg,OnLife(1887)translatesintophilosophicaltermstheChristianethicalcodediscussedinWhatDoIBelieve?(1884),anditalsorefashionsChristiannotionsofpersonalimmortalityintoaphilosophicalconceptionconnectingaltruism,memoryofthegood,and“soulforce.”TheremainingcontributorstothisvolumeconcentrateonTolstoy’sart.EdwinaCruisemayhavefinallyputtorest(byrenderingitirrelevant)thedisputeaboutwhichEnglishnovelAnnaKareninamightbereadingonherreturnbytraintoSt.Petersburg.Havingreaddozensofsuchnovelsherself,manyofthemforgottentoday,CruiseconcludesthatAnna’snovelisapalimpsest,orperfectparodyofthem.SheprovidescrucialnewinsightintotheroleoftheEnglishnovelinTolstoy’sownversionoftheperfectone;althoughAnnaneverreadsanotherEnglishnovelafterthattrainride,sheandotherfemalecharactersareformedbytheirreadinghabits.Cruisefocusesonfournovelists–AnthonyTrollope,GeorgeEliot,MaryElizabethBraddon,andMrs.HenryWood–whoeachmeantdiffer-entthingstoTolstoy,andeachinfluencedhisart.Thischapteralsobroad-ensintoalargerdiscussionoftheEnglishnovelintheRussiaofthe1860sand1870s.JustinWeirexplainswhyTolstoy’saestheticsgenerallymadedramaunattractivetohimasamodeofart;withouttheassistanceofanarrator,

16Introduction5play-goers(orreaders)canknowlittleabouttheinnerlifeofacharacter.Ontheotherhand,Tolstoy’sgreatestplay,TheRealmofDarkness(1887),isanappropriatevehicleforthestoryhetells.TheverylimitationsofdramaasTolstoyconceiveditmakeitsuitableforthisplayaboutinfanticideanditsconsequences.Evildestroysconscience,anddrama,accordingtoTolstoy,cannotdepicteitherit,ormemory,throughwhichconscienceoperates.TheRealmofDarknessdramatizesinexplicableevilwithouthavingtoexplainit,andendswiththerepentanceofthemainprotagonistandhisreturntohumanity.WeirplacesTheRealmofDarknessinthelargercontextofTolstoyandrama,andthethemeofviolenceinhisart.Finally,GarySaulMorsondiscoversanewgenreinTolstoy’soeuvrehiddeninplainview:theshortform.Morsonrangesovervastterritoryinaestheticsgatheringthefundamentalsofthisformandprovingitshistoricalexistence.HavingdocumentedTolstoy’slifelonginterestinshortformsofmanytypes,heprovidessomewonderfulinterpretationsofasubgroupofstoriesthatareelaborationsofthe“wisesaying.”IwouldsuggestthattheshortformmayhaveengagedTolstoybecauseitprovidedabridgebetweenuniversaltruths,andtruthsthattheindividualcangraspanduseformoralguidance.Inotherwords,Tolstoy’sinterestintheformatteststohismoralanarchism,ortheextrememoralindividualismmanifestfromhisearliestwritings.TolstoyanismandrelatedphenomenalikeTolstoyancommunesdidnotsurvivethechasteninghorrorsofthelasthundredyears.Asitturnedout,humanbeingsweretooimperfect,toocapableofevil,toliveinthepeacefulandrationalwaythatthemovementpromoted.ButTolstoydoessurvive,bothasamanandasawriteroffiction.Foralongtime,manyscholarsinRussiaandabroadrescuedhimfromhisassociationwithTolstoyanismorMarxist-Leninismby,implicitlyorexplicitly,drivingawedgebetweenthethinkerandthewriter.Inrecenttimesthatdistinction,mostfamouslydrawnintheWestbyIsaiahBerlininhislandmarkTheHedgehogandtheFox(1953),hasbeenquestionedifnotdeniedoutright.AllthecontributionstothisanniversaryvolumeengageTolstoyasbothawriterandathinker;andallunearthnourishingcapillariesrunningbetweenthetworoles.ThisisnottosaythatTolstoy’sthoughtorideologyexplainshisfictionorviceversa.Amixtureofhopeandstarkrealismaboutthehumanconditioninformsboth,butwhileTolstoy’shopefulnesscanbeadefectinhisthought,whichcanexpecttoomuchofhumanbeingsandsweeptoomuchofhumanhistoryunderthecarpet,inhisfictionitisyetanotherelementofhisunsurpassedrealism,whichwouldbelesstrueandlesscompletewithoutit.

176donnatussingorwinEvenTolstoy’sthoughtremainsrelevant,especiallybutnotexclusivelyasexpressedinhisfiction.Onemaywellaskwhy,givenhispreoccupationwithfeelingsandtheirassociationinhisownmindwithmusic,Tolstoybecameanartistofthewordratherthanamusician.Theansweriscomplex.Firstofall,asCarylEmersonsoablydemonstratesinherdiscussionofmusicaladaptationsofTolstoy,wordssinginhisfiction,andthegreatRussianrealistisapoetinthisregard.Second,muchofTolstoy’sproseisdedicatedtoprovingtheprimacyoffeelinginhumannature.Tolstoyuseswordsinordertostakepoetry’sclaimtosuperiorityoverphilosophy.Beyondthisessentialromanticparadox,however,lurksadedication,notalwaysacknowledgedbyTolstoybutomnipresentinhiswriting,tothewordastheinstrumentofreasonanditsall-importantmanifestationinhumannature:theconscience.(Reasonalsofunctionsasthevoiceofmereself-servingcalculation,ofcourse.)Ifthevoiceofconscienceusuallyspeakslaterandmoresoftlythanother,strongerimpulsesinthehumansoul,itactstocorrectthese,therebyenforcingnaturalmoraldisciplineinwhatwouldotherwisebeatyrannyoffeeling.AccordingtoTolstoyanpsychology,humanreasonbothexacerbatesthebadconsequencesofthenaturalself-absorptionsuchasobtainsinotheranimals,andprovidesuswithadignitypotentialifnotalwaysactiveinoursouls.Wehavemoralchoice,andwereasonourwaytorightorwrongactionwithwords.OverandoveragainTolstoy’sfictiondemonstratesthisparadigmaticactionforgoodorillinthesoul.Theeducatedneedself-analysistoreformthemselves,whiletheuncorruptedanduneducatedunselfconsciouslyaccessthefolkwisdomthatembodieswhatTolstoycalls“commonsense.”Eitherway,moralityspeaksinparadoxesthatreflecttheexistenceofmoralchoiceinhumannature.ThisethicalcomponentofTolstoy’sprosedifferentiatesit,atleasttheoretically,fromtheNietzschean-influencedSymbolistprosethatfollowsitinRussianliterature,andconnectsittotheRussianeighteenth-centuryEnlightenmentthatprecedesit.TheessaysinthisbookalldemonstrateindifferentwaystheuniqueadmixtureofnarrativeandethicalthoughtthatmakesTolstoysuchafascinatingfigureandagreatwriter.anoteontransliterationanddatesThroughoutthebook,exceptinquotationsandtitles,wehaveusedspell-ingsofwell-knownRussiannamesthatareconventionalinEnglish.Wherethenameisnotfamiliar,andinRussianquotations,wehavefollowedamodifiedformofLibraryofCongresstransliterationtorenderCyrillicintotheLatinalphabet.

18Introduction7Readersshouldkeepinmindthat,untilaftertheRevolution,RussiausedtheJulianCalendar(oftencalledOldStyle),whichinthenineteenthcenturywastwelvedaysbehindtheGregorianoneusedinmostothercountries.Whentwodatesaregivenforthesameevent,thefirstisinOldStyleandthesecondastheGregorianequivalent.Ellipsesinsquarebracketsarenotintheoriginalquotation.

19chapter1TolstoyandmusicCarylEmersonTolstoy’srelationswithmusic–theleastmediatedofthetemporalarts,andthusforhimthemostpotent–werereverent,wary,andonoccasionpunitive.Hewasfascinatedbytheforceofmusic,justashewasbytheforceofsexuality,beauty,andwar.By“force”Tolstoydidnotmeanviolenceordisruption,butthepowertoorganize,suddenlyandirresistibly,allourscatteredactionsandfeelingsintoacoherentmeaningfulwhole.Thusfocusedinitsenergies,thehumanorganismwouldfearnothing,notevenitsownmortality.Butsincethisheightenedconditionlentitselfequallywelltosublimeinsightandtoirrationalacts,ithadtobecarefullywatched.Furthermore,music,beingneitheraninstinctnoraforceofnaturebuttheproductofcreativehumanstriving,obligateditspractitionerstopositivedeedsasourmoreanimalsidesdidnot.TheintenselyreceptiveandaestheticallyarousableTolstoyworkedhardatthepianoasayoungman,andhecontinuedtoreveremusiclongafterhehadabjuredwar,sex,andbeauty.Everythinghewantedtoaccomplishthroughwordshappenedfasterandmorepurelythroughmusic.ThesefundamentallyRomanticprioritiesmanifestedthemselvesearly.InadiaryentryfromNovember1851,the23-year-oldTolstoychartedthefine1artsaccordingtotheirabilitytoactontheimagination.Therealmofvisualartorpaintingisspace,wherewerealizeanimageofnature.Therealmofmusicisharmonyandtime,wherewerealizefeelings.Poetry,byexpressingourfeelingstowardnature,partakesofboth.Thetransitionfromvisualarttomusicpassesthroughdance;frommusictopoetry,throughsong.Althoughpoetrymightbe“clearer”initsreferents,musicis“fullerinitsimitationofafeeling”thananyverbal(andspatial)artcouldeverbe.AsTolstoywouldsubsequentlyarguethroughhistreatisesandtheexperienceofhisfictionalheroes,emotionalfullnessinmusicisanautonomousquality.Itcannotbepromptedorsustainedbyanyimage,concept,ornarrative“program,”whichinevitablyconfusesandblursthepurityof2musicaleffect.Purityinthisinstanceisnotamoralcategorybutmorea8

20Tolstoyandmusic9thermodynamicone.Thekeyparametersareaccuracyandefficiency:howtocommunicateafeelingandunitepeoplethroughitwithoutlossofprecisionandheat.Inhismaturetheoryofart,Tolstoywouldcallthisenergytransfer“infection”–perhapstoemphasizeitsinvoluntary,irresis-tibledisseminationamongallliveorganismsexposedtoit.Emotions,Tolstoybelieved,wereoursinglewhollyreliablehumancommondenom-inator.Buttheexperiencesthatproducetheseemotionsareinevitablyindividualized,lockedupinthepersonal:theyareimpenetrableandcanbereconstructedonlyafterthefact,partially,andatgreatrisk.TheTolstoyanwordlaboriouslyrecreatedthisuniquelyexperiencingindividual.Themusicalutterancewasmorefortunate;beinguniversal,itcouldbeconveyedwithoutintermediaries.Itseffectwasofunsegmented,unreflec-tive,spontaneousflow.Thiscompetitionbetweenwords,theprofessionalmediumthatTolstoycametocontrolabsolutely,andmusic,thepassionateavocationthat(ifsuccessful)controlledhim,lasteduntiltheendofhislife.Melodyandrhythmaffectedhimwithdisastrousdirectness.Tolstoyjudgedthelegitimacyofapieceofmusicintuitively,subjectively,ontheevidenceofhisownmotorreflexesandpsychicreactions.Ifaperformancecausedhimtoweeportaphisfeet,itwasauthentic–somuchsothatlaterinlifehewouldbeghisyoungfriend,thepianistAlexanderGol’denveizer,nottoplayChopinforfearhewould“burstinto3tears.”Ifamusicalexperiencefailedtomovehimorrequiredofhimsustained,calculatedintellectualattention,itwassummarilydismissedascounterfeit.Byourlater,morescientificstandardsofphysiology,Tolstoy4wasprobablynaïveasregardsthebody’simmediacy–andinanyevent,Tolstoy’scustomwastoassumethattheneedsandsensitivitiesofhisownorganismwerethenormforallhumanity.Nevertheless,music’sabilitytotransformourpsychologicalstate,evenagainstourwillorlogicaljudgment,remainedforhimatouchstoneforallart,theaestheticequivalenttoaloverelationandthusasourceofthemostsevereanxietyaswellasbliss.InalettertohissonLevanddaughterTatianainMarch1894,Tolstoydescribedatiradehehadbeendeliveringonthedismalstateofcontempo-rarymusictoastudentattheMoscowConservatory.Suddenly,fromsomewhere,twostudentsbegantosingLàcidaremlamano,theseductionduetbetweenDonGiovanniandZerlinafromMozart’sopera.“Istoppedtalkingandbegantolisten,tofeeljoyfulandtosmileatsomething,”5Tolstoyconfessed.“Whataterribleforcethisis”(PSS67:79).Tolstoyrefersoftentothe“terror”(strakh)ofmusic.Fromthe“terrifyingandjoyful”(strashnoiradostno)reactionofyoungPetyaRostovdreamingachoralsymphonythenightbeforehisdeathinWarandPeacetothe

2110carylemersonhalf-madPozdnyshev’sruminationsinTheKreutzerSonata–“It’saterriblething,thatsonata[…]andingeneralmusicisaterriblething”(PSS27:61)–wearecoaxedintoacceptingmusicasthegreatharmonizerandhumanreconcileraswellasastimulusformurderonparwithjealousrageandpossessivelove.InApril1910,afterGol’denveizerhadperformedoneofhishost’sfavouriteChopinétudes,Tolstoyconfirmedthathe“lovedmusic6morethanalltheotherarts.”ThischaptersamplesthreeaspectsofTolstoy’srelationshiptomusic:aspartofhisownlife(bothaspianist-performerandaudience);asepisodesinhisverbaltexts(fiction,semi-autobiographicalwritings,andphilosophyofart);and,inacoda,Tolstoy’sworkssettomusic.Aspecialconstraintappliestothislastcategory,sincethematureTolstoydidnotapproveofmixed-mediaart.Hebelievedthateachartform,inordertoretainitsfocusandtheinfectiousforcepeculiartoit,shouldcultivateitsownfieldandnotcombine7withneighboringmedia.Inprinciple,then,Tolstoywouldcondemnmusical-dramaticsettingsofhisverbaltexts.Butsincenay-sayingissoroutineandeasytopredictwiththiswriter,wewilltakethemorechalleng-ingpath–brieflynotingseveraltwentieth-centurymusicalizationsthatTolstoy,undercertainconditions,mighthavewelcomed.musicintolstoy’slifeAtIasnaiaPolianaasonmostwell-to-doRussiangentryestates,music-makingwasasintegratedintodailylifeasthemakingofhoney,boots,orjam.AsachildTolstoyreceivedbasicinstructioninpianoandat17beganseriouslyimprovinghiskeyboardskills.Twoyearslater,in1849,heinvitedaGermanpianistfromSt.Petersburgtovisit,whosecompanionshipinspiredhimtosketchoutatreatiseonthe“FoundationsofMusicandRulesforitsStudy”;inhisunfinishednovella,“HolyNight”(Sviatochnaianoch’,1853),sessionswiththispianist-theoristreappearasafirst-persondigressiononthemeritsofRussiangypsymusicversusGermancommon8practice.Givenhislatercelebrationoftheethicaltasksofart,itmustbeemphasizedthatTolstoyneverconfusedtheauthenticityofmusicasartwithitssocialormoralsetting.Although“visitingthegypsies”mightbeshamefulaccordingtohisRulesofLife,Tolstoyalwaysadmiredgypsysinging–withitsrichchesttones,rhythmicvariability,andpliableinterweavingofsoloandchorus.Hepaiditrapturoustributethroughouthislife,fromhis1856“TwoHussars”(Dvagusara)tohisdramaTheLivingCorpse(Zhivoitrup)(1900),whichfeaturesagypsychorussingingonstageattheendofthefirstact.

22Tolstoyandmusic11AnearlyconverttoRousseau,Tolstoysharedhismentor’sbeliefthatthesimplerformsofvocalmusic,especiallyfolkmusic,werepotentiallyredemptiveforalienated,over-civilizedEuropeansociety.Laconicdiaryentriesmadeoverhalfacentury,ratingthemusichehadheardthatday,suggestthatforTolstoythemoremassive,complex,pretentiouslyserious9and“staged”themusicalspectacle,thelesshelikedit.ButTolstoydidnotopposeallmusicalinstructionforthecommonpeople.Throughoutthewinterof1861–62hehadnotablesuccessinhisexperimentalIasnaiaPolianaschoolsteachingpeasantchildrenthefundamentalsofmusicthroughsing-ing(intervals,chords,scales).Hedidbelieve,however,thatitwasessentialtobeginrightawaywithart,notexercises;systematicdrillmightbesuitableforyoungladies,but“it’sbetternottoteachvillagechildrenatallthanto10teachthemmechanically”(PSS8:120–25).NordidTolstoyhabituallydenigrateallupper-classmusic,evenforthestage.Eighteenth-centuryworksusuallydelightedhim,asdidstagedcomicgenres(comedy,hebelieved,wasmorehonestthantragedybecauselesspremeditated).Heplayedahugevarietyofmusicinfour-handpianoarrangementswithfamilymembersaswellaswithvisitingmusicians,andathomehewasamuch-valuedaccompanistforartsongs.Relaxationatthekeyboardcouldoverlapwithliterarycreativity.Tolstoyoftenworkedouthumanandplotrelations“harmonically.”Hisbrother-in-lawStepanBersandsonLevL’vovichrecallthatduringthe1860s–70sTolstoywouldsitatthepianoforhoursandimprovisechordsequences,inspiringandfocusinghismindbeforehegot11downtoverbalwork.Asamemberoftheuppernobility,TolstoywasacquaintedwithalltheprominentRussiancomposers.HesharedaboxwithDargomyzhskyatthepremiereofthelatter’soperaRusalkaattheMariinskyTheaterinSt.PetersburginMay1856;in1858,beforethefoundingofthefirstRussianconservatory,TolstoyhelpedsetupamusicalsocietyinMoscow.ClosesttohimwerethemorecosmopolitanwingofRussianmusicians:theRubinsteinbrothers,Tchaikovsky,Rimsky-Korsakovinhislaterconserva-toryperiod,Taneyev,Skriabin.Tolstoy’smeetingwithTchaikovskyin1876,anditsaftermathinlettersandmusicaleveningsuntil1886,hasleft12rich(ifdisputed)traces.AccordingtoTchaikovsky’saccount,Tolstoy’sfirstcommentuponbeingintroducedwasthat“‘Beethovenhasnotalent’–andeverythingbeganfromthere.”TolstoyandTchaikovskycharmedeachotherutterly.InDecember1876,NicholasRubinsteinarrangedaprivateconcertofTchaikovsky’schambermusicforTolstoyinMoscow,takingcaretoselectfolk-basedworksthatwouldpleasethemaster.Thecomposerwroteendearinglyinhisdiarythathewas“enchantedandtouchedinhis

2312carylemersonauthorialvanity”whenTolstoybrokedownandweptduringtheAndanteofhisFirstQuartet.Itmustbesaid,however,thatsuchfilteringofTchaikovsky’schambermusictohighlightitsfolkmelodieswasquiteunnecessary.Tolstoy’sfirstlovesinmusicwerenotRussian,butmainstreamEuropean:Mozart,Haydn,Weber,selectedBeethoven,Mendelssohn,andaboveallChopin13(whomTolstoycalledthemusicalequaltoPushkininpoetry).Thislistmightseemarbitrarytous,butTolstoy,itappears,hadhiscriteria.ToGol’denveizerin1896heremarked:Ineveryart–Iknowthisfromexperience–therearetwoextremesdifficulttoavoid:vulgartrivialityandover-refinementorvirtuosity.Forexample,Mozart,whomIlovesomuch,sometimesfallsintovulgarity,butthensoarsuptoanextraordinaryheight.Schumann’sdefectisexcessiverefinement.Ofthesetwodefects,over-refinementisworsethanvulgarity,ifonlybecauseit’shardertogetridofit.ThegreatnessofChopinisthathoweversimplehemightbeheneverfalls14intovulgarity,andhismostcomplexcompositionsareneverover-refined.ThehighpriorityTolstoyplacedonthedelicate(andhighlysubjective)boundarybetween“vulgar”and“virtuosic”helpsexplainwhythisgreatepicRealistinliteraryrepresentationdisplayedsolittleinterestintherealisticmusicalexperimentsofRussia’smostradicalnationalistcomposer,ModestMusorgsky.AccordingtoSergeiBertenson,sonofthedoctorwhotendedbothMusorgskyandTolstoy,whenhisfatherqueriedthewriteronthispointTolstoyremarkedthathe“likedneithertalenteddrunksnordrunkental-15ents.”Ittookonepersuasiveperformancetochangethatverdict.In1901,theRussian-FrenchsingerMariaOlenina-d’AlheimvisitedIasnaiaPolianaandsang“TheFieldmarshal”(inFrench)fromthecycleSongsandDancesofDeath.“HowisitpeoplekeeptellingmeMusorgskyisapoorcomposer?”16Tolstoyexclaimed.“Whatweheardjustnowwasmorethansplendid.”Still,toomuchattentiontowords–tothenarrativeprogramintextedmusic–alwaysraisedTolstoy’ssuspicions.“Wordsfirst”(andespeciallytheRussianword)wasastrongbiasinRussianRealistsongwriting.Gol’denveizerrecallsthatoneyearearlier,inJanuary1900,thegreatbassFyodorChaliapinsangfortheTolstoyhousehold;hisGermanliederwerebetterreceivedthan17eithertheover-refinedRakhmaninovorthevulgar,hyper-prosyMusorgsky.Inhismemoirs,DoctorBertensonnotedthatTolstoydidnotcareforChaliapin’sconcertrepertoireorcharacterpiecessuchas“TheFlea,”calling18them“melo-declamationandnotmusic.”WementiononefinalmusicallandmarkinTolstoy’slife,atage75:theadventofthegramophone.Thehouseholdwasanxious.Wouldtheold

24Tolstoyandmusic13manbecuriousaboutthisnewinstrument,orwouldheconsideritonemoredehumanizingtechnologicalgadget?AlekseiSergeenko,Chertkov’ssecretary,recallsademonstrationsessionatIasnaiaPolianainDecember191903.Themachinewaswoundupandtherecordingsbroughtout:Beethoven,Chopin,Tchaikovsky,operaarias.Tolstoylistened.Amazed,hebegantomutter.Whenafolkdancetunebegan,hegrinned,shookhishead,andbegantotapoutthebeatwithhisfeet.Thiswasnotdoneforshow,Sergeenkowrote:“evenaloneinthehall,withoutus,hecouldnothavekepthisfeetstill.”Thesereflexesaretelling.ForamongtheparadoxesofTolstoy’sover-documentedlifeisthegapbetweeneye-witnessaccountsofthemasterlisteningtochambermusic–passionately,lovingly,withtearsinhiseyes,tappinghisfeet–andthemanypunitiveassaultshemadeonupper-classmusicalartinhistheoreticalwritings.Partoftheproblem,surely,isTolstoy’sinsistencethatvirtueandhonestyaresimple,whereasformalmusicalstructureor“musicaldevelopment”(asinsonataform)pridesitselfoncomplicationandrefinedvariation.AlsoproblematicisTolstoy’skeensolicitudeforthereceiving,reactingbody.Feelingsarousedmustbepro-videdanoutlet.Thusworksongs,funerallaments,andmilitarybandsprimingsoldiersforviolencewerefarmorehonestasmusicalexperiencesthananorchestralconcert–scheduledinadvance,tiedtonospecialpurpose,andalwaystrappingpeopleimmobileintheirseats.TherewasamoresuspicioussidetoTolstoy’slaterassaultsonmusic,however,unrelatedtolistenerresponse.Itaroseoutofkeendisappointmentaboutoriginsratherthanaffects.“Art,poetry[…],painting,andespeciallymusicgiveustheimpressionthattheyareemanatingfromanextraordinarilygoodandkindplace,”hewroteinhisdiaryforMarch13,1900.“Butthere’snothing20there”(PSS54:13).Terrorwashisresponsetoasublimefeelingthatcouldnotbetracedbacktoamorallyreliablesource.musicintolstoy’sfictionandphilosophyThehundredsofmusicalepisodesorexemplarsinTolstoy’swritingcanbegroupedundervariousrubrics:chronologicalplacementinhislife,socialclass(folkoraristocratic),musicalgenre,moralorimmoraleffect,thepresenceorabsenceofastage,thetrustworthinessofthecomposer,theauralmaterial,thesonicsource.Thatsourcemightbeahumanconstruct(stringquartet),anaturalbackdrop(nightingales),orsomesoundscapeinbetween(say,themusicalpooff!boom-boom-boom!trakh-ta-ta-takh!ofcannonballsbeforetheBattleofBorodinoinvolume3,part2,chapter30ofWarandPeace).

2514carylemersonMydiscussionhereislimitedtohumanconstructsandtakesitsorganizingprinciplefromRichardGustafson:“WhenTolstoythewriterwritesofart,healwaysthinksofamusicalevent…Tolstoy’sartofinfectionistheartofa21goodperformance.”This“performative”criterionisappropriate,becauseithighlightsthesimilaritiesbetweenasuccessfulmusicalexperience–whichforthenineteenthcenturywasalwayslive–andTolstoy’sparticipatoryidealforallart.Italsodistributesresponsibilityforthetransfiguringforceofmusicequallyamongthreeagents:thecomposer,the“realizer”(singerorinstrumen-talist),andthereceiver(audience).Afalsenotebyanyofthesethreecompo-nentscouldmisdirectthemusicalforcetouncleanends.Wenowsamplevarioustypesofmusicperformance(solovoice,vocalchorus,instrumentalsolo,instrumentalensemble,orchestralfantasy),concludingwithacurious“psychological”subsetofmusicalproductioninTolstoy:musicdreamed.Thesolosingingvoice,unaccompaniedorsupportedbyasingleinstru-ment,isalwaysapiercingcommunicatorinTolstoy.Itbothfocusesourethicalsenseand,crucially,iscapableoftranscendingthatsense.Oneearlyexampleistheitinerantstreetsingerin“Lucerne”(1857),anepisodeliftedfromTolstoy’straveldiariesinSwitzerlandandpermeated,appropriately,withRousseau.TheautobiographicalPrinceNekhliudovbefriendsabeg-garedlittlemanpeddlinghismusictoawealthyhotelcrowd;thesinger’sgracefulmelodieshaveliftedthePrincefromamoodofwearyindifferenceto“aneedforlove,afullnessofhope,aspontaneousjoyoflife”(potrebnost’liubvi,polnotunadezhdyibesprichinnuiuradost’zhizni)(PSS5:8).Afterthisinitialgratefultransformation,however,thePrincebecomesincreasinglybitter.Noneofthelaughinghotelguestsdonatesacentime.Feeling“indescribableanger,”Nekhliudovinvitesthesingerforadrinkandragesatanegligentwaiter,therebyembarrassingthepoormusician.Thenthediaryentrytrailsoffintoatreatiseagainstevil,greed,high-societyidleness,andthelamentthateveryonelovesandseeksartbut“nooneacknowledgesitsforce,norvaluesorthanksthosewhogiveittopeople”(PSS5:21).Bytheendofthetale,however,thesweetdistantsoundsofthesingerpromptNekhliudovtotranscendevenhisindignation.Hewithdrawshisrighttojudgeandsubmitstoahigher,unknownuniversallaw.Afarmorefamousinstanceofthesamedouble-tiereddynamicoccursinWarandPeace,volume2,part1,chapter16.NikolaiRostovhasjustlost43,000rublestoDolokhov.Indespair,hereturnshometofindhissisterNatashaandSoniaattheclavichord.At15,Natashaissingingseriouslybuthervoiceisnotyettrained.AsshewarmstotheclimaxofOhmiocrudeleaffetto,Nikolaiistransfixed;willshetakethehighB?Whenshedoes,her

26Tolstoyandmusic15brotherinvoluntarilysingsthesecondvoiceathirdbelow.Andthenhisastonishingconclusion,emergingfrom“whatwasbestinRostov’ssoul”:“Whataregamblinglosses,andDolokhovs,andwordsofhonor!22Nonsense!Onecankill,andsteal,andstillbehappy!”(PSS10:59).InWarandPeace,thesupremelymusicalRostovfamilyisthelocusfortheirresponsiblefullnessofthepresent.Noonecanresistadancerhythm.Theywhirlspontaneously,takerisks,givegenerously,failtokeepfinancialaccounts,actonimpulse,rarelyplan–andthesurvivorsarerewardedwithwealthandfertility.TheRostovspirit,writtendown,faresaspoorlyaslivemusictrappedandtransferredtoascore.ThisdynamicwasexplainedbyFedyaProtasov,protagonistofTheLivingCorpse,tothemusicianwhoisfrettingthathecannottranscribeagypsysongbecause“eachtimeit’snew,andthescaleisdifferent.”“Hewon’twriteitdown,”Fedyasays.“Andifhewritesitdownandsticksitintosomeopera,everythingwillberuined”(acti,sc.2;PSS34:22).IntheEpiloguetoWarandPeace,thetwoRostovsiblingsmatureintothrifty(evenstingy)householdmanagers.Music,itappears,hasbeensuperannuated.Nikolaicountseveryrubleandordershislazypeasantsflogged.NatashaRostova-Bezukhovahasbecomeajealous,penny-pinchingmatron,and(hereTolstoyregistersprofoundapproval)hasquitsingingforgood,havingfoundfullemotionaloutletinherhusbandandchildren.Butadetailneartheendofchapter13reassuresusthatthefamilyeconomyisstillinplace.Three-year-oldNatashaRostova,NikolaiandMarya’sdaughter,isshriekingwithjoyinthechildren’sroom.Hearingthishappysound,herfatherexclaims:“Nowthere’smarvelousmusic!”(Votmuzyka-tochudnaia!).GroupsinginginTolstoy,especiallyfolkmusic,isoverwhelminglyaffirmative.Itsclosenesstothespeakingvoiceandtheevidenceitprovidesofcoordinated,harmoniouscommunalactivitymakeitasaferepositoryformusicalenergy.Themostpositivechorusofallistheworksong,whichinfectsitswearyparticipantsjoyouslyafteradayofagriculturallabor(Tolstoy’sstandardforallhonestwork).Inpart3,chapter12ofAnnaKarenina,KonstantinLevin,stillrecoveringfromKitty’srejection,lyinginahaystackonhisestate,hearsseveraldozenpeasantwomenbreakintoarollickingsong:“itseemedtohimthatathundercloudofmerrimentwascominguponhim”(PSS18:290).Heenviestheirhighspirits,theirphysicalexhaustionincommonlabor,anddespairsathisownloneliness.AsdidNekhliudovin“Lucerne,”hefirstturnsthiskeenmusicalexperienceagainsthimselfandhissocialclass,resolvingtochangehis“burdensome,idle,23artificialandindividuallife”(PSS18:290–91).Butliketheraging

2716carylemersonPrinceNekhliudovinLucerneandNikolaiRostovafterhisgamblingfiasco,Levinisreconciledwithhimselfbytheendofthescene.HecatchesaglimpseofKittyinhercarriageatdawnandconfirmshisloveforher.SinginghasthislayeredeffectinTolstoy.Itstunstheorganismthathearsit,hintsataccesstoasublimerealm,triggerssevereself-criticism,thenfinallyallowsthelistener’serrorandpridetobereabsorbedinalarger,moretolerantharmony.Tolstoyexcelledatasecondsortof“chorus,”superficiallyatoddswithpeasantssingingafteradayofproductivelaborbutinfactcloselyalignedwithit.Thesearethesoldiers’songsthatbreakoutonthemarchtothefront.Agreatmasterofwar,Tolstoyisinnowaynaïveabouttheslaughterandhorrorofthebattlefield.Butforhalfacentury,from“TheRaid”(Nabeg[1853])toHadjiMurat(1896–1905,published1912),Tolstoypersistsinaffirmingtheexhilaration,communalpurpose,andheightenedsenseoflifeandrhythmthatprecedescontactwiththeenemy.OneespeciallyinfectioussceneisdescribedinWarandPeace,volume1,part2,chapter2,beforethedisasteratAusterlitz.Dolokhov,reducedtotheranks,isconversingreluctantlywiththehussarcornetZherkovagainstthecon-stantlyinterruptingbackdropofthemarchers’song.AstheinsolentDolokhovstridesalong,remarkingcurtlyonhisowndisgraceandrehabil-itationwhilekeepingtimetothemusic,itsrefrainmingleswiththedialogueandframesthereplies.“Theirconversationwouldprobablyhavebeendifferent,”Tolstoynotes,“iftheyhadnotbeentalkingtothesoundsof24thesong”(PSS9:146).Inwhatwaydifferenthedoesnotsay,butthereadersensesalargervortex,setinmusicalmotionbythemarching,joyouslysingingmen,whichnowgovernsthearmy.EvenZherkov’shorsegallopsoffandcatchesupwithacarriage“intimewiththesong”(PSS9:147).Suchharmony,affirmationoflife,andrhythmicecstasyarenotdeniedtoinstrumentalchambermusic.Butasthecomplexityand“stagedness”oftheperformanceincrease,pitfallsandcontaminationsmultiply.Solopiano,thepurestinstrumentalmodeandtheoneTolstoyknewmostintimately,isalmostdanger-free.ItispaidbeautifultributeinChildhood(Detstvo,1852),whereNikolenkarecallshismotherplayingBeethoven’sEighthPianoSonata,thePathétique.Inthisfirstfictionalhintofhislaterphysiologicalaesthetics,Tolstoyasnarratorinsists:“Musicactsneitheronthemindnorontheimagination[…]Ithinkaboutnothing,imaginenothing,butsomestrangesweetfeelingsofillsmysoulthatIloseconsciousnessofmy25existence”(PSS1:182).Strangeness,sweetness,andlossofconsciousego:thisisTolstoy’sinitialrecipefor“infection,”thecommunicative

28Tolstoyandmusic17dynamicthathewilllaterpositforallsuccessfulart.Authenticartbreaksdownboundariesbetweencomposer,performer,andlistenersothatanunconsciousunityisrealized–aconditionnoteasytoparaphraseinwordsbutpiercinglyspecific,transparent,andsincere.Thisinstantaneous,incho-atesharingofanemotion,withitsintonationsofdivinegrace,canbetracedtoayoungchild’slongingforunionwithaloving,butirrevocablylost,26parent.IthasproperlybeencalledEucharistic.Musicrestoresthesenseofbeingloved.Unsurprisingly,Tolstoyasmusicianwasmoveddeeplybythe“expectedness”ofchordprogressions,whichheconsideredindispensabletothescienceofmusic.Thesecurityof“knowingeverythinginadvance”wasoneofthereasonshesoenjoyedthe27SonatePathétique.Nikolenka’scriticalfaculties–indeed,hisverydesiretothinkorspeakasasovereignself–meltawayunderhismother’splaying.Thesceneisfoundational.Toinfectothersbyaworkofartisnottoinvitefromthemadifferentiated,open-ended,unexpectedresponse.Quitetheopposite:sincerity(iskrennost’)ofartisticexpressiondissolvesalloutsidepointsofviewinaone-way,unbrokentransmissionoffeeling.“Sincerityisthatstateinwhichthereisanatural,unselfconsciouscoincidencebetweenthepublicandprivate,betweenstemandroot,”writesonerecentstudentofTolstoyanaesthetics.Althoughwearewithothers,marvelously,wearenotnervousabouttheirreceptionofus.(ForTolstoy,whoconsideredhimselfunattractivelyawkwardandself-consciousinsocialsituations,thiswasreliefindeed.)“Inamomentoftruesincerity,apersonhasnomoreregardforhowotherswillperceivehimandhisactionsthanarootsendingupastem28andleaveshasforitsobservers.”Suchexilingofconstructiveinterlocutors,onlookers,anddifferentiateddialoguefromtherealmofauthenticartisamongthemorecuriousaspectsofTolstoy’saesthetics–especiallybecausemusicisatemporalartanditsinfectiousprocessesmustflourishcomplexlyovertime.Butdifferentiationisalreadyafalling-away,adecay;andrecon-structionoranalysisistreacherous.NopieceoffictionbyTolstoybetterillustratestheseparadoxicalmomentsthanthelate,scandalousnovellaTheKreutzerSonata(Kreitserovasonata,1889),ourexemplaroftheinstrumentalensembleinTolstoy.Itistestimonytomusic’slethalforcewhenperformed,received,andrememberedunderflawedconditions.Butthisremarkablestorynotonlytestifiestomusic“gonewrong”;italsotests,perhapsagainstTolstoy’swishes,thesincerity–infectiontheoryofart.ThattheoryhadworkedsplendidlywithNatashaRostova’shighB,withpeasantworksongs,withsoldierssingingtheirwaytothefront,andintheblissfulunconsciousunitybroughtaboutbetweenmotherandchildbythePathétique.Inthisnovellaitconfoundsandmisleads.

2918carylemersonTolstoy’sKreutzerSonataismusicalonseverallevels.Itseponymousploteventisachambermusicrecital,bytheprotagonist’spiano-playingwifetogetherwithavisitingviolinist,ofBeethoven’sSonatainAmajor,op.47.Itwouldhavebeenaroutinesocialeventexceptforthemurderer’sself-obsessed(self-accusatory,self-absolving)recontextualizationofitinmorbidretrospect.Thefictionalnarrative,structuredbyTolstoyinverbalimitationofsonata-allegroform,isitselfaflashback“performed”byPozdnyshevtoanunknown(butsympathetic,whichistosay,“infected”)travelingcompan-29ioninatraincarriage.Leavingasidethequestionofthemurderer-husband’ssanity,itmustbestressedthattheperformanceofBeethoven’ssonatathateveningwasneitherafailurenorascandal.Pozdnyshevhimselfadmitsthatthepair“playedsplendidly,”thattheviolinistTrukhachevskyhad“tothehighestdegreewhatwascalledtone”andeven“refinedandelevatedtaste”;Pozdnyshevalsoadmitsthathiswifewas“simpleandnatural”intheviolinist’spresence(PSS27:54).Thehusband’sjealousyandsubsequentdecisiontomurderhiswifedevelopmuchlater,afterthesublimemomentofinfectionhaswornoffandhehasbeguntoponderthematterinhismind.Althoughhedoesnotperformonaninstrumenthimself,Pozdnyshevisverymusical.Hehasbeendespisinghiswife(andhimself)forseveralyears,largelybecauseherefusestoseekanyjustificationfortheircohabitationexceptanimalpleasure.AswithPrinceNekhliudovin“Lucerne,”musicforPozdnyshevfunctionsasthatalmostrandomtriggerwhich,oncepressed,releasesafloodofdisgustatthevicesofhissocialclass.Theadditionofthefailed-marriagethemetoTheKreutzerSonatacompli-catesthemusicalmatterirreparably.Forwehaveherenotmeresocialcritique,normeresexualjealousyonthehusband’ssidetowardsomeapparentcompetitor,butacomplexMozart-and-Salieriscenarioforenvy,wheretheenvierisawareofthesuperiorityofhisrival–acategorythatexpandstoincludehiswifeatthekeyboardalongsidetheviolinist.Theenvieradmitsthevalueofthehigherpurposethathisrivalserves,andfearslikefirethereciprocalinfectionthatwillinevitablyspreadoutaroundhisrival’ssuccessfulperformance.Inthatinfectiouszone,allcreativityanddesirearedangerouslyenhanced.Butherethenon-musicianPozdnyshevisclearlydisadvantaged:heperformsasacreatorsolelyinwordsandimages,thatis,inimagination.Tobesure,theseverbalandvisualpropscomeintoplayonlylater,stealthily,silently,afterthemusicaleventisover.Duringtheperformance,themusicallyvulnerablePozdnyshevsuccumbstothemagicalartofBeethoven’ssonata,toitsabilitytofuseperformersandlistenersintoasinglepulsingwhole.Buthesoonrevertstothemoredivisiveeffectsoftemporal,aurallytransmitted

30Tolstoyandmusic19artnaturaltohispossessiveandsuspicioustemperament.Formusicalnarrative,similartoitsinefficientcousinthenarrativeutterance,doesnotalwaysunite.Itcanalsodivide,differentiate,leaveunresolved,mysteriouslydarkenratherthanelevateorclarify.Heardfully,musicalnarrativecancomplicateandenrichtheworldovertimewithmultiplevoicesandincom-patiblevocabularies.Evenwhensuchdivisiveorunresolvedmusicalenergiesdonotbecomepathological,astheydointhismurderstory,onestillsensesTolstoy’sreluctancetoconfirmthemasauthentic.Anincorrigiblyidealisticmusicophile,hewouldliketobelievethatonlywordslaidoutinarow,whichsoponderouslymediateexperienceandpromptusnottojoyorreconciliationbuttobarrenlogicalthought,canfailasinstrumentsofhumancommunion.Thinkingbackonthatchambermusicevening,Pozdnyshevpointedlyblamestheenvironmentforfailingtoprovideappropriaterelease.Ifidle,overfedhighsociety,exposedtothispowerfulmusic,ispermittedtorespondwithnomorethanpoliteapplausefollowedbysmalltalkandsherbet,illicitsexiscertaintobreakoutsomewhere.Butonesuspectsamoredamningdynamicatwork.RememberinghowhiswifehadrealizedBeethoven’smusicwiththeviolinist,morethanmerespousalpossessivenessbegantodrivePozdnyshevcrazy.Itwasalsotheirresistiblydialogicnatureofthesonata’sopeningpassages,thefactthatviolinandpianoareequalpartners,eachansweringtheotherandadjustingtotheotherinsequentialoroverlappingthemes,tempos,rhythms,andintentions.“Listenedto”forthefirsttimeinhermarriedlife,Pozdnyshev’swifewasgrowingevermorearticulate,self-confident,andcreativeatthekeyboardwhilerehearsingthisdifficultandrewardingmusicwiththestranger-violinist.ItwouldappearthatPozdnyshevcouldnotabidewitnessingthisgrowthinhiswife’sparticipatoryautonomy(shedoesnotevenhaveanameinthestoryherhusbandtells)–andsoheactivateswordsandimagestocreatetheworstpossible“program”fortheirmusic,apieceofnarrativetextthathecanagaincontrolandcondemn.Themurderedwife’stechnicalfidelityorinfidelityisimmaterial;thestorydoesnotruleonthatpoint.Butthefailureofthissuccessfulmusicalperformancetobindmindsandbodiestogetherintrustorbrotherhoodisdevastating.InPozdnyshev’sanxiousreactiontoBeethoven’smusic,then,Tolstoyhasthecouragetoconfrontthemostvulnerableaspectsofhisart-as-infectiontheory.Theseaspectsincludeanindifferencetorealduration,arejectionofdramaticortonalantagonism,aninsistenceonthecloningofidenticalfeelingsinallparticipants(whencontrastandconfusionmighthavebeenmorehonesttothepurposeoftheartwork),areluctanceto

3120carylemersonaddressthebitterfalloutofmusicaleuphoriawhenreconstructedasverbalorpictorialmemory.ItseemsthatTolstoyhimselfwasnotwhollyatrestonthisissue.Hisinitialinspirationforthestoryhadbeenanamateurperform-anceoftheKreutzerSonatainJuly1887,withhissonSergeiatthepianoandthefamilymusicteacher,oneMonsieurLiasotta,asviolinist.In1895TolstoyheardtheSonataagain,thistimeperformedbytheaccomplishedCzechviolistOskarNedbal,aguestatIasnaiaPoliana.NedbalreproachedTolstoyforhisdisrespectfultreatmentofBeethoveninhis(nowworld-famous)novella.Tolstoyallegedlyreplied:“Perhapsyouareright,butIwouldhaveneverwritten‘TheKreutzerSonata’ifIhadhearditperformedbynoble-mindedmusicians.Intherenditionoftwostudents,eachof30whomplayedpoorly,itimpressedmeasaneroticwork.”Butthecom-mentisitselfcurious.WhyshouldEros–evenifwegrantTolstoytherighttoshameitoutofcourt–beequatedwithtechnicalawkwardness,lackofmastery,andincompleteorimmoralinfection?TheanswerliesinthehugenumberofnegativehumantraitsthatTolstoywouldlikethewrongsortofmusictoillustrateandtheproper(“noble-minded”)sortofmusictomakeright.Likeanybelovedobject,musicisappliedbyTolstoywithfastidiouscare.InthecelebratedepisodefromWarandPeace(vol.2,pt.5,chs.8–10),whereahumiliatedNatashaRostovaattendstheoperaandisintoxicatedintoanalmost-fatalflirtationwithAnatoleKuragin,Tolstoygivesusalmostnosound;thenarrator’swrathisdirectedagainstthenakedlegsofballetdancers,thefattorsosofsingers,theflimsyfakeryofthestageset,thestupidityoftheplot.Intheoperashedespises–whichincludethegrander,moreclogged,supernaturalnineteenth-centuryvariants–Tolstoyconcentratesonthevisualsandplaysdownanypossibleinfectionthroughmusic.Mozartwasanothermatter.DonGiovanni,forallitsundisguisedandamoralEros,delightedTolstoywheneverheheardasnatchofit(asinthatinstanceattheMoscowConservatoryin1894).Mozartissotunefulandlife-affirmingthatevenadecadentstorylinecannotcontaminatehim.ButinprincipleTolstoyopposedallplottedorprogrammusic,sinceitliterally“pre-programs”theaudiencewiththecrudestofmarkers–peopleandevents.Thiscanonlyhindertheindividualtrajectoryofemotionalinfectionappropriatetoeachlistener.Ourfinalexampleofinstrumentalmusic,frompart7,chapter5ofAnnaKarenina,iscensuredforpreciselythisflaw.KonstantinLevinisinMoscowforhiswife’sconfinement.Oneafternoonheattendsamatinéeconcertofarecentlycomposedfantasia,inextra-novelisticlifeacompositeofMiliiBalakirev’s“KingLearontheHeath”(Korol’Lirvstepi,1860)and

32Tolstoyandmusic21Tchaikovsky’sfantasyon“TheTempest”(Buria,1873),thefirstbasedonaShakespearetragedythatTolstoyespeciallydetested.Levinavoidsreadinganymusiccriticsonthework(justasTolstoywouldhavedone);hewantstomakeuphisownauralmind.ButTolstoyassuresusthatthelongerLevinlistenedtothe“KingLear”fantasia,thefurtherhefeltfrom“anypossibilityofformingsomedefiniteopinionforhimself”(PSS19:261).“Themusicalexpressionoffeelingwasceaselesslybeginning,asifgatheringitselfup,butitfellapartatonceintofragmentsofnewbeginningsofmusicalexpressionsandsometimesintoextremelycomplexsounds,con-nectedbynothingotherthanthemerewhimofthecomposer[…]Hewasinuttercomplexitywhenthepieceendedandfeltgreatfatiguefromsuch31strainedbutinnowayrewardedattention”(PSS19:261–62).WhenanacquaintanceenthusiasticallybeginsmatchingmusicalepisodestoeventsinShakespeare’stragedy,“Levintimidlyasks:‘ButwhatdoesCordeliahavetodowithit?’”(PSS19:262).TheirrelevanceofCordeliaisattheheartofTolstoy’srebuke:hereLevinwastryingtolosehimself,butinsteadofbeingguidedbyautonomousmusicalmovementintoasublimerealm,themusichadbeenguided(thatis,distorted)byasequenceofimportedimages,personalities,andplots.MeasuredbythefourcriteriaTolstoywillpositinWhatIsArt?(Chtotakoeisskustvo?),Balakirev’s“KingLear”fantasyqualifiesasthoroughlycounterfeitart:itborrows(itsstory),imitates(images),peddlesstrikingeffects(insanityandsuicide),andrequiresofthereceivercleverness,bookishpreparation,andahugeamountofmentaleffortiftheworkistobegraspedatall.Anorchestralfantasyisfatiguingenough.ButforTolstoy,full-scalegrandoperawasquitesimplyinsulting:intellectually,musically,dramati-cally,socio-economically,humanely.InthefirstchapterofWhatIsArt?herecallsattendingarehearsalof“oneofthemostordinarynewoperas”(PSS3230:28).Itbecomesimmediatelyclearthathedidnotattendtoenjoy,however,butsleuthedaroundbackstage,intheundergroundofmusicalart,spyingonthemusicians’darkstalls,onthestagecrew’ssweatywork,andonasix-hourrehearsalduringwhichtheirritableconductor,“inasufferingandspitefulvoice,”abusedorchestraandsingerswithsuchepithetsas“asses,fools,idiots,swine,”compellinga“crippledperson”torepeatthesamemusicalphrase“twentytimesover[…]Itishardtoimagineamorerepulsivesight”(6;PSS30:30).Neveristherethesuggestionthattheparticipantsinthisprojectmightwelcomerehearsalstoimprovethequalityofthemusicalperformance.Inchapter13,TolstoysavagelycaricaturesastagingofWagner’sRingoftheNibelung,librettoaswellasmusic.HedismissestheideathataperformanceinBayreuthcouldbetterjustifythis

3322carylemersonnonsense;sitforfourdayswithotherhalf-madpeople,hewrites,andthephysicalinactivity,darknessofthetheatre,fantasticalillusionsofstageart,nymphs,gnomes,andincestwillworktheirdireeffect.TheaudienceheobservedinMoscow,alsoinan“abnormalstate,”wassimplyhypnotized;spiritualistsandopium-dealerscouldhavemanipulatedthesamephenom-ena(111;PSS30:139).Inhispenultimatechapter19,TolstoyrevealsthetrueZukunftkunstwerk(artworkofthefuture),whichwillemergeondifferentprinciples:itwillbetheworkofamateurs,spontaneousandunstaged.Everybodywillagreethattoinventonthespota“littlefairy-taleorsong”thatprovidesconsolationorjoywillbe“incomparablymoreimportantandfruitfulthantowriteanovelorasymphony”(155;PSS30:183).ItremainstoconsideronefinalcategoryofmusicalexpressioninTolstoy’swritings:musicdreamed.Inchapter23ofhisMusicophilia(2007),OliverSacksdescribesthequasi-pathological,quasi-creativephe-33nomenonofmusicaldreams.Hementionsseveralcomposers–Wagner,Ravel,Stravinsky,Berlioz–whocreated(orchanneled)substantialmusicalideas,oftenfullyorchestrated,inhallucinatory“hypnagogic”(pre-sleep)and“hypnopomnic”(post-awakening)states.Sacksalsonotestwoacutemusicaldreamsofhisown,oneofthemaguiltdream“fullofmelancholyandasortofhorror”(280).ThelatterhallucinationwouldhavesurprisedTolstoy.Hisfictionaluseofdreamedmusicisoverwhelminglyaffirmative,integrative,andblissful.Itmatchestheemotionalprofileofthecharacterandiswellmotivatedinthedreamer’slife;often,coterminousreal-worldsoundsarewovenin,promptingorsupplementingthemusic.Butnomatterhowsomberthereal-lifeeventssurroundingthedream,joyfulanticipationisitsdominantmusicalmood.AnnaKareninaopensononesuchhypnopomnicmoment.StivaOblonsky,recentlydiscoveredinadulterybyhiswife,hasbeenexiledtothesofainhisstudy.Hewakesup,rollsover,hugsthepillow,andrecallshisdream:adinnergivenonglasstables,andthetablesweresingingIlmiotesoro,“onlyitwasn’tIlmiotesorobutsomethingbetter,andtherewere34somelittlecarafes,whichwerealsowomen”(PSS18:4).ThisdifficulttenorariafromactiiofMozart’sDonGiovanni,sungbyDonnaAnna’sfiancéDonOttavio,shouldhavegivenpausetothephilanderingOblonsky–butinfact,astheunfoldingnovelwillshow,themostpotenttraitofOblonsky’spersonalityishisabilitytoforgetorsimplifyanyunpleasantnessinthelargercontextandintuitivelypursuetheimmediatebodilysatisfaction.ThisinstinctjustifiesthesensibleadvicehegiveshissisterAnnawhenshebeginstogooffthetragic-operaticdeepend(getadivorce,marrythemanyoulove),butitalsotestifiestohisownhopeless

34Tolstoyandmusic23shallownessasamoralbeing.Thereismuchofmusic’sinfectiousnessinOblonsky,whichiswhyitissohardtodislikeorblamehim.HisfarlessflexiblefriendLevin,whobroods,remembers,embarrasseshimself,testshimself,andeverywhereresiststhespontaneousway,isnotanaturallymusicalman.OurseconddreamisexperiencedbyPetyaRostov,16-year-oldofficerattachedtoapartisanbrigade,involume4,part3,chapter10ofWarandPeace.WhilehissabreisbeingsharpenedbyaCossacknearby,Petyadrowsesoff.Therhythmicsoundofthewhetstone–ozhik,zhik,zhik–triggersahypnagogicauditoryhallucinationofgorgeouscomplexity,achoralsymphonythatPetyahimselfeventuallyconducts.Firsthehearsamajestichymn,thenafugue,thenmaleandfemalevoicesmaketheirentry;Petyacloseshiseyes,and“onallsides,asiffromfaraway,soundstrembled,begantoharmonize,scattered,merged,andagainalljoinedinthesame35sweetandsolemnhymn”(PSS12:147).ThemusicPetyasummonsforthisafairdescriptionofBeethoven’sNinthSymphony,whichpremieredin1824.Itcouldnothavebeendreamedin1812–afactthataddstoitseerietimelessness.Petyawillbekilledthenextmorning,intheraidthatfreesPierreBezukhovfromFrenchcaptivity.Throughsomemysterioushar-mony,thesacrificialdeathofthisyoung,musicallyprimedPeter(Petya)workstosavethelifeofanotherPeter(Pierre),whobytheendofthenovelhasjustfatheredanewPetya,Natasha’sfirstson.Thisrefrain,orrecycling,ispartofthe“marvelousmusic”thatisstartingupintheRostov–Bezukhovnursery.InTolstoy’sfiction,musicisfrequentlypresentattransitionsbetweenlifeanddeath.Forallitsdependenceontheresonatingbody,ithasastrongmetaphysicaldimension.Petya’striumphantsymphonyoccursatsuchathreshold,asdoesthetranslucent“whisperingmusic”ofthepiti-pitichorusheardbythefatallywoundedPrinceAndreiinhisdeliriumatMytishchi(WarandPeace,vol.3,pt.3,ch.32).WiththisJanus-facedfunctioninmind,partchaoticmysteryandpartanorderedprogressiontowardtheLight,wemightnowtrytoplaceTolstoyandmusicinlargerperspective.Europeanaestheticsgeneratedatleastfourdistinct,quiteincompatibleconceptsaboutmusic’sessence.Mostancientistheclassicalideaofthe“musicofthespheres”:amathematicallyexpressedspiritofharmonyandproportionalityinwhichtheinternalmusicofthehumanbodyislinkedwiththeinaudible“universalmusic”createdbytheorbitsofcelestialbodies.Romantictheoriesofmusicofferedtheoppositedefinition,thatmusicwasnotamatterofwhole-numberratiosorcosmiccalibrationsbutofstructurelessflow,ineffableandinexpres-sible.Stillmorerecent“listener-response”theoriesholdthatmusicisbest

3524carylemersonunderstoodasasonicstimulusdesignedtoelicitcertainemotionsandactions.InadarkfourthoptionthatTolstoywrestledwithandeventuallyrepudiated,musicisrelatedtoconsciouswill,intentionality,anddesire(Schopenhauer’sconceptofthe“worldwill”).Throughwhatitembracesandwhatitrejects,Tolstoy’ssynthesispartakesofallfour.ThejudgmentsonmusicinWhatIsArt?didnotoriginateinthepost-conversionyears.Inanotebookjottingfrom1852,Tolstoy,attheageof24,dividedtheknowledgeofmusicintotwoparts.Totheobjectiverealmbelongedmusictheory;tothesubjectiverealm,rulesandmusicalproduc-tion.“Thebasisofmusicistheabilitytoexpresssomemusicalthought,”Tolstoywrote.Thisprocessentails“thelinking-upandunifyingofsoundsthatcomposeasinglewhole[…]wecallmusicalfeelingtheabilitytoreproduceamusicalthoughtsothatitsunityisnotdisturbedinoursoul”36(PSS1:242).TheunityTolstoywouldbringaboutthroughmusicneednotimplycompletehomogenization,normustitdissolveallinterpersonalboundaries.Butitiscleansedofimpatienceandviolentdisharmonies;itseeksacadence.ByunificationTolstoyintendsabovealltheemotionalstateNekhliudovexperiencedunderthestarryskyattheendof“Lucerne”:amomentofreconciliationwithoneself,whichthenenablestoleranceofothers,atranscendenceofangryjudgment,andclarity.Claritycouldalmostdotheworkoflove.Letusreturntothetermsinvokedatthebeginningofthischapter.Tolstoyunderstoodartingeneralasakindofoptimalenergytransfer,withmusicalartastheideal.Musicsucceedstotheextentthatitgeneratesbothheatandlight.Heatinthiscaseisthermodynamicefficiency;itisachievedmostquicklythroughpurityofmedium,spontaneity,intensityofutter-ance,andsimplicityofidiom.AsTolstoynotedinhisdiaryforDecember18,1899:“Peoplehavethehabitofsaying:that’sveryprofoundandthusnotfullyunderstandable.Thatisn’ttrue.Everythingdeepistransparentlyclear”37(PSS53:234).InTolstoy’smusicalutopia,cleardepthsaremademurkybyrehearsing,remembering,“staging,”masteringanewformintellectually,negotiatingoraccommodatingthemind’spriorassociations.Onlyclarityandimmediacycanguaranteelight.coda:tolstoysettomusic(riskingthemaster’spleasure)TheSoviet-eracompendiumTolstoiimuzyka(1977)listsovertwodozenattemptstosetTolstoy’sworkasopera,ballet,orinstrumentalcomposi-38tion.ConsideringthevastscopeofTolstoy’scollectedworksand

36Tolstoyandmusic25comparedwithseveralthousandmusicalizationsofPushkinandhundredsforGogolandDostoevsky,thenumberissoberinglysmall.IsthisbecausethereisnopoetryfromTolstoy’spen,andart-songs–poetrysettomusic–alwaysinflatethecount?OrbecauseTolstoyanproseistooluxurious,complex,andmeanderingtofitmusicalformortheconventionsofalibretto?Orperhapsthemaster’sstern,disapprovingeyehaswardedoffpotentialmusicaladaptorsofhisprose?Asthischapterhastriedtosuggest,evenTolstoy’sdisapprovalwasshotthroughwithpassionateattraction.InclosingwenotetwooperasthatTolstoy,perhapsagainsthisbettertheoret-icaljudgment,mighthaveliked,andthenthestubofathird.Thefirstisalsothegreatestandmostfamous,SergeiProkofiev’smon-umentaloperaWarandPeace.ItwasbeguninApril1941,subjectedtomassiveandcapriciouscensorship,revisedunderpressureforadecade,and39stillunpremieredinitsentiretyatthetimeofthecomposer’sdeathin1953.Prokofievwaspassionateaboutopera;hewasalsocommittedtoservingthestate.Tolstoycondemnedboth.ButProkofievandhislibrettistMiraMendelsonbroughttothetaskotherskillsthatmightwellhavecausedTolstoytotaphisfeetandattendclosely,withmountingastonishmentandrespect,toitsproselibretto.Hewouldhaveheardlongstretchesofhimselfsungbutotherwiseunaltered,therhythmsandemotionalcurveofthelengthyTolstoyansentenceevenintensified.LikeTolstoy’sbelovedMozart,Prokofievhadaspectacularlyricalgift.ButunlikeMozartandeighteenth-centuryoperaticpracticegenerally,Prokofievcouldsustainaproseutteranceinamesmerizingmusicalline.Radicallyforopera,hecoulddevelopthisprosaiclinetowardseriousratherthancomicpurpose.Whatismore,Prokofievinmusic(likeTolstoyinliteraryprose)wasamasteratblendinglyricalintimacywithpatrioticmilitaryspectacle.MiraMendelsonextractedallepisodesforpart1oftheopera,“Peace,”fromvolume2,parts3and4.TheunifyingthemeisNatashaRostova’sfallfrominnocenceanditsrepercussionsonthethreemenwhodesireher:herfiancé,herseducer,andtheconfessorwhowillbecomeherhusband.AttheepicentreoftheseeventsisascenethatProkofievdidnotset,“NatashaattheOpera.”Quitepossiblytheoriginalsceneinthenovelisthemeanestparodyofthegenreinallnineteenth-centuryliterature.Mean,becauseoperaisrepresentedwithnorespectforitsconventions(thespectacleNatashasees,anachronistically,ismodeledonMeyerbeer’s1831RobertleDiable,animmenselypopularFrenchgrandoperathatplayedinMoscowbetween401861and1864andwhichTolstoyintenselydisliked).Meanalso,becauseofwhatthisoperasetsNatashauptodo–tothosewholoveher,andtoherself.Andmean,finally,becausethereisalmostnomusicdescribedinit

3726carylemerson(justfatladiesandfakesets),andstagedecorationscanneverinfect,onlymusiccan.Theopera-lovingProkofievhadnothingtogainbyreproducingTolstoy’sdisgustatoperaticconvention.Hehadeverythingtogain,how-ever,byshowcasingtheseductivenessofmusic.Thusinacti,sceneiv,hereplacestheabsentcenterpieceofNatashaattheOperawithanequallyintoxicatingdeviceofhisown:anE-flatmajorwaltzincompelling3/4time,whichnoneofthemusicalRostovsisabletoresist.Modulatinginandoutofmoresinisterminorkeys,HélèneandAnatolekeepthiswaltzgoingthroughoutthescene.Natashaandherfathertryfeeblytocounteritsrhythmicfieldwitha4/4beatoftheirown,andtheyfail;theirwordsmightresist,buttheysingintimewiththewaltz.EventheimpeccablymoralSonia,horrifiedatNatasha’sprofligacy,cannotassertasuccessful4/4beatagainsttheswirl.ThewaltzwasEurope’sdanceofillicitpassion,andTolstoyknewwhatitmeantwhenone’sfootbegantotaptoit.Thissamethemeofseductionfollowedbybetrayalisrepeatedinpart2oftheopera,“War.”ButnowNatashahasbecomeallofRussia;theFrenchifiedsalonoftheKuraginshasbecometheFrenchGrandeArmée.Russiaisseduced,betrayed,falls.FieldmarshalKutuzovpreservesher,asPierrepreservesNatasha,butataterriblecost.Iftheseductiverhythmsofthewaltzdominate“Peace,”thenthemasschoralhymn,militarymarch,andpatrioticariainfectin“War.”AlthoughProkofievwascompelledrepeatedlytoinflateKutuzov’sarias,infactthechauvinisticpageantryofthisoperaisimmenselystirring,evenfrightening,truetothenovelandeventoaportionofTolstoy’slatermusicalaesthetic.Intheblackyear1943,withthenationagainundersiege,Russianeededtosee,hear,andbemobilizedbythetriumphof1812.Prokofiev’soperacouldhavesatisfiedthatneed.Musicisdepravedonlywhenperformedininappropriatecontexts.Buttheoperaneverpassedideologicalmuster,andtheinspired,necessarymomentpassed.Curiously,intheearly1940sProkofievalsoconsideredsettingasecondTolstoyannovel,Resurrection,whichwouldhaveemphasizedalater,lone-lierTolstoyanapproachtosalvation.Aproselibretto,“KatiushaMaslova,”wasproducedbytheplaywrightAnatolyMariengofin1941forDmitryShostakovich,fromwhomtheKirovTheaterhadcommissionedtheopera.ButShostakovichlostinterestandofferedtheprojecttoProkofiev.ProkofievremainedwithWarandPeace–sensibly,itturnedout,fortheMariengoflibrettowasbannedinMay1941.Thesurvivingtypescriptof“KatiushaMaslova”suggestsanoperaticcondensationfortheStaliniststagewithsufficienttunefulnessandsubversivenesstoappealtoTolstoy41himself.Gypsiessinginthebrothelinactii,sceneii(theheroine,we

38Tolstoyandmusic27recall,wasfatheredbya“passinggypsy”),againstabackdropofuninter-rupted,unrepentantstateviolence.Theendingisabruptandnon-novelistic.AfterSimonsonstammersouthisconfessionoflove,romanceasamotifisabruptlycurtailed;onlyahurriedshout“Farewell”passesbetweenKatiushaandNekhliudovassheisledawayinathrongdeeperintoSiberia,toaplaintivefolklament.ThePrincedisappearsfromthetext.Suchamass“Siberian”finaleiscongenialtoRussiantime-spaceunderallregimes.ButotherTolstoyanemphasesarealsopossiblewiththisnovel.AnAmericanoperaticversionofResurrection,byTodMachover,premieredinHoustonin1999withamoresentimental–andatthesametimemore42lonelyandself-reliant–denouement.Itsthemewasindividuality,oneareainwhichtheeighteenth-centuryTolstoy,enamoredoftheFranklindiaries,overlapswiththepragmaticandresilientNorthAmericanStates.Attheend,NekhliudovandKatiushasingofaworldchangedonepersonatatime,whereaprincecandowhataformerprostitutecannot.Afteranon-loveduetconfirmingtheirseparation,Katiusha,nowpardoned,remainsbehindtotendSimonson,whosebackhasbeenflayedbyawhipping.Thefinalstagedirectionreads:“(NekhlyudovisleftaloneonstageasSiberiafadesawaybehindhim.Heturnsandwalksawayintothedawn,backtothe43world.Theresurrectioniscomplete.)”IsthislaterPrinceNekhliudovfinallymakinggoodonhisconciliatoryvisionsbyLakeLucerne?Boththeseoperas,builtofftwogreatTolstoynovels,containmuchthatwouldhavemovedthenovelisttotearsintermsofmoralcontent.Musicallytootheymighthaveappealed:Prokofiev’slyricalmastery,combinedwithamassofinfectiousdances,wouldsurelyhavepleasedTolstoy’sear.Likewise,Machover’sdevotiontotonalconsonance,hisexpertisewithmedievalchantsandAmericanfolkhymns,andhisconservativeuseof“hyperinstru-mentation”toembellishselectmomentsoflivemusicelectronically,might44haveintriguedTolstoymuchasdidthegramophonein1903.Butthesetwoworksareneverthelessoperas:bigexpensiveaffairsproducedonbigprofessionalstages,requiringwell-trainedifnotvirtuosicvoices,rehearsals,costumes,andcapitallayout.OurfinalexampleofTolstoysettomusicisstillopera,butmovestoovercomethesefinalobjections.Inthemid-1990s,theHouseofHopePresbyterianChurchcommis-sionedtheAmericancomposerStephenPaulusandhislibrettistMichaelDennisBrownetocomposeaone-actoperaonTolstoy’s1886variantofa45VolgaDistrictlegend,“ThreeHermits”(Tristartsa).ThistinyparablerelatestheconversionofaRussianOrthodoxbishopbythreehermitsofSolovetskiiMonastery,whosegarbledhomespunprayer–“ThreeareYe,Threearewe,Havemercyonus!”–thebishophadtriedto“correct”by

3928carylemersonteachingthemtheauthorizedLord’sPrayer.Thebishopleavestheirislandafteradministeringthelesson.Butthethreehermitscannotrememberthenewwordsandsotheyhastenoverthewatertothehighcleric’sshiptobetaughtafresh.Thebishopischastisedbythehumblefaithofthethreehermitsandisremindedofthefalsenessofmerewords.Tolstoyheardthelegendfromawanderingstorytellerin1879and“transcribed”itin1885forhisTwenty-ThreeTales.Withinhisownfaithsystem,ofcourse,Tolstoymustdiscountanymiracle.Hetenderlyandlovinglyparodiestheapocryphal“walkingonwater”motifofthelegend,all46thewhileseriouslyendorsingthebishop’sepiphany.WhenStephenPaulussetTolstoy’stext,however,hedidsoforanaudienceofChristianbelieverswhodidnotnecessarilydiscreditthemiraculousepisodesoftheGospel.Insceneiii,thedramaticpeakofthepiece,thepassengersonthebishop’svessel(hismother,severalnuns,achorusofpilgrims)witness,toshimmeringmusicanddazzlingmoonlight,“thehermitsrunningoverthewater/asthoughitweredryland.”Itistothisphysicallypresent,eye-witnessedmiraclethatthebishopbowsandadmitshisownneedforhumility:“Itisnotformetoteachyou,”hesings.“Inmypride,Itriedtochangeyou./Prayforus,youholyones.”ThemusictoThreeHermitsisluminous,vocallynon-virtuosicthroughout,withintermittentmodalitymarkingthereligiouslymostferventmoments.Severalreviewsoftheoperanoteitsappropriatenessforchurchandamateurgroups.Tolstoywouldsaythatthepsychologicaleffectofthework–whattheartdoesratherthanwhatitis–arguesforitsauthenticity.Verifyingthefact-contentofanexperience(whetherthehermitswerepaddlinginaskifforwalkingthesurfaceofthewaves)isfarlessimportantthanfosteringhumilityandbrotherhood.Withthatpurposeachieved,doesitmakeanydifference,intheend,whoseeswhatunderthemoon?Allthetasksoftrueartareaccomplishedthroughthereturnofthehermits.Thehigharebroughtlow,althoughgentlyandattheirownvolition.Thebishop,whothoughthecommandedalltherightverbalformulas,isconvertedbythehomespun,simple,andhumble.Ofcoursethelegendisafantasy,butitisnottheperniciousfantasyofNatashaattheOpera,whichintoxicatedherbodysodisastrously.ThreeHermitsistransformationalandaffirmative.Itisalso(inTolstoy’sspecialsense)pragmatic,thatis,usefulforkeepingfaithalive–anaidin“forcingpeopletolovelife”andtoforgivelifeitstrespasses.Forthistohappen,the“infectiousimpulse”mustbesimple,intenselyemotional,unmediated,andideallyresolvedinunison.Thetechnicaldifficultyofbalancingthisprescriptwiththevagariesofhumanexpressionandcommunication,nottomentionournaturalcuriositytoexperiencenewforms,ishintedatinthat

40Tolstoyandmusic29diaryentryfromDecember18,1899.Theentryisprefacedwiththeword“nonsense”(pustiaki)–butonesuspectsthatTolstoy,smilingathimself,isalsoserious.“Aboutpolyphonicmusic,”hewrites.“Avoiceoughttosaysomething,butinthiscasetherearemanyvoices,andeachonesays47nothing”(PSS53:232).notes1.“Dnevnik.1851.29noiabria.Tiflis.”L.N.Tolstoi,Polnoesobraniesochineniia,90vols.(Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialitera-tura,”1928–58),46:239–40.HereaftercitedasPSSfollowedbyvolumeandpagenumbers.2.ForTolstoy’sargumentagainstprogramnost’orstorytellinginmusic,seeIosifEiges,“VozzrenieTolstogonamuzyku,”inP.N.Sakulin,ed.,EstetikaL’vaTolstogo:sbornikstatei(Moscow:GosudarstvennaiaAkademiiaKhudozhestvennykhNauk,1929),241–308,esp.253–54and277–80.3.RecordedforDecember7,1899.A.B.Gol’denveizer,VbliziTolstogo(Moscow:Goslitizdat,1959),58.4.SeeLeonardB.Meyer,EmotionandMeaninginMusic(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1956),81:“[I]tseemsclearthatalmostallmotorbehaviorisbasicallyaproductofmentalactivityratherthanakindofdirectresponsemadetothestimulusassuch.”5.FromTolstoytohischildrenL.L.andT.L.Tolstoi,March12,1894.“Whatwizardry,”Tolstoycontinues.“It’snojoke,butahorrifyingpower.Anditseemsthatpeoplewantonlythebadinfluence”(Kakzakoldovstvo…Etoneshutka,auzhasnaiavlast’.Aokazyvaetsia,chtoliudikhotiattol’kodurnogovozdeistviia).PSS:67:79.6.V.Bulgakov,L.N.Tolstoivposledniigodegozhizni(Moscow:Pravda,1989),147.7.SeediaryentryforJuly12,1900:“Peoplewhoarenotcapableofpenetratingtothedepth[oftheirownart]raidtheneighboringartsforthebenefitoftheirownfieldandthinkthattheycreatesomethingnew:poetryintomusicandviceversa,paintingintomusic,etc.”(Liudizhenemogushchieuglubit’prikhvatyvaiutvsvoepoleizsosednikhiskusstvidumaiut,chtotvoriatnovoe:poeziia–muzyku,inaoborot,zhivopis’–poeziiuit.d.).PSS54:29.8.Cf.theautobiographicalpatchfrom“Sviatochnaianoch’,”viii[ix]“Mechty,”whereTolstoylamentsthefallinstatusofthispopularform:“TherewasatimeinRussiawhennomusicwasmorelovedthangypsymusic[…]eventopreferittotheItaliansdidnotseemstrange[…]GypsymusicinRussiawastheonlytransitionfromfolkmusictolearnedmusic”(Byvalovremia,kogdanaRusiniodnoimuzykineliubilibol’sheTsyganskoi[…]ipredpochitat’ikhItal’iantsamnekazalos’strannym.TsyganskaiamuzykabylaunasvRossiiedinstvennymperekhodomotmuzykinarodnoikmuzykeuchenoi).PSS3:262.9.IndispensabletothistaskisZ.G.PaliukhandA.V.Prokhorova,eds.,LevTolstoiimuzyka:khronika,notografiia,bibliografiia(Moscow:Sovetskiikompozitor,

4130carylemerson1977),41–258(“Muzykal’naiakhronikazhizniL.N.Tolstogo,”adigestofcom-mentsonmusicfromdiaries,letters,memoirs,andTolstoy’sfiction).AllcitationscheckedagainsttheJubileeeditionandoccasionallyfilledoutorcorrected.10.Fromhis1861article“Iasnopolianskaiashkolazanoiabr’idekabr’mesiatsy,”PSS8:120–25,citedinLevTolstoiimuzyka,83.11.CitedinEiges,“VozzrenieTolstogonamuzyku,”242–43.12.Foragoodoverviewoftherelationship,seeN.N.Gusev,LevNikolaevichTolstoi:materialykbiografiis1870po1881god(Moscow:Izd.ANSSSR,1963),ch.37,245–48.Quotedphrasesareon245and247.13.“L.N.Tolstoiimuzyka(izarkhivaN.N.Guseva),”inIasnopolianskiisbornik(Tula:Priokskoeknizhnoeizdatel’stvo,1986),171.14.Gol’denveizer,VbliziTolstogo,38.TheEnglishtranslationdifferssome-whatfromlaterSoviet-eraRussianversions;translationamendedherefromA.B.Gol’denveizer,TalkswithTolstoy,trans.S.S.KotelianskyandVirginiaWoolf(London:TheHogarthPress,1923),10–11.15.TheMusorgskyReader:ALifeofModestePetrovichMusorgskyinLettersandDocuments,ed.andtrans.JayLeydaandSergeiBertensson(NewYork:Norton,1947),xix.16.ThisvisitisdescribedinAlexanderTumanov,TheLifeandArtistryofMariaOlenina-d’Alheim,trans.ChristopherBarnes(Edmonton:UniversityofAlbertaPress,2000),99–105.Quoteon103.(OriginalRussiantext:A.Tumanov,“Onaimuzykaislovo”:zhizn’itvorchestvoM.A.Oleninoi-d’Algeim[Moscow:Muzyka,1995,119]).17.Gol’denveizer,VbliziTolstogo,58.ThepianistattributesthisindifferencetoChaliapinonthatdaytoTolstoy’sbadmood.18.L.B.Bertenson,“StranichkavospominaniiamoL.N.Tolstom”(1911),citedinLevTolstoiimuzyka,182.19.A.P.Sergeenko,“Tantseval’naiamuzyka,”inL.N.Tolstoivvospominaniiakhsovremennikov,vol.2(Moscow:GosIzdKhudLit,1960),219–21.20.“Dnevnik.13marta1900.”PSS54:13.21.RichardF.Gustafson,LeoTolstoy.ResidentandStranger:AStudyinFictionandTheology(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1986),374.22.LeoTolstoy,WarandPeace,vol.2,pt.1,ch.16,trans.RichardPevearandLarissaVolokhovsky(NewYork:Knopf,2007),343.23.LeoTolstoy,AnnaKarenina,trans.RichardPevearandLarissaVolokhovsky(NewYork:Penguin,2000),pt.3,ch.12,275.24.Tolstoy,WarandPeace,vol.1,pt.2,ch.2,121–22.25.Detstvo,thirdredaction,ch.10“Mamanigraet.”–Muzyka.PSS1:181–83,esp.181.26.SeeAmyMandelker,“Tolstoy’sEucharisticAesthetics,”inAndrewDonskovandJohnWoodsworth,eds.,LevTolstoyandtheConceptofBrotherhood(NewYorkandOttawa:Legas,1996),116–27,esp.117.27.A.E.Babaev,“LevTolstoiimuzyka”[introductoryessay]inLevTolstoiimuzyka(1977),17–18.

42Tolstoyandmusic3128.MichaelA.Denner,“AccidentalArt:Tolstoy’sPoeticsofUnintentionality,”PhilosophyandLiterature27(2003):284–303,esp.291.29.Foradetailedanalysisofmusicalandnarrativeparallels,seeJannekevandeStadt,“Narrative,Music,andPerformance:Tolstoy’sKreutzerSonataandtheExampleofBeethoven,”inTolstoyStudiesJournal12(2000):57–70,esp.58–64.30.V.Sukhinenko,“Tolstoiimuzyka,”inNovaiaSibir’(Irkutsk),1935,131,ascitedinLevTolstoiimuzyka,134.31.Tolstoycontinues:“Thesefragmentsofmusicalexpressions,goodonesonoccasion,wereunpleasantbecausetheyweretotallyunexpectedandinnowaypreparedfor[…],likeamadman’sfeelings.And,justaswithamadman,thesefeelingspassedunexpectedly”(Noisamyeotryvkietikhmuzikal’nykhvyraz-henii,inogdakhoroshikh,bylinepriiatny,potomuchtobylisovershennoneo-zhidannyinichemneprigotovleny[…]tochnochuvstvasumasshedshego.I,takzhekakusumasshedshego,chuvstvaetiprikhodilineozhidanno)(PSS19:261–62).Tolstoy,AnnaKarenina,pt.7,ch.5,685.32.LeoTolstoy,WhatIsArt?,trans.RichardPevearandLarissaVolokhonsky(London:PenguinBooks,1995),4.Henceforthcitedintextbypagenumber,followedbyPSS.33.OliverSacks,Musicophilia:TalesofMusicandtheBrain(NewYork:Knopf,2007),279–84.34.Tolstoy,AnnaKarenina,pt.1,ch.1,2.35.Tolstoy,WarandPeace,vol.4,pt.3,ch.10,1055.36.“Triotryvkaomuzyke”[*Otryvokii][1848–50],inPSS1:242.37.EntryforDecember18,1899,Moscow.InTolstoy’sDiaries,ed.andtrans.R.F.Christian(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1985),vol.2,473.38.LevTolstoiimuzyka,259–66.A2008Russianon-linesearchrevealsascarcelyupdatedlist.39.ForadetailedandcompletehistoryoftheWarandPeaceproject,bothlibrettoandmusic,seeSimonMorrison,ThePeople’sArtist:Prokofiev’sSovietYears(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2008),chs.4,6,7.IthankMorrisonforsharinghismaterialsonthisandasecondpotentialTolstoy–ProkofievprojectbasedonResurrection.40.SeeMargoRosen,“NatashaRostovaatMeyerbeer’sRobertleDiable,”TolstoyStudiesJournal17(2005):71–90.41.“KatiushaMaslova(Voskresenie),”TsGALI(Sankt-Peterburg)f.337,op.1,d.206,54ll.42.Resurrection,musicbyTodMachover,librettobyLauraHarrington(withadditionalmaterialbyBrahamMurray),premieredApril1999byHoustonGrandOpera.CDAlbanyRecords2001,HoustonGrandOperaconductedbyPatrickSummers.43.LibrettofortheHoustonpremiereofResurrection,printedApril1,1999,44.MythankstoGaryGibbs,DirectorofEducationandOutreachforHoustonGrandOpera,forthepacketofpromotionalmaterials.

4332carylemerson44.SeeCharlesWard,“HowtoSingTolstoy/TolstoyTransformed,”HoustonChronicle(Sunday,April18,1999),1,9.45.TheThreeHermits,anOperainOneActafterastorybyLeoTolstoy,musicbyStephenPaulus,librettobyMichaelDennisBrowne.CDbyd’NoteEntertainmentClassics,recordedApril29,1997,atHouseofHopePresbyterianChurch,choirconductedbyThomasLancaster.46.ForadiscussionofTolstoy’sproceduresforthesetransformations,includingthislegend,seeInessaMedzhibovskaya,TolstoyandtheReligiousCultureofhisTime:ABiographyofaLongConversion,1845–1887(Lanham,MDandBoulder,CO:LexingtonBooks,2008),“RhetoricofHoliness,MoralAction,andSynthesisofaReligiousArt-Form,”276–77.47.EntryforDecember18,1899,Moscow.InTolstoy’sDiaries,trans.Christian,vol.2,472.

44chapter2Sublimevisionandself-derision:theaestheticsofdeathinTolstoyAndreasSchönleDeathfeaturesprominentlyinTolstoy’sartisticandintellectualuniverse.Tolstoy’sveryfirstwork,Childhood,asemi-fictionalaccountofscenesinspiredbyhischildhood,relatesthe10-year-oldprotagonist’sfirstcon-frontationwithdeathwhenhismotherunexpectedlysuccumbstoanillness.Tolstoywasabout2yearsoldwhenhismotherdied,and9whenhisfatherfollowedher.Thisinitialpainfulrealizationofhumanmortalityclearlyexertedaprofoundimpact,promptinghimtorecreatetheimageofhismotherinChildhoodandtoreturnagainandagaintothethemeofdeathinhissubsequentworks.BothWarandPeaceandAnnaKareninacontaincelebrateddeathscenesunparalleledinworldliterature,butshorterworkshavebeenjustaspowerful,inparticular“ThreeDeaths,”TheDeathofIvanIlych,andTheKreutzerSonata.Notabledeathscenesarealsoscatteredinmany,ifnotmost,ofhisotherpieces,includingtheSevastopolsketches,TheCossacks,andHadjiMurat.TheprominenceofdeathinTolstoy’soeuvrecanhardlybeoverstated,andsoitisnosurprisethatPhilippeArièsdiscussesTolstoy’streatmentofdeathatlengthinhisseminalThe1HourofDeath,asurveyofthehistoryofdyinginWesterncivilization.LittleNikolenka,theprotagonistandfirst-personnarratorofChildhood,doesnotwitnessthefinalmomentsofhismother’slife;heandhisbrotherareledawayfromherdeathbed,moreoutofconcernforthedyingmotherthantosparetheboys.Yetonthenextday,hefeelstheurgetoseeheragainandinthelatehours,havingovercome“aninvoluntaryfeelingoffear,”he2sneaksintotheroomwheresheislyinginacoffin.Hisinitialgazeisblurred:hiseyesaresocloudedbytearsthatobjectsseem“strangelytomerge,”yetamongotherthingshedistinguishes“somethingtransparent,thecolorofwax.”Hegetsuponachairtoglanceatherface,butagainseesonlyapalishyellow,translucentobject.Whenherealizesthatthisisinfacthismother’sface,heisseizedwith“horror.”Progressivelyhegainsameasureofthechangesherfaceendured.Heissurprisedatthe“sternandcold”expressiononherfaceandattheshapeofherlips,whichis“so33

4534andreasscho¨nlebeautiful,sosublime”andexpressessuch“unearthlycalm,”thatitsendscoldshiversthroughhisbody.ThisshortdescriptionpresentsthemescharacteristicofTolstoy’saes-thetics.Thechild’sfirstunpreconceivedglanceatthespectacleofdeathrestsonthedivorcebetweenvisualimpressionandcognitiveunderstanding.InKantianterms,thisisthehallmarkofaestheticcontemplation,astheimaginationrequiresnoconceptoftheobjecttoappreciateitsbeauty.Thisabilitytobeholdobjectsintheirintrinsicform,ratherthanwithanautomaticleaptotheirpresumed,andoftensociallysanctioned,significa-tion,underpinsTolstoy’sexperimentsinwhatViktorShklovskyhascalleddefamiliarization.Inthiscase,however,thegapbetweenintuitionandcomprehension,betweenvisualperceptionandhabitualunderstanding,isunfathomable,asitiscausedbytheoccurrenceofdeath.Theobjectisthemother,butnotquite,fortheontologicalstatusofhercorpseispainfullyunclear.Canherbodystillbecalledherifherspirithasdeparted?Theexperienceofdefamiliarizationisoftendescribedasanattempttoseeanobjectanew,asifforthefirsttime,inamannerunencumberedbyanypreconceivednotionofit.Butinthisinstance,defamiliarizationisseeing3theobjectforthelasttime.Inanycase,horroroverwhelmsNikolenkaonlywhenhemakesthelinkbetweenthecorpseinfrontofhimandhismother,astheirseemingidentityconcealsaninsuperableincongruity,ofwhichthevisiblechangesinherfaceserveassubtleindicators.Betweentheinertmatterinthecoffinandallheremembersabouthismother,afaintrelationofresemblanceobtains,butonethathefindsincomprehensibleandshock-ing.Hisexperienceofdeathrevealsthemystifyingnatureofmetaphor:forhimtheyellowishtranslucentobjectlyinginthecoffincaninnowaystandforhismother.Thelittleboy“keptforgettingthatthedeadbody,atwhichhelookedsenselesslyasifatanobjectthathasnothingincommonwithhismemories,washer”(ch.27;PSS1:85).Obfuscatingtheresemblancebetweenthetwowardsoffthenecessityofcomingtotermswiththerealityofdeath.Yetatthesametime,thenarratordoesnotdenythatthecorpseofhismotherexertsanuncannypoweroverhim.Notonlyishesurprisedbytheexpressiononherface–acoldnessandseveritythatseemvaguelytoreproachhimforsomething–buthealsodiscoverssomethingattractiveinthefeaturesofherface,afoldingofherlipscalledatoncebeautifulandsublime.Altogetherhismotherseemsimbuedwith“unearthlycalm,”contrastingresolutelywiththestateofagitationheexperiences.Hismotherhasseensomethingthateludeshim,whichlendsheradefinitesuperiorityoverhim,anditisasifshewerenowbothphysicallydistantand

46Sublimevisionandself-derision35psychologicallyuninterestedinhim.Heisirresistiblydrawntoherface,asifthroughithecouldcatchaglimpseofwhatshehasbeheldbeyondthepaleoflife.Indeed,hisimaginationthenproducescompensatoryvisionsofhismothernotonlyaliveandlively,butalsojoyfulandsmiling,theoppositeofherpresentcondition.Andaftershiftingafewtimesbetweenthesoberingvisionofhisdeadmotherandtheimaginaryrecreationofherpost-mortemreincarnation,heloseshissenseofrealityaltogetherandsuccumbsto“alofty,inexpressiblypleasantandsadbliss”(ch.27;PSS1:85).Inaestheticterms,theexperiencedescribedherecloselyresembleswhathasbeencalledthesublime.Inthemostbasicsense,thesublimeinvolvesaconfrontationwithsomethingunexpected,whichexceedshumanfacultiesandthereforeseemsthreatening.Yetdreadfulasitis,thesightofthisoverpoweringobjectaffordspleasure,asitenablesthebeholdertobecomecognizantofhisorherabilitytowithstandthethreat,mitigateit,orelsecompensateforit.Themenacingelementisnormallytiedtosomeinfin-itude,whetheroneofmagnitudeorpower,andinthelattercaseitconveysaforebodingofdeath.Thesublimethusleadstosomekindofself-discoveryresultinginenhancedself-awarenessandself-confidence.Thesublimeemergedasacriticalaestheticcategoryinthelateseventeenthcentury,asaresultoftheCopernicanrevolutionthatusurpedGod’sposition4andputthehumanselfatthecenteroftheworld.Itprovidedacontextforexperimenting,theoreticallyaswellaspractically,withconsciousness,fortestingitspowersandlimits.Predictably,theissueinvolvedtherelationshipamonghumanfacultiessuchasperceptionorintuition,imagination,andreason.Chaosmadeitsentryintoaesthetics,atleastintheguiseofthe“beaudésordre”evokedbyBoileauandechoedbyEdmundBurkeasthe“magnif-5icent”disorder,whichproduces“anappearanceofinfinity.”Thus,theselfbecameawareofitself,actualizeditspotential,and,asitwere,tookshapeinpartthroughthisexperienceofthesublime.Knowledgeoftheselfwasnolongertobeattainedbymeansofareligiousepiphanyorphilosophicaldeduction,butonlythroughtheaestheticexperience,thelastopportunitytoassemblethebitsandpiecesoftheworldintoavisionof6totality.Atthesametimeasnaturebecameakindofobjectiveanaloguefortheself,afigurativerepresentationofthetotalityofthesoul,itwasinitsturnpreservedfromdisintegrationbybeingunifiedintheprismofaestheticconsciousness.Yetbecauseitrestsonasolitaryexperienceand,unlikethebeautiful,failstoinvokevaluessharedbyacommunity,thesublimeunder-pinsaformofself-consciousnessstaunchlyindividualandautonomous.BoileausparkedoffthefascinationforthesublimewithhistranslationofLonginus’treatiseOntheSublimein1674.Fromthenon,thedevelopment

4736andreasscho¨nleofideasaboutthesublimeranthroughtheeighteenthcenturyinbothliteratureandphilosophy.MajorcontributionstothisdebateincludedBurke’sempiricistInquiryintotheOriginsofOurIdeasoftheSublimeand7BeautifulandImmanuelKant’sidealistCritiqueofJudgment.Thesublimecontinuedtobeinfluentialinthenineteenthcentury,exertingnotablyanimportantimpactonSchopenhauer’saesthetics,itselfaninspirationforTolstoy(aswillbediscussedbelow),andinspiringrenewedinterestinthe8latetwentiethcenturyinthecontextofpost-structuralistculturaltheory.ThisisnottheplacetoattemptevenasummaryofKant’saestheticphilosophy,whichisbothcomplexandproblematic,butinanticipationofthediscussionofdeathinTolstoyafewpointsshouldbeemphasized.Kantdistinguishesbetweentwotypesofsublime.Themathematicalsublime,whichpertainstocasesinwhichthesubjectexperiencestheinadequacyofthesensestograspaformlessandunlimitedobject,neednotconcernushere.Thedynamicalsublime,incontrast,describessituationsinwhichanexternalphenomenonthreatenstodestroytheselfthroughitsphysicalpower.Thethreattotheself,however,ismoreimaginarythanreal,forinanactualsituationwewouldrunforourlivesratherthanexperiencetherefinedpleasureofthesublime.Thisformofsublime“revealsinusatthesametimeanabilitytojudgeourselvesindependentofnature[…]Hencenatureisherecalledsublime(erhaben)merelybecauseitelevates(erhebt)ourimagination,[making]itexhibitthosecaseswherethemindcancometofeelitsownsublimity,whichliesinitsvocationandelevatesitevenabove9nature.”Whatwelearninthisprocess,then,isanabilitytodistanceourselvesfromourimmediateneeds.Ourpleasureatasublimesightstemsfromourabilitytoresisttheclaimsofnature,bothexternalandinternal,overusandthustoaffirmourmoralautonomy.OfcoursewehavenoevidencethatTolstoywillhavereadKant’sCritiqueofJudgmentby1852,whenhewritesChildhood.Thefirstincon-trovertibleevidenceofTolstoy’sinterestinKantdoesnotcomeuntilthesummerof1869,whenhewritestoAfanasiiFetthathereadsSchopenhauer10andKant(PSS61:219).Neverthelesstheverycombinationof“beautiful”and“sublime”inthedescriptionofthedeadmothersuggeststhatTolstoyisatleastvaguelyawareoftheexistenceinaestheticsofthisconceptualpair.Hemayhavebeenapprisedofitindirectly,forexamplethroughtheworksofNikolaiGogolorVasilyZhukovsky,orthroughhisreadingsofWesternphilosophyandliterature,forexampleFriedrichSchiller.Yetconflatingthetwoterms,asTolstoyseemstodointhiscase,impliesthathisgraspofthedifferencebetweenthebeautifulandthesublimeisanythingbutrigorous.Nevertheless,hissubsequentdescriptionofNikolenka’sresponsetothe

48Sublimevisionandself-derision37sightofhismother’scorpseneatlyfeaturestheambivalenceoftheexperi-enceofthesublime,thecombinationofrepulsionandattraction,offearandpleasure,whichKantconceivedattimesasatwo-stageprocessandattimes11asacontinuousalternation,asitisinthiscase.Andthewholeexperienceultimatelyleadstoafeelingofelation,an“elevation”oftheimagination,verymuchasKantwouldhavedescribedit.Mostintriguing,however,isthelexicalthreadTolstoyspinsaroundthesublime,whichherepeatsinTheCossacks,hispiecemostsustainedlycon-cernedwiththisaestheticcategory.Indeed,thesternexpressiontheboydiscoversonthefaceofhisdeadmotherreturnsinTolstoy’sepicnovellainthevisionofCaucasianpeaksassternsublimity.AsOlenintravelstotheCaucasusandseesthemountainsforthefirsttime,heslowlypenetratesthecharacterofthetopography,untilhe“feltthemountains.”“Andfromthismoment,”thenarratorcontinues,“everythinghesaw,everythinghethought,everythinghefelt,acquiredforhimthenew,sternlysublime(strogovelichavyi)12characterofthemountains”(ch.3;PSS6:14).Underthespellofthetoweringpeaks,hisentiremoralconstitutionbecomesloftier,sothatallhispreviousconcernsnowseemtrivial.Everythingheseesandfeelsisimbuedwiththemightofthemountains:“Alookatthesky–andherecallsthemountains.Alookathimself,atVaniushka–themountainsagain.TwoCossacksareridingtheirhorses[…]andthemountains[…]TheArbeksareroamingonthesteppe,andItravel,withoutfear,Ihaveagun,andstrength,andyouth;andthemountains”(ibid.).Thenarratorclearlyexperiencesaningressofpowerundertheinfluenceoftheloftyscenery,whichexertssuchaprofoundimpactuponhimthatthisencounterofthesublimebecomesaturningpointinhislife.Thelexicalcombinationofsternsublimityrecursseveraltimesinthestoryinrelationbothtothemountains(“hegazedagainatthemountainsandthesky,andthesternsenseofsublime[velichavoi]naturepermeatedallhismemoriesanddreams”[ch.11;PSS6:43])andtoitsinhabitants(“Oleninwasstruckbythesublimity[velichestvennost’]andstern-nessofexpressiononthefaceofthedzhigit”[ch.21;PSS6:80];Mariana“frownedandsternlydrewhimawaywithherhand.Againsheseemedsublimelybeautiful[velichestvennokhorosha]toOlenin”[ch.25;PSS6:99]etc.).LateroninTheCossacks,Tolstoylinksmountainousandfemalebeautytogetherinanevocationofprimordialbeauty(ch.33;PSS6:120).FinallythesameclusterofloftinessandsternnessresurfacesinWarandPeace,inthedescriptionofAndrei’sframeofmindashelieswoundedonthebattlefieldatAusterlitz,althoughheresublimityinheresmoreclearlyinhisframeofmindthaninthephysicalpropertiesofnature(orwomen!):“Everythingseemedsofutileandtrivialincomparisonwiththesternandsublimetrainofthought

4938andreasscho¨nle(stemstrogimivelichestvennymstroemmysli)thatweaknessfromlossofblood,suffering,andthenearnessofdeath,arousedinhim”(vol.1,pt.3,ch.19;PSS9:355).Thisrecurrentnexusbetweensternnessandsublimityacquiresastronglygenderedcharacterintheassociativelinkbetweenmountainandwoman.Combinedwiththedevaluationofdailylifeanditscommonplaceconcerns,itseemsdesignedtowardofftheemergenceofsexualdesire.InTheCossackstheimpregnabilityofthemountainsservesasadirectanaloguefortheunapproachabilityofCaucasianwomen.Mariana’sproud,composed,andseeminglyindifferentdemeanorleavesOlenininapositionwherehecanadmireher,butmustfearandhesitatetoenterintomoreimmediatecontactwithher.Heisconfinedtoapurelyaestheticstance,whichmanifestsitselfinthereificationofmountainandwomanalike.Similarly,Andrei’sexpe-rienceofthesublimeatAusterlitz,reinforcedbythesubsequentdeathofhiswife,initiatesawhollyde-eroticized,self-punishingwayoflifeforhim.Theelevationoftheselfinspiredbysublimescenerycomesthenatacost,13namelythesuppressionoferoticimpulses.Itisnowpossible,afterthisbriefdigressionintothepsychologyofthesublime,toreturntoChildhoodandtothedepictionofacoldandsternmother.Thedescriptionofherfaceatoncebespeaksandrepressesdesire.Thenarrator’sprolongedattentiontothebeautifulfoldofherlips,whichsends“coldshivers”throughhisbackandhair,revealsthesubliminalpulsationofdesire.Topreventitsactualization,thesublimeintervenesasasortofbarrier,removingthemotherfromface-to-faceinteraction,sug-gestingintheevocationofher“unearthlycalm”thatshehaswithdrawnfromhumancontact,andimplyingeversoslightlyasenseofrebukeinthecoldandsternexpressionofherface.Inotherwords,theawarenessofguiltpromptlysuppressestheemergentnecrophiliacvelleitiesofthenarrator.Weareleftwithadisjunctivevisionofthemotherasacold,distantcorpseanda“beautifulsoulthatlookedbackwithsadnessat[thisworld]andsawmysorrow,tookpityatitandonthewingsoflovedescendedtoearthwithaheavenlysmileofmercytoconsoleandblessme”(ch.27;PSS1:85).StrippedofabodyandactingmoreliketheVirginMary,themothercannowsafelyenterintocontactwiththeboy,undoingallthehieraticdistanceandcoldnessthecorpsehasexudedandpromptingthechild’sunmitigateddelightatrevivingthefantasiesofintimacywiththemotherexpressedearlierinthestory(ch.15;PSS1:43–45).Thesublime,inotherwords,distillssexualenergyintospiritualcommunion,offeringrespitefromthebarrennessofreallifeintheformofshort-liveddreamsofspiritualintimacywiththedepartedmother.Deathhasbecomeaspectacle,butonethatkeeps

50Sublimevisionandself-derision39thesensesincheckinordertofosteramoralvisionofmetaphysicalplenitude.Theboy’sshockingexperienceoftimeismomentarilyovercomethroughtheinventionofanimaginarytotality,inwhichlifeandlovetriumphoverdeath.Onlythismomentof“self-forgetfulness,”thenarratoradds,representsauthenticsorrow,suggestingthatthechild’sresponseistobedistinguishedfromthestrategiesofdenialandthedisplayofself-righteousnessinwhichpeoplenormallyengageonoccasionsofbereave-ment,asthenarratorshrewdlyproceedstoanalyze(ch.27;PSS1:85–86).Theonlyothergenuineresponsetothecadaveristhatexhibitedbya5-year-oldgirlbroughttothefuneral,whoshriekswithunmitigatedhorroratthesightofthecorpse.ForNikolenka,hervisceralrepulsionfinallybringshomethe“bitterreality”(asopposedtothesublimeideality)ofhismother’spassing(ch.27;PSS1:88).AlthoughTolstoy’sportrayalofdeathwillhardlyeverbeasreassuringagainasthissublimevisionoflovebeyondthegrave,hisdescriptioninChildhoodsetsthetermsofhistreatmentofdeathinmanysubsequentpieces.InmanyofhisworksTolstoyusespronounsintheneutertoconveytheinabilityofthebeholdertorecognizetherealityofdeathandtheidentity14ofthecorpse.Theformula“somethingtransparent”(chto-toprozrachnoe)inChildhoodisechoedbythephrase“SomethinginagreatcoatwaslyingpronewhereVolodiastood”(Chto-tovshineli)inthestory“SevastopolinAugust,1855”(ch.26;PSS4:116)orbytheclause“Somethinglarge”(Chto-tobol’shoe)inreferencetotheChechenkilledbyLukashkainTheCossacks(ch.8;PSS6:33),nottospeakofthe“somethingalienandhostile”(chto-chuzhdoeivrazhdebnoe)inPrincessMarya’simpressionofherdeadfatherinWarandPeace(vol.3,pt.2,ch.8;PSS11:142).Thedelaybetweenperceptionandunderstandingsignalstheimmensityofwhatistobeconstruedandtherevoltingincongruitybetweenthevisibleandthemeta-physical.Phrasessuchas“Thisdeadbodywashislivebrother”withregardtothedeathofKonstantinLevin’sbrotherNikolaiinAnnaKareninacaptureincompressedformtheunfathomabletransitionbetweenlifeanddeath(pt.5,ch.17;PSS19:60).Likewisethesentence“Thesameeveningtheillwomanwasalreadyacorpse”(Vtotzhevecherbol’naiabylauzhetelo)from“ThreeDeaths”indicatesthroughitsstrangesyntaxtheineluctabilityandfinalityofdeath(ch.3;PSS6:63).Inkeepingwithnarrativerequire-ments,wemighthaveexpectedaverbsuchas“tobecome”orsimply“todie”tosignaltheprocesswherebylifeturnedintodeath,orwemighthaveanticipatedaformulathatconfersondeathagencyanddescribestheevent-fulmomentofitsintervention.Instead,thesyntaxheretelescopestwoconditions,thestateofbeingillandthatofbeingdead,withoutany

5140andreasscho¨nleindicationoftheirrelationsandtemporalboundaries,conveyingonlyasensethatdeathwaseitherquickorpremature(“already”).Furthermorethestateof“deathness”isconveyedthroughabrutalmaterialization–ratherthanbeingdead,sheisacorpse–whichhammersdownthepointthatthewomanbythatmomentisnothingmorethanacorpse.Andyetthesyntaxinsistsoncontinuityandidentity(theillwomanwasacorpse),asiftheinterveningchangeswereinconsequentialandasifthepropertyofbeingcouldbeseentoinhereincorpses.Thebreakdownofnarrative,muchlikethebreakdownofmetaphorinChildhood,revealstheinabilityoflanguageand,morebroadly,ofhumanunderstandingtocometotermswiththe15brutalrealityofdeath.AnnaKarenina,too,hintsattheparadoxicalnatureoftheconditionofbeingdead.AfterAnnacommitssuicideatthetrainstation,herblood-stainedbodyinVronsky’srecollectionisdescribedas“stillfullofrecentlife”asiflifeanddeathwerenotmutuallyexclusiveconditionsorasiftherewasacarry-overofvitalityorenergybetweenthetwostates,sothatdeathcanappearasaformofplenitude(pt.8,ch.5;PSS19:362).ThisoverlappingbetweenlifeanddeathrecursinmanyformsinTolstoy’sworks.AndreiKodjakhasinterpreteditasaningredientofTolstoy’s“personalmythof16immortality.”Inthisreading,theinabilityofconventionalsymptomsoflifeanddeathtoenabletheidentificationofaperson’sgenuineconditionshoresupthewriter’sintuitivenotionofimmortality.Theproblemwiththisthesisisnotsomuchitsconclusion–Tolstoyundoubtedlyharboredadiffusesenseoflifebeyondthegrave–asthefactthatitsweepsunderthecarpettheveryrealtensions,paradoxes,doubts,andanxietiesinTolstoy’sthinkingaboutdeath.TheattractivenessofcorpsesandtheirabilitytogenerateaestheticpleasureplayaroleinseveralofTolstoy’sworks.InTheCossacksthefightersstandaroundthecorpseoftheChechenshotbyLukashka,admiringhishandsomefeaturesinawedsilence(hisbrownbodyisdepictedas“beautifulandshapely”).ThisisararemomentwhentheCossacksareshownengrossedincontemplation.Thereisnosenseoferoticismhere,ofcourse.Withhisglassyopeneyes,thecorpseseemstolookbeyondanythinginlifeandhislipsseemfrozenin“good-natured,subtlederision,”asifhewasnolongerconcernedwithearthlymatters.JustlikeNikolenka’smother,thedeadChechenhereshunsinteractionwiththeliving.AndyetparadoxicallythisisthemomentwhentheCossackstakemeasureofthehumanityoftheirenemy:“He,too,wasaperson!,”oneoftheCossacksexclaims,“withvisibleadmirationforthedead”(mertvets)(ch.9;PSS6:38).Theuseofmertvetshere(deadman),ratherthantrup(corpse),issignificant,asitimpliesthe

52Sublimevisionandself-derision41survivalofidentity.Indeed,theCossacksthenevokewhatitwouldmeantobattleagainsthim,assuming,asitwere,hisfightingpowerstobeintact.WhattheydiscoverinthisscenethenisgrudgingrespectfortheChechen,whosedeathhasonlyelevatedhimintheireyes.Thus,intheChechen’scasedeathresultsinanenhancementofmanliness.SomethingsimilarhappenstoIvanIlychinTheDeathofIvanIlych,whoclearlygainsinstaturefrombeingdead:“aswithallthedead(mertvetsov),hisfacewasmorehandsomeand,crucially,moreimposing(znachitel’noe),thanthatoftheliving”(ch.1;PSS26:64).Notethenarrator’sgeneralizationabouttheennoblingeffectofdeath.Women,incontrast,oftenpreservetheircharmandattractivenessintheirdeceasedconditionandseemtoremainjustaskeenonexpressingthemselves.InWarandPeace,forexample,Liza,whohadseemedwith-drawnwhenshewasalive,isresolutelyengagedincommunicationnowthatsheisdead.Indeed,“hercharming,pitiful,deadface”finallydarestovoicethereproachesshewastooshytoutterpreviously:“Iloveyouallanddidnoharmtoanyoneandlookatwhatyoudidtome,”herfaceseemsto“speak”(vol.2,pt.1,ch.9;PSS10:40).Liza’sfaceisfurtherendowedwithenviabletenacity,asthreedayslater,duringthefuneralceremony,itstillspeaksthesamewords,whichelicitguiltinAndreiandangerinhisfather.Anna,too,keepsher“charmingface”intact,withherheavyhairandcurlsandahalf-openedrosymouth,telltalesignsofvitality,althoughhereyesseemtoexpress,“asifinwords,theterrifyingwarningthathe[Vronsky]willrepent”(pt.8,ch.5;PSS19:362).Deathbecomesauniqueopportunitytosettlescores,andAnna’scorpseseemsnottohavelostanyofherintensity.Indeed,earlierinthenovelshehadimaginedherdeathasawaytopunishVronskyandhadanticipatedhisreaction.Theseexamplesalsoillustratetheuncannyexpressivenessofcorpses,whichallseemkeentoflauntfacialmarkersoftheirowners’experiencesatthethresholdofdeath.In“ThreeDeaths,”thearistocraticladyexhibitsa“stern,calmandlofty”face,muchreminiscentofthemotherinChildhood,despitetheprofoundmoraldifferencesbetweenthetwowomen(ch.3;PSS6:63).AsAndreislowlysuccumbstodeathinWarandPeace,he,too,castsa“cold,stern”gazeathissister,makingherfeelguiltyforbeingalive(vol.4,pt.1,ch.15;PSS12:57).Hebecomesincreasinglydetachedfromlifeandresentfulofbeingcalledbacktotheliving.Whenhissisterenjoinshimtolookathisson,herespondswitha“derisive”smile.MuchliketheChechenwarriorinTheCossacks,hehasputallneedforhumancommercebehindhim.Finally,IvanIlychisnottobeoutdone.Firmlyassuredthathediedaproperdeath,heconfrontstheliving“withreproachorexhortation,”which

5342andreasscho¨nlehisformercolleaguefindspositivelyunseemly(ch.1;PSS26:64).Inshort,allthesecorpsesconfrontthelivingfromapositionofmoralprivilege,whichexpressesitselfintheircalmandsovereignposture.Enhancedbytheexperienceofdeaththeyhavejustsustainedorareabouttoexperience,theylookbackatthelivingwithabemusedimpatienceatthetrivialityoftheirexistence.Tosurvivors,however,corpsesseemalmostconsistentlytoinstillafeelingofguilt,guiltnotfromanyspecificfailing,butfromadiffusesenseofbeingmiredinatrivial,inauthenticexistence.Tolstoy’sdepictionofcorpsescanbeprofitablycomparedtoZhukovsky’s1837accountofPushkin’sdeath.Here,too,deathleavestheimprintof“deep,sublime(velichestvennoi),solemnthought”onthefaceofthedeceased.AndZhukovskyresortstoasimilarclinicalprecisionindescribingtheevents.ThefinalfarewellwiththepoetevokesaTolstoy-likebrutalmatter-of-factness:“andeverythingthatwastheearthlyPushkinforever17disappearedfrommyeyes.”YetZhukovsky’saccountisdevoidofanysenseofdefamiliarizinghorror,letaloneofthemoralcensureattheliving,whichmanyTolstoyancorpsesinspireordisplay.Instead,itiscouchedinthepacifyingrhetoricofreconciliationwiththeTsar,nationalunity,andfaithintheotherworld,ofwhichthedyingpoethasacquired“afull,deep,gratifiedknowledge,”avisionalsoevokedinZhukovsky’spoem“Onlezhal18bezdvizhen’ia…”(Helaywithoutmoving).YetwhatismoststrikinginTolstoy’streatmentofdeathisthatitsteadfastlyremainsavisualspectacle,andself-consciouslyso.ThescopicnatureofdyingbecomesexplicitinTheDeathofIvanIlych:“she[death;italicsareintheoriginal,suggestingthatthefemalepronounisoftheessence]divertedhisattentiontoherself[…]sothathewouldlookather,straightintotheeyes,and,withoutdoinganything,sufferedinexpressibly”(ch.6;PSS26:94).Theexperienceofdeathisthusresolutelyaesthetic,bothintheoriginalsenseofthewordas“reception”andinthesenseofbecomingsensitivetoacertainkindofbeauty,whichcanonlybecalledsublime,giventhatitinvokesideasofthreat,loss,unfathomability,andunspeakability.TheseexamplesalsorevealthebasicconsistencyofTolstoy’streatmentofdeath,asiftheoriginaldescriptionofdeathinChildhood,whichwasverymuchvisual,haddeterminedTolstoy’streatmentofdeaththroughouthislife.Indeed,theabsenceofrecognitionordefamiliarizationofthelovedone,thebeautyandexpressivenessofcorpses,thesurvivalofsomeformofidentity,theoverlappingbetweenlifeanddeath,thesublimedignityofthecorpse,ifnotitsmenacetothesurvivors,allthesenotionspervadeTolstoy’srepresentationofdeaththroughouthisworks.ThefoundationalimpactofthedeathofthemotherinChildhoodcanhardlybedenied.And

54Sublimevisionandself-derision43yetthissenseofcontinuityshouldnotbeoverstated.AsTolstoybecameengrossedinphilosophyandsubsequentlyreligion,hispresentationofdeathacquirednewdimensionsandespeciallynewimagery,anditistochangesinhistreatmentofthesublimityofdeaththattheremainderofthischapterwillbedevoted.Andrei’sexperienceofthesublimeonthebattlefieldatAusterlitzunder-cutshispursuitofRomanticheroismandpunctureshisinflatedviewofNapoleonasthequintessentialhero.Confrontedwithavisionofthesublimityofthesky,Andreicomestotherealizationthat“everythingisempty,everythingisdelusion,exceptthisinfinitesky.Apartfromit,thereisnothing,nothing”(vol.1,pt.3,ch.16;PSS9:341).ThisexperienceofthesublimeislessKantianthanitseemsatfirstglance,forratherthanbringingaboutastrengtheningofreasonoringressofpower,itcreatesablissfulfeelingofpeaceandquietnessgainedfromanintuitionofthetrivialityofindividualpursuits:“howquiet,howcalmandsolemn,notatallaswhenIwasrunning,”itoccurstoAndreiashelieswoundedonthebattlefield.Hecomesoutpersonallydiminishedfromthisexperience,abandoninghisoverridinggoalofachievingfame.Contrarytothescenarioswehavediscussedsofar,hisencounterwiththesublimeseemsparadoxicallytoundermineindividualself-consciousness.ThisversionofthesublimeresonateswithSchopenhauer’srewritingoftheKantiansublime,whichenvisionsaprocessthroughwhichthesubject,threatenedbyanexternalobjectthatclasheswithhiswill,can“forciblytearhimselffromhiswillanditsrelations,and,givinghimselfentirelytoknowledge,mayquietlycontemplate,aspure,will-lesssubjectofknowing,19thoseveryobjectssoterribletothewill.”TheSchopenhaueriansublimeenablestheselftoriseabovethewilltolive,whichhadproducedanillusorynotionofindividuality.Viewingasublimeobject,theselfgainstheabilitytoseethroughthevacuityofindividuationandtodistanceitselffromblindwill.Fromanunwittingvictimofthewill,thepersonbecomes,howeverbriefly,apuresubjectofknowledge.Thisabilitytotranscendquotidianneedsinstillsinthesubjectafeelingofhappinessandpeace.Intunewithsuchdenigrationofeverydaylife,Andreibecomesfleetinglyawareofthetrivialityoflifeandthe“greatnessofsomethingincomprehensible,butmostessential.”Theapparentimminenceofdeathinspiresinhima“sternandsublimetrainofthought,”whichthrowsintorelieftheurgencyofover-cominghabitualknowledge,whichseemsnowinauthentic(vol.1,pt.3,ch.19;PSS9:355–56).AtthisstageofWarandPeace,thesesimilaritieswithSchopenhauer’sphilosophymaybeserendipitous,aswehavenoproofofTolstoy’sinterestinSchopenhauerbeforetheautumnof1868.Ratherthan

5544andreasscho¨nledemonstratingdirectinfluence,theseechoessuggestwhyTolstoywassoenthusiasticwhenhefinallytooktoreadingtheGermanphilosopher.Asoftenwithhim,hefoundinSchopenhauer’sphilosophyamirrorofhis20ownviews.EchoesoftheSchopenhaueriansublimeare,however,evenmoreexplicitinAndrei’sdeathsceneinvol.4ofWarandPeace,writtenwhenTolstoy21wasengrossedinSchopenhauer.TheGermanphilosopherdrewananal-ogybetweentheshort-livedpleasureofaestheticcontemplation,asweriseaboveourdesiresandarebriefly“ridofourselves,”andthemoreprolongedblissfulself-abnegationofapersononthebrinkofdeath:Suchamanwho,aftermanybitterstruggleswithhisownnature,hasatlastcompletelyconquered,isthenleftonlyaspureknowingbeing,astheundimmedmirroroftheworld.Nothingcandistressoralarmhimanymore;nothingcananylongermovehim;forhehascutallthethousandthreadsofwillingwhichholdusboundtotheworld,andwhichascraving,fear,envy,andangerdragushereandthereinconstantpain.Henowlooksbackcalmlyandwithasmileonthephantasmagoriaofthisworldwhichwasonceabletomoveandagonizeevenhismind[…]Lifeanditsformsmerelyfloatbeforehimasafleetingphenomenon,asalightmorningdreamtoonehalf-awake,throughwhichrealityalreadyshines,and22whichcannolongerdeceive.Andrei’s“alienationfromallworldlythings,”thesensethatheisengrossedinthecontemplationof“somethingelse,moreimportant,”thefaintsmileof“calm,meekderision”hedirectsathissisterwhensheevokeshissontocallhimbacktolife,allthesemomentsarecongruentwithSchopenhauer’sdescriptionofdying(vol.4,pt.1,ch.15;PSS12:57–59).Andrei’srevelation“Idied–Iawoke.Yes,deathiswakingup”couldhavecomestraightoutofSchopenhauer.Eventhenotionofuniversal(ifabstract)lovethatAndreidiscoversonceheisfatallywounded,whichhasenabledhimtoforgivehisnemesisAnatoleKuragin–anideawhichisoftenseenthroughaChristianprism–harksbacktotheGermanphilosopher.Schopenhauerhaddescribedthewaysinwhichsufferingfostersinpeoplethedenialofthewill,“firstproducingperfectgoodnessofdispositionanduniversalloveofmankind,andfinallyenablingthemtorecognizeastheir23ownallthesufferingsoftheworld.”Atthispoint,people“forgivetheir24enemies,eventhosethroughwhomtheyinnocentlysuffered.”Thesefeelings,whichinadifferentcontextwouldsoundChristologicalandmessianic,areherepresentedassymptomsoftheeradicationofthewill.ThecircumstancesofAndrei’sdyingclearlyinvokethesublime.Theadventofdeathbringshomeanunspecified“threatening,eternal,unknownandfarawayelement,”ofwhichhehasbeenconsciousthroughouthislife.

56Sublimevisionandself-derision45Inadream,heenvisionsdeathasaforce,expressedas“it”(ono),whichthreatenstocrashthroughadoorhetrieshisutmosttokeepshut.Intheend,“it”breaksin,butdeathturnsintoanexhilaratingdeliveranceaccom-paniedwithastrangefeelingoflightness(vol.4,pt.1,ch.16;PSS12:63–64).Themainrewardfromthisoneiricexperienceofdeath,asidefromthesensationoflightness,iscognitive:aveilcoveringtheunknownliftsbeforeAndrei’s“spiritualgaze,”evokingSchopenhauer’snotionofpurecontem-plation,whichobtainswhenthewillisovercomebysufferingoraestheticexperience.Similarly,Pierre’scontemplationofthenightlystarsaboveruinedMoscow,asheidentifieshimselfwiththeimmensityoftheuniverse(“andallofthisismine,andallofthisisinme,andallofthisisme!”[vol.4,pt.2,ch.14;PSS12:106])–aresponsetoAndrei’sdiscoveryoftheskyatAusterlitz–unmistakablyevokesSchopenhauer,whohadaverredthatiftheheavensatnightactuallybringinnumerableworldsbeforeoureyes,andsoimpressonourconsciousnesstheimmensityoftheuniverse,wefeelourselvesreducedtonothing[…]Butagainstsuchaghostofourownnothingness[…]therearisestheimmediateconsciousnessthatalltheseworldsexistonlyinourrepresen-tation[…]Thevastnessoftheworld,whichpreviouslydisturbedourpeaceofmind,nowrestswithinus;ourdependenceonitisnowannulledbyitsdependence25onus.Yetherewealsosenseadifferencebetweenthetwowriters.Theexternalsublime,inSchopenhauer’sinterpretation,isnothingbutanillusionofperspective,whichimputestotheworldanobjectnessthatwemerelyprojectintoit,theonlyrealitybeingourwilltolive.AsDonnaOrwin26hasargued,TolstoydoesnotshareSchopenhauer’sradicalsubjectivism.Theworldtohimpossessesindependentreality,withwhichweare,how-ever,atone.Pierre’svisionisofatotalitythatincludestheobjectiveworld,ratherthanofasolipsisticuniverse,asinSchopenhauer.Schopenhauer’sideaoflifeasacontinuousstrivingtoexpand,knowingfullwellthatoneultimatelyfacesdefeat,mayhaveinfluencedTolstoy’simagery.Thewriter’sfamousimageofasphereofdrops,whichseektostretchandareheldincheckonlybyothercontinuousdrops,reprisesthephilosopher’simageoflifeasasoapbubbleweblow“aslargeaspossible,27althoughwiththeperfectcertaintythatitwillburst.”Yethere,too,animportantdifferencebetweenSchopenhauerandTolstoycomestolight.ForiffortheGermanphilosopherlifeservesmerelythesurvivalofthespecies,inlightofwhichindividualexistencebecomesnearlypointless,inTolstoy’ssphericimageryeachindividualdropseekstoreflectthelightofGodandisthusendowedwithavocationthatmakesitsexistenceboth

5746andreasscho¨nle28indispensableandmeaningful.TolstoydidnotfullyshareSchopenhauer’sdenigrationofinstinctuallife,atleastatthisstageinhisphilosophicaldevelopment.AtthetimeofhisencounterwithSchopenhauer,hestillharboredafascinationforunconsciousexistence,whichheembodiedinthefigureofPlatonKarataev,whoidentifieswiththetotalityoflifeandisthusfreeofanynotionofhisseparateindividuality:“Buthislife[Karataev’s],ashesawithimself,hadnomeaningasaseparateexistence.Itmadesenseonlyasasmallpartofthewhole,whichhecontinuouslyfelt”(vol.4,pt.1,ch.13;PSS2912:51).Karataev,whohastheknackofforgettingwhathehasjustsaidandisentirelydeprivedofself-analysis,exhibitsSchopenhauer’snotionthattoespousethewilltoliveistoexistinaneternalpresent.Despitehisintuitionofthetotalitytowhichhebelongs,heisnotdevoidofself-loveandisengaged30inthepursuitofhappiness.Heexemplifiesthelegitimacyofinstinctuallifeandillustratesthenotionthatanaturalsenseofindividualitydoesnotprecludeharmoniousintegrationwithinthetotalityoflife.Yet,instinctuallife–unreflectedadherencetothewilltolive–isnotthe31finalwordofthenovel.Incaptivity,Pierrealsodiscoversthepowerofhismind.Helearnstoignorebothhisownpainandthatofhisfellowprisoners.Hediscoverstheresilienceofhismind,“thesalutaryforceofattentiondisplacement,”andfindspleasureingainingdistancefromhisordeal,feedinghismindwith“joyfulandcalmingthoughts”(vol.4,pt.3,ch.12;PSS12:153).Thisattempttoriseabovetheclaimsofthebodyandthelogicofinstinctuallifeextendstohisrelationshipwithothers,andsoPierreendsupdenyingtheailingKarataevcompassion,as“hefearedhispitytowardthisman”(vol.4,pt.3,ch.13;PSS12:154).UltimatelyPierreturnsablindeyetoKarataev’sexecution,preferringtocompletesomecalculationsinhismind,despitethepeasant’spressingcallforattention(vol.4,pt.3,ch.14;32PSS12:157).Thiscold-mindeddenialofsympathysuggestsPierre’sunwillingnesstosuccumbtohisinstinctsandsignalsthebeginningofaprocessthroughwhichhewillovercomeKarataev’sphilosophyandreaffirm33anaristocraticidentity.BothAndreiandPierreendupespousingastoicrejectionoftheneedsofthebodyandadistancingfromeverydaylife,includingtheclaimsoftheircloseones.Initsassociationwithdeath,theversionofthesublimeTolstoyarticu-latesafterhisencounterwithSchopenhauerthenservestheprojectofovercomingnotonlythewilltobedistinct,butalsothelogicofimmersionintotheclaimsofeverydaylife.Itbringsaboutare-dedicationtowhatisatoncepersonalanduniversalinournatureandempowersustotranscendthebody.Itstrengthensthevirtuesofself-control,indeedinstillsasalutarydiffidenceofourveryselves,andthusenablesustoovercomethefearof

58Sublimevisionandself-derision47death.Onlysuchself-transcendencecanexplainwhyAndrei’sdeathbedcommitmenttouniversallovefailstotranslateintopersonalandpreemi-nentloveforNatasha,hissister,andhisson,andwhy,despitehisloveforhisfamily,Pierre,inthefirstepilogue,insistsondisregardingitsneedsforthesakeofhispoliticalactivitiesonbehalfofRussiaasawhole.YetthisversionofthesublimehardlyrepresentsaresolutionoftheantinomiesTolstoyarticulatedthroughoutWarandPeace.Indeed,thisstoicismstandsinatenserelationshipwiththeembraceofinstinctuallifeembodiedby34Karataev,and,inthefirstepilogue,byNatasha.ThedifficultiesinPierre’sandNatasha’smaritalrelationshipstempreciselyfromthisunresolveddisagreementabouttheimportanceofimmersionintotheeverydayandtherelianceontheidealsofthemind.Tolstoy’ssubsequentworks,whichthereisunfortunatelynospacetoanalyzeindetail,undertaketodivorcethesublimefromtheexperienceofdeath.ForAnnaandVronskyinAnnaKarenina,aswellasfortheprotag-onistofTheDeathofIvanIlych,deathappearsnolongerasdreadedandlonged-forimmensity,butasadarksackintowhichoneisunwillinglypushed.Thefeelingofconstriction,ratherthanliberation,associatedwiththeexperienceofdeathbetokens,ofcourse,thefearofannihilation.ThereisnothingredeemingaboutAnna’srelentlessdrivetowardself-willeddeath,suggestingthatTolstoyhasbecomemorepessimisticabouttheprospectsofagrandSchopenhauerianself-transcendenceandmorecriticaloftheresult-ingalienationfromlifeand,inparticular,fromothers.Indeed,Levin’sexperienceofthesublimeattheendofthenovel–anotherskyscene–explicitlyrenouncestheattempttocomprehendinfinitude:“Lyingonhisback,henowlookedattheloftycloudlesssky.‘DoInotknowthatthisisunlimitedspaceandnotaroundedarch?YethoweverstronglyInarrowedandstrainedmyeyes,Icannothelpseeingitroundedandlimited,anddespitemyknowledgeofinfinitespace,Iamundoubtedlycorrect,whenIseeafirmbluevault,indeedIammorecorrectthanwhenIstraintoseebeyond’”(pt.8,ch.13;PSS19:381–82).Faith,handeddownthroughtradition,takestheplaceofreason,consigningthestoicdenialofthewilltothedustbin.Levindiscoversinhimselfaninjunctiontolive“forGod,ratherthanforoneself”andthustoengageinthedailypracticeofgoodnesstowardothers.ThisrevisionofthesublimeacquiresKantianovertonesandresultsinapositionreminiscentofthephilosopher’scategoricalimpera-35tive.Similarly,inTheDeathofIvanIlych,aresolutiontothesuffocatingexperienceofdeathinasackisfoundonlywiththediscoveryofhumancompassion,whichtransformsdeathintoajoyfulexperienceofdissolutionintolight(ch.12;PSS26:113).Tolstoy’sincreasingpessimismabouthuman

5948andreasscho¨nlenatureledhim,perhapsparadoxicallyandlessthancompellingly,toaffirmtheimportanceofcompassionandhenceofmoralinvestmentinthesphereoftheeveryday,therebyrenouncingtheseductionsofthesublime.ThegruesomeviolentdeathofHadjiMuratconfirmsTolstoy’sdyspepticviews.Framedbythestoryofaburdock,whichholdsontolifeindefianceofsystematicandrepeatedhumanattemptstocutdownthefield,thedeathofHadjiMuratbespeaksnotthepassageintoatranscendentrealm,buthisextraordinaryresilience,ashebattlestotheveryenddespitefindinghimselfinadesperatesituation.Hisseverelydisfigureddeadfacedisplays“achildish,kindexpression,”asifhehadfounddeepsatisfactioninhisfightingdeath(ch.24;PSS35:109).Atbest,themannerofhisdemiseillustratessomesortofprimordialvitalitythatunderpinshumanlife,onewesharewithnatureandonethatisthereforeresolutelyimmanent.Theunseemly,albeitstrangelyrespectfulwayRussiansandCossacksthenparadehiscut-offheadimpliesabitteracceptancethatthemeaningoflifeliespurelyinfighting,aswellasparodyingthescopicimportofdeath.Atthisstage,thereisnothingmeta-physicaltobelearnedanymorefromlookingatacorpse.notes1.P.Ariès,TheHourofDeath,trans.H.Weaver(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1991).2.Ch.27.L.N.Tolstoi.Polnoesobraniesochineniia,90vols.(Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,”1928–58),1:84–85.ThisAcademyeditionishereaftercitedasPSS.AlltranslationsfromTolstoyinthischapteraremyown.3.OneistemptedtospeculatewhetherthisimaginedexperienceofmortalityservesaparadigmaticroleforTolstoy’snotionofdefamiliarization.ForadiscussionoftheparadoxicalrelationshipbetweenthedeathordestructionoftheobjectandattemptstobringitalivethroughdefamiliarizationintheworkoftheRussianFormalists,seeI.Kalinin,“Vernut’:veshchi,plat’e,mebel’,zhenuistrakhvoiny.ViktorShklovskiimezhdurevoliutsionnymbytomiteorieiostra-neniia,”WienerSlawistischerAlmanach62(2005):351–86,andI.A.Kalinin,“Istoriiakakiskusstvochlenorazdel’nosti(istoricheskiiopytimeta/literaturnaiapraktikarusskikhformalistov),”Novoeliteraturnoeobozrenie71(2005):103–31.4.AtraditionalsurveyofthesublimeistobefoundinS.Monk,TheSublime:AStudyofCriticalTheoriesinEighteenth-CenturyEngland,reprint(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1960).5.N.Boileau,L’artpoétique,ii,verses71–72;E.Burke,APhilosophicalEnquiryintotheOriginofOurIdeasoftheSublimeandBeautiful(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1990),71(pt.ii,sec.xiii).

60Sublimevisionandself-derision496.SeeJ.Ritter,“Landschaft:ZurFunktiondesÄsthetischenindermodernenGesellschaft,”inRitter,Subjektivität(Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp,1974),141–63(153),andH.R.Jauss,ÄsthetischeErfahrungundliterarischeHermeneutik(Munich:Fink,1977),121–23.7.Foradiscussionoftheoppositionbetweenthesetwoapproachesanditsimplicationforcontemporaryculturaltheory,seeF.Ferguson,SolitudeandtheSublime:RomanticismandtheAestheticsofIndividuation(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,1992).8.H.Bloom,“Introduction,”inH.Bloom,ed.,PoetsofSensibilityandtheSublime(NewYork:ChelseaHousePublishers,1986),1–9;N.Hertz,TheEndofTheLine(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1985);J.-F.Lyotard,“AnsweringtheQuestion:WhatIsPostmodernism?”inThomasDocherty,ed.,Postmodernism:AReader(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993),38–46;J.-F.Lyotard,LessonsontheAnalyticoftheSublime(PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1994);T.Weiskel,TheRomanticSublime:StudiesintheStructureandPsychologyofTranscendence(Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1976).9.I.Kant,CritiqueofJudgment,trans.W.S.Pluhar(Indianapolis,IN:HackettPublishingCompany,1987),120–21.10.OnTolstoy’sreceptionofKant,seeG.R.Jahn,“TolstoiandKant,”inG.J.GutscheandL.G.Leighton,eds.,NewPerspectivesonNineteenth-CenturyProse(Columbus,OH:Slavica,1982),60–70.11.P.Crowther,TheKantianSublime:FromMoralitytoArt(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1989),81.12.Atthisstageofhisartisticdevelopment,Tolstoyusesthetermsvelichavyiandvelichestvennyiinterchangeably.Inhislaterperiod,hesettlesforthelatter.13.Forasustainedpsychoanalyticalinterpretationofthesublime,seeWeiskel,TheRomanticSublime.14.ForadiscussionofTolstoy’suseofpronounsinhisrepresentationofdeath,seeK.Parthé,“DeathMasksinTolstoi,”SlavicReview41,no.2(1982):297–305.15.Onthenexusbetweenmistrustoflanguageandtherepresentationofdeath,seeL.Knapp,“‘Tue-la,Tue-la!’:DeathSentences,Words,andInnerMonologuesinTolstoy’sAnnaKareninaandThreeMoreDeaths,”TolstoyStudiesJournal11(1999):1–19.16.A.Kodjak,“Tolstoy’sPersonalMythofImmortality,”inA.Kodjaketal.,eds.,MythinLiterature(Columbus,OH:Slavica,1985),188–207.17.V.A.Zhukovsky,“S.L.Pushkinu”(February15,1837),inPSS4:602–16(615,616).MythankstoseveralparticipantsatTynianovskiechteniiainthesummerof2008whopointedoutthislikelysubtexttome.18.Owingtotheprominenceofthedeceased,itisnotinconceivablethatTolstoywouldhavebeenawareofZhukovsky’saccount,giventhatitwaspublishedinSovremennikin1837,albeitinatruncated,censoredform.Inanycase,Zhukovskystandshereforawidespreadquietist,metaphysicallyassured,andpatrioticrelationshiptodeath,whichTolstoyrejected.

6150andreasscho¨nle19.A.Schopenhauer,TheWorldasWillandRepresentation,trans.E.F.J.Payne,2vols.(NewYork:DoverPublications,1969),vol.1,210.LevShestovwasthefirsttodrawattentiontotheSchopenhaueriandimensionofAndrei’sdeathscene.SeeL.Shestov,DostoevskiiiNitsshe,Sochineniiavdvukhtomakh,vol.1(Tomsk:Vodolei,1996),361–62.20.TheletterTolstoywritestoA.A.Fetontheoccasionofhisbrother’sdeathinOctober1860soundsuncannilypre-Schopenhauerian,andalsoconfirmsTolstoy’sscopictreatmentofdeath:“Afewminutesbeforehisdeathhedozedoffandawokesuddenly,whisperinginhorror:‘whatthehellwasthis?’–Hesawit–thisabsorptionofhimselfintonothing”(PSS60:357).21.SeeS.McLaughlin,“SomeAspectsofTolstoy’sIntellectualDevelopment:TolstoyandSchopenhauer,”CaliforniaSlavicStudies5(1970):187–245(188,189n8).McLaughlindrewattentiontotheSchopenhaueriandimensionofAndrei’sdeathscene(199),inparticulartothenotionofawakeningandtheannihilationofindividuality.22.Schopenhauer,TheWorld,vol.1,390–91.23.Ibid.392.24.Ibid.393.25.Ibid.205.26.D.T.Orwin,Tolstoy’sArtandThought,1847–1880(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993),162.27.Schopenhauer,TheWorld,vol.1,311;Tolstoi,vol.4,pt.3,ch.15;PSS12:158.Schopenhaueralsowritesofourselvesasdropsdissolvingintheocean(vol.1,205).28.McLaughlinpresentsevidencesuggestingthatby1870TolstoyexplicitlyidentifiedthewillwithGod.McLaughlin,“SomeAspects,”204.29.McLaughlinalsofindsSchopenhauerianelementsinKarataev,buttemperedbythecontinuinginfluenceofRousseau,notablyinthe“romantizationofthepeasant.”McLaughlin,“SomeAspects,”197.30.Orwin,Tolstoy’sArt,105.31.IrinaReyfmanhasrevealedTolstoy’sambivalenceabouthisnotionofinstinctualacceptanceofdeathasearlyasinthe1858story“ThreeDeaths.”SeeReyfman,“Turgenev’s‘Death’andTolstoy’s‘ThreeDeaths’,”inLazarFleishmanetal.,eds.,Word,Music,History:AFestschriftforCarylEmerson,StanfordSlavicStudies29/30(2005):312–26.32.Foradifferentreadingofthispassage,seeR.L.Jackson,“TheEthicsofVisionii:TheTolstoyanSynthesis,”inDialogueswithDostoevsky:TheOverwhelmingQuestions(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1993),55–74,inparticular73–74.33.Foradiscussionofthisevolution,seeA.Schönle,“Modernityasa‘DestroyedAnthill’:TolstoionHistoryandtheAestheticsofRuins,”inJ.HellandA.Schönle,eds.,RuinsofModernity(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,inpress).34.ThistensionissometimesseenasanantinomybetweenAndrei’swisdomandKarataev’s.SeeOrwin,Tolstoy’sArt,107–9.

62Sublimevisionandself-derision5135.InaletteronOctober16,1887,TolstoyclaimstoreadforthefirsttimeKant’sCritiqueofPracticalReason,blamingSchopenhauerforgivinghimabiasedunderstandingofhismoralphilosophy.However,thisletterisseeminglycontradictedbyhisearlieracknowledgmentinhislettertoA.A.FetonAugust30,1869,thathereadsSchopenhauerand“IreadKant,too,”usingtheperfectiveverbprochel,whichimpliescompletion(PSS61:19).

63chapter3Tolstoy’speaceablekingdomRobinFeuerMillerTolstoystandsbeforeusasamonumentalchroniclerofthehumanexpe-riencethroughouteverystageoflifeasindividual,asmemberofacomplexsociety,asseekeraftertruththroughphilosophy,religion,andart.ButtheotheranimalsofthebiospherearealsoessentialtoTolstoy’svision;manis,ascharacterslikePierreorLevinrealizefullwell,merelyonelinkinthegreatchainofbeing.TheanimalkingdompermeatesTolstoy’swrittenworld–asitdidhisactualexistence–inmyriadandoftencontradictoryways.Animalshelpedshapehisviewsofart,death,happiness,life,history,causality,orderandchaos,friendship,relationsbetweenmenandwomen,morality,andphilosophy–indeedallthepreoccupationsthatalternatelyperplexedTolstoy,drovehimtodespair,andgavehislifemeaning.Animalsfigureincountlesspermutationsbutarealwaysclosetothecenterofhisruminations.ThischapterbeginsbytentativelyexploringwaysinwhichTolstoy’sideologicalviewsonanimalsmeshwiththoseofsomephilosophersandwriterswhoareinterestedinthesequestionstoday.Thequestionofanimalrightsandthedegreetowhichanimalsresemblehumanbeingshasreen-gagedphilosophersandscientistsinthepastseveraldecades,perhapsasaresultofwhathasbeenlearnedaboutanimalbehaviorsandtheanimalbrain.Myprimaryinterest,however,isinTolstoy’srepresentationsofanimalsinhisfiction.AnimalsareessentialtoTolstoy’sframingofaesthetic,moral,social,personal,andphilosophicquestions.Theycontributetohisframingofthesequestionsandtohisattemptstoanswerthem.Withthisinmind,IshalltouchuponseveraldisparateexamplesofthewaysinwhichanimalsgivevoicetoTolstoy’sprimaryideasasanartistandathinker.Tolstoy’sfamousembraceofvegetarianismwastriggeredinlargepartbyhisintensifyingphilosophyofnon-violence,hishorrorofdoingharmtoanimalsandwitnessingthemsuffer.OnewondersifheeverreadJeremyBentham’sIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation:52

64Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom53Thedaymaycomewhentherestoftheanimalcreationmayacquirethoserightswhichnevercouldhavebeenwithheldfromthembutbythehandoftyranny.TheFrenchhavealreadydiscoveredthattheblacknessoftheskinisnoreasonwhyahumanbeingshouldbeabandonedwithoutredresstothecapriceofatormentor.Itmayonedaycometoberecognizedthatthenumberofthelegs,thevillosityoftheskin,ortheterminationoftheossacrumarereasonsequallyinsufficientforabandoningasensitivebeingtothesamefate.Whatelseisitthatshouldtracetheinsuperableline?Isitthefacultyofreason,orperhapsthefacultyofdiscourse?Butafull-grownhorseordogisbeyondcomparisonamorerational,aswellasamoreconversableanimal,thananinfantofadayoraweekorevenamonth,old.Butsupposetheywereotherwise,whatwoulditavail?Thequestionisnot,Can1theyreason?NorCantheytalk?,but,Cantheysuffer?ThephilosopherPeterSingermakesmuchofthispassageinhisownutilitarianargumentsandusesitasprimaryballastforhisongoingphilo-sophicalendeavortopromulgatetherightsofanimals.Heaccuseshumansof“speciesism”andsuggeststhatthe“basicsignalsweusetoconveypain,fear,anger,love,joy,surprise,sexualarousal,andmanyotheremotional2statesarenotspecifictoourownspecies.”Tolstoywouldhavereadwithrelishthenumerousmodern-dayphilos-opherssuchasSinger,MarkBekoff,PeterCarruthers,JulianFranklin,MarthaNussbaum,andthemanyotherswhoarewritingaboutanimalstoday.Thesephilosophersbringtobearthewholegamutoftraditionalphilosophicalapproachestoseekthemostpowerfulandpersuasiveargu-mentsonbehalfofanimalrights.Yettheydisagreewitheachother,notsomuchintheirends,asintheirmeansofreachingit.Thesecurrentdebatespittheutilitarians(likeSinger)againstthosewhoframethecaseforanimalrightsintermsofmoraltheory.Therearealsothosewho“attempttodevelopatheoryofrespectforanimalsfromhumanfeelingsofcompas-3sion.”ThisapproachalsodovetailswiththatofNussbaum,whoextendsherideasaboutcivicjusticetoincludenon-humananimalsbyvirtueofwhatshecallsa“capabilitiesapproach”whichshearguesis“anapproachtoissuesofbasicjusticeandentitlementandtothemakingoffundamentalpoliticalprinciples–thatprovidesbettertheoreticalguidance[…]thanthatsuppliedbycontractarianandutilitarianapproachestothequestionofanimalentitlements,becauseitiscapableofrecognizingawiderangeof4typesofanimaldignity,andofcorrespondingneedsforflourishing.”Intheend,however,hercapabilitiesapproach,despiteitsgroundingincompas-sion,remainspragmatic.ItislikelythatTolstoywouldhaveparticipatedvigorouslyinthesecurrentinquiriesintothenatureofanimalrightsoccurringwithintherealmsofmoralphilosophy,anthropology,imaginativeliterature,and

6554robinfeuermillerneuroscience.PeterSinger,however–perhapsthemostoutspokenofthephilosophicalanimalliberationists–eschewsthekindofdeep,personalaffectionforanimalsTolstoyexperienced.(Intheprefacetothe1975editionofAnimalLiberation,Singerwroteofhimselfandhiswife:“wewerenotespecially‘interestedin’animals.Neitherofushadeverbeeninordinatelyfondofdogs,cats,orhorsesinthewaythatmanypeopleare.Wedidn’t‘love’animals.Wesimplywantedthemtreatedastheindependent,sentient5beingsthattheyare,andnotasameanstohumanends.”)Tolstoy,onthecontrary,wasdeeplyinterestedinanimalsanddidknowtheexperienceofprofoundpersonalaffectionforthem.Atthesametime,heavoidedsenti-mentalizingthataffection,asthefollowinganecdoteillustrates:TestimonyisabundantthatGorkyhadmanystoriesaboutTolstoywhich,asVictorShklovskyputit,“heeitherfailedtowritedownordidn’twantto.”Asanexample(“ofcoursenotverbatim”)Shklovskyoffersthis:Tolstoy’sdaughtersbroughtarabbitwithabrokenleguptothebalcony.“Oh,thepoorlittlerabbit!”LevNikolayevichcamedownthestairs.Almostwithoutstopping,hetooktherabbit’sheadinhisbighandand,withthepracticedmovementofaprofessionalhunter,throttleditwithtwofingers.“It’sashame,”Shklovskycomments,“that6thiswasneverwrittendown.”Onehastoagree.LikeSinger,however,heincreasinglytreatedanimalsas“independent,sentientbeings,”and,totheextentpossible,“notasameanstohumanends.”Tolstoy’smulti-facetedrelationshiptotheanimalworldinbothfictionandnon-fictionwritingseemsclosestinitscomplexity,imaginativeness,andvarietytothatofJ.M.Coetzee.AswiththefictionalwritingsofTolstoy,theautobiographicalandphilosophicaloverlapbetweenCoetzeeandsomeofhischaractersisdense.IfattimestheboundarybetweenthevoiceofTolstoyinConfessionandLevininAnnaKareninaorthenarratorofMemoirsofaMadmanisdifficulttodiscern,thatbetweenCoetzeeandacharacterliketheeponymousElizabethCostellocanbeevenmoreso.Twolecturesshegivesaboutanimals(“ThePhilosophersandtheAnimals”and“ThePoetsandtheAnimals”)alsoconstitutedCoetzee’sownlecturesatPrincetonUniversityin1997–98(alongwiththeensuingcritiquesandcommentaryoftheothercharactersuponhearingthesetwotalks).Despitethecomplexoverlapbetweenauthorandcharacter,however,TolstoyisdecidedlynotLevinorthe“madman”(orStrider,orPozdnyshev,etc.),norisCoetzeeElizabethCostellooranyofhisothercharacters.Bothwritersalsoseparatethemselvesfromtheargumentsofthosephilosopherswhoexplorethequestionofwhetheranimalspossess

66Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom55reasonorimmortalsouls.Moreover,althoughTolstoyandCoetzeeeachhavestrongopinionsaboutthepropertreatmentofnon-humananimals,theywriteinstead,withalltheirimaginativeandrationalpower,aboutanimalsasanimalsperse,andaboutthevarietiesofsufferingthathumansimposeonthem.Theypresenttheirideasmostpowerfullyinthefictional7contextofcharacters(humanandnon-human),conversationsandplots.Forbothwritersthecapacitytoplaceoneselfintothebeingofanotherandtoawaken“thesympatheticimagination”ofthereaderisultimatelymoreeffectiveinproducingchangethanistheapplicationofreason.CoetzeeandhischaracterElizabethCostellothusofferaparadigmhereforfocusingonTolstoy’s“sympatheticimagination”ofanimals,asthereaderencountersitrepeatedlyinhiswork.TheseactsofsympatheticimaginationgivevoiceevenmoreeloquentlytoTolstoy’sviewsaboutanimalsthandohismorephilosophicalnon-fictionwritingsonvegetarian-ismandnon-violence.Byrelentlesslyexploitinghisowncapacityforsympatheticimagination,healtersours.Heusesthesympatheticimagina-tiontoexplorenotjusttheboundariesbetweenanimalsandhumansbuttheextentofhumancreativityandperhapstheessenceofhumanityitself.Violencetowardanimalsdehumanizestheperpetrator,andthusTolstoy’sdescriptionsofitevokemorethansimplyourpity.Tolstoy’s1890accountofwatchingapigslaughteredoffersahair-raisingdescriptionofman’sviolencetowardanimalswhichrivalsanyofthebattlescenesinhisfiction:Onenteringthevillagewesawawell-fed,naked,pinkpigbeingdraggedoutofthe[…]yardtobeslaughtered.Itsquealedinadreadfulvoice,resemblingtheshriekofaman[…]Amangasheditsthroatwithaknife.Thepigsqualledstillmoreloudlyandpiercingly,brokeawayfromthemen,andranoffcoveredwithblood.Beingnear-sightedIdidnotseeallthedetails.Isawonlythehuman-lookingpinkbodyof8thepigandhearditsdesperatesqueal.Thisindividualkilling,awfulasitis,cannotcomparetotheslaughterthathewitnessesinhistwovisitstotheTulaslaughterhouse.AfewdaysagoIvisitedtheslaughterhouse[…]Itisbuiltonthenewandimprovedsystem[…]withaviewtocausingtheanimalsaslittlesufferingaspossible[…]Longbeforethis[…]Ihadwishedtovisitaslaughterhouse,inordertoseewithmyowneyestherealityofthequestionraisedwhenvegetarianismisdiscussed.ButatfirstIfeltashamedtodoso,asoneisalwaysashamedatgoingtolookatsufferingwhichoneknowsisabouttotakeplace.(PSS29:78;“TheFirstStep,”1)Tolstoythenreportshisconversationwithabutcher,whodescribedthekillingofcattle,who“arequiet,tamecattle.Theycomepoorthings!Trusting

6756robinfeuermilleryou.Itisverypitiful.”Hegoesontoinvoketheterriblesmellintheslaughterhouseof“warmblood,”“congealedblackblood”(PSS29:79–80).Tolstoyfirstinvokesourpityinsimple,factualprosewithsuchsentencesas:Frombeneaththehead[oftheox]thereflowedastreamofblackish-redblood,whichabesmearedboycaughtinatinbasin.Allthetimethiswasgoingontheoxkeptincessantlytwitchingitsheadasiftryingtogetup,andwaveditsfourlegsintheair.Thebasinwasquicklyfilling,buttheoxstilllived.(PSS29:81;“TheFirstStep,”3)Tolstoycontinuestodescribeinminutedetailtheprolonged,horrifyingdeathoftheoxandofseveralothers.Itissignificant,however,thatTolstoy’sargumentdoesnotceaseatthepointwherehehasawakenedhumanpityforthesufferinganimals.Thehorrorheinvokesoutweighsthecarnageofthebattlefieldpreciselybecausehumansympathyseemsabsent,andthebusinessathand,whilegruesome,ismundane.Moststartling,however,isthatheframeshisargumentinterms,notsomuchofthepitifulviolencedonetotheanimals,butratherintermsoftheincalculableviolationandcosttomenofsuppressingtheirowncapacityforsympathyandpity.Thissuppression,coupledwiththeacutefeelingofshamewhichhehadalreadydescribedattheoutset,isprofoundlyharmful.Manviolateshimselfasmuchastheanimal.Inessence,Tolstoy’sargumentisnottomaketheanimalsseemmorehuman,buttoshowhowpeoplecanbecomelessso.TheshadowoftheseessaysofthelateTolstoyinevitablycastsitsmeasureofsomberdarknessonhisart.Evenbeforethis1890account,animalshadlongbeenprimarycharactersinTolstoy’ssimple,didacticfablesandstoriesforpeasantsandchildren.Asidefromtheseovertlyprescriptiveanimal-centeredtexts,however,suchworksasChildhood,FamilyHappiness,TheCossacks,WarandPeace,AnnaKarenina,“TwoHussars,”MasterandMan,Confession,Strider,TheKreutzerSonata,andHadjiMuratexhibitthemultitudeofwaysinwhichthepresenceofanimalshasalwaysbeenessentialtoLeoTolstoy’sfictivekingdom,evenifheisfrequentlyitsundisputedleoninerulerandabsolutenarrator.LikehischaracterEroshkainTheCossacks,Tolstoyknewhisanimalsandobservedthemclosely.Eroshka,thehunterwitharesonant,unconsciousreverenceforanimals,describestheboar,theeaglet,thecock,thegoose,thewildsowandherpiglets,thetinymothcirclingthecandle.ThecharactersinTolstoy’sanimalworldareevenmorediverseandrangefromlargeanimalstoinsects,bees,andants.Allhaveadetectablevoiceorinstinctofsomekind;allhavelivesthatexistindependentlyfromman,evenifmanseeksanalogiesandanswersthroughthem.AsEroshkasays,“You

68Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom57haveyourlaws,andthepighasitsown.Andalthoughit’sapig,it’sjustas9goodasyou;it’soneofGod’screaturesjustlikeyouare.”Tolstoy,however,wastoquestionintermittentlywhetherornotmanandtheotheranimalsinfactlivedbythesamesetoflawsorwhetherthoselaws10differedstrongly.Heunderstoodeachkindofanimalinitsownrightanddidnotseekeasyorsentimentalanalogiesbetweenmanandbeast.ThusAnnaandFrou-Froumayundergorelatedexperiences,ortheFrencharmymaybe“likeawoundedanimal,”butthedifferencesarealwaysasimportantasthesimilarities.AnimalsappearthroughoutTolstoy’scanonassubjectandobject,asasourceofextendedcomplexanalogies,infablesasparsed,sometimestrans-parentstand-insforparticularhumanstrengthsandweaknesses,asnuancedphilosophictermsofreference,asdefinitiveoftheboundariesofartisticrepresentation,andevenasprofoundlyseriousfirst-personnarrators.AnimalscanofferTolstoysubstantiveanswerstohisperennialquestions,“HowthenshallIlive?”and“HowshallIdie?”Buttheyremainanimals.Tolstoy’searlyandlateattemptstodescribeanimalsasautonomous,non-humanbeingsalsodoubleasimportantarticulationsofhisaesthetics.InChildhood,thesemi-fictionalsemi-autobiographicalheroNikolenkaIrtenevis,at24,lookingbacktohischildhoodattheageof10.Throughafocusonseveralparticularextendedmomentsinhischildhood,thenarratorencapsulatesbothitsgeneralcontourandflavoranditsmomentouschanges.Ineachoftheseepisodes–thatsimultaneouslyepitomizechild-hooditself,itsloomingend,itsmoralandspiritualconflicts–thereaderwitnessesfacetsofthebirthofthenarrator(andbyimplicationofTolstoy)asartist.Asalittleboy,Nikolenkaispreoccupiedwiththeboundarybetweentruthandfalsehoodandthewaysinwhich,whenhepracticesdeception–whetherindescribingapropheticnightmareabouthismother’sdeaththatheneveractuallyhad,playinggames,writingadisingenuouspoemtopleasehisgrandmother,ordisplayingapicturesquegriefatthenewsofthedeathofhismotherthathedidnotyetfeel–hiswordsandgesturesareeffectiveandmoveothers.Thequicksuccessoftheseliesisbothpleasurableandmorallydisturbing.Nikolenka’sfirstimportantattempttocreateaworkofartcomesattheendofadaythathasbeenbothatypicalandafinaldayofanepochofhischildhood.Thisdayhasearlierincludedahunt–Tolstoy’sfirstextendeddepictionofanactivitythat,inwhateverworkitappears,usuallypresagesanimpor-tantrealizationforsomecharacter.Here,andatothersuchmomentsdepictingthehunt,thenarratororcentralcharacterbecomes

6958robinfeuermillersimultaneouslyanobserverandamemberoftheanimalkingdom.NikolenkaandthedogZhiranhavefoundthemselvessettledinatthefootofanoaktree:whileawaitingtheappearanceofthehuntedhare,theboyhasobservedswarmsofantscarryingtheirburdens,andabutterflywithyellowwingswhofinallyhasbecomestill.Nikolenkahasgazedatthe11butterflyanditpresumablyhasgazedathim.Suddenlythehareappears.ThechildnarratorresemblesTolstoy’sotherheroesatthehuntinhissolitude,hisimmersionintheactivitiesofseveralkindsofanimalsatonce,intherapidswitchofperspectivefromwhatisinchesbeforehiseyestowhatisfartheraway.Hisattentiondartsfromtheanttothebutterflytothehare,fromametaphorforutopiansociety,tooneofarrestedbeauty,tothedynamicembodimentofdesireitself.ThestoryofTolstoyandthe“Ant-Brotherhood”heandhisbrothers12formedaschildreniswellknown.Evenif,asisgenerallythought,thenameofthisbrotherhoodwasamisunderstandingofMuravsksiebrat’ia(“MoravianBrothers”)whichtheTolstoybrothersprobably“mistakenlytransformed”intoMuraveinyebrat’ia(“AntBrothers”),italsohighlightsthelifelongimportancetoTolstoyofthosesmallinhabitantsoftheanimalkingdomwhoseemmostabletoachieveahighlyorganizedsocialstructure:theantsandthebees.Thesecreaturesexistenmeshedinabrotherhoodthattranscendsthelifeoftheindividual,yetwhereindividualchoicesanddesiresexist.Theseactsanddesiresmeshperfectly,however,withthoseofthewholegroup–sothatanindividualdecisionseeminglyreflectiveofoneprivatechoiceamongmanyremainsanactivityultimatelyinharmonywiththepurposeofthewholecolony.Forexample,Nikolenkawatchestheants:Theyhurriedoneafteranotheralongthesmoothtrackstheyhadmadeforthemselves,somecarryingburdens,othersun-laden.Ipickedupatwigandbarredtheirway.Itwasasighttoseehowsomeofthem,despisingthedanger,crawledunderneathandothersclimbedoverit;whilesome,especiallythosewhohadloadstocarry,quitelosttheirheads:theystopped,notknowingwhattodo,lookedforawayround,orturnedback,orcameupthetwigtomyhandwiththeidea,Ithink,13ofcrawlingupthesleeveofmyjacket.The10-year-oldchildintheglenobservesthespectacleofindividualchoiceamongthevariousantswithintheframeworkofalargernecessity(thepreservationoftheanthill).Hisminuteobservationsoftheantsarequicklydisplaced,however,bythebeautyofthebutterflyandtheappearanceofthehare.InthisfirsthuntontheTolstoyancanvas,thehareescapes,andthechildfeelsshame,asthoughtheauthorwerepunishinghimselfforhislingeringinterestintheextremesofidealizedsocialtheory(theants)and

70Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom59disengagedbeauty(thebutterfly).Hispassionatedesiretocapturethehare(andperhapsalsotoexpiatehisguilt)provokesaremarkableearlystatementofTolstoy’saesthetics,whichrunscountertopoliticizedtheoriesofartaswellasartforart’ssake.Mostimportant,however,isthatlaterthatsamedayhetransmitstheexperienceofthehuntforthehareandtheotherexperiencesofhisdayintoart.Chapter11openswithtwoparagraphsfullofmaterialthatTolstoywastominefortherestofhislifeandthatheraldthelateTolstoyinthevoiceof14thefledglingwriter.Tosummarizethesefirsttwoparagraphs:ashismotherplaysField’ssecondconcertoandBeethoven’sSonatePathétique,the24-year-oldnarrator,Nikolenka,writesofhis10-year-oldselfhearingthemusicofthesetwopieces:“Iwellrememberthefeelingstheyarousedinme.Theyresembledmemories–butmemoriesofwhat?ItalmostseemedasifIwererememberingsomethingthathadneverbeen”(PSS1:31;Childhood,40).InFamilyHappiness,Masha’splayingofthepiano(MozartandBeethoven)evokessimilarlycomplexemotionsinwhichdesireandrealityintertwineinanultimatelydissatisfyingway.Nikolenka’swordsheraldthoseofTheKreutzerSonata’sPozdnyshevdecadeslater.Pozdnyshevcriesout,“Musicmakesmeforgetmyself,myrealposition;ittransportsmetosomeotherpositionnotmyown.Undertheinfluenceofmusicitseems15tomethatIfeelwhatIdonotfeel.”ItiswhilethismusicisplayingthattheyoungnarratorNikolenkaventuresintotherealmofanartisticrepresentationofthehunt.Ionlyhadbluepaint;butforallthatItookitintomyheadtodrawapictureofthehunt.Afterrepresentinginverylivelystyleablueboyonabluehorse,andsomebluedogs,Istopped,uncertainwhetheronecouldpaintabluehare,andranintopapa’sstudytoconsulthim.Papawasreadingsomethingandinanswertomyquestion,“Aretherebluehares?”repliedwithoutliftinghishead,“Yes,mydear,thereare.”Returningtotheroundtable,Ipaintedablueharebutthenfounditnecessarytoturnitintoabush.Ididnotlikethebusheitherandmadeitintoatree,thenthetreeintoahayrick,andthehayrickintoacloud,untilfinallyIhadsosmearedmywholesheetofpaperwithbluepaintthatItoreitupinvexationandwentofftomeditateinthehigh-backedarm-chair.(PSS1:30–31;Childhood,40)Likeanyartist,histoolsforrepresentinganexperiencedreality(thehunt)arelimited.Thechosenmediumcannotabsorbthefullcomplexityoftheeventhewishestoportray.Heonlyhasbluepaint.Neverthelessitispossibletoconveyina“verylively,”albeitbluestyle,aboy,ahorse,andsomedogs.Butthisprocessofartisticcreationhasitsownlawsandboundaries.“Istopped,uncertainwhetheronecouldpaintabluehare.”

7160robinfeuermillerWhyisthedepictionofabluehareastumblingblockinthisworldofblueboys,horses,anddogs?Eventhoughtheartistisguidedmostaccu-ratelybyhisowninnerlogic,heasksforaresponse,anauthenticone,fromsomeonehetrustsandadmires.“Aretherebluehares?”Withoutliftinghishead,hisfatherreplies,“Yes,thereare.”Thenarratorsensesunconsciouslythatthisabsent-mindedanswerisalie–alieinadifferentmodefromthenecessaryliethatexistsatthecentreofallartisticorfictiverepresentationsofreality,orevenfromthefalsememoriesthatmusiccanengender.Nikolenka’sfatherliesfrominattention,habit,andanimpulsetostifleconversationandinquiry.Nikolenkaneverthelessreturnstohispaintingandcontinuestowork.Theblueharebecomesabush,thenatree,ahayrick,andfinallyacloud.Thepaintingbecomesunintelligible.UnliketheartistMikhaylovinAnnaKareninaovertwentyyearslater,inthiscaseasmudgebecomesasourcenotofinspirationbutratherofvexation.Thebluehareisemblematicoftheindividualartist’sprivate,inviolablesenseoftheboundariesofhisart,itsinnerlawsandlimits.Itmaynotseemlogicallytobeaproblemthattheharewasblue,sincethehorsewasalsoblue.Butfortheartistthebluenessofthehareperhapsrepresentedthepointwherehisauthenticexpressioncollapsedintotheartificial.Hehadsoughttorepresentthefeelingoftheentiretyofthehunt–aprocess–butthebluenessoftheharesomehowdisfiguredthewholeanddissipatedthefeelingtheartisthadbeentryingtorecapture.Tolstoy–throughhis10-year-oldcharacterNikolenka–wasperhapslearningthathisartwouldattempttorepresenttheprocessoflife(notaparticularsingleparticleofit)articulatedwithinamomentintime.Neartheendofhislife,whenTolstoywroteWhatIsArt?,heendeavoredtoreturntothewell-springsoftheartisticimpulse.Inattemptingtodescribetheessenceofart,hereturnstotheworldofnatureand,inparticular,toaboy’semotionsinanencounterwithananimal.Inthiscasetheobjectofrepresentationisnotahare,butawolf.Artbeginswhenoneperson,withtheobjectofjoininganotherorotherstohimselfinoneandthesamefeeling,expressesthatfeelingbycertainexternalindications.Totakethesimplestexample:aboy,havingexperienced,letussay,fearonencounteringawolf,relatesthatencounter:and,inordertoevokeinothersthefeelinghehasexperienced,describeshimself,hisconditionbeforetheencounter,thesurroundings,thewood,hisownlightheartedness,andthewolf’sappearance,itsmovements,thedistancebetweenhimselfandthewolf,etc.Allthis,ifonlytheboy,whentellingthestory,againexperiencesthefeelingshehadlivedthroughandinfectsthehearersandcompelsthemtofeelwhatthenarratorhadexperienced,isart.Ifeventheboyhadnotseenawolfbuthadfrequentlybeenafraidofone,andif,

72Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom61wishingtoevokeinothersthefearhehadfelt,heinventedanencounterwithawolfandrecounteditsoastomakehishearerssharethefeelingsheexperiencedwhenhe16fearedthewolf,thatalsowouldbeart.Thisdiscussionoftheboyandthewolf,whichnearlyimmediatelyprecedesafrequentlycitedpassageofWhatIsArt?definingartasthetransmissionoffeeling,offersacluetotheyoungNikolenka’sartisticdilemmasandfrustrationsofsolongago.Nikolenkahadbegunhispainting,despitethelimitingfactthathepossessedonlybluepaint,becausehewishedtorepresenthisfeelingaboutthehunt.Withthebluepaint,theboywasabletoexpresssomeofhisexperience(theboy,thedog,theclouds)in“livelystyle”untilitbecametimetorepresentthemostimportantpart,thehare–thedesiredobjectofthehunt–whoseescapewasthesourceofhissubsequentshame.Atthispointhisrepresentationoftheexperiencefaltered.Theharehadbeenboththeobjectofhisdesireandthesourceofhisshame.Themediumofbluepaintceasedtosuffice.Hisaudience–hisfather–wasnotintheleastinfectedorengagedbythechild’sartisticendeavor.Thechildimmediatelysensedtheinauthenticresponseofthefather.Therewasnosharingoffeelings,nostirringofthesympatheticimagination.Thepaintingsuddenlybecameanobjectofvex-ationratherthanofcommunication,andtheartistdestroyedit.ThehareistheobjectofdesireandofsubsequentshameforNikolenka,andthewolftheobjectofdesireandfearforthehypotheticalboyinWhatIsArt?Thehareandthewolfalsoeachexistasliving,moving,animalbeings,whoareultimatelyindependentofthefeelingsaboutthemthatthetwowould-beartistsseektorepresent.Asuccessfulartisticrenderingofthehareorthewolfwouldembodyboththefeelingsoftheartistandtheessentialquiddityoftheanimalitself.ItisasiftheboyNikolenkarealizedfullywhattheoldmanTolstoyasserted(initalics):Toevokeinoneselfafeelingonehasonceexperienced,andhavingevokeditinoneself,then,bymeansofmovements,lines,colors,sounds,orformsexpressedinwords,sototransmitthatfeelingthatothersmayexperiencethesamefeeling–thatistheactivityofart.Artisahumanactivityconsistinginthis,thatonemanconsciously,bymeansofcertainexternalsigns,handsontoothersfeelingshehaslivedthrough,andthatotherpeopleareinfectedbythesefeelingsandalsoexperiencethem.(PSS20:65;WhatIsArt?,51)InNikolenka’scase,however,hewasunabletoevokethefeelingoftheharethroughhismediumofbluepaint,whethertohimselforhisfather.Ina

7362robinfeuermillerlargeranddarkersense,hecouldnottransmittohisfatherthefeelingsofdesire,excitement,andshamehehadlivedthroughonthatmomentousdayofchildhood;hisfatherremainedunmoved,absentlyuninterested–assignifiedbyhisautomatic,absent-mindedreply–bothtohisson’sinquiryand,byextension,tohisson’sexperience.Heremaineduninfectedbywhat17hissontriedtoimparttohim.AnimalsinformTolstoy’sideasaboutthenatureofhappiness,thepossibilitiesforsocietalorganization,andtheacquisitionofknowledge.TolstoyarticulatessomeofthesenotionsthroughthemanyanimalsinWarandPeace.Itsanimalsabound–whetherasmetaphors,characters,orphilosophicaltools.Ofthenumerousnon-humananimalsofthenovel–itsbirds,bees,ants,tortoises,rams,carp,animalsofthehunt,dogs,cats,hens,farmanimals–Iwilltouchbrieflyuponthree,thewolf,thebee,andtheant,anduponTolstoy’sgeneraluseoftheterm“animal.”ThewolvesinthisnoveldifferfromthewolfofWhatIsArt?Thatwolfembodiedtheemotiontowhichthewould-beartistconsciouslydesirestogiveforminordertocommunicatefeelingsandinfectotherswithwhathehasexperienced.WolvesappearseveraltimesinWarandPeace,andtheirpresenceoffersinsightsintoprimaryhumanexperienceratherthanintoaestheticquestions.ConsiderthesceneinwhichtheyoungNikolaiRostovparticipatesinahunt.Thesuddenbutferventlydesiredappearanceofthisfirstwolfconstitutes,thenarratortellsus,thehappiestmomentofRostov’slife.ThenarratoralsomakesclearthatRostovundoubtedlywillneverrealizethatthiswasthehappiestmomentofhislife.GarySaulMorsonhasidentifiedhereamomentthatepitomizesbothTolstoy’suseofdetailandthehallmarkofhisnarrativestance.WerecognizeasTolstoyananabsoluteassuranceaboutdetailswhosesignificanceisunfathomableandwhoseexistencemightnotevenhavebeennoticed[…]Tolstoyisabsolutelycertain:itisnotjustahappymoment,noteven“oneofthefinestmoments,”but,withoutqualification,itisthehappiestmomentofRostov’slife.[Moreover,][i]fatsomefuturetime,Rostovwasaskedtonamethehappiestmomentofhislife,hewouldprobablynoteventhinkofthisone[…]Thehappiestmomentofhislifeliesoutsideofallimaginednarrativesorpatterns.ItisperceptibleonlytoGodandtheauthor,whoknowsthatplotsandplottingexcludetheunnoticed,unplottableevents,hiddeninplainview,thataretrulyimportantin18alltheirexceptionalrichness.Thehunter’sperspectiveandallitsaccompanyingmetaphorsarecomfort-ableonesforbothTolstoyandhischaracter.Thesesame“unnoticed,unplottableevents,hiddeninplainview”canalso,however,exposethewaysinwhichtheunhappiestmomentssimilarly

74Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom63lieoutsideof“imaginednarrativesorpatterns.”Forexample,muchlaterinthenovelwhenRostovisonthebattlefieldheunconsciouslyslipsbackintohiseasyhunter’srole.Rostov,withhiskeensportsman’seye,wasoneofthefirsttocatchsightoftheseblueFrenchdragoonspursuingourUhlands[…]Rostovgazedatwhatwashappeningbeforehimasatahunt[…]Heactedashedidwhenhunting,withoutreflectingorconsidering[…]Withthesamefeelingwithwhichhehadgalloped19acrossthepathofawolf,RostovgavereintohisDonetshorse.Buthistargetnowisahumanone,andoncehestrikestheFrenchmanwithhissaber,“Theinstanthehaddonethis,allRostov’sanimationvanished”(PSS11:64;WarandPeace,724).Asthetwosoldiersgazeintoeachother’seyes,theeasyhuntmetaphorcollapsesinthefaceofamorecomplexhumanreality.Rostovispassionate,butnokiller.Hissuspensionofconsciousnessinthewolfhunthadallowedhim(andthereader)toglimpsetheothersideofrationalreflection–toexperiencetheheightofanimationandhappiness.Yetonthebattlefieldhisreturnfromthatotherside–thatboundaryofhumanexistencewhenoneacts“withoutreflectingorconsidering”–exposeshimtoanunhappinessassuddenandprofoundashishappinesshadbeenatthehunt,andasherealizesheisharminganotherhumanbeing,makeshimmorehumanstill.YettheviolentmomentwhenRostovhadseenthewolfstrugglinginthegully,themomentwhenhehadseen“heroutstretchedhindlegandherfrightenedchokinghead”hadbeen“thehappiestmomentofhislife”(PSS10:253;WarandPeace,552).Thecontoursofthesetwomomentsarestrikinglysimilar;ineachcaseRostovwatchesthesufferingofalivingcreature.YetRostovinhuntingdownhishumanpreyexperiencesmoralrevulsionandasuddenlossofanimation,whereasinhuntingdownthewolfhefeelsutter,complete,albeitunconscioushappiness.Tolstoydeliberatelylinksthesetwopassagesthroughhisnarrative,buthedoesnotilluminateforhisreaderswhythemomentonthebattlefieldisoneofmoraldegradationandthemomentatthewolfhuntisoneofpurejoy.InthehuntingpassageTolstoyobservesthat“theheightofhappinesswasreached–andsosimply,withoutwarning,ornoise,ordisplay”(PSS10:251;WarandPeace,550).Coulditbethatthiskindofhappiness,reachedsimply,withoutwarning,noise,ordisplayandthenjustasquicklyforgot-ten,is,infact,theclosestthatahumancanevercometoexperiencingwhatcouldbedescribedaspureanimalhappiness?CouldthismomentatthehuntbeonewhereRostov,despitehisgunanddog,isinfacttheequalofthewolf–ananimalhimself–andabletotranscend,howeverbriefly,theusualboundariesofhisspecies?

7564robinfeuermillerIsthiswhatPrinceAndreiisthinkingofwhen,inafitofdepression,hesaystoPierre,“‘Youtalkofschools[…]educationandsoforth;thatis,youwanttoraisehim’(pointingtoapeasantwhopassedbythemtakingoffhiscap)‘fromhisanimalconditionandawakeninhimspiritualneeds,whileitseemstomethatanimalhappinessistheonlyhappinesspossible,andthatisjustwhatyouwanttodeprivehimof’”(PSS10:112;WarandPeace,417).Andrei’spraiseof“animalhappiness,”however,isrationallyinspiredandbornofdespairingthoughtsratherthanofsurprising,unheededjoy.Itisanideaaboutanimalhappinessandnottheexperienceorprocessofanimalhappinessitself.YetevenasAndreiflirtsglumlywiththeidealof“animalhappiness,”thatis,oflivingforoneself,inthepresent,andpresumablywithaminimumofthecorrosiveconsciousnessofideasandtheirramifications,itisPierre–hisideologicalopponentinthisDostoevsky-likeexchange–whoactuallypossessesacapacityforthatkindofhappinessaswellasafirmlyrootedsenseofhisownpositioninthegreatchainofbeing:Ihavefeltmyself,apartofthatvastinvisiblechainthebeginningofwhichishiddeninheaven[…]Don’tIfeelinmysoulthatIampartofthisvastharmoniouswhole?Don’tIfeelinmysoulthatIformonelink,onestep,betweenthelowerandhigherbeings[…]IfIsee,clearlysee,thatladderleadingfromplanttoman,whyshouldIsupposeitbreaksoffatmeanddoesnotgofartherandfarther?IfeelthatIcannotvanish,sincenothingvanishesinthisworld,butthatIshallalwaysexistandalways20haveexisted.(PSS10:115–16;WarandPeace,420–21).ThisexchangebetweenAndreiandPierreexemplifiesTolstoy’semploy-mentofanarrativemodequitedifferentfromtheprevailingdidactic,absolutetonethatreignsthroughoutmuchofWarandPeace;hereheisathissubtlebest,forPierre’seloquent,heartfeltaffirmationabouthisplaceintheworldofplants,animals,andtheheavens–socloseinsomerespectstoLevin’smoresustainedepiphaniesinAnnaKarenina–is,ironically,infactpartandparcelofhisattempttorecruitAndreitodogmaticfree-masonry,anobjectofridiculeinthenovel.AndAndrei,despitehisobservationthat“animalhappiness”istheonlypossiblekind,actuallyembracesthisdoctrinelessthanperhapsanyothercharacterinthenovel.Nevertheless,thenotionsthathumananimalshavesomethingtolearnabouthappinessfromnon-humanonesandthateachplantandanimalhasitsplaceintheworldweretobecomeincreasinglyimportantforTolstoy.EventuallyTolstoyextendshismetaphorofthehunttoanevenbroadercanvas.Rostov’smomentofsupremehappinesswhenhuntingthewolfhad

76Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom65offeredapointofanalogyfortheverydifferentmomentwhenhefoundhimselfhuntingoneofhisownspecies.InthehundredsofpagesdevotedtotheRussianarmy’sdefeatoftheFrench,thenarratorinterspersesanothersequential,butnowpurelymetaphoric,descriptionofahunt,muchlikethatfirsthunt,theoccasionofRostov’shappiness.Extractingitscontoursscatteredovermanypages,wereadthattheFrenchinvadersare“likeaninfuriatedanimalthathasinitsonslaughtreceivedamortalwound”(PSS:11:263;WarandPeace,914).It“licksitswounds”(PSS11:268;WarandPeace,920);“thehunterdidnotknow”whetherthebeastwasdeadoralive.“Suddenlythebeastwasheardtomoan”(PSS12:70;WarandPeace,1,099).“Theplightofthewholearmyresembledthatofawoundedanimalwhichfeelsitisperishinganddoesnotknowwhatitisdoing”;itrushedforward“ontothehunter’sgun,reachedhim,turnedback,andfinally–likeanywildbeast–ranbackalongthemostdisadvantageousanddangerouspath,wheretheoldscentwasfamiliar”(PSS12:91–92;WarandPeace,1,118).GeneralKutuzov,“likeanexperiencedsportsman[…]knewthatthebeastwaswounded[…]butwhetheritwasmortallywoundedornotwasstillanundecidedquestion”(PSS12:111;WarandPeace,1,136).HencetheRussianarmy,initsroleofhunter,“hadtoactlikeawhiptoarunninganimal.Andtheexperienceddriverknewitwasbettertoholdthewhipraisedasamenacethantostriketherunninganimalonthehead”(PSS12:170;WarandPeace,1,191).TheFrencharmyfled“likedawoundedanimal,anditwas21impossibletoblockitspath”(PSS12:197;WarandPeace,1,219).Thishuntisnometaphorforjoy,unhappiness,ormoraldegradation,butratheronethatevokesafranticstruggleagainstinevitability.Thecollective,organizedlifeofanimalsingroupsattimesofferedTolstoyawaytothinkabouthumansociety.Forexample,Tolstoy’snarratordeclaresthatNapoleon,“whilethinkinghewasactingonhisownvolition”infact“perform[ed]forthehivelife–thatistosay,forhistory–whateverhadtobeperformed”(PSS11:6;WarandPeace,670).ThechaoticaftermathofthecollisionofthetwoarmiesnearSmolenskisrenderedstarklythroughtheimageofadisruptedswarm:“Throughthestreets,soldiersinvariousuniformswalkedorranconfusedlyindifferentdirectionslikeantsfromaruinedanthill”(PSS11:117;WarandPeace,779).Inasustainedmetaphorofepicproportion,Tolstoy’snarratorcomparesMoscowtoanabandonedhive.Theprecisedescriptionofthedyinghive;thebeekeeperwhosetaponthehive’swallsdoesnotproducethe“formerinstantunanimoushumming”;thebeesflyingoutofthehiveladenwithhoney;therobber-beeswhoappear;thebeekeeper’sclosingofthehiveandburningitclean–thiselaborate,yetdry,textbook-likedescriptionofthe

7766robinfeuermillerdyinghiveanditsbeekeeperdwarfsthesubsequentdescriptionsofNapoleon’sentranceintoMoscow,relegatingamassive,complexmilitaryoperationtoanaturalprocessratherthanawillful,heroicinvasion(PSS11:327–28;WarandPeace,974–75).Throughoutthenovel,however,thegroupingsofbeesintheirbeehives,antsintheirhills,andanimalsintheirherdsdomorethanoffermetaphorsforthewaysinwhichmen,thinkingtheyareactingindividually,areinfactactinginsomeunknowablewayfortheinterestsofthewhole.ForTolstoy,intryingtounderstandswarmintelligence,seemedtosuggestawayinwhichthechaosofindividualchoicesandactscouldrationallybesubsumedinthemoreorderedintentionsofanimalsinaswarm.ThestudyofswarminstinctiscurrentlyafocusofscientificinquirythatseemsuncannilytobackupsomeofTolstoy’sassumptions.Throughcomputermodelsscien-tistsaredecipheringhowtheseparateactionsofmillionsofindividualscanform“acollectivebrainabletomakedecisionsandmovelikeasingle22organism.”IanD.Couzinandhiscolleagueshavebuiltacomputermodeltodescribehowinformationflowsthroughswarms:“Thereisaswarmintelligence[…]Whatmakesthiscollectivedecision-makingallthemorepuzzlingisthateachindividualcanbehaveonlybasedonitsownexperience[…]Eachindividualhastobalancetwoinstincts:tostay23withthegroupandmoveinadesireddirection.”Thisattempttoanalyzehowthedesireofanindividualinaswarm(freechoice)andthemovementofthegroupasawhole(thelargerlawsofhistoryornecessity)seemstocontinue,fromascientificvantagepoint,thehistoriographicperspectivethatTolstoydevelopedinWarandPeace,wherecontemplationofbees,ants,andherdshelpedhimtoframehisownphilosophicaldiscourseabout24freedomandnecessity.Humansarebutoneamongthespeciesofanimals.Withinthegroup,eachindividual’scapacityforknowledgeofthewholeisalwaysandneces-sarilypartial,whetheritisahumanbeingseekingtounderstandthebees,oraherdoframsobservingthatoneofitsnumberisgrowingmuchfatter.Abeesettlingonaflowerhasstungachild.Andthechildisafraidofbeesanddeclaresthatbeesexisttostingpeople.Apoetadmiresthebeesuckingfromthechaliceofaflowerandsaysitexiststosuckthefragranceofflowers.Abeekeeper,seeingthebeecollectpollenfromflowersandcarryittothehive,saysthatitexiststogatherhoney.Anotherbeekeeper[…]saysthatthebeegatherspollendusttofeedtheyoungbeesandrearaqueen,andthatitexiststoperpetuateitsrace.Abotanistnoticesthatthebeeflyingwiththepollenofamaleflowertoapistilfertilizesthelatter,andseesinthisthepurposeofthebee’sexistence.Another,observingthemigrationofplants,noticesthatthebeehelpsinthiswork,andmay

78Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom67saythatinthisliesthepurposeofthebee.Buttheultimatepurposeofthebeeisnotexhaustedbythefirst,thesecond,oranyoftheprocessesthehumanmindcandiscern.Thehigherthehumanintellectrisesinthediscoveryofthesepurposes,themoreobviousitbecomesthattheultimatepurposeisbeyondourcomprehension.Allthatisaccessibletomanistherelationofthelifeofthebeetoothermanifestationsoflife.Andsoitiswiththepurposeofhistoriccharactersandnations.(PSS12:246,WarandPeace,1,264)Inadditiontodemonstrating,throughtheexampleofobservationofthebee,thatknowledgeisalwayspartial,thispassagealsooffersakindofshorthandlistofthevariousnarrativevoicesthatTolstoyassumesthrough-outhisnovel–whetheritisthe“innocent”perspectiveofthechild(throughthetechniqueofostranenie),thepoet(inthebeautyofthemetaphorsandsimiles),orthebeekeeper,orbotanist(asthenarratortakesontheroleofsiftingthroughpractical,historical,philosophic,andscientificevidence).Tolstoy’snarratormodulatesatwillfromoneperspectivetothenext.Thereisaperspectivehithertounexplored.Tolstoygivesacompletelydifferentglosstothemeaningof“animallife”inhisstoryStrider.Tolstoyworkedonthisstoryintheearly1860s,intheperiodjustbeforehegavehimselfcompletelyovertothewritingofWarandPeace,andagaininthemid-1880s,duringtheperiodwhenhewroteConfession.AsaresultthestoryexhibitsanidiosyncraticcomminglingoftheearlyandthelateTolstoy–alltoldprimarilythroughthenarrativeofapiebaldgelding,Strider.Asearlyas1856Tolstoyhadwritteninhisjournal,“Iwouldliketowritethestoryofahorse.”AndpresumablyTurgenevhadjokinglyremarkedtohimthathemustoncehavebeenahorse.Wewerewalkingthrough[a]pasture[…]whenwelookedupandsawstandingthere[…]anoldhorseofthemostpitifulandwretchedappearance[…]oldageandtoilhadsomehowutterlybenthimoutofshape…hejuststoodthere[…]Wewentuptothisunfortunategelding,andTolstoibeganpettinghimwhilesayingwhathethoughtthehorsewasfeelingandthinking.Iwaspositivelyspellbound[…]“Listen,LevNikolaevich,youmusthavebeenahorseonceyourself.”You25couldn’tfindabetterrenderingoftheinnerconditionofahorse.ThroughouttheelevenchaptersofStrider,thenarrativecentersonthefamouspiebaldgeldingStrider,initiallythroughathird-personnarrator.Butearlyinthefifthchapter,thenarrativeactuallyemanatesfromStriderhimself.Hetellshislifestorytotheotherhorsesoveraperiodoffivenightsduringthecourseofwhichhenarrateshisautobiographyfrombirthuntil26thepresentmoment:“AndhereIam,”atwhichpointhisnarrativeceases.Hediesseveraldayslater.

7968robinfeuermillerTolstoy’swife,whohadgainedpublicationrightstothestory,hadwantedtogiveitthesubtitle“AnExperienceoftheFantasticKind.271861.”Sonya’ssubtitle,althoughitwasrejectedbyTolstoy,seemsapt,for,likeDostoevsky’stwoexperimentswithfirst-personnarrative“fantasticstories”inthe1870s(“AGentleCreature”and“DreamofaRidiculousMan”),thistale,inaskingitsaudiencetoentertherealmofthefantasticbyreadingthenarrativeofahorse,alsoseekstoilluminateandcommentuponcontemporarysociety.Assuch,thestorydrawsupontheformoftherêveorvoyageimaginairesopopularintheeighteenthcenturyandearlier,asmuchasitdoesfromthepopulartraditionofthephysiologicalsketch.Moreover,Tolstoy’sstoryseemsstronglyreminiscentofthatmostfamousfantastic,first-personnarrativejourney,JonathanSwift’sGulliver’sTravels.InthefourthvoyageGulliverencountersarationalbreedofhorses,theHouyhnhnms,andfindshimselfindeepandabidingadmirationofthem.BoththeHouyhnhnmsandStriderofferanoccasiontopointupdidacticallywhatailsthecontem-porarysocietyofSwiftandTolstoy.Tolstoy’snarratordescribesStriderintermsthatcouldbeapoignantdescriptionoftheagingTolstoyhimself,theTolstoyof1886.Therewasreallysomethingmajesticin[his]figureandintheterribleunioninhimofrepulsiveindicationsofdecrepitude,emphasizedbythemotleycolourofhishair,andhismannerwhichexpressedtheself-confidenceandcalmassurancethatgowithbeautyandstrength.Likealivingruinhestoodaloneinthemistofthedewymeadow.(PSS26:8;PortableTolstoy,440)LikeTolstoy,Striderloseshismotherandgrievesmightily.“SuchpassionateangerovercamemethatIbegantobeatmyheadandkneesagainstthewallsofthestall”(PSS26:16;PortableTolstoy,449).Strider’smotherinfactreturns,butnolongerloveshim.Strider,asatransparentechoofTolstoyhimself,pondersthe“injusticeofmen,”“theinconstancyofmother-loveandfeminineloveingeneral,”and“aboveallIponderedonthecharacter-isticsofthatstrangeraceofanimalswithwhomwearesocloselyconnected,andwhomwecallmen”(PSS26:18;PortableTolstoy,452).ThesemenarealmostasrepulsiveasSwift’shumanYahoos,andtherationalun-animal-likehorsesfindthemtobealowerorderofbeing.Striderthen,inSwiftianfashion,considersprivateproperty,violence,religion,andespeciallyown-ershipofonelivingbeingbyanother.“Thewords‘myhorse’appliedtome,alivehorse,seemedtomeasstrangeastosay‘myland,’‘myair,’or‘mywater’”(PSS26:19;PortableTolstoy,453).LikewiseGulliveradmireshowtheHouyhnhnmsdonotdiscolorreasonby“passionandinterest.”When

80Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom69theydie,“theirfriendsandrelations[express]neitherjoynorgrief.”And,mostimportant,theirlanguagehasnowordsfor“lie,doubt,opinion,or28evil.”Theverbtodiemeantsimply“toretiretoone’sfirstmother.”TolstoyandSwiftbeforehimdeleteourcommonunderstandingofthe“animalnature”ofthesehorsesandreplaceitwithextremerationalism.Afewdaysaftercompletinghisnarrationtotheotherhorses,StriderdiesthemostidealdeathanywhereinTolstoy’soeuvre,exceptperhapsthatofanotherhorse,Mukhorty,inMasterandMan.Astheknackerslaughteredhimwithhisknife,afterthepain,Striderheavedasighand“feltmuchbetter.Thewholeburdenofhislifewaseased[…]Everythingwassonewtohim”(PSS26:36;PortableTolstoy,472–73).Afterhisdeath,theherdexperiencesahorseyostranenie;theyseesomethingredsurroundedbydogs,hawks,andcrows.Atdawn,fivewolfcubsandtheirleanoldmotherarriveanddevourhisbody.TheviolentpassageisnearlyascosmicallybeautifulastheendofChekhov’sstoryGusev,whenthesharksdevourGusev’sdeadbody.Ineachcasethereisasolemnity,asenseoffittingness,aloftycalmamidsttheconsumptionofthehero’scorpse.Thewolfcubscomeandstandaroundtheirmother.Shewentuptothesmallest,andbendingherkneeandholdinghermuzzledown,madesomeconvulsivemovements,andopeningherlargesharp-toothedjawsdisgorgedalargepieceofhorseflesh.Thebiggercubsrushedtowardher,butshemovedthreateninglyatthemandletthelittleonehaveitall.Thelittleone,growlingasifinanger,pulledthehorsefleshunderhimandbegantogorge.Inthesamewaythemotherwolfcoughedupapieceforthesecond,thethird,andallfiveofthem,andthenlaydowninfrontofthemtorest.(PSS26:36–37;PortableTolstoy,473)Inthismagnificentscene,theexperienceofdeathcoalescesseamlesslywiththecontinuanceoflife,assooftenwithTolstoy’shumancharacters.ButherethedepictionofthecontiguityofdeathwithlifeattainsasoundlesssublimitythatpassageslikethosedescribingtheconcurrencyofLise’sdeathandthebirthofAndrei’sson,orNikolaiLevin’sdeathandthepregnancyofKitty,cannotachieve.ResemblancestoGulliver’sTravelscontinueintoasubsequentworkofTolstoy’sinwhichanimalsalsofigureimportantly,TheKreutzerSonata(1889).Pozdnyshevsharesmuchofthegeneralsenseofdisillusionmentwithhumanbeingsofthethird-personhumannarratorofStrider.TheybothevinceaGulliveriandisgustforhumankind,althoughPozdnyshev,unlikeGulliver,neveractuallyconverseswithananimal,nordoesthethird-personnarratorofStrider,althoughhedoesreporttheequinenarrative.Moreover,

8170robinfeuermillerPozdnyshevsharesGulliver’smoralnausea.WhenGulliverreturns,unwill-ingly,tohumancivilization,heexperiencessuchanextremedisgustatthelifeandbehaviorofhumanbeingsthathecannotbeartobearoundthem.Pozdnyshev,uponhisreleasefromprison,experiencesasimilarmetaphys-icalandphilosophicalhorrorofhisfellowman.Heseemstofindadeeperrationalismandphilosophicpeaceexistinginthenon-humananimalkingdomthaninhisown.Rememberingthecoarsesensualityofhiscourtship,hedeclares:Therewasnothingtotalkabout.Allthatcouldbesaidaboutthelifethatawaitedus,ourarrangementsandplans,hadbeensaid,andwhatwastheremore?Nowifwehadbeenanimalsweshouldhaveknownthatspeechwasunnecessary,buthereonthecontraryitwasnecessarytospeak,andtherewasnothingtosay,becausewewerenotoccupiedwithwhatfindsventinspeech.(PSS27:27;KreutzerSonata,375)Ifmenandwomenwereasrationalasanimals,theywouldrealizethatinthissituationtheyneedmakenoefforttospeak.Thenightingaledoesnotsingnorthelionroarwhilemating.Pozdnyshevultimatelyfindshisanswertotheproblemofhumansex-ualitybycontemplatingthebees.“Thehighestraceofanimals,thehumanrace,inordertomaintainitselfinthestrugglewithotheranimalsoughttouniteintoonewholelikeaswarmofbees,andnotbreedcontinually;itshouldbringupsexlessmembersasthebeesdo;thatis,again,itshouldstrivetowardscontinenceandnottowardsinflamingdesire–towhichthewholesystemofourlifeisnowdirected”(PSS27:30–31;KreutzerSonata,379).Thebeesandtheotheranimalsthusofferhimacluetohowbothhumansocietyandhumandesireshouldbeorganized.“Animals,yousee,onlycometogetherattimeswhentheyarecapableofproducingprogeny,butthefilthylordofnatureisatitanytimeifonlyitpleaseshim!”(PSS27:36;KreutzerSonata,384).LikeGulliveruponhisreturnhome,Pozdnyshev,returnedfromprison,nowtriestoliveinanisolationwhichispunctuatedonlybytheobsessivedesiretotellhisstorythatothermenmaylearnbyit.BotharelikeColeridge’sancientmariner,tellinghisstoryyet“alone,alone,all,allalone.”Pozdnysheveventriestoexplainawaythenecessityformaternalgriefoverthedeathorillnessofachildbyseekingananalogy(asGulliverhaddone)intherationalworldofanimals:Ahenisnotafraidofwhatmayhappentoherchick,doesnotknowallthediseasesthatmaybefallit,anddoesnotknowallthoseremedieswithwhichpeopleimaginethattheycansavefromillnessanddeath.Andforahenheryoungarenotasource

82Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom71oftorment.Shedoesforthemwhatitisnaturalandpleasurableforhertodo;heryoungonesareapleasuretoher.Whenachickfallsillherdutiesarequitedefinite:shewarmsitandfeedsit.Anddoingthissheknowsthatsheisdoingallthatisnecessary.Ifherchickdiesshedoesnotaskherselfwhyitdied,orwhereithasgoneto;shecacklesforawhile,andthenleavesoffandgoesonlivingasbefore.(PSS27:42;KreutzerSonata,390)BothGulliverandPozdnyshevaremad,usethetoolsofreasontofueltheirmadness,andcreateaworldinwhichanimalsareofahighermoralandrationalorderthanmen.Bothfindthehighestcapacityformoderationandreasonintheanimalkingdom,ratherthanamonghumans.Theydonotseekpoeticanalogiestohumanbeingsinthelifeofanimals;insteadanimallife,astheyeachimagineit,offersamodelforanidealexistenceprofoundlydifferentfromhumanexistence,contaminatedasitisbyuncontrollabledesire.Theanimalsaretobeemulated.Indeed,inthevariantnotesforTheKreutzerSonata,TolstoyhasPozdnyshevtakehisargumentevenfurther:Justnotice:ahen,agoose,ashe-wolfarealwaysunattainablemodelsofanimalloveforourwomen.Fewwomenwouldattheriskoftheirlivesrushatanelephanttotaketheirbabyfromhim,butnohen,andnoshe-coweven,wouldfailtoflyatadog;andeachofthemwouldsacrificeitselfforitschildren,whilefewwomenwoulddoso.Noticethatahumanmothercanrefrainfromphysicalloveofherchildrenwhileananimalcannotdoso.(PSS27:318;KreutzerSonata,441)Pozdnyshev’smadness,likeGulliver’s,reverberateswithahauntingtragicgrandeur,andtheirmoralnauseaiscontagious.ReadershavespeculatedthatbothSwiftandTolstoyhavebeeninfectedbytheircharacters,orviceversa.OneofthemostnegativecontemporaryassessmentsofAnnaKareninaunconsciouslyforecasts,inanunkindbuthumorousway,whatwillbecomeofthereverenceforanimalsTolstoydisplaysinbothStriderand,indirectly,TheKreutzerSonata.In1875,beforethepublicationofeitherofthosestories,theRussianradicalP.N.Tkachov,underthepseudonymofP.Nikitin,wroteofhisimaginedsequeltoAnnaKarenina:[Theauthor]discoverstragedyinVronsky’srelationsnotonlywithAnnabutwithhismareFrou-FroutooandmakestheserelationstheobjectofasmuchdetailedartisticanalysisashedoesthosewithAnna[…]Ifhewishestobeevenmoreconsistent,ifhewantshisworktomovefurtheralongthisnewandoriginalpath,thenIpermitmyselftosuggest[…]awonderfulsubjectforhisnextnovel[…]Herebrieflyismyoutlineforthestory.LevinmarriedKittyandliveswithherinseclusioninthecountry,scorningallpoliticalandcivicactivityasfruitlessandtediousconcernswhichleadtoprogressandcivilizationwhichthemselvesputa

8372robinfeuermillerbreakuponthegrowthofhappiness.InashortperiodoftimethereappearsinLevin’sheartamorespontaneousandconsequentlymorepowerfulandlegitimatefeelingthanthatofloveforhiswife:Levinexperiencesanagriculturalloveforhiscow,Pava.Kittynoticesherhusband’snewpassionandseeinginit,becauseofherfemininefrivolity,acertaindangertofamilyhappinessfeelsjealousandnolongerwishestolookafterPava’scalvesasiftheywereherownchildren.Therefollowsaseriesofperipeteia,bothromanticandtragic,thesufferingsofKitty,thetormentsofPava,theexplanationsofLevintoPava[…]themostsubtlepsychologicalanalysisofthefeelingsofhumansandcows[…]wouldstretchoverscoresof29pages.AfterKitty’sinevitablesuicide,Levingraspstheideathatthis“agriculturallove”isahigher“naturalhappiness”than“familyhappinesswithawoman.”Inthiscunning,humorous,mean-spiritedreview,onecanalmostdiscerntheshapesoftheunwrittenStriderandTheKreutzerSonatalowonthehorizon.OthermajorwritersofthenineteenthcenturyinRussia–forexample,Gogol,Dostoevsky,Turgenev,andChekhov–alsodepictanimalsassignificantplayersinthehumandrama.TheunparalleledcanineepistolaryexchangeinGogol’s“DiaryofaMadman”orthethoughtsofChichikov’shorsespringinstantlytomind.WithDostoevskyonethinksimmediatelyofRaskolnikov’sdreamofthehorseinCrimeandPunishment,ofthebirds,thedog,andthegooseinTheBrothersKaramazov,oroftheundergroundman’smice,bulls,andanthills,orMyshkin’sgnats,orStavrogin’sspiders.ButDostoevsky’sanimalsdonotreallyexistindependentlyasanimalsorexhibitthevarietiesofawarenesswithwhichTolstoyendowshisanimals.TurgenevperhapscomesclosertoTolstoy’sapproach:think,forexample,ofthedogin“YermolaiandtheMiller’sWife.”ThehorseinChekhov’s“Misery”orthesharksofGusevlikewiseevincethequalitiesofTolstoy’sanimals.TheanimalsofTurgenevandChekhovcouldperhapsinhabitTolstoy’speace-ablekingdom,buttheydonotpresentthemselveswithsuchcompletefullnessorindependenceasdoTolstoy’sanimals.Finally,followingIsaiahBerlin’sparadigm,itisproductivetocontem-platewhetherTolstoyisahedgehog,orafox,orafoxdesiringtobeahedgehog.Butthewolf,thehare,thehorse,thedog,theant,andthebeemayalsoloomlargeinourattempttounderstandTolstoy.Helivedhislifeasanartistandathinkeramidsttheotheranimalsamongwhomhefirmlyplaceshischaracters,hisreaders,andhimself.Tolstoy’speaceablekingdomadmitsviolenceanddeath:thewolvesdevourStrider’sbody;thehenisnotafraidforwhatwillhappentoherchick,andthoughshewarmsitwhenitisill,shedoesnotaskherselfwhyitdied.Tolstoy’sanimalkingdomretainsits

84Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom73solemnityandpeacefulgrandeurbecauseitsinhabitantsbalancereason,instinct,andevenpassioninanidealway.Tolstoy’sanimalsarenotburdenedbytheircreator’sperennialquestions,“HowthenshallIlive?”“HowshallIdie?”notes1.SeePeterSinger,AnimalLiberation(NewYork:HarperCollins,2002),7.SingerisquotingJeremyBentham,IntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation,ch.17.2.Singer,AnimalLiberation,14.3.JulianH.Franklin,AnimalRightsandMoralPhilosophy(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2005),xiii.FranklinprovidesathoughtfulandreadablesummaryofthevariousphilosophicalapproachestoanimalrightsanddevelopshisowntheorybyarevisionofKant’scategoricalimperative.4.MarthaNussbaum,“Beyond‘CompassionandHumanity’:JusticeforNonhumanAnimals,”inCassR.SunsteinandMarthaNussbaum,eds.,AnimalRights:CurrentDebatesandNewDirections(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),300.5.Singer,AnimalLiberation,xxi.6.DonaldFanger,ed.,trans,intro.,Gorky’sTolstoyandOtherReminiscences:KeyWritingsbyandaboutMaximGorky(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2008),78.7.J.M.Coetzee,inTheLivesofAnimals:J.M.Coetzee(withessaysalsobyMarjorieGarber,PeterSinger,WendyDoniger,andBarbaraSmuts),ed.andintro.AmyGutman(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1999),35.8.L.N.Tolstoi,Polnoesobraniesochinenii,90vols.(Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,”1928–58),29:79.HereaftercitedinthetextasPSSplusvolumeandpagenumber.SeealsoLeoTolstoy,“TheFirstStep,”inEssaysandLetters,trans.AylmerMaude(NewYork:H.Frowde,1909),82–91.PDFversion(5pages),2.9.PSS6:58;LeoTolstoy,TheCossacksandTheRaid,trans.AndrewMacAndrew(NewYork:Signet,1961),73.10.SeeDonnaTussingOrwin’sexcellentreadingoftheimplicationsofOlenin’sexperienceofnature,inparticularwithinthestag’slair.DonnaOrwin,“NatureandCivilizationinTheCossacks,”inTolstoy’sArtandThought,1847–1880(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993),85–98.11.NikolenkaandothercharactersofTolstoywhoaredepictedamidstthewildlifeofnatureduringahuntshareakindofintimacywiththebeingsaroundthem.Atsuchmomentsmanandanimalaresomehowonamoreancientfootingandhaveadifferentkindofinteractionthanthatofhumanswithanimalsinazoo.12.ThemostreadableEnglish-languageaccountofthisepisodeinTolstoy’schildhoodisfoundinErnestJ.Simmons,LeoTolstoy(2vols.),vol.i(NewYork:VintageBooks,1960),23–24.Tolstoy’sbrotherNikolaisolemnlyannouncedtothemonedaythathepossessedawonderfulsecretthatcould

8574robinfeuermillermakeallmenhappy.Ifitbecamegenerallyknown,akindofGoldenAgewouldexistonearth:therewouldbenomoredisease,nohumanmisery,andnoanger.Allwouldloveoneanotherandbecome“AntBrothers”(23).ThechildrenthenorganizedagameofAntBrotherswheretheyhuddledinthedarkunderchairsorboxescoveredwithshawls.Nikolaialsodevisedconditionsforhisyoungerbrothersunderwhichhewouldshowthemasecretplace.“Thefirstwastostandinacornerandnotthinkofawhitebear.Thesecondwastowalkalongacrackinthefloorwithoutwavering;andthethirdwastokeepfromseeingahare,aliveordeadorcooked,forawholeyear”(23).Nikolaialsoinvitedhisyoungerbrotherstoeachconfideonewishthatwouldcometrue.Interestingly,allofthesechildishwishesinvolvedanimalsand/orthemakingofart:“Seryozhawishedtobeabletomodelahorseandahenoutofwax:Mitenkawishedtobeabletodraweverythinginlifesize,likearealartist;andthefive-year-oldLyovochka,clearlypuzzled,lamelywishedtobeabletodrawthingsinminiature”(24).13.PSS1:25;LeoTolstoy,Childhood,BoyhoodandYouth,trans.andintro.RosemaryEdmonds(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1961),34.14.IronicallyDostoevskywrotefromexiletoMaikov,uponreadingChildhood,“IlikeL.T.verymuch,butinmyopinionhewon’twritemuch(perhapsI’mmistaken,however).”SeeF.M.Dostoevskii,Polnoesobraniesochineniivtridt-satitomakh,28(i),210.15.PSS27:61;TheKreutzerSonata,trans.LouiseandAylmerMaude,inGreatShortWorksofLeoTolstoy,intro.JohnBayley(NewYork:HarperandRow,1967),410.WhatisfascinatingaboutPozdnyshev’sdiatribeagainstmusicisthatitcastsinnegativetermsmuchofthekindofpositiveinfectionofwhichartiscapablethatTolstoydescribesinWhatIsArt?16.PSS30:64–65;WhatIsArt?,trans.AylmerMaude,intro.VincentThomas(NewYork:Bobbs-Merrill,1960),50–51.Notethatinthepreviousparagraph,TolstoyreturnstotheyawningimagethatheusedinTheKreutzerSonataandwhichiscitedinthepreviousnote.Hesuggeststhatsuchdirectinfection“doesnotamounttoart.”17.Nikolenka’sacuteawarenessthathisforayintopaintinghasbeenunsuccessfulpresagesVronsky’sabandonmentofpaintingafterhisfailedportraitofAnna.Thewould-beartist,whetherchildorman,shouldinstinctivelyknowwhenhisartisticendeavorhasfailed.(Seept.5,ch.13ofAnnaKarenina.)18.GarySaulMorson,HiddeninPlainView:NarrativeandCreativePotentialsin“WarandPeace”(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1987),156–57.19.PSS11:62–63;LeoTolstoy,WarandPeace,ed.GeorgeGibian,trans.AylmerMaude(NewYork:Norton:1966),723–24.20.AsAndreipointsout,PierreiscitingHerderhere.Forafulldiscussionoftheideaofthegreatchainofbeing,seeArthurL.Lovejoy,TheGreatChainofBeing:AStudyoftheHistoryofanIdea(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1936).21.EvenasTolstoyportraystheFrencharmyasawoundedanimalinsuchasustainedmetaphorheisalsoscientificallyawarethattheFrencharmy“melted

86Tolstoy’speaceablekingdom75awayattheuniformrateofamathematicalprogression,”whichwasconfirmedbyoneofthefirstandmostfamousgraphsofthenineteenthcentury.SeePSS12:196;WarandPeace,1,218.22.CarlZimmer,“FromAntstoPeople,AnInstincttoSwarm,”NewYorkTimes,November13,2007:D1.23.Ibid.D4.24.SeealsoTolstoy’sanalogytoaherdoframsandaherdsmantoexplainthereasonswhyeffectsbeyondthescopeofordinaryhumanagencyarefrequentlydescribedintermsofgenius(PSS12:239;WarandPeace,1,257).25.SeeI.S.Turgenev,I.S.Turgenevvvospominaniiakhrevoliutsionervo-semidesiatnikov,ed.M.K.Kleman(Moscow:Academia,1930),237,quotedbyEikhenbaum,101.ThebestaccountsofTolstoy’swritingofthisworkareinBorisEikhenbaum’s,TolstoyintheSixties,trans.DuffieldWhite(AnnArbor,MI:Ardis,1982),91–103;andViktorShklovsky’sLevTolstoy,trans.OlgaShartze(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1978),350–54.Eikhenbaumlabelsita“didacticepic(poema),”a“fable,”andeventuallyan“animalepic.”Hewritesatlengthaboutthestory,perhapsbecauseitevolvedoverthreeepochsinTolstoy’slife–themid-1850s,theearly1860s,andthemid-1880s–and,assuch,seemstocombinetheyoungerTolstoy’ssocialconcernswithhissub-sequentcomplexemotionsaboutaging.26.PSS26:27;Strider,inThePortableTolstoy,ed.JohnBayley,trans.LouiseandAylmerMaude(NewYork:VikingPenguin,1978),462.27.SeeShklovsky,LevTolstoy,350.Shklovsky’sanalysisfocusesonthedifferencesbetweenthe1861versionofthestoryandtheonecompletedin1885.HedescribesthestronglinkbetweenStriderandhisauthor.“Tolstoywasathoroughbred,hewasagenius,buthewasapiebaldbothinlifeandinliterature:hiscoatcolour,hisspecialpositionintheworld,andhisapartnessweredeniedrecognition.ThatiswhythestoryissodeartoTolstoy’sheart”(351).28.JonathanSwift,Gulliver’sTravels(1726:NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary,1960),288,296.29.“TkachovAttacksTolstoy’sAristocratism:1875,”inA.V.Knowles,ed.andtrans.,Tolstoy:TheCriticalHeritage(London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1978),259–60.

87chapter4LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodetsDonnaTussingOrwinWhatiftherewereawarandnobodycame?BumperstickersincollegetownsallovertheUnitedStatesinthe1960sbroadcastthisslogan,buttoday,fiftyyearslater,noendtowarisinsight.CountLev(Leo)NikolaevichTolstoy,advocateofconscientiouswarresistanceandauthorofthegreatestwarfictioninmoderntimes,hatedwarbutunderstooditsroleinhumanlife.Hefoughtintwoconflicts,thelong-runningbattleagainstmountaintribesintheCaucasus,andtheCrimeanWar.Bornintoafamilyofwarrioraristocrats,withhisoldestbrotherNikolaialreadyinthearmy,hisdecisiontotakeuparmscamenaturally,andso,presumably,didhiscelebrationofRussianmartialspiritatthesiegeofSevastopol.Yettheseedsofhislaterpacifismareevidentinhisearliestwarstories.Adraftofhis1firstone,“TheRaid”(1853),defineswaras“murder,”whilethepatriotic“SevastopolinDecember”(1855)callsit“blood,suffering,anddeath.”War2seemedeviltohimforreligiousreasons,andinthefinalchapterof“SevastopolinMay”(1855)heaskshow“allthose[Christians]whoprofessthesamegreatlawofloveandself-sacrifice”couldfightoneother.Inhisoldage,bythenaworld-famouspacifist,TolstoyreturnedinHadjiMurat(publishedposthumously,1911)totheCaucasianwarsofhisyouthtodepictthemasanimperialistadventurebyRussia.Yetthisanti-warmasterpiececontainshismostsympatheticportraitofawarrior.ThischapterexploresthepsychologicalandculturalreasonswhyTolstoy’ssoldiersgotowar.Havingreadandheardagreatdealaboutwar,havingobserveditasaneye-witnessandparticipatedinvariousformsofitoverfiveyears,Tolstoycollectedamassofimpressionsthatdidnotboildowntoanyoneeasilydigestibleteaching.Differentaspectsofhisunder-standing,inisolation,leadtodifferent(potentiallyconflicting)conclusions,andthisiswhyheseemslikeapatriotinsomereadingsandapacifistin3others.WewillusetheparticularsofTolstoy’slifesofaraswecanreconstructthemfromhisownwritingsandothersourcestofollowhim4tohisgeneralconclusions.76

88LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodets77molodechestvoWhenTolstoyfirstjoinedthearmy,heworriedmostlyabouthisownperformance.Twoentriesinhisdiary,thefirstasheleaveswithhisdetach-mentforthewintercampaign,andthesecondasheisreturningfromitafterhisfirstseriouscombat,documentalossofconfidenceinhimselfasawarrior.February5,1852(Nikolaevka–ridinginthedetachment.)I’mindifferenttoalifeinwhichI’veexperiencedtoolittlehappinesstoloveit;therefore,Idon’tfeardeath.Iamnotafraidoftormentseither,butIamafraidthatIwon’tbeabletobeartormentsanddeathwell.I’mnotcompletelycalm;andI’mawareofthisbecauseIshiftfromonespiritualstateandviewaboutmanythingstoanother.It’sstrangethatmychildishviewofwar–molodechestvo–isthemostcomfortableforme.InmanywaysIamreturningtomychildishviewofthings.(PSS46:90–91)February28,1852(Inthedetachment,nearTeplichek.)Theexpectationsofmyimaginationhaveneverbeenjustifiedinreality.Iwantedfatetoputmeindifficultsituationsforwhichspiritualstrengthandvirtuewerenecessary.Myimaginationlovedtopresentthesesituationstome,andinnerfeelingtoldmethatIwouldhavesufficientstrengthandvirtueforthem.Myvanityandconfidenceinmystrengthofsoul,encounteringnoobstacles,grew.CircumstancesinwhichImighthaveputmyconfidencetothetest,butinwhichIdidnotdoso,Iexcusedbecausetheypresentedtoofewdifficulties,andIwouldnotbeusingallthestrengthsofmysoul.Iwasproud,butmypridedidnotfounditselfondeeds,butonthefirmhopethatIwascapableofeverything.Becauseofthat,myoutwardpridelackedcertainty,firmness,andconstancy,[and]Iwouldswingfromextremehaughtinesstoexcessivemodesty.Mystateduringdangeropenedmyeyes.Ihadlovedtoimaginemyselfcom-pletelycold-bloodedandcalmindanger.Butintheoperationsofthe17thand18th,Iwasn’t.Ididn’thavetheexcusethatIusuallyuse,thatthedangerwasnotasgreatasIimaginedittobe.Thiswasmyonechancetoshowallmystrengthofsoul.AndIwasweakandthereforeI’mnotsatisfiedwithmyself.Ihaveonlynowunderstoodthatconfidencebasedonfuturedeedsisdeceptive,andIcancountonmyselfonlyinthosematterswhereIalreadyhaveexperience.Thatthisconfidenceactuallydestroysstrength,andthatImustnotconsiderasinglecircumstancetoonegligibletoapplyallmystrengthtoit.(PSS46:91–92)OnFebruary5,thenoviceartilleryNCOexpectedtoprovehimselfinbattle.OnFebruary18,duringaseconddayofengagementwithenemyforces,healmostdiedwhenacannonballstrucktheguncarriagehewasoperating.Thefactthatthishappenedonhisnamedayheighteneditssignificanceforhim,anditbecamethebasisofhisfictionalaccountsofthe5experienceoftheuntestedsoldier.Intheseconddiaryentry,writtenthedaybeforetheendofthecampaign,Tolstoywasnotsatisfiedwithhis

8978donnatussingorwinperformance.Henceforthhewouldmissnoopportunitytotryhisresolve,becauseonlyexperiencesteelsthesoulforbattle.ItistemptingtoslidewithTolstoyinthesetwowardiaryentriesfromfantasiesofglorytoexperience.Thatsaid,however,somefantasieshavedeeperrootsthanothersinTolstoyanreality.TheRussianimitatingaCaucasiandzhigit(warrior)alwayslookssilly,whiletheyoungofficer,6withhisyouthfulenthusiasmforwar,isalwayspositive.Hisyouthfulhighspiritsmaykillhim–astheydoAlanin(“TheRaid”),VolodyaKozel’tsov(“SevastopolinAugust”),andPetyaRostov(WarandPeace)–butcareeristslikeBergandBorisDrubetskoiinWarandPeace,whollylackingthesespirits,arealwaysdespicable.Ontheonehand,Tolstoy7wantedtoputanendtodangerous,falseromanticillusionsaboutwar;ontheother,hetreasuredthespontaneityandconfidenceinherentinwhathecalled,intheentryofFebruary5,molodechestvo.TounderstandTolstoy’ssoldier,onemustexplorethemeaningofthisword.Amolodetsisayouthfineinbodyandspirit.Thewordmolodechestvowithitsabstractsuffix‘stvo’indicatestheessenceofsuchayouth,soit8shouldbe,andfundamentallyis,positive.Althoughtheconceptisappliedquitefrequentlyinabroadercontext,infolkpoetryitisassociatedwithwar:theheroesofRussianepicfolkpoetryarecalledmolodtsy,usuallywiththe9epithet“fine”(dobrye)attached.Afrequentsynonymforthewordisudalets,anotherdifficultwordtotranslatethatreferstocourageandskill,often,thoughnotalways,inbattle.TheclosestEnglishequivalentstomolodechestvomightbe“pluck”or“boldness,”but,asweshallsee,theseconceptsresonatedifferentlyintheRussiancontext.InalatediaryentryTolstoydisparagesthemolodechestvoofhisyouthasakindofcorruptingconvention.January24,1909.WhileIwasoutwalkingIwasthinkingabouttwothings:childishwisdom,andmyupbringing,how,asinmychildhoodIwastaughttodirectallmyenergytomolodechestvoinhuntingandwar,soitispossibletoinspirechildrentodirectalltheirenergytoabattlewiththemselves,toanenlargementoflove.(PSS57:18)ThestoryFatherSergius(publishedposthumously,1911)dramatizesthis10desirabletransformationfromsoldiertosaint.AfterdiscoveringthathisfiancéehasbeenthemistressofhisbelovedTsar,theofficerheroresignshiscommission,joinsthechurch,andconcludeshisquesttovanquishprideasananonymousvagabondworkingforarichpeasantinSiberia.InthediarypassageofFebruary28,1852,however,Tolstoysaysnothingaboutrejectingmolodechestvoasnotmoral.Onthecontrary,itseemsthathejudgeshimself

90LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodets79notstrongandvirtuousenoughtobeamolodetsincombat.Thewordsila,“strength,”asasynonymforcourage,appearssixtimesinthepassagefromFebruary28;inthefirsttwoitispairedwithdobrodetel’,“virtue,”andtheotherfourappearancesimplythepairingaswell.Thesuggestionisthatan11uncorruptedyouthgoestowarformoralreasons.InTolstoy’swarfiction,realmartialcourageinbothofficersandmenisusuallyportrayedaspositive;theproblemisthatmostofwhatpassesforcourageisfalse,andTolstoyprovidescopiousevidenceofthis.TheyouthfulTolstoyconsideredthemilitaryanhonorableprofession,andevenlaterinhislifeheoccasionallyalludedtothevirtuousmotivesofofficersinearliertimes.In1896,inanunfinishedanti-wardocument,Tolstoycontrastedthemtothedebasedcorpsofthepresentday.Inthepast,amilitarymanofthe1830s,40s,50s,andeventhe60s,constitutinganinseparableandindispensablepartofsocietythen,notonlywasnotsomethingdisagreeable,butasitwasthenamongusandmostprobablyeverywhere,hewas,especiallyamongtheguards,thefloweroftheeducatedclassofthetime.OurDecembristsinthe1820sweresuchmen.Militarymenatthattimenotonlydidnotdoubtthejusticeoftheircalling,butwereproudofit,oftenchoosingitoutofa12feelingofselflessness.(PSS39:219)TheyoungTolstoycameoutofthetraditiondescribedinthispassageandmadeithisown.AsaRousseauian,hebelievedinanaturalgoodnessthatwasconstantlybeingunderminedbypassionsartificiallyinflatedbycivi-lization.JoiningthewareffortintheCaucasus,hewashopingtoexchangebadhabitsforacareerofpublicservice,buthesoonbecameacquainted13witharmyvicesandpracticedthemwithgustohimself.InBucharest,however,wherehewasstationedforafewmonthsbeforebeingtransferredtotheCrimea,hemetagroupofidealisticyoungofficerswithwhomhe14tried,unsuccessfully,tofoundanewspaperforsoldiers.LikeTolstoyandhisfriends,theyoungofficersinhisfictionrecklesslyrushingintobattlecombinethepersonaldesiretotestthemselveswiththevirtuousintentionsthatheinsistedwerenecessaryfortruecourage.YetevenifitseemsasthoughTolstoyembracesmolodechestvoasanidealinthediaryentriesfor1852,itcannotsimplybeequatedwithvirtueinhisfiction,whichwouldbemuchlessprofoundifthiswereso.ItisnottheRussianequivalentofknightliness(rytsarstvo).Asweshallsee,heunderstoodandillustratedalltheimplications,goodandbad,ofmolodechestvoinhiswarfiction,thoughheemphasizedsomemorethanothers.InTheCossacks(1863),Lukashkaiscalled“Snatcher”(urvan)forthemolodechestvothathedisplayedasaboyinrescuingadrowningchild(PSS6:21).VaskaDenisovinWarand

9180donnatussingorwinPeaceshowshimselftobeatrue“molodets”whenheisdancingthemazurkaoronhorseback(PSS10:50),andRussiansoldiersareadmiringlycalled“molodtsy”(thepluralform)manytimesthere.HadjiMuratremembers“theexpressionofprideandmolodechestvo”withwhichhissonIosifhaspromisedhisfathertocareforhismotherandgrandmother(PSS35:106).Butmolodechestvocanbefoolhardy,aswithAlaninorPetyaRostov.Itcanbemereconvention:inAnnaKarenina,Vronskyisdisgustedathavingtoentertainaforeignprincewithabearhuntasa“displayofRussianmolodechestvo”(PSS18:374).Thecultofmolodechestvocanleadtodepravity,sothatinTheKreutzerSonatatheprotagonist’sfriendsurgehimtohavecasualsexbothforhishealth,andalsoasaformof“molodechestvo”(PSS27:18).Asamaskformerevanityornarcissism,molodechestvoisnegativeinthelanguageandmostdefinitelyinTolstoy’sfiction,butevenwhenauthenticitcanbeproblematic.ThedzhigitandtheCossackaretruemolodtsyinit,yet,asOlenindiscoversinTheCossacks,molodetsLukashkaisnotsuffi-cientlymoral;inparticular,heisnotashamedofkillingmeninwar.TolstoyhadlearnedfromearlierwritersthatCaucasianbravesallowthemselvesthefreedomtopursuealltheirpassions,includinghatredandvengeance,whichtheysatisfyinwar.ThemolodechestvoascribedtotheeponymousheroofA.Bestuzhev-Marlinsky’sAmmalatBek(achildhoodfavoriteofTolstoy)ispresentedbytheauthorasattractivebuttragicallyflawed,whileM.Lermontov“unequivocallyidentified”withtheeponymousheroofhis15poemIsmail-Bei.Tolstoylovedthispoem.InJuly1854,justafterhehadlefttheCaucasus,itsopeninglineshelpedhim“understandandlove”theplace“inwhichsostrangelyandpoeticallytwocompletelyopposingthings–16warandfreedom–arejoined.”Andthetribesofthosegorgesaresavage;Theirgodisfreedom,theirlaw–war.Theygrowupamidstclandestineraids,Crueldeeds,andextraordinaryones;InthecradletherethesongsofmothersFrightenchildrenwithRussiannames;Theretodestroyanenemyisnocrime;Friendshipiscertainthere,butmorecertainisrevenge;Theregoodisreturnedforgood,andbloodforblood,Andhatredisasboundlessaslove.InLermontov’swritings,Tolstoyfoundananarchicindividualism,orfree-dom,implicitinmolodechestvothatmakesitseductiveandalso,initsextremeforms,taboowithinRussiancultureexceptinparticularsituations17whichwewillenumeratebelow.

92LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodets81TolstoyhadothersourcesinRussianculture,directandindirect,fortheconceptofmolodechestvo.Inthe1830s,A.PushkinusedfolkpoetrycollectedintheeighteenthcenturybyM.ChulkovtoconjureEmelyanPugachevandhismenintoexistenceinTheCaptain’sDaughter(1836)ascourageous,reckless,andlawlessmolodtsy.(Irefertotheuseofrelatedwordsinepigraphstochaptersandinfolksongsinterpolatedintothetext.)TheCossacksinN.Gogol’sTarasBulba(1842),thoughrarelycalledmolodtsyinthetext,aremodelsofmolodechestvo,andso,inreallife,andfrequentlynamedassuch,weretheRussiansoldiersofTolstoy’stime.F.Bulgarin’smemoirs,publishedinthelate1840s,appliedthetermspecificallytoofficersinthe1820s.Thecharacter,spirit,andtoneofthemilitaryyouthandeventheoldercavalryofficersepitomizedmolodechestvoordaring(udal’stvo).Spendasthoughthere’snotomorrowandLife’snotworthadamn,don’tbotheryourheadaboutit:thesesayingsofancientRussiandaringwereourmottoandourguide.Inbothwarandpeacewesoughtdangerssoastodistinguishourselvesbyourfearlessnessanddaring.Feasting,duellingwithswords,raisinghellwhereweshouldn’t,that’swhatour18militarylifeconsistedofinpeacetime.Bulgarin’smolodtsyareloyaltooneanother,butthinknothingofhumiliat-ingciviliansandseducingtheirwives.Inconstanttroublewiththepolice,theymayalsooverstepmilitaryauthorityandaredemotedorevenimpris-onedforthis.LaterinthememoirsBulgarindiscussesTolstoy’srelative,FyodorIvanovichTolstoy,“TheAmerican”(1782–1846),who“took[molo-19dechestvo]toitsfarthestextreme.”TolstoydidnotreadBulgarin’smem-oirssofarasweknow,butherememberedFyodorTolstoyfromhischildhood,andinhisownunfinishedmemoirs(1903–6),inlanguageencapsulatingBulgarin’sdefinitionofmolodechestvo,referredtohimas20“anextraordinary,transgressive,andattractiveperson.”Asiswellknown,FyodorTolstoywasaprototypeforDolokhovinWarandPeace.MolodechestvoappearsinthenovelforthefirsttimeatDolokhov’swildparty,wherethehostearnsthetitlemolodetsforadaringstunt.Inwar,Dolokhovisacold-bloodedkiller,thoughausefulone.Bulgarin’sdiscussionofmolodechestvobeginswithanepigraphfromapoembyhussarpoetDenisVasilievichDavydov(1784–1839),andcontainsaquotationfromanotheroneofDavydov’spoems:Idoloveabloodybattle;I’mborntoservetheTsar!Sabre,vodka,Hussarsteed,You’repartnersinmygoldenlife!Idoloveabloodybattle;I’mborntoservetheTsar!

9382donnatussingorwinAsBulgarinexplainsinanotetothisepigraph,Davydov“copiedthecavalrylifeofhistimefromlife”;thatis,whatDavydovcalled“gusarshchina”is21Bulgarin’smolodechestvo.TolstoyknewDavydov’swritingverywell.His“TwoHussars”(1856),comparingtheyouthsofafatherandson,hasanepigraphfromapoembythehussarpoet.CountTurbin,theolderhussarfromtheearlynineteenthcentury,resemblesbothFyodor“TheAmerican”TolstoyandthehussarasimmortalizedinDavydov’spoetry.WhereasDavydovhimselfrarelyusesthewordmolodechestvoorrelatedforms,Tolstoyappliesthemtothecount.AbraggartinthestorywhowantstolinkhisnamewithTurbincallshimamolodetsanda“realhussar”:insum,theolderTurbinisascharmingand“transgressive”ashisprototype,and22Bulgarin’smolodets.InWarandPeace,TolstoyinvokedtheentirehussarworldoutofDavydov’spoems,memoirs,andessays,andplacedDenisovat23itsheadtoacknowledgehisdebt.“SevastopolinAugust”isan“idyll”ofmolodechestvoinwhichtheKozeltsovbrotherstogetherrepresentthefront-lineRussianofficeras24TolstoyencounteredhimintheCrimeanWar.Volodya,theyoungerbrother,setsoutforSevastopolwithidealsnurturedinhismilitaryacademy,andinchapter9,justlikeTolstoyonFebruary5,1852,heimagineshimselfasamolodetsinbattle.Hisjourneydownintotheheartoftheembattledcitycoincideswithacatastrophicfallinspirits,butprayerreviveshim.HisolderbrotherMikhail,whochoosestoreturntothefrontevenbeforeawoundhashealed,raiseshellwithhismatesinthebunkerinthespiritofmolo-dechestvo.Bothbrothersdieidyllicly,thatis,bravely.Tosatisfyhissenseof25prideandloveofcompetition,Mikhailmusteither“excelor…expire.”Thebestplacetodothisisatwar,which,ifMikhailrepresentsanaturaltype,wouldseemtobeaninevitablepartofhumanlife.warAseasonedmolodetsunderstandstherealityofwar.JustashebroughtaconceptofmolodechestvowithhimtotheCaucasus,inlaterreminiscencesTolstoyclaimedthathealreadyknewwhatwarwaswhenhearrivedthere.HisteacherswerehisbrotherNikolaiandStendhalinTheCharterhouseofParma.“Stendhal,”TolstoytoldPaulBoyer,“taughtmetounderstandwar.InTheCharterhouseofParma,youshouldrereadthestoryabouttheBattleofWaterloo.Whobeforehimhaddescribedwarthatway,thatis,thewayitreallyis?RememberFabrizio,ridingoverthebattlefieldandunderstanding“nothing.”Andhowthe

94LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodets83hussarslightlytossedhimoverthebackendofhishorse,hismagnificentgeneral’shorse?Thenmybrother,whoservedintheCaucasusearlierthanme,confirmedthetruthfulnessofStendhal’sdescriptions.Nikolailovedwarverymuch,buthewasnotoneofthosewhobelievedinthebridgeatArcole.Theseareallembellish-ments,hetoldme,andinwartherearenoembellishments.SoonafterthatitwaseasyformeintheCrimeatoseeallthiswithmyowneyes.But,Irepeat,everything26thatIknowaboutwarIlearnedfirstfromStendhal.In1900,recallinghisfirstcombatin1852,Tolstoymentionsthemorningfog,thenoiseofbattle,hisneardeath,andthenunexpectedenemyfireduringthe27retreatatwhich“IfeltfrightsuchasIhadneverbeforeexperienced.”Hisemphasisonchaosasthemostfrighteningelementinwarowessomethingto28Stendhal.Fabrizio’scomicallossofhishorse(toageneralonhisownside),whichsotickledTolstoy,standsforthelessonlearnedbyallhisuntriedsoldiersaboutthelossofcontrolinbattle.TolstoyalsoborrowedStendhal’stechniqueofmakingbattlestrangebyrepresentingitfromtheperspectiveofsingleindividuals.Itmayillustrateeithertheimpossibilityofoneindividual’sgraspingthewholepictureinbattle(aswhenanofficertriestoexplaintheRussianpositiontoPierreatBorodino),orthebewildermentofanindividualunderfire(Pierre’slossofhis“home”withtheartillerybattery).ThewarningsofNikolaiTolstoyagainstthe“embellishments”ofwararerelatedtoStendhal’slessons.ShowyfeatsofglorysuchasNapoleon’ssupposedtakingofthebridgeatArcolepresupposeadegreeofcontrolimpossibleinwar.ExperiencedsoldierslikeNikolaiTolstoyknowwhatwaris,andcourageforthem,asinthecaseofCaptainKhlopovin“TheRaid,”consistsinkeeping29theircool.Hencein1900,Tolstoypraisedhisbrotherforhis“astonishingpresenceofmind”duringtheengagementofFebruary18,1852.Warblowsawaytheimagineddefensesoftheyoung.Ontheotherhand,formolodtsy,waras“blood,suffering,anddeath”posestheultimatechallengetotheirmanhood.ThisisonereasonwhyNikolaiTolstoy“loved”it,ashisthenpacifistbrotherreportedin1900withoutcomment,andalsothereasonthatDenisDavydovgivesforhisexhilarationasayoungsoldierunderfire.Thosewerethefirstbulletstowhistlepastmyears.IamnoCharlesXII,butatthatage,inthatmoment,intheintoxicatingfumesoffirstdangers,Iunderstoodthevowofthatcrownedseekerofadventures.Ilookedproudlyatmyself,blackenedbygunpowder,andthewholecivilianworldandeverythingoutsideofmilitaryservice,30allofthisinmyopinionsankbeneathme,downtotheantipodes!Themolodetsloveswarbecauseofitsdeadlychaos.Inhismemoirs,ColonelP.N.Glebov,underwhomTolstoyservedintheCrimeanWar,disparaged

9584donnatussingorwin31himasjustsuchathrill-seeker.WhenTolstoywasreadinghistoriesandmemoirswhilewritingWarandPeace,itwasDavydovwhoseaccount“wasthefirsttoringtrue”aboutthewarsbetweenRussiaandNapoleon(PSS15:240).Tolstoyagreedwithhimthatchancegovernswar.Davydovarguedthattheeffectivesoldiermusttrainfortheunexpected,the“chancehappen-ingsinbattle,”andheblamesthePrussianlossatJena(1806)foralackof32preparednessinpreciselythisregard.Davydovpreferredpartisanwar,whichallowsmaximumflexibilityinthefieldandthereforemaximumresponsetochance,andsodidTolstoy.ItisnoaccidentthatcareerarmyofficerColonelGlebovdisapprovinglydubbed33Tolstoya“partisan.”Ofcoursepartisanwarfare,asopposedtoindividualrisk-taking,ispossibleonlyundercertainconditions.Lackingtheusualdefensesbuiltintoahierarchicalarmystructure,itrequiresinitiative,will-ingnesstogamble,anddaring.Soldierswillonlyengageinitforplunderorwhenfightingontheirhometerritory.DavydovexplainsthattheideaofpartisanwarfarefirstcametohimatBorodinobecauseithappenedtotakeplacenearhisancestralestate;thereforeheknewtheterrain,andhewas34especiallymotivatedtodefendit.(Similarly,inWarandPeace,thedefilingofhisSmolenskestatesinfuriatesPrinceAndrei.)IntheCaucasus,Tolstoyhadfoundhimselfonthewrongsideofapartisaneffort.Ashepondersinadraftto“TheRaid,”themountainwarriordefendinghisvillagehasapersonalinterestinfightingthatisabsentintheRussian(PSS3:234–35).AcareersoldierlikeCaptainKhlopovfightsfromdutyintheonestorywrittenintheCaucasus(“TheRaid”),butthereisnotalkofpatriotismhereorinTolstoy’slettersordiariesfromtheperiod.Indeed,withinafewmonthsofhavingjoinedthearmy,Tolstoywasthinkingofleavingit,andthisthemerecursfromtimetotimeinhisCaucasiandiary.HisattitudechangedmarkedlyduringtheCrimeanWaronceheandhiscomradeswerefightinginvaders.UnderthoseconditionsRussiansoldiersandfront-lineofficerslikeTolstoy,undersupplied,withinferiorweaponry,andpoorlyledatthetop,foughtferociouslyandwillinglyengagedinpartisan-likenightraidsonenemytrenches.ItissignificantthatthefirstoutburstofpatrioticrhetoricinTolstoy’sdiarycomesinresponsetothedisastrousBattleofInkerman,whichtheRussians35hadexpectedtowin.Railingagainstleadersheconsideredresponsibleforthedefeat,Tolstoydefiantlycelebrates“themoralstrengthoftheRussianpeople”asdemonstratedinthefightingspiritofthedoomedwarriors,con-scriptsandofficersalike.HeisdeterminedtofightinSevastopol,especiallyafterthe“useless”deathatInkermanofhisfriendStaffCaptainKomstadius,writingthat“It’sasifIfeelashamedbeforehim”(PSS47:28).Attheendof

96LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodets85“SevastopolinAugust,”anger(zloba)andshamealongwith“repentance”arewhattheRussiansoldiersevacuatingSevastopolaresaidtofeelastheyvowrevengefortheirhumiliation.ThesearethecircumstancesunderwhichTolstoyhimselfembracedthecultofmolodechestvo.ThemostalienelementforTolstoyinmolodechestvowastheroleinitofangerandrevenge,andyethiswarexperienceallowedhimtounderstandeventhis,ifhedidnotcondoneit.Inadraftto“TheRaid,”hehadassertedthatthefeelingof“fury”(zlost’)couldnotbesustainedthoughawholeconflictandthereforecouldnotexplainwar(PSS3:228).IntheCrimeanWar,hediscovereditspowertoprovokeandfeedit.OnDecember7,1854,hereportedwithoutcriticismmanyraidsagainstFrenchpositionsthatwere“notsomuchbloodyascruel.”Inonesuchraid,aLieutenantTitovsprayedenemytrencheswithgunfire,and“theysaythatinthetrenchtherewassuchagroanthatitcouldbeheardinthethirdandthefifthbastions”(PSS47:33–34).ThishorrificstoryandnodoubtotherslikeitdidnotrestrainTolstoyhimselffromjoiningaraidingpartyonMarch10(PSS47:37);heneverdivulgedwhathedidorsawduringit,nordidhechoosetodescribethiscommontacticinhisSevastopolstories.Afront-lineofficerin“SevastopolinDecember”doesreportthedeathofa“molodets”whohadparticipatedinsixraids.Andinthatsamestory,speakingfromthenoto-riousfourthbastion,thenarratorrevealstoasurprisedviewer“thefeelingofanger(zloba)and“vengeance”(mshchenie)thatmotivatesthesoldiersthere(PSS4:14).Ifwaris“murder,”thenallthebloodlettingduringitcannotbeacci-dentalorinjustifiableself-defense.Tolstoyknewthis,ofcourse,butheunderemphasizesitinhiswarfiction.TheSevastopolsketchesdonotdramatizeasinglekillingcommittedwithintentionalmalice.InWarandPeace,themostterriblesuchdeathisthemobkillingofVereshchaginincitedbyCountRostopchin.WeknowthatDolokhovandthepeasantShcherbatyikilldefenselessFrenchprisonersoffstage.(Asiftomakeupforthisearliersqueamishness,HadjiMuratendswiththebeheadingoftheheroindetail,andfromthepointofviewofthevictim;herethemotivationisrevengeandintimidation.)ThereareanumberofkillingsinWarandPeace,likethoseofthearsonistsinMoscoworofPlatonKarataev,thatareascribedtoananonymousmurderousforce(sila)thatdeprivesthedirectperpetratorsoffreewill.Buthowdoesthisferocioussilapossessitsagents?Fearisusuallyacatalyst.Intheexecutionofthearsonists,itgripseveryone,fromthevictimstothefiringsquadofFrenchsoldierswhoknowthattheywillbepunishediftheydonotshoot(PSS12:41).Onthebattlefield,too,fearmotivatesfighters.IntheencounteratBorodinobetweenPierreanda

9786donnatussingorwinFrenchofficer,Pierre,“besidehimselfwithfear”–inRussian,literally,“notrememberinghimself”(nepomniasebia)–loseshismoralcenterofgravityandstartstothrottlehisadversaryfromsheerimpulseofself-defense(vol.3,pt.2,ch.32;PSS11:236–37).Fearcanprovokefirstangerandthencoura-geousaction.In“SevastopolinAugust,”asthestormingofthefifthbastionbegins,molodetsMikhailKozeltsov,overcominganinitialchilloffearwithanger,goesontoaheroicdeath.Butangerisalsoresponsibleforatrocitiesinwar,andthereforeitisaprimarycauseforthemurderoussilathatstalksthebattlefield.ThespokesmaninWarandPeaceforrighteousangerasthemotivatorofthewarriorisPrinceAndrei.HisspeechtoPierreontheeveofBorodinomakesapositivecaseforwarinitsmostbrutalform(PSS11:205–12).AccordingtoAndrei,itshouldbewagedonlyasanunconditionalfighttothedeath.Lawsthatlimititmakeitlessdeadly,morelikegamingforglory,andthereforemorefrequent.Andreispecificallyrecommendsthatnoprisonersbetaken;thisisthepolicyofDolokhovthatsohorrifiesDenisovduringthepartisanwar.Andreispeakswiththetoneofzloba(anger;PSS11:207)thatTolstoynotedinthesoldiersretreatingfromSevastopol,andAndrei’smen,representedbyTimokhin,whocarenothingforglory,sharehisfeeling.ItispreciselyinAndrei’scallfornomercyandafighttothedeaththatPierrefinallydiscoversthemeaningoftheexpressionthathehasbeenseeingoneveryRussianfacebeforeBorodino.Justasthedefeatdoesin“SevastopolinAugust,”patriotismhereexpressesitselfinatoneofjustifiablezloba.Heunderstoodthehidden(latent,astheysayinphysics)warmthofpatriotism,whichwasinallofthepeoplewhomhesaw,andwhichexplainedtohimwhyallthesepeoplecalmlyandasitwere,light-heartedly,werepreparingthemselvesfordeath.(PSS11:210)Thereferencetophysicsissignificant.AsAndreidefineswar,itviolateshumannaturebyengagingonlythedetermined,theanimal,inman;itisinthissensethatwearenotourselveswhenweslaughterothersinbattle.Wemaydothisfromsimplemotivesofself-preservation,orfrommorecom-plicatedbutstillrelatedones.PatriotismasTolstoypresentsitmaybeunderstoodastheextensionoftheanimalgoalofself-preservationtoincludethepreservationofhomeandfamily.HenceAndrei’sdiatribeclimaxesinrageagainstenemieswho“worstofall,killmychildren,myfather,andthentheytalkaboutthelawsofwarandmagnanimitytoenemies”(PSS11:210;myemphasis).Patriotismisthereforeanexpressionofthebrutalsilathatprevailsinwarandgeneratesatrocitiesotherwisenot

98LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodets87humanlycomprehensible.Facedwithalifeordeathsituation,menlashoutasanimalsindefenseofthemselvesandtheirown.SuchfeelingsarenotconfinedtoRussians,ofcourse;inchapter17ofHadjiMurat,afterRussiantroopshavedestroyedtheiraoul(village),theChechenssetaboutrebuildingandresistingundertheinfluenceofafeeling“strongerthanhatred.”WhatalltheChechens,fromyoungesttooldest,felt,wasstrongerthanhatred.Itwasnothatred,butarefusaltoacknowledgetheseRussiandogsashumanbeingsandsuchrepulsion,disgust,andincomprehensioninthefaceoftheabsurdcrueltyofthesebeingsthatthedesiretodestroythem,likethedesiretodestroyrats,poisonousspiders,andwolves,wasasnaturalafeelingasthefeelingofself-preservation.Ahostilecontemporaryreader,N.Flerovskii,pickeduponthelargercontextandimportanceofAndrei’sspeechforthenovel.AllthewarscenesinthenovelarefullofsympatheticstoriesaboutDenisov’sobtuselackofcontrol,aboutthesavage,destructiveinstinctsofthearmy,whichmowsunripegrain,aboutthebloodthirstinessofBolkonsky,whorecommendsnottakingprisoners.Thenovelconsistentlytakesthesameattitudetowardthebusiness36ofwarasdrunkenmarauders.ThoughTolstoyandDavydovabhorcrueltyforitsownsake,understand-ablerageanddesireforvengeance,the“savage,destructiveinstincts”ofzlobadeploredbyFlerovskii,keeptheRussiansuprightandfightingatBorodinoagainstrepeatedFrenchattacks.Partisanwarfaretoofeedsoff37zloba,asDavydovillustratesinhismemoirs.Andreifindshisinsightintothetruenatureofwaralmostunbearable,butTolstoy’stextcontainsamoreshockingtruththatFlerovskiidetectsinthe“disgusting”huntingscenes.Withakindofdisgustyoureadtherapturousdescriptionofhuntingwithhounds,wherepeoplemeltwithdelightwatchingaswholepacksofdogstearasingleharetopieces;andtheauthorstrivestodescribethesepeopleasstrongand38energetic.Merrimentisaleitmotifinvol.3,pt.2ofthenovelinwhichtheBattleofBorodinotakesplace:wordswiththerootvesel-,“merry,”occurtwenty-eighttimesinthispart,mostoftheserelatedtothewar.Onthebattlefield,soldiersfight“merrily”(veselo).Onandoffit,theycrackjokes.MostdifficultforTolstoyandmanyofhisreaderstoacknowledge,thepracticeofwaritselfcanbringpleasure.Tolstoydoesnotdwellonwhathis“merry”soldiersdoinbattle,butDavydovdoes.Thefirstquotationrecordshisownjoyinbattle,thesecond–thatofhismen.

9988donnatussingorwinThepursuitcontinueduntilnoon.Wecut,slashed,shot,anddraggedintocaptivityofficers,soldiers,andhorses–inaword,thevictorywascomplete.Iwasoverflowingwithjoy![DavydovtellshisCossacksnottotakeprisonersbecausethereisn’tthetimeormanpowertodoso.]MyScythiansneedednofurtherurging,whileyoushouldhaveseentheterrorthatsuddenlygrippedthewholeenormouscrowdoftravelers!Youhadtohavewitnessedyourselfthemixofscreamsofdesperationwithencouragingvoices,theshotsofthedefenders,thecrackleofartilleryshotsflying39throughtheair,andthethunderousHurrahsofmyCossacks!Itispleasanttoindulgeouranger;thisiswhyLermontov’smountaineersloverevengesomuch.Thisexplainsthe“joyfulexclamations”ofthemenfightinginthefourthbastionwhentheyseethatenemieshavebeenkilledin“SevastopolinDecember”(PSS14:14).Tolstoydoesnotemphasizethisfact,butherecordsit.Thesoldiersfeel“theattractionandcharmofrage”thatcomesoverPierreinWarandPeacewhenhethreatenshisadulterouswifeHelene(vol.1,pt.4,ch.6),orthe“joyofrage”thatPierrefeelsasheattacksaFrenchsoldiermolestingayoungwomaninoccupiedMoscow(vol.3,pt.3,ch.34).Furyhasitsownrewards.ThepleasuredescribedbyDavydovmayoccurwhentheverydesperationoftheirsituationcarriesfightingmenbeyondfear.ThishappenstoKozeltsovsenior(“SevastopolinAugust”),whofightsmorebravelybecauseheiscertainhewilldie(PSS4:113).Freedfrompreoccupationwiththemselves,soldiersinthisstatethrowthemselvesintocommunalactivityinawaythatmimicsandindeedproducesself-sacrifice.Theonlyothersuchpleasurableself-forgettingissexual.BorisEikhenbaumcharacterizedwarinDavydov’spoetryas“eroticized”because40itisdepictedthroughthe“rampageoffeelings”ofthesoldiernarrator.AsEikhenbaum’sformulationsuggests,theescapeinwarfromallrestraintsimposedbyothersandbytheselfispleasurable.YoungsoldierslikeNikolaiRostovarelookingforthisexperienceastheygotowar.Nikolai’smoralsensitivityoverweighshismerryenergywhenhelooksintotheeyesoftheFrenchyouthwhomhecaptures;afterthishewilldohisdutyasanofficer,butrestricttheexpressionofunrestrainedmolodechestvotothehunt.The“Scythians”whofightforDavydovfeelnosuchscruples,andDavydovhimselfisnotashamedtocallhimselfadescendantof“GenghisKhan,”who“powerfullycleavedwithhisTatar’shand/Allthatopposedthemighty41hero.”ForRussianofficerslikeDavydov,molodechestvowaslawlessfree-42dompermissibleuptoacertainpointwithinloyalservicetotheTsar.Underconditionsofall-outandjustifiablewar,itallowedthemtobehavelikeGenghisKhanandhisfollowersratherthanaccordingtorulesofchivalry.TolstoyreferencesthiselementoftheRussianwarriorcodein

100LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodets89WarandPeacewhen,respondingtoinvasion,Russianslaydowntheir43swordsandtakeupclubstodriveouttheinvaders(vol.4,pt.3,ch.1).ItisDenisDavydov,withhis“Russianinstinct,”whofirstunderstandsandformalizesthisresponse(vol.4,pt.3,ch.3).Denisov,Davydov’sfictionaldoubleinthenovel,leadsthepartisaneffort,andTolstoy,latertheworld-famouspacifist,callsthiseffort“blessed”(ibid.).InTolstoy’sconscriptedsoldiers,molodechestvocanalsobepleasurable,andcanhaveuglyconsequences.Tolstoyknewthatsoldierscouldbebrutes,writinginhis1857diarythat“youhaveonlytodressamaninuniform,distancehimfromhisfamily,andbeatadrum,tomakeabeastoutof44him.”Heusuallyblamedthisstateofmindonthearbitrarydisciplineofmilitarylifetowhichthesoldieradjustsbyregardinghimselfasnotmorally45culpablefordeedshemustcommit.ElaboratingthisargumentinthesecondepiloguetoWarandPeace,Tolstoyimaginesanarmyintheshapeofacone,inwhichthosewhodothekillingformthebase,andtheonewhoordersitthetip.Butinthefirstepiloguehemakesasignificantexceptiontothisrulefora“nationalwar,”inwhichthesoldierswillfullycommitbrutaldeeds,anddonotneedaleadertojustifythese.Thisisillustratedinthenovelduringthepartisanwar.Denisov’sownright-handman,theCossack46NCOLovaiskii,approvesofDolokhov’stakenoprisonersethos.Mounted,Lovaiskii,witha“calm,self-satisfiedexpressionbothonhisfaceandinhisride…isnotamansittingonahorse,butmanandhorsetogether,abeingdoubledinstrength(sila)”(vol.4,pt.3,ch.4).Centaurslikethis,terrorizingtheenemy,aretheepitomeofCossackmolodechestvo.ThoughTolstoyisuncomfortablewithsuchamodel,hepresentsithereasanecessaryandthereforelegitimatepartofRussianresistance.Napoleon’sanimalwilltopowerforitsownsakeiscriminal,whileAlexanderIactsinjustifiabledefenseofhiscountry;thismakesiteasierforTolstoytodepictRussiansenjoyingthemselvesinbattleinWarandPeace.Nonetheless,heobservedthemerryanimalspiritsofRussiansoldiersevenintheCaucasus,andrecordsitsexistenceasakindofpuzzleinaprominentplaceattheveryendof“TheRaid.”Whateveritscause,itisacrucialpartofthe“incommunicableexperienceofwar”thatAmericanCivil47WarveteranOliverWendellHolmescalled“thepassionoflifetoitstop.”Holmes’war–foughttosavehisnationandendslavery–wasajustone,andthisallowedhimtocelebrateit.ButtheexperiencetowhichHolmesalludesisnotinitselfvirtuous,andthedesireforitmaybeoneunderlyingcauseofthepersistenceofwar.NootherRussianwarsbesidestheSiegeofSevastopolduringTolstoy’slifetimewere“national”(narodnyi),andtherefore,inTolstoy’sopinion,

10190donnatussingorwinnonegainedtheconsentofthepeople.Duringunnecessarywars,decentsoldiersfightfromfearorfromasenseofdutythatisnotthesameasinformedconsent.Thus,inAnnaKarenina,theoldpeasantbeekeeper,whenaskedhisopinionoftheRusso-TurkishWar,deferstothejudgmentofhissovereignjustasTolstoysaysthatsoldiersdowhentheyfindthemselvesforcedtofightwarsnotoftheirchoosing.NecessarywarsarepartofwhatTolstoyinWarandPeacecallstheswarmlifeofmankind;thebeekeeperinAnnaKareninaisbusycontrollingswarms.Inthatnovelmilitarymolodechestvoismostlynegative,whilemolodtsylikethepeasantIvanParmenevandthesuccessfulsuitorKonstantinLevinoccupythem-selveswithpeacefulelementsofswarmlifesuchasharvests,weddings,andbirths.Ifthemolodetscouldsatisfyhimselfwithsuchpursuits,therewouldbenowar,oratleastnowillingwarriors.AsLevin’striumphantwooingofKittyafterhisbearhunt(adeliberatecounter-posetotheonestagedfortheforeignprince)suggests,however,exposuretodangerscoresvictorieseveninthepeacefulshire(PSS18:404–5).ThetideofwarinTolstoy’sfictioncrestsinWarandPeaceandthenretreats.Thenovelishismostexpansiveandcompletetreatmentofthesubject,andthereforeofmolodechestvo.ThemolodetsofTolstoy’soldageisdzhigitHadjiMurat,whoselifeunfoldswithinawarofRussianimperial-ism.Raisedinawarriorculture,hefightsforhonorandrevenge,butintheendchooseshisfamilyoverpotentialglory.AlthoughhethereforediesfortheonecausethatPrinceAndreideemedsufficientforwar,itsinherenttragedyandinjusticeisillustratedbythefactthatMuratkillssomeoneelse’s48sonwhileattemptingtorescuehisown.Asinearlierworks,inHadjiMuratwarriors–soldiers,officers,andCaucasianwarriorsalike–are“merry,”andwaritselfmakesamerryimpressiononButler,lastofthestand-insforTolstoyasayoungofficer.Inthiswork,however,thenarratorintervenesdirectlyinchapter16toinformusthatButler“unconsciously”avoidsthinkingabout“theothersideofwar:death,thewoundsofsoldiers,officers,andmountaineers,”becausethatwouldundercuthismerriment(PSS35:79).The“merry”engagementinwhichButlertestshismanhoodresultsinthedestructionofamountainvillageandthedecisionofitsenragedinhabitantstotakeuparmstodefendthemselves.Readersmayjustlyconcludethatwaristobeavoidedwheneverpossible,andshouldneverbefoughtforpleasure,nomatterhowkeenandnatural.YetareaderofTolstoy’sepicwouldalsohavetoconcludethatwithoutwartherecouldbenoHadjiMurat,andthatposesadilemmaforthereaderwhovicariouslylives“thepassionoflifetoitstop”throughhim.Tolstoyhimselfmodelsthisrolebyplacinghimselfintheframenarrative,from

102LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodets91whichhebothcommentsasapacifistontheaction,andcreatesatimelessfantasyofawarrior.Muratismoreherothanvillainorvictim.AshedoesinWarandPeace,Tolstoyassignsthemostfrighteningaspectsofmolodechestvotominorcharacters(theinhabitantsoftheaoul,thekillersofMurat,andMurat’smenacingside-kickGamzalo,forinstance),anddoesnotshowMuratenragedexceptmomentarilywhen(inchapter20)hemustdefendhimselfagainstanunexpectedattack.UnlikeAchilles,Muratcommitsnoegregiouscrimefromexcessiverage,nordoeshedisplaytheexcessivecraftinessofanOdysseusor,inthenovel,ofShamilandVorontsov.LikeDenisDavydov,hedoesnotagonizeovertheneedtokillinwhatheregardsasajustcause,but,unlikeDavydov,heisnotshowntofight“merrily”(althoughsuchamanashewouldsurelyhavedoneso).WecannotimagineMuratwalkingawayfromafight,andwewouldnotrespecthimforit.Inthechaosofwar,heactsdecisivelyinonecrisisafteranother.PrinceAndreithinkshiswayoutofthedesireforglory,butstilldiesfightinginajustwar,sothathissonNikolenkadreamsofemulatinghimasawarrior.Muratdoesnotrejectgloryonprinciple,butheeasilyturnshisbackonitwhensomethingmoreimportantintervenes.Hetoodiesinbattle,andhetoowillbeamodelforhisson.Histhinkingcanbemoralaswellasstrategic,butitisnotself-castigating;hedoesnotrejecthiswarriorethos.MostseductiveforusasforTolstoy,Muratcanlookdeathintheeyeandnotblink;inthefinalepisodeoftheworkhebothacceptstheprobabilityofhisdeath,andfightstolive.LikePetyaRostov,wemostlydonotdwellontheferocityofthemolodetsinbattle;indeed,attimeswewonderwhether,ifitwerenecessary,wecouldbeasferocious.Wewanttobemolodtsy,aswhole,strong,andself-confidentasHadjiMurat,andsodoesTolstoy’snarrator.Aslongaspeoplewanttotestthemselvesagainstdeathandchaos,aslongasinjusticeortheperceptionofitexists,itseemsthatwhenwarscall,molodtsywillcome.notes1.L.N.Tolstoi,Polnoesobraniesochineniia,90vols.(Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,”1928–58),3:228.HereaftercitedasPSS.Unlessotherwisestated,alltranslationsinthischapteraremyown.2.SeethediaryentryforJanuary4,1853,PSS46:155.SeeJohnL.N.Keep,SoldiersoftheTsar:ArmyandSocietyinRussia,1462–1874(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1985),210,forthisasaproblemintheRussianranks.3.TheliteratureonwarinTolstoyisvast,especiallyinRussia,andreflectstheconfusingsituationthatIhavesketched.I.IanovskiireconcilesthetwosidesofTolstoybyblaminghispacifismontheinjusticeoftheOldRegimeinRussiaand

10392donnatussingorwinthewarsitwaged(ChelovekivoinavtvorchestveL.N.Tolstogo[Kiev:Vishchashkola,1978]).Moreoften,becauseTolstoy’streatmentofwariscomplex,criticstendtofocusonwhatisessentialtothemselvesandtheirowntimes.Compare,forinstance,LeonidGrossman’s1916antiwararticle,whichemphasizesthehorrorofwar(“Stendal’iTolstoi.BatalizmipsikhologiiarasvliteratureXIXveka,”Russkaiamysl’[June,1916]:32–51),andanticipatesBorisEikhenbaum’sTheYoungTolstoi(1921;trans.GaryKern,AnnArbor,MI:Ardis,1972);withM.Tsiavlovskii’sapprovingsummaryofTolstoyaspatriotandwarrior,publishedin1940inLiteraturnaiagazeta,November17.IngeneralthewarthemeinTolstoybecameveryimportantinSovietcriticismwiththeoutbreakofWorldWarII.(RussianscalltheinvasionofRussiabyGermanytheGreatPatrioticWar,therebylinkingittothePatrioticWarof1812,andthencetoWarandPeace.)CompareShklovsky’sattackin1936(“Ostaroirusskoivoennoiiosovetskoioboronnoiproze,”Znamia1[1936]:218–27)onTolstoyasa“barin”who,inpublicationslike“SevastopolinDecember”and“TheWood-Felling,”soft-pedaledthetruthaboutthetsaristarmyashedepicteditinunpublishedworkslike“ANoteonthenegativesidesoftheRussiansoldierandofficer”(PSS4:285–94;1855),toLidiiaGinzburg’s“OromaneTolstogo‘Voinaimir’”(Zvezda1[1944]:125–38),which,likemanyotherpositiveSovietdiscussionsofTolstoy,emphasizeshisskillatportrayingthetriumphof“communallife”duringwar.Ginzburg’sarticleappearedjustasthesiegeofLeningrad,whichsheendured,waslifted.4.S.Chubakov(LevTolstoiovoineimilitarizme[Minsk:Izdatel’stvoBFU,1973])andespeciallyS.Doroshenko(LevTolstoi–voinipatriot:voennaiasud’baivoennaiadeiatel’nost’[Moscow:Sovetskiipisatel’,1966])providethemostinformationaboutTolstoy’smilitaryservice.5.Tolstoyrecalledthebattleseveraltimes,oftenonitsanniversary.SeehisdiaryentryforFebruary18,1897(PSS53:138)andalettertoG.Rusanov,February18,1906(PSS76:103).NikolaiTolstoywrotehisbrotheronFebruary18,1855remindinghimofthedualsignificanceofthedate(PerepiskaL.N.Tolstogossestramiibrat’iami[Moscow:Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,1990],180).6.Forthepositivesemanticssurroundingtheyoungofficer,seeA.T.Gulak,“‘Raspuskaiushchiisia’:stilistiko-rechevyekraskiobrazaiunogovoinavrasska-zakhL.Tolstogo50-khgg.,”Russkiiiazykvshkole5(September2000):70–74.7.SeeEikhenbaum’sTheYoungTolstoi,ch.3,forthefirstexpositionofthistheory.8.Ontheformationofsuchabstractnouns,seeCharlesE.Townsend,RussianWord-Formation(NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1968),167.9.Tolkovyislovar’russkogoiazyka,ed.D.Ushakov(Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvoinostrannykhinatsional’nykhslovarei,1938).Thewordexistsintwoformswithdifferentstresses.TheCommonSlavicmólodets,associatedwithfolkpoetry,isfirstattestedinOldRussianin1186;molodétsisaspecificallyRussianvariationthatisneutralintone.SeeEtimologicheskiislovar’russkogoiazyka,ed.A.F.ZhuravlevandN.M.Shanskii,vol.10(Moscow:Izdatel’stvoMoskovskogouniversiteta,2007).Thefirstattestationofmolodechestvoaccordingtotheauthor-itativeSlovar’sovremennogorusskogoliteraturnogoiazyka,ed.V.Chernyshev,vol.6(MoscowandLeningrad,1957)isinadictionaryintheyear1731.

104LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodets9310.Molodechestvoisnegativeinanti-warandanti-militaryworkslikeA.Kuprin’sTheDuel(1905),inwhichitneverappearsinapositivelight.11.ForTolstoy’sunquestioningloveofcountryandmilitaryvalorinchildhood,see“AmachèreTante.AmourdelaPatrie,”PSS1:215.12.PSS39:219.Thelastsentenceiscrossedout.Seealsohisdiscussionin1886withFrenchauthorandpoliticianPaulDéroulède(1846–1914)(astranscribedbyTolstoy’sdistantcousinE.F.Iunge,whowaspresent;Literaturnoenasledstvo75,no.1[1965]:536–40).13.HewasespeciallydismayedbythebehaviorofhisbelovedandadmiredbrotherNikolai.SeediaryentriesforMarch30and31,1852,PSS46:103–6.14.OnthecircleinBucharest,seeChubakov,LevTolstoiovoineimilitarizme,43.15.SusanLayton,RussianLiteratureandEmpire:TheConquestoftheCaucasusfromPushkintoTolstoy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994),134.Laytonhaschaptersonbothworks,whichwerewrittenatthesametime,intheearly1830s,althoughLermontov’spoemwasonlypublishedin1843.16.PSS47:10.TolstoyreadLermontovintensivelyandmorethanonceduringhisarmyservice;seePSS46:154;47:7,9–10.NotetheLermontovianlamentthatbeginsthediaryentryofFebruary5,1852,quotedabove.17.ThebestexpositionofanarchicindividualisminLermontovisDavidPowelstock,BecomingMikhailLermontov:TheIroniesofRomanticIndividualisminNicholasI’sRussia(Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,2005).18.SeeFaddeiBulgarin,Vospominaniia(Moscow:Zakharov,2001),173(pt.2,ch.3).ThecautiousBulgarinassureshisreaders(andthecensors)thatsoldierstodaydonotbehavethisway(ibid.).19.Ibid.606(pt.5,ch.3).Anexacttranslationwouldbethathetookittothepointof“desperation”(otchaianie).ForthemeaningofthiswordinbothTolstoyandDostoevsky,seeOrwin,ConsequencesofConsciousness:Turgenev,Dostoevsky,andTolstoy(PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,2007),161–66.20.PSS34:393.P.Biriukov,L.N.Tolstoi,Biografiia,3vols.(Berlin,Izd.I.P.Ladyzhnikova,1921),vol.1,89.“Transgressive”isanexactetymologicalequivalentinEnglishofthewordprestupnyi,usuallyrenderedas“criminal.”21.Bulgarin,Vospominaniia,172.22.Ontheindebtednessof“Dvagusara”toDavydov,seeE.M.Zhiliakova,“DenisDavydovipovest’L.N.TolstogoDvagusara,”inA.S.Ianushkevich,ed.,Russkaiapovest’kakformavremeni(Tomsk:Izd.Tomskogoun-ta,2002),216–26.23.Besidesthewell-knownreferencestopartisanwarfare,therearemanyotherimplicitonestoDavydov’smemoirsinWarandPeace.24.Tolstoyhimselfcalledtheworkanidyllwhenhefirstconceivedit.SeePSS47:40.25.Theexcellenttranslationoftheselinesinch.1isbyDavidMcDuff.26.N.Apostolov,LevTolstoinadstrannitsamiistorii:istoriko-literaturnyenabliu-deniia(Moscow:KomissiiapooznamenovaniiustoletiiasodniarozhdeniiaL.N.Tolstogo,1928),24.ApostolovtookthisquotefromBoyer’smemoirs,publishedin1901,ofhisvisittoTolstoy.27.SeeP.A.Sergeenko,KakzhivetirabotaetL.N.Tolstoi(Moscow,1908),106–7.

10594donnatussingorwin28.Doroshenko,LevTolstoi–voinipatriot(76–79),providesamorethoroughdepictionoftheoperationonFebruary18fromothersources.29.ForTolstoy’sdebttoPlatointhisregard,seeOrwin,“TolstoyandCourage”inDonnaTussingOrwin,ed.,TheCambridgeCompaniontoTolstoy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002),222–36.30.VoennyezapiskipartizanaDenisaDavydova(Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizda-tel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,”1940),78.CharlesXII(reigned1697–1718)wasadaringSwedishkingwhofoughtPeterIintheGreatNorthernWarthatledtothedownfalloftheSwedishempire.31.“ZapiskiPorfiriiaNikolaevichaGlebova,”Russkaiastarina3(1905):528–29.32.Voennyezapiski,118,153.33.“ZapiskiPorfiriiaNikolaevichaGlebova,”528.34.Voennyezapiski,197.35.PSS47:27–28.OntheBattleofInkerman,seeJohnSheltonCurtiss,Russia’sCrimeanWar(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,1979),332–41.36.“Iziashchnyiromanistiegoiziashchnyekritiki,”Delo6(1868):Sovremennoeobozrenie,1–28(27).Flerovskii(1829–1918),awell-knownleftisteconomistandsociologist,isalsoknownbythepseudonymV.V.Bervi,andsignedthisparticulararticleasS.Navalin.37.See,forinstance,hisadvicetopeasantsinoccupiedterritoryabouthowtokillFrenchmarauderswithoutalertingtheauthorities(Voennyezapiski,209);hisordertosetfiretohutsfullofFrenchsoldiersinrevengeforanearlierbattleinwhichhelostthirty-fivemen(221);andtheexecutionofaturncoat(242–43).ForasimilarSovietdefenseofcrueltyinwar,seeA.A.Saburov,“Obrazrusskogovoinav‘Voineimire’,”inD.D.Blagoi,ed.,L.N.Tolstoi:Sbornikstat’eiimaterialov(Moscow:Izd-stvoAkademiinaukSSSR,1951),390–424(402–5).38.Flerovskii,“Iziashchnyiromanistiegoiziashchnyekritiki,”23.39.Davydov,Voennyezapiski,234–35,252.40.“Otvoennoiodyk‘gusarskoipesne’,”inB.M.Eikhenbaum,Opoezii(Leningrad:Sovetskiipisatel’,1969),148–68(166–67).41.GrafuP.A.Stroganovu.SeealsoVoennyezapiski,262,where,havingorderedhutsfullofenemysoldierssetalight,hecallshimself“atruesonofGenghisKhan.”42.SeeLaurenceLeighton(“DenisDavydov’sHussarStyle,”SlavicandEastEuropeanJournal7[1963]:349–60[349–50])onDavydov’sparticipationinaloyaloppositionofofficerswhoopposedAlexander’sPrussianizationofthearmy.43.OntheRussianperceptionofduelingasalien,seeIrinaReyfman,RitualizedViolenceRussianStyle:TheDuelinRussianCultureandLiterature(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1999).44.April1/13,Geneva;PSS47:204.45.Seealsohis“Diaden’kaZhdanovikavalerChernov”(PSS3:271–73;1854)and“Zapiskaobotritsatel’nykhstoronakhrusskogosoldataiofitsera”(PSS4:285–94;1855).

106LeoTolstoy:pacifist,patriot,andmolodets9546.LovaiskiismilesapprovinglywhenDolokhovarticulatesthis.Seevol.4,pt.3,ch.8.47.ThefirstphraseisfromaspeechdeliveredonMemorialDay,1895,totheHarvardgraduatingclass;andthesecondonefromanotherMemorialDayspeech,thisonedeliveredin1884,inKeene,NewHampshire.48.SeeDonaldFanger,“Nazarov’sMother:NotestowardanInterpretationofHadjiMurat,”Iberomania(1974):99–104.

107chapter5LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov:thedialogueonfaithIrinaPapernoaboutthecorrespondenceAmongLeoTolstoy’svoluminousletters,hiscorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhovstandsoutforitsintensity,intimacy,reciprocity,and1confessionalnature.Asaliterarycriticandphilosophicalwriter,NikolaiNikolaevichStrakhov(1828–96)participatedinthemajorintellectualdebatesandpublishingventuresofthe1860s–80s.Inhisprodigiousroleaseditor,privatecorrespondent,andconfidant,heservedasaconveyorofdiverseideasandamediatorbetweendisparatepeople.(Inmanyways,he2servedasa“link”betweenTolstoyandDostoevsky.)WhatStrakhovself-consciouslyofferedtoTolstoywashisspecialability,andneed,to“enterotherpeople’sinterestsandthoughts”(1:207;April22,1875).Tolstoyinsistedonreciprocating.Athisurging,inspring1875(afterfouryearsoffriendship),Strakhovconfessedthathehadbeendesperatelysearchingfora“cause”inlife(1:207).Tolstoywantedtoprobethematterfurther:“Yourspiritualconditionhasbeenrevealedtomealittle,andIwantallthemoretopenetrateitfurther”(1:211;May5,1875).Hesuspectedthattheywerebothyearningforfaith.Thus,StrakhovadmittedtothesamedesirethatTolstoyhimselfhadexperiencedasoflate:tovisitOptinaPustyn’–amonasteryandhermitagecelebratedforitselders(startsy),charismaticOrthodoxspiritualadviserseagertoadviselaymenandevenheartheir3informal(non-sacramental)confessions(1:211).(ForthenexttwoyearstheywouldplananddiscussavisittoOptina,whichtookplaceonlyinJuly1877.)ButforTolstoy,anunfinishedprojectstoodinthewayofhisnewaspirations:“I’matworkatthemomentonthatdreary,vulgarA[nna]Karen[ina]andallIaskGodisthathegivemethestrengthtoberidofitassoonaspossible,tofreesomespace[…]forother,morepressingmatters”(1:215;August25,1875).Forsometimenow,Tolstoyhadfeltanurgetoabandonbelles-lettresforahighercause.InMay1874,hetoldStrakhovthathehadneglectedthenoveltoworkonanarticle“intheformofmy96

108LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov97pedagogicalprofessiondefoi”(1:164;May10,1874).Comethefallof1875,itwasreligious-philosophicalthoughtsonthe“meaningoflifeanddeath.”WhenthetwometinIasnaiaPolianainlateSeptember1875,Tolstoyfelta“remarkablespiritualaffinity”betweenthem.Inlettersthatfollowed,heurgedStrakhovtojoinhimintheurgenttaskto“elucidateanddefine”their“religiousworldview”(1:222;October26[?],1875).Tolstoyfeltthattheybothwereatacrossroads:suspended,likemanyoftheircontemporaries,between“Christianbelief”and“nihilisticmaterialism”and,intheirindi-viduallifejourneys,betweenlifeanddeath,theyhadacommondutytospeakout,soasto“helpthosewhoareinthesamemiserablelonelycondition.”StrakhovrespondedthathewouldfollowTolstoy’sadviceanddowhathecould(1:224;November4,1875).Tolstoysealedtheirpact:“Irejoiceatyourplanandchallengeyoutoacorrespondence.”Heimmediatelyadded:“MyGod,ifonlysomebodywouldfinishA.Kareninaforme!”(1:226;November8–9,1875).Andsothetwomenbeganaphilosophicaldialogue;itssubjectwaspersonalfaithintheageofreasonandscience.ScholarshavelongusedthiscorrespondencetotraceTolstoy’sdramaticevolutioninthelate1870s,betweenAnnaKareninaandAConfession,intoareligious-philosophicalwriter.InthewordsofAndrewDonskov,underwhoseeditorshipthiscorrespondencehasbeenrecentlypublishedinfull,“thegermofalmostallthemoral/religiousprinciples[Tolstoy]expoundedinthelastthree4decadesofhislifecanbefoundinhispre-1880letterstoStrakhov.”Inthischapter,Iwillfocusonthecorrespondenceitself:anactofintimatecommunicationbetweentwofriendsestablishedforthepurposeofeluci-datinganddefiningtheirrespectivereligiousoutlooks.Theactitselfwasamatterofirresistibleneedandasocialduty,butitssuccesswasnotguaranteed.Tolstoywastormentedbytheproblemofself-expression:howtospeakaboutone’sfaith,thatis,aboutthatwhichliesapartfromreasonandlanguage.Intheseyears,Tolstoy’swritingonfaith,muchofwhichhediscarded,wasexperimentalinnature.Then,aftermorethanfouryearsofintenseepistolaryexchange,Tolstoydescribedthedevel-opmentofhisreligiousviewsintheworkweknowunderthetitleAConfession(Ispoved’,writtenbetween1879and1882).ThecorrespondencebetweenTolstoyandStrakhovintheyears1875–79maybethemostimportantstrandinthestoryofTolstoy’sreligiousconversionandhisevolutionfrombelles-lettrestoreligious-philosophical5writings.Side-by-sidewitheverydaymatters,theirletterscontainedaself-consciousphilosophicaldialogue.Suchdialogue,ofcourse,hasalongandvenerabletraditionasphilosophicalgenre,fromPlatotoHumeto

10998irinapapernoRousseau,andbeyond,whichendowedthisintimateconversationwithanauraoflargersignificance.thephilosophicaldialogueWhen,atTolstoy’sinstigation,Strakhovopenedtheirdialogue,heusedKant’sthreefundamentalquestionstosettheagenda:1.WhatcanIknow?2.WhatoughtItodo?3.WhatmayIhope?(CritiqueofPureReason,a805/b833).Thesecondquestionwasthemostimportantforhim:indifferent(hewrote)tothequestionoftheimmortalityofthesoul,Strakhovwantedtoknow“whatistobedone,”or,“translatedintoChristianlanguage,howtosaveone’ssoul”(1:228;November16,1875).LikemanyaRussianintellec-tual,Strakhovsoughtspecificinstructionsfor“activeinvolvementinlife”(hiswords),but,unlikeothers,heapproachedthematterinareligiouskey.Inhisresponse,Tolstoyfocusedonadifferentquestion,whichhadpreoccupiedhimsincechildhood:“Whatmaywehopefor?”–bywhichhemeantthefuture,eternallifeofthesoul.Buthebelievedthatallthreequestionswereinextricablylinkedintoone:“WhatamI?”(1:230;November30,1875).Aquestionabouthisowncharacter–andsimultaneouslyaboutthenatureofman–“WhatamI?”wasatheologicalissueforTolstoy.Commentingthatitmightseemirresponsibletoaddresssuchquestions“ontwosheetsofnote-paper,”headdedthatthiswassomethinghewouldhavedoneevenifhewerenotwritingalettertoanintimatefriend,butrathera“professiondefoi,towhichthewholeofhumankindattended”(1:230).So,writingtoanintimatefriend,hewasasifmakingasolemndeclarationofareligiouscreed.ThenTolstoymade“adigressiononmethod”(hiswords)–pagesoftediousrepetitionsandparaphrases(1:230–35).Inbrief,hetriedtosaythat“scientificmethod,”whichreliedonlogicalreasoning,wasinapplicabletophilosophy–the“true”philosophy,concernedwiththemeaningofhumanlifeanddeath.Truephilosophyreliedon“harmony”ratherthanlogic,on“linkingdisparatenotionsintoasinglewhole,”whichconvinced“instantly,”withoutdeductionsandproofs(1:234).Heofferedanemblem-aticimage:“aphilosophicaloutlookspawneddirectlyfromlifeisacircleoraspherewithnoend,middleorbeginning”(1:235).(InWarandPeace,Tolstoyassociatedhisperfectlyharmoniouscharacter,thepeasantPlatonKarataev,withasphereorball.)Healsoofferedexamplesofphilosopherswhohadpursuedtheidealofsuch“truephilosophy,”andnamedtheonewhohadcomeclosest:Plato(1:232).(Tolstoydidnotcommentontheroleofthedialogueforminpromotingthisaccomplishment,butitwouldbe

110LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov99hardtoimaginethathedidnothaveinmindthatPlatohadsetthestandardforthegenreofphilosophicaldialogue.)AppendedtotheNovember30letter,was“anintroductionofsorts”(transcribedbyacopyist)toan“asyetunwrittenphilosophicalwork”(the6introductionwasentitled“WhydoIwrite?”[Dliachegoiapishu]).Tolstoystartedinthefirstpersonandintheautobiographicalmode:I’mforty-sevenyearsold[…]Ifeelthatoldagehassetin.OldageiswhatIcallthatinner,spiritualconditioninwhichalltheworld’sexternalphenomenahavelostinterestforme[…]IfasorceressweretoappearbeforemeandaskmewhatIdesired,Iwouldnotbeabletoexpressonesinglewish.(Asscholarshavenoticed,yearslater,inConfession,Tolstoywouldappealtothissameimage.)Hehadlived(wroteTolstoy)through“childhood,adolescence,youth,”reached“maturity,”thatis,hadgone“upthemoun-tain,”reachedthe“summit”–andstartedthedescent.Whatnext?Thismuchseemedclear:death(1:236).Havingconsidered,andrejected,theideathatlifemightbeinherentlymeaningless,Tolstoystartedsearchingforaviewonlifethatwouldrelievethissenseofmeaninglessness.Thepurposeofhiswritingwas“TotellhowitwasthatIpassedfromastateofhopelessnessanddespairtoanexplanationformyselfofthemeaningoflife”(1:237).Atthispoint,thecopiedmanuscriptcomestoanend.Resuminghisletter(inhisownhand),Tolstoycommentedthathecouldnotgivetheresttothecopyist.Thatwhichfollowedarguedthatthesequestionswerefullyansweredbyreligion,admittingthat,“withtheknowledgewepossess,itisimpossibleforustobelieveintheprinciplesofreligion.”Exposuretosuchmaterial“couldhaveledthecopyistintotemptation”(1:237).AsTolstoymadeclear,hestartedwritingattheverymomentoftran-sition(fromthestateofhopelessnesstouncertaingropingformeaning)andinthepresenceofothers(theaddresseeandthecopyist).Thewritingitselfwasanactofreligiousself-definition.Accordingly,hefocusedonthehow:ontheprocessandmethod.Tolstoyconcludedhisfirstphilosophicalletterbyinvitinghiscorrespondenttorespond.Thephilosophicalmethod,hereiterated,restsonharmoniouslinkingofdisparatenotionsintoasinglewhole.HeawaitedStrakhov’sresponseandobjectionsinordertodemonstratethe“harmony”intheassemblyofhis“religious(philosophical)views”(1:239).Thus,Tolstoywantedaninterlocutor–aphilosophicalwriterwhomheurgedtoembarkonaparallelquest–inordertovalidatethathiscredowasproperlyharmonizedor,atmost,tofinetuneit.Inresponse,Strakhovsuggestedthatinhis“digressiononmethod”Tolstoyseemedtobesayingthatscienceemployed“analysis”(divisionofthewhole

111100irinapapernointoparts),whilephilosophystrovefor“synthesis”(1:240–41;December25,1875).Tolstoyrespondedfirmlythathedidnotagreewiththissimple“sub-stitutionofterms,”butheurgedStrakhovtorespondtohisnextphilosophicalletter,whichwouldgooutinafewdays(1:243;January1–2,1876).Tolstoy’slong-delayedsecondphilosophicalletter,mailedonlyonFebruary14–15,1876,containedanunfinishedessay,“Thesoulanditslifeoutsideofthelifethatisknownandunderstoodbyus”(Odusheizhizniee7vneizvestnoiiponiatnoinamzhizni).Turningtoadifferentmode–notspiritualautobiography,butabstractphilosophy–Tolstoy,again,startedwiththeword“I”:“Iexist”(PSS17:340).Havingcrossedoutthisstatement,hemadeanattempttoapproachtheproblemfromtheviewpointofhisantagonists,thematerialists:Iliveand,asIknowfromexperience(opyt),Iwilldie.Nothingremains,then,butdeadmatter(PSS17:351–52).Andwhataboutthesoul:howwouldone“define”thesoul–thatwhichlies,andlasts,beyondreason?Howwouldonespeakofthatsomethingwhichislargerthanboththelivingandthedead,the“I”andthe“non-I”?Aftermanypagesofrepetitiveandbarelypenetrablephilosophizing,Tolstoyreturnedtohisinitialpoint:WhatamI?Hemused:“Idon’tknowtowhatextentDescartes’formulationisaccurate:Ithink,thereforeIlive;butIknowthatifIsay–Iknowmyselfaboveall,thatIlive,–thiscannotbeinaccurate”(PSS17:351).ItwasnoteasyforStrakhovtoengageinaphilosophicaldialoguewiththemanhevenerated:“Icannotwritetoyou,myinestimableLevNikolaevich,aboutphilosophy”(1:255;March20,1876).Whenhefinallyforcedhimselftorespond,herephrasedandcontextualizedTolstoy’smainargumentsinthelanguageofawell-informedstudentofWesternphilosophy:“YourletterisanattempttotreadthesamepathasDescartes,Fichte,Schelling,Hegel,Schopenhauer.Theybeganinpreciselythesameway,fromthemselves,fromCogitoergosum,fromtheI,fromtheconsciousnessofthewill,–andfromtherederivedtheirunderstandingofallelsethatexists”(1:256;April8,1876).HepraisedTolstoyforthe“power”ofhisthoughts.Yet,hiscomplimentnotwithstanding,Strakhovfeltthatretracingthestepsofpost-Cartesianphilosophyfromitsstartingpointinthesubjectwouldnotbringwhatbothmendesired:somethingthatlaybeyondhumanreasonandthehumansubject(1:256–67).Moreover,StrakhovtoldTolstoythattheformhechosefortheexpressionofhisviewonlifedidnotshowhimathisbest:Youaretrying[…]tocontainyourviewsintheformulasofgeneralknowledge.Iamcertainthattheresultsyoureceivewillbeonehundredtimesmoreimpov-erishedthanthecontentofyourpoeticmeditations.Consider,forinstance,whetherIcanplacetheviewonlifediffusedinyourworksabovewhatSchopenhauerorHegeloranyoneelsehastosayaboutlife?(1:257)

112LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov101Hethenturnedtheconversationtoreaders’reactionstothepublishedinstallmentsofTolstoy’snovel(chs.7–19ofpt.5appearedintheAprilissuesofRusskiivestnik):“AnnaKareninaisarousingadmirationandrancoursuchasIneverbeforerememberinliterature”(1:258).ButTolstoywantedtohearnotthepraise,butonlythecriticalcommentsaboutAnnaKarenina(1:259;April8–9,1876).AsforStrakhov’sresponsetohisphilosophicalletter,he,again,rejectedhisinterlocutor’sinterpreta-tionofhisideas.Admittingthathewasunabletoexpresshimself,heputhistrustinStrakhov’sspecialabilitytounderstand:“IamafraidthatIcannotsaywhatIwantto[…]Ihopethatyouwillunderstandeventhatwhichisill-expressed”(1:261;April14[?],1876).Respondingtohisinterlocutor’sobjections,Tolstoyextendedhisinitialideasfurther,namingthatoneprinciplewhichembracedeverything,thelivingandthedead;the“I”andthe“non-I”:“thelivingGodandtheGodoflove”(1:261).Strakhovbeganhisresponseimmediately,buthemailedhisunfinished“philosophicalletter”(1:27;hisitalics)muchlater,asanaddendumtotheregularletterofMay8,1876:YouseeintheworldthelivingGodandfeelhislove.Nowyourmeaningiscleartome,andIcan,Ifeel,tellyoufranklythatitcanbedevelopedlogicallyinthesamestrictformasotherphilosophicalsystemspossess.Itwillbeapantheism,thefundamentalprincipleofwhichwillbelove,justasthewillisforSchopenhauer,asthoughtisforHegel.(1:263;writtenafterApril14;mailedonMay8,1876)StrakhovthenaskedTolstoytodefinehisunderstandingofevil,butTolstoyreturnedtotheirphilosophicalcorrespondenceonlymorethansixmonthslater(1:291;November12–13,1876).Insummer1876,StrakhovtwicevisitedIasnaiaPoliana,wherethetwomencontinuedtheirphilosophicalconver-sationsinperson.Asfortheircorrespondence,Iwouldarguethatasanattempttoelucidatetheirrespectiveprofessionsoffaith,theexchangeofphilosophicalformulasthattookplacebetweenMay1875andMay1876ledtoadeadend.PhilosophizingdidnotseemtobringTolstoyclosertoansweringquestionsaboutthemeaningoflifeanddeath.Moreover,hedidnotseemencouragedbyStrakhov’sresponses–hewasnotamantoacceptbeingassociatedwithexistingphilosophicalconceptions.(ThenameofHegelalonewouldhavebeenextremelyannoying:TolstoydidnotshareStrakhov’sdevotiontoHegel.)Whiletheregularexchangeofthe“philosophicalletters”propercametoahaltafteroneyear,anothertopiccametotheforeintheircontinuing

113102irinapapernocorrespondence:AnnaKarenina.Overthecourseoftheyear,StrakhovagainandagaintriedtoturntheconversationtoTolstoy’sunfinishednovel.AsTolstoycommentedonApril23,1876,inmorethanoneway,theircorrespondence“doubled”(razdvoilas’)(1:267).“iwishthatyou,insteadofreadingannakar[enina],wouldfinishit…”TolstoywasincreasinglyirritatedbyStrakhov’sexhortationstoreturntoAnnaKarenina.Literature–aninstitutionrepletewithprofessionalauthors,journals,criticism–disgustedhim(1:259;April8–9[?],1876).Heevencoinedanewspellingfortheworditself,expressinghisdisdainbytranscribingfromtheFrench:“Inspiteofyourgreat,inde-pendentmind,youpaytributetoPetersburgandtolittérature”(1:244;January1–2,1876.)Hefoundthewritingprofessionmorallydangerous:“Therankofwriterisloathsome;it’sdepraving”(1:259;April8–9[?],1876).TolstoywasnowfearfulofbothcriticismandpraiseofAnnaKareninaandhefeltdisgustedbythenovelitself.Strakhovrespondedwithintenseemotion:Youarelosingyourusualcalmand,itseems,youwantmetoadviseyoutoceaseprintingAnnaKareninaandleavethethousandsofreaderswhoareallaskingandwaitingforhowitwillendcruellyinthedark?[…]You’veworkedmeupintosuchastateofagitationasifIhadtowritetheendofthenovelmyself.(1:264–65;lateApril[?],1876)StrakhovalsoreproachedTolstoyforfailingtorespondtohisreflectionsinhislettersonthenovel.HenowaskedTolstoy:didhecorrectlyunderstandthe“idea”ofthenovel?(1:264).TolstoyfinallyrosetoStrakhov’schallenge:“youropinionofmynovelholdstrue,butthisisnoteverything–thatis,it’salltrue,butwhatyou’vesaidisnoteverythingthatIwantedtosay”(1:266;April26,1876).Whathesaidnexthasbeensincecitedbynumerousscholars.Inordertoexpressallthatisinhisnovel,hewouldhavetowritethesameworkoveragain.Expressionisonlyrealizedthroughthe“linkage”(stseplenie)ofparts,andevadesplainverbalsummary:everyidea,expressedbyitselfinwords,losesitsmeaning,isterriblydebased,whentakenaloneoutofthatlinkageinwhichitisfound.Thelinkageitselfisnotconstitutedbyanidea[…]butbysomethingelse,andtoexpressthebasisofthislinkagedirectlyinwordsisquiteimpossible;butitispossibleonlyindirectly–inwordsdescribingimages,actions,situations.

114LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov103Hegaveanexample:thesceneofVronsky’sattemptedsuicide,highlypraisedbyStrakhov.WhenTolstoywasrevisingthischapter,Vronsky,“completelyunexpectedly”forhim,theauthor,“butquitedecidedly,proceededtoshoothimself”(sovershennodliamenianeozhidanno,nonesom-nenno,Vronskiistalstreliat’sia;1:267).TolstoythenleveledhisangeratliterarycriticswritingaboutAnnaKarenina:“AndifcriticsnowalreadyunderstandwhatIwanttosay[…]thenIcongratulatethemandcanconfidentlyassurethemqu’ilsensaventpluslongquemoi”(1:268).Twentieth-centuryliterarycriticstendtoreadthisformulaasaclaimofart’ssuperiorityoverotherformsofexpression,affirmingitsability–andTolstoy’s–toproduceinexhaustiblemeaning,perhapstoexpresstheinexpressible.ButatpreciselythetimeTolstoycoinedthisformula,hewasconsideringretreatingfromliteratureandabandoningAnnaKareninaforphilosophicaldiscourse.InthecontextoftheTolstoy–Strakhovcorre-spondence,wemayreadTolstoy’sfamouswordsdifferently:asanadmis-sionofart’sinherentinabilitytodeliveraclearandunambiguousmessageandacomplaintabouttheauthor’slackofcontroloverhistext.Ratherthanstrugglewiththevicissitudesofartisticform,Tolstoynowwantedtofindaformofexpressionthatwouldindeedallowhimtosay,inwords,whathewantedto,wouldallowhimtosay“I,”andwouldconvinceinstantly.Itseemedtohimthatphilosophicaldiscourse,whileitalsorequiredcareful“linking,”offeredsuchapossibility.Ratherthanagreetoreturntoliterature,TolstoytriedtoconvinceStrakhov,whohimselfwroteliterarycriticism(includingcriticalarticlesonTolstoy),tofollowhisexample:“Giveupliteraturealtogetherandwritephilosophicalbooks.Whoelseisthere?Whoelsewillsaywhatwethink?”(1:293;November12,1876).ButTolstoymusthaveknownthattherealproblemwashow:howtoputone’sthoughtsintowords.Indeed,itwastheproblemofexpression–artisticexpression–thatstoodinthewayofbringingAnnaKareninatocompletion.WhileStrakhovbeggedhimnottoleavethousandsofreadersinthedark,Tolstoyhimselfdidnotknow“howitwouldallend.”AftertheApril1876issues,thepublicationcametoahalt.AttheendofJuly,stillnothingappearedinpress.AddressingStrakhov,Tolstoygrumbled:“Iwishthatyou,insteadofreadingAnnaKar[enina],wouldfinishit,andrescuemefromthisswordofDamocles”(1:276;July31,1876).TolstoyfinallycompletedthepublicationofthenovelinJuly1877,andentrustedStrakhovwiththepreparationoftherevisedseparateedition(so8inaway,StrakhovdidfinishthenovelforTolstoy).Immediatelyafter,inlateJuly,thetwomenmadetheirlong-plannedpilgrimagetothemonastic

115104irinapapernocommunityofOptinaPustyn’,wheretheyengagedtheholyfathersandtheelderAmvrosiiinaconversationaboutreligionandfaith.“toexpress,intheformofcatechism,thatwhichibelievein”NotlongafterthecompletionofAnnaKareninaTolstoyagainturnedtohisattemptstoarticulatinghisprofessiondefoi.Whilehischaracter,Levin,seemedtohavefoundaresponsetothequestion“WhatamI?”inthefaiththat“filledhisheart”asa“sensation,”Tolstoy–theauthorwhorefrainedfromclearlyarticulatingLevin’snewlyfoundfaithinwords–didnot.NeithercouldheacceptLevin’sconclusionthattherewas“noneedtospeak,”thatthiswas“amysteryneededandvaluedbymealoneandinexpressibleinwords.”Tolstoywasstillsearchingfortheverbalmeansofspeakingabouthisfaithtoothers.Therewere,afterall,acceptedforms.AsTolstoywrotetoStrakhovinNovember1877,hehadheardapriestteachinghischildrenalessoninOrthodoxcatechism,and,findingitodiousandunconvincing,triedtowritehisown:“toexpress,intheformofcatechism,whatIbelieve”(1:374).Thisattempt,too,showedTolstoyhow“hard”itwas;hefeared,even,that,forhim,itmightbe“impossible.”Asoftenhappenedintheseyears,hefeltovercomewithdespair(1:374;November6,1877).Anunfinishedfragment,“Christiancatechism”(Khristianskiikatikhizis),(PSS17:363–68),beginswithaformulaofhispersonalcreed:“Ibelieveintheonetrueholychurch,livingintheheartsofallmenandonalltheearth”(PSS17:363).Butwhenhebrokeintothestandardsequenceofquestionsandanswers,hefoundhimselfindifficulty.Thefirstquestion(“Whatisnecessaryforthesoul’ssalvation?”),found“Acleardefinitionofthatwhichwebelieve9in.”Butthenextquestion–“Whatisfaith?”–ledtoadeadlock(PSS17:364).Inaroughdraftofyetanotherunfinishedphilosophicalessay,“Adefinitionofreligion-faith”(Opredeleniereligii-very),Tolstoycoinedanewterm,“religion-faith”–afusionofreligionandfaith;andhefocused10ontheworditself:“thewordreligion-faithistheword…”“Clearandunquestionable”itmightbeforbelievers,butforthosewhodidnotbelieve(or“thoughtthattheydidnotbelieve”),theworditselfneededdefinition(PSS17:357).Theuntidypieceofpaper(tornandcrumpledasifdiscardedindespair)runstolessthanhalfapageandendsinahalfphrase(PSS17:781;undated).Afterthesefailures,Tolstoyembarkedonanotherproject:extensivereadingofthebooksthat“definereligion,faith.”Strakhov–whohelda

116LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov105postintheImperialPublicLibraryinSt.Petersburg–servedashisguide.Inmid-December,Tolstoyreportedthathehadassembledasetofhistoricalandphilosophicalstudiesofreligion,includingD.F.Strauss,ErnestRenan,MaxMüller,ÉmileBurnouf,andVladimirSoloviev(1:385;December17–18,1877).OnJanuary3,heacknowledgedbeingsomewhat“lost”inthethoughtsofothers(1:389).Stillanotherattemptwasaliterarydialogue,entitled“Interlocutors”(Sobesedniki),whichTolstoystartedonDecember20,1877.Initsform,theextantdraftresemblesaPlatonicdialogue.Itisaconversationbetweensevenparticipantswhodebateonetopic:whatisfaith?Tolstoydefinedthepartic-ipantsbytheirsocialrolesandideologicalpositions,suggestingconcreteprototypes:a“healthyidealistphilosopher,”aged42(“Fet–Strakhov–Schopenhauer–Kant”);a“naturalscientist,”whospeaksforprogress,aged37(“Virchow–DuboisRaimond–Tyndall–Mill”);a“positivist,”aged35(“Bibikov”);a“cleverpriest,”whodeniesreason,aged56;a“dialecticalthinker,”aged50,whojustifiesfaithbysophisms(“Khomiakov–Urusov”);a“monk,”aged70(“FatherPimen[…]sleeps”),and,last,the11“I,”aged49andnamed“IvanIlych.”HerewegainacluetowhatTolstoysawinhisreal-lifecorrespondent,Strakhov:anidealistapproximatingKantorSchopenhauer.Butfortheimaginarydialogue,Tolstoyexpandedtheteamofinterlocutors.The“priest”andthe“monk”areclearlybasedonthoseTolstoyhadmetduringhisrecentpilgrimagewithStrakhovtoOptinaPustyn’,wherehewasespeciallyimpressedwiththesincerityandsimplicityofFatherPimen,12whohadfallenasleepduringasophisticatedconversationonfaith.TheparticipantsinTolstoy’sdialoguediscusswhetherornotfaithmightbejustifiedbydifferenttypesofknowledge–science,purereason(accord-ingtoKant),“dialecticalreason,”andexperience(opyt).The“I”(IvanIlych),whoinitiallydemandedthedefinitionoffaith,firsttriestocircum-venttheargumentsofhisinterlocutors,momentarilyinsistsonthe“sub-jectiveethicalprinciple,”butthen,finally,“findshimselfinapitifulsituation”(PSS17:371).Exactlyayearlater,December20,1878,Tolstoyreturnedtohisunfinisheddialogue,nowreworkingitasaninterchangebetweentwointerlocutors(I.I.,whoisaskedtodefine“faith-religion,”butinsteadattemptstodefinehisownfaith,andK.,whochallengesI.I.fromthepointofviewofreason).Afterseveralpages,Tolstoystopped,andaddressedhimself:“IwantedtoexpressthethoughtthathadcometomedirectlyintheformofadialogueandIgotintoamuddle”(PSS17:373).Hecontinuedasadiaryofsorts,withdatedentries,asking,againandagain,“Whereisthesourceoffaith?”“WhatamI?”Thisproject,too,wasabandoned.

117106irinapapernoTosummarize:formorethanthreeyearsnow,Tolstoyhadbeentryingtoelucidatehisreligiousviews,ordefinehisprofessiondefoi,butallofhisattempts(philosophicalessays,acatechism,aliterarydialogue)cametonaught.Strakhovwasimplicatedinmostoftheseattempts,and,perhapsmostimportantly,heheardTolstoy’sconfessionalreflectionsonhisstruggletodefinehisfaith,hisfrustrationwithAnnaKarenina,hisdisillusionmentwithlittérature,andhisdepressionanddespair.IwouldsuggestthatTolstoy’snextattemptwastofocusonthenotionof“life.”ButfirstIwillmakeadigressionandintroduceagroundbreakingattempttodefineone’sprofessiondefoithatservesasanessentialcontextforTolstoy’sendeavors.rousseauandhisprofession/confessionItwas,ofcourse,Jean-JacquesRousseauwhohadfamouslyconfrontedtheproblemoffaithintheageofreason,and,placinghimselfbetweenthetwopartiesofhistime–thosewhoreliedonreasonandthosewhoreliedonthechurch–rejectedboth.LikeTolstoyafterhim,heembracedfaithandcould13notstandthematerialists.Butaboveall,heinsistedthatfaithwastobefoundnotintheofficialchurch,butintheheartsofallmen.Atapivotalpointinhislife,Rousseaudecidedtoabandonliterature,andaboveall“the14professionofwriter,”withallthesocialfalsityitentails.Holdingpedagogyinhigheresteem,hehadembarkedonapedagogicalnovel,Émile,oudel’éducation,devotingitscorepart,“Professiondefoiduvicairesavoyard,”toreligion.(When“Professiondefoi”appearedin1762aspartofÉmile’svolume4,thewholeworkwasbanned.)In“Professiondefoi,”Rousseau,too,dismissedalessonofcatechismtaughtbyapedanticpriesttochildrenasa“heart-breakingstupidity,”anddecidedtoreplaceitwithaconfession15ofpersonalfaith.He,too,askedrepeatedly:“WhatamI?”Rousseautookhimself–asenseofhisownbeing–asthefundamentaltruthandthe16startingpointofreasoningabouttheworld(“Iexist”).ThereisanintimaterelationshipbetweenTolstoyandRousseau.AsTolstoyoncesaid:IreadallofRousseau,alltwentyvolumes[…]Imorethanadmiredhim–Ideifiedhim.Atagefifteen,Iworeamedallionwithhisportraitaroundmyneckinplaceofthecross.Manypagesbyhimaresoneartome,thatitseemsthatIwrotethem17myself.InhisConfession,TolstoymentionsreadingRousseauasaformativeexpe-rienceofhisearlylife.WhilethenameofRousseaudoesnotappearin

118LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov107Tolstoy’swritingsonfaithfrom1875to1879,itfeelsasifsomephrasesandparagraphswerewrittenbyRousseauhimself.Muchhasbeensaid,andcan18stillbesaid,onthetopicTolstoyandRousseau.Here,Iwillfocusononecommonconcernthattheyshared:howtotellone’spersonalfaithtoothers.TheissueisnotlimitedtoestablishingadirectlinkbetweenTolstoyandRousseau.IthardlyneedssayingthatRousseau–inthe“Professiondefoiduvicairesavoyard”andintheConfessions–providedarticlesoffaithandstrategiesofself-expressionthatcouldbeusedbygenerationsofmodernpeople,includingthosewhofeltaneedtoreconcileastrongsenseofindividualbeingandreligiousbelief–suchbeliefthatwouldnotbederivedfromestablishedreligion.ScholarshavelongsoughtthesecretofRousseau’simpactinhisingen-ioususeofform,genre,andwaysofcommunicatingwiththereader.Inrecentyears,DorotheavonMückehasshownhow,in“Professiondefoiduvicairesavoyard,”Rousseauworkedwithtwoestablishedreligiousgenres,professionoffaithandconfession(mergingthemintoone),withthedialogicform,andwiththespeaking“I.”Tosummarizeacomplexargu-mentinbrief,shearguesthatRousseau’s“Professiondefoi”achievesboththesecularizationofreligiousdiscourse,replacingitwithaconversationaboutGodbetweenfriends,andasacralizationoftheintimate,confessionaldialogue,endowingitwiththepromiseoffaithandsalvation.Thisdialogictextinvitesthereadertoenterintoasimilardialoguewiththeauthorofthe19novel.Indeed,carefullysituatedwithinÉmile,theinsertedtextofthe“Professiondefoiduvicairesavoyard”issetupasadialogue:a“youngman”isinaconversationwithhismentor,theVicar,whonotonlyentrustshisfriendwiththeprofessionofhispersonalfaithbutalso“openshissoul,”confessingintimatefactsofhislife,mainlyhisrelationshiptothechurch,religion,andfaith.Astheintroductorynarrativetothe“Professiondefoi”makesclear,beforetheirdecisiveconversationthetwofriendsroutinelyengagedinareciprocalexchangeofconfessions.Finally,aftertheSavoyardVicarmakeshisprofession(onthesideofahighhill),hisyoungfriendcomestosharehisnon-canonicalfaith.Asubtleplaywiththespeaking“I”anditsautobiographicalpotentialunderliesthisexchange.The“youngman”isthenovel’sfirst-personnarrator,Émile’stutor,called“Jean-Jacques.”Thenoveldoesnotprovidethereaderwithhisconfession,butshortlyafterthepublicationofthe“Professiondefoiduvicairesavoyard,”intheConfessions(startedin1765),theauthoraddedaconfessionalstoryofhisownlife–thelifeofJean-JacquesRousseau.Iwouldsuggesttreatingthemastwintextsthatreinforceeachother.Ithardlycomesasasurprisethat

119108irinapapernomanyareadertookthe“Professiondefoi”asaprofessionofRousseau’sown20faithandacceptedRousseauastheirspiritualguide.AsMückeconcludes,intheend,Rousseauperformedacrucialpartoftheculturalworkthatpreparedthedisplacementofreligioninfavorofanautonomoussphereofartandaesthetics.His“Professiondefoi”“reframesthedomainofbeliefinasecularmanner,”addressing“thosequestionsthatcannotberesolvedbyrationalinquiryalone”–thequestionsofoutlook21ontotheworld–inasecularfashion.Rousseau,ofcourse,hadmodelstofollowandtotransform.ThoughintheConfessions,asamatterofprinciple,Rousseaudoesnotacknowledgehispredecessors,histitlepointstotheConfessionsofSt.Augustine–atextthatalsofusestheconfessionalstoryoftheauthor’spast,sinful,lifewiththeprofessionofhisnewlyfoundfaith,definingthefinerpointsofearly22Christiandoctrine.AninfluentialscholarlytraditionrelatesAugustine’sConfessionsandRousseau’sConfessionstoposethetrajectoryofautobiog-raphyasaformofself-expression.AfterAugustine,thetellingofone’slifebecamelinkedtoconfession(inmorethanonesense–confessingsinsandconfessingbelief)andtoconversion.AfterRousseau,thestoryofreligiousconfessionandconversionwastransformedintoasecularautobiographical23narrative.Andyet,arguably,neitherRousseau’s“Professiondufoi,”normanyofthesecularbiographicalnarrativesthatfollowedit,havecutalloftheirtiestotheinitialChristianpattern.When,inthe1870s,TolstoyinvitedhisfriendStrakhovtoaconfessionaldialogueinwhicheachwassupposedtodefinehispersonalprofessiondefoi,24thiswholetraditionwasathisdisposal.Moreover,whateverTolstoyknewordidnotknowofthislineage,oncehisownconversionnarrativeappeared,25soonassumingthetitleAConfession,thelinksuggesteditself:manyreadershavesincementionedAugustine,Rousseau,andTolstoyinonephrase.Withthisinmind,InowreturntoTolstoy.towriteone’slifeIntheletterofJanuary27[?],1878,TolstoysentStrakhovabriefreport“Onsearchingforfaith”(Obiskaniivery).HereturnedtotheinitialKantianquestionsStrakhovposedinNovember1875,reiteratedthatallthreecouldbeeasilyexpressedbyone(“WhatamI?”),andreaffirmedhisconvictionthat“reasondidnot,andcouldnot,sayanythinginresponse.”Theanswers,hesaid,layinreligion.Butwhenonetriedtoformulatesuchanswers,theyinevitablybecame“meaningless”:“Meaninglesssimplybyvirtueofthefactthattheyareexpressedbytheword[…]Asexpression,asform,theyare

120LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov109meaningless,butascontent,theyalonearethetruth”(1:399;January27[?],1878).How,then,toaccessthat“truth”whichliesapartfromwords?People,Tolstoynowclaimed,givetheiranswers“notthroughtheword,theinstrumentofreason[…]butthroughtheirwholelives”(1:399).StrakhovrespondedthathecouldnotshareTolstoy’strustinreligion(heevenfoundtheGospelsunclear)(1:402;February3,1878).Tolstoysadlyacknowledgedthedifferencebetweenthem:“Iseethatmywayisnotyourway”(1:405;February7,1878).Twomonthslater,Tolstoyexpressedhisdisappointmentinhisfriendandfellowtraveler:inallthistime,Strakhovhadnotcoveredmuchdistanceonhiswaytofaith(1:423;April8,1878).Strakhoveagerlyadmittedhisfailures:Tolstoyexpectedsomethingfromhim(hewrote),but“gotnothing.”Hepicturedhimselfasamanwhowas“vacillating,”“negating,”andwhoremained“incapableoffirmbelief”:“Yes,suchamI…”(1:428;April11,1878).Still,heworkedhardtosearchthroughvariousviewsonreligion.Tothis,Tolstoyrespondedthatitwaspreciselythisimmersioninotherpeople’sviewsthatwastoblame(1:429;April17–18,1878).HeunveiledhisnewmethodandmadeanotherdemandonStrakhov–tolookforanswersinthestoryofhisownlife:“You’velivedthroughtwothirdsofyourlife.Whathasguidedyou,howhaveyouknownwhatisgoodandwhatisevil?Thisiswhatcounts–tellyourownselfandtellus,withoutaskingwhatotherpeoplesayorhowtheyspeak”(1:429).Itcouldbethat,likeRousseauinhisConfessionshethoughtthat“eachindividualonlyreallyknowshimself,”but,toachieveproperself-knowledge,onehadtocompareoneself26toanother.StrakhovdidtrytomeetTolstoy’snewexpectations;first,herephrasedTolstoy’svaguequestion:“Youaskme:howhaveIliveduptothispoint?”Hisanswer–whichhecalledhis“confession”–focusedonhisinabilitytoengageactivelyinlife:Wellthisishow:Ihaveneverproperlylived.Intheperiodofgreatestdevelopmentofmypowers(1857–67),Ididn’tsomuchliveassubmittolife,yieldtotempta-tions;butIwassotormentedthatthenIrenouncedlife[…]Ididmyservice,worked,wrote,allsoasjustnottodependonothers,soasnottobeashamedinfrontoffriendsandacquaintances[…]AndsothewholetimeIdidnotlive,butonlyacceptedlife[…]Hereismyconfessiontoyou.(1:432–33;April25,1878)Thus,insteadofaconfessionalstoryofhislife,Strakhovofferedadis-claimer:sincehehasnever“lived,”thereisnothingtotell.Thefailureofthisexchange,Ithink,derivedfromuncertaintyaboutthemeaningeachoftheinterlocutorsattachedtotheideaoftellingone’slife.

121110irinapapernoInhisevasiveresponse,Tolstoybroughtupthequestionoffaith:“Ihopethatweshallbeabletodiscussthesubjectofourcorrespondenceinperson.Inbrief,what’sstrangetomeiswhyyouarenotabeliever.AndthisisjustwhatI’vebeensaying,thoughprobablyawkwardlyandnotsoclearly”(1:434;May5–6,1878).Thus,TolstoymadeclearthathisveiledreproachesofthelastmonthsconcernedStrakhov’sfailuretoembracereligion.PerhapswhathenowdemandedfromStrakhov,inplaceofhisprofessiondefoi,wasastoryofhislife-longquestforfaith.ButTolstoywasunable(orunwilling?)toputintoclearwordswhatitwasthatheexpected.Strakhovrealizedthathehadmisunderstood,butdecidedthathismistakelayinhisoverlypersonalapproach:“Youdon’twanttocontinuetheconversation[…]I’mashamedthatIdidn’tunderstand,andturnedthequestiontomyselfpersonally”(1:436;May14,1878).Tolstoyacknowledged:“Astrangekindofmisunderstandinghasarisenbetweenus”(1:429;May23–24,1878).Then,hemadeanotherattempttoconveywhathewanted:“Ikeeponatyouaboutsomethingthat’stricky:givemeastraightanswer–howdoyouknowwhathasguidedandwhatguidesyounowinlife?”(1:439).Strakhovtriedagain,inmuchthesameveinasinhisfirst“confession”:YouaskwhatIliveby.But,first,ImustsaythatIdonotatalllive.I’vestillgotprideleft,whichmovesmetoserve,dressmyself,lookaftermymoney[…]ThenIgainasmuchleisureaspossible,readandkeepthinkingaboutthatgreatmystery;youknowthatIamconstantlypreoccupiedwiththequestionofreligion.(1:441;lateMay1878)Inhisnextphilosophicalletter,TolstoyrespondedtoStrakhov’snewwork,Onthefundamentalconceptsofpsychology(Obosnovnykhponiatiiakhpsikho-logii),whichwasbasedonhisvoluminousreading:Yourmeritliesinthefactthatyouhaveprovedthatphilosophy–thought–cannot,inanymanner,serveasthefoundationforspirituallife,butyourerrorliesinthefactthatyoudonotadmitthatitisnecessarythatthesefoundations(iffoundationsarewhattheyare)doexist[…][thosefoundationswhichwe]cannotpossiblygainbyreason,orbyourverynature,andwhicharethereforegiventous.ItisinthissensethatIaskyou:whatdoyouliveby–andyou,aboutthemostimportantthing,sayinjest,mistakenly:Idonotlive.(1:447;May29,1878)Fromhisinsistentreiterationsofthesevaguequestions,ittranspiresthat,forTolstoy,what“onelivesby”wasfaith;itfollowedthatthewaytotellone’sfaithwastotellone’slife,andtotellone’slifemeanttotellastoryofone’ssearchforfaith.

122LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov111Thenextstepintheirdialoguetookplaceinaface-to-facemeetinginAugust1878;wedonotknowwhatwassaid.Returningfromhisvisit,StrakhovwrotetoTolstoythat,onhiswaybackfromIasnaiaPoliana,hehaddecidedtotakeupTolstoy’s“challenge”totellhislife,butnotasa“biography”:“IwillwriteInsteadofaConfessionanddedicateittoyou”(1:458;August29,1878).Twoweekslater,Strakhovconfirmedhisintentiontowritenot-an-autobiography:Butwhatvalue,whatmeaningdoesmylifehave?[…]Inwhattoneisittobewritten?Icould,Ithink,expressafeelingofdisgustmoststronglyofall:AndI,repulsed,readthestoryofmylife,IshudderandIcurseIsotvrashcheniemchitaiuzhizn’svoiuIatrepeshchuiproklinaiu(1:463;September14,1878)(StrakhovborrowsPushkin’sline,fromthe1828poem“Reminiscence”[Vospominanie],andthereforealsoquotesLevininAnnaKarenina.)HealsoaffirmedhisdependenceonadialoguewithTolstoyasanaddresseeofhisalternativeconfession:“ButIampreparedtowritethisforyou,butforothers–Iwouldn’tseethepoint”(1:463).ButTolstoywasinsuchatroubledmentalstate–outoftouchwithhisownself–thathecouldnotproperlyrespondtohisfriend’sletter(1:475;October27,1878).Ayearlater,thetwofriendswerestilldiscussingtheirsharedplantoexchangeself-revelations.Tolstoynowclearlydefinedthetaskasthewritingoftwoparallellifestories.EchoingStrakhov,heacceptedtheideathatself-disgustwasthemostappropriateemotionalkeyforone’slifestorytoldforthebenefitoftheothers:“Writeyourlifestory;Istillwanttodothesamething.Butwejustneedtosetthisupsoastoarousedisgustforourlivesinallourreaders”(2:540;November1–2,1879).Atthispoint,itwouldseem,Tolstoyhadinmindnotaprofessiondefoi,butaconfessionofone’ssinsandfaults.ItshouldbenotedthattheRussianlanguageencouragestheambiguity:thewordispoved’isequivalenttotheFrenchwordconfession;thephraseispovedanievery–tothephraseprofessiondefoi.Inresponse,Strakhov,onceagain,sharedwithTolstoyhissenseofuncertaintyandlackofclearjudgment:It’sveryhardformetojudgemylife,notjustthemostrecentevents,butalsothemostdistantones.Sometimesmylifeappearsvulgartome,sometimesheroic,

123112irinapapernosometimesmoving,sometimesrepulsive,sometimesunhappytothepointofdespair,othertimesjoyful[…]Theseoscillationscausemegreatdistress:Ican’tgetanytruthfrommyself!Anditdoesn’thappenjustinmyreminiscences,buteverydayinallmyaffairs.Idon’tfeelanythingpurelyordirectly,everythinginmesplitsintotwo.(2:541;November17,1879)TolstoytookStrakhov’sambivalenceasaninabilitytodiscriminatebetweengoodandeviland,Ithink,ultimately,asaconfessionofunbelief.Hereactedwithastrongmoraladmonition:Youwriteasiftochallengeme.AndIknowverywellthatyouvaluemyopinion,asIdoyours,andsoI’lltellyouallIthink[…]Theotherismorevisiblethanoneself.AndIseeyouclearly.Yourletterdistressedmegreatly.Ihavefeltalotandthoughtitoveralot.Ithinkyouarespirituallyill[…]Anditisimpossibleforyoutowriteyourlifestory.Youdon’tknowwhatisgoodandwhatisbadinit.Andoneneedstoknow.Butherealizedthathemighthavegonetoofar:“Idon’tthinkIwillsendthis.Iamverybusywithworkformyself,whichIwillneverpublish.Forgiveme”(2:545–46;November19–22,1879).Thisletter,indeed,remainedunsent.TheoneTolstoysentinsteadfocusedonhisownongoingwork:Iwroteyoualongletter,dearNikolaiNikolaich,andIamnotsendingit.Iamverybusy,andveryexcitedaboutmyownwork.Notartisticworkandnotworkforpublishing.Andyourlettersaddenedandtroubledmegreatly.Yourletterisnotgoodandyourspiritualconditionisnotgood.Andit’simpossibleforyoutowriteyourlifestory.Youdonotknowwhatisgoodandwhatisbad.(2:547;November22–23,1879)AlmostfiveyearshadpassedsinceTolstoy,ashesaidinhisletterofMay5,1875,had“penetrated”hisfriend’ssoul.InDecember1879,hereevaluatedhisinitialhopesthataninterpenetrationoftwokindredsoulswouldbringeachtoahigherstateofself-awareness:Iwasgladtolookintoyoursoul,sinceyouopenedittome;butithasbeendistressingmethatyouaresounhappy,sotroubled.Ididnotexpectthat[…]Youwerenotabletosaywhatyouhaveinside,andsomethingincomprehensiblecameout.Butyoumustnotwriteyourlifestory.Youwillnotbeableto.(2:550;December11–12,1879)So,intheend,Tolstoy’splanofreciprocalprofessions/confessionsfailed.Before,hehadurgedStrakhovtospeakout;now,hetriedtomakehimremainsilent–onthestrengthofhisconvictionthatothers–himself,specifically–knewStrakhovbetterthanheknewhimself.

124LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov113Inthemeantime,Tolstoywasintenselyimmersedinworkingonhisownlifestory.WhenStrakhovvisitedhimatIasnaiaPolianainlateDecember1879,Tolstoyshowedhimamanuscriptthat(scholarsbelieve)containeda27preliminaryvariantofhisConfession.WhateveritwasthatStrakhovread,heard,andsawduringhisvisit,whenhereturnedhomeheaffirmedhisacceptanceofTolstoy’sfaith,describingtheexperienceofreligiousconversion:Somethinghasasifsuddenlydawnedonme,andIfeelmoreandmorejoyandvieweverythinginthisnewlight.IwilltellyouinallhonestywhyIwasconfusedearlier,andwhyyourpresentideaseemssonewtome.Individualimmortalityintheforminwhichitisusuallypresentedalwaysseemedsoincomprehensibleandsavagetome;injustthesameway,themysticalrapturereachedbythemajorityofreligiouspeoplewhotalkinalmostthesametermsasyouhasalwaysbeenabhorrenttome.Butyouhaveavoidedbothofthese;acuteasmaybethemovementsofyoursoul,youdonotseeksalvationinself-oblivionorimmobilization,butinclearandlivingconsciousness.MyGod,howgoodthisis!WhenIrememberyou,allyourtastes,habits,pursuits,whenIrememberthatunfailing,vehementlystrongdisgustofyoursforformsoffalsityinlife,whichresoundsthroughallyourwritingsandisreflectedinallofyourlife,thenIbegintounderstandhowyouhavefinallyarrivedatyourpresentpointofview.Itcouldonlybeattainedthroughstrengthofthesoul,onlythroughthatlongandarduousworkwhichyouhavedevotedyourselfto.Pleasedonotchastisemeforpraisingyou;Ineedtobelieveinyou,thisfaithismysupport.I’velongcalledyouthemostcompleteandconsistentwriter;butaboveandbeyondthat,youarethemostcompleteandconsistentman.Iamconvincedofthatbymyreasonandbymyloveforyou;IwillholdontoyouandhopethatIamsaved.(2:552;January8,1880)Tolstoy’sfaithand–stillmore–Tolstoy’slife,andTolstoytheperson,wonStrakhovover:headdressedTolstoyashisconfessorandsavior.Tolstoy–alayman–becameakindofholystarets,likethosewhomthetwofriendshad28visitedinOptinaPustyn’.AstotheworkinwhichTolstoywasinvolvedatthetime,atthispointStrakhovalonewastakenintoTolstoy’sconfidence,but(hewrotetoTolstoy)hefoundawaytotellotherswithoutbetrayingthistrust:hewouldsaythatTolstoywaswritingaprivate–unpublishable–“history”ofhis“relationshiptoreligion.”thepartingofways:tolstoy’sconfessionandstrakhov’sepistolaryconfessionsContrarytoTolstoy’srepeatedclaimsthathewouldnotpublishhisongoingwork,in1882hesubmittedforpublication(afterfirstreadingitaloudtoothers)thetextentitledIntroductiontoanunpublishedwork

125114irinapaperno(Vstuplenieknenapechatannomusochineniiu);withinseveralyears,itwascirculatingunderthetitleAConfession.(Thoughpromptlybanned,thisdocumentdidreachreadersthroughillegaldistribution.)Now,thegeneralreadertooktheplacethatStrakhovhadoccupiedinthe“philosophicalcorrespondence”of1875–79,whichhadestablishedthedialogicrelationshipofreciprocityandparticipation.(After1879,Tolstoy’sletterstoStrakhovlostmuchoftheirconfessionalquality.)Tolstoy’sConfessionencouragedthereadertoidentifywiththeauthor(thespeaking“I”),usinghisstory–atypicalstoryofamanofhisgenerationandclass–asatemplateforexamininghisownlifeandfaith.Butthisisatopicforanotherstudy.AndwhataboutStrakhov?Inhisletters,Strakhovcontinuedtoaddresshis“confessions”toTolstoy:“Iwillspeakasifatconfession”(2:624;November29,1881);“IneedtoaddressGod.Andso,Iwanttoconfessbeforeyou”(2:994;May2,1895).Inoneofthemostelaborateofsuchconfessions,onAugust24,1892,hespeaksofhisinabilitytocarryhisargumentstoaconclusion.Strakhovpointstoa“celebratedprecedent”thatinspiredhimtoembracehishesitations.ThiswasPlato:“hisconversa-tionsdonothavedefinitiveconclusions”(2:911;August24,1892).ItappearsthatforStrakhov,a“concourseofthought”(hiswords),suchasaPlatonicdialogue,wasanunfinished(Bakhtinwouldsayunfinalized)message–“aboundlessocean,”andnot,asforTolstoy,aninterlinkageofnotionsintoanintegral,harmoniouswholeemblematizedbyaballorglobe.Suchlettersindicatethat,theirdifferencesnotwithstanding,totheendofhisdays,StrakhovacceptedTolstoyashisconfessorand“savior.”Andyet,inletterstoanotherfriend,IvanSergeevichAksakov(oneofTolstoy’scritics),StrakhovexpressedhisskepticismaboutTolstoy’stheologicalwritingspro-ducedafter1880.Butevenwhenhewroteinacriticalmode,StrakhovdrewadistinctionbetweenTolstoy’s–poorlywritten–professionsoffaithandthemanhimself,asheknewhimindirectandintimatecontact:EverythingTolstoywritesconcerninghisabstractinterpretationofChristianityisverypoorlywritten;buthisfeelings,whichheisentirelyunabletoexpressbutofwhichIhavedirectknowledgethroughhisfacialexpression,histoneofvoice,hisconversations,areimbuedwithexceptionalbeauty.Thereissomuchofeverythinginhim;butIamstruck,andforeverwillbestruckbyhisnature,theChristiantraits29ofhisnature.Here,StrakhovputhisfingerontheessenceofTolstoy’sstrugglewithhisprofessiondefoi:Tolstoywasentirelyunabletoputitintowords.Buthis“life”–hiswholebeing–carriedthemessageofsin,despair,repentance,faith,andsalvation.

126LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov115conclusionsIhopetohaveshownhowTolstoy’scorrespondencewithStrakhovdram-atizestheprocessofsearchingforfaithandforanadequatedefinitionofapersonalfaith,enactedintheconversationbetweenthetwointimatefriends.Thoughtheymighthaveunderstoodeachotherbestintheirface-to-faceconversations,thecorrespondence,whileretainingsomeoftheimmediacy,hadtheadvantageofpermanence.HowdidTolstoy(whoobviouslytookthelead)organizeandconducttheirepistolaryconversationandwhatdidhehopetoderivefromthedialogicform?Fromthestart,hesetupanexchangeofbothphilosophicalreflectionsonfaithandintimateself-revelations,thatis,professionsoffaithandcon-fessions.HeexpectedStrakhovtovalidatehis(Tolstoy’s)ideasbyretracinghistrainofthoughts.Thedialogueproceededslowlyandhesitantly,overmorethanfouryears.Tolstoystartedinthevaguelyautobiographicalmode(thefragment“Iamforty-sevenyearsold”),quicklymovedtoabstractphilosophizing(“Onthesoul”),ranintoadeadlock,andreturnedtothewritingof“life.”Hewouldinvitehisinterlocutortoobject,thenrejectStrakhov’sobjections.Insistingonthetruthofhisconvictions,heacceptedthedifficultyofexpressingtheminwords.WhenTolstoyreturnedtotheautobiographicalmode,healsosoughthelpfromhisinterlocutorbyurginghimtowritehislife.Tryingtwodifferentmodes–writingabout“faith”andwritingabout“life”–Tolstoymighthavehopedtocomeupwithasyntheticform.Intheend,heposed“faith”assomethingthatbothwasderivedfromlivedexperienceandpropelledone’slifeforward.Consequently,toprofessone’sfaithwastotellone’slife–notasautobiography,butasastoryofone’srelationstoreligion.(Tolstoydidnotgosofarastocointheneologism“life-faith,”buthecameclosetoposingsuchanentity.)Infact,throughoutthecorrespondence,Tolstoywasunclearandimpre-cise–andnotonlybecausehefounditdifficulttoexpresshimself,butalsobecausehebelievedthatreligiousexperience,byitsveryessence,eludedverbalcommunication.Todescribehissituation,IwillborrowfromTolstoy’scorrespondencewithanotherwithwhom,throughouthislife,hediscussedquestionsofreligion–hisdevoutcousinAlexandraAndreevnaTolstaia.InFebruary1880,whenhisconfessional–professionalcorrespond-encewithStrakhovcametoahalt,hewrotetoTolstaia:“totellone’sfaithisimpossible[…]HowtotellthatwhichIliveby.I’lltellyou,allthesame.”(Inthesamebreathhesaid:“Youtoldyourfaithonlybecauseyousaidwhat30thechurchsays.”)IsuggestthatthissameparadoxicalpositionmanifestsitselfinTolstoy’sphilosophicalcorrespondencewithStrakhovin1875–79.

127116irinapapernoTheircorrespondenceunfoldedatthetimewhenTolstoy,painfullyunabletofinishAnnaKarenina,waseagertoabandonlittératureandtheprofessionofthewriterforanothersphere,religion,andforanother,asyetundefined,personalrole.Intheend,hisinterlocutor,Strakhov,helpedputTolstoyintheroleofareligioussage,turningIasnaiaPolianaintoamonastichabitat,onthemodelofOptinaPustyn’.Theintimateconversa-tionaboutfaithbetweentwofriendstooktheplaceofreligiousritesadministeredbychurch(thesacramentofconfessionandtheritualpre-sentationofone’sprofessionoffaith).Inthissense,TolstoyseemedtoreplaywhathappenedinRousseau’s“Professiondefoiduvicairesavoyard.”ButifRousseau’s“Professiondefoi”andtheConfessionshadinaugurated(asscholarsbelieve)thenewautonomoussphereofartandaesthetics,Tolstoy,aftermorethanacentury,triedtodojusttheopposite.Inthelate1870s,Tolstoytriedtoreturnquestionsaboutthemeaningofindividuallife–questionsthatcouldnotberesolvedbyreason–fromthesphereofliteratureinwhichtheEnlightenmenthadplacedthemtothatof(reformed)religion.By1879,Tolstoywasworkingonanarrative(hisfutureConfession)thatwouldfusetheitineraryofpersonalconversionwiththetheologicalformulasofhisnewfaith;inthissense,heturnedfromRousseautoAugustine.AshiscorrespondencewithStrakhovshows,hewasincreas-inglytroubledbytheuncertaintyofthemessagedeliveredbyaworkofliteratureandbythefreedomliteratureleavesthereader–tomisunderstandortounderstandonlyapartofthestory,takingitforthewhole.Helongedforaformofexpressionthat–whilealsobasedona“systemoflinkages”–would“convinceinstantly,”asarecitalofaprofessiondefoi.Butin1879,“faith”wasnotyetacreed(aformula)forTolstoy:rather,itwasaproductoflivedexperience,presentedtoreadersasaconfessionalstoryofhislifelongrelationswithreligionandquestforfaith.Weknowthat,inthe1880s–90s,formanyofTolstoy’sreaders,theintimateintercoursebetweenauthorandreaderencouragedbyhisConfession(andbyhissubsequentreligiouswrit-ings)wouldresultinconversionsimilartothatexperiencedbyStrakhovinIasnaiaPolianainDecember1879.Therelationshipbetweenthewriterandthereaderheldapromiseofsalvation.Thiswasnotlittérature.notes1.SeeL.N.TolstoiiN.N.Strakhov:Polnoesobranieperepiski,2vols.ed.andintro.AndrewDonskov,compiledbyL.D.GromovaandT.G.Nikiforova(OttawaandMoscow:SlavicResearchGroupattheUniversityofOttawaandtheStateL.N.TolstoyMuseum,2003).TheTolstoy–Strakhovcorrespondencehence-forthiscitedinthetextfromthisedition,byvolumeandpagenumber.

128LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov117Tolstoy’sothertextsarecitedfromPolnoesobraniesochinenii,90vols.(Moscow:Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,1928–58);andhenceforthcitedinthetextasPSSbyvolumeandpage.TheauthorthanksHughMcLeanandDonnaOrwinforvaluablesuggestionsandAlysonTappforexperttranslationsoftheRussiantexts.2.SeeDonnaTussingOrwin,“Strakhov’sWorldasaWhole:AMissingLinkbetweenDostoevskyandTolstoy,”inCatherineO’Neiletal.,eds.,Poetics.Self.Place:EssaysinHonorofAnnaLisaCrone(Bloomington,IN:Slavica,2007),473–93.3.ForathoroughanalysisoftheOrthodoxinstitutionofstarchestvo,OptinaPustyn’,andTolstoy,seePålKolstø,“LevTolstoiandtheOrthodoxStaretsTradition,”Kritika:ExplorationsinRussianandEurasianHistory9,no.3(Summer2008):533–54.4.FromDonskov’scomprehensivestudy,“LeoTolstoyandNikolajStrakhov:apersonalandliterarydialogue”intheTolstoy–Strakhovcorrespondence(1:xiv).5.Themostrecent,andbest,sourceonTolstoy’sreligiousviewsinthecontextofhistimeisInessaMedzhibovskaya,TolstoyandtheReligiousCultureofHisTime:ABiographyofaLongConversion,1845–1887(Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,2008).TheauthortreatsTolstoy’s“conversion”asalifelongengage-mentwithreligion.6.Medzhibovskaya,TolstoyandtheReligiousCultureofHisTime,162–63,ana-lyzesthisletterindetail.7.Theessay“Odushe…”(whichisknowntousonlyfromacopypreservedinTolstoy’sarchive;PSS17:340–52)andanotherunfinishedfragmentfromthistime,“Obudushcheizhiznivnevremeniiprostranstva”(November1875),havebeenanalyzedbyMedzhibovskaya,inTolstoyandtheReligiousCultureofHisTime,166–67.8.ThecomplexstoryofthepublicationofthenovelhasbeenreconstructedbyWilliamMillsTodd,“TheResponsibilitiesof(Co-)Authorship:NotesonRevisingtheSerializedVersionofAnnaKarenina,”inElizabethChereshAllenandGarySaulMorson,eds.,FreedomandResponsibilityinRussianLiterature:EssaysinHonorofRobertLouisJackson(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1995),162–69.9.Medzhibovskaya,TolstoyandtheReligiousCultureofHisTime,suggeststhatTolstoywasaimingatMetropolitanFilaret’sCatechism,whichstarts“IbelieveinoneHoly,Universal,andApostolicChurch”(174–75and193–94nn.46and48).10.Medzhibovskaya(ibid.)interpretsTolstoy’scoinage“religiia-vera”differently(173).11.Forexplicationofthenames,seePSS17:735–36.12.ThevisittoOptinawasdiscussedinthecorrespondence:see1:355and349.Foradetaileddescriptionofthisvisit,seeN.N.Gusev,LevNikolaevichTolstoi:materialykbiografiis1870po1881god(Moscow:Izdatel’stvoAkademiinaukSSSR,1963),440–41.13.IfollowJean-Guehenno,JeanJacquesRousseau,trans.JohnandDoreenWeightman,2vols.(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1966),vol.ii,27–28.

129118irinapaperno14.SoRousseausaysinBookTenofhisConfessions(describingtheyear1759).Guehenno,JeanJacquesRousseau,vol.ii,13–15.15.From“Professiondefoiduvicairesavoyard,”citedfromÉmileinJean-JacquesRousseau,Œuvrescomplètes,vol.iv(Paris:Pléiade,1959),554;hereaftercitedasOC.16.OC570.Theparallel,ofcourse,isnotcomplete:TolstoydidnotfollowRousseauinclaiminghissensesasthefoundationoftruth.17.Areportedconversation(1901);citedfromthecommentarytoPSS46:317–18.18.OntheparallelbetweenRousseau’sandTolstoy’sreligiousviews,seeHughMcLean,“Rousseau’sGodandTolstoy’sGod,”inhisInQuestofTolstoy(Boston:AcademicStudiesPress,2008),143–58.Tolstoy’sreadingof“Professiondefoiduvicairesavoyard”in1852hasbeendescribedbyGalinaGalaganinherL.N.Tolstoi:khudozhestvenno-eticheskieiskaniia(Leningrad:Nauka,1981),55–58,andbyDonnaTussingOrwininherTolstoy’sArtandThought,1847–1880(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993),39–49.19.FortheanalysisofRousseau’s“Professiondefoiduvicairesavoyard,”IammuchindebtedtoDorotheavonMücke,“Profession/Confession,”NewLiteraryHistory34,no.2(Spring2003):257–74.Here,IamparaphrasingvonMücke,“Profession/Confession,”266,267,270,272.20.Indescribingthesetupofthe“Professiondefoi,”IfollowedvonMücke.IbringinRousseau’sConfessionsandaddthenotionofthetwintexts.21.FormulationsfromvonMücke,“Profession/Confession,”270–72.22.ArgumentsconnectingRousseauandAugustinehavebeensummarizedbyGuehenno,Jean-JacquesRousseau,vol.ii,141.23.Foraprominentexampleofthisscholarlytradition,seeKarlJoachimWeintraub,TheValueoftheIndividual:SelfandCircumstanceinAutobiography(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1978),22,300andpassim.24.IdeliberatelyleaveasidethequestionofwhenexactlyTolstoyreadAugustine.ThemostrecentworkonthetopicisAllaPolosina,“L.N.TolstoiiAvreliiAvgustinopamiati,vremeniipronstranstve,”inGalinaAlekseeva,ed.,LevTolstoiimirovaialiteratura(Tula:IasnaiaPoliana,2005),65–76.25.Onhisfirstattempttopublishit,in1882,TolstoygavetheworkthetitleVstuplenieknenapechatannomusochineniiu;itwasinthe1884edition,preparedwithoutTolstoy’sparticipation,thattheworkfirstappearedunderthetitleIspoved’,and,after1885TolstoyhimselfcalleditIspoved’.Tolstoy’sfamilyandfriends,includingStrakhov,usedthewordIspoved’muchearlier;seePSS23:523–24.26.Guehenno,Jean-JacquesRousseau,vol.ii,298,commentedonRousseau’sprincipleofconfessionbycomparison.27.SomescholarsthinkthatwhatTolstoyshowedtoStrakhovinlateDecember1879wasanotebookofmorethanahundredhand-writtenpagesdividedintofivechapters:thefirstchapterusesthebiographical“I”torelatetheconditionofhis“soul”atthemomentwhenhelookedbackathislifeandstartedthinkingabouthisfaith;chs.2and3provideacritiqueofcanonicaltheology.

130LeoTolstoy’scorrespondencewithNikolaiStrakhov119Inch.4,Tolstoyagainrelatestheevolutionofhisreligiousthought.Finally,inch.5,whichoccupiesthreequartersofthenotebook,Tolstoyretells–forclarity–allfourGospels.Inconclusion,Tolstoyprovideshisprofessionoffaithandcritiquescontemporarysocietyfromthispointofview.IthasbeensuggestedthatthisworkcontainsthecoreofTolstoy’sfuturefourtreatises:Ispoved’(Vstuplenieknenapechatannomusochineniiu)(1879–81;1882),Issledovaniedogmaticheskogobogosloviia(1879–80;1884),SoedinenieiperevodchetyrekhEvangelii(1880–81),andVchemmoiavera?(1883–84).Tothisday,thisnotebookhasremainedunpublished.T.G.NikiforovapublishedthefirstchapteranddescribedthewholetextinL.N.Tolstoy,“,”inI.Borisova,ed.,NeizvestnyiTolstoivarkhivakhRossiiiSShA(Moscow:AO-Tekhna-2,1994),122–30.28.OnTolstoy’sroleasa“heterodoxstarets,”seeKolstø,“LevTolstoiandtheOrthodoxStaretsTradition,”545–49.29.Strakhov’slettertoI.S.Aksakov,December12,1884(archivaldocument).TheEnglishtranslationfromDonskov1.xliv(translationadjusted).FortheRussian,see1:51.30.PerepiskaL.N.Tolstogosgr.A.A.Tolstoi1857–1903(St.Petersburg:Tolstovskiimuzei,1911),329.

131chapter6Thewormofdoubt:PrinceAndrei’sdeathandRussianspiritualawakeningofthe1860sIlyaVinitskyWherehashegone?There.Where?Wedon’tknow.1G.R.Derzhavin.“OntheDeathofPrinceMeshchersky”Hamlet.Notwhereheeats,butwhereheiseaten;acertainconvoca-tionofpoliticwormsaree’enathim.Yourwormisyouronlyemperorfordiet.Wefatallcreatureselsetofatus,andwefatourselvesformaggots.Yourfatkingandyourleanbeggarisbutvariableservice,twodishes,buttoonetable;that’stheend.WilliamShakespeare,HamletAfterdeaththeremightbechemicallife,insteadofthe[kindof]physicallifewehavenow.InmyFather’shousearemanymansions.2LeoTolstoyInhisseminalstudyTolstoyintheSixtiesBorisEikhenbaumdemonstrateshowthephilosophicalandaestheticdoctrinesofWarandPeaceareindebtedtotheideologicalenvironmentofitstime,particularlythedebateoverhistoricalforcesandthelawsofhistory.InthischapterIconnectthepsychological(ormoreprecisely,spiritualist)aspectsofthenovelandconcurrentdebatesofthe1860sconcerningtheessenceofthesoulanditsexistenceintheafterlife.Thesepsychologicaldimensionsofthenovelare,inturn,intimatelyrelatedtothehistorical.ThesoulisthecentralconceptofTolstoyanpsychologism,inwhichitisaliveandactive,possessingaremarkabledepthwhileretainingthecapabilitytoreflectthesky.Mercurialanddynamic(aforce),bothfreeandsubjectedtonecessity,itissimultaneouslyautonomousandconditionedbytherealitythatsurroundsit.Itgrows,flourishes,labors,thinks,seeks,hardens,softens,despairs,suffers,rejoices,andcreatesworlds(whichthencollapseonlytoriseagain).ThesoulstrivesforhappinessandreceivesGod’slove.Itislocated,itwouldseem,intheheart(asshownbythedyinggestureoftheoldPrinceBolkonsky,whoattemptstofinda“place”forthesoulinhischest).Importantly,itseemscapableofendlessdevelopment,whichapparently120

132Thewormofdoubt121existsinsomeunknownformbeforebirthandcontinuesinsomeunknownformevenafterthedeathoftheindividual.ThecomplexityofthesubjectmatterandthesheervolumeofmaterialmakeexploringTolstoyanpsychologismwithintheideologicalcontextofthe1860sachallengetoanyscholar.Inthischapter,IfocusonthefamousdescriptionofPrinceAndrei’sdyingdream,whichKonstantinLeontiev3oncecalled,“acrowningachievementinthefieldofpsychicanalysis.”Drawingonthisscene,IwillillustratetheideologicalcontextofandthemeansbywhichWarandPeaceapproachesthethemeoftheevolutionofthehumansoul,or,asthespiritualistsofthetimewouldhaveputit,theascentofthesoultothenextstepontheladderofexistence.thebattleforthesoulInaprogrammaticarticlewrittenin1870,thephilosopherHeinrichStruve(1840–1912)wrote:“Thequestionoftheindependentoriginofspiritualphenomena,or,asitismoreoftencalled,theexistenceofthesoul,undoubt-4edlybelongsamongthemostcrucialquestionsofourtime.”Indeed,inRussianintellectualhistorythe“positivist”1860swereaperiodofstormydebatesonthesoul,itsessence,andrelationshipstothebodyandtheexternalworld;ontheborderbetweenthematerialandspiritualworlds;andonthepossibilityofascientific(physical,physiological,orpsychological)under-standingofspiritualphenomena.Otherquestionsincludedtheeducation(Bildung)ofthesoul,theinnermostcoreofman’sintellectualandmoralnature,thestagesandlawsofspiritual/psychologicaldevelopment(orevolu-5tion),andtheexistence,invariousaspects,ofthesoulbeyondthegrave.ThesedebateswerefueledbyaradicalmaterialistcritiqueofRomanticidealismandagrowingdissatisfactionwithtraditionalreligiousworldviewsonthepartofsomemembersoftheintelligentsia.Recentdiscoveriesinthefieldsofphysiology,psychology,andthenaturalsciences,includingDarwinianevolution,werewellknowninRussiaandservedascatalystsforthem.Althoughtheparticipantsinthesedebateshaddifferentworldviews,onethingunitedthem:thebeliefinthepossibilityofcreatinga“scienceofthesoul”thatcouldrespondtoquestionsposedbythenewdiscoveriesaboutthephysicalworld,andsimultaneouslyfulfillthemoraldemandsofthecontem-poraryindividual.Thecontroversyoverthestatusofthesoulfilledthepagesofthickjournalsinthe1860s.ThedebateisperhapsbestviewedwithinthecontextofwhatGeorgeFlorovskytermedthe“religio-philosophicalawakening”of6thatperiod.Theawakeningofthe1860s,withitsvarious“optimistic”

133122ilyavinitsky(progressiveorevolutionary)doctrinesaboutspiritualprogress,rangingfrompost-Hegeliantopost-Swedenborgian(AllanKardec),wasintimatelyrelatedtoamixtureofscientificthinkingandmoralidealismcharacteristicofthetime.Thus,evenDmitryPisarev,apronouncedopponentofthefantasticalandmetaphysical,notedthatthereincarnational“hallucina-tions”ofthesocialistPierreLerouxwerefoundedonapassionateloveforhumanityandabeliefinitsunendingperfectibility.Ofcourse,accordingtoPisarev,allvisionariesareinsane.Butincertainsituationstheirinsanityisakintotheecstaticstateofgreatpoetsandtransformativeleadersofhuman-ity,whoappearduringkeymomentsinhumanhistory.tolstoyandthe“dreadedquestion”Literatureandliterarycriticismplayedacentralroleindebatesoverthesoulduringthisperiod.Artisticworksservedasameansforrealistwriterstodeclaretheirtruthsconcerningthehumansoulintheworld.Inotherwords,psychologism(asseenintheworksofBalzac,Dickens,GeorgeSand,Hugo,AlexanderHerzen,IvanTurgenev,IvanGoncharov,andTolstoy)wasunderstoodbyRussiancriticsnotsomuchasaliterarymethod,butasameansforobjectivelyexaminingthehumansoul,placingitinitstrue(i.e.,non-Romantic)relationshipwithsocialreality(which,naturally,eachcriticunderstoodinhisownfashion,asdidtheauthorsthemselves).Itwaspreciselyinthe1860sthattheRussianintelligentsiadevelopedthecultofthewriterasapsychologist“inthehighersense,”ofthewriterasakindofseerofspiritualdepths.Inturn,themysticaldoctrinesofthesoulthathadbecomewidespreadinRussiainthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcenturyfoundtheirechointheworkofauthorswhoattemptedtoexpresstheinnerworldoftheindividualinmomentsofa“crisisoffaith.”ItistellingthatoneofthemajorthemesofRussianRealismisthesufferingofthehumansoulinthematerialworld.Thecausesofthissufferingwerevaried(social,economic,intellectual,moral),butitsessenceremainsthesame:theexternalworld(aprovincialtown,avillage,St.Petersburg,orallofRussia)becomesawardinamadhouseoraGothicdungeon,andthesufferingprotagonistattemptsinvaintoescapefromit.ItisnocoincidencethattheRealistconstantlycharacterizessocialrealityusingwordssuchas“oppressive,”“burdensome,”“agonizing,”“illusive,”“misera-ble,”and“dark,”anddeliverancefromthe“darkness”issymbolizedinimagessuchas“ray,”“light,”or“(re)awakening.”Tolstoy’spsychologismisinformednotonlybythecontextofscientificandreligiousdiscoursesduringthe“awakening”ofthe1860s,butalsotoa

134Thewormofdoubt123significantdegreebyastruggleagainsttheoriesthatheldthesoultobeanykindofself-sufficient(ordetermined)entityandbyjuxtaposingthesetheorieswithliteraryrenditionsofthe“innerworld”oftheindividual.Inoneofthedraftstothesecond(historical)epilogueofWarandPeace,Tolstoywrites:Eithertheindividualisfreeorheisn’t;thisisthedreadedquestionthathumanityasksitselffromthemostvariedpositionsandapproaches.Physiology,psychology,statistics,evenzoologytakepartinthisstruggle…somesaythereisnofreedom,andtheindividualissubordinatetothelawsofmaterial…otherssaythereisfreedomin7thesoul,whichcomprisesthefreeessenceoftheindividual.(PSS15:231)AccordingtoTolstoy,thesolutiontothis“dreadedquestion”ispossibleifwecanrejecttheconceptionofthesoulasanimmobilecenter:Ashadbeenthecaseinastronomy[beforeCopernicus.I.V.],sotooisitintheliteraehumanioresthatalldifferencesinapproacharefoundedoneithertheacceptanceorrejectionofanabsoluteandstaticunitwhichservesasthemeasureforchangeinphenomena.Inastronomy,thiswastheimmobilityoftheearth,whileinthehumanitiesitistheimmobilityofthehumanpersonality(lichnost’),ofthehumansoul.Inbothinstances,therewasapeacefulcontinuationofthescientifictaskofdiscoveringthetruth,andastruggleoffearandsorrowatthepossibleendofthatasyeteternalbuilding,thatwastocollapseupontheacceptanceofthatportentoustruth.Inastronomy,truthemergedthevictor.Inpreciselythesamewaythetruthof8thefluidity(podvizhnost’)ofpersonalitywillbevictorious.(PSS15:233)InWarandPeace,Tolstoyattemptstoachievea“Copernican”solutiontothequestionofthehumansoul.realisticspiritualismForcontemporarycritics,WarandPeacewasanapotheosisoftheTolstoyanmethodofpsychologicalanalysis.However,criticsviewedthenatureandgoalofthisanalysisdifferently,inaccordancewiththeirownunderstandingsof“therelationshipofthephysicalworldtothepsychicone,”aswellastheirownconceptionsofhumanfreedom.ThephilosopherandcriticNikolaiStrakhovsawthenovelasanexampleof“sound”psychologicalrealism,theessenceofwhichentailed“anunusuallyrefinedandtruedepictionofmove-mentsofthesoul”ofthenovel’scharacters,anobjectiveanalysisofthe“humansoul,”andanunveilingoftheimmutablelawsofhumannature.Strakhovjuxtaposedthiskindofrealismwiththe“photographic”or“critical”realismthendominantinRussianliterature.HeunderstoodTolstoy’sartistictaskasdepictingthehumansoulandlife“initsrealsense,notintheincorrect

135124ilyavinitskyformsbequeathedtousbyantiquity.”StrakhovbelievedthatTolstoystrovetorefuteandvanquishalloftheidolsandphantomsofthepastfromthereader’sconsciousness:“Insteadoftheideal,wemustperceivethereal.”And9thereal“isthesecretdepthsoflife.”Strakhov’sphilosophicalevaluationofTolstoy’spsychologismcorrespondswithhisownunderstandingofmanas10thecrowningachievementandcentralmysteryofallofcreation.ThewriterNikolaiLeskov,withcharacteristicpolemicalzeal,tookissuewithStrakhov’s“scholastic”readingofTolstoyinaseriesofremarksontherecentlypublishedfifthvolumeofWarandPeace.Inthem,Leskovmain-tainedthatTolstoywashardlyarealistobsessedwithdiscoveringthetruthofearthlylife,butrathera“spiritualist,”capableofrevealingtohisreadertheinnerworkingofthehumanspiritwhichisnotboundbyitsearthlyexistence.Asevidence,Leskovdrewuponthe“trulybeautifulandinimit-ablepicture”ofAndreiBolkonsky’sdeathscene.Inhisargument,LeskovcomparesthiswithtwofamousscenesfromEnglishliterature:thedream-visionofShakespeare’sHamlet(actii,sc.1)andthesupernatural“rapture”inDickens’descriptionofthedeathofPaulDombey.LeskovclaimsthatinWarandPeacethedeathsceneisfreeofornamentation,andthatallismajesticallysimple:noangelappearsforthesoul,norisdeathanykindof“eternalsleep.”Instead,itsignifiesareawak-11eningofthehumansoulfromearthlylifetoanewone.Leskovwrites:IfitisabsolutelynecessarythatweincludeCountTolstoyintosomecategoryof“-ists”(istov),wouldn’titbemorepermissiblenottocounthimamongtheranksoftherealists(whichhehasneverbeen,notinasinglelineofhiswriting),butratherinacompletelydifferentcategoryofthinkers,inadifferentpleiadofwriterswhounderstandearthlyexistenceinacompletelydifferentfashionthanitisunderstoodbywhatevercoarseorsappyrealistscurrentlyaround?Thus,forLeskov,the“spirituallyinspiredPrinceAndrei”infacingdeathascends“beyondtheearthlyindividual,”and,whenit(death)enters,“thePrince’sloveforhisbelovedneitherdiminishesnorincreases,itinsteadbecomesadifferentkindoflove,onethatnorealistcouldpossiblyunder-12stand.”LeskovseestheessenceofTolstoy’sspiritualisminAndrei’sdis-coveryoftheworldasaunitedchainofexistence,heldfasttogetherbydivine13love.ToelucidatehispointfurtherheintroducesacitationfromAlexeiTolstoy’sDonJuan(1861),amysticalmanifestoofidealistartinaneraofsoberrealism.PrinceAndrei,muchlikeAlexeiTolstoy’sprotagonist,is:Onelinkintheinfinitechain,Which,connectedwiththeentireuniverse,14Eternallyascendshighertowardsthedivine.

136Thewormofdoubt125ThemysticallyinclinedLeskovwasapassionateindividual,andanevenmorepassionatecritic.HispolemicalremarksonTolstoyundoubtedlyreflecthisownbeliefsandinterests:theconceptoftranscendentlove,thetransfigurationoftheindividualupondeath,andthe“flight”ofthespirit15fromthematerialprisonofthebodyandtheearthlyworld.DespiteLeskov’sclearspiritualistbias,hisreadingofPrinceAndrei’sdeathnever-thelessgivesusanopportunitytoconsiderthepossibilityofaliteraryspiritualisminTolstoy,whichiscenteredaroundthethemeofthereawak-eningofthesoulafterdeathtoanewkindoflife,onethatishigherontheladderofexistencethanthehumancondition.Inhisremarkswritteninthe1860s,LeskovnotedhowTolstoy’s“oth-16erworldlycurrents”supportspiritualistideas.Indeed,aftertheappearanceofWarandPeace,Tolstoy’sworkbegantoattractspiritualistsofvariousorientations:disciplesofSwedenborgandKardec,“experimental”spiritual-ists,and,lateron,followersofMadameBlavatsky,anthroposophists,and17othermystics.Tolstoy’sownattitudetowardsuchschoolsofthoughtwasdecidedlynegative;heconstantlyattackedspiritualistbeliefsinworkssuchasAnnaKarenina,TheFruitsofEnlightenment,andResurrection.Atthesametime,hewasinconstantcontactwithspiritualists,andshowedaninterestintheirvariousdoctrinesconcerningdeath,thereawakeningofthespirit,andlifebeyondthegrave.WhileTolstoyradicallydisagreedwithmostofthetenetsofmysticalspiritualism,henonethelesspursuedsimilargoals.deathasrevelationInessaMedzhibovskayahascorrectlynotedthat“thedeadbodyofPrince18Andreiistheonlybodyinthenovelthatdoesnotinducehorror.”ItmaybeaddedthatthisisalsotheonlymomentinthenovelwhereTolstoyadoptsthesentimental/pietistictraditionofdepictinga“beautifuldeath”as19opposedtotherealisttraditionof“Lamortcommeelleest”or“dirty20death.”Intheformer,peoplegatheraroundthebedofthedyingperson,21lovinglylookintohisorhereyes,andtakeinhisorherdyingwords.ThedeathsceneofPaulDombeyconstitutesapartofthistradition,asLeskovpointedout.InRussianliterature,thisisatraditionwhichfindsitsrootsinKaramzinandZhukovsky,andwouldcontinuetobefoundinlaterworksaswell,suchasinthedeathofIliushechkainDostoevsky’sBrothersKaramazov.Atthesametime,TolstoydefamiliarizesthetraditionaltoposofthescenebyincludingtheconsciousnessofthedyingAndreiintothenarrative,whichgraduallybuildstoarevelationthatisratherremotefromthesentimental/ChristianmoralsofDickensorZhukovsky.

137126ilyavinitskyTolstoywasnotthefirsttodepictaninnerworldofadyingheroinRussianliterature;inRomanticpoetrythemonologueofadyingcharacter(includinghisvisionofdeath)wascommonplace.However,Tolstoywasoneofthefirstwhocombinedtherealistic(objective,analytical)mannerofdepictingtheexperiencesofthesoulwithpoetic,idealisticones.Andrei’sdeathisshownbyTolstoytobearevelatoryone.Yetthisportrayalofdeathattemptsto“fulfillthedemandsofpsychologicalrealism”ofthenineteenthcentury(allcanbeexplainedbytheprogressionofdisease,hallucinations,22etc.).However,asLeskovandmanycriticsandreadersofWarandPeacehavenoticed,theessenceofthedescriptionofAndrei’sdeathstrivestoovercomethematerialrealismofhiscontemporaries.“TheTolstoianhero,”LydiaGinzburgwrites,“exceedsthedimensionsofhispersonality:thatis,hefunctionsnotmerelyasapersonalitybutalsoassomeoneinwhomthelawsandformsoflifeingeneralaremanifest,andthroughwhomtheymaybecognized.Thisisthesourceofthosepsycho-logicalfeaturesthattranscendthemerelypersonalandthatseemedsuper-fluous,thatseemedtobemereluxuriesofobservationstothosepeoplewho23hadbeenraisedonthepre-Tolstoiannovel.”Inthissense,Tolstoy’smethodmightbestbedefinedastranscendentalrealismorrealisticspiritualism.LeskovjuxtaposedTolstoy’s“deathdrama”withascenefromDickens.However,thedepictionofdeathasamysticalrevelationwhichdepartsfromchurchteachingscouldhaveFrenchroots,namely,GeorgeSand’sConsuelo(1861),whichTolstoyknewquitewell.In1865,withworkonWarandPeaceinfullswing,Tolstoyrereadthisnovelandwassharplycriticalofitinhisdiary(PSS48:63).Tolstoy’sirritation(heneverlikedSand)isunderstand-able,butthesimilaritiesintheliteraryandspiritualistinterestsofthesetwoverydifferentwritersareevident.Sand’snovelreliesupontheideaofreincarnation(metempsychosis)whichSandhadadoptedfromtheworkofherfriend,thesocialistLeroux,whohadwrittenthefamoustractDe24l’humanité(1840).AccordingtoLeroux,deathisadreamthatresultsina“reawakening”toaneternallifeonearth.Pastgenerationsreawakenastoday’sliving,andthetotalevolutionofhumanitywillbethetriumphofallthosewholivedbefore.Leroux’soptimisticphilosophy,ashasalreadybeenmentioned,waswellknowninRussia(firstandforemostthroughSand’snovels).TolstoywaslikewisefamiliarwithLeroux;Eichenbaumdiscovered25acitationfromLerouxinoneofTolstoy’searlydiarywritings.Consueloconcludeswiththe“beautifuldeath”ofCountAlbert(themouth-pieceforreincarnationalideasinthenovel)inthearmsoftheheroine.ThisdeathdoesnotterrifyConsuelo,butratherfillsherwithfaithandhappiness.

138Thewormofdoubt127Thebeliefinthetransmissionofsoulshadreceivedastrongfoundationinherinstinctiverepugnancetowardstheideaofeternalpunishmentafterdeath,andinherChristianfaithintheimmortalityofthesoul[…]“No,”thoughtshe,“thedivinesparkstilllingers,andhesitatestoreturntothehandwhichgaveit,andwhoisabouttoresumehisgiftinordertosenditforthunderarenewedformintosomeloftiersphere.Thereisstill,perhaps,amysteriouslifeexistingintheyetwarmbosom;andbesides,whereverthesoulofAlbertis,itsees,understands,knowsallthathastakenplacehere.Itseeks,perhaps,somealimentinmylove–animpulsive26powertoaiditinsomenewandheavenlycareer.”ThereareessentialdifferencesbetweenthissceneandTolstoy’s,bothindepictionandintheauthorialprogramsthatunderliethem.Tolstoy’scentersontheconsciousnessofthedyingindividual(aman,inthiscase),notthewitnessofhisdeath(inSand’snovel,awoman).Andrei’srevelationremainsopaquetohisbeloved(afterthe“departure”ofthePrince,theshakenNatashaseemstothinkshehaspiercedthesecret,butthenewsofPetya’s27deathreturnshertolife,thatis,toastateofnon-knowledge).Consuelo’sexultationisjuxtaposedwiththemoodofmysticalresonancethatTolstoy28borrowedfromSchopenhauerduringhislastperiodofworkonthenovel.Atthesametime,theveryideaofdeathasahappyawakeningintothislife,aspresentedinSand’snovel,isclosetoTolstoy.TedUnderwood,whohasstudiedtherolemetempsychosisplaysinnineteenth-centurynovels,cor-rectlynotesitsimportanceforthephilosophyofhistorypresentinWarandPeace:“[B]yofferingitselfasanintimationofcollectiveimmortality,WarandPeacegivesclearandgeneralexpressiontoatendencylatentinmany29othermid-nineteenthcenturyworks,”includingthoseofSand.Tolstoywouldlaterelaborateontheideaofimmortalityasakindofascensiontonewformsoflifeinhisteachingofdeath(OnLife,1886–87)andresurrection(seetheeponymousnovelof1899).MostcriticshavepointedtoHerder,Schopenhauer,orBuddhismassourcesforTolstoy’steachingsondeathasawakening.A.A.Kozlov,agiftedstudentofphilos-ophyfromtheendofthenineteenthcentury,demonstratedthesimilaritiesbetweenTolstoy’steachingsonimmortalityandthoseofthepositivist30philosopherAugusteComte.Inparticular,hefocusesonLeroux’sdoc-trine,whichinTolstoyis“developedandputintothecontextofalargebodyofphilosophicalandreligiousthought,makingitincomparablymore31grounded.”KozlovnotesthatreaderswhowanttofamiliarizethemselveswithLeroux’stheoriesneedonlytoreadSand’sConsuelo,whoworkedonthisnovelunderthedeepinfluenceofherfriend.Kozlov’sremarkswerefurtherdevelopedbytheforemosttheoristofRussianspiritualismandanactiveparticipantinbattlesoverpsychologyin

139128ilyavinitskythe1860sand1870s,AlexanderAksakov.InhiscriticismonTolstoy’slastnovel,polemicallyentitled“WhatKindofResurrectionIsThis?OnTolstoy’sResurrection,”AksakovclaimedthatTolstoy’sthoughtsonhumanimmortal-itywerenothingnew:They[Tolstoy’sthoughts]wereespousedbyFrenchsocialistswiththelighthandofComte.InPierreLeroux’s,“Del’humanité,”whichappearedmorethanahalfcenturyago,theyweredevelopedparticularlybrilliantlyandingreatdepth.Theyarebasedonthepremisethatthedualismofbodyandspirit,ofheavenandearth,muchliketheideaofabsolutegoodnessorabsolutesin,isunconditionallyfalse[…]Lerouxclaimsthatlifeisone,thatitisbothexistentialandearthly,andessentiallyeternal.Heclaimsthattheindividualisimmortal;giventhatheexists,thushewillcontinuetoexist[…]Wedon’tmerelypictureourselvesastheoffspringofthosewhohavealreadylived,butinessenceandinactuality,we32ourselvesarethegenerationstocome.Aksakovjuxtaposesthisphilosophyofafalseresurrectionwithhisownspiritualistscience,whichproveswithexperimentalresearchtheexistenceofpsychicfactsofotherindividualizedformsofexistenceafterdeath:“Inlightofthesefactsanexperimentalmetaphysicsbecomespossible,thelikesof33whichSchopenhauercouldhaveonlydreamedabout.”why“thehighest”?LeskovreadAndrei’s“awakening”fromearthlylifeasanallusiontothereligiousdoctrineontheascensionoftheindividualalongtheladderofbeing:havingrefusedthe“OldTestamentAdam,”Tolstoy’sheronearlyentersamongthechoirsofangels.ThisistheverysameHerderianladderofbeingrecalledbyPierreBezukhovinhisconversationwithPrinceAndrei(PSS10:113;vol.2,pt.2,ch.12).Tolstoy’sroughdraftsbearwitnesstohisinterestinHerder’sphiloso-34phy.OneofthelaterexcludedscenesofthenovelfeaturesadiscussionbetweenaCaptainTushinandacertainBelkin.WhileplayingchessontheeveofthebattleofSchöngrabern,TushinandBelkindiscussHerder’sarticleonmetempsychosis,whichfirstappearedintranslationinHeraldofEuropein1804.IncertainsketchesofthescenePrinceAndreiplaystheroleofeitherparticipantorobserverinthediscussiononthetransmigra-tionofsouls.Weshallallowourselvestocitealargeportionofthisdiscussion,whichonemightcallastrikinglyoptimisticvariationontheShakespeareanthemes35ofthedecayandsleepofdeath.

140Thewormofdoubt129“No,Herderwriteswell,”saidTushin,“Istillbelievethatmysoulwasonceinaworm,thenafrog,thenabird,thenineverythingelse.Nowit’sinahumanbodyandlateritwillbeinanangelsomewhere.”“Yes,butinwhatkindofangel?Youdon’tknow,andthat’sthenastybit.Explainthattome.”“Well,hesaysthattheorganism…”“What’sanorganism?”“Youknow,anykindofliving,wholething:aworm,aFrenchman,Sergeant-majorMarchenko.Anorganismisawhole,itcanlivebyandforitself.Inanycase,everyorganismtransformsintoanotherkindoforganism,andthehighestkindoforganismwillgoonforever,sothatmeanspeoplewon’tdisappeareither,theyjustbecomeahigherkindoforganism.”“Allright,sothis‘organist’(органист)(hesmiledcleverlyandpleasantly),thisorganistbecomessomethingelse,butwhydoesithavetobehigher?Explainthattome.We’vejustgottenridofabulloverthere,andyoushouldseetheyellowwormsthathaveshownup.Thoseguysareyourorganists,they’renotanykindofhigherangels,butthefilthiestorganistsaround.Andthey’regonnatakecareofusinthesameway.I’llgetkilled,andwithinaweekthoseyellafellaswillupandeatme?”Tushinthoughtforamoment[…]“Yes,you’reright[…]butyouknowwhat,‘fine’.Whatdoyouthink?You’reright,whydoesithavetobeahigherkindoforganism?Howarewebetterthandogsortheseorganists?We’retheoneswhocallthemfilthy.Maybeit’llbebetterforuswhenwe’remadeoutofamillionworms,orwhenwebecomegrass.Maybeourliveswillbebrighter;maybewe’llbesmarter.AndI’llkeeponlivingandenjoyinglife,whetherI’mgrassoraworm.IfIbecomeair,I’llrejoiceandtakeflightliketheairdoes.WhatdoIknowanyway,maybeitisbetter?Yes,it’sgottobebetter.”Hiseyesshonewithtears.ListeningtohimmadeBelkinhappy.“Youknowwhatelse?”continuedTushin,“Whydoweallloveeverything:thegrass,abug,people,andoccasionallyeventhatcolonelofyours?”(PSS13:367–8)ItistemptingtocallthenextpartofthisdialogueaTolstoyanresponsetoamomentinFathersandChildrenwhereBazarov,lyinginahaystack,talks36abouttheburdockthatwillgrowoutofhimafterhisdeath(pt.1,ch.21):“Yourememberhowbackintheday,”Tushinsaid,“whenyou’dlieinthegrassandwanttobecomethegrass,orlookatacloudorsomewater,anditwasasifyoucouldbecomethatgrassorthatcloud…you’devenwanttobecomeaworm.Youknow,beallniceandwiggly,thatsortofthing.That’sallbecausewe’vealreadybeeneverything.Istillthinkthatwe’vebeenaliveformillionsofmillionsofyearsandhavealreadyactuallybeenallofthis.”“Yes,youknowyesterdayafterwegothere,”saidBelkin,“Idranksomevodkatowarmupandlieddowntherewiththecompany,fellasleeponmyback.ThensuddenlyitappearedtomethatIwasstandingbehindadoorandthere’ssomethingtryingtogetinfromtheotherside,andthatthingis…mydeath.AndIalreadydon’thaveanythinglefttoholditbackwith.Itshovedthedooropen,Ifell,andI

141130ilyavinitskyseethatI’mdead.IgotsoscaredthatIwokeup.Iwokeup.Isaidtomyself,‘See,youain’tdead’.Iwasoverjoyed.”“Yes,”Tushinadded,eagerlytakingitallin,“Onebullettoyournoodle,andyou’llwakeupandseethatthere’snoMarchenko,notroops,nothingatall.You’lljustwakeupabunchofyoungandhealthyworms.”“Ok,buthowdoyoufallasleepandnotwakeupagain?”(PSS13:369)Inthefinalversionofthenovelthispassagefindsitswayintoanumberofmotifs,unitingvariouscharactersincrucialmoments:Natasha’speculiar37versionofmetempsychosis,Pierre’sMasonicreflectionsonHerder,PrinceAndrei’sinnermonologueatthemomentthegrenadeexplodes(“Ilovelife–Ilovethisgrass,thisearth,thisair”),andhisdreamaboutthedoor.Inaddition,thewordsthatdescribethe“floweroflove”whichbeginstogrowinAndrei’ssoulashelistenstoBelkinandTushinenteredthenewversionofthenovelinAndrei’sdyingrevelation.Similarly,aswewillseeinthenextsection,Herder’sideaofhigherorganisms“absorbing”loweronesisshifted38toascenethattakesplaceafterPierre’scapture.ItistruethatTolstoyneededthe“Herderian”episodeforpurposesofhistoricalverisimilitude.Buttheideaofanascendingladderofbeings,asitisdiscussedby“peopleofthe1800s”wastopicalforthe1860sgenerationaswell.ThedebatesaboutbiologicalandspiritualevolutionwereextremelyimportantforTolstoyhimself.OriginsoftheHerderianstrandofthoughtcanbetracedtoTolstoy’sdiaryentriesattheendofthe1850s.Ofparticularinterestisanentry,datedApril11,1858,whichdescribesadream:Isawinadreamhowthedoortomydarkroomsuddenlyburstopen.Itgavemeafright.Thenthedoorclosed,silently.Iwasscared,andtriedtellingmyselfitwasthewind.Someonesaidtome:“Comehere,openup.”Iwenttoopenthedoor,butsomethingwasholdingmeback.Iwantedtorun,butmylegswouldn’tmove,andIwasovertakenbyindescribableterror.Iwokeup,andwashappytohavedoneso.WhywasIhappy?Iregainedconsciousness,thuslosingthatwhichhadbeeninthedream.Can’tamanbejustashappyindeathasIwasinwakingup?Heloseshisself-consciousness,somesay.Butdon’tIlosethateverynightwhenIgotosleep,andgoonlivingnonetheless?Whatdoyoulose?Yourself?Yoursenseofindividuality?Nothingdies,nothingisindividual[…]Wecallpeoplethehighestcreaturesinexistence.ButwhatdoeshigherorlowermeantoGod?Higherinactivity(fromourpointofview),butlowerinhappiness,whichistheessenceofanykindofexistence.Manisnotmadeofatree,becauseatreeishappierthanaman;ratherbothtreeandgrassaremadeofmen.Nothingdies,andIwillneverdie.Foreternity,I’llbehappierandhappier.Consciousnesskillshappinessandstrength.(PSS48:75)ThereflectionsintroducedabovearemostcharacteristicofTolstoy’ssearchforideasfromthelate1850sandearly1860s;theyserveasakindof

142Thewormofdoubt131philosophicalcommentaryfortheprogrammaticshortstory“ThreeDeaths”(1859)andananticipationofthelaterStrider(1863,resumedandpublished1885).But,aswehaveseen,thethoughtsexpressedinTolstoy’sdiaryin1858continuedtooccupythewriterduringhisworkonWarandPeaceaswell.Norwouldtheyceasetooccupyhimevenlater.Inoneofhislengthynotesof1870,whilesummarizingSchopenhauer(whoalsoallowedformetempsychosis,ormoreprecisely,palingenesis),Tolstoydemonstratesaskepticalrelationshiptowardtheideaofaladderofbeingasindicativeofanascensionfromlowerformstothehumanindividual:“Maniskingoverallcreatures?Howso?Intheranksofbeingtherearenogradations.Thereisinfinity,thatis,obscurity”(PSS48:128).AnevenmoreradicalsummationcanbefoundinanentryfromNovember17,1873:“Afterdeaththeremightbechemicallife,insteadofthe[kindof]physicallifewehavenow.InmyFather’shousearemanymansions”(PSS48:67).“copernicanrevolt”SowhatexactlydoesPrinceAndreiawakento?Afterhisdeath,Natasha,lookingthroughthedoorthroughwhichhehaspassed,unsuccessfullyattemptstosolvetheenigma:“Whereisheandwhoishenow?”(PSS12:173–74;vol.4,pt.4,ch.1).Severalyearslater,inhisbookOnLife,Tolstoyformulateshisphilosophyofmemoryasevidenceofthecontinuationofthelivesofthosewhohavedied:memoriesofadeadfriend,brother,orbelovedcreateanew,moredurableconnectionbetweentwosoulsthancouldhaveexistedifbothwerealive.Ourdearonescontinuetoactuponus,raisingustotheirowncondition,emanatingfromacentrethatisbeyondourearthlycomprehension.Thedepartedexistsinthelivingone’sconsciousnessandisrepresentedasbeingencircledbysomekindofinvisible,incorporealatmos-phere(PSS26:411–15).Suchaviewpointcanbeseenasintendingtogivesolace“totheself,”thatis,fortheselfthatisstillaliveandmourningthelossofsomeoneclosetoit.Characteristically,bothTolstoy’sNatashaandSand’sConsuelorefertotheirdepartedbelovedas“who”not“what,”andTolstoyevengoessofarastoitalicizethepronoun.Atthesametime,thereexistsanideaoflifeafterdeathinWarandPeace(andelsewhereinTolstoy’swork)thattakessucharadicalformthatneitherNatashanorConsueloiscapableofconceivingit:theawakeningof“myself”notinanykindof“individual”angel,orinanewindividualconsciousness,orasapartofhumanityatall,butratherasoneofthecountlessphenomenaoflifeinnature.Intheend,Tolstoyplacesintodoubtanypossiblerepresentationofthehumanindividualasakindofhigherbeingontheladderofexistence.Itwas

143132ilyavinitskypreciselythiscommonimageofhumanitythathadunitedmaterialistsandspiritualistsofthemostvariedconvictions,startingfromPlatoand39Aristotle.Inotherwords,Tolstoy’s“Copernicanrevolt”rejectsnotonlytheideaofpersonalimmortality,butalsotheconceptofanthropocentricteleology(theodicy)asawhole.ThefigureofPlatonKarataevismostoftentreatedastheclearestexpressionofTolstoy’sideaofahappyliberationfromindividuality.Likewise,therejectionofhomocentrisminthenovelcanbemostclearlyseeninthebow-leggeddog“ofanuncertaincolour”whochoosesPlatonasitsmaster.Lackingnameandpedigree,thisdogisdepictedbyTolstoyasperhapsthehappiestbeinginexistenceduringatimeofterriblewaranddeath:“Everythingpleasedit.Nowitwouldrollonitsbackyelpingwithdelight,nowbaskinthesunwithathoughtfulairofimportance,andnowfrolicaboutplayingwithachipofwoodorastraw”(PSS12:92;vol.4,pt.2,ch.11).Inoneofthestrangerscenesofthenovel,ontheeveofPlaton’sdeath,Pierre,alongwithagroupofotherprisoners,climbsadirty,slipperymountainroadinarainstorm,whilethelilac,bow-leggedGrey(asPlatoncalledhim)runsmerrilyalongthesideoftheroad.Grey“wasmerrierandsleeker”thaneverbefore,because“[a]llaroundlaythefleshofdifferentanimals–frommentohorses–invariousstagesofdecomposition,andasthewolveswerekeptoffbythepassingmenthedogcouldeatallitwanted”40(PSS12:154;vol.4,pt.3,ch.13).Thishappydogfeedingonthecorpsesofanimals,horseandhumanalike,isanechoofTushin’sreflections,whicharethemselvesreworkingsofHerder’stheoryofmetempsychosis:“Howarewebetterthandogsortheseorganists?”Inalllikelihood,Karataev’scorpse41wouldeventuallybecomefoodforasimilarhappymutt.conclusionInWarandPeace,Tolstoystruggledwithandeventuallyrejectedvariousconceptionsoftheevolutionofthesoulthathadbeendebatedduringthe“awakened”1860s.Theresultofthisstrugglewiththe“spiritoftheage”wasthecreationofakindofnegativepneumatologyequallyjuxtaposedto42materialistandspiritualistdoctrines.Tolstoy’stheodicyhasnoroomforaPlatonicrepresentationofthetransmigrationofthesoulthatonewouldfindintheTimeus,norforaHegelianphenomenologyofthespirit,norforthemysticaldualismofLeskov,norforanyenlightenedOrthodoxspiritu-alism,suchaswasdiscernedbyKonstantinAksakovinAndrei’sdeath43scene.TherealsowasnoroomforHerder’sorKardec’svisionsoftheprogressofthesoul,norforthecultofhumanimmortalityaspropagatedby

144Thewormofdoubt133SandandLeroux.ThematerialistBazarov’smetaphysicaltoska(heart-ache),whichrecognizesone’sownworthlessnessinaninfiniteworld,isalsoabsent,asistheterrorinthefaceofthemetempsychosisofaBuddhaorSchopenhauer.Noteventhatwise,resignedindifference,whichTolstoyattributedtothe“truth”ofthepeasantattitudetowarddeathasinthecasesofEroshka(TheCossacks),PlatonKarataev,orNabatovinResurrection,isfullypresent.ThethoughtthathadoccupiedTolstoysincethe1850swasthatthehumansoulismerelyaunitoftheprocessoflifelikeanyother.Thelawsofthisprocessareunknown,irrespectiveofwhetheroneiscloseror44fartherfromGod.Atthesametime,Tolstoy,inkeepingwiththespiritof45the1860s,clearlyattemptedtogivehisphilosophyanoptimisticoutlook.AsopposedtothetorturedmonologueofShakespeare’sHamlet,whose“dreadofsomethingafterdeath”LeskovjuxtaposeswiththetriumphantdeathsceneofPrinceAndrei,Tolstoy’sbestcharactersarepreparedtoawakentoanew,unknown,stateofexistence,butonethatis(probably)happierthanearthlyexistence,intheformofacloud,grass,air,orrain,orevenintheformofyoungandhealthyworms.TranslatedfromRussianbyTimothyJ.Portice.notes1.G.Derzhavin,Stikhotvoreniia(Leningrad:Sopovetskaialiteratura,1957),55.Alltranslations,unlessotherwisenoted,arebyTimothyPortice.2.Adiaryentry,November7,1873.LevTolstoi.Polnoesobraniesochinenii,90vols.(Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,”1928–58),46:67(hereafterPSS).HenceforthreferencestoTolstoy’sworksarebyvolumeandpagenumbertothiseditionandarenotedinthetext.3.К.Leont’ev,“OromanakhL.N.Tolstogo:analiz,stil’,veianie:kriticheskiietiud,”Russkiivestnik6–8(1890):237.4.Russkiivestnik11(1870):435.Struve’sarticleengenderedmuchdebateinthejournalsofthetime.5.Onthe1860spolemicsregardingthesoul,seeV.V.Zenkovskii,Istoriiarusskoifilosofii(Leningrad:Ego,1991[reprintof1948YMCAPressedition]),vol.1,pt.2;GeorgiiFlorovskii,Putirusskogobogosloviia(Paris:YMCA,1991),pt.2,7(“Istoricheskaiashkola”);Fr.SeraphimRose,TheSoulAfterDeath:Contemporary“After-Death”ExperiencesintheLightoftheOrthodoxTeachingsontheAfterlife(Platina,CA:St.HermanofAlaskaBrotherhood,1994);E.A.Budilova,Bor’bamaterializmaiidealizmavrusskoipsikhologicheskoinauke:vtoraiapolovinaXIX–nachaloXXveka(Moscow:Izdatel’stvoAkademiinaukSSSR,1960);M.G.Iaroshevskii,Istoriiapsikhologii(Moscow:Mysl’,1985);DavidJoravsky,RussianPsychology:ACriticalHistory(Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1989).6.Florovskii,Putirusskogobogosloviia,311.

145134ilyavinitsky7.InthefinalversionoftheepilogueTolstoyfocuseshiscritiqueonmaterialist(rationalistic)attemptstosolvetheproblemofthesoul,whichhefindstobeone-sided(PSS12:326).8.Inanearlierdraftoftheepilogue,Tolstoywritesthatthis“difficult,painstakingwork”insearchofanewtruthisledbythefieldsof“zoology(Darwin),physiology(Sechenov),psychology(Wundt),philosophy([illegible])andhis-tory(Buckle)”(PSS15:233).9.N.N.Strakhov,“Voinaimir.SochineniegrafaL.N.Tolstogo.Tomyvivi,”inI.N.Sukhikh,ed.,RomanL.N.Tolstogo‘Voinaimir’vrusskoikritike(Leningrad:LGU,1980),195,205,217,197,216.10.AsexpressedinhisbookMirkaktseloe(TheWorldasaWhole),1858–72.SeeDonnaTussingOrwin,“Strakhov’sWorldasaWhole:AMissingLinkbetweenDostoevskyandTolstoy,”inCatherineO’Neiletal.,Poetics.Self.Place:EssaysinHonorofAnnaLisaCrone(Bloomington,IN:Slavica,2007),473–93;andalso“‘Mirkaktseloe’N.Strakhova:nedostaiushcheezvenomezhduTolstymiDostoevskim,”Tolstoi.Novyivek.Zhurnalrazmyshlenii2(2006):197–221.11.N.S.Leskov,Polnoesobraniesochineniiv30tomakh(Moscow:Terra,1996–2007),hereafterLeskov,PSS6:531.12.Leskov,PSS6:576.13.ForPlatonicidealismasasourceofTolstoy’sconceptionoflove,seeDonnaTussingOrwin,ConsequencesofConsciousness:Turgenev,Dostoevsky,andTolstoy(PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,2007),63.14.Leskov,PSS6:576–78.15.Inthesecondhalfofthe1860sLeskovparticipatedinacircleofmysticsseriouslyinvestigating“spiritism,magnetism,divineinspiration”aswellaspropagating“thedenigrationofnihilists.”SeeA.I.Faresov,Protivtechenii(St.Petersburg:TipografiiaM.Merkusheva,1904),81–82.Inhishugeanti-nihilistnovel,AtDaggersDrawn(Nanozhakh,1869–70),Leskovattemptedto“overcome”materialism,whichheassociatedwiththesocialDarwinismofcontemporarynihilistsandthecriticalrealismofleft-wingwriters.Thenovel’smainprotagonist,havingbeenseverelywoundedinaduel,experiencesvisionsextremelysimilartothoseofPrinceAndreiinWarandPeace.TheonlysignificantdeparturesfromTolstoyinLeskov’snovelarethevisionofthesoulleavingthebody(whichLeskovborrowedfromKardec’sBookofSpirits)andthefactthatthestrugglebetweenlifeanddeathisresolvedinfavoroftheformer.16.Leskov,PSS8:439.17.TolstoymaintainedfriendlyrelationswiththeardentspiritualistNikolaiL’vov,whowaspresentedinparodicforminTheFruitsofEnlightenment(1890).Inalllikelihood,itwasthroughL’vov’sassistancethatin1884thespiritualistjournalRebuswasabletopublishexcerptsfromTolstoy’sConfession,whichhadbeenforbiddenbythecensor.Proponentsofspiritualism(AlexanderAksakov,AlexanderButlerov,NikolaiVagner)oftenusedexamplesfromTolstoy’swritingsinsupportoftheirownviews.N.P.VagnerevenwentsofarastovisitTolstoytoattempttoconverthimtospiritualistbeliefs.Thoughclaiming

146Thewormofdoubt135tohavebeen“sentbythecallofthespirits,”Vagner’smissionfailed.V.Shimkevich,“N.P.VagneriN.N.Polezhaev.(Izvospominaniizoologa),”ZhurnalMinisterstvaNarodnogoProsveshcheniia16,no.7(1908):10.Inthe1880sand1890sMadameBlavatskyandherfollowersconsideredTolstoytobeanagentandsecretfolloweroftheosophy.18.InessaMedzhibovskaya,TolstoyandtheReligiousCultureofHisTime:ABiographyofaLongConversion,1845–1887(Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,2008),94.19.AchaptertitlefromBalzac’sLecousinPons,inwhichtheprotagonist’sdeathisdepicted.20.PhilippeAriès,TheHourofOurDeath,trans.HelenWeaver(NewYork:BarnesandNoble,2000),565–70.Themostclassicexampleofsucha“dirtydeath”isEmmainFlaubert’sMadameBovary.InWarandPeace,thedeathoftheelderCountBezukhovwouldalsoqualify.21.Themotifoflookingdeepintotheeyesofthedying,aspresentedinthelettersandworksofTolstoy,istypicalofthePietisticdepictionofa“beautifuldeath.”InoneofhisarticlesLeskov,inattemptingtoprovetheverisimilitudeoftheTolstoyandepictionofthelastthoughtsofadyingman,reliesuponremarksfromaPietistbrochurewrittenbyPastorRosenstrauch,AttheBedsideofthedying(MittheilungenausdemNachlasse;Russiantranslationof1863),inwhichhundredsofdeathbedsceneswitnessedbytheauthoraredescribed.ItshouldberememberedthatforTolstoyinthe1860sthePietistictraditionwasseenthroughtheprismofSchopenhauer’sthought,whoexplainedthepeacefulexpressiononthefacesofthedeadasproofthattheprocessofdyingwasactuallyaprocessofawakeningfromthenightmarethatislife.22.Leont’ev,“OromanakhL.N.Tolstogo,”237.23.LydiaGinzburg,OnPsychologicalProse,trans.anded.JudsonRosengrant(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1991),246–47.24.TheuseofreincarnationasahiddenmechanismfordrivinganovelisticplotappearsnotonlyinSand,butinGautier(Spirite)andEugeneSue(LeJuiferrant);andinEnglishliterature–inGeorgeEliot’sDanielDerondaandtheworkofBulwerLytton.SeeLynnSharp,SecularSpirituality:ReincarnationandSpiritisminNineteenth-CenturyFrance(Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,2006),23,56.25.B.M.Eikhenbaum,“90-tomnoesobraniesochineniiL.N.Tolstogo.(Kriticheskiezametki),”Russkaialiteratura4(1956):219.26.GeorgeSand,Consuelo,tometroisième,nouvelleédition(Paris:MichelleLévyFrères,1861),393–94;GeorgeSand,Consuelo,trans.FayetteRobinson(NewYork:StringerandTownsend,1851),250.27.InthesequeltoConsuelo,ComtesseRudolstadt,Albertactuallydoesreturn,hisdeathhavingbeenaratherelaboratehoax.28.OnthereflectionofSchopenhauer’sideasinPrinceAndrei’srevelation,seeSigridMcLaughlin,“SomeAspectsofTolstoy’sIntellectualDevelopment:TolstoyandSchopenhauer,”CaliforniaSlavicStudies5(1970):198–200.29.TedUnderwood,“HistoricalDifferenceasImmortalityintheMid-Nineteenth-CenturyNovel,”ModernLanguageQuarterly63,no.4(2002):468.

147136ilyavinitsky30.OnKozlov’sreadingofOnLifeseeJamesP.Scanlan,“TolstoyamongthePhilosophers:HisBookOnLifeandItsCriticalReception,”TolstoyStudiesJournal18(2006):61–4.31.CitedinBorisEikhenbaum,LevTolstoi:semidesiatyegody(Leningrad:Khudozestvennaialiteratura,1974),253.32.A.Aksakov,Kchemubylovoskresat’?PopovoduromanagrafaTolstogo“Voskresenie”(St.Petersburg:TipografiiaV.Demakova,1900),14–15.33.Ibid.28.34.OnTolstoy’sreceptionofHerderseeG.V.Krasnov,“FilosofiiaGerderavtvorchestveTolstogo,”inG.K.Krasnov,ed.,L.N.Tolstoi.Stat’iimaterialy(Gorky,1961),157–74.Inhernewbook,LinaSteinerdiscussestheresonanceofHerder’sideasontheformationoftheselfandthespiritualcompositionofthenationinTolstoy’sepic(inmanuscript).35.ForthesignificanceofthissceneinTolstoy’ssearchfortheargumentoftheimmortalityofthesoul,seePatriciaCarden,“TheExpressiveSelfinWarandPeace,”Canadian-AmericanSlavicStudies12(1978):526–28.36.OnecanfindtheoriginofTolstoy’sideaasearlyasinEroshka’smusingsondeathinTheCossacks.37.“‘Ifwehavebeenangels,whyhavewefallenlower?’saidNicholas[…]‘Notlower,whosaidwewerelower?…HowdoIknowwhatIwasthere?’Natasharejoinedwithconviction”(vol.2,pt.4,ch.10;PSS10:277).Also,seeadraftversionofthissceneinPSS13:795–96,inwhichSonya’ssoul,astheyoungpeoplespeculate,usedtoliveinacatbeforeherbirthandwillreincarnateintoadogafterherdeath.Hereandbelow,translationofthenovelbyLouiseandAylmerMaude.38.CardenbelievesthatTolstoysimplyrefrainedfromdealingwith“thedetailsabouttheconsumingofoneanimalbyanotherthathadstruckhissenseofhumor”andpresentedHerder’sideaoftheladderofbeing“inanennobledandelevatedform.”Carden,“TheExpressiveSelf,”527.39.ThehistoryoftheideaoftheladderofbeingintheWesterntraditionfromPlatototheRomanticphilosophyistracedinArthurLovejoy’sseminalTheGreatChainofBeing:AStudyoftheHistoryofanIdea(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1936).40.Itshouldbenotedthatonlyinthefinalversionofthenoveldoesthedetaileddescriptionofthehappy-go-luckyGreyexist.Itispossiblethatwhilerework-ingthis“character”TolstoywasinfluencedbySchopenhauer’sthoughtsondogs,which,asopposedtohumanity,livedirectly(inthehereandnow),anddonotfeardeathandindividuality.SchopenhauerhimselfnamedallhispoodlesAtma,aftertheworld-soul.SeeArthurSchopenhauer,TheWorldasWillandIdea,trans.R.B.HaldaneandJ.Kemp,vol.iii(London:Trübner,1886),275.Grey’showlingafterhismurderedmastermightalsobeconnectedwithSchopenhauer,whobelievedthatadogiscapableofrememberinghismasterforacertainperiodoftime.ItisremarkablethatsoonafterKarataev’sdeath,Greycheerfullygoesuptoanotherprisonerandwagshistailuponbeingpetted(PSS12:159).

148Thewormofdoubt13741.Rancour-Laferriereobservesthat“eventually[thedog]becomesametonymforKarataev.”DanielRancour-Laferriere,Tolstoy’sPierreBezukhov:APsychoanalyticStudy(London:BristolClassicalPress,1993),196.42.ForTolstoy’syears-longstrugglewithDarwinism,seeHughMcLean’s“ClawsontheBehind:TolstoyandDarwin,”inInQuestofTolstoy(Boston:AcademicStudiesPress,2008),159–80(firstpublishedinTolstoyStudiesJournal19[2007]).43.К.S.AksakovandI.S.Aksakov,Literaturnaiakritika(Moscow:Sovremennik,1981),281.44.DonnaOrwinperceptivelynotesthatTolstoy’snovel“containsasystemofimagerydrawnfromnaturethatsymbolizesthedifferentpartsofthesoulandalsojoinsthesoultonature”:rivers,clouds,heavenlybodies.Tolstoy’sArtandThought,1847–1880(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993),138.45.ZenkovskyonceadroitlycharacterizedTolstoy’sthoughtasakindof“opti-misticallyornamentedimpersonalism.”SeeIstoriiarusskoifilosofii,200.ForastudyofthepolemicaldimensionofTolstoy’steachingvis-à-visSсhopenhauer,seeMcLaughlin,“SomeAspectsofTolstoy’sIntellectualDevelopment,”wholocatesthesourceofTolstoy’soptimisminRousseau’s“beliefintheharmonyandorderoftheworld”(200).

149chapter7Tolstoy’sspiritualityG.M.HamburgPerhapsnoaspectofTolstoy’svastoeuvreismorecomplicatedorcon-troversialthanhisspirituality.HislargefictionalnarrativesfromChildhoodthroughAnnaKareninaderivemuchoftheircharmandagreatdealoftheirintellectualintensityfromhischaracters’agonizedsearchesforthemeaningoflife.Andfrom1879tohisdeathin1910Tolstoyconcentratedhisattentionalmostexclusivelyonspiritualmatters.Hisso-called“spiritualwritings”–the“religiousphilosophicaltracts”ofthe1880sand1890s,thecompendiaof1903–10,andvariousfictionalnarratives,includingthelastgreatnovelResurrection–spelledouthisviewsonsuchquestionsastheethicalcontentandtruthofChristianity,theshortcomingsoftheOrthodoxChurchinRussia,thearbitrarinessandviolenceoftheRussianstate,thehypocrisyandcorruptionofRussiansociety,thespiritualbankruptcyofmodernideologies,themeaningoflifeanddeathforordinaryRussians,andthecommonlegacyofmajorworldreligions.Giventhecomprehensivenessofhisspiritualvision,noneofthe“vexedquestions”hauntingRussianpubliclifeescapedhisattention,yethisanswerstothesequestions,expressedwithhistrademarkeruditionandclarity,engenderedbitterdis-agreement.SecularreaderslikethenovelistIvanSergeevichTurgenevcondemnedTolstoy’sspiritualwritingsfortheir“relianceonfalsepremises”1andtheir“darknegationofeverythingvitalinhumanlife.”Ontheotherhand,theHolySynodoftheOrthodoxChurchexcommunicatedTolstoyinFebruary1901fordenyingelevenChristiandogmas,includingtheexistenceoftheTrinity,thedivinityofChrist,thevirginbirthofMary,2andtheefficacyofthesacraments.Meanwhile,thesesamespiritualwrit-ingsinspiredhundredsofintellectualsandcommonpeopletoadopttheTolstoyanbeliefsystemasthebasisfortheirlivesandtopersistinthatbelief3wellintotheStalinistperiod.ThischapterwillexploreTolstoy’sspiritualitybyfocusingonthespiri-tualwritingsofthesecondhalfofhislife.Itwilldealwiththreetopics:Tolstoy’sreligiousconversion;hisefforttoliberate“genuineChristians”138

150Tolstoy’sspirituality139fromthebondsofsocialhypocrisy,ofthestate,andoffalsereligiousbeliefs;andhisideaofChristianself-discipline.ThegoalistodefineTolstoy’sdistinctivenessasareligiousthinkeragainsttheChristiantraditionfromwhichhecame.VirtuallyallTolstoy’swritingsfrom1879to1910touchedonhiscon-versionexperience.InessaMedzhibovskayahasrecentlyarguedthattheconversionwastheresultofalongprocessofthoughtdatingbackatleasta4dozenyears.Tolstoyhimselfconsideredoneofthetriggersforthecon-versioncrisisinthelate1870stobetheRusso-Turkishwar,whichforhimposedtheproblemofwhetheranymajorreligioncouldbeconsidered5“true.”PerhapsthatwaralsoremindedTolstoyofthesevereguilthefeltoverhisactionsintheCaucasusasanobserverandsoldierintheearly1850s6duringRussia’sattempttoputdownImanShamil’smountainrebellion.ThemostfamousofTolstoy’sconversiontextswasConfession(Ispoved’)(written1879–80,published1882),whichdescribedhislossofreligiousfaithbyage18,hisembraceofasurrogatereligion(beliefinsocialprogress),hisfallintoconfusionanddespair,andhisrediscoveryoffaithasaguidetolife.ConfessionwasoneoftheconversionnarrativesanalyzedbyWilliamJames7inTheVarietiesofReligiousExperience.Itrecountedapersonaldrama–Tolstoywascaughtuncomfortablybetweenoldbeliefsandnewones,betweenanoldwayoflifeandanewone–duringwhichTolstoyfoundhimselfmiredinextremeanhedonia;hethenexperiencedacathartictrans-formationinhisspiritualcondition,asaresultofwhichheacceptedanewbeliefandnewwayoflife,andthuseffectedanemotionallythrillingexitfromexistentialdespair.Thisconversionexperiencelackedthefinalityofmanyotherconversions–forexample,Augustine’sconversionaspresentedinConfession.In1879Tolstoyhadyettodefinefullyhisnewdoctrinaloutlook.Still,bythattimehehaddecidedthattheritualsofOrthodoxChurchlifewereincomprehensible,andthathecouldnotaccepttheOrthodoxassertionthatthenon-Orthodoxarevictimseitheroffalsehoodorofheresy.Indeed,bythenhealreadyconsideredOrthodoxy’sclaimtobetheonetrueChurchnothingbutaconvenientfiction,“ameanstoenforcecompliancewithcertainhumanduties”(pt.15;PSS23:55).However,stillfindingmuchtruthintheChurchandinthefaithofcommonRussianpeople,TolstoyregardedOrthodoxteachingasamixtureoftruthandfalsehood.Hepromisedhimself“tofindthetruthandthelieandtoseparatetheonefromtheother”(pt.16;PSS23:56–57).WhatDoIBelieve?(Vchemmoiavera?)(sometimestranslatedasMyReligion)(written1883–84,published1884)returnedtoTolstoy’sconversionexperience,nowemphasizinghisacceptanceofChristianethicsas

151140g.m.hamburgsummarizedbyJesusintheSermonontheMount.HerethekeygospeltextwasJesus’injunction,“Resistnotevil,”whichTolstoyinterpretedastheessenceofChristianteaching,asarequirementthateveryChristianuncon-ditionallyloveothers:“Resistnotevilmeansnottoresistevilever–thatis,nevertocommitviolence,anactthatalwayscontradictslove”(pt.2;PSS23:313).Jesus’otherethicaldemandswerereadinlightofnon-resistance.“Benotangrywithothers”meanttoloveothersasoneself,toacceptallhumanbeingsasequals.“Takenooaths”wasawarningagainstswearingloyaltytoinstitutionsthatmightenjoinonetoviolatethecommandtoloveothers.“Makenodistinctionbetweenpeoplesandnations”required“loveofeveryonewithoutreferencetotheirethnicity”(pt.6;PSS23:365).“Keeptothineownwife”demandedadherencetoamutualvowoflovingfidelity.WhatDoIBelieve?clarifiedConfessionbysuggestingthatthe“truth”inChristianitytowhichTolstoyhadearlieralludedcouldbefoundintheethicsofnon-resistance.OnLife(Ozhizni)(written1886–87,published1888)offeredaphilo-sophicalreflectiononconversionfromspiritualblindnesstoalifeoffaith.Itabstractedfromconversionthepersonalelement:itsfocuswasthenatureofconversioningeneralratherthananindividualbeliever’speculiarpathtoGod.ItcitedJesus’remarktothedisciplesthathumanbeings“mustbebornagaininspirit,”butTolstoydidnotemphasizetheneedtoacceptChristiannon-resistancesomuchasthedemandthatbelieverssubordinatetheir“animalnature”to“reason.”OnLifedepictedspiritualrebirthnotasadramaticeventàlaConfession,butasaslow-dawningawarenessofthegenuinelifeforcewithineachhumanbeing”(ch.17;PSS26:367–68),aprocessakinto“awakening”fromadream(ch.15;PSS26:364),inwhichthesourceoflifeis“invisible”tothedreamer(ch.9;PSS26:346).ForTolstoy,the“dream”fromwhichrationalpeoplemustawakenisthetyrannyoffleshlydesires;the“rationalconsciousness”or“reason”towardwhichtheenlightenedpersonmustascendistheorderedawarenessinvokedbytheevangelistJohnintheword“Logos”andfoundinnon-Christians’notionsofself-control(chs.10,21;PSS26:347,379–80).Orderedawarenessleadshumanbeingstocontroltheir“animalappetites”butalsodirectsthemtoloveothersfortheirownsakes.AccordingtoTolstoy,ifonelivesone’sliferationally–thatis,altruistically–thenakindofimmortalitymaybeachievable:afterdeath,otherpeoplewillrememberone’s“spiritualprofile”(dukhovnyiobraz).InTolstoy’sopinion,Christis“immortal”insofarasChristianshaveinternalizedhisspiritualprofileor“soulforce,”and,inprinciple,someformofimmortalityisavailabletoallrighteousmenandwomen(ch.31;PSS26:415).OnLife,therefore,translatedinto

152Tolstoy’sspirituality141philosophicaltermstheChristianethicalcodediscussedinWhatDoIBelieve?,anditalsorefashionedChristiannotionsofpersonalimmortalityintoaphilosophicalconceptionconnectingaltruism,memoryofthegood,andsoulforce.ChristianTeaching(Khristianskoeuchenie)(written1894–96,published1898)repeatedthediscussionofspiritualrebirthfoundinOnLife,butjuxtaposedtheChristianideaofspiritualitytoideasofspiritualityobtaininginotherfaithtraditions.Tolstoyremarkedthatamajorobstacleconfront-ingwould-beChristiansistheperplexityresultingfromtheirconfrontationswithamulti-confessionalworld.Thisperplexityisaresultofconflictingtruthclaimsmadebydifferentfaithcommunities,butitisalsoaresultofdeliberateandsystematicdeceptionsdesignedtosecurebelievers’blindsubmissiontoaparticularconfession.Thus,apersonseekingfaithhastoconfrontChristian“polytheism”(i.e.,thedoctrineoftheTrinity),Jewish“legalism,”andthe“perversions”ofBuddhists,Daoists,andZoroastrianswhohaddepartedfromtheirspiritualmasters’originalinsights.Tolstoyalsounderlinedthe“falsity”ofIslam,areligionthat,accordingtohim,dignifiedtheimpossiblenotionofMuhammad’s“flighttotheseventhheaven”(pt.35;PSS39:153–55).Inlaterwritings,Tolstoywouldmaintainthatallreligionsupholdtheimportanceoflove,andthereforeallcontributesomethingofvaluetotheworld.YethealsoarguedthatChristianityhadliftedlovetoametaphysicalprinciple,“thebasisofeverythingandpracticallythehighestlawofhumanlife–thatis,alawthatallowsnoexceptionswhatsoever.”Thefactthatotherfaithtraditionspermitexceptionstothelawofloveunderminestheirutility,accordingtoTolstoy:“Assoonasthelawoflovestoppedbeingthehighest,unalterablelawofpeoples’lives,theentireutilityofthelawwasdestroyed,andtheteachingaboutloveamountedtonothingbutobligatoryrhetoricalinstructionsandwordsleavingthewayoflifeofthenationsthesameasthey8hadbeenbeforethelawoflove–thatis,basedonviolence.”Fromthetextscitedabove,itispossibletodrawcertainconclusionsaboutTolstoy’sconversion.First,itwasbothaneventandaprocess:theevent(itselfprecededbyaprocessofthinkingandexistentialangst)probablyoccurredasTolstoydescribeditinConfession;butitsfullethical,philosophical,andworld-religiousimplications,asyetunknowntoTolstoyin1878–79,requiredmanyyearstoripenintoconsciousness.Second,Tolstoyregardedboththeconversioneventandtheensuingconversionprocessascrucialtohisself-understanding.Conversionwasnotjustanepisodeorevenanepochinhislife,buttheveryessenceofitafter1879.Third,Tolstoythoughtofhisconversionasamodelforhisfollowers.

153142g.m.hamburgThey,too,mightexperience,byturns,awrenchingpersonalcrisis,anawakeningtotheChristianlawoflove,aphilosophicalinsightintothenatureofrationalconsciousnessandimmortality,andarealizationthat,inspiteofthespirit’soneness,Christianityissuperiortoallotherfaithtraditions.Fourth,itfollowsfromthefirstthreepointsthatTolstoy’sspiritualitycannotbefathomedapartfromhisconversion.Forhimcon-versionwasnotonlythetriggerofspiritualthinkingafter1879,buttheactualunfoldingofthatthinking.Thatiswhyhisreferencestoconversionweresofrequent,evenobsessive:helivedinthewakeofacatharticeventandinthemidstofanongoingspiritualawakening,whereineachdaypromisedanewinsight.TheseconclusionsmaycomplicatetheolddebateamongTolstoyschol-arsabouttheexistenceofoneortwoTolstoys–thatis,whetherTolstoy’sconversionconstituteda“break”inhisdevelopmentasanartistandthinker.Therearesubstantialreasons,ofcourse,forrejectingadichoto-mousviewofTolstoy:themaineditoroftheJubileeEditionofTolstoy’sworks,NikolaiSergeevichRodionov,passionatelyembracedthe“one9Tolstoy”theory,andsohasRichardGustafson,thebestAmericanauthor-ityonTolstoy’sreligion.Gustafsonhaswrittenthatthereisnoevidence“tosuggesttheradicalshiftinattitudesortheoreticalunderstandingmanyhave10deducedfromConfession.”Medzhibovskaya’sideathatTolstoy’sspiritualtransformationwastheresultofa“longconversion”hasthevirtueofunderliningthecontinuityofTolstoy’sreligiousthoughtwhilestillrecog-nizingthatthetransformationwassomething“new”afterall.Myinterpre-tationofthisproblemisthatTolstoywasallhislifeaspiritualseeker,butthatc.1878–79heexperiencedapsychological“break”fromhisoldcon-victionsconsistentwiththetypologyofconversiondescribedbyJames.Fortherestofhislife,Tolstoyworkedouttheimplicationsofthisbreak.Inmyview,itwillnotdotopretendthatTolstoy’sconversionwasnothingbutliteraryartificeorthat“nothinghappened”tothewriterofConfessiontooccasionthatnarrative.Inhismajorfictionbefore1879,Tolstoypitilesslyexposedsocialpre-tensionandhypocrisy.WarandPeaceshowcasedtheunseemlystrugglefortheelderBezukhov’sfortuneastheoldcountlaydying;thecoldmanipu-lationofshort-sightedPierreintohisfirstmarriage;thedishonestyattend-antonadulterousaffairsliketheonesinvolvingPierre’sfirstwifeHélène,theseductivebutstupidAnatoleKuragin,andthemean-spiritedne’er-do-wellDolokhov;andthepreposterouscodeofhonorrequiringoldCountIlyaRostovtocoveryoungNikolaiRostov’sgamblingdebts.AnnaKareninadissectedhypocrisyinhighsocietyfromRussia’sgoverningcircles

154Tolstoy’sspirituality143tonobles’drawingroomsandbeyond.Throughoutthisearlyperiod,Tolstoyshowedtheprofoundinfluenceofhisintellectualhero,Jean-JacquesRousseau,whosefirstdiscourseunderscoredthedangersofartificeandofupper-classhypocrisy.Itthereforeseemsunsurprisingthat,after1879,Tolstoy’sspiritualwritingscontinuedinthisveinofsocialcriticism.However,thespiritualwritingsemphasizednotsomuchthefactthatwealthyRussianslivedunexamined,cynicallivesastheunderlyingpathol-ogygeneratingtheirsocialvices.InConfessionTolstoyaccusedhispeersofindifferencetoreligion(pt.1;PSS23:1–2),ofselfishnessandself-deception(pt.10;PSS23:38),andofblindnesstothevirtuesofcommontoilers,who,despiteharboringahostofsuperstitions,managedtolivemorerighteouslyandlessunhappilythantheirsocialbettersandtoexperienceincomparablygreaterpeaceandjoy.Tolstoyasserted:“Allwerich,educatedpeopleare[…]trulyinsane”(pt.11;PSS23:42).Theeducatedelitesseemedtohimnottocomprehendthattheywere“notallofhumanity”(pt.8;PSS23:31).Theeliteslivedunrighteouslybecausetheyhadaskedthemselvesthewrongquestion–“WhyshouldIlive?”–insteadoftherightquestion–“HowshouldIlive?”Therefore,theyhadnotbuilttheirlivesontherockoffaith.AccordingtoTolstoy,“faithisalifeforce.Ifahumanbeinglives,thenheorshemustbelieveinsomething[…]Withoutfaithitisimpossibletolive”(pt.9;PSS23:35).Thus,forthepost-1879Tolstoy,genuinelifewasinconceivablewithoutGod:“ToknowGodandtoliveisoneandthesamething.Godislife”(pt.12;PSS23:46).InWhatDoIBelieve?Tolstoyattackedthe“falseteachingoftheworld”asacauseofsocialhypocrisy.Inpursuitofmaterialgain,humanbeingshadbrokentheirbondswithnaturetoliveininhumancities,givenuphealthyphysicallaborforunhealthybureaucraticroutines,disruptedtheirproperfamilylivesforthesakeofsexualflirtations,forsworneasycommunicationwiththelaboringclassesinfavoroftheartificeofhighsociety,andsurrenderedsalutaryalimentaryregimesforaddictionsofeverysort–allthewhilepretendingthatthenew,irrationalmodernorderrepresentsprogress.Inreality,Tolstoyargued,themodernsocialarrangementrequiresitspartisanstocommitone“stupidity”afteranother,whereasfollowingChristentailsprecisely“avoidingstupidities”(pt.10;PSS23:423).Paradoxically,theeducatedelitesimaginedthattoleavemodernamenitieswouldcausethemtosuffer,whereasactuallytheseamenitieswereasourceofprofoundunhappiness,anonerousfeatureofalifeakintoperpetualmartyrdom(pt.10;PSS23:416).OnLifeclassifiedmodernsocietiesasdeathculturesinwhichhumanbeingsoperate“withoutrationalexplanationsfortheirwaysofliving,”

155144g.m.hamburgdeceiveoneanotherabouttheimportanceoftheiractions,andthusassigntotheseactions“amysterioussignificancethattheythemselvescannotfathom”(ch.5;PSS26:337).Modernsocietiesarebreedinggroundsofconformitywhereinindividualbehaviorissusceptibletoanalysisbycrowdpsychology.AccordingtoTolstoy,“thiscomplex,seethingactivityofpeople,withtheircommerce,railroads,scienceandarts,isbyandlargeonlythepressureofamadcrowdpressingonthedoorsoflife”(ch.5;PSS26:338).Ontheotherhand,theconformistpublicconsistsofsolipsisticindividuals,eachcrazilyhopingthatothers“willnotlovethemselvesbuthimorheralone”(ch.18;PSS26:369).Themoderndreamofindividualbliss,Tolstoydeclared,isanillusion,becauseitgeneratesacompetitivewarofallagainstallforresources,becausematerialsatisfactionsarebynaturetransientandoftendestructive,andbecauseindividualblissisinevitablycancelledbytherealityofdeath(ch.18;PSS26:370–71).TheKingdomofGodIswithinYou(Tsarstvobozhievnutrivas)(written1890–93,published1893)arguedthatTolstoy’scontemporariessufferedfroma“pervasivecontradiction”betweentheirdeclaredmoralvalues(humanetreatmentforall,universalbrotherhood)anda“lifecenteredonpremisesdirectlyopposingallthis”(pt.5;PSS28:93).Thus,governmentofficialsthinktothemselves:“Weareallbrothers,butIreceiveasalarytakenfrompoorworkers’taxes,andIusethismoneytosupportaluxuriouslifestyleforidlersandtherich”(pt.5;PSS28:94).So,too,educatedpeopleexperienceacontradictionbetweentheirintellectualcommitments(forexample,toreason)andthesordidrealitiesofpolitics,inwhichthestatebudgetinevitablysupportsarchaicinstitutions(suchastheRussianimperialcourt)andimmoralones(thearmy).Atroot,Tolstoy’scontemporariesweresaidtosufferfromacontradictionbetweentheirdeclaredloveofhumanityandtheirfealtytomurderousinstitutions.Fromthiscontradictioncame“aterribleinnertensionthatdrivespeopleofourtimetonumbthemselvesbywine,tobacco,opium,cards,thereadingofnewspapers,tripsabroad,andbyalltypesofdiversionsandspectacles”(pt.5;PSS28:104).ForTolstoyinTheKingdomofGodIswithinYou,hypocrisywasfirstasystemicphenom-enon,andonlysecondanindividualvice.AccordingtoTolstoy,thestatewasdeeplyimplicatedinthemoderncultureofdeath.WhatDoIBelieve?impliedthattheveryexistenceofthestate–withitsoathsofallegiance,courtsandpenalsystem,injurioustaxationschemes,armies,wars,andimperialambitions–contradictedJesus’commandtoloveone’sneighbour.Thus,tofollowChrist’smessageofnon-resistancewouldleadtoarevolutionmorethoroughgoingthan11anythingadvocatedbyRussia’srevolutionaryparties.InTheKingdomof

156Tolstoy’sspirituality145GodIswithinYouTolstoymaintainedthatthestate,asaninstitution,wascharacteristicofaperiodinworldhistory“dominatedbysocialcollectives,”byentitieslargerthantheindividualbutsmallerthanhumanity.Inthisperiodsocialreligions“hadexaltedtheleadersofthesecollectives(tribalchiefs,ancestors,andpoliticalsovereigns)asthesoleprotectorsofthecollectives”(pt.4;PSS28:69–70).Althoughthestatewasaby-productoftheprocessofworldhistoricaldevelopmentandwastherefore“logical,”itwasalsoaninhumaneandthereforeirrationalinstitutionbasedonviolence.InTolstoy’sview,“governmentistheapplicationtohumanbeingsoftherope,ofthechainthatbindsthemorleadsthem,oftheknoutthatbeatsthem,oroftheknifeandaxethatsevertheirlimbs,nose,earsorhead–theapplicationoftheseinstrumentsorthethreatofthem”(pt.7;PSS28:131).Becausetheylivedundertheaegisofthestate,modernpeoplefoundthemselvestrapped“inaviciouscycleofviolence,fromwhichthereisnopossibilityofescape”(pt.8;PSS28:152).Tolstoyaccusedthestateofcowingitssubjectsintosubmission,ofpayingofficialsexorbitantwagesattheexpenseofthepoor,of“hypnotizingthepeople”throughtheritualsofstatereligionand“thesuperstitionofpatriotism,”andlastlyofconscriptingyoungmentobesoldiers,therebytransformingthese“hypnotized,physi-callystrongyoungpeoplesuppliedwithinstrumentsofmurder[into]loyalsupportersofthegovernmentreadytocarryoutitsorderstocommitviolence”(pt.8;PSS28:152–55).HecalledongenuineChristianstoliberatethemselvesfromthistyrannybyrefusingtocolludewiththestateinviolence.Non-resistance–whatwemightterm“civildisobedience”–“wouldunderminethegovernment’sauthorityandinevitablyleadtotheliberationofeveryone”(pt.9;PSS28:176).Apparently,Tolstoythought,non-resistancemayhavetheeffectofendingthe“masspsychosis”inducedbythestate;itcouldawakenthepeoplefromthehypnotictranceinducedbymoderninstitutions.ChristianTeachingexploredwhatTolstoycalledthefive“falsejustifica-tions”forsin,oneofwhichhelabeledthe“temptationofthestate.”Heobservedthatpseudo-Christiansroutinelyjustifiedviolencebycitingthegovernment’sauthority,therebyshirkingmoralresponsibilityfortheirowndeeds:“IfItakeotherpeople’sproperty,seizetheirfamilies,executethem,ifIkillmembersofanothernation,ruinthem,lobartilleryshellsatthewomenandchildrenintheircities,Idosonotonmyownresponsibility,butbecauseIfollowthewillofahigherauthoritywhichIsworetoupholdforthecommongood”(pt.31;PSS39:149–50).HereTolstoyinterpretedthemoraldangeroftheloveofpowerasatemptationaffectingnotjusthighofficialsorthesovereign,buteverypersonsummonedtoactinthe

157146g.m.hamburgsovereign’sname.Inhisview,the“temptationofthestate”wasamodernphenomenon,foronlyinthemodernagedidthistemptationbegintoconfrontmillionsofpeople:“Almostallpeoplelivinginamodernpolity,assoonastheybecomeconscious,findthemselvesentangledinpoliticaltemp-tations”(pt.49;PSS39:167).AccordingtoTolstoy,thestatewasthe“cruelesttemptation”becauseitaffectedchildrenbypervertingtheirinstinctsfrominfancy,andbecauseinitsname“anymeasurecanbejustified,solongasapersonsupposesthatevenonelifemaybe[legitimately]sacrificedforthegoodofthemany.”Thetemptationofthestatecouldbeovercomeonlyifbelieversrememberedthat,“beforebelongingtoanypolityornation,theybelongtoGodasamemberoftheuniversalkingdom”(pt.49;PSS39:168).Themostseriousimpedimenttogenuinespirituallife,accordingtoTolstoy,wasthe“pseudo-Christianity”preachedbytheOrthodoxChurch.MuchofTolstoy’sspiritualwritingwasapolemicagainstthis“false”faith.InCritiqueofDogmaticTheology(Issledovaniedogmaticheskogobogosloviia)(written1880–84,published1891)heattackedOrthodoxy’s“mysteriousdiscourse,”inwhich“wordsdonothavethesamemeaningtheypossessinordinarylanguagebutsomespecialmeaningwhosedefini-tionisneverthelessnotprovided”(“Introduction”;PSS23:62).Heaccused12MetropolitanMakarii(Bulgakov)ofwritingnonsenseinhiscatechism,whereMakariiattemptedtoreconciletheunityofGodwiththedoctrineoftheTrinity(ch.5;PSS23:111).TolstoymaintainedthatnothingintheHolyScripturesevenhintsatthedogmaofChrist’sdivinity.Inhisopinion,scripturalreferencestoJesusasthe“sonofGod”applynotjusttoJesusbuttoallpeople(ch.11;PSS23:172–73).TolstoythoughtitoutrageousofMakariitodescribetheChurchnotasa“unionofbelievers”butasahierarchywiththeauthoritytodefinedoctrineandpunishheretics.Tolstoyannouncedhimselfanopponentoftheclericalhierarchy,of“corrupt,deceptiveandignorantmen,”towhomheattributedtheambitionofcontrollingalloflife(“Conclusion”;PSS23:296).InHarmonyandTranslationoftheFourGospels(Soedinenieiperevodchetyrekhevangelii)(written1880–84,published1892)TolstoytriedtoidentifythepositivecontentoftheChristianmessage.HestrippedtheGospelsofmiraclesandofJesus’resurrection,theseelementsofthenarra-tivebeingobjectionabletohimbecauseChurchauthoritieshadusedthemasevidencefortheirpictureofJesusasthesecondpersonoftheTrinity.Meanwhile,hesketchedhisownaccountoftheScriptures,interpretingGodnotasapersonstandingoutsideandabovelife,butinsteadasapresencefoundinsidethenaturalorderandthuswithineveryhumanbeing.Jesus’wisdomconsistedinablissfulawarenessofthispresencewithin

158Tolstoy’sspirituality147himselfandincompleteself-identificationwiththispresenceorspirit.AccordingtoTolstoy,Jesus’awarenessofGodgavehimtheinnerresourcestoresisttemptationandtomasterfleshlyappetites.Inprinciple,Tolstoythought,otherhumanbeingscanalsolayclaimtosuchinnerresources.Inhisopinion,theuniversalaccessibilitytoGod’spresenceandthejoyitaffordsarethe“goodnews”propagatedbytheevangelists,butthespreadofecclesiasticalreligionhashadnothingtodowiththishappymessage.HarmonyandTranslationoftheFourGospelsdescribedthefiveinjunctionsoftheSermonontheMountastheGospels’coreteaching(ch.4;PSS24:197–284).However,inthebookTolstoydidnotyetattempttoconstructafullyelaboratedethicalsystembasedonthem.HeleftthattaskforWhatDoIBelieve?InWhatDoIBelieve?Tolstoyclaimedthatfor1,500yearstheChurchhadinterpretedChrist’sethicalteachingintheSermonontheMountas“good”but“impracticable,”asa“difficult”orutopiandoctrine.AccordingtoTolstoy,theChurchhadtaughtthat“Christ’steachingisgoodforallpeople,yetunsatisfactoryforthem,”andthatearthlylifeisfulloftoil,suffering,anddeath,whiletheafterlifewillbringprosperity,sinlessness,andimmortalbliss.InTolstoy’sview,thisdogmaconstituteda“fifteen-hundred-year-oldpseudo-Christianity”(pt.7;PSS23:377).ItwasanobstacletotherealizationofthekingdomofGodonearth;TolstoybelievedthatthekingdomofGodiswithinhumans’grasp,ifonlywewillloveoneanotherasJesushadadvised(pt.9;PSS23:402).Tolstoythoughtitnoaccidentthatthe“pseudo-Christian”ChurchhadopposedeverymeasureofsocialprogressfromtheendofslaverytotheabolitionofsocialEstates.Hebelievedthatfalsedoctrinenowstoodinthewayoftheabolitionofprivateproperty(pt.11;PSS23:440).InTheKingdomofGodIswithinYouTolstoydepictedtheChurchasaninstitutioncommittedtopower,aninstitutionsustainingitselfthroughitsauthoritytolabelitscriticsas“heretics”andthroughitsself-descriptionas“infallible”(pt.3;PSS28:47).Hearguedthat“Churches,quaChurches,havealwaysbeenandcannotfailtobeinstitutionsnotonlyalientoChrist’steaching,buthostiletoit”(pt.3;PSS28:54).ThiswasparticularlysoinRussia,withitsdespoticunionofChurchandstate.ThereOrthodoxy“hadheldpeopleinaconditionofvulgarandprimitiveidolworship,”and“hadintensifiedandspreadsuperstitionandreligiousignorance”(pt.3;PSS28:62).Tolstoyaddressedthenexusbetweenpseudo-ChristianityandthestateinChristianTeaching,whereinheexposedwhathecalled“thedecep-tionsoffaith.”Heclaimedthatfalsejustificationsforsin,suchasthe“temptationofthestate”mentionedabove,wouldhavenoauthorityover

159148g.m.hamburgpeoplewereitnotfortheperversionsofreasonthatoccurinpseudo-religions.Falsebelieversteachtheiradherents“anunderstandingoflife’smeaningbasednotonreason,butonblindcredulity”(pt.33;PSS39:151).Whatevertheconfessionalcommunity,thedeceptionsoperateinfiveways:bydeifyingreligiousleadersandsanctifyingreligiousinstitutions;byinvest-ingfaithin“miracles”;byputtingpriestlyintermediariesbetweenbelieversandGod;bymanipulatingtheemotionsofbelieversthroughrituals;andbyinculcatingfalsebeliefsinchildren(pt.33;PSS39:152–53).Thebestantidotetothissystemofdeceptions,Tolstoywrote,was“unpervertedreason,”thatis,abeliever’sdeterminationtotrusthisorherownlogicratherthan“sacred”booksordeceptivepreachers.HowshouldwepositionTolstoy,aself-described“genuineChristian,”withintheChristiantraditionheclaimedtoinhabit?Asamatterofhistoricalfact,aswenotedabove,in1901theOrthodoxChurchpro-nouncedTolstoyaheretic–thatis,adeviantfromChristiantruth–andheacceptedthelogicofthatclassification.AlreadyinTheKingdomofGodIswithinYouhehadobservedthattherecouldbenoinstitutionalChurchwithoutheresyagainstwhichtodefineitself.OneshouldnoteparentheticallythatTolstoy’scriticismofecclesiasticaldogmatismwasarejoindertoAlekseiKhomiakov’sfamousessayTheChurchIsOne,13andrecognitionofhisownheterodoxy.Butifthisconsciouslyhetero-doxaspectofTolstoy’srelationshiptoChristianityisclear,otheraspectsarenot.Tolstoyexplicitlyassociatedhimselfwiththoseteachersoftheancient14Churchwhoopposedtheuseofviolenceinpolitics:withTatiantheAssyrian;withClementofAlexandria,whoseStromataenjoinedChristianstolovetheirenemies;withTertullian,whoseApologeticusrejectedemperorworshipandacceptedmartyrdomaspreferabletoarmedresistanceagainsttheRomanstate;withCyprianofCarthage,whoembracedmartyrdomratherthanresistRomanpowerbyforce;withLactantius,whoseDemortibuspersecutorumcelebratedthevictimsofRomanpersecution;andwithOrigen,whosebookDeprincipiisunderlinedGod’sabhorrenceatviolence.NoteveryelementofTolstoy’sself-drawnreligiousgenealogyispersuasive,however.AlthoughTertullian,Clement,Cyprian,andOrigensufferedper-secutionfortheirbeliefs,allofthemdefendeddogmaticpositionsthatTolstoyrepudiatedinhisspiritualwritings.AndTertullianwasfamousamongChurchFathersforhisvehementoppositiontoheresy.InthegroupofChurchFathersrecommendedbyTolstoy,perhapsOrigen,withhissomewhatheterodoxunderstandingoftheTrinityandhisquirkyviewsonthesoul,wasclosesttoTolstoy’ssensibility.

160Tolstoy’sspirituality149IfweconsidernotTolstoy’sself-selectedpredecessors,butratherhisownmethodsofanalyzingChristianteachings–thatis,hishabitofappropriat-ingportionsoftheScripturesas“true”andofignoringinconvenientpassages–thenhisspiritualwritingsfitadifferentgenealogy.Intermsofmethod,Tolstoy’searliestpredecessormayhavebeenMarcionofSinope,whorejectedtheHebrewScripturesandallbutoneGospel–hisownversionofLuke.Marcion’snearcontemporary,TatiantheAssyrian,accep-tedallfourcanonicGospelsbut“harmonized”themintohisownconsistentnarrative,theDiatessaron,justasTolstoydid1,600yearslater.ManyChristianGnosticsrejectedthecanonicityoftheGospelofJohnbutacceptedthevalidityoftheuncanonicalGospelofThomas.InthesixteenthcenturyMartinLutherrejectedtheEpistleofJamesasanuncanonical“strawepistle.”IntheearlynineteenthcenturyThomasJeffersoncomposedhisownversionoftheNewTestamentbydiscardingeverythingnotsaidby15Jesus,thencollatingandarrangingJesus’sayingsinhisownnarrative.Inourowntime,membersofthe“JesusSeminar,”organizedbyRobertFunkandJohnDominicCrossan,havealsodisaggregatedJesus’sayingsfromtherestoftheGospeltexts.LikeTolstoybeforethem,theleadersoftheJesusSeminarhavetreatedcertainofJesus’reportedsayingsasprobablyinau-thentic.SomemembersoftheJesusSeminarhaveseemedlessinterestedinunderstandingJesusassecondpersonoftheTrinitythanindefininghimasanethicalguide.WhilebearinginmindthesefigureswhotookthelibertyofdiscardingportionsoftheGospels,amendingitstexts,orcomposingtheirowngospelnarratives,oneshouldalsotakenoteoftheproclivityamongcertainChristiangroupstofocusonasinglesetofChristianteachingsasthe“true”basisoffaith.Amongthem,theclosestinspirittoTolstoywereperhapstheFranciscanSpiritualsofthelateMiddleAges,membersoftheMoravianbrotherhood,andcertainRussiansectarianswhoseethicalout-looksderivedfromtheSermonontheMount.Finally,weshouldtakenoteofTolstoy’sspecialinterestincertainmodernthinkersaboutChristianity.InTheKingdomofGodIswithinYouTolstoydeclaredhisadmirationforpacifists,startingwiththeBohemianPeterChelcickyandtheEnglishQuakers,theAmericanQuakerWilliam16LloydGarrison,andtheAmericanUnitarianAdinBallou.Inthecom-pendiaof1903and1910,TolstoyoftencitedBlaisePascal’sPenséesandthenonconformistChristiansocialistJohnRuskin’sUntoThisLast.Bothbooksimpressedhimdeeply.AlthoughthespiritualistTolstoytooksomecaretosituatehimselfintheancientChristiantradition,hisconnectionwiththesemodernthinkerswasalsorealenough.

161150g.m.hamburgIngeneral,then,Tolstoy’srelationshiptoinstitutionalChristianitywashostile,buthisrelationshiptothebroadertraditionofChristianthinkinghadcertainrootsinthepacifistsoftheearlyandmodernperiods,inPascalandRuskin.Tolstoy’smethodofspiritualthinkinghearkenedbacktoMarcion,Tatian,andLuther,andperhapstotheFranciscanSpirituals.YetifTolstoy’sthinkingwasneitherentirelyoriginalnoridiosyncratic,itwaswelloutsidethemainstreamofChristianthoughtonquestionsofdogma,ritual,andscripturalauthority.Tolstoywasaliminalfigure,defin-ableaseitherinsideoroutsideChristianity,dependingontheaspectofhisspiritualitybeingscrutinized.Tolstoy’scritiqueofmodernsociety,state,andChurchpointedhisfollowerstowardtheprospectofliberationfromsocialandinstitutionalconstraints.InTheKingdomofGodIswithinYouheassertedthat,inhisownlifetime,thefinalperiodofhistoryhaddawned,aperioddominatedby“God-centerdness”(bozheskoezhizneponimanie),awayofviewinglifewhichupheldneithertheindividualnorsmallcollectives,but“thesourceofeternal,undyinglife–God”(pt.4;PSS28:70).Eventually,hethought,theexpansionoflovewouldengulfallhumanity,“everythinglivingandexisting”(pt.4;PSS28:82–84).Asthisprocessreachedcompletion,hypocriticalmodernsociety,thestate,andtheinstitutionalChurchwoulddisappear.ForgenuineChristians,thisprospectrepresentedafinalliberationfromdarkness,theendofhistory,therealizationofthekingdomofGodonearth.However,Tolstoymaintained,realChristiansdidnothavetoawaitthecompletionofthishistoricalprocesstosecuretheirindividualfreedom,forgenuineChristianityaffordsthepossibilityofindividualself-emancipationfromtheworld’sdeceptionsthroughtheprocessofconver-sionor“awakening”thatTolstoyhimselfhadundergone.Infact,theliberationofallhumanitywastobetheconsequenceofaseriesofauto-liberations.Thatwaswhy,Tolstoyargued,“thehigherunderstandingoflifeundercutsthestate[…]ConfessinggenuineChristianitynotonlyexcludesthepossibilityofrecognizing[thelegitimacyof]thestate,butunderminesitsfoundations”(pt.10;PSS28:186).17Tolstoy’sChristiananarchismappealedtohisfollowersinatleastthreeways:itcalledonthehigherangelsoftheirnaturestoupholduniversallove;itdescribedtheirself-directedliberationfromfalsehoodasanimmediatelyattainable“awakening”fromignoranceandawaytoavoidthe“martyrdom”ofmodernlife;anditportrayedthemastheinstrumentsofGod’swillinhistory,abletobringdownmightyinstitutionsbynon-violentmeans.Thisheadymixtureofaltruismandself-emancipationconstitutedonesideofTolstoyanspirituality.Another,toofrequentlyneglectedsideofTolstoy’s

162Tolstoy’sspirituality151spiritualvisionlayintheironself-disciplinehedemandedofhimselfandothergenuineChristians.Tolstoy’scommitmenttoself-disciplinewasimplicitinhisethics,andthereforewaspresentinnuceinhisdiscussionofChrist’sfiveinjunctionsinWhatDoIBelieve?andinhisideaofinnerawakening.InTheKingdomofGodIswithinYouTolstoystressedthatChrist’steaching“doesnotgovernmenbyexternalrulesbutratherbyaninnerrecognitionofthepossibilityofdivineperfection”(pt.4;PSS28:78).Christianrulesofconductwerenotlikelegislativedirectivesbutwereratherprinciplesof“another,new,higherunderstandingoflife”(pt.8;PSS28:146).However,theclearestindicationofTolstoy’sthinkingonChristianself-disciplinemaybefoundinhisreflectionsonsininChristianTeaching.Tolstoyassertedthattherearethreetypesofsin:“natural”or“innate”sinstemmingfromour“inherentinclinations”ashumanbeings(Freudwouldhavecalledtheseinclinations“drives”);“inherited”or“social”sinstemmingfromourinheritedsocialstatus(suchasnobiliaryrank),fromourlegallyascribedprivileges,orfromcustomarysocialarrangements(suchasthesocialsuperiorityaccordedmenoverwomenorthedeferenceaccordedtothewealthybythepoororthemyriadprivilegesaffordedthewell-educatedovertheunlettered);and“newlyfabricated”(pridumannye)or“individual”sinstemmingmostlyfromindividuals’idiosyncraticeffortsatself-aggrandizement(pt.15;PSS39:131–32).Theideabehindthistypologyofsinwastorecognizethathumanbeingsaresinful.Wearetrappedininvidioussocialenvironmentsthatvitiateouraltruisticinstincts,andwecanalsobeinventivelyevil,ifwearenotrestrainedbythedisciplineoffaith.Tolstoy’sacknowledgmentofhumanevilissignificant,becausejustattheturnofthecenturyhewasattackedforhissupposednaïvetéonthispointby18VladimirSolov’evinThreeDialogues.TolstoyexpandedhisdiscussionofsinsinChristianTeachingbydivid-ingthemintosixcardinaloffensesagainstthelawoflove:drunkenness(op’ianenie),idlenessorsloth(prazdnost’),immoderatedesireorconcu-piscence(pokhot’),avariceorgreed(koryst’),loveofpower(vlastoliubie),andfornication(blud).AccordingtoTolstoy,anunrighteouspersoncannotridhimselforherselffromalifeofsinwithoutattackingthesesinsinaparticularsequence.First,onehastoridoneselfofdrunkenness,bywhichTolstoymeantnotonlythestereotypical“Russian”viceofabusingalcoholbuteveryformofself-intoxication,self-narcotization,or“dullingofthesenses”(odurenie).Onlyafterbanishingintoxicantsfromourlivescanwebegintoovercomeidleness.Havingovercomeidlenessbyaccustomingourselvestoconstantwork,wemaydiscoverinourselvesa

163152g.m.hamburgdiminisheddesiretoappropriateothers’property,andwemaythenhavelesstimetofantasizeaboutfornication.Afterconqueringidleness,heargued,wemayalsodobattleagainstourimmoderatedesires,acategoryofvicesinwhichTolstoyincludedpleasure-seeking(udovol’stvie),theacquisitionofgoodsbeyondthosenecessaryforsatisfyingmaterialneeds,andthepursuitofluxuries.Heregardedimmoderatedesireasasinstemmingfrominherentdrives,frominheritedorsocialsources,butalsofromthesinner’speculiarfancies(pt.17;PSS39:133).Afterdefeatingimmoderatedesire,wemayattackourinclinationtowardavarice.ThissinTolstoydescribednotasmoney-seekingperse,butasthepursuitofproperty:hewasatthispointinhislifecommittedtotheabolitionofprivateproperty(pt.19;PSS39:136).Afterovercomingavarice,wemayconfrontourloveofpower,aviceencompassinganyformofcompetitiondesignedtoimproveoursocialpositionattheexpenseofothers,andthustosecurematerialoremotionaladvantagesoverthem.Loveofpowermaystemfrompersonalinclinationsorfromthedesiretomaintaininheritedprivileges(pt.20;PSS39:137).Tolstoyregardedloveofpoweraspotentiallythedeadliestofsins,becauseabusesofpowerbytheindividualorthestatecansoeasilydestroyhumanlives.Thefinalsintoovercomewasfornication,avicethatTolstoyviewedinsomesenseasthesumoftheotheroffenses.Itisameansofself-narcotization;itinclinesthesinnertoidleness;itisaformofimmoderation,sinceitinvolvesunnecessarysexualactivity–thatis,“sexualrelationsnotforthepurposeofprocreation”(pt.21;PSS39:138);itmayentailavarice,sincefornication’sgoalmaysometimesbetheacquisitionofproperty,ortheobjectificationandcommodificationofwomen(inprostitution);andfor-nicationofteninvolvesunequalpowerrelationships,eitherbetweenmaleandfemale,oramongstmales(aswhenaserfownerclaimedtherightofprimaenoctis).Tolstoyassumedthatourlustfuldesirescannotbeeradi-cated,buthebelievedthatthesinoffornicationcanbe“reducedtoaminimum”(dovedendonaimen’sheistepeni)inmostpeopleand“virtuallyeliminated”(dovedendopolnogotselomudriia)inthewiseminorityofgenuineChristians(pt.58;PSS39:183).Thesuccessofthisprogramofcontrollingsindepends,accordingtoTolstoy,upontwopriorsteps:overcomingthefive“falsejustifications”ofsin(thetemptationsofprocrastination,family,utility,partnershipor“loy-alty,”andthestate);andexposingthedeceptionsoffaith.OnlyaftermanyindividualChristianshavebanishedtemptations,haveexposedthedecep-tionsoffalsereligion,andhaveovercomethesixsinshauntingtheirlives,

164Tolstoy’sspirituality153willsocietyasawholebeabletodismantletheinheritedstructuresofsocialprivilegestandinginthewayofthekingdomofGod.Tolstoy’steachingonsinlooselyresembledmonastictreatisessuchasthosefoundintheDobrotoliubie(theRussianversionofthePhilokalia)orinthewritingsofNilSorskii,wherethesuccessofindividualmonksandofthe19entirecommunityrestsonself-disciplinedavoidanceofsin.WhatismostinterestingaboutTolstoy’sideaofChristianself-discipline,however,isthewaysitsimultaneouslyinvokedanddeviatedfromestablishedChristianmodesofanalyzingsin.EarlyChristianideasofsinwereelaboratedbytheApostles,theDesertFathers,andtheirsuccessors.ThislegacywassystematizedbyEvagriusandCassian,whopositedtheexistenceofeightcapitalsins:gluttony(Latin:gastrimargia,Russian:chrevougodie),lustorfornication(Latin:fornicationus,Russian:blud),avariceorgreed(Latin:avaritia,Russian:srebroliubie),mel-ancholia(Latin:tristia,Russian:pechal’),anger(Latin:ira,Russian:gnev),despair(Latin:acedia,Russian:unynie),vainglory(Latin:inanisgloria,20Russian:tshcheslavie),andpride(Latin:superbia,Russian:gordost’).ThesameeightsinswererecordedbyNilofSinai,SaintEfrem,andSt.JohnLestvichnik.AllthesesourceswereavailabletoTolstoyintheDobrotoliubie–21ahandbooktowhichheoftenreferred.ThenotionofeightdeadlysinsbecamebythefifteenthcenturyastandardtropeoftheRussianmonastic22tradition.Tolstoy’steachingonself-disciplinedroppedfromtheOrthodoxlistofeightcardinalsinsmelancholia,anger,despair,vainglory,andpride.Perhapsheregardedmelancholiaanddespairas“monkish”vicesunlikelytoaffect“genuineChristians”livingoutsidetheinstitutionalChurch.Ontheotherhand,hemighthaveexpectedthesesinstobesweptawaybyChristians’attackonidleness,thesecondinhislistofsins.Heprobablythoughtofangerasavicerelatedtoloveofpower,sinceangerinvolvesputtingoneselfaboveothersandmayleadtoattemptstodominateorkillthem.Byasimilarlogic,hemayhaveregardedvaingloryandprideasformsofloveofpower.Psychologically,thedeletionofmelancholiaanddespairfromthelistofdeadlysinsistellinginviewofTolstoy’sownsuicidaldarknessc.1878:bythemid-1890s,whenhewaswritingChristianTeaching,hehadapparently“overcome”hisearlierinclinationtosuicidaldepression.Hisdecisiontodropangerfromthelistofdeadlysinsissurprising,whateveritsjustificationinhismind,givenitsprominenceintheSermonontheMount.Tolstoy’sdemotionofpride,traditionallyregardedbymanyChristianthinkersasthemostseriousofthecapitalsinsorevenastherootofevil,andhispromotionoffornicationtotheplaceofultimatesin

165154g.m.hamburgwerealsocuriousdeviationsfromtheeasternChristiantradition.PerhapsasaRussianaristocratwithanimperiouscharacter,Tolstoypreferrednottoconfronthisownpride.Althoughheinsistedonwearingpeasantclothes,performingmanuallabor,andlearningfrompeasantwisdom,heretainedtotheendmanytraitsofthewillfullord.Theimportanceheattachedtoavoidingfornicationreflectedhisfascinationwithandperplexityoverwomen,nottomentiondeepshameathisownsensuality.Tolstoy’sthinkingaboutthehierarchyofsinsmayprovideafruitfulperspectiveforanalyzingtwoofhislatefictionalnarratives–TheKreutzerSonataandResurrection.Bothnarrativeshighlightedthedangersofuncon-trolledpassionsandrevealedwithspecialclaritythewaysthatdifferentsinfulimpulsesmaycohabitinanundisciplinedsoul.Bothnarrativesillustratedtheconnectionsbetweenfornication(orthefearofit)andloveofpower.Resurrectionwas,amongotherthings,anovelofspiritual“awak-ening”depictinganincreasinglyself-disciplinedattackontemptations,spiritualdeceptions,andsinfulness.BeforeleavingthesubjectofChristianself-discipline,letuscommentbrieflyonWesternteachingsaboutsin.IntheWestthehierarchyofsevendeadlysinstookshapebetweenthesixthandtwelfthcenturies.ThekeyfiguresherewereGregorytheGreat,whostruckmelancholia(acedia)fromthelistofcapitalsins,andreplaceditwithenvy(invidia),andHuguesdeSaint-Victor,whoisoftencreditedastheWesterntheologianfirsttospeakofsevensins:lust(luxuria),gluttony(gula),greed(avaritia),melancholy(tristia),anger(ira),envy(invidia),andpride(superbia).BothGregoryandHuguesclassifiedprideasthe“rootofallevil”–apositionacceptedbymany,butnotallWesternspiritualwritersthereafter.IntheWest,angerandpride,twosinsleftoutofTolstoy’slistinChristianTeaching,drewtheworriedattentionofreligiouscommentatorsbecausethesesinswereunder-stoodtobecloselyrelatedtoviolenceandthereforetobedangeroustoexistingsocialarrangements.ThemostpowerfulWesternliterarymeditationonthehierarchyofsinswasDante’sInferno,atextthatcanbeconstructivelycomparedto23ChristianTeaching.InDante’sportrayal,hissojournersinhellencoun-tered,inorderofincreasingseriousness,theravagesoflust,gluttony,avarice,sloth,heresy,violence,andfraud.Underfraud,thislastandmostseriouscategoryofsins,Danteincludedsorcery,falseprophecy,corruptpolitics,fraudulentadvice,religiousschism,andtreachery–eachadelib-eratetransgressionagainstGodbutalsoacrimeagainsttheexistingpoliticalorder.WhatDante,thepolitician,fearedaboveallwasrebellionagainstGod,state,andChurch.Hewasaloveroflegitimateauthorityandthus,ina

166Tolstoy’sspirituality155Tolstoyansense,aloverofpower.UnlikeTolstoy,thegreatpoethadnodifficultysupportingtheuseofcoercionbyChurchorstate,solongasthiscoercionwasexercisedtoadvancesalvationandrighteousliving.However,DantesharedwithTolstoyahatredofdeception,especiallythefraudulenceinwhichevilcloaksitselfinordertoresemblethegood.Dante’shatredofimpostureledhimtoabominateallvarietiesoffraud;thesamehatredledTolstoytowarnChristiansagainstspiritualdeceptionsandthe“illusion”ofpatriotism.TosomeofTolstoy’smostreligiouslysensitivecritics,hisspiritualityhasseemedbothprimitiveandnegativeincharacter.WilliamJamescalledhim“oneofthoseprimitiveoaksofmentowhomthesuperfluitiesandinsin-cerities,thecupidities,complications,andcrueltiesofourpolitecivilizationareprofoundlyunsatisfying,andforwhometernalveracitiesliewithmorenaturalandanimalthings.Hiscrisiswasthegettingofhissoulinorder[…]24theescapefromfalsehoodsintowhatforhimwerethewaysoftruth.”DmitriiSergeevichMerezhkovskiisawTolstoy’sspiritualityasaspeciesof25nihilism–arejectionofOrthodoxywithoutacorrespondingaffirmation.SuchcriticismsissuedfromanappreciationofTolstoy’scritiqueofsocialconformism,state,andChurch,andtheyareusefulinremindingusjusthowforcefulwasTolstoy’ssocialcriticismintheeyesofcontemporaries.Yet,aswehaveseeninthischapter,Tolstoy’sspiritualitywasbuiltontheconvert’shopeofreligious“awakening,”onthelawofbrotherlylove,ontheenergygeneratedbyself-emancipationfromthe“deceptions”oftheoldpseudo-religion,butalsoonthefiercediscipliningofinnerresourcesneededtosustainatrulyChristianlife.Tolstoy’sspiritualitywasliminalwithrespecttotheChristiantradition–simultaneouslyinsideandoutsideit,dependingonone’sperspectiveandontheaspectsofhisteachingbeingexaminedatagiventime.HedepictedJesus’ethicalteachingsasthe“truth”ofChristianity,reworkedtheChristianideaoftheafterlifeintoanimpersonaldoctrineofimmortality,andrethoughtChristianideasofself-discipline.Meanwhile,heruthlesslydiscarded“unnecessary,”“irrational,”and“mistaken”dogmasaswellastheChurch’steachingauthority.Tolstoy’sadmission–half-elated,half-rueful–inWhatDoIBelieve?thathealone,after1,800years,“haddiscoveredthe26lawofChristassomethingnew”testifiedtohisawarenessofhisoutsider’sperspectiveonreceivedChristianwisdom.Hisoutlookbespokeextraordi-naryindependenceofmind,butalsoafiercepridethatcertaindefendersofRussianOrthodoxydidnothestitatetolabelSatanic.GivenTolstoy’scomplexattitudetowardChristianity,hisattitudestowardsectarianismandnon-Christianreligionsshouldsurprisenoone.

167156g.m.hamburgInhislifetime,heeloquentlydefendedRussiansectarians,especiallypacifistgroups,againststatepersecution.HedecriedgovernmentpersecutionoftheJews.Hepraisedallmajorreligioustraditions,OccidentalandOriental,tothedegreethattheypromoteduniversallove.Yethewasthefirsttoattacksuperstitions,emptyrituals,andreligiousdeceptionsbysectariansandnon-Christians.Tothesegroups,marginalandoftenimperiledinRussia,hewasapowerfulfriendbutnotacomradeinfaith.“Tolstoy,”accordingtohisadmirerVasiliiVasil’evichRozanov,“evengrantinghisterribleandcriminalblunders,errorsandimpudentwords,isanenormousreligiousphenomenon,perhapsthegreatestphenomenonofRussianreligioushistoryinthenineteenthcentury,howeverperverse.Butacrookedoakisanoaknonetheless,anditcannotbejudgedbyamechanical27institutionfashionedbyhumanhands.”Rozanov’sremarkwas,ofcourse,aprotestagainsttheHolySynod’sdecisiontoexcommunicateTolstoyfromtheOrthodoxChurch,butitwasalsotacitrecognitionofthedifficultyofclassifyingastrange,complicated,willfulfigurewhoseidiosyncraticreligiousvision,twistingtowardthevaultedheavenslikethebranchesofamightyoak,eventoday,astonishes.notes1.SeeTurgenev’slettertoDmitriiVasil’evichGrigorovichonOctober31/November12,1882,inPerepiskaI.S.Turgenevavdvukhtomakh,vol.1ed.KonstantinIvanovichTiunkin(Moscow:Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,1986),57.2.“OpredelenieSviateishegoSinodaot20–22fevralia1901goda.No.557.SposlaniemvernymchadamPravoslavnoiGreko-RossiiskoitserkvioGrafeL’veTolstom,”inE.F.Fomina,ed.,ZachtoLevTolstoibylotluchenottserkvi(Moscow:Izdatel’stvoDar,2006),10–11.3.SeeMarkAleksandrovichPopovskii,Russkiemuzhikirasskazyvaiut:posledovateliL.N.TolstogovSovetskomSoiuze,1918–1977(London:OverseasPublicationsExchange,1983);WilliamEdgerton,ed.,MemoirsofPeasantTolstoyansinSovietRussia(Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress,1993);ElenaDmitrievnaMeleshko,“Tolstovskiezemledel’cheskiekommuny,”inRubenGrantovichApresian,ed.,OpytnenasiliiavXXstoletii:sotsial’no-eticheskieocherki(Moscow:Aslan,1996),157–66;Meleshko,KhristianskieetikiL.N.Tolstogo(Moscow:Nauka,2006),251–93.4.InessaMedzhibovskaya,TolstoyandtheReligiousCultureofHisTime:ABiographyofaLongConversion,1845–1887(Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,2008).5.SeehispoignantremarkinChristianTeachinginTolstoi,Khristianskoeuchenie;PSS39:118:“Themainthingthatpreventedmefrombelieving[Christian]teachingwasthatIknewthatalongsidethisOrthodoxChristianteaching,whichclaimeditwasaloneintruth,thereweretheChristianCatholicteaching,

168Tolstoy’sspirituality157theLutheranandReformedteaching,andalltheothervariousChristianteachings,eachofwhichasserteditwasaloneintruth;andIknewthat,alongsidetheseChristianteachingsexistthenon-Christianreligiousteachings–ofBuddhism,Brahminism,Islam,Confucianismandsoon,eachregardingitselfastrueandotherteachingsasmistaken.AndIcouldneitherreturntothefaithIhadlearnedsincechildhoodnorbelieveinanyofthoseconfessedbyotherpeoples,becausetheyallhadoneandthesamecontradictions,illogic,miracles,rejectionofthefaithsofothers,and–themainthing,deception,thedemandofblindadherencetotheirteaching.”Alltranslationsinthischapter,unlessotherwisenoted,aremyown.6.Thisismyargumentinthecommentaryessay,“WarofWorlds,”inThomasSanders,ErnestTucker,andGaryHamburg,eds.,Russian-MuslimConfronta-tionintheCaucasus,1829–1859(LondonandNewYork:RoutledgeandCurzon,2004),171–238,especially221–23.7.WilliamJames,TheVarietiesofReligiousExperience:AStudyinHumanNature:BeingtheGiffordLecturesonNaturalReligionDeliveredatEdinburghin1901–1902,ed.MartinMarty([1902]NewYorkandLondon:Penguin,1982).8.Tolstoi,“Zakonnasiliiaizakonliubvi,”PSS37:166,169.9.SeeLevAbramovichOsterman,SrazheniezaTolstogo(Moscow:Grant,2002),109,citationfromthediaryofNikolaiSergeevichRodionov:“TwoTolstoysorone?OneTolstoy!Andthereisnocontradiction!”10.RichardF.Gustafson,LeoTolstoy:ResidentandStranger(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1986),xvi.11.Tolstoi,Vchemmoiavera?PSS23:368–70.12.Makarii(Bulgakov),Pravoslavno-dogmaticheskoebogoslovie,3rdedn,2vols.(St.Petersburg:Tipografiia“A.Treia,”1868).13.Khomiakov’sessayasserted:“theChurch’sunityfollowsinevitablyfromGod’sunity[…]Itsunityistrueandunconditional.”Khomiakovupheldthetruthof“Greco-RussianOrthodoxy”againstall“falseteachings.”See“Tserkov’odna,”inA.S.Khomiakov,Sochineniiavdvukhtomakh,Tom2,Rabotypobogosloviiu(Moskovskiifilosofskiifond.Moscow:Izdatel’stvoMedium.Zhurnal“Voprosyfilosofii,”1994)5,23.14.Tolstoi,“Zakonnasiliiaizakonliubvi,”PSS37:165.15.ThomasJefferson,TheJeffersonBible:TheLifeandMoralsofJesusofNazareth(NewYork:Holt,1995).16.Tolstoi,Tsarstvobozhievnutrivas,pt.1,PSS28:2–18.17.ForashortcommentonTolstoy’s“Christiananarchism,”seeAndrzejWalicki,AHistoryofRussianThoughtfromtheEnlightenmenttoMarxism(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1979),347–48.18.VladimirSergeevichSolov’ev,Trirazgovora.1899–1900,inSobraniesochineniiV.Solov’eva:fototipicheskoeizdanie(Brussels:FoyerOrientalChrétien,1966),vol.x,81–221.Tolstoyisthemodelfor“ThePrince,”acharacterwhoispilloriedbySolov’ev’sspokesman“Mr.Z”inthefirsttwodialogues.19.OnSorskii’smonasticcharter,seeGeorgeA.Maloney,S.J.,ed.,NilSorskii:TheCompleteWritings(NewYorkandMahnah,NJ:PaulistPress,2003),50–120.

169158g.m.hamburg20.SeeAvvaEvagriia,“Obos’mipomyslakhkAntonii,”inDobrotoliubie(Paris:YMCAPress,1988),vol.i,603–5;SviatoiIoannKassianRimlianin,“Obozreniedukhovnoibrani,”inDobrotoliubie(Paris:YMCAPress,1988),vol.2,21–84.Tobemoreprecise,Evagriusactuallywrotenotabouteightcardinal“sins,”butabouteight“temptations,”“illusions,”or“veils,”whichphenomenawereclassifiedas“sins”bysubsequentChristianwriters.21.PrepobodnyiNil’Sinaiskii,“Obos’midukhakhzla,”inDobrotoliubie,vol.2,229–70;“PodvizhnicheskiianastavleniiaSv.Efrema,”inDobrotoliubie,vol.2,377–429;“PodvizhnicheskieurokiSv.IoannaLestvichnika,”inDobrotoliubie,vol.2,515etseq.22.Maloney,ed.,NilSorskii,71–85.OntheproblemoftheeightdeadlysinsinOrthodoxtheology,seeAiméSolignac,“Péchéscapitaux,”Dictionnairedespiritualité(Paris:Beauchesne,1984),vol.xii,pt.1,853–62;andI.Hausherr,“L’originedelathéorieorientaledeshuitpéchéscapitaux,”OrientaliaChristiana30(1933):164–75.23.InPurgatorio,Danteofferedadifferenthierarchyofsin.AsthepoetandhisguideVirgilascendtheMountainofPurgatory,theyenterseventerraces,oneachofwhichacertainsinispunished.Inascendingorder(andindecreasingorderofspiritualseriousness),thosesinsare:pride,envy,anger,sloth,avarice(andits“opposite”prodigality),gluttony,andlust.24.WilliamJames,TheVarietiesofReligiousExperience,ed.Marty,186.25.D.S.Merezhkovskii,L.TolstoiiDostoevskii,ed.E.A.Andrushchenko(Moscow:Nauka,2000),196–97.26.Tolstoi,Vchemmoiavera?PSS23:477.27.V.V.Rozanov,“Obotlucheniigr.L.Tolstogoottserkvi,”inOkolotserkov-nykhsten.Sobraniesochinenii,ed.A.N.Nikoliukin(Moscow:Respublika,1995),478;alsoquoted,withoutattributiontotheprimarysource,inAlekseiZverevandVladimirTunimanov,LevTolstoi(Moscow:Molodaiagvardiia,2006),573.

170chapter8TrackingtheEnglishnovelinAnnaKarenina:whowrotetheEnglishnovelthatAnnareads?EdwinaCruiseEnglandmeritsthetitleofmostnovelisticcountry…NowheredoesthenovelthrivesoreadilyasinEngland.Dozensofnewnovelscomeouteverymonth.1FatherlandNotes,1866Anna[…]askedAnnushkatobringoutalittlelamp,attachedittothearmrestofherseat,andtookapaper-knifeandanEnglishnovelfromherhandbag.Atfirstshewasunabletoread[…]and[then]Annabegantoreadandtounderstandwhatshewasreading[…]AnnaArkadyevnareadandunderstood,butitwasunpleasantforhertoread,thatis,tofollowthereflectionofotherpeople’slives.Shewantedtoomuchtoliveherself.Whenshewouldreadabouttheheroineofthenoveltakingcareofasickman,shewantedtowalkwithinaudiblestepsroundthesickman’sroom;whenshewouldreadaboutaMemberofParliamentgivingaspeech,shewantedtogivethatspeech;whenshewouldreadabouthowLadyMaryrodetohounds,tauntinghersister-in-lawandamazingeveryonewithhercourage,shewantedtodoitherself.Buttherewasnothingtodo,andso,fingeringthesmoothknifewithhersmallhands,sheforcedherselftoread.TheheroofthenovelwasalreadybeginningtoachievehisEnglishhappiness,abaronetcyandanestate,andAnnawishedtogowithhimtothisestate,whensuddenlyshefeltthathemustbeashamedandthatshewasashamedofthesamething.2(AnnaKarenina,pt.1,ch.29:99–100;PSS18:106–7)Anna’sstormynighttrainjourneyisoneofthemostcelebratedpassagesinRussianliterature.ItisinthisscenethatshetriestomakesenseofherdeeplyconflictedresponsestoanencounterthepreviouseveningwithVronsky,herfuturelover.InhisbrilliantanalysisofAnna’semotionalstateRobertJacksonwritesof“apowerfulpassion[that]crashesthroughabarrierofwilland3conscience.”AssoonasVronskyentersAnna’sEnglishnovel,sheputsthebookdown.Warmedbyherownshame,shementallywrestlesVronsky’simageintoaninsignificant“boy-officer.”Thetextcontinues:“Shesmiled159

171160edwinacruisescornfullyandagainpickedupthebook,butnowwasdecidedlyunabletounderstandwhatshewasreading”(pt.1,ch.29:100–1;PSS18:107).Annahasreadhernovelforthelasttime.TheEnglishnovelthatAnnareadsonthetrainhasnotyetbeenidentifiedbycritics,ifbythatismeantasinglenovelthatincludesallfourscenes:theheroinewalkingsilentlyaroundthebedsideofanailingman;aMemberofParliamentgivingaspeech;LadyMaryboldlyridingtohounds,tauntinghersister-in-law;and,inthelastscenethatAnnavicar-iouslyinhabits,theheroabouttoachievehis“Englishhappiness,”abaron-etcyandanestate,andshe–thatis,Anna–wishingtojoinhim.Tothecontrary,thesescenesidentifytropesthataretheubiquitousbaggageofVictoriannovels.Takeabaronetcy,forexample.Thedestinationofhordesofheroesandheroines,playedoutonthefinalpagesofinnumerableEnglishnovels,itsignalsmarriage,prosperity,andlifelonghappiness.Orthe“horseyheroine,”oftenstraddlingthegreyareabetweenrespectableand4“fast”behavior.Inotherwords–withprofoundapologiestothosewhohaveyearnedforthescholar’sEureka–thereseemstobenosuchthingasany“long-lostEnglishnovel”waitingtoberediscovered.Thewould-bedetectivelikemyselfwhospendsyearsreadingobscure,excessivelylong,andnowmostlyout-of-printEnglishnovelsinhopesoftrackingdowntheonespecifictitlethatAnnareadswillbeobligedtoconcede(asIhave)thatAnna’snovelisTolstoy’scarefullycalculatedinvention,acompositeofprototypicallyEnglishscenesandimages,liberallyreflectedintheEnglishnovelsthatwereinfashioninRussiabythe1860s.ThepervasiveEnglishthemeinTolstoy’snovelhasbeensuperblydocu-5mentedbyBarbaraLönnqvist.TolstoyhasindeedinfusedhisnovelwiththecompellingauraofcontemporaneousEnglishlanguageandculture.ThankstoreadingEnglishnovels,bothDollyandAnnacomfortablyusetheEnglishword“skeletons”toalludetotheguiltthatthelatterisfeelingaftertheball(pt.1,ch.28:98;PSS18:104).DollyisabletorecognizethemirroroffashionableEnglishcultureinthefurnishingsatVronsky’sestate(pt.6,ch.29:616;PSS19:191).Andthankstothatkindofnovelreading,firstreadersofAnnaKareninamusthavehadanespeciallykeenappreciationforTolstoy’sinteractionwiththeEnglishnovel.Thesesamereadersmighthavenotedthatthepre-VronskyAnnahasherdressesrefashioned,invokingthefamousthriftsoprizedintheVictorianwife(pt.1,ch.33:110;PSS19:117).AndtheyprobablywouldhaverushedtoafewEnglish-novel-drivenconclusionsassoonastheyreadthatAnnacallsthecrushedrailroadwork-er’sdeath“abadomen”(pt.1,ch.18:65;PSS18:70),or,laterinthenovel,6thatshehasrepeatednightmares.

172TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”161Suchimpressionisticevidenceisnotpersuasive,ofcourse.Thetextquotedabove,however,containsthemostconvincingproofthatAnnareadsmorethanonenovel,andonmorethanoneoccasion.Thethrice-repeated,iterativeverbphrase“whenshewouldread”/“ifsheread”(chitalaliona)marksahabitualpatternofreading,withwell-establishedrootsin7Anna’spsyche.AsIseeit,andwillarguebelow,whetherviewedasasinglenovelorseveralnovels,asingleandexceptional“read”orapatternofreading,Anna’snovelisthereader’s“Open,Sesame”tothegenericandculture-definingtraitsoftheEnglishnovelinTolstoy’sAnnaKarenina.WithapologiestoHenryJames,whatexactlyisthisbaggymonsterofelephantineproportionsthatwehavebeencalling“theEnglishnovelinAnnaKarenina”?BorisEikhenbaumdefinesAnnaKareninabyreferencetotheEnglishandFrenchnovel:“InitiallythenovelseemsmadeaccordingtotheEuropeanmodel:somethingontheorderofthetraditionsoftheEnglish8familynovelandtheFrench‘adultery’novel.”ThatsweepingculturaldistinctionbetweenEnglishandFrenchnovelsistrueinasense,butnotwhenappliedtotheEnglishnovelsthatTolstoyread,i.e.,tothenovelsthatmostinfluencedAnnaKarenina.Bythemid-1860s,whetherliftedfromtheFrenchnovelorfromDickens,borrowedfromstagemelodramaor“rippedfromtoday’sheadlines,”Englishnovelsreflectedthereadingpublic’svoy-euristicinterestinscandal,crime,andotherdeviantbehavior.Thesenovels,featuringadultery,bigamy,homicide,arson,andsleuthingdetectivesinthebushes,soldexceptionallywellathomeandabroad,conspicuouslyincludingRussia.ItisnotpossibletoimagineTolstoy’sperceptionoftheEnglishnovel9inthe1860sandearly1870swithoutincludingthesensationnovel.Inan1864literaryreviewinFatherlandNotes(Otechestvennyezapiski)anunnamedcriticwrote:“Englishbellelettres,atleastsomeofitsrepresentatives,isturningawayfromitsancientheritageofsimplicityandrealism,andstrivingforsensation[…]Wehavenodoubtsthatthesuccessofsensationnovelsisa10resultofthetemporarycorruptionofpublictaste.”ThecriticdismissesBraddon’slatestnovel,JohnMarchmount’sLegacy(1864),asnobetterthanherearliernovels.S/hemuchprefersTrollope’slatestnovel,RachelRay11(1864).AlthoughlowerontheartistictotempolethanEliot’sAdamBede(1859)andRomola(1863),whichthecriticdescribesas“greaterthananythingthathasevercomefromthepenofawoman,”orWilliamThackeray,whosebestworks“areimbuedwiththemostsimpleandpracticalevery-dayphilosophy,”Trollopenonethelesselicitsthecritic’spraise:“Hisnovels,thoughtheyinhabitamoremodestterrain,representcommonsenseandeverydaylife;theynotonlyengagethereader,theyalsoprovidenourishment12forthemind.”Totranslate:Trollopeeschewedunmotivatedandunnatural

173162edwinacruisesensation;hewouldratherhavethescarypartbewhentheheroinegetsachill,ortheheroisthrownfromhishorse.ThenovelsofearlyTrollopecouldbeleftinpublicroomsinthebestofhomes.ThenumberandtypesofEnglishnovelsthatTolstoyknewandmayhavereadisenormous.So,intheinterestsofspaceandfocus,letusdiscardtwoheavyweights,CharlesDickensandWilliamThackeray–notbecausetheydidn’twritesplendidnovelsinthe1860s,butbecausetheirinfluenceonTolstoyandinRussiacameatanearlierperiod.LetusalsolopoffnovelsthatTolstoymighthavereadbeforehewrotehisprovocativelytitledFamilyHappiness(1859),afirst-personaccountofayoungwoman’semotionalandmoralgrowthintodedicatedandentirelydomesticatedmotherhood.Anothergoodreasonforstartingwith1859:itmarkstheapproximatetimewhenTolstoybeganmakingaconsciousefforttoreadEnglishnovelsin13English.AndweshallendourinquirywithnovelspublishedafterDecember1872,justthreemonthsbeforeTolstoybeganAnnaKarenina.Andnow,theonlylimitationofrealconsequence:let’sconfinethe“suspectsofinterest”tofournovelistswhomTolstoyheldinhighregard;theyare–intheorderIwilldiscussthem–AnthonyTrollope,GeorgeEliot,MaryElizabethBraddon,andMrs.HenryWood.TrollopewaswellknowninRussiabefore1860,whereasEliot,Wood,andBraddonburstontotheEnglishliteraryscenein1859,1861,and1862,respectively.TakenasacompositeoftheEnglishnovel,includingitssensationalaspects,thismismatchedquartetprofoundlyinfluencedTolstoy’sconceptionoftheEnglishthemeinAnnaKarenina.TheirnovelsareamongtheprimarycontributorstotheEnglishnovelthatAnnareads(seeAppendix1).FirstreadersofAnnaKareninahadeasyaccesstothecontemporaneousEnglishnovelthatIhavecircumscribedabove.ThreedifferenttranslationsofEliot’smaidennovel,AdamBede,forexample,wereserializedin1859inthreedifferentRussianjournals,withinayearofitsLondonpublication.Inamoretypicalexample,thejournalFatherlandNotesbeganserializingBraddon’sLadyAudley’sSecretonlythreemonthsafteritsbookpublicationinlateNovember1862.AsoneRussiancritichalf-jestinglycomplained,“Assoonasacriticfeelslikegrabbinghispentotalkaboutanewnovel,justblink,andit’salreadyoutinfourtranslations,writtenbyfortyhands,14publishedinjournals,andsometimesdistortedbeyondcomprehension.”WhatevertheideologicalbiasoftheleadingRussianjournals,theeditorsrecognizedthecommercialadvantagesoftranslating“free”(nocopyrightfees)novelsfromabroad;itwascheapertopayfortranslationthantopayRussianauthorsfororiginalworks.Andthereweremanypopularnewnovelstobehad!Between1859and1872TrollopeandWoodeachproduced

174TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”163overtwenty-twonovels.Braddon,evenwithtwolargebroodsofchildrentocarefor,managedtoextrudefourteenmajornovelsduringthattime.Eliotcomesinadistantfourthwithacomparativelymeagerseventitles.WiththeexceptionofWood,whobypassedserialpublicationinRussia,eachofthesenovelistswaswellrepresentedinthemajorjournals;allfournovelistsweretranslatedintoRussianforbookpublication.AsIhavementionedabove,TolstoypreferredtoreadEnglishnovelsinEnglish.HisextensivelibraryatIasnaiaPolianacontainsveryfewEnglishnovelsinFrenchorRussiantranslation.TheoverwhelmingmajorityofhisfictioninEnglishisfromthe“CollectionofBritishAuthors”(COBA)15series,createdbytheLeipzigpublisherChristianBernhardTauchnitz.RememberedasabrilliantpublisherandadevotedAnglophile,Tauchnitzwasinhistimethesinglemostimportantpurveyor–ambassadorofBritishliteraryculturearoundtheworld.TauchnitzacquiredaloyalfollowingbecausehepaidauthorsforpublicationrightsoutsideoftheBritishEmpire–anunprecedentedgestureinthedaysbeforeinternationalcopy-rightlaws.By1860TauchnitzhadachievedavirtualmonopolyinthepublicationanddistributionofBritishliteraryculture.MoretothepointforAnna’snovel,theTauchnitzCOBAserieswaswidelydistributedthroughoutwesternEurope,aswellasinthecapitalcitiesofRussia.16TolstoyshoppedinMoscowatJ.DeubnerBuchhandlung.ThedescriptivebibliographyofforeignbooksinthelibraryatIasnaiaPoliana(publishedin1999)isessentialreadingforanysleuthtracking17Anna’snovel.EvenmorerevealingaretheactualEnglishnovelsthatTolstoyandhisfamilyread;oncetheshockandaweoftouchingthempasses,theTauchnitztitlesonTolstoy’slibraryshelveshavearichstorytotell.ThenovelsofBraddonandWoodshowsignsofnumerousreaders;thecoversarewell-worn,manyreboundinherdistinctivewaybyS.A.Tolstaia.Oftenmissingarepageswithinavolume,orawholevolumefromamulti-volumenovel.Tolstoy’swell-knownmarkingsarethere–thumb-nailimprintsanddoublefoldsonpagecorners–butsoareunderlinings(nottypicalforTolstoy),achild’scrayonscribbles,aportraitinpencil,signsofafoodstainortwohereandthere,dropsofcandlewax,andvocabularynotesinafewlanguages,especiallyintheBraddonnovels.ThistreasuretroveofTauchnitzvolumescomeswithafewcaveats,however.ThelibraryisnotalwaysagoodguidetowhatTolstoyreadorwhenhereadit.Severalnovelsthatweknowhereadarenolonger(ornever18were)ontheshelves.Mostconspicuously,thebestofTrollopeismissing,perhapsaresultofTolstoy’shabitofsharingfavoritebookswithfamilyandfriends.IsuspectthatseveralnovelswentmissingafterTolstoysentthemto

175164edwinacruise19hisbrotherSergei,wholivednearby.ItisoftendifficulttodateTauchnitzvolumes:theoriginaldateofpublicationonthetitlepagewasneverchangedforsubsequenteditions.Lastly,inafewvolumes–Ididnotcatchthisatfirst–therearefaintsignsthatdouble-foldedcorners,Tolstoy’smostcommonreadingsignature,havebeenunfoldedandflattened,probablyintheprocessofrebinding.HavingcollectedthephysicalevidencefromtheEnglishnovelsinTolstoy’slibrary,Iturntothesubstantiveareasofourinvestigation:thequartetofnoveliststhemselves,andtheircontemporaneousreceptioninRussiaandbyTolstoy.AnthonyTrollope(1815–82)isthelogicalplacetostart.HisworkasawholebestconformstoEikhenbaum’sdefinitionoftheEnglishfamilynovelquotedabove,andhewasthemostpopularEnglishnovelistinRussiaintheearly1870s.Hewasafrequenttopicofconversa-20tion,especiallyintheEuropeanHerald(VestnikEvropy).Typicalofliterarycriticismatthetime,therewasoftenagreatdealofretellingandextensivequotationfromthenovelsunderdiscussion;evenareaderwhoonlyreadreviewsofTrollope’snovelsandnotthenovelsthemselveswouldhavebeenfamiliarwithTrollope’strademarktraits.AsL.Polonsky,foreign-literaturecriticfortheEuropeanHeraldin1870wroteinanessayentitled“SketchesofEnglishSocietyintheNovelsofA.Trollope”:ThereisnotruerrepresentativeofEnglishsociety[…]thanAnthonyTrollope.Anartfulstoryteller,whohasdescribedallthelayersofhigh-andmiddle-classsociety,atruerealist,alientoanysortofunbridledfantasy,afineobserver,notlackinginmellowhumor[…]themostpopularmanofletters,authorofaslewofnovels,21someofwhichhavebeentranslatedintoRussian.Trollope’snovelsservedupanaffableandconfidentnarrativepresence,benignsatire,vividcharacterizations,andentertainingconfirmationofthepoweroflove.Heappealedequallytomaleandfemalereaders.RecognizedinRussiaespeciallyforhisindependentandfeistywomencharacterswhohaveasenseoftheirownself-worth,hewasathisbestwhenheworkedwithintheconventionalthemesoftheEnglishnovel:socialandfinancialbarrierstomarriage,adramaticchangeincircumstances,leadingmorelikelythannottoamarriageortwo(ormaybeababy’scry)onthelastpage,andtheexpectationofstabilityandhappinesswithinthedomesticsphere.FarfrombreakingwithEnglish-novelconventions,Trollopeper-fectedthem.Inshort,TrollopeproducedtheperfectmodelofaproperEnglishnovel.(Bycontrast,thefinalmomentsofAnnaKarenina,whenLevinrealizesthathecannotsharehisinteriorlifewithhiswife,threatentheidylloffamilyhappiness.)

176TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”165Tolstoy’sdiariesforlateSeptember–earlyOctober1865showanintenseperiodofnovelreading,includingTrollope’sTheBertrams(1859),whichhedidnotseemabletoputdown.Thereisanoften-quoteddiaryentrybyS.A.Tolstaiaaboutherhusbanddated1878(afterthebookpublicationofAnnaKarenina)andtheEnglishnovel:“IknowthatwhenLevochkaturns22toreadingEnglishnovelsheisneartowriting.”Thatisverylikely.HealsoreadEnglishnovelswhenhehadwriter’sblock.Considerthesediaryextracts,writtenatatimewhenhewasfeelingoutofsorts,andhavingtroublefinishingvolume1,part2ofWarandPeace(thefirstmilitaryconflicts):Sept.24:IreadConsuelo[byGeorgeSand].Whatditheringtwaddle[…]23Sept.27:IreadthatstupidJuliaKavanah.[sic]Sept.28:StupidJ[ulia]K[avanagh][…]Sept.29:IreadTrollope.–Ifitweren’tforthediffuseness.Good.Sept.30:IreadTrollope.Good.Oct.1:I’mreadingBertrams–Splendid!Oct.2:Trollopeslaysmewithhismastery.Iconsolemyselfthathehashistalent,andIhavemine.Toknowwhat’smyown–or,rather,what’snotmine–that’sthemainart.Oct.3:FinishedTrollope.Toomuchconvention.24(PSS48:63–64)Tolstoy’scommentonconvention(uslovnogo)ispuzzling.IinterpretTolstoy’s“toomuchconvention”here–atleastinpart–asachildishswipeatawriterwhomhedidnotwanttoadmiresomuch.Tolstoy’scriticismofAdamBede(seebelow)seemstaintedbythesameinsecureenvy.Infact,TheBertramsisnotaconventionalnovel,atleastnotaconventionalTrollopenovel.ThetastelessEgyptianwhirlingDervishessceneinthetraveloguepartofTrollope’sstorysurelydoesnotregisterasconventional.WhileTolstoyiscorrectingeneral–alotofthesameplotcomplicationsandliterallymanyofthesamecharactersappearfromoneTrollopenoveltothenext–heiswrongintheparticulars.TheBertramsisanatypicalnovel,somber,psycho-logical,andfocusedonsuppressedfeelings.Trollope’sthemes–avarice,marriageformoneyandstationratherthanlove,andtheongoingdebatesonwomen’srights–arenotsounusual,butthenovel’soutcomeis.Onthelastpage,barrierstomarriagefinallysurmounted,theformerlyengagedCarolineandGeorgewed.“But,”writestheapologeticstoryteller,Sweetladies,sweetest,fairestmaidens,therewerenosoft,honeyedwordsoflovethenspoken;nohappy,eagervows,whichanovelistmayrepeat,hopingtomovethesoftsympathyofyourbosoms.Itwasacold,sad,drearymatter,thatofferofhis;hermelancholy,silentacquiescence,andthatmarriageinHadleychurch,atwhich

177166edwinacruisenonewerepresentbutAdela,andArthur,andMissBaker[…]Theynowlivetogether,veryquietly,verysoberly,butyethappily[…]NobabyliesinCaroline’sarms,nonoisyboyclimbsonthearmofGeorgeBertram’schair.Theirhouseis25childless,andvery,veryquiet;buttheyarenotunhappy.ThestoryofCarolineandGeorge,withitsdenialofa“happilyeverafter,”runscountertotheTrollopepattern.Thefinalimageofhisparalyzedcharacters,silentandmotionlessinahousethatisnotahome,isdisquiet-ing.Nonetheless,overall,Trollope’sgeniusasastorytellerwasnotpreoc-cupiedwithinnovation;tothatextent,Tolstoyisright.WhatTrollopediddo,andthatexceptionallywell,wastogivevividformtothemannersandmoresthatdefinewhatGertrudeHimmelfarbdescribesasthe“Victorian26virtues.”Moretothepoint,Trollope’scorpusprovidedrichsourcematerialforAnna’snovel.Trollopewrotethekindofpopular,family-orientedfictionthatAnnawouldread,butitisnotwhatTolstoyhimselfmostenjoyed.IncontrasttoTrollope,GeorgeEliot(1819–80)regardedliterarycon-ventionasathreateningplague.Inher1856essay“SillyNovelsbyLadyNovelists,”publishedintheintellectuallyprestigiousWestminsterReview,Eliotskeweredtheperfectheroinesfavoredbytheburgeoningnumbersofladynovelists.Theheroineisusuallyanheiress[…]withperhapsaviciousbaronet[…]intheforeground[…]Hereyesandwitarebothdazzling;hernoseandhermoralsarealikefreefromanytendencytoirregularity;shehasasuperbcontraltoandasuperbintellect,sheisperfectlywelldressedandperfectlyreligious;shedanceslikeasylph,andreadstheBibleintheoriginaltongues[…][Men]seeherataball,andaredazzled;ataflowershow,andtheyarefascinated;onaridingexcursion,andtheyarewitchedbyhernoblehorsemanship;atchurchandtheyareawedbythesweetsolemnityofherdemeanor.Sheistheidealwomaninfeelings,faculties,and27flounces.SoonafterEliotwrotethispiece(sheattributeditsuncharacteristicbiletoatoothache),shebeganherfirstfiction,initiallyserialized,andthenpub-lishedunderthetitleScenesofClericalLife(1859).Thesearethreesombersketches,withdeathacommondenominator,inwhichthenarratorisalternatelywitty,wise,sympathetic,butnotsenti-mental.WhenTolstoyreadScenesheimmediatelyrecognizedEliot’stalent.Toafavoriterelative,A.A.Tolstaia,Tolstoywrote:“WereyouinRussianow,IwouldsendyouElliot[sic]Scenesofclericallife,butIcanonlyaskyou28nowtoreadit,particularly‘Janet’sRepentance’.”Tolstoycontinues:“Happyarethepeoplewho,liketheEnglish,imbibetheirChristiantrain-ingwithmother’smilk,andinsuchahighandpureformasevangelical

178TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”167Protestantism.–Hereisamoralandreligiousbook,butIreallylikeditanditmadeastrongimpression”(PSS60:300).TolstoysawmoreChristiansignificanceinthesesketchesthanEliotintended,butwhatstandsoutinhisassessmentisthe“Ireallylikeditanditmadeastrongimpression.”WhenandhowTolstoyreadScenesisrevealing.Theyappearedanonymously–eventhepublisherdidnotknowtheauthor’sidentity–inseveralinstall-mentsofBlackwood’sEdinburghMagazine,concludingwiththeNovember1857issue;andthentheycameoutinbookforminLondoninJanuary1858.Tauchnitz,usuallymuchfasteroutofthegate,didnotnegotiaterepub-licationrightsuntillateNovember1858;ScenescameoutintheCOBAseriesinFebruary1859.Nonetheless,sincethefirstRussiantranslationsdidnotappearuntil1860,TolstoymusthavereadScenesinEnglish,mostlikelyintheTauchnitzedition.ThereisnorecordthatSceneswaseverinhislibrary.MostRussianreadersfirstencounteredtheyet-unidentifiedGeorgeEliotbywayofAdamBedein1859,inRussiantranslation.Tolstoy’soften-quotedreactiontoAdamBede(below,initalics)inhisdiary,October11,1859,iscryptic,butperhapslesssowhenreadinthecontextofthewholeday’sentry:Witheachpassingday,mymoralstategetsworseandworse,andalreadyI’vealmostgottenintomysummerrut.Iwilltrytoresist.I’vebeenreadingAdamBede.Powerfullytragic,althoughitdoesn’tringtrue(neverno)andit’sfullofonethought.There’snoneofthatinme.Thehorsesareworseandworse.IgotangryatLukyan.(PSS48:22)Tolstoy’sgrouchymood–hisperceivedmoralfailingsandangerthathishorseswerenotthriving–issandwichedaroundhissketchytakeonAdamBede.IsuspectthatTolstoy,stillontheuncertainthresholdofabrilliantcareerasawriter,mayhavebeeninequalmeasureattractedtoandthreatenedbyEliot’scapacioustalent.WhateverTolstoyhadinmindbyhisremarks,W.GarethJoneshasmadeagoodargumentthat“AdamBedemust[…]haveprofoundlyinfluencedTolstoy’sconceptionof[…]Anna29Karenina.”NotinanydoubtistheextraordinaryadulationthatRussiancriticspouredonGeorgeEliotafterthepublicationofTheMillontheFloss(1860):“TheEnglishnovelstandsfirst,ofcourse[amongforeignnovels]30[…]ThetriumvirateofDickens,Thackeray,andEliothasnorivals.”Eliot’smajorworkbelongedtothefuture:Romola(1863),Middlemarch(1872),andDanielDeronda(1876);nonetheless,hergenerous,reflective,andprobingnarrativevoicehadalreadycapturedtheRussianpropensityfor31soulfulandintellectuallychargednovels.E.J.Blumberghasmadeagood

179168edwinacruisecasefortheinfluenceofMiddlemarchonAnnaKarenina,but,asarule,thestudyofasingleEnglishnovelrelativetoAnnaKareninatendstoobscurethemoreconsequentialconnectionsthatseveralEnglishnovelsmayhaveto32AnnaKarenina.Quiteprobably,asS.Knapphasnoted,Tolstoy–andRussianreadersaswell,Iwouldadd–weremorestronglyengagedbythe33early,lesspolished,Eliot.Eliot’searly,philanthropicfocusonthehumblyborn(somewhatreminiscentofthephysiologicalsketch,agenericcorner-stoneofearlyRussianRealisminthe1840s)appealedtotheRussianimagination.WhethertheearlyorlateEliot,andTolstoy’stasteschangedovertime,sheengagedhismindthroughouthislifeinawaythatTrollopedidnot.TheprodigiousartisticinventionandseriousnessofpurposethatputEliot’snovelsintothecategoryofhighculturefindnocounterpartinthenovelsofMaryElizabethBraddon(Maxwell)(1837–1915),“QueenoftheSensationNovel.”SheearnedthatreputationonthebasisofLadyAudley’sSecret(1862)andAuroraFloyd(1863),twobigamynovelsthatFatherlandNoteshailedas“themajoreventofthisyear’sEnglishliteraryseason[…]Thesuccesswasenormous;therehasn’tbeenonelikeitsincethetimeof34WalterScott.”Thefollowingyear,however,thesamejournalhadcooled35itsenthusiasm;whileacknowledgingthatWilkieCollinsandMistressBraddonweremastersofsensation,thecritic’scondescendingtoneimplied36thatsensationalismitselfwasunderattack.In1866,continuingtheepi-graphthatbeginsthischapter,FatherlandNoteswroteitsmosticyrebuke:“Thesensationaltoneinthenovelthatissopopularthesedayshashada37significantimpactonthedeclineoftasteandcommonsense.”MaryElizabethBraddonwasafavorite“read”fortherecentlyweddedTolstoys.MemoirsattestthatTolstoy,wholovedtoreadaloud,wouldoftenreadEnglishnovelswithhiswifeandfamily:pictureafun,cozy,familyevening,entertainmentservedupbythehappyhusbandandproudfatherofthehouse–andacomicactoroffirstrankinfamilytheatricals.T.A.Kuzminskaia,whooftenvisitedIasnaiaPoliana,recallsofthattime:“Sometimeshe[herbrother-in-law,Tolstoy]wouldreadtousaloud.IrememberhowhereadintranslationanEnglishnovelbyMistressBraddon–AuroraFloyd.Helikedthisnovelandinterruptedhisreadingwithexclamations:‘WhatmasterfulwriterstheseEnglishare!Allthese38smalldetailsportraylife!’”KuzminskaiagoesontorecordthatTolstoy“halfinjest,half-seriously”remarkedonherresemblancetotheepony-mousheroine,Aurora,whoenjoysfastriding,elopeswithhergroom,concealsherbigamybythrowingherblackmailingfirsthusbanddownawellonhersecondhusband’sestate,andconsiderspoisoninghersecond

180TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”169husband,allthisjustforstarters.Kuzminskaia(proudofherpresenceinthecharacterofNatashainWarandPeace)wasamused,butrecoiledthatTolstoywouldthinkthatshe,likeBraddon’sheroine,wouldstooptomarryagroom.“LevNikolaevich[Tolstoy]hadagoodlaughandcon-39tinuedtoread.”Braddon,inshort,wasasourceofmerrimentandpredictable,light-heartedhumorintheTolstoyhousehold.ThroughthebizarrelensofanEnglishnovelistwhoseearlynovelsportraypowerfulandcalculatingwomenwhobringcriminalandmentaldepravitytothemid-Victorianhearth,weareprivytoanintimatefamilygatheringintheTolstoyhome.Inthemid-1860s,IasnaiaPolianawasanEnglish-novelidyllinthemaking.40Memoirsarealwayssuspect,butthereisconfirmingevidenceofBraddon’sroleinfamilygatheringsbyTolstoyhimself.Inanoften-quotedlettertohiswife,datedDecember1864,hewrote:“YesterdaymorningIreadanEnglishnovelbytheauthorofAuroraFloyd.IboughttenpartsoftheseEnglishnovelsnotreadyet,andIdreamofreadingthemwithyou”(PSS83:85).Atthetime,TolstoywasinMoscow,recoveringfromsurgerytocorrectabadlysetbrokenarm;aweekearlierhisdoctorshadcautionedhimagainst“eventhesmallestmovement”(PSS43:383;83:61).Imagine,then,Tolstoyhustlingaroundtownwithhisrightarminacast–further-moreinslipperywinterweather–tobuyupBraddon’snovelsasiftheywereascarceandhighlyprizeditem.HesurelywouldnothavedonethatforTrollopeorEliot,andmaybenotevenforMrs.HenryWood.WhataremissingfromthesesnapshotsofBraddonatIasnaiaPolianaarethenovelsthathereadafterherfirsttwowildlypopularsensationnovels.InthedecadebeforeTolstoybeganwritingAnnaKarenina,TauchnitzpublishedfourteenBraddonnovelsintheCOBAseries,sixofwhichareintheTolstoylibrary.Aturnedcornerinvol.2,p.354,istheonlyevidencethatTolstoyreadJohnMarchmont’sLegacy,thenovelthathemayhavepurchasedinMoscowinDecember1864(mentionedabove).Braddontookmoretimewritingthisnovelthanwashercustom;respondingtothefrequentcritiquethatsensationnovelsplacedahigherpriorityontheactionthanontheactors,shemadeaspecialefforttostrengthencharacterization.Hermostsuccessfulcharacter,OliviaArundel,isarigidlyproperandunsympatheticwoman,unrequitedinlove,yettwicemarried.Attheendofthenovel,herjealousy,bitterness,andfrustrationhavemorphedintomadness.RobertLeeWolff,adistinguishedauthorityonBraddon,writesaboutLegacy:“Thereaderencountersnoidenticaltwins,noforgedwills,fewstockproperties,andonlyanincidentalcorpse.Thoughthevillainyisblackindeed,behinditthereliesconvincing41humanmotivation.”Thecriticswerenotasgenerousintheirassessments.

181170edwinacruiseOrperhapsTolstoyboughtonthatDecemberdayBraddon’sambi-tiouslyserious–i.e.,nosensation–adaptationofGustaveFlaubert’sMadameBovary,TheDoctor’sWife,alsopublishedbyTauchnitzin1864.Alas,thattitleisnotonTolstoy’slibraryshelves–notproof,ofcourse,thathedidnotreadit.Braddon’sunhappilymarriedIsabelreadstoomanyromanticnovelsandfallsinlovewithalocalwomanizer.Isabel,likeFlaubert’sEmma,isoneofthoseheroineswhousescharactersinnovelstoimaginealifedifferentfromandbetterthanherownreality.ButBraddon’sheroinedoesnotreadherwaydownPauline’sperilousslopetoanadulterousliaison;neitherdoesshetakeherownlife.SuchaboldinfringementofEnglishmores,unlikethefakedbigamiesofBraddon’sfirsttwonovels,wouldhavetransgressedtheimpassableVictorianRubiconofrespectability.WolffwritesofthissocialandethicallinethatBraddoncouldnotcross:“VictorianEnglishconventionmadeitimpossibleforIsabeltofollowEmma’sexample,torunoffwithLansdell,ortohaveanaffairwith42him.”OneofseveralnovelsinwhichBraddon’sheroinesrebelagainstthestultifyinglifethatmarriedwomenareexpectedtoendure,TheDoctor’sWifeendswithanaffirmationofIsabel’sspiritualdevelopment.Shehascastoffthenovel-inducedviewsofromanticlove,and“thechasteninginfluenceofsorrow[bothherhusbandandherplatonicloverhavedied]hastrans-43formedasentimentalgirlintoagoodandnoblewoman.”Andthen,ofcourse,thereisalsoOnlyaClod(1865),TheLady’sMile(1866),andFenton’sQuest(1871),allinTolstoy’slibrary.Themostinterest-ingofthese,TheLady’sMile,takesitstitlefromthenarrowandoftencrowdedbridlepathforrecreationaldrivingandhorse-backridinginLondon’sfamouslyupper-classHydePark,apotentsymbolfortherigidsocialcodethatsoconstrictedthepublicandprivatelivesofwomen.In1864,beforethepublicationofMile,theliterarycriticforFatherlandNotesplayedanideologicalriffonthenewEnglishphrase“prettyhorsebreakers,”characterizingitasaeuphemismforhigh-societyplaygirlswhom“strictly44moralistic,puritanicalEngland”usedtopretenddidnotexist.EvidencethatTolstoyreadthemorematureBraddon,after1863,isscanty.Whatwedoknow,however,isthathetookBraddonseriouslyasawriter.TheSeptember30,1865diaryentryquotedabove,“IreadTrollope.Good.”continues:Thenovelisthashispoetry:(1)inhisattentiontothewaythateventsarecombined–Braddon,myCossacks,myfuturework;(2)inthepictureofmores,basedonhistoricalevents–theOdyssey,theIliad,my1805[thefirsttitleofWarandPeace];(3)inthebeautyandcheerfulnessofsituations[…];(4)andinthecharactersofpeople.(PSS48:64)

182TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”171TolstoyadmiredthewayBraddonmeticulouslystructuredhernarrative.Herpursuitofinnovation–Braddon’sreadercravedmystery,danger,andsurprise–mayhaveresonatedwithTolstoy’sownsearchforforminWar45andPeace.Ontheotherhand,IdonotthinkhetookBraddon’scharacterstooseriously;otherwisehewouldnothavebeenabletoenjoyhernovelssomuch.WhatdidTolstoymakeofBraddon’sstrongandindependentwomancharacters,notalwaysheroines,whomemorablybreakoutofthetightlycorsetedandcossetedlivesthatsocietyhasprescribedforthem?PerhapsTolstoyhadBraddon’sdelightfullydeviantheroinesinmindwhenhewrotehisanti-feministremarksinpart1oftheepilogueofWarandPeace:Thenasnowmuchtimewasspentarguingabouttherightsofwomen,husband-and-wiferelationships,andfreedomandrightswithinmarriage(thoughthesethingswerenotcalled“seriousissues,”astheyarenow),butNatashahadno46interestinanysuchquestionsandhadnoknowledgeofthem.(PSS12:267–68)Andnowontothepiècederésistance.Theleast-studiedsourceforAnna’snovelisMrs.Henry(EllennéePrice)Wood(1814–87),sometimesmis-identifiedasMrs.HumphreyWard,nowbestrememberedbyhermostatypicalnovel,EastLynne(1861),andyettobeadequatelyrecognizedforher47influenceonTolstoy.Wood,likeBraddon,burstontotheliterarysceneinthesamesensationalistbubble.Eachofthemknewhowtowriteanengagingandentertainingstoryquickly,andtocatertopopulartastes.Eachofthembecamepublisherandeditorofherownlow-middle-brow,family-orientedmagazine.Andeachofthem,especiallyWood,borrowedextensivelyfromotherwritersandthemselves.ItisnoaccidentthatBraddonwroteunderherownname,orthatMaryAnnEvans,morecircumspect,wroteunderthepseudonymofGeorgeEliot,whileEllenPriceWoodchosetowriteunderherhusband’sname,evenafterhisdeath.“Mrs.HenryWood”conveystheimageofadevotedwifeandprotectorofthehearth.Hertypicalreader–letustake,forexample,AnnaorDolly–wasamarriedwomanandmotherwhodefinedherselfbyreferencetothefamily.WoodincorporatedintohernovelsnotonlythecharacteristicelementsoftheEnglishfamilynovel–love,duty,desire,marriage,andfamily–butalsoafewcorpses,suspectedadulterers,detectives,trials,badomens,Gothicruins,etc.AfterEastLynneWoodconsciouslystruckoutonapaththatwouldseparateherfrommoreovertlysensationalistrivals.Hernexttwonovels,TheChannings(1862)andMrs.Halliburton’sTroubles(1862),opposeanideal,“pattern”family,withadevotedmotheratthehelm,toabarelyhouse-brokenmotleycrew;

183172edwinacruiseexceptingasmallscandal(justonequickmurder),thesenovelselaboratelycharacterizetherightandproperupbringingforchildrenandmothers.Wooddidnoteliminatesensationfromhersubsequentrepertoire,buthernarratorcouldbecountedontomentorthe(woman)reader’smoraldevel-opment,especiallyonissuesoffamily.Hernovels,likethoseofBraddon,tendtoendonapredictable,happynote:thevillainsarepunished,truelovetriumphs,andmoralorderisrestored.Braddon’s“Trollopized”endings,however,sometimesseemlikeabelatedbowtopropriety,whereasWood’spiousmessagesaremorecategoricallyintegratedintoherstories.TolstoyperceivedBraddonandWoodquitedifferently.Toappreciatetheenormousdistinctionhemadebetweenthem,letustakeonelastdetour,toTolstoy’swell-knownhabitofmakinglists,inthiscaselistsofEnglishnovelists.Inthedraftofan1887letterfromtheso-called“TiflisYoungLadies”correspondence,Tolstoyrecommendstranslationof“goodclassicalnovelsbyDickens,GeorgeEliot,Hugo,Wood,BraddonandevengoodnovelsbyWood,WalterScottBulwer,WoodandBraddon,andothers”48(PSS64:30).Suchacuriouslist!Woodiscrossedoffthelisttwice,andBraddononce,beforetheymakethefinalroster.Itisatestimonialtobothwriters,butespeciallytoBraddon,whoissolittleknowninTolstoystudies.Inamuchmorefamousletter,from1891,TolstoyincludesWood–butnotBraddon–amongthewriterswhomostinfluencedhim.Fromtheageof35to50–inotherwords,from1863,theyearinwhichhebeganWarandPeace,to1878,theyearafterhefinishedAnnaKarenina–Tolstoylists:TheOdysseyandTheIliad(inGreek)v.great[influence]Bylinyv.greatXenophonAnabasisv.greatVictorHugo.MisérablesenormousMrs.Wood.NovelsgreatGeorgeElliot[sic].Novelsgreat49Trollope–novelsgreat(PSS66:68)ThatBraddondoesnotmakethecutshouldcomeasnosurprise;theimagesofBraddonintheTolstoyhomesuggestthathernovelswereentertainingephemera:tastywhileconsumed,butnotmemorable.Short-livedpopularityhasgenerallybeenWood’slegacyaswell;withtheexceptionofEastLynne,hernovelsarenolongerinprint.Wood’spresenceonTolstoy’s1891listhas50confoundedatleastonemoderncritic.Indeed,whyisshethereatall,andwhyisshefirstamongtheEnglishnovelists–evenbeforeEliot?Tolstoyperfectlywellrecognizedthat,comparedtoEliot,Woodwasavastlyinferior

184TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”173writerandmediocrethinker.Nonetheless,relativetoEliot,IthinkitissafetosaythatWoodexertedamoreobviousinfluenceonTolstoy.ThebestscholarshiponWoodandTolstoy,AmyMandelker’sFramingAnnaKarenina,locatesinWood’ssensationalEastLynne(1861)a“sourceofseductionintheVictoriandomesticethosratherthanintheillicitpassionof51thecontinentalromance.”IamobligedtoherdiscussionthatTolstoy“borrowsVictoriansocialandtextualconventionsinordertoexpose52them.”Myownresearch,however,persuadesmethatthegreaterpartofTolstoy’sindebtednesstoWoodcomesfromthenovelsthatshewroteafter53EastLynne.TolstoyfirstexpressedhispleasureinreadingWoodonlyin1872.InanotetohisbrotherSergei,Tolstoywrote:“IamreallybusywithastronomyandphysicsandreadingWood,amarvelousnovel”(PSS:61:276).TolstoydidnotneedtoexplainwhoWoodwas:Sergeiobviouslyalreadyknew.ButwhatunidentifiedWoodnovelsopleasuredTolstoythathecalledit54“marvelous”?IfweacceptthatAnna’snovelisacomposite,thenoneEnglishnovelmoreorlessshouldnotmatter.EspeciallyinthecaseofWood,whowassometimesguiltyofsleep-inducingprolixity,superfluousrepetition,andredundancy,etc.,etc.Shesooftenrepeatsherfavoriteideas,images,motifs,andcharactertypesthatitissometimeshardtodisentangleonenovelfromanother.Andnowonder:from1861totheendof1872WoodproducedtheequivalentofeightnovelsthesizeofWarandPeace!Asearlyas1863aRussiancriticcitedWoodforwritingfournovelsatthesametime:“Thisfactalonebestprovesthedecline,inanartisticsense,55ofrefinedEnglishliterature.”HeroftenderivativegraphomaniaweighstheoddsagainstlocatingtextualevidencethatmightidentifytheparticularWoodnovelTolstoywasreadinginMarch1872.InonethelesscannotresistsharingmysuspicionthatatthattimeTolstoymighthavebeenreadingthe“three-decker”(inthreevolumes)TheShadowofAshlydyat(1863),apparentlyWood’sfavoriteamongallherbooks.IwillcollapsemyevidencetoonesuggestiveconnectionbetweenLadyMary,ridingtohoundsinAnna’snovel,andanearlierincarnationofthehorseyfemale,CharlottePain,thedaringandcaptivating“baddie”ofWood’sShadow.Anna’sLadyMaryisendowedwiththesameboisterousequestrianenergyasCharlottePain,whomakesadramaticentranceinthefirstsceneofShadow.Beforeherappearance,thenarratorgossipsdisparaginglyabouttheimageoftheAmazon.Ladiesweremostlyincarriages;afewweremounted,whowouldridequietlyhomeagainwhenthehoundshadthrownoff;averyfew–theymightbecountedby

185174edwinacruiseunits–wouldfollowthefield.[Theneighborhood]wassuppliedinaverylimiteddegreewithwhattheywerepleasedtocallmasculinewomen:fortheterm“fast”56hadnotyetthencomein.Afterthis,ontothehuntingfieldastrideafinehunterridesCharlottePain,analluringwoman,provocativelyattired,andafearlessrider.Sheoccupiesthehero,alsoastride,inidlechatter.ItisapparentthatCharlottetakespleasureinherpowerovermenandanimals.Amomentlater,thehero’smotherandhisfuturebridedriveupinabarouche;betweenthemselvestheyexpressdisapprovaloftheflashyandgaudyAmazon.(Curiously,attheendofthenovel,withtheexceptionofthereformedhero’sbelatedcontempt,theindiscreetandindependentCharlottePainmanagestoevadesociety’scen-sure.)ThepossibleconnectionbetweenCharlottePainandLadyMaryisintriguing.ButevenifTolstoyhadreadShadowayearbeforehestartedAnnaKarenina,itisnotplausiblethattheportraitofCharlottePainistheonly,oreventhemajor,sourceforLadyMary;thisliteraryandculturaltrope–theprovocativeequestrienne–hasmanysources.Suchfreightedlinkages–inthisinstancenotaliterallinkage,butTolstoy’sone-wayconnectiontotheEnglishnovel–giveAnna’snovelitssymbolicpower.Anna’snovelaside,Wood’sinfluenceonAnnaKareninaismorestronglyevidentelsewhereinpart1ofthenovel.Wood’sbrandof“domesticatedsensationalism,”forallitscorpses,andsecretgardenmazeswheremiscreantsskulk,isfirmlyrootedinEnglishrespectability57andtheideaofthefamilyasthecenteroftheuniverse.Earlier,AnnaconductshermissionofmercytoreconcileDollytoStivawithgreatskill,gentlyprevailingoverhersister-in-law’sinitialreservations.AnticipatingAnna’sarrival,DollyrecallstheKareninhomeandherintuitionthat“therewassomethingfalseinthewholemake-upoftheirfamilylife”(pt.1,ch.19:66;PSS18:71).ThereisanodddisconnectbetweenDolly’snaïvetéaboutStiva’swomanizingandtheprecisionwithwhichsheimagineswhatAnnawillsay:“AlltheseconsolationsandexhortationsandChristianforgiveness”(pt.1,ch.19:66;PSS18:71).Wheredoesthatrighteouspietycomefrom,ifnotfromtheEnglishnovelsthatDollyreads?AndhowisitthatAnnaplayssowelltheroleofministeringangelforpreservationofthefamily?WeknowverylittleaboutAnnaatthismomentinthenovel,butshortoftheimplausibleassumptionofadulteryintheKareninmarriage,and,therefore,thatsheisspeakingfrompersonalknowledge,wemayattributeAnna’strainedintuitiontotheEnglishnovelsthatshereads:IknowhowpeoplelikeStivalookatit[adulteryandthefamily].Yousayhetalkedwithheraboutyou.Thatneverhappened.Thesepeoplemaybeunfaithful,but

186TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”175theirhearthandwifearesacredtothem.Somehowforthemthesewomenremaindespisedanddon’tinterferewiththefamily.Betweenthemandthefamilytheydrawsomekindoflinethatcan’tbecrossed.(pt.1,ch.19:70;PSS18:75)The“woman-to-woman”conversationsinWood’snovelscovermuchofthesameadulterousterrain,butultimately,asthelinesbelowfromWithintheMazemakeexplicit,thereisonlyonepracticalmessageforwomenwhosuspecttheirhusbandsofinfidelity.Menandwomenaredifferent.Aseparatedman–sayadivorcedman,ifyoulike–cangoabroad,here,thereandeverywhere;andenjoylifewithouthindrance,andtakehispleasureatwill:butawoman,ifshebearight-mindedwoman,muststayinherhome-shell,andeatherheartaway[…]Mydearlittlefriend,atallcosts,stay58withyourhusband.Inpart6ofAnnaKarenina,duringhersecondheart-to-heartwithAnna,Dollyindependentlyarrivesatthatsameconclusion,butbyadifferentlogic.Byputtingherchildren’sneedsbeforeherowndesires,shewill,bydefault,staywithhererranthusband.WoodwouldhaveheartilyapprovedofDolly’sbehavior.SurelypartofTolstoy’sfondnessforWoodmusthavebeentheirsimilarviewsontheessentialroleinthefamilyofdedicatedandnurturingmothers.ThegreaterpartofWood’sinfluenceonTolstoyconcerns,Isuspect,theirsharedobsessionwithdeath–andthatthemetakesusbeyondAnnaKarenina.HerewecoulddetourintotheimagesofdeathintheVictoriannovelatthetimethatWoodwrote,butthatdigressionwouldonlyconfirmthatshesurpasseseveryotherEnglishnovelistofhertimeinherfixationondeath.AsMalcolmElwinsoacerbicallyputsit:“Therearealwaysthreeorfourtragicdeathsinoneofherbooks,everyoneofwhichcontainssomedeath-bedscenecomparableinoppressiveanguishandsentimentalmelo-59dramawiththoseoflittleNellorPaulDombey.”ImitatorofDickensshewas–whowasnotatthattime?–butWoodaddedherowntwistondeath.Hervirtuousheroes,oldandyoung,tendtodieslowandconsciousdeaths,idealconditionsfortranquilandsoulfulconversation.Theydieintheirbedrooms,athome,surroundedbydevotedfamilyandcaretakers.Wood’sdeathnarrativesfocusonfaithinanafter-life;herdyingheroesspeakconfidentlyandjoyfullyabouttheirfuturelivesinparadise.Oftenintheirlastwordstheylookheavenwardandseemtoseeandspeaktosomeonewhohasgoneonbefore.Wood,stronginherAnglicanfaith,oftenwroteaboutmodeldeportmentindeath.Compressedintoafewlines,heradvicewouldgosomethinglikethis:childrenshouldbetaughtaboutdeathandheavenatanearlyage;adultsshouldreconcilethemselveswithdeathbeforetheydie;

187176edwinacruiseandduringtheprolongeddyingprocess,theonegoingtoheavenandthoseremainingbehindshouldconsolethemselveswiththoughtsoftheirnextandcertainmeeting.ThisisprogrammaticWoodatherevangelicalbest.Bycontrast,rarelydoTolstoy’scharactersembracedeathwithoutconflict.TheservantGerasiminTolstoy’sTheDeathofIvanIlych,sowise,accommodat-ing,respectful,andnon-judgmental,isabletodealrighteouslywiththedyingIvanIlychbecauseheissanguineabouthisowndeath.Thisisfineforservants,orpeasantslikePlatonKarataev(WarandPeace)andthetitlecharacterin“AlyoshaGorshok,”butTolstoycouldnotwriteaboutprotag-onistsfromhisown,privilegedclasswithanyofWood’ssecurefaithinlifeafterdeath.Nonetheless,giventhefrequencywithwhichWoodwroteaboutdeath,andtheesteeminwhichheheldher,Tolstoymusthavefoundinspirationinherportraitsofdeathanddying.IwouldliketothinkthatinMarch1872,TolstoywasmarvelingatWood’scomfortingvisionofthetransitorynatureofdeath,anddeathasabridgetoacertainlifeinheaven.So,letusreturntothetopic,andaddressthequestionposedinthesubtitletothischapter.“WhowrotetheEnglishnovelthatAnnareads?”Now,however,wecanrephrasethequestionintosomethingmoreconcrete,albeitfarlesstidy.“WhatEnglishnovelistswhomTolstoyreadmostcontributedtoAnna’snovel?”Withallthetrackinganddetouringwehavedone,theanswersshouldcomeeasily.WecanimmediatelyeliminateBraddon.Braddonesquesensation-alismwouldnothavebeenproperforAnnatoread,andcertainlynotinpublic.Thesaccharinelypioushypocrite,LydiaIvanovna,publicstandard-bearerforthecommandmentsofherfaith,butnotthegenerousspiritofChristianity,wouldsurelynothaveapproved.NeitherdoesAnnareadEliot.RomolaandMiddlemarchweretoohighbrowforher.IfshehadreadEliot,perhapsAnnawouldhaveamorereasoned,lessmelodramatic,viewofherself.Anna’sreadingchoicescomefromcurrentEnglishnovelsinwhichthestory-line,howeverboldorevensensational,espousesthevirtuesofafamily-centeredlife.ShereadTrollope,ofcourse.Hisnamecomesreadilytomind,becauseheisstillpublishedandreadinthetwenty-firstcentury.And,nolesscertainly,AnnareadWood.TheonlyreasonthattheWood–Tolstoyconnectionisnotwellknownisthat–andhereIrepeatmyself–Woodisstillanunknownfigure.Thus,AnnaisreadingacompositenovelinwhichTrollope(themostpopularEnglishnovelistinRussiabeforeAnnaKarenina)andWood(themostrepre-sentativeEnglishnovelistforthatsameperiod)playprominentroles.Tothislist,wecouldprobablyaddafewmoreladynovelistswhoseghostsstilllurkinTolstoy’slibrary,waitingtoberecognizedfortheirpossibleconnectionsto60AnnaKarenina.

188TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”177Justonelastquestion,beforeItakemyleave.If,asIhaveargued,AnnadoesnotseemtoderivepleasurefromEnglishnovels,thenwhyhasshebeenreadingthem?Unlikehercohortgroupoffictionalreaders,Annadoesnotfallpreytotheseductiveluresofherstoriesfortheobviousreasonthatthereareveryfewsuchluresinthem.Anynovelisticlapsesinproprietyareoverwhelmedbythedemandsofvirtue.Thetropeofthe“readingwoman”doesnotinworkinAnna’scase.Annaisreadingnotonly,andnotprimarily,torelieveherboredombyimaginingherselfinotherpeople’slives.Hernovelsclarifyvirtue;theysendsubtle(Trollope)orexplicitlymentoring(Wood)messagesreinforcingappropriatebehaviorandworthyvaluesinamodelEnglishfamily.Let’sseehowthatworksoutinAnnaKarenina.WeleftAnnainpart1,chapter29,onthetrainwithherEnglishnovel.Beforethecompletionofherjourneybackhome,evenbeforeshemeetsVronskyagain,onthesnow-sweptstationplatform,sheclosesitforgoodbecauseshecannolongerreadabouttheidealizedfamily.Herownlifeasawoman,awife,andamotherhasbeensobewilderinglyunsatisfactory,unlikethecontented,virtuouslivesshefindsinEnglishnovels.Herimmediatebackstoryisembeddedinthem:virtueanddutyhavereignedinhermarriedlife.AnnahasalwaysenjoyedandmeritedanirreproachablereputationinthehighestcirclesofSt.Petersburg.Vronsky,however,hasbrokenthroughthatbarrierofintegrity.AndwhenhepopsupagaininherEnglishnovel,whatAnnahasmomentsbeforecalledher“goodandusuallife”cannotgoonasbefore.OnherfirsteveningbackinSt.Petersburg,“AnnasatbythefireplacewithherEnglishnovelandwaitedforherhusband”(pt.1,ch.33:110;PSS18:117).Sheholdsthebookonelasttime,butdoesnotopenit.Withoutitsdogmaticprescriptionstoguideher,shehasbeguntoseetheworlddiffer-ently,withlesscharitytowardherhusbandandLydiaIvanovna.Shefindstemporarysanctuary–“moralpeace,”shecallsit–inthecompanyofherson,butshestillcannotridherthoughtsofVronsky’sfascination(pt.1,ch.32:107;PSS1:114).AfterhersojourninMoscow,Annaisneverathome,bothintheliteralsenseandinthe“makeyourselfathome”familysense.Theremainderofherlifeisspentintemporarylodgings.Annaneverreachesasatisfiedandstablestateofbeing.Vronsky’sestateisnomorethanavacationresort,whereshereadsvoraciously,butindiscriminately,likeavacuumcleaner,suckingup“novelsandthebooksthatwereinvogue.Sheorderedallthebooksthatwerementionedwithpraiseintheforeignnews-papersandmagazinesshereceived[…]andallthesubjectsthatinterestedVronsky[…]agronomy,architectureand,occasionally,evenhorse-breedingandsports”(pt.6,ch.25,p.643;PSS19:219).

189178edwinacruiseButtheEnglishnovelisnolongerapresenceinAnna’slife;shehascastofftherestraininginfluenceimposedbythatkindofbook-reading.Fromitsperspective,Annaisdoomedfromthemomentshestopsreadingstoriesthatreifythevaluesandconventionsofmid-VictorianEngland.ForsakingtheEnglishnovelisamarkeroftheonsetofAnna’sdemise.appendix1TitlesinthelibraryatIasnaiaPolianafromtheCollectionofBritishAuthorsseries,publishedbyC.B.Tauchnitz,Leipzig.Braddon,[Maxwell],MaryElizabeth.58titlespublishedbyTauchnitz1862–190814titlespublished1862–718TauchnitztitlesatIasnaiaPoliana6titles,or44%,oftotalworksdating1862–72LadyAudley’sSecret,1862AuroraFloyd,1863JohnMarchmont’sLegacy,1864OnlyaClod,1865TheLady’sMile,1866Fenton’sQuest,1871Eliot,George.11titlespublishedbyTauchnitz1859–857titlespublished1859–725titles(4Tauchnitzand1Asher)atIasnaiaPoliana5titles,or71%oftotalworksdating1859–72AdamBede,1859TheMillontheFloss,1860Romola,1863FelixHolt,1867Middlemarch,1872(Asher)Trollope,Anthony.45titlespublishedbyTauchnitz1859–8422titlespublished1859–7112titlesatIasnaiaPoliana4titles,or18%oftotalworksdating1859–71TheWarden,1859TheWestIndiesandtheSpanishMain,1860TheLastChronicleofBarset,1867SirHarryHotspur,1871

190TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”179Wood,Mrs.Henry.36titlespublishedbyTauchnitz1861–8522titlespublished1861–726titlesatIasnaiaPoliana5titles,or22%oftotalworksdating1861–72EastLynne,1861LordOakburn’sDaughters,1865*TheRedCourtFarm,1868OswaldCray,1865GeorgeCanterbury’sWill,1870**IncludedinV.F.Bulgakov’smanuscriptbibliographiclistnotes1.(Unsigned),“InteresynaukiiliteraturynaZapade,”Otechestvennyezapiski167,nos.7–8(1866):25.2.AnnaKareninaisquotedfromtheR.PevearandL.Volokhonskytranslation(NewYork:Viking,2001).Ihavemadeasmallnumberofchangesforgreateraccuracy.ReferencestothiseditionofAnnaKareninaarecitedinthetextbypart,chapter,andpage;referencestotheRussianJubileeedition(PSS)arecitedbyvolumeandpage.3.R.L.Jackson,“TheNightJourney,AnnaKarenina’sReturntoSaintPetersburg,”inL.KnappandA.Mandelker,eds.,ApproachestoTeachingTolstoy’sAnnaKarenina(NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociationofAmerica,2003),150.4.SeeGinaM.Dorré,VictorianFictionandtheCultoftheHorse(Aldershot,UKandBurlington,VT:AshgatePublishingCompany,2006).5.B.Lönnqvist,“TheEnglishThemeinAnnaKarenina,”EssaysinPoetics:TheJournaloftheBritishNeo-FormalistCircle24(Autumn1999):58–90.6.Mrs.HenryWoodwasespeciallywellknownforratchetingupthetensioninhernovelswithomens,andanxious,prescientdreams.Creatingsuspensebywayofportentousforebodingwasacommontraitofthesensationnovel.7.Forareadingofthisphrasethatdisagreeswithmine,seeD.Sloane,“AnnaReadingandWomenReadinginAnnaKarenina,”inKnappandMandelker,eds.,ApproachestoTeachingTolstoy’sAnnaKarenina,124–30.8.B.Eikhenbaum,TolstoiintheSeventies,trans.AlbertKaspin(AnnArbor,MI:Ardis,1982),111.9.Forasuperbarticleonthesensationnovel,seeP.Brantlinger,“WhatIsSensationalabouttheSensationNovel?”inLynPykett,ed.,WilkieCollins(NewYork:St.Martin’sPress,1998),30–57.10.(Unsigned),“Inostrannaialiteraturnaialetopis’,”Otechestvennyezapiski152,1–2(1864):265–66.11.AlldatesofEnglishnovelsrefertotheirEnglish-languagepublicationinLeipzigbyC.B.Tauchnitzinhis“CollectionofBritishAuthors”series.Seenote15.

191180edwinacruise12.(Unsigned),“Inostrannaialiteraturnaialetopis’,”266.13.ForagoodshortaccountofTolstoyandtheEnglishlanguage,seeW.G.Jones,“Introduction,”inJones,ed.,TolstoiandBritain(Oxford:BergPublishers,1995),1–30.14.(Unsigned),“Obzorinostrannoiliteraturyiii,”Otechestvennyezapiski134,nos.1–2(1861):56.15.SeeW.B.ToddandA.Bowden,TauchnitzInternationalEditionsinEnglish1841–1955:ABibliographicalHistory(NewYork:BibliographicalSocietyofAmerica,1988).16.Thebookstore’simprintisonthesoftcoverofvolume2oftheTauchnitzeditionofBraddon’sJohnMarchmont’sLegacyinTolstoy’slibrary.17.SeeBibliotekaL’vaNikolaevichaTolstogovIasnoiPoliane:bibliograficheskoeopisanie,pt.iii,Kniginainostrannykhiazykakh,2vols.(Tula:Izd.IasnaiaPoliana,1999).18.TwotitlesbyWood,LordOakburn’sDaughters(1865)andGeorgeCanterbury’sWill(1870),arelistedinV.F.Bulgakov’smanuscriptbibliography,butnotlistedinthepublished1999bibliography.SeeD.Goubert,“DidTolstoyReadEastLynne?”SlavonicandEastEuropeanReview58,no.1(1980):24.19.TolstoysentthesecondpartofanunidentifiedBraddonnoveltohisbrotherSergeionMay6,1868(PSS61:201).Missingfromthelibraryarevol.2ofAuroraFloydandofOnlyaClod.InaletterofAugust9,1891,TolstoyrecommendedtoL.P.NikiforovaBraddonreadingwhichhewouldsend,ifhecouldgetitbackfromSergei(PSS66:30–31).Thattitle,identifiedasInGreatWaters,andOtherTales(1877),isnotintheTolstoylibrary.20.L.Polonskii,“OcherkiangliiskogoobshchestvavromanakhA.Trollopa,”VestnikEvropy8(1870):613–75;10(1870):667–716;N.ATal’,“Angliiskiesemeinyekhroniki,”VestnikEvropy3(1871):306–30;L.Polonskii,“ZhenskietipyvromanakhA.Trollopa,”VestnikEvropy8(1871):513–68.21.Polonskii,“Ocherkiangliiskogoobshchestva,”623.22.S.A.Tolstaia,Dnevniki(Moscow:Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,1978),vol.1,100.QuotedinC.J.G.Turner,AKareninaCompanion(Waterloo,Ontario:WilfridLaurierUniversityPress,1993),109.23.JuliaKavanagh(1824–77),athird-ratewriter,nowentirelyforgotten,ofstoriesandnovels.TauchnitzpublishedeighteenKavanaghtitlesintheCOBAseries,ninefortheperiod1859–72.JohnSutherlanddescribesherworkas“aimedatyoungerwomenreadersand[…]fashionablydomesticinstylewhileremain-ingwholly‘ladylike’intone.”SeeJ.Sutherland,TheStanfordGuidetoVictorianFiction(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1999),343.KavanaghisnotrepresentedinTolstoy’slibrary,whichisnoteworthybecauseTolstoytwicerecordsthathereadher.IsuspectthatsomeofthegrumpinessinTolstoy’scritique,“tooconventional,”aboutTheBertrams,mayhavecomefromhisstrongreactionagainstKavanagh.24.TolstoywrotetheunderlinedwordsinEnglish.25.AnthonyTrollope,TheBertrams(NewYork:HarperandBrothers,1859),528.

192TrackingtheEnglishnovelin“AnnaKarenina”18126.SeeGertrudeHimmelfarb,TheDe-moralizationofSociety:FromVictorianVirtuestoModernValues(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1995),3–52.27.GeorgeEliot,SelectedEssays,PoemsandOtherWritings(London:Penguin,1990),140–41.28.TheunderlinedwordsareinEnglishintheoriginaltext.29.G.W.Jones,“GeorgeEliot’sAdamBedeandTolstoy’sConceptionofAnnaKarenina,”inJones,ed.,TolstoiandBritain,79.30.(Unsigned),“Obzorinostrannoiliteratury,”57.31.SeeK.E.HarperandB.A.Booth,“RussianTranslationsofNineteenth-CenturyEnglishFiction,”Nineteenth-CenturyFiction8,no.3(1953):192.32.E.J.Blumberg,“TolstoyandtheEnglishNovel:ANoteonMiddlemarchandAnnaKarenina,”inJones,ed.,TolstoiandBritain,93–103.33.S.Knapp,“Tolstoj’sReadingsofGeorgeEliot:VisionsandRevisions,”SlavicandEastEuropeanJournal27,no.3(1983):318–19.34.(Unsigned),“Inostrannaialiteratura,”Otechestvennyezapiski147,nos.3–4(1863):101.35.WilkieCollins(1824–89),“theKingoftheSensationNovel,”wroteaction-packeddetectivestoriesthatwereregularlytranslatedforserialpublicationinthejournalRussianHerald(Russkiivestnik).AprotégéandcolleagueofCharlesDickens,heisrepresentedintheCOBAseriesbyninenovelsbetween1859and1872.Morethewonder,then,thatTolstoyseemsnottohavereadCollins,noristhereanyrecordofaCollinsnovelinhislibrary.PerhapsTolstoydrewthelineattheunadulteratedsensationalismthatCollinsproffered.Or,perhaps,exceptingTrollope–withhisgalleryofrichlyportrayedwomen–TolstoyseemedtopreferEnglishnovelsbywomennovelistsatthistime.36.(Unsigned),“Inostrannaialiteraturnaialetopis’,”266.37.(Unsigned),“InteresynaukiiliteraturynaZapade,”26.38.T.A.Kuzminskaia,Moiazhizn’domaivIasnoiPoliane,Vospominanie,3rdedn(Tula:Tul’skoeKnizhnoeIzdatel’stvo,1958),258.39.Ibid.40.Tolstoy’seldestchild,S.L.Tolstoy,bornin1863,couldnothavehadsomeofthememoriesthatheclaimed.HehasledmorethanonescholarastraywithhisrecollectionsofEnglishnovelistswhomhisfatherread:“FromEnglishliteraturehereadDickens,Thackerayandfamilynovels:Trollope,HumphreyWard,GeorgeEliot,Broughton(?),Braddon,etc.”(S.L.Tolstoi,Ocherkibylogo[Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,”1956],79).HeconfusesMrs.HenryWoodwithMrs.HumphreyWard(1851–1920),whosefirstnovelpublishedbyTauchnitzdatesfrom1888.ThaterrorhascreptintoR.F.Christian’sfinestudy,Tolstoy:ACriticalIntroduction,wherehewritesof“Trollope,GeorgeEliot,andMrs.Ward”([Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1969],165).S.L.TolstoyalsodoesnotseemclearonthedifferencebetweenBraddonandRhodaBroughton(1840–1920),mostofwhosenovelswerewrittenafter1872.BroughtonisrepresentedintheTolstoylibrarybytheCOBAeditionofTalesforChristmasEve(1872),butthebookisinitsoriginalbinding,suggestingthatitwasnotoftenread.

193182edwinacruise41.R.L.Wolff,SensationalVictorian:TheLifeandFictionofMaryElizabethBraddon(NewYorkandLondon:GarlandPublishing,1979),160.42.Ibid.162–63.43.M.E.Braddon,TheDoctor’sWife,ed.LynPykett(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1998),402–3.44.(Unsigned),“Inostrannaialiteraturnaialetopis’,”276.TheunderlinedwordsareinEnglishintheRussiantext.45.InWarandPeace,however,Tolstoyseemstorestricthisinteractiontotheshop-wornclichésofanearlierEnglishnovel,mostconspicuouslyinthecreaky,melodramaticplotdevicesthatenablePierre’sinstanttransformationfromanursinebastardintoahigh-born,wealthy,andthereforeeminentlyeligible,bachelor–allinonequickdeathandabriefcontestovera“found”will.46.LeoTolstoy,WarandPeace,trans.AnthonyBriggs(NewYork:Viking,2006),1290.47.Seenote40.48.WalterScott(1771–1832),centraltoanycomprehensivediscussionoftheEnglishnovelandRussianliteraryculture,popsoutofnowheretomakeabriefwalk-on,onlytobeblue-penciled.49.TolstoywrotetheunderlinedwordsinEnglishorFrenchwithintheRussiantext.ItiscuriousthatTolstoywrote“Trollope”inRussian,but“Mrs.Wood”and“Eliot”inEnglish.IspeculatethathereadmorenovelsofTrollopeinRussiantranslationthaninEnglish,thusthechoiceofCyrillicforhisname.50.Goubert,“DidTolstoyReadEastLynne?”22–39.51.A.Mandelker,FramingAnnaKarenina:Tolstoy,theWomanQuestion,andtheVictorianNovel(Columbus,OH:OhioStateUniversityPress,1993),60.52.Ibid.66.53.Forsupportofthatview,seeStellaNuralova,“MissisGenriVudiLevTolstoi(Zaiavkatemy),”StudiaLitterariaPolono-Slavica5(2000):187–90.54.TheJubileeeditionmisidentifiesthenovelasWithintheMaze(1872;PSS61:276).ItislikelythatTolstoyreadWithintheMaze,butnotinMarch1872;theTauchnitzCOBAeditionwasnotpublisheduntilninemonthslater,inDecember.55.(Unsigned),“Inostrannaialiteratura,”Otechestvennyezapiski147,nos.3–4(1863):101.56.TheShadowofAshlydyat,inthreevolumes,vol.1(London:RichardBentley,1863),7.57.Ihaveborrowedtheterm“domesticatedsensationalism”fromJenniferPhegley,“DomesticatingtheSensationNovelist:EllenPriceWoodasAuthorandEditoroftheArgosyMagazine,”VictorianPeriodicalsReview38,no.2(2005):180–98.58.WithintheMaze(London:MacmillanandCo.:1904),226.59.M.Elwin,VictorianWallflowers(London:JonathanCape,1937),250.60.Forexample,DinahCraik(1826–87),representedbythreetitlesintheTolstoylibrary,twofromtheperiod1859–72;FlorenceLean(1837–99),fivetitlesinthelibrary,twoinourtimeperiod;andCharlotteMaryYonge(1823–1901),withfivetitlesonTolstoy’sshelves,butonlyone,aFrench(!)translationofTheBookofGold(1866),fromtherelevantyears.

194chapter9ViolenceandtheroleofdramainthelateTolstoy:TheRealmofDarknessJustinWeirNIKITA[…]MydearPa,youalsoforgiveme,asinner!Yuhtoldmeatthebeginnin’whenIstartedthiswhorin’nastylife,yuhtoldme:“Ifaclawgetsstuck,thebirdislost.”Ididn’tlistent’yerwords,nogooddogthatIam,an’itturnedoutlikeyuhsaid.Forgiveme,forGod’s1sake.(90;PSS26:242)TheRealmofDarkness:IfaClawGetsStuck,theBirdisLost2Tolstoy’splayshavegonerelativelyunstudiedbyscholars.Unlikehisfiction,hisplaysdonotsothoroughlyengageinpsychologicalanalysisandintro-spection.Incasesofsinful,violentbehavior,however,sometimesreasonandrationalizationcannotexplainwhyacharacteractsthewayheorshedoes,andthusthestageisanidealforumforconveyinganaestheticandmoralidea.Thepreeminentexample,andoneofTolstoy’smostsuccessfulplays,isTheRealmofDarkness:IfaClawGetsStuck,theBirdisLost(1886).ThepurposeofthischapteristoilluminatetheaestheticcontextforTolstoy’sdepictionofviolenceinTheRealmofDarkness,aworkthatexemplifiesmanyoftheartisticgoalsTolstoyhadforhisfictioninthelatterpartofhiscareer.Threecriticalpointsofviewmaybeassumedforviewingthelesssignificantworkofamajorauthor,inthiscasetheplaysofTolstoy.Tostart,thereareofcoursesharedthemesandformalstrategies,thoughacommonthemeisoftentransformedbytheconstrictionsandpotentialsofadifferentgenreandmedium.Tolstoy’sfascinationwithrevealingtheinte-riorpsychologyofacharacteranduseoffree-indirectdiscourse,forexam-ple,doesnottranslateintodramaverywell.Second,philosophicalideastranscendgenreandmediuminTolstoy’soeuvre.ItwouldbesurprisingifTolstoy’splaysweretoaddressissuesfundamentallydifferentfromtheonesthatoccupiedhiminothergenres.Hiscommitmentinthelatterhalfofhiscareertononviolence,forexample,canbefoundinhisdramaticworksaswellasinhisfictionandessays.Finally,factsfromtheauthor’sbiographymayemphasizeorminimizehisdecisiontowritedrama.WhydidTolstoyfeelcompelledtowriteplaysatall?Howdidheenvisionhisroleasa183

195184justinweirplaywrightandhowdidthatrolefitintohislargervisionofhimselfasanauthorandChristianthinker?Tolstoywroteplaysearlyandlateinhiscareer,sometimesjustforhomeentertainmentathisestate,IasnaiaPoliana;thepost-conversionplays,however,occupyamoresignificantplaceamonghislatefiction.Fromallthreecriticalpointsofview,TheRealmofDarknessmakesanespeciallycompellinginterpretivecase.Thematicallyittreatssexualtrans-gression,violence,andrepentance–keymotifsfromTolstoy’searliestworksandcrucialtohislatefiction.Moreover,initsgraphictreatmentofinfanticide,theplayparticipatesinTolstoy’sevolvingphilosophyofnon-violenceandhisongoinginvestigationofthenatureofsin.AteveryjuncturetheplayalsobespeaksnotjustthelaterTolstoy’sreexaminationofChristianitybutalsohisenduringinterestinthepeasantswithwhomhespentsomuchtime.Theirbeliefs,waysoflife,andespeciallytheirspeech,3arebrilliantlydepictedintheplaybyTolstoy.Althoughindividualideal-izedportraitsofpeasantsmaybefoundinTolstoy’sfiction,suchasPlatonKarataevinWarandPeace,hestrivedtounderstandbutnotromanticizethem.TheRealmofDarknessstarklydemonstratesthatinfidelity,violence,andmoraldespairarenotrestrictedtotheupperclasses.Itisasingularworkwithuniversalaims.AsAndrewWachtelwrites:“Withitsconstantuseofpeasantdialectanditsshockingviolence,TheRealmofDarknessstands4practicallyaloneintheRussiandramatictradition.”AndyetitisessentialforunderstandingTolstoy’sviewofdrama.TheplotofTheRealmofDarknessisasfollows.Anisyaistheyoungsecondwifeofaricholdpeasant,Pyotr,andsheishavinganaffairwiththehiredhand,Nikita.(NikitahaspreviouslyhadanaffairwithMarinka,anunmarriedpeasantgirl,andabandonedher.)AnisyaandNikita,withtheactiveencouragementofNikita’smotherMatryona,conspiretokillPyotrinordertoobtainhismoneyandtomarry.OnceAnisyahaspoisonedPyotr,andNikitahassecuredtheoldman’smoney,hemarriesAnisya;butcarriesonanaffairwithAkulina,Pyotr’sdaughterfromhisfirstmarriage.Anisyacansayordonothingtoprotest,sinceAkulinaknowsfromNikitathatshe,Anisya,killedPyotr.Thesituationcannotcontinueindefinitely,andafterseveralmonthsNikitaagreestomarryoffAkulina.ButsheispregnantwithNikita’schild.WithencouragementfromAnisyaandagainfromhisownmother(theplaytakesanespeciallyharshviewofwomen),Nikitaaimstoconcealhissin.Hecrushesthenewborninfanttodeathandburiesitinthecellar.Nowdistraught,henearlyhangshimselffromguilt,beforereconsi-dering.Astheplayconcludes,heappearsbeforethepeoplegatheredforthewedding,confesses,andturnshimselfin,takingfullblameuponhimself

196ViolenceandtheroleofdramainthelateTolstoy185andacceptinghissinsbeforeGod.Thearcoftheplotsuggeststhatsinleadstoviolenceand,fortunatelyinthisinstance,repentance–butitistheharrowingviolencethatstickswithmanyreadersandviewersoftheplay.TheeventsofTheRealmofDarknesswerebasedonarealmurder5confessedtobyEfremKoloskovathisstepdaughter’swedding.Tolstoyheardaboutthecasefromhisfriend,localprosecutorN.V.Davydov.(Tolstoywasalwaysinterestedinlocalcourtcases,eventakingontheunsuccessfulroleofdefenseattorneyin1866forasoldieraccusedofstriking6hisseniorofficer.)Besideschangingthenames,Tolstoymadeonlyafewsignificantalterations.Headdedthefirstmurder,thepoisoningofPyotr,andchosenottodepictanadditionalattemptedmurderbyKoloskovofhis716-year-olddaughter.TheadditionofthepoisoningofPyotrisinaccordwiththesentimentunderscoredbytheplay’ssubtitle(andoriginalworkingtitle)“ifaclawgetsstuck,thebirdislost”;thatis,evenasinglesin(illicitsex)canleadperilouslytoalifeofsin(firstonemurderthenanother).Tolstoydesignedtheplaytoberealistic,butheworriedaboutthereactionofthecensortothenaturalisticviolenceofthefourthact,whentheinfantiscrushedtodeath.Hewrotealessexplicitvariantofthefourthactinan8unsuccessfulattempttogettheplaystagedin1887.Perhapstohighlightfurthertheplay’srealism,DavydovsubsequentlywrotethatTolstoyhadactuallymettwicewithKoloskov;Tolstoy’sscrupulousdiaryandother9writingsofthattimerecordnosuchmeetings,however.ThetimingofhisfirstdraftsindicatethatTolstoywasprobablypromptedtobeginwritingtheplaybyarequestformaterialfromM.V.Lentovsky,thedirectorofthe10Moscowpeople’stheaterSkomorokh.TolstoyattemptedtostageTheRealmofDarkness.TsarAlexanderIIIlikedtheplaywhenitwasreadtohim,butherescindedhisapprovalattherequestofProcuratoroftheHolySynodKonstantinPobedonostsev.TheplaywasnotperformedinRussiauntil1895,thoughitwasstagedtoacclaiminParisbytheThéâtre-Librein1888withtheencouragementofÉmile11Zola.In1890theplayalsoopenedsuccessfullyinBerlin;bythetimetheMalyTheaterinMoscowstagedTheRealmofDarknessin1895,ithad12alreadybeeninfluentialinEurope.Butitwasneverthelesspublishedin131887inRussiaandwidelyread.ItthushadaneffectonthereadingpublicinRussiawellbeforeitwasrealizedonthestage.Anoverridinginterpretiverationaleforuntyingthethematic,philosoph-ical,andbiographicalknotsofTheRealmofDarknessisthattheplayservesasanimportanttouchstoneofTolstoy’sevolvingaesthetics.W.GarethJonesgoessofarastocallit“theoneplaythatbearsthemarkofTolstoy’s14genius.”Byreflectingonpastliterarymotifsandnewphilosophical

197186justinweirprioritiesintheplay,Tolstoydisplayshowtraditionalliteraryforms,suchasdrama,maystillservewelltotransmithisnewideastotheRussianaudienceandreadingpublic.Ingeneral,thelate1880sand1890smarkatentativereturnbyTolstoytofictionaimedattheeducatedreadingpublic:TheDeathofIvanIlych(1886),TheKreutzerSonata(1889),MasterandMan(1895),Resurrection(1899),aswellasworkonFatherSergius,alldatefromthisperiod.TheRealmofDarkness,liketheaforementioned,transcendsitsmoralorpedagogicalpurposeandmeditatesonthepossibilityofarttoconveymeaning.ButitwasnotTolstoy’sfirstattemptatdrama.BeforeTheRealmofDarkness,Tolstoyhadwrittenanumberofplaysanddramaticfragments,includingAnInfectedFamily(1864),acompleteplaythatTolstoyattemptedtohavestaged,andTheNihilist(1866),afragmentthatwaswrittentobeperformedathome.AnInfectedFamilyandTheNihilistwereprimarilytopical,respondingtothemesofpoliticalradicalisminthenewgenerationofthesixtiesthatappearedinsuchnovelsasTurgenev’sFathersandSons(1862)andChernyshevsky’sWhatIsToBeDone?(1863).OneofTolstoy’searlierdramaticfragments,FreeLove(1856),respondedtothequestionofwomen’srightsafewyearsinadvanceofa15broaderculturaldiscussionofthe“womanquestion”inRussia.Regardlessoftherelativesuccessofanyoftheseearlydramaticworks,onecouldnotarguethatTolstoyintendedthemtotakeaplacewithintheaestheticvanguardofhisotherfiction.Theydidnotconsumehisattentioninthesamewayashisnovelsdid,nordidhepursuestagingthemwithanydedication.TheyareprimarilycuriositiesforboththeTolstoyscholarandforscholarsofRussiandrama.Bycontrast,TolstoytookTheRealmofDarknessseriously,thoughheremainedambivalentaboutwhetherplaysingeneralcouldachievetheaestheticgoalshehadforhisotherfiction.Therelativelyimpoverishedabilityofdrama(whencomparedtonovels)toengageinpsychologicalintrospectionwasacknowledgedbyTolstoyasakeylimitationoftheform:Here[onthestage]itisimpossibletoprepareforthemomentslivedthroughbythehero,impossibletomakehimthinkandcallupmemories,ortothrowlightonthecharactersbyreferringbacktothepast.Itallcomesoutdull,forcedandunnatural.Aready-formedstateofmind,ready-formedresolutions,mustbepresentedtothepublic.Butmonologuesandmodulationsofcoloursandscenesonlydisgustthespectator.Itistrue,ImyselfcouldnotresistitandputafewmonologuesintoVlast’16t’my,butwhiledoingsoIfeltitwasnottherightthing.Tolstoymakestwopointshereonthoughtandmemorythatareworthemphasizing.First,showinghowthecharacterthinksisanaestheticchallenge

198ViolenceandtheroleofdramainthelateTolstoy18717forthedramatist.InTheRealmofDarkness,Tolstoyonthecontraryaccentuateshowsinbegetssinalmostinspiteofone’sabilitytoreflectonone’sbehavior.ItthusfollowsthatNikita’spreliminarysins–havingaffairswithMarinkaandAnisya–arewithinthescopeofnormallyacceptablebehavior.Nikitaisjustsowingwildoats,withhismother’sapproval.OnecannothelprecallhowTolstoywastoldbyhisbelovedAuntTatianaErgol’skaiathatnothingcompletesayoungmanlikeanaffairwithamarried18woman.Thesecondpoint,onmemory,isperhapsmoreimportant.FormuchofTolstoy’scareerhewouldhaveconsiderednotjustthoughtbutmemoryinparticularasessentialforthecreationofart.Hereferredtotheeffectofmusiconmemory,forexample,inChildhood(1852).Ashismotherplaysthepiano,theheroNikolenkaremarks:“Iwellrememberthefeelings[thosepieces]arousedinme.Theyresembledmemories–butmemoriesofwhat?ItalmostseemedasifIwererememberingsomethingthathadneverbeen”19(PSS1:31).AsNatashaSankovitch,PatriciaCarden,andothershave20noted,Tolstoyfrequentlyuses“imagination”for“memory.”Inalatediaryentry(January20,1905)onmusicandmemoryTolstoywrites:Musicisthestenographyoffeelings[…]Musicwithoutspeechtakesthoseexpressionsoffeelingsandtheirnuancesandunitesthem,andwereceivetheplayoffeelingswithoutthatwhichcalledthemforth.(PSS55:116–117)AndPozdnyshev,theprotagonistofTheKreutzerSonata,complainsthat:[music]merelyirritatesme.HowcanIputit?Musicmakesmeforgetmyself,mytruecondition,itcarriesmeoffintoanotherstateofbeing,onethatisn’tmyown:undertheinfluenceofmusicIhavetheillusionoffeelingthingsIdon’treallyfeel,ofunderstandingthingsIdon’tunderstand,beingabletodothingsI’mnotableto21do.(PSS27:61)Tolstoy,himselfoftenkeentocontrolhisreader’sexperience,isdisturbedbytheuncontrollabilityofmusic,itsunpredictableeffectonthelistener,anditsshakyontology.ThereisnoovertmusicplayinginTheRealmofDarkness,thoughwomensinginginboththeopeningandclosingscenesframetheplay.ButwhenNikitarepeatedlythinkshehearsthemurderedbabywhimperingattheendofthefourthact,Tolstoyalludestotheunpredictableandmultivalentnatureofauralperception.Thecriesofthebabyareimagined,notreal,andthuscharacterizeNikita’sdespairandpain,whichisreal.ThefirstthingsaidaboutNikitaintheplayisintheopeningscenewhenPyotrcallsouttohim,askingifhe’s“gonedeaf”(Oglokh!).Untilhiscrisis,Nikitalosestheabilitytohearthevoiceofconscience.Likethe

199188justinweircriesofthedyingbabyinTheRealmofDarkness,screamsofpainmergewithadroninginhumanmusicinthelatestory“AftertheBall”(1903),wherethenarratorwitnessessoldiersbeatingaTatarforcedtorunthegauntlet.Themusicin“AftertheBall”andthewhimperingcriesheardbyNikitainTheRealmofDarknessdonotsuggestmeaninginmemory,butratheralackofmeaningandalossofmemory,anexistentialcrisisthathasculminatedinviolence.AsPozdnyshevsays,thereisanillusionofunderstandinginmusicbutnorealunderstanding.SinceTolstoyseesdramaassomewhatlimitedinitsabilitytodepictthoughtandmemory,oneisnotsurprisedtofindviolenceandsinrepresentedindramaascounter-rational:theyaretheresultofaworldrenderedsenselessbythelossoffaith.Ifsindestroysthoughtandmemory,twoessentialaspectsofhumanbeing,thendramaisanidealmediumtodepictit.OnewonderswhetheritwasprimarilythedifficultyingettingTheRealmofDarknessstagedthatdissuadedTolstoy22fromauthoringevenmoreplaysafteritthanhedid.WhereasinearlyworksTolstoy’sconsiderationofviolenceturnsonpsychologicalanalysisandteststherationalorirrationalbasisforactingviolently,hislaternon-introspectiverepresentationsofviolencearemoreoftenconnectedtoactualviolentbehavior.IpurposelyleaveasidehereduelingandtheextensivebodyofTolstoy’swarfiction,whichhavetheirowncomplexsetofmoralandaestheticissues,andwhichinsomecasesmaycontradictmygeneralargument,inordertofocusonviolencethatisunsanctionedbypoliticalandsocialinstitutions,violenceforwhichonecanrarelyshareblame.ConsideroneofTolstoy’smostfamousviolentimagesfromAnnaKareninainthepost-coitalscenebetweenVronskyandAnna:Hefeltwhatamurderermustfeelwhenlookingatthebodyhehasdeprivedoflife.Thebodyhehaddeprivedoflifewastheirlove,thefirstperiodoftheirlove[…]Butinspiteofthemurderer’shorrorofthebodyofhisvictim,thatbodymustbecutinpiecesandhiddenaway,andhemustmakeuseofwhathehasobtainedbythemurder.Then,asthemurdererdesperatelythrowshimselfonthebody,asthoughwithpassion,anddragsitandhacksit,soVronskycoveredherfaceand23shoulderswithkisses.(PSS18:156)ButVronsky,unlikeNikitainTheRealmofDarknessorPozdnyshevinTheKreutzerSonata,doesnotactuallykillanyone.TheviolenceisametaphorthroughwhichoneglimpsesVronsky’smoralhorror,whichhehimselfcouldscarcelycharacterizeinwords.ItisnotjustthedramaticformofthelaterplaysthatcausesTolstoytoshifthisanalysisofviolence,then,butalsohisshiftingideas.Sexualtransgressionleadsnottoviolenceofthought,but

200ViolenceandtheroleofdramainthelateTolstoy189toviolentactioninthelaterTolstoy.ForinAnnaKareninathelinkbetweenadulteryandAnna’ssuicideisnotatallasdirectandincontrovertible.Especiallyinthelatterhalfofhiscareer,Tolstoywasofcourseanunparalleledadvocateofnon-violence,andhewroteaboutitatlengthinhisnonfictionalworkTheKingdomofGodIswithinYou(1893).ButviolencewasatouchstoneforTolstoy’sfictionalaestheticsthroughouthiscareer.TheRealmofDarknessisatransitionalpointbetweenearlyandlatebelletr-isticrepresentations.Therearetwomurdersthatbookendtheplay:Anisya’spoisoningofherhusbandPyotratthebeginningandNikita’scrushingofthebabyattheend.Inbetween,however,TolstoyimpliesthatthroughhissinNikitahasdamagedhimself:hehasperpetratedviolenceuponhissoulthatnearlyeruptsintothephysicalworldashecontemplatescommittingsuicideattheendoftheplay.AsDonskovwrites,“[f]romtheexternalevents,sotosay,theconflictbecomesinternal,asNikitautters‘Istoppedbein’aman!’Thefactthatherecognizesthis–andrecognition,astheworditselfindicates,isachangefromignorancetoknowledge–affectsachange,a24changetowardhisrebirth.”WhatisleftunsaidandformsamysterythroughouttheplayistheinnerworkingsofthemindofNikita,which,astimegoesby,isdulledmoreandmorebydrinking.AcrucialandearlyexampleofthenarrativeuseofintrospectiontounderstandviolentbehaviorismademoststrikinglyinTolstoy’sBoyhood(1854),whereviolenceisthesubjectofintenseintrospectionafterTolstoy’s25autobiographicalhero,NikolaiIrtenev,seeshisbrotherkissSonya.Inapassagethatneedstobequotedatlength,hereflectsonthepredilectionforviolenceofboyswhoarenolongerchildrenyetnotadolescents:Icanquiteappreciatethepossibilityofthemostfrightfulcrimebeingcommittedwithoutobjectorintenttoinjurebutjustbecause–outofcuriosity,ortosatisfyanunconsciouscravingforaction.Therearemomentswhenthefuturelookssoblackthatoneisafraidtoletone’sthoughtsdwellonit,refusestoletone’smindfunctionandtriestoconvinceoneselfthatthefuturewillnotbe,andthepasthasnotbeen.Atsuchmoments,whenthewillisnotgovernedormodifiedbyreflectionandtheonlyincentivesthatremaininlifeareourphysicalinstincts,Icanunderstandhowachild,beingparticularlyproneowingtolackofexperiencetofallintosuchastate,maywithouttheleasthesitationorfear,withasmileofcuriositydeliberatelysetfiretohisownhouse–andthenfantheflameswherehisbrothers,hisfatherandhismother,allofwhomhelovesdearly,aresleeping.Undertheinfluenceofasimilarabsenceofthought–absentmindednessalmost–apeasantladofseventeen,examiningthebladeofanewly-sharpenedaxelyingnearthebenchonwhichhisoldfatherliesfacedownwardasleep,suddenlyswingstheaxeandwithvacantcuriositywatchesthebloodoozingunderthebenchfromtheseveredneck.Itisunderthesameinfluence–thesameabsenceofthought,thesameinstinctof

201190justinweircuriosity–thatamanfindsacertainpleasureinstandingontheverybrinkofaprecipiceandthinking,“WhatifIthrowmyselfdown?”Orraisingaloadedpistol26tohisforeheadsaystohimself:“SupposeIpullthetrigger?”(PSS2:40–41)Itisnotviolencetowardothersorviolencetowardtheself,northetheoryormoralityofviolence,butviolencepersethatespeciallyinterestsTolstoyinthispassage.AsinTheRealmofDarknessviolencetowardotherscanquicklyturnagainstoneself.Hereheexplicitlycorrelatesviolencewithafavoriteexistentialtopic,acuriosityaboutone’sowndeath.ItisanimportantparadoxthatTolstoytiesviolencetoabsentmindednesswithinapassageofsustainedintrospectivenarrative.LikeNikolai,whoelsewhereinBoyhoodturnsroundquicklytoseeiftheworldisstillthere,Tolstoysometimesseemstobethinkinghiswaybacktonon-thought,reconstructinghowan27ideaisbornfromnothing.ForthelaterTolstoy,bycontrast,one’sinternalmoralcompassisoftenprofoundlydisruptedasonepassesoutofchildhood.InTheDeathofIvanIlych(1886),aworkcontemporaneouswithTheRealmofDarkness,pubertyandsocialambitionpushIvanoffcourse.Heleadsanimmoral,thoughnotviolent,life.Forviolentbehavior,inparticular,thevoiceofconsciencemustusuallybefurtherquelled.Inanimportantessayfrom1890,WhyDoMenStupefyThemselves?,Tolstoyblamestheuseofdrugs,alcohol,andevensmokingforallowingone’sconsciencetobemuted,ifonlyforamoment,asonecontemplatesviolentactionsofonesortoranother.Heassociatessuchlapsesofconsciencewithallsortsofcrimeanddegradation,frommurdertoprostitutiontobadwriting(duringwhichtobaccosilencesthewriter’sinternaleditor).AsinthecaseofviolenceinBoyhood,Tolstoyfocusesonanactofviolencewithoutapparentmotive.Whydopeopleusestupefyingsubstancesandhowisitconnectedtotheperpetrationofcrime?Hewrites:“Askasmokerwhyhebegansmokingtobaccoandsmokesnow,andhewillanswerthesame:‘justbecause,outofboredom,everyonesmokes.’Theusersofopium,hashish,morphine,hallucinogenicmushroomswouldinalllikelihoodanswerjustthesame”(PSS27:269).Whatisthereasononebeginssmoking?Noreason.Simplyoutofboredom,orforrecreation.It’scommon.Thatisthestorytheperpetratorstellwhenaskedtoreportontheirmotives.ThereisacorrelationintheseviolentretellingswithTolstoy’snotionoftheauthenticlifeofchildhood,ruinedbysexandsociety.“Whendoboysbeginsmoking?–Almostalwaysatthesametimetheylosetheirchildhoodinnocence”(PSS27:270).InBoyhood,therewasnocauseforviolence.NowTolstoysuggeststhattheuseofconscience-repressingsubstanceshasa

202ViolenceandtheroleofdramainthelateTolstoy191purpose,inordertoforgetsexualtransgression.Thisboundarybetweentheinnocenceofchildhoodandtheonsetofsexualawareness,andwithit,inauthenticity,issuggestedinTheDeathofIvanIlychwhenPyotr,acolleagueofIvanIlychpresentatthefuneral,recognizesinthetiredeyesofthedeadman’ssonanunspokencause,hissexualmaturation.InTheRealmofDarkness,wearemeanttoblameNikita’smother,Matryona,whoearlyintheplayencourageshimnottomarrybuttoenjoyhissexualfreedom:“Whynothavesomefun?That’swhatyoung’sfor”(8;PSS26:130).Usingstupefyingsubstances,andNikitadrinksheavilyastheplaygoeson,givesconscienceanalibi:“Thereasonfortheuniversalcirculationofhashish,opium,wine,tobaccoisnotfortaste,orpleasure,ordiversion,orforfun,butonlyforitsuseinconcealingtheinstructionofconscience”(PSS27:273).Hidingfromone’sconscienceisnotamotiveforcrimeinthetraditionalsense.Itisabehaviorthataccompaniesillicitactions,andfunctionsasanalibi.Violence,nomatterhowunthinkableandabsent-minded,wasoncejustastageoflife(asinBoyhood),butisnowasignofanauthenticchildhoodthathasbeenspoiled,andoftherepressionofconscience.Drowningoutthevoiceofone’sconsciencesubstitutesforamissingmotive,butitalsomakesagood,engaging,andexcitingnarrative.Tolstoyisrepeatedlydrawntosensationalexamples,notjustintheinfanticideofTheRealmofDarknessorthechoppingoffofafingerinFatherSergius(whereSergiusisclearlyintoxicatedbylust),butalsoinhisnonfiction.InanothermemorablepassagefromWhyDoMenStupefyThemselves?,herecallshowacigaretteprovidedamurdererwiththestrengthtofinishthejob.Thatcookwhokilledhisbarin’swifetoldofwhen,enteringthebedroom,hecutherthroatwithaknifeandshefell,croaking,andthebloodgushedout,helosthisnerve.“Icouldn’tfinishheroff,”hesaid,“andIwalkedoutofthebedroomintothelivingroom,satthereandsmokedacigarette.”Onlyafterhavingstupefiedhimselfwithtobaccodidhefeelhimselfstrongenoughtoreturntothebedroomtofinishofftheoldwomanandlookintowhatpropertyshehad.(PSS27:275–76)IsitredundanttopointoutthatTolstoydidnotneedtodescribehowthemurderercuther,shefell,croaking,andthebloodgushedout?OrthatwedonotneedNikitatodescribethesoundofthecrushingoftheinfant’sbones?Tolstoywishesustoremainsoattentivetoconsciousnessthatwewillhaveperfectclarityifandwhenabigmoralquestionarrives.Consciencemustassumecontroloverconsciousnessatjusttherightmoment.Tolstoywritesunsympathetically:“Theydrinkandsmokenotjustbecause,oroutofboredom,orforfun,notbecauseitispleasant,butinordertodrownout

203192justinweirone’sconscience.Andifthatisso,howhorribletheconsequencesmustverywellbe!”(PSS27:282).Itisapitilesscondemnationfromamanwhoformuchofhislifecontrolledpoorlyhisownimpulses–togamble,smoke,womanize,andsoforth.KnowingthereflexivityofTolstoy’sphilosophy,however,andthatheputshimselffirstamongtransgressors,onemayregardsuchstatementsnotjustastheharshcondemnationstheyappeartobe,butalsoasaradicalself-censureweknowthemtobe.Inawell-knownexamplefromhisessay“ArtasDevice,”ViktorShklovskyexaminesadiaryentryfrom1897inwhichTolstoywritesthathecannotrememberwhetherhehasdustedthesofaornot,andheishorrifiedthathabithasconsumedsomuchofhisconsciouslife:“ifthewholecomplexlifeofmanypeoplepassesbyunconsciously,thenitisasif28thatlifehadneverbeen.”Shklovskycontinues,memorably:“Solifedisappears,turningintonothing.Automatizationconsumesthings,clothes,29furniture,one’swifeandthefearofwar.”Tolstoyvowsnottoloselifetoahabitualizedlossofconsciousness.Shklovskyinturndefinesartasaprocessofrevitalizingperceptionofthingsthatareknowntous,of“defamiliariz-ing”theworld,of“makingthestonestony”again.CrucialtoShklovsky’sunderstandingofartinthisregard,andmadeexplicitelsewhere,ishisattentiontotheroleofthepast,theliterarytradition.Defamiliarizationasapurposefulreworkingofliteraryformulastakesoldandfamiliarwaysofdescribinglifeinartanddestroystheminordertorenewtheirperceptibilityandsignificanceforthereaderorobserver.ForTolstoy,thetotalattentive-nessrequiredformonitoringone’spresentmoralbehaviorpaysconsciencethepriceofthepast–pastart,pasthabitare,theoretically,subjecttodestructioninorderthatweremainaware,vigilant,inourconscioustrackingofourbehavior.Tolstoyiswillingtogiveuphisrefinedartofintrospectivepsychologicalanalysis,atleastinTheRealmofDarkness,ifthatiswhatamoralaestheticsrequires.ThefirstverseofthebiblicalepigraphofTheRealmofDarkness(takenfromChrist’sSermonontheMount,Matthew5:28,29)remindsusofthelinkbetweenattentiveconsciousnessandone’sconscience:“ButIsayuntoyou,Thatwhosoeverlookethonawomantolustafterherhathcommittedadulterywithheralreadyinhisheart”(1;PSS26:123).Theepigraphisunusualfortheplay.Notonlyisanepigraphunspokeninaworkofdrama,butthemeaningoftheverse,thatlustmeanssinninginone’sheartifnotinone’sdeeds,isitselfundramatic.Theplayactuallycontradictsthesenseoftheepigraph,sinceitopenswithinfidelityalreadyongoingandnotjustcontemplated.AnisyaandNikitahavelongsincemovedfromdesiretodeed.Thesecondverseoftheepigraphspeakswithviolentandcomplicated

204ViolenceandtheroleofdramainthelateTolstoy193imagery:“Andifthyrighteyeoffendthee,pluckitout,andcastitfromthee:foritisprofitablefortheethatoneofthymembersshouldperish,andnotthatthywholebodyshouldbecastintohell”(1;PSS26:123).Likeotherlatestories,suchasTheKreutzerSonataandFatherSergius,TheRealmofDarknessmakesaclearandsubstantiallinkbetweensexualtransgressionandviolence.ThesameepigraphhereinTheRealmofDarknessisusedagainbyTolstoyjustafewyearslaterinTheDevil(1889),aposthumouslypublishedstorythathasalternativeendings:oneinwhichtheprotagonistkillsthepeasantwomanwhotemptshim,andtheotherinwhichhekillshimself.Alongwiththesubtitleoftheplay,“ifaclawgetsstuck,thebirdislost,”theepigraphforcesus(readersinthecaseofthesubtitleandepigraph)tomeditateonquestionsofmind/bodyconnectionsaswellasbodilyintegrityperse.Doesanevilthoughtequalanevildeed?Canonereallyseversexualdesirefromone’swholeself?AyoungerTolstoywouldprobablyhaveequivocated:didPierre’slustforHélèneinWarandPeacemakehimwhollybad?No.AndStiva’scriticismofLevininAnnaKareninathatheistoomuchofapiece(“tyochen’tsel’nyichelovek”)isajustoneinthecontextofthenovel(pt.1,ch.11;PSS18:46).InthelaterperiodwewitnessmorefrequentattemptsbyTolstoytointegratehumanbeingentirelythroughconscience;thatis,toseecontradictoryandself-defeatingbehaviorasanindexofone’smoralfailingratherthanasasignofthebreadthandfragilityofhumancharacter.Herethelogicisallconsuming.Totakeonestepdowntheroadofsinfulnessistocrossoverintoanirresistiblysinfullife.HiswillingnesstosinoncemakesNikitamuchmorelikelytosinagain.ItisaslipperyslopeforNikita,asonesinleadseasilytoanotherwithoutaneasilyidentifiablecausetoblame.Oflying,heremarks:“Whatabreakthatsomethin’toldmet’swearbeforetheicon.RightawayIputanendt’thewholemess.Theysayit’sscaryt’sweart’alie.That’sallalottabunk.Nothin’buttalk.Plainan’simple”(18;PSS26:143).Thewords“somethin’toldme”(literally“likesomeonenudgedme”[ikaketomeniakaktolkonulkto])areessential–anunnamed,unanalyzed,non-introspectivecausecompelledhimtoact.Tolstoytransformstheinabilitytoprovideintrospectiveanalysisinaplayintothedangerousinfinitenegativityofsinfullife.AcauseismissinginNikita’smotivationtoperpetrateevergreatercrimes,becausehehaslostinthedeepestsensehismemory,theabilityto30recollectoneself,one’sactions,andGod.TheplayasksviewerstomakeaverydramaticjumpfromhisdalliancewithMarinkatohiscrushinganinfanttodeathinordertohidehisaffairwithhisstepdaughterAkulina.Mustsexleadineluctablytomurder?ForTolstoytheequationisneverquite

205194justinweirthatsimple,thoughitmayseemsoforcharacterslikePozdnyshevinTheKreutzerSonata.ThecrucialfactisthatNikitahasforgottenhissoul.Memory,thatcornerstoneofcreativityinthefictionoftheearlyTolstoy,isnowtiedessentiallytothemaintenanceofthespiritualself.IntheimportantessayOnLife(1887),whichTolstoywrotealongwithTheRealmofDarknesswhileconvalescingfromaninjurytohisleg,hedistin-31guishesbetweentheanimalandspiritualsidesofhumanbeing.Throughhissexualtransgressionsandothersins,Nikitaextinguisheshisspiritualsideandgivesintotheanimalsideofhisbeing.Hekillspartofhimself,Tolstoywouldargue,beforekillinganyoneelse.Nikita’sfatherAkim,whoapprox-imatesaraissoneurintheplay,phrasesitintermsofhaving“forgotten”God.Hesays:“Itseems,d’ya,theend’sathand[…]Oh,God’sbeenforgotten.Forgotten,Imean.We’veforgotten,forgottenGod,God”(46;PSS26:183).ItisasthoughtheactionoftheplayrealizesNikolai’snightmarishthoughtfromBoyhoodthat“thefuturewillnotbe,andthepasthasnotbeen.”Partlybecauseitisinadifferentgenrethanhispreviousbelletristicwork,onethatresistsmnemonicnarrativedevices,TheRealmofDarknessreflectsTolstoy’schangingaesthetics,thatmemoryisnotjustcreativebutessen-tiallyspiritual.ThusthefollowingkeyexchangebetweenAkimandNikitaforebodestheplay’sfrightfulclimax:akim.Itoldyuh,d’ya,’bouttheorphangirl,thatyuhwrongedtheorphangirl,Marina,Imean,wronged.nikita.Lookwhatheremembered!Letsleepin’dogslie.That’sover’ndonewith.akim(angrily).Over?No,pal,’tain’tover.Sin,Imean,latchesontosinan’pullsyuhalong,an’yuh’restuckinsin,Mikishka.Yuh’restuckinsin,Isee.Yuh’restuck,yuh’vesunkinit,Imean.(55;PSS26:196)…akim(opensthedoor).Comet’yersenses,Mikita.Yuhneedasoul.(56;PSS26:197)Nikitadoesviolencetohimselfbyforgettinghissoul.Halfaman,heisdestinedtotreatothersinhumanly.Akimsuggestshecannotlivewithoutasoul,andindeedNikitaisnearlydriventosuicidebeforeheultimatelyconfesseshiscrimes.Throughouttheplay,then,Nikita’slackofreflectionbespeakstwoauthorialstrategies.Intermsoftheplay’sbroaderthemes,NikitahasforgottenGodinhissinfulbehavior.Intermsoftheplay’saesthetics,hislackofreflection,andthusintrospection,accordswiththedemandsofthedramaticgenre.Theoverarchingsuggestionthatmodernlifedullscon-sciousnessandmakesonedeaftoconscienceiswritlargeacrosstheworksof

206ViolenceandtheroleofdramainthelateTolstoy195thelastquartercenturyofTolstoy’slife.TheensuingthreatofviolencereachesfromdarkcornersofthepeasantvillageinTheRealmofDarknesstocontinentsacrosswhichnationsmoveinwar.Acknowledgingthe60,000suicidesinEurope,TolstoyremarksinTheKingdomofGodIswithinYouthatheissurprisedtherearenotmore:Everymanofthepresentday,ifwegodeepenoughintothecontradictionbetweenhisconscienceandhislife,isinastateofdespair.Nottospeakofalltheothercontradictionsbetweenmodernlifeandtheconscience,thepermanentlyarmedconditionofEuropetogetherwithitsprofessionofChristianityisaloneenoughtodriveanymantodespair,todoubtofthesanityofmankind,andtoterminateanexistenceinthissenselessandbrutalworld.Thiscontradiction,whichisthequintessenceofalltheothercontradictions,issoterriblethattoliveandtotakepartinitisonlypossibleifonedoesnotthinkofit–ifoneisabletoforgetit.32(PSS28:104)Nikitaisdeaftoconscience,forgetsGod,andengagesinsavagebrutality.ButTolstoyissympathetic.notes1.Unlessotherwisenoted,allEnglishquotesaretakenfromtheexcellentandexplicitlycolloquialtranslationbyMarvinKantor:LeoTolstoy,Plays:VolumeTwo,1886–1889,trans.MarvinKantorwithTanyaTulchinsky,intro.AndrewBaruchWachtel(Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1996).Vlast’t’myisoftentranslatedasThePowerofDarkness.KantorandTulchinskychoose“realm”for“vlast’.”Wachtelnotes:“Theword‘power,’however,tendstoconnotesomekindofoutsideforce,whereaswhatTolstoyseemstohavehadinmindwasthatevilcanbeinherentinhumannature.Thus,hisfocusisontheentireclosedworldinwhichthecrimesdescribedinthisplaywerecommittedratherthanonanyexternalpower.Thatiswhywehaveoptedfor‘realm’here”(xi).2.AndrewDonskovprovidesanexcellentbibliographyinhisEssaysonL.N.Tolstoj’sDramaticArt(Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1988).3.Donskov(Essays,69)arguesthatTolstoyuseddialectnotjustforcomicbutalsoforseriouseffect.4.Wachtel,Introduction,Plays,xiii.5.L.N.Tolstoi.Polnoesobraniesochinenii[PSS].90vols.Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,”1928–58;26:706.HereaftercitedasPSS,andinthetext.N.Gudzii,“‘Vlast’t’my’.Istoriiapisaniia,pechataniiaipostanovkinastsene‘Vlastit’my’,”PSS26:705–36.Amongliteraryinfluences,WachteldiscussesPisemsky’sdramaABitterFate(1859)andDostoevsky’sCrimeandPunishment(Wachtel,Introduction,Plays,viii,x).GeorgeSteinerseesareflectionofRaskolnikov’sconfessioninthescenewhereNikitaadmitshissinsbeforetheweddingcrowd(TolstoyorDostoevsky:AnEssayintheOldCriticism[NewYork:Knopf,1959],128).TolstoyclearlyhasRaskolnikov’scrimeinmind

207196justinweirduringtheseyears.HediscussesthequestionofwhyRaskolnikovkillstheoldpawnbrokerandhersisterinanessayfromafewyearslater,WhyDoMenStupefyThemselves?(1890),whichIdiscussbelow.6.HewrotehisbiographerPavelBiriukovin1908thattheeventofthetrialandexecution“hadamuchgreaterinfluenceonmyentirelifethanallotherseeminglymoreimportanteventsoflife:thelossorrestorationofafortune,successesorfailuresinliterature,eventhelossofthosepeopleclosestto[me]”(PSS37:67).SeealsoWalterKerr,TheShabuninAffair:AnEpisodeintheLifeofLeoTolstoy(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1982).7.Gudzii,“‘Vlast’t’my’,”706.8.Ibid.713.9.Ibid.706–7.10.Ibid.708.11.NeilCarruthers,“TheParisPremièreofTolstoy’sVlast’t’my(ThePowerofDarkness),”NewZealandSlavonicJournal(1987):83.12.SeeW.GarethJones,“TolstoyStagedinParis,Berlin,andLondon,”inDonnaTussingOrwin,ed.,TheCambridgeCompaniontoTolstoy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002),142–60.13.Ibid.143.14.Ibid.142.15.Wachtelwrites:“Tolstoywasalreadywritingananti-woman’sliberationworkbeforeanypro-woman’sliberationworkshadappearedinRussianliterature”(Introduction,Plays,x).16.QuotedbyDonskov(Essays19).ThequoteisoriginallyfromapublishedinterviewintheweeklyTeatriiskusstvo34(1908):580–81.17.Donskov,followingR.Christian,isrighttorejectoversimplification:“ReferencehasbeenmadetoTolstoj’sstatementthatonemustnot‘makehim[thecharacter]think[onthestage]andcallupmemories…Aready-formedstateofmind,ready-formedresolutions,mustbepresentedtothepublic.’Thisassertionthatcharactersmustbealreadyformed,andthatthereisnoroomforthemtothinkanewortodevelopintosomethingdifferentis,accordingtoChristian,anabsurdlyconstrictingone.Butinpractice,itwasnotsosimplesinceTolstoj’sheroesdodigressintothepastandtheycertainlydodevelop”(Essays,22).DonskovreferencesR.F.Christian,Tolstoy:ACriticalIntroduction(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1969),257–58.18.Anoftenrepeatedanecdote,butsee,forexample:A.N.Wilson,Tolstoy:ABiography(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1988),61.19.TranslationfromLeoTolstoy,Childhood,Boyhood,Youth,trans.RosemaryEdmonds(NewYork:Penguin,1964),40.20.NatashaSankovitchwrites:“InhisfictionTolstoyrarelyusesthewordpamiat’(“memory”)torefertothatpartofthemindwherememoriesorreminiscences(vospominaniia)are,metaphoricallyspeaking,awakened;instead,heusesthewordvoobrazhenie(“imagination”)”(CreatingandRecoveringExperience:RepetitioninTolstoy[Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1998],113.).Insubsequentpages,Sankovitchaddressesmusicandmemoryextensively

208ViolenceandtheroleofdramainthelateTolstoy197(Ibid.215–24).PatriciaCardenwritesthatTolstoyaffirmedthenotionthat“thecapacityforrememberingisasignoftheexpressivecapacityoftheself”(“TheRecuperativePowersofMemory:Tolstoy’sWarandPeace,”inJohnGarrard,ed.,TheRussianNovelfromPushkintoPasternak(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1983),89.21.TranslationfromLeoTolstoy,Tolstoy’sShortFiction,trans.anded.MichaelR.Katz(NewYork:Norton,1991),218.22.Tolstoydidwriteseveralmoreplays,notablyTheFruitsofEnlightenment(1889)andTheLivingCorpse(1900).23.TranslationbyLouiseandAylmerMaudetakenfromLeoTolstoy,AnnaKarenina(NewYork:W.W.Norton1970),135–36.24.Donskov,Essays,25.25.DonnaOrwindiscussesthispassageandseveralothersfromTolstoy’swarstories,TheKreutzerSonataandResurrectioninthecontextofhisunder-standingofhowrationalconsciousness(razumnoesoznanie)playstheroleofsuppressingevilandviolentimpulses.SeeConsequencesofConsciousness:Turgenev,Dostoevsky,andTolstoy(PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,2007),158–79.OfthepassageIquotefromBoyhoodbelow,shewrites:“Sotwoconditionsarenecessaryfortheadolescenttocontemplatesuchterriblecrimes:theremustbegreatenergy,andthelovingmilieuandmoral‘thought’bywhichitisnormallycontrolledmustbeabsent”(ibid.160).26.TranslationfromTolstoy,Childhood,143.27.InakeychapterofBoyhood,entitled“Boyhood,”hediscusseshisfascinationwithsolipsisticskepticism:“Butnotoneofthesephilosophicaltheoriesheldmesomuchasskepticism,whichatonetimebroughtmetothevergeofinsanity.Ifanciedthatbesidesmyselfnobodyandnothingexistedintheuniverse,thatobjectswerenotrealatallbutimageswhichappearedwhenIdirectedmyattentionatthem,andthatsosoonasIstoppedthinkingofthemtheseimagesimmediatelyvanished.Inshort,IcametothesameconclusionasSchelling,thatobjectsdonotexistbutonlymyrelationtothemexists.ThereweremomentswhenIbecamesoderangedbythisidéefixethatIwouldglancesharplyroundinsomeoppositedirection,hopingtocatchunawaresthevoid(theneant)whereIwasnot”(Tolstoy,Childhood,159).IrinaPapernodescribesTolstoy’sencounterinhisdiarieswithhis“inaccessibleself”assimilartoanexperienceofdeath:“[T]hesearchforthetrueselfturnedintoanimpossiblemissionofdefiningthenon-selfofthetruebeing,whichlayoutsidelanguage.Hislasthopewasdeath:itwasindeaththattheauthorhopedtofinallyexperiencethetruthofaselflessbeing.Itwouldseemthat,againstreason,hehopedtoleavearecordofthisexperience”(“‘Who,WhatIsI?’:TolstoyinhisDiaries,”TolstoyStudiesJournal11[1999]:32–54,32).28.V.Shklovsky,“ArtasTechnique,”LeeT.LemonandMarionsJ.Reis,eds.,inRussianFormalistCriticism:FourEssays(Lincoln,NE:UniversityofNebraskaPress,1965),12.ThequoteofTolstoyisfromhisdiaryofMarch1,1897(PSS53:142).29.“ArtasTechnique,”13.

209198justinweir30.RichardGustafson’sworkprovidesthekeyinsightherewithhisanalysisofprayerinTolstoyasaformof“recollectiveconsciousness,”anassessmentofhumanvocationinthecontextofthedivine.SeeLeoTolstoy:ResidentandStranger:AStudyinFictionandTheology(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1986),331.31.SimmonsremarksthatasTolstoy’sattentionturnedfromtryingtostageThePowerofDarkness,hebecameconsumedwithcompletingOnLife.SeeErnestJ.Simmons,LeoTolstoy,2vols.(NewYork:VintageBooks,1960),vol.ii,420.32.ThetranslationistakenfromLeoTolstoy,TheKingdomofGodIswithinYou:ChristianitynotasaMysticReligionbutasaNewTheoryofLife,trans.ConstanceGarnett(Lincoln,NE:UniversityofNebraskaPress,1984),131–32.

210chapter10Whatmenquoteby:Tolstoy,wisesayings,andmoraltalesGarySaulMorsontheshortestliteraryworksTheauthorofWarandPeacealsomasteredshortforms,includingmoraltalesandtheshortestofallliteraryforms,thequotation.Tolstoylovedquotations.By“quotations”Imeannotanysetofcitedwords,butthesortofmemorableshortsayingthatwefindinBartlett’sFamiliarQuotationsandsimilarvolumes.AlthoughitisoftenassumedthatBartlettinventedtheanthologyofquotations,itderivesfromatraditionextendingbacktotheRenaissance(Erasmus’Adagia),medievalflorilegia,ancientclassicsincludingDiogenesLaertius,andthebiblicalBookofProverbs,whichisitselfacollectionofcollectionsofMiddleEasternproverbs.Tobeaquotationinthissense,asetofwordsmustbeabletostandonitsownasacomplete,ifbrief,literarywork.Itmustbequotable.WemaythereforedistinguishwhatIshallcallaquotation–ashortliterarywork–fromanextract,inthesenseofanysetofcitedwords.Extracts,suchasthesortofcitationsfootnotedinscholarlyarticles,areneitherofferednortakenascompleteworkscapableofstandingontheirown.Clearly,notallextractsarequotations.Butneitherareallquotationsextracts.Foronething,althoughaquotationmayhaveanextractasasource,itmayandoftendoesdifferfromitssourceiffornootherreasonthantostandonitsown.Becomingaquotationisachangeinstatusthatofteninvolvesachangeintext.InMatthew,Jesussays:“whoevershallsmitetheeononecheek,turntohimtheotheralso”butweneverthelesshavethequotation“turntheothercheek”fortheobviousreasonthattheextract1“turntohimtheother”makesnosense.Althoughinaccurateasanextract,“turntheothercheek”isindeedaccurateasthequotation;forthequotationispreciselytheformthatismostcommonlyquoted.Itisasiftheextractacquiresasortofsecondspeakerwhenitbecomesaquotation.Aswedistinguishbetweenaquotationandanextract,soa199

211200garysaulmorsonmisquotationdiffersfromwhatwemightcallamisextraction.“Turntheothercheek”isamisextractionbutanaccuratequotation;“turntohimtheother”isanaccurateextractbutwouldbeamisquotation.Notallquotationsareextractsforanotherreason.Somearenotextractedfromanythingatall.Rather,likethemaximsofLaRochefoucauld,theywerecomposedascompleteworksfromtheoutset.TolstoycollectedsuchworksbyLaRochefoucauldandothers.ThesayingsofHeraclitusrepresentamorecomplexcase,becausealthoughwepresumetheyatonetimemusthavebeenfragmentsofalostwhole,theyhavesurvivedontheirownsinceantiquityandhavelongbeentreatedascomplete.ThethoughtsinPascal’sPenséeswereassembledintoavolumebyothers,andso,althoughpresum-ablywrittenasnotesforsomeprojectedwork,nowfunctionascomplete.Sometimes,authorsdoublydesignworkssothatindividuallinescanbereadeitheraspartsofalargerwholeoraswholesinthemselves.AlexanderPopeexplicitlystatesasmuchinhisprefacetoAnEssayonMan,whichhasindeedsurvivedasbotharhymedessayandasortofanthologyoffamouscoupletsonthehumancondition.tolstoyandquotationsBoththequotationandtheanthologyofquotationsfascinatedTolstoy.Asearlyas1847,whenhewasattendingKazanUniversity,hewroteinhisdiary:“IreadCatherine[theGreat]’sInstructionsandsinceImadethegeneralruleformyselftothinkoverandwritedowntheremarkablethoughtsofanyseriousworkIamreading,Iherewritemyopinionofthe2firstsixchaptersofthisremarkablework.”ByMarch15,1885,hehadconceivedtheideaofpublishing“foreveryone”ananthologyofgreatquotations.Hisdiaryenthusiasticallymentionstheproject:“ImustputtogetherformyselfaCircleofReading:Epictetus,MarcusAurelius,LaoTzu,Buddha,Pascal,theGospel.Thisisalsonecessaryforeveryone.”In1903,hepublishedThoughtsofWisePeopleforEveryDay,whichcollectsquotationsfromforty-oneauthors.HismuchlargerCircleofReading(1906),whichcontains250authors,isalsoarrangedaccordingtothe3calendar.AmongtheauthorsisTolstoyhimself,whoquotedfromhisownworksandwrotenewquotationsfortheoccasion.Tolstoyproducedotheranthologies,suchasForEveryDay(1910),ThePathofLife(1910),andhisCalendarofProverbs(1886).Healsocompiled“Selections”devotedtosingleauthors.Ifonelooksatthetableofcontentsofvolume40inhiscompleteworks,onefindssomeeighteenshortcollectionsofquotations–thelongerCircleofReadingoccupiesvolumes

212Whatmenquoteby20141and42–including“SelectedThoughtsofLaBruyère,”“SelectedAphorismsandMaximsofLaRochefoucauld,”“SelectedThoughtsofMontesquieu,”“SayingsofMohammed,NotIncludedintheKoran,”andtwocollectionsofquotationsfromLaoTzu.Mostimportant,inhisgreatnovels,author,narrator,andcharacterswriteorspeakquotablephrasesoftheirown,obviouslyindebtedtothemastersoftheform.ThefamousfirstsentenceofAnnaKarenina–“Allhappyfamiliesresembleeachother;eachunhappyfamilyisunhappyinitsownway”–reworksearlierversionsofthisline,includingaFrenchsaying,“Lespeoplesheureuxn’ontpasd’histoire,”whichappearsinWarandPeace,andaremarkofMontesquieu,“Happythepeoplewhoseannalsareblankinhistorybooks!”Montesquieu’scommentbecamewellknown,andbythetimeTolstoywroteAnnahadalreadyinspiredGeorgeEliot’sobservationinTheMillontheFloss(1860):“Thehappiestwomen,likethehappiestnations,havenohistory.”Forthatmatter,asearlyas1740wefindinPoorRichard’sAlmanack(TolstoylovedFranklin):“HappytheNation,–for-4tunatethatage,whosehistoryisnotdiverting.”NumerousquotablelinesappearinTolstoy’sworks,someindebtedtootherthinkers,othersTolstoy’sownbutreflectinganintimateknowledgeofvariousgenresofquotation.Inhissalonscenes,charactersformulatequotablewitticismsandinWarandPeaceseveralwidelycirculatedwitti-cismsofthetimeappear.PlatonKarataevspeaksinproverbs,andinAnnaKareninaapeasant’sproverb-likesayinginspiresLevin’sdiscoveryoflife’smeaning,whichitselftakestheformofnumerousquotablelines.WarandPeacetraceshowfamousstatementsbyNapoleonandTsarAlexandercametobeuttered.Itshowsthemtobenotinspiringpronouncementsmadeunderfirebut,ascalculatedimitationsofearlierpronouncements,preten-tiousbombastreflectingsheervanity.ManyofTolstoy’sworksuseepi-graphs,andResurrectionendsonbiblicalquotations.Likeotherworkswewillexamine,TheKingdomofGodIswithinYoumakesaquotationitstitle.Quotations,inshort,playakeyroleinTolstoy’sthoughtandpoetics.ItisthereforesurprisingthatevencriticswhodiscussTolstoy’sshortworksandconsidertheirrelationtothelongnovelstypicallyfocusonhisshorttalesoressaysbutdonotevenconsidertheshortestworks,thequotations.BorisEikhenbaum’sclassicstudyTheYoungTolstoiinsists,oddlyenough,thatthenovelandlongformsingeneralwerealientotheauthorofWarandPeace,butindiscussingtheshortformsthatwerenaturaltoTolstoyheomitsthequotation.Infact,EikhenbaumandotherFormalistsmisunder-stoodtherelationofshorttolongforms,inTolstoyaselsewhere,becausetheythoughtofshortgenresascollectionsofdeviceslinkedtogetherand

213202garysaulmorsonlonggenresascollectionsofshortgenres.TheFormaliststookgreatdelightinshowingthatevensuchadidacticauthorasTolstoy,soconcernedwithproblemsofmoralandmeaning,wasreallyonlyplayingwithliteraryformsasheinventednewonestoreplaceworn-outolderones.Butifonethinksofgenresaswaystoexpressagivensenseofexperience,thenwecanmoreeasilyseetherelationofTolstoy’sshortworkstohislongones,beginningwithquotationsatoneextremeandextendingtothegreatnovelsattheother.Inthepresentchapter,ImustlimitmyselftoquotationsandthewaysinwhichtheyshapedTolstoy’smoraltales,withsomehintsathowquotationsalsocontributedtohislongerworks.Ihopethatthisapproachwillallowreaderstoseenotjustthemoraltalesandshortstoriesbutalsothenovellasandthenovelsinanewway.genresofquotationQuotationscomeingenres.Inspeakingofgenres,IhaveinmindBakhtin’s5ideaof“form-shapingideology.”Eachgenreembodiesandisdefinedbyasenseofexperience.Formsexpressthatsense.Theydonotdefinethegenrebutresultfromthe“ideology”thatdoes.Tolstoywasfascinatedwithseveralgenresofquotation.Heloved,andinhisnovelsused,thesardonicmaxim,bywhichImeantheironicanddisillusionedcommentariesonhumannatureexemplifiedbyLaRochefoucauld:“Eachofushasthefortitudetobearthemisfortunesofothers.”Anoldman’sform,suchsayingsunmaskthewayinwhichself-love(amour-propre)deceivesusinunexpectedways.SeveralTolstoycharacters,usuallyhisshallowerones,loveanothergenre,thewitticism.Witticismsdemonstratethepowerofmindovercontingentcircumstances.Inaninstant,thewitmastersallthecomplexitiesofasituationanduttersaperfectlyappropriateremark.Speedthereforematters,andsowitticisms,whichweoftenknowthroughanecdotes,aretypicallyprecededbyaphraselike“promptlyreplied”or“immediatelyquipped.”Stiva,inAnnaKarenina,andSperansky,inWarandPeace,appreciatewitticisms.WeknowthatAndreihasgrownwiserwhenSperansky’scon-versationseemstohimliketherecitationofajokebook.Inhisfinaldream,Andreiastonishesotherswithshallowwitticismsbeforeheachievestherealinsightthat“deathisanawakening.”“Deathisanawakening”representsathirdgenreofquotation,theaphorism.Aphorismsinthissenseevoketheultimateunknowabilityoftheworld,asinLaoTzu(“Thewaythatcanbespokenofisnotthetrue

214Whatmenquoteby203way”),Heraclitus,orPascal.PrinceAndreibeginsbelievinginintellect,butgrowstorecognizeunfathomable,aphoristicmystery:“Allisvanity,allisdelusion,exceptthoseinfiniteheavens.Thereisnothingbutthat.Andeven6thatdoesnotexist.”Thischapterfocusesonafourthgenre,onethatTolstoyfavoredespe-ciallywhenolder,thewisesaying.WisesayingsparticularlysuitedTolstoy’sattempttofoundhisownreligionandtoreformhumanlife.Wisesayingsunderlie,andsometimesprovidethetitlefor,severalofTolstoy’smoraltales.Stories,plays,andnovelsmayembodythesensibilityofquotations,asTheImportanceofBeingEarnestexpandsthewitticism,Byron’sDonJuanthesardonicmaxim,andRasselastheaphorism.Inthissense,WarandPeaceisthelongestaphorismintheworld.Longworksmayalsoenterintodialoguewithaquotationalgenre’ssensibility.Tolstoy’smoraltalesusewisesayingsbothways.Theyexhibitmorecomplexitythanmeetstheeye.IfirstexplorewisesayingsasagenreandthendiscusssomeofTolstoy’stalesthatdependonthatgenre.wisesayingsWhetheroralorwritten,wisesayings,whichareprobablytheoldestliteraryform,collectthewisdomofancestors.IntheBible,theirsensibilityshapesbothProverbsandPsalmsandisquestionedinJobandEcclesiastes.TheyalsoappearasproverbsandasthesayingsofConfucius,Mozi,andMencius;oftheSevenSagesofancientGreece;ofrabbisandtheTalmud;andofsagesaroundtheworld.As“thewisdomofages,”wisesayingstypicallyeitherlackanauthor,asproverbsdo,orareascribedtoasemi-legendaryavatarofwisdom,likeSolomonorConfucius.Manyare“Anonymous,”anattributionquitedifferentfrom“authorunknown.”Ifproverbsorwisesayingsdohaveaparticularauthor,theycontrivetolosethatanchorovertime.They“anonymize”themselves.Sometimesscholarscanidentifyaparticularauthorforasayingtypicallyusedasifitbelongedtonoone.Howmanypeopleknowthatthecommonsayings“oneswallowdoesnotmakeasummer”and“thewholeismorethanthesumofitsparts”occurfirstinAristotle,or“Pandora’sbox”asamistrans-lationinErasmus?TheBibletestifiesthatSolomon“excelled[…]allthewisdomofEgypt.Forhewaswiserthanallmen[…]Andhespakethreethousandproverbs;andhissongswereathousandandfive”(1Kings4:30–32).Thereforemost

215204garysaulmorsonofProverbsandPsalmsistraditionallyascribedtohim.BytheGreekclassicalperiod,Aesop,too,wasasemi-legendaryfigure,whosefablescontinuedtoaccumulate.Theirmoralsarespokensometimesbyacharacterinthefable(anendomythium)andsometimesbytheauthor,eitherbeforeorafterthefable(apromythiumorepimythium).Inthesameway,dailyentriesintheCircleofReadingincludequotationsfromTolstoyaswellashisadvanceandconcludingsummaries.Inhismoraltales,Tolstoyusedallthreetypesofmorals.Proverbsarestillbeingcoined,butwetreatmanynewonesasoldbecauseproverbialstatusitselfconfersasenseofantiquity.Thatsenseisnotafactaboutthesayingbutaconstituentpartofit.Touseasayingasaproverbisnottosaybuttociteit.Aspeakerusesaproverbbecauseitisnotonlywhathewantstosaybutalsowhatisgenerallysaid.ThatiswhyAristotlerecommendstheiruseintheRhetoric.Wisesayingstypicallyimplyadialogicsituation.Oftenaddressedtothosewhowillnothear,theydemandourattention.IntheBible,apersonifiedWisdom“standethinthetopofhighplaces,bythewayintheplacesofthepaths.Shecriethatthegates[…]atthecominginatthedoors:Untoyou,Omen,Icall;andmyvoiceistothesonsofman”(Proverbs8:1–4).Tolstoyalsoseemedtocryatthegates.Sometimesthesituationpresumedbywisesayingsispedagogic.Theoldteachtheyoung.Tolstoy’scultivationofhisimageasawiseoldmanspeakingalmostfromtheotherworldalsosuggeststhissituation.Hewasnothingifnotapedagogue.InProverbs,wisesayingsareaddressedto“myson,”andinancientEgypttheyoccurin“instructions”(TheInstructionsofAmem-em-ope).Wisesay-ingsmayalsoimplyaMasteransweringhisfollowersoranyoneseekingwisdom,aswithConfucius,Mozi,andMencius.WhenarulerasksConfuciuswhatshouldcomefirst,theMasteranswers“therectification7ofnames,”forwithoutthat“affairswillnotbesuccessfullycarriedout.”Asthisexampleillustrates,intraditionalwisesayings,adviceisaboveallpractical:itexistssothat“affairsaresuccessfullycarriedout.”AccordingtoProverbs,ifoneactswisely,thatis,bothprudentlyandjustly,oneisboundtosucceed.Someproverbsstressprudence,othersrighteousness,andsomeboth.Proverbsadvise:workhard,restrainyourimpulses,overcomepride,donotemployunjustmeans,andyouwilleventuallycomeoutahead.Exerciseself-control:“Hethatisslowtoangerisbetterthanthemighty;andhethatrulethhisspiritthanhethattakethacity”(Proverbs16:32);“Pridegoethbeforedestruction,andahaughtyspiritbeforeafall”(Proverbs16:18).

216Whatmenquoteby205Theideathatprudenceandrighteousnessarerewarded,andthatfollyandevilarepunished,easilyleadstoasenseofaprovidentialworldorder:“Benotdeceived,Godisnotmocked:forwhateveramansoweth,thatalsoshallhereap”(Galatians6:7);“Therighteousisdeliveredoutoftrouble,andthewickedcomethinhisstead”(Proverbs11:8).SuchProvidencemaycomefromGod,asintheBible,orfrom“Heaven,”aswiththeChinesesages.Suchstatementsoftenanticipateasecondkindoflistener,a“scorner,”whomocksProvidenceasafool’sbelief.Answeringtheminadvance,Proverbs“scornsthescorners”:“Howlong[…]will[…]thescornersdelightintheirscorning,andthefoolshateknowledge?”(Proverbs1:22).Notforever,forGodHimself“scorneththescorners”(Proverbs3:34).Wisdomherselfconstantlyanswersthismockingvoice.Wisesayingsthereforeinsistthatvirtuetriumphsinspiteofappearances.“Wisdomcriethwithout[…]Howlong,yesimpleones,willyelovesimplicity?andthescornersdelightintheirscorning,andthefoolshateknowledge?[…]theprosperityoffoolsshalldestroythem.Butwhosohearkenethuntomeshalldwellsafely”(Proverbs1:20–33).Wisdomandtheteachercautionagainstthescornerpreciselybecauseheissopersuasive.Theytellhim:existingfactsnotwithstanding,thetimewillcomewhen“thoumournatthelast,whenthyfleshandbodyareconsumed”(Proverbs5:11).Thefactthatthispunish-mentwillhappenonly“atthelast”suggestswhyitappearsthatProvidencefails.WecanbesureWisdomwilltriumphbecauseshesuffusestheverynatureofthings.Sheexplains:“TheLordpossessedmeinthebeginningofhisway,beforehisworksofold.Iwassetupfromeverlasting,fromthebeginning,orevertheearthwas[…]alltheythathatemelovethdeath”(Proverbs8:22–36).TheBookofPsalmsaddressesthesamedoubts,answersthesamescoffingvoices,andrefutesthesamecontraryevidence.Thepsalmistaffirmswhat8RobertAltercalls“thetraditionalmoralcalculus.”Hehearsthescorner’sboast:“Hehathsaidinhisheart,Godhathforgotten:hehidethhisface;hewillneverseeit”(Psalms10:11).Inresponse,thepsalmistdemandsGodprovidejusticeandexpressesassurancethatHewill.Oneimportantclarificationisinorder.IdonotmeantosaythatallshortsayingsenunciatethesortofprovidentialworldviewconveyedbyPsalmsandProverbs.LaoTzuclearlyisuptosomethingdifferent,andMachiavellitheveryopposite.Forthatmatter,soisEcclesiastes,andtheinsightsofMontaigneandLaRochefoucaulddonotresemblethoseofConfuciusorFranklin.Rather,thereexistsanidentifiablegroupofquotationsthatdoendorseaprovidentialview,anditistheseandthesealoneIrefertoaswise

217206garysaulmorsonsayings.Tolstoyknewmanygenresofquotations,andashegrewintohisroleassageandmaster,heinteractedmoreandmoreintenselywiththeprovidentialonesthatIamcallingwisesayings.thesermononthemountasproverbsTolstoy’smoraltalestypicallyvindicateProvidence,butinasurprisingwayandwithunexpectedsignificance.Severaltakeproverbialphrasesastheirtitles:“ASparkNeglectedBurnstheHouse,”“EvilAllures,ButGodEndures,”and“WhereLoveIs,GodIs.”Othersbeginorconcludewithabiblicalsaying.Itiseasytomisreadthesestoriesassimplerthantheyare.Foronething,theirstyleisnotstraightforwardlysimple,butpolemicallyso.WeneverforgetthattheseareTolstoy’s“simple”stories.InWhatIsArt?,hedescribeshearinganastronomer’scomplexlecture.Remindinghimthatmanyinhisaudiencedidnotevenknowwhydayfollowsnight,Tolstoysuggestedthatbasictopic.Thewiseastronomeranswered,“Yesitwouldbeagoodthing,butitisverydifficult.TolectureonthespectrumanalysisoftheMilkyWayisfareasier.”Tolstoyadds:Andsoitisinart.TowritearhymedpoemdealingwiththetimesofCleopatra,orpaintapictureofNeroburningRome,orcomposeasymphonyinthemannerofBrahmsorRichardStrauss,oranoperalikeWagner’s,isfareasierthantotellasimplestorywithoutanyunnecessarydetails,yetsothatitshouldtransmitthe9feelingsofthenarrator.Somestoriesdoworkrelativelysimply.Theyillustrateaproverboransweraquestion.“ASparkNeglectedBurnstheHouse”(Ustupish’ogon’–nepotushish’)confirmsitstitlebothliterallyandfiguratively.Theoldmancautionshissontoforgetoffenses,andprosperityreturnsonlywhenhelistens.Theoldman’swisdomisbothChristianandpractical:maliceblindsyou.Others’sinsarebeforeyoureyes,butyourownarebehindyourback[…]Isstrifeamongmeneverbredbyonealone?[…]No,lad!Christ,whenHewalkedtheearth,taughtusfoolssomethingverydifferent[…]Ifyougetaslap,10turntheothercheek[…]Andhisownconsciencewillrebukehim.HerecommendsChrist’steachingsaspractical.TheyconveyessentiallythesamewisdomasProverbs:“Asoftanswerturnethawaywrath”(Proverbs15:1).Needlesstosay,thatishardlytheonlywaytoreadtheSermonontheMount,whichhasseemedtomanytobequitetheopposite,arecommen-dationofallthatisimpractical.

218Whatmenquoteby207Interestinglyenough,Resurrectionfollowsasimilarlogicas“ASparkNeglected.”Itisessentiallyamoraltaleexpandedtonovellength,and,likethosetales,endswithbiblicalquotationsandChristianlessons.Inthelastchapter,NekhliudovrecognizestheSermonontheMountpreciselyaspracticalwisdom.Hereagain,Christ’sapparentlyimpossiblecommandsturnouttobethemosthard-headedandeffectivemethodforsuccessinthisworld.“‘Butsurelyitcannotbesosimple,’thoughtNekhliudov;andyethesawwithcertainty,strangeasithadseemedatfirst,thatitwasnotonlya11theoreticalbutalsoapractical(prakticheskoe)solutionofthequestion.”Nekhliudovanticipates“theusualobjection”–howcanoneletevil-doersgounpunished?–butheknowsthatitisforgiveness,notpunishment,thattrulyworks.Jesus’commandsarenot“exaggeratedandimpossibledemands,butsimple,clear,practicallaws,which,ifcarriedoutinfact(andthiswasquitepossible)wouldestablish[…]thegreatestblessingattainablebymen–theKingdomofHeavenonearth”(Resurrection,517;PSS32:443).howthetitle“godseesthetruth”misleadsNotallTolstoy’smoraltalesworksodirectly.Atfirstglance,thetitle“GodSeestheTruth,butWaitsToTell”refutesscornerswhodenyGod’sjusticeorclaimHehidesHisface.Giventhistitle,welookforsomecompensation,howevertardy,forAksyonov’ssufferings,althoughwecanhardlyimaginewhatwouldbesufficient–andforsomeadequatepunishmentforthemurdererandscorner,MakarSemyonovich.Readersdemandjustice.ButGodproveswiserthanthat.Itturnsoutthattheentiresequenceofevents–unjustcondemnation,yearsofprison,andtheeventualmeetingoftheinnocentwiththeguilty–happenstogiveAksyonovsomethingmuchmorevaluablethanjustice:theopportunitytoforgive.AksyonovknowsthatturningMakarSemyonovichinwouldbenotonlyrevengebutalsojustice,allthesweeter,andallthemorejust,becausethevictimgetstobeitsagent.Andyet,tograspthestoryonemustrecognizenot,asthetitleinitiallyseemstosuggest,thatjusticeeventuallytriumphs,butthatthedesireforjusticeistobeovercome.Toread“GodSeestheTruth”asastoryaboutthetriumphofjusticeistomissitspoint.Meetingtherealmurderer,Aksyonovcravessuchjustice.Heremembershisflogging,hisyearsinprison,andhisprematureoldage.Thesethoughtsdrivehimalmosttosuicide,andhecanonlythinkwithangerthatthevillainMakarSemyonovichisresponsibleforitall.

219208garysaulmorsonLikethepsalmist,thevictimdemandsjustice,andifthatwerethemoral,theopportunitytoinflictitwouldcompleteitspattern.Andyet,atthemomentoftruth,AksyonovforgoesjusticeandprotectsMakar.Hedoesnotknowwhy.WhenMakarSemyonovichcomestoseehim,Aksyonovremainsangry,allthemoresoforhis“weakness,”andthreatenstosummontheguard.MakarSemyonovichbegsforgiveness,butAksyonovrefuses:it’sallverywellforyoutotalk,butIhavestillsufferedalltheseyearsandlostmyfamily.MakarSemyonovichcanonlysaythatitwouldbeeasiertobearfloggingthantoseeAksyonovatthatverymoment.AnditisthenthattherealreasonforAksyonov’ssufferingbecomesapparent.Hesuddenlybeginstoweep,saysGodwillforgiveyou,anddeclaressincerelythatperhapsheisahundredtimesworse.Immediately,Aksyonov’sheartgrowslight.Helosesalldesiretoleaveprisonandhopesonlyforhislasthour.Godhasrewardedhim,butnotwithjustice.No,Godhasgivensome-thinghigherthanjustice,thejoythatcancomeonlyfromforgiveness.Thegreatnessoftheinjurymakestheforgivenessallthesweeter.Aksyonovsuddenlyrealizeshehasindeedlivedameaningfullifeinawayheneverexpected.Nothingcouldbemorevaluablethanthat.Thestorylooksatfirstasifitskeyeventwerethefalsearrest,andsoAksyonovhasregardedhislife.Butthisdramatic,outwardlyvisibleeventdoesnotdefineit;theinward,prosaiconedoes.Aksyonovgetstochangehislifestory.Unexpectedly,theanswertounjustimprisonmentbecomesnotrelease,buttheendofthedesireforit.Thestorycouldendhere,butitcontainsonemoretwist:MakarSemyonovichdoesconfess,butwhentheorderforAksyonov’sreleasecomes,Aksyonovisalreadydead.IfwereadthisstoryasataleabouthowGodinsuresjusticeatlast,thisendingshouldseemprofoundlyunsettling.Forherethetriumphofjusticeisentirelypointless,sinceitdoesthevictimnogood.Quitethecontrary:vindicationpreciselywhenitnolongercancompensateforanythingseemsmorelikemockery.ItisalmostasifnotGod,butascorner,arrangedevents.Butthatisjustthepoint:Providenceisnotjustice,andmeaningisnotcompensation.Thestory’sendingquestionsnotProvidencebuttheiden-tificationofitwithwhatJobandthepsalmistdemand,andwhatProverbspromises,theproportionaterewardofgoodandpunishmentofevil.Weshouldlookformeaningnotincompensationbutinforgivenessandlove.Bythismeasure,thestoryhastwoprovidentialendings.MakarSemyonovichachievesmeaningaswellwhenhesincerelyconfesses.

220Whatmenquoteby209Indeed,onereasonGod“doesnotsoontell”(English:waitstotell)istogiveMakarSemyonovichthechancetoconfessandrepent,whichhecanonlydoafterhehasseenAksyonov’ssufferings.Aksyonov’ssuffering,then,hassavedtwopeople.Thestory’stitleprovesadecoy.Itnameswherethereaderbegins.Butthereadermust,likeAksyonov,arriveatawhollydifferentunderstandingoflife.twomoremisleadingtitles“GodSeestheTruth”isnotTolstoy’sonlymisleadingtitle.TheDeathofIvanIlychisnotaboutthedeathofIvanIlychatall.Itisabouthisdying.Thestorytriestoteachustheradicaldifferencebetweenthetwo.One’sdeathisaneventinthelifeofothers,asIvanIlych’sdeathprovokesconversationinchapter1.ThedeadIvanIlychcontinuestofulfillasocialrole.DeathisforCaius,thegeneralizedman.Butone’sdyingisforoneselfalone.Itisanexperiencethatcannotbesharedandmustbeunique.Eachperson’sdyingdiffersradicallynotonlyfromhisdeathbutalsofromthedyingofeachotherperson.Weareallalikeinouruniqueness.Pascal12famouslywrotethat“weshalldiealone”(onmourraseul)andTolstoy’sstorymaybereadasanarrativizationofthisfamousaphorism.LikeAksyonov,IvanIlychlearnsthatthestoryofhislifeisnotwhatheimagined.Itskeymomentisnoneoftheusual,noticeableones,buttheprivatechancehegetsattheveryendtomakeitmeaningful.LikeAksyonov,hedoes.MasterandManalsonarratesalifestorythatchangesatitsveryend.Thistitlemisleadsbecausethestoryprovestobenotaboutamaster(khoziain)andhisman(rabotnik),butaboutthedisappearanceofthatdistinction,andofeverythingelseseparatingpeople,whenweunder-standlifeaslove.Proverbsandthesagesremindusthatindeathweareallequal.Buthereitisnotdeathbutdyingthatrevealsouressentialequality.“Weshalldiealone”meansthatwediebeyondsocialroles.Indeed,themasterBrekhunovnotonlybecomesequaltohisservantNikitabutalsobecomesNikita:HerememberedthatNikitawaslyingunderhim[…]anditseemedtohimthathewasNikita,andNikitawashe[…]“Nikitaisalive,soItooamalive!”hesaidto13himselftriumphantly.

221210garysaulmorsonAswithAksyonov,everythingunexpectedlyturnsouttohavebeenpreparationforthatkeyfinalchoice.Inonestory,theheroforgiveshisenemy,intheotherhelovesanotherashimself.Brekhunov’ssenseofhislifechangessothoroughlythathetalksofhimselfinthethirdperson:Andherememberedhismoney,hisshop,andhishouse[…]anditwashardforhimtounderstandwhythatman,calledVasiliBrekhunov,hadtroubledhimselfwithallthosethingswithwhichhehadbeentroubled.“Well,itwasbecausehedidnotknowwhattherealthingwas,”hethoughtconcerningthatVasiliBrekhunov.“Hedidnotknow,butnowIknowandknowforsure.NowIknow!”[…]andhiswholebeingwasfilledwithjoyfulemotion.Brekhunov’sstoryalsoresemblesAksyonov’sbecauseitskeymomentoccurswithoutpreparation,asiffromnowhere.BrekhunovchoosestosaveNikita“suddenly,withthesameresolutionwithwhichheusedtostrikehandswhenmakingagoodpurchase”(MandM,287–88;PSS29:42).Brekhunov’sgestures,likehislife,reversetheirmeaningsuddenly–sud-denly,becauselovederivesfromnothingandisanindependentimpulse.AsTolstoywouldsayinhistracts,itrepresentsnotourhumanbutourdivinenature.SosurprisingisBrekhunov’schoicethathedoesnotatfirstrecognizeit:Buttohisgreatsurprisehecouldsaynomore,fortearscametohiseyesandhislowerjawbegantoquiverrapidly[…]“SeemsIwasbadlyfrightenedandhavegrownquiteweak,”hethought.Butthisweakness[…]gavehimapeculiarjoysuchashehadneverfeltbefore.(MandM,288;PSS29:42)Heexperienceslove“tohisgreatsurprise”becausethefeelingisentirelynewandthereforeunanticipated.BrekhunovtriestotellNikita,butfails:“Hiseyesbegantofillwithtears,andhecouldsaynomore.‘Well,nevermind,’hethought.‘IknowaboutmyselfwhatIknow’”(ibid.).AksyonovandIvanIlychalsocannotexpresswhattheyhavediscovered.Andsoitmustbe,becauseChristianloveisnotadoctrinetobetaughtbutanexperienceonemustundergo.ForTolstoy’sgreatestfollower,LudwigWittgenstein,thatiswhy“thosewhohavefoundafteralongperiodofdoubtthatthesenseoflifebecamecleartothemhavebeenunabletosaywhatconstitutedthatsense[…]Thereare,indeed,14thingsthatcannotbeputintowords.Theymakethemselvesmanifest.”IvanIlych’schangeisinvisibletooutsiderswhoseetwofinalhoursofagonywhileheexperiences“asingleinstant”whosemeaningdoesnotchange.Asreaders,wetooareoutsiders.Thestoryseeksnottoargueusintolovebuttoinducearethinkingofourlives.

222Whatmenquoteby211takenoneedforthemorrowSeveralstoriesvindicateprovidencewhilequestioningProverbs(andprov-erbs).Farfromcounselingprudence,theyimplicitlyalludetoJesus’com-mand–whichTolstoyoftenendorsed–toliveonlyinthepresentandnotworryaboutthefuture.Beholdthefowlsoftheair:fortheysownot,neitherdotheyreap,norgatherinbarns;yetyourheavenlyFatherfeedeththem[…]Thereforetakenothought,saying,Whatshallweeat?Whatshallwedrink?orWherewithalshallwebeclothed?[…]ButseekyefirstthekingdomofGod[…]Takethereforenothoughtforthemorrow:forthemorrowshalltakethoughtforthethingsofitself.15(Matthew6:26–34)In“Ilyas,”thecoupleachieveshappinessonlywhen,havinglosttheirwealthandbecomeservants,theyneednolongerworryaboutthefuture.“‘Don’tlaugh[…]Godhasdisclosedthetruthtousnow,andwehavetoldittoyou,notforyouramusement,butforyourowngood.’[…]Andtheguestsstoppedlaughingandstartedthinking”(Tales,249–50;PSS25:34).Andsomustwe.In“TwoOldMen,”theonewhocitesproverbsandpracticalwisdommisseshisopportunityforasuccessfulpilgrimage,buttheonewholivesinthepresentseizesit.“WalkintheLightwhileThereIsLight”–onetitlethatdoesnotmislead–tellsustoignoreallconsequences.Practicalwisdomisplacedinthemouthofthe“wisephysician,”whorepeatedlydissuadestheherofromjoiningtheChristians.Thecrucialthingtorecognizeisthat,ifone’sstandardisprudentialwisdom,thephysician’sargumentsarecorrect.Onemusteducateone’schildrenandnotleaveone’sresponsibilitiestoothers;andeventheChristiansdependonotherstoprotectthemfromforeigninvadersandviolentmen.Theheromustlearnnot,asNekhliudovdoes,thatChristianityisindeedpractical,buttoforgetaboutpracticalconsequencesaltogetherandtakenoheedforthemorrow.“whatdopeopleliveby?”asadoubletitleTolstoy’sgreatestmoraltale,“WhatDoPeopleLiveBy?,”alsoconsiderswisesayingsandusesatitlethat,thoughnotexactlymisleading,turnsoutto16requirenotonebuttworeadings.Weusuallyreaditas“WhatDoPeopleLiveBy?,”butitisalso“WhatDoPeopleLiveBy?”Understoodthefirstway,thetitlealludestothedevil’stemptationtoturnstonesintobread.Jesusanswers:“Manshallnotlivebybreadalone,

223212garysaulmorsonbutbyeverywordthatproceedethoutofthemouthofGod”(Matthew4:4).Itisnotbreadalonethatpeopleliveby,butthewordofGod,whichinthisstorymeanslove.Withtheemphasison“live,”thetitlealsorecallstwoothers,WhoIsToBlame?(Ktovinovat?)andWhatIsToBeDone?(Chtodelat’?).Itseemstosay:thosearethewrongquestions.Onemustnotblameatall,andwecanunderstandwhatistobedoneonlywhenweunderstandwhatpeopleliveby.Andpeoplelivenotby“utility,”asChernyshevskyhasit,butbylove.Readtheotherway,withtheemphasison“people,”thetitleaskswhatmakesushumansasopposedtoangels.Afterall,theplotcentersonanangelwhomGodcompelstolearnthenatureofhumanlife.Astheangellearns,sodowe.Tolstoydefamiliarizeshumanlifeaswelookatitfromanon-humanperspective.EachincidentistoldfirstfromSemyon’sandthenfromtheangel’spointofview.needsandloveThreecharacteristicsdifferentiatehumanfromangeliclife.Thefirstisthatitcostssomethingtogive.Toloveinahumanwayinvolvessacrifice.Forangels,whohavenomaterialbody,wholivewithoutsuffering,andwhodonotdie,thatisnotthecase.ItispreciselytoteachtheangelthedifferencethatGodmakeshimhuman.Turnedintomanashefundamentallyis,theangelfindshimselfnaked,freezing,andhelpless.Withamaterialbody,henowfeelspainandwant:“Ihadneverknownhumanneeds[…]tillIbecameaman.Iwasfamished,frozen,anddidnotknowwhattodo[…]ForthefirsttimesinceIbecameaman,Isawthemortalfaceofaman,andhisfaceseemedterribletome”(Tales,141–42;PSS25:23).“Humanneeds”changestheangel’sviewofhumans.Semyon’sfaceisatfirstterriblebecausehumansmustprovidefortheirownneeds.Thereforegivingisnotcostlessandautomatic.ThatiswhytheangelhearsSemyontalkingtohimselfabouthowtofeedandclothehisfamily.Theangelthinks:“Iamperishingofcoldandhunger,andhereisamanthinkingonlyofhowtoclothehimselfandhiswife,andhowtogetbreadforthemselves.Hecannothelpme”(Tales,142;PSS25:23).Andindeed,ifSemyonconsidersonlyhispressingneeds,thereisnoreasontohelp.WhentheangelrecognizeswhySemyoncannothelp,hefeelsdesperate.Thatnewfeelingteacheshimanotherconsequenceofhumanneeds:despairthattheycannotbesatisfied.Theangelthenwitnessessomethingelsenew

224Whatmenquoteby213tohim,theman’sinnerstruggleandsubsequentchange.Shouldhepassbyorhelp?Again,needsinsurethatsuchconflictsalwaysexist,becauseloverequiresthatwecareforothersbeforeourselves.Semyonwonderswhetherhewouldbewalkingintoatrapor,ifnot,howhecouldcareforthemanwhenhehassolittle.Afterall,Semyonhasjustfailedtobuywarmclothing,andknowsthereisnobreadfortomorrow.Buthisconsciencestrikeshim–allofasudden–andhereturnstohelp.Atfirst,theangelhardlyrecognizeshim.Apparently,whollydistinctforcesconflictwithinus.Aslovewinsoutoverneeds,lifeovercomesdeath.TheangelhasseendeathinSemyon’sface,butnowhe“wassuddenlywhollyalive,andinhisfaceIrecognizedGod”(Tales,142;PSS25:23).Justbeforeherhusbandarrives,Semyon’swifeMatryonaispatchingashirtandplanninghowtomakethebreadlastalittlelonger.Shetakesheedforthemorrow,workingtosatisfythebasichumanneeds,foodandclothing.SheisunderstandablyangrywhenSemyonarrivessmellingofdrinkandwithanakedman.Shesays,quitecorrectly,thattheycannotclotheallthenaked.Butthatisjustthepoint:itisbecauseonecannotdoeverything,becausegivingalwayscosts,thatcareforothershasitspeculiarhumanvalue.WhenSemyonremindshiswifethatwewillalldiesomeday,“sheglancedatthestrangerandsuddenlythewordenteredherheart”(Tales,129;PSS25:13).Againthechangeissudden,becauseitcomesfromapartofusdistinctfromneeds.Matryona,too,experiencestwoforcesthatconflict:“Whensherememberedthathehadeatentheirlastpieceofbread[…]shefeltgrieved;butwhensherememberedhowhe[thestranger]hadsmiled,herheartleapt”(Tales,130;PSS25:14).Lateatnight,stillconflicted,shetellsSemyontheyhavenomorebread.Hereplies:“Ifwelive,wewilleat”(Tales,130;PSS25:14).Considerthebirds.Fromtheangelicperspective,herfirstreactionliterallycarriesthestenchofdeath.Paradoxicallyenough,deathresultsfromconsideringwhatweneedtolive.“Hethatlovethnotabidethindeath,”asthestory’sfirstepigraphremindsus.Theangelknowsthatifshedoesnotrelentshewilldie.Butshesuddenlyloves,anddeathdisappears.Nowtheangellearnshisfirstlesson,inmandwellslove.Helearnsthatloveisadistinctforcewithinus,thatitrunscontrarytoourneedsandsocostsussomething;andyetitisaforceforlife.uncertaintyanddoubtTheangel’snextlessonconcernsanotherdefiningfeatureofhumanlife,radicaluncertainty.

225214garysaulmorsonTheangelknowsGodexists,forGodspeaksdirectlytohim.Butpeopleliveinaworldofdoubt,whichconditionseverythingimportant.Unliketheangel,peopleneverseeGod.Twoofthestory’sbiblicalepigraphsmentionthisimportantfact:“NomanhathseenGodatanytime”(1John4:12)and“forhethatlovethnothisbrotherwhomhehasseen,howcanheloveGod,whomhehathnotseen?”(1John4:20).Whatismore,theangelknowsjustwhatGod’swillis,evenifheoncechoosestodisobeyit.ButpeoplemustfollowHiswillwithoutbeingsurewhatitis,oreventhatGodexists.Semyon’splantobuyasheepskingoesawry,ashumanplansdo.Whenhemeetsthefreezingman,doubtassailshim.Bycontrast,theangelbothknowsandknowsthatheknows.EachtimeheunderstandsGod’slesson,herecognizesthathedoes(PSS25:24).Heisliterallyaswellasfigurativelyillumined,until,whenheknowsallthreeanswers,heis“clothedinlightsothattheeyecouldnotlookonhim,andhisvoicegrewlouder,asthoughitcamenotfromhimbutfromheavenabove”(Tales,143:PSS25:24).No17humanhassuchtestimony.Tocomprehendhumanlife,theangelmustlearnwhatitistodoubt.Hefirstexperiencesitwhen,nakedandhelpless,he“didnotknowwhattodo”(Tales,141;PSS25:23).Thestoryofthewealthymanwhoordersshoestolastayearillustratesthisconstituentfactofhumanlife.“Asifcastiniron”(Tales,132;PSS25:16),thismanseems,asMatryonacomments,tobebeyondthepowerofdeath.Hissuddendemisethereforecomesasacompletesurprise.Buttheangel,welearnlater,hasdetectedtheangelofdeathovertheman’sshoulder.Seeingwhatpeoplecannot,heknowsforsurethatthemanwilldiethatday.Consequently,hemakesnottheorderedbootsbutslippersfortheman’scorpse.Nohumanwouldeverbesureenoughofthefuturetodothat.Humanexpectationscanneverbemorethanhopesorfears.Theangelthereforelearnsthat,becausepeoplecannotknowthefuture,itisnotgiventothemtoknowtheirownneeds.Theangelthinks:therichmanismakingpreparationsforayearthoughhewillnotlasttheday.Uncertaintyconditionseverythingwedo.Weeasilyaimforthewrongthing.WemustchoosetoobeyGod’suncertainwilland,unliketheangel,willneverknowifwehave.mortalloveTheangel’sthirdlessonconcernsthemostcrucialdifferencebetweenangelsandpeople,mortality.Mortalitychangestheverynatureoflove.

226Whatmenquoteby215Unlikeangels,weloveinthefaceofdeath,andloveallthemorewhatwemustleaveerelong.Mortalourselves,weseeourownmortalityinothers.Wepityandlovethemforundergoingthesufferingthatonlymortalsfearandfeel.Semyonappealstohiswife’sgenerositybyremindingherthatwealldie.Takenlogically,theanswermakeslittlesense,becausethethreatofdeathwouldbyitselfleadustoconserveresources,notgivethemtostrangers.NordoesSemyonmeanthatshefacesheavenorhellafterdeath.Consequences,whetherinthisworldorthenext,areentirelybesidethepoint.Thefactthatwewillalldiedoesnotpointtosomereasontolove;itisitselfthereason.Whenpeoplelove,thesenseofmortalityisneverabsent.Thatisthelovethatpeopleliveby.Itisalsothelovethatpeopleliveby,becausewithoutit,theycouldnotliveatall.Itisnotoureffortsthatsustainus,becausetheymustalwaysbeasinsufficientasthestrugglesofanaked,helplessman.Theangelhasnotunderstoodthis,andhasthereforerespondedtothemother’spleatolivetohelphernewborns.Hehasthought,quitereasonably,intermsofconsequences.Theangelthinks,againcorrectly,thatitwouldbeunjustforhertodie.Bysheeraccident,herhusbandhasbeenkilledbyafallingtree.Nowthewomanherselfisdyingandsoherinfantsseempunishedforwhatcouldnotbetheirfault.Trueenough,butinGod’sprovidentialorderjusticeisnotthemostimportantthing.Whatismostimportantisthelovethatbindsustogetherasfellowmortals.Thoughitleavesherchildrenorphans,themother’sdeathenablesloveinothers.Thatloveinvolvesriskinaworldofdeath.Thewomanwhoadoptsthegirlsdoessoinspiteoffearingshewillhaveinsufficientmilkforherownchild.Firstsheplansnottofeedthecrippledgirl,whowillprobablynotsurviveinanycase,butthen,forthatveryreason,shepitiesher.Herownchildindeeddies.Thatevent,whichcannotbeunderstoodintermsofjustice,makesherlovethegirlsevenmore.TheangeldisobeysGodinresponsetotheproverbthedyingmotherquotes,thatonecannotlivewithoutmotherandfather.Bythestory’send,theangelhasunderstoodmattersmoredeeply:Havingheardthestory,Ithought,“Theirmotherbesoughtmeforthechildren’ssake,andIbelievedherwhenshesaidthatchildrencannotlivewithoutfatherormother;butastrangerhasnursedthemandbroughtthemup.”Andwhenthewomanshowedherloveforthechildrenthatwerenotherown[…]IsawinherthelivingGod,andunderstoodwhatpeopleliveby[…]Ihavelearnedthatallpeoplelivenotbycareofthemselves,butbylove.(Tales,143–44:PSS25:34)

227216garysaulmorsonSuchloveisentirelygratuitous.Itpromisesnorewardandrepaysnodebt.Performedfortheirownsake,thewoman’slovingactionsderivefromapartofournaturethatliesbeyondjusticeandconsequences.Mortalourselves,welovemortalothers.Wedonotlovethiswayforanypurpose,andyet,asGodhasmadetheworld,itdoesserveapurpose.Withoutitwecouldnotsurvive.Theangelrecognizesthatineachincidentthisisthelovehehasseen.“IremainedalivewhenIwasamannotbycareofmyself,butbecauselovewaspresentinapasserby[…]Theorphansremainedalive,notbecauseoftheirmother’scare,butbecausetherewasloveintheheartofawoman,astrangertothem,whopitiedandlovedthem.Andallpeoplelivenotbythethoughttheyspendontheirownwelfarebutbecauseloveexistsinpeople.”(Tales,144;PSS25:25)Weallresemblenewbornsornakedmeninthecold.Likethem,wecannotsurvivebyourownefforts.Andyetwelive,becauseofpurelygratuitousactsoflove.Ineachcase,theonewholovedwasastranger,thatisapersonwithnotiesto,andnointerestin,theonehelped.Suchhelpcannotbeforeseenanditsresultscannotbeknown.Thatiswhymortallovedemandsaworldofuncertainty.Strangelyenough,Godhasdeliberatelymisledus.“Ihavenowunder-stood,”theangelexplains,“thatthoughitseemstopeoplethattheylivebycareforthemselves,intruthitislovealonebywhichtheylive”(Tales,144;PSS25:25).WhyshouldGodhavefounditnecessaryweshouldbesomistaken?Theansweristhatitispreciselybecausewethinkthatwelivebyourowneffortsthatweregardsuchloveassenselessandgratuitous.Doneformutual18advantage,itwouldbeaneconomicbargainandsonotloveatall.Theangellearns:Goddoesnotwantustoliveapart,butboundbyourgratuitousloveforeachother.Sohegivesuslovethatmustbesenselesstoexistatall.Asoneofthestory’sepigraphstellsus,“Godabidethinhim”wholoves.Thereforethedyingwoman’sproverb,thatchildrencannotlivewithoutmotherandfather,isansweredbyadifferentone:AndMatryonasighed,andsaid;“Theproverbistruethatsays,‘Onemaylivewithoutfatherandmother,butonecannotlivewithoutGod.’”(Tales,139;PSS25:21)Oneproverbremindsusofourneeds.Itexpressestheconventional,andreasonable,proverbialwisdom.Theothertellsusofthesenselesslovethattrulysustainsusandgivesmeaningtolife.Thestorymovesfromonetothe

228Whatmenquoteby217other.Thedistancebetweenthemmarksthedifferencebetweenthewis-domTolstoyfoundinsufficientandthewisdomherecommended.Thestoryvoicesawisesayingbutgoesbeyondittoatruthstillwiser.God’sworldisprovidentialnotbecauseitrewardsprudenceandjustice,asintraditionalwisesayings,butbecauseitallowsforgratuitous,mortalhumanlove.Tolstoyadaptsthewisesayingtohisownwisdom.notes1.Matthew5:39.Unlessotherwiseindicated,allcitationsfromtheBiblearefromtheKingJamesVersion(1611).2.AscitedfromTolstoy’sdiariesinBorisEikhenbaum,TheYoungTolstoi,trans.GaryKern(AnnArbor,MI:Ardis,1972),10.3.Ontheseanthologies,seeS.M.Vreitberg’sforewordtovolumes39to42oftheAcademy“Jubilee”Tolstoy,L.N.Tolstoi.Polnoesobraniesochinenii,90vols.(Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,”1928–58),39:v–xxxviii.4.IgiveamoredetailedaccountofTolstoy’slineanditssourcesinMorson,“AnnaKarenina”inOurTime:SeeingMoreWisely(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2007),35,235–36.5.OnBakhtin’sgenretheories,seeGarySaulMorsonandCarylEmerson,MikhailBakhtin:CreationofaProsaics(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1990),271–305.6.LeoTolstoy,WarandPeace,trans.AnnDunnigan(Harmondsworth:Signet,1968),344;PSS9:344.7.TheodoredeBaryandIreneBloom,eds.,SourcesofChineseTradition,2ndedn,vol.1(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1999),56.8.TheBookofPsalms:ATranslationwithCommentary,trans.RobertAlter(NewYork:Norton,2007),3.9.LeoN.Tolstoy,WhatIsArt?,trans.AylmerMaude(NewYork:Bobbs-Merrill,1960),179;PSS30:184.10.LeoTolstoy,WalkintheLightandTwenty-ThreeTales[henceforthTales],trans.LouiseandAylmerMaude(Maryknoll,NY:Orbis,2003),152–53;PSS25:51–52.Translationsmodifiedforaccuracy.11.LeoTolstoy,Resurrection,trans.LouiseMaude(NewYork:Dodd,Mead,1901),517;PSS32:442.12.BlaisePascal,Pensées,trans.A.J.Krailsheimer(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1966),80.13.AllcitationsfromMasterandManarefromLeoTolstoy,“TheDeathofIvanIlych”andOtherStories[henceforthMandM],ed.DavidMagarshack(NewYork:Signet,1960),288–91;PSS29:41.14.LudwigWittgenstein,TractatusLogico-Philosophicus,trans.D.F.PearsandB.F.McGuiness(London:Routledge,1961),73(6.521–6.522).

229218garysaulmorson15.Cited,forinstance,inTheKingdomofGodIswithinYou,PSS28:73–74.16.TheTableofContentsforPSS25givesthetitleas“Chemliudizhivy?”butinthetextofthestorythetitlelacksthequestionmark.Thecommentary(PSS25:666–67)insiststhatTolstoysettledonthetitlewiththequestionmark.17.ItisasifTolstoymeanttoendorsethedescriptionofhumanlifeofferedinDostoevsky’sGrandInquisitorlegend.Godhasplacedusinaworldinwhichtheessentialconditionofactionisuncertainty.Wemustdorightwithouteverbeingsurewhatitisorwhetherwehavesucceeded.18.AgainthestoryseemstoechotheGrandInquisitorlegend:ifoneactslikeaChristianbecauseChristcanperformmiracles,Godcansave,andheavencanreward,thenoneisnotaChristianatall.Suchcalculationsareeconomic.AtrueChristianwouldfollowChristevenifHehadnosupernaturalpoweratall.

230chapter11The“proletarianlord”:LeoTolstoy’simageduringtheRussianrevolutionaryperiodMichaelA.DennerToo,thosewhoarecaughtbyTolstoy’seyes,inthevariousportraits,roomafterroomafterroom,arenotunaffectedbytheexperience.Itislike,peoplesay,committingasmallcrimeandbeingdiscoveredatitbyyourfather,whostandsinfourdoorways,lookingatyou.1Barthelme,“AttheTolstoyMuseum”LeoTolstoyfiguredlargeinthedeeplypartisanandimpassioneddebatesduringtheRussianrevolutionaryperiod(1917–24).Intheunchartedsocialandpoliticalchaosofdisappearingandemerginginstitutions,competingcentersofauthorityviedforvalidationandcredibilitybyrecitingandcreatingstoriesaboutTolstoy:howheforetoldtheRevolution,warnedagainstit,orcausedit;whyhewouldhaverejectedorembracedit;whathewouldhavesaidordonehadhelivedtoseeit.Regardlessofpoliticalposition,thesecommentatorssawTolstoyasthecodethat,whencorrectlyinterpreted,offeredatruerunderstandingoftheRevolution’scipher,becausebothTolstoyandtheRevolutionwereequallyproductsofauniquelyRussianexperience.AnexaminationofthestoriespeopletoldaboutTolstoyinprimaryhistoricaldocumentsfromtheRussianandinternationalpressprovidesafullerandmorenuancedhistoricalunderstandingofdebatesabouttheauthenticity,inevitability,andjustnessoftheRussianRevolution.WhilethestorytellersintendedonlytoinfluencetheperceptionoftheRevolutionbyinvokingTolstoy,makingwhatwasnewandunfamiliarintosomethingcomprehensiblebyreferencingsomethingknown,thesestoriesnonethelessalteredTolstoy’simageaswell.ThenewimagesgeneratedbytextsaboutTolstoyandtheRevolutionenteredintoareciprocalrelationshipwithexistingsocial-historicaltextsofeverykindabouthim.Althoughtheywereincidental,potentandnewimagesofTolstoyaroseinresponsetotheRevolution.ThehistoricalexaminationofTolstoyandrevolutionisthereforesimul-taneouslyliterarycriticismstimulatedbyadesiretouncoverthefull219

231220michaela.dennertrajectoryofTolstoy’simage.Theauthorismorethanthebiologicalsourceoftexts.Itisratheracomplexandconstantlyunfoldingsocialprocessthatoperateson,interalia,literaryinterpretationsandtheirvalidity,authorialbiographies,textologicalassumptionsandpriorities,andpublishingpracti-ces.Discursiveinterests(e.g.,thosecompetingcentersofauthority)becomepartofthestorywetellaboutTolstoy,andthisstoryinfluencesourinterpretiveassumptionsabouthistexts.AfullerunderstandingofourreceivedimageofTolstoythereforeenhancesanddesimplifiesourinter-pretationsofhisliteraryworks.WhilewecanneverdevelopatotallyauthenticimageofTolstoy,wecanbemoreandlessnaïveinourhandlingofhisrepresentation.ThischapterdwellsonTolstoybothasa“greatsingularfigure”andasageneralizablephenomenon.BystudyinghowTolstoy’simageshavebeengenerated,welearnaboutcollectiverepresenta-tionasanactofsocialbehavior,onedeterminedandconstrainedbysocialconditions.tolstoyandrevolutionsTolstoyhadhisownpoliticalviews,ofcourse.InanotedatedJanuary22,1905,tohisEnglishbiographer,AylmerMaude,Tolstoy’sseconddaughterMar’iaL’vovnawrote:IhavelatelyreturnedfromYasnaya[Tolstoy’sestate]whereIspenttwomonths.Myfatherwaswellbutheistormentedbydemandsmadeonhimtotakepartincurrentevents.TheLiberalswanttodrawhimintotheircamp,theConservativesintotheirs,andtheRevolutionistsintotheirs;andhedoesnotbelongtoanyoneofthemandonlyaskstobeleftinpeace.PeopledonotunderstandanddonotadmithispointofviewandthinkthatinconsequenceofwhatishappeninginRussiahemustcomedownfromhisChristianstandpointandsaysomethingnewand2somethingtheywanthimtosay.TheletterwaspublishedinMaude’s1910biography,asMar’iaL’vovnaknewitwouldbe.ItwasapublicstatementaboutTolstoy’sreluctancetomakepublicstatements.LikeallofTolstoy’sfamiliars,Mar’iaL’vovnatookanactivepartinthesocialconstructionofTolstoy,andherletterelaboratessomeessentialandstablefeaturesofTolstoy’srelationshipwithpublicdebatesonpolitics.Inthechaosofworldlyconcerns,theunrulymassestormentTolstoywithdemands.Hemustcomedowntotheirlevel,hemustsaysomethingnew,andhemustsaysomethingtheywanthimtosay.Tolstoy’scarefullycraftedimagepartakesofwhatLeoBraudycalls“thebestfame:[I]tsaloneness,itsseparationfromthecrowd,eventhoughthe

232The“proletarianlord”221famous,moreclearlythanever,hademergedfromthecrowdtoasserttheirpersonaldistinctivenessandtherebydemonstrateitspotentialityinevery3memberoftheiraudience.”Astarmustsuccessfullynavigatetheopposedpolesofordinaryandextraordinary,ofaccessanddetachment.Tolstoyexecutedthismaneuverbrilliantlyasthegeniuscountcumploughmanprophet.HisrecentEnglishbiographer,A.N.Wilson,observedacutelyTolstoy’sconvolutedinteractionswithhisownfameandnobility:“Hewasnot‘Sir’or‘Count’:justplainLevNikolaevich,andwoebetidetheservant4whoforgotthis.”OfcourseTolstoycamedowntosaysomethingtothemasses;cele-britiesandprophetscanremainsoonlyiftheysometimesleavetheircompoundsanddeserts.Respondingtotheeventsof1905,Tolstoywroteseveralarticlesandbookletsonthemeaningofrevolution,whichwereprintedinvastquantitiesinRussiaandtranslatedinthepressabroad.Buthesaidnothingnew,andcertainlynotwhatpeoplewantedtohear.ThegistofhisresponsewaspredictableforanyoneevenrudimentarilyfamiliarwithTolstoy’ssocialandpoliticalbeliefs:ThesecomplexanddifficultcircumstancesamongwhichwenowliveinRussiademandfromusnotarticlessenttonewspapers,norspeechesatmeetings,norgoingintothestreetwithrevolvers,nordishonestandirresponsibleincitingofthepeasantry.What’sneedednowisastrictattitudetowardoneself,towardone’sownlife,whichaloneisinourpowerandtheimprovementofwhichalonecanimprove5thegeneralconditionofpeople.Tolstoy’srejectionofrevolutionwasunequivocalandconsistent.Allsoci-etalprogressdependeduponpersonalmoralimprovementconsistingpri-marilyoftheself-abnegationofanindividual“subjectinghisanimalpersonalitytoreasonandmakingmanifestthepoweroflove”(OnLife,ch.14).Suchwasthe“Christianstandpoint”fromwhichTolstoyrefusedtocomedownduringthe1905Revolution,andoneheheldatleastfromthe1870suntilhisdeathin1910.Thoughherejectedwithequalvehemenceboththetsaristregimeandanyrevolutionarymovementthatappealedtoforce,itisimportanttorealizethatTolstoywasinnosenseaLiberal.TolstoyonceremarkedtoDushanMakovitskythattoaskhimaboutdemocraticrepresentation“islikeaskingthePope–no,notthePope,butamonk–abouthowto6organizeprostitution.”Yet,despiteTolstoy’sresolutelyanti-Liberalstanceandhisrejectionofrevolution,tobeaprogressiveintelligentduringthedecadebeforetheRevolutionmeantembracing,atsomelevelofcommit-ment,ideasassociatedamongthebroadpublicdirectlywithTolstoyism.

233222michaela.dennerTheseincluded,ontheonehand,arejectionofofficialChristianity,militantimperialism,nationalism,materialisticculture,and,aboveall,abourgeoislifestyle;andontheotherhand,anembraceof“Tolstoyanvirtues”likephysicallabor,rurallife,pacifism,asceticism,voluntarypov-erty,spiritualenlightenmentbasedlooselyonEasternmetaphysics,acon-cernforthedowntrodden,and,ofcourse,vegetarianism.(Tolstoymayhaveinventedthehippielife.)TheBolshevikswerewellawareofthisaffinitybecausesomanyofthem(Bonch-Bruevich,Armand,Krupskaia,Lunacharsky)hadtoyedwithTolstoyism.Leninhimselfacknowledgeditin1908duringTolstoy’seightiethbirthdaycelebrations:Thewholeofthispressissteepedtonauseainhypocrisy,hypocrisyofadoublekind:officialandliberal.Theformeristhecrudehypocrisyofthevenalhack[…]Muchmorerefinedand,therefore,muchmoreperniciousanddangerousisliberalhypocrisy[…]Theircalculateddeclamationsandpompousphrasesaboutthe“greatseekerafterGod”arefalsefrombeginningtoend,fornoRussianliberalbelievesinTolstoy’sGod,orsympathizeswithTolstoy’scriticismoftheexistingsocialorder.Heassociateshimselfwithapopularnameinordertoincreasehis7politicalcapital,inordertoposeasaleaderofthenation-wideopposition.LenindidnotexaggeratetheTolstoycachetand,despitewhathesays,plentyofpeoplebelieved,atleastabit,inTolstoy’sGod,oratleastinTolstoy.HerepresentedRussianpopulardiscontentwiththestatusquo.In1909,thejournalHeraldofKnowledge(Vestnikznania)polled“workingintelligentsia”forthewritermostwidelyread.Tolstoywasplacedfirst,with295votes.Darwinwassecondat152votes,withKarlMarxadistant8sixteenthat52votes.Aninternationalimpersonalpoliticalcult,disconnectedfromTolstoy’sownideas,grewuparoundtheideaofTolstoy,hisimageasaprophetandrebel.AsWilliamNickellhasargued,afterhisdeathTolstoywastrans-formedintoa“culturalendowment”whereeverymentionofhisnamewas“aninvestment”uponapotentialforTolstoyto“encompass,signifyand9engenderwhatitwastobeRussianin1910.”Thispotentialexistedlongbefore1910,butitintensifiedafterhisdeath.Suchisthefateofmanyprophets.therevolutionsof1917Lenindescribedthe1905Revolutionas“thegreatdressrehearsal”forthe10BolshevikRevolutionof1917.Tolstoy,whomLeninacknowledgedashavingplayedamajorroleinthe“failure”ofthe1905Revolution,obviously

234The“proletarianlord”223missedopeningnightin1917.Hisno-shownotwithstanding,aftertherevolutionsof1917widespreaddemandsonceagainemergedforTolstoyto“takepartincurrentevents.”Onceagain,fromallsides,politicians,émigrés,intellectuals,andrevolutionariesusedthemediaoftheagetomakeTolstoy“saysomethingnewandsomethingtheywanthimtosay.”PerhapsbecauseTolstoynolongercouldexerciseultimate,“authorial”controloverhisownimage,Tolstoy’smythduringthe1917revolutionsbecametheobjectoffarmorebitterandpartisanwranglingthanduringthe1905Revolution.Tolstoy’sinfluenceontherevolutionaryperiodandtheuseofTolstoy’simageduringthatperiodareverydifferent,albeitrelated,phenomena.Thoughitisdifficulttovalidate,nodoubtTolstoy,likemanyothers,indirectlyinfluencedtosomedegreethecourseofeventsin1917andlater.Hemighthavedonethisthroughtextshewrote,the“moralauthority”derivedfromhisoutspokenoppositiontothetsaristregime,theinterna-tionalacclaimassociatedwithhisname,orhisdirectandindirectpersonalinfluenceonpoliticalactors.ThestudyoftheuseofTolstoy’simageinvolvesananalysisofthevariousexpressionsofdevotionto,orrejectionof,Tolstoy’sdiverserepresentationsinvariousmedia.Afurther,evenfinerdistinctionneedstobemadebetweenTolstoy’sactualinfluenceandtheinfluencethatcontemporariesattributedtohim.OnemanifestoorarticleorspeechinvokingTolstoy’simage–beiteithertocondoneortocondemnsomething–gaverisetoareaction,oftenanoutragedone,fromopponentswhoinvokedTolstoy’snameinmakingtheirowncounterargument.Hisassumedinfluenceincreasedenormouslyasaresultofthesedebates.Tolstoywascreditedwith,orcondemnedfor,exertinginfluencethatseemsincommensuratewiththecause.Therewasno“Tolstoybloc”withanindependentexistenceorrationaleofitsown.InsteadthereexistedacollectiveandimpersonalnarrativethatderivedfromasenseofTolstoy’srepresentativeness,anexpressionoftheinfluencethatcontemporariesassumedTolstoyhadonthisperiod.ThescoresofmediareferencestoTolstoyandthe1917revolutionsrevealacomplextrajectory.Initially,in1917,thenewlyeruptedrevolutionsneededtobeabsorbedintothepreexistingmythofTolstoy.WasitaTolstoyanrevolution,onecausedforbetterorforworsebythesocietaltrendsassociatedwithhisteachingandinfluence?TowhatdegreewasthecultofTolstoyresponsible?Primarydocumentsshowthattoasignificantextent,inRussiaandabroad,thebreakdownoftsaristsocialinstitutionsandthecreationofnewrevolutionaryoneswerepopularlyperceivedasTolstoyanincharacterandorigination.

235224michaela.dennerAstherevolutionaryperiodtookshapeanditsviolentfeaturesbecameknownduringthecivilwarperiod,Tolstoy’simagebecamesomethingagainstwhichonetestedthevalidityandauthenticityofwhathadrecentlyhappened.Inparticular,theNovember1920commemorationofthetenthanniversaryofTolstoy’sdeathinRussiaandabroadsetoffadebate.Writersrepeatedlyaskedthesamequestions,oftenverbatim:“ForwhomwouldTolstoyhavebeen?OnwhichsideofthebarricadeswouldTolstoyhavestood?”Bytheendofthecivilwar,astheBolsheviksconsolidatedcontrolandsettoworkbuildingthestate,thedebatechangedfundamentally.NolongerwastheRevolutiontobemeasuredagainstTolstoy;ratherTolstoy’smythhadtobeassessedagainstthestoriestoldabouttheBolshevikRevolution,itsaimsandachievements.ContemporariesarguedwhethertherewouldbeaplaceforTolstoy’sbustinthenewpantheonoftheRevolution.TheprimarydocumentsuponwhichIhavebasedthisresearcharerichanddiverse,andlargelyoverlookedsincetheyaretoohistoricalforliteraryscholarsandtooliteraryforhistorians.Thischapteroffersexamplesfromthemostrepresentativeoroverlookedpieces.tolstoyandthefebruaryrevolutionTheubiquityofTolstoy’simageintherevolutionary-eramediahasbeennumericallydocumentedinthe“MiscellanyoftheCommission”(Sbornikkomissii)chargedwithmarkingonehundredyearsfromTolstoy’sbirthin1928.ThisprojectdemonstratesboththecontemporaryimportanceofTolstoy’simageandthefanaticalembraceofbean-countinggrippingtheplannedeconomyofStalin’sSovietUnionin1928.TheauthorsclaimtohavesurveyedallnewspapersandbookspublishedinRussiabetweenMarch1,1917andAugust24,1924,seekingtosubstantiate“apictureofexceptionalinterestforL.N.Tolstoy”amongthe“widemassesof11theRussianpopulation”duringtherevolutionaryyears.Theyconsulted“academiccriticism”aboutTolstoyasawriter,biographies,“afewarticles”12aboutTolstoyasathinkerandmoralist,andfinally“themostdifficultofallcategoriesforwhichtoprovidestatistics,”thethousandsofreferencestoTolstoyinthepopularpress.Inadditiontoallthebooksandacademicjournals,theseincludeaboutfourdozenperiodicalsand“manyminorprovincialnewspapers”aswell.Over2,710days,thetotalnumberofmentionsofTolstoyinthesevariouscategoriesduringtheperiodcomes13to4,681,oraboutoneallusion“everyhalfday.”

236The“proletarianlord”225Tolstoy’simagesometimesquiteliterallyappearedasanidoloricon.OnMarch17,1917,thenewspaperRussianBulletin(Russkievedomosti)printedanaccountbyCountA.N.Tolstoy(adistantrelativeofLeoTolstoy)ofpeacefuldemonstrationsonMarch12by“abattalionofworkers,soldiers,femaleworkers,Kirghizinbrightvests,andorchestras.”CountA.N.reportedseeingbannerswith“LongLivetheRussianPeople,”“LongLivetheBrotherhoodofAllPeople,”and,aboveitall,а“touching”portraitof14Tolstoy.The“MiscellanyoftheCommission”reportsthefrequent“massexpressions”ofrevolutionaryzealrecordedinthepressaftertheRevolution.Theseconsistedof“proclamationsnevertoforgetTolstoyatnumerousralliesinMoscow,St.Petersburg,andtheprovinces,thebearingofhisportraitsduringeverypossibledemonstration,andtheplacingofbustsof15Tolstoywherethetsaristmemorialshadbeendismantled.”TheforeignpresslikewiseinitiallytendedtoidentifytherevolutionaryperiodwithTolstoy’simage.InitsreportingontheFebruaryRevolutioninRussia,onthesamepageasadetaileddescriptionofTsarNicholas’arrest(“Ex-Czar,Guarded,HasFitsofCrying:SonWell,EmpressBetter”),theNewYorkTimesprintedthefollowingtableauofclassharmonyunderthetitle“GreatCrowdofSoldiersandWorkersGreetHisWidowatHerHome.”Agreatcrowdofpeasants,soldiers,andworkmen,saysaReuterdispatchfromPetrograd,wentsingingandcheeringtothehouseofthelateCountTolstoyatYasnayaPolianaandsentadeputationtogreetthewidowedCountessinbehalfoftheRussianpeople.TheCountesswasaskedtocomeoutwiththeportraitof16CountTolstoy,andshecomplied.Thereuponallkneltandchanted.Suchaccountswerewidespread.InherintroductiontoTolstoy’smuch-anticipateddiaries,publishedintheUnitedStatesduringtheinter-revolutionaryperiod,RoseStrunskyrepeatsthestoryoftheimpromptuceremonyatIasnaiaPoliana,andmakesexplicittheconnectionbetweenTolstoyandtheRevolution:TheultimatemeaningoftheRussianRevolutionwhichtookplaceinMarch,1917,canbebestunderstoodthroughthepagesoftheJournalofLeoTolstoiwhichishereprinted.ThespiritualqualitieswhichmakeupthemindandpersonalityofTolstoiarethespiritualqualitieswhichmakeupthenewera[…][N]olandbutRussiacouldhaveproducedaTolstoi,andinnolandbutRussiacouldTolstoihavebeensoembracedandsoabsorbed.ThefirstactoftheMarchRevolutionwastoredecoratethegraveofTolstoiintheforestofZakaz,tomakethesacredpilgrimagetohisrestingplaceandtellthefatherofthegoodnews–thewillofGodisbeing17established,reasonisawakenedinman.

237226michaela.dennerForthosewhohadnosympathyfortheRevolution,Tolstoywaslikewisethecluetowhatwashappening.Sincehewasvirtuallysynonymouswithoppositiontowarandrefusaltocomplywithmilitaryconscription,hewasoftenblamedintheRussianpressforRussiandesertionsonthefrontsofWorldWarI.InJune1917,amidwidespreadreportsofRussiandesertion,theSwissnewspaperGazettedeLausannereportedthattheGermanswerenewlyoptimisticabouttheirchancesinthewarandlaidtheblame“princi-pallyontheinfluenceofTolstoy’stheories.”Amonthlater,theNewYorkTimeseditorialboardattributedthecollapseoftheRussianfrontinnorth-18ernGaliciainJuly1917tothe“senilevaporings”ofTolstoy.WithinRussia,Tolstoywasalsousedtomakesenseofthenewinsti-tutionsarisingoutofthecollapsedtsaristorder.Inadditiontoconscien-tiousobjectiontomilitaryservice,hisnamewascloselyassociatedwithlandreform,“thelandquestion.”HispositiononitwasderivedmostlyfromtheAmericanpoliticaleconomistHenryGeorge,whorec-ommendedthatthestateabolishprivatepropertyandnationalizeallagriculturalland.M.Gauzner,inapamphletpublishedin1917andentitled“L.N.TolstoyonLand,”arguedthattheConstituentAssemblyoperated19withTolstoy’sauthorityinitsplannedlandreform.Gauzner’sexplan-ationforTolstoy’simportanceindecidingthejustallocationofpropertywassomewhatparadoxical.Onlyanoblemanandownerofvasttractsofland,whohadwitnessedfirsthandtheconsequencesoftheunjustsystem,couldunderstandtheimportanceoflandtotheRussianpeople.TolstoywasthechiefspokesmanonthequestionofhowlandwastobedividedinRussia,andheforesawthatprivateownershipoflandwoulddisappear.Gauzner’saccountofTolstoy’sinfluenceonthepresentmomentbeginswiththelatter’sarticle“TheGreatSin,”writteninthewakeofthe1905Revolution.Init,accordingtoGauzner,Tolstoycorrectlyidentifiedlandasthe“onlythingofimportanceandinterest”fortheentirepeople.Nowthattheoldsystemhadbeendestroyed,theConstituentAssembly,oncecon-vened,wouldfinallyrealizeTolstoy’svisionand“privateownershipoflandwilldisappear.”HoweverGauznerwarnsthatitwillbe“farfromeasytodividetheland”so“beforethedecisionoftheConstituentAssembly,beforethedecisionoftheentirepeople,itwillbeusefultorecalltheopinionofthe20greatwriteroftheRussianland,LevNikolaevichTolstoy.”MuchoftherestofthepamphletisdevotedtorecountingTolstoy’sandGauzner’sviewsonthe“landquestion.”Georgerecommendedasystemin21whichlandwasessentiallynationalizedandrentedouttothepeasants.Havingdetailedthesystem,GauznerposesthequestionofwhyTolstoy,givenhisgenerallyprogressiveviews,wouldhavedefendedGeorge’s

238The“proletarianlord”227“relativelymeasured,incompleteandbourgeoisidea.”Theanswer,propo-sesGauzner,residesinTolstoy’sowncomplicity–hewashimselfaland-holder,andforhimGeorge’ssystem“offeredtheleasteffectonlandownerswhilesimultaneouslypromisingasuccessfulsolutiontotheproblem.”Tolstoyunderstoodthatitwas“impossibletobegrudgethepeopletheland”becausetheywereits“rightfulowners”buthewas“toodreamy,tookindaman,andhisheartcouldnotcometotermswiththeviolentexpropriationofland.”Therefore,Gauznerclaims,itis“ourdutytohearkentothevoiceofL.N.Tolstoy,andnottobecomeviolatorsarbitra-rilytakingland,forthatisnotourpersonalaffair,buttheaffairofallthepeopleandallthepeople,[and]theentire‘commune’(mir)shoulddoit22intheConstituentAssembly.”TheFebruaryRevolutionandtheConstituentAssemblywerecompletingtheTolstoyanprojectofdemolish-ingprivateownershipofland.ThepamphletendswithGauzner’sclaimthat“peoplehaverecognizedtheirgreatsin,andwillnolongercommitit.Tolstoy’senormousachievementconsistsofhishavinghelpedpeopleto23acknowledgethissin,thesinoflandownership.”ForGauzner,Tolstoy–alandownerwhopreachedthenecessarydestruc-tionofhisownclass–offeredapotentialmodelforpeaceableprogress.Asaunifyingimagebeforewhomthepeopleowed“adebt,”Tolstoywasasignofcontinuityandaconnection.theoctoberrevolutionAftertheBolshevik’sousteroftheProvisionalGovernment,theensuingcivilwar,andtheviolentbreakdownofsocialinstitutionsinthenewSovietUnion,theRevolutionwasnolongerperceivedasTolstoyan.Itnolongercouldbeclaimedtorepresentthe“mutualharmony”and“democracy”thatStrunskyassociatedwithTolstoy’simage.VladimirChertkov,Tolstoy’sliteraryexecutorandmostprominentrepresentative,notedthattherevo-lutionariesinearly1918“lovetorefertothemselvesas‘not-Tolstoyans’.”“Asforinfluencingthosewhoarepresentlycommittingtheseatrocities:[therevolutionaries]knowverywellhowTolstoyfeltaboutactivitiessuchas24theirs.”Despitetheavowedly“not-Tolstoyan”orientationoftherevolutionaryleaders,Tolstoy’simageremainedapowerfulinfluence.Hewasoftenre-imaginedinthepopularpressasanobserverandjudgeoftheeventsoftheera.Thepolemicsshifted,andonequestionwasrepeatedlyasked:“WhowouldTolstoyhavebacked?”(ZakogobybylTolstoy?)GivenTolstoy’srejectionofviolenceandpoliticalactivity,manyparticipantsmadethe

239228michaela.dennerreasonableargumentthathewouldhaverejectedtheRevolutionanditsmodioperandi.However,surprisinglyrobustandcreativeargumentsonallsidesofthedebate,fortheRevolution,againstit,andundecided,stillinsistedthattheRevolutionboreTolstoy’smark.thetolstoyansLeadingTolstoyansinRussiaandabroadinitiallyembracedtheBolsheviksasthepartyofpeace,andcautiouslyhopedthenewSovietgovernmentmightevolveintosomethingbetterthanitstsaristpredecessor.TheBolshevikscarriedtheRussianmasses,andwiththemtheTolstoyans,largelyontheirappealtoendallRussianparticipationintheEuropeanwar.TheBolsheviksfurthermorepromisedtodividethelandfairly,educatethepeasants,anddisestablishtheOrthodoxChurch–policiesanyTolstoyanmightsupport.AlthoughtheirviewsoftheBolsheviks’motivesandgoalssouredbytheearly1920s,thisdidnotpreventTolstoyansfromworkingcloselywiththeSovietgovernmentthroughoutthe1920sand1930s.Despiteinitialmisgivings,ChertkovmadeanargumentinfavoroftheRevolutioninapamphlethepublishedinLondonduringthefallof1919,attheheightofWesterninterventionintheRussianCivilWar.In“SaveRussia,”25hebeseechedBritishreaderstowithholdjudgmentagainsttheBolsheviks.GiventheviolenceandclasshatredthatexistedinRussia,ChertkovwarnedoutsideobserversagainstasummaryjudgmentagainsttheRevolutionandurgedthemtoconsideritsseveralbeneficialresults.The“automaticdemobi-lization”ofRussiansoldiersduringthechaoticyearof1917represented“oneofthosehistoricalachievementsthesignificanceofwhichforthewholefutureofmankindissofar-reachingthatitcanscarcelybeadequatelyappreciatedbythecurrentgeneration.”Readerswouldhaveimmediatelyunderstoodthatthis“demobilization”wasmotivatedinpartbyTolstoy’spacifisticwritings.AccordingtoChertkov,havingshakenoffthe“corruptinginfluenceofChurchandState”–anotherclearreferencetoTolstoy’sinfluence–theRussiansoldiersinturninspiredtheGermansoldierstodiscontinuefighting.“AndundoubtedlythisexampleofferedbytheRussianpeoplehasgreatlycontributedtothecessationoftheEuropeanwar.”TheBolshevikRevolutionfurthermorebroughtanendtotheecclesiasticalcensorshipthathadenduredevenafterthe1905RevolutionandthishadtheunintendedresultofmakingTolstoy’sreligiouswritingsavailable.ThusthewritingsofTolstoy,whichhavenowforthefirsttimebecomeaccessibletothemassesinRussia,affordpre-eminentsatisfactiontoourworkingclasses.In

240The“proletarianlord”229Tolstoythepeoplefindaclearandpowerfulexpressionoftheirownmostsacredbeliefsandhighestaspirations[…]NowonderthereforethatamidsttheRussianpeoplethereisatpresentsoenormousademandforthewritingsofTolstoythatwe,Tolstoy’spublishers,canonlyregrettheimpossibilityofsatisfyingitinasufficient26degree.Theseunintendedandevenanti-revolutionaryconsequencesoftheBolshevikRevolutionledChertkovtohopethat“thisodiouscivilwarwouldautomaticallyexhaustitselfforwantofcombatants,aswasthecasewithRussiawhenhertroopswithdrewfromtheinternationalwar.”Anendtotheinternecinewarwasimpededbyonething,“thatsomeoftheconflictingarmiesarereceivingsupportfromforeignpowers.”ChertkovthereforeimploreshisBritishreaderstocompeltheirgovernmentsto“desistfromaffordingtheslightestmaterialsupporttoanyofthepartiesinvolvedinourcivilwar.”HeendshisletterbyrepeatinghisclaimthattheBolshevikRevolutionwas“agreatspiritualupheaval”andbeseechingBritishworking-classreadersto“endeavortopreventthedarkforcesofgovernments”fromobstructing“ouradvancetowardstherealizationoftheuniversalbrother-27hoodonearth”foreseenbyTolstoy.AppendedtoChertkov’sletterisasecondappeal,describedonthefrontispieceas“reprintedfromForeignAffairbyPaulBirukoff[PavelBiriukov],well-knowntotheworldasthebiographerofTolstoy,whoseclosepersonalfriendhewas.”BiriukovfollowsroughlythesameargumentasChertkov,underscoringwhathehopedwasthetemporarynatureoftheBolsheviks’regime,anddescribing“Russia’svividnewlife,”whichhelinksexplicitlywithTolstoy.LikeChertkov,BiriukovcallsonthecommonworkingBritishcitizentoexercisepressuretocausethegovernmenttoceaseitsblockadeandmeddlinginRussianaffairs.Heendshispleato“saveRussia”byreanimatingTolstoy:Iwastheintimatefriendofthegreatmaster,LeoTolstoy,whomtheworldlongrecognizedastheembodimentoftheconscienceofhumanity.Iknowthatwerehealiveto-day,hispowerfulvoicewouldthunderthroughtheworldandbringthepowerfultotheirknees…Inthenameofmygreatdeadmaster,Iappealtoyou,28brothers,workers,saveRussia!Ayearlater,onthetenthanniversaryofTolstoy’sdeath,anothernotableTolstoyan,I.M.Tregubov,publishedanarticleentitled“TolstoytheCommunist”onthefrontpageofIzvestia.TregubovhadworkedcloselywithTolstoyonresettlingtheDukhoborsinCanadainthe1890s.TogroundhisargumentthatTolstoywouldhavesidedwiththeBolshevikshadhelivedtoseetheRevolution,Tregubovquotesfromcorrespondence

241230michaela.dennerwiththeDukhoborsinwhichTolstoyrecommendsthattheyforbidprivatepropertyandworkforthecommongood.ThisletterandotherwritingsagainstprivatepropertyprovethatTolstoywasa“ferventsupporterofCommunism”andbelievedthatthe“capitalistsystemshouldbedestroyedandreplacedwithacommunistsystem.”Thearticleisfollowedbyacuriousrejoinderfromtheeditorialboard:“Thoughitdoesnotagreewithalltheopinionsoftheauthor[Tregubov],theeditorshavegivenspaceonthistenthanniversaryofTolstoy’sdeathtoanarticlebelongingtothepenofoneofhismostnotablefollowers.”ThesameissueofIzvestiacarriesashortannouncement,fromtheNationalCommissariatforEducation,thata“Tolstoymuseum,”thefutureStateTolstoyMuseumdescribedbyBarthelmeintheepigraph,hadbeenopenedonPrichistenkaStreet.thewhitesRussiansinexileoftenblamedtheOctoberRevolutiononTolstoy.ThepopularAmericandigestCurrentOpinionrananarticleentitled“TolstoyastheGreatPatriarchoftheBolshevikiFamily.”ItquotesI.I.Bunakov,amemberoftheSocialistRevolutionaryPartyandtheUnionfortheRenaissanceofRussia(SoiuzVozrozhdeniaRossii),that“thefaultandtheresponsibilityofLeninareinsignificantincomparisonwiththatofthegiantTolstoy,thatpurerepresen-tativeofRussianculture.”Tolstoydeservedtheblamebecausehewasthemainspokesmanfor“theidealofcosmopolitanism,ofpan-humanism,ofuniversal-ity”whichhadlonggrippedRussia.TheRevolutionwasa(paradoxical)signoftheprofoundlynationalcharacteroftheRussians,becauseithasrevealeditself29“assoopposedtotheideasofNation,PatrieandState.”SymbolistnovelistandliterarycriticDmitrySergeevichMerezhkovsky,andDumarepresentativeVasilyAlekseevichMaklakov,bothlivinginEuropeinexileaftertheRevolution,sawTolstoy’sroleinsharplypartisanterms,butinwayssignificantlymorenuancedthanBunakov’s.In1921Merezhkovsky,whosebest-knownworkofcriticismwasTolstoyand30Dostoevsky,publishedanessayentitled“TolstoyandBolshevism.”HearguesthatTolstoy’sideashadleddirectlytotheRevolution,andthattheRevolutionitselfindicatedadireturninEuropeanhistory:“BolshevismisthesuicideofEurope.Tolstoyinspiredtheact;Lenincompletedit.”However,onthequestionofwhichsideTolstoywouldhavefavored,Merezhkovsky’sanalysisismorenuanced.WhichpartydoesTolstoyfavor?Bothsides,theWhiteandtheRed,quotehimintheirfavor,andbothseemtoberight.Butthequestionisnotaneasyone.Letusbe

242The“proletarianlord”231morehonestthanourenemiesandfranklyadmitthatifwemeasureTolstoywiththeusualyardsticks–hisethics,hisartcanons,hispolitics,andhismetaphysics–Tolstoyisnotwithus.Atthebest,heismidwaybetween–orelseaboveusandour31opponents.MerezhkovskyadmitsthatTolstoywouldhaverejectedtheBolsheviksfortheiruseofforce,butacknowledgesthattheforcesopposedtotheBolsheviks–Merezhkovsky’sownpoliticalparty–donotabjuretheuseofviolence,andthereforewouldlikewisehavebeenrejectedbyTolstoy.Sociallyandpolitically,Merezhkovskyargues,TolstoywasapartofOldRussiaandthereforeanathematotheBolsheviks;however,liketheBolsheviks,Tolstoysoughtthedestructionofthatworldwitha“blindrage.”WhetherTolstoywouldhavejoinedtheBolsheviksincastingthe“witheredbranch”ofRussiaintothe“fireofworldrevolution”isultimatelyuncertain,Merezhkovskyproposes.Onearea,though,inwhichTolstoywouldclearlyhavetakentheBolsheviks’sideisaestheticsandmetaphysics.Butatheart[Tolstoy]didfeelas[theBolsheviks]feel.HerespondedtothatpopularimpulsewhichhasexaltedandsustainedBolshevism.WhatisBolshevism?Adenialofallcultureasmorbidandunnaturalcomplication,awilltosimplify,initsfinalanalysisametaphysicalurgebackwardtowardsthecondition32ofprimitiveman.ButTolstoy’sgeniusisinspiredbythesamewill.InMerezhkovsky’sanalysis,Tolstoyoffersthemostsalientexampleofthe“Scythianmind”thathasdominatedRussianthoughtwithitsplanto“convertRussiaintoavacantlevelplain”and,havingfinishedthattask,to“leavetheglobeaperfectplain.”Merezhkovskyrevisitshisoriginalquestion:“AretheBolshevikirightthen?IsTolstoyoneofthem,andnotoneofus?”Thequestion,heclaims,cannotbefullyansweredonsharedaestheticandmetaphysicalgroundsbecause“thesearenottheyardsticksbywhichyoucanmeasureTolstoy[…]Hismeasureisreligion.”AssoonasTolstoyisrecognizedasareligious33thinker,“wefindTolstoywithus.”WhilebothLeninandTolstoymayshareadesireforthedestructionofpresentcivilization,“areturntowild-ness,”Tolstoy’smetaphysicsaimsatthecreationofanewculture,withreligionasitsfoundation.Like“everyrevolutioninthepast,”Lenin’swillend“inanabyssofterrorbecausetherewasnoreligionbehindit.”Itistherefore“religiousblasphemytoidentifyTolstoywithLenin.”MerezhkovskyendstheessaywithapredictionmadebyTolstoy’saunt34andguardian,CountessAlexandraIl’inichnaOsten-Sakin,thatoneday“peoplewouldaddresshernephewwiththesewords:‘HolyLeo,prayGodforus’.”

243232michaela.dennerIs[Tolstoy]thereforeasaint?No,inspiteofhisgreatness,heisasinnerlikeourselves[…]RussianBolshevismisTolstoy’sfireofPurgatory.AllRussiaisnowburninginthefirstofitssins.Butitwillnotbeconsumed[…]Onlyitssinswillbeburnedawayinthepurifyingfire,andthenwilltheHolyRussiaofLeoarise.35“HolyLeo,prayGodforus!”–untilwesaythat,weshallnotsaveRussia.StrikinglysimilartoChertkovandBiriukov,MerezhkovskyseesTolstoy,oratleastaTolstoyanforce,asthecauseofarevolutionwhich,despiteaperiodof“burning”andpurification,willeventuallyresolveintoanewTolstoyanphase.36InJanuaryofthesameyear(1921),inParis,V.A.MaklakovpublishedapamphletwiththesametitleasMerezhkovsky’sarticle,andlikeMerezhkovskyheaskswhetherTolstoywouldhavesidedwiththeBolsheviks.ThepamphletisbasedonaspeechduringacommemoratoryeventforTolstoy,presumablythetenthanniversaryofhisdeath.MaklakovbeginsbywonderingwhetheritwasrighttocelebrateTolstoywhileBolshevismwas“infullswing,”giventhewidespreadperceptionthat“the37moralresponsibilityfor[Bolshevism]lieswithTolstoy.”ThisperceptionderivesitsvaliditynotmerelyfromtheargumentthatTolstoyismand38BolshevismwereequallyproductsoftheRussiannationalcharacter.InsteaditwasbecomingincreasinglyclearthattheBolsheviksandTolstoysharedan“internalaffinity”demonstratedby“thehonourwithwhichtheBolshevikssurroundTolstoy’smemory.”AsexamplesMaklakovcitesthecelebrationsofthetenthanniversaryoftheauthor’sdeath,thenamingofstreets,andplanstocreateamuseumatIasnaiaPoliana.Furthermore,theTolstoyanswerecollaboratingwiththeBolsheviks.TheycontinuedtopublishtheirworksinSovietRussia,andeventhosewhowerelivingabroad39“infullfreedom”spokeoutonbehalfoftheBolsheviks.Maklakovdoesnotmention,butsurelyhasinmind,Chertkov’spam-phlet“SaveRussia”withitsaddendumbyBiriukov,aswellastheseveraljournalsandpublishinghouses–Unity(Edinenie),TheVoiceofTolstoy(GolosTolstogo),TrueFreedom(IstinnaiaSvoboda)andBrotherhood(Bratstvo)–affiliatedwithV.F.Bulgakov,Chertkov,N.N.Gusev,andothervisibleTolstoyansworkinginRussia,thatcontinuedtoworkmoreorlessindependentlyuntil1922.AndthoughChertkovmadeofficialhisplanstoworkwiththeSovietgovernmentonanew,JubileeeditionofTolstoy’sworksonlyinMarch1921(thusafterMaklakov’sspeech),theplanhadbeen40openlyadvertisedalmostfromthemomentoftheRevolution.Werehealivetoseetheeventsof1917,claimsMaklakov,TolstoywouldnothavehadthesameviewsonBolshevismas“oneofus,”i.e.,asamemberoftheémigrécommunity.Hewouldhaveinsteadpointedoutthat

244The“proletarianlord”233Bolshevismwasthe“logicalresultoftheteachingsandbeliefsweourselveshold”as“peopleoftheworld.”MaklakovremindsthereaderthatTolstoywasanidealistandananarchistwhocategoricallyrejectedalluseofforceandgovernment.Thus,inCommunismtherewas“nothingthatwouldenticehim”anymorethanothersystemssincetherewere“basicallyno41differences”amonggovernments.Infact,inasmuchasaCommunistgovernmentwouldtrytopracticefairnessandequality,itwouldappeartoTolstoytobe“themostdangerousofteachings”becauseitwouldprovidea“justificationforevil,ajustificationfortheideaofgovernment,anapology42forviolenceandcoercion.”Therefore,Maklakovsurmises,“Tolstoyandallofuswouldstandondifferentsidesofthebarricades,butwewouldnotstandonthesamesideasTolstoy,butratheronthesamesideasthe43Bolsheviks.”MaklakovaskswhetherTolstoymightnonethelessbe“attractedbysomethingintheCommunistidealinsuchawaythathewouldforgive44theBolsheviksintheirstrivingafterthatideal?”Heanswersunequivocallyinthenegative:TolstoywouldhavecondemnedtheBolsheviksbecause,intheirattemptstoadvancethewarbetweenhavesandhave-nots,theyhadcommittedwhat,forTolstoyandChrist,wastheonlyunforgivablesin:the45corruptionofinnocentsoulsbysowinghatredamongtheclasses.ReturningtothequestionofwhyTolstoyansaccepttheBolsheviks,MaklakovsaysthattheadherentsofTolstoymightverywellunderstandwhathepreached,buttheydonotacceptit.Tolstoycametohisbeliefsthroughacrisisinwhichhe“conceivedahatredforworldlylifeandthe46teachingsoftheworld,”andtoaccepthisviewsrequiresoneto“undergo,47andnotfleetingly,asimilarframeofmind.”TolstoyansmightagreewithTolstoy’s“denunciationsandattacksontherichandfamous,withhiscriticisms,andthereforethinkthattheyagreewithhisteaching,”findingcommongroundwiththeBolsheviks.HowevertheydonotacceptthoseteachingsinthesamewaythatTolstoydid.MaklakovcomparestheTolstoyans“whoseriouslyclaimthatTolstoywouldhaveforgiventheBolsheviksfortheirbrutality”totheInquisitors,followersofChrist’steachings,who“imaginedthattheytoounderstoodHim,astheylitthe48bonfires.”AsforwhytheBolshevikswould“bowtheirheadsbeforetheirownenemyandcastigator,”Maklakovisdissatisfiedwiththeexplanationthattheydosoas“merelyanadvertisement.”TheyhaveMarxandEngels,sowhydotheyneedTolstoy?ToanswerthatquestionfullyrequiresanunderstandingofTolstoy’simportancetoRussia.Whilehewasalive,TolstoywasRussia’s“consolation,”andRussiacalmeditselfduring

245234michaela.dennertroubledtimeswiththeideathat“ithadTolstoy,thathewasnotamythoralegend,thathewasalivingreality,thattherereallyexistedthiselder,uponwhomthewholeworldgazed,andthathewouldneverleaveRussia,thathe49wouldn’ttradeherforanything.”GivenTolstoy’simportancetoRussia,MaklakovisledtowonderwhattheBolsheviksmighthavedonehadTolstoylivedtoseetheRevolution:Wouldtheyhavetouchedhim?Nodoubt,no.Theywouldhavesurroundedhimwithsuperficialhonour,theywouldhavehonouredhimasa“respectedmemberoftheproletariat,”wouldhavegivenhimspecialbreadcards,theywouldhavesoughttodemonstratethroughhimtheirtolerance,theirhighlevelofculture,andtheirloveforthepeople.Buttheywouldhavehadnomoresuccessbribinghimwiththeirhonoursandflatterythaniftheythreatenedhimwithdeath.Theycouldn’thavefooledandflatteredhim,astheyhaveflatteredhisnearsightedfriends.IntheBolshevikcultofTolstoy,Maklakovconcludes,“thereisameasureofsincerity,likeenemieswholayalaurelwreathonthetombofafallenwarlord-enemy.Inthedepthsoftheirsoulstheycansincerelyhonourhis50memory;theyaregladthatdeathhasridthemofsuchanopponent.”redtolstoyTheBolsheviksduringthisrevolutionaryperiodremainedfundamentallyambivalenttowardthepoliticalcultofTolstoy.Ontheonehand,theybelievedthathispopularityrevealedboththeexceptionalityandtheuni-versalityoftheRussianpeople:thepromisesofselflessness,socialcooperation,andrejectionofbourgeoisEuropeanculturethatwereimplicitinthe“cloud”ofideasandassociationsthatswirledaboutTolstoy’simage.Ontheotherhand,asadirectcompetitorwithSocialistandMarxistthought–athirdway,analternativetowesternEuropeanconstitutionalgovernment–hiscultrepresentedadiscursivecompetitorfromtheintel-lectualandliberalbourgeoisrealm.TolstoyanmagazinespublishedintheperiodoftenmentionthecompetitionbetweentheBolsheviksandtheircampfortheRussianear.AfterreprintingapubliclecturebytheTolstoyanN.N.Gusev,forinstance,theeditorsofUnity(Edinenie)offeredthefollowinganecdote:Onthetwenty-sixthofMay[1918],thislecture[“TolstoyandtheRussianRevolution”]wasrepeatedattherequestoftheworkersattheMikhel’sonfactory.Thislecturehadapaidentrywiththeprofitsgoingtosupportthe[Tolstoyan]SocietyofTrueFreedom.Forsomereason,afreeBolsheviklectureontheseparationofchurchandstatewasorganizedattheverysametimeandinthe

246The“proletarianlord”235verysameplaceasthislecturebyN.N.Gusev.AndyetGusev’slectureattractedfar51morelisteners.TheBolsheviksalsohadtoworryabouttheirowninternationalimagebeingovershadowedbyTolstoy’slegacy.ManyforeigncommentatorssimplyassumedeitherthattheBolshevikswerenothingmorethanTolstoyansorthattheirrevolutionwasmerelyawaypointonthepathwaytoaTolstoyansociety.SinceleadingBolsheviksdismissedTolstoyasasuperannuatedrelicofRussia’sagrarianpast,suchconflationssurelywouldhavefrustratedthem.Inoneexample,a1919NewYorkTimesarticledismissedthe52Bolsheviksas“littleTolstoys.”Ina1920article“LightfromTolstoyonRussia,”DurantDrake(aleadingAmericansociologist),criticizingtheUnitedStates’presscoverageoftheSovietgovernment,rejectedtheidea53thattheRussians“longedtobedeliveredfromtheirBolshevikmasters.”TheoutsideworldshouldknowthattheBolshevikRevolutionisnotsomethingimposedfromabove,butinsteadexpressesanauthenticRussiandesireenshriningthetenetsofTolstoyism:economicequality,54peace,andarejectionofbourgeoisprivilege.Drakeconcludesbyremark-ingthatwhatevermightbesaid“inthepressdiscussionsofWesternnations,”“[t]hismuch,atleast,iscleartothestudentofTolstoy.TheidealoftheBolshevikiisagenuineideal,notameremaskforcupidityandloveofpower.TothedegreeinwhichitfollowstheidealofTolstoy,it55undoubtedlyhasadeepholdupontheRussiansoul.”Todaythereisastrong(andwell-founded)tendencytoidentifyallSovietcriticismofTolstoy’spoliticalideasaslittlemorethanLenin’sdoctrinal56dismissalsréchauffés.Atleastbeforetheendofthe1920s,however,therewasdebateamongBolsheviksthemselvesconcerningtherelevanceofTolstoy’spoliticalcultfortheSovietUnion.ThedesireforapprovalfromTolstoycausedmanytoimaginethathemighthavechangedhisviewshadhelivedanotherdecadetoseetherevolutions.Atleastatthispointintime,then,Tolstoy’simagewasnotexactlyatoolofpropaganda,andnoattemptwasmadetobiasoroversimplifytherepresentation.Instead,whenTolstoy’sviewsweremadetobuttressonesideoranotherofadebate,hisviewswererepresentedasmorenuanced,moreambiguousthantheyactuallywere.OnthetenthanniversaryofTolstoy’sdeath,TheWhistle(Gudok)–the“officialnewspaperforrailwayworkers”–publishedafront-pageeditorialbyM.Volokhoventitled“TheAll-RussianTolstoy.”Tolstoydeservestobecalled“All-Russian”becausehisworksare“thepropertyofworkingclassinRussia”andhewrote“exclusivelyfortheRussianoppressed,theRussian

247236michaela.dennerpoor,theRussiandarkandignorantcountryside.”CallingTolstoy“theproletarianlord,”Volokhovconcludesthatone“neednotbeaprophet”toknowthat,“werehealivetoday,[Tolstoy]wouldlikelybeamongtheranksoftheactivebuildersofanewRussia,alongwithGorkyandTimiryazev.Onthisday,tenyearsafterhisdeath,proletarianRussiabaresherhead57beforehisgraveandbelievespassionatelythathebelongstoher.”EchoingTheWhistle’spanegyric,CommunistLabour(Kommunisticheskiitrud)ranasimilarpiecethesameday,“LeoTolstoy.TenthAnniversary,1910–1920,”concludingthat“thetruthofourteachingsandactionscouldnothaveescapedthepenetratinggazeofthebrilliantmoralist,andprecisely58forthisreason,hewouldhavebeenonourside!”IvanKnizhnikarticulatedamorecarefulattempttoreconcileTolstoywiththeBolshevikprograminalong,front-pagearticleinPetrogradPravda(PetrogradskaiaPravda).Knizhnik,amemberofthePetrogradsovietduringtheOctoberRevolution,beginsbynotingthat,duringthecelebrationsheldalloverRussiaonthetenthanniversaryofTolstoy’sdeath,thereweresuretobemanyspeecheson“whatmakesTolstoygreatandwhyheisdeartomankind.”However,sincemostofthosewhoknowTolstoy’sworks“belongtothebourgeoiscamp,”speakersinalllikelihoodwould“usethememoryofTolstoytodemonstratethathewouldhavenotapprovedofourrevolution,foundedonviolence,asitcontradictshismoralteaching,etc.”ButKnizhnikwarnshisreadersagainstacceptinghowthe“bourgeoisandfalse-socialistcounterrevolutionaries”depictTolstoyandclaimsinsteadthat“thevastmajorityofhisideascouldbeusedtodemonstratetherightnessofourrevolution.”ThemostimportantofTolstoy’sideas–“therejectionofprivateown-ershipoflandandthemeansoflabor,therejectionofgovernmentandofallbourgeoisculture”–werecontainedinbooksthathadbeenforbiddenbythecensor“rightuptotheFebruaryRevolution.”TheseforbiddenworksrevealthatTolstoy’spositionswere,infact,“justlikethoseofscientificsocialism.”“Themilitary,police,andcourtexistinthemodernstatefortheprotectionofthepropertyofthefew,thecapitalistsandtheowningclassagainstthevasternumberofdispossessed,and[…]science,religionandartintheconditionsofthebourgeoissystemnotonlydonotservetoenlightenthepeoplebut,justtheopposite,theyservethecauseofitspollution.”KnizhnikexplainsthatforTolstoytherewereonlytwosolutionsto“riddingthepeopleofbourgeoissupremacy”:thefirst,acallto“gotothepeople”andworktheland(“avestigeofPopulism”);andtheother,for“allconsciouspeopletorefusetofulfillthedutiesthatthebourgeoisgovernmentcallsthemtodo.”Tolstoygaveupondirectrevolutionthrough

248The“proletarianlord”237violence,explainsKnizhnik,becauseafterthedefeatofthePeople’sWillrevolutionariesinthe1870shedecidedthatrevolutionthroughviolencewasimpossible“whentheTsarhadmillionsofsoldiers.”However,“hadTolstoyliveduntilourdaysandhadheseenhowoursoldiersduringtheOctoberRevolutionhadturnedfromblindservantsofthebourgeoisgovernmentintoitsgravediggers,whoknows,maybeTolstoywouldhavechangedhisviewsonviolence,”especiallyinasmuchastheRevolutionhadbeen“almostbloodless.”KnizhnikthenturnstothequestionofhowTolstoywouldhavereactedtothenewSovietwayoflife.Tolstoywasgreatpreciselybecause“heabsorbedintohimself,grantedfromapeculiarperspective,allthegreatesthopesofthepeopleincludingtheproletariat.”InthissenseofTolstoyaspeculiarlyrepresentativeofRussia,“TolstoywasaforerunnerofourRevolutionandmanyofthesignificantcharacteristicsofourproletarianrevolutionwereapprovedofbyhiminadvance.”Toprovethepoint,KnizhnikelaboratesthemanypointsofsimilaritybetweenTolstoy’steach-ingsandthepoliciesrecentlyinstitutedbytheSovietgovernment.Hementionsseparationofchurchandstate,theBolsheviks’policiesonartandeducation,theabolishmentofcapitalpunishmentandtheattemptstoreformcriminals“throughpublicservice,”andthe“comprehensivedevelopmentofeveryindividual.”HeconcludesthatTolstoywould“undoubtedlyhavewelcomedthedecisionoftheSovietpowertoteacheverycookhowtorunagovernmentandbeaconsciousmemberofit.Hewouldhavewelcomedoursystemofpubliceducation[…]andtherejectionofallcoercion,justasTolstoytaughtinthe1860s.”Heendsthearticlebytellingthe“bourgeoisieandfalse-socialists:HandsoffofTolstoy!He’smore59likelywithusthanwithyou!”tolstoy,ourcompetitorBytheendoftheCivilWar(thesummerof1923),thepoliticalcultofTolstoywasbeingsubjectedtoincreasingcriticismfromwithintheSovietUnion.Theabove-mentionedTolstoyanperiodicalsandpublishershadceasedtoexistbylate1921.Acursoryglancethroughthebibliographicdata60fromPokrovskaia’sextensivebibliographyorthecardcatalogueattheNationalLibraryofRussiaindicatesadramaticshiftinthetenorandnumberofTolstoypublications.Whiledozensofpublishersandnews-paperspublishedliterallyhundredsofTolstoy’swritings–belletristicandpublicistic–andwritingsaboutTolstoyduringthe1917–21period,theflowofsuchworksdroppedsharplytowardtheendoftheCivilWar.By1923,

249238michaela.dennervirtuallytheonlypublisherofTolstoy’sworkswasthenewStateTolstoyMuseum.ThisdeclineisallthemorestrikingasitoccurredduringtherelativelyopentimeoftheNewEconomicPolicy(NEP),whenprivateprintingpresseswereallowedtooperatewithrelativelylittleinterferencefromtheSovietauthority.OneplausibleexplanationforthisclearshiftinTolstoy’ssocialpresenceintheSovietUnioncanbefoundinalengthy1924publiclecture(publishedintwoseparate,fairlylargerunsof5,000thesameyear)byoneoftheleadersoftheBolshevikparty,A.V.Lunacharsky,chairmanoftheCommissionforthePeople’sCommissariatofEducationfrom1917to1929.In“TolstoyandMarx,”Lunacharsky,whohadwrittenmorethanthirtyarticlesandlectures61onTolstoy,beginsbyobservingthat,inRussiaandothercountries,MarxismandTolstoyismaretwoofthemainideologies,thoughcertainly62notalltheenemiesofMarxismbelongtothe“Tolstoycamp.”Thoughthebourgeoisiehasnoideologyofitsown,itusesMenshevismasa“figleaftohideitsshame”beforethemasses.(ForLunacharsky,Menshivismmeansa“pervertedMarxism”thatpreachesagainstrevolutionandfor“patience”and“fatalism.”)ThispactbetweenthebourgeoisieandMenshevismrep-resentsthe“mostdreadfulenemy”totheSovietUnion.But,accordingtoLunacharsky,“Tolstoyismistheworldviewthatshouldstandinthesecondplaceintheranksofourenemies”because,thoughit“doesnotexertaninfluenceontheproletariat,”itisnonetheless“thestrongestinfluenceontheintelligentsia”andmoreimportantlyitactsas“ourcompetitorinexercisinginfluenceonthebestpartofthepeasantsnotonlyinEurope63butinthedepthsofAsiaaswell.”Next,LunacharskypresentsprofessionsoffaithinTolstoyismbytwoofthemostnotableintellectualsandpoliticalactorsoftheday–theFrenchintellectualandNobelLaureateRomainRolland,andtheleaderofanti-imperialismin“Indostan,”MahatmaGandhi–tosupporthisclaimthatTolstoyismwasthe“leadingopponent”ofMarxism.TheirverypublicadherencetoTolstoyismindi-cateshow,“wheneverourtaskhastodowiththemostimportantalliedforcesfortheproletariat,that’swhenwehavetodealwithTolstoyism.”HavingestablishedTolstoy’sinfluenceonprogressiveleadersoutsideofRussia,Lunacharskythenlaunchesintoalong-windeddiscussionofthe“relationsbetweenMarxismandTolstoyism.”Tolstoyismis“nothingnew:wheneverthereappearsanewsocialformation–concentrationofcapital,significantwealth,growthoftradeandmanufacturing–wheneverthesethingsariseinwhatevercountry,thereappearsamovementanalogousto64Tolstoyism.”HedelineatesthesimilaritiesbetweenTolstoyismand,interalia,theOldTestamentprophets,Rousseau,JesusChrist,andCarlyle,

250The“proletarianlord”239concludingthatTolstoyismisasocialteachingwhich“raisestheflagofrevolutionagainstcapitalism[…]inthenameofthepastthat,transfigured,65isprojectedforwardasthefuture.”ThiscriticismisfollowedbynotunexpectedpaeanstoMarxismasamovementthat“acceptscivilizationcompletely,acceptscompletelyscienceandartandevenwealth,theaccu-mulationofwealth,capitalism.Marxismistheprogenyofthecity,andnot66thecountryside;itlooksforwardandnotback.”Lunacharsky’sclosingstatementonthecompetitionbetweenMarxismandTolstoyismindicatesthatleadingBolshevikshad,bytheearly1920s,beguntoconsiderTolstoyismacompetitoranddiscursivethreattotheirattemptstowinovertheRussianintelligentsiaandtoexpandtheirrevolu-tionbeyondRussia.LunacharskyobservesthatincontemporaryGermany,theintelligentsia,in“greatinternalvacillation”initssearchfor“non-bourgeois”governance,has“dividedintotwotendencies.”OnegrouphasembracedCommunism,the“rationalorganizationofhumanlife”;andtheother,mysticism,“inwhichacentralroleisplayedbyTolstoy,precisely67becauseheappealstocredulity,becausehesaysthingsthatseemrational.”PredictinganeventualvictoryforthemorepragmaticandworldlyCommunism,LunacharskynonethelessworriesthatTolstoy’spoliticalcultmightdistractanddelaytheworldintelligentsiafromaidingtheproletariat.Wehopethatthisstill-strongposition,whichhasitsmoralarguments,itsartisticauthorityinthegreatTolstoy,andinvariousplacesisputtingoutnewoffshoots,wehopethatitdoesnotdelaytheintelligentsiaintheirpathtounitywiththeproletariat,whoneedsit,whoneedstheintelligentsiaatthisearlystagesomuchthatwithoutittheproletariatsimplycannotsettoworkonbuildingthenewcommunistregime.Wewillwageabattlewiththisattractiveandcorrupting68Tolstoyansuperstitionwhichsapstheconscienceandenergy.AndabattlewascertainlywagedagainstTolstoy’ssocialpresence,oratleastthepoliticalcultconnectedtohim.Inveryshortorder–certainlybythecentenarycelebrationofTolstoy’sbirthin1928–evenanacknowledgmentofTolstoy’spoliticalinfluenceinRussia,muchlessaclaimthatTolstoyismrepresentedanimportantdiscursivecompetitor,wouldbecomesimply69impossibleintheSovietUnion.Probablynootherartisthaseverbeentheobjectofsuchpervasive,governmentallyfunded,andsuccessfulmedi-ationandconstructionasTolstoyunderwentduringthetwentiethcenturyinSovietRussia.ThepowerfulbutcontradictoryimageofTolstoygener-atedbymassculture,hisimpersonalpoliticalcult,wasdismantledinStalin’sRussia.(IteventuallyceasedtoexistevenoutsideoftheSovietUnion.)Anew,purelyliterarycultwascraftedtoreplaceit.Tolstoy’simagewas

251240michaela.denner1.KstoletiiuL.N.Tolstogo:SbornikkomissiipooznamenovaniiustoletiiasodniarozhdeniiaL.N.Tolstogo.Thisamateurishlyretouchedphotograph,publishedintheMiscellanyoftheCommissiontomarkthe1928centenaryofTolstoy’sbirth,depictstheentrywaytotheIasnaiaPolianaschoolnearTula,Russia.BannersofLeninandStalin,thelatteratleastprobablyadded,flankastatueofTolstoy.honedtoproduceamodelappropriateforSocialistRealism:theconsum-mateartistwhoneversanktoaestheticism,a“criticalrealist”whoragedagainsttheeconomic,social,andreligiousconditionsofhistime,andaninternationalistwhoremainedthoroughlyRussian.HereisnottheplacetodiscusshowSovieteducational,redactorial,andprintingpracticeshaverefiguredTolstoy;IhaveinsteadchosentoconcentrateonhowTolstoywasrepresentedbeforetheformationofwhatNickellcalls“theLeninist70center”ofTolstoyancriticism.SufficetosaythattheSovietimageofTolstoyisnotatallhistoricallycontinuousandisonlycontingentlyrelatedtothediscourseabouthimduringtheRevolution.notes1.D.Barthelme,“AttheTolstoyMuseum,”inAnnCharters,ed.,TheStoryandItsWriter(Boston:Bedford/St.Martin’s,1999),135.2.A.Maude,LifeofTolstoy,LaterYears(NewYork:Dodd,MeadandCo.,1911),622.

252The“proletarianlord”2413.L.Braudy,TheFrenzyofRenown:FameandItsHistory(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1986),403.4.A.N.Wilson,Tolstoy:ABiography(NewYork:W.W.Norton,1988),346.5.Alltranslations,unlessotherwiseindicated,aremine.L.N.Tolstoi,“Obrashcheniekrusskimliud’iam.Kpravitel’stvu,revoliutsioneraminarodu,”inPolnoesobraniiesochineniiv90-itomakh,akademicheskoeiubileinoeizdanie(Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvokhud.lit.,1928–1958),36:314.6.D.P.Makovitskii,“UTolstogo:‘Iasnopolianskiezapiski’D.P.Makovitskogo,”inShcherbinaetal.,eds.,Literaturnoenasledstvo,vol.90,book1[1904–5](Moscow:Nauka,1979),entry36forNovember1905.7.V.I.Lenin,“LeoTolstoyastheMirroroftheRussianRevolution,”inM.Solomon,ed.,MarxismandArt:EssaysClassicandContemporary(NewYork:WayneStateUniversityPress,1979),169–74.8.CitedinV.Kantor,“LevTolstoi:iskushenieneistoriei:Samyi,Samyi,Samyi,iliTolstoicontraGete,”Voprosyliteratury4(2000):120–81.9.W.Nickell,TolstoyinthePublicDomain:HisDeathasaNationalNarrative,PhDdissertation,UCLAatBerkeley,1998(AnnArbor:UMI,1998),xx.10.V.I.Lenin,“LeftWing”Communism:AnInfantileDisorder(Detroit,MI:TheMarxianEducationalSociety1921),21.11.N.Apostolov,“L.N.Tolstoivgodyrusskoirevoliutsii,”inKstoletiiuL.N.Tolstogo:sbornik(Moscow:KomissiiapooznamenovaniiustoletiiasodniarozhdeniiaL.N.Tolstogo,1928),21.12.Ibid.22.Theauthorsuggeststhatsucharticleswere“nodoubtcausedbythedemandsandmoodsofthetime.”13.Ibid.23.14.A.Tolstoi,“Dvenadtsatogomarta,”Russkiievedomosti61(March17).15.Apostolov,“L.N.Tolstoi,”21.16.“KneeltoTolstoy’sPortrait:GreatCrowdofSoldiersandWorkersGreetHisWidowatHerHome,”NewYorkTimes(March27,1917):4.17.R.StrunskyinherforewordtoTheJournalofLeoTolstoi:FirstVolume–1895–1899(NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1917),xii.18.“TheRussianDanger,”NewYorkTimes(July27,1917):8.19.ThoughdemocraticallyelectedinNovember1917,theAssemblyneverhadachancetodeliberatethelandquestionsinceitwasdissolvedbytheBolshevikdecreeinDecember.GauznerwasevidentlyamemberoftheSocialistRevolutionaryParty,whichhaddrafteda“LawontheLand”proposalfordeliberationbytheAssembly.SeeMichaelMelancon,“TheLeftSocialistRevolutionaries,1917–1918,”inEdwardActon,VladimirI.Cherniaev,WilliamG.Rosenberg,eds.,CriticalCompaniontotheRussianRevolution,1914–1921(London:HodderArnold,1997),296.20.M.Gauzner,LevNikolaevichTolstoiozemle(Petrograd:Kn-voM.A.Iasnogob.Popova),6.21.Ibid.12.22.Ibid.13–14.23.Ibid.15.

253242michaela.denner24.V.Chertkov,“Pomoshch’Tolstogo,”GolosTolstogoiEdinenie2,no.8(1918),9.25.AsadirectresultofhisassociationwithTolstoy,Chertkovhadspentnearlyadecade(1897–1906)inexileinEngland.HewaswellknowntotheBritishasapublicintellectualandfounderoftheNewAgePress.26.V.Tchertkoff(Chertkov)andPaulBirukoff(PavelBiriukov),SaveRussia:ARemarkableAppealtoEnglandbyTolstoy’sLiteraryExecutorinaLettertoHisEnglishFriends(London:C.W.Daniel,1919),5.ChertkovoversimplifiesthestatusofTolstoy’sworks.AlthoughthepublicationofmanyofTolstoy’sreligiousworkshadremainedofficiallybannedbytheHolySynodoneccle-siasticalgrounds,theseworkswereprintedinRussianbypressesabroad,includingChertkov’sownpublisherinLondon,andwidelydistributedinRussiabefore1917.27.Ibid.12–13.28.Ibid.17–18.29.Citedin“TolstoyastheGreatPatriarchoftheBolshevikiFamily,”CurrentOpinion(January1919):49.30.D.Merezhkovskii,“TolstoyandBolshevism,”TheLivingAge(May7,1921):331–37.(FirstpublishedinGermaninDeutscheAllgemeineZeitungMarch15–16,1921,latercollected[inRussian]inTsarstvoantikhrista[Munich1921].)ItwaswidelyrepublishedintheWesternpress.31.Ibid.333.32.Ibid.334.33.Ibid.335–36.34.MerezhkovskyincorrectlyreferstoherasAlexandraAndreevna.35.Ibid.337.36.Maklakov,alawyerandhigh-rankingDumadeputyfromtheKadetparty,wasаpersonalfriendofTolstoywhoalsorepresentedhiminseveralpersonallegalmatters.TolstoyalsomadeuseofhisjudicialexpertisewhilewritingResurrection.37.B.A.Maklakov,Tolstoiibol’shevizm.Rech’(Paris:Knigaizdatel’stvoRusskaiazemlia,1921),5.38.ThisargumentwasputforthmostfamouslyinNikolaiBerdiaev’s1918aca-demicessay,“SpiritsoftheRussianRevolution”“Dukhirusskoirevoliutsii,”inS.A.Askol’dovetal.,eds.,Izglubiny:Sbornikstateiorusskoirevol’utsii(MoscowandPetrograd:Russkaiamysl’,1918),37–74.39.Maklakov,Tolstoiibol’shevizm,7.40.ForanexcellenthistoryofthepublicationoftheJubileeEditionofTolstoy’sCompleteCollectedWorks,whichdetailsChertkov’sandGusev’scomplexrelationswiththeBolsheviksduringthisperiod,seeL.Osterman,SrazheniezaTolstogo(Moscow:Grant,2002).41.Maklakov,Tolstoiibol’shevizm,12.42.Ibid.13.43.Ibid.14.44.Ibid.15.

254The“proletarianlord”24345.Ibid.23.46.Ibid.40.47.Ibid.45.48.Ibid.48.49.Ibid.50.50.Ibid.53.51.N.N.Gusev,“Tolstoiirusskaiarevoliutsiia.Lektsiia,”GolosTolstogoiEdinenie2,no.8(1918):16.52.“NewForcesofDisintegrationinRussia:Syndicalism,MoreViolentthanBolshevism,ThreatensToThrustUnhappyNationintoNewChaosofLawlessness,SaysManuelKomroff,JustBackfromRussia,”NewYorkTimes(January19,1919):66.53.D.Drake,“LightfromTolstoyonRussia,”InternationalJournalofEthics30,no.2(1920):190–95.54.Ibid.192.55.Ibid.195.56.See,forinstance,G.Struve,“TolstoyinSovietCriticism,”RussianReview19,no.2(1960):171–86.HequotesL.Opul’skaia,aleadingSovietTolstoycriticofthetwentiethcentury,aswritingin1958:“ItisnotjustthisbrevitywhichmakesLenin’sjudgmentsaboutTolstoy[…]aprogramforfurtherstudy…Itisnecessarytoinvestigateindetailthewayinwhichthefundamentalcontra-dictionbetweenTolstoy’sartandworldoutlook,revealedbyLenin’sanalysis,comestolightwheneverhetouches,asanartistorthinker,uponanynewsphere”(173).57.M.Volokhov,“VserossiisskiiTolstoi.(K10-letiiusodniaegosmerti),”Gudok(November20,1920):1.58.A.Kavkazskii,“Desiataiagodovshchina.(1910–1920),”Kommunisticheskiitrud(November20,1920):1.59.AllquotesarefromthesamepageofIvanKnizhnik,“LevTolstoiiproletar-skaiarevoliutsiia.(Kdesiatiletiiusodniaegosmerti),”LeningradskaiaPravda(November20,1920):1.60.N.D.Pokrovskaia(Khaimovich),L.N.Tolstoi:BibliografiiaproizvedeniiL.Tolstogoiliteraturyonem.,1917–1927,ed.N.K.Piksanova(Moscow:IzdanieTolstovskogoMuzeia,1928),97–157.Pokrovskaia’sbibliographyappearstoberemarkablycomplete,consideringtheyearitwaspublished(1928).(Itcontains,forexample,mentionsofworksbyTrotskyandbookspublishedabroadbyémigrés.)Ihavecross-checkedherbibliographyagainstthecardcatalogueattheSt.PetersburgNationalLibraryofRussia,whichcontainsacompleterecordofbookspublishedinRussiaduringtheseyears(or,intheleast,themostcompleterecordavailable).61.K.N.Lomunov,“Predislovie”(to“A.V.LunacharskiioTolstom.Neopublikovannaialektsiia1928g.”),inLevTolstoiv2-khknigakh(Moscow:Izd-voANSSSR,1961),403.62.A.V.Lunacharskii,TolstoiiMarks(Leningrad:Academia,1924),5.63.Ibid.7–9.

255244michaela.denner64.Ibid.12.65.Ibid.21.66.Ibid.37.67.Ibid.46.68.Ibid.48.69.ForanexcellentdiscussionofthestridentanddangerousdebatessurroundingTolstoy’slegacyduring1928,seeWilliamNickell,“Tolstoiin1928:IntheMirroroftheRevolution,”inKevinM.F.PlattandDavisBrandenberger,eds.,EpicRevisionism:RussianHistoryandLiteratureasStalinistPropaganda(Madison,WI:UniversityofWisconsinPress,2006).70.Ibid.31.

256BibliographyThislistdoesnotincludetheEnglishtranslationsofTolstoyusedbyvariousauthors,andcitedbythemintheirnotes.Afanaseva,M.L.,G.V.Alekseeva,etal.,eds.BibliotekaL’vaNikolaevichaTolstogovIasnoiPoliane:bibliograficheskoeopisanie,partiii:Kniginainostrannykhiazykakh.2vols.Tula:Izdatel’skiidom,“IasnaiaPoliana,”1999.Aksakov,A.Kchemubylovoskresat’?PopovoduromanagrafaTolstogo“Voskresenie.”St.Petersburg:TipografiiaV.Demakova,1900.Aksakov,K.S.,andI.S.Aksakov.Literaturnaiakritika.Moscow:Sovremennik,1981.Apostolov,N.LevTolstoinadstrannitsamiistorii:istoriko-literaturnyenabliudeniia.Moscow:KomissiiapooznamenovaniiustoletiiasodniarozhdeniiaL.N.Tolstogo,1928.“L.N.Tolstoivgodyrusskoirevoliutsii.”InKstoletiiuL.N.Tolstogo:sbornik.Moscow:KomissiiapooznamenovaniiustoletiiasodniarozhdeniiaL.N.Tolstogo,1928.20–23.Apresian,RubenGrantovich,ed.OpytnenasiliiavXXstoletii:sotsial’no-eticheskieocherki.Moscow:Aslan,1996.Ariès,P.TheHourofDeath.Trans.H.Weaver.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1991.Ariès,Philippe.TheHourofOurDeath.Trans.HelenWeaver.NewYork:BarnesandNoble,2000.Barthelme,Donald.“AttheTolstoyMuseum.”InAnnCharters,ed.,TheStoryandItsWriter.Boston:Bedford/St.Martin’s,1999.129–38.Bary,Theodorede,andIreneBloom,eds.SourcesofChineseTradition.2ndedn.Vol.1.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1999.Berdiaev,N.A.“Dukhirusskoirevoliutsii.InS.A.Askol’dovetal.,eds.,Izglubiny:sbornikstateiorusskoirevol’utsii.MoscowandPetrograd:Russkaiamysl’,1918.37–74.Biriukov,P.L.N.Tolstoi:Biografiia.3vols.Berlin:Izd.I.P.Ladyzhnikova,1921.BloomH.“Introduction.”InH.Bloom,ed.,PoetsofSensibilityandtheSublime.NewYork:ChelseaHousePublishers,1986.1–9.Blumberg,E.J.“TolstoyandtheEnglishNovel:ANoteonMiddlemarchandAnnaKarenina.”InW.G.Jones,ed.,TolstoiandBritain.Oxford:Berg,1995.93–104.245

257246BibliographyTheBookofPsalms:ATranslationwithCommentary.Trans.RobertAlter.NewYork:Norton,2007.Braddon,M.E.TheDoctor’sWife.Ed.LynPykett.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1998.Brantlinger,P.“WhatIsSensationalabouttheSensationNovel?”InLynPykett,ed.,WilkieCollins.NewYork,St.Martin’sPress,1989.30–57.Braudy,Leo.TheFrenzyofRenown:FameandItsHistory.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1986.Budilova,E.A.Bor’bamaterializmaiidealizmavrusskoipsikhologicheskoinauke:vtoraiapolovinaXIX–nachaloXXveka.Moscow:Izdatel’stvoAkademiinaukSSSR,1960.Bulgakov,V.L.N.Tolstoivposledniigodegozhizni.Moscow:Pravda,1989.Etimologicheskiislovar’russkogoiazyka.Ed.A.F.ZhuravlevandN.M.Shanskii.Vol.10.Moscow:Izdatel’stvoMoskovskogouniversiteta,2007.Bulgarin,Faddei.Vospominaniia.Moscow:Zakharov,2001.BurkeE.APhilosophicalEnquiryintotheOriginofOurIdeasoftheSublimeandBeautiful.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1990.Carden,Patricia.“TheExpressiveSelfinWarandPeace.”Canadian-AmericanSlavicStudies12(1978):519–34.“TheRecuperativePowersofMemory:Tolstoy’sWarandPeace.”InJohnGarrard,ed.,TheRussianNovelfromPushkintoPasternak.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1983.81–102.Carruthers,Neil.“TheParisPremièreofTolstoy’sVlast’t’my(ThePowerofDarkness).”NewZealandSlavonicJournal(1987):81–92.Chernyshev,V.,ed.Slovar’sovremennogorusskogoliteraturnogoiazyka.17vols.MoscowandLeningrad:AkademiiaNauk,1950–65.Chertkov,V.“Pomoshch’Tolstogo.”GolosTolstogoiEdinenie2,no.8(1918):9.Chertkov,V.G.,andPavelBirukov.SaveRussia:ARemarkableAppealtoEnglandbyTolstoy’sLiteraryExecutorinaLettertohisEnglishFriends.London:C.W.Daniel,1919.Christian,R.F.Tolstoy:ACriticalIntroduction.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1969.Chubakov,S.LevTolstoiovoineimilitarizme.Minsk:Izdatel’stvoBFU,1973.Coetzee,J.M.TheLivesofAnimals.Ed.andintro.AmyGutman.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1999.Crowther,P.TheKantianSublime:FromMoralitytoArt.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1989.Curtiss,JohnShelton.Russia’sCrimeanWar.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,1979.Davydov,Denis.VoennyezapiskipartizanaDenisaDavydova.Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiterature,”1940.Denner,MichaelA.“AccidentalArt:Tolstoy’sPoeticsofUnintentionality.”PhilosophyandLiterature27(2003):284–303.Derzhavin,G.Stikhotvoreniia.Leningrad:Supovetskaialiteratura,1957.

258Bibliography247Dobrotoliubie.5vols.Paris:YMCAPress,1988.Donskov,A.A.EssaysonL.N.Tolstoj’sDramaticArt.Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz,1988.L.N.TolstoyiN.N.Strakhov:Epistolianyidialogozhizniiliterature.OttawaandMoscow:SlavicResearchGroupattheUniversityofOttawaandtheStateL.N.TolstoyMuseum,2006.Doroshenko,S.LevTolstoi–voinipatriot:voennaiasud’baivoennaiadeiatel’nost’.Moscow:Sovetskiipisatel’,1966.Dorré,G.M.VictorianFictionandtheCultoftheHorse.Aldershot,UKandBurlington,VT:Ashgate,2006.Dostoevskii,F.M.Polnoesobraniesochineniivtridstatitomakh.Ed.G.M.Fridlenderetal.Leningrad:Nauka,1972–90.Drake,Durant.“LightfromTolstoyonRussia.”InternationalJournalofEthics30,no.2(1920):190–95.Edgerton,William,ed.MemoirsofPeasantTolstoyansinSovietRussia.Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress,1993.Eiges,Iosif.“VozzrenieTolstogonamuzyku.”InP.N.Sakulin,ed.,EstetikaL’vaTolstogo:sbornikstatei.Moscow:GosudarstvennaiaAkademiiaKhudozhestvennykhNauk,1929.241–308.Eikhenbaum,B.M.“90-tomnoesobraniesochineniiL.N.Tolstogo.(Kriticheskiezametki).”Russkaialiteratura4(1956):216–23.LevTolstoi:semidesiatyegody.Leningrad:Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,1974.TheYoungTolstoi.Trans.GaryKern.AnnArbor,MI:Ardis,1972.TolstoiintheSeventies.Trans.AlbertKaspin.AnnArbor,MI:Ardis,1982.TolstoyintheSixties.Trans.DuffieldWhite.AnnArbor,MI:Ardis,1982.Eliot,G.“SillyNovelsbyLadyNovelists.”InSelectedEssays,Poems,andOtherWritings.Ed.A.S.ByattandNicholasWarren.London:Penguin,1990.140–63.Elwin,M.VictorianWallflowers.London:JonathanCape,1937.Fanger,Donald,ed.,trans.,intro.Gorky’sTolstoyandOtherReminiscences:KeyWritingsbyandaboutMaximGorky.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2008.“Nazarov’sMother:NotestowardanInterpretationofHadjiMurat.”Iberomania(1974):99–104.Faresov,A.I.Protivtechenii.St.Petersburg:TipografiiaM.Merkusheva,1904.FergusonF.SolitudeandtheSublime:RomanticismandtheAestheticsofIndividuation.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,1992.Flerovskii,N.“Iziashchnyiromanistiegoiziashchnyekritiki.”Delo6(1868):Sovremennoeobozrenie,1–28.Florovskii,Georgii[Florovsky].Putirusskogobogosloviia.Paris:YMCAPress,1991.Fomina,E.F.,ed.ZachtoLevTolstoibylotluchenottserkvi.Moscow:Izdatel’stvoDar,2006.Franklin,JulianH.AnimalRightsandMoralPhilosophy.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2005.Galagan,Galina.L.N.Tolstoi:khudozhestvenno-eticheskieiskaniia.Leningrad:Nauka,1981.

259248BibliographyGauzner,M.LevNikolaevichTolstoiozemle.Petrograd:Kn-voM.A.Iasnogob.Popova,1917.Ginzburg,Lydia[Lidiia].OnPsychologicalProse.Trans.anded.JudsonRosengrant.ForewordbyEdwardJ.Brown.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1991.“OromaneTolstogo‘Voinaimir’.”Zvezda1(1944):125–38.Glebov,P.“ZapiskiPorfiriiaNikolaevichaGlebova.”Russkaiastarina3(1905):528–29.Gol’denveizer,A.B.TalkswithTolstoy.Trans.S.S.KotelianskyandVirginiaWoolf.London:TheHogarthPress,1923.VbliziTolstogo.Moscow:Goslitizdat,1959.Goubert,D.“DidTolstoyReadEastLynne?”SlavonicandEastEuropeanReview58,no.1(1980):22–39.Grossman,Leonid.“Stendal’iTolstoi.”Russkaiamysl’(June1916):32–51.Gudzii,N.K.“‘Vlast’t’my’.Istoriiapisaniia,pechataniiaipostanovkinastsene‘Vlastit’my’.”InL.N.Tolstoi:Polnoesobraniesochinenii.Vol.26(Moscow:Gos.izd-vo,1936).705–36.Guehenno,Jean.Jean-JacquesRousseau.Trans.JohnandDoreenWeightman.2vols.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul;NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1966.Gulak,A.T.“‘Raspuskaiushchiisia’:stilistiko-rechevyekraskiobrazaiunogovoinavrasskazakhL.Tolstogo50-khgg.”Russkiiiazykvshkole5(September2000):70–74.Gusev,N.N.Letopis’zhizniitvorchestvaL.N.Tolstogo.Moscow:Academia,1936.LevNikolaevichTolstoi:materialykbiografiis1870po1881god.Moscow:Izdatel’stvoAkademiinaukSSSR,1963.“Tolstoiirusskaiarevoliutsiia.Lektsiia.”GolosTolstogoiEdinenie2,no.8(1918):16.Gustafson,RichardF.LeoTolstoy.ResidentandStranger:AStudyinFictionandTheology.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1986.Harper,K.E.,andB.A.Booth.“RussianTranslationsofNineteenth-CenturyEnglishFiction.”Nineteenth-CenturyFiction8,no.3(1953):188–97.Hausherr,I.“L’originedelathéorieorientaledeshuitpéchéscapitaux.”OrientaliaChristiana30(1933):164–75.Hertz,N.TheEndoftheLine.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1985.Himmelfarb,Gertrude.TheDe-moralizationofSociety:FromVictorianVirtuestoModernValues.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1995.Iankovskii,I.ChelovekivoinavtvorchestveL.N.Tolstogo.Kiev:Vishchashkola,1978.Iaroshevskii,M.G.Istoriiapsikhologii.Moscow:Mysl’,1985.Iunge,E.F.“IzbesedTolstogosPolemDeruledom:NeizvestnyezapisiE.F.Iunge.”InI.I.Anisimovetal.,eds.,Literaturnoenasledstvo:Tolstoiizarubezhnyimir.KnigaPervaia.vol.75,no.1(Moscow:Nauka,1965):535–41.Jackson,R.L.“TheEthicsofVisionii:TheTolstoyanSynthesis.”InDialogueswithDostoevsky;TheOverwhelmingQuestions.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1993.55–74.

260Bibliography249“TheNightJourney,AnnaKarenina’sReturntoSaintPetersburg.”InLizaKnappandAmyMandelker,eds.,ApproachestoTeachingTolstoy’sAnnaKarenina.NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociationofAmerica,2003.150–60.Jahn,G.R.“TolstoiandKant.”InG.J.Gutsche,andL.G.Leighton,eds.,NewPerspectivesonNineteenth-CenturyProse.Columbus,OH:Slavica,1982.60–70.James,William.TheVarietiesofReligiousExperience:AStudyinHumanNature:BeingtheGiffordLecturesonNaturalReligionDeliveredatEdinburghin1901–1902[1902]Ed.MartinMarty.HarmondsworthandNewYork:Penguin,1982.JaussH.R.ÄsthetischeErfahrungundliterarischeHermeneutik.Munich:Fink,1977.Jefferson,Thomas.TheJeffersonBible:TheLifeandMoralsofJesusofNazareth.NewYork:Holt,1995.Jones,W.Gareth.“GeorgeEliot’sAdamBedeandTolstoy’sConceptionofAnnaKarenina.”InW.G.Jones,ed.,TolstoiandBritain.Oxford:Berg,1995.79–92.ed.TolstoiandBritain.Oxford:Berg,1995.“TolstoyStagedinParis,Berlin,andLondon.”InDonnaTussingOrwin,ed.,TheCambridgeCompaniontoTolstoy.CambridgeUniversityPress,2002.142–60.Joravsky,David.RussianPsychology:ACriticalHistory.Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1989.Kalinin,I.A.“Istoriiakakiskusstvochlenorazdel’nosti(istoricheskiiopytimetal-iteraturnaiapraktikarusskikhformalistov).”Novoeliteraturnoeobozrenie71,no.1(2005):103–31.“Vernut’:veshchi,plat’e,mebel’,zhenuistrakhvoiny.ViktorShklovskiimezhdurevoliutsionnymbytomiteorieiostraneniia.”WienerSlawistischerAlmanach62(2005):351–86.Kant,I.CritiqueofJudgment.Trans.W.S.Pluhar.Indianapolis,IN:HackettPublishingCompany,1987.Kantor,V.“LevTolstoi:iskushenieneistoriei:samyi,samyi,samyi,iliTolstoicontraGete.”Voprosyliteratury4(2000):120–81.Kavkazskii,A.“Desiataiagodovshchina.(1910–1920).”Kommunisticheskiitrud20(1920):1.Keep,JohnL.N.SoldiersoftheTsar:ArmyandSocietyinRussia,1462–1874.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1985.Kerr,Walter.TheShabuninAffair:AnEpisodeintheLifeofLeoTolstoy.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1982.Khomiakov,A.S.Sochineniiavdvukhtomakh.Tom2.Rabotypobogosloviiu.Moskovskiifilosofskiifond.Moscow:Izdatel’stvoMedium.Zhurnal“Voprosifilosofi,”1994,5,23.Kleman,M.K.,andN.P.Piksanov,eds.I.S.Turgenevvvospominaniiakhrevoliutsionerov-semidesiatnikov.Moscow:Academia,1930.Knapp,L.“‘Tue-la,Tue-la!’:DeathSentences,Words,andInnerMonologuesinTolstoy’sAnnaKareninaandThreeMoreDeaths.”TolstoyStudiesJournal11(1999):1–19.

261250BibliographyKnapp,L.,andMandelker,A.,eds.ApproachestoTeachingTolstoy’sAnnaKarenina.NewYork:TheModernLanguageAssociationofAmerica,2003.Knapp,S.“Tolstoj’sReadingsofGeorgeEliot:VisionsandRevisions.”SlavicandEastEuropeanJournal27,no.3(1983):318–26.Knizhnik,Ivan.“LevTolstoiiproletarskaiarevoliutsiia.(Kdesiatiletiiusodniaegosmerti).”PetrogradskaiaPravda(November20,1920):1.Kodjak,Andrej.“Tolstoy’sPersonalMythofImmortality.”InAndrejKodjak,KrystynaPomorskaandStephenRudy,eds.,MythinLiterature.Columbus,OH:Slavica,1985.188–207.Kolstø,Pål.“LevTolstoiandtheOrthodoxStaretsTradition.”Kritika:ExplorationsinRussianandEurasianHistory9,no.3(Summer2008):533–54.Krasnov,G.K.“FilosofiiaGerderavtvorchestveTolstogo.”InG.K.Krasnov,ed.,L.N.Tolstoi:Stat’iimaterialy.IV.UchenyeZapiskiGor’kovskogogosudarstven-nogouniversitetaim.N.I.Lobachevskogo.Gorky:Gor’kovskiigosudarstvennyiuniversitetimeniN.I.Lobachevskogo,1961.56:157–74.Kuzminskaia,T.A.Moiazhizn’domaivIasnoiPoliane,Vospominaniia.3rdedn.Tula:Tul’skoeknizhnoeizdatel’stvo,1958.Layton,Susan.RussianLiteratureandEmpire:TheConquestoftheCaucasusfromPushkintoTolstoy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994.Leighton,Laurence.“DenisDavydov’sHussarStyle.”SlavicandEastEuropeanJournal7(1963):349–60.Lenin,V.I.“LeftWing”Communism:AnInfantileDisorder.Detroit,MI:TheMarxianEducationalSociety,1921.“LeoTolstoyastheMirroroftheRussianRevolution.”InM.Solomon,ed.,MarxismandArt:EssaysClassicandContemporary.NewYork:WayneStateUniversityPress,1979.169–74.Leont’ev[Leontiev],K.“OromanakhL.N.Tolstogo:analiz,stil’,veianie:kriti-cheskiietiud.”Russkiivestnik6–8(1890):245–77,234–69,205–44.Leskov,N.S.Polnoesobraniesochineniiv30tomakh.Moscow:Terra,1996–.LomunovK.N.“Predislovie”(to“A.V.LunacharskiioTolstom.Neopublikovannaialektsiia1928g.”).InLevTolstoiv2-khknigakh.Ed.K.N.Lomunov.Moscow:Izd-voANSSSR,1961.403–5.Lönnqvist,B.“TheEnglishThemeinAnnaKarenina.”EssaysinPoetics:TheJournaloftheBritishNeo-FormalistCircle24(Autumn1999):58–90.Lovejoy,ArthurO.TheGreatChainofBeing:AStudyoftheHistoryofanIdea.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1936.Lunacharskii,A.V.TolstoiiMarks.Leningrad:Akademia,1924.Lyotard,J.-F.“AnsweringtheQuestion:WhatIsPostmodernism?”InT.Docherty,ed.,Postmodernism:AReader.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993.38–46.LessonsontheAnalyticoftheSublime.PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1994.Makarii(Bulgakov).Pravoslavno-dogmaticheskoebogoslovie.3rdedn.2vols.St.Petersburg:Tipografiia“A.Treia,”1868.Maklakov,B.A.Tolstoiibol’shevizm:Rech’.Paris:Knigaizdatel’stvoRusskaiazemlia,1921.

262Bibliography251Makovitskii,D.P.“UTolstogo:‘Iasnopolianskiezapiski’D.P.Makovitskogo.”InV.R.Shcherbinaetal.,eds.,Literaturnoenasledstvo90,no.1[1904–5].Moscow:Nauka,1979.Maloney,GeorgeA.,ed.NilSorskii:TheCompleteWritings.NewYorkandMahnah,NJ:PaulistPress,2003.Mandelker,Amy.FramingAnnaKarenina:Tolstoy,theWomanQuestion,andtheVictorianNovel.Columbus,OH:OhioStateUniversityPress,1993.“Tolstoy’sEucharisticAesthetics.”InAndrewDonskovandJohnWoodsworth,eds.,LevTolstoyandtheConceptofBrotherhood.NewYorkandOttawa:Legas,1996.116–27.Maude,Aylmer.LifeofTolstoy,LaterYears.NewYork:Dodd,MeadandCo.,1911.McLaughlinS.,“SomeAspectsofTolstoy’sIntellectualDevelopment:TolstoyandSchopenhauer.”CaliforniaSlavicStudies5(1970):187–248.McLean,Hugh.“ClawsontheBehind:TolstoyandDarwin.”InInQuestofTolstoy.Boston:AcademicStudiesPress,2008.159–80.Firstpubl.TolstoyStudiesJournal19(2007):15–32.“Rousseau’sGodandTolstoy’sGod.”InInQuestofTolstoy.Boston:AcademicStudiesPress,2008.143–58.Medzhibovskaya,Inessa.TolstoyandtheReligiousCultureofHisTime:ABiographyofaLongConversion,1845–1887.Lanham,MDandBoulder,CO:LexingtonBooks,2008.Melancon,Michael.“TheLeftSocialistRevolutionaries,1917–1918.”InEdwardActon,VladimirI.CherniaevandWilliamG.Rosenberg,eds.,CriticalCompaniontotheRussianRevolution,1914–1921.London:HodderArnold,1997.281–91.Meleshko,ElenaDmitrievna.KhristianskieetikiL.N.Tolstogo.Moscow:Nauka,2006.Merezhkovskii[Merezhkovski,Merezhkovsky],DmitriiSergeevich.L.TolstoiiDostoevskii.Ed.E.A.Andrushchenko.Moscow:Nauka,2000.“TolstoyandBolshevism.”TheLivingAge(May7,1921):331–37.Meyer,LeonardB.EmotionandMeaninginMusic.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1956.Monk,S.TheSublime:AStudyofCriticalTheoriesinEighteenth-CenturyEngland.1935.AnnArbor,MI:UniversityofMichiganPress,1960.Morrison,Simon.ThePeople’sArtist:Prokofiev’sSovietYears.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2008.Morson,Gary.“AnnaKarenina”inOurTime:SeeingMoreWisely.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2007.HiddeninPlainView:Narrative,andCreativePotentialsinWarandPeace.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1987.Morson,GarySaul,andCarylEmerson.MikhailBakhtin:CreationofaProsaics.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1990.TheMusorgskyReader:ALifeofModestePetrovichMusorgskyinLettersandDocuments.Ed.andtrans.JayLeydaandSergeiBertensson.NewYork:Norton,1947.

263252BibliographyTheNewYorkTimes.“KneeltoTolstoy’sPortrait:GreatCrowdofSoldiersandWorkersGreetHisWidowatHerHome.”TheNewYorkTimes(March27,1917):4.(RetrievedJuly18,2008,ProQuestHistoricalNewspapers,TheNewYorkTimes[1851–2004]database,StetsonUniversity.www.proquest.com/.)“NewForcesofDisintegrationinRussia:Syndicalism,MoreViolentthanBolshevism,ThreatensToThrustUnhappyNationintoNewChaosofLawlessness,SaysManuelKomroff,JustBackfromRussia.”TheNewYorkTimes(January19,1919):66–67.(RetrievedJuly16,2008,ProQuestHistoricalNewspapers,TheNewYorkTimes[1851–2004]database,StetsonUniversity.www.proquest.com/.)“TheRussianDanger.”TheNewYorkTimes(July27,1917):8.(RetrievedOctober3,2008,ProQuestHistoricalNewspapers,TheNewYorkTimes[1851–2005]database,StetsonUniversity.www.proquest.com/.)Nickell,WilliamScott.“Tolstoiin1928:IntheMirroroftheRevolution.”InKevinM.F.PlattandDavisBrandenberger,eds.,EpicRevisionism:RussianHistoryandLiteratureasStalinistPropaganda.Madison,WI:UniversityofWisconsinPress,2006.17–38.“TolstoyinthePublicDomain:HisDeathasaNationalNarrative.”PhDdissertation,UCLAatBerkeley,1998.AnnArbor:UMI,1998.9902182.DissertationAbstractsInternational,SectionA:TheHumanitiesandSocialSciences,vol.59,no.8,3017–18,February1999.Nussbaum,Martha.“Beyond‘CompassionandHumanity’:JusticeforNonhumanAnimals.”InCassR.SunsteinandMarthaNussbaum,eds.,AnimalRights:CurrentDebatesandNewDirections.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2004.299–320.Nuralova,S.“MissisGenriVudiLevTolstoi(Zaiavkatemy).”StudiaLitterariaPolono-Slavica5(2000):187–90.Orwin,DonnaTussing.ConsequencesofConsciousness:Turgenev,Dostoevsky,andTolstoy.PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,2007.“‘Mirkaktseloe’N.Strakhova:nedostaiushcheezvenomezhduTolstymiDostoevskim.”Tolstoi.Novyivek.Zhurnalrazmyshlenii2(2006):197–221.“Strakhov’sWorldasaWhole:AMissingLinkbetweenDostoevskyandTolstoy.”InCatherineO’Neil,etal,eds.,Poetics.Self.Place:EssaysinHonorofAnnaLisaCrone.Bloomington,IN:Slavica,2007.473–93.ed.TheCambridgeCompaniontoTolstoy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002.“TolstoyandCourage.”InDonnaTussingOrwin,ed.,TheCambridgeCompaniontoTolstoy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002.222–36.Tolstoy’sArtandThought,1847–1880.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993.Osterman,LevAbramovich.SrazheniezaTolstogo.Moscow:Grant,2002.Paliukh,Z.G.,andA.V.Prokhorova,eds.LevTolstoiimuzyka:khronika,notog-rafiia,bibliografiia.Moscow:Sovetskiikompozitor,1977.Paperno,Irina.“‘Who,WhatIsI?’:TolstoyinHisDiaries.”TolstoyStudiesJournal11(1999):32–54.

264Bibliography253Parthé,K.,“DeathMasksinTolstoi.”SlavicReview41,no.2(1982):297–305.Pascal,Blaise.Pensées.Trans.A.J.Krailsheimer.Harmondsworth:Penguin,1966.Phegley,J.“DomesticatingtheSensationNovelist:EllenPriceWoodasAuthorandEditoroftheArgosyMagazine.”VictorianPeriodicalsReview38,no.2(2005):180–98.N.D.Pokrovskaia(Khaimovich).L.N.Tolstoi:BibliografiiaproizvedeniiL.Tolstogoiliteraturyonem.1917–1927.Ed.N.K.Piksanov.InN.N.GusevandV.G.Chertkov,eds.,TolstoiioTolstom.Novyematerialy.Sbornik4.Moscow:IzdanieTolstovskogoMuzeia,1928.19–199.Polonskii,L.“OcherkiangliiskogoobshchestvavromanakhA.Trollopa.”VestnikEvropy8(1870):613–75;10(1870):667–716.“ZhenskietipyvromanakhA.Trollopa.”VestnikEvropy8(1871):513–68.Polosina,Alla.“L.N.TolstoiiAvreliiAvgustinopamiati,vremeniipron-stranstve.”InGalinaAlekseeva,ed.,LevTolstoiimirovaialiteratura.Tula:IasnaiaPoliana,2005.65–76.Popovskii,MarkAleksandrovich.Russkiemuzhikirasskazyvaiut:posledovateliL.N.TolstogovSovetskomSoiuze,1918–1977.London:OverseasPublicationsExchange,1983.Powelstock,David.BecomingMikhailLermontov:TheIroniesofRomanticIndividualisminNicholasI’sRussia.Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,2005.Rancour-Laferriere,Daniel.Tolstoy’sPierreBezukhov:APsychoanalyticStudy.London:BristolClassicalPress,1993.Reyfman,I.RitualizedViolenceRussianStyle:TheDuelinRussianCultureandLiterature.Stanford,CA.:StanfordUniversityPress,1999.“Turgenev’s‘Death’andTolstoy’s‘ThreeDeaths’.”InLazarFleishman,GabriellaSafranandMichaelWachtel,eds.,Word,Music,History:AFestschriftforCarylEmerson.StanfordSlavicStudies29/30(2005),pt.1:312–26.RitterJ.“Landschaft:ZurFunktiondesÄsthetischenindermodernenGesellschaft.”InRitter,Subjektivität.Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp,1974.141–63.Rose,Seraphim.TheSoulafterDeath:Contemporary“After-Death”ExperiencesintheLightoftheOrthodoxTeachingsontheAfterlife.Platina,CA:S.HermanofAlaskaBrotherhood,1994.Rosen,Margo.“NatashaRostovaatMeyerbeer’sRobertleDiable.”TolstoyStudiesJournal17(2005):71–90.Rousseau,Jean-Jacques.Émile.Œuvrescomplètes.Vol.4.Paris:Pléiade,1959.Rozanov,VasiliiVasil’evich.Okolotserkovnykhsten:Sobraniesochinenii.Ed.A.N.Nikoliukin.Moscow:Respublika,1995.Saburov,A.A.“Obrazrusskogovoinav‘Voineimire’.”InD.D.Blagoi,ed.,L.N.Tolstoi:sbornikstat’eiimaterialov.Moscow:Izdatel’stvoAkademiinaukSSSR,1951.390–424.Sacks,Oliver.Musicophilia:TalesofMusicandtheBrain.NewYork:Knopf,2007.

265254BibliographySand,George.Consuelo.Tometroisième,nouvelleédition.Paris:MichelleLévyFrères,1857.Consuelo.Trans.FayetteRobinson.NewYork:StringerandTownsend,1851.Sanders,Thomas,ErnestTuckerandGaryHamburg,eds.Russian–MuslimConfrontationintheCaucasus,1829–1859.LondonandNewYork:RoutledgeandCurzon,2004.Sankovitch,Natasha.CreatingandRecoveringExperience:RepetitioninTolstoy.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1998.Scanlan,JamesP.“TolstoyamongthePhilosophers:HisBookOnLifeandItsCriticalReception.”TolstoyStudiesJournal18(2006):52–69.SchönleA.“Modernityasa‘DestroyedAnthill’:TolstoionHistoryandtheAestheticsofRuins.”InJ.HellandA.Schönle,eds.,RuinsofModernity.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.Inpress.Schopenhauer,A.TheWorldasWillandIdea.Trans.R.B.Haldane,andJ.Kemp.Vol.3.London:Trübner,1886.TheWorldasWillandRepresentation.Trans.E.F.J.Payne.2vols.NewYork:DoverPublications,1969.Sergeenko,P.A.KakzhivetirabotaetL.N.Tolstoi.Moscow,1908.“Tantseval’naiamuzyka.”InL.N.Tolstoivvospominaniakhsovremennikov.Vol.2.Moscow:GoslzdKhudLit,1960.219–21.Slovar’sovremennogorusskogoliteraturnogoiazyka.Ed.V.Chernyshev.Vol.6.MoscowandLeningrad,1957.Shanskii,N.M.,andA.F.Zhuravlev,eds.Etimologicheskiislovar’russkogoiazyka.Multivolume.Moscow:Izdatel’stvoMoskovskogouniversiteta,1963–.Sharp,Lynn.SecularSpirituality:ReincarnationandSpiritisminNineteenth-CenturyFrance.Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,2006.Shestov,L.DostoevskiiiNitshe,Sochineniiavdvukhtomakh.Vol.1.Tomsk:Vodolei,1996.“DostoevskiiiNitshe.”InFilosofiiatragedii.Moscow:Folio,2001.135–316.Shimkevich,V.“N.P.VagneriN.N.Polezhaev.(Izvospominaniizoologa).”ZhurnalMinisterstvaNarodnogoProsveshcheniia16,no.7(1908):1–18.Shklovsky,Viktor.LevTolstoy.Trans.OlgaShartze.Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1978.“ArtasTechnique.”InLeeT.LemonandMarionJ.Reis,eds.,RussianFormalistCriticism:FourEssays.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress,1965.12.“Ostaroirusskoivoennoiiosovetskoioboronnoiproze.”Znamia1(1936):218–27.Simmons,ErnestJ.LeoTolstoy.2vols.NewYork:VintageBooks,1960.LeoTolstoy.Speciallimitededition.Boston:Little,BrownandCompany,1946.Singer,Peter.AnimalLiberation.NewYork:HarperCollins,2002.Sloane,David.“AnnaReadingandWomenReading.”InLizaKnappandAmyMandelker,eds.,ApproachestoTeachingTolstoy’sAnnaKarenina.NewYork:ModernLanguageAssociationofAmerica,2003.124–30.Solignac,Aimé.“Péchéscapitaux.”InDictionnairedespiritualité.Vol.xii,pt.1.Paris:Beauchesne,1984.853–62.

266Bibliography255Solov’ev,VladimirSergeevich.SobraniesochineniiV.Solov’eva:fototipicheskoeizdanie.Brussels:FoyerOrientalChrétien,1966.Stadt,Jannekevande.“L.N.Tolstoiimuzyka(izarkhivaN.N.Guseva).”InIasnopolianskiisbornik.Tula:Priokskoeknizhnoeizdatel’stvo,1986.167–76.“Narrative,Music,andPerformance:Tolstoy’sKreutzerSonataandtheExampleofBeethoven.”TolstoyStudiesJournal12(2000):57–70.Steiner,George.TolstoyorDostoevsky:AnEssayintheOldCriticism.NewYork:Knopf,1959.Strakhov,N.N.“Voinaimir.SochineniegrafaL.N.Tolstogo.Tomyvivi.”InI.N.Sukhikh,ed.,RomanL.N.Tolstogo‘Voinaimir’vrusskoikritike.Leningrad:LGU,1980.257–84.SeealsoTolstoi,L.N.Strunsky,Rose,ed.TheJournalofLeoTolstoi:FirstVolume–1895–1899.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,1917.Struve,Gleb.“TolstoyinSovietCriticism.”RussianReview19,no.2(1960):171–86Sutherland,John.TheStanfordCompaniontoVictorianFiction.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1999.Swift,Johathan.Gulliver’sTravels.NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary,1960.Tal’,N.A.“Angliiskiesemeinyekhroniki.”VestnikEvropy3(1871):306–30.Tiunkin,KonstantinIvanovich,ed.PerepiskaI.S.Turgenevavdvukhtomakh.Vol.i.Moscow:Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,1986.Tkachev,P.N.“TkachovAttacksTolstoy’sAristocratism:1875.”InA.V.Knowles,ed.andtrans.,Tolstoy:TheCriticalHeritage.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1978.250–61.Todd,W.B.,andA.Bowden.TauchnitzInternationalEditionsinEnglish1841–1955:ABibliographicalHistory.NewYork:BibliographicalSocietyofAmerica,1988.Todd,WilliamMillsIII.“TheResponsibilitiesof(Co-)Authorship:NotesonRevisingtheSerializedVersionofAnnaKarenina.”InElizabethChereshAllenandGarySaulMorson,eds.,FreedomandResponsibilityinRussianLiterature:EssaysinHonorofRobertLouisJackson.Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress;NewHaven,CT:YaleCenterforInternationalandAreaStudies,1995.159–69.Tolstaia,S.A.Dnevniki.Moscow:Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,1978.Tolstoi,A.,gr[af].“Dvenadtsatogomarta.”Russkiievedomosti61(March17,1917):[un-numbered].Tolstoi[Tolstoy],L.N.Tolstoy’sDiaries.Ed.andtrans.R.F.Christian.2vols.London:Athlone,1985.473.“‘Iskaniiaistinnoivery’.”Ed.T.G.Nikiforova.InI.Borisova,ed.,NeizvestnyiTolstoivarkhivakhRossiiiSShA.Moscow:AO-Tekhna-2,1994.122–30.L.N.TolstoiiN.N.Strakhov:Polnoesobranieperepiski.2vols.Ed.andintro.AndrewDonskov;comp.L.D.GromovaandT.G.Nikiforova.OttawaandMoscow:SlavicResearchGroupattheUniversityofOttawaandtheStateL.N.TolstoyMuseum,2003.

267256BibliographyPerepiskaL.N.Tolstogosgr.A.A.Tolstoi1857–1903.St.Petersburg:Tolstovskiimuzei,1911.PerepiskaL.N.Tolstogossestramiibrat’iami.Moscow:Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,1990.Polnoesobraniesochinenii[PSS].90vols.Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,”1928–58.Polnoesobraniesochineniivstatomakh.Moscow:Nauka,2000–.Tolstoi,S.L.Ocherkibylogo.Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvo“Khudozhestvennaialiteratura,”1956.Townsend,CharlesE.RussianWord-Formation.NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1968.Tregubov,Ivan1920.“Tolstoi-kommunist.”IzvestiiaVTsIK(November24,1920):1.Trollope,A.TheBertrams.NewYork:HarperandBrothers,1859.Tsiavlovskii,M.“LevTolstoinavoine.”Literaturnaiagazeta(November17,1940).Tumanov,Alexander.TheLifeandArtistryofMariaOlenina-d’Alheim.Trans.ChristopherBarnes.Edmonton:UniversityofAlbertaPress,2000.Turner,C.J.G.AKareninaCompanion.Waterloo,Ontario:WilfridLaurierUniversityPress,1993.Underwood,Ted.“HistoricalDifferenceasImmortalityintheMid-Nineteenth-CenturyNovel.”ModernLanguageQuarterly63,no.4(2002):441–69.Unsigned.“InteresynaukiiliteraturynaZapade.”Otechestvennyezapiski167,nos.7–8(1866):25–29.“Inostrannaialiteratura.”Otechestvennyezapiski147,nos.3–4(1863):99–105.“Inostrannaialiteraturnaialetopis’.”Otechestvennyezapiski152,nos.1–2(1864):245–79.“Obzorinostrannoiliteraturyiii.”Otechestvennyezapiski134,nos.1–2(1861):56–61.“TolstoyastheGreatPatriarchoftheBolshevikiFamily.”CurrentOpinion(January1919):49–50.Ushakov,D.,ed.Tolkovyislovar’russkogoiazyka,ed.D.Ushakov.4vols.Moscow:Gosudarstvennoeizdatel’stvoinostrannykhinatsional’nykhslo-varei,1938.Volokhov,Mark“VserossiiskiiTolstoi.(K10-letiiusodniaegosmerti).”Gudok(November20,1920):1.vonMücke,Dorothea.“Profession/Confession.”NewLiteraryHistory34,no.2(Spring2003):257–74.Walicki,Andrzej.AHistoryofRussianThoughtfromtheEnlightenmenttoMarxism.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1979.Ward,Charles.“HowtoSingTolstoy/TolstoyTransformed.”HoustonChronicle(Sunday,April18,1999),1,9.Weintraub,KarlJoachim.TheValueoftheIndividual:SelfandCircumstanceinAutobiography.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1978.Weiskel,T.TheRomanticSublime:StudiesintheStructureandPsychologyofTranscendence.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1976.Wilson,A.N.Tolstoy:ABiography.NewYork:W.W.Norton,1988.

268Bibliography257Wittgenstein,Ludwig.TractatusLogico-Philosophicus.Trans.D.F.PearsandB.F.McGuiness.London:Routledge,1961.Wolff,R.L.SensationalVictorian:TheLifeandFictionofMaryElizabethBraddon.NewYorkandLondon:GarlandPublishing,1979.Wood,Mrs.H.TheShadowofAshlydyat.London:RichardBentley,1863.WithintheMaze.London:MacmillanandCo.,1904.Zenkovskii,V.V.Istoriiarusskoifilosofii.1948.Leningrad:Ego,1991.Zhiliakova,E.M.“DenisDavydovipovest’L.N.TolstogoDvagusara.”InA.S.Ianushkevich,ed.,Russkaiapovest’kakformavremeni.Tomsk:Izd.Tomskogoun-ta,2002.216–26.Zimmer,Carl.“FromAntstoPeople,AnInstincttoSwarm.”NewYorkTimes(November13,2007):D1.Zverev,Aleksei,andVladimirTunimanov.LevTolstoi.Moscow:Molodaiagvardiia,2006.

269IndexAchilles,91“AntBrotherhood”(Muraveinyebraty).SeeunderAddams,Jane,1Tolstoy,N.N.adultery,161,189aphorism,202,203,209.Seealsoproverb;Aesop,204quotation;saying;wisdomaesthetics,35,108,116,185,189,192,194,231;Apostolov,N.93aestheticism,240;consciousness,aesthetic,35;Ariès,Philippe,TheHourofOurEuropean,23;experience,aesthetic,35;goals,Death,33aesthetic,186;Schopenhauer’s,36;Tolstoy’s,Aristotle,2032–3,4,17,26,34,57,59.Seealsodeath;Armand,I.F.,222Schopenhauerarmy,16,77,87;French,26,74;Russian,65;Aksakov,A.N.,128,134Tsarist,92Aksakov,I.S.,114,119art,5,17,52,60–1,103,108,186,187,192,206,239;Aksakov,K.S.,132asan“infection,”2,9,14,16–18,19,20,23,28,AlexanderI,Tsar,89,94,20162,74;authentic,17;Bolsheviks’policieson,AlexanderIII,Tsar,185237;forart’ssake,59;musical,8,13,18,24;Alter,Robert,205Tolstoyon,2,9,10,12,14,59,231;Tolstoy’s,amour-propre.Seeundervanity3–4,62,142,201,239,243.Seealsoaesthetics;Amvrosii.SeeunderOptinaPustyn’Bolsheviks;musicanalysis,psychological,72,123,183,188,192;Asia,238Tolstoy’spsychologism,120,122,124Assembly,Constituent(Uchreditel’noeSobranie),anarchism,“Christian,”Tolstoy’s,2,5,150,157,the,226,227,241233;Tolstoy’srejectionoftheexistingsocialAstapovo,1orderandculture,145–6,150,222,226–7,Augustine,108,116,118,139230,233,234,236.SeealsoBolshevism;Christianity;patriotism;religion;revolution;Bakhtin,M.M.,114,202,217war;womenBalakirev,M.A.,“KingLearontheHeath”Andrei,Prince.SeeBolkonsky.(Korol’LirvStepi),20anger,41,44,53;asapleasure,88;fury,85,88;joyBallou,Adin,149of,3;justifiable,86;inovercomingfear,86;inBalzac,H.de,122,135WarandPeace,86;rage,10,86–8,91;zloba,Barthelme,D.,219,23085–6,87.Seealsorevenge;sin.Bartlett’sFamiliarQuotations,199animal,3,6,61,73,74,136,174;“capabilitiesbattle,55,63,78,81,85,86;Austerlitz,16;approach,”53;Frencharmyasan,57,65,74;Borodino,13,83,84,85,86,87;chanceandlossHouyhnhnms,68;humanbeingas,3,8,64,68,ofcontrolin,83–4;Inkerman,94;Jena84;70,86,87,194,221;inTolstoy’sfiction,52,54,killingin,86;merrimentin,87;soldierin,87;55,56,57,62–6,68,69,71–3;invariousRussianSchöngraben,128;Rostovin,63;Tolstoy’sfirst,writers,72;kingdom,52,58,70,71;92;Waterloo,82.SeealsoBolkonsky;courage;liberationists,54;PlatonKarataev’sdog,132,death;soldier;war136,137;reasonin,54;respectfor,53;rightsof,Bayreuth,2152,53,73;sufferingof,56;violencetoward,55,Beethoven,Ludwigvan,11–13,16–19,56.SeealsoSwift;Tolstoy(works):“Strider”23,59258

270Index259behavior,160,177,187,192;self-defeating,193;178,180;LadyAudley’sSecret,162,168,178;social,220;violent,183,188,189,190.SeealsoOnlyaClod,170,178,180;TheDoctor’sWife,violence170;TheLady’sMile,170,178Bekoff,Mark,53Brahms,Johannes,206Bentham,Jeremy,IntroductiontothePrinciplesofbratstvo.SeebrotherhoodMoralandLegislation,52Braudy,Leo,220Berdiaev,N.A.,“SpiritsoftheRussianbrotherhood(bratstvo),229;cooperation,social,234Revolution”(Dukhirusskoirevoliutsii),242Brotherhood(Bratstvo)232Berlin,185Broughton,Rhoda,181;TalesforChristmasEve,Berlin,Isaiah,TheHedgehogandtheFox,5,72181Berlioz,H.,22Browne,MichaelDennis,27Bers,S.A.,11Bucharest,79,93Bertenson,L.B.,12Buckle,H.,134Bertenson,S.L.,12Buddha,127,133,200Bervi,V.V.SeeFlerovskiiBulgakov,V.F.,179,180,232Bestuzhev-Marlinsky,A.A.,AmmalatBek,80Bulgarin,F.V.,81–2,93Bezukhov,Pierre,4,46,52,64,128,182;andBulwer-Lytton,E.,135,172Hélène,88,142,193;andHerder,74,130;andBunakov,I.I.,230Schopenhauer,45;atBorodino,83,86;Burke,Edmund,36captivity,23,46,130;inProkofiev’sopera,25,Burnouf,Émile,10526.SeealsoBezukhova;Bolkonsky;Herder;Butlerov,A.M.,134Rostova;Schopenhauer;Tolstoy(works):WarByliny,172andPeaceByron,GeorgeGordon,DonJuan,203Bezukhova,Hélène,88,142,193;inProkofiev’sopera,26.SeealsoBezukhov;Tolstoy(works):Canada,229WarandPeacecapitalpunishment,abolition,237Biriukoff,Paul.SeeBiriukovcapitalism,230,239Biriukov,P.,196,229,232.SeealsoChertkov;Carden,Patricia,136,187,197TolstoyismCarlyle,T.,238Blackwood’sEdinburghMagazine,167Carruthers,Peter,53Blavatsky,Madame,125,135Cassian,153Blumberg,E.J.,167CatherinetheGreat,Instructions(Nakaz),200Boileau,Nicolas,35Caucasus,37,76,79,80,82,84,139.SeealsounderBolkonsky,Andrei,Prince,41,43,64,69,90,91,war127,128,130,131,134,202,203;andChaliapin,F.,12,30freemasonry,64;andHerder,74;andCharlesXII(ofSweden),83,94Schopenhauer,45,135;asawarrior,86–7,91;atChekhov,A.P.,69,72Austerlitz,37,38,43,45.Seealsobattle;Chelcicky,Peter,149Bezukhov;death;Tolstoy(works):WarandChernyshevsky,N.G.,212;WhatIsToBeDone?Peace(Chtodelat’?),186,212Bolsheviks,1,228,229,230–4,238;as“littleChertkov,V.G.,13,227–9,232,242;“SaveTolstoys,”235;attitudetowardTolstoy,1,219,Russia,”228–9,232231,234–5,240;gainingpower,224,227,241;Chicago,1policyonartandeducation,237;power,Soviet,childhood,57,190232,233,235,237;Tolstoyansand,222,228,Chopin,F.,9,10,12,13239,242.SeealsoRevolution;RussiaChristian,R.F.,196;Tolstoy:ACriticalBolshevism.SeeBolsheviksIntroduction,181Bonch-Bruevich,V.D.,222Christianity,138,148,155,156;Bible,166,boredom,190,191203–5,206,211;Christ’steaching,233;code,Borodino.Seeunderbattleethical,Christian,4;Ecclesiastes,203,205;Boyer,Paul,82,93Gnostics,Christian,149;Gospel,28,109,119,Braddon,[Maxwell],MaryElizabeth,4,161–63,149,200,211;JesusChrist,140,143,144,146–7,180,181;AuroraFloyd,168–9,178,180;Fenton’s149,199,207,211,218,233,238;“JesusQuest,170,178;InGreatWaters,andOtherSeminar,”149;KingdomofHeaven,207;Tales,180;JohnMarchmont’sLegacy,161,169,love,Christian,210;OldTestament,238;

271260IndexProverbs,199,203–4,205,206,208,211;PetyaRostov,23,127;ofPlatonKarataev,85,Psalms,203,204,205;salvation,26,104,107;136;ofPrinceAndreiBolkonsky,4,23,41,44,SermonontheMount,140,147,149,192,206,47,50,120,121,124–5,131,132;ofPushkin,42;207;Scriptures,149;Tolstoy’srejectionofofStrider,69;ofTolstoy,1,138,222,234;realityofficial,146,150,222.Seealsoanarchism;of,40,144;tenthanniversaryofTolstoy’sdeathOptinaPustyn’;religion(1920),224,229,232,235,236;“useless,”84;Chulkov,M.D.,81violent,85,184,185,193.SeealsoChristianity;ClementofAlexandria,148;Stromata,148immortality;religion;Schopenhauer;Cleopatra,206ZhukovskyCOBA.SeeunderTauchnitzdefamiliarization(ostranenie),34,42,48,67,69,Coetzee,J.M.54,55;TheLivesofAnimals,3192,212.SeealsoShklovskyColeridge,S.J.,70Denisov,Vasilii,79,82,86,87,89.SeealsoCollins,Wilkie,168,181Tolstoy(works):WarandPeaceCommissariatofEducation,230,238Denner,MichaelJ.,1CommunistLabour,236;“LeoTolstoy.TenthDéroulède,Paul,93Anniversary,1910–1920,”236Derzhavin,G.R.,“OntheDeathofPrinceComte,August,127Meshchersky,”120Confucius,203–4,205Descartes,R.,100conscience,5,6,159,187,190,191–3,195,213,239.desire,24,38,59,62,70,79,140,152,171;andSeealsoreasoncreativity,18;asafreechoice,66;forconsciousness,124,130,140,142,191,194,197,198.destruction,231;forglory,91;forjustice,207,Seealsounderself208;forvengeance,87;sexual,38,152,193;Copernicus,35,123,131,132uncontrollable,71.Seealsopassion;sex;sin;courage,19,78,79.Seealsobattle;danger;hunt;virtuemolodechestvo;wardespair,104,106,187,195,212;crisis,existential,Craik,Dinah,182188;moral,184.SeealsohopeCrossan,JohnDominic,149Dickens,Charles,122,126,161,162,167,181;Cruise,Edwina,4DombeyandSon,124,125,175;TheOldCurrentOpinion,230CuriosityShop,175;Tolstoyon,172CyprianofCarthage,148DiogenesLaertius,199Dobrotoliubie,153.SeealsoPhilokaliadanger,81,90,171.Seealsobattle;courage;hunt;Dolly.SeeOblonskaia.molodechestvo;soldier;warDolokhov,14,16,81,85,86,89,95,142.SeealsoDante,Alighieri,Inferno,154;Purgatory,158Tolstoy(works):WarandPeaceDargomyzhsky,A.S.,Rusalka,11Donskov,Andrew,97,189,195,196daring(udal’stvo).SeemolodechestvoDostoevsky,F.M.,64,72,93,96;“AGentleDarwin,C.,andDarwinism,121,134,137,222Creature,”68;CrimeandPunishment,72,195;Davydov,D.V.,81,82,83,84,87–8,91,93,94“DreamofaRidiculousMan,”68;NotesfromDavydov,N.V.,185Underground,72;onTolstoy,74;TheBrothersdeath,2,33–48,49,50,52,72,98,99,121,125,127,Karamazov,72,125;TheIdiot,72;theGrand128,132,133,136,160,166,175,182,190,197,Inquisitor,218;ThePossessed,72205,209,213,215;acceptanceof,50;aestheticDrake,D.,235;“LightfromTolstoyonof,33,40;anditscontiguitywithlife,69;asanRussia,”235awakening,127,202;“beautiful,”125,126,135;drama,4,5,183–4,186,188,burdenoflife,69;conscious,175;“dirty,”125,192,194135;experienceof,34,42,45,47,69;facing,87,Dubois-Raimond,E.,inTolstoy’s215;fearof,37,46,47,77;griefover,70;heroic,“Interlocutors,”10586;inBalzac,135;inbattle,76,83,85,90,91;inDukhobors,230Dostoevsky,125;intheVictoriannovel,175;Duma,Russian,230,242meaningof,97,101,138;mortality,8,214,215;duty,84,171ofAnnaKarenina,40,41,47;ofelderBezukhov’s,135,142;ofHadjiMurat,48;ofedinenie.SeeunityIvanIlychGolovin,41;ofmotherinEgypt,203,204Childhood,2,33,34,37,38,40,42,57;ofEikhenbaum,B.,75,88,126,161,164;TheYoungNikolaiLevin,39,69;ofNikolaiTolstoy,50;ofTolstoi,201;Tolstoyinthe1860s,75,120

272Index261Eliot,George,[MaryAnnEvans],4,161–62,166–68,freedom,80,171;andnecessity,66;fromfear,88;181,182;AdamBede,161,162,165,167,178;lawless,88;sexual,191.Seealsofear;sexDanielDeronda,135,167;FelixHolt,178;Freud,S.,151Middlemarch,167,168,176,178;Romola,161,Funk,Robert,149167,176,178;ScenesofClericalLife,166,167;future,211,214,239.Seealsopast“SillyNovelsbyLadyNovelists,”166;TheMillontheFloss,167,178,201Galicia,226Elvin,Malcolm,175Gandhi,Mahatma,1,238Emerson,Caryl,2,6Garrison,Lloyd,149endomythium,204.Seealsoepimythium;Gautier,T.,Spirite,135promythiumGauzner,M.227,241;“L.N.TolstoyandtheEngels,F.,233Land,”226England,159,170,178,242GazettedeLausanne,226Enlightenment,116;Russianeighteenth-century,GenghisKhan,88,946;spiritual,222George,Henry,226envy,18,44,165.SeealsosinGermany,92,239Epictetus,200Ginzburg,Lydia,126epimythium,204.Seealsoendomythium;glory,78,83,86,90,91promythiumGogol,N.M.,25,36,72;DeadSouls,72;“Diaryofequality,233aMadman,”72;TarasBulba,81Erasmus,203;Adagia,199Gol’denveizer,A.,9,10,12Ergol’skaia,Tatiana,187GolosTolstogo.SeeTheVoiceofTolstoyEurope,185,195,230,238Goncharov,I.A.,122EuropeanHerald.SeeHeraldofEuropegood,6,109,112,208;goodness,44,47,79;Evagrius,153,158personalmoral,improvement221;repentance,Evans,MaryAnn.SeeEliot184,185;sacrifice,212;sincerity,234.Seealsoevil,5,14,69,101,109,112,140,151,153,154,195,evil;Rousseau;virtue197,205,208,233;crime,190;evildeed,193;evilGorky,M.,54,236thought,193;justificationfor,233;malice,206;GregorytheGreat(Pope),154murder,10,190.Seealsogood;passion;sin;Grigorovich,D.V.,156violenceGrossman,L.,92experience(opyt),61,78,100,105Gudok.SeeWhistleguilt,38,41,42,184family,171,174;bigamy,161,170;infidelity,184,Gulliver’sTravels.SeeunderSwift192;marriage,164,165,171Gusev,N.N.,232,234,242;“TolstoyandtheFatherlandNotes(Otechectvennyezapiski),159,161,RussianRevolution,”234162,168,170Gustafson,Richard,14,142,198fear,44,53,85,189,192,214;“desperation”(otchaianie),93;doubt,40,69,120,195,205,Hamburg,G.M.,4214;fearlessness,81;overcomingof,86,88;harmony,16,23,58,98,99;musical,8,23;uncertainty,109,116,213,214,216.Seealsomutual,227battle;courage;death;soldierHarvardUniversity,95Fet,A.A.,36,50,51,105hatred,80,87,228,233Fichte,J.,100Haydn,Joseph,12Field,John,PianoConcertoNo.ii,59Hegel,G.W.F.,100–1,122Filaret,Metropolitan,Catechism,117Heraclitus,200,203Flaubert,Gustave,MadameBovary,135,170HeraldofEurope(VestnikEvropy),Flerovskii,N.(V.V.Bervi,S.Navalin),128,16487,94HeraldofKnowledge(Vestnikznania),222Florovsky,George,121Herder,J.,4,127,128,132,136;inWarandPeace,folly,205.Seealsomadness74,129,130;theoryofmetempsychosis,126,forgiveness,174,207–8132;Tolstoyand,130,136Franklin,Benjamin,27,205;PoorRichardHerzen,A.I.,122;WhoIsToBlame?(KtoAlmanack,201vinovat?),212Franklin,JulianH.,53,73Holmes,OliverWendell,89

273262IndexHomer,TheIliad,170,172;Odysseus,91;Theproverbialspeech,201.Seealsoanimal;death;Odyssey,170,172Tolstoy(works):WarandPeacehope,214.SeealsodespairKardec,122,125,132;BookofSpirits,134HouseofHopePresbyterianChurch,27Karenin,174,177.SeealsoTolstoy(works):AnnaHugo,Victor,122,172;LesMisérables,172KareninaHume,J.,97Karenina,Anna,22,47,57,71,159–61,171,173–7,hunt,3,63,78,80,88,90;asmetaphor,64,65;188;Englishnovel,Anna’s,4,159–61,162,163,crueltyof,87;Irtenev,57,58,59–61,73;Nikolai166,171,173,174,176,178;portraitbyVronsky,Rostov,62,63,64.Seealsodanger;74.Seealsodeath;family;passion;sex;sin;molodechestvosuicide;Tolstoy(works):AnnaKareninaKavanagh,Julia,165,180Ianovskii,I.,91KazanUniversity,200IasnaiaPoliana,10,11,12,13,20,116,168,184,225,Keene(NewHampshire),95232;Strakhovat,97,101,111,113,116;Tolstoy’sKhaimovich.SeePokrovskaialibraryin,163,169,170,176,178–9,180,181,Khomiakov,A.,105,157;TheChurchIsOne,148182;Zakazforest,225Kitty.SeeLevinaidleness,14,151,153Knapp,S.,168imagination(voobrazhenie),2,8,18,35,36,37,77,Knizhnik,I.,236,237187,196;“sympathetic,”55knowledge,62,67,99,100,105,189,201,205;immortality,4,121,127,142;after-life,120,175;ignorance,189ofthesoul,55,98,136;reincarnation,126,135;Kodjak,Andrei,40“Tolstoy’spersonalmythof,”40.SeealsoKoloskov,Efrem,185deathKommunisticheskiitrud.SeeCommunistLabourIndia,1,238Kozlov,A.A.,127InstructionsofAmem-em-ope,The,204Krupskaia,N.K.,222Irtenev,Nikolai(Nikolenka),33–4,39,57,58,59,Kuprin,A.,TheDuel,93187,189,190,194;andmusic,16;painting,57,Kutuzov,M.I.,26,6560,61,74.Seealsounderdeath;hunt;music;Kuzminskaia,T.A.,168.SeealsoRostovaself;Tolstoy(works):Childhood,BoyhoodIstinnaiaSvoboda.SeeTrueFreedomLaBruyère,J.,“SelectedThoughtsof,”201Iunge,E.F.,93LaRochefoucauld,F.,200,202,205;“SelectedIzvestia,229AphorismsandMaximsof”201Lactantius,L.,Demortibuspersecutorum,148Jackson,RobertLouis,159LakeLucerne,27James,Henry,161Lancaster,Thomas,32James,William,142;TheVarietiesofReligiousLaoTzu,200,201,202,205Experience,139,155Layton,Susan,93Jefferson,Thomas,149Lean,Florence,182Job,Bookof,203,208Leipzig,163,178,179Johnson,Samuel,Rasselas(TheHistoryofRasselas,Lenin,V.I.,222,230,231,235,243;“LeoTolstoyPrinceofAbissinia),203astheMirroroftheRussianRevolution,”222Jones,W.Gareth,185Leningrad.SeeStPetersburgjoy,53,208,210.SeealsoangerLentovsky,M.V.,185justice,205,208,216,217;God’s,207;injustice,91Leontiev,Konstantin,121Lermontov,M.I.,80,88,93;Ismail-Bei,80Kadetparty,242Leroux,Pierre,128,133;Del’humanité,126,128Kant,I.,2,34,36–7,73;and“thesublime,”43;Leskov,Nikolai,124–6,128,132,135;AtDaggersCritiqueofJudgment,36;CritiqueofPracticalDrawn(Nanozhakh),134Reason,51;CritiqueofPureReason,98;inLevin,Konstantin,15,20,23,39,47,52,54,64,Tolstoy’s“Interlocutors,”105;Tolstoyand,47,90,104,111,164,193,201;“agriculturallove,”49,51,10872.Seealsodeath;Tolstoy(works):AnnaKantor,Marvin,195KareninaKaramzin,N.M.,125Levina(néeShcherbatskaia),Kitty,15,20,69,71,Karataev,Platon,46,47,98,132–3;and72,90,164.Seealsodeath;Tolstoy(works):Andrei,50;asanidealizedpeasant,176,184;AnnaKarenina

274Index263Liasotta,I.I.,20Morrison,Simon,31Literaturnaiagazeta,92Morson,GarySaul,5,62London,167,170,228,242Moscow,20,22,163,169,177,225;Longinus,OntheSublime,35Conservatory,9,20;inWarandPeace,45,65,Lönnqvist,Barbara,16085,88;musicalsociety,11Lovejoy,Arthur,136Mozart,W.A.,12,20,25,59;andSalieri,18;DonLunachatsky,A.V.,222;“TolstoyandMarx,”Giovanni,9,20,22238–9Mozi,203,204Luther,Martin,149,150Muhammad[Mohammed],141;“Sayingsof,”201L’vov,Nikolai,134Müller,Max,105Lytton.SeeBulwer-LyttonMünke,Dorotheavon,107,108,118music,2,6,8–29,187–8,196;as“thestenographyMachiavelli,N.,205offeelings,”187;dreams,musical,14,22;folk,Machover,Tod,27;Resurrection,opera,2711,15;Gypsy,10,15,29;inChildhood,59;inmadness,71;insanity,21,197;sanity,195“Lucerne,”14,15,18;inWarandPeace,20,23;Maikov,A.N.,74Pozdnyshevagainst,10,18–19,59,74;TolstoyMakarii(Bulgakov),Metropolitan,146on,9,13,21,22,24,29;Tolstoy’sworkssetto,Maklakov,V.A.,230,232–4,242;“Tolstoyand2,6,10.Seealsoart;Machover;Paulus;Bolshevism,”232–4Prokofiev;PetyaRostov;soldier(songs)Makovitstky,Dushan,221Musorgsky,M.,12;SongsandDancesofDeath,12Mandelker,Amy,FramingAnnaKarenina,173mystery,171MarcionofSinope,149,150MarcusAurelius,200NapoleonI,43,65,83,89,201Mariengof,Anatoly,26;“KatiushaMaslova,”nature,3,8,60,73,131libretto,26Navalin,S.SeeFlerovskiiMarx,K.,222,233;communism,230,233,239;Nedbal,Oscar,20Marxism,5,234,238,239Nekhliudov,in“Lucerne,”14–15,18,24;inMaslova,Katiusha,27.SeealsoTolstoy(works):Resurrection,27,207,211.SeealsoTolstoyResurrection(works):“Lucerne”,ResurrectionMaude,Aylmer,136;LifeofTolstoy.LaterNero,206Years,220NewYorkTimes,225,226,235;“Ex-Czar,McLaughlin,S.,50Guarded,HasFitsofCrying:SonWell,Medzhibovskaya,Inessa,117,125,139,142EmpressBetter,”225;“KneeltoTolstoy’smemory(pamiat’),186,188,193,194,196;false,Portrait:GreatCrowdofSoldiersandWorkers60;ofthegood,4;reminiscencesGreetHisWidowatHerHome,”225(vospominaniia),196NicholasII,Tsar,225Mencius,203,204Nickell,William,222,240Mendelson,Mira,25Nietzsche,FriedrichWilhelm,6Mendelssohn,Felix,12nihilism,155;skepticism,197Menshevism,238Nikiforov,L.P.,180Merezhkovsky,D.S.,155,230–2;“TolstoyandNikiforova,T.G.,119Bolshevism,”230–2;TolstoyandNikitin,P.SeeTkachovDostoevsky,230Nikolai,Nikolenka.SeeIrtenevmetaphysics,222,231;fatalism,238NilofSinai,153metempsychosis.SeeunderHerdernon-resistance,52,55,140,144,145,183,221,227,Meyerbeer,G.,RobertleDiable,25233;Tolstoyasapacifict,76,89,91,228Miller,RobinFeuer,3Nussbaum,Martha,3,53“MiscellanyoftheCommission”(Sbornikkomissii)(1928),224,225Oblonskaia,Dolly,160,171,174,175.Seealsomolodechestvo,3,77,79–82,85,88,90,91,93;asaTolstoy(works):AnnaKareninaterm,78;dzhigit,78,80,90;molodets,76,83,Oblonsky,Stiva,22,174,193,202.SeealsoTolstoy85,91,92;Tolstoy’scomplexattitude,78,79,(works):AnnaKarenina80.Seealsobattle;courage;danger;huntOlenina-d’Alheim,Maria,12MontaigneM.,205OptinaPustyn’,96,105,113,116,117;Amvrosii,MontesquieuC.L.,“SelectedWorksof,”201theelder,104;starchestvo,96,113,117,119;

275264IndexTolstoyat,96,104,105,117.SeealsoPushkin,A.S.,2,12,25;“Reminiscence”Christianity;religion(Vospominanie),111;TheCaptain’sDaughter,81.Opul’skaia,L.D.,243SeealsounderdeathOrigen,Deprincipiis,148Orwin,DonnaTussing,45,73,137,197quotation205.Seealsoaphorism,proverb,saying;Osten-Saken,A.I.,Countess,231wisdom.ostranenie.SeedefamiliarizationOtechestvennyezapiski.SeeFatherlandNotesRakhmaninov,S.,12Rancour-Laferriere,D.,137pain,44,53,187,212Ravel,M.,22Palestine,1realism,5,124,161,164,185,240;psychological,Paperno,Irina,3;“‘Who,WhatIsI?’:Tolstoyin123;Russian,122;Socialist,240;transcendental,hisDiaries,”197126Paris,185,232reality,59,77,170;representationof,60Pascal,B.,150,200,203,209;Pensées,reason,4,6,43,47,71,73,100,106,109,110,183,149,200197,221;ageof,3,97,106;distortionbypassion26,68,73,79,80,154,159,188.Seealsopassions,68;facultyof,35,53.Seealsoanimal;desirereligion;willpast,192,239.SeealsofutureRebus(spiritualistjournal),134patriotism,155;cosmopolitanism,230;Tolstoyasreligion,52,68,99,104,107,108,110,231;faith,4,aninternationalist,222,240;Tolstoyasa96,101,104–7,109,110,115–16,122,126,139,patriot,76,86,92,93;Tolstoyon,86141,143,151,156,175,176,188;sectarianism,149,Paulus,Stephen,ThreeHermits,opera,27,28.See155;separationofchurchandstate,234,237;alsomusic;Tolstoy(works):“ThreeHermits”Tolstoy’sfaith,113;Tolstoy’s“religion-faith,”“People’sWill,”237104,117.SeealsoChristianity;OptinaPeterI(theGreat),Tsar,94Pustyn’;sinPetrograd.SeeStPetersburgRenaissance,199PetrogradPravda(PetrogradskaiaPravda),236Renan,Ernest,105PetrogradskaiaPravda.SeePetrogradPravdaReuterdispatch,225Philokalia,153.SeealsoDobrotoliubierevenge,80,85,88Pisarev,Dmitri,122revolution,220,235,236,238;[Russian],1905,Pisemsky,A.F.,ABitterFate,195221–3,226,228;authenticityof,219;Plato,94,97,98,114,136;Platonicdialogue,99,February(March)[Russian],the,224–5,227,105,114;Platonicidealism,134;Timeus,132236;inevitabilityof,219;justnessof,219;Pobedonostsev,K.,185.SeealsoSynodOctober[Russian],227–9,230,232,234,Pokrovskaia(Khaimovich),N.D.,237,243235,236,237,239,240;RevolutionaryPeriodPolonsky,L.,“SketchesofEnglishSocietyinthe(inRussia),1,219,222–5,234;NovelsofA.Trollope,”164Tolstoyanforceasacauseof223,230,232;Pope,Alexander,200;AnEssayonMan,200world,231.Seealsobolshevism;Russia;Portice,Timothy,133Tolstoyismpoverty,222;asceticism,222Reyfman,Irina,50pride,77,155,204righteousness,204,205PrincetonUniversity,54Rimsky-Korsakov,N.A.,11Prokofiev,25–6,27,31;Resurrection,aRodionov,N.S.,142consideredopera,26,31;WarandPeace,Rolland,R.,238opera,25–6,31.SeealsoMiraMendelson;Rome,206music;warRosanov,V.V.,156promythium,204.Seealsoendomythium;Rosenstrauch,Pastor,AttheBedsideoftheDyingepimythium(MittheilungenausdemNachlasse),135proverb203,209,211,215,216.Seealsoaphorism;Rostov,Nikolai,14,15,88,136,142;onaquotation;saying;wisdombattlefield,63.Seealsounderhunt;TolstoyProvidence,205,206,208,211(works):WarandPeaceprudence,204,205,217Rostov,Petya,78,80,91;music,9,23.SeealsoPugachev,E.,81battle;death;music;Tolstoy(works):WarandPurgatory,Mountainof,158Peace

276Index265Rostova,Natasha,14,15,17,130,131,136,171;andTheWorldasWillandRepresentation(ThePrinceAndrei’sdeath,47,127,131;attheWorldasWillandIdea),44–5,136.SeealsoOpera,20,28;inProkofiev’sopera,25,26;aesthetics;Karataev;death;willKuzminskaiaasaprototype,169.SeealsoSchelling,F.100,197Bolkonsky;death;Tolstoy(works):WarandSchumann,R.,12PeaceScott,Walter,168,172,182Rousseau,Jean-Jacques,3,14,50,106,108,116,Sechenov,I.M.,134118,143,238;andAugustine,108,118;self,the,2,35–6,38,43,88,131,190,193,194,197;Confessions,107,108,109,116,118;Émile,oudeself-abnegation,44,221;analysis,6,46;self-l’éducation,106,107,118;“Professiondefoiduawareness,35;battlewith,78;self-censure,192;vicairesavoyard,”106–8,116,118;Tolstoyand,self-confidence,35;ego,conscious,16;self-11,79,106,107,118,137.Seealsogood;selfconsciousness,35,43;self-control,46,140,204;Rubinstein,Nicholas,11;Rubinsteinbrothers,11self-criticism,16;self-deception,143;self-Ruskin,John,150;UntoThisLast,149defense,85;self-derision,33;self-discipline,139,Russia,1,26,47,76,122,126,138,220,223–32,151,153–4,155;self-disgust,111;self-236;character,Russiannational,230,232;emancipation,150,155;self-expression,97;self-Darwinismin,121;Decembrists,79;Englishforgetting,39,88;liberationfrom,132;self-love,novelin,4,160–4,166,176;Libraryof,46;self-preservation,86;self-reconciliationNational,237,243;literature,Russian,2,6,72,withoneself,24;self-revelation,111,115;self-185;Napoleonicwar,84;Sovietperiod,224,sacrifice,76,88;selfishness,143;selflessness,227,232,235,237,238,239;Tolstoy’spolitical197,234;self-transcendence,47;thetrue,197.influence,221,223,226,228,234,235,237–9,Seealsodesire;passion;reason;sin;virtue;will242;Tolstoyscholarshipin,5;“womansensationalism,174,176,182;sensation,161,170,question,”186.SeealsoBolsheviks;172;sensationnovel,161,168,169,171,Christianity;music;revolution;war179,181RussianBulletin(Russkievedomosti),225Sergeenko,A.,13RussianHerald(Russkiivestnik),101,181Sevastopol,siegeof,76,82,84,86,89.SeealsoRusskaiamysl’,92Tolstoy(works):TheSevastopolSketches;warRusskievedomosti.SeeRussianBulletin.(Crimean)Russkiivestnik.SeeRussianHeraldSevenSagesofGreece,the,203sex,53,152,184,185,188,190,193;casual,80;SaintEfrem,153energy,sexual,38;Eros,20;eroticimpulses,38;SaintJohnLestvichnik,153illicit,19;jealousy,sexual,18;sensuality,154;Saint-Victor,Huguesde,154sexuality,human,70.Seealsodesire;family;StPetersburg(Leningrad,Petersburg,Petrograd)passion;self;sin;virtue;violence;seealsounder4,10,102,122,177,225;Conservatory,11;desire.ImperialPublicLibrary,105;Leningrad,siegeShakespeare,128;Hamlet,120,124,133;KingLear,of,92;MariinskyTheater,11;NationalLibrary21;TheStorm,21ofRussia,243;Petrogradsoviet,236.SeealsoShamil(Imam),139;inHadjiMurat,91revolution;Russia;warShklovsky,Viktor,34,54,92,192;“ArtasSalieri,Antonio,18.SeealsounderMozart.Device,”192;on“Strider,”75.SeealsoSacks,Oliver,22defamiliarizationSand,George,122,127,132,135;ComtesseShostakovich,D.,26Rudolstadt,135;Consuelo,126–7,131,135,165Siberia,27,78Sankovitch,Natasha,187,196Simmons,E.,198saying,wise,199,203–5.Seealsoaphorism;simplicity,161,205proverb;quotation;wisdomsin,151–4,184,185,187,188,189,206;anger[ira,Sbornikkomissii.See“Miscellanyofthegnev],153,154,158;avarice[avaritia,Commission.”(1928)srebroliubie],151–3,154,158,165;concupiscenceSchiller,Friedrich,36[pokhot’],151;despair[acedia,unynie],153;eightSchönle,Andreas,2(capital),153;envy[invidia],154,158;Schopenhauer,Arthur,2,24,36,46,50,100,101,fornication[fornicationus,blud],151–3,154;127–8,131,133,135,136,137;inTolstoy’sfraud,154;gluttony[gastrimargia,gula,“Interlocutors,”105;ondeath,44;Platonchrevougodie],153,154,158;greed[avaritia,Karataevand,50;Tolstoyand,43–7,50,51,137;koryst’],14,151,153,154;heresy,154;jealousy,

277266Index169;loveofpower[vlastoliubie],151,153;lustSwitzerland,14[luxuria],153,154,158;melancholy[acedia,Synod,Holy,138,156,242.SeealsoChristianity;tristia,pechal’],153–4;pride[superbia,gordost’],Pobedonostsev;religion153,154,158;prodigality,158;seven(capital,deadly),153,154,158;sinfulness,193;slothTalmud,203[prazdnost’],151,154,158;temptation,152,154;Taneev,S.I.,11vainglory[inanisgloria,tshcheslavie],153;TatiantheAssyrian,148,150;Diatessaron,149violence(asasin),154.Seealsofamily;idleness;Tauchnitz,C.B.163,167,169,170,178–9;passion;self;sex;violence“CollectionofBritishAuthors”(COBA),163,Singer,Peter,3,53–4,73167,169,179,180,181,182Skriabin,A.,11Tchaikovsky,P.I.,11,12,13;“TheTempest”Smolensk,65,84(“Buria”),21socialism,234,236Tertullian,148;Apologeticus,148SocialistRevolutionaryParty,the,230;“LawonThackeray,William,161,167,181theLand”241theaters,KirovTheater,26;MalyTheater,185;SocietyofTrueFreedom.SeeTolstoyism.Mariinsky,11;Théâtre-Libre,185;theaterSoiuzVozrozhdenijaRossii.SeeUnionfortheSkomorokh,185RenaissanceofRussiaTimiryazev,K.A.,236soldier,2,76,77,78,80,83–6,87–90,93,94;Tkachov,P.N.(P.Nikitin),71songs,13,16tolerance,24,234Solomon,203Tolstaia,A.A.,115,166SolovetskiiMonastery,27Tolstaia,M.L.,220Soloviev,Vladimir,105;ThreeDialogues,151Tolstaia,S.A.,68,163,165,168,225Sorskii,Nil,153,157Tolstaia,T.L.,9Sovremennik,49Tolstoy,A.K.,DonJuan,124soznanie,razumnoe.SeeconsciousnessTolstoy,A.N.,225Speransky,M.,inWarandPeace202Tolstoy,D.N.,74Stalin,I.,26,224,239Tolstoy,F.I.,the“American,”81Steiner,George,195Tolstoy,L.L.,9,11Stendhal,influenceonTolstoy,82,83;Tolstoy(Tolstoi,Tolstoj),L.N.,centenaryonwar,82,83;TheCharterhouseofcelebration(1928),239;conversion(religious),Parma,8297,113,117,139,141,142;Dostoevskyon,74;Stiva[Oblonsky].SeeOblonskyeightiethbirthdaycelebration,222;Museum,Strakhov,N.N.,3,96,104,114,116,118,119,123;State,230,238.Seealsoaesthetics;analysis;andTolstoy,96–106passim,108–15passim;anarchism;animals;art;Berlin(Isaiah);correspondencewithTolstoy,96–105,108–12,Bolsheviks;Christianity;defamiliarization;115;inTolstoy’s“Interlocutors,”105;Onthedrama;Kant;Herder;Lermontov;FundamentalPrinciplesofPsychology(Obmolodechestvo;music;OptinaPustyn’;osnovnykhponiatiiakhpsikhologii),110;Thenon-resistance;patriotism;Plato;religion;WorldasaWhole(Mirkaktseloe),134revolution;Russia;Shopenhauer;Strakhov;Strauss,D.F.,105sin;violence;war;womenStrauss,Richard,206Tolstoy,L.N.(works):6,54,79,138,183–4,186,Stravinsky,I.,22196,201,229,236,238,239,242;“AftertheStrunsky,R.,225,227Ball,”188;“AlyoshaGorshok,”176;AnnaStruve,Heinrich,121,133Karenina,15,20,31,33,39,40,47,54,56,60,Sue,Eugene,LeJuiferrant,13564,71,80,90,96,97,101–3,106,111,116,125,suffering,55,76,83,207,209,212,215.Seealso138,142,159–61,162,164,165,167,168,169,172,animals;violence;war.174–5,176,177,179,188,189,193,201,202;suicide,21,40,153,207;AnnaKarenina’s189.SeeBoyhood,189–91,194,197;CalendarofProverbs,alsoKarenina200;Childhood,2,16,33,36,38,39,41–2,56–9,Summers,Patrick,3174,138,187;“ChristianCatechism,”104;Sutherland,John,180ChristianTeaching,141,151,154,156;CircleofSwedenborg,Emanuel,122,125Reading,200,204;AConfession,54,56,67,97,Swift,Jonathan,68,71;Gulliver’sTravels,68,99,106,108,113,114,116,119,134,139–40,70–1.Seealsoanimal(Houyhnhnms)141–3;TheCossacks,2,33,37–8,39–41,56,73,

278Index26779,80,133,136,170;CritiqueofDogmaticTolstoy,S.N.,74,164,173,180Theology,119,146;TheDeathofIvanIlych,33,Tolstoyism,1,5,150,154,221,223,227–8,229,41–2,47,176,186,190,191,209;“ADefinition232–3,235,238,239;periodicals,234,237;ofReligion-Faith,”104;TheDevil,193;“Theprofessionsoffaithin,238;rejectionofEmptyDrum,”2;“EvilAllures,ButGodbourgeoisprivilege,235;SocietyofTrueEndures,”206;FamilyHappiness,56,59,162;Freedom,234;“virtues,”222.SeealsoBiriukov;FatherSergius,78,186,191,193;“TheFirstChertkov;revolutionStep,”55;ForEveryDay,200;“FoundationofTsiavlovskii,M.,92MusicandRulesforItsStudy,”10;FreeLove,Tregubov,I.M.,“TolstoytheCommunist,”229186;FruitsofEnlightenment,125,134;“GodSeesTrollope,Anthony,4,161–78passim,181,182;theTruth,butWaitsToTell,”207–9;“TheRachelRay,161;SirHarryHotspur,178;TheGreatSin,”226;HadjiMurat,16,33,56,76,85,Bertrams,165,180;TheLastChronicleofBarset,87;HarmonyandTranslationoftheFour178;TheWarden,178;TheWestIndiesandtheGospels,119,146;“HolyNight”(SviatochnaiaSpanishMain,178noch’),10,29;“Ilyas,”211;AnInfectedFamily,Trotsky,L.D.,243186;“Interlocutor”(Sobesedniki),105;TheTrueFreedom(IstinnaiaSvoboda),232KingdomofGodIswithinYou,144,147,148,truth,5,57,211149–51,189,195,201;TheKreutzerSonata,2,10,Tula,5517,18,20,33,56,59,69–72,74,80,154,186,187,Tulchinsky,T.,195188,193,194,197;TheLivingCorpse,10,15;Turgenev,I.S.,67,122,138,156;animalsin,72;“Lucerne,”14–15,18,24;MasterandMan,56,FathersandSons(alsoFathersandChildren),69,186,209–10,217;MemoirsofaMadman,54;129,133,186;“YermolaiandtheMiller’smoraltales,199,202,203,206–7,211;TheWife,”72Nihilist,186;“ANoteontheNegativeSidesofTushin,Captain.128–30,132.SeealsoTolstoytheRussianSoldierandOfficer,”92;“On(works):WarandPeaceFutureLifebeyondTimeandSpace,”117;OnTyndall,John,inTolstoy’s“Interlocutors,”105Life,4,127,131,140,143,144,194,198,221;“OntheSoul,”115,117;ThePathofLife,200;“TheUnderwood,Ted,127Raid,”16,76,78,83–5;RealmofDarknessUnionfortheRenaissanceofRussia(Soiuz(PowerofDarkness),5,183–8,190–1,192–5,198;VozrozhdenijaRossii),230Resurrection,26,31,125,127,133,138,154,186,UnitedStatesofAmerica,27,76,225,235197,201,207,242;TheSevastopolSketches,33,Unity(Edinenie)journal,232,23439,76,78,82,85–6,88,92;“TheSoulanditsUniversityofToronto,1LifeoutsideoftheLifethatIsKnownandUrusov,S.S.,inTolstoy’s“Interlocutors,”105UnderstoodbyUs,”100;“ASparkNeglectedBurnstheHouse,”206,207;“Strider,”54,56,Vagner,N.P.,13467–9,71,72,75,131;ThoughtsofWisePeopleforvanity,77,80,201,203;amour-propre,202EveryDay,200;“ThreeDeaths,”33,39,41,50,vegetarianism,52,55,222131;“ThreeHermits,”27;Twenty-threeTales,VestnikEvropy.SeeEuropeanHerald28;“TwoHussars,”10,56,82,93;“TwoOldVestnikznania.SeeHeraldofKnowledgeMen,”211;“WalkintheLightWhileThereIsVinitsky,Ilya,4Light,”211;WarandPeace,4,9,13,14,16,20,violence,5,8,13,68,72,141,154,183–5,188–91,23,33,37,39,41,43,47,56,62–7,78,79,81–4,193,195,228,233;andrevolution,236,237;85–91,92,93,98,120,121,123,128–32,134,135,coercion,233;impulses,violent,197.Seealso137,142,165,169,170,171,172,173,176,182,underanimal;death;revolution;sin;war184,193,199,201–3;WhatDoIBelieve?,4,119,Virchow,RudolfLudwigKarl,inTolstoy’s139–41,143,144,147,151,155;WhatDoPeople“Interlocutors,”105LiveBy?,211–16,218;WhatIsArt?,21,24,60–2,Virgil,15874,206;“WhyDoIWrite?,”99;WhyDoMenvirtue(dobrodetel’),77,79,177;Victorian,166.StupefyThemselves?,190,191,196;“WhereLoveSeealsogoodIs,GodIs,”206;“TheWood-felling,”92.SeeVoiceofTolstoy,The(GolosTolstogo),232alsonamesofselectedindividualcharactersVolokhov,M.,“TheAll-RussianTolstoy,”Tolstoy,N.N.,74,76,82–3,92,93;“Ant235,236Brothers,”58,73.SeealsounderdeathVorontsov,M.,inHadjiMurat,91Tolstoy,S.L.,20,181Vreitberg,S.M.,217

279268IndexVronsky,Count,47,71,80,103,159,160,177,188;will,24,43,44,46,50,159,189,231;free,85;abandoningofpainting,74;andAnna’sdeath,God’s,214;influenceofmusicon,9;tolive,2.41.SeealsoTolstoy(works):AnnaKareninaSeealsoSchopenhauerWilson,A.N.,221Wachtel,A.,184,195,196wisdom,203–5,217;childish,78;Christian,155;Wagner,Richard,22,206;RingoftheNibelung,21folk,6;practical,211;proverbial,216;war,2,8,76,78,82,132,144,192,195,233;prudential,211;saying,wise,217.SeealsoAmericanCivil,89;as“murder,”76,85;aphorism;proverb;quotation,sayingCaucasian,76,79;chaosof,83,91;childishWittgenstein,Ludwig,210viewof,77;Civil,[Russian],224,227,228,229,Wolff,RobertLee,169,170237;Crimean,76,79,82–5;crueltyof80,81,83,women,prostitution,190;question,186;rightsof,86,94;“eroticized,”88;experienceof,89;First165,171,186;Tolstoy’sviewof,184,196World,226,228–9;GreatNorthern,94;GreatWood,Henry,Mrs.[EllenPriceWood],4,Patriotic,92;horrorof,92;inProkofiev’s162–79passim,180,181,182;EastLynne,171–3,opera,26;just,88,91;lawsof,86;liberating176,179;GeorgeCanterbury’sWill,179,180;feelings,88;national,89;needtokillin,91;LordOakburn’sDaughters,179,180;Mrs.pacifism,222;partisanwarfare,84,86,87,89,Halliburton’sTroubles,171;OswaldGray,179;93;Patriotic(of1812),92;peace,235;pleasureTheChannings,171;TheRedCourtFarm,179;of,87,90;Russo-Turkish(1877–78),90;themeTheShadowofAshlydyat,173;WithintheMaze,inTolstoy,3,16,76,78,79,85,90,92,188,197;175,182Tolstoyasawarrior,3,77,79,83–5,92;WorldWundt,W.,134WarII,92;wounds,91.Seealsoarmy;battle;Caucasus;death;molodechestvo;non-resistance;Xenophon,Anabasis,172Prokofiev;Stendhal;soldierWard,Humphrey,Mrs.,171,181YasnayaPolyana.SeeIasnaiaPolianaWeber,CarlMariavon,12Yonge,CharlotteMary,TheBookofGold,182Weir,Justin,4,5WestminsterReview,166Zenkovsky,V.V.,137Whistle,The(Gudok),235,236Zhukovsky,V.A.,2,36,125;ondeath,42,49;whole,asingle,8,98,99“Helaywithoutmoving”(“OnlezhalbezWilde,Oscar,TheImportanceofBeingdvizhen’ia…”),42Earnest,203Zola,Émile,185